Papers from the Thirty-Fifth Conference
November 18-19, 2017
and from
the Tenth International Spring Forum
April 22-23, 2017of
The English Linguistic Society of JapanJELS 35

日 本 英 語 学 会 第 35 回 大 会 （ 東北大学）
第 10 回国際春季フォーラム（明治学院大学）
研究発表論文集

The English Linguistic Society of Japan
2018

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 35
Papers from the Thirty-Fifth Conference
November 18-19, 2017
and from
the Tenth International Spring Forum
April 22-23, 2017of
The English Linguistic Society of Japan

Edited by
The Conference Organizing Committee
Shinsuke HOMMA, Niigata University (Chair)
Toru SUZUKI, Yamagata University (Vice-Chair)
Kaori HATA, Osaka University
Yuko HORITA, Kanazawa University
Yusuke KUBOTA, University of Tsukuba
Mikinari MATSUOKA, University of Yamanashi
Madoka MURAKAMI, Jissen Women’s University
Taichi NAKAMURA, University of Fukui
Chizuru NAKAO, Daito Bunka University
Hiroki NARITA, Tokai University
Reijirou SHIBASAKI, Meiji University
Masaharu SHIMADA, University of Tsukuba
Masako TSUZUKI, Chukyo University
Kiyoko YONEYAMA, Daito Bunka University
Etsuko YOSHIDA, Mie University

日 本 英 語 学 会 第 35回 大 会 （ 東北大学）
第10回国際春季フォーラム（明治学院大学）
研究発表論文集
The English Linguistic Society of Japan2018本書は、2017年4月22日、23日に明治学院大学にて開催された日本英語学会第10回国際春季フォーラム、および同年11月18日、19日に東北大学にて開催された
日本英語学会第35回大会における研究発表論文と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10回国際春季フォーラム：2017年1月17日
日本英語学会第35回大会：2017年6月3日＜論文投稿受理日＞
2018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35回大会運営委員長
本間伸輔

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（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-Fifth Conference「恥知らずなＸ」と「恥ずかしい X」における視点の対比―“shameless”と“shameful”の意味理解―
有光奈美（Nami Arimitsu）········································································ 3
英語の「非意図的」結果構文について
浅井良策（Ryosaku Asai） ······································································· 10
最近の名前と一般語の音韻パターンの相違について
深澤はるか（Haruka Fukazawa）・北原真冬（Mafuyu Kitahara） ····················· 17
日英語の胸部と腹部の理解をめぐって―比喩的認知を生む身体経験、社会・文化経験の観点から―
後藤秀貴（Hideki Goto） ········································································· 21
前置詞随伴に基づく前置詞らしさの規定：文法化の漸進性に関する共時的研究
林智昭（Tomoaki Hayashi） ····································································· 28
insubordination に関する一考察―If＋not [P] 構文と慣習性をめぐって―
平尾恵美（Emi Hirao） ··········································································· 35
引用マーカー「と」の概念構造
廣江顕（Akira Hiroe） ············································································ 42
Negative Inversion and Its Implications for the Information Structure of Nominal Phrases
本多正敏（Masatoshi Honda）··································································· 48
vP
葛西宏信（Hironobu Kasai）····································································· 55
単数構文と複数構文
小早川暁（Satoru Kobayakawa） ······························································· 62
Empirical Evidence to Consonant Harmony in English Reduplication
小林英雄（Hideo Kobayashi） ··································································· 69
On Two Types of from-to PPs in English and the Parallelism in Syntax
小林亮一朗（Ryoichiro Kobayashi） ··························································· 76
所有構文における名詞の意味機能
小深田祐子（Yuko Kobukata）·································································· 83
時制と wh 一致現象：極小理論による一考察森本雄樹（Yuki Morimoto） ····································································· 90[a/the N][the N of NP]形式表現とラベル付け計算法
西原俊明（Toshiaki Nishihara） ································································· 96
On the Derivation and Status of Nominal Combinations: Analysis as Converted Nouns
西牧和也（Kazuya Nishimaki） ································································ 103
Phonological Optionality in Japanese Loanwords
西村康平（Kohei Nishimura） ·································································· 110
Identificational Focus within Genitive Compounds and Head Deletion
大久保龍寛（Tatsuhiro Okubo） ······························································· 117

Just の対人関係調整機能
大澤舞（Mai Osawa） ············································································ 124
A/A-bar 区分と Improper Movement の再考察
大塚知昇（Tomonori Otsuka） ································································· 131
An Analysis of Clausal Gerunds with the Labeling Algorithm
佐藤亮輔（Ryosuke Sato） ······································································ 138
An Argument Structure Alternation of Change-of-State Verbs under VP-Deletion
椙本顕士（Kenji Sugimoto）···································································· 145
Fragment Answers with Focus Particles
田中秀和（Hidekazu Tanaka）·································································· 152
heart pounding タイプの分詞構文と所有者昇格
田中江扶（Kosuke Tanaka） ···································································· 159
動詞 end up の歴史変化と PredP の出現
田中祐太（Yuta Tanaka） ······································································· 166
情報構造に基づくフェイズの特性
吉田江依子（Eiko Yoshida） ··································································· 173
JB-X DM-Y 構文の構成性について
吉川裕介（Yusuke Yoshikawa）・高橋寛（Hiroshi Takahashi） ······················· 180<Workshop Reports>
なぜ言語には非付値素性が存在するのか
藤田元（Gen Fujita）・内堀朝子（Asako Uchibori）・
北原久嗣（Hisatsugu Hitahara）································································ 187
英語力の伸張と論理的思考力の伸張について
花﨑美紀（Miki Hanazaki）・吉川厚（Atsushi Yoshikawa）・
多々良直弘（Naohiro Tatara）・八木橋宏勇（Hirotoshi Yagihashi）・
藤原隆史（Takafumi Fujiwara）・菊池聡（Satoru Kikuchi）・
花﨑一夫（Kazuo Hanazaki）・大塚崇史（Takashi Otsuka） ··························· 189
ことばと意味の可能性：手続き的情報と構文
盛田有貴（Yuki Morita）・楊 雯淇（Wenqi Yang）・
板垣浩正（Hiromasa Itagaki）・時政須美子（Sumiko Tokimasa） ···················· 191
極小主義統語論における外在化
後藤亘（Nobu Goto）・坂本祐太（Yuta Sakamoto）・
瀧田健介（Kensuke Takita）・中村太一（Taichi Nakamura）·························· 193

II. Papers from the Tenth International Spring Forum
More on the Emergence of Prenominal Unaccusative Past Participles in the History of English
Chigchi Bai ·························································································· 197
Japanese Postverbal Elements: Movement vs. No Movement
Kaori Furuya ························································································· 204

A Relabeling Analysis of English Possessives
Jason Ginsburg and Sandiway Fong ··························································· 211
On the Emergence of Utterance-Initial Discourse-Pragmatic Marker: ni-shite-mo ‘even if, by theway’ in Present-Day Japanese
Yuko Higashiizumi ················································································· 217
The Left Periphery of DP and Information Focus: A Case Study of Double Genitives in English
Masatoshi Honda···················································································· 224
Contrastive Topics and the Dual Character of Imperatives
Shun Ihara ···························································································· 231
Resolving Prefixation into Compounding and Inflection
Haruki Isono, Hiroko Wakamatsu, and Ryohei Naya ········································· 238
The Because X Construction: Not Constructionalized Yet?
Masaru Kanetani ···················································································· 245
Eliminating the Discourse-Based Parameter
Ryoichiro Kobayashi ············································································· 252
The Passivization of the Gesture Expression Construction and the Formulation of Subjects in Termsof Aboutness
Suguru Mikami ······················································································ 259
Pragmatic Constraint on There Speak Construction and its Peculiarities
Takashi Mino ························································································ 266
How Do Relational Adjectives Change into Qualitative Adjectives?
Akiko Nagano ······················································································· 273
Oblique-Referential Descriptions and Third-Person Pronouns in English
Koichi Nishida ······················································································ 280
Possessional Adjectives as Transposed NPs
Kazuya Nishimaki ·················································································· 287
Specific Features of INTELLIGENCE Metaphors in Terms of EATING Concepts in Japanese andEnglishYuichiro Ogami ····················································································· 294
How the Recipient Recognizes the Quasi-internal Monologue in Dialogues: Cross-linguistic Study inJapanese and English
Hiroko Shikano······················································································ 301
Expressions of Directive Speech Acts Revisited
Hidemitsu Takahashi ··············································································· 308

書式規定 ········································································································· 315

[I]Thirty-Fifth Conference
November 18-19, 2017

っていたが、電車のドアが開くや否や B がホームの人たちも A も C をも押し分けて電車内へ駆け込み、一つだけ空いていた座席に座り『ああ、座れて良かった』と笑みを浮「恥知らずな X」と「恥ずかしい X」におかべて言った。その後、一つだけ座席が空き、ける視点の対比－“shameless”と“shameful”

そこに C が（立っている A には見向きもの意味理解－*せず）車内の人たちを押し分けて座り込み（Interpreting “Shameless” vs. “Shameful” in『ああ、座れて良かった』と笑みを浮かべてEnglish and Japanese and the Contrastive

言った」という場面を想定する。この場合、Viewpoints）

A の心的状況は以下のように描写できる。

有光 奈美（Nami Arimitsu）(1) a. The behavior of B is shameless.

東洋大学（Toyo University）

b. The behavior of B is shameful.
c. The behavior of C is shameless.

キーワード：-less と-ful, 対義語, 話者の視d. The behavior of C is shameful.

点と価値判断, 間主観性, 「恥」とは何か

e. It is shameless for B to behave like this.
f. It is shameful for B to behave like this.
g. It is shameless for C to behave like this.
h. It is shameful for C to behave like this.

1. はじめにi. *I am shameless for being behaved by B/C

一般に、英語の-less と-ful は何らかの性

like this.

質の多寡を述べる場合に用いる対照的な形

j. *I am shameful for being behaved by B/C

容詞を作る接尾辞である。たとえば、colorless

like this.

なら無色であり、colorful なら多色である。
あ る 写 真 が 白 黒 印 刷 な ら “This picture iscolorless.”と言える。同じ写真について（現実A は、B と C の振る舞いについて「恥知の逆を述べる皮肉のレトリックを除けば）

らずな B の/ C の振る舞いだ」と思うこと“This picture is colorful.” とは言えない。同様がありえる (1a～d)。また、「B の/ C の振るに、ある振る舞いを“It was a careful behavior.”

舞いは恥ずかしいことだ」と思うことがありと描写した場合、同じ振る舞いを “It was a

え る (1e ～ h) 。 し か し 、 A が (1i) I am

careless behavior.”と描写することは矛盾する

shameless～や (1j) I am shameful～と述べるのであり得ない。しかし、必ずしも「-less とのは不自然で、B や C の振る舞いは A に-ful は、どちらか一方の形容詞で描写すれば、 責任が無く、A が shame を感じる必要がな
もう片方の形容詞の描写は当てはまらない」

い。B の心理は以下のように描写できる。

と単に説明できない場合がある。
(2) a. My behavior is shameless.
2. Shame/恥に関する話者の視点と価値判断

b. My behavior is shameful.

2.1. 恥を感じる場面とその描写

c. The behavior of C is shameless.
d. The behavior of C is shameful.

ここで、「その日、共に仕事をした同僚

e. It is shameless for me to behave like

ABC は 3 人とも疲れきっており、帰路の電

this.

車に乗ろうとしていた。A は座りたいと思3

f. It is shameful for me to behave likethis.

形態的対比から推し量られる意味は対照

g. It is shameless for C to behave like

的内容であるはずの -ful と -less だが、

this.

shameful/ shameless conduct は共に日本語でh. It is shameful for C to behave like this.

「恥ずかしい行為」と表現できそうである。

i. I am shameless for behaving like this.

価値的意味は「価値評価的に良い・悪い」と(I am a shameless man.)

いうことを表わす e-pos, e-neg に大別できる。

j. I am shameful for behaving like this.

本研究における e-pos, e-neg とは Horn (2005:(I feel shameful.)332-333) も用いている Cruse (1980) の e-pos
and e-neg (evaluatively positive and evaluatively

B は自分の振る舞いを客観視して「自分negative) の 意 味 で あ る 。 shameless とは恥知らずな（shameless な）/恥ずかしい

shameful は意味的にどちらも e-neg といえそ（shameful な）振る舞いをしている」、「C のうである。つまり、shameless と shameful の振る舞いは恥知らずだ/ 恥ずかしい」(2a～d)、 意味理解には、colorless vs. colorful、careless「自分の/ C の振る舞いは恥ずかしいことだ」 vs. careful のような明確な対照性とは異なる(2e～h) と思うこともありえる。B が自虐的メカニズムが存在していることに注目すべに (2i) と述べれば(2a) や(2e) のパラフレきである。
「色」や「注意」の多寡は、対象がーズである。(2j) と述べれば B は自分の振その性質を持っているかを客観的に述べらる舞いを恥ずかしいものと認識しているこれたのに対し、「恥」の多寡は話者の視点やとになる。なお、C の心的描写は B の描写

価値判断が決め手になる。

における C を B に入れ替えれば良い（紙「恥」とは、自らの規矩や自己の独自な価幅の関係で割愛）。ただし、こうした描写は値判断とのみ照らして恥と感じることもあ

B や C がどのような人物であるかに依存

るが、対人関係から生じる社会的な関係性とし、もし B が厚顔無恥で自分の振る舞いを結びついた概念で、「X を恥知らず/ 恥ずか

恥ずかしく思わない人物なら自らの描写にしいと感じる」という心理は話者の視点や価

shameful は用いず、B が自らを客観視もし

値判断、間主観性に影響される。したがって、ない人物なら自虐的に shameless を用いる

あるイベント（対象）について、「（当事者こともない。

ABC ではない）傍観者たち」もその事態をIt was a shameless behavior (of B/ C/ B and C)と2.2. 辞書における shameless と shameful

して描写でき、かつ、It was a shameful behavior

shameless と shameful、これらの定義は以(of B/ C/ B and C). とも描写できる。
これは It was a colorless picture. と It was a

下のとおりである（研究社新英和大辞典）。

colorful picture. が別の対象（写真）を指すの(3) shamefulと は 対 照 性 の 性 質 が 異 な る 。 It was a

1. 恥ずべき、不面目な shameful conduct

shameless behavior. では振る舞いそのものが2. けしからぬ、不届きな It’s shameful

恥知らずで、He is shameless./He is a shamelessthat he behaves that way.

man.は、当人が恥ずべきことを恥じておらず、(4) shameless

見ている周囲が恥ずかしく感じる状態で、客1. 恥知らずの、破廉恥な、ずうずうしい

観的に周りから見て「彼は恥知らずな男」なa shameless deception [liar]のである。一方、 It was a shameful behavior

4

(of him).であれば、周囲が「恥ずかしい」とある。つまり、振る舞いや行為の当事者本人

感じ、その振る舞いに「恥ずかしい」というが恥ずかしさを感じても良いし、それを見て評価を与えている。He is shameful は自分（He） いる周囲が恥ずかしさを感じる場合も用いが恥ずかしいと感じており、状況は異なる。

られる。一方、(5b) の定義からも shameless[LDOCE]、[LAAD]、[OALD]、[CEDAL3]でに関する「誰が恥ずかしさを感じるのか」とshameless の定義にほぼ違いがない。
「自分自いう点について、本人は感じていないが、周身の悪い振る舞いを恥じていないように見囲は恥ずかしさを感じている。

えること」という点も「自分以外の他の人た

shameful と比べた shameless の違いとは

ちは、恥ずかしく感じるべきだと思っている「自分以外の他の人たち」という他者の視点にもかかわらず」という条件も共通である。

の明確さと認識の対比という点にあること

たとえば CEDAL3 には以下のようにある。

がわかる。「本人以外の他の人は、恥ずかし
く感じるべきだと思う shameful な状況に

(5) a. If you describe someone as shameless, youもかかわらず、本人が恥ずかしさを感じていmean that they should be ashamed of theirない（そして結果的に客観的に恥ずべき状況

behavior, which is unacceptable to otherを生じさせている）」という点が shamelesspeople …a shameless attempt to stifleの特徴である。ただし、自虐的に自分をメタ

democratic debate [CEDAL3]

的に見つめ、自分について I am a shamelessb. not seeming to be ashamed of your badman/ I am shameless so I can do what I am doing

behavior, although other people think you

now. とは言える。 I am shameful for what I am

should be ashamed; He’s a shameless face.

doing now. (Even though I feel shameful of[LAAD]

myself, I do what I am doing.) と比較し、本人が恥をどれほど感じているかという恥の量

一方、shameful も上記 4 つの辞書の定義にほの多寡の点で対照的であるとも言える。

ぼ違いはなく、LDOCE には「shameful な振る舞いや行為とは、あまりにも悪いのでその3. 語源的背景とコロケーション

人は恥ずかしく感じなくてはいけないよう3.1. 語源的背景が示唆するもの
なお、OED で shame, shameful, shamelessな振る舞いや行為のことである」とある。

を調べると、shame は c.725～、shameless(6) shameful behavior or actions are so bad thatは a 897～、shameful は a 950～から用例がsomeone should feel ashamed: It’s shameful

あり、shameful より shameless の方が古い

the way people that their pets. / a shameful

用例があることがわかる。

family secret [LDOCE]『スタンダード英語語源辞典』では名詞として「恥、恥ずかしさ」、動詞として「恥をかshameful における「誰が恥ずかしさを感かせる」としている。古英語 (Old English, 8

じるのか」という点について、LDOCE には～11 世紀頃)で sċ(u)eamu、古高ドイツ語

someone should feel ashamed 、 OALD で は(Old High German, 8～11 世紀頃)で skama、

make you feel、CEDAL3 では the person ought

ドイツ語 (German, ゲルマン系)で Scham、

to be とある。LAAD はこの部分が people

古ノルド語 (Old Norse, ゲルマン系, 7～14

think you should be とあり、「社会における他

世紀頃) で skǫmm←ゲルマン祖語（ Proto-者の視点」が加わっている点に注目すべきで

Germanic, 紀元前 1 千年期頃）の*推定形ま5

たは語根で skamō、ゴート語で skanda「恥2. ?a1200 恥ずべき辱」、ドイツ語で Schande「恥」も同源、と説†3. 1375-1760-72 恥じ入った
shamefully

明されている。
『英語語源辞典』では名詞 shame につい

1. a1325 不面目に、
2. c1375（まれ）つつましくて、以下のようにまとめられている。
1. OE 恥ずかしさ；慎み

shameless

2. OE 恥、不名誉

shamelessly OE 破廉恥に

3. ?a1200 凌辱†shame-proof

OE 恥知らずな

4. 1.1393（口語）ひどいこと、残念なこと

1594-95 （十分に）恥をかいた、（もはや）

5. 1539-99（詩）恥ずべきこと

恥をかくことがない

動詞 shame については以下のとおりである。
1. OE（方言）[通例否定構文で]恥じ入る

この通時的背景から元々の「慎み」の意味

2. OE [通例 (it) shames me の非人称構文との関わりがわかる。また、shamefastness/shamefacedness が shamelessness の代わりにで] 恥ずかしく思わせる
3. ?c1200 恥辱を与える

誤用されていた背景は、恥ずかしいと感じ

4. c1400 （相手に）勝る

る心理のメカニズムが間主観的であり、対

5. 1596-97 [副詞（句）を伴って] 恥じて退人関係的・社会的環境から生じることと結散させる。

びついていると考えられる。
また、『英語語義語源辞典』は shame の一『英語語源辞典』で寺澤は「原義は『顔を隠

般義を「恥ずかしい思い、恥ずかしさ」とし、す（こと）』か。動詞は OE では再帰用法、非その他の意味として「恥辱、不面目、不名誉、

人称表現で原因・理由を表わす属格名詞を伴恥、[形式ばった語] （a ～、the ～）恥 [不う構文がよく見られた。[…] think [feel] shame

名誉] のもととなるもの [人]、つらよごし、

to do…「…するのを恥とする」は Layamon

恥さらし、また情けないこと、ひどいこと、(?a1200)に初出だが、最初は非人称構文 him

つらいこと。動詞として、人に恥ずかしい思

thinketh shame, 15C から he thinketh (it) shame

いをさせる、恥をかかせる、侮辱する」と説の形で用いられた」と説いている。

明している。「恥のもととなるもの」というさらに、形容詞の説明がある。

定義は的を射ており、そのような恥ずかしい

shamefaced

原因（対象）が存在するために、それを認識

1. 1593 つつましやかな

する認知主体が恥ずかしいと感じるという2. 1873 恥じている

心理メカニズムがはたらいているのである。

今の形は shamefast の通俗語源による変形。 これは存在物に何らかの色がついているか
shamefast

いないかを問うような、一般的な色覚であれ

OE = shamefaced

ば客観的に判別しやすい「色の有無 colorful/

名詞 shamefastness は 1200 年ごろ初出。

colorless」のような対比よりも、「恥の有無shamefastness も shamefacedness も、ともに

shameful/ shameless」の対比が複雑である理

shamelessness の代わりに誤用されること由の一つとなっている。人間の持つ五感の中があった。

に視覚があり、目で見える可視光線には、紫、

shameful

藍、青、緑、黄色、橙、赤といった色があり、OE-1659 つつましい人間が目という感覚器を通して、光の波長を63.2. コロケーションが示唆するもの

感じ、「～色に見える」と認識し、それを「～色」と表現するという行為よりも、人間が何

BNC (SCN) (shameless 83 件、shameful 236

かの対象に対して、あるいは何かの場面にお件)で名詞との組み合わせに注目すると、いて恥を感じる感覚とは、いっそう主観的で

shameful と の コ ロ ケ ー シ ョ ン は secret (6

個人的・社会的な価値観が反映される認識能件), secrets (4), thing (4), behavior (2), 以下１

力であると言える。『英語語義語源辞典』で件、blot, catalogue, condition, death, episode,は shame の語源は古英語の scamu であるとexample, history, memory, peace, practice があ

書かれており、以下の用例が紹介されている。 り、後置修飾として something shameful (5),nothing shameful (3) がある。一方、shameless(7) a. I was all full of shame at my rudeness.（私とのコロケーションには、wig (3 件), display

は自分の不作法なふるまいに恥ずかし(2), hussy (2), publicity (2), womaniser (2), 以下

さでいっぱいだった）

１件、appetite, artifice, betrayal, bitch, charade,b. He felt no shame at having behaved in thecontest, creature, cunt, deception がある。さらway he had.（彼は自分のふるまいを恥に、COCA（shameless 769 件、shameful 1496

ずかしいと思っていなかった）件）で BNC (SCN) と照らし合わせ、以下のc. The news that he had accepted bribes

結 果を得 た。 shameful は COCA と BNC

brought shame on his whole family.（彼(SCN) で類似傾向があるが、shameless は重がわいろをうけとったという知らせ

なっていない。

は家族みんなの面目をつぶすはめとなった）＜shameless＞

d. It’s a shame to treat a child so cruelly.（子shameless (9 件) / shameful (0 件) hussy

供をそんなふうに虐待するなんてひど

shameless (3 件) / shameful (4 件) betrayal

い話だ）

shameless (3 件) / shameful (3 件) displaye. What a shame that he didn’t get the job!（彼shameless (0 件) / shameful (1 件) appetites

は仕事が見つからなくて本当に気の毒

shameless (1 件) / shameful (1 件) charadeだ）

shameless (1 件) / shameful (0 件) publicity

f. His cowardice shamed his parents.（彼の臆

shameless (0 件) / shameful (0 件) bitch

病なふるまいで彼の両親の面目は丸つshameless (0 件) / shameful (0 件) creature

ぶれだった）

shameless (0 件) / shameful (0 件) artifice
shameless (0 件) / shameful (0 件) contest

この中で (7e) のような用例は日本語とは

shameless (0 件) / shameful (0 件) cunt

パラレルになっていない。日本語で「恥」にshameless (0 件) / shameful (0 件) deception

気の毒という意味合いは存在していない。

shameless (0 件) / shameful (0 件) womanizer『英語語義語源辞典』で小島らは以下のよう

shameless (0 件) / shameful (0 件) wigに日英比較をして、「日英の間では何が「恥」＜shameful＞

であるかについて違いがある。たとえば、うshameless (4 件) / shameful (41 件) thing

っかり間違えて「恥をかく」は、feel shame でshameless (0 件) / shameful (24 件) secretはなく、feel embarrassed に相当する。英語のshameless (0 件) / shameful (11 件) secrets

shame は道徳上の不名誉や屈辱（感）、苦痛

shameless (3 件) / shameful (9 件) behavior（感）から来るものに限られる」としている。

shameless (0 件) / shameful (9 件) death7

shameless (0 件) / shameful (8 件) history

ず、厚かましくも破廉恥でがさつなことをしshameless (0 件) / shameful (6 件) episodeた経験」を指すことになり、これら二つの表

shameless (0 件) / shameful (3 件) example

現は各々異なる経験を指すことがありえる。

shameless (0 件) / shameful (3 件) practice

た だ し 、 my shameful experience もshameless (0 件) / shameful (3 件) condition

shameless experience も共に一般的に褒めら

shameless (0 件) / shameful (1 件) memory

れる経験ではないという点が共通している。

shameless (0 件) / shameful (1 件) peace

さらに、my shameful secret という表現は

shameless (0 件) / shameful (0 件) blot

自然だが、*my shameless secret という表現は

shameless (0 件) / shameful (0 件) catalogue

不自然である。これは、そもそも「秘密」とmyいう名詞が（恥ずかしいので）隠しておくべ
COCA で調べると、
shameless scams (22 件),

きことであるという前提があり、shamelessdeeds (22), self-promotion (18), plug (12), hussyという語が持つ「周囲からは恥ずかしい人だ(9), self-promoter (8), ploy (8), employees (8), actと思われていただろうが自分自身は恥ずか(8), attempt (7), guys (7), pandering (6), display

しいとも思わない」という意味の部分が矛盾(6), dance (6), liar (5), acts (5), editor (5), efforts

するからだと考えられる。日本語で「彼は(5), showtime (4), opportunist (3), flirt (3),

[恥知らずな/ 恥ずかしい] 男だ」と言うとき、promoter (3), stunt (3), arrogance (3), cheat (3),

その人物の性質について殆ど同じことを指exploitation (3), thief (3), publicity (3), bid (3)しているが、英語の shameless vs. shameful はが上位 30 で、①中立的価値の「単なる行為」、 それら 2 つが colorless vs. colorful のよう②悪行の企み、③見せびらかし、④人、といっな対比にならないだけでなく、日本語とも単た意味による下位分類の存在が見られる。

純にはパラレルにはならないようである。

また、shameful thing (46), history (33), secret(28), act (26), behavior (15), truth (13), secrets

4. おわりに(12), chapter (10), acts (10), chapters (8),英語の-less と-ful は何らかの性質の多寡

thoughts (7), episode (6), affair (6), conduct (6),を述べる場合に用いる対照的な形容詞を作

display (6), theatrics (5), statistic (5), slavery (5),る接尾辞であるはずなのに、なぜ、shameful/defeat (5), legacy (5), relief (5), capitulation (4),shameless conduct は共に日本語で「恥ずかしdeeds (4), betrayal (3), episodes (4), weakness (4),

い行為」と表現できそうなのかという着眼点

awareness (4), gap (4), ultimatum (3), faults (3)から始まった研究だが、これは「恥」というが上位 30 にあり、①中立的価値の「単なる概念が間主観的に感じられる社会的な性質

行為」、②話、③見せびらかし、といった意味を持つことに起因すると指摘できた。したがで 分 類 可 能 で あ る （ 下 線 は shameless とって、より客観的に判別しやすい「色の有無

shameful の共通要素）。

colorful/ colorless」等とは、その有無を問うている側面が異なる。shameless は恥を感じる

3.3. 恥とは何か能力が欠如しているのであり、そのことが周

たとえば、my shameful experience が「恥ず囲から第三者的に認識した場合に「恥ずかし

かしくて自らの顔が赤くなるような経験」をく」感じられる場合があるために、shameful/

指すのに対して、my shameless experience は

shameless conduct は共に日本語で「恥ずかし「周囲からは恥ずかしい人だと思われていい行為」と表現できる。また、shameful は「恥」

ただろうが自分自身は恥ずかしいとも思わという原義を持ち続けているのに対して、

8shameless は口語的用例では「恥」の原義にHorn, Laurence R. (1989) A Natural History of

とどまらず、「（恥ずかしく感じるほどの）甚Negation, The University of Chicago Press,

だしさ」という意味合いになることは興味深

Chicago.

い。これは、(feel) shameful の意味が「（恥ず高橋勝忠 (2017) 『英語学を学ぼう：英語

かしく感じるほどの）慎ましさ」という価値学の知見を英語学習に活かす』 開拓的に望ましい方向性に向かうのに対して、社, 東京.

shameless が「（恥ずかしく感じるほどの）恥
知らず、破廉恥、みだら→普通ではないこと、

コーパス・辞書異常であること→異常なほどの、ものすごく

The British National Corpus. [BNC]

たくさんの」という価値的に望ましくない源Corpus of Contemporary American English[COCA]であることが甚だしさの意味への拡張に起Collins COBUILD English Dictionary for

因していると考えられる。

Advanced Learners, 3rd edition. (2001)2017 年、広辞苑第 7 版に「やばい」が掲載され、「不都合である、危険である」というHarperCollins, London. [CEDAL3]

意味以外に「のめりこみそうである」というComprehensive Grammar of the English

語義が挙げられた。確かに危ないほど熱中し

Language, (1985) Longman.
Longman Advanced American Dictionary,て不都合なことが生じ得る。若者言葉では「このカレーやばい（何かがおかしい・美味(2000) Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.

しくない・美味しい）」というようにより多[LAAD]

様な意味で用いられている「やばい」は元々Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English,（際立ちの弱い無標状態の肯定性に対する）(2008) Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.

有標的な否定的価値 (e-neg) という際立ち[LDOCE]
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary ofを持っているからこそ、このような「ものすごく」という甚だしさの意味に転じていくとCurrent English, 7th edition. (2005) Oxford

考えられる。同様に shameless も shameless

University Press, Oxford; New York.

liar, shamelessly declare, shame enough to do…

[OALD7]
Oxford Dictionary of English, 2nd edition.

のように、恥ずかしくてあきれるほどの甚だしさ（そして、恥を感じるべき人物は恥を感(2003) Oxford University Press, Oxford;

じる能力が欠如しているために恥を感じて

New York. [OED2], OED Advanced search,

いないという、ほとんど清々しさに近い甚だ(2015) Oxford University Press.

しく矛盾的な状況）を描写できる。

『英語語義語源辞典』(2004) 小島義郎・岸曉・増田秀夫・高野嘉明 [編]，三省堂，東京．

* 日本英語学会第 35 回大会にて発表の機会『英語語源辞典』(1997) 寺澤芳雄 [編集主をいただいたことにお礼を申し上げます。

幹]，研究社，東京．

また、本発表に対して賜りましたコメント『新英和大辞典』（第 6 版）(2002) 竹林 茂

を本論文に反映させました。

[編集代表]，研究社，東京．
『スタンダード英語語源辞典』(1989，

参考文献
Cruse, D. A. (1986) Lexical Semantics,

2004) 下宮忠雄・金子貞雄・家村睦夫

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

[編]，大修館書店，東京．

9

に意図された結果を表わす結果構文が成立
することが非常に多く、意図されない結果を表わすタイプは成立し難いと主張している。
英語の「非意図的」結果構文について*(2) a. She scrubbed/wiped the floor shiny clean.

（On “Unintended” Resultative Constructions

b.*?She swam her swimsuit to tatters.

in English）(影山 2005: 90, 92)(3) a. The wise dog barked his master awake to

浅井 良策（Ryosaku Asai）

warn him of the fire.

大阪大学（Osaka University）

b.*A stray dog in the distance barked thesleeping child awake.
(影山 2007: 39, 強調は発表者)

キーワード：非意図性, 心理的変化, 責任性(2a)では、特定の意図した目的を含意する動1. はじめに詞 scrub や wipe が生起しており、結果述語が

英語の結果構文は様々な角度から分類さ

その意図した結果を具現化していることがれるが、それは例えば(1)に示されるように、明らかである。一方で、(2b)における動詞「意図性の有無」に基づいて分類することがswim は特定の目的を意図する動詞ではなく、可能である。

結果述語も行為者の意図しない偶発的な結果を表わしている。また、(3)における bark(1) a. The blacksmith hammered the metal flat.

も同様に、それ自体は特定の目的を意図しな(Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1999: 200)

い動詞なのであるが、(3a)のように、結果述

b. The gardener watered the tulips flat.

語が動詞の表わす行為の目的を表わすと解(Carrier and Randall 1992: 173)

釈されるような文脈を設定すれば、より容認度の高い結果構文を成立させることになる。

(1a)では、「鍛冶屋が金属を叩いて平らにした」 これらの観察などを基に、影山は、行為者のという主語指示物の行為者によって意図さ意図しない偶発的な結果を表わす結果構文れた結果が表わされている一方で、(1b)では、 に対して「表現の範囲が限られ、許容度も低「庭師がチューリップに水をやった際にそい」(影山 2005:96)と形容している。しかしれがペチャンコになってしまった」という行ながら、このような観点を取ると、いくつか

為者の意図しない結果が表わされている。この重要な事実を見落としてしまうことになのような両者のタイプの結果構文のうち、前る。以下では、影山の分析に関して問題点を者の意図的な結果を表わすタイプの方が成指摘していくことにしよう。

立しやすいということが先行研究で主張さ第一に、(4)の文ペアの存在が挙げられる。

れている。
(4) a. I spent the next three months trying to talk
2. 影山 (2005, 2007, 2009)

myself out of a job.

そのような主張が影山の一連の研究で展(Monterey County Herald, 9/25, 2009)

開されている。影山 (2005, 2007, 2009)は、(2)b. I fear he will eventually talk himself out

や(3)のような例を挙げて、英語では行為者

of a job while talking down our club.

10

(Daily Post, 11/9, 2010)

プとして一括りに分類することに問題があることが分かる。そこで、本稿では、英語の(4)における動詞 talk は、(3)の bark と同様、

結果構文において「意図的な結果」を表わす

特定の意図した目的が含意されているわけ

タイプが成立しやすいという影山の指摘はではない。しかし、各文の下線部の語句の内認めつつも、だからと言って、全ての「非意容から容易に読み取れるように、out of a job

図的な結果」を表わす結果構文に対して「表という同一の結果述語との組み合わせで、現の範囲が限られ、許容度も低い」という記(4a)のように「意図的な結果」と(4b)のよう述が当てはまるわけではないということをに「非意図的な結果」の両者が表されている。

主張していきたいと思う。

影山の分析では、(4b)のような事例は許容度
3. Out of a job

が低いことが予想されるが、実際のところ、(4b)の事例に留まらず、非意図的な文脈で使まず、この主張を支持する事例の一つとし用される「talk－out of a job」の組み合わせはて out of a job という結果述語を取る結果構

他にも多く確認される。

文を取り上げてみることにしよう。すでに第二に、以下の「非意図的」結果構文は(4)で確認したように、この結果述語は「意さらに影山の分析に対して疑問を呈するこ

図的な結果」と「非意図的な結果」の両者をとになる。

表わすことが可能であった。この事実は、(6)に示されるように、job という語に少なくと(5) a. When the roosters that scratch in the yard

も二種類の辞書定義が認められることと密of Brastagi's best hotel crowed me awake

接に関連している。

that dawn a few months ago, …
(The New York Times, 3/16, 1986)(6) job1 : “work for which you receive regular
payment”

b. A violent earthquake shook Los Angeles

job2 : “a responsibility or duty”

awake before dawn yesterday,… [COCA][OALD8](5a)では、影山によって容認性が低い事例として提示された(3b)と同じような出来事がjob1 の意味に基づく結果述語 out of a job1 は描写されている。すなわち、いずれの例にお「解雇される・職を失う」という望ましくないても動物の鳴き声によって人間が目を覚い状況を表すので、それは「非意図的な結果」

ましたという状況が表わされているが、そのに相当すると言える。この意味の結果述語をような結果は(3b)の野良犬と(5a)の鶏の両者持つ結果構文は、影山の見方からすると許容にとって意図したことではないという点は度の低い表現範囲が限られたタイプに相当

共通しているのである。従って、(3a)の容認することになる。しかしながら、 実際 は性が低いことをそれが行為者の意図しない

COCA コーパス上において、out of a job1 が偶発的な結果を表しているという事実に求様々な動詞と共起するのが観察される。

めるのは少々無理があるように思われる。ま(7) [ ___ oneself out of a job1] [COCA] :た、(5b)のように、そもそも意図を持ち得ない無生物を主語に取る結果構文も成立する

talk (2), drink (2), vote (2), eat (1), argue (1),場合があるので、ここでもまた「非意図的なteach (1), indict (1), tap (1), index (1),

結果」を表わす結果構文を許容度の低いタイ

pilot (1), regulate (1), schedule (1)11(12) a. He hopes instead to have worked himself

さらに、生起する動詞に類似するより特殊化

out of a job2 by then.

した意味をもつ動詞も見られる。

(New Orleans CityBusiness, 5/12, 2008)
b. …Richardson … successfully negotiated(8) a. He drank himself out of a job1. [COCA]

himself out of a job2.

b. a lush who boozed himself out of a job1
and a home, …

(Daily News, 6/8, 2006)(The Globe and Mail, 8/17, 1999)(9) a. .…he could indict himself out of a job1

c. I have successfully delegated myself out

by charging Clinton.

of a job2.

[COCA](The Mirror, 12/12, 2002)

b. The postal workers…haven't figured outthat they are bellyaching themselves right

しかし、ここでもっと注目すべきことは、こout a job1のように「意図的な結果」を表すと解釈され(Sherbrooke Record, 6/16, 2006)

やすい out of a job2 が実は「非意図的な結果」(10) ...the congressman who tweeted himself outを表す結果構文をも成立させ得るというこ

of a job1…with a photo of his bulgingとである。

underpants,…
(13) Chip, a 5-year-old border collie, has been(St. Paul Pioneer Press, 4/9, 2013)

such a success at Red Wing Lake Golf
(8b)の booze (大酒を飲む)は、drink の下位語

Course - helping scatter away more thanであるし、また、(9)における indict (告発す200 birds there - that he's nearly runる)及び bellyache (不平・不満を言う)は、(4b)himself out of a job2.
(The Virginian-Pilot, 10/24, 2007)

で見た talk と類義語の関係にあると言えるだろう。加えて、out of a job1 は(10)に示されるように、比較的新しい概念を表わす動詞と(13)では、下線部に示されたボーダー・コリ

共起することも「非意図的」結果構文は表現ー犬がゴルフ場で鳥を追い払うために起用の範囲が限定されているとは言い切れないされ、大きな成果が得られたため、その犬のことを示唆しているように思われる。

役割がもうすぐ終わるということが述べら

ここで、もう一度 job の辞書記述(6)に戻り、 れている。そして、この状況において、犬はjob2 の意味を参照すると、それに基づく結果

単に本能的に鳥に向かって走っているので

述語 out of a job2 は「責任や義務からの解放」

あって、自分に課せられた責任から解放されという状況を表していると考えられる。

るためにそうしているわけではないということが容易に読み取れる。以上、本節では、
out of a job という結果述語を取り上げ、「非(11) [ ___ oneself out of a job2 ] [COCA]：
work (15), write (1), legislate (1), phase (1)

意図的」結果構文の中には、様々な動詞が生起するという点において表現の範囲が広い

この out of a job2 の特徴としては、まず workと言えるものも存在することを示した。

と共起する頻度が高く、また、次例の下線部
4. 心理的変化結果構文の語句で明示されているように(これは(4a)次に、もう一つの「非意図的」結果構文のにも当てはまることであるが)、普通、「意図事例として、意図を持ち得ない無生物を主語的な結果」を表すということである。

に取るタイプについて見ていく。

12

(14) a. She shook him awake.

物主語も可能であることがよく知られてい(影山 2007: 38, 強調は発表者)

るが、もちろんそれは結果述語を伴った場合

b. A violent earthquake shook Los Angeles
awake before dawn yesterday.

でも同様である。

(= (5b))(17) a. A noise startled her awake.
(The Globe and Mail, 6/20, 2011)

影山 (2007)では、動詞 shake には未指定では

b. Nightmares would scare her awake.

あるが意図した目的が語彙的に含意されて(St. Petersburg Times, 5/31, 2001)

いると見なされており、(14a)はその目的を結
果述語 awake が具現化した「意図的」結果構文ということになる。しかし、同じ「shake

これらのことを考慮すれば、(14)に見られる－awake」の組み合わせであっても、無生物ように、「shake 目的語 awake」パターンに主語を伴った(14b)は、一般に「非意図的」

おいて、動作主主語だけではなく無生物主語

結果構文の許容度が低いとする影山の分析が現れるのは何ら特異なことではないと言にとっては望ましくない事例である。本稿でえる。

はこのような事例を扱うためには、「shake

また、こことの関連で、Goldberg (1995:193)

目的語 awake」パターンを全体として一種のが提案した(18)の制約について考えてみる

経験者目的語型の心理動詞構文として見な価値があるだろう。

す観点を導入すればよいと考える。というの(18) Animate Instigator Constraint：

も、自然に目が覚める場合とは異なり、外的な働きかけを受けて「目覚め」が引き起こさ“only animate instigator arguments are

れる際には、通常、同時に何らかの心理的変acceptable as subjects in two-argument化(例えば、「驚き」や「恐れ」など)も伴う

resultative constructions.”からである。このことは(15)のような事例の(19) a. *The feather tickled her silly.

(ibid.)

b. Richard Bean's farce “One Man, Two

存在からも確かめられる。

Guvnors,” had tickled me silly…
(The New York Times, 5/13, 2012)(15) a. I will startle her awake by throwing
a handful of snaps at her car.
(Christian Science Monitor, 6/12, 2006)

この制約は主語と目的語を持つ結果構文は

b. To scare him awake in the mornings,

無生物主語を認めないことを述べており、そ…this disabled woman…would… whip

れによって(19a)が容認されないことが説明

open the curtains."

される。しかし、(19b)のように、同じ動詞(The Globe and Mail, 3/21, 2007)

が心理的変化を表す意味で使用される場合(16) a. Nina frightened Laura deliberately /に無生物主語が生じている。従って、ここかto make her go away.

らも心理的変化を表す結果構文が無生物主

b. The explosion / the noise / the storm

語を許容しやすいことが分かる。
動詞 shake にも同様のことが言えるが、こ

frightened Laura.
(Arad 1998: 2, 下線部は発表者)の場合、単に無生物主語を取る結果構文が成立するということにとどまらず、その表現範

一般に、経験者目的語型の心理動詞は(16)の囲が限定されているわけではないことにもように人間の動作主主語だけではなく無生注目されたい。

13

(20) shake1 : “move an object up and down or

産性を示す場合があることが確認される。

from side to side with rapid,
5. 非意図性＋責任性

forceful, jerky movements”
shake2 : “upset the composure or

それでは最後に、以下の文に見られる許容

confidence; shock or astonish”

度の相違について見ていくことにしよう。
8[OALD ]
(23) a.*A stray dog in the distance barked thesleeping child awake.

shake の意味として少なくとも二種類の辞書(= (3b))b. The roosters crowed me awake that

的定義が存在する。shake1 は物理的な働きか

dawn a few months ago…

けを表しているが、影山 (2007)が指摘する(= (5a))ように、それによって意図された変化結果がすでに見たように、影山の分析において、「非様々な結果述語で表現可能である。

意図的」結果構文の許容度が低いことが(23a)(21) shake1 : She shook him awake. / Sharpeの事例を用いて主張されていた。しかし、同shook the bundle loose. / She shook herself

時に(23b)のように、主語指示物の意図が関

free of his arm. / Galvone shook snow from

与しない、(23a)とほぼ同じような状況を表す

the sheepskin. / She finally shook herself

事例が実際に観察されるのであった。これら

away. / I shook the rain out of my hair.

の事実を扱うために、本稿では、Lakoff (1977)(影山 2007: 38)

や van Oosten (1977, 1984)において提案された「責任性」という概念を拡張的に援用する。

しかし、一方で、心理的な働きかけを表す

この概念は、主語として具現化するために最shake2 の方も、無生物主語を伴い「非意図的」

低限必要とされる意味特性として規定され、結果構文を成立させる際に、心理的な圧力を

動詞の表わす行為の実現に主たる要因とし受けた後の結果状態が様々な結果述語で表て関わるある実体の属性のことを指し示す

現可能である。

ものである(“properties of the patient bear the
responsibility for the occurrence of the action of(22) shake2 :the verb.” (van Oosten 1977:461))。これによっ

a. …the memory of his fury could shake himて例えば(24)に見られる中間構文の被動者

awake, fill his throat with regret.

主語の生起可能性について説明されてきた。

b. A terrible roaring from the boughs above(24) a. *The baby will wash with no trouble.

shook him to alertness.
c. …a look at that invincible door shook meb. These clothes will wash with no trouble.
(van Oosten 1984: 156)

into horror again.
d. A new sound shook me out of my thoughts(24a)ではなく(24b)が容認されるのは、「何の

e. …a recent Cher dress purchase shook him
out of a bout of depression

支障もなく洗う」という行為の実現に向けて、[COCA]

その主な要因として関わるのが「入浴を恐れたり身もだえしたりする」といった赤ん坊の

この点においても、「意図的」結果構文に負属性ではなく、「洗濯機洗いに対応可能」とけず劣らず、「非意図的」結果構文が高い生いった衣類の属性であると通常想定される

14

からである。そして、以下の例から、この概補強されているように、(26b)でも鳥のさえ念が「非意図的」結果構文の容認性にも関与ずる行為が一種の目覚まし時計の機能を果していることが見て取れる。

たすものとして描写されている。
このように見てくると、(23)における許容(25) a.*The hammer broke the vase into pieces.

度の相違は、意図性の有無ではなく、やはり(Goldberg 1995: 65)

主語指示物が結果事象の実現に貢献する性

b. I threw the hammer, and it broke the vase

質を持っているかどうかという観点で説明

into pieces.

(草山 2001: 128)できるように思われる。つまり、(26b)の鳥の場合と同様、(23b)の鶏は、朝という決ま

この場合には、主語指示物が動詞の表わす行

った時間に鳴く習性を持つことから、一種の為からもたらされる結果事象の実現に主た

目覚まし時計の機能を果たしており、「目覚る要因として関わる性質を持つか否かに結め」という結果事象の実現に対する「責任性」

果構文の成立が左右されていると言える。通を持っているのである。しかし一方で、(23a)

常、ハンマーが「花瓶が粉々になる」というの野良犬は昼夜問わず吠えるので、それらに結果事象をもたらすには、その使用者が積極

目覚まし時計の機能を期待することはでき的に介入し、ハンマーを直接的に操作し続けず、結果事象の実現に対する「責任性」を見る必要がある。従って、(25a)の許容度が低い

出し難いのである。

ということになる。しかし、ハンマーが飛びまた、このように結果事象の実現に対する道具として使用された場合には、それが使用

主語指示物の「責任性」を重要視する分析は、者から独立して結果事象の実現に主たる要以下の「非意図的」結果構文の事例からもさ因として関わる性質を帯びるために(25b)のらに支持することが可能である。

ような結果構文が成立するのである。
(27) a. Pat him on his electronic head and Tekno

同様の説明が(26)の事例にも当てはまる。

wags his tail and barks happily. …When(26) a. I can accept the alarm clock that sings me

it gets light, he (= Tekno) sings one ofto sleep at night and shouts me awake inthree tunes and happily barks you

the morning,…

awake.

(San Jose Mercury News, 9/18, 2013)(The Vancouver Province, 6/11, 2000)

b. A mockingbird sang me awake thisb. Halifax Canoe Club in Sowerby Bridgemorning in the pre-dawn darkness.

has been attracting complaints from a

Much better than the alarm clock.

nearby resident, who claims users of the(Contra Costa Times, 3/14, 2008)

club have been shouting him awake
early in the morning and late at night.

(26a)において下線部に示された主語指示物(Brighouse Echo, 1/9, 2016)の「目覚まし時計」は単にそれが使用者から独立しているだけでなく、それ自体がそもそ

まず、(27a)では、(23a)と同様、「bark－awake」

も「目覚め」という結果事象が実現するためという組み合わせで主語指示物が犬であるに設計されているという点において、結果事ように見えるが、斜字体で示唆されているよ

象の実現に主たる要因として関わる性質をうに、実際はアラーム機能を備えた犬型ロボ持つと言える。また、斜字部からその解釈がットの性能を述べた事例である。従って、

15

結果事象の実現に対する主語指示物の「責任上げる。尚、本論文における不備は全て筆者

性」は明らかである。また、(27b)では、全に帰する。

体の内容として、カヌークラブの利用者が騒き続けることで意図せず近隣住民を頻繁に

参考文献
Arad, Maya (1998) “Psych-notes,” Working

目覚めさせていることが述べられている。ここで注目すべきは、本節においてここまで見Papersin

Linguistics

10,

203-223,てきた「非意図的」結果構文とは異なり、主University College of London Department

語指示物が結果事象の実現に主たる要因とof Phonetics and Linguistics.

して関わる性質を内在的に備えているわけ

Goldberg, Adele (1995) Constructions :ではないということである。主語指示物であA Construction Grammar Approach toるカヌークラブの利用者は人間であり、それArgument Structure, University of Chicago

自体に「目覚め」を引き起こす特性を持ってPress, Chicago.

いるとは確かに考え難いのである。しかし、

影山太郎 (2005)「辞書知識と語用論的知識「目覚め」を引き起こす行為を繰り返すこと―語彙概念構造とクオリア構造の融合によって、カヌークラブの利用者は、住民にに向けて―」, 影山太郎(編)『レキシコとって目覚まし時計の機能を担うような習

ンフォーラム No.1』, 65-101, ひつじ書性を獲得していると言える。つまり、文脈に房, 東京.

よって臨時的に「責任性」が主語指示物に読影山太郎 (2007)「英語結果述語の意味分類み込まれているのである。この事例からも、と統語構造」, 小野尚之(編)『結果構文影山の一連の研究での指摘に反して、「非意研究の新視点』, 33-65, ひつじ書房, 東図的」結果構文であっても表現範囲を拡張さ

京.
影山太郎 (2009)「語彙情報と結果述語のタせることが確認可能である。

イポロジー」, 小野尚之(編)『結果構文6. 結語のタイポロジー』, 101-139, ひつじ書房,

本稿では、影山 (2005, 2007, 2009)の主張

東京.

に異議を唱え、以下のことを示した。すなわ

草山学 (2001)「動作主と道具主語」, 中右実

ち、英語の結果構文は、「非意図的な結果」

教授還暦記念論文集委員会(編)『意味とを表わす場合であっても、1)様々な動詞や結形のインターフェイス』上巻, 125-135,

果述語が生起することがあり、2)主語指示物

くろしお出版, 東京.
Lakoff, George (1977) “Linguistic Gestalts,”に結果事象の実現に主たる要因として関わ

CLS 13, 236-287.

る特性・習性が認められれば、結果事象に意
van

図を示さない無生物主語や動物主語も可能

Oosten,Jaap(1977)“Subjects

andAgenthood in English,” CLS 13, 459-471.

となる点において、必ずしも表現範囲が限定

van Oosten, Jaap (1984) The Nature of Subjects,

されているとは言えない。

TopicsandAgents:A

Cognitive*本稿は日本英語学会第 35 回大会における

Explanation, Indiana University Linguistics

口頭発表に基づくものである。発表の際、司Club, Bloomington.

会を務めて下さった都築雅子先生ならびに
出水孝則先生、西原俊明先生から有益なコメントを頂いた。この場をお借りして感謝申し

16

字に難読な当て字をする」という名付け方ではなく、最初に「音」を決めそれからその音に合う漢字をリストから選ぶ、というのが主流である（朝日新聞 2017）。全国の書店の「名最近の名前と一般語の音韻パターンの相付け」に関するコーナーでも、「こういう音違についての名前にはどういう漢字があてはまるか」と(Different Phonological Patterns between Recent

いう内容の書籍が最前列に陳列され販売さPersonal Names and General Nouns)

れているという。
	  その傾向を鑑みると、最近の親（もしくは深澤 はるか (Haruka Fukazawa)
北原 真冬 (Mafuyu Kitahara)*

子の名付けをする人）が「こういう音の名前**がいい」と思う「音」になんらかのパターンが存在するのではないだろうか。またもし存*慶應義塾大学 (Keio University)

在するなら、その音韻パターンは、他の一般**語（特に名詞）とは異なるパターンを形成す上智大学 (Sophia University)

るのではなかろうか。そして、もしこの仮説
キーワード：音韻パターン, 名前, 一般語,が正しいとすると、（最近の）名前は一つの頻度分布, 制約

音韻語彙層を形成することになるのではな
いかと考えた。
	  まず次節では、この 12 年間に名付けられ

1. は じ め にた子の名前の「音」（読み方）データより（明	  「キラキラネーム」という名付けへの揶揄

治安田生命 2004-2015）、子音（C）・母音（V）的な表現が日本社会で騒がれるようになっの連鎖パターンの頻度を解析し、その解析結てから十数年が経つ。伊東 (2015) はキラキ

果を一般語（名詞）のパターンと比較し、共ラネームを「これまでの常識とは異なる漢字

通点・相違点を考察する。第 3 節では第 2 節の読み方をしたり、これまでの日本語にはな

で の 解 析 の 結 果 を 最 適 性 理 論 (Prince &かった音の響きを持っていたりする難読な

Smolensky 1993/2004)の枠組みで用いられる名前」と定義する。例えば『光宙（ピカチュ

制約を用いて解釈し、その制約の遵守の仕方ウ）』や『希空（ノア）』などが該当し、これが異なるかどうか、すなわち制約ランキング

まで漢字に対する難読な当て字という側面に違いが現れるかどうかを考察する。第 4 節が注目されてきており、音韻的側面の考察ははまとめと今後の課題を示唆する。

極めて少ない。
	  そもそもこのような名付けの傾向が生ま

2. データの整理と解析方法れたのは、日本の戸籍法に端を発すると言え

2.1. 最近の名前と名詞（一般語）

よう。戸籍法では、「名」には常用平易な文	  最近の名前の「音」を抽出するために、明字を用いなければならず、使用可能漢字は現

治安田生命「名前ランキング」(2004-2015)

在 2999 字しかないという制限がある。対しを使用する。これは、個人保険・年金保険のて、その漢字をどのように読ませるかの制限

契約 1134 万件の調査をもとに作成された 12はないのである。この読み方の自由から「難年分の「読み方ベスト 50」のデータである。

読な当て字」が出てきたと推察できる。

名前の総数は 1266 個、読み方の総違なり語	  しかしながら、最近の名付けの傾向は、「漢

数 204 個から成る。例えば、2015 年の男児

17

の名前の読み方ベスト 50 の上位 5 位まではで割って求める。	
 表１のようである。

	 表 1: 2015 年男の子の名前、読み方のサンプル

順位

読み方

人数

占率

●

119 人

2.78%

2位

ソウタ

83 人

1.94%

3位

ユウト

77 人

1.80%

4位

ハルキ

58 人

1.36%

5位

50 人

ユイト

●

●
●

● ●

0.05

ハルト

normalized freq

1位

words
names

0.1

●

●

●
●

1.17%

●
● ●
●

0

このデータにおける人数を頻度として扱い、

● ●
●

●

● ● ● ●
● ● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

cgvMcgvMvMcv
cgvMcvcv
cgvcvM
cvMcgvcv
cvMcgv
cgvcgvM
cvHcv
cvHcgvM
cgvM
cvHcvcv
cgvMcv
cvcvH
cvcgvMvcv
vcvcv
cv
cvHcvM
cvcvcvM
cgvMcvM
cvcvcvcv
cvMcgvM
cvMcvH
cvM
cvMcvcv
cvcvM
cvMcv
cvcvcv
cvMcvM
cvcv

男女は区別せず結合する。

● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●
●
●
●

● ●

	
  この「名前」と比較対象の一般語（名詞）	 は、天野・近藤 (1999) の朝日新聞 14 年分に基づく頻度データから名詞のみを抽出す

図 1: 頻度順位による一般語の cv パターン(xる。音韻表記は天野・近藤 (1999)を利用し、軸)とその頻度(y 軸)、および、その順位にお

分析単位は、子音（C）・母音（V）の連鎖パ

いて該当する名前の cv パターンの頻度

ターンを基本とする。分析単位の定義は表 2
上記の比較から、一般語および名前のデータの通りである。

における CV パターンの上位 15 位までを取り出したものが表 3 である。ここから頻度順

表 2: 分析単位の定義

記号

対応する分節音ck, g, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, t, d, ɕ, ts, n, h, b, ɸ, v, p,位における以下の特徴が導かれる。
(1) A. 名前と一般語に共通の特徴

m, r, wv

a, i, u, e, o

g

j

M

N, Q, V (V: {aa, ii, uu, ee, oo, ei, ou の

1. 拗音が 9 位まで現れない
2. 最上位項目は軽音節のみからなる
	 後部要素})
H

B. 名前と一般語の相違点
3. 頭子音を欠く音節が名前に多ai, oi, ui, au の後部要素

い
4. 両者とも 2~4 モーラに収まる

2.2. 解 析が、名前は特に 3 モーラが多	  図 1 は、名前と一般語の CV パターンを比い較したものである。まず、一般語の各 CV パ

5. 二重母音（VH）は名前の方がターンの出現頻度と順位をプロットする（◯若干上位から現れるで表す）。次に、名前において該当するパターンの標準化した頻度をプロットする（●で	  本節の解析の結果、CV パターンに関して、表す）。標準化頻度は、それぞれの延べ語数

一般語と名前における共通点・相違点が取り（名前は 99,932 人、一般語は 65,609,259 件）出せた。次節では最適性理論(OT: 1993/2004)18

回の解析で改めて検証された。

の制約によりこの結果を解釈する。

	  次に、一般語と名前で異なる点として第 2
表 3: cv パターンの一般語データおよび名前データに

節 B で挙げられた 3 点を考察する。B1 は、おける上位 15

名前では頭子音を欠く音節が一般語に比べ一般語て許されるということである。日本語の音節

名前

パターン

例

パターン

例

構造において、頭子音がない音節が許容され

cvcv

カニ

cvcvcv

タケル

ることから、頭子音を要求する ONSET（音節cvMcvM

簡単

cvcv

ソラ

は頭子音を持つ）制約は優位ではない、と考

cvcvcv

こころ

cvMcv

ケンタ

えられてきたが、今回、頻度を詳細に観察し

cvMcv

監視

cvv

モエ

たところ、一般語では頭子音のある音節の方

cvcvM

カレー

vcvcv

アカネ

が好まれる、すなわち ONSET 制約が効力をcvMcvcv

干拓

cvHcv

セイジ

持つ位置にランクされていることがわかっ

cvM

紺

cvM

ケン

た。それに対して名前ではこの制約がより低cvMcvH

関西

cvH

カイ

位に来るという違いがあり、こちらの方が従

cvMcgvM

環境

cgvMcv

キョウコ

cvcvcvcv

勝ち負け

cvMcvMユウセイ

cgvMcvM

狂言

cvcvM

カレン

cvcvcvM

掛け算

vvH

アオイ

cvHcvM

悔恨

cgvM

シュン

cv

木

cvMcvcv

ケンスケ

vcvcv

余り

vHcv

アイコ

来の日本語音韻研究の主張を確認したことになった。B2 はモーラ数の制限であるが、一般語も名前も 2~4 モーラが好まれるのは共通しているため、FTBIN（フットは二項的である）と ALIGNRIGHT（フットの境界と単語の終わりを揃える）という 2 つの制約が効力を持つことは間違いなく、これは従来の研究でも主張されている。しかしながら、名前では 3 モーラが最も多いことを考えるとこ3. 最適性理論(OT)による音韻的考察の 2 つの制約が一般語よりは違反可能な低	
  第 2 節で見たように、一般語の名詞と名前

位にあることが明確になった。B3 は、名前の頻度分布から導かれる共通する音節的特の方が二重母音が許されることが若干多い

徴として、上位には拗音を含む音節が少ないということから、*VH（二重母音禁止）制約(A1)。これを OT 的な制約で考えると、*GLIDE

は、名前においての方が一般語においてより（拗音の禁止）制約が優位であると言える。

少しだけ低いランクであると結論づけるこ

名前にはよく拗音が使用されるイメージがとができる。

あるかもしれないが、一般語・名前両方とも、

	 上位の項目の累計は下位の項目のそれより

4. まとめと今後の課題も非常に大きいため、拗音が含まれる単語に	  本稿では、一般語の名詞と名前の音節構造

出会うことは見かけよりも少なく、この制約を観察し、それぞれのグループで考えられるがかなり効力を持つことがわかる。

制約ランキングに共通点・相違点があること	  また、最上位が軽音節のみからなることを論じた。制約ランキングがレキシコンの一(A2)に関しては、日本語として発音可能な音部において体系的に異なるのであれば、いわ節構造に関する 2 つの制約、NOCODA(末尾子

ゆる語彙層 (lexical stratum)を形成する（Ito音の禁止)と CODACOND(末尾子音は Place 節& Mester 1995, Fukazawa 1999) とすれば、点を独自に持たない)が優位であることが今「人名」という語彙層が日本語において異な19

る語彙層を形成する可能性があることが示

Core-Periphery Structure of the Lexicon

唆された。「人名」という語彙層が形成されand Constraints on Reranking,” Universityていると結論づけるにはさらなる検証が必of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in

要であるが、人々が「名付け」を通して音韻

Linguistics [UMOP] Vol. 18: Papers inの観点から新たな語彙層を創り出そうとし

Optimality Theory, ed. by Jill Beckman,ている可能性も示唆できるのではないだろSuzanne Urbanczyk, and Laura Walsh,

うか。

181-209, University of Massachusetts,	  実際、キラキラネームという呼称が始まっ

GLSA, Amherst.
黒川伊保子 (2009)『名前力：名前の語感をてからずいぶん経ち、対抗して古風な名前を科学する』東光社, 東京.

つけたがる「シワシワネーム」と言う流行も取りざたされている(東洋経済オンライン

小林康正 (2009)『名づけの世相史：「個性的2016)。どのような音がキラキラで、どのよな名前」をフィールドワーク』風響社,

うな音がシワシワなのか、意味とは独立して東京.

音韻的に設定するには、今回の音節構造の観前川喜久雄 (2006)『日本語話し言葉コーパ

察のみならず、音象徴的特性、外来語・擬音スの構築法』第１章, 国立国語研究所,

語との音素配列的な類似性、形態レベルでの東京.
明治安田生命 (2004-2015)「名前ランキング」

操作の音韻への影響、音素・素性レベルでの分布特性等、まだまだ検討すべき課題は多い。

<http://www.meijiyasuda.co.jp/enjoy/ranki	  また、今回は男女の名前を一括して分析しng/index.html>

たが、男性名、女性名と好まれる音が異なる

御園和夫・平坂文男 (2008) 「二重母音と二ことは、日本語のみならず多くの言語で観察

母音連続」, 『関東学院大学文学部紀要』

されていることもあり、その違いに関する考113, 87-103.
佐藤稔 (2007)『読みにくい名前はなぜ増え察も必須である。

たか』吉川弘文館, 東京.

	  上述したように、結論までは課題が多いものの、日本語の音韻が未来に向けてどのよう

田窪行則・前川喜久雄・窪薗晴夫・本多清志・に変化するのかについて、このような名付け

白井克彦・中川聖一 (2004) シリーズ言の音韻的検討が示唆しているものは大きい。

語の科学 2『音声』岩波書店, 東京.
東洋経済オンライン (2016) 『キラキラは気の毒？増える｢しわしわネーム｣』

参考文献
天野成昭・近藤公久 (1999)『NTT データベ

<http://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/135401>

ースシリーズ日本語の語彙特性』三省堂, 東京.
Fukazawa, Haruka (1999) Theoretical
Implications of OCP Effects on Features in
Optimality Theory, Doctoral dissertation,
University of Maryland at College Park
(ROA-307).
伊東ひとみ (2015)『キラキラネームの大研究』新潮社, 東京.
Ito, Junko and Armin Mester (1995) “The20

(1) a. 胸が高鳴る、胸を締め付ける
b. heartbroken / make a clean breast ofsomething(2) a. 腹が立つ、腹に据えかねる
日英語の胸部と腹部の理解をめぐってb. bellyache (about something) / make—比喩的認知を生む身体経験、社会・文化経

someone sick to {his / her} stomach

験の観点から—*2. 先行研究と課題提起（On the Conceptualizations of the Chest andAbdomen in Japanese and English: From the

先行研究において、「胸」と「腹」は日本

Perspectives of Bodily and Social-cultural

人の精神の座であり、各々の部位には異なる

Experience as Factors Affecting Metaphorical

精神作用が結びつくことが明らかにされて

Cognition）

いる。Matsuki (1995) は、「腹」が怒りや本音を隠すための重要な部位であることを指後藤 秀貴（Hideki Goto）

摘し、それが日本の本音と建前の文化に強く大阪大学（Osaka University）

影響を受けたものであると主張している。一方、田中 (2003) は、「胸」が共感を呼びやキーワード：概念メタファー理論, 身体慣用

すい感情、複雑で微妙な感情と結びつくのに

句, 身体経験, 社会・文化経験, 日英比較

対し、「腹」は自己保存的な感情、精神の安定や不動性と結びつく傾向にあることを示した上で、こうした「腹」の特徴を摂食・消1. はじめに化等の腹部の身体的特徴と結びつけている。

Lakoff and Johnson (1980) に始まる概念メ

Matsuki と田中の研究を受け、後藤 (2015)

タファー理論は、比喩表現の成立基盤（動機では、日本語の「胸」と「腹」の表現を成立付け）の問題を扱ってきた。Kövecses (2005)

基盤の観点から再検討している。「胸」は、は、比喩表現の成立基盤を、身体経験 (bodily(1a)のように、鼓動や閉塞感などの身体経験

experience)、社会・文化経験 (social-culturalに基づくと考えられる表現が多く観察されexperience) へと大分し、これらを言語間のる。一方、(2a)のような「腹」表現では、い類似性・相違性と関連付けている。Kövecses

ずれも純粋な身体経験というよりは、丹田周の最も単純化されたモデルによれば、比喩表

辺の感覚を重視する日本の伝統（齋藤現の言語類似性は、人類が共通の身体基盤を(2000)）や本音と建前の文化 (Matsuki (1995))有していることに起因し、反対に、相違性はに基づくと考えられるものが多い。このよう各言語に根付いた社会・文化的な慣習・規な観察から、後藤 (2015) では、「胸」表現

範・想定と深く関わっている。

の基盤としては身体経験を、「腹」表現の基盤としては社会・文化経験を中心に論じるべ

本稿では、胸部や腹部を指す語・形態素をきであると主張している。

含み、精神作用を表す(1)、(2)のような日英語の慣用句を、それぞれ「胸部表現」、「腹部

本稿の目的は、日英語の比較を通じて、後表現」と呼ぶ。これらの表現を、成立基盤の藤 (2015) の議論の妥当性を検証すること観点から比較することで、後藤 (2015) で示である。先述の Kövecses のモデルと後藤のした日本語の「胸」表現、「腹」表現の成立

議論を合わせると、次のような仮説が得られ基盤に対する説明の妥当性を検証する。

る。

21

i. 「胸」表現が身体経験に強く動機付けら

プトによって構造化され、＜愛は戦争＞のよれているのであれば、英語でも類似する

うな概念メタファー（概念レベル）が生じる。

胸部表現が多く見つかるはずである。
ii. 「腹」表現が日本語の社会・文化経験に

4. 感覚・運動レベルからスキーマレベルへ

強く動機付けられているのであれば、英以後、日英語の胸部表現・腹部表現を上記語では類似する腹部表現が見つかりにくの 3 レベルに沿って観察していく 1。これら

いはずである。

のうち、身体経験との関わりが最も深いのが感覚・運動レベルの表現である（楠見・米田

3. 方法論(2007)）。(3)-(6)の通り、胸部や腹部の感覚・

今回、『新和英辞典』から、「胸」と「腹」反応を指す表現は、メトニミーとして何らかの訳語として記載されている項目を抽出しの感情の意味へと転用される。(3)は痛覚、(4)た。表 1 の通り、日本語の「胸」と「腹」は、は鼓動、(5)は不快感あるいは閉塞感、(6)はbosom や belly などの外的部位を指す語に加

熱感覚に基づくと考えられる表現である。

え、heart や stomach などの内臓を指す語と対(3) a. 胸を痛める【悲しみ】

応する。これらの語を手がかりに、複数の辞書（参考文献を参照）から精神作用を表す比

b. one’s heart aches / heartache【悲しみ】

喩表現を抽出したところ、abdomen、tummy、

c. 腹が痛い【笑いを誘う感情】

bowel を除く 6 項目で該当表現が得られた。

d. bellyache (about something) 【不満】

本稿では、これらを日本語の比較対象とする。 (4) a. 胸が｛高鳴る／轟く｝【興奮（期待・驚き・不安など）】
b. heartthrob / one’s heart beats fast

表 1 調査対象語「胸」「腹」

bosom / breast / chestheart

belly / (abdomen) /stomach /(tummy)(bowel)【興奮（期待・驚き・不安など）】(5) a. 胸が｛苦しい／悪い｝【不快・悲しみ・不安】
b. feel sick at heart / the pressure in one’sheart

表現の観察にあたり、楠見・米田 (2007) で【悲しみ・不安】

c. make someone sick to {his / her}

提案された枠組みを援用する。楠見・米田に

stomachよれば、感情を代表とする精神の比喩表現は、(6)「感覚・運動レベル」、「スキーマレベル」、「概念レベル」という 3 つの表象へと分類さ【（心理的）不快】

胸が熱くなる

【感動】

胸を冷やす

【恐怖】

れる。感覚・運動レベルとは、感情に伴う生
理感覚・反応などの身体経験に基づく表象レ

さらに、(3)-(6)の身体経験は、誇張によってベルを指し、例えば「手がわななく」などの何らかの事象に喩えられる場合がある。例え

メトニミー表現がこれに分類される。スキー

ば、大笑いすることで感じる(3c)のような腹マレベルとは、身体経験が抽象化を経たレベ（腹筋）の痛みは、腹の捩れとして誇張されルであり、いわゆるイメージ・スキーマと呼ることで、(7)のメタファー表現を生む。

ばれるものである。例えば、「胸の内」は、(7)

胸を容器と見なすイメージ・スキーマに支え

腹（の皮）が捩れる【笑いを誘う感情】

られた表現といえる。さらにイメージ・スキ(8)-(13)の通り、日英語で類似表現が多く見ーマは、感情経験の過程を辿るためのスクリ22

5. スキーマレベルから概念レベルへつかるのは胸部である。(8)は胸部への攻撃を表す表現であり、(3)の痛覚や(4)の鼓動に

本節では、抽象化された、より一般的な 2由来すると考えられる。同様に、(4)の鼓動

種類のイメージ・スキーマに基づく表現を観はそれが活発な運動として認識されること察する。一つは、in the heart のような表現ので、(9)のような表現の成立を動機づける。

根底にある、胸部や腹部を＜容器＞とみなす(CONTAINER schema: Johnson

ス キ ー マ(8) a. 胸を打つ

【感動】(1987)) であり、もう一つは、soft heart のよ

胸を｛抉る／突く｝ 【悲しみ・驚き】

うな表現の根底にある、胸部や腹部を＜具象

b. break one’s heart / heartbroken / pierce

物＞とみなすスキーマである (cf. ontologicalsomeone’s heart【悲しみ・驚き】(9) a. 胸が｛踊る／弾む｝【期待・喜び】

胸が騒ぐ

metaphor: Lakoff and Johnson (1980))。
5.1. ＜容器＞としての胸部・腹部【不安】

b. one’s heart {flutters / leaps}＜容器＞スキーマに基づくメタファー表【期待・喜び・不安】

現では、胸部や腹部が＜容器＞として、精神が＜内容物＞として概念化される。

また、(5a)「胸が苦しい」のような閉塞感は、内からの圧迫((10))や外からの圧迫((11))に喩

(14) a. 胸に｛一物／収める｝【本心の隠蔽】

えられ、最終的に((12))のような破裂を招く。

b. {have / keep} something in one’s {chest/ heart}(10)【本心の隠蔽】

c. 腹に｛一物／収める｝【本心の隠蔽】

胸が｛詰まる／塞がる｝(15) a. 胸が｛一杯になる／膨らむ｝【感動・不安・怒り】(11) a. 胸が潰れる、胸拉ぐ、胸を締め付ける【感動・期待の度合いの変化】【悲しみ・不安】

b. fill one’s heart with something / one’sb. squeeze

someone’s

chest

/

wring

someone’s heart【悲しみ・不安】(12) a. 胸が張り裂ける【悲しみ】{bosom / heart} swells【感動・期待の度合いの変化】
c. 腹が｛煮える／膨れる｝

b. heartrending / one’s heart (almost) bursts【怒り・不満の度合いの変化】
(16)

【悲しみ】

腹（の内）を探る【他人の本心を知る】(17) a. 胸の内を明かす、胸を割る
最後に、胸部に関しては、(13)のような体温【本心の表出】

変化の誇張と解釈できる表現が存在する。

b. get something off one’s chest / make aclean breast of something / open one’s(13) a. 胸を焦がす【不安】

b. heartburning

【妬み】

heart

【本心の表出】

c. 腹に据えかねる、腹の内を明かす、腹を割る【怒り・本心の表出】

以上の通り、胸部では、日英語ともに鼓動をはじめとする多様な身体経験が比喩として(14)の通り、日本語の「胸」や「腹」は本心用いられている。一方、腹部では、比喩に用（本音）を隠す部位として理解されており、いられる身体経験が限られており、笑いの感

英語では胸部がその役割を担う。胸部や腹部覚や胃の不快感が該当するに過ぎない。

に収められた精神は、(15)のようにその度合

23

いを変化させ、(16)あるいは(17)のような形

さらに heart に関しては、その大きさ ((24))

で表出に至る。このように、＜容器＞スキーや熱 ((25))、色 ((26a)) が主体の人格を特徴

マに基づくメタファーでは、＜収容＞→＜充付ける。(26b) の通り、日本語では、「腹」

満・膨張＞→＜探索＞／＜露呈＞という＜内が性分（悪）を象徴する点にも注目されたい。

容物＞が外へ出るスクリプトに基づいて、表(23) a. Have a heart.

現が構造化されている。
(18)、(19)は外から何かを受け入れるスク（cf. 心ある）【慈悲・親切心】

b. have the stomach for something【意欲】

リプトを含意する表現である。(19)の stomach
表現は、(18b)の「腹」表現と類似している(24)

a {big /great} heart

が、どちらかといえば、消化という役割を担(25)

warm-hearted / cold-hearted【慈悲・親切心】（cf. 心暖かい、心が冷たい）

う胃の機能に基づく表現と考えられる。

【慈悲・親切心】(18) a. 胸が狭い
b. 腹が｛大きい／太い｝(19)(26) a. black-hearted（cf. 心が濁る）【性分（悪）】【度量】

b. 腹汚い、腹黒い【度量】【性分（悪）】

cannot stomach something / have astrong stomach

概念レベルの特徴をまとめよう。胸部に関し【度量】ては、外的部位を指す語は＜容器＞スキーマ
5.2. ＜具象物＞としての胸部・腹部に基づくメタファーのみで該当表現が得ら＜具象物＞スキーマに基づくメタファー

れ、＜具象物＞スキーマに基づくメタファー

表現では、主に胸部や腹部の状態や性質が言では専ら heart 表現が観察された。一方、腹及される。この種の表現では、日本語の「腹」

部では日本語の「腹」表現が増加し、英語にと英語の heart 表現がその大半を占める。な

はみられない精神との対応が観察された。

お、以下で扱う heart 表現では、日本語の「心6. 議論（こころ）」表現に類似するものが多いため、2相当する「心」表現を参考として併記する 。

胸部の比喩表現を表 2 にまとめる（表中の(20)-(22)は、胸部や腹部の安定や硬さを表

番号は、対応する例文番号を指す）。感覚・す表現である。日本語において、腹の安定は運動レベルでは、熱感覚・閉塞を除く全項目

情動面の安定を、腹を固めることは決意を意

において日英語の類似表現が観察された。一味する。これに対し、英語における heart の方、概念レベルでは、＜容器＞スキーマに基

硬さは、決意ではなく、慈悲・親切心を表す。

づく表現で両言語の類似性が見られるが、＜具象物＞スキーマに基づく表現では、heart(20)

腹が立つ、腹癒せ（居せ）(21)

腹を｛括る／据える｝ 【覚悟・勇気】【怒り】

のみで該当表現が得られ、日本語は「心」を加味した場合に限り、類似表現が観察された。

(22) a. harden one’s heart / heart of {iron /感覚・運動レベルから概念レベルへの概念

marble / stone} / {soft / tender} heart化の移行を図 1 のようにモデル化する。まず、（cf. 心がかたい） 【慈悲・親切心】

メトニミー関係によって感情と結び付けら

b. 腹を固める

れていた身体経験は、誇張を経て何らかの事【決意】

象に喩えられる。こうした特定の対応関係は、(23)は、heart と stomach がどのような精神を反復・抽象化を経て胸部を精神の座とみなす

象徴するのかを最も端的に示す表現である。

スキーマ的理解を生む。精神の座としての胸24

表 2 日英語の胸部表現

感覚・運動
レベル

が精神の座であるという日英語の共通認識
日英を生む原動力として機能すると考えられる。

痛覚

(3a)

(3b)

続いて腹部表現を表 3 にまとめる。胸部と

鼓動

(4a)

(4b)

は異なり、腹部は感覚・運動レベルの表現が

(5a)

(5b)

不快感
閉塞感

限られている。また、概念レベルでは日本語の「腹」表現が圧倒的に多く、日英語で共通する項目が存在しない点に注目されたい。

熱感覚

(6)

攻撃

(8a)

(8b)

動揺

(9a)

(9b)

閉塞

(10)

圧迫

(11a)

(11b)

感覚・運動

破裂

(12a)

(12b)

レベル

燃焼

(13a)

(13b)

収容

(14a)

(14b)

感覚・運動

概念レベル

充満・膨張

(15a)

(15b)

レベル

＜容器＞

露呈

(7a)

(17b)

（誇張）

容積

(18b)

硬固

((22a))(22a)

所有((23a))

(23a)
(24)

感覚・運動
レベル
（誇張）

概念レベル
＜具象物＞

大きさ

表 3 日英語の腹部表現
痛覚

収容

(14c)

充満・膨張

(15c)

概念レベル

探索

(16)

＜容器＞

露呈

(17c)
(18b)

汚濁

((26a))

(26a)

消化

(19)

安定

(20, 21)

概念レベル

硬固

(22b)

＜具象物＞

所有
汚濁

誇張

(5c)

(7)

容積

→

(3d)

捩れ

(25a)

時間的・空間的隣接性

(3c)

閉塞感

((25a))＜感情＞—＜感覚・運動＞ → ＜感情＞—＜事象＞

英

不快感

熱

図 1 感覚・運動レベルから概念レベルへ

日

(23b)
(26b)

感覚・運動レベル→＜容器＞のスキーマ問題となるのは、言語表現を見る限り、こう→＜精神は胸の中の物質＞

した日本語特有の「腹」の理解を動機づける＜具象物＞のスキーマ→＜精神は胸＞→

抽象化→スクリプトの統合、類推→

スキーマ・レベル→

身体経験が明らかではないという点である。
そこで本稿では、後藤 (2015) で論じた 2 つ

概念レベルの文化的説明を援用する。一つは、日本人が、身体感覚の中心（重心）を丹田周辺に置くこ部は、＜容器＞や＜具象物＞とみなされ、ことで、心と体の安定を図るという心身観（齋れら 2 つのスキーマ的理解は、それぞれ概念

藤 (2000)）、もう一つは、本心（本音）を明レベルでスクリプトとの統合、類推の認知操

かさないことを規範とする日本人にとって、作を受ける。その結果、5 節で見たような規体の最深部である「腹」は特別な扱いを受け則性のあるメタファー表現が生まれる。このるという見方である (Matsuki (1995))。これ

ように、喜怒哀楽するにつけて、動悸し、痛ら の 文 化 的 説 明 は 、 と り わ け (14)-(17) 、み、苦しいといった胸部の身体経験は、そこ

25

heart は人を楽天的・社交的・好色の気質に(20)-(22)、(26b)の「腹」表現と強く整合する。

導く臓器として位置付けられている。
また、Niemeier (2008) によれば、心臓を人

7. heart の理解を支える社会・文化経験
日英語の比較により、胸部表現の成立を促

間の情動面と関係づける見方は、近代以降更す身体経験の重要性が明らかになった。しかに加速した。この時代においては、理性を情し、このことは、胸部に関する社会・文化的動から明確に分断するデカルト的理性主義

経験基盤の存在を否定するものではない。本や、心臓と脳の働きに関する解剖学・生理学

節では、heart を例に、社会・文化経験の再の発展が影響力を持ち、この期を境に、mind

検討の必要性を歴史的観点から示唆する。

の意味が heart から head (brain) へ移行した。

Swan (2009) は、heart の基となった古英このように、中英語期までの mind と heart

語・中英語の語形が、感情のみならず現代英の結びつきは、精神の源を胸部に求める立場

語の mind に相当する意味（理解・記憶・思との整合性が伺え、現代の感情と heart の結考等）を有していたことを指摘している。問びつきは、精神の源を頭部に求める立場や理題となるのは、人類に普遍的とされる身体経性主義などの近代思想との整合性が伺える。

験のみを以ては、こうした heart の意味変化

今後は、通時的な言語観察により、これらのを十分に説明できないということである。

社会・文化的背景の影響を十分に裏付けていErickson (1997) によれば、英語の heart の

く必要がある。

理解は、少なくとも古代西洋哲学や聖書にまで影響を遡る必要がある。西洋において、精8. 結語

神の源を身体のどこに求めるかについては、

本稿の主張は、以下のようにまとめられる。

古来より胸部か頭部かで対立しており、胸部派の代表例としてはアリストテレスや聖書

i.

胸部の豊富な身体経験は、そこが精神のが挙げられる。(27)の通り、聖書では heart座であるという日英共通の理解を生む。

を精神の根源としながらも、感情ではなく、

ii.

腹部は身体経験が胸部ほど明確ではな

mind や意志を中心義としていたようである。

く、「腹」と精神の対応に関しては、社会・文化経験に基づく説明が求められる。

(27) In the Bible, the term ‘heart’ connotes theiii.

一方で、顕著な身体経験が認められる胸inner resources of the whole person,

部と精神の結びつきに関しても、社会・

especially

文化的視点を交えた説明が必要である。

the

mind

and

will,

with

somewhat less emphasis on the emotions,and seldom refers simply to the physical* 本稿は、筆者の日本英語学会第 35 回大会

organ.

における口頭発表の内容に基づいている。発(Erickson (1997: 26))

表に先立ち、ご助言を下さった早瀬尚子先生、
一方、頭部こそが精神の源であるとした人物

大阪認知言語学研究会の皆様に感謝申し上としては、ヒポクラテスやプラトン、ガレヌ

げる。また発表の際に司会の労を執って下さスが代表例として挙げられる。このうち、ガった堀田優子先生、ご指摘・ご助言を下さっレヌスは頭部を知性・運動・感覚の座とするた先生方にも感謝申し上げる。

一方で、心臓を体液の均衡と気質に関わる臓注器とみなしていた。ガレヌスの理論は、中世

1の体液説に継承されているが、この中でもは後藤 (2015) を、heart 表現のより詳細な記

26「腹」表現、「胸」表現のより詳細な記述

述は Niemeier (2008) や後藤 (2017) を参照。

Construal of the World, ed. by John R.

2Taylor and R. MacLaury, 137-151, Mouton

宮地 (1972) によれば、「こころ」は中国

de Gruyter, Berlin and New York.

語の「心（臓）」が取り入れられるまでは、

松村明 (編) (2006)『大辞林（第三版）』三省

臓器としての心臓を指して用いられていた。

堂, 東京.
McCaleb, John G.・岩垣守彦 (編著) (2003)『英参考文献

Chapman,RobertInternational

L.,

ed.

(1992)

Thesaurus,

Roget’s

5th

和イディオム完全対訳辞典』朝日出版社,

ed.,

東京.
宮地敦子 (1972)「「こころ」から「心臓」へ

HarperCollins, New York.

－身体語彙の変化－」, 『国語学』第 104

Erickson, Robert A. (1997) The Language of theHeart

1600-1750,

University

巻, 33-44, 日本語学会.

ofNiemeier, Susanne (2008) “To Be in Control:Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Kind-Hearted

後藤秀貴 (2015)「「腹」と「胸」を参照した

and

Cool-Headed.

The

日本語の比喩表現とその特徴－比喩的

Head-Heart Dichotomy in English,” Culture,

認知を生み出す身体基盤・文化基盤の観Body, and Language: Conceptualizations of

点から－」, 『日本言語学会第 151 回大Internal Body Organs Across Cultures and会予稿集』, 40-45.

Languages, ed. by Farzad Shiarifian et al.,349-372, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and後藤秀貴 (2017)「再び「胸」の理解をめぐ

New York.

って－英語との比較から－」, ジェリ
ー・ヨコタ (編)『言語文化共同研究プロ

日本国語大辞典第二版編集委員会・小学館国

ジェクト 2016 交差するレトリック－精語辞典編集部 (編) (2001)『日本国語大辞

神と身体、メタファーと認知』, 39-51, 大典（第二版）』5 巻・12 巻, 小学館, 東京.
齋藤孝 (2000)『身体感覚を取り戻す－腰・阪大学大学院言語文化研究科, 大阪.
Hornby, Albert S. (2005) Oxford Advanced

ハラ文化の再生－』日本放送出版協会,

Learner’s Dictionary of Current English,

東京.
Swan, Toril (2009). “Metaphors of Body and7th ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Mind in the History of English,”English

金田一京助・大石初太郎・佐伯梅友・野村雅Studies 90 (4), 460-475.

昭 (編) (2001)『新選国語辞典（第八版ワ

田中聰子 (2003)「心としての身体－慣用表イド版）』小学館, 東京.
Kövecses, Zoltán (2005) Metaphor in Culture:

現から見た頭・腹・胸－」, 『名古屋大Universality and Variation, Cambridge

学言語文化論集』第 24 巻 2 号, 111-124,

University Press, New York.

名古屋大学, 名古屋.
東郷吉男 (編) (2003)『からだことば辞典』東楠見孝・米田英詞 (2007)「感情と言語」, 藤
田和生 (編)『感情科学の展望』, 55-84,

京堂出版, 東京.
梅棹忠夫・阪倉篤義・金田一春彦・日野原重京都大学学術出版会, 京都.

明 (監修) (1989)『講談社カラー版日本語

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson (1980/2003)
Metaphors We Live By, University of大辞典（初版）』講談社, 東京.
渡 邉 敏 郎 ・ Edmund R. Skrzypczak ・ Paul

Chicago Press, Chicago.

Snowden (編) (2003/2008)『新和英大辞典

Matsuki, Keiko (1995) “Metaphors of Anger inJapanese,” Language and the Cognitive（電子増補版）』．研究社, 東京.

27

前置詞の分析を援用し、その追試と妥当性の検証、補完を目指す。
2. 先行研究2.1. 文法化と汎時性

前置詞随伴に基づく前置詞らしさの規定：*

動詞派生前置詞における文法化は、動詞的（Measuring Prepositionalities throughな特徴の喪失と、それに伴う前置詞的な特徴

Pied-piping: A Synchronic Study on theの獲得により特徴づけられる。例えば、(1)Gradualness of Grammaticalization）の following に関し、Leech et al. (2009: 8) は、

文法化の漸進性に関する共時的研究

以下の書き換えができないことを挙げる。
林 智昭（Tomoaki Hayashi）(2) *When he followed the singing of the peach

近畿大学非常勤講師（Kindai University）

treaty and British recognition of American
independence,

キーワード：文法化, 動詞派生前置詞

Washington

world…

stunnedthe(ibid.)(2) は、(1) の following の意味上の主語が1. はじめに
古英語・中英語と比べ、近年の英語に関す

Washington とは解釈されない、ということをる研究は、文法的な変化よりも語彙・音韻の示している。このように、いわゆる主節・分変化に関するものが多い (Leech et al. 2009:

詞節の意味上の主語が一致しなくなる等、文7-8)。Leech et al. (2009) は、文法的な変化の法化に伴い、テンス、アスペクト、人称・数例 と し て 「 動 詞 派 生 前 置 詞 （ deverbalの一致といった動詞的な特徴が失われていprepositions; 訳語は秋元 2014）」を挙げる。

くことを「脱範疇化 (decategorialization)」と
呼 ぶ (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 106-108;
Hopper 1991)。文法化に伴い、前置詞的特徴(1) Following the singing of the peach treaty
andBritishrecognitionofindependence,

Washington

stunnedが見られるようになる。Olofsson (1990) は、

Americanthefollowing が前置詞的な特徴を獲得したのか

world when he surrendered his sword to調査するにあたって、前置詞 after に置換可Congress on Dec. 23 1783 and retired to his

能であれば前置詞と等価であると分析して

farm at Mount Version. (Leech et al. 2009: 7)いる。また、文法化の後期には、
「意味の漂
白化

(semantic bleaching) 」 が 見 ら れ る(1) の following は現在分詞に見えるが、前(Hopper and Traugott 2003: 94-98)。例えば、

置詞 after と同等であると分析される。このconsidering は、「前置詞の資格を獲得するにような前置詞への変化は文法化の例だが、語つれて（文法化が進むにつれて）
、
（中略）
『…

彙・音韻と比べて漸進的な性質を持つ変化でを考えれば→…としては』」（安藤 2005: 622）あることが分析を困難にしている (ibid.: 8)。

と意味が変化する (3)。

本研究は、このような言語変化の漸進性を、(3) Considering his age, he looks very young.

共時コーパスのデータにより統一的観点か（年齢のわりには、彼はとても若く見える）

ら数量的に規定することを目的とする。具体(ibid.)

的には、Fukaya (1997) による 11 例の-ing 形

28

文法化は、通時性・共時性の両側面が関わ究・辞書から収集した 37 種類の動詞派生前る「汎時的 (panchronic)」なプロセスである

置詞を対象に、「前置詞の中心的・典型的な

1(cf. Heine et al. 1991: 258-261)。 動詞派生前

成員としての文法的特徴を示すか否か

置 詞 の 先 行 研 究 も 、 Kortmann and König(ibid.: 130)」という観点から分析を行った。

(1992), 秋元 (2014: 179-190) 等は通時的分

前置詞を判別する判別テスト（分裂文、強意析である。一方、Hayashi (2015) は、Poutsmaの副詞 right との共起）を援用した作例を行(1926) が挙げている bating の例文を、共時

い、容認度調査により動詞派生前置詞の「前的観点から捉え直そうと試みている。

置詞性 (prepositionality)」を概算している。
結果、37 例の分析対象のうち past, during,following, starting を除く大半の事例が 10 点

2.2. 動詞派生前置詞
動詞派生前置詞は、動詞由来の前置詞であ満点中 6 未満の低い値を示すことから、り、during, pending, concerning, considering,

Kortmann 達の「前置詞として周辺的である」

bar, barring 等がある (Kortmann and Königという記述が支持されると結論づけている1992)。Kortmann and König (1992: 683) は、(Hayashi 2015: 141)。林 (2014) は文法化にお通時的な変化を起こす要因とともに、前置詞ける動詞的特徴の喪失（脱範疇化）に着目しとしてそれらが示す特徴について述べる: (i)た。文法化する前の動詞が共起していた副詞

頻度が低い、(ii) 音節数が多い、(iii) 前置詞との共起関係が、文法化に伴い喪失されるの

残留 (preposition stranding) のような中心的ではないか、という観点から分析を行った。

な前置詞の特徴を持っていず、統語規則からコーパスにおいて抽出した動詞と共起する

外れている、(iv) 意味範囲が限られている、

頻度の高い副詞を、動詞派生前置詞を含む例(v) 動詞的特徴を保存している（(i)-(v) の和文に挿入し、イギリス英語母語話者 1 名の内訳は全て秋元 2014: 181 からの直接引用）。

省により共起するか否か検討した。結果、分動詞派生前置詞の生起ジャンルについて

析対象 28 例のうち facing, following, lacking,

は、British National Corpus (BNC) を用いた林

preceding を除く事例は文法化に伴い副詞と(2015, 2016) の調査によると、considering,の共起関係が失われると結論づけた (ibid.)。

saving, barring, excluding が、イギリスの現代

一 方 、 COBUILD, Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen

英語では「書き言葉」に用いられる傾向をも

Corpus (LOB corpus), Brown Corpus を使用し、つ。通時的には、書面のやり取りにおける前

動詞派生前置詞の規定を試みたのが Fukaya

置詞の重要性が増した結果、初期近代英語期(1997) である。Fukaya (1997) は、Sinclairには新たな前置詞が形成・借用されたという(1991) が挙げる 11 の-ing 形の前置詞に関し、(Görlach 1991: 108-110)。動詞派生前置詞では、 Hopper (1991) の「文法化の 5 原則」を参照
14 世 紀 に considering, during, 15 世 紀 にし、3 つの観点から規定した: (i) 主節・分詞

according to がラテン語の絶対構文 (absolute

節の主語一致 (subject interpretation), (ii) 前

constructions) から発達した (ibid.: 109)。

置詞随伴・残留 (pied-piping and stranding)、(ii) 前置詞的副詞への発達 (development into
prepositional adverbs)。結果、(i)-(iii) のうち

2.3. 文法化の観点から規定する試み
前節 (i)-(v) の特徴を踏まえ、英語母語話

複数を満たす during, according to, concerning,

者の内省に基づき、動詞派生前置詞の規定を

following, notwithstanding の 5 例が、他の 6 例

共時的に試みた研究が、林 (2014)、Hayashi

よりも文法化しており、高い前置詞的特性(2015) である。Hayashi (2015) は、先行研(prepositional properties) を持つと結論づける。

29

2.4. 批判的検討のように随伴が見られる動詞派生前置詞を先行研究の問題点として、Fukaya (1997)調査した。これによって、Hayashi (2015) がは、分析対象が 11 例に限られるのに加え、先行研究・辞書から収集した動詞派生前置詞

20 年ほど前のコーパスを利用している。各37 例 (6) の「前置詞らしさ」を規定した。3

種コーパスの拡充がなされた 2017 年現在のツールを用いれば、異なる結果が得られる可(6) according to, allowing for, bar, barring,

能性が高い (cf. Traugott and Trousdale 2013:

bating, concerning, confronting, considering,

42-43)。また、Fukaya (1997) の挙げる (i)-(iii)

covering, depending on, during, except,

は、全て「事例が観察されるか否か」という

excepting,excluding,

二分法による判定であり、文法化の漸進性を

following,

given,

細かく規定していくのにそぐわないと考え

including, lacking, notwithstanding, owing

られる。(i) についても、Leech et al. (2009) がto, past, pending, pertaining to, preceding,いうように、分詞・前置詞の境界を定めるのregarding, related to, respecting, save,

が困難である点が問題となる。

saving,

また、林 (2014), Hayashi (2015) は限られ

starting,

facing,granted,succeeding,wanting

failing,
granting,

touching,(Hayashi 2015)

た人数の母語話者を対象とした調査のため、偏りを持つ恐れがある (Hayashi 2015: 143)。

具体的手順は以下の通り。第一に、Corpus ofContemporary American English (COCA) にお

3. 事例研究いて、[-ing which] 形の検索を行った。第二3.1. 前置詞随伴に基づく文法化の規定に、それらを手作業にて分類し、随伴を示す

本研究では、前置詞に特有な現象である前

用例数を数えた（3.3 節）。第三に、COCA の

2

各用例にタグづけられた情報から、随伴を示

典型的な前置詞は、先行詞を修飾するとき

す動詞派生前置詞の生起ジャンルについて

関係代名詞に前置することができる (4a)。一考察を行った（3.4 節）。以下の節において、方、分詞（動詞性を保ったもの）は、関係代分類基準、用例、結果の詳細を報告する。

置詞随伴に着目する。

名詞に随伴させることはできない (4b)。
3.3. 事例分析 1: 動詞派生前置詞の随伴(4) a. That is the office at which he works.

表 1 は、検索により得られた事例数（括弧（安藤 2005: 200; 斜体部は筆者）内）のうち、手作業により抽出した前置詞随

b. * That is the office playing which he

伴が見られる事例数を示している。表 1 に記

works.

載がない 15 の動詞派生前置詞は、検索で事例が見られなかったものである。頻度が高い

この観点か ら動詞派 生前置詞 を見ると、

during（3842 例）、according to（373 例）、

during は随伴の形を取ることができる (5)。

depending on（376 例）については、COCAのランダムサンプリング機能で 100 語を抽(5) There was a very awkward silence during
which we locked eyes.

出し、随伴を示す用例数の割合に基づき概算(COCA)

した数（※）を記した。
以下、随伴の形を取ることができる動詞派

3.2. 分析対象、データ、方法論

生前置詞、上位 6 例の例文（during を除く）
を (7) に示す（(7) (9) の出典は全て COCA）。

本研究では、Fukaya (1997) を援用し、(5)30分類にあたっては、Hayashi (2015) の引用文

分類においては、前置詞以外の品詞的振る舞

献における記述に加え、『ジーニアス英和大

いを示す例 (8a)、あるいは前置詞であっても辞典』『リーダーズ英和辞典』の定義を参考

関係代名詞節ではない例 (8b)、疑問代名詞

4との随伴が見られる例 (8c) を除外した。

にした。 following については「英米の語法
辞典は、単に after ですむところに followingを用いることに批判的で ‘follow’の原義が(8) a. David Duke, one of the two candidates,

生かされた ‘after + as a consequence of’の意

has quite a lurid past which he nowの場合にのみ用いることにその有用性を認

disowns.

(COCA)

めているよう である」と いう小西 (1976:

b. The decision regarding which to use

163) の記述を分類の基準とした。(7a) の出

should be based on the NICE guidance,

典は、この随伴現象に関する記述を示す。

10 although the patient...

(COCA)

c. To whom should I address the letter?
(7) a. This phenomenon is the superfluid（安藤 2005: 170）

analog of the AC Josephson effect forsuperconductors, according to which a分類の結果除外された例に (8) (9) がある。

supercurrent will oscillate across a thintunnel junction under an applied voltage.

(9) a. But then she remembered: the street（cf. 山口 2013: 601）

which housed the Breadfruit, the bar

b. Galaxies also contain millions of small-which claimed the duppy each night.

and medium-sized black holes, eachb. Sometimes it reads NO DATA GIVEN

with an event horizon past which light iswhich is the same as UNAVAILABLE

never seen again.

and a signal you don't want to pick up.

c. A t t h e e n d o f J u n e 1 8 2 9 t h ec. After all, commodities have been in a

Commandant of the Academy, Colonel

bear market that has lasted, depending onPercywhich thing you pick, from 14 to 23

Drummond

visited

Faraday, following which Faraday wrote

years.

to him giving his terms.

d. It would include considering which art

d. The matter concerning which we were

forms make the best friendships.

supposed to meet in Georgetown has
been canceled indefinitely.

(9a) の bar は名詞、(9b) の given は DATA を

e. Under the tablecloth the table must

後置修飾する形容詞的な用法である。(9c)possess that furniture memory regarding(9d) は、一見、随伴の形と考えられるが、(8b)which so many spiritists are certain.

と同様、関係代名詞の随伴の形ではないた

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

 
  

during3266 (3842) 11 depending on
according to310 (373) 12 bar
past
26 (112) 13 considering
following
15 (40) 14 given
concerning
13 (42) 15 related toregarding
7 (78) 16 granted
owing to7 (7) 17 pertaining tofailing
6 (8) 18 respecting
notwithstanding
2 (4)facing, pending,
19-22
save, touching
including
1 (29)310 (376)
0 (22)
0 (16)
0 (8)
0 (4)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (2)

0 (1)

4. おわりにめ、本分析から除外される。なお、(9d) のconsidering は、主節・分詞節の主語が一致し本研究では、Fukaya (1997) を援用し、前ない (cf. Hopper 1991) ため前置詞化してい置詞随伴により文法化の漸進性を規定してる可能性があるが、アメリカ英語を母語とすいくことを試みた。本研究の貢献として、る 50 代の話者によると、for 等の前置詞に置Fukaya (1997) において述べられていない動換することは不可能であるという。従って、

詞派生前置詞の随伴の例を指摘した点が挙(3) の considering とは異なり、前置詞化してげられる。3 節が示すように、前置詞随伴のいないと考えられる (cf. Olofsson 1990)。

関係代名詞の形をとることができる動詞派

表 1 より、(6) の動詞派生前置詞のうち、

生前置詞には偏りがある。この分布は、先行随伴を示すのは 10 例のみとわかる。このう

研究における分裂文、強意の副詞 right とのちさらに、during, according to を除く大半の共起 (Hayashi 2015)、副詞共起（林 2014）

動詞派生前置詞は、典型的な前置詞とは異なの結果とは異なるものであり、今後も前置詞

り前置詞随伴をしない傾向を示すといえる。

らしさを測る種々のパラメーターを立て、複合的な観点から現象を分析していく必要性

3.4. 事例分析 2: 生起ジャンルを示唆する。about, after 等、典型的な前置詞

表 2 は、表 1 の頻度 1 以上の例に関し、と振る舞いの違いを比較し、深化を図ること

COCA の各例文に付与された生起ジャンルが可能となるだろう (cf. Hayashi 2015: 137)。

を示す。表 2 の横軸の数を合計した値は、表最後に、今後の課題と展望を述べる。第一

1 の頻度に合致する。during, according to は、に、who(m)との共起等、本研究で扱わなかっ

表 1 と同様、概算による数（※）である。

5た形を検討する必要がある。
例えば、(10) の        
1 during
1144.3 614.8
537.9 845.3 153.7 3266
2 according to264.6 34.0
0
3.8
7.6 310
3 past1
1013
2
26
4 following
942
15
5 concerning
6
1
5
1
13
6 regarding
4
1
1
1
7
7 owing to
7
7
8 failing
411
6
9 notwithstanding
1
1
2
10 including11

ような間接疑問文の用法（cf. 安藤 2005: 174）がある。この用法の特徴は特定のジャンルに著しく偏っていることであり、regarding は
表 1 の 78 例中 63 例が、concerning は 42 例
中 21 例が、「学術論文」に生起している。
(10) a. Needless to say, decisions will need to bemade regarding which selected areas are

表 2 より、随伴を示す（i.e.前置詞性が高い、

most

前置詞らしい）動詞派生前置詞のうち during,audience.

appropriate

for

the

student

according to, past, following, concerning,b. Therefore, the teacher should not get

regarding, owing to, failing, notwithstanding は

involved in the students’ discussion

主に「書き言葉」、特に「学術論文」におい

concerning which answer is the bestて使用されている。past は「フィクション」

choice.

(COCA)「雑誌」が学術論文を上回るものの、いずれにせよ「書き言葉」にて使用される傾向が強

第二に、先行研究における分類の基準を吟味い。この結果は、イギリス英語において動詞

し、さらなる検討を行う必要がある。例えば、

派生前置詞は書き言葉で用いられる傾向が

failing に関し、本研究では田中 (2017: 381)

強いと論じた林 (2015, 2016) が、アメリカの結果（5 例）とは異なる結果（6 例）が得

英語においても支持されることを示す。

られたが、分類基準等の違いを精査する必要

32

がある。第三に、通時性との関係である。林の両者に共通する。従って、動詞・前置詞と(2017) は、OED (Oxford English Dictionary)いう文法化の始点・終点、いわば「文法化ののデータを分析し、respecting の随伴形 (11)両極」から、品詞的特質の連続的変化を規定

が後期近代英語期に観察されると述べる（本

していく本研究の目的には適用できない。
本研究の「前置詞らしさ (prepositionality)」

3

研究では観察されなかった点に注意）。

は、先行研究の prepositionality (Hayashi 2015),(11) This is an event respecting which it isprepositional

impossible to keep silence.

properties,

preposition-ness(Fukaya 1997) に相当。また、発表後、先行(1841; Lane Arab. Nts. I. 102)

研究・辞書に言及のある動詞派生前置詞を収集した林 (2014)、Hayashi (2015) の方法では、

現代英語では観察されなくとも、過去に随伴-ing 形の前置詞を網羅できない恐れがある、形が見られた可能性を検討する必要がある。

とご指摘頂いた。以下、紹介頂いた一つの手法を記す。清水 (2016) は、2006-2010 年に* 本稿は日本英語学会第 35 回大会（2017 年出版された学術誌から論文 100 本を選び、11 月 18 日、東北大学）における発表内容にCharniak Reranking Parser というソフトウェ

加筆・修正を施したものである。発表後、清アにより「他動詞＋名詞」パターンを自動抽

水眞先生、岩田彩志先生、松本曜先生、谷口

出してコロケーションリストを作成し、多分

一美先生、菊地翔太氏よりコメント頂いた野で上位 30 語となっている動詞を分析した。

（頂いた順番に記載）。発表構想を練る段階

結果、理工系の諸分野において using が前置においても有意義な助言を頂いた。注 2 の議詞となりつつあると指摘している。

論は、八木克正先生、柏野健次先生、井口智

4

カシオ計算機株式会社の電子辞書 EX-word

彰先生に頂いたコメントが基となっている。

（製品名 XD-K18000）収録のものを使用。

菅谷友亮氏には例文 (4b) を教えて頂き、分5

析方針に関して助言を頂いた。英文の検討にによる随伴形の分類に関し、ご教示頂いた。

発表後、Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1041)

際し、近畿大学英語村 (E-Cube) の皆様にコメント頂いた。記して御礼申し上げる。無論、参考文献等

本稿における誤り等は、全て筆者自身に帰せ

秋元実治 (2014)『増補 文法化とイディオム化』ひつじ書房, 東京.

られる。本研究は科研費（特別研究員奨励費、

安藤貞雄 (2005)『現代英文法講義』開拓社,

課題番号: 15J00373）の助成を受けている。

東京.

注
1

文法化における汎時性の議論は Heine et al.

Davies, Mark (2010-) Corpus of Contemporary(1991) を参照。本研究は Hayashi (2015: 142)

American English: 560 Million Words,の立場に立脚し、通時的に変化してきた言語

1990-2017.

事実を、共時的観点から捉え直していく。

2017/09/17-18>2<http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/;

Fukaya, Teruhiko (1997) “The Emergence of

前置詞は「代名詞、名詞（句・節）および

これに準ずる語を目的語として、それと共に-ing Prepositions

形容詞句、副詞句、時には名詞句を構成する

Corpus-Based Study,” Studies in English

語（小西 1976: 3）」といわれる。ここで、他

Linguistics: A Festschrift for Akira Ota on

動詞も「代名詞、名詞（句・節）を目的語とthe Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, ed.

する」点に注意。この機能は他動詞・前置詞

by Masatomo Ukaji, Toshio Nakao, Masaru

33

inEnglish:A

Press, Cambridge.

Kajita and Shuji Chiba, 285-300, Taishukan,

小西友七 (1976)『英語の前置詞』大修館書Tokyo.
Görlach Manfred (1991) Introduction to Early

店, 東京.
小西友七・南出康世 (編) (2001-2014)『ジーModern English, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.

ニアス英和大辞典』大修館書店, 東京.
Kortmann, Bernd and Ekkehard König (1992)

林智昭 (2014)「文法化した英語動詞派生前
置詞の副詞的共起関係—作例を中心に“Categorial

Reanalysis:

The Case

of—」KLS (Kansai Linguistic Society) 34,

Deverbal Prepositions,” Linguistics 30 (3),205-216.

671-697.

林智昭 (2015)「considering の前置詞・接続詞

Leech, Geoffrey, Mariannne Hundt, Christian

的用法の共時的研究—レジスターの観

Mair and Nicholas Smith (2009) Change in

点から—」, 『日本語用論学会第 17 回

Contemporary English: A Grammatical

大会発表論文集』第 10 号, 105-112.

Study,

Prepositions:Differences

University

Press,

Cambridge.

Hayashi, Tomoaki (2015) “Prepositionalities ofDeverbal

Cambridge

Olofsson, Arne (1990) “A Particle Caught in thein

Degree of Grammaticalization,” Papers in

Act.

On

the

Prepositional

Use

of

Linguistic Science 21, 129-151.

‘Following,’” Studia Neophilologia 62,
23-35.

林智昭 (2016)「『除外』の意味を表す周縁的
前置詞の用法の棲み分けに関して」,

Poutsma, Hendrik (1926) A Grammar of Late

『日本語用論学会第 18 回大会発表論文

Modern English. Part Ⅱ : The Parts of集』第 11 号, 73-80.

Speech. Section 2: The Verb and the

林智昭 (2017)「respecting の文法化と（間）Particles, Noordhoff, Groningen.

主観化：歴史語用論のアプローチ」, 『日清水眞 (2016)「英語科学論文における能動本語用論学会第 19 回大会発表論文集』

態および受動態」, 『東京理科大学紀要

第 12 号, 155-162.

（教養編）』第 48 号, 195-211.

Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi and Friederike

Sinclair, John (1991) Collins COBUILD English

Hünnemeyer (1991) Grammaticalization: A

Guides 1: Prepositions, HarperCollins,

Conceptual

London.

Framework,

UniversityofChicago Press, Chicago.

高橋作太郎 (編) (2012, 2013)『リーダーズ英Hopper, Paul J. (1991) “On Some Principles ofGrammaticization,”

Approaches

和辞典』（第 3 版）研究社, 東京.

to田中史哉 (2017)「動詞派生前置詞 failing とGrammaticalization 1, ed. by Elizabeth

慣用句 failing that の文法的構文化の研Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine, 17-35,

究」, 『日本認知言語学会大会発表論文

John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

集』第 17 巻, 378-389.

Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Graeme Trousdale(2003) Grammaticalization (2nd edition),(2013)

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Constructional Changes, Oxford University

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum

Constructionalization

andPress, Oxford.

(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the

山口俊治 (2013)『英語構文全解説』研究社,

English Language, Cambridge University

東京.

34

構文が(i) Panther and Thornburg (2003)の主張に反して、解釈上の主節を回復できること(ii) Evans (2007)の主張する非従属節形成の 4段階のうち、3 番目と 4 番目の間に位置する
insubordination に関する一考察

ことを明らかにする。

―If + not [P] 構文と慣習性をめぐって―
2. 先行研究（On Insubordination:
With Special Reference to the If + Not [P]2.1. If + not [P] 構文の記述的定義

Construction and its Conventionality）

はじめに、If + not [P] 構文がどのようなinsubordination なのかを確認する。平尾 (印平尾 恵美（Emi Hirao）

刷中)は、当該構文の定義特性に少なくとも次の 3 点があることを主張する。

奈良女子大学大学院（Nara Women’s University）

1 点目は、If + not [P]、すなわち、if 節による insubordination のうち、その肯定命題[P]キーワード：insubordination, if 節, If + not [P]が not による否定を受けるという、構文の形

構文, 解釈上の主節の回復, 慣習化の段階性

式的特徴である。
2 点目は、命題[P]が「決定していると話し手が認識する事態を述べる」という、命題の

1. はじめに

意味的特徴である。(1c)の [P: It is Cinderella

Evans (2007)は、「形式的には一見明白な基Man.] は、眼前の事実的な状況を述べている。

準で従属節のように見えるものの慣習化さ

また、(2a)の [P: I take a strap to that Prissy.]

れた主節用法」(Evans 2007:367; 堀江・パル

は、話し手の近い将来における行動あるいは

1

デシ 2009:126)を insubordination と呼ぶ 。(1)

強い意志を、(2b)の [P: She is a beauty.] は、は if 節の insubordination の例である。

新車に対する話し手の評価を述べる。

(1) a. If you would like a cookie.

(2) a. [産気づいた Melly の介抱をしている(Panther and Thornburg 2003:127)

Scarlett は、召使いの Prissy に医者をb. [王子の吃音を治療する医者の発話]呼びに行くように頼んだが、なかなか

Sir Blandine-Bentham: Now, if Your

帰ってこない]Royal Highness will be so kind as to open

Scarlett: Oh, don't worry, Melly. Motheryour hand, hm…

(The King’s Speech)says it always seems like the doctor willc. [Cinderella Man と呼ばれる男が自分のnever come. (to herself) Oh, if I don’ttake a strap to that Prissy!

近くにやってくるのに気付いて]Max: Well, if it ain’t Cinderella Man.

(Gone with the Wind, 下線筆者)(Cinderella Man)b. [友人の新車を見て]
Ted: Well, if she ain’t a beauty.

本稿では、(1c)タイプの insubordination を(平尾 印刷中)「If + not [P] 構文」と呼ぶ。本稿は、明示的な主節が存在しないという insubordination のこうした[P]の内容は、「決定していると話し

insubordination たる特徴に注目し、If + not [P]

手が認識する事態」とまとめられる。

35

3 点目は、感情表出の機能を持つという、下、手を開いていただけますか」と依頼する

構文の語用論的特徴である。Well, if it ain’t

Now, if Your Royal Highness will be so kind as

Cinderella Man. (= (1c))は、「おやおや、シンto open your hand, hm… (= (1b))はこの段階のデレラマンじゃないか」と驚きを示す。また、

例ということになる。先の段階と比べると、

Oh, if I don’t take a strap to that Prissy! (= (2a))

回復される主節の傾向には幾分制限がある

は「プリシーのやつ、むちでぶってやる！」

が、この段階でも主節の回復は可能である。

と怒りを表出し、Well, if she ain’t a beauty. (=④では、慣習性がより高くなる。この段階(2b))は「素晴らしい車じゃないか」と興奮やでは、少なくとも明示的な要素を全て保った

驚きを表す。表出される感情は文脈に応じてままでは主節の回復はできない。よって、こ決定され、その種類は多岐に渡る。

の段階に達している表現は、それ自体で特定以上の特徴を持つ insubordination が、本稿の意味を持つ構文として再分析される。(4a)で 挙 げ る ド イ ツ 語 の wo (‘where’) 節

で扱う If + not [P] 構文である。

insubordination がその例である。
2.2. 非従属節形成の段階と If + not [P] 構文
次に、insubordination と主節の関係に関す(4) a. Wo Zehntausende verrecken müssen

る先行研究を概観する。Evans (2007)は、非‘Where tens of thousands must die’

従属節の形成には①従属関係②主節省略③b. Obwohl Zehntausende verrecken müssen,

慣習化された主節省略④構文化の 4 段階がmachen sie sich keine Gedanken darüber

連続体をなして存在すると主張する。

‘Even though tens of thousands must die,they don’t think twice about it.’

①は、If you would like a cookie, then I will
give you one. (Panther and Thornburg 2003:136)(Evans 2007:374, 下線筆者)のように、主節と従属節が明示的に表れて、(4a)は(4b)のような意味を表すが、下線部が「完全な」文の形をしている段階である。

②の段階では、主節が単純な省略を受ける。 示すように、(4b)は(4a)の明示的要素を全て
主節は、聞き手の推論により難なく回復され保持して主節を回復させたものでない。(4a)る。(3)はその具体例だと言えよう。

は、wo が場所ではなく譲歩の解釈になる用法として再分析される。
以上が Evans (2007)の主張する非従属節形(3) [宿主が Liz に設備の説明をする]
Landlady: You heat the water on the stove.

成の 4 段階である。本稿の冒頭で示した通り、

Liz: So if I want to bathe…?

Evans は従属節の「慣習化された」主節用法

Landlady: You put the water in the tub.

を insubordination と呼ぶ。よって、慣習化の(Eat, Pray, Love, 下線筆者)

関わる③の段階以降に位置するものがinsubordination とみなされる。
では、If + not [P] 構文と主節との関係はど(3)の下線部は、So If I want to bathe, what2

should I do?などといった形に回復できる 。

のように捉えられてきたのだろうか。Panther③は、主節の省略が慣習化されている段階

and Thornburg (2003)は次のように指摘した。

である。Evans は if 節による申し出や依頼を慣習化されたものだと指摘していることか(5) …this type of if-clause [=the if + not [P]ら、「クッキーはいかがですか」と申し出る

construction] has the highest degree ofIf you would like a cookie. (= (1a))や、「では殿

syntactic and pragmatic independence. That36is, they don’t have plausible implicit

は、元の insubordination が、 [P]で述べられconsequent propositions…

る「決定していると話し手が認識する事態」(Panther and Thornburg 2003:140)を前提に発話されていたことに依拠する。例
えば、(1c)は、目の前にシンデレラマンがい「当該タイプの if 節は統語的にも語用論的る状況で発話されているのであり、主節を補にも高度に自立し、暗黙の結果命題を持たなった後の文の意味がこの事実関係を崩すこい」という(5)の指摘は、「当該構文は高度にとは避けられるべきである。

慣習化されており、省略されている主節を回結論から述べると、If + not [P] 構文は、こ復できない」と言い換えられる。よってこのれらの条件を満たしながら、解釈上の主節を

主張は、If + not [P] 構文が、Evans (2007)の立てることが可能である。その際には、次の示す非従属節形成の 4 段階のうち、最も慣習

2 つの先行研究で挙げられている構文・文タ化の進んだ 4 番目の「構文化」の段階に達し

イプを援用できる。順に確認していこう。

ていることを示唆する。果たして、これは正3.2. Lakoff (1987)の援用

しい分析なのだろうか。

１つ目は、Lakoff (1987)を援用するもので
3. If + not [P] 構文の解釈上の主節ある。彼は「否定が肯定命題を伝える」構文

本節では、If + not [P] 構文に解釈上の主節として次の例を挙げる。

を立てられるか否かを扱う。
(6) If JIM won’t eat these ducks’ feet, I don’tknow who will! 3

3.1. 解釈上の主節を立てる条件(Lakoff 1987:528)

解釈上の主節を立てるということは、例えば、Well, if it ain’t Cinderella Man. (= (1c))が、(6)は「ジムがこれらのアヒルの足を食べな

字義通りの「おやおや、シンデレラマンでないとしたら、一体誰が食べるっていうんだ」

いのなら」ではなく、「おやおや、シンデレといったものであり、「おそらくジムがこれ

ラマンじゃないか」と、シンデレラマンに会らのアヒルの足を食べるだろう」ということった驚きを表出する表現として解釈されるを示唆する。この場合の否定は、否定命題でことを、insubordination に主節を補った「完はなく肯定命題を伝えるものである。
この表現方法に従って If + not [P] 構文に全な」文から示すということである。
If + not [P] 構文に解釈上の主節を立てる

主節の回復を試みた結果が(7)である。

条件として、次の 2 点が挙げられる。
(7) a. Well, if it ain’t Cinderella Man, I don’t

1 番目の条件は、解釈上の主節を補った後の文が、話し手の感情を表出することである。

know who is.

(cf. (1c))

b. Oh, if I don’t take a strap to that Prissy, I

主節を補った後の文も、元の If + not [P] 構

don’t know who will!

文が持つ語用論的機能を何らかの形で保持(cf. (2a))

している必要がある。例えば、(1c)のシンデ
レラマンの例に解釈上の主節を回復させる(7)はそれぞれ「君がシンデレラマンだ」「私のであれば、出来上がった文は驚きの感情をがプリシーをぶつ」といった、元の構文の肯示すものであるべきである。

定命題[P]の内容をほのめかす。この機能は2 番目の条件は、解釈上の主節を補った文(6)が持つものと同様である。加えて、if 節に全体で[P]の内容を示せることである。これも主節にも否定辞 not が現れるという外見も37

(6)と同じである。実際に、これらの文は(6)ているのに気付いて]と同じ構文を持った自然な文であると判断

If you can lift that box, I’m a monkey’s

される。その上、If + not [P] 構文の言い換え

uncle(Akatsuka 1986:349)の 1 つとして解釈することも可能であるこ

b. If Dave’s younger than me, I’ll eat my hat.

とが、英語母語話者への調査で明らかになっ(Quirk et al. 1985:1095)た。
ここで If + not [P] 構文に立ち返ると、こ3.3. Akatsuka (1986)の援用の構文を構成する if 節では、話し手が決定し2 つ目は、Akatsuka (1986)を援用するものていると認識する事態を述べる命題[P]が否である。彼女は、従属節も主節も偽の（ある定されている。そのため、if 節全体は字義通

4

いは、話し手が偽と信じる ）内容を示し、りには偽の内容を持つ。よって、indicative

文全体では真となる直説法の条件文タイプ

counterfactuals で用いられるような主節を当を indicative counterfactuals と呼ぶ。indicative

該構文の後ろに補えば、出来上がった文はcounterfactuals は、誰かに対して強い意見のindicative counterfactuals になるはずである。

不一致を示してメッセージを伝達するもの(10)はその結果である。

であるため、その生起には先行文脈を必要と(10) a. Well, if it ain’t Cinderella Man, I’m theする。(8)は実際に 1979 年の The Chicago Sun

Empress of China.

Times で報じられたものである。

(cf. (1c), (8))

b. Oh, if I don’t take a strap to that Prissy,
I’ll eat my hat.

(8) [ローマ法王がスイスの小さな村の電話(cf. (2a), (9b))

交換手に向けて I’m the Pope.と話したことを受けて](10)はそれぞれ「間違いなく君がシンデレラ

Operator: If you’re the Pope, I’m the

マンだ」「私がプリシーをむちでぶたないは

Empress of China!

ずがない」といった、元の If + not [P] 構文(Akatsuka 1986:334)

における肯定命題[P]の内容の確からしさを
直訳では「あなたが法王なら、私は中国の女示す。

帝だ」となるこの発話は、電話交換手が電話

Akatsuka (1986)の例では if 節に否定辞が現

相手は法王でない（=従属節の命題が偽）とれないが、(10)は indicative counterfactuals と信じていること、電話交換手自身は女帝でな

して自然な文だと判断される。その上、If +いこと（＝主節の命題が偽）が文脈から明らnot [P] 構文の言い換えの一つとしても解釈かであるため、「あなたが法王であるはずができることが、英語母語話者への調査で明らない・そんなばかな！」と、強い感情のこもかになった。
このように、Panther and Thornburg (2003)

ったメッセージを伝達する。
先行文脈は発話として現れなくても良い。

の主張に反して、少なくとも Lakoff (1987)

また、indicative counterfactuals で用いられると Akatsuka (1986)を援用する形で、If + not

主節は、明らかに偽の内容を示すと分かる奇[P] 構文の解釈上の主節を回復させること抜な内容を持つことが多く、慣用的な表現にができる。どちらの構文・文タイプを用いたなっているものもある。(9)に例を追加する。

としても、主節を回復させた文は反語的な解釈を導く。この解釈によって、if 節の命題[P](9) a. [友人が巨大な箱を持ち上げようとしが真であることが示され、3.1 節の 2 番目の38

条件を満たすことになる。そして、この反語

し出という語用論的な力は、慣習的なものでというレトリカルな仕組みこそが、主節回復ある。2.2 節で言及した通り、(1a)は 3 番目の後の文そして元の If + not [P] 構文の感情表段階にあると考えられることから、このテス

出機能を動機付けるのであり、3.1 節の 1 番

トの結果が当該段階に達しているか否かを目の条件を満たすことになる。

調べる 1 つの手段になると言えよう。
If + not [P] 構文に対して行ったテストの4. insubordination としての If + not [P] 構文

結果が(12)である。

の位置づけ(12) a. #Well, if it ain’t Cinderella Man…but

3 節では、If + not [P] 構文に解釈上の主節を回復させられることを見てきた。本節では、

I’m not surprised to see you here.

3 節の結果も踏まえながら、当該構文が(cf. (1c))

Evans (2007)の主張する非従属節形成の 4 段

b. #Oh, if I don’t take a strap to that

階のどこに位置付けられるかを考察する。

Prissy…but I’m not angry at Prissy.
(cf. (2a))

まず、3 節で明らかにしたように、If + not[P] 構文は、その明示的な要素を全て保った
まま、解釈上の主節を回復させることができ(12)が示すように、当該構文の表出する感情る。よって、当該構文は最も慣習化の進んだは取り消すことができない。このことから、

4 番目の「構文化」の段階には達していない。

当該構文は「慣習化された主節省略」の段階

次に、当該構文は 3 番目の「慣習化されたには達していると判断できる。

主節省略」の段階には達していることを示す。

当該構文がこの段階に達していることは、

これは、当該構文の語用論的機能、つまり、

イントネーションの観点からも説明できる。

感情表出機能が慣習的なものであるという「孤独な」if 節を相互行為的な観点から分析ことによって証明される。

する吉田 (2015)は、そうした if 節の音調がif 節の単独用法における語用論的機能の下降調であるという談話的特徴に言及して慣習性については、Panther and Thornburg

いる 5。この特徴は、聞き手が主節を期待し(2003)が議論している。彼らは、単独で用いていないということを説明する。

られる if 節が持つ語用論的な力がキャンセ

聞き手にその発話の主節を期待させずとルできない時、その力は慣習的なものであるもコミュニケーションが円滑に行われるのと主張する。慣習性の度合いを測る手立てとであれば、それは主節の省略が慣習化されてして、次のようなテストを行っている。

おり、その if 節 insubordination の持つ語用論的機能が慣習的に決定している、つまり、そ(11) #If you would like a cookie…but I’m notの if 節 insubordination が「慣習化された主節

offering you one.

省略」の段階に達していると捉えられよう。

(cf. (1a), Panther and Thornburg 2003:137)

If + not [P] 構文も下降調で言い終えられることが、筆者の収集したデータから明らか(11) は 、 ク ッ キ ー を 申 し 出 る (1a) のになった。よってこの点からも、当該構文がinsubordination に、その申し出を取り消す表

3 番目の段階には到達していると言える。

現を続けたものである。このテストの結果か

ここまでの議論で、If + not [P] 構文は、
「慣ら、申し出はキャンセルすることができない習化された主節省略」以上「構文化」未満のと分かる。つまり、if 節 insubordination の申位置にいることが分かった。最後に、当該構39

文がまさに 3 番目の段階にいるのか、それとnot [P] 構文にのみ確認される。この特徴は、も 3 番目と 4 番目の間にいるのかを考える。

解釈上の主節候補の可能性を狭めることに

まず、If + not [P] 構文の解釈上の主節やそ繋がり、当該構文が、少なくともまさに 3 番

れによって導かれる反語的（修辞的）な意味

目の段階にある(1a)や(1b)と比べて、より特は、聞き手にも話し手にも意識に上りにくい

殊な構文であるとみなされることを促す。

ことが指摘できる。確かに当該構文は解釈上

以上より、If + not [P] 構文は、Evans (2007)の主節を補えるが、日常的には、当該構文がの提示する非従属節形成の 4 段階において、主節を省略しているとは考えず、それ自体で3 番目の「慣習化された主節省略」と 4 番目

特殊な言い回しだと認識する傾向にある。

の「構文化」の間に位置するものだと言える。

さらに、形が違えば意味も違うものである

この結論は、4 段階が連続体をなすという(Bolinger 1977 を参照)。 insubordination とEvans の主張そのものをも支持する。

insubordination に解釈上の主節を補った文では、多かれ少なかれ伝える意味に違いが出る。 5. 結語
If + not [P] 構文の場合は、この違いが明確に

本稿は、感情を表出する insubordination の現れる方だと言えよう。事実、感情が最も前

If + not [P] 構文に着目し、主節を補った後の面に出るのは、主節を補った文ではなく、当文が反語的な解釈を導く形で、当該構文に解

該構文である。換言すれば、当該構文は似た

釈上の主節を回復させられること、さらに、内容を伝える複数の表現の中でも、感情の表

当該構文は Evans (2007)の主張する非従属節出に特化したものである。

形成の 4 段階のうち、3 番目の「慣習化され最後に、If + not [P] 構文の命題[P]は、直た主節省略」と 4 番目の「構文化」の間に位説法を取る他の if 節 insubordination が扱う命

置することの 2 点を示した。

6

題に比べて、特徴的である 。Well, if you
would like a cookie. (= (1a))は、聞き手がクッ

注

キーを欲しがるか分からない状況で発話さ1れる。つまり、聞き手は話し手からの申し出

conventionalized main clause use of what, on

を受けることも断ることも可能である。Now,

prima facie grounds, appear to be formally“I will apply the term ‘insubordination’ to theif Your Royal Highness will be so kind as tosubordinate clauses.” (Evans 2007:367)

open your hand, hm… (= (1b))も、聞き手が手

2を開いてくれるか分からない状況で発話さ1991 を参照)の例と捉えることもできる。

れ、聞き手は話し手からの依頼を承けること

Landlady は Liz の if 節に続く主節を発話しても断ることもできる。では、If + not [P] 構文

おり、2 人で So if I[= Liz] want to bathe, you[= Liz]はどうだろうか。Well, if it ain’t Cinderella

put the water in the tub.という 1 つの統語的ユMan. (= (1c))は、目の前にシンデレラマンがニット (文) を産出している。

いる状況で発話される。[P]は話し手が決定

3

していると認識する事態を述べるため、notで表記）が、強勢がなくとも、肯定的な命題[P]（この場合、目の前の人物がシンデレラを伝える効果は維持される。

・(3) を 統 語 的 ユ ニ ッ ト の 共 同 生 産 (Lerner(6)では Jim に強勢が置かれている（大文字・マンでないという事態）が偽であることは変更できない。このように、if 節で示される事

4

態が実現されないという性質は、本稿で扱っ

かし、(8)が、実際には You are the pope.といてきた 3 つの if 節 insubordination の中で、If +う命題が真であるにも関わらず、電話交換手

Akatsuka (1986)は、「話し手が偽と信じる」

場合については明示的に言及していない。し40

はそれを偽の内容を示すとして発話していElizabeth Closs Traugott et al., 333-351,

る。よって、文脈や世界知識から明確に偽のCambridge University Press, Cambridge.

内容を示すと分かる場合だけでなく、話し手

Bolinger, Dwight (1977) Meaning and Form,
Longman, London.

が偽と信じる内容を示す場合も含まれる。
5

Evans, Nicholas (2007) “Insubordination and its

この談話的特徴に具体的に言及されているのは、課題遂行対話においてやんわりとしたUses,”

Finiteness:

Theoretical

命令や指示をする if 節の単独用法である。こEmpirical

うした機能は、(1b)の依頼と非常に似ている。

Nikolaeva, 366-431, Oxford University

ま た 、 吉 田 自 身 、 依 頼 や 申 し 出 の if 節

Press, Oxford.

Foundations,

ed.

by

and
Irina

insubordination に相当する他言語の例にも言平尾恵美 (印刷中) 「If + not [P] タイプの及している。よって、イントネーションによinsubordination をめぐって―その語用論る説明は、通言語的・通語用論的機能的に展的機能と命題 [P] の性質を分析する―」

開することが可能だと、筆者は考える。

KLS (Kansai Linguistic Society) 38.

6

比較対象を直説法を取るものに限定するの

堀江薫・プラシャント パルデシ (2009)『言は、If + not [P] 構文が直接法を取ると考えら

語のタイポロジー ―認知類型論のアプれるからである。このことは、解釈上の主節

ローチ―』研究社, 東京.
Lakoff, George (1987) Women, Fire, andを補った後の文が indicative counterfactuals にDangerous

なりうることからも明らかである。

Things:What

Categories

Reveal about the Mind, University of

後悔の気持ちを表出する If I hadn’t been

Chicago Press, Chicago.

such a fool! (『ランダムハウス英和大辞典 第Lerner, Gene H. (1991) “On the Syntax of2 版』) は、一見すると当該構文のinsubordination の例のようだが、仮定法を取Sentences-in-Progress,”

るため、Panther and Thornburg (2003)が「願Society 20, 441-458.

Languagein

望を述べる if 節」と説明するものの一種であPanther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. Thornburg

ると考える方が適切だと思われる。If + not(2003) “Metonymies as Natural Inference[P] 構文との相違点の詳細な分析は、今後のand Activation Schemas: The Case of

課題としたい。

Dependent Clauses as Independent SpeechActs,”

Metonymy

andPragmatic

Inferencing, ed. by Klaus-Uwe Panther and

例文出典

Linda

Fleming, Victor (1939) Gone with the Wind,
Warner Bros.

L.

Thornburg,

127-147,

John

Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Hooper, Tom (2010) The King’s Speech, GAGA.

Quirk, Randolph et al. (1985) A Comprehensive

Howard, Ron (2005) Cinderella Man, Buena

GrammarVista.

oftheEnglishLanguage,

Longman, London.

Murphy, Ryan (2010) Eat Pray Love, Columbia

ランダムハウス第二版編集委員会 (編)『ラPictures.

ンダムハウス英和大辞典 第 2 版』小学館.
吉田悦子 (2015)「文法と談話のインターフ

参考文献
Akatsuka, Noriko (1986) “Conditionals Areェイス：「孤独な」if 節をめぐって」JELS

Discourse-Bound,” On Conditionals, ed. by

32, 179-185.

41

提案する。一方、日本語の「と」のような引用マーカーが語彙的に存在しない英語の場
合、ある特定の限られた動詞群の場合のみ、
その動詞の CS に関数 SAYING が付加される
引用マーカー「と」の概念構造*

ことにより、DQ を選択することが可能とな（Conceptual Structure of the Quote Marker

るとの主張を行う。第 4 節では、残された問To）題点を述べる。第 5 節は結語である。

廣江 顕（Akira Hiroe）

2. 山口(2009)の分析

長崎大学（Nagasaki University）

2.1. 事実
英 語 の 場 合 、 DQC に お け る 伝 達 節

キーワード：direct quote construction, quote(reporting clause)に生じる動詞は、引用・報告

marker, conceptual structure, adjunctという意味を有する動詞に代表される、本来、
何らかの伝達を表す行為と解釈される動詞に限定されると主張されてきた(e.g., 内田

1. はじめに(1979), Kurihara (1985), and among others)。

本論では、以下(1)に例示されている、英語(3) a.

と 日 本 語 の 「 直 接 引 用 構 文 (direct quote“Damn, the newspaper is late again!”John said.

construction: DQC)」の文法特性を考察する。

b. Mary told surprisingly, “A colleague of(1)

a. John said, “Perhaps you might like tomine has been fired.”ask Mary.”b. Mary reported to her boss, “That’s my

一方、日本語の場合、英語の DQC に生じる

responsibility to handle.”

伝達動詞とは異なり、何らかの伝達行為とは(2) a. 太郎は花子に「俺がやるよ」と言っ

解釈できないと考えられる動詞が、かなり生た。

産的に生じることが山口(2009)では指摘さ

b. 花子は職場で「早退させてもらえまれている。以下の例を検討してみよう。

せんか」と上司に頼んだ。
(4) a. 「ただいま」と息子は階段を上がっ
まず、第 2 節で、日本語の DQC を扱った山てきた。
b. 「はいどうぞ」と彼女はテーブルに口(2009)の提案する分析を概観し、その問題点を指摘する。次に、山口(2009)が提案するついた。

分析では、英語では容認されない DQC を説(5) a. 「一人にしてくれ」と叔父は私を下明することができないことを議論する。第 3

がらせた。

節では、英語と日本語の DQC の相違点であb. 「やめてよ」と貴美子は逃げ出した。

る引用マーカー(quote marker)「と」の有無に注目し、日本語の「と」の概念構造(conceptual(4a)の「階段を上がる」、(4b)の「テーブルに

structure: CS)には関数 SAYING があり、そのつく」、また(5a)の「下がらせる」、(5b)の「逃SAYING の 項 (argument) と し て 直 接 引 用 文

げ出す」は、何らかの伝達行為を表している(direct quote: DQ)を選択しているとの分析をとは言い難い。にもかかわらず、いずれの例

42

(6)(7)で観察された、英語の DQC で容認されも問題なく容認されている。

ない(6)と(7)のような事実を「時間的隣接性」
2.2. 山口(2009)の分析という意味概念では説明することができな

本節では、山口(2009)が提案する日本語のい。

DQC に関する分析を概観し、その問題点を
3.

指摘する。
山口(2009)は、前節で観察した(4)(5)の例が、廣江(2012, 2014)
DQC の DQ は、伝達動詞（あるいは伝達

以下(6)(7)で観察されるように、英語では容動詞を含む伝達節の述部）に選択されている

認されないことを指摘し、補部であると、これまでそう認識されてきたが(e.g., Branigan (2011), Branigan and Collins(6) a. *“I’m home!” my son came up the stairs.

(1993), Collins (1997), Collins and Branigan

b. *“Here we are,” she sat down at the table.

(1997))、廣江(2012, 2014)では、以下に提示さ(7) a. *“Just leave me alone!” his uncle made

れるような事実をもとに、DQ は付加部を構

me stand back.

成しているとの主張を行った。

b. *“Stop it!” Kimiko walked away.

まず、以下の例を検討してみよう。

(4)(5)の例が容認されているのは、引用マー(9) a. The man laughed “You really believe
that's true? ”

カー（または接続助詞）と呼ばれる「と」があるためだとの示唆を行っている。しかしなb.

がら、山口はその点にはそれ以上言及せず、(10) a.

He nodded, “Yeah, yeah.”“Me too!” squeaked the tiny girl.

「時間的隣接性」という意味的概念によってb. “And then, in 1967, we saw the start of

日本語の DQC の説明を試みている(cf.「同一the plumbing problem--” droned my

場面共存行為」藤田(2000:77))。以下の例を検

uncle.

討してみよう。
(9a)の laugh、(9b)の nod、また(10a)の squeak、(8) *「おはよう」とやがて入ってきた。

(10b)の drone、は明らかに自動詞であり、DQ(藤田(2000: 224))

をその補部として選択することはできない。
こうした特徴は、英語だけに観察されるこ「おはよう」と言った時間と「入ってきた」とではない。Munro (1982)が提示する以下の時間が、「やがて」という時間を表す副詞句

例を観察してみよう。

が示すように、隣接していないことから非文となっている、と山口(2009)は、概略、そう主張する。

(11) a. “Ihoo”(*-ă)

aachi.

woman

obj

say

しかし、その主張には問題点がないわけで‘He says, “Woman” ’はない。というのも、山口が提示する「時間b. “Hilha” (*-ă) aachi.

的隣接性」という意味的概念が十分明示的で

dance

obj sayはないという点がひとつ。つまり、どの程度‘He says, “She’s dancing”’(Munro (1982))

時間的に隣接していなければいけないのか、
あるいは、逆にどの程度隣接しなくてもいい(11)の例は、米国ミシシッピ州北部にかつてのかという点が規定されていない。また、

43

居住していたマスコギアン族の一員である(14a)(14b)いずれの例においても、省略されチカソー族が話していたチカソー語の例でている伝達節は、その補部に統語的に疑問文ある。チカソー語には、目的語マーカーの形を選択することはできないにもかかわらず、

態素-ă があり、DQ が後続する場合は、-ă が

DQ は(14)の例は容認されている。

生じることはできないということを(11)の例

またさらに、以下に観察されるように、発は示していると、Munro (1982)は主張する。

話様態動詞(manner-of-speaking verb)の that 節

この事実は、DQ は伝達動詞に選択されていからの要素の摘出に関して、統語的な並行性ないことを強く示唆していると考えられる。

がある。

次に、以下の例を検討してみよう（イタリ(15) a.

ック体の英文は筆者）。

Sue said, “John murdered a strange man!”b. Francine whispered that we should turn(12) a.

Coming back from a business trip, hedown the stereo.

found a note from his wife. “I will be(16) a. *Who did Sue say, “murdered a strange

back at four, but the children are in theman?”garden.”b.*What did Francine whisper that web. *the note that she will be back at four(13) a.

should turn down the stereo?

I checked the message in theanswering machine. “He won’t be

Wh 句または要素の取り出しに関し、従来かhome until eleven.”ら付加詞として分析されてきた発話様態動b. *the message that he won’t be home

詞の that 節と同じく(cf. Baltin (1982))、wh 摘

until eleven

出や他の要素の移動ができないという点で並行的な振る舞いをする。

(12a)における DQ は、前文の名詞句 a note の以上の考察から、DQC の DQ は伝達動詞

意味内容を表している。DQ は名詞句 a note

（あるいは伝達動詞を含む伝達部でも）に選から統語的に選択されたように見えるもの

択される補部ではなく、付加部を構成していの、(12b)で示されているように、名詞 note は

ると、廣江(2012, 2014)では、概略、そう主張

補部を選択しない。同様に、(13a)においてもした。

DQ は前文の名詞句 the message に選択され4.

ているように見えるものの、(13b)で示され提案ているように、message という名詞はそもそ

前節までの考察から、DQC の DQ は伝達

も補部を選択しない。さらに、以下の例も見

動詞あるいは伝達動詞を含む述部により選てみよう。

択されてはいない付加部であることを議論してきた。では、DQ がどういうメカニズム(14) a. (I was confused) “What did I say?

で認可されているのかという疑問が生じる。

What did I expect? Going home in a

本論では、統語構造ではなく、伝達動詞（あtaxi afterward, I pulled her over until

るいは伝達部）の概念構造において、関数

her head rested against my chest.”

SAYING の項として選択されているとの主張

b. (She was perplexed) “Did that mean itを行う（(4a)を(17a)、(5a)を(17b)、(6a)を(18a)、

was night time?

(7a)を(18b)、としてそれぞれ再掲）。
以下の例を再度検討してみよう。

44

(17) a. 「この馬鹿野郎！」と彼はジョンを(20) a.

蹴った。

長英は海路平戸へ向かって、松原玄朴を訪ね、四十八両の返済を求めた

b. 「はい、できたわよ」と彼女はテーが、この若造めと言を左右にして金ブルについた。

を出そうとしない。

(18) a. *“I’m home!” my son came up the stairs.

b. 挙式は、明けて三月半ば頃、と決ま

b. *“Just leave me alone!” his uncle madeった。緒方は、まだ半年以上ある、

me stand back.

と向こうで何かやっている娘を眺めた。
(藤田 (2000: 209))

日本語には、英語の語彙には無い、引用マーカーの「と」があるため、(17)のような日本語の DQC は容認されているとの示唆が山口

藤田も主張しているように、(20a)で、「この(2009)で行われていたことは第 2 節 におい

若造め」というのは、発言だとは解釈し難い。

てすでに見てきた。本論では、さらに進めて、また、(20b)においても同様の考察が成り立日本語の引用マーカー「と」の概念構造につ。つまり、統語構造において「言いながら」SAYING という関数があり、その関数の項が省略されているとは考えられない例が存(argument)として DQ が選択されていると提在することから、概念構造を仮定した分析に案する（便宜上、詳細な構造は省略）(CS:は妥当性があることになる。

Conceptual Structure; SS: Syntactic Structure)

さて、(19)を仮定すれば、(17a)(17b)におけ(Jackendoff (1990, 1997, 2005)):

る「と」を含む LCS を表示すると、以下(21)のようになる。

(19) CS of the Japanese quote marker to：
SS : [adjunct DQ ] to V(21) a.

CS of (17a):[[[toWITH SAYING [complement DQ ]]CS : [to WITH SAYING [complement DQ ]KICK ]]]
b. CS of (17b):[[[to WITH SAYING [complement DQ ]] SIT
DOWN ]]](19)は、引用マーカー「と」を伴う DQC のSS と「と」の LCS との対応関係を示している。つまり、SS では DQ は付加部というス(21a)(21b)それぞれの LCS で、関数 SAYING がテータスだが、「と」の LCS では関数 SAYING

その補部として DQ を選択していると仮定に選択される項、すなわち補部としてのステすることで、(17a)(17b)が容認されることがータスとなっている。この分析は、(17a)で「こ説明できる。
では、英語の DQC の場合はどうであろうの馬鹿野郎と言いながら」という日本語母語話者としての直感にも合致している。

か。引用マーカーが無い英語の場合、(22)でしかしながら、その SS において、「言いな観察されるように、DQ を補部として選択でがら」という要素が省略されているに過ぎなきない伝達動詞（あるいは伝達動詞を含む述

いのではないかと反論があるかもしれない。

部）と共起する DQ は容認されないことが予しかしながら、そのような反論は成立しない

測されるが、その予測は必ずしも正しくない。

ことがわかる。以下の例を観察してみよう。
(22) a.

45

I'll never do that again!" resolved thecontrite boy.

と仮定することにより、同様のメカニズムで

b. The man laughed “You really believe

容認されると議論してきた。

that's true?”

残された問題として、英語の DQC において、なぜ特定の動詞 (e.g., blush, laugh, pout,(22)の例のように、英語の場合、「と」のようand etc.) の場合にのみ、関数 SAYING がそのな引用マーカーが無くてもなぜ容認される概念構造に付加することが可能かというこのだろうか。

とがある。

英語の場合も、概念構造による解決法がこ

また、日本語の DQC の場合、英語の DQCの事実を捉えるために有効であろう。英語のとは異なり、何らかの伝達行為とは解釈し難DQC では、(22b)を例にして、伝達動詞の概い動詞がかなり生産的に生じうるのは引用

念構造を以下のように仮定する。

マーカーの「と」のはたらきに依るものであった。しかし、日本語と同様に引用マーカー(23) CS of the verb laugh in (22b):を語彙として持つ韓国語のような場合にもSS : [VP laugh [adjunct DQ]]

同様の主張が可能かどうか。通言語的な検証が今後の課題である (see Munro (1982: 314

CS: [VP laugh WITH SAYING [complement DQ ]]ff.))。
さらに、若い世代に急速に普及していると考えられる、以下のような文法形式に DQ を日本語の DQC では、関数 SAYING が引用マー埋め込む例も、本論で提案したメカニズムでカー「と」の語彙概念構造に付加されること捉えられるかどうかも今後の課題としたい。

により、ていた。一方、英語の場合、関数SAYING が伝達動詞の語彙概念構造に付加し(24) a.

ていると考えれば、(22)のような例を正しくb.

Coming home today, he was totally, “Oh,I’m glad you’re home, let’s go sit down”.

捉えることができる。
c.
5.

. . . and I was “Oh so this is Helen”.

I was a little bit “What the fuck?!”(Buchstaller (2014: 18-19))

結語
以上、英語の DQC では容認されない例が日本語で容認されるのは、引用マーカー「と」*本研究は、文部科学省科学研究費補助金基の概念構造に関数 SAYING が付加されること

盤研究 C（採択番号 15K02608）の援助を一により、伝達行為とは解釈されないような伝部受けている。

達動詞の場合でも、SAYING の項（補部）として DQ が選択されることで容認されると議参考文献
Branigan, Phil (2011) Provocative Syntax,

論してきた。一方、英語の DQC の場合、そのような意味範疇には収まらない伝達動詞

Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Sixty-One,を伴う DQC がすべて容認されないわけでは

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

なく、ある特定の限られた動詞群の場合は容Branigan, Phil, and Chris Collins (1993) “Verb

認されることを観察してきた。そのような例

Movement and the Quotative Construction inでは、「と」のような引用マーカーが無い英English,” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics

語では、「と」ではなく、伝達動詞そのもの

18, 1-13.
Buchstaller, Isabelle (2014) Quotatives: Newの概念構造に関数 SAYING が付加されている

46

Trends and Sociolinguistic Implications,

語対照＜外から見る日本語＞第 10 巻, く

Wiley Blackwell, Malden.

ろしお出版, 東京.

Clark, Herbert, and Richard Gerrig (1990)“Quotations as Demonstrations,” Language66, 764-805.
Collins, Chris (1997) Local Economy, Linguistic
Inquiry Monograph Thirty-One, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Collins, Chris and Phil Branigan (1997)“Quotative Inversion,” Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 15, 1-41.
藤田保幸 (2000) 『国語引用構文の研究』, 和
泉書院, 大阪.
廣江顕 (2012) 「直接引用の埋め込みに関する覚書」,『尚絅学園研究紀要 A, 人文・社会科学編』第 6 号, 99-108.
廣江顕 (2014)「直接引用文の埋め込み」,
福岡言語学会（編）『言語学からの展望
2013』, 203-215, 九州大学出版会, 福岡.
Jackendoff, Ray (1990) Semantic Structures,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Jackendoff, Ray (1997) The Architecture of theLanguage Faculty, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Jackendoff, Ray, and Peter Culicover (2005)
Simpler Syntax, Oxford University Press,
New York.
Kurihara, Takehiko (1985) “The Syntax and
Semantics of Quotation Reconsidered,” 『言語文化部紀要』7, 67-90, 北海道言語文化部.
Munro, Pamela (1982) “On the Transitivity of the‘Say’ Verbs, Studies in Transitivity: Syntax
and Semantics, ed. by Paul Hopper andSandra Thompson, 301-318, Academic Press,
New York.
内田聖二 (1979)「直接話法と伝達動詞」, 『語法研究と英語教育』1, 22-34.
山口治彦 (2009) 『明晰な引用,しなやかな引
用―話法の日英対照研究』, シリーズ言47

In the literature, it has been argued that atleast two types of focus must be differentiated:
IFoc and Contrastive Focus (CFoc). For example,
Cruschina (2011: 14) proposes that IFoc denotes“the assertive part of the sentence, that is the fo-

Negative Inversion and Its Implications for the
Information Structure of Nominal Phrases*

cus of the sentence, must be interpreted as innovative and the most informative, in the sense thatit contributes new and relevant information to theMasatoshi Honda

universe of discourse”; CFoc, on the other hand,

University of Tsukuba

represents “the assertion corresponds to denying
or correcting a previous innovative assertion or

Keywords：cartography, emphasis, information

presupposition that the speaker does not share ….”

focus, negative inversion, polarity focus

For concreteness, let us consider the following
sentences:(1)

1. Introductiona.

(Context: What car did John buy?)
John bought [a Ferrari]IFoc

Within the cartographic framework proposed(Cruschina (2011: 14))

by Rizzi (1997), Cruschina (2011) assumes twob.

syntactic positions for information focus (IFoc) ina sentence: emphatic IFoc in the CP domain and[YOUR BOOK]CFoc you should give＿ to Paul (not mine)

neutral IFoc in the TP domain. If the parallelism(Rizzi (1997: 285), with modifications)

between the clausal and nominal domains extends
to information structure, it will be hypothesized

In (1a), the object DP realizes IFoc, serving as anthat the left periphery of the DP domain also in-answer to the question. In (1b), on the other hand,cludes a functional projection for emphatic IFoc.

the preposed DP with CFoc functions to carry the

In this paper, I will argue that this hypothesis iscorrect piece of information, creating a contrast

supported by negative inversion in nominal ex-with the wrong piece of information expressed bypressions (Borroff (2006), Troseth (2009)).

the negative tag; furthermore, the rest of theThis paper is organized as follows: introduc-

propositional content is interpreted as a presup-

ing the typology of focus, Section 2 shows how

position.

emphatic IFoc is syntactically realized; Section 3

The next subsection, furthermore, introduces

reviews some previous studies on the information

the dichotomy of emphatic IFoc and neutral IFoc.

structure of nominal expressions; Section 4 argues that emphatic IFoc in the nominal domain is

2. 2. Neutral IFoc and Emphatic IFoc

substantiated from nominals with negative inver-

Based on the observation that Sicilian, asion; and, finally, Section 5 concludes by men-

Romance dialect, allows non-CFoc fronting,tioning directions for future research.

Cruschina (2011) proposes that the CP domain of
a sentence includes a functional projection dedi-

2. The Typology of Focus

cated to emphatic IFoc. Let us consider the fol-

2. 1. Information Focus and Contrastive Focus

lowing question/answer pairs from Sicilian:

48

(2)

A.

Chi

scrivisti?

whatwrite.PAST.2SG

On the basis of Cruschina’s (2011) observa-‘What did you write?’tion, Honda (2017) argues that at least certain

B. a. Scrissi

presupposed propositional content.

instances of negative inversion in English can ben’articulu.

write.PAST.1SG an article

reduced to emphatic IFoc. In recent studies, nega-‘I wrote an article.’tive inversion is argued to carry a polarity focus

b. N’articulu scrissi!

reading (i.e., narrow focus on the polarity com-an article

ponentwrite.PAST.1SG

of

the

sentence)(Leonetti

andEscandell-Vidal (2009); cf. Romero and Han‘I wrote an article’(2004)). In addition, Honda provides an argument(Cruschina (2011: 58), with slight modifications)for the claim that negative inversion is compatible
The example above suggests that either (2Ba) orwith sentence-focus, by showing that negative(2Bb) can be used to answer the question in (2A).

inversion sentences can be uttered in the

In (2Ba), the DP with neutral IFoc remains in theout-of-the-blue context, as illustrated below: 1

TP domain (i.e., the object position), serving as(4)an answer to the question; in this case, the IFoc
DP does not necessarily convey the speaker’s

A:

What happened?

B:

Not a single person did I meet on thestreet.

evaluative meaning (e.g., surprise, unexpectedness). In (2Bb), on the other hand, the preposed
DP with emphatic IFoc obligatorily conveys two

Example (4) shows that negative inversion can bemeanings: new information and emphasis, or theusedspeaker’s evaluative meaning.

wh-question. Thus, negative inversion (i.e., em-

asananswertoasentence-focus

Interestingly, Cruschina (2011) observes thatphatic IFoc on the polarity component) shows aemphatic IFoc fronting can occur in thesimilar property with emphatic IFoc fronting in

out-of-the-blue context (as in the answer to a

Sicilian.
The next subsection considers how emphatic

wh-question like what happened?):

IFoc is syntactically realized in Sicilian IFoc
(3)

A:

Chi

successi?

fronting and negative inversion in English.

what happen.PAST.3SG‘What happened?’B:

A casasivinnì!

the house

REFL

sell.PAST.3SG

2. 3. Syntactic Realization of Emphatic IFoc
Modifying the split CP hypothesis proposedby Rizzi (1997) in (5a), Cruschina (2011) proposes his original split CP hypothesis in (5b).

‘He sold the house!’(Cruschina (2011: 71), with slight modifications)(5)
Example (3) suggests that both the preposed DP

a. Force … Topic* … Focus … Topic* …
Fin IP …

with emphatic IFoc and the rest of the sentenceb. Force … Topic … CFoc … Topic …
IFoc … Fin IP …

are compatible with new information. This property is different from that of CFoc fronting in (1b)in the sense that the latter necessarily includes the

Cruschina’s split CP hypothesis is different from

49

(7)

Rizzi’s in that the former includes two syntactic

Force… … Eval …IFoc … Fin IP …

positions for focus: CFoc and emphatic IFoc.
According to Cruschina (2011), emphatic

Here, they assume that an emphatic IFoc element

IFoc is characterized by two semantic meanings:

is endowed with two unvalued features, the un-

new information and the speaker’s evaluativevalued evaluative feature, [uEval], and the un-meaning. Cruschina argues that among these twovalued IFoc feature, [uIFoc]; then, the two un-meanings, the latter comes from pragmatics, orvalued features get valued by movement of thethe interaction between the new information ex-emphatic IFoc element to Spec-IFoc. In this paper,pressed by an emphatic IFoc element and its rela-

I follow their syntactic mechanism proposed fortion to the knowledge of the speaker/interlocutors

emphatic IFoc. Thus, emphatic IFoc fronting in(i.e., Relevance Theory in the sense of Sperber

Sicilian and negative inversion in English are an-

and Wilson (1995)). Shimada and Nagano (2016),

alyzed as in (8a) and (8b), respectively.

on the other hand, propose that the speaker’s
evaluative meaning component has its origin in(8)

evaluative morphology, a research area whicha. [EvalP [IFocP N’articului [FinP (scrissi)[TP pro [vP scrissi ti ]]]]](= (2Bb))

aims to examine how the speaker’s evaluative

b. [EvalP [IFocP Not a single personi [FinP did

meaning is encoded by means of morphemes or[TP I [vP meet ti on the street]]]]] (= (4B))

phrases in words and phrases (e.g., Cinque(2015)). Showing the relative order of Italian suf-

This section has considered how emphatic

fixes in nominals, Cinque (2015) claims that their

IFoc is syntactically encoded in the CP domain.

ordering may be strictly determined in all lan-

The next section considers the information struc-guages; that is, the correspondingly ordered func-

ture of nominals, with emphasis on focus.

tional projections for evaluative meanings (e.g.,
augmentative, pejorative, diminutive, endearing)

3. Focus in the Nominal Domain

exist in words and phrases, as illustrated below:

3. 1. CFoc and IFoc in the Nominal Domain
Symmetry has been seen as one of the key(6)… Aug (-on-) … Pej (-acci-) … Dim (-in-)guidelines in exploring the parallelism between… EndP (-ett) …

the nominal and clausal domains from the generative perspective (e.g., grammatical functions

Here, if we follow distributed morphology (e.g.,such as subjects and objects, transformational

Halle and Marantz (1993)), it will be the case that

operations like passivization). If such a parallel-

the evaluative functional projections in (6) exist

ism extends to information structure (Aboh,across words, phrases, and sentences because

Corver, Dyakonova and van Koppen (2010)), it

they are formed by a syntactic operation (i.e.,

will be hypothesized that the nominal domain

merge). Combining Cruschina’s split CP hypoth-also splits into discourse-related functional heads.

esis with evaluative morphology, Shimada andIn the literature on the information structure

Nagano propose that emphatic IFoc is encoded atof nominals, much attention has been paid tothe (emphatic) IFoc projection selected by the

CFoc. For example, Corver and van Koppen

Eval(uative) projection, as shown below (For(2009:3-4) observe that word order alternations in

simplicity, I omit the Topic and CFoc layers):

adjective ordering are associated with CFoc:

50

(9)

a.

de roze Amerikaanse auto’s
the pink Americanb.

3. 2. Emphatic IFoc in the Nominal Domain

cars

Subsection 2.3 reviewed Cruschina’s (2011)‘the pink American cars’

two focus hypothesis. If the parallelism between

de AMERIKAANSE roze auto’s

the clausal and nominal domains extends to in-

the AmericanSTRESS

formation structure, his hypothesis will imply thatpink cars‘the AMERICAN pink cars’

there is a functional projection dedicated to emphatic IFoc in the nominal domain.

(9a) illustrates the neutral adjective ordering,wherein the color adjective precedes the national-(11) a. Force … … Eval … IFoc … Fin IP …

ity adjective. (9b), with the reversed adjective

b. DP … … Eval … IFoc … NP …

ordering, on the other hand, suggests that the
preposed nationality adjective gets a CFoc inter-

However, little research has been conducted topretation.

examine whether emphatic IFoc is empirically

In contrast with CFoc, IFoc is a relatively new

motivated in the nominal domain, with the excep-

research topic in the literature of the information

tion of Shimada and Nagano (2016). Shimada andstructure of nominal expressions (Corver and vanNagano argue that Japanese kantaiku nominals

Koppen (2009), Aboh et al. (2010)). According tolend support to the presence of emphatic IFoc inCorver and van Koppen (2009), the research of

the nominal domain.

IFoc in nominal expressions needs consideration(12) a.

Kono

wain-wa

at the sentential level (i.e., at the level of the en-thiswine-TOP expensive-COP

tire sentence). For this reason, they argue that root

‘This wine is expensive.’

because their information structure can be definedb.

nominals can be independent (i.e., autonomous)

taka-itaka-i.

wain

syntactic units with their own information struc-expensive-COP winetures. For example, Corver and van Koppen‘expensive wine’(2009: 14) cite the following expressions as in-c.

stances of root nominals:

Taka-iwain!

expensive-COP wine
‘Expensive wine!’(10) a.

Aspects of the theory of SYNTAX(books by Noam Chomsky)b.

(12a) is an adjectival predicate sentence, andDear friends of HOLLAND!

(12b) is a nominal expression in which the adjectival predicate forms a relative clause. The(10a) is well-known as a book title, and (10b)Japanese kantaiku nominal in (12c) takes thefunctions as a (neutral) vocative. These examples

same syntactic form as the one in (12b), but only

are similar in that they convey new information

the former serves as an emotional vocative, or aon the recursive (right) side.

root nominal which denotes the speaker’s

The next subsection, furthermore, reviews

on-the-spot reaction to a given situation. On the

Shimada and Nagano’s (2016) study, which aims

basis of these observations, they propose that theto provide an empirical support for the presence

relative clause undergoes covert movement toof emphatic IFoc in the nominal domain.

Spec-IFoc in the emotional vocative in (12c).

51

(13) a. [DP [EvalP [IFocP [NP [Rel proi taka-i]

above suggest that negation behaves as an opera-

waini]]]]

tor which triggers the inversion of adjectives inb. [DP [EvalP [IFocP [Rel proi taka-i]j [NP tj

the nominal domain. Furthermore, the preposed

waini]]]]

adjective can be followed by the preposition-likeof (Note that a similar effect shows up in (14a).).

Shimada and Nagano’s (2016) study will be

According to Troseth (2009: 58-60), (15b)seen as an important step forward in exploring thewith negative inversion differs from (15a) in thatpossibility that the nominal domain includes annegation takes different scopes. For example, theemphatic IFoc projection, but their argument isnegation in (15a) serves as a sentential negation,

weak in the sense that the word order alternation

and allows John to be excellent, just good, or bad,is covert in (13b). The next section argues that theas a student. In (15b), on the other hand, the nega-emphatic IFoc hypothesis is empirically support-tion occurs as constituent negation; hence, (15b)

ed by nominals with negative inversion.

implies that John is not anything but a bad student.
Here, I would like to add two important ob-

4. Negative Inversion in the Nominal Domain

servations which I made on the basis of my in-

4. 1. Degree Inversion and Negative Inversion

formant survey.2 First, compared to (15a), (15b)In the literature, it has been observed that cer-with negative inversion carries the speaker’s em-

tain degree modifiers (e.g., too, that, so, how, as)phasis on the negative polarity component of the

behave as degree operators which trigger adjec-

polar adjective; as a result, (15b) implies that thetive inversion in the nominal domain (e.g., Corver

opposite polarity is true of John (i.e., John is a(1997)). Let us observe the following contrast:

bad student.). This pattern is applied to otherkinds of adjectives, too (e.g., honest ⇔ dishon-(14) a.

The Seventh Seal is too serious (of)est). Thus, the parallelism between negative in-a movie.

version in the nominal and clausal domains pro-

(Troseth (2009: 47))b. * John is very good a student.

vides a piece of evidence for the argument that

(Borroff (2006: 514))

the presence of emphatic IFoc is empiricallysupported by negative inversion in the nominal

The contrast above suggests that the degree mod-domain (cf. (4B)). Second, nominals with negative

ifier very does not behave as a degree operator.

inversion, as well as Japanese kantaiku nominals,

On the basis of this observation, Borroff (2006)

can be uttered as emotional vocatives (cf. (12c)).

and Troseth (2009) point out that negation may
trigger the inversion of adjectives in the nominal(16)

Not (very) easy a task!

domain, as shown below:
This observation also suggests that nominals with(15) a.

John is not a very good student.

negative inversion realize emphatic IFoc in the(Borroff (2006: 514))b.

left periphery of the nominal domain.

John is not very good (of) a student.

This subsection has shown that nominals with(Borroff (2006: 519))

negative inversion point to the presence of emphatic IFoc in the nominal domain. The next

The examples (without any degree operator)

subsection considers their derivation.

52

4. 2. The Derivation of Negative Inversion in

generated as the SC predicate, and man as the SC

the Nominal Domain

subject. Then, predicate inversion is applied toTroseth (2009) proposes an analysis of nega-

the SC predicate, and as a result, (19a) is derived;

tive inversion in the nominal domain, extending

in this case, of occurs as the nominal counterpart

the predicate inversion analysis to it. Bennis,of the copula (i.e., a linker).

Corver and den Dikken (1997: 90) argue that the

Troseth (2009), furthermore, extends theembedded specificational clause in (17b) is de-predicate inversion analysis to negative inversion

rived by applying an inversion operation to thein the nominal domain, as illustrated below:

predicate of the predicative small clause in (17a).
(20)(17) a.

[DP not very good[vNeg]j [D’[uNeg] (of) [FP
tj [F’ F+Xi(= a) [XP student [X’ ti tj]]]]I consider John (to be) the best candidate.

b.

I consider the best candidate *(to be)

In this simplified structure, the adjective with ne-John.

gation is generated as the SC predicate, and it
undergoes predicate inversion to Spec-DP,

Here, the obligatory occurrence of the copula inwherein spec-head agreement is established be-(17b) is seen as a “linker” which serves to con-

tween the SC predicate in Spec-DP and the Dnect the inverted predicate to its subject (e.g., denhead; as a result, the preposition-like element of is

Dikken (2006)). This derivation process is illus-

optionally realized at the D head (cf. (15b)).
By slightly modifying Troseth’s (2009) analy-

trated below:

sis, I propose that the inverted adjective with ne(18)[FP the best candidatej [F’ F(=be)+Xi [XPgation occupies Spec-IFoc, wherein the emphatic

John [X’ ti tj]]]]IFoc interpretation is obtained.
(21)

In (18), John is generated as the subject of the[DP … [EvalP [IFocP not very goodj [IFoc’small clause (SC) (indicated by XP), and the best(of) [FP tj [F’ F+Xi (=a) [XP [student] [X’predicate as the SC predicate. Then, predicate

ti tj ]]]]]]]]

inversion is applied to the SC predicate, and (17b)is derived; in this analysis, the obligatory occur-

5. Concluding Remarks
In this paper, I argued that the presence ofrence of the copula is a reflex of the head movement of the X head to the F head (i.e., a linker).

emphatic IFoc in the nominal domain is empiri-

Bennis et al. (1998), furthermore, apply thecally supported by nominal expressions with neg-

predicate inversion analysis to nominal expres-ative inversion. I would like to leave open forsions like (an) idiot of a man.

future research the question of whether degree
inversion in the nominal domain (cf. (14a)) em-(19) a. idiot of a man

pirically lends support to emphatic IFoc in theb. [FP idiotj [F’ F(= of)+Xi(= a) [XP man [X’nominal domain (see also Honda (this volume)).

ti tj]]]]* I am grateful to Yukio Hirose, Nobuhiro Kaga,In this analysis, the predicative element idiot is

Masaharu Shimada, Naoaki Wada, Masaru

53Kanetani for their invaluable comments on thisGroninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen

study. I also appreciate the following researchers

Linguistik 48, 3-26.
Cruschina, Silvio (2011) Discourse-Related Fea-

for their invaluable comments on my presentationth

at the 35tures and Functional Projections, Oxford

ELSJ conference: Seiki Ayano,

University Press, Oxford.

Tomohiro Fujii, Yoichi Miyamoto and Nobuaki
Nishioka. My special thanks go to Julio Pereira

Den Dikken, Marcel (2006) Relators and Linkers:

and Rachel Ballew for their grammaticality

The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion,

judgments and comments on my research. All theand Copulas, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz (1993) “Distrib-

remaining errors and adequacies are my own.
NOTES
Two informants (one from Canada and the otheruted Morphology and the Pieces of Inflec-from America) reported that the negative inver-

Linguistics in Honour of Sylvain Bromberger,

sion sentence can be employed as an answer toed. by K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 111-176,

the sentence-focus wh-question.

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

12tion,” The View from Building 20: Essays in

Honda, Masatoshi (2017) “Arguing for Two Fo-

One of my informants allows for a null degree

cus Positions: Reduction of Verum Focus,”modifier in nominals with negative inversion.

paper presented at the 2nd International
Conference on Syntactic Cartography.

REFERENCES
Aboh, Enoch O., Norbert Corver, Marina

Leonetti, Manuel and Victoria Escandell-Vidal

Dyakonova, and Marjo van Koppen (2010)(2009) “Fronting and Verum Focus in Span-“DP-Internal Information Structure: Someish,” Focus and Background in Romance

Introductory

Languages, ed. by A. Dufter and D. Jacob,

Remarks,”

Lingua120,782-801.

155-204, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Bennis, Hans, Norbert Corver, and Marcel den

Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of the

Dikken (1998) “Predication in Nominal

Left Periphery,” Elements of Grammar: A

Phrases,” The Journal of Comparative

Handbook of Generative Syntax, ed. by L.

Germanic Linguistics 1, 85-117.

Haegeman, 281-337, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Borroff, Marianne L. (2006) “Degree Phrase In-

Romero, Maribel and Chung-Hye Han (2004)

version in the Scope of Negation,” Linguistic“On Negative Yes/No Questions,” Linguis-

Inquiry 37, 514-521.

tics and Philosophy 27, 609-658.

Cinque, Guglielmo (2015) “Augmentative, Pejo-

Shimada, Masaharu and Akiko Nagano (2016)rative, Diminutive and Endearing Heads in“Mirativity and Focus in DP,” paper read at

the Extended Nominal Projection,” Struc-the Omolouc Linguistic Colloquium 2016.

tures, Strategies and Beyond, ed. by E. Di

Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson (1995) Rele-

Domenica, C. Hamann, and S. Matteini,vance:

67-81, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

(Second Edition), Blackwell Publishing,

Corver, Norbert (1997) “Much Support as a Last

Communication and Cognition

Oxford.

Resort,” Linguistic Inquiry 28, 119-164.

Troseth, Erika (2009) “Degree Inversion and Nega-

Corver, Norbert and Marjo van Koppen (2009)

tive Intensifier Inversion in the English DP,”“Let’s Focus on Noun Phrase Ellipsis,”

The Linguistic Review 26, 37-65.

54

between scope and binding. Pica and Snyder(1995:345) provide an interesting observation
given in (3) (see also Hornstein 1995:180 andFox 2000:64 for similar observation).
vP*(3) Someone1 gave everyone his1 business card.
(some > every, *every> some)
Hironobu Kasai
University of Kitakyushu

In the example above, one of the objects of theditransitive verb involves a bound pronoun to be

Keywords：external argument, labeling, Subject

bound by the subject quantifier. It is crucial that

Condition, by-phrase

the subject cannot take narrow scope in (3). If
the binder is not a subject, such constraint
disappears, as shown in (4).

1. Introduction
It is widely assumed that the base-generated(4) A girl gave everyone1 his1 picture.

position of an external argument (EA) is higher(a > everyone, everyone > a)than VP, as illustrated in (1).
Let us assume with Hornstein (1995) among(1) [vP EA [v VP]]

others that the lower copy of a subject, which isleft within vP via subject raising, is calculated

However, it does not seem that there has been

for the narrow scope in question. It is also

much

the

assumed that the landing site of QR for an object

base-generated position of an EA in the literature.

QP is vP. The relevant narrow scope reading in

In fact, overt evidence for the relevant(3) would be wrongly expected under thebase-generated position is hard to obtain,

standard vP-structure in (1) because the lower

becausebeing

copy of someone readily c-commands its boundunpronounced via subject raising in English.

pronoun within VP, as shown in (5a). Under theContrary to the widely assumed structure in (1),structure in (2), on the other hand, since thethis paper argues that the internal structure of vP

lower copy of someone fails to c-command theis given in (2), where an EA is the complementbound pronoun within VP as shown in (5b), theof v whereas VP occupies [Spec, vP].

absence of the narrow scope reading is correctly

detailedthediscussion

position

about

ends

up

expected.
(2) [vP VP [v EA]]
(5) a. [TPThe next section will provide three arguments in

Someone1

T[vP

everyone[vP

someone1 [v [VP gave … his1 …]]]]]

favor of the structure in (2).
b. [TP Someone1 T [vP everyone [vP [VP gave
… his1 …] [v someone1]]]]

2. Arguments for the Proposed Structure
The first argument comes from interaction

55

The second argument is concerned with the(7) a.

There entered the room anargument status of by-phrases in the passive.

indescribably malodorous breath of air.

Goodall (1997) provides several arguments for(Kayne (1979:715))

the claim that by-phrases in the passive behave
likearguments,

not

like

adjuncts.

b.

There T[[VP entered...] [v [DP an… air]]]The

extractability out of the by-phrase is one of them.

3. Consequences

It has been generally assumed that adjuncts do

3.1. Labeling

not allow anything to move out of them,

The structure given in (2) gives a newcontrary to argument phrases. This is confirmed

solution to the so-called “XP-YP” problem

by

The

concerningthe

Algorithm (LA), which is given in (8).

thecontrast

grammaticality of

between(6b-c).

(6a) suggests

that

Chomsky’s(2013)

Labeling

by-phrase is an argument.
(8) a. Suppose SO = {H, XP}, H a head and
XP not a head. Then LA will select H as(6) a. Who1 were the books returned to thestore by t1?
b.

the label, and the usual procedures of(Goodall (1997:137))

Who1 did you buy a picture of t1

interpretation at the interfaces canyesterday?

proceed.
b. Suppose SO = {XP, YP}, neither a head.

c. *Which book1 did you review thisHere minimal search is ambiguous,

paper without reading t1?

locating the heads X, Y of XP, YP,
On the assumption that an EA in the passive

respectively. There are, then, two ways

occupies the same position as that in the activein which SO can be labeled: (A) modify(see Watanabe (1993), Goodall (1997), Collins

SO so that there is only one visible head,(2005), among others), the relevant by-phrase isor (B) X and Y are identical in a

supposed to occupy [Spec, vP] under the

relevant respect, providing the same

standardlabel, which can be taken as the label ofvP-structure.

However,sinceaby-phrase follows a passivized predicate, [Spec,the SO.

(Chomsky (2013:43))

vP] is supposed to be on the right-hand side of
VP in the passive. However, the “right specifier”

Chomsky (2013) suggests two ways to label thehas been cast doubt on theoretically andform {XP, YP}, where neither XP nor YP is a

empirically.

thislexical item. One is (8bA). Suppose XP

right-specifier problem is circumvented under

undergoes movement out of {XP, YP}, which

the structure in (2).

makes the lower copy of XP invisible and the

On

the

other

hand,

Finally, some type of there construction suchhead of YP (i.e. Y) counts as the label of {XP,as (7a) supports the proposed analysis. As shown

YP}. Let us call this strategy “Labeling throughin (7a), the EA follows the transitive verb phrase.

movement” following Takita et al. (2016). The

Under the structure in (2), the syntactic

other strategy is (8bB), where Agree determines

distribution of the EA is easily captured, as

the label of {XP, YP}. Let us take (9) as anshown in (7b), where the EA is base-generated

example to see how these two strategies work.

as the complement of v.

56

(9) [α John T [β John [v [eat apples]]]].

intermediate copy of the wh-phrase invisible forlabeling. The label α can be thus determined.

Given the strategy in (8bA), the label of β is

However, as Obata (2016) points out,

determined as v because a copy of John within βGerman partial wh-movement such as (12) does

becomes invisible in terms of labeling. On the

not fall under this account.

other hand, the label of α is determined by (8bB)
becausethesubject

undergoes

φ-feature(12) Was glaubt Hans [α mit wem1 C[-Q] Jakob

agreement with T.

what think Hans

The proposed structure given in (2) is also

jetzt t1 spricht]?

the {XP, YP} form. How is the XP-YP problem

is now talking

with whom

Jakob(McDaniel (1989:569))

resolved under (2)? This paper adopts Kato etal.’s (2014) proposal that on the assumption that

In (12), the embedded complementizer is C [-Q]

V is a categorially neutral root, which has ansimilarly to (11) but the wh-phrase can stay atunvalued categorial feature ([uCat]), this root isthe edge of the embedded CP without moving

categorized by the catergorial feature of v via

anymore. It is wrongly expected that the label α

Agree, as illustrated in (10). That is, α in (10)would not be determined.

(what was called “vP” traditionally) is labeled

The possibility pursued in this paper is to

via the strategy in (8bB) in a similar way toreconsider the assumption that the embeddedlabeling via φ-feature agreement between acomplementizer C [-Q] does not trigger Agree. If

subject and T.

C [-Q] can also trigger Agree so that theapplication of Agree can make a contribution to(10) [α [√ IA]labeling, α in (11-12) can be determined via[ v EA]]

Agree similarly to TP, without recourse toAgreemovement of the wh-phrases. If this is on the
As has been discussed, Labeling throughright track, all the cases of {XP, YP} are unified

movement can be dispensed with for the purpose

under labeling via Agree.

of labeling at vP-level. However, note that

The assumption that C [-Q] can trigger AgreeLabeling through movement plays a crucial foris independently supported by Irish A-barlabelingofmovement. As shown in (13a), Irish has a

wh-movement, as well. The relevant example iscomplementizer for finite clauses, which is

given below.

realized as GO. When A-bar movement takes

atintermediate

landingsite

place, the complementizer exhibits different(11) What do you think [α what C [-Q] John

realization, as shown in (13b). Crucially, notbought what]?

only the complementizer in the final landing siteof the operator but also C in the intermediate

On

the

assumption

that

the

embeddedlanding site is realized as aL, as shown in (13c).

complementizer C [-Q] does not trigger Agree, thelabel α in (11) cannot be labeled as it is because(13) a. Creidim gu-r

inis sé bréag.

α is the {XP, YP} form. The wh-movement from

I-believe GO-Past tell he lie.

the edge of the embedded CP makes the‘I believe that he told a lie.’57

(McCloskey (2002:185))
b. an
the

ghirseach a
girl

Fourth, the process of linearization takes placephase by phase (cf. Fox and Pesetsky 2005).

ghoid na sígaí.

aL stole the fairies

Under the third assumption, nothing prevents‘the girl that the fairies stole away.’

the transferred syntactic object itself fromc. an t-ainm a(McCloskey (2002:189))

undergoing movement. On the other hand, thehinnseadh dúinn a

extraction out of the transferred syntactic object

thename aL was-told to-us

aL

is constrained by the fourth assumption (i.e.

bhíe ar an áit

cyclic linearization). Let us consider a given

wason the placephasal complement α. Suppose that X, Y and Z‘the name that we were told was on theare included in α (i.e. [α XYZ]). Transfer applies

place.’to α and the linear order between X, Y and Z is

(McCloskey (2002:185))

determined via cyclic linearization (e.g. X
precedes Y and Y precedes Z.). After the

3.2. The Subject Condition EffectThis subsection attempts to give a novel

application of Transfer, if Y moves out of αaccount for the Subject Condition effect such as

across X, the linear order statement (i.e. Y(14).

precedes X.) will be obtained in the later stageof the derivation but it is incompatible with thelinear order statement obtained at the previous(14) ?*Who1 did [friends of t1] see Mary?

phase (i.e. X precedes Y.). Thus, nothing can
Let me spell out the assumptions which aremove out of the transferred syntactic object α,

crucial in the following discussion. First,

unless it is at the left edge of α.

Transfer applies at each phase level. Second,

Bearing these in mind, let us consider theTransfer applies to the complement of a phase

derivation of (14). As shown in (16a), Transfer

head. Third, the transferred syntactic object isapplies to the external argument α. One might

still accessible to syntactic computation (seesay that transferring the unvalued Case feature

Chomsky et al. (to appear) for relevantof α to the interfaces makes the derivation

discussion). Although it is widely assumed thatillegitimate. However, it is assumed that this is

the transferred syntactic object is inaccessible tonot problematic, if it ends up being valued via

further syntactic computation, it has been

Agree with T. Given the third assumption above,reported in the literature that there are many

since α itself can undergo movement, thedependencies across phase boundaries. One oftransferred α undergoes Internal Merge (i.e.

them is given in (15), where the wh-phrase issubject raising), as shown in (16b). After C islicensed by the Q-morpheme in the matrix

introduced, who cannot undergo wh-movement

clause.

out of any occurrences of α, because they havealready been transferred.

(15) Taroo-ga

Hanako-ga

nani-oTaroo-Nom Hanako-Nom what-Acc
katta to(16) a. [[see Mary] [v [α friends of who]]]Transferomotteiru no?

bought that thinkQb. [ [α friends of who] T [[see Mary] [v‘What does Taroo think Hanako bought?’[α friends of who]]]]58

There is another derivation we have to examine,

prediction. It would be possible to extract out of

which is given below.

the subject in the passive. This is because thesubject in the passive is base-generated as an(17) a. [vP [vP [see Mary] [v [α friends of who]]]]internal argument of a predicate within VP, notas the complement of v. That is, the relevant
subject is outside of the Transfer domain atb. [TP [α friends of who] T [vP who [vP [seeMary] [v [α friends of who]]]]]

vP-phase. This prediction is borne out by (19),which is due to Chomsky (2008).

c. [CP who C [TP [α friends of who] T [vP
who [vP [see Mary] [v [α friends of(19) a. It was the CAR (not the TRUCK) ofwho]]]]]]

which [the {driver, picture} was found].
As shown in (17a), who moves to the edge of vP

b. Of which car was [the {driver, picture}

before Transfer applies to α, in contrast to theawarded a prize]? (Chomsky (2008:147))

derivation in (16). Then the transferred α
undergoes subject raising in (17b). Then C is

Let us consider how the examples above are

introduced. Although who cannot undergo

derived, taking (19b) as an example. Although

wh-movement out of any occurrences of α, both(19b) involves no by-phrase, it is assumed thatof which have been already transferred similarly

an external argument syntactically exists in anto (16), who at the edge of vP is still accessible

implicit way in the passive as well. The implicit

to syntactic computation. Thus, under theargument e undergoes Transfer because it is theanalysis so far nothing prevents who at the edge

complement of v, as shown in (20a). Then theof vP from moving to the edge of CP. In order todriver of which car undergoes IM in (20b). Afterexclude the derivation in (17), the following

C is introduced into the derivation, of which car

constraint is proposed.

moves out of the subject within TP. Note that theextraction is possible because the relevant(18) Nothing can move out of the phrase which

subject has not undergone Transfer yet.

has an unvalued Case feature.
(20) a. [vP [VP awarded [the driver of which car] aGiven the constraint in (18), the derivational

prize] [v e]] (e = implicit argument)

step in (17a) is illegitimate in the sense that

Transfer

when who moves out of α, α has not beenb. [the driver of which car] T [vP [VP

Case-marked, because T has not been introduced

awarded [the driver of which car] a

into the derivation yet.

prize] [v e]]

The constraint in (18) correctly captures thec. [CP of which car C [TP [the driver ofgrammaticality of (6a). Who can move out of thewhich car] T [vP [VP awarded [the driverby-phrase before Transfer takes place. The

of which car] a prize] [v e]]]]movement of who is legitimate in terms of (18)because the by-phrase is PP, which does not have

4. Japanese

an unvalued Case feature.
The

proposed

analysis

As proposed in (2), an EA is the complement
makes

anotherof v. While the base-generated position of an EA

59

is not pronounced as a result of subject raising inJohn-gaEnglish, whether Japanese has subject raising

John-Nom bought fact-Acc

like English has been controversial. Given themondai-ni

siteiru no?

absence of the EPP effect and φ-featureproblem-to

making Q

agreement in Japanese, this paper adopts the‘Which book is it that Mary isview that Japanese does not have subject raising

calling the fact that John bought itlike English, following Fukui (1986) and Kuroda

into question?’(1988), among others. Under such a view,

t1 kattab. ??/?*Dono hon-o1

koto-oMary-ga

Japanese subjects can stay in-situ. However, on

which book-Acc Mary-Nom

the assumption that a specifier of a head

John-ga

precedes its complement, VP is supposed toJohn-Nomboughtprecede an external argument as a basic word

mondai-datoorder in Japanese, contrary to fact. This paper

problem-bethat thinksuggests that Japanese has the following vP‘Which book is it that Mary thinks

structure.

that the fact that John bought it is aproblem?’t1 katta

koto-gafact-Nomomotteru no?
Q(Saito (1985:272))(21) [vP EA [vP VP [pro v]]]
Saito (1985) observes that there is no significant
In (21), it is pro that occupies the complement

contrast between (23a-b). Under the proposal,

position of v. It is not implausible to postulate

what undergoes Transfer at vP is pro, as shown

pro in (21) because Japanese allows nullin (24). The sentential subject is outside of thearguments.

istransferred domain at the vP-level, whichbase-generated at the edge of vP. Given thatenables dono-hon-o within the subject toJapanese allows multiple subjects in (22), more

undergo further movement to the matrix clause.

The

overtly

realized

EA

than one EAs can be base-generated at the vP(24) [vP[CP dono hon-o1 [TP John-ga t1 kataedge.

koto-ga]] [vP [VP mondai da] [pro v]]](22) Taroo-ga

imooto-ga

kasikoi.

Taroo-Nom sister-Nom clever

5. Conclusion‘Taroo’s sister is clever.’It has been proposed in this paper that an EA
is the complement of v while VP occupies [Spec,

The proposed structure for Japanese in (21)vP], contrary to the generally assumed structure.

paves the way to an account for the absence of

It has been also argued that labeling at thethe Subject Condition effect in Japanese, which

vP-level can be determined via Agree in ais due to Saito (1985). The relevant examples are

similar way to labeling at the TP-level and thatgiven below.

the Labeling through movement strategy can bedispensed with. This paper has also provided a(23) a. ??/?*Dono hon-o1

Mary-ganovel account for the Subject Condition effect.

which book-Acc Mary-Nom* An earlier version of this paper was presented60

Kato, Takaomi et al. (2014) “Generalized Searchat the 35th Annual Meeting of The English
Linguistic Society of Japan (November 19,and2017) and at Aoyama Linguistics and Literature

Preliminary Study,” Sophia Linguistica 61,(December 15, 2017). I am grateful to the

203–222, Sophia Linguistic Institute forrespective audiences for helpful comments andInternationalquestions. I also thank Shoichi Takahashi for lots

University, Tokyo.
Kayne,of constructive feedback. Thanks also go to
Adam

Stott

for

suggesting

CyclicCommunication,

Richardmovement

stylistic

Derivation by Phase:(1979)
inSophia“Rightward

FrenchandA

NP

English,”Linguistic Inquiry 10, 710-719.

improvements. This work was supported in partby Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) “Whether We Agree or not:from the Japan Society for the Promotion of

A Comparative Syntax of English andScience (No. 17K02815).

Japanese,”

PapersfromtheSecondInternational Workshop on Japanese Syntax,
REFERENCES
Noam (2008) “On

103-143, CSLI Publications, Stanford.
Phases,”

McDaniel, Dana (1989) “Partial and Multiple

Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:

Wh-Movement,” Natural Language andEssays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,

Linguistic Theory 7, 565-604.

Chomsky,

McCloskey,

ed. by Robert Freidin et al., 133–166, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,Noam(2013)“Problemsof“Resumption,

Operations,” Derivation and Explanation in
the Minimalist Program, ed. by SamuelChomsky, Noam et al. (to appear) “Generative

EpsteinGrammar and the Faculty of Language:
Questions,(2002)

Successive Cyclicity, and the Locality ofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.

Insights,

James

and

and

DanielSeely,

184-226,“Unlabeled

Syntactic

Blackwell, Oxford.
Obata,

Challenges,”

Catalan Journal of Linguistics.

Miki(2016)

Objects and their Interpretation at theInterfaces,” NELS 46, 63-70.

Collins, Chris (2005) “A Smuggling Approach to
the Passive in English,” Syntax 8, 81-120.

Pica, Pierre and William Snyder (1994) “WeakFox, Danny (2000) Economy and Semantic

Crossover, Scope, and Agreement in a

Interpretation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Minimalist

Fox, Danny and David Pesetsky (2005) “Cyclic

334–349.

Spell-Out, Ordering and the Typology ofFramework,”

WCCFL

13,

Saito, Mamoru (1985) Some Asymmetries in

Movement,” Theoretical Linguistics 31,

Japanese

and

their

Theoretical

1–46.

Implications, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Fukui, Naoki (1986) A Theory of Category

Takita, Kensuke et al. (2016) “Labeling throughProjection and its Applications, Doctoral

Spell-Out, The Linguistic Review 33,

dissertation, MIT.

177-198.

Goodall, Grant (1997) “Theta-alignment and the

Watanabe, Akira (1993) AGR-based Caseby-phrase,” CLS 33, 129–139.
Hornstein,

Norbert(1995)

LogicalTheory and its Interaction with the A-bar
Form,

System, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Blackwell, Oxford.

61

d. [T]he infantry are crossing the bridge.
(Richard Bowyer, Dictionary of Military Terms)(2) a. The guests are arriving. (cf. ?Uncle Joe
is arriving.)
単数構文と複数構文*

b. The Queen is arriving.

（The Singular and Plural Constructions）
小早川(Radden and Dirven 2007: 188)

暁（Satoru Kobayakawa）(1a)は総称文で、その主語は広い意味で複数を獨協大学（Dokkyo University）

表し、括弧内のように書き換えられる。(1b-d)の主語は動詞が複数呼応しており、複数である
ことが確認できる。(2)の be arriving は「次々にキーワード：反意, 比喩, 換喩, 数の提喩到着している」という意味を表し、複数主語を要求する。したがって、Uncle Joe のような単数
1. は じ め に

主語は意図された解釈のもとでは容認しにく

英語には単複の別があり、単数形は〈単数〉

い。一方、(2b)の単数主語 The Queen が容認さを表し、複数形は〈複数〉を表すのが通例であれるのは、これが複数の従者を想起させるからる（Quirk et al. 1985: 274）
。ところが用例を広くである（Radden and Dirven 2007: 188-189）。
(3)と(4)の例は、複数形が〈単数〉を表す

観察してみると、単数形が〈複数〉を表すこともあれば、複数形が〈単数〉を表すこともある。

例（複数形の単数用法）である。

ここでは、単数形が〈単数〉のみならず〈複数〉(3) It is written in the prophets [= the book ofを表しうるのはどうしてか、複数形が〈複数〉

the Prophets]. (John 6: 45, KJV)

のみならず〈単数〉を表しうるのはどうしてか(4) a. We are [= I am] not amused.

を問い、両者に統一的な答えを与える。

b. Lend us [= me] a fiver.
2. 〈 複 数 〉を 表 す 単 数 形 と〈 単 数 〉を 表

(Quirk et al. 1985: 351)

す複数形
この節では、単数形でありながら〈複数〉

これらの下線部の表現は括弧内に示してあるを表す例と複数形でありながら〈単数〉を表ように単数として解釈される。

す例を確認する（cf. Du Marsais 1730: 97-98）。
(1)と(2)の例は、単数形が〈複数〉を表す

3. 先 行 研 究

例（単数形の複数用法）である。

〈複数〉を表す単数形と〈単数〉を表す複数形をあわせて論じる研究をさかのぼると Du(1) a. The Italian is [= The Italians are] gay, light-

Marsais (1730: 97-98)の「数の提喩」という考え方

hearted. (Jacob A. Riis, How the Other Half Lives)に行き着く。そこでは、フランス語の例に基づき、b. The enemy were visibly cracking. (Collins

単数形で〈複数〉を表す例や複数形で〈単数〉

COBUILD English Grammar, 4th ed.)を表す例が——種で〈類〉、類で〈種〉を表す

c. The foot [= The foot soldiers] were divided

例や、部分で〈全体〉、全体で〈部分〉を表

into six regiments. (Thomas Babington

す例と共に——提喩として分析されている。フMacaulay, The History of England from

ランス語の例がそのままドイツ語や英語の例に

the Accession of James the Second, Vol. 1)

適用できることもあってか、その説明は広く受け

62

cf. Carter and Seifert 2013: 290-294）。

入れられている（e.g. Gibbons 1767: 74; Blair
1787: 369-370; Wodak et al. 1998: 96-102）。

4.1.1. 反 意 の 概 念 が 共 通 の フ レ ー ム に 基

その他、単数形が〈複数〉を表す表現の認知
言 語 学 的 研 究 に Radden and Dirven (2007:

づくことを示す例(5a)の裏付けとして(8)のような言い間違

188-189)があり、UNIPLEX FOR MULTIPLEX といういの例があげられる。

換喩により(2b)を説明している。複数形が〈単数〉を表す表現には触れていないが、もしこれを扱うとすれば、逆方向の換喩 MULTIPLEX FOR(8) a. I really like to—hate to get up in the morning.

UNIPLEX により説明することになるであろう。

b. It’s at the bottom—I mean—top of the stackof books.

先行研究における提喩や換喩を用いた説(Fromkin 1971: 46; cf. Hotopf 1980)

明は、問題となっている表現の解釈を直接的に反映するもので、そもそもどうしてそのような
提喩や換喩によって捉えられる現象が存在す

言い間違いがしばしば類義語の間に見られるこるのかが明らかでないと言える。

とから、反意語の間に意味の類似が確認できる。

4. 〈単数〉と〈複数〉——反意の観点から

4.1.2. 共 通 の フ レ ー ム に 基 づ く 概 念 が 同じ言語形式に結びつく例

以下では、反意の関係にある〈単数〉と〈複数〉(9)の lock について西村 (2008)は、換喩にが同じ言語形式に結びつく論理を明らかにする。

基づく多義であると分析している。
4.1. 反 意 と フ レ ー ム と 言 語 化(9) I locked {the door/the room}. (西村 2008: 83)

反意の関係にある概念は、次の道筋で同じ言語形式に結びつくと考えられる。

どちらの lock も鍵をかけるという行為に関(5) a. 反意の関係にある概念は、共通のフするフレーム、すなわち、ドアの状態を変え

レ ー ム に 基 づ く （ cf. Cruse 1986:

ることにより部屋の状態を変えるというフ

197-198; Voßhagen 1999）。

レームに基づいており、lock the door はドア

b. 共通のフレームに基づく概念は、同じ言語の状態変化、lock the room は部屋の状態変化

形式に結びつきうる（cf. Anttila 1989: 89）。

を焦点化する。そして西村は換喩について(10)のように述べる。

c. 反意の関係にある概念は、同じ言語
形式に結びつきうる。
(7) a. All As are Bs.

(10) 換喩は、ある言語表現の複数の用法が、

b. Some Bs are Cs.

b. All Bs are Cs.

単一のフレームを喚起しつつ、そのフレ

c. Some As are Cs.

c. All As are Cs.

ーム内の互いに異なる局面ないし段階(6) a. All As are Bs.

を焦点化する現象として定義すること(5a, b)から(5c)を導出することは、(6a, b)ができる。

(西村 2008: 82)から(6c)を導出するのと同様である。この種の推論は、(7a, b)から(7c)を導出するのとそもそも「ある言語表現の複数の用法が単一は異なり、常に真であるとは限らないが、のフレームを喚起」しうるのは、(5b)のため

日 常 的 に は よ く 行 わ れ る 推 論 （ everyday

であると考えられる。

logic/syllogism）である（Anderson 1976: 347;

63

4.1.3. 反 意 の 概 念 が 同 じ 言 語 形 式 に 結 びない様子を表している。(15)は二重目的語構文がつく例「受けとらせる」と「受けとらせない」という意(11)から(16)は、同じ言語形式に反意の概念

味をもつことを示している。(16)は、意味変化がが結びつくことを示す例である（cf. contronym,

反意の方向に進むことを示すデータである。

auto-antonym, enantiosemy, etc.）。

以上確認してきたように、語からより大きな構文に至るまで様々な単位で、反意の概念(11) a. The moon is out [= visible] tonight.

は同じ形式に結びつく。

b. The lights in the old house are alwaysout [= invisible].

4.2. 単 数 構 文 と 複 数 構 文(Lederer 1989: 88)(12) a. She drew [= opened] the curtains and let

英語では〈単数〉と〈複数〉は二項対立のthe sunshine into the room.

反意の関係にある。両者は(17a)のように意味

b. We draw [= close] the curtains early to

上区別され、(17b)のように複数接辞の有無

shut out the rainy weather.

によって形式上区別される。

(Chambers Universal Learners’ Dictionary)(17) a. “one” vs. “more than one”

(13) a. I could care less [= couldn’t care less].

(cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 297)

(Lederer 1989: 8)

b. morphologicalb. Make a move and [= Don’t make aunmarkedness

vs.

morphological markedness

move or] I’ll shoot.
(Quirk et al. 1985: 832, 943)
(14) They had only just moved in; their boxes

先に論じた(5)の「反意の関係にある概念」

lay on the kitchen floor, still unpacked [=を「〈単数〉と〈複数〉」に置き換えると(18)not yet unpacked].

が得られる。

(Nunberg 2005)(15) He {gave/refused} her the ball. [X CAUSES Y(18) a. 〈単数〉と〈複数〉は、共通のフレ{to/not to} RECEIVE Z] (Goldberg 1995: 75)(16) a. pejoration: OE sǣliġ ‘blessed’ > silly

ームに基づく。
b. 共通のフレームに基づく概念は、同（肯定的な意味から否定的な意味へ）
b. amelioration (melioration): Lat. nescius

じ言語形式に結びつきうる。
c. 〈単数〉と〈複数〉は、同じ言語形‘ignorant’ > nice（否定的な意味から肯式に結びつきうる。

定的な意味へ）(11a, b)では be out が「見える」と「見えない」

4.2.1. 〈単数〉と〈複数〉の共通のフレームの意味で使われており、(12a, b)では draw が〈単数〉と〈複数〉は次のような数直線フ「開ける」と「閉める」の意味で使われている

レームを共有する。（ここでは、１以上の自（中右実先生のご教示による例）。(13a)では、本然数が焦点化されている。）

来「少しは気にする」という意味を表す could care
- - - - - |-----|-----|-----|-----|----- - - - - -less が「まったく気にしない」という意味で使われている。(13b)では、肯定命令の make a move

１ ２ ３ ４ ５が否定命令を表している。(14)は引っ越し直後の単数

複数(cf. Lakoff and Núñez 2000: 68-71)

状況を描写するもので、still unpacked が荷解きでなく、荷造りされたままの様子・荷解きされてい64

5.1. 〈 単 数 〉〈 複 数 〉 と 比 喩 と 換 喩

4.2.2. 反 意 の 関 係 に あ る〈 単 数 〉と〈 複 数 〉(24c)に示すように、〈単数〉と〈複数〉のが同じ言語形式に結びつく例(18c)を裏付けるのは(19)から(22)である。

間の関係は〈部分〉と〈全体〉の間の関係になぞらえて理解される。これは、(24a)と(24b)(19) a. This sheep looks small./All those sheep
are ours.

からの帰結である。

(Quirk et al. 1985: 307)(24) a. SINGULAR-PLURAL

b. The sheep jumped over the fence, didn’t{it/they}?

(Quirk et al. 1985: 756)

IS

UNDERSTOOD IN TERMS OF INDIVIDUAL-(20) This barracks is new./These barracks arenew.

RELATION

AGGREGATE RELATION(Quirk et al. 1985: 309)

b. INDIVIDUAL-AGGREGATE RELATION IS(21) Ten miles of path {is a lot to repave/are

UNDERSTOOD IN TERMS OF PART- WHOLE

being repaved}. (Waddingham 2014: 191)

RELATION(22) 古英語にあった二人称代名詞の単数と複数(cf. Wodak 1998: 97, fn. 74)

c. SINGULAR-PLURALの区別が近代英語になってからなくなり、二UNDERSTOOD

人称複数代名詞が単数も表すようになった。

WHOLE RELATIONINRELATION
TERMS

OF

IS
PART-

(cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 344-345)(24a)には(25)のような裏付けがある。かい(19)は単数形の sheep に〈単数〉と〈複数〉

つまんで言えば、数の概念は具象物の数としが結びついている例、(20)と(21)は複数形のて把握されるということである。

barracks や ten miles of path に〈単数〉と〈複数〉が結びついている例である。(22)は(16)(25) Only at a rather advanced stage ofのように、意味変化が反意の方向、この場合、intellectual development does the abstract

複数から単数の方向に進んでいることを示

character of the idea of number become

す例と解釈できる。

clear. To children, numbers always remain
connected with tangible objects such as

以上の議論をまとめると次のようになる。

fingers or beads. (Courant and Robbins(23) a. 単数形の複数用法は、反意の関係にあ

1941: 1; cf. Lakoff and Núñez 2000: 54-56)

る〈単数〉と〈複数〉が同じ言語形式、(24b)の裏付けは(26)から(28)である。

この場合、単数形に結びついた単数構
文の一用法であると理解できる。
b. 複数形の単数用法は、反意の関係にあ(26) a. [E]very part is part of some whole and a

る〈単数〉と〈複数〉が同じ言語形式、

whole is whole with all its parts. (Saint

この場合、複数形に結びついた複数構

Augustine, The Trinity)b. Each individual is part of many aggregates.

文の一用法であると理解できる。

(Carlo D’Ippoliti, Economics and Diversity)
5. 〈単数〉と〈複数〉——比喩と換喩の観点から(27) a. [W]hile each whole contains parts, it is part

ここでは、単数構文の〈単数〉〈複数〉とof a larger whole. (Edmund A. Sherman,
Meaning in Mid-Life Transitions)

複数構文の〈複数〉〈単数〉の間の関係を比b. [E]ach aggregate contains individuals who

喩と換喩の観点から論じる。

differ from each other. (Lemuel A. Moyé,

65

“Aggregation,” The SAGE Encyclopedia of(29a)では〈単数〉と〈複数〉が be part of でSocial Science Research Methods, Vol. 1)

つながれ、(29b, c)では〈複数〉と〈単数〉が(28) a. [E]very whole is made up of individual parts,

contain と be made up of でつながれている。

each of which plays a crucial role in making

以上の議論をまとめると、〈単数〉と〈複the whole what it is. (Roland Hoksbergen,数〉は〈個体〉と〈集合体〉に基づき、〈部Serving God Globally: Finding Your Place

分〉と〈全体〉の間の関係になぞらえて理解in International Development)

されると言える。そして、それぞれの概念は(30)のような対応関係にある。

b. An aggregate is made up of a collective of
individuals. (Mary A. Nies and Melanie
Community/Public(30) 〈個体〉（INDIVIDUAL）と〈単数〉（SINGULAR）

Health Nursing: Promoting the Health of

は〈部分〉（PART ）に対応し、〈集合体〉

Populations, 6th ed., ed. by Mary A. Nies

（AGGREGATE）と〈複数〉（PLURAL）は〈全and Melanie McEwen)体〉（WHOLE）に対応する。

McEwen,“Preface,”〈部分〉と〈全体〉の間に成り立つ関係と並

このうち、〈部分〉と〈全体〉については(31a,行的な関係が〈個体〉と〈集合体〉の間に成b)のような関係にあることがこれまでに指摘り立つ。まず、(26a)が示すように、〈部分〉されている。
〈個体〉〈単数〉と〈集合体〉〈複と〈全体〉は be part of でつながれる。同様に、数〉の間の関係が〈部分〉と〈全体〉の間の関(26b)が示す通り、〈個体〉と〈集合体〉も be part

係になぞらえて理解されているとすると、(31a,of でつながれる。また、(27a)のように、〈全b)に基づき(32a, b)のように言える。そうすると、

体〉と〈部分〉は contain でつながれるが、〈集単数構文の複数用法と複数構文の単数用法に合体〉と〈個体〉も contain でつながれる。(27b)

ついて(33a, b)のように説明が与えられる。

が示す通りである。さらに、(28a, b)が示すよ
うに、〈全体〉と〈部分〉が be made up of で(31) a. PART FOR WHOLE

つながれるのと同じように、〈集合体〉と〈個b. WHOLE FOR PART体〉も be made up of でつながれる。

(32) a. INDIVIDUAL/SINGULAR FOR AGGREGATE/(24c)の裏付けは(29)である。上で確認した

PLURALb. AGGREGATE/PLURAL FOR INDIVIDUAL/〈部分〉と〈全体〉の間の関係と並行的な関係が〈単数〉と〈複数〉の間に成り立つ。

SINGULAR(33) a. 単数構文の〈単数〉と単数構文の〈複(29) a. Cannot it be said that . . . one is part of数〉は(32a)によって関連づけられる。

ten, the line part of the poem, the verseb. 複数構文の〈複数〉と複数構文の〈単part of the chapter? (David Thomas,

数〉は(32b)によって関連づけられる。

Christian Doctrines in Islamic Theology)
b. [T]hreecontains

one

three

times.

5.2. 〈 単 数 〉〈 複 数 〉 と フ レ ー ム(Educational Weekly, Vol. II, No. 8)

ここでは、〈単数〉と〈複数〉の共通のフc. [T]hree is made up of one and one andレームについてさらに考察を進め、(32a)とone, or two and one, or one and two.

(32b)の間の関係について明らかにする。

(George Ricks, Elementary Arithmetic〈単数〉〈複数〉が依拠する〈部分〉〈全体〉

and How to Teach It)

については、(34)の例が示すように、
〈部分〉

66

が同時に〈全体〉である例があり、 PART IS

SINGULAR FOR AGGREGATE/PLURAL, AND

WHOLE, AND WHOLE IS PART と言える。

AGGREGATE/PLURALFORINDIVIDUAL/SINGULAR(34) Full ownership comes only when you havemade it [= the book] a part of yourself, and

以上の過程で(32a, b)は統合される。どちらも

the best way to make yourself a part of it is

INDIVIDUAL/SINGULAR FOR AGGREGATE/PLURAL, AND

by writing in it. (Mortimer J. Adler, “How

AGGREGATE/PLURAL FOR INDIVIDUAL/SINGULAR とい

to Mark a Book,” The Saturday Review ofうフレームを共有しており、(32a)は前半部分、Literature)(32b)は後半部分を焦点化したものとして分析できる。

ここでは、読者と本の間の関係に関して、一(36)で示したようなフレームの両義性は、文の中で全体と部分の関係（大小関係）が入(37)のような考え方によっても裏付けられるしれ替わっている。部分は全体、全体は部分と（廣瀬幸生先生のご教示による例）、(38)のよいうわけである。

うな表現の基盤であるとも言える。そして、〈個

これと並行的に、〈個体〉〈単数〉が同時に体〉と〈集合体〉の間の相互依存の関係は、(39)〈集合体〉〈複数〉である(35)のような例がのような〈個人〉と〈社会〉の間の相互依存のあ る 。 す な わ ち 、 INDIVIDUAL/SINGULAR IS関係に由来するものと言えよう。

AGGREGATE/PLURAL, AND AGGREGATE/PLURAL(37) It [= the acceptance of ambiguity] means thatIS INDIVIDUAL/SINGULAR と言える。

we know that good and evil are inextricably(35) a. We are one in two; two in one, both in each.

intermixed in human affairs; that they contain,(Hans Holzer, Witches: True Encountersand sometimes embrace, their opposites; thatwith Wicca, Covens, and Magick)success may involve failure of a different

b. [Y]ou see how connected we are, one inkind, and failure may be a kind of triumph.

two, two in one. (Elena Ferrante, The(Sydney J. Harris, “Learning to Live with

Story of a New Name)

Ambiguity,” Clearing the Ground)(38) a. Fair is foul, and foul is fair. (Shakespeare,
Macbeth 1.1.12)

ここでは、２人で１人、１人で２人というこ

b. All for one, one for all. (Alexandreとが述べられている。
PART IS WHOLE, AND WHOLE IS PART

Dumas, The Three Musketeers)や(39) a. 個体あっての集合体、集合体あっての個体

INDIVIDUAL/SINGULAR IS AGGREGATE/ PLURAL, AND
AGGREGATE/PLURAL IS INDIVIDUAL/SINGULAR を基b. 個人あっての社会、社会あっての個人盤として、(36)に示すような概念構造の組み替え(cf. Carr 1961: 31-55; Cooley 1902: 1-13)が生じたと考えるのは自然であろう。
6. む す び(36) a. PART IS WHOLE, AND WHOLE IS PART >ここでは、(5a)と(5b)を(6)の everyday logic/

PART FOR WHOLE, AND WHOLE FOR PARTsyllogism により組み合わせ、反意の意味が同b. INDIVIDUAL/SINGULAR IS AGGREGATE/

一の言語形式に結びつくことを捉えた。そし

PLURAL, AND AGGREGATE/PLURAL ISてこの論理により、単数表現の複数用法と複INDIVIDUAL/SINGULAR

数表現の単数用法を動機づけた。さらに、こ> INDIVIDUAL/

67

47, 27-52.

れらの用法が共通のフレーム（INDIVIDUAL/

Gibbons, Thomas (1767) Rhetoric; or A View of Its

SINGULAR FOR AGGREGATE/PLURAL, AND
AGGREGATE/PLURAL FOR INDIVIDUAL/ SINGULAR）

Principal Tropes and Figures, F. and W. Oliverに基づいており、それぞれ同一のフレームのin Bartholomew-Close, London.
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995) Constructions: A

異なる局面を焦点化したものであることをConstruction Grammar Approach to Argument

示した。

Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
* 本稿は、日本英語学会第 35 回大会（2017

Hotopf, W. H. N. (1980) “Semantic Similarity as a

年 11 月 18 日、19 日、於 東北大学）におけFactor in Whole-Word Slips of the Tongue,”

る研究発表に基づくものである。発表の前後

Errors in Linguistic Performance: Slips of theに、さまざまなご助言や励ましのお言葉をいTongue, Ear, Pen, and Hand, ed. by Victoria A.

ただいた諸氏、先生方に感謝申し上げたい。

Fromkin, 97-109, Academic Press, New York.
Lakoff, George and Rafael E. Núñez (2000)

参考文献

Where Mathematics Comes From: How theAnderson, John R. (1976) Language, Memory,

Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into
Being, Basic Books, New York.

and Thought, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale,

Lederer, Richard (1989) Crazy English, Pocket

New Jersey.

Books, New York.

Anttila, Raimo (1989) Historical and Comparative
Linguistics, 2nd ed., John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

西村義樹 (2008)「換喩の認知言語学」, 森雄一・

Blair, Hugh (1787) Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles

西村義樹・山田進・米山三明 (編)『ことばのLettres, Vol. I, 3rd ed., A. Strahan, London.

ダイナミズム』, 71-88, くろしお出版, 東京.

Carr, Edward Hallett (1961) What is History?,

Nunberg, Geoff (2005) “A Bad ’Un,” Language Log.

Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex.

<http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/
archives/002164.html>

Carter, Kenneth and Colleen Seifert (2013)
Learn

Psychology,

Jones

&

Quirk, Randolph et al. (1985) A Comprehensive

Barlett

Grammar

Learning, Burlington, Massachusetts.

of

the

EnglishLanguage,

Longman, London.

Cooley, Charles Horton (1902) Human Nature and theRadden, Günter and René Dirven (2007) Cognitive

Social Order, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New

English Grammar, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

York.

Voßhagen, Christian (1999) “Opposition as a

Courant, Richard and Herbert Robbins (1941) What Is
Mathematics?: An Elementary Approach to Ideas

Metonymic

and Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Language and Thought, ed. by Klaus-Uwe

Cruse,

D.

A.

(1986)

LexicalPrinciple,”

MetonymyinPanther and Günter Radden, 289-308, John

Semantics,

Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Du Marsais[, César Chesneau] (1730) Des Tropes ou

Waddingham, Anne, ed. (2014) New Hart’s

des Diferens Sens, dans Lesquels On PeutRules: The Oxford Style Guide, 2nd ed.,Prendre un Même Mot dans une Même Langue,

Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Wodak, Ruth et al. (1998) Zur Diskursiven

Chez la Veuve de Jean-Batiste Brocas, Paris.

Konstruktion Nationaler Identität, Suhrkamp,

Fromkin, Victoria A. (1971) “The Non-AnomalousFrankfurt.

Nature of Anomalous Utterances,” Language

68distance consonantal assimilation, exclusively interms of the primary Place of Articulation (PoA,
hereafter) between a non-word base andreduplicative onsets, empirically occurs in
Empirical Evidence to Consonant Harmony

English adult grammar when the reduplicants*in English Reduplication

are derived from the base.
The organization of this paper is as follows.

Hideo Kobayashi

Sub-section 1.1 illustrates three types of English

University of Hyogo (part-time)

reduplication from the literature, followed by theinvestigation of directionality of reduplication in

Keywords：consonant harmony, mature

sub-section 1.2. Sub-section 1.3 introduces

phonology, Correspondence Theory,

Correspondence Theory. Section 2 describes two

reduplication

tasks asking native English speakers to derive a
nonsensical euphonious reduplicant from anonce base and discusses the results of the

1. Introduction

experiments. Section 3 analyzes whether or not

This study aims to find the occurrence of thethere is evidence for consonant harmony in each

Optimality Theoretic Faithfulness constraintof these tasks.

AGREE (Pater and Werle (2003)) ranked activein adult grammar by conducting two types of

1.1. Types of Reduplication

reduplicative experiments with adult native

ReduplicationreferstoaprocessofEnglish speakers and then searching for

repetition whereby the form of a prefix/suffix

evidence of consonant harmony in synchronic

provides certain phonological characteristics

productions. Pater (1997) defines consonant(Crystal (2008: 407)). We review a well-rounded

harmony as “a process by which nonadjacentclassificationofreduplication

consonants assimilate in place or manner” (p.

well-known

in

Singh

234). This is largely because, according to“reduplication with no modification whatsoever,

Fikkert et al. (2005), this active constraint isreduplication with phonological modification,

characterized

and

as

“the

emergenceofthereduplication

which(1982)’s

with

is

work:

morphologicalunmarked” (TETU, hereafter) (McCarthy andmodifications” (p. 350). The generative process

Prince (1994)). Pater describes TETU as aof reduplication without any modification, better

scenario “in which a language generally permits

known as identical reduplication, does notaunmarkedprovide substantially fresh research impetus tocounterpart emerges in a particular environment

the present work because this process merelyin which the constraint which forces theinvolves total phonological copying of the baseappearance of the marked structure (usually theto the reduplicative form, as shown in bye-bye

Faithfulness Constraint) fails to apply” (p. 230).

([ˌbaɪ.ˈbaɪ]),We address the following research question ingoody-goody ([ˈɡʊd.i.ˌɡʊd.i]). (The diacritic

themark ˈ represents the location of primary stressmarkedcontext

structure,

of

but

the

Correspondence

Theory(McCarthy and Prince (1995)) - whether longboo-boo([ˈbu:.bu:]),and the mark ˌ denotes secondary stress.)

69

and

Reduplication

withphonologicalmorphemes and words.

modification encompasses ablaut reduplication
as well as rhyming reduplication. Crystal (2003)

1.2. Directionality of Reduplicationsuggests that ablaut and rhyming reduplication

Up until this point, we have not considered

represent the norm of reduplication in English,

which half of the reduplicative word is the basewhereas identical reduplication is rare. As

andsuggested by Thun (1960), ablaut reduplication

directionality of reduplication is important whenfrequently involves alternating the high front

we examine which segmental features of thevowel [ɪ] (which is a lax vowel) with the lowbase are transferred to the reduplicant. In orderfront vowel [æ] or the low back vowel [ɒ], as into consider this question, it depends on whether

riff-raff ([ˈrɪf.ræf]), chit-chat ([ˈʧɪt.ʧæt]), andor not the base is a lexical item. Walker (2001)

flip-flopisrefers to lexical items as “those words that serve

cross-linguistically considered the unmarked

as dictionary entries, having an identifiable

vowel (Minkova (2002)). A nucleus vowel withmeaning and grammatical role and a relatively

lower sonorancy proceeds a nucleus vowel withconstant phonological shape” (p. 13).

([ˈflɪp.flɒp]).

This

vowel

[ɪ]

which

half

is thereduplicant. The

higher sonorancy. This indicates the contrasting

Could a non-lexical item serve as a baseheight of the nucleus vowel in the base andfrom which a reduplicant is derived? Consulting

reduplicant in ablauts (Minkova (2002)).

Collins Online Dictionary (COD, hereafter)

Noted by Wheatley (1866) as “a remarkablepeculiarity”

(p.

4)

of

Englishshows us that there appears to be no unified

rhyming

directionality of English reduplication. Some

reduplication, a significant amount of rhyming

reduplicative

reduplicative words starts with /h/, as in([ˌwɪl.i.ˈnɪl.i]) are made up of a real word in thehocus-pocus ([ˌhoʊ.kəs.ˈpoʊ.kəs]), hodge-podge

left half of the reduplicative word followed by a([ˈhɒdʒ.pɒdʒ]),([ˌhel.tər.

nonsensicalword.

Conversely,ˈskel.tər]). Other consonant onsets, such as /k/,reduplicative

words

such

/s/, /p/, and /r/, fill in the base onsets (Hladký

([ˈskwiː.dʒiː]) begin with a nonsensical word1998). For example, kowtow ([ˌkaʊ.ˈtaʊ]),followed by a real word. Jespersen (1942) calls

super-duper

the left part of a reduplicative word the “kernel”

andhelter-skelter([ˌsu:.pə.

ˈdu:.pə]),

powwow([ˈpaʊ.waʊ]), and ragtag ([ˈræɡ.tæɡ]).

words

such

as

as

willy-nilly

othersqueegee(p. 4), and conventionally the kernel is the base

Infixing reduplication, which is construed as

and the right part of the reduplicative word is the

reduplication with morphological modification,

reduplicant. Based on this understanding arrived

does not occur as lexical items in English as

at by Jespersen (1942), our study follows theabundantly as rhyming and ablaut reduplication

view that reduplication in English involves(Crystal (2003)). For example, bric-a-bracsuffixation.

[ˈbrɪk.ə.ˌbræk], tit-for-tat ([ˌtɪt.fər.ˈtæt]), andA comprehensive review of the data in therazz-ma-tazz [ˌræz.mə.ˈtæz]. This is largely

corpus

shows

four

patternsoflexicality

1

because English does not have a system ofregarding base and reduplicant. In this study, we

infixes

These

determine the lexicality of two halves of a

that

infix

reduplicative word by verifying the entry of theinvolvesboth

two halves of a reduplicative word in the COD.

(Crystal(2003:

representative

examplesreduplicationin128)).
show

English70

As shown in (1a), some reduplicative words

hereafter) (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004),

consist of both lexical base and reduplicant andboth the base and reduplicant are treated as a set

others consist of both non-lexical base andof outputs (Minkova (2002)). The base has its

reduplicant (e.g., (1b)). Benczes (2012) notes

own input, but the reduplicant does not have anthat the right half of higgledy-piggledy possesses

input. The input for the base is determined bya morsel of meaning dating back to the Old

the Principle of the Richness of the Base, which

English pig and conversely the left half is aremoves any language-specific restriction frommeaningless unit. According to the COD,

the

Present-day English treats the combination of(1998)).

the two halves as the reduplicative word, so

underlying

representation(McCarthy

How is a reduplicant generated? In order tothere is no separate entry for each half of theapproachword in the COD. In current English usage,

Correspondence helps us see whether or not thethere are reduplicatives with a lexical base andmatching of the input with the output of the basenon-lexical reduplicant (e.g., (1c)) as well as

can be determined and the matching of the

reduplicatives with a non-lexical base and aoutput of the base with parts of the reduplicant

lexical reduplicant (e.g., (1d)).

can also be traced accordingly.

thisquestion,theconceptof

The reduplicant is derived from the output(1) Lexicality of base and reduplicant

form of the base, and hence technically speaking,a. sing-song ([ˈsɪŋ.sɒŋ]),the base and reduplicant are treated a string ofsilly-billy ([ˌsɪ.lɪ.ˈbɪ.lɪ])

outputs in OT. The following diagram suggestedb. higgledy-piggledy ([ˌhɪg.l̩ d.i.ˈpɪg.l̩ d.i]),by Minkova (2002) sufficiently captures thehoity-toity ([ˌhəʊt.i.ˈtəʊt.i])

general schema of Correspondence in thec. gibber-gabber ([ˈdʒɪb.ər.ˌdʒæb.ər]),base-reduplicant relationship:super-duper ([ˌsuːpə.ˈduːpə])d. dingle-dangle ([dɪŋg.əl.dæŋg.əl]),(2)

kowtow ([ˌkaʊ.ˈtaʊ])Input:/BASE/
IO Faithfulness

This sub-section verifies a past study whichclaimed that the linear ordering of the base andOutput: RED

the reduplicant cannot be semantically explained

BASE

BR Identity

alone (Cooper and Ross (1975: 74)). Given the(Minkova (2002: 138))

fixed directionality of English reduplication,withderivation

from

left

to

right,

theThe faithfulness constraints check out any

non-lexicality of the base does not prevent thediscrepancies between the base for input andreduplicant from being derived.

output. For instance, segmental deletion andepenthesis are noted by dint of IO Faithfulness.

1.3. Correspondence Theory

In contrast, BR Identity identifies any disparity

In this section, we review the basic

between the base form for output and theframework of a constraint-based approach toreduplicant that is derived from the base form

reduplication.

for output.

In

Optimality

Theory(OT,

71Let us now examine a rhyming example incollege-educated and without any hearing orCorrespondence Theory, in which the input basespeaking disabilities. Each informant only/hoʊki/ generates the output base [hoʊ.ki]. The

participated in one of the two tasks. The

reduplicant [koʊ.ki] is derived from the output

informants were English teachers who lived inbase. This process of rhyming reduplication

Japan, and their age ranged from late teens toshows that IO Faithfulness is entirely respected

fifties. The rhyme task required the informants

since the output base maintains the identicalto derive a euphonious rhyming nonsensicalsegments to those in the input, whereas BR

reduplicant from a given base as soon as

Identity is not partially respected because thepossible

reduplicant exhibits a rhyming onset filled in its

informants to derive any type of euphonious

onset position.

nonsensical reduplicant from the base – i.e., fulland the free task required theWhat determines the shape of reduplicative

reduplicant (also known as identical reduplicant),

segments, typically rhyming onsets? Markedness

rhyming reduplicant, ablaut reduplicant, or

constraints play a crucial role in determining theinfixing reduplicant. The informants were shown

segments of these partial reduplicants, anda list of linguistic stimuli and were asked tomarkedness

withlisten to a pre-recorded utterance of eachfaithfulness constraints. When IO Faithfulness

stimulus on a digital audio recorder (Olympus

constraints dominate markedness constraints in

Voice Trek V-822). The informants’ productions

the derivation of partial reduplication, it follows

were recorded. Thirty non-word base forms werethat the grammatical output will satisfy theprovided with legal syllable structures andhighest ranked faithfulness constraints, but thisphonotactic sequences. As can be seen below in

output may contain segments that offend(3),

subordinate

disyllabic, or trisyllabic.

constraints

alsomarkedness

interact

constraints.

The

the

stimuliareeithermonosyllabic,

grammatical output with the rhyming onset
always contains segments that contravene BR(3) Linguistic stimuli

Identity constraints. Accordingly, the BR Identity

a. keam [ˈkiːm], thambs [ˈðæmz]constraints

markedness

b. thiglish [ˈθɪɡ.lɪʃ], striment [ˈstraɪ.ment]

constraints. This study adopts the cardinalc. vemony [vɪ.ˈmʌn.iː], nooity [ˈnuːˌɪt.iː]areoutranked

byconstraint ranking to account for the derivationof a rhyming onset, which is commonly

The rhyming onset consonant that was derived

represented by 〖IO-Faithfulness » Markedness

from the output for the base was classified» BR-Identity〗, as suggested by McCarthy andaccording to its PoA. The classification of

Prince (1994) and Kager (1999).

consonants in terms of PoA is illustrated in (4)below. The onset /w/ was not counted as PoA

2. Experiment and ResultsThis

researchwasregarding the reduplicative onsets because /w/ isconducted

fromcharacterized as labial as well as dorsal

November 2015 to March 2016 and it had two(Hammond (1999)).

parts: a "rhyme task" and a "free task." There
were 18 native English speaker informants that

(4) PoA of the rhyming onsets

participated in each task. They were alla. Labial: /p/, /b/, /f/, /v/, /w/

72

dorsal consonant onset in deriving the rhyming

b. Coronal: /t/, /d/, /r/, /l/, /s/, /z/, /ʤ/, /ʧ/,reduplicant.

/ð/, /θ/c. Dorsal: /ɡ/, /k/, /w/

3. Analysis and Conclusion
The results suggest that in the rhyme task,

Table 1 shows that the rhyme task produced
384 single onset reduplicants out of 527 valid

labialassimilationisactualizedbyresponses, whereas the free task produced 237

cross-linguistical markedness motivations andsingle onset reduplicants out of 532 valid

labials are preferred over dorsals in syllable

responses.

initial position (Fikkert et al. (2005)). Following

The numeral figures without the parentheses

Fikkert et al. (2005), we suggest that the coronaldenote the number of reduplicative onsets

consonants are used as the default onset for theexhibiting an identical PoA to the base onset.

rhyming reduplicants. To provide statistical

The figures in the parentheses indicate theevidence

number of derived reduplicants in total.

hypotheses were tested with a chi-squared test.

for

this

claim,

thefollowing

The null hypothesis was that the informants did
2

Table 1: Instances of CH in terms of PoA

not discriminate labial consonants from dorsal

Types of

Rhyme

Free

consonants in generating rhyming reduplicants,

assimilation

Task

Task

and the alternative hypothesis was that they

Labial38 (200)

21 (91)

discriminated labials from dorsals in theirCoronal59 (141)43 (120)

production. The chi-squared test gives χ2 (1) =Dorsal0 (43)

1 (26)

14.08, with a significant difference between the

Total

97 (384)

65 (237)

occurrence of labials and dorsals in the rhyming
task, compared with χ2 (1) = 2.25 (n.s.)

Although the results showed a faithful mapping

regarding the occurrence of labials and dorsals

from base to reduplicant in terms of PoA, suchin the base onsets. Accordingly, the nullas [vɪ.ˈmʌn.iː.bɪ.mʌn.iː], [ˈθɪnɡ.lɪʃ.tɪnɡ.lɪʃ], andhypothesis is rejected, and this indicates that[ˈɡɔːp.kɔːp], the proportion of such mapping islabial assimilation in the rhyme task resulted

rather negligible. Particularly, dorsal base onsets

from the efficacious combination of active

were rarely faithfully transferred to reduplicative

AGREE and RHYME (Yip (2001)) in the adultonsets; 97 tokens in the rhyme task and 65

grammar. Each of these constraints are listed intokens in the free task conceivably stemmed(5) below;

from the direct effects of the active AGREE,
requiring the PoA faithful reduplicative onset to(5) a. AGREE: the place of articulation of abe derived from the base onset. There are no

segment must coincide with the place ofcases at all of dorsal assimilation in the rhyme

articulation of the other one (Pater andtask and only one occurrence of dorsal

Werle (2003)).

assimilation

in

the

free

task:

b. RHYME: the reduplicant must rhyme with

gaupkaup

the base (Yip (2001)).

[ˈɡɔ:p.kɔ:p]. This makes us wonder whether orc. [LABIAL: the word must start with the

not the informants had deliberately avoided thelabial consonant (Fikkert et al. (2005)).

73

Gibber? Making Sense of English Rhyming
In this regard, TETU resulted from Consonant

Compounds,”

Harmony in terms of PoA in the non-word

Linguistics 32, 299-326.

reduplicative generation of tokens. Otherwise,

Collins Online Dictionary (2017)

ConsonantHarmony

did

notsignificantly

Australian

Journalof< https://www.collinsdictionary.com>

2

emerge. The chi-squared test gives χ (1) = 2.31

Cooper, William E. and John Robert R. (1975)(n.s.), indicating that in the free task, there was“Word Order,” Papers from the Parasession

no significant difference between the occurrence

on Functionalism, CLS, ed. by Robin E.

of labials and dorsals in reduplicative onsets.

Grossman, L. James San, and Timothy J.

Addressing the issue of dorsal eschewal for the

Vance, 63-111.

rhyming onset, we ascribe this phenomenon to

Crystal,the activity of the constraint *[DORAL;

David(2003)

The

Cambridge

Encyclopedia of the English Language,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

(6) *[DORSAL: the word must not start with the

Crystal,dorsal consonant (Fikkert et al. (2005)).

David

Linguistics(2008)
andA

Dictionary

Phonetics,ofBlackwell

Publisher, Malden.
This

study

concludes

ConsonantFikkert, Paula et al. (2005) “Rhymes as aHarmony between a non-word base onset and a

Window into Grammar,” Proceedings of the

non-word

29th Annual Boston University Conference

reduplicant

that

onset

is

a

rare

phenomenon in adult English grammar, except

on Language Development 1, 204-215.

when exclusively rhyming reduplicants are

Hale, Mark and Charles Reiss (2008) The

generated. The research methodology which thisPhonological Enterprise, Oxford University

study adopts, with a contrastive range ofPress, Oxford.

reduplicative tasks, provides fresh evidence ofHammond, Michael (1999) The Phonology ofconsonant harmony in the rhyme task. This

English,methodology would be worth testing in otherCambridge.

languages which are also rich in reduplication.

Cambridge

University

Press,

Hladký, Josef (1998) “Notes on Reduplicative
Words in English,” Brno Studies in English* The author acknowledges valuable comments

24, 33-78.

from Shin-ichi Tanaka, Haruka Fukazawa,

Jespersen, Otto (1942) A Modern English

Kiyoko Yoneyama, and Kohei Nishimura.

Grammar on Historical Principles VI:
Morphology,

NOTES
1

GeorgeAllen&

Unwin,(1999)

Optimality

Theory,London.

The corpus here refers to a considerable body

Kager,

of 1,218 reduplicative words collected and

Réne

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

collated from past studies, including Thun

McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince (1994) “The(1960), Hladký (1998), and Wheatley (1866).
2
CH is the acronym for consonant harmony.

Emergence of the Unmarked: Optimality in
Prosodic Morphology,” Proceedings of the

REFERENCES
Benczes, Réka (2012) “Just a Load of Hibber

Northeast Linguistics Society 24, 333-379.
McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince (1995)

74

“Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity,”

Constraints and Representations, ed. by

University of Massachusetts Occasional

Laura

Papers in Linguistics 18, ed. by Jill

University Press, Cambridge.

Beckman,

Laura

Walsh

and

SuzanneUrbanczyk, 249-384, Graduate Linguistic
Student Association, Amherst.
McCarthy, John J. (1998) Doing Optimality
Theory: Applying Theory to Data, Blackwell
Publishing, Malden.
Minkova, Donka (2002) “Ablaut Reduplication
in English: The Criss-Crossing of Prosody
and Verbal Art,” English Language andLinguistics 6, 133-169.
Pater, Joe (1997) “Minimal Violation andPhonological

Development,”

Language

Acquisition 6, 201-253.
Pater, Joe and Adam Werle (2003) “Direction of
Assimilation in Child Consonant Harmony,”
Canadian

Journalof

Linguistics

48,

385-408.
Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky (1993/2004)
Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in
Generative Grammar, Blackwell Publishing,
Malden.
Singh, Rajedra (1982) “On Some ‘RedundantCompounds’ in Modern Hindi,” Lingua 56,
345-351.
Thun, Nils (1963) Reduplicative Words in
English: A Study of Formations of the Types
Tick-Tick, Hurley-Burley and Shilly-Shally,
Lund, Uppsala.
Walker, Douglas C. (2001) French Sound
Structure, University of Calgary Press,
Calgary.
Wheatley, Henry B. (1866) A Dictionary of
Reduplicated Words in the English Language,
Asher and Co, London.
Yip, Moira (2001) “Segmental Unmarkedness
Versus Input Preservation in Reduplication,”
Segmental Phonology in Optimality Theory:

75

Lombardi,

206-228,

Cambridge

the analysis, which is followed by a summary of
the paper.
2. Two Types of from-to PPs and Displacement
On Two Types of from-to PPs in English and
the Parallelism in Syntax

It has been observed that from-to PPs form a*

constituent, unlike other arbitrary pairs of PPs in
English (Williams (1994)). In (2), [from-to] is
topicalized,

while

preposed[to-for]is

Ryoichiro Kobayashi

ungrammatical. Since only one constituent can

Sophia University/JSPS

be topicalized in English, Williams concludes
that [from-to] forms a single constituent.

Keywords：coordination, parallel structure,path/range PPs, English, syntax(2) a. [From Alabama to Louisiana] John
played the banjo.
b. *[To Mary for Bill] I gave a book.

1. Introduction

cf. I gave a book to Mary for Bill.

This paper argues in support of Williams’(Williams (1994: 12))(1994) observations regarding bivalent PPs in
English (Williams (1994: 12‒15)) and his

He notes that “from-to means more than the sum

generalization that from-to PPs form a single

of its parts,” indicating a path (Jackendoff

constituent as in (1), unlike other pairs of PPs(1990)) by specifying its endpoints (Williams(e.g., for-to).

(1994: 13)).
I point out, however, that this is not always(1) John played the banjo [from Alabama toLouisiana].

the case. Different syntactic tests show that there(Williams (1994: 12))

exist two types of from-to PPs, which I callseparable PPs and coordinated PPs, exemplified

Furthermore, I attempt to show that there exist

respectively in (3a) and (3b).

two syntactically different types of from-to PPs
in English. I then claim that the construction is(3) Two Types of from-to PPs:

better captured if we consider it an instance ofa. Separable PPs:

parallel structures (Goodall (1987)), such as

Taro {took Shinkansen/went} from Tokyo tocoordination,

Sendai.

parasitic

gaps,

and

copulaconstructions (cf. Asada and Kato (2011)).

b. Coordinated PPs:

The organization of this paper is as follows.

The range of diabetes sufferers stretches fromIn Section 2, we observe that there are twochildren to adults.

distinct from-to PPs in English on the basis ofseveral syntactic tests. Section 3 provides a

We will also see that the latter is actuallysyntactic analysis of “coordinated PPs,” whichambiguous between (3a) and (3b) in terms of its

correspondstructure.

toWilliams’s(1994)

bivalent

functors. In Section 4, I show a consequence ofA crucial difference between the two is76

whether it is possible for from-PP or to-PP to(7) Separable PPs:

appear independently. In (4), either [from Tokyo]

a. Taro {took Shinkansen/went} from Tokyo toor [to Sendai], as well as [from Tokyo to Sendai],Sendai.

can appear as a modifier phrase. On the otherb. From Tokyo, Taro {took Shinkansen/went}

hand, this is impossible in (5) or (6) unless

to Sendai.

[from-to] appears together as in (5a) and (6a).

c. To Sendai, Taro {took Shinkansen/went}from Tokyo.

(4) Separable PPs:

d. Froma. Taro {took Shinkansen/went} from Tokyo to

Tokyo

to

Sendai,

Taro

{took

Shinkansen/went}.

Sendai.

(8) Coordinated PPs (path):b. Taro {took Shinkansen/went} from Tokyo.

a.

c. Taro {took Shinkansen/went} to Sendai.

John played the banjo from Alabama toLouisiana.

(5) Coordinated PPs (path):b.

a. John played the banjo from Alabama to*From Alabama, John played the banjo to
Louisiana.

Louisiana.

c.

b. *John played the banjo from Alabama.

*To Louisiana, John played the banjo from
Alabama.

c. *John played the banjo to Louisiana.

d.

(6) Coordinated PPs (range):

From Alabama to Louisiana, John played
the banjo.

a. The range of diabetes sufferers stretches(9) Coordinated PPs (range):from children to adults.

a. The range of diabetes sufferers stretches

b. *The range of diabetes sufferers stretchesfrom children to adults.

from children.

b. *From children, the range of diabetes

c. *The range of diabetes sufferers stretches tosufferers stretches to adults.

adults.

c. *To adults, the range of diabetes sufferers
stretches from children.

Given

these

coordinatedobservations,PPscannot

I
be

argue

that

d. From children to adults, the range ofsyntacticallydiabetes sufferers stretches.

separated, while separable PPs, as the nameindicates, can. In the following subsections, I

Next, we move on to another displacement test.

show that this is indeed the case through two
syntactic tests, topicalization and clefting.

2.2. Clefting
The same contrast holds true with clefting.

2.1. Topicalization

In (10), both from-PP and to-PP can be

Let us observe the data in (7) through (9).

independently clefted, though the acceptability

All the examples in (7) are acceptable. The

is slightly degraded in (10b) and in (10c). Indeed,grammatical contrasts between (7) and (8‒9)

even wh-clefts are allowed, as in (11).

indicate that a coordinated PP cannot undergo
displacement unless the whole from-to PP is(10) Separable PPs:

preposed, as in (8d) and (9d).

a. Taro {took Shinkansen/went} from Tokyo to
Sendai.

77

b. ?It was from Tokyo that Taro {tookplayed the banjo.

Shinkansen/went} to Sendai.
c. ?Itwasto

Sendaithat(14) Coordinated PPs (range):
Taro

{took

a. The range of diabetes sufferers stretches

Shinkansen/went} from Tokyo.

from children to adults.

d. It was from Tokyo to Sendai that Taro {tookb. *It is from children that the range of diabetes

Shinkansen/went}.

sufferers stretches to adults.

(11) Where Taro went was from Tokyo to Sendai.

c. *It is to adults that the range of diabetes
sufferers stretches from children.

I claim that the oddness of (10b) and (10c) is
due

to

the

pragmatic

factorsd. It is from children to adults that the range ofregardingdiabetes sufferers stretches.

focalization in clefts (Takaomi Kato p.c.).
Indeed, they become perfectly acceptable if they

So far, we have seen that from-to PPs areare immediately preceded by the corresponding

ambiguous between separable and coordinated.

wh-questions, as in (12).

Different syntactic tests show that the latter must
always appear as [from-to]. A word of caution is(12) Q:{From/To}

where

did

Taro

take

necessary here. I do not exclude the possibility

Shinkansen?

that separable PPs behave as coordinated PPs.

A1: It was from Tokyo that Taro tookThus, the separable PPs are ambiguous in thisShinkansen to Sendai. (=10b)

sense. In the next section, I propose a syntactic

A2: It was to Sendai that Taro took

analysis of coordinated PPs.

Shinkansen from Tokyo. (=10c)
3. Analysis
A sharp contrast may also be drawn between

First, let us determine the hierarchicalthe separable and coordinated PP in the case of

relation between from-PP and to-PP. Hornsteinclefting, as shown in (13). The sentences inand Weinberg (1981) observe that some English(13b‒c)prepositions are irrelevant to binding. Relevant

and(14b‒c)remainseverelyungrammatical even if they are preceded by thedata are presented in (15).

corresponding wh-questions, unlike (10b‒c). As
predicted, the sentence becomes grammatical(15) a. He talked [PP to themi] about each otheri.

only when the whole [from-to] is clefted, as inb. ?The detective worked [PP from Maryi](13d) and (14d).

back to herselfi.
(Baltin and Postal (1996))(13) Coordinated PPs (path):a. John played the banjo from Alabama to

I assume that to or from in coordinated PPs alsoLouisiana.

does not affect the binding relation in syntax.

b. *It was from Alabama that John played the

Now let us consider the relevant data in (16).

banjo to Louisiana.

There is a contrast between (16a) and (16b): The

c. *It was to Louisiana that John played theBound Variable Reading (BVR) is available only

banjo from Alabama.

ford. It was from Alabama to Louisiana that John(16a),

which

indicatesthatc-commands to-PP, but not vice versa.

78

1

from-PP(16) a. A line stretches from every mani to hisi

(18)

daughter. (BVR)

PP1
PP1

b. *A line stretches from hisi daughter to

fromP1

PP2
NP toP2NP

every mani. (BVR)
In the rest of this Section I provide empirical3.1. Coordinated PPs and Coordinate Structureevidence for the current analysis of from-to PPs.

Following the insight of Williams (1994), I
propose that coordinated PPs in English have a

3.2. Coordinated PPs and the Coordinate

structure resembling coordination. A number ofStructure Constraint

studies have been conducted in the literature on

In Section 2, we saw that the coordinatedthe syntactic structure of coordination since thePPs are inseparable. The relevant syntactic

advent of Xʹ-theory around the early 1980s (seeindivisibility

Progovac (2003) for an overview). Some

Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC) in (19).

naturally

derivesfromthepropose that a coordinator is a syntactic headthat projects its phrase (&P), in which the first(19) In a coordinate structure, no conjunct may

conjunct resides in the specifier and the second

be moved, nor may any element contained

conjunct in the complement positions (Zoernerin a conjunct be moved out of that conjunct.

(1995) and Johannessen (1998), among others),(adapted from Ross (1967))

while others defend the multiple dominancestructure (Citko (2005) and Kasai (2007) among

It is widely known that (the second half of) theothers, which dates backs to McCawley (1982)

CSC is “obviated” when an element (what in(Naoki Fukui p.c.)). I do not commit myself to a(20b)) is extracted in Across-the-Board (ATB)

particular analysis of coordinate structure in thisfashion, as in (20).

paper, since it does not affect the current
proposal. For the sake of discussion, I adopt(20) a. *What did Mary [send t on Monday] andMunn’s (1993) adjunction analysis of coordinate[receive the parcel on Wednesday]?

structure. He proposes that coordinate structureb. What did Mary [send t on Monday] andis an adjoined phrase in which the second[receive t on Wednesday]?
(Kato (2006: 1‒8))

conjunct complemented by &-head adjoins to2

the first conjunct in head-initial languages. Thisis schematically illustrated in (17).

If the coordinated from-to PPs have coordinate
structure (or coordination-like structure) as in

(17)

XP
XP

(18), then the current analysis predicts that they&P&will also show this obviation effect with ATB
YP

extraction. This prediction is indeed borne out.
While (21a) and (21b) are ungrammatical, ATB
movement saves the structure in (21c).4

A possible application of this analysis to thecoordinated PPs would be something like (18).3(21) a. *What did John play the banjo from theeast of t to the west of Louisiana?

79b. *What did John play the banjo from theb. *Which classi is your grade in ti myeast of Alabama to the west of t ?

grade in Phonology I?

c. (?)What did John play the banjo from thec. *Which classi is your grade in Syntax IIeast of t to the west of t ?

my grade in ti?
d. Which classi is your grade in ti my gradeThat the data in (21c) are grammatical provides

in ti?

support for the current analysis and the(Asada and Kato (2010: 1))

coordination-like structure in (18). Before weconclude the paper, I briefly discuss an

I have argued that certain from-to PPs in English

implication of the proposal.

also involve non-canonical coordinate structuresthat abide by the CSC. The findings of this study

4. Conclusion

support Asada and Kato’s (2010) observation

In this paper, we have seen that there are twothat parallel structure is not limited to canonicaltypes of syntactically distinct from-to phrases incoordination.

English, separable and coordinated. They are
schematically illustrated in (22).

Appendix
In this section, I touch on a potential(22) a. Separable PPs:

problem

X’
X’
X’

of

labeling

via

feature-sharing(Chomsky (2013)) when it comes to coordinate
PP1structure. Although the original analysis of

PP2

Munn (1993) makes recourse to adjunction, let
us assume that (17), (18), and (22b) are created
via set-merge (not via pair-merge, keeping to theb. Coordinated PPs:

simplest conception of Merge). Chomsky (2013:

X’45) emphasizes that labeling via feature-sharing

…

PP1
PP1

fromP1

must involve agreement. Since mere matching of
PP2

NP toP2

features does not suffice, {PP1, PP2} and otherNP

coordinate structures may remain unlabelable. I
suggest that the agreement restriction of labelingDifferent syntactic tests show that certain

via feature-sharing should be weakened in somefrom-to PPs (path and range PPs) bearcases. For instance, the semantic symmetry ofsimilarities to coordinate structure. The current

coordination might be a precondition for thisstudy may contribute to the theory of parallel

obviation. Although Chomsky (2013: 46) briefly

structure (Goodall (1987)), such as coordination,notes that the label of a structured coordination

copula, and parasitic gap constructions. It has

is the label shared by the conjuncts, the jury is

been observed that ATB-extraction obviates thestill out on this issue.

CSC in the copula construction as well in (23).5* I would like to thank Naoki Fukui, Takaomi(23) a. Your grade in Syntax II is my grade in

Kato, and Hiroki Narita for their valuable

Phonology I.

comments on the earlier versions and ideas of80

this paper. Thanks also go to Ryan Walter Smith,Sara Terre Blanche and the audience at the 35(2011) for more details.

thConference of the English Linguistic Society of

REFERENCES

Japan at Tohoku University. This work was

Asada, Yuko and Takaomi Kato (2011) “Copularsupported by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Research

Sentences

Follow #16J00637. The usual disclaimers apply.

Proceedings

NOTES
Although the sentence is degraded, to-PP may

Conference on Linguistics, ed. by Bailey

c-command from-PP when they surface as

Baltin, Mark and Paul Postal (1996) “More on

1

andCoordinate

of

the

Structures,”39th

Western

Dina and Victoria Teliga, 1-11.

[to-from] in (i).

Reanalysis Hypotheses,” Linguistic Inquiry
27, 127-145.

(i) a. ??A line stretches to every soni from his

Chomsky,motheri. (BVR)

Noam(2013)“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.

b. A line stretches to hisi mother from every

Citko, Barbara (2005) “On the Nature of Merge:soni. (BVR)

External

Merge,

Internal

Merge,

and

Parallel Merge,” Linguistic Inquiry 36,2475-496.

I do not discuss head-final languages in thisGoodall, Grant (1987) Parallel Structures inpaper. See Kobayashi (to appear) for an analysis
of kara-made ‘from-to’ PPs in Japanese.

Syntax:3

I would like to thank Takaomi Kato (p.c.) for

Restructuring. Cambridge University Press,

his insightful comments regarding the structure

Cambridge.

Causatives

andHornstein, Norbert and Amy Weinberg (1981)

of from-to PPs.
4

Coordination,“Case Theory and Preposition Stranding,”

Williams (1994) also provides the following

Linguistic Inquiry 12, 55-91.

example in (i). However, there is a possibility

Jackendoff, Ray (1990) Semantic Structures.

that the data is an instance of the separable PPs

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

since the predicate is go, which is identical to

Johannessen, Janne Bondi (1998) Coordination.

(3a), repeated here as in (ii).

Oxford University Press, Oxford.
(i) What did John go from the top of to thebottom of?

Kasai, Hironobu (2007) Multiple Dominance in(Williams (1994: 14))

Syntax.

Doctoraldissertation,

Harvard

University.

(ii) Taro went from Tokyo to Sendai. (=3a)

Kato,

Takaomi(2006)

Thus, I reexamined the ATB-effect with the data

Coordination.

in (21) based on the coordinated PPs in (3b). I

Harvard University.

Symmetries

Doctoralindissertation,

Kobayashi, Ryoichiro (to appear) “The Syntax

would like to thank Takeo Kurafuji (p.c.) forthpointing this out to me at the 35 Conference ofofpath/range

PP

Constructions

inthe English Linguistic Society of Japan.

Japanese,” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 25

5Asada and Kato (2011) successfully unify the(Online Proceedings), CSLI Publications,movement restrictions in the copula construction

Stanford.
McCawley, James (1982) “Parentheticals andand coordinate structure. See Asada and Kato81

Discontinuous

Constituent

Structure,”

Linguistic Inquiry 13, 91-106.
Munn, Alan (1993) Topics in the Syntax and
SemanticsofCoordinate

Structures.

Doctoral dissertation, The University of
Maryland.
Progovac,

Ljiljana(2003)“Structure

for

The

SecondGlotState-of-The-Article

Book:

Coordination,”International

The Latest in Linguistics, ed. by Lisa
Cheng

and

Rint

Sybesma,

241-287.

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Ross, John Robert (1967) Constraints on
Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation,
MIT.
Williams, Edwin (1994) Thematic Structure in
Syntax. MIT press, Cambridge, MA.
Zoerner, Edward (1995) Coordination: The
Syntaxof&P.

Doctoraldissertation,

University of California, Irvine.

82

(2) John has {a/the} book.
(2)において、book は、他人に譲渡可能である。この場合、目的語は定表現でも容認され所有構文における名詞の意味機能*る。したがって、一見すると、所有構文の定（Semantic Functions of Noun Phrases in性効果は、譲渡可能な所有か否かという概念

Possesive Constructions）の違いによって説明できるように思われる。
しかしながら、それだけでは捉えられない小深田 祐子（Yuko Kobukata）

例がある。(3)をみてみよう。

熊本学園大学（Kumamoto Gakuen University）(3) Q. What will you give to Eliza for herbirthday?

キーワード：定性効果, 譲渡(不)可能所有,

A. Eliza has {a/*the} mirror, so I won’t give

変項名詞句, 飽和性, 指示性

one to her.
1. はじめに(3)の対話において、(3A)の have の目的語
mirror は譲渡可能所有を表わす名詞である

本論では、英語の所有構文の目的語名詞句に焦点を当てる。具体的には、西山(2003,

が、定性効果が生じる。

2009, 2013)の日本語の分析を踏まえ、英語のそれに対して、(4)のように、譲渡不可能

所有構文の定性効果について論じ、名詞句の所有を表わす名詞 sister が用いられた場合で意味機能の観点から、英語の所有構文がどのも、定性効果が見られない場合もある。

ように特徴づけられるかを考える。
(4) John has the sister as a dance-partner.
2. 定性効果と譲渡不可能所有(1)において、have の目的語に定名詞句は

よって、目的語名詞の表わす所有関係が譲現れることができず、定性効果が出る。

渡可能かどうかという区別によって、定性効
果は適切に説明できないといえる。

(1) John has {a/*the} sister.

本論では、英語の所有構文の定性効果を説明するためには、構文全体の解釈を考慮する

従来、所有構文の定性効果は、目的語に親族必要があると主張する (cf. Kobukata (2009))。

関係や身体部分などの関係概念を表わす名

具体的には、「所有解釈」と「所持解釈」の詞が用いられる場合に生じるとされてきた。

二つの解釈を提案する。その上で、西山の日親族関係や身体部分は、他人に譲渡できない

本語の分析と本論の主張との関連を探る。

ために譲渡不可能所有と呼ばれ、この概念が、所有構文の定性効果の原因とされる。(de3. 構文の解釈と定性効果

Jong (1987), Keenan (1987), Partee (1999)等)

3.1. 所有解釈

一方、譲渡不可能所有の対の概念となる、(5a)において、目的語名詞句は譲渡不可能

譲渡可能所有が表わされる場合には、その効所有を表わす。修飾句 of his own が用いられ果は出ないように思われる。

ていることから分かるように、(5a)はジョンが妻帯者であることを表わす。つまり、ジョ83

ンの内在的な特性もしくは属性を述べる文

有者を要求する動詞、own, possess を用いてである。ある人が妻であるかどうかは、「α返答することはできない。また、このようなの妻」のαの値が決まらなければ分からない。 差は、(8)からも確認できる。
Wife という名詞は、ジョンの妻となっては(8) a. Eliza has a mirror, but it doesn’t belong

じめて完全な名詞句として成立する。このよto her.

うに、主語の特性や属性を述べる場合の解釈

b. # Eliza {owns/possesses} a mirror, but it

を「所有解釈」と呼ぶことにする。

doesn’t belong to her.
(5) a. John has a wife (of his own).

【妻帯者】

b. wife: αの妻(8a)では、「Eliza が目的語の鏡を自分の意のままに利用可能であるが、その鏡の所有者で注意したいのは、所有解釈は、目的語に譲はない」ということが表わされている。それ

渡可能所有を表わす名詞が用いられる場合に対して、(8b)のような、必ず主語に所有者にも得られる点である。

を要求する動詞が用いられる場合には、ownership をキャンセルすることはできない。

(6) a. Eliza has a car.

【車持ち】

このように「主語が目的語を、自由に利用しb. Eliza {owns/possesses} a car.

たり、活用できる状況にあるが、主語が目的語の所有者ではない」という解釈を、「所持(6a)が(6b)と同義である場合、(6a)は、Eliza

解釈」と呼ぶことにする。所持解釈は、(8a)が「車持ち」であるという彼女の特性を表わのような物理的なモノだけでなく、有性のヒす文と理解できる。よって、「所有解釈」とトを目的語にとる場合にも得られる解釈では、目的語に譲渡不可能所有に加え、譲渡可ある。(9)をみてみよう。

能所有を表わす名詞が用いられる場合にも(9) Paul: I have a brother of Jack’s as secretary.

得られる解釈である。

Kim: Oh, that’s funny! Anne has a sister.
(Jensen and Vikner (1996: 8))

3.2. 所持解釈
次に所持解釈の場合をみてみよう。

(9)において、have の目的語は、譲渡不可能(7) Q. What can I use to hold these papers

所有を表わす brother, sister 等のヒトである。

down?

Paul が「僕は Jack の弟を秘書に雇っている」

A. Eliza has a mirror.

と発言したのに対して、Kim が「Anne の秘(A’. # Eliza {owns/possesses} a mirror.)

書は Jack の妹だ」と返答する。Kim の発言(Tham (2006: 142))

は、Anne に妹がいるという、Anne の血縁関係を述べているのではない。つまり、Anne(7Q)への返答である(7A)には、譲渡可能所有以外の第三者の妹が彼女の秘書だという解を表わす名詞が用いられ、Eliza が実際にそ釈となり、秘書という関係において、Anneの鏡の法的な所有者(legal owner)だという解と一時的に関係を結んでいるだけである。よ釈とはならない。(7A)は、Eliza が誰かに借って、(10)が問題なく容認される。

りた鏡を所持しているという解釈が可能で(10) Ann has a sister as her secretary, but she

ある。その証拠に、(7A’)のように、主語に所84

doesn’t have a sister of her own.

適切なモノさえ見つかれば十分で、誰かがそれを所有しているかどうかまでは、問題とな(10)の前件の文では、Ann と下線部の sister

らない。つまり、所持解釈が得られる場面ととの関係は、姉妹関係ではなく、as 句で表現なる。このような状況では、一様に定性効果される秘書としての関係である。よって、後がみられない。このことは、(14)の目的語が続の節で、Ann 自身に妹がいないと矛盾なく譲渡不可能所有の名詞の場合も同様である。

続けられる。このように、所持解釈は、主語(13) Q. What can I use to hold these papersと目的語との間に、文脈によって指定された

down?

関係が存在する場合に得られる。
以上のことから、所持解釈は、モノ、ヒト

A. Eliza has {a/ the/ John’s} mirror.

に関係なく、さらに、譲渡可能所有、不可能(14) A. I have a brother of Jack’s as secretary.

所有のどちらを表わす名詞が用いられてもB. Oh, that’s funny! Anne has {a sister/Bill’s sister}.

得られる解釈である。
3.3. 構文の解釈にもとづく定性効果

以上のことから、定性効果が生じるか否か以上を踏まえると、所有構文の定性効果がは、目的語名詞が譲渡不可能な所有関係を表適切に説明できる。(11), (12A)は、have の目

わすということだけでは適切に説明できず、的語にそれぞれ譲渡不可能所有、可能所有を

構文自体がどのような文脈で用いられ、所有表わす名詞が用いられ、主語の内在的な特性

解釈・所持解釈のどちらが得られるかというを表わす。たとえば、(12A)は「Eliza は鏡を視点が必要となる。

既に持っているから、誕生日プレゼントに鏡をあげるのはやめておこう」と返答しており、 4. 日本語の所有構文の目的語名詞句の特徴
彼女の所有物に関しての解釈しかできず、所

本節では、西山(2003, 2009, 2013)の日本語有解釈が得られる。この文脈で目的語は定名の分析をみていく。西山は、日本語の存在構

詞句にできない。

文や所有構文を、変項名詞句という理論的概念を取り入れて詳細に分析する。まず、(15a)(11) John has {a/*the} sister of his own.

と(16a)とは、存在構文としては、区別すべき(12) Q. What will you give to Eliza for herだとする。この二つの存在文は、場所表現を

birthday?

伴うがどうかで異なり、(15a)は、場所表現がA. Eliza has {a/*the} mirror, so I won’t

あるので、場所存在文と呼ぶ。ここで、(15a)give one to her.

の存在主体である「本」は、指示的名詞句となる。

したがって、目的語に譲渡可能所有、不可(15) a. 机の上に本がある。

能所有のどちらの名詞が用いられていても、【場所存在文】

b. 存在主体「本」：指示的名詞句

所有解釈が得られる場合は、一様に定性効果が生じる。
一方、(13), (14)は、所持解釈が得られる文

一方、(16a)は、場所辞を伴わない。西山は、脈である。例えば、(13)の対話では、「紙をこうした文を、絶対存在文と呼び、場所存在留め置いておくものとして、何かないか？」文と区別する。(16a)の意味は、波線部分の名と問われる場面であり、紙を留め置いておく

詞句の対象となる人が、ある特定の場所にい85

ないという意味ではない。(16a)は、(16b)の(18) a. *花子(に)は、太郎がある。

ような存在文以外で言い換えることが可能

b. 花子(に)は、太郎がいる。
(西山 (2013: 287))であり、場所とは無関係の文といえる。西山は、絶対存在文における存在主体(波線部分)
は、(15a)とは異なり、指示的名詞句ではない

西山は、所有構文の「A(に)は B がある/とする。すなわち、絶対存在文の存在主体は、いる」における A と B の関係を、主に次の(16c)のような命題関数を表わすと考える。そ三種類に分ける(西山(2009, 2013))。その際、して、このような命題関数を表わす名詞句の絶対存在文「A の B がある」における「A のことを変項名詞句と呼ぶ。

B」を手掛かりにして分類する。そして、それに基づいて所有構文の意味構造を提案す(16) a. この問題を解くことができる人間はる。ここで注目すべきは、三種類すべてにお(西山 (2013: 254))

いて、B の名詞に変項が介在する点である。

いない。

b. 誰もこの問題を解くことができな

まず、一つ目の関係が、パラメータと非飽
和名詞の関係である。(19)において、波線部

い。

分の B に相当する名詞「夫」、「必読書」、「合c. [x がこの問題を解くことができる人格者」などの名詞は、非飽和名詞と呼ばれる。

間である]

非飽和名詞とは、パラメータを含み、そのパ
さらに、西山(2009, 2013)は、絶対存在文

ラメータの値が決まらない限り、それ自体でと所有構文との密接な関係も指摘している。

は外延を決定できないような名詞を指す。例
えば、「夫」という名詞は、「αの夫」のαの(17) a. 花子(に)は、夫がある/いる。

値が決まらなければ、その人が夫であること

b. 花子の夫が存在する。

を決めることはできず、「花子の夫」となっc. ≪[x が花子の夫である]を満たす x のてはじめて完全な名詞となる。

値が空でない≫①パラメータと非飽和名詞(unsaturated noun)(西山 (2013: 287))の関係
絶対存在文(17b)において波線部分は変項名(19) 花子の夫/このコースの必読書/あの試

詞句である。(17b)は、(17c)のような意味を験の合格者/豊臣家の敵/フランスの国王表わし、「花子が結婚している」という所有構文と近い意味をもつ。このことから、西山

二つ目の関係が、(20)のような「部屋」とは、(17a)の所有構文における「夫」も変項名「窓」との関係である。あるものが窓である

詞句の主要部だと考える。仮に所有構文のかどうかは、部屋とは関係なく決めることが「夫」を指示的名詞句とするならば、「夫」

でき、その意味で「窓」は飽和された名詞でを「太郎」等の具体的な名前で置き替えたある。しかし、「窓」は「部屋」を構成する(18)も所有構文と解釈できるはずである。し

一部であり、どの部屋にも属さない窓などはかしながら、(18a)は非文であり、(18b)は、ありえない。つまり、「その部屋」と「窓」

所有構文以外の意味をもつ。したがって、所とが譲渡不可能な関係となり、「αの窓」と有構文における「夫」は、指示的名詞句ではいう変項を含むものとして理解される。

なく変項名詞句とされる。
② 基体表現と譲渡不可能名詞の関係

86

(20) a. その部屋(に)は窓がない。

のパラメータが、意味論レベルで主語によっb. その部屋の窓が存在しない。

て束縛される変項と解釈すべきだとする。つまり、どんな文脈が与えられても、(23)は、三つ目の関係は、(21a)の所有構文に見られ(24a)のような「太郎」以外の妹がいるというる関係である。(21a)は、(21b)の絶対存在文

解釈にもならなければ、(24b)のような「太に近い意味をもつ。(21b)の「田中先生の本」郎」を直接妹のパラメータに入れる解釈もでは、文脈によって様々な解釈が可能である。

きない。このように、西山は、所有構文におつまり、「田中先生の本」は、≪田中先生とける非飽和名詞のパラメータを、主語によっ

関係 R を有する本≫と解釈することができ、て束縛される束縛変項とみなす。

「αの本」とは、(21c)の意味をもつ。注意すべきは、ここにも変項αが介在する点である。 (24) a. ≪太郎は[次郎の妹]が存在する≫
b. ≪太郎は[太郎の妹]が存在する≫③ A と B との間の語用論的関係 R(西山(2013: 293))(21) a. 田中先生(に)は本がたくさんある。
b. 田中先生の本がたくさん存在する。

以上を踏まえて、西山は、(25)のような所

c. [x がαと関係 R を有する本である]

有構文「A(に)は B がいる/ある」の成立条件を提案する(西山 (2013: 297))。

西山は、こうした A と B の関係に基づいて、所有構文の意味構造を次のように提案す(25) a. 「B がいる/ある」の部分が絶対存在る。すなわち、所有構文とは、その述語の部

文の意味構造を有し、特に、分に絶対存在文を内在し、その絶対存在文がB が変項名詞句としての条件を満た

主語の属性となり、全体として主語を叙述すしていること。
b.

る措定文となっていると考える。

A の指示対象に「B がいる/ある」で表される属性を帰すための条件(A(22) a. 太郎の妹がいる。

によって束縛されている変項が B

b. [x が太郎の妹である]を満たす x の値のどこかに不随していること)が満が存在する

たされていること。

(23) 太郎は妹がいる。
5. 所有構文とリスト存在文との違い(25)のように所有構文を規定すれば、(26b)例えば、(23)の所有構文の意味構造は、次のように考える。
「妹」は非飽和名詞であり、の下線部分は、所有構文とはならない。

パラメータとして変項αをとる。
「αi の妹」
は[x がαi の妹である]という命題関数を表わ(26) a. 妻：わたしくたちが旅行中、お祖父さす変項名詞句である。(23)は、(22b)の意味をんをほっといて大丈夫かしら？

表わす絶対存在文を内在する。そして、この

b. 夫：大丈夫だよ。お祖父さんには花

絶対存在文が、主語の「太郎」に対する叙述

子がいるから。
c. ≪[x が祖父の世話役である]を満たすをおこなう属性を表わす(西山(2013:292))。

x の値として花子がいる≫

ここで気を付けるべき点は、非飽和名詞「妹」の変項αが、主語の「太郎」によって束縛される関係にある点である。西山は、「妹」

87(26ab)の対話において、夫の発言は、(26c)のような意味を表わす。西山は、(26b)の下項を含み、car 等の飽和名詞は、α’s car のよ

線部の文を、所有構文ではなく、リスト存在うに変項を要求する解釈と読み替えられる。

文とする。
ここで注意しなければならないのが、仮に、 (27) a. John has a sister (of his own).
b. Eliza has a car.

「花子」が「お祖父さんの孫」であったとしても、(26b)の下線部の文は、「お祖父さんに花子という孫がいる」という血縁関係を表わ

一方、所持解釈が得られる文は、西山のリす所有構文とはならない点である。この文にスト存在文に相当すると考えられる。すなわ

おいて、B に相当する「花子」は、それ単独

ち、所持解釈とは、「目的語名詞が飽和的にで通常個体を指示する指示的名詞句であり、解釈される場合にのみ得られる解釈である」

変項を含む名詞とは考えられない。そのため、 と言い換えることができる。所持解釈を得る(25)の成立条件にあてはまらずに、所有構文

場合とは、(28A)のように、目的語に飽和名とはならない。

詞が用いられる場合もあれば、(29)のような所有構文とリスト存在文とでは、変項がど

非飽和名詞が現れる場合も含まれる。非飽和のように介在するかが異なる。確かに、(26b)

名詞は、その性質上、変項を含む名詞である。

のリスト存在文にも変項は介在するが、B のしかし、所持解釈を得る場合は、その変項が名詞「花子」は、その変項を埋める具体的な既に埋められた解釈となる。例えば、(29B)

値であり、指示的名詞句である。一方、所有における sister は、α’s sister における変項α構文における B は、指示的名詞句ではなくが、先行文脈に登場する Jack という値で既変項名詞句であり、その変項が主語によってに埋まっている。つまり、所有解釈の場合と束縛される関係にある。つまり、所有構文とは異なり、この場合のαは、同一文内の主語リスト存在文には、ともに変項は介在するが、 によって束縛される変項ではない(自由変B が変項の具体的な値(指示的名詞句)なのか、 項)。所持解釈を得る場合は、非飽和名詞が変項名詞句なのかで異なる。

飽和的な解釈を得ているといえる。この点で、所持解釈を得た場合の目的語名詞句は、指示

6. 西山(2003, 2013)の分析との関連的名詞句となる。

本節では、西山の分析を踏まえて、本論の(28) Q. What can I use to hold these papers

主張との関係をみていく。まず、所有解釈とdown?

は、西山の分析における所有構文で得られる

A. Eliza has a mirror.

解釈に対応するといえる。つまり、所有解釈とは、「主語が目的語の変項を束縛する場合(29) A. I have a brother of Jack’s as secretary.

にのみ得られる解釈である」と再定義するこB. Oh, that’s funny! Anne has a sister.

とができる。所有解釈を得る場合には、haveの目的語に(27a)の sister 等の非飽和名詞が現(27a)における sister と(29B)の sister は、同れる場合もあれば、(27b)の car 等の飽和名詞

じ非飽和名詞である。しかしながら、その意が現れる場合も含まれる。いずれの目的語名

味機能は異なる。つまり、非飽和名詞 sister

詞にも、主語に束縛される変項(束縛変項)がのとる変項αが、主語によって束縛されるの存在する。つまり、所有解釈が得られる場合

か、それとも既に文脈内で埋められているのの目的語名詞句は、変項名詞句といえる。

かという違いがある。言い換えると、所有解Sister 等の非飽和名詞は、α’s sister という変釈と所持解釈とでは、その目的語名詞句の意

88

味機能が異なる。所有解釈における目的語は、

DoubleNature

of

the

Verb

Have,”

変項名詞句であるが、所持解釈が得られる場

LAMBDA 21, Institute for Datalingvistik,

合は、指示的名詞句である。したがって、そCopenhagen Business School.
Keenan, Edward L. (1987) “A Semanticの名詞句が変項名詞句であるか、指示的名詞句であるかは、目的語の意味だけに着目してDefinitionof“Indefinite

NP”,”

The

いては分からないということになる。名詞句

Representation of (In)definiteness, ed. byがどのような意味機能をもつかは、その当該

Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen,の文の解釈を考慮する必要があるのである。

286–317, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kobukata, Yuko (2009) A Semantic andPragmatic Investigation of Posssessive

7. おわりにConstructions in English and Japanese,

本論では、英語の所有構文について、所有
解釈と所持解釈という二つの解釈を提案し、Doctoral

その違いから定性効果を説明することを試

Tsukuba.

dissertation,

Universityof

みた。所有解釈と所持解釈の違いは、目的語

小深田祐子 (2015) 「所有構文の定性効果に

名詞句の飽和性や指示性、また主語から束縛ついて」, 『熊本学園大学 文学・言語学

される変項があるかどうかという点から捉論集』 第 22 巻第 2 号, 105-224, 熊本学

えなおすことが可能である。英語の所有構文

園大学.

における目的語名詞句について、その表わす

西山佑司 (2003) 『日本語名詞句の意味論と意味は同じでも、定性効果の面で異なる振る

語用論―指示的名詞句と非指示的名詞

舞いを見せる場合がある。そのため、名詞句

句』 ひつじ書房, 東京.

の意味だけで、この現象を適切に説明するこ西山佑司 (2009) 「コピュラ文 、 存在文 、 所有とはできず、名詞句がどのような意味「機能」

文―名詞句解釈の観点から(上)(中)(下)」を持つのかという点に注目する必要がある。

『月刊言語』 38 (4), 78-86, 38 (5), 66-73,

そして、名詞句がどのような意味機能を果た

38 (6), 8-16, 大修館書店, 東京.
西山佑司 (2013) 『名詞句の世界 その意味とすかは、当該の構文の解釈を考慮する必要があるのである。

解釈の神秘に迫る』 ひつじ書房, 東京.
Partee, Barbara H. (1999) “Weak NP’s in HAVE

* 本論は、日本英語学会第 35 回大会におけSentences,” JFAK [a Liber Amicorum forる口頭発表および小深田(2015)の内容に加Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his

筆・修正を加えたものである。大会当日に有50th Birthday; CD-ROM], ed. by Jelle

益なコメントをくださった方々に、この場をGerbrandy, Maarten Marx, Maarten de

借りて感謝の意を表したい。

Rijke and Yde Venema, University of
Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Tham, Shiao Wei (2006) “The Definiteness

参考文献
de Jong, Franciska (1987) “The Compositional
Natureof(In)definiteness,”

EffectThe

in

EnglishHave

Sentences,”

Proceedings of Texas Linguistic Society 8,

Representation of (In)definiteness, ed. by

137–149.

Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen,
270–285, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Jensen, Per Anker and Carl Vikner (1996) “The89

節と関係節があるが、前者では時制の制限がないのに対して後者では非時制節は容認され得ない。本稿では、これがなぜなのかという問いについて分析を行う。
時制と wh 一致現象：極小理論による一考察（Tense and Wh-agreement: A Study under the

2. 考察データ

Minimalist Theory）

本節では、上記の問いを議論する際に重要と考えられるデータについて整理する。

森本

雄樹（Yuki Morimoto）

関西学院大学大学院（Kwansei Gakuin

2.1. 関係節内の動詞の補部に目的語

University）(2) a.

I know a man who I should criticize.

キーワード：wh 一致, 時制, 前置詞残留, 空b.

I know a man I should criticize.

演算子, 格c.

*I know a man who to criticize.

d.

I know a man to criticize.

(3) a.
1. はじめにThis is the sight which you should see
before you die.

b.

本稿では、英語の演算子とその音形の有無

This is the sight you should see before
you die.

との関係について論じる。演算子の移動のデc.

ータを観察すると、演算子が音形を持つかど*This is the sight which to see before
you die

うかによって文法性に差が生じることがあd.

ることがわかる。本稿では演算子の音形の有This is the sight to see before you die.

無と結びついた統語的素性の存在を提案し、これらの文は、関係節内の動詞の補部に目

いくつかのデータを分析する。

的語が存在する場合である。(2a)は、関係節(1) a.

I know who I should criticize.

が時制節であり、演算子が音形を持って現れb.

I know a man who I should criticize.

ている例、(2b)は関係節が時制節で、演算子c.

I know who to criticizeに音形がない例、(2c)は関係節が非時制節でd.

*I know a man who to criticize.

演算子が音形を持つ例、(2d)は関係節が非時制節で演算子が音形を持たない例である。こ(1a)は時制を持った疑問節が埋め込まれてれらを見ると、関係節が時制を持つ場合は演いる例、(1b)は時制を持った関係節が含まれ算子に音形がある場合もない場合も文法的ている例、(1c)は時制を持たない疑問節が埋になるが、関係節が非時制節の場合は演算子

め込まれている例、(1d)は時制を持たない関に音形があると非文法的になり、音形がない

係節が含まれている例である。これらを見ると文法的になる。(3)も同様のデータである。

と、疑問節が補文として埋め込まれている場
2.2. 関係節内の動詞の補部に前置詞句

合には時制の有無にかかわらず文法的であるが、関係節の場合には、非時制節だと非文法的になってしまうことがわかる。英語にお(4) a.

I know a man on whom I should rely.

いて、演算子を CP の指定部に持つ節に疑問b.

I know a man whom I should rely on.

90

c.

I know a man I should rely on.

d.

I know a man on whom to rely.

2.3. 演算子が不定詞節を越えて時制節に着e.

*I know a man whom to rely on.

地f.

I know a man to rely on.

(5) a.

a topic on which you should workb.

a topic which you should work onc.

a topic you should work ond.

a topic on which to worke.

*a topic which to work onf.

a topic to work on(6) a.

The area on which I try to work is
macroeconomics.

b.

The area which I try to work on ismacroeconomics.

(6)は wh 句が try の補部にある非時制節を越えてその上にある CP の指定部に着地した(Lasnik 1990: 83)

例である。(6a)は前置詞を随伴して wh 句が(4)と(5)は関係節内の動詞の補部に前置詞句移動した例、(6b)は前置詞を残したまま whが存在する場合である。(4a-c)は、関係節が語が単体で移動した例である。ここでも前置

時制節の場合である。(4a)は演算子が音形を詞を伴って wh 語が移動していると文法的と持ち、さらに前置詞随伴により前置詞句が移なる。しかし、(6b)を見ると、これまでのデ動している例、(4b)は、演算子が音形を持ち、ータでは非時制節から音形のある演算子単前置詞を残して単体で移動している例、(4c)

体が移動すると非文が生じていたが、ここでは演算子が音形を持たず、前置詞を残して単は try の補部の非時制節（不定詞節）から音

体で移動している例である。一方、(4d-f)は形を持つ演算子単体が移動しているにもか関係節が非時制節の場合である。(4d)は演算

かわらず文法的となっている。

子が音形を持ち、前置詞随伴を起こしている例、(4e)は演算子が音形を持って単体で移動

2.4. 演算子が時制節を越えて不定詞節に着している例、(4f)は演算子が音形を持たずに

地

前置詞を残して単体で移動している例であ(7) a.

る。これらを見ると、関係節が時制節の場合

The man on whom to think that you
rely is Tom.

は前置詞残留・随伴・音形を持たない演算子b.

の移動のどれも可能であるが、関係節が非時*The man whom to think that you relyon is Tom.

制節の場合は、演算子が前置詞随伴している
場合は文法的となるが、音形をもつ演算子が前置詞残留していると非文法的となってし(7)の例は、wh 句が think の補部の時制節を越まう。しかし、音形のない演算子が前置詞残

えてその上の非時制節の CP に着地した例で留していたら文法的となる。(5)も同じ点をある。(7a)は前置詞随伴の例、(7b)は前置詞

示すデータである。

残留の例である。この例においても、前置詞

ここまでのデータを踏まえると、非時制節随伴を伴う場合は文法的である。しかし、から特定の演算子を移動させると非文法的(7b)が示すように、これまでのデータでは時になる、つまり、移動元が問題になっている

制節からの演算子の抜き出しに制限がなかように考えられそうだが、2.3 節及び 2.4 節

ったのにもかかわらず、時制節から演算子単のデータを見ると、移動元だけが問題という体が移動していると非文が生じる。

わけではないことがわかる。

91

3.

して χ 素性も前置詞句に素性浸透したもの

提案
これまでのデータを観察すると、関係節がである。χ 素性を持たない前置詞句とは、wh

不定詞節である場合には、音形を持ちかつ前語の持つ χ 素性が素性浸透する前に前置詞置詞を伴わない演算子よって導かれることとの一致によって消去されたため、素性浸透ができない、という一般化が得られる。そしが起こらなかった前置詞句であると考える。

て、この一般化を説明するためには、演算子

次に、音形のない演算子について議論する。

の移動元や音形の有無、移動先の節の時制と音形のない演算子には 2 種類存在すると仮を結びつけて分析する必要がある。そのため定し、1 つは、χ 素性が消去されていないたの仕組みとして、χ 素性という素性の存在をめ格が具現化されずに音形が現れない演算提案する。

子、もう 1 つは、χ 素性が消去されたため音形が現れたが、PF で表面上音が消されたも

3.1. χ 素性のであると考える。
以下、このような χ 素性の仮説に基づき前

χ 素性は[+wh]を持つ C、wh 語、V、P、

T[+tense]に備わることができる素性であり、、 に述べたデータをを分析していく。
その中でも wh 語と C が持つ χ 素性は他の χ
4.

素性との一致により消えなければならない

分析と仮定する。また、ここでは χ 素性は演算子

まず、(2)のデータについて考える。

の格の具現を妨げている素性であると考え(2a)では、演算子が criticize の補部に現れて、criticize と C-command 関係による一致がる。

起きることで、動詞である criticize の持つ χ
素性により演算子の χ 素性が消去され、格が3.2. 移動する wh 句
移動する演算子として、①音形を持つ演算具現されて who という音形を持つようにな

子、②前置詞句、③音形のない演算子の 3 種る。関係節の C は[+wh]素性を持つので、χ類に関してを、χ 素性の観点から考える。

素性を持つが、その補部の TP は時制節であ

まず、音形を持つ演算子については、χ 素

る た め 、 χ 素 性 を 持 つ T[+tense] と の性を持って現れるために格の具現を妨げら

C-command 関係により C の χ 素性も消去されているものが、一致により χ 素性の消去をれる。よって、χ 素性が消去された CP に χ受けた場合に格が具現化され、音形を持つよ

素性が消去された演算子が移動するといううになると考える。

ことになる。演算子と C の持つ χ 素性は消えなければならないと仮定したが、これらが全前置詞随伴が生じる際は前置詞句が移動て消去されているため文法的となる。

するが、これについては、前置詞が補部に取る wh 語の[+wh]素性が素性浸透することで(2b)で criticize の補部に生成される演算子

前置詞句全体が[+wh]を持ち、それにより随は、criticize によって χ 素性が消去され音形伴が生じると考える。そして、本分析では、を持つようになったが、表面上 PF で音が消wh 語の[+wh]素性が素性浸透する際、同じく去されているものであると考える。関係節のwh 語がもつ χ 素性も素性浸透し得ると考え、

C は上述の理由により χ 素性が消去される。

それにより、前置詞句には χ 素性を持つもの

よって、この文でも消去されなければいけなと持たないものの 2 つが存在すると考える。

い χ 素性が全て消去されているので、(2b)は

χ 素性を持つ前置詞句とは、上述のとおり前

文法的となる。

置詞の補部の wh 語の持つ[+wh]素性に付随(2c)においても、演算子が criticize によっ92

て χ 素性が消去され、音形を持つようになるも消去される。よって、消去されるべき χ 素と考える。関係節の C は χ 素性を持つが、補性が全て消去されており文法的となる。

部の TP は非時制節である。T[−tense]は χ 素(4d)において移動している前置詞句につ性を持たないので、C の χ 素性は T[−tense]

いては、whom の持つ[+wh]素性とともに χとの一致では消去されず、保持されたままと素性も素性浸透したものであると仮定する。

なる。こうして、消去されなければならない

よって、この前置詞句は χ 素性を持つ。関係C の χ 素性が残ったままとなるので、(2c)は節の C も χ を持つが、(2c)と同じ理由により非文となる。

C の χ は消去されずに残ったままとなる。χ

(2d)で criticize の補部に生成される演算子を持つ前置詞句が χ を持つ C の指定部に移動については、動詞からの χ 素性の一致を受けし、その CP 内での Spec-head 関係による一ず、χ 素性が消去されずに音形が現れないま致によって両者の χ 素性が消去されるため、まであると考える。また、関係節 C の χ 素性(4d)は文法的であると考える。

は(2c)と同じ理由で消去されずに残る。χ 素(4e)の分析は(2c)と同様である。χ 素性が消性を持つため音形が現れていない演算子が χ去され、音形を持つようになった演算子が、素性を持つ C の指定部に移動し、CP 内でのχ 素性を保持したままの C の指定部にいどう

Spec-head 関係により両者が一致することでする。こうして、C の χ 素性が消去されず残双方の χ 素性が消去されると考える。演算子、 ったままとなるので、非文が生じる。
C のどちらの χ 素性も消去されているので、(4f)は(2d)と同様にされる。演算子の χ 素性(2d)は文法的となる。

は基底位置では消去されないと仮定する。χ

続いて、(4)のデータを分析する。(4a)では素性を保持した演算子が χ 素性を保持した C

前置詞句が移動している。この前置詞句は、の指定部に移動し、Spec-head の関係で両者

whom から[+wh]素性が素性浸透したものでの χ 素性が消去され、文法的となる。

あるが、χ 素性については素性浸透前に動詞(6)では、try の補部にある C の持つ χ 素性

rely から一致を受けて消去されていると考えは、それが C-command する T[−tense]との一る。よって、この前置詞句は[+wh]素性を持致によっては消去されないが、try との一致

つが、χ 素性を持たない。関係節の C の χ 素によって消去される。演算子が最終的に着地

性は(2a)と同じ理由で消去される。こうして、する C の χ 素性は、それが C-command するχ 素性を持たない前置詞句が χ 素性を持たなT[+tense]との一致によって消去される。

い C の指定部に移動するので、消去される(6a)において、移動する前置詞句は、(4a)必要のある χ 素性が全て消去されているたで見たように、χ 素性を持たない前置詞句でめ(4a)は文法的である。

あると仮定すると、消去される必要のある χ(4b)の分析は(2b)と同様である。on により素性はすべて消去されているため文法的とχ 素性を消去された演算子が、T[+tense]とのなる。また(6b)では、移動するのは χ 素性を一致により χ 素性を消去された C の指定部に消去されたため音形を持つようになった

移動し、消去される必要のある χ 素性が全て

which であるので、同じく文法的である。
(7)では、think が補部に取る C の χ 素性は消去されているので文法的である。
(4c)は(2b)と同様に分析される。演算子にそれが C-command する T[+tense]との一致でついては、on により χ 素性を消去され、音消去されるが、演算子が最終的に着地する C

形を得た演算子が、PF で表面上音が消去さの χ 素性は、それが C-command する T[−tense]れる。(4b)と同様の理由で関係節 C の χ 素性との一致では消去されずに残ったままとな

93る。
(7a)では、移動する前置詞句が(4d)と同様

参考文献
Cable, Seth (2010) The Grammar of Q:に χ 素性を持つ前置詞句であると仮定する。
その前置詞句が最終的に χ 素性を保持した

Q-Particles,

Wh-Movement,

and

ままの C の指定部に移動するので、CP 内で

Pied-Piping, Oxford University Press,の Spec-head 関係による一致によって両者のOxford.
Cable, Seth (2012) “Pied-Piping: Introducing

χ 素性が消去されるため、(7a)は文法的とな

Two Recent Approaches,” Language

る。

and Linguistics Compass 6, 816-832.

(7b)では、移動するのは χ 素性を消去され音形を得た演算子の whom であるので、これCable, Seth (2013) “Pied-Piping: Comparingが χ 素性を保持する C の指定部に着地してもTwo Recent Approaches,” Language

一致が起こらず、C に χ 素性が残ったままとand Linguistics Compass 7, 123-140.
Chomsky,

なり、非文が生じる。

Noam(1981a)最後に、(1)に関して分析を述べる。(1b)、Government(1d)はそれぞれ(2a)、(2c)と同じ種類のデータ

Dordrecht.

andLectures
Binding,on
Foris,

Chomsky, Noam (1986a) Barriers, MIT Press,

であるので、前述の分析がそのまま当てはま

Cambridge, MA.

る。

Chomsky,(1a)では χ 素性が動詞 criticize によって消Noam(1995)The

Minimalist

Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

去された who が、χ 素性が T[+tense]との一致により消去された C の指定部に移動するの

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

で、消去される必要のある χ 素性が全て消去

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays

されているため文法的となる。

on Minimalism in Honor of HowardLasnik, ed. by Roger Martin et. al,(1c)では、χ が消去され音形を持った who

89-155, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

が、(2c)と同じ理由により χ 素性が消去されていない C の指定部に移動する。その C とChomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik (1977)

それを C-command する動詞 know との一致に“Filters and Control,” Linguistic Inquiry

よって疑問節の C の χ 素性が消去されるため、

8, 425-504.
Coopmans, Peter and Suzanne Stevenson (1991)

文法的となる。

“How Extraction from Finite and5.

Infinitival Complements: A Surprising

今後の課題

Asymmetry,” Linguistic Inquiry 22,

本研究では、χ 素性の一致に、C-command

359-367.

関係による一致と、Spec-head 関係による一Heck,

致を用いているが、これら 2 つの関係に頼る

Fabian(2008)On

Pied-Piping.

ことなく、一つの統語的関係のみによってす

Wh-Movement and Beyond, De Gruyter

べてのデータを扱うことが可能かどうかとMouton, Berlin, Boston.
Hornstein, Norbert, and Amy Weinberg (1981)

いう問いについては、今後の課題としたい。
また、χ 素性とは一体どのような素性である“Case

Theoryのか、その具体的性質についてをさらに議論

Stranding,”を深めていく必要もあり、その点についても

55-91.

and

Linguistic

Preposition
Inquiry

12,

Jang, Youngjun (2009) “Infinitival Relative

今後の課題にせざるを得ない。

94

Clauses in English,” English Language
and Linguistics 28, 137-155.
Lasnik,Howard(1990)

RestrictivenessEssaysandon

Learnability,

Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Martin, Roger (2001) “Null Case and theDistribution of PRO,” Linguistic Inquiry
32, 141-166.
Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego (2001)“T-to-C Movement: Causes andConsequences,” Ken Hale: A Life inLanguage. ed. by Michael Kenstowicz,
355-426, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego (2004)“Tense, Case, and the Nature of
Syntactic Categories,” The Syntax ofTime. ed. by Jacqueline Gueron and
Jacqueline Lecarme, 495-538, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego (2006)“Probes,

Goals

and

Syntactic

Categories,” Proceedings of the 7thTokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics,
25-60.
Thornton,

Rosalind(1990)

Long-distanceAdventures

Moving--in
The

Acquisition of Complex Wh-questions,
Doctoral dissertation, University ofConnecticut.
Webelhuth,

Gert(1992)

Principles

andParameters of Syntactic Saturation,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

95能であり、生産的である。(2)がこの事実を示している。また、アメリカ英語について
Corpus of Historical American English を見てみると、the size of を含む二重 DN 形式は 1900
[a/the N][the N of NP] 形 式 表 現 と ラ ベ ル

年に現れ、the color of を含む連鎖も 1910 年

付け計算法に現れている。この事実は、二重 DN 形式が([a/the N][the N of NP] Sequence and Labeling

ほぼ同時期に用いられ始めたことを示してAlgorithm)
西原いる。
(2) a. a tree the height of a skyscraper

俊明（Toshiaki Nishihara）

b. a child the age of mine

長崎大学（Nagasaki University）

c. a cake the shape of a dog
d. a flower the color of milk

キーワード：DP, 同格, 付加部, ラベル付け

e. a paper the length of my thesis
f. a quarter the price(3) [a city] of [the size of New York]

1. は じ め に
英語には、(1)に示すような表現形式が可(3)に示すように、二重 DN 連鎖の間には、前能である。

置詞 of が介在できることから、(1)における
the size of New York は、主要部 city の補部位

(1) [a city] [the size of New York]

置を占めているように思える。しかしながら、問題の形式は、常に of を伴うわけではなく、

ここでは、便宜上、(1)の形式を含むものを

二重 DN 形式と呼ぶことにする。(1)の形式は、 介在可能な前置詞が in の場合や前置詞を伴うと不適格と判断される場合が存在する。

英語の変種に関わらず広く用いられる表現
形式である。本稿は、二重 DN 形式の統語(4) a. a child in the age of mine

的・意味的特徴を考察し、Chomsky (2013)で提案されたラベル付け計算法に基づいた派

b. a cake in the shape of a dog

生メカニズムを提案する。また、ここでの分

c. a flower the color of milk

析は、a-形容詞が名詞句に後続する場合にもd. a paper the length of my thesis

適用できることを明らかにする。
次に、問題の DN 連鎖間には、別の修飾語
2. 二 重 DN 形 式 の 統 語 的 ・ 意 味 的 特 徴

句や挿入句が生起できる。

大 規 模 コ ー パ ス (Corpus of Contemporary(5) a….the sky [above the trees] the color of a

American English （ 以 下 、 COCA ）、 British

bruiseNational Corpus、Corpus of Global Web-Based(COCA)

b….A city [of 600,000] the size ofEnglish))で二重 DN 形式を検索してみると、Milwaukee(1)に示すように、二つ目の DN 連鎖の部分に(The Guardian 2016/06/28)

the size を含む連鎖が多いことがわかる。しc….I have been visiting the world’s largest

かしながら、問題の形式は the size of との組

refugee camp, a city [made of mud andみ合わせに限定されず、他の組み合わせも可

sticks] the size of New Orleans called96

(10) a. Mr. Barton equates the two by comparing

Dadaab, in north-eastern Kenya.

[a city the size of Ithaca, N.Y.,] to the(New York Times 2015/10/09)

continent of Europe.

d….and poked a hole [in the picture] the sizeof the end of my thumb.

(COCA)

b. With [a face the color of tomato],…

(COCA)(Daily Mail 2015/06/30))
これらの事実は、二つ目の N を含む要素はc.“It's crazy for [a city the size of

補部ではなく、付加部位置を占めていること

Maywood], or for any city not to knowを示している。

what it has,” said Lowell Goodman, …
(Los Angeles Times 2016/10/27)

さらに、二つ目の DN 連鎖は等位接続でき、d. Harcy then poured us each [a cup of

この連鎖の前に程度表現が生起できる。

coffee [the color of sunlight velvet, andwe drank…

(6) a.…in the case of [a couple] [the income of(Eater 2016/11/29)

the partner] and [the size of the family](COCA)

二重 DN 形式が DP を形成しているのであれ

b.…[a population] [one-tenth the size of theば、null-D を持ち複数形の名詞が生じる場合

U.S](Wall Street Journal)があること、形容詞が生起可能であることを予測する。この予測は、(11)(12)から正しい(6b)は、程度表現を含む表現が二つ目の DN

ことがわかる。

連鎖に先行しているという点で(7)と同じで(11) a. It described a man with [eyes the size ofある。

clocks].

b. From major cities such as New York to(7) I have never known a patient make [quite so
rapid a recovery].

[cities the size of Huntsville],…(COCA)(Radford 2004: 78))c. Laredo has become a city of global(8) [DP [DEGP [D’ [D] [NP]]]]

commerce, with [truck stops the size of(9) Only constituents of the same type can becoordinated.

(COCA)

stadium parking lots].

(Radford 2004: 86))

(New York Times 2014/05/17))
Radford (2004:79)は、(7)で括弧に示した部分(12) …a thick-necked guy with shaggy hair andは(8)の構造を持つと仮定し、程度表現はそ[a bushy mustache the color of beach

れ自身 Degree Phrase を形成すると考えていsand].

(COCA)

る。これらの事実と等位接続に関わる制約(9)を考え合わせると、二つ目の DN 連鎖は、

最後に、二重 DN 形式の意味的特徴に触れ

この部分のみでまとまった構造をなし、DPる。二つ目の DP は、意味的には同格節と同を形成していると言える。

様に補足的内容を表している。(13)では、二つ目の DP は someone の特徴である顔の色

他方、二重 DN 形式は、形式全体としてもDP を形成していると考えられる。この表現に関して補足的説明を加えている。

形式は、DP が生じる位置、すなわち、動詞と前置詞の目的語位置、不定詞の意味上の主(13) Someone was staring down at her-a face

語位置、二重目的語の位置に生じることがで

the color of ginger ale, long and straight

きる。(10)がこの事実を示している。

black hair, and large, dark, teardrop-shaped97eyes.

(COCA)(15) The city is the size of New York.

3. 二 重 DN 形 式 の 派 生

DP2 が移動し、付加部位置を占める派生では、

ここでは、二重 DN 形式を含む連鎖がどの次のことが予測される。(16b)から明らかなようなメカニズムによって派生されている

よ う に 、 こ れ ま で の 生 成 文 法 研 究 (Hungのかを考察する。二重 DN 形式表現は、(1982)等)では付加構造からの抜き出しは阻

Chomsky (2013)で提案されたラベル付け計

止されることが指摘されている。二重 DN 形

算法に基づいて派生されると考えられる。

式を含む要素の一部に抜き出しを適用させると、(17)に示すように、不適格な文になる。

(14) The Labeling Algorithm (Chomsky (2013))

つまり、先に述べた二重 DN 形式におけるa. When a maximal projection XP and a head

DP2 は、付加構造を持つ要素と同じ振る舞い

Y are merged, Y becomes the label.

を示すことがわかる。

b.When a maximal projection XP andanother maximal projection YP are(16) a. He was angry [when she hid what]?

merged,b.*What was he angry [when she hid

i. if XP moves, Y becomes the label,what]?

ii. if the head of XP and that of YP have

(Radford (2004: 218))(17) a.*The size of Tokyo, I want to live in [athe same feature F, F becomes the label.

city [the size of Tokyo].
b.*What city do you want to live in [a city(14)のラベル付け計算法では、併合される 2[the size of what city]]?

つの要素が共に語彙項目でない場合、一方が移動し、他方の主要部のみが見えるようにし以上のように、ラベル付け計算法に基づく

なければならない。既に見たように、二重派生は、二重 DN 形式を含む連鎖の派生をう

DN 形式は、それぞれの DN 連鎖が DP を形まく捉えることができる。しかしながら、こ成し、全体としても DP を形成している。ラのラベル付け計算法に基づく派生においてベル付け計算法に従えば、問題の二重 DN 形問題となるのは、なぜ最初の段階でセット併式は二つの DP をなしているので、どちらか合ではなく、ペア併合による派生が適用されの DP が移動しなければならないことになる。 ないのかということである。ここでは、Rubin
二つ目の DN 連鎖である DP2 を移動させた場(2003)に従い、ペア併合が最初から適用され合、一つ目の DN 連鎖である DP1 に付加（ペる の は 、 {XP, YP}の い ず れ か が 機 能 範 疇ア併合）させることにより、第一成分のラベMod(fication)を含む場合と仮定する。Rubin

ルは DP となる。結果として、DP2 は付加詞

(2003)によれば、形容詞句、関係詞節、副詞の位置を占め、２節で見た統語的特徴を捉え句などには機能範疇 Mod が存在し、その範ることが可能になる。他方、DP1 が移動し、疇が具現化されたものとして中国語では de、

be 動詞と関連づけられる場合、DP1 は主語位

タガログ語では na、もしくは-ng、ルーマニ

置へ内的併合され、第一成分のラベルは DP2

ア語では de が生じるとされている。(18)-(20)に基づいて行われることになる。この派生過の例がこの事実を示している。

程を経て、 (15)が派生されることになる。1(18) Chinese

中島 (2016)は、DP is DP や DP に後続する同na yiben (zai zhuozi-shang *(de))

格節にここでの分析を適用している。

98

shu

that oneat table-top

ただし、the baby asleep のような連鎖の場合、

Mod book

the baby は、a-形容詞を含む Predication Phrase(19) Tagalog
bahay *(na) magandaの 指 定 辞 の 位 置 に 内 包 さ れ て お ら ず 、 thehousebaby asleep は全体としては DP であると考え

Mod beautiful

る。全体として DP であると考える根拠を(20) RomanianNu-mi placecovorul *(de)subnot-to-me

pleases rug-the Mod under(22)の事実から得ることができる。

masa(22) a. Hold the baby (now) asleep.

tableb. As she pictured the baby asleep in her‘I don’t like the rug under the table.’arms,…

(Rubin(2003: 665))(COCA)

c. Give a smile to the baby asleep.
Rubin の 分 析 に 従 え ば 、 機 能 範 疇 で あ る
Modification を有する場合に初めからペア併(22)は、a-形容詞を含む連鎖が動詞や前置詞合が適用されることになる。ここでは、英語の目的語位置に生起できることを示していの DP 内には Modification が存在しないと仮る。換言すれば、DP が生起する位置を占め定する。この仮定のもとでは、複数の DP がていることになり、a-形容詞を含む問題の連ある派生段階で存在する場合、セット併合の

鎖は DP であることがわかる。

みが適用され、ラベル付け計算法に基づいてさらに、問題の連鎖が全体としていずれかの DP がペア併合、ないしは内的併

Predication Phrase を形成していないことは、合されることになる。

次 の 事 実 か ら 明 ら か で あ る 。 小 節 (small
clause)は、Bowers (1993)の分析によれば、

4. さ ら な る 分 析Predication Phrase を形成している。この場合、

4.1. a-形 容 詞 を 含 む 連 鎖(23)から明らかなように、AP に Wh-移動の

この節では、3 節で示した派生が、(21)に適用は可能である。しかしながら、(23)とは示す a-形容詞を含む連鎖にも適用できるこ

対照的に a-形容詞に Wh-移動の適用はできとを考察する。

ないことを(24)が示している。

(21) a. the baby (now) asleep(23) a. I consider Bill happy.
b. How happy do you consider Bill?

b. the house ablaze(Williams (1984:134))
Markus (1998)や Nagano (2016)によると、a-(24) a. There were people asleep in there.

形容詞における a は、通時的には、本来、on,b.*How asleep were there people?

of, in などに由来する。the house ablaze、thebaby asleep であれば、それぞれ、on fire, on

この事実から a-形容詞が Predication phrase を

sleep に該当する。この対応関係は、１節で形成し、その指定辞を DP が占めているとい見た二重 DP 形式を含む連鎖と同じである。

う分析は採用できないことがわかる。(21)は、

a-形容詞に関しては、Nagano (2016)の分析を全体として DP を形成していると考えられる。

援用し、P head が Predication Phrase head の位

ここで、a-形容詞を含む DP に(14)の派生が

置 に 移 動 し て a- に 変 化 し 、 全 体 と し て

適 用 さ れ る と 考 え る と 、 DP 、 Predication

Predication Phrase を形成していると仮定する。 Phrase が生成された段階でラベル付け計算

99

法に基づき、いずれか一方が移動の適用を受a-形容詞を含む DP が持ち、なおかつ同じ範けることになる。a-形容詞を含む Predication

疇をなすことによって等位構造が可能にな

Phrase にペア併合が適用されると、the houseっている例であるとみなすことができる。

ablaze のような DP が生成され、他方、DP(28)が移動し be 動詞と関連づけられる場合、DPは主語位置へ内的併合され、The house isablaze.のような文が生成されることになる。
Predication Phrase をなす a-形容詞にペア併合(29)が適用されると、この要素は付加位置を占めることになる。そこで付加位置を占めることを示唆する言語事実について確認をしておく。付加位置を占める要素は、(25)が示すよ
うに、語順を入れ替えても適格な表現となる。
同様のことが a-形容詞を含む(26)でもあては(27)において等位接続された二つの要素でまる。この事実から、問題の a-形容詞にはペある the water the color of jade と the sky ablaze

ア併合が適用され、付加位置を占めているとは、それぞれ(28)(29)の構造を持つと考えら言え、(14)の派生が支持されることになる。

れる。この事実と(9)を考え併せると、二重DN 形式を形成している DP と a-形容詞を含(25) a. the student with long hair in the corner

む DP が同じ派生をたどり、同じ構造を持つ

b. the student in the corner with long hair

ために等位接続が可能になることを支持す(Radford ((1988:189))

るものである。

(26) a. the baby asleep in the crib
b. the baby in the crib now asleep

4.2. -able 形 容 詞 を 含 む 連 鎖Bolinger (1967)が指摘しているように、DPまた、a-形容詞を含む DP に(14)の派生が適に-able 形容詞が後続できる。

用されているとみなすことで、(24b)にも説(30) the seat available

明を与えることが可能になる。既に見たように、付加位置からの要素の抜き出しは阻止される。ここでの分析では、a-形容詞が付加位

この事実は、-able 形容詞を a-形容詞と同じ置を占めているので、Wh-移動の適用は阻止

ように分析できる可能性を示唆するものでされ、(24b)は非文になると考えられる。

ある。しかしながら、(31)が示すように、(21)

さらに、(14)の派生は(27)の事実をうまく捉とは異なり、-able 形容詞は動詞や前置詞のえることができる。

目的語、及び主語位置に生起することは不可能である。

(27) As sure as I am that the sea is dark, Right
now, seen from up here, with [[the water](31) a.*Pat took a seat available.

[the color of jade]] and [[the sky] [ablaze]].

b.*I looked for a seat available.

(COCA)

c.*A seat available was in the last row.
(Sag and Wasow (1999: 254))(27)の例は、二重 DP 連鎖と並行的な構造を

100

b. a book yellow with age

また、Larson and FrancMarusˇicˇ (2004)によれば、(30)のような後位用法の場合、Bolingerの観察とは異なり、二つ以上の形容詞が必要

5. 結 語であり、尚且つ一番右側に位置する形容詞を

本稿では、二重 DN 形式を含む表現の統語

含む要素が重い要素でなければならない。

的、意味的特徴を明らかにした。二重 DN 形

(32)がこの事実を示している。

式は、それぞれの連鎖が DP を形成し、全体としても DP をなしていることを明らかにした。また、二重 DN 形式の統語的派生は、ラ(32) a.*the rivers explored navigableb. The rivers [explored][navigable in the

ベル付け計算法によって捉えられること、こsummer] were surveyed.

の派生によって移動の対象となる DP2 が付(Larson and FrancMarusˇicˇ (2004:271))

加部位置を占めていることを併せて明らかにした。さらに、同様の派生メカニズムがさらに、-able 形容詞は、a-形容詞とは対照的

a-形容詞を含む DP にも適用できること、a-に、前位用法が可能であり、名詞の前位置に

形容詞を含む DP と-able 形容詞を含む DP と生じることができる。

では派生が異なることを明らかにした。

(33) Let us consider all available options.

1

注
ここで問題になるのは、二重 DN 形式の場

合、DP1 ではなく、なぜ DP2 のみが移動対象(32)(33)に見られる特徴は、単独で名詞に後となるのかという点である。Moro (2000)が分

続する a-形容詞とは異なるものである。従っ析したコピュラ文とは異なり、二重 DN 形式て、-able 形容詞を含む DP は、a-形容詞を含は二つの DP を入れ替えることはできない。

む DP とは同じ分析ができないことになる。

したがって、DP1 と DP2 にはある種の叙述関-able 形容詞を含む連鎖は、DP を形成してい係が常に確保されなければならないと仮定る。このことは、(32b)に受動化が適用されしておく。このことは、(15)からも支持されていることからも支持される。(31)-(33)に示ると考えられる。

し た 事 実 は 、 -able 形 容 詞 は modification2phrase を含み、最初からペア併合が適用され生じている場合は、Predication Phrase を形成て付加部位置を占めることを示唆している

すると考えられ、Wh-移動の適用が可能であ2-able 形容詞が名詞句に後続せずに単独でと考えられる。 ここで注意すべきは、前節る。

で見た中国語、タガログ語、ルーマニア語と(i) a. How available was the drinking water toは異なり、(31)に示すように、英語では形容

the workers?

(COCA)

詞単独の場合、ペア併合が適用されないという事実である。英語の場合、ペア併合の適用

参考文献

は重い要素に限定されると考えられる。実際、 Bolinger, Dwight L. (1967) “Adjectives in
英語の場合、(32b)の用例に加えて、(34)など

English: Attribution and Predication,”でも同様のことが観察される。形容詞が補部

Lingua 18, 1-34.

をとる場合適格と判断されるが、形容詞単独

Bowers, John (1993) “The Syntax ofの場合は不適格となる。

Predication,” Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591656.

(34) a.*a book yellow

Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of101

Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Huang, C.-T. James (1982) Logical Relations in
Chinese and the Theory of Grammar,
Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Larson, Richard and FrancMarusˇicˇ (2004)“On Indefinite Pronoun Structures with
APs: Reply to Kishimoto,” Linguistic
Inquiry 35, 268-287.
Markus, Manfred (1998) “A-adjectives (asleepetc.) in Postnominal Position: Etymology asa Cause of Word Order (Corpus-based),”
Explorations in Corpus Linguistics, ed. by
Antoinette Renouf, 135-146, Rodopi,
Amsterdam.
Moro, Andrea (2000) Dynamic Antisymmetry,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
中島平三 (2016) 『島の眺望補文標識選択と島の制約と受動化』研究社,東京.
Nagano, Akiko (2016) ”The Category andHistorical Development of the Prefix a-,
JELS 33, 86-92.
Radford, Andrew (1988) Transformational
Grammar: A First Course, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Radford, Andrew (2004) Minimalist Syntax:
Exploring the Structure of English,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rubin, J. Edward (2003) “Deriving Pair-Merge,”
Linguistic Inquiry 34, 660-668.
Sag, Ivan and Thomas Wasow (1999) Syntactic
Theory: A Formal Introduction, CSLI,
Stanford.
Williams, Edwin (1984) “There-Insertion,”
Linguistic Inquiry 15, 131-153.
CorpusBritish National Corpus
Corpus of Contemporary American English
Corpus of Historical American English
Global Web-Based English

102

the following: L= left-hand stress, R= right-handstress, E= even stress; ‘~’ also denotes that theitems in question have variable stress patterns).2
Table 1 Various Stress Markings in Dictionaries

On the Derivation and Status of Nominal
Combinations: Analysis as Converted Nouns*

Kazuya Nishimaki
University of Tsukuba

Items

OED

CPD

LPD

apple pie
beef-steak
city hall

L~R
E
R
L
E
L~E
L
L
L
L~R

R
L~R
R
L
L~R
L
L
L~R
L
R

R
L
R
L
R
L~R
L
L~R
L
L~R

the

behavioral

girlfriend
Keywords：N-N compound, conversion, lexicon,

ice cream

stress shift, formal adjustment

master key
night schoolnightwatch

1. Introduction

oil wellThere has been substantial debate overpeanut butter

whether nominal combinations, such as ice
cream, constitute N-N compounds or NPs, andAnother

yet no definite answer to this question has been
non-uniformity

regarding

the

(1)

word-phrase distinction. Some combinations

a. * a háir-net and a mosquíto one(Giegerich (2004: 12))

behave like words, others behave like phrases,b.

and yet others show mixed behaviors. For

I wanted a séwing machine, but hebought a wáshing one.

example, a stress pattern is very popular as a

(Bauer (1998: 77))

criterion distinguishing N-N compounds and(my stress marks)

NPs; main stress falls on left-hand nouns in theformer case and on right-hand nouns in the latter
case.

However,notoriously,

The above nominal combinations all havenominallexical left-hand stress. In this sense, they can be

combinations have various stress patterns. This

assumed to be N-N compounds. However, theis illustrated in Table 1, which indicates on

nominal combinations in (1a) and those in (1b)which nouns OED and two pronunciationdiffer in syntactic opacity. As seen from thedictionaries mark main stress, either theungrammaticality, the former are opaque to one

left-hand or the right-hand nouns. Somesubstitution. In contrast, the latter allow the

combinations may have lexical left-hand stressright-hand noun to be substituted with thewhile others may have phrasal right-hand stress.

pro-form one. In this sense, the nominal

Still others may have both types or an evenstress.

Furthermore,interestingly,of

non-uniformity is given in (1).

found.1 A problem is that these forms exhibit
behavioral

examplecombinations in (1b) are analyzable as NPs.

differentThis paper aims to offer a new proposal for

dictionaries may mark different patterns on thethesame item (the abbreviations used in Table 1 are

103

derivation

andstatusofnominalcombinations

in

terms

of

conversion.

that English imposes rigid limitations on root

Specifically, we demonstrate that nominal

compounds.

combinations constitute NPs and not N-N

This

compoundsin

English.

Based

on

is

illustrated

by

the

limitedthis

combinations of syntactic categories available todemonstration, we claim that putative N-N

English root compounds. English does not allow

compounds in English can be best analyzed as

any syntactic categories to freely combine toconverted nouns; they convert from phrasal

form

categories, i.e. NPs, into lexical ones, i.e. N0s.

compounds might be possible but other types arerootcompounds;in

English,N-N

The organization of this paper is as follows.

impossible or unproductive. For instance, it is

Section 2 points out that N-N compounds arewell known that N-V compounds are ruled out

quite exceptional in English, which suggests thatentirely in English, as in (2).

their existence in English is very doubtful.
Based on the discussion in Section 2, Section 3(2) * to truck-drive (cf. to drive trucks)

shows that putative N-N compounds can be(Ackema and Neeleman (2004: 58))

described as converted nouns. Section 4 makes
concluding remarks.

Furthermore, the following statements show that
A-N compounds have no productivity andcannot be freely coined in English:

2. The Exceptionality of N-N Compounds in
English: Does English Really Have N-N(3)

Compounds?

a.

It is widely assumed that N-N compounds

The type blackbird has probablyceased to be productive.

are very productive in English. However, this(Marchand (1969: 64))

assumption has no evidentiary basis. It isb.

If I want to refer to a nose that ispointed out in the literature such as Snyder

large, I do not coin the A-N(2001) that N-N compounds are productive incompound * lárge-nose [...].

some languages but not in others. Thus, even if(Allen (1978: 99))

N-N compounds are not productive in English, it
is not unreasonable. In fact, upon closer

It is safe to assume that other combinations areinspection of some facts about compounding insubject to similar limitations.3

English, it is highly questionable whether

The limited combinations mean that English

English really has productive N-N compounds.

limits input categories to root compounding. In

For example, the questionable productivity

English, verbs and adjectives cannot be inputs to

can be seen by examining the productivity ofroot compounding.

root compounds in English. In this paper, N-N

Now, consider the structural types of root

compounds mean a subtype of root compounds.

compound. Structurally, root compounds have

Roughly, a root compound can be defined as thetwo types: asymmetrical and coordinated. For

type of compound that has morphologicallyinstance, in N-N combinations like ice cream,

simplex words as heads. We would like to point

two nouns have a head-nonhead relationshipout that this type of compound is unproductive

because left-hand nouns (e.g. ice) modify

per se in English, which is clear from the factright-hand ones (e.g. cream). In this sense, the

104

N-N

combinations

haveheaded by deverbal nouns, which establish an

asymmetrical structures. The other type of rootargument-predicate relationship with nonheads.

compoundAs pointed out in the literature, such as

is

under

discussion

exemplified

byJapanesecompounds such as those given in (4).

Giegerich (2004) and Liberman and Sproat(1992),(4)

synthetic

compounds

behave(N-N) sin-rin ‘forest and grove’consistently as words. For example, they show(V-V) omoi-egaku ‘to think and picture’

no variation in stress pattern, consistently(A-A) koo-tee ‘high and low’

putting main stress on their right-hand nouns, as(Shimada (2013: 91))

shown in (5).

The components of these compounds are(5) * a wátch-maker and a cábinet one

coordinative. In this sense, the compounds(Giegerich (2004: 9), my stress marks)

illustrated in (4) have coordinated structures.
These compounds are known as dvandvas.

Furthermore, the ungrammaticality shows that

According to Bauer’s (2008) definition, they can

synthetic compounds are consistent in syntactic

occur independently, and their two components

opacity, disallowing the application of one

stand for one concept. As shown in (4),substitution in (5). Plausibly, these consistentdvandvas are very productive in languages likebehaviors come from the fact that synthetic

Japanese, but Shimada (2013) observes that they

compounds are truly generated by compounding.

are not attested in English.

Certainly, putative N-N compounds may have

From the observations so far, it is safe toconclude

that

root

compounds

havesome lexicality, but it does not result fromnocompounding.

productivity in English. Given this conclusion, it

In this connection, it is interesting thatis unnatural that English has productive N-N

affixation is impossible for putative N-Ncompounds; we may wonder why it is only N-Ncompounds, as exemplified in (6).

compounds that English has as productive root
compounds. Instead, due to the lack of(6) * [deer-flesh]y (cf. hairy)

productivity, a reasonable assumption is that

(Allen (1978: 240),with slight modifications)

English has no N-N compound.
Recall here from Section 1 that putative N-Ncompounds

behavioral

NPs and not N-N compounds. Affixation is

non-uniformity. This indicates that they are notunavailable to phrases. This general fact iscompounds in a true sense; their generation does

formulated as No Phrase Constraint, which is

not involve the word formation rule ofgiven in (7).

compounding.

inEnglish

Based

on

show

This impossibility demonstrates that they arethebehavioral

non-uniformity, Spencer (2003) and Giegerich(7)

Lexical rules do not apply to syntactic(2004) claim that they are not compounds. Thisphrases to form morphologically complex

point becomes clearer when the behaviors arewords.

(Botha (1984: 137))

compared with those of synthetic compounds
like watch-maker. They are roughly defined as

Thus, No Phrase Constraint tells us that putative

105

N-N compounds have phrasal status, because theBased on the discussion so far, we give ourlexical rule of affixation does not apply to them.

definition of conversion as follows:

To sum up, since root compounds are
generally unproductive in English, we can safely(10) Conversion is a process in which a relisted

assume that English has no N-N compound,item is reassigned a new categorial label inwhich belongs to the class of root compounds.

the lexicon.

The behavioral non-uniformity suggests that
putative N-N compounds in English do not

If we take a closer look at observations in thederive from compounding. In addition, theliterature, we can notice that putative N-N

impossibility of affixation suggests that they

compounds in English are also reassigned new

originate in syntactic phrases. Given these points,

categorial labels in the lexicon. For example,

we propose that they have status as converted

according to Spencer (2003) and Giegerichnouns, which are based on NPs.

(2004), the expressions under consideration are
lexicalized NPs. Moreover, Liberman and Sproat

3. ‘N-N Compounds’: Analysis as Converted(1992: 150-153) observe that NPs become

Nouns

lexicalized gradually, which can be schematized

3.1. Conversion: Reassignment of Categorial

as follows:

Labels in the Lexicon
We start this section by elaborating on(11) [NP [ice] [cream]] → 【 listing in theconversion. Normally, this word formation

lexicon】→ [N0 [ice] [cream]]【assignment

process is defined as changing one syntacticof a new categorial label (N0)】category into another without any corresponding
formal change (see Bauer (1983: 32)). We

First, NPs like ice cream are listed in the lexicon

suppose here that “changing one syntactic category

if they gain unpredictable properties. In the next

into another” means giving a new categorial label

stage, they change their categorial label from NP

to the same form. For example, consider thetofollowing V-to-N conversion:

observation implies that the lexicalization results

N0.

That

is,

LibermanandSproat’sin the reassignment of a new categorial label to a(8)

listed item, i.e. conversion. Thus, the present

to spy: [V spy] → a spy: [N spy]

analysis tells us that putative N-N compounds in
In (8), the verb to spy undergoes conversion to

English can be analyzed as converted nouns;

obtain the new categorial label of a noun.

they are products of conversion from phrasal

Furthermore, adopting relisting approach tocategories, i.e. NPs, into, i.e. lexical ones, N0s.

conversion, which is defined as in (9), we

The following subsection looks at motivations

assume that it takes place in the lexicon.

for our conversion analysis.

(9)3.2. Motivations for Conversion Analysis

Conversion occurs when an item alreadylisted in the lexicon is re-entered as an

The first motivation is that conversion has no

item of a different category.

limitation(Lieber (1992: 159))

on

inputs.

Following

relistingapproach, Nagano (2008: 85, 105) points out

106

that an item of any category can undergo

to lèt dówn

conversion as long as it is listed in the lexicon;

a lét-dòwn

→(Plag (2003: 110))

not only simplex words but also lexicalized
phrases are open to conversion. For example, in

Verb-noun pairs like (13a) mostly have two(12), phrasal verbs, i.e. VPs, convert into N0s.

syllables and Romance origins. As verbs, they
have main stress on the second syllable. On theother hand, as nouns, they shift main stress to(12) [N make up] [N let down] [N give away](Ackema and Neeleman (2004: 162))

the first syllable. In (13b), phrasal verbs arenominalized. In phrasal verbs, main stress is on

As mentioned in Section 3.1., Spencer (2003)

the second element, i.e. particles like away. On

and Giegerich (2004) analyze putative N-N

the other hand, in nominalizations, main stresscompounds as lexicalized NPs. Based on thisshifts to the first element, i.e. verbs like to get.

analysis, they point out that these NPs are listed

These examples indicate that converted nouns

in the lexicon as such. Given this listedness, weare parallel with putative N-N compounds in that

can assume that NPs are possible inputs toboth types of nominal have left-hand stress.

conversion. If so, it is reasonable that they are

Thus, under the present analysis, the left-handconverted into N0s just as VPs can be.

stress of putative N-N compounds can be

Another motivation is that putative N-N

captured as resulting from stress shift, which

compounds are parallel in behavior withcharacterizes converted nouns.

converted words. In Section 1, we observed that
nominal combinations are not uniform in that

3.3. Left-Hand Stress as Formal Adjustment

they do not always behave as compounds. This

Nagano (2008) analyzes the stress shift

behavioral non-uniformity is also found in

exemplified in (13) as coming from formal

converted words. Lieber (1992: 159) andadjustment on converted categories. If we adopt

Nagano (2008: 108) state that outputs ofthis analysis, the left-hand stress of putative N-N

conversion

ofcompounds can be regarded as an instance of

non-uniformity because conversion as relisting

this formal adjustment. Then, this point also

is not a rule-governed but rather a random

motivates our conversion analysis. Regarding

process, just like normal listing in the lexicon.

the formal adjustment, Nagano (2008: 157)

Thus, if NPs are listed in the lexicon to beobserves that “[c]ertain relisted words need toconverted, the non-uniformity of putative N-N

have their forms adjusted in such a way that they

compounds follows from their listedness.

can express their category unambiguously in

show

a

certaindegreeFurthermore, parallel stress patterns can betheir morphosyntactic contexts.” For example, in

observed. As well known, nominal combinations(13), stress shift occurs to show clearly that

tend to have left-hand stress. This tendency also

converted categories are nouns. In English,

characterizes converted nouns such as (13).

nouns strongly prefer fore-stress, whereas verbs
like end-stress (see Jespersen (1909: 173)).

(13) a.
b.

to tormént→

a tórment

Nagano points out that this preference triggers

to permít→a pérmit

the stress shift in question; converted nouns liketo gèt awáy→

a gét-awày(13) use stress shift to adjust their forms as107

required for nouns. In this connection, Liberman

are formally adjusted to undergo stress shift.

andinterestingThis results in their left-hand stress, whichobservation on lexicalized NPs. According tocharacterizes N0s. Thus, our conversion analysis

their

of

tells us that this stress pattern, which is alleged

lexicalization, a listed NP “may lose some or all

to be specific to N-N compounds, appears as aof its internal structure as well as becoming a

result of the conversion from NPs into N0s.

Sproat(1992)

observation,

make

in

the

an
final

stage

lexical category (Liberman and Sproat (1992:151))”; the NP loses its internal word boundaries

4. Concluding Remarks

to be reanalyzed as a monomorphemic word.
Consequently,

tostatus of nominal combinations like ice cream.

phonological and phonetic processes that would

Because of their lexical properties, e.g. left-handordinarily only apply [within monomorphemic

stress, they may be viewed as N-N compounds.

words] (Liberman and Sproat (1992: 153)).” Our

Challenging this view, we have observed that it

assumption is that, in this stage, putative N-N

is doubtful whether English really has N-Ncompounds are formally adjusted to undergo

compounds. Based on this observation, we havestressanalysis,

proposed that putative N-N compounds in

Liberman and Sproat’s observation elucidates

English can be best analyzed as converted nouns,

the final stage of conversion.

which involve conversion from NPs into N0s.

shift.

it“becomes

Under

the

subject

This paper has explored the derivation andpresent

Our considerations so far state that NPs,
such as ice cream, convert into N0s as follows:* An earlier version of this paper was presented
at the 35th conference of the English Linguistic(14) step 1 ice + cream【merger of two nouns】

Society of Japan held at Tohoku University on→ [NP [ìce] [créam]]【derivation ofNovember 24, 2017. I would like to thank YukioNPs】

Hirose, Nobuhiro Kaga, Masaharu Shimada,
Naoaki Wada, Masaru Kanetani, and Akiko

step 2 [NP [ìce] [créam]]【listing in the

Nagano for their helpful comments.

lexicon】
step 3 [N0 [ìce] [créam]] 【 conversion

NOTES/reassignment of a new categorial

1label (N0)】theoretical status. In this paper, it is used to refer

Note that the terminology ‘NP’ has no

to nouns extended by prenominal modifiers,

step 4 [N0 ìce créam]【loss of internal word

which exclude determiners.

boundaries】

2step 5 [N0 íce crèam]【formal adjustment

The spellings of the items listed in Table 1 are

adopted from OED.

by means of stress shift】

3

Seemingly, N-A compounds like ice cold are

In Step 1, two nouns merge to form NPs. Next,

productive. Nevertheless, we assume withthese NPs are listed in the lexicon. In Step 3,

Spencer (2003) that they are not true compounds.

they undergo conversion to be reassigned a new

Observing that they are semantically restrictedcategorial label, i.e. N0. Then, the resultant

and sporadic, Spencer (2003) states that theconverted nouns go on to Step 4, in which theygreat majority are idiomatic lexicalized phrases.

lose their internal word boundaries. Finally, they

Normally, nouns cannot modify adjectives to108form phrases. Thus, one might wonder how

Ejnar Munksgaard, Copenhagen.

putative N-A compounds are generated as

Liberman, Mark and Richard Sproat (1992)

phrases. This is an open question. However,“The Stress and Structure of Modified

notice that a certain type of nominal can

Noun Phrases in English,” Lexical Matters,

premodify adjectives to have an adverbial

ed. by Ivan A. Sag and Anna Szabolcsi,

function (e.g. ten years old, ten centimeters131-181, CSLI Publications, Stanford.

wide). We speculate that nouns also have an
adverbial

functionintherelevant

Lieber,Rochelle(1992)

Deconstructing

N-A

Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic

combinations. This points to the possibility that

Theory, University of Chicago Press,

such nouns are converted into adverbs.

Chicago.
Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (LPD),
Longman, London.

REFERENCES
Ackema, Peter and Ad Neeleman (2004) Beyond

Marchand, Hans (1969) The Categories andMorphology: Interface Conditions on Word

Types

Formation,

Word-Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic

OxfordUniversity

Press,

Oxford.
Allen,

Approach,

Margaret

Investigations,(1978)Morphological

Doctoraldissertation,

Present-Day
2nd

ed.,

English

C.

H.

Beck

Verlagsbuchhandlung, Munich.
Oxford English Dictionary Online (OED),

University of Connecticut.

<http://www.oed.com/>.

Bauer, Laurie (1983) English Word-Formation,

Nagano,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Akiko(2008)

Conversion

andBack-Formation in English, Kaitakusha,

Bauer, Laurie (1998) “When Is a Sequence ofTokyo.

Two Nouns a Compound in English?”

Shimada,English Language and Linguistics 2, 65-86.

Masaharu(2013)“CoordinatedCompounds: Comparison between English

Bauer, Laurie (2008) “Dvandva,” Word Structureand1, 1-20.
Botha,

ofJapanese,”

SKASE

Journalof

Theoretical Linguistics 10, 77-96.

RudolfMechanisms:

P.

(1984)

Analysis

Snyder, William (2001) “On the Nature ofof

Syntactic

Variation:

Evidence

Synthetic Compounding, Pergamon Press,

Complex

PredicatesandOxford.

Word-Formation,” Language 77, 324-342.

Cambridge

Lexicalist

Morphological

Pronouncing Dictionary

(CPD)

from

Complex

Spencer, Andrew (2003) “Does English Have

(15th ed.), Cambridge University Press,

Productive

Cambridge.

Morphology, ed. by Geert Booij, Janet

Giegerich, Heinz J. (2004) “Compound or
Phrase?

EnglishCompounding,”

Topicsin

DeCesaris, Angela Ralli and Sergio Scalise,

Noun-Plus-Noun329-341, IULA, Barcelona.

Constructions and the Stress Criterion,”Plag, Ingo (2003) Word-Formation in English,

English Language and Linguistics 8, 1-24.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Jespersen, Otto (1909) A Modern English
Grammar on Historical Principles, Part I,
Reprint, George Allen & Unwin, London,109

(2008)), which comprises 3,202 recordings ofspeech (around 661 hours, 7,500,000 words) by
1,417 Japanese speakers. In this corpus, thepronunciations of all words were transcribed in
katakana, depending on the auditory perception

Phonological Optionality in Japanese
Loanwordsof the recorders.1 Phonological/phonetic variants*

in pronounced forms were tagged “W.”2 Thissurvey extracted every loanword noun with a
Kohei Nishimura“W” tag that appeared in two or more tokens inIwaki Meisei University

the corpus.

Keywords： Japanese phonology, loanwords,

3. Results

phonological optionality/alternation, corpus

CSJ contains 14,321 tokens of 5,427

study

phonologically different variants of loanword
nouns.3 In this report, I classify loanword
variants that appeared in two or more tokens into
seven patterns depending on their observed

1. Introduction
This study explores phonological optionality

phonological alternations.

(free alternations/variations) in loanwords inJapanese, and reports the results on a statistical

3.1. Overall Results

survey on the authentic speech of Japanese

The graph in (1) shows the details of the 831

speakers. A large number of loanwords inphonologically different loanword variants withJapanese have two or more variants in

two or more tokens in CSJ. The total number ofpronunciation that do not entail semantic

tokens is 8685, the details of which are shown indistinctions. For example, it is well known that(2):

the English loanword baɡɡu ‘bag’ is often
pronounced as bakku with geminate devoicing(1) The number of phonologically different

without any difference in meaning (Ito andvariants showing loanword optionality by

Mester (1995, 1999), Nishimura (2003), etc.).

patternThis survey of the authentic speech of Japanesenative speakers reveals that such phonologicaloptionality occurs more widely than previous
studies have found, and little attention has been
given to the majority of instances of thisphonological phenomenon.
2. Corpus
In this study, I collected data from the
Corpus of Spontaneous Japanese (CSJ; National
Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics

110(2) The number of tokens showing loanword

phonological inquiry. Phonologically speaking,optionality by pattern

the important point here is that Japanese
speakers ignore the differences between two (ormore) phonologically different forms and regard
them as one identical word.
3.2. Alternation Patterns
Let us briefly examine

each of thealternation patterns with a few examples takenfrom the corpus.
The results reveal that alternations in consonant

3.2.1. Consonant Quality

quality, vowel quality, and vowel length are themajorpatternsof

In CSJ, alternations in consonant quality arephonological/phonetic

observed in 231 phonologically different words

optionality in loanwords in Japanese; they take(27.8% of the total) in 1766 tokens (20.3% ofplace much more frequently than other patterns

the total).4 This pattern includes consonantin the actual speech of Japanese speakers, aschange, epenthesis, and deletion as shown

shown in (2).

below:

Note that although the corpus builders(3) a. [horumanto~forumanto] ‘formant’recorded these examples as pairs of thecanonical pronunciation and its corrupted variant,b. [tsuu~tuu] ‘two’

the two variants are equally acceptable in mostc. [sueedeN~suweedeN] ‘Sweden’cases,

while

there

could

be

individual

preferences depending on the speaker. Therefore,

As shown in (1), the alternation in consonant

unlike other Japanese word classes, deciding

quality is the most frequently found in number

which is the “correct” variant in loanwords isof different words, among the alternation

not a simple task. For example, the English

patterns in actual speech. This pattern can beloanword doa~doaa ‘door’ shows an alternation

furtherin vowel length; since English does not have adepending on the target consonants.

analyzed

into several

sub-patterns

distinction in vowel length apart from quality,
and the r-sound is completely lost in both forms,

3.2.2. Vowel Length

there is no straightforward way to determine

Alternations in vowel length are observed inwhich variant is “correct.”214 phonologically different words (25.8%) in

Furthermore, faithfulness to the original
word

is

only

determine

includes long vowel shortening and short vowel“correctness”; it is open to discussion whether

lengthening, is most frequent when it comes tofaithfulness is a prerequisite for choosing a

the number of tokens appearing in the corpus.

canonical

Examples are shown below:

form.

one

In

way

other

to

4130 tokens (47.6%). This pattern, which

words,

thecanonical-variant judgment is subjective in
many

cases

and

has

littlebearingon111

(4) a. [deeta~deetaa] ‘data’5

in (6ab) and vowel insertion as in (6c).

b. [memorii~memori] ‘memory’c. [pataaN~pataN] ‘pattern’

3.2.5. Voicing/Devoicing
Alternations on voicing, which include the

The great majority of changes showing thisvoicingofvoicelessobstruents

and

the

pattern happen in word-final vowels as in (4ab).

devoicing of voiced obstruents, are observed in

However, there are a few words that show this88 phonologically different words (10.6%) in

pattern word-internally as in (4c) (See Maekawa

489 tokens (5.6%). Examples are shown below:

2002 for a detailed survey with CSJ).
(7) a. [dʒakuʒii~dʒaɡuʒii] ‘jacuzzi’b. [badomintoN~batomintoN] ‘badminton’

3.2.3. Vowel Qualityc. [beddo~betto] ‘bed’

Alternations in vowel quality take place in
172 phonologically different words (20.7%) in
1874 tokens (21.6%). Consider the examples

As reported in Tateishi (2001) and Nishimura

below:(2003), devoicing is very often triggered by theco-occurrence restriction on voiced obstruents as(5) a. [aidea~aidia] ‘idea’in (7b). However, voicing also takes place in ajb. [kom unitii~kominitii] ‘community’few words, violating this restriction, as in (7a).

c. [tekusuto~tekisuto] ‘text’

As reported in Ito and Mester (1995, 1999) andNishimura (2003), devoicing on geminates isalso a typical example of this pattern, as in (7c).

This alternation pattern is often involved in therealization of an original vowel as shown inPrevious

studiesofintra-language(5ab). However, some words show this patternphonological varieties in Japanese have mainlyin the selection of inserted vowels as in (5c).

focused on voicing alternations of obstruents

Again, this pattern can be further classified into

(Ito and Mester (1995, 1999), Fukazawa et al.

several sub-patterns depending on the quality of(1998), Tateishi (2001), Nishimura (2006),

target vowels.

Kawahara (2006), among others). This pattern,
however, does not stand out in number among
the patterns of loanword optionality in actual

3.2.4. Mora Deletion/Epenthesis
Changes in moraic structure, which include

speech of Japanese speakers as shown in (1) and6

mora deletion and epenthesis, are observed in(2).

140 phonologically different words (16.8%) in
696 tokens (8.0%). A few examples are shown

3.2.6. Gemination/Degemination

below:

Segmental

alternationsongeminatedconsonants, which include gemination on a(6) a. [ɡuraundo~ɡurando] ‘ground’

single consonant and degemination on ab. [oraNuutaN~ orauutaN] ‘orangutan’

geminatedconsonant,c. [firumu~fuirumu] ‘film’phonologically different words (5.8%) in 376
tokens (4.3%).

This pattern is often found in heavy syllables as

112

take

place

in

48

(8) a. [ookee~okkee] ‘OK’b. [webu~webbu] ‘the Web’

4. Discussion
Thisc. [supaɡetti~supaɡeti] ‘spaghetti’surveyonloanword

optionality

provides several significant suggestions for the
As argued below, geminated consonants are

inquiry of phonological theory and its adjacentoften found in borrowed words from English, as

areas; among them, I would like to mentionin (8ab), even though English phonology does

three of particular importance. The first two are

not allow consonant gemination and therefore

implications

original

phonology, and the other is for second language

words

do

not

have

geminated

for

the

inquiry ofJapanese

consonants.

education.

3.2.7. Metathesis

4.1. Ignorance of Phonemic Distinctions

Metathesis happens in 20 phonologicallyInterestingly, a large number of the loanword

different words (2.4%) in 416 tokens (4.8%).

variants ignore the phonemic distinctions of

The following serves as an example:

Japanese; even though Japanese speakers canphonologicallyjvariants

ofaloanword, they ignore the differences and(9) a. [ʃim ureeto~ʃumireeto] ‘simulate’jdistinguishjregarded the pairs as an identical word in actualb. [kom unikeeʃoN~komin ukeeʃoN]

speech contexts as shown above.

‘communication’For example, vowel length is distinctive in
The great majority of the metathesis involves the

Yamato (Native Japanese) words, as in the

movement of a palatal feature as in (9ab). The

minimal pair obasaN ‘aunt’ and obaasaN

complexity of the palatal segments likely causes‘grandmother.’ However, as shown in 3.2.2,

confusion in the linear order of segments.

vowel length is often neutralized in loanwords,
especially in word-final position, and twovariant forms are regarded as equally valid

3.2.8. Others
The “others” category in (1) and (2) includes

forms of one word, as in the variant pair deeta

variations that cannot be classified into the sevenand deetaa ‘data.’

patterns above, which are found in 186

Similarly, voicing on obstruents is distinctive

phonologically different words (22.4%) in 631

in Japanese phonology, as in the minimal pairtokens (7.3%). Typical examples are complex

hata ‘flag’ and hada ‘skin.’ However, as argued

combinations of multiple alternations (e.g.,in 3.2.5, the voicing distinction on obstruents is

obusutoruento~obusutoranto‘obstruent’).

insignificant in many loanword variants with

Haplology (e.g., aidentitii~aidentii ‘identity’),

two or more voiced obstruents; for example,

accidental(e.g.,

both badomintoN and batomintoN share the samekurasu~kura ‘class’), and slips of the tongue

meaning, “badminton,” and are equally possible

causedin actual speech.7

bystructural

other

than

ones

(e.g.,Such optionality, with few lexical exceptions,tsuaa~tawaa ‘tour’) are also included in thisis not possible in the Yamato class and thegroup.

Sino-Japanese class, which form the great

phonologicallinguistic

omissionsorfactors

phonetic113

majority of Japanese vocabulary along with the

Kitahara (2005), Mutsukawa (2008)), ambiguity

Loanword class. These facts suggest that theof underlying representations (Nishimura (2016a,

phonemic system of the Loanword class isb), lexical frequency (Kawahara and Sano

different from those of the other word classes.

(2013)) and so on. This statistical survey of a

The relationship between the identity of words

speech corpus reveals that these factors make theand their phonological/phonetic structures varies

range of alternations more varied and complex

among the Japanese word classes; this study

than previous studies considered.

shows that they are less strictly related in the
Loanword class than in the other two classes.

4.3. Pedagogical Contribution
I believe the findings of this survey are
significant not only from a theoretical point of

4.2. Bidirectionality of Alternations
Another important finding of this survey isview but also pedagogically. A Japanesethe fact that some alternations can take place

speaker’s pronunciations of loanwords canbidirectionally independent of the markedness ofgreatly influence his or her pronunciation ofphonological/phonetic structures (see Nishimura

foreign languages; the alternations discussed(2016b) for a theoretical account).

above may appear in their pronunciations ofAgain,

takeavoicing alternation

foreign

on

words

and

cause

incorrect

obstruents as an example; voiceless obstruents

pronunciations. Especially in the case ofare cross-linguistically less marked than voiced

beginner students, their pronunciation patterns in

obstruents, and devoicing of obstruents often

second languages borrow heavily from thetakes place as argued in 3.2.5. Previous studies

pronunciations of loanwords in Japanese.

considered the markedness to be the motivating

Take a geminate alternation as an example:

factor for the voicing alternation in loanwords inthe difference between a single obstruent and its

Japanese (Ito and Mester (1995, 1999), Tateishi

geminated counterpart is distinctive in Japanese(2001), Nishimura (2006), etc.). However, thisphonology as in the minimal pairstudy reveals that not only devoicing but also the‘persimmon’ and kakki ‘vigor.’ However, as

voicing of obstruents is observed in actual

argued in 3.2.6, the alternation of geminates is

speech, as shown in (7a).

allowed in some loanwords in Japanese without

kaki

Similarly, such bidirectionality can be foundcausing any semantic differences. A similar

in other alternations: vowel lengthening andalternation pattern is often found in the

shortening as shown in (4), mora deletion andpronunciation of foreign language learners. In

epenthesis as shown in (6), and gemination andthe case of English education, many beginning8

degemination as shown in (8).
These

facts

suggeststudents

that

incorrectly

pronounce

obstruentgeminates in English words (e.g., beddo ‘bed,’

phonologicaloptionality in loanwords in Japanese is notburakku

triggeredofphonology does not allow consonant gemination.

phonological/phonetic structures but also by

One of the triggering factors of such an incorrectother factors such as speakers’ knowledge of or

pronunciation is Japanese speakers’ insensitivity(un)familiarity

withto the distinction of obstruent gemination inmorphologicalinformation

solelybythemarkedness

foreignwords,(Fukazawaand‘black’),eventhoughloanwords, which is illustrated in 3.2.6.

114

Englishinvestigation; it is observed in 2050 tokens, andSimilar situations can be found in thealternations in the other alternation patterns

occupies 23.6% of the total.

argued in 3.2. Therefore, language teachers

6

should have knowledge of the phonological anddiscussed in 3.2.2, are not included in thisphonetic features of loanwords in Japanese,pattern.

which may cause incorrect pronunciations by

7

their students, in order to more effectively noteobstruents is phonologically insignificant in theand correct the pronunciations.

Loanword class. It is still distinctive, as theAlternations in vowel length, which areThis fact does not entail that voicing ofminimal pair kaato ‘cart’ and kaado ‘card’* This article is based on my talk presented atshows.

the 35th Conference of the English Linguistic8

Society of Japan held at Tohoku University ineasy to decide, as explained in 3.1.

The direction of alternations is, however, notOctober 2017. I appreciate the audiences at theconference for their helpful comments. This

REFERENCES
Fukazawa, Haruka and Mafuyu Kitahara (2005)

study was sponsored by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid
for

Scientific

Research(Project“Ranking Paradox in Consonant Voicing in

Number:Japanese,” Voicing in Japanese, ed. by

16H03427).
1

Jeroen van de Weijer, Kensuke Nanjo, andNOTESIt should be noted that that this transcription

Tetsuo Nishihara, 105-121, Mouton dedepends on the phonological/phonetic abilities

Gruyter, Berlin.

of the recorders, who are also native speakers of

Fukazawa, Haruka et al. (1998) “LexicalJapanese. Another noteworthy fact is that some

Stratification and Ranking Invariance inphonetic structures are not recorded in theConstraint-based Grammars,” Papers fromtranscription because katakana characters are

the 34th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic

not accurate phonetic symbols.

Society: Volume 2: The panel, 47-62.

2

The corpus builders regarded these variant

Ito, Junko and Armin Mester (1995) “Japanese

forms as lazy/corrupt pronunciations or speech

Phonology,”

The

Handbook

errors. However, this view is not correct for

Phonological

Theory,ed.

loanwords in Japanese; as argued in 3.1,

Goldsmith, 817-838, Blackwell, Oxford.

loanword variants are equally acceptable as

Ito, Junko and Armin Mester (1999) “The

by

of
John

“canonical” forms in many cases.

Phonological Lexicon,” The Handbook of

3

Japanese Linguistics, ed. by Natsuko

Almost all loanwords in Japanese are nouns

except for a few derived cases such as ɡuɡuru

Tsujimura, 62-100, Blackwell, Oxford.

(v.) ‘search in the Web (on Google)’and kuriinna

Kawahara, Shigeto. (2006) “A Faithfulness(adj.) ‘clean.’Ranking Projected from a Perceptibility

4

Since some alternation patterns simultaneously

Scale: The Case of [+voice] in Japanese,”

appear in one word, the total of the percentages

Language 82(3), 536-574.

in this section and the following sub-sections is

Kawahara, Shigeto and Shinichiro Sano (2013)

greater than 100%.

“A Corpus-based Study of Geminate

5

Devoicing in Japanese: Linguistic Factors,”

This variation is the most frequent in this115

Language Sciences 40, 300-307.
Maekawa, Kikuo (2002) “Shortening of LexicalLong Vowels in Spontaneous Speech –AnalysisofCorpusof

Spontaneous

Japanese,” The Proceeding of 2002 Spring
Meeting of the Society of Japanese
Linguistics, 43-50.
Mutsukawa, Masahiko (2008) “The Realizationof the English Plural Morpheme inJapanese and the Accessibility to theMorphological

Information,”

The

Proceedings of the 32th Meeting of Kansai
Linguistic Society, 66-76.
National Institute for Japanese Language andLinguistics(2008)

The

Corpusof

Spontaneous Japanese, Ver.2. Database.
Nishimura, Kohei (2006) “Lyman’s Law inLoanwords,” Phonological Studies vol.9,
83-90.
Nishimura, Kohei (2016a) “Voicing Optionality
in Japanese Loanwords,” talk presented at
the 11th Phonology Festa, Ritsumeikan
University, March 10.
Nishimura, Kohei (2016b) “Gairaigo ni Okeru
Souhoukou no Yuseisei Heni (Bidirectional
Voicing Optionality in Loanwords).” The
Proceedings of the 152nd Meeting of the
Linguistic Society of Japan, 288-293.
Tateishi, Koichi (2001) “Onin Jisho Kurasu
Seiyaku no Bunpu ni Tsuite (On theDistributionofConstraints

forPhonological Sub-lexica),” talk presented
at the 26th Meeting of Kansai LinguisticSociety, Ryukoku University, October 27.

116

through an agreement between a D head and its
specifier.
(2) a.

more impressive than John’s attitude

Identificational Focus within Genitive
Compounds and Head Deletion

Mary’s attitude toward research is*toward research.
b.

[DP John [D [NP attitude toward
research]]]Tatsuhiro Okubo
Ibaraki Prefectural University of HealthIn (2a), the NP attitude toward research of the

SciencesJohn’s attitude toward research is omitted.
Notice that the remnant John’s has a possessive

Keywords: left periphery, DP, single engine

meaning, which is expressed by the suffix -’s.

hypothesis

This suffix is a realization of the D in (2b). Saito
and Murasugi noted that the NP deletion takes
place in (2a) because the D agrees with its
specifier John.

1. Introduction
English has compounds called genitive

If a head nominal is elided through ancompounds, which have a non-head and an

agreement between D and its specifier, genitive

apparent genitive suffix:

compounds do not undergo this operation.
However, this supposition is incorrect, as the(1) a.

fool’s paradise, bull’s-eye, cat’s cradle,

following data indicates:

lion’s share, death’s headb.

woman’s voice, girls’ school, bird’s(3) It is not a men’s magazine, but a women’snest, cow’s milk, mother’s lovemagazine.

Although the genitive compounds in (1a) areIn

semanticallyalsomagazine undergoes head deletion, which

semantically transparent genitive compounds as

requires a reconsideration of the status of the

exemplified

thesuffix. This paper examines the nature of thecompounds’ productivity; for example, women’s

suffix in question by considering the headmagazine refers to a ‘magazine for women’ anddeletion mechanism. In particular, by adopting

girls’ school refers to a ‘school for girls’.

Corver and van Koppen’s (2009) proposal that

Therefore, the suffix attached to the non-head offoci are relevant to NP deletion, it is argued thatthe genitive compound is not genitive, but one of

the head deletion in (3) is allowed if the remnant

semantically empty connectors called linkingof the operation has a contrastive focus.

lexicalized,
in

(1b),

there

which

are

indicate

(3),

the

genitive

compoundwomen’selements (Mukai (2008)). The meaningless

The remainder of this paper is organized ascharacteristics of the genitive-like element are afollows. Section 2 introduces the framework forchallenge for head deletion. Saito and Murasugi

this paper and demonstrates that the DP includes(1991) claim that head deletion is allowed

discourse-related functional heads, one of which,117the Focus head, mediates the head deletion

In consideration of the parallel developments

observed in DP. Section 3 examines the core

between the clausal domain and the nominal

hypotheses

domain, the DP structure can be refined asassociatedwithDistributed

Morphology (cf. Halle and Maratnz (1993,

shown in (5).

1994), Arad (2003), Embick and Marantz(2008)) that the foci are relevant to the head(5) [DP ... [D ... Top ... Foc [NumP ... [Num ... [FP ...

deletion of genitive compounds as well to theN]]]]]

DPs. Section 4 gives two consequences of the(Aboh (2004: 4))

present proposal, and section 5 concludes thepaper.

As the schema in (5) clearly shows, the D headdisintegrates

into

severaldiscourse/informational projections, such as

2. Framework
As discussed in section 1, head deletion

TopP and FocP.

applies to both DPs and genitive compounds,
and they are formally similar as the suffix -’s is2.2. Identificational Focus

used to connect two nominal items, even though

There

have

been

severalarguments

the suffix of the genitive compound isregarding focus. É. Kiss (1998), for example,

meaningless. These observations indicate that itclassifies Foc into information focus andis possible to explain genitive compounds from a

identificational focus, where the information

DP structure. To pursue this line of thought, thefocus encodes new information, and the

DP structure is elucidated in cartographic terms

identificational focus is defined in semantic orin the following discussion.

functional terms, as follows:

2.1. Left Periphery in DP(6) The function of identificational focus: An

Thedevelopment

andidentificational focus represents a subset ofanthe set of contextually or situationally given

elaboration of the complementizer domain, orelements for which the predicate phrase caninflectional

domainsoftheverbalhas

allowedfor1

the clausal left periphery (Rizzi (1997)). The

potentially hold; it is identified as theclausal left periphery consists of the scope andexhaustive subset of this set for which thediscourse/informational projections, with thepredicate phrase actually holds.

latter including both Top(ic) and Foc(us) heads;(É. Kiss (1998: 245))

Top and Foc are the syntactic articulation of
topics and foci, respectively. The schema in (4)illustrates

these

In addition to the semantic or functional

discourse/informational

differences between the two types of focus, theprojections. The highest projection is ForceP,

identificational focus syntactically differs fromwhich encodes the information about the speech

the informational focus; that is, the information

acts, and FocP is sandwiched by two TopPs.

2

focus does not trigger a syntactic movement,
while the identificational focus triggers a(4) ForceP-TopP*-FocP-TopP*...

syntactic movement.

(Rizzi (1997: 297), with slight modifications)

É. Kiss claims that one of the syntactic118

constructions encoding the identificational focus

day. In this context, the nominal element konijn

is the cleft construction:‘rabbit’ is omitted. The suffix -e for the remnant
zwarte appears to be an inflectional ending for(7) a.
b.

It was to John I spoke.

the adjective. However, it does not appear when

[CP [IP It [I[past] [FP to Johni [be [CP ti

the nominal agreement with the adjective is not[that [IP I [I[past] [VP speak [PP ti]]]]]]]]]]]

deleted, as shown in (9), which implies that the(É. Kiss (1998: 258))

suffix has a different status from a regularinflectional suffix.

In (7), the PP to John carries identificational

Corver and van Koppen argue that the suffix

focus and moves to the spec position of F inin (8) acts as a contrastive-focus marker and thatorder to check the strong features of F such as a

the adjective with the marker carries contrastive[+exhaustive] feature.

3

focus.4 Therefore, they propose that the adjective
had an [+Op] feature, which encodes contrastive

2.3. Relationship between NP Deletion andfocus and move it to the spec position of Foc toContrastive/Identificational Focus

check the [+Op] feature of the head. In

Theidentificationalfocitriggerbothagreement with Merchant (2001), they also

syntactic movements and ellipses. In contrast to

suggest that Foc has a [E] feature that ensures

NP deletion through an agreement between D

the complement of a head with the feature isand its specifier, Corver and van Koppen (2009)deleted; therefore, the complement of Foc isargue that the same deletion operation is evident

deleted at PF. Since zwart is already extracted

in the contrastive/identificational focus, asfrom the deletion site, the element that is deleted

discussed in the following.

is only konijn. Given this explanation, theCorver and van Koppen claims that in Dutch,

ellipsis in (8) is shown in (10).

the NP deletion is observed in context
exemplified in (8):(10) [DP [D, een [FocP zwarti[+Op] [Foc[E, +Op], -e [ XPzwarti [X konijn]]]]]](8) Over konijnen gesproken...(Talking about

PF-deletion

rabbits...)(Corver and van Koppen (2009: 18))

Ik heb gisteren een zwart-e ___ zien lopen.
I have yesterday a black-e ___ see walk

3. Focus Projection for Genitive Compounds‘I saw a black one yesterday.’

3.1. Single Engine Hypothesis(Corver and van Koppen (2009: 18))

Sections 2.1 and 2.2 demonstrated that the(9) Ik heb gisteren een zwart(*-e) konijn zien

DP includes Foc, which breaks into information

lopen.

fociI have yesterday a black-e rabbit see walk

identificaitonal‘I saw a black rabbit yesterday’

movement and enabling NP deletion, as shown(Corver and van Koppen (2009: 8))

andidentificational
foci

foci;

triggering

with
a

the

syntactic

in section 2.3. Against this background, it
appears that these same explanations can be

The utterance in (8) indicates that of all rabbits,

extended to the head deletion in genitive

the speaker saw a black rabbit on the previous

compounds, as shown again in (11):119

(11) It is not a men’s magazine, but a women’s

the stamp on a letter. Therefore, in this context,

magazine.

the stamp is the focus of attention. The focusednoun stamps is placed at the end of the DP,

However, given the compound status of genitive

which is in line with the principle of end focus.

compounds, the same mechanism is not used to

After she puts the stamp on the letter, the focus

explain the syntactic behavior of genitiveof attention is shifted to the book itself. In othercompounds. To avoid this problem, the Single

words, stamps become old information, while

Engine Hypothesis is adopted here, which is one

book becomes new information. This shift in theofDistributed

focus of attention and the principle of end focus

Morphology (cf. Halle and Marantz (1993,

leads to the construction of the compound stamp1994), Arad (2003), Embick and Marantz

book.

the

core

hypothesesof(2008)).
3.3. Syntactic Status of the Non-head for(12) Not only phrases but also words are created

Genitive Compounds

in syntax.

Before explaining the data in (11), it isnecessary to clarify the syntactic status of theThis hypothesis states that both words andnon-head of genitive compounds:phrases can be created in syntax, and implies
that the same tools that are used to create a(14) a.

phrase can be used to create a word. In thisThe potter’s wheel was in his backyard.

paper, it is therefore proposed that a compoundb.

can be built using the discourse-related features

John bought a second-hand potter’s
wheel.

for building DPs.

(Adams (2001: 80))

3.2. Relationship between Compounds andIn (14a), the modifies potter and the potter

Discourse

functions as an antecedent to his. In contrast, inUsing discourse-related notions to explain(14b), both a and second-hand modify potter’s

the nature of compounds is not inconceivable;

wheel as a whole. Based on Abney’s (1987)

for example, Morita (1995) uses the notions ofclaim that specificity/referentiality is encoded infocus and topic to explain compounds:

the functional head D, the contrast in (14)indicates that the non-head of a genitive(13) Sally opened the shallow drawer of thecompound is not a DP; therefore, from thewriting table, took out a book of stamps,

contrasts in (14), it is assumed that the non-headextracted one, affixed it to the letter sheof genitive compounds are NP.5

held in her hand, dropped the stamp bookback in the drawer, and put two pence

3.4. Analysis

halfpenny on the desk.

Based on the arguments so far presented, the(Morita (1995: 470))

structure of women’s magazine is represented in(15).

In (13), Sally took a stamp from a book and put

120

(15) [FocP womeni[+Op] [Foc[E, +Op], -’s [ XP womeni

citizen’s movement[X magazine]]]]PF-deletion

In (16a), both boys’ and children’s are non-heads

In (11), magazine is not the most importantof the genitive compound boys’ children’s wear

information because in the present context what

department; however, these types of multiple

is important is whether the magazine in question

non-heads are disallowed, as shown in (16a) andis a men’s magazine or a women’s magazine.

(16b). The question is why multiple non-heads

Therefore, in terms of information structure,are disallowed for genitive compounds.

magazine is the topic and the non-head women’sThis question can be answered because

is the focus, with the non-head carrying

English disallows multiple realizations forcontrastive or identificational focus. This is

identificational foci:shown in (15) by assigning an [+Op] feature to
women; therefore, the focused noun women first(17) *It was [FP to Maryi [CP that [IP it was [FPmerges with the topicalized noun magazine, with

Johnj [CP that [IP we introduced tj ti]]]]]]

the focused noun women being required to move

(É. Kiss (1998: 264))

to the spec position of Foc to check the [+Op]feature specified in the head. In this paper, it isIn (17), there are the two identificational foci toassumed that the feature is realized as -’s, which

Mary and John. For the PP to move to a higher

is similar to the adjectival inflectional suffix -e

FP, the spec position of a lower F must be

being used as a focus marker in Dutch (cf. (8)).

vacated. However, it is already occupied by

The head also contains an [E] feature, whichJohn, which prevents the to Mary from moving

means that the complement of the head is elided

to the higher FP.

at PF.6

As illustrated in section 3, identificational

It has been demonstrated so far that a Foc

focus is related to genitive compounds inwith an [+Op] feature is relevant to genitive

contexts similar to those in (11). Here, thiscompounds that undergo head deletion. In theanalysis is extended to genitive compounds in all

following, the two consequences of this proposal

contexts. A genitive compound contains a Foc

are detailed.

with an [+Op] feature; if this is the correct
assumption, then the same explanation as with

4. Consequences

the cleft construction in (17) would apply to the

4.1. Iteration of the Non-heads for Genitive

genitive compounds in (16).

Compounds
One consequence of the above proposal is(18) [FocP boysi[+Op] [Foc[+Op] [FocP childrenj[+Op]

that genitive compounds can be observed to[Foc[+Op] [XP childrenj [X [YP boysi [Ydisallow any iteration of the non-heads:

school]]]]]]]](16) a. * Macy’s

boys’

children’swear

In (18), the focused element children first moves

department is tiny.

to the spec position of the lower Foc, thus filling(Anderson (2013: 214))

this position; therefore, an additional focusedb. * a boys’ children’s school, a women’selement boys cannot skip over this position to121

move to the spec position of the higher Foc. Duereason why multiple non-heads are prohibited into this intervention, the [+Op] feature of thegenitive compounds by assuming that thehigher Foc is not checked, which causes crash at

genitive compound has Foc with an [+Op]

LF.

feature. Based on Corver and van Koppen’s(2009) claim that the feature is relevant to4.2. Reduction of a Classifying Function ofidentificational focus, this paper demonstrated

the Genitive Compound to the [+Op] Feature

the possibility of reducing the classifying

The second consequence of the above

function of the genitive compound to the feature.

proposal is related to the characteristics of the

However, it is beyond the scope of this paper togenitive compound. Shimamura (2014) suggests

confirm the status of the suffix as anthat one characteristic of genitive compounds is

identificational-focus marker.

the classifying function; that is, the non-head of
the compound creates the subset of the head. For* I thank the audience for their helpful

example, women’s magazine implies that there

comments. I would also like to express myare other types of magazines, such as children’s

gratitude to Neil David Parry, who kindly acted

magazine and men’s magazine.

as an informant. Needless to say, any remaining

In this paper, it is assumed that the genitive

errors and shortcomings are my own. This work

compound contains a Foc with an [+Op] feature,

is supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Youngand that the non-head has the same feature andScientists (B) (No. 17K13473) from the Japanmoves to the spec position of Foc to check theSociety for the Promotion of Science.

head’s features. As Corver and van Koppen

NOTES(2009) claim that this feature corresponds to the1

identificational focus, it is concluded that the

Shlonsky (2010).

non-head of the genitive compound carries

2

identificational focus. As É. Kiss argues, aelements can be iterated.

function of this type of focus is to create “a3subset of the set of contextually or situationallyof syntactic movement in other languages suchgiven elements for which the predicate phrase

as Hungarian. See É. Kiss (1998) for the details.

can potentially hold (É. Kiss (1998: 245)).”

4

Therefore, the non-head of a genitive compound

Koppen (2009) use the term contrastive focus,

is able to create a subset of the set of the head.

which is notionally equal to identificational

5. Conclusions

focus.
5Based

For the theoretical background and goal, see
The symbol ‘*’ denotes the fact that topicalThe [+exhaustive] feature functions as a trigger

To explain the data in (8), Corver and van

on

the

Distributed

Morphology

The suffix -’s in genitive compounds such as

framework, the NP in question might correspond

women’s magazine has been regarded as a

to nP, which is composed of category-neutral

linking element because of its meaninglesselements called Roots such as √DOG, √CAT, andnature. In this paper, it is argued that although it√BIRD, and a nominalizer represented as n, one

does not carry a possessive meaning, it acts asofan identificational-focus marker for the head

categorizers. For details about the nature ofdeletion. The analysis in this paper explained the

Roots and categorizers, see Embick and Marantz

122

the

category-assigningelements

called(2008).

“Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of6

Inflection,” The View from Building 20:

Okubo (2017) applies the present analysis toas

Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain

haha-no-hi ‘Mother’s Day’ and mago-no-te

Bromberger, ed. by Ken Hale and Samuel‘back scratcher’. In contrast to English genitive

Keyser, 111-176, MIT Press, Cambridge,

compounds, Japanese ones resist head deletion.

MA.

Japanese

genitive

compoundssuch

Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz (1994) “SomeFor the details, see Okubo (2017).

Key Features of Distributed Morphology,”
MITWPL 21, 275-288.

REFERENCES
Abney, Paul (1987) The English Noun Phrase in

Merchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax of Silence:

Its Sentential Aspect, Doctoral dissertation,

Sluicing, Islands and the Theory of Ellipsis,

MIT.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Aboh, Enoch (2004) “Topic and Focus within

Morita, Junya (1995) “Lexicalization by way of

D,” Linguistics in the Netherlands 2004,

Context-Dependent Nonce-Word Formation

1-12.

,” English Studies 5, 468-473.

Adams, Valerie (2001) Complex Words inMukai, Makiko (2008) “Recursive Compounds,”

English, Routledge, London / New York.

Word Structure 1, 178-198.

Anderson, Stephen (2013) “The Marker of the

Okubo, Tatsuhiro (2017) “Shuyoubusakujo to

English ‘Group Genitive’ Is a Special Clitic,

Nitieigo no Zokkakuhukugougo (Head

Not

an

Inflection,”

Morphosyntactic

Deletion and Japanese and English Genitive

andExpressionofCompounds),” paper presented at the 155thPossession, ed. by Kersti Börjars, David

Linguistic Society of Japan Conference,

Denison and Alan Scott, 193-217, John

Ritsumeikan University.

Categories

theBenjamins, Amsterdam.

Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of theArad, Maya (2003) “Locality Constraints on theLeft Periphery,” Elements of Grammar, ed.

Interpretation of Roots: The Case of

by Liliane Haegeman, 281-337, Kluwer

Hebrew

Denominal

Academic Publishers, Netherlands.

LanguageandVerbs,”

Linguistic

NaturalTheory21,

Saito, Mamoru and Keiko Murasugi (1990)

737-778.

“N’-deletion in Japanese: A Preliminary

Corver, Norbert and Marjo van Koppen (2009)

Study,” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 1,“Let’s Focus on Noun Phrase Ellipsis,”285-301.

Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen

Shimamura,

Linguistik 48, 3-26.

Go-to

Ku-to

Naming Function), Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

versus Information Focus,” Language 74,

Shlonsky,245-273.

Ur(2010)“The

Cartographic

Enterprise in Syntax,” Language andEmbick, David and Alec Marantz (2008)

Linguistics Compass 4, 417-429.

“Architecture and Blocking,” Linguistic
Inquiry 39, 1-53.
Morris

(2014)

Nazuke-Kinoo (Phrases, Words, and the

É. Kiss, Katalin (1998) “Identificational Focus

Halle,

Reiko

and

Alec

Marantz(1993)

123

「限定」のとりたて表現は、ある事柄がとりたてた要素についてのみ当てはまり、他の要素は排除されることを表す。例えば次の(3)Just の対人関係調整機能 *では、「だけ」や「しか」によってその意味が（The Interpersonal Function of Just）

表されている。
(3) a. 私に車を貸してくれた だけ だった。

大澤 舞（Mai Osawa）
東邦大学（Toho University）

b. 私に だけ 車を貸してくれた。／私にしか 貸してくれなかった。

キーワード：とりたて表現, 限定, 反限定,(3a)では、「貸してくれた」ことを「だけ」が聞き手の負担軽減, 日英語対照

とりたてているため、車を貸す以外のことはしていないことが表される。また、(3b)では、
1. はじめに「私に」を「だけ」や「しか」がとりたてて

Lee (1991)などの先行研究において、(1a)にいるため、「私以外の誰にも貸していない」

おける just と(1b)における just はそれぞれ別という意味になる。(3)の日本語の例と同じの用法であると言われている。

ことを英語では(4)のように、just を用いて表すことができる。

(1) a. He just lent the car.
b. I just don’t like it.

(4) a. He just lent the car. (He didn’t give it.)(Lee (1991:43))

b. He lent the car just to me (not to anyoneelse).

本稿では、この(1)におけるそれぞれの justと日本語の「とりたて表現」を対照させながら、日本語の「反限定」専用のとりたて表現(4a, b)のそれぞれ括弧内に示されるように、が「聞き手の負担軽減」という語用論的効果

just が lent や to me という要素を修飾するこをもつのに対し、英語には「反限定」を専らとで、その要素以外のことが排除されている。

表す副詞が存在せず、代わりに相反する「限よって、英語の just は日本語の「限定」のと定」の副詞 just が同様の語用論的効果をもつ

りたて表現に対応するといえる。

ということを指摘する。

一方、「限定」と反対の働きをするのが(5)に挙げる「反限定」に分類されるとりたて表

2. 「限定」と「反限定」のとりたて表現

現である。

野田 (2015)は、日本語のとりたて表現を「限定」「反限定」「類似」「反類似」「極端」「反極端」という 6 つの意味に分類している。

(5) でも（例示）, も（やわらげ）, なんか（例示）(野田 (2015:84))(2)に挙げるような表現が日本語の「限定」の「反限定」のとりたて表現は、いわゆる「ぼとりたて表現として分類される。

かし」を表す。とりたてる要素に限らず、同(2) だけ, しか, ばかり, こそ（特立）類のものがほかにもあることを漠然と示す(野田 (2015:84))

働きをしている。(6)は、「なんか」が用いら

124よって、英語において、日本語の「反限定」

れている例である。

のとりたて表現と同じ働きをする表現は、(6) A:「なにか体にいいことはないかなあ」「～か何か」という意味を表す or something

B:「ヨガ なんか 始めてみたらどう？」(like that)であるといえる。ただ、わざわざ(8)(日本語記述文法研究会 (2009:138))のように言わなくても How about a movie?によって「映画 なんか どう？」という意味はA の発話に対して、B がヨガを始めることを表されるのである。ここから、(9)のように結提案している。このとき、「ヨガ」を「なん論づけられる。

か」でとりたてることで、マラソンなど他にも考えられるが、候補のひとつとして「ヨガ」
を例示していることが表される。

(9) 英語には、「反限定」のとりたて表現として働く１語レベルの副詞はない。

同じような場面を表した英語の例が(7)である。

ここまで、日本語の「限定」のとりたて表
現に対応するのが英語の副詞 just である一

(7) A: You’re thinking about Charlie, aren’t

方、日本語の「反限定」のとりたて表現に対you?

応する英語の副詞はないという対応関係を

B: Maybe I need something to get my mind

みてきた。冒頭で言及したように、(1a)と(1b)off of him.

の just は用法が異なるという。(1a)の just は

A: How about a movie?

「だけ」「しか」に対応し、「限定」の意味を(Desperate Housewives “Farewell Letter”)

表していることがわかるが、(1b)の just がどのような意味を表しているのだろうか。次節「ね、チャーリーのことばかり考えているででは(1b)のような用法の just の意味についてしょ？」と言われた B が、「彼のことを忘れ考える。

るために何かしたほうがいいよね」と言う。
3. just の「意味」

それに対して、A が How about a movie?と言う。つまり、A は B の発話における something

英語の副詞 just の意味に関する研究におの候補としていろいろある中で a movie を提いて、Lee (1987)から最近の先行研究まで共案しているのである。このような場面におけ通して言われているのが、「just の意味はひる How about a movie?を日本語に書き換える

とつに定まらない」ということである（Leeとしたら、反限定のとりたて表現「なんか」(1987, 1991), Wierzbicka (1991), Aijmer (2002),

で「映画」をとりたてた「映画なんかどう？」

Tagliamonte (2016)など）。特に、最近の「若者」とするのが自然だと思われる。しかし、Howの言語使用を調査した先行研究によると、

about a movie?という表現には「なんか」に相(10)のように、just の意味は依然として定ま当する語は出てきていない。敢えて「なんか」っておらず、まだなお新たな用法・機能が出を言語化しようとすると、(8)の下線部のよてきているという。

うに or something (like that)という表現をつけ(10) …at the beginning of the twenty-first

ることになる。

century, just is still polysemous and fluid.
(8) How about a movie or something (like that)?

[…] its (new) functions are still developing(Tagliamonte (2016:163))125しかし、だからといって無尽蔵に意味が生じることができるという just の機能によって、るわけではなく、先行研究では共通して Lee

様々な just の振る舞いが説明できるという。

(1987)の 4 分類に準じた意味を just の基本的

この just の機能をヒントに、(1b)の just、つ意味としている。以下の(11)から(14)が Lee

まり軽視的用法の just の役割を考察してい(1987)の 4 分類である。なお、日本語訳は友く。

澤 (2010)と中野 (2013)によるものである。
4. 軽視的用法の just がもつ機能(11) a. specificatory（特定的）軽視的用法の just の特徴は、主に 3 点挙げ

b. I just finished my coffee.

られる。1 つめの特徴が(16)である。

(12) a. restrictive（限定的）b. He lent the car just to me.

(= (4b))(16) 軽視的用法の just は話者の心的態度を表(13) a. emphatic（強調的）

す副詞である。

b. The weather is just marvelous.
(14) a. depreciatory（軽視的）b. I just don’t like it.

軽視的用法の just は、命題内容に影響を与え(= (1b))ない。(17)のように just があってもなくても文の意味は同じである。

この 4 分類のうち、(12)の限定的用法が、いわゆる「限定」のとりたて表現に対応する just(17) a. I just don’t like it.

であり、(14)の軽視的用法が(1b)における justb. I don’t like it.

である。(14b)は、例えば、「なぜそれを選ばないのか」と聞かれたときに、「まぁちょっ

これは、話者志向の副詞に見られる事実と同と好きじゃないんだよね」などと答えたりす

じである。

るときに用いられる。
限定的用法の just は、2 節でみたように、(18) a. Amazingly, he escaped with only ascratch.

修飾した要素以外のものを排除するという

b. That he escaped with only a scratch was

機能を有していることは明らかである。しかamazing.

し、軽視的用法の just はどのような機能を有(Huddleston and Pullum (2002:772))

しているのだろうか。Aijmer (2002)は、Lee(1987)の 4 分類を踏まえながらも、結局は justの意味を規定するのではなく、(15)のような話者志向の副詞は、命題の外にある。そのたjust の機能を定義することに意味があると論め、(18a, b)の書き換えが示すように、話者がじている。

he escaped with only a scratch という命題内容
を amazing だと思っていることを表すのが(15) …just has procedural meaning, i.e. it

amazingly という副詞なのである。つまり、

functions as an instruction to the hearer to(17)の場合も、(17a)の just は、命題内容に影interpret the utterance as the expression of an

響を与えない話者の心的態度を表す話者志

attitude.

向の副詞として働いていることがわかる。

(Aijmer (2002:158))

また、一文内に副詞が 2 つ現れるとき、話Aijmer (2002)によると、話し手がどのような者志向の副詞が外側に、主語志向の副詞が内態度で発話しているのかを聞き手に知らせ側にくるという順になるのは全く問題ない126

が、その逆になると容認されないというこという意味を表す「特定的用法」の場合にはが指摘されている。

only just という連鎖は可能である。(20)の文
法性から、
just は話者志向の副詞として働き、(19) a.

Happily, Max carefully was climbing

only は文内要素を修飾しているといえる。

the walls of the garden.

(20)は、only が your shirt を修飾している場

b. * Carefully, Max happily was climbing

合だが、(21)のように take off を修飾した場

the walls of the garden.

合にも同じことがいえる。(21a)のように just(Jackendoff (1972:89))が外側、only が内側であれば文は容認されるが、その逆である(21b)は容認されない。

(19)では、話者の心的態度を表す happily と以上より、軽視的用法の just は話者の心的命題内容を修飾する carefully が一文内に共態度を表す副詞として機能しているといえ起している。(19a)では、happily が外側、る。よって、命題内容に直接関係しなくてもcarefully が内側の順になっている。このときよいということになる。そのため、(22)のよ

文は問題なく容認される。一方、(19b)では、

うな 2 つめの特徴が挙げられる。

carefully が外側、happily が内側の順になって(22) 軽視的用法の just の意味は言語化されにおり、文は容認されない。

くい。

この事実を踏まえ、just の場合をテストしてみる。just と only は「限定」の意味のときには、同じ意味を表す。この 2 つを一文内にネイティヴチェックをすると、(23a)のように共起させたのが(20)、(21)である。

just と only が一文内に共起している文を(23b)のようにパラフレーズする。

(20) a.

Just take only your shirt off.
(23) a. Just take only your shirt off.

b. # Only take just your shirt off.
(only > take off / just > shirt)(= (20a))b. All you have to do is take off your shirtc. * Take only just your shirt off.

and do nothing else.

(cf. He has only just arrived.)(21) a.

Just only take your shirt off.

(23a)では、only は「限定」の意味で解釈し、

b. * Only just take your shirt off.

「シャツを脱ぐ以外のことはしなくてよい」と理解するという。just の意味はどこに出て(20a)と(20b)の対比に見られるように、just がいるのかを問うと、言語化するのは難しいと外側、only が内側の場合は全く問題ないが、いう判断である。敢えていうのであれば just

その逆になると容認されない。ただし、(20b)によって it’s not a big deal ということが伝わでは、only が take off を、just が shirt を修飾ってはくるが、just にその意味があるわけでしているという読み方はできる。しかし、こはないという。この説明は非常に示唆的であの場合の just は「限定的用法」の just である。

り、軽視的用法の just の 3 つめの特徴につな

また、only は動詞の後ろにも置くことができがる。

るため、(20c)のような語順も可能なはずであ(24) 軽視的用法の just は談話標識として使わるが、この場合もまったく容認されない。
only just という語順があり得ないわけではなれる。

い。括弧内のように、just が「ちょうど」と127

例えば、ある依頼をうけたときに前向きな返取りたてた時間や金額を「それ以上では事をすることを渋っている人に対して、依頼ない」と排他的に限定するした人がするであろう発話を考えてみる。

((26), (27): 中野 (2013:282))(25) John invited Mary to David’s birthday party.

また、Brown and Levinson (1987)の(28)の例とMary hesitated to accept the invitation since

説明は、just の「意味」と「機能」を橋渡し

she didn’t know David and his friends who

したものになっている。

were supposed to come to the party. Then,(28) a. I just dropped by for a minute to ask if

John said to Mary:

you…

a. Think about it.

b. [J]ust conveys both its literal meaning ofb. Just ( , ) think about it.

“exactly”,(= Well, think about it.)

“only”,

which

narrowly

delimits the extent of the FTA [face(25a)は、辞書などでは「考えてみてよ」と訳

threatening act] and its conventional

されている。同じような場面で(25b)のよう

implicature “merely”.

に言うこともできる。just の後のカンマは、(Brown and Levinson (1987:177))

表記として必要なわけではなく、発話時にポーズが置かれることを表している。このとき、 (28a)は、just を限定的用法と軽視的用法の両
just の語彙的意味はほとんどなく、括弧内に方に解釈することができる曖昧な文である。

あるように、「まぁ考えてみてよ」と訳されこのとき、just は字義通り「だけ」に対応し、るような場合に用いられる well と同じよう「ただ立ち寄っただけであり、立ち寄る以外に、ヘッジや談話標識として用いられているのことは何もしない」ことを表し、聞き手にという（Tannen (1993)）。

対しては、それ故、大した負担をかけること

軽視的用法の just がもつこれら 3 つの特がないということを語用論的に伝える機能をもつという。

徴は、「限定」のとりたて表現として働く限定的用法の just にはみられないものではあ(15)でみたように、Aijmer (2002)が、just にる。しかし、軽視的用法の just と限定的用法

は話し手がどのような態度で発話しているの just はまったく別の意味をもつそれぞれのかを聞き手に知らせる機能があると論じ異なった just だというわけではない。just のている。つまり、もともと「限定」の意味を

軽視的用法は「限定」の意味から生じている

もつ just が軽視的な用法として用いられるのである。例えば、中野 (2013)は、(26)におときには、「聞き手への負担をかけない」とける軽視的用法の just について、(27)のよういう話し手の発話態度を表すといえる。よっに説明している。

て、(29)のようにまとめることができる。

(26) a. Could I just borrow your pen for a(29) 軽視的用法の just を用いて、聞き手の負

second?

担を軽減させることができる。

b. Can you lend me just one thousand yen?
(27) 軽視的意味は限定的意味の持つ排他性

軽視的用法の just を用いて表される「聞きを内蔵している。[(26)]における軽視的

手の負担軽減」という効果は、日本語では「反（意味の）just は、「一秒／千円だけ」と、限定」のとりたて表現を用いることで表せる。

128

5. 軽視的用法の just と「反限定」(33) 日本語では、「反限定」のとりたて表現を

野田 (2015)で「反限定」のとりたて表現と用いることで、聞き手の負担を軽減させる。

分類されているものは、日本語記述文法研究会 (2009)では、「ぼかしを表すとりたて助詞」
として分類され、(30)のように説明されてい「聞き手の負担軽減」という効果を持つといる。

う点で、日本語の「反限定」のとりたて表現と軽視的用法の just は同じであると考えら(30) a. ぼかしを表すとりたて助詞には、「も」 れる。この対応関係をまとめると(34)のよう
になる。

「でも」
「なんか」
「など」がある。
b. ぼかしのとりたてとは、文のある要素をとりたて、同類のものがほかに(34) 「限定」のとりたて表現である just は、あることを漠然と示すことにより、軽視的用法として用いられるときには、文全体の意味を和らげることである。

聞き手の負担を軽減させるという対人(日本語記述文法研究会 (2009:137))

関係調節機能を有する。これは、日本語の「反限定」のとりたて表現の用法に対応するものである。

つまり、当該のとりたて表現を用いて要素をぼかすことで、文意をやわらげる効果があるというのである。例えば、(31a)や(32a)の「反日本語には、「限定」および「反限定」専用

限定」のとりたて表現「でも」や「など」がのとりたて表現があり、「反限定」のとりた用いられた文の効果はそれぞれ(31b)、(32b)て表現によって「聞き手の負担軽減」というのように説明される。

効果を表す。一方、英語では、「限定」のとりたて表現として働く副詞はあるが、「反限定」(31) a. 今夜にでも電話をください。

のとりたて表現として働く副詞はない。だか

b. 働きかけの内容が定まったものではらといって、日本語の「反限定」のとりたてなく選択肢の１つにすぎないという表現によって表される「聞き手の負担軽減」

示し方をすることによって、文をやという効果を表せないわけではなく、「限定」

らげる効果がある。

のとりたて表現である just の軽視的用法を(日本語記述文法研究会 (2009:144))

経由して、「聞き手の負担軽減」という効果(32) a. このブラウスなどいかがですか。

を表すのである。

b. ほかにも可能性があることを暗示しこのような対応づけがもつ意味合いを最後に考えてみたい。

て、はっきり述べるのを避けるものである。

6. おわりに：Huang (2000)の類型論的分類と(日本語記述文法研究会 (2009:149))の関連
文意をやわらげたり、はっきりと述べること

Huang (2000)は、文内要素の照応関係を形を避けたりすることにより、結果として聞き態・統語的に表すのか、語用論的に表すのか

手に対する押しつけなどが回避されることというその手段によって言語を pragmaticになる。ここから、(33)のようにまとめるこ

language と syntactic language に分類していとができる。

る。日本語は、照応関係を表す形態・統語操
作はなく、語用論的に表すということから129

pragmatic language に分類され、反対に、統語

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum

的に照応関係を表す英語は syntactic language(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of theに分類されている。

English Language, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.

照応関係に関しては、Huang (2000)の提案

Jackendoff, Ray (1972) Semantic Interpretation

する分類が妥当だといえるが、英語では『「限定」の just がもつ別の用法から得られる機能

in

Generativeを語用論的に利用して対人関係を調整する』

Cambridge, MA.

Grammar,

MIT Press,という本稿でみてきたとりたて表現の日英

Lee, David (1987) “The Semantics of Just,”

語対照から得られる事実に注目すると、このJournal of Pragmatics 11, 377-398.

場合は、英語は非常に pragmatic language 的Lee, David (1991) “Categories in the Descriptionof Just,” Lingua 83, 43-66.

な側面をみせているといえる。これは、常に英語が syntactic language であると分類され得中野弘三 (2013)「Just の多義性の由来を探るのだろうかという問いを投げかけることる」, 『言語変化－動機とメカニズム－』につながる。形態・統語的手段がない場合に、

271-286, 開拓社, 東京.

所与の概念や機能を表せないということは

日本語記述文法研究会 (2009)『現代日本語

なく、語用論的手段をもってそれらを表す。

文法 5－第 9 部とりたて 第 10 部主題』

よって、個別言語のどの現象に焦点を当てる

くろしお出版, 東京.

かによって、その言語がより統語的であるか

野田尚史 (2015)「日本語とスペイン語のと語用論的であるかがいえることになるのでりたて表現の意味体系」, 『日本語文法』

はないだろか。

第 15 巻 2 号, 日本語文法学会.
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2016) Teen Talk: The* 本稿は、日本英語学会第 35 回大会（2017

Languageof

Adolescents,

年 11 月 18 日、於東北大学）における口頭発

University Press, Cambridge.

Cambridge

Tannen,Deborah (1993) Framing in Discourse,

表に基づいている。貴重なご意見を頂いた

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

方々にお礼申し上げる。また、国立国語研究
所共同研究プロジェクト「対照言語学の観点

友澤宏隆 (2010)「限定の含意：副詞 just の意

から見た日本語の音声と文法（リーダー：窪味と談話機能」, 『言語文化』第 47 巻,薗晴夫）」の成果の一部である。JSPS 科研費

57-93, 一橋大学, 東京.
Wierzbicka,

JP16K16857 の助成を受けたものである。

Anna(1991)

Cross-cultural

Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human
Aijmer,

Karin

参考文献
(2002) English

Interaction, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin.
Discourse

Particles: Evidence from a Corpus, John
Benjamins, Philadelphia.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson(1987) Politeness: Some Universals in
Language Usage, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Huang, Yan (2000) Anaphora: A Cross-linguistic
Approach, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

130

b.

Every argument that John1 is a genius
seems to him1 to be flawless.
(Fox (1999: 192) (一部修正))

A/A-bar 区分と Improper Movement の再考察

この現象に対し、GB 理論の時代には、θ

*位置や L-mark の想定に基づき、位置の観点(A Reconsideration of the A/A-bar Distinctionから分類が試みられた。紙面の都合上詳細はand Improper Movement)

割愛するが、A 位置、A-bar 位置と呼ばれる位置が規定され、それぞれの位置への移動が1

A 移動、A-bar 移動として分類された。

大塚 知昇（Tomonori Otsuka）

しかし、研究戦略が Minimalist Program

九州共立大学（Kyushu Kyoritsu University）(MP)に移ると、このような GB 理論時代の分
キーワード：A/A-bar 区分, Improper析は、その A/A-bar の位置の想定が厳密な動Movement, POP+

機付けを欠くことから、代案が必要となった。
MP 初期の時代には、Chomsky (2001)の ProbeGoal Agree 操作に基づく枠組みが提案され

1. 導入

たが、A/A-bar 区分は曖昧なものとなる。
その後、Chomsky (2008)の Feature Inheri-

1.1. A/A-bar 区分
生成文法が達成してきた主要な成果の一

tance に基づく Phase 主要部駆動型の枠組み

つに A/A-bar 区分の発見が挙げられる。人間の時代に至り、A/A-bar 区分の定義がひとま

言語には普遍的に移動現象が見られ、移動にず固まることとなる。その枠組みのもとでは、は A 移動と A-bar 移動という下位分類が存在

転送領域(Transfer Domain)の内外の観点からする。A 移動は局所的に制限されるが、A-bar

A/A-bar 区分が定義可能になった((3))。

移動は理論上はどれだけでも長距離で生じ得る((1))。また A 痕跡の再構築は一部欠如的(3)であるが、A-bar 痕跡についてはそうではな[Phase-Head [Complement-Head …]
A 移動

い。具体的に、(2a)は A-bar 移動の例であり、Transfer Domain

A-bar 移動

再構築の結果、束縛条件 C 違反が観察されるが、(2b)の A 移動の例では、そのような違

具体的には、A 移動とは、素性継承された

反が観察されず、このことは、少なくとも A

Phi 素性に基づき生じる、転送領域内の移動痕跡では同格の that 節以下は再構築されなであり、この移動が転送領域を超えないこといという点で、A 痕跡の欠如性を表している。 から、Phase 不可侵条件(PIC)の観点から A 移動の局所性が説明された。一方 A-bar 移動は、
(1) a.

John was hit t.

Phase 主要部が持つ Edge Feature(端素性)によb.

* John seems [that it was hit t].

り引き起こされる Phase Edge への移動であc.

What [did he eat t]?

り、これが転送領域を超えることから、PIC

d.

What [did you say [that Maryに抵触せずに長距離で適用が可能とされた。

believed […he ate t]]]?

このように、A/A-bar 区分に関する議論は、(2) a.??/* Which argument that John1 is a

Chomsky (2008)の Phase 主要部駆動型の枠組

genius did he1 believe t?

みのもとで、一旦の決着を見せた。

131

た。これらの研究では、Chomsky (2008)の1.2. Improper Movement
前節で見た A/A-bar 区分に密接に関係する

Phase 主 要 部 駆 動 型 の 枠 組 み に 基 づ き 、概念として Improper Movement が挙げられる。 Feature Splitting の想定により説明が試みら
Improper Movement とは、概略すれば、要素れた。再び紙面の都合上詳細は割愛するが、が A-bar 移動を経験した後 A 移動することを移動操作に必要な素性のみが関与するとい禁じる制約である。具体例として、上記のう想定のもと、A-bar 移動した要素上には Phi(1b)の例について考えたい。この例は、前節素性が存在しないことが独自に理論的に導では A 移動が転送領域内の操作であること

かれ、従って A-bar 移動した要素がその後 A

から PIC のもと除外されると説明されたが、移動する派生は、当該の A-bar 移動後の要素もし当該 NP が一度 Phase 主要部の持つ Edgeに Phi 素性が存在しないことから排除された。

Feature により CP 指定部に引き寄せられ、そ以上のように、Obata and Epstein (2008)、の後再度 A 移動をしたとすれば、PIC には抵

Obata (2012)の提案のもと、再び Chomsky

触しないこととなる。しかしこのような移動(2008)の枠組みにおいて、Improper Movement

は、要素が A-bar 移動したのち A 移動を行うの議論も一定の到達点に至った。

という典型的な Improper Movement であるた
1.3. 移動のコピー理論と痕跡

め、独自に除外され、依然として(1b)のような例は容認されないとされた。

生成文法では、伝統的には、移動操作の結この Improper Movement の概念のもと、(4)果、移動した元位置に痕跡(trace, t)が残されの例の非文法性も説明がなされた。どちらのるとされてきた。しかし MP では、痕跡の派

文の派生も、途中に A-bar 移動から A 移動と生の途中での挿入は Inclusiveness の観点からいう過程を含んでいるため、Improper Move-

望ましくないことから、移動の元位置には痕

ment を伴う派生であり不適切となる。

跡ではなく、移動要素のコピーが残されると想定された(ただし便宜上「t」の表記は現在(4) a. * Who seems it is likely to leave?

も用いられている)。従って、移動の結果 NP

b. * Who seems will leave?

のコピーが複数生じ、最上位のものが発音さ(Obata (2012: 55))

れ、下位のものが痕跡として働くことになる。
このコピーに基づく痕跡の定義は、標準的な先行研究では、Improper Movement の一般想定として広く受け入れられている。

化をどのように理論的に引き出すかに関する議論が活発になされてきた。GB 理論の枠

2. 理論的背景：POP+

組みに基づく May (1979)では、A-bar 移動に

2.1. Free Mergerより生じる変項と、A 移動後の NP との間の

近年の MP では、
MP 初期には伝統的に「併束縛原理 C 違反に基づく説明が提示され、合(Merge)」と「移動(Move)」として言及さ

MP 初期の枠組みに基づく Fukui (1993)では、れてきた操作が、それぞれ External Merge (外Chain Uniformity を派生的に捉える提案のも的併合、EM)、Internal Merge (内的併合、IM)と、連鎖の種類に基づく説明が試みられた。

として、単一の操作 Merge の下位分類である

しかし前節の議論と同様、MP の時代に入と分析されている。ここで、POP+では、

ると、必要最小限の想定のもと一般化を導く

Chomsky (2008)の枠組みから大きく離れ、す方法が模索され、その代表として、Obata and

べての Merge 操作は、素性により引き起こさ

Epstein (2008)、Obata (2012)の提案が登場しれるのではなく、自由適用されるという主張

132

がなされた。従って、従来「移動」操作とさする Agree 関係にあることから、当該集合がれた IM も、派生上自由に適用可能であると<Phi, Phi>として label を受けることができる。

いうことになる。なお、本論文中では、以下でも、説明の簡略化のために IM を「移動」(5) a. {XP X, {YP Y, …}}
b. {?? {XP X, …}, {YP Y, …}}

として言及することがある点に留意したい。

c. {<Phi, Phi> {NP N[Phi], …}, {TP T[Phi], …}}(prominent feature sharing option)

2.2. Labeling Algorithm
前述のように、POP+の枠組みでは Merge

3. 問題提起の自由適用により派生が行われるが、その結果として完成する構造が Interface で読める

本節では、本論文の議論の中心となる問題

ためには、最終的に適切に label がつけられ点を指摘する。具体的には、Free Merger のる必要がある。この label 決定の過程は、MP

結果、二点の問題が浮上すると主張する。

初期のころは暗黙の内に併合や移動操作の問題①：POP+の枠組みでは EM、IM の制御

中に組み込まれていたが、POP+ではこれをは理論的に不可能

Merge の過程から除外し、独立した Algorithm

既に見たように、Free Merger の想定のもに基づき label が決定されるとして、Labelingとでは、Merge 操作自体は自由適用され、もAlgorithm (LA)が提案された。

しその結果最終的に完成した構造が label 付

LA は最小探査に基づく操作であり、当該けに失敗すれば、当該派生は interface で読め

集合における最も近い主要部を Label としてない派生となり、full interpretation のもと除決定する。具体的に見ると、(5a)の最も外側

外されることになる。従ってこの枠組みのもの集合にとって最も近い主要部は、その内部とでは、基本的には構造構築の過程が問われにある X であり、当該集合の label は X としることはなく、Free Merger の想定の中に含て決定される。なお本論文では一貫して、説まれている IM に対し、A/A-bar による区分

明の簡略化のため、「XP」と言う伝統的な表やそれに基づく制限を行うことは理論上困記 を 用 い て い る が 、 MP の Bare Phrase

難となる。なお、本論文では触れていないが、Structure の観点からは、当該の「XP」は厳POP+では Phase 段階における転送領域の密には単に「X」となることにも留意したい。

shift の想定もなされており、転送領域に基づ

一方で、LA 上問題となるのが、(5b)にみく A/A-bar 区分も定義不可能となる。従って、られる、しばしば XP-YP 状況として言及さPOP+の枠組みのもとでは Chomsky (2008)のれる状況である。ここでは最も外側の集合のA/A-bar 区分は空中分解し、A/A-bar の再定

中に、等距離に埋め込まれた主要部 X と Y義が必要となる。

が存在し、これらは等距離であることからこ問題②：最終的に派生がうまくいく限り、コのままでは LA は当該集合の label を決定す

ピーは無制限に生成可能と予測ることができない。これに対し、(5c)のよう(6)に、両主要部が共通の prominent feature を所有し、さらに両者が Agree 関係にあるときに[<Phi, Phi> John seems [t t t t t t… to be a
genius]].

(無制限の痕跡の出現)

のみ、Prominent feature sharing option として、当該の素性に基づく label を決定することが(6)では、主語 John が主節主語として<Phi,

できる。(5c)では、両主要部が N と T で Phi

Phi>の label を決定するまでに、その中間位素性を有しており、さらにこれらが主語に関

置で連続循環的な移動をしている。無論この133

ような移動や多重の痕跡の出現は明らかに

題は、以下の三点に集約できる。

非経済的だが、Free Merger のもとでは、最①Free Merger では、EM/IM に制限をかけら

終的に label 付けがうまくいく限り、派生自れない②コピーに基づく痕跡の定義は、Free Merger

体は容認されると予測される。従って、(6)では保持できないのような痕跡の出現を除外できるのかとい③MP では新たな装置の導入は好ましくない

う第二の問題が生じる。
この第二の問題に対する一つの解決の可

まず、①の結果、A/A-bar 区分は、移動の能性として、(6)のような派生を、Abels (2003)

種類の観点からではなく痕跡の観点から定等が想定しているような anti-locality により義が必要と言うことになる。また、②の結果、除外するというアプローチが考えられるか

その痕跡自体についても、新たな定義が必要もしれない。具体的には、同一の投射の内部となることになる。最後に、③に基づき、こでの移動を、局所的過ぎるという観点から排れらの問題解決のために新たな装置を導入除する想定である。このアプローチがうまくすることは好ましくないことから、最も理想

いけば(6)の問題は解決されるが、既に見た的な解決策は、Merge、Labeling、Lexical Item

ように、Free Merger のもとでは、IM に何らの三つの観点のみから導かれるものとなる。

かの制限をかけるということは枠組み上非4.2. 提案

常に困難である。

本論文では以下の二つの提案を行う。

これに対し、本論文で採用することになる
別のアプローチは、痕跡の定義を変えるというものである。即ち、(6)のような派生自体(7)

A 痕跡は<Phi, Phi> label である。

は可能性としては存在するが、このように大(8)

A-bar 痕跡は variable として働く独立した語彙項目である。

量に生じた痕跡については、最終的にinterface では反映されないと考える可能性である。この可能性は、中間痕跡をどこかの段

次節において、(7)、(8)の想定のもといかに階で削除するという想定のもとでも導くこして 3 節での問題点が解決されるかを見る。

とが可能ではあるが、痕跡の削除操作という新たな操作を必要とする点で、この選択肢は4.3. 分析

十分に経済的とはいえない。従って、このよ4.3.1. A/A-bar 区分

うな中間位置が痕跡とみなされないような

まず本論文では、(7)において、LA により痕跡の定義が提案できれば MP として非常決定される<Phi, Phi> label が、伝統的な用語に好ましい。いずれにせよ重要なことは、こでの A 痕跡として働くと想定する。具体的のアプローチの可能性のもとでは、痕跡を単に、以下の(9)の例を見たい。

に IM の結果生じる NP のコピーとして定義することが不可能になるということである。

(9)

4. 提案

(9)の受動文の例は、Sportiche (1988)に代表さ

4.1. 問題の整理れる遊離数量詞の残置分析のもとでは、all

以下では、POP+の枠組みのもと A/A-bar

They were all hit t.

が連続循環的 A 移動の最中に A 痕跡の位置

区分と痕跡を再定義し、Improper Movementに残置された例であるとみなされる。
ここで、本論文では、まず、Epstein, Kitaharaの説明へと議論を拡張する。まず、前節の問134

and Seely (2016)の Phase Cancellation の分析

跡の欠如性が説明されると主張する。

を拡張して援用し、弱 Phase の vP は、その一方で、(8)では、A-bar 痕跡は Lexicon に

内部において、<Phi, Phi>の決定のみを許し、存在する独立した語彙項目(variable)である

NP の格付与を行わないと想定する。詳細なと提案している。従って、派生の詳細は紙面

メカニズムについては Otsuka (2017)を参照の都合上割愛するが、まず wh 要素と語彙項されたい。従って本論文では、(9)の派生を

目 variable は直接的 EM により関係を持ち、以下(10)のように想定する。

その後の派生で wh 要素のみが IM によって引き離されると考える。よって、A-bar 痕跡(10) [<Phi, Phi> They were [<Phi, Phi> all-t hit].

に関する場合、当該 wh 要素と variable は、
Merge により統語的に関係構築ができてい(10)では、主語 they が 2 つの<Phi, Phi> label

るため、先ほどの A 痕跡の場合のように、決定に関与している。このうち下位の<Phi,

C-I Interface における同定の過程は必要なく、Phi>が伝統的な意味での A 痕跡であり、ここ

このことから、A-bar 移動の長距離性が説明に all が遊離されると分析する。

されると主張する。また、当該 wh 要素とまたここで、Phi 素性は「性-数-人称」素variable が Merge する際に wh 要素の情報が性の集合であり、あくまでも NP の持つ素性

variable 上に引き継がれることにより、A-barの部分集合に過ぎないということに注目し痕跡の完全性の説明も可能であると考える。

たい。現在主流の痕跡のコピー理論のもとで更に、当該操作が直接的な EM を前提としては、痕跡は最も上位の要素のコピーであるこ

いることから、wh 要素と variable の、つまりとから、痕跡とその先行詞の NP の同定の過

operator-variable の一対一の対応関係が保証

程は必要ないが、本論文ではあくまでも Aされ、所謂 Bijection Principle の説明が可能と痕跡は Phi 素性の label であることから、こなる点にも注目したい。もし多重の operatorの Phi 素性がどの NP のものであるのか同定

もしくは variable を直接的に EM するとすれする独自の過程が必要であると考える。このば、sideward movement や multiple dominance

過程は C-I Interface にて行われるものと考え、 のような特殊な想定が必要となるが、これら以下の(11)のように想定する。

は POP+の枠組みでは排除されている。

(11) A 痕跡の同定：<Phi, Phi>を最近接する

4.3.2. Improper Movement

上位の NP と同一指標とみなす。

最後に本節では Improper Movement の説明に移る。以下では、(12a)、(12b)の順にその(11)はあくまで暫定的なものであり、今後の説明を試みる。

研究で詳細を追及することとするが、この同(12) a. * Who seems it is likely to leave?

定の過程自体は、まったく新しい独立した操作ではなく、例えば C-I Interface での代名詞(= (4a)：Super-Raising)の指標の決定の際に必要とされる過程と同b. * Who seems will leave?

質のものであると主張する。次節で詳細に見(= (4b)：多重格付与)

るが、この同定の過程のために、A 移動の局
所性が説明されることになる。また更に、痕

まず、(12a)では、主語 who が it を越えて跡にあたるものが Phi 素性の label だけであ移動している。ここで重要なのは、この文がることから、本論文冒頭で見たような、A 痕

ここで望まれる解釈を持つためには、who が135

leave の主語として解釈されねばならないときる可能性がある。

いうことである。本論文の枠組みでは、これ一方で(12b)では、who が埋め込みの定型節

らの例は、C-I Interface で、(11)のもと、下位と主節で多重に主格を受けている点が問題の<Phi, Phi>が誤って it を先行詞と認識してとなる。無論、「一度格付与された NP は以

しまい、leave の項関係の解釈がうまくいか

降の label 決定に関われない」といった想定ないため除外されると主張する。即ち、(13a)を行うことも可能だが、MP では更に原理的のように派生したとしても、C-I Interface でに動機づけられた説明が好ましい。以下では、

は(13c)のようにしか読み取れないというこWork in Progress であるが、新たな説明の可とになる。以下で詳細を見たい。

能性を提示する。まず以下のように提案する。

(13) a.

(14) 提案：<Phi, Phi>の label 決定の際、Case[<Phi, Phi>who Who seems [<Phi, Phi>it it islikely to [<Phi, Phi>who leave]]].

に関する情報も label に加えられる((12a)の統語上での状態)b.

c.

[<Phi, Phi> Who seems [<Phi, Phi> it is

Chomsky (2013)では、<Phi, Phi>で label づけ

likely to [<Phi, Phi> leave]]].

られている集合は、「主語的」な解釈に関係(C-I に送られる状態)

している可能性が示されており、このことを[<Phi, Phi>who Who seems [<Phi, Phi>it it is

本論文では、<Phi, Phi>の label には、厳密に

likely to [<Phi, Phi>it leave]]].

は Phi 素性以外の共有された(場合によって(C-I で読み取った結果)

は解釈に関わる)素性も含まれることを示唆すると解釈する。従って、<Phi, Phi>の Agree

まず(13a)は、(12a)の統語派生であり、ここの際に Case の値も定まれば、<Case, Case>

では最上位の主語である who は最も下位のの label も決定されると考える。

vP において<Phi, Phi> label を形成するが、中ここで注目したいのが、Phi 素性の値と格間の埋め込み節では<Phi, Phi> label は it によの値が定まれば、当該 label は代名詞と同じり形成され、最上位の節では再び who によ情報を持つことになる点である。例としてり形成されている。しかし、この派生の結果「男性-単数-三人称-主格」の素性の集合は、を C-I Interface に送る際の情報は(13b)のよう

代名詞 he と同等のものである。従って、(12b)になる。重要なのは、前節で述べたように、での当該の label がそのまま両 Interface に送<Phi, Phi>の label は「性-数-人称」の値のみられる場合、Inclusiveness Condition に違反しの集合であり、先行詞に関する情報は抜け落ない形で、label 付けの結果、Lexicon 時点でちている点である。従って(11)の提案のもと、存在しなかった代名詞が出現するという、特先行詞の同定が必要となるが、(13c)にあるよ

異な状況が導かれる。実際に、このような代うに、(11)のもと、C-I Interface では it より下

名詞は特定の条件下で、何らかの規則により位にある<Phi, Phi> label すべてを it と同定しResumptive Pronoun として音声的に具現化すてしまう。結果として、(13a)のように派生をると考えられる。Resumptive Pronoun の説明したとしても、C-I Interface では(13c)のようは、コピーに基づく痕跡の定義のもとでは付にしか読み取れず、結果的に(12a)において加的な想定を必要とする点にも注目したい。

who が leave の主語となる解釈はそもそも得以上を踏まえ、本論文では、(12b)の例が、られないということになる。以上の説明は、

近距離、より詳細には同一の転送領域内に同その他の Superiority の例の説明にも応用で一指標の代名詞があることにより、束縛原理

136

Cambridge, MA.

B のもとに除外される可能性を提示する。無Chomsky,論、束縛原理 B の定義について更なる考察

Noam(2013)“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.

が必要となるが、これについては今後の研究

Chomsky,に残すこととする。

Noam(2015)

Projection:“Problems

Extensions,”of

Structures,

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

5. 結論
本論文では、まず、POP+の Free Merger のof Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa D.

もとでの A/A-bar 区分や Improper Movement、Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona

痕跡に関する理論的問題点を指摘した。そのMatteini,

後、Merge、Labeling、Lexical Item に基づき、Amsterdam.

3-16,

John

Benjamins,

新たな装置の導入を行うことなく、A/A-bar

Epstein, Samuel, Hisatsugu Kitahara, and Danielと痕跡の再定義を行い、Improper Movement

Seely (2016) “Phase Cancellation byについても説明の可能性を提示し、これによ

External Pair-Merge of Heads,” Linguistic

り生成文法 MP の Phase 理論のさらなる理論

Review 33, 87-102.
Fox, Danny (1999) “Reconstruction, Binding

的発展に貢献した。

Theory, and the Interpretation of Chains,”
Linguistic Inquiry 30, 157-196.

* 本論文は日本英語学会第35回大会(於：東北大学)での口頭発表を一部修正したもので

Fukui, Naoki (1993) “A Note on Improper

ある。司会の島田雅晴先生と、貴重なコメン

Movement,” Linguistic Review 10, 111-126.

トを頂いた阿部潤先生、前田雅子先生、宗像May, Robert (1979) “Must COMP-to-COMP

孝先生をはじめとするフロアの方々、そしてMovement

発表の原案の段階で有益な議論をさせていInquiry 10, 719-725.

Stipulated?,”

Linguistic

Obata, Miki (2012) “Feature-Splitting Internal

ただいた西岡宣明先生と九州大学大学院のMerge

皆様に、特記して感謝の意を表明したい。
注
1

Be

and

its

Implications

for

the

Eliminationof

A/A´-Position

Types,”

Phases: Developing the Framework, ed. by

hakata-yamakasa715@ab.auone-net.jpÁngel J. Gallego, 173-194, De Gruyter
Mouton, Boston, MA.

参考文献

Obata, Miki and Samuel Epstein (2008)

Abels, Klaus (2003) Successive Cyclicity, AntiLocality,andAdposition

Doctoraldissertation,

Stranding,

University“Deducing Improper Movement from Phase

of

Based

Connecticut.

C-to-T

Phi

Transfer:

Feature-Splitting Internal Merge,” Proceedings ofChomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”the 27th WCCFL, 353-360.

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by

Otsuka, Tomonori (2017) “On Two Ways ofMichael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

External Pair-Merge,” MITWPL 85, 135-

Cambridge, MA.

146.
Phases,”Sportiche, Dominique (1988) “A Theory ofFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory,

Floating Quantifiers and its Corollaries fored. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero andConstituent Structure,” Linguistic Inquiry

Maria L. Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT Press,

19, 425-450.

Chomsky,Noam(2008)“On137

feature sharing.

The proposed analysis willaccount for why CGs and their subjects receive
the same Case.
In the next section, I will overview theprevious analyses on CGs and point out their

An Analysis of Clausal Gerundswith the Labeling Algorithm*

problems. Section 3 provides an alternative
analysis based on the LA. Section 4 supports the
proposed analysis in terms of coordination andellipsis. Section 5 concludes the paper.

Ryosuke Sato
Tohoku University

2. Previous Analyses and their Problems
Abney

Keywords：clausal gerund, coordination, ellipsis,
movement theory of control, labeling algorithm(1987)

iswell-known

for

the

so-called “DP Hypothesis,” which provides aninfluential analysis of CGs. Abney proposes thefollowing

structure

for

John

singingtheMarseillaise.

1. Introduction
English has nominal expressions called(2) [DP -ing [IP John [I′ I [VP [V sing][DP thegerunds. Gerunds are further divided into three
types:

Nominalgerunds(NG),

possessive

gerunds (PG), and clausal gerunds (CG).

Marseillaise]]]]](Abney (1987: 141))

In thefirst type, an internal argument appears with a

For Abney, CGs are DP, followed by IP. John is

preposition of, and an external argument with abase-generated in the Spec of IP and assigned an

possessive Case, as in (1a). The second type isaccusative Case from I (AGR). The nominal

different from the first type in that an internal

morpheme -ing is the head of DP, which isargument receives an accusative Case, as in (1b).

lowered to V sing, via I, forming singing.

The last type is further different from the second

Existence of IP/TP in CGs has widely been

type because an external argument occurs withaccepted. The primary evidence comes froman accusative or nominative Case, as in (1c).

availability of the expletive there and sentential
adverbs on the one hand, and independent tense(1) a. the girl’s reading of the sonnetNGinterpretations on the other. First, the sentence inb. the girl’s reading the sonnet

PG(3) shows that the expletive there is available inc. the girl reading the sonnet

CG

CGs.

In this paper, after overviewing previous(3) I approve of [there being a literacy exam

analyses concerning CGs as in (1c), I will point

for political candidates]out their problems, and then provide an(Abney (1987: 72), brackets in original)

alternative analysis. Adopting the labelingalgorithm (LA) proposed in Chomsky (2013,

If the expletive occurs in the Spec of IP/TP, (3)2015), I will argue that the label of CGs is

supports the view that CGs contain IP/TP in

NominalP, which is determined via nominal

their internal structure. Second, in (4), a138

if CGs behave as DP in external distribution, it issentential adverb probably occurs in the CG.

straightforwardly explained why CGs appear inthese positions.

(4) John probably being a spy, Bill thought it

However, Abney’s analysis is problematicwise to avoid him(Reuland (1983: 108),

empirically and theoretically. Empirically, hiscited in Abney (1987: 115))

analysis cannot explain the fact that a subject ofCGs can be PRO. To see why, consider theGiven that such a sentential adverb adjoins toexamples in (7), where each illustrates that a

IP/TP, the existence of IP/TP is evidenced.

subject of CGs cannot be a subject of passive

Lastly, the example in (5) demonstrates theand raising predicates.

availability of independent tense interpretations.
(7) a. *Paul is preferred [swimming in the

The tense in the CG has a future interpretation

morning].

with respect to the matrix tense, as clearlyb. *John appears [liking Mary].

shown with the adverbs yesterday and tonight.

(Pires (2006: 27))(5) Mary worried yesterday about [Paul coming
In order to deal with these facts, Abney has todinner tonight].
(Pires (2006: 25),

assume that an accusative is obligatorily

italic and brackets in original)

assigned to a subject of CGs. Then, thesentences in (7) would be excluded as receivingHence, the existence of IP/TP is empirically

two Cases: one (accusative) from I (AGR) in theborne out.

CGs and the other (nominative) from I (AGR) in

Abney’s analysis correctly explains the fact

the roots. However, this assumption is notthat CGs appear in argument positions, as well.

motivated, and incorrectly predicts that theAs (6) shows, CGs occur in a complement

sentence (8) is ungrammatical. In (8), the subject

position of verbs (6a) and prepositions (6b, c) onof the CG is PRO.

the one hand, and in a subject position (6d) on
the other.

(8) John prefers swimming.

(Pires (2006: 39))(6) a. Mary favored [Bill taking care of her

If an accusative is obligatorily assigned from I(AGR) in the CG, then, the PRO in (8) receives

land].

the Case, which is undesired. In general, PRO

b. Susan worried about [Mark being late formust bear null Case rather than an accusative or

dinner].

nominative Case. Therefore, Abney’s analysis

c. Sylvia wants to find a new house without

incorrectly excludes the grammatical sentence in[Anna helping her].

(8).

d. [Sue showing up at the game] was surprise

Furthermore, it is theoretically unclear why I

to everybody.

(AGR) in CGs assigns an accusative. Generally,(Pires (2006: 20), brackets in original)

I (AGR) is assumed to assign a nominative.
Abney does not provide any reason, and he just

Although he does not provide a detailed analysis,

139

stipulates.

In this case, the derivation up to VP proceeds

To solve these problems, adopting thesimilarly to (10). It differs from (10) in the way

Movement Theory of Control (MTC, Hornstein

the theta role assignment to and movement of(1999)), Pires (2006) proposes an alternative

the root subject Sue, as well as Case assignment

analysis of CGs, with the hypothesis in (9).

to CG subject John. Sue is base-generated in theSpec of the matrix vP, where it receives a theta0(9) The Tense (T ) head of a CG carries anrole. It receives a Case from the matrix T, anduninterpretable Case feature that needs tothen, moves to the Spec of TP2 to satisfy EPP.

be valued.

CG and its subject John receive an accusative(Pires (2006: 41))from matrix v. John moves to the Spec of TP1,
To see how the hypothesis in (9) works, consider

satisfying the EPP requirement.

the structure of John prefers swimming in (10).

Pires argues that the hypothesis in (9)accounts for the reason why CGs occur in(10) [TP2 John [T′ [vP John [v′ prefers [VP prefers

argument positions: T in CGs has to be valued[TP1 John [T′ AGR [vP John swimming]]]]]]]]

for its Case feature (and assigned a Case), so(cf. Pires (2006: 45))that CGs appear in complement positions ofverbs and prepositions on the one hand, andsubject positions on the other, as in (6).

In this structure, TP2 and TP1 correspond to the

Pires’

matrix clause and the CG, respectively. The

analysis

partially

resolves

thesubject John is base-generated in the Spec of vP

problems with Abney’s. In Pires’ analysis, it isin the CG and receives the first theta role. The

clear why an overt subject of CGs receives an

Case feature of AGR, the head of TP1, is valued

accusative. After T in a CG receives anby the matrix v and an accusative Case isaccusative, it is, in turn, assigned to the subject

assigned to AGR, under the hypothesis in (9).

of the CG. This is why CGs appear in argument

John further moves to (or internally merges

positions, as observed in (6). In addition, thewith) the Spec of TP1 in order to satisfy EPP in

analysis correctly accounts for (7) and (8). (7) is

T1 (AGR). Then, it moves to the Spec of TP2

ungrammatical because T in the CGs is not

via the Spec of vP in the matrix clause,

assigned any Case. In (8), T in the CG issatisfying the EPP requirement. When it passes

assigned an accusative from the matrix verb. The

the Spec of vP in the matrix clause, it receives

subject of the CG John moves to the Spec of thethe second theta role.

matrix TP, receiving a nominative, before theWhen a CG has an overt subject, he assumes

accusative is “transferred” from T in the CG.

a slightly different derivation. Consider, forHowever, the idea that T itself bears a Case

concreteness, the derivation of Sue prefers Johnfeatureswimming, illustrated in (11).

independently(andreceivesamotivated,

Case)

is

not

being

a

construction-specific stipulation. In general, T is(11) [TP2 Sue [T′ [vP Sue [v′ prefers [VP prefers [TP1assumed to bear phi-features rather than a CaseJohn [T′ AGR [vP John swimming]]]]]]]]

feature. Therefore, both Abney’s and Pires’
analyses have some problems and should be(cf. Pires (2006: 50))

revised.

140

nominal-feature

3. An Alternative Analysis

sharing.

For

concreteness,consider the derivation of the enemy destroying

This section presents an alternative analysis

the city, illustrated below:

based upon the LA in Chomsky (2013, 2015),
which solves the problems discussed thus far.

(16)

For readers who are unfamiliar with the LA, I

NominalP

will overview how it works, first.
DP

The detailed contents of the LA are given in

R-v*-T-nP(12). The situation in (12b) is called the XP-YP
problem because we cannot determine a label

the enemyn-ingautomatically as in (12a).

DPT
the enemy(12) a. When a phrase XP and a word Y aremerged, Y becomes the label, as in (13).

R-v*P

b. When a phrase XP and another phrase
YP are merged,

the enemy destroy the city

i. if XP moves, Y becomes the label, asin (14).

The way of labeling up to R-v*P is the same asii. if X(P) and Y(P) have the same featurethat in Chomsky (2013, 2015). The nominalizer

F, F becomes the label, as in (15).

-ing is a suffix, which needs to be attached to an

YPelement. Thus, after root destroy internally(13)

mergers with v*, which further merges with T,
XP
(14)

Y

-ing is lowered to v* via T, forming destroying.

YP

Since T is too weak to determine a label, thelabel of the whole phrase at this stage is theXPYPamalgamation R-v*-T-nP. The CG subject theenemy is base-generated in the Spec of R-v*P,

(15)

FP

and internally merges with R-v*-T-nP via the
traditional TP-Spec position. At this point, the

XP

YP

XP-YP problem arises, which is solved only bytaking the option in (12bii). Since it is theX [F]nominal feature that these two phrases have inY[F]common, the top-most label of the CG isdetermined as NominalP.

In addition, Chomsky assumes that root R in

The present analysis correctly explains thegeneral and T in English are too weak tofacts discussed in the previous section. First, as

determine a label.

we have observed in (6), CGs have to appear in

Given the LA and the assumptions above, I
CGs.

argument positions. This is because both CGs

Assuming that the nominal suffix -ing isthemselves and their subject require a Case.

introduced by nominalizer n, I argue that theUnder the present analysis, a CG subject and the

top-most label of a CG is NominalP because of

nominalizer -ing share a nominal feature. As aproposeanalternative

analysisfor141result, Cases in CGs and their subject are

the top-most projection of CGs is TP. Then, it

licensed when the whole NominalP is assigned

will incorrectly be predicted that coordinationan accusative (or a nominative in the case ofwith other nominal expressions is disallowed. In(6d)). Second, it has been observed in (7) that

other words, (17) would be excluded as

A-movement of a CG subject is barred. The

coordination

ungrammaticality is explained in terms of failure

illustrated in (18).

ofdifferent

categories,

asof assigning a Case. In (7), the subjects, Paul
(18) a. John preferred [TP destroying an existingand John are assigned a Case from the matrix T,
but the CGs themselves do not receive any

notion] and [DP creation of a new idea].

Cases, which is the reason why the sentences are

b. John preferred [DP destruction of an

ungrammatical. Lastly, in (8), an accusative isexisting notion] and [TP creating a new

assigned only to the CG itself. Rejecting theidea].

MTC, I assume that the subject of the wholesentence, John is base-generated in the matrix

On the other hand, Abney takes CGs to be DP,

Spec-vP. Although the nominal feature is shared

which correctly accounts for the fact. In the

between the nominal head -ing and PRO, an

present analysis, the top-most projection is

accusative is licensed only in the CG head, -ing

NominalP, permitting coordination with otherby assignment of the Case to NominalP, sincenominals.

PRO does not have a Case feature.

Therefore,

The examples in (17) also cast doubt on thean accusative is assigned only to the CG head,

MTC,

-ing.

derivations of (17a, b) under the MTC would be

which

is

adoptedbyPires.

The

as follows:
4. Further Concequences
This section presents new data concerning(19) a. John

preferred[tJohndestroying

ancoordination and ellipsis, which pose problems

existing notion] and [creation of a new

to Abney’s (1987) and Pires’ (2006) analyses but

idea]

provide further support for the present approach.

b. John preferred [destruction of an existing

I begin with a discussion of coordination.

notion] and [tJohn creating a new idea].

As far as I know, it has not been noticed thatCGs can coordinate with other nominals. In (17),In (17), moving the subject of the CGs is

CGstantamount to extracting an element only fromanddeverbalderivednominalsarecoordinated.

one conjunct. The derivations clearly violate thethe Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC, Ross(17) a. John preferred destroying an existing(1967)). Therefore, Pires’ analysis is also

notion and creation of a new idea.

problematic in terms of coordination, which, inb. John preferred destruction of an existing

contrast, provides further support for the present

notion and creating a new idea.

analysis.
Next, consider ellipsis in CGs, which has not

Pires’ analysis cannot explain the fact, while

been discussed actively. It poses problems for

Abney’s and my analysis can. In Pires’ analysis,

the two previous analyses while it supports the142present analysis. As shown below, a verb phrase(20), the head of the antecedent is using while

in to-infinitival and tensed clauses in (20) andthat of the elided element is use. In (21), V(21) can be elided (verb phrase ellipsis, VPE)

criticize is elided even though the corresponding

when an antecedent is a CG. The corresponding

position is criticizing. In these sentences, despite

non-elided sentences are also grammatical.

themorphologicalmismatch,

ellipsisispermitted. On the other hand, in (24), the forms(20) John preferred using a computer and Maryof the antecedent and elided heads are exactly

preferred to use a computer, too.

the same, yet the sentences are ungrammatical.
Therefore,(21) I know of Chomsky criticizing the Vietwecannotattributethe

Nam War, and I know that Obama did

ungrammaticality of (22) and (23) to thecriticize the Viet Nam War, too.

syntactic/morphological identity condition.
Then,

how

can

we

explainthe

However, reversing the relation between an(un)grammaticality of the sentences above? I

antecedent and an elided position makes thewill explain it in terms of the licensing condition

sentences ungrammatical. To wit, eliding (parts

on ellipsis proposed in Lobeck (1995), whoof) CGs is impossible when an antecedent is aargues that ellipsis can be applied only to theto-infinitive and a tensed clause, as in (22) andcomplement position of functional categories (C,(23). Since the corresponding sentences withoutT, and D). The present analysis gives (23) the

ellipsis are grammatical, we can attribute thefollowing structure:ungrammaticality to the ellipsis.
(25)

NominalP(22) *John preferred to use a computer andDP

Mary preferred using a computer, too.

R-v*-T-nP(23) *I know that Chomsky criticized the VietObama

Nam War, and I know of Obaman-ing

criticizing the Viet Nam War, too.

DP
T
Obama

Notice that even when an antecedent is a CG,
eliding (parts of) CGs is barred, as in (24). The
corresponding

non-elided

sentence

R-v*P

is

grammatical.

Obama criticize the Viet Nam War(24) *I know of Chomsky criticizing the Viet

The derivation proceeds similarly to (16). The

Nam War, and I know of Obamalabel of the whole phrase is determined as

criticizing the Viet Nam War, too.

NominalP by nominal feature sharing. The
crucial point is that R-v*-T-nP is not placed in a

The examples in (20), (21), and (24) indicatecomplement position of functional categories,that the ungrammaticality of (22) and (23)hence violating the licensing condition on

cannot be accounted for in terms of theellipsis. Therefore, (23) is ungrammatical.
Abney’s

syntactic/morphological identity condition. In

143

analysiscannotprovideasatisfactory explanation. The structure of theproviding me with invaluable comments. I

elided position in (23) would be as follows:

would like to express my gratitude for fruitfulcomments to the audiences in the 35th(26) [DP -ing [IP Obama [I′ [ I [VP [V criticize][DPconference of English Linguistics Society of

the Viet Nam War]]]]]]

Japan. Last, but not least, I thank professor Max(cf. Abney (1987: 141))

Phillips Jr. and professor James Tink, whokindly acted as my informants. All remaining

In this structure, after the morpheme -ing iserrors are, of course, my own.

lowered to V via I, we incorrectly expect VP to
be deleted since it is placed in the complement

REFERENCES

position of I, which is a functional projection.

Abney, Steven (1987) The English Noun PhraseinThe ellipsis data go against Pires’ analysis,

its

Sentential

Aspect,Doctoraldissertation, MIT.

too. His analysis would provide the elided site in

Chomsky,(23) with the following structure:Noam(2013)“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky,(27) [TP Obama [T′ AGR [vP Obama [v′ [vNoam(2015)“Problems

Extensions,”ofcriticizing][VP [v criticize][DP the Viet Nam

Projection:

Structures,

War]]]]]]

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour
of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di

Here, the same problem arises regarding ellipsis.

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona

After Obama moves from Spec vP to Spec TP,

Matteini,deletion of vP observes the licensing condition

Amsterdam.

1-16,

John

Benjamins,

Hornstein (1999) “Movement and Control,”since vP is placed in the complement position of

Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69-96.

T (AGR). Therefore, both Abney’s and Pires’

Lobeck, Ann (1995) Ellipsis: Functional Heads.

analyses make the incorrect predictions.

LicensingandIdentification,

OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

5. Conclusion

Pires, Acrisio (2006) The Minimalist Syntax ofThis paper has overviewed Abney’s (1987)
and Pires’ (2006) analyses on CGs, and pointed

Defectiveout problems regarding Case assignment to CGs

Infinitives, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

and their subject.

Reuland,

To resolve the problem, I

Syntax, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

of CGs is NominalP, which is determined via
nominal feature sharing. In addition, I havedemonstrated that the proposed analysis is
supported in terms of coordination and ellipsis.
* I am greatly indebted to professor Yoshiaki
professor

EtsuroShima“Governingand-ing,”

Ross, John (1967) Constraints on Variables inthe LA. Concretely, I have argued that the label

and(1983)

Gerunds

Linguistic Inquiry 14, 101-136.

have proposed an alternative analysis based on

KanekoEric

Domains:for144

morphosyntactic mismatches in ellipsis.

Basedon his approach, we will then provide novel dataof v mismatches in VP deletion as evidence forthe structure proposed in section 2.

In section

4 we will discuss two consequences that our

An Argument Structure Alternation ofanalysis

Change-of-State Verbs under VP-Deletion*

has

for

(i)

internallycausedchange-of-state verbs, such as wilt and ferment,and (ii) causative-intransitive pairs, such as

Kenji Sugimotoraise-rise and kill-die.

Hokkaido University of Education

In section 5 we will

present concluding remarks.
Keywords: argument structure alternation,2.

syntactic identity, v mismatch

A Proposal
We propose the following VP structure for

the
1.

paper

verbs,

followingtheconstructivist view of thematic roles (Folli andIntroduction
Thischange-of-stateisconcerned

withHarley (2005, 2006), Harley (2011)).1

thechange-of-state verbs that exhibit the following
alternation:(2) a. [VP melt the snow]b. [vP the heat [v′ vcause [VP melt the snow]]](1) a. The snow melted.
b. The heat melted the snow.

The intransitive alternant in (1a) has theunderlying structure (2a), where the lexical verb

(1a) shows that the verb melt has an intransitive

requires that its complement be interpreted as avariant, where the sole argument the snow

Theme argument of the change-of-state event.

appears in the subject position and is interpreted

The causative alternant in (1b) has the structure

as an entity undergoing a change of state,(2b), which embeds the VP in (2a) under theconventionally called Theme.

vcause head.

The verb melt

This functional head provides aalso has a causative variant, as shown in (1b),specifier interpreted as Causer and encodes thewhere the Theme argument in (1a), the snow,cause relation between the causer and theoccurs in the object position and the subjectchange-of-state event.

position is occupied by the heat, which isderived from the presence/absence of the extrainterpreted as an event that causes the change offunctional layer.

Thus, the alternation isstate, referred to as Causer by Pesetsky (1996).
In this paper, we will explore the VP structure of3.

the two variants by looking at the behavior theyIn this section, we adopt Merchant’s (2013)

show under ellipsis.

theory of VP deletion and argue that our

The paper is organized as follows: inproposal is supported by some novel facts about

section 2 we will propose a VP structure for thetwo variants.

An Analysis

the VP deletion of change-of-state verbs.

In section 3 we will briefly

review Merchant’s (2013) syntactic approach to145examining whether the argument structure

3.1. The Syntactic Identity Condition on VP

alternation can be found between antecedent

DeletionFirst,

wereview

Merchant’s

verbal phrases and elided verbal phrases.

(2013)He points out that VP

First, consider the case where the causative

deletion permits voice mismatches between thevariant is the antecedent and the intransitive one

antecedent and the elided verb phrase, while

is elided.

voice mismatches in larger ellipsis types such as

structure in (3b), where VP deletion targets thesluicing are not tolerated.

boxed structure.

approach to ellipsis.

The contrast leads

The intransitive variant has the
The causative variant has thehim to argue that the identity relation in ellipsis

verb phrase structure in (3a), where the VP

is sensitive not only to semantics but also to

structure to be elided in (3b) is embedded undersyntax.

the vcause head.

Then,

to

accountforthemorphosyntactic facts, he proposes that the headthat encodes voice morphology is external to theverb phrase.

(3) a. [VoiceP Voice[+Active] [vP Causer [v′ vcause [VPSpecifically, VP ellipsis can allow

V Theme]]]]voice mismatches because it targets a structurethat excludes the voice head.

b. [VoiceP Voice[+Active] [VP V Theme]]

On the other

hand, sluicing does not allow voice mismatches,

In this case, the syntactic identity condition

because it targets a larger structure that includes

between the elided part and the antecedent isthe voice head.

satisfied because the antecedent has the same

Based on this line of reasoning, we assume

verbal head as the elided structure.

Thus, wethat the structures in (2) are embedded under

predict that ellipsis should be possible.

Voice and the target of VP ellipsis.

A furtherprediction is borne out by the data below, whereassumption is that the syntactic identity relation

the elided part is indicated in the angled

in VP deletion must be satisfied between verbal

brackets.

heads below Voice.

This

More specifically, theantecedent verbal structure must have the same(4) John believed that the sunshine would melt

structural relation between verbal heads as thethe big snowballsi, but theyi didn’t <melt>.

elided verbal phrase has up to Voice.

2For

example, if the causative variant in (2b) is elided,

Second, consider the reverse pattern of (3),then the antecedent must have the same v-V

where the intransitive variant is the antecedenthead structure.

and the causative one is elided.

Each verb

phrase structure is schematized in (5).
3.2. v Mismatches in the VP Deletion of(5) a. [VoiceP Voice[+Active] [VP V Theme]]

Change-of-State Verbs
In the previous sections, we presented ourb. [VoiceP Voice[+Active] [vP Causer [v′ vcause [VPmain assumptions regarding the target of VP

V Theme]]]]deletion and the structure on which the syntactic
identity condition is imposed.

On these

As the causative structure in (5b) shows, theassumptions, in this section we will show that

boxed structure includes the vcause head, which isthe structure proposed in (2) is correct by

not included in the intransitive antecedent.

146

This means that the elided part and thecontradiction, because the sentential negation in

antecedent are not syntactically identical in our

the second conjuncts could negate the semantic

sense.

component which the first conjuncts lack.

Therefore, we predict that ellipsis
This is confirmed by the

However,ourfollowing data, where ellipsis of the causative

examplesinverb phrase is not allowed.

indicated by #.

should be impossible.

informant(8)

resultjudges
in

that

the

contradictions,

Therefore, we assume that (7)and (1b) denote the same proposition.

In(6) *John believed that the big snowballsi

addition, we assume with Rákosi (2012) that thewould not melt, but the sunshine did

Causer PP is adjoined to VP, as depicted in (9).

<melt themi>.
(9) [VoiceP Voice[+Active] [VP [VP melt the snow]
However, one could say that the deletion in[PP from the heat]]](6) is blocked due to the lack of semantic
identity.

The boxed structure in (5b) includes

On these assumptions, examine the slightly

the argument interpreted as Causer in the event

modified case of (6) where the Causer PP issemantics (Parsons (1990)).

added to the intransitive antecedent.

But it is not

In thisincluded in the intransitive antecedent in (5a).

case, semantic identity should be maintained for

In order to decide between the two reasons,the reason stated above.

consider the data in (7).

antecedent and the elided part still are not

However, thesyntactically identical because the former does(7) The snow melted from the heat.

not include the vcause head.

Therefore, we

predict that ellipsis should remain impossible as
As shown in (7), when change-of-state verbs arein (6).

This is borne out by the data in (10).

used as intransitive variants, some of them canoptionally take a PP that denotes the cause of theevent.

(10) *John believed that the big snowballsi

This suggests that (7) has the same

meaning as (1b).

would melt from the sunshinej, but itj

This is confirmed by the

didn’t<melt themi>.

following data involving coordination.
Thus, we conclude that the ungrammaticality of(8) a. #The snow melted from the heat but the(6) and (10) is due to a violation of the condition

heat didn’t melt the snow.

on the syntactic identity.

b. #The heat melted the snow but the snow

Furthermore, consider the reverse pattern.

didn’t melt from the heat.

The

causative

antecedenthasameaning

identical to the elided intransitive part with the
In (8a), the intransitive sentence with the Causer

Causer PP.

PP is followed by the negation of the causative

the elided head, namely, the lexical V head,counterpart.

In (8b), the causative sentence iswhich satisfies the syntactic identity condition.

conjoined with the negative intransitive sentence

Therefore, ellipsis is predicted to be possible.

with the Causer PP.

In fact, our informant judges such an example toIf (7) did not have thesame meaning as (1b), (8) would not cause

In addition, both structures sharebe acceptable, as shown in (11).

147

(11) John believed that the sunshinei would

In this case, the intransitive structure in (13a)melt the big snowballsj, but theyj didn’t

and the causative structure in (13b) are no longer<melt from iti>.

syntactically identical to each other, because theformer has a T-Voice-V head structure, while

Finally, compare (11) and (4), which involve thethe latter has a T-Voice v-V head structure.

same sequence of words but differ in theThus, we make a further prediction that

presence/absence of the Causer PP in the elided

argument structure mismatches should not be

parts.

This difference means that the negation

tolerated between the antecedent and the elidedin (11) denies the participation of the particularpart in sluicing even in the case where VP

cause in the event, while the negation in (4)ellipsis is possible.

negates the existence of the event itself.

by (14a), where the intransitive variant is elided.

Thus,

This prediction is borne out

if (11) and (4) are succeeded by an additional
context such as the rain melted them, the former(14) a. *I know something melted theshould yield a consistent interpretation, whilesnowballsi, but I don’t know fromthewhat <theyi melted>.

lattershouldinterpretation.

yield

an

inconsistentThis is confirmed by theb. *I know something melted from theambiguity in (12).

sunshinei, but I don’t know what <itimelted>.

(12) John believed that the sunshine would
melt the big snowballs, but they didn’t.

As shown in (14b), sluicing is also impossible

The rain melted them.

when the intransitive variant is the antecedent to(contradiction and non-contradiction)

the ellipsis of the causative variant.

As wehave already seen, VP ellipsis is impossible inthis case (see (6) and (10)).3

Thus, although (11) and (4) appear to be thesame thing, we conclude that they must havebeen derived from different structures.

4.

Consequences
In this section, we will discuss two

3.3. v Mismatches in Sluicing

consequences that our analysis has for (i)In section 3.2, we argued that VP ellipsis isinternally caused change-of-state verbs, (ii)permitted in the intransitive sentence when thecausative-intransitive pairs with different forms.

causative acts as the antecedent, because theantecedent has the same head as the elided part.

4.1. Internally Caused Change-of-StateLet us then consider the case of sluicing, where

Verbs and VP Deletion

the target of ellipsis is extended to TP, as

Change-of-state verbs are classified into

illustrated in (13).

two groups according to the type of causation:
externally caused change-of-state verbs and(13) a. [TP T [VoiceP Voice[+Active] [VP [VP melt theinternally caused ones.

The former describe achange of state brought about by the existence ofsnowballs] [PP from the sunshine]]]]an external cause.

b. [TP T [VoiceP Voice[+Active] [vP the sunshine

The verb melt, analyzed in

the previous sections, is one of them.

[v′ vcause [VP melt the snowballs]]]]]

148

In thissection, we will deal with internally causedchange-of-state verbs.

in (2).

The changes of state

described by the verbs come about as a result of(17) The petunias wilted from the earlyinternal physical characteristics of their soleargument.

Let us further consider the data in (17).

summer heat.

Such verbs are usually considered

as not entering the causative alternation because

As with the verb melt, the intransitive variant of

an internally caused eventuality cannot be

the verb wilt can also select the Causer PP

externally controlled.

optionally.

However, Alexiadou

If our proposal is on the right track,(2014), Alexiadou, Anagnospolou and Schäfer

we make further predictions: the causative(2015) observe that some of the relevant verbs

antecedent should license the VP deletion of its

can causativize using ambient conditions as theintransitive variant with the Causer PP, while thesubjects of their causative variants.

intransitive antecedent with the Causer PP
should not license the VP deletion of its(15) a. The petunias wilted.

causative variant.

b. The early summer heat wilted the

As in the case of the verb

melt ((10)), these predictions are borne out by

petunias.

the data in (18a, b), respectively.

As shown in (15), our informant also allows the(18) a.

John believed that the early summer

verb wilt to have the causative use as well as theheati would wilt the petuniasj, but theyj

intransitive use.

didn’t <wilt from iti>.

Now, consider the following

VP ellipsis data of this verb.

b. *John believed that the petuniasi would
wilt from the early summer heatj, but(16) a.

John believed that the early summer

itj didn’t <wilt themi>.

heat would wilt the petuniasi, but theyi
didn’t<wilt>.

4.2. Causative-Intransitiveb. *John believed that the petuniasi would

Pairs

with

Different Forms and VP Deletion.
So far, we dealt with causative-intransitive

not wilt, but the early summer heat did

pairs with the same morphology.

<wilt themi>.

In thissection, we will deal with the ones with different
According to our informant, when the causative

morphology such as raise-rise and kill-die, andvariant is the antecedent and the intransitive one

examine what morphological constraints are atis deleted, the sentence is acceptable, as shownwork in ellipsis by looking at VP deletion underin (16a).

morphologicalIn contrast, when the intransitive

mismatches.

Considerfollowing examples.

alternant appears in the antecedent verb phrase
and the causative one is used in the elided verb

(19) a. Oil prices rose.

phrase, the sentence is unacceptable, as show in(16b).

b. The war raised oil prices.

These facts lead us to basically the sameconclusion as in the case of the verb melt: the(20) a. The patient died.

causative structure of the verb wilt embeds theb. The virus killed the patient.

intransitive counterpart under the vcause head, as

149

the

As shown in (19) and (20), raise and kill are

One way to account for the facts above is to saysemantically the lexical causatives of rise andthat causative-intransitive pairs must share adie, respectively.

common root when deletion is applied.

We will assume that theseUndercausative-intransitive pairs also syntacticallythis condition, the VP deletion of the kill-die pairform pairs and are analyzed in the same way as

is not allowed, because the pair does not havethe change-of-state verbs discussed thus far: thethe same root.

causative verb has a vP structure that includes

pair raise-rise has the same root but gets a

the intransitive VP structure as a subset.

If thisdifferent Spell Out depending on whether it

assumption is correct, the causative antecedent

combines with the vcause head or not, the deletionshould license the VP deletion of the intransitive

facts follow.

In contrast, assuming that theverb, while VP deletion should not be licensed
in the reverse pattern.

This prediction is borne5.

out by the examples in (21), which illustrate theConclusion
In this paper, we have proposed that the

VP deletion of the pair raise-rise.

causative-intransitive

alternationofchange-of-state verbs is a vcause alternation, that(21) a.

John believed that the war would

is, the intransitive variant has a simple VP

raise oil pricesi, but theyi didn’t <rise>.

structure, and the causative one contains an extra

b. *John believed that oil pricesi would

layer of structure above VP that introduces the
Causer argument, namely vcauseP.

not rise, but the war did <raise themi>.

We haveshown that the structures are supported by novel
However, the same is not true of the ellipsis ofdata concerning VP ellipsis.

We have also

kill-die: the causative antecedent does not allow

shown that the analysis based on the structural

the intransitive VP to be deleted, as illustrated inrelationship between the two variants can be(22a).

extended to internally caused change-of-stateverbs such as wilt, and that VP deletion is(22) a. *John believed that the virus would kill

subject to an additional morphological condition

the patienti, but hei didn’t <die>.

so that the causative kill cannot be theb. *John believed that the patienti would

antecedent to the ellipsis of the intransitive die.

not die, but the virus did <kill himi>.
*

An earlier version of this paper was

Even when we provide the intransitive variants

presented at the 35th meeting of the Englishin (22) with Causer PPs, the acceptability does

Linguistic Society of Japan held at Tohoku

not vary, as shown in (23).

4

University on November 18-19, 2017.

We

would like to thank the participants to the(23) a. *John believed that the virusi would

meeting for their valuable comments.

Last butkill the patientj, but hej didn’t <dienot least, we would like to thank Max Phillips Jr.

from iti>.

and Christopher Alan Knoepfler, who kindly

b. *John believed that the patienti would

acted as informants.

die from the virusj, but itj didn’t <killof course, our own.

All remaining errors are,

NOTES

himi>.

150

1

REFERENCES

In this framework, thematic roles are

Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou

defined by the interaction of the syntactic
positions that the arguments occupy and theandfunctional heads that introduce them.

Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A

Verb

Florianalternations are captured by hypothesizing

layering

different functional heads on top of a single

Press, Oxford.

Approach,(2015)
OxfordExternal
University

Folli, Raffaella and Heidi Harley (2005)

verbal root.
2

SchäferAt the ELSJ meeting, Professor Kensuke“Flavors of v: Consuming Results in Italian

Takita pointed out that only the head of theand English,” Aspectual Inquiries, ed. bycomplement of Voice would be important toPaulaestablish the syntactic identity relation.

Slabakova, 95-120, Springer, Dordrecht.

It is

and

Roumyana

Folli, Raffaella and Heidi Harley (2006) “On thetrue that such a local condition holds for VP
deletion, but it might not hold for sluicing.

Kempchinsky

LicensingInof

CausativesofDirected

the sluicing case, the syntactic identity condition

Motion: Waltzing Matilda All Over,”would only see the T head in both of theStudia Linguistica 60, 121-155.

intransitive and causative variants.

Harley, Heidi (2005) “How Do Verbs Get TheirThus,

argument structure mismatches would always be

Names?

permitted

fact.

Incorporation, and the Ontology of Verb

Therefore, in this paper, we will define syntactic

Roots in English,” The Syntax of Aspect:

identity as the structural relation between verbal

Deriving

heads below Voice in the case of VP deletion

Interpretation, ed. by Nomi Erteschik-Shirand below C in the case of sluicing.

and3

University Press, Oxford.

insluicing,

contrary

toNote that (14b) can be acceptable if the

Verbs,

Thematic

Tova

and

Rapoport,

42-64,

MannerAspectual
OxfordMerchant, Jason (2013) “Voice and Ellipsis,”

elided part is recovered as melted from the

Linguistic Inquiry 44, 77-108.

sunshine.
4

Denominal

Parsons, Terence (1990) Events in the Semantics

The intransitive die can be accompanied byof English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics,

a Causer PP.

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
(i)

Pesetsky,

The patient died from the virus.

David(1996)

Zero

Syntax:Experiencers and Cascades, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.

As discussed in section 3.2, we assume that

Rákosi, György (2012) “In Defence of the(20b) and (i) are the same in meaning, which is
confirmed by the data in (ii) where theNon-Causative

juxtaposition of one variant with the negated

Anticausatives,”

version of the other leads to contradiction.

Argument Structure at the Interface, ed. byThe

Analysis

of

Theta

System:Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj and Tal
Siloni, Oxford University Press, Oxford,(ii) a. #The virus killed the patient but thepatient didn’t die from the virus.

177−199.

b. #The patient died from the virus but thevirus didn’t kill the patient.

151

accompanied by focus particles -koso and -sae,
and a negative fragmentary answer.
(1) A’: *Ringo-koso.
Fragment Answers with Focus Particles*

A”: ?Ringo-sae.
A’”: Nani-mo.

Hidekazu Tanaka

Some

Okayama University

fragmentary answers ((1)A’), while others can

focus

particles

cannotaccompany((1)A” and (1)A”). The focus particle in (1A’),
Keywords：fragments, deletion, sluicing,-koso, is licensed in a projection higher than the

cartography

CP, while the one in (1A”) is licensed by aprojection

lower

than

CP.

Lowering

thefragment stranding the focus particle -koso is
1. Introduction

impossible due to a violation of proper binding

This paper demonstrates that fragmentary

condition (PBC: Fiengo (1977)) . This accounts

answers to wh-questions in Japanese ((1)A) arefor the impossibility of (1)A’.

derived by the same process that derives English
sluicing ((2)), that is, movement to CP-spec(4) [KosoP ti-koso [CP ringoi ... C0] Koso0]

followed by TP-ellipsis. I also show that ellipsis,

is conditioned by syntax.

(1)A” also gets a straightforward explanation:
raising the fragment stranding sae is licit, since(1) Q: John-ga nani-otabeta-no?

the structure is free from a violation of PBC, as-nom what-acc ate-Q

in (5).

‘What did John eat?’
A: [CP Ringo-o [TP John-ga t tabeta] C0]
apple-acc-nom(5) [CP ringoi [SaeP ti-sae [TP ... ] Sae0] C0 ]ate‘Apples, John ate.’

The negative fragment in (1)A”’ is well-formed,
showing that negative fragments pattern with

(2) John ate something, but I don’t know what-sae. I suggest that C0 in Japanese can bear a[TP he ate ].

[neg] feature, which can license the negativefragment in its specifier.

2. Cartography
To establish our main thesis, I argue for a
cartographic structure shown in (3).

(6) [CP nani-mo [TP ... t ... ] C0[neg] ](3) [KosoP -koso [CP wh [SaeP -sae [... ] Sae0 ] C0 ]

We

0

adopt

the

standard

assumptionthat

wh-phrases in-situ undergo movement to the

Koso ]

CP-specifier. (1)Q has the structure shown in (7)at some abstract level.

2.1. Focused Fragments
Consider fragmentary answers to (1)Q

152

(7) [CP nani-oi [TP ... ti ... ] C0[Q] ]-sae can first move to SaeP-specifier, strandingsae, and move further up to CP-specifier.

(1)A and (7) are parallel to each other, andhence, ellipsis is possible in (1)A. The ellippsis(9) [CP nanii [SaeP ti-sae [TP ...t ...] ] ]operation here mimics that of sluicing in
English: TP deletes when C0 attracts a phrase(9) is thus free from PBC violations, unlike (8).

out of the TP. Similarly, the TP in (5) deletes
under identity with the TP in (7), and hence

2.3. Linear Crossing Constraint(1)A” is basically well-formed. (6) and (7) have(3) is supported by another set of data. (10)a structure essentially identical to each other,is ungrammatical, since the sentence violates

and hence, ellipsis is possible in (1)A’”. Thus,

linear crossing constraint (LCC: Tanaka (1997)).

our account is obtained at no extra cost, sinceIts scrambling counterpart in (11) is free fromthe same mechanism responsible for English

the LCC violation, and hence is grammatical.

sluicing accounts for fragmentary answers inAssume (12) to be valid for the purpose here.

Japanese.
One claim here is that ellipsis is governed by(10) *Dare-mo nani-o tabe-nai-no?

a syntactic condition. Before getting to the point,I

providesupportive

evidenceforanyonewhat-acc eat-neg-Q

thecartographic structure given in (3).

‘What doesn’t anybody eat?’(11)

2.2. WH-particles

Nani-oi

dare-mo ti tabe-nai-no?

what-acc anyone

eat-neg-Q

The focus particle -koso cannot be suffixed
to a wh-phrase, but -sae can.

‘What doesn’t anybody eat?’(12)(8) *John-ga nani-koso tabeta-no?
-nom what-foc

LinearCrossing

Constraint:

TwoA’-dependencies may not cross.

ate-Q‘Whatfoc did John eat?’Thefollowing

examples

show

how

a

koso-phrase and a wh-phrase interact.

(9) John-ga nani-sae tabeta-no?
-nom what-foc ate-Q(12)‘Whatfoc did John eat?’John-koso nani-o-foctabeta-no-＿?

what-acc ate-Q

The reason for this contrast is that the phrase
suffixed with -koso must be licensed in‘What did Johnfoc eat?’

KosoP-specifier, but KosoP dominates CP ((3)).

(13) *Nani-oi John-koso ti tabeta-no-＿?

The wh-phrase therefore must lower down to thewhat-acc

-foc

ate

-Q

CP-specifier, resulting in a violation of PBC.
‘What did Johnfoc eat?’(8) [KosoP ti-koso [CP nanii [TP ...t ...] ] ]The above contrast shows that koso-phrases arelicensed in a position higher than a wh-phrase,
supporting (3). If (3) is correct, we would also

In contrast to this, the wh-phrase suffixed with153

3.1. Complex NP Constraint

expect that sae-phrases cannot precede a

Fragmentary

wh-phrase. This expectation is fulfilled.

answersobserveislandconditions when the wh-phrase is embedded(14)

Dare-garingo-sae

tabeta-＿-no?

within an island in the antecedent. (18) showsatethat fragmentary answers permit long-distance

who-nom apple-foc-Q

wh-questions in the antecedent.
‘Who ate applesfoc?’(18) Q: John-ga [ Mary-ga nani-o(15) *Ringo-saei dare-ga ti tabeta-＿-no?
apple-foc

who-nom

ate

-nom

-Q

tabeta-to ]-nom what-acc ate-that

itta-no?
said-Q‘Who ate applesfoc?’‘What did John say that Mary ate?’Thus, sae-phrases are licensed in a projection

A: Ringo-o.

lower than CP, as assumed in (3).

A’: Ringo-sae.
A”: Nani-mo.

Another prediction that (3) makes is thatkoso-phrases must precede sae-phrases. This

This opens up the possibility for an investigation

prediction is also borne out.

for island sensitivity. The following examples(16)

John-koso

ringo-sae

tabeta-＿-show that complex NP constraint is operative in-foc

apple-focate

at least those cases that involve focus particles
or negative polarity answers.

‘Johnfoc ate applesfoc.’(19) Q: John-ga [[ nani-o(17) *Ringo-saei John-koso ti tabeta-＿apple-foc

-foc

-nom

ate

tabeta ]-hito-o ]what-acc ate-thatsagasiteiru-no?
looking-for-Q‘Johnfoc ate applesfoc.’‘What is John looking for a person who
Thus, evidence is overwhelming for the structure

ate?’given in (3). Due to space limitations, I will

A: Ringo-o.

refrain from the discussion on how our approachA’: *Ringo-sae.

extends to other focus particles, but particles likeA”:*Nani-mo.

-nante and -nanka behave like -koso in that they
are higher than CP, and particles like -mo (also)

For reasons that we do not need to be concernedand -datte are lower than CP.

here, wh-questions in Japanese are free fromcomplex NP constraint. (19)Q is therefore
grammatical. Of particular interest to our present

3. Islands

concern is the fact that (19)A’ and (19)A” areThis section shows that fragmentary answers

ungrammatical as an answer to (19)Q. Thisare constrained by island conditions.

shows that fragmentary answers observe island
conditions. (19)A’ and (19)A”, thus, involve154

extraction of the fragment phrase out of the(21)

already

establishes

thatfocusedcomplex NP, as schematized below.

fragmentary answers are subject to inner island
condition. What is surprising, however, is the0fact that scrambling of the wh-phrase out of the(20) [CP fragmenti [ … [cmplex NP … ti … ] ] C ]domain of the negation in the antecedentsalvages ungrammaticality.

One question that immediately arises here iswhy (19)A is grammatical. We will put this(23) Q: Nani-oi John-ga [ Mary-ga ti

question off until section 4.

tabe-nakatta-to ] itta-no?
3.2. Weak Islands

A: Ringo-o.

Complex NP constraint discussed in theA’: Ringo-sae.

previous section is an instance of strong island.

A”:Nani-mo.

Fragmentary answers are also constrained byweak islands. (21) is a case of inner island

An obvious account of the grammaticality of thecondition.

focused fragmentary answers in (23) is that they
do not violate inner island condition, since the(21) Q: John-ga nani-o tabe-nakatta-no?

wh-phrase occupies a position outside the-nom what-acc eat-neg-Q

domain of the negation, as schematized in (24).

‘What didn’t John eat?’
A: Ringo-o.

(24) nani-oi … [CP … ti… neg ] … Q

A’: *Ringo-sae.
A”:*Nani-mo.

We correctly expect that the examples are freefrom inner island condition. But, this account isLong-distance wh-questions with a negation in

based crucially upon the assumption that (23)Q

the embedded clause is particularly interesting.

cannot be the antecedent of the focused

They also fail to serve as an antecedent tofragmentary answers in (22)A’ and A”. This isfragmentary answers with focus particles. (22) is

important, since scrambling found in (23)Q isasemantically vacuous: the scrambled wh-phrase

negativecounterpart

of

(18).

Focusedfragmentary answers are impossible.

takes matrix scope in (23)Q, which is also trueof the wh-phrase (22)Q. The question therefore(22) Q: John-ga [ Mary-ga nani-o-nomarises, if ellipsis is conditioned solely by-nom what-acc

semantics (Merchant (2001)), why (23)Q cannot

tabe-nakatta-to ] itta-no?

serve as an antecedent in (22). In contrast, under

eat-neg-thatthe assumption that syntax plays a crucial role insaid-Q‘What did John say that Mary ate?’

ellipsis (Tanaka (2011)), the contrast between

A: Ringo-o.

(22) and (23) is expected. Thus, our observation

A’: *Ringo-sae.

that semantically vacuous scrambling affects

A”:*Nani-mo.

grammaticality supports a syntactic condition on
ellipsis.

This is not surprising, in light of the fact that

We can reach the same conclusion based on155another set of data. Wh-questions out of awell-known fact is that English sluicing repairs

wh-island gives rise to marginality (Nishigauchi

island violations. Much less-recognized is the(1990)), and focused fragmentary answers tofact that the same TP-ellipsis can result in island

such a question result in ungrammaticality.

violations. Chung et al. (1995) observe thatsprouting is subject to various island conditions,(25) Q: ??John-ga [ Mary-ga nani-o-nom-nom what-acc

includingweakislandSauerland(1996)

also

conditions((27)).

makes

similaratabeta-kadooka] siritai-no?

observation: island violations caused by adjuncteat

extraction cannot be remedied by deletion (the-whether want-to know-Q

contrast between (28) and (29)). Merchant‘What did John say that Mary ate?’
A: Ringo-o.

(2001) also points out (31), a case of inner islandA’: *Ringo-sae.

condition violation, is ungrammatical, which

A”:*Nani-mo.

contrasts with (30).

The wh-phrase in (25)Q gets scrambled in (26)Q.

(27) *Sandy is very anxious to see which

Since scrambling is free from the wh-island

students will be able to solve thecondition,

homework problem, but she won’t say

(26)Q

is

grammatical(Tanakahow.

(1999a)). What is interesting is that focused(28) As a child, I behaved well, and my parents

fragmentary answers also become perfectly

can tell you how well.

grammatical.

(29) *As a child, I didn’t behave well, but I
don’t remember how well.

(26) Q: Nani-oi John-ga [ Mary-ga(30) A nurse was on duty, but I don’t knowtabeta-kadooka] siritai-no?

when.

A: Ringo-o.

(31) *No nurse was on duty, but I don’t know

A’: Ringo-sae.

when.

A”: Nani-mo.
Semantically vacuous scrambling remedies theWhat is relevant to our present discussion is theimpossibility of focused fragmentary answers infact that phrases with focus particles are in(26). This supports our thesis that ellipsis isprinciple adjunct (Tanaka (1999b)), as (32) andconditioned by syntax.

(33) show.

4. Island Repair(32) John-ga kudamono-o ringo-sae tabeta.
-nom fruit-acc

One pending problem is why fragmentary‘John ate fruits, even apples.’answers out of an island, i.e., (A)-answers in
(19),

(22),

and

(25),

do

not

resultinungrammaticality.

This

contrasts

with

the

apple-foc ate(33) John-ga kudamono-o nani-mo tabe-nai.
-nom fruit-acc

anything eat-neg‘John doesn’t eat any fruits.’(B)-answers, which observe island conditions
even after deletion. I would like to suggest that

These examples show that focused phrases can

the contrast is also found in English. One156

be accompanied by a Case-marked argumentby the fragmentary answer.

phrase. The focused phrases themselves must be
adjuncts, and since they are adjuncts, we expect(37) Q: [TPantecedent John-ga [[ xi tabeta ]-hito-o ]that they observe standard array of island

sagasiteiru ]-no?

conditions, including weak islands.

A: Ringo-oi [TPcopy John-ga

In clear contrast to the cases discussed above,[[ xi tabeta ]-hito-o ] sagasiteiru ]so-called sluicing cancels island violations.
Thus, the contrast between argument fragments(34) They are looking for someone who speaks aand focused phrase fragments with respect toBalkan language, but I don’t know whichisland conditions is by no means limited to(Balkan language).

Japanese: the same contrast is found in English
as well, giving support to our present approach.

Note that without a correlate phrase in theantecedent, island violations persist (Chung et al.

5. Summary(1995)).

This article has shown that fragmentary
answers to wh-questions in Japanese are derived(35) *Sandy was trying to work out which

via the same process that derives English

students would speak, but she refused tosluicing: the fragment phrase moves to thesay who to.

CP-specifier and the TP gets elided. Focusedfragments observe island conditions, in much theThis gives rise to the possibility that island

same way English adjunct sluicing and sprouting

insensitivity of answers like (19)A can be

do. Fragment answers that are not focused in

attributed to island repair in English sluicing.

Japanese are free from island conditions. Our

One notable explanation of island repair is

explanation is that this is parallel to English

LF-copying (Chung et al. (1995)). In (36), forsluicing, which cancels island violations.

instance, the correlate phrase in the antecedent is

A couple of brief remarks are in order before

understood as a variable, xi, when the antecedentclosing, which both have to do with alternative

TP is copied to the ellipsis site.

explanations of some of the data treated here.
The first remark has to do with Watanabe (2004),(36) [TPantecedent They are looking for someone

who argues that negative fragmentary answers

who speaks xi ], but I don’t know [ which

are derived through feature copying of the(Balkan language) ]i [TPcopy They are

negative feature [neg] from the negative

looking for someone who speaks xi ] .

fragment to the negative head, which turns thenegativehead

topositive.

Watanabe’sSince such a derivation does not involve

assumption is that deletion is conditioned

movement, island violations cannot manifest.

entirely by semantics, and as such, deletion is

Similarly, the argument fragmentary answer inpossible in, for instance, (19)A. This account is(19)A is free from island violations, since thenot tenable for two reasons. For one thing, it iswh-phrase in the antecedent is understood as aclear

variable, which can be bound, upon LF-copying,fragments behave in the same way as other

157

from

our

discussion

thatnegativefocusedfragmentary

answers,but

Ellipsis. Oxford, New York, Oxford

theUniversity Press.

[neg]-feature copying account of Watanabe(2004) has no room for non-negative fragments.

Nishigauchi, Taisuke (1990) Quantification in

Another is that we have provided concrete

the Theory of Grammar, Dordrecht, The

evidence that semantically vacuous scrambling

Netherland, Boston, Kluwer Academic

affects the possibility of deletion, and thus, thePublishers.
Sauerland, Uli (1996) “Guess How,” Paper

semantic identity condition does not suffice.

Presented at Proceedings of CONSOLE,

The second remark is the in-situ account of

Leiden, The Netherlands.

fragmentary answers proposed in a series ofworks by Abe (2016). Abe’s explanation is that

Tanaka, Hidekazu (1997) “Invisible Operator

the fragment in (19)A stays in-situ, but is able toMovement in sika-nai and the Linear

escape deletion, and hence no island violation.

Crossing Constraint,” Journal of East(19)A’ is derived through movement. Such an

Asian Linguistics 6, 143-188.

account encounters a serious difficulty, since it

Tanaka, Hidekazu (1999a) “LF wh-Islands andis not clear which derivation applies to which

the Minimal Scope Principle,” Naturalcase, without making extensive stipulations.

Language and Linguistic Theory 17,

Detailed

371-402.

exposition

of

these

and

other
Tanaka,consequences require much more space than

Hidekazu
Logicalgiven here, and are left for future works.

(1999b)Form

Conditions

Derivations

onandRepresentations: Doctoral dissertation,
McGill University.

* Parts of the materials reported here were
presented in colloquia at Dokkyo University,

Tanaka, Hidekazu (2011) “Syntactic Identity

Nanzan University, and the 35th Generaland Ellipsis,” The Linguistic Review 28,

Meeting of the English Linguistics Society of

79-110.
Watanabe, Akira (2004) “The Genesis ofJapan. I would like to extend my thanks to theparticipants to these conferences. The usual

Negative

Concord:Syntaxdisclaimer applies.

Morphology of Negative Doubling,”
Linguistic Inquiry 35, 559-612.

REFERENCES
Abe, Jun (2016) “Make Short Answers Shorter:
Support for the in-situ Approach,”
Syntax 19, 223-255.
Chung, Sandra, William A. Ladusaw and James
McCloskey
Logical(1995)

Form,”“Sluicing

Naturaland

Language

Semantics 3, 239-282.
Fiengo, Robert (1977) “On Trace Theory,”
Linguistic Inquiry 8, 35-62.
Merchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax of Silence:
Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of

158

and

pounding type Participial Construction)とよぶことにする。(2)の h-p type PC では、heartの前に本来現れるはずの所有格の my が現れていない。本稿では、所有格の my は単に削除された (delete-only)のではなく、主語位置

heart pounding タイプの分詞構文と所有者昇格*に移動した後に、その位置で削除された（Heart Pounding Type Participial(move & delete)と主張する。この所有格の主Constructions and Possessor Ascension）

語位置への移動こそが、まさしく英語における所有者移動に他ならない。

田中 江扶（Kosuke Tanaka）

本稿ではまず第 2 節で h-p type PC の統語

信州大学（Shinshu University）

分析を示す。その後、第 3 節で本分析 (move& delete 分析)の代案となる可能性のある分析 (delete-only 分析)を取り上げ、その代案はキーワード：分詞構文, 所有者移動, 主語削除, 文法違反のキャンセル

妥当ではないことを示す。結果として、本分析が一番妥当であり、それが正しければ、英語に統語的な所有者移動が存在するという結論になる。第 4 節では、本稿の帰結を示す。

1. はじめに様 々 な 言 語 で 「 所 有 者 昇 格 (possessor
ascension)」とよばれる現象が見られる。英

2. 分詞構文に起こる所有者移動

語においても、(1)のような例が所有者昇格

2.1. 分詞構文の構造と主語削除規則とよばれてきた (池上 (1995)等参照)。

まず、分詞構文の構造を見ていく。分詞構
文の節の大きさは、(3)を根拠に IP (or TP)ま(1) a. John struck Bill’s head.

では投射していると考えられている

b. John struck Bill on the head.

(Reuland (1983), 今井 他 (1989), Nakagawa(2011)等参照)。

(1a)と(1b)は、意味的な類似性が見られ、使(3) i. 虚辞の there が現れる

われている語句もほぼ同じであるため、所有者昇格とよばれてはいるが、所有者昇格が統There being no objection, the proposal

語的な所有者移動であるということを支持

was accepted unanimously.
ii. -ing は屈折形や助動詞と共起しない

する積極的な証拠はなく、実際、そのような

a. *Goesing out, he…

分析もこれまで行われていない。

b. *Musting leave at 9, …

本稿では、英語には統語的な所有者移動を仮定しなければ説明できないような現象がiii. IP 付加位置に起こる文副詞が現れるあることを報告する。それが(2)のような分

Probably acting on a tip, the soldiers

詞構文である。

removed a rug and some rags from theground in front of the hut to reveal a(2) I sat up in bed, heart pounding in my chest.

panel of foam insulation.

(2)の下線部のような heart pounding タイプ

一般に、(3i)の虚辞の there の挿入は IP-Specの 分 詞 構 文 を 以 下 、 h-p type PC (heartだと仮定されている。また、(3ii)にあるよう159

に、-ing は IP の主要部の I の位置にあるとさ詞構文の主語削除規則をもとに、h-p type PC

れる屈折形や助動詞と共起できないことかの派生を見ていく。

ら、それらと同じく IP の主要部の I にある
2.2. h-p type PC の派生構造といえる。さらに、(3iii)にあるように、IPに付加すると仮定されている probably のよ

まず、h-p type PC のデータの整理をすると、
h-p type PC には以下の特徴がある。

うな副詞が分詞構文に現れる。
以上のことから、分詞構文は IP まで投射しているといえる。よって、分詞構文の主語(7) i. 主節の主語の所有格が省略されている

位置は IP-Spec と考えられるため、分詞構文

a. … he pleaded with an intense gaze, chinquivering.

は概略(4)の構造をもっていると仮定できる(本稿では VP 内主語仮説 (Fukui and Speas

b. A freight train rumbles by, horn blaring.

(1986)等参照)を仮定する)。

c. He wouldn’t have found his son
sleeping on his stomach, head turned to
the left.

(4) 分詞構文の構造
IP

d. Weary but proud, tie loose but shirt

主語 NP

buttoned, Matsui sat before his locker…

I'
I
ing

(樋口 (2009: 195))

VP
tii. 所有格の省略は、h-p type PC の主語

V'
Vにのみ起こる 2

NP

a. He wouldn’t have found *(his) son
しかし、IP-Spec にあるはずの分詞構文の主

sleeping on *(his) stomach, head

語 NP は、通常、(5)のように現れない。

turned to the left.
b. I sat up in bed, and *(my) heart was(5) Seeing me, the dog wagged its tail.

pounding in my chest.

(= When the dog saw me, it (= the dog)c.

wagged its tail.)

I sat up in bed, heart pounding in*(my) chest.

(5)では分詞構文に主語が現れていないが、(7i)にあるように、h-p type PC では主節の主分詞構文の主語は主節の主語 (= the dog)と語の身体 (や本体) の一部 ((7ia-c)) や、主節同じである。よって、分詞構文には(6)の任の主語の所有物 ((7id)) が主語になっている。

1

よって、h-p type PC では、主節の主語の所有

意の削除規則があると考えられる。

格が省略されていることがわかる。次に、(6) 分詞構文の主語削除規則(7ii)にあるように、所有格が省略されるのは主節と従属節の IP 指定部にある NP が同

h-p type PC の主語においてのみである。

一のとき、従属節の IP 指定部にある NP(7iia)の主節にある his はどちらも省略できなを削除 (delete)せよ。なお、ここでいう「同い。また、(2)の h-p type PC を分詞構文を用一」とは「φ素性が同一」という意味で

いずに書き換えた(7iib)では、my は省略できある。

ない。さらに、(7iic)にあるように、(2)の h-p
type PC の PP (in my chest)にある my は省略で

次節では、(4)の分詞構文の構造と(6)の分

きない。

160

このように、所有格の省略は、h-p type PC

しているからである (Chomsky (1964)等参の主語に限られた現象であることがわかる。

照)。つまり、(9)における my の主語位置へ

このことから、次の疑問が起こる。

の移動が A-over-A 原則に違反しているということである。しかし、(10)に(6)の分詞構文(8) h-p type PC において、主語の所有格がの主語削除規則が適用されると、(2)のよう省略されるメカニズムとはどのようなに文法的になる。このことから考えられるこ

ものか？

とは、派生中に起こった A-over-A 原則違反
が、分詞構文の主語削除規則の適用によって

2.1 節の分詞構文の構造を h-p type PC に当て無効になる (キャンセルされる) というこはめると、(8)の疑問に答えることができる。

とである。このように派生中に起こった移動

具体的にいうと、本分析に基づくと、(2)の規則の違反が削除規則によって無効になる

h-p type PC (heart pounding in my chest)の派

現象は、実は他にもある。(11)を見てみよう。

生構造は(9)のようになる (紙面の関係上、関(11) a. *Irv and someone were dancing, but I

連する部分のみを示す)。

don't know who [Irv and twho ] were(9)

dancing.

(主語位置への移動＝所有者昇格)

b. OK Irv and someone were dancing, but I
don't know who [Irv and twho ] were

[IP I [I ting [VP my heart [V’ pounding in…
(-ing の lowering)

dancing.
(Lakoff (1970: 632-633))

φ (削除規則 (＝(6))(i) my heart は VP の指定部 (VP 内主語)

(11a)は「等位構造制約」違反であり、非文で(ii) 所有格の my が IP 指定部 (主語位置)あるが、等位構造制約を違反している部分が削除された(11b)は文法的になる。このように、に移動＝所有者昇格(iii) 主語 I の削除 ((6)の主語削除規則))

3「削除による文法違反のキャンセル」という(iv) -ing は VP 内の動詞 pound と融合

現象は独立して存在するのである。
以上のことから、最終的な h-p type PC の

(9)にあるように、所有格の my が主語移動で派生構造は(12)のようになる (紙面の関係上、

IP-Spec に移動した後に、(6)の分詞構文の主関連する部分のみを示す)。

語削除規則により削除されると(2)の h-p type(12) h-p type PC の派生構造

PC が生成される。この派生は分詞構文の主IP

語にのみ適用されるものであるため、h-p
type PC の主語においてのみ所有格が省略さ②主語削除φI

I'
VP

れることが説明できる。
なお(9)において、もし移動した my が削除

V'

されない場合には、(10)のような非文になる。

キャンセル① A-over-A 違反(10) *I heart pounding in my chest(所有者上昇)(10)が非文であるのは、A-over-A 原則に違反

161

NP
my

PP
V+I

N' poundingheart(12)において、my の主語への移動は A-over-A

まず、(14)の分析においては、(2)の h-p type原則に違反する。しかし、その後に適用されPC の構造は(15)のようになる (紙面の関係

る分詞構文の主語削除規則によって、その違上、関連する部分のみを示す)。

反が無効となる。
(15) (主語位置への移動)

ここで、削除された my の解釈がどのように保証、すなわち復元、されるのかという問[IP my heart [I ting [VP t(my heart) [V’ pounding...

題があるが、本分析では、my の解釈は(13)のようになる。

φ (削除)(-ing の lowering)(13) <deletion under identity>
Ii sat up in bed, [IP Φ i [VP t(my)i heart(15)では、my heart が主語位置に移動する。

pounding in my chest.]]

その結果、主節の主語と異なる主語をもつ<chain>「独立分詞構文」が生成される。その後、主語位置にある my heart のうち my だけが削除

まず、(6)の分詞構文の主語削除規則により、される。この削除分析をとる場合、少なくと分詞構文の主語のＩは主節の主語との同一も(16)の疑問に答えなければならない。

性の下で削除される。削除された主語 (Φ)
はもともと VP 内 から移動してきたもので(16) どのような規則によって、(15)の所有格あり、移動元 (t(my))と chain で結ばれている。

の my だけが削除されるのか？

この chain を通して、一人称の my の解釈が保証されていると考えられる。4

英語では、原則として所有格は省略できない

以 上 の よ う に 、 my は 単 に 削 除 さ れ たため、(15)のような削除はかなり特殊である(delete-only)のではなく、主語位置に移動し((7ii)参照)。したがって、(15)のような削除にた後に、その位置で削除された (move &対して、アドホックではない一般的な削除規

delete)と考えられる。そして、この所有格の則を設定することは困難といえる。当然のこ

主語位置への移動が、まさしく英語におけるとながら、(15)の my の削除は(6)の分詞構文

所有者移動に他ならない。

の主語削除規則では説明できない。なぜなら、(15)の IP-Spec にあるのは my heart であり、

3. 代案との比較

主節の I と同一ではないからである。このた第２節の本分析に対し、概略(14)のようなめ(6)の削除規則を(15)に適用することもで代案も考えられる。

きない。
以上のことから、(15)の分析、すなわち(14)(14) 分詞構文の主語の my heart の my だけが、 の削除 (delete-only)分析は妥当性を欠くといえる。一方、本分析をとれば h-p type PC

何らかの理由で削除された。

の所有格の省略をより自然に説明すること
本節では、(14)のような削除 (delete-only)分ができるため、本分析の方が妥当であると結析には決定的な不備があり、採用できないこ

論できる。

とを示す。

162

4. 本分析の帰結

であり、動詞の種類が制限される (具体的に本分析が正しい限りにおいて、(17)の 2 つは接触動詞のみ可能)。

の帰結が得られる。

次に(17ii)であるが、統語的な違反はキャンセルされる場合があるということである。

(17) i. 所有者昇格という統語操作が英語に具体的には、統語的な違反は、後から削除規存在する則が適用されることで文法的になる場合が→ 所有格が分詞構文の主語位置にある。このことは、局所的 (local)規則だけである場合に、統語的な所有者昇はなく、大局的規則ないしは後循環規則も人格が起こり得る。

間言語には存在することを示唆している

ii. 派生の途中の文法違反が削除により(理論言語学史における大局的な派生の位置づけに関しては畠山 (編) (2017)を参照)。

無効になる→ 大局的 (global)規則ないしは後最後に、本分析の統語理論上の重要な帰結

循環 (post-cyclic)規則も人間言語を述べる。それが(19)である。

には存在する。
(19) Overt Syntax には、非顕在的な A'移動だけでなく非顕在的な A 移動もある。

まず(17i)であるが、本分析が正しければ、主語位置における所有者昇格は統語操作であり、分詞構文という限られた統語環境で可能

本分析における所有格の主語位置 (IP-Spec)であることになる。これに対して、冒頭の(1)への移動は、移動した後に削除されてしまうの目的語位置における所有者昇格は統語操ため《目に見えない》移動 (= 非顕在的移動

作ではなく、実際は意味的な類似性に過ぎな(covert movement))である。しかし、ここまでい。そして、この場合は使われる動詞に制限

議論したように、理論上は所有格の移動が起があり、strike などの「接触動詞 (contact verb)」 こっていると考えられるため、本分析は「非に限られる (Levin (1993)等参照)。このこと

顕在的移動が存在する」ことを示しているこから、所有者昇格は(18)のような 2 つのタイとになる。さらに重要なことは、この非顕在プに分けることができる。

的移動は LF ではなく Overt Syntax で起こっているということである。先行研究において(18) 「所有者昇格」の 2 つのタイプ

Overt Syntax で起こっている非顕在的移動と統語位置 所有者昇格して、たとえばオペレーター移動 (tough 構

特徴

主語

統語操作

統語環境が制限

目的語

意味的類似

動詞の種類が制限文等) が報告されている。オペレーター移動
は A'移動であるが、本分析の所有格移動は
主語位置、
すなわち A 位置への移動 (A 移動)である。よって、本分析は Overt Syntax で起(18)の表にあるように、主語位置と目的語位こっている非顕在的移動には、A'移動だけで置で所有者昇格のタイプが異なる。主語位置はなく A 移動もあることを示していることの場合は、所有者昇格は統語操作 (移動)でになる。Overt Syntax でオペレーター移動のあり、起こる環境が統語的に制限される (具ような非顕在的な A'移動があるなら、理論

体的には分詞構文でのみ可能)。5 一方、目的的には非顕在的な A 移動もありえる。本分

語位置の場合は、所有者昇格は意味的な類似

析はその「ミッシングピース」を埋めたとい
える。

163

* 本稿の執筆にあたり、畠山雄二氏と本田謙

PRO は null Case をもつと仮定されている

介氏には長時間、議論を重ねて頂いた。また、(cf. Chomsky and Lasnik (1993))ため、(i)では

日本英語学会第 35 回大会の発表の際には、

PRO は埋め込みの IP-Spec に A 移動する。そ聴衆の方々から数々の有益なコメントを頂の結果、PRO と t は chain を形成するが、といた。記して感謝申し上げる。なお本稿に不もに音形をもたない。つまり、(i)と本分析の備があるとすれば、それは筆者の責任である。 (13)の chain はともに音形のない要素で構成
注されている。なお、(13)では chain が形成さ(6)の削除規則は任意であるため、主節の主れることにより、VP 内にある名詞句の heart

語と従属節の分詞構文の主語が同一であっに格が転送されると考えられる (格の転送ても、分詞構文の主語が削除されないことも(Case transmission) に 関 し て は Chomsky

可能である。

(1986)等を参照)。

15(i) Roddyi tried to avoid Elaine, hei being a

ここでは、「分詞構文でのみ所有格移動が可能」としているが、本分析が正しければ、

confirmed bachelor.

所有格移動は以下の条件が揃えば、理論上可能であることになる。

Reuland (1983: 126)で指摘されているように、(i)の分詞構文の主語の he は主節の Roddy を指す (= he と Roddy は同一主語である)が、
he を削除しなくても文法的である。
2(7ii)の例文の判断は同僚の英語母語話者(アメリカ人)による。なお、所有格の my を(i) a. 移動が起こる環境にある (= 移動の動機付け (EPP 等)がある)
b. 削 除 規 則 が か か る (= 文 法 違 反(A-over-A 原則違反)のキャンセル)c. 解釈が保証されている (= co-index による保証)

省略しない(i)のような分詞構文も使われる。
参考文献
Chomsky, Noam (1964) Current Issues in(i) I sat up in bed, my heart pounding in my

Linguistic Theory, Mouton, The Hague.

chest. (cf. (2))

Chomsky,

Knowledgeof

Praeger, New York.

chest) はともに容認可能であるが、(2)の h-p

Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik (1993)

type PC の方は形式的で書き言葉的であり、“The theory of principles and parameters,”

話し言葉では(i)のように my を入れる方が自Syntax: An international handbook of

然であるとのことである。

contemporary research, ed. by Joachim

ここでは、所有格の my が IP-Spec に移動

Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang

すると主格の I になると仮定している。
4(1986)

language: its nature, origin and use.

(i)と(2)の h-p type PC (heart pounding in my

3

Noam

Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann, 506–569,(13)では、chain の head (移動先)も tail (移Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.

動元)もともに音形をもたないことになる

Fukui, Naoki and Margaret Speas (1986)

が、このような chain は「特殊」なもので“Specifiers and Projection,” MIT Workingはない。

Papers in Linguistics 8, 128-172.
畠山雄二 (編) (2017) 『理論言語学史』 開拓(i) John hoped PROi to be elected ti.

社, 東京.

< chain>164

樋口昌幸 (2009) 『英語の冠詞 －その使い方の原理を探る』 開拓社, 東京.
池上嘉彦 (1995) 『＜英文法＞を考える』筑摩書房, 東京.
今井邦彦・中島平三・外池滋生・福地肇・足立公也 (1989)『一歩すすんだ英文法』
大修館, 東京.
Lakoff,George(1970)“GlobalRules,”

Language 46, 627-639.
Levin, Beth. (1993) English Verb Classes andAlternations: a Preliminary Investigation,
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Nakagawa, Satoshi (2011) “Synchronic andDiachronic Aspects of Nominative andAccusative Absolutes in English,” Gengo
Kenkyu 139, 85–109.
Reuland, Eric J. (1983) “Governing -ing,”
Linguistic Inquiry 14, 101-136.

165

by＋V-ing と by が省略された単純な V-ing の両方の形を取ることができる。一方で、秋元(1998)による現代英語のコーパス調査では、
表 1 に示されるように、V-ing の方が by＋
動詞 end up の歴史変化と PredP の出現*

V-ing よりも頻度において圧倒的に優勢である。1（The Historical Change of End up and the Riseof PredP）

表 1: by+V-ing と V-ing の生起数
田中 祐太（Yuta Tanaka）(cf. 秋元 (1998: 15))名古屋大学（Nagoya University）(COBUILD)

by+V-ing

V-ing

3

147

キーワード：動詞 end up, by＋V-ing vs. V-ing,
COHA, PredP

単純な V-ing が by＋V-ing から by が省略されたものであるとするならば、この頻度の差を説明することは難しいと思われる。また重要

1. 導入

なことに二つの統語的特徴は歴史的には異動詞 end up は「最終的に~の状態になる」なる。すなわち、もともと(1)に示した種類といった「完了」の意味を持つ動詞であり、ほど end up に後続できたわけではなく、段二つの興味深い統語的特徴を持つ。第一に、階的にその種類を増やした。また以前は by(1)に示されるように、さまざまな種類の要＋V-ing の方が単純な V-ing よりも頻度にお素が後続することができる。(1a-g)では PP、いて優勢であった。

NP、AP、by＋V-ing、V-ing、V-en がそれぞ

本稿では、歴史コーパスから得られた言語

れ後続している。

事実を示しながら、end up において付加詞から補部への再分析が起こり、その補部に叙述(1) a. …she ends up with neither a queen nor
an heir.

関係を認可する機能範疇 PredP が取られるよ(COCA, 2015, FIC)

うになったと提案する。この構造変化の過程

b. …I might end up as a single mother.

でさまざまな要素が段階的に、かつ一定の仕(COCA, 2015, FIC)c.

方で現れるようになった事と付加詞として…he ended up a hero.

の by＋V-ing が、述語として機能する V-ing(COCA, 1999, NEWS)にとって代わられた事が説明される。

d. …we end up sick and poor.
(COCA, 2015, SPOK)

2. コーパス調査

e. …we will end up by destroying theplanet.
f.

この節では、Corpus of Historical American(COCA, 1993, ACAD)

English(以下、COHA)を用いたコーパス調査…I ended up taking some long shots.

の結果を提示し、二つの統語的特徴は歴史的(COCA, 2015, NEWS)には異なることを示す。調査方法としては、

g. …she’s ended up buried in a hole like a1840 年代から、1990 年代までの end up に後

dead pet.

(COCA, 2012, FIC)

続する要素のうち、(1a-f)に示す要素を含む例を抽出した。以下では、初出例と各年代と第二に、(1e, f)の対比に示されるように、

166

(4) …he ended up saying the wrong things.

その時代の生起数を示した表を提示する。

(COHA, 1935, FIC)
2.1. by+V-ing と V-ing に関する調査

表 4: end up V-ing

by+V-ing と V-ing に関する調査結果を示す

1840s

50s 60s 70s 80s

90s

1900s

10s

前に end up 全体での最初期の例について述

0

0

0

0

0

べておく。最初期の例は(2)に示す with 句が20s

30s 40s 50s 60s

70s

80s

90s

後続する例である。表 2 に示されるように、

02112 202 289

549

0
14

0
49

0

with 句が後続する例は 1860 年代に出現し始め、現代英語では頻繁に現れる。

by+V-ing と V-ing の比較をすると、初出時期の早い by+V-ing の方が 1940 年代まで優勢で(2) He called Eradicate all the mean names he

あったが、1950 年代を境に V-ing にとって代

could think of, ending up with: “You won’t

わられた。その後は V-ing は増え続けるのにhear the last of this for a long time, either…”

対して、by-ing は減少していった。したがっ(COHA, 1866, FIC)て、1 節でみた秋元 (1998)による調査結果は

表 2: end up with

歴史的には異なる。

1840s

50s 60s 70s 80s 90s

1900s

10s

0

0

4

8

20s

30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s

5

13

1
30

4
41

2

4

66

97

2.2. as＋NP、NP、AP に関する調査

90s

この節では as＋NP、NP、AP に関する調107 189

査結果を以下に示す。この三つの中で、(5)に示すような as＋NP が最も初期の 1890 年代に出現し始める。そして表 5 に示されるよう

by+V-ing に関しては、表 3 に示すように1880 年代に出現し始めて、その数は 1950 年に、その数は一定数まで増加する。

代まで増加する。しかし、それ以降は減少し(5) He’ll end up as a ‘lumber Jack,’…

ていき、1990 年代にはその数はわずか 1 例(COHA, 1897, FIC)となる。
表 5: end up as＋NP(3) …they’ll end up by knocking in our front
doors …

(COHA, 1880, FIC)

表 3: end up by+V-ing

1840s

50s

60s 70s 80s 90s

1900s

10s

0

0

0

0

1

20s

30s

40s 50s 60s 70s 80s

90s

4

6

11

37

0
17

0
18

1
29

33

1840s

50s

60s

70s

80s

90s

1900s

10s

0

0

0

0

1

2

0

3

20s

30s

40s

50s

60s

70s

80s

90s

次に、(6)に示す NP が後続するような例が

11

13

16

23

6

10

6

1

1920 年代に出現し始め、その数は一定数まで増加する。

これに対して、表 4 に示すように、単純な(6) …and Jack Holts is the sterling, stalwart hero

V-ing は 1930 年代になって出現し始め、それ以降もその数は増加し続け、1990 年代には

from

Kentucky

whostarts594 例にまで及んでいる。

champion and ends up her lover.

out

het

(COHA, 1925, NEWS)167表 6: end up NP

うになった 1930 年代までの間に as+NP、
NP、

1840s

50s 60s 70s 80s 90s

1900s

10s

AP が現れようになった。したがって、V-ing

0

0

0

0

の出現には as+NP、NP、AP の出現が重要な

20s

30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s

90s

役割を果たしたといえる。

1

5

34

0
2

0
6

0
10

0
12

22

3. 分析
最後に、(7)に示す AP が後続する例が 1930

この節では、2 節でのコーパス調査の結果

年代に出現し始め、その数は一定数まで増加に基づき、end up の構造変化を提案する。具する。

体的には、end up に後続する要素が付加詞であった構造から、叙述関係 (Predication)を認可する機能範疇 PredP が補部として後続する(7) The man who attempts to be consistent in his

構造に再分析されたと主張する。

public service may end up consistentindeed…

(COHA, 1937, MAG)3.1. 構造変化

表 7: end up AP
1840s

50s 60s 70s 80s 90s

1900s

10s

(8)で示したように、V-ing の出現前あるい

0

0

0

0

はほぼ同時期に、as＋NP、NP、AP が現れる

20s

30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s

90s

ようになった。Tanaka and Yokogoshi (2010)

0

2

45

では、Bowers (1993)に従い、(9)のような小節

0
3

0
6

0
6

0
10

20

内部に現れる as を、叙述関係を結ぶ PredP
2 節の調査結果をまとめると、1940 年代ま主要部の具現形であり、13 世紀の終わり頃

で は by+V-ing (1880s 初 出 ) の 方 が V-ingに PredP が出現した証拠として小節内部にお(1930s 初出)より優勢であったと言える。まける as の分布を挙げている。

た、as＋NP (1890s 初出)、NP (1920s 初出)、
(9) a. We regard John as intelligent.

AP (1930s 初出)の順に出現し始めた。それぞb. I consider these boys as good students.

れの初出時期をまとめた(8)を見ると、これ(Tanaka and Yokogoshi (2010: 240))

らの結果は密接に関連付けられることがわかる。

これに従うと、as＋NP の出現を end up における PredP の出現を示す証拠と考えることが(8) 初出時期のまとめできる。そして PredP の出現を契機としてそ1860s 70s 80s 90s 1900s 10s 20s 30s…

の補部に述語として機能する V-ing が後続でwithきるようになったと主張する。提案される構

by+V-ing

造変化は(10)に示される。前提として end up

as＋NPが持つ意味から、end up は非対格動詞であるNPと仮定する。

APV-ing(10) PredP の出現(a > b)a. [VP [VP end up [DP DP]] [by+V-ing]](8)に示されるように、by+V-ing が現れるよ

b. [VP end up [PredP DP [Pred′ Pred [V-ing]]]]

うになった 1880 年代から V-ing が現れるよ168(10a)の PredP 出現以前の構造において、主語

by＋V-ing における V-ing は前置詞に後続すDP は 内 項 か ら 主 語 位 置 に 繰 り 上 が り 、るため、動名詞であるといえる。単純な V-ing

by+V-ing が付加詞として VP に付加される。

が by＋V-ing から by が省略されて派生した

しかし、PredP の出現に伴い、end up が PredP

ものであるとするなら、どちらの V-ing も同を補部として取る(10b)の構造を持つようにじステータスの動名詞であるといえる。言語なる。この構造では、PredP の指定部と補部変化が段階的に進むという一般的な事実にに、主語 DP と述語がそれぞれ併合され、叙従うと、動名詞から過去分詞への変化は予測

述関係が認可される。

し難い。しかし、提案されたように、end up

この変化の結果として、PredP の補部には、が PredP を補部に取るようになったとするな

述語としての資格をもつ V-ing が現れるよう

らば、V-ing は PredP に選択される述語であになり、その出現により、付加詞である byる。述語として機能する要素が現在分詞であ＋V-ing が衰退すると説明される。
また、
V-ing

るとするなら、現在分詞から過去分詞は段階が優勢になるまでに、as＋NP、NP、AP が出的な変化であり、予測できる変化といえる。

現し始めた事実は、その時期が PredP 出現のさらに、(13)に示す過去分詞と現在分詞が過渡期であり、述語として機能する範囲が段等位接続された例も得られた。

階的に拡大されていったと説明される。
(13) 等位接続
3.2. 証拠…he ends up arrested and facing years inprison.

現代英語のコーパスとインフォーマント

(COCA, 2009, SPOK)から(11)の例が得られた。
等位接続された要素は一般に同じステータ
スを持つとするなら、end up に構造する(11) 抜き出し
a. …what did he end up doing?

V-ing は過去分詞と同じステータスを持つ現(COCA, 2015, SPOK)
b. What did you end up as?

在分詞であるといえる。

(Informant)c. But what did I end up with?

3.3. PredP の出現要因とメカニズム(COCA, 2004, FIC)

この節では、残された問題としてなぜ end
up の補部に PredP が出現したかについて、そ(11)において、V-ing、as 句、with 句から whの出現要因とメカニズムの点から考察する。

句が抜き出されている。付加詞からの抜き出

まず、PredP の出現要因としては、意味のしを禁止する付加詞条件を考慮すると、後続

漂白化 (semantic bleaching)であると主張すする要素は補部であるといえる。

る。(14)は比較的初期の end up に in 句が後続

また、end up における変化の中では比較的している例である。例えば、(14)を日本語に遅い 1940 年代以降に、(12)に示される過去

すると、(15)に示す 2 通りの解釈が可能であ分詞が後続できるようになる。

る。

(12) end up V-en

(14) …you end up in a quarrel.
(COHA, 1877, FIC)

…a dog I brought out to your house ended
up buried behind your garbage?
(COHA, 1944, FIC)

(15a)の下線部は付加詞のように解釈される

169

4. 帰結のに対して、(15b)の下線部は補部のように

この節では、end up が PredP 補部として取解釈される。述部に注目すると、前者は「完了」、後者は「結果状態」を意味する。

ることができるようになった結果として生じるさらなる変化をコーパス調査により示(15) a. 口論で終わる

す。

b. 最終的に口論になる

3 節で触れたように、PredP は叙述関係(Predication)を構築する機能範疇である。叙(14)を(15a)のように解釈しても、(15b)のよう述関係は主語と述語の関係構築に関わるもに解釈しても実質的な意味は変わらないとのであり、同じく主語と述語を含む命題いえる。この意味の漂白化が起こったことを(Proposition)を形成すると考えられる。これ要因として(15)で見たような 2 通りの解釈がを踏まえると、予測されるさらなる変化は、可能になった。この意味の漂白化を起因とし(18)に示すものである。

て今度は、(16)に示される再分析 (cf. Hopper(18) PredP → CP/TP

and Traugott (2003))が起こったと主張する。
(16) [VP [VP V DP] PP] > [VP V [PredP DP PP]](18)に示す変化は同じ命題を表すが異なる範疇への変化、すなわち PredP から CP/TP(16)において、変化以前は、PP は付加詞であへの変化を意味する。実際に、これらの変化

るが、変化後は補部として再分析されている。 を示す例が現代英語のコーパスから得られた。3

この付加詞から補部への再分析が PredP 出現のメカニズムである。

(19) end up CP (that clause)

ここで主張された付加詞から補部への再分析は、end up 以外の変化に対しても提案さ…it ended up that I slept in the front

れている。

room bed…

(17) a. I think that [the earth is round](COCA, 2013, FIC)

(19)では、end up には that 節が後続し、文頭

b. I think [that the earth is round]には虚辞が挿入されている。

(cf. Roberts and Roussou (2003: 118))

CP である that 節に加えて、TP である不定詞節も後続する例も得られた。

Roberts and Roussou (2003)では、括弧表示で(20) end up TP (infinitive)示す部分は、(17a)の付加詞から(17b)の補部に再分析されたと主張されている。Roberts

The girl ended up to be David Bieber’s

and Rossou では、再分析の結果、that が意味

ex-girl friend.

(COCA, 2008, SPOK)の漂白化を受けて指示詞から補文標識に変化した主張されているが、逆の変化も考えら(20)において、end up に不定詞節が後続してれる。つまり、that の意味の漂白化を要因とおり、その内部から主語 DP が繰り上がってして、付加詞から補部への再分析が起こったいる。繰上げ構文が TP であるとする標準的という道筋である。これは、end up の変化にな仮定に従えば、(20)は TP が後続する例で似た変化であるといえる。

2

あるといえる。
また、(21)に示すように、不定詞節とは異170

なる TP が後続する例も得られた。

的に現れるようになったことを説明した。最後に、PredP 出現後のさらなる変化として、(21) end up TP (there-construction)

CP や TP も後続できるようになった事実を

a. …there ends up being a peaceful示した。

resolution in the end?
(COCA, 2002, SPOK)* 本稿は日本英語学会第 35 回大会における

b. …there end up being records payments,

口頭発表原稿に修正を施したものである。発extensions, and releases.

表の際に御質問や御指摘を下さった大沢ふ(COCA, 2006, FIC)

よう先生、保坂道雄先生、縄田裕幸先生にはこの場を借りて感謝を申し上げたい。なお、(21)では、V-ing が後続しており、文頭は虚本稿における誤りはすべて筆者の責任によ

辞の there が占めている。
虚辞の there は通常、るものである。

埋め込み節が TP である文に挿入されるので、注

この V-ing も end up に後続する TP の別の形

1であるといえる。(21)は別の点で、本稿でのまな要素の生起数を調査しているが紙面の提案を支持する。(21a)では、V-ing には単数都合上、by＋V-ing と V-ing に限って示す。

名詞が後続しており、動詞は単数の一致を示2している。一方で、(21b)では、V-ing には複づき、歴史変化の中で spend+TIME に後続す

数名詞が後続しており、動詞は複数の一致をる単純な V-ing が in+V-ing よりも優位になっ示している。もし V-ing が動名詞であるならた事実と他の述語的要素も段階的にその種ば、動詞は V-ing の内部の名詞句ではなく、類を増やした事実を示している。

V-ing 自体と一致するはずであり、(21b)の複3

数一致は予測されない。したがって、このるものもあるが、いずれも 1950 年代以降で

秋元 (1998)では、end up に後続するさまざ大室 (2016)では、コーパスの調査結果に基以下に示す例の中には、COHA で観察されV-ing は少なくとも動名詞ではないといえる。 あるため、ここでの分析に沿っている。
さらに、一致操作は付加詞内の要素には適用されないことを考慮すると、この V-ing が付

参考文献
秋元実治 (1998)「 “end up”構文について」

加詞ではなく、補部であるといえる。

『現代英語の語法と文法: 小西友七先生傘寿記念論文集』, 14-19, 大修館書店,

5. 結語
本稿では、歴史コーパスの調査に基づき、end up の構造変化を主張した。具体的には、

東京.
Bowers, John (1993) “The Syntactic Predication,”
Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591-656.

end up が現れ始めた初期の頃は後続する要Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott

素は、付加詞のみであった。しかし、意味の漂白を要因として end up が実質的に意味の(2003)

Grammaticalization,

2nd

ed.,

変わらない「完了」の意味とそれが含意する

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

「結果状態」を表すことができるようになっ

大室剛志 (2016)「構文の成立過程とその後たため、付加詞から補部への再分析が起こり、の展開－半動名詞構文を中心に－」, 小PredP が出現したと主張した。結果として、

川芳樹・長野明子・菊地朗 (編) 『コーby+V-ing が V-ing にとって代わられたことと、パスからわかる言語変化・変異と言語理

その過渡期として as+NP、NP、AP、が段階論』 64-77, 開拓社, 東京.

171

Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou (2003) Syntactic
Change:A

Minimalist

ApproachtoGrammaticalization, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Tanaka, Tomoyuki and Azusa Yokogoshi (2010)“The Rise of a Functional Category in
Small Clauses,” Studia Linguistica 64,
239-270.
コーパス
The Corpus of Contemporary American English
1990-2015(COCA),

Brigham

Young

University, U.S.A. (Mark Davies).
The Corpus of Historical American English
1810-2009(COHA),

Brigham

Young

University, U.S.A. (Mark Davies).

172

ズは連続循環移動と島の制約を説明する。本稿では島の制約に焦点を当て議論を進めていきたい。
Chomsky (2000, 2005)は、統語範疇 CP、vP、情報構造に基づくフェイズの特性*

DP がフェイズであると規定している。フェ（The Information Structure and Phasehood

イズに基づく提案の下では、定名詞句が島とProperties）

なる(1)は、DP がフェイズであることにより補部 NP がスペルアウトされてしまう為、wh吉田 江依子（Eiko Yoshida）

句の抜き出しができないとされている。

名古屋工業大学（Nagoya Institute ofTechnology）(1) a.
b.

*Whoi did you see the picture of ti ?
… [DP the [NP picture of who]

キーワード：edge feature, island, Merge, old

Spell-Out

information, phase
しかし、この分析には問題がある。(2)に示したように同じ DP でも wh 句の抜き出しが可
1. はじめに能なものもある。同じフェイズを形成するDP からの抜き出しがなぜ可能であるのか

フェイズ(phase)はミニマリスト・プログラ

Chomsky の定義では説明ができない。

ムにおいて重要な役割を果たす統語領域であり、この領域を前提として現在様々な分析(2) Whoi did you see [DP a picture of ti ]?

が行われている。しかしその一方で、フェイ(Diesing (1992: 103))ズの定義そのものの問題点も数多く指摘されており、「フェイズとは何か」という問いに対する明確な答えは見つけられていない

さらに(3)(4)で示したように、CP、vP についように思われる。このような不確定な定義のても同様の問題が生じる。(3a)は付加詞の島もとで行われる言語研究は妥当性に欠けると呼ばれ wh 句の抜き出しができないが、(3b)

可能性も生じてくるため、フェイズとは何かで示したように同じ付加詞の CP からの抜きについて考察することは必要不可欠な課題出しは可能となっている。また、(4)においてであろうと考える。

も一般的には動詞の補部からの抜き出しは本研究では、人間の認知様式の観点からフ可能であるが、様態を表す動詞 grumble や叙ェイズを定義するという試みを行う。具体的

実動詞 regret などはその補部からの抜き出しには、旧情報の概念と端素性(edge feature)、ができない。

併合(Merge)を結びつけることで、フェイズが導きだす効果の一つである「島の制約」に(3) a. ?Whoi did she travel to Memphis [CPついて説明する。この主張はその帰結として

because she wanted to see ti ]?
b. Whoi did she travel to Memphis [CP in order

フェイズという特定の統語領域を規定する

to see ti ]?

必要はないという結論を導く。

(Goldberg (2006:144-145))(4) a. Whati did you [vP think that they sent ti ] ?
2. フェイズと島の制約b. ??Whati did you [vP grumble that they sentti ]?

ミニマリスト・プログラムにおいてフェイ

173

c. *Whyi did you [vP regret that you had told

するテストの一つとして、しばしば否定のス

the truth ti ]?

コープが使われる。(6a)で示したように、主節に否定辞 not を付けた場合、否定のスコー

このように、CP、vP、DP がフェイズである

プが従属節まで及ばないのに対し、(6b)は否という主張には経験的な問題がある。1定のスコープが従属節内まで及ぶ。これは前また、Chomsky はこれらの統語範疇がフェ者において because 節の内容が前提となってイズであると考える根拠はそれらが命題をおり、旧情報として認知されているのに対し、示すものであるとしている。しかし Narita

後者は旧情報ではないということを示して(2014)はこの点について命題という哲学にいる。

おける概念をミニマリストの自然主義理論(6) a.

に持ち込むことには問題があると指摘してShe didn’t travel to Memphis because
she wanted to see ELVIS. (can be used

おり、従来のフェイズの分析には経験的・理2

to imply that while she did travel to論的問題がある。

Memphis, it was not to see Elvis)
3. 旧情報と島b.

She didn’t travel to Memphis in order to

2 節で挙げた島の制約に対して生成文法理

see Elvis. (can be used to imply that the論では、フェイズ分析以前にも統語的観点か

traveling was done but not in order toら様々な分析が提唱されてきたことはよく

meet Elvis)

知られている。しかし一方で、1970 年代から
すでに統語的要因のみでは島の制約を説明

また、(4)で示した動詞の種類によって島がしきれないとの指摘もなされており、2000 年形成されるというのも情報の差に基づくも

代には(5)で示したように、背景、トピックとのである。(4c)の叙実動詞の補部が旧情報をいった、いわゆる旧情報が島を形成する要因表すことはよく知られているが(4b)の様態

3であるということが主張されている。

を表す動詞も、その話し方についてが文の焦点となることから補部 CP は旧情報としてし(5) a. Backgrounded constructions are islands.

て解釈される。このことは、(7)で示した否定(Goldberg (2006))
b. Topics are islands.
c. Topic-islandsのスコープのテストによって支持される。

(Meinunger (2000))(Erteschic-Shir (2007))(7) a. She doesn’t think that they sent the letter.
(is true if she thinks they didn’t send the

例えば、(1)(2)の定冠詞を伴う名詞句が島をletter (or if she didn’t think anything at形成し不定冠詞は島を形成していないといall)).

う事実は、一般的に定冠詞は既知のものを指b. I didn’t grumble that they sent the letter.

し、不定冠詞は未知のものを指すということ(asserts that I didn’t grumble; there isから、旧情報が島を形成するという(5)を支

typically no implication about whether

持するものとして挙げられる。

they sent the letter.)(Goldberg (2006: 143-144))

また、付加詞の場合も(3a)が島を形成し(3b)が島を形成しないのは、Goldberg (2006)によればそれぞれの付加詞の示す新旧情報

以上のように、旧情報を担う要素が島であるの違いであると述べている。新旧情報を判断という主張は妥当であるように思われる。

174

4. 提案と分析

い、無標の併合操作である外的併合を引き起Boeckx (2012)は、旧情報を担う要素が島をこすと提案する。さらに旧情報以外の言語要形成するという主張は、記述的には正しいも

素は有標の端素性を担い、有標の内的併合ものであるということを認めながらも、引き起こすと提案する。

Goldberg らの情報構造に基づく先行研究の(9) a. 旧情報を担う言語要素 LI の端素性は多くが単に旧情報と島の関連性を述べるに

無標 [EF] ⇒ EM

とどまり、それを説明するための十分な理論

b. 旧情報以外の言語要素 LI の端素性は構築がなされていない点が問題であると指摘している。また 2 節で指摘したように、統有標 [EF*] ⇒ IM / EM

語にのみ依拠した従来のフェイズ分析では
旧情報が島を形成するという言語事実を説標記上、無標の端素性を[EF]、有標の端素性明できない。本稿では、情報の概念を併合をを[EF*]とする。

促す端素性と関連付けることによって新た

ここで、なぜ旧情報が無標の端素性と結びな代案を提示する。

つくのかという疑問が生じるかもしれない。
発想としては旧情報は概念として無標であ4.1. The Edge Feature with [ ± Old

り、新情報は概念として有標である。よってInformation]

無標の概念は無標の操作と結びつき、有標のChomsky (2008)は、語彙要素 LI は端素性

概念は有標の操作と結びつくというもので(the edge feature (EF))を担っており、それが併ある。この点については 4.3 節で改めて根拠合を促すとしている。

を述べることとする。
この提案に基づき(1a)の派生についてみて(8)

For an LI to be able to enter into a computa-

みよう。(10a)で示したように、Numeration でtion, merging with some SO, it must have

語彙項目が選ばれるが、その際定冠詞 the はsome property permitting this operation. A

語彙そのものの特性として旧情報を担うた

property of an LI is called a feature, so an LI

め、無標の端素性[EF]を持つと仮定する。 4

has a feature that permits it to be merged.

従って(10b)で示したように Narrow Syntax でCall this the edge feature (EF) of the LI.

は who の内的併合を引き起こさないのであ(Chomsky (2008:139))る。

但し Chomsky はこれまでの Merge、Move と(10) a. Numeration:

異なり、外的併合(EM)と内的併合(IM)を区別{ … see [V][EF*], the[D][EF], …, who[＋wh], … }しておらず、また EF がどのように両者を区

b. Narrow Syntax:… see [DP the [D][EF] picture of who [＋wh]]]

別して選択しているのかについては明らかではない。
本稿では、Move と Merge のようなコストの違いは何らかの形で残ると仮定し、外的併一方(1b)においては、不定冠詞は語彙その合を基本的な併合操作、無標の操作としてとものの特性として旧情報とならず、よってらえ、内的併合を「基本的操作＋α」の有標

有標の[EF*]を担うため内的併合を促す。さな併合操作であると考える。そして旧情報をらに動詞 see も旧情報には関与しないため担う言語要素の端素性は無標の端素性を担[EF*]となり、いわゆる連続循環移動を起こ175

し容認可能となる。

情報が記載されていると提案し、これを(13iic)の Semantic Selection (S-Selection)に倣(11) a. Numeration:って(13iid)のように Information Selection (I-{ … see [V][EF*], a[D][EF*], …,who[＋wh], … }Selection)とする。

b. Narrow Syntax:
Who did you [vP see [V][EF*] [DP a [D][EF*](13) 語彙項目（e.g. regret）[i] [rigret]picture of ti]?

[ii] a. V
b. [

CP]

c.

Proposition] (S-Selection)

[

d. [

つまり島の効果は、一見したところある特定＋OLD] (I-Selection)[iii] to feel sorry about sth you have doneの領域が移動を阻止しているように見えていたが、本提案が正しいものであるとすると、

or about sth that you have not been

情報に基づく端素性[EF]によって内的併合

able toが行われるか否かによって生じる副次的な
叙実動詞 regret の補部は常に前提、つまり旧現象であるということになる。
付加詞の島についても同様の分析をする。

情報を示す。これは統語や語用の問題ではな

because はそれ自身が語彙特性として旧情報

く、叙実動詞そのものが持つ特性であり、そを担うと仮定する。よって無標の端素性[EF]れはすなわち I-Selection のような情報が語彙を担い内的併合が起こらない。一方、in orderに存在すると考えるのは適切なことのよう

to は新情報を担うと仮定し、有標の端素性に思われる。

[EF*]を担うことによって内的併合を引き起

そして、旧情報を無標の端素性と関連付け
る 本 提 案 の 下 で は 、 (14) で 示 し た よ う にこすと考える。

Numeration において厳密下位範疇化素性に(12) a. … did she leave the movie [CP基づき CP のステイタスをもつ語彙要素、つbecause [C][EF] they were eating who [＋wh]]?

まり範疇素性 C をもつ that を選択するのと同様に、I-Selection に基づく端素性[EF]を選

b. Whoi did she [vP ti [v’ travel [V][EF*] to

択するということになる。 そうすると、

Memphis [CP ti [C in order to[EF*] see ti]]]]?

Narrow Syntax では、(14b)で示したように thatの端素性は内的併合を起こさないため、what

4.2. I-Selectionの移動は阻止され、島の効果を生み出すので(4b)の様態動詞、(4c)の叙実動詞の島につある。

いては動詞の選択素性に起因すると提案す(14) a. Numeration: { … regret [V][EF*], …

る。

that[C][EF], …, what[＋wh], … }伝統的な生成文法理論において語彙項目
は(13)に示したように音韻、統語、意味の 3

b. Narrow Syntax: … [C did you regret [CPthat [C][EF] they sent what [＋wh]]]?

つの情報から成り立っている。さらに統語に関してはその語彙項目が属する範疇素性、厳密下位範疇化素性、選択制限がある。本稿でこの I-Selection の考え方は(15)のような複合はさらに、語彙項目には新旧情報についての176

名詞句の島にも拡張できる。

素として発せられるという観察がなされている。また、２語文、３語文発話の段階では(15) a. *Whati do you believe [DP the rumor

子供は言いたいことについて使える単語を[CP that John stole ti]]?

４語ないしは５語知っていながら、その中か

b.?* Which booki did John hear [DP a rumor

ら新旧情報に基づき２語から３語選んで発[CP that you had read ti]]?

しているとしている。例えば(18a)では、その状況にない ball を発話している。これは子供(15)で示したように、複合名詞句は定冠詞もにとって未知の概念であるので新情報であ

不定冠詞もとることができるが、(16)の否定

る。反対に(18b)では duck はその場にあるこのテストをすると、いずれもそのスコープはとから認識できるもの、旧情報であり、これthat の節内に及ばない。つまり、複合名詞句が省略されている。一方(18c)においては、母の補部 CP は旧情報であることが言える。

親が先に場所を表す in the water を言っており旧情報となり省略されている。5(16)

I didn’t hear a rumor that you had read thebook.

(18) a.

Get the ball. Ball! Ball! (Ball was not
insight.)

このことから、先に見た叙実動詞などと同様、

b. Gimmie ducky. Gimmie. Gimmie. (Jill

複合名詞句を形成する名詞はその語彙特性

is reaching for a rubber duck.)c.

として旧情報の語彙要素を取ることが指定(Adult: do you want to go in the

されていると考えられる。よって(17)で示し

water?) I no no go. I no wa go. I no wa

たように that の端素性は[EF]となり、内的併

go in the water.

(Weisenburger (1976:278-279))

合を引き起こさず、島の効果を生み出す。
(17)[Jill, aged 2:5]

… did John hear [DP a[D][EF*] rumor [CPつまり言語獲得の初期の段階で、子供は旧情

that[C][EF] you had read which book[＋wh]]]報は省略し、新情報は言語化している。言葉を発するというのが経済的にコストのかかるものであるとするならば、何も言葉にしな

4.3. (Un)marked Conception

いというのが最も経済的であり、無標の状態

以上、具体的な提案および分析法を論じてであると仮定するのは妥当ではないかと考きたが、本提案の鍵となるポイントは、旧情える。そして言語化されないものが旧情報で報を無標の概念、新情報を有標の概念であるあるということを鑑みると、旧情報が無標のとしているところであろう。本節ではこの点概念であるというここでの提案は支持されの妥当性について子供の言語習得の観点かるものであると考える。一方、新情報のようら裏付けをする。

に言語化されるものは人間の言語にとってWeisenburger (1976), Baker and Greenfield

何か特別の作業であり、何か特殊な位置づけ(1988)によると、子供は言語獲得の初期の段を持っているものであり、マーキングされる階から新旧情報の区別をつけ、それが言葉のべき有標の言語要素であるということが言組み立ての中で重要な役割を果たしているえるのではないだろうか。

と論じている。具体的には、１語文発話の段
階では旧情報は省略され、新情報のみ言語要

177

4.4. Consequences

理論内言語と比べて前駆体を探る可能性が最後に本提案がもたらす 2 つの理論的帰広がるであろう。6 というのは新情報＝未知結について論じたい。一つ目は情報構造の概のもの、旧情報＝既知のものと考えることに念を Numeration に直接反映させるという提よってその認知の仕方は人間のみに固有の案 に よ っ て 、 包 括 性 条 件 (Inclusiveness

ものでないと言えるのではないだろうか。こCondition) を満たすことになるという点での点についてはその可能性を示唆するにとある。Chomsky (1995: 220)では、統語部門とどめ、今後の課題としたい。

情報構造は相互作用しているが、その関わり方は間接的で PF や LF を介したものである

5. おわりにと考えている。しかしこの考え方は Chomsky

本稿は「ヒトの認知様式（既知・未知）が(1995: 225)自身が提唱している包括性条件に

外的併合・内的併合を誘発する要因として働矛盾しているということが指摘されている

き、それが結果としてフェイズ領域を表すの(cf. Aboh (2010))。というのは、情報の概念はであって、フェイズ領域は認知の副産物であ既に論じた英語の冠詞ばかりでなく日本語る」ということを提案し、島の効果について

における助詞の「は」、中国語の ba (Aboh

事例研究を行った。

(2010:18))など通言語的に言語要素として反しかし、本提案がすべての島の効果を説明

映されている。もし、Chomsky の主張するよ

できると主張するものではないということ

うに、PF や LF を介していると考えると、情も併せて述べておく。島の効果は様々な要因

報概念と密接に関連するこれらの言語要素によって生み出されるものであって本稿のが Narrow Syntax あるいは PF、LF の後に関提案はその一要因に過ぎないと考えている。

与してくるということになり、包括性の観点

例えば(19)の WH 島の制約は、最短距離移動から望ましくない。また、本稿で取り上げたなどの別の第三要因に関わる理由によって

wh 句の移動など新旧情報が Narrow Syntax に島の効果を生み出していると考える。

関わることを考えると、Narrrow Syntax 以前(19) *What did you think [when Jan devoured]?

にそれらが導入されていると考えなければならないであろう。本提案の下では、情報構造の概念に関わるものが後付けではなく語重要なことは、それぞれの要因がミニマリス

彙項目として初めから Numeration に存在しト・プログラムの目指す説明的妥当性以上の派生を引き起こすと考えるので、包括性の観理論によって説明されることであり、本稿の点からも妥当であると言える。

提案がその一つであることを期待する。

2 つ目は、情報構造を直接併合に反映させることによって固有のフェイズ領域は存*本稿の発表においては、フロアの皆様から在しないという結論に至った点である。これ大変貴重なご指摘、ご意見をいただいた。こは、近年ミニマリスト・プログラムが目指しの場を借りて深く感謝申し上げたい。本研究ている進化的妥当性を満たす可能性を包含

は、科学研究費（基盤研究(C)15K02596）のする(Fitch, Hauser and Chomsky (2002))。つま助成を受けたものである。

り、存在しないものは進化のプロセスを説明

注する必要はないため最も望ましい結論であ1る。さらに、その代案となる提案は情報の概あると主張する研究も数多くある (cf.

念を取り入れており、少なくとも従来の言語

Legate (2003), Abels (2003), Richards (2007),

178

CP、vP、DP 以外の統語範疇がフェイズで

Cecchetto, Carlo and Caterina Donati (2015)

Bošković (2007), Müller (2011)) 。
Boeckx (2009), Gallego (2010), Narita (2014),(Re)labeling, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Cecchetto and Donati (2015)では、特定の領域

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

をフェイズとして規定するのではなく、各The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

素性やφ素性が充足された統語要素が順次

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

転送されるといった、派生の中で結果としLasnik, ed. by R.E.A. Martin, 89-155, MITてフェイズの効果が表れるという分析をしPress, Cambridge, MA.

2ている。フェイズがないという点で本論のChomsky, Noam (2005) “Three Factors in

方向性と一致しているが、これらも統語的

Language Design,” Linguistic Inquiry 36, 1-

な観点から分析をしている点において 3 節

22.

で述べる情報に基づく島の制約について説

Chomsky,Noam(2008)“On

Phases,”

明ができず、経験的問題が残る。

Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:3

旧情報を表す語については、前提、背景、Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud ed.

話題など、研究者によって様々な用語が使by Robert Freiden, Carlos Oterom andわれている。本稿では統一的に旧情報といMaria Zubizaretta, 133-166, MIT Press,

う用語を使う。

Canbridge, MA.

4

Diesing, Molly (1992) Indefinites, MIT Press,

語彙項目は様々な素性を持つが、説明のCambridge, MA.

簡潔性のため本稿では関連する素性のみ表

Erteschik-Shir,

記する。
5

Nomi

(2007)

Information

Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface,(18a,b)は指示的な新旧情報であり、(18c)

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

は文脈上の旧情報である。
6
ALL components of FLB are shared either with

Gallego, Ángel J. (2010) Phase Theory, Johnother species, or other non-linguistic cognitive

Benjamins, Amsterdam.

domains in humans, only their combination andGoldberg, Adele E. (2006) Constructions atorganization are unique to humans and language.

Work: The Nature of Generalization in(Fitch, Hauser and Chomsky (2002:182))

Language, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Haucer, Marc D., Noam Chomsky, and W.
Tecmuseh Fitch (2002) “The Faculty of

参考文献（抜粋）
Aboh, Enoch O. (2010) “Information Structuring

Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How
Did It Evolve?” Science 298: 1569-1579.

Begins with the Numeration,” Iberia 2, 1242.

Meinunger, André (2000) Syntactic Aspects ofBaker, Nancy D. and Patricia M. Greenfield

Topic and Comment, John Benjamins,(1988) “The Development of New and Old

Amsterdam.

Information in Young Children’s Early

Narita, Hiroki (2014) Endocentric Structuring of

Language,” Language Sciences 10, 3-34.

Projection-Free Syntax, John Benjamins,

Boecks, Cedric (2009) “On the Locus of

Amsterdam.

Asymmetry in UG,” Catalan Journal of

Weisenburger, Janet L. (1976) “A Choice ofLinguistics 8, 41-53.
Boeckx,Cedric(2012)

Words: Two-Year-Old Speech from a
Syntactic

Islands,

Situational Point of View,” Journal of Child

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Language 3, 275-281.

179

JB-X DM-Y*JB-X DM-Y

On the Compositionality of the JB-X DM-YJB-X DM-Y

Construction

becausebecauseYusuke Yoshikawa
Kindai University
since

Hiroshi Takahashi
although

Showa University
JB-X DM-Y,,

becausebecause,,2.

Hirose (1991)

Hirose (1991)

1.
(1a)

HiroseJust because(2a)it doesn’t
mean…

(2b)

(1b)

Just becausethat

JB-X DM-Y(2c)because

mean

2

X
Y

(2) a. (Just) because John is rich doesn’t meanYthat he is happy.

(1b)
Bender and Kathol (2001)

b. That John is rich doesn’t mean that he is

JB-X DM-Y

happy.

JB-X DM-Y

c. Just because John is rich, it doesn’t meanthat he is happy(cf. Hirose 1991,(Hirose 1991: 26)

1999,

Bender & Kathol 2001, Matsuyama 2001,
2

Kanetani 2011)

Hirose (1991)

just because
that(1) a. Just because we live in Berkeley, it
doesn’t mean we’re left wing radicals.

(3b)b. Just because we live in Berkeley doesn’tmean we’re left wing radicals.
(3a)(Bender & Kathol 2001: 13)

180

that

just because

Beginnings Novel S. W. Fisher 2015)
just because
3.

JB-X DM-Y

mean

3.1.

(4)

JB-X DM-Y

that

mean
resultlikely result2
meaninferential(3) a. It doesn’t mean he’s happy just because

causal2(7)

John is rich.
b. *It doesn’t mean he’s happy that John isrich. (Hywel Evans. p.c. March 31, 2017)(6) mean(4) *That the data satisfy expectations it does

a. to have something as a result or a likely

not mean they are correct.

result(Hilpert 2007: 30)(OALD)

b. to be a sign that something is true or will
JB-X DM-Y

happenjust because(7) a. [φ CAUSEcausal ψ]

(1a)
it

(LDOCE)b. [φ CAUSEinferential ψ]just because(cf. Sweetser 1990,
JB-X DM-Y

just
Mean

because(5)

2016: 67)

causal(8a)inferential

(8b)

(5a)

mean

doesn’t mean

(7b)
φ

that

inferentialψφψ
JB-X DM-Y(5b)doesn’t mean
1

because(8) a. That you paid the fee means you are amember.

(2016: 67)(5) a. And just because the fish lives in the waterb. Increased life expectancy will mean thatwith it, does not mean that it is going tofor every 100 workers aged 15–64 there

eat it. (BNC; C96 694)

will be28

young

dependants in 2036.

b. Your grandmother is a frightened old lady
who’s had a hard life. Doesn’t mean you

3.2. Because

should be scared of new things.

because(COCA; Anna’s Crossing: An Amish

181

and

35

elderly(BNC; CR8 903)

Whately (1853)

Jespersen (1949)
becauseinferential

justcausalmerelyprecisely2just(9) a. The ground is wet becausecausal it has(11) a. ?Just because you paid your fees meansrained.

you are a member.

b. The ground is wet, becauseinferential it has

b. Just because you paid your fees doesn’trained.

mean you are a member.

c. #It has rained becausecausal the ground is(2016: 67)wet.
d. It has rained, becauseinferential the ground is(12)

becausewet. (cf. Whately 1853, Jespersen 1949)

mere
JB-X DM-Y(9a,b)

becausecausalinferential

merelyjust(9c,d)

inferential(13)

doesn’t meannecessarily

automaticallyX
Y
3.3. Just
Takahashi et al. (2017)
just

just

2

X

just2
precisely
merely(12) The mere fact that he was out after curfew

JB-X DM-Y

doesn’t mean he brought on his own
just2

death[.]
just(COCA; ‘Method to fight gangs blasted’

i-because

Orange County Register. 2015)(13) a. Just because I knew Mills was suspectedof betraying someone does not necessarilymean that I had anything to do with his
unfortunate death.

(10) just1

precisely (single and sufficient)

just2

merely (single and insufficient)(BNC; G15 1943)

b. Nevertheless, just because a lot of
objections

arereceived

does

not

automatically mean an application will berefused.

just because(11a)3.4. JB-X DM-Y
(11a)

182

   (BNC; A3K 50)

just
JB-X DM-Y(17b)
because

(14)

mean

CAUSEinferenctial(15)(17) a. (Just) becauseinferential your boss is(14) It's far easier for me to work for another

Turkish (= φ), it doesn’t mean he treats

Turk because I can talk about pay rates andyou any better (= ψ).

things like that more openly. But justb. ¬[your boss is Turkish CAUSEinferential hebecause your boss is Turkish doesn't mean
he treats you any better.

treats you better](BNC; CAK 679)

(15)

3.5.
Your

boss

treatsyou

better(=ψ),

becauseinferential he is Turkish (= φ).

(18)
i-becauseφ

JB-X DM-Y(topic)(i-)because

i-because(19)

Chafe (1984)

guidepost(i-)because(18) a. *Becauseinferential the ground is wet, it has(φrained.

CAUSEinferential ψ)b. Becausecausal it has rained, the ground iswet.
2(cf. Hirose 1991, Kanetani 2011: 84)(19) i-because(16) [TOPIC becauseinferential your boss is Turkish (=(Hirose 1991: 27)φ)], ψ
(∃[φ CAUSEinferential ψ])
i-because
φ

it
(17a)

2

i-because

it

(19)

JB-X DM-Y
φ

(19)
(20)

ψ

mean
just

(20) (19)i-becauseguidepost

guidepostφ183because

mean

CAUSEinferential(23)(21) a. It has rained becauseinference the ground is
mean

wet.

CAUSEcausalc-becauseb. ??Becauseinference the ground is wet means
it has rained.
c. Just becauseinference the ground is wet
doesn’t mean it has rained.

(22) a. John missed the class becausecausal he was
sick.

(21b)

(21b,c)b. #Just becausecausal John was sick doesn’t

i-becausemean he missed the class. (= It implies he(20)

didn’t miss the class.)(23) ?Just becausecausal you paid the fee means()

you are a member.
(21b)
(21b)

i-becauseguidepost

(24)

(19)
(21b)

c-because

becausebecausejust
3.4

JB-X DM-Y

(9c)

mean
but that’s not true
JB-X DM-Y(21c)

i-because

(20)

(24)

(19)

Hirose (1991)

i-because

mean

(24)

becausec-because

JB-X DM-Y(24) YouJB-X DM-Y

c-becausemight

something

think
is

that

natural

just

means

becauseit’s

notscientific, but that’s not true.
(22a)

(22b)

(COCA; The robots in your kitchen A.

(22a)

Broyles 2015)(22b)

4. Thatthat
just becausemeanc-because

CAUSEinferential
CAUSEcausal
(25)

184

(25) a. That John is rich {doesn’t mean / means}(27) *Although John is rich doesn’t mean he isthat he is happy.

happy.

b. Since John is liked by all the students, it{means / *doesn’t mean} that he is a2

good teacher.

itc. Although John is rich, it {*means /(27)

doesn’t mean} that he is happy.
(25a)

JB-X DM-YJB-X DM-Y

that

that

althoughalthough(21b)

JB-X DM-Y
althoughsince

Hirose (1991)
since

(26a)

(27)
(26b)

JB-X DM-Y

because5.
JB-X DM-Y
i-because(26) a. Since the ground is wet, it must haverained.
b. *{Just since / Since} the ground is wet
doesn’t mean it has rained.
(cf. Hirose 1991: 28-29)
JB-X DM-Y
sincebecauseguidepost
3

JB-X
DM-Y
*
although)(25c)
Hilpert (2007: 31)

JB-X DM-Y
although

35

JB-X DM-Y

185(

16-33.
(1999),
1

Levin (1991)

mean(conjecture verbs)

p. 591-610,

Bender & Kathol (2001)
DM-Y

JB-X

mean

evidenceinferencegrammar on historical principles. Part V,

justification
causalGeorge. Allen & Unwin, London.

mean

inferential

Masaru(2011)“Analogy

inConstruction Grammar: The Case of Just

mean
2

.

Jespersen, Otto (1949) A modern English

Kanetani,mean,

Because of X Doesn't Mean Y,” Tsukuba
Larson & Sawada (2012)

c-because

English Studies 29, 77-94.

i-because

Lason, Richard K. and Miyuki Sawada (2012)

CAUSEcausal CAUSEinferential“Root transformations & quantificational
structure,” Main Clause Phenomena: New(i)(C)ause and because are plausibly justHorizons, ed. by Liliane Haegeman, Rachel

inverses of each other, so that φ BECAUSE

Nye and Lobke Aelbrecht, 47-77, Johnψ iff ψ CAUSE φ.

Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Levin, Beth (1993) English Verb Classes and(Larson & Sawada 2012: 64)
3

Hirose (1991)(1999)

Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation,

Bender &University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Kathol (2001)
mean

Matsuyama, Tetsuya (2001) “Subject-BecausebeConstruction and the Extended Projection

makePrinciple,” English Linguistics 18, 329-355.
Sweetser, Eve E (1990) From Etymology toPragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural
Aspects of Semantic Structure, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.

Bender, Emily M. and Andreas Kathol (2001)“Constructional

Effects

of

,

Just

doesn’t mean

Because…Doesn’t Mean…,” BLS 27, 13-25.

inferential denial

Conference of the Japanese Society for

Adverbial Clauses,” BLS 10, 437-449.

Language Sciences Conference Handbook,

Hilpert, Martin (2007) “Just because it’s new

66-69.

doesn’t mean people will notice it,” English

Takahashi, Hiroshi, Hywel Evans and Masaki

Today 23, 29-33.

Ohno (2017) “An Integrative Analysis of theHirose, Yukio (1991) “On a certain nominal use
because-clauses:

because-clauses

Just because …

The 18th Annual International

Chafe, Wallace (1984) “How People Useof(2016)

can

Just

just

becausesubstitutebecause-X-not-Y

ConstructioninEnglish,” JELS, 186-192.

forWhately, Richard (1853) Elements of Logic,

that-clauses does not mean that this isHarper & Brothers, New York.

always possible,” English Linguistics 8,186

<Workshop Report>のが、時制主辞のφ素性（φ-features）である。
名詞がもつφ素性と異なり、時制主辞がもつ
φ素性は意味解釈に寄与せず、概念意図系との interface においては解釈不可能である。

なぜ言語には非付値素性が存在するのか

近 年 の 極 小 主 義 の 強 い テ ー ゼ （ Strong（Why Do Unvalued Features Exist at All?）

Minimalist Thesis: SMT）は、言語理論及び言語機能そのものについて、主に次の 2 点に集藤田 元（Gen Fujita）

約できるような、さらに強い制限を課してい上智大学大学院（Sophia University）

る。１つは言語機能は interface に対する最適

内堀 朝子（Asako Uchibori）

解（optimal solution）であるとする考え、も日本大学（Nihon University）

う１つは interface に関する非対称性、すなわ

北原 久嗣（Hisatsugu Kitahara）

ち言語機能が一次的に出力するのは概念意

慶應義塾大学（Keio University）

図系であり、感覚運動系への出力は二次的であるとの考え方である。換言すれば、SMT

キーワード：非付値素性, ラベル, 位相,に従うと、言語機能は概念意図系に対して出意味の二重性力 を 行 う 最 適 な 生 成 装 置 （ Generative
Procedure）と考えられる。SMT の下では、言語現象の説明とは interface 条件や物理法

1. はじめに則などの一般法則による説明であり、それら本レポートは第 35 回日本英語学会で行わに還元できない理論的概念による説明（や言れたワークショップ「なぜ言語には非付値素

語の特質）は言語の不完全性（imperfection）

性が存在するのか（Why do unvalued featuresとみなされる。上述のような時制主辞の持つ

exist at all?）」の報告書である。本レポートでφ素性などの解釈不可能素性は、意味解釈をはまず、議論の背景を導入した後、ワークシ

生み出さないため、interface 条件に説明を帰ョップでの提案について報告する。なおワー

着させることができず、また一般法則にも還クショップは３名の発表者（北原・内堀・藤元することができない。これらのことから、田）がそれぞれ発表したが、発表における提解釈不可能素性は言語の不完全性とみなす

案は３名共同によるものである。

ことができるかもしれない。しかしながら、
Chomsky (2000) はこれとは異なる考えを示した。すなわち、言語機能の生成物が本質的

２. ワークショップの背景
Chomsky(1986) において完全解釈の原理に項構造解釈、談話的解釈という意味の二重（full interpretation）が提案されて以来、言語性をもち、移動操作は後者の解釈を生み出す機能が生成する統語的対象物は隣接する２ために必要不可欠な操作であると指摘し、そつの interface（概念意図系・感覚運動系）にの上で、解釈不可能素性は移動操作を引き起完全に解釈されるものでなければならない

こすための最小の装置であって、言語の不完とされた。具体的には、派生された統語的対

全性ではないと論じた。

象物に解釈不可能な素性が含まれたまま

他方、Chomsky (2004) では、移動は併合

interface に到達すると、そこでその派生は崩（Merge）と統合され、特段の引き金（trigger）

壊（crash）すると考えられた(Chomsky 1995)。

がなくても適用可能なものであると議論し、そのような解釈不可能素性の典型とされた

この考えは現在に至るまで引き継がれてい187る。移動操作になんらの理由も必要がないとない素性であり、もう一方から素性の値を受すれば、Chomsky (2000) の解釈不可能素性

け取っている必要がある。偶然に同一の素性に関する議論はもはや成立しなくなる。なぜをもつ（accidental matching）だけでは、ラベならば、解釈不可能素性がなくても、移動操ル付けはできない。このため、ラベル付けに作 が 可 能 だ か ら で あ る 。 Chomsky (2007,

おける解釈不可能素性のもつ役割は非常に2015) では解釈不可能素性の存在理由を派

大きなものであることがわかる。つま り

生の循環性に求めている。Chomsky (2001)

XP-YP 問題を解決するには、解釈不可能素が主張するように、解釈不可能素性を、値を性が存在していなければならない。{XP, YP}

欠 い て い る 素 性 （ 非 付 値 素 性 ： unvalued

構造は言語表現に遍在する構造であり、特にfeatures）と仮定すると、位相（phase）ごと移動操作が適用された後の構造は典型的にに演算が適用されないと、解釈不可能素性とは {XP, YP} 構 造で ある 。 実際 に英 語で解釈可能素性が区別できなくなる。そのため<φ,φ>、<Q,Q> のラベルが付与される構造は、非付値素性への値付与と同時に、その領域は要素が移動してつくられた構造である。前節

転送（transfer）され、位相が定義される。換で述べたように、移動は談話的解釈を生み出言すれば、非付値素性を認めると、それによすために必要不可欠であった。談話的解釈はり位相が定義され、生成文法が伝統的に捉え

項構造とともに意味の二重性を構成する。こてきた派生の循環性（cyclicity）を捉えるこのように考えると、解釈不可能素性は、位相とができる。Chomsky (2007, 2015) は解釈不の定義ばかりでなく、ラベル付けを通じて可能素性の存在理由を位相の定義のためと

XP-YP 問題を解消し、意味の二重性の保証

主張している。

に非常に重要な役割を担っていると考えられる。

3. 提案・分析
4. おわりに

ワークショップにおける提案は、上述のChomsky (2007, 2015) の主張と矛盾するもここまで、ワークショップの理論的背景とのではないことを最初に指摘しておく。提案

発表者の提案を簡単にまとめた。残念ながら、の中核は、解釈不可能素性の存在理由は位相ページの都合上、ワークショップで行われたの定義だけではなく、ラベル付けを通して、多くの議論（格素性の諸問題・解釈不可能の意味の二重性を保証するということである。

進化の問題など）を載せることはできなかっ

本論は Chomsky (2013, 2015) で提案された

たが、ワークショップではフロアの参加者とラベル付けアルゴリズムが正しいものと仮活発な議論を行った。このワークショップで定し、{XP, YP} 構造は同一（identical）な素は解釈不可能素性（非付値素性）がなぜ言語性をもたない限り、ラベル付けをすることがに存在するのかについて、ラベル付けに基づできないという問題意識（いわゆる XP-YP

く分析からその存在理由を提示した。

問題）を共有する。ラベル付けは、統語生成
主要参考文献物が概念意図系で解釈されるための前提条
件（prerequisite）であるため、英語の場合、
従来の TP、CP の節点はそれぞれ <φ,φ>、Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,”<Q,Q> のように同一の素性を持つことによ

Lingua 130, 33–49.

って、ラベル付けがなされる。このとき、素性の同一性を担保するには、片方が値を持た

188

<Workshop Report>

結果をデータ化してきた。その中で、Bloom’s
Taxonomy で提唱される論理的思考態度の４
項目（分析・評価・推論・表現）のうち、分析力、評価力、表現力と、英語力は相関性が英語力の伸張と論理的思考力の伸張についてあることがわかっている。しかし同テストを*大学生に行い、その結果を高校生のものと比（On the Growths of English Ability

較すると、論理的思考力を問う問題の中には、

and Logical Thinking）

大学生の正答率は非常に高いのに、高校生は低く、英語力との相関性以上に、何かの伸び

花﨑 美紀（Miki Hanazaki）

具合が係わることを示唆する回答パターン

法政大学（Hosei University）

もいくつかあった。そこで、本 WS は４部構

吉川 厚（Atsushi Yoshikawa）

成とし、まず第 1 部では(財)日本生涯学習総東京工業大学（Tokyo Institute of Technology）

合研究所と共同して、全国的に中・高校生を

多々良 直弘（Naohiro Tatara）

対象に行っている英語テストおよび論理的桜美林大学（J.F.Oberlin University）

思考力のテストについて説明し、第 2 部では、八木橋 宏勇（Hirotoshi Yagihashi）

日英語の論理構造と談話構造の違いを提示

杏林大学（Kyorin University）

し、その後日本人の英語学習者に対して行っ

藤原 隆史（Takafumi Fujiwara）

た両言語の差異に関する理解度調査の結果

松商学園高等学校（Matsusho Gakuen Highを提示し、英語教育における論理的思考力のSchool）

教育において何を導入すべきなのかを示し

菊池 聡（Satoru Kikuchi）

た。第 3 部では、蓄積しているデータを、デ信州大学（Shinshu University）

ータの生徒一人一人の伸び具合、経年変化を

花﨑 一夫（Kazuo Hanazaki）

分析し、第 4 部では、英語力の伸長と論理的

信州大学（Shinshu University）

思考力の伸張の関係について考察を行った。

大塚 崇史（Takashi Otsuka）
松本秀峰中等教育学校（Matsumoto Shuho

2．第 1 部 英語力および論理的思考力の評価

Secondary School）

テスト作成の試み（吉川厚）
本発表は，英語において論理的思考力を測キーワード：論理的思考力、英語教育

るテストとはどのようなものかを，学習指導
要領や先行研究から分析し，設定した。それ

1. はじめにに基づいてテスト問題を作成し，具体的な例

高等学校学習指導要領（外国語編）には、を示しながらどのような問題が良いかを検2014 年より論理的思考力を伸ばすことが組討した。そして，中高生に問題を解かせてみみ込まれているが、次に策定される指導要領

た結果，比較的よく解ける問題から，日本語には、より一層、論理的思考力の伸張が謳わの場合とほぼ同等に正解に至らない問題や，れる予定である。本 WS の発表者らは、一般

英語の技能が十分な学校であっても 1/3 程度

財団法人日本生涯学習総合研究所と共に、しかできない問題などがみつかり，設計した2013 年度から全国の中・高校生を対象に、論理的なテストで十分能力を測定できるこ

英語の語彙や文法力を測定する英語力テスとがわかった。

トと、論理的思考力テストを行い、それらの189

3．第２部 日英語の談話構造の違いと、そのテストを受験した中３~高３の 342 名に、認知識を生かした英語教育の提言

知的経験的自己理論 CEST(Pacini & Epstein

3.1. 日英語の論理的表現方法と学習者の理1999) に も と づ く ｢ 情 報 ス タ イ ル 尺 度 ｣ ( 内解度

藤・鈴木・坂元 2004)および、連言錯誤や確（多々良直弘、八木橋宏勇）

本発表は、日本人英語学習者の「英語力」

率推論に関する認知的熟考課題を実施した。

と「論理的思考力」には、相関関係があるの

英語テスト得点と学年を統制変数とした重かどうか調査した結果を提示しながら、英文

回帰分析の結果、合理性情報処理スタイルにの「適切な解釈」には「英語力」と「論理的おいて、論理テスト成績と有意な関係が認め思考力」の双方が必要であることを示した。

られた。(β=.105** R2=.609**)これにより論

また、言語によって好まれる談話展開（英理的思考力テストの妥当性が一部検証され語：出来事の全貌を鳥瞰的に見て、原因と結た。また、論理的思考力テストを受験した中果の「論理」を再構成する Because 型、日本

高生 256 名のデータを経年比較し、論理的思

語：事態を時間順序で書き、最後に結論や主考力伸張の規定因を検討した。その結果、テ張を提示する Therefore 型）に起因する英文

ストは必ずしも学年進行ではないが、論理的の理解度の低さも指摘し、論理的思考に言語

思考力成績は、先行年度英語テストにより、が一部影響を与えている可能性を指摘した。

有意に予測される傾向が見られた。つまり、
前述結果とあわせて英語力および情報処理

3.2. 英語教育と論理的思考能力 （藤原隆史） スタイルが、論理的思考力規定因の一つであ
本発表では、英語の使役動詞についての根る可能性は高いということを提案した。

拠説明型教授法と暗記型教授法の教育効果と論理的思考態度の関係を適正処遇交互作

5．第４部 英語力の伸張および論理的思考力

用の観点から考察した。論理的思考態度の高の伸張の可能性と、これからの展望（吉川厚）

い学習者には根拠説明型教授法が、そうでな

本発表では，第１部から第３部までの総括

い学習者には暗記型教授法が適しているとを行い，また，インタビューの結果から論理いう予測の元、統計的分析を行った。結果と的英語の成績がよく英語の言語テストの結して、根拠説明型教授法は論理的思考態度の果がそうでもなかった学校が，その後成績が高低に関わらず有効であるが、論理的思考態

伸びていることも踏まえて今後縦断的研究

度が高くない者に対しては暗記型教授法のの必要性を述べた。

方が効果的であり、論理的思考態度が高いと自認する者に対しては、暗記型教授法がそれ

参考文献
Pacini, R. and S. Epstein (1999) “The relation of

程適していない可能性が示された。

rational

andexperiential

information

4．第３部 英語力と論理的思考力伸張の規定

processing styles to personality, basic

因の考察 (菊池聡、花﨑美紀、花﨑一夫、大beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon,”塚崇史）

Journalof

Personality

andSocial

Psychology 76, 972-987.

本発表は、論理的思考力テストが、実際の論理的思考力を測定しているか確認するた

内藤まゆみ・鈴木桂苗・坂元章 (2004)「情め、外的基準による基準関連妥当性の検証を

報処理スタイル（合理性‐直観性）尺度

行い、さらに論理的思考力伸張の規定因につの作成」,『パーソナリティ研究』 第 13

いて経年分析と提案を行った。論理的思考力

号, 67-78.

190

<Workshop Report>(Goldberg, 1995 ほか) の２つの枠組みにおける事例の比較を通し、ある表現に結びつく意
味が、文全体の理解においてどのようなステータスを持つかについて検討することを目ことばと意味の可能性：手続き的情報と構文的とした。

（On Prospects of Language and Meaning:
Procedural Information and Construction）

1. (発表 1)ことばがコード化する手続き的情報：語から構文まで（盛田）盛田 有貴（Yuki Morita）

本発表では、手続き的情報が関連性理論の奈良女子大学非常勤

これまでの研究において、どのように理論的（Nara Women’s University）に位置付けられてきたかを概観するととも

楊 雯淇（Wenqi Yang）に、語のみならず構文が手続き的情報をコー

北海道大学大学院

ド化している可能性を指摘した。

（Hokkaido University Graduate School）

まず、Blakemore (1987) による概念的情報

板垣 浩正（Hiromasa Itagaki）と手続き的情報の二分の提案以降の先行研

大阪大学大学院

究の外観から、依然として語が手続き的情報（Osaka University Graduate School）

をコード化しているとの見方が広く受け入時政 須美子（Sumiko Tokimasa）

れられていることを指摘した。また、一方で奈良女子大学大学院

Wharton (2003, 2009) に よ る 、 活 性 化（Nara Women’s University Graduate School）(activation) の考え方や、Carston (2016) による、概念的意味を探索するためのポインター

キーワード：関連性理論, 手続き的情報, 活としての役割の指摘など、手続き的情報の考性化, 構文, コード化

え方が近年拡張していることを指摘した。
2. (発表 2)談話標識「なんか」の手続き的意

0. はじめに

味と韻律（楊）本ワークショップでは、関連性理論 (Sperber

本発表では、韻律には自然的な側面と言語

and Wilson, 1986/1995) の枠組みにおける、手的な側面があり、自然的な韻律はさらに続き的にコード化されている情報に焦点をnatural sign と natural signal に分けられると主当てた。手続き的にコード化されている情報

張 す る Wharton&Wilson (2006) 、 Whartonとは、聞き手の推論の方向を導く情報であり、 (2012)の枠組みを用いて、日本語の談話標識
これまで関連性理論の枠組みに基づく研究「なんか」の韻律が natural signal としての手では、手続き的情報は語がコード化している

続き的意味をコード化しているという分析

情報として想定されてきた。しかしながら、を提案した。この分析では、基本形で発話さ語だけでなく形式と意味のペアである構文

れる談話標識の「なんか」が聞き手の認識的が手続き的情報をコード化していると見な

警戒モジュール (epistemic vigilance module)

すべき事例が存在する。そこで本ワークショを活性化する手続き的意味を持つのに加えップでは、コード化された意味と推論によるて、強形（なーんか、なんかあ、なーん’か）

意味を区別する関連性理論と、両者を構文の及び弱形（なんか、なか）に伴う韻律は natural

意味として包括的に見なす構文文法

signal であり、メタレベルで認識的警戒の活191

性化の度合いを管理・調節する手続き的意味

手続き的情報の規定を修正したものを提案を持つことを主張した。

した。さらに、XX 構文の X そのものが「文」である例の存在を指摘し、XX 構文が語彙レ

3. (発表 3)日本語のスラングから考察した

ベルの分析だけでは不十分であることを主

手続き的情報を含む構文について（板垣）張した。

本研究は、日本語のスラングとして見られる(1)の表現を、構文と関連性理論の二つの

5.

まとめ

視点から考察した。この例はいずれも前件に発表 1、2 から、関連性理論における手続

関する発話者の死亡や失敗を暗示させるたき的意味の理論的位置付けについて概観をめに用いられる。

行い、推論への制約に取って代わる Wharton
による活性化の考え方が、韻律の手続き的情(1) a. 俺、この戦争が終わったら、彼女と結報の分析にも適用可能であることを示した。

婚するんだ…。

さらに、発表 3、4 から構文が手続き的情報

b. 俺、このプロジェクトが終わったらを持つと見なすことが可能な事例について休みをもらうんだ。

検討を行った。発表 3 では、手続き的情報の考え方を援用し、構文が手続き的情報を持つ

本研究は、(1)に付随する暗示は一般的なと見なすことで、特定のフレームの喚起を構

文脈想定だけでは捉えられず、「特定のシナ文の意味として認定することが可能である

リオ的フレームを喚起せよ」という手続き的ことを指摘した。また、発表 4 からも構文の情報を持つ構文として分析すべきであるこ意味のステータスを、発話解釈の方向を狭めとを主張した。さらに、構文の定着

る手続き的情報として見なす提案がされた。

（Entrenchment (cf. Croft and Cruse 2004)）を

本ワークショップの 4 発表から、これまで踏まえることで、「の(だ)」文や条件表現の

主に語がコード化していると考えられてき容認性の差も説明できることを示した。

た手続き情報について、韻律や、より表現と意味の結束性が強い構文にまで手続き的情4. (発表 4)英語の重複型表現：XX 構文の手続

報の考え方が援用可能であることを明らか

き的情報（時政）にした。

英語の話し言葉における重複型表現(例：‘I don’t just love music (X); I love music

主要参考文献
Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse (2004)

music. (XX)’ (Huang 2015:83)) に つ い て 、Goldberg (1995) に基づき、一定の形式と意

Cognitive

Linguistics,

味がセットになった XX 構文と呼び、その解University Press, Cambridge.

Cambridge

釈プロセスの視点から XX 構文の手続き的Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson (1986/1995)

情報に焦点をあてて考察した。これまで発表

Relevance: Communication and Cognition,

者 は 、 XX 構 文 の 解 釈 に は 、 単 体 X のBlackwell, Oxford.

narrowing と、「X を含む先行発話の解釈」のWharton, Tim (2012) “Pragmatics and prosody,”

狭めによるものが存在することを指摘してThe Cambridge handbook of pragmatics,

きたが、本発表では、この手続き的情報につed. by Keith Allen and Kasia M. Jaszczolt,

いて、X もしくは X を含む発話の解釈の567-585,

narrowing の方向性についてさらに考察し、Cambridge.

192

Cambridge

University Press,2. （発表 1）空項現象から見る言語の普遍性<Workshop Report>と多様性（後藤）

本発表では、動詞の一致素性（ϕ-particle）
や名詞の格素性（Case-particle）は、分解さ極小主義統語論における外在化れた状態でレキシコンに蓄えられ、それらの（Externalization in Minimalist Syntax）

直接併合によって空項を導くためのラベリ
ング（Chomsky 2015）が可能になると提案し後藤 亘（Nobu Goto）

た。本分析の帰結として、空項現象そのもの

東洋大学（Toyo University）

は幻想であり、それを導くためにしばしば想坂本 祐太（Yuta Sakamoto）

定される削除操作（Deletion）も必要ないと中京大学（Chukyo University）

いう可能性を示唆した。

瀧田 健介（Kensuke Takita）
明海大学（Meikai University）

3. （発表 2）英語の名詞句省略と位相理論（坂中村 太一（Taichi Nakamura）

本）

福井大学（Fukui University）

本発表では、英語の名詞句省略を抜き出しの可能性の観点から経験的に考察し、その理

キーワード：生成文法理論, 極小主義統語論,

論的帰結を探った。Baltin (2007)は、名詞句

外在化

省略の位置が他の省略現象（例えば間接疑問
縮約や動詞句省略）の位置とは異なり顕在的な抜き出し（例えば wh 移動）を許さない事

1. はじめに実を指摘し、名詞句省略を省略（または表層

Chomsky (1993, 1995)における原理とパラ

照応）ではなく空の代用形（または深層照応）

メータのアプローチから極小主義への変遷として分析する可能性を論じている。しかし、に伴い、生成文法理論の枠組みにおいて統語

本発表では名詞句省略位置から非顕在的な部門における理論的道具立ては最小限のも移動（例えば量化詞繰り上げ）は許される事のに限るという研究指針が打ち立てられた。

実を指摘し、Baltin とは異なり、当該の現象それに従い、統語部門と音韻部門のインターは省略として分析されるべきだと結論づけ

フェイスの研究及び統語部門と意味部門のた。また、日本語や中国語の項省略が英語のインターフェイスの研究が普遍文法を解明

名詞句省略と同じく抜き出しの可能性に関するために重要な役割を担うと考えられ、こして顕在的移動と非顕在的移動の対比を示

れまで精力的に研究が行われてきた。

すことに着目し、両者が Bošković (2014)が提本ワークショップは特に統語部門と音韻案した省略の位相理論の下で、LF コピー分

部門のインターフェイスに焦点を当て、言語析により均一に扱われるべきだと主張した。

の外在化のメカニズムを理解することを通して普遍文法の解明に寄与することを目的

4. （発表 3）ラベル付けに基づく転送領域のとした。具体的には、生成文法理論の極小主可変性に関する分析とその帰結（瀧田）義統語論の枠組みにおいて、言語現象に基づ

本発表では、統語的構築物のラベル付け

いた外在化への理論的考察と、理論に基づい(Chomsky 2013, 2015)が線状化のために必要た外在化に纏わる言語現象の経験的考察のであるという仮説に基づき、ラベルの有無に双方を行った。

よって転送領域の大きさが変わりうるとい193

う分析を提案した。これにより、Sato (2012)

発表後の質疑応答や意見交換から、省略現の助詞残留型削除の分析をより自然な形で象のような音韻部門で具現化されない照応

捉えなおすことができると論じた。また、そ現象を考察することは、外在化のメカニズムの帰結として日本語において長距離かき混を解明するために重要であることが発表者

ぜが可能であることが再び興味深い問題に間で共有された。また、外在化に関してラベなることを指摘し、その解決策を検討した。

ル付けや位相などの理論的道具立てと当該の照応現象を結びつけて考察する意義が確

5. （発表 4）削除に課せられる平行性条件と認され、Gallego (2010)や Saito (2016)など両A/A’移動（中村）

者に橋渡しをする研究が外在化（及び普遍文

本発表では、動詞句削除に見られる態や項構

法）の解明に重要な役割を担うことが改めて造等の不一致現象の分析を通して、(i)削除に浮き彫りとなった。

課せられる平行性条件は統語上の同型性に基づき、(ii)この同型性の決定に A 移動は関主要参考文献与しないと主張した。本発表は、A / A’移動

Baltin, Mark (2007) “Deletion versus Pro-forms:の相違を示唆するとともに、平行性条件が統A False Dichotomy?” ms., New York

語的か意味的かという、近年取り上げられてUniversity.
Bošković, Željko (2014) “Now I’m a Phase,いる問題にわずかな光明を投じるものである(Hartman (2011), Messick and Thoms (2016))。

Now I’m Not a Phase: On the Variability of
Phases with Extraction and Ellipsis,”

6. まとめLinguistic Inquiry 45, 27-89.
Chomsky,

4 つの発表において、空項現象、名詞句省

Noam(1995)The

Minimalist

Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

略、助詞残留型削除、動詞句削除などの音声

Chomsky,

的に空の照応表現に焦点を当て、統語部門とNoam(2015)“Problems

Extension,”of

音韻部門の相互作用に関して考察を行った。

Projections:

また、従来の研究で外在化に関して重要な理Strategies, and Beyond - Studies in Honor

論的役割を担ってきた位相及び転送のメカ

of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di

ニズムに加えて Chomsky (2013, 2015)によっ

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simonaて提案されたラベル付けアルゴリズムの観

Matteini,

点から外在化の考察を行った。発表 1 では、Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

3-16,

John

Structures,

Benjamins,

Sato, Yosuke (2012) “Particle-Stranding Ellipsis

ラベル付けアルゴリズムと素性併合の相互作用が空項現象を説明することが論じられ

in Japanese,

た。発表 2 では、英語の名詞句省略からの抜Privilege of the Root,” Linguistic Inquiry

き出しの可能性が、省略と位相の相互作用を

43, 495-504.
Hartman,

支持することが論じられた。発表 3 では、ラJeremyPhase Theory,(2011)“The

and theSemantic

ベルが音韻部門において重要な役割を果た

Uniformity of Traces: Evidence from

すことが示唆され、助詞残留型削除への新たEllipsis Parallelism,” Linguistic Inquiry 42,

な分析可能性が論じられた。発表 4 では、態

367-388.

と項構造の動詞句削除との相互作用から、移Messick, Troy and Gary Thoms (2016) “Ellipsis,

動の種類及び削除一般に課せられる平行性

Economy, and the (Non)uniformity of

条件への示唆が行われた。

Traces,” Linguistic Inquiry 47, 306-332.

194

[II]
Tenth International Spring Forum
April 22-23, 2017

unaccusative

verbs

with

respecttotheirformation of prenominal participles. Section 3
overviews my investigation in Chigchi (2016b)
ofthehistoricalstatusofprenominal

More on the Emergence of Prenominal

unaccusative participles. Section 4 presents a

Unaccusative Past Participles in the History

refined analysis of their emergence in EModE.

of English

Section 5 concludes this paper.

Chigchi Bai

2. Characterization of Unaccusative Verbs
Let us begin by asking what kinds of verb

Nagoya University

count as unaccusative verbs. This paper follows
Keywords: unaccusative verbs, prenominal past

Levin and Rappaport (1995), who claim thatparticiples, affectedness

unaccusativity is syntactically represented but
semantically determined. As shown in Table 1,
which briefly summarizes their discussion of thesemantic properties of unaccusative verbs,

1. Introduction
verbs

whether a given verb counts as an unaccusative(henceforth, unaccusative participles) as well asverb depends largely on the (non)agentivity

those of transitive verbs (henceforth, transitive

involved in the eventuality described by the verb,

participles) can be used as prenominal modifiers

regardless of the value of causality.

Past

participles

ofunaccusativein Present-day English, as exemplified below.
Table 1. Semantic properties of unaccusative
(1)

verbs

a. elapsed time, a fallen leaf, a risen Christ

Typesb. a recently given talk, hard-fought

Appearance:

battles, my broken heart(Bresnan (1982: 22, 30))

Disappearance:
Inherently
directed
motion:In Early English, however, while transitive
participles had been available as prenominal

Existence:

modifiers since Old English (OE), unaccusative

Simpleposition:
Entity-specificchange ofstate:

participles were not until Early Modern English(EModE). This diachronic asymmetry between
the two types of participle was reported in
Chigchi (2016b), in which I attempted to explain

Change ofstate:

how unaccusative participles became available
as prenominal modifiers in the history of English.

Undirectedmotion:This paper aims to refine my previous analysis.

Membersappear,arise,
emerge,…
disappear,
vanish, …
arrive,come, fall,…
exist, live,
remain, …
hang, lay,
stand, …
bloom,
blossom,
flower, …
bake,
break,
close, …
bounce,move,
roll, …

Causality

Agentivity

neithernonagentive

neithernonagentive

neithernonagentive

neitherneither(non)agentive(non)agentiveinternallycausednonagentive

externallycausednonagentive

externallycausednonagentive

The organization of the paper is as follows.

(Chigchi (2016b: 11, based on Levin andSection 2 discusses the characterization of

Rappaport (1995)))

197

Note that not all types of unaccusative verb

motion, which share a common characteristic:

can derive a past participle as a prenominal

they are nonagentive, on the one hand, andmodifier.

ofneither internally nor externally caused, on theunaccusative verbs that describe the existence ofother hand. It is such unambiguous unaccusative

an entity fail to premodify a noun (cf. *anparticiples that are the target participles in theexisted solution (Levin (1993: 250))). In Table 1,

investigation in this section. In the remainder ofverbs of existence in row 4, as well as simple

this paper, the label “unaccusative” is used toposition verbs in row 5, which also describe therefer to only these three types of verb andexistence of an entity at a particular location,“unaccusative participle” is used to refer to thebelong to such types of verb.

participle derived from them.

Inparticular,

participles

As is well-known, externally caused verbs
3. Historical Data

including change-of-state (COS) verbs in row 7

Visserand verbs of undirected motion in row 8 all(1963-73:

1227)

reports

thatparticipate in causative alternation. Prenominal

prenominal participles of intransitive verbs are

participles of such verbs, therefore, give rise to

not numerous in OE, providing six examples:

ambiguity as regards whether the modified noun

asprungen,drunken,geblowen,

gefaren,is associated with the surface subject or with thegefeallen,

forsineged.2

Visser(1963-73:

object (e.g. a melted cheese: ‘The cheese

1228-1231) also provides a number of Middle

melted.’ vs. ‘I melted the cheese.’). Only in the

English (ME) examples: fained, fordrunken,

former reading is the verb unaccusative; theforsworn, knowen, mislived, rotten, shrunken,

latter reading is associated with the transitive

sunken, thriven, travelled, waxen, withered. At

variant. So, in order to eliminate this sort offirst

ambiguity, this paper does not investigate suchparticiples. A closer look, however, reveals thatverbs

they do not qualify as unaccusative participles,astarget

verbs

that

could

deriveglance,

they

look

like

unaccusative

as examined in detail in Chigchi (2016b, 2017).

unaccusative participles.
Moreover, participles of entity-specific COS

Turning to the data of prenominal intransitive

verbs in row 6 are also ambiguous. For example,

participles in Modern English (ModE) provided

the word blossom has both a verb-based

by Visser (1963-73), we find that 38 out of theparticiple as in a newly blossomed rose and a49

noun-based one as in the white-blossomedparticiples: advanced (1855), arrived (1896),

magnolias. 1 Because a noun-based participle

ascended (1861), capsized (1882), collapsed

has no unaccusative base and cannot be(1610), come over (1534), deceased (1586),

morphologicallyadeparted (1599), elapsed (1644), entered (1606),

verb-based one, entity-specific COS verbs areescaped (1933), expired (1647), failed (1655),

excluded from the discussion in this section.

forgone (1656), gone (1598), happened (1610),

distinguishedfromparticiples

qualifyasunaccusativeThus, unambiguous cases of unaccusativelain (c1522), perched (1883), pretended (1727),

participle are restricted to those derived from theprogressed (1850), prospered (1661), recurred

remaining three types of verb in rows 1-3,

(1898), relapsed (1570), retired (c1648-50),

namely,ofreturned (1908), revolved (1593), risen (1821),

disappearance and verbs of inherently directedscampered (1906), shotten (1532-3), strayed

verbs

of

appearance,

verbs

198

(1529), tippled (1660), toppled (1871), tottered

years

in

which

the

(1570), transfused (1652), transmigrated (1682),

unaccusativetranspired (1652), transuded (1827), vanishedparticiples were attested. Table 4 summarizes(1593).

the result of this investigation; the list of

verbs

first
and

occurrences
their

of

prenominal

unaccusative verbs is based on that of verbs of

Based on YCOE, PPCME2, PPCEME and
PPCMBE, I investigated the distribution of

appearance,

verbs

of

disappearance

andprenominal transitive and intransitive participles

inherently directed motion given in Levin andin the history of English by checking their first

Rappaport (1995: 281-282).

occurrence. The result is summarized in Tables
2 and 3. While transitive participles have been

Table 4. First occurrences of unaccusative verbs

attested since OE, examples of prenominal

and their prenominal participles 4, 5

intransitive participles began to be found in[advance][arrive][ascend]
burst
come
down
[depart]disappear
emanate[enter][expire]
fall
flee
flow
[go]
lapse
[recur][return][rise]
spreadsurge
tumbleappeararise
awake
awakencoexistderivedescenddie
emergeensue
erupt
escapeeventuate
exit
exude
gush
happenEModE and all of them are unaccusative
participles.
Table 2. Distribution of first occurrences oftransitive participles 3
Period
Token
Type

OE
1561
274

M1
172
96

M2
88
15

M3
406
75

M4
403
39

E1
224
78

E2
373
114

E3
405
141

L1
347
111

L2
441
120

L3
412
112

Table 3. Distribution of first occurrences of
intransitive participles
Period
Token
Type

OE
0
0

M1
0
0

M2
0
0

M3
0
0

M4
0
0

E1
0
0

E2
7
5

E3
13
1

L1
5
1

L2
18
4

L3
8
0

Notably, this result is consistent with theresult of the examination of Visser’s (1963-73)
data, thereby confirming the emergence of
unaccusative participles in EModE.
In Chigchi (2016b), I also investigated the
distribution of unaccusative participles byutilizing the quotation search function of OED.
The methodology adopted here is to list out the

199

Year of base verb
1509
1297
1382
1297
c825
1499
c1290
1530
1756
c1300
1455
c890
c825
a1000
c825
1641
1468
a1366
c1200
a1300
1511
a1300
1375
c1000
c1000
c885
1677
1662
a1325
c1135
1667
c1500
1657
1292
1789
1607
1574
a1400
c1375

Year of participle[1795][1896][1861]
1812
1562
1818
[1599]
1857
1874
1796
[1647]
1776
1621
1626
[1598]
1667[1897]
1600[1821]
c1511
1635
1649

issueleavematerialize
occur
perishplop
plungerecederesultstem
streamsupervenetranspirevanish
wax

c1330
a1225
1880
1538
c1250
1821
c1380
1480
1432
1577
a1225
1647
1597
1303
c897

Affectedness Condition (AC) to ‘the base verb
must bear an internal argument’ - call it Internal
Argument Condition (IAC).
Assuming that aspectual prefixes expressed
the total affectedness on the object of a transitive
verb (Elenbaas (2007: 117ff.)) and that it is such
affectedness that licensed prenominal participles,
it is reasonable to argue that it is because theaffectedness came to be expressed by transitive
verbs after the loss of aspectual prefixes in ME
that unaccusative verbs were unable to derive
participles

have

prenominal

participles.

Itprenominal

modifiers.

As

discussed in detail in Chigchi (2017: §4.2), only

It is shown in the table that 22 out of the 54
verbs

as

participles of verbs bearing an ability ofisimportant to note that none of these participles

affecting

was attested until the 16th century, which‘affectedness

coincides with the conclusion reached in the

prenominal modifiers in OE and ME. According

precedingtransitive

to Tenny (1987: 79), a verb is an affectedness

participles have existed throughout the history ofverb iff it describes an event that can be

English, unaccusative participles were notdelimited by the direct argument of the verb.

attested until EModE.

What is important here is that unaccusative

discussion

that

while

their

argument

verbs’

-

-

could

call

them

functionasverbs are not included in the affectedness verb
4. Analysis

class provided by Tenny’s (1987: 106) because

Chigchi (2016b) argues that the emergence

they cannot be delimited by their internalof unaccusative participles was due to a change

argument (Tenny’s direct argument). 6

in the licensing condition on the formation ofThis is a lexical constraint on the formation

prenominal participles from ‘the base verb mustof prenominal participles. Here is the relevant

be a transitive verb (in ME)’ to ‘the base verb

structure appealing to affectedness. 7

must be a theme assigner (in EModE)’. His(2)analysis, however, fails to explain why a few
intransitive participles were attested in ME. I

OutAsp-enfollow Chigchi (2016b), on the one hand, into the fact that a large number of ergative verbs
throughout

ME

InAspP
InAsp
ge-

participles as prenominal modifiers is ascribed
emergedvPVclaiming that the availability of unaccusative

increasingly

OutAspP

VP
IA

and

affecting

EModE. On the other hand, however, I willargue here that the licensing condition changed,

In (2), the prefix affects the internal

at some point in ME, from ‘the base verb mustargument and so renders it available to bebemodified by the participle under AC. Aspectualanaffectedness

assigner’

-

call

it

200

prefixes were lost in ME, however. After theirunaccusative verbs. It then follows that whenloss, only participles of affectedness verbs

ergativity was established with a given verb, its

inherently encoding a COS meaning were still

participle as a prenominal modifier would be

able to premodify nouns in accordance with AC.

ambiguous in interpretation between the two

In contrast, participles of non-affectedness verbs

different formations, one based on the causative

such as unergative intransitive verbs like worktransitive variant and another based on theand accusative verbs like arrive were unable tounaccusative intransitive variant. As long as the

do so.

formation based on the unaccusative intransitive

Noteworthy here is the fact that ergative

variant came to be a possible interpretation,verbs are mostly fall under affectedness verbs

which could be due to the increasing emergencewith a COS meaning. This leads us to assumeof ergative verbs, it would become possible forthat participles of ergative verbs were able tounaccusative participles to appear in prenominal

function as prenominal modifiers in ME as they

position, in accordance with IAC. 8

were. When aspectual prefixes were lost,5.

ergative verbs still had a COS meaning

Conclusion

inherently, so that their internal argument could

This paper has discussed how unaccusative

still be affected. In what follows, let us consider

participles emerged in EModE. Based on the

how the emergence of ergative verbs throughout

data obtained from Visser (1963-73), the corpora

ME and EModE led to the emergence ofand OED, it was shown that unaccusative

prenominal unaccusative participles.

participles were not available as prenominal

We first focus ourselves on the argument

modifiers until EModE and this is because

structure of ergative verbs. One characteristic of

unaccuative verbs do not assign affectedness toergative verbs deserves special attention here:

their internal arguments. It was argued that after

They

and

the loss of aspectual prefixes in ME, only

unaccusative intransitive variants. Crucially, theparticiples based on COS verbs, which are

structure of the intransitive variant is the same as

mostly ergative verbs, were able to be used asthat of unaccusative verbs, following the

prenominal modifiers and that the increasing

standard assumption that the surface subject of

emergence of ergative verbs throughout ME andunaccusative verbs originates as the internal

EModE triggered that of unaccusative participles

argument. Assuming that the affectedness cameas prenominal modifiers since they have theto be expressed by transitive verbs after the loss

same argument structure as unaccusative verbs.

have

both

causative

transitiveof aspectual prefixes in ME, ergative verbs
NOTES

under their causative transitive variants would
1

easily derive participles as prenominal modifiers,

Participles

as

in

the

white-blossomed

assigning affectedness to the modified noun

magnolias are noun-based because the participle

interpreted as their internal argument. Given thatis often combined with an element that can only

ergative verbs have both causative transitive andmodify the base noun, unlike those as in a newly

unaccusative intransitive variants, each of themblossomed rose, in which it is clear that thecan occur with the modified noun interpreted as

participle itself is modified by the adverb. Visser

their internal argument, much as in the case of(1963-73: 1224) also notes that such participles

201

unaccusative verb generally does not delimit thein ME and ModE are ambiguous between
noun-based and verb-based.

event described by them.

2

7

Drunken is included in the list of OE

participles provided by Visser (1963-73: 1227).

that the aspectual prefix, which she argues

The examples containing this participle heoccupies the inner aspect head, licenses a theme

provides, however, are all from ME and ModE

argument.

(1963-73: 1228).
3

Consistent with this is Gelderen’s argument

8

The periodization of the history of English in

See Chigchi (2016b, 2017) for detailed

the corpora is as follows: O1 (-850), O2

discussion of the emergence of ergative verbs(850-950), O3 (950-1050), O4 (1050- 1150), M1

throughout ME and EModE.  

(1150-1250), M2 (1250-1350), M3 (1350-1420),

  

M4 (1420-1500), E1 (1500-1569), E2 (1570-

REFERENCES

1639), E3 (1640-1710), L1 (1700-1770), L2

Bresnan, Joan (1982) “The Passive in Lexical(1770-1840), L3 (1840-1900). In Tables 4.4 andTheory,” The Mental Representation of

4.5, O1 and O2, O3 and O4, M1 and M2, andGrammatical Relations, ed. by Joan Bresnan,

M3 and M4 are combined as EOE, LOE, EME,

3-86, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

andLME, respectively. The

term‘EarlyChigchi, Bai (2016b) “On the Emergence ofEnglish’ in this thesis is used as a cover term for

Unaccusative Prenominal Past Participles in

OE (to 1150), ME (from 1150 to 1500) andthe History of English,” IVY 49, 41-65.

EModE (from 1500 to 1710).
4

Chigchi, Bai(2017b)SynchronicandThe verbs/participles that also appear in

Diachronic Aspects of Adnominal Past

Visser’s (1963-73) data are enclosed in square

Participles in English, Ph.D. Dissertation,brackets.

Nagoya University.

5

That some of the verbs in Table 4 were not

Elenbaas, Marion (2007) The Synchronic andattested with their prenominal participles does

Diachronic

not necessarily mean that they cannot participate

Verb-Particle Combination, LOT, Utrecht.

in the formation of unaccusative participles, as

Gelderen, Elly van (2011) “Valency Changes in

Syntaxoftheshown in the following examples from otherthesources than OED.

Historical Linguistics 1.1, 106-143.

(i) a. the recently emerged forces of the Leftof

English,”JournalofKroch, Anthony and Ann, Taylor (2000) The
Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle(COCA [ACAD: 1999])b. an escaped convict

History

EnglishEnglish,(Bresnan (1995: 12))secondedition(PPCME2),

Recall that unaccusative verbs we are

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

concerned with in this paper include: 1) verbs ofKroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Ariel

appearance such as appear, arise, emerge, …, 2)

Diertani (2010) The Penn Parsed Corpus ofverbs of disappearance such as disappear,

Modernvanish, … and 3) verbs of inherently directed

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

motion such as arrive, come, fall, … (cf. Table

Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Lauren1). The internal argument of these types ofDelfs (2004) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed

6

202

BritishEnglish(PPCMBE),

Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME),
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Levin, Beth (1993) English Verb Classes andAlternation: A Preliminary Investigation,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Levin, Beth and Rappaport Hovav (1995)
Unaccusativity:

At

the

Syntax-Lexical

Semantics Interface, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Simpson, John A. and Edmund S. C. Weiner,prepared(1989)The

OxfordEnglishDictionary, Second Edition on CD-ROM
Version

4.0(2010),

Clarendon

Press,

Oxford.
Taylor, Ann, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk
and

Frank

Beths

(2003)The

York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of
Old English Prose (YCOE), University ofYork, York.
Tenny Carol (1987) Grammaticalizing Aspect
and Affectedness, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Visser, F. Theoder (1963-73) An Historical
Syntax of the English Language, 3 parts, 4vols., Brill, Leiden. [reprinted in 2002]203

previously observed, a copula can exist after the
postposed DP in (1)This paper argues for a bi-clausal analysis of
the RDC in (1).

Yet, apart from previous

Japanese Postverbal Elements:

analyses that adopt a structure consisting of two

Movement vs. No Movement

identical clauses, it proposes that the second
clause is a cleft construction and explains the

Kaori Furuya

possibility of copula insertion. The proposed

University of North Texas

analysis argues that the seeming optionality ofCase marking of a right-dislocated element

Keywords： right dislocation, bi-clausal

results from properties of cleft constructions.

construction, (pseudo-)clefts, Case-

The organization of this paper is as follows.

marker, empty nominal elements

Section 2 reviews two types of major analyses andpresents some problems in these analyses. Section
3 proposes a new bi-clausal analysis of Japanese

1. Introduction

RDCs. It is argued that the second clause is a cleft

This article investigates the syntax ofJapaneserightdislocation

constructions

or a pseudo-cleft and that the seemingly optional
Case-marking results from the two distinct cleft(RDCs) in terms of preverbal empty elements

constructions,

togetherwithasupporting(which are represented with [e]) and Caseargument. Section 4 summarizes the discussion.

marking of postverbal elements, as in (1).
2. The Problem for the Previous Analyses(1)

Kodomo-ga [e] yonda-yo, sonochild-Nom

read-Prt

that

In the linguistic literature of RDCs, twoissues are intertwined in the analyses of RDCs:

hon (-o)(da-yo).

one is whether the structure is mono-clausal or

book-ACC

Cop-Prtbi-clausal; and the other is whether the right-‘A child read it, (is) that book.’

dislocated element is derived from movement or
not. After reviewing previous mono- and bi-

Although Japanese is a strictly head-final

clausal analyses of Japanese RDCs, I adopt a bi-

language, the DP sono hon-o [that book-Acc]clausal analysis in light of copula insertion to thein (1) can occur postverbally in colloquial

right periphery in 2.1. In 2.2, I focus on the

speech.

This right-dislocated DP seems toidentification of the preverbal null element insemantically link to the preverbal empty

existing bi-clausal analyses, and I make a slightelement [e] as the English glosses indicate.

modification.

Furthermore, the accusative Case-marking ofoptionality of Case marking of postverbal

the postposed DP also appears to be associatedelements, and present problems in extant bi-

with the locus of the preverbal empty element,

clausal analyses.

In 2.3, I discuss the seeming

the object position, though the Case marking
seems to be optional. What is also relevant to

2.1 Mono- vs. Bi-clauses Analyses for RDCs

this paper is that even though it is not

Mono-clausal analyses of Japanese RDCs

204

can be divided into (rightward or leftward)

In the latter clause, the preposed element (i.e. themovement

object) remains as postverbal element while theanalysesandbase-generation

analyses, shown in (2).

remaining is deleted. The preverbal empty
element is taken as pro in (3a) (Kuno (1978),(2) Mono-clausal approach

Abe (1999), Tanaka (2001), a.o.) or an ellipsis

a. Rightward movement analyses[Sub tiv]of an argument DP in (3b) (Takita (2011)).

Obji

Between mono-clausal approaches and bi-b. Left movement analyses
i. Obji [Sub ti Verb]clausal approaches, I adopt a bi-clausal structure
and,ii. [Sub ti Verb]j [ tjfor Japanese RDCs, grounded on the fact that two

Obji ]

verbs (a verb and a copula) can appear as observedc. Base-generation analysesi. [Sub [e]i v] DPiin (1). Moreover, the same DP can appear bothor

preverbally and postverbally simultaneously in (4)ii. [XP Sub proi v] [DPi tXP ](Tanaka (2001) and Takita (2011)).

In movement analyses, the postposed DP(4) Taro-wa

sono hon-oundergoes rightward movement in (2a) (Simon

Taro-Top(1989), Murayama (1999)), and leftward

sono

hon(-o).

movement in (2b) (Kurogi (2007). In thesethatbook-Acc

analyses, the preverbal empty element is a trace‘Taro read that book, that book.’thatyonda-yo,book-ACC read-Prtof the moved DP. On the other hand, in basegeneration analyses as shown in (2c), theThe two occurrences of the same DP in (4), sono

postposed element does not undergo movement

hon-o [that book-Acc] cannot be explained in a

(Kamada (2009), and Takita (2014)).

The

mono-clausal analysis since “resumption” is notpreverbal empty element is assumed as an

possible in Japanese (Takita (2011:382), but

underspecified null element linked to theAbe (1999)). In contrast, a bi-clausal structure

postposed element in (2ci) (Kamada (2009)).

can involve a distinct Case-assigner and the same

Alternatively, it is taken as the covert pronoun

DP in S1 and S2 respectively. Thus, I adopt a bi-

pro that is coreferential with the base-generated

clausal analysis in this paper. (I propose a new bi-

topic DP in (2cii) (Takita (2014)).

clausal structure in section 3.)

In contrast, extant bi-clausal approaches

In the following subsection, I will examine

propose two identical clauses put together.

properties of the preverbal empty element in a bi-

Under identity requirements, the second clauseclausal analysis, and attempt to identify the status

except preposed elements may be deleted at PF,of the null element.

illustrated in (3).
2.2. The Preverbal Empty Elements(3) Bi-clausal approaches

After reviewing previous analyses, I identify

a. [S1 Sub proi v ] [S2 Obji [Sub ti v] ]the preverbal null elements in (1) and (7). Builtb. [S1 Sub [e] v ] [S2 Obji [Sub ti v] ]on the interpretation of them, I argue for both thecovert pronominal analysis and argument

The schema consists of two clauses, S1 and S2.

ellipsis, and I examine a well-known fact

205

concerning the (im)possibility of postposing‘Yes. That/That year is when I was

wh-words in Japanese RDCs (Kuno (1978)).

born.’

Basically following Kuno (1978), Tanaka

B: Hai. {Sore/Sono tosi}-wa(2001:553) argues that the covert pronoun pro

yes

that/that year-Top

cannot be used for new information in (5).

umareta-tosi

1968-nen-ni
year-in

I-Nom

desu, 1968-nen (desu).

was.born-year is(5) A:

watasi-ga

1968-year Cop

umaremasita-ka.

‘Yes. That/that year is when I was born,

were.bone-Q(it is) 1968.’‘Were you born in 1968?’
B: * Hai pro umaremasita.
yes

was.born‘Yes, I was born.’(Tanaka (2001: 553))
C: * Hai, pro

Under the same context (5A), sore ‘that’ andsono tosi ‘that year’ are used anaphorically in(6A, B). Moreover, in (6B), the year 1968 may
appear postverbally along with the copula. Thisumaremasita-yo,

indicates that Tanaka’s analysis of the preverbal

was.born-Prt

null element tied with informational structureyes1968-nen-ni.

seems to be questionable.

year-inTakita (2011) argues that the preverbal empty‘Yes, I was born then, 1968.’(Tanaka (2001: 554))

category may be argument ellipsis in somecases, grounded on the observation that an overt
pronoun cannot be coreferential with the right-

According to Tanaka, given the context (5A)

dislocated Negative Polarity Item (NPI) with thethe speaker’s birth year 1968-nen-ni [1968-

suffix -sika and the quantifier in (7, b).1

year-in] in (5B) is new information and thus it
cannot be replaced with the covert pronoun(7) a. Taroo-ga{*sore-o/[e]}ipro. Likewise, the postposed element in (5C)

Taroo-Nomis also new information and thus cannot beyommanakatta-yo, LGB-sikai.

corefer with pro in the preverbal domain. The

read.NEG-PRT

implicit assumption behind this is that the birth‘(lit.) Taroo read {it/e}i, only LGBi’year in question is only known by Speaker B

b. Taroo-ga

it-AccLGB-SIKA{*sore-o/[e]}i(and Speaker C) and the year cannot be referredTaroo-Nomwith a pronoun in (5B) and (5C), in favor of ayonda-yo,nanika-oi.

pro analysis.

read-PRT

something-Acc

However, the year 1968 is

it-Accintroduced in the previous sentence and thus it‘(lit.) Taroo read {*it/[e]}i, somethingi.’

can be anaphorically referred with an overt(Takita (2011: 383))

pronoun or a demonstrative in (6A, B).
According to Takita (2011), sore ‘it’ cannot(6) A: Hai. {Sore/Sono tosi}-wa watasi-ga
yes

that/thatumareta-tosi

refer to the postposed element in (7), and thus

year-Top I-Nom

the empty category should not be pro.

desu.

Following Saito (2007), Takita argues that thewas.born-year isempty element is argument ellipsis since206

pronouns including the covert pronoun pro(1) and (7) should appear in the previous

cannot be used for a sloppy reading.

contexts, irrespective of postverbal elements. In

Although I do not object to both pro-baseda context where the speaker asks whether the

analyses and ellipsis analyses of preverbal nullhearer read the book, the sentence (1) can beelements in Japanese RDCs, what needs to beuttered with or without the postposed element. I

clear is that antecedents of preverbal nullassume that the empty object is pro since it iselements should be introduced in the previous

coreferential with the book talked about

contexts, independently of postverbal element.

previously. In contrast, the sentence (7) may beThat is, the interpretation of an empty categoryuttered when the speaker asks whether theshould be anaphoric, as in the example (8).

hearer read many books. Again, regardless ofwhether the postposed element exists or not, I(8) a. Hanako-wa

zibun-no teian-ga

Hanako-Top self-Gen

proposal-Nom

take the null object as argument ellipsis in (7),due to a sloppy interpretation of the null object.

saiyoosareteru-to] omotteru.
accepted-that

think.

Once the identification of the empty category
in RDCs is clear in light of anaphoricity, let us‘Hanako thinks that her proposal is

examine a well-known mystery concerning theaccepted.’ (Adopted from Saito (2007))(im)possibility of postposing wh-words to theb. Taro-mo [[e]Taro-alsosaiyoosareteru to]right periphery in (9) (Tanaka 2001).

accepted-thatomotteru.

(9) a. John-wa[e] katta-no,

thinksJohn-wabought-Q‘Taro also thinks that her/his proposal is* ‘What did John buy?’

accepted.’ (Adopted from Saito (2007))‘Did John buy (something), what?’c. Ken-mo[zibun-no

iken-ga

Ken-also

self-Gen

opinion-Nom

b. E?

John-wa

Huh? John-Nom

nani-o.
what-Acc*(nani-oi)
what-Acc

saiyoosareteru to]omotteru.

katta-no, (nani -oi).

accepted-thatthinkbought-Q

what-Acc‘Ken thinks that his opinion is good.’‘Huh? What did John buy? What?’

Given the context (8a), the null embedded

As the English glosses indicate, the empty

subject in (8b) can be construed as either

object in (9a) cannot be construed as a wh-word.

Hanako’s proposal (strict reading) or Taro’s

Yet an indefinite reading is possible. Based on

proposal (sloppy reading). However, it cannot

this distinction, I suggest that the empty

be interpreted as Ken’s opinion or Taro’s

category is argument ellipsis. Furthermore, aopinion, the information that is later introduced

wh-word is not omissible for an interrogativein (8c) after the utterance of (8b). This contrast

interpretation in (9b).

indicates that possible antecedents of the null

independent of the presence or absence of theelement should be introduced to the previous

postposed wh-word. Thus, the (im)possibility ofcontexts, rather than follow the null element.

postposing of a wh-word is irrelevant to the

Likewise, antecedents of empty categories in

empty category in the preverbal domain.

207

Importantly, this isBasedontheidentification

of

the

preverbal null element, I argued that the empty

identical bi-clausal structure because a copula
should not be a Case-assigner.

element is pro if it has a strict reading, while it

In the following section, I will propose a

is argument ellipsis when it has a sloppy

new bi-clausal structure for Japanese RDCs thatreading.

allows copula insertion along with Case

Cruciallybothreadings

areindependent of postverbal elements, contra

marking and its optionality.

previous bi-clausal analyses (Tanaka (2001)).
In the following section, I will examine

3. Proposal

right-dislocated elements in term of Case
marking and its optionality.

While I adopt a bi-clausal structure forJapanese RDCs, apart from previous identicalbi-clausal analyses in (3), I argue that the second

2.3. The Seemingly Optional Case marking

clause is not necessarily identical to the first

Case marking of right-dislocated DPs seems

clause. Rather the second clause is derived fromto be optional as observed in (1). What would

the first clause. More specifically, I propose“assign” a Case to postverbal DPs?

that the second clause contains the first clause

In

Tanaka’s (2001) and Takita’s (2011) analysis

asapresuppositional subject in

a

cleft

(see (3)), the same verbs in the second clauses

construction, and I argue that the seemingly

as the ones in the first clauses are Case-

optional Case-marking of right-dislocated DPs

assigners of postverbal elements in identical bi-

are not optional in 3.1.

clausal analyses though they are deleted at PF.

evidence in 3.2.

I offer supporting

However, a copula (along with the second
occurrence of the verb) can also occur after the

3.1 New Analysis of a Bi-clausal Structure

postposed DP in (1), repeated as (10).

Adopting

cleft

analyses

discussedbyHiraiwa and Ishihara (2012) and Harada (2016),(10)

Kodomo-ga [e] yonda-yo,

sono

I propose that postposed elements in Japanesechild-Nomthat

RDCs are part of a cleft or a pseudo-cleft.

read-Prthon (-o)(da-yo/yonda-yo).

book-ACC

Cop-Prt/read-Prt‘(lit.) A child read, that book (is/read).’Consider the schemas in (11) and (12).
(11) Cleft construction
a. [vP DP-oi [ ti v ]]The copula can be inserted to the rightb. [FocP DP-oi [TP … ti v ]]periphery, regardless of whether the postposedc. [TopP [TP ti v]j-no [FocP DP-oi tj ] Cop]

DP is Case-marked or not. The grammaticality(12) Pseudo-cleft constructionof copula insertion is mysterious in an identical[TopP [TP …]-no

DP Cop]bi-clausal structure since the second clausemay involve the copula, a verb that is different

The schemas in (11) exhibit the derivation of afrom the verb in the first clause. What is also

cleft. The object DP in (11a) is “assigned” a Case

important here is that the postposed DP isby the little v and marked with the accusative

possibly Case-marked even when a copula isCase-marker -o. This object further undergoes

inserted.

movement to Spec, FocP in (11b). In (11c), TP

This is also problematic to an

208moves to Spec TopP. On the other hand, theNaoya-Nomgave-C–Top

schema in (12) represents the structure of a

[Mari-Ø]i [ringo-Ø mit-tu]j da.

pseudo-cleft. The DP cannot be Case-marked

Marisince it is part of the predicate and does not move

‘It was three apples to Mari thatto a position to be Case-marked, while the

Naoya gave.’

apple

3-Cl

Cop

sentential subject TP is raised to Spec, TopP.
Given the schemas in (11) and (12) as the

The cleft in (15a) allows multiple foci, whereas

second clause of RDCs, S1 is the presupposition

the pseudo-cleft in (15b) is incompatible withsubject of S2. In order to derive Japanese RDCs,

multiple foci. Given this difference between

both the presuppositional subject and the copula

clefts and pseudo-clefts, the current analysis

can be deleted in S2 shown in (13) and (14).

predictsacorrelation

betweenthepresence/absence of Case marking and the(13) [S1 …] [S2 ([cleft -no-wa]) DP-Case (Cop) ]availability of multiple RDCs in Japanese: right-(14) [S1 …][S2 ([pseud-cleft…-no-wa]) DP (Cop)]

dislocation of multiple Case-marked elements ispredicted to be grammatical whereas that of

In (13), S2 is a cleft and is deleted except themultiple elements that retain Case marking isCase-marked DP as a clefted constituent.

predicted to be ungrammatical. This predicationIn

contrast, the DP in (14) as a nominal predicate inis borne out in (16).

a pseudo-cleft remains while the rest in S2 isdeleted. Thus, the seeming optionality of Case

(16) a.

marking of a postposed DP is superficial.

Naoya-ga[e]i [e]j ageta yo

Naoya-Nomgave-Prt

In the following subsection, by employing the[Mari-ni]i[ringo-o

mit-tu]j.

two structures for the second clauses of JapaneseMari-Datapple-Acc 3-Cl

RDCs, I will offer a supporting argument.

‘Naoya gave, to Mari, three apples.’b. * [Naoya-ga [e]i [e]j ageta yo, [Mari-Ø]i

3.2 Supporting Argument

Naoya-NomHiraiwa and Ishihara (2012: 145) observe thatgave-Prt

Mari[ringo-Ø mit-tu]j.

there exists a difference between clefts and

apple

3-Cl

pseudo-clefts in light of the availability of‘Naoya gave, to Mari, three apples.’multiple foci in (15).
The multiple Case-marked elements are right(15) a. cleft

dislocated in (16a). In contrast, postposing of the[Naoya-ga[e]i [e]j ageta-no]-wa

multiple non-Case-marked DPs is impossible in

Naoya-Nomgave-C-Top(16b).

[Mari-ni]i [ringo-o

mit-tu]j da.

marked multiple elements are cleft constituents

Mari-Datapple-Acc 3-Cl

In the proposed analysis, the Case-

Copin (16a) as in (15a), whereas the non-Case-‘It was three apples to Mari thatmarked elements are part of a predicate in the

Naoya

pseudo-cleft in (16b) as in (15b).

gave.’

b. Pseudo-cleft* [Naoya-ga [e]i [e]j ageta no]-wa

4. Conclusion

209

I examined Japanese RDCs in terms of the20, 195-218.

identification of preverbal empty elements andHiraiwa, Ken and Shinichiro Ishihara (2012)

the seeming optionality of Case marking of“Syntactic Metamorphosis: Clefts, Sluicing,

postposed elements.

and In-Situ Focus in Japanese,” Syntax 15-2,

Once I analyzed thepreverbal empty element in light of its

142-180.

anaphoric use (rather than a cataphoric use in

Kamada, Kohji (2009) Rightward Movement

previous analyses), I identified it as pro or

Phenomena in Human Language, Doctoral

argument ellipsis relying on the interpretation.

dissertation, University of Edinburgh.

As for the seeming optionality of Case marking

Kuno, Susumu (1978) “Japanese: A Characteristic

on postverbal elements, I argued against an

OV Language,” Syntactic Typology: Studies

optionality perspective, due to the possible

in the Phenomenology of Language, ed. byinsertion of the copula to the right of postverbal

Winfred Lehmann, 57-138, University ofelements.

Texas Press, Austin.

Whereas I adopted a bi-clausal

structure, apart from previous analyses that

Kurogi, Akiko (2007) Nihongo Uhooteni-bun nomaintain identical clauses in parallel, I

Sahoo-idoo Bunseki (A Leftward Movement

proposed that the second clause is a cleft or a

Analysis of Japanese Right Dislocation),

pseudo-cleft. If a RDC involves a cleft in the

Doctoral dissertation, Tohoku University.

second clause, the postposed element is Case-

Murayama, Kazuto. 1999. “An Argument formarked even when the presuppositional subject

Japanese Right Dislocation as a Featureand the copula are deleted at PF. On the otherdriven Movement,” Gengo Kagaku Kenkyu 5,

hand, in a RDC with a pseudo-cleft, the45-62.

postposed element cannot be Case-marked

Saito, Mamoru (2007) “Notes on East Asian

since it is part of the predicate. The proposed

Argument Ellipsis,” Language Research 43,

analysis receives support from the parallelism

203–227.

between RDCs and (pseudo-)clefts in light ofSimon, Mutsuko Endo (1989) An Analysis of themultiple postposed elements with or without

Postposing

ConstructioninCase marking.

Doctoraldissertation,

University

1

NOTES

Japanese,ofMichigan, Ann Arbor.

Although Takita (2011) does not observe, theTakita,Kensuke(2014)“Pseudo-Rightpronoun is grammatical once it is attached by -Dislocation, the Bare-Topic Construction,sika in (i).

and Hanging Topic Constructions,” Lingua(i) Taroo-ga

sore-sikai yommanakatta-yo,

Taroo-Nom it-SIKA

read.NEG-Prt

140, 137-157.
Takita, Kensuke (2011) “Argument Ellipsis in(LGB-sika/sore-sika)i.

Japanese

Right

Dislocation,”

LGB-SIKA/it-SIKA

Japanese/Korean Linguistics 18, ed. by W.

‘(lit.) Taroo read iti, only (LGB/it)i.’

McClure and M. den Dikken, 380-391, CSLI
Publications, Stanford, CA.

REFERENCES

Tanaka, Hidekazu (2001) “Right-Dislocation as

Abe, Jun (2011) “Real Parasitic Gaps in

Scrambling,” Journal of Linguistics 37, 551-

Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics

579.

210

possession-type relation between my and friend.
Grammatically, friend is the underlying object of
my. Compare also (2a-b) (cf. Barker 1998). In(2a), John owns the picture that hangs in thegallery, which shows that there is a possession

A Relabeling Analysis of English Possessives

relation between John and picture. In (2b), thepicture depicts John.

Jason Ginsburg (Osaka Kyoiku University)
Sandiway Fong (University of Arizona)(2) a. a picture of John’s hangs in the gallery
b. a picture of John hangs in the gallery

Keywords: English, possessives, labeling, free
Merge

Thus, the question arises of why the object
friend in the friend of mine does not appear in
the underlying object position.

1. Introduction
English possessive DPs have been widely

We propose a syntactic account of (1) in thestudied; e.g., see Bernstein and Tortora (2005),

recent Minimalist framework of Chomsky (2013,

Barker (1998), and references therein. Genitive2015), extending Cecchetto and Donati’s (C&D)

possessive pronoun constructions in English are(2015) relabeling proposal for relative clauses.

partially irregular, as exemplified in (1). Note

We show how target possessive constructions

that of-insertion is regular but there is variation

can be computed. In C&D, the term “relabeling”

in the deployment of the double genitive. For

specifically refers to internal Merge of a noun toexample, (1a) the friend of mine is perfect but

relabel a clause as a nominal, e.g. as in the free(1b) the friend of your is ill-formed. (1b) the

relative interpretation of “what you bought” in “I

friend of yours is fine but the parallel (1a) the

like what you bought”, cf. “I wonder what you

friend of mine’s is ill-formed. Therefore, thebought”. (Chomsky’s Merge framework permits

question arises of why one must say mine andeither α or β to contribute the label of {α,β}not my’s or mine’s, etc.

when two syntactic objects (SOs) α and β
Merge.) We propose that an “of-NP” structure(e.g., of mine) is the target of relabeling in the(1) a. my friend/the friend of mine/*the friend

relevant possessive pronoun examples in (1).

of mine’sb. your friend/*the friend of your/the friend

2. Backgroundof yours

In Chomsky (2004, 2005, 2013, 2015),

c. his friend/the friend of his/*the friend of

Merge is “free” in the sense that movement ishis’(s)not, and cannot be, feature-driven. Therefore,d. her friend/*the friend of her/the friend ofExternal Merge (EM), as in (3a), and Internal

hers

Merge (IM), as in (3b), are both available ase. their friend/*the friend of their/the friend

possible options at all stages of a derivation (cf.

of theirs

Epstein, Kitahara and Seely (2016), Richards(2009)).

In (1a) the friend of mine, there is a211

(3) a.

b.

(initially-unlabeled) structure {R, XP}. Finally,in (4c), we stipulate that n* (a nominal phasehead) may strengthen R, independently of theΦ-feature

sharing/root

strengthening

configuration of (4b).
EM of X and Y(4) a.

IM of Y with Xb.

c.

We also follow Chomsky’s (2013, 2015)
views about the Labeling algorithm. SOs mustbe labeled at the Conceptual-Intensional (CI)interface. Suppose we set-Merge a head X and aphrase YP. Assuming X is strong enough, a head
X labels {X,YP}, where the brackets {} indicate

Pair-Merge

(PM)

is

the

asymmetric

set-Merge. Suppose instead X is weak, then,counterpart of set-Merge. Given PM of Y with X,

apart from one specific situation described

we can think of Y as being on a separate plane,

below, {X,YP} will remain unlabeled (and crashand thus not visible to regular syntactic

the derivation at the CI interface). When two

operations such as selection, agreement, orphrases XP and YP set-Merge to form {XP,YP},

labeling. In (5a), assume that Y is externallyneither phrase is more prominent unless one isPM’ed with ZP. (Note: we use an arc to

moved (in which case the remaining phrase

diagrammaticallylabels). If neither phrase moves, but XP and YP

set-Merge.) In this case, Y is not visible to headshare prominent features (such as Φ-features or a

X (although ZP is). In (5b), Y is internally

Q-feature), the label is the paired shared feature,pair-Merged with the larger projection labelede.g. <Φ,Φ>.

by X. Y also will not be visible. If Merge is free,

We also follow Chomsky’s (2013, 2015)

differentiate

PM

from

then these types of Merge should also be free.

basic assumptions about strengthening andfeature inheritance. Given Merge between an(5) a.

b.

undifferentiated root R and a categorizer (forexample, a nominal or verbal categorizer), thecategorizer labels, as in (4a), assuming that X isa categorizer. In (4b), when some phase head y*is Merged, it transmits its unvalued Φ-features tothe root R. Agreement between R and the object
XP values Φ on R. As a result, <Φ,Φ> labels the

3. Analysis

object-shift configuration {XP,{R,XP}}, as R

At first glance, Free Merge engenders aand XP have identical Φ-features. (Note:

combinatorial nightmare, since, at each Merge

strike-through is used to indicate where internal

step, we permit all varieties of unconstrained

Merge, i.e. movement, has taken place.) In

Merge. According to Chomsky (2005), there are

addition, R is strengthened, and can label thethree factors that influence (and constrain) the212

faculty of language: viz. (1) genetic endowment,

cannot be categorized, and thus the derivation(2) experience, and (3) the so-called “thirdmust crash. We will assume that any categorizer

factor”.

arethat undergoes internal Merge cannot categorize

mechanisms such as Merge, feature-checking,a second time. For example, in (7b), the (lower

and Labeling. These are considered part of thecopy of) categorizer c1 may categorize R3 but thegenetic endowment component. The third factor

higher copy c1 cannot categorize R2, and thus

includes general principles not necessarily

this type of construction is ruled out. In addition,

specific to the language faculty. We assume thatany SO β containing an unvalued feature uF,

efficient computation is a third factor. We

indicated as β[uF], cannot be PM’ed to anotherhypothesize

efficientSO, as β (and therefore uF) will not be visible

computation, including the ability to limit

and uF cannot be valued. The configuration (7c)internal Merge repetitions, can successfullymust lead to a crash as β[uF] is PM’ed to α.

Fundamental

that

to

languageprinciples

ofrestrict Merge so that the combinatorial problem
becomes manageable and tractable.

(7) a. *<R, α>Consider (6), a candidate structure for myb. *{c1,{R2,{c1,R3}}}

friend consisting of nominal friend and my (=c. *<β[uF],α>me + ‘s). (6) is possible under Free Merge, but it
is ruled out because it cannot be Labeled. (6)SOs may be ruled out for multiple reasons.

involves set-Merge of two phrases: nP friend andConsider (8) below, where {{me,n},‘s} is PM’ed

the possessive my; however, the resulting phraseto {friend,{friend,n}}. The latter SO is ruled out

cannot be labeled due to the lack of sharedbecause the higher copy of the root friend isprominent features.

uncategorized. Furthermore, unvalued Case on n,
indicated by n!case, will also crash the(6)derivation. Finally, since roots are weak, thehigher copy of the head friend cannot label{friend,{friend,n}}, indicated here as ?.
(8)

We assume a theory of roots and categorizers(such as n) with mutual constraints that restrict
Free Merge. For instance, we assume that all
roots must be categorized, i.e. be locally
c-commanded by a categorizer.1 Similarly, we

The constraints discussed above are all partassume all categorizers must locally categorizeof the genetic endowment. We now turn oursome root once only. Consider (7a), if root R is

attention

to

PM’ed

principles.

We

to

α

(the

brackets<>

indicatetheso-called

posit

that

“thirdfactor”

Internal

Mergepair-Merge), then R will no longer be visible torepetitions are vacuous and not permitted undersyntactic operations. Even if α is a categorizer, R

general principles of computational efficiency.

213

This restriction prevents the unconstrained(10)

formation of an infinite number of related
structures with multiple repeated copies of theform {β,..,{β,{β,α}}}. Interface levels may also
impose well-formedness conditions. Labeling is
an example of an interface condition necessary
for interpretation of SOs. We also assume thatthe interface may block incorrectly-presented

Next, consider the phrase the friend of mine.

SOs of the form in (9), assuming noun phrases

The resulting SO is shown in (11). The initialmust be nPs with the option of a PM’ed dP to

SO is identical to my friend in (10). Under Free

count as being well-formed, but not dPs (or nPs)

Merge, the root friend may raise out of my friend.

with PM’ed dPs (or nPs), respectively. Basically,

Since friend is a root, it cannot label. Moreover,the interface expects a <nP,dP> structure.

friend must be categorized. We merge n* thatcategorizes and strengthens friend so that it can(9) *<nP,nP>, *<dP,dP>

label. Raising the root friend extends the C&D
notion of relabeling. n* may be treated as a

We find that the structure of my friend thenphase head (in parallel fashion to v*): n*

is as shown in (10), as generated by a Freetransmits the property of being able to assign

Merge model with the restrictions described

Case down to a root. (Similarly, v* transmits its

above. The root friend is set-Merged with n,accusative Case assigning properties to a root).

where !case indicates an unvalued Case feature

Therefore, in (11), the root friend values !case ofpresent on n. The root me is initially set-Merged

my friend, resulting in inherent Case assignment.

with the categorizer n in a separate workspace.

Finally, the d the is PM’ed with this structure

Then the possessive ‘s is set-Merged to nominal

forming a SO acceptable to the CI interface.3

me. Let us assume ‘s is a d that values inherent
Case on n. Finally, the SO corresponding to my(11)

is PM’ed with the nominal friend: note that theresulting structure is of the form <dP,nP> andthus acceptable to the CI interface. (Unvalued
case on n!case will be valued later in normal
circumstances when the nP undergoes an Agreerelation with a Case-assigning element.2) Since
the dP is PM’ed with the nP, the resulting
structure is an nP. The idea that a noun phrase isan nP (and not a dP) accords with Chomsky(2005) and Oishi (2005).
Let us now consider the Spell-Out of (11) as
the friend of mine. We assume inherent Case on
n may be realized as of, a Case realizationaccount (Chomsky 1986), as shown in (12a).

214

The output of me + ‘s followed by a raised root

given an individual X. However, in (15a) X ismust be pronounced as mine, as shown in (12b).

associated with two different values: viz. Mary

Crucially, it must not result in mine’s.

and you. At Transfer, the nominal friend picks
out exactly one instance of friend(X). Since(12) a. n[inherentCase] = of nthere is only one instance of X, X cannot beb. me ‘s friend n = mine

simultaneously

satisfiedbytwodifferent

individuals.
Compare this with the structure for (2b) the
4. Conclusion

friend of yours. The structure in (13) is identical

We have explained how a Free Merge modelto that in (11). However, the Spell-Out rule incan be used to derive appropriate structures for a(14) must produce yours and not your.

variety of possessives in English. The Free
Merge framework does away with Edge feature(13)

stipulations

at

the

possible

costofovergeneration and combinatorial explosion.
The question for future work is whether thiskind of under-constrained linguistic theory can
integrate with third factor considerations toresult in a more parsimonious and yet lessstipulative model.
NOTES
In this paper, we employ the term “locally1

c-command” (familiar to most syntacticians) as(14) you ‘s friend n = yours

shorthand for the configurations {k, R} and {k,{R, …}}, where head k locally categorizes root

A reviewer points out that, under the
proposed account, (15a) should be possible

R.

given the paraphrase in (15b). However, this2

appears to be ill-formed.

For example, in my friend is lazy, n!case will

be valued as nominative by tense.
3(15) a. #Mary’s friend of yours

In (11), the head n* has unvalued Case,

indicated by n*!case. We assume valuation willb. the friend of Mary(‘s) and yours

occur at a higher level, as in the example of notec. <{{Mary,n},'s}, {n,{friend, <{you,n},'s},2.

{friend, n}>}}>
Barker,(15a) is derivable in narrow syntax as (15c) but

REFERENCES
Chris (1998) “Partitives,

Doublepresumably ruled out by a semantic constraint

Genitives and Anti-Uniqueness,” Natural(after Transfer to the Conceptual-Intensional

Languageinterface). The nominal friend is a function

679-717.

and

Linguistic

Theory16,

Bernstein, Judy B. and Christina Tortora (2005)

friend(X), i.e. friend(X) identifies an individual215

“Two Types of Possessive Forms in
English,” Lingua 115, 1221–1242.
Cecchetto, Carlo and Caterina Donati (2015)(Re)labeling, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,Noam(1986)

Knowledgeof

Language, Praeger, Westport, CT.
Chomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatory
Adequacy,” Structures and Beyond: The
Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3,
ed. by Adriana Belletti, 104-131, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Chomsky, Noam (2005) “Three Factors in
Language Design,” Linguistic Inquiry 36,
1-22.
Chomsky,Noam(2013)“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky,

Noam

Projection:(2015)“Problems

Extensions,”of

Structures,

Strategies, and Beyond – Studies in Honor
of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di
Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona
Matteini,

3-16,

John

Benjamins,

Amsterdam.
Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, andDaniel Seely (2016) “Phase Cancellation
by External Pair-Merge of Heads,” The
Linguistic Review 33, 87-102.
Oishi, Masayuki (2015) “The Hunt for a Label,”
Untiring Pursuit of Better Alternatives, ed.
byHirokiEgashiraetal.,222-334,

Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Richards, Marc (2009) “Internal Pair-merge: The
Missing Mode of Movement,” Catalan
Journal of Linguistics 8, 55-73.

216

(2) “Ni-shite-mo reizōko-madeiru-no?”ni-shite-mo

refrigerator-to need-NMLZ

‘Even

(do

(so),

you

really)needarefrigerator?’ (2003, BCCWJ OB6X_00153)

On the Emergence of Utterance-Initial
Discourse-Pragmatic Marker:

This study will describe the results of a detailed

ni-shite-mo ‘even if, by the way’ in
Present-Day Japanese*survey of the uses of ni-shite-mo, mainly in thepast hundred years, analysing several corpora, as

Yuko Higashiizumi

mentioned in Section 3, and then discuss the

University of British Columbia

developmental pathway of the connective to a
DPM in light of constructionalization andconstructional change (Traugott and Trousdale

Keywords：anaphor, concession, constructionalchange, discourse-pragmatic marker

2013; Traugott 2014; Traugott 2016).
2. BackgroundSome recent work in historical pragmatics

1. Introduction

on the development of DPMs has beenThis study reports on the recent use of theconnective

concerned

with

the

initialposition(left

ni-shite-mo ‘even if/though, by the way’ inperiphery,

LP)

and

final

positions(rightModern Japanese. In present-day Japanese, theperiphery, RP) of the discourse unit (Beechingconnective ni-shite-mo, i.e., a combination of “niand Detges eds. 2014; Higashiizumi, Onodera(dative particle) + shite (the conjunctive form ofand Sohn eds. 2016; Onodera ed. 2017; Shinzato

the verb suru ‘do’) + mo (focus particle)” is2017). In the history of Japanese, LP DPMs,

usually attached to a noun or a finite clause andsuch as dakedo ‘but’, demo ‘but’, and dattefunctions as a clause-final connective of‘because’, tend to be recruited from linguistic

concession, meaning ‘even if’ or ‘even though’,items at the RP (Onodera 2014). As shown inutterance/clause-initial

as in (1).

complex1

Section 3, the LP DPM ni-shite-mo, as in (2),appears(1) Makeru-ni-shite-mo
lose-ni-shite-mosaizen-otobedeveloping

from

the

RP

connective, as in (1).

tsukuse.

Another tendency is the loss of the anaphor

best-ACC do‘Even if (you may) lose (the game), dothat

precedestheconnective,(your) best.’ (Dejitaru Daijisen)development of LP DPMs from “anaphoric”, as

i.e.,

the

in (3), to “anaphorless”, such as in (2)(Matsumoto 1988). 2

However, the connective is sometimes usedutterance/clause-initially, serving as a discoursepragmatic marker (DPM) of concession, as in(3) Sore-ni-shite-mo, nanka

sugoi(2). The speaker in (2) is in her friend’s room,

AN-ni-shite-molistening to her friend who is boasting that hekingaku-ni-naru-to-omou.

has everything he needs there.

amount.of.money-to-become-QUOT-think217

somewhat very‘Even so, (I) think (it) will be somewhat

anaphoric DPM by the late nineteenth century,very expensive.’ (2001, Meidai data017)

as evidenced in Table 1, its use as ananaphorless DPM is attested only in the

Building on preceding studies, I will explore
thedevelopmentofLP

anaphoricpresent-day corpora. The earliest example isandfound in (4). Here it is used as a slight challenge

anaphorless DPM uses of ni-shite-mo.

to the previous speaker.

3. A Corpus Study of ni-shite-mo(4) “Ryokō? Omae-o

Because the anaphorless DPM ni-shite-mo is

trip

mainly used in conversation and colloquial

you-ACC

hitori-deoite-ka? ...

alone-byleave-Q

Nasakenai hogosha-da-na” ... “Nasakenaku-

3

texts, examples are collected from conversation

shamefultranscripts from around 2000 as well as fromnai-yo. Watashi-mo sansei-shita-no-ya-

conversations within novels written around 1900

not-FP

I-too

and around 2000. The frequency of the LPkara”“Ni-shite-mo...”idiomatic expressions izure/docchi-ni-shite-mo

becauseni-shite-mo‘either way’ is relatively high in all of the‘“A trip? (Is she having a trip,) leaving you

corpora, so I counted them as a separate type.

alone? ... (What a) shameful parent (sheparent-COP-FP

shameful-

agree-did-NMLZ-COP-

Table 1 provides an overview of the uses ofis).” ... “Not shameful. Because I too agreed

ni-shite-mo in conversations within novels and(to her trip).” “Even (so)...”’ (1992, BCCWJ

in conversation transcripts.

4

LBgn_00013)
We can postulate a discourse-functional or

Table 1. Relative frequency of the uses ofsemantic/pragmatic

ni-shite-moCon. within

the LP anaphoric connective functions as a

1895

1978

topic-shift marker in (5). Just before the speaker

–1925

–2014

says (5), she and her mother were talking about

n

29

12

46

%

47%

19%

58%

izure/docchi-

n

11

9

15

ni-shite-mo

%

18%

14%

19%

LP anaphoric

n

22

36

14

DPM

%

35%

56%

18%

LP anaphorless

n

0

7

4

DPM

%

0%

11%

5%

Total

n

62

64

79

Corpusforanaphoric/anaphorless ni-shite-mo. For example,

Con.

novelsRP connective

change[1][2]

a famous rice cake.
(5) Sore-ni-shite-mo, denwa
AN-ni-shite-mo

konai-nā.

telephone come.not-FP‘By the way, (I’ve) not received a call.’(2001, Meidai data042)
In

many

cases,

however,thediscourse-functional change is not as clear as in(5). In (6), the LP anaphorless connective does[3] [4]

not appear to express the prototypical meaningof concession. Before the speaker uttered (6),

While the phrase ni-shite-mo occurs as anshe explained that she had had a hard time218

finding her friend who lost contact with her after

be regarded as expressing concession are foundthey left the pub, describing that she telephoned

as early as 1895 in the corpora.

many of her acquaintances around midnight.
(7) ... asu-wa(6) Ni-shite-mo-nē, ... dareka-sā, ... detekuru-

hayakutomorrow-TOP earlyni-shite-mo-FP

someone-FP

n-da-yo-nē,shōganai-kara-sā.

AN-ni-shite-mo

NMLZ-COP-FP-FP

no.choice-because-FP

teniire-tai-mono-da.

answer-tatō-zo.
depart.will-FP

Sore-ni-shite-mo tanzan-wa

zehitomocoal.mine-TOP definitely‘Even (so)/Anyway, ... someone ... answered

acquire-want- NMLZ-COP(my call) because (they had) no choice.’‘... (We) will depart early tomorrow. By the(2002, Meidai data040)

way, (I) definitely want to acquire the coalmine’ (1895, Taiyo P084B01)

The anaphorless connective in (6) may beinterpreted as marking an off-topic comment,

The corpus survey in this section, althoughwhich could be regarded as a certain kind oflimited, confirms that the LP anaphorless

topic shift.

ni-shite-mo has been developing recently andthat some LP anaphoric/anaphorless DPMs

Table 2 gives a trial classification of the
discourse or semantic/pragmatic functions thatinvolvediscourse-functionalorthe LP anaphoric/anaphorless ni-shite-mo issemantic/pragmatic change. With regard to theassumed to serve. I suggest that not all of themstructural change, we can hypothesize that its

necessarily function as concession DPMs.

pathway is from the RP complex connective, 5 asin (1), to the LP anaphoric DPM, as in (3), (5)Table 2. Functions of ni-shite-moand (7), and to the LP anaphorless DPM, as inCon. within(2), (4) and (6). In other words, the structuralCon.

change of ni-shite-mo from the RP connective toanaphorlessanaphoric

novelsconcession

1895

1978

the LP DPM is consistent with the tendency that

–1925

–2014

Japanese LP DPMs have, and with the loss of
the anaphor that some of Japanese LP DPMs

n

12

11

11

%

55%

26%

61%

non-

n

10

25

3

As for the discourse-functional change, theconcession

%

45%

58%

17%

trend is from concession to topic shift. The

concession

n

0

4

3

%

0%

9%

17%

concessive ones has also been identified, for

non-

n

0

3

1

example, for dakedo ‘but’ and demo ‘but’

concession

%

0%

7%

6%

(Onodera 2004) in Japanese, and in having said

n

22

43

18

[2]

[3] [4]

Total
Corpus[1]tend to undergo, as mentioned in Section 2.

development

that(Ohashiof

topic-shift2017).

DPMs

Couper-Kuhlen

from

and

Thompson (2000) discuss discourse patterns inwhich concession is used in conversation. The
development of a topic-shift function from

Some instances of anaphoric DPMs that cannot

concession calls for further investigation.

219

Based on T&T (2013:27–29), the case for
4. A Constructionalization Perspective

constructionalization and the succession of

In this section, I examine the development ofconstructional changes involved in (9)–(11) canbe shown in Figure 1. 6

the anaphoric/anaphorless DPM ni-shite-mo andits discourse-functional or semantic/pragmaticchangefromtheperspectiveof

Figure 1. Constructionalization andconstructionalization (Traugott and Trousdaleconstructional changes involved in ni-shite-mo(hereafter, T&T) 2013; Traugott 2014; Traugott(9) [[CL-ni-shite-mo] ⟷ [concession]]2016). In constructional approaches to language↓↓↓↓change, a “construction” is defined as a

CC

PreCxzn CC“form–meaning pairing” (T&T 2013:1). On the(10a)[[AN-ni-shite-mo] ⟷ [concession]]basis of T&T’s (2013:8) representation of↓↓↓↓

constructions (8), I tentatively represent the

Cxzn

constructions of the RP complex connective and(10b) [[AN-ni-shite-mo]the LP anaphoric/anaphorless DPMs as in⟷ [topic-shift]](9)–(11) in this paper.

↓↓
CC

(8)

[[F] ⟷ [M]](9)[[CL-ni-shite-mo] ⟷ [concession]]

PostCxzn CC(11a) [[

ni-shite-mo] (11b) [[ ni-shite-mo]⟷ [concession]]⟷ [topic-shift]](10) a. [[AN-ni-shite-mo] ⟷ [concession]]b. [[AN-ni-shite-mo] ⟷ [topic shift]]

In terms of a network of relations among(11) a. [[ni-shite-mo] ⟷ [concession]]constructions (T&T 2013:17; Traugott 2016:V),

b. [[ni-shite-mo] ⟷ [topic shift]]concession and topic-shift DPMs, including theni-shite-mo construction, can be summarized asin Figure 2.

T&T (2013:1) further define “constructionalchange” and “constructionalization” as follows:

Figure 2. A network for concession and topic
shift DPMs in present-day Japanese(12) a. Constructional changes: changes that
affectfeaturesofan

Schema (DPM schema)

existing

construction
b. Constructionalization: the creation offormnew–meaningnew pairing

Subschema1

Subschema2(concessive)(topic shift)

Given that the hypothesized change from (9) to(10b) involves a formnew–meaningnew pairing, it

Micro-

Micro-

Micro-

Micro-

is regarded as a case of constructionalization.

Cxn1

Cxn2

Cxn3

Cxn4

(10a) to (10b), from (10a) to (11a) and fromAN-ni-shite-

ni-shite-mo

dakedodemo(10b) to (11b) are all counted as constructionalmo

The putative changes from (9) to (10a), fromchanges.

220

Figure 2 represents how some concessive DPMs

FP=final particle, LP=left periphery, M=meaning,are also used as topic-shift DPMs in present-day

NMLZ=nominalizer,

Q=question

Japanese.

QUOT=quotative,

RP=right

Micro-Cxn2

ni-shite-mo

waspresumably added to the network by aroundparticle,
periphery,

TOP=topic.

1990, as evidenced by (4). Given instances such

Symbol: ↓↓=feeding relationshipas (6), the nodes between Micro-Cxn2 and2

Subschema2 (topic shift) were hypotheticallyof the anaphor include Yajima (2011) andlinked by around 2000.

Higashiizumi (2015) for dakara ‘because/so’,Some detailed studies which point out the loss

Miyauchi (2014) for ke(re)do(mo) ‘but’, andFigure 2 is also meant to show that the
emergence of anaphorless connectives appears

Odani (2015) for nanode ‘because/so’.

to involve analogies based on structural and

3functional similarity to the existing forms.

pragmatics studies, see Kytö (2010) for example.

For further discussion of data in historical

A total of 27 examples of the LP anaphorless
5. Conclusion

DPM use of ni-shite-mo is found in the whole

In this study, I have examined the recent

BCCWJ: 8 examples in conversations within

uses of the complex connective ni-shite-mo. I

novels, 12 in blogs and 7 in other colloquial

suggest that the structural pathway is from thetexts.

RP connective via the LP anaphoric DPM to the

4

LP

the

in this study are as follows. [1] Conversations

discourse-functional change is from concession

within novels which are clearly indicated byto topic shift. The constructional changes that

quotation marks in Kōgo (colloquial style) texts

appear to be repeated in Japanese deserve further

taken from the Taiyō magazine issued instudy.

1895–1925, Taiyo Corpus. [2] Conversations

anaphorless

DPM,

and

The details of the data taken from the corpora

within novels which are distinctively marked by* Part of this research was supported by grants

quotationfrom the Aoyama Gakuin University Research

Shuppan_Shoseki_core,

Institute Project “A Comparative Study ofand‘Periphery’ and Its Functions in English andnon-core, published in 1976–2008, in BCCWJ.

Japanese” (Principal Investigator: Noriko O.

[3] Conversation transcripts in GNK (1997),

Onodera) andfor

audio-recorded in 1993, 19 speakers, ca. 9

Scientific Research (C) 16K02781 (Principal

hours; in GNK (2002), audio-recorded in

Investigator: Reijirou Shibasaki). Thanks are

1999–2000, 21 speakers, ca. 12 hours; in GNK

due to Sue Browning for kindly correcting and(2016),

improving my English.

speakers, ca. 17 hours. [4] Meidai Conversation

1

from

the

Grant-in-Aidchange,

COP=copula,5

CL=clause,

sub-corpora

Shuppan_Zassh_core

Tokutei-mokuteki_Besutoserā_Bungaku_

audio-recordedin

2011–2014,31

The phrase ni-shite-mo used as a concessive

century (Nihon Kokugo Daijiten).

Cxn=construction,

6

marker,theconnective is attested as early as the thirteenth

Cxzn=constructionalization,
DPM=discourse-pragmaticinCorpus, audio-recorded in 2001–2002.

NOTES
Abbreviations: ACC=accusative, AN=anaphor,

CC=constructional

marks

F=form,Higashiizumi (2017a, 2017b) examines asimilar succession of constructional changes

221involvedintheda-to-shite-mo

RP

(COP

complexconnective

paper presented at the Meiji International

dativeparticle/theSymposium,+

NakanoCampus,

Meiji

University, Tokyo.

infinitive form of the older copula tari + theHigashiizumi, Yuko (2017b) “Sequentiality andconjunctive form of the verb ‘do’ + focus
particle) ‘even if/though’ and the RP complex

Constructionalization

connective ni-mo-kakawara-zu (dative particle

Pragmatic Markers in Modern Japanese,”+ focus particle + the irrealis form of the verb

paper

‘relate’ + negative) ‘even though, however’. The“Sequentiality and Constructionalization of

repeatedly attested structural changes from RP

Discourse-Pragmatic Markers,” in the 15th

connectives via anaphoric to anaphorless DPMs

Internationalcan be represented in the following way:

Belfast.

[[CL-connective] ⟷ [M]]atDiscourse-thePragmatics

workshopConference,

Higashiizumi, Yuko, Noriko O. Onodera andSung-Ock S. Sohn, eds. (2016) Periphery:↓↓[[AN-connective] ⟷ [M]][[presentedofDiachronicandCross-Linguistic↓↓

Approaches, Special Issue of Journal ofconnective] ⟷ [M]]Historical

Pragmatics

17

(2),

John

Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Kytö,

REFERENCES

Merja(2010)“Datain

Historical

Beeching, Kate, and Ulrich Detges, eds. (2014)

Pragmatics,” Historical Pragmatics, ed. by

Discourse Functions at the Left and Right

Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavisainen,

Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of

33–67, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Matsumoto,

Language Use and Language Change, Brill,

Yo(1988)

“From

Bound

Grammatical Markers to Free Discourse

Leiden.
A.

Markers,” Proceedings of the FourteenthThompson (2000) “Concessive Patterns in

Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics

Discourse,”

Society, ed. by Shelley Axmaker and Helen

Cause-Condition-Concession-Contrast:

Singmaster, 340–351, Berkeley Linguistics

Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed.

Society, Berkeley.

Couper-Kuhlen,

ElizabethandSandraby Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Bernd

Miyauchi, Sayaka (2014) “Ga, keredo-rui o

Kortmann, 381–410, Mouton de Gruyter,

Kōseiyōso

Berlin.

Hattatsu ni tsuite (On the Development ofHigashiizumi,

Yuko(2015)“Periphery

to

Suru

SetsuzokushinoofConjunctions That Include ga-, keredo-

Utterances and (Inter)Subjectification in

Related Items),” Nihongoshi no Shin Shiten

Modern Japanese,” New Directions into Gendai Nihongo (New Perspective on

Grammaticalizationbythe History of Japanese and Present-Day

Andrew D. M. Smith, Graeme Trousdale

Japanese), ed. by Kenji Kobayashi andand Richard Waltereit, 135–156, John

Chigusa

Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Shuppan, Tokyo.

Research,ed.

Kobayashi,

603–620,

Bensei

Higashiizumi, Yuko (2017a) “The Clause-Initial

Odani, Masanori (2015) “Setsuzokushi nanodeUse of Complex Connectives in Japanese,”no Seiritsu ni tsuite (On the Development

222

Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Graeme Trousdaleof the Conjunction nanode),” Nihongo
Goyōron Forum 1, ed. by Shigehiro Kato,(2013)

Constructionalization

and

183–208, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.

Constructional Changes, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.

Ohashi, Hiroshi (2017) “From Concession to

Yajima, Masahiro (2011) “Jikanteki Kūkanteki

Topic Shift: The Case of having said that,”workshop

Hikaku o Jiku ni Shita Kinseigo Bunpōshi“Sequentiality and Constructionalization of

Kenkyū (A Historical and Areal Study ofDiscourse-Pragmatic Markers,” in the 15th

Grammar in Early Modern Japanese),

International

Kinseigo

paper

presented

atthePragmatics

Conference,

Kenkyū

noPerspective[Perspective of the Early Modern Japanese

Belfast.

Language], ed. by Hiroyuki Kanazawa andOnodera, Noriko O. (2004) Japanese Discourse
Markers:

SynchronicandDiachronic

Masahiro Yajima, 56–82, Kasama Shoin,

Discourse

Analysis,John

Benjamins,

Tokyo.

Amsterdam.
Onodera, Noriko O. (2014) “Setting Up a

CORPORABalanced Corpus of Contemporary Written

Mental Space,” Discourse Functions at theJapanese (BCCWJ), at <https://chunagon.

Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic

ninjal.ac.jp/bccwj-nt/search> (Accessed 22

Investigations

April 2017).

of

Language

Use

andGendai Nihongo Kenkyūkai (GNK) (1997) Josei

Language Change, ed. by Kate Beechingnoand Ulrich Detges, 92–116, Brill, Leiden.

Kotoba:Shokuba-hen(FemaleLanguage), Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.

Onodera, Noriko, ed. (2017) Periphery: Where

Gendai Nihongo Kenkyūkai (GNK) (2002)

Pragmatic Meaning Is Negotiated, Hituzi

Dansei no Kotoba: Shokuba-hen (MaleSyobo, Tokyo.

Language), Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.

Shinzato, Rumiko (2017) “Grammaticalization
Japanese,”

Gendai Nihongo Kenkyūkai (GNK) (2016)

Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers

Danwa Shiryō Nichijō Seikatsu no Kotaba

and Modal Particles: New Perspectives, ed.

(Japanese Daily Interaction: Transcripts

by Chiara Fedriani and Andrea Sansó,

and Analysis), Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.

ofPMs/DMs/MMs

in

Meidai

305–333, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Shinsha, Tokyo.

Theory and Data, ed. by Sylvie Hencil andEkkehard Köning, 87–106, John Benjamins,

DICTIONARIES
Dejitaru

Amsterdam.
“Grammaticalization<https://Taiyō Corpus (CD-ROM) (2005), Hakubunkan

Language Change,” Grammaticalization –C.

at(Accessed 22 April 2017).

Constructional Framework for Research on

Elizabeth

Corpus,chunagon.ninjal.ac.jp/nuc/search>

Traugott, Elizabeth C. (2014) “Toward a

Traugott,Conversation

Daijisen,JapanKnowledge

Lib,

Shogakukan Inc., Tokyo (Accessed 4(2016)

December 2017).

andpapersNihon Kokugo Daijiten, JapanKnowledge Lib,

presented at University of Ghent, May

Shogakukan Inc., Tokyo (Accessed 4

23–27, 2016.

December 2017).

Constructionalization

I–V,”

223

information structure of nominals; Section 4 argues that emphatic IFoc in the nominal domain issubstantiated from the rhetorical use of demonstrative double genitives; and, finally, Section 5 draws
conclusions.

The Left Periphery of DP and Information
Focus: A Case Study of Double Genitives inEnglish *2. Focus Typology
2. 1. Information Focus and Contrastive Focus
According to Cruschina (2011), the notion of

Masatoshi Honda

focus is divided into two types: IFoc and Contras-

University of Tsukuba

tive Focus (CFoc). Cruschina (2011), on the one
hand, defines IFoc as the assertive part of the

Keywords：cartography, demonstratives, double

sentence which must be interpreted as the mostgenitives, emphasis, information focus

informative in the sense that it presents relevant
new information to the universe of discourse; theassertive part of CFoc, on the other hand, corresponds to denying or correcting a previous asser-

1. Introduction
Rizzi (1997) hypothesizes in the cartographic

tion/presupposition that the speaker does notframework that the traditional CP domain splits

share. For concreteness, let us consider the fol-

into discourse-related functional projections:lowing sentences:

Force, Topic, Focus, and Finite. According to his
original split CP hypothesis, there is only one fo-

(1)

a.

cus projection in the CP domain. However, ob-(Context: What car did John buy?)
John bought [a Ferrari]IFoc

serving non-contrastive focus fronting phenome-(Cruschina (2011: 14))na in Romance languages (e.g., Sicilian),b.

Cruschina (2011) posits two syntactic positions[YOUR BOOK]CFoc you should give＿ to Paul (not mine)for information focus (IFoc) in a sentence: em-(Rizzi (1997: 285), with modifications)

phatic IFoc in the CP domain and neutral IFoc in
the TP domain. If the parallelism between the

In (1a), on the one hand, the DP in brackets car-clausal domain and the nominal domain is con-ries new IFoc and functions to provide an answer

cerned with information structure, it will be ex-

to the question; in this case, no contrastive mean-

pected that the nominal domain also includes aing is involved. In (1b), on the other hand, thefunctional projection for emphatic IFoc. This pa-

preposed DP in brackets is interpreted as CFoc;

per aims to lend support to this hypothesis by ob-

here, the preposed DP serves to correct the wrong

serving the rhetorical use of demonstrative double

piece of information expressed by the negative

genitives (e.g., That nose of his!).

tag not mine, and the rest of the sentence is pre-The organization of this paper is as follows:

supposed. As a result, the preposed CFoc element

Section 2 introduces the typology of focus andobligatorily creates a contrast.

considers how emphatic IFoc is syntactically li-

The next subsection shows the dichotomy ofcensed; Section 3 reviews previous studies on theemphatic IFoc and neutral IFoc.

224

B:

2. 2. Neutral IFoc and Emphatic IFoc
Observing that Romance languages (e.g.,
Sicilian) exhibit non-CFoc fronting, Cruschina

A casasivinnì!

the house

REFL

sell.PAST.3SG‘He sold the house!’(2011) proposes that the left periphery of a sen-

(Cruschina (2011: 71), with slight modifications)tence contains an independent functional projection dedicated to emphatic IFoc. Let us consider

The acceptability of (3B) with emphatic Ifoc

the following example from Sicilian:

fronting shows that both the preposed DP and therest of the sentence are compatible with sen-(2) A.

Chi

scrivisti?

tence-focus (i.e. new information). This pattern

what write.PAST.2SG

differs from CFoc fronting in (1b) because in the‘What did you write?’latter case, the propositional content, except theB. a. Scrissi

preposed CFoc, is presupposed.

n’articulu.

The next subsection considers how emphatic

write.PAST.1SG an article

IFoc is syntactically licensed.

‘I wrote an article.’b. N’articulu scrissi!
an article

write.PAST.1SG

2. 3. The Syntactic Mechanism for Emphatic IFoc
In order to capture the difference between‘I wrote an article’

CFoc and IFoc, Cruschina (2011) proposes his(Cruschina (2011: 58), with slight modifications)original split CP hypothesis in (4b), which departs
from Rizzi’s (1997) original one in (4a).

The question/answer pairs above show that thequestion in (2A) can be answered either by (2Ba)(4)

or (2Bb). In (2Ba), the IFoc DP occupies the ob-

a. Force … Topic* … Focus … Topic* …
Fin IP …

ject position in the TP domain and functions as ananswer to the question; in this case, the DP carries

b. Force … Topic … CFoc … Topic …

a neutral IFoc interpretation in the sense that it

IFoc … Fin IP …

does not necessarily convey the speaker’s evaluative meaning such as surprise. In (2Bb), the pre-Cruschina’s split CP hypothesis differs fromposed DP serves as IFoc, but it also obligatorily

Rizzi’s in that the former assumes two syntactic

conveys a sense of emphasis, or the speaker’s

positions for focus: CFoc and emphatic IFoc.
Cruschina (2011) argues that the defining

evaluative meaning.
Furthermore, Cruschina (2011) points out thatproperties of emphatic IFoc are the following

emphatic IFoc fronting in Sicilian is compatible

two: new information and the speaker’s evalua-with the out-of-the-blue (sentence-focus) context,

tive meaning. According to Cruschina, among

which is exemplified by the answer to athese two meanings, the latter originates fromwh-question like what happened?:pragmatics (Relevance Theory), or the interaction
between the new information expressed by an

(3)

A:

Chi

successi?

emphatic IFoc element and its relation to thewhat happen.PAST.3SG

knowledge of the speaker/interlocutors (Sperber‘What happened?’and Wilson (1995)). By contrast, Shimada andNagano (2016) propose that the speaker’s evalua-225

tive meaning component concerns the researchThis subsection has seen the properties ofarea of evaluative morphology whose aim is toemphatic IFoc and the syntactic mechanism for

explore how the speaker’s evaluative meanings

licensing an emphatic IFoc reading.

are expressed by means of morphemes or phrases
in words and phrases. Observing the ordering of

3. Focusing on the Nominal Domain

Italian suffixes, Cinque (2015) argues that their

Within the generative framework, it is a tradi-ordering is strictly fixed. His argument points totional argument that the clausal domain and thethe existence of the correspondingly orderednominal domain show symmetry in (at least) twofunctional projections for evaluative meanings

aspects: grammatical functions such as subjects(e.g. augmentative, pejorative, diminutive, en-and objects, and transformational operations likedearing) in words and phrases, as shown below:

passivization. If such a symmetrical relationshipapplies to information structure (Aboh, Corver,(5)… Aug (-on-) … Pej (-acci-) … Dim (-in-)

Dyakonova and van Koppen (2010)), it will be… EndP (-ett) …

expected that the nominal domain also includes
discourse-related functional projections. To begin,
the next subsection reviews such an approach.

If the evaluative hierarchy in (5) is combinedwith distributed morphology (Halle and Marantz(1993)), one will hypothesize that the evaluative

3. 1. CFoc and IFoc in the Nominal Domainfunctional projections in (5) exist across words,

Among the discourse-related properties, CFoc

phrases, and sentences because they are formed

has been often analyzed in relation to the infor-by the same syntactic operation: merge. Follow-

mation structure of nominals. For example,

ing this reasoning, Shimada and Nagano propose

Corver and van Koppen (2009:3-4) argues thatthat emphatic IFoc is syntactically encoded at theadjectives in Dutch are rigidly ordered in the(emphatic) IFoc projection selected by thenominal domain and word order alternations lead

Eval(uative) projection, as shown below:

to a contrastive reading.

(6)

(8)

… Eval …IFoc … Fin TP …

a.

de roze Amerikaanse auto’s
the pink American

They make two assumptions: first, an emphatic

cars‘the pink American cars’b.

IFoc element has two unvalued features, the un-de AMERIKAANSE roze auto’svalued evaluative feature, [uEval], and the un-

the AmericanSTRESS

pink cars

valued IFoc feature, [uIFoc]; second, these two‘the AMERICAN pink cars’

unvalued features are valued by moving the emphatic IFoc element to Spec-IFoc. In this paper, I(8a) illustrates the neutral adjective ordering; inadopt their syntactic mechanism for emphatic

this case, the color adjective precedes the nation-

IFoc. Thus, emphatic IFoc fronting in Sicilian isality adjective. (8b) with the reversed adjective

analyzed as in (7).

ordering shows that the preposed nationality adjective carries a contrastive focus reading (see(7)… [EvalP [IFocP N’articului [FinP (scrissi)

Aboh et al. (2010) and references cited therein for[TP pro [vP scrissi ti ]]]]]

other instances of CFoc in the nominal domain).

(= (2Bb))

226

IFoc in the nominal domain is substantiated from

Unlike CFoc, IFoc has not been explored inJapanese kantaiku nominals.

the literature of the information structure of
nominal expressions (Corver and van Koppen(2009), Aboh et al. (2010)). In this connection,(11) a.

Kono

wain-wa

Corver and van Koppen (2009) argue that IFoc in

thiswine-TOP expensive-COP

nominals must be discussed with careful consid-‘This wine is expensive.’

eration because their information structure isb.

taka-itaka-i.

wain

overridden by that of sentences. Thus, they indi-

expensive-COP wine

cate that root nominals convey their own infor-‘expensive wine’

mation structure, without being affected by otherc.

Taka-iwain!

factors. Corver and van Koppen (2009: 14) cite

expensive-COP wine

the following examples as root nominals:‘Expensive wine!’

(9)

a.

Aspects of the theory of SYNTAXThe declarative sentence in (11a) involves the(books by Noam Chomsky)b.

adjectival predicate, and the nominal phrase in

Dear friends of HOLLAND!

(11b) consists of the head noun and the relative
clause formed by the adjectival predicate. The(9a) is a book title, and (9b) is a (neutral) vocative

Japanese kantaiku nominal in (11c) shares a syn-expression. These root nominals carry new in-tactic form with the nominal phrase in (11b);

formation on the recursive (right) side.

however, the Japanese kantaiku nominal in (11c)

The next subsection reviews Shimada anddiffers from the nominal phrase in (11b) in that

Nagano (2016) because they attempt to empiri-

the former is used as an emotional vocative, or acally support the presence of emphatic IFoc in theroot nominal which expresses the speaker’s

nominal domain.

on-the-spot reaction to a given situation. Theseobservations lead Shimada and Nagano to propose that Japanese kantaiku nominals are derived

3. 2. Emphatic IFoc in the Nominal Domain

by covertly moving the relative clause to

In Subsection 2.3, we have reviewed

Spec-IFoc, as illustrated below:

Cruschina’s (2011) split CP hypothesis. If theparallelism between the clausal and nominal do-(12) a.

mains extends to information structure, his hy-

waini]]]]

pothesis will indicate that the nominal domainb.

also includes a functional projection for emphatic
IFoc, as shown below:[DP [EvalP [IFocP [NP [Rel proi taka-i]

1[DP [EvalP [IFocP [Rel proi taka-i]j [NPtj waini]]]](10) a. … Force … Eval … IFoc … Fin IP …

Shimada and Nagano’s (2016) study is ofb. … DP … Eval … IFoc … NP …

theoretical importance in exploring the hypothesisin (10b). However, they cannot provide evidence

Although there is less research which tries to em-

enough to show the word order alternation effectpirically motivate the hypothesis in (10b),in Japanese kantaiku nominals. Thus, further re-

Shimada and Nagano (2016) argue that emphatic

search will be necessary to empirically support

227

(15) [DP [TP [T’ ’s [QP/NP ]]]]

emphatic IFoc in the nominal domain. The next
section argues that the emphatic IFoc hypothesis

The apostrophe s in this structure is seen as theis supported by demonstrative double genitives

singular number marker which corresponds to themorpheme -s found on verbs. On the basis of the

4. Double Genitives and Emphatic IFoc
Previous studies have argued that double gen-DP structure in (15), Kayne proposes that double

itive nominals are divided into two types: indefi-

genitives are derived by moving the possessum

nite double genitives and demonstrative double

part generated as a (indefinite) QP to Spec-DP, as

genitives (e.g. Abel (2006); cf. Barker (1998)).

shown in (16a); as a result, the double genitive isderived as an indefinite nominal. In (16a), the(13) a.

a book of John’s

preposition-like element of is inserted at the Db.

that book of John’shead in order to case-mark the possessor John.

cf.

John’s book(16) a.

In this section, I will demonstrate that emphatic[DP [QP/NP a sister]i [D’ of [TP John
[T’ ’s ti]]]]

IFoc fronting is empirically supported by the lat-b.

[DP Johni [TP ti [T’ ’s [QP/NP sister]]]]ter type, demonstrative double genitives (seeSection 4.2). Before proceeding further, the next

Although he does not mention how definite pos-

subsection reviews the basic properties of indefi-

sessive nouns are derived, I assume that move-nite double genitives and their derivation.

ment of the possessor to Spec-DP derives a definite possessive nominal.
In this paper, I follow Kayne’s (1993) syntac-

4. 1. Indefinite Double Genitives

tic analysis of indefinite double genitives.

Kayne (1993) observes that double genitives
show the so-called definiteness effect. For example, they do not co-occur with the definite article,

4. 2. Demonstrative Double Genitives as Emo-

as shown in the following contrast:

tional Vocatives
Narita (1986) and Barker (1998) observe that
demonstrative double genitives behave as rhetor-(14) a. * the sister of John’s (Kayne (1993: 4))b.

ical expressions. Let us consider the following

a sister of John’s

examples:Furthermore, Kayne (1993: 4) points out that the
double genitive in (14b) is indefinite because it(17) a.

occurs in the post-copular position of the existen-b.

tial-there sentence (e.g., There is (exists) a sister

His nose.
That NOSE of his!
(Barker (1998: 713))

of John’s. (Kayne (1993: 4))).

c.

[A] sister of John’s(= (14b))

In order to explain the definiteness effect,
Kayne (1993) first assumes that the clausal do-

Among these three types of nominals, only themain and the nominal domain share the samedemonstrative double genitive in (17b) serves as asyntactic structure which includes TP (AGR) (seerhetorical expression, or an emotional vocative

Takano (1989) for a similar proposal).

(cf. (11c)). In what follows, I will explain the228

To sum up, the emotional vocative use of abasic properties of demonstrative double geni-

demonstrative double genitive is characterized bytives in detail.
First, as Barker (1998) observes, the posses-

the following two properties: the non-contrastive

sum part must receive focal stress; thus, it is im-

focus effect on the possessum part and the occur-

possible to give prominence to the possessor

rence of a demonstrative whose function is tonoun. This property is illustrated in the following

strengthen the speaker’s evaluative meaning. It is

contrast:

reasonable to conclude that these properties point
to emphatic IFoc in demonstrative double geni-(18) a.

tives. The next subsection proposes the derivationthat NOSE of hisof demonstrative double genitives.

b. * that mother of THE TALL MAN’S(Barker (1998: 714, bold mine))

4. 3. The Derivation of Demonstrative Double
Furthermore, Abel (2006) argues that the focus

Genitiveseffect on the possessum part does not necessarily

Adopting and modifying Kayne’s (1993)

create a contrast and is compatible with providing

analysis of indefinite double genitives, I propose

a piece of new information.

that demonstrative double genitives are also derived by fronting the possessum part to Spec-IFoc,

Second, demonstrative double genitives, inas shown below:2

general, express the speaker’s evaluative meaning.
According to Barker (1998: 714), “[b]asically,(19) [DP … [EvalP [IFocP [AP that Adj nose]i [FinP

there must be something unusual or noteworthy
about the referent of the collocation, or at leastof [TP his ti]]]]]

some aspects of the situation that provokes anemotional response in the speaker.” In this con-

In this structure, the possessum is generated as an

nection, Keizer (2005) points out that the pres-AP with an empty adjective (corresponding to,ence of a demonstrative is crucial for expressing

say, big or ugly), and the demonstrative with thethe speaker’s evaluative meaning in demonstra-intensifying function is assumed to occur withintive double genitives. Keizer divides the syntac-

the adjectival projection and modify the covert

tic/semantic roles of demonstratives into the fol-

adjective (indicated by Adj). Then, the possessum

lowing two: indicating [± proximity] and intensi-

undergoes focus fronting to Spec-IFoc; as a result,fying the evaluative judgment given by thethe emphatic IFoc interpretation is obtained.

speaker. According to Keizer (2005: 305), theThe analysis proposed in (19) is reminiscentlatter syntactic/semantic role is “to strengthen theof the covert movement analysis of Japaneseforce of the speaker’s judgment ― a function

kantaiku nominals proposed by Shimada andthe demonstrative that can also have in regular

Nagano (2016) (see (12a, b)).

NPs with evaluative adjectives (that idiotic boy;that idiotic principal).” Furthermore, she argues

5. Concluding Remarksthat the demonstrative that can have this intensi-

This paper argued that demonstrative double

fying function in demonstrative double genitives

genitives lend support to the hypothesis that theand implies some kind of negative judgement

functional projection for emphatic IFoc exists ineven if they lack an overt adjective (cf. (18a)).

the left periphery of nominal expressions. Due to229

limited space, I would like to leave open the

Domenica, C. Hamann, and S. Matteini,

question of whether emphatic IFoc in the nominal

67-81, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

domain is substantiated from other nominal ex-

Corver, Norbert and Marjo van Koppen (2009)“Let’s Focus on Noun Phrase Ellipsis,”pressions (e.g., that idiot of a doctor).

Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen
Linguistik 48, 3-26.

* I appreciate Yukio Hirose, Nobuhiro Kaga,
Masaharu Shimada, Naoaki Wada, Masaru

Cruschina, Silvio (2011) Discourse-Related Fea-

Kanetani for their invaluable comments on thistures and Functional Projections, Oxford

study. I am also grateful to the following audience

University Press, Oxford.
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz (1993) “Distrib-

for their invaluable comments on my presentationth

at the 10 ELSJ International Spring Forum 2017:

uted Morphology and the Pieces of Inflec-

Yoshio Endo, Yoshiki Ogawa, and Mikinarition,” The View from Building 20: Essays in

Matsuoka. All the remaining errors are my own.

Linguistics

in

HonourofSylvain

NOTES

Bromberger, ed. by K. Hale and S. J.

For simplicity, I omit the Topic and CFoc pro-Keyser, 111-176, MIT Press, Cambridge.

jections between the Force/DP projection and the

Kayne, Richard (1993) “Toward a Modular The-

1

IFoc projection here.

ory

2Linguistica 47, 3-31.

The alternative possibility is to assume that theof

Auxiliary

Selection,”

Studiademonstrative occurs at the D head and triggers

Keizer, Evelien (2005) “What to Do with Thosethe inversion of the AP. Due to limited space, I

Fools of a Crew,” Organizing Grammar:

will not discuss which analysis is on the right

Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van

track.

Riemsdijk, ed. by H. Broekhuis, N. Corver,
R. Huybregts, U. Kleinhenz, and J. Koster,
300-309, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

REFERENCES
Abel, Jennifer (2006) “That Crazy Idea of Hers:

Narita, Hajime (1986) “The Nature of Double

The English Double Genitive as Focus Con-

Genitive,” Descriptive and Applied Linguis-struction,” Canadian Journal of Linguistics

tics 19, 193-206.
Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of the51, 1-14.
Aboh, Enoch O., Norbert Corver, Marina

Left Periphery,” Elements of Grammar: ADyakonova, and Marjo van Koppen (2010)

Handbook of Generative Syntax, ed. by L.

“DP-Internal Information Structure: Some

Haegeman, 281-337, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Introductory

Remarks,”

LinguaShimada, Masaharu and Akiko Nagano (2016)

120,“Mirativity and Focus in DP,” paper read at

782-801.

the Omolouc Linguistic Colloquium 2016.

Barker, Chris (1998) “Partitives, Double Genitves

Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson (1995) Rele-

and Anti-Uniqueness,” Natural Language

vance:and Linguistic Theory 16, 679-717.

Communication

andCognition(Second Edition), Blackwell Publishing,

Cinque, Guglielmo (2015) “Augmentative, Pejo-

Oxford.

rative, Diminutive and Endearing Heads inthe Extended Nominal Projection,” Struc-Takano, Yuji (1989) “Some Extensions of the DPtures, Strategies and Beyond, ed. by E. Di

Hypothesis,” English Linguistics 6, 90-110.

230

mark CTs (Kuno 1973). For example, the second
sentence in (2) conveys that there is one or morealternatives that is ‘unlike’ or to be ‘contrasted’
with Ken (e.g. Hanako, Taro, …) as non-at-issue(NAI) meaning.1

Contrastive Topics and the Dual Character ofImperatives*(2) A: Who passed the exam?
Shun Ihara

B: KEN-wa ukat-ta.

Osaka University/JSPS

K-CT

pass-PAST‘(At least) Ken passed.’
Keywords：imperatives, contrastive topics,

NAI: there are some alternatives that ispermission, to-do lists

contrasted with Ken (, and the speaker
does not know who else come).

1. Introduction

2.2. Contrastive Topics in Imperatives

The dual character of imperatives, command

While most of all discussions of CTs have(or directive) and permission (or concession), as

focused on declarative sentences, Japanese CTs

exemplified in (1), has been a long lasting

can abundantly be found with imperatives (cf.

puzzle (e.g. Kaufmann 2012, Portner 2007,

Tomioka 2009). Interestingly, when CT-wa

among many others).

occurs in imperatives, we can obtain apermission interpretation as NAI meaning, as(1) a.
b.

Clean up your room!

[command]shown in (3).

OK, go out and play (if you want to).
[permission](3) [out of the blue context:]
Shukudai-wa

yar-e.

In this paper, I attempt to make a contribution to

homework-CT do-IMP

the understanding of the semantic/pragmatic‘Do your homework.’

relation between the character of imperatives

NAI: there are some alternatives that isand so-called contrastive topics (CTs) incontrasted with homework (e.g., cleaning

Japanese. I propose that (i) in (canonical)

the room, practicing the piano, …), and it isimperatives, CTs operate at the level of the

not necessary for the addressee to do them.

necessity modal (, not at the level ofimperative/directive speech act) and (ii) the

More intriguing fact is that when CT-wa occurs

semantic effect of permission imperatives within permission contexts, no such NAI meaning is

CTs is blocked by pragmatics.

conveyed, as shown in (4):2. Basics and the Puzzle(4) [Taro asks “Can I eat some of these cakes?”,

2.1. Japanese Contrastive Topics
The

current

analysisincorporates

and Mary replies:]
theMaronkeeki-wa tabe-ro.

common assumption that the particle ‘-wa’ canchestnut.cake-CT eat-IMP

231

‘(OK,) Eat the chestnut cake.’(6) Example: Interpretation of (2)NAI: there are some alternatives that is

AI: [[ p]] = passed(exam,K)contrasted with the chestnut cake (e.g.,

NAI: there are q1: passed(exam,H) and q2:

short cakes, chocolate cakes, …), and #it ispassed(exam,T) such that q1, q2 ∈not necessary for the addressee to eat them.

Alt([[ p]]), q1,q2 ≠ [[p]], and ¬q1 and ¬q2 are compatible with the speaker’s

In (4), ‘not-necessary-NAI’ is not conveyed; thatcurrent beliefs.

is, ‘eating the cakes other than the chestnut cake’is still prohibited by the speaker.

How about the cases in imperatives? For the

The central question in this paper is ascommand imperative in (3), we can obtain thefollows. How does NAI meaning in imperatives

following interpretation:with CTs come about? Specifically, (i) why docommandimperatives

with

CTs

convey(7) Interpretation of (3) (to be revised)permission meaning as NAI? And (ii) how can

AI: [[ imp(p)]] = imp[do(hw,ad)]

we provide an account for the fact that

NAI: there

are

some

proposition

q1:

permission imperatives with CTs do not convey

do(cleaning,ad), q2: do(practicing,ad)

such a NAI meaning? These accounts have notsuch that q1,q2∈Alt([[ p]]), q1,q2 ≠[[p]] ,been typically presented in a formal linguisticand ¬ q1 and ¬ q2 are compatible withtheory since almost all studies of CTs inthe speaker’s current beliefs.

Japanesehaveexclusively

focusedondeclaratives.

Unfortunately, this fails to get the permission
meaning that the addressee is not required to do

3. The Semantics and Pragmatics of CTs

the things other than doing his homework (Note3.1. The Interpretation of CT-wa

that the imperative operator ‘imp’ in (7) is not

I adopt the brief interpretation in (5)assumed to be a part of a proposition). Althoughproposed by Oshima (forthcoming) as theone may think that CT-wa operates at the level

current analysis of sentences with CT-wa. I

of imperative speech act (Tomioka 2009), andconsider CT-wa to be a focus particle, the same

thus imperatives with CT-wa would convey

category as mo ‘too’, sae ‘even’, and dake ‘only’,¬ imp(q) (i.e.: not required to do q) as NAI, thisfollowingidea may also be problematic, as I will illustrateprevious

works

on

Japaneselinguistics (e.g. Teramura 1991).

in the next section.

(5) at-issue (AI): [[ p]]3.2. Embedded Imperatives with CTs

non-at-issue (NAI): there are some q such

Hara (2006) notes that an embedded CT

that q ∈Alt([[p]] ), q ≠ [[ p]] , and ¬ q iscreates an ambiguity with respect to whose pointcompatible with the speaker’s currentof view the NAI meaning created by -wa isbeliefs.

related to. This holds for the case of embedded
imperatives with CTs as well, as shown in (8): 2

where q is a proposition and alt is a set of
focus alternatives.

(8) Taroi-ga Hanako-ni [ karei-no ronbun-wa

232

T-GENH-tohis

paper-CT

let me spell out the assumptions needed for my

yom-e ] to shijishi-ta.

proposal:

read-IMP C give.an.instruction-PAST(9) a. Imperatives

semanticallyencodea

NAI:

necessity modal ‘□’ clause internally (cf.
Kaufmann 2012, Medeiros 2013, Ihara(a) Taro believes that there are some

& Noguchi forthcoming).

‘Taro ordered Hanako to read his paper.’alternatives that is contrasted withb. Imperative

speechact

itselfisTaro’s paper, and it is not necessary for

represented independently of imperative

Hanako to read them.

morphology as an update operator ‘IMP’.

(b) The speaker believes that there aresome alternatives that is contrasted

In (9b), I use the term ‘update’ in the sense ofwith Taro’s paper, and #it is not

the dynamic semantics account of imperatives

necessary for Hanako to read them.

(Portner 2004,2007). Briefly, Portner proposesthat the function of imperatives is to add tasks

The interpretation of (8) is ambiguous between(or properties) to the set called To-Do Lists

Taro’s local NAI and the speaker’s global NAI:

(TDL). I simply assume that IMP serves thisunlike (8a), (8b) does not create the NAI that thecontext update function. 4

speaker believes that it is not necessary for the

Based on these assumptions, I represent theaddressee (= Hanako) to read a paper other than

LF of imperatives with CTs in (10). The crucial

Taro’s paper.

point of the proposal is that CTs obligatorily

The view that CTs operate at the level ofoperate at the level of the necessity modal, hence

speech acts (e.g. Tomioka 2009) cannot tothey cannot operate under the modal.

predict the contrast in (8) without modifications.
(10) [ IMP [ wa [ Exh [ □ [ p: […[ X ]F…] ]]]]]

Since there is some evidence that sentences withelements related to speech acts (e.g. discourse
particles, special sentence-final intonations)(11) Exh(Alt<st,t>)(pst)(w) = p(w) ∧ ∀q ∈ NW(p,cannot be indirectly embedded (cf. Noguchi

Alt): ¬ q (w)2016), based on this, it is difficult for thewhere NW(p, Alt) is a set of alternatives

speech-acts-view to explain why we can get thethat are not weaker than p.

local contrastive meaning from an embedded
imperative with CT as in (8a), where true speech

The exhaustive operator ‘Exh’ in (11) associatedacts are not represented. 3 My proposal in thiswith CT-wa (Fox 2007, among others) identifies

paper illustrated in the next section overcomesa proposition p as the most informative out of athe current issues.

given alternative set. Although Fox and others
do not discuss the exhaustivity associated with

4. Deriving the Permission Meaning ofcontrastive focus, its potential to be extended toContrastive Imperatives

contrastive focus is obvious (Tomioka 2009).

4.1. Proposal: Exhaustifying Necessity

Whether the exhaustive operator is the right

In this section, I will lay out my proposal

operator for contrastive topics or not, thewhich is based on a very simple idea. First of all,presence of some operator is clearly needed.

233

NAI: there
4.2. Analysis
Let me illustrate how the current proposal

are

some

proposition

q1:

order[T, □read(paperKen,H),H],

q2:

order[T,□read(paperRyo,H),H]

s.t.

works. The command imperative in (3) gets the

q1,q2 ∈ Alt([[S]]), q1,q2 ≠ [[S]], andfollowing interpretation:¬q1:¬order[T,□read(paperKen,H),H] &¬q2:¬order[T,□read(paperRyo,H),H](12) Interpretation of (3)are compatible with the speaker’s

AI: [[ IMP(p)]] = IMP[□do(hw,ad)]
NAI: there

are

some

current beliefs.

propositionq1:□do(cleaning,ad), q2:□do(practicing,ad)s.t. q1,q2∈alt([[□p]]), q1,q2≠[[□p]] , and¬q1: ¬□do(cleaning,ad) & ¬q2: ¬□do

5. Permission Imperatives with CTs(practicing,ad) are compatible with theon contrastive imperatives is how we should

speaker’s current beliefs.

provide an account for the fact that imperatives

5.1. Semantics and Pragmatics of Permissions
As I have pointed out, another sticky issue

with CTs in permission contexts do not convey(12) correctly represents our intuition. When a

the NAI meaning (See the contrast between (3)command imperative with CT (= IMP[wa(□p)])vs. (4)). Before moving on to show my proposal,

is uttered, the alternatives {□φ1,□φ2,…,□φn} are

I introduce more assumptions about permission

evaluated by the exhaustive operator, andimperatives. In addition to (9) above, I further

non-weakerassume the following, according to Portner

alternatives

arenegated,thus

deriving {¬□φ1,¬□φ2,…,¬□φn} = {¬ ◇ φ1,¬ ◇(2010):

φ2,…,¬ ◇ φn}, which are compatible with the
speaker’s current beliefs.
The

present

capturestheanalysistwo(15) a. There is no semantic difference between
straightforwardly

readings

ofcommand and permission imperatives.

embeddedb. Differencesinfunctionamong

imperatives with CTs. The ambiguity depends

imperatives depends on the pragmaticon whether CTs operate at the level of thegrounds (contexts) upon which theembedded sentence with necessity modal or not:imperative is issued.

(13) Reading in (8a)Portner suggests that permission imperatives

AI: [[□p]] = □read(paperTaro,H)
NAI: there

are

some

proposition

arise when an imperative adds a task whoseq1:

content is inconsistent with the addressee’s TDL,

□read(paperKen,H),q2:□read(paperRyo,H) s.t. q1,q2∈Alt([[□p]]), q1,q2 ≠[[□p]] ,and ¬q1: ¬□read(paperKen,H) & ¬q2:¬□read(paperRyo,H) are compatible

as exemplified in (16):(16) A: Do I turn left here?
B: Sure, turn (left).

with the Taro’s beliefs.
In (16), if something like ‘continue straight(14) Reading in (8b)ahead’ is on the addressee(=A)’s TDL, theAI: [[ S ]] = order[T,□read(paperTaro,H),H]

speaker(=B)’s imperatives will yield permission,234not a command. Thus, there is no semantic

generated by the imperative with CT-wa isdifference between command and permission

something like ‘it is possible for the addressee

imperatives: the only difference is pragmatics.

not to eat the chocolate cake and the short cake,’based on the present assumption. Why is the

5.2. A Pragmatic Resolution

meaning not conveyed? The answer is as follows.

Following the assumption that command

I argue that (i) the NAI meaning conveyed byand permission imperatives are both related to

CT-wa is generally weak so that it cannot

the same operator, namely the necessity operator,

overcome (or cancel) presuppositions, and that

it is expected that we should get non-necessary(ii) since the content of the inference are

NAI from permission imperatives with CTs asinconsistent with the presupposition, namely thewell as command imperatives, contrary to theaddressee’s

fact. This puzzle can be solved by focusing on

pragmatically blocked.

TDL

like

(17),

they

are

the semantic/pragmatic property of CT-wa: I

Consider the case of CT-wa in declaratives.

argue that the NAI meaning of CT-wa in

When (part of) a NAI meaning is inconsistentpermission imperatives is pragmatically blockedwith contents of discourse components (e.g.

by presuppositions.

common ground, TDL), it will be blocked andFirst, let me illustrate how the puzzle looks

thus not be conveyed, as shown in (19):like. The addressee’s TDLs before and after theimperative in (4) are given in (17) and (18),(19) [A and B are watching pictures of somerespectively (Suppose that the addressee in (4)animals: lions, goats, cats, and rats. A

chooses to eat the chestnut cake after the

believes that lions are the strongest animal

speaker’s permission):in the world. As for goats, A thinks that they
are strong, but not so as lions.]
A: Look at these pictures! Don’t you think(17) TDLaddr(c) = {¬eat(cakechestnut,ad),¬eat(cakeshort,ad),goats look so strong?

¬eat(cakechocolate,ad)}

B: Hmm. So which animal do you think isstronginthispicture,ofcourseincluding goats?

(18) TDLaddr(c’) = {¬eat(cakechestnut,ad),eat(cakechestnut,ad),

A: raion-wa tsuyoi yo.

¬eat(cakeshort,ad),lions-CT strong SFP¬eat(cakechocolate,ad)}‘Lions are strong (at least).’
NAI: (i) cats are not strong, (ii) rats are not

The illustration above shows that the imperativestrong, and #(iii) goats are not strong arein (4) adds the content (= ‘the addressee eatscompatible with A’s current beliefs.

chestnut cake’) which is inconsistent with theaddressee’s TDL. Due to this, the previous

In (19), the NAI meaning semantically generated

content, namely ‘not to eat the chestnut cake,’ isby CT-wa, namely ‘goats are not strong’, isno longer required, which leads to the situation

blocked by the established common knowledge

where ‘eating the chestnut cake’ is permitted. Inthat A believes that goats are strong. This

the current example, the expected inference

phenomenon can be explainable by assuming235

that the NAI meaning of CT-wa cannot

Kurafuji, all the members of LCCC at Osaka

overcome presupposition. Of course, we should

University, and the audience at ELSJ 10th

see more data on CT-wa to reveal what theInternational Spring Forum for comments andpragmatic property CT-wa has by comparing

encouragement.

with the general pragmatic meanings such as

work is supported by Japan Society for thepresuppositions or conventional implicatures

Promotion of Science KAKENHI (17J03552).

(Grice 1975, among many others), although the

All errors are my own. ThisNOTES
I argue that the contrastive meaning triggered

task will be left to future work due to limitations

1of space.

by CTs is really a non-at-issue meaning since

What I want to argue is that the parallel

there is an evidence that it is not part of ‘what is

explanation holds for the situation in imperatives.

said (at-issue meaning)’. For example, theIn (4), as the illustrations in (17) and (18) show,

contrastive meaning cannot be challenged; if wesince the expected inference that ‘it is possible

utter “Iya, chigau-yo.” ‘No, that’s not true!’ after

for the addressee not to eat the chocolate cake(2), the negative response can only target theand the short cake’ is inconsistent with the given

at-issue part of the sentence. To determine which

content in the addressee’s TDL, it is blocked due

non-at-issue meaning the meaning of CTs should

to the weakness of the NAI meaning of CT-wa

belong to, presupposition(It is worth noting that the contrastive meaning

implicature (Grice 1975, among others), isthat ‘there are some alternatives that isbeyond the scope of this paper.

contrasted with the chestnut cake (= the2chocolate cake and the short cake)’ is conveyedsuggests that the embedded imperative in (8) is

because it does not cause any contradiction).

really a true (indirect) quotation.
3

6. Conclusion: Summary and Implications

orconventional

Note that in (8), kare ‘he’ refers to Taro, which

The crucial problem of the theory based on

speech act is that it does not make clear what theIn this paper, I have argued that the

speech act is. Since it has been accepted that

permission meaning of contrastive imperatives issentential force operator like imperative or

generated by exhaustification of the necessityinterrogative, which can be indirectly be

operator, and it could be blocked by pragmatics

embedded (cf. Saito & Haraguchi 2012), areif (part of) its meaning is inconsistent with thesyntactically determined by ForceP rather thancontent of discourse components. The analysis is

Speech-ActP (e.g. Noguchi 2016), it may betheoretically important because the view that thepossible to assume that contrastive topics

denotation of imperatives is simply ‘p’ (e.g.

operatePortner 2004,2007) cannot explain the puzzle in(syntactically,

this paper without modifications. Moreover, theexplanation of the speech act based theory.

current

4

proposal

supports

the

view

that

at

the

level

of

sentential

ForceP)

as

an

force

alternative

Although I spell out the current analysis on theimperatives do contain an operator which isassumption that IMP is part of the denotation ofinterpreted like necessity modals (e.g. Kaufmann

imperatives, this assumption is not essential to2012).

my account. Thus, we can also assume that thedenotation of imperatives is not ‘IMP(□p),’ butrather simply ‘□p’. The important point here is* I would like to thank Hiroki Narita, Takeo

236

that

canonical

imperatives

inParticle Wa Interacts with ONLY andJapanesesemantically encode an element related to

EVEN,”

Proceedings

of

WAFL

11,

necessity.

MITWPL, Cambridge, MA. [semi-final
draft]
Potner,

REFERENCES
Condoravdi, Cleo and Sven Lauer (2012)

Paul(2004)“The

Semantics

ofImperatives within a Theory of Clause“Imperatives: Meaning and Illocutionary

Types,” Proceedings of SALT 14, ed. byForce,” Empirical Issues in Syntax and

Kazuha Watanabe and Robert B. Young,

Semantics 9, 37-58.

235-252, CLC Publications, Ithaca, NY.

Fox, Danny (2007) “Free Choice and the Theory

Portner, Paul (2007) “Imperatives and Modals,”of Scalar Implicatures,” Presupposition andNatural Language Semantics 15, 351-383,

Implicature in Compositional Semantics, ed.

Springer, London.

by Penka Stateva and Uli Sauerland,

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

Palgrave-Macmillan, London.

Discourse and Grammar: From Sentence

Haida, Andreas and Sophie Repp (2012) “‘Only’

Types to Lexical Categories, Mouton dein Imperatives,” Proceedings of SuB 16,

Gruyter, New York.

MITWPL, Cambridge, MA.

Saito, Mamoru and Tomoko Haraguchi (2012)

Hara, Yurie (2006) Grammar of Knowledge“Dering the Cartography of the JapaneseRepresentation: Japanese Discourse Items

Rightat Interface, Dissertation, the University of

Sentence-final

Delaware.

IBERIA: An International Journal of

Ihara, Shun and Yuya Noguchi (forthcoming)“Imperatives

The

Discourse

Case

of

Particles,”Theoretical Linguistics 4, 104-123.

Necessity,”

Teramura, Hideo (1991) Nihongo no Shintakusu

Japanese/Korean Linguistics 25, CSLI

to Imi 3 (Japanese Syntax and Semantics),

Publications, Stanford, Calif.

Kuroshio Publishers, Tokyo.

Kaufmann,

with/without

Periphery:

Magdalena(2012)

Interpreting

Tomioka, Satoshi (2009) “Contrastive Topics

Imperatives, Springer, London.

Operate on Speech Acts,” Information

Kuno, Susumu (1973) The Structure of theStructure from Theoretical, Typological andJapanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge,

Experimental

MA.

Oxford University Press, London.

Medeiros, David J. (2013) Formal Approaches
to the Syntax and Semantics of Imperatives,
Dissertation, the University of Michigan.
Noguchi, Yuya (2016) “Does ForceP Determine
All the Illocutionary Forces?: A Case StudyofDictionary

Form

Imperatives

inJapanese,” Proceedings of FAJL 8, 43-62,
MITWPL, Cambridge, MA.
Oshima, David Y. (forthcoming) “Focus Particle
Stacking: How the Japanese Contrastive237

Perspectives,

115-138,

analysis can be applied to functional prefixes;
lexical prefixes undergo compounding, as argued
in Nagano (2013a). Section 4 focuses on prepositional prefixes and shows that many of them beResolving Prefixation into Compounding andInflection

have as lexical prefixes but out- can be analyzed*

as a functional prefix when it has a ‘surpass’ interpretation. Section 5 discusses what syntactic

Haruki Isonoa, Hiroko Wakamatsua,

features are related to out- ‘surpass’ and provides

a, band Ryohei Nayaaevidence for the proposed analysis. Section 6 of-b

University of Tsukuba / JSPS Research Fellow

fers concluding remarks.

Keywords：prefix, preposition, lexical category,

2. Emonds (2005): Prefixation as an Inflec-

functional category, Alternative Realization

tion-like ProcessThis section introduces Emonds’ (2005) analysis of prefixation. The analysis adopts the theo-

1. Introduction: Prefixation in Morphology

retical framework proposed in Emonds (2000).

Prefixation is generally grouped together with

Emonds (2000) assumes that Universal Grammar

suffixation, and both are considered to constitute(UG) matches syntactic features with each syn-derivational morphology. In contrast to this gen-tactic category, calling such a category a “canon-eral view, Emonds (2005) offers a new, different

ical position.” Syntactic features are interpreted atview on prefixation, as follows: prefixation (inLF only in their canonical position. For example,

English) is the process that phonologically real-tense features like [PAST] are matched with theizes syntactic (or grammatical) features at thecategory I (or T). However, syntactic features are

post-syntactic level. Interestingly, Emonds (2005)

not necessarily phonologically realized on theirregards prefixation as the same process that im-

canonical positions; they can be alternatively re-plements inflectional morphology. Under thisalized by functional morphemes. In this case, theview, prefixation is not a part of word-formation;functional morphemes do not contribute to LF

rather, it is an inflection-like process. His analysis

because they are merely phonological realizations.

is theoretically significant in that it provides aThus, they are inserted after Spell-Out. This real-

new perspective on prefixation and further, mor-

ization pattern is called “Alternative Realization”

phology in general. This paper applies Emonds’(AR) (Emonds (2000: 125)).

(2005) analysis to prepositional prefixes such asImportantly, AR involves the realization ofup-, over-, under-, on-, and out-, which have notinflectional suffixes. Let us take the tense marker

been examined in detail, and explores its conse-

for [PAST] as an example. As already noted, thequences for the nature of prefixes and prefixation.

feature [PAST] is canonically associated with theThis paper is organized as follows: Section 2

syntactic category I. However, it is not phonolog-

introduces Emonds (2005) analysis of prefixation.

ically realized in this position in the case of de-

Based on Nagano’s (2013a, 2013b) study, whereclarative clauses in English; instead, the feature isprefixes are classified into functional and lexical

alternatively realized by -ed under V after

prefixes, Section 3 shows that Emonds’ (2005)

Spell-Out (or in PF), as shown in (1).

238

(1)

Ann burned papers.

with post-verbal position.
Emonds (2005) suggests that other prefixes

IPDP

can be analyzed along these lines. However, he

I’[I, PAST]

Ann

Ø
V
burn

does not give a detailed discussion. The next secVP

Vtion considers whether the analysis can be applied
to prefixes in general.

DP[V, PAST] papers

3. AR and the Classification of PrefixesØ (=> ed in PF)

When we apply Emonds’ (2005) analysis to(Emonds (2000: 128))

prefixes in general, we need to consider whether
they are lexical categories (lexemes) or functional

Emonds (2005) argues that in addition to in-

categories. This is because for prefixes to be real-

flection, prefixation is also an example of AR of

ized by AR, they need to be characterized only bysyntactic features. This means that the canonicalsyntactic features. Close observation reveals that

position of the features relevant to prefixation is

not all prefixes have a functional status. Nagano

different from the syntactic position where they(2013a, 2013b) points out that many English pre-are realized. Emonds (2005) assumes that the ca-

fixes can be best classified as lexemes; that is,nonical position is the post-verbal position based

prefixes can be classified as follows:on the fact that re- and post-verbal particles are incomplementary distribution, as in (2).

(3)

a. Lexical Prefixes(i) Evaluative Prefixes(2)

a. John shipped (off) his prizes.

mal-, pseudo-, super-, etc.

b. John reshipped (*off) his prizes.

(ii) Spatio-Temporal Prefixes(Emonds (2005: 259))

circum-, inter-, pre-, etc.
(iii) Quantitative Prefixes

Emonds (2005) assigns prefixes like re- the samebi-, multi-, semi-, etc.

grammatical status as post-verbal particles (i.e.,b. Functional Prefixes

grammatical P); they differ from each other in(iv) Negative Prefixes

that prefixes are phonologically realized inde-, non-, un-, etc.

pre-verbal position by AR. In the case of re-,(v) Aspectual Prefixes

syntactic features like [AGAIN] occur in the postbe-, en-, re-, etc.

verbal position and they are realized in the form

(see Nagano (2013b: 121))of re-. Emonds (2005) applies this analysis to
mis-. If mis- is also realized by AR, it should be

Lexical and functional prefixes behave differently.

fully characterized by syntactic features. Given

Whereas lexical prefixes behave in the same way

the semantic parallelism between mis- and badly

as lexemes, functional prefixes behave as func-(e.g., to misbehave and to behave badly), Emonds

tional categories. One of the differences between(2005: 260) assumes that mis- alternatively real-

lexemes and functional categories is that only

izes the feature set [MANNER, EVAL(UATIVE),

complex words composed of lexemes can be de-NEG(ATIVE)], which is canonically associatedleted via coordination reduction (CR) (e.g.,239

book-__ and newspaper stands / book-binders

tion of Prepositional Prefixes

and __-sellers (Kenesei (2007: 274)) vs. John

Since prepositional prefixes are formally

walk*(ed) and danced. (Nishiyama (2016: 84))).

identical with prepositions, one may think thatComplex words with lexical prefixes allow CR,

Emonds’ (2005) analysis can be straightforwardly

as in (4) (see Nagano (2013a)), but those withapplied to prepositional prefixes; that is, they arefunctional prefixes do not, as in (5).

also word-internal Ps like re- and mis-, whichalternatively realize certain syntactic features in(4)

a. super-__ and supra-national

post-verbal position. However, many preposition-b. anti-federalist and __-nationalist (opin-

al prefixes allow CR. For example:

ions)(Kenesei (2007: 274))
(5)

(7)

a. ?The 2016 results are being updated andloaded to the events page.2, 3

a.* I do not know if he should be dis- or
encouraged.

(Scalise (1984: 75))b. I now know how much I overate anddrank in my previous life!4

b.* Mary un- and re-tied her laces.
(Sadler and Arnold (1994: 208))c. … the under and fore-part of the cheek(OED, s.v. orbitar)

Given the classification in (3), Emonds’

d. … information gathered by on and off-(2005) analysis of prefixation can be applied only

board sensors(OED, s.v. off-board)1

to functional prefixes. Meanwhile, lexical prefixes undergo compounding because they haveThus, these prepositional prefixes have lexemic

the same status as lexemes. If so, prefixation is

status. Accordingly, they are involved in com-

not homogeneous; prefixation processes can bepounding.

resolved into a compounding process and AR, as

We also find out- is a peculiar prefix in that it

schematized in (6).

behaves as both a lexical prefix and a functional
prefix under CR. Let us first observe how out-

(6)

Prefixation

Compounding

behaves as a lexeme:(Lexical Prefixes)AR(8)a. … the out and in-door labour …

(Functional Prefixes)(OED, s.v. labour, n)b. … the out and in-board work …

Let us call this analysis the “Resolving Analysis.”(OED, s.v. outboard)

If this analysis is correct, all prefixes will participate in either compounding or AR. Toward theIn these examples, where the prefix has spatialcompletion of Resolving Analysis, the rest of thismeanings, the prefixed words allow CR. However,paper focuses on prepositional prefixes like up-,outrun in (9a) resists undergoing CR, as observed

over-, under-, on-, and out-, which are neitherin (9b).

explicitly examined in Emonds (2005) nor Nagano (2013a, 2013b).

(9)

a. Mary outran and outswam Bill.
b.* Mary out-ran and -swam Bill.

4. The Resolving Analysis and the Classifica-(Sadler and Arnold (1994: 208))240

In these examples, out- has ‘surpass’ meanings;

to out-V X corresponds to to V better than X. Thisthat is, to outrun and outswim Bill means ‘to run

correspondence indicates that out- ‘surpass’and swim faster or farther than Bill’ (or to surpass

shares the feature composition with better (than).

Bill in running and swimming). Given the exam-

If so, we can identify the feature composition ofples in (9), we can regard out- with ‘surpass’

out- by examining that of better. Emonds (2005:

meanings as a functional prefix.

260) considers that good/better and bad/worse

Applying the Resolving Analysis, we can say

can be characterized by a basic syntactic feature

the out- in (8) with lexemic status is involved in

EVAL. Recall from Section 2 that mis-, which

compounding and the out- in (9) used as a func-

can be paraphrased as badly, is defined based ontional prefix is realized by AR. The question that

this feature as follows: [MANNER, EVAL, NEG].

arises is which syntactic features functional out-

Given that better is in an antonymic relationshiprealizes. The next section addresses this question.

with badly, the feature [NEG] needs to be replaced with [POS(ITIVE)]. In addition, since

5. Out- as a Functional Prefix

better (and out-) contains comparative meanings,

5.1. The Feature Set of Functional out-

it should contain comparative features related toIf out- with the meaning of ‘surpass’ is acomparative like [COMPAR(ATIVE)].6 Accord-

functional prefix, it should be fully characterized

ingly, we can assume that better contains (atby syntactic features as in the case of re- and mis-.

least) the following features:

When we consider the feature composition realized by out-, it is helpful to examine the meanings(11) [MANNER, EVAL, POS, COMPAR]of the verbs containing out-. OALD defines outappearing in verbs to mean ‘greater, better, longer,

Based on the above discussion, we can analyze

etc.’ That is, out- adds the meaning of surpassing

out- ‘surpass’ as follows: first, the features in (11)or superiority to the base verbs. For example, theoccurs in post-verbal position. Second, these fea-

verb outrun means ‘to run faster or farther thantures are phonologically realized through AR in

sb/sth’ (OALD, s.v. outrun). In this way, the verb

the form of out-. This analysis is shown in (12),is related to superiority in the speed or distance of

where the feature set in (11) is represented as

running. The observation of these examples sug-

[BETTER] for explanatory purposes.

gests that the meanings of functional out- can be
reduced to ‘better.’ In fact, the phrase swim better(12) outswim

than plankton in (10a) can be paraphrased as

VP

outswim plankton without major semantic change,AV

as in (10b).
[BETTER](10) a. … animals that aren’t fish but can stillout-swim better than plankton5

V [BETTER]
swim

Ø
AR

b. … animals that aren’t fish but can stilloutswim planktonThis analysis is supported by the evidence proThus, it is reasonable to consider that the phrase

vided in the following subsection.

2415.2. The Evidence for the Functional Status of

meaning as in (14); it does not mean ‘the act ofout- ‘surpass’

throwing further than someone.’

So far, we have considered that (i) out- with‘surpass’ meanings is a functional prefix realized(14) That which is thrown out; an ejection orby AR, and (ii) it alternatively realizes the fea-

emission; output or production. / Thattures [MANNER, EVAL, POS, COMPAR] in thewhich is thrown out; an ejection or emis-

post-verbal position. This section provides evi-

sion; output or production.

dence for (i) and (ii).

(OED, s.v. out-throw, n.)

Let us first consider the functional status ofout-. If out- ‘surpass’ is phonologically realized

The same patterns can be observed in the verbs

after Spell-Out, the verbs attached to the prefix dooutride and outshoot, as shown in (15) and (16).

not undergo pre-Spell-Out processes. One suchprocess is zero-nominalization (or V-to-N con-(15) a. outrideV

version). This process is generally considered to(i) To ride out

be a part of derivational morphology, which is(ii) To outdo in riding, to ride better,7

assumed to occur prior to Spell-Out. Thus, we

faster or further than; to leave be-

can predict that the verbs with out- ‘surpass’ arehind or outstrip by riding.’

not turned into nouns.

(OED, s.v. outride, v.)

This prediction is correct. For example, theb. outrideN

verbs outrun and outswim, which have a ‘surpass’

The act of riding out, a ride out; an ex-

interpretation, do not have nominal counterparts.

cursion.; …

The nominal forms outrun and outswim do exist,(16) a. outsthootV(OED, s.v. outride, n.)but they lack the relevant interpretations; for ex-(i) ‘To shoot outwards, project.’

ample, the noun out-run means ‘[t]he act or fact(ii) ‘To surpass in shooting; to shootof running out; spec. the outward run of a sheep-

further or better than.’dog’ (OED, s.v. out-run, n).

(OED, s.v. outshoot, v.)

In addition, the ambiguous out- verbs thatb. outshootNhave both spatial and ‘surpass’ interpretations

Something that shoots out or projects; amore clearly show that out- ‘surpass’ does notprojection or extension. / The action orundergo zero-nominalization. For example, thean act of shooting or thrusting outwards.

verb out-throw has the two interpretation that are(OED, s.v. outshoot, n.)shown in (13).
The fact that out- verbs with a ‘surpass’ interpre(13) a. To throw or thrust out or outwards; totation cannot be used as nouns supports our claim

cast out or expel.

that out- is a functional prefix realized afterb. To surpass in throwing; to throw further

Spell-Out through AR.

than.

Let us turn to the features that the functional(OED, s.v. out-throw, v)

out- realizes. In Section 5.1, we argued that functional out- alternatively realizes the features

However, the noun out-throw has only a spatial[MANNER, EVAL, POS, COMPAR], which can

242also be realized in the canonical position by better.

us to resolve prefixation into compounding andIf so, out- and better are incompatible with each

AR (see (6)). This analysis provides new insight8other. This prediction is also correct, as observed

into the nature of prefixation. If prefixation isin (17).

either compounding or AR as represented in (6),it has no role in derivational morphology. This

(17) John always { outruns / outswims } Mary

means

that

prefixation

lacks

the

catego-9(*better).

ry-changing function. As a result, this function
can be attributed only to derivational morpholo-

The incompatibility supports the assumption thatgy; more precisely, to suffixation. This is a desir-out- alternatively realizes the features that areable consequence in that we can clarify the divi-shared by better.

sion of labor in morphology; suffixation exclu-

To sum up, out- ‘surpass’ can be analyzed as asively bears the category-changing (or catego-prefix realized by AR. Therefore, prepositional

ry-determining) function. Therefore, our claim

prefixes also undergo either compounding or AR,

that prefixation can be resolved into compound-supporting the Resolving Analysis in (6).

ing and AR has a significant consequence for not
only the exploration of prefixation but also for

6. Concluding Remarksthat of morphology as a whole.

This paper has extended Emonds’ (2005)
analysis of prefixation to prefixes that he had not* We would like to thank Yukio Hirose, Nobuhiro

examined, especially prepositional prefixes. In

Kaga, Masaharu Shimada, Naoaki Wada, Masaru

Emonds’ (2005) analysis, prefixes are considered

Kanetani, and Akiko Nagano for their valuable

as functional items that alternatively realize syn-comments and suggestions. Our thanks also go totactic features. This analysis can be refined based

Jenny Hodgkins, Abu Girma Moges, Duaneon Nagano’s (2013a, 2013b) studies, where pre-Isham, and Michael Denley Francis Stout forfixes are classified as lexical or functional. Givenkindly acting as informants. This study was sup-that AR can be applied only to functional items,

ported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Re-

Emonds’ (2005) analysis can be extended tosearch Fellow (No. 16J01676) from the Japanfunctional prefixes (i.e., negative prefixes such asSociety for the Promotion of Science.

de-, non-, and un-, and aspectual prefixes such as

NOTES
The prefix mis- is not included in (3b)-(iv) but

be-, en-, and re-). The remaining prefixes (i.e.,

1lexical prefixes) are lexemes and thus, they un-

Plag (2003: 99) regards it as a close relative ofdergo compounding. Focusing on prepositional

negative prefixes.

prefixes, which are not explicitly analyzed in2

http://firstrespondergames.com/

Emonds (2005) and Nagano (2013a, 2013b), we

3

Our informants point out that this sentence isshowed that many of them are classified as lexi-

not as good as the other examples, but it is still

cal prefixes but out- with the meaning of ‘surpass’

acceptable. This may be because update and up-

is a functional prefix. We argued that functionalload are not conventionally paired with each other.

out- alternatively realizes the features [MANNER,(Compare them with the impeccable combination

EVAL, POS, COMPAR].

of overate and overdrank in (7b)).

The discussion presented in this paper leads

4243

http://www.sterlingclinics.co.uk/ian-lost-6st-in-23-weeks/515(1) 61–83.

Cited from Susan Milius (2007) ‘What’s going

Nagano, Akiko (2013a) “Hukugoo to Hasei noon down there?’ Science News 171.7, 107-109.
See Emonds (2000: 127) for the features related

Kyookai to Eigo no Settoozi (The Boundary

to comparative and superlative inflections.

between Derivation and Compounding, and7

Naya (2016) analyzes V-to-N conversion (inEnglish Prefixes),” Seisei Gengo Kenkyuu

English) within Emonds’ (2000) framework andno Ima (The Current Stage of the Studies inargues that it is not a derivational process. How-

Generative Grammar), ed. by Masayuki

ever, the process is still assumed to occur prior to

Ikeuchi and Takuya Goro, 145–161, Hituzi

Spell-Out.

Syobo, Tokyo.

6

8

Nagano, Akiko (2013b) “Morphology of Direct

We can observe similar complementary distribu-

tion in inflectional morphemes. For example, theModification,”

suffix -ed, which alternatively realizes the [PAST]

111–150.

EnglishLinguistics

30,

Naya, Ryohei (2016) “Deverbal Noun-Forming

feature in I, blocks the occurrence of did, as

Processes in English,” English Linguistics

shown in (i).

33(1), 36–68.
(i)* Ann did burned the papers.

Naya, Ryohei (2017) “The Apparent Catego-(Emonds (2000: 136), with modifications)ry-Changing Function of Prefixes in Eng-

Some may argue against this view because oflish: A Preliminary Study of ‘Adjectivaliz-certain prefixes like en- and anti-. These prefixes

ing’ Prefixes,” Data Science in Collabora-

appear to verbalize nouns (e.g., to encage birds)

tion, Volume 1, ed. by Yuichi Ono andand to adjectivize nouns (e.g., anti-war movement

Masaharu Shimada, 125–134, Department of(Plag (2003: 99))). However, these prefixes do

General Affairs Supporting Center, Univer-not need to be analyzed as category-changing

sity of Tsukuba, Tsukuba.

9

Nishiyama, Kunio (2016) “The Theoretical Statusprefixes. See Nagano (2011) and Naya (2017) forof Ren’yoo (stem) in Japanese Verbal Mor-a detailed discussion.

phology,” Morphology 26, 65–90.
REFERENCES
Emonds, Joseph E. (2000) Lexicon and Gram-

OALD: Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary,

mar: The English Syntacticon, Mouton de<https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.co

Gruyter, Berlin.

m/>

Oxford University Press.

Emonds, Joseph E. (2005) “The Computational

OED: Oxford English Dictionary on-line, Oxford

Lexicon,” English Linguistics 22, 232–266.

University Press. < http://www.oed.com/>Kenesei, István (2007) “Semiwords and Affix-

Plag, lngo (2003) Word-Formation in English,

oids: The Territory between Word and Affix,”Acta

Linguistica

Hungarica

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

54,

Sadler, Louisa and Douglas J. Arnold (1994)

263–293.

“Prenominal Adjectives and the Phras-

Nagano, Akiko (2011) “The Right-headedness ofal/Lexical Distinction,” Journal of Linguis-Morphology and the Status and Develop-

tics 30, 187–226.

ment of Category-Determining Prefixes in

Scalise, Sergio (1984) Generative Morphology,

English,” English Language and Linguistics

Foris, Dordrecht.

244

organized as follows.

Section 2 outlines thenotions of constructionalization (henceforth,cxzn) and constructional changes (henceforth,
CCs).

3

investigatesformalcharacteristics of the because X construction.

The Because X Construction: Not
Constructionalized Yet?

Section*Section 4 turns to the functional properties andpointsoutthatpragmatically,

Masaru Kanetani

the
but

construction
not

is

a

semantically,

distinguished from an existing construction.

University of Tsukuba

Section 5 discusses how we should treat thesemantic information and pragmatic information

Keywords：because X construction,

within the construction.

constructionalization, constructional changes,

Section 6 answers

the research question, and section 7 concludes

semantic/pragmatic distinction

the discussion.
2. Constructionalization and Constructional

1. Introduction
This paper investigates an innovative use of

Changes

because, as exemplified in (1), from theThis section outlines the notions of cxzn andperspective of constructionalization proposed byCCs, proposed by Traugott and Trousdale (2013),

Traugott and Trousdale (2013).

along which subsequent sections investigate thetarget construction.
Traugott and Trousdale define cxzn as “the(1) I cannot go out with you today because

creation of formnew-meaningnew (combinations

homework.

of) signs” (p. 22) and distinguished it from “aThe word because is canonically followed by achange affecting one internal dimension of afinite clause (e.g., because I have a lot of

construction” (p. 26), or a CC.

homework) or an of phrase (e.g. because of myas used in the above definition corresponds to a

homework).

1

The term sign

construction, or a conventionalized pairing ofIn (1), however, because isThisform and meaning as illustrated in (2), which is

new usage of because (henceforth, the because

generally used as a unit of grammatical

X construction) was selected as the American

representation in the construction grammar

Dialect Society’s Word of the Year for 2013,

literature.

directly followed by the word homework.

which suggests that this usage is gradually being
accepted among English speakers.

(2) <Form-Meaning>construction

Kanetani(2015, 2016) investigates its properties within
the framework of construction grammar.

Crucially, cxzn is preceded by CCs that

The present paper considers whether or not

Traugott and Trousdale call “pre-cxzn CCs” andthe because X construction is constructionalized,

is also followed by another stage of CCs calledi.e., whether it has been established as a“post-cxzn CCs”.

grammatical construction.

that constructions may undergo is summarizedThis paper is

245

Thus, a series of changes

tense, you are.

as follows, where the arrows ↓↓ indicate theIf the word homework in (1) were a reduced

feeding relationship:clause, the omitted words in this “clause” should
also be recoverable.

(3) pre-cxzn CC

Unlike (4), however, they↓↓

are not “uniquely recoverable” in the sense ofcxzn

Quirk et al. (1972).

↓↓

to recover a because-clause from the phrase

post-cxzn CC

because homework in (1), we cannot say thatThat is, when we attempt“there is no doubt about what words are to be(Traugott and Trousdale (2013: 28))

supplied” (Quirk et al. (1972: 536)).
The stage of “pre-cxzn CC” involves pragmatic

vertically

expansion,

and/orgrammatical function the word bears, whether it

being

serves as the subject, object, or another element

constructionalized, a construction may undergo

of a clausal counterpart: The speaker could haveits

a lot of homework or the speaker’s homeworkits

form-meaning

semanticization,
mismatches;

collocational

after

expansion,

and/orimpossible

to

It is also

determine

what

could be too hard to finish.

morpho-phonological reduction, as “post-cxzn

As Schnoebelen (2014) and Bohmann (2016)

CCs” (Traugott and Trousdale (2013: 27f.)).
In the following sections, I will observe

report, interjections, as well as nouns andformal and functional characteristics of theadjectives, appear relatively frequently in the

because X construction and examine theX-slot, as in (5):construction based on the notions outlined in this(5) Admittedly, not in the UK yet because

section.

aargh!

(Twitter)

3. Formal Characteristics
This

sectionobserves

theformalNot only is it much more difficult to recover a

characteristics of the because X construction.

because-clause

One could see the characteristic form (e.g.

“because + interjection” in (5), but also a

because homework) as a product of the reduction“recovered clause” does not necessarily containof a full clause, just like reduced clauses

the lexical item aargh.

introduced by other adverbial subordinators,

regard the X-element as a reduced clause.

exemplified in (4):Anotherfromformalthe

combinationofFrom these, we cannot
characteristic

of

this

construction is that words of various categories,(4) When in difficulty, consult the manual.

from nouns and adjectives to interjections, may(Quirk et al. (1985: 1079))

follow because.

Thus, because as used in thisconstruction should be distinguished from the
The implied subject and verb that follows it insubordinate(4) are definite, and hence are recoverable.

complex preposition because of.

That is, what is to be supplied here is

this fact makes it difficult for one to tell theundoubtedly the combination of the second

grammatical category of because.

person subject pronoun and the copula in present

were analyzed as a preposition, it would restrict

246

conjunction

becauseandthe

Notice that
If becausethe X-element to a noun (cf. McCulloch (2014));causal relation, as in (7a), but not epistemic or

if analyzed as a subordinate conjunction, a word

speech-act causal relations, as in (7b, c):— unless a reduced clause — could not follow it.
(7) a.

In the present article, I do not attempt to identify

John came back because love.

the grammatical category of the word because

b. * It has rained, because ground.

used in this construction.

Rather, I take thec.??What do you wanna do, because Paris?

whole string “because + word” as the formal(adapted from Kanetani (2015: 66))

specification of the partly filled construction.
In short, the because X construction is a

Following Kanetani’s (2008) framework, I

formally new construction; its form is notassume that the epistemic and speech-act causal

predictable from the constructions that has

relations make a class in that the because-clausealready existed.

and main clause independently perform theirown speech acts.

between the content causal relation, on the one

4. Functional Characteristics

hand, and the epistemic/speech-act causal

Let us turn to the meaning pole of theconstruction.

In this respect, I draw a line

relations, on the other.

As argued by Kanetani (2015),

Kanetani (2008)

the construction can express a content causal

generalizes the construction with the former

relation, but not epistemic and speech-act causal

meaning

relations in Sweetser’s (1990) terms.

construction and that with the latter as the

Sweetserasthecausalbecause-clauseargues that because functions in the content,

reasoning because-clause construction.

epistemic and speech-act domains (when iton the grammaticality contrast in (7a-c),

introduces

Kanetaniafinitecomplement

clause).

(2015)

views

the

Based

becauseX

construction as a proper subpart of the causal

Consider the following examples:

because-clause

construction.

Thus,

the

(6) a.

John came back because he loved her.

because X construction is not semantically new,b.

It has rained, because the ground is

as it cannot be semantically distinguished fromwet.

the causal because-clause construction.

c.

In this relation, Goldberg (1995: 67) puts it,

What should we do, because we’re in“if two constructions are syntactically distinct

Paris.

and semantically synonymous then they must
In (6a), the because-clause is used to provide a

not be pragmatically synonymous.”

real-world cause of John’s coming back.

because X construction is indeed pragmaticallyThebecause-clause in (6b) provides a premise fromdistinctwhich to draw the conclusion that it must havebecause-clause construction (Kanetani (2016)).

rained.

Consider the Gricean Maxim of Quantity in (8):The one in (6c) is understood as

from

the

correspondingThe
causalproviding a motivation for performing the(8) a.

speech act of question.

Make your contribution as informative
as is required.

Applying this trichotomy to the because Xb.

construction, Kanetani (2015) observes that the

Do not make your contribution more
informative than is required.

because X construction can express a content

247

(Grice (1975: 45))(10) a. * I can’t come out tonight because
essay[sic.]/my essay/an essay/this essay.

Compared with the causal because-clause(McCulloch (2012))

construction (e.g., because I have a lot of
homework),thecorresponding

becauseb.?? I can’t go to the party because you.

X

(McCulloch (2014))

construction (e.g. because homework) is not
informative enough.

As pointed out in section

Determinations of nouns are defined in relation

3, the word homework allows one to elaborate

with the interlocutors.

more than one clause (e.g., I have a lot of(1985: 253) say, “when used in discourse, noun

homework, my homework is too hard to finish,phrases refer to the linguistic or situationaletc.).

context.

This suggests that the speaker does not

For example, Quirk et al.

The kind of reference a particularmake an enough contribution so as to make thenoun phrase has depends on its determinativeutterance as informative as is required, violating

element, i.e. the item which ‘determines’ it”

the first part of the Maxim of Quantity, (8a).

(italics are mine).

Therefore, to the extent that the hearer has tospeaker needs to let the hearer know whether therecover the message from the word s/he hears,

essay in question is known to the hearer or not,the because X construction is a speaker-oriented

and if it is, which one the speaker refers to.

construction.

other words, such a determination is not

One may argue that a because of phrase,

Thus, in communication, theIn

necessary when the speaker has no intention ofwhich consists of the complex preposition

communication.

because of and a noun phrase that follows it, asothers can a personal pronoun be defined andin (9), is also speaker-oriented (cf. note 1):

used.

Likewise, only relative to the

The speaker refers to him- or herself as I,

and the hearer as you; the referents change as the(9) I cannot go out with you today because ofroles change in discourse (cf. Benvenist (1971),
Hirose (2000)).

my homework.

From these facts, Kanetani (2016) argues
As with (1), one may evoke various propositions

that the because X construction specifies itsthat serve as the cause of the speaker not being

X-element as a word serving as a “private

able to go out with the hearer.

expression”, while the construction as a whole

However, acareful examination will reveal a crucial

may function as a “public expression”.

difference between (1) and (9).

When because

notions of private expression and public

of is used, it is a noun phrase, and not a bareexpression are introduced by Hirose (2000).

noun, that follows it.

McCulloch (2012)

The former is “an act of linguistic expression

observes that a noun slotted in X of the becausewith no intention of communication” (Hirose

X construction is restricted to a bare noun, that

2000: 1625) while the latter is “an act ofis, a noun with no determiner or adjective, as inlinguistic expression with the intention of

2, 3

The

She (2014) also observes that acommunication” (ibid.). Due to the lack of thesentence sounds odd with a pronoun like you, as

speaker’s intention of communication, private

shown in (10b).

expressions(10a).

correspond

non-communicative,

248

to

“the

thought-expressing,function of language” (ibid.: 1624).

With these

immediately judge whether the meaning isnotions, Kanetani (2016: 71) illustrates the“new” or not.

structure of the interpersonal relation of therepresentation, we cannot conclude that the

because X construction as follows:

becauseThat is, based merely on thisX

construction

has

been

constructionalized.
4(11) [pub because <priv X>]

6. Because X Undergoing Pre-cxzn CCs
In (11), private expression is represented in

Traugott and Trousdale (2013) argue that it isangle brackets with the subscript “Priv” <Priv…>

not until a new combination of a form andwhile public expression is represented in squaremeaning “[has] been shared in population ofbrackets with the subscript “Pub” [Pub …].

speakers” (p. 92) that cxzn occurs.
Recall the grammaticality judgements given

In sum, the because X construction cannot
be semantically distinguished from the causalin (7).

construction with a because-clause and athat I conducted in January 2014 shortly after

because of phrase.

the American Dialect Society announced their

On the other hand, they are

The judgments are based on the survey

pragmatically distinguished in that the because

selection of the World of the Year for 2013.5

X construction embeds in it the speaker’s privatethat survey, I consulted 24 native speakers ofexpression to be transmitted to the hearer.

English and asked them to evaluate theInsentences on a scale of 0 (unacceptable) to 3
(acceptable).

5. Pragmatic Information in Construction
From the observations in the previous

Seven native speakers out of

those surveyed accept the usage with different

section, the question arises of how we should

degrees of acceptability.

treat its meaning pole.

scores of the seven respondents who accept themeaning

thatis

Can we treat thepragmatically

new

but

usage, I put the different symbols in front ofsemantically not as “meaningnew”?

these sentences to indicate their acceptability(Kanetani (2015)).

Cappelle (2017) points out that since“[certain]

pragmatic

information

Based on the average

The average score that eachsentence received is as follows: (7a) 1.71/3.00;

isconventionalized and therefore has to be learned(7b) 0.00/3.00; (7c) 0.57/3.00.

While theand stored” (p. 143), “semantics and pragmatics

survey was originally designed to see whatshould be treated as distinct levels of functionalcausal domains the construction is used in, theinformation” (p. 115) in such a way that they

result also tells us a rough acceptance rate of the“can live peacefully side by side in aconstruction.

construction” (p. 145).

If we see the because X

those surveyed accept the usage, which indicatesconstruction as a tripartite structural unit, itsthat the because X construction is still in theformal, semantic, and pragmatic characteristics

phase of pre-cxzn CCs (see (3)).6

That is, only about 30% (7/24) of

may be represented as follows:
7. Conclusion(12) <formnew-semanticsnot-new-pragmaticsnew>

So far, I have observed the new usage of
becausefromtheperspective

of

cxzn.

According to Traugott and Trousdale (2013),

Given this representation, it is difficult to249

cxzn requires the target expression (i) to be a

restriction existed at the time when McCulloch

new form paired with a new meaning and (ii) towrote her blog post in 2012, “it seems to havebe shared in population of speakers.

weakened considerably, which might well be theAssuming,with Cappelle (2017), that the because X

case with a rapidly diffusing innovation”.

construction is a tripartite structural unit, I

also assume that McCulloch’s (2012) intuition

arguedpragmatic

accounts for the prototypical constructs and thatspecifications should be represented separately.

the construction has extended from the prototype

Even though the construction is pragmaticallyto the extent that this restriction no longer

distinguished from the causal because-clauseapplies (e.g. like when ball season over..seniorconstruction, they cannot be distinguishedyear just hurts cause all the work & stuff you

semantically (cf. Kanetani (2015)).

gotta do (Bohmann (2016: 161))).

that

its

semanticandThus, it is

not clear whether the new form “because X” is4paired with a truly new meaning.

categories that follow because.

Furthermore,

I

This generalization holds for words of otherFor details, seebased on the survey I conducted in 2014, I

Kanetani (2016).

claimed that the construction is not shared across5

the speech community of English.

2013 Word of the Year” was made on January 3,

Therefore, I

The announcement entitled “‘Because’ is theconclude that the because X construction has not

2014.

been constructionalized yet but is undergoing<https://www.americandialect.org/because-is-thepre-cxzn CCs.

It still remains to be seen

-2013-word-of-the-year>

whether the because X construction will keep

6changing to finally be constructionalized.

sentences like (1) should be better treated as

The present conclusion might suggest that

constructs

ratherthan

generalizedtoa* This paper is a revised version of a paper

construction.

presented at the ELSJ 10th International Spring

the term “construction” to avoid confusion about

Forum held at Meiji Gakuin University on April

the referent.

23, 2017.

For insightful comments, I am

grateful to the audience.

Any remaining errors

REFERENCES
Benveniste, Émile (1971) Problems in Generaland shortcomings are mine alone.
1

However, I will consistently use

Linguistics, trans. by Mary M. Elizabeth,

NOTES
This description of the because of phrase may

be misleading.

University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.
Bohmann, Axel (2016) “Language Change

The phrase does not consist of

because and the of phrase that follows it.

BecauseRather, we should treat because of as a complex

Innovative Uses of Because Across the

preposition which is followed by the noun

English-Speaking Twittersphere,” English

phrase (see Matsuyama (2001); cf. also Williams

in(1981)).

Variation, Representation, and Change, ed.

2

by Lauren Squires, 149-178, Walter deShe must have misplaced the asterisk “*” in(10a).

Factors

Computer-MediatedMotivating

Communication:

Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.

It is clear from her explanation that she

Cappelle, Bert (2017) “What’s Pragmatics

intends to rule in because essay.
3

Twitter?

Doing outside Constructions?,” Semantics

Bohmann (2016: 161) notes that (even) if this250

and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, ed. by

Actually Cooler)” a blog post on All Things

Ilse

Linguistic

Depraetere

andRaphaelSalkie,4,

201471648/why-the-new-because-isnt-a-preposi

Goldberg, Adelle E. (1995) Constructions: A
Grammartotion-but-is> (accessed March 21, 2017).

Argument

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey

Structure, University of Chicago Press,

Leech, and Jan Svartvik (1972) A Grammar

Chicago.
Grice,

January<http://allthingslinguistic.com/post/722526

115-152, Springer, Berlin.
ConstructiononHerbertP.

(1975)“LogicofandContemporary

English,Longman,London.

Conversation,” Syntax and Semantics 3:

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey

Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry
Morgan, 41-58, Academic Press, New

Leech,andJan

Svartvik(1985)A

York.

Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language, Longman, London.

Hirose, Yukio (2000) “Public and Private Self as
Two Aspects of the Speaker: A Contrastive

Schnoebelen, Tyler (2014) “Innovating Because

Study of Japanese and English,” Journal of

Innovation,” a blog post on Corpus

Pragmatics 32, 1623-1656.

Linguistics

Kanetani,

MasaruReasoning:(2008)A

Causation

Construction

dissertation,

2014(accessed March 21, 2017).
Sweetser, Eve E. (1990) From Etymology toofPragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural

Tsukuba.

Aspects of Semantic Structure, Cambridge

Kanetani, Masaru (2015) “On the New Usage ofBecause,”15,

4/01/15/innovating-because-innovation/>

Grammar

University

January<https://corplinguistics.wordpress.com/201

andApproach to Conjunctions of Reason,
DoctoralonStudiesin

Language

University Press, Cambridge.

andTraugott, Elizabeth C. and Graeme Trousdale

Literature [Language] 68, 63-80.

(2013)

Kanetani, Masaru (2016) “A Note on theConstructionalization

andBecause X Construction: With Special

Constructional Changes, Oxford University

Reference to the X-Element,” Studies in

Press, Oxford.
Williams, Edwin (1981) “On the Notion of

Language and Literature [Language] 70,‘Lexically-Related Head’ and ‘Head of a

67-79.

Word’,” Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245-274.

Matsuyama, Tetsuya (2001) “Because-Subject
Construction and the Extended Projection
Principle,” English Linguistics 18, 329-355.
McCulloch,

Gretchen(2012)“Because

Reasons,” a blog post on All Things
Linguistic

on

July

4,

2012

<http://allthingslinguistic.com/post/26522214342/because-reasons> (accessed
March 21, 2017).
McCulloch, Gretchen (2014) “Why the New“Because” Isn’t a Preposition (But Is

251operator is universally available, but that its
function is restricted by the presence of
φ-features on probing heads. In section 4, I
propose a formal, but not functional, analysis of
Eliminating the Discourse-Based Parameterthe cross-linguistic distribution of pro in three
types of languages: English (φ-defective),

Ryoichiro Kobayashi

Spanish (φ-rich), and Japanese (φ-less). Section

Sophia University/JSPS

5 is an overall summary of the paper.

Keywords：syntax, Japanese, topic, null operator

2. Zero-topics are Substantial
In

Japanese,

gaps

without

linguistic

antecedents are licensed in (3) and (4), unlike in
1. Introduction

English. Abe (2009) claims that a base-generated

This paper aims to reduce the Zero-topic

null variable (=[e]) is bound by, and gains its

Parameter (Huang (1984)) to the cross-linguistic

reference from, Op, which is identified with thedifferences of Lexicon. Following Tsao’s (1977)

prominent referent in the discourse.

distinction between discourse-prominent andsentence-prominent languages, Huang proposes(3) Context: Students heard footsteps fromthe Zero-topic Parameter in (1). A typical datum

outside just before the class.

of linguistic antecedentless null arguments is (2).

a. [e] kita.

b. [Optopici [[ei] came]]‘[e] came.’(1) Zero-topic Parameter:|_____↑(The teacheri came.)

Topic-prominent languages have zero-topics(adapted from Abe (2009))

that license null arguments without linguistic(4) Context: A vase falls. No one wants to pickantecedents.

it up.

(2) Context: Students heard footsteps froma. Japanese:

outside just before the class.

Dare-mo[e] hirow-ana-i-ne.

a. Japanese:b. English:

wh-mo[e] kita.

*[e] came.

‘No one seems to pick [e] up.’‘[e] came.’ (=The teacher came.)pick.up-Neg-Pres-Prt

b. English: *Nobody picks [e] up.

(adapted from Abe (2009))
Note that the relevant gap cannot be elliptic,(1) is just a descriptive generalization, not ansince it lacks an overt antecedent (Hankamer andexplanation of the phenomenon. I claim that

Sag (1976)). Japanese abounds in such gaps, andsuch a “parameter” should be abolished underit even allows them to appear multiply, as in (5).

the Minimalist Thesis, because the source of
linguistic variation is limited to Lexicon and(5) Context: A child saw a kitten eating fish.

Linearization (Fukui (1988), Chomsky (1995)).

[ei]

The rest of this paper is organized as follows.

[ej]tabe-ta-ne!
eat-Past-Prt

In sections 2 and 3, I claim that the zero-topic‘[ei] ate [ej]!.’ (= A kitten ate fish!)252

Some may wonder how this is possible if

coordinated, as in (9). Note that the gaps do notthese gaps are bound by null topic operators,

form a single constituent.

since only a single topic can be licensed in one
sentence in Japanese (Fukui (1986)). (6) is(9) [TOP sono isui-to

ungrammatical, unless koneko-wa or sakana-wahonj]-wathat chair-& book-Top

is interpreted as a contrastive focus.

[ei] kosikake-te] [ej]sit-TE(6) *Koneko-wa sakana-wa tabe-ta-ne!
kitten-Top

fish-To

eat-Past-Prt[Mary-ga [proM.-Nomyondei-ta]-kadooka
read-Past-whether

John-gasiri-tagat-ta.

J.-Nomknow-want-Past

Lit. ‘As for the kitten, as for the fish, he/she

Lit. ‘[That chairi and that book], Johnate it.’wanted to know whether Mary was reading
iti, sitting on itj.’(Takeda (1999: 170))

The same contrasts are observed in othersentences in (7) and (8) below. These data may

Given Takeda’s observation, I assume thatbe problematic if [e] is a zero-topic, since there

multiple topics are licensed as long as they form

can be up to one topic in one sentence.

a single constituent in the topic position. In (7)and (8), null-topics (Ø) are coordinated and(7) Context: A clown turned a heavy disk in amerged somewhere high enough in the CP-layer,

circus.

as illustrated by (10) in a similar manner to (9).

a. [ei] [ej]mawasi-ta-ne/yo
turn-Past-Prt(10) a. [TOP Øi & Øj] [ei] [ej] mawasi-ta-ne/yo]‘The clown turned the heavy disk.’turn-Past-Prt

b. *Piero-wa

enban-wa

mawasi-ta‘The clowni turned the heavy diskj.’ (=7)

clown-Topdisk-Top

turn-Past

b. [TOP Øi & Øj] [ei] [ej] kogasi-chat-ta-ne/yo

Lit. ‘As for the clown, as for the huge disk,burn-Asp-Past-Prt

he/she turned it.’

‘Youi burnt the breadj.’(=8)(8) Context: Your partner burnt bread.
a. [ei] [ej]kogasi-chat-ta-ne.

Leaving aside why the sentences in (10)burn-Asp-Past-Prt

become‘You burnt the bread.’b. *Anata-wa pan-wa
you-TopI

bread-Top

unacceptable

when

Ø

is

overtlypronounced, we have seen in this section that thekogasi-chat-ta-ne

zero-topic itself is a real phenomenon. In theburn-Asp-Past-Prt

next section, I further demonstrate that such a

Lit. ‘As for you, as for the bread, you burnt

zero-topic null operator is universally available

it.’in UG.

claim

that

multipleoccurrencesof

3. Zero-topic in Spanish

topic-bound gaps would not be a problem,

To the best of my knowledge, little has been

despite the ungrammaticality of the overt ones.

said about zero-topics in φ-rich languages.

On that note, Takeda (1999) observes that

However, with careful observation, such gaps

multiple NPs can be topicalized when they areare found in Spanish. The relevant data is (11).

253

(11) Context: Students heard footsteps fromfollows from Iatridou and Embick’s assumption

outside just before the class.

thatclausalcomplementslack

φ-features,[e] viene.

whereas pro in Romance has φ-features.1

come.3sg‘(The teacher) comes.’ (Maia Duguine p.c.)

4. The Tripartite Distinction and T’s Strength
We turn to the distribution of pro, which has

Crucially, the zero-topic can appear only in the

been extensively discussed since Huang’s (1984)

subject position in Spanish, unlike in Japanese.

influential work. His generalization has received

Thus, the distribution of the discourse-boundmuch attention. A number of studies have beennull argument is identical to that of pro in

conducted to account for the cross-linguistic

Spanish (12).

distribution of pro (see Zushi (2003) for an
overview). Many of them, however, fall short of(12) a. José

sabe

[que

el/[e]

providing a formal explanation (e.g., Takaomi

J.

know

that

he

Kato p.c.). They are essentially functional in thatha sido

visto

por

Maria].

they assume a language allows pro as long as thehas been

seen

by

M.

content of it is recoverable, or communication‘José knows that he has been seen by

does not fail. If such an argument is to be

Maria.’

justified, it is not obvious why pro is not allowed

b. Josésabe[que Maria lo/*[e]in English, French, or German, with overt

J.

know

that M.

φ-morphology appearing on T (e.g., the thirdhavisto].

person singular -s in English).2 Below, I propose

has

seen

a formal account of the distribution of pro as

him‘José knows that Maria has seen him.’

well as discourse-bound gaps, following the(Huang (1984:533))

recent claim of Chomsky (2015) on T’s strength.
4.1. Obviation of Activation Condition3

Given that the distribution is identical, I
assume that the discourse-bound gaps inChomsky (2000) claims that φ-agreement

Japanese and Spanish are actually pro. Everyrequires unvalued Case features on the goal. DPs

language has the Zero-topic in its Lexicon, butmust have [uCase] (be active) in order to enterits availability depends on whether the language

Agree with the probing heads. This is called thecan make use of pro. If this is on the right track,

Activation Condition (AC), summarized in (20).

then we no longer need the Zero-topic Parameterin (1) as an independent principle in UG.

(13) [U]ninterpretable features render the goalpro in Spanish and Japanese are basically theactive, able to implement an operation: tosame, except for the question of whether it has

select a phrase for Merge (pied-piping) or

φ-features or not. Iatridou and Embick (1997)

to delete the probe. The operations Agreeshow that in Spanish and other Romanceand Move require a goal that is both local

languages, it is impossible for pro to refer toand active.

(Chomsky (2000: 123))

clauses. This sharply contrasts with pro inJapanese(Kasai(2014)),

which

naturally

In Chomsky’s (2000, 2008) system, [uCase] is254

an uninterpretable feature that renders the goal

Since T is strong in Spanish, Agree is possible

active, and is valued as a reflex of φ-agreement.

between the probe T and its goal pro, due to the

I propose that AC is obviated when the probe

obviated AC in (15), though pro does not haveis Strong in the sense of Chomsky’s (2015)[uCase]. In Japanese, no such problem arises,

recent claim. If T is strong as in Spanish, then its

since there is no φ-agreement in the first place.

[uφ] is capable of entering Agree with the goal

In the current proposal, pro in φ-less languages

without any [uCase]. On the other hand, if T is

are freely available, as long as Merge is free

too weak to serve as a label (English), it requires(Chomsky (2004)). The distribution of pro inits goal to bear some unvalued features to fill inthree types of languages is summarized in (16).

the

Spec

position, sothat the Labeling(16) a. Japanese:
Subject

Algorithm (Chomsky (2013)) correctly labels{DP, T} as <φ, φ> via feature sharing, as in (14).

Object(14) … T is too “weak” to serve as a label. Withb. English:
Subject

overt subject, the SPEC-TP construction islabeled <φ, φ> by the agreeing features.

Object(Chomsky (2015: 9))c. Spanish:
Subject

The insight behind AC is that uninterpretablefeatures trigger Agree operations (Gallego

Object(2009: 167)), which is still captured under theokNo φ on T
pro
No φ-Agree: No AC (14)okNo φ on Vpro
No φ-Agree: No AC (14)Weak T*pro
AC (14) prohibits pro
Weak V*pro
AC (14) prohibits prookStrong T
pro
Strong Probe: No AC (14)Weak V*pro
AC (14) prohibits pro

current proposal as the probe has [uφ]. Although
4.2. pro is CaselessChomsky’s claim on T’s strength concerns
labeling, its extension to probing is not unnatural,In this section, I defend proposal (14) withsince Labeling Algorithm and probing are bothconceptual and empirical evidence that pro

instances of the same Minimal Search. To sum

universally lacks [uCase]. It is true that proup, we can restate AC as a constraint on Weakappears in the Case position, [Spec, TP], where

heads that enter Agree with the goal in (15).

other nominals receive their Case (value).
However, this is not problematic to my argument
for the following two reasons. First, the(15) AC (revised): The goal must have [uF] in

Case-filter per se states that it is defined on theorder to Agree with Weak heads.

NP with phonetic content; thus, pro or PRO is
In English, [uφ] on T fails to Agree with its

not constrained straightforwardly (Chomsky

goal, since pro universally lacks [uCase]; we(1981: 49)). Second, in the current minimalist

will turn back soon to this in the next section.

program, Case is also considered as a feature

Weak T in English is constrained by (15), thusthat is to be licensed. As long as there is [uCase][uφ] is left unvalued, which crashes at theon a nominal, it must be valued and deletedinterfaces. The same applies to V in both English

before Transfer. If not, then such a valuationand Spanish, since it is Weak (Chomsky (2015)).

does not occur in the first place. Therefore, it

Thus, pro is not licensed in the object position.

naturally follows that if there is no [uCase], then255

there is no need for the valuation to occur.

The empty category here cannot be PRO. Nor

Let us turn to the empirical evidence. Here, I

can it be derived via ellipsis, since there is no

focus on the data from European Portuguese. It

antecedent

is observed by Roberge (1990) that there is noobservations, I conclude that they are pro. I takerestriction on the content of [e] in the subject

it as crucial evidence for my argument that pro

position in infinitivals, as in (17).

lacks [uCase] to be valued in Narrow Syntax.

(17) a. Acreditam [FIN que
think.3pl
gastado

[pro]

têm

that
esse

that

licenses

it.

Given

these

5. Conclusion

have.3plIn this paper, I argued that we no longer needdinheiro para nada]

the Zero-topic Parameter (1) as an independentmoney

for nothing

principle in UG: the Zero-topic operator is‘They think [that they have spent thisuniversal, but its availability is restricted by themoney for nothing].’

distribution of pro. Plus, I proposed a formal

spend.Past thisb. Acreditam [INF[e]teremaccount of the distribution of pro in three types

think.3pl

to.have.3plof languages: English (φ-defective), Spanish

dinheiro para nada](φ-rich), and Japanese (φ-less). This papermoney

for nothing

supports the Lexical/Functional Parametrization‘They think [[e] to have spent this money

Hypothesis (Borer (1984), Fukui (1986), (1988)

for nothing].’

and Chomsky (1995) and others).

gastadoesse

spend.Past this(Roberge (1990: 46))

If [e] is not a controlled PRO, but pro, then there* I would like to thank Takaomi Kato and Naokishould be no restriction on its content. Indeed,

Fukui for their comments on the previous

this prediction is borne out in (18a), where theversions of this paper. Thanks also go to Maia

matrix and embedded subjects are distinct. This

Duguine and anonymous reviewers, as well as

is so because no PRO enters φ-agreement with T

the audience of the 10th ELSJ Spring Forum.

in Romance languages. Moreover, the infinitival

This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for

T shows φ-inflectional morphemes depending

JSPS Research Fellow #16J00637. The usualon φ-features of its subject pro, which lends

disclaimers apply.

credence to the current analysis (18b).
1(18) a. Afirma

[pro

NOTES
Montalbetti (1984) has observed that null

terem

argument in Spanish/Japanese can obtain Boundaffirm.3sg (they)

to.have.3pl

Variablelhe roubado este

livro]

pronouns. Thus, one can say that a null

you

be

stolenbookargument

Readings
is(BVR),

ambiguous

unlikebetween

overt
empty

Lit. ‘He affirms [they to have stolen thispronominal pro and a variable in Japanese. In

book from him].’this connection, Montalbetti’s (1984: 94) Overt

b. Ele diz
he

[pro

say.3SG (we)semospobres]Pronoun Constraint (OPC) is in (i).

to.be.1pl poor

Lit. ‘He says [we to be poor].’(i) Overt Pronoun Constraint (OPC): Overt(Roberge (1990))

pronouns cannot link to formal variables iff

256the alternation overt/empty obtains.

The situation is similar in Japanese. Although
Hoji (1998) states that kare ‘he’ cannot be

Although it is descriptively correct, at least in

construed as a bound variable, he also admits

some languages, it is not obvious why OPC isthat in some sentences, BVR becomes possible.

the way it is. A crucial observation is that overt

The judgments on such examples, according topronouns can be linked to bound variables when

Hoji, vary a great deal among each speaker,

they appear in a non-subject position, where thewhich indicates that OPC in Japanese may bealternation of overt and empty pronouns israther pragmatic in nature.

impossible (Spanish).
(iv) ?Dono-gakuseii-ga(ii) a. Nadiei cree[que *éli/proi es inteligente]

nobody believe that heis intelligent

karei-nowhich-person-Nom

he-Accsensei-ono?

but-ta‘Nobodyi believes that hei is intelligent.’teacher-Acc hit-Past Q[For no x, x a person, x believes that x is

‘Which studenti hit hisi teacher?’intelligent.](Hoji (1991))

b. Muchosestudiantesi

quierenmany

students

wantque María sethat M.

case2

con ellosi/*proi

See Jaeggli and Safir (1989) regarding thispoint.
3

self marry with themTo the best of my knowledge, Chomsky‘Many studentsi want Mary to marryhimself does not call it Activation Condition.

themi.’

This term was coined and has been used by[For many x, x a student, x wants Mary to

Bošković (2007) among others.

marry x.](adapted from Montalbetti (1984: 83-87))

REFERENCES
Abe,

Jun

(2009)“Identification

of

Null

Many scholars have questioned whether OPC is

Arguments in Japanese,” The Dynamics ofor is not syntactic in nature. Camacho (2013)

the Language Faculty: Perspectives fromnotes that overt pronouns in Spanish can be

Linguistics and Cognitive Neuroscience, ed.

linked to bound variables when they arebyfocalized, as in (iii). Given that OPC is obviatedPublishers, Tokyo.

in such a way, it is natural to assume that it is

Hoshi

Hiroto,135-162.

Kuroshio

Bošković, Željko (2007) “On the Locality andrather extra-syntactic in nature.

Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even
More Minimal Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry(iii) Todo atleta

cree

que ÉL vaa ganar la

every athlete thinks that he38, 589-644.

is going toBorer, Hagit (1984) Parametric Syntax: Case

atleta).

Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages,

win.the.competition(, not another athlete).

Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, Berlin.

competición,(no otro‘Every athletei thinks that HEi is going toCamacho, Jose (2013) Null Subjects, Cambridge

win the competition (not another athlete).’University Press, Cambridge.

(Camacho (2013))

257

Chomsky,

NoamGovernment(1981)
andLectures

Binding:TheonHankamer, Jorge and Ivan Sag (1976) “Deep and

Pisa

Surface Anaphora,” Linguistic Inquiry 7,

Lectures, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Chomsky,Noam(1995)

The

391-428.

Minimalist

Hoji, Hajime (1991) “KARE,” Interdisciplinary

Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

of S.-Y. Kuroda, ed. by Carol Georgopoulos

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

and Roberta Ishihara, 287-304, Kluwer

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David

Hoji, Hajime (1998) “Null Object and Sloppy

Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155,

Identity in Japanese,” Linguistic Inquiry 29,

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

127-152.

Chomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatory

Huang, C.-T. James (1984) “On the Distribution

Adequacy: Structures and Beyond,” TheandCartography

Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531-574.

of

Syntactic

Structure,

Volume 3, ed. by Adriana Belletti, 104-131,
Noam(2008)

“On

of

Empty

Pronouns,”

Iatridou, Sabine and David Embick (1997)

Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chomsky,

Reference“Apropos pro,” Language 73, 58-78.
Phases,”Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Kenneth Safir (1989) “TheFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:

Null Subject Parameter and Parametric

Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,

Theory,” The Null Subject Parameter, ed.

ed. by Freidin Robert, Otero Carlos andby Jaeggli Osvaldo and Kenneth Safir, 1-44,

Maria Zubizarreta, 291-321, MIT Press,

Springer, Netherlands.

Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,

Noam

Kasai, Hironobu (2014) “On the Nature of Null(2013)“ProblemsofClausal Complements in Japanese,” Syntax

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

Noam

Projection:(2015)

17, 168-188.

“Problems

Extension,”ofMontalbetti,

Structures,

Mario(1984)

After

Binding.

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

Roberge, Yves (1990) Syntactic Recoverabilityof Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di

of Null Arguments, McGill-Queen’s Press,

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona

Montréal.

Matteini,

1-16,

John

Benjamins,

Takeda,Amsterdam.

Kazue

Structures,

Fukui, Naoki (1986) A Theory of Category(1999)

Multiple-headed

Doctoraldissertation,

University of California, Irvine.

Projection and its Applications, Doctoral

Tsao, Fengfu (1977) A Functional Study ofdissertation, MIT.

Topic in Chinese: The First Step toward

Fukui, Naoki (1988) “Deriving the Differences

Discourse Analysis, Doctoral dissertation,

between English and Japanese: A Case

University of Southern California.

Study in Parametric Syntax,” English

Zushi, Mihoko (2003) “Null Arguments: The

Linguistics 5, 249-270.

Case of Japanese and Romance,” Lingua

Gallego, Ángel (2009) “Defective C-T in Roma-

113, 559-604.

nce,” Probus 21, 163-216.

258

(3) a.

Syntactic Structure:[S NPi [VP V ([bound pro.]i’s) NPj ]]structural Caseb.

Meaning:

The Passivization of the Gesture Expression‘Xi express (Xi’s) [emotion/attitude]j by

Construction and the Formulation of Subjects

V-ing.’in Terms of Aboutness*

In this construction, as is schematized in (3), theSuguru Mikami

verb expresses the gesture that the referent of the

Tohoku University

subject makes, and the postverbal NP (as we callthe expression nominal) describes the expression

Keywords：Gesture Expression Construction,that is conveyed by the gesture. Furthermore, thePassivization, Aboutness, Referentiality,

GEC usually takes an unergative verb as its main

Pragmatically Licensed Construction

predicate (cf. Levin (1993)). Given the so-called
Burzio’s (1986) generalization that all and only
the verbs that can assign a θ-role to the subject

1. Introduction(= external argument) can assign accusative

Grammatical relations such as subjects andCase to an object, it is strongly suggested that

objects are essential for implementing linguistic

the expression nominal in the postverbal

study, and many attempts to clarify their nature

position, though not subcategorized by the verb,

have been made from various perspectives. Rizzi

receives structural Case from the verb.1(2006) proposes a new formulation of subjects in

Takingterms of the following two notions:

into

consideration

these

basic

properties of the GEC, it can easily be predictedthat the expression nominal is allowed to be(1) a.

Subject: +aboutness, -D-linking

passivized. Passivization is often characterizedb.

Topic: +aboutness, +D-linking

as a syntactic operation to be applied in order to(Rizzi (2006: 122))

circumvent the violation of the so-called Case
Filter unless a nominal element is properlyThis formulation requires subjects to bear an

assigned any structural Case. However, it has

aboutness feature, as is the case with topical

widely been accepted that the expression

elements.

nominal fails to be passivized, as is shown in

In this paper, to investigate the empirical(4):

validity of Rizzi’s formulation, I examine theGesture Expression Construction (henceforth,(4) a. * A cheerful welcome was beamed by

GEC), which is exemplified by (2):Sandra.

(Levin (1993: 98))b. * Grateful thanks were smiled by Rilla.
(2) a.

She smiled her thanks.

b.

She nodded approval.

(Massam (1990: 108))(Kogusuri (2011: 149))

Massam (1990) attributes the unpassivizabilityof the GEC to the presence of a bound pronoun

259

in the expression nominal. She argues that thelicensed construction (cf. Osawa (2009)), andexpression nominal contains a bound pronoun,argue that (i) the expression nominal originallyirrespective of whether the pronoun is expressed

fails to be passivized due to its inherent non-overtly or covertly. No element containing thereferential property, but (ii) the nominal can bebound pronoun is allowed to be passivized, as

considered eligible for passivization once its

the ungrammaticality of (5) shows:referentiality

isenhancedbycontextual

information.
(5) *Hisi role was played by Johni.
(Zubizarreta (1985: 256))

2. Mikami’s (2013) Analysis of the Prepositional Subject Construction

Contrary to the general consensus, Kogusuri

In this section, I briefly introduce Mikami’s(2011) points out that there are some cases in(2013) analysis of the Prepositional Subject

which the expression nominal can be judged

Construction (PSC), which previously attempts

eligible for passivization. The crucial data areto capture the apparently marked nature of thegiven in (6):construction under Rizzi’s (2006) formulation ofsubjects.

(6) a.

b.

… as the time [of fitting out] neared

It has generally been agreed that subjects arewhen the last line is cast off, thenominal elements, as Chomsky (1965) defines

goodbye are waved, the screw makes

them as NPs that are immediately dominated by

the water boil under the stern, and thean S. However, some non-nominal elements canpassage to Alaska is under way.

indeed serve as subjects. In the sentences in (7a)“You got a smoke?” the young blackand (7b), for example, it is the sentence-initial

man asks the older white man who is

PP that is viewed as the subject of a sentence,pulling hard on a cigarette. “This is all

but not the postverbal NP:2

I got.” “How about a drag?” Without
hesitation it’s handed over. Thanks are(7) a.

Under the table is a comfortable place.

nodded.

b.

During the vacation may be convenient.

(Kogusuri (2011: 163): with slightc. ? In capital letters will have the bestmodifications)effect.
d. * Because of illness is convenient for not

As indicated by italicized and underlined letters,

attending the meeting.

it is found in these examples that the passivized(Mikami (2013: 132))

version of the GEC is actually used in context.
A reasonable question arises here: Why does

According to Bresnan (1994), there is a semantic

the GEC show such a contradictory behavior

restriction imposed on the PSC: The PPs thatwith respect to its passivization? In this paper, I

express PLACE and TIME can be used asattempt to give a principled explanation for thissubjects, as shown in (7a) and (7b); while the PP

puzzle in terms of Rizzi’s (2006) formulation of

expressing MEANS and REASON cannot, as insubjects. More specifically, I analyze the(7c) and (7d). Furthermore, Nishihara (2005)

passivized GEC as a case of the pragmaticallyobserves that even MEANS PPs can be fully

260

accepted as subjects once they are embeddedthat it is in principle possible for eveninto some proper context. The following

non-nominal elements to be interpreted as

dialogue is provided by Nishihara (2005), andsubjects, as long as they bear referential

the MEANS PP in capital letters, which isproperties. Iwasaki (2009) observes a significant

judged marginally acceptable in (7c), is included

contrast in referentiality between PPs: PLACE

in the answer sentence:

and TIME PPs are considered referential,
whereas MEANS and REASON PPs are
non-referential.3 Focusing on this contrast in(8) Should I do it in lower case or in capitalletters?

referentiality, I argued that PLACE and TIME

I think in capital letters will have the best

PPs can function as subjects due to their inherent

effect.

referential properties; MEANS and REASON(Nishihara (2005: 240-241): with slight

PPs are not licensed as such because of theirmodifications)lack of inherent referentiality. Furthermore, toexplain the improvement in acceptability ofIn this case, the acceptability of the MEANS PP

examples like (8), I assumed the override

subject is significantly ameliorated, compared

operationwith (7c), in which the PSC is used andcontextual information. According to Osawa

interpretedThis(2009), even though intrasentential information

improvement in acceptability suggests that

renders a construction unacceptable, contextual

MEANS PP subjects are licensed by discourse.

information can override the constraint violation

withoutany

context.

The observations above raise the following

of

the

constraint

violationbyand license the construction pragmatically.

questions: Why are PLACE and TIME PPs

Following Osawa’s

idea,

I proposed thejudged appropriate for subjects (without any

licensing mechanism of the MEANS PP subject

help of contextual information)? How are

as follows:

MEANS PPs licensed as subjects when they are
given some contextual information? In Mikami(10) a. ? In capital letters will have …

(= (7c))[-referential]
Once Embedded into Context …

(2013), I provided a unified analysis for thesepuzzles under Rizzi’s (2006) formulation ofsubjects. As repeated here in (9), his formulationb.

Should I do it in lower case or in

defines subjects as elements that bear an

capital letters?

aboutness feature:

I think in capital letters will have …
[+Topic](9) a.
b.

Subject: +aboutness, -D-linking(= (8))[+aboutness (= +referential), +D-linking]

Topic: +aboutness, +D-linking (= (1))
As stated above, MEANS PPs are inherently

Sornicola (2006) argues that the function of the

non-referential, which fails to satisfy theaboutness is typically conveyed by referential

essential condition for subjects. However, once

elements. It follows from this view thatthey are previously mentioned in discourse, likereferentiality, rather than nouniness, is crucialin (8), the PPs are identified as topical elements.

for determining the subjecthood of an element;

Note here that Rizzi’s formulation also requires261

topical elements to bear an aboutness feature, as(11) She smiled her thanks.

is the case with subjects. This means that topical(= (2a))[S she [VP smiled (ONE’S) thanks ]]c-command

elements are necessarily judged referential[-referential]

enough to serve as subjects. That is, the MEANS
PP subject is viewed as a pragmatically licensed

In this structure, the bound pronoun contained inconstruction in that MEANS PPs cannot satisfy

the expression nominal is c-commanded by thethe referential condition for subjects until theirsubject; consequently, the nominal properly gainreferentiality is supplemented by contextualreferentiality. However, once passivization isfactors.

applied to the GEC, the expression nominal fails

In this section, I reviewed Mikami’s (2013)

to enhance its referentiality through the binding

analysis of the PSC and illustrated that Rizzi’s

relation:(2006) formulation of subjects, coupled with theoverride operation of the constraint violation by(12)*Grateful thanks were smiled by Rilla.

contextual information, succeeds in explaining(= (4b))the apparently idiosyncratic properties of the[S (ONE’S) grateful thank [VP [ wereconstruction in terms of the general property of[-referential]

subjects.

smiled ] by Rilla ]]c-command

3. Proposal
In this paper, extending Mikami’s (2013)(12) illustrates the structure of the passivized

analysis of the PSC, I attempt to capture the

GEC, in which the expression nominal in the(apparent) contradiction with respect to thesubject position is prohibited from being

passivizability of the GEC under Rizzi’s (2006)

c-commanded by its antecedent contained in theformulation of subjects.

by-phrase. This configuration leaves the nominal

Let me begin by considering the structure of

non-referential, which results in the unsatis-

the GEC. As stated in the introduction, thefaction of the referential condition for subjects.

expression nominal receives structural Case

Let me turn to the acceptable cases of thefrom the verb; it also contains a bound pronoun,

passivized GEC. The relevant example iseven though the pronoun is not expressed

repeated here as (13):overtly (cf. Massam (1990)). According toReinhart (1983), a bound pronoun must be(13) … as the time [of fitting out] neared whenc-commanded by its antecedent. Given these

the last line is cast off, the goodbye areproperties of the expression nominal, it iswaved, the screw makes the water boil

suggested that the nominal is located in theunder the stern, and the passage to Alaska iscomplement position of VP (i.e. the object

under way.

(= (6a))position) and the nominal does not gainreferentiality until its referent is identified

As Kogusuri (2011) points out, this sentence

through the establishment of the binding relation

describes a typical scene when a ship sets sailwith the antecedent:

4

for Alaska. What should be noted here is that thereferent of the expression nominal can easily be

262

judged from context, although no information

analysis.

about the relevant agent is explicitly mentioned.

In the analysis of the passivization of the

Therefore, in the structure of the passivized

GEC, Kogusuri (2011) makes an important

GEC, the expression nominal fails to gain its

generalization: No element encoding the agent

referentiality from within a sentence, as alreadyof the event must occur in the passivized GEC.

shown in (12). However, once the passivized

Following Kogusuri’s insight, I propose the

GEC is embedded into some proper context

applicability condition of the pragmatic repair(more precisely, if the referent of the expression

strategy as follows: The illegitimate syntactic

nominal is identified by discourse information),

structure must be deleted in order for thethereferentiality

pragmatic repair strategy to be properly applied.

pragmatically and it can serve as the subject ofGiven this condition, when the element encoding

the passivized sentence:

the agent participant is realized as a by-phrase,nominalenhancesits

an inappropriate syntactic chain for binding is(14) [S (ONE’S) goodbye [VP [ are waved ]][-referential]

created between the expression nominal and its[+referential]

antecedent:

discourse information(15) [S (ONE’S) grateful thank [VP [ wereThat is, the passivized GEC is analyzed as aThis

discourse information

analysis succeeds in viewing the contradictory

smiled ] by Rilla ]]pragmaticallylicensed

construction.

binding relationpassivizability of the GEC observed between (4)and (6) as merely an apparent phenomenon andgiving a principled explanation for the apparent

The structure in (15) above schematizes thecontradiction in terms of the general property of

unacceptable sentence in (12). In this structure,subjects.

the presence of the inappropriate syntactic chain
for binding blocks the application of the

4. Applicability of Pragmatic Repair Strategy

pragmatic repair strategy; consequently, theSo far, I have identified the passivized GEC

nominal fails to enhance its referentiality in theas a pragmatically licensed construction (cf.

discourse.

Osawa (2009)) and proven that the passivization

In contrast, when considering acceptableof the expression nominal is licensed only whencases like (6), we can easily find that there exists

the referentiality of the nominal is enhanced

no inappropriate syntactic chain. The following

through the pragmatic repair strategy (morerepresents the structure of the acceptable

precisely, the identification of the referent bysentence in (6a):discourse information). Here, a reasonable
question arises with respect to the applicability(16) [S (ONE’S) goodbye [VP [ are waved ]]of the pragmatic repair strategy: Why is the typeof repair strategy not applied in unacceptablediscourse information

binding relation

cases like (12)? In this section, I consider thequestion in order to verify the validity of myIn this structure, nothing prevents the expression

263

nominalreferentiality

This phenomenon is viewed as a condition

through the pragmatic repair strategy. As just

imposed on the Case assignment (cf. Stowelldescribed, what is crucial for the application of(1981)), and the constraint is also observed in

the pragmatic repair strategy is that thethe case of direct objects, as shown in (ib). Thus,

inappropriate

the ungrammaticality of (ia) strongly suggests

deleted.

fromenhancing

syntactic

its

structure

has

been

5

that the expression nominal receives structural
Case from the verb, as is the case in direct

5. Conclusion Remarks

objects in active transitive sentences.
2

In this paper, I gave the principled

The subjecthood of the sentence-initial PP in

explanation for the apparent contradictory

the PSC is evidenced by the following typicalbehaviors of the GEC with respect to its

diagnostic tests for subjecthood:

passivization, and verified the empirical validityof Rizzi’s (2006) formulation of subjects. More(i) a.

specifically, I viewed the passivized GEC as a

Is [under the bed] a good place tohide?

pragmatically licensed construction (cf. Osawab.

[Under the bed] and [in the fireplace](2009)), and argued that the expression nominal{*is not/are not} the best (combination

is inherently non-referential, which fails toof) places to leave your toys.

satisfy the referential condition for subjects by(Mikami (2013: 132))

itself, but it can function as the subject of the(ii) a. * Was [under the table] a cat?

passivized GEC once its referentiality ispragmaticallysupplementedbyb.

contextual[Down through the hills] and [into theforest] {flows/*flow} the little brook.

factors.

(Mikami (2013: 132))* This is a revised version of the paper presented

The PP is inverted with the auxiliary verb

at the ELSJ 10th International Spring Forum,(including the copula be) in question formation,

which was held at Meiji Gakuin University on

as in (ia); and it triggers number/person

April 22, 2017. I am deeply thankful for

agreement with a finite verb, as in (ib). These

invaluable comments and suggestions from theproperties contrast with the inverted PP in theaudience. Needless to say, any remaining errors

Locative Inversion Construction, as shown inand shortcomings are my own. This work is(ii): The PP is not allowed to be inverted withsupported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grant

the auxiliary, nor does it agree in number andNumber 15K16749.

person with the verb.

NOTES
1
The expression nominal is sensitive to the Case3

Adjacency Condition, as the ungrammaticality

referentiality of PLACE and TIME PPs.

of (ia) shows:4

See Endo (2007), Iwasaki (2009) and Mikami(2013)

forthedetailsoftheinherent

The expression nominal is sensitive to thecoreferential condition: The possessive NP(i) a. * She nodded gracefully her approval.

contained in the nominal must refer back to theb. * Paul opened quickly the door.

subject, as is shown in the following examples:(Kogusuri (2011: 154))264

(i) a.
b.

Mary smiled {her/*his/?*John’s} thanks.
John

noddedagreement.

Linguistics 35-2, 161-190.

{his/*her/?*Mary’s}

Merchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax of Silence:(Ross (1970: 266))

Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

This fact empirically supports the view that the

Mikami, Suguru (2013) “The Prepositional Subjectreferent of the expression nominal is determined

Construction in English and the Formulationby the subject through the establishment of theof Subjects in Terms of Aboutness,” JELS 30,

binding relation between them.

132-138.

5This kind of constraint can also be observed in

Nishihara,

Toshiaki(2005)

DPs

in

Right

other cases of repair strategies, although I cannot

Peripheral Positions in English, Doctoral

go into the matter for lack of space in this paper

dissertation, University of Tsukuba.

(see Merchant (2001) for the detailed discussion

Osawa, Mai (2009) A Unified Approach to Prag-of the island constraint on movement and its

matically Licensed Constructions in English,

repair strategy). Thus, it is reasonable toDoctoral dissertation, University of Tsukuba.

conclude that the pragmatic repair strategy

Rizzi, Luigi (2006) “On the Form of Chain:proposed in this paper follows the general

Criterial

property of repair strategies.

Wh-Movement: Moving on, ed. by Lisa L.-S.

Positions

and

ECP

Effects,”

Cheng and Norbert Corver, 97-133, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.

REFERENCES
Bresnan, Joan (1994) “Locative Inversion and theArchitectureofUniversal

Reinhart, Tanya (1983) Anaphora and Semantic

Grammar,”Interpretation, Croom Helm, London.

Language 70, 72-131.
Burzio,Luigi(1986)

Government-Binding

Ross, John Robert (1970) “On Declarative
ItalianSyntax:Approach,A

Sentences,” Readings in English Transfor-

Reidel,mational Grammar, ed. by Roderick A.

Dordrecht.

Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum, 222-272,

Chomsky, Noam (1965) Aspects of Theory ofGinn and Company, Waltham, MA.

Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Sornicola,

Rosanna(2006)“InteractionofEndo, Yoshio (2007) Locality and Information

Syntactic and Pragmatic Factors on Basic

Structure: A Cartographic Approach to

Word Order in the Languages of Europe,”

Japanese, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the

Iwasaki, Hiroyuki (2009) “Prepositional Subjects

Languages of Europe, ed. by Bernini,and Referentiality,” JELS 26, 81-90.

Giuliano and Marcia L. Schwartz, 357-544,

Kogusuri, Tetsuya (2011) “On the Passivization ofthe

GestureExpression

Mouton de Gruyter, New York.

Construction,”

Stowell, Timothy (1981) Origins of Phrase

Tsukuba English Studies 29, 149-168.

Structures, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Levin, Beth (1993) English Verb Classes andZubizarreta, Maria Louisa (1985) “The Relation

Alternations, University of Chicago Press,

between Morphophonology and Morpho-

Chicago.

syntax: The Case of Romance Causatives,”

Massam, Dianna (1990) “Cognate Objects as

Linguistics Inquiry 16, 247-289.

Thematic Objects,” The Canadian Journal of265

well-known restriction on the verbs that canbe used in deictic there constructions.
2.1. Basic Facts of Deictic There
Constructions
Deictic there constructions have beenrecognized as scene-based constructions as
the construction is most often employed toexpress something that is happening at thetime of the conversation, as exemplified in(2).

Pragmatic Constraint on There Speak
Construction and its Peculiarities*
Takashi Mino
Osaka University
Keywords：deictic There constructions,speak, pragmatics, irony(2)
1. Introduction
This
paper
proposespragmatic
constraints on the acceptability of a there
construction with the verb, speak(henceforth There speak construction),
which has been generally considered to beunacceptable.

He pointed toward the river andshouted, “Look! There’s a capsizedboat.”(Breivik (1990: 118))

As the adverb there has a lexical meaning
dissimilar to the expletive there, thisconstruction identifies a location that is
relative to the speakers and indicates anexistence or motion that is encoded in thesubjects. The present tense is generally
selected as this construction describes
something happening at the time of speaking.
Phonologically, this deictic there bears
stress.
To sum up, deictic there constructions
are intended to make the hearer aware of alocation expressed by the adverb there toindicate the existence or motion of an entity
in that location.

(1) A: I can’t decide which clothes to buy.
Should I just get everything?
B: There speaks a rich person!
Several other pragmatic functions are also
examined, such as a speaker’s implied
negative attitude toward addressees. In
particular, by focusing on the role of thesubjects and contexts, this paper hopes toilluminate the use of this overlooked
construction.

2.2. Restriction on Verbs Used in the
Deictic There Constructions
As discussed in Lakoff (1987) and
Breivik (1990), only verbs of location andmotion are allowed, as in the following
examples.

2. Deictic There Constructions
This section briefly surveys previous
studies on deictic there constructions todemonstrate that There speak construction isa member of deictic there constructions eventhough this construction violates the266

(3) a. There is Harry with our lunch!
b. There goes our last hope!
c. There stands Mary!
(4) a. * There play two boys.
b. * There ate a couple.
c. * There laughs a lady.

however, in some circumstances, a there
construction with speak is acceptable.
Therefore, there must be another motivationto account for the acceptability of thisunique construction; however, this has notbeen previously examined in any depth.
Section 3 details the discourse
conditions for the acceptability of thisconstruction.

All examples in (3) are acceptable as theverbs be and go lexically express theexistence or motion. However, the examplesin (4) are all unacceptable as the verbs do
not describe the subjects’ existence or
motion.
However, there are some apparent
counterexamples to this generalization, as in
the following examples.

2.3. There Speak Construction as a Deictic
There Construction
This subsection discusses the status of
There speak construction as a deictic there
construction based on three pieces ofevidence: stress, present tense, andembeddedness.
First, phonologically speaking, the there
in There speak construction takes thesentence stress, as exemplified in (6).

(5) a.

“Many go in the hope of making
fortunes,” I said, “but are they all
successful?” “There speaks thepractical woman. No, Miss Leigh,they are not all successful; but there
is something named Hope which….
(Mistress of Mellyn)1b. “I’m not a baby.” Ginny tossed herblue-black hair, chin going up, asmall replica of Colby. “You don’t
need to hide anything from me. I’m
not stupid either, Paul Chevez.
Working with any horse can be
dangerous if you don’t know what
you’re doing. Colby does,” She
added staunchly. “No one does it
better.”“Therespeakstheunprejudiced voice,” Colby laughed
softly, running Cinny’s hair tenderly.
(Dark Secret)(6) a.
b.

THERE goes Mary.
THERE speaks thewoman.
speaksthec. ??There
WOMAN.

practical
practical

Second, the past tense is generally
unacceptable.
(7) A: I don’t have time for romance.
B: * There spoke the workaholic.
Third, There speak construction cannot
be embedded in the same way as otherdeictic there constructions, as exemplified in(8).
(8) a. * If there’s Mary, I will be surprised.
b. * Because there speaks a rich person,

These sentences all employ the verb speak,which is not a location or motion predicate;267

I don’t want to go shopping withyou.
b.
An examination of these three types ofevidence reveals that There speak
construction could be categorized as a
deictic there construction.
3.
Constraints
on
There
Speak
Construction and its Characteristics
This
sectiondetails
pragmatic
constraints on There speak construction. In
the following, other related functions arealso proposed that are not observed innormal deictic there constructions.

The There speak construction is employed in(10a) as a reply to a statement that he does
not have time for romance, which isconsidered a typical remark workaholics arelikely to say. Next, (10b) requires a little
explanation. Protestants tend to believe only
what is written in the Bible and regard otherthings as mere legends, while Catholics
place value on not only the Bible but also onlegends. This difference in beliefs suggeststhat the There speak construction in (10b) is
a comment to a Protestant who does notvalue legends. Therefore, it is proposed that
There speak construction requires a
preceding remark the subject may typicallysay.
This pragmatic constraint is also verified
in (11), which does not have an adequate
contextual preceding remark. (11) is aconversation in which two colleagues aretalking about a co-worker well-known forbeing a workaholic.

3.1. The Pragmatic Constraint on There
Speak Construction
This study proposes a pragmaticconstraint for There speak construction in(9).
(9) Pragmatic Constraint on There Speak
Construction
There speak construction requires thepreceding utterance to be somethingthat the subject is likely to say.
To test this proposal, observe the following
examples that are acceptable because of theadequate preceding statements:(10) a.

everything. You should make time[BNC]
for dreams.”
Have you ever heard, Mr. Viscontisaid, that beer is much more
intoxicating drunk through a straw?
Surely that is a legend. There
speaks a Protestant, Mr. Viscontisaid, Any Catholic knows that alegend which is believed has thesame value and effect as the truth.
(Travels with My Aunt)

He gave her a sideways look.
“Cold,” he said succinctly. “Damp.”
Her mouth twitched. “You're noromantic,” she chided. “I haven't
the time for romance,” he said
shortly.
“There speaks aworkaholic,” she observed with
faint disapproval. “Banking isn't(11) A： Do you know where Yuhei is? I
want to talk with him about
tomorrow’s plan.
B： I saw him two minutes ago. Oh, heis over there. *There speaks a268

workaholic.

specific to the extent that they are
sufficiently evoked within the context.

While there is a preceding remark associatedwith the subject of the There speak
construction and the referent of the subject isreally speaking, as the remark cannot be
associated with a statement the subject
might mention, this example is unacceptable.
Also, consider (12):How this generalization
exemplified in the following.

works

is

(14) A:I don’t want to do anything all
afternoon.
B: a. * There speaks a man/John.
b. There speaks a lazy man.
c. There speaks a man without acare in the world.

(12) A: I haven't the time for romance.
B: * There speaks a tall man.
This example is unacceptable because there
is no remark in the context that evokes the
subject a tall man, even though the hearer isreally a tall man.
It can be concluded from these examples
that There speak construction requires a
preceding utterance that the subject may
typically say.2

It is natural that we do not want to do
anything all afternoon when we are very
sleepy or tired, but this is very vague
information when characterizing “a man.”
Therefore, general nouns such as a man are
inappropriate subjects as There speak
construction requires additional information,such as a lazy man or a man without a carein the world.
Most examples in the corpora include
specific attributive information in thesubject, as exemplified in (15). For
simplicity, the context is not presented here.

3.2. Further Characteristics
There are other constraints and functions
related to the pragmatic constraint discussed
in 3.1. This section, therefore, proposes that
there is a constraint on the subject, acharacterizing function, and a negative
implication, each of which are discussed in
the following.

(15) a.
b.
c.

3.2.1. A Constraint on the Subject
This section discusses a constraint on thesubject in There speak construction, which ishighly connected with the pragmaticconstraint on There speak construction in (9).
First consider (13):(16)

There speaks the proud lioness!
(Double fire)
There speaks the True Briton.
[COCA]
There speaks the natural mother.
[BNC]
There speaks someone who has
never been without.
(Lovers and Ladies)

These sentences contain adjectives or a
relative clause to specify the attributes of thesubjects.

(13) Attributive Subject Constraint
The subjects should be attributive and269

Proper nouns such as John in (14a)cannot be used as they are not attributive;
however, they can be used as long as theproper noun implies a certain attribute, such
as Trump or Hitler. For example, in theexample below, the proper name Trump isused as an attribute for someone who isignorant and domestically oriented.
(17) A:
B: a.
b.

(19)

Let’s make America great again.
There speaks Trump.
There speaks a red-blooded
American.

Obviously, these two examples convey
different information: the normal deictic
there construction only describes the motionof the rabbit, while There speak
construction not only describes the action of
the hearer (speaking action), but also
describes the characteristics of the hearer
with respect to one typical attribute of thesubject, as can be seen in the following
examples.

However, (17Bb) is still more natural than
(17Ba) because (17Bb) directly describes
the feature of the person introduced in thecontext.
To summarize, the subjects are generally
attributive nouns with rich meanings that are
sufficiently evoked through the context.

(20) A:You have to do your homework
as soon as you go home.
B: a. There speaks a strict teacher.
b. * There speaks a strict teacher
slowly.
c. * There murmurs a strict teacher.

3.2.2. Characterizing Function
As There speak construction generally
follows an attributive statement about the
subject, the function of There speak
construction is to characterize and evaluate
the hearer with respect to some specificattribute of the subject.
In the following, normal deictic there
construction is compared with There speak
construction.
(18)

courses the fastest way they could.
[COCA]
Anand turned from me in disgust
and asked Sitaram for his opinion.
Sitaram stared at the painting
quizzically and said, “She musthave given all her clothes forwashing.” “There speaks thegarment manufacturer,” I put in.
(Rusty Goes to London)

These examples demonstrate that manneradverbs and manner of speaking verbs
cannot be used in There speak construction.
That is, the information about how theteacher is speaking is not important in thisconstruction. Further, topics and references
to addressees followed by about and tophrases cannot be explicitly stated, as shownin (21). In addition, the verb talk is notsuitable as this communication verb implies
the hearer as well as the speaker.

There was no timing, but a parent
would start one of the fasterchildren down the course followed
by a slower one, telling thefledgling, "There goes the rabbit -see if you can catch him!" They'dchase each other down those dim

2703.2.3. Negative implications
This paper has proposed that There
speak construction evaluates or characterizes
the hearer. Here, it is demonstrated that
There speak construction is usually ironic or
derogatory, as in the following examples.3(21) A:You must not eat a lot at
midnight.
B: a. * There speaks a strict doctor
about health.
b. * There speaks a strict doctor tome.
c. * There talks a strict doctor.

(22) a.

These examples indicate that There speak
construction only focuses on “who said” thestatement, not the manner of the action, as
illustrated in Figure 1.

b.
(Figure1.

The

Profile

of

There

Speak

Construction)

Interestingly, it is possible to use (20Ba)
with a friend even though they soundslightly less acceptable than for a teacher;that is, There speak construction can provide
a provisional role for the addressee.
A further characteristic of There speak
construction is while it is generally referringto the addressees, the construction uses thethird person singular as the subject; that is,
There speak construction is used as if thehearers were a third person. Therefore, thisconstruction introduces the subjects into thecontext similar to other there constructions.
To sum up, the function of There speak
construction is to characterize the hearer
based on some attribute of the subject.

“That’s beyond foolish! You’re
only saying that to hurt me, tomake me feel horrible. No man
wants a woman who isn’t all that isproper. It’s all a matter of heirs. I
heard my father saying that to aneighbor.”“Therespeakseighteen-year-old wisdom andeavesdropping.” “Will you annul
me?”(The Sherbrooke Bride: Bride
Series)“And I’ve decided to get myself acar.” “What!” He puts down his
glass so suddenly the drink spills
over. “You said you were going to
buy you a computer.” “That too.”“Jill, you’re crazy. Squandering
your money this way. It’s going tovanish in no time.” “There speaks
the accountant’s son!” “No, I’m
serious.”(Moving on)

As observed in the above examples, There
speak construction can convey a derogatory
observation, as the speaker of There speak
construction in (22a) is commenting
somewhat negatively about the childishnessof the addressee. This negative attitude isconfirmed by the response by the addressee,“That’s beyond foolish.” That is, the speaker
employs the There speak construction tocondescendingly dismiss the addressee’s271

remarks. Similarly, in (22b), the remark
following the speaker’s There speak
construction, indicates that the hearer
believes that they are being teased.
To encapsulate, in most cases, the use of
There speak construction implies a negative
characterization of the hearer.

(ii)
There goes a clumsy person!
Therefore, There speak construction is more
limited that this type of There go
construction.

4. Conclusion
This present paper has proposed some
pragmatic and discourse constraints on
There speak construction. Even though
speak is disallowed in deictic there
constructions, it can be used when there are
adequateprecedingutterancesthat
encourage the speaker to make an attributive
comment about the hearer/subject that the
subject/hearer may be likely to say about
themselves. This construction also often
carries a derogatory or negative meaning.

REFERENCES
Breivik, Leiv Egil (1990) Existential There:
A Synchronic and Diachronic Study,
2nd ed., Novus Press, Oslo.
Lakoff, George (1987) Women, Fire andDangerous Things: What Categories
Reveal about the Mind, The Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago.

3

Examples such as (15a) are like statementsof admiration, but even these expressions
are used ironically in their contexts.

DATA SOURCES
British National Corpus (BNC)
Corpus of Contemporary American English(COCA)
Google Books Corpora* I would like to thank Brenes Ivan Martin,
Naoko Hayase and Tetsuya Kogusuri for
their valuable comments and discussion.
Also, I am deeply grateful to the audience at
the meeting for their helpful comments andsuggestions. Needless to say, all errors are
my own.
NOTES
All underlining has been added by theauthor.
2
There speak construction is parallel inmeaning with one type of There go
construction, as is exemplified in (i).
(i) A: I do not have time for romance.
B: There goes a workaholic!
However, There go construction can be usedwithout any preceding remarks. Consider
that the next example can be uttered when
you see someone fell down.
1272

b. masani otoko-rashii otoko
truly man-Affix

man

The expression in (1a) denotes a woman who
How Do Relational Adjectives Change into
Qualitative Adjectives?

resembles a man, while (2a) denotes a man*

among men, or a man who represents the classcalled man. As indicated in (2a, b), derived

Akiko Nagano

adjectives by -rashii can modify the same noun

Tohoku University

as its base noun and can be emphasized by theadverb masani “truly.” In contrast, the noun

Keywords：affixes, derivational morphology,

modified by a -ppoi adjective should be distinct

denominal adjectives, RESEMBLE, REPRESENT

from its base noun, as in (1b). According toNagano and Shimada (2016), -ppoi derives QAs(qualitative adjectives) of resemblance, while

1. Introduction
The

main

-rashii derives QAs of representation. In
functionofderivational

Huddleston

andPullum’s(2002:

Ch.13)

morphology is to produce new lexemes byclassification, resemblance belongs to non-scalarchanging the word class of the base. There areterm comparison, such as This festival is rather

cross-linguistically attested common semantic

similar to Munich’s Oktoberfest (ibid.: 1141),

classes associated with specific word-classwhile representation is similar to set comparison,changes. For example, V-to-N derivation often

superlatives in particular, in that it picks out the

produces event nouns, result nouns, or agentive

optimal member of a class.

nouns. N-to-V derivation produces verbs ofThis paper aims to examine how the twochange of location or state, among others. This

types of QAs are derived in English. The answer

paper concerns N-to-A derivation and its two

is not so straightforward as in the case ofmajor semantic classes, qualitative adjectives

Japanese because N-to-A derivation in Englishthat express “resemble BASE N” and thoseand many other European languages produce notexpressing “represent BASE N.”

only QAs but also relational adjectives (RAs)

Nagano and Shimada (2016) observe thatJapanesemorphologically(Beard (1995), Fradin (2007, 2008, 2016),

distinguishes

Fábregas (2007, 2014), Bisetto (2010), Rainer

resemblance and representation in denominal(2013), Shimamura (2014), among others). RAs

qualitative

Compareand QAs are distinct adjectival classes (orotoko-ppoi ‘man-like’ with otoko-rashii ‘manly’:

subclasses within a major part of speech). QAs

adjectivalization.

are prototypical scalar adjectives that can
(1)

(2)

a.

otoko-ppoi onna

constitute a predicate. They allow degree

man-Affix woman

morphology and nominalization. In contrast,b. ?? otoko-ppoi otoko

RAs are attributive-only denominal adjectives

man-Affix man

that occur adjacent to the head noun and cannot

otoko-rashii otoko

be modified by truly or very.

a.

man-Affix man

Below, I will argue that English QAs of273

resemblance are derived from N by dedicatedthe literature. Only Dixon (2014: 237) observes

suffixes, as in the case of Japanese, but it is notthat a manly behavior is said of a man, but athe case with representation. Rather, English

mannish behavior is said of a woman. In

QAs of representation are derived from RAs ofaddition, man-like is used of an alien who looks

class membership. Because RAs are denominal

like a man without actually being one. In light ofthemselves, this analysis means that such QAs

the data in (1, 2), Dixon’s observation suggests

are derived in two steps: N > RA > QA.

that the suffix -ly is related to representation
rather than resemblance.

2. RESEMBLE QAs in English
Researchers

thegoes unnoticed because it is formally identical to

RESEMBLE type are produced by suffixes such as

RAs in English. First, witness the instances of-ish, -esque, and -like. The following italicizedfriendly as QAs of representation:

adjectives

agree

are

“similatives”

that

In most cases, however, the REPRESENT classmore

because

QAs

commonly
they

can

of

called
also

be

(6)

a.

He exemplifies what it means to beparaphrased by similar to. I use resemble toan excellent scholar, a supervisor,

capture the contrast with the other type.

and a truly friendly person.
b.

(3)

John is {very/quite/too/a bit} childish fora full professor.

(4)

They stressed the important of truly
friendly service in their restaurant.

(Fábregas (2014: 284))(Google Scholar)a.

Barbie-ish dollsb.

Barbieesque teller dolls

The adjectives in (6a, b) function as predicates,c.

Barbie-like dolls

as in: the {person/service} is very friendly.

(Bauer et al. (2013: 311))

However,
relationally.

friendly
The

These derivatives are naturally translated into

attributive-onlyJapanese by -ppoi. Because the suffixes in (3, 4)interpretation:

canfollowingandreceive

also

be

used

instancesareanon-scalar

are strongly tied to the interpretation ofresemblance, I regard them as instances of

(7)

a.

“heavy” or “semi-lexical” suffixes, inherently

a friendly match between Japan andChina

endowed with adjectival category and the LCS
1of the stative predicate resemble. To adoptb.

old friendly enemiesc.

Several airplanes were brought down

Naya’s (2016) term, this type of QA is derived inby friendly fire.

one step, as shown in (5).

d.

a friendly nation vs. an enemy nation(Oxford Dictionary of English)(5)

One-step adjectivalization
N

→

QA

The same RA-QA polyfunctionality is
exhibited by several other suffixes, including -al,

3. REPRESENT QAs in English-an, -ic(al), etc. For instance, grammatical in (8)In contrast, it is hard to find a clear

is an RA, but the same form in (9) is a QA

description about the REPRESENT type of QA in

because the prefix un- selects a QA base.

274

category consists of different subclasses, the one(8)

She is a grammatical genius.

with a stronger connection to the input category(Plag (2003: 94))(9)functions as a stepping stone to derive the otherPeter’s utterance is ungrammatical.

subclass with a weaker connection. That is, it is(Clark (2004: 378))

event nouns that turn into result nouns, not theother way around, because event nouns are more

The presence of the relational usage clearlyverb-like, inheriting the verbal property of the

distinguishes the two types of QAs. That is, QAs

base verb.

of resemblance do not have a relational

RAs are similar to event nouns in basecounterpart, while QAs of representation haveinheritance. Levi (1978), Fábregas (2007), andone. Based on this empirical generalization, I

Cetnarowska (2013) show that RAs are nominal

propose that REPRESENT QAs are derived fromadjectives. Thus, unlike QAs, they cannot be

RAs in the following two-step manner:

nominalized. Semantically, they correspond to
structural or semantic cases.

(10) Two-step adjectivalization
N →

RA →

In English,

instances based on Romance suffixes exhibit theargument-saturating property, as in:2

QA

At this point, it is useful to compare N-to-A(12) Ital-y > Ital-ian,derivation with V-to-N derivation (Ito andan Italian invasion(Fábregas (2014: 279))

Sugioka (2002), Alexiadou and Grimshaw(2008), Naya (2016)). One of the important

Adopting my own analysis in Nagano (2013), I

theoretical issues about deverbal nominalization

assume that RA suffixes such as -al and -an areis the Event-Result polyfunctionality. Not a few“light” suffixes, devoid of lexical category andderived nouns can be used both as an event noun

LCS. Whereas suffixes such as -ish and -like are

and as a result noun, as in:lexemic, producing compound-like derivatives
in combination with the base lexeme, the(11) a.

The examination of the patients tookfunction of -al, -an, and such are purely

a long time.

transpositional, i.e. shifting the word-class of theb. The examination was difficult.

base lexeme.

(Ito and Sugioka (2002: 70))

In sum, my analyses in (5) and (10) meanthat denominal QAs are not monolithic in their

How are the two instances of examination

derivation. One type is derived directly from

related? In one dominant approach, they arenouns by a heavy affix, but another type isrelated via a two-step derivation in the form ofderived not from nouns but from noun-likebase verb > event noun > result noun.

adjectives.

My point is that the two-step derivation is
not peculiar to denominal adjectives. Certain

4. How Do RAs Change into REPRESENT

deverbal nouns are also derived in two steps.

QAs?

More importantly, the discussion on V-to-N

The remaining issue is the driving force of

derivation suggests that when the output

the second step in (10), that is, how RAs give275

rise to the usage of representation. We cannot
make it a specification on RA suffixes because

The same is true of the following pair:they are light affixes. Also, I do not agree withsome researchers who take it as semantic(16) a.

coercion (Bauer et al. (2013: 318)). Contrary tobiological journal> *the journal is very biologicaltheir suggestion, the RA-to-QA shift is notb.

constraint-free. The following RAs cannot bebiological response> the response is very biologicalturned into QAs (“ >” stands for the shift):(13) a.

an Italian invasion(Based on Beard (1995: 189))= (12)In my view, the possibility of the shift> *The invasion is Italian
b.
c.
d.

= (13d)depends on the type of syntactico-semantica grammatical genius= (8)relation holding between an RA and its head

> *a very grammatical genius

noun. In Huddleston and Pullum’s (2002: Ch.5)

a grammatical error

terminology, internal dependents within an NP> *the error is very grammatical

can be either complements or modifiers. Thus,

a biological journal

the> *the journal is very biologicalcomplements to the head noun, while those in((13d) from Beard (1995: 189))

italicized

dependents

in

(17a)

are

(17b) are modifiers to the head noun.

In contrast, the following RAs can be turned into(17)

PRE-HEAD

POST-HEAD

QAs:a. a [linguistic student]a [report on the crash]b. a [first-year student] a [report in the paper](14) a.

maternal love

(Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 439))> truly maternal loveb.

c.

a Japanese tradition

RAs

are

> a truly Japanese tradition

dependents, as indicated by linguistic in (17a).

> This tradition is very JapaneseThe

revolutionary songs

complements or as modifiers is confirmed by the> His songs are truly revolutionary

one-substitution test. It is well known that the

fact

one
that

type
they

of

pre-headfunctioninternal

eitheras

test distinguishes the two functions of post-head
Moreover, it is important to notice that one

internal dependents: e.g., That student with shortand the same RA can be turned into a QA in

hair and this one with long hair sit together

some cases, but cannot in other cases. Witness

vs. ?*That student of chemistry and this one of

the following pair. The shift of grammatical isphysics sit together (Harley (2009: 134)).

very difficult in (15a), but it is possible in (15b).

Compare (18) with (19):(15) a.

(18) a.

a grammatical error= (13c)> *the error is very grammaticalb.

I don’t want a British nanny: I want a
French one.

a grammatical constructionb.

> The construction is very grammatical

Is he a rural policeman or an urban
one?

276

(19) a. ?Do you mean the presidential murder

It seems safe to say that the second step inor the papal one?

(10) is conditioned by the classificatory modifier

b. *Is he a theatrical critic or a musicaluse of RA. There is no space to develop thisone?

conclusion in syntactic terms. Semantically,((18a) from Huddleston and Pullum

class membership is closely linked to class(2002: 441), (18b) and (19a, b) from

representation via the working of everyday

Giegerich (2015: 36))inference known as psychological essentialism(Lakoff (1987)). Put very briefly, psychologicalThe different possibility of one-substitution

essentialism captures the fact that if X belongs

strongly suggests that the RAs in (18) areto the class Y, we tend to think that X has themodifiers to the head, while those in (19) areessence of the class Y. For instance, we tend tocomplements to the head.

think that every dog has the essence of its

Returning to (13-16), I suggest that the

species. Also, we tend to think that if someone is

RA-to-QA shift is difficult in NPs in which thea mother, she should have motherhood. Such an

RA is a pre-head complement. Thus, consider

inference underlies the ambiguity of thethe expressions in (13), again. In (13a), Italianfollowing Japanese construction:functionsasthesubjectordirect-object

complement to the deverbal noun invasion. In(20) Hahaoya-wa kodomo-no tameni gisei-ni(13b-d), the base noun of the RA saturates amother-Top child-Gen for sacrifice-Dat

certain implicit argument selected by thenaru

non-deverbal head: (13b) “a genius in/at

become {(i) person be/(ii) supposed to}mono dagrammar,” (13c) “an error in grammar,” and(13d) “a journal about biology.” Similar

In one reading, the sentence means “a mother isrelations between the RA and the head noun cana person who sacrifices herself for her child.” Inbe found in the expressions in (19).

another reading, it means “a mother is supposed

In contrast, (14), (15b), and (16b) indicate

to sacrifice herself for her child.” This ambiguity

that the RA-to-QA shift is possible in NPs in

is very similar to our case: class membershipwhich the RA is as a pre-head modifier. Just likeinterpreted as class representation.

the RAs in (18a, b), the RAs in (14) and (15,Finally, a comment is in order on (16). Beard

16b) are not selected by the head noun. Rather,(1995: 189) observes that biological in (16a)theycannot be shifted to a QA. However, in ourfunction(Shimamura

asclassificatory(2014:

77-83)).

modifiers

Generally,aunderstanding, the QA use is difficult as long as

legitimate RA + N input to the second step inbiology, its base noun, is taken as a life system,(10) embodies “N1 that BELONGS TO N2” (N1:similarly to the base N of (16b). When it is taken

the head noun, N2: the base noun). For example,

as(14a) maternal love can be analyzed as “lovesyntactico-semantic relationship between thethat belongs to mother,” while (14b) Japanese

adjective and the noun changes; one can talk of a

tradition can be analyzed as “tradition thatjournal that belongs to biology as an academic

belongs to Japan.” In (14c), revolutionary songs

field. In that case, the QA reading is also

are “songs that are a part of a revolution.”

possible in (16a).

277

an

academicfield,

however,thestudy is supported by KAKEN 16K02754.
5. Conclusion

NOTES

In this paper, I have focused on the two types

1

The suffix -ish occurs not only on nominalof qualitative denominal adjectives in English

bases but also on qualitative adjectival bases, as

and argued that QAs of resemblance are derived

in goodish and dullish. Following Bauer et al.

in one step, while QAs of representation are(2013: 313), I regard the “approximating A”

derived in two steps. The latter adjectives aresense of such derivatives as inferentially related

produced not directly from nouns; rather, they

to the LCS of resemble.

are produced from RAs that establish a BELONG

2

TO relation between the head N and the base N.

suggests that an RA inherits the referential index

Returning to the beginning of this paper, one

The following contrast (Baker (2003: 126))of an N in a defective form:

might hastily conclude that the two-step(i) a.

derivation is irrelevant to Japanese. As shown inAlbania{j, k}’s destruction of itself{j}b. *The Albanian destruction of itself{j}Nagano (2016), Japanese does not have the classof RA, yet the same modificational function is
performed by attributive genitives. Thus, the

REFERENCES
Alexiadou, Artemis and Jane Grimshaw (2008)

English NP in (14b) can be translated as follows:“Verbs, Nouns and Affixation,” Incremental
Specification in Context, ed. by Florian(21) nihon-no

dentō

Schäfer, Working Papers of the SFB 732,

Japan-Gen tradition

1-16.

“Japanese tradition”

Baker, Mark (2003) Lexical Categories: Verbs,
Nouns,

Attributive genitives allow conversion into

andAdjectives,

Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

adjectives when they are formally expanded

Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber and Ingo Plag

with a classifier (see Nagano (2016: Sec.4)):(2013) The Oxford Reference Guide to
English Morphology, Oxford University(22) a.
b.

nihon-{gata/fū/ryū}-no

dentō

Press, Oxford.

Japan-Classifier-Gen

traditionnihon-{gata/fū/ryū}-na

dentō

Morphology:

Japan-Classifier-Adj.Infl

tradition

Inflection and Word Formation, State

Beard, Robert (1995) Lexeme-Morpheme BaseA

GeneralTheoryof

University of New York Press, Albany.
This observation suggests that in Japanese the

Bisetto,Antonietta(2010)“Relational

two-step derivation is used, though marginally,

Adjectives Crosslinguistically,” Lingue eside by side with suffixes such as -rashii, which

Linguaggio 9, 65-85.

are dedicated to the one-step derivation of

Cetnarowska,

REPRESENT QAs.

Bożena(2013)“PolishandEnglish Denominal Adjectives: Lexical
Ambiguity

andAlternate

Syntactic* I would like to thank Tatsuya Isono, Yusuke

Configurations,” Ambiguity: Multifaceted

Kubota,Masaharu

Structures in Syntax, Morphology andShimada for their comments and questions. This

Phonology, ed. by Anna Bondaruk andTaichiNakamura,

and

278

Anna

Malicka-Kleparska,

91-109,(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the

Wydawnictwo KUL, Lublin

English Language, Cambridge University

Clark, Herbert H. (2004) “Pragmatics ofPress, Cambridge.

Language Performance,” The Handbook ofIto, Takane and Yoko Sugioka (2002) Go no

Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence Horn andShikumi to Gokeisei (System of Words andGregory

Word-Formation), Kenkyusha, Tokyo.

Ward,365-382,

Blackwell,

Malden, MA

Lakoff, George (1987) Women, Fire, andDixon, R. M. W. (2014) Making New Words:
Morphological

Derivation

inDangerous

English,Antonio

Syntactic(2007)

Structure

Internal

Levi, Judith N. (1978) The Syntax and Semantics

Relationalof Complex Nominals, Academic Press,

Adjectives,” Probus 19, 135-170.

New York

Fábregas, Antonio (2014) “Adjectival andAdverbial

Derivation,”

Categories

Chicago Press, Chicago.

“The
of

What

Reveal about the Mind, The University of

Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Fábregas,

Things:The

Nagano, Akiko (2013) “Morphology of Direct

OxfordModification,”

Handbook of Derivational Morphology, ed.

English Linguistics

30,

111-150.

by Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer,

Nagano,Akiko(2016)“Are

Relational

276-295, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Adjectives Possible Cross-linguistically?

Fradin, Bernard (2007) “Three Puzzles about

The Case of Japanese,” Word Structure 9,

Denominal Adjectives in –eux,” Acta

42-71.

Linguiatica Hungarica 54, 3-32.

Nagano, Akiko and Masaharu Shimada (2016)

Fradin, Bernard (2008) “On the Semantics ofDenominal

Adjectives,”“How Poor Japanese Is in Adjectivizing

On-lineDerivational Affixes and Why,” Word

Proceedings of the Sixth Mediterranean

Formation across Languages, ed. by Lívia

Morphology Meeting, ed. by Geert Booij,

Körtvélyessy, Pavol Štekauer and Salvador

Angela Ralli and Sergio Scalise, 1-15.

Valera,Fradin, Bernard (2016) “Denominal Adjectives

219-240,

Cambridge

ScholarsPublishing, Cambridge.

with an Essive Interpretation,” paper

Naya, Ryohei (2016) “Deverbal Noun-Forming

presented at 49th Annual Meeting of theProcesses in English,” English Linguistics

Societas Linguistica Europaea.

33, 36-68.

Giegerich, Heinz J. (2015) Lexical Structures:
Compoundindg

and

the

ModulesPlag, Ingo (2003) Word-Formation in English,ofCambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Grammar, Edinburgh University Press,

Rainer, Franz (2013) “Can Relational Adjectives

Edinburgh.
Harley,Heidi

Really(2009)“Compounding

Distributed

Morphology,”

The

HandbookofCompounding,Rochelle

Lieberand Pavol

inExpress

Onomasiological

Any

Relation?

Approach,”

An

SKASE

OxfordJournal of Theoretical Linguistics 10,ed.

12-40.

byŠtekauer,

Shimamura, Reiko (2014) Go to Ku to129-144, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Nazukekino (Phrases, Words, and the

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum

Naming Function), Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

279

question. In (1a), it is clear to the reader that her
in the upper-right title WHERE TO TAKE HER isused to refer to his sweetheart. Similar remarks
apply to he in (1b) and him in (1c):Oblique-Referential Descriptions andThird-Person Pronouns in English *(1) (a)Koichi Nishida
Yamaguchi Prefectural University
Keywords：oblique-referential reading ofreferential terms, non-anaphoric third-person
pronouns, dialogue, evidentiality

(b)

(c)

1. Introduction
This article discusses three types of contexts
where referential terms can be used in what
Recanati (1993) calls an “oblique-referential”
way to show that the referential opacity involvedin oblique-referential terms is understood in(a) FHM, Apr. ’15, front cover. / (b) Shape,

terms of reference that takes place outside of the

Feb. ’13, p.2. / (c) Seventeen, Sep. ’13, p.141.

current speaker’s dialogue domain.
This article builds on Miki’s (1996:640)

Obviously, these non-anaphoric pronouns standfollowing statement: “What descriptions (i.e.

for the reader’s intimate partner of the opposite

referential terms) count as opaque ... depends

sex. They are shown to be oblique-referential

crucially on what is assumed to be shared as

terms, because they represent people to whom

mutual knowledge. Likewise, what descriptions

the reader, but not the author, can refer.

are regarded as transparent depends crucially on

The imperative title in (1c) makes the mostwhether the descriptions are made from thetypical context for the non-anaphoric pronouns.

perspective of the ongoing interchange.”

We

They occur in contexts where they are paired

focus on referential terms linked with theirwith you, which may be involved as thereferents outside of the ongoing interchange.

understood subject of imperative sentences, as in

They occur characteristically in a specific type(1c) or may be an implicit topic, as in (1a-b).

of mock dialogue employed in mass media.

The

pronouns

presuppose

conventional

I focus on antecedentless, or non-anaphoric

couples of adult man and adult woman, and their

third-person pronouns of the kind illustrated inchoice is indexical to the target readership of the(1). All these examples are taken from magazine

magazine in question; by presumption, in men’s

article titles addressed to the readers, whichmagazines, female pronouns stand for the wife

make a good context for the pronouns inor girlfriend of each male reader, and in280

women’s magazines, male pronouns stand forthe speaker of this sentence, the winner in thethe husband or boyfriend of each female reader.

complement

allowsoblique-attributive

andThis article is organized as follows. Section

oblique-referential readings given by the person

2 reviews Recanati’s (1993) paired notions ofreferred to by the matrix subject: in the former,“oblique-attributive” and “oblique-referential”

as in (2c), the matrix subject doesn’t know who

readings of referential terms, and their relevancethe winner is, and believes that whoever it is, heto attributive vocatives in the sense of Clark andor she will go to Hong Kong. In the latter, as inCarlson (1982). Section 3 takes up the(2d), the matrix subject, but not the speaker,

non-anaphoric third-person pronouns that areknows who the winner is, and uses the winner tointerpreted with attributive vocatives in media

refer to that person; oblique-referential terms

dialogue. Section 4 reconsiders Kuno’s (1972)

like the winner in (2d) are those whose referents

direct discourse analysis in light of theare transparent to the matrix subject, but are

third-person pronouns used as the substitutes of I

opaque to the speaker. They carry reference forand you. Section 5 offers theoretical implications

which the speaker relies on someone else.

for evidentiality and concluding remarks.

The oblique-referential reading also comesfrom complex attributive vocatives that are cases

2. Paired Notions of “Oblique-Attributive”

ofwhat Clark andCarlson(1982) calland “Oblique-Referential” of Recanati (1993)“addressing by attribution,” as in (3):We first review at least four different
readings of a definite description which Recanati(3) Schwartz, to history students: Any of you(1993:390) says examples like (2) can have:

who needs a syllabus, raise your hand.

(2) John believes that the winner will go to Hong

In (3), the speaker doesn’t know who are theKong.

addressees of his imperative at the time of his(a) attributive use: the speaker says that theutterance, so any of you who needs a syllabus iswinner, whoever she is, is such that she will

opaque to him. As a matter of self-awareness,

go to Hong Kong.

however, it is transparent to each of those(b) referential use: the speaker says of the person

history students who needs a syllabus. As Clark

whom he takes to be the winner, viz. Mary,and Carlson note, speakers who use attributivethat John thinks she will go to Hong Kong.

vocatives like this do not call the addressees(c) oblique-attributive use: the believer (i.e.

directly, but instead, describe the attributes thatJohn) is said to believe this: the winner,

the addressees in their minds are expected towhoever she is, will go to Hong Kong.

have. They call such purported reference(d) oblique-referential use: the believer (i.e.

“addressing by attribution,” which, as I am

John) is held to believe of someone ingoing argue in what follows, is responsible forparticular, thought of as the winner, that she

introducing other oblique-referential terms, too.
In addition to complex vocatives like the one

will go to Hong Kong.

in (3), single occurrences of you can bring about
Recanati argues that besides the attributive andthe oblique-referential reading, too. Recanati

referential readings in (2a-b), which are given by(1993:306-307) cites a similar example to the281

article titles from Nunberg (1991), in (4):attributive you, with which the author purports
to talk to readers to identify each of them as the(4) When we see a sign at the side of the roadmain character of the article, as in (5-7):

that says YOU ARE ENTERING BEDFORDFALLS, … we take the token of you as(5)equivalent to a description of the form
‘whoever is reading this under certain
presumptive conditions.’ … the character ofyou in this case is not simply “reader of thistoken”; it picks out only such readers as sightthe token under appropriate circumstances,– that is, people with normal vision who
approach the sign from the road. The

Wedding Essentials, Ontario ed., ’15, p.77.

pronoun does not refer to … someone on a

(6)

(7)

distant mountain who glimpses the sign froma telescope.
This is tantamount to saying that the speaker canuse you outside of the ongoing interchange as an
attributive vocative to create his addressee as a
specific type of person who is responsible for asituation he is describing with it. This is the casenot only with you in the road sign, but also withMarie Claire, Nov. ’14, front cover. / Tiger Beat,you featured in magazine article titles.

Sep. ’13, p.99.

My claim is that the dialogue-based contexts
featuring the attributive you can introduce

In (5), his in the first sentence is anaphoric to asecondary oblique-referential terms such as thesmitten groom, but him in the third sentence is

non-anaphoric third-person pronouns. Since thenot; it independently stands for the reader’s

attributive you stands for a specific type ofgroom. This is due to the fact that it is part of theperson, the third-person pronouns paired with it

author’s mock dialogue to the reader, which

are taken to stand for a specific type of people,

makes a separate domain from the preceding text.

too. Like the attributive you, the pronouns are

The same is true of him in the elliptical title ofinterpreted as expressing a certain amount of(5) and he in the interrogative title in (6).

descriptive content, which is spelled out as

Non-anaphoric pronouns standing for the“readers’ intimate partners of the opposite sex.”

reader’s intimate partner typically occur inmedia dialogue whose topics include personal

3. Non-Anaphoric Third-Person Pronouns inrelations such as love, marriage and gifts, i.e.,

Media Dialogue

topics with which the author can talk with each

The oblique-referential use also applies toreader about his or her intimate partner. Theirthe non-anaphoric pronouns paired with the

non-anaphoric nature is evidenced by (7), where282

the referent of him in don’t forget to introduce

addressee called by the attributive you; his or her

him to your BFFs is to be found deicticallyutterance-type in dialogue. The titles featuring

rather than anaphorically as the person with

the non-anaphoric third-person pronouns paired

whom each reader is paired in the two of you.

with the attributive you represent the kind ofSince authors and readers are physicallyutterances that their target readers are expecteddistant and have no acquaintance in mass media

to produce in face-to-face dialogue with theircommunication, the you in media dialogue has

intimate partners of the opposite sex. Readersmuch less to share with the speaker, or author,

are constructed to say as titles say to them.

than the attributive vocative in (3), and provides

This allows us to see that titles of this kinda stronger example of addressing by attribution.

make sense as utterance-types that the author

The attributive you differs from the deictic

offers in advance in indirect discourse fromyou in that the latter occurs in face-to-facewhich the readers constructed will produce theirdialogue only to address addressees without

own utterances in direct discourse, by replacing

describing them, but the former occurs outside

the second person with a first-person, and theof face-to-face dialogue, expresses a specific set

third-person with a second-person, respectively.

of attributes that the speaker expects theThis explains why the third person pronouns

addressee to have, and sets up mock dialogue

expressed are specifically used to stand for the

directed towards each of the people with whom

reader’s intimate partner of the opposite sex.

the speaker purports to communicate, although
he cannot identify them in person.

4. Kuno’s (1972) Direct Discourse Analysis

A look at Talbot (1992) is instructive inand the Substitutes of I and You

clarifying who is referred to as you in these

Kuno (1972:162-163) argues that logophoricmagazine article titles. Talbot (1992:175-176)

third-person pronouns like the one in theargues that the attributive you used in magazine

complement of (8a) are substitutes of thearticles stand for “the reader constructed,” i.e. an

first-person pronoun used by the person referred

imaginary addressee constructed in the mass

to by the matrix subject. His basic idea is thatmedia as having “a specific set of interests,

self-reference is cross-linguistically consistently

attitudes, likes and dislikes” on the basis ofperformed with a pronoun rather than a name,market research. Thus, the attributive you in

and in English, the self-referential pronoun I has

titles limits the number of readers qualified as

to be substituted by another pronoun when it isregular consumers of the relevant magazine.

embedded in non-first person contexts.

Since (5-7) come from women’s magazines,(8) a. Johni expects that hei will be elected.

the seriously interested female reader takes the
you as transparently referring to herself, who isb. That hei will be elected is expected by
Johni.

described as “whoever you are, you are expectedc.*That Johni will be elected is expected byto have a set of attributes as a typical reader ofthe magazine such as age, sex, social status,

himi.

income level and so on which together make anadult woman interested in marriage or career.”

Kuno proposed to derive (8a) from theHere I add another attribute to the imaginary

first-person direct discourse, John expects, “I

283

will be elected.” This direct discourse makes it

substitutes for the deictic you in the reader’s next

clear that (8b), a passivized form of (8a), is

direct discourse. Since you is an only pronoun

acceptable, since the pronoun in the complement

for addressing in English, the terms to replaceis ready to be replaced with the I for John’s

you outside of the ongoing interchange have toself-reference, but (8b) is not; it wrongly implies

be pronouns in another person, too.

that John uses his name to refer to himself.

The titles featuring oblique-referential terms

However, Kuno’s direct discourse analysis

are in the auothor’s preparatory utterance andcannot be sustained in its original form, because,

help to model the reader’s next utterance inas Kuno (1972: 163) himself admits, expect does

direct discourse with the

not actually take a direct discourse complement.

reference assignment in (10):convention forRather, it should be reconsidered as a convention
for reproducing direct discourse utterances of(10) Make the given oblique-referential terms

the original speaker from the indirect discourse

referential in your face-to-face dialogue

expressed (cf. Vandelanotte (2004)).

about the topic specified to the reader

Thus seen, just as a third-person pronoun inconstructed.

the complement of saying verbs is substituted by
the original speaker or thinker’s I, a third-person

With (10), the qualified readers can take thepronoun in the current author’s mock dialogue

titles directed to them as the author’s precursors

with an imaginary addressee is substituted byto their next utterances. The simplest and surest

you used by the imaginary addressee in his or

way to make the attributive you referential is to

her next dialogue with their own partners.

replace it with the reader’s I, and accordingly,

As a piece of evidence for this account, thereplace the non-anaphoric third-person pronoun

non-anaphoric pronoun is typically paraphrased,with you deictically referring to their partners in

not into a definite noun phrase, but into a deictic

their dialogue on the given topic.

phrase with your from the author’s perspective.

For example, (6) is a precursor to the next

The following example is based on (6):utterance of the magazine reader, i.e., “I got the
big job. Can you deal?” The pronouns are(9) You got the big job. Can {he/your guy/??theopaque to the author, but are oblique-referentialguy} deal?

to each reader of the relevant media dialogue.
Since the topics given by the titles are related to

In using the third-person pronouns paired withpersonal relations with intimate partners, thethe attributive you, the author can only purport

readers are expected to make the oblique-to refer to the person who he believes is the one

referential third-person pronoun referential toto whom the reader refers. From the author’s

partners with whom they have face-to-faceperspective, the male pronoun in (9) appears to

dialogue about those topics. Thus, they stand forhave a certain amount of descriptive content andthe people with whom the reader constructed

may be equivalent to your guy, your man, yourwill most frequently talk with the deictic you

sweetheart or your husband, but no exact

about the topics covered by the magazines, i.e.

paraphrase is available for him because it is up

their intimate partners of the opposite sex.

to the reader, and more importantly, they are

However, the non-anaphoric pronouns are284not always interpreted in this way. In (11), thepronouns and the attributive I choose the reader

male pronoun in the title is used to stand for theas the deictic center because she is the only

pet dog that the reader is supposed to have:person who can assign reference to these terms.
It might be argued that the non-anaphoric(11)

pronouns have implicit antecedents introducedwith understood phrases like As for yourhusband, or Speaking about your sweetheart,and that, like coreferential pronouns, they areused to refer back to the topic indviduals. But
this is ad hoc and wrong in three respects.
First, it is unclear as to what such topic-

Martha Stewart Living, Sep. ’15, p.114.

introducing phrases offer. Their postulation begs

(12)

the question of who the pronouns are taken torefer to. It is also unclear where and how toplace these topic-introducing phrases.
Second, coreferential pronouns are generally
paraphrased into definite noun phrases, but, as
we have seen, the non-anaphoric pronouns arenot. Moreover, to paraphrase a pronoun into a

Cosmopolitan, Singapore, Apr. ’14, p.75.

noun phrase, the speaker has to know the headnoun in advance, but he is not sure about the

Of course, the pronoun does not mean that every

exact descriptive content of the pronouns.

pet dog that the target reader has is male. It is

Third, equating the non-anaphoric with thejust chosen because this magazine specializes inanaphoric or coreferential misses an importanthousework and is targeted to adult women. Thisdifference between the two. Cornish (1999:146)

also means that the relations between readers

notes that in all cases of anaphoric pronouns,

and their pet dogs are modeled after the intimate“the referent is located and accessed in the mind

dialogue between partners of opposite sexes.

of speaker and addressee.” By contrast, theAs in (12) above, the first-person pronoun,

non-anaphoric pronouns are supposed to havetoo, can be used attributively in titles like you,referents that may be in the mind of the qualified

and introduce the non-anaphoric pronouns. Withaddressee of a media dialogue, but not in the(10), the seriously interested reader replaces theauthor’s mind. For these reasons, they cannot be

first-person pronouns expressed in (12) as those

reduced to coreferential pronouns.

in her own utterance and takes them as referringto herself, and accordingly, the third-person

5. Theoretical Implications and Concluding

pronouns as referring to the person with whom

Remarks

she is most likely to talk about the given topic.

The pronouns with the reader’s partner

In other words, from her perspective, they referreading differ from definite descriptions in theto the person whom she addresses as you.

believe-complement as to the structure in which

Like the attributive you, the non-anaphoric

they are used, but share a common contextual285

Oxford University Press, New York.

setting, as is captured by the following principle:

Clark, Herbert H. and Thomas B. Carlson (1982)“Hearers and Speech Acts,” Language 58,(13) The oblique-referential reading is assigned

332-373.

to referential terms whose reference isCornish, Francis (1999) Anaphora, Discourse,

exercised by other people than the one whoand Understanding: Evidence from English

uses them in the ongoing interchange.

and French, Oxford University Press,
This implies that referential opacity belongs in

Oxford.

theory to evidentiality (cf. Aikhenvald (2006)),

Kuno,

Susumu(1972)“Pronominalization,for it comes from the speaker who uses another

Reflexivization, and Direct Discourse,”

person as the information source of referential

Linguistic Inquiry 3, 161-195.

terms and lets that person rather than himself

Miki,engage in reference assignment of those terms.

Etsuzo(1996)“Evocation

andTautologies,” Journal of Pragmatics 25,

The evidentiality in oblique-referential terms

635-648.

is future-oriented in that, unlike hearsay markers

Nishida,Koichi(2017)“Koteki

Hyogenthat express what the speaker has heard fromtoshiteno Taiwa no Kaisosei to Eigo noothers, oblique-referential terms like the non-

San-ninsyo Daimeishi no San-bunrui (Theanaphoric pronouns are used on his presumption

Hierarchy of Dialogue as Public Expressionthat there will be some people who become theandsource of referential information for those terms.

Third-person Pronouns in English),” Sanso-

Addressing by attribution is a dialogue-based

moderu de Mietekuru Gengo no Kino to

way to express future-oriented evidentiality by

Shikumi (The Function and System ofaddress terms and other terms paired with them,

Language Visible by the Three-tier Model),allowing the speaker to use the terms withouted. by Yukio Hirose, Masaharu Shimada,knowing the validity of the reference he makes.

Naoaki Wada, Masaru Kanetani and AkikoaThree-wayClassificationofNagano, 153-178, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
* I thank Kaori Hata, Miyabi Ozawa, Ayumi

Nunberg, Geoffrey (1991) ms. “Indexicals andSuga for their comments on my presentation.

Descriptions in Interpretation,” cited inThanks also go to Kristen Sullivan, who acted as

Recanati (1993).

an informant, and to Yukio Hirose, whose advice

Recanati, François (1993) Direct Reference:

was very helpful to my draft. This article partly

From Language to Thought, Blackwelloverlaps with Nishida (2017), which discusses

Publishers, Oxford.

the non-anaphoric pronouns in light of Hirose’s

Talbot, Mary M. (1992) “The Construction ofThree-tier Model. This study was financially

Gender in a Teenage Magazine,” Criticalsupported by the 2017 Yamaguchi Prefectural

Language Awareness, ed. by Norman

University grant for research and creation

Fairclough, 174-200, Longman, Harlow.

activities. Any remaining errors are mine.

Vandelanotte,
Grounding

REFERENCES

Lievenin(2004)
Speech“DeixisandandThought

Representation,” Journal of Pragmatics 36,

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2006) Evidentiality,

489-520.

286

pointed out that -ed can be attached to certain
phrases. Their phrase-basedness is shown intheir semantics. For example, blue-eyed isnormally assumed to have the semantics in (4a).
Possessional Adjectives as Transposed NPs*
(4)a.

blue-eyed ‘having a blue eye/blue

Kazuya Nishimaki

eyes’

University of Tsukubaa’.

[A0 [NP blue-eye]ed](Plag (2003: 153), with slight modifications)b.

Keywords：possessional adjective, transposition,category-shifting, syntactic context, inflectional[keen-édge]d, [low-héel]ed(Shimamura (2007: 376), my stress markers)
This interpretation entails the analysis in (4a’):

1.

Possessional

Adjectives:

embedded A-N sequences are interpreted as the

Phrase-BasedobjectDerivatives
In English, the suffix -ed derives adjectives

NPs

of

possessionalverbs.

Theirphrase-basedness can also be found in theirlike those given in (1).

phrasal stress patterns. As shown in (4b),Shimamura (2007) points out that their main(1)

bare-legged, black-haired, two-leggedstress is on right-hand nouns.

(Marchand (1969: 266-267))

The aim of this paper is to explore thefollowing two questions:Henceforth,following

Beard’s(1995)

terminology, we refer to these derived adjectives

(5)

a.

How can the phrase-basedness ofas possessional adjectives. They are problematic

possessional

for morphological theory because they are based

explained?

on phrases in violation of No Phrase Constraint:b.

adjectivesbeWhy do possessional adjectives notfollow No Phrase Constraint?

(2)

Lexical rules do not apply to syntacticphrases to form morphologically complex

Towords.

possessional(Botha (1984: 137))

answerthesequestions,adjectivesasweanalyzetranspositional

derivatives in the sense of Marchand (1966,
The effect of this constraint is exemplified in the1969). Our claim is that possessional adjectives

ungrammaticality of (3).

are adjectivizations of NPs, which retain theirproperties after category-shifting.

(3) * bad grammarian ‘one who studies bad
grammar’The organization of this paper is as follows.

(Spencer (1988: 677))

Section 2 differentiates two types of derivation
to determine which process derives possessional

This ungrammaticality comes from suffixation

adjectives; the type of derivation that yields

applying to the NP bad grammar. Turning topossessional

possessional adjectives, many linguists havederivation. The other is semantic derivation.

287

adjectives

istranspositional

Section 3 gives a transpositional analysis of

Relying on the notion of transposition, we

possessional adjectives and shows that they arepropose that possessional adjectives derive fromproducts of transpositional derivation. Section 4

the transposition of NPs to A0s. Thus, we assume

examines the locus and status of transpositionalthat the possessional adjective blue-eyed has

derivation in grammar. Section 5 makes

blue eye as an underlying NP, which isconcluding remarks.

transposed into an A0. Due to the transposed
status, possessional adjectives inherit certain
properties from their underlying NPs. Thus, they

2. Transpositional and Semantic Derivation
Marchand (1966, 1969) distinguishes two

exhibit phrasal semantics and stress patterns (seetypes of derivation: transpositional and semantic(4)), even if their categorial label is A0. This

derivation. The crucial distinction lies inanswers the question given in (5a); possessional

whether

adjectives have, as it were, the categorial label

derivation

category-shiftingor

results
ininsemantic

pureof A0 but the content of NP.

addition.

Transpositional derivation is a process of pureNow, we would like to point out independent

category-shifting. In other words, this process

motivations for the present analysis. Beyond theleaves bases intact except for their categorial

phenomena exemplified in (4), other phenomenalabels. On the other hand, semantic derivation

can be nicely captured by analyzing possessional

adds semantic content to bases. Examples ofadjectives as transpositional derivatives. Ourthese two types are given in (6).

transpositional

analysisisindependently

motivated in at least two regards.
(6)a.

X is a novel writer.

b.

X is a writer.

3.1. Peculiar Properties(Marchand (1966: 138))

First, possessional adjectives exhibit not
only the behaviors given in (4) but also other

Both examples involve derivation of agentive

peculiar properties. We can readily explain thesenominals by -er. Let us see how Marchandproperties by assuming that they are inherited

explains the difference between these twofrom underlying NPs:

nominals.

Novelwriter

in

(6a)

is

the

nominalized form of the underlying sentence(7)

the bigger-sized people

someone writes a novel. The point is that thisnominalization

merelytransforms(Jespersen (1942: 431))

the

(8)

subject-predicate relationship from a sentence to

He was [as kind a hearted] man as everbreathed.

(Jespersen (1942: 430))0an N ; the nominalized form has no otherrelationship than this grammatical one. On theTheother hand, writer in (6b) denotes a habitual

possessional

agent that performs literature writing. Thus, it

comparatives (or superlatives). From (8), we

contains

also see that possessional adjectives can beadditionalsemantic

content,i.e.

habituality and literature.

example

given

in

(7)

adjectives

shows

can

that

containsyntactically divided by items like articles.
These properties are peculiar because they are
not found in normal derivatives:

3. Transpositional Analysis

288

(9)

a. * kinderness (cf. kindness)parallelism naturally follows if we assume that

(Siebert (1999: 101))

possessional adjectives and gerundive synthetic

b. * washslowlyable (cf. washable)

compounds(Roeper and Siegel (1978: 202))

constituteanaturalclassastranspositional derivatives.
Let us take a closer look at the parallelism.

In (9a), the comparative kinder undergoes -ness

For instance, both types are parallel in retaining

suffixation. In (9b), the VP to wash slowly is an

the same idiomatic readings as their underlying

input to -able suffixation. Either suffixation iscategories. This is illustrated in (12).

ruled out.
On the other hand, comparatives can occur(12) a.

within NPs, as shown in (10).

If you blow the whistle on someone,
or on something secret or illegal,
you tell another person, especially a(10) [...] no one has a kinder heart [...].

person(Harriet Wilson, Our Nig, my underline)

authority,

what

is

happening.
b.

Also, the following examples

inshow that

Whistle-blowing is the act of telling
authorities or the public that thesyntactic division is possible for NPs:

organization you are working for isdoing something immoral or illegal.

(11) [...] she had as kind a heart and as good a(COBUILD,

soul as any among the hosts in Heaven.

(a);

s.v.

whistle,

(b);

s.v.

whistle-blowing, original bold types)(Dean Koontz, From the Corner of His Eye, myunderlines)(12a) defines the VP idiom to blow the whistle,
whereas

(12b)

is

the

definition

of

its

Thus, the examples given in (10) and (11)nominalization whistle-blowing. Observe thatstrongly suggest that the relevant properties

this compound has the same idiomatic reading as

originate in underlying NPs.

the VP idiom in (12a). The same is true of the
NP idiom hardhead and its adjectivization

3.2. Parallelism with Gerundive Synthetic

hard-headed, defined in (13a) and (13b),

Compounds

respectively.

Another motivation is that possessional
adjectives are parallel with another type of(13) a.

transpositional derivative, which is exemplified

hardhead ‘a person who is stubborn
and uncompromising’by book-reading, cattle-breeding, cotton-picking,b.

and essay-writing (Marchand (1969: 76)). These

hard-headed‘stubborn,

uncompromising, intractable’

so-called synthetic compounds involve the(OED, (a); s.v. hardhead, (b); s.v. hard-headed)gerundive suffix -ing. Thus, we refer to thesecompounds as gerundive synthetic compounds.

They share the idiomatic reading of something

Marchand points out that they transpose VPs

like stubborn (also see Beard (1995: 345)).

0into N s. For example, book-reading is a

These retained idiomatic readings are naturaltransposition of the VP to read books. The

consequences of transposition, because this289

process has no semantic effect.

gradable adjective sharp, which very modifies.

Another parallelism is that both types oftranspositional
underlying

derivative

categories

dependin

In contrast, in (15a’), this adverb is not licensed

on theirlicensing

because there is nothing it can modify in the NP

theirsingle edge; single is a non-gradable adjective.

co-occurring items; the underlying categories are

The contrast along the same line is observed

responsible for the possibility of non-selected

between (15b) and (15b’). In (15b), sharp-edged

dependents like modifiers. The contrast between

is compatible with very because the gradable(14a) and (14b) shows that infinitival clauses

sharp appears within the underling NP. The

can occur with gerundive synthetic compounds

impossibility of very in (15b’) comes from thebut not with non-deverbal nouns like trip.

non-gradable single within the underlying NP.
Note here that in (15b) very does not modify the(14) a.

city-destroying to prove a point

whole possessional adjective, because -ed forms(Roeper (1987: 294))

non-gradable adjectives. This is shown by (16).

b. * the trip in order to prove a point(Ito and Sugioka (2002: 77))(16) Most current robots are (* very) wheeled.

(14a) exemplifies the phenomenon known as

In this example, the possessional adjective

event control. It is widely held that event control

wheeled disallows very.

is licensed by verbal argument structures.

The parallelisms observed so far are

Plausibly, in (14a), the argument structure comesreasonableiffrom the underlying VP. Let us look at (15) togerundivesynthetic

consider how possessional adjectives allow

transposed status.

modifiers.

possessional

adjectives

compounds

share

and
the

To sum up, this section has demonstrated
that our transpositional analysis can provide a(15) a. It’s got very sharp edges.

unified treatment of two separate issues. One is(Tom Koppel, Lost World: Rewriting Prehistory

the source of the peculiarity of possessional－How New Science Is Tracing)

adjectives. The other is the cross-constructionala’.

It’s got a (* very) single edge.

issue of how to properly describe the parallelismb.

Silk-screen printed images are not

betweenalways very sharp-edged [...].

possessional adjectives and gerundive synthetic(Doig Simmonds, Charts & Graphs)

compounds. Under the present analysis, theThis is a (* very) single-edged tool.

phenomena observed in this section are all given

b.’

two

different

constructions:a unified account as reflecting properties of the
These examples indicate that possessional

underlying categories.

adjectives pattern with their underlying NPs inlicensingof

degreeadverbs

like

very.

4. Locus and Status of Transpositional

Specifically, the possibility of these adverbs

Derivation in Grammar

depends on whether the underlying NPs containOur remaining issue is why transpositional

gradable adjectives. In (15a), the NP sharp

derivatives retain properties of their underlying

edges licenses very because it contains thecategories after category-shifting. A possible

290answer to this fundamental question is thatphrases to form morphologically complex

transposition takes place at the final stage ofwords.

(= (2))

syntactic derivation. Regarding possessional
adjectives, this assumption entails two things.

This definition means that the constraint is

One is that they count as NPs at any stage ofsensitive to word formation. If transposition is

syntactic derivation. The other is that the

inflectional, we can assume that it is not atranspositional suffix -ed appears at the final

process of word formation but a process thatstage to shift NPs to A0s only when givenchanges word forms. It is widely held thatsyntactic

adjectives:inflection is a process changing word forms astransposition is triggered by syntactic contexts.

required by given syntactic contexts. Under the

In this sense, interestingly, transposition is like apresent

certain type of inflection, such as inflections

possessional adjectivization is a subtype ofmarking subject-verb agreement. In fact, since

processes that change word forms as required by

the application of these two types of process

given syntactic contexts. Thus, possessional

depends on syntactic contexts, both put noadjectives

lexical limitation on inputs. For example,

Constraint.

contexts

requireanalysis,

are

we

can

insensitive

suppose

to

No

that

Phraseagreement inflection must occur on any VP
when it merges with a subject. Its occurrence is

5. Concluding Remarks

independent of the lexical semantics of theThis paper has shown that possessional

relevant VP. Likewise, any VP and any NP can

adjectives

be inputs to gerundive synthetic compounds (seetranspositional

Marchand (1969: 18-19)) and to possessional

derivation is defined as a process of pureadjectives (see Huddleston and Pullum (2002:

category-shifting without semantic effect. Our179)),

respectively.

1

Note

also

that

can

be

best

analyzed

derivatives.

asTranspositionalthetranspositional analysis is motivated by its

distinctive feature of inflection is that it entirely

ability to treat two separate issues in a unified

inherits properties from its inputs. The present

fashion. First, it can capture the peculiarities ofanalysis means that transpositional suffixes likepossessional adjectives as coming from their-ing and -ed are pure category-changers with theunderlying NPs. Second, under our analysis, thesame status as inflectional suffixes. -Ing and -ed

parallelism between possessional adjectives andfunction to change one category to another as

gerundive synthetic compounds follows because

required by given syntactic contexts. This isthey form a natural class as transpositional

their only and primary function. Based on thesederivatives. We can reduce the observed

points, we naturally conclude that transposition

phenomena to the fact that transpositional

is inflectional rather than derivational (see Fabb

derivatives(1984: 190)).2

underlying categories. This property inheritanceinheritproperties

from

their

This conclusion answers our second question

is possible because transposition takes place atin (5b): why do possessional adjectives not

the final stage of syntactic derivation. This

follow No Phrase Constraint, repeated in (17)?

process is trigged only when it is required by
given(17) Lexical rules do not apply to syntactic

syntactic

contexts.

In

this

sense,

transpositional derivation is inflectional rather

291

than derivational. As pure category-changers,

the following examples are possible:

transpositional suffixes like -ing and -ed havethe status of inflectional suffixes.

(ii) a.

a long-legged spiderb.

a bearded man(Quirk et al. (1985: 1329))* An earlier version of this paper was presented
at the 10th International Spring Forum of the
English Linguistic Society of Japan held at Meiji

In these examples, long-legged and bearded give

Gakuin University on April 22, 2017. I would

us enough information to classify the relevantlike to thank Yukio Hirose, Nobuhiro Kaga,

spider and man, respectively; it is not the caseMasaharu Shimada, Naoaki Wada, Masaru

that every spider has long legs and every man

Kanetani, Akiko Nagano, and Masaki Yasuhara

grows a beard.

for their helpful comments.

It is well known that possessional adjectives

NOTES
Given the following examples, one might

express the notion of ‘inalienable possession.’

wonder whether any NP is a possible input to{bearded/* carred} man (Quirk et al. (1985:

possessional adjectivization:1329)); a beard is inalienable, which is not true

1

For example, let us observe the contrast in aof a car. Under the present analysis, we assume(i) a. * a legged spiderthat this notion naturally follows from the(Quirk et al. (1985: 1329))

classifying

b. * a haired man

function.

Inalienably

possessed

properties are permanent attributes. Thus, they

(Mano and Kageyama (2009: 71))

give

us

enoughinformation

toclassify

In our view, these examples are unacceptablesomething.
The truth is as follows. Any NP may serve as

rather than ungrammatical; their impossibility is

an input to possessional adjectivization, but if its

explainable in terms of a particular semantic

output, i.e. a possessional adjective, does not

function of possessional adjectives. We follow

classify the referents of nouns, it is unacceptable.

Yukio Hirose (personal communication) and

The point is that the acceptability depends on its

Masaharu Shimada (personal communication) in

relationship with the modified nouns and not on

assuming that possessional adjectives function

the input NP itself.

as direct modifiers. Typical examples of them2

are a set of denominal adjectives known asadjectives (see note 1)

relational

adjectives(e.g.

Nagano (2013) observes that relational
areproducts of0presidential

transposition from PPs into A s. Based on thiscandidates). Characteristically, direct modifiers

observation, this author points out that relationalclassify the referents of nouns. In this sense,

adjectivization

they have a classifying function (see Shimamura

derivational.

is

inflectionalratherthan(2014)). The examples given in (i) areunacceptable because legged and haired give us

REFERENCES
Beard, Robert (1995) Lexeme-Morpheme Baseno information to further classify the relevant
spider and man, respectively; every spider has

Morphology:

legs and every man has hair. On the other hand,Inflection and Word Formation, State

292

A

GeneralTheoryofUniversity of New York Press, Albany.
Botha,

RudolfP.

Mechanisms:(1984)
Lexicalist

111-150.

Morphological
Analysis

Oxford English Dictionary Online (OED),of<http://www.oed.com/>.

Synthetic Compounding, Pergamon Press,

Plag, Ingo (2003) Word-Formation in English,

Oxford.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Collins COBUILD Advanced Dictionary of

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey

English (COBUILD) (7th ed.), Harper

Leech

Collins, London.

Comprehensive Grammar of the English

Fabb, Nigel A. J. (1984) Syntactic Affixation,

and

Jan

Svartvik(1985)A

Language, Longman, London.

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Roeper, Thomas (1987) “Implicit Arguments andHuddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum

the(2002) Cambridge Grammar of the English

Head-Complement

Relation,”

Linguistic Inquiry 18, 267-310.

Language, Cambridge University Press,

Roeper, Thomas and Muffy E. A. Siegel (1978)

Cambridge.

“A Lexical Transformation for Verbal

Ito, Takane and Yoko Sugioka (2002) Go no

Compounds,”

Shikumi to Gokeisei (Word Structure andLinguistic

Inquiry9,

199-260.

Word Formation), Kenkyusha, Tokyo.

Shimamura, Reiko (2007) “The Adjective-NounJespersen, Otto (1942) A Modern English

Expression within Word Revisited: The

Grammar on Historical Principles, Part VI,

Boundary between Phrase and Word,”

Reprint, George Allen & Unwin, London,367-395, Language Beyond: A Festschrift

Ejnar Munksgaard, Copenhagen.

for Hiroshi Yonekura on the Occasion ofMano, Miho and Taro Kageyama (2009) “Jotai

His 65th Birthday, ed. by Mayumi Sawada,

to Zokusei: Keiyoshirui no Hataraki (State

Larry Walker and Shizuya Tara, Eichosha,

and Attribute: Behaviors of Adjectives andTokyo.

Likes,” Nichiei Taisyo Keiyoshi・Fukushi no

Shimamura, Reiko (2014) Go to Ku to

Imi to Kobun (Comparative Study of

Nazukekino: Nichieigo no “Keiyoshi +Japanese

Meishi” Kei o Chushin ni (Words, Phrases,

and English Semantics

andConstructions of Adjectives and Adverbs),

anded. by Taro Kageyama, 43-75, Taishukan,

Reference

Tokyo.

Constructions in English and Japanese),

Marchand, Hans (1966) “Affixal Negation in

Siebert,42, 134-142.

With“Adjective+

SpecialNoun”

Susann(1999)

Wortbildung

undGrammatik: Syntaktische Restriktionen in

Marchand, Hans (1969) The Categories andoftoFunction:

Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

English and Other Languages,” Language

Types

NamingPresent-Day

der Struktur Komplexer Wörter, Niemeyer,

EnglishTübingen.

Word-Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic

Spencer, Andrew (1988) “Bracketing Paradoxes

Approach, 2nd edition, C. H. Beckand the English Lexicon,” Language 64,

Verlagsbuchhandlung, Munich.

663-682.

Nagano, Akiko (2013) “Morphology of Direct
Modification,”

English Linguistics

30,

293

will examine how the two languages utilize theideas of EATING in INTELLIGENCE metaphorsin detail.
In the following section, I will examine actualSpecific Features of INTELLIGENCE

conditions of the Japanese and English metaphors

Metaphors in Terms of EATING Concepts inin question and will reveal the metaphor systems

Japanese and English *in the two languages. After that, I would like togive an account of specific features of the

Yuichiro Ogami

metaphor systems in the two languages in section

Setsunan University/Osaka University of

3. Finally, in section 4, I will finish with a brief

Pharmaceutical Sciences (Part-time instructor)

conclusion.

Keywords：metaphor, embodiment of intelligence,

2. The EATING-INTELLIGENCE Metaphor

concepts of eating, Japanese and English

Systems in Japanese and English
2.1. The Metaphor System in English
In

1. Introduction

thissection,we

will

examine

EATING-INTELLIGENCE metaphor systems inThis paper examines the Japanese and English

Japanese and English. Firstly, in 2.1, I will

metaphors which represent human intellectual

present the system in English referring toactivities in terms of concepts of our eating

previous studies in Conceptual Metaphor Theory.

behavior. The purpose here is to give an accountInof distinguishing features of the metaphor system

understanding one conceptual domain in terms ofin the two languages to cultivate a better

another and it has been claimed that concepts ofunderstanding of the embodiment of human

IDEAS are partly embodied by concepts ofintelligence.

FOOD (Lakoff and Johnson 1980).1 Thethetheory,metaphor

isdefinedas

On this issue, Matsui (2010) examines aconceptual correspondence between IDEAS andvariety of metaphors relating to the concept of

FOOD is well known as the conceptual metaphor‘understanding’ in Japanese and English from the“IDEAS ARE FOOD”.

viewpoint of Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Here,

Regarding this metaphor, Kövecses (2010)

Matsui claims that the metaphors in the twoshows its ‘submappings’ as below:

languages have many traits in common. To be
sure, we can often find common ideas in the two(a) THINKING IS COOKING

languages when comparing the “conceptual(b) ACCEPTING IS SWALLOWING

domain” used for understanding metaphors.

(c) CONSIDERING IS CHEWING

However, as suggested in Taniguchi (2003) and(d) UNDERSTANDING IS DIGESTING

Nabeshima (2004), what is remarkable for(e) MENTAL WELL-BEING IS

intelligence metaphors in terms of EATINGPHYSICAL NOURISHMENT

concepts is that they form structures which(Kövecses (2010: 83))

represent the process of intellectual activities (seealso Ogami 2016). With this in mind, this paper

At this point, we should notice that several kinds294

of metaphors are mixed in this list. To clear up the
problem,I

reconsidered

the

list,

c. She swallowed her anger and turned to faceroughlyhim.

classifying these into three distinctive types:

d. I swallowed my pride and phoned him.
(LONGMAN Dictionary of Contemporary

TYPE A: COOKING → EXAMINATION

English Fifth edition)

TYPE B: SWALLOWING → EMOTIONTYPE C: EATING PROCESS →In examples (2a) and (2b), ‘swallow’ is used to

INTELLECTUAL PROCESS

represent “to accept” or “to believe” something.
In example (2c) and (2d), the word shows

Although my classification is a provisional one,

“suppression” or “covering up” of feelings. In

the point here is to appropriately divide thethis way, this type of metaphors is considered tometaphor systems to clarify what concepts ofbe about “emotion” or “feeling”, not about

FOOD and EATING correspond to what concepts“intelligence”. Although “swallowing” is aof IDEAS and THOUGHTS.

process of eating, we can thus distinguish thisFirstly, in TYPE A metaphor system, thetype of metaphors from intelligence metaphor

process or result of examination or consideration

systems.

to get some conclusion or judgement is

Thirdly, I classify the metaphors which

represented in terms of COOKING. In otherrepresent the process of our intellectual activities

words, this metaphor is about “examination” orin terms of the EATING PROCESS into TYPE C,“consideration”. The examples of this are shownwhich

in (1):

metaphor system here. This system consists of

I

call

EATING-INTELLIGENCE

three different metaphors as shown in (3), (4) and(5), respectively.2 First, consider example (3).

(1) a. Let me stew over that for a while.
b. Let’s let that idea simmer on the backburner.

(3) a. Clinton likes nothing better than to chew
(Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 46-47))

over a problem endlessly.

c. It boils down to a question of priorities.

b. She has been chewing on this thought for(LONGMAN Dictionary of Contemporary

several months.

English Fifth edition)
In the examples above, the idea of “thinking” orSince cooking is not a process of eating, I“considering”

distinguish this type of metaphors from theCHEWING. Second, sentences in example (4)EATING-INTELLIGENCE metaphor system.

exemplify the metaphor in terms of DIGESTION.

Secondly,

metaphors

in

terms

is

represented

in

terms

of

of

SWALLOWING are put into TYPE B, which is(4) a. For a moment she sat, digesting the words,

shown in (2):looking thoughtful.
b. They won't truly be able to digest this(2) a. I just can’t swallow that claim.

complex idea until they're about 10 years(Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 46))

old.

b. I found his story a bit hard to swallow.

c. A rural and traditional society, with over295

90% of its population illiterate and unawareof modern world, could not digest this

In

this

way,

European idea in its original form.

DIGESTION, and ABSORPTION systematicallycomposeFrom these expressions, it may be pointed out

the

ideas

intelligenceofmetaphor

CHEWING,systemin

English.

that the concept of DIGESTION covers several
phases of activities: “thinking”, “understanding”

2.2. The Metaphor System in Japaneseand “acquiring”. Third, let us consider example

Having clarified the metaphor system in(5), which are in terms of ABSORPTION.

English, we can now proceed to the case inJapanese.3 Firstly, in 2.2, let us consider the(5) a. Periodic breaks help you process andexamples in (6). The concept of “thinking” orabsorb new information, increasing your“considering” is represented here in terms ofefficiency, says McKee.

SOSYAKU,

b. she absorbed knowledge and emonstrated

which

almostcorresponds

to“chewing” in English.

almost immediately an ability to utilize
this new understanding.

(6) a. Atsumeta tisiki o sosyaku si, jibun-nari ni
honsitu o minukou to suru koto ga taisetu

In these sentences, the concept of ABSORPTION

da to omoimasu.

represents “learning” or “acquiring” something.

‘I think it’s important to try to penetrate to

As shown here, CHEWING, DIGESTION

the essence of things in one’s own way by

and ABSORPTION are used to metaphoricallyanalyzing gathered kwowledge.’

represent the process of intellectual activities inb. Yokuyoku rijityou no iu koto o sosyaku site

English. I integrate these three sub metaphors

miru to, gen’in ga wakarimasita.

within a single metaphor system because a series‘Giving consideration to the chief director’sofwords, I found out what the cause was.’intellectual

activities

aresystematically

represented by expressions of the eating process.
From the examination so far, we can now

In (6a) and (6b), ‘sosyaku’ stands for “thinking

describe the correspondence of concepts ofabout”INTELLECTUAL PROCESS

something or someone’s intention. In this way,

andEATINGPROCESS in English as shown in Figure 1.

or“considering”

themeaningofthe concept of “sosyaku” is used in Japanese torepresent our intellectual activity the same way as

EATING PROCESSCHEWINGDIGESTION

ABSORPTION

in English.

INTELLECTUAL PROCESS→THINKING/CONSIDERING→

THINKING
UNDERSTANDINGACQUIRING→

Secondly, the sentences in (7) metaphorically
represents “understanding” in terms of ENGE,“nomikomu” in verbal form, which corresponds
to swallowing in English.

ACQUIRING/LEARNING(7) a. Tetuo wa Akino no situmon no imi ga

Figure 1. EATING-INTELLIGENCE

nomikomezu, kubi o kasigeta.

correspondence in English‘Being pointless of Akino’s question,

296

Tetsuo tilted his head in confusion.’‘I will devote myself to acquiring plenty ofb. Osieta koto o sugu nomikomi jissen dekiru

knowledge and mastering essential skills to‘Being quick to understand what was

become independent as a researcher.’taught and put it into practice’b. Mazu wa ajiwau tame no dokusyo to,kangae-kata o kyuusyuu suru tame no

Here, “nomikomu” means “to understand” or “todokusyo wa mattaku betu-mono da to

make sense of” something. As I mentioned before,

kangae you.

the concept of swallowing represents “emotion”‘For a start, you should realize that there isor “feeling” in English. Although Japanesea big difference between appreciative

metaphors concerning ENGE can be used in thisreading and reading to acquire a way ofway, they also represent intellectual meaning as

thinking.’

shown in these examples.
Thirdly,

metaphorswhich

represents

In these examples, “kyuusyuu” represents “to“understanding” and “acquiring” in terms oflearn” or “to acquire” things completely. TheSYOUKA, which corresponds to “digestion” inword focuses on the phase of mastering

English, are shown in example (8).

something as same in “absorption” in English.
From this, it is pointed out that the concept of(8) a. Soko de mananda koto o syouka si, ketuniku

SYOUKA is available in intelligence metaphors in

ni kaeru koto ga mottomo juuyoudesu.

Japanese.

‘The important thing is to understand what

In addition to the above-mentioned cases, it

has been learned there and to acquire it.’should also be recognized that concepts regarding

b. Eta tisiki o jibun nari ni syouka si, sono

the results of each eating process are used totisiki o tie ni kaenakereba naranai.

express “the state of understanding” in Japanese.

‘We must understand given knowledge inFirst, let us see “kamikudakeru” in example (10).

our own way and acquire wisdom from it.’This term literary means that food has been
crunched into pieces as a result of chewing it. In

In (8a) and (8b), “syouka” means that weJapanese, the word also expresses the state that

understand something and become proficient in

we have simplified some ideas as shown in (10).

that. In this way, concept of SYOUKA is used inintelligence metaphors in Japanese and we can(10) Zenbu ansyou dekiru you ni natta koro ni wa

point out similarity in English and Japanese on

daibu naiyou ga kamikudakete iru to omou

this point.

node, sono dankai de hon’yaku site miyou.

Lastly, in example (9), you will see metaphors‘I might have considerably understood thewhich represents “learning” or “acquiring” incontent when I am able to memorize it, so I

terms of KYUUSYUU, which corresponds towill try to translate it in that stage’“absorption” in English.

(http://kamokka.blogspot.jp/2009/10/blog-po
st_24.html)(9) a. Kono kenkyuusitu de ooku no tisiki to gijutu
o kyuushuu si, syourai kenkyuusya tosite

Second, “hara ni otiru” in example (11)hitori-dachi dekiru you ni syoujin simasu.

means that food falls into stomach as a result of297

swallowing it in literal use. Although the phrase ismastered the contents of my study throughsometimes used to represent “to be convinced” orrepeated practice.’“to be persuaded” as same as in English, it can(https://waostudy.jp/interview/interview04.p

also stand for the state that something is

hp?idx=a)well-understood as in (11).
In this expression, it might be implied that we can(11) Kitinto zen-mon no kaihou ga hara ni otite

freely utilize what has learned as our skills or

ireba, juku de sai-tesuto o yatta toki, manten

abilities.

ga toreru hazu desu.

In this way, in addition to each process of‘If students have completely understood how

eating, ideas regarding the phases derived fromto solve the problem, they should be able tochewing, swallowing, digestion and absorption

get full marks when retested in cramseem to closely be employed in the Japanese

schools.’

intelligence

metaphorsystem.4

From

the

(http://ameblo.jp/s-juku/entry-11875092633.

observation

here,

can

describe

the

html)

correspondence

we

of

the

INTELLECTUAL

PROCESS and the EATING PROCESS in
Third, “konareru” in example (12) represents

Japanese as shown in Figure 2.

the state that food has been well-digested instomach. This is also used to express the state that

EATING PROCESS

we have mastered something as shown in (12).
(12) Tisiki ga konarete kuru ni ture, kyouka sidou
ni jisin ga moteru youni nari, sarani wa
kamoku kaihatu no hinto nimo narimasita.
‘As I assimilate the knowledge I became
confident in my teaching, and it also gaveme hints for course development.’(https://www.jikkyo.co.jp/contents/downloa
d/5892137646)
Lastly, “mi ni tuku” in example (13) means

INTELLECTUAL PROCESSSOSYAKU→

THINKING/CONSIDERING(KAMIKUDAKERU )→SIMPLIFIED

ENGE

→

UNDERSTANDING(HARA NI OTIRU )→WELL-UNDERSTOODSYOUKA→UNDERSTANDING(KONARERU )→MASTEREDKYUUSYUU→ACQUIRING(MI NI TUKU )→COMPLETELY ACQUIRED

something nourish our body. This phrase is used

Fugure 2. EATING-INTELLIGENCE

to express the state that we completely acquired

correspondence in Japanesesome ideas or ways of thinking as a result of fullunderstanding of them.

3. Specific Features of the Metaphor Systems
in Japanese and English(13) Hanpuku gakusyuu de, naiyou ga sikkari mi

In the previous section, we have examined

ni tuita koto ga jisin ni natte iru no da tocorrespondence between intellectual activities

omoimasu.

and eating activities in Japanese and English.

‘I have gained confidence by having

Now I would like to discuss the features of298

EATING-INTELLIGENCE metaphor systems inin eating process, while the metaphor system inthe two languages comparing the linkages

Japanese makes use of the “chain structure” ofbetween

our eating behavior.

INTELLECTUAL

concepts

andEATING concepts in the two languages from theWhat then makes the difference between the

Figure 1 and 2.

metaphors in the two languages? To answer thisAs shown in section 2.1 and 2.2, the elements
in

EATING

concept

usedforquestion, it is necessary to broaden our outlook

theon other kinds of intelligence metaphors, such as

INTELLIGENCE metaphor system is different inin terms of VISION or MANIPULATION. For

Japanese and English. In English, the elements

the future, I would like to examine the problem ofwhich is used to embody INTELLECTUAL“segregation” and “the division of roles” of

PROCESS are CHEWING, DIGESTION andseveral kinds of intelligence metaphors in several

ABSORPTION. In short, the metaphor system inlanguages. Further research on metaphors based

English can be characterized in focusing on

on precise description would clarify the manners

phases of “decomposition” or “disintegration”

of the embodiment of our mental activities intoward the absorption of the essence. We can also

different languages.

point out that DIGESTION covers a wide range
of intellectual meaning in English.

* I would like to express my sincere gratitude to

In Japanese, on the other hand, the “chain” ofPeter McGee (University of London), Yo

each element in our EATING PROCESS is

Matsumoto (Kobe University), Yusuke Minami

mapped altogether onto the INTELLECTUAL(Kobe Women’s University), Kazuki Iwahashi

PROCESS. Due to this property, the extent and(Yamato University) and Hiroko Shikano (Japandegrees of understanding can be depicted in great

Women’s University) for valuable comments. I

detail in Japanese. Thus, we can characterize theam also grateful to Masako Tsuzuki (Chukyo

metaphor system in Japanese to utilize each

University), Naoko Hayase (Graduate School ofelement of our eating behavior in embodying theLanguage and Culture, Osakaprocess of intellectual activity. This might reflect

Tetsuya Kogusuri (Graduate School of Language

the importance of “hara,” the bowels and otherand Culture, Osaka University), and Hiromasa

internal organs, in Japanese culture.

Itagaki for their kind support.

4. Conclusion

1

University),

NOTES
In this article, the terms shown in capital letters

It is certain that the same conceptual domain

indicate specific concepts. For example, “FOOD”

is often shared in embodying some concepts in

is used to represent “the concepts relating toJapanese and English. However, the elements

food,” not some food which is in existence inutilized within a conceptual domain are different

front of us.

from language to language even when we use the2same conceptual domain to embody certainfrom Corpus of Contemporary American English

concept and we can find different aspects in(http://corpus.edu/coca/).

“common metaphors.”5 To put it briefly, the3

EATING-INTELLIGENCE metaphor system inare collected using NINJAL-LWP for TWC.

English focuses on the phases of “decomposition”

4299

The quotations in examples (3), (4), and (5) are

The quotations in examples (6), (7), (8), and (9)Opinions vary as to whether expressions taken

York.

up here are acceptable or not. For example, Yo

MacArthur, Fiona, Tina Krennmeyr and Jeannette

Matsumoto claims that “konareru” and “mi nituku” are not used to talk about our intellectual

Littlemore(2015)

“How

Basic

is

activities or states. Kazuki Iwahashi supports

UNDERSTANDING IS

Matsumoto’s opinion. On the other hand, Yusuke

Reasoning about Knowledge? Asymmetric

Minami offered a comment that the expressions

Uses of SIGHT Metaphors in Office Hours'

seem to be natural as metaphors for our

Consultations in English as Academic

intellectual states. I simply insist that “konareru”

Linguaor “minituku” can be regarded as examples of30(3), 184-217.

SEEING WhenFranca,” Metaphor

andSymbolMatsui, Mahito (2010) “Eigo to Nihongo niokeru

INTELLIGENCE metaphors because we can findactual examples of them as shown in this paper.

‘Rikai’ no Gainen Metafa (Conceptual

5

Ogami (2017) simply examines metaphors in

Metaphors of Understanding in English andDutch language and points out that the Dutch

Japanese),” Bulletin of Yamagata Prefectural

EATING-INTELLIGENCE metaphors show a

Yonezawa Woman’s Junior College 46,

different feature from those in Japanese and19-28.
Nabeshima, Kojiro (2004) “’Rikai’ no Metafa

English. An interesting point here is that themetaphorical embodiment of certain concepts–Ninchigengogaku-teki-bunseki–,”.

Osakadiffers even in the two languages originate in thedaigaku gengobunkagaku 13, 99-116.

same language family such as Dutch and English.

Nabeshima, Kojiro (2011) Nihongo no Metafa

From this, I suggest that it might be important to(Metaphors in Japanese), Kurosio, Tokyo.

reveal the variations of metaphor systems in

Taniguchi, Kazumi (2003) “Similarity anddifferent languages not only at the level of

Co-occurrence: a View of Semantic Basis ofcorrespondence of conceptual domains, but at theMetaphor in Relation to Metaphoricalsentence level. Deignan and Cameron (2014) and

Mapping, Analogy and Primary Metaphors,”

MacArthur, Krennmeyr and Littlemore (2015) are

Proceedings of the annual meetings of theimportant relating to this problem.

Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association
3, 23-33.

REFERENCES
Deignan, Alice and Lynne Cameron (2014) “A

Ogami, Yuichiro (2016) “Sesshoku ni Kansuru

Re-examination of UNDERSTANDING IS

Metafa niokeru Shintaisei no Han’ei no

SEEING,”

Shousaido ni Chumokushita Nichiei Taishou

Cognitive

Semiotics

Goi niyoru ‘Sikou’ to ‘Rikai’ no Metafa:

5(1-2),

220-243.

Kenkyu (Metaphors of INTELLIGENCE in

Kövecses, Zoltan (2010) Metaphor: A Practical
Introduction,

OxfordUniversity

Terms of EATING: How Is Our PhysicalPress,

Image Projected on Metaphors in Japanese

Oxford.

and English?),” JELS 33, 100-106.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson (1980)

Ogami, Yuichiro (2017) “On the Eloquence ofMetaphors We Live By, University ofIntelligence Metaphors in Terms of Eating

Chicago Press, Chicago.

Concepts in Japanese,” paper presented at

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson (1999)

Metaphor Festival 2017, Universiteit van

Philosophy in the Fresh, Basic Books, New

Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

300

a recipient hears a speaker’s quasi-internalmonologue, s/he has a choice as to whether s/he
responds to the utterance or simply pretends that
nothing was heard. Therefore, this study
How the Recipient Recognizes theattempts to show how a recipient responds to a

Quasi-internal Monologue in Dialogues:quasi-internalmonologue

ininteractional

Cross-linguistic Study in Japanese anddiscourse and what the differences are between

Englishquasi-internal monologues in Japanese andAmerican English corpus data.

Hiroko Shikano
Japan Women’s University

2. Previous Studies
When a speaker utters a quasi-internal

Keywords: quasi-internal monologue, taskmonologue, the explicit features meet one or

discourse, recipient recognition, adjacency pairs

more of the linguistic features: the intonation
falls (Moriyama 1997), the volume becomes
softer or the voice is murmured (Mimaki 2013)

1. Introductionor the speed of utterance becomes slow (Mimaki

English is a language that does not have a2013). For non-linguistic features, the speakermonologic factor (Ikegami 2007). In comparison,

inclines her/his head and/or pulls her/his eyes

Moriya (2008) stated that Japanese is a language

away from a particular object (Mimaki 2013). In

that

duringa previous study, Mimaki (2013) mentions that ainteractions. It is true for Japanese that, during

speaker unconsciously tries to establish a sense

daily life, one is likely to hear a family memberof trust with a recipient by partially or fully

talking to himself/herself when others are

speaking their inner thoughts without imposing

present: “ame mou yan-da-kana (“wonder if theon the other. Regarding a speaker’s innerrain has stopped”).” The monologue above is athoughts, Noda (2006) mentions that when thestatement that the speaker uttered that isfinal particle, -kana, is used with a fallingconsidered to be his/her full internal monologue.

intonation, the speaker is most likely talking toOn the other hand, if a speaker only utters

oneself and revealing one’s innermost feelings.

“yan-da-kana (“wonder if (the rain) has

Moreover, Izuhara (2002) states that speakers

stopped”),” it is considered to be a statement that

read recipient’s reactions through his or her

is a mixture of dialogue that is spoken to thefacial expression, attitude and laughter, and thenrecipient and internal monologue that is

the speaker adjusts his or her comments

unexpectedly revealed. In both situations, foraccordingly. In this sense, monologues influenceboth full and partial internal monologues, thespeakers’ minds and bodies by stimulating the

speaker’s internal monologue reveals one’s innerspeaker’s actions. Since English does not

feelings and is not necessarily directed to apossess a monologic factor in its language

recipient. The line that lies between discourse(Ikegami 2007), there are no previous studies on

and

as

quasi-internal monologue and English social“quasi-internal monologue (Noda 2006).” Wheninteractions. Therefore, it is worthwhile studying

contains

internalamonologicmonologue

factorisdefined301

what kinds of quasi-internal monologues appear

3.2. Data and Methodology

in English interactions.

The data for this study used video corpus
data in Japanese and American English. The

3. Data
3.1.

videos were recorded and transcribed into the

Quasi-internal

Monologues

fromrespective languages in order to investigate
cross-linguistic comparative studies in Japan.1

Discourse Data
One of the explicit features of internal

All video data were recorded and transcribed inmonologue is that the volume becomes softened

respective languages. The subjects for the videoor the voice murmured (Mimaki 2013). In this

corpus were all female teachers and students.

study, to show the clear differences between

Each pair, eleven teacher-student pairs anddiscourse and quasi-internal monologue, the data

eleven student-student pairs, were asked to

was run through scientific computer software

arrange 15 picture cards to make a coherent

called PRAAT. This phonetically computed

story, or task-solve (from here on, called “aanalyzer, PRAAT, creates an acoustic intonationtask”). They were told that there were no

pitch that investigates aspects of speech sounds,“correct” stories and no time constraints. In

such as the amplitude of a waveform. There are

Figure 3 some picture cards are shown for

tworeference.

waveforms

interactional

that

are

utterancesfor

American English:a

mixtureofJapaneseanda framed box on the left

and on the right (Figures 1 and 2):
Figure 3: Picture cards
In this paper, two kinds of quasi-internal
Figure 1: Japanese quasi-internal monologuemonologues are discussed:
1. interrogative form, or questions toothers
2. internal conflicts within the mind or

Figure 2: English quasi-internal monologue

uncertainty

For both Figures 1 and 2, the left framed box

4. Results and Data Analysis

utterancesshow

The number of quasi-internal monologues

indicating

for each language was calculated (Figure 4). As

interactional utterances. The right framed box

a result, the accumulated total number ofutterances show flat waveforms indicating

Japanese speakers that uttered a quasi-internalinternal monologue. Due to the low voicemonologue was approximately 1.5 times higher

volume of quasi-internal monologues, PRAAT

than American English speakers. Interestingly,

failed to obtain pitch contours.

Japanesemountain-like

for

both

languages

waveforms

teachers

tendedto

producequasi-internal monologues 3 times more than302

English teachers. As for teacher-student pairs,task. The speaker is searching for a response

Englishproducefrom the recipient by asking for confirmation ofquasi-internal monologues 3 times more thanwhether the sequence of picture cards is alright:

students

tendedtoJapanese students. The results are shown in a bar
graph (Figure 4) below:(1) [J-06: 184-188]
1 S2: a, de, kore-de ii? “aa, and, is this good?”
2 S1: de, kore-ga, koc-chi-de“and, this goes here.”3 S2: de, ii-no-ka-na2↓3“and (I wonder if) this is good↓”
4 S1: kon-na kanji?

“like this?”

5 S2: un“yes.”

In line 1, S2 utters “a, de, kore-de ii? (“aa, and,is this good?”)” However, recipient, S1, does not
respond to S2. Since the speaker did not receivea reply, she expresses her inner feeling of
Figure 4: Number of quasi-internal monologues

anxiety, not having confidence in the cardarrangements,

The results suggest that for both languages
there

are

two

forms

of

by

using

a

quasi-internalmonologue shown in line 3, “de, ii-no-ka-na↓

quasi-internal(“and (I wonder if) this is good ↓ .”).”

monologues uttered: interrogative forms andAccording to Noda (2006), who examined theinternal conflicts. Therefore, for the first part of

final particle -kana↓, when -kana↓ is used with athe data analysis, quasi-internal monologue infalling intonation, a speaker is most likely

the form of interrogative forms, or questions totalking to themselves and revealing their innerothers, are discussed, followed by internalfeelings

conflicts or uncertainty within the self.

quasi-internal monologue. In addition, Nodaofwondering

in

the

form

of

(2006) stated that saying -kana with falling
4.1. Interrogative Quasi-internal Monologue

intonation sounds suggests that the speaker isInterrogative utterances are utterances that,not pursuing other’s replies since fallingwhen sharing the conversational sphere withintonation is used in a declarative utterance. In

others, might express instinctive thoughts in theother words, when the final particle -kana isform of a question to retrieve specific answers

used, the speaker’s utterance leaves space for thefrom the others. There are various kinds ofrecipient to construct the speaker’s meaning. For

questions such as yes-no questions, open

bothquestions and wh- questions.

quasi-internal

thespeakerandthemonologueisrecipient,aamonologic

The first excerpt is extracted from anutterance that is spoken without the goal ofinteraction between two Japanese students:

pursuing the other’s response. Whether theStudent 1, S1, and Student 2, S2. In theirsupposed recipient (S1) heard the quasi-internal

dialogue, the students are about to finish theirmonologue or not, S2 incorporated the meaning303

of the previous utterance by saying “kon-na

teacher-student

kanji? (“like this?”).”

uncertainty was produced in the form of aIn the English data, the below excerpt is a

pair

where

the

speaker’squasi-internal monologue:

partial quasi-internal monologue between ateacher-student pair. The student (S) utters the(3) [J-17: 351-356]

following interrogative form:1 S: mit-tsu-ka- futatsu-ka↓“whether there are 3 or 2 (islands).”(2) [E-17: 085-087]

2 T: sou-sou

1 S: Well, maybe he just jumps.

3 S: futatsu-t-te kan-ga-e-ta hou ga ii-n-desu-

I mean, but how would he do that?

“yup-yup”

ka-ne, “is it better to think two

2 T: Superthing! {laugh}4 Whatever he is.

(islands)? ”
4 T: futatsu-[5no-ga

3 S: {laugh} Yeah.
The participants know that the character jumps

5 S:[tobe-te=

6 T:

=un

“two (islands) is”

6“jumped and”

“yeah”

over the cliff, but they could not determine how
the character jumps to the other side. S expresses

In line 1, the student, S, is trying to figure out

this by uttering, in line 1, “Well, maybe he just

how many islands that the character in thejumps.” Continuously, the same speaker tries topicture cards attempts to jump: “mit-tsu-ka-

think of a logical way that the character jumps,

futatsu-ka ↓ (“whether there are 3 or 2

in a monologic tone, ending the sentence with,(islands).”)”“I mean, but how would he do that.” For any

According to Mimaki (2013), people in two

English sentence beginning with a wh- question,different social hierarchies, like in this pair, asuch as what, when, where, how or why,teacher and a student, tend to use polite forms of

intonations must decline towards to the end of

final particles with one another. However, when

the utterance. As for this excerpt, no matterit comes to internal monologue, people tend towhether the utterance is a quasi-internal

dismiss the polite form of -kashira and it

monologue or not, the recipient (T) responds

becomes -ka.

back by saying “Super (natural) thing.” Replying

Once the quasi-internal monologue wasto a previous utterance, for English speakers,

uttered, the recipient teacher, T, replied using

follows the parameters of an adjacency pair; any“sou-sou (“yup-yup”),” seen in line 2, as if sheutterance receives a recipient response.

were answering the question.
There are two points to be made for excerpt

4.2. Internal Conflicts or Uncertainty(3). First, the speaker of the quasi-internal

When doing a task, numerous thoughts aremonologue is not looking for the recipient’s

racing through participants’ minds such as

reply. Even though T replies using “sou-souquestions, wonders, doubts and ideas. When a(“yup-yup”),” the speaker continuously speaks

participant must choose one answer over theher own way of thinking, the possibility that

other, one’s uncertainty must be resolved in athere may be two islands, in line 3: “futatsu-t-te

logical way.

kan-ga-e-ta hou ga ii-n-desu-ka-ne (“is it better

The following interaction took place in ato think two (islands)?”).” Second, since the304quasi-internal monologue sounds monologic, theconversation is not an exception. In this case, therecipient should not feel any pressure to respondspeaker receives a response from the recipient,toa“this is making sense…,” as seen in line 2. S1’squasi-internal monologue serves to share theresponse, “this is making sense…” is uttered

speaker’s inner thought without imposing onwith each word providing emphasis, clarity, andothers.

specificness. The recipient does not simply showthepreviousutterance.

Therefore,

Now, moving onto an English excerpt

her disagreement. She adds more information toshowing the speaker’s uncertainty. This excerpt

develop the conversation thus leading to anothertakes place in an interaction between two

dialog. In this sense, no matter what utterances

students:

are

part

of

a

quasi-internalmonologue,

recipients must respond back creating an(4) [E-08: 095-097]

adjacency pair.

1 S2: Wait, that doesn't make sense.
‣‣‣

5. Discussion‣

2 S1: I don't, like... this7 is making sense...

Before discussing the findings, whether abut, I don't understand what this is,quasi-internal monologue induces a recipient’s

necessarily.

response is examined in terms of rising and3 S2: I know.

falling intonations. The excerpts used for thisanalysis are extracted from the previously

In line 1, S2 says that a sequence of picture

documented excerpt (1). Table 1 illustrates a

cards “doesn't make sense.” In English

comparison between an interrogative utterance

conversation, any utterance leads to anotherand quasi-internal monologue from Japaneseutterance,

data:

an

adjacency

pair,

and

this

Table 1: Comparison between an interrogative utterance and quasi-internal monologue in JapaneseConfirmation

Invitation(a) ii?

Interrogative(c) iku?

“(Is this) okay?”(b) iino-kana↓“(Are you) going?”
Quasi-internal monologue(d) ikuno-kana↓“Wonder if (this is) okay.”“Wonder if (you are) going.”

Instance (a) shows a rising intonation whenrecipient to respond since the fallen intonation

asking “ii?” or, in English, “(Is this) okay?.”soundsInstance (b) shows a falling intonation. Instancequasi-internal monologue works to leave space(b) adds the final particle -kana to “ii?,”

for a recipient to think or try to construct the

becoming “iino-kana↓” or, in English, “Wonder

speaker’s meaning.

lessoffensive.

That

means

a

if (this is) okay.” When a speaker produces

To help make the above explanation clearer,

instance (a), a recipient is expected to respond to

instance (c) and (d) were artificially prepared.

the speaker with at least a yes or no. However,Instance (c) is asking someone whether s/he isinstance (b) does not seem to impose thegoing by saying “iku? (“(Are you) going?”).”

305

Instance (d), “ikuno-kana↓ (“Wonder if (youspeakers in both languages, a quasi-internalare) going.”),” shows the speaker wondering if amonologue, as internal conflict, receives athird person, who was not presence at therecipient response but, for Japanese speakers,

moment the utterance was produced, is going.

the recipients reply either in a monologic way orAgain, the final particle -kana↓ does not possesswith a response token of “un (“yeah”).” Forcharacteristics of enforcing the recipient’s

American English, the quasi-internal monologue,

response due to the falling intonation isagain, receives a substantial response, in therecognized as the declarative utterance; thus, theform of an adjacency pair, from the recipient.

utterance does not have any influence over therecipient. For this reason, intonation in Japaneseutterance

plays

an

importantrole

6. Conclusionfor

To conclude this study, since quasi-internalquasi-internal monologue, whether the speaker’s

monologues

soundmonologic

for

both

utterance is directed to a recipient or simply

languages, the utterances become equivocal andunconsciously reveals the speaker’s internal

do not sound like they are specifically directedthoughts.

to the recipient; when the speaker’s utterances

To summarize, an interrogative question issound monologic, it is plausible that theclearly directed to a recipient to receive his orrecipient does not feel the speaker’s utterances

her response. However, for Japanese, theare imposing on or are interrogative of her/him.

interrogative question form in a quasi-internal

The monologue leaves space for the recipient tomonologue shows the speaker is not pursuing a

construct the meaning of the speaker’s utterance

response, leaving space for the recipient towithout directly mentioning what the speaker

determine

mentioned.

the

speaker’smeaning.

The

In

Japaneseinteractions,interrogative question form in a quasi-internalquasi-internal monologues reveal a speaker’s

monologue in English exists to receive a

inner thoughts without imposing or interrogating

response from the recipient to create an

the recipient. This is why, in Japaneseadjacency pair. For uncertainty or internalquasi-internal monologues, the data shows thatconflict forms, both Japanese and American

the recipient sometimes do not respond to theEnglishquasi-internal

speaker. With the presence of others, Japanesemonologues as if they were questioning andquasi-internal monologues serve to share astruggling to find an answer within themselves.

speaker’s inner thoughts with a recipient without

However, there is a major difference between

imposing on others. On the other hand, inthe two languages regarding recipients’ replies.

American English interactions, the participants’

Japanese recipients both respond and do notroles can be clearly defined as speaker andrespond to quasi-internal monologues, whereas

recipient. This means that, for American English

American English recipients always reply to

speakers, every single quasi-internal monologue

quasi-internal monologues as if they wereobtains recipients’ responses. In other words,

hearing and understanding the meaning of thequasi-internal monologues work as a form ofutterance. Internal conflict means that anutterance and response, as an adjacency pair.

speakers

utter

utterance that a speaker produces to negotiate
the certain goal that s/he has within oneself. For

306

NOTES

Yori (Some Co-subjective Features and

The Mister O Corpus was collected under aGrammar in Japanese from the Viewpoint

Grant-in-Aid

Researchof Cognitive Linguistics), ” Souka Daigaku

No.15320054, directed by Sachiko Ide, and No.

Nihongo Nihon bungaku (Souka University

23320090, directed by Yoko Fujii.

Japanese Literature) 18, 37-48.

1

2

for

Scientific

Bold underlined indicates the length ofMoriyama, Takuro (1997) “‘Hitori-goto’ oquasi-internal monologue.

Megutte: Shikou no Gengo to Dentasu no

3

Gengo

Declining pointing arrow, ↓ , indicates the(AboutInternal

Monologue:

speaker’s intonation shifting to an especially low

Language of Thoughts and Language fortone.

Communication),” Nihongo Bunpoo: Taikei

4{laugh} indicates laughter.

to5[ indicates overlap of speech.

Organization6= indicates speech latching.

Yoshiaki Kawabata and Yoshio Nitta,

7

A small triangle pointing to the right, or ‣,173-188, Hituzi Syobo Publishing, Tokyo.

above the words ‘this’, ‘is’, ‘making’, andNoda,

HoohooHarumi(Japaneseand(2006)

Method),Grammar:eds.

“Gijidokuwa

byga‘sense’, in excerpt (4), indicate the stress accents

Shutsugen Suru Toki (When Quasi-internal

where the speaker spoke emphatically.

Monologue Occurs),” Nihongo Bunpo no
Shinchihei 2 Bunronhen (A New Horizon

REFERENCES
Ikegami,Yoshihiko

Nihongoron
Japanese(2007)(Japanese

Theory),in Japanese Grammar: Style), ed. by
Nihongoto

Takashi

LanguageandPublishers, Tokyo.

Chikuma

GakugeiBunko, Tokyo.
Izuhara, Eiko (2002) Dokuwa no Shidou ni
mukete: “Taiwa” toiu Shiten wo Toriireteru
Koto

no

Hituyousei(For

Teaching

Quasi-internal Monologues: the Necessity
to Include the Perspectives of Interaction),
JournaloftheGraduate

Courseof

Education, Aichi Gakuin University. 49.
No.4, 34-44.
Mimaki,Yoko(2013)

Danwabunseki

Poraitonesu–no

Shotaimen

Komyunikeshon no Sugata to Shikumi(Discourse Analysis on Politeness: How
PeopleInteract

in

First

Encounters),

Kurosio Publishers, Tokyo.
Moriya, Michiyo (2008) “Nihongo niokeru‘Kyoudou Shukanteki’ Tokucho to Bunpou
Genshou – Ninchi Gengogaku no Kanten

307

Masuoka,

193-213,

Kurosiopartly because different directive constructions
have different sets of preferred verbs and theirusage (Takahashi 2017).
2. Previous Research and Main Aims

Expressions of Directive Speech

In the field of directive speech acts,

Acts Revisited*

researchers have discussed the problem of
Hidemitsu Takahashi

inferencing

supposedly

involvedin

Hokkaido University

interpretation (Searle 1975; Sperber and Wilson
1986), the conventional (e.g. “Can you close the

Keywords: directives, speech acts, verb

window?”) vs. non-conventional directives (e.g.

argument structure“It’s hot in here.”) (Searle 1975), preferences forthe way directives are expressed (Curl and Drew
2006), the influence of culture (such aspoliteness) on performance of directives (Leech

1. Introduction
Directive speech acts (hereafter, DSAs) are

1983; Brown and Levinson 1987; Sifianou 1993;

universal. In everyday communication, we often

Givón 1993), and cross-cultural comparisons ofneed to get someone to do something. In so

request strategies (Fukushima 1996; Wierzbicka

doing we state our communicative intention

2003; Flöck 2016; Aikhenvald 2010; andeither directly or less directly. Every language

Aikhenvald and Dixon 2017).
To the best of my knowledge, however, thehas a rich repertoire of directive expressions ofvarious syntactic forms.

1

issue of how verbs and their usage might differ
acrossTraditionally, one of the main foci indifferent

directive

expressions

has

research on DSAs has been placed on the issue

escaped serious attention. As an illustration,of “indirectness” or “politeness,” as illustrated inconsider Givón’s (1993: 265) often-cited scale

examples like those in (1) and (2) below:of “manipulative strength”:<stronger manipulative strength>(1) Close the door. <imperative>(3) a. Get up!

(2) Can you close the door? <Indirect directive>b. Get up, will you?
That is, (2) is explained as an indirect, hencec. Would you please get up?

“more polite,” form of directive than thed. Would you mind getting up?

imperative in (1), which is a “direct directive.”e. Do you think you could get up?
f. Would you mind if I asked you to

In this paper, I look at DSAs from asomewhat different perspective – from the

get up?

perspective of verbs and their distributions plus

<weaker manipulative strength>

their usage. Why am I concerned with verbs? It
is partly because verbs can make a realAt first glance, Givón’s scale appears quite

difference with respect to the appropriateness or

straightforward and illuminating -- but notpoliteness of a chosen directive expression andwithout a major problem. That is, Givón does308not care about verbs at all, just like numerous

In my previous work on English imperatives

other previous authors including Leech (1983:(Takahashi 2012), I came up with a set of107-108).

findings and analyses that include the following:

Without

considering

what

verb

appears in what directive construction, this scale(i)

Four most frequent verbs in English

simply assumes that the imperative is inherently

imperatives are tell, let, look and come,more

followed by such verbs as get, take, be, go,strongly“indirect”

manipulative

forms

are

while

inherently

other“weaker”

give, do, forget, listen and wait.

directives. Is this assumption correct?

(ii) Some verbs exhibit a preferred argument

Consider the following italicized use ofpattern, “VERB plus me/us” (e.g. Tell me

imperative in (4) below:

about school or Let me put it this way.)(iii) Imperatives are approximately fifteen times(4) [In a presentation] … There will be time atmore frequent than all the variants ofthe end for questions. But please feel free toindirectinterrupt us at any time. Now, let mecommon belief to the contrary.

introduce my colleague Alyce Lyons.

directive

expressions,despite(iv) The imperative can be best analyzed as
forming a category involving the scalar

In a discourse context like this, the indirect

notion of force exertion.

version Can you/Would you let me introduce my(v) The imperative may readily act discourse-

colleague Alyce Lyons? does not increase theorganizationally (e.g. let’s see and tell me)

degree of politeness but is simply inappropriate.

or interjectionally (e.g. come on and look).

Here the imperative is clearly a more appropriate

These findings naturally led to the following

and even a more polite strategy than any

related questions.

“indirect” expression.

the characteristics of the imperative alone? Or,

Do these findings representThis paper discusses the grammar of

are they common features shared by all the

directive speech acts with special focus on verbs

directive constructions? More specifically, what

and their argument structures. By the term

verbs are common with indirect directives? Are

grammar, I do not mean a possible grammar but

commona probable grammar of directive constructions

imperatives? How are verbs used in indirect

instead.2 In other words, the present paper

directives?

attempts usage-based, as opposed to formal

argument pattern be found in indirect directives

syntax-based, explanations of directives inas well? And are indirect directives capable ofEnglish – in line with the spirit of Cognitive andacting

Functional Linguistics. For this reason, theimperative verbs are?

verbs
Can

identical
the

to

“VERB

those
plus

discourse-organizationally

the

with
me/us”

way

present paper takes frequency seriously andThis paper has the following two aims: (i) tostarts out its inquiry from the observations ofclarify what verbs are preferred in directive

statistical preferences in six subtypes of indirect

constructions as well as how verbs are preferred

directive constructions as well as the imperative.

to be used; and (ii) to clarify both commonalities
and differences in preferred verbs and their

3. Three Main Findings on Expressions ofargument patterns among individual directive

Indirect Directives

constructions.

309

directives, although this is one of the mostfrequent verbs in imperatives.

3.1. Distributions of Verbs and Their Usage in

Next, look at Table 2 below, which

Imperatives and Indirect Directives

illustrates the rankings of frequent verbs in six

In Takahashi (2015 as well as 2017), I

indirect directives under investigation.

compared the imperative with six frequent
subtypes of indirect directives (i.e. can you,

Table 2. Common verbs in six potential

could you, will you, would you plus I want you

IDCxs (COCA)

to and why don’t you constructions) with respectof verbs and their usage. In so doing, I employed

can you

could youwill you

two different kinds of data -- those from<4521tkns><758tkns><949tkns>

fictional stories, which provide full context) and(1) tell 645(1) tell 87(1) be 137

those from COCA, which offers far larger data.

(2) give 246(2) give 48(2) come 73(3) do 194(3) explain 44(3) do 67

Table 1 illustrates the rankings of common
verbs in imperatives as used in fictional stories(4) explain 152 (4) have 30(4) help 44

and six subtypes of indirect directives as used in(5) help 152(5) do 27(5) marry 39

fiction as well as in COCA.

(6) get 134(6) be 22(5) tell 39(7) say 109(7) get/talk 20(7) go 32

would you

I want you to

why don’t you<2392tkns><1070tkns><992tkns>(1) like 648*

(1) take 62(1) go 128(2) be 172(2) be 61(2) come 109

Table 1. Common verbs in imperatives vs. six
indirect directive constructions
Imperatives

ID Cxspotential IDCxs
3

in fiction

in fiction(COCA)<1774tkns><768tkns><10682tkns>(3) have 105(3) listen 51(3) tell 70(1) tell 106(1) tell 68(1) tell 918(4) mind 101*(4) go 43(4) get 56(2) let 105(2) come 39(2) be 431(5) care 78*(5) meet 42(5) take 51(3) look 98(3) go 34(3) give 395(6) do 62(6) tell 41(6) ask 42(4) come 78(4) get 31(4) do 374(7) consider 44(7) look 35(7) give 36(5) get 74(5) be 27(5) come 308(From Table 3 in Takahashi (2017: chap.4.4))(6) take 64(6) do 25(6) go 281(7) be 60(7) take 24(7) get 267	  	
 Tables 1 and 2 combine to show the(From Tables 1, 2 and 3 in Takahashi (2017:

following points. First, tell is the single mostchap.4.4))

frequent verb in both imperatives and these six
indirect directives, though no verb accounts forIf we look at the left column, we find that

more than 10% of the data. Next, while suchtell and let are two most frequent verbs inbasic verbs as come, go, get, be, do, take andimperatives. If we move to the middle and rightgive are common in imperatives and indirect

columns, we can see that tell remains to be thedirectives alike, two common verbs let and lookmost frequent verb in six standard indirect

in imperatives become far less frequent in

directive constructions. It is interesting to noteindirect directive constructions. Third, give isthat unlike tell, let is far less frequent in indirect

more frequent with can/could you than any other310indirect directive and tell most frequent withall directive constructions? According to mycan/could you, whereas go is consistently more

recent survey, this argument feature can befrequent with I want you to as well as why don’t

found

you constructions.

constructions in English.

In summary, we have obtained the following

(but

not

all)

directive

and give actually combine with a first-person
constructions

have

a

set

of

pronoun object in six different indirect directive

preferred verbs, centering around the speech
verb tell.

many

Table 3 illustrates how often the verbs tellobservations:(i) Directiveinconstructions.

4

Table 3. “VERB plus 1st person pronoun”(ii) Some verbs are common in both imperatives

argument structure in ID Cxs

and indirect directives (e.g. tell, be, give, do,come, go, get and take), while others areVerbcommon only in imperatives (e.g. let, look,tell

IDCx: tkns

Frequency of “V+me/us”

can you 645

588=91.2% (me254; us334)

could you 87

76=87.4% (me 41; us35)(iii) There are also verbs that occur frequently

will you 39

26=66.7% (me 19; us7)

only in a few constructions: help withwould you 36

22=61.1% (me7; us15)

can/will you; and explain with can/could

I want you to 41

32=78.0% (me32; us0)you.

why don’t you 70

51=72.9% (me28; us23)

listen and forget).

What do these findings imply? In terms ofgive

can you 246

224=91.1% (me92; us132)

frequency, such standard textbook sentences as

could you 48

41=85.4% (me17; us24)

Close the door and Can you pass me the salt arewill you 24

13=54.2% (me10; us3)

far from the best exemplars of the imperative

would you 2

2=100% (me2)and the can you request sentence, respectively,

I want you to 24

12=50% (me8; us4)

precisely because these verbs are infrequent inwhy don’t you 36

10=27.8% (me5; us 5)

these constructions. Instead, sentences like Tell

(From Table 5 in Takahashi (2017: chap. 4.5))

me a little bit more as well as Let me put it thisway and those like Can you tell me what it is? as

Probably the most notable here is thewell as Can you give us two days? far better

combination “can you + tell me/us,” which

represent these directive constructions. All theseaccounts for more than 90% (588/645) of theobservations and/or implications are of vital

data. Similarly, the combination ‘can you + giveimportance for an exploration of usage-based (orme/us’ also accounts for more than 90%

probable) grammar of directive constructions.

(224/246) of the data. In such a case, the “V + 1st
person pronoun” combination appears to be a

3.2.

“VERB

plus

1

st

PersonPronoun”

general argument feature of most directive

Argument Structure

constructions. It is important to note, however,	 	 	  As I mentioned earlier in this section, thethat how often tell and give occur with a firstcombinations tell me, let me and give me are

personquite frequent when these verbs occur indirective constructions.

imperatives. Is this argument feature specific toyou tell, which does not as often combine with athe imperative alone or a more general feature offirst person pronoun (66.7%

311

pronounvariesamong

individual

Consider will/would
and 66.1%,

respectively) -- not to mention ‘why don’t you

marry me with will/would you constructions.

give me/us,’ which accounts for only 10% of theTable 5 below summarizes these findings.

‘why don’t you + give’ sequence.
Table 5. “VERB plus 1st person pronoun”

Next, specific verbs that take this argumentalignment also vary among individual directive

argument structures in imperatives and IDCxs

constructions, as shown in Table 4.

Verb

Imperative

IDCxs

tell me/us✔

✔

give me/us✔

✔

argument structure in IDCxs

let me

✔

--

Verb

IDCx: tkns

Frequency of “V+ me/us”

excuse me/us✔

✔ will you

excusewill you 6

6=100% (me3; us3)

forgive me✔

✔ will you

forgivewill you 7

7=100% (me7)believe me✔

--

Table 4. “VERB plus 1stperson pronoun”

can you 152

100=65.8% (me83; us17)

trust me✔

--could you 19

14=73.7% (me 8; us6)

help me/us--✔ can/could you

will you 44

41=93.2% (me 36; us5)

would you 7

5=71.4% (me 4; us1)

marry me

I want you to 12

7=58.3% (me7)

	
  	
  	
  	
  (✔: frequent

why don’t you 7

2=28.6% (us2)(Based on Table 6 in Takahashi (2017:

will you 39

39=100% (me39)

chap.4.6))

help

marry

will/would you✔ will you---- : not frequent)(From Table 5 in Takahashi (2017: chap. 4.5))
3.3.

Discourse

Organizational

Roles

of

Directive Expressions

We learn from this table that when the verb
excuse immediately follows will you, it almost

It is sometimes assumed that the imperative

always occurs in the form “Will you excuse

is the most prototypical directive (Givón 1993;

me/us?”. Analogously, when the verb help

Aikhenvald 2010). In actuality imperatives

combines with can you, it occurs as “Can you

abound in less directive or even non-directive

help

data

uses, as shown in examples (5) to (7) below:

Tables 3 and 4 combine to show that tell(5) Tell me, why are you behind the times?

me/us?”

inthemajorityof(100/152=65.8%).
(COCA 2012 FIC Analog)

me/us and give me/us are both very frequentargument structure patterns in both imperatives(6) – so I want you to hear this, Jerome, because,and most indirect directives. These tables also

believe me, you would be the first individual

reveal that excuse me/us is a very frequent

to appreciate. (COCA 2009 FIC The

combination with will you as well as the

Antiotch Review)(7) Look, Shake and Bake was watching theimperative and so is forgive me with will/would

argument. (Final Appeal, p. 15)

you as well as the imperative. Moreover, let me,
believe

me,

and

trust

me

are

frequent

combinations strictly in imperatives, whereas

Note that the imperative sequence “tell me”

help me is a very frequent combination within (5) above is used discourse-organizationally,

can/could you and will/would you and so isserving as a preface to a question that312

immediately follows. The utterance “believe me”

constructions as far as English is concerned,in (6) also plays a discourse-organizational role

although preferred verbs can vary among

but in a difference sense; it allows the speaker toindividual directive constructions. It is also

make a plea for winning the addressee’s trust.

shown that the preference for the “VERB plus

In (7), the imperative verb look serves as an

me/us” argument structure is pervasive in many

attention getter.

(though not all) indirect directive constructions,although

Let us examine whether indirect directives

specific

verbs

that

realizethisare capable of acting as discourse-organizers

argument pattern can also vary among different

rather than genuine directives? To make the long

constructions.

story short, the answer is yes. We do findUnlike the imperative, it is found, indirect

examples with the verb tell like those in (8) anddirectives are in general strictly restricted in(9) below:

their capacity to play a less directive or
non-directive role -- a finding that compels us to(8) All right, Jim, thanks for calling. Can you

conclude that indirect directives are moretell us: what about the logistics of making

genuine directives than the imperative, contrary

this happen?

to common belief. Crosslinguistic research on(COCA 2010 SPOK NPR_TalkNation)verb distributions together with their argument(9) Well, why don’t you tell us, Gutfeld, what a

structures and usage in directive constructions is

mensch is? (COCA 2011 SPOK

expected to introduce a new insight into analyses

Fox_OReilly)of speech acts and argument structures as well as
Construction Grammar studies.5

Yet, these examples in (8) and (9) are somewhat
less frequent and considerably more directive in* This manuscript is an abridged version of adiscourse

guest lecture delivered at the 10th ELSJ

function

than

their

imperative

counterpart as in (7) above.

International Spring Forum held at Meiji Gakuin

The high frequency of the “VERB plus 1st

University on April 23, 2017. I am grateful for

person pronoun” structure is motivated in no

helpful comments provided by the audience, insmall part by the conception of speaker’s benefit,

particular, Tomoko Endo, Olga Fischer andwhich is a crucial feature of request and many

Nobuko Hasegawa.

other directive acts (For fuller discussion, see

NOTESTakahashi 2012 and 2017).

1

4. Conclusion2	 This paper used some of the data and analyses

presented in Takahashi (2015 and 2017).
Indirect directives are sometimes described

For an insightful discussion on the division

between possible vs. probable grammar, see

as merely more refined and polite directive

Haspelmath (2004).

forms than the imperative. The analyses made3

here tell a somewhat different story and the facts

tokens from corpora do not provide full context,

are far more interesting and complex. Directive

so one cannot judge the distinction between

constructions as a whole have a set of preferred

directive vs. non-directive usage with complete

verbs as distinct from those in non-directive

accuracy. The fact remains, however, that the313

I used the word “potential” on the ground that

great majority of the data with dynamic verbs

British English and Japanese,” Language

are to be interpreted as directive.

Sciences 18-3/4, 671-688.

4

Let me note that tell is not among the mostGivón, Talmy (1993) English Grammar: A

frequent lexical verbs in English (cf. Biber et al.,

Function-Based

1999: 373).

Benjamins, Amsterdam.

5

According to Takahashi (2017: 149-150),

Introduction

II,

John

Haspelmath, Martin (2004) “Explaining thematsu ‘wait’ is consistently a highly frequent

Ditransitive

Person-Roleverb with both Japanese imperative and request

Constructions

2,

forms.

constructions-online.de,Constraint,”<www.

urn:nbn:de:0009-4-359, ISSN 1860-2010>
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983) Principles of

REFERENCES

Pragmatics, Longman, London.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2010) Imperatives

Searle, John R. (1975) “Indirect Speech Acts,”

and Commands, Oxford University Press,

Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed.

Oxford.

by Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 59-82,

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and R. M. Dixon, eds.

Academic Press, New York.

(2017) Commands: A Cross-Linguistic
Press,

Sifianou, Maria (1993) “Off-Record Indirectness

Oxford.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech,

and the Notion of Imposition.” Mutilingua

Typology,

Susan

OxfordConrad,University

andEdward12-1, 69-79.

FineganSperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson (1986)(1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken

Relevance: Communication and Cognition,and Written English, Longman, London.

Harvard University Press, Harvard.
Takahashi,

Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson

Hidemitsu(2012)

A

CognitivetheEnglish(1987) Politeness: Some Universals in

Linguistic

Language Usage, Cambridge University

Imperative: With Special Reference to

Press, Cambridge.

Japanese imperatives, John Benjamins,

Curl,

Traci

S.

and

Paul

Drew

AnalysisofAmsterdam.

(2008)“Contingency and Action: A Comparison

Takahashi, Hidemitsu (2015) “Another Glanceof Two Forms of Requesting,” Research on

at Verbs and Constructions: A Perspective

Language and Social Interaction 41-2,

from English Directive Constructions,”

129-153.

paper presented at the 13th International

Davies,Mark(2014)

The

Corpusof

Cognitive Linguistics Conference, held atContemporary American English (COCA):
450+

millionwords,

Newcastle, UK on July 20-25.

1920s-2012.

Takahashi, Hidemitsu (2017) Eigo no Meireibun<www.americancorpus.org>

Shinwa to Genjitsu (English imperatives:

Flöck, Ilka (2016) Requests in American andMyth and Reality), Kurosio Publishers,

British English: A Contrastive MultiMethod

Analysis,

John

Tokyo.

Benjamins,

Wierzbicka,

Amsterdam.

Anna(2003)

Cross-Cultural

Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human

Fukushima, Saeko (1996) “Request Strategies inInteraction, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

314

【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。
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Contributors” に従うが、abstract は不要。

315

“Information for(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 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。

（2017 年 9 月 12 日改定）316

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.

317

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）九州大学出版会, 福岡.

論文集の場合吉村あき子 (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

318

Guidelines for Submission of Manuscripts to JELS
<If you write in Japanese, refer to the Japanese guideline on the ELSJ website>
Last revised September 2017(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.
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 (J ST) 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.
319

f. Please note that manuscripts not in strict compliance with the Rules for JELS and thepresent guidelines will not be accepted.
*The “@” in the e-mail address has been replaced by “☆” for security reasons.

320---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2018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 2018----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------