Papers from the Thirty-First Conference
November 9-10, 2013
and from
the Sixth International Spring Forum
April 27-28, 2013
of
The English Linguistic Society of JapanJELS 31日 本 英 語 学 会 第 31 回 大 会 （ 福岡大学）・
第 6 回国際春季フォーラム（東京大学本郷キャンパス）研究発表論文集

The English Linguistic Society of Japan
2014

The English Linguistic Society of Japan
c/o Kaitakusha
1-5-2, Mukogaoka,
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0023, JAPANPresident, Yukio OBA, Kansai Gaidai University
Secretary-General, Sadayuki OKADA, Osaka University

JELS 31
Papers from the Thirty-First Conference
November 9-10, 2013
and from
the Sixth International Spring Forum
April 27-28, 2013
of
The English Linguistic Society of Japan

Edited by
The Conference Organizing Committee
Tsutomu OHNA, Nagoya University (Chair)Tadao MARUTA, Tokyo University of Science (Vice-Chair)
Yoshihito DOBASHI, Niigata University
Miki HANAZAKI, Shinshu University
Akira HONDA, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies
Shungo KANAZAWA, University of Kochi
Masumi MATSUMOTO, Osaka Kyoiku University
Kazuyo MURATA, Ryukoku University
Kimiko NAKANISHI, Ochanomizu University
Fumikazu NIINUMA, Morioka University
Hajime ONO, Kinki University
Etsuro SHIMA, Tohoku University
Mariko SUGAHARA, Doshisha University
Hidemitsu TAKAHASHI, Hokkaido University
Tomohiro YANAGI, Chubu University

日本英語学会第 31回大 会 （福岡大学）・
第6回国際春季フォーラム（東京大学本郷キャンパス）研究発表論文集
The English Linguistic Society of Japan2014

本書は、2013年4月27日、28日に東京大学本郷キャンパスにて開催された日本英語学会第6回国際春季フォーラム、および同年11月9日、10日に福岡大学にて開催された日本英語学会第31回大会における研究発表論文とワークショップ要旨を収録していますが、投稿辞退の分は除き、締切日までに投稿された論文を掲載しています。

第31回大会運営委員長
大名 力

CONTENTS
I. Papers from the Thirty-First Conference
Spell-Out of Intermediate Projections
荒野章彦（Akihiko Arano）············································································ 3
日本語主格目的語構文に関する一考察
藤森千博（Chihiro Fujimori） ········································································ 10「２つ」の un- と blocking 現象
浜田啓志（Takashi Hamada） ········································································ 17
同族目的語構文と格の意味解釈における機能について
平崎永里子（Eriko Hirasaki） ········································································ 23
the doctor from the football game「一緒にサッカーをした医者」のような表現に現れる
from について
平沢慎也（Shinya Hirasawa） ········································································ 30
Syntactic Analysis for Passives and Causatives in English and Japanese萱嶋 崇（Takashi Kayashima） ····································································· 37
後続子音による母音長の変化：幼児・成人の日本語コーパス分析と成人の英語学習データ
北原真冬（Mafuyu Kitahara）・米山聖子（Kiyoko Yoneyama） ···························· 44
定冠詞の一意性理論に対する例外
北村 久（Hisashi Kitamura）········································································ 49
Body Part Off 構文の継承関係
工藤 俊（Shun Kudo） ··············································································· 56
Answers to Japanese Multi-unit Questions with Explicit Assumptions
増田将伸（Masanobu Masuda） ······································································ 63
The Morphology of Deadjectival Nominals and Verbs in Japanese
森田千草（Chigusa Morita） ·········································································· 70
心理的変化を表す使役移動構文における一考察
中尾朋子（Tomoko Nakao） ·········································································· 77「様態・結果の相補性」とその反例とされるものについての再検討
並木翔太郎（Shotaro Namiki） ······································································ 84
生成文法と最適性理論の融合性について―規則の簡潔性と傾向の観点から―
西原哲雄（Tetsuo Nishihara） ········································································ 91
On Morphosyntactic Competition in Nominal Modification
西牧和也（Kazuya Nishimaki） ······································································ 95
Long-Distance Phenomena and Phase Theory
西村 恵（Megumi Nishimura） ··································································· 102
目的語の省略について：EatとDevourを中心に
西脇幸太（Kota Nishiwaki） ········································································ 109

On the Discourse Function and Phrasal Origin of Just So You Know
野部尊仁（Takahito Nobe） ········································································· 116
Irish [+Q] COMPs
オボイル・ドナル P（Dónall P. Ó Baoill）・牧 秀樹（Hideki Maki）················· 123
Linking Elements as Expletives in Distributed Morphology
大久保龍寛（Tatsuhiro Okubo） ··································································· 130
On Floating Quantifiers in an Irish English and Weak-Phases
大塚知昇（Tomonori Otsuka） ····································································· 137
Cyclic Linearization and the Wh-Island Constraint
佐藤英志（Hideshi Sato） ··········································································· 144
英語進行形構文の機能的連続性：主観性と間主観性からみた機能分化
清水啓子（Keiko Shimizu）········································································· 151
Linguistic Phenomena as Seen from the Viewpoint of Joint Attention: If-Cleft and Locative Inversion
志澤 剛（Takashi Shizawa） ······································································ 158
A Syntactic Approach to the Induced Action Alternation
椙本顕士（Kenji Sugimoto）········································································ 165
Why Not? in Child English and its Theoretical Implications
杉崎鉱司（Koji Sugisaki） ·········································································· 172
類義語間の機能的差異―法副詞 maybe と perhaps を例にして―鈴木大介（Daisuke Suzuki） ········································································ 179
Conditions on Object Quantifier Raising in English
田口茂樹（Shigeki Taguchi） ······································································· 186
濁りの表示と不透明性：日英語の有声音の深層と表層
田中伸一（Shin-ichi Tanaka） ······································································ 193
英語の中間態再考：事態概念と言語習得の観点から
谷口一美（Kazumi Taniguchi） ···································································· 200
Complement Clause Selection and Exceptional Case-Marking
富澤直人（Naoto Tomizawa） ······································································ 207
Syntactic Distinctness and Phase Head戸塚 将（Masashi Totsuka） ······································································ 214
The Head Raising Analysis of Reduced Relative Clauses in English
戸澤隆広（Takahiro Tozawa）······································································ 221
心理形容詞の意味と従える補文標識 that の有無との関連性
土屋知洋（Tomohiro Tsuchiya） ··································································· 228
前置詞 against の多義について
辻 早代加（Soyoka Tsuji） ········································································ 235

‘time’-away 構文の多義ネットワーク
山本恵子（Keiko Yamamoto） ····································································· 242
英語における「多重 XP 左方転位」構文の統語的派生について
山内 昇（Noboru Yamauchi） ···································································· 249
フェイズの意味的・概念的特性と進化的妥当性について
吉田江依子（Eiko Yoshida） ······································································· 256<Workshop Reports>
空項の諸問題をめぐって
阿部 潤（Jun Abe） ・奥聡（Satoshi Oku）

山下秀哲（Hideaki Yamashita）···································································· 263
Simplest Merge and Label Identification by Minimal Search
北原久嗣（Hisatsugu Kitahara）

・成田広樹（Hiroki Narita）

斎藤 衛（Mamoru Saito） ········································································· 265
公的自己・私的自己中心性と日英語の文法現象：「言語使用の三層モデル」からの視点
廣瀬幸生（Yukio Hirose） ・今野弘章（Hiroaki Konno）
五十嵐啓太（Keita Ikarashi）・志澤 剛（Takashi Shizawa） ····························· 267
Foundational Issues in Phase Theory
高橋真彦（Masahiko Takahashi） ・瀧田健介（Kensuke Takita）
前田雅子（Masako Maeda） ・後藤 亘（Nobu Goto）································ 269

状態性述語の形態・統語・意味をめぐって
漆原朗子（Saeko Urushibara） ・岸本秀樹（Hideki Kishimoto）
多田浩章（Hiroaki Tada） ··········································································· 271
構文的意味の諸相：その境界線を越えて
浜田啓志（Takashi Hamada） ・野中大輔（Daisuke Nonaka）
小笠原清香（Sayaka Ogasawara）

・穐本美咲（Misaki Akimoto） ····················· 273

II. Papers from the Sixth International Spring Forum
Japanese-Speaking Children’s Absolute Interpretation of Differential Comparatives and Differential
Verbal Expressions
Tomoe Arii ······························································································· 277
The Negation Markers in Modern Inner Mongolian
Lina Bao, Megumi Hasebe, and Hideki Maki ······················································ 284
Scrambling in Double Complement Constructions in Chinese
Wenwen Ding ··························································································· 291
A Phrasal Analysis of English, Japanese and Chinese Comparative Constructions
Ryosuke Hattori ························································································· 298

Subject as a Probe
Akiko Kobayashi ························································································ 305
Schwa Epenthesis and R-Sound Lengthening for Emphasis within Optimal Theory
Hideo Kobayashi ························································································ 312
Japanese Reciprocal Anaphor Otagai with Split Antecedents in Disguise and Multi-Dominant Syntactic
Structure
Tomoya Kosuge ························································································· 319
The Semantics of the English Have a Construction
Kiyomi Kumazawa ····················································································· 325
The Motive for Stress Assignment Rule in the Positional Function Theory
Sha Liu ··································································································· 332
The Cleft Construction in Irish
Hideki Maki and Dónall P. Ó Baoill ································································· 338
On the Long-Distance Nature of the Polite Form of Japanese Locative Demonstratives
Mioko Miyama ·························································································· 345
The Derivation of Japanese Relative Clauses with Scrambling and Quantifier Float
Hisashi Morita ··························································································· 352
Japanese Clausal Coordination and Inferential Processing Units
Miyuki Nagatsuji ························································································ 359
Implicature for Plurals in Child Grammar
Terue Nakato-Miyashita and Tom Roeper ·························································· 366
A Functional and Pragmatic Approach to NQ-Scrambling in Japanese
Eiki Ôno ·································································································· 373
On a Weak-Phases Paradox
Tomonori Otsuka ······················································································· 378
Structure-Building via Merging Economy: The Scope of Indefinites
Norio Suzuki ····························································································· 385
Japanese EFL Learners’ Native-like Parsing of PP Attachment Ambiguity
Toshiyuki Yamada and Yuki Hirose ································································· 392

書式規定 ············································································································· 399

[I]Thirty-First Conference
November 9-10, 2013

a labeling algorithm proposed in Chomsky(2013), according to which a feature becomes alabel of the syntactic object consisting of XP and
YP when it is the prominent one both in XP and
YP. My proposal is supported by three kinds oflinguistic phenomenon: drop phenomena inmatrix clauses, distinctness effects, and sluicing.
First, I analyze aux drop and topic drop in
terms of Spell-Out, following Fitzpatrick (2006)
and Rizzi (2005). I show that my proposal

Spell-Out of Intermediate Projections*
Akihiko Arano
Tohoku University
Keywords: Spell-Out, Drop Phenomena,
Distinctness, Case-Resistance, Sluicing

correctly predicts the size of unpronounced
elements in these constructions.

1.

Second, my proposal solves a problem withthe standard version of Spell-Out, and derives

prominent role in the syntactic computation.
One of its functions is to trigger the operation
Spell-Out, which sends syntactic structures
created by Merge in a bottom-up fashion to thesensorimotor interface.
The application of
Spell-Out makes its target inaccessible tosyntactic operations at later stages (PhaseImpenetrability Condition (Chomsky (2000)))
and, therefore, cyclicity effects are derived as aconsequence of the multiple Spell-Out model
adopted in the current minimalist theorizing.
Moreover, the Phase-Impenetrability Condition

parts of the Case Resistance Principle (Stowell(1981)), assuming Richards’ (2010) Distinctness
Condition to the effect that the same kind offunctional categories cannot exist in a single
Spell-Out domain.
Third, my proposal derives Merchant’s(2001) Sluicing-COMP generalization, assuming
a direct connection between Spell-Out andellipsis.
This paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 reviews Chomsky’s (2013) proposalon labeling, and clarifies its differences fromprevious analyses. Section 3 presents myproposal. Section 4 discusses two types ofsucceeds in reducing computational burden
because search space can be limited bydrop phenomenon observed in matrix clauses.
Section 5 shows consequences my proposal

Spell-Out.
This paper makes a proposal on the domain

brings to the Distinctness Condition. Section 6
derives Merchant’s (2001) Sluicing-COMP

of Spell-Out, which is standardly assumed to be
the complement of a phase head, as schematizedin (1) (Spell-Out domains are shaded).
(1) [XP ZP [X′ X [YP …]]]
X: phase headgeneralization. Section 7 is a conclusion.

I argue that a traditional ‘intermediate
projection’ undergoes Spell-Out if a phase headinterfaces, labels are needed. In the earlyminimalist program (Chomsky (1995)), theis in a spec-head agreement relationship, asshown in (2).

operation Merge was responsible for identifying
labels. Thus, applied to two objects α and β,(2) [XP ZP [X′ X [YP …]]]
X: phase head
I show that my proposal becomes feasible underMerge forms the new object K, of the form {γ,{α, β}}, where γ is its label. This form ofIntroduction
It has been widely assumed since Chomsky(2000) that the notion of phase plays a

2.

-3-

On Labeling: Chomsky (2013)
For syntactic objects to be interpreted at theMerge is no longer available in Chomsky (2013),
where Merge is defined in the simplest form:
Merge (α, β) = {α, β}. He argues that labels
are determined at the phase level by a fixed‘spec-head agreement’ occurs, as represented in(5).
(5) a. [XP ZP [X′ X [YP …]]]
X: phase headb. [F ZP [XP X [YP …]]]

labeling algorithm, which is just minimal search.
Thus, for a syntactic object comprising H, a

Then, it is predicted in (5b) that the sister of‘specifier’ may undergo some syntactic process.

head, and XP, not a head, the labeling algorithm
selects H as its label. In cases where XP andThis prediction does not arise in (5a), becauseintermediate projections are assumed to be

YP are merged, on the other hand, minimal
search fails to determine the label of theinvisible to syntactic operations (Chomsky(1995)). Therefore, as long as there is evidencesyntactic object created, because it is ambiguous,finding the heads X and Y. Chomsky (2013)

for applying syntactic operations to ‘intermediate projections,’ Chomsky’s (2013) approach toargues that this problem does not arise when XP
and YP share the same prominent featurelabeling is supported. In the following sections,
I present such evidence using Spell-Out.

because the labeling algorithm finds it in bothterms and can take that to be the label, creating

3.

intermediate projection C′ in (4a), whereas it is a
maximal projection CP in (4b).

Proposal
I propose that possible Spell-Out domains
are phases themselves and their complements,
i.e. XP and YP in (6).
(6) [XP X [YP …]]
X: phase head
They are given a privilege status as Spell-Out
domains because of their close relationship witha phase head that is a trigger of Spell-Out.
First, suppose that a phase head is
introduced into the derivation and there is no
Merge to the phase edge.
(7) [XP X [YP …]]
X: phase head
XP (a phase) cannot be a target of Spell-Out inthis case, because it is the topmost category
necessary for continuing higher derivations.
Therefore, YP (a phasal complement), undergoes
Spell-Out.
Let us turn to a case where some element is
moved to the phase edge and enters a ‘spec-headrelationship’ with the phase head.
(8) [F ZP [XP X [YP …]]]
X: phase head
Since XP, a phase, is not the top category, it is apossible candidate for Spell-Out domains in (8).

More generally, Chomsky’s (2013) analysis
differs from the previous ones in that the sister

I argue that XP, rather than YP, is spelled out inthis case because Spell-Out of the former isof ‘specifier,’ a traditional intermediate projection, becomes a maximal projection whenmore economical given that the more structuresare spelled out at a phase level, the less domains

an exocentric structure.
Let us see how this labeling mechanism
works and compare it with previous accounts,
using the following indirect question.
(3) They wondered [α in which Texas city [β C
[JFK was assassinated]]](Chomsky (2013: 45))
In the traditional accounts, the structure of theembedded clause is as in (4a). On the other
hand, Chomsky’s (2013) system requires it to belabeled as shown in (4b), where a sharedprominent feature, an interrogative feature Q,
has become the top label.
(4) a. [CP in which Texas city [C′ C [JFK was
assassinated]]]b. [Q in which Texas city [CP C [JFK was
assassinated]]]It is clear from this illustration that the sister of
PP in which Texas city has a different status inthese implementations. It is regarded as an-4-are searched at the next phase level due to thePhase-Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky(11) German(Hat) irgendwer gestern
Spiderman(Has) anyone
yesterday Spiderman
gesehen?
seen‘(Did) anyone see Spiderman yesterday?’(Fitzpatrick (2006: 400))
Second, topic drop, observed in colloquial
German, refers to situations in which a subject
or a topicalized object is unpronounced (Rizzi(2005) and references cited therein).
(12) a. (Ich) habe es gestern
gekauftI
have it yesterday boughtb. (Das) habe ich tdas gestern
this have I
yesterday
gekauftbought(Rizzi (2005: 533))
It is impossible in the middle field ((13a)), or in
the embedded clause ((13b, c)).
(13) a. Gesternhabe *(ich) es gekauft
yesterday have I
it boughtb. Hans glaubt *(ich) habe es
Hans believes I
have itgesterngekauftyesterday boughtc. Hans glaubt dass *(ich) es
Hans believes thatI
itgesterngekauft habe
yesterday bought have(Rizzi (2005: 533))
Fitzpatrick (2006) and Rizzi (2005) bothpropose that what is missing in these constructions is what escapes Spell-Out. Within
the standard version of current phase theory(Chomsky (2000 et seq)), Spell-Out cyclicallyapplies to the complement of a phase head.
Therefore, at the point where the topmost phaseis introduced, elements in the edge do notundergo Spell-Out. If they remain unspelled
out, then, it is predicted that they are
unpronounced. This account of drop phenomena straightforwardly derives the fact that
unpronounced elements must be at the front ofroot clauses.
Inheriting the insights of the previous(2000)). Recall that this possibility is unavailable in the traditional accounts. Since intermediate projections cannot be a target of syntactic
operations (Chomsky (1995)), X′ fails to be apotential Spell-Out domain.
In summary, this section has proposed that
there are two possible Spell-Out domains:phases themselves and their complements. I
have argued that under the framework ofChomsky (2013), a traditional ‘intermediate
projection’ undergoes Spell-Out when a phasehead undergoes a spec-head agreement. In thefollowing sections, I present three kinds ofconsequence of my proposal.
4.

Drop Phenomena in Matrix ClausesThis section discusses aux drop (Fitzpatrick(2006)) and topic drop (Rizzi (2005)).
Following previous researches, I analyze
missing elements in these phenomena as ones
that do not undergo Spell-Out. I show that myproposal provides a correct characterization of
the size of unpronounced elements.
Both of the phenomena mentioned above
are observed in main clauses, and unpronounced elements would be at the front of the
pronounced structures.
First, aux drop is a phenomenon where
fronted auxiliaries are not pronounced inquestions in English and German. Descriptively, aux-drop is possible only when the
missing auxiliary has been raised at the rootlevel and would be left-most in the pronounced
structure (Fitzpatrick (2006: 402)).
(9) a. Anybody want a hot dog?
b. Anyone seen John today?
(Fitzpatrick (2006: 400))(10) a. Who *(does) everyone like?
b. Only Mary *(does) everyone like.
(Fitzpatrick (2006: 402))-5-

studies, I make the following analyses.
(14) a. Aux dropwhen Spell-Out applies.
He adopts theframework of Distributed Morphology (Halleand Marantz (1993)), where functional heads
undergo Late Insertion. This framework makes
it possible to postulate that, when linearization
occurs, we cannot distinguish different
functional heads of the same type due to theirscarcity of features that may be useful todifferentiate them from each other. As aconsequence, the Distinctness Condition forbids
the same kind of functional categories to be in
the same Spell-Out domain.
The Distinctness Condition has implications
for a wide range of linguistic phenomena. Oneof them is Case Resistance, which is illustrated
by facts like (16) (Stowell (1981)).
(16) * They’re talking about [that they need toleave](Richards (2010: 137))
Richards (2010: 137) suggests that Case Resistance is an instance of Distinctness, if we
assume, following Emonds (1985), that
prepositions and complementizers belong to thesame category.
He assigns the following
structure to part of (16).
(17) [PP about [CP that [TP the Marines went toChina]]]
When a phase above CP induces Spell-Out, P
and C are linearized in the same Spell-Out[CP does [TP anybody tT want a hot dog]]
pronounced
b. Topic drop[Top ich [CP habe [TP tich tT es gestern gekauft]]]pronounced
In (14a) Aux sitting in T has moved to C, and TP
has been spelled out. The rest of the structure
is not spelled out and therefore Aux is dropped.
In a similar vein, topic drop involves Spell-Out
of CP. As a consequence, the topic sitting in
the traditional specifier position is not pronounced, but C has phonetic realizations.
Note that in explaining these constructions,the size of Spell-Out domains plays an importantrole. If TP were Spell-Out domains in (14b),
we would not expect that only the specifiersremain silent. Then the question arises especially as to why CP, not TP, is spelled out in
topic drop. My proposal gives an answer tothis question. The derivation of aux drop
involves no spec-head agreement with C, andtherefore TP is spelled out.1 On the other hand,
it is plausible to assume that [Top]-features
trigger spec-head agreement in the derivations of
topic drop. Then, the present analysis correctlypredicts that traditional ‘intermediate projections’ undergo Spell-Out in topic drop.

domain. Therefore, if P and C are of the same
type, they cannot be linearized, causing a

Richards (2010) proposes the Distinctness

violation of Distinctness.
The Case Resistance Principle does not

Condition, which rejects self-contradictory
instructions to make nodes precede themselves.

apply to interrogative clauses, as Richards(2010: 139) notes.

(15) Distinctness
If a linearization statement <α, α> is(18) They’re talking about [what they shouldbuy](Richards (2010: 139))

generated, the derivation crashes.
He assumes, following Chomsky (1995, 2000),

This fact, however, cannot be accounted for interms of Distinctness, if we assume the standard

that trees created by syntax do not haveinformation on linear order, and they areversion of Spell-Out, because it is incorrectlypredicted that P and C induce a contravention of

linearized via a version of Linear Correspondence Axiom (Kayne (1994)) at the pointDistinctness in (18).
(19) [PP about [CP what C [TP they should buy]]]

5.

Distinctness Effects-6-

In the same way, the standard version of
Spell-Out rules out interrogatives clauses with aagreement within it. I corroborate this prediction by seeing additional types of interrogative and declarative clauses.
Kayne (1991) discusses the status of interrogative whether and if and concludes that theformer is a wh-phrase in spec and the latter is akind of complementizer. This conclusion is
supported, for example, by the fact that whether
is like other wh-phrases in that it does not havean impact on the finiteness of the clause it
selects, whereas if only selects finite clauses.
(23) a.
I wonder whom I should invite.
a′. I wonder whom to invite.
b.
I wonder whether I should go.
b′. I wonder whether to go.
c.
I wonder if I should go.
c′. * I wonder if to go.
(Haegeman and Guéron (1999: 175, 176))
This contrast is expected if we assume that if is akind of complementizer, while whether is not.
Given that heads have sectional properties, it isplausible that only if imposes selectional
requirements on the finiteness of its following
clauses.
Let us adopt Kayne’s (1991) conclusion andassign the following structures to interrogative
clauses with whether and if.
(24) a. [PP on [Q whether [CP C [TP we have

PP specifier, contrary to the fact.
(20) a. They don’t know [with whom theyshould discuss this](Richards (2010: 137))b. [VP know [CP [PP with whom] C [TP theyshould discuss this]]]My proposal, on the other hand, correctly deals
with these cases. Since ‘spec-head agreement’occurs in interrogative clauses, ‘bar-level’ projections are spelled out, as illustrated in (21),where P and C are divided into separate
Spell-Out domains.
(21) a. [PP about [Q what [CP C [TP they shouldbuy]]]]
b. [VP know [Q [PP with whom] [CP C [TPthey should discuss this]]]]Furthermore, my analysis predicts that Case
Resistance effects reappear if a specifier of CP
contains a preposition in (21a). This prediction
is borne out.
(22) a. * They’re talking about [with whomthey should discuss this](Richards (2010: 137))
b. [PP about [Q [PP with whom] [CP C [TPthey should discuss this]]]]Thus, my analysis gives an account of thediscrepancy between declarative and interrogative clauses with respect to Case Resistanceeffects.
It should be kept in mind that my analysis
allows an interrogative clause to occur as acomplement of prepositions not because it is aninterrogative clause but because there is a
spec-head agreement within it, and that it
prevents declarative clauses from occurring as acomplement of prepositions not because it is a
declarative clause but because there is nospec-head agreement within it. My proposal
predicts that prepositions can take a clause as
their complement as long as there is a spec-headenough time left]]]]b. [PP on [CP if [TP we have enough timeleft]]]
Under my proposal, CP is spelled out in (24a),whereas TP is spelled out in (24b). Therefore,
it is predicted that interrogative clauses headed
by if cannot be a complement of prepositions, as
opposed to those with whether. This prediction
is correct.
(25) It depends on whether/*if we have enoughtime left.
(Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 974))
A certain kind of declarative clause can be
introduced by how, as the translation in (26)-7-shows.
(26) They told me how the tooth fairy doesn’tb. A: Max hat jemand eingeladen.
B: Echt? Wen (*hat)?
[German](Merchant (2001: 63))
Given the structure shown in (31) and the
IP-deletion analysis of sluicing, it is surprisingthat the auxiliaries must be elided in (30).
(31) [CP who2 [C′ has [IP Max thas invited t2]]]
One may account for the obligatory absence ofreally exist.
‘They told me that the tooth fairy doesn’treally exist.’(Legate (2010: 121))
Legate (2010) argues that it is a kind of freerelative. As shown in (27), I assume that its
head undergoes a spec-head agreement.
(27) [PP about [X howi [CP C [TP the tooth fairy
doesn’t really exist ti]]]]My analysis expects that this type of declarative
clause may be a complement of prepositions.

auxiliaries in sluicing by assuming that deletionof the IP material precedes head-movement to C

This prediction is verified.
(28) They told me about how the tooth fairy

usually analyzed as being base-generated in C.
For example, certain varieties of Dutch allow andoesn’t really exist. (Legate (2010: 122))
Summarizing, I have shown, relying on theDistinctness Condition, that my proposal issuperior to the standard version of Spell-Out inthat it can successfully derive the Case
Resistance Principle.

overt complementizer to co-occur with awh-phrase in [Spec, CP].
(32) Ik weet niet, wie (of) (dat) hij
Iknow notwho ifthat hegezien heeft.
seen
has‘I don’t know who he has seen.’[(esp. Southern) Dutch](Merchant (2001: 74))
A grammatical sluiced counterpart of (32),
however, involves only the wh-phrase.
(33) Hij heeft iemand gezien, maar ik
he hassomeone seenbutI
weet niet
know nota. wie.
b. * wie of.
c. * wiedat.
d. * wie of dat.
who if that
‘He saw someone, but I don’t know who.’[Dutch](Lasnik (1999)). However, the Sluicing-COMP
generalization holds even for the material

6.

Sluicing-COMP Generalization
This section derives Merchant’s SluicingCOMP generalization from the proposedmechanism of Spell-Out. In so doing, I assume
that ellipsis has a direct connection with SpellOut domains. Specifically, I assume that phaseheads are a trigger of Spell-Out, and ellipsis is
the option of not realizing a Spell-Out domain at
PF (Gengel (2009), Wurmbrand (2013)).
Merchant (2001) shows that the statement
shown in (29) is valid cross-linguistically.
(29) In sluicing, no non-operator material may
appear in COMP. (Merchant (2001: 62))
For instance, English and German exhibit
verb-second in matrix interrogatives. Whensluicing applies in these sentences, the remnant
cannot include the auxiliary, validating
Merchant’s generalization.
(30) a. A: Max has invited someone.
B: Really? Who (*has)?
[English](Merchant (2001: 75))
My proposal accounts for the Sluicing-COMP
generalization by arguing that sluicing is derived
through ‘C′’-deletion. The relevant structure ofsluicing is represented as follows.
(34) [Q wh-phrase [CP C [TP …]]]
elidedDue to the ‘spec-head agreement,’ the top label-8-Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger
Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka,
89-155, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,”
Lingua 130, 33-49.
Emonds, Joseph (1985) A Unified Theory of Syntactic
Categories, Foris, Dordrecht.
Fitzpatrick, Justin M. (2006) “Deletion throughMovement,” Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 24, 399-431.
Gengel, Kirsten (2009) “Phases and Ellipsis,”
Linguistic Analysis 35, 21-42.
Haegeman, Liliane and Jacqueline Guéron (1999)
English Grammar: A Generative Perspective,
Blackwell, Oxford.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz (1993) “Distributed
Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection,” The
View from Building 20, ed. by Kenneth Hale and
S. Jay Keyser, 111–176, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002)
The Cambridge Grammar of the English
Language,
Cambridge
University
Press,
Cambridge.
Kayne, Richard (1991) “Romance Clitics, Verb
Movement, and PRO,” Linguistic Inquiry 22,647-686.
Kayne, Richard (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lasnik, Howard (1999) “On Feature Strength: Three
Minimalist Approaches to Overt Movement,”
Linguistic Inquiry 30, 197-217.
Legate, Julie Anne (2010) “On How How is Used
Instead of That,” Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 28, 121-134.
Marušič, Franc (2005) On Non-Simultaneous Phases,
Doctoral dissertation, Stony Brook University.
Merchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax of Silence:
Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Richards, Norvin (2010) Uttering Trees, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Rizzi, Luigi (2005) “Phase Theory and the Privilegeof the Root,” Organizing Grammar: Linguistic
Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemdijk, ed. byHans Broekhis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts,
Ursula Kleinhenz, and Jan Koster, 529-537,
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Stowell, Tim (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure,
Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Wurmbrand, Susi (2013) “Stripping and Topless
Complements,” Ms., University of Connecticut.

is Q, and the sister of the wh-phrase is CP, amaximal projection. As a result, the Spell-Out
domain and the elided site are CP, including C.
Therefore, the Sluicing-COMP generalization
naturally follows from the present analysis.
7.

Conclusion
This paper has proposed that under

Chomsky’s (2013) framework, ‘intermediate
projections’ undergo Spell-Out when phaseheads enter a ‘spec-head’ relationship. I haveshown that the proposed analysis accounts for (i)a difference between aux drop and topic drop,with regard to the size of unpronounced
elements (Fitzpatrick (2006), Rizzi (2005)), (ii)the Case Resistance Principle (Stowell (1981))
based on Distinctness (Richards (2010)), and
(iii)
the
Sluicing-COMP
generalization(Merchant (2001)).
* An earlier version of this paper was presented at the
31th meeting of the English Linguistics Society ofJapan held at Fukuoka University on November 9-10,
2013. I would like to express my gratitude to
Yoshiaki Kaneko and Etsuro Shima for theirinvaluable comments and suggestions. I am gratefulto Satoru Kanno, Shin-ichi Kitada, Hisatsugu
Kitahara, Yoichi Miyamoto, Takashi Munakata,
Satoshi Oku, Takahiro Tozawa, and Tomohiro Yanagi
for their helpful comments. All remaining errors
and inadequacies are my own.

A Footnote
1

To determine a sentence type, we may have toassume that CP is transferred to the C-I interface (cf. Marušič (2005)). I would like to thankHisatsugu Kitahara (p.c.) for pointing this out tome.
References
Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The
Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist-9-a. Kiyomi-wa

migime-dake-o-Top right-eye-only-Acc
tumur-e-ru
close-can-Pres
日本語主格目的語構文に関する一考察'Kiyomi can wink with her right eye/It is(Nominative Object, Goal-driven Movement

possible for Kiyomi to close her right eye
only'

and Scope Preference)(can>only)b. Kiyomi-wa
藤森千博 (FUJIMORI Chihiro)

migime-dake-ga-Top right-eye-only-Nom

弘前大学（非常勤）

tumur-e-ru (only>can)close-can-Pres(Hirosaki University, part-time)'It is only her right eye that Kiyomi can
キ ー ワ ー ド ： Nominative object, goal-driven

close'

movement, Multiple Agree/Move, equidistance,

Tada は、(2a)では対格目的語が埋め込み VP 内

scope preferenceで認可されるため上位構造へ移動する必要がなく、主節動詞に c-統御されるため can>only の解釈が得られる一方、(2b)では(3a)に示した移動

本発表では、日本語主格目的語構文の構造・派が起きており、主格目的語が主節動詞を c-統御

生を考察するとともに、Koizumi (2008)で議論さするため only>can の解釈が得られると主張しれている主格目的語数量詞と主節動詞（-e (can)） ている。さらに Koizumi (1995)などは、Tada のが示す作用域の preference について統語的立場

主張を発展させ、(3b)に示したように主格目的からの説明を試みる。

語が TP 指定部へ移動していると主張している。
(3) a. [TP Kiyomi [T' [VP migime-dake-gaj [V' [VP tj

1.

tumur] e]] ru]]

Nominative Object Construction(Tada (1992))

b. [TP Kiyomi [TP migime-dake-gaj [VP [VP tj
日本語では、非状態動詞と状態動詞から成る複tumur] e] ru]]

(Koizumi (1995) etc.)

このような主格目的語の移動分析に対し、

合動詞構文において目的語が主格でも対格でも認可されることが知られている。

Takano (2003)は、(1b)のような主格目的語構文(1) a. Taro-wa

では目的語はそもそも埋め込み節内ではなくhuransugo-oTaro-Top French-Acc

主節内に生起すると主張している。

hanas-e-ru(4) Takano’s (2003) analysis

speak(non-stative)-can(stative)-Pres[TP [vP Johni-wa [V1P huransugoj-ga [vP PROi [V2P

‘Taro can speak French’

proj [V2 hanas]] v] [V1 e]] v] ru]

b. Taro-wa

Takano は(4)に示した構造を仮定し、主格目的語

huransugo-ga hanas-e-ru
speak-can-Pres

は主節内に生起し、主節動詞を（非対称的に）このような複合動詞構文に対して、Tada (1992)

c-統御するため only>can の解釈しか得られないは(2)のような数量詞作用域に関する対比を提と主張している。

Taro-Top French-Nom

示し、(1a)と(1b)に対し異なる派生を提案していTakano (2003)が(4)の構造を仮定した理由とる。

して、Tada などの移動分析では主節動詞が移動(2) Tada's (1992) analysis

前の生起位置にある主格目的語を c-統御してお-10-り、can>only の解釈が得られるはずなのにこの構造は(7)のようになると考えられる。

解釈が得られないことを挙げている。しかし、(7) [TP [vP Kiyomi-wai [V1P migime-dake-gaj [vP ti

Nomura (2003, 2005)の指摘によると、文脈を適[V2P tj [V2 tumur]] v] [V1 e]] v] ru]

切に整えると、主格目的語が主節動詞より狭い

この構造では主節動詞が埋め込み VP 内の主格作用域を取ることが可能である。

目的語の痕跡（あるいは copy）を c-統御するた(5) Nomura’s (2003) analysis

め、can>only の解釈を得ることができる。

Taroo-ga

vodka-dake-ga

nom-e-ruTaro-Nom vodka-only-Nom drink-can-Pres
no wa

yuumei-da-ga,

NL Top famous-CPL-but

2.

Problems and Proposals

gin-dake-ga
しかし(7)の派生には問題がある。まず、(8a)gin-only-Nom

mo yokuが示すように、主格目的語は埋め込み vP 内にdrink-can-Pres NL also well

おいてより高い位置にある主格主語を越えて

sir-arete-iru

先に移動してしまい、移動の最小性に違反して

know-Pass-Pres

しまう。さらに、Chomsky (2000)以来の phase'It is famous that Taro can drink only vodka

を派生単位とする分析では phase 主要部が(shot with no soft drinks) but it is also wellMerge された段階でその補部は解釈部門へ

known that he can drink only gin (shot with

Spell-Out/Transfer され上位 phase 内の要素から

no soft drinks)'(can>only)は 不 可 視 的 と な る と さ れ て お り （ Phase(5)に示した can>only の解釈が可能であるとす

Impenetrability Condition (PIC)）、(7)において埋めれば、Takano などが提案する主格目的語が主節

込み v が Merge された段階でその補部である埋内に生起し主節動詞にc-統御されない構造は成め込み VP は v やさらに上位要素である主節動

立しないことになる（cf. Bobaljik and Wurmbrand

詞から不可視的となるため、(7)の構造では(2007), Takahashi (2010)）。したがって本発表でcan>only の解釈を保証できない。

は、(5)の事実を基に、主格目的語は埋め込み(8) a. [V1P migime-dake-gaj [vP Kiyomi-wa [V2P tj

nom-e-runo

VP 内に生起し、格認可のために主節内へ移動[V2 tumur]] v] [V1 e]]

すると主張する。

b. [vP migime-dake-gaj [vP Kiyomi-wa [V2P tj [V2

さらに、(4)において Takano (2003)が埋め込み

tumur]] v]]

vP 指定部に PRO を仮定していることに注目しまた、(8b)が示すように、PIC の観点から、たい。Hornstein は一連の研究で、PRO は

埋込み VP 内の主格目的語が phase である埋めA-movement の痕跡であると主張している（eg.

込み vP を越えて上位構造内へ移動するには、

Hornstein (1999)）。
（(6)では痕跡の代わりに copy

vP の指定部へ一旦移動する必要がある。この移が用いられているが、この違いは本発表の趣旨

動は、Bošković (2007)が指摘する look ahead のにとって crucial な違いをもたらさない。
）

問題を引き起こす。

(6) Movement into θ-positions: Hornstein (1999)(9) goal-driven Movement : Bošković (2007)

a. John hoped to leave

a. Whati does he think [CP ti that[EPP] Maryb. [IP John<θ-leave><θ-hope> [VP John<θ-leave><θ-hope>bought ti]?

[ hopes [IP John<θ-leave> to [VP John<θ-leave>
leave]]]]]

b. You think [CP that[ ] Mary bought a car](9)に示した対比について、Chomsky (2000)など

この主張が正しければ、先に述べた主格目的語

は、(9a)では埋め込み C が持つ EPP によっての生起位置の仮定とともに、主格目的語構文のwhat が CP 指定部へ移動するのに対し、(9b)で-11-

は埋込み C は EPP を持っておらず CP 指定部へればならないが、(13b)に示すように PIC を避けの移動が生じないと説明するが、(10a)でもしるため XP の指定部へと移動した後、(13c)に示(10b)に示したように(9a)同様埋め込み C が EPP

すように認可する素性[K]を持つ主要部 W の指を持っていれば what は CP 指定部へ移動できる

定部へさらに移動し W を c-統御（Probe）する

はずである。したがって Bošković は、ある要素

ことで Y が持つ[uK]が認可される、というものが持つ解釈不可能素性が、ある phase 内で認可である。

されず上位構造/phase 内で認可されるには PIC(13) a. [XP ... X ... Y[uK]] (XP=phase)を避けるためにその phase 主要部には EPP が必

b. [XP Y[uK] ... X ... tY]

要である、あるいはある phase 内で認可され上

c. [WP Y[uK] W[K] [XP tY... X ... tY]]

位構造/phase 内へ移動する必要がないのでそのこの分析を用いて主格目的語構文を説明する。

phase 主要部には EPP が不要である、というの(14) a. [vP Kiyomi-wa [V2P migime-dake-gaj [V2は look ahead の問題を引き起こす、と主張して

tumur]] v]

いる。

まず、(14a)において埋め込み vP 内で格を認可(10) a. *Who thinks whati that Mary bought ti?

されない主格目的語は上位 phase 内で認可され

b. [CP whati that[EPP] Mary bought ti]

る必要があるため(12)に従い移動しなければな

同様の問題が主格目的語構文と対格目的語構らないが、この際 PIC に違反しないようまず埋文の対比においても生じる。(11a)の対格目的語

め込み vP 指定部に移動する必要がある(14b)。

構文では、対格目的語は埋め込み節内で格認可

b. [vP migime-dake-gaj [vP Kiyomi-wa [V2P tj [V2されるため移動する必要がなく Chomsky に従tumur]] v]]

えば v は EPP を持っていない一方、(11b)の主格

ここで注目すべきなのは、この移動は v が持つ

目的語構文では、主格目的語は埋込み節内ではEPP によるものではなく、主格目的語が持つ解格認可されないため上位構造へと移動する必釈不可能な格素性を上位構造で認可するため要があり、v は EPP を持っていなければならなの(12)を動機とする移動であるという点である。

い。これは Bošković が指摘する look ahead の問

また主格主語は埋め込み vP 指定部に生起して題と並行的である。

いるためこの段階では PIC を避けるための移動(11) a. [vP SUBJ [VP OBJ[Acc] V] v[ ]]が必要ないことにも注目したい。
これに続く派生(14c)では主節動詞が Merge さ

b. [vP SUBJ [VP OBJ[Nom] V] v[EPP]]
これらの問題を、移動する要素が持つ解釈不可れ、この段階で主節動詞が主格目的語を c-統御

能素性が認可されることが移動の動機となるするため can>only の解釈が得られると仮定すとする Bošković (2007)の主張に沿って説明する。 る。
（この点について後に触れる。
）
まず Bošković は Last Resort を(12)のように定義

c. [VP [vP migime-dake-gaj [vP Kiyomi-wa [V2P tj

し、ある phase 内で解釈不可能素性を認可され[V2 tumur]] v]] [V1 e]]

ない要素は上位構造/phase へと移動し認可され

can c-commands only >>> can>only

る必要があると主張している。

さらに次の派生では v が Merge されるが、この(12) Bošković's (2007) Last Resort

vP 内でも格素性を認可されないふたつの NP は

X undergoes movement iff without movement

さらに上位 phase 内で認可してもらうため(12)the structure will crash.

に従い移動する必要がある。しかし(14b)同様 v

具体的には、(13a)において Y が持つ解釈不可能が phase であるため PIC を避けるにはふたつの素性[uK]が XP という phase 内で認可されない

NP はそれぞれ vP 指定部へ移動する必要がある。

場合、(12)に従い上位構造/phase へと移動しなけ

ここで、構造上上位にある主格目的語が先に移-12-

動し①、その後構造上下位にある主格主語が外tj [VP [vP tj [vP ti [V2P tj [V2 tumur]] v]] [V1 e]]

側の指定部へ移動する②と仮定する（その理由v]] T]]
この移動は最小性にしたがう(14d)の派生と大は後述する）。
d. [vP Kiyomi-wai [vP migime-dake-gaj [VP [vP tj

きく異なる。この相違について、Ochi (2009)の[vP ti [V2P tj [V2 tumur]] v]] [V1 e]] v]]

主張を基に説明したい。Ochi は日本語でも目的

この移動も v が持つ EPP によるものではなく語が vP 指定部に顕在的に移動していると主張

NP が持つ解釈不可能な格素性の認可が動機とし、さらに(20)に示した equidistance を仮定し、なっていることに注目したい。

T は下位要素と Agree できるとしている。

その後の派生では T が Merge され、それぞれの(19) Ochi’s (2009) analysis
a. Taro-ga

NPが TP指定部に移動することで格素性を認可

hon-o

yonda

されるが、(14d)と同様の移動が起きている(15)Taro-Nom book-Acc read-past

では構造上上位にある主格主語が先に移動し‘Taro read a book’

その後構造上下位にある主格目的語が外側の

b. [TP Taroi [vP bookj [vP ti [VP tj read]]]]]

指定部に移動してしまうため正しい語順を保(20) Terms of the minimal domain of H are

証できない。

equidistant from probe Z, unless Z is the next(15) *[TP migime-dake-gaj [TP Kiyomi-wai [vP ti [vP tj

phase head (or any head higher than that).
(Ochi (2009): 330)

[VP [vP tj [vP ti [V2P tj [V2 tumur]] v]] [V1 e]] v]] T]]
この問題を解決するために、
本発表では Hiraiwa(21) [TP [vP OBJ [vP SUBJ [[VP … tOBJ …] v]]] T](2001) が 提 案 す る Multiple Agree/Move を

OBJ and SUBJ are equidistant from T

Bošković (2007)の主張に組み入れることを提案>>> T can AGREE with SUBJする。具体的には、主格を認可する T が Merge(21)では OBJ は vP 指定部において対格を認可された段階で格認可を必要とするふたつの NPされているため T からの Probe の対象とはならは TP 指定部に移動するが、この際(17)に示した

ず下位要素である SUBJ とのみ Agree するが、ように、Multiple Move は”single simultaneous(14d)ではどちらの NP も主格を認可されておら

operation”であり、移動する複数の要素間のず T から Agree（Bošković (2007)の枠組みでは

c-command relation は維持されたままであるとTP 指定部への移動）の対象となる。したがっの提案を採用し、(14d)における主語＞目的語のて(18)の移動は Hiraiwa (2001)に従えばふたつの

c-command relation を維持したまま TP 指定部へ

NP は(14d)における主語＞目的語の c-command

移動すると仮定する。

relation を維持したまま移動すると考えられる。
一方(14d)の移動は PIC を避けるための移動(16) Multiple Agree/Move: Hiraiwa (2001)
α>β>γであり、このような移動は最小性にしたがい、

AGREE (α, β, γ), where α is a probe and both β

ふたつの NP が phase を越えて移動する場合、and γ are matching goals for α

上位要素が phase 指定部へ移動した後でなけれ(17) (because)“movement of multiple goals is aば下位要素はさらに上位 phase 指定部へは移動

single simultaneous operation that merges

できないと仮定することで(14d)と(18)の移動のmultiple goals without any countercyclic

相違を説明できる。

merger(,) a c-command relation between thegoals cannot be changed”

3.

Scope Preference(Hiraiwa (2001): 70, note 3)(18)

ところで、(5)に示した例（=(22)）の作用域に[TP Kiyomi-wai [TP migime-dake-gaj [vP ti [vP-13-関 す る 解釈 に つい て 、 Koizumi (2008) は 、(a boy>every girl)can>only の解釈は可能であるが、only>can の解

b. [a boy[φ] [[saw every girl[θ]]]]釈の方が preferred であると論じている。その理(a boy>every girl)

由として Koizumi は、目的語が対格で認可されc. [[a boy[θ] [saw every girl[θ]]]]る場合（=(2a)）必ず can>only の解釈となるのに、(a boy>every girl)あえて主格目的語を用いて（(=(2b)）can>onlyd. [[every girl[φ] [a boy[θ] [saw]]]]の解釈を出す必要がない、と語用論的観点に基(every girl>a boy)

づいて説明している。この作用域に関する(25d)に示したように every girl が a boy を c-統御

preference について、Pica and Snyder (1995)及びする段階があるため every girl>a boy の解釈が保Martin and Uriagereka (1998)の主張を基に統語的証される一方、(25a-c)に示したように a boy が立場からの説明を試みる。

every girl を c-統御する段階がより多いため a(22) Taroo-ga vodka-dake-ga nom-e-ru no waboy>every girl の解釈が preferred reading となる。
この分析を基に、本発表では(5)のような主格

yuumei-da-ga, gin-dake-ga nom-e-ru no mo

目的語構文におけるscope preferenceを統語的観

yoku sir-arete-iru (=(5))

点から説明したい。

(only>can, can>only)
まず、これまでの分析では(23)のような英語

具体的には、(14c=26a)の派生段階で主節動詞の例は多義的であるとされている。

が Merge され埋め込み vP 指定部にある主格目(23)

A boy saw every girl

的語をc-統御するので can>only の解釈が保証さ(a boy>every girl, every girl>a boy)

れる。しかし、(24)の観点からすると、主格目

しかしその一方で、Pica and Snyder (1995)や的語が PIC を避けるために移動した埋め込み

Martin and Uriagereka (1998)などによれば、(23)vP 指定部は Case-position でも θ-position でもなの例では a boy が every girl より広い作用域を取い た め 、 NP が 占 め る 位 置 に 言 及 し な いる解釈の方が preferred である。この preference

c-command relation で数量詞作用域の解釈を説について Martin and Uriagereka は、Pica and

明する Aoun and Li (1992)が提案する Scope

Snyder (1995)の(24)の分析を基に、さらに数量詞

Principle によってのみ can>only の解釈を保証さの作用域を QR ではなく A-movement で説明すれるという点で、主格目的語が取る狭い作用域

る Hornstein (1995)や Kitahara (1996)に従った上は一層 less preferred であると考えることができ

で、派生の過程において a boy が every girl よりる。さらに、(14c=26a)では主節動詞は埋め込み

構造上高い位置にある（=c-統御する）段階がそ

VP 内の主格目的語の痕跡も c-統御しているよの逆の段階より多いことが原因であると主張うに思われるが、埋め込み v が Merge された段している。

階で埋め込み v の補部は Spell-Out/Transfer され(24) Pica and Snyder’s (1995) analysis

るため、その後に Merge された主節動詞はこの

a. The preferred syntactic position in which to

痕跡にはアクセスできないと仮定することでinterpret a DP (quantified or otherwise) iscan>only は less preferred なままであると考える

the position in which its Case is checked.

ことができる。

b. It is marginally possible to interpret a DP in
its theta-position.
(Pica and Snyder (1995: 340-341))

その後(14d=26b)→(18=26c)と派生が進むが、いずれの派生においても主格目的語が主節動詞を（非対称的に）c-統御しており、only>can の(25) Martin and Uriagereka’s (1998) analysis

解釈を得られる段階が多いため、この解釈がa. [a boy[φ] [every girl[φ] [saw]]]

preferred reading になると考えることができる。

-14-

(26) a. [VP [vP migime-dake-gaj [vP Kiyomi-wa [V2P tj

Someone-Nom all-Gen-language-Nom[V2 tumur]] v]] [V1 e]] (=(14c)hanas-e-ru((can>only))

speak-can-Presb. [vP Kiyomi-wai [vP migime-dake-gaj [VP …
[V1 e]] v]] (=(14d))‘Someone can speak every language’((only>can))(some>every, *every>some)c. [TP Kiyomi-wai [TP migime-dake-gaj [vP ti [vP(27)と似たような派生を辿りながら(28)では目

tj [VP … [V1 e]] v]] T]] (=(18))

的語＞主語の解釈を得られないという点につ((only>can))

いて、Ochi (2009)の提案を基に説明する。Ochi

本発表で提案した構造及び派生は、Fujimoriはまず(29=23)の例において、目的語＞主語の解(2013)が提案する複合動詞の構造及び派生と多釈 を 得 る に は (29b) に 示 す よ う に 主 語 がくの特徴を共有している。Fujimori (2013)では、

θ-position に reconstruction するが、日本語ではこ(27)のような例において、主語＞目的語だけでのreconstructionが許されないため主語＞目的語

なく、目的語＞主語の解釈が可能であるとしての scope rigidity が保証されるとしている。そのいる。

理由として Ochi は、日本語の T が持つ EPP は(27) Fujimori’s (2013) analysis

defective である一方、目的語の overt movement

a. Dareka-ga

は obligatory であるため obligatory movement はdaremo-osomeone-Nom everyone-Acc

reconstruction が可能であるとしている(29c)。

yaki-korosi-ta(29) A boy saw every girl (=(23))

burn-kill-Past

Ochi (2009)’s analysis‘Someone burned everyone to death’a. [TP SUBJi [vP OBJj [vP ti [VP V tj]]]]b. [TP SUBJi [vP OBJj [vP SUBJi [VP V tj]]]](some>every, every>some)c. [vP OBJj [vP SUBJ [VP OBJj V]]]b. [TP SUBJi [vP ti [VP OBJj [vP tj [vP ti [VP tj V] v]]

さらに Ochi は、(30)において IO＞DO の解釈

V] v] T]
しかし、(27)が示す目的語＞主語の解釈は主格が rigid であるという事実について、(31)に示し目的語が示す can>only の解釈と同様に less

たように、Multiple Move によって移動した要素

preferred である。まずこれについて(24)を基にはreconstructionする際もその構造を保ったまま説明する。(27b)において、Case-position に移動

reconstruct するため、
DO＞IO の解釈が得られなした OBJ は θ-position の主語を c-統御しておりいとしている。

目的語＞主語の解釈が可能であるが、(24b)によ(30) Taro-ga

dareka-ni

daremo-oれば θ-position で得られる解釈は marginal であTaro-Nom someone-Dat everyone-Acc

るため、目的語＞主語の解釈は less preferred に

syookai-si-taなると考えられる。

introduce-do-Past‘Taro introduced everyone to someone’

主語と目的語の数量詞作用域に関する
Fujimori (2013)の分析が、その構造及び派生に共通点を持つという点において、主格目的語構文(some>every, *every>some)(31) [TP Taro-gai [vP dareka-nij [vP daremo-ok [[vP ti

に関する本発表の分析にも当てはまるとすれ[[VP tj tk V] v]]]]]

ば、主格目的語構文においても目的語＞主語のMultiple Move >>> Multiple Undoing

解釈が可能であることが予測されるが、実際にここで重要なのは、Multiple Move した要素はそ

は主語＞目的語の解釈のみ可能である。

の c-command relation を常に保っているという(28) Dareka-ga

点である。本発表が主格目的語構文に対して提subete-no-gengo-ga-15-案した Multiple Move による分析が正しければ、University Press. [10] Tada, H. 1992. “Nominative(31) の IO>DO と 同 様 に 主 語 ＞ 目 的 語 のobjects in Japanese,” JJL 14: 91–108. [11] Takano, Y.

c-command relation は保たれていると考えられ2003. “Nominative objects in Japanese complex

るため、(28)のような例でも目的語＞主語の解

predicate constructions: A prolepsis Analysis,” NLLT

釈は得られない一方、複合動詞構文(27)では主

21: 779–834.

語は TP 指定部で、目的語は VP 指定部で格認可されており、認可する要素/主要部が異なる移動では scope interaction が生じると考えることができる。
References[1] Bošković, Ž. 2007. “On the locality andmotivation of Move and Agree: An even moreminimal theory,” LI 38: 589-644. [2] Fujimori, C.
2013.

“Goal-driven

movementinJapanese:

verb-verb compounds,” JELS 30: 271-277. [3]Hiraiwa, K. 2001. “Multiple Agree and the defective
intervention constraint in Japanese,” in Proceedingsof the 1st HUMIT student conference in language
research, ed. by N. Lance et. al., 67–80. Cambridge,
MA: MITWPL. [4] Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995.
Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax, Ph.D.
dissertation,

MIT.

[5]

Koizumi,

M.

2008.

“Nominative object,” in The handbook of Japanese
linguistics, ed. by S.Miyagawa and M. Saito,
141–164. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [6]Martin, R. and J. Uriagereka. 1998. “Towards anaccount of preferences,” in Report of the special
research project for the typological investigation of
language and cultures of the east and west, 563-582.
University of Tsukuba. [7] Nomura, M. 2003. “Thetrue nature of nominative objects in Japanese,” inProceedings of Penn linguistic colloquium 26, ed. by
E.

KaiserandS.

Arunachalam,

169–183.

Philadelphia: Penn Linguistics Club. [8] Ochi, M.
2009. “Overt object shift in Japanese,” Syntax 12:
324-362. [9] Pica, P. and W. Snyder. 1995. “Weakcrossover, scope, and agreement in a Minimalist
framework,” in Proceedings of the 13th WCCFL, ed.
by W. Bryne et..al., 334-349. CSLI: Cambridge-16-

十分に検討されてこなかった。少なからず異なる性質を持つ 2 つの接頭辞の意味は、曖昧性を孕んだ表現においてどの程度意識されるものなのか。本発表の調査結果から、UN-1と UN-2 の不均衡な力関係が浮き彫りになっ「 ２ つ 」 の un- と blocking 現 象(“Two” Un-s and Blocking)てくる。

浜田啓志 (Takashi Hamada)

2. 先 行 研 究
まずは、接頭辞 un- が先行研究の中でどのよ

慶應義塾大学大学院 (Keio University)

うに位置づけられ、どのような下位分類を与えられているのかを見ていく。OED では、

キーワード: 否定、形態論、blocking

un- には ”un- prefix1” と”un- prefix2” とい1. は じ め にう 2 つの見出し語が与えられており、それぞ

英語の接頭辞 un- は、2 種類に大別されるこれ ”Expressing negation (…)” , “expressingと が 多 い 。 １ つ は 、 unhappy や uneaten,

reversal or deprivation (…)” と定義されていunsmiling に見られるような、形容詞や現在る。したがって、両者はそれぞれ本研究の分詞を基体にとり「否定」を表す un- （以下UN-1 と UN-2 に相当するものとして捉え

UN-1）である。もう 1 つは、動詞を基体にることが出来る。もちろん OED には細かな取り、「逆」を表す un- (以下 UN-2) である。

下位区分が詳細に示されてはいるものの、ここちらの例としては、undo, unload, untie なの「見出し語」というかたちで現れる接頭辞

どが挙げられる。本研究の目的は、この両者

un- の二分性が垣間見える。

が 孕 む 曖 昧 性 に Oxford English Dictionary

この「2 つの」un- だが、場合によっては(OED) や Corpus of Contemporary American

異なる基準での分類を被ることがある。

English (COCA) などを用いた調査に基づきMettinger (1990) は、基体の種類や、対応す迫っていくことである。両者は、同じ生起環

る肯定表現との間に成立する反意性の種類

境 に 位 置 づ け ら れ た と き に 、 homonymyに応じた分類を試みている。

blocking, つまり、ある表現がそれと同じ言
語形式を有した別の表現の出現を阻止するという現象に参与するというかたちで不均衡な力関係に位置づけられることを主張する。

Morphology

semantics

examples1

un-V

reverseuntie

2aun-V-ed/ -ing/ -able

negationuneatennegationunequal2b

UN-1 と UN-2 の意味関係が特に興味深くなるのは、unlocked や undoable のように3a双方な解釈が可能な場合である。文脈を省い3b

た表面的な構造のみからは、ここに現れてい3c

un-Adjunselfishantonymy

unhappy
unsafe

表 1: un- の分類 (Mettinger 1990)

る接頭辞が UN-1 と UN-2 のどちらなのか察
しをつけられない。ここに曖昧性が生じることは既に多く指摘はされているものの、意味

表 1 からも分かるように、Mettinger は表さ的な相関性やどちらの解釈がより妥当なもれる意味の種類のとして好まれるのかという点に関しては

antonymy) に応じてまず大分類をし、そこか-17-(i.e. reverse, negation,

ら基体の品詞に即した下位分類を展開して(2) の意味構造から、ある行為が対象物に変いる。Mettinger は、un- の参与する中でも化をもたらし、最終的にそれを凍った状態に分詞や接尾辞-able を伴う表現を形容詞とは至らしめるという一連の連鎖を語彙化した

独立させて分類している。こうした表現は、

ものが動詞 freeze の意味であるということ対応する肯定形と相補分布的な関係で結びが示されている。これに対し、(3) にみる

付く contradictory なものであるとしている。

unfreeze の意味構造では、終着点の「状態」

同様の関係は、表 1 (2b) に分類されているの箇所に否定が作用している。由本は、これような一部の形容詞対 (e.g. equal – unequal)

を形容詞 unkind において un- が kind によにも当てはまるものであるという。

って表される「親切である状態」を否定する

一方、由本 (2001) は結びつく基体の品詞のと同様であるとし、un- という接頭辞の単として名詞を形容詞・動詞に加えて分類して一性を強調している。
Hamawand (2009) は認定言語学的な観点いる。

から un- の多義構造を素描している。
(1)a. unkind, unlucky, unable, unaware,unavoidable, unfamiliar, unusedb. unfasten, unbind, untie, undo, unclose,
unclasp, unwrap, unwindc. unconcern, unemployment, untruth(由本 2001: 283)
図 1: un-の多義構造 (Hamawand 2009: 72)(1a) は形容詞、(1b) は動詞、(1c) は名詞を基体にとる表現であるが、由本はこのうちHamawand の分類では、 UN-1 の「否定」(1a) と (1c) が「否定」, (1b) が「逆」と結にあたる意味が典型的、「逆」に相当する意

び付くものとして解釈している。彼女のねら味が周縁的なものとして位置づけられていいは Mettinger のように反意関係の種類に応る。単一の否定接頭辞の多義性というかたち

じて「否定」を更に分類することではない。

で意味のバリエーションを提示しており、こむしろ、一度分類された「否定」と「逆」とこでも UN-1 と UN-2 は意味的に関連性のいう意味を、語彙概念構造の記述によって改あるものとして扱われている。

めてより包括的な「否定」という意味で統合することにある。彼女は、 (1b) に属し「逆」3. un- に ま つ わ る 構 造 的 な 曖 昧 性

を表すと考えられる動詞 unfreeze の意味構

以上に見てきたように un- の分類の仕方は造を、その肯定形 freeze と対照させながら様々であり、UN-1 と UN-2 を別個の接頭辞

提示している。

として見なすか、あるいは単一の接頭辞が持つ多義性の一端が現れたものとして見なす

(2)	
 
(3)	
 

freeze (他動詞): <行為> → <変化> → <かについては意見の一致が得られていない

凍った状態>のが現状である。どちらの立場を採用するに

unfreeze: <行為> → <変化> → <「凍っしても、UN-1 と UN-2 という区別は実在性た状態」でない>のあるものとして捉えて差し支えはないだ（由本 2001: 283）

ろう。というのも、両者は比較的相補分布的にその生起環境を分け合っているため、個々-18-の事例における un- が UN-1 なのか UN-2

釈できる。Marchand (1969) はこの点についなのかは、一目瞭然である場合がほとんどなて、(5) のように説明する。
「2 つの」unboundのである。位置づけられる文脈に依らなくとの間には、表される状態に至るまでの過程とも、unhappy の un- が UN-1, unbutton	
  のそいう付加的な情報の有無という違いしか存れが UN-2 であるということは、それぞれの在しないとしている。ここでは「否定」に司基体がどういう品詞に属するものなのかさられる状態が UN-1 と UN-2 の参与する表

え分かっていれば、労なく察しがつくように

現間で共有されている。

なっている。
	  それにも関わらず、この明瞭な境界線が幾(5) “…the idea of negativity is common to

分損なわれてしまう場合がいくつかある。

both…” “What distinguishes unbound ‘notHorn (1989) は以下のように説明する。

bound from unbound ‘loosened’ is only theadditional idea of an action preceding thestate of being loosened, but the state of(4) In the presence of deverbal, adjective
producing

suffix,we

getstructurally

ambiguous

lexicalitems―

unbending,

uncoiled,

unfoldable,

itself is the same[…]”(Marchand 1969: 153)

unlockable,

unwrapped ― each of which make be taken
1either as [ADJun [V]X]] or as [ADJ2[Vun [V]]X].

動詞的な受け身文ではこの過程というもの
が重要になってくるだろうが、確かに結果状態を言うような場合は幾分背景化される側(Horn 1989: 287)

面だろう。こういった表現に関しては結果的にそれが現れる前後関係を正確に捉えてき

つまり、1) UN-2 を冠した動詞が接尾辞-ed

たとしても、接頭辞の同定に至らないというあるいは –able と組み合わさり、形容詞と事態が十分に起き得る。

して派生されたものと、2) この動詞の基体	  一方、上述の通り un-V-able のパターンにとなっている、un- を伴わない動詞が 1) 同

おいてはこのような一種の類義性は期待で様の接尾辞と組み合わさることで形容詞派

きない。Un-V-able では、UN-1 と UN-2 の生し、そこから更に UN-1 とも結び付いたもどちらで解釈されるのかによって、言及されのとの間には、少なくとも表面的には [un- +る対象の属性や、表される価値的意味が大き動詞 + -ed / -able] という構造が共有されてく変わってくる。まず、UN-1 で解釈されるいる。そのため、この字面を単独で見たとき

場合、接頭辞は局所的に見れば接尾辞 -ableにはその区別がつかない。

に作用していることになる。UN-1 は、この	  Horn の提示する曖昧性を伴う例は、-ed

少なからず肯定的な価値を持った要素を「否で終わるものと -able で終わるものとのに定」することになるので、結果として得られ分類されるが、両者の性質には幾ばくかの違る un-V-able 全体では否定的価値を持ったいがあるように感じられる。例えば、「2 つもの、せいぜい中立的なものになることがほの」uwrappable によって表される状態は著

とんどである。一方で、この構造が UN-2 をしく異なるものであることが予想されるの含むものとして解釈された場合、言うまでもに対して、unwrapped は接頭辞を UN-1 となくこの接頭辞は直後の動詞を基体としてUN-2 のいずれで解釈しても同じ「包まれて修飾するため、これに続く-able の表す肯定いない」という状態を指示する表現として解的な価値は構造全体においてもそのまま保-19-

たれていることになる。同じ表面的な構造を

これと同じような意味を表すと考えられる有しながらも価値的には対照的な性質を持

動詞 steal + 接尾辞 –er というパターンは

つようになり、これでは当然ながら意味の共語彙的に独立した振る舞いを見せづらくな

通性は見出しにくくなる。そのため、un-V-ed

る。このように、参与する表現が同音異義語の場合と異なり、十分な文脈さえあればどちであれ類義語であれ、blocking とは「語彙とらの接頭辞を擁した表現であるかは問題なして定着した表現が、生産的なパターンに則く理解することが出来る。

った語形成の成立を妨げる現象」として一般化することが可能である。

4. un- と blocking
前節で見たように、過去分詞-ed と-able の

5. 調 査どちらを接尾辞にとるのかによって、接頭辞

5.1 手 法un- によって示される曖昧性の性質は大き

本研究では Corpus of Contemporary American

く変わる。ところで、この曖昧さは実際にはEnglish (COCA) と Oxford English Dictionary 	 どの程度共有されているものなのだろうか。

(OED) を用い、UN-1 と UN-2 の潜在的な曖先に見た unbound などは UN-1 と UN-2 の昧性が認められる場合において、それがどち

潜在的な曖昧性が如実に現れる事例ではあらの意味に根ざした表現として認識されてるが、Marchand の言うように、つまるとこいるのか、その傾向性を探ることを目的としろ同じ事態を表すことになるのであればもた調査を行った。ここで今回の調査の手順をはや UN-1 と UN-2 どちらか一方のみの関提示する。まず、COCA にて文字列 un- でわる表現として使用者によって解釈されて

始 ま る 動 詞 を 検 索 し 、 そ こ か ら untie やいる可能性もある。そこには、UN-1 と UN-2

underplay など接頭辞 un- 以外の要素が関わの淘汰関係はないのだろうか。もしそうであっている例を手作業で省いた。結果として、れば、UN-1 と UN-2 は特定の環境において260 タイプの un- 動詞が得られた。次に、こ競合関係に参与し、一方が他方を抑圧するとの収集された 260 の un-動詞に関して、1) こいう blocking の図式が成り立つのではない

れに-ed, -able, -ing が伴った形式が OED ののだろうか。

見出し語として記載されているのか、 2) そ	  Plag (2003) は blocking を homonymy

してその場合、語源や複雑表現の構造についblocking と synonymy blocking とに分類してての注釈 [etymology] の項において、当該表いる。前者は、同音異義語 (homonyms) 同士

現がどちらの接頭辞から派生したものとしで発生する関係、後者は類義語 (synonyms)て扱われているものなのかを吟味した。動詞

同 士 で 発 生 す る 関 係 で あ る 。 homonymyの選抜には COCA を用いたにも関わらず、

blocking の例として Plag が挙げているのは、 これに関連する派生表現を得るのに OED を
2 つの liver の関係である。
「肝臓」を表す liver

用いたことには、COCA では十分な数のデが定着した語彙として存在しているために、ータを得ることが出来なかったという背景

動詞 live + 接尾辞-er という生産的な語形成がある。ところで、こうした類の調査で辞書パターンから得られる「生きる人・もの」のを使用することは、必ずしも賛成される方法

ような意味では用いられにくくなるのだとではないかもしれない。しかしながら、OEDいう。synonymy blocking の例としては、thiefは他の英語辞書と比べて圧倒的に派生形、つと stealer が挙がっている。
「盗人」を表すのまりは –able や-ed ˆのついた形式を独立しには thief という語が存在しているために、た見出し語で扱っている。加えて、複数の構-20-

成要素からなる見出し語の内部構造に関し

UN-2 共 に 記 載 が あ る 見 出 し 語 の 数 は 37ても先述の通り詳細な注釈が示されている。

(e.g. unveiled, unsettled, unzipped) であった。

こういった観点から、コーパスのみの調査でしかしながら、全体で見ると、UN-1 のみ言は直感に頼らざるを得ない部分を大いにサ

及があるものは 108 項目、UN-2 のみは 11

ポートしてくれるものとして OED は有効

項目と、その差がはっきりと顕在化した。こであると判断した。

のことから、過去分詞化した動詞に UN-1 が結び付くほうが、既に UN-2 が伴う動詞がそ

5.2 結 果 と 考 察

こから過去分詞化するよりも、形容詞的性質

5.2.1 un-V-ed

を持った１つの語彙項目として定着しやす(6) では、COCA で得られた動詞が提示されいという傾向があると想定される。つまり、ている。ここでは、260 件 un- 動詞のうち生構造的な曖昧性は極めて非対称的なかたち

起数順で上位 30 位のもののみを列挙する。

で認識されているということになる。同じ形式を持つ 2 つの構造の不均衡な力関係とい(6) uncover, unfold, unveil, undo, unlock,うことで、両者の間に homonymy blocking がunleash, unload, unravel, unsettle, unearth,

起きていると見なすことが出来るだろう。たunpack, undress, unnerve, unwind, untie,

だし、先ほどから繰り返し述べている通りこ

unzip, unfurl, unbutton, unwrap, unseat,

こでは意味的な共通性が発生しているため、

unscrew,

もちろんごく純粋な homonymy blocking とunhook,untangle,

unmask,unquote, unroll, unplug, unhinge, unsay,

いうわけにはいかないだろう。しかしながら、

unbelieve

この類義性という側面が blocking の発生や定着を助長している可能性はあると考えら

これらの動詞から派生した un-V-ed パター

れる。

ンを OED で引くと、言及される状態が同じものであるということもあって、判断に窮し

5.2.2 un-V-able

た跡が多く見られた。UN-1 と UN-2 の双方

2 つの un-V-ed 間での blocking 発生に貢献が構成要素の接頭辞として記載されているしていると考えられる類義性という要素は、ものについては、1) 別個の見出し語が設け

un-V-able の場合は欠如していると考えられられている場合 (unfolded, undone) もあれば、 る。そのため、blocking が発生しづらく、相2) 単 一 の 見 出 し 語 の 語 源 解 説 と し て ’or’,

互に意味が異なる 2 つの表現が成立してい‘and’, ‘also’ などのマーカーと共に用いられることが予想される。しかしながら、実際のている場合もある。前者は、やはり見出し語

調査結果はこれに沿うものではない。またしが別々ということもあって UN-1 と UN-2ても、UN-2 の解釈は極めて劣勢である。

がある程度それぞれの独自性を保った定義

OED の記載では、UN-2 の解釈が認められがなされている場合もある。一方で後者に関て い る 見 出 し 語 は

しては、接辞単独では明確に区別されるもの

undressable というわずかに 2 例のみであっとして(つまり同音異義語として) 扱われがた。これは、比較的もれなく派生形も拾い集

ちな 2 つの un- が、同一の後続要素と結び付めて記載している方針の OED においてはくことで少なくとも派生形全体では意味的顕著というべき少なさである。一方で UN-1

な類似性を呈しているという点が興味深い。

の注釈がついたものは 82 例確認でき、そのOED において、un-V-ed に関して UN-1 と差はより一層歴然である。意味的な重なりも-21-

unlearnableと少ないため、純度の高い homonymy blocking

単独では品詞で表されるような意味を満たであるといえる。類義性という後ろ盾なしにせない拘束形態素ならではなのかも知れな

blocking が確認できるのは何故だろうか。おい。

そらく、un-V-able という構造においては、
優先的に否定的な価値が付与されるのだろ7. 参 考 文 献う。この否定的価値と結び付くのは、専ら

Corpus of Contemporary American English<http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/>

UN-1 である。この価値的意味が構造全体の語彙的な緊密性に貢献し、UN-2 で解釈されCruse,

D.

A.

(1986)

LexicalSemantics,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

るものに対して一層優勢な振る舞いを見せ

Hamawand, Z. (2009) The Semantics of Englishていると考えられる。
OED の万能性を踏まえても、それのみにWord委ねた調査では実際に見られる言語現象を

London.

少なからず拾い損ねている可能性は否定しNegative

Prefixes,

Equinox,Horn, L. R. (1989) A Natural History ofがたいだろう。実際、COCA では unlockable

Negation,が UN-2 としてしか解釈出来ない例も見ら

Language and Information, Calif.

れる。とはいえ、同じ-able 形でも接頭辞を影山太郎・由本陽子 (1997) 『語形成と概念とらない lockable などの肯定形は OED にCenter

for

the

Study

of

構造』 研究社出版, 東京.

おいて動詞 lock から派生した見出し語としLipka, L. (1990) 	
  An Outline of Englishての記載があるという点を鑑みれば、unlock

Lexicology, Niemeyer, Tübingen.

+ -able というパターンが語彙的な意味を定Marchand, H. (1969) The Categories and Types

着させるのを妨げる何らかの要因はあるとof Present-day English Word-formation,

考えて差し支えないだろう。

Beck, München.
Mettinger, A. (1990) “Oppositeness of Meaning,

6. 結 論Word-formation, and Lexicography: the

前節までで見てきた点をまとめると、少なくEnglish

とも辞書の記載レベルで独立した語彙の形

Lexicography, eds. by J. Tomaszcyzk and容詞として認められる否かという点に関し

B.

ては、UN-1 と UN-2 の間に不均衡な力関係、Benjamins, Amsterdam, Philadelphia.

homonymy blocking が認められるというこ

Murphy, L. (2003) Semantic Relations and theとが主張出来るだろう。しかし、特に un-V-ed

Lexicon, Cambridge University Press,の例において指し示される意味が極めて似

Cambridge, U.K.

L.

PrefixUn-“,

Tomaszcyk,

Meaning93-112,ているという点を考えると、ここに成立する

Oxford English Dictionary Online

関係は当然 homonymy らしさからは真っ向<http://www.oed.com/>

and
John

から対立するものということになる。だからTuggy, D. (1993) “Ambiguity, Polysemy, andといって、形式も完全に同一であるため、典Vagueness,” Cognitive Linguistics 4-3,型的な synonymy とも見なしがたい。結局は、

273-290.

単一の接頭辞が持つ多義性の現れであると

由本陽子(2001) 「複雑述語の形成, 影山太郎

いう見方が最も妥当かもしれない。現時点で(編)『日英対照 動詞の意味と構文』

はこれに関する結論を示すことは控えるが、

269-296, 大修館書店, 東京.

参与する意味関係を定めにくいという点も、-22-

(1) 格のもつ意味的な側面を捉える新しい格理論により、COC と HAC の振る舞いに共通点と差異の両方が存在する理由に説明を与える。
(2) 上記の理論により格の意味解釈への貢献

同族目的語構文と格の意味解釈におけるの極小主義理論下における体系化が可能

機能についてとなると示す。

(Cognate Object Construction andthe function of Case in Semantic Interpretation)

本稿で提案する新しい格理論は、同族目的語
構文の統語的振る舞いを説明できるだけで

平崎永里子(HIRASAKI Eriko)

はなく、現行のミニマリストプログラムにお関西学院大学大学院

ける格理論の不備を補うこともできる理論(Kwansei Gakuin University)である。これまで、格と意味とが関係する現象は数多く観察され、内在格のように意味と結びついた格の存在も認められてきた。しかキーワード：同族目的語、格、受動化

し、ミニマリストの理論においては、格は
C-I system にとって解釈不可能な素性として扱われ、理論内には格の意味的側面は反映

1. はじめに
本稿では、格の意味的な側面を反映した新されていない。それに対し、本稿の提案するしい理論を用いて同族目的語の統語的振る理論では、意味に関する格素性が形態に関す舞いに対して説明を与えることを試みる。同る格素性とは独立に存在すると仮定するこ族目的語構文は、通常の他動詞が含まれる文とを提案するため、格と意味の結びつきを捉と共通点がある一方、異なる振る舞いをする

えることが可能となる。

場合も多数あることが観察されている。一方、
一見同族目的語を含んでいる文のように見

2. COC と HAC の性質える文の中には同族目的語構文とは異なり

本節では、これまでの研究で観察されてき通常の他動詞文と同様の振る舞いをするもた COC と HAC の統語的な特徴を概観する。

のがある。本稿では、Hale and Keyser(2002)(3) a. Henleigh smiled a wicked smile.

に倣い、前者のタイプの文を cognate object(Massam 1990: 164)

construction (以下 COC と略記)、後者を

b. Sam danced a merry dance.

hyponymous argument construction (以下HAC)と呼び区別する。

(Jones 1988: 91)
前節で述べた COC の例が(3a)、HAC の例がこれまで、COC と HAC や普通の他動詞(3b)である。いずれも文の動詞を名詞化した

文の統語的振る舞いの差異を取り扱う研究

要素が文の目的語となっている。COC とは数多くなされてきたが、COC と通常の他

HAC の差異を 2 点挙げる。1 点目は、目的動詞文に共通の特徴が見られる事に関して語位置に出てこられる名詞に関する差異で取り扱う研究は少ないように思われる。また、 ある。
構文間の差異を取り扱う論文では、COC と(4) a.*She slept her last nap/ a long winter

HAC の共通の特徴が何に起因するかを統一

slumber.

的に説明を与える事が困難であった。それをb. *He踏まえ、本稿では下記の 2 点を目標とする。

chuckle.

-23-

laughedasurreptitious

giggle/(Hale and Keyser 2002: 71)

c. Bernadette danced the Irish jig.

論を提案する事により類似点と差異の両方

d. Tosca sang an aria. (Massam 1990: 163)に対し統一的な説明を与える事を試みる。

(4a,b)に示される通り、COC は文に用いられた動詞を名詞化したものと異なる要素が目

3. 提案

的語位置に出てくると非文になる。一方

本節では、本稿の主要な提案とそれに基づ

HAC は、(4c,d)に示される通り前述の要素でく分析を提示する。本稿では、中世以降の文も目的語となり得る。これまでの研究では基法研究における意味と音の仲立ちをする役割

本的にこの差異で以て COC と HAC を区別を果たす要素としての格の扱いを踏襲し、格している。

を「名詞の持つ文法関係とその名詞が各2 点目の差異は、受動化が可能であるか否interface で受ける解釈を表す名詞に特有のかという点である。

素性」であると見做す。2 つの interface 其々(5) a. *An uneventful life was lived by Harry.

における解釈を格が表すことは即ち、PF の

b. *A weary sigh was sighed by Bill.

みならず LF においても格が必要である事を

c. A merry dance was danced by Sam.

意味する。それを踏まえ本稿では、PF と LF

(Jones 1988: 91)

が読み取るための格素性が独立に存在する

d. The Irish jig was danced by Bernadetteと仮定する事を提案する。具体的には、PF

Dooley.

(Massam 1990: 163)

で読み取られるために存在する格素性を(5)に示される通り、COC は受動化できない

morphological case（以下 M 格）と呼び、 LF

一方、HAC は、普通の他動詞文と同様に受で読み取られるために存在する格素性を動化が可能である。このことは、COC におdiathetic case（以下 D 格）と呼ぶ。

いて目的語への格付与がないと仮定するこM 格は、文法関係と名詞の Argument ととにより説明を与えられ得る。(Jones 1988)

しての働きを PF において読み取るための素ここまで見た通り、COC と HAC の異な性である。本稿では、Argument の定義としる振舞が観察されている一方、COC と HACて下記の定義を採用する。

が同様の振舞を見せることも観察されてい(7) Arguments reduce the adicity of the predicate

る。

they combine with; modifiers leave it(6) a. Let Ben run (*quickly) a little run.

unchanged.

(cf. Heim & Kratzer 1998)

b. Ben sneezed (*that way) a glorious sneeze.

(7)を踏まえると、述語のadicityを減らす名(Massam 1990: 166)

詞はM格を持つ事となる。本稿では、M格は(6)に示される通り、COC と HAC のいずれ

PFにとって解釈可能 iな素性である一方、LFにおいても動詞と目的語の間に副詞が介在には解釈不可能であると仮定する。

出来ない。このことは、COC にも HAC に

D 格は、文法関係とその文における名詞のも格隣接条件が適用されている事を示して意味を読み取るための素性である。D 格はいる。そのため、前述の COC における目的

LF にとって解釈可能であるが PF にとって語への格付与がないという仮定とは相容れ解釈不可能であると仮定とする。すると、Dない事実が観察されているという事になる。

格は PF 以前、つまり Spell-out 前に照合を以上纏めると、COC と HAC は受動化の行う必要があり、そのため顕在的移動を必要

可否に関して差異がある一方、動詞と目的語とする。一方 M 格は LF での読み取りよりとの間の副詞の介在の可否に関しては共通

も前に照合されれば良いため、必ずしも顕在しているといえる。本稿では、新しい格の理的移動は必要ない。それを踏まえ、ここでは-24-

下記の素性照合の方法を採用する。

の動詞は二項述語であり、目的語と主語の両方(8) a. M-Case feature can be checked iff theが動詞のArgumentとなっている要素であるとcheckee is in the checking domain of the

いう事である。また、それらの要素はHACのchecker, v or T.

文の意味解釈に影響を与える要素であるたb. D-Case feature can be checked iff the

め、D格を持つ。 v一方、COCの目的語は、

checkee is in the Spec-head relation with

述語のadicityを減らしていないためにM格

the checker, V or T.

ii

を持たない要素である。COCに含まれる動詞

照合に顕在的移動を必要とするD格は、必ずはtype<e, t>であり、主語の名詞句がtype <e>でSpec-head関係によって素性照合が行われあるという通常と同様の仮定をすると、同族目る。これに対し、顕在的移動を必要としない的語は述語のadicityを減らしていない事とな

M格は、素性がchecking domain iii内にあれるため、(7)で挙げたArgumentの定義には当てば照合が行われる。これに従うと、D格とM

はまらない。 viその事から、同族目的語はM格格の両方を持つ名詞句は両方の格素性を照を持たない要素である事になる。一方、同族合する要素のSpecに移動すれば 2 つの格素

目的語の有無が文の意味解釈に影響を与え性を共に照合する事が可能となる。また、Dることから、同族目的語はD格は持っている格のみをもつ名詞句は、D格の素性照合のたと考えられる。同族目的語が文の意味解釈にめに顕在的移動を行うため、２つの格素性を影響を与えている事は、Massam (1990)によ持つ要素と同じ位置に見た目上存在する事って指摘されている。

となる。

(10) a.?Casey laughed a hearty laugh in 20

上述の２つの格素性の存在を仮定したとseconds.

すると、4 種類の名詞が論理的に存在し得る

b. *Casey laughed heartily in 20 seconds.

事が導出される。具体的には、下記の表に示

c. Mayflies live their lives in a day.

す通り、M 格を持つか否か、D 格を持つか

d. *Mayflies live in a day.

否かの組み合わせで名詞句が分類される。

(Massam 1990: 178)(9) 可能な名詞句の種類(10)から、COC は telic であるのに対し、同

D格 有
M格 有

hyponymous

じ動詞を用いた自動詞文は atelic であるとD格 無言える。その事から、同族目的語の有無が文ivの telicity に影響を与えていると考えられ、

argument
M格 無同族目的語は D 格をもつ事が導出される。

同族目的語

D格を持つか否かはその名詞が文の意味解釈に影響を与えるか否かで決まり、M格を持つか否かはその名詞が文中でArgumentとして機能しているか否かによって決まる。
HACの目的語は、通常の他動詞文における目的語と同様述語である動詞のadicityを減らす名詞であるためM格素性をもつ。つまり、
HACにおけるdance等の動詞は、自動詞文において用いられるdanceとは異なる述語であると見做す事となる。具体的には、HAC

2 節に示した COC と HAC の共通点と相違点を分析するにあたり、前述の提案に加えて必要な仮定を 2 点挙げる。
まず、COC と HAC で用いられている述語の持つ格素性に関する仮定をする。本稿では、COC で用いられている一項述語は D 格
素性のみを持ち、M 格素性を持たないために M 格素性の照合をすることは出来ないと仮定する。それに対し、HAC や他の他動詞文で用いられている二項述語は M 格素性とD 格素性の両方を持つと考える。

-25-

2 つ目に、受動化に関わっているのは M
格のみであるため M 格を持たない動詞は受動化出来ないと仮定する。具体的には、受動化の際に起こるとされている格吸収は M 格を対象としているため、M 格を持たない動詞は受動化が出来ないと考える。つまり、受動化の可否は M 格素性の有無によって決ま(11) a. John arrived this morning.
b. George went the wrong way.
c. Mary dances this way.
(12)a. *This morning was arrived by John.
b. *The wrong way was gone by
George.
c. *This way was danced by Mary.
(Jones 1988: 95)

ることとなる。

副詞的名詞句とは、(11)における this4.

morning、the wrong way、this way 等のよ分析
本節では、前節の提案に基づき 2 節でみた

COC と HAC の特徴の分析を行う。

うに、副詞的に用いられる名詞句の事を指す。
Jones (1988)は、副詞的名詞句は受動化が出

まず、COC と HAC の受動化の可否に関来ないという点において同族目的語と類似する差について考察する。本節において、している事を指摘した。M 格の有無が受動

COC では目的語が D 格素性は持つが M 格化の可否を決定するという本稿の仮定に従は持っていないと提案した。そのため、COC

うと、同族目的語と副詞的名詞句のこのように用いられている動詞が M 格を check するな類似点に対し自然な説明を与える事が可

能力がなくても派生が収束する。また、HAC能となる。具体的には、副詞的名詞句も同族

では、目的語が D 格と M 格の両方を持って目的語と同様 Argument ではないために動いると提案したため、HAC で用いられてい詞との M 格素性照合が行われていない事とる動詞は D 格と M 格の両方を持っている必なる。そのため、COC を受動化できない事要がある。それを踏まえ、本稿では COC でと同様に(12)の非文法性の説明を説明でき用いられている一項述語は M 格を持たず、るという事である。

HAC で用いられる二項述語は M 格を持つと次に、2 節に挙げた COC と HAC の共通仮定した。つまり、COC と HAC では、用点を分析する。COC と HAC の両方においいられている動詞が M 格を持つか否かと言て動詞と目的語の間に副詞句が介在出来な

う点で異なる事となる。更に、本稿では受動

い事は、D 格の照合のための顕在的移動が生化は M 格の吸収であると仮定した。前述のじている場合に格隣接条件が働いていると通り、COC で用いられる動詞は一項述語で考える事で統一的な説明が可能となる。

あり M 格を持たないことから、受動化の対

Koizumi (1993)では、ECM 構文において不象になれないことが導出される。それに対し、 定詞節の主語と主節の動詞の間に副詞が介
HAC で用いられる動詞は二項述語であり M在できないという事実に対し、格素性照合の格を持つため、受動化の対象となることが可ための顕在的移動の存在を仮定する事で説能である。

明を与えた。本稿はこれに倣い、動詞と目的

上記の分析に従うと、Jones (1988)によっ

語の間に副詞が介在出来ない理由は格素性て指摘されていた同族目的語と副詞的名詞

照合のために顕在的移動が行われているた句の共通性に対し自然な説明を与える事がめであると仮定する。上述の過程と 3 節の提可能となる。Jones (1988)によって挙げられ案を踏まえ、COC の構造は次のようになった副詞的名詞句とその特徴は次の文に例示ていると仮定する。

される。

-26-

(13) Henleigh smiled a wicked smile(14)

and was it ever a long one!

[TP Henleigh [vP a wicked smilej [ v+Vi [VP titj]]]]

a....The last laugh has now been laughed,viib. It is a smile that could be smiled by the

上記のような構造を仮定し、それに従うと、

whole country.

動詞と目的語の間で D 格素性の照合が行わ

c. That precise scream was screamed by

れている場合に格隣接条件が生じる事とな

the murder victim.

(高見・久野 2002: 165)

る。COC の目的語は、HAC やほかの他動詞

これまで、(14)は COC であるにも拘らず受文の目的語と同様に D 格を持つ要素である動化が許されているために統一的に分析をため、顕在的移動による素性照合を必要とす行う事が困難であった。このような事例は稀る。D 格の素性照合のための移動が格隣接条ではあるが、例外が生じる理由を説明出来る

件を引き起こしていると仮定する事により、事が望ましい。本稿の理論を用いると、(14)COC と HAC のいずれにおいても動詞と目で用いられている動詞が二項動詞であると的語の間に副詞が介在出来ない事が導出さ仮定する事により説明が可能となる。言い換れた。

えると、(14)で用いられている動詞が M 格

以上の分析を纏めると、COC と HAC が素性を持つために受動化が可能であると見共通して持つ特徴は D 格によるものであり、做すという事である。このような事例が稀でCOC と HAC の異なる振る舞いは M 格の有あるのは laugh 等の動詞を二項述語として無が異なるために起こっているものである用いる事が稀であるためであると考えられと考える事で COC と HAC の共通点と差異る。本校の提案を認める事により、動詞が一の両方に対し、統一的な説明を与える事が可

項動詞であるか二項動詞であるかによって能となった。

受動化が可能であるか否かが決まると予測され、(14)のような事実が存在する事を動詞5.

の習得に還元することが可能となる。

帰結

次に、本稿の理論的帰結について考察する。

本節では、3 節で提案した新しい格理論はどのような帰結をもたらすかを考察する。ま1 節でも述べた通り、これまでの生成文法にず、経験的帰結として、これまで例外として

おいて、格は特定の文法関係を持つ要素に対し扱わざるを得なかった COC が受動化出来てて与えられる形態的な素性であると考えられいるように見えるデータにも説明を与え得てきた。Chomsky (1995)における極小主義理論

る事が挙げられる。本稿では、COC と HACにおいては、格素性を C-I system にとって解釈の区別を、文中で使われている動詞が一項動不可能な形式素性の一つとして扱っている

詞か二項動詞かの差異によって説明した。

(Ura 2001)。極小主義理論において格が C-I

HAC で用いられている動詞が二項動詞であsystem にとって解釈不可能であると見做す事ると考えているという事は即ち HAC で用いは、意味解釈に格が関与出来ないものとする事られている動詞と自動詞文で使われているに等しい。しかし、実際の言語現象を精察する

動詞は異なる意味を持つ動詞であると見做と、格が意味解釈に影響を与えていると仮定す

す事に等しい。つまり、同じ形の動詞であっる事によってのみ説明が可能となる現象は散ても、その項の数が異なる場合があり得ると見される。一例として、フィン語の telicity にいう事である。すると、(13)のようなデータ

関する現象が挙げられる。Kratzer (2004)は、格を例外扱いする事なく分析出来る可能性がと telicity に相関関係がある事に対し、フィン認められる。

語の特定の格素性が解釈可能であり、格素性が-27-

telic の意味を担っているという分析を行った。

を捉える事を可能にした点である。

格の種類と意味が対応している事を正しく導出できる妥当な分析であるように思われる。しかし、C-I system が格素性を解釈できない事を仮定する現行の格理論とは相容れない。現行の
格理論は、格と意味の結びつきが存在しない事を予測するため、この例に限らず格と意味に相関関係がある現象いずれに対しても適切な説明を与える事を許容しない。この事から、現行の格理論は記述的妥当性が不十分であると考えられる。
更に、中世以降の文法研究において格が果たしていると考えられていた役割とは、述語とその項の間の意味関係(生成文法で言う所のtheta-relation)と、その項が文中で有する文法関係の２つの関係を顕在化する事であった。この事から、格は意味と音の仲立ちをする役割を果たす要素であったと考えられる。中世の文法研究における格の理論が正しかったとすると、概念的必然性がある格と意味の結び付きを捉えられない現行の理論は説明的妥当性も満たしていない。これに対し、本稿で提案した新しい
格理論では、LF で読み取るための格素性の存在を仮定したため、格が意味解釈に影響を与える事が自然に予測される。つまり、本稿の提案は、COC や HAC に対して統一的な説明を与えられるだけではなく、理論的にも望ましい帰結をもたらすと言える。
6. 終わりに以上纏めると、本稿では COC と HAC を分析するにあたり、従来考えられてきた形態に関する格素性とは独立に意味概念に関する
格素性の存在を提案した。更に、その提案に則って分析すると英語の COC と HAC の特徴に対して一様に説明を与える事が可能である事

注
本稿では、Chomsky (1995)に倣って完全解釈の原理が PF と LF の両方において適用される事を仮定する。そのため、PF における解釈(不)可能性という概念を導入し、解釈不可能な素性が送られると派生が破綻すると仮定する。
ii 本稿では、語彙範疇である V が意味に関係する D 格、機能範疇である v が形態に関係する M 格を照合すると仮定した。また、本稿では前置詞句に関しては取り扱わないため、格素性照合の定義から除外してある。
iii 本稿における checking domain の定義はChomsky (1995)に従う。
iv M 格をもち D 格を持たない要素として英語の虚辞 there が挙げられる。there が M 格を持つ事は(i)、D 格を持たないことは(ii)、(iii)
によって示される。
(i) *It seems [there to be a man here].
(Lasnik 1992: 382)(ii) *I’ve believed there for a long time now
to be no solution to this problem.
(Ura 1993: 276)(iii) I’ve believed for a long time now there to
be no solution to this problem.
v この仮定の妥当性に関する独立の根拠を示す事は現段階では難しいため、本稿ではその点に関して触れない。do it による置換が証拠として有効である可能性がある事を示唆するにとどめる。
viCOC の意味を合成的に計算する際は、同族
目的語を動作様態副詞と同様のものとして扱う。より具体的には、event semantics を用いて、Heim and Kratzer (1998)のPredicate Modification のような規則を利用する事を想定している。
vii この構造を従来の形で線形順序化すると目的語が動詞よりも前になるため正しい語
順を導くことはできない。それ故主要部移動した場合の線形順序化の際に通常と異なる
線形順序化に関して通常と異なる仮定をする必要がある。本稿では言及せず、可能性を示唆するにとどめる。
iを提示した。本稿の提案の理論的に重要な帰結
は、名詞句の持つ格が意味解釈に貢献する事実

-28-

参考文献
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Hale, Ken, and Samuel J. Keyser. 2002.
Prolegomenon to a theory of argument
structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Heim, Irene. and Angelika Kratzer. 1998.
Semantics in Generative Grammar. MA.
Blackwell Publishing
Jones, Michael A. 1988. Cognate objects and thecase-filter. Journal of Linguistics 24,
89-110.
Koizumi, Masatoshi.1993. Object agreement andthe split VP hypothesis. MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 18, 99-148.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Telicity and themeaning of objective case. In The
syntax of time, ed. Guérone, Jacqueline,
and Jacquline Lecarme, 389-423.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Lasnik, Howard. 1992. Case and Expletives:
Notes toward a Parametric Account.
Linguistic Inquiry 23, 381-405.
Massam, Diane. 1990. Cognate objects asthematic objects. Canadian Journal of
Linguistics 35, 161-190.
高見健一・久野瞕. 2002. 『日英語の自動詞
構文』研究社, 東京.
Ura, Hiroyuki. 2001. Case. In The handbook ofcontemporary syntactic theory, ed.
Baltin, Mark and Chris Collins, 334-373.
Oxford: Blackwell.

Ura, Hiroyuki. 1993. On Feature-Checking
for Wh-Traces. MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 18, 243-280.

-29-

The one.
What one?
The one from the summer of two
thousand.
(Paul Auster, Sunset Park)the doctor from the football game「一緒にサッカーをした医者」のような表現に現(4)She looked terribly pale […] Maybe it
was the Chinese food from last night,

れる from について
(On the usage of from in the doctor from theshe said […]football game)(Paul Auster, Oracle Night)
下線部の意味は、(1) 話し手が一緒にサッカ

平沢 慎也（HIRASAWA Shinya）

ーをした（一緒にサッカー観戦に出かけた、

東京大学大学院（University of Tokyo）など）医者、(2) レッド・ライオンという店で出会ったダークヘアの女性、(3) 2000 年のキーワード：前置詞, 意味論, 多義, from

夏に情事を重ねた男、(4) 昨晩食べた中華料理、である。

1.イントロダクション

2.当該用法の記述

本稿は、Lindstromberg (1998)や Tyler and2.1.統語的特徴

Evans (2003)といった前置詞の包括的な研究

まず、この用法の from は、NP1 from NP2

書に言及のない、英語前置詞 from の次のよ全体で一つの NP を構成するという統語的なうな用法について記述を行った上で、この用特徴を持つ。たとえば(1)の該当文を次のよう法と from の他の用法との関係を考察したもに書き換えることはできない。

のである。

(5)

(1)
(2)

The doctor from the football game told

told me yesterday that I might haveme yesterday that I might have cancer.

cancer.

About a week later, out of the blue,

NP1 P NP2 で一つの NP が構成されているとDex asked me what the story was with

いうことから、次のような所属の at や出身地

my friend.

の from の用法と同じように思われるかもし“Which friend?” I asked, playing

れない。

dumb.

(6)

Most guys at Pencey just talked about“You know, the dark-haired woman

having sexual intercourse with girls

from the Red Lion?”[…]“Oh, Darcy.”(J. D. Salinger, The Catcher in theRye)(emily giffin, something borrowed)(3)* From the football game, the doctor(7)

Are you in love with him?

[…] she was presumably engaged to a

I don’t know. But I’m crazy about him,

man from New Orleans.

that much I do know. And the sex is(F.

pretty sensational.

Gatsby)Who is he?

Scott

Fitzgerald,

The

Great

しかし、ここには明確な違いがある。(6)(7)-30-

の下線部は(8)(9)のように関係代名詞と be 動

(16)

a girl from the Italian restaurant

詞を使って意味をほとんど変えずに書き換(17)a girl from last week

えることが可能であるのに対して、(1)〜(4)(1)〜(4)を見直すと、NP2 は(1)では出来事、(2)の下線部をそのように書き換えることはででは場所、(3)(4)では時となっている。

きない（(10)(11)）。

ここで、NP2 に場所・時の名詞が入る場合(8)

Most guys who were at Pencey

も、それは出来事発生の場所・時であるとい(9)a man who was from New Orleans

うことに注意されたい。(2)(3)のレッド・ラ(10)* the doctor who is/was from the

イオンと 2000 年の夏は出会いと情事という

football game(11)

出来事が起こった場所・時であり、(4)の last

* the dark-haired woman who is/wasfrom the Red Lionnight は中華料理を食べるという出来事が起こった時である。従って、NP2 は本質的に出この事実は、(1)〜(4)の from は単体で意味を来事と結びついた形で概念化されていると持っているのではなく、NP1 from NP2 全体でいうことになる。

一つの単位をなして意味を持っているといこのように理解すると、NP2 と結びついてうこと、すなわち、（Goldberg (1995, 2003)のいる出来事は、NP1 from NP2 という大きな名「構文文法」との関連で言えば）「NP1 from

詞句を含んでいる節の参照時よりも相対的NP2 構文」と呼ぶべきものが存在するというに過去に起こった出来事である、という特徴ことを示している。

に気付く。たとえば(1)で話し手が医者と一緒にサッカーの試合（観戦）をしたという出来事が起こった時点は、昨日よりも前である。

2.2. NP1 と NP2 の意味的関係
NP1 と NP2 の具体的な意味関係はコンテク(2)は省略を補えば What’s the story with theストから補われる。たとえば(1)では NP2 といdark-haired woman from the Red Lion?というう出来事を一緒に経験した人間が NP1 に来ことであり、話し手がレッドライオンでているが、(2)では NP2 という場所で会った人

Darcy に出会うという出来事が起きた時点は間が NP1 となっている。(3)では NP2 という時

What’s the story の参照時よりも前である。(3)に情事を重ねた相手が NP1 に来ているが、(4)は I’m crazy about the one from the summer of

では NP2 という時に食べたものが NP1 に来て

two thousand の意であり、情事の 2000 年の夏いる。

は、I’m crazy の参照時よりも前である。(4)

また、NP2 の位置には出来事、ないし出来に関しても同様に、中華料理を食べた時点

事発生の時・場所を表す名詞句が入るという（昨夜）は気分が悪くなっている時点よりも点も重要である。たとえば(12)の下線部を前の時点である。

(14)(16)(17)のように書き換えることはでき

このような観察から、NP1 from NP2 構文のるが、(13)(15)のように言うことはできない。

〈意味〉は、「主節の参照時よりも前に生じ(12)

I’m talking with a girl who was

た、NP2 の指示する（または NP2 と関連づけ

playing the piano with a red hat on in

られる）出来事に参与していた entity として

the Italian restaurant last week.

の NP1」とまとめることができる。この〈意

(13)
(14)
(15)

* a girl from the pianoa girl from the piano performance* a girl from a red hat

味〉が言わば合図（cue）となって聞き手は百科事典的知識を活性化させ、適切な解釈を得ることになる 1。

-31-

次の例に示したように、ある状態がいつか
3.当該用法の動機付け

ら成り立っているかという情報を from で導3.1.「動機付け」は一つではない

くことができる。

このような意味特徴を持つ NP1 from NP2(18)

Cully asked Nagle to have a drink with

構文は一体何に動機付けられているのだろhim […] Nagle accepted and they wereうか。なぜ他の前置詞ではなく from が用い

in the “Queen’s Head” together fromられるのか。NP1 from NP2 構文における fromabout seven.

（小西 1976: 350）の使用が英語母語話者にとって自然に感じ

この用法では from の補部名詞句が指示するられているということは、from の他の用法と時点が主節の表す事態の参照時よりも相対の何らかの類似性が感じられているはずで的に過去であるということが必ず成り立つ。

ある。そしてその「他の用法」は一つではな

これは、第 2.2 節で見た「NP2 と結びついてく複数あると考えるべきである。

いる出来事は、NP1 from NP2 という大きな名

Lakoff (1987: 491-494)と Taylor (2004)が指詞句を含んでいる節の参照時よりも相対的摘するように、ある構文 C1 がある言語の体に過去に起こった出来事である、という特徴」

系の一部として存在するとき、その構文 C1と似た特徴である。従って、時間的起点用法

は他の複数の構文（C2, C3…）と関連性を持は NP1 from NP2 構文の動機付けの一つとなつ。そしてその「他の複数の構文（C2, C3…）」っていると考えられる。

の数が多ければ多いほど、C1 はその言語の母語話者にとって習得しやすく「しっくり来る」 3.3.原因用法
言語表現となる。言ってみれば、C2, C3…が次の例が示すように、ある状態が成り立っ

C1 に対して ‘ecological niche’ を与えているている原因を from で導くことができる。

のである。たとえば、Taylor (2004)によれば、(19)[…] it’s okay for the kids to run insidebang goes 構文（e.g., Bang goes my weekend!）

with bare feet and swimsuits wet fromが英語母語話者にとって「しっくり来る」のthe pool […]は 、 英 語 の 言 語 体 系 の 中 に the deictic(20)(COCA)

Then, all of a sudden, I got this idea. I

constructions（e.g., There’s Harry, wearing his

took out my wallet and started looking

new jacket.）、the preposed directional/locatives

for this address a guy I met at a party（e.g., Away ran the children./On the bed waslast summer, that went to Princeton,

lying the sleeping child.）、動詞 go の〈引用〉gave me. Finally I found it. It was all a

用 法 （ e.g., The tune goes like this./’Yes, offunny color from my wallet, but you

course,’ went the young man.）、そのほか様々な

could still read it.

言語表現が存在し、それらが共謀して(J. D. Salinger, The Catcher in the‘ecological niche’ を与えているからである。

Rye)

では、NP1 from NP2 構文に ‘ecological niche’

この用法では、from の補部名詞句の指示対象を与えているのはどのような言語表現だろ

物と結びつく何らかの出来事が想起される。

うか。ここではその答えとして from の四つ

たとえば(19)ではプールで泳いだという出来の用法を指摘したい。

事、(20)では財布から色が移るという出来事が想起される。その出来事が原因となって水

3.2.時間的起点用法

着が濡れていたり住所のメモに変な色がつ-32-

いていたりするのである。このように原因用のはずである。そしてそのときに頭に焼きつ法では、from の補部名詞句を出来事と結びついた山田太郎の顔の鮮明な像は時間の経過

けるプロセスが関与する。これは、原因用法とともに弱く、薄く、ぼやけたものになってが NP1 from NP2 構文の動機付けの一つとないく。このことを踏まえれば「山田太郎といっている可能性を示唆している。第 2.2 節でう人の顔を覚えている」という主張は、概略、

見た通り、NP1 from NP2 構文の NP2（出来事「山田太郎の顔を見るという過去に生じたないし出来事の場・時を指す名詞句）は本質

出来事によって焼きついたイメージが今も的に出来事と結びついた形で概念化される（何らかの程度）残存しており、そのためそからである。

の顔を思い浮かべることができる」の意の主

また、原因用法の from の補部名詞句が結張であると考えられる。
記憶の元になるこの「過去に生じた出来事」

び付けられる出来事が発生した時点は主節の参照時よりも相対的に過去に位置付けらを導くのに from が用いられる。筆者はこれれる。たとえば(19)で子供がプールに入ってを from の「記憶用法」と呼ぶ（例(21)-(25)）。

いたのは家の中を走り回るよりも前のこと(21)

remembered Harry from the party […]であり、(20)で財布から住所のメモに色が移っていくプロセスはメモに変な色がついて

She is all apology […] for not having

(22)

The

boat-cloaked

figurestepped

いるという結果状態が観測された時点より

forward and extended one hand.

も過去に発生したものである。これは、第 2.2“Thomas? I’m Palmer. I trust you

節で見た「NP2 と結びついている出来事は、

remember me from London?”(COCA)

NP1 from NP2 という大きな名詞句を含んでいる節の参照時よりも相対的に過去に起こっ(23)

For the next few minutes, Miss Emily

た出来事である、という特徴」と似た特徴でwent on reminiscing about different

あり、原因用法を NP1 from NP2 構文の動機付

events from those days […](Kazuo Ishiguro, Never Let Me Go)

けの一つと考える二つ目の根拠となる。
(24)

Perhaps his presence gave the evening
its

3.4.記憶用法

peculiar

qualityoffrom には「記憶用法」と呼ぶべき用法が存

oppressiveness—it stands out in my

在するが、これは一般的に定義されている用

memory from Gatsby’s other parties

法ではないので、ここで筆者が「記憶用法」

that summer.

と呼ぶものがどのような用法かを簡単に説(F.

明したい。そのために、まず記憶とは何かを

Gatsby)(25)

考えておく必要がある。

(26)

Fitzgerald,

The

Great

I ask about his favorite memory from
Pakistan […]たとえば、私が「山田太郎という人の顔を覚えている」と言った場合、私は何を言って

Scott(COCA)

It is something of a revelation that this

いることになるのか。その人の顔の大きさやmemory from over thirty years ago

輪郭などを思い浮かべる能力を発話時におshould have remained with Miss

いて持っているということを言っているわ

Kenton as it has done with me.

けだが、しかしその顔を実際に見るという出(Kazuo Ishiguro, The Remains of the

来事が生起した時点自体は発話時よりも前

Day)

-33-

この用法の from は、本稿の主たる分析対象である NP1 from NP2 構文と興味深い複数

語順は固定的である。次を参照されたい。
(28) a.

mother’s birthday party.

の共通性を見せる。まず、from の補部名詞句

b. * From his mother’s birthday party, heは必ず出来事との関連で理解される。より具remembered the girl.

体的には、from の補部名詞句の指示対象は出来事ないし出来事の場・時である。(21)の the

He remembered the girl from his(29) a.

He remembers nothing from the happydays he spent with his wife.

party と (24) の Gatsby’s other parties thatb. * From the happy days he spent with hissummer は出来事であり、(22)の London と(25)の Pakistan は出来事の場であり、(23)の those

wife, he remembers nothing.

days と(26)の over thirty years ago は出来事の

これは記憶用法の from と本稿が扱っている時である。出来事でも出来事の場・時でもな

NP1 from NP2 構文との形上の類似性を示唆すいものが補部に来ると from の使用が不自然るデータである。
意味的にも、NP1 from NP2 構文は記憶用法になる（例(27)）。
(27) a.

A memory from the rock concertと関連しているものと思われる。上で、NP1

flooded over him.

［出来事］

from NP2 構文の〈意味〉は「主節の参照時よA memory from Philadelphia flooded

りも前に生じた、NP2 の指示する（または NP2

over him.

［出来事の場］と関連づけられる）出来事に参与していたA memory from last month flooded

entity としての NP1」とまとめることができ

over him.

［出来事の時］

る、と論じた。この〈意味〉は、言い換えれ

d. * A memory from my ex-husband’s bad

ば、「主節の参照時よりも前に生じた、NP2

taste in music still disgusts me.

の指示する（または NP2 と関連づけられる）b.
c.

［それ以外］

出来事に参与していた entity として記憶されe. * A memory from the blue guitar heている NP1」ということである。それ以上でused to use flooded over him.

もそれ以下でもない。たとえば例(1)の The［それ以外］

doctor from the football game という言い方か

これは(12)-(17)で見た NP1 from NP2 構文の振ら伺い知れるのは、話し手がその医者をサッる舞いと全く同じである。

カーの試合という過去の出来事に結びつけ

次に、from の記憶用法には、from の補部て記憶しているということだけであり、それ名詞句と結びつけられる出来事が主節の参以上の具体的な意味指定はない。逆に、その照時よりも相対的に過去であるという特徴

ような記憶がないのであれば、話し手は(1)が見られる（例(21)-(26)および(27a-c)参照）。

のようにして from を使うことはできない。

これは第 2.2 節で見た NP1 from NP2 構文の時

このように NP1 from NP2 構文は、形の面では間的ずれの特徴と一致する。

memory も remember も伴わないものの、その．．．．．．．
意味の背後に、言わば必要十分条件的に、記

さらに、記憶用法では NP1 from NP2 の部分が構成素をなすと考えることが可能な場合

憶の意味を隠し持っているのである。

（例(23), (24)-(26), (27a-c)）も不可能な場合

ただし、これらの一連の興味深い類似性に（例(21), (22)）もある 2 が、構成素をなして目を奪われるあまりに、NP1 from NP2 構文といる場合はもちろんのこと、構成素をなして記憶用法（の特に memory from …のタイプ）

いない場合であっても NP1 from NP2 というが全く区別のいらない同一の用法であると-34-

結論してはいけない。NP1 from NP2 構文の(33)

But a room’s or a bag’s contents,

NP1 は NP2 の指示する（ないし NP2 と結び付

John’s belongings or the leftovers

けられている）出来事のフレームに含まれる

from the previous day in a particular

参与者であるが、記憶用法の場合にはそうで

household are necessarily limited,はない。たとえば(27a)の A memory from thedefined, not only in place but also inrock concert を例に取ると、memory は the rockquantity.

concert という出来事のフレームの参与者で(34)(Wierzbicka (1988: 544))

The car was a relic from my old life. I
had no use for the thing in New York,はないだろう。

but […]

こうした事情から、NP1 from NP2 構文と記(Paul Auster, The Brooklyn Follies)

憶用法は極めて密接な関連を持つ別用法と(35)捉えるのが妥当であるように思われる。

He is a remnant from an age when it
was common to know people who had

3.5.残存物用法

3grown up in homes that did not haveindoor plumbing.

英語では、あるものがいつの残りものであ(COCA)

るかという情報を from で導くことができる。

この用法の from は、しばしば leftovers [a relic,

この用法を from の「残存物用法」と呼ぼう

a remnant] など「残り物」を意味する名詞句（例(30)-(35)）。

と直接結合し、leftovers [a relic, a remnant](30)

That was when it came home to me,from …のようにより大きな名詞句を作る（例looking around the band, that apart(33)-(35)）。このとき、 *leftovers [a relic, afrom me and Fabian, there was no one

remnant] which are [were] from …のように

left in our line-up from that summer

which＋be 動詞を加えると非文になることに

we’d met Tibor.

注意されたい。これは、leftovers [a relic, a(31)(Kazuo Ishiguro, Cellists)

remnant] from …が固定的な一つの構文をな

Eddie took what cash he had left from

していることを示しており、本稿が分析対象theとしている NP1 from NP2 構文との関連性を

army

and

spent

it

on

the

reception—roast chicken and Chinese

示唆している。

vegetables and port wine and a man

さ ら に 、 (33)-(35) の leftovers [a relic, awith an accordion.

remnant] from …の from の補部名詞句が指示(Mitch Albom, The Five People You

している時が、主節の参照時よりも前の時点

Meet in Heaven)に位置付けられるという点も、本稿が分析対エディーは軍隊時代の残りのなけ象としている NP1 from NP2 構文の特徴と一なしの現金を手に取り、披露宴に使致する。

った。ローストチキンに中国野菜、
ポートワインを用意し、アコーディ

4.結語
本稿は、NP1 from NP2 構文の特徴を記述し、オン奏者まで呼んだ。
(32)

On the round table in the twilight of

この構文が英語の体系の中でどのような表

the dining room the dishes still sat

現に動機付けられているかを論じた。第 3 節

from dinner.

であげたように from の様々な用法がこの構(Steven Millhauser, A Visit)

文と類似性を示す。動機付けとなる表現は一-35-

つではないのである。だからこそ NP1 from

残存物用法と記憶用法の類似関係には経NP2 構文は英語話者にとって「しっくりくる」

験的基盤が存在していることを意味する。

表現と感じられるのだ。この立場は Lakoff(1987)と Taylor (2004)の想定する、言語体系
内の ‘ecological niche’ という発想と軌を一

参考文献
Goldberg,

Adele(1995)

Constructionにするものである。

Constructions:

GrammarA

ApproachtoArgument Structure, Chicago University
Press, Chicago.

注1. このように〈意味〉を百科事典的知識のGoldberg, Adele (2003) “Constructions: A New

活性化への合図として捉える意味観（動Theoretical Approach to Language,” Trends

的な意味観）については、Langacker (2008:

in Cognitive Sciences, 7:5, 219-24.

39) を参照されたい。

小西友七（1976）『英語の前置詞』大修館書2. 例(21)(22)で NP1 from NP2 の部分が構成

店, 東京.

素をなしているとは考えられないことは、 Lakoff, George (1987) Women, Fire and*Harry from the party was remembered.や*I

Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal

from London am remembered.のように受about the Mind, University of Chicago

け身にすると不自然になるということか

Press, Chicago.
Langacker, Ronald (2008) Cognitive Grammar:

ら確認できる。

A Basic Introduction, Oxford University

3. 残存物用法は記憶用法と密接に関係しあPress, Oxford.

っていると考えられる。残存物とは、ある時点において存在していた物体が時間

Lindstromberg, Seth (1998) English Prepositionsの経過にともなって減少ないし縮小した

Explained, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

結果として見せる姿のことである。そしTaylor, John R. (2004) “The Ecology ofて記憶とは、ある時点において脳裏に鮮Constructions,”

Studies

inLinguistic

明に焼き付けられた像が時間の経過にとMotivation, ed. by Günter Radden andもなって欠けたりぼやけたりしていった

Klaus-Uwe Panther, 49-73, Mouton, Berlin.

その結果として見せる姿のことである。

Tyler, Andrea and Vyvyan Evans (2003) The

ここには明確な類似関係が見出だせる。

Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial

さらに、注意しなければならないことは、

Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition,

残存物と記憶の関係は単に似ているだけ

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

ではないということである。人間がある

Wierzbicka, Anna (1988) The Semantics of

物体を見て「これは残存物だ」とカテゴ

Grammar, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

ライズするような典型的・原始的な状況において、その人はそれが残存物でなかコーパスった時点（もっと数なり量なりが豊かだ

COCA = Davies, Mark. (2008-) The Corpus ofった時点）のことを少なくともある程度

Contemporary

は思い出し想像している（記憶という能

million words, 1990-present. Available

力を活用している）のである。これは、online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.

-36-

AmericanEnglish:450

b. John had his students walk out ofclass.
c. John had his article criticized by his
students.
(4) a. Sensei-ga

Syntactic Analysis for Passives andseito-niteacher-NOM

Causatives in English and Japanese*student-DAT

hihans-(r)are-ta.
Takashi Kayashima

criticize-PASSIVE-PAST.
“A teacher was criticized by his

Graduate School of Kyushu University

students.”
Keywords: voice, causative, passive,b. Sensei-ga

affectedness

seito-niteacher-NOM

student-DAT

kyoushitsu-kara
1. INTRODUCTION

classroom-from

In English, HAVE causatives like (1) can bedeteik-(r)are-ta.

interpreted as passives. In Japanese, -sasego out-PASSIVE-PAST.

causatives like (2) can have permissive meaning“A teacher had his students go out of(not coercion).

class.”(1) John had his students walk out of class.

c. Sensei-ga(Ritter and Rosen 1993: 520)
(2) Sensei-ga

seito-niteacher-NOM

seito-o/ni

student-DAT

ronbun-oteacher-NOM student-ACC/DAT

paper-ACC

kyoushitsu-kara deteik-(s)ase-ta.

hihans-(r)are-ta.

classroom-from go out-CAUSE-PAST.

criticize-PASSIVE-PAST“A teacher made his students go out of“A teacher had his paper criticized byclass.”

his students.”

In addition, we can notice such a contrast

In this paper, the reason why HAVE

between English and Japanese as is shown in (3)causatives and HAVE passives have the sameand (4). What we can see from (3) is that two

construction is explained by the assumption thatkinds of passive constructions, BE passives andthe same functional projection VoiceP exists in

HAVE passives exist in English. In HAVE

bothpassives where intransitive verbs are used verbs

English and Japanese is explained with the same

are used in the infinitive form and in HAVE

assumption. This paper is composed as follows.

passives where transitive verbs are used verbs

In section 2, I introduce Hale and Keyser’s

are past participles. Because of this fact we can(1993) and Miyagawa’s (2010) arguments forsay that three kinds of passive constructions

causative constructions and Ritter and Rosen’s

exist in English. (4) shows that in Japanese just

(1993, 1997) arguments for a unified analysis ofone

causatives and passives, which I will make use

kind

of

passiveconstruction-rarepassives-exists.
(3) a. John was criticized by his students.

constructions.

Thecontrast

betweenof. In section 3, I define the syntactic function
and phonetic character of VoiceP. In section 4, I

-37-

explain the fact that HAVE causatives andbackwards, we recognize John as a participant

HAVE passives in English have the same

who took part in the event before it happened,

representation. Also, the contrast between

which means that John is a Causer. In contrast,

English and Japanese is explained in terms ofwhen the event is aspectually extended forwards,

the phonetic character of v and Voice in each

we recognize John as a participant who took part

language. In section 5 I sum up this paper.

in the event after it happened, so John is anExperiencer.
(6) [F1P John [F1’ F1 [F2P his students

2. PREVIOUS STUDIES◆Hale and Keyser (1993), Miyagawa (2010)
According to Hale and Keyser (1993) and[F2’ F2 [VP his students [walk out of

Miyagawa (2010), when a new argument isintroduced by new a vP above a certain vP, theclass]]]]]]

introduced argument is interpreted as a Causer,(Ritter and Rosen 1997: 302, 316)

and the causative interpretation is guaranteed

Although this analysis elegantly captures two

syntactically. Concretely, in (5), a syntacticallydifferent functions of have, it is not clear which

lower vP expresses the event that students walk

functional heads correspond to which. If theout of class. When a new argument, John, isfunctional heads are specific to have, thisintroduced by a new vP, this argument isanalysis is too stipulative to have explanatoryinterpreted as a Causer, so this sentence isadequacy. In this paper, I also assume that haveinterpreted as a causative sentence.

is amalgam of two functional heads, but these(5) [vP John [v’ v [vP his students [v’ v [VP walkout of class]]]]]

functional heads are not specific to have.
Concretely, have is amalgam of v and Voice. I(cf. Miyagawa (2010)

define have in the next section.

Hale and Keyser (1993))
In this paper, I will modify this analysis. I

3. PROPOSAL

assume that we can introduce a new argument by

In this chapter, I define VoiceP in detail. VoiceP

not only vP but also VoiceP. I define thisin passives is the counterpart of vP in actives.

functional projection in detail in section 3.

While v assigns agent to a DP in its Spec, Voice

Based on this, I argue that construction (5) is not

assigns theme to a DP in its Spec. Note that thisenough to produce a causative interpretation

theme is different from the theta role which issyntactically. I discuss this issue in section 4.

assigned by V. From now on, we call the theta role
which is assigned in VoiceP Spec the “affected
theme,” which will make us interpret the DP as a

◆ Ritter and Rosen (1993, 1997)
Ritter and Rosen (1993, 1997) provide a

Benefactee or a Malefactee. VoiceP projects above

unified analysis for HAVE causatives and HAVE

VP in passives just like vP projects above VP in

passives. According to them, have is anactives. It has already been shown by Merchantamalgam of two functional heads, which extend(2013) and Harley (2013) that different functionalan event temporally expressed by VP. For

projections project in actives and passives. In

instance, in (6), when the event where students

English, as V is assumed to move to v to be a root

walk out of class is aspectually extended

form in actives, I also assume that V moves to-38-

Voice to be a past participle in passives. In addition,

notion of permission, so (5) is not enough to

as v and Voice cannot be realized alone

guarantee a causative interpretation. The functional

phonetically, I assume that when V cannot move toprojection which ensures that the causee had somev or Voice, Voice moves to v to be realized as have.

coercion in a certain causative sentence is VoiceP.
(9) a. John had his students walk out of

The characterization of VoiceP is stated in (7).
(7) a.

class. (=(1))

A DP in its Spec is assigned
affectedb. Voicetheme.
head

participle

b. [TP John [T’ T [vP John [v’ vrealizesaspastwith V and have

[VoiceP his students [Voice’ Voice

For instance, let us clarify the function of VoiceP[vP his students [v’ v [VP]]]]]]]]]

with v.
by looking at (8) which is a typical passive
derivation. In (8), VoiceP projects above the VP.

In (9b), VoiceP projects above the lower vP, andDP moves from the complement position to VoiceP

his students moves to the VoiceP Spec. At thisSpec, where it is assigned affected theme. V moves

point, his students is assigned affected theme. his

to Voice to be a past participle.

students has also been assigned agent in the lower(8) [TP DP [T’ T [VoiceP DP [Voice’ Voice [VP V

vP Spec, so the interpretation is that this argument
had some coercion and as a result this argument

DP]]]]]

went out of class. When the new argument John isintroduced by new vP, the source of the coercion is

In this paper, as I assume VoiceP to be a

attributed to John, so John is interpreted as acounterpart of vP, just as vP can introduce a new

Causer. V has already merged with the lower v, so

argument as an agent, I assume that VoiceP can

Voice moves to the higher v to be have.

introduce a new argument as an affected theme.

Then, let us consider the derivation of (9a)when it is interpreted as a passive. In (10b), just

4. ANALYSIS

like (9b), VoiceP projects above the lower vP. What

4.1. Causatives and Passives in English

is different from (9b) is that his students does not

First, let us consider how we can capture the fact

move to VoiceP Spec. Rather, John is merged here.

that have can express causative meaning and

As a result John is assigned affected theme, so thepassive meaning employing the assumption in (7).

interpretation of the construction is that students

As mentioned in section 2, I claim that structure

went out of class and John had some affectedness(5) is not enough to produce a causative

because of this event. In sum, whether DP in vP

interpretation. When the lower vP projects, theSpec moves to VoiceP Spec or new DP is merged

event where students go out of class is expressed.

in VoiceP Spec determines the Voice of certain

When a new vP introduces an agent John, which is

HAVE sentence.

an initiator of the event, a permissive interpretationarises.

In

order

to

provideacausative(10)

a. John had his students walk out ofclass. (=(1))
b. [TP John [T’ T [vP v [VoiceP John

interpretation, we have to guarantee that students
had some coercion from John. In other words, the[Voice’ Voice [vP his students [v’ v

notion of causative is more complicated than the-39-

[VP]]]]]]]](12) a. Taroo-ga Hanako-o syasin-ni

utu-s-(r)u.

Next, I show the derivation of HAVE passives
wheretransitive

verbs

are

used.

What

b. Hanako-ga syasin-ni utu-r-(r)uisremarkable is that while verbs are root form when

(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004: 2)

they are intransitive, they are past participle when(12) shows that transitive verbs and unaccusative

they are transitive. In (11a), as two affectedverbs have different form in Japanese. This factargument, John and his article exist, two VoicePs

implies that v in Japanese has an individual

project.

his article which is merged in thephonetic form. As Voice in passives is assumed tocomplement position of V moves to the lower

be a counterpart of v in actives in this paper, I

VoiceP Spec to be assigned affected theme. V

assume that Voice also has individual phonetic

moves to Voice to be past participle. Then John isform in Japanese, “-rare.”merged in the higher VoiceP Spec to be assigned

Then, let us consider the derivation ofaffected theme. As both his article and John arecausatives in Japanese first. As in (13b), theassignedthisderivation is the same as English as in (9b). VoiceP

construction that an article was criticized and John

projects above the lower vP, into whose Spec seito

had some affectedness by this event.

moves to be assigned affected theme. As this(11)

affectedtheme,

weinterpret

a. John had his article criticized by hisargument is assigned agent and affected theme, it isstudents. (=(3c))

interpreted as a Causee. So when sensei isb. [TP John [T’T [vP [v [VoiceP John

introduced by a new vP, it is naturally interpreted
as a Causer. As a result, the whole construction is[Voice’Voice [VoiceP his article

interpreted as a causative sentence.
(13)[Voice’Voice [VP criticize his

a. Sensei-ha

seito-okyoushitsu-karadeteik-(s)ase-ta. (=(2))

b. [TP sensei [T’ [sensei [v’ [seito
article]]]]]]]]]
Whether the verbs are root form or past participle[Voice’ [seito [v’ [VP] v]] Voice ]] v ]]is determined by whether vP or VoiceP project
above VP. When verbs are intransitive, vP projects

T ]]above VP, so the verb moves to v to be a root form.
When verbs are transitive, VoiceP projects above

What should be noted is that we have assumed that

VP, so the verb moves to Voice to be a pastv and Voice have individual phonetic form inparticiple.

Japanese. According to this assumption, thephonetic form of the verb in (13) should be“deteik-(r)are-(s)ase-ta,” but in fact the appropriate

4.2. Causatives and Passives in Japanese
As I mentioned in section 3, v and Voice cannot
be realized phonetically by themselves in English.

form is “detei-(s)ase-ta.” Let us return to this issue
in 4.3.

In contrast, according to Murasugi and Hashimoto

The next issue is why we can interpret –sase(2004), we can assume that v and Voice havecausatives in Japanese as permissive sentences. In

individual phonetic form respectively in Japanese.

English, we have to use specific lexical items suchas allow or let in order to express permissive-40-

b. [TP sensei [T’ [VoiceP sensei [Voice’interpretation. This is because v cannot be realized
by itself in English. In contrast, v has its own[vP seito [v’ [VP] v ]] Voice ]] T ]]phonetic form in Japanese, so vPs can project insuccession. A construction like (14) guarantees apermissive interpretation syntactically.
(14)

Finally, consider

indirectpassives wheretransitive verbs are used. As in English, twoa. Sensei-ha seito-ni kyoushitsu-kara

VoicePs project in order to assign affected theme todeteik-(s)ase-ta. (=(2))

two DPs.

b. [TP sensei [T ’[vP sensei [v’(17)a. Sensei-ha

seito-nironbun-ohihans-(r)are-ta. (=(4c))

b. [TP sensei [T’[VoiceP sensei [Voice’[vP seito [v’ [VP] v ]] v ]] T ]]Above the lower vP which expresses the event[VoiceP ronbun [Voice’ [VP ronbun

where students go out of class, the new vP projects
to introduce the argument sensei. This argument,
sensei, has no relationship to the event happening.

hihans] Voice ]] Voice ]] T ]]The event occurs even if sensei does not doHere, the same phonetic problem that we saw

anything. Thus, sensei has only to allow thewith causatives also arises. If Voice has thestudents to go out of class. In this way, we can

individual phonetic form –rare in Japanese, theguarantee a permissive interpretation syntactically

representation should be “hihans-(r)are-rare-ta”.

by projecting vPs in a row in Japanese.

However, in fact the appropriate realization is

Let us consider passives in Japanese. First, as
for direct passives, derivations are not different“hihans-(r)are-ta”. In the next section, we consider
this phonetic problem.

from that in English (see example (15)). VoiceP
projects above VP, and sensei moves to its Spec to

4.3. Realization of Voicebe assigned affected theme. Voice has the phonetic

As mentioned above, the structure in (17b) should

form –rare, so the construction in (15b) is realized

be phonetically realized as (18).

as (15a).
(15)

(18)
a. Sensei-ha seito-ni hihans-(r)are-ta.
(=(4a))* Sensei-ga ronbun-o seito-ni
hihans-(r)are-rare-ta.

However, (18) is ungrammatical. Rather, when web. [TP sensei [T’ [VoiceP sensei [Voice’removeone-rare,

thesentence

becomegrammatical. Interestingly, the same problem is[VP sensei hihans] Voice ]] T ]]noticed in causatives where two instances of
causation exist as pointed by Kuroda (1993).

Second, we look at indirect passives where(19)

a. George-ga

Naomi-niintransitive verbs are used. While v helps the

George-NOM Naomi-DAT

phonetic realization of Voice in English, Voice is

Ken-orealized by itself in Japanese, which means that the

Ken-ACC

representation of indirect passives does not differ

oki-sase-ru.

from that of direct passives.

get up-CAUSE-PRESENT(16) a. Sensei-ha seito-ni kyoushitsu-karadeteik-(r)are-ta. (=(4b))“George makes Naomi make Ken get
up.”

-41-

②Only one of the same sound in succession(Kuroda 1993: 10)

b. [TP George [T’ [vP George [v’is pronounced.
Phonetic realization of causatives follows (21①).

[VoiceP Naomi[Voice’ [vP Naomi [v’Considering the existence of v and Voice, thesound we expect is “rare-sase”. However, as v
suppresses realization of Voice, only –sase is[VoiceP Ken [Voice’ [VP Ken oki]pronounced. This generalization also captures the

Voice ]] v ]] Voice ]] v ]] T ]]phonetic characteristic of passives of causatives.

(ibid.)

When

wepassivize

causatives,

the

whole

In (19a), we can find two coercions. One is frommorpheme of the verb is “sase-rare” because v

Naomi to Ken, and the other is from George tosuppresses one of the two Voices. As for indirect

Naomi. Thus, the derivation of (19a) should be

passives or double-causatives where we expect(19b). First, a VoiceP projects above the VP whichsounds like “rare-rare” or “sase-sase”, one of themshows the event where Ken gets up. Then Ken

is suppressed following (21②). Of course thismoves to VoiceP Spec, which means that Ken had

generalization needs appropriate explanation withsome coercion before he got up. Next, whenclear evidence, which I leave for future work.

Naomi is introduced by vP, it is decided that theperson who awoke Ken is Naomi. After that

5. SUMMARY

another VoiceP projects, and Naomi moves to its

In this paper, I have shown the close

Spec, which means that Naomi awoke Ken after

relationship between syntactic structure of passives

she had some coercion. When another vP projects

and that of causatives, assuming that VoiceP

above it with George in its Spec, it is decided thatassigns affected theme to DP in its Spec. I havethe person who made Naomi awake Ken is George.

also explained why HAVE causatives and HAVE

Looking at (19b), we can notice two sets of v andpassives have the same representation despite their

Voice. Therefore, when (19b) is phoneticallydifferent meanings. In addition, I have explained

realized, the whole pronunciation should be (20).

the contrast in terms of passives and causatives(20)* George-ga

Naomi-ni

between English and Japanese with the same

George-NOM Naomi-DAT

assumption. I show in (22) and (23) what

Ken-ointerpretation we can guarantee syntactically in

Ken-ACC

English and Japanese. Both of them can produce

oki-sase-sase-ru.

actives projecting vP above VP, passives projecting

get up-CAUSE-CAUSE-PRESENT

VoiceP above VP, and causatives projecting vP and(Kuroda 1993: 10)

VoiceP above VP. As for indirect passives, inHowever, (20) is not grammatical, and when weJapanese the Voice head has individual phonetic

remove one -sase from it, it becomes grammatical.

form so the form is the same as direct passives

Regarding these facts, I propose the following

while in English the Voice head has no appropriate

generalization.

phonetic form so it needs to make an amalgam(21)

Realization of v and Voice in Japanesewith v, so indirect passives and causatives have the① v suppresses realization of Voicesame representation. Only in Japanese can weguarantee a permissive interpretation syntactically-42-

projecting vP in succession above VP while in

Miyagawa,

Sigeru(2010)“BlockingEnglish since we do not have the same method so

Causatives:

we need specific lexical items such as allow or let.

Across Derivations,” Proceedings of the 5th
Formal(22) English
F1P

F2P
vP
VoicePvP

VoiceP

vP
vP

toJapanese

Murasugi, Keiko and Tomoko Hashimoto (2004)“Three Pieces of Acquisition Evidence forthe v-VP Frame,” Nanzan Linguistics 1,
1-19.

F2P
vP
VoiceP
VoiceP
vP

interpretation
activespassives
casatives
permissives

Ritter,example(15) (16) (17)
(13)
(14)

(1993)and Linguistic Theory 11, 519-555.
Ritter, Elizabeth and Sara Rosen (1997) “TheFunction of Have,” Lingua 101, 295-321.

* Let me express my sincere gratitude to Nobuaki
Nishioka for valuable suggestions and comments. I
am also grateful to Jenifer Larson-Hall for stylistic
improvement.
REFERENCES

Hale, Kenneth and Samuel J. Keyser (1993) “On
Structure

Elizabeth and Sara Rosen“Deriving Causation,” Natural Language

NOTES

Argument

Approaches

Competition

Linguistics.

interpretation example
actives
direct passives (8)causatives(9) (10) (11)indirect passives(23) Japanese
F1P

Unexpected

and

and

the

LexicalExpression of Syntactic Relations,” The
View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of
Sylvain Bromberger, ed. By Hale Kenneth
and Samuel J. Keyser, 53-108, MIT Press,
Cambridge.
Harley, Heidi (2013) “External Arguments andthe Mirror Principle: On the Distinctness of
Voice and v,” Lingua 125, 34-57.
Kratzer, Angelica (1996) “Severing the External
Argument from its Verb,” Phrase Structure
and the Lexicon, ed. by J. Rooryck and L.
Zaring, 109-138, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Kuroda, S-Y. (1993) “Lexical and Productive
causatives in Japanese: An Examination of
the Theory of Paradigmatic Structure,”
Journal of Japanese Linguistics 15, 1-82.
Merchant, Jason (2013) “Voice and Ellipsis,”
Linguistic Inquiry 44, 77-108.

-43-

ある(Ko, 2007)。また，韓国語，ロシア語，フランス語などにも，英語ほど顕著ではないが
有 声 効 果 の 存 在 が 確 認 さ れ て い る (Chen,
1970; Mack, 1982)。
	  したがって，有声効果は普遍的な音声メカ
ニズムに起因するという考え方がある一方で(Ko, 2007)，英語の「1.5 倍」という効果の大きさには言語固有の文法が関係しているとい

後続子音による母音長の変化：

う見方もある(House, 1961)。

幼児・成人の日本語コーパス分析と成人の英語学習データ	  また，有声効果に関する音節の影響につい(Durational Variations Caused by the Followingても検討がなされている。いわゆる大きな有Consonant: Corpus Analyses of Japanese

声効果が得られるのは単音節語同士の比較のChildren and Adults, and Adult English Learners’

場合であり，2 音節の単語では効果が著しく

Production)

減少することが分かっている(Klatt, 1973)。
	  本稿では，まず普遍的な音声メカニズムに*起因するという仮説を検討するため，幼児お**よび成人の日本語話者における有声効果の有北原真冬 (Mafuyu Kitahara)

米山聖子 (Kiyoko Yoneyama)

無を検証する。その上で，英語の大きな有声*

早稲田大学 (Waseda University),

効果を英語学習者が獲得できるのかどうか，

大東文化大学 (Daito Bunka University)

習熟度によって分けた 2 群の被験者の産出デ**ータから検討する。
キーワード：母音長，有声効果，言語獲得，
2. 日本語音声コーパスの分析

第二言語，英語学習

2.1 乳幼児コーパス	  NTT 乳幼児音声データベース(Amano et al.,
1. はじめに2008)所収の音声データのうち，ラベリングが	  英語の母音が，有声子音の前では無声子音付されている 3 名分を使用して，有声効果のの前よりも持続時間が長いことは，これまで検討を行った。音声はいずれも家庭内での自に多くの実験によって確かめられている

然発話であり，出生からおよそ５歳までの期(House, 1961; Mack, 1982)。これについて「硬間が録音されている。ラベリングに従って，

音前での短音化(pre-fortis clipping)」という呼全ての母音について直後の子音環境ごとの持び名もあるが(Hattori, p.c.; Wells, 1990)，本稿

続時間の平均を図 1 に示す。なお，以降のグでは，これを有声効果(voicing effect)と呼ぶ

ラフにおいても全て，グレーが有声子音環境，(Chen, 1970)。

白が無声子音環境を表す。また縦軸は常にミ	  有声効果は成人の英語発話では約 1.5 倍にリ秒を単位とし，標準誤差をエラーバーとしも及ぶと言われている(House, 1961)。例えば，て付している。

“bed”と“bet”では前者の母音の長さは後者の

	  結果は，破裂音環境においても(t=-12.96,	
 1.5 倍になるということである。
英語話者の乳df=6988)，摩擦音環境においても(t=-4.75,	
 幼児でも同様の効果が見られるという報告も

df=1293)有声効果は有意であった。また調音

-44-

200

法による主効果も有意であった(F[1,2]	
 =	
 

150

108.1,	
 p<0.01)。	
 	
  次に母音の高さによって分類したものを図

[ms]
100

2 に示す。いずれの場合も有声効果は有意に現れた(高母音:	
 t=-8.72,	
 df=3811;	
 中母音:	
 50

t=-9.19,	  df=2470;	
  低 母 音 :	  t=-6.66,	
 0

df=2265)。また母音の高さによる主効果も有意であった(F[2,2]=22.13,	
 p<0.05)。	
 

0−10

10−20

20−30

30−40

40−

[Months]

Fric

0

Stop

50

0

100

50

200

[ms]

300

[ms]
100

400

150

500

200

図 3: 10 ヶ月ごとの短母音の母音長

図 1: 破裂音と摩擦音環境における母音長

0−10

10−20

20−30

30−40

40−

[Months]200

図 4: 10 ヶ月ごとの長母音の母音長150

2.2 乳幼児コーパス分析の解釈

[ms]
100

	
  乳幼児コーパスのデータ分析において特筆すべきことは，日本人話者が日本語において50も極めて初期から有声効果を示すという事実0である。また，子音の調音法および母音の高High V

Mid V

Low V

さという調音的な特性によって母音の長さは全般に影響を受けるが，一貫して有声効果が

図 2: 母音の高さ別現れる。これらの点を併せて考えると，有声	  次に，発達段階による母音長の変化を 10

効果には普遍的・音声的なメカニズムが強くヶ月ごとに区切って表す。ラベリングにおい関与していると考えられる。

て短母音とされているものと長母音とされて	
  また，短母音・長母音のいずれも，10 ヶ月いるものを，それぞれ図 3 と図 4 に示す。	
 ごとの大まかな傾向として短くなっている。

	  短母音の場合，30-40 ヶ月の期間を除く全

特に長母音は 0-10 ヶ月と比べて 40 ヶ月以降ての期間において有声効果は有意に現れたには 2/3 程度の長さになっている。これは，(以降 t 検定の結果は省略)。しかし長母音の場

日本語の音韻において弁別的な母音の長短と合は 20-30 ヶ月および 40 ヶ月以上の期間ではいうカテゴリーを確立していく過程を表して有声効果が有意差を持たなかった。

いると推察できる。
2.3 成人コーパス	  日本語話者の成人データとして Corpus of-45-

Spoken Japanese (CSJ: Maekawa, 2003)のいわている。

ゆるコアデータを用いた。これは 201 人の学	  一方，長母音では両唇摩擦音の場合は有意会講演などを主とした自発音声にラベリング

差 が な く ， 舌 頂 摩 擦 音 (CorFric) と 破 擦 音や種々の韻律情報が付されたものである。コ(Affricates)の場合には逆転が現れている。

ーパスのラベルに従い，母音の長短，および後続子音の調音法および調音点で分類した母2.4 成人コーパス分析の解釈

音長を図 5 と 6 に示す。

	  成人データの特徴は，有声効果が特に長母音の場合に一貫したものではないことである。
一方で，データ全体を通じて，短母音は160

60-100ms，長母音は 100-160ms というカテゴ

140

リーが成立していることが分かる。これは乳120

幼児において現れていた音韻的な長短の弁別

100

Short Vowelが完成した形であると解釈できる。乳幼児の

[ms]
80

データの傾向と併せて考えると，普遍的・音60

声的な有声効果が，言語固有の長短弁別によ40って覆い隠されているのではないかと推察で

0

20

きる。
LabStop

CorStop

DorStop

LabFric

CorFric

DorFric

3. 英語学習者の産出実験

Affricates3.1 実験の手法

図 5: 様々な子音環境における短母音	  日本人の英語学習者において，有声効果は160現れるのか否かを検証するために，24 名の被140

験者について産出実験を行った。素材は

120

bet-bed, beat-bead など 16 の最小対を Say ___100

Long Vowel

now というキャリア文に入れたものとした。

[ms]
80

それらを，Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2013)の60

ExperimentMFC 機能を改変して PC スクリー

40

ンにランダムな順序で提示し，各単語につい20て 6 回の発話を 44.1kHz/16bit でデジタル録音

0

した。音声分析も Praat を用い，まず Text Grid
LabStop

CorStop

DorStop

LabFric

CorFric

DorFric

Affricates(silences)機能を用いて閾値-25dB で自動的に分節した後に，スペクトログラムと波形を目

図 6: 様々な子音環境における長母音

視して測定箇所を決定した。
	  ま ず ， 短 母 音 に お い て は 両 唇 破 裂 音

被験者は大学生および大学院生で，3 ヶ月(LabStop)において有声効果が逆転している。

以上の英語圏滞在経験を持つ者を「上級」，3

すなわち，無声子音環境の方が母音が長い。

ヶ月未満を「標準」と分類した。「上級」のその他の調音法・調音点の分類においては，

1 名が録音時の不備によりデータを採用でき

音韻体系上存在しない有声の両唇や軟口蓋のなかったため，合計 23 名について分析を行っ

摩擦音との比較を除き，全て有声効果が現れ

た。

-46-

準 偏 差 48.4; 有 声 環 境 で の 平 均 母 音 長
170.4ms, 標準偏差 58.9)であった。

3.2 産出データの分析	  まずは，標準・上級の区別なく被験者群全200

体での平均値を示す。後続子音の調音法，調音点によって分類したものを図 7 に，母音の150

高さとTenseness によって分類したものを図8

Advanced

Basic

[ms]
100

0

150

50

200

[ms]
100

に示す。

50

図 9: 習熟度別の比較

03.3 産出データの解釈
Stop

Fric

Affr

Lab

Cor

	
  子音環境が様々でも，母音を場合分けしてDorも一貫して有声効果が観察された。特に

図 7: 子音環境による分類

Tenseness の有無に関わらず有声効果が現れ
200

たことは，日本語の長短母音における有声効

150

果の現れ方の違いと比べて非常に示唆的である。標準レベルの英語学習者の母音は，音価

[ms]
100

としては英語音素にはほど遠い場合が多いにも関わらず，Tense 母音と Nontense 母音につ50

いては日本語の母音の長短をそのまま当ては0

めているのではないことが推測される。
High

Mid

Low

Tense

また，上級の話者が英語の 150%という値

Nontenseに向かって近づいていることは，普遍的・音図 8: 母音の高さと Tenseness による分類

声的な有声効果が第二言語学習によって再び
	
  どちらの図においても，全ての分類におい顕在化し，さらに促進されていると考えるこて有声効果は有意に現れた。続いて標準と上とができる。

級話者の比較を図 9 に示す。
4. まとめと展望	  グラフから明らかなように，上級の話者は標準よりも大きな有声効果を示す(習熟度と本稿では乳幼児および成人のコーパスデ

有 声 効 果 の 交 互 作 用 は F[1,20]=18.55,	
 ータと英語学習者の産出実験を分析し，母音p<0.01 で有意)。しかしながら，有声効果の長に対する後続子音の有声性の影響を見た。

大きさは標準で 113% (無声環境での平均母	
  第一言語としての日本語において，乳幼児

音長 123.9ms, 標準偏差 41.7; 有声環境での平期に有声効果が存在するということは，これ

均母音長 148.3ms, 標準偏差 51.5)，上級でまで指摘されたことがない発見である。さら125% (無声環境での平均母音長 135.9ms, 標に，その効果が成人の特に長母音においては-47-

一貫しなくなるということも，これまで注目

Chen, M. (1970) “Vowel Length Variation as a

されてこなかった。これは，長短母音の音韻

Function of the Voicing of the Consonant

的確立に伴って，有声効果が何らかの形で抑Environment”, Phonetica 22, 129-159.
House, A. S. (1961) “On Vowel Duration in

制されていると考えることができる。
	  一方，第二言語学習においては，母語ではEnglish”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of

抑制されていた有声効果が再び現れ，標準かAmerica 33, 1174-1178.

ら上級に進むことで促進されたと考えられる。

Klatt, D. (1973) “Interaction between Two Factors

つまり，有声効果とは普遍的・音声的な基盤

that Influence Vowel Duration”, Journal of theを持ちながらも，個別言語の音韻的特質によ

Acoustical Society of America 54, 1102-1104.

って抑制・促進されうるものではなかろうか。

Ko, E-S. (2007) “Acquisition of Vowel Duration in	  今後の展望としては，この「抑制・促進」

Children Speaking American English”, Proc. ofの機序について仮説を立て，より詳しいコーInterspeech 2007, 1881-1884.

パス分析や実験によって検証していく必要がMack, M. (1982) “Voicing-dependent Vowelある。また，Klatt (1973)が指摘した音節の影

Duration in English and French: Monolingual

響について，詳しく検討する必要がある。日

and Bilingual Production”, Journal of the

本語はモーラを基本とする音節の連鎖によっ

Acoustical Society of America, 71(1), 173-178.

て成り立っており，単音節よりも多音節の単Maekawa, K. (2003) “Corpus of Spontaneous語が圧倒的に多い。しかし単音節の単語ではJapanese: Its Design and Evaluation”, Proc. ofそもそも，有声性の弁別を持つ後続子音は存

the ISCA & IEEE Workshop on Spontaneous

在しない。従って，本稿で見た日本語のデー

Speech Processing and Recognition (SSPR2003)

タを英語の多音節語の場合と比較する必要が[CD-ROM].
Tauberer, J. I. & K. Evanini (1999) “Intrinsic Vowelある。
	  知覚において，このような音素レベル未満

Duration and the Post-vocalic Voicing Effect:の差異をどのように処理しているのか，それSome Evidence from Dialects of Northが第一言語と第二言語ではどう違うのか，とAmericanいう問題についても，これから取り組んでい[CD-ROM].

English”,

Eurospeech

1999

Wells, J. C. (1990) “Syllabification and Allophony”, in

かなければならないであろう。

S. Ramsaran (ed.), Studies in the Pronunciation of
参考文献

English, A Commemorative Volume in Honour of

Amano, S., T. Kondo, & K. Kato (2008)

A.C. Gimson, London anKlad New York: Routledge,
76-86.

“Development of NTT Infant Speech Database”,
Technical report of IEICE, 108(59), 29-34.
Boersma, P. & D. Weenink, Praat: Doing Phonetics
byComputer,version

Program],

University

Netherlands.

Online:5.3.39[ComputerofAmsterdam,

http://www.praat.org/,

retrieved on 6 January 2013.

-48-

える。そのとき、以下の三点を主張する。
（１）ある方言では、単数名詞句の定冠詞がこの状況で適切に使用されるのは、定冠詞を持つ単数名詞句とそれに隣接する述語の結びつきがこれらの範疇に対する文脈と前提が伴う我々の慣習に基づいて十分に予測可
定冠詞の一意性理論に対する例外

能であり期待することができるものである(Some exceptions to the uniqueness theory

ときかつそのときに限る。

of the definite article)（２）別の方言では、単数名詞句の定冠詞がこの状況で適切に使用されるのは、述語が肯

北村 久(Hisashi Kitamura)

定されてその行為が起こり、かつ、定冠詞を北海道大学専門研究員(Hokkaido University)持つ単数名詞句とそれに隣接する当該の述語の結びつきがこれらの範疇に対する文脈

キーワード：定冠詞、一意性、予測可能性、と前提が伴う我々の慣習に基づいて十分に総称、個別性は予測不可能であるときかつそのときに限る。
（３）もう一つの方言は、定冠詞の一意性理

１．はじめに論の反例または定冠詞の総称用法の理論の定冠詞の振る舞いの研究は多岐に渡るが、例外を示す。

定冠詞はそれが付随する名詞句のfamiliarity を表すという説と定冠詞のある

２．先行研究Birner and Ward (1994)は、以下の例に注

名詞句の指示対象は一意的に同定可能なものであるという説に大別される。両方の理論目する。

の 紹 介 と し て は Lyons (1999) と Abbott(2004) が 挙 げ ら れ る 。 前 者 の 理 論 で はChristopherson (1939)、Jespersen (1943)、
Heim (1982, 1983)などの研究がある。後者の理論では、Russell (1905)、Hawkins (1978,
1991)、 Kadmon (1990)、 Gundel et al.
(1993)などの研究がある。
本研究は、Birner and Ward (1994)の議論に焦点を当てて、定冠詞の指示対象が一意的(4) [To spouse, in a room with threeequally salient windows]
It’s hot in here.

thewindow?

Could you please open
(BirnerandWard(1994:93))

彼らは、この例に基づいて以下の論点が正しいと主張する。

に同定可能であるという主張の例外は、その指示対象が区別されなかったり、関連する仕(5)…wheneverthereferentisnot方で区別することができなかったりする場

uniquely identifiable on the basis of the合であるという論点を批判的に検討して代

definite NP it must be both undifferenti-

替案を提示する。本研究は、当該の現象につated and not relevantly differentiable in

いて三種類の方言を検討する。定冠詞がそれcontext. (Birner and Ward (1994:93))を保持した単数名詞句に対応する対象が複数ある状況で使われている発話出来事を考つまり、彼らの主張に従うと、定冠詞付きの-49-

名詞句の指示対象が一意的に同定可能であ提する。

るという主張の例外は、その指示対象が区別

以下の例を見てほしい。

されなかったり、関連する仕方で区別することができなかったりする場合であることに(9) [Suppose that there are three equallyなる。

salient windows.

今しがた、Birner and Ward (1994)の定冠
詞の指示対象の一意性に関する例外的場合の一般化を見た。しかし、以下の例を見てほSuppose that the

speaker wants to know whether or not thehearer has a strong power.]#Could you please destroy the window?

(10) [Suppose that there are three win-

しい。

dows each of which differs with respect to(6) [Suppose that there are three windows

the size and the form. Suppose that theeach of which differs with respect to the

speaker wants to know whether or not thesize and the form.] Could you please open

hearer has a strong power.]

the window?

#Could you please destroy the window?

(11) [Suppose that there are three equally

今考慮中の方言ではこの例は完全に適切である。定冠詞の指示対象が、区別されなかっ

salient windows.]#John destroyed the window.

たり、関連する仕方で区別することができか(12) [Suppose that there are three win-

ったりする場合でもその指示対象が一意的

dows each of which differs with respect toに同定可能でなければならないという主張

the size and the form.]の例外を観察することができる。

#John destroyed the window.

３．総称的用法を示す方言

これらの例に（１）の一般化が考えられる。
この一般化と似た分析として、Fillmore

３．１．一般化
当該の方言は、あるイギリス人話者に由来(1977,1987)の言う frame を用いた定式化

する。ここでは、以下の状況に於ける参与者が考えられるが、こうしたタイプの分析とにとって、一つの特定的な窓が問題になって我々の一般化は異なる。その理由は、我々のいないものとする。

一般化は文脈や前提を考慮に入れており、典型的な対象や出来事だけでなく、個別特定的(7) [Suppose that there are three equallyな事象を反映した振る舞いもその予測の中

salient windows.]に含めているからである。

(8) [Suppose that there are three windows

３．２．暫定的説明

John opened the window.

each of which differs with respect to thesize and the form.]

当該の例について、述語が表す事象と定冠
詞付きの単数名詞句の指示との関連は予測John opened the window.

可能であるから、その単数名詞句の指示は述語の指示と個別に関連させられるものでは（４）と（６）から（８）の例は自然である。

なくその述語との関係に関して一般的・総称

話者の報告ではこれは総称的用法であると的・任意的である。例えば、述語“open”いう。これを客観的に示す必要があるが、こと単数名詞句“the window”との結び付き

れを将来の研究にゆだね、本研究はこれを前は予測可能であるから構成要素“open the-50-window”が一般性を帯びた独立した単位とdows each of which differs with respect to

して働き、そこに含まれる単数名詞句“thethe size and the form. Suppose that thewindow”の指示はそれに応じて一般的・総称的・任意的なものになり得るわけである。
その単数名詞句の指示対象は、その名詞句に適合し、かつ、話者と聞き手が接近できる対

speaker wants to know whether or not thehearer has a strong power.]?Could you please destroy the window?

(19) [Suppose that there are three equally

象であればどれでもよいことになる。よって、 salient windows.]
当該の場合に於いて、複数の指示対象の存在

John destroyed the window.

を許容され、その中のどの対象が選ばれても(20) [Suppose that there are three win-

よいということになる。

dows each of which differs with respect to

この用法は総称的用法であるから、定冠詞の用法の一つは一意的存在の用法であると

the size and the form.]

John destroyed the window.

いう一意性理論の反例ではない。
この方言では、（１９）と（２０）は自然で
４．一意的存在の用法を示す方言ある。ここでは動詞“destroy”がその文脈

４．１．一般化内での出現を十分予測できないので意味上アメリカ人のある話者は以下の直観を持の焦点が当たることになり、かつ、肯定されっている。ここでは、以下の状況に於ける参てすでに起こったことであることに注意し与者にとって、一つの特定的な窓が問題になてほしい。この例の動詞は、すでに起こったっていないものとする。

ことだから、「窓」という名詞の指示対象の性質の一つを作り出す。従って、すでに起こ(13) [Suppose that there are three equally

った動詞の行為への焦点によって、その性質

salient windows.]

による名詞の「窓」の個別化が進み、一意的?Could you please open the window?

存在の用法の方言の下で、その一つの「窓」(14) [Suppose that there are three win-が選び出されて指示が達成される。疑問文のdows each of which differs with respect to

中で同じ動詞“destroy”が使われていていthe size and the form.]る（１７）と（１８）では動詞の行為がすで?Could you please open the window?

に起こっていないので、この例の動詞は「窓」(15) [Suppose that there are three equallyという名詞の指示対象の性質の一つを作り

salient windows.]

出さない。従って、一意的存在の用法の方言?John opened the window.

の下で、動詞に当たっている焦点が複数の(16) [Suppose that there are three win-

「窓」から一つの「窓」を個別化して選び出

dows each of which differs with respect to

すように働かない。よって、この例は不自然

the size and the form.]である。（１５）と（１６）の例では、動詞?John opened the window.

“open”はその文脈内での出現が十分予測(17) [Suppose that there are three equallyできるために焦点化されず、一意的存在の用

salient windows.

Suppose that the

法の方言の下で、複数の窓から一つの窓を選

speaker wants to know whether or not the

び出すことにならない。よって、これらの例

hearer has a strong power.]は不自然である。疑問文の（１３）と（１４）?Could you please destroy the window?

の例にも同じ議論が適用し、疑問文の性質か(18) [Suppose that there are three win-

らして、これらの例が不自然であるのはなお-51-さらである。ここでの一般化は上の（２）で例ではない。

ある。
５．定冠詞の理論の例外を示す方言
４．２．暫定的説明

あるアメリカ人の話者は（１３）から（２（１１）から（１５）の例では、無標の動０）の例がすべて語用論的に自然であるとい詞が使われていている。このとき、複数の対う直観を持っている。前節で検討した定冠詞

象が存在する条件の下で、定冠詞付きの単数の総称的または個別的用法はこの方言で存

名詞句の使用は不適切になる。よって、この在しないのであるから、この方言に於ける当場合は当該の方言で定冠詞の一意的存在の該のデータは定冠詞の総称的用法かまたは用法が働いているという仮説を支持する。こ定冠詞の一意性に対する反例となる。

こでこの仮説は（１９）と（２０）の例と整合的であることを主張する。これらの例では

６．先行研究のデータ使われている動詞が文脈上予測不可能で焦上の第３節の方言での一般化を支持する点になるために複数の対象の中から一つの独立した例が先行研究にある。Birner and

対象を個別化して選び出していることに注Ward (1994:100)は、以下の発話は一意性が意してほしい。
（１７）と（１８）の例は（１

欠けた状況で、通常の予め確立された path９）と（２０）の例を説明する焦点の理論のがあるときにのみ、定冠詞は使われ得ると論下に収まることに注意してほしい。この方言じる。

のすべての例に関する観察は定冠詞の一意的存在の理論と定冠詞付きの名詞句に対する焦点による個別化の理論から帰結する。

(21) To get to Dr. Smith’s office, I suggest
taking the bus / #the bike. (ibid.)

当該の例について、述語が表す事象と定冠
詞付きの単数名詞句の指示との関連は予測

この主張を再検討して、この対比が我々の不可能であるから、その単数名詞句の指示は一般化を独立に支持することを示す。Birner

述語の指示と個別に関連させられるものでand Ward はこの例を他の例と関連させて統あり、その述語との関係に関して個別的・特一的に扱っていないのに対して、我々はこの定的になる。例えば、述語“destroy”と単例を他の例と関係させて統一的な形で予測

数名詞句“the window”との結び付きは予する。
「スミス博士のオフィスへ行くために」測不可能であるから構成要素“destroy theという文脈の下で、通常の予め確立された

window”が個別性を帯びた独立した単位とpath があるときには、それと関連する単数して働き、そこに含まれる単数名詞句“the名詞句“the bus”と述語“suggest taking”

window”の指示はそれに応じて個別的・特との結びつきは、我々の慣習と当該の文脈に定的になるわけである。その単数名詞句の指基づき十分予測できるものであるから、その示対象は、その名詞句に適合し、かつ、話者

指示対象が複数ある文脈で適切であると予と聞き手が特定的に接近できる対象でなけ測される。つまり、「スミス博士のオフィス

ればならない。よって、当該の場合に於いて、へ行くために」という文脈と通常のバス便が動詞の焦点の働きによって、複数の指示対象

ある状況の下で、名詞「バス」と「それに乗の中から一つの対象が選ばれることになる。

ることを提案する」という述語は結びつくこ

この用法は個別的用法であるから、定冠詞とが十分に期待されるわけである。事実、この用法を決定する要因は一意的存在の用法の例は適切であり、我々の一般化の下に収まであり、この場合我々の例は一意性理論の反る。この分析が正しいことを仮定して上の一-52-

般化（１）の条件を使う。

と述語“took”との結びつきは、確立されたそれに対して、「スミス博士のオフィスへ

フェリー便があるという通常の読みから得行くために」という文脈の下で、通常の予められ、一般化の条件（１）を満たす。事実、確立された path がない場合を検討する。通

この例は適切であり、我々の一般化を支持す

常の予め確立された path がない単数名詞句

る。よって、我々の一般化は我々の例とは独“the bike”と述語“suggest taking”との立にこれらの対比で支持されるわけである。

結びつきは、なぜ当該の乗り物がオートバイ

以下の発話は、どのペンが指示対象としてなのか理由がないから、一般化の条件（１）

選択されたとしても最適な仕方で関連するが含意する否定の形式を満たす。よって、こにも拘らず定冠詞の使用は不適切であるとの例は、その指示対象が複数ある文脈で不適論 じ ら れ て い る (Birner and Ward

切であると予測される。事実、この例は不適(1994:96))。つまり、Birner and Ward は、切であり、我々の一般化の下に収まる。我々

以下の例を、定冠詞の使用に対する関連性理の一般化は我々の例とは独立にこれらの対論の立場に対して問題となる例として使っ比で支持されるわけである。

ている。

これらの分析は次の例にも当てはまる。
(22) To get to Ludington, we took the ferry/ ?the boat. (Birner and Ward (1994:101))(23) I went to class today but I forgot mybackpack and had nothing to write with.
Fortunately, the guy sitting next to me
had three identical pens on his desk.

この対比を再検討して、この対比が我々の一般化を独立に支持することを示す。Birner
and Ward はこの例を他の例と関連させて統Before I could say anything, #he gave me

the pen. (ibid.)

一的に扱っていないのに対して、我々はこの

この例は、単数名詞句“the pen”と動詞“give”

例を他の例と関係させて統一的な形で予測との結び付きは、「ペン」は「与える」といする。適切さの低い「ボート」の例の方では、う行為を期待される値として持たないこと

彼らは、話者が当該のボートを所有していると「与える」という行為は文脈上唐突であるか確立されたボート便があるときに適切にことを考え合わせると、この場合は一般化のなると述べているようである(ibid.)。つまり、 条件（１）が含意する否定の形式を満たす。
この場合では、単数名詞句“the boat”と述事実、この例は不適切であり、我々の一般化

語“took”との結びつきは、話者がボートをを支持する。

所有しているときと確立されたボート便が以下の適切な発話は、一意性が定冠詞の適あるときには得られ、一般化の条件（１）を切性を保証しない例であると論じられてい満たす。事実、この場合は適切であり、我々る(Birner and Ward (1994:98))。

の一般化を支持する。他方、こうした文脈がないときには、なぜ「ボート」が関わるのか(24) As soon as my cousin arrived in San-

指定する理由がないので、適切さが低いと予

tiago, she broke her foot and had to spend

想される。事実、この場合はあまり適切では

a week in the hospital. (ibid,)

なく、我々の一般化を支持する。適切さに問題のない「フェリー」の例の方では、確立さ

この例は、直前の文“she broke her foot”

れたフェリー便があることが通常の読みでのために、単数名詞句“the hospital ”と述あり、この場合では、単数名詞句“the ferry”

語“had to spend a week in”との結び付き-53-

は、条件（１）を満たす。事実、この例は適るものとするように働く。「買い物カートを切であり、我々の一般化を支持する。しかし、外から中に入れる」という先行文脈のために、以下の不適切な発話は、「大きな病院」はも「（話者の近くにある）金銭登録機」と言う

はや他の病院と区別されないものではない

名詞と「その買い物カートを中のそうした金から彼らの指摘する適切性の条件を満たし

銭登録機の近くに置く」という述語の結び付ていないことを示すものとして挙げられてきは、一般化の条件（１）を満たす。事実、いる(ibid,)。この分析と異なる分析を以下でこの例は適切であり、我々の一般化を支持す

提示する。

る。
Birner and Ward (1994:100)は、以下の発(25) #While in Santiago, Bill broke his footand was rushed to the big hospital.
(ibid,)

話は三つの異なる形や大きさの窓のある部屋のもとで発話されたという状況の下でも適切であると主張し、その適切さは進行中の会話の目的に関して当該の名詞句に対応す

この例は、不適切であると予測される。なぜる窓が区別されないからだと述べる。

なら単数名詞句“the big hospital ”と述語
“was rushed to”との結び付きは、なぜ病院が大きいのでなければいけないのか理由(27) It’s stuffy in here.
please open the window?

Can somebody(ibid.)がないために、我々の慣習に基づき十分予測できるものではないからである。事実、この（２７）に対する彼らの分析で、当該の名詞例は不適切であり、我々の一般化を支持する。 句に対応する窓が形や大きさで異なるのに
以 下 の 適 切 な 発 話 は 、 Fillmore (1977,

も拘らず、進行中の会話の目的という限定の1987)の言う frame という概念にとって決下で指示対象の窓が区別され得ないという定的な典型的な出来事の関与が定冠詞の指論点が幾分アドホックであると思われる。こ示対象の一意性に対する例外の事象にとっれに対して以下の例を見てほしい。

て無関係であることを示すのに使われている(Birner and Ward (1994:99))。

(28) [Suppose that there are three windows each of which differs with respect to(26) Somebody left their shopping cart
outside here where it could roll into a car.
As a good citizen, I’ll take it inside.

I’ll

only be a minute; I’ll just leave it up front
near the cash register. (ibid.)

the size and the form.] John opened thewindow.

この場合、“It’s stuffy in here”という言い回しによって指定される目的がなくても、並行する例は適切である。しかし、この例の適

この例は、cash register が複数ある文脈で切性は、暗黙のうちに、“It’s stuffy in here”

適切である。ここで、典型的な出来事やという言い回しによって指定される目的のframe という概念が問題の現象に関わってようなものに決定的な仕方で依存するかもこないという彼らの主張には賛成する。しかしれないと論じる人もいるだろう。より一層し、この例は、「買い物カートを外から中に文脈をコントロールしてこの例の適切さの入れる」という先行文脈が単数名詞句“the

要因は何かを探究する必要がある。この問題

cash register”と述語“leave it up front near” を将来の研究にゆだねる。いずれにせよ、ことの結び付きを十分予測できる範囲に収まれらの例の適切さは我々の一般化を用いて-54-

history of the concept ‘frame’,” in R.

予測することができるということは明らか

Dirven and G. Radden, eds., Conceptsof case, pp.28-36. Tübingen: Narr.

である。指示対象の窓が外見で区別され得るかどうかは問題ではないという彼らの分析は正しく、我々が一般化を説明するときに指Gundel, Jeanette, Nancy Hedberg and

摘する「定冠詞付きの単数名詞句の総称性」

Ron Zacharski. (1993) “Cognitive

や「その指示対象の任意性」に通じるものがstatus and the form of referring

expressions in discourse.” Languageある。しかし、我々は、問題の例の定冠詞の使用の適切さの原因は、名詞句“the window”と動詞“open”との結び付きが、我々の慣

69: pp.274-307.

Hawkins, John A. (1978) Definiteness andIndefiniteness: A Study in Reference
and Grammaticality Prediction. Lon-

習に基づき十分予測できるものであることにあると考え、そして、この予測可能性の要

don: Croom Helm.

因が「定冠詞付きの単数名詞句の総称性」や「その指示対象の任意性」をもたらすもので

Hawkins, John A. (1991) “On (in)definite
articles: implicatures and

あると上で論じた。

(un)grammaticality prediction,”
Journal of Linguistics 27:

７．おわりに
本研究は、Birner and Ward (1994)の議論に焦点を当てて、その論点を批判的に検討しpp.405-442.

Heim, I. (1982) The semantics of definite

and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D.

て代替案を提示した。

dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

参考文献
Abbott, Barbara (2004) “Definiteness andHeim, I. (1983) “File change semantics

Indefiniteness,” in Laurence R. Hornand the familiarity theory of definiteness,” in R. Bäuerle et al., eds.

and Gregory Ward eds., The Hand-

Meaning, use, and interpretation of
language, pp. 164-189. New York:book of Pragmatics, pp.122-149.

Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Birner, Betty and Gregory Ward (1994)“Uniqueness, Familiarity, and theDefinite Article in English,” BLS 20:

Walter de Gruyter.

Jespersen, Otto. (1943) A Modern English

Grammar: On Historical Principles:
PartⅦ. Oxford: The Alden Press.

pp.93-102

Christphersen, P. (1939) The articles: A

study of their theory and use in English. Munksgaard: Copenhagen.

Fillmore, Charles J. (1977)“Scenes-and-frames semantics,” in A.

Zampolli, ed., Linguistic Structures

Processing. Fundamental studies incomputer science, volume 5, pp.55-81.

Kadmon, N. (1990) “Uniqueness,” Linguistics and Philosophy 13:
pp.273-324

Lyons, Christopher (1999) Definiteness.

Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Russell, Bertrand (1905) “On denoting,”
Mind 14: pp.479-493.

Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1987) “A private-55-レベルの慣用句、つまり構文イディオムであるとみなされることが多い。Jackendoff の一連の研究においても、BPOCs を構成する要素が個別に語彙目録に登録されているわけではなく、1*

Body Part Off 構文の継承関係
構文の継承関係つのイディオム表現として登録されていると(The Inheritance Relation of Body Part Off

述べられている。BPOCs が構文イディオムであConstructions)

ることを裏付ける証拠のひとつに、当該構文は非完結的な事象を表すことがあげられる。

工藤 俊 (KUDO Shun)
筑波大学大学院 (University of Tsukuba)(2) Sue worked her butt off for / *in an hour.
(Jackendoff (2010:244))

キーワード：Body Part Off 構文、結果構文、強Tenny (1994)も述べているように、前置詞 in を意解釈、構文文法、継承

伴う時間的副詞句は、「1 時間以内に」といった
1.

出来事の完了を表す。そのため、完結的な出来

はじめに
本稿は、(1)のようないわゆる Body Part Off 構

事を表す文と共起できる。一方、前置詞 for を文(Body Part Off Constructions, BPOCs)と、それに伴う時間的副詞句は、出来事の継続を表す。そ類似した構文との関連性を、Goldberg (1995)ののため、非完結的な出来事を表す文と共起する。

構文文法アプローチに基づいて明らかにする。

(2)の例は in 句との相性は悪く、反対に for 句と共起できることから、BPOCs が表す出来事は非(1) a.

Susan worked / swam / danced her head

完結的であると考えられる。
BPOCs が表す事象が非完結的であることのoff last night.
b.

さらなる傍証として、副詞 completely と共起でSam programmed / yelled his heart out.
(Jackendoff (1997b:551))

きないことが挙げられる。

BPOCs は、[NP V NP off (out)]といった統語形式(3) *He laughed his butt off completely.

１を持つ。 この形式をみる限りは、結果構文と(Espinal and Mateu (2010:1403))の類似性によって、有界的な事象を表すと予測される。たとえば(1a)を例にとると、「働く／泳

副詞 completely は、動詞が表す出来事が完結しぐ／踊るといった行為の結果、スーザンの頭がたことを明示する副詞であるので、BPOCs と共もげた」という解釈が予測される。しかし、こ起できないということは、当該構文の非完結性のような出来事が現実世界で起こることはあを示唆している。

りえず、実際は「頭がもげるほど必死に」といBPOCs が構文イディオムとしてみなされる

った非有界的な解釈を得る。このような BPOCs

さらなる理由として、統語的凍結性が挙げられ特有の解釈は、強意解釈もしくは誇張解釈と呼る。従来の phrasal idiom 研究では、統語的凍結

ばれる。

性と意味的透明性の関連性が議論されてきた

BPOCs の意味的・統語的特徴は、Jackendoff(cf. Glasbey (2003, 2007), Jackendoff (1997a, b,

をはじめとした近年の構文研究によって、徐々2002))。つまり、語順が固定されていると、他に明らかになってきている。それらの研究では、 の解釈を許さないという関係が成り立つ。
当該構文の形式や意味解釈から、BPOCs は構文

BPOCs の統語的凍結性について Sawada (2000)-56-

は、動詞に後続する名詞句と不変化詞 off の語

性の悪さ以外に、(5)を挙げている。

順は、置き換えが不可能であると述べている。
(5) She cried and cried her heart out until her(4) a.

*Susan worked off her head.

eyes turned red.

（森藤 (2011:161)）(Jackendoff (1997b:551))b.

*They worked off their butts (when they

影山・由本(1997)によれば、活動(activity)を意味

were young).

する非能格自動詞が反復されると、その活動の(Sawada (2000:366))

意味がさらに強められる。(5)の場合、動詞 cry(4)の元々の語順は、Susan worked her head off.、の反復が可能であることから、この構文が有す

They worked their butts off.であった。これらの目るアスペクトは activity であると、森藤(2011)は的語と不変化詞 off の語順を入れ替えると、文結論付けている。

法性が著しく下がる。このことから、BPOCs
は統語的な凍結性が高く、一見、意味的にも強

しかし、BPOCs が特定の文脈に現れた場合、解釈は変化する。

意解釈以外の解釈を許容しないイディオム表
現であると考えられる。

(6) a.

ここまで概観してきたように、近年の構文研

The android worked / danced / laughed
its head off, and it fell to the ground.

究により、BPOCs の意味的・統語的特徴がある

b.

程度解明されてきていることは確かである。たThe robot talked its butt / ass off, and thepeople around it were very surprised.

だ、BPOCs の構文的特徴としては、結果構文の亜種であるという簡潔な結論が出ているだけ(6a, b)共に、BPOCs が科学小説の文脈に生起しで、それ以上の議論の積み重ねはない。しかし、た例である。この場合、「アンドロイドは働く

BPOCs の特徴、とりわけ解釈についてさらに調／踊る／笑うという行為の結果、実際に頭がも査すると、結果構文だけでなく、今まで焦点がげた」、「ロボットは話をした結果、おしりがと当てられなかった他の構文との関連性も見えれた」といった、結果構文と類似した解釈を得てくる。そこで本稿は、BPOCs とそれに類似する。このような解釈は字義的解釈と呼ばれる。

る構文との関連性を、Goldberg (1995)が提唱す

この字義的解釈を裏付ける第一の証拠としる構文文法の立場から明らかにする。そして、て、特定の文脈に現れた BPOCs の、in-phrase

BPOCs は結果構文に動機付けられた構文ではとの共起可能性が挙げられる。

なく、使役移動構文から継承された構文である
ことを、実例をもとに主張する。

(7) a.

The robot pitched its arm off in an hour,and finally it broke down.

2.

BPOCs における 2 通りの解釈とその継承

b.

関係

The android danced its feet off in anhour, and finally it broke down.

2.1. BPOCs の字義的解釈
本節では、BPOCs の強意解釈以外の可能性に従来、(2)のように、BPOCs は出来事の継続を表ついて考察する。前節で述べたように、先行研

す for-phrase との相性がよく、構文が表す出来

究では、BPOCs の解釈は「身体部位がとれるほ事は activity であるとされてきた。しかし、文脈

ど懸命に」といった強意解釈に限定されると考による解釈の変化が、構文固有の事象アスペク

えられている。森藤(2011)は、(2)の in-phrase とトに影響を及ぼす。(7a)の例文は、in-phrase との共起不可能性や、(3)の副詞 completely との相共起することが可能で、「1 時間以内に腕がもげ-57-

2.2. LBPOCs と FBPOCs の継承関係た」という、出来事の完了を表す。
BPOCs の字義的解釈を裏付ける二つ目の証

前節でみたように、LBPOCs と FBPOCs の解拠として、特定の文脈に現れた BPOCs は、動釈 に 関 す る 差 は 文 脈 が 影 響 す る 。 (10a) は詞の反復が不可能になることが挙げられる。

LBPOCs、(10b)は FBPOCs の例である。

(8) a.

(10) a.

*The robot pitched and pitched its armb.

off, and finally it broke down.
b.

The robot talked its butt / ass off.
The robot talked its butt / ass off, and thepeople around it were very surprised.

*The android danced and danced its feetoff, and finally it broke down.

このような字義的解釈と強意解釈の差に関連(5)とは対照的に、科学小説の文脈に生起した

して、Espinal and Mateu (2010)は、字義的解釈か

BPOCs は、非能格自動詞の繰り返しを許さない。 ら強意解釈に転写されるメタファーとして、(8)の振る舞いも、(7)と同様、BPOCs が完結的(11)を提案している。

な出来事を表しうることを示唆している。
最後は副詞 completely との共起可能性である。

(11) (AN EXTREME) INTENSITY IS (ANEXCESSIVE) CHANGE OF LOCATION(9) a.

(Espinal and Mateu (2010:1406))

The android worked / danced / laughed
its head off completely, and it fell to theb.

ground.

これは、「特定の動作の強度を、身体の譲渡不The robot talked its butt / ass off

可能な部分を切り離したり、蕩尽したりするとcompletely, and the people around it

いう、極端な状況に関連付ける（cf. 吉川・五

were very surprised.

十嵐 (2011)）」といったメタファーである。
Espinal and Mateu は、このメタファーを介して、(3)では、副詞 completely は BPOCs と共起でき

字義的解釈と強意解釈が関連付けられることないことをみたが、科学小説の文脈に現れるを提案している。彼らの提案を本論に取り込む

BPOCs はその限りではない。(9)も、BPOCs がと、FBPOCs は LBPOCs からのメタファー継承

完結的な出来事を表すことが可能であること

によって生まれた構文であるといえる。そのこを物語っている。

とを図示したのが(12)である。２以上、特定の文脈に現れる BPOCs について概観した。一口に BPOCs といっても、強意解(12) Inheritance Relation between LBPOCs and

釈の BPOCs のアスペクトと、字義的解釈のそ

FBPOCsれの間には、顕著な差が認められる。それゆえ、Literal Body Part

BPOCs には解釈を基準とした下位分類が必要

Off Constructions

IM

Figurative Body PartOff Constructionsである。以下では、字義的解釈の BPOCs を
Literal BPOCs (LBPOCs)と呼び、強意解釈の

以上、2 節では BPOCs の事象アスペクトと解BPOCs を Figurative BPOCs (FBPOCs)と呼ぶ。
2.2

釈を概観した。
本節の要点は以下の 2 点である。

では、これらの構文的関係を、構文文法の視点

1 点目は、BPOCs には字義的解釈が可能で、そからさらに詳しく考察する。

の場合の事象アスペクトは FBPOCs のそれらとは対称的であるということ。そして 2 点目は、
FBPOCs は LBPOCs から(11)のメタファーを介-58-

して継承された構文であること。
以上の 2 点が、b.

Frank sneezed the tissue off the table.

３

本節の主な論点である。

(Goldberg (1995:152))
紙幅の都合上、両構文の継承に関する詳細は、

3. BPOCs の比較対象としての結果構文―継承関係と解釈
継承関係と解釈―
継承関係と解釈

Goldberg (1995)に譲るが、この継承には以下の

本節の主な考察対象は、先行研究で BPOCs

メタファーが関与している。

の比較対象とされてきた結果構文である。先に述べたように、BPOCs は結果構文の亜種である(16) STATES ARE LOCATIONSという見解が、従来の BPOCs 研究では多数を占めている。実際、Jackendoff も以下のように状態と位置を結びつける(16)のメタファーを介述べている。

して、位置変化を表す使役移動構文から、状態変化を表す結果構文へ継承される。(17)は、両(13) “an idiomatic specialization of the resultative
construction”

構文の継承関係を示した図である。

(Jackendoff (1997a:171))(17) Inheritance Relation between CMCs and RCs

本節では、BPOCs と他構文との構文的関連性

Caused-Motion

をさらに深く探るきっかけとして、結果構文のConstructions

IM

Resultative
Constructions

構文的特徴を見直す。3.1 では、構文文法の枠組みにおける結果構文の位置づけについて、

3.2. 字義的結果構文と強意結果構文の継承関係

Goldberg (1995)の分析を簡単に概観する。そし続いて、結果構文の解釈について概観する。

て 3.2 では、結果構文の解釈について、構文文

いくつかの先行研究で指摘されているように、

法の枠組みの中で議論する。

非能格自動詞を用いた結果構文は、字義的解釈
以外に「激しく～する」という強意解釈も可能

3.1. 使役移動構文と結果構文の継承関係である(cf. Goldberg (1995), Jackendoff (1997b),

本節では、結果構文の継承関係について、Miyata (2004))。Goldberg によると、先に挙げた(14a)は、「ディーンは笑う／踊るといった行為

Goldberg (1995)の主張を簡単にまとめる。

の結果、実際に狂った」という結果読み以外に、(14) a.
b.

Dean laughed / danced himself crazy /「狂うほど激しく笑った／踊った」という強意

si1ly.

読みが可能である。文脈の必要性という点では(Jackendoff (1997b:552))

異なるものの、BPOCs の場合と同様、解釈に顕The joggers ran the pavement thin.
(Goldberg (1995:184))

著な差が認められる。これを踏まえて本論では
便 宜 上 、 字 義 的 解 釈 の 結 果 構 文 を Literal(14)は非能格自動詞を含む結果構文の例である

Resultative Constructions (LRCs)、強意解釈の結果

が、Goldberg によれば、結果構文は(15)のよう構文を Figurative Resultative Constructions (FRCs)

な 使 役 移 動 構 文 (Caused-Motion Construction,と呼ぶことにする。
この 2 つの構文を関連付けるものは、BPOCs

CMCs)からのメタファー継承である。

同様、メタファーである。BPOCs と解釈の点で(15) a.

They laughed the poor guy out of the

共通するので、Espinal and Mateu の提唱する(11)room.

に挙げたメタファーが、そのまま LRCs と FRCsの継承にも関与していると思われるかもしれ-59-

ない。しかし、結果構文は元来、状態変化を表

BPOCs は結果構文から継承された構文なのか、す構文である。したがって、物理的変化に特化

それとも CMCs から継承された構文なのか、とされた(11)のメタファーは適用できない。そこ

いった疑問が生じる。
この疑問を解消するため、結果構文と CMCs

で、(16)の STATES ARE LOCATIONS が、(11)のメタファーと融合した、(18)のメタファーがの構文的意味を今一度確認しよう。

適用される。
(20) a.
b.

(18) (AN EXTREME) INTENSITY IS (ANX CAUSES Y to BECOME ZX CAUSES Y to MOVE Z(Goldberg (1995:3))

EXCESSIVE) CHANGE OF STATE(18)のメタファーを介することで、LRCs から(20)からも明らかなように、結果構文は抽象的

FRCs へ継承される。(19)はこの継承関係を図示

な状態変化を表す一方、CMCs は物理的な位置したものである。

変化を表す。では、BPOCs の構文的意味は位置変化と状態変化のどちらを表すのであろうか。

(19) Inheritance Relation between LRCs andが字義的解釈を得る場合、移動を含意するか否FRCs
Literal Resultative

このことを明らかにするため、以下では各構文

IM

Constructions

かを考察する。４

Figurative Resultative

まずは、CMCs の目的語位置に生起する要素

Constructions

について検証する。
以上、3 節では結果構文の継承関係と、その解釈について簡単に概観した。本節のポイント① CMCsは以下の 3 点である。1 点目は、結果構文は(21) a.

The audience laughed the poor guy off

CMCs からのメタファー継承であること。2 点

the stage.

目は、非能格自動詞を含む結果構文には、

OK

BPOCs 同様、字義的解釈と強意解釈の両方が可

stage.’

能であること。そして 3 点目は、FRCs は LRCsb.

‘The poor guy actually moved off theFrank sneezed the tissue off the table.

から、(18)のメタファーを介して継承された構OK文であるであること。以上の 3 点が、3 節で論table.’‘The tissue actually moved off the

じた内容の要点である。
使役移動構文という名称が示唆するように、こBPOCs が表す出来事と他構文との関係の構文は移動を表すことが、(21)の検証からも前節までの議論を踏まえ、本節では BPOCs、わかる。(21a)を例にとると、あわれな男がステ

RCs、CMCs の関係について考察する。前述のージから降りたこと、つまり移動したことが、とおり、BPOCs は結果構文の特殊ケースである

この文の含意を表した‘The poor guy actuallyというのが、従来の見解である。確かに表層的

moved off the stage.’が容認されることから明らな形式と意味だけをみれば、その見解は妥当とかである。５ (21b)も同様である。

4.

いえる。しかし、Goldberg (1995)が主張しているように、そもそも結果構文は CMCs からのメ

続いて、LRCs の目的語位置に生起する要素について考察する。６

タファー継承であるという事実がある。この、
結果構文と CMCs の継承関係を踏まえると、-60-

する名詞句の選択制限である。CMCs の目的語

② LRCs(22) a.
b.

He talked himself hoarse.

位置に生起する名詞句は、自由に選択が可能で* ‘He actually moved.’ある。一方、BPOCs のそれは身体部位に限定さ

He pounded / hammered the metal flat.

れる。このことから、BPOCs、とりわけ LBPOCs* ‘The metal actually moved.’

は CMCs からの具体例継承(Instance Inheritance,II)であると考えられる。また、LBPOCs が CMCs

CMCs とは対照的に、LRCs は移動を含意しなの具体例であることは、必然的に LBPOCs はいことが(22)からわかる。(22a)において、声がCMCs の部分を成す。つまり、CMCs と LBPOCs

しわがれるという状態になったのは、あくまでは、部分継承(Subpart Inheritance, IS)によって関も動詞が表す行為の「結果」であり、移動とは連付けられる。

７

無関係である。 (22b)も同様に考えられる。
最後に、LBPOCs についてみてみよう。

(24) Inheritance Relation between CMCs and
LBPOCs③ LBPOCs(23) a.

II

The android worked / danced / laughed

Caused-Motion

Literal Body Part

its head off, and it fell to the ground.

Constructions

Off Constructions

OK

IS‘The head of android actually moved

off.’
b.

The robot pitched its arm off, and finally5.

本稿では、Body Part Off 構文とそれに関連すit broke down.
OK

結論‘The arm of robot actually moved

る諸構文の関連性を、構文文法の枠組みを用いて比較してきた。本稿で取り上げた諸構文の継

off.’

承関係をまとめると、以下のようになる。
‘X actually moved’という型を用いて、LBPOCsの含意を調べたところ、当該構文は移動を含意(25) Inheritance Relation among BPOCs, CMCs,

するという結果が出た。(23a)は、働く／踊る／and RCs

笑うという行為の結果として、アンドロイドのII頭がもげたことを表している。つまり、目的語
要素は実際に移動したことになる。(23b)も同様

LBPOCsIMに、投げるという行為の結果として、ロボットFBPOCsの腕がもげるという意味になる。

IM
CMCs

IS

LRCs
IM
FRCs

S-synonymous

ここまでの議論をまとめると、CMCs とLBPOCs は移動を含意するのに対し、LRCs はLBPOCs は、物理的な移動という構文的意味を含意しない。この結果から、LBPOCs の構文的持つので、結果構文からの継承ではなく、CMCs

意味は LRCs よりも CMCs により近いと結論付からの具体例継承によって関連付けられる。さけることができる。

らに、(11)のメタファーを介して、FBPOCs へ

各構文の構文的意味とそれらの関連性が明の構文拡張が起きる。一方 LRCs は、STATES

らかになったところで、CMCs と LBPOCs を関ARE LOCATIONS を経た、CMCs からのメタフ

連付ける継承のタイプについて検証する。ここァー継承である。そして、(18)のメタファーをで着目したいのは、両構文の目的語位置に生起

介して、LRCs から FRCs へ継承される。なお、-61-

FBPOCs と FRCs の間に直接的な継承関係はな
いが、「強意解釈」という点で類似しているため、S(emantically)-synonymous の関係が結ばれる。
以上、BPOCs の構文的特性と他構文との関連性を、構文文法の観点から考察してきた。その結果、従来の BPOCs 研究とは異なる見解を得ることができた。本研究の最終的な知見及び主張は、以下のとおりである。
Body Part Off 構文の構文特性は、結果構文のそれと比較する形で研究されてきたが、実際は使役移動構文との結び付きがより強い構ことに留意しなければならない。
４
強意解釈を考慮の対象外にする理由は、ここではあくまでも各構文が移動を含意するか否かを調べるためである。各構文の強意解釈は、すべて「激しく～する」という構文的意味になるので、意味的な有意差は生まれない。
５
移動を含意していることは、上付きの OK
で示している。
６(22)の LRCs は強意解釈が可能であるが、ここでは字義的解釈のもとで文法性判断を行った。
７
移動を含意していないことは、上付きのア
スタリスクで示している。
SELECTED REFERENCES
Espinal, T, and J. Mateu (2010) “On Classes of

文である。

Idioms and Their Interpretation,” Journal of
Pragmatics 42, 1397-1411.

本論では、構文文法の観点から BPOCs 及び関連構文を考察することで、構文間の新たな関Goldberg, A. (1995) Constructions: A Construction

係性を見出すことが可能になるという、BPOCs

Grammar Approach to Argument Structure,

研究の新たな方向性を提案した。なお、結果構

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

文には他動詞タイプ(e.g. John broke the door

Jackendoff, R. (1997a) The Architecture of the

open.)のようなタイプも存在するが、本論ではLanguage Faculty. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

字義的解釈と強意解釈の両方が可能である、非Jackendoff, R. (1997b) “Twistin’ the Night Away,”

能格自動詞タイプを主に扱った。他動詞タイプ

Language 73, 534-559.

の結果構文については、稿を改めて議論したい。 Jackendoff, R. (2002) Foundations of Language:
Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution, Oxford*
本稿は日本英語学会第 31 回大会（2013 年
University Press, Oxford, New York.
11 月 10 日、福岡大学）において、「Body Part Off
Jackendoff, R. (2010) Meaning and the Lexicon:
構文の継承関係」の題目で口頭発表した原稿に、The Parallel Architecture 1975-2010, Oxford
加筆・修正を施したものである。発表当日の質
University Press, New York.
疑応答で有益なコメントをくださった岩田彩
志先生、金澤俊吾先生、金谷優先生、西原俊明
影山太郎・由本陽子 (1997) 『語形成と概念構先生に深く感謝申し上げる。なお、本稿におけ造』 研究社, 東京.
る不備はすべて筆者の責任によるものである。
森藤庄平 (2011)「Body-Part Off 構文について―１
ここで不変化詞 off 以外に out も BPOCs の結果構文との違いを中心に―」, 『英語語法構成要素としてみなすのは、off と同じく out も文法研究』第 18 号, 158-172, 開拓社.
出来事の delimiter として機能するからである。
２
IM の I は Inheritance、M は Metaphor の頭文
Sawada, S. (2000) “The Semantics of the ‘Body Part字である。
Off’ Construction,” English Linguistics 17 (2),３
たしかに、実際の言語使用という観点から361-385, Kaitakusha.
いえば、LBPOCs の使用頻度は著しく低い。し吉川裕介・五十嵐海理 (2011) 「V the hell out of
かし、LBPOCs が構文としてのステータスを確立していることと、実際の使用頻度あるいは解構文とイディオム性」, JELS 28, 183-189.
釈の選択というのは、あくまでも別問題である-62-

agenda for, or give background to, thequestions. Most MUQs are employed inthis way in order to focus or specify aspects
Answers to Japanese Multi-unit Questions
with Explicit Assumptions

to be answered, and often used bydominant

partiesininstitutional

interaction where there is asymmetry ofknowledge or power among participants.

Masanobu Masuda

Linell et al. (2003) present another

Koshien University

aspect of description. They outline how
Keywords: multi-unit questions,some MUQs generalize possible answers,

conversation analysis, organization ofand argue that both particularizing andanswers, resistance by respondents

generalizing components of MUQs serve
the purpose of securing responses. The
formersecures

responses,

1. Introduction
Multi-unit questions (MUQs),
questions delivered together with otherwhile

preciseandadequatethelattersecuresanything that could count as an acceptable
response.2
Concerningquestion(s) or statement(s), are employedtheorganizationofin complex communicative projects. The

answers, i.e. how components in answer

present paper employs conversation

turns are placed in the turn, Sacks (1987

analytic methods to explore MUQ-answer[1973]) points out the preference forsequences in Japanese interview dialogues,

contiguity. When a question turn and an

and describes (1) how answers areanswer turn each consists of multiple units,organized as to respond to each unit ina question is placed, among the units, at

MUQs and (2) how question recipientsthe end of the question turn, and an

resist assumptions which are statedanswer is placed at the beginning of the

explicitly in MUQs, when the assumptions

answer turn.

do not hold true for them. To be precise, theword resist is deployed here to refer to

3. Dataquestion recipients’ disaligning stanceThirty-two

two-party

interviewmarking when they respond in ways that

dialogues in the Corpus of Spontaneous

do not meet the questioners’ expectations.1

Japanese, each of which lasts for 10 to 15
minutes, have been investigated. Among

2. Previous Studies

the many kinds of MUQs, the analysis is

The framing function of MUQs has

limited to those in which the assumptions

been pointed out in a variety of previousof the questioners are explicitly stated,studies (e.g. Sandén et al. 2001, Clayman

typically with the thinking verb omou

and Heritage 2002, Heritage 2002, Linell‘think.’et al. 2003). Questions are prefaced withamounts to 24. In the excerpts below, theone or more statements, which set theassumptions and questions are marked

-63-

The

number

of

such

MUQs

respectively with the arrows 1 and 2,

06

single arrows ( → ) for the interviewers’

07 2→IR: =(.) ano: nikaimeutterances and double arrows (⇒) for the

08 2→

interviewees’

ones.

The

09

follows

systemdevisedthetranscription
by

Gail

IE:

[ha:i ]
yararete (.)[(.)] doo=

IE:

[hai]

10 2→IR: =deshita

Jefferson.3 Each excerpt is followed with

11

an English translation. Since the line

12 1⇒IE: .hhh soo:: desu yone

numbersintranslations

thedoexcerpts

not

(.)

and

the

13 1⇒

the

line

14 1⇒
yoo desu kedo[: .hh=
15
IR:
[u::=

match,

numbers referred to in the analysis pertain

juppun te n: no nagai

to the Japanese transcripts.

16 2⇒IE: =↑de]mo kekkyoku=
17
IR: = n ]4. Analysis

18 2⇒IE: =ano:::: (.) honegumi

Four types of answers are found in
the 24 answers examined: (a) contiguousorganization (n=11), (b) non-contiguousorganization (n=5), (c) responding only to

19 2⇒

shikkari kunde kureba

20 2⇒[(.)shabereru no ka]na:=21
IR:[ ee ee ee ee: ]questions and not to assumptions (n=6),

22 2⇒IE: =to yuu huu ni=23
IR: =°soo de[sune:°](d)

24 2⇒IE:

avoiding

answering(n=2).

(a)isprominent in number as Sacks (1987

25 2⇒

[ ee

] omoimashita kedo

[1973]) has argued. This paper describes
the organization of types (b) and (d), which

01 1→ IR:I se[e:: .hhh] You kno::w=

have been less focused on in previous

02

studies.4

03 1→IR: =we:ll I think talking

IE:

04 1→
4.1. Non-contiguous Organization

05

In excerpt (1), an interviewer (IR)[ Ye:::s ]is fairly har[d .h]h =IE:[Ye:s]

06 2→IR: =(.) We:ll how did you

asks how an interviewee (IE) felt about the07 2→recording conducted preceding to the08

interview (lines 1-10). In the recording, the

09 2→IR: =second time

IE made a speech for about 10 minutes.

10

The recording was conducted twice, and11 1⇒IE: .hhh Ye::s ten minutes

the IR is asking about the second one.

12 1⇒
seems lo[:ng .hh ↑bu]t=
13IR:[ Y e : : s ](1)[D03F0036_0:59-1:20]

14 2⇒IE: =after all we::::ll (.)

01 1→ IR: naruho[do:: .hhh] ne::=15 2⇒

if you had prepared

02

16 2⇒

a firm schemeIE:[ u:::n]

03 1→ IR: =ano: shaberu tte yuu nofeel (.)[(.)] about the=
IE:

[Yes]
(.)

04 1→

wa kekkoo kitsui to omou

17 2⇒[(.) it seemed li]:ke=
18
IR:[Yes yes yes ye:s]

05 1→n desu keredo[mo .h]h =19 2⇒IE: =you could talk=

-64-

20

a mere means of communication, which is

IR: =°Y[e:s°]

21 2⇒IE:

referred to by a demonstrative sooyuu ‘that[Yes ] I thought sokind of,’ sono ‘that’ and soko ‘there’ at lines
In her answer turn, the IE first

2-3.5

responds to the assumption stated at lines
1-5, and then answers the question asked(2)[D03M0037_4:59-5:46]

at lines 7-10, which does not meet the01

IR: (0.6) .hhh (0.8) watashi

preference for contiguity. The assumption

02

wa sooyuu(n) sono: s-in the IR’s MUQ is shaberu tte yuu no wa

03

u(h):nu soko wo kangaeru

kekkoo kitsui ‘Talking is fairly hard.’ The

04

koto ga sugo ookute [.h a]=

IE evaluates the time allotted for her

05

preceding speech, ten minutes (juppun at

06 1→IR: =↑gengo: niwa sugoiline 13), as long (nagai at line 13), and

07 1→

rimitto ga aru na: tte

thereby confirms the IR’s assumption. It is

08 1→

o°mou n desu kedo:°=after that that the IE answers the question.

09

She explains what she thought at lines

10 2→ IR: =.hhhh (0.6) doo omoi masu

16-25, which comprises the answer.

11 2→

Next, let us consider how the IE deals

IE:[n:. ]

IE: =n:.=ka¿ [hhhh (0.5) .h[h h]12 1⇒IE:[.hhh (0.3)[ma:]with the assumption in the MUQ. As

13 1⇒

mentioned above, the IE confirms theassumption. However, this confirmation

14 1⇒
ari masu yone¿:.=15
IR: =u:[:n.]should be regarded as a token one. The IE

16 1⇒IE:

does not follow the word kitsui ‘hard’ in the

17 1⇒

gurafi<k>ku ni kurabereba

assumption (line 4) and replaces it withnagai ‘long’ in her response (line 13). This

18 1⇒
19

ne¿
(0.2)

constitutes

the

20

IR: soo: [soo nan desu yone?]

subjective evaluation into an objective

21

IE:

description. In addition, the IE presents

22

seegen ga (0.6) aru no wa

this description as an indirect assertion by23

tashika de[su yone¿]

employing an auxiliary verb yoo desu

24

‘seem’ (line 14). By designing her response25

in this manner, the IE formulates the IR’s

26 2⇒IE: °.hhh° >demo yappari<assumption as a general one and distances

27 2⇒.hhh°h° kotoba: nashi niwa

herself from it. This response is regarded

28 2⇒

kangae rare nai tte >yuu

as a variation of transformative answers

29 2⇒

yoo na< tokoro mo:. (0.7)(Stivers and Hayashi 2010), a way for

30 2⇒

atte ne¿atransformationofso ironna (0.5) seegen ga[ano]:. (1.2)[ u:n. (.) ironna ]IR:[ u : : ]n(0.6)

question recipients to resist a question’sconstraints.

01

IR: (0.6) .hhh (0.8) I quite

In excerpt (2), an IR has mentioned

02

often think about that(n)in the preceding utterance that language is

03

tha:t th- uh(h)m there-65-

04 1→
05[.h um] I think ↑language=

language with graphics, and therefore
weakened. After the following agreement

IE:[ mm.]

06 1→ IR: =is really limited=

token by the IR (line 20), the IE repeats his

07

statement at lines 13-14 that there are

IE: =mm.=

08 1→ IR: =.hhhh (0.6) What do you

various limits, but this time follows it with

09 1→

think¿ [hhhh (0.5) .h[h h]the format …wa tashika desu ‘indeed…’[.hhh (0.3)[We:ll](lines 21-23), which projects a counteryes there are various (0.5)

claim following. In other words, via this10 1⇒IE:
11 1⇒

format, the statement is posed as alimits on it¿:.=12 1⇒
13
IR: =Ye:[:s.]qualified agreement. As Pomerantz (1984)

14 1⇒IE:

argues, a qualified agreement is a device

15 1⇒
16

[ We]:ll. (1.2)

that can introduce disagreement. The IE

compared with graphics¿(0.2)

actually counters, with his following

17

IR: Ye:s [ that’s right? ]statement lead by a contrast conjunction

18

IE:

[Ye:s. (.) indeed]demo ‘but’ (lines 26-30), the IR’s negative

19

there are (0.6) various

view on language that language is really20limi[ts¿ ]limited. In his utterance just after[Ye::]s

excerpt (2) (which is not shown here), he

21

IR:

22

even

(0.6)

upgradeshis

stressonthe

23 2⇒IE: °.hhh° >But as we know<

significance of language, by adding to his

24 2⇒.hhh°h° there are someformulation at lines 26-30 the words

25 2⇒

aspects in which we cannot

kanari no ryoo de- wariai de ‘in a fair

26 2⇒

think withou:t. (0.7)

amount- rate.’ In this manner, although

27 2⇒language¿the IE first confirms the IR’s assumption,
he displays a stepwise shift in his stance,

In his answer turn, the IE firstand resists the assumption.

confirms, at lines 12-18, the assumption
stated at lines 6-8, that language is limited.

4.2. Avoiding Answering

It is after line 26 that he answers the

In the sequence preceding excerpt (3),question asked at lines 10-11 by telling her

an IR and an IE are talking about

own idea about language. Therefore, thelanguage. Just prior to (3), the IR has

preference for contiguity is not met.

made public her idea that writing in order

The confirmation at lines 12-18

to convey something carries considerable

adopts virtually the same wording as that

responsibility. The demonstrative soo ‘so’ atof the stated assumption, as if the IE fullyline 1 refers to this idea.

agreed with the assumption. However, as
is projected by a hedging adverb ma(a)(3)[D03F0006_11:21-11:46]‘well’ (line 12), it is a partial agreement.

01 1→ IR: .h[h soo omo[u n desu=

The IE backs down at lines 16-18. The

02

assumption is relativized by comparing

03 1→ IR: =yone¿: .h]h=

-66-

IE:

[.hh

[u:n:=

04

IE: =un un:. ]05 2→ IR: =moo dakara >sore wo<

14 1⇒
messages are conve:yed=
15
IR: =Ye[: : s ]06 2→bunseki shiyoo >tte yu<u16 1⇒IE:

07 2→

no wa dooshite .hhh °soo

08 2→

natta no kana: tte.°=17 1⇒
in the analysis bu:t=
18
IR: =Ye[ : s ]09

IE: =nh(h)u:n.

10

(0.2)

11

19 2⇒IE:

IR: °(omoi ma[su) yo.]°[soo ↑mo]tto

12 1⇒IE:
13 1⇒

sooyuu: .hh sono

14 1⇒

tsutawari kata (yo)- wo

15 1⇒

juushi shite bunse<ki>[in my ca]se .hh

20 2⇒well, I’ve always been

21 2⇒

interested in history-

22 2⇒

history or somethin°g°

23 2⇒
well ↑chang[ing .hh=
24
IR:
[Ye::=
25 2⇒IE: =qui]te (0.2) a bit.=26
IR: = s ]16 1⇒
shiteru hito mo:=17
IR: =u[n:: ]18 1⇒IE:[.hh we]:ll (0.3)

27

IR: =Reall::::y[.hh a]no: (0.3)
In (3), the IR presents at lines 1-3 her

19 1⇒
takusan iru n desu kedo:=
20
IR:=u[ :n]assumption

21 2⇒ IE:

something[watashi no baai] wa .hh

thatwritingcarriestoconveyconsiderable

22 2⇒

nanka, koo mukashi kara

responsibility. The IE begins her answer

23 2⇒

nanka rekishi- rekishi toturn by responding to this assumption.

24 2⇒

yuuka nank°a° koo

Tsutawari

25 2⇒ka↑watte iku mono to yuu

conveyed’ at line 14 is understood as, in

26 2⇒[no ni .hh kekkoo kyo]omi=
27
IR:[u n : :]

this context, referring to how messages are

28 2⇒ IE: =ga (0.2) aru.=
29
IR: =hee::::the IE responds to the question asked at

kata

‘how

(something)isconveyed via writing. It is after line 21 thatlines 5-8, namely why the IE has come toanalyze language. Therefore, as in excerpts

01 1→ IR: .h[h I thi[nk so¿:=(1) and (2), the preference for contiguity is

02

IE:

not met.

03

IR: =

04

IE: =ye:s.][.hh[Ye:s: yes=

Watashi no baai wa ‘in my case’ at.h]h=line 21 is a pivotal point in the IE’s

05 2→ IR: =So I wonder why .hhhorganization of her response. There she

06 2→

you’ve come to analyze

focuses on herself. This individualized

07 2→

it.=

focus corresponds to that of the question,08

IE: =Oh(h):.

in the sense that the question is asked

09

(0.2)

about her (not only of her).6 However, what10

the IE is doing after line 21 is distancing

IR: °(I wonder [why ). ]°[Yes the]reherself from the responsibility of writing

12 1⇒

are: .hh well many people

which is mentioned in the IR’s assumption,

13 1⇒

who put emphasis on how

and thereby locating herself out of the

11 1⇒IE:-67-scope of the assumption, rather than

These findings contribute to a closer

answering the question. It also should beunderstanding of complex communicative

noted that she is avoiding either affirming

phenomena in MUQ-answer sequences.

or denying the IR’s assumption. In thismanner, she is avoiding answering the IR’s
MUQ.

Notes
* This work was supported by JSPS
KAKENHI Grant Number 23320081.

5. Conclusion

The author is grateful to Kazuyo Murata,

This paper has analyzed

Ayumi Suga, Miki Hanazaki, Tim Greer,

MUQ-answer sequences through a

Yasuharu Den, Daisuke Yokomori andconversation analytic approach in order to

KAKENHI project members for theirdescribe (1) how answers are organized as

insightful comments and help.

to respond to each unit in MUQs and

1 For review and discussion on

(2)

how

questionrecipients

resistin this sense, see Stivers and Hayashi

assumptions stated explicitly in MUQs
when the assumptions do not hold true forresistance(2010).
2 Puchta and Potter (1999)

them.

also point out

these two aspects.

Concerning the former, the paper has

3 Transcription symbols used in this paper

pointed out four types of design andare shown below. In addition, note that

described the organization in two of them.

words are transcribed as close as possible

However, motivation for non-contiguous

to actual sounds, and therefore do notorganization is something that must be left

necessarily follow the canonical writing

for future research. It may be a part ofsystem.

turn organization concerning= turn transition with no pause between

disagreement as Sacks (1987 [1973])

them, or continuous utterances by theargues, or it may be better analyzed insame speaker

relation to the logical order of the units in[ overlap onset

the turns as Linell et al. (2003) argue.

] end of overlap: prolongation (the more colons, theConcerning the latter, the practice ofresistance (respondents’ disaligning stancemarkingagainstexpectations)

has

the
been

longer the prolongation)- cut-offquestioners’
described(number) pause (number indicates thein

MUQ-answer sequences. In excerpts (1)length by the second)and (3), the IEs locate themselves out of(.) micropause (less than 0.2 second)

the scope of assumptions which do not holdhthe longer the duration)true for them. In excerpt (2), the IE firstprefaces

his

confirmation

disagreement
of

the

with

assumption,aaspiration or laughter (the more h’s,

.h inhalation (the more h’s, the longer

andthrough a stepwise shift of his stance,

the duration)(h) aspiration or laughter within aword

eventually resists the assumption.

-68-

Social Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum↑word intonation rise?

rising intonation (not necessarily

Associates, New Jersey, 57-90.

questioning)

Linell,

Johan

and

Lindholm, Camilla (2003) “Multi-unit“?”)

Questions in Institutional Interactions:,continuing intonation

Sequential:

stressed intonation rise at ending

Communicative Functions,” Text 23(4),>word< quickened speech
word

and

Pomerantz, Anita (1984) “Agreeing andstressed syllable

Disagreeing with Assessments: Some°word° quiet speech(word)

Organizations

539-571.

<word> slowed speech

5

Hofvendahl,rising intonation (rise weaker than

¿

4

Per.,

Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turnuncertain hearing

Shapes.” In: Atkinson, J. Maxwell andType (c) has been under-analyzed in

Heritage, John (eds.), Structures ofprevious studies as well, but the analysis

Social Action, Cambridge University

on it is left for future study.

Press, 57-101.

Sono at line 2 is ambiguous. It may not be

Puchta, Claudia and Potter, Jonathan

a demonstrative but a filler.

(1999) “Asking Elaborate Questions:

6 It is possible to consider this question as

Focus Groups and the Management of

the IR’s expressed uncertainty about

Spontaneity,” Journal of Sociolinguistics

linguists in general, and not solely about

3, 314-335.

the IE. However, since both the IR andSacks, Harvey (1987 [1973]) “On thethe IE know that it is apparent to the IR

Preferencesfor

Agreement

andthat the IE is a linguist, it will be relevantContiguityinSequencesin

for the IE, a linguist and a participant ofConversation.” In: Button, Graham andthis conversation, to provide what she

Lee, John R. E. (eds.), Talk and Social

thinks as an answer on the matter.

Organisation,

Multilingual

Matters,

Clevedon, 54-69.
References

Sandén, Inger, Linell, Per, Starkhammar,

Clayman, Steven E. and Heritage, John.

Hans and Larsson, Ullabeth S. (2001)(2002)“Questioning

Presidents:

Journalistic

Deference

Adversarialness

inConferences

of

U.S.

“Routinization

and

the

Sensitivity:

Interaction in Oncological Follow-up
Consultations,” Health 5(2), 139-163.

Press

Presidents

andStivers,

Tanya

and

Hayashi,

MakotoEisenhower and Reagan,” Journal of(2010) “Transformative Answers: One

Communication 52(4), 749-775.

Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints,”

Heritage,John(2002)“Designing

Questions and Setting Agendas in theNews Interview.” In: Glenn, Phillip,
LeBaron,CurtisandMandelbaum,

Jenny (eds.), Studies in Language and-69-

Language in Society 39, 1-25.

process is not productive; it is restricted tocertain semantic types of adjectives. First, thenominalizer -mi cannot attach to either closedscale adjectives or nongradable adjectives.
(1) Absolute adjective

The Morphology of Deadjectival Nominals
and Verbs in Japanesemassugu-na ‘straight’  *massugu-mi*taira-na ‘flat’  *taira-mianzen-na ‘safe’  *anzen-mi

Chigusa Morita

kiken-na ‘dangerous’  *kiken-mi

Aoyama Gakuin University(2) Nongradable adjectives
nihon-no ‘Japanese’  *nihon-mi

Keywords: adjective, comparative, Distributed

ki-no ‘wooden’  *ki-mi

Morphology, nominalization, verbalization

ame-no ‘rainy’  *ame-mi
Second, the nominalizer -mi cannot follow all
1. Introduction

relative adjectives; it only attaches to adjectives

In Japanese, an adjectival stem is nominalized

related to the semantic classes such as HEIGHT,

by attachment of nominalizing suffixes, such as

WIDTH, WEIGHT and TEMPERATURE. 2-sa, -me, and -mi. 1 Each nominalizer has a(3) Relative adjectives

different selectional restriction (Morita (2012)).

a. SIZE

The nominalizer -sa can attach to all gradableookik- ‘big, large’  *ooki-mi

adjectives. The nominalizer -me can follow

tiisak- ‘small’  *tiisa-mi

relative adjectives (i.e., gradable adjectives withb. LENGH

totally open scales), but cannot follow closed-

nagak- ‘long’  *naga-mi

scale adjectives. The nominalizer -mi has the

mizikak- ‘short’  *mizika-mi

strictest selectional property; it only attaches to ac. HEIGHT
takak- ‘high’  taka-mi ‘a height’

few adjectives.
This paper clarifies the selectional propertiesof the deadjectival nominalizer -mi, and reveals

hikuk- ‘low’  *hiku-mi
d. SPEEDa correlation between deadjectival nominali-

hayak- ‘fast’  *haya-mi

zation with -mi and deadjectival verbalizations.

osok- ‘slow’  *oso-mi

It also claims that the deadjectival nominalizer

e. DEPTH-mi and verbalizers -me- and -mar- contain the

hukak- ‘deep’  huka-mi ‘the depth(s)’same morpheme, which is related to the compar-

asak- ‘shallow’  *asa-mi
f. WIDTH

ative and the vertical dimensions.

hirok- ‘wide’  *hiro-misemak- ‘narrow’  *sema-mi, *seba-mi

2. Mi-nominalization

g. WEIGHT

2.1 The Patterns of Nominalization with -mi
The nominalizing suffix -mi serves to form aomok- ‘heavy’  omo-mi ‘weight’noun denoting the degree or the state of being A

karuk- ‘light’  *karu-miof a given adjective A. But this nominalization-70-

to the adjectives omok- ‘heavy’ to derive ah. TEMPERATURE
atuk- ‘hot’  *atu-mi

nominal denoting a location. This fact seems tosamuk-‘cold’  *samu-mi

come from a conceptual difference of HEIGHT

atatakak- ‘warm’  *atataka-mi

and DEPTH from WIDTH; HEIGHT andsuzusik- ‘cool’ *suzusi-mi

DEPTH are used to refer to the verticaldimensions, while WIDTH is used to refer to thei. AGE
huruk- ‘old’  *huru-mi

horizontal dimension. In consideration of thisatarasik- ‘new’  *atarasi-mi

point, it can be said that the nominalizer -miwakak- ‘young’  *waka-mi

only attaches to the positive members of pairs ofvertical dimensional adjectives.

Some deadjectival nominals in (3) express
locations as well as the degree or the state of the

In summary, only the positive members ofproperty denoted by the base adjective. The

pairs of HEIGHT and DEPTH adjectives

nominals derived from the positive members ofundergo the deadjectival nominalization process

pairs of HEIGHT and DEPTH adjectives,with -mi to derive nominals denoting locations.

taka-mi and huka-mi, have the meanings such as‘an eminence’ and ‘the depths.’ The deadjectival

2.2. Correlation of Deadjectival Verbalizations

nominals derived from other adjectives, on thewith Mi-nominalization

other hand, lack the meanings of locations. The

This subsection reveals a correlation between

nominals derived from adjectives of WEIGHT

deadjectival nominalization with -mi and verbal-

and TEMPERATURE, omo-mi ‘heaviness’ andizations with -me- and -mar-. 3

atataka-mi ‘warmth,’ only denote the degree or

Deadjectival verbs are formed by attachment

the state. In this paper, I only deal with theof the verbalizers -me- and -mar-. The verbalizer

deadjectival nominals that have the meanings-me- attaches to an adjectival stem to form a

expressing locations, i.e., the nominals derived

transitive verb, while -mar- attaches to form anfrom HEIGHT and DEPTH adjectives.

intransitive verb. Like the nominalizer -mi, theAdjectives of HEIGHT and DEPTH areverbalizers -me- and -mar- can only attach to thereferred to as dimensional adjectives. The

positive member of a pair of dimensional

positive member of pairs of dimensional

adjectives.

adjectives can appear in measure phrase

(6)

SIZE

constructions, while other semantic classes ofa. ookik-‘large’

adjectives cannot (cf. Schwarzschild (2005)).

*ooki-me- ‘to enlarge (transitive)’(4) a. HEIGHT: twenty meters high/*low*ooki-mar- ‘to enlarge (intransitive)’b. DEPTH: 1.2 meters deep/*shallow

b. tiisak- ‘small’c. WIDTH: five meters wide/ *narrow*tiisa-me- ‘to make smaller’(5) a. SIZE:*2 inches big/small*tiisa-mar- ‘to get smaller’b. WEIGHT: *6lbs heavy/light(7)

Notice that adjectives of WIDTH are also

LENGTHa. nagak- ‘long’

dimensional, since the positive member can co-*naga-me- ‘to lengthen (transitive)’occur with a measure phrase. As observed above,*naga-mar- ‘to lengthen (intransitive)’

however, nominalization with -mi does not apply

-71-

(13)

b. mizikak- ‘short’(8)*mizika-me- ‘to shorten (transitive)’a. atuk- ‘hot’*mizika-mar- ‘to shorten (intransitive)’*atu-me- ‘to heat (up)’HEIGHT*atu-mar- ‘to get hot’

a. takak- ‘high’b. samuk- ‘cold’

taka-me- ‘to heighten’*samu-me- ‘to cool’taka-mar- ‘to raise’*samu-mar- ‘to get cold’c. atatakak- ‘warm’ 5

b. hikuk- ‘low’(9)hiku-me- ‘to lower (transitive)’*atataka-me- ‘to warm (up)’??hiku-mar- ‘to lower (intransitive)’*atataka-mar- ‘to get warm’SPEEDd. suzusik- ‘cool’a. hayak- ‘fast’*suzu-me- ‘to cool’haya-me- ‘to hasten, to quicken’*suzu-mar- ‘to get cool’haya-mar- ‘to quicken (intransitive)’(14)b. osok- ‘slow’

(10)

(11)

TEMPERATURE

AGE
a. huruk- ‘old’

oso-me- ‘to slow (transitive)’*huru-me- ‘to age (transitive)’oso-mar- ‘to slow (intransitive)’*huru-mar- ‘to age (intransitive)’

DEPTH

b. atarasik- ‘new’

a. hukak- ‘deep’*atarasi-me- ‘to renew (transitive)’huka-me- ‘deepen (transitive)’*atarasi-mar- ‘to renew (intransitive)’huka-mar- ‘deepen (intransitive)’c. wakak- ‘young’b. asak- ‘shallow’*waka-me- ‘to make young*asa-me- ‘to shallow (transitive)’*waka-mar- ‘to become young’*asa-mar- ‘to shallow (intransitive)’

The observations on nominalizations with -mi

WIDTH

and verbalizations with -me- and -mar- area. hirok- ‘wide’
hiro-mer- ‘to spread (transitive)’summarized in (15).
4(15)

hiro-ma- ‘to spread (intransitive)’

Nomi-

b. semak- ‘narrow’nali-

seba-mer- ‘to narrow’

Semantic Classseba-ma- ‘to get narrow’
(12)

with

WEIGHT-mia. omok- ‘heavy’*omo-mer- ‘to make heavier’zationa. SIZE

Verbal-Verbal-izationization

with

with

-me-

-mar-

Pos

*

*

*

Neg

*

*

*

*omo-ma- ‘to get heavy’

b.

Pos

*

*

*

b. karuk- ‘light’

LENGTH Neg

*

*

*

*karu-mer- ‘to lighten (transitive)’

c.

Pos

ok

ok

ok

*karu-ma- ‘to lighten (intransitive)’

HEIGHT

Neg

*

*

??

-72-

√atum-

d.

Pos

*

ok

ok

SPEED

Neg

*

ok

ok

e.

Pos

ok

ok

ok

DEPTH

Neg

*

*

*

f.

Pos

*

(*)

(*)

WIDTH

Neg

*

(*)

(*)

g.

Pos

*

*

*

WEIGHT

Neg

*

*

*

h. TEM- Pos

*

*

*

Neg

*

*

*

Pos

*

*

*

-m- does not participate in verbalizing an

Neg

*

*

*

adjective stem.

PERATURE
i. AGE√hazim√mag√sag√tom-

atum-e-atum-ar-‘to collect’‘to gather’hazim-e-hazim-ar-‘to begin’‘to begin’

mag-e-

mag-ar-‘to bend’‘to bend’sag-e-

sag-ar-‘to lower’‘to get low’

tom-e- ‘to stop’

tom-ar- ‘to stop’

It is -e- and -ar- that derive a verb from anadjectival stem. In other words, the morpheme

Several differences can be observed between

The same applies to deadjectival nominali-

mi-nominalizations and verbalizations with -me-zations with -mi; the morpheme -m- also does

and -mar-. The nominalization with -mi cannot

not participate in determining the category of theapply to SPEED adjectives. Nor can it apply tostem. The following examples show that thethe negative member of the pair of HEIGHT

morpheme -i functions as a nominalizer. In (17),adjectives (i.e., the adjective hikuk- ‘short, low’).

it attaches to a verbal stem to derive a nominal.

The verbalizations with -me- and -mar-, on the(17)
Verbal stemother hand, can apply to these adjectives. These

Nominalization with -i

are the points to be considered, but I leave themayum- ‘walk’

ayum-i ‘walking’open in this paper.

kuras- ‘live’kuras-i ‘life’

nayam- ‘worry’nayam-i ‘worry’3. The Morpheme -M-

omow- ‘think’omo(w)-i ‘thought’

As observed in the previous section, there is ayom- ‘read’

yom-i ‘reading’correlation between the nominalizer -mi and theThus, -mi should be decomposed into theverbalizers -me- and -mar-. Notice that all ofmorpheme -m- and the nominal suffix -i.

them include the consonant /m/. Assuming that

A question arises as to what the morpheme/m/ is an independent morpheme, the verbalizers-m- is. One possibility is that it is the overt-me- and -mar- could be decomposed as -m-e-

exponent of the comparative. According toand -m-ar-, respectively. This is confirmed by

Bobalijk

the fact that many transitive and intransitive

deadjectival change-of-state verb must containverbs in Japanese are derived by attachment of

the comparative; (18a) is a possible representa-

the transitivizer -e- and the intransitivizer -ar- totion, while (18b) is disallowed.

a verbal stem (Jacobsen (1992)).

(18) a. [[[ADJECTIVE] COMPARATIVE] V ∆ ]

(16)
√ag-

(2012),

therepresentationofab. *[[ADJECTIVE] V ∆ ]Transitive

Intransitive

Given that the comparative is contained in the

ag-e- ‘to raise’

ag-ar- ‘to rise’representations of deadjectival verbs with -m-e--73-

and -m-ar-, it seems that the morpheme -m- isrepresentation /m/ is assigned by the vocabulary

the overt realization of the comparative in

insertion rule in (20), where CMPR is theJapanese. Since deadjectival nominals with -m-ifunctional head of the comparative and DIM is

also have the morpheme -m-, it would follow

the head of the functional category related to thethat the comparative is also contained in the(vertical) dimensions. A dimensional adjective

representation of a deadjectival nominal withhas the [+pos(itive)] feature when it is the-m-i.

positive member of the antonym.

It makes sense from the semantic point of(20) {DIM[+pos], CMPR}  /m/view that the comparative is embedded in the

The deadjectival nominal taka-m-i ‘a height’

representations of deadjectival verbs with -m-e-

and verbs taka-m-e- ‘to heighten’ and taka-m-ar-

and -m-ar-. Deadjectival verbs may have the‘to raise’ have the following internal structures.

meanings that imply a comparison with theIn (21), a and v are the functional heads to form

standard. The deadjectival verbs taka-m-e- ‘toan adjective and a verb, respectively. The DIM

heighten’ and taka-m-ar- ‘to raise,’ for example,

head is closer to aP than the CMPR head, since

can be paraphrased as ‘make something higher’

it contributes to determining the core semantics

or ‘become higher.’of an adjective.

The same is true for deadjectival nominals;

(21)

nP 6

a.

deadjectival nominals might also have thereadings connoting a comparison with the

CMPRP

n

standard. For example, the nominal huka-m-i,|

which is derived from the adjective hukak-

DIMP

CMPR

-i

‘deep,’ denotes ‘the location that is deeper than
the standard.’

aP

DIM

As observed in the previous section, however,m[+pos]

deadjectival nominals with m-i and verbs with√a-m-e- and -m-ar- are formed only from the||positive members of pairs of vertical dimension-

taka

(k)

al adjectives. If the morpheme -m- is simply theb.

vP

overt exponent of the comparative, it would be
unclear why it could not attach to other gradable

CMPRP

v

adjectives. Rather than assuming that -m- is not|just the overt realization of the comparative, let

DIMP

CMPR

-e-/-ar-us suppose that it is the phonological realizationof both the comparative and the (vertical)

aP

DIM

dimension with the positive value, as in (19).

m[+pos](19) The morpheme -m- is the overt exponent of√athe comparative and the (vertical) dimen-||sion with the positive value.

taka

(k)

Adopting the framework of Distributed

To sum up, the representations of deadjectival

Morphology (Marantz (2001)), the phonologicalnominals with -m-i and verbs with -m-e- and-74-

-m-ar- contain the comparative. Based on the

Since the positive members of pairs ofobservation that the morpheme -m- attaches only

dimensional adjectives appear in comparative

to the positive members of pairs of verticalconstructions, the vocabulary insertion rule indimensional adjectives, I have proposed that the(20) would require the morpheme -m- to bemorpheme -m- is the overt exponent of the com-overtly realized on these adjectives. Taking theparative and the dimension with the positive

observation in (23) into account, the vocabulary

feature.

insertion rule in (20) should be modified asfollows.

3.2. Some Implications(24) {DIM[+pos], CMPR}  /m/ / __ n/v

Before closing this paper, let us explore some

The morpheme -m- is the overt exponent of theimplications of the analysis presented above.

DIM head with the [+pos] feature and the CMPRFirst, the assumption of the DIM head canhead only if the category-determining functionalofhead n or v appears above CMPRP; otherwise,

dimensional adjectives in English. In English,

the CMPR head is realized in a phonologicallythe positive members of pairs of dimensionalnull form.

give

an

account

fornominalizations

adjectives are nominalized by attachment of thesuffix -th, not a different suffix such as -ness.

4. Summary

This fact can be explained by assuming that theThis paper has demonstrated a correlation

functional head n is overtly realized only as /th/

between deadjectival nominalizations with -m-i

if it is projected above DIMP with the [+pos]

and deadjectial verbalizations with -m-e- andfeature. The internal structure of a deadjectival-m-ar-. It has also proposed that the morpheme

nominal with -th is illustrated in (22).

-m- of deadjectival nominals with -m-i and verbs(22)

with -m-e- and -m-ar- is the overt exponent ofnP

the comparative and the (vertical) dimensionsnwith the positive feature. The findings of thisDIMP

paper imply that the semantic classes affect theDIM

overt morphology, but further investigation isaPrequired to clarify the exact relationship between[+pos]√athe semantics and the morphology.

Second, the comparative morpheme is notovertly realized in comparative constructions inJapanese, as shown in (23).
(23) a. Fujisan-wa
Mt.Fuji-Top

yarigatake-yoritakai.

Mt.Yari-thanhigh‘Mt. Fuji is higher than Mt. Yari.’b. Tazawako-wa
Lake.Tazawa-Top

biwako-yori
Lake.Biwa-than

hukai.
deep‘Lake Tazawa is deeper than Lake Biwa.’*

An earlier version of this paper was presented
at the 31st Meeting of the English LinguisticSociety of Japan held at Fukuoka University on
November 8-9, 2013. I am grateful to Noriko
Imanishi, Takane Ito, Yoko Sugioka and Akira
Watanabe for their invaluable comments andsuggestions. I would like to thank the audienceat the meeting for their helpful comments.
Needless to say, all remaining errors are mine.
1
Deadjectival nominalizations with -sa, -me,and -mi differ not only in their productivity, butalso in their semantic properties. Deadjectival
nominals with -sa and -me denote the degree ofthe state of being A of a given adjective A.

-75-

Nominals with -mi, on the other hand, havevarious meanings, such as feelings andlocations.
2
The nominalizer -mi can also attach to othersemantic classes of adjectives, such as
evaluative, psych and color adjectives.
(i) a. Evaluative adjectives
amak- ‘sweet’  ama-mituyok- ‘strong’  tuyo-misinsen-na ‘fresh’  sinsen-mib. Psych adjectives
arigatak- ‘grateful’  arigata-mi
itak- ‘painful’  ita-mikanasik ‘sad’  kanasi-mic. Color adjectives
akak- ‘red’  aka-mi
aok ‘blue’  ao-misirok- ‘white’  siro-mi
As mentioned later, some deadjectival nominals
with -mi have the meanings of locations inaddition to the meanings denoting the degree orthe state. But the nominals in (i) only have themeanings of the degree or the state. In this paper,
I do not deal with the deadjectival nominals
which only denote the degree or the state.
3
Sugioka (2002) points out that deadjectival
verbalizations with -me- and -mar- are semantically correlated to nominalizations with -me, notnominalizations with -mi.
4
When the adjective hirok- ‘wide’ is verbalized
by attachment of -me- and -mar-, its verbalized
forms, i.e., hiro-me- and hiro-mar-, do not havethe intended meanings such as ‘making
something wide’ and ‘become wide.’ In order tohave these meanings, the different forms
hiro-g-e- ‘to widen (transitive)’ and hiro-g-ar‘to widen (intransitive)’ need to be used. Noticealso that a phonological change takes place on
the adjective semak- ‘narrow’ when the stem isfollowed by -me- and -mar-, as in (11b). I
suppose that adjectives of WIDTH undergodifferent verbalization operations.
5
The transitive and intransitive verbs ‘to warm’in Japanese are atatam-e- and atatam-ar-,respectively. Notice the verbs atatam-e- andatatam-ar- are not derived from the adjective
atatakak-. It seems that the adjective atatakakand the verbs atatam-e- and atatam-ar- are allderived from the verbal stem atatam-, which is
no longer used. The verbalizers -me- and -marcannot attach to the adjective atatakak-, which isconsidered to be deverbal, since verbalization
processes usually do not apply to deverbal

adjectives.
6
Nishiyama (1999) claims that the morpheme-k- is the predicative copula. As shown in (21),however, I suppose that it is the functional heada that forms a relative adjective. I also assume
that in (21) /k/ is deleted for a phonologicalreason. See Morita (2010) for more details.
References
Bobalijk, Jonathan David (2012) Universals in
Comparative Morphology, MIT Press, MA.
Jacobsen, Wesley M. (1992) The Transitive
Structure of Events in Japanese, Kurosio,
Tokyo.
Marantz, Alec (2001) “Words,” Ms., MIT, MA.
Morita, Chigusa (2010) “The Internal Structureof Adjectives in Japanese,” Linguistic
Research 26, 105-117, The University ofTokyo.
Morita, Chigusa (2012) “A Note on Deadjectival
Nominalizations

andVerbalizations

inJapanese,” Linguistic Research 28, 111-126,
The University of Tokyo English Linguistic
Association.
Nishiyama, Kunio (1999) “Adjectives and the
Copulas in Japanese,” Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 8, 183-222.
Schwarzschild, Roger (2005) “Measure Phrases
as Modifiers of Adjectives,” Researches
Linguistiques de Vincennes 35, 207-228,
Shinmura, Izuru (ed.) (1998) Kojien, fifth
edition, Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo.
Sugioka,

-76-

Yoko

(2002)“Keiyoosi

kara

Hasee-suru Doosi no Jitakootai o Megutte(On Transitive-Intransitive Alternation of
Deadjectival

Verbs)”

BunpooRiron:

Rekisikon to Toogo (Grammatical Theory:
Lexicon and Syntax), ed. by Takane Ito,
91-116, University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.

意味を表すため、心理動詞について従来議論されている特徴を概観することにする。
まず、
心理動詞は大きく 2 種類に大別できる。
(2) a. Bill fears ghosts. (Pesetsky 1995:18)

心理的変化を表す
使役移動構文における一考察(A Study on the “Psychological ”

b. Ghosts frighten Bill. (ibid.1995:18)
経験者が主語に生じるタイプ(=(2a)) と経験者

Caused-Motion Constructions)が目的語に生じるタイプ (=(2b)) がある。このうち、後者の経験者目的語動詞のタイプについ中尾 朋子 (Tomoko Nakao)
大阪大学大学院 (Osaka University)ては strike fear / terror into NP と表す意味が類似するため、その特徴をさらに概観する。この経

キーワード：使役移動構文、構文文法、
用法基盤モデル、構文のカテゴリー

1. はじめに
使役移動構文 (Caused-Motion Constructions)には、心理的変化を表すタイプがある(=(1))。
(1) a. The man struck fear into Mary.
(1) b. The gunshot struck terror into theenemy’s heart.

験者目的語タイプの主語は、動作主 (Agent) ま
たは、原因 (Cause) を表すことができる。
(3) Harry (deliberately) frightened Bill.
(Jackendoff 1990:140)
例えば (3) で、主語は意図的に働きかける場合
は動作主となるが、主語は認識対象であり何らかの心理的な変化を引き起こすと捉える場合、原因となる。
また、Hatori (1997) は、経験者目的語タイプの動詞を 2 種類の動詞に意味的に分類できるこ(1) のタイプの構文は、主語に、人間または無とを提案する。
(4) a. awe, frighten, impress, move, scare, etc.

生物が見られ、経路句には経験者を表す名詞句が生起する。構文全体として心理述語 (動詞)(6) b. He awed them into obedience.
(5) a. amuse, annoy, delight, touch, etc.

的な意味を表している。また、このタイプは斜格の位置に感情を経験する主体 (Experiencer)(7) b. His songs touched the people.

をとる心理述語とも考えられる。 (1) は辞書で慣用表現として扱われることもある。

動的である。 (4a) に見られる動詞で (4b) のよ
うに経路表現をとることができ、概念的にその本稿では、心理的変化を表す使役移動構文を対象とし、構文文法 (Construction Grammar) と経験者は主題 (Theme) と捉えられるという。2つ目の動詞タイプは表す感情が比較的静的で用法基盤モデル (Usage Based Model) の観点より考察する。以下では、この構文の特徴を物理あり、(5a) に見られる動詞で、経路表現をとることができない。このタイプの動詞は、概念的的な使役移動構文と心理動詞と比較することで確認する。そして、 [strike fear into NP] が中に経験者は場所 (Location) で捉えられるという。Hatori (1997) は心理動詞の意味を空間的心となって、使用が拡張していることを指摘する。さらに、コーパスの実例を基に検証するこな概念で捉えており、本来空間移動を表す使役
移動構文の意味の捉え方と関連性があると考とで中心例からの使用の拡張と構文カテゴリ
ー全体の性質についても明らかにしていく。

えられる。Hatori (1997) の分類を、心理的変化を表す使役移動構文を特徴付けることへの視

まず、1 つ目の動詞タイプは動詞が表す感情が点の一つとしていきたい。
2. 先行研究2.1 心理動詞の研究
本稿で対象とする使役移動構文は、心理的な2.2 構文文法
本稿では、構文文法の観点で分析を行う。構-77-

文文法の観点では、形式と意味の全体を構文として捉えられるため、本稿の対象の心理動詞的

事典的な知識が関わり、いくつかの種類のスポーツの場面においては strike の使用が容認されな意味を表す使役移動構文を分析するのには利点がある。構文の構成素だけでは捉えられなる例も見られる。(7c) はホッケーの描写である。
一般的に使役移動構文での strike の容認性は困い意味や役割を提示でき、また、結果として構文の部分の構成性が保たれていることも想定難である。
心理的な変化を表す場合は、物理的な使用とされている (Goldberg and Jackendoff 2004, et
passim)。

は逆となる。目的語に感情語 fear / terror が生起する場合、(8a) のように容認が困難である。
(8) a. ??The man struck {fear / terror}.
(8) b. The man struck {fear / terror} into

本稿では、構文と動詞の用法との動機付けに関して、Boas (2003) を概観する。Boas (2003)
は、本来は自動詞である sneeze の生起 (=(6a))
が使役移動構文に可能であるのは、一般的な使Mary.
心理的変化を表す場合、strike は他動詞構文で用の blow の生起 (=(6b)) が動機付けとなっていることを論じている。
(6) a. Mary sneezed the napkin off the table.
(8) b. Lars blew the napkin off the table.

は使用が一般的ではないが、使役移動構文では容認され完全に可能な形式となる。この事実よ(Boas 2003: 272)
(6)で見られる動詞に共通しているのは空気を

まり、strike の使用は物理的な使役移動では困難であるが、心理的変化を表し、メタファー的放出するという意味である。元々の blow の用法とのこれらの意味的な類似から sneeze の生に感情を移動物と捉えられる場合に成立する
ことがわかる。

起が可能となるという。つまり、ある典型例か
ら特殊な動詞の生起例が可能になると考えら

3.2 心理動詞 frighten との比較れる。Boas (2003) は、動詞等，語の意味を重視する構文文法の立場である。本稿でも，この2.1 節で、strike fear / terror into NP は frightenと類似する意味を表すことをみた。そこで、意立場を採り、全体の心理動詞的な意味 (構文の意味)と生起する動詞 (構成素) の両方向の役

味的に類似する動詞 frighten と心理的変化を表す使役移動構文とを比較することで、特徴を明割を想定した考察を行い、心理的変化を表す使役移動構文の特徴を示す。

らかにしたい。
まず、主語の特徴について考察したい。心理3. 心理的変化を表す使役移動構文の特徴

動詞の経験者目的語タイプでは、2.1 節で参照
したが、主語が動作主の場合と原因の場合が見り、心理的変化を表す使役移動構文は経路表現が必要である使役移動構文であるといえる。つ3.1 使役移動構文における strike の生起
物理的な使役移動構文での動詞 strike は、使役移動構文では特殊な振る舞いを見せている。
物理的な事態を表す場合では他動詞として 1 つられる (=(9))。心理的変化を表す使役移動構文
では、(10) のように示すことができる。
(9)
The large man frightened Mary.
(10) a. The man (deliberately) struck fear intoの目的語を表すことができる。しかしながら、物理的な使役移動を strike で表すことが難しい。
(7) a. The man struck the ball.
(7) b. *The man struck the ball into the field.

his enemy.
(10) b. Her presence strikes fear into this(adapted from Jackendoff 1990:144)((8) c. Jennifer Sclater [...] struck the ball

動作主となり、主語が認識対象を表す場合、原因となる。また、(10b) の主語は、認識対象を

into the back of the net. (BNC)
ただし、(7c) のように、世界知識あるいは百科

large man.
(10a) では、主語が意図的に働きかける場合、表すので原因となる。つまり、経験者目的語タイプの心理動詞と同様に、主語は動作主と原因-78-

の場合が見られる。
次に、経験者の捉え方の特徴を確認する。そ心理動詞 frighten では程度表現を表す修飾語を付加できる (=(12a))。(12b) の心理的変化を表

こで、経験者の位置に身体部位語が生起するかどうかについて考察する。心理動詞 frighten は、す使役移動構文は、(12c) の物理的な使役移動
構文と同様に程度表現の付加が難しい。心理的(11a) のように、身体部位語を経験者とすると容認性が低くなる。Hatori (1997) の指摘では、変化を表す使役移動構文は、心理状態の尺度の最終点を含意していると考えられ、心理動詞とこれは心理動詞の意味しか持たない動詞の特徴であるという。一方、(11b) のように使役移は異なり、使役移動構文の基本的な意味を継承していることを示唆する。

動構文では身体部位語が経験者の位置に生起することができる。
(11) a. ??His story frightened my heart.
(Hatori 1997:33)(11) b.

3.3 他の打撃動詞の使用可能性
この節では、頻出する動詞 strike の意味に注
目をして、他の類似する打撃動詞の共起について考察を行う。(13a) の動詞部分に生起可能な打撃を表す動詞を(13b) に挙げる。
(13) a. V [fear] into NP(17) b. shoot, hit, slap. knock, beat,His story struck {fear / terror} into
my heart.

(11) に見られる違いは、経験者をメタファー
的に空間•場所として捉えられるかということに差があると考えられる。つまり、身体を容器と捉えるメタファー <BODY as CONTAINER>

同じ打撃を表す動詞の中でも生起に違いが見が関係する。(11b) の使役移動構文では、前置
詞 into の後の感情語 fear / terror を入れる容器でられる。この差異は、動詞の表す意味要素が異なると考えられる。例えば、kick であれば、「足あると捉えられている。この場合、使役移動構
文は場所へ移動するという意味構造であるので」という打撃の手段の指定があり、bang は「音の放出」という様態が指定されている。打

で経験者を場所 (Location) としてみることができる。ここで、使役移動構文が、Hatori (1997)

撃動詞であっても、特定した手段•様態の指定があると (13a) での生起が困難になるようでの動詞分類に基づくと、(5) でみた、経験者を場所と捉える動詞タイプと捉え方に共通するある。また、tap は、「軽く叩く」という意味であり、打撃の程度の意味が異なるため使用でき部分があると考えられる。一方、frighten はHatori (1997) では動的な感情を表す動詞タイないと考えられる。つまり、(13) に示す生起可能な動詞の種類は典型例の strike との何らかのプ (=(4))であり、経験者は主題 (Theme) と概念的に捉えられる。このことから、経験者の概念

意味要素を類推することで使用が可能になると予測する。

的な捉え方の違いが身体部位語の共起性に関しての違いを見せているとも考えられる。

生起する動詞に類似する意味要素について考察する。まず、strike の表す意味を OED を参最後に、使役移動構文と心理動詞の表す全体的な意味の違いを考察する。使役移動構文の意

照すると、“to cause (a feeling) to fall or comesuddenly”と定義されている。つまり、使役移動

味的な特徴として程度の最終点を表す(Goldberg 1995)。つまり、使役移動構文では程

構文では「突然」という意味要素が strike から取り出す事ができると予測される。Kövesces

度表現の修飾語を付加することが困難である。
(12) a. The man frightened his son a bit.

(1990) によれば、strike は瞬間的な行為を表す
ので、strike fear into NP での恐怖の原因は強いBbb bb. ??The man struck fear into his sona bit.

恐怖の突然生じる危険や、即座に恐怖を生じさせる危険と考えられているという含意がある(12) c. ??The man threw a trash into the box
a bit.

という。つまり、fear/terror を目的語として共起する場合の strike の意味が「突然」、「強い働*kick, *bang, *tap, *swat

-79-

きかけ」
、
「速い働きかけ」という意味要素を示すと考えられる。また、これらの意味要素を共ると容認性が上がるという。
そこで、「連続的な働きかけ」という意味要有する動詞類が心理的変化を表す使役移動構
文に共起可能であるのかを分析していく必要

素についても考察する。この場合は連続的に働きかけるという意味で many times という修飾

がある。
まず、
「突然」を表す意味要素に関しては、語を付加する。
(17) a. Joe struck fear into Mary many times.

suddenly という修飾をすることができる。つまり、(14) のように他の打撃動詞についても「突(22) b. *Joe {hit / shot / slapped} fear into
Mary many times.

然」という意味要素が表されている。
(14) a. Joe struck fear into Mary suddenly.

(22) c. Joe {beat / knocked} fear into Mary
many times.

(19) b. Joe {hit / beat / shot / slapped} fear
into Mary suddenly.

ここでは、strike は連続的に働きかけて恐怖を生じさせるという意味を表す事ができるが hit,

突然である恐怖を表すことと、その生起可能な動詞が適合しているため、「突然」という意味

shoot, slap は動詞の意味には連続性の意味を見せないため使用できないと考えられる。

要素が共通要素であると考える。
次に「強い働きかけ」という意味要素は (15)

従って、[strike fear into NP]が中心例として機能し、strike の意味要素を共有する動詞が共のように、その逆の意味を表す softly で修飾する事ができない。
(15) a. *Joe struck fear into Mary softly.
(20) b. *Joe {shot / hit / slapped / beat /起可能となるのである。反対に、動詞に「突然」や「強い働きかけ」などの意味要素を持たない動詞であると使用が難しくなるといえる。

つまり、「強い働きかけ」を表すという意味要

3.4 まとめ
以上、心理的変化を表す使役移動構文は物理素を共通して strike と意味の類似する動詞が表している。動詞の表す共通する意味要素が心理的な strike の用法では捉えられない、経験者を表す構文であること、主語について心理動詞と的変化を表す使役構文の全体の意味と関係していると考えられる。

同様の特徴を表すこと、また使役移動構文の意
味的特徴も受け継いでいるということを指摘

さらに、「速い働きかけ」という意味要素が関係している。この意味要素に関して、「速いした。動詞の生起に注目すると、strike の意味
要素から他の打撃動詞の使用が類推されるこ働きかけ」と逆の意味を表す修飾語 slowly を付加する。
(16) a. *Joe struck fear slowly into Mary.
(21) b. *Joe {hit / shot / slapped} fearとを確認した。つまり、strike fear into NP は、[V fear into NP] 構文の中心例（プロトタイプ）

slowly into Mary.
(21) c. ??Joe {beat / knocked} fear slowly

理的変化を表す使役移動構文の全体的な意味
要素の関連性と構文のカテゴリーを考察する。

knocked} fear into Mary softly.

として機能すると考えられる。次節では、コーパスの実例を基に、動詞の生起例を検証し、心into Mary.
「速い働きかけ」の意味要素は全ての生起動詞

4. コーパスデータの検証と意味的な適合が見られず、(16ab) の動詞の生起は難しいことがわかる。インフォーマントに

4.1 コーパスでみられる動詞の生起例
前節の議論を踏まえ、2 つのコーパス: British

よれば、(16ab) の動詞の使用は、速さの含意が見られるため slowly とは適合しないが、(16c)

National Corpus (以下表記 BNC)、 The Corpus of
the Contemporary American English (以下表記の動詞では連続性を含意するため、連続的に働
きかけ、ゆっくり恐怖が生じるという意味にな

COCA) で生起例を、V [TERROR] into NP と V[FEAR] into NP について検証していく。結果は-80-

それぞれ表 1、表 2 に示す。
表１. V [TERROR] into NP の動詞の生起に関連する V [FEAR] into NP 生起例を考察する。

BNC の結果[総数 12]

COCA の結果[総数 25]4.2 strike [FEAR] into NP からの使用の拡張
前節で strike と意味要素を共有している動詞

strike[11] / instill [1]strike [21] / bring [2]が類推され生起できるということを基に生起例を考察する。

instill, send

まず、打撃動詞の生起例が見られる。(21) はそれぞれ、beat, shoot の例である。
(21) a. He shot fear into the hearts of all
upstanding people and others [...].

表 2. V [FEAR] into NP の動詞の生起
BNC の結果

COCA の結果[総数 48][総数 145](21) b. [...] and they're going to beat fear

put [24] / strike[20] put [63] /strike [57]
instill [3] /drive
instill [4] , bring [4]into people, [...]. (いずれも COCA)(21a) は、「突然」、「強い働きかけ」、「速い働きかけ」という意味要素を表すものである。また、

inject [2], throw [2], send [2]/ beat, build, carry, cast,(21b) は、加えて連続的な行為を表す意味要素を表している動詞が生起している。これらは、drive, incite, inculcate,
insert, leak, pump, shootstrike の動詞の意味と構文の形式の分析可能性
より可能となる。また、drive の生起例について

表１では、明らかに strike の使用が多く、[strike terror into NP] がかなり定着している。

は (22) の hit / push の意味での使用がある。
(22) The man drove a nail into the board.

(18) はその例の 1 つである。
(18) Its fearsome appearance strikes terror into

この (23) の打撃の意味で (24) の心理的変化を表す使役移動構文に生じると考えられる。
(23) a. He is trying to drive psychological fear
into the American people. (COCA)

the hearts of the Elves’ enemies, [...].
(BNC)
次に、表 2 の V [FEAR] into NP の動詞の生起
例では、terror 句と同様の動詞類の生起が見ら(31) b. He drove fear into the American
people many times.

れるが、生起する動詞の種類も数も多い。両コ
ーパスで同じ動詞類の生起例が見られる。最も(23) では、何度も打撃を与えるという意味で
many times を使用して修飾することができる。

注目すべき点は strike と put の生起数が他の動詞と比べてかなり多く見られることである。そつまり、drive が連続的行為の意味要素を表しており、strike が示す意味要素を共有すると考えしてその 2 つの典型例は以下に示す。
(19) a. [strike fear into NP]られる。
次に、感情発生を表す動詞の生起例が見られ

b. [put [the fear of God] into NP](20) a. This always strikes fear into the hearts

る。(24) は、漸次的な働きかけにより恐怖を移動させるような意味を表す。この場合は strikeof would-be investors. (BNC)(20) b. He himself would put the fear of Godと共通する意味要素は連続的な行為である。
(24) 72 Hutu-controlled radio broadcasts

into the professors of Königsberg andBreslau; [...]. (BNC)

instilled fear into the Hutu population in
Rwanda. (COCA)(19a) は前節より考察した典型例であるが、(19b) は、put が生起し、目的語に特徴が見られる。
この 2 種類の典型例の生起例はそれぞれ、(20) に示す。以下では、これらの典型例とそれ(25) The broadcasts instilled fear into the Hutu
population in Rwanda many times.
(25) のように連続的に働きかける行為を示すために many times で修飾ができる。連続の意-81-

味から心理的変化は漸次的に変化していく事を表す。また、興味深い事に、一般には使用さ[the fear of [God] ]の分析可能性によって，応用・拡張した例が見られる。
(28) a. I put the fear of the Goddess intoher.

れにくい作成動詞 build の使用が見られる。
(26) The 25, 30 years of movies from
Hollywood about jaws and eating
sailboats and light houses has built this(38) b. I think he puts the fear of hell into

fear into most people. (COCA)(26) は心理的変化を表す使役移動構文の形式(28a)では、経験者が女性であるので、Goddessに変えている。(28b) は hell という強意語で応と連続的 (漸次)の意味から類推されて、感情発生の意味で作成動詞 build の使用が可能になる用させている。つまり、元の表現から部分的に
応用、拡張されているのである。また、動詞にと考えられる。また、作成のプロセスは漸次的に恐怖を入れていくというメタファーで捉え注目すると、[V [the fear of God] into NP]の形式
で他の動詞の使用が、BNC、COCA とも数は少られると考えられる。
最後に、(27) に見られる使役移動動詞の生起しであるが、生起例が見られる。例えば、 (29)の strike の生起例は、[strike [FEAR] into NP]の例について考察する。インフォーマントによれ
ば、使役移動動詞の構文の生起には、strike の形式と関わり、応用されていると考えられる。
(29) The real memories and exaggerated horror

意味要素である「突然」・「強い働きかけ」を表すような文脈や含意が必要であると指摘する。

stories have combined to strike the fear of
God into the Serbian minority in Croatia.

恐怖の意味と合うような文脈が必要となるため、strike の意味要素を表している文脈で理解(BNC)

everybody.

(いずれも BNC)

このように、[put [the fear of God] into NP]は一
つのカテゴリーの中心例として、応用•拡張されており、さらなる表現を作り出す元となってされると考えられる。
(27) a. She leaks her fear into my mind
without meaning to.
b. Sex and violence - these words bring

いるとわかる。

fear into every parent's heart.
c. It was that voice that carried fear into

4.4 構文カテゴリーの特徴
V [FEAR] into NP は大きく 2 種類の典型例が(以上すべて COCA)あり、それぞれがプロトタイプとしての役割を果たし、その表現が応用、拡張されていること

以上、strike の意味要素から V [FEAR] into NP
での生起する動詞類が関連することから、を指摘した。この構文に生起する動詞は部分的に意味要素を共有し、一つのまとまりとして家[strike fear into NP] は V [FEAR] into NP のプロ
トタイプとして機能していると指摘する。

族的類似によって捉えられると考えられる。
図 1 に示すように、この構文カテゴリーに生

4.3 [put [the fear of God] into NP]のカテゴリー

起する動詞は部分的に意味要素が共通していることがわかる。打撃動詞は、strike の「突然」もう一つの典型例である put the fear of God
into NP に注目して、中心例 (プロトタイプ)とと「強い働きかけ」という意味要素を共有し、構文の生起例が見られる。また、使役移動動詞

しての特徴を指摘する。
この目的語の[the fear ofGod] は使役移動構文での目的語位置の生起がは文脈として意味要素を共有している。また、感情発生を表す動詞は「連続的行為」の意味要

比較的多く見られ、BNC では、24 例中 20 例(83%) で、COCA では 86 例中 64 例 (74%)であ素が見られ、この構文に生起する。別の典型例
である動詞 put と strike のようにそれぞれの具る。この使用は文字通りの意味ではなく強意表
現として使用されているものである。さらに、体事例が関連し合っている場合 (=(29)) もある。つまり、この構文カテゴリー全体は家族的

her, intense and sharp [...].

-82-

類似に基づいて構成されているといえる。
図.1

Goldberg, Adele E. (1995) Constructions: A
Construction Grammar Approach to Argument

V [FEAR] into NP に生起する動詞の家族的類似

put

Structure. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Goldberg, Adele E. and Ray Jackendoff (2004)“The English Resultative as a Family of

strikeConstructions,” Language 80, 532-567.
Hatori, Yuriko (1997) “On the Lexical Conceptual

意味要素
突然

強い

速さ

働きかけ

連続的

Structures of Psych-Verbs,” Verb Semantics
and Syntactic Structure, ed. Taro Kageyama,行為

15-44. Kuroshio Publishers, Tokyo.
shoothit, slap
使役移動動詞beat, drive

早瀬尚子・堀田優子 (2005)『認知文法の新展

knock開』：カテゴリー化と用法基盤モデル』
研究社, 東京.
Iwata, Seizi (1998) A Lexical Network Approach to
Verbal Semantics. Kaitakusha: Tokyo.

感情発生動詞

5. 結論

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

本稿では、構文文法と用法基盤モデルの観点
より心理的変化を表す使役移動構文 V [FEAR/

Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia.
Jackendoff, Ray (1990) Semantic Structures. MIT

TERROR] into NP に関して、経験者目的語心理
動詞と類似するが、物理的な使役移動構文の性

Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kay, Paul (2013) “The Limits of (Construction)

質を表すことを指摘した。さらに V [FEAR] into
NP は、プロトタイプ的構文 (strike fear into NP,

Grammar” The Oxford Handbook ofConstruction Grammar, ed. by Thomas

put the fear of God into NP) が見られ、生起する動詞の意味要素が関わり、その類推から使用がHoffman and Graeme Trousdale, 32-48.
O x f o r d U ni v e r s i t y P r e s s , O x f o r d .

拡張すると指摘した。この構文カテゴリー家族的類似に基づいて構成され、さらなる生産性をKövesces, Zoltán (1990) Emotion Concepts.
Springer-Verlag, New York.

示唆する。

Kövesces, Zoltán (2000) Metaphor and Emotion:
Language, Culture, and Body in Human

参考文献
Barlow, Michael (2000) “Usage, Blends andfeeling. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Pesetsky, David (1995) Zero Syntax: Experiencers
and Cascades. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Grammar,” Usage-Based Model of Language,
ed. by Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer,

田中茂範・松本曜 (1997) 『空間と移動の表現』
研究社, 東京.

315-345. CSLI Publications, Stanford.
Belletti, Adria and Luigi Rizzi (1988) “Psych-Verbs
and θ Theory,” Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory 6, 291-352.

コーパス、辞書
British National Corpus. (BNC)

Boas, Hans C. (2003) A Constructional Approach to
Resultatives. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

The Corpus of Contemporary American English.
(COCA)

Dowty, David (1991) “Thematic Proto-Roles andArgument Selection,” Language 67, 547-619.

Oxford English Dictionary 2nd edition. (OED)-83-

Levin と Rappaport Hovav の一連の研究では、
動的動詞が、通言語的に、様態動詞と結果動
詞の 2 種類に分類されることを観察している。
(1) a.

「様 態 ・結 果 の 相 補 性 」とそ の 反 例 とされ るもの に つ い て の 再 検 討 *(Reexamination of Apparent
Counterexamples to Manner/Result
Complementarity)
並木 翔太郎 (Shotaro Namiki)
筑波大学大学院 (University of Tsukuba)
キーワード：語彙意味、結果動詞、様態動詞、
様態・結果の相補性、殺害様態動詞

1. 序
本稿は、Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2010)
が提案する「様態・結果の相補性」仮説の経験的妥当性を検証することを目的とする。「様態・結果の相補性」とは、動詞が一度に語彙化できる意味的要素において、様態と結果が相補分布の関係にあることを指す。当該仮説
は、動詞分類や言語類型など、語彙意味論研
究の様々な分野において関係の深い、興味深いものであるといえる。
近年、いくつかの先行研究がこの仮説の反例を指摘している。本稿は、その中でも、特に盛んに分析されている「殺害様態動詞」と呼ばれる動詞類を取り上げ、詳細に分析する。そして、本稿の分析に基づけば、殺害様態動詞はあくまで様態のみを語彙化しているため、「様態・結果の相補性」仮説の反例には当たらないことを示す。
本稿の構成は次のとおりである。2 節では「様態・結果の相補性」仮説ならびに、結果と様態の定義について概観する。3 節では「様態・結果の相補性」仮説の反例として、先行研究で分析されている「殺害様態動詞」について概観し、続く 4 節でより詳細な分析を試み、殺害様態動詞が当該仮説の反例には当たらないことを示す。5 節は結語とする。

b.

Manner Verbs: nibble, scribble,
sweep, wipe, flutter, laugh, run,swim, …
Result Verbs: clean, empty, fill,
freeze, kill, melt, open, arrive, die,enter, faint, …

この観察の興味深い点は、様態動詞は結果を語彙的に表すことはなく、結果動詞も様態を語彙的に表すことはないという点である。例えば、日本語の様態動詞「拭く」が表す行為は、通常拭いたものがきれいになることを目的として行われる。しかし、「テーブルを拭いたが汚れがとれなかった」という具合に、「きれいになる」という結果は、明示的に打ち消すことが可能である。このことから、様態動詞「拭く」は、結果を語彙的に表していないことがわかる。同様に、日本語の結果動詞「壊す」も、「金槌で/投げつけて/踏みつぶして」など様々な様態を付加的に表すことが可能であることから、結果動
詞も、様態を語彙的に表していないといえる。
上記のような観察を経て、Rappaport Hovav
and Levin (2010)では、(2)にまとめたような語
彙化に関する仮説を唱えている。
(2)

Manner/Result Complementarity:
Manner and result meaning
components are in complementary
distribution: a verb lexicalizes only
one.

(2)によれば、様態と結果の意味は相補分布の関係にあり、動詞はどちらか一方しか語彙化することが出来ないことになる。
Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2010)は、この仮説の定式化を、(3)に示すような、彼女らの動詞意味論で試みている。
(3) a.
b.

2. 様態・結果の相補性-84-[x ACT <ROOT>][[x ACT] CAUSE[y BECOME <ROOT>]]

(Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2010:28))

c. * [[x ACT <ROOT>] CAUSE[y BECOME <ROOT>]]
d. * [[x ACT <ROOT1>] CAUSE[y BECOME <ROOT2>]]

尺度変化には(6)のような段階性のあるものや、
形容詞 dead のような段階性を持たないものが含まれる。

Levin らは、動詞の意味を 2 つのパートに分けて考える。１つは、ある動詞類が共有する意味的特性の形式的な表示で、event schema と呼ばれている。そしてもうひとつは、それぞれの動詞がもつ固有の意味特性で、root と呼ばれている。様態動詞という動詞類は、総じて(3a)の event schema を持っている点では違いはな
いが、root によって動詞の意味が異なると仮定される。同じように、結果動詞は(3b)のように表示され、動詞個々の意味は、root によるものだと仮定されている。
この定式化の基では、(4)のような語彙化の制約が存在すると Levin らは仮定している。
(4)

(6)

また、Levin らは様態の概念を、(7)のように、非尺度変化(nonscalar change)として定義している。
(7)

A root can only be associated with
one primitive predicate in an event
schema, as either an argument or amodifier.

root が ACT 述語か BECOME 述語のどちらか一方にしか結びつくことが出来ないという制約から、(3c)のような、両方に root が結びついた表示は排除される。また、root が複数含まれる動詞を見たことがないという経験的事実から、(3d)の表示も Levin らは排除している。このように、Levin らは、「様態・結果の相補性」仮説は、
event schema と root の結びつき方に関する制
約によってフォローされる、と説明している。
次に、Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2010)の結果と様態の定義について概観する。Levin
ら は 結 果 の 概 念 を (5) の よ う な 、 尺 度 変 化(scalar change)として定義している。
(5)

All result roots specify scalarchanges, […] where a scalar is a setof degrees ― points or intervals
indicating measurement values ―on a particular dimension (e.g.,height, temperature, cost), with anassociated ordering relation.

I warmed the soup ≈ the degree of
warmth of the soup increased.

A nonscalar change is any changethat cannot be characterized interms of an ordered set of values ofa single attribute […]. The vast
majority of nonscalar changes […]involve complex changes ― that is
a combination of multiple changes― and this complexity means that
there is no single, privileged scalarof change.
(Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2010:32))

例えば、jog などの移動様態動詞が表す事象
は、経路句が共起しない限り、位置変化などを表すことはない。
(8)

John {jogged/waltzed} in the park.

様態の定義は、その名が示すように、様態と結果の相補性に基づいていると思われる。従って、当該仮説と独立した、十分な定義とは言い難いが、定義の修正は次回に譲り、(7)の定義に基づいて以下議論を進める。
最後に、「様態・結果の相補性」仮説の重要な点を 2 つ述べておきたい。１つは、「様態・結果の相補性」仮説は、様態と結果を同時に語彙化する動詞が指摘されていない、という経
験的事実から導き出されているという点である。
従って、様態と結果の意味を同時に語彙化していると思しき動詞が指摘された場合は、詳細に分析する必要があるということになる。
２つ目の重要な点は、「語彙化」の定義であ-85-

る。Dowty (1991)が言うように、動詞がある意
味を語彙化するならば、その意味はその動詞が用いられる文脈の影響を受けることなく表されるはずである。以下では、この二点、つまり、様態と結果の両方を語彙化していると思しき動詞について、如何なる文脈でもその意味が保持されるか、という観点から分析していく。
3. 「様態・結果の相補性」の反例とされる例
3.1. Beavers and Koontz-Garboden (2012)「様態・結果の相補性」仮説の反例に、(9)のような「殺害様態動詞」が挙げられている(Beavers and Koontz-Garboden (2012),
Husband (to appear))。
(9)

Shane {drowned/electrocuted/
guillotined} Sandy.

直感的に、(9)の例は「Shane が Sandy をどのように殺したか」を表しているように思える。この直観が正しいとすると、分析の焦点は「これらの動詞が「死んでいる状態」という意味を語彙化しているかどうか」という点に絞られることになる。
Beavers and Koontz-Garboden (2012)は、例
えば、結果の打ち消しテストを用いて、殺害様態動詞が「死んでいる」という結果状態を語彙化していると判断している。
(10) a. # John broke the vase, but nothing isdifferent about it.
b.
John hammered (on) the vase, but
nothing is different about it.
(10)は、主節の内容を、後続する節によって打ち消した際に、矛盾が生じるかを調べる言語テストである。(10a)のように、結果動詞が用いられる場合は、主節の内容と従属節の内容で矛盾が生じる。一方、(10b)のように、様態動詞が用いられる場合は矛盾が生じない。
Beavers and Koontz-Garboden (2012) は 、(11)のように、このテストを殺害様態動詞に用いている。
(11) a. # Jane just drowned Joe, but nothingis different about him.
b. # Jane just crucified Joe, but nothingis different about him.
Beavers and Koontz-Garboden (2012)は、(11)に示すように、殺害様態動詞が用いられる場合は矛盾が生じると判断している。このことか
ら、彼らは、殺害様態動詞は結果の意味を含んでいると分析している。
ここまで、Beavers and Koontz-Garboden の分
析を概観した。次に、殺害様態動詞に対して、
より詳細な分析を行った Husband (to appear)を概観する。
3.2. Husband (to appear)
Husband (to appear)では、アスペクトの観点から、殺害様態動詞を２種類に分類している。
(12a)のように、活動事象または達成事象を表す述語を形成する動詞を「クラス I」に、(12b)のように、到達事象を表す述語を形成する動詞を「クラス II」に分類している。
(12) a.
b.

Class I manner-of-killing verbs:
electrocute, drown, poison, etc.
Class II manner-of-killing verbs:
guillotine, decapitate, etc.

この分類は、少なくとも、以下 2 つの経験的事
実によって支持される。１つは、for 句による「出来事の中断解釈」の可否に関する言語事実である。(13)ならびに(14)に示すように、クラスⅠの殺害様態動詞は for 句による「出来事の中断解釈」が可能であるが、クラスⅡの動詞はそのような解釈が得られない。
(13) a.

The State of Florida electrocuted
Ted Bundy for 30 seconds.
b.
Joe Delaney drowned for 5
minutes.
(14)# King Luis XVI was guillotined for
30 seconds.
(13a)を例に取ると、「フロリダ州はテッド・バン
ディーを 30 秒間電気椅子の刑に処した」という解釈になり、30 秒後に電気椅子の刑を中断-86-していることが表されていることになる。従って、電気椅子の刑を 30 秒で中断したということは、
まだテッド・バンディーは生きていることになる。
このように、クラス I の殺害様態動詞は、for 句による「出来事の中断解釈」が容認される。つまり、クラスⅠでは、ある種の結果キャンセルが可能であるということになり、クラスⅠの動詞は、結果を語彙的には表していないという判断が適切に下される。一方、クラス II の殺害様態
動詞は for 句との共起が許されないことから、結果を語彙化していることになると、Husband
は分析している。
殺害様態動詞の下位分類を支持する２つ目の事実として、Husband は結果句 to death の生起可能性を挙げている。Husband によれば、クラスⅠの動詞は to death と共起可能である一方、クラスⅡの動詞は to death と共起できないと判断される。
(15)# Shane killed Sandy to death.
(16) a.
The State of Florida electrocuted
Ted Bundy to death.
b.
Joe Delaney drowned to death.
(17)# King Luis XVI was guillotined todeath.

4. 殺害様態動詞の更なる分析
4.1. Husband (to appear)の問題点
Husband (to appear)では 2 つの経験的事実
から、class II の殺害様態動詞は結果を語彙化していると結論づけていた。しかし、この分
析には少なくとも 2 つの問題点が有ると考えられる。１つは、for 句による出来事の中断解釈の可否である。Husband の分析では、for 句による出来事の中断解釈が容認されない場合は、結果を語彙化している、というものであった。しかし、多くの研究者が様態動詞と看做している
動詞の中にも、for 句の中断解釈が容認されない(18)のようなタイプが存在する。
(18)
(19)

英語では、(15)のように、動詞が表す結果状
態と結果句が表す結果状態が同じ場合は、その結果句の使用は許されない。言い換えれば、殺害様態動詞が to death と共起可能な場合、その動詞は、「死んでいる」という状態を語彙化していないと看做される。(16)に示すように、
クラス I の殺害様態動詞は to death と共起可
能なことから、結果を語彙化していないことになる。対照的に、クラス II の殺害動詞は todeath と共起不可能なことから、結果を語彙化していると、Husband は分析している。
3.3. まとめ3 節では、まず、全ての殺害様態動詞は「結果 」 を 語 彙 化 し て い る 、 と い う Beavers andKoonz-Garboden (2012)の分析を概観した。しかし、この分析は、Husband (to appear)の分析からわかるように、十分ではない。Husband の分析によれば、結果を語彙化しているのはクラス II の動詞 (guillotine) に限られるということになることがわかった。
4 節では、Husband の分析の問題点や新たな言語事実を基に、クラス II の殺害様態動詞
でさえも、結果は語彙化していないことを明らかにする。

# Mary {knocked/kicked} the door
for 30 seconds.
# The
executioner
guillotined
Kerberos for 30 second.

(18)の動詞は semelfactive verb と呼ばれ、特徴としては、瞬間的な行為を表す。(18)では、「ドアを複数回ノックする/蹴る」のような解釈矯正を行わない限り、容認されないのである。このような事実は、(19)のような、クラス II の殺害
様態動詞でも同様で、反復の解釈でなければ容認されない。つまり、for 句による出来事の中断解釈が容認されないことが、当該の動詞に結果の意味が語彙的に含まれていることを必ずしも示していないのである。
semelfactive は、達成動詞と「瞬間的な出来事を表す」という点で類似している。しかし、達成動詞が結果を語彙的に含意する一方、
semelfactive は結果を含意しないという点で区別される。この違いは、(20-21)に示すような、
in X time 句の解釈の違いからも明白である。
(20)

-87-

Bill arrived at the station in anhour.

(21) a. * Mary knocked the door in ten
minutes.
b. * The executioner guillotined theprisoner in ten minutes.
(20)の達成動詞を含む述語と in X time 句が共起した場合、「スタートから一時間後に駅に到着した」という完了的な解釈になる。一方、(21)の semelfactive の場合は、in X time 句が起動相にかかる解釈、すなわち、「10 分経ってからドアをノックし始めた/ギロチンの刑を実行 し た 」と い う 解 釈 し か 容 認 さ れ な い 。 in X
time 句は、「始まり」や「終わり」といった出来事の意味的な境界を必要とする性質がある。このことを考慮に入れると、(21)の言語事実は、
semelfactive に始まりの局面しか内在されていないため、(20)のような解釈が容認されない、と説明されるのである。つまり、guillotine には結果相が含まれていないといえる。
2 つ目の問題点は、結果句 to death の生起可能性に関する文法判断である。Husband (toappear)では、guillotine と to death の共起は容認されないと判断したが、(22)に示すように、発表者のインフォーマント 5 人全てが容認されるという判断を示している。
(22)

The executioner guillotined King
Luis XVI to death.
(cf. (17))

ここで、Husband が用いている guillotine の例
が全て受動文であることに注目されたい。特定の様態動詞が受動文などにおいて過去分詞形で用いられる場合、結果状態を表すという事実は、これまで多くの先行研究で指摘されている(Embick (2004))。受動文の形式において、guillotine が結果の意味を帯びているとす
れば、(17)における to death の容認度の低さが
動詞それ自体に原因があるとは言えないことになる。この点に関しては、4.3 節で再度触れることにする。
以上 2 つの問題点から、クラス II の殺害様
態動詞も結果を語彙化しているとは言えない
ことが明らかとなった。

4.2 節では、さらに 2 つの経験的事実を提示
し、クラス II の殺害様態動詞でさえも、結果は語彙化されていないことを明らかにする。
１つ目の経験的事実は、結果の打ち消し可能性に関するものである。3 節で見たように、
Beavers and Koontz-Garboden (2012)では、殺害様態動詞は結果を打ち消す文脈では用いられないと判断されている。しかし、(23)に示
すように、適切な文脈のもとでは、結果を打ち消す従属節が生起しても、矛盾が生じることはない。
(23) a.

b.

[Situation: The prisoner is an alien
who is alive even without hishead.]The executioner guillotined theprisoner, but he didn’t die.
[Situation: The prisoner is an alien
who can change his skin tosuper-alloy.]
The executioner guillotined theprisoner, but his head couldn’t be
cut off.

(23a)が示すように、首を切っても死なない生物が被動者として生起する場合、結果の打ち消しは問題なく容認される。ここで、「殺害様態動詞 guillotine が語彙化している結果は、死んでいることではなく、切断されている状態である」と反論されるかもしれない。しかし、首が切れなかったという打ち消しも可能であることは、(23b)からも示される。なお、(24)のように、
結果動詞は如何なる文脈が与えられても結果の打ち消しが許されないことから、guillotine で予測される如何なる結果も、語彙的に表されていないことは明白である。
(24)# [Situation: The prisoner is an alien
who is alive even without hishead.]The executioner killed the prisoner
by cutting off his head, but hedidn’t die.

２つ目の経験的事実は、結果句の in 句の生4.2. 本稿における分析-88-

起可能性についてである。Namiki (2013)では、
結果動詞が用いられる(25)のような結果構文では、in pieces のような結果を表す in 句が生起可能であるが、(26)のような様態動詞の結果構文では結果を表す in 句の生起が容認されないことを指摘している。
(25)
Bill broke the vase in pieces.
(26) a. * Bill hammered the vase in pieces.
b. * The tiger clawed the curtain intatters.
殺害様態動詞が生起する結果構文(27)は、まさに様態動詞の結果構文と同じ文法判断が下
される。
(27)

* The executioner guillotined theprisoner in two pieces.

このような言語事実も、guillotine が結果を語
彙的には表さない、様態動詞であると仮定す
れば、自然に説明することができる。
なお、4.2 節で触れた、受動文と結果の意味の関係について、ここで補強証拠を示したい。
Namiki (2013)では、in 結果句は結果の意味が語彙的もしくは構文的に保証されている場
合に用いられることを明らかにした。もし、受動文という形式が結果の意味を表すとするなら
ば、guillotine が受動文で用いられた場合、in
結果句と共起できると予測されるが、この予測が正しいことが(28)によって示される。
(28)

The prisoner was guillotined in twopieces.

以上、２つの経験的事実から、クラスⅡの殺害
様態動詞でさえも、結果を語彙的に表してはいないことが明らかとなった。
5. 結語
本 稿 で は 、 Rappaport Hovav and Levin(2010)等で提案された「様態・結果の相補性」
仮説の妥当性を検証するべく、Beavers andKonntz-Garboden (2012) や Husband (toappear)で指摘された反例と思しき例である、

殺害様態動詞について詳しく分析した。
Husband は殺害様態動詞を２種類に分け、そのうちのクラス II の殺害様態動詞が結果を語彙化していると分析した。しかし、本稿の分析に基づくと、如何なる殺害様態動詞であっても、結果の意味は語彙化されていないと結論付けることができる。結果が強く含意されるのは、
被動者の指示対象に対する百科事典的知識、
例えば、「生物は首を切断されたら死ぬ」というような知識が影響していると考えられる(例えばGoldberg (2010)の cultural unit など)。しかし、様態と結果は同時に語彙化されることは、現時点ではないため、「様態・結果の相補性」仮説は妥当であると結論づけられる。
注* 本稿は日本英語学会第 31 回大会で口頭発表した原稿に加筆・修正を加えたものである。本研究をまとめるに際して、廣瀬幸
生先生、加賀信広先生、島田雅晴先生、和田尚明先生、金谷優先生より、貴重なご指摘やご助言を賜った。また、研究発表の際に、大会会場にて多くの諸先生方より、大変有益なご助言、ご指摘を賜った。ここに記して、感謝申し上げたい。なお、本稿は
平成 25 年度文部科学省科学研究費補助金(特別研究委員奨励費)による研究成果の一
部である。
参考文献
Beavers, John and Andrew Koontz-Garboden(2012) “Manner and Result in the Roots of
Verbal Meaning,” Linguistic Inquiry 43-3,
331-369.
Dowty, David (1991) “Thematic Proto-Roles
and Argument Selection,” Language 67-3,
547-619.
Embick, David (2004) “On the Structure of
Resultative
Participles
inEnglish,”Linguistic Inquiry 35-3, 355-392.
Goldberg,
AdeleE.
(2010)“Verbs,Constructions, and Semantic Frames,”
Syntax, Lexical Semantics, and Event
Structure, ed. by Edit Doron, Malka
Rappaport Hovav, and Ivy Sichel, 39-58,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

-89-

Husband, Matthew (to appear) “Rescuing
Manner/Result
Complementarity
from
Certain Death,” CLS 47.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav(1991) “Wiping the Slate Clean: A Lexical
Semantic Exploration,” Cognition 41,
123-151.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav(1992) “The Lexical Semantics of Verbs ofMotion:The
Perspectivefrom
Unaccusativity,” Thematic Structure: Its
Role in Grammar, ed. by Iggy M. Roca,
247–269, Foris Publications, Berlin, NewYork.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav(1995) Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical
Semantics Interface, the MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (toappear)“Lexicalized
MeaningandManner/Result
Complementarity,”
Subatomic Semantics of Event Predicates, ed.
by Boban Arsenijevi’c, Berit Gehrke, andRafael Marín.
Namiki, Shotaro (2013) “On the Occurrence ofin Resultative Phrases in Argument Structure
Construction-Based Resultatives,” JELS 30,
152-158.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin(2010) “Reflections on Manner/Result
Complementarity,”
Syntax,
LexicalSemantics, and Event Structure, ed. by Edit
Doron, Malka Rappaport Hovav, and Ivy
Sichel, 21-38, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Talmy, Leonard (1991) “Path to Realization: A
Typology of Event Conflation,” BLS 17,
480-519.

-90-

る必要があり、これらの２つの概念の「融合（妥協）」が最適性理論においても重要な役割をしていることを論証するものである。
生成文法と最適性理論の融合性について―規則の簡潔性と傾向の観点から*―

1. レキシコンの構造
まず、形態論におけるレキシコンでの語形成
における派生や屈折においては、以下に見られるように、必ずしも、簡潔性の尺度という概念が最大限に適用されているとは言えない。

(On the Fusion between Generative
Grammar and Optimality Theory)
西原哲雄 (Tetsuo Nishihara)
宮城教育大 (Miyagi University of Education)
キーワード：規則、制約、簡潔性、傾向、文法理論

0. はじめに
近年、音韻理論の中心を担っているのは主に、
Prince & Smolensky (2004)などによって提唱された最適性理論(Optimality Theory)という制約を基本概念とした理論であり、生成文法(Generative Grammar)に基づいて提案された
Chomsky & Halle (1968)によるSPE 理論(TheSound Pattern of English )などに代表される
規 則 に 基 づ く 生 成 音 韻 論 (Generative
Phonology) とは大きく異なるものとして受け入れられている。この生成文法や生成音韻論におけるもう１つの重要な概念が「簡潔性の尺度(Simplicity Metric)」であり、この概念によって生成文法や生成音韻論はそれらの中で可能な文法から簡潔性の尺度に基づいて適切な１つの文法を選び出していた。
この簡潔性の尺度というものは、規則という概念を破棄し、違反可能な制約という概念を導入した最適性理論においても、生成文法と同様に重要な概念であることは疑う余地のない事であると受けいれられている。
しかしながら、本稿では、この２つの理論での共通概念である簡潔性の尺度というものは、
確かに重要な役割を成していることは事実であるが、唯一この概念のみが可能な文法の選択を も た ら し て い る の で は な く 、「 傾 向(Tendency)」という概念も、同時に考慮にいれ(1) a. Regular and irregular forms arederived by rule.
b. Regulars and irregulars are listed.
c. Regulars are derived by rule,
irregular are listed.
(Say and Clahsen 2002)
上記の中で、簡潔性の尺度というもの最大限に反映しているものとしては、(1a)が挙げられる
ことなるが、実際の言語現象からは、(1c)が最も実際の言語現象をうまく説明できるものとして考えられる。
例えば、
De Boer (1981)では、
イタリア語の規則形及び不規則形のいずれの屈折接辞付加をされる語は、規則によって形成されていると主張している。しかし、その一方で、Burzio (1998) では、すべての屈折の過程を経た語はレキシコンに記載されていると述べている。
このようななかで、生成音韻論では、言語間や言語内での方言差による音韻現象や形態現象については、それぞれの言語固有の規則によって形成されるとしている。
2. 生成音韻論による分析
King(1969)では、上記の現象を、次にあげるよ
うな3 つの音韻規則の構築の違いによって説明が可能であると指摘している。
(2) a. Rule Additionb. Rule Lossc. Rule Reordering-91-(King 1969)このような考え方は、以下に挙げるような図式によって説明、表示が可能である。ここではある言語の標準語と方言間の相違というものを、基底表示である X からそれぞれ異なる音声表
示形(Y1~Y4)が出力される事実を、(2)で挙げられた３つの規則(A,B,C)の配列の相違で説明できることを簡単に示している。
(3) (標準語) (方言１) (方言 2) (方言 3)
X
↓

X
↓

Rule(s) Rule
Addition(A-B) (A-B-C)
↓
↓
Y1

Y2

X
↓
Rule
Loss
(A)
↓
Y3

X
↓
Rule
Reordering(A-C-B)↓
Y4

生成文法や生成音韻論では、このような規則の定式化の配列の違いなどによって、言語間や特定言語内の標準語と方言との相異などを的確に説明できるとしているが、(3)で見られるような特定の規則の想定や、複雑な規則の設定などが要求されることになるので、その妥当性は疑わざるを得ないものである。

しかしながら、最適性理論が登場した初期においては、上記で見られるような制約は世界の言語においての普遍的特徴であるという前提があったが、最適性理論の枠組みがさまざまな現象を説明してゆく上で、制約の大前提である
普遍的特徴ではない制約によって、それぞれの言語の音韻現象の説明が行われるようになってきた。
例えば、ある言語における音習得の段階を最適性理論で説明する時には、言語において有標であるとされる軟口蓋閉鎖音である [ k ] の出現を阻止するような制約[ *k] の設定は問題なく考えることができ、入力 (Input)と出力(Output)における同一性を求める制約である
Faith (忠実性)を設定することで、次に挙げる
ように、ある言語における一般的な音習得の段
階をうまく説明することができる。すなわち、子供の初期の段階では、[ k ] の出現を阻止する
ような制約[ *k]が高い位置に配置されているために、[ k ] の出現は阻止されると説明できる。
(4) <Input: ki >ki
☞ pi

3. 最適性理論による分析
このような考え方に対して、最適性理論では、
世界の言語における普遍的な特徴に基づく違反可能な制約の設定と、それらの制約の優先順
位によって説明が可能であり、生成文法による規則に基づく説明よりも、より簡潔性の高い説
明が可能となる。一般的に、最適性理論の制約の代表的なものとしては、Tesar & Smolensky(2000)にしたがえば、ONSET (Syllables haveonsets ： 頭 子 音 を 認 め る ) や NoCODA(Syllables do not have codas：尾子音は認められない)というようなものが挙げられ、この２つの制約を用いるだけで、世界の言語に関わる音節構造の妥当性がうまく説明ができるとされている。すなわち、このような２つの制約から、世界の言語の多くが開音節構造を基本としていることが、的確に説明されることになる。

[ *k ] >> Faith*!
*(5) <Input: ki> Faith >> [ *k ]
☞ ki
*
pi

*!

一方、(5)のように大人の段階になれば、上記の制約の序列化が変更されることによって、大人の音韻体系が構築されるというように説明が可能になる。
しかしながら、上記のような言語習得の段階における一般的な音変化とは相反するような現象も大人などの音韻変化において観察されることもある。そして、これら音韻変化を最適性理論の枠組みでの説明を試みると、非常に有標で ad hoc な制約である、普遍性の高い音である [ p ]の出現を阻止するような制約である、[ *p ]というような制約を設定せざるを得ない場合が存在することになる。

-92-

(6) <Input: pi >pi
☞ ki

[ *p ] >> Faith*!
*

このタブローでは、この言語における音韻現象を説明するために、有標性の概念からは認められず、制約の基本的概念である普遍的であるという特徴を破棄したような[ *p ]というような制約によって説明がなされている。しかし、原(私信) によれば、「その言語における音韻現象
を最適性理論で説明する時には、そこで設定される制約は普遍性という特徴から逸脱して、特定の音の出現などを阻止するような ad hoc な
制約の設定も必要である」という見解を示しており、(6) のような分析も妥当であると述べていた。
また、日本語における無声閉鎖音の帯気音(aspiration)が生起しないという現象は、[ *ph ]という特定の制約を設定することで(ここでは、無声閉鎖音の帯気音を異音ではなく１つの音素と解釈する)、うまく日本語におけるこの現象を説明することができる。
(7)<Input: ph i>
ph i
☞ pi
bi

[ *ph ] >> Faith(Ident-Voice)*!
*!

ここまで見てきた言語現象の統括をすると、言語における形態論的過程や音韻変化の方向性を検討すると、いわゆる生成文法の基礎となる「簡潔性の尺度(Simplicity Metric)」なるものや、最適性理論における普遍性という特徴のみにて、選択されるべき文法が選らばれるのではなく、ある程度における特殊性や ad hoc な観点から、これらの言語現象を説明されるべきであると考えられる。
ゆえに、次節では、Scalise(1986)などで提唱
さ れ て い る 生 成 形 態 論 (Generative
Morphology)における、形態部門における諸制約について概観することにする。

4. 形態部門の傾向
そこで、上記で見てきた、最適性理論による音韻論以外のその他の言語現象がどのようになっているのかを観察してみると、形態論におけ る 右 側 主 要 部 の 規 則 (Right-hand Head
Rule: RHR)も絶対的な制約ではなく、以下に見られるように一定の傾向を示しているに過ぎないことがわかる。
(8) Right-Hand Head Rule (RHR)
a. R-Head (Germanic)b. L-Hand (Romance)c. R/H-Head (Vietnamese)(Booij 2010)
上記から分かるように右側主要部規則は、一見して、語族によってパラミター的に説明が可能のように見えるが、ベトナム語のように、本来語は右側主要部であり、中国語由来の語は左側主要部であるという複雑な構造を持つ言語については適切に説明をすることが不可能である。
さらに、語彙音韻論(Lexical Phonology)においても、その形態的派生が以下のような階層化を破っている例が散見されており、以下に代表的な例を挙げる。
(9) Lexical Phonology
層 1：Class I Affixation
層 2：Class II Affixation
層 3：Compounding
層 4：Inflection(Mohanan 1986)(10) [ re- [air condition ]](*Compounding →Class II Affixation)
この例では、語彙音韻論における派生の階層の順序化が破られている代表的な例であり、Mohanan (1986)では層 3 から層 2 への逆行
(Loop)という、とても ad hoc な解決方法を提案
せざるを得なかった。

-93-さらに、形態論一般に見られる、単語の派生と屈折における順序付けも、以下に見られるよ
うに一般的な制約が存在するが、実際にはその順序付けを守らないような実例が散見されることもまた、事実であり、これらは「傾向」という用語を用いることで処理がなされている。
(11) a. Word-Derivation-Inflection
b.*Word-Inflection-Derivation(Scalise 1986)(12) [B]ut this tendency can not be elevatedto the status of a universal constraint.
(Bochner 1984)
5. 結語
以上、生成文法から最適性理論における理論的枠組みの移行というものにおいて、これらの文法理論は一見まったく正反対である両極にある言語理論と解釈されぎみであるが、実際にはこれらのいずれの言語理論も、「簡潔性と特殊性（複雑性）」の両方の概念を含んでいるものであり、この２つの理論において共通する中心的概念は、「傾向(Tendency)」という概念であり、「簡潔性と特殊性（複雑性）」という２つの概念の「融合（妥協）」が生成文法でも、最適性理論においても重要な役割をしていることが論証される。また、最適性理論における ad
hoc な制約の設定も妥当なものであると言える。
＊本稿は日本英語学会第 31 回大会（於：福岡大学 2013 年 11 月 9 日）において「生成文法と最適性理論の融合性について―規則の簡潔性と傾向の観点から―」と題した口頭発表の草稿に加筆・修正を加えたものである。当日、聴衆としておられた、田中伸一先生（東京大学）、
上田 功先生（大阪大学）、本間 猛先生（首都大学東京）からは、貴重なご意見とご指摘をいただいたことに心から感謝し、ここに記して謝意を示したい。もちろん、本稿にすべての誤りや不備については、言うまでもなく、すべて筆者の責任である。

参考文献
Bochner, Harry (1984) “Inflection and
Derivation,” Linguistic Review 3,
411-421.
Booij, Geert (2010) Construction Morphology.,
London, Oxford University Press.
Burzio, Luigi (1988) “Multiple Correspondence, “ Lingua 104, 79-109.
Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle (1968)
The Sound Pattern of English., Harper &Row, New York.
De Boer, Martin (1981) “The Inflection of the
Italian Verb: A Generative Account,”
Journal of Linguistics 2, 55-93.
King, Robert (1969) Historical Linguistics
and Generative Grammar, Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey.
Mohanan, Karuvannur (1986) Lexical
Phonology, Ridel, Dordrecht.
Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky (2004)
Optimality Theory, Blackwell, London.
Say, Tessa and Harald Clahsen (2002)“Words, Rules and Stems in the Italian
StorageandMentalLexicon,”Computation in the Language Faculty,
ed. by Sieb. Nootemboom, Fred
Weerman and Frank Wijnen, 93-129,
Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Scalise, Sergio (1986) Generative Morpholgy,
Foris, Dordrecht.
Tesar, Bruce and Paul Smolensky (2000)

Learnability in Optimality Theory,
MIT press, Cambridge.

-94-reading: Olga dances beautifully).
(Yamakido (2005: 64))(2) a.

{tiisana sikakui/sikakui tiisan} iesmall square/ squaresmall house‘small square house’

On Morphosyntactic Competition in Nominal
Modification*(Sproat and Shih (1988: 488))b.

Olga-gautukusii

odoriko-da .

Kazuya Nishimaki

Olga-Nombeautifuldancer-Cop

University of Tsukuba‘Olga is a beautiful dancer (intended
reading: Olga is beautiful and Olga is a

Keywords: direct modification, A-N compounding,dancer).’lexicalization, competition, realization pattern

English uses direct modification because attributive
adjectives observe ordering restrictions, as in (1a),and can have non-intersective readings, as in (1b).

1. Introduction

In contrast, Japanese uses indirect modification

Ackema and Neeleman (2004) develop theCompetition

Theory,aunifiedtheoryofcross-linguistic and inter-modular comparison that

because attributive adjectives have free orderings, asin (2a), and they are interpreted only intersectively,
as in (2b).

crucially depends on the notion of morphosyntactic

The organization of this paper is as follows.

competition. This paper aims to demonstrate its

Section 2 reviews previous studies and makes a new

validity by analyzing the difference in nominal

generalization about direct modification in Japanese.

modification

English.

Section 3 outlines the framework of the Competition

Cross-linguistic comparison is very common in

Theory. Section 4 proves the validity of this theory

linguistic research. However, there are typologicalby showing that the generalization made in section 2

phenomena that cannot be properly explained unlessnaturally follows from the relevant theory. Section

we make morphosyntactic as well as cross-linguistic

5 makes concluding remarks.

comparisons.

betweenJapanese andOne such phenomenon is thedifference in question: it is only by adopting the2.

Generalization about Direct Modification in

Competition Theory that we can capture what

Japaneseexactly the difference is. Specifically, we show that

Direct modification in Japanese is discussed inthis difference is attributable to interaction between

detail in the literature, such as Baker (2003),

morphosyntactic competition and typology.

Yamakido (2005), and Watanabe (2012).

This

Japanese and English differ notably in the use

section examines the proposals in these works moreof indirect or direct modification for nominal

closely and makes a generalization about directmodification. Sproat and Shih (1988) distinguishmodification in Japanese.

direct modification from indirect modification based

Baker (2003) attributes the possibility of directon ordering restrictions on attributive adjectives andmodification

their non-intersective readings:

phi-features.

(1) a.

thepresence

of

Baker

assumes

adjectivalthat

directmodification derives from adjective-noun direct{small square/*square small} table(Sproat and Shih (1988: 465))b.

toOlga is a beautiful dancer (intended

merger,which

requiresfeature-checking.

According to Baker, direct modification is possible-95-

in English due to adjectival phi-features, but it is

the intended reading. Given this, it is questionable

impossible in Japanese in the absence of thesewhether the expression under discussion directly

features. Moreover, in Baker’s categorial theory,reflects Japanese grammar; (3) is not sufficient toonly adjectives can qualify as direct modifiers.

conclude that Japanese adjectives can be direct

Nouns and verbs cannot be direct modifiers because

modifiers. In fact, the impossibility of adjectival

their thematic information cannot be properly

direct modification in Japanese is suggested in Table

analyzed in direct modification configuration, with1:

the result being that they violate the theta criterion.

nominal modifiers with -no (henceforth -no

Yamakido (2005) and Watanabe (2012) argue

direct modifiers in English correspond to

modifiers) in Japanese.

An exception is hurui

against Baker (2003). Yamakido (2005) argues that‘long-time’ in hurui yuuzin ‘old friend’ (theadjectives can be direct modifiers in Japanese based

following are quoted from Taishukan’s Unabridged

on their non-intersective readings:

Genius English-Japanese Dictionary [TUGEJD]).

(3) Peter-ga
Peter-Nomhurui

tomodati-da.

long.timefriend-Cop

Table 1EnglishJapanesemy old friend

watasi-no hurui yuuzin(Yamakido (2005: 67))

Japanese ideas

nihon-no sisoo

According to Yamakido, the adjective hurui

a wooden box

ki-no hako‘long-time’ in (3) has a non-intersective reading (‘forthe following day

tugi-no hi

mathematical formulaesuugaku-no koosiki

religious liberty

sinkoo-no ziyuu‘Peter has been a friend for a long time.’

a long time’).
Furthermore, observing ordering restrictions
on nominal modifiers, Watanabe (2012) claims that

Furthermore, this correspondence indicates that -no

nouns of nationality/origin or material can qualify asmarked nouns are more widely used for direct

direct modifiers in Japanese:modification than Watanabe (2012) observes, as they(4) a.

hokuoo-no

ki-no

isu

North.Europe-Gen wood-Gen

are not restricted to nationality/origin or material.

chair‘North European wooden chair’b * ki-no

hokuoo-no

In summary, we can make the following
generalization about direct modification in Japanese:isuwood-Gen North.Europe-Gen(5) In Japanese, direct modification is possible

chair

for nouns (-no modifiers) and not for(Watanabe (2012: 508))

adjectives.

In (4), the nouns hokuoo ‘North Europe’ and ki

Sections 3 and 4 explain the underlying reason for‘wood’ conform to the ordering restriction.

this generalization within the framework of the

Watanabe notes that denominal adjectives ofCompetition Theory.

nationality/origin or material are not found inJapanese (e.g. North European, wooden) and that

3. The Competition Theory

nouns with particle -no are instead used as modifiers.

The Competition Theory is very unique in

Let us assess the validity of these proposals.

unifying

cross-linguistic

andinter-modular

In favor of Baker (2003), we eliminate the possibility

morphosyntactic comparison. In this theory, directof adjectival direct modification in Japanese, which

modification can be viewed as syntactically realizing

is noted by Yamakido (2005).

nominalAccording to

Watanabe (2012: 511, fn. 7), the use of hurui

modification.

Morphosyntactic

comparison means that this syntactic realization is‘long-time’ in (3) is highly indicative of translation of-96-

contrasted with its morphological counterpart. Our

The next section considers the relationshipclaim is that, for example, a Japanese A-N

between direct modification and A-N compounding

compound, e.g. koku-ban ‘black board,’ is awithin the framework of the Competition Theory.

morphological counterpart of direct modification.

This consideration reveals that the generalization in

In the literature, there has been little discussion on(5) directly derives from this theory.

the relationship between direct modification andA-N compounding.

However, the Competition

Theory can address this relationship by contrasting

4. Completion-Theoretic Analysis
4.1. Direct Modification and A-N Compounding

these two realization patterns.

According to the Competition Theory, the

The Competition Theory hypothesizes that

impossibility of adjectival direct modification insyntax and morphology compete for PF realization

Japanese, which is generalized in (5), is due to itsof a morphosyntactic representation. According tomorphological preference:

this hypothesis, languages are classified as either

morphological realization of nominal modification,

syntax-preferring

i.e. A-N compounding, blocks its syntacticormorphology-preferringin Japanese, thelanguages. Based on the unattestedness of genuine

counterpart, i.e. direct modification.

verbal compounds, for example, * to truck-drive in(2003) suggests, direct modification and A-N

English, Ackema and Neeleman assume that English

compounding are identical in that adjectives modify

belongs to syntax-preferring languages.

nouns through direct merger.

The

As BakerThus, in both

occurrence of * to truck-drive is blocked by the VP

realization patterns, the same items, i.e. adjectives

to drive trucks.

and nouns, are merged, and they establish the same

In contrast, Japanese can beclassified as a morphology-preferring language

modifier-modifee relationship.

because verbal compounds are widespread incompetition obtains between direct modification andJapanese (e.g. sen-sha(suru) (V-N) ‘to wash cars,’

A-N compounding.1

tabe-hazimeru (V-V) ‘to begin to eat’).

In these respects,

If the present analysis is valid, we can easily

Morphosyntactic competition obtains under

predict that competition results in the possibility of

two conditions. One is that the same items are

A-N compounding in Japanese and its impossibility

merged in syntactic and morphological realization.

in English. The Competition Theory leads us to

The other is that merged items establish the same

another prediction that English and Japanese allow

semantic relationship in both realizations. Note thatA-N

if there is no competing realization pattern,

respectively, if there is no competition. Below, wemorphological realization is possible, even inshow that these predictions are borne out.

syntax-preferring
realizationislanguages,
possible,morphology-preferring languages.

andcompounding

anddirectmodification,

syntactic

even

in

For instance,

4.2. Prediction in the Case of Competition
4.2.1. A-N Compounding in Japanesethe morphological realization truck-drive is involved

It has been widely held that A-N compounds

in the derivation of the synthetic compound truck

are observed in Japanese.2

driver.

given in Table 2 (i) (English expressions in Table 2

Ackema and Neeleman analyze it as[N [V truck drive] er], assuming that suffixes, e.g. -er,
require morphological objects as bases.

(ii) are quoted from TUGEJD).

VPs

cannot be competitors in word formation involving
suffixes.

-97-

Some examples areTable 2

The essential difference between Japanese(i) Japanese(ii) English

A-N compounds and their English counterparts is

A-N compounds

counterpartsclear

koku-banbláck bòard

Phonologically, inconsistent stress patterns of alleged

rei-sencóld wár

A-N compounds in English contrast with thesin-nennéw yéar

consistent compound accents in Japanese.

roo-zinòld mánEnglish, left-stressedness is a popular criterion for

haku-syowhíte bóok

compoundhood, but alleged A-N compounds are

whíte pàperinfamously inconsistent in stress patterns, as shownfromphonology

andproductivity.

In

Together with the generalization in (5) stating thatin Table 2 (ii). This stress criterion is much lessJapanese adjectives are not involved in direct

reliable in identifying compounds than is often

modification, it can be said that the Competition

thought. Furthermore, in contrast to Japanese A-N

Theory successfully describes the realization patterns

compounds,of the modifier-modifee relationship in Japanese.

unproductive (see Marchand (1969: 64) on the

We would like to note here that A-N

theEnglishcounterpartsareunproductivity).
The

compounding is highly productive in Japanese. Its

inconsistentstresspatterns

andhigh degree of productivity is observed from the fact

unproductivity strongly suggest that alleged A-N

that A-N compounding freely coins new words withcompounds

consistent compound accents:

non-rule-governed process, such as lexicalization.

inEnglishresultfroma(6) yuru-kyara lit. ‘loose-character’= ‘mascot

In fact, arguing against the stress criterion forcharacter,’ sin-tookyoo-tawaa ‘New Tokyo

compoundhood, Spencer (2003) analyzes theTower,’

relevant expressions as lexicalized NPs. Due to thezinkoo-tanoosee-kan-saiboo‘induced pluripotent stem cells,’ kuro-taku lit.

non-rule-governedness,‘black-cab’= ‘high-grade cab’

gradient.

lexicalization

can

be

Thus, Liberman and Sproat (1992:

The high degree of productivity and consistent150-151) observe three stages of lexicalization:

compound accents suggest its rule-governedness,listedness in the lexicon, assignment of a lexicaland thus appear to be consistent with thecategory, and loss of internal structure. It is notCompetition Theory.

until the final stage that stress shift occurs. These
considerations lead us to the reasonable conclusion

4.2.2.

Apparent A-N Compounding in English:that putative A-N compounds in English acquire

Lexicalization Analysis

lexical status from phrasal lexicalization and not

Let us turn to the impossibility of A-Nfrom rule-governed A-N compounding.

ourOur discussion so far has revealed thatprediction, expressions such as those given in Table

Japanese and English employ A-N compounding

2 (ii) are often viewed as English A-N compounds.

and direct modification, respectively, to realize

Seemingly, they correspond to Japanese A-N

nominal modification. This is not at all accidental.

compounds in Table 2 (i). However, this is not theWithin the framework of the Competition Theory,case. It has been claimed that A-N compounds in

thisEnglish are in fact not genuine compounds but

macroparametric distinction between the twolexicalized NPs (see Allen (1978), Liberman andlanguages:

Sproat (1992), and Spencer (2003), among others).

morphological and syntactic realization, respectively.

compounding in English. Contradicting

-98-

is

a

necessary
Japanese

consequence
andEnglishoftheprefer4.3. Prediction in the Absence of Competition
The

Competition

Theorypredicts

Lexical Integrity Principle (LIP) (see Di Sciullo andthat

Williams (1987: 49)). Given these considerations,non-default realization patterns are available when

it is safe to conclude that A-N compounding isthere is no competition; English should allow A-N

available within Possessional adjectives.

compounding in the absence of competition with

Importantly, in our competition-theoretic

direct modification. In contrast, Japanese should

analysis, A-Ns are true A-N compounds and notallow adjectival direct modification in the absence oflexicalized NPs such as those observed in section

competition with A-N compounding.

4.2.2.

This

prediction is empirically verified.

A-Ns and lexicalized NPs contrast in

productivity and semantics.

A-Ns are very

productive and semantically transparent:3
4.3.1. A-N compounding in English(9) two-handed, four-cornered, eight-sided

In English, A-N compounding occurs in such

(Allen (1978: 253))

derived adjectives as blue-eyed. Following Beard’s

In contrast, lexicalized NPs are unproductive, and(1995) terminology, we call them Possessional

more or less opaque.

adjectives. In general, Possessional adjectives arereflects the difference in rule-governedness between

analyzed as in (7a) because they can be paraphrased

A-N compounding and lexicalization.

Plausibly, this contrast

as in (7b).
(7) a.
b.

[[blue-eye]-ed]

4.3.2. Adjectival Direct Modification in Japanese‘having a blue eye/blue eyes’Turning to Japanese, the Competition Theory(Plag (2003: 153))

tells us that direct modification becomes possible if(7a) means that they are derived by -ed suffixation tothere is no competition with A-N compounding.

constituents of adjectives plus nouns (e.g. blue-eye in

We assume that direct modification by nouns, which(7a)).

Our claim is that the adjective-noun

is observed by Watanabe (2012), suits this situation

constituents are A-N compounds. For convenience,and that this non-competition allows direct

we call the relevant constituents A-Ns. Recall our

modification by -no modifiers, as generalized in (5).

discussion from section 3 that suffixation allows

Watanabe (2012) analyzes certain types ofverbal compounds in synthetic compounds (e.g.

genitive nouns as direct modifiers, as we found in[N [V truck drive] er]). This is because suffixal

section 2. However, adopting Baker’s categorial

requirement, according to which morphologicaltheory, we assume that -no marked direct modifiers,

objects must be suffixed, prevents competition withi.e. -no modifiers, are adjectives. Our assumption is

VPs.

motivated by a syntactic difference between typicalIn the same way, A-N compounds areallowed in Possessional adjectives because thegenitives and -no modifiers:

suffixal requirement prevents competition with directmodifications.

(10) a.

[{sono / tiisana} ki]-no hyoomen‘surface of {the / small} wood’

The lexical status of A-Ns isb. *?[{sono / tiisana} ki]-no isu

corroborated by their syntactic indeformability. For‘chair made of {the / small} wood’

example, they disallow internal plural inflections, as

In (10a), ki-no hyoomen ‘surface of wood’ expresses

shown in (8).
(8) * many-eyesed (cf. many-eyed)

a whole-part relationship, which is characteristic of(Allen (1978: 253))

genitives. In this case, the internal ki ‘wood’ can be

This syntactic indeformability is the defining

modified. However, it is very difficult to modify

property of words, which is formulated as thethe internal ki in (10b), which expresses material.

-99-

Now that the difference between genitives and -no

the former appear to be morphological competitors

modifiers becomes clear, let us consider thewith the latter. However, this is not the case. We

derivation of -no modifiers.

assume that expressions such as those given in (11)Nagano (2013) is very instructive inconsidering the derivation.

Following Baker’s

are N-N compounds.

Certainly, the underlined

nonheads in (11) express nationality or material, but

categorial theory, Nagano comprehensively analyzes

they are nouns and not adjectives.

direct modification in English and Romancecompounds are mergers of two nouns, whereas

languages.

direct modifications with -no modifiers are mergers

According to her analysis, nouns

The above

become direct modifiers by incorporating into aof adjectives with nouns.

certain type of functional head. This is because thecategories are not merged in these two types of0

operation, which creates X s, i.e. lexical categories,

modification.

by a head movement, turns nouns into adjectival

modifiers

0

heads, i.e. A s. By applying this analysis to -no

Thus, direct modification by -no

does

not

compete

with

N-N

4

compounding.

modifiers, we assume that -no is a functional head0

The same lexical

In summary, the Competition Theory states

and that -no modifiers are A s formed by noun

that A-N compounding blocks direct modification byincorporation into the functional -no.

canonical adjectives in Japanese because of its

If so, thedifficulty with internal modification makes sense; asmorphological preference.

a result of incorporation, -no modifiers acquire

modification is possible for -no modifiers, as

lexical status to conform to the LIP.

generalized in (5), regardless of its adjectival status.
0

Nevertheless, direct

On the assumption that the A status qualifies

Our competition-theoretic explanation for the reason-no modifiers for direct modification, let us consider

is that direct modification by -no modifiers has no

why direct modification by -no modifiers does notmorphological competitor because these modifiers

competeOur

have no form available for A-N compounding.

competition-theoretic explanation for the reason is

Beyond a mere generalization, we can ultimatelythat it has no morphological competitor because -no

derive the fact given in (5) from the Competition

modifiers cannot be compounded.

Theory.

with

A-Ncompounding.

In Japanese,canonical adjectives, which end with -i or -na in their
attributive forms, utilize their bound forms to

5. Concluding Remarks

generate A-N compounds. For instance, in the A-N

This paper has proved the validity of thecompound koku-ban, the adjectival nonhead koku isCompetition Theory, which involves the notion of

the bound form of the adjective kuroi. In contrast,

morphosyntactic competition. For proof, we havein the case of -no modifiers, no bound morpheme isshown that this theory can explain the difference inavailable for A-N compounding. Thus, there is nonominal modification between Japanese and English.

morphological competitor with the relevant direct

The former and the latter select A-N compounding

modification, which means non-competition.

and direct modification, respectively, for nominal

Note that the following cannot compete withdirect modifications with -no modifiers:

modification.

Within the framework of theCompetition Theory, each selection is a theoretical(11) hokuoo-kagu ‘North European furniture,’
mok-kyoo ‘wooden bridge’

consequence in that it results from morphosyntactic
competition. The selection of A-N compounding in

These compounds are similar in semantics to direct

Japanese is due to its morphological preference,

modifications with -no modifiers. In this respect,

whereas the selection of direct modification in-100-

Baker, Mark C. (2003) Lexical Categories: Verbs,

English is due to its syntactic preference.

Nouns, and Adjectives, Cambridge University

This theory points to the possibility thatPress, Cambridge.

seemingly unrelated phenomena may be attributed tothe same principle of morphosyntactic competition.

Beard, Robert (1995) Lexeme-Morpheme BaseIn this respect, the Competition Theory is very

Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection

promising.

and Word Formation, State University of New
York Press, Albany.

FOOTNOTESDi Sciullo, Anna-Maria and Edwin Williams (1987)* An earlier version of this paper was presented at

On the Definition of Word, MIT Press,

the 31th conference of the English Linguistic Society

Cambridge, Mass.

of Japan held at Fukuoka University on November
15, 2013.

Kageyama, Taro (1993) Bunpoo to Gokeisei

I would like to thank Yukio Hirose,(Grammar and Word Formation), Hituzi

Nobuhiro Kaga, Masaharu Shimada, Naoaki Wada,
and Akiko Nagano for their helpful comments. Of

Syobo, Tokyo.
Liberman, Mark and Richard Sproat (1992) “Thecourse, any remaining errors are my own.
1

Stress and Structure of Modified Noun

Note that direct and indirect modification do not

Phrases in English,” Lexical Matters, ed. bycompete because of their different underlying

Ivan A. Sag and Anna Szabolcsi, 131-181,

structures. Sproat and Shin (1988) view indirect

CSLI, Stanford.

modification as modification by relative clauses.
2

Marchand, Hans (1969) The Categories and Types ofJapanese A-N compounds consistently exhibit

Present-Day English Word-Formation: A

compound accents, which indicate their full

Synchronic-Diachronic Approach, 2nd edition,

integration into a phonological unit (see KageyamaC.

(1993))

München.

3

Possessional adjectives are very productive (seeMarchand(1969:265)),

which

entails

Beck’sche

Verlagsbuchhandlung,

Nagano, Akiko (2013) “Morphology of DirecttheModification,”

productivity of their internal A-Ns.
4

H.

EnglishLinguistics

30,

111-150.

This is parallel to non-competition between thePlag, Ingo (2003) Word-Formation in English,

compound truck driver and the NP driver of trucks.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

According to Ackema and Neeleman (2004: 61), theSpencer, Andrew (2003) “Does English Have

non-competition is due to merger of different items.

Productive

In the compound, the noun truck and the verb drive

Morphology, ed. by Geert Booij, Janetmerge, and the resultant verb merges with -er. In

DeCesaris, Angela Ralli, and Sergio Scalise,

the NP, the two nouns driver and truck merge.

329-341, IULA, Barcelona.

Compounding,”

TopicsinSproat, Richard and Chilin Shih (1988) “Prenominal
References

Adjectival

Ackema, Peter and Ad Neeleman (2004) Beyond

Allen,

Ordering

inEnglishandMandarin,” NELS 18, 465-489.

Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word

Watanabe, Akira (2012) “Direct Modification in

Formation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Japanese,” Linguistic Inquiry 43, 504-513.

Margaret
Investigations,(1978)Morphological

Yamakido, Hiroko (2005) The Nature of Adjectival

Doctoraldissertation,

Inflection in Japanese, Doctoral dissertation,

University of Connecticut.

Stony Brook University.

-101-which is regarded as CP and v*P, is built as in (3a),and its complement is transferred to the semantic
component and the phonological component
cyclically as in (3b), which is called Transfer.
(3) a. [HP ZP [ H (=the phase head) [XP X…]]]

Long-Distance Phenomena andPhase Theory

b. [HP ZP [ H

]]
*PIC

Megumi Nishimura(cf. Chomsky (2004, 2007, 2008)

Fukuoka University

As a result, transferred elements cannot get
engaged in any syntactic operations under the

Keywords: phase, long-distance, NPIs,

Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC). Thus, in

multiple wh-questions

this system, it is supposed that there is no LF,
which

has

been

traditionallyassumed.

Furthermore, Chomsky (2007, 2008) claims that
1. INTRODUCTION

all of the syntactic operations should be activated

The aim of this paper is to give a derivationalby the phase head in terms of feature inheritance.

approach to Negative Polarity Items (NPIs)

Under these assumptions, however, there arises

licensing phenomena as in (1). Specifically, Ia problem with regard to NPI licensing, which isclaim that long-distance licensing phenomena

how anyone in the embedded clause as in (2) cansuch as (2) can be dealt with under Phase Theory,

be licensed by a negative element in the matrix

by assuming my new mechanism; that the phaseclause.

head takes over the interpretable feature of an

including an NPI has been transferred when aunlicensed element at each phase level.

negative element occurs in the matrix clause.

(1) a. John did not eat anything.

Though it is assumed that NPIs are licensed by

b.*John eat anything.

being c-commanded by an overt negative element,(2) He doesn’t believe that anyone attended

the party.

Given Transfer, the embedded TP

anyone cannot satisfy this condition in this case,because it does not occur in the same phase as a

(Nishioka (2007: 129))

This paper is organized as follows: Section 2

negative element.

reviews theoretical assumptions of Phase Theory

On the other hand, even though it might be

and its problems with regard to NPI licensing.

assumed that an NPI might move up to the same

Section 3 provides two proposals.

Section 4phase as a negative element via phase edge

shows that the current proposal can handle NPI

positions, this explanation cannot deal with thislicensing, multiple wh-questions, and Japaneseissue. The fact in (4) shows that an NPI can

wh-questions. Section 5 is the conclusion of thisoccur within the syntactic island.

paper.

(4) a. A good therapist should never lie[when counseling anyone].
2. PHASE THEORY AND NPI LICENSING(Yoshimura (1999: 244))

The recent minimalist program of linguistic
theory assumes the syntactic structure is built up
step by step at the phase levels.

The phase,-102-

b. I never met [a man [who anybody tried
to kill].

(ibid.: 245)

c. I don’t believe [that anyone is coming

(Nishioka (2010: 66))

Chomsky’s (2007, 2008) idea that all syntactic

As discussed in Nishioka (2010), within theoperations should be activated by the phase head, I

framework of the current Minimalist Program, we

claim that the interpretable feature of thecannot discriminate between overt and covert

unlicensed element will be taken over to the phase1

movement with regard to syntactic constraints.

head until the licensing condition in (5) is satisfied.

Given this, we cannot say that the movement

Let us look at how the operation in (6) canto the party].

analysis is appropriate, because the examples infunction in detail, as illustrated in (7).

(4) show that NPI can be licensed without(7) a. [HP H [XP ..Licensee[F] (=unlicensed)…]]depending on syntactic movement.

b. [HP H

On the basis of assumptions of Phase Theory,][F][F] (TAKE-OVER)

the next section will offer my proposals of thisWhen a phase HP is built as in (7a), its phase

paper, which can overcome this issue.

domain will be transferred as in (7b).

If itincludes an unlicensed licensee which requires
3. PROPOSAL

some semantic sharing, the phase head H will take

Given that an NPI can be licensed by aover its interpretable feature [F] at Transfer. Thus,

negative element which it has some semantic

syntactic information of the unlicensed element

sharing with, we will propose a licensing

could remain in the syntax, participating in further

condition in terms of c-command for such

syntactic derivation. Then, H carrying [F] canelements in (5), which is a syntactic prerequisitebuild a new licensing relation with a new higher

2

licenser. If any unlicensed feature finally remains

Elements

in the derivation, it will be ill-formed. Thus, I

for a proper interpretation at the Interface.
(5) Licensing

In

Condition

for

Requiring Some Semantic Sharing

will present a derivational approach to licensing

The licensing relation can be built

for elements requiring some semantic sharing.

between a licenser and a licensee sharing

The next section will demonstrate that mythe same/relevant interpretable feature inphase-based proposals can deal with long-distanceterms of c-command.

licensing phenomena.

addition,I

proposeanoperation

TAKE-OVER in (6) which functions in the

4. ANALYSIS

phase-based system, based on Nishimura (2013).

4.1 NPI LICENSING
In this section, I will demonstrate how I can(6) Make-up Strategy (TAKE-OVER)(cf. Nishimura (2013: 28))

explain NPI licensing phenomena under my

A phase head of H takes over the

proposal.

interpretable feature [F] of a syntacticallycondition for NPIs will be given as in (8).

unlicensed

element

requiringsomeFirstly, based on (5), the licensing(8) Licensing Condition for NPIs

semantic sharing, when it transfers its

A syntactic object (SO) carrying [NPI]

domain which contains such an element.

must be licensed by being c-commanded

Even if an unlicensed element is transferred to theby a negative element (NE) with [NEG].

Interface, the derivation cannot achieve a proper[NE [NEG]… SO[NPI] …] (NE [NEG] > SO[NPI])

interpretation. Then, I assume this as a Make-up

Let me explain how my licensing mechanism

Strategy to save such a situation.

Extendingcan function.

-103-

Firstly, I will look at thesubject. Assuming that pictures of anyone has thederivation of (1a), as illustrated in (9).
(9) a. not [v*P John [v*-eat [ eat anything]]](not[NEG] > anything[NIP]) ⇒ (8) ok
b. not [v*P John [v*-eat
At

the

stage

of

(9a),

DP structure and DP is a phase as discussed in Oba(1999), the derivation of (12) is shown as in (13).
(12) Pictures of anyone did not seem to be]]

anything

canbeavailable.

c-commanded by not within v*P, and then (8) canbe satisfied.

(Boeckx (2000: 362))(13) a. [DP [ D [NP pictures of anyone]]]Therefore, the derivation will beb. [DP [ Dlegitimate, and consequently anything can be[NPI]

properly interpreted as NPI at the Interface.

]]
[NPI]

c. not [vP v-seem [seem [TP [DP D

As for long-distance licensing in (2), moreover,] to be ([DP…]) available]]](not[NEG] > D[NPI]) ⇒ (8) ok

its derivation can be shown as in (10).
(10) a. [CP C-that [TP anyone [v*P (anyone)

v*-attended[NPI]

transferred at the next stage of (13b).

]]]b. [CP C-that

The

D-head takes over [NPI] of unlicensed anyone at]Transfer. Since not c-commands the D-head at[NPI]c. not [v*P… [CP C-that

When DP is built at the stage of (13a), NP will be

the stage of (13c), the condition in (8) can be]](not[NEG] > C-that[NPI]) ⇒ (8) ok

satisfied at this stage.

Finally, anyone can

When CP is built at the embedded clause in (10a),achieve a proper interpretation as an NPI to result

TP including unlicensed anyone is transferred inin its grammaticality. Hence, my approach can(10b).

capture grammaticality of NPI licensing by myThen, the C-head will take over theinterpretable feature [NEG] of anyone at Transfer

new mechanism.

in terms of (6). When not with [NEG] occurs in
the matrix clause, it c-commands the C-head in

4.2 MULTIPLE WH-QUESTIONS

the embedded clause. As a result, (8) can be

Next, I will argue that my analysis can alsosatisfied and the derivation will be legitimate.

explain the syntactic derivation of English

Thus, we can explain its grammaticality of (2).

multiple wh-questions in (14) under Phase Theory,

In the same fashion, the derivation of (4a) willby focusing on grammatical similarity between
them and NPI licensing.

also be illustrated as in (11).
(11) a. [CP when [C [TP counseling anyone]]]b. [CP when [C[NPI]c. never [vP …[CP when C(14) a. Who saw what?

b.*You saw what? (non-echo reading)

]]
[NPI]

Notice that wh-in-situ phrases need another]]wh-phrase in a sentence, and they do not show

(never[NEG] > C [NPI]) ⇒ (8) ok

island effects in (15), as pointed out by Stroik

At the stage of (11b), the C-head takes over [NPI](1992, 1996).

of unlicensed anyone, so that the condition of (8)can be satisfied at the stage of (11c) and this can beinterpreted properly. Thus, its grammaticality can(15) a. Who got jealous because I spoke

about what?

(Stroik (1992: 134))b. Who likes books that criticize what?
(Stroik (1996: 86))

be captured.
Furthermore, my analysis can also account forc. Who believes that who is going to leave?

the case in (12) that an NPI is embedded within the(ibid.)-104-

This fact indicates that wh-in-situ phases can be

Under these assumptions, I argue the licensing

licensed without covert movement, as well asof multiple wh-questions. Firstly, let us look at

NPIs. Given this, I will propose a derivational

the derivation of (20) for (14a).

approach to wh-in-situ phrase licensing in(20) [v*P who [v*-saw [saw what]]](who[WH] > what[WH]) ⇒ (19) ok

multiple wh-questions.
Before I argue wh-in-situ phrase licensing, I will

In (20), who c-commands what within v*P, so

present my assumptions to the syntactic mechanismthat (19) can be satisfied. Finally, who carryingof

assume[uQ] moves to Spec-CP, satisfying (18). As a

Clause-Typing Parameter in (16) and Clause-Typing

result, (14a) can be interpreted appropriately atParameter Setting in (17), as proposed in

the Interface, and it becomes grammatical.

wh-questionsin

English.

We

Nishimura (2013) along with Cheng (1997).

Next, the case of (15a) can be illustrated as in(21).

(16) Clause-Typing Parameter(Nishimura (2013: 76))(21) a. [v*P I [ v*-spoke [ spoke about what]]]In the case of a wh-question, a clauseb. [v*P I [ v*-spoke

must be typed in either of two ways:

]]

[WH]

[WH]

a. By wh-movement to Spec-CP

c. [CP C-because [TP I [ T [ v*-spoke]]]]b. By the existence of a question particle on C

d. [CP C-because](17) Clause-Typing Parameter Setting (ibid.: 125))[WH]

a. English: (16a) in terms of only one[WH]e. [vP who [got jealous] [CP C-because]](who[WH] > C-because[WH]) ⇒ (19) ok

wh-phrase in a sentenceb. Japanese: (16b)

Each phase-head continues to take over [WH] of

In terms of (17a), the licensing condition for thewhat from the stage of (21a) up to (21d), because

C-head in English wh-questions can be given as

it is unlicensed. At the stage of (21e), who canin (18).

c-command the C-head of the embedded clause(18) Licensing Condition for C in English

carrying [WH], and (19) can be satisfied.

In

Wh-Questions

addition, who which ends up moving to Spec-CP

C must be licensed by a wh-phrase withcan satisfy (18) and this derivation can receive a[WH] and [uQ] moving to Spec-CP in orderproper interpretation as a multiple wh-question.

to be typed as a wh-question in English.

Thus, we can capture its grammaticality.
Moreover, the derivation for (15c) can be

Plus, given similarities between wh-phrases in
multiple wh-questions and NPIs, I propose theillustrated as in (22).

licensing condition for wh-phrases in multiple(22) a. [CP C-that [TP who2 is going to leave]]

wh-questions as in (19), based on (5).

b. [CP C-that(19) Licensing Condition for Wh-Phrases in[WH]

Multiple Wh-Questions][WH]c. [v*P who1 [… [CP C-that]]]

If there is more than one syntactic object(who1[WH] > C-that[WH]) ⇒ (19) ok

carrying [WH] in a sentence, a c-command

At the stage of (22a), the C-head takes over [WH]relation between them must be built forof unlicensed who2 at Transfer as in (22b). Whenlicensing as a multiple wh-question.

who1 occurs in the matrix clause as in (22c), it can[SO1[WH] … SO2[WH] …] (SO1 > SO2)

c-command the C-head with [WH], satisfying (19).

-105-

Furthermore, the example of (25), in which a

Also, (18) can be satisfied by who1 moving toSpec-CP.

Thus, the grammaticality of (15c)

could also be maintained under my phase-based
analysis.

wh-phrase occurs within a syntactic island, canreceive an interpretation as a wh-question.

Thus, I could show that my current(25) Kimi-wa [nani-o katta hito]-niatta no?

approach could also handle long-distance licensing

you-Top what-Acc bought person-Acc met Q

phenomena of multiple wh-questions.

‘What did you meet the person who bought?
(ibid.: 43)

4.3 JAPANESE WH-QUESTIONSIn this section, then, I will present that

Finally, let me move on to wh-phrase licensing
in Japanese wh-questions.

In Japanese, awh-phrase can stay in-situ and a question particle

wh-elements in Japanese can be licensed in-situ
without movement under Phase Theory, as wellas NPIs and wh-in-situ phrases in English.

-no ‘Q’ occurs in the C-position, as in (23).
(23) John-wa

nani-oFirstly, my licensing condition for C in
Japanese wh-questions can be shown as in (26),tabeta no?

John-Nom what-Acc ate

along with (16) and (17).

Q‘What did John eat?’(26) Licensing Condition for C in Japanese

Given this, I can suppose under my approach that

Wh-Questions (cf. (16), (17))

a wh-phrase in Japanese should also build a

C must be licensed by a question particle

syntactic licensing relation with a question

such as -ka or -no in C in order to beparticle on the C-position for interpretation, as I

typed as a wh-question in Japanese.

have assumed for NPI licensing.

Next, given the facts in (23) and (24), theIn Japanese, when a complementizer -to ‘C’occurs in the C-position of the embedded clauselicensing condition for wh-phrases will be
provided as in (27).

including a wh-phrase, the example can be(27) Licensing Condition for Wh-Phrases ininterpreted as a wh-question in (24a), as pointed

Japanese Wh-Questions

out by Nishigauchi (1999). On the other hand,

A syntactic object carrying [WH] in a(24b), in which a question particle occurs in thesentence must be licensed by being

embedded C-position, can be interpreted as ac-commanded by a C with [Q] where ayes-no question.

question particle occurs.

(24) a. Suzuki san-wa [CP Tanaka san-ga

Mr. Suzuki-Top[C [Q]… SO[WH] …](C [Q] > SO[WH])Given these assumptions, we will look at the

Mr. Tanaka-Nom

dare-ni atta to] iimashita ka?

derivation of Japanese wh-questions.

who-Acc met C said

derivation of (23) is shown as in (28).

Q‘Who did Mr. Suzuki say that Mr.

(28) a. [v*P John-wa [nani-o tabeta] tabeta-v*]

Tanaka met?’b. [v*P John-wa

b. Suzuki san-wa [CP Tanaka san-ga
Mr.Suzuki-Top

tabeta-v*][WH]

Mr. Tanaka-Nom

c. [CP [TP John-wa[WH]tabeta-v*] no-C](no-C[Q] > tabeta-v*[WH]) ⇒ (27) ok

dare-ni atta ka] iimashita ka?
who-Acc met Q said

The

Q

When VP is transferred at the stage of (28b), the‘Did Mr. Suzuki say who Mr. Tanaka

v*-head takes over [WH] of unlicensed nani-omet?’‘what-Acc’.

(Nishigauchi (1999: 32))

-106-

The question particle of –no ‘Q’c-commands the v*-head carrying [WH] at theIn (31a), dare-ga ‘who-Nom’ c-commands nani-ostage of (28c), so that (27) can be satisfied.

‘what-Acc’ within the v*P phase, satisfying (19).

Thus, its grammaticality can be captured.

Plus, dare-ga ‘who-Nom’ can be licensed by C

Moreover, the case of (24a) is shown in (29).
(29)

with a question particle in terms of (27). Hence,a. [v*P Tanaka san-ga [dare-ni atta] atta-v*](30) can be interpreted appropriately and theb. [v*P Tanaka san-ga

grammaticality can be explained.

atta-v*][WH]

As for the long-distance case in (32), I claim

atta-v*] to-C]

that a wh-phrase in the embedded clause can be

to-C]

successfully licensed by the higher wh-phrase via[WH]

TAKE-OVER of (6), as illustrated in (33).

[WH]
c. [CP [TP Tanaka san-ga
d. [CP[WH]
e. [v*PSuzuki san-wa

iimashita-v*][WH]f. [CP[TP…

(32) John-ga

dare-ni [Mary-ga

nani-oJohn-Nom who-Acc Mary-Nom what-Acc[WH]tabeta to] itta

iimashita-v*] ka-C](ka-C[Q] > iimashita-v*[WH]) ⇒ (27) ok

ate

C

no?

said Q‘Who did John tell that Mary ate what?

Since dare-ni ‘who-Acc’ cannot be licensed at the(Takahashi (1993: 664))

stage of (29a), each phase head continues to takeover its [WH] up to the v*-position in the matrix(33) a. [CPto-C]

clause at the stage of (29e). Then, -ka ‘Q’ of a[WH]question particle in the matrix C-position canb. [v*P dare-ni [CP

[WH]

[WH]

to-C[WH(nani-o)]] itta-v*]

c-command the v*-head with [WH] and (27) can(dare-ni[WH] > to-C[WH(nani-o)]) ⇒ (19) ok

be satisfied. This derivation is legitimate, and it

c. [CP [TP John-ga [v*P (John-ga) dare-ni

results in its grammaticality.

itta-v*]] no-C]

On the other hand, in the case of (24b), -ka ‘Q’(no-C[Q] > dare-ni[WH]) ⇒ (27) ok

occurs in the embedded clause. Therefore, it can

As in (33a), each phase head takes over [WH] ofc-command the embedded v*-head taking overnani-o ‘what-Acc’ up to the C-head in the[WH], and consequently (27) can be satisfied

embedded clause. Then, (19) can be satisfied atwithin the embedded clause. Thus, I can explain

the stage of (33b). At the stage of (33c), dare-ni

that this case receives a yes-no question.

‘who-Acc’ can be c-commanded by the C-head in

Furthermore, I will argue that my analysis can

the matrix clause, and (27) can be satisfied.

handle wh-phrase licensing in Japanese multiple

Consequently, my analysis can explain that (33)wh-questions in (30), as well as in English under

can receive an appropriate interpretation in terms

my approach. The derivation for (30) can beof (27) and (19), and it is grammatical.

illustrated as in (31).
(30) Dare-ga

who-Nom

In sum, my current analysis can capture thenani-otabeta no?

grammaticality of Japanese wh-questions as wellwhat-Acc

ate

as English ones.

Q‘Who ate what?’(31) a. [v*P dare-ga [VP nani-o tabeta] tabeta-v*]]

5. CONCLUSION(dare-ga[WH] > nani-o[WH]) ⇒ (19) ok

Up to this point, I have discussed how mytabeta-v*] no-C]

phase-based approach can deal with licensing(no-C[Q] > dare-ga[WH]) ⇒ (27) ok

phenomena including NPIs, wh-in-situ phrase inb. [CP [TP dare-ga-107-multiple

wh-questions,andDerivational Approach to Syntactic Relations,Japanese

wh-questions comprehensively, by assuming

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

licensing conditions in terms of c-command andNishigauchi, Taisuke (1999) Ronri-Kozo to

TAKE-OVER of (6). Ultimately, I could show

Bunpo-Riron:Nichi-Eigo

that the current Phase Theory could contribute to(Logical Structure and Grammar Theory:theWh-phenomena in Japanese and English),

explanationoflong-distancelicensingno

WH

GenshoKuroshio, Tokyo.

phenomena.

Nishimura, Megumi (2013) A Derivational* An earlier version of this paper was presented at

Approach to Multiple Wh-Questions in English,

the 31st Meeting of the English Linguistic

Doctoral dissertation, Kyushu University.

Society of Japan held at Fukuoka University on

Nishioka, Nobuaki (2007) Eigo-Hiteibun noNovember 9-10, 2013. I would like to express

Togoron Kenkyu: Sosei-Syogo to Kaizai-Koka

my sincere gratitude to Nobuaki Nishioka, Etsuro(A Syntactic Study of English Negative

Shima, Yukio Otsu, Ken-ichi Takami, Hiroshi

Sentences: Feature-Checking and Intervention

Hasegawa,

Effects), Kuroshio, Tokyo.

Takashi

Munakata,

Takanori

Nakashima and the audience at the meeting for

Nishioka,

their invaluable comments and suggestions.

Hitei-Sosei Ido (Sentential Negation andI

Nobuaki“Bun-Hitei

Movement),”

Hitei

to

am also grateful to Kathleen Fukuhara for

Negative

stylistic improvements.

Gengo-Riron (Negation and Linguistic Theory),

Needless to say, all

Feature(2010)

toed. by Yasuhiko Kato, Akiko Yoshimura andremaining errors and inadequacies are my own.

Ikumi Imani, 51-73, Kaitakusha, Tokyo．
1

NOTES

Oba, Yukio (1999) “Phase toshiteno Meishi-ku

See Nishioka (2010) and Simpson (2000) for

Hyogen (Nominal Expressions as a Phase),”more detailed explanations.

Gengo-Kenkyu

2

Linguistic Research), ed. by Toshiaki Inada,

As for c-command, I assume the derivationalno

Choryu(Currents

in

Kozo Iwabe, Yukio Oba, Masanori Suiko,definition given by Epstein et al. (1998).

Masashi Takemoto and Hideo Nishimura,
21-36, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

REFERENCES
Boeckx, Cedric (2000) “A Note on Contraction,”

Simpson, Andrew (2000) Wh-Movement and theLI 31, 357-366.

Theory of Feature-Checking, John Benjamins,

Cheng, Lisa Lai-shen (1997) On the Typology of

Amsterdam.

Wh-Questions, Garland, New York.

Stroik, Thomas (1992) “English Wh-in-situ
Phases,”Constructions,” Linguistic Analysis 22, 133-153.

Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:

Stroik, Thomas (1996) Minimalism, Scope, and VP

Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed.

Structure, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria

Takahashi,

Luisa

Wh-Phrases in Japanese,” NLLT 11, 655-678.

Chomsky,

Noam

Zubizarreta,(2008)“On133-166,

MIT

Press,

Daiko(1993)“MovementofCambridge, MA.

Yoshimura, Akiko (1999) Negative Polarity

Epstein, Samuel D., Erich M. Graut, Ruriko

Phenomena (Hitei-Kyokusei Gensho), Eihosha,

Kawashima and Hisatsugu Kitahara (1998) A

Tokyo.

-108-

本来的な自動詞用法と他動詞用法で目的語が省略された場合を区別する必要があることを示す。
目的語の省略について: Eat と Devour を中

2. 先行研究心に*西脇 (2010)は Rice (1988)を修正し、「食(On Object Deletion: With Special

べる」という意味を表す動詞について、目

Reference to Eat and Devour)

的語省略を容易に許す(2a)と、環境が整えば許す(2b)、そして、いかなる環境が整お西脇 幸太 (NISHIWAKI Kota)

うとも目的語省略を許さない(2c)に細分化

岐阜県立岐阜北高等学校 (Gifuしている。

Prefectural Gifu Kita Senior High(2)School)a. 「行為」：eatb. 「行為」+「様態」：nibble / bite /chew / munch / gobble / ingest

キーワード：目的語省略、文脈要因、語彙

c. 「行為」+「様態」+「完結」：devour

特性、定性、中核と周辺筆者が知る限り、（「食べる」という意味の）devour は目的語省略を許さない、という観

1. はじめにRice (1988)は eat が目的語省略（統語的察 が 主 流 で あ る （ cf. Radford (1990) 、な目的語を伴わない統語形式）を許す一方

Huddleston and Pullum ( 以 下 H&P)

で、eat と類似した意味を持つ(1b)の動詞は(2002)、Jackendoff (2002)）。しかし西脇

目的語省略を許さない、としている。

(2010)の記述にも 2 点の修正が必要である。
第一に、devour も環境が整えば目的語省略

(1)

a.

を許す。第二に、他動詞 eat は目的語省略

Celia ate.

b. * Celia nibbled / bit / chewed /を容易に許さない。本研究では、統語上、

devoured / ingested / munched

明示的に表れていないが、意味上、解釈さ/ gobbled.

れる目的語が不定の場合、つまり特定のも(Rice (1988: 204))のを指示しない場合を自動詞用法とし、定Rice の観察に対して、西脇 (2010)は、(1b)

解釈を必要とする他動詞の目的語省略とはの動詞は、devour を除き文脈が整えば、目区別して議論を進める。

的語省略を許すが、devour については、い3. 事実観察かなる環境が整おうとも目的語省略を許さない、と修正している。即ち、目的語の省

本節では devour と他動詞 eat が目的語

略可能性において、devour の語彙特性は文省略を許す事実を観察する。使用する資料

脈要因に勝る、という主張である。本研究は、筆者による作例、ウェブページからのでは devour も、他の(1b)の動詞と同様に、実例（一部改変を含む）、映画のスクリプト、

語彙特性よりも文脈要因が勝ることを示す。

British National Corpus (BNC)からの実

更に、“省略”された目的語の定性を考慮し例である。いずれの例文に対しても母語話た議論が必要であることを述べる。即ち、者によるインフォーマントチェックを受け-109-

(6)はシナモンロールのレシピ中の一文でている。

あり、シナモンロールにふりかける糖衣に
3.1. devour の目的語省略

ついての注意を述べたものである。11 名中

本節では 11 名の母語話者の判断を基に、10 名が問題ないと回答している。2

環境が整えば devour も目的語省略を許す(6)ことを示す。1 命令文は目的語省略を許す環[Cinnamon Rolls Recipe の一

境 の 一 つ で あ る が （ cf. Rice (1988) ）、部]

devour に関しては、単に命令文で使われた…. Just a word of caution

だけでは、目的語を省略することは不可能

about the frosting: Do NOTである。(3)は 11 名すべての母語話者が不devour before pouring over

可である、と回答している。

the rol.ls. You can scrape the
bowl,

(3)

* Devour!

butsupposedthetofrosting

is

ON

the

go

cinnamon rolls. Not straight(4)は否定形で用いられた命令文である。1

into your mouth.

名は容認できる、と回答したが、残りの 10(http://www.mformommy.com/

名は不可としている。

cinnamon-rolls/ 2013/03/11 一部を改変して引用)(4)* Don't devour like that.
ラベル表示の文脈で使用された(7)につい行為に焦点が当たるような like that といては、11 名中 10 名が可としている。(7)はう句があっても、目的語省略を許さない、

筆者による作例だが、あるインフォーマンという devour の語彙特性が勝る。ここまトからは、おどけた表現として用いられるでは西脇 (2010)の観察と一致する。一方で、可能性がある、という回答があった。

レシピの文脈やラベル表示の文脈では、目(7)

的語省略に関しての容認度が極めて高くな[アイシング (frosting) のパッる。(5)はペパーミントアイスクリームのレ

ケージに印刷されて]シピ中の一文である。11 名中 8 名が問題な

DO NOT DEVOUR!

いと回答している。
(8)は映画のスクリプトの一部である。11(5)[Peppermint

Ice

Cream

名中 10 名が問題ないとしている。

Recipe の一部]（母語話者には(8)

より広い文脈を提示）[watches James gulp down a…. ?Just don't devour too

strawberry]quickly like my family and I

James, this is high tea, alldid!

right? We nibble, we do not(http://www.serving-ice-cream

DEVOUR.
(The Great Debaters, 2007).com/peppermint-ice-cream.ht
ml 2013/03/11 引用)

こ の 例 で 極 め て 重 要 な 点 は 、 nibble と-110-devour が対比されている、ということであ(11)-(13)、安定して目的語省略を許す文脈る。(8)において、nibble との対比で、食べ(14)(15)を示している。西脇 (2011)の 11 名

る対象となる目的語が背景化され、動詞がによるインフォーマント調査では、(10)は前景化する（cf. 菅山 (2003)）。実際の映画

11 名全員が容認できない、と回答している。

の場面では、音声上、devour に対照強勢が(9)と同様に、一見、my sandwich が(10B)認められる。さらに、(8)の devour の意味の eat の目的語として解釈されそうだが、上の目的語は、(5)-(7)のそれとは異なり、目的語が明示的に表現されない限り、単に、

不定の可能性がある。つまり、具体的な指何かを食べた、または、食事をした、とい

示対象（(8)では a strawberry あるいは highう解釈しかされず、会話が成立しない。

tea）があるのではなく、一般的な食べ物、(10)という解釈がされる、ということである。

A: Whathappened

あるインフォーマントは意味上の目的語にsandwich?

ついても言及し、それは不定である、と回

B: * The dog ate.

tomy(西脇 (2011: 114))

答している。
以上を基に、本研究ではレシピの文脈、
ラベル表示の文脈、行為自体が対比される(11)は(10)に大幅に変更を加えた会話であ文脈では devour は目的語省略を許す、とる。(11B)においては、目的語省略を許しや主張する。即ち、文脈要因は、devour の目

すい以下の 3 つの要因が組み込まれている。

的語省略を許さない、という語彙特性に勝第一に、同一文中に your sandwich や it

る、と言うことができる。3などの目的語が明示されており、最後の eatの目的語のみが省略された形になっている。

3.2. 他動詞 eat の目的語省略

第二に、find、sniff、eat という 3 つの動

動詞 eat が統語上、目的語を伴わない場

詞が等位接続されることにより、目的語に合は、意味上、解釈される目的語は、いかなる対象物ではなく、行為そのものに焦点なる場合も不定である（Fillmore (1986)）。

が当たるようになっている。第三に、eat(9B)では目的語を明示的に示さない限り会と副詞 greedily を共起させることで、様態話 が 成 立 し な い 。（ cf. Lehrer (1970) 、に焦点が当たり、行為が前景化するように

Allerton (1975)、Quirk et al. (1985)、Levin

なっている。

(1993) 、 H&P (2002) 、 Culicover andJackendoff (2005)）(11)

A: Whathappenedtomysandwich?
(9)

A: Whathappenedtomy

B: ??The dog found your sandwich,

sandwich?

sniffedgreedily.

B: * Fido ate.

it

and

then

ate

(西脇 (2011: 115))(Fillmore (1986: 97))
これらの要因を加えることで、(11)は(10)即ち、他動詞 eat は目的語を省略できない。

よりも容認度が上がる。西脇 (2011)の調査

西脇 (2011)は多様な文脈を検討し、他動詞では 11 名中 5 名が容認できると回答してeat が安定して目的語省略を許さない文脈いる。しかしながら、依然として容認でき(10)、母語話者により揺れが生じる文脈ないと回答しているインフォーマントがい-111-

ることも事実である。(12)のように命令文

ここでは eat の形に出ていない目的語は定で用いられると、容認度はさらに高くなる。

の指示対象を持ち、melons と解釈される。

(12)については、11 名中 7 名が容認できる(15)についても、同様に、11 名全員が容認と回答している。
（注意を要するのは、このできるとした。

容認度は、eat の形に出ていない目的語をサンドウィッチと解釈する、という条件で(15)[乾燥剤の表面に印刷されて]DO NOT EAT.

の容認度である、という点である。不可とした 4 名は、統語的には問題なく、単に「食(西脇 (2011: 119))

事をしてください」や「私を待たずに先に食べてください」の意味なら可能である、

注目すべきは、単なる命令文ではなく、命と回答している。以下の例文で示す容認度

令文の中でも、特に、レシピやラベル表示も、同様に、定の指示対象を伴った解釈がの文脈という限られた環境においてのみ、可能かどうか、というものである。
）

他動詞 eat は目的語省略を許す、という点
である。

(12)

[目の前のサンドウィッチを指して]? Eat!

以上より、他動詞 eat は、(14)のレシピ
や(15)のラベル表示の文脈など、ごく限ら(西脇 (2011: 117))

れた文脈でしか目的語省略を許さない。従って、eat は容易に目的語省略を許す、と

但し、ここでも容認できないと回答していいう西脇 (2010)の記述は不正確である。

るインフォーマントが 4 名いる。そのうちeat の目的語省略を議論する際には、形のの 1 名は(13)のように否定命令文にしても上で目的語を伴っていない現象が、本来的不自然であると回答している。4な自動詞用法であるのか、他動詞の目的語が省略された用法であるのかを区別する必(13)[サンドウィッチを食べている

要がある。

聞き手に対して]
4. 考察

Do not eat ?(it).
(西脇 (2011: 117))

以 上 の 事 実 観 察 よ り 、 他 動 詞 eat もdevour も、本来的な語彙特性としては目的

一方で、レシピの文脈で用いられた場合は語省略を許さないが、レシピやラベル表示

11 名すべてのインフォーマントが容認でなど、ごく限られた文脈であれば目的語省きるとしている。(14)は、BNC からの実例

略を許す、と言える。これは目的語省略をで、メロンの食べ方について述べた文であ可能にする文脈要因が、動詞の目的語省略る。

を許さないという語彙特性に勝るということを示唆している。

(14)

To ripen melons, keep them atroom temperature for a few

4.1. 目的語省略とレジスター

days, when ripe store in the

同様のことが、通例、目的語省略を許さ

fridge and eat as soon as

ない状態変化他動詞の break などについて

possible.

も当てはまる。(16)は break の本来的な語(BNC: A70)

彙特性が目的語省略を許さないことを示し-112-

は意味上の目的語の定性を考ている。

慮する必要がある。他動詞 eat(16)

Chris broke *(something).

は極めて限られた文脈でしか(菅山 (2003: 53))

目的語省略を許さない。
(20)

他動詞 eat も devour も、あく

一方で、レシピの文脈が与えられるとまでも中核的な用法は統語上break は目的語省略を許す。

の目的語を伴った場合であり、目的語省略を許す場合は周辺(17)

Take 3 eggs. Break into a

的な用法である。

bowl.
以下の 2 点を今後の課題としたい。

(Massam and Roberge (1989:
135))

(21)

語彙特性が文脈要因に勝る動

目的語省略という現象について議論する際

詞があるかを調査する。そして、には、レジスター、特に、レシピの文脈は

それはどのような特性により極めて決定的な要因になり得る。

目的語省略を許さないのかを明らかにする。

4.2. 目的語省略と中核・周辺(22)

4.1 節の break と同様に、3 節では、他

他動詞 eat と devour が原則、
目的語省略を許さないのはな

動詞 eat も devour もレジスターなどの文

ぜかを明らかにする。

脈が整うと目的語省略を許す例を確認した。
但し、他動詞 eat も devour も必要な文脈

注が整わない限り統語的な目的語が必要であ* 本稿は、日本英語学会第３１回大会る。即ち、他動詞 eat も devour も目的語

（2013 年 11 月 9 日、於：福岡大学）で省略を許さない場合が中核的な用法であり、の口頭発表の原稿に加筆、修正を加えた

目的語省略を許す場合は周辺的な用法であものである。本研究に対してご助言いたる。5 目的語省略を許すのは、あくまでも周だ大室剛志先生、菅山謙正先生、柏野健

辺的な用法であり、明示的な目的語を伴っ

次先生、小野尚之先生に心より感謝申した場合と、伴っていない場合を同列に扱う上げる。また、発表当日に司会をしていことは妥当ではない。目的語省略という観

ただいた丸田忠雄先生と、貴重なコメン

点から、中核と周辺を認めなければならな

トと質問を戴いた先生方に、この場をおい。

借りして感謝の意を表したい。言うまでもなく、本稿における不備や誤りは全て

5. まとめ筆者の責任である。
1. 協力いただいた 11 名のインフォーマン

本研究では以下のことを明らかにした。

トの内訳は以下の通りである：アメリカ
(18)

(19)

devour はレシピ、ラベル表示の人 8 名、イギリス人 2 名、非公開 1 名。

文脈、又は行為の対比がなされインフォーマントには例文を提示し、不る文脈では目的語省略を許す。

自然な箇所があれば示すように依頼し動詞 eat の目的語省略の議論に

た。

-113-

2. (5)と(6)では、同じレシピの文脈でも容る。中核と周辺を認める必要があるか、認度に差が出る点が興味深い。これはそして何を中核・周辺と認めるかについdevour を用いた指示の必然性に起因すては、今後の課題としたい。

るものと考える。
3. レシピやラベル表示の文脈における否

参考文献

定の指示も、ある種の「対比」と考える

Allerton, D. J. (1975) “Deletion and

Journal

ことができる。つまり、「食べる」と「食Proform

Reduction,”

べない」の対比が認められ、その対比がLinguistics 11, 213-237.

of

Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff

目的語省略を許す大きな要因として働

Simpler

Syntax,

いている可能性がある。以上の視点は、(2005)

柏野健次先生のご助言によるものであ

University Press, New York.

る。要因間の関係をいかに記述するか、

Fillmore,Charles“Pragmaticallyという点は今後の課題としたい。

OxfordJ.

(1986)

Controlled

ZeroAnaphora,” BLS 12, 95-107.

4. 同じ命令文でも eat と devour で容認度

Fraser,に差が出る点が興味深い。また、目的語

Bruce

and

John

R.

Ross

省略の容認度において、eat は極性によ(1970)“Idioms and Unspecified NP

る差は感じられないが、devour は、本Deletion,”Linguistic

調査では、否定命令文のときが主流であInquiry 1, 264-265.
Goldberg,

る。これは、命令文の特性によるもので

Adele

E.

(2001)“Patient

あると考えられる。命令文は、本来的に、

Arguments of Causative Verbs Can

聞き手にとって好ましいと考えらえる

Be Omitted: The Role of Information

ことを伝達するものである。従って、命Structure in Argument Distribution,”

令文には、聞き手にとって好ましいと考Language Sciences 23, 503-524.
Groefsema,

えられる、または、中立的な情報を伝達

Marjolein

し得る語が選択される。この点から、eat“Understood

は「食べる」という意味を表す最も中立

Semantic/Pragmatic的な語の一つであるため、肯定でも否定

Lingua 96, 139-61.

(1995)

Arguments:

A

Approach,”でも用いることができる。一方で、

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K.

devour は「がつがつ食べる」という、ある種の否定的なイメージを持つ語でThe Cambridge
Grammar of the English Language,ある。従って、肯定の命令文では使用さ

Cambridge

れにくく、否定命令文が主流となる。こCambridge.

PullumUniversity

Press,

Jackendoff, Ray (2002) Foundations of

れは目的語を伴った場合でも同様のこ

Language:
Grammar,とが言える。以上の視点は、高橋英光先生のご助言によるものである。
5. 現段階では、このような立場をとっていBrain,
Meaning,
Evolution,
OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

るが、目的語省略という現象において、

小西友七 (編) (2006) 『現代英語語法辞典』

何を中核とし、何を周辺とするか、については議論の余地がある。以上の視点は(2002)

三省堂, 東京.
Lehrer, Adrienne (1970) “Verbs andDeletable

小野尚之先生のご助言によるものであ-114-

Objects,”

Lingua25,

227-253.
Levin, Beth (1993) English Verb Classes

andAlternations,

UniversityofChicago Press, Chicago.
Massam, Dianne and Yves Roberge(1989) “Recipe Context Null Objects
in English,” Linguistic Inquiry 18,
134-139.
西脇幸太 (2010)「Missing Object の認可に関わる優先性規則―Eat とその下位レ
ベルの動詞の比較分析を通して―」『英,
語語法文法研究』17, 132-147.
西脇幸太 (2011)「動詞 Eat の Missing
Object―中核的な解釈と周辺的な解釈―」,『英語語法文法研究』18, 110-125.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum,
Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik(1985) A Comprehensive Grammarof the English Language, Longman,
London.
Radford, Andrew (1990) Syntactic Theory

and the Acquisition of English
Syntax, Blackwell, Cambridge.
Rice, Sally (1988) “Unlikely Lexical
Entries,” BLS 14, 202-212.
菅山謙正 (1994) 「英語の‘missing objects’について」, 『英語語法文法研究』創刊号, 91-104.
菅山謙正 (2003)「状態変化他動詞の目的語は省略できないか？－event 構造とprominence からの考察」『英語青年』,
4 月号, 53-55. 研究社, 東京.

-115-

discourse markers:(2)

Okay, it’s just the students from myclass in a little studio.

The removal of just so you know as in (2) does
not alter the propositional content per se.

On the Discourse Function and Phrasal

In addition, as will be seen presently, just so

Origin of Just So You Know*

you know is seemingly redundant not only in
Takahito Nobeterms of propositional content but also from

University of Tsukuba

the viewpoint of the “strong communicativity”
of English.
If just so you know is optional, what makes

Keywords: just so you know, inference

it usable in the first place?

triggering, sentence final particle yo,

The main purposeof this paper is, thus, to clarify what discourse

performative clause, informational superiority

function just so you know serves and whatmechanism is at work.
1.

Introduction

so you know

I will argue that justtriggers

This paper is concerned with the discourse

implicatures,function of the expression just so you know as

indirect speech acts.

especiallythe inference
those

of

concerning

exemplified in (1):
(1)

Roy:
Pam:

I can’t wait for your art show2.

tonight.

In this section, I will argue that just so you

Okay, just so you know, it’sknow has a function to trigger the inference ofjust the students from myimplicatures.

class in a little studio.
Roy:
Pam:

Proposal

As a preliminary discussion, we consider

I-I wouldn’t miss it for thejust so you know from the perspective of one

world.

characteristic of the English language system:

Thanks.

its strong communicativity.
1(The Office S03E16 )According to Hirose (1995, 1997, 2013),

According to some online-based dictionaries

English is a “public-self centered” language in(e.g. Eijiro on the Web), just so you know iswhich the unmarked mode of expression isused to preface an utterance, making explicit

publicthe speaker’s communicative intention.

communication).

What is of interest here is the optional natureof just so you know.

(3)

By “optional” I mean

expression(expression

forObserve the following:a.

Today is Saturday.

b.

I SAY TO YOU Today is Saturday.

that the expression does not affect the truth(Hirose (2013: 11))condition of the sentence to which it is(3a) is an ordinary English declarative sentence

attached, and thus its presence/absence does

which is, by default, interpreted as in (3b)not dramatically affect the content of thewhere the communicativity of the sentence is

proposition conveyed, much like so-calledguaranteed by I SAY TO YOU, i.e. it is-116-

presupposed in (3a).

This point makes asuperfluous in violation of the second maxim

sharp contrast with “private-self centered”

of Quantity,2 the speaker may imply morelanguages

information than otherwise intended.

such

as

Japanese.

In

such

languages, the unmarked mode of expression is

As we have seen, just so you know does not“private” expression (expression for thought),

affect propositional content, and redundantly

which does not presuppose communication andexpresses

the

speaker’sthus needs certain linguistic forms to ensure

intention

which,

evencommunicativity (e.g. sentence final elements

presupposed

like yo, desu, etc.).

sentence; thus, just so you know violates the

English, as seen above,

does not need any such extra element to ensure
the communicativity of a sentence.

by

the

communicative
without

Englishit,isdeclarative

second maxim of Quantity.

In thisIt follows, then, that the use of just so you

respect, therefore, English is said to beknow should trigger some kind of inference.

inherently communicatively strong.

Indeed, a close examination of actual examples

Recall that just so you know prefaces anreveals that sentences marked by just so youutterance and makes explicit the speaker’s

know involve implicatures, especially thosecommunicative intention.

related to indirect speech acts (cf. SearleisproblematicinThis characteristic

view

communicativity of English.

of

the

strongThat is, if theunmarked mode of expression in English(1975)).

More specifically, just so you know

triggers an inference pattern illustrated in (4):(4)

just so you know P(ROPOSITION)

presupposes communication, then why is it that(where P is interpreted as a reason forjust so you know, which expresses thean action to be undertaken) +> The

speaker’s communicative intention, is usedhearer should undertake the action.3

when anunmarked simple statement

self-sufficient for communication?

is

The proposition of the sentence marked by justIn thisso you know is interpreted as a reason for away, just so you know is redundant both incertain action to be undertaken.

terms of propositional content and the strong

the inference of an implicature that the hearer

communicativity of English.

should undertake that action, i.e. indirect

Then, what is

the motivation for the use of just so you know?

This triggers

speech acts of directives (cf. Searle (1976)).

In this paper, as stated above, I propose thatNow let us consider some examples to verify

just so you know has a function to trigger

the claim that just so you know triggers theinferences and is employed for this purpose.

inference of implicatures.

We will elaborate on this proposal in detail

(5)

Roy:

below.
It

I can’t wait for your art show
tonight.

has

generallybeen

observed

that

Pam:

Okay, just so you know, it’sutterances that are in violation of Grice’s

just the students from my(1975) conversational maxims trigger theclass in a little studio.

inferenceof

implicatures(Grice(1975),

Roy:

Sperber and Wilson (1995), Levinson (1983,
2000)).

For example, by saying something-117-

I-I wouldn’t miss it for theworld.

Pam:

Thanks.

(= (1))

This is a scene in which Roy is going to go to

examples above are really derived from the use

the art show where Pam is putting her drawingsof just so you know.

on exhibit.

They are talking about the art

justified since in the above examples theshow and Roy is a little too excited for a

implicatures do seem to be derivable from thesmall-scaled, amateur art show.

propositional content and the context alone.

Pam realizes

Such a suspicion isit and produces the utterance in question.

However, while just so you know does not

Here, the proposition marked by just so you

produce implicatures, it does trigger or help

know (italicized) is interpreted as a reason for

induce the inferences in a way that facilitates

an action to be undertaken, namely, stop being

the uptake of the implicatures by limiting

too excited.

interpretations of the proposition to the pattern

Consequently, the utterance

serves as an indirect request or order likein (4).

Observe the followings:“Don’t be too excited,” or “Stop being

(7)

a.

I’m not interested.

b.

He’s coming.

c.

You are not smart.

excited.”Let us move on to another example.
(6)

Izzie:

Meredith, if you can’t make(7a-c) are unmarked declarative sentences andthis right, if you can’t fix this withsay nothing about implicatures when devoid ofGeorge, just so you know, if it comes tocontext.

choosing sides, I’m on his.

of just so you know to these sentences brings(Grey’s Anatomy )Meredith has had some trouble with George,

Interestingly, however, the addition

about changes in interpretation:
(8)

a.

Just

so

you

know,

I’m

not

interested.

both of whom are Izzie’s (the speaker) good
Meredith has not been able to resolveb.

Just so you know, he’s coming.

the situation for quite a while, so Izzie, havingc.

Just so you know, you’re notfriends.

smart.

grown impatient, says the utterance in question
to Meredith.

Again, the proposition marked

In (8a), an imaginable situation is that a man isby just so you know is interpreted as a reason

persistently talking to a woman at a bar.

for some action to be undertaken.

Here, thewoman is disgusted and says (8a) to indirectly

hearer is urged to fix the situation with George.

ask the man to stop making an advance to her.

In this example, the utterance is taken to be an

In (8b), the person referred to as “he” may be a

indirect warning or threat implying that if thecommon acquaintance of the speaker andhearer does not do so, she will suffer ahearer.

negative consequence.

hearer to, for example, prepare for “his”

So far, we have proposed that just so you

The

The speaker says (8b) to advise thecoming or be ready for the event.

In (8c), theknow has a function to trigger inferences, andhearer may be behaving as if he were smart,

examined two actual examples to see that theand the speaker says (8c) to get the hearer toexpression indeed has such a function instop acting like that.
In all the utterances in (8a-c), just so you

discourse.
At this point, however, one may wonder

know coerces the proposition, as it were, into

whether the implicatures observed in thecertain interpretations in conformity with the-118-pattern in (4).

It is in this sense that we claim

immediate situation but also is invoking anthat just so you know has a function to trigger

inference as to what the hearer should do with

the inference of implicatures.

the ticket.

In other words, the use of yo puts

at issue the necessity of the hearer’s picking up
3. A Cross-linguistic Implication for thethe ticket, in addition to the communication of

Implicature-triggering Function

the proposition “the hearer dropped the ticket.”In the previous section, we saw that just so

The above observation shows that the

you know has a function to trigger inferences.

inference-triggering function exists in JapaneseIn this section, we turn our eyes to theas well as in English.

Japanese sentence final particle yo, in order tothat while linguistic devices that trigger

shed some light on the inference-triggering

inferences are observed in both languages,

function from a cross-linguistic perspective.

their realizations are different according to the

It is interesting to note

It is frequently pointed out that the sentence

respective language systems: In Japanese,

final particle yo in Japanese has a function toaddressee-oriented expressions like sentence

trigger inferences.
(9)

a.

b.

Observe the following:

4

final particles ne and yo are well developed as

Mosimosi, kippu-o

grammatical forms (Hirose (1995, 1997), andExcuse me ticket-ACC

such forms are employedotos-are-masi-ta.

triggering.

drop-HON-POL-PAST

addressee-oriented expressions are not so well

Mosimosi, kippu-odeveloped since it is communicatively strong

Excuse me ticket-ACC(cf. section 2), and thus need not ensure

otos-are-masi-ta

forinference

In English, by contrast, such

communicativity by such a means.

yo.

As a

drop-HON-POL-PAST I tell you

consequence, English uses periphrastic forms‘Excuse me, but you dropped yourlike just so you know for such a discourse

ticket.’function.

(Inoue (1997: 62); slightly modified)

In the next section, we will investigate theAssume that in this scene, the speaker isphrasal origin of just so you know and identify

speaking to the hearer who has just dropped

its basic meaning in order to see its further

her ticket but has not noticed it.

parallelism with yo.

In (9a), a case without yo, the speaker isonly describing the immediate situation and is

By doing so, I willpropose one possible general mechanism forthe inference-triggering function.

requesting the hearer to understand no further
than the information conveyed; the utterance

4. The Phrasal Origin of Just So You Know anddoes not invoke an inference as to what thea General Mechanism of Inference-Triggering

hearer should do, and thus is unnatural in thisTo state the conclusion first, just so you

context, in which such an inference isknow originates from the so that clause that

expected.

expresses ‘purpose.’5

On the other hand, in (9b), a case with yo,
the speaker is not only describing theThis claim is based on

the observation of instances where just so you
know takes the complementizer that:

-119-

(10)

Just so that you know, I did not stealbasic meaning like the following:

the car.

(14)(COCA)

Below, I will elaborate upon this claim.

(I tell you X) just for the purpose thatyou know X

To begin with, there are at least two types ofThus, just so you know expresses the purpose

the so that clause, namely, propositionalof the statement speech act, i.e. that of letting

modification and speech-act modification:

the hearer know something, which is, as we(11)

The school closes earlier so (that)have seen, presupposed in English verbal

the children can get home before

communication.

a.

dark.
b.
(12)

a.

(Quirk et al. (1985: 1108))

Having identified the phrasal origin and the[PROPOSITION [MATRIX CLAUSE

basic meaning of just so you know, let us turn

[SO THAT CLAUSE]]]to a further parallelism between yo and just so

But just so you have all the

you know. That is, they both express theinformation,was

speaker’s communicative intention and his

wrecked well before you came

“informational superiority” (Hirose (2013),

into the picture and I’m just now

Ikarashi (2013)) over the hearer.

done trying to rebuild it.

will explain the concept of informational

my

home

(Grey’s Anatomy S03E02)
b.

[I

TELL

YOU

[SO

THAT

superiority and how the two forms incorporateit.

CLAUSE] [PROPOSITION […]]]
(11a)

is

an

of

Yo is generally said to indicate that the

propositional

speaker knows about the proposition which is

The subordinate so that clause

unknown to the hearer (Masuoka (1991)).

modifies the matrix clause, i.e. a propositional

That is, the speaker “has a fuller grasp of theelement, specifying the purpose of the state ofsituation in question

than [the hearer]”affairs described by the matrix clause, as(Ikarashi (2013: 116)).

This is what is meant

illustrated in (11b).

by informational superiority.

modification:

instance

Below, I(12a) is an instance ofspeech-act modification:

The so that clause

Just so you know can also be said to involve

modifies not any propositional element but the

informational superiority.

statement speech act I TELL YOU, specifying

just so you know makes explicit his purpose of

the purpose of the speech act that is notletting the hearer know X, thereby expressing

syntactically realized, as illustrated in (12b).

his communicative intention.

As for just so you know, it shows thea.
b.

In English,

however, in light of its strong communicativity,
the speaker’s communicative intention is bybehavior of the speech-act modification type:(13)

As we have seen,

Just so you know, I’m not going todefault presupposed and the use of just so you

the party with you.

know is redundant.

[I TELL YOU [just so you know]what is already presupposed, the speaker[PROPOSITION […]]]

emphasizes the purpose of letting the hearer

In (13a), just so you know modifies the speech
act I TELL YOU, as shown in (13b).

6

know X.

By redundantly statingThat is, the speaker implies that theThat is,hearer does not know, and thus should know X;

it is a meta-discoursal expression with thethis is why the speaker engages in the-120-

statement speech act to give the information in

Linguistic Society of Japan, held at Fukuoka

question.

University on November 9-10, 2013.

you

In other words, by the use of just so

know,

the

speakerstresses

his

informational superiority over the hearer.

I would

like to express my gratitude to the following
people, who gave me useful comments on

What the above discussion suggests is thatearlier versions of this paper: Yukio Hirose,

not only are there linguistic devices for

Nobuhiro Kaga, Masaharu Shimada, Naoaki

inference triggering in English and Japanese,Wada, Masaru Kanetani, Masaru Inoue, Shinbut also they share the mechanism for such a

Watanabe, Keita Ikarashi and Sara Scarf.

function (i.e. informational superiority) despite

am also grateful to the audience at the meeting

their different syntactic realization.

for their valuable comments and questions.

It is yet to be explored, however, whether yo,

1

S and E stand for Season and Episode,just so you know and other possible forms arerespectively.

different in the degree and quality of the2

inference

informative than required.” (Grice (1975: 45))

that

they

trigger;andwhyinformational superiority has to be involved in

3

I“Do not make your contribution more
The term action here is used in a broad sense.

In this paper, I only

Aside from prototypical “action,” it is intended

point out the possibility of analyzing theto refer also to, for example, expressing

phenomenon of inference-triggering from theemotions, refraining from certain actions, etc.

perspective of informational superiority, or

4

more

ACC = accusative, HON = honorific, POL =inference triggering.

generally,

7

information

manipulation

through linguistic means.

The glosses used in this paper are as follows:

polite, PAST = past tense.
5

The so that clause has another interpretation,

6. Conclusion

namely, that of ‘result.’

This paper dealt with the function of just so

evidence that just so you know is related to the

you know, which is seemingly redundant both

purpose sense rather than the result sense.

propositionally and in light of the strong

Due to the space limitation, I will not discusscommunicativity of English.

I proposed that

this point in detail, but three pieces of evidence

just so you know has a function to trigger

are involved: (a) my informants report that justinferences of implicatures.

Also, we exploredso you know intuitively involves the purposethe parallelism between the Japanese sentence

sense rather than result; (b) just does not

final particle yo and just so you know, andappear in the cases of the result interpretation;suggested a cross-linguistic implication for one(c) cases of the result interpretation do notpossible mechanism of inference triggering,allow the proposing operation.

namely,will refer only to the purpose so that clause by

theindication

of

the

speaker’s

However, there isHenceforth, I

the term “so that clause”.

informational superiority.

6

This accounts for the non-propositionality ofNotes

just so you know that we saw in section 1.

* This is a revised version of the paper

7

presented at the 31st Conference of the English

speaker’s informational relation with the hearer-121-

Yukio Hirose has pointed out to me that the

is independent of their socio-psychologicalthe Sentence Final Particle Yo),” Gengo

relationship; and the reason that informational26, 62-67.

superiority is involved in inference triggering

Kinsui, Satoshi and Yukinori Takubo (1998)

may be that it enables the speaker to“Danwa Kanri Riron ni Motozuku “Yo”

manipulate the hearer without affecting their“Ne” “Yone” no Kenkyuu (A Study on Yo,

socio-psychological relationship. I leave thisNe, and Yone Based on The Discourse

possibility for further research.

Management Theory,” Onsei ni yoru
Ningen to Kikai no Taiwa (Man-Machine

References
Davis,

Dialog by Speech), ed. by Shuzi DoshitaMark(2008)

The

CorpusofContemporary American English [COCA],
available

onlineet al., 257-271, Ohmusha, Tokyo.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983) Pragmatics,

athttp://corpus .byu.edu/coca/.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Levinson, Stephen C. (2000) Presumptive

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

Meanings: The Theory of Generalized

Syntax and Semantics, vol.3: Speech Acts,

Conversational Implicature, MIT Press,

ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan,

Cambridge.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey

41-58, Academic Press, New York.
Hirose, Yukio (1995) “Direct and Indirect

Leech,andJan

Svartvik(1985)

A

Speech as Quotations of Public andComprehensive Grammar of the English

Private Expressions,” Lingua 95, 223-238.

Language, Longman, London.

Hirose, Yukio (1997) “Hito o Arawasu Kotoba

Masuoka, Takashi (1991) Modarithi no Bunpoo

to Shoo-oo (Words of Reference to(Grammar of Modality), Kurosio, Tokyo.

Persons and Anaphora),” Siji to Shoo-oo

Searle, John R. (1975) “Indirect Speech Acts,”

to

Hitei

(Reference,

Anaphora,

and

Syntax and Semantics, vol.3: Speech Acts,

Negation), ed. by Minoru Nakau, 1-89,

ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan,

Kenkyusha, Tokyo.

59-82. Academic Press, New York.

Hirose, Yukio (2013) “Deconstruction of theSearle, John Rogers (1976) “A Classification

Speaker and the Three-Tier Model ofof Illocutionary Acts,”

Language Use,” Tsukuba English Studies

Society 5, 1-23, Cambridge University

32, 1-28.

Press, Cambridge.

Ikarashi, Keita (2013) “The Performative
ClauseI

Relationship,

Tell

You,
and

Language in

Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson (1995)

Interpersonal

Relevance: Communication and Cognition,

Informational

Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Superiority,” Tsukuba English Studies 32,

Takubo, Yukinori (1992) “Danwa Kanri no111-126.

Hyoosiki

Inoue, Masaru (1997) ““Mosimosi, Kippu o

Discourseni

Tuite (On Markers
Management),”

of

Bunka

Otosaremasita yo” –Syuujosi “yo” oGengogaku –Sono Teigen to Kensetu

Tukau Koto no Imi (“Excuse me, but you(Cultural Linguistics –Its Proposal anddropped your ticket” –The Point of Using

Construction), Sanseido, Tokyo.

-122-

what aL believe

you aL bought

Seán t?
John‘What do you believe that John bought?’b.

Irish [+Q] COMPs

Creideann tú gur ceannaigh Seánbelieve

Dónall P. Ó Baoill and Hideki Maki

cad é?

Queen’s University Belfast, Professor Emeritus andwhat

you that boughtJohn(1a) is a non-echo wh-question which involves overt

Gifu University

wh-movement. (See McCloskey (1979, 2002),
Keywords: Chinese, English, Irish, [+Q] COMPs,

among others.) (1b) is also well-formed as awh-construction

non-echo wh-question, and the wh-phrase is in situ
in the embedded clause. We will provide more
examples of type (1b) in this paper, and based on the

1. INTRODUCTION

newly found data, we will argue (i) that Irish has twoThis paper closely investigates the wh-construction

types of [+Q] COMPs, one with a [strong] feature,

in Modern Irish (Irish, hereafter), and points out thatand another with a [weak] feature, (ii) that adjunctin terms of the wh-construction, Irish is awh-phrases in Irish are categorized into two groups:

typologically unique language in the sense that it has

the manner class and the reason class, and thetwo different types of [+Q] COMPs: one type ofmanner class wh-phrases pattern together with[+Q] COMP has a [strong] feature that needs to beargument wh-phrases, and (iii) that the differences indeleted in overt syntax, which necessarily involves

the A’-chain patterns suggest that there are actually

overt wh-movement; and another type that does notthree types of wh-phrases in Irish: argument, manner,have this feature, and binds a wh-phrase in situ, so

and reason wh-phrases.

that no wh-movement takes place with this COMP.

The organization of this paper is as follows.

If this is correct, Irish is different from (i) English,

Section 2 reviews the properties of (i) thewhich has a [+Q] COMP with a [strong] feature,

wh-construction in French and (ii) complementizers

which is inserted only in overt syntax, (ii) French,in Irish as the background to the subsequent sections.

which has a [+Q] COMP with a [strong] feature,

Section 3 provides the wh-interrogative data in Irish.

which is inserted either in overt syntax or in LF,

Based on the newly found data, Section 4 discusses

according to Bošković (2000), and (iii) Chinese,

what they suggest for the theory of (Irish) syntax.

which seems to have a [+Q] COMP without a

Finally, Section 5 concludes this paper.

[strong] feature. The present research thus showsthat a given language picks up a certain type of [+Q]

2. BACKGROUNDCOMP or certain types of [+Q] COMPs out of thelist of possible [+Q] COMPs, and Irish has picked

2.1. FRENCH

up two types of [+Q] COMPs (one found in English

Bošković (2000) argues that French [+Q] COMP

and another found in Chinese). The Irish data inwith a [strong] feature is inserted in overt syntax orpoint are shown in (1).

in LF based on abundant data including (2)-(4). In(1) a.

Cad é a chreideann tú

a cheannaigh

French, both (2a) and (2b) are grammatical,-123-

suggesting that a wh-phrase can be in CP SPEC or inclause formation, as in (6), the embedded COMP

situ.

must change to the direct relative marker aL, and at(2) a.

Qui as-tu

the same time, another COMP aL must be insertedvu?

right after the wh-phrase.

who have-you seen

(5)

‘Who did you see?’b.

Creideann Seán gur cheannaigh Máirequi?

believeyou have seen who

an carr.

Tu as

vu

John that bought

Mary

However, the ungrammaticality of (3b) and (4b)the carindicates that a wh-phrase cannot always be in situ.

‘John believes that Mary bought the car.’(3) a.

Qui Jean et Pierre croient-ils

(6)

que

who Jean and Pierre believe-they thatwhat aL believe

Marie acheannaigh Seán t?

vu?

a

you aLMarie has seenbought‘Who do Jean and Pierre believe that

‘What do you believe that John bought?’
clause in Irish. Observe the example in (7).

b.?* Jean et Pierre croient que Marie(7)

Jean and Pierre believe that Marie
a

vu

John

There is another way to form a wh-interrogative

Marie saw?’(4) a.

Cad é a chreideann tú

Cad é a gcreideann túwhat aN believequi?

you that

has seen whocheannaigh Seán é/*t?

Que neboughtmange-t-il pas?

what NEG eat-he

In (7), the topmost COMP of the wh-interrogative
clause is an indirect relative marker a, the COMP ofmange pas quoi?

Jean NEG eats

John it‘What do you believe that John bought?’

NEG‘What doesn’t Jean eat?’b.?* Jean ne

gur

the embedded clause is a [-Q] COMP, and the

NEG what

Bošković (2000) claims that the above data suggest

embedded clause contains a resumptive pronoun(i) that a [+Q] COMP with a [strong] feature is(RP) é ‘it’ instead of a gap.

derivationally inserted, so that it can be inserted in

McCloskey (2002) assumes that the SPEC of aL

LF, and (ii) that LF wh-movement is restricted tocontains a null operator/null pronoun (henceforth,head-movement, which cannot move across annull operator) as a result of movement, that in theA’-head, such as COMP in (3b) or NEG in (4b). To

SPEC of aN, there is a base-generated operator, andsummarize, if Bošković (2000) is correct, French hasthat in the SPEC of go/gur, there is no operator. In

one type of [+Q] COMP with a [strong] feature,

this paper, for expository purposes only, we

which can be inserted either in overt syntax or in LF.

represent the structure of a wh-interrogative clauseby putting a wh-phrase, not its operator, in the SPECof aL/aN, as shown in (8).

2.2. IRISH(8)

Irish has three types of complementizers: the [-Q]

[WH1 aL/aN [IP…t1/RP1…]]

marker, the direct relative marker, and the indirect
relative marker. (5) is a declarative sentence, and the

3. IRISH DATA

embedded clause is headed by the [-Q] COMP gur

Having outlined the particular background, let us‘that.’ When the sentence involves wh-interrogative

consider the Irish wh-construction. Firstly, (9) and-124-

(12) a. * Cad é a bheidh a(1) show that wh-in-situ is possible in matrix clauses

what aL be.FUT the knowledge

and embedded complement clauses, respectively.
(9) a.

b.

fhios

Cad é a cheannaigh Seán t?

agat

what aL boughtwith.you Q boughtJohn[ar cheannaigh Seán t]?
John‘What did John buy?’‘[Q [you will know [whether John

Cheannaigh Seán cad é?

bought what]]].’

boughtb.

John what

Beidh a

fhios

agat

be.FUT the knowledge with.you

Secondly, wh-in-situ is possible within a complex
NP island, while wh-movement out of it is not, as[ar cheannaigh Seán cad é]?

shown in (10).

Q bought

Fifthly, and finally, wh-movement across a(10) a. * Cad é a chonaic siad [an fear awhat aL sawb.

John what

negation head is possible, and wh-in-situ is also

they the man aLcheannaigh t]?

possible within a negation island, as shown in (13).

bought(13) a.

Cad é nárcheannaigh Seán t?

‘[Q [they saw [the man who bought

what aL.NEG bought

what]]].’‘What didn’t John buy?’b.

Chonaic siad [an fear a cheannaigh
saw

Níor

John

cheannaigh Seán cad é?

NEG.PAST bought

they the man aL boughtJohn whatcad é]?
4. DISCUSSION

what
Thirdly, wh-in-situ is possible within an adjunctLet us now consider what the above findings suggest

island, while wh-movement out of it is not. See thefor the theory of (Irish) syntax. Firstly, Irish has two

examples in (11).

types of [+Q] COMPs. The contrast between (1b) in(11) a. * Cad é a dúirt tú

b.

a bhí

Irish and (3b) in French suggests that unlike French,iontaswhat aL said you aL be.PAST surprisea wh-phrase in situ does not undergo LF headar Mháire [cionnas gur cheannaigh

movement.

on Maryb-examples in (10)-(13) are grammatical in Irish

because that bought

Furthermore,

the

fact

that

the

Seán t]?

suggests that a wh-phrase in situ does not undergoJohn

LF movement in general. Rather, these facts suggest‘[Q [you said that Mary was surprisedthat in the wh-construction with a wh-in-situ, Irish[because John bought what]]].’

has a [+Q] COMP that is not found in French or

Dúirt tú go

English. The [+Q] COMP seems to pattern with theraibhiontassaid you that.PAST be.PAST surpriseone found in Chinese. Consider the examples inar Mháire [cionnas gur cheannaigh(14)-(16). (15) and (16) are from Huang (1982: 530,

on Mary493).

because that bought(14)

Seán cad é]?

Ni renwei [Lisi piping-le
you thinkJohn what(p.c. with Ling-Yun Fan)

wh-island, while wh-movement out of it is not. See
(15)

-125-

Lisi criticize-Asp who‘[Q [you think [Lisi criticized who]]].’

Fourthly, wh-in-situ is possible within athe examples in (12).

shei]?

Ni xiang-zhidao [shei xi-bu-xihuan ni]?

you wonder(22) a.

who like-not-like you

Cén

fáth

ar chóirigh Seán an‘[Q [you wonder [whether who likes you or

what.the reason aN fixednot]]].’

carr?

Ni xihuan [NP [S wo piping shei] decar

you like‘Why did John fix the car?’

(16)

I

criticize who DE

John theb. * Chóirigh Seán an carr cénwenzhang]?

fixed

articlefáth?

John the car what.the reason‘[Q [you like [the articles in which I(21b) shows that the manner adverbial wh-phrase

criticize who]]].’

cad é an dóigh ‘what the way = how’ can be in situ,

These examples suggest that Chinese [+Q] COMP

while (22b) shows that the reason adverbial

binds an argument wh-phrase in situ, which does not

wh-phrase cén fáth ‘what.the reason = why’ cannot

move in LF.

be in situ. This dichotomy is further confirmed byNow, it has turned out that Irish [+Q] COMP for

the corresponding examples in French, as shown inan argument wh-phrase is exactly like the one found(23) and (24).

in Chinese, as exemplified by the b-examples in(23) a.

Comment Jean aréparé la voiture?

(10)-(13). At the same time, all the a-examples show

howthat Irish also has another [+Q] COMP, which is like

‘How did Jean fix the car?’the one found in English, as shown by the examples(p.c. with Gilles Guerrin)b.

in (17)-(20).

Jean aJean has fixed the car

réparé la voiture comment?

What do you believe that John bought?

Jean has fixed the car(18) * What did they see [the man who bought t]?

(Bošković (2000: 56))(17)(24) a.

(19) * What did you say that Mary was surprised

Pourquoi Jean awhy[because John bought t]?

howréparé la voiture?

Jean has fixed the car‘Why did Jean fix the car?’(20) * What do you know [whether John boughtb. * Jean at]?

réparé la voiture pourquoi?

Jean has fixed the car

Thus, the present research made it explicit that awhylanguage can have two types of [+Q] COMPs, andNote further that the manner adverbial wh-phrase

its manifestation is Irish.

cad é an dóigh ‘how’ can be in the embedded clause,

Secondly, the contrast between (21) and (22)as shown in (25b).
(25) a.

shows that adjunct wh-phrases are categorized into

Cad é an dóigh a síleann tú

gur

two groups: the manner class and the reason class.

what the way aN think you that(21) a.

Cad é an dóigh ar chóirigh Seán anchóirigh Seán an carr?

what the way aN fixed

fixedJohn thecarr?

‘How do you think [that John fix the car

car

t]?’
b.

‘How did John fix the car?’b.

John the car

Síleann tú

gur chóirigh Seán an carr

Chóirigh Seán an carr (ar) cad é an

think

fixed

(ar) cad é an dóigh?

John the car on what theJohn the caron what the way

dóigh?
way

you that fixed

In this sense, the COMP that licenses cad é an dóigh-126-‘how’ in situ is similar to the one found in Chinese,manner class and the reason class. This thenas shown in (26) and (27).

provides support for the essential claim by Bošković(26)

Lisi zenme xiuli-le nabu che?

(2000) for French. See also Lin (1992) for the same

Lisi howclaim based on Chinese data.

fix-Asp that car

Note, however, that there is a major difference‘[Q [Lisi fixed the car how]].’Ni renwei Lisi zenme xiuli-le nabu

between Chinese weishenme ‘why’ and Irish cén

you think Lisi howfáth ‘why.’ The examples in (30) show that cén fáth(27)

fix-Asp thatche?

‘why’ in Irish must be base-generated in CP SPEC.

car(30) a.

Cén

fáth

ar chóirigh Seán an‘[Q [you think [Lisi fixed the car how]]].’

what.the reason aN fixed(p.c. with Ling-Yun Fan)

carr?
car

Furthermore, the manner adverbial wh-phrase‘Why did John fix the car?’cad é an dóigh ‘how’ can be in a complex NP, asb. * Chóirigh Seán an carr cén

shown in (28b).
(28) a.

Cad é an dóigh a

fixedbhfaca siad [anwhat the way aN sawb.

John thefáth?

John the car what.the reason

The Chinese counterpart of (30b) is perfect, as

they thefear a chóirigh an carr t]?

shown in (31).

man aL fixed(31)

the carLisi weishenme xiuli-le nabu che?

‘[Q [they saw [the man who fixed theLisi why

fix-Asp that carcar how]]].’‘[Q Lisi fixed the car why]]].’

Chonaic siad [an fear a chóirigh an

At first sight, weishenme ‘why’ is base-generated

saw

within TP. However, Lin (1992) and Ko (2005)

they the man aL fixedthecarr (ar) cad é an dóigh]?

argue that it is actually base-generated in CP SPEC,car on what the way

just like Irish and English. Ko (2005) claims theBoth sentences in (28) are grammatical. In (28a),

External-Merge Hypothesis, which states that in thecad é an dóigh ‘how’ modifies the matrix clause, but

overt syntax, ‘why’ in Chinese/Japanese/Korean isit cannot modify the clause in the complex NP. In

externally-merged into the [Spec,CP] of the clause it(28b), cad é an dóigh ‘how’ only modifies the clause

modifies, and that the CP that ‘why’ merges within the complex NP.

may be declarative or interrogative. Therefore, (32),

Again, this is what takes place in Chinese, as

which is grammatical, has weishenme ‘why’ in CP

shown in (29).

SPEC of the embedded clause, with the subject Lisi(29)

Ni bu yuanyi yong [[ta zenmeyang

topicalized across it, as schematically shown in (33).

you not willing use(32)

he howNi renwei Lisi weishenme cizhi?

zhuan-lai de] qian]?

you think Lisi why

earn-come DE money‘Why1 do you think [Lisi resigned t1]?’‘[Q [you are reluctant to use [the money he(Soh (2001))

earns how]]].’(33) a.

(Lin (1992: 295))b.

Thus, the above data clearly show that adjunctwh-phrases are categorized into two groups: theresignyou think [CP why [IP Lisi resigned]]
you think [CP Lisi [CP why [IP tLisi
resigned]]]The point is that in (32), the reason adjunct-127-wh-phrase is in the embedded clause at the surface(21), and (28) show that both cad é an dóigh ‘how’level, although it takes matrix scope.

and cad é ‘what’ can be in situ, and pattern together.

However, this is impossible in Irish, as shown in

Since cad é an dóigh ‘how’ does not pattern withcén fáth ‘why,’ it may be concluded that there are(34).
(34) * Dúirt Pól cén

fáth

a

two types of wh-phrases in Irish.

raibh

However, the patterns in A’-chains for cad ésaid Paul what.the reason aN be.PAST
Seán ann?

‘what’ are not parallel to those for cad é an dóighJohn there‘how,’ as shown in (36) and (37).

‘Why1 did Paul say [that John was there(36) a.

Cad é a cheannaigh Seán t?
what aL bought

t1]?’

John

‘What did John buy?’

In (34), the reason adjunct wh-phrase cén fáth ‘why’b.

is in CP SPEC of the embedded clause. The COMP

Cad é ar cheannaigh Seán é?
what aN bought

aN indicates that the wh-phrase is base-generated in(37) a.

that position. In order for (34) to be grammatical,

John itCad é an dóigh ar chóirigh Seán an

cén fáth ‘why’ must be in CP SPEC where it takes

what the way aN fixed

scope at the surface level, as shown in (35), citedcarr?

from McCloskey (2002, ex. 69).

car

(35)

‘How did John fix the car?’

Cén

fáth

a dúirt Pól ab. * Cad é an dóigh a chóirigh Seán an

what.the reason aL said Paul aN
raibh

John thewhat the way aL fixedSeán ann?

be.PAST John therecarr?

‘Why1 did Paul say [that John was there

carJohn theThe examples in (36) indicates that there are twot1]?’
In (35), the embedded COMP is aN, and the matrix

ways to make a wh-interrogative sentence with an

COMP is aL. Therefore, cén fáth ‘why’ moved fromargument wh-phrase in Irish, namely, by movement,

the SPEC of the embedded CP to the SPEC of theas in (36a), and by resumption, as in (36b). However,matrix CP.

as the contrast in grammaticality in (37) shows, there

Therefore, the ungrammaticality of (34) in Irish

is one way to make a wh-interrogative sentence withindicates that the reason adjunct wh-phrase cén fáththe manner adverb wh-phrase cad é an dóigh ‘how.’‘why’ in Irish does not pattern together with the

Therefore, although apparently the manner adverb

corresponding wh-phrase weishenme ‘why’ in

wh-phrase cad é an dóigh ‘how’ patterns together

Chinese, and this contrast between Chinese and Irish

with argument wh-phrases such as cad é ‘what,’ theysuggests that the behaviors of reason adverbial

are not categorized together. Thus, there are actuallywh-phrases need to be specified independently of thethree types of wh-phrases in Irish, as cad é an dóighproperties of the [+Q] COMPs in the languages.

‘how’ does not pattern together with cén fáth ‘why.’

Thirdly, there are actually three types of
wh-phrases in Irish. In the above discussion, we saw

5. CONCLUSION

that the manner adverbial wh-phrase cad é an dóighThis paper investigated the wh-construction in Irish‘how’ patterns together with argument wh-phrases,that involves wh-movement and wh-in-situ. Basedsuch as cad é ‘what.’ The b-examples in (1), (10),on the newly found data, we claimed (i) that Irish-128-

has two types of [+Q] COMPs, one with a [strong]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

feature, and another with a [weak] feature, (ii) that

We would like to thank Lina Bao, Jessica Dunton,

adjunct wh-phrases in Irish are categorized into two

Ling-Yun Fan, Alexandra von Fragstein, Gilles

groups: the manner class and the reason class, andGuerrin, Megumi Hasebe, Luisa Martí, Yoichi

the manner class wh-phrases pattern together with

Miyamoto, Fumikazu Niinuma, Masao Ochi, Koji

argument wh-phrases, and (iii) that the differences in

Sugisaki, Shigeki Taguchi, and Asako Uchibori for

the A’-chain patterns suggest that there are actually

their valuable comments. All errors are our own.

three types of wh-phrases in Irish: argument, manner,

Research by the second author was supported in partand reason wh-phrases.

by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Grant

It has turned out then that in terms of the# 25370428 to Gifu University.

wh-construction, Irish is a typologically uniquelanguage in the sense that it has two different types

REFERENCES

of [+Q] COMPs: one type of [+Q] COMP has a

Bošković, Željko (2000) “Sometimes in SpecCP,[strong] feature that needs to be deleted in overt

Sometimes In-Situ,” Step by Step: Essays on

syntax,overt

Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by

wh-movement; and another type that does not have

Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan

this feature, and binds a wh-phrase in situ, so that no

Uriagereka, 53-87, MIT Press, Cambridge,

wh-movement takes place with this COMP.

Mass.

which

necessarily

involves

The languages investigated in this paper are

Huang, C.-T. James (1982) Logical Relations ingrouped together in terms of the types of COMPs

Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral

and when they are put into the phrase structure, as

dissertation, MIT.

shown in (38). Note that as it is not obvious when

Ko, Heejeong (2005) “Syntax of Why-In-Situ:

the COMP with a [weak] feature is inserted to theMerge into [Spec,CP] in the Overt Syntax,”

phrase structure, especially in a language without an

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23,

overt COMP, the distinction in the timing of COMP

867-916.

insertion is not made explicit for the COMPs with aLin, Jo Wang (1992) “The Syntax of Zenmeyang[weak] feature in (38).

‘How’ and Weishenme ‘Why’ in Mandarin(38)

Languages Grouped in Terms of the Two

Chinese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1,

Factors: the COMP Type and the Timing of

293-331.
McCloskey, James (1979) Transformational Syntax

COMP Insertion
Type of C
C[strong]
C[weak]Insertion

Insertionand Model Theoretic Semantics: A Case Study

Before LF

in LF

in Modern Irish, Reidel, Dordrecht.

English, French,
Irish

McCloskey, James (2002) “Resumption, Successive

FrenchCyclicity, and the Locality of Operations,”

Chinese, Irish

Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist

What is special about (38) is the fact that Irish has

Program, ed. by Samuel Epstein and Daniel

two types of COMPs. The fact that such a language

Seely, 184-226, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.

exists as a human language indicates that a given

Soh, Hooi Ling (2001) “On the Intervention Effect:

language can pick up more than one type of COMP

Some Notes from Chinese,” ms, University ofout of the lexicon in principle.

Minnesota, Twin Cities.

-129-

words can be formed without reference tomorphemes. The next section shows that there aresuch semantically empty elements called Linking
Elements (LEs) in various languages.
Linking Elements as Expletives in Distributed
2. Linking Elements

Morphology*

LEs are regarded as semantically empty andrecurring in compounds. A representative example

Tatsuhiro Okubo

is LEs in German, as shown in (1) below:1

University of Tsukuba

(1)

a.

Liebe-s+lied lit. love-LE+song‘love song’ (Bauer (2009: 346))

Keywords: morpheme-based approach,b.

lexeme-based approach, linking elements,

Das Auto mein-es Bruder-s lit.
the car my-GEN brother-GEN

distributed morphology, expletives‘the car of my brother’c.

die Auto-s lit. the (PL) car-PL‘the cars’

1. Introduction
There are two widely known approaches to(Bauer (2009: 346))

morphology: the morpheme-based approach and the

Bauer (2009: 346) mentions that, generally,

lexeme-based approach.

The former approach

Germanic LEs stem from genitive and pluralconsiders morphemes as its basic elements ofmarkers and that in German, the suffix -s has either

word-formation, while the latter considers lexemes,of those meanings, as given in (1b-c). However,not morphemes, as its inputs of word-formation.

the suffix of the compound in (1a) is not qualified as

Accordingly, the difference between the two

a genitive or plural marker because the gender isapproaches is whether the building-blocks ofwrong to allow for an s-genitive and the declension

word-formation are morphemes. In this paper, ais wrong to allow for an s-plural.

morpheme is defined as a minimal unit of form andgenitive form of Liebe is Liebe-ø and its correct

meaning.

plural form is Liebe-n.

The correct

Given the definition of morphemes, theLEs are found in various languages, aspresence of meaningless elements poses a problem

illustrated in (2) and (3). In these examples, LEs

for the morpheme-based approach, as discussed by

are italicized:

Anderson (1992: 53-54).

On the other hand,

(2)

a.

Modern Greek: domat-o-salata

meaningless elements are not problematic for thelit.

lexeme-based approach because in this approach,salad’-130-

tomato-LE-salad‘tomato(Ralli (2009))

b.

c.

d.

(3)

a.

b.

Russian: gaz-o-snabženie lit.

because it links between two members in thegas-LE-supply ‘gass supply’

compound without contributing to its meaning. In(Benigni and Massini (2009: 174))(2d), the suffix -i- added to a verbal stem can be

Kannada: de:var-a+mane lit.

regarded as LE. Let us move on to the examples in

god-LE+house ‘room set aside(3). In (3a), the suffixes -s or -’s are considered tofor prayer and worship in the

be an LE. It is obvious that the suffix -s comeshouse, a ‘home-shrine’’

from a plural marker and the suffix -’s from a(Sridhar (1990: 284))

genitive marker.

nak-i-sakeb-ulit.

(2009: 369), oars of oarsman need not be interpreted

weep-LE-cry-PRS ‘weep and cry’as more than one oar. Moreover, if frontiers of(Shimada (2013: 90))

frontiersman is construed as a plural form or achildren-’s+hour,

genitive form, it does not make sense. In (3b), theoar-s+man, frontier-s+man

element -e behaves as an LE. The LE stems from a(Lieber (2009))

cumulative realization of [3rd], [sg], and [pres]. In

Japanese:

English:French:lit.

(3c), the suffixes -n and -tä appear to be LEs because‘standard

they make no semantic contribution to the meaning

port-e+drapeu

bear-LE+standard.PL
bearer,’ etc.

of the compound, although the suffix -n comes from
(Fradin (2009))

c.

a genitive marker and the suffix - tä from a partitivelit.

marker. In (3d), unlike the languages observed so

hand-LE+place‘handle,’far, an LE stems from a preposition -ā-, probably

vet-tä+pitävä

lit.

Finnish:käde-n+sija

because Maori has no inflectional morphology.

water-LE+holding ‘waterproof,’

On the basis of the observations of LEs in (2)and (3), it appears that LEs are classified into two

etc.
(Niemi J. (2009: 244-245))d.

However, according to Lieber

Maori:

waiata-ā-ringa

lit.

song-of-hand ‘action song’

types: LEs of stem-based type and those ofword-based type. In the former, LEs stick to stems,
but in the latter, they stick to words. All LEs in (2)(Bauer (1997: 309))

belong to the stem-based type because the non-heads

In (2a), the link -o- is an LE. According to Ralli

minus LEs cannot occur independently, and are thus

(2009: 454), the LE originates from an ancient

stems. On the other hand, all LEs in (3) belong tothematic vowel. However, synchronically, it is not

the word-based type because the non-heads minus

related to any inflectional morphemes. In (2b), theLEs occur independently and are thus words.

link -o- corresponds to an LE in that language. In

Henceforth, I refer to a non-head composed of a(2c), it appears that the suffix -a serves as an LE

stem and an LE as a “small non-head,” whereas I-131-

refer to a non-head composed of a word and an LE

uninterpretable features.

as a “large non-head.”definition of heads, Mukai proposes a P(x) head

The non-morphemic status of LEs constitutes

composedofaOn the basis of thenominalizer

and

some

a problem for the morpheme-based approach.

uninterpretable features.

As shown in (4b), theHowever, in the lexeme-based approach, it has nohead is contained in the structure of the non-head fot

problematic natures.

For example, Shimada,boll and of the head domare. According to Collins

Nagano, and Okubo (2013) regard them as part of(2002), if there is an uninterpretable feature in a

lexemes. In this paper, I attempt to find a possible

derivation, it must be checked before another item

solution for the problem of the morpheme-basedwith an uninterpretable feature is introduced to theapproach, based on Distributed Morphology (DM)derivation. Assuming that this proposal of Collins(Marantz (1997, 2001), Embick and Marantz

is correct, the structure of the non-head with P(x)(2008)) among the morpheme-based theories. The

cannot be merged with the structure of the head withpurpose of this paper is to propose that LEs are

P(x). One of the two P(x) heads must be checked

expletives.

before the two structures are combined.

Mukai

The next section introduces three theoreticalargues that an LE is responsible for this. In (4b),assumptions of this study: Mukai’s (2008)

the LE represented as LINK is merged with theDM-based analysis of LEs, the notion of expletives,

structure of the non-head and as a result, the P(x) ofand DM’s devices such as a “single engine

the non-head is checked.

hypothesis” and “root or outer domains.”

The second assumption is the notion of
expletives.

An expletive is defined as asemantically empty element and as serving for3. Theoretical Assumptions
The first assumption is Mukai’s (2008)

checking uninterpretable features. For instance, theproposal that an LE checks an uninterpretablesubject it in it seems that John is a teacher and thefeature.

Swedishsubject there in there is a book on the desk areleft-branching recursive compound in (4a) has theexpletives because they are semantically empty andstructure in (4b):check uninterpretable EPP features (cf. Chomsky

(4)

Mukai

a.

arguesthatthefoot+ball-LE+referee

b.

lit.

(2000)). The types of expletives are not restricted‘football

to nominal expletives such as it and there.

fot+boll-s+domare

referee’Shimada (2004) argues that there are verbal[P(x) [[P(x) √FOT [√BOLL P(x)]]expletives: the dummy do of do-support in English
and the copula -da in Japanese. Considering that

LINK, -s] [√DOMARE P(x)]]there are nominal and verbal expletives, we can thus

According to Collins (2002), a head has one or more

say that there are various types of expletives.

-132-

The third assumption consists of two devices

4. Proposalof DM: a single engine hypothesis and root andIn this paper, on the basis of the meaninglessouter domains. The single engine hypothesis states

characteristics of LEs and Mukai’s (2008) proposalthat words and phrases are formed in syntax (cf.

that the function of LEs is to check an

Marantz (1997), Arad (2003)). On the basis of theuninterpretable feature, I propose that LEs arehypothesis, Marantz (2001) and Arad (2003) suggest

expletives.

two places for word formation.

In one place,expletives are semantically empty and checkwords are created from category-neutral Roots, anduninterpretable features like EPP features. DM isin the other place, they are created from existing

based on the single engine hypothesis.

words. The former place is called a root domain

mentioned earlier, this hypothesis states that bothand the latter place an outer domain, as shown in (5).

words and phrases are built in syntax. Accordingly,

In the schematic structures, the heads x and y standin DM, among the morpheme-based theories, LEs

for categorizers:

can be identified with expletives. Thus, based on

(5)

As

a.

root domain: [√ROOT x]

the framework of DM, LEs are regarded as dummyb.

outer domain: [[√ROOT x] y]elements like expletives and are thus located in the(Marantz (2001) with slight modifications)grammar.
The next section discusses three consequences

As shown in (5b), an outer domain is outside a rootof the view that LEs are expletives.

domain. The followings are sample derivations:(6)

As seen in the previous section,a.

vaporous: [√VAPOR a, -ous]b.

vaporousness:[[√VAPORa,

5. Consequences
The first consequence is that the recycling-ous] n, -ness](Embick and Marantz (2008: 11))property of LEs is explained. As seen in section 2,

For example, vaporous is derived in the root domain

elements like inflectional suffixes and prepositions

by attaching the Root √VAPOR to the adjectivalizer a,

are recycled as LEs.

as shown in (6a).

However, vaporousness is

expletives is correct, this recycling property isformed in the outer domain by attaching theaccounted for because expletives are recycled fromnominalizer n to the existing word vaporous,

elements such as nominals and adverbials.

composed

of

the

Root

√VAPORandthe

If the view that LEs are

The second consequence is that the presenceof two types of LEs, LEs in small non-heads and in

adjectivalizer a.
In the next section, I solve the problem for thelarge non-heads, is explained by root and outermorpheme-based approach on the basis of thedomains. In section 2, we observed that LEs attach

similarity between LEs and expletives.

to category-neutral stems in small non-heads, butthey attach to words in large non-heads.

-133-

The

distinction between small and large non-heads

Kageyama’s (2001) proposal that words arecorresponds to the distinction between root and outerdisintegrated into Word and Word+, Okubo (2013)

domains. In the root domain, words are formed

argues that non-heads of phrasal compounds can befrom category-neutral Roots, while in the outerclassified into Word-type non-heads and Word+-type

domain, words are formed from existing words.

non-heads.

Considering the structural similarity between the two

Word-type non-heads and those in (9b) Word+-type

types of non-heads and the two domains, I propose

non-heads:

the following structures:
(7)

(9)

The italic elements in (9a) area.

Word-type non-heads: over thea.

small non-heads: [√ROOT f]

fence

b.

large non-heads: [[√ROOT x] f]

mess, run-of-the mill work

The heads f in (7) represent some functional headsb.

gossip,after-the-party

Word+-type non-heads: [grayother than categorizers. LEs are realizations of theelephant] hunter, [small car]heads f. In (7a), f is directly attached to the Rootdriver, [fresh fish] shop

and the resultant structure corresponds to small(Okubo (2013: 175), cf. Shimamura (2005, 2007))

non-heads. On the other hand, in (7b), f attaches to

Word-type non-heads differ from Word+-type

the existing words formed by the Root and a

non-heads in that only the latter allows genitive andcategorizer x; the resultant structure correlates withplural markers to occur, as shown in (10):large non-heads.

Sample derivations are as

(10)

a.

follows:(8)

between-meal(*s) snacks, thewash-hand(*s) standa.

domat-o-salata: [√DOMAT f, -o-]b.

park-s+department: [[√PARK n]b.

[new-books] shelf, [equal rights]
amendment, [little girl’s] bicyclef, -s](Shimamura (2005, 2007))

The Greek compound domat-o-salata in (8a)In (10a), Word-type non-heads disallow pluralconsists of the small non-head domat-o and the headmarkers, while in (10b), Word+-type non-heads

salata. Accordingly, the non-head is created by thepermit genitive and plural markers. According to

attachment of the Root √DOMAT to f. The English

Okubo, this difference is explained by the structuralcompound parks department in (8b) is composed ofdifference; Word-type non-heads are derived in a

the large non-head park-s and the head department.

root domain, while Word+-type non-heads are

Accordingly, the non-head is formed by combining

derived in an outer domain.

the existing word park with f.

functional head f occurs in (11b), but not in (11a), is

The third consequence is that Okubo’s (2013)

more important:assumption that a functional head f occurs only in anouter domain is adjusted.

The fact that a

On the basis of

-134-

(11)

a.

over the fence gossip: [over thefence a]small car driver: [[small car a] f]

Arad, Maya (2003) “Locality Constraints on the

Okubo argues that f licenses inflectional suffixes inInterpretation of Roots: The Case of Hebrew

Word+-type non-heads. As Word-type non-heads

Denominal Verbs,” Natural Language andlack the functional head as shown in (11a), they

Linguistic Theory 21, 737–778.

b.

cannot license inflectional suffixes. If my analysis

Bauer, Laurie (2009) “Typology of Compounds, ”

is correct, it follows that the Okubo’s proposal that f

The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, ed. by

occurs only in an outer domain is adjusted and, as a

Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer, 343–356,

result, f occurs even in a root domain. Moreover,

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

apparent inflectional suffixes in (10b) prove to be

Bauer, Winifred (1993) Maori, Routledge, London.

LEs.

Bauer, Winifred (1997) The Reed Reference
Grammar of Māori, Reed, Auckland.
Benigni, Valentina and Franceska Masini (2009)

6. Conclusion“Compounds in Russian,” Lingue e Linguaggio

In this paper, based on the framework of DM,
I have proposed that LEs are expletives.

VIII-II, 171–193.

The

analysis of LEs as expletives locates the elements in

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The

the universal grammar and solves the problem for

Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

the morpheme-based approach.

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik,
ed. by Roger Martin, David Michael and Juan

* For helpful comments, I am grateful to Yukio

Uriagereka, 89–155, MIT Press, Cambridge,

Hirose, Nobuhiro Kaga, Masaharu Shimada, Naoaki

MA.

Wada, Masaru Kanetani, and Akiko Nagano. My

Collins,

Chris(2002)“Eliminatinglabels,”thanks also go to the audience, especially Saeko

Derivation and Explanation in The Minimalist

Urushibara and Hisao Tokizaki for their invaluable

Program, ed. by Samuel Epstein and Danielcomments.

Seely, 42–64, Blackwell, Oxford.
Embick,

David

and

Alec

1. 3rd = 3rd person, 3SG = 3rd person singular,“ArchitectureandBlocking,”

GEN = genitive, PART = partitive, PL = plural, PRS or

Inquiry 39-1, 1–53.

pres = present, sg = singular, ‘-’ = affix boundary, ‘+’

Marantz(2008)

Linguistic

Fradin, Bernard (2009) “IE, Germanic: Dutch,” The
Oxford Handbook of Compounding, ed. by= word boundary

Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer, 370–385,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

References
Anderson, Stephen (1992) A-Morphous Morphology,

Haspelmath, Martin (1993) A Grammar of Lezgian,Mouton, The Hague.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

-135-Kageyama,

Taro(2001)

“Word

Plus:

Kanten

The

kara

no

Bunseki(PhenomenaIntersection of Words and Phrases,” Issues inconcerning Verbal Expletives: The Analysis inJapanese Phonology and Morphology, ed. byterms of Universal Grammar), Doctoral

Jeroen van de Weijer and Nishihara Tetsuo,

dissertation, University of Tsukuba.
Shimada,245–276, Mouton, Berlin.

Masaharu(2013)“CoordinatedLieber, Rochelle (2009) “IE, Germanic: English,”Compounds: Comparison between English and

The Handbook of Compounding, ed. by

Japanese,” SKASE Journal of TheoreticalRochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer, 357–369,

Linguistics 10-1, 77–96.
Shimada, Masaharu, Akiko Nagano, and Tatsuhiro

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Okubo

Marantz, Alec (1997) “No Escape from Syntax:(2013)“Lexeme,

Stem,

and

as

a

Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the

Word-Form:

Privacy of Your Own Lexicon,” Proceedings ofMorphosyntactic Context,” paper presented in

the 21st Penn Linguistics Colloquium, ed. by“Interdisciplinary Workshop on Grammatical

Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa

Word,” University of California, Davis.

Surek-Clark and Alexander Williams, 201–225,

Shimamura, Reiko (2005) “Ku no Goika nitsuite:
Eigo

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Marantz, Alec (2001) “Words and Things,” Handout,noCompounding

MeishizenishushokuhyougenoChushin ni (On the Lexicalization of Phrases:
with

MIT.
Mukai, Makiko (2008) “Recursive Compounds,”

SpecialReferencetoPrenominal

Modifiers in English),” Gendai Keitairon no
Chôryû

Word Structure 1, 178–198.

(The

CurrentofContemporary

Niemi, Jussi (2009) “Compounds in Finnish,”Morphology), ed. by Tsuyoshi Oishi, Tetsuo

Lingue e Linguaggio VIII-II, 237–256.

Nishihara, and Youji Toyoshima, 55–73,

Niemi, Sinikka (2009) “Compounds in Swedish,”

Kurosio, Tokyo.
Shimamura, Reiko (2007) “The Adjective-Noun

Lingue e Linguaggio VIII-II, 257–269.
Okubo, Tatsuhiro (2013) “The Phrasal Element

Expression within the Word Revisited: Thewithin the Word and the Relationship between

BoundaryMorphology and Syntax,” JELS 30, 173–179.

Language Beyond: A Festschrift for Hiroshi

Ralli, Angela (2009) “IE, Hellenic: Modern Greek,”

Yonekura on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday,

The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, ed. by

ed. by Mayumi Sawada, Larry Walker, andRochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer, 453–463,

Shizuya Tara, 367–395, Eichosha, Tokyo.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Syogensyou:

Huhenbunpou

PhraseandWord,”

Sridhar, Shikaripur (1990) Kannada, Routledge,

Shimada, Masaharu (2004) Dousiteki Kyozi ni
Kansuru

betweenno-136-

London and New York.

pointed out that distribution of FQs isdistinct from that of adjuncts.

Thus, thispaper takes the position of a stranding
analysis.
On Floating Quantifiers in an Irish

Let us move to actual examples.

English and WeakWeak-Phases*
Phases

McCloskey (2000) claims that FQs in the
Irish English dialect can be floated inTomonori Otsuka

A-bar trace positions.

Graduate School of Kyushu University(1) a. What all did he say (that) hewanted t?

Keywords: ECM Construction, Floatingb. What did he say (that) hewanted all t?

Quantifiers, Irish English, Weak-Phasesc. What did he say all (that) hewanted t?
1. INTRODUCTION(McCloskey (2000: 61))

This paper argues that examples ofIn (1a), all is pied-piped with the wh-

Floating Quantifiers (FQs) in an Irish

phrase what, whereas in (1b), all is

Englishdialect1

cannot be explained instranded

in

the

low

trace

position.

Chomsky’s (2008) framework and that

However, interestingly, all in (1c) isthese examples are readily captured if we

stranded in the middle position.

assume w(eak)-phases exist.

theposition

is

to

the

left

Since
of

the

complementizer that, it is natural to1.1. Floating Quantifiers in an Irish

assume all to be in the spec of the

English Dialect

embedded CP.

Before moving on to the main topic,

Next, let us move to ECM examples insome notes are needed concerning thethe Irish English dialect.

treatment of FQs in this paper.

constructions, all is stranded to the left of

There

have been two positions in analyzing FQs.

a T head to.

One is a stranding analysis, where FQs(2) a. Who did you want your mother all
to meet t at the party?

are considered to be introduced with theirmodifying DPs but are stranded later onin the derivation.

In ECMb. Who did you expect your motherall to meet t at the party?

On the other hand,

there is a position where FQs are treated(McCloskey (2000: 70))

as adjuncts, which, however, somehow

Interestingly, again all is stranded to thehold relations with the relevant DPs

left of to, but to the right of the ECM

through the derivation.

Nevertheless,subjects. Note that all in (2a, b) is not

Shlonsky (1991) claims that in Hebrew,

modifying your mother, but the wh-agreements appear on FQs, which makes

element who.

it difficult to assume them to be adjuncts.
Moreover, quite a few researchers haveNow, let us take a closer look at
examples (2a, b).

-137-

If ECM complements

were TPs, as is standardly assumed, thenmovement is unacceptable as a case of

the reason why all is stranded in the

Improper Movement.

respective positions would not be clear,(4) a. [v*P-Ph…your mother…[CP-Ph C [TPbecause A-bar movements usually do not
occur

via

Spec-TPs.

Since…t…]]]A-bar

PIC violation

movements do occur via Spec-CP and allb. [v*P-Ph…your mother…[CP-Ph C [TPcan be stranded in A-bar positions in thisdialect, it is reasonable to assume that*…t…]]]

ECM complements are CPs (at least in

Improper Movement

this dialect). Of course, one can pursue a
possibility to take ECM complements as

On the other hand, if this CP did not form

TPs by assuming that in this case, thea phase, the movement in (4a) would be

A-bar movement somehow occurs via

acceptedSpec-TP.

A-bar

Nevertheless, in this case, the reason why

movements went on via Spec-TPs, theall is stranded to the left of to would bereason why the A-bar movements in (1) do

unclear. In other words, if the CP did not

not proceed via Spec-TP would be unclear.

serve as a phase, the wh-movement would

At least, such an approach is doomed to

not need to proceed via the Spec-CP.

Nevertheless,if

present an alternative analysis concerning

withoutthePIC(5) [v*P-Ph whi [v*´ v* [CP(non-Ph) alli [C´ C

wh-movements, where in some cases?

movements occur via Spec-TP but inothers, only via Spec-CP.

violation.

[TP…ti…]]]

Since such ananalysis is ad hoc, this paper takes theToposition of assuming ECM complements toframework, examples (2a, b) cannot be

be CPs in whose specs FQs are stranded,

generated.

conclude,inChomsky’s(2008)and claims that as has been argued in
traditional

analyses,

wh-movements

proceed via Spec-CPs.

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND
A PROBLEM(3) [CP whi…[v*P v* [VP your motherj [V´ V

2.1. Chomsky’s (2008) Feature-Inheritance[CP alli [C´ C [TP tj [T´ to [v*P v* …]]]]]]]]A

notablenotionsuggestedbyChomsky (2008) is the assumption of…]
ECM

Feature-Inheritance (F-I) and following

complements to be CPs, another problem

simultaneous probing and movements.

occurs. In Chomsky’s (2008) framework,

In this framework, as is illustrated in (6a),a CP is considered to form a phase.

phase

However,once

weassume

Thus,

heads

own

u(ninterpretable)-

if the ECM subject moves beyond the CPfeatures, which trigger

as

operations. A phase’s syntactic operations

is expressedin (4a),

the

Phase

Condition(PIC)

the syntacticisare triggered after the phase head’s

violated, whereas if it moves successive-transmission of its features onto the head

cyclically as is shown in (4b), thisof the phase’s complement.

Impenetrability-138-

Specifically, aphase head generally owns an Agreew-phase vP is considered to hold the

Feature (AF), which agrees with a DP andfollowing three characteristics.

phonetically realized as an inflection, and(7) a. The PIC does not hold in w-

an Edge Features (EF), which attracts
discourse-related

elements

wh-elements

Topicsandphases.

suchasb. EFs exist on w-phase heads.

the

left

c. AFs exist on w-phase heads.

toperiphery. After the phase is formed, theDetails of (7) are illustrated below.

phase head passes its AF to the head of its

Firstly, as (8) shows, the A-movement

This process is named F-I.

of John can occur beyond the w-phase (vP)

After the F-I, the EF on the phase headboundary, which would be banned inand the AF on the complement’s heads-phases because of the PIC violation.

probe

Thus, (7a) is deduced.

complement.

theirc-commanddomainandattract their goals at once.

Thus,

althoughA-bar

A-movementsand(8) John was [vP hit t ].

movements traditionally occur successivecyclically,

A-movements

movementsinsimultaneously

Secondly, examples (9) show that

and

A-bar

A-bar trace in Spec-w-phase should be

phase

occur

available for reconstruction.

Chomsky’s(2008)ain(cf. (5a, b))(9) a. [At which of the parties that hei

framework.

invited Maryj to]k was every
mani tk′ introduced to herj tk ?

(6) a. [C{EF, } [T{AF} [wh-DP [v*P…]]]]
F-I

b.*[At which of the parties that hei
invited Maryj to]k was shej tk′

b. [C{EF} [T{AF} [wh-DP [v*P…]]]]

introduced to every mani tk ?

Probec. [wh-DP C{EF} [wh-DP T{AF} [t(Legate (2003: 2))
Legate (2003) argues that in order to be[v*P…]]]]Simultaneous Movement

interpreted properly, in (9), he must be ccommanded by every man whereas hercannot be c-commanded by Mary due to

2.2. A Problem concerning W-Phases
Although Chomsky’s (2008) frame-

Condition C.

Therefore, although (9b) iswork has recently been motivated both

ungrammatical because tk′ position does

theoretically

not

and

empirically(seeensurethisrelation,

(9a)

is

Richards (2007) and Obata and Epsteingrammatical since the wanted c-command(2008) for the details), it contains a

relations are gained in tk′ position.

problem concerning w-phases.

In whatan A-bar trace should exist in tk′ position

follows, this paper assumes that as

and this implies that the A-bar movement

Chomsky (2001)

claims,Thus,

passiveandproceeds via Spec-vP, which requires theunaccusative vPs form w-phases.

For

EF on w-phase heads in Chomsky’s (2008)

explanatory purposes, a s(trong)-phase vP

framework as is summed up in (7b).

is expressed as v*P, whereas a w-phase vP

Additionally, Legate (2003) shows otheris represented as vP without *. Now, apieces of supporting evidence for the-139-

existence of A-bar traces in Spec-w-phases

indicate, if w-phases own u- features andby presenting examples of Antecedent

moreover,theContained Deletions and Parasitic Gaps.

checkedinFinally, example (10) shows that
inflections are observed in w-phases,

the

ont

actuallyw-phases,thelogicalwithin w-phases.
Here, (7a) indicates transfer cannot
occur in w-phases whereas (7b, c) force us

heads, in Chomsky’s (2008) framework.
chaisesareexpectation is that transfer must occur

which indicates that AFs exist on w-phase(10) Lesfeaturesétéchairs-F-Pl have-Pl been

to assume transfer must occur.

These

raise an obvious contradiction.

Thus, itrepaintées.

is concluded that under Chomsky’s (2008)

repainted-F-Plframework, w-phases’ characteristics in‘The chairs were repainted.’(7) cannot be induced. Of course, one can(Boeckx (2008: 33))

claim that such a weak boundary does not

Now, under Chomsky’s (2008) frame-

exist at all and capture examples (9) andwork, we face a problem concerning(10) from other perspectives.

w-phases’ characteristics in (7).

Anthen we would have to abandon a phasetheirbased approach to A-bar movements andimplication

of

(7a)

is

that

cannotbetransferredalternative

strategy

because the PIC is expected based on theconcerning A-bar movements.

In sum, toassumption that a phase’s complement is

capture w-phases’ characteristics (7), it isalready transferred and thus cannot be

fair to say that we need to choose to

involved in syntactic operations in higher

modify Chomsky’s (2008) framework or tophases.

forsake the phase-based approach.

complements

On the other hand, (7b, c)

proposean

However,

indicate that w-phases’ complements haveto be transferred.

This is because, based

3. PROPOSAL

on(2007)

3.1. Feature-Transcription

Richards’

theoreticalconsideration concerning the adequacy ofIn

F-I, feature checking and transfer must

possibility

occur simultaneously, for if a u-feature ismodifying Chomsky’s (2008) framework

checked (namely assigned a value), it

for the sake of explaining w-phases’

becomes indistinguishable from i(nter-characteristics in (7).

pretable)-features.

Otherwise, checkedoccurs not only from a phase head to its

u-features could not be removed at thecomplement’s head, but also from antransfer (see Richards (2007) for thes-phase head to a w-phase head.

detailedthefollows, the latter inheritance from anderivation is doomed to crash if checked/

s-phase head to a w-phase head is named

valued u-features cannot be removed, theFeature-Transcription (F-T).

only way to prevent the crash is to assume

indicates, I argue that an s-phase headfeature-checking to occur simultaneouslytransmits its EF and AF to a w-phasewith transfer.

head, which the s-phase c-commands (Phdiscussions).

Since

Therefore, as (7b, c)

-140-

this

subsection,oftakingIapursueapositionof

I claim that F-I

In what

As (11)stands for Phase).

As (12a) shows, the w-phase vP originally
does not possess u-features.

(11) Feature-Transcriptiona. [S-Ph Head [Comp [[W-Ph Head [Comp{EF, AF}{

After thes-phase CP is formed, F-T occurs from the, }C to the v as is seen in (12b).

XP]]]]]

Havingreceived the u-features, the w-phase headb. [S-Ph Head [Comp [[W-Ph Head [Comp{EF, AF}v as well as the s-phase head C starts its
syntactic operations. As (12c) indicates,{EF, AF}F-I occurs from the C to the T and from

XP]]]]]As (11a) shows, under this assumption, athe v to the V, respectively.

w-phase head does not possess u-features.

observed in (12d), the relevant u-features,

However, when an s-phase is formed, thenamely, the AFs on the T and the V, ands-phase head transmits its u-features tothe EFs on the C and the v probe down to

the w-phase head as is seen in (11b).

find the wh-DP who.

After this transmission, the syntactic

attract

operations of the relevant phases occur,

simultaneously.

namely,to Spec-TP and Spec-VP, and the A-bar

F-I

and

followingfeature-

who

to

their

As is

These u-features
spec

positionsThus, the A-movements

checking and transfer. This paper argues

movementsthat based on this assumption, w-phases’

namely the four movements in sum arecharacteristics in (7) are readily captured.

triggered

Let

us

take

a

closer

look

at

to

Spec-CP andsimultaneously.

movements,

theCSpec-vP,

After

the

transfers

its

derivations under the assumption of F-T,

complement TP including the w-phase, as

exemplifying the passive sentence Who

is represented in (12e).

was hit? in order to capture (7).

To sum up, since the v’s domain istransferred within the C’s transfer domain,(12) a. [CP C [TP T [vP v [VP V who]]]]
{EF}

{

}

the PIC does not prohibit who’s movement

{AF}

{

}

out of the w-phase vP and thus (7a) isb. [CP C [TP T [vP v [VP V who]]]]
{EF}

{EF}

{AF}

{AF}

explained.

In addition, F-T ensures thatthe w-phase does possess u-features,
F-T

which are transmitted from the s-phasec. [CP C [TP T [vP v [VP V who]]]]head, and thus (7b, c) are accounted for.

{EF} {AF} {EF} {AF}

Therefore, under the assumption of F-T,

{

}

{

}

F-I

d. [CP who [C´ C [TP who [T´ T [vP who{EF}

w-phases’ characteristics in (7) can be
deduced without raising a paradox.

{AF}
3.2. An Explanation[v´ v [VP who [V´ V t]]]]]]]]{EF}

In this subsection, I argue that theF-T framework can capture the examples{AF}

in (2) in section 1, which are repeated ine. [CP who [C´ C [TP t [T´ T [vP t [v´ v[VP t [V´ V t]]]]]]]](13) below, besides the characteristics oftransfer(7) above.

-141-

(13) a. Who did you want your motherAs is assumed in (11), the syntactic

all to meet t at the party? (=(2a))

operations in the w-phase CP are notb. Who did you expect your mothertriggereduntil

all to meet t at the party? (=(2b))

completed.

When the v*P is formed, F-T

thes-phasev*Pis

As we have already seen, this paper

occurs from the s-phase head v* to theclaims that examples (13a, b) cannot be

w-phase head C, as is shown in (15a).

accounted for under Chomsky’s (2008)

a similar vein to the derivation in (12),current

after the F-T, the v* and the C triggers

framework.

Indetail,theIn

stranding positions of all cannot be

their syntactic operations.

ensured with the ECM subjects yourshows, F-I occurs from the v* and the C tomother undergoing an A-movement out of

the V and the T, respectively. Following

the CPs in (13a, b). However, under thethe F-I, the AF on the V and the T attracts

F-T framework, I claim that the examples

the ECM subject DP.

in (13) can easily be explained with thethe EF on the v* and the C attracts theassumptions that the CPs in (13) are

wh-element who to their specs.

w-phases, and of (14) below.

is indicated in (15c), the two A-movements(14) Quantifers

canoptionallybeAs (15b)

Simultaneously,
Thus, asof the DP and the two A-bar movements of

who occur simultaneously. Finally, the v*

stranded or pied-piped.
The theoretical motivation for (14) istransfers its complement VP including theomitted here for concerns of space (seew-phase CP.

McCloskey (2000) for the details). Let us

To conclude, this derivation ensures

move to the derivation of (13a, b), underthat the movement of the ECM subject DP

the assumptions of F-T and (14)does not violate the PIC since this(15) a. [v*P v* [VP V [CP C [TP T [v*P DP…
{EF}

{EF}

{AF}

{AF}

movement proceeds within the transfer
domain (VP) and that the stranding

F-T

who…]]]]]

position of who exits because the EF exists
on the C as well, due to the F-T.

b. [v*P v* [VP V [CP C [TP T [v*P DP…
4. CONCLUSON{EF} {AF} {EF} {AF}
{

}

{

}

This paper has argued that theF-I

examples in (2a, b) (=(13a, b)), which

who…]]]]]
c. [v*P whoj [v*´ v* [VP DPi [V´ V [CPcannot be generated within Chomsky’s{EF}(2008) framework, are readily captured{AF}

under the assumption that the relevant
whoj [C´ C [TP DPi [T´ T [v*P ti…tj…
{EF}

{AF}

CPs are w-phases.

In addition, after atheoretical consideration of the behavior of
w-phases, I have shown that w-phases’]]]]]]]]]

characteristics in (7) cannot be explainedd. [v*P whoj [v*´ v* [VP DPi [V´ V [CP tj

in Chomsky’s (2008) framework as well,[C´ C [TP ti [T´ T [v*P ti…tj…]]]]]]]]]and that F-T, namely an extended version-142-

of F-I can induce the wanted results,
contributing a theoretical development to

REFERENCES

Understanding
Minimalist Syntax: Lessons from
Locality in Long-Distance Dependencies, Blackwell Publishing, Malden,

Boeckx,Chomsky’s (2008) framework.
NOTES

Cedric(2008)MA.

* An earlier version of this article waspresented at 31st annual meeting ofChomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by

English Linguistic Society of Japan atPhase,” Ken Hale: A life in Language,

Fukuoka University (November 9th, 2013).

ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MITI would like to express my sincere

Press, Cambridge, MA.

gratitude

toNobuakiNishiokafor

Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,”I

am also grateful to Jenifer Larson-Hall forFoundational Issues in Linguistic
Theory, ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P.

stylistic improvement.

Otero

1 According to McCloskey (2000), this is a133-166, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

dialect “spoken in an area west and east ofLegate, Julie A. (2003) “Some Interface

the river Foyle in the northwest of

Properties of the Phase,” Linguistic

Ireland.”

Inquiry 34, 506-516.

valuable suggestions and comments.

2

In this paper, I assume want to selectandMcCloskey,

Maria

James

L.

(2000)

Zubizarreta,“Quantifier

ECM complements based on the examples

Float and Wh-Movement in an Irish

in (i).

English,” Linguistic Inquiry 31, 57-84.

(i) a. Who did you arrange all for your

Obata, Miki and Samuel D. Epstein (2008)

mother to meet t at the party?

“Deducing Improper Movement fromb.* Who did you arrange for yourPhase Based C-to-T Phi Transfer:mother all to meet t at the party?

Feature-Splitting

c.* Who did you want all yourInternal

Merge,”

Proceedings of the WCCFL 27, 353-360,

mother to meet t at the party?

Somerville, MA.

d.* Who did you expect all yourRichards, Marc D. (2007) “On Feature

mother to meet t at the party?

Inheritance: An Argument from the
Phase(McCloskey (2000: 70))
In usual analyses, want is considered to
select null for-CP complements rather

Impenetrability

Condition,”

Linguistic Inquiry 38, 563-572.
Shlonsky,Ur(1991)“Quantifiers

asthan ECM complements. However, in (i),Functional Heads: A Study of Quantifer

the distribution of FQs in the want

Float in Hebrew,” Lingua 84, 159-180.

examples is different from that in thearrange examples, which are generally
assumedtoselectovert
for-CP
complements. In this light, the wantexamples behave similarly to the expect
examples (at least, in this dialect).

-143-This paper is organized as follows. Section 2
discusses a problem with the derivational approachin terms of island-repair by Sluicing. Section 3
Cyclic Linearization and the Wh-Island

reviews Bošković’s (2007) hypotheses, adopted inConstraint*

my proposal in section 4. Section 4 demonstrates
how the CL (3) accounts for the WhIC. Section 5

Hideshi Sato

investigates some theoretical consequences of my

University of Niigata Prefecture

analyses. Section 6 concludes this paper.

Keywords: Wh-Island Constraint, Sluicing,

2. A Problem with the Derivational Approach

Defective Intervention Constraint, Superiority,

Merchant (2001) observes that a certain class of

Phase-Impenetrability Condition

locality violations, including the Complex NP
Constraint, for instance, are rescued by Sluicing. As
discussed in Boeckx (2008), this generalization
holds for the WhIC as well, as illustrated in (4).

1. Introduction
Within the framework of the Minimalist
Program, the Wh-Island Constraint (henceforth(4) Every journalist went out today to find out who
was selling a certain book, but I don’t know

WhIC), exemplified in (1), has commonly been

which.

assumed to be subsumed under the Defective
Intervention

Constraint(henceforth

DIC),

a

derivational constraint defined in (2).

(Boeckx (2008: 140))

The structure of (4) is illustrated in (5), where theembedded TP is elided at PF according to the(1) ?* [CP2 Which problemi do you wonder [CP1howj [TP John could solve ti tj]]]?

PF-deletion strategy advocated by Merchant (2001,
2008)2.
(5) …, but I don’t know [CP which (book)1 C(2) *α>β>γ, where (a)“>” indicates c-command,and (b) β and γ match the probe α, but β is

[TP every journalist went out today to find out

inactive so that the effects of matching are[CP who was selling t1]]].

blocked.

(Chomsky (2000: 123))

In (5), deletion of the embedded TP, containing the

The main purpose of this paper is to explore aintervener who, nullifies a potential violation of thepossible extension of Bošković’s (2007) hypotheses

WhIC. If the WhIC is a derivational constraint, somein order to argue for a representational instead of thespecial devices to void the violation in syntax would

DIC-based derivational approach to the WhIC. In

be necessary at PF 3 . Bošković (2011), in fact,

particular, I will argue that the ill-formedness of (1)proposes such a device, shown in (6).

results from a violation of the Cyclic Linearization(henceforth CL), a PF-representational constraint(6) A * is assigned to an island when a movement
operation crosses it. The presence of the * leads

defined in (3)1.

to a violation in the PF representation.

(3) Information regarding word order of Y isshipped to the phonology only once.
(Bošković (2007))(Bošković (2011: 2))
Following this strategy, (4) is fine as a result of thewell-formedness of its PF-structure (7).

-144-

(7) …, but I don’t know [CP which (book)1 Cin (12).

[TP every journalist went out today to find out(12) [ZP Z ... [XP X [YP ...WP...]]][CP who* was selling t1]]].
In (7), Sluicing applies to the embedded TP and
deletes the intervener who with the uninterpretablefeature *. This nullifies the interpretive violation at
PF. Unfortunately, however, this method isinconsistent with the Inclusiveness Condition in (8)and the No-Tampering Condition in (9) since it
introduces a new feature * to the structure alreadySuppose that X and Z are phase heads. The higher
phase head Z cannot penetrate into the Spell-Out
domain YP of the lower phase head X and access
WP4. The proposals in (11), in contrast, make itpossible for Z to penetrate into YP and access WP,
as illustrated in (13).
(13) [ZP Z ... [XP X [YP ...WP...]]]

built in the derivation.
The example of (14), a simple sentence from

(8) No new features are introduced by CHL.
(Chomsky (2000: 113))(9) Merge of X and Y leaves the two SOs
unchanged.

(Chomsky (2008: 138))

Chukchee, for instance, demonstrates a piece ofevidence to support his proposals. In (14), the matrix
V agrees with an object in the embedded finite
clause.

In the following sections, I will propose arepresentational account, completely consistent with(14) ənanqəlɤilu ləŋərkə-nin-et [iŋqun

he-inst regrets-3-plthe Inclusiveness Condition and the No-TamperingthatØ-rətcəmŋəv-nen-at qora-t].

Condition.

3sg-lost-3-plreindeer-pl(NOM)‘He regrets that he lost the reindeers.’

3. Bošković’s (2007) Hypotheses(Bošković (2007:57))

Let us first revisit Bošković’s (2007) hypotheses,
crucial for discussions in later sections. He

He also hypothesizes that successive cyclicity of

hypothesizes a departure from a familiar assumption

wh-movement, exemplified in (15), is guaranteedof the Minimalist framework for eliminating thewithout recourse to the PIC.

Phase-Impenetrability Condition (henceforth PIC),
defined in (10).

(15) [CP2 What1 do you think [CP1 t1’ that Mary likest1]]?

(10) In a phase α with head H, the domain of H is
not accessible to operations outside α, only H
and its edge are accessible to such operations.
(Chomsky (2000: 108))In the Minimalist literature, the successive cyclicityof wh-movement has commonly been assumed to be
derived from the PIC. In short, wh-elements mustmove up to the final landing site via edge positionsof phase heads in order to satisfy the PIC. He argues,

Instead, he proposes the following:

instead, that the CL, whose definition is repeated in(11) a. Agree is not subject to the PIC.
b. Sending a unit X to Spell-Out in itself does

(16), feeds this requirement.
(16) Information regarding word order of Y is

not freeze X for further computation.
The PIC in (10) prohibits an Agree-relation depicted-145-

shipped to the phonology only once.

This constraint regulates that copies of moved

pronounced in PF, the CL (16) is satisfied.

elements should be sent to PF phase-by-phase andConsequently, the derivation in (18) is legitimate.

that multiple realizations of identical copies must be
prohibited.

We

assumethat

thisconstraint

cooperates with the following condition on
pronunciation of chains.

Let us turn to the derivation (19), where
P-feature is absent.
(19) a. [CP1 C1 [TP1 … WH1…]]
b. [CP2 C2 [TP 2… [CP1 C1 [TP1 … WH1…]]]](17) Pronunciation is fixed only for heads of trivial
chains.

c. [CP2 WH2 C2 [TP2… [CP1 C1 [TP1… WH1…]]]](Bošković (2007:76))

d.[CP2 WH2 C2 [TP2… [CP1 C1 [TP1… WH1…]]]]

Now, let us examine how the successive
cyclicity in (15) is derived from (16). We assume,In (19a), by assumption, P-feature on C1 is absent.

following Chomsky (2000, 2001), that P-feature

WH1, therefore, is not raised to the Spec of C1 and,bearing on C is optional. The derivation of (15) canas in (19a), Spell-Out applies to TP1. At this point,then be shown in either (18) or (19), the former

since WH1 is the head of the trivial chain, it is sent todemonstrates a case where P-feature is present andPF according to (17). In the next step, as in (19b),

the latter demonstrating a case where P-feature is

Agree holds between C2 and WH1. The assumptions

absent5. Let us begin with the former case.

in (11), depicted in (13), allow Agree to operate into
Spell-Out domains. Additionally, since C1 bears no(18) a. [CP1 WH2 C1 [TP1 … WH1]]

uninterpretable features, it is inactive and hence doesb. [CP2 C2 [TP2… [CP1 WH2 C1 [TP1…WH1…]]]]

not disturb the relevant Agree-relation, according toc. [CP2 WH3 C2 [TP2… [CP1 WH2 C1 [TP1…
WH1…]]]]

the Activation Condition, defined in (20).
(20) Goal as well as probe must be active for Agreed. [CP2 WH3 C2 [TP2… [CP1 WH2 C1 [TP1…
WH …]]]]

to apply.

(Chomsky (2001: 6))

1

The Agree attracts WH1 to the Spec of C2 in one fell

In the first place, P-feature on C1 attracts WH1 to theswoop, yielding (19c). Finally, Spell-Out applies toSpec of C1, yielding (18a). At this point, Spell-Out

the root phase CP2. Since WH2, the head of the chain

applies to TP1, the complement of the phase head C1.

(WH2, WH1), is contained in this Spell-Out domain,

Although WH1 is contained in this Spell-Out domain,

it is sent to PF. Thus, both WH1 and WH2 are sent to

it is not sent to PF since it is not the head of the chain

PF, violating the CL (16). Consequently, the2

1(WH , WH ), according to the assumption (17). In

derivation in (19) is eliminated in PF.
To sum up this section, Bošković’s hypotheses,

the next place, in (18b), Agree holds between C2 and22

WH and raises WH to the Spec of the matrix C2,

in eliminating the PIC and proposing the CL,

yielding (18c). At this point, Spell-Out applies tonaturally explains why wh-movement must go

TP2, the complement of the phase head C2. Since

successive cyclically via phase-edges. In other

2

3

2

WH is not the head of the chain (WH , WH ), it iswords,

not sent to PF. Finally, Spell-out applies to thelinearization can only tolerate movements designed

root-phase, as in (18d), and the head of the chain

in this way.

3

2

3

(WH , WH ), namely WH , is sent to PF. Since
WH3 is the sole copy of the moved wh-phrase

-146-

a

PF-representational

constraintonof the wh-copies, WH1 and WH2, are pronounced in

4. Explaining the Wh-Island Constraint
Now, let us try to account for the WhIC. The

PF. Since this is in violation of the CL (16), thebasic example of (1) is repeated in (21) with its

derivation in (22) is ruled out, hence the6

ill-formedness of the example (21). The WhIC is,derivation, illustrated in (22) .

thus, accounted for.

(21) ?* [CP2 Which problemi do [TP2 you wonderThis explanation is supported by a fact that the[CP1 howj [TP1 John could solve ti tj]]]?

absence of the WhIC in Bulgarian, shown in (24),(22) a. [CP1 howj C1 [TP1 ... tj ... WH1...]]
b. [CP2 C2 [TP2…[CP1 howj C1[TP1 ... tj ... WH1 ]]]]

can be accounted for .
(24) Vidjah edna kniga, kojato1 se čudja

c. [CP2 WH C2 [TP2… [CP1 howj C1 [TP1 ... tj ...
2

saw-1s a1

koj

book which wonder-1s who

znae koj prodava t1

WH ]]]]
d. [CP2 WH C2 [TP2… [CP1 howj C1 [TP1 ... tj ...
2knows who sells‘I saw a book which I wonder who knows who

1

WH ]]]]

sells (it).’In (22a), Agree holds between C1 and how and it
values uninterpretable features of both of them, withraising the latter to the Spec of the former.
According to the Activation Condition in (20), C1 is(Rudin (1988: 457))

The derivation of (24) is shown in (25).
(25) a. [CP1 kojj C1 [TP1 ... tj ... WH1...]]
b. [CP1 WH2 kojj C1 [TP1 ... tj ... WH1...]]

no longer a probe matching WH1. In addition to this,c. [CP2 WH3 C2 [TP2 …[CP1 WH2 kojj C1

the fact in (23) leads us to an assumption that

[TP1 ... tj ...WH1...]]]]English is a language where multiple specifiers of C

d. [CP2 WH3 C2 [TP2 …[CP1 WH2 kojj C1

are not allowed.

[TP1 ... tj ... WH1...]]]](23) *I wonder which problemi howj John could
solve ti tj.

Following the analysis in Rudin (1988), we assume
that this language allows complementizers to have

1

Thus, the Last Resort prohibits the raising of WH tomultiple specifiers. This assumption makes it

the Spec of C1. As a result, as in (22a), TP1 is sent topossible for WH1 to raise to the Spec of C1, as

Spell-Out, and WH1, the head of the trivial chain, isshown in (25b). This gives birth to the chain (WH2,sent to PF. In the next step, in (22b), Agree holds

WH1), and the lower copy WH1, not being the head

between C2 and WH1. Notice that nothing intervenesof the chain, is not sent to PF even if it is containedin this Agree-relation. The assumptions in (11)in the Spell-Out domain TP1, which is a crucial

allows C2 to penetrate into the Spell-Out domain TP1

difference between Bulgarian and English. In (25c),1

and access WH as a matching goal. C1 and how,

WH2 is not sent to PF, either, since it is not the head

their uninterpretable features being valued, are not aof the chain (WH3, WH2). The Spell-Out applies toprobe nor a goal, respectively, as a result of thethe root-phrase, as in (25d), and sends WH3 to PF.

Activation Condition (20). This results in moving

Since WH3 is the sole copy of the moved

WH1 to the Spec of C2 in one fell swoop over CP1, as

wh-elementin (22c). Finally, in (22d), Spell-Out applies to thesatisfied and the well-formedness of (24) is fully2

root phase CP2, and WH , the head of the chain1

accounted for.

2

(WH , WH ), is sent to PF. As a consequence, both-147-

pronounced in PF, the CL (16) is(29).

5. Theoretical Consequences
My proposal so far has some theoreticalconsequences. First, it accounts for island-repair(29) *Sta1 si

me pitao ko može da uradi t1?

what have-2s me asked who can to do

effects by Sluicing. Let us revisit (5) and relevant‘What did you ask me who can do?’parts of its structure, shown in (26).

(Rudin (1988: 459))(26) [CP2 which (book) 1 C2 [TP2 …[CP1 whoj C1[TP1 ... tj ... which (book)1...]]]]

According to this assumption, the well-formednessof (27) is accounted for on a par with English cases,

The structure in (26) is potentially in a configuration

represented in (26). What is of interesting here isof the Wh-Island violation. However, the elision of

why Superiority violations cannot be rescued. Let us

TP2 deletes the lower copy of which (book)1 it

look at the following configurations:contains at the same time. As a result of this, theupper copy of which (book)1 is the sole copy of the(30) [CP2 C2 … [CP1 WHj [uF] C 1[uF] [TP... WHi [uF]... ]]
OK

Agree

wh-chain pronounced in PF. Consequently, the CL
is satisfied and the well-formedness of (4) is fully(31) [CP2 C2 … [TP ... WHj [uF] ... WHi [uF]...]]

accounted for.

*AgreeSecondly, a peculiar difference between the
WhIC and the Superiority Condition is accounted for.

(30) and (31) represents a WhIC-configuration and a

As discussed in Boeckx and Lasnik (2006),

Superiority-configuration, respectively. In (30),Superiority violations, in contrast to Wh-Island

Agree successfully holds from C2 to WHi as

violations, cannot be rescued by Sluicing, as

discussed in section 4. Agree can penetrate into theillustrated by Serbo-Croatian examples in (27)-(28).

Spell-Out domain TP and uninterpretable features of(27) a. Every journalist went out today to find out

WHj and C 1 are valued and inactive. In other words,

who was selling a certain book, ...

no violation occurs in syntax. Contrastively, in (31),b. ali ne znam koju (knjigu).

Agree fails to hold between C2 and WHi since WHj,

but NEG know which bookin this case, intervenes between them, its‘but I do not know which (book).’

uninterpretable feature still being unvalued and(Boeckx and Lasnik (2006: 152))

narrow syntax if we assume, following Chomsky(28) a. Someone bought something, but...
b. i. Ivan i

active. In other words, (31) falls into a violation in(2000, 2001), that the Superiority Condition is

Marko ne znaju ko šta.

reduced to Agree Closest7. This naturally accounts

Ivan and Marko NEG know who what
Marko ne znaju šta ko.

for why Superiority violations cannot be rescued by

Ivan and Marko NEG know what who

Sluicing. The derivation in violation of a syntactic‘Ivan and Marko do not know who what.’

constraint, Agree Closest, crashes before reachingii. *Ivan i(ibid.)

PF, a fatal situation unsalvageable by Sluicing at PF8.
In other words, the Wh-Island/Superiority contrast

We assume that, in this language, complementizers

mirrors a representational/derivational distinction of

are not permitted to have multiple specifiers in thethese constraints.

same way as in English. This assumption explains
the Wh-Island sensitivity of this language, shown in-148-

Thirdly, the account of WhIC based on the CLcan be extended to Super-raising as well. A

6. Conclusion
This paper has argued for a representational

representative example in (32) will be derived as

approach to the WhIC on the basis of Bošković’s

shown in (33).

(2007) hypotheses. We have also seen that the(32) *John1 seems that it is likely t1 to win.
(33) a. [CP that [TP2 it[NOM, φ] T2 [φ] [is likely John[NOM, φ]
to win]]]b. [TP1 T1[φ] seems [CP that [TP2 it[NOM, φ] T2[φ] [islikely John[NOM, φ] to win]]]]proposal in this paper has some theoreticalconsequences with respect to explaining 1)
island-repair by Sluicing, 2) a Wh-Island/ Superiority
contrast in Sluicing contexts, and 3) a parallelism
between the Wh-Island Constraint and Super-raising.

c. [TP1 John[NOM, φ] T1[φ] seems [CP that [TP2This paper has also suggested a possibility that twoit[NOM, φ] T2[φ] [is likely John[NOM, φ] to win]]]]derivational constraints, the DIC and the PIC, ared. [TP1 John[NOM, φ]T1[φ] seems [CP that [TP2reducible to the CL. This turns out to imply that

it[NOM, φ] T2[φ] [is likely John[NOM, φ] to win]]]]language-specific syntactic constraints, unexplained

Suppose that the derivation has reached (33a). In

in terms of Chomsky (2008), are reduced to a(33a), the expletive it is inserted in the Spec of T2,

PF-interface condition, namely Linearization, an

hence blocking the raising of DP John to thisindispensible aspect of the faculty of language. This

position. Therefore, TP2 is sent to Spell-Out at thisembodies the computational efficiency pursued inpoint. Since John, contained in TP2, is the head of

the Minimalist Program and is consistent with thethe trivial chain, it is sent to PF. In the next step, in

Strong Minimalist Thesis.

(33b), Agree holds between the matrix T1 and John.
Nothing prevents this Agree-relation since theuninterpretable feature [NOM] on the expletive it
and the uninterpretable feature [φ] on T2 are allvalued and inactive. This yields the structure in (33c),
where John is raised to the Spec of matrix T1 in one
fell swoop. (Notice that raising of John via edges of
the intermediate C is excluded by a ban against
improper movement.) In the final structure (33d),
Spell-Out applies to the root phase and the copy ofJohn in the Spec of T1, the head of the chain (John,

Notes*An earlier version of this paper was presented at the
31th Meeting of the English Linguistic Society ofJapan held at Fukuoka University in November,2013. I would like to express my gratitude to theaudience at the meeting for their invaluablecomments and suggestions. All remaining errors andinadequacies are my own.
1John) is sent to PF. As a consequence, both of thecopies of John, namely the one in the original site
and the other in the raised position, are sent to PF,

for other versions of the definition of Cyclic
Linearization.
2

hence a violation of CL. The derivation in (33) is,thus, excluded in PF and Super-raising is accountedfor. This turns out to suggest that the DIC can be

Irrelevant parts of the structure are omitted here. In

this paper, deleted parts of structures are indicated bydotted lines.
3

eliminated at least as a principle over the WhIC andSuper-raising.

See Fox and Pesetsky (2005) and Ko (2005, 2007)

Lasnik (2001) assumes -loss as an alternative.

This also satisfies neither (8) nor (9).
4

In what follows, materials already sent toSpell-Out are indicated by shading.

-149-

5

Identical copies of the moved wh-phrase are12indicated by such superscripts as WH , WH and

Effect,” Linguistic Inquiry 42, 1-44.
Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program,3

WH only for ease of explanation. This way ofChomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries,”

indication is used throughout the paper.
6

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of

The lower copy of how is indicated by trace forconvenience.

Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David

7

Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155, MIT

Agree Closest is defined as follows:

Press, Cambridge, MA.

(i) Matching holds of a probe P and a goal G if
a. D(P) is the c-command domain of a probe P,
andHale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michaelb. matching feature of a goal G, is closest to P if

Kenstowicz, 1–52, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

there is no G’ in D(P) matching P such that G is

Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” Foundationalin D(G’)
7

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,” Ken(Chomsky (2000: 122))

issues in linguistic theory, ed. by Robert Freidin,

Aoun and Li (2003) proposes to deduce

Carlos Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta,
133–166, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Superiority effects from the Minimal MatchFox, Danny, and David Pesetsky (2005) “Cyclic

Condition, defined as follows:

Linearization of Syntactic Structure,” Theoretical(i) An operator must form a chain with the closest

Linguistics 31: 1-45.

XP it c-commands that contains the same
relevant features.

(Aoun and Li (2003: 29))

Ko, Heejeong (2005) Syntactic Edges andAdopting this system does not affect the story

Linearization.

mentioned here.

Cambridge, MA.

Doctoraldissertation,

MIT,

Ko, Heejeong (2007) “Asymmetries in Scrambling
and Cyclic Linearization,” Linguistic Inquiry 38,

References
Aoun, Joseph, and Yen-hui Audrey Li (2003)
Essays on the Representational and Derivational
NatureofGrammar:

The

Diversityof

Wh-Constructions, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Boeckx, Cedric (2008) Understanding Minimalist
Syntax: Lessons from Locality in Long-Distance

49-83.
Lasnik, Howard (2001) “When Can You Save a
Structure by Destroying It?” NELS 31, 301–320.
Merchant, Jason (2001) The syntax of silence,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Merchant, Jason (2008) “Variable Island Repair
under Ellipsis,” Topics in Ellipsis, ed. by Kyle

Dependencies, Blackwell, Oxford.

Johnson, 132–153, Cambridge University Press,

Boeckx, Cedric, and Howard Lasnik (2006)“Intervention and Repair,” Linguistic Inquiry 37,
150–155.

Cambridge.
Rudin, Catherin (1988) “On Multiple Questions andBošković, Željko (2007) “Agree, Phases, andIntervention Effects,” Linguistic Analysis 33,
54-96.
Bošković, Željko (2011) “Rescue by PF Deletion,
Traces as (Non)interveners, and the That-Trace-150-

Multiple Wh-Fronting,” Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 6, 445-501.

英語進行形構文の機能的連続性：
主観性と間主観性からみた機能分化＊(Functional Continuum of the English
Progressive Construction)
清水 啓子（Keiko Shimizu）
熊本県立大学（Prefectural U. of Kumamoto）
キーワード：英語進行形構文、行為解説、未来、（間）主観性、行為意図

1. はじめに
近代英語、特に 18 世紀以降、進行形構文の使用頻度が顕著に増加し、20 世紀でも増加傾向を示している。増加の要因については、Leech etal(2009)、Kranich(2010)などに言及がある。共時的観点からみると当該構文は、以下の例文(1-8)に例示されるように、進行中の行為というアスペクト概念を表すプロトタイプの用法(1)だけ
でなく、様々な用法・機能を獲得し文法的機能が多様になっており、この機能的多様性が使用頻度増加の背景にあると考えられる。
(1) She is mowing the lawn. （進行中の行為）(2) I’m leaving tomorrow. （未来）(3) I’m leaving, because here comes my bus.
（意図、決心）(4) You’re not leaving.（発話行為：指示、禁止）(5) I’m just being polite.（形容詞の進行形構文）(6) When I said ‘the boss’, I was referring to you.
（行為解説）(Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 165)
(7) You are digging your own grave. （評価、警告）(8) You are stealing life and health from your own
child [implied: if you don’t breast-feed her].
（行為解説）(Nesselhauf 2007: 205)
本稿では、英語進行形構文の中でも周辺的でアスペクト的意味を持たない（non-aspectual）とされる用法のうち代表的な２つ、「行為解説の進行形(interpretive progressive)」と「未来を表す進行形(futurate progressive)」に焦点をしぼり、プロ
トタイプ的な用法と対比し、進行形構文カテゴ

リー内での家族的類似関係を確認して、二つの周辺的用法がプロトタイプ用法の時間的概念構造を基盤としていることを示す。また言語使用（発話）場面に生じる主観性・間主観性に注目し、上記２つの非プロトタイプ的用法への意味
拡張をミクロな観点から考察する。本稿で用いる「主観性(subjectivity) 」とは、“a speaker’s
consciousness of self is imprinted in his or her
linguistic expression of his or her relation to theworld, its events, and its objects” (Wright 1995: 151)という意味で用い、「間主観性(intersubjectivity)」とは Traugott(2003)がいう i) the development of
meanings that encode speaker/writer’s attention to
the cognitive stances and social identities ofaddressees (p. 124), ii) SP/W’s attention to AD/R asa participant in the speech event, not in the describedsituation (p. 128)という意味で援用する。
2. 進行形構文の概念構造
前節の(1)に例示されるようなプトロタイプ
的な進行形は事態の時間領域を特定化し、以下(9)のような特徴を持つ。最後２つの特徴は含意にとどまりキャンセル可能である。
(9) ongoing, imperfective, durative, dynamic,
mid-interval, limited duration(Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 163)
以下３、４節では、典型的用法(1)からどの様な要因の影響を受けて、行為解説用法や未来用法
へと意味・機能が変化するのかを、それぞれの非典型化の方向性（①V 内部の後方焦点化、②V 内部の前方焦点化）という観点から考察する。
3. 行為解説の進行形
3.1 概観―その特殊性
行為解説の進行形(interpretive/explanatory use)
は、進行形に特有の時間概念を失っているとされ、その特異性が指摘されている。次の例文(10)の主節は進行形の典型的な用法であり、when
節の事態[she-say that]よりも主節[she-smile]の方が時間的に長く、進行形構文の主節は when 節
に対して時間領域における「フレーミング効果」
を持つ。
(10) When she said that, she was smiling.
(11) When I said ‘the boss’, I was referring to you.
(=(6))-151-

一方、行為解説用法の(11)では、when 節の事態
[I-say ‘the boss’]と主節の事態[I-refer to you]は２つの別個の事態を指すのではなく同一の事態に対する言及であり、それならば時間領域においても同時(coextensive)なはずとされる。従って(11)の主節の進行形は時間的フレーム効果を持たないと指摘されている。(11)のような行為解説の進行形は、時間的アスペクト概念の代わりに、when 節の事態に対して、その解釈やより深い重要性を提示する(underlying interpretation(Leech 2004: 22), a deeper significance (Leech et al
2009:135), clarifying its nature (H & P 2002: 165)。
このように時間的アスペクト概念を失っていることから、行為解説用法の進行形には様々な名
称(non-aspectual usage, special usage, experiential
progressive, not-solely-aspectual progressive)が与えられている。
Leech et al (2009)は、進行形の使用頻度の増加
傾向の一要因として行為解説用法があげられる
かもしれないと指摘している(p. 142)。イギリス
英語において 1961 年から 1991 年の間にほぼ倍増（52 例から 97 例に増加）していると指摘する一方で、行為解説と明確に分類できない事例が多すぎる（200～300 事例）という問題点も挙げている(p. 136)。Smitterberg(2005)も 19 世紀の進行形に関する研究において行為解説用法の増加を指摘している。Leech et al、Smitterberg、さらに Kranich(2010)も、行為解説用法の進行形がアスペクト概念を持たず非プロトタイプ的であることを指摘しているのであるが、この用法がプロトタイプ的なアスペクト用法とどの様に関連しているのか（していないのか）という概念的な説明を明確には提案していない。以下 3.2
節では、進行形のプロトタイプ的概念構造がどの様にして行為解説という機能に発展するのかを考察する。
3.2 提案
3.2.1 進行形構文におけるズーム・アウト認知
認知文法(Langacker 1991, 2008 など)においては、進行形形式(be V-ing)とは完了的(perfective)
事態に対してその内部の一部分に焦点をあて未完 了 (imperfective) に す る 未 完 了 化 作 用(inperfectivization)であり、視点をズーム・イン(zoom-in)するような認知が作用していると言われる。しかしながら、この zoom-in 認知は、単純形動詞(V)と進行形(be V-ing)という２つの言語形式の間に成立する概念作用の派生関係である。一方、言語使用者と言語使用場面（言語化される環境世界を含む）との関係に焦点をあてて見ると、進行形構文を使って言語化する際には、ズーム・アウト(zoom-out)認知が作用していると考えられる。話者は、自分が目前に直接知覚する断片的な観察情報に対して、それを含む
さらに大きな上位の全体的行為（事態）フレー
ム(V)をあてはめて、観察内容がその全体フレームの一部であることを認識するという認知作用があって初めてその観察内容を進行形構文によって言語化するのである。つまり、進行形構文の使用とは、時間領域におけるメトニミー認知（部分から全体）を背景にして動機づけられている。部分的にしか過ぎない観察情報を全体的事態フレームに落とし込むというメトニミー認知である(清水 2013)。
3.2.2 意図理解 (intention reading)
前節で指摘した全体的事態フレームへの観察
情報の落とし込みという認知作用には、実は、子供の発達段階において重要な「意図理解(intention reading)」も含まれる。Tomasello(1999)によれば、赤ちゃんが他者を「意図を持つ主体(intentional agent)」として理解できるようになる
ためには、達成目標(goal)を、それを実現させるための手段的行為(behavioral means)から区別できるようにならなければならない。
行為とは「行
為意図＋手段的行為」という内部構造をもっているということであり、手段的行為は直接知覚できるが行為意図は非明示的である。これは言語行為にも当てはまる。Tomasello は「道具や記号の慣習的な使用を社会的に学習するためには、
子供は他者がなぜ、外界のどのような目標にむ
けて、道具なり記号なりを使っているかを理解するようにならなければならない。つまり子供は、道具使用や記号行動の意図された意味(intentional significance)、それは何の「ため(for)」
なのか、道具や記号の使用者である「私たち(we)」はそれを使って何をするのか、を理解するようにならなければならない」と言う(p. 6)。またスペルベル(1997: 276)は、行動は身体的動きとして概念化することもできるが、自発的な行動を-152-

行中 ongoing」という時間領域の概念特徴がまったく漂白されている訳ではなく、行為解説という機能に利用され継承されていると考えられる。発話行為理論(Marimaridou 2000 等)によれば、発話行為とは、話者と聞き手による相互作用行為であり、聞き手がその発話意図を理解して初めて成立するもので、間主観的な性質を持つ。
話者による発話内容（手段的行為 A）を、話者の意図する発話行為（行為意図 B）として聞き手側が認識していなければ、その発話行為 B は成立していない。つまり話者の意図した発話行
3.2.3 プロトタイプ的な行為解説の進行形
為 B は未完了ということになり、結果として進典型的な行為解説の進行形構文とは、すでに
行形アスペクト形式が採用される。次の(13)で、先行談話（場面）の中に存在する（発話）行為(13) A1: I’m sorry.
(A)を、上位行為フレーム(B)の中に位置づけ、
B1: a. … (無言) ….
(B)を達成するための手段的行為として(A)を概
b. *I (cannot) accept your apology.
念化することを表わしている。上位行為フレー
A2: I’m apologizing.
ム(B)は以下のような意図的行為フレーム構造
A1 の発話に対して、B1 が「謝罪 apology」と認を持つ。
識したことを表す b に続けて、A2 で I’m・意図的行為フレーム:
apologizing という行為解説の進行形を使って発全体的行為 B=
話意図をさらに説明することはできない。
{ 行為意図B’+手段的行為A+達成結果B” }行為解説の進行形が使われるのは直接的な発さらに行為解説の進行形では以下の２つのメト話行為場面が多い。発話行為は話者と聞き手のニミー認知が働いている。
間主観的相互作用であり、行為解説の進行形でi)手段的行為 A(部分)を全体的行為 B(全体)の一は、話者が発話参与者である聞き手の認知状況部として認識する（部分→全体）。
を参照することで進行形アスペクトが選択されii)全体的行為 B(全体)を行為意図 B’(=B”)を参照
することで把握してラベル付ける（全体→部分）。 ている。本来は(13)のような談話形式で発せられた行為解説的な進行形が、その談話構造が例
たとえば、次の例文(12)において、えば以下(14)のような複文構造にまとめられる(12) When I said “I’m sorry”, I was apologizing.
ことにより、時間的アスペクト概念が背景化しwhen 節の[I-say “I’m sorry”]という発話行為は、て、行為解説あるいは「意味交渉(negotiation of
主節の[I-apologize]（謝罪する）という全体的行
meaning)」ともいえる談話的機能が前景化した
為 B を達成するための手段的行為 A である。ま用法が際立ってきたのではないだろうか。
た全体的行為 B は、行為意図 B’という観点から(14) When S V1(ed), S is (was) V2-ing.
メトニミー的にラベル付与されている。行為解
解説対象 A(V1)が明示されずに、行為解説的説の進行形においては、進行形形式を使うことな機能を果たしている進行形も多くみられによって、全体的行為フレーム B の中の一部分(15)、また形容詞（類）を述部に含む進行形も、である「行為意図 B’」を焦点化する効果を持つ
文脈上理解される何らかの先行行為に対する解（意図と進行形の関連性については４節も参説である(16)(Ljung 1980)。
照）。事態構造における時間領域での一部分（ア(15) The strategy I believe is helpful is the one used
スペクト特性）が、意図的行為フレーム内の一in this book—every indefinite or generic
部分（行為意図）へと概念的にプロファイル・referent is feminine. I and several other linguists
シフトしているのである。
use this practice all the time. When questioned
なぜ主節において進行形アスペクトが使われby people who find it odd, we reply that we are
るかという問題をさらに考えてみると、典型的な進行形構文の持つ「未完了 imperfective」「進
practicing positive discrimination through「意図」を認識することによって概念化する方が、より経済的であり説明力に富むと言う。つまり、上記の Tomasello とスペルベルの見解に基づけば、観察されたある断片的行為を一体どのような行為かと特定する場合に、その「行為意図」にアクセスしメトニミー的に把握することは、本来ヒトに固有に備わっている認知能力といえる。次節では、この「意図理解」という観点から行為解説の進行形を分析する。

-153-

positive language (Saul 2003: 188).
(16) I was just being polite.
行為解説用法の進行形はプロトタイプ的な用法と時間的アスペクト概念を共有した連続体をなし、行為解説用法を明らかな線引きで区別することは難しい。Leech et al(2009)による曖昧な事
例が多いという指摘も当然ということになる。
3.3 行為解説用法における主観性の段階性：行
為者の意図から話者(非行為者)の主観的判断へ(17) a. I {am/*may be} drawing an elephant.
b. Sally {is /may be} drawing an elephant.
一人称主語の(17a)は行為者自身の行為意図に言及しているので推量はあり得ないが、(17b)は話者以外の他者の行為意図に言及しているので推量の可能性もあり、法助動詞 may と共起できる。行為解説の進行形においては、手段的行為
A（観察可能で overt）を行為者の行為意図 B（心理状態で covert）に結びつけるという認知作用が存在する。A から B への関連づけには何らかの心的・認知的プロセスが必要であり、このプ
ロセスに主観性が関与する。つまり、(17a)のよ
うな行為者自身の内的な直接的主観か、(17b)のような他者の内的心理状態を話者が「推論」する とい う主観 性で ある。 (17a) では 話者 がon-stage にもいるが、(17b)では話者は off-stageにいる。行為解説の進行形では、解説対象である事態への話者の関与に段階性が観察される。
(18) I’m just kidding you. (cf. I’m hungry)(19) You’re/must be kidding me.
(cf. You ??are/ must be hungry.)(18)は行為者（=話者）自身の意図的行為についての直接的主観である。一方(19)は行為者 youによる先行（発話）行為に対して、その場面に参与している話者 me が自分の経験に基づき解釈し解説しているのであって、[you-kid me]が本
当に行為者 you の行為意図であるかどうかの確証はなく推量にすぎず、話者の主観的判断が大きく作用している（(18)と(19)の cf.の各文を参照。他者の身体の生理的状態について断定することは難しい）。(19)のような進行形の機能を
Wright(1995: 156)は experiential progressive と呼び 、 そ の 機 能 を “expressive of a speaker’s
consciousness rather than of a narrated subject’s
consciousness”（主語の意識ではなく話者の意識を表す）として、次のような例をあげている。
(20) You’re telling me you don’t love me anymore.
(20)は、行為者 you の本当の行為意図を特定しているというよりもむしろ、その場面に直接参与している話者が自分にむけられた先行発話を自分がどう解釈し捉えるか、自分にとってはど
ういう意味になるか(speaker-meaning)という話
者の主観的判断を述べている。(20)は行為者の意図よりも話者の経験的な主観的把握を優先させている点で、全節で考察した行為意図にアクセスして行為解説をする用法とは性質が異なる。
次の(21)のようなごく一般的な事例も同様である。
(21) He was talking rubbish.
話者の主観的判断を最前景化しているという点で、(19-21)の行為解説進行形は、次節で考察す
る「意図しない結果」にアクセスして行為解説をする用法へと連続していると考えられる。
3.4 「意図しない結果」からみた行為解説
行為解説用法の進行形には、行為者の行為意
図にアクセスするのではなく、ある行為に対して、それがもたらすと推測される結果にアクセスしてフレーム化するタイプがある。
(22) Harriet: She’ll have to have a bottle, because I
shan’t feed her.
Shelly: You are stealing life and health fromyour own child [implied: if you don’t
breast-feed her]. (=(8))
上のShellyの発話はHarriet の行為(bottle feeding)
を Harriet の行為意図からではなく、Shelly が推測する結果から解釈しフレーム化している。行
為者の意図を無視し、意図とは別の結果を予測する。以下(23-24)も同様の用法と考えられる。
(23) As soon as you start asking what education isfor, what the use of it is, you are abandoning thebasic assumptions of any true culture, that
education is worth while for its own sake.
(König 1980: 275)(24) a. You’re digging your own grave.
b. You’re asking for trouble.
c. You’re making a mistake.
(22-24)の行為解説用法には、行為者の意図とは異なる事態展開、望ましくない結果を行為者に知らせる、忠告や警告といったニュアンスがあ-154-る。話者の主観的判断である点で前節のexperiential progressive と共通するが、話者が当該の事態に直接参与している訳ではないので経験的(experiential)ではない。一人称主語で自分の行為（計画）を再検討するような事例もある(25)。
(25) I might straighten out my stride and get a little
more shock absorption if I landed on my fleshy
midfoot instead of my bony heel, [but]…I
might just be swapping one set of problems foranother.
(Born to Run. p.13)
以上から、行為解説用法の進行形には次の２つのフレーム化パターンが関わると言える。
① intention-oriented framing:{ 行為意図+手段的行為+意図達成 }② result-oriented framing:【{ 行為意図+手段的行為 (+達成意図) }→意図しない結果】
どちらのフレーム化でも観察されるのは手段的行為であるが、前者①ではその手段的行為を行為意図にアクセスして解釈するのに対し、後者②ではもたらされると推測される結果の観点か
ら解釈している。以下(26)は②のフレーム化である。法助動詞が意図性をブロックしている。
(26) If I should go to one of the tea-parties in a
dressing-gown and slippers, I should be
insulting society.
(長谷川 2005: 111)
3.5 客観的な行為解説
行為解説用法の進行形は主観的であるという見解もある(Kranich 2009)が、以下(27-28)のように行為Aから上位行為Bへの関連付けが客観的であり、法律や常識、言語慣習などに言及している事例がある。
(27) …when one says there’s a purple finch in thattree, one is normally asserting that the bird isin the space outlined by the branches of thetree,…
(Croft 2012: 93)(28) Any child riding these in a public place
including roads, pathways and alleyways isbreaking the law.
(Oxford Dictionary of English, 2nd ed.)単純形と進行形の意味的対立は一般的に、以下の(29a, b)に例示される。進行形(29a)は現象的(phenomenal)で具体的事象を表すのに対し、単純形(29b)は一般特性などの構造的(structural)描

写をする(Goldsmith & Woisetschlaeger 1982: 81)。
(29) a. The engine isn’t smoking anymore.
b. The engine doesn’t smoke anymore.
しかし(27-28)の行為解説進行形は、具体的事象
ではなく総称的記述であり、結果としてアスペ
クト的概念が極めて希薄である。言語慣習や法律への言及なので客観性も高い。行為解説用法
がすべて主観的なわけではなく、解説対象の事態に話者がどう関わるか(on-stage vs. off-stage)
や、解説対象に対するフレーム化の根拠（社会的慣習や法律）などの要因により、主観的から客観的への段階性が生じると考えられる。
4. 未来を表す進行形 (futurate progressive)
Nesselhauf(2007)は未来用法も進行形構文の使用頻度拡大の一要因であると結論づけている。
本節ではこの未来用法について共時的な機能範囲を確認し、他の用法との連続性を考察する。
4.1 準備段階と意図 (arrangement & intention)、
およびその行為解説用法との連続性「未完了」や「進行中」という本来のアスペ
クト概念が希薄化したもう一つの用法に「未来」を表す進行形がある。動詞 V の内部として焦点化される部分が前方化し、準備段階(arrangement)や前段階(runnup process)を V の内部として捉えるために、実際に事態が完了するのはかなり先になるので、未来という概念が前景化される。Leech(2004: 61)は “It is not a present
intention or cause, but rather a present arrangement（現在の意図や原因ではなく、現時点での準備段階を表す）”と言う。一方 Nesselhauf(2007)は、進行形の未来用法には 1) 準備段階、2)準備段
階と意図で曖昧、3)意図、の３つがあり、最近
では、準備段階がない意図だけ表す事例や、とっさの決断(spontaneous decision)を表す事例が増加傾向にあると分析している(p. 204)。進行形
構文が「意図」をその意味として前景化するな
らば、前節で述べた「行為意図」を表す行為解説用法①との交差を示唆する。以下の発話(30)は、曖昧である。
(30) I’m leaving tomorrow.
先行する談話場面がなくいきなり(30)が告げられれば、話者の意図や決心を知らせる発話であるが、もしも話者 I が夜に荷物をまとめている様子を訝しげに見ている聞き手に向かって(30)-155-を言えば、それは行為解説の機能を持つ。この機能の違いは、日本語訳で明確に区別される。
(30’) a. あした帰ります。
（意図、決心の告知）
b. あした帰るんです。
（行為解説）
また前段階を指す未来用法は、行為解説用法②と交差する。前掲(22)の Shelley の発話において、Harriet の行為[bottle-feeding]が結果として[steal life and health from her own child]につながるとしてフレーム化している。

here.”(35) “Warshawski, if I catch you in one more fightyou’re going into segregation…”(Dancygier & Sweetser 2005: 90)
D & S(2005)によれば、(34)と(35)の主節の現在進
行形は、話者の発話時のコミットメント(thespeaker’s current commitment, p. 90)を表し、良からぬ結果を警告している(warning about negative
eventualities, p. 91)。主節の事態は話者が予測する未来ではなく、話者が自ら引き起こすと宣言しているのである。話者の社会的な力によって
4.2 行為連鎖中のコントロールの在りか：話者
未来の事態の成立に影響を与えるという点で、のコミットメント(commitment)(34)(35)の進行形は、法助動詞(must, may)の義務
意図的行為の場合にその行為意図が発生する的用法と並行性がある。これは以下(22)(再掲)のはプロトタイプ的には行為者（=主語）であと対比的である。
る。行為者が行為意図を持った時点が行為の開(22) Shelly: You are stealing life and health from
始時点と言える。しかし人は自分ひとりだけでyour own child [implied: if you don’t
は行動を決められない場合もあり、行為連鎖を
breast-feed her]. (=(8))
コントロールする能力や権力を持つ人物が、行(34)も(22)も “If you don’t V1, you’re V2-ing”とい為者以外に存在する場合がある(external agent/う構文形式なのだが、(22)は行為者の意図しな
control)。その多くの場合が話者で、一連の行為
い結果から行為解説をする行為解説用法（パタ
連鎖に社会的に関与している(force dynamics)。
ーン②）である。(22)では、[not V1]から[V2]へ
以下の進行形は、話者による意図・決定を表す。
(31) By the way, you’re coming with us in the VWの関連づけが、話者の主観的な判断（認識）でand Christie can go in the Fiat with Mary.
ある点で、
法助動詞の認識用法と類似性を持つ。
(Hirtle & Curat 1986:74)
一方(34)では、[not V1]から[V2]への関連づけは、(32) “I am [leaving], though”… “She’s not leaving.”
話者の現実世界におけるコミットメントである
ため社会的効力を持ち、法助動詞の義務的用法(The Great Gatsby, p.141)との類似性が認められる。
(31)は話者による行為指示であり、(32)では夫が未来を表す現在進行形構文では、現在時の状
妻の行為を誘導している。話者のコミットメン
トに主語行為者が従うという社会的背景がある。 況（準備、行為者の意図・決断、話者のコミッ
トメント）が、完了事態 V の内部の前方（初期
次の(33)は共同行為(joint action)の場合である。
段階）として概念化されるが、助動詞 will や be(33) (Son)We’re seeing Spiderman tomorrow.
going to のような認識的な予測までは意味拡張(Mother) We’re not seeing Spiderman
していない。未来における事態の実現を保証すtomorrow.
(Copley 2009: 27)
るような、具体的（意図的）な行為連鎖の一部
共同行為の場合、複数の行為者が関与するが、が発話時の現実として存在しなければならない。
行為者全員が平等に同じ行為意図を持つ訳ではしたがって、以下(36-37)は容認性が下がる。
なく、決定権を持つ人物に他の参与者が従うと(36)#The Red Sox are playing theYankees tomorrow
いうコントロールの非対称性が在る。(33)では
but they might not.
(Copley 2007: 28)
息子は自分に決定権がないと納得する。(33)の母親の発話は息子にとって指示的な意味を持つ。 (37)#Mary is arriving at the station, but I don’t know
HOW she is going to get there with all the roads
同じく以下(34-35)も話者のコミットメントが未closed.
(Rothstein 2004: 55)
来の出来事を決めている進行形構文の例である。
(34) “Jason and Paumell”—here she raised her voice
to a shout—“if you don’t stop making so much
5. まとめcommotion you’re getting out until we’re done
本稿では、英語進行形構文の用法において周-156-

辺的で非アスペクト的であるとされる「行為解説」と「未来」を表す進行形を取り上げ、プロトタイプとの連続性を論じた。両用法ともプロ
トタイプが持つ未完了という時間領域のアスペ
クト的概念構造、全体(V)と部分(be V-ing)のメト
ニミー関係、に基づいた意味拡張である事を示した。さらに意図理解、（間）主観性、意図指向・結果指向のフレーム化、意図、コントロールといった特徴に注目することで当該構文の機能的多様性の詳細を分析した。
注
本稿は日本英語学会第 31 回大会（2013 年 11
月 10 日 福岡大学）
において口頭発表した内容
を加筆・修正したものである。発表の際に、貴重なご指摘をくださいました諸先生方、柏野健
次先生、樋口万里子先生に感謝申し上げます。
＊

参考文献
Copley, Bridget (2009) The Semantics of the Future,
Routledge, New York.
Dancygier, Barbara and Eve Sweetser (2005) Mental
Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Goldsmith, John and Erich Woisetschlaeger (1982)“The Logic of the English Progressive,” Linguistic
Inquiry 13(1), 79-89.
Hirtle, W. H. and V. N. Curat (1986) “The Simple and
the Progressive: ‘Future’ Use,” Transactions of thePhilological Society, 42-84.
長谷川在古 (2005)「いわゆる「行為解説の進行形」の概念構造について」成田義光・長谷川在古(編)『英語のテンス・アスペクト・モダリティ』(阪大英文学叢書 2), 109-124, 英宝社, 東京.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002)
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
König, Ekkehard (1980) “On the Context-dependenceof the Progressive in English,” Time, Tense, andQuantifiers: Proceedings of the Stuttgart Conference
on the Logic of Tense and Quantification, ed. by
Christian Rohrer, 269-291, Niemeyer, Tübingen.
Kranich, Svenja (2009) “Interpretive Progressives in
Late Modern English,” Current Issues in Late
Modern English, ed. by I. Tieken-Boon van Ostadeand W. Van der Wurff, 331-357, Lang, Bern.
Kranich, Svenja (2010) The Progressive in Modern
English:A
Corpus-BasedStudyofGrammaticalization and Related Changes, Rodopi,
Amsterdam.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive
Grammar. Vol.2: Descriptive Application, Stanford
University Press, Stanford.
Langacker, Ronald W. (2008) Cognitive Grammer: A
Basic Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Leech, Geoffrey (2004) Meaning and the English Verb,
3rd ed. Pearson Longman, Harlow.
Leech, Geoffrey, Mariannce Hundt, Christian Mair andNicholas Smith (2009) Change in Contemporary
Englsih: A Grammatical Study, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Ljung, Magnus (1980) Reflections on the English
Progressive. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis,
Göteborg.
Marimaridou, Sophia (2000) Pragmatic Meaning andCognition, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Nesselhauf, Nadja (2007) “The Spread of theProgressive and its ‘Future’ Use,” English Language
and Linguistics 11(1), 191-207.
Rothstein, Susan (2004) Structuring Events: A Study in
the Semantics of Lexical Aspect, Blackwell, Oxford.
清水啓子 (2013)「間主観性、および行為と意図のメトニミー関係からみた行為解説の進行形」日
本認知言語学会第 14 回大会口頭発表.
Smitterberg, Erik (2005) The Progressive in
19th-century English: A Process of Integration.
Rodopi, Amsterdam.
スペルベル、ダン (1997)「ことばの理解を理解する」 J・カルファ(編) 『知のしくみ』 263-294,
新曜社, 東京.
Tomasello, Michael (1999) The Cultural Origins of
Human Cognition, Harvard U. Press, Cambridge.
Traugott,Elizabeth
Closs(2003)“From
Subjectification to Intersubjectification,” Motives for
Language Change, ed. by Raymond Hickey,
124-139, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wright, Susan (1995) “Subjectivity and Experiential
Syntax,” Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, ed. by D.
Stein and S. Wright, 151-172, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.

-157-

gives concluding remarks.

Linguistic Phenomena as Seen from theViewpoint of Joint Attention: If-Cleft and
Locative Inversion*

2. Observation
2.1. If-Cleft Sentence: Its Markedness, Discourse
Function, and Rhetorical EffectAccording to Shizawa (2010, 2011), the ICS issemantically and syntactically marked as aconditional construction in the following points:

Takashi Shizawa
Mejiro University
Keywords: if-cleft, locative inversion, rhetoricaleffect, discourse function, joint attention
1. Introduction
This paper investigates the motivation ofrhetorical effects and discourse functions of the
if-cleft sentence (ICS) and the locative inversion
construction (LIC), exemplified in (1) and (2),respectively:(1) If anyone can help us, it’s John. (ICS)(2) Back to the village came Kate. (LIC)
As will be seen below, these constructions are similar
to each other in terms of rhetorical effect anddiscourse function. The problem is where theirsimilarity comes from. This paper addresses thisissue from the perspective of a psychologicalphenomenon called joint attention. The main claim
is as follows:(3) The use of the ICS and LIC is significantly
associated with joint attention engagement.
The organization of this paper is as follows.
Section 2 reviews the characteristics of the ICS andthe LIC on the basis of the findings of previous
studies. Section 3 summarizes the observations in
the previous section and poses a question to beanswered. Section 4 introduces a psychologicalphenomenon called joint attention as an explanatorydevice, and surveys the relationship between joint
attention and linguistic expressions. Section 5
argues that joint attention motivates the rhetoricaleffects and functions of the ICS and LIC. Section 6(4) a. Semantic markedness:
1) The if-clause introduces a variable, while
the main clause assigns its value.
2) Formed from a single proposition.
b. Formal markedness:
Fixed clause order: the if-clause must
precede the main clause (if p, q vs. *q, if p).
(Shizawa (2011: 179-180))
For a better understanding of (4), let us firstreview the semantic markedness of the ICS.
Compare the following pair:(5) a. If Mary goes, John will go.
b. If anyone can help us, it’s John.
It is generally acknowledged that the if-clause andmain clause of an ordinary conditional sentenceshow interdependencies such as causality, temporalsequentiality and logical inclusion. In sentence (5a),for example, the propositions Mary goes and John
will go show causality: The speaker predicts thatthe event of Mary’s going will cause John’s going.
On the other hand, no such relationship is foundin the ICS in (5b), because the number of relevant
propositions is one. The main clause is not an
independent proposition; it only specifies a value forthe variable introduced in the if-clause. That is, therelevant proposition in (5b) is John can help us alone.
Let us turn our attention to the formal
markedness. It is widely known that although theunmarked order of the if-clause (p) and main clause(q) in the ordinary conditional sentence is “if p, q,”
the clause order can be reversed as long as thediscourse allows it:(6) John will go, if Mary goes.
(cf. (5a))
In the case of the ICS, on the other hand, the if-clause-158-

never follows the main clause, as pointed out byDeclerck and Seki (1990).

Third, verbs that are found in the LIC must be
informationally light in the sense that they do not(7) * It’s John, if anyone can help us.
On the basis of the above observations, Shizawa
argues that the relationship between the if-clause andmain clause in the ICS is very close to that between awh-question and its answer, proposing a semantic
representation as follows:(8) If X, it is Y = If X and if you ask me WH, I’ll
answer it is Y
Then, sentence (1) can be paraphrased as follows:(9) If anyone can help us and if you ask me who,
I’ll answer it’s John.
Based on this semantic relation, the ICS fulfills thefollowing discourse function:1(10) The discourse function of the if-cleft
sentence is evoking a question in hearer’s
mind and attracting much attention to the
focalized element in the main clause so thatthe element can serve as the topic for thefollowing discourse. (Shizawa (2011: 204))
The ICS can be regarded as a presentational sentencein the sense that it introduces a new entity into thediscourse. In addition, the point is that by using the
ICS, the speaker makes the hearer follow his
inference, successfully guiding hearer’s attention to
the newly introduced entity (for more details, see
Shizawa (2011)).

contribute much to the information conveyed by thesentences in which they are used (cf. Levin andRappaport Hovav (1995)):2(13) Inside swam fish from an iridescent
spectrum of colors…
Fourth, epistemic modal verbs like may cannot
occur in the LIC (cf. Coopmans (1989)):(14) * Down the hill may roll the baby carriage.
These grammatical characteristics are not foundin non-inversion sentences. In this sense the LIC is

2.2. Locative Inversion Construction: Its Markedness,
Discourse Function, and Rhetorical EffectThis subsection surveys the characteristics of the
LIC. Let us begin with the formal or grammaticalmarkedness. It is generally acknowledged that the
LIC has some grammatical characteristics that thecorresponding non-inversion sentence does not have.
First to be noted is that the LIC cannot be turned
into the interrogative sentence:(11) * Was in the corner a lamp?
Second, the LIC cannot be negated:(12) * On the wall never hung a picture of U. S.
Grant.
(Bresnan (1994: 88))

formally and grammatically marked.
Next let us turn our attention to the discourse
function of the LIC. Although there have beendifferent points of view, most commonly it has been
said to be used for presentational focus; that is, the
LIC is used to introduce the referent of the postverbal
NP on the scene (Bolinger (1977), Bresnan (1994),
among others):(15) A: I’m looking for my friend Rose.
B:# Among the guests of honor was sitting
Rose.
C: Rose was sitting among the guests ofhonor.
(Bresnan (1994: 85))
B seems odd because it reintroduces an entity thathas just been introduced in the previous context,
which is not compatible with the discourse functionof presentational focus.
Lastly, the rhetorical effect of the LIC should be
mentioned. Many researchers (e.g. Fukuchi (1985),
Kuno and Takami (2007), among others) point out
that the LIC has rhetorical effects like the following:(16) a. The LIC describes the scene more
vividly than the non-inversion sentence.
b. The LIC makes the hearer feel as if hesaw the described scene on the spot.
In other words, the LIC evokes the sense of presence.
Observe the following example:(17) Jack opened the box. Inside was anantique man’s watch.

-159-

The LIC in (17) describes a situation from theviewer’s point of view. The hearer identifies withhearer share and coordinate attention with each otherin relation to the object of inference/observation in

the viewer, i.e. Jack, and aligns his perspective with
Jack, conceptually putting himself in the samethe context. This means that what developmental
psychologists refer to as joint attention is establishedbetween the speaker and hearer in that situation, as
illustrated in the following figure:3(20) Joint Attention

situation where Jack puts himself. In so doing, thehearer feels as if he was observing the same thing as
Jack.
The LIC is more suitable than the non-inversion

Objectsentence to give the sense of presence, which iscompatible with the fact that the LIC tends to be usedin discourse contexts such as retrospective eyewitness reports, route directions, and scenic narrative

Speaker

Technically speaking, joint attention means thesituations (cf. Weblhuth (2011)).
3. Parallelism between the ICS and LIC
The above observations can be diagrammaticallysummarized as follows:(18) Characteristics of the ICS and LIC
ICS

LIC

GrammarMarkedMarkedFunction

Presentation

Presentation

EffectMaking the hearer follow

The sense of

speaker’s inference

presence

As shown in the diagram, the ICS and LIC, whichappear to have no relationship with each other, are, infact, slimier to each other with regard to theirdiscourse functions and rhetorical effects in particular.
Then the following question can be posed:(19) What underlies the similarity between the
ICS and LIC with regard to their discourse
functions and rhetorical effects?
In what follows, I investigate the mechanism
underlying the similarity.
4. Joint Attention: A Mechanism for Getting theHearer Involved
4.1. Joint Attention
Here note that the rhetorical effects of the twoconstructions mean getting the hearer involved in the
speaker’s own inference (the ICS) or observation (the
LIC). To put it in another way, the speaker andHearersimultaneous engagement of two or more individuals
in mental focus on one and the same external thing.
The figure shows that the speaker and hearer are
paying attention to the same object. To be exact, theaccidental sharing of attention cannot be called joint
attention: It is necessary for each participant toknow that they are attending to something incommon (cf. Tomasello (1995: 106)).
There are two types of joint attention: thefollowing joint attention and directive joint attention(cf. Oyabu (2004)). The former is established when
one pays attention to what others are paying attention
to (e.g. gaze following). The latter is establishedwhen one draws or directs others’ attention to what
he is focusing on (e.g. pointing at something). In
either case, joint attention is highly social because its
goal is to share thoughts, ideas, memories,
observations, and experiences with others. In otherwords, joint attention helps the participants to sharethe meaning and construal of things they are paying
attention to, which leads to the sharing of intention
and emotion, i.e. empathy (cf. Honda (2011)).4
4.2. Joint Attention and Linguistic Expressions
This subsection reviews two cases concerning therelationship between joint attention and linguistic
expressions, following Honda (2011).
First, to illustrate the empathy created by joint
attention, I refer to Honda’s (2011) analysis of“empathetic” that:-160-between topicalization and left-dislocation pertains to
the two types of joint attention. Topicalazation is(21) a. How is that throat?
b. How is your throat?
The examples in (21) are semantically similar to eachother. But there is a difference in empathy: Whena nurse asks a patient with a sore throat how her
throat is, sentence (21a) sounds more empathetic thansentence (21b). Honda argues that this difference
can be explained in terms of joint attention. As in(21b), when the speaker uses your throat to refer tothe hearer’s throat, the same throat is my throat to thehearer. There arises a conflict between your and my,which implies that the speaker and hearer see thesame throat differently. The use of that, on theother hand, means that the speaker and hearer see thesame throat in the same way. The word that refers
to an object which is equidistant from both the
speaker and hearer. That is, that throat is thatthroat to both the speaker and hearer. This can be
regarded as a linguistic realization of joint attention
effect: seeing the same thing in the same way
produces empathy between the speaker and hearer.
Second, let us review Honda’s (2011) analysis of
the topicalization construction and left-dislocation
construction. As is well known, both constructions
are classified as the topic-comment construction.
However, they are different from each other:(22) What can you tell me about John?
a. John Mary kissed.
b. * John, Mary kissed him.
(23) What can you tell me about John?
a. Nothing. * But Bill Mary kissed.
b. Nothing. But Bill, Mary kissed him.
In (22), the dislocated element (John) is alreadyintroduced in the previous discourse; that is, thedislocated NP is discourse-old information. In thiscase, topicalization is felicitous, while left-dislocation
is not. In (23), on the other hand, the dislocatedelement does not appear in the previous discourse;that is, the dislocated NP (Bill) is discourse-new
information.
In this case, left-dislocation isfelicitous, whereas topicalization is not.
According to Honda (2011), the difference

related to the following joint attention: preposing
discourse-old information, i.e. an element to which
the hearer is already paying attention, indicates thatthe speaker follows the hearer’s attention.
Left-dislocation is, on the other hand, relevant to thedirective joint attention: dislocating discourse-new
information indicates that the speaker directs thehearer’s attention to something to which the hearer is
not paying attention. In this way, joint attention ishighly relevant to the structure of topic-comment
constructions.
5. Discussion
5.1. From the Perspective of Sentence Structure
The relevance of joint attention to the ICS and
LIC is corroborated in terms of sentence structure.
Observe the following examples:(24) Donna didn’t love anyone. If she had
loved someone, it would have been Bill.
(Shizawa (2011: 188))(25) What lives in Xanadu? – In Xanadu live all
manner of crawly creatures.
(Bolinger (1977: 111))
These examples show that both if-clause and locative
phrase convey information related to the previous
context. In other words, the if-clause and locative
phrase are, in principle, the topics of the sentences inwhich they occur (cf. Bolinger (1977), Haiman(1978)).5 That is, the ICS and LIC can be regarded
as topic-comment constructions. Thus they are inparallel with the topicalization construction, related to
the following joint attention.
If this line of argument is on the right track, it isquite reasonable to assume that a kind of empathy iscreated between the speaker and hearer on the basisof joint attention, like the case of that in (21). Thisis the source of rhetorical effects of the ICS and LIC.
5.2. From the Perspective of Meaning and Function
In the previous subsection, I argued that the ICS-161-

and LIC can be regarded as topic-comment
constructions and thus are related to the following

the semantics of both constructions. Let us first
focus on the ICS. Recall that the semantic relation

joint attention. However, while the following joint
attention can explain the function of the if-clause andinverted locative phrase as topic, i.e. linking up withthe preceding discourse, it cannot sufficiently explain
the discourse function of presentational focus.
It should be noted that the discourse function ofpresentational focus is fulfilled by directing thehearer’s attention to the focus element. This meansthat the joint attention established by the use of the
if-clause or inverted locative phrase is, in turn,
directed to the focus element, i.e. an entity to which
the hearer does not pay attention in the previous
context. In other words, a shift in focus occurs.
Observe examples (24) and (17), repeated here as(26a) and (26b), respectively:(26) a. Donna didn’t love anyone. If she had
loved someone, it would have been Bill.
b. Jack opened the box. Inside was anantique man’s watch.
In (26a), the first sentence introduces apresupposition for the use of the ICS, directing thehearer’s attention to a topic concerning a person
called Donna. The speaker uses the if-clause,
indicating that he follows up the hearer’s attention,
establishing the following joint attention. Then, thespeaker introduces discourse-new information (i.e.
Bill), to which he directs the hearer’s attention. At
this point, the directive joint attention is established.
Likewise, in (26b), the first sentence directs thehearer’s attention to the box. The speaker uses thelocative phrase inside in the sentence initial position,
indicating that he follows up the hearer’s attention.
Then, the speaker introduces discourse-new
information (i.e. an antique man’s watch), to whichof wh-question and answer underlies the meaning of
the ICS:(27)
If anyone can help us, it’s John.
>>> Who can help us? - It’s John.
From a functionalist point of view, the purpose ofusing wh-questions is to ask for the specification ofvalues for the variables represented by wh-phrases.
In this sense, wh-questions are a good device fordirecting hearer’s attention to the value. The ICS,
the meaning of which the semantic relation of
wh-question and answer underlies, can be said to be agood device for directing hearer’s attention to thevalue, i.e. the focus element.
How about the LIC, wherein no explicit variable
is contained? Here I propose the following
semantic representation for the LIC, assuming that avariable is implicitly contained in it:(28) x that +V+ Loc + BE + Subject
Then the LIC in (29a), for example, can be
represented as (29b):(29) a. Into the room came John.
b. x that came into the room was John.
>>> Who came into the room?- It’s John.
If this assumption is on the right track, then the LIC
can be analyzed in parallel with the ICS in the sensethat the existence of a variable contributes to thesuccessful direction of the hearer’s attention to thevalue (i.e. the focus element).
To summarize, the assumption that the LIC aswell as the ICS has a variable enables us to deal withthem in a unified manner: Joint attention motivates
not only the rhetorical effect but the presentational
function of the two constructions.

he directs the hearer’s attention. In this way, theshift in focus from one object (discourse-old
information) to another (discourse-new information)is closely related to the presentational function ofboth constructions.6
The mechanism of the shift in focus follows from

5.3. Supporting Arguments
The assumption that the LIC contains a variable
is supported from the perspective of identificational
focus in the sense of Kiss (1998), which expresses
exhaustive interpretation. The following is a test of
exhaustive identification devised by Szabolcsi-162-

(1981): In (30), if the second sentence is not among
the logical consequences of the first one, the focus

B1: Back to the village came Kate.
B2: The one who came back to the village

expresses exhaustive identification:(30) a. It was a hat and a coat that Mary picked
for herself.
b. It was a hat that Mary picked for herself.
(cf. Kiss (1998: 250))
According to Kiss (1998), sentence (30b) is not awas Kate.
B3: It was Kate (that came back to thevillage).
B4: #Kate came back to the village.
Example (33) indicates that the LIC is in parallel withor closely related with cleft constructions to theextent that they can be replaced with one another.
Taking into account the above observations (i.e.
(32) and (33)) and Kiss’s (1998) argument that thecleft constituent is the realization of identificational
focus in English, we can say that the postverbal NP
in the LIC also pertains to identificational focus,

logical consequence of (30a); on the contrary, it
contradicts (30a). This indicates that the cleft
constituent expresses exhaustive identification.
According to Mikami (2010), the postverbal NP
in the LIC is also associated with identificational
focus, and thus expresses exhaustive identification.
To confirm this, I devise a similar test:(31) a. Into the room came John and Mary.
b. Into the room came John.
If the postverbal NP in the LIC is associated withidentificational focus, sentence (31b) cannot be alogical consequence of (31a). This prediction isborne out by the following example:(32) # Into the room came John and Mary;
therefore into the room came John.
Example (32) sounds odd because sentence (31b)contradicts sentence (31a). This indicates that the
postverbal NP in the LIC expresses exhaustive
identification.
The point is that an identificational focus, bydefinition, represents the value of a variable (cf. Kiss
(1998: 245)). Therefore, if the postverbal NP in the
LIC expresses an identificational focus, it is notunreasonable to assume that the LIC has a variable asa semantic ingredient.
In addition, if the representation in (28) is valid,then the interpretation of the LIC should be similar tothat of the specificational sentence in that the focus
NP specifies the value for the implicit variable.
More specifically, it can be expected that the LIC is
close to the pseudo-cleft sentence in terms of
meaning and function. This view is supported by
the following data (see also Takami (1995: 188)):(33) A: Who came back to the village?

which in turn means that the LIC contains a variable
in some form or other.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, I have demonstrated that the
if-cleft sentence (ICS) and locative inversion
construction (LIC) are in parallel with each otherwith regard to discourse function and rhetorical effect,
and that the parallelism can be explained in terms ofa psychological phenomenon called joint attention.
I made the following points. First, the ICS and
LIC are closely associated with joint attention
engagement, and thus the rhetorical effects of bothconstructions are the realization of empathy createdby joint attention. Second, their sentence structures(i.e. the topic-comment structure) and semantic
structures (i.e. the variable-value or question-answer
relationship) correspond to attention-following andattention-directing respectively, which underpin the
discourse function of presentation.
Notes* An earlier version of this paper was presented at the
31th Conference of the English Linguistic Society ofJapan, held at Fukuoka University on November 9-10,
2013. I am grateful to Akira Honda, Seizi Iwata, Keita
Ikarashi, and Suguru Mikami for their informative
comments. My gratitude also goes to Steven Brooks-163-

of Mejiro University for kindly acting as an informant.
All remaining errors and inadequacies are my own.
1

Meanings), Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Langacker,

In what follows, the terms speaker and hearer areused as cover terms to refer to writer/narrator and
The verb swim in (13) is informationally light in theW.

(1993)“Reference-Point

Constructions,” Cognitive Linguistics 4, 1-38.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav (1995)

reader, respectively.
2

R.

Unaccusativity, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Mikami,S.

(2010)“The

Locative

Inversion

sense that swimming is a kind of motion that is

Construction in English: Topicalization and thecharacteristic of fish.

Pronunciation of the Lower Copy,” English

3

Linguistics 27, 297-328.

In figure (20), the broken arrows stand for themental access to the object; on the other hand, the bold

Oyabu, Y. (2004) “Kyoodoo Tyuui no Syurui to Hattatu

arrows represent the interaction between the speaker(Kinds and Development of Joint Attention),”and hearer.

Kyoodoo Tyuui no Hattatu to Rinsyoo: Ningenka no

4

Genten no Kaimee (The Development of Joint

Although I will not go into further detail here, joint

attention is said to be a precursor of theory of mind.

Attention and Clinical Practice: A Clarification of the5

Origin of Humanization), ed. by Y. Oyabu, M.

This is not to say that these constructions can never

be used as discourse openers.
6

For a related discussion about the shift in focus, see

Tanaka, and H. Ito, 1-31, Kawashima Syobo, Tokyo.
Szabolcsi, A. (1981) “The Semantics of Topic-Focus

Langacker (1993).

Articulation,” Formal Methods in the Study ofLanguage, ed. by J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M.
Stokhof, 513-541, Matematisch, Amsterdam.

References
Bolinger, D. (1977) Meaning and Form, Longman,

Shizawa, T. (2010) “If Bunretubun no Danwa Kinoo

London.

(The Discourse Function of If-Clefts),” Eego Gohoo

Bresnan, J. (1994) “Locative Inversion and the

Bunpoo Kenkyuu (English Grammar and Usage) 17,

Architecture of Universal Grammar,” Language 70,
72-131.

99-114.
Shizawa, T. (2011) Form, Meaning, and Discourse: The

Coopmans, P. (1989) “Where Stylistic and Syntactic

Semantics and Pragmatics of Conditional Constructions

Process Meet: Locative Inversion in English,”in English and Japanese, Doctoral dissertation,

Language 65, 728-751.

University of Tsukuba.

Declerck, R. and S. Seki (1990) “Premodified Reduced

Takami, K. (1995) Kinooteki Koobunron ni yoru Niti
Eego Hikaku—Ukemibun, Kootibun no Bunseki (AIt-Clefts,” Lingua 82, 15-51.
Fukuchi, H. (1985) Danwa-no Koozoo (The Structure

Contrastive Study of Japanese and English based on aof Discourse), Taishukan, Tokyo.

Functional-Constructional Approach: An Analysis of

Haiman, J. (1978) “Conditionals Are Topics,”

Passive and Postposing Sentences in Japanese andLanguage 54, 564-589.

English), Kurosio, Tokyo.

Honda, A. (2011) “Kyoodoo Tyuui to Kansyukansee

Tomasello, M. (1995) “Joint Attention as Social(Joint Attention and Intersubjectivity),” Syukansee to

Cognition,” Joint Attention: Its Origins and Role in

Syutaisee (Subjectivity), ed. by H. Sawada, 127-148,

Development, ed. by C. Moore and P. Dunhan,

Hituzi, Tokyo.

103-130, Psychology Press, New York.

Kiss, K. É. (1998) “Identificational Focus versus

Webelhuth, G. (2011) “Motivating Non-Canonicality inInformation Focus,” Language 74, 245-273.

Construction Grammar: The case of Locative

Kuno, S. and K. Takami (2007) Eego no Koobun to

Inversion,” Cognitive Linguistics 22, 81-105.

Sono Imi (English Constructions and Their-164-

subject.
(2) *The lightning jumped the horse over thefence.
(Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995: 112))

A Syntactic Approach to the Induced Action

Previous research has attributed this restriction

Alternation*

to the lexical semantics of the verb (Folli and
Kenji Sugimoto

Harley (2006) (henceforth F&H (2006)), Levin

Hokkaido University of Education

and Rappaport Hovav (1995), Reinhart (2002)).
However, in this paper we will propose that the

Keywords: induced action alternation, agentivity,

relevant semantic restriction is to be read offfrom the syntactic structure.

light verb, head movement, contemporaneity

The paper is organized as follows: section 2
will present a previous approach to the induced
Introduction

action alternation and point out its problems; inThis paper investigates agentive verbs ofsection 3, we will provide an alternative analysis

manner of motion, such as: jump, run, and walkto solve them and further evidence for theamong other verbs.

proposed analysis; section 4 will present

1.

They have several

remarkable syntactic and semantic properties(Levin (1993)).

concluding remarks.

Of such properties, this paper

focuses on the induced action alternation, as

2.

Folli and Harley’s (2006) Analysis andshown in (1).

Its Problems(1) a. The horse jumped over the fence.

Although linguists sharply differ in theirdetailed

b. Sylvia jumped the horse over the fence.

accounts

oftheinducedaction(Levin (1993: 31))

alternation, they share a basic idea about the way(1a) shows that the verb has an intransitive use.

to capture the agentivity requirement on the

In addition, (1b) shows that it has a causative

subject of the causative variant: they account foruse.

it in terms of lexical semantics.

However, the causative alternant is not

In this section,

freely available to the verb; certain syntactic and

we review F&H’s (2006) analysis as asemantic

representative of previous research on thearguments.

restrictionsareimposedonits

Of such restrictions, previous

induced action alternation.

theFirst, F&H (2005, 2006) assume that there

agentivity/intentionality requirement imposed on

are two different flavors of v: vdo and vcause.

the subject argument.

These light verbs place different restrictions onliterature

puts

a

great

emphasisonThat is to say, theargument must be an agent – a person that

their subjects and complements.

volitionally causes the event denoted by the verb.

vdo needs an animate agent subject, whereas the

For example, since Sylvia in (1b) is an entity thatlight verb vcause only requires that the subject be acan volitionally cause the horse’s jumping event,possible causer.

it is eligible as the subject.

In contrast,

incremental theme as its complement, while thelightning in the next example (2) is a causer

light verb vcause must take a state as its

without volition, so that it is ineligible as thecomplement, creating a resultative structure.

-165-

The light verb

The light verb vdo can take anNext, agentive verbs of manner of motion

analysis.

However, their analysis is notcannot take an object, as shown in (3).

without problems.

(3) John walked (*Matilda).

problems.

There are three empiricalFirst, the lexical analysis predicts(F&H (2006: 124))

that the subject of causative variants is

However it may be repaired by adding anecessarily interpreted as an agent, because thedirectional PP, as shown in (4).

relevant verbs possess [+Agent] properties.

(4) a. John walked Matilda to his new flat in

However, this prediction is falsified by thefollowing example.

20/#for 20 minutes.

(7) These magic shoes can jump you overb. John walked Mary along the river all

rivers and houses.

afternoon.

[EWGV](ibid.: 125)

Although the subject position in (7) is occupied

Therefore, F&H (2006) conclude that theby the inanimate causer, the sentence isaddition of a directional PP is necessary for theacceptable.

Specifically,

The second problem lies in the observation

they assume with Hoekstra (1984) that the PP

that directional PPs are obligatory in theforms a predicative small clause with the theme

licensing of causative alternants.

argument.

Then, they propose that this small

has been noticed that causative alternants mustclause is embedded under the causative lightbe accompanied by directional PPs (Folli andverb, thus deriving the causative variant, asHarleydepicted in (5).1

Rappaport (1995)).

(5) a. John walked Mary to his flat.

always the case, as shown in (8).

formation of the causative variant.

b. [vP John [v′ vcause [SC Mary [PP to his flat]]]]The

proposedcorrelation

betweenstructurethecaptureslicensingoffollowingisHowever, this is not(Tanaka and Minami (2008: 112))c. The trainer didn’t run the best
greyhounds in the race.

Therefore,

sentenceandfield).

(Randall (2010: 262))

F&H’s (2006) proposal, as it stands, would
the

Levin

b. The trainer ran the athletes (around thetherequires that the subject be a possible causer andthat(1993),(Reinhart (2002: 242))

theHowever, recall that the light verb vcause only

predict

Levin(8) a. She ran/galloped/walked them.

causative variant and the addition of the PP.

does not need an animate agent.

(2006),

Certainly, it

On the basis of the above data, in this paper, wegrammatical, contrary to fact.

assume that directional phrases are not defining(6) *The lightning jumped the horse over theproperties of the licensing of causatives.

(=(2))

The final problem is concerned with the

In order to solve this problem, they propose thatdifference between verbs of the same semantic

the relevant verb intrinsically have a [+Agent]type.

feature and that this property require its subjectof manner of motion (Levin (1993)).

toagentivity

F&H’s (2006) analysis, as it stands, predicts that

requirement on the subject follows from theit should be fine in a causative use like walk and[+Agent] property of the verb root.

run.

fence.

beanagent.

Thus,

the

So far, we have seen F&H’s (2006)

The verb stroll belongs to agentive verbs
Thus,

However, our informant reported that

unlike run and walk, stroll sounds odd in a-166-

causative variant, as shown in (9).

verb

(9) a. *The therapist strolled the patient (to thevcause-vdo-√walk.

b.

vdo,

the

complexhead

Intuitively, this complex headpark).

imposes more specific semantic restriction on its

The therapist walked the patient (to thespecifier than the simple light verb vcause.

park).

specifically, we propose that the raised light

We will reconsider this issue in section 3.2.

Moreverb vdo reassign the agent role to its specifier
position.

3.

forming

Setting aside precise formalization,

A Syntactic Approach to Agentivity

weRequirement

vcause-vdo-√walk as a whole restricts its specifier

In previous section, we have seen F&H’s

to an entity that does some action which causes aapproach to the agentivity requirement andpointed out its problems.

assumethatthecomplexhead

person’s walking event.

In this section, weWith this in mind, let us reconsider theargue that this requirement can be uniformly

problematic data shown in the previous section,accounted for in terms of a syntactic approach.

(repeated below).
(12) a. *The lightning jumped the horse overthe fence.

3.1. A Complex Head AccountFirst, we assume with F&H (2005, 2006)b.

that there are two different flavors of v: vdo andvcause.

Then, we propose that the intransitive(=(6))

These magic shoes can jump you overrivers and houses.

(=(7))On the basis of our analysis, the above contrast

variant (10a) have the structure seen in (10b) andis accounted for as follows.

the causative variant (11a) the structure seen inin (12) requires its specifier to be a cause of a(11b).

jumping event and an agent.

(10) a. The patient walked.

lightning is insufficient; although it may be sucha cause, it is not an agent.

b. [vP the patient [v′ vdo √walk]]

The complex head
However, theAs a result, (12a) isregarded as an interpretive anomaly.
us consider (12b).

(11) a. The therapist walked the patient.
b. [vP [v′ vcause [vP the patient [v′ vdo √walk]]]]Then, letLike the lightning, thesemagic shoes may be a cause of jumping event,but not an agent.

However, there is a slight

As illustrated in (10b), the light verb vdo selects

difference between the lightning and these

the root √walk as its complement and the patient

magic shoes: the former is just a cause, but theas its specifier (Harley (2005)).

latter is traditionally considered to be an

The root √walk

incorporates into the light verb vdo, forming the

instrument, a subset of cause roles.

complex head vdo-√walk.

implies an agent which uses it.

This complex headThis role

Probably, thisdetermines the thematic interpretation of its

implication will license the requirement ofspecifier: the subject the patient is thematicallyagentivity.

interpreted as an agent of a walking event.

capture the following acceptability contrast.

The

causative structure in (11b) embeds (10b) under
the light verb vcause.

(13) a.

As indicated by thearrowed lines, the root √walk undergoes the head
movement to the light verb vcause via the light-167-

Furthermore, our analysis will

Max galloped the horse to the stable.

b. ?The whip galloped the horse to thestable.
c. *The rain galloped the horse to thethe root √stroll involves both the basic mannerstable.
(Reinhart (2002: 243))of motion (i.e., walk) and the additional manners

The subject Max completely satisfies the(in this case, in a slow, relaxed way).

requirement just discussed above, while the whip

purpose of convenience, we notate this as

is licensed in the indirect manner because offollows.

being an instrument.

(15) √stroll = √walk + However, the rain is just

For theSuch a verb unlike walk cannot undergoa natural force and thus cannot be licensed.

causativization, as shown in (16a).
(16) a. *The therapist strolled the patient (to3.2. Lexical and Syntactic Causatives

the park).

This section shows further predictions of
our complex head analysis.

b.

First, our accountcrucially depends on head movement.

The therapist walked the patient (tothe park).

So, ifhead movement is prevented by some additional

This contrast may be accounted for as follows.

factor, the light verb vcause remains single andWe assume that the intransitive stroll has thethus only requires that its specifier be a possible

following syntactic structure.

causer of an event.

(17) a. The patient strolled.

This prediction isb. [vP the patient [v′ vdo √walk]]

confirmed by using syntactic causatives, as
shown in (14).

(14) a. Max caused the horse to gallop to

In (17b), the additional manner component  isthe stable.
b. The whip caused the horse to gallop to

inserted to the light verb vdo by some operation,

the stable.

say, Manner Incorporation proposed by Harleyc. The rain caused the horse to gallop to(2005) and this complex head is phonologicallythe stable.

realized as stroll.

However, our analysis as it(14a-c) are syntactic equivalents for the lexical

stands would incorrectly generate the causative

causatives (13a-c), respectively.

stroll by embedding (17b) under the light verb

In contrast to(13), the light verb vcause in (14) is severed fromvcause, as illustrated in (18b).

the root √gallop and phonologically realized as(18) a. *The therapist strolled the patient.

caused.

b. [v′ vcause [vP the patient [v′ vdo √walk]]]

In this environment, our informant

judges all the subjects to be acceptable.


We have seen that the inability to form thecomplex head results in less specific semantic

To avoid this undesirable output, we assume that

restriction on the subject.

Then, let us consider

the head with some additional manner cannot be

the opposite situation where a certain complex

attracted by the light verb vcause because it ishead leads to more specific semantic restriction

semantically heavier than the head without

than the complex head as shown in 3.1.

additional manner.2,3,4

Such aThis assumption issituation occurs in the case of the verb stroll.

supported by other verbs with the same type ofAccording to the Collins Cobuild English

additional manner such as amble and slouch.

Dictionary, the meaning of the verb is to walk in(19) *The therapist ambled the patient (to thea slow, relaxed way.

If so, we may assume that

-168-park).

The additional evidence comes from verbs

requirement on the causing sub-event and thewith the following types of additional manner.

caused sub-event: both sub-events must occur(20) a. walk + with heavy steps: plod, stump…

contemporaneously.

For

example,theb. walk + with quick steps: pad, tiptoe…

causative manner-of-motion construction in (23)c. walk + in an unsteady way: totter…

requires that Sylvia manipulating the horsed. walk + in a proud way: strut, swagger…

totally overlap with the horse jumping over thee. walk + other manners: sidle, slink…

fence.
(23) Sylvia jumped the horse over the fence.

Verbs with these types also are not permitted to5(=(2b))

be causativized, as shown in (21).

This temporal identity also follows if we assume(21) a. *The therapist stumped the patient (tothat the complex head formed by head

the park).
b. *The therapist tiptoed the patient (to thepark).

movement (i.e., vcause-vdo) is interpreted as asingle event (cf. Levin and Rappaport Hovav

c. *The therapist tottered the patient (to(1999)).

the park).

Our analysis derives agentivity requirement

d. *The therapist swaggered the patient (tothe park).

and contemporaneity requirement from one andthe same mechanism, namely head movement,e. *The therapist sidled the patient (to thewhereas F&H (2006) derive each requirementpark).

from different implements.

Having already

Then, if this account is on the right track,

seen in the previous section that in the F&H

we will make a further prediction: if the(2006) the former requirement is attributed toadditional manner part  is not incorporated into[+Agent] property of the root, we turn to a brief

the light verb vdo, and introduced as the adjunct,review of their account for the latter requirement

such a sentence should become grammatical,

and point out their problems.
F&H (2006) place the responsibility forbecause the semantic lightness of vdo allows its
head movement to the light verb vcause.

Thiscontemporaneity restriction on the modification

prediction is borne out by the following data.

function of the verb root.

They assume that the(22) The therapist walked the patient (to theverb root inserted in the light verb head v0
functions as a manner modifier of the event.

park) in a slow, relaxed way.

In

Although (22) expresses the conceptually samecausative manner-of-motion constructions, there

meaning as (18a), our informant reports that it isare two events which the manner elements canacceptable unlike (18a).

modify: the caused event denoted by the small
clause (i.e., the motion event) and the causing
event.

3.3. The Cotemporaneity Effect of

motionSub-events
We

have

requirement
constructions.

inaddressed

theagentivity

When the verb root is inserted as amodifier,themanner-motion

contemporaneity effect emerges.

In othermanner-of-motion

words, the manner activity which modifies the

However, this requirement ismotion event continues throughout that motion

causative

not a sufficient condition for the formation of

event.

these

inserted as a modifier of the causative sub-event,constructions.

There

is

another-169-

On the other hand, when the verb iseffect

constructions in agentive verbs of manner ofThat is to say, the manner activity

motion: the agentivity requirement on thedenoted by the verb root need only last as longsubject and the contemporaneity requirement on

as the causative sub-event lasts.

the sub-events.

themanner-cause

appears.

contemporaneity

Then, F&H

We have proposed that these(2006) assume that there is a case where therequirements are derived from syntactic headmanner component modifies both the motion

movement of the verb root to two types of lightsub-event and the causative sub-event, as shownverb.

in (24).

supported by the contrast between lexical and(24) John waltzed Matilda around the room.

syntactic causatives.

We have shown that this proposal is

Both the manner in which Matilda moves andthe manner of the causing action which John is
In this case, the* An early version of this paper was presented atmanner activity extends over the whole duration

the 31st meeting of the English Linguisticof the motion sub-event and it also extends overSociety of Japan held at Fukuoka University on

the entire causation sub-event.

November 9-10, 2013.

executing are waltzing.

Consequently,

I would like to thankthe motion sub-event is coextensive with thethe participants to the meeting for their valuable

duration of the causation event.

comments.

I would also like to express my

However, this idea is confronted with asincere gratitude to Professor Yoshiaki Kaneko

problem in the case where the motion action

and Professor Etsuro Shima for their insightful

differs from the causing action in the mannercomments and constructive criticism.

component.

grateful to Akihiko Arano, Masumi Matsumoto,

For instance, let us consider the

I am also

following example.

Mikinari Matsuoka, Taichi Nakamura, and(25) The boy jumped the action figure across

Motoki Sato, for their helpful comments.

the table.

(F&H (2006: 146))

but not least, I would like to thank Max Phillips

In (25), since only the action figure is jumping,Jr., who has kindly acted as an informant.

the manner modification applies only to theremaining errors are, of course, my own.

motion event.

Last
All

The manner activity extends forthe entirety of the motion event but not for theentirety of the causative event.

This implies

Notes

that these two events do not have to be1.

cotemporaneous.

verb by the operation Manner Incorporation proposed

However, in fact, sentence

In (5), the verb walk is inserted into the light(25) forces a temporal identity on them: even if

by Harley (2005).

the causative action is not itself an instance of2.

the manner activity, it must accompany thecommunication) suggests to us that this idea comemanner activity for the duration of the motion

from the idea about V-to-T movement of English

event.

auxiliary verbs and lexical verbs. It is generally said

Professor

EtsuroShima(personal

that English auxiliary verbs move to T head, whereas

4.

Conclusion

English lexical verbs do not.

In this paper, we have explored two

Guéron (1999) argue that this is attributed to theirsemantic restrictions found with the causative

semantic lightness.

-170-

Haegeman and

The former are semanticallyStudia Linguistica 60, 121-155.

lighter than the latter in that they do not assign
thematic roles. As a result, lighter auxiliaries can be

Haegeman, Liliane and Jacqueline Guéron

attracted by T head. However, heavier lexical verbs(1999) English Grammar: A Generative

cannot be attracted by T head.

perspective, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

3.

Professor

Mikinari

Matsuoka(personal

Harley, Heidi (2005) “How do Verbs Get Theircommunication) points out that eat and devour are in

Names?

the same semantic relation as walk and stroll.

That

Incorporation, and the Ontology of Verb

is, devour consists of √eat and the additional manner

Roots in English,” The Syntax of Aspect:(i.e. in a gluttonous manner).

Deriving

Then, he asks us

Denominal

Verbs,

ThematicandMannerAspectualwhether our assumption can also be applied to eat

Interpretation, ed. by Nomi Erteschik-Shirand devour. We leave this issue for future research.

and

4.

University Press, Oxford.

Professor

MasumiMatsumoto(personal

communication) suggests to us that the observation

Tova

Hoekstra,Rapoport,

Teun

42-64,(1984)

OxfordTransitivity:that some restriction is imposed on verbs with

Grammatical Relations in Government andadditional manners be found not only in the induced

Binding Theory, Foris, Dordrecht.

action alternation but also in the cognate object

Levin, Beth (1993) English Verb Class andconstruction.

Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation,

5.

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

The crucial problem with the relevant analysis

is that some verbs such as gallop and march can be

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (1995)

causativized.

Unaccusativity:(i) a. The general marched the soldiers to the tents.

Semantics Interface, MIT Press, Cambridge,

At

the

Syntax-LexicalMA.

b. Max galloped the horse to the stable.
These verbs may be regarded as complex verbs

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (1999)

composed of basic manner of motion parts and some“Twoadditional manners.

For instance, the verb march

Derived Events,” SALT 9, 199-223, Cornell

may consist of √walk and a rhythmic manner. Thus,

Linguistics Circle Publications, Ithaca, NY.

our analysis predicts that the verb could not haveRandall, Janet (2010) Linking: The Geometry of

causative use, contrary to fact.

StructuresforCompositionally

Argument Structure, Springer, Dordrecht.

We leave this issue

Reinhart, Tanya (2002) “The Theta System: Anfor future research.

Overview,” Theoretical Linguistics 28,
229-290.
Tanaka, Eri and Yusuke Minami (2008) “A Note

References
Folli, Raffaella and Heidi Harley (2005)

on PPs in Unergative-Based Transitives in“Flavors of v: Consuming Results in ItalianEnglish,” Osaka University Papers inand English,” Aspectual Inquiries, ed. by

English Linguistics 13, 103-118.

Paula

Kempchinsky

andRoumyana

Slabakova, 95-120, Springer, Dordrecht.
Folli, Raffaella and Heidi Harley (2006) “On the
Licensingof

CausativesofDirected

Motion: Waltzing Matilda All Over,”Dictionary
A Dictionary of English Word Grammar on
Verbs (1980), Kenkyuya. [EWGV]-171-

Analyzing such negation-initial (neg-initial)
sentences in the acquisition of English, German,
and other languages, Déprez & Pierce (1993)
claim that the pre-sentential negative element is

Why Not? in Child English
and its Theoretical Implications

an instance of sentential negation (a variant ofnot), not an instance of anaphoric negation, in
which the negative element negates a priorKoji Sugisaki

utterance. Under their analysis, children’s neg-

Mie University

initial sentences indicate that children go throughan early stage of acquisition during which

Keywords: neg-initial sentences, VP-internal

subjects may optionally stay in their original

subject hypothesis, why not?, child English

position located within VP.
The goal of this small study is to reevaluate the evidence provided by Déprez &1.

Pierce (1993) for the existence of VP-internal

INTRODUCTION

Within the Principles & Parameters approach (assubject stage in the acquisition of English. Morewell as within the current Minimalist framework),

specifically, building on the syntactic analysis of

it is widely assumed that the subject noun phrase

the collocation why not? by Merchant (2006), I

is base-generated within the maximal projection

will present evidence from child English againstof the verb (e.g. Fukui & Speas 1986, Kitagawa

their fundamental assumption that children’s

1994, Koopman & Sportiche 1991, Kuroda 1988,

sentence-initial no is a marker for sentential

among many others). In languages like English,

negation.

the subject undergoes movement from this VPinternal position to the specifier position of the IP

2.

1

in the overt syntax, as illustrated in (1).

NEG-INITIAL SENTENCES IN CHILDENGLISHIt has been observed at least since Bellugi (1967)(1)[CP [IPT [VPSubjectthat young English-learning children produce

V … ]]]

negative sentences in which the negative element
An influential study on early childlanguages by Déprez & Pierce (1993) argues that

occurs to the left of the subject noun phrases.2
Some relevant examples are given in (3):children’s negative sentences as in (2) provide
evidence for this VP-internal Subject Hypothesis.

(3)

Nina: Some Nonanaphoric Negatives(Déprez & Pierce 1993:34)(2) a. Child English:a. No Mommy doing. David turn. (2;00)

No Leila have a turn

(Nina, 2;01)b. No lamb have it. No lamb have it.

b. Child German:(2;00)

Nein Batsch

Hungerc. No lamb have a chair either.

nohungerd. No dog stay in the room. Don’t dog stay in

uncle‘The uncle is not hungry.’(2;00)

the room. (2;01)(Kathrin, 25-26 months)

e. Not man up here on him head. (2;02)-172-

According to Déprez & Pierce (1993), an

government by Infl is an initial option in theexamination of the conversational context inchild’s grammar, and hence subjects are licensed

which these utterances occur suggests that each isto remain in-situ even in child English.

an instance of nonanaphoric negation: That (3c)Déprez & Pierce’s (1993) analysis of

is not intended to mean “No, the lamb does havechildren’s neg-initial sentences, if correct, wouldit” is illustrated by the mother-child dialogue inconstitute a very strong piece of evidence for the(4):

VP-internal Subject Hypothesis, since theseutterances directly manifest the base position of(4)Context of Utterances (3b-c):

the subject noun phrases. Yet, in light of its huge

Mother:Can you put it on the floor?

theoretical significance, each of the assumptions

Nina:

No have it, Mommy.

in their analysis needs to be well-motivatedMother:

You don’t want me to have it?

empirically. Thus, in this study, we re-evaluate

Nina:

No. No. No lamb have it. No

their fundamental assumption that children’slamb have it.

sentence-initial no is a marker for sentential

You don’t want the lamb tonegation. Our re-evaluation relies on the syntactic

have it either.

analysis of the collocation why not? by Merchant

No lamb have a chair either.

(2006), which is summarized in the next section.

Mother:Nina:

Under the assumption that children’s no in

3.

WHY NOT?: MERCHANT (2006)(3) is a form of sentential negation, Déprez &In English, when presented with a negative

Pierce (1993) proposed that children’s neg-initialassertion, one can ask for the relevant reason withsentences have the structure as in (5), in which thethe elliptical question why not?, as shown in (6).

subject noun phrase remains in the basegenerated position within the VP.

(6)a. Speaker A: Anna is not leaving.
b. Speaker B: Why not?

(5)(= Why isn’t Anna leaving?)

Structure of the Child’s Utterance in (3b):[CP [IP[NegP no [VP lamb have it ]]]]

According to Merchant (2006), a number ofIn order to account for why the subject is notlanguages have the collocation that corresponds

forced to raise in child English, Déprez & Pierce

to why not?, but this expression is subject to an

adopt the proposal by Koopman & Sportiche

intriguing cross-linguistic variation: While a(1991) that the configuration for nominative Case

group of languages use the word for not, the otherassignment has parametric options: Nominative

group of languages employ the word for no.

Case is assigned either (i) via the specifier-headMerchant’s cross-linguistic survey is given in (7)relation with Infl, or (ii) under government by Infl.

and (8).

The latter option makes it possible for the subject

Merchant (2006) argues that this cross-to obtain nominative Case directly within VP,

linguistic variation follows from the phrase-

which leads to the phenomenon of free inversion

structural status of negative markers: If thein languages like Spanish. Déprez & Pierce

sentential negative marker in a given language ismaintain that nominative Case assignment underphrasal (an XP, generally adverbial), it will occur-173-

in the collocation why not?; if it is a head (an X0,

4.

WHY NOT? IN CHILD ENGLISH:
TRANSCRIPT ANALYSIS

generally clitic-like), it will not. In the latter typeof languages, the word for no is used, which is

We have seen in the previous section that in(presumably) a phrasal negative adverb.

English, why can and must be followed by not
given that (i) not is the marker for sentential(7)

negation, and (ii) it is phrasal (as well as no). Let

a. English:
why

not ?

* why

us now recall the proposal by Déprez & Pierce

no ?

(1993) for the sentence-initial no in child English:b. German:
warum

nicht ? * warum

Children do not distinguish between not and no,nein ?

and use no (as well as not) for sentential negation.

c. Dutch:waarom niet ?

If children’s no is really an instance of sentential* waarom nee ?

negation as envisioned by Déprez & Pierce, it

d. Danish:makes a certain prediction for children’s why not

hvorfor ikke ? * hvorfor nej ?

questions: There is a stage in which English-

e. Icelandic:

learning children should produce why no?, as

hverfor ekki ? * hvarfor nej ?

well as why not?

f. French:
pourquoi pas ?

In order to determine whether this is* pourquoi non?

actually the case, I analyzed the spontaneousg. Tsez:
shida
(8)

anu ?

* shidaspeech data for seven English-learning children

ey ?

available

a. Greek:*giatidhen ?

giati

CHILDESdatabasethose files before children reach three and a halfnon ?

perché

years old, since children’s neg-initial sentencesno ?

with no typically disappear by around that age.

c. Bezhta:* su-dthe(MacWhinney 2000). This analysis included onlyoxi ?

b. Italian:*perché

in

-esh

su-d

The corpora examined in this study aregä’ä

summarized in Table 1.

d. Russian:* pochemu ne ?

pochemu njet ?

According to Merchant (2006), this
distribution of negative markers is expectedunder the standard assumption that why is aphrasal adverb (an XP), and if only XPs canadjoin to XPs. Negative heads like Greek dhen,on the other hand, cannot adjoin to such XPs.
Merchant further assumes that the use of thenegative marker for sentential negation is thedefault option across languages; only if phrasestructural incompatibility rules out the use of thismarker can the negative adverb no be usedinstead.

-174-

Age
Span

# of Child
Utterances

Collectedby2;04:24120
14,944- 3;07:28
2;03:04Adam
40
32,479- 3;05:01
1;06
Eve
20
10,626- 2;03
1;02:29
Naomi
85
13,233- 3;04:18
1;11:16Nina
52
30,408- 3;03:21
1;09:08
Peter
20
22,580- 3;01:20
2;3:05Sarah
70
14,279- 3;07:23
Table 1: English Corpora Analyzed

Kuczaj(1976)
Brown(1973)
Brown(1973)
Sachs(1973)
Suppes(1973)
Bloom(1970)
Brown(1973)

Child

Abe# of Files
Analyzed

The CLAN program KWAL was used to(12) Sarah (sarah049.cha, 3;02:16)

identify all the children’s questions with why. I*GLO: we're not going to use thisthen counted by hand the number of utterances in

microphone today .

which why was followed by either no or not.

*GLO: because the machine is broken .
*CHI: why not ?

The results of my transcript analysis are*GLO: and it's being fixed .

summarized in Table 2.
Child

Why not?

Why no?

Abe

1

0

Adam

124

0

Naomi

2

0

Sarah

1

0

TOTAL

128

0

During the same period of development,these children also produced a number of whyquestions independently of why not?, which
would undermine the possibility that they regard
why not as a purely ‘lexical’ item.
(13) a.

Abe (abe019.cha, 2;07):
why you doing work at home ?

Table 2: Results of the Transcript Analysisb.

Adam (adam12.cha, 2;08:16):
why you (s)miling ?

Among the seven children analyzed, fourc.

of them produced the relevant expressions. All of

Naomi (n69.cha, 2;08:14):
why we reading Connecticut ?

these utterances took the form why not?, and thed.

erroneous expression of why no? was neverSarah (sarah026.cha, 2;08:25):
why need them more ?

observed. The examples of children’s why not?
questions are presented in (9) – (12).

To summarize, the results of my transcript(9)

Abe (abe113.cha, 3;06:26)

analysis revealed that young English-leaning*FAT: hey don't touch the caterpillar .

children only produced the adult-like expression*CHI: why not ?

of why not?, and never produced the incorrect
form of why no?. This finding cast doubt on the(10) Adam (adam14.ch, 2;09:18):*MOT: no (.) he doesn't have any teeth yet .

possibility that children’s no in neg-initial*CHI: why not ?

sentences is a maker for sentential negation.3,4*MOT: he's too small .

Thus, the finding of this study poses a problem to(11) Naomi (n82.cha, 3:03;26)

the proposal by Déprez & Pierce (1993) that there*CHI: why ?

is a developmental stage in which English-*MOT: because (.) that's one of thoselearning children do not distinguish between noquestions I can't answer honey .

and not, using no (as well as not) for sentential*MOT: I can answer why when you ask me

negation.5

some things but +...
*CHI: why not ?

5.

CONCLUSION*MOT: other things are just very hard to

In this study, we re-evaluated the status ofanswer that question .

sentence-initial no in child English. Evidence
from children’s why not? questions suggests that-175-

the sentence-initial no is not a marker for

Research (C) (Grant number: 25370550).

sentential negation: The absence of why no? in
NOTES

early child English runs counter to the view by
Déprez & Pierce (1993) that there is a stage in

1.

The base position of the subject noun

child English in which children do not distinguishphrase might be located not within VP but within

between no and not, using no (as well as not) for

vP, as widely assumed in the recent syntactic

sentential negation. Thus, the finding of this study

literature. Since this distinction does not affectseriously undermines the empirical basis for thethe main proposal of this study, I will simply

proposal that English-learning children go

ignore that difference in the following discussion.

through a developmental stage in which thesubject noun phrase remains in their base-2.

This study focuses on the children’s error

generated position within VP.

in which children place no in the sentence-initial

Then, a question arises as to whether there

position. Another mismatch between children’sis any (other) evidence that the subject noun

and adults’ negative utterances is the observationphrase originates and comes from inside the verb

that children initially use not or no, whereas

phrase even in child English. One recent attempt

adults use negative auxiliary verbs (don’t, can’t,

to answer this question can be found in Sugisakietc.). See Thornton & Tesan (2013) for a detailed(2012),

discussion and analysis of this type of error inwhich

adopts

Chomsky’s(2012)

minimalist analysis of subject-auxiliary inversion

child English.

and analyzes children’s yes/no questions in theirspontaneous speech. According to this study, the3.

This finding is in line with the one made byabsence of ungrammatical yes/no questions as in

Stromswold & Zimmermann (1999/2000) for(14b), in which the nominal element in the subject

child German. Their study analyzed the negative

noun phrase (rather than the auxiliary) has

utterances produced by five German-speaking

undergone raising, indicates that the subject

children,originally occupies a structural position that issystematically distinguish between nicht ‘not’

lower than the auxiliary even in child English.

and nein ‘no’: The results of their transcript

See Sugisaki (2012) for details.

analysis indicated that children used nicht

and

found

that

these

childrenexclusively in sentence-medial position for(14) a. Can young children
b.*Children young

write stories?

sentential negation and nein exclusively in

can write stories?

sentence-initial position for anaphoric negation.
4.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

If children’s no in neg-initial sentences is

I would like to thank Ken Hiraiwa, Keiko

not a marker for sentential negation, a question

Murasugi, Miki Obata, Hajime Ono, Yukio Otsu,

remains as to the exact nature of this negativeand Noriaki Yusa for valuable comments andelement. Various attempts have already beensuggestions. I am also grateful to Taku Yamada

made to answer this question. For example,

for his help in analyzing children’s corpora. The

Drozd (1995) analyzed the neg-initial sentencesusual disclaimers apply. This study was supported

produced by 10 English-speaking children, andin part by a JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientificfound that most of their negative sentences can be-176-

Child Language 22:583-610.

paraphrased as exclamatory negation, like No
way Leila have a turn. Based on this observation,

Fukui, Naoki, and Margaret Speas (1986)

Drozd (1995) argues that children’s pre-sentential

Specifiers and Projection. In Papers innegations are not sentential negatives but an early

Theoretical Linguistics: MIT Working Papers

form of metalinguistic exclamative negation,in Linguistics 8, eds. Naoki Fukui, Tova R.

which is the use of idiomatic phrases like no way

Rapoport and Elizabeth Sagey, 128-172.

to express objection to a previous utterance.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics.

A potential problem remains, though.

Kitagawa, Yoshihisa (1994) Subjects in JapaneseChildren’s neg-initial sentences tend to appear

and English. New York: Garland Publishing.

(slightly) earlier than why not? questions, and hence

Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche

it might be the case that the children analyzed in this(1991) The Position of Subjects. Lingua

study have already stopped using the sentence-

85:211-258.

5.

initial no when they started to use why not?

Kuczaj, Stan (1976) -ing, -s, and -ed: A Study ofquestions. Investigations of a larger number ofthe Acquisition of Certain Verb Inflections.

children’s corpora may find a child who uses neg-

Doctoralinitial sentences and why not? questions during theMinnesota.

same period of development, a task which I have todissertation,

UniversityofKuroda, Shige-Yuki (1988) Whether We Agreeor Not: A Comparative Syntax of English andleave for future research.

Japanese. Linguisticae Investigationes 12:147.

REFERENCES
Bellugi, Ursula (1967) The Acquisition of

MacWhinney, Brian (2000) The CHILDES

Negation. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard

Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Mahwah,

University.

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bloom, Lois (1970) Language Development:

Merchant, Jason (2006) Why No(t)? Style 40:2023.

Form and Function in Emerging Grammars.

Sachs, Jacqueline (1983) Talking about Here andCambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Brown, Roger (1973) A First Language: The

Then: The Emergence of Displaced Reference

Early Stages. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

in Parent-Child Discourse. In Children's

Harvard University Press.

Language, Volume 4, ed. K. E. Nelson.

Chomsky,Noam(2012)

Introduction.

Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

In

Chomsky Gengo Kiso Ronsyu [Foundations ofStromswold, Karin, and Kai Zimmermann

Biolinguistics: Selected Writings], ed. Naoki(1999/2000) Acquisition of Nein and Nicht

Fukui, 17-26. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.

and the VP-internal Subject Stage in German.
Language Acquisition 8:101-127.

Déprez, Viviane, and Amy Pierce (1993)
Negation and Functional Projections in Early

Sugisaki,Drozd, Kenneth F. (1995) Child English PreNegationas(2012)

Subject-Auxiliary

Inversion in Child English Revisited. Paper

Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 24:25-67.
sentential

Koji

Metalinguistic

Exclamatory Sentence Negation. Journal of-177-

presented at EVOLANG IX: Workshop on
Theoretical

Linguistics/

Biolinguistics,

Campus Plaza Kyoto, March 13, 2012.

Suppes, Patrick (1973) The Semantics ofChildren's Language. American Psychologist
88:103-114.
Thornton, Rosalind, and Graciela Tesan (2013)
Sentential Negation in Early Child English.
Journal of Linguistics 49:367-411.

-178-

Maybe/Perhaps it’ll stop raining
soon. (Swan 2005: 348)
(2) a. Maybe it is true, maybe it isn’t.
(BNC: CH2)
b. Perhaps this was true; perhaps not.
(BNC: CJJ)
(1)

類義語間の機能的差異―法副詞 maybeと perhaps を例にして―
(A Functional Analysis of the Synonymic
Modal Adverbs Maybe and Perhaps)
鈴木大介（Daisuke SUZUKI）
日本学術振興会特別研究員（JSPS Research Fellow）
キーワード：法副詞、コーパス分析、
モーダル機能、談話機能、発話機能

1. はじめに
本発表では、機能言語学の観点から、
コーパスデータに対して複数の語用論的な情報の数量化を行うことで、英語法
副詞の機能の相違を実証する。具体的には、以下の(1)で表されるような法副詞の maybe と perhaps を分析していく。この 2 表現について、Biber et al. (1999:854) は 、 話 者 の 確 信 や 蓋 然 性 を 示 すDoubt and certainty という範疇に maybeと perhaps を含めている。この領域には
他 に certainly, probably, no doubt,
undoubtedly, I think 等が属している。
Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 768)は、その度合いに応じて法副詞の領域を(i)strong, (ii)quasi-strong, (iii)medium,(iv)weak の 4 つに分けているが、その 2
表現は最も弱い(iv)に分類をしている。
このように maybe と perhaps は同じ意味範疇に属し、その度合いも同様であることがわかる。実際の使用例からは、両者が(2a, b)のように似通った生起環境で用いられていることが見てとれる。

2. 先行研究と研究の背景
生起位置や意味内容については、Swan (1988: 459-460)で、具体的なテクスト調査に基づき、maybe と perhaps が節頭で生起しやすいことが示されている。
Swan (2005: 348)でも、(1)に示したように、節頭での生起頻度が高く、同じ意味を表すということが言及されている。
次に、生起位置に関する先行研究の分
析 を 検 討 す る 。 Quirk et al. (1985:
490-491)と Hoye (1997: 148)が法副詞の生起しうる位置に関して、以下の七か所を示している。
(3) a. I (initial)
Possibly they may have been sent
to London.
b. iM (initial-medial)
They possibly may have been sent
to London.
c. M (medial)
They may possibly have been sent
to London.
d. mM (medial-medial)
They may have possibly been sent
to London.
e. eM (end-medial)
They may have been possibly sent
to London.
f. iE (initial-end)
They may have been sent possibly
to London.

-179-

また生起位置に関しても見解が一致していない状況にある。そこで、本研究では、大規模コーパスを用いて、各表現の実際の生起パターンを示すと同時に、語用論的な機能に着目した定量的な分析を行うことで、それらの差異を明らかにする。

g. E (end)They may have been sent to
London possibly.
(Hoye 1997: 148)
一方で、Ernst (2010: 178)では、(4a, b)に示すように、法副詞は節の高次の位置にしか生起しないと述べている。

3. データと方法論
本研究では、一億語の大規模コーパス
である BNC (XML Edition)を用いる。このコーパスから、maybe, perhaps について、それぞれ全 10080, 33521 例が検索できた。次に、文副詞として生起しているものを手作業で調べて抽出していくと、
各 6694, 22189 例が得られた。1 これらの用例を分析対象とし、以下の 3 点を分析項目（変数）として設定の上、調査を行い、それらとの関係性について考察を行う。まず、心的態度の観点から、モダリティ表現を強める機能（モーダル機能）に着目し、[1]節における法助動詞との共起情報を数量化する。次に、談話構造の観点から、法副詞の談話レベルでの振る舞い（談話機能）に焦点を当て、[2]
法副詞の生起位置を調査する。最後に、対人的な観点から、話し手と聞き手のやりとり（会話/発話行為的機能）に注目し、[3]法副詞が生起する節の主語の定性を調べ、各代名詞との共起パターンを考察する。

(4) a. (Maybe) She (maybe) will (maybe)be (*maybe) singing a ballad(*maybe). (Ernst 2004: 756)
b. (Perhaps) Al (perhaps) should(perhaps) be (*perhaps) seeing adoctor (*perhaps). (Ernst 2010:178)
実際の例を見てみると、(5)のような節の 最 後 の 位置にも生起する。以下はBritish National Corpus (BNC)における書き言葉の例である。
(5)

At the time it appeared to be themost plausible perhaps. (BNC:
A0U)

文末に関しては、Quirk et al. (1985: 620)
が、疑問文の末尾における perhaps の使用について言及しており、以下の例のよ
うに、相手との親密さを確かめたり、フェイスを失うのを緩和したりするような効果的な使用が見られる、と説明している。
(6)Is Mary at home, perhaps? (Quirk
et al. 1985: 620)

このように、意味や蓋然性の点で類似していることが指摘されているが、両者の差異については明らかにされていない。

4. 結果と考察
最初に、法副詞と同じくモダリティの意味を表す法助動詞との作用について見ていく。法助動詞との共起結果は、表1 の通りとなり、maybe の方が perhaps
よりも共起割合が有意に高いことが見-180-

てとれる。法副詞も同様に命題の蓋然性に対する話し手の態度を示すことから、他の法助動詞と共起することによって、話し手の心的態度の表出が一層強められることになる。以上から、話し手によるモダリティの意味強化の一端を担っているため、maybe の方が話者の心的態
度という意味を強める働きを有していると言える。(7a, b)は、その一例である。

表 1. 法助動詞との共起割合
maybe
perhaps

総数
6,694
22,189

共起数
2,317
6,552

%
34.6
29.5
(χ2 = 62.25, d. f. = 1, p < 0.001)

や would との共起頻度が高く、(8a, b)のように蓋然性がより高いとされる
probably との共起も数例見られた。一方で、perhaps の場合は may や might との共起が顕著に見られた。このような法助動詞との共起関係の観点から、perhaps
よりも maybe の方が、蓋然性が高いと考えられる。

(7) a. Then maybe it’ll last for ever.
(BNC: EFJ)
b. And so er we’re expecting
perhaps it might be a little bit
lively. (BNC: HF0)
続いて法助動詞との共起パターンであるが、表 2 に示すように maybe は will
表 2.

must
will
would
shall
should
can
could
may
might

共起した法助動詞とその頻度

maybe (6,694 例)
生起数
1,000 例あたり
5
0.7
701
104.7
581
86.8
20
3.0
331
49.4
228
34.1
369
55.1
16
2.4
66
9.9

(8) a. It’s probably, maybe member’s
ignorance that they don’t know
that, that already a lot of work has
been done on it. (BNC: JJG)
b. Maybe it’s probably has a roughperhaps (22,189 例)
生起数
1,000 例あたり
39
1.8
1,222
55.1
1,510
68.1
49
2.2
1,082
48.8
746
33.6
1,088
49.0
305
13.7
512
23.1
working idea it’s you that put thefountain on today. (BNC: KBP)
次に、法副詞の生起位置に関して、まず文副詞の一般的な生起位置から見て-181-

表から、全てのレジスターにおいて、節中に生起している割合が高いことがわ
かる。

いく。Biber et al. (1999)の調査によると、スタンスを表す副詞全体の生起位置は下の表 3 のように示されている。2 下の表 3. レジスター毎のスタンスを表す副詞類の生起位置（Biber et al. [1999: 872]より抜粋）
Initial position (%)
Medial position (%)
Final position (%)
CONVERSATION●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●FICTION●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
NEWSPAPER●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
ACADEMIC●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●1 つで 5%を表す
上の表を踏まえ、本調査と比較する。生
起位置とその割合は、以下の図 1 のような結果となり、法副詞の中では maybe,
perhaps のどちらも(9a, b)のように節頭に生起する割合が非常に高いことが見てとれる。両者について、節頭に絞った

上で、さらなる調査を行ったところ、
maybe の方が統計的にも節頭に生起しや す い こ と が わ か っ た （ Initial vs.
Non-Initial：(χ2 = 701.02, d. f. = 1, p <0.001)）。

maybe

perhaps

0%

20%

40%
Initial

図 1.

Medial

60%

80%

100%

Final

生起位置とその割合(9) a. Maybe she would even smell awhiff of perfume. (BNC: AC3)
b. Perhaps she would enjoy it more

if Lydia stopped whimpering.
(BNC: G0X)

-182-

こ の 節 頭 という位置に着目すると、Halliday (1970: 335)では、以下の(10a, b)
が「モダリティ」ではなく、「主題」の点で異なるとされている。節の最初に生起すると、そのモダリティの意味が主題/トピックとなることが指摘されている（Halliday 1970: 335, Hoye 1997: 148-152,
Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 79-85）。
(10) a. Possibly it was Wren.
b. It may have been Wren.
表 4.

I
you
he
she
it
we
they
this
that
these
those
there

(Halliday 1970: 335)
このような節頭と談話機能の関係から、
maybe の方が、その節内容についての蓋
然性、すなわち、モダリティというトピック/主題を明示する傾向にある。
最後に、法副詞の 2 表現が生起している節の主語における代名詞との共起パターンを示した結果が以下の表 4 である。

共起した代名詞とその頻度

maybe (6,694 例)
生起数
1,000 例あたり
849
126.8
682
101.9
619
92.5
351
52.4
889
132.8
512
76.5
501
74.8
82
12.2
238
35.6
5
0.7
2
0.3
183
27.3

perhaps と比較すると、maybe が生起する節では、I, you, we が主語となっている場合が多く、
話し手と聞き手がお互いに関わる情報についての理解を得るというような文脈の中で、maybe が用いられる傾向にあると言える。また(11a, b)の例のように、maybe が疑問文の中に生起したり、付加疑問部のような働きをしたりする例も見られた。文末において話
し手と聞き手のやりとりの際の確認を示したり、同意を促すような、間主観的

perhaps (22,189 例)
生起数
1,000 例あたり
1,610
72.6
1,764
79.5
1,658
74.7
852
38.4
2,899
130.7
1,216
54.8
1,121
50.5
559
25.2
395
17.8
35
1.6
3
0.1
537
24.2
な意味を表すコミュニケーション上の機能を発達させていることがわかる。
(11) a. D’ya think it was the rain, maybe?
(BNC: KB8)
b. You wouldn’t recognise us withour clothes on, maybe? (BNC:
HTS)
以上から、複数の語用論的な観点から見た場合、意味が同様とされる maybe と-183-perhaps のような類義語間においても機能が異なっていることがわかった。
最後に、なぜこのような機能的な相違が生じるのか、について考察する。特に、談話や対人的な観点から、もともと話し
手の心的態度を明示する法副詞が、主観性を増して文頭に現れ、さらに話し手と聞き手のやりとりに関わるような間主観的なデバイスとなる、というような言
語変化は、Traugott (1989, 2010), Traugott
and Dasher (2002), Brinton (2008)で提唱される主観化・間主観化のプロセスと一致する。具体的には(12)に示すような変化の過程である。
(12)

non-/less subjective >subjective > intersubjective(Traugott 2010: 35; Traugott andDasher 2002: 225)

注
本稿は、日本英語学会第 31 回大会での口頭発表に加筆・修正を加えたものである。発表・執筆に際して、貴重なご助言をくださった家入葉子先生、菅山謙正
先生、龍城正明先生、西村秀夫先生にとりわけ御礼申し上げたい。また、司会をしてくださり、有益なご指摘をしていた
だいた丸田忠雄先生、ならびに貴重なご質問・ご指摘をしてくださった柏野健次
先生、眞田敬介先生、家口美智子先生に深く感謝申し上げたい。なお、本稿の不備、誤りは全て筆者の責任である。
1“Perhaps.”といった一語表現はもちろん、(i)のような節を形成していない例や、(ii)のように句構造内に生起している例、
さらに(iii)に示すように、節から切り離され、句修飾を明確にするコンマ(,)がある場合は句修飾と捉え、分析対象から除外した。
maybe と perhaps に関わる意味変化については、上述の主観化・間主観化の観点から説明が可能であるが、英語において類義語を成している両表現の差異を説明するにあたり、
この言語変化の進行の円滑さと速度の差異として、2 表現を捉えることも可能ではないかと考える。

i
ii

iii
5. おわりに
本稿では、機能言語学の観点からのコーパス分析を通して、英語法副詞における類義語の差異を実証した。意味論レベ
ルでは同様でも、節を超えた談話・語用論レベルにおいては表現間の機能に相違が見られることから、類義語分析に際しての語用論的な変数の重要性やその妥当性を示した。その相違については、（間）主観化という一般的な言語変化のメカニズムの観点からの説明を試みた。

2

Perhaps only in the next life.
(BNC: A08)
I haven’t been to an organized
campsite for perhaps fifteen years,
so all this is new to me. (BNC:
A6T)
An election may also be arealigning one in that it produces along-term shift in the balance of
support between the parties,
perhaps installing one as the new
majority. (BNC: A6F)

こ こ で 言 う ス タ ン ス 副 詞 に は 、 no
doubt, probably, undoubtedly, I think, infact, really, according to …, mainly,
generally, in my opinion, kind of, so to
speak 等 の epistemic adverbials や 、unfortunately, to my surprise, hopefully 等-184-

の attitude adverbials、さらには frankly,
honestly, truthfully, in short 等 の styleadverbials が含まれる。

参考文献
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey
Leech and Susan Conrad (1999)
Longman Grammar of Spoken andWritten English, Pearson, Harlow.
Brinton, Laurel J. (2008) The Comment
Clause in English: Syntactic Origins
andPragmatic
Development,
Cambridge
University
Press,
Cambridge.
Ernst, Thomas (2004) “Principles ofAdverbial Distribution in the Lower
Clause,” Lingua 114, 755-777.
Ernst, Thomas (2010) “Adverbs and Light
Verbs,” Proceedings of the 22rd North
American Conference on Chinese
Linguistics (NACCL-22) and the 18th
International Conference on Chinese
Linguistics (IACL-18) 2, eds. by
Lauren E. Clemens and Chi-Ming L.
Liu, 178-195, Harvard University,
Cambridge, MA.
Fowler, Henry W. (1998) Fowler’s Modern
English Usage, 3rd ed., revised byRobert W. Burchfield, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Greenbaum, Sidney (1969) Studies inEnglish Adverbial Usage, Longman,
London.
Halliday, Michael A. K. (1970) “Functional
Diversity in Language as Seen from a
Consideration of Modality and Mood
in English,” Foundations of Language
6, 322-361.
Halliday, Michael A. K. and Christian M. I.

M.
Matthiessen(2004)An
Introduction to Functional Grammar,
3rd ed., Arnold, London.
Hoye, Leo (1997) Adverbs and Modality in
English, Longman, London.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K.
Pullum (2002) The Cambridge
Grammar of the English Language,
Cambridge
University
Press,
Cambridge.
小西友七（編）(2006)『現代英語語法辞典』三省堂, 東京.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum,
Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik(1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of
the English Language, Longman,
London.
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie andKarin Aijmer (2007) The Semantic
Field of Modal Certainty: A
Corpus-Based Study of English
Adverbs, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Swan, Michael (2005) Practical English
Usage, 3rd ed., Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Swan, Toril (1988) Sentence Adverbials in
English: A Synchronic and Diachronic
Investigation, Novus, Oslo.
Traugott,ElizabethC.
(2010)“(Inter)subjectivity
and(Inter)subjectification,”
Subjectification, Intersubjectification
and Grammaticalization, ed. by
Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte
and Hubert Cuyckens, 29-71, De
Gruyter Mouton, Berlin.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Richard B.
Dasher (2002) Regularity in Semantic
Change, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

-185-

The background idea is that, just like theword order information is recorded as thederivation proceeds under Fox and Pesetsky’s
Conditions on Object Quantifier Raising(2005) system, the information on phrasal

in English

configurations (i.e. how many segments a
resultant phrase consists of) might also be

Shigeki Taguchi

recorded throughout the derivation, and theShinshu University*

derivation makes use of such information inorder to filter out ill-formed outputs.2 One of the

Keywords: Control, Object Quantifier Raising,

main differences between operations that change

overt object shift, Phrasal Configuration

word order and those that change phrasal

Distinctness, Scope Economy

configurations, I believe, is that the former opts
for retaining the information gained in theprevious steps as much as possible, whereas the1.

INTRODUCTION

latter goes in the opposite direction; namely,

This paper presents a novel, though highly

operations that change phrasal configurations

speculative, account of the phase-boundedness

hates the information gained in the previousof Object Quantifier Raising (henceforth OQR)

steps

in English, in terms of Phrasal Configuration

widely-held assumption that a certain syntactic

Distinctness, as defined in (1). OQR is

configuration

distinguished from other instances of QR in that

type-mismatch (e.g. the sister to V), and it is

it is exclusively motivated for type-resolution. I

supposed to be solved by the application of QR,

claim that Phrasal Configuration Distinctness

it might be the case that economy considerations

given in (1) stipulates that every step of OQR

require the derivation to avoid reproducing themust result in a syntactically distinct phrasal

same phrasal configuration that has been

configuration throughout its derivational history,

produced in the previous steps of the derivation.

in tandem with Revised Scope Economy, as

One of the most important premises is that I

defined in (2), which is a slightly revised (ordevelop an argument in support of the claim thatweakened, more precisely) version of Scope

QR is phase-bounded (cf. Miyagawa 2011,

1

Economy proposed in Fox 2000):

tobeidentical.
results

Thus,
in

a

given

the

semantic

Takahashi 2010, 2011, among others). In
Section 2, I introduce Takahashi’s (2010, 2011)(1) Phrasal Configuration Distinctness:argument for contextual approach to phasehood,

Every step of OQR must result in a distinct
n

n

which

is

based

on

the

assumptionthatphrasal configuration (i.e. XP → *XP ,Exceptional Case-marking (ECM) infinitives inwhere n stands for the number ofEnglishsegments).

McCloskey 2000, Bošković 2007, Despić 2011,(2) Revised Scope Economy:

are

CPs

(cf.

Ormazabal

1995,

Takahashi 2011, Kang 2012, etc.). I also follow

The final landing site of QR is the closest

Takahashi in treating ECM infinitives in English

phase necessary for type-resolution and a

as CPs. However, I point out in Section 3 thatnew interpretation.

Takahashi’s analysis, which is based on the-186-assumption

thatphasesarecontextually

English are CPs:

determined by Case-valuation (cf. Bošković
2012), should bring about a contradictory(3) a. Who did you expect your mother all tomeet at the party?

conclusion that CPs count as phases with respect

b. *Who did you arrange for your motherto wh-movement but they do not count as phases

all to meet at the party?

with respect to QR. In Section 4, I thus put forth
my own analysis of the relevant data, withrecourse to the conditions given as (1) and (2),Roughly put, McCloskey claims that (3)a is

maintaining that CPs and (transitive) vPs are

well-formed because your mother has undergone

phases by nature, following the traditional

object shift across the embedded SpecCP, wherecharacterization.

the

all associated with who has been stranded.

proposed analysis provides an implication that

However, in (3)b, your mother cannot undergo

the movement analysis of control might be on

object shift due to the complementizer for,the right track (cf. Hornstein 1999, etc.)

leaving no space for all to be stranded.

Ifurther

show

that

Given the contrast in (3), it might be the2.

PHASEHOOD

DETERMINED

BY

case that ECM infinitives in Standard English
are CPs as well, being differentiated from those

CASE-VALUATION
Before discussing Takahashi’s (2010, 2011)

in West Ulster English in that they do not haveproposals, I would like to give an outline of thetheir complementizers overtly realized in mostcontextual approach to phasehood. Under thecases and that they do not allow quantifiers to be

traditional minimalist assumptions, functional

stranded in their Spec for independent reasons.

heads such as v and C are phase heads by nature

Now, let us turn to Takahashi’s analysis.

(i.e. their phasehood remains constant regardless

Crucially, Takahashi attributes to the lack ofof the syntactic context they are in). On the otherCase-valuing the extractability of the embedded

hand, some researchers (cf. Bošković 2012c, tosubject out of the CP in (3)b without landing it

appear, Despić 2011, Kang 2012, etc.) havein SpecCP; namely, in contrast to (3)b, whererecently taken the contextual approach tothephasehood,heads

embedded subject and hence constitute a phase,acquire phasehood in the course of derivation,

the CP in (3)a does not count as a phase because

depending on the syntactic contexts they are in.

C (and T that it selects; henceforth C-T) neverIn line with the contextual approach toparticipates in Case-valuation, and hence object

phasehood, Takahashi (2010, 2011) proposes anshift skipping the embedded SpecCP is tolerated.

interesting generalization that only heads that

What should be note is that Takahashi extends

participate in Case-valuation constitute phases

this idea in order to explain the asymmetry in(cf. Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2005, Kang 2012,

theetc.). Let us overview Takahashi’s (2011)

exemplified in (4):

under

which

functional

complementizer

applicability

for

of

Case-values

thecross-clausal

QR

that

hates

analysis of English ECM on the basis of thegeneralization. Takahashi presents McCloskey’s(4) a. Someone(2000) data from West Ulster English in (3) as aeveryone.

piece of evidence that ECM infinitives in-187-

believesJohn(some > every, *every > some)b. Someone

believes

John

to

hate

ECM infinitives are CPs that allow QR to skip
them (cf. (4)b), and on the other hand, heeveryone.
(some > every, every > some)provides data showing that ECM infinitives
require wh-movement to proceed via the

As Bošković (1998) observes, the object

embedded SpecCP (cf. (3)a). Given Chomsky’s

quantifier in the embedded that-clause cannot(2008) system (which Takahashi basicallytake scope over the subject quantifier in thefollows), where movement is solely motivatedmatrix clause, as in (4)a, but such cross-clausalby the Edge-features on phase heads, how caninverse scope reading is available with ECM

who in (3)b stop by at the embedded SpecCP, if

infinitives, as in (4)b. Note that Takahashi

Takahashi’s claim that CPs in ECM infinitives

follows the claim that QR is phase-bounded andare not phases is correct? In short, Takahashi’scannot apply skipping the embedded CP (cf.

analysis bring about a contradictory situation

Miyagawa 2011, etc.). Under Takahashi’s

where CPs count as phases with respect toanalysis, where Case-valuation constitute a

wh-movement but they do not count as phases

phase, coupled with the phase-bounded view ofwith respect to QR.4 However, such a problem

QR, the embedded CP in (4)a constitutes a phasewould not arise once it is simply assumed thatand QR cannot skipped it, because C-T

the embedded C in (3)b is predetermined to be aparticipates

Adjoiningphase head but that in (4)b is not. In other words,

everyone to the embedded SpecCP on the way toit seems plausible that a Case-valuing functional

the matrix CP, where it c-commands someone, ishead constitute a phase, but it does not seem to

not a solution, since it does not create a newfollow that non-Case-valuing functional head

scope interpretation, which is a violation ofnever constitute a phase. There may be otherFox’s (2000) original version of Scope Economy,

factors at work regarding the determination of

given as (5).

inCase-valuation.

3phasehood.
Another problem is that there is acounterexample to Takahashi’s generalization.

(5) Scope Economy
Scope-shifting operations (SSOs) cannot be

Consider the contrast between (6)a and (6)b (cf.

semantically vacuous.

Fox 2000, Miyagawa 2011, Moltmann andSzabolcsi 1994, etc.):

On the other hand, QR skipping the embedded
CP is possible in (4)b, because C-T never(6) a. One girl knows that every boy bought apresent for Mary.

participates in Case-valuation, and hence doesb. One girl knows what every boy bought

not constitute a phase.

for Mary.
3.

(one > every, every > one)

PROBLEMInteresting as it is, Takahashi’s analysis faces
with some empirical problems. I point out two

In (6)a, the embedded C-T participates inof them here. As for his account of English

Case-valuation of the subject, just as in (4)a,

ECM,

kind

which is what Takahashi’s analysis predicts. In

contradiction: on the one hand, he claims that(6)b, on the other hand, the embedded C-Titinvolvesthefollowing-188-

participates in Case-valuation of the subject, but1). Miyagawa (2011) deduces (8) on the basis of

QR of every boy over one girl is still possible.

the fact that in (9), the universal object

This appears to what Takahashi’s analysis

quantifier cannot take higher scope than thecannot predict. However, this is not a problem,

existential subject quantifier (cf. Johnson 2000):

if it is assumed that every boy adjoins to theembedded CP on the way to the matrix CP,(8) Application of Domain of Scope Economy:

where it c-commands one girl, creating a new

Scope

scope interpretation with respect to what (cf.

movement in one phase at the next higher

Fox 2000, Miyagawa 2011, etc.). The question,phase. In the root phase the evaluation takes

however, is whether this is compatible withplace simultaneous with the movement.

Takahashi’s

analysis.

Crucially,

Takahashi

Economyevaluates

optional(9) Some student or other hasn’t answered
many of the questions on the exam.

assumes that traces (or reconstructed copies of
QP) left by A-movement can be used forquantifier interpretation (cf. Hornstein 1995). 5

Johnson (2000) claims that the lack of inverse

Thus, in the embedded clause in (6)b, traces ofscope in (9) is due to the unavailability of thewhat and every boy, which are supposed tolower copy of the subject quantifier in the lower

undergo A-movement to SpecvP and SpecTP,vP phase. Building on (9), Miyagawa proposes

respectively, should also participate in the scope(8), and argues that only QPs in the higher CP

calculation. If this is the case, both the what >phase are visible for scope purpose. This is

every boy interpretation and the every boy >because the subject quantifier in the lower vPwhat interpretation should have already beenphase is subject to A-movement to the higher CP

established at the point when every boy isphase and is interpreted there. Thus, QR that has

subject to QR, because every boy and whatcrossed the copy of the subject quantifier in the

c-command the trace of each other left behindhigher vP phase is invalidated, rendering theby the relevant A-movement. The intermediate

inverse scope between the existential quantifier

structure is given in (7):and the universal quantifier impossible. Now, let
us consider whether the availability of inverse(7) [TP every boy [vP what [vP tevery boy [VP boughtscope between one girl and every boy in (6)b can
be accounted for by way of (8) and Takahashi’s

twhat for Mary ] ] ] ]claim that phases are contextually determined byThus, the adjunction of every boy to theCase-valuation. Note that in the embedded CP in

embedded CP does not in fact create a new(6)b, illustrated as (10), there is nothing thatinterpretation, which results in a violation ofinvalidates the QR of every boy:

Fox’s (2000) original version of Scope Economy,(10) [CP every boy [CP what [TP tevery boy [vP twhat [vPgiven in (5).
One may be tempted to argue thattevery boy [VP bought twhat for Mary ] ] ] ] ] ]Takahashi’s analysis should be tenable even in
the face of examples like (6)b, once Fox’s

Furthermore, under Takahashi’s analysis, theoriginal version of Scope Economy is weakened,matrix v in (6)b does not count as a phase,

as is proposed in Miyagawa (2011) (cf. footnote

because it never participates in Case-valuation.

-189-

Thus, every boy is allowed to move at one fell(12) Revised Scope Economy:

swoop to the matrix CP, successfully yielding

The final landing site of QR is the closest

the every boy > one girl interpretation.

phase necessary for type-resolution and a
new interpretation.

In sum, I have pointed out two problems
with Takahashi’s (2010, 2011) analysis. I havealso demonstrated that one of these problems

Let us suppose that OQR starts out from thecan be solved if Takahashi’s analysis is coupled

sister to V, yielding a type-mismatch, as in (13).

with Miyagawa’s (2011) modification to Fox’s

In order to satisfy (12), the final target of the(2000) Scope Economy, except for the problem

relevant QR must be the matrix vP. Also, inthat the every boy > what interpretation isorder to satisfy phase-boundedneess of QR, theestablished twice in the lower vP phase. In thefirst step of QR must target the embedded vP, as

next section, I propose my own analysis of thein (14)a, followed by the movement to therelevant

embedded CP, as in (14)b:

data,

and

try

to

clear

up

the

abovementioned problems.
(13) [vP1 SUBJ [v v [VP …V everyone
ʹ′

4.

PROPOSAL]]](14) a. First Step for (4):The assumptions that ECM infinitives are CPs[vP2 everyone [vP1 tSUBJ [v v [VP …V(cf.

teveryone

Ormazabal

1995,

McCloskey

ʹ′

2000,

Bošković 2007, Despić 2011, Takahashi 2010,]]]]b. Second Step for (4):2011, Kang 2012, etc.) and that QR is[CP everyone [TP SUBJ [T T [vP1 …Vphase-bounded (cf. Miyagawa 2011, etc.) bothteveryone ] ] ] ]ʹ′seem well-grounded, given the data in (3) and(4). Building on the abovementioned problems, I

Obviously, each step in (14) does not violatedemonstrate that OQR across ECM infinitives(11) in both (4)a and (4)b, because the resulting

are allowed but that across that-clauses are not,phrasal configurations are vP-adjunction (i.e.

without recourse to the idea that phases are

vP2) and CP-adjunction, respectively, which arecontextually determined by Case-valuation. I

entirely distinct from the base-generated phrasal

thus propose that OQR be subject to theconfiguration (13). Let us move on to the final

condition (11), in tandem with Revised Scope

step. In (4)a, the target must be the matrix vP, in

Economy given in (12). These two conditions

accordance with phase-boundedness of QR andareobject(12), but the resulting phrasal configuration,

quantifiers to stop by at vPs and CPs, which are

vP-adjunction (i.e. vP2), is not convergent

widely taken to be phases by nature, still

because it is identical to (14)a, as in (15)a (i.e.

maintaining the phase-boundedness of QR:

vP2). The question is why the final step is

shown

to

successfully

allow

convergent in (4)b, though it is not in (4)a.
(11) Phrasal Configuration Distinctness:

Crucially, this is because the embedded subject

Every step of OQR must result in a distinctnhas undergone obligatory object shift to thenphrasal configuration (i.e. XP → *XP ,matrix outer SpecvP in (4)b (cf. Postal 1974,

where n stands for the number ofLasnik and Saito 1991, etc.), resulting in the vP2

segments).

phrasal-190-

configuration.

If

everyonefurtherundergoes QR and adjoins to the vP2 phrasal

What is important here is that due to PRO

configuration, the derivation produces (15)b (i.e.

controlled by the subject quantifier in the matrix

vP3), rather than (14)a (i.e. vP2), which satisfies

clause, the condition (12) requires OQR to target(11) and is well-formed:

the embedded vP, rather than the matrix vP.
Thus, only the first step of OQR suffices for
type-resolution and a new interpretation, as in(15) a. Final Step for (4)a:*[vP2 everyone [vP1 tsomeone [v v [VP V [CPʹ′(18) below:…teveryone… ] ] ] ] ](17) [TP [T T [vP1 PROsomeone [v v [VP …V

b. Final Step for (4)b:ʹ′

everyone ] ] ] ] ][vP3 everyone [vP2 SUBJ [vP1 tsomeone [v v [VPʹ′

V [CP …teveryone… ] ] ] ] ] ]ʹ′(18) [TP [T T [vP2 everyone [vP1 PROsomeone [v v [VPʹ′ʹ′…V teveryone ] ] ] ] ] ]Let us look at the scope interactions ofanother pair of examples which involve an

Of course, it does not seem to be the case that all

object quantifier in the embedded clause and acontrol infinitives in English allow inverse scope

subject quantifier in the matrix clause. Bošković

because of PRO, but the above data seem to(1998) reports that the inverse scope reading isprovide a piece of evidence that the movement

less salient in (16)a than in (16)b:

approach to Control might be on the right track(cf. Hornstein 1999, etc.).

(16) a. Someone wants for John to hateeveryone.

5.
(some > every, *every > some)b. Someone wants to hate everyone.

CONCLUSION

This paper pointed out problems with the ideathat phasehood is contextually determined by(some > every, every > some)Case-valuation, and proposed conditions on
OQR to account for the availability and

The unavailability of the inverse scope reading

unavailability of the cross-clausal inverse scopein (16)a is predicted under the proposed analysis.

reading in that-clauses and ECM infinitives in

Given McCloskey’s (2000) claim that object

English.

shift has not taken place in (16)a (cf. (3)b), thesecond and the final steps of OQR should bothresult in the vP2 phrasal configuration (cf. (14)aand (15)a), in violation of (11). The question is
how to get the inverse scope reading in (16)b, if
the embedded clauses in (16) are categorially
identical (i.e. CPs). To answer this question, let
us assume that the embedded SpecvP is
occupied by PRO that is controlled by the
subject quantifier in the matrix clause. Bearing
this in mind, let us consider the derivation of*

I am indebted to Jonathan Bobaljik, Željko
Bošković, Jean Crawford, Diane Lillo-Martin, Yoichi
Miyamoto, Fumikazu Niinuma, Toshiko Oda,
Mamoru Saito, Koji Sugisaki, Susi Wurmbrand,
Hideaki Yamashita, and the audience at 31st Meetingof the English Linguistic Society of Japan forcomments, discussion, and/or judgments.
1
Under the phase-based analysis of QR, it seems
that Scope Economy must somehow be weakened.
See (8) in the main text.
2
I put aside here the problem of the InclusivenessCondition, which seems to be inevitably violated
under any theory that adds to the derivation theinformation absent in the numeration (i.e. theinformation related to word order or phrasal(16)b from the base-generated structure in (17).

-191-configurations, which is recorded throughout thederivation).
3
Note that Fox’s (2000) original version of Scope
Economy is strictly local; in other words, it requires
every step of QR to create a new interpretation.
4
I do not intend to exclude entirely the possibility
that CPs count as phases with respect towh-movement but do not count as phases withrespect to QR. For example, let us tentatively assume
that CPs in West Ulster English may be weak phases,
as claimed by Otsuka (this volume), whereas those inStandard English may be strong phases. If overt
operations like wh-movement target weak phases andcovert operations like QR target strong phases, thecontrast between (3) and (4) should follow quite
naturally. I leave this issue open here.
5
Under
Chomsky’s(2008)
mechanism,
A-movement of what should target SpecVP rather
than SpecvP in the embedded clause in (7), because
the Agree-features on v are supposed to be inherited
by V. However, given that wh-movement is an
instance of parallel movement, where one copy is
attracted by the Agree-features inherited by V and theother is attracted by the Edge-features that remain onv, at least one of two copies of what should be moved
to the embedded SpecvP. While the movement of acopy to SpecvP seems to be regarded as an instanceof Aʹ′-movement, it is no wonder that the copy in
SpecvP also participates in the scope calculation inquestion.

REFERENCES
Bobaljik, Jonathan. and Wurmbrand Susi (2005)“The Domain of Agreement,” Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 23.
809-865.
Bošković, Željko (1998) “LF Movement and the
Minimalist Program,” NELS 28, 43-57.
Bošković, Željko (2007) “On the Locality andMotivation of Move and Agree: An Even
More Minimal Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry
38, 589-644.
Bošković, Željko (2011) “On Valued
Uninterpretable Features,” NELS 39,
109-120.
Bošković, Željko (2012) “On NPs and Clauses,”
Discourse and Grammar: From Sentence
Types to Lexical Categories, ed. by Gunther
Grewendorf Thomas Ede Zimmermann,
179-246, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,”
Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:
Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed.
by Robert Freidin, Carlos Peregrín Otero, andMaria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Despić, Miloje (2011) Syntax in the Absence ofDeterminer Phrase. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Connecticut.
Fox, Danny (2000) Economy and Semantic
Interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Fox, Danny and David Pesetsky (2005) “Cyclic
Linearization of Syntactic Structure,”
Theoretical Linguistics 31, 1-45.
Hornstein, Norbert (1995) Logical Form: From
GB to Minimalism. Blackwell, Cambridge,
MA.
Hornstein, Norbert (1999) “Movement andControl,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69-96.
Johnson, Kyle (2000) “How Far Will
Quantifiers Go?,” Step by Step: Essays on
Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed.
by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan
Uriagereka, 187-210, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Kang, Jungmin (2011) “To have TP or Not:
Evidence from Successive-Cyclic Movement
via Spec CP,” ms., University ofConnecticut.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1991) “On
the Subject of Infinitives,” CLS 27, 324-343.
McCloskey, James (2000) “Quantifier Float andWh-movement in an Irish English,”
Linguistic Inquiry 31, 57-84.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (2011) “Optionality,” The
Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism,
ed. by Cedrix Boeckx, 354-376, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Moltmann, Friederike and Anna Szabolcsi(1994) “Scope Interaction with Pair-List
Quantifiers,” NELS 24, 381-395.
Ormazabal, Javier. 1995. The Syntax ofComplementation: On the Connection
between Syntactic Structure and Selection.
Doctoraldissertation,
UniversityofConnecticut.
Otsuka, Tomonori. (this volume). “On Floating
Quantifiers in an Irish English andWeak-Phases,” Papers from the 31st
National Conference of the English
Linguistic Society of Japan.
Postal, Paul (1974) On Raising: One Rule ofEnglish Grammar and Its Theoretical
Implications, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Takahashi, Masahiko (2010) “Case, Phases, andNominative/Accusative
Conversion
inJapanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics
19, 319-355.
Takahashi, Masahiko (2011) Some Theoretical
Consequences of Case-marking in Japanese,
Doctoraldissertation,
UniversityofConnecticut.

-192-

理論(Optimality Theory; OT)の枠組みで捉えるのはそれほど難しいことではない。(1)では，*AD→BD ⇒ *CB→CE という規則の供与順
濁り の表 示 と不 透明 性：

序 (feeding order) に よ っ て 得 ら れ る 表 層 形

日英 語の 有 声音 の深 層と 表 層

CED が，制約ランキングによってうまく出力( Tur bid Re pres e n ta ti on s f or Op aci ty :できることを示している。

The Ov er t a nd C ov er t Na t ure of(1) 順序付けとランキング
a. 供与順序

Voi ci ng i n E ngli sh a nd Ja pa nes e)

UR

/CAD/

田中 伸一 (Shin-ichi Tanaka)*AD→BD

CBD

東京 大学 (University of Tokyo)*CB→CE

CED

SR

CED

b. ランキング

キーワード：不完全指定，適用不全，不透明性，濁りの表示，濁り依存の制約

Input

Output/CAD/ →

CAD

*CB

*AD
*!

CBD

*!

*

☞ CED

１. 序説：何が言いたいか
本論文は，日英語の有声音の性質の違いについて有声同化の観点から着目し，そこで提起される不透明性の問題(opacity problem)が，濁りの表示(turbid representation)と濁り依存の制約(turbidity-sensitive constraints)によって解決されることを主張する。
「濁りの表示」とは，文字通りの「有声音の表示」(repre-

Faith

*

しかしながら，２つの規則をひっくり返すと供与の逆順序(counterfeeding order)となり，望まれる表層形 CBD を OT では出力できなくなる。CBD が CED によって調和的に拘束(harmonically-bound)され，制約ランキング
を逆にしても結果が変わらないからである。
(2) 適用不全の不透明性：田中(2013c, 2014)
a. 供与の逆順序

sentations for voicing)という意味にもここでURは解釈できるが，もっと一般的に「不透明な表示」(Goldrick 2001)を意味するものである。
具体的には，出力表示に派生情報が組み込まれているとする仮説(containment hypoth-/CAD/*CB→CE-*AD→BD

CBD

SR

CBD

b. ランキングesis)に立ちつつ， Goldrick(2001)が提案する
濁りの表示に則って，有声性に関する２種類

Input

Output*AD/CAD/ →

CAD

*!

☹ CBD

の出力表示を提案し，提起される不透明性の☞! CED問題がうまく解決できることを立証する。い

*CB

Faith

*!

*
*

わば，不透明性の問題を，Prince and Smolen-

これが適用不全(underapplication)の不透明

sky (1993/2004)への原点回帰の立場から解決性であり，表層形 CBD は，*CB→CE というする提案である。

規則の適用を受けないまま適格な形式となる。
OT にとって致命的な問題となることがわかるだろう。

２. 不透明性：有声音の何が問題なのかだとすれば，いわゆる不完全指定(under-

2.1. 不完全指定＝適用不全
一般的にいって，規則の順序関係を最適性

specification)という操作は，どういった形で-193-

あれ常に OT にとって不透明性の問題を喚起

用不全，つまりは不完全指定の効果が適格にすることになる。なぜなら，不完全指定とは，捉えられないことになる。

本来は供与の順序関係にある「素性値指定」と「その素性値に言及する規則」を，逆順序

2.2. 共鳴音のジレンマにすることで得られる効果だからである。

共鳴音の有声性をめぐる不完全指定に関連

たとえば，(3)は日英語の有声同化(voicing

して，さらに複雑な問題が日本語にはある。

assimilation; VA)のあり方を示しており，英同じ共鳴音であっても，鼻音とその他の共鳴語は有声阻害音と共鳴音の両方が有声同化を音とでは，(5)のように現象ごとに異なる振る引き起こす「表層型」だが，日本語は有声阻

舞いを見せるのである。

害音のみが有声同化を引き起こす「深層型」(5) 鼻音とその他の共鳴音：田中(2013b,c)だという違いが浮き彫りになる。

a. 連濁とライマンの法則(3) 日英語の有声同化：田中(2013a,b,c)

鼻音:

a. 有声阻害音

notare-zini「のたれ死に」 ase-bami「汗ばみ」describe-[d]英語：

hug-[d]obore—zini「溺れ死に」

日本語： tob-[da]「飛んだ」 kag-[da]「嗅いだ」その他:

b. 共鳴音英語：

borrow-[d]siri-gomi「尻込み」

score-[d]yoku-bari「欲張り」

saki-dori「先取り」

ki-dukawi「気遣い」

sitto-guruwi「嫉妬狂い」

b. 有声同化tie-[d]
日本語：*kaw-[da]「買った」*tor-[da]「取った」

鼻音:*oki-[da]「起きた」

norare-zin-[da]「のたれ死んだ」 ase-bam-[da]「汗ばんだ」

ここで，日本語共鳴音の有声同化の適用不全

obore-zin-[da]「溺れ死んだ」(3b)は，(4)のような不完全指定により捉えら

その他:

れる。

*yoku-bar-[da]「欲張った」*saki-dor-[da]「先取った」(4) 日英語共鳴音の不完全指定:（田中 2011）*ki-dukaw-[da]「気遣った」*sitto-guruw-[da]a. 英語: 供与の順序
URsiri-gom-[da]「尻込んだ」「嫉妬狂った」/score-t/ (no specification for voicing)

ここで奇妙なのは，鼻音とその他の共鳴音とDefault score-t (r becomes voiced)

もに有声阻害音と違って，(5a)のようにライマ

VA

score-dンの法則(Lyman’s Law; LL)の適用を受けずSRscore-dに連濁(sequential voicing; SV)が許されるの

b. 日本語: 供与の逆順序
UR
VAに対し，有声同化(5b)に関しては鼻音のみが適/tor-ta/ (no specification for voicing)-

用し，その他の共鳴音は(4b)で見た通り適用を受けない点である。つまり，鼻音は(5a)ではそ(r remains voiceless)Default tor-ta (r becomes voiced)の他の共鳴音と同様に振る舞うのに対し，(5b)SR

では有声阻害音と同様に振る舞うというジレ

tor-taつまり，英語では共鳴音の有声性に関する「デンマを，どのように扱うかという点が問題とフォールト指定(Default)」と「有声同化(VA)」なる。

が供与の順序関係にあるのに対し，日本語でこの謎解きは，規則の順序付けでは(6)の通はそれらを逆にすることにより，適用不全のりとなる。つまり，鼻音の有声性に関する「デ効果を導き出している。したがって，(2b)に示

フォールト指定(Default(N))」は「ライマンのしたように，通常の OT の枠組みでは(4b)の適法則(LL)」とは供与の逆順序なので LL が適-194-

用不全だが，「有声同化(VA)」とは供与の関係

３. 濁りの表示：どう問題を解くのかにあるので VA の適用が許される。これに対3.1. 不透明性の元凶と透明化

し，その他の共鳴音の有声性に関する「デフ

濁りの表示とは，出力表示に基底からの「派ォールト指定(Default(S))」は，「ライマンの生過程」を組み込んだ表示であり，表層から法則(LL)」と「有声同化(VA)」の両方と供与

すべての「派生過程」が見えるように透明化の逆順序の関係にあるので，LL と VA のいずした表示である。概念自体は新しいものではれも適用不全であることが捉えられる。

なく，含有理論(containment theory)の仮説に(6) 鼻音とその他の共鳴音の不完全指定

立つ Prince and Smolensky (1993/2004)で採

a. 鼻音: 供与の順序と逆順序用されたものである。のちに Goldrick(2001)

UR/notare-sin-ta/(no specification for voicing)が自律分節音韻論に応用して発展解消させ，

SV&LL

notare-zin-ta(n remains voiceless)“ Turbidity utilizes a single complex repre-(n becomes voiced)

sentation which incorporates covert, struc-

Default(N) notare-zin-ta
notare-zin-datural relationships (projection) and audible,-

surface relationships (pronunciation).”(p.

notare-zin-da13)と定義している。本稿でも，これを有声同VA
Default(S)SRb. その他の共鳴音: 供与の逆順序化に応用した２種類の表示を提案する。

UR/yoku-par-ta/(no specification for voicing)

SV&LL

yoku-bar-ta(r remains voiceless)Default(N)

-

VA

-

Default(S)yoku-bar-ta

SRyoku-bat-ta

まず，原点となる含有理論とその後発展した対応理論(correspondence theory; McCarthy and Prince 1995)とを出力表示に関して(r remains voiceless)

比べてみると，両者の性質の違いが浮き彫り(r becomes voiced)になる。
(7) 含有理論と対応理論の出力表示

しかしながら，(2b)に示したように，通常のOT の枠組みでは(4b)の適用不全はおろか，(6)対応理論のような複雑な不完全指定の効果を，適格に捉えることは到底できない点こそに，問題の含有理論所在がある。
以上をまとめると，不完全指定はある規則と素性値指定を供与の逆順序にする操作であることから，常に適用不全の不透明性問題が引き起こされ，OT にとっては致命的な問題と

削除

変化なし

挿入

変化なし

/ABC/

/AB/

/AB/

/ABC/

↓

↓

↓

↓

AB

AB

ABC

ABC

/ABC/

/AB/

/AB/

/ABC/

↓

↓

↓

↓

AB<C>

AB

ABC

ABC

つまり，対応理論では，出力表示 AB が削除を経た結果なのか基底から存在するのかの違いが表層からは不明であり，出力表示 ABC もなることが明らかにされた。Ito, Mester, and挿入を経た結果か基底から存在するのかが表

Padgett (1995)は，この種の問題を「素性の認層からはわからない。要は，基底での対立が可 」 (feature licensing) と 「 認 可 の 解 除 」

表層で失われてしまうのである。そして，こ(licensing cancellation)という考え方で回避

れこそが不透明性の元凶であり，不透明性問しようとしたが，新たなパワフルな道具立てを導入し問題を複雑にせざるを得なかった。
新たな道具立てを必要とせずに，Prince andSmolensky (1993/2004)への原点回帰の立場
から問題解決する提案が，以下の試みである。

題の所在だと考えられる。これに対し，含有理論は派生過程を組み込んだ出力表示を採用しているので，削除や挿入の派生過程は透明化され，AB<C> vs. AB と ABC vs. ABC は表層において発音(pronunciation)上は同じであ-195-

っても投射(projection)上は基底での対立が反ことができる。

映されたものとなる（上記の “turbidity”の定(10) 適用不全の不透明性

義を参照）。したがって，不透明性の問題から

Inputは自由であり，不完全指定などの適用不全の/CAD/ →

効果を表層から導き出すことができる。
では，どのようにして出力表示から不透明性の効果を導き出すのか。まず，(8)のように，普遍文法の制約は，次の３種に区別されると仮定する（田中 2014）。
a. X-依存の制約：基底から表層まで存在す
る要素 X に依存する制約
b. X-依存の制約：基底に存在しないが表層には存在する（派生過程で導かれた）要
素 X に依存する制約
c. <X>-依存の制約：基底に存在するが表層には存在しない（派生過程で失われた）要素<X>に依存する制約だとすると，適用不全や適用過剰は，(9)のランキングスキーマにより捉えることができる。
(9) 不透明性のランキングスキーマ

Faith

*CB

☞ CBD

CAD

*!
*

*

CED

**!

ここで，*AD は基底にある要素 X のみを評価
する X-依存の制約であり，*CB は基底に存在しないが表層には存在する要素 X をも評価す→E となって導かれたもの（素性が２つ変わったもの）だから，Faith 違反を２つ犯している点が致命的となって，CBD が最適となる。
もちろん，*CB が Faith より上位にあればCED が最適となり，(1)で示した供与順序の効果も得られるというわけである。その他，適用過剰の事例も同様に(9b)のランキングスキーマにより説明できるが，詳しくは田中(2014)を参照のこと。
3.2. 有声性の表示と不完全指定
こうした濁りの表示を利用した制約があれ

a. 適用不全
基底から存在する要素 X は作用するが，基底に存在しないが表層には存在する（派生過程で導かれた）要素 X は作用しない

ば，日英語の共鳴音の不完全指定や，鼻音とその他の共鳴音の不完全指定をめぐる適用不全の問題は，難なく解決することができる。
まず，前者については次ページの(11)のよう

X-依存の制約 >> Faith >> X-依存の制約に，有声阻害音の有声同化を促す Agree-V とb. 適用過剰
基底から存在する要素 X は作用し，かつ基底に存在するが表層には存在しない（派生過程で失われた）要素<X>も作用する→*AD

る X-依存の制約である。CED の E は A→B(8) 濁り依存の制約→

Output共鳴音の有声同化を促す Agree-V が関わって
おり，それぞれ X-依存の制約と X-依存の制約に該当するものとなっている。共鳴音にとっての有声性は余剰的であるので，あとから導X-依存の制約, <X>-依存の制約 >> Faith

つまり，適用不全は派生過程で導かれた要素
X は作用しないので X-依存の制約が Faith より下位に，適用過剰は派生過程で失われた要素 <X> が 作 用 す る の で <X>- 依 存 の 制 約 がFaith より上位にそれぞれランクされることで，不透明性が原理的に捉えられるというわけである（田中 2014）。実際のところ，(2b)で得られなかった表層形 CBD は，(9a)のラン
キングスキーマを利用して，(10)のように導く

かれる X となるのである。そして，英語では共鳴音の有声指定と有声同化とが供与の順序関係にあるので，Agree-V が Fill-Link[voice]よりも上位にランクされる。これに対し，日
本語では共鳴音の有声指定と有声同化とが供与の逆順序になるので，(9a)により Agree-V
が Fill よりも下位にランクされ，適用不全，
すなわち不完全指定の効果が導かれるというわけである。もちろん，Agree-V は Fill より-196-

も上位なので，有声阻害音も同化を導く。
(11) 日英語共鳴音の不完全指定

ここで，両言語の過去形接辞は，有声性につは，(12)のように説明される。ここで，和語はいて基底で指定を持たない T を持つと仮定し語頭で清濁の対立を持たないので，主要部語ておく。

頭は有声性が無指定であると仮定しておく。R

一方，鼻音とその他の共鳴音の不完全指定

は基底から有声性を持つ連濁形態素である。

(12) 鼻音とその他の共鳴音の不完全指定

実をいうと，(11)の Agree-V は(12)の Agree-

る。つまり，Agree-V は Agree-SV と Agree-

SV(sonorant voice)に該当するもので，鼻音をNV(nasal voice) と に 分 割 さ れ ， 実 際 に は含む共鳴音一般の有声同化に関するものであ

Agree-NV のみが Fill よりも上位にランクさ-197-れているというわけである。それゆえ，鼻音性を「基底からの V」と「派生された V」とのみが有声同化を導く点が保証される。そしに区別することで適応不全の不透明性問題をて，(12)の最適候補がライマンの法則に抵触し解決したが，似たような試みとして Rice(1993,

ないのは，その制約が基底から存在する有声

2005)は有声性を「喉頭弁別有声」(laryngeal

性 V が２つ以上共起してはならないと定義さ

voice)と「自然発生有声」(spontaneous voice)れるからである。つまり，定式としてはに区別して，様々な有声性現象を説明してい*[V…V]となり，ライマンの法則は X-依存のる。しかしながら，この区別では本論文が問制約に他ならない。

題にした不透明性問題が説明できない点につここで重要なのは，連濁とは無声音が有声

いては，田中(2013a,b)を参照されたい。

化されることから派生された V が導かれるように見えるが，実はそうではなく，複合を可４. 同化の制約階層：どう主張を裏付けるか

能にする連濁接頭辞 R が，(12)のように音実

本論文では，有声同化をめぐる不透明性問

現されるプロセスだという点にある（Ito and

題を解決しようとした結果として，Agree-V

Mester 2003）。つまり，その有声性は基底か>> Agree-NV >> Agree-SV という制約階層

ら存在する V だということである（なので，が明らかになった。最後に，この制約階層が「のたれ死んだ」「嫉妬狂った」を連濁させな現象を説明するためだけに仮定されたのではい人はこの R を持たず，(12)の Agree-V の違なく，原理的に導かれるものである点に触れ

反がすべて消えることで導かれる）。この R のておきたい。つまり，これまでの主張を理論

複合的機能は， Franco- American, morpho-

的に裏付けるものである。

syntax, psycho-linguistics, chemo-receptor,

まず，個々の文節音が持つ有声性の強さに

Sino-Japanese などのように形態素を複合す

ついて，一般には聞こえ(sonority)に基づいて，る接尾辞-o や，statesman, salesman, heads-(13a)の Scale 1 のような卓立性のスケール

man, bandsman, swordsman, tradesman,(prominence scale)が成り立つことは言を俟linesman などのように語を複合する接尾辞-s

たないであろう。日本語でも，阻害音の有声に似ている。また，有声性それ自体が形態素性の際立ちは，濁点を付けることからも明らとして振る舞う点は，英語の名詞~動詞の交かである。一方で，位置に関わる卓立性のス

替 を 示 す mouth[mauT] ~ mouth [mauD],

ケールとして，Gv[有声音＋母音]の前の位置

house[haus] ~ house[hauz], advice [{dvais]の方が Cv[無声音＋母音]の前の位置よりも全~ advise[{dvaiz], base[beis] ~ base [beiz],体として聞こえが高く卓立性が高いと考えらbath[b@T] ~ bathe[beiD], breath [breT] ~れ，Scale 2 も成り立つものと思われる。

breathe[bri:D]といった例や，ウェールズ語文(13) 調和的制約配置の原理

語体(Literary Welsh)における男性形~女性

a. 内在的な有声性の強さ

形の交替を示す hogin tal ‘tall lad’ ~ geneT

Scale 1: 文節音dal ‘tall girl’, dur klir ‘clear water’ ~ nos glir

V (obstruents) > NV (nasals) > SV (other sonorants)‘clear night’, gwint poeT ‘hot wind’ ~ teisen

Scale 2: 位置

boeT ‘hot cake’ と い っ た 例 (Radford et. al_Gv > _Cv

2009: 164-165)でも裏付けられる。

b. 制約階層

いずれにしても，連濁の有声性が基底から*V/_Cv >> *NV/_Cv >> *SV/_Cv

存在する V だという点については，田中= Agree-V >> Agree-NV >> Agree-SV(2013b)も参照のこと。また，本論文では有声だとすれば，この２つのスケールを Prince-198-and Smolensky(1993/2004)の いう 調和 的 制
約配置の原理(Harmonic Alignment)によりかけ合わせると，(13b)のような制約階層が導かれる（Gv の前の位置については省略する）。
つまり，[有声阻害音+無声音]という構造は最も嫌われ，次に[鼻音+無声音]，そして[その他の共鳴音+無声音]は比較的許容されやすいということである（英語でも bp, bt, bs, bk, dp,

dt, ds, dk, gp, gt, gs, gk, zp, zt, zs, zk といった子音連結は，複合語を除いて語中ではほとんど観察されない）。そして，この制約階層こそ，これまで述べてきた Agree-V >> AgreeNV >> Agree-SV に他ならない。
また，母音に挟まれた子音連続 vC1.C2v という環境において，一般に尾子音 C1 は聞こえが高い方が好まれ，頭子音 C2 は聞こえが低い方が好まれる。Vennemann(1988)のいう音節接触の原理(Syllable Contact Law)である。ここで，C1 を無声音とするなら，C2 は聞こえが高い方が良い（低い方が嫌われる）わけだか
ら，この点も(13b)の制約階層に一致する事実に注目したい。
５. 結論：何がわかったか
本論文では，１）不完全指定とは適応不全の不透明性問題に他ならないこと，２）適用不全や適用過剰などの不透明性問題は，濁りの表示とそれに基づく濁り依存の制約階層によって解決できること，３）説明に必要な制
約階層は調和的制約配置から原理的に導かれること，などの帰結を得た。不透明性問題に対して，これまで OT の歴史の中で様々な解決法が提案されてきたが，４）濁り依存の制
約のランキングスキーマにより原理的に解決できることを示したこと，５）原点回帰こそ有望な手立てだという点を示したことが，音韻論一般において最大の意味合いとなろう。
引用文献
Goldrick, Matt (2001) “Turbid Output Re-

presentations and the Unity of Opacity,”
NELS 30, 231-245.
Ito, Junko, and Armin Mester (2003) Japanese Morphophonemics: Markedness andWord Structure, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Ito, Junko, Armin Mester, and Jay Padgett(1995) “Licensing and Underspecification
in Optimality Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry
26:4, 571-613
McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince (1995)“Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity,” UMOP 18 (Papers in Optimality Theory, 249-384.
Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky (1993/2004) Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar, Technical Report TR-2, Rutgers Center for
Cognitive Science, Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, NJ. [Reproduced byBlackwell, New York in 2004.]
Radford, Andrew et. al (2009) Linguistics:
An Introduction, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Rice, Keren (1993) “A Reexamination of the
Feature [sonorant]: The Status of ‘Sonorant Obstruents,’” Language 69, 308-344.
Rice, Keren (2005) “Sequential Voicing,
Postnasal Voicing, and Lyman’s Law Revisited,” Voicing in Japanese, ed. by Jeroen van de Weijer, Kensuke Nanjo, andTetsuo Nishihara, 25-46, Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin.
田中伸一 (2011)「音のいちゃつきと仲たがい：セグメントの音声文法」『言語科学の世界へ』，164-188, 東京大学出版会, 東京.
田中伸一 (2013a)「濁りの表示と不透明性(1)：日英語の有声音の深層と表層」，Conference
Handbook 31, 9-12．[日本英語学会第 31 回
大会，福岡大学，2013 年 11 月.]
田中伸一 (2013b)「濁りの表示と不透明性(2)：２種類の有声表示による透明化」，日本言語学会第 147 回大会予稿集，4-9．[日本言語学会第 147 回大会シンポジウム「日本語研究とその可能性―音韻・レキシコン・文法
を中心に―」，神戸市外国語大学，2013 年
11 月.]
田中伸一 (2013c) “Underspecification in Optimality Theory,” 東京音韻論研究会ワー
クショップ「“underlying representation”を考える」，東京大学，2013 年 12 月.
田中伸一 (2014)「濁りの表示と不透明性(3)：適用不全と適用過剰はどこからくるのか？」，東京音韻論研究会月例会，東京大学，2014 年 1 月．第９回音韻論フェスタ，KKR
ホテル熱海，2014 年 2 月．
Vennemann, Theo (1988) Preference Laws
for Syllable Structure, Walter de Gruyter,
Berlin.

-199-

であり、Agent からの働きかけを前提とすることから、中間態が他動性の概念とも密接な関わりを持つことが分かる。
中間態のマーカーとして、スペイン語の再帰

英語の中間態再考：

接語 SE を以下に例示する。

事態概念と言語習得の観点から*(English Middle Voice Reconsidered:(1) a. La puerta se abrió. [intransitive]

From the Viewpoint of Event Conception andLanguage Acquisition)

the doorb. Juan se

SE openedmató. [reflexive/ passive]

谷口一美 (Kazumi Taniguchi)

Juan SE killed京都大学 (Kyoto University)c. Esta fruta se
thisllama aguacate. [passive]

fruit SE callavocadoキーワード：中間態、自他交替、(1a) では他動詞 abrir が SE を伴い非対格自動

get-passive、言語習得

詞化されている。(1b) は「Juan が自分自身を殺した」という再帰的解釈、「Juan が誰かに殺さ
1. はじめにれた」という受け身的解釈の 2 通りが可能であ

本稿は、英語において「中間態」に相当する

る。実際、スペイン語の受け身は (1c) のよう

言語形式をめぐって認知言語学の観点から考察に再帰接語 SE で表すのが一般的であり、し、英語の中間態が習得過程においてどのよう

be-passive の受動態は存在しているものの使用に発現するかを CHILDES コーパスのデータかされることが稀である。すなわちスペイン語はら示す。特に中間態から受動態へと発達する類

受動態以上に中間態に依存した言語であると言型的・通時的方向性が習得過程においても観察える。

されることを、英語の get-passive を中心に示していきたい。

中間態の類型論的研究で知られる Kemmer(1994) は、
中間態のマーカーがスペイン語のSEのように拡張的である事実をふまえつつ、中間

2. 中間態の定義と形式態が意味的に統一的なカテゴリーであるとみな従来の研究では、能動態・受動態が統語的ヴす立場をとる。特に Kemmer は、中間態によっォイスである一方、中間態は影響性を核とするて表される状況の一般的特性として、事態の参意味的ヴォイスであるとみなされてきた。

与者の分離性の低さ

Klainman (1988) は、多くの言語において非派生

distinguishability of participants) を挙げている。
確

的な文主語に“controller”と“affected entity” の 2

かに (1b) の再帰的用法では行為者と対象が同種類が認められることを指摘し、後者の affected

一指示であり、参与者の分離性は低いが、(1a)entity を主語とするのが中間態であると定義しのように他動詞を非対格自動詞化する場合、行ている。この定義に基づき Arce-Arenales et al.

為者と対象は完全に分離した参与者であり、(1994) は、主格・対格言語において、能動態主Kemmer の見方では必ずしも中間態の全体を語が述語の表す行為により影響を受けるか否か捉えることはできない。しかし、中間態がどのという意味的区別があるとし、affected entity をようなタイプの「事態」を標示するかという主語とする場合を “middle diathesis”と呼んでい

Kemmer の認知言語学的観点は、ヴォイスの現る。なお affected entity は意味役割的には Patient

象を捉えるにあたって有益である。

-200-(low degree of認知文法の Langacker (2008) はヴォイスに関ら引き起こされる自動的事態であり非対格自動し、受動態が能動態他動詞節に対するオプショ

詞 に そ れ ぞ れ 対 応 す る 。 図 2 (b) のンである一方、中間態は能動態他動詞節及び自externally-driven thematic relationship の事態構成

動詞節に対するオプションであると記述していは中間構文の図１(b) に極めて近似しているこる。“The door opened easily.” という中間構文はとが分かる。

他動詞節 “I opened the door.” の動作主性を減じたものとも、自動詞節 “The door opened.” の動(a) internally-induced

作主性を高めたものともみなされる。図 1 は、

【図 2】(cf. Langacker 1991: 245)

事態認知モデルである action chain により、能さらに中間構文は、Langacker が図１(b) に示

動態、中間態、自動詞節、受動態をそれぞれ示
1(b) externally-driven

した以上の特性を持ち、特に主語が果たす役割したものである。

Agent

は複合的である。中間構文の主語指示物は、Patient

Agent から影響を受ける affected entity である一(a) 能動態他動詞節
tr

方、その属性によって Agent の行為遂行の難易

lm

度が左右されるため、主語指示物自体も影響力(b) 中間態を発揮するとみなされる。

tr(c) 自動詞節trtr(d) 受動態tr【図 3 】

図 3 では tr 内部の二重矢印で、属性から発せら【図 1 】(cf. Langacker 2008: 385)

れる影響力を表示している。中間構文は受け身

図では tr が最も際立つ参与者であり文主語、lmとは異なり Agent を明示することができず、総が tr に次いで際立つ参与者で目的語に対応する。 称的な Agent の存在を強く含意するため、図 3線の太さは認知的際立ちの高低を表示する。図では Agent をより背景化させ、点線で表示して１(b)の中間態で Agent が細い実線であるのは、いる。
これらの図から分かるように、中間構文と非Agent が際立ちを受けず意味スコープ内に含意

対格自動詞の違いは非明示的な Agent の背景化されていることを示す。
しかし、「中間態」は図 1 (b) の中間構文にのの程度問題であり、両者は連続的であると考えみ該当するのだろうか。冒頭で述べた中間態のられる。実際に、中間構文で使用可能な他動詞

定義上、affected entity を主語とするのが中間態は限られているものの、非対格自動詞は基本的であるならば、Patient を主語とする節表現はすに中間構文に使用することができ、”The door

べて中間態の候補となる。その場合、図 1 (c) のopened easily.” の open は非対格自動詞とも中間

自動詞節 “The door opened.” も中間態とみなさ

動詞とも解釈可能である。

れることになる。実際に Langacker (1991) は、以上、中間態の定義に照らし合わせると、英

彼が thematic relationship と呼ぶ自動的事態を語の中間態には中間構文だけではなく非対格自次 の よ う に 分 類 し て い る 。 図 2 (a) の動詞も該当すると言える。とりわけ本稿ではinternally-induced thematic relationship は参与者

Alexiadou (2012) を支持し、非対格自動詞、中自らのエネルギーにより起こされる自動的事態

間構文に加えて “get- passive” も中間態の一形であり非能格自動詞、
図2 (b) の externally-driven

式とみなし、英語の中間態に 3 つの形式がある

thematic relationship は他の参与者により外部かと想定する。例えば “I got dressed.” の場合、他-201-

動詞 dress が同形態の自動的用法を欠くため、

won’t open.” のような場面である。

対応する自動詞形として “get dressed” が機能

こうした事実から、谷口 (2011) は図 4 のよしており、そのヴォイスは事実上受動態ではな

うに自他交替の習得の段階を仮定した。典型的

く中間態である。

な他動的事態に対し、こどもは初めに (a) のよ

一方で、中間態と受動態にも連続性が認めらうに、自分自身が Agent であり最も際立つ tr でれるのも事実である。受動態の主語も意味的にある他動詞用法を獲得する。こども自身が行為

は affected entity であり、英語の受動文の成立にの対象に注意の焦点をシフトすることが容易な影響性という意味制約が関与することはすでにのが、(b) のように行為の対象物が抵抗力を自明らかにされている通りである (高見 1995)。

分に発しており、対象物のせいで自分の意図す

また類型論的にも、Shibatani (1998) が指摘するる行為が失敗したと責任を転嫁するような場合

ように、中間態から受動態への通時的変化は一である。これを図 3 で示した中間構文の事態把般的傾向であり、中村 (1999) も中間態から受握と比較すると、対象物が何らかのエネルギー

動態への変化を一種の文法化と分析している。

を発するものとして認識されている点で、極め

本稿では、中間態から受動態への移行が類型て近い事態把握であることが分かる。このよう的・通時的傾向のみならず、言語習得においてな中間構文的な段階を経て、最終的にこどもはも認められると主張する。言語習得過程におい(c) のように、行為の対象そのものに焦点をシて中間態は受動態に先行し、自動的事態の記号

フトすることができるようになり、Agent を完化の主たる手段として機能していることを、中全に切り離した非対格自動詞を習得するに至る。

間態の 3 つの形式の習得から示していきたい。

Agent（こども） Patient(a)3. 自他交替の習得

tr

本節では、非対格自動詞と中間構文の両者に(b)

関わる「自他交替」の習得について調査した谷×tr

口 (2011) の結果を手短に示す。

(c)tr

英語は非対格自動詞用法が固有の標識を持【図 4 】

たず他動詞と同一形態であるため、どの他動詞

谷口 (2011) では CHILDES コーパスで非対格が自動詞へと交替可能であるかを習得するのは

自動詞 open, move を含むこどもの発話と対話

容易ではないと推測できる。Lord (1979)は、こ者である大人の発話を収集・分析し、この習得どもが “I can’t hear it.. (puts clock to ear) It can段階の妥当性を示しているが、紙幅の都合上、hear now.” のように非対格自動詞用法を持たな

詳細は谷口 (2011) を参照されたい。

い他動詞から自動詞を産出し、結果的に中間構
文的な発話を産出していることを示している。

4. Get-passive の特性

Lord はこの現象が、open など非対格自動詞と残る 1 つの中間態の形式である get- passiveの類推により他動詞から自動詞の交替が過剰生について、本節では先行研究で指摘されている

成されていると述べている。

通時的・共時的特性を概要する。

また、自他交替の習得に関する先行研究であGet-passive の通時的成立過程については

る Budwig et al. (2001) によると、Agent を主語

Givón and Yang (1994) で詳細に分析されている。

としない middle をこどもが用いるのはこども

彼らによると、get-passive は 場所句を伴う get

自身の意図する行為を対象が抵抗し阻み、結果の用法 (He got her into the house) から使役用法

的に行為が失敗する場合、つまり “The door

(He got her to go)、さらに再帰的使役用法 (She-202-

married” など）。

got herself to go) が生じ、補文が be-passive を伴う形 (She got herself to be admitted) から She got(v) get-passive は起動相のアスペクトに結合しto be admitted, She got admitted と 2 段階の形式ており、状態的な be-passive と対照的に用い的単純化により get-passive が生じた。このようられる。

に再帰的用法からの拡張であるため、get-passive
は多くが人を主語とすることも特徴の 1 つであ以上の観察に基づき、get-passive の表す事態る。なお、“get angry” のように get が形容詞補として図 5 に示す 2 つの下位分類を action chain

語をとる get-inchoative の用法は get-passive ので示す。 図 5 (a) は Agent と Patient (affected

成立後に生じており、過去分詞が形容詞的に用entity) が 同 一 指 示 と な る 再 帰 的 な 場 合 でいられることからの類推であると Givón andget-passive の原初的用法である。図 5 (b) はYang は述べている。

Agent と Patient が分離しており、Patient の被

そのほか、Arce-Arenales et al. (1994)がスペイ

害性を含意する場合である。

ン語の SE と英語の get-passive の平行性を主張

AgentPatient

Agent

Patient

し、get-passive が類型論的にみても中間態に相当することを示唆している。また比較的近年のtr

tr

共時的分析として Alexiadou (2012), Wanner(a)(2013) などがあり、それらの先行研究で指摘さ【図 5 】

れている get-passive の特性は次のようにまと

5. Get-passive の習得

めることができる。

5.1 先行研究×(b)

次に get-passive の習得について、はじめに先(i) get-passive は、“get hit,” “get hurt,” “get stuck”

行研究を概要する。Budwig (1990), Slobin (1994)など、悪影響を被る「被害性」を表す場合

は共に get-passive の習得が be- passive の習得が多い。

に先行するという重要な事実を示している。さ(ii) get-passive の主語は Patient ではあるものの、らに Slobin は、get が過去分詞のみを伴う起動

責 任 (responsibility) を 帯び る とい う点 で相用法が3 歳頃に生じ、その後full get-passive がAgent 的 な 性 質 を 併 せ 持 つ 。 例 え ば習得されるという順序を示唆しており、Budwig“Samantha got hurt.” の場合、怪我をしたのはこどもが 3 歳 6 カ月時点で get-passive とは Samantha が不注意な行動をしたなど

be-passive を機能的に区別し使用していること

Samantha 自身にも責任があると解釈されるを示している。

（一方で “Samantha was hurt.” ならば主語の Samantha に責任はない）。

しかし彼らの調査は、観察対象のこどもの人
数が Budwig は 2 名・Slobin は未就学児 27 名と(iii) Agent の明示可能性に関し、get-passive は限られており、これらの傾向が一般的に認めら(ii) で挙げたようにその主語指示物自体がれるか、量的に確認する必要がある。そこで本責任を帯びており、責任の所在を表す by 句

稿は、CHILDES コーパスのデータにより、こで Agent を提示することはかつて容認されどもの get-passive の使用状況を示す。

ていなかったが、近年は be-passive との類推により by 句を伴う get-passive が容認され5.2 CHILDES に基づく調査と分析つつある。

データの収集は 2012 年 9 月、アメリカ英語(iv) get-passive は非対格自動詞用法を持たない話者のコーパスから get-passive （現在形、過去

他動詞を自動詞化する（”get dressed,” “get形）
を含むこどもの発話を抽出した。
そのうち、

-203-

コーパスに年齢記載があり年齢特定のできるこ

味するものを示しており、すべての年齢においどもの発話が 788、年齢が特定できないこどもて get-passive は被害性との結びきは強い。なおの発話が 260、合計 1,048 の発話が収集された。

紙幅の都合上、3 件以上の発話が見られた過去

まず全体的な分布から見ていきたい。(2) は分詞を挙げる（括弧内は発話数）。

年齢特定分の 788 の発話の年齢別分布を示したものである（括弧内は発話数）。

(4)
2 歳： hurt (32), stuck (14), broken (8), dressed (8),(2) 1 歳 (5); 2 歳 (146); 3 歳 (260); 4 歳 (211);

lost (7), tired (7), scared (6), caught (5),5 歳 (66); 6 歳 (30); 7 歳(17); 8 歳 (15);crunched (5), done (5), fixed (3), glued (3),9 歳 (10); 10 歳 (20); 11 歳以上 (8)killed (3), rained (3), set (3)3 歳： hurt (34); lost (26); dressed (15); set (15);get-passive は 2 歳から出現しており、3 歳のデkilled (12); broken (11), caught (11);ータが最も豊富である。以降はデータ数が減少

stuck (10); tired (8); eaten (7); scared (7);するが、4～5 歳頃に be-passive が獲得されるこ

burned (5); fixed (5); married (5); saved (4);とを考慮すると、それまで get-passive でカバー

spoiled (4); trapped (4); bent (3);

されていた表現の多くが be-passive へ移行し

knocked (3); shot (3)ていると考えられる。

4 歳： killed (23); hurt (16); dressed (11);

また、by 句を伴う full get- passive の事例数はmarried (11); shot (10); caught (9); lost (9);

総数 42 で、全体に占める割合は 5.8％、2 歳・3stuck (9); broken (7); mixed up (6); tired (6);歳時点でもすでに 5％程度生起しており、年代

run over (5); scared (5); burned (4);による顕著な分布特性は認められない。なお、

buried (3); eaten (3); set (3); tangled (3)

こどもは受動態の Agent を by 以外に from

5 歳： set (10); hurt (8); mixed up (5); hit (4);などの前置詞により標示することが Budwig

killed (3); lost (3)(1990) で 指 摘 さ れ て い る が 、 こ の 事 実 は

6 歳： stuck (8); caught (7); lost (5); done (4);CHILDES コーパスでも(3) のように認められmarried (4); paid (4); shot (4); hit (3);た（角括弧内は発話者の年月齢）。

killed (3); scared (3)
年齢が低いほど特定の過去分詞と生起しており、(3) a. those two guys got hurt from that big

年齢が上がるにつれてデータ全体における過去

wreck. [4;3]

分詞使用の偏りが解消されていく。特に 2 歳の

b. so he won’t get killed from Gollum. [3;8]

発話では 32 例が “get hurt”であり、get-passive(3a) の場合、from が示しているのは agent ではの発話全体の 22%を占めている。このとき「痛なく「原因」である可能性があるが、(3b) はい」のはこども自身であり、こどもにとって自Lord of the Ring のゴラムという Agent が from

らの身体経験によって受けた被害はもっとも知により提示されている。Agent を from で標示

覚しやすく、“get hurt”の頻繁な使用には動機づする選択自体は、他動的事態を action chain でけがある。3 歳でも“get hurt”は依然として多く表示した場合に Agent がエネルギー伝達の起用いられているが、年齢が上がるにつれてその点であることから自然に説明される。

使用は減少し、6 歳以上のデータでは観察され次に(4)で、get-passive に使用される過去分詞ない。これには獲得語彙数の増加などの要因もの分布を年齢別に示す。下線は「被害性」を意考えられるが、初期段階では語彙項目ごとに-204-

(6b)と同様、自動詞が get を過剰に伴う事例“get hurt”など特定的表現を習得しており、5～6
歳の段階で get-passive という「構文」を獲得し、として、(7) を参照されたい。

それによって特定の過去分詞によらず
get-passive を使用できると推測される。

(7) a. he get died [3;7].

また、被害性を持たない過去分詞は、大半がb. and it fell down and it got died. [4;4]“get dressed,” “get married,” “get set” など再帰的

c. the finger gets healed when the bandaids

用法である。非再帰的で被害性もない事例とし

get healed. [3;10]ては、“get done,” “get fixed,” “get paid,” “getd. it’s gonna get splashed on you. [年齢不明]

glued” など限られていることから、図 5 で示し

e. I got waked up in the morning. [4;2]

たように、get-passive は被害性または再帰性を

f. I got played in the sand. [3;7]含む事態把握が中心的であり、被害性のない中g. I got sit by you. [4;6]

立的な状態変化は図 5 (b) から拡張的に生じていると考えられる。

(7c) の bandaids は heal という行為の道具であ(4)でもう 1 点興味深いのは、“get broken” のり対象物ではない。(7d) の splash は非対格自使用の出現である（太字で表記）。
「（モノが）壊

動詞用法を持つため、get は過剰である可能性れた」という起動相の事態を表すならば、大人がある。また、(7e), (7f) は非能格自動詞に対しの発話では非対格自動詞が予測されるところ、ても get が過剰生成されている。(7g) の sit は

こどもは get-passive を代用していることが分か

過去分詞形ではないが、明らかに自動詞 sit がる。4 歳までは各年齢で 10 例前後 “get broken”

get を伴っている。これらのデータから、こどが用いられているが、5 歳以降ではまったく観もの発話において get は一種の「自動詞マーカ

察されなくなることから、5 歳頃に break の非ー」として機能し汎用されている可能性が示唆

対格自動詞用法が定着していると想定される。

される。

次に、個別の発話データに見られる興味深いさらに (8a-c) は get を伴う他動詞句であり、特性を挙げる。

自動詞化が起こっていない事例である。

(5) a. they get broke half easily. [2;7](8) a. he got put the towel. [2;8]b. he was got lost. [4;6-5]

b. we got put it on the ham. [2;6](6) a. I get rained. [2;6]c. we got found the pig. [2;8]b. it got rained. It got rained in there. [2;10]
これらの事例は、get が起動相のアスペクトマ(5) は be-passive と get-passive の混用であり、ーカーなど、ヴォイス以外の機能を果たしてい両者の獲得が 4～5 歳時点でも実際には不完全る可能性を示唆している。実際にスペイン語のである可能性を示している。(6) は自動詞 rain

中間態マーカーである SE も完了のアスペクト

を get-passive として用いている事例で、2 歳のマーカーに拡張していることが知られており、発話に数例あり、2 通りの主語選択が見られた。

中間態の拡張の方向性に英語の get-passive が符(6a) は「私が雨に降られた」という被害受け身合していると言える。2的表現であり、get-passive が文法的な項構造より被害性という意味要因に動機づけられている

6. おわりにことを示している。また、(6b) の場合は本来 getが不要である。

本稿では英語の中間態の 3 つの形式が相互作用し、受動態に至る前段階として、自動的事態-205-

の記号化に一定の役割を果たしていることを示した。特に本稿では get-passive を中間態の一形式とみなし、その習得過程を詳細に示した。こどもの get-passive の発話状況から、3～4 歳頃に
get-passive が自動的事態のマーカーとして汎用されていると想定される。年齢が上がるにつれ
非対格自動詞や be-passive の習得が進み、
get-passive は適用範囲を狭めていく。get-passiveは、形式的にも意味機能的にも、中間態から受動態への橋渡しとして be-passive に先行して習得されると位置づけることができる。
注* 本研究は科学研究費補助金（基盤研究 (C) 課
題番号 24520541）の助成を受けている。デー
タ収集にあたり久保圭氏に多大な協力を頂き、ここに記して感謝申し上げます。
1. 図の action chain では、円が事態の参与者、二重矢印がエネルギーの伝達、一重矢印が位置または状態の変化を示す。
2. 例として、スペイン語の自動詞 ir (行く) が再帰接語 SE を伴った irse は「行ってしまった」という完了のアスペクトを示す。
参考文献
Alexiadou, Artemis (2012) “Noncanonical Passives
Revisited: Parameters of Nonactive Voice,”
Linguistics 50-6, 1079-1110.
Arce-Arenales, Manuel, Melissa Axelrod andBarbara A. Fox (1994) “Active Voice andMiddle Diathesis: A cross-linguistic perspective,” B. Fox and P. J. Hopper (eds), 1-21.
Brown, Roger (1973) A First Language: The Early
Stages, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,MA.
Budwig, Nancy (1990) “The Linguistic Marking of
Non-prototypical Agency: An Exploration into
Children’s Use of Passives,” Linguistics 12,
21-52.
Budwig, Nancy, Sarera Stein and Catherine O’Brien(2001) “Non-agent Subjects in Early Child
Language: A Crosslinguistic Comparison,” K.
Nelson, A. Aksu-Ko and C. Johnson (eds.)

Children’s Language vol. 11: Interactional
Contributions to Language Development, 49-67,
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fox, Barbara and Paul J. Hopper (eds.) (1994) Voice:Form and Function, John Benjamins.
Givón, Talmy and Lynne Yang (1994) “The Rise of
the English Get-passive,” B. Fox and P. J.
Hopper (eds), 119-149.
Kemmer, Suzanne (1994) “Middle Voice, Transitivity, and the Elaboration of Events,” B. Fox and
P. J. Hopper (eds), 179-230.
Klainman, Miriam H. (1988) “Affectedness andControl: A Typological Study of Voice Systems,”
M. Shibatani (ed.) Passive and Voice, 25-84,
John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1991) Concept, Image andSymbol, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Langacker, Ronald W. (2008) Cognitive Grammar:
A Basic Introduction, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Lord. Carol (1979) “’Don’t You Fall Me Down’:Children’s Generalizations Regarding Cause andTransitivity,” Papers and Reports on Child
Language Development 17, 81-89.
MacWhinny, Brian (2000) The CHILDES Project:
Tools for analyzing talk, 3rd ed. Vol.2. The
Database. Mahwah, N.J.: LEA.
Shibatani, Masayoshi (1998) “Voice Parameters,” inL. Kulikov and H. Vater (eds.) Typology of
Verbal Categories, 117-138, Niemeyer,
Tübingen.
Slobin, Dan I. (1994) “Passives and Alternatives inChildren’s Narratives in English, Spanish,
German, and Turkish,” B. Fox and P. J. Hopper(eds), 341-364.
Wanner, Anja (2013) “The Get-passive at theIntersection of Get and the Passive,” A.
Alexiadou and F. Schäfer (eds.) Non-CanonicalPassives, 43-61. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
高見健一 (1995) 『機能的構文論による日英語
比較―受身文、後置文の分析―』くろしお
出版. 東京.
谷口一美 (2011) 「英語における自他交替の習得―open, move を例に―」『阪大英文学会叢書 6 : 意味と形式のはざま』（大庭幸男・岡田禎之 編著）, 5-16, 英宝社. 東京.
中村芳久 (1999)「ヴォイス・システム：態間関係の認知メカニズム」金沢大学文学部論集
言語・文学篇 19, 39-65.

-206-syntactic complement of both V and C.
(2)

VP
V

CP
TP

C

Complement Clause Selection andT

Exceptional Case-Marking

vP

Multiple root structures are generally proNaoto Tomizawa

hibited because they usually run afoul of the

Yamagata University

linearization convention. In the discussionthat follows, however, I will propose that

Keywords: complementation, ECM,

such structures are available in the DOC

multiple root structures, selection mismatch

construction and are successfully linearizable.
The paper is organized as follows. Section
2 introduces a feature classification of C and

1. INTRODUCTION
This paper examines the syntactic proper-

characterizes the C head of the infinitival

ties of the construction that is subject tocomplement of the DOC construction (here-

what Postal (1997, 1993) calls “Derived

after, “DOC infinitival clause”) with [-finite,

Object Constraint,” hereafter abbreviated as-tense] features. Section 3 shows how the

DOC construction for brevity, and argues“multiple root structure” analysis deals

within the Minimalist framework (Chomsky

with the paradigm given in (1). Section 42008) that the unique syntactic properties ofapplies the “multiple root” analysis to thethe DOC construction, exemplified in (1),account of “unselected embedded ques-

follow from the interaction of the linguistic

tions” discussed in Bresnan (1979) andoption of “exceptional” complement clause

Adger & Quer (2001). Section 5 concludes

selection, specific featural value of C, andthe discussion.

linearization/pronunciation conventions.
2. FEATURE-SPECIFICATION OF C

(1) a. *John wagered Peter to be crazy.

DOC infinitival clauses and the infinitival

b. *John wagered to be crazy.
c. Who did John wager to be crazy?

complement clauses of ECM verbs behaved. John was wagered by the press tosimilarly in that both prohibit eventive
predicates, which distinguishes them frombe crazy.
e. John wagered there to have been athe infinitival complement clauses of control

stranger in that haunted house.

predicates, as shown in (3) (see Bošković

Specifically, I will propose that a predi-

1997, Martin 2001, Stowell 1982).

cate that selects CP may in principle take as
its syntactic complement the TP complement of the C head (instead of the CP itself),yielding a so-called “multiple root” structure as in (2), where TP serves as the-207-(3) a. *John was wagered to arrive lateyesterday.
b. *John was believed to arrive lateyesterday.
c. John tried to arrive late yesterday.

I will follow the leading idea of Bošković(1997) in assuming that the [+tense] specifi-

alleged on its way to the subject position of
was alleged.

cation of the infinitival C is the key factor to(6) ?It was the car of which the driver was

license the occurrence of eventive predicates,

alleged to have caused a scandal.

from which follows the difference in gram-This is because the intermediate position ismaticality between (3a) and (3c). In addition,

the sole position from which of which can be

I will assume, following Chomsky (2008),

successfully extracted with no violation ofthat ECM infinitives are bare TPs. Since barethe PIC or the “inactivity” condition in (7).

TPs lack a [tense]-marked C head, they are(7) An A-chain becomes invisible toincompatible with eventive predicates, as

further computation when its

seen in (3b).

uninterpretable features are valued.
(Chomsky 2008, p. 150)

Clauses may, then, be classified as in (4).

The derivation for sentence (6) is essentially(4) a. Finite clauses: C[+finite, +tense]b. Control infinitives: C[-finite, +tense]

on a par with the one offered by Chomsky

c. DOC infinitives: C[-finite, -tense](2008) to the derivation of the ECM sentenced. ECM infinitives: Tin (8).
(8) Of which car did they believe to haveThose C heads that are marked with a[+tense]-feature

have

an

caused a scandal?

Agree-feature,

which is transferred to T and values unin-

Given these similarities between the DOC

terpretable Case-features: Nominative Caseand ECM constructions, the ungrammaticalin (4a) and Null Case in (4b). On the otherstatus of (1a) may be surprising:(9) *John wagered [CPC [Peter to be crazy]]

hand, the C heads that lack the [+tense]feature do not have an Agree-feature.

According to our characterization of the
DOC construction, however, this is not,3. DOC INFINITIVES

because the infinitival head C of the DOC

In addition to the incompatibility withconstruction lacks an Agree-feature andeventive predicates, the DOC and ECM con-fails to value the Case-feature on the lexical

structions have other similarities. They bothsubject. Notice here that because of the pres-allow passivization. The DOC construction

ence of C, the matrix v*/wagered cannot

in example (5) below, drawn from Radford

value the Case-feature on Peter, either.

(2004), has an expletive there, which strongly

The inability to value Case-features ex-indicates that the subject of the infinitival

plains the unavailability of PRO subject, too:clausal complement of alleged be its A-move-(10) *John wagered [CP C [PRO to be

ment trace rather than PRO.

crazy]](5) There are alleged to have been stolen a

Let us now turn to A’-movement cases

number of portraits of the queen.

like (1c). For expository convenience, con-Moreover, the grammatical status of the fol-sider the derivation for sentence (11).

lowing example also indicates that the sub-(11) Who did you allege to know French?

ject DP (the driver) stops at the subject posi-

If it has the structure schematized in (12),tion of the infinitival complement clause of

the Case-feature on who remains unvalued,-208-netic contents: phonetically empty elements

as in (9) above.

are exempt from the linearization condition.

(12) [vP* v* [VP allege [CP C [TP to [vP who v

Another reason for the general ban on mul-know French …
Alternatively, I will propose that the deriva-

tiple root structures comes from the func-tion involves a “multiple root” structure astion of roots. A root is the interface betweenin (13), where allege takes as its complement

the sentence-internal grammar and the ex-

not CP but TP and, as a result, the TP and C

ternal discourse, as given in case (i) in Rootform an independent root constituent.

condition (14).

(13)(14) A label must (i) be linked to dis-v*P

course or (ii) find a goal.
v*

VP

Relaxing this sentence-discourse linkage, ICP

will allow a head that enters into an Agreeallege[ACC]TP

C[-finite, -tense]

relation with an appropriate goal to terminate as a root even when it is not linked to

to[EPP]discourse, as in case (ii) in (14).

vP

In short, multiple root structures are permitted when either of the multiple roots

who
Here, who first A-moves to Spec-TP. Since C

finds a goal and its otherwise unlinearizable

does not intervene between allege and theconstituent(s) have the offending phonetic

Spec-TP, the Agree-feature on allege, trans-

feature(s) eliminated.

ferred from the matrix v*, finds who in Spec-With this in mind, return to (13). By defi-

TP as its goal and, importantly for our dis-nition, every lexical item is endowed withcussion, the Case-feature on the latter isan edge feature (EF). C[-finite, -tense] has one,successfully valued. Independently of thistoo. Suppose that EF on C happens to findA-movement, who A’-moves directly target-

who in (13) as a goal and attracts it to Spec-ing the matrix v* since C is absent.

CP. Then, the whole derivation involves

Let us turn to C[-finite, -tense] and its maximal

three different chains that share who: A-

projection CP that have been disconnected

chain, A’-chain targeting matrix v* (and ulti-

from the projection of allege and constitutemately, CQ), and A’-chain targeting C[-fin, -tns].

an independent root structure. Although

The fact that the initial copy of the matrix

multiple root structures are generally pro-A’-chain is pronounced is captured by thehibited, I will hypothesize that they are infollowing algorithm.
(15) Chain pronunciation algorithm

principle available and are actually wellformed when the following two conditions

Given chains CH1 = (α1, …, αi, ..., αn)are both met: (i) phonetic emptiness condi-

and CH2 = (β1, …, βj, … βm), where αition and (ii) identification condition. One of= βj, CH1 is pronounced iff α1 c-

the plausible candidates for the general un-commands more constituents than β1.

availability of multiple root structures is lin-In other words, a chain member of theearization. However, linearization matters“largest” chain (which is defined in terms of

only when the relevant objects have pho-

the number of constituents the chain c--209-commands) is pronounced and all the chain

Before proceeding, let us go back to themembers of “smaller” chain(s) have theiractive counterpart of (16b), namely the un-phonetic contents eliminated. In the threegrammatical example in (9), and look at its

chains that share who in (13), the matrix A’-“multiple root” derivation illustrated in (17).

chain is the largest and its topmost copy is

(17)

v*P

pronounced, whereas the copy of who thatoccupies Spec-C[-finite, -tense] has its phonetic

v*

VP

CP

content eliminated. Consequently, neither
wager[ACC]

C[-finite, -tense], which lacks phonetic contents,

TPC[-finite, -tense]

nor who in its Spec, which also has its phonetic content eliminated, pose difficulties invP

to[EPP]

linearization.
Peter

This analysis can be directly extended tothe availability of passive sentences like (1d)The A-chain of Peter that is motivated by theand (16a), which has a “multiple root” deri-

Agree-feature on wager, transmitted from v*,

vation in (16b).

is not “larger” than the A’-chain created by
A’-movement of Peter to Spec-C[-fin, -tns]; nor(16) a. Peter was wagered to be crazy.
b.

TP

is it “smaller” than the latter. Hence, Chain
pronunciation

T[NOM]

algorithm(15)

cannoteliminate the phonetic content of who in

vPSpec-C[-fin, -tns] and consequently the strucwas

VP

CPture cannot be linearized.
Unlike full-fledged DPs such as Peter,

wageredTP

C[-fin, -tns]

expletives like there in (1e) and pronouns areallowed (see Postal 1974 and Bošković 1997).

to[EPP](18) a. John wagered there to have been avPstranger in that haunted house.
b. Mary alleged him to have kissed

Peter

Jane.

Peter is involved in two independent chain
formations: the Agree-feature on the matrix

The “multiple root” derivation cannot dis-

T motivates its A-movement, as indicatedtinguish the grammatical cases in (18a,b)

by the solid lines in (16b), whereas C[-fin, -tns]

from the ungrammatical case we just saw in(by accident) finds it as a goal and A’-moves(17). I will follow Bošković (1997) and as-

it to the Spec-CP position, which is indi-

sume that the Case-features on there and him

cated by the dotted line. Obviously, the A-in (18a,b) are valued by the mechanism of

chain is “larger” than the A’-chain; andNoun Incorporation. In example (18b), him

hence, the copy in Spec-C[-fin, -tns] has its pho-first incorporates into C[-fin, -tns] and then to

netic content eliminated. As a result, thealleged, as shown in (19).

multiple root structure in (16b) can be
successfully linearized.

(19) [ v* allegedV [CP C[-fin, -tns] [TP him tohave t kissed Jane …

-210-

This Incorporation option is available onlyby the Agree-feature on assure, transmitted

to D0 elements.

from v*. Given the “multiple root” option,

Now that the paradigm in (1) has been ac-

the following derivation is available for (21).
(23)

counted for, let us turn to the DOC con-v*P

struction with a three-place predicate suchv*

as assure and guarantee. Unlike allege or

VPCPwager, these verbs allow neither full-fledged
VP

DPs (such as John) nor expletives to stay inTPC[-finite, -tense]

the subject position of the infinitival complement clause, as shown in (20).

assure[ACC]him

to[EPP]vP(20) a. *I assure you [John to be the best]
b. *I assure him [there to be stolen

who

documents in the drawer]

Suppose that the Agree-feature on assure

These sentences become grammatical only

somehow finds who as a goal and forces it towhen the subject of the infinitival clausemove. Movement of who to incorporate into

undergoes A’-movement, as in (21)assureV is illicit, just as we saw above; rather,(21) John, who I assure you [t to be theit adjoins to the maximal VP projection

best], ...

headed by assureV, which is licit in the light

The unavailability of the derivational op-of the c-command requirement on chain

tion of Noun Incorporation in (20b) is easily

members. In sum, who A-moves to adjoin toaccounted for if the Goal and Theme argu-

VP and has its Case-feature valued success-ments of assure are structurally configured

fully.

as in (22), where Goal (him) occupies the

In addition to this A-movement, who in“internal” position and Theme (CP) occu-(23) has engaged in two other chain for-pies the “external” position.

mations: the A’-movement triggered by v*

(22)

v*P

and (ultimately, by the relative clause headC) and the A’-movement induced by the EFv*

VP

on C[-finite, -tense]. Of the three chains, the v*triggered A’-chain is the “largest” and all

VPCP

the chain members of the other two chains
have their phonetic contents eliminated,assurehim

Cthere …

with the consequence that the “multiple

In this configuration, incorporation of there

root” structure in (23) is successfully linear-

to C and, then, to assureV is illicit because theizable.

head movement from C to assureV violates
the c-command requirement on chain mem-

4. UNSELECTED EMBEDDED QUESTIONSThis section attempts to extend the deri-bers.
The landing position of Noun Incorpora-vational option of the “multiple root” struc-tion is different from the landing position ofture to the account of the distribution ofA-movement of who in (21) that is triggered

what Adger & Quer (2001) call “unselected-211-

embedded questions” (see also Bresnan

solved with the introduction of a “multiple

1979 and Öhl 2007). The difference in gram-root” structure. Suppose that admit in (24c)maticality between (24a) and (24b) below

takes not CP but TP as its complement, as

indicates that the matrix verb admit selects

illustrated in (25), with the CQ head (if)as its complement a propositional clause but

disconnected from it.

it cannot select an interrogative clause.

(26)

v*P

However, this usually unselected interrogative clause can actually appear after admit in

v*

VP

CP

restricted environments as in (23c), which
provides a typical example of unselected

admit

TP

CQ

embedded questions.
(24) a. Julie admitted that the bartender

T[EPP]

vP

was happy.
b. *Julie admitted if the bartenderDPwas happy.

In this configuration, the head of the embed-

c. Julie didn’t admit if the bartenderded question (CQ) does not occur within thewas happy.

domain of admit. This is why selection mis-

Selection mismatch is usually intolerable, as

match does not arise.

(24b) indicates. Then, how is the mismatchin (23c) tolerated?

In the “multiple root” structure in (26), CQ
has a phonetic content (if) that is not freely

Notice here that an important contribu-

eliminable, which might pose linearization

tion of Adger & Quer (2001) is that unse-

difficulties. Remember here Adger & Quer’s

lected embedded questions are licensed not(2001) analysis: unselected embedded ques-by the selecting predicates but by othertions are independently licensed by an ap-

elements. Specifically, they are licensed bypropriate (NPI) licenser. Let us assume thenthe same elements as the ones that are re-that the whole CP constituent headed by CQ

sponsible for the licensing of negative polar-(namely, if the bartender was happy) under-

ity items (NPIs), as shown in (25).

goes movement so as to make itself ready to(25) a. No one admitted if the bartender

be licensed by an appropriate (NPI) licenser.

was happy.

This requirement forces the CP to be inte-b. Only Julie admitted if the bar-grated into the configuration that contains

tender was happy.

the (NPI) licenser, with the consequencec. If Julie admitted if the bartenderthat this newly created copy of the CP can

was happy, we could order

be properly linearizable and the originalanother drink.

copy, which could in principle cause lineari-d. We refused to admit if they had

zation difficulties, can have its otherwise of-the keys.

fending phonetic contents eliminated.

Given the presence of the independent

A similar unselected embedded question

licensers of unselected embedded questions,construction is observed in Japanese, as well.

the riddle of selection mismatch can be(27) a. [John-ga tensai-da to] issyun sinzi--212-rare-ta

unselected embedded questions in English‘We could believe for a brief

and Japanese.

moment that John is a genius.’
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

b. *[John-ga tensai-na-no ka] issyun

This paper was presented at the 31st

sinzi-rare-ta‘We could believe for a brief mo-

Conference of the English Linguistic Society

ment if John is a genius.’of Japan held at Fukuoka University on
Novemmber 10, 2013. I would like to thankc. [John-ga tensai-na-no ka] issyun
sinzi-rare-nakat-ta

the audience at the meeting as well as Toru

‘For a brief moment, we could not

Suzuki and Steve Ryan, for their comments

believe if John is a genius.’

and suggestions. Any errors are of my own

What is interesting about this Japanese un-undertaking.

selected question construction is that TPinternal question expressions are disfavored.

REFERENCES

Compare (27c) and (28a), on the one hand,

Adger, David & Josep Quer (2001) “The
Syntax and Semantics of Unselected Em-

and (28b), on the other.

bedded Questions,” Language 77, 107-133.

(28) a. [naze sonna koto-o sita ka] issyun

Bošković, Željko (1997) The Syntax of Non-sinzi-rare-nakat-ta‘For a brief moment, I could not

finite Complementation, MIT Press, Cam-believe why I did it.’bridge, MA.
Bresnan, Joan (1979) Theory of Complementa-

b. *[dare-ga sonna koto-o sita ka]tion in English Syntax, Garaland, NY.

issyun sinzi-rare-nakat-ta

Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” Foun-‘For a brief moment, I could not

dational Issues in Linguistic Theory, ed. by

believe who did it.’Given the “multiple root” option of the deri-

Robert Freidin et al., 133-166, MIT Press,

vation, this contrast is predictable because

Cambridge, MA.

only dare ‘who’ in (28b) is required to be

Martin, Roger (2001) “Null Case and thebase-generated within the TP complement

Distribution of PRO,” Linguistic Inquiry 32,of the matrix predicate, which gives rise to a141-166.
Öhl, Peter (2007) “Unselected Embedded

selection mismatch.

Interrogatives in German and English,”
Linguistische Berichte 212, 403-437.

5. CONCLUSION
With the characterization of DOC infini-

Postal, Paul M. (1974) On Raising, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.

tives by [-finite, -tense]-features, the introduction of “multiple root” structures, andPostal, Paul M. (1993) “Some Defective Par-linearization and pronunciation conventions,adigms,” Linguistic Inquiry 24, 347-364.

this paper has accounted for the distribu-

Radford, Andrew (2004) English Syntax,

tional patterns of the DOC construction andCambridge University Press, Cambridge.

has also shown that the “multiple root”

Stowell, Tim (1982) “The Tense of Infini-analysis can account for the distribution of-213-

tives,” Linguistic Inquiry 13, 561-570.

Syntactic Distinctness and Phase Head*
Masashi Totsuka
Tohoku University
Keywords: Cartography, Distinctness, Phase,
Relative Clause, Transfer

1. Introduction
In this paper, I propose that Rel, Top andForce, which are functional heads in the
Cartographic approach, are phase heads whereas
Foc and Fin are not, by exploring someproblems of Distinctness introduced by Richards(2010). Distinctness is a condition that bans two
identically labeled constituents from being
linearized in the same syntactic domain. Thiscondition can uniformly explain a variety ofsyntactic
phenomena.
However,when
Topicalization occurs in relative clauses, it has
two problems. First, in this case, a linearization
statement <α, α>, such as <PP, PP>, are in thesame Spell-out domain, so it is the violation ofDistinctness. Therefore, Richards wrongly
predicts that this sentence is ungrammatical.
Second, multiple Topicalization of English isbanned. I address two problems by modifying
his approach.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2
overviews framework used in this paper. Section
3 summarizes Distinctness condition, and I pointout two problems with his approach. In section
4, in order to solve this problem, I propose that
Force, Top, Rel are phase heads. In section 5, I
show that my proposal accounts for these
problems. Section 6 concludes this paper.

2. Framework
In Minimalism (Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001,
2004, 2008)), syntactic objects (SOs) are built
from bottom to top, by iterative application of
the operation Merge, which combines two SOs.
SOs built by Merge are mapped onto thesemantic interface of the Conceptual-Intentional
system (C-I) and the phonological interface of
the Sensorimotor system (SM). The operation
which maps SOs onto these two interfaces iscalled Transfer (in particular, mapping SOs onto
the phonological side is called Spell-Out).
Chomsky (2004, 2008) assumes that Transfer
applies by syntactic derivational chunks which
are called phases. In this phase theory, syntactic
computations are derivationally determined byapplication of iterating Merge and Transfer
phase by phase. Phases are assumed to be CP
and vP, whose head triggers Transfer.
While Minimalism focuses on theelementary syntactic operations, Rizzi’s (1997,2004) Cartographic approach focuses on the finedetails of syntactic structures. It is the attempt todraw maps as precise as possible by relating
syntactic configurations with information
structures. This research topic assumes that CP
is split into a number of different functional
projections. This approach offers an interestingquestion when it meets the phase theory: if CP
has a number of functional projections, whichhead is a phase head and triggers Transfer?
Following Cartographic approach (Rizzi(1997)), I adopt the Split CP hypothesis, where
CP is not a single projection, but layered
projections. In particular, I assume that CP has
the following structure.
(1) CP = [ForceP [TopP [FocP [FinP [TP ...
(1) assumes that each projection has a single
projection and cannot be recursive in English.
Rizzi (1997) supposes that the left peripheryin a clause is a kind of interface with TP and thehigher clausal domain than CP, or discourse.

-214-

ForceP gives to discourse the information ofclausal type, for example, a question, adeclarative, an exclamative, a relative, acomparative, an adverbial of a certain kind, etc.
On the other hand, Fin(iteness)P gives to TP theinformation of the verbal system of the clause.
For example, if a complementizer is that, anembedded TP clause must be a finite clause in
English, or if a complementizer is for, anembedded TP clause must be a non-finite clause
in English. CP should be divided as ForceP and
FinP.
Top and Foc also have one and only one
head in each projection because multiple
specifier cannot be linearized under the Kayne’s
Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA). A
topicalized or focalized element moves to a
specifier position of each phrase to satisfy Topicor Focus feature. Thus, the specifier of TopP is
occupied by one topicalized element. On theother hand, the specifier of FocP is occupied by
one focalized element, one wh-element, or one
element of Neg-Preposing.
In the following sections, based on theseframeworks, I discuss Distinctness condition
Richards (2010) proposes.
3. Distinctness: Its property and problems
Richards (2010) proposes Distinctness toaccount for a variety of syntactic phenomenathat bans two identically labeled constituentsfrom being linearized in the same Spell-Out
domain. Distinctness is the condition on thesyntax-phonology interface.
(2) Distinctness
If a linearization statement <α, α> is
generated, the derivation crashes.
This condition is based on Kayne’s (1994)
LCA. In particular, Richards (2010) assumes
that one of the tasks of the grammar is toestablish a linear order between the terminal
nodes of the sentence at least by the point of

Spell-Out, and that this linear order isdetermined by properties of the tree. Kayne’s
theory establishes a set of linearization
statements <α, β>, such that α asymmetrically
c-commands β, and such linearization statements
are taken to determine that α must precede β.
(3)
TP
ei
DP
T'
John
ei
T
vP
will
ei
v-V
VP
dance
In the tree in (3), for example, the grammar
constructs linearization statements like <DP(John), T (will)>, <T (will), v-V (dance)>, andso forth.
However, Richards (2010) assumes thatlinearization statements are limited to nodelabels. Let us consider the linearization of a treein (4):
(4)
XP
ei
DP
X'
John eiXDPMary
If a tree like the one in (4) are sent to PF, thelinearization algorithm will generate thelinearization statement <DP, DP>, since the DP
Mary asymmetrically c-commands the DP John.
Crucially, linearization process is unable to
make reference to any of the richer informationthat would distinguish these DPs from eachother; the linearization statement cannot say, forexample, <DP (Mary), DP (John)>, or<DP-in-specifier-of-X, DP-complement-of-X>.
Since the linearization statement <DP, DP> isuninterpretable, such a structure will be rejected
at PF or SM interface. Thus, Distinctness
effectively bans structures in which different
syntactic objects with the same label in an
asymmetric c-command relation occupy thesame Spell-Out domain.
The proposal makes crucial use of the-215-

approach to Spell-Out developed in Chomsky(2000, 2001) and much subsequent work, inwhich material is sent to PF or SM interface
periodically throughout the derivation, whenevera phase has been completed.
Let us consider concrete examples of aDistinctness effect in English: Quotative
Inversion and Multiple Sluicing.
(5) Quotative Inversion
a. “It’s cold,” said John.
b. “It’s cold,” said [DP John] [PP to Mary].
c. *“It’s cold,” told [DP John] [DP Mary].
(Richards (2010: 13))(5a) is an instance of Quotative Inversion, in
which the subject remains in a post verbal
position and a quotation appears before the verb.
We can see in (5b) that Quotative Inversion ispossible because DP John and PP to Mary are
not the same label in a post verbal position, thatis the Spell-Out domain, so this sentence does
not violate Distinctness condition. However, in(5c), since, in a post verbal Spell-Out domain,
DP John and DP Mary have the same label, thissentence offend Distinctness condition and then
Quotative Inversion is impossible.
(6) Multiple Sluicing
a. I know everyone danced with someone,
but I don’t know [DP who][PP with whom]b. *I know everyone insulted someone, but I
don’t know [DP who][DP whom](Richards (2010: 3))
The contrast in (6) shows that sluicing withmultiple remnants is in principle possible, but
not if both of the sluicing remnants are DPs.
Distinctness allows us to capture this difference.
In Richards (2010), he uniformly tries to
explain phenomena like these, which ban two
identically labeled constituents from being
linearized in the same Spell-Out domain.
Moreover, consider the case of infinitival
relatives in English, as in (7)(7) Relativization

a. [DP a person][PP with whom] to danceb. *[DP a person][DP whom] to admire(Richards (2010: 34))
The structure of (7) are shown in (8) and (9)respectively.
(8)
DP
ei
D
NP
a
ei
N
CP
person ei
PP
C'
ru
ru
P
DP C
TP
with
whom
to dance
(9)

*DP
ei
D
NP
a
ei
N
CP
person ei
DP
C'
whom
ei
C
TP
to admire
In (8), the PP with whom may appear as arelative operator, but the DP whom cannot.
Richards (2010) explains that the relative
operator in this example cannot be the DP
because the DP is in the same Spell-Out domain
where the D of the relative clause’s head is
involved and this linearization statement is <DP,
DP> or <D, D>, causing violation ofDistinctness condition. However, if the PP is arelative operator, a linearization statement
becomes <DP, PP>, or <D, P>, and so this does
not violate Distinctness condition. Richards(2010) assumes that PP is a phase and a phasehead P Transfers the complement DP into PF or
SM interface. Therefore DP whom and the D of
the relative clause’s head are not in the same
Spell-Out domain
In (9), the relative operator DP whom is in
the highest specifier of the CP phase. The DP
whom is not Transferred with the TP, but rather
with the next higher spell-out domain. Therefore,
the D of the relative clause’s head and the DP-216-

whom are linearized in the same Spell-Out
domain, and the resulting linearization statement<D, D> is uninterpretable, so the derivationcrashes.
However, English tensed relative clauses
have some problems, because the constraints
discussed above do not hold of these tensed
relative clauses.
Richards (2010) adopts the proposal of
Bianchi (1999), who offers arguments that finite
relative clauses have more layers in the CP field
than infinitival ones do. She assumes that tensed
relative clauses in English involve not just a CP,
but a ForceP along with a TopP, and the overt
relative Operator whom occupies the lower ofthese positions as in (10).
(10) a. the man whom I admireb. [DP the [ForceP [NP man][Force]]](Richards (2010: 36-37))
In this case, Force is a phase head andTransfers its complement TopP. As a result, DP
the man and DP whom are not in the same
Spell-Out domain and so the derivation
converges.
But there are problematic examples to theanalysis.1(11) a. This is the man [with whom next year I
will dance.]b. This is the man [with whom, about
linguistics, I talked.]
In (11), Topicalization occurs in the finite tensed
relative clause, and PP next year and about
linguistics occupy the specifier of TopP
respectively.2 These structures are shown in (12).
(12) a. [DP the [ForceP [NP man][Force [TopP [PP withwhom][Top [TopP [PP next year][Top [TP I
will dance]]]]]]]
b. [DP the [ForceP [NP man][Force [TopP [PP withwhom][Top [TopP [PP about linguistics][Top [TP I will dance]]]]]]](12) has two problems. First, if Force is a phasehead following Richards (2010), two PPs are in
the same Spell-Out domain, so the resulting
linearization statement violates Distinctness
condition. Therefore, Richards wrongly predicts
that this sentence is ungrammatical. Second,
generally, multiple Topicalization in English isbanned as in (13)(13) a. *This booki, to Robinj I gave ti tj.
(Culicover (1991:31))
b. *Last year, in St. Louis, we were living.
(Culicover (1991:33))
English has only a single TopP, so multiple
Topicalization in (13) cannot occur. Sentences of(11), however, are grammatical and therefore thestructures of (12) may be wrong.
In this section, we overviewed Distinctness
condition. This condition has to do with theprocess of imposing a linear order on the samelabeled constituents of the tree and explain. avariety of syntactic phenomena that bans two
identically labeled constituents from being
linearized in the same Spell-Out domain.
However, it has the two problems as we saw
above. In the next section, I try to solve these
problems.
4. Proposal
In this section, in order to account for two
problems discussed above, I modify the structureof (12). The modified structure is (13).
(13) [DP the [ForceP [NP man][Force [RelP [PP withwhom][Rel [TopP [PP next year][Top [TP I
will dance]]]]]]]
Based on this assumption, I propose (14).
(14) Three functional heads Rel, Top and Forceare phase heads, trigger Transfer, and form
Spell-out domains.
First, let us consider the case where Top is
introduced into derivations. In this case,
Spell-Out occurs when Top probes a topic
element in its complement and then attracts it to
its specifier, transferring its complement FocP or-217-

FinP to PF or SM interface, as shown in (15a).
And then, Force merges with TopP and thenTransfer it as shown in (15b).
(15) a. [TopP Top
Transferb. [ForceP Force
Transfer
On the other hand, when Top does not occur
in derivations, Force merges with FocP (or otherphrases) and Transfer it as shown in (16).
(16) [ForceP Force
Transfer
In the same way, the derivation of Rel headproceeds as in (17).
(17) [RelP Rel
Transfer
Three phase heads, Force, Rel, and Top, aresubject to Phase Impenetrability Condition(PIC).
(18) Phase Impenetrability Condition(Chomsky (2000: 108))
In phase P with head H, the domain of
H is not accessible to operations outside
P and only H and its edge are accessible
to such operations.
Given PIC, we predict that extraction ofsyntactic objects is banned from thecomplements of these phase heads. In thefollowing subsections, I will discuss empiricalsupports for my proposal.
4.1. Top as Phase Head
The contrast between Topicalization and
Focalization shows that Top head is a phase head.
The former induces a syntactic island fromwhich extraction of elements is banned, while
the latter does not. This is illustrated in thefollowing examples.

(19) a.*Which books did Becky say that to
Aaron she will give?
b. Which books did Becky say that only
to Aaron will she give?
(Koizumi (1999:141))
When Topicalization occurs in an embedded
clause, Top as a phase head triggers Transfer andthen sends its complement to two interfaces.
Then, the complement will be inaccessible tofurther syntactic operations due to PIC. First, instep 1, Top attracts to Aaron to the specifier of
TopP. Second, in step 2, the head Transfers TP.
Finally, in step 3, which books tries to move tothe specifier of ForceP, but this movement
violates PIC. Accordingly, this sentence isungrammatical. On the other hand, when
Focalization occurs in an embedded clause, Foc
as a non-phase head does not trigger Transfer of
its complement which will be accessible tofurther syntactic operations. Therefore, whichbooks can be extracted from the embedded
clause. In step 1, Foc attracts only to Aaron to
the specifier of FocP. Then, in step 2, whichbooks moves into the specifier of ForceP, which
serves as an escape hatch. Finally, in step 3,
Force Transfers FocP. The wh-element at the
specifier of ForceP is accessible to the attractionof Foc in the matrix clause. Thus, this sentence
becomes grammatical.
4.2. Rel as Phase Head
Next, let us consider the case of Rel head.
(20) a. This is the man [with whom next yeari I
will dance ti.]b. *Next yeari, this is the man [with whom I
will dance ti]c. *This is the man [next yeari with whom I
will dance ti]
d. Next yeari, I think [that I will dance withthe man ti]
In finite relative clauses, Topicalization can beapplied as shown in (20a). topicalized elements,-218-however, cannot be extracted from relative
clauses as shown in (20b) and also move into thehighest positions of relative clauses in (20c). On
the other hand, topicalized elements can beextracted from finite that-complement clause as
shown in (20d). a phase head Rel triggers
Transfer and then sends its complement to twointerfaces. Then, the complement will beinaccessible to further syntactic operations due
to PIC.
4.3. Force as Phase Head
Finally, let us consider the case of Forcehead. Force is the highest head of C-domain andhas the same function of standard C as a phasehead. Therefore, it is a phase head, but thephasehood differs between finite clauses andnon-finite clauses.
(21) a. *Sami, who I know [when you said you
saw ti], …
b. Sami, who I know [when to try to see ti],(Frampton (1990: 69-70)
In (21a), Sam cannot be extracted from finite
clauses, whereas it can be extracted fromnon-finite clauses as shown in (21b). Thisasymmetry shows that Force head of non-finite
clauses is not subject to PIC, and therefore does
not operate as a phase head.
Furthermore, on the contrary to finite tensed
clauses, non-finite clauses in English do nothave the layered projections.
(22) a. John wants to give a book to this student.
b. EVEN THIS STUDENT, John wants togive a book to.
c. *John wants EVEN THIS STUDENT togive a book to.
d. This student, John wants to give a bookto.
e. *John wants this student, to give a bookto.
(Barrie (2010: 272))
As (22) shows, Topicalization and Focalization

cannot occur in non-finite clauses though
topicalized or focalized elements can move to asentence first position. Therefore, non-finite
clauses in English do not have functional
projections such as TopP or FocP.
5. Analysis
In this section, I will solve the two problems
we saw in section 3, and also can explain
examples of (7) by my proposal.
First, let us consider (11), which has thefollowing modified structure (23) by myproposal.
(11) a. This is the man [with whom next year I
will dance.]b. This is the man [with whom, about
linguistics, I talked.](23) a. [DP the [ForceP [NP man][Force [RelP [PP withwhom][Rel [TopP [PP next year][Top [TP I
will dance]]]]]]]
b. [DP the [ForceP [NP man][Force [RelP [PP withwhom][Rel [TopP [PP about linguistics][Top [TP I will dance]]]]]]]In (23), Phase heads, Top, Rel, Force, trigger
Transfer, and then, linearization statements
which violate Distinctness condition are not in
the same Spell-Out domain. Moreover, twodifferent positions, the specifier of RelP and thespecifier of TopP, are occupied by two different
PPs respectively. Therefore, my proposal cansolve the two problems for Richards (2010).
Secondly, my proposal can explain theasymmetry between finite relative clauses andnon-finite relative clauses as shown in (7).
Non-finite relative clause (7) has the following
structures (24) by my proposal.
(7) a. [DP a person][PP with whom] to danceb. *[DP a person][DP whom] to admire(24) a. [DP[ a [ForceP [NP person][Force[non-phase][RelP [PP with whom [Rel [TP PRO todance]]]]]]]]-219-

b.* [DP[ a [ForceP [NP person][Force[non-phase][RelP [DP whom [Rel [TP PRO todance]]]]]]]]In (24a), Force head in non-finite relative clauseis not a phase head and cannot trigger Transfer.
Therefore, it has no linearization statements
which are bans on Distinctness condition in theSpell-Out domain. In contrast, in (24b), it has alinearization
statement
which
violates
Distinctness condition in the Spell-Out domain,<DP, DP>.

Barries, Michael (2007) “Control and WH-infinitives,”
New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising,ed. William Davis and Stanley Dubinsky, 263-279,
Springer, Dordrecht.
Bianchi, Valentina (1999) Consequences of Antisymmetry:
Headed Relative Clause, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Culicover, Peter (1991) “Topicalization, Inversion andComplementizers in English,” ms., The Ohio State
University.
Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT
Press, Cambridge MA.

6. Conclusion
In this paper, by exploring some problems ofDistinctness introduced by Richards (2010), I
proposed that Rel, Top and Force in the
Cartographic approach are phase heads whereas
Foc and Fin are not. This proposal solved the
problems for Richards (2010) and also tried tounify Cartographic approach with phase model.

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The
Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist
Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger
Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by phase,” Ken Hale:A Life in language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1-50,
MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy,”* An earlier version of this paper was presented at theStructure and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic

31th meeting of the English Linguistic Society ofStructures Volume 3, ed. by Adriana Belletti,

Japan held at Fukuoka University on November 9-10,

104–131, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

2013. I am grateful to Yoshiaki Kaneko and Etsuro

Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” Foundational Issues

Shima for invaluable comments and suggestions. I

in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger

would like to express my gratitude to Jun Abe,

Vergnaud, ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, andYoshiki Ogawa, Hiromu Sakai, and the audience forMaria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT Press,

their significant comments and suggestions. My

Cambridge, MA.

thanks also go to Takahiro Tozawa, Kenji Sugimoto,

Frampton, John (1990) “Parasitic Gaps and the Theory of

Akihiko Arano, Motoki Sato, Yuki Ichinowatari,
Nobuaki Shibata and Takanori Nakashima. All

WH-Chains,” Linguistic Inquiry 21, 49-77.
Kayne, Richard (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MITremaining errors and inadequacies are, of course, myown.

Press, Cambridge, MA.
Koizumi, Masatoshi (1999) Phrase Structure in Minimalist
Syntax, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.

Notes

Larson, Richard (1985) “Bare-NP Adverb,” Linguistic

1. In this paper, I owe the judgment of sentences withno reference to my informants.

Inquiry 14, 595-621.
Richards, Norvin (2010) Uttering Trees, MIT Press,

2. Following Larson (1985), I assume that bare-NP

adverb next year is PP.

Cambridge, MA.
Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left
Periphery,” Elements of Grammar, ed. by Liliane
Haegeman, 281-337, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

References-220-

(2) Do you know [the woman talking to ourboss]?
We propose the head raising analysis of RRCs:
the head of the RRC is base-generated inside the
The Head Raising Analysis of Reduced

RRC and then moves outside of it to become theRelative Clauses in English*

head of the RRC. On the basis of this analysis,
we will account for differences in syntactic
behaviors between FRCs and RRCs.

Takahiro Tozawa
Kitami Institute of Technology

2. Theoretical Assumptions
Keywords: full relative clauses, reduced relative

We introduce Narita’s (2011) H-α schema.

clauses, head raising analysis, head, edge feature

Narita adopts Chomsky’s (2008) proposal aboutedge features (EFs). This is shown in (3).
(3) The EF is a property only of LIs.
(Narita (2011: 81))

1. Introduction
Full relative clauses (FRCs) in English in (1a)As a consequence of (3), Narita proposes thehave been analyzed in two different ways: anH-α schema (4).

operator movement analysis in (1b) and a head(4) Merge must take at least one LI as its

raising analysis in (1c).

input.

(1) a. the book which I bought(Narita (2011: 82))

The H-α schema, which is a constraint on Merge,b. [DP the [NP [NP book]i [CP whichi I boughtsays that if Merge of X and Y occurs, either ofthem must be a lexical item (LI). The H-αti]]]c. [DP the [CP [DP bookj which tj]i I bought

schema follows from (3) since EFs trigger
Merge. For example, consider (5).

ti]]According to the operator movement analysis in(5) a. {H, XP}(1b), the relative operator which moves tob. *{YP, XP}[Spec,CP] and then the relative clause CP

Merge of H and XP in (5a) observes the H-αadjoins to the NP book. The relative operator

schema: H is a head. In contrast, Merge of XP

establishes the predication relation to be licensed.

and YP in (5b) violates the H-α schema since

Under the head raising analysis, the relative

both of them are phrasal categories. The reason

clause head book is a complement of which. The

why (5b) is not permitted is that both YP and XP,

DP headed by which moves to [Spec,CP], andwhich are phrasal, do not have the EF due to (3),then book moves to [Spec,DP] to derive theand Merge cannot be triggered.

isThere is a case of an apparent violation ofcontroversy regarding which analysis is more

the H-α schema: Merge of an external argument

adequate, we agree with Miyamoto (2010) thatand v*P. Let us consider (6).

surfacewordorder.

Althoughthere(6) [[KP the man] [v*P wrote the book]]1

both analyses are available in the theory of

The subject KP merges with v*P.2 This Merge

grammar.
In this paper, we deal with the reduced
relative clauses (RRCs) in (2).

seemingly violates the H-α schema since both
KP and v*P are phrasal categories. This apparent-221-problem is avoided if Transfer applies to the(9) supports that the RRC has the TP projection.

sister of v* and the constituent of v* and VP, as
shown in (7a).

4.2. The Lack of the CP Projection(7) a. [v*P wrote the book]

Our analysis of RRCs as TP predicts that neither

wroteea relative operator nor a complementizer can beTransfer

overtly realized in RRCs. This prediction isb. [[KP the man] wrotee]
In (7a), v*P and the complement of v* undergocorrect.

Transfer, so that the v* wrote remains. The v*(10) A man [(*who/*that) working for John]wrote has the EF (indicated by the subscript “e”)

visited us yesterday. (Krause (2001: 27))

since it is an LI. This EF triggers Merge with KP

The overt occurrence of a relative operator and aas shown in (7b). The Merge in (7b) observescomplementizer in RRCs is not allowed. Given

the H-α schema since the v* is an LI.

that the relative operator and the complementizer
occur in the CP domain, (10) indicates that
RRCs has no CP projection.

3. A Proposal
We propose the head raising analysis of RRCs
along the line of Bhatt (1999). We propose that

4.3. CP Adverbs

the RRC in (8a) has the structure in (8b).

The distribution of CP adverbs indicates that

(8) a. I know [the girl playing the guitar].

RRCs are TP. Cinque (1999) argues that theb. [DP [D the girl]i [TP [T -ing [non-finite]]honestly are CP adverbs. Then, it is predicted[v*P ti play the guitar]]]c. [DP the girl]adverbs such as evidently, unfortunately, andthat CP adverbs cannot occur in RRCs. This istheeborne out:

Transfer(11) a. A fire crew extinguished a blazing

The RRC is non-finite TP headed by -ing. As for
the RRC subject, Transfer applies at the DP

roadside

phase level, removing NP girl and thecontained a bomb.

constituent of D and NP from the derivational

b. *I

3

met

car
the

which

evidently

boyevidently/

workspace, as indicated in (8c). As a result, theunfortunately/ honestly reading the

D is left. Then, D moves from [Spec,v*P] and

book.

4

projects at the landing site, deriving the RRC.

While the CP adverb evidently can occur in the
FRC, it cannot occur in the RCC. This supports
the idea that RRCs lack the CP projection.

4. The Category of Reduced Relative Clauses
4.1. RRCs as TP
In this section, we see that the RRCs are TP. If

5. The Consequences of the Head Raising

RRCs are TP, we predict that TP adverbs canAnalysis

occur in RRCs. This prediction is borne out:

5.1. Idioms(9) Please tell me what you know about [theOur head raising analysis of RRCs predicts that

person probably being a worker on thea part of an idiom can be the head of the RRC.

ship].

This prediction is correct:

In (9), the sentential adverb probably can appear
in the RRC.5 If we assume that it is a TP adverb,-222-

(12) a. The headway that we made wasin (15a), while it is not in the RRC as in (15b).
The FRC has the operator movement strategy,satisfactory.
(Schachter (1973: 31, attributed to Brame

which allows the late-insertion of the relative(1968)))

clause. Therefore, Condition C is obviated inb. I was surprised at the headway being

FRC. On the other hand, the RRC adopts only
the head raising analysis, which disallows themade by Mary.
(12a, b) show that headway of the idiom makelate-insertion of the relative clause. Then, theheadway can be the head of the relative clause,

derivation of (15b) is shown in (16).

whether it is the FRC or the RRC. The RRC in(16) a. [DP [D which student]j [TP [T -ing] [v*P tj(12b) has the structure shown in (13).

read Chomsky’s book]]](13) [DP [D the headway]i [TP [T -ing] [vP be

b. [CP [DP [D which student]j [TP [T -ing]

made [D the headway]i by Mary]]][v*P tj read Chomsky’s book]]] was
6

The D moves and projects, deriving the RRC.

smart]
c. [hei say [CP [DP [D which student]jHere, the headway in vP forms a constituent withmake, so that the idiomatic interpretation is[TP [T -ing] [v*P tj read Chomsky’si

allowed.

book]]] was smart]]
In (16a), the RRC is derived by movement and5.2. Binding Principle C

projection of D. Then, the derivation proceeds,

Let us consider the derivation of the RRC again.

the RRC becoming the subject of the embedded(14) a. [DP Di [TP ..ti..]]clause as in (16b). At the point the matrix

b. [VP V [DP Di [TP ..ti..]]]

subject he is merged, it binds the R-expressionc. [v*P Subject v* V [DP Di [TP ..ti..]]]

Chomsky, violating Condition C. Therefore,

In (14a), D moves to TP and projects at the(15b) is ungrammatical.

7

landing site, deriving the RRC. Then, Merge ofthe matrix V and DP takes place, as indicated in

5.3. Extraposition(14b). The derivation proceeds further, yielding

As we have seen, the RRCs are TP as indicatedthe structure in (14c). In this way, the RRC isin (17).

contained in the base-generated object. That is,(17) [DP [D the girl]i [TP ti playing the guitar]]according to the head raising analysis, the RRC

Given that TP cannot be moved, it is predicted

cannot be late-inserted in the sense of Lebeauxthat the RRC cannot be extraposed. This

(1991). Now, the head raising analysis predicts

prediction is correct:

that a Condition C effect is observed in the RRC.

(18) a. A man said hello to me who wasThis prediction is confirmed:

wearing a fedora.

(15) a. Which student who was readingb. *A man said hello to me wearing a

Chomsky’si book did hei say was

fedora.

(Thompson (2001: 309))

Extraposition of the FRC is allowed as

smart?
b. *Which student reading Chomsky’si

illustrated in (18a), whereas that of the RRC is
not as in (18b). Note that it is TP that isbook did hei say was smart?
(Thompson (2001: 308))
Condition C is obviated in the FRC as illustrated

extraposed in the case of the RRC. This is shownin (19).

-223-

b. bought [DP [D the gift]i [TP PRO [T -ing](19) [DP A man ti] said hello to me [TPwearing a fedora]i
Generally

speaking,

movementofgive ti to him]]

TP is
8

prohibited. This is why (18b) is ungrammatical.

In (22a), the relativized subject receives only
6. Further Consequences

one accusative Case from the matrix v*. In (22b),6.1. Object Relativization

the relativized object gets two accusative Cases:

Let us consider the Case assignment to DPs in

one from the v* in the RRC and one from theRRCs. This is indicated in (20a, b).

matrix v*. DP must not be doubly Case-marked.
Therefore, (21b) is ungrammarical.9 Now, we(20) a. [v*P v* …[DP [D the man]i [TP [T -ing]

are in a position to discuss the case in which[v*P ti V Object]]]]passivization takes place in the RRC. Consider(23).

b. [DP Subject [T -ing] [v*P v* V Object]](23) [v*P v* … [DP [D the …]i [TP [T -ing] [vP be
In (20a), the RRC is non-finite and therefore, thesubject is not Case-assigned in the RRC. It

V-en ti]]]]

receives Case from a matrix element (forIn (23), the passivized v in the RRC loses its

example, v*). On the other hand, the object isability to assign Case. Thus, the object receives

Case-assigned by v* in the RRC as shown inCase at the landing site. That is, it gets only one(20b). Then, if the object is relativized, it will be

Case. Then, we predict that when the predicate

doubly Cased-marked: once by the v* in theof the RRC is passivized, the object can be

RRC and once by the matrix element. Given that

relativized. This prediction is correct:

DP cannot be doubly Case-marked, we predict(24) a. the suspects being examined by thethat subject relativization is permitted whereas

policeobject relativization is not. This prediction is(Quirk, et al. (1985: 153))b. [DP [D the suspects]i [TP [T -ing] [vP be

borne out:

examined ti by the police]]](21) a. Do you know the guy wearing thegreen suit?

In (24a), object relativization is possible. In(24b), which is the structure of (24a), the object

b. *I bought the gift giving e to him.

is not assigned Case in the RRC. It is(cf. I bought the gift to give e to him.)

Case-marked only once in the derivation.

The contrast between (21a) and (21b) shows that

Therefore, (24a) is grammatical.

the subject, not the object must be relativized.
The structures of (21a, b) are (22a, b),

6.2. Movement of Phrasal Categories

respectively.

When XP occupies [Spec,DP],(22) a. know [DP [D the guy]i [TP [T -ing] [v*P ti

the DP isphrasal, not lexical , even if Transfer applies tothe complement of D and the constituent of D

wear the green suit]]]and NP. This is indicated in (25).
(25) [DP XP [D NP]][DP XP D]

Transfer
D has XP in its specifier. Therefore, DP remains-224-phrasal after the Transfer operation. Here, let us

phrasal. Then, DP is merged with TP and this isconsider the case where the RRC subject DP has

a violation of the H-α schema. Therefore, (28b)a specifier.

is ungrammatical.

(26) *[DP [DP XP D]i [TP T [v*P ti…]]]
In (26), the RRC subject DP is a phrasal

6.3. Ambiguity

category and therefore, Internal Merge of DP

Let us adopt Chomsky’s (2007) hypothesis in

and TP violates the H-α schema since neither DP(30).
(30) EF is undeletable.

nor TP is lexical. Then, we predict that noelement occupies the specifier position of the(Chomsky (2007: 11))RRC subject DP. Before confirming this(30) suggests that the EF can be accessed moreprediction, let us digress for a moment andthan once. Actually, the EF is accessed twice

consider Degree Inversion in DP.

under our head raising of the RRC. Consider(27) It is nice to meet so beautiful a girl as(31a).
(31) a. [DP De [T -ing] [v*P t v* … ]]you.
In (27), Degree Inversion takes place: sob. [TP [T -ing] [v*P De v* … ]]beautiful moves to the DP edge. Suppose that so

In (31a), the EF of D triggers the Merge

beautiful moves to [Spec,DP]. With this in mind,

operation twice: once a Merge operation of D

let us return to the prediction. Given that Degreeand v* and once Merge of D and TP. On the

Inversion moves Degree Phrase to [Spec,DP], it

other hand, the EF may be accessed only once as

is predicted that Degree Inversion cannot occur

shown in (31b): the EF of D drives Merge of D

in the RRC subject DP. This prediction isand v*P, deriving the participial clause. Then, we

correct:

predict that there is a case in which a structural(28) a. I met a very beautiful girl playing
the guitar.

ambiguity arises between DP (the RRC) and TP(the participial clause). Consider (32).

b. *I met so beautiful a girl playing the(32) Mary saw the boy walking towards theguitar.

railroad station. (Chomsky (1964: 44))

As illustrated in (28b), Degree Inversion takes

The complement of saw in (32) is ambiguous

place in the RRC subject DP and the DP cannot

between the RRC and the perception verb

be the head of the RRC. The structures of thecomplement. This ambiguity is accounted for in(28a, b) are (29a, b), respectively.

terms of whether the EF of D is accessed once or(29) a. [DP [D a very beautiful girl]i [T -ing] [v*P

twice.
The structures of the complement of saw are

ti play the guitar]]b. [DP [DP [DegP so beautiful]j a [NP tj girl]]i

shown in (33a, b).
(33) a. see [DP [D the boy]i [T -ing] [v*P ti[TP [T -ing] [v*P ti play the guitar]]]
In (29a), nothing occupies [Spec,DP] andwalk towards the railroad station]]

therefore, DP becomes a lexical item D after theb. see [TP [T -ing] [v*P [D the boy] walk

application of Transfer. Internal Merge of D andtowards the railroad station]]

TP observes the H-α schema. Thus, (28a) is

In (33a), the EF of D triggers Merge twice:grammatical. In (29b), the Degree Phrase is in

Merge of D and v* and Merge of D and TP,[Spec,DP], which makes the RRC subject DP

which derive the RRC. In contrast, the EF of D-225-

drives Merge only once: Merge of D and v*,

Jennifer Claro for acting as informants and for10which derives the perception verb complement.

suggesting stylistic improvements. All errors are

In this way, the ambiguity follows from whetherof course mine.

the EF of D is accessed once or twice.
1. Narita eliminates label from the theory of
7. Conclusion

grammar. For convenience, we use labels in (6).

In this paper, we have argued for the head

2. Narita assumes that noun phrases are headed

raising analysis of the RRCs: the RRC subject

by K.

moves from within vP and projects at the landing

3. We assume that the noun phrase is DP and asite. We also assumed with Miyamoto (2010)

phase.

that both the operator movement analysis and4. We suppose that if it is an LI, a moved

the head raising analysis are available for theelement can be the label at the landing site. Seederivation of FRCs. Then, the question arises as

Donati (2006) and Chomsky (2008), for details.

to why only the head raising analysis is available

5. Katsuya Sugiura pointed out to me that there

for the derivation of RRCs. The answer is thatis

the RRCs project up to TP, not CP. That is, they

Thompson (2001) judges the sentence like (i) tolack the CP projection, so that they have nobe ungrammatical.

variationinacceptability

judgments.

(i)*The person probably playing the musiclanding site for operator movement. Therefore,

you heard used to be my roommate.

only the head raising analysis becomes available(Thompson (2001: 297))

for the derivation of RRCs.

We leave this issue for future research.
Notes

6. As Hisatsugu Kitahara correctly pointed out,

* An earlier version of this paper was presented

only the D head the moves to TP since the NP

at the 31st meeting of the English Society ofheadway is sent out to the interfaces. We

Japan held at Fukuoka University on November

represent the headway as D for convenience.

9-10, 2013. I would like to express my gratitude

The reason why headway is immediately

to Nobuhiro Miyoshi and Tadao Nomura forsubsequent to the in linear order is that when thetheir invaluable comments and suggestions. I

constituent {the, headway} is sent to the PF

would also like to thank Naoyuki Akaso,

component, a word order principle specifies that

Akihikoheadway is immediately subsequent to the. See

Arano,

HiroakiEmoto,

TomokoHaraguchi, Toru Ishii, Satoru Kanno, Shin-Ichi

Narita (2011) for details.

Kitada, Hisatsugu Kitahara, Yasuyuki Kitao,

7. Our head raising analysis predicts that theCornelia Daniela Lupsa, Yoichi Miyamoto,

RRC subject DP can be reconstructed into its

Masaru Nakamura, Taichi Nakamura, Tohru

base position. Verifying this prediction is left for

Noguchi, Satoshi Oku, Keisuke Sanada, Seichi

future research. I thank Hiroshi Terada for

Sugawa, Kenji Sugimoto, Katsuya Sugiura,bringing the reconstruction test to my attention.

Hiroshi

Masashi

8. Tohru Noguchi pointed out to me that there is

Totsuka, Saeko Urushibara, Tomohiro Yanagi,a case in which extraposition of RRCs is

Aya Yokochi for very helpful comments. My

possible. This is illustrated in (i).

Terada,ShigeoTonoike,thanks also go to Christopher Bozek and-226-(i)A man arrived wearing a fedora.

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

My informant judged this sentence to begrammatical and the participial clause to have

Chomsky,Noam(2008)“On

Phases,”the reduced relative reading. As Tohru Noguchi

Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory,suggested, (18b) may be ruled out for an

ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, andextra-syntactic reason. We leave this issue open.

Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT

9. Yasuyuki

Press, Cambridge, MA.

Kitao

asked

me

why

objectrelativization is allowed under the head raising

Cinque,Guglielmo(1999)

Adverbs

analysis of FRCs. We suggest that the structure

Functional

Heads:A

of FRCs like (ia) is (ib) under the head raising

Perspective,

OxfordUniversity

analysis.

Oxford.
Donati,(i)a. the girl who you met

Caterina(2006)

andCross-Linguistic“On

Press,Wh-Headb. [DP the [CP [DP girlj who tj]i you met ti]]Movement,” Wh-Movement: Moving on, ed.

We assume with Kayne (1994) that the D headby Lisa L.-S. Cheng and Norbert Corver,

the takes CP as its complement. It is this D head

21-46, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

that receives Case from a matrix element. Thus,

Kayne, Richard S. (1994) The Antisymmetry of

the DP girl who is not doubly Case-assigned.

Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

This is because the DP gets Case from theKrause, Cornelia (2001) On Reduced Relatives

embedded verb met and the D head the gets Casewith

from a matrix element.

dissertation, MIT.

10. Satoru Kanno wonders whether the subject inGenitive

Subjects,

DoctoralLebeaux, David (1991) “Relative Clauses,

the perception verb complement remains within

Licensing,vP. It may move to the matrix clause to get

Derivation,” Syntax and Semantics 25:

accusative Case from the matrix v* or it may get

Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads

accusative Case via Agree. We leave this issueand Licensing, ed. by Susan D. Rothstein,for future research.

209-239, Academic Press, New York.

and

the

NatureoftheMiyamoto, Yoichi (2010) “On Chinese andReferences

Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis,”

Bhatt, Rajesh (1999) Covert Modality in

Nanzan Linguistics 6, 13-46.

Non-Finite Contexts, Doctoral dissertation,

Narita,University of Pennsylvania.

Interpretation,

Brame, Michael (1968) “A New Analysis of theRelative

Clause:Evidenceforan

Leech,

Full

dissertation,

and

Jan

Svartvik(1985)A

Language, Longman, London.

Chomsky, Noam (2007) “Approaching UG from
Recursion

DoctoralinComprehensive Grammar of the English

Linguistic Theory, Mouton, The Hague.
+

Phasing

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey

Chomsky, Noam (1964) Current Issues inInterfaces(2011)

Harvard University.

Interpretive Theory,” ms., MIT.

below,”

HirokiSchachter,

=

Paul

(1973)“FocusandRelativization,” Language 49, 19-46.

Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and theThompson, Ellen (2001) “Temporal Dependency

View from Syntax-Semantics, ed. by Uli

and the Syntax of Subjects,” Journal of

Sauerland and Hans M. Gärtner, 1-30,

Linguistics 37, 287-312.

-227-

would get divorced.
(LEA (s.v. FRIGHTENED))
e. She was concerned that her address
might be broadcast over the radio.
心理形容詞の意味と従える補文標識 that の(MED (s.v. concerned))

有無との関連性 *（The Relation between Psychological

尚、本稿では補文標識 that を従える形式

Adjectives and theを THAT 型、that を従えない形式を ZERO

Existence/Nonexistence of the型と二形式が存在することを前提とし、従来

Complementizer That）の that 省略(that-deletion)という考え方はとらない。

土屋知洋（Tomohiro Tsuchiya）
防衛大学校（National Defense Academy）

１．先行研究1.1 一般的見解

キーワード：意味的統語研究，心理形容詞，

動詞が従える補文標識 that の有無に関す

補文標識 that の有無，コーパス

る研究は、古くは Jespersen (1928)、そしてStorms (1966)、Bolinger (1972)など枚挙にいとまがないが、形容詞に焦点を当てた研究

０．はじめには多いとは言えない。一般に、形容詞全般を本稿の目的は、以下(1)にイタリックで示

まとめ(2)のような記述が見られる。

される感情を表す分詞形容詞（participial
adjectives）、本稿では“心理形容詞”と呼ぶ、(2) a. We can leave out that in clausesの従える補文標識 that の有無を実証的に調after some common adjectives

査し、各心理形容詞の有する意味と補文標識(Swan (2005: 578))

that の有無とが密接に結びついているといb. In conversation, the omission ofう原理を新たに提案することである（以降、that is the norm, while the retention

イタリック、下線、φの記号は全て研究者にof that is exceptional(Biber et al. (1999: 680))

よる）。
(1) a. We were surprised (that) she came.

つまり、“馴染みのある高頻度”“話し言葉”(Swan (2005: 578))のどちらか、或いは両条件で補文標識 thatb. I’m very pleased that so many people

を従えない ZERO 型になる傾向があるといhave agreed to help us.

う。しかしながら、(1)であげた心理形容詞(LEA (s.v. HAPPY))が補文標識 that を従えるかどうかは、以下

c. Everyone is satisfied that the

表１が示すように英米の学習辞典に於いて

decision taken is the best all-roundも揺れが見られ、(2)の一般的見解では説明

solution.

しきれない側面が見られる。

(瀬戸[編] (2007: 811))

d. I was frightened that my parents-228-表１．英米の学習辞典に於ける that の記述
MED

confident は信念などに基づく確信性を表す
ため THAT 型傾向であると提示している。

LDCE

LAAD

CALD

surprised(that)(that)(that)

pleased(that)(that)

satisfied

that

that

(that)(that)

容詞の意味と補文標識 that の有無が密接に

frightened

that(that)(that)

that

結びついていると結論付けている。

concerned(that)(that)(that)

that

つまり、依拠するものが存在する客観的確信性か、その場での主観的な確信性という各形(that)：小見出し或いは例文で ZERO 型の掲
載を示す

1.3 従える統語形式と心理形容詞の意味
客観的に各心理形容詞の意味を特定する
ため、統語形式と心理形容詞の意味に関する

1.2 Bolinger (1972)と土屋 (2011)の研究

先行研究をここで概観する。まず、影山 (編)心理形容詞を取り上げている Bolinger(2001)では、(4)のように共起する前置詞との(1972)では、以下(3)のように対比する形で、関係から心理形容詞の意味を論じている。

補文標識 that のない ZERO 型と that を従える THAT 型の違いを説明している。

(4) a. at: 点的・瞬間的感情
b. with, of: 持続的感情(3) a. I’m overjoyed (tickled) you won it.

(影山 (編) (2001:84-85))

b. I’m overjoyed (tickled) that you wonit.

また、八木 (1999)では以下(5)に示すように、(Bolinger (1972: 53))

心理形容詞が従える構文から心理形容詞の有する性質を論じている。

ZERO 型((3a))では、話し手のその場での感情の状態、つまり「即断的心理状態」を表し、(5) a. that 節を従える感情形容詞：非一時的THAT 型((3b))では、命題内容を回顧し生じ

b. to 不定詞を従える感情形容詞：一時的る感情の状態、「反芻的心理状態」を表すと(八木 (1999: 167-169))いう。この“即断”と“反芻”という概念は、
土屋 (2011)の「主観的確信性」と「客観的確信性」にも通ずるものがある。1

上記の二つの先行研究から、前置詞 at と
to 不定詞構文を従える傾向にある心理形容

土屋 (2011)では、sure, confident, certain

詞は“瞬時的感情”を持ち、一方、前置詞の従える統語形式から各形容詞の語義を明with や of と共起し、また that 節を頻繁に従確にし、各形容詞が ZERO 型と THAT 型のえる心理形容詞は“持続的感情”を有するとどちらの形式を従える傾向にあるかを実証推察できる。

的に調査している。その結果、“It BE 形容

次節では、本節の先行研究の問題点、そし

詞 that”の形式を従える certain では THATて統語形式と意味との関係から、次の(6)に型傾向が見られ、この形式をとらず“S BEあげる具体的な問題について調査する。

形容詞 that”の形式のみ従える sure とconfident では ZERO 型の傾向であることを(6) a. 話し言葉に於ける心理形容詞の各型

明 ら か に し て い る 。 ま た 、 sure に 比 べの生起状況と意味との関係について-229-

b. 同一心理形容詞に於ける各型を引きのではないという先行研究への反証が上が起こす要因と各型の表す意味についてるだけでなく、統語形式による各心理形容詞の意味の特定と、その意味と補文標識 that

２．量的調査の有無に関係性が見られることが明らかと

以下の表２は、BNC の話し言葉のデータなったといえる。

を用いて、本稿の冒頭(1)であげた各心理形
容詞の従える統語形式を調査したものであ３．質的調査
第 2 節の量的調査の結果は、あくまで数値る。この量的調査より、主に三点が明らかとなる。

による傾向である。したがって、本節では、

一点目に、各心理形容詞の BNC におけるBNC の話し言葉のデータから、実際に検索総件数から、1398 件の concerned が ZEROされた用例を精査し、同一心理形容詞に於け型を従えず、ほぼ同じ件数といえるる各型（ZERO 型と THAT 型）を引き起こ

surprised と pleased の間で補文標識 that

す要因と、各型を従える際の心理形容詞の意

を従える傾向が正反対であるということは、味の違いについて調査する。

先行研究(2)の大きな反証といえる。二点目に、to 不定詞を従えない心理形容詞は THAT

3.1 surprised

型傾向にあり、逆に、前置詞 at と to 不定詞

従える統語形式から“瞬時的感情”を表すと共起傾向にある心理形容詞（surprised）

surprised は(7)の ZERO 型が無標形式であは ZERO 型傾向にあることが明らかとなる。

るが、(8)にあがる命題内容との間に明らかな時間の差がある場合（(8a)）、進行中の命表２．心理形容詞とその従える統語形式 2

題内容である場合（(8b)）、そして感情に至

心理形容詞

前置詞

to V

Z

T

った理由が明示されている場合（(8c)）、に

surprised [538]

at-19

37

69

36

THAT 型を従える傾向がある。

pleased [583]with-98

23

18

31

satisfied [178]with-411826(7) I’m surprised φ the boys let it (= afrightened[305]

of-49

1

6

9

dog：著者による) run their garden.

concerned[1398]

about

0

0

44

(8) a. I’m surprised that you haven’t-170

segregatedto V：to 不定詞；Z：ZERO 型；T：THAT
型

women ….

the

men

from

the

b. … he’s not surprised that hiscolleagues are looking into the

三点目に、前置詞 with と of と共起する心

matter.

理形容詞は THAT 型の傾向であるが、to 不

c. I was surprised that I got round the

定詞を従えるものは ZERO 型を従えること

room, cos I’m awful at remembering

自体には何ら問題がない（pleased, satisfied,names I think I'm gonna have to try

frightened）。

and … .

この量的調査からは、高頻度やレジスター
だけが補文標識 that の有無に影響を与える-230-

また、ZERO 型では「…に驚いた」という

その場での驚きを、THAT 型では「…という標形式である。しかし、(12)の二つの要因でことに驚いた」と命題内容を反芻した驚きをZERO 型を従える傾向が見られる。一つは、表しているといえる。

相手にその場で命題内容に対する感情を聞
く疑問文の場合である（(12a)）。そして、もう一つが、(12b)のような Oh, oh という一時

3.2 pleased
頻繁に to 不定詞を従える一方で、前置詞with と共起する pleased の扱いは難しいが、性や feel を連結詞として用い推断的な表現を伴う場合である。

THAT 型傾向にあることは量的調査結果からも明らかである。THAT 型で現れる用例の(11) A simple signature is fine, and then I,

多くは、(9)の各用例のように感情の強意をwhen I’m satisfied that I have seen

表す副詞との共起、命題内容との時間の差、that work in your file done in the way

そして感情の要因となる命題内容への反芻

you say you've done it, I will sign theの場合である。一方、ZERO 型は(10a)に見

teacher column on your sheet Okay,

られる、瞬時性が表される場面、そして(10b)….

の未だ実現していない命題内容に対して満(12) a. … can I ask a very general question
erm are you satisfied φ every one of

足感を表す場面である。

the participants is now totally
locked in.

(9) a. I must confess I was surprised,curious and highly delighted when erb. … pull it (= the bottom soap：著者に

you invited me to speak to you hereよる) out then, that’s it well done

today and er I’m very and sincerely

now what time is it now? Twelve

pleased that you did.

Oh, oh I feel very satisfied φ I’ve

b. Er, I’m glad that he’s pleased thatmanaged to clean the place.

Wales got an extra seat, it has got an
THAT 型の「…ということに満足している」

extra.
(10) a. I’m pleased φ we’ve got thisrecord now.

という意味解釈に対して、ZERO 型では意味が薄れ「…に満足している・嬉しい」という

b. And I’m very pleased φ I’m gonna

意味解釈が適切と言えよう。

have a bit of a result this afternoon.
3.4 frightened
意味の面では、THAT 型では「…というこ

量的調査結果に於いて、先の satisfied ととを喜ぶ・喜んでいる」と解釈でき、ZERO同じ傾向にある frightened を精査すると、型では「…して（しそうで）嬉しい」と推断

pleased と satisfied とほぼ同じ要因が補文的解釈が当てはまると考える。

標識 that の有無に影響していることがわかる。(13)では、感情を強める副詞との共起や感情に至る理由の明示がなされ、THAT 型で3.3 satisfied
Satisfied は、(11)のような命題内容との間表現されている。一方、frightened が ZEROに時間の差がある場合を含め THAT 型が無型を従える場合は、そのほとんどが(14)のよ-231-

うに未だ実現していない命題内容をとって間の差がある場合、命題内容が現在進いるのである。

行形で表現される場合、強意副詞が共起する場合、では THAT 型傾向【命(13) a. We are all frightened that fossil

題への反芻・反芻的感情】
b. その場での感情表出の場合、未だ実

fuels are going to run out in theforeseeable future, ….

現していない命題内容を従える場合、

b. … he was frightened that he was

では ZERO 型傾向【即断的感情・推

getting a bit panicky cos if, you know,

断的感情】

frightened a combine had had run
over it (=the sort of corn and barley).

４．インフォーマント調査 3(14) … if they (= children：著者による)’ve
got

a

job

or

something

本節では、これまでの調査結果の妥当性を

they’re裏付けるためネイティブスピーカーの反応

frightened φ they’re not gonna doを確認する。本調査では 7 名の英語母語話者

well and ….

に依頼をし、以下(17)にあげる著者がコーパスのデータから加工した質問文で補文標識

形式によって frightened の意味も変化しthat のない形式（質問用紙ではφ記号）がている。THAT 型では「…ということを恐れ

自然か、that がある方が自然か、また両形る」の解釈が適切だが、ZERO 型では「…で式共に自然か、という三つの選択肢から一つはないかと心配する・恐れる」という afraid

選ぶ形で調査を行った。

と類似した意味解釈となる。
(17) a. I was surprised { φ / that } I had
3.5 concerned

forgot to check e-mail, because I

前置詞 about と共起し、to 不定詞を従えhave never done so before.

ない concerned は“持続的感情”の意味を有a’. I’m surprised { φ / that } they

するといえ、ZERO 型を従えることはない。

smoke in a nonsmoking area.

THAT 型の用例では、(15)に見られる感情を

b. I’m pleased { φ / that } I’ve just got
a new job.

強める副詞との共起が一般的である。

b’. I’m very pleased { φ / that } I got a(15) He was very concerned that the
integration of the races might lead toviolence and public disorder on a largephone call from Chris last night.
c. Oh, do you feel satisfied { φ / that }your staff is busy right now?
c’. We’re satisfied { φ / that } wescale.

made a go of the business.
d. We are very frightened { φ / that }3.6 質的調査の結果
本節では用例を一つ一つ取り上げたが、そ

she is getting mad, because recentlyの結果、以下の二点に集約できると考える。

she broke up with her boyfriend andlost her favorite wallet.

(16) a. 感情と命題内容との間に明らかな時-232-

d’. He’s frightened { φ / that } he

won’t sing well in front of a large(17d’)に於いて、質的調査の結果とは異なりaudience.

THAT 型のみ容認とする被験者が 4 名と多かったことは予想外の結果となった。この上記(17)の質問と以下の表 3 を参照しながら考察を行う。

satisfied と frightened の結果は更なる調査の余地があることを示すと同時に、共に話し
言葉に於いても THAT 型のみを選択すると表３．インフォーマント調査の結果

いうレジスターの違いによる数値だけの研

設問

ZERO

THAT

両型 OK

BNC

(17a)

1

5

1

THAT

(17a’)

1

3

3

ZERO

(17b)

1

2

4

ZERO

本稿では、これまで補文標識 that の有無(17b’)

1

4

2

THAT

の議論に於いてあまり焦点が当てられてこ

(17c)

2

3

2

ZERO

なかった心理形容詞を取り上げ、各心理形容(17c’)

1

4

2

THAT

詞の意味が補文標識 that の有無のメカニズ

(17d)

2

4

1

THAT

ムに密接に関係していることを実証的に論(17d’)

2

4

1

ZERO

じた。インフォーマント調査で僅かながら、

BNC：各設問と類似した英文の BNC の質的調査での傾向を示す

今後に課題を残す形となったが、本稿の議論(17a)及び(17a’)の surprised の結果を考察(18) a. レジスター・頻度に関わらず、心理究への警鐘を鳴らす結果ともいえよう。
５．おわりにを以下の形で結論付けることができる。

すると、命題内容が過去完了で表現され、感形容詞の意味が従える形式を決定

情に至る理由が明記されている(17a)では

b. 命題内容への反芻・要因への依拠にTHAT 型のみ可能とするものが 5 名と、両型よる感情では THAT 型傾向、命題内

とも容認の数値が高い(17a’)と大きく異なる

容への即断的・推断的な感情では結果といえる。心理形容詞 pleased では、一ZERO 型傾向

時性の just を含む(17b)では本来 THAT 型傾

c. ZERO 型では形容詞の意味が推断的向にある当該形容詞が両型とも容認 4 名という ZERO 型の容認度が上がることがわか

本稿の語法研究的手法の議論とその結果る。(17b’)では、命題内容との明らかな時間が、数値や理論だけによらず、補文標識 thatの差があり、これまでの調査結果通り THATの有無という難解な現象を説明する新たな型のみ容認とする数値が高い。

原理を導く契機となると考える。

(17c)(17c’)の satisfied では、これまでの調査結果と完全に一致するものではない。その注

場での感情表出を表す(17c)では、確かに*本稿は、日本英語学会第 31 回大会（2013(17c’)より ZERO 型のみ容認する被験者が 1

年 11 月 10 日、福岡大学）に於ける口頭発名多いが、THAT 型のみ容認とするものも 3

表の内容に加筆修正したものである。研究発

名いる。(17d)及び(17d’)の frightened に於

表当日、フロアから貴重なご意見を頂いた柏

いても、特に命題内容が未だ実現していない

野健次先生、川崎修一先生ほか諸先生方に深-233-

年』第 127 巻, 第 7 号, 2-6, 研究社出く感謝申し上げる。
1.

中右 (1981, 1983)では、Bolinger (1972)

版, 東京.

と類似した「既定性」という概念を用い補文

中右実 (1983)「文の構造と機能」『英語学大

標識 that の有無について説明している。中系５：意味論』548-626, 大修館書店,

右 (1981: 427)では「補文化辞 that は、そ

東京.

の補文の命題内容が非既定的なときにかぎ

瀬戸賢一 (編) (2007)『多義ネットワーク辞

り省略できる」とし、中右(1983: 553)には既定述語として be surprised をリストに含典』小学館, 東京.
Storms, G. (1966). “That-clause in Modern

めている。しかし、心理形容詞が命題内容にEnglish,”

対する反応だと考えれば、全ての心理形容詞

249-270.

EnglishStudies,47

は“既定的”といえ、第２節でみるように 実

Swan, M. (2005) Practical English Usage

際に ZERO 型を頻繁に従える surprised の

3rd ed, Oxford University Press,

リスト化には修正が必要といえる。

Oxford.

表中の[ ]は検索総数を表し、前置詞は共土屋知洋 (2011)「「客観性」と補文標識 that

起頻度の最高のものを示している。尚、to Vの 出 没 － “ 確 信 性 ” を 表 す sure,の件数では、pleased の挨拶として英米の学

confident, certain の比較―」『岐阜工習辞典で成句扱いされている表現、業高等専門学校紀要』第 46 号, 15-20,

frightened の「～するのを怖がる」の意味を

岐阜工業高等専門学校.

2.

八木克正 (1999)『英語の語法と文法省いた件数が提示されている。
3.

意味からのアプローチ』研究社出版, 東京.

本インフォーマント調査の被験者の国別

内訳は以下の通りである：アメリカ人 3 名，

（学習辞典とその略称）

カナダ人 2 名，アメリカ人・ニュージーラン

CALD: Cambridge Advanced Learner’s

Dictionary 3rd ed.

ド人各 1 名LAAD:

Dictionary 2nd ed.

参考文献

LDCE:

（文献）
and

E.

Finegan.

(1999)

ofed.
MED: Macmillan English Dictionary 2nd

Bolinger, D. (1972) That’s That, Mouton,ed.

The Hague.

（コーパス）

Jespersen, O. (1928) A Modern English

BNC: the British National Corpus, world

Grammar Ⅲ , Allen and Unwin,
London.
影山太郎 (編) (2001)『日英対照Dictionary

LEA: Longman Essential Activator 2nd

Longman Grammar of Spoken andWritten English, Longman, London.

LongmanContemporary English 5th ed.

Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S.
ConradLongman Advanced American

動詞の意

味と構文』大修館書店, 東京.
中右実 (1981)「変形と意味の原理」
『英語青

-234-

edition例文(1)や(2)にみられるような「もたせかけて」や、「反対して」という意味の他に、
against は(3)や(4)のように、「背景にして」
前置詞 against の多義についてという特徴的な意味で使われることがある。(1)，(2)におけるような意味と、「背景(On the Polysemy of the Prepositionにして」という意味は、一見かなりかけ離Against)
れており、「背景にして」という語義は、
against の持つ意味の中ではとても例外
辻 早代加 (Soyoka TSUJI)的に思われる。
大阪市立大学大学院
本発表においては、「背景にして」とい(Osaka City University)
う意味は、たまたま against の語義に加わったものだというわけではなく、
キーワード：前置詞，イメージ・スキーマ， against の持つ本来的なものから生じた意味であるととらえ、このことを、
多義，force dynamics
against の多義全体の構造を明らかにして行く上で論じる。
１．はじめに
本発表の目的は、英語の前置詞 againstの多義を、認知意味論のやり方にもとづ ２．これまでの against に対する扱い
き、イメージ・スキーマを用いて明らかに
認知言語学においては英語の前置詞にすることである。
ついて分析した論文は多いが、against に
その際、against の多義分析には、力の及 ついて詳しく触れているものはあまりな
ぼし合い、トラジェクターの front/back、 い。特に、「背景にして」という語義につ
観察者の視点、という３つの観点を考慮 いては、辞書の記述においても、「対比」に入れた、他の前置詞分析とは異なる説 の意味と同じ項目であつかわれていたり、明が必要であることを主張する。
また別の辞書では「接触」と同じ項目に分類されていたりと、全く一貫しない。
against は、多義的で抽象的な意味も多い前置詞であり、その多義は以下のよう
Lindstromberg (2010)は、 against のに、様々に広がりを見せる。
大本の意味は“Firm or forceful contact”であるとしている。
(1) A shovel was leaning against thewall.
(2) There are strong arguments forand against euthanasia.
(3) His red clothes stood out against
the snow.
図１：It’s leaning against the wall.
(4) The elections are taking placeagainst a background of violence.
(all from OALD)-235-

であると想定した場合に、TR が前後どちら を 向 い て い る か 、 つ ま り 「 TR のfront/back」と、「LM と TR の二者間の力の及ぼし合い」による関係となる。
図２: Horizontal view of a black bookpositioned against a white wall.
against の最も典型的な意味は図１の状
態（壁に本がよりかかっている状態）であると説明し、そして、「背景にして」という意味には、視点の位置を考慮することが重要であると述べ、その視点とは、図１の視点を 90 度回転させ、図２のように、本を正面から見る視点であるとしている。
また、このとき、本が黒、壁が白なので、とても本がはっきりと見える、と論じている。
では、黒い本と白い壁、のように、視覚的に対照的でない場合はどうなるのか。
また、against の「背景にして」という意
味が、どのように他の意味と関連しているのか。そういったことを明らかにし、
against の多義構造に一貫した説明を与えるために、次節で against のイメージ・スキーマの提案と考察を行う。

３．against のイメージ・スキーマ
説明には、認知言語学におけるトラジェクター（以下 TR）とランドマーク（以下 LM）の概念を用いる。
against は抽象的な意味においても多く使われる前置詞だが、他の前置詞と同様に、TR と LM 間の物理的な関係を表す
意味が元になっており、そこから比喩的に、抽象的な意味で用いられるようになったと考えられるので、まずは具体的・物理的な関係について考察する。この際の物理的関係というのは、ほかの前置詞一般において重要となる単純な位置関係ではない。TR が単なる物体ではなく、人間

３．１．物理的な意味の against
説明にあたり、LM と TR のそれぞれが、どのような状態にあるかについて、以下のように場合分けを行う。のちに説明するが、E は F からメタファー的に生じている。
●LM
S：static(静的である)D : dynamic(動的に TR に力を加えている)●TR
CFR : confront(LM と対面している)
B : back(LM に背を向けている)
C : contact(LM に接している)
F : force(LM に力を加えている)E : eyes(TR の方から LM に視線が及んでいる)
この場合分けの組み合わせによって、against のイメージ・スキーマとして、以下の６つのスキーマを提案する。
●スキーマ１：S. CFR. F. C 【中心義】
・LM は静的である（S）
・TR と LM は対面している（CFR）
・TR から LM に力が加えられる（F）・TR と LM は接触している（C）-236-

の方向は問わず、例文(8)のように垂直方
向や、それ以外である場合もある。
他のスキーマに比べ最も用例の頻度が高いことと、また、他のスキーマへの展開
が、スキーマ１を中心とする場合に最も自然に捉えられることから、このスキー
マ１を中心義と考える。
図３：スキーマ１
図３は、スキーマ１における典型的な状態を表すものである。TR が、LM である壁に力を加えている。TR から LM に積
極的に力を加えようとする場合、もちろん TR が LM に対して背を向けたり、横向きになったりすることも可能ではあるが、TR が人であれば LM に対面しているのが通常である。このとき、LM から TR
へは反作用の力が働くため、通常 LM が壊れたり倒れたりすることはない。図において、太い矢印は力が加わっていることを表し、細い矢印は、それに対する反作用を示す。以下で挙げるスキーマ２～６においても同様である。
スキーマ１には下記のような例が含まれる。以下特に表記のない場合、例文はBNC による。
(5) When Lee pressed against thedoor it would not open so that she
panicked, standing in theenveloping steam.
(6) He crashed against the wall thenfell, rolled the last few stairs to
the hallway.
(7) Sir Bryan nodded at the rain
beating against the window.
(8) …smash your head against theceiling.

●スキーマ２：D. CFR. F. C・LM が動的である（D）。それ以外はス
キーマ１と同様。

図４：スキーマ２
TR は LM の力に対抗する力を持つが、どちらの力が勝つか負けるかは含意されない。
(9) Shannon fought against him as
hard as she could…
(10)Fish instinctively fight their way
upstream against the current…
(11) They walked in a line, the yaks'
bulky bodies braced against thewind…
●スキーマ３：S. CFR・スキーマ２における力の及ぼし合いが失われ、TR と LM が接触することもな
く、対面していることだけを表す。

図３においては力のやり取りは水平方向で行われるが、スキーマ１においては力

図５：スキーマ３-237-

pose….
(15)I sit up and rest against the wall.
(16)A shovel was leaning against
the wall. (OALD)(12)And so handed me to the coach …
and sat backwards over againstme. (OED)(13)My house is against the church.
(OALD)●スキーマ４：S.B.F.C
・スキーマ１で LM と対面している TR
が、LM に背を向け（B）、もたれている状態を表す。
・TR から LM へ力が加わるが、重力によるものであり、TR も静止状態にある。

●スキーマ５：S.C・スキーマ４における力の及ぼし合いが失われ、TR と LM が接触していることだけを表す。
・本来は力が働いている物の位置関係だ
けを知覚的に捉えなおしている。

図７：スキーマ５
図６：スキーマ４
スキーマ１の場合は、TR が LM に向かい、積極的に力を加えているのに対し、
このスキーマ４においては、TR は LMに背を向けており、力は重力によるものとなる。日本語でいうならば、「押す」ではなく「もたれる」状態である。また、スキーマ１においては、TR が LM に対し、どの方向から力を加えてもよいが、スキーマ４の場合、力のやりとりは水平方向に近い軸に限られる。というのも、重力で力が加わっている（つまり、TR の重さを LM が支えている）ので、TR がLM の下にある可能性はなく、また逆にTR が LM の上に乗っている状態は、通常 on で表されるためである。

(17)Mrs Cullam lit a cigarette andstood against the table, her hands
hanging by her sides, thecigarette dangling from her
mouth.
(18)Put the chair against the wall.
(Lindstromberg 2010)●スキーマ６：S.B.E
・スキーマ４における「力」がメタファー
によって視線に置き換えられ（E）、LMを背にしている TR が前景、LM が後景となることを表す。

(14)The manager leaned against thewall, arms folded, ankles
crossed, in a typical hotelier's

図８：スキーマ６-238-

TR が front/back という向きを持たない TR と LM が図 10 のように見えていて、
場合や問わない場合は、「背を向ける」と TR が前景、LM が後景として認識できれいう観点はなくなるが、視点の位置から ば、TR が実際の空間的には LM の手前
見て TR が手前にあり前景となり、LM が （視線上の手前）になくとも、against を後ろにあり後景としてはたらいていれば、 用いて表せる。ただし、この場合は、実際
against を用いることができる。また、例 には前に来ていない TR を前景として捉(21)からわかるように、TR と LM が必ず える動機付けとして、一見してわかる色
しも視覚的に対照的である必要はない。 などの対比が必要となる。
(19)…they like to photograph her insupermarkets against the Ecover,looking wholesome and fresh,youthful but still somehow
serious.
(20)…they were taking pictures of
each
other
againstthebackground of the Gatun Locks…
(21) Arctic mammals and birds
have evolved pure white fur orfeathers that help to camouflage
them against the white expansesof the frozen north.

(22) … his teeth gleamed white
against a dark red beard.
(23)Veins stood out bluish against
pale skin.

また、スキーマ６を、視線によって見えているように回転したものが図９、さらにそれを簡略化したものが図 10 である。

TR である teeth と veins は、実際に空間的には LM である beard と skin の前ではなく、奥にあるが、その色合いが対照的であることと、平面的には図 10 のように見えていることから、各 TR は前景として 捉 え ら れ る 。 例 (22) 、 (23) に お い てagainst が用いられるのは、単にふたつのものが「対比」されているからというだけでなく、図 10 のような状態で TR が前景となっているからこそである。

スキーマ５

スキーマ１

スキーマ２

スキーマ４

スキーマ３

図９

スキーマ６

図 10

図 11

-239-

以上で述べてきたスキーマ１～６によ 担や嫌悪といった、悪い意味のものが現って、against の表す物理的な意味と「背 れる。これは、スキーマ１の図を見るとわ景にして」という意味の説明が可能とな かるように、TR が LM に向かって積極的った。図 11 は、スキーマ同士のつながり に力を加えることが、LM に対して攻撃やを表したものである。
拒否の姿勢をとることにつながるからでagainst の多義を説明するには、他の前置 あると考えられる。
詞の説明に大きく関わるような TR とLM の形状や位置関係というよりも、TR ●スキーマ２よりと LM が力を及ぼし合うということと、 （LM に対して逆行・反対・抵抗）
TR の front/back、そして観察者の視点をこれらの場合は、スキーマ２の比喩的考慮に入れることが必要である、という なものである。抽象的な意味で力を加えことが明らかになった。図１においては、 てきたり、はっきりと流れや向きを持つ
本発表におけるスキーマ１と４との区別 LM に対して、TR は逆行したり、反対しが曖昧であったが、TR を、front/back を たり、抵抗したりすることを示す。
もつ人間として考えることによって、より意味の違いがはっきりと捉えられるよ(25)Harold was a tie-wearer, against
うになった。また、図２に示した「本を正the fashion, but he had already
面から見た場合」というのは、観察者の視removed it…
点が導入され、メタファーによって視線(26)…they would prefer to pay extraに置き換えられた力が及ぼされていると
for insurance against sickness
いうことであると示すことができた。以and unemployment.
上のように、一見例外的である「背景にして」という語義も、他の語義と一貫した説 ●スキーマ６より明が可能となる。
（LM が比喩的な意味での「背景」）
最後に、スキーマ６の背景を表す
３．２．抽象的な against の意味の分類
against の抽象的な例である。
抽象的な against の意味について、少ないが例を上げて見ていくことにする。
(27)The love story unfolds against a
backdrop of civil war. (OALD)●スキーマ１より（LM が負担・嫌悪の一方的な行き先）
例(27)は、civil war を背景として、the
まず、スキーマ１から得られる抽象的 love story が展開した、という意味になる。
な例として、以下のようなものがある。 TR は前景であり、LM はその後ろだてとなる後景として捉えられている。againstが抽象的な意味での背景を表すのに使わ(24)Did you know anyone who had aれる場合、“against a backdrop of ~”や
grudge against her?
“against the background of ~”といった抽象的な意味になると、TR の front/back 表現がよく用いられる。これは、単には考慮されず、負担や嫌悪といった TR が、 “against ~” だけでは、「～に反対して」
LM に一方的に向かうことを表す。このと という意味と区別がつきづらいためであ
きの TR には、いい意味のものでなく、負 る。

-240-

以上のように、抽象的な意味の against
をみても、against という前置詞には、比喩的にであってもそうでなくても、力を及ぼしあうという観点が重要であること
がわかる。

辞書

４．おわりに前置詞の分析が広く行われてきた認知言語学においても、未だ記述が少ない
against の多義を、イメージ・スキーマを用いて説明した。その際、against は、他の前置詞分析における幾何学的な要素のみではその多義が分析できないことが明らかとなった。
例 え ば 、 Lakoff (1987) や Brugman(1983)による over の分析においては、ほぼ純粋に TR と LM の形状や位置関係によって説明が可能となっていたが、against の場合は、力の及ぼし合いという観点、つまり広義での force dynamics、
観察者の視点、そして TR の front/backという３点が必要不可欠であるということがわかった。

コーパス
BNC: British National Corpus.
(http://bnc.jkn21.com/)

OALD : Oxford Advanced Learner’s
Dictionary of Current English, 8th ed.
2010. Oxford: OUP.
OED : Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed.
20 vols. 1989. Oxford: OUP.

主要参考文献Brugman, C. M. 1983. Story of OVER.
Indiana:
Indiana
University
Linguistics Club.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, andDangerous Things: What Categories
Reveal About the Mind. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lindstromberg,
S.
2010.
EnglishPrepositions
Explained.
Revisededition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Talmy, L. 1988. Force dynamics inlanguage and cognition. Cognitive
Science 10, 2:117-149.

-241-

に適格となる。

（高見 2007: 645）

このように、2 つの先行研究は食い違っ‘time’-away 構文の多義ネットワークていることを主張しているが、両先行研(Network of the ‘time’- away

究は作例に基づくため、実際のところど

construction)

うなのかは明らかでない。そこで、 コーパスの実例に基づき、‘time’ -away 構文

山本恵子 (YAMAMOTO Keiko)とは一体どんな現象であるかを実証的に

大阪大学大学院 (Osaka University)検証する。尚、本稿では紙面の関係上、この構文を捉える上で最も重要だと思わキーワード： ‘time’-away 構文、コーパ

れ る 時 間 句 night に 絞 っ て 議 論 を 展 開する。

ス、プロトタイプ、意味拡張

２．BNC と COCA のデータと考察
２．１．‘time’ -away 構文の時間句

１．はじめに(1) の文の目的語は動詞に下位範疇化

先行研究では ‘time’ -away 構文の時間

されず、また、意味も各要素の総和以上

句に何が入るかについて区別されずに分の意味を持つ。そこで、Jackendoff (1997)

析されていたが、BNC, COCA コーパス

は (1) のような文に関して、(2a) の形式を使って区別して検索してみたところ、に (2b) の意味を持つ構文であるといういくつか面白いことが明らかとなった。

趣旨の分析をしている。

表１, ２は ‘time’ -away 構文の生起数を時間句別に上位から順に並べた結果である。

(1) We’re twistin’ the night away .
(Jackendoff 1997: 534)

V ___ away

V away ___

TOTAL

night
time
hour
day
evening
life
afternoon
minutesummermomentwintermorning
fall
TOTAL

50
12
2
8
3
7
5
2
1
0
1
0
0
91

3
25
19
7
10
2
4
6
1
2
0
1
0
80

53
37
21
15
13
9
9
8
2
2
1
1
0
171

表1

時間句別生起数(2) a. [ VP V NP away]b. ‘waste [ Time NP] V-ing’ (Ibid.: 555)
これに対して、高見(2007) は 、

Jackendoff の 意 味 定 義 に あ る 「 無 駄(waste) 」 という意味は必ずしもこの構
文の十分条件ではないことを指摘し、その代案として、 (3) の意味的機能的制約を提案している。
(3) Time-away 構文の意味的・機能的制
約：Time-away 構文は、主語指示物
が 、 非 生 産 的 (nonconstructive) 行
為、活動を 、時間 表現 が表す時間 全
体にわたっ て行う と解 釈される場 合

-242-

BNC

V ___ away

V away ___

TOTAL

145
7
37
11
47
14
3
4
3
2
2
0
0
263

17
98
51
70
14
39
10
8
8
6
1
3
2
327

162
105
88
81
61
53
13
12
11
8
3
3
2
590

night
hour
day
time
life
afternoon
eveningmorningsummerminutefall
momentwinter
TOTAL

表2

COCA

b. Sergeant dozed the day away
[ … ]. (BNC)
一方、night の場合、動詞自体に「無駄」といった意味を含む動詞はほとんどみら
れず、むしろ dance, drink, talk のような比較的活発な動作を表す動詞が多くみられた。このように、night と共起する
動詞とそれ以外の時間句と共起する動詞の種類に関して明らかな違いがみられた。
さらに、インフォーマント９人に

時間句別生起数‘time’ -away 構文の例をいくつか提示したところ、ほとんどの人が ‘dance the

まず、night の生起数が他の時間句とnight away’ しか耳にしたことがなく、比べて圧倒的に多いことがわかった。次それ以外の表現には非常に違和感を覚えに、night の場合、他の時間句と違って、る人が大半であった。実際の日常会話で[V ___ away] の語順が多くみられ、また、 も ‘dance the night away’ を含めて、
away と共起する動詞の種類に大きな違‘time’ -away 構文を使用しないというこ
いがあることがわかった。

とであった。このようなインフォーマン

night 以外の時間句の場合、主として、ト調査の結果はコーパスの実例がいずれ(4) のような while, laze, idle など動詞

も文学作品や歌のタイトル、新聞記事の自体に「のんびり」、「怠惰」といった意

見出しやパンフレットの宣伝文に特化し味を含む種類の動詞が最も多くみられた。 たものばかりであったことからも裏付けられる。
(4) a. She decided to while away the

このように時間句の生起数と共起する

time [ … ]. (BNC)

動詞の種類から判断して、‘time’ -away

b. Rosie Essa was just idling away

構文は決して均質な現象ではないと考え

a few hours [ … ]. (COCA)られる。また、ここまでの考察を踏まえても、 [ V night away] は ‘time’ -away(4) の動詞は時間句と away が一まとま構文のプロトタイプだと考えられるので、りとなってイディオム表現を成している

以下では、 [V night away] に絞って、ため、 away と共起することは何ら不思議論を展開する。

議なことではない。また、(4) のようなタイプの他に night 以外の時間句と共２．２. [V night away]

起する動詞は、(5) の sleep, doze のよ
うな比較的不活発な動作を表す動詞が生

表 ３ , ４ は night と 共 起 す る 動 詞 を
上位から順に並べた結果である。

起する傾向がみられた。
(5) a. [ … ] she slept the afternoon

away [ … ]. (COCA)-243-

dance24
drink
3while, talk, love2
fritter, disco, cha-cha-cha, rock androll, quickstep, boogie, shimmy, swing,
prance, cut, scratch, sing, chat, sup,1
relax, laugh, smooch, shiver, whittle,
walk
TOTAL
53
表 3 BNC night と共起する動詞の件数順
dance
82
party, drink, talk6
while, dream4
two-step, gamble, sleep
3
pass, idle, tango, boogie , waltz, sing,2
eat , snooze
disco, twist, sway, swirl, rant, bugle,dine, sip, nosh, suck, wince, love,
baby, flirt, drift, snuggle, doze, snore,
1
sit, wait, dwell, pray, study, read,
grade, loiter, pace, walk, run
TOTAL
162
表 4 COCA night と共起する動詞の件数順(BNC 8/53, COCA 13/162)。それらの動詞は、ヨーロッパのフォークダンス系の踊りを表す waltz, two-step や、ラテンア メ リ カ 系 の 踊 り を 表 すtango,

chachacha, shimmy, boogie, twist や、
前者と後者の踊りの融合体である
quickstep, rock and roll で、いずれも社
交ダンスの種類に相当するものばかりであった。 また、(8) のような swing, sway,
swirl, prance は い ず れ も 踊 り の 様 態 やステップを表し、(9) の disco は踊りの場所を表す。このような動詞はすべて「踊り」に関する動詞として一つのグループにまとめられる。
(7) a. [ … ] to tango the night away ,there are halls in the deep, deep
woods. (COCA)
b. Two-step the night away at
Blanco's. (COCA)

両コーパスともに、dance の使用例が他の動詞と比べて群を抜いて多く、BNC(8) [ … ] we swung the night away .
(BNC)

では５３例中２４例、COCA では１６２(9) I have discoed the night away .

例中８２例みられた。
(6) は コ ー パ ス で 一 番 多 く み ら れ る(BNC)dance の例である。
次にコーパスでみられた (10)-(13) のよ(6) a. Come on, Ms. Perdue, let's dance

うな踊り以外の動詞の例を見てみよう。

the night away . (COCA)
b. Diana danced the night away(10) [ … ] the local Irish folk and otherwith friends in a disco. (BNC)

from Berlaymont go to talk thenight away .

(BNC)

このような ‘dance the night away’ の文(11) [ … ] discos are filled with visiting

は、ディスコやそれに類する場所で、「主Brits and Scandinavians partying

語は自分の意思で（本来寝るべき時間の）and

夜、踊って過ごす。」ことを表し、また、(COCA)「（主語は好きなことをしているので）(12) Norman

drinking

the

night

away .

その活動は当然、楽しい。」 という意味

cuttingandscratching the night away [ … ].

で特徴づけることができる。

(BNC)

began

また、dance 以外にも、(7) のような

(13) [ … ] a disco bar where those of us「踊り」に関する動詞が多く見られたwith any energy left after a hard-244-

day's sport were able to relax the‘dance the night away’ の意味特徴とぴnight away ! (BNC)ったり一致している。従って、これらの例はいずれもディスコの ICM を介した

これらの動詞は一見、何の繋がりもない‘dance the night away’ からの拡張と考ようにみえるが、図１のようなディスコ

えられる。

の ICM を想定すればそこに当てはまる

さ て 、 (14) の よ う な 一 見 デ ィ ス コ のものばかりである。ディスコと言えば、ICM と関連し難い動詞 ( love, smooch,「夜、若者たちがダンスミュージックに

baby, flirt, drift, snuggle ) の例がいくつ

合わせて踊って楽しみ、その結果、憂さかみられた (BNC 3/59, COCA 5/160) 。

など晴れて気分が良くなる場 」として特(14) a. So tonight, let's love, baby, and

徴づけることができる。

drift the night away . (COCA)
1. dance

The ICM of Discob. They went to bed again and( Dance forms: Ballroom dancing)

drank and loved two nights away .
(BNC)

2. to dance music
3. Night
4. Young People
5. Purpose: have fun

これらの文はいずれも「恋人たちが夜、愛し合って過ごす」ことを表す。これら( drink, chat, etc.)

はディスコの ICM と直接的に関係する

6. Effect: have a soothing effect
図１

Disco の ICM

ものではないが、それでも「主語が、夜、
自分の意思で好きなことをして楽しむ」(10)-(13) の 文 を み て み る と 、 (10) のという面からみると、 ‘dance the night

talk （お喋り）, (11) の party （どんちaway’ の意味特徴と関連づけられる。

ゃ ん 騒 ぎ ） と drink （ 飲 酒 ） , (12) のここまでの [V night away] のほとん

cut, scratch （DJ の即興演奏）, (13) のどの動詞は ‘dance the night away’と関relax （くつろぎ） は、いずれもディス

連づけられる。しかし、 [V night away]

コの ICM を想定すれば、そこに当てはまの中には少数ながら、 ‘dance the night

るものである。また、dance の種類につaway’ の意味特徴である「自分の意思でいて詳しく見れば、先述した社交ダンス楽しむ」という意味から完全にかけ離れの種類に繋がっている。

ているように思われる文がみられた。

このように、[ V night away] でみられる圧倒的大多数の動詞（sup, sip, nosh,(15)~(17) が そ の よ う な 非 典 型 例 で あ る(BNC 3/53, COCA 5 /161)。

eat, dine →「飲食」， sit →「飲食中に付随する動作」，talk, chat, laugh →「談(15) Shivering the night away in the

笑」，party, rant, sing, run →「どんちreeking darkness of the tunnels, heゃん騒ぎ」， gamble →「賭け事」， relax

had asked himself this question→「効果」）はいずれも、ディスコの ICM

more than once. [ … ] (BNC)を想定すれば、そこに当てはまるものば(16) Given

to

bouts

of

insomnia,

Lipscomb paced the nights away .

かりである。
また、それぞれの文の意味特徴も-245-(COCA)

(17) [ … ] two elk stood on hills to ourな地位を持ち、‘time’ -away 構文のプロ

bugling thestarspangled night away . (COCA)

トタイプであることが動機づけられる。

north

and

south,

本稿では紙面の関係上、night 以外の
時間句について詳しく取り上げることは(15) の文は主 語の 若 者は悪友に脅され 、できないが、時間句 night だけを扱ってある女性から金を奪うためにトンネルのも、どういう背景知識に合わせるかによ

中で待ち伏せするように命じられ、自分って、「楽しい」もあれば「楽しくない」の意思に反してぶるぶる震えながらトンという全く正反対の意味になり得て、一ネル内で待ち伏せしている状況を表す。

つの意味定義で収まりきらない現象であ(16) の 文 は フ ッ ト ボ ー ル の 有 名 選 手 でることが明らかとなった。ここまでの考

あるリプスコが不眠症のため廊下を夜な察から先行研究について次のことが考え

夜な歩いて過ごしていることを表す。こられる。

の２例はいずれも、主語が全く楽しんでいない点で、 ‘dance the night away’ の

3. 先行研究の検証

主たる特徴とも言える「楽しい状況」と先 行 研 究 で Jackendoff (1997) は 、はかなりかけ離れている例だと言える。

‘time’ -away 構文について (18) のようだが、いずれも小説の文であり、その物に、「その主語の活動は楽しいもの」、あ語の中で、別のある場面では若者が普段るいは、「主語は何かほかのことをするべは夜、ディスコに行ったり、友達たちときだった」という意味の両方あるいはい楽しんで騒いでいる状況描写が見られた。

ずれかを含んでいると特徴づけている。

(15) と (16) は 一 見 ‘dance the night
away’ と全く関連性を見出し難い例に思(18) There is an insinuation that the

えるが、若者の日常的な夜の活動の ある

activity in question was heedless

一コマが ‘time’ -away 構文を使って状況

pleasure, or the subject should

描写されたと考えると、あくまでも可能

have been doing something else or性であるが、このような例でさえもboth.

(Jackendoff 1997: 538)

‘dance the night away’ と関連づけることができる。次に、(17) の文はヘラジカ

この特徴づけは本稿で述べた ‘dance theが鳴いて、夜が過ぎるという描写である

night away’ の意味特徴にぴったり一致が、bugle は鹿の求愛活動である鳴き声

す る も の で あ る 。 実 際 に 、 Jackendoff

を 表 す の で 、 こ の 例 は (14) の よ う な(1997) の中で みられ る night と 共起すlove な ど の 例 と 関 連 づ け ら れ る 文 で ある動詞は、踊りを表す twist や飲酒を表り、このような例でさえも可能性として、

す drink, お喋りを表す talk など、いず‘dance the night away’ と関連づけられれもディスコの ICM から導かれる動詞る。

ばかりであった。従って、Jackendoff の

このように、 [V night away] の文は

主張はまさに ‘time’ -away 構文のプロト非典型例に至るまで、何らかの形で、タイプをうまく捉えている一般化だと考‘dance the night away’ に関連づけられえられる。

る こ と か ら も [V night away] の 中 で一方、高見 (2007) の意味的機能的制‘dance the night away’ が圧倒的に特別

約は ‘dance the night away’ のようなプ-246-

2007:644)

ロトタイプを捉えるには漠然としたものであるが、周辺的な例にはうまく当ては(23) Crinums bloom like crazy andまる一般化だと考えられる。実際に、高come back year after year. Tough as

見 (2007) の中で見られる night と共起

a mule, big as imagination, pretty

する動詞は (19) の例のように、 worry,astremble, moan, weep, cry などいずれもMilk-and-wine

楽しい活動とはかなりかけ離れた意味を

summer away [ … ]. (COCA)asummerdress,
lilies

[

bloom

…

]

the

持つタイプの動詞が多くみられた。
先行研究では、‘time’ -away 構文に生起(19) John came down with a high fever

する動詞は活動を表し、状態であってはand went to bed early, moaning the

ならないという制約が設けられているが、night away .（高見 2007: 644）(21) は (20) と 同じ 状 態動 詞 であ る sitが使用されている。また、先行研究では、

これらの動詞は、コーパスでみられる [V‘time’ -away 構文の主語は意思を持つもnight away] の少数例、すなわち shiverのでなければばらないという制約が設けのような非典型例に相当するものである。

られているが、 (23) の主語はユリの 花

以上のことから、Jackendoff と高見ので (22) と同じく 意思 を持たない主語 の食 い 違 っ た 主 張 は 、 そ れ ぞ れ 、 ‘time’例である。このように先行研究の制約が-away 構文の違った例を念頭において一問題ではない実例がコーパスで見られる般化されたため生じたと説明できる。

ことからも両先行研究は相補的なものでだが、両先行研究は ‘time’ -away 構文はないと判断できる。

を説明する上で相補的なものでは ない。

では、これらの反例にどのような説明がそれは次のコーパスでみられた実例から与えられるだろうか。本稿では、時間句判断できる。 (21), (23) は両先行研究のを night に 絞 っ て 議 論 を 展 開 し て い る

意味制約が問題にはならない例である。

ため、他の時間句を含む (21) や (23) の文に対する十分な説明力は示せないが、(20) *Celia

sat(Jacekndoff

two

hours

1997:537,

away .

た と え ば (21a) の 文 は 楽 し い イ ベ ン ト

Takami

活動の一コマとして、食べたり飲酒した
りするのと並列する形で sit という状態

2007: 645)(21) a. Summer fairly erupts with

動詞が ‘time’ -away 構文の中で状況描写

opportunities to sit, sip andされたと考えると、たとえ状態であってnosh the day (or night) away inも問題にならないと説明できる。 (21b)the fresh air of a festival,の文は、文脈状況から、この主語（夫）concert or special event of yourは妻が産後の肥立ちが悪くて 気分も不安

choosing. (COCA)

定であることに向き合わずに、呑気に玄b. That night he [ … ] sat the

関先に座っている状況を描写している。

evening away on the footstep of

従って、この場合は日中働くべき時間に

the house. (COCA)

眠って過ごすタイプ、つまり night 以外(22) *The light flashed two hours away .
(Jackendoff

1997:

537,

Takamiの 時 間 句 の 例 で あ る (5) の 文 と 関 連 づけることができそう だ 。次に (23) の 時-247-

間 句 は summer で あ る が 、 文 脈状 況 かVerb-Particle Explorations , eds. by

ら、前文の主語の花のハマユウは夏のド

Dehé, Nicole et al. 67-93, Mouton de

レスに喩えられている。‘time’ -away 構

Gruyter.

文の主語のユリも、このドレスを着た少Lakoff, George. (1987) Women, Fire,女のように喩えられていると想定すると、外観に基づくメタファーの例として、

Dangerous Things: What Categories
Reveal about the Mind. Chicago:‘dance the night away’ と関連づけて考University Press.

えられそうだ。このように、先行研究のLakoff, George and Johnson, Mark.

Metaphors

We

Live

意味制約の反例となる実例も、文脈状況(1980)

さえ整っていれば決して問題にはならな

University of Chicago Press.

いと説明できる。このような例は (15) -By ,Langacker, Ronald, W. (2008) Cognitive(17) でみた非典型例と同様、背景となる

Grammar:A

BasicIntroduction ,フレームが大きく関わっている。

Oxford University Press.
瀬戸賢一 (2007) 『英語多義ネット

4. まとめワーク辞典』, 小学館.

コーパスを使って時間句ごとに調べて嶋田裕司 (1985) 『句動詞』, 大修館

みることで、 ‘time’-away 構文は決して書店.

均質な現象ではないことがわかった。まSullivan,Karen(2007)“Lexical

た、時間句 night に限っても一つの意味

filledness and metaphor in idioms,”

定義には収まらない現象であることが明Collocations and idioms 1: Papers
from the First Nordic Conference on
Syntactic Freezes, eds. By M.

らかとなった。
―主な参考文献―

Nenonen, S. Niemi & J. Niemi.

Iwata, Seizi (2011) “He laughed his

330-341, Joensuu University Press.

lexical-constructional

高見健一 (2007) 「形式と意味のミスマ

account,” Paper presented at theッチ―Time away 構文を中心に―」『, 英

Fourth International Conference on語青年』, 11 月号, 研究社, 642-645.

head

the

off:

A

Linguistics

English.

ofContemporary

Osnabrück―コーパス―

University,

Germany.

British National Corpus (BNC)

岩 田 彩 志 (2012) (2012) (2012) (2012)

The Corpus of Contemporary American
English (COCA)「Way 構文はどのような移動を表す
か？」, 畠山雄二（編）『日英語の構文

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary

研究から探る理論言語学の可能性』,
85-97, 開拓社.

English (2004)
Oxford Dictionary of English Second

Jackendoff, Ray (1997) “Twistin’ thenight away,” Language 73, 534-559.
Jackendoff,Ray(2002)

Edition Revised (2005)
Oxford English Dictionary Second“Englishparticle constructions, the lexicon,
and

the

autonomyofsyntax,”-248-

Edition on CD-ROM Version 4.0(2009)

(2) では，initiative，self-reliance，maturity という 3 つの NP が文頭に生起している。後続する節では，these が照応表現として主語位置を占めている。本稿では，(2) のような「左方転英語における「多重 XP 左方転位」構文

位」構文を Multiple XP Left Dislocation (以の統語的派生について∗

下 MLD と略記) と呼ぶことにする2 。NP で(The Syntactic Derivation

はなく XP とするのは，次節以降で示すよう

of Multiple XP Left Dislocationに，NP 以外の要素も文頭の位置に生起することがあるためである。

in English)

本稿は MLD 構文に対してどのような派生
山内昇 (Noboru Yamauchi)を想定するべきかを考察する。本稿の主張を一

名古屋大学大学院 (Nagoya University)

言で述べると，次の (3) のようになる。

(3) MLD 構文は，断片 (fragments) が，後

キーワード: 多重 XP 左方転位，断片，派生

続する独立節に統合 (integrate) して派生する。

1. はじめに
生成統語論で伝統的に「左方転位」と呼ばれる構文がある。NP が文頭に生起し，後続する節でその NP と同一指示の代名詞が用いられこの分析では，例えば (2) の根底には，次の(4) のような断片と独立節のつながりがあるとする。そして，その断片に対し，統合という操作がかかり (2) が派生する。

るというものである。(1) にその例を示す。

(1) Her parents, they seem pretty uncaring.

(4) Initiative, self-reliance, maturity. These
are the qualities we’re looking for.

(Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1408))(1) では，her parents が文頭に生起しており，後続する節では主語の位置を they が占めている。本稿では，(1) のような「左方転位」構文を指して Single NP Left Dislocation (以下 SLDと略記) と呼ぶことにする。

SLD 構文については，統語論的にはもちろん，意味論的・語用論的にも数多くの論考がある。しかし，その考察の対象は，(1) のように，一個の NP が文頭に生起する文に限られている。次の (2) のように，複数個の NP が文頭に生起し，後続する節に同一指示の照応表現がSLD 構文の統語的派生に対しては「変形規則による派生」と「基底生成による派生」という二種類の分析が提案されている。しかし，どちらの分析も MLD 構文には適用することができない。なぜならば，MLD 構文にはどちらの分析でも捉えられない事実が残るからである。
その事実は (3) の分析に従うことで，自然に捉えられるようになる。
もしも MLD 構文と SLD 構文が本質的に同じ構文であるとすれば，SLD 構文の派生に対しても (3) のような分析を想定できると考えられる。しかし，MLD 構文と SLD 構文には，用いられるという文は扱われていない1 。

いくつかの構文的相違を観察することができる

maturity ––ため，SLD 構文の派生に対しても (3) の分析

these are the qualities we’re looking for.

を適用できるかどうかは今後の課題とする。

(2) Initiative,

self-reliance,

本稿の構成は次の通りである。第 2 節では，

(ibid.: 1751)

SLD 構文の派生に対する二つの分析を概観し，-249-

そのどちらの分析も MLD の構文には適用で(6) は文法的な文である。変形規則方式では，派きないことを示す。第 3 節では，(3) で示した

生形の根底には文法的な基底形が想定される。

分析に従うと，SLD 構文の派生に対する分析

MLD 構文も (5) のような変形規則により派

では捉えられなかった事実を捉えられるように生するとすれば，次の (7) のような予測を導くなることを示す。第 4 節では，MLD 構文とことができる。

SLD 構文との間にみられるいくつかの相違点(7) 文頭に生起する要素を照応詞が占める位を示す。第 5 節はまとめとする。

置に戻した基底形も文法的となる。

2. 「左方転位」構文の派生
SLD 構文の派生には「変形規則による派生」と「基底生成による派生」という少なくとも二種類の分析が提案されている。もしも MLD 構
文が SLD 構文と同じ構文であるとすれば，そのどちらかの分析を MLD 構文に適用できる

この予測は，(2) で示した MLD 構文のように，NP の連鎖が文頭に生起するような場合には，問題なく成立する。例えば (2) の根底には，次の (8) のような文があるとする。

(8) Initiative, self-reliance, maturity are the

はずである。本節では，どちらの分析も MLD

qualities we’re looking for.

の構文には適用できないことを示す。

(8) は文法的な文である。従って，NP の連鎖が文頭に生起する場合には，(7) の予測は成立

2.1. 変形規則による派生
最初に，MLD 構文の派生には「変形規則にすることが分かる。
しかし，次の (9a-c) で示すように，MLD 構

よる派生」という分析を適用できないことを文にはこの予測が成立しないタイプのものが示す。

Ross (1967) は SLD 構文に対して，随意的な変形規則による派生を提案しており，次の (5)で示す定式化を行っている。

ある。

(9) a. Smooth, relaxed, and laid-back ––all are appropriate ways of describ-

(5)

X
2#

[

1
1

–
[

NP

–

2
2
+Pro

]

ing Scott’s new single, which is taken

Y
3
3

OPT

from her latest full-length set, “Av-==⇒]enues Of Love.”(Ross (1967: 422))(Billboard, 4 Apr. 1998, p. 65)
b. If you kill someone because you love
them and they didn’t love you, if you(5) は第 2 項の NP が全体の左側に上位付加

kill someone because you hate them

し，その第 2 項に代名詞を残すという変形規–– these are understandable acts of

則である。

violence.

この分析によると，例えば (1) で示した SLD
構文は，その根底には次の (6) のような文があり，(5) の操作がかかり文中の要素が文頭に移動されて派生する。

(U.S. News & World Report,
26 Oct. 1981, p. 70)
c. You blame yourself, you blame otherpeople, you guess at reasons –– theseare examples of made-up stuﬀ.

(6) Her parents seem pretty uncaring.
(Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1408))-250-(John Tarrant, 2008, Bring Me
the Rhinoceros, p. 163)

(9a-c) では AP，if 節，S がそれぞれ文頭の位(11) の規則は，S0 が (X) NP S に展開される

置に生起している。後続する節では，主語位置ということを示している。文頭の要素は単一のを照応表現が占めている。変形規則方式によれ

構成素 NP として生成され，その後ろに S がば，(9a-c) の根底にあるのは次の (10a-c) とい生成される。(X) には as for や speaking of とうことになる。

いう表現が生起する。
この分析では，例えば (1) のような SLD 構(10) a. * Smooth, relaxed, and laid-back

文は (11) の句構造規則で直接生成される。

are appropriate ways of describing

もしも MLD 構文が (11) のような規則で，Scott’s new single, which is taken

基底生成されるとすれば，次の (12) のようなfrom her latest full-length set, “Av-

予測を導くことができる。

enues Of Love.”b. * If you kill someone because you love(12) 文頭に生起する要素は構成素を成す。

them and they didn’t love you, if
you kill someone because you hate

MLD 構文における文頭の要素が構成素を成them are understandable acts of vi-

すか否かを考える上で，次の (13) で示す観察

olence.
c. * You blame yourself, you blame
other people, you guess at reasonsが参考になる。

(13) a. They’ve broken up Penutian, letalone Macro-Penutian.
b. Penutian they’ve broken up, let

are examples of made-up stuﬀ.
(10a-c) は，(9a-c) で文頭に生起していた AP，alone Macro-Penutian.
c. *Penutian, let alone Macro-Penutian

if 節，S を照応詞が占めていた主語位置に戻したものである。(10a-c) が非文なのは，AP，ifthey’ve broken up.

節，S といった要素は主語の位置には立つことはできないからである。変形規則方式によれば，(9a-c) は (10a-c) という非文を基底とない限り生成できないことになる。そのため，(9a-c) のような事例では，(7) の予測は成立しないことになる。
以上の議論から，MLD 構文の派生に対しては「変形規則による派生」という分析を適用できないと考えられる。

(Fillmore et al. (1988: 515))(13a) に は Penutian,

let alone Macro-

Penutian という A let alone B の連鎖がある。
Penutian, let alone Macro-Penutian という連鎖の中で，Penutian だけを (13b) のように，話題化することはできる。しかし，(13c) のよ
うに Penutian, let alone Macro-Penutian をまとめて話題化することはできない。構成素を成さない連鎖は話題化できないという前提を受け入れるとすれば，A let alone B という連鎖は2.2. 基底生成による派生
次に，MLD 構文の派生には「基底生成による派生」という分析も適用できないことを示す。

Rodman (1974) は SLD 構文に対して，基底生成による派生を提案しており，(11) の句構造規則を導入している。

(11) S0 → (X) NP S (Rodman (1974: 446))

構成素を成していないことになる。
それでは MLD 構文における文頭の要素が構成素を成すか否かについて考えてみたい。 次の (14) で示すように，MLD 構文では，文頭の要素中に let alone が生じることがある。

(14) To our great regret, it is we pedagogues-251-

who must more frequently than anyone

else, express a negative attitude toward

根底には，次の (16) のような断片と独立節のthe results of children’s work. Blame,

連鎖があると考える。

disapproval, let alone punishment ––these are the sharpest tools of our(16) a. Smooth, relaxed, and laid-back.

trade, and in order to use them a peda-

All are appropriate ways of de-gogue must possess enormous skill andscribing Scott’s new single, whichtact and the highest inner standards.

is taken from her latest full-length(The Current Digest of the Soviet

set, “Avenues Of Love.”b. If you kill someone because you

Press, Mar 15 1967, p. 26)

love them and they didn’t love you,(14) における MLD 構文では，文頭の要素中

if you kill someone because youに let alone が生起している。上の (13) で示

hate them. These are understand-

した Fillmore et al. (1988) の観察を受け入れるとすれば，MLD 構文における文頭の要素もable acts of violence.
c. You blame yourself, you blame

let alone の前後で構成素を成していないと考other people, you guess at rea-

えることができる。そのため，(14) のような事

sons. These are examples of made-

例では，(12) の予測は成立しないことになる。

up stuﬀ.

以上の議論から，MLD 構文の派生に対しては「基底生成による派生」という分析を適用できないと考えられる。

(16a-c) では，(9a-c) で文頭に生起していた
AP，if 節，S といった要素が，断片として独立節の前に生起している。これらの断片が後続する独立節と統合して (9a-c) のような MLD

3. 断片の統合による派生
第 2 節では，SLD 構文の派生に対する「変形規則による派生」と「基底生成による派生」という分析は，MLD 構文の派生に対しては適用できないということを示した。この節では，そのどちらの分析でも捉えられなかった事実は，(3) で示した分析の下では，自然に捉えられるようになることを示す。

構文が派生するとすれば，(10a-c) にあるような非文を基底として想定せずに済む。
さらに，文頭の要素中に let alone が生起す
る (14) におけるような MLD 構文の根底には，次の (17) のような断片と独立節の連鎖があると考える。

(17) Blame, disapproval, let alone punish-(3) で示した分析を形式化して述べ直すとす

ment. These are the sharpest tools ofれば，(15a) のような断片と独立節の連鎖を基

our trade, and in order to use them a

底として，統合という操作がかかり，(15b) のpedagogue must possess enormous skill

ような構造が派生するというようになる。

and tact and the highest inner standards.

(15) a. [XPi Xi ], [XPj Xj ], ..., [XPk Xk ].

(17) では let alone を含む連鎖が断片として独[S ... NPi+j+...+k ... ].
b. [XPi Xi ], [XPj Xj ], ..., [XPk Xk ] ––立節の前に生起している。このような構造を基底として想定すると，断片は断片で，独立節は[S ... NPi+j+...+k ... ].
本稿の仮説を想定すると，まず (9) のようにNP 以外の要素が文頭に生起する MLD 構文の独立節で，別々に生成できるようになる。
別々に生成された断片と独立節が，統合したものと考えることには次のような根拠がある。

-252-

(18) Gifts, hospitality, help, encouragement

surance against moisture, vermin,

on a big project, great service. All ofdrafts and rot.

these are special occasions for express-(Pulp & Paper Magazine

ing gratitude to your friends, family,

of Canada, Jul. 1936, p. 535)
b. That I feed the beggar, that I for-and colleagues at work.
(Dianna Booher, 2012, How to Write

give an insult, that I love my enemy

Thank You Letters). . . all these are undoubtedly great
virtues.

(18) では，5 つの NP が断片として独立節の前(Carl G. Jung, 1969, Psychologyに生起している。このように断片と独立節の連鎖が実際に観察されるという点を踏まえると，and Religion, p. 339)
c. Whether people noticed the pub-

断片と独立節は別々に生成され，その後に統合

lication of opinion polls, whether

されるという分析も可能だろうと考えられる。

they noticed local and national

以上，この節では MLD 構文の派生に対しpoliticians, whether they noticedて「断片の統合」という分析を提案した。そしcampaign themes –– these seem rel-て，この分析に従うと，SLD 構文の派生に対

atively pure perceptions.

する分析では捉えられない事実を捉えられるよ(William L. Miller, 1991, Media

うになるということを示した。

and Voters, p. 146)
(19a-c) では PP，that 節，whether 節がそれ

4. SLD 構文と MLD 構文の相違点
前節では MLD 構文の派生に対して「断片ぞれ文頭に生起している。このように MLD 構の統合」という分析を提案した。もしも MLD

文は SLD 構文とは異なり，NP 以外にも様々

構文と SLD 構文が同じ構文であるとすれば，な要素が文頭に生起する。

SLD 構文に対しても「断片の統合」という分析を適用できると考えられる。しかし，本節で4.2. 照応表現の種類及び文頭の要素と関係指摘するように MLD 構文と SLD 構文の間に第二の相違は照応表現の種類及び文頭の要素は少なくとも三つの構文的相違を観察することとの関係にある。SLD 構文では文頭の要素にができるため，SLD 構文に対しても MLD 構

よって，照応表現は一つに決まる。例えば，(1)

文と同じ分析を適用できるかどうかは今後の課のように，her parents という要素が文頭に生題とする。

起すると，they という代名詞が用いられる。それに対して，次の (20a-d) で示すように，MLD
構文では文頭の要素に従って，どのような照応4.1. NP 以外の要素の生起第一の相違は文頭に生起する要素の種類にあ表現が用いられるかは一つに決まらない。

る。SLD 構文では文頭に生起する要素は NP相当語句である。それに対して，次の (19a-c)(20) a. Plates, tiles, carpeting, chairs: ev-

で示すように，MLD 構文では NP 以外の要素

erything in Anne and Lachlan
Stewart’s home is tartan.

も文頭に生起することがある。

(The British National Corpus

der ﬂoors . . . these are just a few

ARJ: 1437)
b. Kidnapping, spying, imprisonment,of the places where Scutan gives in-

not to mention the nuclear explo-(19) a. Under rooﬁng, under sidings, un--253-sion plot –– these activities are vil-る。(21) では，文頭に生起する個々の要素がlainous by almost all moral stan-

それぞれ先行文脈におけるどの表現に対応する

dards.

のかを示すために，i から k の指標を付与して(David K. Johnson (ed), 2009,

ある。

Heros and Philosophy, p. 42)
c. James Vane, Basil Hallward, Sybil(21) He takes [an ordinary target]i , puts

Vane –– these deaths were not im-[four diﬀerent expressions of a faceportant to him now.

above it]j , and [a hinged door that can(Oscar Wilde, 1989, The Picture

shut out the faces]k . A targeti , a facej ,of Dorian Gray, p. 54)
d. Beachfront dining, fresh lobster,a doork : these are what we call “sym-and a European clientele: Somalia’s restaurant scene is quickly
changing for the better.

bols”.

(Boys’ Life, Sep. 1985, p. 76)(21) における MLD 構文では，a target，a face，a door という要素が文頭に生起している。これらの要素はそれぞれ先行文脈にある指標を付(The Daily Yomiuri, 9 June

与した要素に対応する表現である。この談話で2012, p. 12)は MLD 構文は，先行文脈に提示された表現

まず (20a) では，文頭の要素を everything でをまとめあげると何であるかを「統括」するた受けている。(20a) では all や these といっために用いられていることが分かる。このように他の照応表現を用いることも考えられる。次SLD 構文とは異なり，MLD 構文は「統括」のの (20b-c) では，どちらも these N の形式の照機能を担うことがある。

応表現が用いられている。しかし，文頭の要素と N の位置に生起する要素の関係性は異なっ

5. おわりにている。(20b) では文頭の要素から N の位置

本稿は MLD 構文に対してどのような派生をに activities が用いられることを推測できるが，想定するべきかについて検討した。本稿で示し(20c) では文頭の要素から deaths が用いられたことをまとめると次のようになる。第一に，ることを推測できない。最後の (20d) では文頭SLD 構文の派生に対して提案されている分析の要素をまとめあげる表現として，Somalia’s

では MLD 構文にみられる事実をあますことな

restaurant scene という NP が用いられていく捉えられない。第二に，MLD 構文の派生にる。(20d) のような場合は，なおさら文頭の要対しては「断片の統合」という分析を適用する

素だけからどのような NP が用いられるかを決と，SLD 構文の派生に対する分析では捉えら定することができない。このように SLD 構文

れない事実を捉えられるようになる。第三に，とは異なり MLD 構文においては，どのようなMLD 構文 と SLD 構文には構文的相違が観察

照応表現が用いられるかは一つに決まらない。

されるため，「断片の統合」という分析を SLD
構文に対しても適用できるかどうかは今後の課
題にしたい。

4.3. 独自の談話機能
第三の相違は談話機能にある。MLD 構文は

SLD 構文が担うことがない独自の談話機能を注担うことがある。例えば，次の (21) で示すよ

∗ 本論文は，日本英語学会第 31 回大会 (2013

うに，MLD 構文は先行文脈で一度提示された年 11 月 9 日，於福岡大学) において口頭発表

情報を「統括」するために用いられることがあされた原稿に加筆，修正を行ったものである。

-254-

本稿をまとめるに際して，大名力先生，大島義

参考文献

和先生，中右実先生，大室剛志先生，滝沢直宏

Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay and M.

先生，佐藤翔馬氏より，貴重なご指摘やご助言

Catherine O’Connor (1988) “Regularityを賜った。口頭発表当日に貴重な質問とコメン

and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Con-トを戴いた松本マスミ氏，藤田耕司氏，山村崇

struction: The Case of Let Alone,” Lan-

斗氏，天沼実氏に感謝する。なお、本論文におguage 64, 501-538.

ける不備や誤りは全て筆者の責任による。

Huddleston, Rodney D. and Geoﬀrey K. Pul-

1 Rodman (1974) では，次の (i) で示すよう

lum (2002) The Cambridge Grammar ofに，複数個の要素が文頭に生起する例を挙げて

the English Language, Cambridge Uni-

いる。

versity Press, Cambridge.

(i) Bill, Sue and that damn snake, he told

梶田優 (2011) 「文法原論」 東京言語研究所，

her to get it out of their sleeping bag.

春期特別講座における講義 (2011 年 4 月

17 日).

(Rodman (1974: 442))
MLD 構文と (i) のような例との間には次のよ

Lambrecht, Knud (2001) “Dislocation,” Lan-

うな相違がある。第一に，MLD 構文では後続

guage Typology and Language Univer-する独立節の一カ所に照応表現が生起するのにsals 2, ed. by Martin Haspelmath, Ekke-

対して，(i) では文中の複数の箇所に代名詞がhard König, Wuldf Oesterreicher and生起している。第二に，MLD 構文では文頭のWolfgang Raible, 1050-1078, Walter de

要素中に and が生起することは稀であるのにGruyter, Berlin and New York.

対し，(i) の例は次の (ii) で示すように and を

中右実 (1983) 「文の構造と機能」安井稔他『意落とすと非文となる。

味論』 (英語学大系第 5 巻)，548-626，大(ii) * Bill, Sue, that damn snake, he told her

修館書店，東京.

to get it out of their sleeping bag.

Rodman, Robert D. (1974) “On Left Disloca-(ibid.)
これら二つの相違点から，本稿では (i) のよう

tion,” Papers in Linguistics 7, 437-466.
[Reprinted in Materials on Left Dislo-

な例を MLD 構文としては扱わない。

cation, ed. by Elena Anagnostopoulou,

2 本稿では，次の (i) の Huddleston and Pul-

Henk van Riemsdijk and Frans Zwarts,

lum (2002) の観察に基づき，(2) のような文を1997, 31-54, John Benjamins, Amster-「左方転位」構文の一種として扱うことにする。

dam and Philadelphia](i) “[A] special case of the left dislocation

Ross, John R. (1967) Constraints on Vari-construction (Ch. 16, §8.1): the dash fol-ables in Syntax, Doctoral dissertation,lows a coordination in initial position

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

which provides the antecedent for an[Published as Infinite Syntax! by Ablex,

anaphor in the clause nucleus, typically

Norwood, 1986]

demonstrative, as here. A colon might
be used in this construction, but a dashis the usual punctuation.”(Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1751))-255-

(1) a.

回帰は人間言語にしか存在しな
いのか。

フェイズの意味的・概念的特性とb.

人間言語は必ず回帰を持つのか。

c.

回帰以外には人間言語固有の特性はないのか。

進化的妥当性について(藤田 (2009: 123))(On the semantic and conceptual propertiesof phases and evolutionary adequacy)(1a)については、鳥の歌声などに関する吉田江依子

議論、(1b)についてはピラハー語に関す(Eiko Yoshida)る議論(Everatt(2005))などを含め、現在、名古屋工業大学

活発に論じられている。
本稿で論じるのは(1c)の問題である。

(Nagoya Institute of Technology)

ミニマリスト・プログラムには回帰的併キーワード：フェイズ、前提、前駆体、合以外にもいくつかの言語操作、言語機

FLB、進化的妥当性

能が仮定されており、これらが FLN に属するのか否かを検証することなしに
HCF 仮説を受け入れることはできない。

1. はじめにそこで本稿では(1c)の問題に対する一

本稿の目的は、ミニマリスト・プログ

つの試みとしてフェイズをとりあげる。

ラムにおいて重要な役割を果たしている

フェイズは併合によって構築された統語

フェイズ(phase)について、進化の観点か構造をインターフェイスへ出力する際のらその特性をとらえなおすことである。

ユニットであり、現在、多くの言語現象

Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch (2002)がこのフェイズに基づき分析されている。

以降、言語機能は人間言語に固有の狭義

先にも述べたように、ミニマリスト・プの言語機能(faculty of language in the

ログラムを枠組みとする言語研究においnarrow sense /FLN)と、そうではない部ては欠くことのできない重要な役割を果分まで含めた広義の言語機能(faculty of

たすものである。それにも関わらず進化

language in the broad sense /FLB)に区の観点からフェイズについて論じられた

別され、回帰 (recursion) のみが FLN

具体的な研究はほとんどなされていない。

に属するヒト言語に固有の唯一の特性で本研究では、統語範疇に基づいてフェあるという考え方（以降 HCF 仮説と呼イズを規定する現在の理論では進化的妥ぶ）が広く行き渡った。生成文法、とり当性を満たすことはできないと指摘し、

わけミニマリスト・プログラムの研究者「前提」という、範疇に寄らない意味概た ち の 間 で は 、「 回 帰 = 回 帰 的 併 合

念でとらえなおすことによって、フェイ(recursive Merge)」としてとらえられ、ズが FLB に属する言語機能となりうる

併合のみが FLN に属するものであるとことを主張する。そしてこの提案が進化

位置づけられている。

的妥当性を満たす提案であるということ

この結論は直ちに次の３つの問題を提

を示す。

起する。
2. 進化の観点から-256-

きないものは FLN に含まれるという意

2.1 進化的妥当性
進化的妥当性とは、ヒト進化において見もある。もし、フェイズの前駆体を探発生可能な UG とは何かという問いを満ることができないのであれば、それはたすことのできる理論をいう(藤田FLN に含まれる特性であると結論付け(2009:97)）。

ることも可能であろう。実際、藤田(2007:

では発生可能な UG とは何か。それは145)では「これ自体は統語範疇に関わるその理論が他の生物進化と同様の進化の

言語固有の制約である」と述べており、過程で説明ができる理論のことである。

FLN に属することを示唆している。しかダーウィンのいう「変化を伴う由来

し、FLN に含まれる言語機能が増えるこ(Decent with modification)」として生物とは言語進化の説明を難しくすることに進化を考えるならば、新しい形質は旧機もなる。その意味で本稿では、フェイズ

能の変化や拡張、あるいは旧機能の新たを FLN に還元することを避け、作業仮な結合により出現する。すなわち新形質説としてフェイズを FLB に属するもの

は旧形質の新配列・再結合の結果としてとし、その方向で議論を進めていく。
(2) に示したように、 Fitch, Hauser,

実現されるのである。この旧機能のこと

and Chomsky (2005) によると、FLB にを前適応あるいは前駆体という。
同じプロセスを「言語という新形質」

属する言語機能とは、他の生物種と共有がたどると考えれば、その旧形質、すなする特性を持つ、あるいはヒトの言語以

わち前駆体は何であるのか、ということ

外の認知領域と共有する特性をもつものが説明できなければならない。つまり現であると仮定されている。

在、言語固有のシステムとして働いている様々な機能について、元々は言語固有(2) ALL components of FLB are shared

でない、別の機能からの変化によるもの

either with other species, or other

であると考え、それが何かを明らかにで

non-linguistic cognitive domains in

きる場合にのみ、進化的妥当性を満たす

humans, only their combination and

ことができると言えよう。

organization are unique to humans
and language.

2.2 問題点(Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky (2005：
182))

このような観点から見ると、フェイズに関する現在の規定は進化的妥当性を満たすものとは言い難い。Chomsky (2000)

本論では、他の生物種と特性を共有する

は初期の提案において、統語範疇 CP おことが想定できるようなフェイズについ

よび v*P がフェイズであると主張した。

て提案をしていきたい。

これは特定の統語範疇に関わる言語領域
固有の規定であり、その前駆体を探るこ

3. ミニマリスト・プログラムの観点からとは極めて難しく、それ故、進化的妥当

前節で示したように、初期の提案にお性を満たすことができないと思われる。

いてフェイズは統語範疇 CP および v*Pであるとされている。この提案について

2.3 議論の方向

は、進化的問題だけではなく、ミニマリ

HCF 仮説においては、前駆体を説明でスト・プログラムの枠組みの中において-257-

の抜き出しはできず、非文となる。

も経験的・概念的問題が存在する。
第一に、この二つの統語範疇 CP / v*P
のみがフェイズであるのか、という経験(4) a.

的問題である。これまでの研究において、

Whati do you think [CP that Marybought ti ](3)で示したように、CP / v*P 以外にもフb. *Whoi did [CP that she knew ti]

ェイズの可能性が多く指摘されている。

bother him?

(3) a.

vP / VP (cf. Legate (2003))
b. DP(cf. Chomsky (2005))
c. TP(cf. Richards (2007))
d. PP(cf. Abels (2003))(Goldberg (2006:132))

同じ統語範疇 CP 内でも移動を阻止する
場合とそうでない場合があり、これらの言語事実は、統語範疇によってフェイズを規定することには問題があるということを示している。1 同様に、DP におい

Bošković (2007), Müller (2010) などにても、(5a)で示したように不定冠詞を含至っては、すべての最大投射がフェイズ

む DP から wh 句を移動することは可能だであるという主張を行っている。それぞが、(5b)で示したように、定冠詞を含む

れのアプローチの方法は異なるが、これDP からの移動は非文となる。

らの研究結果は、フェイズを CP および(5)v*P に限定することに問題があることをa.

Whoi did you see [DP a pictureof ti ]?

示している。

b. *Whoi did you see [DP the

第二に、なぜ CP および v*P といった

picture of ti ]?

特定の統語範疇がフェイズとして規定さ(Diesing (1992: 103))

れるのか、という概念的問題である。
Chomsky (2000)はその概念的根拠として、両者が命題という意味的特性を備えてい

仮に DP がフェイズでないとすれば、両るためであると主張した。なぜ命題がフ者は等しく wh 句の抜き出しが可能とな

ェイズとなるのか、ということ自体説明

り、文法的となるはずだし、また DP がを必要とする主張ではあるが、先に指摘

フェイズであれば、両者は等しく wh 句

したように CP/v*P 以外もフェイズとなの移動ができず非文となるはずであるが、るのであれば、「命題＝フェイズ」という実際は両者には文法性の差がある。これ

主張はもはや維持することはできず、フらの事実は、フェイズを統語範疇のみでェイズを CP / v*P と仮定した概念的基盤

規定することはもはや不可能であり、統が崩れることになる。

語範疇以外にフェイズを規定する要因があることを示唆していると思われる。2

第三のそして最大の問題点は、フェイ
ズを統語範疇によって「縦断的に」規定
することはできないということである。

4. 提案と考察

すなわち、同じ統語範疇であってもフェ4.1 提案

イズとして機能する場合もあれば、機能

フェイズを特定の統語範疇に基づいてしない場合もある。例えば、(4)で示した規定することには進化的のみならず、経

ように、目的語 CP から wh 句の抜き出し

験的にも概念的にも問題があることをみは可能であるが、文主語 CP からの wh 句てきた。本節では、統語範疇に依存しな-258-

い、そして進化的妥当性を満たす可能性(6)を支持するさらなる証拠として、不があるフェイズの特性とは何かというこ

定冠詞 DP であっても、(7)で示したようとについて、提案をする。

に、それが主語位置にある場合は非文と

具体的には、Diesing (1992), Goldbergなる事例を挙げる。

(2006)の考察を参考に、「前提」という概念がフェイズの定義に関わっていると提(7) a.

案する。ここでの「前提」とは一般的な*Whoi did [DP comments about ti ]annoy you?

定義を念頭にいれており、話者や聞き手

b. *Whoi did [DP pictures of ti ] cause

にとって、既知の出来事や状況を表すもMary to cry?

(Boeckx (2012: 21))のであると考える。
主語とは節において通常、話題 (topic)を(6) 提案：フェイズは前提（＝既知の出表すものとして考えられている。すなわ

来事・状況）を表す領域

ち、すでに述べられた既知の情報、前提を表すものである(Goldberg (2006: 130))。

すなわち、統語範疇に関係なく、それが従って、(7)の DP はフェイズとなり、そ前提を表す場合にはフェイズとなり、こから wh 句の移動ができないのである。

PIC に則り、その補部がインターフェイ

また、動詞によってその補部からの抜スへ排出されるという提案である。3

き出しの文法性に違いがある。(8b)の動
詞 destroy は、(8a)の see と異なり、その4.2 考察

写真の存在が前提となっている(Diesing

4.2.1 DP(1992))。

提案(6)が経験的に妥当な提案であるということをみていこう。まず始めに、(8) a. Whoi did you see [DP a picture of ti ]?

先に指摘した(5)の DP にみられる文法性

b. *Whoi did you destroy [DP a pictureの差を分析したい。

of ti ]?

(5)a.

(Diesing (1992: 103))

Whoi did you see [DP a [NP

ここでの提案に従えば、前提を表す(8b)picture of ti ]]?

の DP はフェイズとなるので、wh 句の移

b. *Whoi did you see [DP the [NP

動が阻止されるのである。

picture of ti ]?
4.2.2
Diesing (1992) が指摘するように、定冠

CP

次に(4)の CP について考察をしよう。

詞を含む DP は内在的な前提を示しているので、(6) に基づき、(5b)の DP はフェ(4) a.

イズとなる。よって、その補部はインタ

Whati do you think [CP that Marybought ti ]ーフェイスへと排出されるため、wh 句の

b. *Whoi did [CP that she knew ti]

抜出しは不可能となる。一方、(5a)の不bother him?

(Goldberg (2006:132))

定冠詞を含む DP は前提を示すものではなくフェイズ領域とはならない。よって(4a,b)の違いは前者が目的語位置に生じ

wh 句の移動は可能となるているのに対し、後者が主語位置に生じ-259-

ているという点である。(7)で論じた DP

最後に前置詞句についてみてみよう。

と同様、主語が話題すなわち前提を示す(11a)に示したように、前置詞句から whものであると考えれば、(4b)の文主語 CP

句を抜き出すことは一般的に可能であるはフェイズとなる。よってそこからの抜が、(11b)で示したように、話題化された

き出しはできず、非文となることが説明

前置詞句からの wh 句移動は阻止される。

できる。
また付加詞においても、(9a)のように(11)

前提を表す CP からの抜き出しは非文とa. Whoi do you think that he willtalk [PP to ti ]?

なるのに対し、(9b)のように前提を表さ

b. *Whoi do you think that [PP to ti ] j

ない CP からの抜き出しが可能であると

he will talk tj ?

いう事実も、ここでの提案を支持するものとなろう。

この事例は、しばしば凍結効果(Freezing
Effect)として論じられるものであるが、(9) a. *Whati did she leave the movie

この事実も提案(6)によって説明が可能[CP because they were eating ti ]?

となる。すなわち先にも述べたようにトb. Who did she travel to Memphis

ピックは旧情報を担うものであり、話者[CP in order to see]?

や聞き手にとってその内容は既知のこと、(Goldberg (2006: 145))

前提となる。従って、(11b)の PP はフェイズとなり、wh 句の抜き出しが阻止されさらに、動詞の種類によって CP からるのである。

の抜き出しが可能になる場合とならない

以上、本節では、前提がフェイズをつ場合がある。(10a)で示したように、一般

くるという仮定のもと、統語範疇に依ら的な動詞の補部からの抜き出しは可能でず、統一的に言語データの説明ができる

あるのに対し、(10b)の grumble というよということを示し、この仮定が経験的にうな話し方の様態(manner-of-speaking)を正しいものであることを示した。4表す動詞補部からの抜き出しは非文となる。

5. FLB としてのフェイズ
フェイズは前提（＝既知の出来事・状(10) a. Whati did you say [CP that they sent況）を表す意味領域であると提案した。

ti ]?

これは、(12)に示したように、ヒトが既

b. * Whati did you grumble [CP that知の出来事・状況を表す意味領域を一つ

they sent ti ]?

の単位として認識し、音声や意味のイン(ibid.: 144))

ターフェイスへ排出する処理を行っていGoldberg (2006)によれば、様態を表す動ることを意味する。

詞では、その話しぶりについてが焦点となり、その補部 CP は前提として解釈さ(12)れる。従って、(10b)の CP はフェイズと音声[phase 既知の出来事・状況 ]なり、wh 句の移動が阻止される。

意味

4.2.3. PP

この提案は、フェイズが FLB に属する

-260-

ものである可能性を持つ。なぜなら、こ状況を一つのまとまりとしてとらえ音声

れに類似した処理をヒト以外の生物が行や意味に変換していることを示している。

っていると考えられる事例があるからだ。

これを図示してみよう。警戒音を発声

例えば、ベルベットモンキーが外敵のするサルは、目の前にある出来事を、既種類に応じて異なった警戒音を発すると知の出来事や状況と照らし合わせ、心的い う Seyfarth, Cheney, and Marler

表示を音声に変換させる((13)の下矢印)。

(1980)の有名な観察である。彼らの観察

聞き手であるサルは、その音声表示を既によれば、ベルベットモンキーはヒョウ、

知の出来事・状況として彼らが有する心ワシ、ヘビといった捕食者の種類に応じ的表示に変換し意味を理解、そこから適て 3 種類の異なった警戒音を上げ、それ切な行動へ移るということになる((13)

を聞いた別のサルは、それぞれの警戒音の上矢印)。

に応じた対応をする。例えば、ヒョウに対する警戒音が発せられた場合には、木(13) 実際の出来事や状況

状況理解の上に駆け上り、ワシに対する警戒音が

↓

(意味)

発せられた場合には、空を見上げてから[ 既知の出来事・状況 ]茂みに駆け込むといった具合だ。ところ↓↑がこれらの警戒音はそれぞれの捕食者に警戒音(音声)

対応したものではない。例えば、ワシが空ではなく地表にいるときは、ヒョウにこれは、人が行っている処理と非常に類対するのと同じ警戒音を発し、それを聞似したものである。このように、既知のいた仲間は、ヒョウのときと同様、木の出来事・状況を一つのユニットとして認上に駆け上がるという行動を示す。この識し、インターフェイスと結びつける能

ことは、鳴き声がそれぞれの捕食者に対力が他の生物種にも見られる認知能力で応したものではなく、出来事・状況の種あるとすれば、それは FLB に属するもの類に対応しているものであるということであると言えよう。進化の観点から見たを示している。

場合、フェイズの前駆体はこのような認また別の観察でダイアナモンキーの鳴

知機能、心的活動であることが想定できき声に関するものがある(cf. Arnold andるのではないだろうか。そしてこのよう

Zuberbühler (2006, 2008))。ダイアナモンに前駆体を想定できる言語機能は進化的

キーは、pyow と hack という 2 種類の音妥当性を満たすといえよう。

を持ち、単音ではそれぞれヒョウとワシが周辺にいることを知らせている。しか6. おわりにし、この 2 音を組み合わせた警戒音は外

本論では、フェイズを「前提」という敵の種類に関わらず用いられ、危険度が意味概念によって規定することによって高い状況を伝えており、その警戒音が発進化的妥当性を満たす可能性が高いこと

せられると、サル達は縄張りから離れてを論じた。

遠くまで逃げるという行動をとる。この今回の議論は、フェイズそのものが何事例も先のベルベットモンキーと同様、

かということに焦点を当てているため、一つ一つの音が具体的な何かを指していその周辺に存在する問題点などは残されるというわけではなく、一つの出来事・

たままであり、今後の課題となるであろ-261-

う。しかし、フェイズを意味概念に基づ

Chomsky,Noam(2000)“Minimalist

き規定することが進化的妥当性を満たす

Inquiries: The Framework,” Step by Step:理論につながるものであることを示唆し

Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor ofているという点で、本研究はフェイズ研

Howard Lasnik, ed. by Martin et al.,

究の一助になるのではないかと考える。

89-155, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2005) “Three Factors in

注Language Design,” Linguistic Inquiry 36,

1. (4a)の wh 句がフェイズエッジに移動し1-22.

たために PIC により抜出可能であるとす

Diesing, Molly (1992) Indefinites, MIT

るならば、なぜ(4b)に同じ移動が起こらな

Press, Cambridge, MA.

いのかということになり、いずれにせよ両Fitch, Tecumseh W., Marc D. Hauser, and者を区別する何らかの説明が必要である。

Noam Chomsky (2005) “The Evolution of

2. Müller (2010)では移動の可否をフェイ

the Language Faculty: Clarifications andズ領域ではなく移動する要素そのものにImplications,” Cognition 97, 179-210.

課しているが、なぜある要素は移動するの

藤田耕司 (2007) 「変化を伴う由来：生にあるものはしないかという根本的な問成文法における言語の普遍と多様の解題に戻るため、ここでは移動の可否はフェ読」Viva Origino 35, 136-147.
藤田耕司 (2009) 「言語の起源と進化

イズに起因させる。
3. PIC (Phase-Impenetrability Condition)
In phase α with head H, the domainof H is not accessible to operations
outside α, only H and its edge areaccessible to such operations.
(Chomsky (2000: 108))

III」, 池内正幸(編）『言語と進化・変化』95-133, 朝倉書店, 東京.
Goldberg, Adele E. (2006) Constructions at
Work: The Nature of Generalization in
Language,

4. 全ての抜き出しに関わる文法性がフェOxfordUniversity

Press,

Oxford.

イズによって説明されると考えている訳

Haucer, Mark D., Tecumseh Fitch, andではない。例えば wh 島制約(e.g. *WhatiNoam, Chomsky (2002) “The Faculty of

do you wonder [CP who saw ti]?) などは、Language: What Is It, Who Has It, andCP がフェイズであるか否かが問題ではな

How Did It Evolve?,” Science 298,

く、近年 FLB に還元されている MLC と

1569-1579.

いった別の制約が働いていると考えていLegate, Julie Anne (2003) “Some Interface

る。

Properties of the Phase,” LI 34, 506-516.
Müller, Gereon (2010) “On Deriving CED

参考文献（抜粋）

Effects from the PIC,” Linguistic Inquiry

Arnold, Kate and Klaus Zuberbühler (2006)

41, 35-82.

“Semantic Combinations in Primate Calls,”

Seyfarth, Robert M., Dorothy L. Cheney andNature 441, 303.

Peter Marler (1980) “Monkey Responses

Bošković, Željko (2007) “On the Locality

to Three Different Alarm Calls: Evidence

and Motivation of Move and Agree:of Predator Classification and Semantic

An Even More Minimal Theory,”

Communication,” Science 210, 801-803.

Linguistic Inquiry 38, 589-644.

-262-削除する項削除分析が提案された。この項削<Workshop Report>

除分析は、現在、日本語や韓国語などの空項の分析において、中心的な役割を担っている。
空項の諸問題をめぐって

	  このような状況下で、本ワークショップで(Issues on Null Arguments)

は、日本語を主たるターゲットとして、以下のような問題を扱った。
（１）日本語の空項の分布を正しく捉える

阿部潤 (Jun Abe)

のに、項削除分析がどの程度有効か？

東北学院大学 (Tohoku Gakuin University)
奥聡 (Satoshi Oku)

（２）もし項削除分析で扱えないケースが北海道大学 (Hokkaido University)

あった場合、他にどのような分析が有効か？

山下秀哲 (Hideaki Yamashita)	  阿部の発表では、項削除分析と共に動詞句

横浜市立大学 (Yokohama City University)

削除分析が必要であることが論じられ、とりわ け 、 Takahashi (1996) の 「 日 本 語 に は

キーワード：空項、pro、項削除分析、Antecedent Contained Deletion (ACD)が存在

動詞句削除分析する」という主張を支持するデータが提示された。それに対して、奥の発表では、一見す
ると動詞句削除分析を示唆するように思わ

０. はじめにれるデータを(非)焦点効果を考慮にいれ、独	  い わ ゆ る 「 pro 落 と し 現 象 」 (pro-drop

立して動機づけられた条件を立てることにphenomenon) は、従来、発音されない代名詞

よって、項削除分析で再分析可能なことが論

pro を措定することによって分析されてきた。 じられた。山下の発表では、空項とかき混ぜ
しかしながら、Huang (1982, 1984) は、すべとの関わり方に関して検討し、空項には proての言語の pro 落とし現象を一律に扱えるの分析と項削除分析の両方が必要なことが論かという問題提起をし、中国語や日本語のよじられた。以下に、各発表の要旨を掲げる。

うな一致現象の見られないような言語では、

１. Null Arguments and String Vacuous

pro 落とし現象のあるものは、空トピック

Phonetically Inaudible Scrambling in(zero topic) によって束縛される変項であるJapanese 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  （山下秀哲）という分析を提案した。更に、Huang (1987)

	  本発表では、日本語の空項とかき混ぜとのでは、pro 落とし現象のあるものは、sloppy

関わり方に関して検討し、(A) 日本語の空項読みが可能であることなどを理由に削除構には、少なくとも pro 分析と項削除分析によ文と同じ分析が施されるべきであることがってもたらされる２種類のものがある、(B)

主張された。具体的には、中国語の目的語欠Takahashi (2008) によって発見された「音声落 (object drop) に対して V を T に繰り上げ的に具現化されないかき混ぜ」(Phonetically

たうえで動詞句を削除するという動詞句削

Inaudible Scrambling (PIS))（(1)）と同等の条

除 分 析 が 提 案 さ れ た 。 Otani and Whitman

件で生起する新たなタイプの PIS（(2)）が日(1991) では、この動詞句削除分析が日本語

本語には存在すると主張した。

に適用されている。その後、Oku (1998) や（１） a. OBJ SUB V

Kim (1999) では、動詞句内にはないと考え

b. SUB V

られる空主語にも削除構文と同様の特性が（２） a. OBJ SUB V

見られることなどから、空項そのものだけを

b. OBJ V-263-＝	  b.’ OBJ SUB V＝	  b.’ OBJ SUB VPIS は、(1)・(2)に描かれているように、a 文

友達が 英語を話せると] 思っている。

に続いて、b 文が後続した場合において、(1b)

2 組の男子も三人以上 [ [e] 英語をでは、OBJ がかき混ぜした後、OBJ が空項と話せると] 思っているなり（(1b’)）、(2b)では、OBJ がかき混ぜし

しかし、ここで主語・目的語ともに非焦点化た後、SUB が空項となる（(2b’)）。

されているにも関わらず、一方のみを空項と	  ここでは、新たに可能であると提示した

し他方を発音しているという inconsistency(2)のような状況下で生起できる PIS が、Hoji

が不自然さの原因であると考えられる。なお、(1985) によって議論された Ban on String

二つ目の目的語の「英語を」を「仏語を」にVacuous Scrambling (BSVS) に新たな知見を代えると束縛変項読みが可能となる。

与えるという観察を示した。BSVS は、Hoji

３. WhyNot

VP-Ellipsis

Analysisforが議論したように空項が pro 分析でもたらさJapanese Null Arguments? 	
  （阿部潤）れた際には、その効力を示す一方、項削除分

	  本発表では、日本語の空項の諸特性を捉え析でもたらされた際には、効力を示さない。

るためには、項削除分析と共に動詞句削除分

この差は、後者が派生される際には、項削除

析が必要であることを論じた。まず、はじめ

によって空項になる前にかき混ぜが起こっに、Oku (1998) の以下のような文に対して、て い て 、 派 生 的 に は String Vacuous（１） a. ジョンは 車を 丁寧に 洗った。
b. ビルは 	  [e]	
  	  洗わなかった。

Scrambling ではないことから説明される。
２. Japanese Ellipsis Revisited: Defocusing,(1b)の省略された部分が目的語のみならず

	  	  （奥聡）

副詞をも含む読みが不可能であるとする観	  本発表では、一見日本語に項削除がないこ察に対して、必ずしもすべての日本語話者がとを示すと思われる現象も、空項に関わる

同意している訳ではないことを指摘し、少な「(非)焦点効果」を正しくコントロールする

くともこの読みが可能である話者にとってことにより、日本語の項削除の不在を示す論は、動詞句削除分析が有効であることを論じ

拠にはならないということを論じた。たとえた。その上で、この分析がもたらす帰結としば、(1)で空項が不可能であるのは、「だけ」て、Takahashi (1996) の「日本語には ACD

句が「遊べる」内の可能の「え」よりも高いが存在する」という主張を支持する以下のよスコープを取るため、動詞句から抜け出し焦うなデータを含む新たな証拠を提示した。

点句指定部へ移動しており、動詞句削除をか（２） a. 太郎は すばやく（自分の犬に）けても項を消すことができないからであり、[花子が [e] 付けてあげなかった

項だけを消す操作が日本語にはないことを首輪]を 付けてあげた。

Remnants, and Adjuncts

	
  	
  	
  b. 太郎が すばやく（自分の犬に）示すと Funakoshi (2012) は論じている。

付けてあげたのは [花子が [e]（１） a. ジョンは メアリーとだけ 遊べる。

付けてあげなかった首輪]をだ。

b. *ビルも [e] 遊べる。
しかし、「メアリーとだけ」は焦点指定部へ(2b)では、(2a)と異なり、省略された部分を移動しており、非焦点化を前提とする削除と「すばやく（自分の犬に）」と解釈可能であは両立しない。また、Shimamura (2013) は(2)る。このことは、Takahashi (1996) の「少なの構造で埋込み節の空主語に束縛変項読み

く と も 日 本 語 の ACD の infinite regressがないことから日本語での主語項削除操作

resolution は顕在的な移動によって回避されの不在を論じている。

なければならない」とする主張によって、明（２） 1 組の男子が三人以上 [そいつの快な説明を与えることが可能となる。

-264-

of the computational system for human language.

<Workshop Report>

2. Labeling by Minimal Search: Implications for
Movement (Hisatsugu Kitahara)
Simplest Merge and Label Identification by

Kitahara begins with a mini tutorial on recent

Minimal Searchdevelopment in minimalist syntax (Chomsky 2007,2008, 2013), which makes this workshop accessible

Hisatsugu Kitahara (Keio University)

to students and researchers from all levels. He then

Hiroki Narita (Waseda Univeristy)

demonstrates that Chomsky's (2013) labeling

Mamoru Saito (Nanzan University)

analysis of “obligatory exit” from intermediate
position in successive cyclic A'-movement can be

Keywords: minimalist syntax, bare phrase structure,

naturally extended to successive cyclic A-movement

Merge, labeling algorithm, efficient computation(Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely 2013a). He also argues
that there is no “criterial freezing” – rather
movement is allowed to apply, but if it does, an

1. Introduction

independently motivated CI requirement is violated.

Under the simplest conception of unified Merge,

That is, “obligatory halt” from criterial position is in

Chomsky (2013) argues that Merge(α, β) yields {α,fact an illusion. There is no prohibition againstβ} with no label projection or linear order, andmovement from criterial position; rather, free (andindependently of the character of α and β. Given thissimplest) Merge can execute movement from a

simplest formulation of Merge, a syntactic object SO

criterial position, but such movement necessarily

constructed from α and β by Merge is just {α, β}leads to a violation of the independently needed CI(contra Chomsky 1995a,b). Merge puts the two

requirement (Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely 2013b).

objects α and β into a relation, and the output of thisoperation is a two-membered set {α, β}. Nothing

3. Labeling, Chains, and Full Interpretation (Hiroki

more. But, for an SO to be interpreted, it is necessary

Narita)to know what kind of object it is (e.g., nominal,

Narita puts forward a constraint that bans syntactic

verbal, and so on). Chomsky (2013) takes labeling to

objects of the form {t, t}, where the two t’s are bothbe the process of finding the relevant information of

traces/copies created by Internal Merge. He first{α, β}, generated by Merge. He proposes that suchargues that this constraint, referred to as *{t, t}, canlabeling is “just minimal search, presumably

be straightforwardly deduced from the interplay of

appropriating a third factor principle, as in Agree

Chomsky’s (2013) labeling algorithm and theand other operations.”

principle of Full Interpretation. He then shows thatIn this workshop, we explore and identify

the effect of *{t, t} can be observed in a variety of

immediate consequences of these two proposals:

phenomena, including copular sentences, kind-

Simplest Merge and Label Identification by Minimal

constructions, predicate-fronting, head-movement

Search. Drawing data from English, Japanese, andand criterial freezing (Rizzi 2006).

Korean, the workshop aims at gathering anddiscussing various issues related to these two

4.

proposals, hoping to gain new insights on the nature

Preliminary Ideas (Mamoru Saito)-265-

LabelingandParametric

Syntax:SomeSaito presents some preliminary ideas on how

Chomsky, Noam (1995b) The Minimalist Program,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

labeling takes place in Japanese. In Chomsky’s(2013) algorithm, feature-sharing plays a crucial role

Chomsky, Noam (2007) “Approaching UG fromin the labeling of {αP, βP}. Further, an important

Below,” Interfaces + Recursion = Language?,instance of feature-sharing results from φ-feature

ed. by Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner,

agreement. On the premise that Japanese lacks

1-29, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

φ-feature agreement, Saito explores the possibility

Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” Foundationalthat Case makes a phrase “invisible” for labeling andIssues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor

hence makes the labeling of {αP, βP} possible in theof Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Robertlanguage. Among the consequences of this proposal

Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa

are explanations for argument ellipsis and multiple

Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT Press, Cambridge,

nominative subjects observed in Japanese/Korean.

MA.

Then, he generalizes the idea to verbal inflections,

Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,”
Lingua 130, 33-49.

adopting the view of Sells (1995) and An (2009) thatgrammatical Cases in Japanese/Korean are nothing

Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T.

but inflections on DPs and PPs. He demonstrates

Daniel Seely (2013a) “Labeling by minimal

that this extension leads to an explanation for why

search: Implications for successive cyclic

semantically-vacuous scrambling is possible in theseA-movement and the elimination of thelanguages as opposed to, say, English. He points out

postulate phase.” Unpublished manuscript,

further that it accounts for the properties of what

University of Michigan, Keio University, andKageyama (1993) calls lexical V-V compounds.

Eastern Michigan Univeristy.

Overall, the presentation outlined an approach to

Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T.

parametric syntax in terms of Simplest Merge andDaniel Seely (2013b) “Criterial freezing:

the labeling algorithm.

transformational

cessationinterpretation.”Unpublished

vs.

CI

manuscript,

5. Summary

University of Michigan, Keio University, andIf the labeling analyses presented in this workshop

Eastern Michigan Univeristy.

are on track, then they will allow us to reduce the

Kageyama, Taro (1993) Bunpoo to Gokeisei

number of postulates in the narrow syntax, while[Grammar and Word Formation], Hituzi

producing arguably interesting conceptual shifts

Syobo, Tokyo.
Rizzi, Luigi (2006) “On the form of chains: Criterial

along with some empirically welcome results.

positions and ECP effects,” Wh-movement:
References

Moving on, ed. by Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng andAn, Duk-Ho (2009) “A Note on Genitive Drop in

NorbertCorver,97-133,MIT

Press,

Cambridge, MA.

Korean,” Nanzan Linguistics 5, 1-16.
Chomsky, Noam (1995a) “Bare Phrase Structure,”

Sells,

Peter(1995)“KoreanandJapanese

Government and Binding Theory and theMorphology from a Lexical Perspective,”

Minimalist

Linguistic Inquiry 26, 277-325.

Program:

Principles

andParameters in Syntactic Theory, ed. by Gert
Webelhuth, 385-439, Blackwell, Oxford.

-266-

＜Workshop Report＞

公的自己・私的自己中心性と日英語の文法
現象：「言語使用の三層モデル」からの視点
Public/Private-Self Centeredness andGrammatical Phenomena in Japanese andEnglish: The Perspective of the Three-Tier
Model of Language Use
廣瀬幸生 (Yukio Hirose)
筑波大学 (University of Tsukuba)
今野弘章 (Hiroaki Konno)
奈良女子大学 (Nara Women’s University)
五十嵐啓太 (Keita Ikarashi)
筑波大学大学院 (University of Tsukuba)
志澤 剛 (Takashi Shizawa)
目白大学 (Mejiro University)
キーワード：公的・私的自己、公的・私的表現、三層モデル、情報の優位性
1. はじめに本ワークショップは、廣瀬の一連の研究（Hirose (1995, 2000), 廣瀬 (1997) 他）で論じられている「公的自己・私的自己」という観点を発展させた、文法と語用論を扱う
理論的枠組みである「言語使用の三層モデル」(Hirose (2013))の視点から、日本語と英語の様々な構文・文法現象を考察対象として、その枠組みの有用性と発展性を探った。
2. 言語使用の三層モデル：概要と応用（廣瀬幸生）
本発表では、文法と語用論の関係にかかわる日英語の違いを記述・説明するための理論的枠組みとなる「言語使用の三層モデル」について、前半はその概要を示し、後半はその応用について論じた。三層モデルとは、一連の拙論で論じてきた「公的自己」（伝達の主体としての話し手）と「私的自己」（思考・意識の主体としての話し手）という観点を発展させた考え方で、言語使用
は、「状況把握」（私的自己による思いの形成）、「状況報告」（公的自己による思いの伝達）、「対人関係」（公的自己による聞き手への配慮）という三つの層からなり、言語のもつ自己中心性が英語のように公的自己にあるか、日本語のように私的自己にあるかによって、三つの層の組み合わせが異なるとする理論である（Hirose (2013)）。文法と語用論の関係にかかわる日英語の差は、この三層の組み合わせの違いから生じることを具体的に論じるとともに、その発展的応用として、「主観の客体化」（他者の思いを話し手がどのように受け止め、表現するか）という現象が説明できることを示した。
3. 私的表現の文法的意義（今野弘章）「言語使用の三層モデル」は話し手の聞き手に対する伝達意図の有無に応じた「公的表現」／「私的表現」という廣瀬 (1997)
による言語表現の二分類を前提とする。本
発表では、この語用論的区分に反応する日
英語の文法現象を観察し、特に、私的表現という公的表現からは独立した区分の設定が文法的に有意義であることを確認した。
当該区分の有効性を示す証拠として、公的
表現か私的表現かに偏りを示す現象（日本語形容詞「やばい」の副詞的成分化（
「やば
いうまい。
」
）
、英語の空主語構文（Wish wasdead. (廣瀬 (2006))）と私的表現に特化した現象（日本語のイ落ち構文（
「ださっ。
」
）
、
英語の mad magazine 構文（Him wear atuxedo!? (Akmajian (1984))）があることを指摘した。さらに、私的表現の有効性が、言-267-

語の一般的機能に関し、言語をコミュニケーションの道具とする機能主義的視点だけ
でなく、言語を思考・感情表出の手段とみなす形式主義的視点の重要性を示唆することを主張した。
4. 遂行節 I tell you と情報の優位性（五十嵐啓太）
本発表では、「言語使用の三層モデル」の枠組みのもと、遂行節 I tell you が対人関係調整用の形式であることを論じた。英語は伝達性の強い言語であり、例えば It’s rainingと発話するだけで、あたかも非明示的な I
TELL YOU が存在しているかのような解釈を受ける(cf. Ross (1970))。そのため、遂行
節 I tell you を用いることは余剰であり、通常使用されない（* I tell you, it’s raining.）。
英語において情報伝達上余剰な要素が用いられる場合、対人関係調節の機能を担うことが三層モデルで指摘されている。そのため、I tell you は対人関係調節用の形式と言える。具体的には、聞き手に対する話し手の情報的優位性（聞き手よりも当該情報をよく把握していること）を表すと主張した。
実際、聞き手に対する情報の優位性を表すことでコミュニケーション上の目的達成が見込まれる場面（例えば聞き手が当該情報の受け入れを拒否する場面）で、I tell youが用いられる実例が多数観察される。

仕組みを提案した。具体的には、以下の通りとなる。当該構文は、原則的に語り手（話し手・登場人物等の「観察者」）の「状況の直接把握」を表すことに特化された表現形式であり、語り手の「情報の優位性」を表す。それは、通常「状況報告」に自己を置く（つまり、客体的視点をとる）英語が、「状況把握」で状況内の関与者の視点をとり、自己を優位におく（つまり、主体的視点をとる）ことを意味する。その「状況内の関与者の視点」をとることを聞き手／読み手にも課すことで聞き手／読み手を心理的に近づけることが「臨場感」を生む、ということになる。
参考文献
Akmajian, Adrian (1984) “Sentence Types and theForm-Function Fit,” NLLT 2, 1-23.
福地肇 (1985) 『談話の構造』大修館書店, 東京.
Hirose, Yukio (1995) “Direct and Indirect Speech as
Quotations of Public and Private Expression,”
Lingua 95, 223-238.
廣瀬幸生 (1997)「人を表すことばと照応」中右
実（編）『指示と照応と否定』1-89, 研究社, 東京.
Hirose, Yukio (2000) “Public and Private Self as
Two Aspects of the Speaker: A Contrastive Studyof Japanese and English,” Journal of Pragmatics
32, 1623-56.
廣瀬幸生 (2006)「日記英語における空主語と主

5. 場所句倒置構文の修辞効果：言語使用の三層モデルの視点から （志澤 剛）
英語の場所句倒置構文（e.g. Into the room
came John.）は、対応する非倒置文（e.g. Johncame into the room.）よりも「臨場感」のある表現であることが先行研究において指摘されている（福地 (1985) など）。本発表は、「言語使用の三層モデル」の枠組みから、当該構文がそのような修辞効果を生み出す体化」卯城祐司他（編）『言葉の絆』270-283,
開拓社, 東京.
Hirose, Yukio (2013) “Deconstruction of the Speaker
and the Three-Tier Model of Language Use,”
Tsukuba English Studies 32, 1-28.
Ross, John Robert (1970) “On Declarative-268-

Sentences,” Readings in English Transformational
Grammar, ed. by Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S.
Rosenbaum, 222-272, Ginn, Waltham.

clause complements must undergo movement into a<Workshop Report>

matrix theta position, which takes place across a CPphase, and (iii) that the movement into thetheta-position forces accusative Case on the moved
major subjects due to the Inverse Case Filter

Foundational Issues in Phase Theory(Taguchi (2009)). Once the embedded major
Masahiko Takahashi (Mie University),

subjects move to the matrix clause, the matrix v must

Kensuke Takita (Mie University),

assign accusative Case to the moved major subjects,

Masako Maeda (Kyushu Institute of Technology),

which explains the obligatory accusative Case
marking under consideration.

Nobu Goto (Mie University)

3. Twin Peaks at the Phase Edge (Kensuke Takita)

Keywords: Case, phase edge, labeling, deletion

EKS (Epstein, Kitahara, & Seely (2012, 2013))
argue that if Merge is formulated in the simplest
form, just forming a set from two syntactic objects, it

1. Introduction
Since Chomsky (2000), the notion of phase has

may generate what they call a “two-peaked”

played a significant role in the study of language, but

structure. They further argue that the two-peaked

the nature of it remains unclear. For example, there has

structure triggers Transfer for the derivation to

been much controversy what is a phase, and what

proceed, and hence cyclicity of Transfer is deduced.

constitutes a phase (Takahashi (2011)); and it is alsoThis article first shows that if more than one

unclear when and how a phase gets into the layered

constituent is moved to the phase edge, EKS’s theory

CP system (Maeda (2013)); and, moreover, it is stillyields what I call “twin” peaks, a special case of themysterious what happens when a phase is transferred

two-peaked structure. Then, it is argued that theto the interfaces (see Takita (2010) and Goto (2011)).

computational system should be able to proceed

Thus, the four articles are brought together in the namefrom the twin-peaked situation, clarifying what isof “Foundational Issues in Phase Theory” with an aim

required for such a derivation to converge. One ofto bring new insight into the nature of phases.

the significant consequences is that it is not the casethat a two-peaked structure immediately triggers

2. Case-valuation and Phase Edges (MasahikoTransfer, contrary to what EKS have suggested.

Takahashi)This article investigates the syntax of what I call

4. Labeling and Criterial Head Movement (Masako

pseudo-small clause construction discussed by Tada

Maeda)(1992)

ofThis article develops a novel account for the

Case-valuation and phase edges. The pseudo-small

composition of the layered CP system proposed byclause construction forces accusative Case on

Rizzi (1997), among others. Rizzi argues that the CP

embedded major subjects despite the availability ofsystem may split when necessary, and isnominative Case in the complement clause. To

amalgamated otherwise. Then a question arises as toaccount for this constraint, it is argued (i) thathow multiple phasal heads (Force, Top, Foc, etc.) arepseudo-small clause complements are (phasal) CPs,derived from one phase head C. Building on(ii) that major subjects that originate in pseudo-small

Chomsky’s (2013) Labeling Algorithm (LA), I

andconsidersaninteraction-269-

argue that when XP (say, a topic) undergoes internal

Seely (2012) “Structure Building That Can’tmerge with CP, the label of SO={XP, CP} is theBe!,” Ways of Structure Building, ed. by Myriam

most prominent feature shared (TopP). At this time,

Uribe-Extebarria and Vidal Valmala, 253-270,

if C has an unsatisfied feature α, then Criterial Head

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Movement (CHM) occurs (Maeda (2013)). After Cα

Epstein, Samuel, Hisatsugu Kitahara, and Daniel

undergoes head movement, the label of SO={Cα,Seely (2013) “Simplest Merge Generates Set

TopP} is CαP. By repeating such IM and CHM, theIntersection: Implications for Complementizer

layered CP system is created derivationally. This

‘Trace’ Explanation,” The Proceedings of GLOW

analysis gains empirical support in several languages

in Asia IX 2012, 77-92.
Goto, Nobu (2011) Feature-Inheritance: Its Effects

including English, Japanese and Bulgarian.

on Agree, Move, and Delete, Doctoral dissertation,
Tohoku Gakuin University.

5. Some Consequences of Deletion by Phase (Nobu

Goto, Nobu (2013) “Deletion by Phase and Its

Goto)
This article discusses some consequences of Goto’s

Contribution to Non-Constituent Deletion,”(2013) Deletion by Phase Hypothesis (hereon DPH)

English Linguistics 30:2, 699-717.

that deletion sites are determined by Spell-Out in a

Maeda, Masako (2013) Derivational Feature-based

cyclic fashion. One striking consequence of the DPH

Relativized Minimality, Doctoral dissertation,is that non-constituent deletion can be regarded as an

Kyushu University.

illusion, and movement feeding constituent deletion is

Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left

unnecessary. Thus I argue that Object Shift in

Periphery,” Elements of Grammar: Handbook of

Pseudogapping, an instance of movement under

Generative Syntax, ed. by Liliane Haegeman,consideration (see Takahashi (2004) among others), is281-337, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

unnecessary, providing a straightforward explanation

Sato, Yosuke (2012) “Multiple Spell-Out andof word-order problems and contraction problems

Contraction at the Syntax-Phonology Interface,”

which have resisted a satisfactory explanation under

Syntax 15, 287-314.

any of the existing theories. The investigation of

Taguchi, Shigeki (2009) “Japanese ECM as

Pseudogapping in terms of the DPH results in

Embedded Bare Topicalization,” NELS 38,

supporting Sato’s (2012) cyclic contraction theory and415-426.

the claim that the notion of focus plays a significant

Tada, Hiroaki (1992) “Nominative Objects inJapanese,” Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14,

role in licensing a deletion site.

91-108.
References

Takahashi, Masahiko (2011) Some Theoretical

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The

Consequences of Case-marking in Japanese,

Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist

Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut,

Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger

Storrs.

Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka,

Takahashi, Shoichi (2004) “Pseudogapping and
Cyclic Linearization,” NELS 34, 571–585.

89-155, MIT press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,”

Takita, Kensuke (2010) Cyclic Linearization andConstraints on Movement and Ellipsis, Doctoral

Lingua 130, 33-49.

dissertation, Nanzan University.

Epstein, Samuel, Hisatsugu Kitahara, and Daniel-270-

<Workshop Report>

詞」と「形容動詞」の異同や、繋辞の同定と形態的実現といった課題がある。
本発表では、日本語も英語・ロマンス語などと同様 dm と im を有するが、それらの諸語に

状態性述語の形態・統語・意味をめぐって

おいては両者が統語的位置によって弁別され(On Morphology, Syntax and Semantics ofるのに対し、日本語の完全な主要部終端言語とStative Predicates)

いう特性から、形態的実現によって区別されると主張した。具体的には、im は「な」を伴う

企画・司会

漆原

朗子

修飾表現（
「静かな」（形容詞）、「小さな」（連(Saeko Urushibara)

体詞）、「ばらばらな」（オノマトペ））、dm は

北九州市立大学「の」を伴う修飾表現「ばらばらの」（オノマ(University of Kitakyushu)

トペ）、
「鉄の」
（名詞）
）である。前者は機能範疇 F1、後者は F2 の形態的実現であり、F1 は状態性述語は通言語的にも動詞とは異な

F2 より統語的に高い位置にあるため、F1 とる興味深い属性を有する。本ワークショップ

F2 の間では順序の制約があるが、同じ im のでは日本語状態性述語の形態的実現・統語構

間には順序制約はないことを示した。また、「い」

造・意味解釈に関する分析を提示した。

で終わる「形容詞」は縮約関係節(im)であり、F1 の指定部に現れるため、順序制約が弱い。

節および DP 内部における日本語形容詞類の形態的実現状態述語と感嘆表現(Morphological Realization of Japanese(Stative Predicates and Exclamative

Adjectivals in Clauses and DPs)

Expressions)

漆原 朗子 (Saeko Urushibara)
岸本秀樹 (Hideki Kishimoto)北九州市立大学 (University of神戸大学 (Kobe University)

Kitakyushu)
キーワード：連体形、終止形、準体法、感キーワード：直接修飾、間接修飾、順序制

嘆表現

約、統語地図
現代日本語においては，古い日本語とは異な形容詞類をめぐっては次のような研究課題

り，動詞と形容詞の終止形と連体形の形態的がある。まず、通言語的には、直接修飾(direct

な区別がなくなっている。これに対して，形

modification(dm)) と 間 接 修 飾 (indirect

容動詞では，現代日本語でも連体形と終止形

modification(im)) の二種類があると指摘されの形態的な区別が維持されている。一般に，ている(Sproat and Shih 1990, Cinque 2010,

日本語において，連体形を名詞相当表現としetc.)。そして、それらの形態、範疇、統語的振て用いる用法（準体法）は，連体形と終止形

舞との対応について、多くの観察と提案がなさの区別が消失するにともなってなくなった

れている。また、日本語においては、国語学/日とされている。この考え方に従えば、終止形

本語学においても長らく議論されている「形容と連体形の区別が残っている形容動詞では-271-

連体形を名詞に相当する表現として使用で現があらわす対象の部分構造に対して、そきてもよいということが予測される。本発表の順序関係を順守するような測定値が与えでは，「なんという」という感嘆詞から作らら れ な け れ ば な ら な い 。」 ) (cf.

れる断片的な感嘆表現を用いて，実際に，形

Schwarzschild(2006), Nakanishi(2007))に

容動詞にこの用法が残っていることを示し従うと仮定することにより説明される。

た。さらに，形容動詞の連体形に見られる名QSD は NQ／MP と異なり、さらに最大詞相当の用法は，極めて限られた環境にしか値条件 (Maximal Value Condition) 「( QSD

起こり得ないが，これは，連体形形容動詞のによる測定は最大値をとる。」) に従う。

名詞化の機能が退化しており，現在では句を

この最大値条件は、空間における物の広構築できなくなっていることによるというがりを項にとる測定用の述語ではなく、空ことを論じた。

間状態を項にとる叙述用の QSD を測定に採用することから発生する問題を解決するための条件であると考えられる。

状態性と測定可能性(Stativity and Measurability)
参考文献
多田

浩章 (Hiroaki Tada)

青木博文 (2005)「複文における名詞節の歴

福岡大学 (Fukuoka University)

史」 『日本語の研究』 1, 47-60.
此島正利 (1962) 「中古語における用言連体形の用法」『国語学』48, 102-107.

キーワード：状態性、叙述、測定、単調性

信太知子 (1970) 「断定の助動詞の活用継承「ある場所に物が集積する様態」をあらについて―連体形準体法の消失を背景として―」『国語学』82, 29-41.

わす日本語の状態性述語の中には叙述機能
以外に、測定機能をはたすことができるもCinque, Guglielmo (2010) The Syntax ofの (タイプ 1：りんごが籠に山盛りである／

Adjectives, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Nakanishi,
Kumiko(2007)
FormalPropertiesofMeasurement
Constructions, Berlin, Mouton de

りんごが籠に山盛りある) と、できないもの (タイプ 2： CD が机に重ね置きである／*CD が机に重ね置きある) がある。
このようなタイプ１の遊離用法 (数量詞

Gruyter.

的 状 態 記 述 (Quantificational State

Schwarzschild, Roger (2006) “The role of

Description (QSD)) は、数量詞 (Numeral

dimensions in the syntax of noun

Quantifier (NQ)) や 測 定 句

phrases,” Syntax 9:1, 67–110.

(Measure

Phrase (MP)) の遊離用法と共通する分布

Sproat, Richard and Chilin Shih (1990) The

特性として、(i) ターゲットの NP と構成素

cross-linguistic distribution of adjective(constituent) をなし、(ii) NP 移動後の残留

ordering(stranding) が 可 能 で 、 (iii) 狭 い 作 用 域

Approaches to Language:(narrow scope) をとる。

Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, ed. by Carol

なぜタイプ１のみが QSD になれるのか

restrictions,

Essays inGeorgopoulos and Roberta Ishihara, 565-

は、QSD が NQ／MP とともに単調性条件

593,(Monotonicity Condition) (「測定される表

Publishers.

-272-Interdisciplinary

Dordrecht,

KluwerAcademic

<Workshop Report>ている。この「構文」を言語の基本単位と考えることで、意味と形式の関係をより包括的に論じることが可能となる。本ワークショッ
プでは、Langacker の用法基盤モデルや山梨(2009) のオンライン文法に則り、言語の動構文的意味の諸相: その境界線を越えて的な側面の解明にこそ構文研究は発展の余(Aspects of Constructional Meaning:

地があると考える。実際の言語使用に根差し

Beyond Its Boundary)

た汎用性の高い構文理論の確立に寄与していく。

浜田啓志 (Takashi Hamada)2. 構 文 の 複 合 形 : 場 所 格 交 替 を 例 と し て

慶應義塾大学大学院 (Keio University)(野 中 大 輔 )野中大輔 (Daisuke Nonaka)
東京大学大学院 (University of Tokyo)

英語の scatter や load といった動詞は、ほぼ

小笠原清香 (Sayaka Ogasawara)

同一の内容を二通りの構文で表現すること立教大学大学院 (Rikkyo University)

が で き る （ e.g. The farmer scattered seeds

穐元美咲 (Misaki Akimoto)across the field / The farmer scattered the field

慶應義塾大学大学院 (Keio University)with seeds）。この現象は場所格交替と呼ばれている。場所格交替の二つの構文が形容詞的

キーワード: 構文、用法基盤モデル、場所格

受身で用いられる場合、通常の行為の結果を交替、文法化、話者交替表す用法と違い、先行する行為が想定できない状態や属性を表すことがある（e.g. The
stars were scattered across the sky / The sky was

1. 構 文 的 意 味 の 射 程 : そ の 可 能 性 を め ぐ

scattered with stars）。本発表は、構文文法のっ て (浜 田 啓 志 )アプローチを採用し、場所格交替の構文と形構文とは、形式と意味が慣習的に結び付いた

容詞的受身構文の複合形は、それぞれの構文

統合体である。構文に根ざした言語観は、構の特性を継承しつつも、構成的には説明する

成要素が表す意味の単純な合成では適切にことのできない側面をもつ独自の構文とし説明されない現象にうまく対応する。(1) Theて認められることを主張した。そして、この

windows were broken by the mobs. や (2) The

構文が Matsumoto (1996) の言う主体変化表

more you learn how to pronounce her name, the

現であること、通常の形容詞的受身と今回扱

more likely is she to go out with you. といったう主体変化用法の受身の多義性は、例において、 (1) の「被動者への顕著な影

Langacker (1998) のいう主体化の段階性の響」、(2) の「条件」という意味にはどの構中に位置づけることができることを示した。

成要素も貢献していない。これらの意味を担

構文文法は、構成要素の語彙と一般的な統語っているのは、それぞれ「be V-ed」「the X-er,

規則からは全体の意味が導き出せないよう

the Y-er」という特定の構造であると考えるな現象を扱うことが多かったが、構文と構文のが妥当である。構文は無秩序に存在するもを組み合わせたときにさらなる構文が創発のではなく、体系的な言語知識の中に位置づするという、本発表で扱ったような現象を考けられる(Langacker 1987)。言語知識は有機

察対象に含めることで、言語知識のさらなる的なものであり、構文は相互に動機付けられ解明に寄与することができるはずである。

-273-

3. 共 起 関 係 か ら 見 る 強 意 副 詞 の 意 味 変とする会話分析においても、話者交替を分析

化 (小 笠 原 清 香 )する際に構文的単位を導入することの有用

本発表では、強意副詞 fast とその共起動詞が性が指摘されている(Fried and Östman 2005)。

表す構文的意味の通時的変化を考察した。強

本発表では、会話における列挙行為とそこに

意副詞は形容詞修飾の用法をもつものは文付与されるプロソディーの特徴を考察した。

法化の研究対象として取り上げられてきた

プロソディーの一特徴である Elongation が、が、動詞修飾のものは中心的に扱われてこな

リスト表現のどの箇所に付与されるかによかった。文法化は単独の語彙ではなく特定のって、話者交替におけるターン移行をシグナ

構 造 が 経 験 す る と い う 観 点 (Himmelmann

ルする効果の差異を観察した。本発表は「リ2004) から V fast を構文とみなし、その意味

スト表現＋プロソディー」という形式が持つ変化を検証した。A＋N 構文においては形容「構文的」意味が、話者交替において有意味

詞との関連性において名詞が活性化させるな効果を付与することを指摘した。

ドメインがあることが議論されているが(Langacker 2008)、V fast という動詞と副詞か

参考文献

らなるパターンにおいても fast によって際Fried, M. and Östman, J. (2005) “Construction Grammar and

立つ動詞の潜在的なスケールがあると考え

Spoken Language: The Case of Pragmatic Particles,”られる。大規模コーパスや文学作品を用いた

Journal of Pragmatics 37, 1752-1778.

調査の結果、ME では多様な動詞が V のスロ

Himmelmann,N.

P.

(2004)“Lexicalization

andットに参与可能であり、fast はあくまで動詞

Grammaticalization: Opposite or Orthogonal?,” Whatが持つスケールやドメインを際立たせる役

Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and

割を担っていたことがわかった。しかし、

its Components, eds. by Walter B., Himmelmann, N. P.

EModE 以降は、動詞の分布に偏りが見られ、and Wiemer, B. 21-42, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and

一部のイディオム的な表現を除いて、fast は

New York.

動詞の意味に関係なく ‘rapidly’ の語義に固Langacker, R. W. (1987) Foundation of Cognitive Grammar

定されたことが分かる。V fast 構文は ME でVol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites, Stanford University

はスキーマ性が高く、現代英語にでは特定性

Press, Stanford, CA.

が高い表現となったことが明らかとなった。

---. (1998) “On Subjectification and Grammaticization,”
Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap, ed. by
Koenig, J. 71-89. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

4. 構 文 的 意 味 か ら み る リ ス ト 表 現 (穐 元---. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction, Oxford

美咲)

University Press, Oxford.

近年、複数の節にまたがる構文の研究に注目が集まるなか、自然発話における構文の動的

Matsumoto, Y. (1996) “Subjective-change Expressions in

な側面が指摘されている。山梨(2009)は会話

Japanese and Their Cognitive and Linguistic Bases”,

における個々の構文の語用論的機能や複数Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, eds. by Fauconnier, G.

の構文から成る隣接対の発話機能といった、and Sweetser, E., 124-156, University of Chicago Press,

構文の語用論的機能に関する意味の分析を

Chicago.

含む構文研究の必要性を示し、「グローバル

山梨正明 (2009) 『認知構文論』 大修館書店, 東京.

構文」を提唱している。日常を営む当たり前の「やり方」（例えば、なぜ話の途中で電話を切らないのか）を詳細に記述・考察しよう

-274-

[II]
Sixth International Spring Forum
April 27-28, 2013

The numeral phrases in the above sentences
Japanese-Speaking Children’s Absolute

denote a differential.

However, children do notinterpret them as a differential.

Interpretation of Differential Comparatives

Instead, theyinterpret them as the amount of degrees of aand Differential Verbal Expressions

certain property which the subject has.

For

Tomoe Arii

instance, they interpret (1a) as ‘This building is 20

University of Tokyo/ JSPS Research Fellow

meters high’ and interpret (1b) as ‘John has two
apples.’1, 2

Keywords: differential phrase, comparative,

Concerning the non-adult interpretation, twoverbal expression, children’s non-adultkinds of hypotheses have been proposed: ainterpretation

Linguistic Hypothesis (Hudson 1983) and a
Cognitive Hypothesis (Nunes and Bryant 1996).
The Linguistic Hypothesis holds that their

1. Introduction

absolute interpretation is due to their non-adult

In the field of mathematics education, comparison

grammatical representation of comparatives. On

problems are notoriously difficult for children,

the other hand, the Cognitive Hypothesis holds

which require them to determine a differentialthat their absolute interpretation is due to theirbetween two sets, e.g., “A boy has three apples

limited cognitive resources for doing subtraction.

and a girl has two apples. How many more apples

This paper examines Nunes and Bryant’s

does the boy have than the girl?”

Even young(1996) cognitive hypothesis that children cannot

school children wrongly answer the number of thesolve comparison problems because they cannot

boy’s apples, three, instead of answering theconnect an action on objects with the situationdifferential between the two sets of apples, namely,

where the question refers to a static relation. We

one.

will examine it by investigating Japanese-

We will call this non-adult response (andnon-adult

interpretation)

absolute

response(absolute interpretation) because children take the

Speaking children’s interpretation of another
differential construction like (2).

differential phrase not as comparative but as(2) Otokonoko-no-ringo-wa ni-ko

absolute.

boy-Gen-apple-Top

In the field of linguistics, Arii (2012a, b) has

fue-ta.

two-Cl increase-reported that Japanese 5- and 6-year-olds assign

Past

an

‘The number of apples the boy has has

absolute

interpretationtodifferential

increased by two.’comparatives like (1).
(1) a. Kono biru-wa
this

20-meetoru takai.

building-Top20-meter

higher‘This building is 20 meters higher.’b. John-no

ringo-wa

John-Gen apple-Top

ni-ko

ooi.

two-Cl more

‘John has two more apples.’This differential expression has a similar surface
structure to differential comparatives in Japanese.
We will call the expression as a differential verbal
expression.

We will show that Japanese-

Speaking children also assign an absoluteinterpretation to this expression and that the-277-

hypothesis proposed by Nunes and Bryant (1996)

what children need to do with the objects todoes not stand.

answer the question, “How many children won’t
get balloons?”

They need to make two matching

2. Backgroundsets and count out the remaining objects in theHere, we will review Hudson (1983)’s linguistic

larger set.

hypothesis and Nunes and Bryant (1996)’s

strategy is cued by the Won’t Get task.

cognitive hypothesis regarding children’s absolutecontrast, there are not such cues in the comparison

interpretation of differential comparatives.

problems.

This one-to-one correspondenceIn

Moreover, the notions of addition andHudson (1983) shows that when problems that

subtraction are not cued in the static comparison

involve comparison sets are expressed without

because children’s initial conceptions of addition

using a differential comparative, children canand subtraction are based on increasing or

solve them.

decreasing a quantity.

In his experiment, a childSo, neither the one-to-one

participant was shown a picture where fivecorrespondence strategy nor the notions ofchildren and three balloons were depicted.

addition and subtraction is cued in the comparison

When he was asked “How many more children

problems.

than balloons?” (More task), the child wrongly

this is why children have difficulty in solving

answered the number of the children, five.

comparison problems and support the CognitiveIn

contrast, when he was asked “How many children

Nunes and Bryant (1996) argue that

Hypothesis.

won’t get balloons?” (Won’t Get task), the child

So far, the controversy over the source ofcorrectly answered the differential, two. Basedchildren’s difficulty in solving comparisonon these findings, Hudson (1983) argues that since

problems and their absolute interpretation has notchildrenbeen settled.

displayanabilitytoestablish

However, Nunes and Bryant’s

correspondences between two sets in the Won’t(1996) first argument is too strong: Hudson’s

Get task, their failure in the More task involves(1983) linguistic hypothesis does not standtheir difficulty in understanding the meaning of

because 6- and 7-year-olds are successful incomparatives.

answering the question “Who has more/less?”

On the other hand, Nenus and Bryant (1996)

Differential comparatives do not only express thepresent a different explanation for children’s

comparison of degrees of some property thatdifficulty in solving a comparison problem.

objects have but also specify the differenceFirst, they cast doubt on Hudson’s (1983)

betweenlinguistic hypothesis on the basis of the fact thatcomparatives like “This building is 20 meters

6- and 7-year-olds are successful in answering thehigher” have a more complex underlying structure

question “Who has more/less?”

Second, they

than simple comparatives like “This building isargue that in order to quantify the difference

higher,” and it is possible that children’s difficulty

between the sets, it is necessary to connect anisaction on objects (the notions of addition andcomparatives.

subtraction and a one-to-one correspondence

abandon the Linguistic Hypothesis just because

strategy) with the situation where the question

children can appropriately interpret such simple

refers to a static relation. In Hudson (1983), incomparatives.

the Won’t Get task there is a clear indication of

-278-

the

restricted

degrees.

toSo,

interpreting

differential

differential

Thus, we should not easily

Moreover, we can examine whether Nunes andBryant’s (1996) second argument stands by

examined children’s interpretation of differential

investigating

verbal expressions and Experiment II examinedchildren’sinterpretationofdifferential verbal expressions like (2): childrenthat of differential comparatives.

have difficulty in solving comparison problems

subject design was adopted and the same

because they cannot connect an action on objects

children’s interpretation of these constructions

with static comparison.

was investigated at intervals of more than a week.

A situation expressedwith differential verbal expressions involves

The

experimentemployed

A within-a

TVJT incomparing sets and it also involves a change‘prediction mode’ (cf. Chierchia et al. (1998)).

unlike the one expressed with a differential

The story is as follows. First, a girl and a boy

comparative: it compares the number of objects

each have an object, say, an apple. Then, they

before and after an increasing event. Nunes andput it into their magic box.

Bryant (1996) argue that the reason why children

says “Let’s see what has happened to the girl’s (orcannot connect an action on objects with static

the boy’s) apples” and confirms that nothing has

comparison is that nothing is added or taken awaychanged.

and the situation does not cue the notions ofprediction about the boy’s (or the girl’s) apples.

addition and subtraction.

The

Moreover, unlike theAn experimenter

Then, she asks a puppet to make apuppetmakesaprediction,

which

Won’t Get task in Hudson (1983), the one-to-one

corresponds to a stimulus sentence like (2).

correspondence strategy is not cued there, either.

Finally, the experimenter shows the child the

If the argument of Nunes and Bryant (1996) isboy’s (or the girl’s) apples and asks him whether

right, children should be able to interpret (2)the puppet’s prediction was right.

appropriately because the situation expressed withof his judgment, we can know what interpretation

it is not static comparison.

he assigns to a differential verbal expression andIn the situation,

objects (e.g. apple) are added and the notions ofOn the basis

a differential comparative.

addition and subtraction are obviously cued.

Three kinds of conditions were used: aGiven the argument of Nunes and Bryant (1996),

comparative condition, an absolute condition andchildren should be able to interpret (2) more easily

a neutral condition, as shown below.

than differential comparatives.
Next section introduces an experiment on(3) Comparative Condition

Japanese-Speaking children’s interpretation of

Situation: First the girl and the boy each have a

differential verbal expressions and differential

pineapple, and finally the girl gets a pineapple,

comparatives,

and the boy gets three pineapples.

andcompareschildren’s

The final situation:interpretation of them.
3. Experiment3.1. Participants and Design
15 Japanese-Speaking children (5;4-6;3, mean
age: 6;0) who were able to do simple arithmetic
participated in this experiment.

They were

Prediction:

Two kinds of- Experiment I: ‘I think the number of pineapples

experiments were conducted: Experiment I

the boy has has increased by two. (in Japanese)’

individually investigated.

-279-

(true)right both in Experiments I and II because the- Experiment II: ‘I think the number of pineapples

number of the boy’s pineapples changes from one

the boy has is two more. (in Japanese)’ (true)

to three and it has increased by two.

On the other

hand, if children give an absolute interpretation to(4) Absolute Conditiona stimulus sentence, they would judge theSituation: First, the girl and the boy each have an

puppet’s prediction false.

ice cream, and finally the boy gets an ice creamcondition,and the girl gets two ice creams.

Experiments I and II because the number of the

The final situation:

girl’s ice creams has increased not by two but byone.

adultsjudge

In the absolute
it

false

both

in

On the other hand, children who give an

absolute interpretation to a stimulus sentence
would judge the puppet’s prediction right.
Lastly, in the neutral condition, adults judge theprediction false both in Experiments I and II
Prediction:

because the number of the boy’s cakes has- Experiment I: ‘I think the number of ice creams

increased not by one but by two.

the girl has has increased by two. (in Japanese)’judged it false, children were invited to supply(false)justification for their judgment.

- Experiment II: ‘I think the number of ice creams

the difference between the two sets of cakes, we

the girl has is two more. (in Japanese)’ (false)

can know that their interpretation of thedifferential phrase is comparative.

When they

If they refer toOn the other(5) Neutral Condition

hand, if they refer to the number of cakes the boy

Situation: First, the girl and the boy each have a

finally has, we can know that their interpretation

cake, and finally the girl gets a cake and the boy

is absolute.

gets three cakes.
3.2. Results

The final situation:

Both in Experiment I and II, all of the children
correctly responded to filler tasks 100 % of thetime.

On the other hand, they responded

correctly 57% (77/135) of the time in the target
conditions in Experiment I and 47% (64/135) in
Prediction:

Experiment II.

- Experiment I: ‘I think the number of cakes theboy has has increased by one. (in Japanese)’

The rates of their correct responses in eachcondition are presented in (6).

(false)- Experiment II: ‘I think the number of cakes theboy has is one more. (in Japanese)’ (false)
In the comparative condition, JapaneseSpeaking adults judge the puppet’s prediction-280-

(6) The rates of correct answers

b. Experiment II (comparative)

a. Experiment I (verbal)

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

91%

100%
80%
60%

42%

38%

40%

69%
C

27%

24%

Comparative.
Cnd.

20%

76%

73%

A

22%

Absolute Cnd.

Neutral Cnd.

0%
Comparative

Absolute

Neutral

In experiment I, they interpreted the stimulus
sentence as comparative 42% (19/45) of the timeb. Experiment II (comparative)
91%

100%

in the comparative condition, 38% (17/45) of the

80%

time in the absolute condition and 38% (17/45) of

60%
40%

27%

the time in the neutral condition.

24%

In ExperimentII, they interpreted the stimulus sentence as20%0%Comparative

Absolutecomparative 27% (12/45) of the time in the

Neutralcomparative condition, 24% (11/45) of the time in
In Experiment I, they correctly responded 42%

the absolute condition, and 22% (10/45) of the(19/45) of the time in the comparative condition,

time in the neutral condition.
The rates of absolute responses in the three

38% (17/45) of the time in the absolute condition,
91% (41/45) of the time in the neutral condition.

conditions altogether are as shown in (8).

In Experiment II, they correctly responded 27%(12/45) of the time in the comparative condition,(8) The rates of absolute responses in the three
conditions altogether

24% (11/45) of the time in the absolute conditionn.s

and 91% (41/45) of the time in the neutral
100%

condition.

60%

their interpretation of a differential phrase is

58%

40%

scored as comparative (C) or absolute (A). The

20%

rates of their absolute and comparative readings in0%
Verbal (Ex. 1)

each condition are represented in (7).
Children(7) The rates of absolute and comparative readings

interpreted

Comparative (Ex. 2)

differential

expressions as absolute 57.8% (78/135) of theabsolute 72.5% (98/135) of the time.

62%

58%
42%

38%

verbaltime and interpreted differential comparatives asa. Experiment I (verbal)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

73%

80%

Based on their responses and justification,

53%
38%

C
A

Analyzing

the data with a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, wefind that there is no significant difference between
the rate of children’s absolute responses to themComparative.
Cnd.

Absolute Cnd.

Neutral Cnd.

(p= .156 > .05).
Moreover, children are classified into threegroups based on their interpretation of stimulus
sentences.

-281-

When

their

responses

andjustification in all conditions are scored as C, suchchildren are classified into Group (C).

differential comparative as absolute.

On theother hand, when their responses and justification

4. Discussionin all conditions are scored as A, such children are

The experiments have revealed that childrenclassified into Group (A).

interpret

Lastly, when theirdifferential

verbalexpressions

asscores include both C and A, such children are

absolute on the same degree as differential

classified into Group (Mixed).

comparatives.3

As shown in (9),The expectation that children

in Experiment I, 5 children (mean age: 6;1) areshould be able to interpret differential verbal

classified into Group (C), 8 children (mean age:

expressions

5;7) are classified into Group (A) and 2 children

comparatives has been disconfirmed.

(mean age: 6;1) are classified into Group (Mixed).

Nunes and Bryant (1996), this shows that the

In Experiment II, 3 children (mean age: 6;0) arereason why children cannot solve comparison

classified into Group (C), 10 children (mean age:

problems is not because they cannot connect an5;10) are classified into Group (A) and 2 children

action on objects with static comparison.

(mean age: 6;0) are classified into Group (Mixed).

moreeasilythandifferential
ContraMoreover, children’s absolute interpretation of

Given that only a few children are classified into

the two constructions is correlated.

Group (Mixed), most of children’s interpretation

reasonable to consider that the source of theirof the stimulus sentence is consistent.

difficulty in interpreting the differential verbal andcomparative(9) Classification of children based on theirconstructions

isSo, it is

the

same.

Therefore, whatever properties of the twointerpretation of the stimulus sentence

constructions cause their absolute interpretation,

a. Experiment I (verbal)

we can conclude that their absolute interpretation10

is not specific to static comparison expressed with8

8
6

a differential comparative and that children’s

5

4

-

difficulty in solving comparison problems is2related20Group (C)Group (A)which

includeaand differential verbal expressions.

10

Although we have shown that Nunes and8

Bryant (1996)’s cognitive hypothesis does not

6
4

constructions

differential phrase like differential comparatives

Group (Mixed)b. Experiment (comparative)
10

to

3

-

stand, we cannot have settled the controversy over2

the source of children’s absolute interpretation

20Group (C)Group (A)

only with this finding.

Group (Mixed)

In order to determine

whether the source is linguistic or cognitive, we
The number of absolute responses of an

have to further examine children’s cognitive

individual child is analyzed with Spearman’s rank

abilities required in solving a comparison problem.

correlation. Children’s absolute responses to thetwo constructions are correlated (r= .739).

That

5. Conclusionis, children who interpret a differential verbal

This short paper has examined Japanese-Speaking

expression as absolute always interpret achildren’s interpretation of differential verbal-282-expressions and has shown that they also assign(to appear) conducts the same experiment as thean absolute interpretation to them.

one introduced here except the number ofThis finding

does not support Nunes and Bryant’s argument

characters: only one character is introduced.

that children cannot solve comparison problems

this case, the final situation is that the characterbecause they cannot connect an action on objects

has a certain amount of objects, and children havewith static comparison.

to compare the amount of objects the character has

In order to determineIn

the source of children’s absolute interpretation (abefore and after a change event.

Linguistic or a Cognitive Hypothesis), further

revised experiment, children assigned an absoluteresearch is required.

interpretation to the differential phrase in

Even in the

differential verbal expressions.
Notes* I am grateful to Akira Watanabe, Noriko

References

Imanishi, Takuya Goro, Kristen Syrett, TPL

Arii, Tomoe (2012a) “Children’s Absolute

members and audience at ELSJ International

Interpretation of Japanese Numeral Classifier

Spring Forum 2013 for insightful comments andPhrasesuggestions. I am also grateful to teachers andProceedings of the 9th GLOW in Asia, Nanzan

children in the two nursery schools: Hagizono

University.

Aijien and Shonan Nadeshiko Hoikuen in

Arii,

Comparatives,”

Tomoe(2012b)The

Online“Japanese-Speaking

Chigasaki.

Children’s Interpretation of Measure Phrase

1. In Arii (2012b), Japanese-Speaking children’sComparatives,” The Proceedings of the 13th

interpretation of differential comparatives likeTokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 27-39,“This building is 20 meters higher” wasHituzi Syobo.

investigated by using a novel unit of length,

Arii, Tomoe (to appear) “A Note on Japanese

instead of by using actual units of length like meter,Children’s

Absolute

Interpretationofcentimeter, etc.

Differential Verbal Expression,” Linguistic

2. My own going research shows that many

Research 29, The University of Tokyo English

children who assign an absolute interpretation to

Linguistics Association.

appropriately

Chierchia, Gennaro, Stephen Crain, Maria Guasti,

withoutaand Rosalind Thornton (1998) “‘Some’ anddifferential phrase like “This building is higher.”‘Or’: A Study on the Emergence of Logical

3. Some audience pointed out that children’sForm,” The Proceedings of the 22nd BUCLD,

absolute interpretation of differential verbal

97-108, Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA.

expressions might be caused by the final situation

Hudson, Tom (1983) “Correspondences andin the experiment, which corresponds to static

Numerical Differences between Disjoint Sets,”

comparison. Here, we used two characters, andChild Development, 54, 84-90.

differential
interpretcomparatives
simplecancomparatives

children had to compare the number of objects the

Nunes, Terezinha and Peter Bryant (1996)

two characters have. Thus, it is still possible thatChildren Doing Mathematics, Blackwell,static comparison in the final situation makes it

Oxford, UK.

difficultforchildrentodosubtraction.

Regarding this possible experiment deficit, Arii

allie522@gmail.com-283-

Finally, Section 4 concludes this paper.
2. DATAIn this section, we first review Japanese data withnegation in 2.1, and then examine Mongolian data

The Negation Markers in Modern Inner

with negation in 2.2.

Mongolian

2.1. JAPANESE

Lina Bao, Megumi Hasebe, and Hideki Maki
Osaka University, Yokohama National University,

The negation marker in Japanese is nai ‘NEG.’ It

and Gifu University

shows scope interactions with quantifiers such as
zen’in ‘all.’ Miyagawa (2001) shows scopeinteraction data with zen’in ‘all’ and negation.

Keywords: Japanese, Mongolian, partial negation,

Consider first example (1).

scope, total negation(1) Taroo-ga zen’in-o home-nakat-ta.
Taro-Nom all-Acc praise-NEG-PAST
1. INTRODUCTION‘Taro did not praise all.’This paper investigates the properties of the negationnot > all, (*)all > notmarkers in the Khorchin dialect of modern(Miyagawa (2001: 298), ex. (7) with slight

Mongolian spoken in Inner Mongolia (Mongolian,editing)hereafter), and points out that there are two types ofIn (1), the universal quantifier zen’in ‘all’ is in thelanguages in the world in marking the scope ofobject position and is c-commanded by negation. He

negation: (i) in languages like Mongolian, the typestates that example (1) has the interpretation inof the negation marker determines the scope

which the quantifier is within the scope of negation,

relationship between negation and a quantifier, notand thus, has a partial negation interpretation. In

the LF position of the quantifier or the negationfootnote 10, he states that the asterisk in parentheses

marker, and (ii) in languages like Japanese, the LF

for the ‘all > not’ reading is intended to indicate that

position of the quantifier seems to determine thesome native speakers of Japanese allow this reading,scope relationship between negation and a quantifier,which he assumes is due to interpreting ‘all’

not the type of the negation marker, as there seems

collectively (group reading). In this paper, we will

to exist only one negation marker in Japanese, for

not go into this issue, and assume with Miyagawa

example. If this is correct, LF movement of(2001) that (1) has a partial negation interpretation,

quantifiers is totally irrelevant to quantifier

not a total negation interpretation.
Let us turn to example (2).

interactions in Mongolian.

(2) Zen’in-ga sono tesuto-o uke-nakat-ta.

The organization of this paper is as follows.
Section 2 provides the data with negation in

all-Nom that test-Acc take-NEG-PAST

Mongolian and Japanese, showing that Mongolian,‘All did not take the test.’

not Japanese, has two types of negation markers*not > all, all > notwhich enter into the interpretations of the sentences.

(Miyagawa (2001: 298), ex. (8) with slight

Section 3 discusses what the observed data may

editing)suggest for the theory of (Mongolian) grammar.

In (2), the universal quantifier zen’in ‘all’ is in the-284-subject

positionandc-commands

negation.

maɣta-ɣsanügei.

Therefore, example (2) has the interpretation inpraise-PAST.ADN NEG

which the quantifier takes scope over negation, and‘Bagatur did not praise all.’thus, has a total negation interpretation.

*not > all, all > notInterestingly enough, example (2) can have a

In (4), the universal quantifier is in the object

partial negation reading, when the object isposition, and the negation marker is ügei ‘NEG.’ The

scrambled to the sentence-initial position across theprimary reading of (4) is that the quantifier takes

universal quantifier in the subject position, as shown

scope over negation. Thus, (4) has a total negationin (3).

reading. Let us then consider example (5).

(3) Sono tesuto-oi zen’in-ga ti uke-nakat-ta.

(5) Baɣatur-øbükü kümün-i

Bagatur-Nom all

people-Acc‘That test, all did not take.’maɣta-ɣsanbiši.

not > all, all > notpraise-PAST.ADN NEG(Miyagawa (2001: 299), ex. (11b) with

‘Bagatur did not praise all.’slight editing)not > all, *all > notthat test-Acc all-Nom

take-NEG-PASTThe above data with zen’in ‘all’ show that the

Just like (4), the universal quantifier is in the object

universal quantifier does not raise at LF, and theposition, but this time, the negation marker is biši

possible reading of the sentence with NEG and it is‘NEG.’ (5) only has the interpretation where theonly determined by the c-command relationshipquantifier is in the scope of negation, and thus, has abetween them.

partial negation reading.

To summarize, this subsection showed (i) that

Let us then turn to example (6), where theJapanese has only one negation marker nai ‘NEG,’

universal quantifier is in the subject position, and(ii) that quantifiers such as zen’in ‘all’ do not

c-commands negation.

undergo LF raising, and (iii) scope relationships(6) Bükü kümün-øbetween quantifiers and negation are determined byalltheir c-command relationships at LF.

orulča-ɣsantere šlɣalta-du

people-Nom that test-inügei.

take-PAST.ADN NEG
2.2. MONGOLIAN‘All did not take the test.’

Let us now examine Mongolian data. There is a*not > all, all > notcrucial difference between Mongolian and Japanese(6) only has the interpretation in which the quantifier

in terms of negation: Mongolian has two distinct

takes scope over negation. Let us then consider (7).
(7) Bükü kümün-øelements for negation ügei ‘NEG’ and biši ‘NEG,’

tere šlɣalta-du

while Japanese has only one nai ‘NEG.’ As shownall

below, ügei ‘NEG’ is used for total negation, and bisi

orulča-ɣsan‘NEG’ for partial negation. Let us first examine

take-PAST.ADN NEG

examples with the universal quantifier bükü kümün‘All did not take the test.’‘all people,’ the counterpart of zen’in ‘all’ innot > all, *all > not

biši.

1

Just like (6), the universal quantifier is in the subject

bükü kümün-i

position, but this time, the negation marker is biši

Japanese. Consider first example (4).
(4) Baɣatur-ø

people-Nom that test-in

Bagatur-Nom all

people-Acc‘NEG.’ (7) only has the interpretation where the-285-Therefore,

quantifier is in the scope of negation, and thus, has a

the

above

data

indicatethat

scrambling does not change the scope relationships

partial negation reading.
Let us then consider the examples where thebetween the quantifier and negation in Mongolian.

quantifier is in the subject position, and the object is

What is relevant to scope determination is only the

moved across it by scrambling. Observer thetype of the negation marker in this language.2

example in (8), which is derived from (6).
(8) Tere šlɣalta-dui bükü kümün-ø

To summarize, this subsection showed (i) that
Mongolian has two negation markers ügei ‘NEG’ti

and biši ‘NEG,’ and (ii) scope relationships between

that test-inallpeople-Nom

orulča-ɣsanügei.

quantifiers and negation are solely determined by the

take-PAST.ADN NEG

given negation markers, and the c-command‘The test, all did not take.’

relationship between the quantifiers is irrelevant to*not > all, all > notthe scope determination in Mongolian.

(8) only has the interpretation in which the quantifier
3. DISCUSSION

takes scope over negation, just like (6).
Note here that the negation marker follows Tense

Let us now consider what the Mongolian andin Mongolian, while it precedes it in Japanese, so

Japanese data we examined in this paper may

that the exact position for the scrambled object is notsuggest for the theory of grammar. First, the data inclear in Mongolian. In this paper, we tentatively

the two languages suggest a factor in language

assume with Miyagawa (2001) that scrambling

typology. Mongolian has two different types oftargets TP SPEC in Mongolian, just like Japanese, as

negation markers, namely, ügei ‘NEG’ for total

this hypothesis does not have any effect on thenegation, and bisi ‘NEG’ for partial negation. Due tofollowing discussion. Then, in (8), the scrambled

the different properties of the two particles, scope

object is in TP SPEC, and the quantifier is in vP

interactions between the negation markers and theSPEC. Consequently, the quantifier is in the scope ofquantifiers that co-occur with them are solely

negation at the surface level, yet (8) has a total

determined at the surface level, and the quantifiers

negation reading, just like (6).

do not need to, or to be more precise, cannot

Let us then turn to the example in (9), which isundergo LF raising to take scope. On the other hand,
other Altaic languages such as Japanese, Korean,derived from (7).
(9) Tere šlɣalta-dui bükü kümün-øthat test-inallorulča-ɣsanbiši.

and Turkish, only possess one type of negationtimarker, namely, total negation marker, as shown inpeople-Nom(10).
(10) Negation Markers in Japanese, Korean, andtake-PAST.ADN NEG‘The test, all did not take.’

Turkishnot > all, *all > nota.

Japanese: nai ‘NEG’(9) only has the interpretation in which the quantifierb.

Korean: an ‘NEG’is in the scope of negation, just like (7). In (9), thec.

Turkish: ma ‘NEG,’ deǧil ‘NEG.COP,’
yok ‘NEG.Exist’

scrambled object is in TP SPEC, and the quantifier is(Sohn (1999))(Kornfilt (1997))

in vP SPEC, just like (8). Consequently, theTherefore, scope interactions between the negation

quantifier is in the scope of negation at the surface

marker and the quantifiers that co-occur with it arelevel, and (9) has a partial negation reading.

determined by the c-command relationship between-286-

yesterday’

the quantifiers at LF.

not > all, *all > not

These facts indicate that even within the samelanguage family, there are at least two different ways

Out of (11)-(14), only (14) is ungrammatical withof scope determination, and the crucial factor is thegenitive subject, irrespective to the interpretation ofabsence/existence of overt syntactic entities such as

the sentence.3

negation markers in the language. Therefore, theNote here that the two negation markers canpresent study showed that one of the crucial factors

co-occur with genitive subject, as shown in (15) andfor language typology is the absence/existence of the(16).

overt syntactic entities in the language relevant to the(15) öcügedür Baɣatur-ø/-un

phenomena under comparison.

Ulaɣan-iyesterday Bagatur-Nom/-Gen Ulagan-Acc

Second, putting the clauses headed by themaɣta-ɣsanügei učir

negation markers into relative clauses suggest thepraise-PAST.ADN NEG factmechanism of genitive subject licensing in‘the fact that Bagatur did not praise Ulagan

Mongolian. To see this, let us consider the examples

yesterday’with bükü kümün ‘all people’ and negation markers(16) öcügedür Baɣatur-ø/-unin the examples in (11)-(14).

Ulaɣan-iyesterday Bagatur-Nom/-Gen Ulagan-Acc(11) öcügedür Baɣatur-ø/-unbükü

maɣta-ɣsanbiši učir

yesterday Bagatur-Nom/-Gen allpraise-PAST.ADN NEG factkümün-i‘the fact that it is not the case that Bagaturmaɣta-ɣsanügei učir

people-Acc praise-PAST.ADN NEG factpraised Ulagan yesterday’‘the fact that Bagatur did not praise all

Furthermore, the universal quantifier bükü kümün

yesterday’‘all people’ may be followed by either one of the two*not > all, all > notcase markers (nominative and genitive), when it(12) öcügedür Baɣatur-ø/-unbükü

appears in the subject position, as shown in (17).

yesterday Bagatur-Nom/-Gen all
kümün-imaɣta-ɣsan(17) öcügedür bükü kümün-ø/-ü

biši učir

yesterday all

people-Nom/-Gen

people-Acc praise-PAST.ADN NEG fact

tere šlɣalta-du orulča-ɣsan‘the fact that Bagatur did not praise allthat test-in

yesterday’‘the fact that all took the test yesterday’(13) öcügedür bükü kümün-ø/-ü
yesterday all

pass-PAST.ADN facttereThis indicates that genitive subject is disallowed in apeople-Nom/-Gen that

relative clause only when it co-occurs with thešlɣalta-du orulča-ɣsantest-inučirügei učir

take-PAST.ADN NEG fact

partial negation marker biši ‘NEG’ and a quantifier
expression with it.

‘the fact that all did not take the test

Let us now consider what prediction the twoyesterday’

major approaches that have been proposed in terms(14) öcügedür bükü kümün-ø/*-ü

tereof what licenses genitive subject will make for theyesterday all people-Nom/-Gen thatexample in (14) with genitive subject shown in (18).

šlɣalta-du orulča-ɣsan(18) * öcügedür bükü kümün-ü tere šlɣalta-du

test-in

biši

učir

pass-PAST.ADN NEG factyesterday all people-Gen that test-in‘the fact that all did not take the test

orulča-ɣsan-287-

biši učir

pass-PAST.ADN NEG fact

Batu-Nom rain-Nom/-Gen stop-pres.ADN‘the fact that all did not take the test

boltala alban ger-tü baila.

yesterday’

until

not > all, *all > not‘Batu was at his office until it stopped

office-at

wasraining.’

The two major approaches are (i) the D-Licensing
Approach by Miyagawa (1993) and Maki andBased on Chomsky’s (2000) theory of Agree,

Uchibori (2008), among others, and (ii) the

Hiraiwa (2001) proposes that while the inflection

Adnominal Form-Licensing Approach by Watanabewith the conclusive form of the verb corresponds to(1996) and Hiraiwa (2001), among others. In thisthe V-(v-)T amalgamate created via Agree in syntax,

paper, for expository purposes only, we take Maki

the inflection with the adnominal form of the verb

and Uchibori (2008) as a representative case of theresults from an Agree relation of V, (v), T, and a

D-Licensing Approach, and Hiraiwa (2001) as a

special type of C (Caffix in Hiraiwa’s terms). He thenrepresentative

proposes that genitive subject is licensed by the

case

of

the

Adnominal

Form-Licensing Approach.

V-(v-)T-C amalgamate, not D, while nominative

Maki and Uchibori (2008), following the

subject is licensed by the V-(v-)T amalgamate.

essential claim by Miyagawa (1993), propose that D

The two approaches actually make wrong

licenses genitive subject in relative clauses such aspredictions for (18). Under the D-Licensing(19).

Approach, the D will be able to agree with, and thus,(19) öcügedür Ulaɣan-ø/-ulicense the genitive subject. Also, under theyesterday Ulagan-Nom/-Gen

Adnominal

qudaldun-abu-ɣsan nom

V-(v-)T-NEG(-C) amalgamate will be able to agree

buy-take-past.ADN bookwith, and thus, license the genitive subject. Thus,‘the book which Ulagan bought yesterday’(18) will be incorrectly predicted to be grammatical

In (19), the genitive subject is preceded by an adverb,

Form-Licensing

Approach,theunder either of the two major approaches.

which guarantees that it is within the relative clauseNote,however,

that

the

Adnominal

in overt syntax. Maki and Uchibori (2008) claim that

Form-Licensing Approach correctly predicts (13)D that subcategories NP (nom ‘book’ in this case)with genitive subject, shown in (21), to belicenses the genitive subject via Agree (Chomsky

grammatical,(2000)), so that it does not undergo LF movement toamalgamate can properly license the genitive

DP SPEC at LF, unlike Miyagawa (1993).

subject.

Hiraiwa(2001)

proposestheAdnominal

becausethe

V-(v-)T-NEG(-C)(21) öcügedür bükü kümün-ütere šlɣalta-duForm-Licensing Approach to genitive subject

yesterday all

people-Gen that test-in

licensing, essentially following another importantorulča-ɣsanügei učir

previous study by Watanabe (1996). Hiraiwa argues

pass-PAST.ADN NEG factthat genitive subject licensing depends on the‘the fact that all did not take the test

adnominal form of the predicate, not D, by showing

yesterday’that there is a set of clauses allowing genitive subject*not > all, all > notthat does not involve a noun, such as (20). Note that

The only difference between (18) and (21) is thenboltala ‘until’ in (20) is not a noun.

the type of the negation marker: (18) has the partial(20) Batu-ø

boruɣan-ø/-ujoɣsu-qunegation marker, while (21) has the total negation-288-

marker. Therefore, this indicates that under thefor language typology is the absence/existence of the

Adnominal Form-Licensing Approach, which weovert syntactic entities in the language relevant to theassume for the sake of discussion here, the complex

phenomena under comparison. This paper also

predicate with the adnominal form of the verb is notshowed a condition on genitive subject licensing inalways able to license genitive subject, but there is a

Mongolian. That is, there is a condition imposed on

condition imposed on the combination of thethe combination of the features on the heads

features on the heads containing the adnominal form

containing the adnominal form of the predicate, soof the predicate. In (18), the quantifier is in TP SPEC,that the complex predicate with the adnominal form

which should agree with T. Suppose then that Tof the verb is not always able to license genitive

shares a [Quantification] feature with the quantifier.

subject.

The head NEG in (18) has the feature [NEGpartial],
not [NEGtotal]. Then, the amalgamate has the features

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS[Adnominal], [Quantification], and [NEGpartial],

An earlier version of this paper was presented at theamong others, at the same time. It is this set of

6th International Spring Forum by the English

features that cannot properly license genitive subject

Linguistic Society of Japan held at the University ofin Mongolian, in spite of the fact that theTokyo on April 28, 2013. We would like to thankamalgamate has the [Adnominal] feature. Note that

Chigch Bai, Nobuko Hasegawa, and Fumikazu

when the amalgamate has the features [Adnominal],

Niinuma for their valuable comments. All errors are[Quantification], and [NEGtotal], it can properly

our own.

license genitive subject in Mongolian. Therefore, aparticular combination of the features on the

FOOTNOTES

V-(v-)T-NEG(-C)

1amalgamate

makes

genitive

Note that the primary reading of (4) is the total

subject licensing in Mongolian impossible. Thus, thenegation reading (all > not), but the partial negation

Mongolian data suggest a restriction on thereading (not > all) is somehow possible. This fact is

Adnominal Form-Licensing Approach (and thenot expected under the analysis to be proposed later.

D-Licensing Approach) to genitives subject. Of

We will leave this important issue for future

course, the question still remains as to why thisresearch.

particular combination of the features blocks

2

genitive subject licensing in Mongolian, which wenegation markers exhibit the same behaviors. First,

will leave for future research.

when the NP with jübken ‘only’ is in the object

Note that examples with jübken ‘only’ andposition and the negation marker is ügei ‘NEG,’ the
4. CONCLUSION

quantifier takes scope over negation, as shown in (i).

This paper investigated scope interactions in(i) Ulaɣan-ø

jübken miqa-ø

Mongolian, and showed that there are two types of

Ulagan-Nom only

languages in the world with respect to marking theide-gsenscope of negation and with respect to scope

eat-PAST.ADN NEG

determination between the two quantifiers in the‘Ulagan did not eat only meat.’sentence. The crucial factor is the absence/existence

only > not, *not > only

meat-Accügei.

of overt syntactic entities such as negation markers

On the other hand, when the negation marker is biši

in the language. Therefore, one of the crucial factors‘NEG,’ the quantifier is in the scope of negation, as-289-

shown in (ii).

naija-tai-ban(ii) Ulaɣan-ø

jübken miqa-øUlagan-Nom only
ide-gsennaɣadu-ɣsan

biši

učir

friend-with-RP play-PAST.ADN NEG fact

meat-Acc‘the fact that Bagatur did not play with all

biši.

the friends yesterday’

eat-PAST.ADN NEG

not > all, *all > not‘Ulagan did not eat only meat.’*only > not, not > only

REFERENCES

Second, when the NP with jübken ‘only’ is in theChomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The

subject position and the negation marker is ügeiFramework,” Step by Step, ed. by Roger‘NEG,’ the quantifier takes scope over negation, theMartin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka,

quantifier takes scope over negation, as shown in

89–155, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

(iii).

Hiraiwa, Ken (2001) “On Nominative-Genitive(iii) Jübken Ulaɣan-ø
only

miqa-ø

Conversion,”

Ulagan-Nom meat-Acc

ide-gsenMIT

Working

Papersin

Linguistics 39: A Few from Building E39, ed.

ügei.

by Elena Guerzoni and Ora Matushansky,

eat-PAST.ADN NEG

66–125.

‘Only Ulagan did not eat meat.’

Kornfilt, Jaklin (1997) Turkish, Routledge, Oxon.

only > not, *not > only

Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1992) Move α:

On the other hand, when the negation marker is biši

Conditions on Its Application and Output, MIT‘NEG,’ the quantifier is in the scope of negation, as

Press, Cambridge, MA.

shown in (iv).

Maki, Hideki and Asako Uchibori (2008) “Ga/No(iv) Jübken Ulaɣan-ø
only

miqa-ø

Conversion,”

Ulagan-Nom meat-Acc

ide-gsenofJapanese

Linguistics, ed. by Shigeru Miyagawa andbiši.

Mamoru Saito, 192–216, Oxford University

eat-PAST.ADN NEG

Press, Oxford.

‘Only Ulagan did not eat meat.’

Miyagawa, Shigeru (1993) “Case-Checking and*only > not, not > only
3

Handbook

Minimal Link Condition,” MIT Working

Note that genitive subject may co-occur with biši

Papers in Linguistics 19: Papers on Case and‘NEG’ and ügei ‘NEG,’ when the universal

agreement II, ed. by Colin Phillips, 213–254.

quantifier appears as an adjunct phrase, as shown in

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2001) “The EPP, Scrambling,and Wh-In-Situ,” Ken Hale: A Life in(i) and (ii).
(i) öcügedür Baɣatur-ø/-un

Language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz,

bükü

293–338, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

yesterday Bagatur-Nom/-Gen all
naija-tai-ban

naɣadu-ɣsanügei učir

Sohn, Ho-Min (1999) The Korean Language,

friend-with-RP play-PAST.ADN NEG fact

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

‘the fact that Bagatur did not play with all

Watanabe, Akira (1996) “Nominative-Genitive

the friends yesterday’

Conversion and Agreement in Japanese: A*not > all, all > not

Cross-Linguistic Perspective,” Journal of East(ii) öcügedür Baɣatur-ø/-un

Asian Linguistics 5, 373–410.

bükü

yesterday Bagatur-Nom/-Gen all-290-

Scrambling in Double Complement
Constructions in Chinese
Wenwen Ding
University of Tsukuba
Keywords: Double Complement Constructions in
Chinese, scrambling, Surprising Constituents

1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to discuss thepossibility of analyzing Double Complement
Constructions in Chinese as involving
scrambling,1 and the discussion is based on thephenomenon of Surprising Constituents found inJapanese (cf. Takano (2002)).
Double Complement Constructions refer to thefollowing example:(1)
John song gei Mary yi-ben shu.2
send toone-CL book‘John sends/sent Mary a book.’
I assume the corresponding data in Japanese to be
the one in (2).
(2)
John-ga Mary-ni hon-oageru.
-Nom-Dat book-Acc give‘John sends Mary a book.’
It is well known that in Japanese there is a typicalsyntactic operation called scrambling. That is, if
we scramble the direct object hon-o to theadjunction site of VP, we can obtain the word
order in (3).
(3)
John-ga hon-o Mary-ni ageru.
-Nom book-Acc-Dat give‘John sends Mary a book.’
Now let us turn to Chinese data. The details

will be shown in later sections. For now, it will
suffice to note that a relatively ample word order
can also be observed in Chinese.
(4) a. John song gei Mary yi-ben shu. (=(1))
send toone-CLbook
b. John gei Mary song yi-ben shu.
tosend one-CL bookc. John song yi-ben shu gei Mary
send one-CL book tod. John ba yi-ben shu song gei Mary.3
BA one-CL book send toe. ? gei Mary John song yi-ben shu.4
tosend one-CL bookf. ba yi-ben shu John song gei Mary.
BA one-CL booksend tog.* ba yi-ben shu gei Mary John song.
BA one-CL book to
send
h.* gei Mary ba yi-ben shu John song.
to
BA one-CL booksend‘John sends/sent Mary a book.’
To capture the similarity in the two languages, I
make the following proposals:(5) a. In Chinese unmarked word order(SVO), the accusative case is assignedby the verb to the following object
without morphological realization. If
the object is preposed, ba is obligatorily
introduced to assign the accusative
case instead and forms a constituent
with the preposed object. The newly
formed constituent can then undergoscrambling.
(cf. Stowell (1981))
b. Double complement constructions in
Chinese can be analyzed as involving
scrambling, with ba and gei ‘to’ as caseassigners.
(cf. Huang (1982b))-291-

Japanese
Chinese

Nom
ga

Acc
o
ba

Dat
ni
gei

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2
reviews Takano’s (2002) work on Surprising
Constituents, and provides Chinese data
regarding this phenomenon. Section 3 lays out
the detailed proposals listed in (5). Section 4 isdevoted to answer a possible question regarding
the preposition status of gei ‘to’. Then section 5
makes a discussion as to why scrambling can be
partly observed in Chinese while it is notavailable in English although both of the two are
SOV languages. Finally section 6 makes aconclusion.
2. Surprising Constituents (cf. Takano (2002))
As is shown in (6), in English the direct andindirect objects in a double complement
construction cannot appear as a whole in thefocus position of a cleft sentence.
(6) * It is [a book to Mary] that John gave.
(Modified)This is because the two objects do not form a
constituent.
On the other hand, thecorresponding data in Japanese are grammatical.
Observe the examples in (7).
(7) a. John-ga ageta no wa [hon-o-Nom gave NM Top book-Acc
Mary-ni] da.5
-Dat is*‘It is a book to Mary that John gave.’b. John-ga ageta no wa [Mary-ni-Nom gave NM Top-Dat
hon-o] da.
book-Acc is*‘It is to Mary a book that John gave.’c. hon-oageta no wa [John-ga
book-Acc gave NM Top-NomMary-ni] da.
-Dat is*‘It is John to Mary that gave a book.’d. Mary-ni ageta no wa [John-ga-Dat gave NM Top-Nomhon-o] da.
book-Acc is*‘It is John a book that gave to Mary.’e. ageta no wa [John-ga hon-ogave NM Top-Nom book -Acc
Mary-ni] da.
-Dat is*‘It is John a book to Mary that gave.’
Suppose that the elements in the focus of a cleft
construction form a constituent, the constituency
in (7a-e) should be attributed to some syntactic
process.
Regarding this phenomenon I checked whether
the corresponding sentences in Chinese areavailable or not to the Japanese data in (7). The
result is listed in (8).
(8) a. John song de shi [ba shu gei Mary].
send NM is BA book to* ‘It is a book to Mary that John
sends/sent.’b. John song de shi [gei Mary ba shu].
send NM is to
BA book* ‘It is to Mary a book that John
sends/sent.’c.?* ba shu song de shi [JohnBA book send NM is
gei Mary].
to* ‘It is John to Mary that sends/sent a
book.’
d.?* gei Mary song de shi [John ba shu].
tosend NM is
BA book* ‘It is John a book that sends/sent toMary.’
e.?* song de shi [John ba shu
send NM is
BA bookgei Mary].
to* ‘It is John a book to Mary that-292-

sends/sent.’
Note that (8a-e) all include the ba construction.
In the next step, I change (8a-e) to the versions
without the ba construction. Specifically, let (9)be the base sentence.
(9)
John song shu gei Mary.
send book to‘John sends/sent Mary a book/books.’
Then change this sentence to get thecorresponding sentences to those in (8).
(10) a. * John song de shi [shu gei Mary].
send NM is book to* ‘It is a book to Mary that John
sends/sent.’b. John song de shi [gei Mary shu].
send NM is tobook* ‘It is to Mary a book that John
sends/sent.’c. * song shu de shi [John gei Mary].
send book NM isto* ‘It is John to Mary that sends/sent a
book.’
d.* gei Mary song de shi [John shu].
tosend NM isbook* ‘It is John a book that sends/sent toMary.’
e. * song de shi [John shu gei Mary].
send NM isbook to* ‘It is John a book to Mary that
sends/sent.’
As the grammatical judgments show, when ba is
not used, only (10b) seems to remain
grammatical.
However, this result is deceiving. In order tocheck whether the sentence in (10b) is truly
grammatical or not, I try another verb in (11).
(11)
John jieshao yi-ge pengyou
introduce one-CL friend
gei Mary.
to‘John introduces/introduced a friend to
Mary.
Then change (11) to the identical pattern with(10b), we get (12).
(12) * John jieshao de shi [gei Mary
introduce NM is to
one-CL friend
yi-ge pengyou].
* ‘It is to Mary a friend that John
introduces/introduced.’
The result of grammaticality may indicate that
there is some other reason to make us judge (10b)to be grammatical. Specifically, in Chinese as
the word gei can also function as a verb in
addition without any morphological change.
This may have led speakers to judge it
grammatical as the string gei Mary shu can be atrue verb phrase.
Therefore a summary of the observation on the
Chinese double complement construction can be
made: In Chinese double complement
constructions part of the phenomenon of
Surprising Constituents can also be observed withthe same grammatical judgments as those inJapanese when ba and gei ‘to’ are used.
3. Proposal
3.1. On ba
In this subsection I show that ba and thepost-ba NP form a constituent. Observe (13).
(13) a. ni xian ba zhe-kuai rou
you first BA this-CL meatqie-qie ba!6
cut-cut SFPb. [ba zhe-kuai rou], ni xian
BA this-CL meat you firstqie-qie ba!
cut-cut SFP‘Cut the meat first!’(Huang, Li & Li (2009): 167)

-293-

This pair of sentences indicates that ba and thepost-ba NP form a constituent. Similarly, thepair in (14) also shows the same point.
(14) a. wo zao jiu ba na-dui wenzhang
I early then BA that-CL article
gai-hao-le.
correct-finish-LEb. [ba na-dui wenzhang], wo zao jiu
Ba that-CL article
I early thengai-hao-le.
correct-finish-LE‘I corrected that pile of articles longago.’
(Huang, Li & Li (2009): 167)
However, there seems to be data showing that the
post-ba NP forms a constituent with thesubsequent VP. Consider (15).
(15)
ta ba [men xi-hao],[chuanghu
he BA door wash-finish window
ca-ganjing]-le.
wipe-clean-LE‘He washed the door and wiped thewindows clean.’(Huang, Li & Li (2009): 166)
(15) seems to show that the post-ba NP and the
VP following it form a constituent, as illustrated
by the coordination test. However, we knowthat it is acceptable if ba also occurs in the second
conjunct. Observe (16).
(16)
ta [[ba meni] xi-hao ti], [[ba chuanghuj]
ca-ganjing tj]-le.
With this data, I would like to claim that in (15)ba and the post-ba NP also form a constituent.
Then this constituent merges further with thefollowing VP. The tree diagram in (17) is thefirst part of the coordination structure of (16).
And in (18) the second ba is elided under identitywith the first ba.
(17) a. ta [[ba meni] xi-hao ti]
he BA door wash-finish‘He washed the door.’
b.

VP

VP
V’

men
xi-hao
(18)

ba
men

men V’
xi-haomenta [[ba men i] xi-hao ti], [[ba chuanghu j]
ca-ganjing tj]-le.

3.2. The derivation of Surprising ConstituentsIn this subsection, I exploit the possibility ofapplying Takano’s (2002) theory to the relevant
Chinese data. Takano’s analysis is illustrated in(19).
(19) The Oblique Movement Analysis
John-ga ageta no wa [hon-o-Nom gave NM Top book-Acc
Mary-ni] da.
(=(7a))-Dat is* ‘It is a book to Mary that John gave.’
VP
VP
V’

NP1

V’

V NP2i
NP ti
V
NP1=Mary-ni, NP2=hon-o, V=ageta(cf. Hoji (1985), Kayne (1994))
Specifically, assuming that the indirect object
Mary-ni is higher than the direct object hon-o andthat only leftward adjunction is possible, thedirect object undergoes oblique movement andadjoins to the indirect object, forming a new
constituent. To derive the cleft sentence in (19),this newly formed constituent undergoes
movement within the embedded clause and gets
deleted at PF under identity with the focus
element. Thus, before PF deletion, the example
has the structure in (20).
(20)[hon-oi [Mary-ni]]j John-ga tj ti ageta no

-294-

NP2

NP1

wa [hon-o [Mary-ni]] da
One may try to apply the analysis of theJapanese data directly to the Chinese data.
However, there is a difference. Remember thetree diagram in (17b) that is based on thecoordination test. Further, as the particle ba isintroduced to the structure later during thederivation, it should not be treated the same as theJapanese o. With these factors in mind, I would
like to propose the following structure for the
Chinese data (8a).
(21)
John song de shi [ba shu gei Mary].
send NM is BA book to* ‘It is a book to Mary that John
sends/sent.’
VP
NP1
V’
VP
NP2’
(Application of(17b) to (19))

V’

NP1
V

ba
NP2

NP2 V’
V

NP

VP
NP1

V’

NP2’i
NP1 V
ti
NP1=gei Mary, NP2= shu, V=song, NP2’=bashu
Crucially, I would like to claim that theconstituent that undergoes oblique movement is
not NP2 shu ‘book’, but NP2’ ba shu ‘ba book’,
which is derived in the way shown in (17b).
With this derivation in place, the cleft
construction in (22) can be derived in exactly thesame way as (20).
(22)[[ba shui] gei Mary]j John tj song ti deshi [[ba shu] gei Mary]

4. A Possible Question: gei ‘to’ can also be a verb
gei ‘give’
As mentioned earlier, the word gei canfunction as both a preposition and a true verb.
By now I have assumed gei as a preposition thatassigns dative case to the indirect object. If gei
alternatively acts as a verb, as the sentence in (23)shows, then it can form a complex verb phrase
song-gei ‘send-give’ with song ‘send’.
(23)
John song-gei Mary (yi-ben) shu.
send-give
one-CL book‘John gives/gave Mary a book.’
Then let us derive the sentences corresponding tothose in (8a-e).
(24) a. * John song-gei de shi [ba shu Mary].
send-give NM is BA book
* ‘It is a book to Mary that John
sends/sent.’
b.* John song-gei de shi [Marysend-give NM is
ba shu].
BA book* ‘It is to Mary a book that John
sends/sent.’c. * ba shu song-gei de shi
BA book send-give NM is[John Mary].
* ‘It is John to Mary that sends/sent a
book.’
d.* song-gei Mary de shi [John ba shu].
send-give
NM is
BA book* ‘It is John a book that sends/sent toMary.’
e. * song-gei de shi [John ba shu
send-give NM is
BA bookMary].
* ‘It is John a book to Mary thatgives/gave.’
Different from (8a, b), (24a, b) are ungrammatical.
This indicates that to derive the corresponding-295-

Surprising Constituent sentences in Chinese, it isnecessary to assume gei to be a preposition.
To establish this assumption explicitly, I would
like to show further evidence.
First, verb-gei ‘verb-give’ cannot serve as asimple answer to a question. Consider thecontrast in (25a) and (25b).
(25) a. (mei/bu) xie.
(not)
write
‘(Someone) doesn’t/didn’t write(anything).’b.* (mei/bu) song-gei.
(not)send-give* ‘(Someone) doesn’t/didn’t send-give.’
A verb like xie ‘write’ should be able to answer aquestion. But when we apply this verb-hood
test to song-gei ‘send-give’, ungrammatical
judgment results. This suggests that song-gei is
not a true verb.
Next, I would like to point out that in addition
to song-gei, where song ‘give’ is a monosyllabic
verb, there are in fact a number of disyllabic
verb-gei complex. Some examples are shownin (26).
(26) “disyllabic verbs-gei”
chuandi-gei, jieshao-gei
pass-give, introduce-give
Although “verb-gei” ‘verb-give’ is a relatively
productive operation, it is unlikely to treat them astrue verbs. Therefore they are not constituents.
Note also that none of the data in (26) behave likeverbs according to the verbhood test in (25).
For example, observe (27).
(27) a. * John jieshao-gei Mary yi-ben shu
introduce-give one-CL bookle ma?
LE SFP* ‘Did John introduce-give Mary a pieceof book?’b.* (mei) jiaoshao-gei.

(not) introduce-give* ‘No, (he) didn’t introduce-give.’
The ungrammaticality of the answer indicatesagain that verb-gei ‘verb-give’ is not a verb.
In this section I gave 2 pieces of evidence thatshow verb-gei ‘verb-give’ cannot be a true verb.
5. Discussion: Why scrambling can be partly
observed in Chinese while it is not available in
English although both of the two are SOV
languages?
I would like to answer this question in thefollowing way. The difference between English
and Chinese in terms of Surprising Constituents
phenomenon lies in the fact that in Chinese thereis the crucial ba construction, through which thegrammatical function of the direct object can bemade explicitly together with the preposition gei‘to’ indicating the indirect object. If the current
proposal is correct, then scrambling can beobserved.
The difference of scrambling
between Japanese and Chinese is that because
there is not a particle to make the nominative case
explicit, there is always difficulty in deciding thegrammatical function of the subject.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, I focused on the phenomenon of
Surprising Constituents in Chinese and argued
that scrambling is involved to yield thisphenomenon. Specifically, I proposed that ba in
ba construction and the preposition gei ‘to’ serve
to invoke scrambling.
Notes
Scrambling refers to the free order phenomena
found in diverse languages.
2
CL: classifier
3This is an example of the ba construction.
The NP after ba is generally the object of the verbof the sentence. Semantically, the NP after it isaffected in the way described by the event.
1

-296-

4

This sentence is marginal because it can be
ambiguous between (i) and (ii):(i) ‘John sends/sent Mary a book.’ (thefavored interpretation)(ii) ‘(Someone) sends/sent Mary and Johna book.’ (possible in informal
conversation with the conjunction wordhe ‘and’ omitted)
The interpretation in (ii) is possible because in
Chinese a phonetically empty pronoun pro can begenerated in the subject position. Anotherreason may lie in the fact that in Chinese, unlike
in Japanese, there is no nominative case marker
corresponding to ga, and thus the exact
grammatical function of John cannot be decided.
5
NM: nominalizer
6
SFP: sentence-final particle
References
Hoji, Hajime (1985) Logical Form Constraints
Configurational Structures in Japanese, PhD
Dissertation, University of Washington.
Huang, C.-T. James (1982b) Logical Relations in
Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, PhD
Dissertation, MIT.
Huang, C.-T. James, Y.-H. Audrey Li and Yafei
Li (2009) The Syntax of Chinese, Cambridge
University Press.
Kayne, Richard (1994) The Antisymmetry ofSyntax,MIT
Press,
Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Stowell, Tim (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure,
PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Takano, Yuji (2002) “Surprising Constituents,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11:
243-301.

-297-

He-Top she-Nom bought thannagaikasa-wokatta

long umbrella-Acc boughtb. Kare-wa kanojo-ga katta yori
A Phrasal Analysis of English
English,, Japaneseand Chinese Comparative Constructions

He-Top she-Nom bought thantakusankasa-wo katta
many

Ryosuke Hattori
The University of Tokyoumbrella-Acc bought(3) a. *Tā măi yŭsăn bĭ [CP tā
He buy umbrella thanshe

Keywords: clausal comparatives,phrasal analysis, left branch
condition, quantifier floatingmăi] cháng.
buy
long
b. *Tā măi yŭsăn
He buy umbrella

1. Introduction
In the previous studies on the syntax ofcomparatives,
languages
have
beenclassified into two types based on whether
they allow clausal type comparatives with athan-CP complement (as in English) or not(as in Japanese or Chinese), assuming
comparative-specific parameters. (Beck et al.
2004; Kennedy 2005; Bhatt and Takahashi
2007; Lin 2009)
However, there are empirical andconceptual problems with this claim. First,
some phenomena cannot be simply
explained by this distinction alone. For
example, Japanese comparatives ban only
the Degree-compared Clausal Comparatives(DCCs) but not Quantity-compared Clausal
Comparatives (QCCs), as shown in (2) (cf.
English counterparts in (1)), while languages
like Chinese do not seem to allow clausal
comparatives at all as in (3).
(1) a. He bought a longer umbrella than [CPshe did]b. He bought more umbrellas than [CPshe did](2) a. ?*Kare-wa kanojo-ga katta yoribĭ [CP tāthanshemăi] duō.
buy many
Secondly, construction-specific parameters
are conceptually undesirable, since othercommonly-recognized parameters are all
general and not construction-specific.
This paper tries to explain the contrast in(1-3)
byproposingthat
thethan-complement of every language has aphrasal (not CP) structure and that there are
two general parameters involved in thecontrast.
2. Analysis
2.1. English Clausal Comparatives
Through analyzing the syntactic derivationsof comparative constructions in English andJapanese,thedifference
intheirgrammaticality seems to come from how
they react to the Left Branch Condition by
Ross (1967/1986).
(4) Left Branch Condition/LBC
In languages like English, the leftmost
constituent of a nominal, adjectival, or
adverbial
expression
cannotbe-298-

extractedout

containing it.
In English, the

of

the

moved

expression
operatoringrammaticality since there is no LBC
violation.
(8) a. John-wa

kinoo

hon-o

comparative clause is a zero adverb insteadof a left-branch modifier, as shown in (5b)John-Top yesterday book-Acc[FQ x-satu] katta yori(-mo) kyoo

which is based on the semantics by Izvorski(1995). This explains the grammaticality ofx-CL bought than
today
takusan-no zassi-okatta

sentences in which the LBC is apparently

manymagazine-Acc bought'John bought more magazines today

violated in the previous analyses (e.g.
wh -movement account (5a) by Chomsky

than he bought books yesterday'
b. John-wa kinoo hon-o [FQ x-satu]

1977).
(5) a. The desk is as high as [whi it is [APkatta [FQ x-satu] yori(-mo) kyoo
takusan-no zassi-o katta[e]i wide]]b. The table is longer than [ø to what
extent/degree]i it is wide ti.

In fact, there is a piece of evidence by
Ishii (1991) that suggests the moving

There is no extraction of the leftmost
element in (5b), and this explains theoperator involved in Japanese QCCs is a
floating quantifier. Floating quantifiers do
not appear with individual-level predicateswhile they do with stage-level predicates.
(9) a. ?*Gakusei-ga san-nin eigo-ga

apparent lack of sensitivity to the LBC.
2.2. Japanese Clausal Comparatives
The grammaticality of QCCs in Japanese is
explained by the possibility of quantifier
floating in this language. The floatedquantifier (FQ) like takusan can bescrambled to the beginning of a sentence
while the base-generated leftmost quantifier
takusan-no cannot.
(6) *[takusan-no]i watasi-wa
many-Gen
I-Top[[takusan-no]i [hon-o]] katta
books-Acc bought'I bought many books'(7) [takusan]i watasi-wa hon-wo
many-FQ
I-Top
books-Acc[takusan]i kattaboughtThus, assuming the null operator in QCCs asa floating quantifier explains theirStudent-Nom 3-CL English-Nom
umai (Individual-level predicate)
good'Three students are good at English'
b. Gakusei-ga san-nin eigo-oStudent-Nom 3-CL English-Acc
hanasita (Stage-level predicate)
spoke'Three students spoke English'
Crucially, the moving null operator inJapanese clausal comparatives shows thesame characteristics.
(10) a. ?*kono kurasu-de-wa
thisclass-in-Top[ø gakusei-ga] ti eigo-ga umai
student-Nom English-Nom good
[x-many]i yorimo takusan-nothan many-Gen-299-

gakusei-ga

huransugo-ga umai

John-Topyesterday books-Acc bought[N ø quantity]] yori(-mo) kyoo

student-Nom French-Nom good'More students are good attakusan-no

French than are good at English'b. kinoo-no
kaigi-de-wa

thanzassi-o

today
katta

Many-Gen magazines-Acc bought
We notice here that Japanese has the same

Yesterday-Gen meeting-in-Top[ø shussekisha-ga] ti eigo-onominal phrase, and not CP, structure asattendee-Nom English-Acc
hanasita [x-many]i yorimo

Chinese comparatives below.
(13) Tā măi shū
He bought books

spoke
than
takusan-no hito-ga

bĭ [NP tāmăithan she boughtde [N ø quantity]i] duō
DEmany

many-Gen people-Nom
huransugo-o hanasita

An important question which arises here is
why then only English seems to have clausal

French-Acc spoke'More people spoke French thanstructure in its comparative construction. In
fact, we can analyze English clausal

spoke English in yesterday's
meeting'(Ishii 1991, pp. 103-104)

comparatives in the same way as Japanese

The impossibility of floating of a degree
expression in Japanese, then, explains theungrammaticality of DCCs in Japanese. Also,
the type of movement seen in English as in(5b) is prohibited because Japanese has nosuch degree expression as to what extent toavoid the extraction of left branch elements.
(11) *kono teeburu-wa [ano tukue-ga
this table-Top that desk-Nom[ti habahiroi] x-muchi] yori nagai
widethan long'This table is longer than that desk
is wide'3. Hypothes
Hypothesiis
3.1. Phrasal Analysis
Based on the analysis so far, Japaneseclausal comparatives may have thefollowing structure in the than- complement.
(12) John-wa [NP kinoo hon-okatta

counterparts with an adverbial phrase,
instead of CP, structure.
(14) John bought more books today than
[AdvP [Adv ø in what quantity] [hebought books [e]i yesterday]]Thus, my hypothesis is that every
language has only phrasal comparatives.
Based on this, English, Japanese andChinese “clausal” comparatives uniformly
have, in their complements of than/yori/bĭ, aphrase with relative clause modifying thephrasal head, i.e. even the ones previously
analyzed as "clausal comparatives" havephrasal structures.
Then why is the head Adv only in English?
The direct translation of the CSD in (15a) toJapanese is ungrammatical as we saw in (11),but if we change the degree+adjective string
to a noun habahiro-sa 'width' (as in 15b), thesentence become grammatical.
(15) a. This table is longer than [[Ø to-300-

what extent]i that desk is wide ei]

extracted out of the phrase or not

b. Kono teeburu-wa [NP ano tukue-no(ii) a sentence modifies a head from left or
rightThis table-Topthat desk-Gen[N habahiro-sa]] yori nagai
widththan long
Here I assume that degree expression, which

Japanese or Chinese set (i) as "negative" and(ii) as "from left" while English has the
opposite values. What is important here iscannot move out because of the LBC,
changes its form to a suffix -sai andtransforms the adjective into a noun,

that these parameters can be observed in
non-comparative contexts too, and thus are
general.

avoiding the extraction of the degree in thissentence, (i.e. habahiroi 'wide' + -sa 'x-much

The first parameter can be seen in the(suffix)' = habahiro-sa 'width').

Since thisinterrogatives like the following (without
stress on wh for the Japanese counterpart).

is a morphological operation, there is no
LBC involved. Likewise, in Chinese,(17) a. [To what extent]i was the New
deal effective [e]i?

'x-much+adjective' string becomes a noun in
the derivation of its degree comparatives.

b. ?*[dono-kurai]i New deal
to what extent

Only there is no morphological difference
between adverbials and nouns in Chinese.

seisaku-wa [ [e]i yukou] desitaka?
policy-Top
effective was(16) a. *Zhuōzi bĭ [mén kuān] cháng
desk than door wide longc. * [rú hé]i luó-sī-fú-xīn-zhčng
how
New deal[ [e]i yǒu xiào] ?

'The desk is longer than the door is wide'

effective
The second parameter can be seen in theb. *Zhuōzi bĭ [mén [x-muchi kuān]x-muchi] chángc. Zhuōzi de cháng bĭ [NP mén
desk DE length than doorde [N kuān] cháng
DE width long
(Xiang 2003, p. 5)
3.2. Parameters
Along the line of my analysis, the only
differences among English, Japanese andChinese “clausal” comparatives are theposition (first or last) and the status (N or
Adv)
of
the
phrasalheadofthan-complement. These differences are
explained by the following parameters.
(i) degree modifier of an adjective can be

relative clauses like the following.
(18) a. I have [ [the book] which Johnbought yesterday]
b. Watashi-wa [ kinoo John-ga
I-Top yesterday John-Nom
katta [ hon] ] -wo motteiru
bought book -Acc havec. Wǒ yǒu [ zuǒtiān John mǎi deI have yesterday buy DE[shū] ]
book
Thus, we do not have to assume parameterswhich are prepared solely for analyzing
clausal comparatives, and this is the biggest
advantage of my analysis.

-301-

4. Evidence for Phrasal Analysis ofEnglish Clausal Comparatives
There is some evidence for the phrasal
analysis of English "clausal" comparatives,
which supports my hypothesis.

both comparatives and free relatives obey
the anti pied-piping condition. This suggeststhat free relatives and comparatives havesomethingincommonregardingtheirstructures.
(21) a. *Mario ascolta [di quanto]i sta

4.1. Evidence 1: Italian Free Relatives
and Comparative Clauses

Mario listens about what isparlando Maria [e]i.

The first evidence comes from the similarity
of English comparatives and their ItaliantalkingMaryb. *Mario hagià incontrato
Mario has already met

counterparts, which have an overt adverbial
head quanto.

[quanti uomini]i stanno
what menare(19) Maria ha mangiato più biscotti
Mary has eaten more cookies

parlando [e]i con Maria.
talkingwith Marydiquantiinehathan WH-PLUR of-them has(Donati 1997, pp. 153-154)
Donati then concludes that comparative
clauses and free relatives have the same
relative clause structure.

mangiati ti Giulia.
eaten
Julia
'Mary ate more cookies than Julia
ate.’ (Donati 1997, p. 149)
Italian Comparatives show very similar
behavior to the English counterpart. For
example, they are sensitive to island effects.
(Donati 1997, p. 147) (e.g. Complex NP
Constraint)(20) a. *Ho mangiato più biscotti
have-1SG eaten more cookies
di quantii ho
incontrato
than WH-PL have-1SG met
un uomo che nehaa man who of-them has
mangiati ti.
eaten'I ate more cookies than I met aman who ate.'b. *I ate more biscuits than I met aman who ate [e]Furthermore, Donati (1997) observes that(19') Maria ha mangiato più [XP [QP [Q e]biscotti] [X' di [QP [Q quantii [ ne hamangiati ti Giulia]]]]Interestingly,
the
head
used
in
comparatives quanto in Italian is used as anadverb which is equivalent to "howmuch/how many" in interrogatives, as in thefollowing.
(22) a. [Quantibiscotti]i hai
how-many cookies have-2SG
mangiao [e]i ?
eaten'How many cookies did you eat?'b. [A quante persone]i hai
to how-many persons have-2SG
parlato [e]i ?
talked'How many people did you talk to?'This suggests that in Italian, the comparative-302-

expression following di 'than' is a phrase[John said [CP first booki thatheaded by an adverb. Considering thesimilarity between the two languages, it is[Tolstoy had written first booki]]]]
Furthermore, a low reading is forced when

not implausible to suppose that English
counterparts have the similar underlying

an NPI is positioned inside the embedded
clause, and high reading when it is put in the

structure.
4.2. Evidence 2: Locality Effect with
Comparative Clauses

matrix clause.
(25) a. The first book that John said that
Tolstoy had ever writtenb. The first book that John ever said

Another argument comes from the similar
behavior to negative polarity item (NPI)

that Tolstoy wrote
Crucially, I found the same locality effectlicensing between English comparative"clauses" and relative clauses headed by acan be seen in the comparative “clauses”.
(26) a. Bill bought a more interesting

noun, where they are shown to have thesame type of head movement and thus

book than John said e that she had
written e.
b. Bill bought a more interestingbook than John said e that she had
ever written e.
(Low reading is forced)

similar structures.
Bhatt (2002, p. 57) observes that thesentence below has the high and low
readings.
(23) The first book that John said that'the degree of interestingness ofthe books she wrote, and John
said that'

Tolstoy had written'High' reading:In 1990, John said that Tolstoy had
written Anna Kurenia; in 1991, John
said that Tolstoy had written War andPeace. Hence the NP is Anna Karenia.
(i.e. order of saying matters, order ofwriting is irrelevant)'Low' reading: John said that the firstbook that Tolstoy had written was War
and Peace. Hence the NP is War andPeace. (i.e. order of writing matters,
order of saying is irrelevant.)
Bhatt argues that these readings are
generated because the external head firstbook moves from inside the relative clausethrough two different positions.
(24) the [first book]i [CP first booki thatc. Bill bought a more interestingbook than John ever said e that
she had written e.
(High reading is forced)'the degree of interestingness ofthe book John mentioned among
many books she had written'
This suggests that there is a movement
which is similar to the one involved inrelative clause, and a comparative clause has
its moved null head as in the structure
below.
(27) Bill bought more interesting bookthan [[e]i [John said ei that she had
written ei]].
This ultimately suggests that there is a-303-phrase (headed by this empty adverbial head)

Bhatt, Rajesh and Shoichi Takahashi (2007)

and not a clause following than in English"Direct Comparisons: Resurrecting the
Direct Analysis of Phrasal Comparatives,"

comparatives.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, I pointed out that
construction-specific phrasal / clausal
parameter of comparatives cannot explain
why Japanese comparatives ban only DCCs
but not QCCs. It was shown that thedifference in their grammaticality comesfrom how they react to the Left Branch
Condition by Ross (1967/1986) andexistence of quantifier floating in Japanese. I
further proposed that every language has
only phrasal comparatives, and under thisanalysis, the only differences, the position(first or last) and the status (N or Adv) of thehead, are explained by two general nonconstruction-specific parameters. Finally,
cross-linguistic and interpretive pieces ofevidence were presented to support myhypothesis.
_________________________________i

Japanese nominal suffixed with –sa has ameaning of degree.
e.g. nagai ‘long’ ⇒ naga-sa ‘length’takai ‘high’ ⇒ taka-sa ‘height’

REFERENCES
Beck, Sigrid, Toshiko Oda and Koji
Sugisaki (2004) "Parametric Variation in
the Semantics of Comparison: Japanese vs.
English," Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 13, 289-344.
Bhatt Rajesh (2002) "The Raising Analysis
of Relative Clauses: Evidence from
Adjectival Modification," Natural
Language Semantics 10, 43-90.

Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic
Theory 17, ed. by Masayuki Gibson andTova Friedman, 19-36, CLC Publications,
Ithaca, New York.
Chomsky,Noam(1977)"On
Wh-Movement," Formal Syntax, ed. byPeter Culicover, Thomas Wasow andAdrian Akmajian, 71-132, Academic
Press, New York.
Donati, Caterina (1997) "Comparative
Clauses as Free Relatives: a Raising
Analisis," Probus 9, 145-166.
Izvorski, Roumyana (1995) "A Solution totheSubcomparative
Paradox,"
Proceedings of the Fourteenth West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by
José Camacho, Lina Choueiri and Maki
Watanabe, 203-219, CSLI Publications,
Stanford.
Ishii, Yasuo (1991) Operators and Empty
Categories in Japanese, Doctoral
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Kennedy, Chris (2005) "Parameters ofComparison," ms., University of Chicago.
Lin, Jo-wang (2009) "Chinese Comparatives
and Their Implicational Parameters,"
Natural Language Semantics 17, 1-27.
Ross, John Robert (1967) Constraints on
Variables in Syntax . Doctoral Dissertation,
MIT. [Published in 1986 as Infinite
Syntax!, Ablex Publishing Corportaiton,
Norwood, New Jersey.]
Xiang, Ming (2003) "Some Topics in
Comparative Constructions," CLS 39,
739-754.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks to Takane Ito, Shuichi Yatabe,
Hideki Ono, and Željko Bošković forhelpful comments on a draft of this paper,and audiences at the University of Tokyo.

-304-

(2b). Match holds between T and the boy, but Agreedoes not take place immediately since “[t]hey[uninterpretable features] must … be valued at thestage in computation where they are transferred”

Subject as a Probe(Chomsky (2008: 154)). Suppose then that the CP
Akiko Kobayashi

phase has been completed as in (2c). At this stage T

Shimane University

searches for a goal again. But the search fails since
the boy has been displaced and traces are invisible

Keywords: probe, Relativized Agree, Transfer,(cf. Chomsky (2008: 150)).

agreement asymmetry, subject island

Therefore T must have its features valued as agoal. There is a candidate for the probe, i.e. the boy
in SPEC-T. However, if “[a]pparent Spec-H relations

1. RELATIVIZED AGREE

are in reality head-head relations involving minimal

In this paper I propose what I call Relativized

search (local c-command)” (Chomsky (2004: 113)),

Agree theory, and show how well various syntactic

Agree cannot be established between the boy and T

facts are accounted for by the proposed theory. An

since neither the (D) nor boy (N) c-commands T.

idea of Relativized Agree is not a new one. Suppose

Thus we seem to get caught in a double bind: The

that the derivation has reached the stage (1a), withsubject must be the probe but no heads in the subject

the expletive there merging with T’.

c-command T. But there is a way out of thisdilemma:(1) a. [TP there [T’ T is a man there]](3) Transfer applies to DP when it moves tob. [TP T seems [TP there [T’ to be a man

SPEC-T.1

there]]]
There and T have matching features (Match), but T

By the application of Transfer, the internal structure

cannot serve as a probe for there since it is not in T’sof the DP is made invisible, but the label D must0

c-command domain. In this structure it is there, D ,remain visible. It is necessary to conform to thethat functions as a probe for T (cf. Chomsky (2004:

No-Tampering Condition: “[O]perations do not114)). On the other hand, when there is generated intamper with the basic relations involving the label

an infinitival clause as in (1b), it is a goal since it is inthat projects: the relations provided by Merge andthe domain of T. The same item can thus be either acomposition” (Chomsky (2000: 136)). If the wholeprobe or a goal, depending on a structural relation

subject were made invisible, the SPEC-Head relation

with its match. This I call Relativized Agree (RA).

established between the subject and T would be

RA is not a special case for expletive

tampered with. Consequently, the remaining label D,

constructions, but a necessary consequence of recent

which is identical with the head D (cf. Chomsky

minimalist assumptions. To illustrate this, let us(2004: 109)), can work as a probe for T, asconsider how Agree (feature valuation) takes place in

represented in (4). (To avoid confusion between athe sentence (2a).

head and a label that works as a head after Transfer, I
add a shadow to the latter.)(2) a. The boy will buy a book.
b. [TP T [v*P the boy buy a book]](4) [CP C [TP D T [v*P tDP buy a book]]c. [CP C [TP the boy T [v*P tDP buy a book]]

If this is correct, T and subject DP agree in the

Suppose that the derivation has reached the stage

following way.

-305-

(5) a. Agree (D, T) if DP moves to SPEC-T.

phrase is not specified for that feature.)b. Agree (T, D) if DP remains in v(*)P.

The above explanation, however, raises a question.

I will show how this accounts for a variety of

The absence of WCA in (6b) indicates either (i) thatsyntactic facts.

number feature percolation does not occur when CoP
is postverbal, or (ii) that T cannot see the percolated

2. NUMBER AGREEMENT ASYMMETRY

plural feature when CoP is postverbal. Why is it that

In many languages the verb exhibits wholea postverbal CoP cannot make use of number feature

conjunct agreement (WCA) when the conjoined

percolation? Munn (1999: 664) claims that

subject precedes the verb, while the verb shows first“specifier-head agreement is looser than governed

conjunct agreement (FCA) with the postverbal

agreement and thus may be affected by other factors,”conjoined subject. English is one of such languages:

but it remains unclear why the “looser” version ofagreement is unavailable for a postverbal CoP.

(6) a. [A man and a woman] {are/*is} in the

The RA theory provides a simple account for thehouse.

number agreement asymmetry. Let us first consider

b. There {is/*are} [a man and a woman]in the house.

(Bošković (1997: 87))

FCA as in (6b) has been explained in terms of

how FCA is obtained in (6b). A partial structure of(6b) is given in (8).
(8) [TP T [vP be [CoP[Pl] DP1 and DP2] …]]

government (e.g. Munn (1999)) or feature lowering(Bošković (1997)). This may be restated in

[uφ]

[Sg]

[Sg]

minimalist terms as follows: The probe T agrees only

Co has no φ-features of its own, but the label of its

with the first conjunct (a man) since it is the closest

projection, CoP, bears [Pl] as a result of number

goal. WCA in (6a), on the other hand, has beenfeature percolation. But the probe T cannot see CoP

attributed to SPEC-Head agreement (e.g. Munn

since probe-goal is a relation between heads. The(1999), Harbert and Bahloul (2002)). To achieve

closest goal for T is, therefore, D (a) of the first

WCA, we need to assume that number features ofconjunct. FCA in (6b) is thus obtained.

conjuncts are percolated up to the dominating label(CoP) and somehow added up (number feature

Let us then consider WCA in (6a), a partial
structure of which is given in (9).
(9) [TP Co T [vP be tCoP …]]

percolation). Then CoP, bearing a Pl(ural)-feature,
triggers WCA on T in a SPEC-Head relation, as
illustrated in (7).

[Pl] [uφ]CoP undergoes Transfer when it moves to SPEC-T.

(7)

TP

The label Co remains visible in syntax, andaccordingly, so does [Pl] which is added to the label.

CoP [Sg+Sg =Pl]T’

In this structure Co, as a probe, assigns its [Pl]-value
to T. WCA in (6a) is thus obtained.

DP1

Co’

T

vP

To summarize, the RA theory provides a simple

[uφ]
a man

Co

account for the number agreement asymmetry inDP2sentences involving a conjoined subject phrase(CoP). CoP bears [Pl] as a result of number feature

anda womanpercolation. The feature is available for Agree if CoP(According to Lieber (1989), feature percolation

moves to subject position and transferred. The verbfrom a non-head is allowed when the head of thethus exhibits WCA with the preverbal CoP. If CoP-306-

remains in vP, on the other hand, the probe T agrees

paradigm of independent (emphatic) pronouns inwith the head of the first conjunct. [Pl] of CoP is

Halkomelem (a Central Coast Salish language),invisible to T since the goal must be a head. FCA iswhich is extensively discussed in D&W. Eachthus obligatory when CoP is postverbal.

pronoun is composed of a determiner and aperson-number morpheme. The determiner for the

3. PERSON AGREEMENT ASYMMETRY

1st and 2nd person pronouns is invariant, which

Let us then consider a different kind of agreement
asymmetry:suggests that D does not carry a [Pn]-feature.
Another piece of evidence comes from the paradigm(10) a. I {am/*is} here.

of determiners in European languages like German

b. We are here.

and Spanish. Ds may inflect for gender and number(11) a. There {is/*am} only me.

(and/or case), but not for person. This is not at allb. There are only us.

surprising given that common nouns are uniformly(adapted from Chomsky (2000: 149, note 90))

3rd person, i.e. non-person: Ds that occur withAccording to Chomsky (2000), sentences as in (11a,common nouns should not carry [Pn]. If Dsb) are acceptable with a list reading, in response to a

involving pronouns are the same in nature, theyquestion like “Who’s still here to do the work?” Theshould not have [Pn] either.

verb forms in (11a, b) indicate that the verb agrees

Based on these observations, I suggest that Ds inwith a postverbal pronominal subject in number, but

English carry [Nr], but not [Pn]. (I do not consider

not in person.

the distribution of [Gr] since it has no morphologicalBefore an account of this asymmetry, tworeflection in English.) The distribution of φ-featuresproperties of pronouns should be articulated. First,

in 1st/2nd person pronouns will therefore be like“3rd person” is a non-person (cf. Benveniste (1966),(13).

Harbert and Bahloul (2002)). Namely, 3rd person

DP [Nr, Pn] (a full φ-set)(13)

pronouns are pronouns lacking a person feature, andφP

so-called 3rd person inflection on a head is a default

D

form when its [uφ] is not specified for person.

[Nr]

Second, pronouns have a complex structure (cf.

φCardinaletti (1994), Chomsky (2013)). I posit the[Nr, Pn]NP

following three-layer structure for 1st and 2nd
person pronouns in English, following Déchaine andφP bears a full set of φ-features. D carries [Nr], but

2

not [Pn]. The projected label DP bears a full φ-set as(D&W, p. 410)

a result of [Pn]-feature percolation from φ.

Wiltschko (2002, D&W henceforth).
(12) [DP D [φP φ [NP N]]]N

N may have a gender feature since it is inherent andWith this in mind, let us return to (10) and (11).

invariant in a language (cf. Ritter (1995)). φ is a head

Partial structures of (10) and (11) are shown in (14)mediating the DP’s φ-information, i.e. gender (Gr),and (15), respectively.

number (Nr), and person (Pn). D is a determiner that

(14) [TP Dexhibits definiteness.

T[vP be tDP here]][Nr, Pn] [uφ]Although D&W do not argue what φ-feature(s) D(15) [TP T [vP be [DP D [φP φ NP]]]]

may have, I suggest that Ds may have [Nr] and [Gr]but not [Pn]. A piece of evidence comes from the

[uφ]

[Nr]

Transfer applies to the subject (I/we) in (10)/(14),-307-

making only its label D visible in syntax. Since thebefore the DP moves to SPEC-T. The extraction

label D bears a full φ-set, it assigns its full φ-values

must be adjunction since there is no phase head thatto T. Preverbal pronouns thus triggers full agreement.

triggers movement to the edge before C is introduced.

In (11)/(15), on the other hand, Transfer does not

What is the adjunction site, then? The answer can beapply to the in-situ subject (me/us). T serves as afound from the following examples involving

probe and finds the head D as its closest goal. Since

rightward PP-extraposition out of DP:

D bears [Nr] but not [Pn], T is not assigned a person(19) a. John drove [a car ti] in Boston with avalue. Therefore the verb agrees with the postverbal

sunroofi.

pronominal subject only in number.

(Takami (1995: 154))

b. They desired that [pictures ti] be painted

Summarizing, person agreement requires aof each otheri.

SPEC-Head relation between a pronoun and T(Chomsky (1986: 41))(20) a. *[A man ti] hit Mary with hostility

because (i) the person feature of a pronoun is madetoward heri.

visible by Transfer, and (ii) Transfer applies to ab. *[A new book ti] has attracted people

pronoun when it moves to SPEC-T.

about the origin of human languagei.
(Nakajima (1995: 21))

4. SUBJECT ISLAND EFFECTS

PP-extraposition is legitimate from an internal

4.1. English

argument DP, but not from an external argument DP.

Generally, PP-extraction from a subject DP is not

The contrast can be explained by assuming that PPs

allowed in English. But it is acceptable (i) when the

can adjoin to VP, but not to v*P. If this is correct, thesubject is an internal argument ((16)) or (ii) when it

PP-extraction in (16) is explained as follows. The

undergoes successive-cyclic A-movement ((17)).

subject DP is generated within VP, and the PP inside(16) It was the CAR (not the TRUCK) of whichj[the driver tj] i was found ti.

is extraposed to a VP-adjoined position. Then the DP
is moved to SPEC-T and transferred. When C isintroduced, it can see and attract the PP in the(17) Of which carj is [the driver tj]i likely[ti to [ti cause a scandal]]?

VP-adjoined position. PP-extraction is therefore(adapted from Chomsky (2008: 147, 153))

allowed when the subject is an internal argument.

Below I show how the presence/absence of subject

Let us then consider the derivation of (17). The

island effects is accounted for under the RA theory.

subject DP is generated in SPEC-v*. The PP inside

Let us first consider how subject island effects arederived. Consider the following example:

not a legitimate adjunction site. Suppose that thederivation proceeds to the next higher phase and(18) *Of which car did [the driver t] cause ascandal?

cannot be extraposed in the v*P phase since there is(Chomsky (2008: 147))

infinitival T is merged with the v*P. The DP moves

I assume that derivation proceeds in a bottom-up

to its SPEC to satisfy the T’s EPP. The DP need not

fashion, in conformance with Chomsky’s (1995)

be transferred until it moves to SPEC of the matrix T,

Extension Condition. When C is introduced, C

i.e. its final landing site. If Transfer does not apply,

cannot see into the subject DP since it has been

the following structure will be obtained when matrix

transferred when it moves to SPEC-T. Subjects thus

V is introduced:

constitute islands.

(21) [VP be likely [TP [DP the driver [PP of whichcar]] to [v*P tDP …]]

Let us now turn to legitimate PP-extraction in (16).
Given the above discussion, the PP must be extracted

At this stage, the PP can be extraposed and adjoined-308-

to the VP. Later in the derivation, T is merged and(Jiménez-Fernández (2009: 101))the DP involving the PP-trace is raised to SPEC-T.

The acceptability of (23) is accounted for under the

When C is introduced, it can access and attract the

RA theory as follows. It is well known that Spanish

extraposed PP to its SPEC. Subject island effects areis a pro-drop language: EPP of T may be satisfied bytherefore absent when the subject undergoes

a null pronoun (pro). Hence an overt subject

successive cyclic A-movement.

argument need not move to SPEC-T. There is an

Summarizing, subject island effects emerge when

independent requirement, however, that something

the subject moves directly from SPEC-v* tomustevacuate

v*P

(cf.

Alexiadou

andSPEC-T: C cannot search into the DP since it has

Anagnostopoulou (2001), Chomsky (2008)). Let us

been transferred. On the other hand, subject island

suppose, then, that the subject in (23) has beeneffects do not arise if there is a stage in the derivation

extraposed to satisfy this requirement, yielding thewhere the subject DP is dominated by VP locally.

following structure:(24) C [TP pro T [v*P ti v*-dance [V(P)]]The PP inside can be extraposed to a VP-adjoined
position and then raised to SPEC-C.

[DP four participants [PP of what team]]i
Transfer need not apply to the extraposed subject
since T’s φ-features will be valued by pro. C can

4.2. Spanish
In the previous section we have seen that subject

therefore search into the DP and attract the PP inside.

island effects are absent (i) when the subject is an

PP is thus extractable from the postverbal subject.

internal argument and (ii) when the subject

The ill-formedness of (22) is accounted for in theundergoes successive cyclic A-movement. Spanish

same manner as the English example (18). The

data tell us that there is another way to avoid island

preverbal subject DP has been transferred when C isviolations; (iii) when the subject is postverbal.

merged with TP. Therefore C cannot search into theCompare the ill-formed (22) involving PP-extraction

DP and extract the PP inside.

from the preverbal subject with the well-formed (23)The analysis can be extended to the caseinvolving PP-extraction from the postverbal subject.

mentioned by Chomsky (1986): The subject ceases[variasto be an island when it undergoes wh-movement.

this is the author by the whom several

Compare the ill-formed (22) with the example

traducciones ti] han ganado premios

below:(22) * Esta es la autora de la queitranslations

have won awards(25) De que autorai no sabes [qué traducciones

internacionales.

by what author Neg know what translations

internationalti](Lit.) ‘This is the author by whom several

han ganado permios internacionales?
have won awards internationaltranslations have won international(Lit.) ‘By what author don’t you know whatawards.’translations have won international awards?’(Chomsky (1986: 26))

(Chomsky (1986: 26))(23) De qué equipoi dices que han bailadoof what team

say that have danced

The acceptability is explained under the present[cuatro participantes ti]?

analysis as follows. Suppose that the subject

four

wh-phrase has been extraposed to a postverbal

participants(Lit.) ‘Which team do you say that four

position when the embedded C is introduced:

members of have danced?’

(26)

-309-

C [TP pro T [v*P ti v*-V [V(P)]] [DP what

is therefore observed when the conjoined subject

translations [PP of what author]]i
Transfer need not apply to the subject at this stage. C

phrase appears preverbally.

can search into the DP and attract the PP inside to its

The other agreement asymmetry has beenedge position. C then induces wh-movement of the

discussed in section 3. When a pronoun subject

remnant DP [what translations of tPP]. Multiple

appears postverbally, the verb agrees with the subject

attraction of this kind is possible since the edgein number, but not in person. Partial agreement offeature (EF) is “undeletable” (Chomsky (2007: 11)).

this type is obtained because T agrees with the head

The resulting structure will then be like (27).

D, which bears only [Number]. [Person] is held by alower head φ and percolated up to the label D. Since(27) [CP [DP what translations tj]i [PP of what

[Person] in the label D is made visible by Transfer,author]j C [TP pro T [v*P ti v*-V [V(P)] ti]
Later in the derivation the PP undergoes further

person agreement is observed only when the

movement to SPEC of matrix C, yielding (25). In

pronoun occupies SPEC-T.

sum, PP-extraction from the subject wh-phrase is

In section 4 I have accounted for the presence andallowed since the subject can move to SPEC-C via

absence of subject island effects. Since DP isan extraposed position, from which C can attract thetransferred when it moves to SPEC-T, nothing can

PP inside.

be extracted from subject position. Subjects thus

To recapitulate, extraposition from the postverbal

constitute islands. On the other hand, subject island

subject is legitimate since C can search into theeffects are obviated either (i) when it is generated as

extraposed DP. The analysis can be extended to

an internal argument, (ii) when it undergoes

sentences with wh-subjects. Since the subject can

successive cyclic A-movement, or (iii) when it ismove to SPEC-C via an extraposed position, EF ofextraposed. In each case there is a stage in theintermediate C can search into the extraposed subject

derivation in which a phase head can access PP

and extract the PP inside. Extraction is thus possible

generated within the subject.

when the subject is a wh-phrase.
NOTES
5. CONCLUSION*This paper is based on my poster presentation at theProbe-goal is a c-command relation between

English Linguistic Society of Japan 6th International

heads. DP in SPEC-T must be transferred so that the

Spring Forum (University of Tokyo, April 2013). Ilabel D can serve as a probe for T. If a DP remains inwould like to thank the audience for their helpfulv(*)P, T serves as a probe for the head D. I havecomments and suggestions. Thanks are also due toshown that various syntactic facts follow naturally

Kunihiro Iwakura, Jun Sasaki, Hiroyuki Nawata andfrom this Relativized Agree (RA) theory.

Masako Ohara for invaluable comments andAmong them is the number agreement asymmetry.

discussions. All remaining errors are my own.

When the subject remains in vP, T serves as a probe,1

and agrees with the closest head D. This accounts forstrong phases (cf. Heck et al. (2009)). Transfer of afirst conjunct agreement in sentences involving

whole phase is a legitimate option since otherwise

postverbal conjoined subjects (section 2). Although“root clauses would never be spelled out” (Chomsky

the label of a conjoined subject phrase carries a(2004: 108)). I take it that a whole phase isplural feature, it is invisible unless the phrase istransferred when necessary.

raised to SPEC-T and transferred. Plural agreement

2

-310-

Transfer can apply to DPs since they can constitute

I do not discuss the internal structure of 3rd person

pronouns since it has no relevance to the present
discussion.

Inquiry 33, 409-442.
Harbert, Wayne and Maher Bahloul (2002)“Postverbal Subjects in Arabic and the Theory of

REFERENCES

Agreement,” Themes in Arabic and Hebrew

Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou

Syntax, ed. by Jamal Ouhalla and Ur Shlonsky,(2001) “The Subject-in-Situ Generalization and

45-70, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

the Role of Case in Driving Computations,”

Heck, Fabian, Gereon Müller and Jochen Trommer(2009) “A Phase-Based Approach to

Linguistic Inquiry 32, 193-231.
Benveniste, Émile (1966) Problèmes de Linguistique

Scandinavian Definiteness Marking,” STUF—

Générale I, Gallimard, Paris.

Language Typology and Universals 62, 258-268.

Bošković, Željko (1997) The Syntax of Nonfinite

Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel (2009) “On the

Complementation: An Economy Approach, MIT

Composite Nature of Subject Islands: A

Press, Cambridge, MA.

Phase-Based Approach,” SKY Journal of

Cardinaletti, Anna (1994) “On the Internal Structure

Linguistics 22, 91-138.

of Pronominal DPs,” The Linguistic Review 11,

Lieber, Rochelle (1989) “On Percolation,” Yearbook

195-219.

of Morphology 2, 95-138.
Munn, Alan (1999) “First Conjunct Agreement:

Chomsky, Noam (1986) Barriers, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.

Against a Clausal Analysis,” Linguistic Inquiry

Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program,30, 643-668.
Nakajima, Heizo (1995) “Shugo Kara-no Gaichi

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries,” Step

(Extraposition from Subject),” in Ken-ichi

by Step, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels,

Takami (ed.), 17-35.
Ritter, Elizabeth (1995) “On the Syntactic Category

and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155, MIT Press,of Pronouns and Agreement,” Natural Language

Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatory

and Linguistic Theory 13, 405-443.

Adequacy,” Structures and Beyond, ed. by

Takami, Ken-ichi (1995) “Nichi Eigo-no

Adriana Belletti, 104-131, Oxford University

Kochibun-to Joho Kozo (Right-dislocation

Press, Oxford.

sentences and information structure in English

Chomsky, Noam (2007) “Approaching UG fromand Japanese),” in Ken-ichi Takami (ed.),149-165.

Below,” Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, ed.
by Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner, 1-29,

Takami, Ken-ichi (ed.) (1995) Nichi Eigo no Uho

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Ido Kobun (Rightward Movement Constructions

Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” Foundational
Issues in Linguistic Theory, ed. by Robert Freidin,
Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta,
133-166, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,”
Lingua 130, 33-49.
Déchaine, Rose-Marie and Martina Wiltschko(2002) “Decomposing Pronouns,” Linguistic-311-

in English and Japanese), Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.

emphasis in American English.

This

study takes up where past studies haveleft off, and addresses two researchquestions about OT:
Schwa Epenthesis and R-Sound(1) What is the ranking of constraints?

Lengthening for Emphasis within Optimal(2) What constraint ranking causes

Theorystress to be assigned in epenthesizedwords?
The organization of this paper runs as

Hideo Kobayashi

follows: Section 2 reviews the literature

Kwansei Gakuin University

about the issues at hand, Section 3
keywords: epenthesis, r-soundproposeslengthening, emphasis, Optimal Theory

constraint rankings for thetarget phenomena, and Section 4 is theconclusion.

1. INTRODUCTION

2. PAST STUDIESThis paper examines constraint rankings

Before approaching the research questions,for schwa epenthesis in WBO (word-initial

this section covers the definition of

biconsonantal

epenthesis

onsets)andr-soundandpast

analysesoflengthening according to OT (Optimal

epenthesis in onsets within the framework

Theory).

of OT.

98)

Wolfram and Johnson (1982:

indicatethat“schwaepenthesis

applies before a lateral approximant, as in

2.1 WHAT IS EPENTHESIS

athletic [æө.əlɛ.tɪk] and blow [bə.ləu].”

Epenthesis is defined as the insertion of a

Cassidy (1983) also shows that schwa

vowel

epenthesis occurs for emphasis in a WBO

consonantal cluster or vowel sequence forwhose second onset is liquid in American

phonotactic considerations (Kager 1999).

English, such as carash! and carunch!

or

consonant

to

break

up

a

Therefore, epenthetic elements do not(where italicized a is an epenthesized

have input correspondents in OT (Kager

schwa). Orgun (2001: 747) states that “in1999).

the English case, we need r to be present

influence the phonological properties of anin order to trigger schwa epenthesis.”

epenthetic

To make emphasis, an r-sound can belengthened,“crrrunch!”asin(Cassidy

epenthesis

inelement

withpreserved (de Lacy 2002).

no

input

Epenthetic“crrrash!”andelements tend to be either minimally

1983:

291).

marked or contextually rich (Selkirk 1981,

Although much research has been done
into

Thus, markedness constraints

onsetsin

Itô 1989).

many

Past

studies

show

that

minimallylanguages (e.g., Itô 1989, Kager 1999,

marked segments that are context-free are

Rose and Demuth 2006), little has beenvowels such as /ɪ/, /ɨ/, and /ə/ in most world

documented about schwa epenthesis forlanguages (Kager 1999).

-312-

Schwa is the well-known epenthetic

disallows onsets (Kager 1999).

This

vowel, as for example, the word film isproperty is represented by the constraint

pronounced disyllabic [fɪ.ləm] in casual

ONSET that requires that syllables begin

speech (van Donselaar, Kuijpers, andwith consonants.

Cutlerlanguage in which syllables must have1999).

Schwa iscross-linguistically,
since

the

unstressed

includingconstraint

Second, there is no

English,codas (Kager 1999).

*STRESSED-SCHWA

denoted by NO-CODA.

bans stressing schwa in OT (Urbanczyk
1999).

This property is

These constraints indicate that syllable
types like CV and V are unmarked,

It may be that epenthesizing a schwa

whereas

CVC

and

VC

are

marked.

for emphasis in the WBO of the target

Universal grammar prefers unmarked

words requires extra-articulatory effort,

segments to marked ones (Wolfram andsince schwa is the most likely vowel thatJohnson 1982, Kager 1999).

could be dropped in any circumstances

the syllable type CV is ideal because it(Sommerstein 1977).

satisfies

According to this

both

ONSET

and

Therefore,
NO-CODA,line of thinking, it may be true that thewhereas CVC, V, and VC are less perfect

constraint *EFFORT may be ranked as

because they do not fully satisfy thesesubordinate because epenthesis in therequirements (Kager 1999).
Within OT, it is generally recognized

WBO must require more articulatorythat vowel epenthesis occurs when it could

effort than usual.

help

eitherincreasethesyllabic

2.2. WHY EPENTHESIS OCCURS

well-formedness or decrease the syllabic

In OT, epenthesis is derived from amarkedness (Kager 1999). Sommerstein

resolution of a conflict at the expense of(1977:

faithfulness (Kager 1999).

epenthesis elaborately:

It attests that

227)

puts

this

principle

of

made

“It is known that the one universal

irrelevant in the analysis of epenthesis

syllable structure is CV, and the one(Kager 1999).

first

DEP-IO(DEPENDENCY-IO)

outputDEP-IO requires thatsegments

correspondents.

is

have

When

the

(not

babbling)

utterances of children are regularly

input
costs

systematic

of

of

this

form.

One

naturalinserting a non-underlying segment are

motivation for a phonological processless than those of maintaining marked

can thus be that it serves to bringsyllabic

the structure of some syllables closer
than they would otherwise be to the‘ideal’ CV shape. Processes of thistype would include epenthesis ofvowelsbetweenadjacent
consonants” (emphasis added).

properties to consider in the analysis ofHall (2006: 387) endorses “epenthetic

vowel epenthesis. First, no language

vowels, which are phonological segments

syllable

structure(Kager1999),

thegrammar allows epenthesis to make thesyllable

structurelessmarked.

Therefore,well-formedness

outweighs

faithfulness.
There

are

two

crucial-313-

inserted

in

order

to

repairillicit

Orgun (2001), and Tanaka (2009), among
others, indicate the following constraints

structures.”to account for the target phenomenon in
OT:

2.3. PARSING THE TARGET WORDS
It may be worth considering first how atarget word should be parsed when it has*COMPLEXONS: Two onsets are banned, and,a schwa epenthesized for emphasis in its

byWBO before exploring the constraint

more.

rankings in OT.

POM (The Principle of

implication,

three

or

ONSET: Syllable must have onsets.

Onset Maximization) entails that as many

ANCHORING-IO: Any segment at the rightconsonants as possible should be assignededge of the output has ato word-medial consonant clusters incorrespondent at the rightaccordanceedge of the input.

withsyllable

template

constraints and phonotactic constraints(Selkirk 1999).

DEP-IO: Output segments must have input

We need to take POM

correspondents.

into account because it helps parse*EFFORT: Less effort must be required in theintervocalic consonants in carash andcarunch.
targetarticulation.

When POM prevails in theis

In order to permit the target phenomenon

initiated directionally from right to left

to occur, the author posits the following(Itô 1989).

domination relationship (See (1)).

Tolanguage,

understandsyllablethisparsing

better,

let

us

The

constraints are listed in Tableau 1 (Seeconsider the segment VCCV in English.

Tableau 1).

ONSET and ANCHORING-IO

This must be parsed into V.CCV, notoutrank DEP-IO and *EFFORT.

*VC.CV, because the latter has a simple

supply a candidate set of five outputs.

GENword-medial onset and violates POM (Itô1989).

Therefore, it may be postulated(1) *COMPLEXONS, ONSET, ANCHORNG-IO >>that carash, with a CVCVC sequence,
shouldbe*CVC.VC.

parsedinto

CV.CVC,not

The same is true with carunch,in that it may be parsed as CV.CVC.

sectionestablishes

Tableau 1
Input /kræʃ/*COMPLEXONS ONSET ANCHORING-IO DEP-IO

a.☞ kə.ræʃ

3. CONSTRAINT RANKINGSThis

DEP-IO, *EFFORT

constraint

rankings for certain target phenomena
and stress assignment for words with [ə]inserted for emphasis.

*EFFORT**b. kræ.əʃ

*!

*!

*

*

c. krə.æʃ

*!

*!

*

*

d. kræ.ʃə

*!

*

*

e. ə.kræʃ

*!

*

*

*!
*!

Let us see first how superordinate

3.1 SCHWA EPENTHESISHalle and Idsardi (1997), Kager (1999),

constraints play out in the Tableau.

-314-

*COMPLEXONS bans all the outputs except

results

candidate (a), since they all have a CC

markedness.”cluster in the onset (See Tableau 1).

So

CCVC structure, which has a marked

they are marked as *! in the cells. ONSET

onset, whereas the optimum (a) has thebans the outputs (b), (c), and (e) since (b)less marked syllable structure, CV.CVC

and (c) lack an onset in their last syllables,(See §2.2, 2.3).

and (e) lacks it in its penult.

inadecreaseofstructural

The target input has the

Since thecandidate (d) has a schwa inserted after

3.2. R-SOUND LENGTHENING

the final coda, it violates ANCHORING-IO

This

and is marked as *! in its cell.

Theranking that permits r-sound lengthening

superordinate but unmentioned constraint

in certain words. Most importantly, the*CODA/r does not allow the output [kəɼ.æʃ],

anti-lengthening

andmust be dominated by other markedness*STRESSED-SCHWA

bans[kə.ɼæʃ](where [ə] receives primary stress).

sectiondissects

theconstraint

constraint

DEP-μ-IO

constraints because an r-sound will not

As for subordinate constraints, all thelengthen with DEP-μ-IO undominated in

output candidates from (a) to (e) run afoul

the Tableau (Kager 1999).

of the faithfulness constraint DEP-IO.

Sooutranks all the other constraints because

they are marked as *. The markedness

it helps exclude the output candidate

constraint *EFFORT is also violated in all[kəɼ.æʃ] in the Tableau.

the outputs since schwa epenthesis in theposit the following constraint ranking toWBOaccount for emphatic r-sound lengthening

supposedly

requiresmore

extra-articulatory energy than otherwise.

*CODA/r

Therefore, we(See (2)).

Conversely, the undominated *EFFORT
precludes schwa epenthesis in the WBO(2) *CODA/r >> DEP-IO, *EFFORT, DEP-μ-IO

since it bans extra-articulatory energy foremphasis from being expended (Tanaka

Tableau 22009).

Input /kræʃ/The output (a) emerges as beinga.☞ kr:æʃ

optimum since it does not incur any

b. kər.ræʃ

serious violation of the constraints andonly violates the lower ranked constraints(See Tableau 1). Since schwa is a shortvowel contributing one mora to thesyllable in Moraic Theory (Piggott 1995),
the initial syllable of the target word has
weight through the process of schwa
epenthesis for emphasis.
Assuming that this line of thinking iscorrect, we can corroborate Kager (1999:105)’s

claim

that

“epenthesis

always* CODA/r

DEP-IO*EFFORT

DEP-μ-IO

*

*

**

*!

**

We now have a candidate set of two
outputs which GEN supplies in Tableau 2(See Tableau 2).

Tableau 2 shows thatcandidate (a) is the grammatical output
forcrash,

which

incursthemosteconomical violation of the constraints.
The

candidate(a)

respects*CODA/r,violating *EFFORT and DEP-μ-IO.

The

r-sound lengthening for emphasis requires-315-more articulatory effort than usual, whichruns counter to *EFFORT.

Violation ofquantitative shape of the syllable, as in(3b) (Hayes 1995).

DEP-μ-IO helps the r-sound lengthen forthean extended period of time. If these three

UNEVEN-IAMB to be superordinate in thesubordinate constraints are treated as

Tableau.

superordinate, then the emphatic forms

outranked in the Tableau, the final

such as crrrash! and crrrunch! (Cassidy

syllable does not bear primary stress.

1983) would not surface.

footThis property causes

well-formedness
Whenconstraint

UNEVEN-IAMB

is

The initial syllable of the target word
has an epenthetic schwa (See §3.2).

As

found in iambic words such as police and3.3. STRESS ASSIGNMENTThis section establishes a relationship ofmarine, carash in (3b) respects “quantity

domination in stress assignment in target

sensitivity”

words which have a schwa epenthesized

violatingfor emphasis.

(“Quantity sensitivity” is defined as the*COMPLEXONS

should be one of the

and

foot

binarity,

while

NONFINALITY(Kager1999).

phonologicalpressure

which

makes

superordinate constraints because thesyllable weight correspond to prominencetarget words have a CC cluster in the(Kager 1999).)

onset.
theIt can be argued that *COMPLEXONS,

If *COMPLEXONS were dominated inconstraint

ordering,

then

schwa

UNEVEN-IAMB, GRWD=PRWD, and FT-BIN

epenthesis would not take place in theare

WBO (See Tableau 1).

constraints

Syllable weightsuperordinate.

When

these

DEP-IOandovershadow

has changed in the target words under*EFFORT, schwa epenthesis is likely toemphasis, as compared to that underoccur for emphasis (Kager 1999). Whennormal pronunciation.

UNEVEN-IAMB outranks NON-FINALITY, “theHayes (1995)

indicates that the ideal quantitative shapeeffectof(Prince and Smolensky 2002: 57) takes

disyllabic

iambs

cross-linguistically.

is

(LH)

As an example, let us

consider how the word carash is assignedofextrametricality

revocation”

place in the Tableau.
Now we need to consider GRWD=PRWD

stress when it is emphatically spoken withand FIBIN.

a schwa epenthesized in its WBO;grammatical word must be a prosodic
word.

(3) a. crash [kɼæʃ]

GRWD=PRWD entails that a

The phonological representationconsists of hierarchical configurations that

(CCVC) → |μμ| → (H)contain segments, moras, syllables, feet,b. carash [kə.ɼæʃ]and(CV.CVC) → |μ.μμ| → (LH)

prosodicwords.

word

monosyllable

crash

has

(H)

under

the

higherphonological units are made up of thelower ones (Piggott 1995).

The

The

Therefore,

heavy

GRWD=PRWD implies that grammaticalnormalwords must have at least one foot (Kager

pronunciation, as in (3a), whereas the1999).

target word under emphasis has the ideal“anti-degenerate foot constraint” (Kager-316-

FIBIN, which is also known as theCandidate (b) violates UNEVEN-IAMB

1999: 156), works with this property.
For the purposes at hand, the following
relationship may be postulated:(4) *COMPLEXONS,UNEVEN-IAMB,

since it does not have a canonical iamb, so
it is marked as *!

This makes thecandidate suboptimal.

Candidate (c)violatessuperordinate

one

of

the

GRWD=PRWD, FT-BIN >> NON-FINALITY,

constraints

DEP-IO, *EFFORT

output does not represent a foot structure.

*COMPLEXONS: Two onsets are banned, and,

GRWD=PRWD

becausethe

Candidate (c) violates UNEVEN-IAMB andtherefore is treated as suboptimal because

by implication, three or more.
UNEVEN-IAMB: A canonical iamb (LH) isbetter iamb than (LL) or (H).

it is not qualified to have primary stressfall on its final syllable.

GRWD=PRWD: A grammatical word must

Tableau 3

be a prosodic word.
FT-BIN: Feet are binary under moraic or

UNEVEN-IAMB GRWD = PRWD

Input /kɼæʃ/syllabic analysis.
NON-FINALITY: No foot is final in thea.☞(kə.ɼǽʃ)

prosodic word.

b. kə.(ɼǽʃ)*!

DEP-IO: Output segments must have inputc. kə.ɼӕʃ*!

NON-FINALITY

DEP-IO*EFFORT

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*!

correspondents.
*EFFORT: Less effort must be required in
the articulation.

Past

Let us now consider Tableau 3, where
GEN supplies three outputs: (kə.ɼǽʃ),kə.(ɼǽʃ),andkə.ɼ ӕ ʃ(wheretheparenthesis represents a foot structure in
the Tableau). Due to space constraint for
Tableau 3, the constraints *COMPLEXONS and
FT-BIN are not shown in the Tableau.

Allthe output candidates respect *COMPLEXONS
and the candidates (a) and (b) respect
FT-BIN.

FT-BINis

4. CONCLUSION

irrelevant

withcandidate (c).
Candidate (a) is optimum because in
the ranking, it incurs the most economical
violation of the constraints.

Candidate(a) violates NONFINALITY too because it has
primary stress in the final syllable.

Italso violates DEP-IO because an epenthetic
segment is used in the penult.

studies

indicatedthetargetphenomena in the 1980s, but since then,few phonologists have analyzed them in
OT. In order to break through the inertia,
this

paper

addresses

tworesearchquestions and proposes two constraint
rankings for the target phenomena underemphatic pronunciation and one for stressassignment in target words which have an
epenthesized schwa.
Emphatic pronunciation causes the
schwa to break up the WBO of the target
word, which causes the marked syllabic
structuretobecomemore

harmonic(Sommerstein 1977).
∗ Thanks go to the audience for mypresentation

at

ELSJ

6th

SpringInternational Forum 2013. All the errors
are mine.

-317-37-0802-PRINCE-0-0.PDF>

REFERENCES
Cassidy,

FrederickintensiveG.

prefix(1983)

ker-,”

Rose, Yvan and Katherine Demuth (2006)

AmericanSpeech 58(4), 291-302.

de

“The

Vowel epenthesis in loanword
adaptation:

The formal
expression of markedness, Doctoral
Lacy,

Paul

dissertation,of1112-1139.
Selkirk, Elizabeth (1981) “Epenthesis anddegenerate syllables in CaireneArabic,”

Massachusetts, Amherst.

Theoretical issues in the grammar of
Semitic languages, ed. by Hagit Borer

Halle, Morris and William Idsardi (1997)“r,

hypercorrection,

and

the

Derivations
and constraints in phonology, ed. by

Elsewhere

Condition,”

Iggy Roca, 331–348, Clarendon Press,

and Youssef Aoun, 209-232, The MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Selkirk, Elizabeth (1999) “The syllable,”

Phonological theory: The essential
readings, ed. by John A. Goldsmith,Oxford.
Hall, Elizabeth N. (2006) “Cross-linguistic

patterns of vowel intrusion,” Phonology,

23(3), 387-429.

328-350, Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Sommerstein, Alan H. (1977) Modern

Phonology, Edward Arnold, London.
Tanaka, Shinichi (2009). Nichijō-gengo ni
hisomuotohōsokunosekai

Hayes, Bruce (1995) Metrical stresstheory: Principles and case studies,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

(Phonological

Itô, Junko (1989) “A prosodic theory ofepenthesis,” Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 7, 217-259.
Kager, René (1999) Optimality theory,
Cambridge

University

everydayreduplication in parallel,” ed. by René
Kager, Harry van der Hulst and Wim

Press

Zonneveld,

interface,r-insertion in optimal theory,” NaturalThe

prosody-morphology

390-428,

Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Language & Linguistic Theory 19,

van Donselaar, Wilma, Cecile Kuijpers,
and Anne Cutler (1999) “Facilitatory

737-749.

effects of vowel epenthesis on word

Piggot, Glyne L. (1995) “Epenthesis andsyllable weight,” Natural Language

processingand Linguistic Theory 13, 283-326.

“Optimaltheory:Constraintinteraction in generative grammar,”Rutgersin

Dutch,”

JournalMemory and Language 41, 59-77.

Prince, Alan and Paul Smolesnky (2002)

ofWolfram, Walt and Robert Johnson (1982)

University

Center for Cognitive Science Technical
ReportofUrbanczyk, Suzanne (1999) “Double

Orgun, Cemil O. (2001) “English

Version.

studieslanguage usages), Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

Cambridge.

ROA

and

phonetic consideration. Lingua 116,

(2002)

University

Representational

2.

<http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/537-0802/-318-

Phonological analysis: Focus on
American English, Prentice-Hall, NJ.

(3a). What is interesting isthatotagaiexceptionally allows split antecedents whenoccurring in the aw-construction as illustrated in
(3b)
(3)

Japanese Reciprocal Anaphor Otagai witha. John-to

Bill-gaotagai-oJohn-and Bill-Nom e.o.-Acc

Split Antecedents in Disguise andnaguri-aw-ta.

Multi-Dominant Syntactic Structure*

hit-meet-Past‘John and Bill hit each other.’Tomoya Kosuge
Tohoku University

b. John-ga

Bill-tootagai-oJohn-Nom Bill-with e.o.-Acc
Keywords: otagai, right node raising,naguri-aw-ta.

aw-construction, multi-dominant structure, pro

hit-meet-Past

in Japanese‘John and Bill hit each other.’
Furthermore, otagai allows split antecedents
when occurring in the Right Node Raising

1. INTRODUCTION(hereafter RNR) construction as in (4).

This paper concerns the peculiar nature of(4)John-gasyoko-de , Bill-ga

Japanese reciprocal anaphor otagai ‘each other’.

John-Nom library-in Bill-Nom

Otagai basically does not allow split antecedents

kenkyuusitu-de otagai-oas illustrated in (1).

laboratory-in(1)a. John-toe.o.-Acc hit-Past‘(lit.) John in the library, Bill in the lab,

Bill-ga

hit each other.’John-and Bill-Nom
otagai-onagut-ta.

each.other(e.o.)-Acc

hit-Past

What follows explains why otagai allows
split‘John and Bill hit each other.’b.* John-ga

nagut-ta.

Bill-toantecedents

whenoccurringintheaw-construction and the RNR-construction, andotagai-oargues for a multi-dominant-structure analysis ofJohn-Nom Bill-with e.o.-Acc

the RNR-construction proposed by Citko (2005,

nagut-ta.

2011) and Wilder (1999), among others.

hit-Past

This paper is organized in the following way.

Japanese has another way to indicate reciprocity

Section 2 summarizes Kosuge’s (2014) analysis

between plural subjects. A special type of V-Vof the aw-construction, and section 3 discusses

compoundtheotagai in the RNR-construction and argues foraw-construction where a reciprocal verb aw

the multi-dominant structure analysis of the‘meet’ resides in V2.

RNR-construction. In section 4 we see a

(2)

is

John-to

used,

which

Bill-gawe

callnaguri-aw-ta.

parallelism between English and Japanese

John-Nom Bill-Acc hit-meet-Past

reciprocal‘John and Bill hit each other.’concludes the discussion.

Furthermore, otagai and the aw-construction can
co-occur in a single sentence as illustrated in-319-

expressions.

Finally,section5

rather than John-ga ‘John-Nom’ and Bill-to

2. THE AW-CONSTRUCTION
The aw-construction has been analyzed in‘Bill-with’. Note that non-obligatory control pro

various ways by Ishii (1989), Nishigauchi

allows split antecedents as in (6a) whereas(1992) and Yumoto (2005) among others. As forobligatory control PRO does not as in (6b).

otagai in the aw-construction, I proposed in(6)

a. Johni told Maryj [that [[proi+j

Kosuge (2014) that aw selects VP or vP as its
complement,

dependingonwhetherwashing each other] would be fun.]]theb. * Johni told Maryj [PROi+j to wash
each other.]antecedents of otagai are split or not, and thatwhen aw selects vP, pro occurs in [Spec, vP].

(Hornstein (1999: 73) with slight modification)

Then (3a, b) have the structure illustrated in (5a,Therefore, the antecedents of ogatai in (5b) areb), respectively.

not split, since their indices are unified into one

(5)

a.

by pro.

vPDPv'

John-to Bill-gai+j VP

3. OTAGAI IN THE RNR-CONNSTRUCTION
Thisv

sectiondiscusses

otagaiinthe

RNR-construction. Section 3.1, reviews three

VP

V

DP

V

otagai-oi+jnaguripreviousDP

gapping analysis,

RNR,

the

and themulti-dominant

the ATB movement analysis and the gapping
analysis. Section 3.2 explains why otagai allows
splitJohn-gai VPv

Bill-toj v Pv'antecedents

whenoccurringinthe

RNR-construction, adopting the multi-dominant
analysis.

V'

proi+jthestructure analysis, and points out a problem with

v'

DP

of

Across-the-Board (ATB) movement analysis, the

aw

vP

b.

analyses

V

3.1.

aw

RNR-CONSTRUCTIONPREVIOUSSTUDIESOFTHE

The Right Node Raising construction like (7)

VP

v

DP

V

otagai-oi+jnagurihas been analyzed mainly in the following three
ways: the ATB movement analysis in (8a) (cf.
Postal (1974)), the gapping analysis as in (8b)(cf. Wilder (1997)), and the multi-dominant

We do not discuss the aw-construction indetail here because of space limitations, but thestructure analysis as in (8c) (cf. Citko (2005,2011), Wilder (1999)).

point is that. otagai in (5a) is bound by the(7)John bought and Mary read the book.

subject DP whereas otagai in (5b) is bound by(8)a. [John bought ti] and [Mary read ti]

pro. More precisely, in (5a), the antecedents ofotagai are not split, since otagai is bound by[John-to Bill]. Otagai in (5b) is bound by pro-320-[the book]ib. John bought the book and Maryread the book

&P

c.

analysis in (8c). However, just adopting the&'TPmulti-dominant structure to (4) cannot solve the&question

TP

T'

T'

DP
VP

John

to why otagai

allowssplit

antecedents when occurring in the RNR

DP
T

as

T

construction. We have to unify the split indices

VP

in one way or another.

Mary
V

V

boughtDPread the book
(Wilder (1999: 586))

3.2. AN ALTERNATIVE
The previous section pointed out that we

In (8a), the identical constituents, ‘the book’should adopt the multi-dominant structure formove out of the two conjuncts in an ATB fashion

the RNR-construction. I show the structure of

as in (9).

(4) in (11), where F’ is shared by the two

&P

(9)

&P

conjuncts and pro occurs in the shared TP as its
subject.

DP i

&P

(11)

TP

&'

the book
TP
T'

&
T'

DP

FP

DP
T

VP

T
Mary

John
V

ti

boughtJohn-gaisyoko-de

VP
V

&

FP

F'

F'
Bill-gajkenyuusitu-de

ti

F'

TP

read

F

otagai-oi+j nagut-ta

In (8b), ‘the book’ in the first conjunct is simply

The following two sub-sections show how thisdeleted. In (8c), ‘the book’ is shared by the two

structure can account for (4).

conjuncts. To put it more precisely, in (8c), theobject DP the book merges with the verb bought

3.2.1.

and project VP at first. Then, the book merges

ANTECEDENTS

with the verb read and project another VP(This operation is proposed in Citko (2005,2011), and she calls this operation Parallel
Merge). Each VP projects to TP and they arecoordinated by and to project &P.

THE

UNIFICATION

OF

SPLIT

We have seen that we should adopt themulti-dominant

structure

analysisfortheJapanese RNR-construction in (4). However, we
still have a problem as to why otagai
exceptionally allows split antecedents in the

However, (8a, b) are defective in analyzing

RNR-construction. To solve this problem, I(4), because (4) should then be a coordination of

propose that pro resides in (4) to unify split

two ungrammatical sentences. Note that (10) in

indices into one just as we saw in theisolation is ungrammatical.

aw-construction. I suppose that pro occurs in(10) *John-ga

otagai-o nagut-ta.

[Spec, vP], namely, pro occurs as the subject,

John-Nom e.o.-Acc hit-past

and that John-ga ‘John-Nom’ and Bill-ga‘(lit.) John hit each other.’‘Bill-Nom’ occur in Spec of a functional head

Therefore, I pursue the multi-dominant structure

which resides above TP as in (12).

-321-

&P

(12)

b. *John-ga
&'

FP

&

John-Nom today
asita

FP

F'

F'

John-gaisyoko-dekinoo, Bill-ga

Bill-gajkenyuusitu-deBill-Nomotagai-o nagut-ta.

tomorrow e.o.-Acc hit-past‘(lit.) John yesterday, Bill tomorrowF'

hit each other.’TP
vP
proi+jF

Second, the two conjuncts have to agree inTvoice. (14a, b), where two conjuncts agree invoice, are acceptable. In (14c), however, activev'

voice and passive voice are coordinated,VPv

resulting in an unacceptable sentence.
(14)

otagaii+j
V
It seems safe to posit John-ga and Bill-ga inthese

positionsconstituentsofprovidedthethat

Bill-o,Mary-ga

John-Nom Bill-Acc Mary-Nom

non-shared

RNR-construction

a. John-ga
Ann-o

are

nagut-ta.

Ann-Acc hit-Past‘John hit Bill and Mary hit Ann.’

interpreted as contrastive focus. Now we can
explain why otagai in the RNR-construction

b. John-ga

Bill-ni, Mary-ga

allows split antecedents in the same way as we

John-Nom Bill-Dat Mary-Nom

did when considering the aw-construction: The

Ann-niantecedents of otagai are not split, since otagai

Ann-Dat be.hit-Past

is bound by pro which unifies the split indices of‘John was hit by Bill and Mary wasJohn and Bill.

hit by Ann.’c. *John-ga

3.2.2. THE SHARED CONSTITUENTS

nagurare-ta.

Bill-o,Mary-ga

John-Nom Bill-Acc Mary-Nom

In the proposed structure in (11), the two

Ann-ninagurare-ta.

conjuncts share not only the object NP otagai-o

Ann-Dat be.hit-Past‘each other-Acc’ and V naguru ‘hit’, but also v‘(lit.) John hit Bill and Mary was hit

and T. This can capture the following facts.

by Ann.’First, the two conjuncts have to agree in tense
in Japanese RNR-construction. (13) shows thisThis fact can be straightforwardly captured by(12), since (12) has only one T and v.

point: (13a) is acceptable, since both of the two

In this section, I reviewed three analyses ofconjuncts refer to a past event. On the otherthehand, (13b) is unacceptable, since the two

movement analysis, the gapping analysis, andconjuncts do not agree in tense.

the multi-dominant structure analysis. I pointed(13)

out a problem with the ATB movement analysis

a. John-ga

kinoo, Bill-ga

RNR-construction,

namely,the

ATB

John-Nom today Bill-Nom

and the gapping analysis, and argued for the

kyoo, otagai-onagut-ta.

multi-dominant structure analysis to explain why

toda e.o.-Acc hit-pastotagai in the RNR-construction allows split‘John yesterday, Bill today, hit each

antecedents. I also proposed that v and T areother.’

shared by two conjuncts as well as the object NP-322-

and the verb, and that pro resides in the subject

each-other: in each-the-other configuration, twoposition of the shared TP to unify split indicesevents can occur at different places and atof the antecedents into one.

different times as illustrated in (18a), whereas ineach-other configuration, the two events must

4.

PARALLELISMAND

BETWEEN

JAPANESEENGLISHRECIPROCAL

occur at the same time and at the same place as
illustrated in (18b).

EXPRESSIONS(18)

a. Each of the cars bumped into theEnglish has two ways to indicate reciprocity
betweenpluralsubjects,

namely,other; the Pontiac bumed into thethe

Plymouth on Monday, and theeach-the-other configuration and the each-other

Plymouth bumped into the Pontiac

configuration.

on Tuesday.

(15)

a. John and Bill each hit the other.

b. The cars bumped into each other;b. John and Bill hit each other.

*The Pontiac bumped into the

However, only the former can occur in the

Plymouth on Monday, and the

RNR-construction.

Plymouth bumped into the Pontiac(16)

on Tuesday.

a. John at the library and Bill at the lab(Fiengo and Lasnik 1973: 450-451)

each hit the other.
b.* John at the library and Bill at the lab

Kosuge (2014) points out that the samedifference can be seen between Japanese

hit each other.
We can see a similar contrast in Japanesereciprocal expressions. (19a), the one withreciprocal expressions as well. Otagai can occur

otagai, can mean (19b), whereas (20), the one

in the RNR-construction as illustrated in (4)with the aw-construction, cannot mean (19b).

(repeated

(19)

here

aw-constructionas(17a)),

cannotwhereas

occur

in

the

a. John-tonagut-ta.

(17)

hit-Past.

syoko-de, Bill-ga

b. ‘John hit Bill on Monday, and Bill

John-Nom library-in Bill-Nom
kenkyuusitu-de, otagai-o nagut-ta.
lab-inhit John on Tuesday.’e.o. -Acc hit-Past(20)‘John in the library, and Bill in theJohn-toBill-ganaguri-aw-ta.

John-and Bill-Nom hit-meet-Pastlab, each hit the other.’b. * John-ga

otagai-oJohn-and Bill-Nom e.o.-Acc

the

RNR-construction as illustrated in (17b)a. John-ga

Bill-ga

I suppose that (16a) and (17a) are acceptablesyoko-de, Bill-ga

since there is no restriction on spatio-temporal

John-Nom library-in Bill-Nom

identity between the two events; hence the two

kenkyuusitu-in, naguri-aw-ta.

events‘(lit.) John in the library, and Bill inspatio-temporal adverbs. On the other hand,

the lab, hit each other.’

(16b)

can
and

be
(17b)

modified
are

ruled

by

different
out,

since

I claim that (16b) and (17b) are ruled out for the

spatio-temporal identity is required between thesame reason.

two events. Modifying each events by different

Fiengo and Lasnik (1973) show that there is asemantic distinction between each-the-other andspatial adverbs is not compatible with thisconfiguration.

-323-

Ishii, Yasuo (1989) “Reciprocal Predicates in

5. CONCLUSION
This paper is concerned with the peculiar

Japanese,”nature of Japanese reciprocal anaphor otagai: it

150-161.

Proceedings

of

ESCOL

6,

basically does not allow split antecedents, but

Kosuge, Tomoya (2014) “The Syntax of

exceptionally allows split antecedents when

Japanese Reciprocal V-V Compound: A View

occurring in the aw-construction and thefrom

RNR-construction. This paper focused on otagai

University.

in the RNR-construction, and argued for the

Nishigauchi,

Split

Antecedents,”
Taisuke(1992)

ms.,

Tohoku“Syntaxofmulti dominant structure analysis of theReciprocals in Japanese,” Journal of East

RNR-construction. In doing so, first, I proposed

Asian Linguistics 1. 157-196.

that pro which unifies split indices into one

Postal, Paul (1974) On Raising, MIT Press,

occurs in the RNR-construction as well as in theaw-construction; hence otagai allows split

Cambridge.
Wilder, Chris (1997) “Some Properties ofantecedents. Second, I showed a parallelism
between English and Japanese reciprocal
expressions.

Ellipsisin

Coordination”

Studieson

Universal Grammar and Typoogica Variation,
ed. by A. Aexiadou and T. A. Hall, 59-107,
John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

*I am grateful to Yoshiki Ogawa, Akira Kikuchi,

Wilder, Chris (1999) “Right Node Raising andand Nagano Akiko for their helpful comments

the LCA,” Proceedings of the Eighteenthand suggestions. An earlier version of this paperWest

was presented at the 6

th

Coast

Conferenceon

FormalLinguistics, 586-598.

International Spring

Forum of the English Linguistic society of Japan,

Yumoto, Yoko (2005) Hukugou Doushi, Hasei

held at Tokyo University on April 27-28, 2013. I

Doushi no Imi to Tougo (Syntax andwould like to thank participants of the

Semantics of Compound Verbs and Derived

conference for their helpful suggestions. All

Verbs), Hitsuji Shobo, Tokyo.

remaining errors are my own.
References
Citko, Barbara (2005) “On the Nature of Merge:
External Merge, Internal Merge, and Parallel
Merge,” Linguistic Inquiry 36, 475-496.
Citko, Barbara (2011) Symmetry in Syntax:
Merge,

Move

andLabels,Cambridge

University Press, New York.
Fiengo, Robert and Howard Lasnik (1973) “The
Logical Structure of Reciprocal Sentences inEnglish,”FoundationsofLanguage

9,447-468.
Hornstein, Norbert (1999) “Movement andControl,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69-96.

-324-

For example, they claim that telic events,
which have an endpoint of action, areunacceptable in the have a construction.
Consider the following examples:(3) a. John had a walk around the town.

The Semantics of the English Have ab. *John had a walk to the post office toConstruction

post a letter.
Kiyomi Kumazawa(Wierzbicka 1988:298, 327)
(4) a. Let’s have a sing.

Gakushuin University

b. *Let’s have a sing of that song.
Keywords: the have a construction, telic events,
do it a bit, casualness, the meaning of ‘to try’(ibid.:323)(5) a. have a swim in the riverb. *have a swim across the river(Dixon 2005：469)
According to Wierzbicka and Dixon, (3b)1. Introduction
This paper discusses the English have ais unacceptable because walk to the post officeconstruction such as have a look, walk, andis a telic activity, which ends when John gets tochat, as shown in (1).

the post office. Similarly, sing that song in (4b)(1) a. You should have a look at theand swim across the river in (5b) are telicinstructions on the label.
b.
c.

activities and thus they are unacceptable.
However, this analysis is falsified by actual

We had a walk in the park thismorning.

examples such as (6).

I had a chat with her on the phone(6) a.

last night.

I’ll have a walk to the buffet car andhave a drink. My legs have seized up

This construction is considered to expressfrom sitting.

theb. Maybe, I’ll have a watch of this film.

construction with the corresponding simple[said when switching channels to try

verb such as walk, look and chat, as shown inand find a good film on television]

example (2) (Quirk et al. 1985, Wierzbickac. Just had a swim across the bay at1988, Alergo 1995, Huddleston and Pullum

Bondi in my brand new wetsuit! I

2002, Dixon 2005, Swan 2005, and others):

can’t believe how good these things(2) a. You should look at the instructions on

are.

essentially

the

same

meaningasthe label.

These sentences are perfectly acceptableb.

We walked in the park this morning.

despite the fact that they involve telic phrases.

c.

I chatted with her on the phone last

The aims of this paper are, (i) to proposethat the have a construction can express thenight.
However,someresearchers

such

as

meaning of ‘to try’, and (ii) to claim that thisWierzbicka and Dixon observe that the have asemantic

construction has specific meanings and it

acceptability of telic events in the construction,cannot be used for certain types of events.

which

-325-

propertyareaccounts

consideredforunacceptable

thebyWierzbicka and Dixon.

b. *John had a work/study.
(Wierzbicka1988:304)

2. Previous studies by Wierzbicka (1988),

According to Wierzbicka, the acceptability ofDixon (2005) and their problem(10a) is attributed to the aimlessness of play;

Before going to discuss the proposal of thiswhen a young child plays outside, there is no

paper, we will briefly observe the previous

any other purpose but enjoying himself. On thestudies by Wierzbicka (1988) and Dixon

other hand, work and study are purposeful(2005). Their analyses are basically similar andactivities, which involve an external aim or

can be summarized as in (7).

goal to achieve. To put it differently, for most(7) Events described in the have a construction

people the purpose of working is to earnshould be;money and that of studying is to pass exams,

a.

agentive or volitional

get qualifications or anything that you areb.

done for relief or pleasureserious about.

c.

aimless or not purposefulare purposeful and thus unacceptable in thed.

done for some time or repeatable

have a construction.

In that sense, work and study

We will examine these properties by observing

In order to examine the property in (7d), wethe examples presented by Wierzbicka andwill return to examples (3) to (5), reproduced

Dixon, shown in (8) to (10).

here. Wierzbicka and Dixon argue that (7d)First, let us look at example (8), which

accounts for the unacceptability of these

corresponds to (7a) and illustrates that events

sentences .

described in the have a construction should be(3) a. John had a walk around the town.

agentive or volitional.
(8) a.

b. *John had a walk to the post office topost a letter.

Have a look at the baby.

b. *Have a see of the baby.

(4) a. Let’s have a sing.
b. *Let’s have a sing of that song.

(Dixon 2005: 460)
See something or somebody, in the sense of(5) a. have a swim in the riverperception, is not volitional and thus *have ab. *have a swim across the river

see of is not acceptable, whereas have a look atWierzbicka explains that the telic phrases incan be a good instance of the construction.

(3b) and (4b) are unacceptable because they

Example (9) represents (7b).
(9) a.

Have a lie-down/sit-down.

b. *Have a kneel-down.

describe activities that cannot be done for sometime or repeatable. Moreover, those activities
are not aimless or non-purposeful because they

(Wierzbicka 1988:296, 301)

have a goal. Dixon also argues that a limitation

Wierzbicka explains that (9b) is unacceptableof time or space prevents a telic event frombecause in general, kneel down is not an

occurring in the construction, and thus (5b) is

activity that gives you relief or pleasure,unacceptable.

whereas lie down and sit down are suchactivities.

However, as we have already seen, thisanalysis is problematic in that telic events are

As for (7c), consider example (10).

possible in certain cases. Let us return to (6),(10) a. Go outside and have a play.

reproduced here, and more closely look at the-326-

situations described in the sentences.

phrases can be used in the have a construction(6) a.

I’ll have a walk to the buffet car andand that this does not conform to the property

have a drink. My legs have seized upof (7d). It appears that we need an alternativefrom sitting.

account for the acceptability of the examples

Maybe, I’ll have a watch of thisin (6) and (11).

b.

In the following section, I will offer an

film.
c.

Just had a swim across the bay atalternative idea for the semantic properties of

Bondi in my brand new wetsuit! I

the have a construction, which includes an

can’t believe how good these things

account for the acceptability of telic phrases inare.

the construction.

In (6a), the speaker is not really determined to
do the action, but just tries to ease the pain in3.

his legs by walking to the buffet car and having

the have a construction

a drink. (6b) is intended to mean that the

My proposal for the semantic properties of the

speaker is trying out the film to see if it ishave a construction is as follows; (i) the coreworth watching, and in (6c) the speaker has

meaning of the construction is ‘do it a bit’, andjust tried out his new wetsuit by swimming(ii)

across the bay and indicates that he likes it.

construction is divided into two semantic types

In short, all the sentences in (6) express theCore meaning and two semantic types ofinaddition

toshown in (12).

something or try out something, especially(12) The action is done;

when they are not really serious about whata.

they do and they just do it in a casual manner.

b. to try

Additional similar examples with a telic(11)

meaning,thedepending on its additional implications, as

speaker’s intention to ‘try’, that is, to try to dophrase are shown in (11).

thisto feel pleasure or relaxed

In the following section, I will show somepieces of evidence that support my claim.

a. Maybe I’ll have a stroll to John
Lewis at lunchtime and see if they

3.1. The meaning of ‘do it a bit’ and thehave any in yet - then go online andcasualness of the event

find it cheaper.

We begin with the core meaning of the have ab. Okay well I’ll have a read of themconstruction, ‘do it a bit’. Dixon considers thisboth if I ever finish the first lot.

meaning to be a semantic element of the have a

In both sentences in (11), the speaker’s

construction and points out that the phrase of ‘aintention to try is expressed; (11a) means that

bit of’ is commonly inserted as shown in (13).

the speaker may try the department store(13)

We had a bit of a walk/talk/think.

(John Lewis) to check the thing that she wants(Dixon 2005:469)

to buy before going online, and (11b)

As Dixon fails to explain where the meaning

indicates that the speaker will try reading theof ‘do it a bit’ comes from, it is my attempt tobooks recommended by a friend and see if sheshow how this meaning is brought about andlikes them or not.

is related to the implications in (12).

Now it has been made clear that telicLet us examine the difference between the-327-

pair of sentences in (14).

pleasure or relaxed; have a read, play, walk,(14) a.

I had a chat with her on the phone

swim and chat, which can be characterised aslast night. (=1c)‘pleasure’ type, and have a rest, break, sleep,b. I chatted with her on the phone lastnap and lie-down, which can be characterised(=2c)

as ‘relax’ type. The question is whether these

Since both sentences can describe the sameactivities should be treated as aimless or

event,

non-purposeful.

night.
thedifference

must

conceptualization of the event.

lie

in

the

Look at the examples in (15):Specifically,

when you say I had a chat with her, you(15) a.

So I plan to do a couple of hours

conceptualise the activity of chat as being

writing in the morning then go offbounded in time. This boundary of time gives

and have a swim in the afternoon.

rise to the concept of ‘a bit’. This concept holdsb.

even if your chatting lasted for quite a long

Why don’t you have a run aroundoutside?

time in reality because it is a matter of(BNC)

construal. Furthermore, the notion of ‘do it a

Although the activities of have a swim andbit’ leads to a sense of casualness about thehave a run around do not have any ‘external

activity. That is, the activity is done casually, ingoal’ such as reaching somewhere, it does nota relaxed manner or not determinedly, and thisnecessarily mean that they are aimless orsense of casualness is closely related to thenon-purposeful. One may say that ‘to feel

acceptability of telic events in the construction.

pleasure or relaxed’ could be a good aim or1

purpose for performing a certain activity. On
3.2. The meaning of ‘to feel pleasure or

the other hand, an activity done for pleasure or

relaxed’relaxation tends to be ‘casual’; one does it

We will not discuss the meaning of ‘to feelwithout thinking about it seriously or with apleasure or relaxed’ in that much detail here,

relaxed state of mind. Hence it is more

for the suggestion of Wierzbicka and Dixon for

appropriate to associate the casualness of thethe semantic property in (7b) and my proposal

activity to this meaning than the aimlessness.

of this meaning share the idea that the activity

Moreover, the casualness sense can extend

denoted in the have a construction can beto spontaneity of semi-volitional actions suchpleasurable

as have a laugh or cry, as shown in (16).

orrelaxing.

However,sinceWierzbicka and Dixon claim that this semantic(16) a.

I was embarrassed at the time but I

property is closely related to the aimlessness or

had a good laugh about it later.

non-purposefulness of the activity described in(CALD)

the construction, we will discuss their claimb.

briefly, and see that the ‘casualness’ sense oftheconstruction

is

a

more

I felt much better after I’d had agood cry.

(LDOCE)

plausible

The above examples denote that both speakers

explanation for the meaning of ‘to feel pleasure

were relieved somewhat after laughing oror relaxed’.

crying. Hence they can be good instances ofIndeed there are quite a few examples thatthe property of ‘to feel pleasure or relaxed’.

indicate the specified activity is done to feel

-328-

3.3.

The meaning of ‘to try’

direction (ODE). Although the simple verb

The other semantic property of the have alook can also mean examine in a certain

construction is the meaning of ‘to try’. The

context, have a look appears in a context whereclaim that the construction implies thisyou intend to find out about something by

meaning is the main proposal of this paper andlooking. The same is the case for have a listen

it accounts for the acceptability of a telicin (17b). Have a feel in (17c) also illustrates aphrase in the construction.

very similar interpretation to the verb feel; theAs mentioned in section 2, all thephrase, have a feel (of something) means

acceptable sentences in (6) and (11) indicate

examine (something) by touch and this is alsothat the given actions are to be taken by themore than the simple verb feel means.

subjects to try to do/doing something, or to try

Moreover, the difference in acceptability

something out. The question is how the

between the pair in (18) illustrates that theconstruction can express the meaning of ‘toconstruction provides the specific meaning oftry’.

‘to try to find out’.

In this section we will observe some cases(18) a. Let me have a think about thein which the actions described in the have aconsequences of this plan.

construction are interpreted as involving theb. *Let me have a think about you.

subject’s intention ‘to try’. Specifically, theHave a think about is only used for a problem

construction implies three different types ofor question to be solved when you have atry; ‘to try to find out’, ‘try out’ and ‘have adecision to make in particular. In other words,

try’.

when you try to find out what decision to make,First, we will examine how the ‘try to findyou have a think about the consequences orout’ meaning is implied in the construction.

any potential problems, and thus (18a) is

Observe the following examples:

acceptable. On the other hand, (18b) is not(17) a.

I have a look in my pockets to see ifinterpreted as involving any ‘to try to find out’

I got any sweets or anything, but I

meaning (except the case in which ‘you’ is the

ain’t. All I got is a ball of string andproblem to be solved), and thus it is not

some bits of paper. I have a look at

acceptable.

the paper to see what it is.
b.

From

the

observation

of

the

above

When tapes come into me I have aexamples, we can conclude that the have alisten to the beginning and end of

construction can imply the meaning of ‘to try

them all to sort of see what sort ofto find out’. 2
There is another type of the meaning of ‘toquality they are.
(BNC)

try’; the meaning of ‘to try out’. ‘Try

Is that shirt silk? Ooh, let me havesomething out’ means to use something toa feel!

(CALD)

discover if it works or if you like it (CALD).

Have a look in/at in (17a) means examine orThis ‘try out’ meaning can be indicated in thelook in/at something with attention and this ishave a construction with a wider range ofmore than what the simple verb look regularly

activities than the ‘try to find out’ meaning can.

means; to direct one’s gaze in a specified

Let us observe the following example:

c.

-329-

(19)

I had a play with the new computerand (11b).3(OALD)The last type of the ‘to try’ meaning is

The above sentence does not simply mean that‘have a try at’. There are several idiomaticthe speaker played the new computer game aexpressions using the construction, which has

bit, but rather means that he actually tried it

almost the same meaning as ‘have a try at’.

out.

(22) a. The competition’s open to anyone-game.

why don’t you have a crack?

Let us observe some more examples:(LDOCE)(20) Johnny let Jimmy have a throw of his
new boomerang.

b. I want to have a go at finishing my(Wierzbicka 1988:322)

essay tonight.
c. I thought I’d have a shot at making(21) a. Let me have a carry of that new
suitcase you designed.

my own wine.
d. I’d never tried snorkelling beforeb. Let me have a handle of that new
racket.

but I had a stab at it while I was in
Greece.

c. Let me have a catch of that new ball.
(Dixon 2005:477)(CALD)All the sentences in (20) and (21) areHave a bash and have a whack also count asinterpreted as denoting very similar situations,

good examples. These expressions are used tothat is, someone tries something out. In fact,

talk about an attempt, especially for somethingthese sentences are introduced by Wierzbicka

you do for the first time and in many cases you

and Dixon as examples showing that an

are not sure that you will succeed. Therefore, in

activity described in the have a construction

the sentences in (22), the speakers are trying toshould be something that you can enjoy, or

do the activity without caring too much, or in amore strongly, something that you indulge

relaxed manner, specifically they are trying to

yourself in doing.

do it casually.

However, I will counter

their suggestion by claiming that theseThis idiomatic use of the construction

sentences are more suitable to be interpreted as

supports my claim that the construction can bedenoting the situations of ‘try out’. Example

semantically specified as expressing ‘try(20) indicates that Jimmy was allowed to try

casually’, which is derived from the coreout Johnny’s new boomerang, and examples

meaning of the construction, ‘do it a bit’ and(21a-c) indicate that the speakers wish to try

one of its semantic properties, ‘to try’.

out the new things.

Indeed, these examples

illustrate that the have a construction can

4. Concluding remarks

express the meaning of ‘to try out’. The fact

In this paper, we have discussed the semantic

that all the objects of the activities described inproperties of the have a construction and made(19) to (21) are modified by the adjective ‘new’

clear that the construction expresses the

supports this argument, for the things that you

meanings of ‘do it a bit’ and ‘to try’. Thus thetry out are normally ‘new’. This interpretation

construction can be compatible with the

can be applied to some of the acceptable

description of ‘try a bit’, that is, ‘try casually’,

sentences with telic phrases as shown in (6b, c)

for the ‘do it a bit’ sense extends to the-330-casualness of the event. This property accounts

References

for the acceptability of telic events such as

Alergo, J. 1995. Having a look at the expanded

On the other hand,predicate. In Bas Aarts and Charles F. Meyer

examples (3b), (4b) and (5b) are judged(eds.). The Verb in Contemporary English,

unacceptable because the contexts do not tell203-235. Cambridge University Press.

us whether or not the situations involve any

Dixon, R. M. W. 2005. A Semantic Approach tothose in (6) and (11).

English Grammar, Second Edition. Oxford

intention to try.

University Press.
Huddleston, R. and G. Pullum. 2002. The

Notes
1.

Cambridge

Dixon (2005:469) notes that have a long

of

the

EnglishLanguage. Cambridge University Press.

walk or have a short walk can describe theactivity in a long or short time, or over a long

GrammarLeech,

G.

and

J.

Svartvik.

2002.

A

or short distance. However, his discussion is toCommunicative Grammar of English, Third

show that the activity of ‘walk’ described in

Edition. Longman.

have a walk is not for getting anywhere andLive, Anna. 1973. The Take–Have Phrasal
English. Linguistics 95,31-50.

thus aimless, and has nothing to do with theconceptual boundary of the activity.

Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J.

2. Wierzbicka (1988:308) classifies examples

Svartvik. 1985. Comprehensive Grammar oflike have a try, a look for and a think about asEnglish. Longman.

a type of tentative action, which one performs

Stein, G. 1991. The Phrasal Verb Type ‘To Haveto get knowledge about something (as for havea Look’ in Modern English, IRAL, 2-29.

a try, to find out whether one can do the action).

Swan, M. 2005. Practical English Usage, Third

However, she claims that the acceptability ofthese examples can be explained by the

Edition. Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka,‘pleasure’ that one can get by coming to know

A.

1988.

The

SemanticsofGrammar. John Benjamins Publishing.

something, not by the implication of ‘to try’
itself.

Dictionaries

3.

It has been suggested that the have a

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary,

construction tends to be used in the imperative

Third Edition.2008.Cambridge University

form, or for making suggestions when one

Press.

(CALD)

wants to sound softer or polite in ordering

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English,(Live 1973, Stein 1991, and others). The

Fifth Edition. 2009. Person Education

following examples should be treated as

Limited. (LDOCE)

instances of the ‘friendly imperative’, not as

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Eighth

expressing the meaning of ‘to try’.

Edition. 2010. Oxford University Press.

(i) a. Have a look at the view.

(OALD)

b. Have a listen to this album.
c.

I still encourage you to have a readCorpusof this book.

British National Corpus. (BNC)-331-

PSAR and SSAR. To put it more precisely,
firstly, PSAR is applied to a word todetermine the position for its primarystress; secondly, SSAR is applied to theword to account for its subsidiary stress.
Take the word torment (verb), with thestress pattern tòrmént (21),1 as an example:(1) tòrmént (21) (verb)

The Motive for Stress Assignment
Rule in the Positional Function Theory
Sha Liu
Fukuoka University

,,,*
−
,+
+
−
tor —— men —— <t> #
3
2
<1> 0
h(3)=+ h(2)=+− Hra(2)=*− RA
S(3)=+<S(2)=+*Firstly, in (1), PSAR is applied to thisword to decide the position of its primarystress. When it comes to the computationof primary stress, “#” and the number “0”stand for the word boundary; the capitalletter “S” “syllable”; and the signs “+” and“*” stress value. In (1), after the
extrametricality of “t,” the related
Positional Functions of Heaviness (H) andRhythmic Adjustment (RA) are applied to
relevant syllables, which finally presents
the computation of “S(3) = + < S(2) = +*”.
Since the syllable “men” bears more stressvalue than the other syllable “tor,” “men”
bears the primary stress. The next step is to
apply SSAR to the word torment toaccount for its subsidiary stress.
(2) tòrmént (21) (verb)−

Keywords: motive, stress assignment rule,
Positional Function Theory

The Positional Function Theory(Yamada 2010a, 2010b, 2012) consists of
two sets of stress assignment rule, theprimary stress assignment rule (hereafter,
PSAR) and the subsidiary stressassignment rule (hereafter, SSAR), where
PSAR is composed of three “Positional
Functions” (which is said to be apreliminary analysis in the Positional
Function Theory with regard to primarystress assignment) and SSAR sixteen“Positional Functions.” This paper, basedon British English data, presents motives
for PSAR and SSAR in terms of theparameters of English stress assignment
and English data.
1. PSAR and SSAR in the Positional
Function Theory
The 3 Positional Functions of PSAR are“Bounded Binarity (BB),” “Heaviness(H),” and “Rhythmic Adjustment (RA).”The 16 Positional Functions of SSAR
are “Alveolar Consonant Sequence (ACS),”“Bare Nucleus Avoidance(BNA),”“Binarity (B),” “Category Selection (CS),”“Double Stop (DS),” “Edge Exemption I(EE-I),” “Edge Exemption II (EE-II),”“Farness (F),” “Free Binarity (FB),”“Heaviness (H),” “Rhythm (R),” “Rhythmic
Adjustment(RA),”“Sole
StressResistance(SSR),” “Stress Reduction (SR),”“Trace (T),” and “Velar-Alveolar Sequence(VAS).”In the Positional Function Theory(henceforth, PFT), order exists between+−
tor ————ment10h(1)=+− H
S(1)=+
When it comes to the subsidiary stressassignment, PFT uses the number “0” tostand for the position of primary stress asin (2). The numerals under the central
segmental melody line (here, only one
numeral, “1”) indicate each syllable
position counted leftward from the primarystressed position. In (2), after theapplication of the relevant Positional
Functionof
Heaviness
(H),
the

-332-

computation of “S(1)=+” is obtained.
Being the only syllable to which a
Positional Function is applied and thus the
only syllable with stress value, “tor” bears
secondary stress in tòrmént (21) (verb).
With the combination of the results from
(1) and (2), the stress pattern of the verb
tòrmént (21) can be fully accounted for.
In this section, a simple illustration
about how PSAR and SSAR in PFT work
has been presented; in the next section, themotives for PSAR and SSAR will be
probed into.

last syllable “drum,” the syllable “nun” isthe only heavy syllable and is subject to
the Positional Function Heaviness (H).
Being the only syllable subject to a
Positional Function and thus the onlysyllable with stress value, “nun” bears
primary stress in conundrum.
Similarly, in (4), Heaviness (H) can beapplied to the heavy syllable “en” inengineer for the subsidiary stressassignment:(4) ènginéer (201)+−
en —— gi —— neer210h(2)=+− H
S(2)=+In (4), the heavy syllable “en” is subject
to the Positional Function Heaviness (H).
Being the only syllable to which a
Positional Function is applied and thus the
only syllable with stress value, “en” bears
secondary stress in ènginéer (201).

2. Motive for Stress Assignment Rule inPFTIn this part, focus will be on the motive
for PSAR and SSAR, which is further
divided into the parameters of English
stress assignment and English data.
2.1. The Parameters of English Stress
Assignment
The parameters of English stressassignment include weight-sensitivity,
cycle, left foot head, right end stress, andso on.

2.1.2. Cycle“Cycle” arguably means that English
preserves a phonological “trace” of thestress given on an earlier cycle, which isstated in the Positional Function Trace (T)of SSAR. It says that “stress the position ofa trace with a value ‘+’ using theexpression t(x) = +, where a trace isdefined as a position of stress given on an
earlier cycle” (ibid.:305). Take the word
degeneration, with the stress patterndegènerátion (02010), as an example:(5) degènerátion (02010) (< degénerate)(ibid.:192)

2.1.1. Weight-Sensitivity“Weight-sensitivity” means that stresses
tend to fall on heavy syllables in English.
This parameter is stated in the Positional
Function Heaviness (H), whose definitionis that “assigns stress ‘+’ to the heavy
syllable by the formula h(x) = y with thestress value ‘+’, i.e. h(x) = +” (Yamada
2010a:305). Heaviness (H) is not only a
Positional Function of PSAR but also of
SSAR. For the primary stress assignment,
the word conundrum will be cited here toshow how the Positional Function
Heaviness (H) can be applied:(3) conúndrum+−+−
de —— (ge —— ne) —— ra – tion3210t(2)=+− Tb(2)=+− B
S(2)=++In (5), the Positional Function Trace (T)is applied to the syllable “ge” indegeneration, because of the trace from the+−co —— nun —— <drum> #
3
2
<1>
0
h(2)=+− H
S(2)=+In (3), after the extrametricality of the-333-primary stress on “ge” in the base form
“degénerate.” The next Positional Functionthat can be applied to “ge” is Binarity (B),which says that “add ‘+’ under a syllable
position where a Positional Function Traceis given, using the expression ‘b(x) = +’, ifand only if the immediately following
syllable is weak and unmarked for any
other Function” (ibid.:305). Since “ne,” theimmediate following syllable of “ge,” isweak and unmarked for any Function, thecondition for the application of the
Positional Function Binarity (B) is met;and Binarity (B) is applied to the syllable“ge.” The syllables “ge” and “ne” arepaired in parentheses to show theapplication of Binarity (B) clearly. Being
the only syllable with stress value, “ge”
bears secondary stress; thus, the correct
stress pattern degènerátion (02010) ispresented.

(0, 0), so they are treated as a binary
constituent and form one foot (vi gi). The
Positional Function Bounded Binarity (BB)is applied to the syllable “vi,” with the leftfoot head in the foot (vi gi). With theapplication of Bounded Binarity (BB),syllables “vi” and “gi” are paired inparentheses to show the application ofBounded Binarity (BB) clearly. Being theonly syllable to which a Positional
Function is applied and thus the onlysyllable with stress value, “vi” bears theprimary stress as shown in vígilant.
For SSAR, the left-foot-head parameteris stated in Positional Functions of Binarity(B), Edge Exemption I (EE-I), Edge
Exemption II (EE-II), Farness (F), Free
Binarity (FB), Rhythmic Adjustment (RA),Sole Stress Resistance (SSR), and Stress
Reduction (SR). Take the Positional
Function Binarity (B) as an example. As
has been discussed in 2.1.2. Cycle, Binarity(B) is defined as “add ‘+’ under a syllable
position where a Positional Function Traceis given, using the expression ‘b(x) = +’, ifand only if the immediately following
syllable is weak and unmarked for any
other Function” (Yamada 2010a:305). The
condition that “if and only if theimmediately following syllable is weak
and unmarked for any other Function” is inline with the nature of English of being atrochaic language. For ease of exposition,“the immediately following syllable” will
be marked here as “Y”; the preceding
syllable “X”; and the foot “(X Y).” In thisway, the condition for the application of
Binarity (B) is that “add one stress value tothe syllable X, if and only if Y is weak andunmarked for any other Function.” In otherterms, Binarity (B) adds one stress value tothe left syllable in a foot. As a result, theway the Binarity (B) assigns stress value isin line with the parameter of English foottypology. Take the word anticipation, withthe stress pattern ântìcipátion (32010), as
an example:

2.1.3. Left Foot Head
“Left foot head” means: (1) each footencompasses two syllables; (2) the foothead is on the left syllable. To put it inanother way, in each foot, the stress is on
the left syllable.
For PSAR, the left-foot-head parameteris stated in the Positional Function
Bounded Binarity (BB), which says that “ina successive sequence of two lightsyllables metrically adjacent to the origin(0, 0), an Intrinsic Positional Function
Bounded Binarity (BB) is triggered on theleft head of the binary constituent, placing
a stress for the binary constituent by theformula bb(x) = +” (Yamada 2012:4). The
word vigilant will be used as an instance:(6) vígilant+−(vi —— gi) —— <lant> #
3
2
<1>
0
bb(3)=+− H
S(3)=+In (6), after the extrametricality of the
final syllable “lant,” syllables “vi” and “gi”
are a successive sequence of two lightsyllables metrically adjacent to the origin-334-

rightmost of the relevant syllables by one,by means of the formula ra(x) = *”(Yamada 2012:5). The word complaisant
will be given as an instance:(8) compláisant (ibid.:5)(7) ântìcipátion (32010) (< antí
cipate)(ibid.:190)
+
−
+
+
−
an —— (ti —— ci) —— pa − tion3210h(3)=+− H
t(2)=+− Tb(2)=+− B
S(3)=+<S(2)=++
In (7), the first syllable “an” is subject to
the Positional Function Heaviness (H)because “an” is a heavy syllable. Next thesyllable “ti” is subject to the Positional
Function Trace (T) because of the primarystress on the syllable “ti” in its base form
“anticipate”; at the same time, “ci,” theimmediate following syllable of “ti,” isweak and unmarked for any Function. As aresult, syllables “ti” and “ci” can form one
foot “(ti ci)”; and the Positional Function
Binarity (B) is applied to the left syllable“ti” in the foot “(ti ci).” With theapplication of Binarity (B), syllables “ti”
and “ci” are paired in parentheses to show
the application of Binarity (B) clearly.
With regard to the subsidiary stressassignment, when the difference of stressvalue between two syllables is one, thestronger one will bear secondary stress andthe weaker one tertiary stress. The
computation of “S(3) = + < S(2) = ++”,
where the capital letter “S” stands for“syllable” and the stress strength of “*” isthe same as that of “+”, shows that thesyllable “an” is weaker than “ti” by one
stress value; as a result, “an” bears tertiarystress and “ti” secondary stress. The stresspattern of ântìcipátion (32010) is correctly
given.

*−++
a−com —— plai —— <sant> #
3
2
<1>
0
h(3)=+
h(2)=++,− H
ra(2)=** − RA
S(3)=+ < S(2)=+*In (8), after the extrametricality of the
final syllable “sant,” syllables “com” and“plai” are both subject to the Positional
Function Heaviness (H), because they areboth heavy syllables. With the applicationof “h(3) = +” and “h(2) = +”, an evenstress pattern appears, since both “com”
and “plai” bear one stress value. Under thecircumstances, the Positional Function
Rhythmic Adjustment (RA) is triggered
under the syllable “plai”, because “plai” isthe rightmost syllable among relevant ones.
In this way, the sum of stress value iscomputed: i.e., the stress on the syllable“plai” is stronger than “com”; thus, “plai”
bears the primary stress in complaisant,yielding the required stress pattern.
2.2. English Data
Positional Functions of Alveolar
Consonant Sequence (ACS), Bare Nucleus
Avoidance (BNA), Double Stop (DS),
Rhythm (R), and Velar-Alveolar Sequence(VAS), all of which belong to SSAR, are inline with British English data.
Take the Positional Function Bare
Nucleus Avoidance (BNA) as an example.
This Function is defined as follows: “stressassignment is avoided on a non-branching
bare nucleus at the leftmost edge of a wordby the formula bna(x) = −, provided thatno Intrinsic Positional Function is applied
to the bare nucleus” (Yamada 2010a:306).
To put it more precisely, there are two
conditions for the application of Bare

2.1.4. Right End Stress“Right end stress” means that primarystress in English tends to be on the rightpart of words, which is stated in the
Positional Function Rhythmic Adjustment(RA) of PSAR. The definition of Rhythmic
Adjustment (RA) is that “when an
even-stressed pattern appears, augment the-335-

Bare Nucleus Avoidance (BNA), whose
application is expressed by the formula“bna (2) = −”. The second Positional
Function that can be applied to “e” isRhythm (R), which “is activated on theleftmost
syllableifthesyllable
immediately preceding the primarystressedsyllablebears
stress”(ibid.:305-06). In the word electrician, thesyllable immediately preceding the
primary stressed syllable is the syllable“lec,” which, with the application of the
Positional Functions Heaviness (H), Trace(T), and Velar-Alveolar Sequence (VAS),
does bear stress value; to put it more
precisely, the condition for the applicationof the Positional Function Rhythm (R) has
been met and Rhythm (R) is thus applied to
the leftmost syllable, “e.” The final
computation of “S(2) = * < S(1) = ++*”
indicates that the stress strength of “e” isweaker than that of “lec” by two. In PFT,
when the stress value difference between
two syllables is no less than two, thestronger syllable will bear secondary stressand the weaker one no stress. Here, thesyllable “lec” is stronger than “e” by two
stress value; consequently, “lec” bears
secondary stress and “e” no stress, which
gives the correct stress pattern elèctrí
cian(0210).

Nucleus Avoidance (BNA): firstly, theleftmost edge of a word must be a
non-branching bare nucleus; secondly, no
Intrinsic Positional Function should beapplied to the bare nucleus. Accordingly,
this paper examines all words beginningwith a non-branching bare nucleus syllable,
namely, “a,” “e,” “i,” “o,” and “u” in Wells(2008) and finds out that 88% of words
beginning with those syllables do not bear
subsidiary stress on the first short-vowel
syllables when the leftmost syllables do
not meet conditions for the application of
any intrinsic Positional Functions, that is tosay, Positional Functions of Trace (T),Binarity (B), or Free Binarity (FB). As aresult, the Positional Function Bare
Nucleus Avoidance (BNA) reflects thetendency in the British English data; or inothers words, Bare Nucleus Avoidance(BNA) is supported by the British English
data. The word electrician2 and one of its
stress variants, elèctrí
cian (0210), will becited as an instance here:(9) elèctrí
cian (0210) (< eléctric)(ibid.:227)
*
−
+
−
*
+
−
e ———— lec ———— tri − tian210h(1)=+− H
t(1)=+− Tvas(1)=*− VAS
bna(2)=−− BNA
r(2)=+*− R
S(2)=* < S(1)=++*In (9), the syllable “lec” is subject to the
Positional Functions of Heaviness (H),
Trace (T), and Velar-Alveolar Sequence(VAS). With regard to the first syllable “e,”since it is a non-branching bare nucleus at
the leftmost edge of the word and is not
subject to any intrinsic Positional
Functions, it thus meets the condition for
the application of the Positional Function

3. Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper reveals the
motive for the primary stress assignment
rule and the subsidiary stress assignment
rule in PFT in terms of the parameters ofEnglish stress assignment mechanism by
the use of the British English data.
NOTES
In this paper, stress values are
represented as follows: ( ΄ ) = primarystress, ( ` ) = secondary stress, ( ^ ) =tertiary stress; 0 = no stress, 1 = primarystress, 2 = secondary stress, and 3 =tertiary stress. For example, “èxpêctátion
(2310)” bears secondary stress on the firstsyllable “ex,” tertiary stress on the secondsyllable “pec,” primary stress on the third
1

-336-

syllable “ta,” and no stress on the fourthsyllable “tion.”2
For the word “electrician,” there arealtogether three stress variants, “elèctrícian
(0210),”“èlectrícian
(2010)”
and“èlêctrícian (2310).” Here, only the firststress variant “elèctrí
cian (2010)” is used
as an example; for the discussion of“èlectrícian (2010)” and “èlêctrícian
(2310)”, refer to Liu (2012).

Society of Japan.
Yamada, Eiji (2013) “Main Stress
Assignment in English Words,”
JELS 30, 229-235.
Yavaş, Mehmet (2011) Applied English
Phonology, Willey-Blackwell, MA.

REFERENCES
Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle (1968)
The Sound Pattern of English,
Harper & Row, New York.
Edwards, Harold T (1997) Applied
Phonetics: The Sounds of American
English, Singular, CA.
Halle, Morris and Jean-Roger Vergnaud(1987) An Essay on Stress, MIT
Press, Cambridge.
Joseph, Brian D. and Richard D. Janda(2003) The Handbook of Historical
Linguistic, Blackwell, MA.
Liu, Sha (2012) “The Role of the ‘Basic
Variant’ in Subsidiary Stress
Assignment for Words with Variant
Stress Patterns,” Proceedings of the145th Conference of the LinguisticSociety of Japan, 40-45.
Roca, Iggy and Wyn Johnson (1999) A
Course in Phonology, Blackwell,
Oxford.
Thorum, Arden. R (2013) Phonetics: A
Contemporary Approach, Burlington,
Jones & Bartlett Learning, MA.
Wells,
John(2008)LongmanPronunciation Dictionary, Pearson
Education, Essex.
Yamada, Eiji (2010a) Subsidiary Stresses
in English, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Yamada, Eiji (2010b) “Optionality in
EnglishSubsidiary
StressAssignment,” Studies in English
Literature(Regional
Branches
Combined Issue) 3, 543-556.
Yamada, Eiji (2012) “Main Stress
Assignment in English Words,”
paper presented in the 30th
Conference of the English Linguistic-337-

in Irish as the background to the subsequent sections.
Section 3 provides the cleft examples in Irish. Basedon the newly found data, Section 4 discusses what
they might suggest for the theory of (Irish) grammar.
The Cleft Construction in Irish

Finally, Section 5 concludes this paper.

Hideki Maki and Dónall P. Ó Baoill

2. BACKGROUND

Gifu University and Queen’s University Belfast,

Irish has three types of complementizers: the [-Q]

Professor Emeritus

marker, the direct relative marker, and the indirect
relative marker. (2) is a declarative sentence, and the

Keywords: cleft construction, comparativeembedded clause is headed by the [-Q] COMP gur

construction, English, Irish, Japanese‘that.’ When the sentence involves wh-interrogative
clause formation, as in (3), the embedded COMP
must change to the direct relative marker aL, and at

1. INTRODUCTION

the same time, another COMP aL must be insertedThis paper investigates the properties of the cleftright after the wh-phrase.
(2)

construction in Irish, as illustrated in (1),(1) Isbelieveé [an carr seo]1 Op1 a

COP.PRES it the car thisCreideann Seán gur cheannaigh Máire
John that boughtMaryan carr.

aLcheannaigh Seán t1.

the carbought‘John believes that Mary bought the car.’

John
(3)

‘It is [this car]1 that John bought t1.’

Cad é a chreideann túa

and points out (i) that CPs and adjective phrases

what aL believe

you aL(APs) can be clefted in Irish, unlike English or

cheannaigh Seán t?

Japanese, and (ii) that while NP clefting allows six

boughtchain patterns with one embedded clause, clefting of‘What do you believe that John bought?’John

the other categories only allows two chain patterns,

There is another way to form a wh-interrogative

just like the comparative construction in Irish. Basedclause in Irish. Observe the example in (4).
(4)

on these findings, we claim (i) that the chain patterns

Cad é a gcreideann tú

gurallowed in the cleft and the comparative

what aN believe

you that

constructions suggest that what moves in thecheannaigh Seán é/*t?

comparative construction is not nominal, (ii) that thebought[-Q] COMPs that in English and to ‘that’ in Japanese‘What do you believe that John bought?’

John itmust agree with the higher verb or INFL, while theIn (4), the topmost COMP of the wh-interrogative[-Q] COMP go/gur in Irish must agree with theclause is an indirect relative marker a, the COMP ofclausemate verb-INFL complex, and (iii) that athe embedded clause is a [-Q] COMP, and the

copula cannot be stranded at PF, or must agree withembedded clause contains a resumptive pronouna real predicate.

(RP) é ‘it’ instead of a gap.

The organization of this paper is as follows.

McCloskey (2002) assumes that the SPEC of aL

Section 2 reviews the properties of complementizers

contains a null operator/null pronoun (henceforth,-338-

null operator) as a result of movement, that in the(8) Isé [an carr seo a ba

SPEC of aN, there is a base-generated operator, and

COP.PRES it the car this aL COP.PASTthat in the SPEC of go/gur, there is no operator. If

mhaith liom

this is correct, the structure of the wh-interrogative

good with.me to sellclause construction in Irish looks like a cleft

Op1 ar cheannaigh Seán é1.

sentence, as shown in (5).

a dhiiol]1

aN bought

John it(5) (it is) WH1 [Op1 aL/aN [IP…t1/RP1…]]‘It is [this car which I wanted to sell]1 that

As for the structure of the Irish cleft construction,

John bought t1.’

following Chomsky’s (1977) analysis of the cleft

Therefore, in the following, we assume that inconstruction in English, we assume the structure inprinciple, short distance NP clefting allows the(6), where XP is a clefted phrase.

resumption strategy, putting aside the question of(6) it is XP1 [Op1 aL/aN [IP…t1/RP1…]]

why it is impossible when the clefted NP is notheavy enough.
Next, let us turn to PP clefting examples. (9)3. DATA
Having outlined the particular background, let us

shows that a place adverb can be clefted under theconsider the properties of the cleft construction in

movement strategy, while (10) shows that it cannot

Irish. We first examine examples with short distancebe clefted under the resumption strategy.

clefting in 3.1, and then those with long distance(9) (Isé) [i mBéal Feirste] a(COP.PRES it) in Belfast

clefting in 3.2.

aLcheannaigh Seán an carr seo anuraidh.
3.1. SHORT DISTANCE CLEFTING

boughtIn this subsection, we consider examples with short‘It is [in Belfast]1 that John bough this car last

distance clefting in Irish. Irish allows NPs, PPs, CPs,

year t1.’

and APs to be clefted. Let us start by examining

John the car this last year(10)*(Isé) [i mBéal Feirste] arexample (1), where the object NP is clefted. In (1)(COP.PRES it) in Belfast

the operator that corresponds to the clefted object

cheannaigh Seán an carr seo anuraidh.

undergoes movement from the object position of theboughtaN

John the car this last year

sentence to the SPEC of aL. Note that aL signals that

Next, let us consider CP clefting examples. (11)movement has taken place across it. However, whenshows that a clause headed by the COMP gur ‘that’

the clefting operation does not use the movement

can be clefted under the movement strategy, while

strategy, but uses the resumption strategy signaled(12) shows that it cannot be clefted under the

by aN, clefting does not succeed in some cases, as

resumption strategy.

shown in (7).

(11) (Is(7) * Isé [an carr seo]1 Op1 ar

COP.PRES it the car thisé) [gur cheannaigh Seán carr](COP.PRES it) that boughtJohn cara chreideann Máire.

aNcheannaigh Seán é1.

aL believebought‘*It is [that John bought a car]1 that MaryJohn it‘It is [this car]1 that John bought t1.’Marybelieves t1.’

However, when the clefted NP is heavy enough, (7)becomes grammatical, as shown in (8).

(12)* (Isé) [gur cheannaigh Seán carr](COP.PRES it) that bought-339-

John carar chreideann Máire.

é a cheannach?

aN believe

it to buy

Mary

Finally, let us consider AP clefting examples. (13)‘What1 does John think that we ought to buy

shows that an AP can be clefted under the movement

t1?’

strategy, while (14) shows that it cannot be clefted
under the resumption strategy.
(13) Róchliste atá(aL, that, RP)

Let us start by examining NP clefting examples in(19)-(24), which are all grammatical in Irish.

Seán.

(19) Isé [an carr seo] a chreideanntoo.clever aL+be.PRES John

COP.PRES it the car this aL believe‘*It is [too clever]1 that John is t1.’

tú(14)* Róchliste a bhfuil

a cheannaigh Seán.

you aL bought

Seán.

John

‘It is [this car] that you believe that John

too.clever aN be.PRES Johnbought t1?’
3.2. LONG DISTANCE CLEFTING(20) Is(aL, aL, t)é [an carr seo] a raibh súil

Let us then turn to long distance clefting in Irish. It

COP.PRES it the car this aN was hope

will be shown that NP clefting allows six chain

agam a cheannófa.

patterns with one embedded clause, just likeat.me aL buy.COND.2.SG

wh-interrogative formation with one embedding,‘It is this car that I hoped that you would

while clefting of the other phrases only allows twobuy.’chain patterns. McCloskey (2002) shows five chain(21) Is(aN, aL, t)é [an carr seo] a chreideannpatterns for wh-interrogative formation with one

COP.PRES it the car this aL believe

embedding, shown in (3) and (4), and (15)-(17), andtú

Maki and Ó Baoill (2011) finds the sixth pattern, as

you aN boughtshown in (18).

‘It is this car that you believe that John

(15) [Cad é] a raibh súil agat a cheannófábought.’what aN was hope at.you aL buy.COND

ar cheannaigh Seán é.

(22) IsJohn it(aL, aN, RP)é [an carr seo] a gcreideannt?

COP.PRES it the car this aN believe‘What1 did you hope that you would buy

tú

t1?’

you aN bought(aN, aL, t)(16) [Cad é] a chreideann túwhat aL believebought.’(23) Is‘What1 do you believe that John bought t1?’
(aL, aN, RP)
what aN believe

John it‘It is this car that you believe that Johnar cheannaigh

you aN bought(17) [Cad é] a gcreideann tú

ar cheannaigh Seán é.

é [an carr seo] a gcreideann

COP.PRES it the car this aN believetú

ar cheannaigh(aN, aN, RP)

gur cheannaigh Seán é.

you that bought

you aN boughtJohn itSeán é?

‘It is this car that you believe that John

John itbought.’(24) Is‘What1 do you believe that John bought t1?’
(aN, aN, RP)(18) [Cad é] a mheasann Seán gur cheart dúinn
what aL think

John that right for.us-340-(aN, that, RP)é [an carr seo] a mheasann

COP.PRES it the car this aL think
Seán gur cheart dúinn é a cheannach.
John that right for.us it to buy‘It is this car that John thinks that we ought‘It is [that John bought a car]1 that I hoped

to buy.’that you would say t1.’

(aL, that, RP)

These examples thus show that NP clefting with one
embeddedclausepatterns

together(aN, aL, t)

Finally, let us examine AP clefting examples. Justwithlike CP clefting, this type of clefting also only allows

wh-movement with one embedding with respect totwo chain patterns that end with a trace. Due tothe resulting chain patterns.

space limitations, only the grammatical examples are

Next, let us turn to PP clefting examples with aprovided in (29)-(30).

place adverb. We found that unlike NP clefting, PP(29) Isé [róchliste] a chreideannclefting only allows two chain patterns that end with

COP.PRES it too.clever aL believea trace. Due to space limitations, only the

Máire atágrammatical examples are provided in (25)-(26).

Mary aL+be.PRES John(25) Is‘It is [too clever]1 that Mary believes that

é [i mBéal Feirste] a

COP.PRES it in BelfastaLJohn is t1.’chreideann Máire a cheannaigh Seánbelieve

Mary aL bought

Seán.

(30) IsJohn(aL, aL, t)é [róchliste] a raibh súil

COP.PRES it too.clever aN was hopean carr seo anuraidh.

agam a bheadh

the car this last year

at.me aL be.COND John

‘It is [in Belfast]1 that Mary believes that

‘It is [too clever]1 that I hoped that John

John bought this car last year t1.’ (aL, aL, t)would be t1.’

(26) Isé [i mBéal Feirste] a raibh

COP.PRES it in Belfast

Seán.

(aN, aL, t)

To summarize, two important facts wereaN wasobserved in this section. First, Irish allows a variety

súil agam a cheannófá carr t1.

of clefting with an NP, PP, CP, and AP being clefted.

hope at.me aL buy.COND car

Second, NP clefting allows six types of chain‘It is [in Belfast]1 that I hoped that you

patterns with one embedded clause, but the otherwould buy a car t1.’

(aN, aL, t)

types of clefting only allow two types of chain

Next, let us turn to CP clefting examples. Just likepatterns with one embedded clause, which terminate

PP clefting, this type of clefting also only allows two

with a trace.

chain patterns that end with a trace. Due to space
limitations, only the grammatical examples are

4. DISCUSSION

provided in (27)-(28).

Let us now consider what the observed facts might(27) Issuggest for the theory of (Irish) grammar. First, theé [gur cheannaigh Seán carr]

COP.PRES it that bought

finding that NP clefting allows six chain patterns

John cara chreideann Máire a dúirt siad.

with one embedded clause, but the other XPs,aL believe

namely, PPs, CPs, and APs, only allow two chain

Mary aL said they

‘It is [that John bought a car]1 that Mary

patterns in the same environment suggests that what

believes that they said t1.’

moves in the comparative construction is not(28) Is(aL, aL, t)

nominal. Clefting of non-NPs only permits theé [gur cheannaigh Seán carr]

COP.PRES it that bought

chains that are terminated with a trace, not aJohn cara raibh súil agam a déarfá

resumptive pronoun. Maki and Ó Baoill (2011) pointaN was hope at.me aL say.COND.2.SING

out that the comparative construction only allows-341-

two chain patterns, exactly like those permitted byclefting and in the comparative construction is not

the cleft construction that does not involve NP

nominal in nature. This suggests that in spite of theclefting. Let us review the comparative construction

fact that what moves in the comparative construction

in Irish, a typical example of which is shown in (31).

in English, for example, looks like an NP, as(31) Cheannaigh sí níos mó úllaí

indicated by the [ ] in example (38),boughtshe morenáa(38) John bought more books that Mary sold [ ].

apples than aLcheannaigh Seán t.

what is actually involved in the computation is theboughtdegree phrase that is not nominal in nature. This in

John‘She bought more apples than John bought.’

turn provides a straightforward account for the fact

In (31), ná is the head of the comparative clause,that island violations with the comparative

which is followed by the COMP aL. Note that whenconstruction are far worse than mere Subjacency

theviolations.

COMP isaN,

thesentence

becomesSecond, the finding that CPs can be clefted inungrammatical, as shown in (32).
ar

Irish, while they cannot be in English or Japanese,apples than aN

suggests that the [-Q] COMPs that in English and to(32)* Cheannaigh sí níos mó úllaí
boughtshe morenácheannaigh Seán (iad).

‘that’ in Japanese must agree with the higher verb orboughtJohn them

INFL, while the [-Q] COMP go/gur ‘that’ in Irish

According to Maki and Ó Baoill (2011), themust agree with the clausemate verb-INFL complex.

comparative construction in Irish with one

Let us compare the Irish example in (11) with theembedding allows the chain patterns in (33), butcorresponding English and Japanese examples

disallows those in (34), and the generalization about

shown in (39)-(40).

chain properties of the comparative construction in(39)* It is [that John bought a car]1 that Mary

Irish is (35).
(33) a. (aL, aL, t)believes t1.
b. (aN, aL, t)(40)* Mary-ga(34) a.* (aL, aN, RP) c. * (aN, that, RP)shinjiteiru-no-wa [John-ga

Mary-Nom believe-NO-Top John-Nom

b.* (aN, aN, RP) d. * (aL, that, RP)

kuruma-o katta(36) Generalization on the comparative

car-Accto] desu.

bought that beconstruction in Irish‘It is [that John bought a car]1 that MaryIn the comparative construction in Irish, thebelieves t1.’

chain must end with a trace.

The question is why CPs can be clefted in Irish, not(36) is exactly parallel to the generalization on thein English or Japanese. We propose that thiscleft construction in Irish that does not involve NP

difference is attributed to the difference in what theclefting stated in (37).

given COMP is to agree with. In the cleft structure(37) Generalization on the cleft construction inunder Chomsky’s (1977) hypothesis, the clefted part

Irish that does not involve NP clefting(XP1) is base-generated in the pre-CP position, as

In the cleft construction in Irish that does notshown in (41).

involve NP clefting, the chain must end with(41) it is XP1 [CP Op1 that [IP…t1…]]

a trace.

When a CP is clefted, the structure will look like

These two generalizations suggest that what moves(42).

in the cleft construction that does not involve NP(42) it is [CP…C…]1 [CP Op1 that [IP…t1…]]-342-

Note here that no matter whether the CP originates

impossible in these languages. On the other hand, infrom the object position or the subject position, thegrammatical examples in English such as (47)-(48),grammaticality remains the same in Irish andthe COMP can agree with the predicate.

English, as shown in (43)-(44). (Note that Japanese(47) Mary believes [that John bought a car].

does not allow a CP subject.)(48) [That John bought a car] surprised Mary.

(43) IsIn (47), no other head intervenes between the higher

é [gur cheannaigh Seán carr] a

COP.PRES it that boughtchuir t iontas
putJohn car aL

predicate believes and the COMP that, so that that
can agree with believes, which licenses it. In (48),ar Mháire.

the CP in the subject position is in agreement withsurprise on Mary‘*It is [that John bought a car]1 that surprised

the predicate surprised. Since the COMP that is the

Mary.’

head of the CP, it should be in agreement with thepredicate.

(44)* It is [that John bought a car]1 that t1

Third, the finding that APs can be clefted in Irish,

surprised Mary.
There is a crucial difference between Irish andwhile they cannot be in English or Japanese, seems

English/Japanese in terms of the agreement of theto suggest the generalization that a copula cannot be

predicate.

stranded at PF, or must agree with a real predicate.

Irish

has

overt

COMP-Predicate

Irish allows AP clefting, as shown in (13), while(verb+INFL) agreement, as shown in (45)-(46).
(45) Síleann Seán go
think

gceannófá

carr.

English and Japanese do not, as shown in (49)-(50).
(49)* It is [very clever]1 that John is t1.

John COMP buy.COND.2.sg. car‘John thinks that you would buy a car.’(46) Síleann Seán gur
think
tú

(50)* John-ga

no-wa [totemo kashikoi] desu.

John-Nom NO-Top very

cheannaigh

John COMP.PAST bought

cleverbe‘It is very clever that John is.’carr.

However, APs can be moved in some cases inyou carEnglish, as shown in (51).

In (45), the embedded predicate (verb+INFL) is of(51) a. How clever is John?

(Question)

the conditional form, and the COMP is represented

b. How clever John is!

(Exclamation)

as go, while in (46), the embedded predicate is of the

The AP how clever is moved by wh-question

past tense form, and the COMP is represented as gur.

formation, as in (51a), or by exclamation formation,

This indicates that there is a visible agreement

as in (51b).

relationship between COMP and the predicate(verb+INFL) in Irish.

Note that the same patterns are observed inJapanese, as shown in (52).

Based on these facts, we propose that the [-Q](52) a. John-wa dore hodo kashikoi desu

COMP go/gur ‘that’ in Irish must agree with theJohn-Top which degree clever

clausemate verb-INFL complex, while the [-Q]ka?

COMPs that in English and to ‘that’ in JapaneseQ

must agree with the higher verb or INFL, and under‘How clever is John?’

Chomsky’s (1977) base-generation approach to thebe(Question)b. John-wa nan-tekashikoi-n(o)-cleft construction, the COMPs in English andJohn-Top what-COMP clever-NO-

Japanese in the clefted position cannot agree with

desu ka!

the higher predicate, which makes CP clefting

be

-343-

EX

(Exclamation)the copula at the base structure. If an AP predicate‘How clever John is!’These data thus seem to suggest that APs can in

and its null counterpart have different properties, andprinciple be clefted, but there is a condition on thea copula must agree with a real AP predicate, thecopula in the presupposition part of the cleft

contrast between (49) and (51a, b) is expected.

construction in English and Japanese, not in Irish.
We speculate that two conditions are disjunctively

5. CONCLUSION

imposed on copulas. The first condition is that aThis paper investigated the properties of the cleft

copula cannot be stranded at PF. This explains theconstruction in Irish. Based on the newly foundungrammaticality of (49)-(50), where the copulas areproperties, we claimed (i) that the chain patterns

stranded, and the grammaticality of (13), where theallowed in the cleft and the comparative

copula is merged to COMP, under Chomsky’s

constructions suggest that what moves in the(1977) base-generation approach to the cleft

comparative construction is not nominal, (ii) that theconstruction. This condition further predicts that[-Q] COMPs that in English and to ‘that’ in Japaneseclefting of NP predicates is impossible in English

must agree with the higher verb or INFL, while theand Japanese, while it is possible in Irish. This[-Q] COMP go/gur in Irish must agree with theprediction is actually borne out, as shown inclausemate verb-INFL complex, and (iii) that a(53)-(55).

copula cannot be stranded at PF, or must agree with(53)* It is a football player that John is.

a real predicate.

(54)* John-ga

no-wa sakkaa senshu desu.

John-Nom NO-Top football player be

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS‘It is very clever that John is.’We would like to thank Kwang-Sup Kim, Keiichiro(55) (Is)imreoir peile

Kobayashi, Fumikazu Niinuma, and Yoshiki Ogawa

COP.PRES player football.Gen

for their valuable comments on an earlier version ofatá

i(n) Seán.

this paper. All errors are our own. Research by the

aL+be.PRES in John

first author was supported in part by Japan Society‘*It is a football player that John is.’for the Promotion of Science Grant # 25370428 to

The second condition is that a copula must agree

Gifu University.

with a real predicate. In the following, we call an AP
predicate, not its null operator counterpart, a real

REFERENCES

predicate.

theChomsky, Noam (1977) “On Wh-Movement,”

ungrammaticality of (49) and the grammaticality ofFormal Syntax, ed. by Peter Culicover,(51a, b) under the base-generation approach to theThomas Wasow and Adrian Akmajian, 71-132,

cleft construction. In all these examples, the copulas

Academic Press, New York.

This

condition

explains

are stranded at PF. Therefore, the first condition will

Maki, Hideki and Dónall P. Ó Baoill (2011) Essays

rule out any of them. However, there is a differenceon Irish Syntax, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

between (49) and (5 1a, b). In (49), the AP is

McCloskey, James (2002) “Resumption, Successive

base-generated in the clefted position, so that the

Cyclicity, and the Locality of Operations,”

presupposition part contains the null operator that

Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist

corresponds to the AP at the base structure. On the

Program, ed. by Samuel Epstein and Daniel

other hand, in (51a, b), the fronted AP was right after

Seely, 184-226, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.

-344-

o-mati-desu / o-mati-da.
HP-wait-Pol / HP-wait-is‘The professor’s family is waiting outside.’b. Sensei-no
prof-GenOn the Long-Distance Nature of the Polite Form

go-kazoku-ga

soto-deHP-family-Nom outside-at

matte-i-masu / matte-iru.

of Japanese Locative Demonstratives*

wait-is-Pol / wait-is
Mioko Miyama

There are three possible honorific forms of verbs

University of Tokyo

which honorific expressions with o-/go- aregrammatical with: (i) honorific prefix + the

Keywords: polite forms, honorifics, long-distancenominalized form of V + the polite forms desu/masu

agreement, demonstratives(e.g. o-mati-desu/HP-wait-Polite), (ii) honorificprefix + the nominalized form of V + copula da (e.g.

1.

Introduction

o-mati-da/HP-wait-is) and (iii) V + desu/masu (e.g.

One of the ways employed in Japanese tomatte-i-masu/wait-is-Polite).

The“politeness”

express honorification/politeness is to attach theconveyed by the use of desu/masu basicallyhonorific prefix o-/go- to nouns (1a), adjectives (1b),expresses the polite attitude of the speaker towards

1or adverbs.

the hearer. Honorific expressions can also appear in(1) a. Sore-wa Sasaki-sensei-no o-nimotu
that-Top S-prof-Gen

da.

class

b. Hanako-san-wa totemo o-utukusi-i.
very

Apart from honorific expressions, there is a

HP-luggage is‘That is Professor Sasaki’s luggage.’
H-Pol-Topsentences with the verb in the plain form as in (3b).
of

words

which

conveyhonorification/politeness but behave differently from

HP-beautiful-Pres‘Hanako is very beautiful.’

honorific expressions. The words that belong to
this

class

clearlyinteract

with

the

When these nouns/adjectives bear honorific/polite

honorification/politeness of the sentence. The aim

meaning, they are categorized into honorificof this paper is to provide an analysis of theexpressions.

Honorific expressions require the

distribution of this class of words; specifically, I

possessor or the person that they modify to be

propose that the items agree with the same element

respected, as illustrated in (2).

with which the polite items desu/masu agree. As(2) a. sensei-no

go-kazoku

shown in the next section, this explanation goesprof-Gen

HP-familyalong with a previous analysis that the polite items‘The professor’s family’

desu/masu in embedded clauses are licensed in ab. *watasi-no

go-kazoku

long-distance manner by the element which licenses

I-Gen

HP-family

desu/masu in the matrix clause.

‘My family’(Sakai and Ivana (2009: 438))

The examples below show that the word

grammatical

dotira ‘where’ can appear in environments where theregardless of whether the sentence contains verbs

verb is in the honorific form (4b), has both the

Using

honorific

expressionsis2

with honorification/politeness or not as in (3).

honorification prefix and the polite form (4a), or only

(3) a. Sensei-no

has the polite form (5a).3

prof-Gen

go-kazoku-ga

soto-deHP-family-Nom outside-at(4) a. Yamada-sensei-wa-345-

dotira-ni

Y-prof-Top

where-atconvey much honorification/politeness.

o-sumai-desuka?

Other items that fall under the class of

HP-live-Pol

Q“honorific” expressions which behave like dotira‘Where does Professor Yamada live?’‘where’ are the demonstratives which share theb. Yamada-sensei-wa
Y-prof-Topo-sumai na

dotira-nimorpheme -tira with dotira ‘where.’ As is wellwhere-atknown, Japanese demonstratives have the paradigm{no ka naa / no daroo}?

ko-so-a-do.

Thekotira/sotira/atiraHP-live is.Adn no Q SFP no I.wonder

locativedemonstratives‘here/there/there’

are

also

(5) a. Hanako-wa

dotira-ni

ungrammatical when the verb is in the plain form:

H-Top

where-at(7) a. Yamada-sensei-wa

kotira/sotira/atira-ni

sum-deiru no

desu

Y-prof-Top

here/there/there-at

live-isPolite Qnoka?

o-sumai-desi-ta / o-sumai-dat-ta/‘Where does Hanako live?’

HP-live-Pol-Past / HP-live-is-Past/

dotira-ni

sum-dei-masi-ta.

H-Top

where-atlive-is-Pol-Past

sum-deiru {noka naa / nodaroo}?

live-isQ

I.wonderb. *Hanako-wa‘Professor Yamada was living here/there.’b. *Hanako-wa

kotira/sotira/atira-ni

Using dotira ‘where’ is ungrammatical when the

H-Top

here/there/there-atverb is in the plain form, as in (5b).

sum-dei-ta-yo.

no

SFP nolive-is-past-SFP

Note that, in addition to the meaning oflocation shown in examples (4) and (5), the word

‘Hanako was living here/there.’

dotira has the interpretation of partitive (‘which one’)In the next section, the behavior of the items

and direction (‘which way.’) As exemplified in (6a),kotira/sotira/atira/dotira ‘here/there/there/where’ in

dotira in the partitive meaning allows the verb to beembedded clauses is investigated and we conclude

in the plain form, behaving differently from locativethat the items are licensed by desu/masu indicating

dotira ‘where.’politeness. Furthermore, building on the proposal(6) a. Yamada-sensei-wa

dotira-oof Miyagawa (2012) about the agreement involved

Y-prof-Top

which-Acc

in sentences with desu/masu, I claim that

eranda/o-erabi-ni-nat-ta

no?

kotira/sotira/atira/dotira ‘here/there/there/where’ canchose/HP-choose-Dat-become-Past

Q

be in a long-distance agreement relation with the‘Which one did Professor Yamada choose?’b. Yamada-sensei-wa dotira-oY-prof-Top

erabi-masi-ta

which-Acc choose-Pol-Past

probe in the agreement operation involved insentences containing desu/masu.

This contrasts

with honorific verbs, which consistently require a/o-erabi-ni-nari-masi-ta

ka?

local relation with the items they agree with. The/HP-choose-Dat-become-Pol-Past

Q

proposal put forth neatly explains the distribution ofPartitive dotira ‘which one’ can also appear in

the polite forms of the locative demonstratives,sentences where the verb is in the polite form, thewhich is different from the distribution of honorifichonorific form, or when the verb has both theexpressions and the polite items desu/masu inhonorific prefix and the polite masu, as in (6). It

embedded clauses. Section 3 concludes the paper.

seems that partitive dotira ‘which one’ does not

-346-

2.

The “Long-Distance” Nature of Politenesskotira/sotira/atira/dotira ‘here/there/there/where’ can

2.1.

The Data

be licensed from outside the clause they reside in.

In embedded clauses, using dotira ‘where’ is

What is more, they are allowed in the presence of thegrammatical if the embedded verb is in the honorificpolite desu/masu in the matrix clause, since they areform (8a), while it is not when only the matrix verb isungrammatical with only the matrix verb in thein the honorific form (8b). (Compare this with the

honorific form, as in (8b).

grammaticality of the sentence with the plain locative
item doko ‘where.’)(8) a. Taro-wa
T-Top

2.2.

Previous Studies on Politeness[Yamada-sensei-ga

dotira-ni

Miyagawa (2012) proposes that the polite

Y-prof-Nom

where-at

desu/masu forms are instantiations of allocutive

o-sumai ka]

tazune-ta.

agreement, in which an appropriate agreement

HP-live

ask-Past

marker is realized depending on the hearer.

‘Taro asked where Professor Yamada lives.’

Building on the observation that allocutiveQ

b. *Yamada-sensei-wa [Taro-ga

dotira-ni

agreement takes place in the C domain, Miyagawa

where-at(2012) proposes the following structure for the C

Y-prof-Top

T-Nom

sum-deiru ka]

o-tazune-ni-nat-ta.

domain of sentences containing desu/masu.4

live-isHP-ask-Dat-become-Past

(10)

Q

SAP

‘Professor Yamada asked where Taro lives.’
cf. Yamada-sensei-wa
Y-prof-Top[Taro-gadoko-ni

T-Nom

where-atsum-deiru ka]

o-tazune-ni-nat-ta.

live-isHP-ask-Dat-become-Past

Q

SPEAKER
AgreementsaP

SA

HEARER
CP

Dotira ‘where’ is also allowed to appear insaembedded clauses such as embedded questions if theTPmatrix verb is in the polite form accompanying
desu/masu, as exemplified in (9).

C

The plain
CQ

locative item doko ‘where’ does not have thisCALLOCUTIVE PROBE‘SA’ and ‘sa’ in the structure stand for ‘speech act’

difference in grammaticality.
[Hanako-ga

dotira-ni

and project phrases that contain the covert

T-Top

H-Nom

where-at

SPEAKER and HEARER.

sum-deiruka]tazune-{*ta/masi-ta}.

probe of allocutive agreement raises to ‘SA’ via ‘sa’live-isQ

ask-Past/Pol-Past

and agrees with the goal HEARER.5 According to(9) Taro-wa

C which hosts the

Miyagawa (2012: 89), this structure accounts for the‘Taro asked where Hanako lives.’[Hanako-ga

doko-ni

ungrammaticality of the polite forms desu/masu in

T-Top

H-Nom

where-atembedded questions as in (11).

sum-deiruka]tazune-{ta/masi-ta}.

live-isQ

ask-Past/Pol-Past

cf. Taro-wa(11) Hanako-wa [dare-ga
H-Top
sitte

same way as dotira ‘where.’know be-Pol-Pres

facts

given

above

suggesti-mas-u.

‘Hanako knows who is coming.’

that

-347-

ka]

who-Nom come/come-Pol Q

Kotira/sotira/atira ‘here/there/there’ behave in theThekuru/*ki-masu

The matrix verb selects for questions, but thepeople-Top rain-Nom fall-Pol-C

existence of desu/masu requires the larger structurenegai-masi-ta.

shown in (10). The existence of desu/masu thushope-Pol-Past

leads to a selectional mismatch for the matrix verb.

‘People hoped that it could rain.’

However,someconstructionsb.??/?*Oohisama-wa

allow

desu/masu to appear in embedded clauses.

[ame-gaqueen-TopFor

rain-Nom

example, in direct discourse complements headed byhuri-masu-yoo(ni)] negaw-are-ta.

to (12a) and in adverbial clauses (12b), desu/masu

fall-Pol-C

are allowed (taken from Harada (1976: 544, 559)).

‘The queen hoped that it would rain.’to] it-ta.

c. ?*Hitobito-wa[ame-gacome-Pol-Past C say-Pastpeople-Top

rain-Nom(12) a. Taro-wa [Hanako-ga ki-masi-ta
T-Top H-Nom

hope-Honorific-Past‘Taro said that Hanako came.’huri-masu-yoo(ni)] negat-ta.

b. [Hima desi-ta

fall-Pol-C

freekara] Ginza-ni iki-masi-ta.

hope-Past‘People hoped that it could rain.’

Pol-Past since Ginza-to go-Pol-Past‘I went over to the Ginza Street because I had

Uchibori

nothing to do.’long-distance licensing of desu/masu in embedded(2008)

arguesfor

simultaneous

Miyagawa (2012) claims that in these constructions

clauses and those in matrix clauses by some modal

also, the structure in (10) exists in the embedded

head in the matrix clause (related to the speaker’s

clause.

He proposes that in “root” clauses

attitude towards the hearer).

originally put forward by Emonds (1969), forexample, in the reported S in direct discourse (direct

2.3.

Proposaldiscourse complement (12a)) and an S immediately

Taking into account the “long-distance” nature

dominated by the highest S (adverbial clauses (12b)),of the licensing of desu/masu, I claim that

Speech Act Phrase (SAP) is allowed to project.

kotira/sotira/atira/dotira‘here/there/there/where’

In addition to the environments listed byundergo long-distance agreement with an item in

Harada (1976) and others, Uchibori (2008: 113, 117)

SAP in the matrix clause, required by the existence

gives a few more environments where desu/masu

of desu/masu.

can appear in embedded clauses. Importantly, thesimultaneous agreement between the probe and the

behavior of desu/masu in complement clauses of

two goals: HEARER in the matrix SAP andverbs such as negaw ‘hope’ is the same as that ofkotira/sotira/atira/dotira ‘here/there/there/where’ inkotira/sotira/atira/dotira ‘here/there/there/where’ forthe embedded clause.

the most part. The difference in judgment between

presented in this section indicate that the class of(13a) and (13b) shows that the polite items

items can appear with occurrences of the polite items

desu/masu in the embedded clause are grammatical

desu/masu in the same clause or the matrix clause.

in the presence of the matrix polite desu/masu, but

I limit myself to claiming that the probe of the

not in the presence of the matrix honorific verb.

long-distance agreement has an ability to probe down

(Naturally, the plain form of the matrix verb does notinto the embedded clause, and do not commit myself

suffice to make desu/masu in the embedded clauseto the theoretical details of long-distance agreement.

This is because the data

My claim goes along in some part withgrammatical (13c).)(13) a. Hitobito-wa [ame-ga

Specifically, I argue for ahuri-masu-yoo(ni)]Uchibori’s (2008), although the items considered in-348-

this paper have a wider distribution than occurences

sum-deiruka]tazune-ta.

of desu/masu in embedded clauses. Desu/masu are

live-isQ

ask-Past

allowed in the embedded clauses of only a limited‘Taro asked where Hanako lives.’

numberwhile

However, there is a way to rescue thekotira/sotira/atira/dotira ‘here/there/there/where’ areunacceptability of (14): changing the subject into a

allowed in almost any construction as long as

respectable person makes the sentences better.

desu/masu is in the sentence or a sufficiently local(15) a. Yamada-sensei-wa

dotira-ni

sum-deiru

Y-prof-Top

where-atlive-isThe “long-distance” characteristic of the polite{noka naa / nodaroo}? (= (5b))

desu/masu contrasts with the honorific forms of thenoQ

I.wonderverb. Recall that honorific forms of the matrix verb

‘Where does Professor Yamada live?’ofconstructions,honorific verb is present.

cannotlicensekotira/sotira/atira/dotira

SFP nob. Yamada-sensei-wa[Hanako-ga dotira-ni‘here/there/there/where’ in the embedded clause:

Y-prof-Top(8) b. *Yamada-sensei-wa [Taro-ga

dotira-ni

sum-deiruka]tazune-ta.

where-atlive-isQ

ask-Past

H-Nom

where-at

Y-prof-Top

T-Nom

sum-deiru ka]

o-tazune-ni-nat-ta.

‘Professor Yamada asked where Hanako lives.’

live-isHP-ask-Dat-become-Past

c. Taro-wa [Yamada-sensei-ga dotira-ni

Q‘Professor Yamada asked where Taro lives.’

T-Top

Y-prof-Nom

where-at

The fact shows that the honorific prefix, when it

sum-deiruka]tazune-ta.

agrees with a goal with an honorific feature

live-isQ

ask-Past(including‘Taro asked where Professor Yamada lives.’

kotira/sotira/atira/dotira‘here/there/there/where,’ assuming that they can

Why are the sentences in (14) rescued with acarry either the allocutive feature or the honorificrespectable subject? There is no desu/masu in thefeature,) has to be in a local relation with the goal.

sentence and there is nothing which dotira ‘where’

This is in line with previous studies on honorifics (cf.

can agree with (even in a long-distance manner).

Boeckx and Niinuma (2004) and Sakai and Ivana

Further, honorific agreement cannot be taking place(2009) among others).

6

here since it occurrs with the honorific prefix on thepredicate as the probe.

2.4.

Another “Honorific/Politeness Agreement”?
Recallthat

I would like to draw the reader’s attention to

kotira/sotira/atira/dotira

the fact that the sentence improves by replacing with‘here/there/there/where’ cannot be licensed by thea respected person not only the embedded subject asplain form of the verb in either the matrix clause orin (15c) but also the matirix subject as in (15b).

the embedded clause, as in (14).

Since the effect seems not to be locally restricted, my(14) a. *Hanako-wa

dotira-ni

sum-deiru

speculation is that something like the “honorific

H-Top

where-atlive-isconcordance” that Hasegawa (2006) suggests is{noka naa / nodaroo}? (= (5b))

taking place here too, under the assumption that

noQ

I.wonderkotira/sotira/atira/dotira ‘here/there/there/where’ are

SFP no‘Where does Hanako live?’b. *Taro-wa
T-Top

not only polite forms but also honorific forms.

[Hanako-ga

dotira-ni

Hasegawa (2006: 533) gives (16) andH-Nom

where-atsuggests that a “honorific concordance” may be-349-

taking place in these sentences.

items desu/masu agree. Further, when the polite(16) a. Sensei-wa

go-zibun-deforms of the locative demonstratives are inteacher-Top HP-self-Acc

embedded clauses, they are licensed througho-kuruma-o araw-u.

long-distance agreement with the element in the

HP-car-Acc wash-Pres

matrix clause with which the polite items desu/masu‘The teacher washes her car by herself.’in the matrix clause agree.

b. Sensei-wa
kuruma-oc. Sensei-wa

zibun-deThe details of the process of long-distanceo-arai-ni-nar-u.

agreement (in particular, the problem of word orderHP-wash-Dat-become-Pres(cf. note 5) and the problem of how items agree

go-zibun-deacross a clause boundary) are left to be investigatedin future study.

o-kuruma-o o-arai-ni-nar-u.

In addition, specifically what

As Hasegawa (2006) observes, the important point isproperty of the irems contributes to their behavior isthat when the subject is a respectable person, theopen for future research.

object and the predicate need not be in the honorificform. She states the possibility that the speaker’s
respect towards the respectful person is indicated bya presence of an operator over a sentence, and thisoperator requires at least one item to be in thehonorific form.
Although I stay neutral on Hasegawa’s (2006)
suggestion about the honorific operator, I agree with
her that the respectable subject can license
kotira/sotira/atira/dotira‘here/there/there/where’

and that something like the “honorific concordance”
is indeed taking place in (15).
3.

locativedemonstratives

kotira/sotira/atira/dotira ‘here/there/there/where’ inthe embedded clause interact with the polite items
desu/masu in the matrix clause in a long-distancemanner. This behavior of kotira/sotira/atira/dotira‘here/there/there/where’ has never been noted in theliterature before. On the basis of the fact that it
resembles the relation between the polite items
desu/masu in the embedded clause and in the matrix
clause in some environments, I have proposed thatkotira/sotira/atira/dotira

made at the 6th International Spring Forum. My
gratitude also goes to Christopher Tancredi andVicki Carstens for reading an earlier version of thispaper. All remaining errors are my own.
1

The abbreviations used in this paper are: Abs =Absolutive, Acc = Accusative, Adn = Adnominal,
All = Allocutive, Aux = Auxiliary, Col = Colloquial,
Dat = Dative, Erg = Ergative, Gen = Genitive, HP =Nom = Nominative, Perf = Perfect, Pol = Polite, Pres

Concluding Remarks
Japanesecomments from the participants of the presentation

Honorific Prefix, Ms = Masculine, Neg = Negation,

This paper has shown that the polite forms of
the

Notes
* The discussion in Section 2.4 owes much to the‘here/there/there/where’= Present, Q = Question Particle, SFP =Sentence-Final Particle, Sg = Singular, Top = Topic.
2

Sakai and Ivana (2009) propose that inhonorification words, honorification agreement
occursin thenominal domain,

since

the

honorification meaning is present in the absence of averb. They claim that the honorific prefix bearing
the honorific feature agrees with the structurally
nearest nP with an honorific feature, which consistsof NP (the person in a socially high status) and n(applative suffixes such as san ‘Mr./Miss/Mrs.’ andsama ‘Mr./Miss/Mrs.’).
3

agree with the same element with which the polite-350-

The subject of the sentence is Yamada sensei

‘Professor Yamada’ in (4) and Hanako in (5)an Agree relation (cf. Chomsky (2000)) with therespectively because the verb is with the honorificobject (= target of honorification).

particle only in (4). When the verb is with the

honorification fails if there is another object, and thishonorific particle, the subject has to be a respectable

is an instance of “defective intervention” according

person and when it is with desu/masu, the choice ofto them.

Objectthe subject is not restricted, since the use ofdesu/masu basically expresses the polite attitude ofReferences

the speaker towards the hearer and is irrelevant to the

Boeckx, Cedric and Fumikazu Niinuma (2004)

subject/object of the uttered sentence itself. When

“Conditions on Agreement in Japanese,” NLLT

the verb is in the plain form, the most natural choice22, 453-480.

of the subject is a non-respectable/neutral person, but

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The

it is actually possible to take a respectable person as

Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

the subject. See the discussion in Section 2.4.

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik,

4

Miyagawa (2012) does not make clear the precise

ed. by Roger Martin et al., 89-155, MIT Press,

location of desu/masu; he only claims that it isCambridge, MA.

realized in the C domain.
5

Emonds,Consider the word order realized in allocutive(1969)

anddissertation, MIT.
Harada, Shin-Ichi (1976) “Honorifics,” Syntax and(i) (To a male friend)
egin

dik.

Semantics 5: Japanese Generative Grammar,

P.Erg work.Abs do.Perf Aux-3rd.Sg.Abs

ed.

-2nd.Sg.Col.Ms.All-3rd.Sg.Erg

Academic Press, New York.

‘Peter worked.’

Root

Structure-Preserving Transformations, Doctoral

agreement observed in Souletin, a dialect of Basque:Pettek lan

Josephby

Masayoshi

Shibatani,499-561,(Miyagawa (2012: 82))

Hasegawa, Nobuko (2006) “Honorifics,” The

Note that the allocutive agreement marker (glossedBlackwell Companion to Syntax: Volume II, eds.

2nd.Sg.Col.Ms.All) is attatched before the subject

by Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk,

agreement marker (glossed 3rd.Sg.Erg).

493-543, Blackwell, MA.

Ifallocutive agreement is occurring in the C domain,

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2012) “Agreements That Occur

the word order should be “subject agreement marker

Mainly in the Main Clause,” Main Clause(the structurally lower element) - allocutive

Phenomena: New Horizons, ed. by Lobke

agreement marker (the structurally higher element) .”Aelbrecht et al., 79-111, John Benjamins,

The situation is the same in Japanese as in Souletin:

Amsterdam.

the past tense forms of the polite forms desu/masu

Sakai, Hiromu and Adrian Ivana (2009) “Rethinking(the realization of allocutive agreement) are formed

Functional Parametrization: A View fromby attatching the past tense morpheme -ta to the

Honorification in the Nominal Domain inpolite items (desi-ta/masi-ta). Since my proposal

Japanese,” English Linguistics 26, 437-459.

made below builds on Miyagawa’s (2012) claim, it

Uchibori, Asako (2008) “A Short Note on Japanesealso carries the problem of how the word order is

Politeness Verb -des/mas in Embedded

derived. I leave this problem for future research.

Contexts,” Scientific Approaches to Language 7,

6

Boeckx and Niinuma (2004) account for Japanese103-122, Kanda University of International

object honorification by claiming that v has to be inStudies.

-351-

each other. More specifically, in the case of
wh-relatives, a wh-element, such as who in (1),is an operator which goes through overt
A’-movement (so called matching analysis),whereas, in the case of that-relatives, a head

The Derivation of Japanese Relative Clauses
with Scrambling and Quantifier Float*

noun, i.e. person in (2), is raised out of therelative clause (so called head-raising analysis).

Hisashi Morita

I will introduce one piece of evidence from

Aichi Prefectural University

Aoun and Li (2003) for the distinction in thispaper. Due to reconstruction of the head noun,

Keywords: smuggling, movement of NP to its

that-relatives exhibit scope interaction while

DP, spec, and sideward movement

wh-relatives do not as follows:(4) I phoned the two patients {that/who} every
doctor will examine tomorrow.

1.

Introduction

Aoun and Li (2003: 98, 113)

This paper will make two new claims withIn the case of that, the head noun, two patients,

regard to relative clauses in Japanese. One is that

can take either wide or narrow scope withlong-distance scrambling is employed to moverespect to every doctor, but only the wide scope

NP (or DP) to CP, spec. The other claim is thatfor two patients is possible in the wh-relative of

the same mechanism as quantifier floating is(4). This difference indicates that the head noun

applied to expose NP out of DP, so that the same

itself goes through movement in that-relatives,

NP will be able to merge with a new D

while it does not in wh-relatives.

(sideward movement) and serves as the headnoun of a relative clause.

Next let us turn to Japanese relatives. At afirst glance, it is not clear whether any kind of

Let us start with an analysis of English

operator movement is involved. Moreover, there

relative clauses. According to Aoun and Li

are data which seem to support a non-movement(2003), two different types of derivations areanalysis as follows:necessary for two types of relatives, wh-relatives(5) [DP [DP [CP ei ej kiteiru]

as in (1) and that-relatives as in (2):wearing.is(1) John saw the person whoi ti hit Mary.

[yoohfuku]j]-ga yogoreteiru][sinsi]i]
suit-Nom(wh-relative)

dirty.is gentleman‘(Lit.) a gentleman who the suit that (he) is(2) John saw the personi that ti hit Mary.

wearing is dirty’(that-relative)
Since both types are subject to the subjacency

Kuno (1973: 239, adapted)

condition as in (3), some kind of A’ movement is

Suppose that sinsi ‘gentleman’ is generated

necessary in both relatives.

inside the most embedded CP. Then, if it tries to(3) *John saw the person {who/that} Mary left

move across the inner head noun, yoofuku ‘suit’,[after she hit t].

violation of the subjacency condition is expected

Nevertheless, Aoun and Li claim that thecontrary to the fact. Thus, one may consider thatderivations of the two types are distinct fromthere is no movement in Japanese relatives-352-

(Murasugi (1991)).1

for why wh-elements are not employed in

However, there are several pieces ofJapanese relatives.3

evidence for the existence of movement, only
two of which will be presented in this paper due

2.

2

to limited space. First, Japanese relatives show

Two kinds of movement in Japaneserelatives

scope interaction between the head noun and an

This section will show that there are at least two

object inside the relative clause as in (6):types of movement involved in Japanese(6) [kinoo

minna-ga ti zibun-no ie-derelatives: scrambling as A’-movement to CP,

yesterday everyone-Nom self-Gen home-at

spec and the quantifier floating operation whichmita] eigai-no namae-o (zenbu) osiete

induces sideward movement of NP out of DP.

saw movie-Gen name-Acc all tell.me

Let us discuss scrambling first.

‘Tell me all the names of movies that

2.1. Scrambling and relative clauses

everyonej watched in hisj house’

Long-distancescramblingandrelative‘every’ >> ‘names of movies’; ‘names ofclause constructions in Japanese have a few

movies’ >> ‘every’common characteristics. For example, both

Morita (2006:122)

As in English that-relatives (e.g. (4)), ‘names ofexhibitmovies’ can take wide or narrow scope withreconstruction, the data of which are omitted

respect to ‘everyone’ in (6). If the head noun

here. However, these facts are not surprisingwere base-generated in the matrix clause, its

because both types of constructions requirenarrow scope interpretation would be impossible

A’-movement

contrary to the fact. Thus, it is plausible toallows reconstruction. Nonetheless, there is aconsider that the head noun is actuallypiece of evidence that the two types ofbase-generated in the object position in the

movement are of the same kind. Examine theembedded clause first, and then is raised to thefollowing sentences:matrix clause.

(8) a. *[ riyuu-mo-naku]i Mary-ga [John-ga

Second, Japanese relatives show anaphoric

scopeinteraction

and

and

anaphoricA’-movement

reason-even-without

generally-Nom -Nom

reconstruction as follows:

ti sono setu-o sinziteiru to] omotteiru.

(7) Mary-wa [[Johni-ga ej taipusita]that theory-Acc believe C think

-Top

-Nom

‘Without a reasoni, Mary thinks [thattyped

John believes that theory ti].’[karezisini-no

ronbun]j]-omottekita

kimself-Gen

paper-Acc

brought(Saito 1985: 175)

‘Mary brought himselfi’s paper that Johnib. *[Mary-ga [John-ga ti sono setu-o

typed.’

Ishii (1991: 29)-Nom -Nom that theory-Acc

The anaphor, karezisin ‘himself’, can refer to thesinziteiru to] omotteiru] [DP riyuu]i.

subject of the relative clause, John, which

believe C

indicates that karezisin was first generated inside‘The reasoni [that Mary thinks [thatthe relative clause and raised to the matrix

John believes that theory ti]]thinkreasonclause. Accordingly, Japanese relatives are

As already noted in Saito (1985) and Murasugi

similar to English that-relatives; that is, head(1991), reason adverbs cannot go throughnouns are raised, which automatically accounts

long-distance-353-

scrambling

as

in

(8)a

or

is problematic. The -criterion is one because

long-distance relativization as in (8)b.
Interestingly, according to Morita (2012),

the same noun phrase has to receive more thanlong-distance relations in both constructions

one -role (due to its own A’ movement andbecome possible when numerals, such as ikutuka

subsequent sideward movement). To prevent a‘several’, are attached to the moved elements as

DP from receiving more than one -role, one canfollows:

adapt Hicks’ (2009) smuggling analysis to(9) a.[PPikutuka-no riyuu-de]i Mary-ga

relative clause constructions. In other words, anseveral-Gen reason-at-Nom

NP inside a covert D is released for reuse after[John-ga ti sono setu-o sinjiteiru to]A’-movement to CP, spec, and merges with a-Nom that theory-Acc believe C

new D. If the -criterion applies to DP, not NP,
then two Ds for one NP can satisfy the criterion.

omotteiru.

The present paper supports Hicks (2009). In

think‘For several reasonsi, Mary thinks [that Johnother words, as will be shown below, quantifier

believes that theory ti].’floating raises NP to spec of its own DP in theb. [Mary-ga [John-ga ti sono setu-ocase of Japanese relatives. As a result, the NP-Nom-Nom that theory-Acc

can be reused as the head noun by merging withsinjiteiru to] omotteiru]

a new D later in the derivation. Furthermore, it

believe

implies that DP, spec must be empty in order for

C think[DP ikutuka-no riyuu]i.

the derivation to build a relative clause. There isseveral-Gen reason

one piece of evidence for this claim, but before‘Several reasonsi [that Mary thinks [thatpresenting such evidence, let us discuss one

John believes that theory ti]]anaphor, zibun.

The contrast between (8) and (9) shows that only

Although anaphoric reconstruction (cf. (7))

entity-level expressions, not propositional-level,

was presented to support the movement analysis

can go through long-distance scrambling andof Japanese relatives in the previous section, one

relativization. Although the reason for theparticular type of anaphor, zibun ‘self’, iscontrast is not clear at the moment, the data

different from other types of anaphoric elements

independently supports the movement analysis

in that it may not allow reconstruction asof Japanese relatives.

follows:

Moreover, if the discussion above is correct,(10) *[DP[Johni-ga ej taipusita] [zibuni-no

Japanese relative clauses resort to the same

-Nom typed

self-Genmechanism as long-distance scrambling in orderronbun]j]

to move NP (or DP) to CP, spec. In other words,

paperA’-movement of the head noun to CP, spec is‘(Lit.) selfi’s paper (that) Johni typed’achieved with scrambling in Japanese relatives

Hasegawa (1988: 59)(while wh-movement is employed in English

However, there are cases in which zibun can be

relatives).

reconstructed as follows:

2.2. Quantifier Floating
Theoretically speaking, the head-raising
analysis in English and Japanese relative clauses-354-

(11) [DP [Johni-ga ej taipusita] [zibuni-Nom typed

precedes, and hence, is higher than nanmaika-no,

self

occupies DP, spec. In this configuration, the-nituite-no

ronbun]j]derivation of a relative clause is disallowed as in-about-Gen

paper(13)a.

‘(Lit.) a paper about selfi John typed.
shasin]iin (13)b, the example becomes acceptableself-Gen picture

because zibun is not at DP, spec. To summarize(12) [Mary-ga ei totta] [zibunj-no-Nom took

In contrast, if zibun follows nanmaika-no assoko-ni aru.

so far, the discussion above has indicated that

-Nom there-at isDP, spec must be vacated in order for a relative‘[Pictures of herselfj]i that Maryj took ti areclause to be derived.5-ga

there.’

Morita (2012: 77)

Moreover, according to Watanabe (2008),

The contrast between (10) on one hand and (11)

NP (CaseP in his paper) can be raised over #P to

and

that

spec of DP, which separates NP and #P, thezibun isresult of which is called quantifier floating.

complement or adjunct to the head noun. More

Therefore, it is plausible to consider that NP is

specifically, I argue that reconstruction of theraised to its own DP, spec to initiate sideward

whole DP is disallowed when zibun is at DP,

movement, and merge with a new D in the

(12)

on

the

other

indicates

reconstruction is possible when4matrix clause later.

spec as in (10).

There are more data which support the

There is one piece of evidence for theclaim that relativization is inhibited when DP,

DP-internal movement. First, consider the

spec is filled. Compare the following examples:

following sentence:(13) a. *[CP daremoi-ga ti totta] [DP zibuni-no(15) daremo

everyone-Nom took

self -Gen

everyone-Nom

nanmaika-no shasin]shasin-o]some-Gen pictures

picture-Acc took

everyone-Nom tooksome-Gen

took

some

picturesofthemselves.’

some-no zibuni-no shasin]‘Everyone took some pictures which they

-Gen self-Gen pictures

now possess.’‘Some of their pictures that everyone

If zibun is at DP, spec as in (15), the sentence

took’

can mean ‘Everyone took some pictures which

zibun

precedesanumeralsuchasnanmaika-no ‘some-Gen’ as in (13)a, theexampleself-Gentotta.

*‘Everyone

b. [CP daremoi-ga ti totta] [DP nanmaikaIf-ga [DP zibun-no nanmaika-no

they now possess,’ but not ‘Everyone took somepictures of themselves.’

becomes ungrammatical. According

to Watanabe (2008: 517), the structure ofJapanese DP can be the following:(14) [DP [QP [#P [CaseP [NP ]]]]]
Numerals such as nanmaika-no are generated
under the head of #P and raised to the head of
QP. Thus, it is plausible that zibun, which-355-

Next compare the following examples:

(16) a daremo-ga [DP nanmaika-no
everyone-Nom some-Gen

In

zibun

Japanese: scrambling and quantifier floating.

self

Scrambling moves DP to CP, spec, where-noshasin-o]

totta.

sideward movement takes NP out of DP and-Gen

pictures-Acc took

merges it with a new D. However, as it is, theb. daremo-ga [DP [NP zibun-no shasin-o]i

derivation cannot see the NP inside DP, so someeveryone-Nom self-Gen pictures-Acc

kind of movement of the NP to its own DP, spec

nanmaika ti] totta.

must be applied to expose the NP to thesomederivation. The present paper has shown that it is(16)a,

took

the

order

between

zibun

and

nanmaika-no in (15) is reversed. Since zibun is

the same mechanism as quantifier floating thatmoves NP to its own DP, spec in Japanese.

now understood as complement of shasin

However, one might wonder what happens‘picture’, the interpretation that everyone took

in the case of English that-relatives. Accordingsome pictures of themselves is available unlike

to Aoun and Li (2003), they also induce(15). In addition, (16)b is a case of quantifier

head-raising. If so, English needs to have a

floating, where the numeral seems to be “floated”

mechanism that lets NP move to its DP, spec forout of DP. According to Watanabe (2008),

sideward movement. However, no quantifier

however, NP is moved within its own DP to afloating is available in English. 6 Let me

position higher than #P, that is, to DP, spec.

conclude the paper by suggesting one solution.

Interestingly,interpretation

as

(16)b

has

the

same

(16)a.

The

contrastofFocus adverbs such as also can appear
before or after the noun as follows:interpretation between (15) on one hand and(17) a. John also went there.

(16)a and b on the other suggests that theb. Also John went there.

quantifier floated example, (16)b, is derived

It is possible that (17)a is derived from (17)b as

from (16)a, not from (15). If DP, spec isfollows:

occupied by zibun as in (15), quantifier floating(18)

is blocked because NP has nowhere to move to,

FocusP
Focus’

NPi

which is why (15) cannot have the interpretation

Focus

of (16)b.

John

also

DP
D

ti

Moreover, as shown already, if DP, spec is

Due to the focus movement of NP to the edge offilled, relativization is also prevented. These two

DP, the derivation can now see the NP. Suppose

facts receive a simple and logical explanation if

the Focus head is covert in the case ofsubextraction of NP through DP, spec is essential

that-relatives. Then head-raising is possible evenforin English relatives.

thederivationofrelativeclauses.

Accordingly, the present paper supports Hicks’(2009) smuggling analysis in the case ofJapanese relative constructions.
3.

Conclusion

This paper has shown that two overt operations

FOOTNOTES*
I would like to thank the audience, particularly
Yasuyuki Kitao, Fumikazu Niinuma, Hideaki
Yamashita, and Nobuko Hasegawa, at ELSJ 6th
International Spring Forum, University of Tokyo,

are involved to derive relative clauses in-356-

April, 2013, for insightful comments and advice.
This study has been supported in part by aGrant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) fromJapan Society for the Promotion of Science(#24720181).
1 Following Sakai (1994), Hoshi (2004) claims
that sinsi is actually base-generated in the outerrelative clause as a major subject. If so, theexample does not count as a counterexample tothe movement analysis.
2 For other pieces of evidence, refer to Kitao(2005, 2009, 2011) and Morita (2006, 2012).
3 See also fn. 4 for an argument that Japaneserelatives do not have something comparable towh-relatives in English, where lexical items
other than noun heads go through A’-movement.
4 Note that (10) is grammatical when zibunrefers to the matrix subject as follows:(i) Maryj-wa [John-ga e taipusita] [zibunj-no-Top-Nom typed selg-Gen
ronbun-o] nakusitesimatta.
paper-Acc
lost‘Mary lost her paper that John typed.’
There are at least two ways to explain thederivation of (i). One is to assume that a covert
operator goes through A’-movement andmatches with the head noun as in wh-relatives inEnglish. However, this approach is not tenableaccording to the present paper, which claims thatA’-movement in Japanese relatives is scrambling,

because scrambling cannot apply to covert
elements.
The other way is simply that only ronbun‘paper’ goes through A’-movement and later
merges with zibun. If so, it suggests thatJapanese relative clauses employ only one type,that is, head raising, unlike English, which hashead raising and matching methods according to
Aoun and Li (2003).
5 One may wonder why many speakers feel (7)better than (10). It may be simply contextual.
The following example shows that karezisin
before a numeral blocks relativization:(i) *Peter-wa Johni-ga taipusita [karezisini-Top -Nom typed himself-no sambon -no rombun-o] mottekita-Gen three -Gen paper-Acc brought‘(Lit.) Peter brought himselfi’s paper thatJohni typed.’(i) is ungrammatical because karezisin sits at DP,
spec, which shows that there is no difference
between zibun and other anaphoric elements as
far as reconstruction is concerned.
6 All and both may be presented as evidence forquantifier floating in English, but unlike
Japanese, the phenomenon is limited to only a
few items such as all and both. Moreover, theycannot be applied to (non-pronominal) objects
unlike Japanese. According to Doetjes (1992),
they are simply adverbials.
Quantifiers Float to the Left,” The Linguistic

REFERENCES

Review 9, 313-332.

Aoun, Joseph and Y-H Audrey Li (2003). Essays

Hasegawa, Nobuko (1988) “Remarks on ‘Zeroon the Representational and Derivational

Pronominals’: In Defense of Hasegawa

Nature of Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge,(1984/85),” in M. Nakayama and W. Tawa

Massachusetts.

(eds.), Proceedings of Japanese Syntax

Chomsky, Noam (1977). “On WH-movement,”

Workshop: Issues on Empty Categories,

in P. Culicover, T. Wasow and A. Akmajian(eds.), Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New

50-76.
Hicks, Glyn (2009) “Tough-Construction and
Their Derivation,” Linguistic Inquiry 40,

York, 71-132.
Doetjes, Jenny (1992). “Rightward Floating-357-

535-566.

Hornstein, Norbert (2001). Move! A Minimalist
Theory of Construal, Blackwell, Oxford.

Cambridge, Massachusetts, 97-133.
Saito, Mamoru (1985). Some Asymmetries in

Hoshi, Koji (2004). “Remarks on N-Final
RelativizationinJapanese,”Japanese

EnglishLanguage and Literature 44, Keio University,

and

Their

Theoretical

Consequences, doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Sakai, Hiromu (1994) “Complex NP Constraint
and Case-Conversions in Japanese,” in M.

113-147.
Ishii, Yasuo (1991). Operators and Empty

Nakamura (ed.), Current Topics in English

Categories in Japanese, doctoral dissertation,

andUniversity of Connecticut.

179-203.

(2005).

“Movement

Hituzi

Shobo,

Tokyo,

and

Watanabe, Akira (2008). “The Structure of DP,”

Deletion Theory: A Study of Relativein S. Miyagawa and M. Saito (eds.), The

Clauses,”

Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics,

Kitao,

YasuyukiJapanese,

Gengobunkagaku(Journalof

Language and Culture) 14, Osaka University,
47-71.
Kitao,

Yasuyuki(2009).

The

NatureofRelativization: A Minimalist Perspective,
doctoral dissertation, Osaka University.
Kitao, Yasuyuki (2011). “The Presence ofHead-raising and Resumptive-stranding inJapanese Relative Clauses,” Acta Linguistica
Hungaria 58, 313-335.
Kuno, Susumu (1973). The Structure of theJapanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Morita,Hisashi(2006).

“The

Promotion

Analysis of Japanese Relative clauses,”English Linguistics 23:1, 113-136.
Morita,Hisashi(2012).

“Evidencefor

Movement in the Derivation of Relative
Clauses in Japanese,” Mulberry 61, 67-94,
Department of British and American Studies,
Aichi Prefectural University.
Murasugi, Keiko (1991). Noun Phrases inJapanese and English: A Study in Syntax
Learnability

andAcquisition,

doctoraldissertation, University of Connecticut.
Rizzi, Luigi (2006). “On the Form of Chains:
Criterial Positions and ECP Effects,” inL.L.-S.

Cheng

and

N.

Corver(eds.),

WH-Movement: Moving On, MIT Press,-358-

Oxford University Press, Oxford, 513-54.

information units for the drawing of inferences
when and-conjunctions are interpreted.
By contrast with the English situation,
Japanese Clausal Coordination andclausal coordination in Japanese corresponding

Inferential Processing Units*

to the and-structure can be expressed withseveral different linguistic forms (Ohori 2004:

Miyuki Nagatsuji

54–56). Typical examples include the adverbial

Nara Women’s University

form of a predicate, called ren’yō-kei inJapanese, and the conjunctive suffixes -te, -tari,

Keywords: clausal coordination, inference,and -shi.

propositions, information units(3) Hanako-ga

kagi-otoridashi,

Hanako-Nom key-Acc take-out (adv. form)
Taro-gadoa-o

ake-ta.

1. Introduction

Taro-Nom door-Acc opened

English and-conjunctions can be used to‘Hanako took out the key and Taroconvey a range of inferential relations between

opened the door (with it).’[Temporal]

the states of affairs described in the conjuncts.

(4) Taro-wa

inhuruenza-ni

kakat-te,

For example, in (1), John’s missing the train

Taro-Top

influenza-Dat

get-teand his being late for work are understood asgakkō-oisshūkan

having a cause–consequence relation. In (2), in

school-Acc for-a-week was-absent

contrast, the speaker’s keeping in touch and his‘Taro got the flu and he was absent fromor her going out for a meal with some otherschool for a week.’

person are interpreted as parallel.

(5) Shi-no(1) John missed the usual train and he wasnew

go out for a meal.

jigyō

de,

development program inatarashii dōro-ga(2) We still keep in touch, and we sometimes[Causal]kaihatsu

city-Genlate for work.

yasun-da.

kensetsusa-re-tari,road-Nom be-constructed-tari

jidōsha kōjō-ga

yūchisa-re-tari shi-ta.

Given a context, however, the hearer might becarable to go further in comprehension of (1) and‘In the development program of the city,(2).

new roads were constructed and carAconjoined

proposition

expressing

causality in (1), “John missed the usual train

factory-Nom be-invited-tari did

factories were invited.’[Paratactic]

and, as a result, he was late for work,” could(6) Yūbinuke-wa tegami

deallow the derivation of an implicature such as

mail-box-Top letter

with“John will get a long lecture from his boss.”

ippaidat-ta-shi,

On the other hand, the propositions of thewas-crammed-shi house-Gen light-Top

individual conjuncts in (2) could lead to thesubete kie-te-i-ta.

same implicature, “The speaker and the person

allreferred to have been and remain good

‘The mail box was crammed with letters,

friends.” The point is that these sentences

and all the lights in the house were off.’

differ in terms of which propositions can[Paratactic]

function as inferential processing units, that is,(3)–(6) indicate that these four structures can

-359-

ie-no

akari-wa

was-off

be

used

in

a

similarway toEnglishquestion.

She

will

accessacontextual

and-conjunctions. Then, do all these structures

assumption, “If a person falls in a manhole

contain proposition patterns that function

because it is left uncovered, then he is entitledsimilarlyunits

to accident compensation,” and use this andallowing the comprehension of each structure

Bob’s utterance as premises from which toin the same way?

derive the implicature “Bob is entitled toasinferential

processing

The present paper shows that there are two
proposition

patterns

processing

units

compensation.”

For

the

properasinferential

derivation of the implicature, Bob’s utterance

Japaneseclausalshould be interpreted to convey something likethese

“A manhole was left uncovered and, as a result,inferential processing units are a factor in[Bob] fell in,” since the conditional clause of

distinguishing the various structures. The

the assumption needs to be satisfied. The

organization of the paper is as follows: section

and-conjunction makes it possible to derive the2 introduces the inferential processing units of

implicature as an indirect answer to Ann’s

and-conjunctions on the basis of Blakemore

question only when it functions as a conjoined

and Carston’s (2005) analysis. Section 3

proposition that includes a causal relation. This

examines the inferential processing units ofmeans

Japanese clausal coordinating structures from a

conjoined proposition [P & Q] as an inferential

relevance-theoretic perspective (Sperber andprocessing unit.

coordinations

and

used

accidentinproposes

that

that

and-conjunctions

exploitaWilson 1995). Section 4 is considers their

On the other hand, there are some cases inplausibility and mentions some implications ofwhich the propositions of the individual

the analysis. Section 5 is a conclusion.

conjuncts [P] [Q] are used in interpreting
and-conjunctions. Imagine that a person utters

2. The Inferential Processing Units of(8) when talking with friends about someone

English and-Conjunctions
Blakemore and Carston (2005) claim that every

who has excellent marriage prospects:(8)

Hermioneisutterance of the form P and Q explicitly(furthermore)communicates three propositions: a conjoined

wealthy family.

very
she

beautiful,
comes

from

and
a

proposition [P & Q] and the propositions of the(Blakemore and Carston 2005: 574)

individual conjuncts [P] [Q]. These propositions

The state of affairs described in each conjunctare used as inferential processing units,

here is taken to be evidence for the assumption

meaning that they play the role of input for athatseries of inferences.

excellent. That is, the proposition of the first

Consider (7), in a context where Bob has
broken his leg:

marriageprospects

areconjunct about Hermione’s beauty, used as apremise, leads to the implicature that Hermione(7) Ann: Are you entitled to accident
compensation?

has excellent marriage prospects. Then, theproposition of the second conjunct, about her

Bob: Well, a manhole was left uncovered
and I fell in.

Hermione’s(Carston 2002: 228)

coming from a wealthy family, is used asanother premise, with the same implicature

Bob’s utterance will be understood by the

beinghearer, Ann, as an indirect answer to her

propositions function as distinct premises in-360-

derived.

That

is,

the

individual

distinct inferences but result in the same

long lecture,” and use this and the utterance inconclusion; therefore, the second conjunct(9a, b) as premises to derive the implicaturestrengthens the implicature of the first by“Taro will get a long lecture from his boss.” To

providing further evidence. It follows that

ensure the derivation of this implicature, (9)and-conjunctions also exploit the propositions

should function as a conjoined propositionof the individual conjuncts as inferential

including a causal relation such as “Taroprocessing units. The next section focuses on

missed the usual train and, as a result, he wasJapanese clausal coordinating structures.

late for work,” since an interpretation of therelation between the two events is necessary

3. The Inferential Processing Units offor the conditional clause of the assumption to
be satisfied. The interpretation of (9) in thisJapanese Clausal Coordination
3.1 The Adverbial Form and -te Structurescontext indicates that the adverbial form andSection-te structures exploit a conjoined proposition

3.1

analyzeswhich

propositions

function as inferential processing units in the[P & Q] as an inferential processing unit.

interpretation of the adverbial form and -te

On the other hand, a conjoined proposition

structures. The adverbial form of a predicate indoes

a clause P connects another clause Q in theinterpretation of (10), in which the speaker isform P (adverbial form), Q, while the suffix -te

asked about her friendship with some otherconnects two clauses in the form P-te, Q. The

person and answers as follows:

pattern of propositions used as inferential

not

seem

to

contribute

to

the

(10) Watashitachi-wa imademo renraku-oprocessing units for both structures is the same

we-Topstill

as that for and-conjunctions: a conjoined{a. tori/ b. tot-te},tokidokiproposition [P & Q] and the propositions of thetake (adv. form)

take-tesometimes

individual clauses [P] [Q].

gohan-oConsider (9), which is understood to convey

contact-Acc

tabe-niiku.

meal-Acc eat-Purp

gothat Taro’s missing the train caused him to be‘We still keep in touch, and welate for work.

sometimes go out for a meal.’(9) Taro-wa
Taro-Topitsumono densha-ni

The states of affairs described in these clauses

usual

can be seen to be evidence for how long and to{a. noriokure

train-Dat/ b. noriokure-te},what extent the speaker and the person referred

miss-teto have been getting along. The propositions of

miss (adv. form)
kaisha-ni

chikokushi-ta.

the individual clauses are used as premises in

office-Dat

was-late

distinctinferences,

yielding

the

same

‘Taro missed the usual train and he was

implicature about their strong and lastinglate for work.’

friendship; the second clause adds another

Given a context where Taro’s boss gives a longpiece

lecture to an employee who is late for work for

implicature. Thus, the propositions of thesome reason other than sickness, the hearer

clauses function separately but contribute

will access a contextual assumption, “If an

collectively toemployee is late for work because, for example,

sentence as an indirect answer, which suggests

he has missed a train, the boss will give him athat the adverbial form and -te structures also

-361-

of

evidencetheandstrengthensinterpretation

of

the

the

exploit the individual propositions [P] [Q] as
inferential processing units.
3.2 The -tari and -shi Structures
Section

3.2

examinesthepatternofpropositions used as inferential processing
units in the comprehension of the -tari and -shi
structures. The suffix -tari takes the form
P-tari, Q-tari suru (‘do’), while -shi takes theform P-shi, Q. These structures, unlike theadverbial form and -te structures, do not
exploit a conjoined proposition [P & Q] but
only the propositions of the individual clauses[P] [Q].
Consider (11), with the same context as (10):(11) Watashitachi-wa imademo renraku-o
we-Topstill
contact-Acc{a. tot-tari / b. toru-shi}, tokidoki
take-tari
take-shi sometimes
gohan-o tabe-ni {a. it-tari suru / b. iku}.
meal-Acc eat-Purp go-tari dogo‘We still keep in touch, and wesometimes go out for a meal.’
The interpretation of (11) will be similar to that(12) Taro-wa itsumono densha-ni
Taro-Top usual
train-Dat{a. *noriokure-tari / b. *noriokure-ta-shi},miss-tarimissed-shi
kaisha-ni
office-Dat{a. *chikokushi-tari shi-ta / b. *chikokushi-ta}.
be-late-tari did
was-late‘John missed the usual train and he waslate for work.’ [intended]
Given the same context as in (9), a conjoined
proposition expressing causality would not berecovered from (12), so the implicature “Tarowill get a long lecture from his boss,” which
the adverbial form and -te structures in (9) cangive rise to, would not be derived either. The-tari and -shi structures might not be used forthe narrative purpose of describing events,
which implies that they do not exploit a
conjoined proposition [P & Q] as an inferential
processing unit.
Indeed, an embedding test should help us toconfirm that conjoined proposition [P & Q]
does not function as an inferential processingof (10); the hearer understands the events

unit in the interpretation of the -tari and -shi

described in the clauses as evidence andstructures. Following Carston (2002: 227–228),

derives as an indirect answer the implicature

if a coordinating structure is embedded in a

“The speaker and the person referred to haveconstruction with a logical operator, such as abeen (and are) good friends.” In other words,

disjunctive

the propositions of the individual clausesinterpretation that includes a relation between

function as two distinct premises leading to thethe events described in the clauses falls withinsame implicature. Therefore, the -tari and -shi

the scope of the operator, then it is likely thatstructures exploit the individual propositions

the structure exploits a conjoined proposition[P] [Q] as inferential processing units.

as an inferential processing unit. Imagine that aoracomparative,

and

the

However, no conjoined proposition seems toboss gives a lecture to employees who havebe used for the drawing of inferences in theengaged in more than one bad behavior andinterpretation of these structures. Thus, asthat the combination of behaviors affects how

shown in (12), both structures fail to explicitly

long the lecture continues. The -tari and -shi

communicate that Taro’s missing the train

structures embedded in a comparative cannot

caused his lateness:

be used to state which combination will leadthe boss to give a shorter lecture:-362-

(13) Kaisha-ni{a. chikokushi/ b. chikokushi-te},office-Dat

be-late (adv. from){a. ??chikokushi-tari / b. *chikokusuru-shi},jōshi-nibe-late-tari

boss-Datshitsureina

kuchi-okikuboss-Dat

rudemouth-Acc

work{a. ??kii-tarisuru / b. *kiku}

work-tari

doshitsureina kuchi-ois-late-shi

jōshi-ni

rudemouth-Acc

yorimo, kaisha-ni
than

office-Dat{a. chikokushi

work

be-late-te/ b. chikokushi-te},be-late (adv. form)

be-late-te

yorimo, kaisha-ni

sōji

tōban-osaboru

hō-ga

than

cleaning

turn-Accskipside-Nom

office-Dat{a. ??chikokushi-tari / b. *chikokusuru-shi},be-late-tari

is-late-shi

madamashida.

still

preferable

sōji

tōban-o‘A lecture to a person who has been latecleaning

turn-Acc

for work and skipped his turn to clean{a. ??sabot-tari suru / b. *saboru}(the room) is shorter than one to a personskip-tari

do

skip

who has been late for work and spoken
to the boss rudely.’

hō-ga

mada

mashida.

side-Nom

still

preferable

Thus, the embedding tests show that a‘A lecture to a person who has been lateconjoined proposition does not play a role infor work and skipped his turn to clean

the interpretation of the -tari and -shi(the room) is shorter than one to a person

structures; that is, these structures exploit the

who has been late for work and spoken

propositions of the individual clauses [P] [Q],to the boss rudely.’

but not a conjoined [P & Q].

In this context, the interpretation of anadditional relation between the states of affairs

4. The Key Factor in Distinguishing Japanesedescribed in the clauses is necessary, in that it

Clausal Coordination Structures

is the accumulation of two bad behaviors that

We have seen above that there are twoleads to the boss’s (longer) lecture. However,Japanese proposition patterns that function as

the relation expressed by each -tari or -shiinferential processing units and that Japanese

structure of (13) does not fall within the scopeclausalof the comparative operator; given the natureclassified on the basis of them: one consistingof the embedding test above, these structuresof a conjoined [P & Q] and the individual [P]are unacceptable, since they are not understood[Q], for the adverbial form and -te structures,

as a conjoined proposition including an

and the other of only the individual [P] [Q], foradditional relation. In fact, the adverbial formthe -tari and -shi structures. Section 4

and -te structures, which exploit a conjoined

demonstrates that these patterns and this

proposition

classification are plausible.

[P &

Q]

as

an

inferential

processing unit, are acceptable when embedded
in a comparative, as shown in (14):coordinating

structures

can

be

The two patterns suggest that the key point
is whether or not a conjoined proposition [P &(14) Kaisha-ni

Q] functions as an inferential processing unit.

office-Dat

Consider the acceptability of each of the four-363-

structures in a context where a conjoined

Q] rather than the individual propositions [P]proposition plays a role as an inferential[Q] is used in the interpretation of (15), leading

processing unit:

to the prediction that only the adverbial form(15) A chiten-wa

yuki-gaand -te structures will be acceptable, since they

A point-Top snow-Nom

exploit a conjoined [P & Q]. This prediction is{a. toke,/ b. toke-te, }confirmed by the difference between themelt (adv. form)

melt-teacceptability of the adverbial form and -testructures in (15a, b) and the unacceptability of{c. *toke-tari, / d. ??toke-ta-shi,}melt-tarimelted-shi

the -tari and -shi structures in (15c, d). Thus,

B chiten-wa yuki-ga

the two proposition patterns discussed above

B point-Top snow-Nom

and the corresponding classification of the four{a. nokot-te-iru / b. nokot-te-iru}

structures are on the right track, and inferential

remainremainprocessing units are a factor in distinguishing{c. *nokot-te-i-tari suru / d. ?? nokot-te-iru}
remain-tari

doJapanese clausal coordination structures.

remainImportant

implications

emergefrom akara,

A chitenyori

comparison of clausal coordination between

becauseA point

than

English and Japanese in terms of inferential

ondo-wa

processing

B chiten-no

hō-ga

units.

Both

EnglishJapaneseclausalB point-Gen side-Nom temperature-Top

and-conjunctions

hikui.

coordinating structures can be represented withlow

the same logical structure, ‘P & Q.’ Thus, the‘The temperature at Point B is lower

same patterns of propositions should function

than that at Point A because the snow at

as inferential processing units, because both

Point A has melted away and the snow at

conjoined [P & Q] and individual [P] [Q]

Point B remains.’

follow from the truth-functional property of theandAssume that some children are discussing at

logical operator &. However, this idea is notwhich of the two points mentioned thecompatible with the analyses so far. Recall thattemperatureislower.

The

individual

English and-conjunctions exploit a conjoined

propositions

of

the

clausesin

each

proposition [P & Q] as well as the individual

structure―that the snow at Point A has melted

propositions of the clauses [P] [Q] as

away

B

inferential processing units; Japanese, on theremains―are parallel, in that the speaker isother hand, has the -tari and -shi structures,

straightforwardly describing what he or she

which exploit the individual [P] [Q] but not aobserves. However, the conclusion in the main

conjoined [P & Q]. This indicates that theclause, “The temperature at Point B is lower

assumption

than that at Point A,” cannot be logically

propositions function as inferential processing

derived from these propositions alone; tounitsachieve this conclusion, both observations

coordinatingneed to be focused on together and compared

does

from the viewpoint of how much snow remains.

coordination in natural languages might not beThis means that a conjoined proposition [P &explainable

and

that

the

snow

at

Point

-364-

in
not

that
the

the

same

patterns

comprehension
structures

hold
by

true.
a

of

of

clausalcross-linguistically
Therefore,

unitary

clausalaccount,andcross-linguistic

differencesininferential

processing units could be a key factor.
5. Concluding Remarks
The present paper proposed that Japaneseclausal coordination exploits two proposition
patterns as inferential processing units and thatthey are a factor in distinguishing various
structures: a conjoined proposition [P & Q] as
well as the propositions of the individual
clauses [P] [Q] for the adverbial form and -testructures, and only the individual [P] [Q] forthe -tari and -shi structures. The difference inpatterns between English and-conjunctions andthe corresponding Japanese structures may
yield helpful insights toward a full picture ofclausal coordination in natural languages. For
instance, are different patterns involved indifferent discourse functions? This will be myfuture work.
*

An earlier version of this paper was presented

at the ELSJ 6th International Spring Forum
held at the University of Tokyo on April 27,
2013. I would like to thank the audience at theforum for their comments and questions. Allremaining errors are my own.
References
Blakemore, Diane (1997) “Restatement andExemplification: A Relevance Theoretic
Reassessment of Elaboration,” Pragmatics
and Cognition 5(1), 1-19.
Blakemore, Diane and Robyn Carston (2005)“The Pragmatics of Sentential Coordination
with and,” Lingua 115, 569-589.
Carston, Robyn (2002) Thoughts andUtterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit
Communication, Blackwell, Oxford.
Mihara, Ken’ichi (2010) “Ren’yōkei no
Honshitsu (The Nature of Adverbial

Forms),” Nihongo, Nihon Bunka Kenkyu(Studies in Japanese Language and Culture)
20, 1-9.
Mihara, Ken’ichi (2011) “Te-Kei Setsu no Imi
Ruikei (The Semantic Classification of
te-Clauses),” Nihongo, Nihon Bunka Kenkyu(Studies in Japanese Language and Culture)
21, 1-12.
Moriyama, Takuro (1995) “Heiretsu Jutsugo
Kōbun Kō: tari, toka, ka, nari no Imi, Yōhōo Megutte (A Study of Paratactic
Constructions for Predicates: The Meanings
and Usage of tari, toka, ka, and nari),”
Fukubun no Kenkyū (Studies in Complex
Sentences) Book One, ed. by Yoshio Nitta,
127-149, Kuroshio Shuppan, Tokyo.
Nagatsuji, Miyuki (2012) “Nihongo no
Setsuzoku-Joshi shi ni Kōdokasareru Imi(The Meaning Encoded by Japanese
Conjunctive Suffix shi),” KLS 32, 206-217.
Nakamata,
Naoki(2009)
NihongoHeiretsu-Hyōgen no Taikei to Kijutsu (ASystematic Description of Paratactic
Expressions
inJapanese),
Doctoraldissertation, Osaka Prefecture University.
Nihongo Kijutsu Bunpō Kenkyūkai, ed. (2008)
Gendai Nihongo Bunpō 6: Fukubun (The
Grammar of Contemporary Japanese 6:
Complex Sentences), Kuroshio Shuppan,
Tokyo.
Ohori, Toshio (2004) “Coordination in
Mentalese,” Coordinating Constructions, ed.
by Martin Haspelmath, 41-66, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson (1995)
Relevance: Communication and Cognition
2nd ed., Blackwell, Oxford.
Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber (1993)“Linguistic Form and Relevance,” Lingua
90, 1-25.

-365-maximal entities given in a set as in (1a),which results in the uniqueness/maximality
presupposition required for (1b) and (1c).
(1) a. ι X = the largest member of X if there
is one (elese, undefined)b. the dogs = ι DOGS = the largest
plurality of dogsc. the dog = ι DOG = the only dog (ifthere is one)(Chierchia (1998: 346))
If such a presupposition is not satisfied, asentence with a definite is false. Bare plurals,in contrast, do not require this presupposition
and may allow singular reference as in (2).
(2) Does your office have windows?
(Sauerland et al. (2005))
Adult speakers accept (2) and may answer“Yes, one” (Sauerland (2003), Sauerland et al.
(2005), Spector (2007)). Singular reference iscontextually fixed as exemplified in thecontrast between (2) and (3):(3) #Does a dog have tails?
(2) and (3) differ in lexical choice whichchanges their acceptability: (3) is unnatural,
while (2) is fine. We know that dogs have
only one tail, which makes (3) infelicitous for
adults because adults compute an implicature.
There is an alternative: Does a dog have atail?1Children seem to misunderstand plurals.
They answer “yes” to the question (4b) in thecontext (4a) (Caponigro et al. (2012)), and to
the question (5) (Sauerland et al. (2005)).
(4) a. Cookie Monster loves cookies but notonions. Some cookies and onions areon the plate.
b. Does Cookie Monster like the things
on this plate?
(5) Does a dog have tails?
Modyanova and Wexler (2008) suggest thatchildren simply lack a notion of maximality.
However, we believe that the child's
determination of maximality is itself acomplex and not understood phenomenon. If
a maximality comprehension is incomplete,then we predict inconsistent yes/no answers.
Suppose a context where a man wants
vegetables and he buys two onions and one
potato. If we ask the question in (6a), it is not

Implicature for Plurals in Child Grammar
Terue Nakato-Miyashita and Tom Roeper
Kitasato University andUniversity of Massachusetts, Amherst
Keywords: acquisition of numberinterpretation, bare plurals, definite plurals,
DP, Phase

1. INTRODUCTION
Is there a definable interface that captures
the interaction of syntax and semantics? An
acquisition perspective provides a uniqueinsight into stages that make the two closelyintertwined systems visible.
We propose these two principles,
1. Economy Principle: acquisition follows
Economy of Representation (see PérezLeroux and Roeper (1999)), beginning withsimple structures.
2. Implicatures are computed locally on
structures, in contrast to global implicatures(Sauerland (to appear)). We argue thatMaximal Projections (MPs) are the locus of
implicatures because they are Phases whichmust be interpreted.
The claim has a consequence: implicatures
are not required nor necessarily computed
below the MP level, for instance the DP level.
This has a cross-linguistic dimension:
Languages that lack such MPs, if they have
only NPs for instance, then implicaturecomputation will not be required.
If acquisition proceeds through stages where
MPs are not yet acquired, then implicatures
will not be computed at those points. Thisapproach opposes claims that implicatures are
acquired all at once at a later stage.
In the semantics of English, interpretation ofdefinite plurals is semantically determined butthat of bare plurals is not. The definite thecan be defined as an operator associated with
the notion of maximality (Sharvy (1980), Link
(1983), Chierchia (1998)). The operator (ι) is
defined as a function which picks up the-366-clear that the answer is “no” because a pluralmust be represented at the DP node above
conjunction, revealed by Agreement: The man
and woman are here. Now if we add articles,
new DPs, below conjunctive DP (6b), theanswer is clearly “no.” (6c) is ambiguous
depending on whether the determiner thebracketed with onions ([the onions]) or both([the [onions and potatoes]).
(6) a. Did the man buy onions and potatoes?
b. Did the man buy the onions and thepotatoes?
c. Did the man buy the onions andpotatoes?
Our experiment is the first to address theseconjunctive readings for children and adults.
Our hypothesis is that (a) a child does notinitially compute an implicature for the
because (b) the child has not projected a DP
but only an NP. Economy of Representation
dictates the minimal structure until there isevidence of DP. In effect, the child assumes
Japanese until evidence of English is clear.
Nominals in UG have diverse functional
projections above NP. 2 If UG links
implicatures to MPs, then they must berecognized before implicatures apply. We
assume that implicature computation isuniversal, hence unlearned.
Therefore number interpretation is acquired
stepwise. Languages with only NP exist,
therefore, the child’s first projections arenominal, which are number neutral; languages
with non-maximal version of definitenessexist, therefore the definite does not require
maximality, that is, the child may not firstgrasp that the is definite. To have a full graspof plurals, children need a full representationof DP. If DP is a Phase, then it must be
interpreted. Thus specification of semantic
features on (in)definite determiners is needed
to enable children to compute implicatures bycomparing alternative forms. Therefore
interpreting plurals is difficult initially.
We further consider adult response to (7).
Imagine that John loves only one dog but
many cats. Most adults do not have a clear

grammaticality intuition about (7). It seems"unnecessary" to object to a buried singular ina situation referring to plural animals:(7) Is John a dog-lover/ a dog and cat-lover?
The incorporated noun is below the DP level
and therefore has no number interpretation.
We argue that the same logic holds for plural
nouns below DP under coordination, because
implicatures do not have to be computed
below the MP level of interpretation.
2.
ASSUMPTIONSON
ADULT
GRAMMAR
Chierchia (1998) argues that the semantics
associated with root nouns is parametrized : amass/kind semantics is a default value. Most
syntactic literature assumes that NP has
extended functional category (FC) projections
such as DP and NumP (Longobardi (2001),
Schmitt and Munn (2002), Munn and Schmitt(2005) among others). Another sharedassumption is that a projection associated withnumber is included in projections above NP,
such as NumP or φP (Sauerland (2003)
among others). Thus the semantics of number
morphology
anddeterminers,
and
implicatures have to be computed at the
projections above NP.
Given a layered structure, a question arises
with respect to where and how are numberinterpretations given. We suggest they should
coincide with Agreement at DP, not at a lower
NP. Thus for [D [NP and NP]], the NPs
become a plural at the DP level as in (8).
(8) [DP The [NP man] and [NP woman]] arehere.
It is natural that DP should be the level for
implicatures since the definite the also
imposes maximality. Then, This is consistent
with Chierchia’s view ( p.c.), that implicatures
should have local domains. We argue thatthey should fit Phase interpretation as well(though where Phases are remains debated).
Bare plurals have an invisible DP, though thechild may not see it at first.
Though still controversial, we assume,
following Sauerland (2003) and Spector-367-

begin with the non-maximality version ofdefiniteness (see Pagliarini et al. (2012)).
Our earlier work (Nakato-Miyashita (2011))
has shown that 3- to 6-year-olds fail to grasp
number-morphology if number is marked only
on nominals. Also, maximality andimplicatures have been argued to occur in the
5-to-7-year range(see Modyanova andWexler (2008), Caponigro et al. (2012),
Huang and Snedeker (2009)). Then, we
predict a) late recognition of pluralinterpretation, b) further delay for bare plurals,
and c) difficulty rejecting plurals for a
singular reference when there is a conflict
between context and syntax with conjoined
nominals, which holds for adults as well:(10) Children will not reject a plural for a
singular reference until (a) DP isrepresented with fully specified featuresand (b) implicatures are computed.

(2007), that plurals are semanticallyunmarked: Their denotation consists of all
atomic individuals and all non-atomic
individuals defined by summing these atomic
individuals. The interpretation of definite
plurals is unambiguously determined at DP
because the definite the semantically picks up
the individual which includes the maximal
entities. However, the interpretation of bareplurals is not semantically determined at thelevel of DP. Although they have a DPprojection, nothing semantically must pick up
one of the available choices. A pragmatic
implicature allows their interpreation to becontextually fixed. The atomic individuals
remain in the available choices, so singularreference is allowed. If we suppose that there
are three dogs in a given context, theinterpretations of the dogs and dogs areillustrated as in (9a) and (9b), respectively.
(9) a.!!!!DP = {a+b+c}Dthe

NP = {a, b, c, a+b, b+c, a+c, a+b+c}
dogs!!!b.!

!DP = {a, b, c, a+b, b+c, a+c, a+b+c}
D

1st stage: Grammar without “DP”: Number NeutralChildren can reject singular reference
for neither definite nor bare plurals
2nd stage: Grammar with non-maximal version ofdefinitenessChildren can reject singular reference
for neither definite nor bare plurals
3rd stage: Grammar with DP and maximal version ofdefiniteness, but without implicatures
Children can reject singular reference
for definite plurals but not for bare plurals
4th stage: Grammar with DP, maximal version of definiteness,and implicatures
Children can reject singular reference
for both definite and bare plurals,
but cannot do so when two NPs are conjoined
below DP level just as adults

NP = {a, b, c, a+b, b+c, a+c, a+b+c}
dogs

3. A HYPOTHESIS ABOUT CHILD
GRAMMAR AND OUR PREDICTIONS
A grammar with a minimal representation,
under Economy of Representation, makes
early English like Japanese, where number is
not marked on nominal heads and they are
number neutral: English children could passthrough a Japanese stage, but not the reverse. 3
Starting from the grammar without “DP,”English-learning children have to project FCs
above NP, based on recognition of the. Even
they have DP, they still have to associate theuniqueness/maximality presupposition with it.
That is, they have to fix semantic features thatforce pragmatic interpretation. Here again,
UG offers variations. When the definite
determiner is used with plural nouns,
maximality is required in English but not inSalish. 4 Therefore we argue that children

18!

31!

If implicatures are generated locally and MPs
vary in UG, then a child who determines thecontent of determiners also must determine
where implicatures will be computed.
4. EXPERIMENT 1
We conducted two TVJT experiments. The
first one was conducted with 50 6-to-8-yearolds, employing an indefinite singular, a bareplural or a definite plural ((11)).
(11) Picture 1: A girl is looking at two dolls.
Instruction: This is Suzi. She is looking
at dolls that she likes.
Picture 2: The girl is holding one of thetwo dolls.

-368-

Test Sentence: Did Suzi take {a doll / dolls /the dolls}?

reference for definite plurals above chancelevel (38.2% of acceptance means 61.8% ofrejection) but still did not reject bare plurals
so often (50%).
5. EXPERIMENT 2
31 6-to-8-year-olds were given pictures anda question with conjoined bare plurals or
conjoined plurals with a definite determiner:(12) Instruction 1 (for Picture 1) :John likes only green peppers and any
kind of onions. Suzi likes any kind ofvegetables but not meat.
Instruction 2 (for Picture 2):
Mom went shopping and got one green
pepper, onions, but not meat.

Picture 1
Picture 2
The adult responses are “yes” for indefinite
singulars and “no” for bare and definite
plurals.5 We predict that younger children will
have difficulty rejecting singular reference forboth bare and definite plurals. The rejection
rates goes up as children get older but
difference is expected between bare anddefinite plurals: It is easier for children to
reject singular reference for definite plurals
Subjects:-50!6RtoR8!year!old!children!
than for bare plurals.
! ! !Each!14!6RyearRolds,!17!7RyearRolds,!19!8RyearRolds!
condition had two items, so the target
Number-of-Target-Items:!two!for!each!condi7on,!six!in!total!
items were six in total.6 See results in Table 1.
Table 1: Percentages of YES-Responses
Results:-Percentage-of-YES9responses-!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

100!

100!100!100!

92.9!

92.9!

90!

Picture 1
Picture 2
Test Sentences:i. Suzi said, “Oh good, you got peppers
and onions but not meat!” Is that right?
ii. John said, “Oh good, you got thepeppers and onions!” Is that right?
The context makes one green pepper andsome onions salient. Suppose that the motherbought one green pepper and two onions.
With two conjoined bare plurals, theimplicature is computed at the DP. Bare
plurals allow singular reference, and “yes”
responses would be permissible. No conflict
between semantics and pragmatics arises
because the set with one green pepper and two
onions is in the result of semantic
computation (see (13a)). Even when two bareplurals are given the projection NP, the same
argument holds (see (13b)).
(13) aDP = {p+o1, p+o2, p+o1+o2 }

80!
70!
60!

50! 50!

50!

50!
38.2!

40!

6RyearRolds!
7RyearRolds!
8RyearRolds!

30!
20!
10!
0!
singular!

bare!plural! deﬁnite!plural!

What stands out here is the 38% acceptance,or 62% rejection of the plural only among the
8-year-olds (N=19). The youngest group ofchildren (14 6-year-olds) did not distinguishamong indefinite singulars, bare plurals, anddefinite plurals. They accept singularreference for all of them (100% for indefinite
singulars, 92.9% for bare and definite plurals).
The 7-year-old children (N=17) started tomake a distinction between singular andplural, but still they could not find thedifference between bare and definite plurals.
The acceptance rates for bare and definite
plurals reached around the chance-level (50%for both). Around 8 years old, they begin togive different interpretations to bare anddefinite plurals. They could reject singular{p} = DP and DP = {o1, o2, o1+o2}
peppers
onionsb
DP = {p+o1, p+o2, p+o1+o2 }{p} = NP and NP = {o1, o2, o1+o2}
pepperonions-369-

With two conjoined plurals and one preceding
definite determiner, the interpretation of DP
can be ambiguous depending on the syntactic
bracketing:the can be attached to the
conjoined two NPs as in (14a) or to the firstplural, peppers, as in (14b).
(14) aDP = {p+o1+o2}

D
NP = {p+o1, p+o2, p+o1+o2}
the{p} = NP and NP = {o1, o2, o1+o2}
peppers
onionsb
DP = {p+o1, p+o2, p+o1+o2}{p} = DPandD {p} = NPthepeppers

DP = {o1, o2, o1+o2}
onions!!

The semantic rule makes the DP refer to the
maximal entity. If peppers and onions refer tothe maximal “peppers” and “onions” in the
picture, there is a conflict between thedescription and context: there are no multiple
peppers for the definite plural and hence (14b)is ruled out. To make the given description
and context match, adults are forced to assign
the structure (14a) and compute an
implicature below the determiner, namely NP.
This is not an appropriate projection tocompute an implicature. This results inunsureness about correct responses because
either grammar is violated or the answer fails
to be completely correct. The grammar does
not require this computation. Only if extra
situational requirements are present, making
the singular-plural difference salient, would aspeaker be forced to give such an answer. If
someone said “get two potatoes and two
onions”, then obviously the requirement
would be honored.
Each condition had two items, so the target
items were four in total. The children weredivided into two groups depending on their
response patterns in Experiment 1: those who
tended to accept singular reference of plurals
and those who could deny it. Most of the 6and 7-year-olds gave “yes” responses to theplural items, and so the children who could
say “no” to one of the four plural items wereclassified as No-group. The 8-year-olds wereclassified in the same way, but most of Nogroup children were able to say “no” to theplurals. Y(es)-Group had 3 6-year-olds, 6 7year-olds, and 3 8-year-olds; N(o)-Group had
2 6-year-olds, 9 7-year-olds, and 8 8-year-olds.
24 adults also participated. Results are in
Table 2.
Table 2: Percentages of YES-Responses
Results:-Percentage-of-YES9responses!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

100!

100!

96.3!

94.5!

89!

90!
80!

75!
66.7!

70!
60!

7RyearRold!YRGroup!

50!

50!

6RyearRold!YRGroup!

43.1!

8RyearRold!YRGroup!
6RyearRold!NRGroup!

40!

7RyearRold!NRGroup!

30!

8RyearRold!NRGroup!
Adults!

20!
10!
0!
bare!plural!

deﬁnite!plural!

As expected, it seems hard for the children to
reject a singular reference even if they make asingular-plural distinction in the firstexperiment. The acceptance rates for singularreference remained near 100% level in the YGroup children at all age and in the N-Groupchildren at 6 and 7 years old. Only the 8year-old N-Group children made a distinction
between definite and bare plurals. The
acceptance rate was lower for the definite
plural items (66.7%) than the bare plural
items (75%), which suggests that the children
were aware of the impact of the for conjoined
plurals. The acceptance rates for adults werealso lower for the definite plural items(43.1%) than the bare plural items (50%).
They remain still around at a chance-level,
which suggests that adults resist computing
implicatures below the DP.
6. IMPLICATURE BELOW THE DP
If implicatures are not computed below the
DP level, then it follows immediately thatthey should not compute them below the NP
level.
In our follow-up study, adult-native
speakers (24 undergraduate students) were-370-

asked to answer the following three items.
The first one involved nominal incorporationin compounds:(15) John loves only one dog, not others. Billloves all dogs. Tom loves cocker spaniels.
Fred loves cats. Circle the dog-lovers.
Among the three choices, the choice of John
indicates the acceptance of singular referenceof the noun (dog) inside the compound (doglovers). The response pattern is summarizedin Table 3.
Table 3: Number of Adults for Each
Response Pattern
1 tokenall
1 type(=John)(=Bill)(=Tom)
16
○
○
○
6
○
○
○

(17) a. Picture:

Instruction: John went to a farm and saw
some animals. Here is what he saw.
b. Did John see {the horses and the cows /horses and cows}?
The acceptance rates are shown in Table 4:Table
4: Percentages of YES-Responses
Results:-Percentage-of-YES9responses80%!
70%!
60%!
50%!
40%!
30%!

67%!

58%!

20%!

2

10%!

TOTAL
24
Adults who accepted three separate
interpretations with compounds are highest (N= 16), though some are strictly number
sensitive.
The second and third items have two
conjoined definite plurals and two conjoinedbare plurals (16). These items differ fromthose in Experiment 2 both contextually andsyntactically.
(16) a. Picture:
Patrick
Jennie

17%!

17%!

0%!
THE!NPs&THE!NPs!

DPs&DPs!

THE!NPs&THE!NPs!

DPs&DPs!

Acceptance was 17% for the definite plurals,
but 58% and 67% for the bare plurals,
supporting our theory.
7. DISCUSSION
Our experimental results provide strong
evidence that children do not compute
implicatures when DP is not fully represented.
We have shown that NPs under conjunction,
where the DP is not necessary, does allow noimplicature to be generated, for children, evenwhen they have passed the stage where they
do generate implicatures for bare plurals. In asense, adults, where conjunctions are involved(perhaps on the fringe of grammar), are thesame as children in evading implicatures.
Our evidence provides unique support forthe claim: Implicature computation is directly
linked not only to higher syntactic categories,
but to categories which vary parametricallycross-linguistically. This in turn provides
evidence for the claim that the syntaxsemantics-pragmatics interface is UGdetermined and not a result of purely
cognitive factors.

Instruction: Jennie and Patrick went to amountain separately and caught some
insects. Here is what they caught.
b. Did Jennie catch {the butterflies and thedragonflies / butterflies and dragonflies}?
The picture shows that they each caught one
butterfly and one dragonfly. As in (16b), one
item has two definite determiners, so they are
DPs.
Thus
plurality/maximalityissemantically required to interpret eachdefinite plural, which is not satisfied in the
picture. The other item has only one person
(17):

-371-

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

However, there is a complication here. If thesubject referred to an unknown animal, we
might ask the question, “Does X have tails?”,
unless the concept of “tail” is limited to one.
2
See Matthewson et al. (2006) for anargument that English children start out as
Salish where determiners have definitenessbut not maximality.
3	
  Children provide a bound reading for bare
NP's home and block that reading for
explicitly DP level cases (his home). Thus
children go through a stage only with NP, not
DP where nominals are uniformly given a
mass/kind semantics.
4
Children use the for a unique reference by 3year-olds. However, the with a singular noun
still does not guarantee DP. As de Villers andRoeper (1995) observes, there is no DP
barrier initially and children seem to generate
the as Spec-NP.
5
With respect to permissible responses forbare plural items, individual difference isobserved, because it potentially allows
singular reference.
6
Because younger children were expected togive “yes”-responses for many target items,
four filler items were also used in order tomake sure that children were able to say “no.”Longobari, G. (2001) “The Structure of DPs:
Some
Principles,
Parameters,
andProblems,”
The
HandbookofContemporary Syntactic Theory, ed. by
M. Baltin and C. Collins, 562-603,
Blackwell, Malden/Oxford.
Modyanova, N. and K. Wexler (2008)“Maximal Trouble in Free Relatives,”
BUCLD 32, 287-298.
Munn, A. and C. Schmitt (2005) “Number
and Indefinites,” Lingua 115, 821-855.
Nakato-Miyashita, T. (2011) “What Do
Singular Indefinites Mean in Child
English?” Linguistic Research 27, 127140, The University of Tokyo English
Linguistics Association.
Pagliarini, E., G. Fiorin, and J. Dotlač (2012)“The Acquisition of Distributivity in
Pluralities,” BUCLD 36, 387-399.
Pérez-Leroux, Ana Teresa and Thomas
Roeper (1999) “Scope and the Structure ofBare Nominals: Evidence from Child
Language,” Linguistics 37, 927-960.
Sauerland, U. (2003) “A New Semantics for
Number,” in R. Young and Y. Zhou (eds.),
Proceedings
of
SALT
13,
CLC
Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca,
NY.
Sauerland, U. (to appear) “On Embedded
Implicatures,” to appear in Journal of
Cognitive Science 5-1.
Sauerland U., J. Andersen, and K. Yatsushiro(2005) “The Plural is Semantically
Unmarked,” in S. Kepser and M. Reis
(eds.), Linguistic Evidence, Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin.
Spector, B. (2007) “Aspects of the Pragmatics
of Plural Morphology: On Higher-Order
Implicatures,”
Presupposition
andImplicature in Compositional Semantics,
ed. by U. Sauerland and P. Stateva, 243281, Palgrave MacMillan, Hampshire/NewYork.
de Villiers J. G. and T. Roeper (1995)“Barriers, Binding and Acquisition of the
DP/NP Distinction,” Language Acquisition
4, 73-104.

1

SELECTED REFERENCES
Caponigro, I., L. Pearl, N. Brooks, and D.
Barner (2012) “Acquiring the Meaning ofFree Relative Clauses and Plural Definite
Descriptions,” Journal of Semantics 29,
261-293.
Chierchia, G. (1998) “Reference to Kinds
across Languages,” Natural Language
Semantics 6, 339-405.
Huang, Y. and J. Snedeker (2009) “Semantic
Meaning and Pragmatic Interpretation in 5Year-Olds: Evidence from Real-Time
SpokenLanguageComprehension,”
Developmental Psychology 45, 1723-1739.
Link, G. (1983) “The Logical Analysis of
Plural and Mass Terms: A Latticetheoretical Approach,” in R. Bäuerle, C.
Schwarze, and A. von Stechow (eds.),
Meaning, Use and Interpretation of
Language, 302-323, de Gruyter, Berlin.

-372-

A Functional and Pragmatic
Approach to NQ-Scramblingin Japanese
Eiki Ôno
Takushoku University
Keywords: NQ-scrambling, Japanese,
focus, pragmatics

1.

“NQ-scrambling.” This paper focuses on
the latter pattern, NQ-Scrambling, as amain topic, and considers under what
conditions NQ-scrambling can be usedeffectively from a functional/pragmatic
perspective.
2.

A Previous Analysis:
Ishii’s (1999) Semantic Approach

Miyagawa (1989) provides a syntactic
analysis of NQ-scrambling by means of themutual c-command requirement and thetrace theory:

Introduction(3) a.

In Japanese, nouns can form numeral
NPs with NQs (i.e. numeral quantifiers)
marked by the genitive particle no, as givenin (1):‘Taro bought three books.’
NQs can also be postposed or preposed outof their associated NPs, as given in (2a, b):(2) a.
b.

Taroo-ga [NP hon-o] sansatu katta.
Sansatu Taroo-ga [NP hon-o]katta.

In (2a, b), although the NQ sansatu ‘three’is put outside of the bracketed NP, it still
modifies its host NP hon ‘book’. Thislinguistic phenomenon is generally called“quantifier floating,” and the fronted
operation like (2b) is especially calledkodomo-ga kozutumi-o2-CL child-Nom

packages-Acc

okutta.
sentb.

(1) Taroo-ga [NP sansatu-no hon-o]Taro-Nom three-Gen
book-Acc
katta.
bought2-tu,‘The child sent two packages.’(Miyagawa 1989: 50)
2-tui, kodomo-ga [VP kozutumi-oti okutta].

It is shown in (3b) that the NQ 2-tu ‘two’
originally generates in the VP, and then it
moves to the sentence-initial position by
scrambling, leaving its trace behind. This
trace and its host NP kozutumi ‘package’are mutually c-commanded; hence, thescrambled NQ can be interpreted as themodifier of the NP (see Miyagawa (1989)
for further details of his syntactic analysis).
Contrary to this syntactic view, Ishii(1999) considers that all NQs which
precede their associated NPs arequantificational adverbs in the sense of
Dowty and Brodie (1984) and Sportiche(1988), which are totally different from the
movement/scrambling type of NQs that-373-Miyagawa discusses. According to Ishii’sview, this adverb type of quantifiers arebase-generated at the sentence/clause initial
position; therefore, they are irrelevant tothe syntactic restriction of the mutual
c-command requirement. Instead, theymust obey the semantic restriction of
having only a multiple-event reading. In
other words, this semantic restriction
stipulates
that
theNQ-scrambling
constructionisallowedwithamultiple-event interpretation, not with asingle-event interpretation. The following
examples are taken from Ishii (1999:
252-253):(4) Multiple-event readings:
a. Zenbu-de hutatu
in totalb.

two

Taroo-ga

aketa.

window-Acc

opened

since

kinsi

swimming ban

fivekuiki-ozone-Acc

gakusei-ga

oyoida.

student-Nom

swam

nasitestudent-Nom group-Acc forming
yattekita.
came over‘20 students came over to myoffice in a group.’
The examples above are all NQ-scrambling
sentences, but the acceptability differs
between (4) and (5). Ishii considers that
this difference is caused from event
plurality, and concludes that NQscrambling sentences are limited to a
multiple-event reading.1
Counterexamples

To Ishii’s (1999) semantic analysis
above, many counterexamples can befound.
For instance, the following
NQ-scrambling sentences are perfectly
acceptable despite having only asingle-event reading:(6) a.

‘Five students have swum in the
No Swimming zone since thismorning.’

Sansatu matomete Hanako-ga
threecollectively Hanako-Nomryoori-no hon-ocooking(5) Single-event readings:
a. ?*Yonko Jiroo-ga onigiri-ofour

office-to

gakusei-ga totoo-o3.

‘Taro has opened two windows in
total.’
Kesa
kara go-nin
yuuei

twentyTaro-Nom

mado-othis morningb.

‘Jiro microwaved four riceballs at once.’?*Nizyuu-nin ofisu-nib.

Jiro-Nom rice ball-Acc

katta.

book-Acc bought‘Hanako bought three (ibid.:252)
cooking
books collectively.’
San-nin tikara-o awasete
threewith united efforts

itido-ni

densi-renze-ni

gakusei-ga piano-omotiageta.

all at once

microwave-to

student-Nom piano-Acc lifted‘Three students lifted a piano
together.’kaketa.
put

-374-

c.

Zenbu-de hyakusatu Taroo-ga
in totalhundredTaro-Nom

kyookasho-o chuumonsita.
textbook-Acc

d.

and a clause-initial position:(7) a.

orderedpreverbal‘Taro ordered one hundred
textbooks in total.’
Nidai doojini
basu-gatwo

Taroo-ga hon-o sansatu katta.

at the same time

bus-Nomyattekita.
came‘Two buses came at the sametime.’All of the NQ-scrambling sentences in(6a-d) have a single-event reading only;
they cannot have a multiple-event reading,owing to the expressions of matomete‘collectively’, tikara-o awasete ‘with unitedefforts’, zenbu-de ‘in total’ and doojini ‘atthe same time’. As evidenced by theseexamples, it is obvious that theacceptability of NQ-scrambling has
nothing to do with the semantic notion of
event plurality.

b.

Sansatu Taroo-ga hon-o katta.
clause-initial(=2b)

As shown in (7a, b), a floating NQ can
appear in a preverbal or clause-initial
position, and there it functions as a focus
element.
This functional analysis can explain
why Ishii’s examples in (5a, b) are notacceptable. The reason is that there are
separately two focus elements in one
sentence: yonko ‘four’ and itido-ni ‘all at
once’ in (5a); nizyuu-nin ‘twenty (people)’and totoo-o nasite ‘in a group’ in (5b). If
these two focus elements are put adjacently
and are uttered together, they can beunderstood just as one unit, and theunacceptability in (5a, b) greatly improves:(8) a.

Yonko itido-ni
four

4.

(=2a)

all at once Jiro-Nom

onigiri-o

An Alternative from Functional andPragmatic Perspective

Jiroo-gadensi-renze-ni

rice ball-Acc microwave-to

kaketa.
4.1

A Functional Analysis

putTakami (1998) shows that quantifier
floating in Japanese can be captured
appropriately by the functional notion of
information structure. In this analysis, it
is considered that a floating NQ conveys
the most important information (or newest
information), and thus the positions where
a floating NQ occurs are compatible withtwo positions which are normally occupied
by a focus element: a preverbal positionb.

‘Jiro microwaved four rice balls at
once.’(cf. 5a)Nizyuu-nin totoo-o nasite
twentygroup-Acc forming

ofisu-nigakusei-ga yattekita.

office-to

student-Nom came over

‘20 students came over to myoffice in a group.’(cf. 5b)

-375-

4.2

A Pragmatic Analysis

In what follows, on the basis that
Takami’s (1998) functional proposal is on
the right track, I would like to show thatthe analysis of NQ-scrambling can befurther developed from a pragmatic
perspective.
Although the NQ in a clause-initial
position has an informational focus incommon with the one in a preverbal
position, the usage of the former issomewhat more limited. For instance, thequantifier-floating sentences in (2a, b)
seem to be both acceptable, but in (2b) the
fronted NQ sansatu sounds just slightly
awkward at a simple-sentence level. Thisis because the NQ sansatu ‘three’ is utteredout of the blue; the hearer has difficulty inanticipating what the number is related to(before the associated NP hon ‘book’ isuttered).
In what case can we use NQ-scrambling
sentences? I would like to claim here that
NQ-scrambling is a discourse-based
phenomenon. To ascertain this point, let
us consider the following dialogue:(9) A: Kinoo

Hanako-wa hon-oYesterday Hanako-Top

nansatuhon-o

In (10B), it is not difficult to understandfrom the previous utterance in (10A) thatthe fronted NQ gonin refers to the people
who buy souvenirs (i.e. tourists). As canbe observed above, NQ-scrambling is alinguisitic phenomenon which is triggeredby pragmatic factors.
5.

Conclusion

Q‘How many books did Hanako
buy yesterday?’
B: Tasika sansatu, Hanako-wa
probably three(10) A: Konna miyage, urerundesu ka?
such souvenir can be sold Q‘Can such a souvenir be sold?’
B: Ee,
kinoo-mogonin
yes, yesterday-also fivekankookyaku-ga
tourists-Nom
katteikimasitayo.
bought‘Yes, (already) five tourists bought
it yesterday.’book-Acc

kaimasita ka?

how many bought

In (9B), the preposed NQ sansatu does notgive the impression of abruptness because
the content of sansatu can be easily
inferred from the previous sentence in (9A).
Also, moving the NQ to the sentence-initial
position enables Speaker B to answer
Speaker A’s question as early as possible.
Furthermore, observe the following
dialogue:

Hanako-Top

kaimasita.

book-Acc bought‘Hanako probably bought threebooks.’

This paper has discussed NQscrambling in Japanese. Ishii (1999) argues
that the NQ-scrambling sentences have toobey the semantic restriction of having a
multiple-event reading; but it has been
made clear with counterexamples that thisargument cannot hold.
Then, I haveclaimed that NQ-scrambling is a-376-

discourse-based phenomenon, and haveshown that preposing an NQ is triggered bypragmatic context.

Notes
1.

Examples (5a, b) do not have amultiple-event reading because theadverbs itido-ni ‘all at once’ andtotoo-o nasite ‘in a group’ force asingle-event reading.
References

Dowty, David and Belinda Brodie (1984)“The Semantics of ‘Floated’
Quantifiers in a Transformationless
Grammar.” Proceedings of the 3rdWest Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics 3 (WCCFL 3), 75-90.
Stanford, CA: Stanford Linguistics
Association.
Ishii, Yasuo (1999) “A Note on Floating
Quantifiers in Japanese.” In M.
Muraki and E. Iwamoto (eds.)
Linguistics: In Search of the Human
Mind, 236-267. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (1989) Structure andcase marking in Japanese. New
York: Academic Press.
Sportiche, Dominique (1988) “A Theory of
Floating
Quantifiers
andIts
Corollaries for Constituent Structure.”
Linguisitic Inquiry 19: 425-449.
Takami, Ken-ichi (1998) “Nihongo-no
Suuryooshi-Yuuri-ni
Tuite
[On
Quantifier Float in Japanese].”Gengo 27:1, 86-95; 27:2, 86-95; 27:3,
98-107. Tokyo: Taishukan.

-377-

already transferred, the CP’s operations
cannot be applied onto the elements in the
VP.

The ban on access to alreadytransferred elements is called “the Phase
On a WeakWeak-Phases Paradox*
ParadoxImpenetrability Condition (PIC).”(2) Phase Impenetrability Condition

Tomonori Otsuka[CP-Ph …X… [v*P-Ph v*…[v*P-domain Y]…]]

Graduate School of Kyushu University
Transferred Domain
Keywords: Feature-Inheritance, Raising
to Object, Transfer, Weak-Phases,

1. 2. Chomsky’s (2008) Framework
What are remarkable in Chomsky’s(2008) framework are the concepts of

1. INTRODUCTION

Feature-Inheritance(F-I)

1.1. Back Ground: Phase Theory

taneous movements.

In this subsection, I

In the recent Minimalist Program,andsimul-

will outline them sequentially.

what is worth noting is the introduction ofFirstly, let us take a brief look at

a concept of phases. A phase is argued to

Feature-Inheritance.

represent a proposition. After theoretical

Program, the set of syntactic operations inand empirical discussions, now it is agreed

a phase is assumed to be triggered bythat v*Ps and CPs are phases.

u(ninterpretable)-features on the head of

A v*P

In the Minimalist

represents a theta role related proposition

the phase.

and a CP, discourse force information, e.g.

has an Edge Feature (EF), which moves

declarative, interrogative and so forth.

discourse force related elements to theThus, in phase theory, a sentence like Who

spec of the phase, and an Agree Feature

did John hit? consists of two propositions:(AF), which agrees with a DP, realized as

namely, “John hits somebody (v*P),” andan inflection.

“Who is the person? (CP),” as shown in (1)the head of the complement of the phase(In what follows, Ph stands for Phase).

before starting to probe down.

In particular, a phase head

The AF is transmitted toThis(1) [CP-Ph Whoi did Johnj [v*P-Ph tj hit ti]]?

system is called F-I. Thus, an AF on C is

In addition, phases are assumed to betransmitted to T, and an AF on v* is

not only chunks of meanings but also unitstransmitted to V.
(3) Feature-Inheritanceof syntactic operations. Therefore, in (1),[CP C{EF,when the v*P is formed, the set of the} [TP T{AF}…]]

syntactic operations of the v*P phase aretriggered at once and then the domain of[v*P v*{EF, } [VP V{AF}…]]the v*P (namely the VP) is transferred.
After the transfer, the set of operations ofSecondly, let us move to simultaneous

the CP is subsequently triggered. Since

movements.

the domain of the v*P (namely the VP) istransmitted

-378-

to

After

the

AFs

are

the

heads

of

the

complements of the phase heads as isJohn is extracted from within the domainshown in (3), the EFs and the AFs searchof the w-phase vP.

their domains simultaneously, and theon the assumption that the relevanttargeted elements move to the respective

domainspec positions simultaneously.

w-phases do not trigger transfer.

The C

is

Since the PIC is basedtransferred,

this

impliesIt

holds a relation with the wh-element inshould be noted that John’s movement via

terms of the EF, and the T, in terms of theSpec-vP is prohibited because this isAF.

Improper Movement.

Similarly, the v* has a relation withthe wh-element in terms of the EF, andthe V, in terms of the AF.

Second, w-phases seem to possess
u-features.

(4) Simultaneous Movementsa.

(6) a. [At which of the parties that hei
invited Maryj to]k was every mani

[CP C{EF} [TP T{AF} [v*P wh …]]]

tk′ introduced to herj tk ?
[v*P v*{EF} [VP V{AF} wh]]b.*[At which of the parties that hei
invited Maryj to]k was shej tk′b.

introduced to every mani tk ?

[CP wh [C´ C [TP wh [T´ T [v*P wh…]]]]]

(Legate (2003: 2))[v*P wh [v*´ v* [VP wh [V´ V wh]]]](7)

Les chaises

ont

été

the chairs.fem.pl have.pl. been
repaintées.
1.3. A Weak-Phases Paradox

repainted.fem.pl

In this subsection, the main problem‘The chairs were repainted.’of this paper, namely, a weak-phases(Boeckx (2008: 33))

paradox is presented. Chomsky’s (2008)

In (6), Mary cannot be c-commanded

analysis outlined in 1.2. is mainly about

by her, and he has to be c-commanded bys(trong)-phases.

every man.

However,

Chomsky

In (6b), the c-command(2001) argues that there exists anotherrelation is not gained at the position

type of phases; w(eak)-phases, which are

represented as tk′, but is held in (6a),the topic of this paper.

which differentiates the grammaticalities

W-phases

have

two

interestingof the sentences.

characteristics noted below.

First, thethat v has to have an EF to attract the

PIC does not hold in w-phases, as is shown

relevant element. On the other hand, inin (5).

(7), agreement appears in the vP, meaning(5) John was hit.

that vPs possess AFs.

[CP-S-Ph John…was…[vP-W-Ph twas hit t ]]Concerning

u-features,Richards(2007) argues that u-features have to beokcf. [CP-S-Ph John…was…[vP-W-Ph t twas hit t]]Thus, (6a) indicatestransferred exactly when they are checked.
Otherwise, because after they are checked*(orImproper Movement
Example (5) is grammatical, although

valued),u-features

cannotbedistinguished from interpretable ones,-379-

u-features are sent to the interfaces

2.2. The Derivation of vPs under F-T

improperly, causing the derivation to
crash.

Thus, transfer cannot be triggered

after checking.

Based on the proposal of F-T, thederivation of a passive sentence, Who was

Since the derivation

hit? is shown in (9).

would crash if u-features were transferred(9) Who was hit?

before checking, feature-checking anda. [vP v

transfer have to occur simultaneously.

{

Given

this

simultaneity

problem,ifthefeaturesoccursin, }b. [CP C

w-phases possess u-features and checkingof[VP V who]]{EF, AF}w-phases,c. [CP C

w-phases must trigger transfer.

{

d. [CP C(5) indicates that the transfer cannot be[VP V who]]]], }[TP T [vP v{EF, AF}As has already been noted, example[VP V who]]]]{EF, AF}[TP T [vP v

F-T[VP V who]]]]{EF, } {AF} {EF, } {AF}F-Ie. [CP who [C´ C [TP t [T´ T [vP t [v´ v [VP ttriggered in w-phases whereas examples(6) and (7) imply that the transfer mustoccur in w-phases.

[TP T [vP v{EF, }{AF}[V´ V t]]]]]]]]

Here, we face aw-phases paradox, the main topic of this{EF, }

Simultaneous{AF}

Movements

f. [CP who [C´ C [TP t [T´ T [vP t [v´ v [VP tpaper.

[V´ V t]]]]]]]]

Transfer

2. PROPOSAL

In

2.1. Feature-Transcription

originally does not possess u-features as

In

order

to

solve

the

paradoxthisderivation,

shown in (9a).

thew-phasevPWhen a CP is formed as

described in 1.3., this paper proposes an

can be seen in (9b), an s-phase head C

operation of Feature-Transcription (F-T),

transmits its u-features onto the v via F-T

which is an extension of F-I.

as is seen in (9c).

F-T is F-I

As (9d) indicates, after

from an s-phase head onto a w-phase head.

theThus, in this framework, there is nonamely the C and the v, transmits its AF

distinction of “s-phases” or “w-phases,” butonto the head of its complement by normal

rather we have “phases with or without

F-I.

u-features” (although the expressions of s-/

probe down to find a wh-DP in theirw-phasesc-command domain.

are

used

below

for

an

explanatory purpose).

head,

Finally, all of the relevant features
Then the wh-DP{

That is, the EFs on the C and the v attract
the wh-DP in terms of the wh-feature on it,, }[Comp …]]]]]and the AFs on the T and the V attract it

b. [S-Ph HeadS-Ph [Comp [[W-Ph HeadW-Ph[Comp …]]]]]

phase

these operations occur simultaneously.

a. [S-Ph HeadS-Ph [Comp [[W-Ph HeadW-Ph{EF, AF}each

moves to their spec positions. Note that

(8) Feature-Transcription{EF, AF}transcription,in terms of the φ-feature at once.

{EF, AF}As aresult, multiple copies of the wh-DP
appear in Spec-CP, Spec-TP, Spec-vP, andSpec-VP.

-380-

This is shown in (9e).

As a consequence of this derivation,

receive the Accusative case in (10a). In

the EF on the v guarantees an A-bar copy

phase theory, direct movements out of CPs

on Spec-vP, explaining (6) above. The AF

should be prohibited by the PIC as ison the V also ensures the presence ofindicated in (11a). On the other hand, aInflections on V in passive sentences,

successive movement of Yuki via Spec-CP

accounting for (7) above.

Finally, the C

is assumed to be Improper Movement andtransfers the TP including the vP as isshould also be banned as is shown in (11b).

shown in (9f) and thus, the v does not(11) a. [v*P-Ph…DP…[CP-Ph C [TP T[…t…]]

trigger transfer, which enables us to]]*deduce that the PIC does not hold in vPs.
Therefore,

in

this

framework,

PIC violationb. [v*P-Ph…DP…[CP-Ph C [TP T[…t…]]

thew-phases paradox is readily resolved.

]]*
Improper Movement

3. PROBLEMS
3.1.

On

Therefore,

the

Case

Manifestation

thequestion

is

how

the

of

grammatical example (10a) is generated.

Japanese Raising-to-Object Constructions

In the next section, I outline two types of

In Japanese, A-movements out of CPs

previous analyses and point out problems

are widely accepted. In this section, it isthey face.

demonstrated that the case conversion inso called Raising-to-Object constructions

3.2. Previous Analyses

in Japanese can be captured in theframework

of

F-T.

The

relevant

constructions are shown below.
(10) a. Taroo-wa Yuki-o

In order to deal with the problem
concerning
possibilities.

[baka(10a),

there

are

two

One is to assume therelevant CP to be a non-phase.

The other

Taro-Top Yuki-Acc [stupid

possibility is to analyze the successivedaomot-teiru.

movements as non-Improper Movement.

COP COMP] think-Prog

Two analyses pursuing the possibilities‘Taro thinks that Yuki is stupid.’

are investigated in the following two

to]b. Taroo-wa [Yuki-ga

baka

subsections.

Taroo-Top [Yuki-Nom stupiddato]omot-teiru

COP

COMP think-Prog

3.2.1. A CP as a Non-Phase
Takano (2009) argues that what are‘Taro thinks that Yuki is stupid.’(Takeuchi (2010: 101))

called Object Control Constructions inJapanese involve a non-phase CP.

As

Note that in (10a), Yuki is assigned the

Ohtaka (2012: 167) points out, “Takahashi

Accusative(2012) suggests that abstractly the same

case,

while

in

(10b)

the

holds for a raising-to-object construction.”assigned case is Nominative.
What is interesting and complicatedThus, in their approach, Raising-to-Object

here is that under general assumptions,constructions are argued to involve a

Yuki is considered to move out of the CP to

non-phase CP.

-381-

However, a clear problem in thissince the C is not transferred at the CP

approach occurs concerning how (10b) isphase level and the AF is a u-feature,

Since Yuki receives theRichard’s (2007) simultaneity problem

generated.

Nominative case, the CP in (10b) should
be an s-phase.

cited above (1.3.) occurs.

However, the fact thatexamples (10a, b) are the same except for4. AN ALTERNATIVE ALANYSIS

the case manifestation on Yuki (namely,

4.1. Two Assumptions

no morphological difference is observed on

In this section, I will offer an

the verbs) implies a null-hypothesis thatalternative analysis to examples (10a, b),they involve the same kinds of CPs,

based on F-T proposed in section 2.

namely w-phase CPs.

Before moving to the explanation, however,Of course it ispossible to assume that different Cs are

I

will

introduce

involved in (10a, b), but there is no

assumptions.

two

additional

denying this assumption is ad hoc, sinceno overt empirical evidence indicating

4.1.1.

Transferdifferent Cs is found.

Manifestation
First,

3.2.2.

MovementsasNon-Improper

I

Determines
assumethatcasemanifestation is determined when therelevant item is transferred.

Movement

Case

To be

The other position is to assume thatspecific, case assignment is not involved in

the successive movements via Spec-CP are

AF checking, as is true in the normal

notframework.

countedas

Improper Movement.

Rather,

when

an

XP

Takeuchi (2010) takes this position andcontaining a DP is transferred, theassumes that an AF on C optionallytransferring head determines the DP’sremains

case.

on

the

C,

without

being

Thus, a DP within C’s transfer

When the AF

domain is given the Nominative case andremains on the C, a DP’s movement to

a DP in v*’s transfer domain is assigned

Spec-CPthe Accusative case as is shown in (12).

transmitted onto T.
involves

agreement

treated as an A-movement.

and

is

(12) Transfer of C:

Then, if the

movement to Spec-CP is an A-movement,

C<[XP…DP…]>→[XP…DPNOM…]

the successive movements do not involve

Transfer of v*:

ImproperMovement.

Note

that

this

v*<[XP…DP…]>→[XP…DPACC…]

approach

can

with

the

two

deal

possibilities of (10a, b): When the AF

4.1.2. Two Possibilities of F-T

remains on the C, an A-movement to

As a second assumption, I suggest

Spec-CP occurs and (10a) is generated.

that

When the AF is transmitted on the T,

possibilities.

(10b) is generated.

that F-I is a copy like operation of

However, this approach also raises a
problem. When the AF remains on the C,

F-T

u-features

introduced

above

has

two

Chomsky (2013) assumes
thanactualtransmission between heads.

Moreover,-382-

rathere. [v*P[VP…Yuki-o…[CP[TP…t…t…T]

F-I has two possibilities: whether the
copied feature is deleted or not.
(13) a. [C{F} [T{F}]]C]

V]ACC v*]no deletion

As (15a) shows, the w-phase head C
originally does not possess u-features

b. [C{F} [T{F}]] deletion

under the F-T framework.

After thes-phase v*P is formed, F-T occurs from theWith this possibility applied to F-T,v* to the C.

Then, F-I is triggered fromwhich is assumed to be an extension of F-I,

the v* and the C to their complements’

theheads.

two

possibilities

below

can

be

Based on the transmitted AFs,

the simultaneous movement of Yuki isdeduced.1(14) a. No deletion (=(13a))

triggered to Spec-VP and Spec-TP as in[HeadS-Ph …[HeadW-Ph ]…](15d).

{EF, AF}transferred not by the C but by the v*.

{EF, AF}

Thus the DP receives the Accusative case,b. Deletion (=(13b))

as is shown in (15e), based on (12).

[HeadS-Ph …[HeadW-Ph ]…]{EF, AF}

Finally, in this case, the DP is

On the other hand, if the u-features{EF, AF}are copied and deleted, (10b) is derived.
As is shown in (16), the DP does not move

4.2. An Explanation
This

paper

that

the

out of the CP and it remains at Spec-TP.

Constructionsin

In this case, importantly, the copies of theUnderu-features on the v* are deleted, whichclaimsRaising-to-Object

Japanese include a w-phase CP.

the framework of F-T, the examples inmeans(10a, b) are generated as is shown below.

v*P-phase are not triggered, nor is the

As is shown in (15), if the u-features
arecopiedandnotdeletedthattheoperations

in

the

transfer by the v*.
(16) Taro-wa Yuki-ga baka-da to omot-whenteiru.

transcribed, the DP can move out the CPa. [v*P[VP[CP[TP…Yuki…T] C] V] v*]

to Spec-VP.
(15) Taro-wa Yuki-o baka-da to omot-

F-T(deletion) {EF} {EF}teiru. (=(10a)){AF} {AF}a. [v*P[VP[CP[TP…Yuki…T] C] V] v*]
{

}

{EF}

{

}

{AF}

b. [v*P[VP[CP[TP…Yuki…T]F-I

b. [v*P[VP[CP[TP…Yuki…T] C] V] v*]
F-T

F-I

C]

V]

d. [v*P[VP[CP[TP…Yuki…T]

}
C]

v*]
{

V]

}

{

{

}

}

C] V] v*]

d. [v*P[VP[CP[TP…Yuki-ga…t…T]NOM C]{AF} {EF} {AF} {EF}{{{AF} {EF}{AF} {AF}c. [v*P[VP[CP[TP…Yuki…T]{AF} {EF}c. [v*P[VP[CP[TP…Yuki…T]{EF} {EF}C] V] v*]V] v*]As (16a) indicates, although F-T occurs}

from the v* on the C, in this case, the AFv*]

and the EF on the v* are deleted and thus,{AF} {EF} {AF} {EF}F-I only occurs from the C to the T.

-383-

Thus,

Yuki moves only to Spec-TP, not to

ity in Long-Distance Dependencies,

Spec-VP.

Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.

In addition, since the DP istransferred by the C, the DP is assigned

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by
Phase,” Ken Hale: A life in Language,

the Nominative case.

ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.

5. CONCLUSIONI

have

demonstrated

that

the

Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,”

w-phases Paradox concerning F-I andu-feature checking can be solved by theFoundational Issues in Linguistic
Theory, ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P.

introduction of F-T.

Otero

I have also shown

and

Maria

L.

Zubizarreta,that F-T is not a mere theoretical

133-166, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

deduction but it can be used to account for

Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of
Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.

the case manifestation in Japanese, which
has not been explained fully in previous

Legate, Julie A. (2003) “Some Interface
Properties of the Phase,” Linguistic

analyses.

Inquiry 34, 506-516.
NOTES

Hornstein,

Norbertetal.

(2005)

Minimalism,

Camb-* An earlier version of this article wasUnderstanding

presented at English Linguistic Society ofridge University Press, Cambridge,

Japan 6th International Spring Forum at

MA.

Tokyo University (April 28th, 2013). I

Richards, Marc D. (2007) “On Feature

would like to express my sincere gratitude

Inheritance: An Argument from the

to

Phase

NobuakiNishiokaforvaluable

Ohtaka, Akane (2012) “On Phi-Feature“Copying,”” JELS 30, 166-172.

improvement.
1

Chomsky (2013) assumes that thedeletionofCondition,”

Linguistic Inquiry 38, 563-572.

suggestions and comments. I am also
grateful to Jenifer Larson-Hall for stylistic

Impenetrability

u-features

in

F-I

Takahashi, Masahiko (2012) “Case andoccursPhases1:

Nominative/

Accusative

because if a copy of a φ-feature on C

Conversion

inJapanese,”remained, the derivation would crash forpresented

at

Keio

it cannot be transferred when checked.

Colloquium.

paper

Linguistics

Thus, concerning F-I, the deletion option

Takano, Yuji (2009) “Scrambling, Control

is obligatorily chosen. However, when it

and Phases,” Kinjyo Gakuin Daigaku

comes to F-T, the problem of transfer does

Ronsyu 5, 78-110.

not occur, and thus I assume that the two

Takeuchi, Hajime (2010) “Exceptional

possibilities are selectable.

Case

Marking

Optionalin

FeatureJapanese

Transmission,”

Nanzan Linguistics 6, 101-128.

REFERENCES
Boeckx, Cederic (2008) Understanding

Minimalist Syntax: Lessons from Local-

-384-

and

constrains the organization of meaning inlanguage.” The paper deals with recalcitrant

Structure-Building via Merging Economy:
The Scope of Indefinites

ACDs involving a strong (SQ) vs. weak
quantifiers (WQ) with emphasis on the
problem of an “infinite regress (IR),” [19]’s data

Norio Suzuki

in terms of the assumptions adopted here, & how

Kobe Shinwa Women’s University

to make a grammaticality distinction between I
usually love animals that you do ( = [4]’s: 114

Keywords:

NS structure-building, Merging(45b)) & *I usually draw animals that you do( = [4]’s: 111 (39b)) & also between I want a car

Economy, scope, ACD, LF

that you do ( = [7]’s: 87 (59a)) & *I read two
books that you did ( = [4]’s: 75 (35b)). Taking
1. Introduction

seriously [17]’s observation that “… the defini-

My goal is to explore a syntactic basis for thetion of CH(f) proposed by [20] & [3] makes thetwo scopal interpretations (wide scope & scope

WS of INDs independent of their syntax…. A

diminishment) of (negative) indefinites (INDs):

CH(f) allows an IND nominal to take WS(i) wide scope (WS) interpretation of IND NPs,

regardless of its syntactic position. But the

typically accounted for in terms of a choicesyntactic position of IND objects seems to befunction (CH(f); [21]); & (ii) scope diminish-

important for WS,” & basing my architectural

ment (SD) reading in negative IND NPs (negreason on [10]’s observation above & [31]’s(ative)-split; [12]). Also some analytical imply-

distributed

cations of the proposal for other constructions,linearity thesis (CLT), I provide NS bases for the

including antecedent-contained deletion ones

two interpretive phenomena concerning IND(ACDs) & ones involving quantified xpressions.

NPs: (i) WS interpretation (violating an island

2. Some Assumptions & Problems

constraint; (1a)); & (ii) SD reading in neg NPs

The analysis given is based on narrow- syntactic(neg-split, A-reconstruction; [12]; (2a)):(NS) structure-building across the set of prolific(1) a. If Bert invites a philosopher, Lud will bedomains of [9] (phase-based; [1], etc.; ‘amountinterpretation

thesis(DIT)/co-angry. ([17])of TRANSFER’ subject to Merging Economyb. Choice-function: Ǝf (CH(f) ˄ (Bert(ME) constraining each step of NS-derivation;

invites f(philosopher) → Lud will be[29], [8]) along with the notion of interface

angry))

invasion/invasive interface (II; [16]), that of= one of the philosophers)c. Existential-closure: If …Ǝy [NuSc/vP Bert

bi-directional ‘on-line’ passage between NS &(based on [21]; a philosopher

invites

Economy ([6]). We follow the nP/NP approach(based on [4]; domain of EC being

to nominal phrases ([8], [2]). My reanalysis is

nuclear scope (NuSc), taken to be vP; abased on the FLB-architectural considerations

philosopher = any philosopher)of[10]’sobservation

that

“…

grammaraphilosopher

(y)]

…

the interfaces ([27]), & the concept of(2) a. No student may leave. (may being a-385-

(4b-b’) below as the NS basis for its split

Neg˃Mod modal)b. Split interpretation: Neg ˃ Modal ˃ Ǝinterpretation (2b) above:

It is not allowed that a student leaves.

(4) a. No student may leave. ( = 2a; may being ac. De re interpretation: Neg ˃ Ǝ ˃ Modal

Neg˃Mod modal)b. [vP a student<‒spec> leave [VP (leave)]]

There is no specific student x such that x
is allowed to leave.

(The first merger is between leave and nP a

In (1b) a philosopher takes scope outside thestudent (given ‘[Op¬ [a [student]]]’ as complex

conditional (strong island for extraction), on

structure of no student (no consisting of a neg

the specific interpretation (1b; de re interpreta-

operator (Op¬) and an IND article a); [32]); At

tion via a CH(f)). In (2), we focus on the split

the completion of strong vP-phase, P-interface

interpretation in (2b; neg-split), where the “neg”

invades NS to assign a [‒specific]-feature& “IND” components of the neg NP (no student)([‒Sp]) to IND in vP, a student in [Spec, v]

are interpretively separated from each other by

occupying the ‘current strong-phase-initial

the intervening modal. I explore an alternative

position’ so that pragmatics can ‘see’ that

NS basis for connection to the actual world,based on [24]’s observation that “Reference, in

position so as to assign a [‒Sp] to it (see [28])b’. … (Op¬) C [TP [nP Op¬ [a student]] may

the extensional sense, is … an ‘edge’ phenome-[vP (a student<‒spec>) leave [VP e]]]non.” Let us see first some specific details of
the NS-derivations of (1a = 3a) with (3b) as the(IND a student raises to [Spec, T], projecting
there up to the nP ‘[Op¬[a student]]’; Inter-NS basis for the specific (Sp-) interpretation inpretation of Op¬ is implemented in C-domain,(1b):

the Op¬ portion of the neg Subj (covertly)(3) a. If Bert invites a philosopher, Lud will beraising up to C-domain;We obtain the ‒Sp-

angry. ( = (1a))

interpretation in [Spec, v] for the a student

b. … (a philosopher<+spec>) C [TP … [vP Bertportion of no student under may, while above

invites [VP (invites) [nP a philosopher]]]]may we get the neg interpretation of no portion(Keeping to the if-conditional, at the completionin C-domain, & hence, the split interpretation:of strong vP-phase the phase complement VP

Neg ˃ Modal ˃ Ǝ.)is TRANSFERred to the pragmatics-interface

3. IND, WQed, and Bare Plural NPs(P-interface; [16]) so as for the nP to be assigned

3.1. ACDs Involving a SQ vs. WQ

a [+specific]-feature ([+Sp]); Assuming a [+Sp]

Let us see the following two sets of examples into be licensed in C-domain, the IND with the(5) & (6) involving an ACD structure in them:[+Sp] (a philosopher) ends up covertly raising to(5) a. I read every book that you did.
( = [4]’s: 75 (36a))

the highest C as a result of Internal Merge via
P-interface

(via

a

bi-directional‘on-line’

b. *I read two books that you did.
( = [4]’s: 75 (35b))

passage; [27]); The final WS/de re interpretationof a philosopher may depend on CH(f) applica-(cf. I read two of the books that you did. ( =tion for discourse-licensing of the IND)[4]’s: 72 (28a))))Let usturn to the NS-derivations of (2a = 4a), with

(6) a. *?Oscar read books that Olga did.

-386-

( = [4]’s: 94 (2b))[TP you did ([vP (you) read [VP (read)([n book])]])]]]]

b. Oscar usually reads books that Olga does.
( = [4]’s: 94 (2a))ii) read [QP [Q every] [nP [n book] [CP that
[TP you did ([vP (you) read [VP (read)c. John reads books that no one else would.
( = [13]’s: 41 (12))([n book])]])]]]]The QP containing the elided material can scope(The embedded clause Obj book raises to CP-

via quantifier raising (QR) out of the antecedent

initial position by selection-driven movement

VP containing it to avoid an IR. SQ phrases are([5]); In (7b”i)), read (for the matrix clause) in

subject to QR & thus form operator-variable

the numeration, acting as a probe & searching

structures. The crucial LF-licensing requirement

for an appropriate n/N-goal to merge with, finds

on the interpretation of sentences containing anbook within the syntactic object CP & triggers

SQ is that they be LF-represented as a Diesing-internal Merge of this n/N, so as to merge with

Style

quantifier-restrictive-clause-the latter without violating the No Tampering(Q-RC-NuSc)

structure,

Condition, the raised n/N then checking its

possibly with subsequent reprojection (Repr)

probe & structure-building feature with theturning the whole structure into a QP ([11]).

result of projecting every as its Spec ([8] &Let us see the differences in their (LF-) structure[29]), while in (7b”ii)), read’s complement QP is

between the grammatical example (5a = 7a) &a Repr-ed structure of nP in (7b”i), [11])b’’’. I read [QP [Q every] [nP [n book] [CP that([4])

nuclear-scope

the ungrammatical one (5b = 8a), where the[TP you did ([vP (you) read [VP (read)([n book])]])]]]](b)-marked structures are overt NS ones, while
those (c)-marked are covert LF structures:(7) a. I read every book that you did.

c. I [every book that you did ( (you) read

( = (5a), [4]’s: 75 (36a))(read) (book))] read t

b. [CP that [TP you did ([vP (you) read(t being copy/trace of QP; QP QR-raises covert-[VP (read) [n book]]])]]

ly into a pre-matrix-verb position, so as to satis-(vP being theta-domain of restrictive relative

fy the interpretive requirement on SQs that theyclause (RR); Merger of read & book in VP for

be LF-represented as a Q-RC-NuSc structure:theta purposes; Read & External Argument you
raised to v & [Spec, T], respectively; Merger of[every x] [x a book CP] [(I) read x]/[QP[Q’[Q every][RC/nP book CP]] [NuSc/vP (I) readthat & TP; Did inserted in T; Parenthesized vP(every book)]])c’. [every book that [ you did <read book>]being the target of VP-ellipsis)b’. [nP [n book] [CP that [TP you did ([vP (you)read [VP (read) ([n book])]])]]][I

read book ](Formation of the Q-RC-NuSc structure leads to(I adopt the head-raising approach to RRs a la

ACD-resolution, satisfying Parallelism (Paral)[14]; Raising of book to the CP-initial position,& avoiding problems arising from the copy

book categorially taking CP as its complement &theory of movement, based on [7] & specificallyprojecting up to nP at this stage)on [22], [23]; The ‘<read book>’ portion in theb’’. i) read [nP every [n’ [n book] [CP that

VP-ellipsis site is recruited from the result of the-387-theta-theoretic merger of read & book in the vPbooks, a cardinal IND) & (9a; with books, a bareof the RR, while as for the matrix clause VP readplural) to be due to the situation where thesebook, specifically book is obtained due to its

INDs are ‘trapped’ in the vP-domain in the ab-

status as the head of the copy of QR-raised QP’ssence of any of the following ‘escaping’ strate-other guise nP (see (7b” i)) above; [31]’s DIT/

gies (to obtain a [+Sp] from the P-interface) via

CLT))

QR/focus-raising for ACD resolution: [A] A(8) a. *I read two books that you did.

SQ/GQ (generalized quantifier), such as every,( = (5b), [4]’s: 75 (35b))

each, most; [B] Two of the books (a partitive NP)
in ‘I read two of the books that you did’ (5b cf.),b. [CP that [TP you did ([vP (you) read
[VP (read) [n books]]])]]

which functions as a strong, or presuppositional(vP being theta-domain of RR; Merger of read &NP; [C] Generic interpretation (see (9b)): avail-book in VP for theta purposes; Read & Externalable to a bare plural NP in the presence of an

Argument you raised to v & [Spec, T], respec-

adverb of quantification (AdvQ), such as

tively; Merger of that & TP; Did inserted in T;

usually, seldom (see [4]); [D] No one else (a neg

Parenthesized vP being the target of VP-ellipsis)b’. [nP [n books] [CP that [TP you did

NP; = only he/John (himself)) in ‘John reads([vP (you) read [VP (read) [n books]]])]]](a singular IND NP) in ‘I want a car that you(Raising of books to the CP-initial position,do’ ((21a)), where the matrix verb want is an

books categorially taking CP as its complement

intensional verb.

and projecting up to nP at this stage)b’’. [nP two [n’ [n books] [CP that [TP you did

the presence of an AdvQ such as usually makes

books that noone else would’ (9c); & [E] A car([vP (you) read [VP (read) [n books]]])]]]]Let us see (9b = 10a), wherean otherwise ungrammatical sentence a grammatical one (compare it with (9a)):(Checking of n’s probe & structure-building
feature; see (7b”) above)b’’’. I read [nP two [n’ [n books] [CP that [TP you
did ([vP (you) read [VP (read) [n books]]])]]]](Two books is an ‘cardinal’ IND which does not(10) a. Oscar usually reads books that Olga does.
( = (9b), [4]’s: 94 (2a), also 106)
(Paraphrase: Oscar reads most books that Olgadoes. (see [4]))b. Oscar usually reads [Focus books that Olgadoes <VP e>]undergo QR ([4]), & hence, impossibility of obtaining anything like a Q-RC-NuSc structure for(The ACD VP-ellipsis site is represented by

ACD resolution). Then let us turn to (6a-c),‘<VP e>’; AdvQs such as usually LF-identify

repeated here as (9a-c):

their associated RC, the Focus-marked portion(9) a. *?Oscar read books that Olga did.

above, as a ‘focus’ in its scope/c-command( = [4]’s: 94 (2b))

domain (see [21]’s ‘focus identification in theb. Oscar usually reads books that Olga does.

scope of only’)b’. Oscar usually [Focus=RC/nP books that Olga

( = [4]’s: 94 (2a); ‘generic’)

does <VP e>] reads tc. John reads books that no one else would.
( = [13]’s: 41 (12))(t stands for the copy of the Focus that has

I take the ungrammatical status of (8a; with two

focus-raised to a position adjacent to usually so-388-

as to enter a local relation with & to still be c-

to occupy some [Spec, Q] position of the Q-headcommanded by the latter; We obtain the requi-

that; I take the reason for this kind of additionalsite Q-RC-NuSc structure, as ‘[usually x]

Repr to derive from the connotation of no one[x a book that Olga reads] [(Oscar) reads x]’)else, i.e., ‘only he/John (himself),’ so as tob”. [books that [ Olga does <reads books >]create a local relation between the matrix Subj

[ Oscarreads books ]John & no one else/only he/John (himself)), no(Formation of the Q-RC-NuSc structure leads toone else counting as head of the entire/larger QP

ACD-resolution; As for the DIT/CLT of [31], thedue to a sort of C-T connection ([2]) involving‘<reads books>’ portion in VP-ellipsis site is

the Q/C-head that and its complement headrecruited from the result of theta-theoretic merg-Op¬)b’’. John [QP books [Q’ that [QP[Q’[Q Op¬]er of reads & books in vP of the RR (representedby ‘<VP e>’ in (10b, b’)), while as for the matrix[nP one else]] [TP (no one else) would<VP e>]] reads tclause VP reads books, specifically books is obtained due to its status as the head of the copy of(t stands for the copy of the larger QP which has

QR/FOCUS-raised Focus Phrase (RC/nP marked

QR-raised covertly into a pre-matrix-verb posi-with Focus; (10b, b’)). Let us turn to (9c = 11a):tion, so as to satisfy the interpretive requirement(11) a. John reads books that no one else would.

on the construction involving the SQ no that it( = (9c), [13]’s: 41 (12))

be LF-represented as a Q-RC- NuSc structure,(cf. John reads books that only he (himself) does.

as in [Op¬-else x][x a book that someone(see [21]: 197 (42, 57))

would read][(John) reads x] )b. John reads books that [QP[Q’[Q Op¬ [nP oneb”’.[books that [no one else would read books]]else]] [TP (no one else) would <VP e>][John

reads books](The ACD VP-ellipsis site is represented by(Formation of the Q-RC-NuSc structure leads to‘<VP e>’; QP in (11b) is a Repr-ed structure of

ACD-resolution along with Paral ((7c’)); As for‘[TP no one else would <VP e>]’ in (11a) ([11]);

the DIT/CLT of [31], the ‘<reads books>’ por-

The SQ no (composed of Op¬ & some ele-tion in VP-ellipsis site is recruited from thement(s) between the neg operator and n)
projects its own projections (based on ‘[TP noresult of theta-theoretic merger of reads & books
in vP of the RR (represented by ‘<VP e>’ in (11b,one else would <VP e>]’ in (11a)) taking a vP orb’, b”)), while as for the matrix clause VP reads

TP as target of Repr ([11]), as indicated by the
QP structure with Op ¬ as its head; [32])books, specifically books is obtained due to its

b’. John read [QP books [Q’ that [QP[Q’[Q Op¬]

status as the head of the ‘pre-Repr-ed’ RR
construction [nP books that no one else would];[nP one else]] [TP (no one else) would(11a))<VP e>]]

3.2. Moulton (2013): aP with an Event(Further Hornstein & Uriagereka style Repr

Argument as a Strong Phase

applies to produce the larger QP, where the(12) a. Someone seems sick. ( = [19]’s: 158

Q-hood of C (that) is created due to the C-T(1a); someone > seem; *seem > someone)

connection of an LF-sort ([2]), & books is taken

b. Someone seems to be sick. (=[19]’s: 158-389-

(1b); someone > seem; seem > someone)

be the highest argument of the (stage-level)

Taking issue with Williams (1983; ‘Against

predicate. I propose that MAs such as necessary

small clauses’ LI 14; based on (12a, b)), [19]& likely in (14a, b) project an ‘aP’ (a projection

comes up with examples incompatible with

with functional head a as head & its complement

Williams (1983), as follows:AP) containing a D-arg in it. With these(13) a. A new solution seems necessary. But

assumptions in mind, let us consider thenone presently exists. (seem > necessary >examples (13a, b), repeated here as (15a, b):

Ǝ; (Ǝ > seem > necessary))(15) a. A new solution seems necessary. But

b. A new solution seems available. #But

none presently exists.
(seem >necessary > Ǝ; (Ǝ > seem > necessary))none presently exists. (* seem > available >Ǝ; (Ǝ > seem > available))b. A new solution seems available. #But

When the small-clause predicate is a modal

none presently exists.

adjective (MA) like necessary as in (13a), the(*seem> available >Ǝ; (Ǝ > seem > available))

small-clause Subj can be interpreted in the scope

Assuming that an aP with a D-arg in it counts asof the adjective, & hence within the scope of thea strong phase, let us see the derivations of theembedding verb seems. No such reconstruction

first sentences of (15a, b = 13a, b) with the IND

is possible with nonmodal adjectives (non-MA),

Subj on its narrow scope interpretation:such as available & sick. To account for this(16) a. A new solution seems necessary.

characteristic property of MAs, such as necessary, likely, [19] assumes that MAs take a(seem > necessary > Ǝ)b. [aP a new solution<‒specific> [a’ necessary“covert clausal complement (covert CC),” based[AP (necessary) (a new solution) D-arg]]

on such examples as the following ones, (14a, b),(At the completion of the strong aP-phase with ainvolving an independent temporal modifier:D-arg ([25, 26]), head A, necessary, has raised to(14) a. Yesterday, a new grill was necessaryfunctional head a & A complement a new

tonight. We no longer need one.

solution has raised to a [Spec, a] position (for( = [19]’s: 162 (15a))further NS-movement); P-interface invades NS

b. Right now a storm is likely tomorrow.
( = [19]’s: 162 (16a))

to assign a [‒Sp] to the IND in aP (a new
solution), which sits in the ‘current strong-

I explore a possibility of giving the necessary

phase-initial EPP-/EF-position (see [28]))

content to the notion of a “MA’s covert CC” via(17) A new solution seems available.

a “Davidsonian” event argument (D-arg) as(* seem > available > Ǝ)elaborated in [3], pointing to having a ‘covert(Unavailability of the ‒Sp reading of a new

CC’ being equated with having a D-arg insolution in (17) is due to the non-strong-phase

addition to other arguments, & also leading tostatus of the aP with available as its head)the distinction between necessary & available

4. Further Nice Consequences & Implications

due to the presence vs. absence of a D-arg as a

4.1. Thematic Focus: [+Affected]: Suzuki

lexical property in the former MA vs. the latter
non-MA, respectively. The D-arg is assumed to(1991, 1997)(18) a. I usually love animals that you do.

-390-( = [4]’s: 114 (45b))(Cf. [19]: 161 (13a), want taking a covert CC)

b. *I usually draw animals that you do.
( = [4]’s: 111 (39b))

As for the ungrammatical example (20b), see thediscussion on (5d/8a) above.

References: [1](19) Thematic focus: [+affectd] ([26]: 194 (54))

Chomskyα is a [+affected] element iff

Approaching UG from below./[3] Chung & Ladusaw(i) it already exists at the time of ‘affecting,’ &2004 Restriction & saturation/[4] Diesing 1992.

(ii) it is ‘affected’ physically, psychologically,

Indefinites/[5] Donati & Cecchetto 2011 Relabeling

2000

Minimalist

inquiries/[2]2007

or in other ways (either directly or indirectly).

heads LI 42/[6] Fox 2000 Economy & semantic

Suzuki ([27]) assumes that “a [+affected]

interpretation/[7] 2002 ACD & the copy theory ofelement is assigned [+focus]” (thematic focus).

movement LI 33/[8] Georgi & Müller 2010

Assuming based on (10) containing an AdvQ

Noun-phrase structure by reprojection Syntax 13/[9]that “a target of an AdvQ must be a focus/

Grohmannfocused in some way or other,” animals (that(anti-)local considerations Syntax 6/[10] Hinzen 2012

you do) in (18a) is a [+affected] element andPhases & semantics In Phases/[11] Hornstein &hence a focus because love is ‘affecting’ (seeUriagereka 2002 Reprojection. In Derivation &(19)), while animals (that you do) in (18b) is not

explanation in the MP/[12] Iatridou & Sichel. 2011

because draw is not ‘affecting.’

Neg DPs, A-movement, & SD LI 42/[13] Jacobson

4.2. “I want a car that you do”

2008(20) a. I want a car that you do.

semantics In Topics in ellipsis/[14] Kayne 1994 The( = [7]’s: 87 (59a))

antisymmetry of syntax/[16] López 2003 Steps for ab. *I read two books that you did.

well-adjusted dislocation Stud Ling 57/[17] 2012

( = (5d/8a) above, [4]’s: 75 (35b)

Indefinite objects/[18] May 1985 LF/[19] Moulton

2003

DirectSuccessive

compositionality

cyclicity

&

under

variable-free(21) a. I want a car that you do.

2013 Raising from the dead LI 44/[20] Reinhart 1997

(want: an intensional transitive verb, with a

Quantifier scope Ling & Philos 20/[21] 2006

semantically opaque Obj inducing ‘failure ofInterfaceextensional substitution’ & ‘lack of existential

meaning of chains Doctoral dissertation MIT/[23]import’; [19]: 161)
b. I [Opintensional [want a car that you do]]2001 A contrast to a trace In WCCFL 20/[24](want, with an intensionality operator as part ofLing Analy 37/[25] Suzuki 1991 Focus & conditions

its semantics)
b’. I [Opintensional [want [focus a car that you do]]on representation Lingua 83 (reprinted in [26] Suzuki(a car that you do, a ‘focus element’ ((19)),

Reflections

bound by the intensionality operator)

Reflections on Chomsky’sb”. I [Opintensional [focus a car that you do][want t]]

Modification(Focus raising to a position adjacent to &Uriagereka 2008 Syntactic anchors/[32] Zeijlstra

c-commanded by the intensionality operator

2007 On the lexical status of negative indefinites inmaking it possible to obtain a Q-RC-NuSc

Dutch and German.

strategies/[22]Sauerland

1998

The

Sheehan & Hinzen. 2011 Moving towards the edge

1997 Studies in generative syntax)/[27] 2007

structure & Paral for ACD resolution of (21))

-391-

on

Chomsky’s

as

SMT/

[28]

2012a

SMT II/[29] 2012b

reprojection

JELS

29/[31]

garden-path effect has been observed for PP
attachment ambiguity, given no disambiguating
context. Consider (1) and its unambiguous
control (3).
Japanese EFL Learners’ Native-like Parsingof PP Attachment Ambiguity1(3) Put the apple that’s on the towel into the bag.

Toshiyuki YAMADA & Yuki HIROSEThe University of Tokyo
Keywords: PP attachment ambiguity, self-paced
reading, parsing strategies/preferences,
Japanese EFL learners

1. INTRODUCTION
The goal of this study is to investigate
whether second/non-native language (L2)parsing is similar to first/native language (L1)
parsing with respect to the adoption of parsing
principles or strategies. We examined JapaneseEnglish-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners’
parsing of prepositional phrase (PP) attachment
ambiguity, illustrated as in (1).
(1) Put the apple on the towel into the bag.
Assuming incremental (i.e., word-by-word)
parsing, the sentence in (1) is temporarily
ambiguous. The first PP (PP1), on the towel, canbe interpreted either as an argument of theditransitive verb, put, or as an adjunct to thepreceding noun phrase (NP), the apple.2 We callthe former Arg(ument)-attachment and the latter
Adj(unct)-attachment. 3 The corresponding two
structures can be depicted as in (2a-b).
(2) a. Arg(ument)-attachment
vP

VP

v
put

v

NP
t

PP1

Compared to (3), processing difficulty has beenreported with (1). This is because initially,
incorrect Arg-attachment as in (2a) is adopted;
however, at PP2, reanalysis to correct
Adj-attachment as in (2b) is required. Thisgarden-path effect has been found both in L1
parsing (Ferreira and Clifton 1986; Frazier 1987
forself-paced
reading;Tanenhaus,
Spivey-Knowlton, Eberhard, and Sedivy 1995
for visual world paradigm (VWP) eye-tracking)and in L2 parsing (Hirose, Goya, and Ofuru(2008) for “easy-difficult” rating and VWP
eye-tracking). Interestingly, Hirose, Goya, andOfuru (2008) found no garden-path effect in thelower-proficiency learners.
Why is Arg-attachment preferred initially? A
relevant parsing principle or strategy has been
proposed: Argument over Adjunct (Abney 1989;
Schütze 1995; Boland and Blodgett 2006; cf.
Theta Attachment (Pritchett 1992: 12)). 4 The
occurrence of a garden-path effect in (1), not in(3), suggests that other things being equal, theverb’s argument structure information is used inreal-time parsing.
2. THE PRESENT STUDY
The present study examined whether
Argument over Adjunct holds in L2 parsing bydifferent methodology from Hirose, Goya, andOfuru’s (2008) because theirs was not relevant
for detecting an Adj-attachment preference if itwere really in operation. There are two
possibilities for Japanese EFL learners’ parsing
behavior in the resolution of PP attachment
ambiguity:

the apple(4) Two Possibilities
a. that L2 learners can use ditransitiveargument structure information and show
an Arg-attachment preference; andb. that Japanese speakers initially abide by
locality-based Adj-attachment.

on the towelb. Adj(unct)-attachment
vP

VP

v
put

v

NP
t

NP

PP1

the apple

on the towel(PP2)

At the second PP (PP2), into the bag, theattachment ambiguity associated with thepreceding PP, on the towel, is disambiguatedtoward Adj-attachment as in (2b).
In earlier studies on L1 and L2 parsing, a

For these two possibilities, we adopted
self-paced reading as methodology in order (i) to
confirm the outcome of Hirose, Goya, and Ofuru(2008) by a different experimental task and (ii)more importantly to find out whether an
Adj-attachment preference can be detected aswell as an Arg-attachment preference.

-392-

2.1. Method
Participants
Seventy-one Japanese EFL learners at the
University of Tokyo and Gunma University were
paid to participate in the experiment. They were
43 males and 28 females, and their mean age
was 19.92 years old (SD = 1.00). Their English
proficiency level was estimated by a single
TOEFL (Test Of English as a Foreign Language)
grammar test (extracted from Sharpe 2001), andtheir mean score was 13.87 out of 20 points (onepoint for one question) (SD = 2.99) (69.35% inpercentage terms). (Three participants were infact excluded from further analyses (see Data
treatment below).)
Materials
Twenty-four sets of the target sentences as in(5a-d) were used (“R” in (5) stands for Region(position) in the sentence; see Appendix A forthe list of all target items).
(5)

R1 / R2 / R3 / R4 /R5 / R6
a. Susan / put / the candy / in the box /into the paper bag / before the party.
b. Susan / put / the candy / for her son /into the paper bag / before the party.
c. Susan / put / the candy / in the box /right away / before the party.
d. Susan / put / the candy / into the box /right away / before the party.

By 2x2 condition design of forced Attachment(i.e., Arg(ument) versus Adj(unct)) and
Ambiguity(i.e.,
amb(iguous)
versusunamb(iguous)), we call the four conditions(5a-d) Adj:amb, Adj:unamb, Arg:amb, andArg:unamb, respectively, to recall them easily.
The forth region (R4) was the source oftemporary ambiguity, and the fifth region (R5)the critical disambiguating region. In (5a,c),
attachment of the PP in R4 is temporarily
ambiguous, but at the subsequent region, R5,
Adj-attachment and Arg-attachment are forced,
respectively. (5b,d) were the baseline conditionsfor (5a,c). The PP in R4 is unambiguously
attached as an adjunct in (5b) and an argumentin (5d). The rationale was as follows: if
Arg-attachment is initially adopted, the reading
time (RT) for the critical R5 will be longer in
Adj-forced (5a) compared to its baseline (5b); on
the other hand, if Adj-attachment is initiallyadopted, the RT for R5 in Arg-forced (5c) will
be longer compared to its baseline (5d).
ProcedureAphrase-by-phrase,
non-cumulative,

moving-window, self-paced reading task was
conducted by Linger. 5 After oral and written
instructions, eight practice trials were done forthe participants’ familiarity with self-paced
reading on the PC. After confirmation,
twenty-four target sentences and forty-eightfillers were administered. They werecounterbalanced into four lists so that one
participant could never experience more than
one condition for each target item. The item
presentation was randomized by Linger for eachparticipant. Each sentence was followed by acomprehension question, for example, as in (6)for (5a).
(6) The candy was put into the paper bag.
i) correct ii) incorrect iii) ungrammaticalGiven three possible answers, the participant
was required to choose one of them, dependingon whether the question sentence was correct orincorrect on the basis of the sentence forself-paced reading. 6 For instance, the correct
answer for (5a) was (i) correct in (6). There
were no time limits for the participant’s
self-paced reading and answering the questions,nor feedback for his/her responses to thequestions. After the task, a backgroundquestionnaire and a TOFEL grammar test werecarried out. It took approximately 45 minutes tofinish the experiment.
Data treatment
First, we excluded participants whose
accuracy was below 65% for twelve
comprehension questions. 7 Three participants
were excluded from further analyses. The
remaining 68 participants were 41 males and 27
females, and their mean age was 19.86 years old(SD = 0.94). Their mean score on the TOEFL
grammar test was 13.89 out of 20 points (SD =3.03) (69.45% in percentage terms).
Second, the residual RTs of the target items
were analyzed by linear mixed-effects modeling(Baayen, Davidson, and Bates 2008) 8 ,irrespective of the participants’ responses to thecomprehension questions. 9 Attachment (Argversus Adj) and Ambiguity (amb versus unamb)
were the fixed effects (centered), andparticipants and items were the random effects.
The optimal model was chosen by backward
selection from the max model (rt~cattachment*cambiguity+(1+cattachment*cambiguity|participant)+(1+cattachment*cambiguity|item)). In what
follows, we report the results of coefficient (β),
standard error (SE), t-value (t), and p-value (p).

-393-

2.2. Results
The RTs for all regions are presented in Figure
1 (error bars mean standard errors).
800

of each participant. It was found that the RT dataof 24 out of 68 participants (35.92% inpercentage terms) showed an Adj-attachment
preference. Their mean residual RT can besummarized in Table 2.

Mean Residual RT (ms)600

Table 2: Mean Residual RT in R5 by Condition
for the 24 participants
(5a)
(5b)
(5c)
(5d)
RT (ms)
197
240
199
-129

400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
1

2

3

4

5

6

Regions
Adj:amb (5a)Adj:unamb (5b)

Arg:amb (5c)

Arg:unamb (5d)Figure 1: Mean Residual RT by Condition
No main effects of Attachment or Ambiguity,
nor their interaction, were found in all regions
except for the critical R5.10
The mean residual RTs for the critical R5 areshown in Table 1.
Table 1: Mean Residual RT in R5 by Condition
(5c)
(5d)
(5a)
(5b)
RT (ms)
507
59
17
-112
SE
71
55
49
32
There were main effects of Attachment (β =-166.06, SE = 56.39, t = -2.94, p < .01) and
Ambiguity (β = -144.38, SE = 33.32, t = -4.33, p< .001), indicating that RTs in (5a-b) werelonger than those in (5c-d) and RTs in (5a,c)longer than those in (5b,d). Their interaction was
also significant (β = 79.78, SE = 27.27, t = 2.92,
p < .01).11 Further analyses showed a significant
RT difference in Adj-forced (5a-b) (β = -223.95,
SE = 50.15, t = -4.465, p < .001), meaning that
the RT in (5a) was longer. Although it was
marginal, some nonnegligible difference in RT
was found in Arg-forced (5c-d) (p = .06),
indicating that the RT in (5c) was longer.
2.3. Discussion
The results indicate a garden-path effect in
Adj-forced (5a). This suggests that the Japanese
EFL learners showed the same parsing behavior
for the resolution of PP attachment ambiguity as
native speakers of English. In contrast, there wasonly a marginal RT difference in Arg-forced(5c-d). This cannot be predicted in native
speakers of English, leading to a possibility that
the Japanese EFL learners might also haveshown an Adj-attachment preference or eventhat they might have been bimodal.
For this possibility, we examined the RT data

There were no main effects of Attachment or
Ambiguity, but their interaction was significant(β = -91.57, SE = 41.08, t = -2.22, p < .05).12
Further analyses indicated no difference between
Adj-forced (5a-b) and a significant difference
between Arg-forced (5c-d) (β = -164.46, SE =57.00, t = -2.88, p < .01), suggesting an
Adj-attachment preference. There are two
possible perspectives we can consider for thepresented results. One is related to thecharacteristics of participants. However, since
there were no correlations at all between theparticipant’s RT and his/her score on the TOEFL
grammar test, at least proficiency levels cannot
account for the results. The other perspective isthe nature of experimental items. The problem
which Arg- or Adj-attachment is preferred isrelated at least to whether or not the learner canuse the ditransitive argument structure
information and take the incoming PP as anargument as soon as he/she encounters it.
3. FOLLOW-UP EXPERIMENT
To examine Japanese EFL learners’
knowledge of ditransitive argument structure, we
conducted a follow-up sentence completion
experiment.
3.1. Method
Participants
A new group of 30 Japanese EFL learners at
the University of Tokyo were recruited (10participants were excluded from further analyses
because their responses to some items wereincomplete). The remaining participants were 14
males and six females, their mean age was 18.65
years old (SD = 0.87).
Materials
The following twelve ditransitive verbs usedin the self-paced reading task were prepared for
sentence completion (see Appendix B for the listof all target items):-394-(7) ditransitive verbs examined
put, insert, stuff, pour, jam, lay, place, set,lean, drip, spray, splashProcedure
The task was aquestionnaire as in (8).

sentencecompletion(8) The woman put
The participant was instructed to use as many
words as he/she liked to complete the sentencewith a period. Besides the twelve ditransitive
verbs, twelve fillers were added. After the task, abackground questionnaire was carried out. It
took about 25 minutes to finish the experiment.
Data treatment
The participants’ responses were categorized
into ditransitive, monotransitive, and others (e.g.,
intransitive), and compared with the RT data ofthe main experiment.
3.2. Results
Out of the twelve ditransitive verbs, jam, set,
and drip were used by majority (12, 13, and 11
out of 20 participants, respectively) as
monotransitive, i.e., only the direct object wasadded (for example, drip coffee, not drip coffee
on the table). On the other hand, stuff, pour, andplace were used by majority (12, 11, and 16 out
of 20 participants, respectively) as ditransitive.13
Estimating that the proficiency levels of theparticipants in the main and follow-up
experiments were not considerably different, we
compared the results of sentence completion andRT patterns in R5. First, the RTs were analyzed
only for two items, namely, jam and set. Thoseverbs were preferentially used monotransitive insentence completion study. As shown in Table 3,
the garden-path effect was bigger in Arg-forced(5c-d) than in Adj-forced (5a-b), suggesting an
Adj-attachment preference.
Table 3: Mean Residual RT in R5 by Condition
for jam and set14
(5b)
(5c)
(5d)
(5a)
RT (ms)
31
18
-69
-163
Second, the RTs were analyzed for stuff, pour,and place. Those verbs were predominantly
understood as ditransitive. As seen in Table 4,
the garden-path effect was bigger in Adj-forced(5a-b), indicating an Arg-attachment preference.
Table 4: Mean Residual RT in R5 by Condition
for stuff, pour, and place
(5a)
(5b)
(5c)
(5d)
RT (ms)656
91-184 -179
3.3. Discussion
For those verbs that were predominantly used
as monotransitive, it is probable that thesubsequent PP was analyzed as an adjunct. Thus,

the RT pattern in Table 3 would mean agarden-path effect in (5c). Contrastively, the RT
pattern in Table 4 indicating an Arg-attachment
preference was observed for those verbs thatwere used mainly as ditransitive. On theassumption of some correlation between thelearner’s parsing preferences and ditransitive
knowledge, whether or not they can use verb’s
argument structure information will drive theiradoption of Argument over Adjunct native-like.
4. GENERAL DISCUSSION
The results of self-paced reading showed thata significant RT difference was found in
Adj-forced (5a-b) but not in Arg-forced (5c-d).
This indicates that the Japanese EFL learners’
parsing preference was Arg-attachment and thus
native-like. A possible explanation is thatregardless of L1 or L2, parsing strategy
Argument over Adjunct is adopted universally. In
other words, in real-time parsing the head (inthis case, verbal) information such as argument
structure is used rapidly. This means thatregardless of the fact that the occurrence timingof the head is late in their native head-final
Japanese, Japanese EFL learners can use its
information rapidly in the processing ofhead-initial English. Following ditransitiveargument structure, it is reasonable that we
observed a garden-path effect in Adj-forced(5a-b) but not in Arg-forced (5c-d).
Although the Arg-attachment preference wasrobust, an Adj-attachment preference should not
be ignored. In fact, we found that the RT data of
24 out of 68 participants suggested an
Adj-attachment preference. Since no correlation
between the participant’s RT and his/her scoreon the TOEFL grammar test was found, theAdj-attachment preference cannot be accounted
for by referring to proficiency levels. This is
mysterious and needs further research. On theother hand, the results of follow-up experimentsuggest that some ditransitive verbs were used as
monotransitive by the Japanese EFL learners.
Note that argument drop is allowed in Japanese
but not in English (e.g., Kuroda 1965). This L1
property might have affected the Japanese EFL
learners’ parsing of PP attachment ambiguity. An
intriguing open question is to narrow down
possible factors producing L2-specific parsing
behaviors.
5. CONCLUSION
In sum, the present study confirmed theoutcome of Hirose, Goya, and Ofuru (2008) by-395-

self-paced reading. That is, the Japanese EFL
learners can show an Arg-attachment preference
native-like in the parsing of temporary PP
attachment ambiguity. By newly adopting
Arg-forced conditions, a possibility remains that
depending on the verbs, Japanese EFL learners
may be bimodal, i.e., some showing an
Arg-attachment preference on the basis of theparsing strategy Argument over Adjunct, but theother displaying an Adj-attachment preference
possibly motivated by linear locality.
Further studies are needed along the following
lines. First, by recruiting the same population,
the correlation between their RT patterns andditransitive knowledge should be investigated.
Second, very low-proficiency learners might
have difficulty with the rapid use of headinformation in English and thus they may show
an Adj-attachment preference clearly. Third, thistime we examined L2 parsing of temporary PP
attachment ambiguity with argument/adjunctasymmetry. It is interesting to compare it with
L2 parsing of global PP attachment ambiguity
with no argument/adjunct asymmetry as in (9).
(9) You can feel the cat with the feather.
(Snedeker and Casserly 2010: 1264)
An intriguing question is which Arg- or
Adj-attachment is preferred, given no bias
toward either attachment.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The portions of this study were presented at the
14th Annual International Conference of the JapaneseSociety for Language Sciences (JSLS2012) at
Nagoya University on July 1st, 2012, and we thankthe audience for their invaluable comments. The
present study was partially supported by the second
author’s Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research(24320072). Finally, our best gratitude goes to all thepeople involved in two experiments.
NOTES
1
The following abbreviations are used in this paper:
Adj: Adjunct; amb: ambiguous; Arg: Argument; β:coefficient; EFL: English as a Foreign Language; NP:
Noun Phrase (which is used instead of Determiner
Phrase for simplicity); L1: First (native) Language;
L2: Second (non-native) Language; ms: millisecond;
p: p-value; PP: Prepositional Phrase; R: Region; RT:
Reading Time; SD: Standard Deviation; SE: Standard
Error; t: t-value; vP: light verb Phrase; VP: Verb
Phrase.
2
In this paper, we use the term ditransitive as a setof verbs taking a theme NP and a goal PP as two
syntactically required internal arguments.
3
We use the terms Argument and Adjunct justdescriptively, i.e., theory-neutrally.
4
The Arg-attachment preference can also be
captured by Minimal Attachment (fewer syntactic
nodes preferred (Frazier 1979: 24)) over Late Closure(more recent attachment preferred (Frazier 1979 20)).
5
For self-paced reading technique, see Just,
Carpenter, and Wolley (1982).
6
If the sentence for self-paced reading was
ill-formed as English, the participant was asked to
select the choice ungrammatical (this was preparedfor other purposes than the current one).
7
These questions were used because they could beanswered without any confusion about three choices.
8
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed the sametendency as the following report.
9This was because the accuracy for comprehension
questions for the target items was relatively low(around 60%), which was probably attributed to threechoices (in particular, ungrammatical) leading to theparticipants’ confusion.
10
A main effect of Attachment was observed in R6(β = -83.89, SE = 22.54, t = -3.72, p < .001). This canbe considered spill-over from the preceding R5.
11
The
optimal
model
was
(rt
~
cattachment*cambiguity+(1+cattachment*cambiguity|participant)+(1+cattachment+cambiguity|item)).
12The
optimal
model
was
(rt
~
cattachment*cambiguity+(1+cattachment|participant) + (1+cattachment|item)).
13
For the other verbs put aside here, lean and splash
were used by a majority as intransitive, and insert,
lay, and spray were used as ditransitive by nine out of
20 participants.
14
Drip was excluded because its RT pattern was
different from that of jam and set.
REFERENCES
Abney, Stephen Paul (1989) A computational modelof human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 18(1), 129-144.
Baayen, R. Harald, Davidson, Douglas, J., and Bates,
Douglas M. (2008) Mixed-effects modeling withcrossed random effects for subjects and items.
Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390-412.
Boland, Julie E. and Blodgett, Allison (2006)
Argument status and PP-attachment. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 385-403.
Ferreira, Fernanda and Clifton, Charles, Jr. (1986)
The independence of syntactic processing. Journalof Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
Frazier, Lyn (1979) On comprehending sentences:
Syntactic
parsing
strategies.
[reproduced
unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofConnecticut, in 1978]. Bloomington: Indiana
University Linguistics Club.
Frazier, Lyn (1987) Sentence processing: A tutorial
review. In: Coltheart, Max (ed.), Attention andperformance XII: The psychology of reading, pp.
559-586. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.

-396-

c.

Hirose, Yuki, Goya, Taisuke, and Ofuru, Yukiko(2008) The attachment preference and the role ofreferential information in second language parsing.
In: Ogura, Tamiko, Kobayashi, Harumi, Inagaki,
Shunji, Hirakawa, Makiko, Arita, Setsuko, andTerao, Yasushi (eds.), Studies in Language
Sciences, Vol. 7, pp. 155-168. Tokyo: Kurosio
Publishers.
Just, Marcel Adam, Carpenter, Patricia A., andWolley, Jacqueline D. (1982) Paradigms andprocesses in reading comprehension. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 111(2),228-238.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) Generative grammatical studies
in the Japanese language. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, MIT.
Pritchett, Bradley
L. (1992)
Grammaticalcompetence and parsing performance. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
Schütze, Carson T. (1995) PP attachment andargumenthood. In: Schütze, Carson T., Gander,
Jennifier B., and Broihier, Kevin (eds.), Papers on
language processing and acquisition, MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics, 26, pp. 95-151. Cambridge,
MA: MITWPL.
Sharpe, Pamela J. (2001) How to prepare for the
TOEFL test: Test of English as a foreign language,
10th Edition. Hauppuge: Barron’s Educational
Series, Inc.
Snedeker, Jesse and Casserly, Elizabeth (2010) Is it
all relative?: Effects of prosodic boundaries on thecomprehension and production of attachment
ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes,
25(7/8/9), 1234-1264.
Tanenhaus, Michael K., Spivey-Knowlton, Michael J.,
Eberhard, Kathleen M., and Sedivy, Juli C. (1995)
Integration of visual and linguistic information in
spokenlanguagecomprehension.
Science,268(5217), 1632-1634.
APPENDIX A: Target Items in Main Expt.
1. a. Susan put the candy in the box into thepaper bag before the party.
b. Susan put the candy for her son into thepaper bag before the party.
c. Susan put the candy in the box right away
before the party.
d. Susan put the candy into the box rightaway before the party.
2. a. The woman put the toy in the handbag into
the box on Christmas Eve.
b. The woman put the toy for her daughter
into the box on Christmas Eve.
c. The woman put the toy in the handbag
silently on Christmas Eve.
d. The woman put the toy into the handbag
silently on Christmas Eve.
3. a. Annie inserted the key in the small pocket
into the lock early in the morning.
b. Annie inserted the key for the local library
into the lock early in the morning.

d.
4.

a.
b.
c.
d.

5.

a.
b.
c.
d.

6.

a.
b.
c.
d.

7.

a.
b.
c.
d.

8.

a.
b.
c.
d.

9.

a.
b.
c.
d.

10.

a.
b.
c.
d.

11.

-397-

a.

Annie inserted the key in the small pocket
slowly early in the morning.
Annie inserted the key into the small
pocket slowly early in the morning.
The student inserted the card key in theenvelope into the door before the meeting.
The student inserted the card key for theroom into the door before the meeting.
The student inserted the card key in theenvelope properly before the meeting.
The student inserted the card key into theenvelope properly before the meeting.
My grandmother stuffed the beans in theold bag into the pillow before sleeping.
My grandmother stuffed the beans fromthe old farm into the pillow before
sleeping.
My grandmother stuffed the beans in theold bag carefully before sleeping.
My grandmother stuffed the beans into theold bag carefully before sleeping.
The merchant stuffed the oranges in the
bag into the container after the trip.
The merchant stuffed the oranges from thecountryside into the container after thetrip.
The merchant stuffed the oranges in the
bag happily after the trip.
The merchant stuffed the oranges into thebag happily after the trip.
Jane poured the juice in the big pitcher into
the glass after dinner.
Jane poured the juice from the fruit farminto the glass after dinner.
Jane poured the juice in the big pitcher
really slowly after dinner.
Jane poured the juice into the big pitcher
really slowly after dinner.
The waitress poured the wine in the bottle
into the cup before lunch.
The waitress poured the wine from New
Zealand into the cup before lunch.
The waitress poured the wine in the bottlewith a smile before lunch.
The waitress poured the wine into thebottle with a smile before lunch.
My grandfather jammed the rice in the bag
into the lunchbox before going out.
My grandfather jammed the rice from thecountry into the lunchbox before goingout.
My grandfather jammed the rice in the bag
without hesitation before going out.
My grandfather jammed the rice into thebag without hesitation before going out.
The servant jammed the vegetables in thebox into the bag for the event.
The servant jammed the vegetables fromthe town into the bag for the event.
The servant jammed the vegetables in thebox seriously for the event.
The servant jammed the vegetables into
the box seriously for the event.
Michael laid the book on the shelf onto thedesk after lunch.

b.
c.
d.
12.

a.
b.
c.
d.

13.

a.
b.
c.
d.

14.

a.
b.
c.
d.

15.

a.
b.
c.
d.

16.

a.
b.
c.
d.

17.

a.
b.
c.
d.

18.

a.
b.
c.
d.

Michael laid the book for the class onto thedesk after lunch.
Michael laid the book on the shelf quickly
after lunch.
Michael laid the book onto the shelf
quickly after lunch.
The man laid the newspaper on the officechair onto the table after the meeting.
The man laid the newspaper from thedelivery office onto the table after the
meeting.
The man laid the newspaper on the officechair suddenly after the meeting.
The man laid the newspaper onto the officechair suddenly after the meeting.
Mr. Kato placed the CDs on the desk onto
the old shelf before dinner.
Mr. Kato placed the CDs for his children
onto the old shelf before dinner.
Mr. Kato placed the CDs on the desk
carefully before dinner.
Mr. Kato placed the CDs onto the desk
carefully before dinner.
The girl placed the doll on the table onto
the showcase after breakfast.
The girl placed the doll for her friend onto
the showcase after breakfast.
The girl placed the doll on the table gently
after breakfast.
The girl placed the doll onto the tablegently after breakfast.
Ms. Roberts set the dishes on the kitchencounter onto the table at the party.
Ms. Roberts set the dishes for her
important guests onto the table at the party.
Ms. Roberts set the dishes on the kitchencounter very quickly at the party.
Ms. Roberts set the dishes onto the kitchencounter very quickly at the party.
The waiter set the glasses on the tray onto
the counter before the evening.
The waiter set the glasses for thecustomers onto the counter before theevening.
The waiter set the glasses on the tray very
elegantly before the evening.
The waiter set the glasses onto the tray
very elegantly before the evening.
The secretary leaned the folder on the shelf
onto the wall last night.
The secretary leaned the folder from thebookstore onto the wall last night.
The secretary leaned the folder on the shelfvery carefully last night.
The secretary leaned the folder onto theshelf very carefully last night.
The boy leaned the dictionary on the bookonto the box yesterday.
The boy leaned the dictionary from thelibrary onto the box yesterday.
The boy leaned the dictionary on the booksecretly yesterday.
The boy leaned the dictionary onto thebook secretly yesterday.

19.

a.
b.
c.
d.

20.

a.
b.
c.
d.

21.

a.
b.
c.
d.

22.

a.
b.
c.
d.

23.

a.
b.
c.
d.

24.

a.
b.
c.
d.

My sister dripped the mineral water on the
tray onto the floor while cooking.
My sister dripped the mineral water fromthe refrigerator onto the floor while
cooking.
My sister dripped the mineral water on the
tray accidently while cooking.
My sister dripped the mineral water onto
the tray accidently while cooking.
The manager dripped the bottled alcoholon the box onto the table last night.
The manager dripped the bottled alcohol
for home cleaning onto the table last night.
The manager dripped the bottled alcoholon the box intentionally last night.
The manager dripped the bottled alcohol
onto the box intentionally last night.
Yoko sprayed the cleaner on the cabinet
onto the oven before using.
Yoko sprayed the cleaner for the kitchen
onto the oven before using.
Yoko sprayed the cleaner on the cabinetwith care before using.
Yoko sprayed the cleaner onto the cabinetwith care before using.
The designer sprayed the paint inside thecan onto the container for the event.
The designer sprayed the paint for thehandicrafts onto the container for the
event.
The designer sprayed the paint inside thecan enjoyably for the event.
The designer sprayed the paint onto thecan enjoyably for the event.
The little girl splashed the water on thecabinet onto the floor before breakfast.
The little girl splashed the water from thepot onto the floor before breakfast.
The little girl splashed the water on thecabinet unintentionally before breakfast.
The little girl splashed the water onto thecabinet unintentionally before breakfast.
The children splashed the mud on the tray
onto their clothes yesterday.
The children splashed the mud from theriver onto their clothes yesterday.
The children splashed the mud on the tray
again and again yesterday.
The children splashed the mud onto thetray again and again yesterday.

APPENDIX B: Target Items in Follow-up Expt.
1. The woman put
2. The student inserted
3. The merchant stuffed
4. The waitress poured
5. The servant jammed
6. The man laid
7. The girl placed
8. The waiter set
9. The boy leaned
10. The manager dripped
11. The designer sprayed
12. The children splashed-398-

【JELS 原稿の作成上の注意】(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（厳守）。和文原稿、英文原稿とも、2 段組とし、各段 40 行を目安として、文字と文字の間隔を詰めすぎないように注意すること。
(2) 書式：①

マージンは上（2.2 ㎝）、下（3.0 ㎝）、右（2.5 ㎝）、左（2.5 ㎝）に設定する。

② 第 1 頁の一段目は上部の余白を 4 ㎝とし、タイトル・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。タイトルと氏名の間、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。
（英
語論文の場合は、Keywords: xxx, yyy, zzz, 日本語論文の場合は、キーワード：XXX, YYY,ZZZ という形式でキーワードを書く。）③

論文のタイトルは太字にする。

④

注は、本文の後ろ（文献表の前）にまとめる。

⑤

文字サイズは 11 ポイント以上にする。

⑥ 文献表を含め、その他の書式の細部については、English Linguistics の “Information forContributors” に従うが、abstract は不要。
(3) その他：①

原稿は PDF ファイルで提出する。JELS は、提出された PDF ファイルを事務局が A4 でプリントアウトしたものを B5 に縮小して写真製版するため、刷り上がりの状態が鮮明であることを確認した上でファイルを提出すること。

②

言語は日本語、英語のどちらも使用可能であるが、英文原稿には英文タイトルを、和文
原稿には和文タイトルをつけること。和文原稿では、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、また和文タイトルの下に英文タイトルを、それぞれ（）に入れて示す。英語の論文の場合には、必ず、母語話者のチェックを受ける。発表時のタイトルからの変更は一切認めないが（厳守）、日本語による口頭発表でも Conference
Handbook に記した英文タイトルを使用すれば、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

PDF 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.pdf）。

④

ページ番号は入力しないこと。

⑤

特殊フォントは必ず PDF ファイルに埋め込み、大会運営委員会が表示を確認できるよう、
提出時にその使用を申告すること。

⑥ 締め切りは、大会翌年の 1 月 10 日 24:00（必着）とする。当該大会の大会運営委員長と大会運営委員会担当書記宛に PDF ファイルを送付する。
⑦ 規定に違反している原稿は掲載できない。
（2012 年 12 月 8 日改定）-399-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2014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
大庭幸男
印 刷 所
株式会社あるむ (CD-ROM製作）
発 行 者

株式会社ケーエスアイ（オンデマンド印刷）
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 2014----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------