Papers from the Thirty-Third Conference
November 21-22, 2015
and fromthe Eighth International Spring Forum
April 18-19, 2015
of
The English Linguistic Society of JapanJELS 33

日 本 英 語 学 会 第 33 回 大 会 （ 関西外国語大学中宮キャンパス）・
第 8 回国際春季フォーラム（成蹊大学）
研究発表論文集

The English Linguistic Society of Japan
2016

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, Daisuke UMEHARA, Konan Women’s University

JELS 33
Papers from the Thirty-Third Conference
November 21-22, 2015
and fromthe Eighth International Spring Forum
April 18-19, 2015
of
The English Linguistic Society of Japan

Edited by
The Conference Organizing Committee
Hidemitsu TAKAHASHI, Hokkaido University (Chair)
Yoshiki OGAWA, Tohoku University (Vice-Chair)
Miki HANAZAKI, Shinshu University
Shinsuke HOMMA, Niigata University
Yuko HORITA, Kanazawa University
Shungo KANAZAWA, University of Kochi
Junya MORITA, Kinjo Gakuin University
Chizuru NAKAO, Daito Bunka University
Miki OBATA, Tokyo University of Science
Hajime ONO, Tsuda College
Osamu SAWADA, Mie University
Reijiro SHIBASAKI, Meiji University
Takeshi YAMAMOTO, Kinki University
Tomohiro YANAGI, Chubu University
Etsuko YOSHIDA, Mie University

p v   ] >  33U Z > ª £YWZ]8_*/1,+«
2
8UW¦q\-)30.ªfZ]«n§The English Linguistic Society of Japan2016

vs2015b4u18p19pfZ]¡C'pv]>8UW¦q\-)30. #Qb11u21p22p£YWZ]8_*/1,+
¡C'pv]>33UZ>
&nWorkshop Report(Nªi H¥ «k}{^p #i O|p<6%­k}{^p®
pv]>8UW¦q\-)30.¬201b1u16p
pv]>33UZ>¬2015b6u6p­ni O|p®
2016b1u10pv§X $mG'M (Z>T[S>se(5E@4(V&!t?¤Az(ol %BAzgr¢I"%X( Z>T[S>=z9h  PnF`X=a'& "33UZ>T[S©yD

CONTENTS
I. Papers from the Thirty-Third Conference
親子の会話に基づいた子供の文生成と意味理解
深谷修代（Nobuyo Fukaya） ············································································· 3
動詞派生前置詞 barring の通時的発達
林 智昭（Tomoaki Hayashi）············································································ 10
パラメータ再考:Broad Syntax の視点から見た言語の共時的・通時的多様性
保坂道雄（Michio Hosaka） ············································································ 17
名詞修飾形容詞の歴史的変遷について
茨木正志郎（Seishirou Ibaraki） ······································································ 24
Bang goes 構文をめぐって
五十嵐海理（Kairi Igarashi） ·········································································· 31
英語における形容詞の意味変化の双方向性をめぐって
岩橋一樹（Kazuki Iwahashi） ·········································································· 38
定形補部節における時制の一致と二重接触について
金子義明（Yoshiaki Kaneko） ········································································· 45「数詞+名詞+and+名詞」の文法
小早川 暁（Satoru Kobayakawa） ···································································· 52
量化解釈を受ける空項の作用域
藏藤健雄（Takeo Kurafuji） ············································································ 59“Problems of Agree” in Problems of Projection
三輪健太（Kenta Miwa）················································································· 65
一致関係が成立しない併合操作について
三好暢博（Nobuhiro Miyoshi） ········································································ 72
Gradualness of Verbal Irony from the Perspective of Attributed Source
盛田有貴（Yuki Morita ） ················································································ 79
The Category and Historical Development of the Prefix a長野明子（Akiko Nagano） ·············································································· 86
チョーサーの言語の身体性 ―「トパス卿の話」にみる<漸減化>の認知プロセス―
中尾佳行 （Yoshiyuki Nakao） ······································································· 93
摂食に関する語彙による《思考》と《理解》のメタファー ―メタファーにおける身体性の反映の詳細度に注目した日英対照研究―
大神雄一郎（Yuichiro Ogami） ····································································· 100
Movement and Agreement under “Defective Intervention”
岡 俊房（Toshifusa Oka） ············································································· 107
On Syntactic Structures of Inside and Outside Verbal Existential Sentences
大宗 純（Jun Omune） ················································································· 114

非対格動詞文の動作主性について
大澤聡子 （Satoko Osawa） ········································································· 121
Distribution of the Pro-form ‘one’
猿渡翌加（Asuka Saruwatari） ········································································ 128
Pragmatic Implications of Historical Data: Speech Acts in the Flux of Power椎名美智（Michi Shiina） ·············································································· 135
英語進行形構文の命令的用法 ―認知言語学的考察―
清水啓子（Keiko Shimizu） ·········································································· 142
重複発話の日英語比較:ジャンル・心的距離・言語の違いは協調性の産出にどう関わるか竹田らら（Lala Takeda） ·············································································· 149
A Contrastive Study of Free Adjuncts and Relative Clauses: with Special Reference to their Logical
Relationship with the Main Clause
田中秀毅（Hideki Tanaka） ············································································ 156
Planning Association of Causes and Consequences in Japanese田中幹大（Mikihiro Tanaka） ········································································· 163
ラベル付けアルゴリズムの観点からの文主語の再検討
谷川晋一（Shin-ichi Tanigawa） ···································································· 170
Translanguaging in a Group Discussion in a CLIL Classroom at a Japanese University: A Time-aligned
Corpus Analysis
土屋慶子（Keiko Tsuchiya） ·········································································· 177
なぜ動詞 forgive は二重目的語構文に生じることができるのか
辻 早代加（Soyoka Tsuji） ··········································································· 183
A New Approach to the Mystery of the Factivity in Root Transformations
山口麻衣子（Maiko Yamaguchi） ···································································· 188
On Nominal Depictive Predicates: A View from Agreement
山口真史（Masashi Yamaguchi） ····································································· 195
否定表現の特性に関する一考察 ―トートロジーの用例を中心に―
山本尚子（NaokoYamamoto） ······································································· 202
演繹される推意と創作される推意吉村あき子（Akiko Yoshimura） ···································································· 209<Workshop Reports>
日英談話比較研究の英語教育への貢献
野村佑子（Yuko Nomura）・多々良直弘（Naohiro Tatara）・植野貴志子（Kishiko Ueno）
工藤貴恵（Kie Kudo）・八木橋宏勇（Hirotoshi Yagihashi）・藤井洋子（Yoko Fujii） ········ 216
日英語を対象にした Mirativity 研究:統語論・意味論・語用論の観点から
島田雅晴 （Masaharu Shimada）・五十嵐啓太 （Keita Ikarashi）
本多正敏 （Masatoshi Honda） ······································································· 218

周縁部の統語論と形態論
田川拓海（Takumi Tagawa）・那須紀夫（Norio Nasu）・乙黒 亮（Ryo Otoguro） ············· 220
言語実践における日英語比較研究: 言語・非言語の両観点から
櫻田怜佳（Reika Sakurada）・阿部あかり・鹿野浩子 （Hiroko Shikano）
小澤 雅 （Miyabi Ozawa） ·········································································· 222
意味研究における文脈の役割: 認知意味論の新展開
堀内ふみ野（Fumino Horiuchi）・野中大輔（Daisuke Nonaka）
第十早織（Saori Daiju） ·············································································· 224

II. Papers from the Eighth International Spring Forum
A Syntactic Analysis of Mental Property Adjectives and Its Implication for Pedagogical Grammar
Takahiro Honda ························································································· 228
Sluicing with Coordinated Remnants
Hiroko Kimura and Narita Hiroki ···································································· 235
The Repetitive Coordinator-ka and the Syntax of Alternative Questions in Japanese
Ryoichiro Kobayashi ··················································································· 242
Cross-Linguistic Variations in Realization Patterns of Speech Act: A Competition-Theoretic Approach
Kazuya Nishimaki ······················································································ 249
A Distributed Morphology Approach to Genitive Compounds in Frisian
Tatsuhiro Okubo ························································································ 256
The Lack of Head Movement in Ellipsis Constructions under E-feature Movement
Rumi Takaki ····························································································· 263
On the English Dative Alternation: Arguing for the Multiple Meaning Approach
Shiro Takeuchi ·························································································· 270
Japanese EPP Revisited: Negative Polarity and Degree Anaphora
Hideharu Tanaka ························································································ 277
How to Say Why to, and Why
Hidekazu Tanaka ······················································································· 284
Effects of Orthography on Loanword Adaptation of English Diphthong /ei/ to Japanese
Kanako Tomaru ························································································· 290
A Voice-Bundling Parameter Account for Romance Anti-causatives
Masaki Yasuhara························································································ 296
書式規定 ············································································································· 304

[I]Thirty-Third Conference
November 21-22, 2015 Èù&Ï³'ZN&Ĥ6'CHILDES ;ê

72 ü

pÉāÊ;ď]Ė$#5½é³!±èĒ&ï
Ħ;pÉ
Đ&]Ė$½é³$'dïĖ where î½#Ćµd&½é³!±èĒ7Đ&¬2ě+7±èĒ$ļChild’s Sentence Production and'Đ% where î½$¬ûComprehension Based on Child-Parent

7&

ď

3 ü

èĜ&ËĀ/;ê

ConversationsĽ

É



'ÃĨ¯

±èĒ&ïĦ;p

ÜĞ gYļNobuyo FukayaĽ
2ľ  CHILDES ; êĊÛ¢ÎļShibaura Institute of

pÉ

2.1. Nina & where î  ½ & é ³

TechnologyĽ

CHILDES $ĭ8
?KHKDŀ±èĒ, ½é³, Đ&]Ė,ÃĨ¯èĜ, where î½

7 Nina !ÕĐ&]Ė$ãâ;¦1 Ó 11 JÄ

53Ó3

JÄ.

Nina&ēęïĦ;pÉïĖ where î½; grep Íÿ7!
(1)&4#¹ø

Ĕ 564 cđ8



1. ¥
 d&±èĒ!½é³&ïĦ;Öġ
7!vą&,

§ą462ïĦÁLĉð$ē:8

!

7

Hendriks(2014)$47!½é³&,

±èĒ462ïĦÁ
î½;_

7Èù7&'whereĐį&]Ė$ãâ;¦d& where î½"&4(1)$Đ$^:

ě+75$Đ& where î

½&§&d&ïĖ;pÉ7!$4
where î½&±èĒćx;ď

where î½'W& wh î½!Öġ
ÖġðÁ

ÂÇ

±èĒ&,

5ïĖöĘ87&
½é³462ïĦÁ!7!d'#6ÁÂÇwhere î½;Ĩq$èĒ
87Èù
É;ċ
4



5Đ&

7!SÞ

'Đį&]Ė$p

!$4Lĉð#ďĒ!

eMwhere î½;(2)$÷ 4 &AGKE$pĹ#$±èĒ&¿½é³$jċ7&&4#î½20

8!2Hendricks ¶»74$½é³&¿Át&åª7&&

8!2.đ(2) a. Where Aux S V?

b. Where S V?

3

(2a)$' Where’s …?

c. Where S Aux V?

ú 2 Çļ2

140

87

37

d. &W

Ó 11 JÄ

(53.0%)(32.9%)(14.0%)

Ł3 Ó 2 J
564 cP 458 c(81.2%)'(2a)$ė¦7îÄĽ

½(3a)z{ĕÐî½(3b)3 SAIÐî½(3c)'Ĕ 15 c

Č(5);ď7!2 &åªđ871
ñ&åª'û(3) a. Where's my candy? (2;1)$#7!264 cP 140 c(53Ļ)!y

c. Where Justin is gonna go xxx? (2;5)

7!

72 ñ&åª'ĆĢú 1 Ç
5Nina 'rÇî½;é³Ò

ö

5 SAI ;_

$/

78

'145 cP 52 c(35.8Ļ)#&$ú 2 Ç' 264 cP 37 c(14Ļ)!Ý7&āÊ

7!

ú 2 Ç&¿ Nina &î½Đ$^:6$ÕĐ¬

ď

Đ

5õ6

where î½&ò§&ÕĐ&¬;Ą

587Nina & where î½;ď7!

7(4)& 3 &B=E$ppÉ7ú 1 Ç&!


6

ĵ$'ÕĐ

b. û

#

!;Ġ.

c. ĆĢ°;©7!
$80Ļ," SAI ;_5&û#

7!Lď½Ùð#½

2rÇÔĴ
ď7!û

cP 240 cû'&móµ$ĨqïĖ'2 Óv}ķ! 2 Ó§}7!

ÕĐd$% where î½'(6)5 3 Óv}&4

52 Ó 1 JÄŁ2 Ó 4 JÄ&ú 1 Ç!2 Ó 11 JÄŁ3(6)

Ó 2 JÄ&ú 2 Ç& 2 $p½é³;
7ÕĐ&¬;Č(5)$÷(5) Nina & where î½$7ÕĐ&¬
û



û

7

2.2.
 Nina & where î  ½ & ±  è Ē

' 125 cNina & where î½&

2 &ÂÇ$!:6' 564#' 199 cĆĢïĖ¼y' 24Ļ,"

$^:7!'Ĳ5#
đÇįla!

7!­:87î½

(4) a. ûď5

171$Nina &î½

&!"&4
74'

145 cP 35 c(24.1Ļ)#&$ú 2 Ç

b. Where Mary Lou go? (2;2)

&!

6ú 1 Ç

#

ĆĢ

6



ú 1 Çļ2

35

58

52

Ó 1 JÄ

(24.1%)(40.0%)(35.8%)

Ł2 Ó 4 J
ÄĽ

4

#¹ø

Ĕ 2011 cđ8

(9) û

ÕĐ& where î½$§Ă7d&ïĖ
$
#

ĐÆ<

(4)$÷B=E$pĹ3 &B=E"8$2ė¦#c$

'ĳla6$pĹ8ïĖ'Õ
û

&

!2 where î½&û

26

:#

ď7!
û

û

8

!')

&6' 1985 cP 1328 c(70Ļ)û#' 511 c(25Ļ)ĆĢ' 146

&Ěĸ$6Ā01Č(8)&ûc(7Ļ)

6&ïĖ where î½&û

ÕĐ& where î½&ïĖ'Nina  1

:Ó 11 JÄ&Â$ 43 cđ8&§2:#

Ó 3 JÄ

û&û

Nina &ïĖ$¹ø

Nina &±èĒ&ïĦû;5$ě+71(7)& 2 &ÂÇ$p

&û

/

"&4





!pĹ


s¾;cú 2 Ç: 2 Ó 9 JÄŁ3 Ó 0 JÄ

#Nina &û(12);ď/4





7&

:

4

#

&!$

Į

û

7

û



û

6

s¾c((11)!

Nina &û

' Here !#where î½&û
$ď

!)

7&!&ÕĐ&(12)'):#

#

Ģ
13

Ó 11 JÄ

(69.6%)(26.2%)(2.9%)(11) ÕĐŀWhere's the horse's tail? Ł2 Ó 2 J

NinaŀHere.

ÄĽ

ÕĐŀThat's right.
(12) ÕĐŀWhere are Mommy's teeth?

ú 2 Çļ2

376

142

47

Ó 9 JÄŁ

(66.0%)(24.9%)(8.2%)

NinaŀHere. 
ÕĐŀHere? What are these?

3 Ó 0 JÄĽ
6'ú 1 Çwcė¦&!

Nina 'ÕĐ&î

&û

;ºd

7.6d'#6Áď7!):

#

ÔĴ

!

ď2Č(13)&4

7&āĜ;v$(9)&Ěĸ



û

p

7

5

û

' 785!):

āÊ$#ú 1 Ç!ú 2

Ç$6Ā0«Ď7

'1328

5Nina &ïĖ&}pZM'î½&û

74
$

74

û

cP 540 c):#ú 1 Çú 2

Đ&î½;ÒèĒ/la' 430 cP 303 c

' 565 cP 376 c½$b5$/

7

NinaŀRabbit.

114

Ç!2,-

!pĹ



(10) ÕŀWhere is the giraffe's neck? 

303

ú2Ç

û

û

Ć 

ú 1 Çļ1û$.'):ïĖ$!(11)):
(8) ÕĐ& where î½$7 Nina &¬&):#$ÕĐĖ;
û7&'Nina):#(7) úĿÇ: 1 Ó 11 JÄŁ2 Ó 2 JÄ'Č(8);ď/4

8!2)

&đ82 Ó 9 JÄZı' 50 cv§

8

!)

((10)'ğä&´;û

5y2 Ó 5 JÄ$' 141 c

$#6):&ïĖ¼'ĵ$'#

!

(17)

(13)
):

):

û

#

ú1Ç

114

316

ú2Ç

174

391

):#
ď



û

$

):#ú 1 Çļ1 Ó 11 JÄŁ2 Ó 2 JÄĽ

û

5$
û

'3

ÓZı2¤$đ87ú 1 Ç!ú 2 Ç;Öġ7!ïĖm$ħ):#û

7&9; (14)&B=

E$pĹ7
Ñ$ú 2 Ç&ļ18Ľ;ď/4(14) a. ´

û


)

b. ²êČçļhere #"Ľ

:#

' 197 c6´Z

c. ´Z$ė¦7&' 70 c(35.5Ļ)$ë.
&Y:6$´ 192 cP 114 c(57.8Ļ)(14a)'(15)&4

$´;û



$y

7

ÕĐ&]Ė$!&´įħ
7!s¾
#"&Čç

7ïĖ

82ÕĐ&¬

7!ğä&û¾(18)

7(14b)' here!įħ

ú 2 Çļ2 Ó 9 JÄŁ3 Ó 0 JÄĽ

5s¾
7!s

72&ė¦7(12)(14c)'(16)&4$´Z&ïĖė¦7(15) ÕĐŀWhere is the lamb?
Nina: In the barn. (1;11)
ÕĐ: In the barn ?
(16) ÕĐŀ Where are Nina's feet?
Nina: Eyes. (1;11)ú 1 Ç&āÊ;Č(17);ď/4):#û 192 c6& 109 c(57Ļ)´Z$ė¦7´$İĥû'192 cP 57 c(29.6Ļ)ú 2 Ç&¿û!'):#!2Đ

5& where ;Ęĝ

ú 1 Ç462´;û

587&!Ò

7!Ą

>=TRÍ

;À!9Å±×à 0.1Ļ2Å±£7!÷8( = 30.21, df=1, p< .001)

6

3.
 ÃĨ¯èĜ!±èĒ&ïĦvüº÷±èĒ&ïĦ$ÃĨ¯èĜ&ËĀ/;ê
V&pÉ

 [IP

b.

pÉ



wherei isj



[VP

the

rabbittj'(19)$÷ 4 &uý;ê

1

7 

**

*

ti]]
c.  [VP(19) a. CASE: DP must be Case-marked.

***

the rabbit](Grimshaw (1997: 374))

d.

b. STAY: Trace is not allowed.

[CP

***!

wherei isj(Grimshaw (1997: 374))[IP

c. PARSE: Parse input constituents. Failed

therabbitk

by unparsed elements in the input.

*tj[VP tk tj ti]]](Grimshaw and Samek-Lodovici (1998:
194))
d.

hč(a)'where  VP $Xy8

Q-SCOPE:[+Q]

elementsmust

&1Q-SCOPE ;ßSTAY $ 1

c-command VP at the surface structure.

ħ(Ackema and Neeleman (1998: 17))

I@8'4 &uý(20)&4

7Q-SCOPE '[Spec, CP]#"å&´$ø{74
#

ú1Ç

7

$F

![7$ĎØwh [Spec, IP]$ø{6VP 3 IP $Xy2&uý;ß!

'5$

7hč(a)kx$7 is ox

'ç8

#

&



(20) ú 1 Çļ1 Ó 11 JÄŁ2 Ó 2 JÄĽ

PARSE $ 1 ħ

7.Qę

Q-SCOPE, PARSE, STAY>>CASE

VP &¶Ī$7&

CASE $ħ

7hč(b)' where [Spec, IP]$ø{CASE Z& 3 &uý'¡$`ă

&N$ CASE FI@8
Tableau (21) ; ď  / 4rabbit?!Đē
'"&4

STAY $ 2 CASE $ 1 ħ

7

 Where is thehč(c)' where ! is ox$ç8

#

Âd

pÉ2&&



PARSE $ 2 5$ CASE $ 1 

ħ

7

7hč(d)'where [Spec, CP]$ø{Qę2ÌXO8
½Ù

(21)

'hč(d)&47U&$Ēī8Ĩq$ where î½;èĒ7!

Whereis Q-SC

the

PARSE

OPE

STA

CAS

Y

E

FI?IA(20)&N`$`ă

rabbit?
a.

7&1

7

7&;Ć

$Ēī7

is  IP &QĎĪ;~1

 [VP

&
*

*

7

'hč(d)'M

7 STAY $ 4 ħÃĨ#hč!ĩ(8#

7



hč(a)(b)(c)M`&uý$ 2 !

*wherei [VPN`& CASE $ 1 ħ

7&

the rabbit!2ÃĨ#hč!ĩ(873 

hč(a)(b)(c)ÃĨ#hč!ĩ(87ti]]

where î½;"&4

7

$èĒ

7

&9

hč(a)(b)

7&'Q-SCOPE ;ß

d'Đ&î½;Ć



the

7!

ti]]

QÌ the rabbit $Xb.

!where î½!Ęĝ
Ą

587

O8

#

&



QÌ;XO87'&ğä!´!&İf¯;ĨÌ$¸
!
;û

#


7

7&āÊ´

2Ć!'í#7û

wherei [VP8û7ğä&´

7ğä&´!'í#7û

wherei

isj

[VP

the



d.

[CP

wherei

isj

[IP

the

Ñ$hč(c);ď7!ox$ where #

rabbitk1Q-SCOPE $ħ7!'#[VP tk tj ti]]]

5&ïĖ; where î½!

Ēī

#

!

!;÷

7

7&

'#

§Ă7!7ú 1 Ç
Z&û
1

#

'hč(b)&/ÃĨ7&L¿&ú 2 Ç;ď/4ú 2 Ç$#7!FI?IA(22)&4$|![7®á$Ý):#2´;û

5 3 Ó 0 JÄ.

ÃĨ#hčú 2 Ç&åª;·6Ģ7!ú 1 Ç!

Öġ´Z&û

$Ēī

587

 Ñ$2 Ó 9 JÄtj#ħ71ÃĨ#hč!ĩ(8'430 cP 109 c(25Ļ)$&
7!Ą

***!*

hč(a)!hč(c)'PARSE $Ĉð

Ėĸ

'´

-7Đ&î½;hč(c)&4*#hč!ĩ(87ú 1 Ç

1Đ% where î½&Ėĸ!'İf&#*!*

FI?IA(22)&N.6d'where î½&¬û!û
;ºd

*

rabbit]



d'Đ

**

c. [VP theđ8

83 cļhere ;0Ľ'´;û

 [IPrabbit tj ti]]2đ87ĵú 1 Ç

' 430 cP 303 c

rabbity8'ú 1 Ç

ÃĨ#hč

ú 2 Çla7!Ą

ď7!565

cP 114 c.Č(8)&û(22) ú 2 Çļ2 Ó 9 JÄŁ3 Ó 0 JÄĽ



7\¼

hč(c)ĩ(8##1
587

û

6$

Ĳ7! 376 cP 114 c´;û

Q-SCOPE, PARSE>>STAY>>CASE



2û

!'):#û$ė¦78'hč(b)&Qę
FI?IA(22)'PARSE  STAY 462

M`$FI@

71kx$7Ďþ'+ox87!ĬĎ

7!S

Þ



7Tableau (23);ď/4

VP &¶Ī$`ă

7&

ğä!

´!&İfLĈ

#

hčĩ(

871
&4

7!Ą

587

$FI?IA(20)

5(22)*!

nFI?IA!$4d'
(23)
Where

where î½;Ć
is Q-SCthe rabbit?
a.

[VP

OPE

!$´;Ć

8

PARS

STA

CAS



7!Ēī74$#6ú 2 Ç$#7

E

Y

E

!´$İ7û®!/#

*!

*

*

!

8

7

4ľ
ľ.!1
Èù

MA.

'Đį&]Ė$dGrimshaw, Jane (1997) “Projection, Heads, and&½é³!±èĒ&ïĦ;pÉ½é
³'rÇ

SAI ;_

580%ZM

7!/587î½đ8&$/(1998) “Optimal Subjects and Subject

Đ&¬$!ú1Ç

Universals,” Is the Best Good Enough?

î½;ïĖ

74

7wĺ



Optimality and Competition in Syntax, ed.



by

!7! #6Á
Ĩq$èĒ
ĵ$'rÇ

ÔĴ

Barbosa,

Danny

Fox,

Paul

Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis and David
Pesetsky, 193-219, MIT Press, Cambridge,

7

MA.

7!¹Þ

'´Z&û

7!p

Pilar

5Đ&î½;§}$#7!´;û
&4Hendriks, Petra (2014) Asymmetries between

7ïĖ¼

Language Production and Comprehension,$]Ė$

Springer, Dordrecht.

±èĒ;pÉ7!d'rÇ

5Ĩq$where î½;èĒ

MacWhinney, Brian (2000) The CHILDES

7&'#¨$±èĒïĦ7!Ą

Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk (3rd5

Edition), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

87

Mahwah, NJ.

V§&Ěĸ!'W&Đ

ď587

Rowland, Caroline F. and Julian M. Pine (2000)#āÊ©5“Subject-Auxiliary Inversion Errors and«Ď7.W

Wh-Question Acquisition: ‘What Children

2CKB;Ķ1d&½

do Know?’,” Journal of Child Language 27,]Ė2pÉV!
87&

pÉ

&Ï½$

4

é³!±èĒ&åª$

28,

373-422.

½é³462±èĒ&¿ïĦÁInquiry

Grimshaw, Jane and Vieri Samek-Lodovici'Đ'ĆĢ;!pLinguistic



d'Ò
7

Optimality,”

157-181.

5$ģØ

Suppes, Patrick (1974) “The Semantics ofChildren’s

Psychologist 29, 103-114.

Ú
1ÃĨ¯èĜ&ËĀ/;ê whî½&
p É '  Q-SCOPE & ,  OP-SPEC(Grimshaw(1997:374)) 3 Q-MARKING(Ackema and Neeleman (1998: 16) 2ĬĎ#i
;

7V&pÉ'ôì7

Ą½æ
Ackema, Peter and Ad Neeleman (1998)“WHOT?,” Is the Best Good Enough?
Optimality and Competition in Syntax, ed.
by

Pilar

Barbosa,

Language,”

Danny

Fox,

Paul

Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis and David
Pesetsky, 15-33, MIT Press, Cambridge,

9

Americann*ǆŌ)PEX (“static” type) 
ƖæǊŎ

=

ŊŌ*ćįŌłį'%ł

<?'ƘĐ>,Ę8Íå'?>8,& Ƒ ı Ł  ű Ƒ barring , Ʈ ē Ō Ŋ Ƴ *>|'%Mair (2004) -seeing (that), supposing (that) Bü%>?-Ō)PEX*×SdP*ƊÖǓOn the Historical Development of the¬ŷ)Ǎáf,Ê)Çƈ<?)

Deverbal Preposition barringǔ

,&8>'?>

 4ćį*-eÒ,³5<?>

Ģ ĕĒǓTomoaki Hayashiǔ

,e#&qƷÊÎÊÎǀǓKyoto Universityǔ

>ŸŦŉ*ƽHopper andTraugott (2003: 107) -²ƑƑ)(,lGdadUǖćį, ŸŦŉƇ)ćįFRK]d*%-,çó

ŌcŬƖŌļîËA?>³

>'ƭ3>,Ç-ŸŦŉ,I\Eb (cline ofcategoriality) '%vg,;

1. -  7 **Ŗ?>

 concerning, considering, regarding )(,ƑıŁűƑǓdeverbal prepositions; cf. ř
2002ǔ,eƶ-(,;(1) major category (> intermediate category) >)ƮēŌÇBŪminor category(ibid.)%ƑƖÞ,ĩŷŌļƥB»ËűƑŌ          

ļîB8#*Ż"ǓŸŦŉǔ,major category *-²ƑƑintermediatećį,Ɗĺ<ġƃA?%>Ǔcf.

category *-çÔƑƑminor categoryř 2002; ǒ 2001; Kortmann and König*-űƑĀŭƑƑu²ƑûŖ

1992; Ģ 2013ǔǁÈ,ò¶Bu²Ƒ)(´4?>4ćį,ƱƃƄ barring ,ƮēŌŊƳ*ƽ%-Ɣũ)*zĦƎƃA?%

5<?>'ûĄ?%

>'-ƌ



&

ò¶,ĸŋ (semantic bleaching)>?-

ĞŔŠ&-Oxford English Dictionary (OED) ć į  , é ě * Ʀ  > '  ? > (ibid.:
Corpus of Historical American English (COHA)

94-98)Ƒ go ,ĝğ,ò¶ (be going to) 2,SdPBƊÖbarring ,ƮēŌŊƳBŴ

,ćį-?<,ZFVNYƊÖ?

Ö>'BŎŌ'>>ÂŌ)'2.  ƃ Ŕ Š

2.2  Ƒ ı Ł  ű Ƒ

2.1 ŀ Ɯ Ō Ŷ Ĕ Hopper (1991) -ŸŦŉ,'%

 Mair (2004: 123) -ćį*- 2 #,P(2) , ;

EX(participal clause) ,lƖeż%>'ƭ3%>Ţe*Ō)P

EX (“dynamic” type) )lť,lƖ'Ƒť

8,Bü%=ƮēŌÇ

>

)

>

ƛƓ,Ǎáf,Ê)āŜ'%Ŀ?>8,&>(de)spite ,űƑŌłį-18 iŨé*Ŀ?4&ąƸŌ&

notwithstanding 'pė%(2) Considering its narrow beam, the boat is"remarkably sea-worthy.

(ibid.: 31)" (Rissanen2002) ?-,e'ŴƑıŁűƑ-,;

<?>Ţ

10

)lťcƑť,lƖeż5<?) õ Á  ƑŠ*%ƌ¤ƃA?%>8,,Ťƈ

(dangling participle)'ưŭŌ)8,'?

,ƿ=,ƮēŌŊƳ*ƽ%-*Ħ

>Ǔcf. ř 2002: 190; Kortmann and König

Ǝ?%

1992: 679ǔÐƂ (2005) -,e'

COHA ,SdP*;=,ƮēŌŊƳBŴ

%ćįBƦ%Ñ*űƑ*ÇA"

Ö%

%



> barringǓexcept for '±ų'ÐƂ-ƭ

3>ǔBü%>)& 3 ť&-OED '''>ƅĆ,ƌƖSdP*%±e,mBġ>'*;=

,Û,ÚňBĳè=*>'&
>'Ŵ

>7&

>

(3) Barring accidents, we should arrive ontime.

ǓOALD; ÐƂ 2005: 247ǔ  3.
 m   ġ
3.1 S d P ' ĉ į Ɯ űƑǓĀŭƑǔ save/saving ,ć ƃŔŠ*į*ƽ%,Ĭ­Ō)ŊƳBġįX`OM,ƮēŌŴÖƃA?%ǒ (2001: 90-91) *;>'?<-?

ƑıŁűƑ*concerning, considering,?çÔƑ safe, Ƒ save 'ň)>Ɩæ

regarding, relating to, touchingǓř 2002ǔŦŉ*ŃğŊŁŌǓĬ­Ōǔ*-Ľš

excludingǓĢ 2013ǔseeing (Mair 2004)

8,&><ěƬuſƖě

notwithstanding (Risannen 2002) >OED,ǉjŵ,Ƽ*ēŌ*-Ƒ',ĿBĬ­JdWM'ƈ)'*#%Mair¿Ƒ'(2004: 124) -Û,=B-7Ĩ)ƽ$Ǔsave/saving '8ƑŃğ,űƑ'ƈ>ǔ)A?>;

*

ºǎĺ

)" (ibid.)'?>ǒ (2001) ->>'ûĄ##?<BÚã

%8OED -ŹÊ#ƞ)ƌƖƤĈ'bar/barring ,ŊŁ-jŵ,ƽ,Ǐā'

%sB¾%%Ŀ8,'ŴŠ*%% OED ,SdP*;=ć

>>'8ƭ3%>ĞŔ%8,šÅBÿłOED B 4barring *ƽ%-ƃŔŠ*ƌƖSdP'>''>éƭ%ƑıŁűƑ,e#'%ü<?%>;> (Kortmann and König 1992)Ģ (2014: 52 &209) -EH]MſƖƓŵ,ő*;>ƚĤ
Bƃ*OED *;=ì<?łĆ=,ūģ,5< barring,ƮēŌÇBež>,-ǅćį>'Ƒ,ò¶ĸŋ'Ŵ<?>ë"%ĞŔŠ&-Ĭ­JdW

Ƒ',ƦƽËA?>m&M&>'ûĄ%;=ƅ°Ō)Ɖâ< barring ,ƮēŌÇ

>Ģ (2014) *;=ĦƐ?ć (4b) &=barring 2'ćį> COHA ,SdP8£Ļ>'*Bþ>'BŎû

>'Ƒ immediately ',ƦƽĴ%

'?>1

3.2 m   ġ 1: OED , S d P  < OED *%barringǓűƑǔ,ǊŎ

B5>'-vg'?>2(4) a. They immediately barred him from thecasino.
b. * Immediately barring accidents, we(ibid.: 211)

(1481–90 Howard Househ. Bks. 283, vjxx.)*barring *ƽ%-ƃŔ ĞŔŠ&-4OED ;= barring ,łshould arrive on time.
 vf,;(5) yardes, barin one pese, of lynnen cloth.

11 59 B¦ǄƋƹh¬ŷćħƯhĐœ)m)(BǁǏ* 52 Bġ

autosexing Barnevelder by adding the%-Ģ (2013) Băł (6)*Ä$¯(,;>Žb. The author started…to produce anbarring factor to the ordinary lace brown)¸Ƒ'%,ý

Barnevelder. (1936 tr. A. L. Hagedoorn

BŖB5)ĞŔŠ*

in Scient. Rep. VIth World's Poultry> (6b-d) , ² ś -  Hopper and Traugott

Congress III. 54)(2003: 107) , (1) *ķ>

c. He will enforce new ordinances barring
U turns in the public square and(6) a. major category: ²ƑŌcƑŌñƥregulating parking.

             

b. intermediate category (adjective): Ŀ¿(1937 Sun (Baltimore) 27 July 6/3)

Ƒ,çÔƑŌłįǓƿÒłįǔcd. That immense army (barring accidents)űǐwill be completed. (1793 Gouv. Morrisc. intermediate category (adjective/lƖein Sparks Life & Writ. (1832) II. 281)

eż): Ŀ¿Ƒ,çÔƑŌłįǓƿ
ÒłįǔcéűǐƑŌłįǓ(6a) -Ƒ²Ƒ%űƑ of, for, withƑħćǔ)(,ŎŌƖ')"%>'*;=Ò?> (6b) -(7b) ,;d. intermediate > minor categoryǓõÁ*[the barring

Ƒǔ: õÁƑŌñƥűƑ#NP] )(ƿÒƑ*éŭ²Ƒ,ŏ*Ŀ#?>'*;=Ò?>(6c) - A:>4-űƑ8,>Ŀ¿ƑŌłį'Ƒħć,'&=

 (6) ,Ǐ*;=OED ;=¦ǄSdbarring ,ŏ, NP ò¶f,lƖ*)>'PBġūģƄ 1 &Ŵ>

(7a-d) -ƭ,Ǐ (6a-d) ,&>barring NP] 'Ǔç&ŁƦ>Å°8(6d) -űƑŌłį'ưŭŌ&

compare with most.

                            
!@-,+CABE/.99473D



47:296214.:20.:2389=*647890.:2389=
@> 6.5890.:2389=
? 
78;7<29/ .1520:4<2 .1520:4<2G .1520:4<2F
G 
!$% !$))!
!
!% !%$)!%% !%))"!
#!& !&$)""!&% !&%)!
!
"!' !'$)"!
"!'% !'))!
"#!( !($)#"%!(% !())
'
!
&
"
!&
!) !)$)##"$!"!)% !)))
%
"
"
"
!!
"



!



"$

!
#

'

12

!(

'

>ǔ 3

=lť

'Ƒť,ò¶f,lƖeż)(1882 Garden 14 Jan. 23/3)>

,Å°8 barring ,ØƑť,lƖ-lť,lƖ'eż%(7) a. For beauty of barring the Celery fly may<?>ŏ, NP őņ?[…,%)&>(6c)',ĘÊ,ƴ

(6d) ,łį- 19 iŨé'%(6d) -4&ćǌ*ŁƦƑƖÞ bar ,ò¶ĸŋexcluding ')±ǁÈ,ò¶B8#8,')"%

Ý, (8) &>Ƅ 1 <19 iŨé

%ê*Æ20 iŨkď*ĵÙ>

* (6a) (6c) (6d) ,'A>7%ćǌ*Ŀ?>,- 1874
>,é 20 iŨ*łĆÆ>'A>
 vf;=ćį,ƲŝBŴ
8 (6d) ,łį&>8(8) Barring this, it only remains to relieve>7&somewhat the monotony of our food, byűƑ,ƮēŌŊƳ'·1'ģ%ŬƍŌ*Íå&>,'variety in the modes of dishing it up.

ºǎŁ(1874, FIC, Idolatry A Romance; COHA)

>,ūģ<Mair (2004) ,ü>
seeing ,űƑŌcĀŭƑŌłį,;ƑıŁűƑ barring 'Ŵ*véĿ¿2Ż>4&(6d) ,łĆ- 1980ÝuBǁ (6c) ,łĆBf¼"%<?>m

>ƊÖ?>8,,JdWM*>Ǎá,Ç*¥đ?)&>'ŴǆŌ)PEX,ćį

3.4 Ŵ Ö<?>

3.4.1 Ł Ʀ { ű '  ű Ƒ Ō ł į , Ò Œ ř (2002: 183, 184) -Ƒ concern 

3.3 m   ġ 2: COHA , S d P  <<űƑ concerning ŊƳŸŦŉ, Ī*COHA ;=ì19 iŨ< 20 iƲŝ*ƽ%OED Bkï*ƫ=vg,

Ũ*%ƊÖ?> 1159 ,SdP< X`OM

>'Ŵ

%

>

Ƌƹh¬ŷćħƯhĐœ)m)(Bǁ 1137 Bġbarring ,ƮēŌÇB58,Ƅ 2 &(9) a. a matter intimately concerning your>)Ǐ- 3.2

friend.

ť'± (6) *;>Ƅ 3 - barring ,

b. He made to me a communicationűƑŌłį,ŁƦ{űB4'78,&

concerning your friend.

>Ƅ 2 B5>'19 iŨkď<(6d) ,c. I will communicate with you concerningłĆ,Æ5<?>'A>

your friend.

 &ŁƦ{ű*ŒŎ>'Ƅ 3 ;=

(ibid.: 183)

0P:<;9SQRU>=IIDGBTT )+&,PN F=EHI*?=JABHIM
O+&,

GHKG/60.-/607/61.-/617/62.-/627/63.-/637/64.-/647/65.-/657/66.-/667/67.-/677/7..-/7.7/7/.-/7/7/70.-/707/71.-/717/72.-/727/73.-/737/74.-/747/75.-/757/76.-/767

0
1
/
1
1
0
0
2
4
/.
/2
/1
/6
/4
00
/3

1P#>=IIDGBT%

DGJAIFA@D=JA*?=JABHIM*8*FDGHI*?=JABHIM

#
LAI> =@EA?JDLA =@EA?JDLA*+$W =@EA?JDLAV #W JC=J JC=J '!
0
1

/
0

/
0
0
/
/
1
2
3
0
2
6

/77.-/777

/4

/

"

/3.

17

1

05

0
0
/3
6
1
/0
/6
/7
14
14
22
35
4.
36
23
31
14
24

16.

33.

1
3
7
4
3
5
/2
/6
/6
/3
04
07
14
23
20
11
20

5

1
/

2

72

/77.-/777

0.

04

00

//37

"

/0/

207

0
0

/

0

/
/
/
1
1
/
/

13

( (

/60.-/607/61.-/617/62.-/627/63.-/637/64.-/647/65.-/657/66.-/667/67.-/677/7..-/7.7/7/.-/7/7/70.-/707/71.-/717/72.-/727/73.-/737/74.-/747/75.-/757/76.-/767/

4

O+&,

5
/2
16
/6
//
02
14
21
40
37
61
/.2
//2
/07
/.6
//1
/.0

/
/

/

7

"

)+&,PN

0
2
0
0
3
/4
/.
/0
3
7
/5
/5

0
0
/3
6
1
/.
/2
/5
12
1/
06
25
26
31
14
14
/7

(9a) -Ƒ,ò¶Bĭ%=,lƖ

%- [NP barring…] ,;* barring ,ŏ a matter  ) A ! a matter (which is)*lƖ')>²ƑBz ǓƖǋ,ąƸB¨

concerning your friend. &>ǔ9%ŏ* NP B§<'8Ł>'?>(9c), concerning -lƖąƸ&-)űƑŌƦ&>;*)>ǓlƖ,ąƸB¨)

&)>ǔ'Ŵ<?>=(9b) -kƼŌ)'?><*eĎconcerning űƑ,{űBì vfBÄ*COHA ,SdP*;=ĦƎB>'ćǌ*ű'¬ŷ*)> (ibid.)

ƃ'ƭ3gƏBãł%2,ćįê*Ʊ5,éłįŕš>'19 iŨé

,ēě*%űƑ%ćǌ*8ŁƦ¬ŷ')"'Ŵ(10) Concerning this solemn incoronation, we>'&>ŁƦ{űBºAbarring ,

have from the pen of an eye witness, GuidoűƑŌłį- 20 iŨvƾ,ēě*ƊÖ?

d’Arezzo, details etc..

,44Ŀ¿2'Ż"%(1836 F. Mahoney Rel. Father Prout, Songs-Mair (2004) ,Italy ii. (1859) 349)

&

>'Ŵ

>,Ş,ÇŌ)PEX,ćį<?> &barring ,űƑŌłįćǌ*Ł

3.4.2 barring , Ā ŭ Ƒ Ō ł įƦ>, 1870 Ýuvƾ& ƑıŁűƑ-ĀŭƑ'%ł

>ĺ*ŒŎ

barring 8concerning ''8*ƑŃğ,űƑ&<?

>'8É Ǔǒ 2001: 75ǔe'%

=ǓÐƂ 2005: 622ǔűƑ

save/savingǓcf. ibid.ǔconsidering ü<

Ōłį'ưŭŌ)õÁƑŌłįB8"%?>Ǔcf. Kawabata 2003; Ģ 2015ǔ&>barring ,Ç,Ʋŝ8 concerning '±-OED &-5<?)"8,,COHAĨ&>'wÒ>)<.eĎbarring,SdP*5<? barring ,ĀŭƑŌłįűƑ,{űBì>'ćǌ*ű'

Ǔcf. ƀĜcÏƣĮ 1984: 528ǔ*ƽ%ƭ3¬ŷ')>'Ŵ<?>,&-)@

 >,łį*-barring * that ťéŭ

#4=1874 Ý*7% barring ,űƑŌ> (11a) ,;łįćǌ*ŁƦ'<,ēě*)8,'that őņ?%> (11b) ,;

)8,

>

barring -űƑ,À{Bì'āĶ>,&>,ŶĔ*-ŸŦŉ,Ĳ?

(11) a. The praast, Father Murhy, ye sae, had aƑ<űƑ2'eĉ³ñB8"%Ʊƃ

beautiful niece, as was jist my age,%barring that she was a couple o’ year'>ćį,ļî>ŕ*ćǌ*ŁƦ>,űƑ,ÂŌ)ļ
îyounger.

4'>*-ĦƎ,}À> 

ŸŦŉ,Ɗĺ<-(6c) ,łį*

%(1849, Fic, Leni-Leoti Adventures; COHA)
b. Me father -- pace to his ashes! -- barring-lťcƑť,lƖeż5<?8,,I niver saan the proof he was me father,(2) ,õÁƑŌłį2'ćį>,*and there was dispute about it -- was az

gintleman laborer, as had plenty to do all

'

,;

)eż5<?))"%Ç-ƑŌļî,»Ë*zűƑŌļîB8#;
ŖǕ#,Äķ')=
'

*)"%



his life and little to ate.

'B

(1849, Fic, Leni-Leoti Adventures; COHA)5> ±Ĩ*ćį
barring ,ĀŭƑŌłį-Êƶ Fiction

ƊĺBƺ5?.ƑŌ)łį*

14

>ļ*1840* Ğş-čĞſƖÎyŢ 33 ¼ÊyǓ2015

Ýu*ƊÖ?>8,-,%±e,Ý 11 ę 22 čĊcƽƆÈ½ƖÊÎǔ*Ɓ ŵ (Emerson Bennett) * ; > ~ ¸ (Leni>©ǌŊƄ,Ô*ţcīBċ8,

Leoti Or Adventures In The Far West) <ì&<?m&

ŗńf>Ǔ*¥đ&%,L[b^&ł<?%>ĀŭƑŌłį'%Ęé

*ƊÖ?>,-gƏ (12) ,&>>åčJZbTBg"ōĨ*í)ĺ8=ƒ0ńf>ǔĞş*>Ɨ
=)(,ơx-%ţŵźƩ*Ü<?>ĞŔŠ-ŚŔƢǓļŔŠ¹ÌƢŔŠ(12) “I don't know anything against the kid,ƙǎŇ®: 15J00373ǔ,öB¨%barring that he’s been a little wild,”
Maloney testified.

>

İ
1

(1936, FIC, Crooked Trails Straight; COHA)(4a) -ţŵ*;>~Ãţé,ƚĤ*;=Ģ (2014: 211) *ƏƑ immediately
4.  A = *'Ƒ bar Ʀ>'BŖć They

 Ğş&-OED, COHA ,SdP*Ä$

immediately bar him from casino. Ôƕ?

barring ,ƮēŌŊƳBĦƎġ,ūģ

)-vg,;*4'7<?>(i) OED ,'ûĄB¨7EH]MſƖƓŵ

*;=Ƶ'?ć (4a) &>SdPBƈ>ƿ=ǆŌ)PEX,ćį'

2Ŵ

-ying )(B-7-ing ç,ňçóB´7%<?>(ii) COHA ,SdP<-ŊƄéME )(,ēu*ƽ%--ende,Ō)PEX'%,ǇBƊÖ>'ßƚĤBƃ

&>'8*ƑŃğ&<*ªēu*8 barring ƊÖ?>¬concerning ' ±  ć į  , Ū Ƨ Ǔ cf. ř ŷñ=?<BŴô*?+.ŮŲŌ

2002ǔBƫ"'?.19 iŨé)ƚĤ'-)<)

20 iŨ
C&> considering,<,ēě*ê*űƑƱ"'āĶ?>vfBƨ4ðƇ>'ûĄǈ

ĞŔŠ&- barring 'çó,5Bø%ƚĤBƃ"%=>fƏ,ňçó-×Ɵ'%)'űƑ'%, barring ,łį-Č* 15#iŨ<5<?19 iŨé3Ũ

< 20 i,ēě*%<*ćįƱ5

űƑ'%,ñƥä)"'>%-ré,ƙǎ'

clause *;>¢Õ*-«8´6'Ŵ<?>?-lƖeż'Ɗĺ<,²ś&Ă'%

4>: (i) ŸŦŉ*>eĉ³

é,ƙǎ'

±ćį,ŪƧ (9) Bƫ>'5> Ęé*ré,ƙǎ'%vgBü@ŊƄé,ĺ*#ñ(ii) barring -concerning, considering '
6

,ĺ*

Ƒť'-Hopper (1991) ,Ɩ participal

 Ī*ºǎĺBƭ3>Ğġ-vgB?<,Íåñ*-ĦƎ,}À



ŸŦŉ,


%ûĄǈ

r



Fukaya (1997) -ƑıŁűƑ,ġ*
"%űƑǂzcĭŅ (pied-piping and stranding)   ű Ƒ Ō  Ƒ(prepositional(i) ò¶,ĸŋŁēě',ŝá

adverbs) ' ' 8 *   ű Ƒ Ō ļ ñ(ii) bar/barring , Ő o ƽ   (iii) excluding,(prepositional property) Bļît>Ǖ#,without, except for, saving )(',łį,ĥ

Äķ'%lƖeż,¡ (identical-subject

5Ǔcf. Ģ 2013: 147ǔ(iv) ćǌ*ŁƦrule) Bł

> barring ,ĩŷ(v) ré, barring ,łBƺ5>'lƖeż-6@ƑŌļî&į,āŜǓƌƖÇǔ,ƈƮ

>'

15

%

>űƑ,ÂŌ)ļî

>Fukaya (1997) ,DX`dQ

-ŸŦŉ,Ɗĺ<ƑŌļî,»(2003) Grammaticalization (2nd edition),ËBűƑ,ƱƃBŖƐú'þ

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

'6

ġ,ĉ³ñBŖ%ŏ

Kawabata,>eĉ³ñ*×%-Ÿćį (cf. Ramat

1992) ,¥ü<?%&-(9a-c) ,;Ŗ&%)Tomohiro

Development(2003)

of

“On

the

Considering:The>4Ğş

Prepositional, Conjunctive and Adverbial)ćį,X`OMBĂ

Usages,” Studies in Modern English (TheTwentieth Anniversary Publication of theModern English Association), 139-152,
Eichosha, Tokyo.

£ŴćľřÓĮ (2002)

ǒ (2001)µŰŌűƑ (ĀŭƑ) save,saving ,ćį, řÓĮ (ů)ćį/#Ė÷, Ġq.
ÐƂƠǃ (2005)ĿuſćįƝų

―ŔŠ'ƙǎ―ƻùŘ,, 73-95, ſĹŘ, Ġq.

Ġq.
ƀĜeǃcÏƣĮīĚ (1984)ſƖ­A

Kortmann, Bernd and Ekkehard König (1992)ǓſƖÎÊŧ 10ǔÊǑĖà, Ġq.

“Categorial

in

English:

the

Case

of

Deverbal Prepositions,” Linguistics 30 (3),

Fukaya, Teruhiko (1997) “The Emergence of-ing Prepositions

Reanalysis:671-697.

A

Corpus-Based Study,” Studies in English

Mair, Christian (2004) “Corpus Linguistics and

Linguistics: A Festschrift for Akira Ota on

Grammaticalization

Theory:Statistics,

the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, ed.

Frequencies,

andBeyond,”Corpusby Masatomo Ukaji, Toshio Nakao, Masaru

Approaches

toKajitaEnglish, ed. by Hans Lindquist and

and

Shuji

Chiba,

285-300,

GrammaticalizationinChristian Mair, 121-150, John Benjamins,

Taishukan, Tokyo.
ĢĕĒ (2013) excluding ,łį,Ĭ­ŌÇ

Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

―ćį,Ɗĺ<―,ƌƖŚÎ

Ramat,

ƜǄ Ţ 19 ®, 127-150, qƷÊÎÊÎǀ.

Paolo(1992)“Thoughts

onDegrammaticalization,” Linguistics 30 (3),ĢĕĒ (2014)ćįſƖƑıŁ

549-560.

űƑ,ƑŌƦƽ—~Bkï*

Rissanen,

Matti(2002)“Despiteor—KLS (Kansai Linguistic Society) 34,

Notwithstanding? On the Development of

205-216.

Concessive Prepositions in English,” Text

ĢĕĒ (2015)considering ,űƑcĀŭƑ

Types and Corpora: Studies in Honour ofŌłį,ēŌŔŠ―_LMPd,Ɗ

Udo Fries, ed. by Andreas Fischer, Gunnelĺ<―, čĞƖłƜÎyŢ 17 ¼

Tottie and Hans Martin Lehmann, 191-203,ÊyŊƄƜćǄ

Gunter Narr, Tübingen.

Ţ 10 ®, 105-112.

Hopper, Paul J. (1991) “On Some Principles ofGrammaticization,”

Approaches

toGrammaticalization 1, ed. by ElizabethƪĖcJdWM)(
Corpus of Historical American English

Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine, 17-35,

OxfordJohn Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

English

CD-ROM

Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott

Dictionary
Ver.

4.0)

University Press, Oxford.

16

(2nd

edition,(1989)

Oxfordࡋ࡚ࠊBaker (2001)ࡢࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ㝵ᒙࢆ࠶ࡆࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊゝㄒࡢከᵝᛶࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿᗈࡃ▱ࡽࢀࡓ㝵ᒙᛶ࡛ࠊከ⥲ྜᛶࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ㸦ືモࡢ୰࡟୺ㄒ࣭┠ⓗㄒ➼ࢆ⾲ࡍせࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ෌⪃㸸Broad Syntax ࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽ⣲ࡀᢪྜࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ྰ࠿㸧࠿ࡽጞࡲࡾࠊ୺

ぢࡓゝㄒࡢඹ᫬ⓗ࣭㏻᫬ⓗከᵝᛶせ㒊ࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡸ୺ㄒ༟㉺ࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ➼ࢆ

㸦Parameters Revisited: Synchronic and Dia-⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࠊከᵝ࡞ゝㄒࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡿ㐣⛬ࢆ᫂chronic Variation in Broad Syntax㸧♧ⓗ࡟♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ௨ୗࡢ㸱Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ෌⪃ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸯Ⅼ┠ࡣࠊಖᆏ 㐨㞝㸦Michio Hosaka㸧ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢゝㄒࡢከᵝᛶࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ

᪥ᮏ኱Ꮫ㸦Nihon University㸧࠿࡞ࡾࡢᩘࡢࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋNewmeyer (2005)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸null subject parameter, nar-࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠾ࡾࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ㝵ᒙࡢ௬

row/broad syntax, dynamic model of language,

ㄝ࡛ࡣࠊࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡢᩘࢆቑࡸࡉࡊࡿࢆᚓࡎࠊ

LoT, LoC⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ᚑ᮶ࡢ rule-based ࡢ௬ㄝ࡜ኚࢃࡽ࡞
ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊ ྛࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡢ┦஫㛵ಀࡀ୙᫂☜࡞Ⅼࡀᣲࡆࡽ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

ࢀࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊᚋ࡯࡝ᢅ࠺ Null Subject

 ࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱᴫᛕࡢᑟධࡣࠊゝㄒ◊✲࡟㣕㌍

Parameter ࡣࠊ᭱ୗ఩࡟タᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊⓗ ࡞ ㄝ ᫂ ຊ ࢆ ࡶ ࡓ ࡽ ࡋ ࡚ ࡁ ࡓ ࠋ Chomsky᪥ᮏㄒࡸⱥㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࣃ࣓࣮ࣛ

(1981)࡛ࡢᥦ᱌ࢆዎᶵ࡟ࠊᑡᩘࡢᬑ㐢ⓗཎ⌮ࢱࡀ㛵ࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ

࡜ࡑࢀ࡟௜㝶ࡍࡿࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ࡟ࡼࡾࠊゝㄒ⋓ࡑࡶࡑࡶࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡣグ㏙ⓗ࣭ㄝᚓ᫬ࡢࠕ่⃭ࡢ㈋ᅔࠖࡢၥ㢟ཬࡧゝㄒࡢඹ᫬ⓗ࣭㏻᫬ⓗከᵝᛶࡢၥ㢟ࢆ୍Ẽ࡟ゎỴࡍࡿ㐨᫂ⓗጇᙜᛶࡢᇦ࡟࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࣃ࣓࣮ࣛ
㸬㸬㸬㸬㸬㸬㸬
ࢱࡀ࡞ࡐᏑᅾࡍࡿ࠿ ࢆㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊࡀ㛤ࡅࠊ⏕ᡂᩥἲ⌮ㄽࡣㄝ᫂ⓗጇᙜᛶࡢẁ㝵

Minimalist ࡢ┠ᣦࡍ㐍໬ⓗጇᙜᛶࡢᇦ࡟㐩ࡋ࡟⮳ࡗࡓ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⌧ᅾࠊ⏕࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ᡂᩥἲࡀ⏕≀ゝㄒᏛ࡬࡜Ⓨᒎࡍࡿ㐣⛬࡟࠾ ࡉ࡚ࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓၥ㢟ⅬࢆゎỴࡍࡿ㸯ࡘࡢ᪉࠸࡚ࠊࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡢᴫᛕ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚෌⪃ࢆవ൤⟇࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ᱌ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡀࠊࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࢆ

࡞ࡃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡶ஦ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏㄽ⪃࡛ࡣࠊ Lexicon ࡢ⣲ᛶ࡟ᖐࡍヨࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(1)ࡣࠊ
ࠕᛮ⪃࡜ఏ㐩ࡢゝㄒࠖ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃືⓗゝㄒࣔࢹ
Borer-Chomsky Conjecture ࡜ࡋ࡚▱ࡽࢀࡓ௬ࣝࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࠊࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡣ Narrow Syntax ࡢㄝ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊゝㄒࡢከᵝᛶࢆᶵ⬟⠊␪ࡢ⣲ᛶ୰࡟ࡣᏑᅾࡏࡎࠊBroad Syntax ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᙧែ

ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ồࡵࡿヨࡳ࡛ࠊ⌧ᅾࡶᵝࠎ࡞ᥦ᱌ࡀ

࡜⤫ㄒᵓ㐀ࡢ」㞧㐺ᛂⓗ⌧㇟ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ

࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡣ⿕ㄝ᫂㡯࡛࠶ࡾࠊᮏ᮶ࡢㄝ᫂㡯ࡣ ࣃ ࣛ ࣓ ࣮ ࢱ ࢆ ⏕ ࡳ ฟ ࡍ ཎ ⌮ 㸦 Complex(1) All parameters of variation are attributable toAdaptation)࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇ

differences in the features of particular items

ࡍࡿࠋ(e.g., the functional heads) in the lexicon.
(Baker (2008: 353))

2. ࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࢆࡵࡄࡿ㆟ㄽ ࡲࡎࡣࠊࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡢ୺せ࡞㆟ㄽࡢ㸯ࡘ࡜17ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⪃࠼᪉ࢆᇶ┙࡟ᥦ᱌ࡋࡓ Dynamic⏕≀ゝㄒᏛⓗどⅬ࠿ࡽࡣࠊGallego (2011)

Model of Language ࡀᅗ㸯࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡸ Boeckx (2014)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡢᏑ
ᅾ⮬య࡟␲ၥࢆᢞࡆ࠿ࡅࡿ◊✲⪅ࡶ࠸ࡿࠋ
Minimalist ࡢ⢭⚄࠿ࡽࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࢆ
Narrow Syntax ࡟⤌ࡳධࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊゝㄒ⬟
ຊࡢ୰㌟ࢆ࠸ࡓࡎࡽ࡟」㞧࡟ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࠊ࡛
ࡁࡿ㝈ࡾ㑊ࡅࡿ࡭ࡁ᪉⟇࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠊNS ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢゝㄒ࡟ࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿࠊేྜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᙧᡂࡉ
ࢀࡿᬑ㐢ⓗᵓ㐀࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮃࡲࡋ࠸ࠋᚑࡗ
࡚ࠊࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࢆ⏝࠸ࡓㄝ᫂࡟ࡣ㝈⏺ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝࢃࡊࡿࢆᚓ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᙉ◳࡞୺ᙇࢆ⾜࠺ Boeckx ࡉ࠼ࠊゝㄒࡢከᵝᛶࡢㄝ᫂࡟ࡣࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢᙧ࡛ࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ࡟㏆࠸ᴫᛕᅗ㸯 Dynamic Model of Languageࢆ᝿ᐃࡏࡊࡿࢆᚓ࠼࡞࠸ࡢࡶ஦ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(ಖᆏ (2014: 261))

 ࡑࡇ࡛ᮏㄽ⪃࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࢆ
๓ᥦ࡟ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ⌧㇟ࢆࠊcomputationalᮏࣔࢹ࡛ࣝࡣࠊࡲࡎࠊព࿡ࡢ⣲ᛶࡀేྜࡍࡿ

efficiency ࡜ communicative efficiency ࡢ┦ඞࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ
ࠕᛮ⪃ࡢゝㄒ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ LoT ࡀ⏕࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡿ」㞧㐺ᛂⓗ⌧㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿ࡭

ࡳฟࡉࢀࠊࡑࢀࡀ Conceptual Interface ࡟࡚ゎࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ

㔘ࢆཷࡅࠊ
SEM1 ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊCommunicative
Interface ࡟㏦ࡿ㝿࡟ㄒᙡᤄධࡸ㡢㡩ᙧែⓗ

3. Dynamic Model of Languageල⌧໬ࡀ⏕ࡌࠊ
ࠕఏ㐩ࡢゝㄒ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ LoC ࡀ ࡉ࡚ࠊ᭱㏆ࡢ⏕≀ゝㄒᏛⓗどⅬ࠿ࡽࡣࠊゝᙧᡂࡉࢀࠊࡑࡇ࡛ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡓෆᐜࡀ SEM2ㄒࡣࠊ➨୍⩏ⓗ࡟ࠊᛮ⪃ࡢ㐨ල࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨࡙࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㏆ᖺࠊChomsky (2014:7)ࡀࠊ

 ࡛ࡣࠊ᱁࡜ព࿡ᙺ๭ࢆ౛࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊලయⓗὴ࢔ ࣜ ࢫ ࢺ ࢸ ࣞ ࢫ ࡢ ⟿ ゝ ࢆ ࡶ ࡌ ࡗ⏕ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ(3)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡲࡎືモ࡚ࠊ”Language is not sound with meaning but࡜ྡモࡢព࿡⣲ᛶࡀేྜࡋࠊ㡯ᵓ㐀࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ

meaning with sound.”࡜㏙࡭ࡿࡢࡶࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ

㝵ᒙᵓ㐀ࡀฟ⌧ࡍࡿࠋ⫼ᬒࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ(2)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊゝㄒ ࡢ ཎ ᆺ ࢆ ࠕ ᛮ ⪃ ࡢ ゝ ㄒ (Language of(3) [gave √Tom<ag> [gave √Mary<rec> [gave √ring<th>√gave]]]

Thought)ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ⪃࠼᪉࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠ᫬࡟ࠊࡇࡢᵓ㐀ࡀ LoT ࢆᙧᡂࡋࠊࡑࡢࡲ
(2) The apparent asymmetry of BP (Basic Prin-

ࡲ Conceptual Interface ࡟㏦ࡽࢀࠊព࿡ゎ㔘

ciple) provides additional reasons for return-㸦SEM1)ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿ࡜᝿ᐃࡍࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ

ing to a traditional concept of language as

LoT ࡛ࡣࠊ⛣ືࡸ๐㝖➼ࡢ⤫ㄒ᧯సࡣ୍ษ⾜essentially an instrument for construction andࢃࢀࡎࠊేྜࡋࡓᵓ㐀ࡑࡢࡲࡲࡀゎ㔘ࡢᵓ㐀

interpretation of thought – in effect providing࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊCommunicative In-a “language of thought” (LOT).

terface ࡬ Transfer ࡉࢀࡓሙྜࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྛ㡯ࡢព࿡ᙺ๭ࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀせồࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ

(Chomsky (2015: 5))

ࡑࢀࡀ(4)ࡢ Visibility Requirement ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ18㡢㡩ᙧែⓗල⌧໬, ᶵ⬟ᢞᑕᵓ㐀ࠊ⛣ືࡸ๐(4) Visibility Requirement
Thematic roles of NP must be visible at the㝖࡞࡝㸧ࡀฟ⌧ࡋࠊࡑࡇ࡟ࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡢᏑᅾ

Communicative Interface.

ࡀ௬ᐃࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢ⥲యࡀ Broad Syntax ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊព࿡ᙺ๭ࡶヰࡋᡭࡢᛮ⪃࡟≉㸦ಖᆏ (2014: 268)㸧

໬ࡉࢀࡓ SEM1 ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢゎ㔘ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋࡓ
ࡘࡲࡾࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(5)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ

SEM2 ࡟ศࡅࡽࢀࠊࡇࢀࡀࠕព࿡ࡢ஧㔜ᛶ࡛ࠖࡣࠊຓモࡢᏑᅾ࡟ࡼࡾࠊࢺ࣒ࡀ Agent, ࣓ࢆ⏕ࡴせᅉ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ

࢔࣮ࣜࡀ Recipientࠊᣦ㍯ࡀ Theme ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ ࡛ࡣࠊලయⓗ࡟ࠊNull Subject ࡢ⌧㇟ࢆྲྀ࡜ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡾୖࡆ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᮏࣔࢹࣝࡢ୰࡛ࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡀ
࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟๰Ⓨࡍࡿ࠿ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ

(5) [VP ࢺ࣒ࡀ<ag←ࡀ> [V’ ࣓࢔࣮ࣜ࡟<rec←࡟>[V’ ᣦ㍯ࢆ<th←ࢆ> ࠶ࡆࡓ]]]4. ✵୺ㄒࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ
4.1. P&P ࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ

ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊྡモࡢ᱁ᙧែ✵୺ㄒࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡣࠊᩘከࡃࡢᩥ⊩࡛㆟ㄽࡀᾘኻࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊᵓ㐀ⓗ࡞ព࿡ᙺ๭ࡢල

ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼࡃ▱ࡽࢀࡓ⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼

⌧໬ࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ(6)࡛ࡣࠊTom ࡀ Agent,ࡤࠊ࢖ࢱࣜ࢔ㄒ࡛ࡣ(7a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟✵୺ㄒࡀチ

Mary ࡀ Recipient, ring ࡀ Theme ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ(7b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟チࡉ
FP ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ(6) [FP Tom<ag> [F’ gave+F<ag> [FP Mary<rec> [F’(7) a. Parla francese.
b. *Speaks French. (Radford (2004: 17))

gave+F<rec> [FP the ring<th> [F’ gave+F<th> [VP
Tom<ag> [V’Mary<rec>

[V’

the

ring<th>ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ஦ᐇ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊChomsky (1981)➼࡛gave]]]]]]]]]

ࡣࠊpro-drop parameter ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋࠊ࢖ࢱࣜ࢔ㄒ
࡞࠾ࠊࡑࡢ㢧ᅾⓗ᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊព࿡ᙺ๭ࡢ

ࡸࢫ࣌࢖ࣥㄒ࡛ࡣࠕ㸩ࠖࡢࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡀࠊⱥ

㝵ᒙᛶ㸦ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊAgent > Recipient > Theme)ㄒࡸࣇࣛࣥࢫㄒ࡛ࡣࠕ−ࠖࡢࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡀ㑅ࡀᇶᮏⓗㄒ㡰࡜ࡋ࡚ල⌧໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ࡘࡲᢥࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡋࠊࡑࡢ㐪࠸ࢆືモࡢᒅᢡ᥋ࡾࠊᶵ⬟ᢞᑕᵓ㐀ࡀ⥺ⓗ㡰ᗎ࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀࡿ㸧㎡ࡢᙉᙅ࡟㉳ᅉࡍࡿ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿゝㄒࡢ⠊ᅖࢆᗈࡇ࠺ࡋ࡚ࠊᮏࣔࢹ࡛ࣝࡣࠊConceptual In-ࡆ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜ࠊ༢⣧࡞㸯ࡘࡢࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ࡛ࡣ࡞

terface ࡢࡳࢆࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ࡜ࡍࡿ LoT ࡜ࠊLoT࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ

࡛సࡽࢀࡓᵓ㐀ࡀ Communicative Interface ࡛ືモࡢᒅᢡ᥋㎡ࡀ࡞࠸࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊ✵୺ㄒኚᐜࡍࡿ LoC ࡢ㸰ࡘࡢゝㄒࣞ࣋ࣝࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࡀチࡉࢀࠊࢻ࢖ࢶㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ(8a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟✵୺

ࢀࠊLoT ࡣ Conceptual Interface ࡢせồࡢࡳ࡟ㄒࡀチࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࢀࡤࠊ(8b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟チ᭱㐺໬ࡉࢀࡓ Perfect ࡞ᵓ㐀࡛ࠊࡑࡇ࡛⾜ࢃࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ

ࢀࡿ᧯సࡣࠊExternal Merge ࡢࡳ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࠊࡑࢀࢆ Narrow Syntax ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊLoC(8) a. (Ich) hab’ ihnࡣ ࠊ Communicative Interface ࡢ せ ồ ࡜IConceptual Interface ࡢせồࡢ཮᪉ࢆ‶ࡓࡍࡓ

have himschon

gesehen.

already seenb. Ihn hab’ *(ich) schon gesehen.

ࡵࠊ┦ඞࡀ⏕ࡌࠊᵝࠎ࡞ゝㄒ⌧㇟㸦ㄒᙡᤄධ,(Huang (1984: 547))

19ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⌧㇟ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡢ

(11) a. The Romance pro drop typeᩘࢆቑࡸࡉࡊࡿࢆᚓ࡞࠸㸦zero-topic param-[CP . . . {CLn} . . . [TP ෘ-Tφ . . .

eter ➼㸧ࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡶࡲࡓࠊBaker ྠᵝࡢၥ㢟ࡀ⏕ࡌࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡟グ㏙ⓗㄝ᫂ࡢᇦ࡟␃ࡲࡾࠊ
ྛࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡢᏑᅾ⮬యࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ

b. The Germanic topic drop type
[CP . . . {CLn}φ . . . ෘφi-VFin . . . [TP ti . . .

࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋc. The Chinese discourse drop type4.2. ࣑ࢽ࣐ࣜࢫࢺࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ

[CP . . . {CLn}φ . . . [TP . . . [vP ෘ . . .

 ࡉ࡚ࠊ㏆ᖺࡢ✵୺ㄒ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡜
ࡋ࡚ࠊSigurðsson (2011)ࡢ୺ᙇࢆ᳨ウࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ ᙼࡣ✵୺ㄒࡢ᭷↓ࢆᇶ‽࡟㸱ࡘࡢ㢮ᆺ࡟ࡲࡓࠊᙼࡢ୺ᙇ࡛኱ษ࡞Ⅼࡣࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ㢮ᆺศࡅ࡚㆟ㄽࢆጞࡵࡿࠋ(9)࡟♧ࡍ࣐ࣟࣥࢫ⣔ࡣࠊࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ࡟ࡼࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ(12)࡟♧ࡢ pro-drop typeࠊࢤ࣐ࣝࣥ⣔ࡢ topic-drop typeࠊ ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ2nd Factor ࡜ 3rd Factor ࡢ┦஫స୰ᅜㄒ⣔ࡢ discourse drop type ࡢ㸱ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

⏝ࡀ㛵୚ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺୺ᙇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(9) A. The Romance pro drop type, conditioned(12) I propose that the language faculty does notby agreement

contain any wired-in parametric instruc-

B. The Germanic topic drop type, condi-

tions, the desirable goal being to analyze

tioned by an empty Spec,Clanguage variation in terms of interacting

C. The Chinese discourse drop type, notgeneral 2nd and 3rd factor effects and prin-clause-internally constrained.

ciples. One such effect is incorporation. It(Sigurðsson (2011: 268))

can be formulated as a simple statementsayingࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢ㝿ࠊ(10)ࡢ C/Edge-Linking Gener-“Incorporate

Y

into

X.”

(Sigurðsson (2011: 274))

alization ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ✵୺ㄒࡣࠊCPෆࡢ Logophoric Agent (speaker), Logophoricࡘࡲࡾࠊ✵せ⣲ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊT ࡸ V ࡟⦅ධࡉPatient (hearer), Topic ➼࡜୍⮴ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲ

ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ incorporation ࡣࠊせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

ゝㄒ࡟㝈ࡽࢀࡎ㸦ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ⏕≀⏺࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿᐤ⏕⌧㇟࡞࡝ࡀࡑࢀ࡟࠶ࡓࡿ㸧ࠊࡑࢀࢆ 3rd
Factor ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ࠸ࡎࢀ

(10) C/Edge-Linking Generalization
Any definite argument, overt or silent, pos-࡟ࡋ࡚ࡶ⦅ධࡍࡿ᪉ἲ⮬యࡣࠊ(11)࡟♧ࡋࡓ

itively matches at least one CLn in its local

ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊศ㢮ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡾࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢᙧ࡛
ࡑࡢ㐪࠸ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ

C-domain, CLn ෛ{ΛA, ΛP, Top, . . .}.

ࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࢆタᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜ᕪࡀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗ
࡚ࡋࡲ࠺࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢୖࠊᙼࡢ୺

ࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊࢻ࢖ࢶㄒ࡛ࡣ(11b)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ

ᙇ࡛ࡣࠊ(13)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊⱥㄒࡸࣇࣛࣥࢫ

V2 ࡀ⏕ࡌࠊTopic ࡛࠶ࡿ୺ㄒࡣㄆྍ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊ ㄒࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒ࡛࡞ࡐ୺ㄒࡀ⩏ົⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ✵୺ㄒ௨እࡢ Topic ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࠊ୍⮴࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊṧᛕ࡞ࡀࡽㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛

ࡓࡵࠊ✵୺ㄒ⌧㇟ࡣ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

20

(13) However, these languages (English andḟ࡟ࠊ࢖ࢱࣜ࢔ㄒࡢࡼ࠺࡞ pro-drop type ࡛࠶

French) have an exceptionally strong “sub-ࡿࡀࠊືモࡢ Agreement ࡟ࡼࡾࠊVisibility

ject coercion”, perhaps as a result of a spe-

Requirement ࡀ‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿ࡜᝿ᐃࡍࡿࠋࡋ࠿

cial EPP or “nexus” requirement on the fi-ࡋࠊࡇࡇ࡛ὀពࡍ࡭ࡁⅬࡣࠊ࢖ࢱࣜ࢔ㄒࡢሙ

nite verb. I must put these issues aside here.

ྜࠊືモࡢᒅᢡ᥋㎡ࡣ୺ㄒ࡜ࡢࡳ୍⮴ࡍࡿࡓ(Sigurðsson (2011: 299))

ࡵࠊ୺ㄒ఩⨨࡟ල⌧໬ࡉࢀࡿព࿡ᙺ๭ࡢࡳྍ
ど໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ࡝

࡛ࡣࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓၥ㢟ⅬࢆࠊDML ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ࡝

ࡢព࿡ᙺ๭ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࡣࠊព࿡ᙺ๭ࡢ㝵ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゎỴ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋᒙᛶ࡟౫Ꮡࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋ࡚ࠊ(16a)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୺ㄒࡣ VP ෆ࡟␃ࡲࡾࠊ✵୺ㄒࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

4.3. DML ࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ
ࡲࡎࠊ✵୺ㄒ⌧㇟ࡢඹ᫬ⓗከᵝᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ(14)ࡣ discourse pro type ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ(16) a. [VP (Giovanni<ag>)࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊຓモࡢᏑᅾ࡟ࡼࡾ Visibility Re-

parl-a<ag> ]b. [FP[F’ parla-F [VP Giovanni<ag>parl-a<ag> ]]]quirement ࡀ‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊF<θ>ࡸ F<top>ࡣ
Ꮡᅾࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࡞࠸࡜᝿ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

ࡲࡓࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ௬ㄝ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ(16b)࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ࢖ࢱࣜ࢔ㄒࡢ୺ㄒࢆᚋ⨨ࡍࡿ⌧㇟ࡶࠊᐜ᫆

(14) a. (sensei-ga) kita.
b. [VP (sensei<ag>-ga<ag>) kita]࡟ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᚑ᮶ࡣࠊ
୺ㄒࡢྑ᪉⛣ືࢆ௬ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊ୺ㄒࡣືモࡀୖ఩ࡢ F ࡟⛣ືࡋࡓᚋ࡟ඖ఩⨨࡛ල⌧ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ୺ㄒࡣ VP ෆ࡟␃ࡲࡾࠊᵓ㐀ⓗ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟㐣ࡂ࡞࠸࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࢃࡅ࡛

࡟୺ㄒࡣせồࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

࠶ࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊtopic-drop type ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ᱁ኚ໬࡟
ࡼࡾ Visibility Requirement ࡀ‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ
F<θ>ࡣᚲせ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊV2 ➼ࡢ⌧㇟࠿ࡽࠊF<top>ࡣᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜᝿ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ
ࢻ࢖ࢶㄒ࡛ࡣࠊF<top>ࡢᏑᅾ࡟ࡼࡾࠊእ㒊࠿ࡽ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊⱥㄒࡢࡼ࠺࡞ non-pro-drop type ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊVisibility Requirement ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ(17)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊF<θ>ࡀせồࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊࡍ࡭
࡚ࡢ㡯ࡀᵓ㐀ⓗ࡟⩏ົ໬ࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ✵୺ㄒ⌧㇟ࡣ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ

ࡢ discourse-linking ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢࡣࠊF<top> ࡢSpec ࡟㝈ࡽࢀࠊࡑࡢ఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿ୺ㄒࡣࠊ

(17) [FP he<ag>(15a,b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟๐㝖ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࡯࠿࡟

speaks-F<th> [VP he speaks Italian]]]]]

topic せ⣲ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࠊ(15c,d)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟๐㝖ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(15) a. (Ich) hab’ ihn schon gesehen.
b. [FP (ich<top>)[F’ hab’+F<top> [VP ich<ag←nom>
ihn<th←acc> hab’ schon gesehen]]]

Visibility

F<θ>

F<topic>᪥ᮏㄒ+ (ຓモ)

−

−

⊂ㄒ
ఀㄒ

+ (᱁)
± (୍⮴)

−
±

+
±

ⱥㄒ

−

+

±

c. Ihn hab’ *(ich) schon gesehen.
[F’ speaks-F<ag> [FP Italian<th> [F’Type
discoursepro
topic-drop
pro-drop
non-prodrop௨ୖࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊTable 1 ࡜࡞ࡿd. [FP Ihn<top> [F’ hab’+F<top> [VP *(ich<ag←nom>) ihn<th←acc> hab’ schon gesehen]]]Table 1

Null Subject Types in a Synchronic

Perspective

21

ࡘࡲࡾࠊ㸲ࡘࡢࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ࡜ࡋ࡚ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚ࡿࠋ࠸ࡓ⌧㇟ࢆࠊVisibility, FP ࡢᏑᅾࡢ᭷↓࡟ᖐ ࡇ࠺ࡋ࡚ࠊඹ᫬ⓗ࡟ࡶ㏻᫬ⓗ࡟ࡶࠊNullࡍࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡾࠊ࠿ࡘࡑࢀࡽࡣࡍ࡭࡚

Subject Parameter ࢆࠊLoC ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝせồࡉࢀ

Broad Syntax ࡢ⌧㇟࡜ࡋ࡚⊂❧ࡋ࡚ືᶵ௜ࡅ

ࡿ Visibility Requirement ࡜ FP ࡢ᭷↓࡟ᖐࡍࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊ࡞ࡐࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࠿ࢆ ࡛ࡣࠊ㏻᫬ⓗከᵝᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ࡝࠺࡛࠶ࢁ

ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ࠺࠿ࠋvan Gelderen (2013)࡟࡚⯆࿡῝࠸ᣦ᦬ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྂⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤ✵୺

5. ⤖ࡧㄒ⌧㇟ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊᙼዪࡢᣦ᦬࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ

 Chomsky ࡣࡋࡤࡋࡤࠊ(19)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊゝㄒ(18)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࢻ࢖ࢶㄒ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ

ࡢ㐍໬ࢆ㞷ࡢ⤖ᬗ࡟ࡓ࡜࠼ࡿࠋ

topic ࡢ఩⨨࡛࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ㸦nearwe ࡀ topic㸧ࠊ✵୺ㄒࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(19) so the emerging system should just follow
laws of nature, in this case the principles of(18) Nearwe___genyddon on

Minimal Computation – rather the way a

anxiouslypro

hastened on

snowflake forms.  (Chomsky (2014: 10))norðwegas.
north.waysࡲࡓࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⯆࿡῝࠸≀⌮⌧㇟ࢆゎ᫂ࡍࡿ‘Anxiously, they hastened north.'◊✲࡟ࠊ」㞧㐺ᛂ⣔(Complex Adaptive Sys-

(Exodus 68; van Gelderen (2013: 275))tem)ࡢ◊✲ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ௦⾲ⓗ࡞◊✲⪅࡛࠶ࡿ Gell-Mann ࡢ◊✲(1994)࡛ࠊゝㄒ⋓ᚓࡸゝࡇࡢ஦ᐇ࡟ᑐࡋࠊvan Gelderen ࡣࠊྂⱥㄒࡣ

ㄒ㐍໬ࡶࡲࡓࠊ」㞧㐺ᛂ⣔ࡢ㸯ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺

࢖ࢱࣜ࢔ㄒ࡜ྠᵝࡢ pro-drop type ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᙇࡋ࡚ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⪃࠼ࡀṇࡋ࠸࡜ࡍࡿ

୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡜ࠊDynamic Model ࡢ୰࡛ᅗ㸰ࡢࡼ࠺࡟఩⨨ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⌧㇟ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊⱥㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚

࡙ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

ࡣࠊTable2 ࡟♧ࡍ㏻᫬ⓗኚ໬ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ࡜᝿ᐃ
ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

OE
OE
ME
௨㝆

Visibility+ (᱁)± (୍⮴)

F<θ>−−

F<topic>+±Type
topic-drop
pro-drop−+±

non-pro-drop

Table 2

Null Subject Types in a Diachronic

Perspectiveᅗ㸰 DML and CASࡘࡲࡾࠊྂⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ᱁࡜୍⮴ࡢ཮᪉࡟ࡼࡾࠊྍ ど ໬ ࡢ せ ௳ ࡀ ඘ ㊊ ࡉ ࢀ ࠊ pro-drop ཬ ࡧࡍ ࡞ ࢃ ࡕ ࠊ Conceptual Interface ࡛ ⏕ ࡌ ࡿComputational Efficiency ࡬ࡢ」㞧㐺ᛂⓗ⌧㇟

topic-drop ࡀㄆྍࡉࢀࡓ࡜᝿ᐃ࡛ࡁࠊ୰ⱥㄒ
௨㝆ࠊྡモཬࡧືモࡢᒅᢡ᥋㎡ࡢ⾶㏥࡟ࡼࡾࠊ
ྍど໬ࡢせ௳࡟ F<θ>ࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ✵୺ㄒࡀ

࡜ࡋ࡚๰Ⓨࡋࡓࡶࡢࢆ Narrow Syntax ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࠊࡇࢀࡀ LoT ࢆసࡾ࠶ࡆࠊゝㄒࡢᬑ㐢ᛶࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿ ࠋ୍᪉ࠊᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓ࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶

Communicative Interface ࡟ ࠾ ࠸ ࡚ ࡣ ࠊ

22Communicative Efficiency ࡜ Computational

Jaguar, Abacus, London.

Efficiency ࡜ࡢ┦ඞࡀ⏕ࡌࠊࡑࡇ࡛⏕ࡲࢀࡿಖᆏ㐨㞝 (2014)ࠕ᱁ࡢᏑᅾព⩏࡜⤫ㄒኚ໬ࠖ,」㞧㐺ᛂⓗ⌧㇟ࡀ Broad Syntax ࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡋࠊ⸨⏣⪔ྖ௚⦅ࠗゝㄒࡢタィ࣭Ⓨ㐩࣭㐍໬㸸ࡑࡇ࡟ࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡢ⌧㇟ࡀᏑᅾࡋࠊゝㄒࡢከ⏕≀ゝㄒᏛ᥈✲࠘, 257-278, 㛤ᣅ♫, ᮾᵝᛶࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࢃࡅ࡛

ி.

࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ⤖ㄽⓗ࡟ࡣࠊࠕࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡣࠊ

Huang, C.-T. James (1984) “On the Distribution

Broad Syntax ࡟࠾ࡅࡿィ⟬ຠ⋡࡜ఏ㐩ຠ⋡ࡢ

and Reference of Empty Pronouns,” Lin-㛫࡛⏕ࡌࡿ」㞧㐺ᛂⓗኚ໬ࡢ௜㝶ⓗ⌧㇟࡛ࠖ

guistic Inquiry 15.4, 531-573.

࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋNewmeyer, Frederick J. (2005) Possible andProbable Languages, Oxford Universityཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Baker, Mark (2001) The Atoms of Language,

Press, Oxford.
Radford, Andrew (2004) Minimalist Syntax,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Basic Books, New York.
Baker, Mark (2008) “The macroparameter in a

Sigurðsson, Halldór (2011) “Conditions on Ar-

microparametric world,” The Limits ofgument Drop, ” Linguistic Inquiry 42.2,

Syntactic Variation, ed. by Theresa Bib-

267-304.

erauer, 351-373, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Boeckx, Cedric (2014) “What Principles andParameters got wrong,” Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework, ed. by
M. Carme Picallo, 155-178, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, Noam (2014) “The Architecture of
Language Reconsidered, ” ms., Sophia
University.
Chomsky, N. (2015) “Problems of Projection:
Extensions,” Structures, Strategies and Beyond, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia
Hamann and Simona Matteini, 3-16, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Gallego, Ángel J. (2011) “Parameters,” The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism,
ed. by Cedric Boeckx, 523-550, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Gelderen, Elly van (2013) “Null Subjects in Old
English, ” Linguistic Inquiry 44.2, 271-285.
Gell-Mann, Murray (1994) The Quark and the23㎡3   ࢆྵࡴሙྜ࡟ไ㝈ࡉࢀࡿࠋྡモಟ㣭ᙧᐜモࡢṔྐⓗኚ㑄࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ྡモಟ㣭ᙧᐜモࡢṔྐⓗኚ㑄࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ 㸦 $4& *   *  5 

/     ୍᪉ࠊྂⱥㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊྡモಟ㣭ᙧᐜモ

    ࡢ఩⨨ࡣẚ㍑ⓗ⮬⏤࡛ࠊྡモ๓఩࡟ࡶྡモᚋ 㸧఩࡟ࡶ⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋⲈᮌ ṇᚿ㑻㸦 



㸧

໭ᾏ㐨ᩍ⫱኱Ꮫ㸦     

$2& *6 )   77 KZLWDQ   㸧)        )



89   )  :8࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ྡモಟ㣭ᙧᐜモ  Ṕྐⓗኚ㑄 $;' 2*%%'*,&

ศ㞳 !" ศᯒ #  " *< 

EOLèH=7 

 5    8  5    ᑟධ
ᑟධ *8            $>?$) & ''2& ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡟ࡣࠊྡモࢆಟ㣭ࡋࡑࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟*@     )  ) ࢆ㝈ᐃࡍࡿ㝈ᐃ⏝ἲ࡜ࠊ୺᱁࣭┠ⓗ᱁⿵ㄒ࡜QLZQH

ࡋ࡚୺ㄒ࣭┠ⓗㄒࡢᛶ㉁ࡸ≧ែࢆླྀ㏙ࡍࡿླྀ

     ))  

㏙⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

8     ) ) 



 *8            $>  A$'-4*A%&&EHRUKWQH

$%&   

$'&( )     *(  *

$2 &࡛ࡣᙧᐜモࡀྡモ๓఩࡟ࠊ$2&࡛ࡣྡ$  $'+%+B2-&&モᚋ఩࡟ࠊ$2 &࡛ࡣ୺せྡモࡢ୧⬥࡟ᙧᐜモ

ᙳᒣ $'++,&࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ㝈ᐃ⏝ἲࡢᙧᐜモࡣࠊࡀ⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྡモࡀᮏ᮶ⓗ࡟ഛ࠼࡚࠸ࡿᛶ㉁ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿ

ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡜ྂⱥㄒࡢྡモಟ㣭ᙧಶయࣞ࣋ࣝࡢゎ㔘ࢆᣢࡕࠊླྀ㏙⏝ἲࡢᙧᐜモᐜモࡢ⤫ㄒⓗព࿡ⓗ≉ᚩࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࠊྡモࡣ࠶ࡿ≉ᐃࡢሙ㠃ࡔࡅ࡛ᡂ❧ࡋࡑࡢᚋࡣኚ࡜ᙧᐜモࡢㄒ㡰ࡢ㏻᫬ⓗኚ໬࡟ㄝ᫂ࢆ୚࠼

໬ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿሙ㠃ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢゎ㔘ࢆᣢࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊศ㞳 !" ᵓ㐀࡜ #$  &"ࡘࠋ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ㝈ᐃᙧᐜモࡣྡモ๓఩࡟ᵓ㐀ࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࠊᙧᐜモࡣ #" ෆ࡛ྡモ࡜୺㏙⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡢࡀᇶᮏ࡛ࠊྡモᚋ఩࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡇ࡜㛵ಀࢆᣢࡘሙྜ࡟ࡢࡳླྀ㏙ࡢゎ㔘ࢆᣢࡕࠊ"ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣ㝈ᐃࡢゎ㔘ࢆᣢࡘ࡜୺

ᙇࡍࡿࠋྂⱥㄒ࡛ࡣླྀ㏙ࡢゎ㔘ࢆᚓࡓᙧᐜモ
ࡣ #" ෆ࡟␃ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊᒅᢡࡢỈᖹ໬࡟$-& .  /.  ࡼࡾྡモ࡜ࡢಟ㣭㛵ಀࡀᙧែⓗ࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡞0   * $%,12&ࡸ     " ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊྡモ๓఩࡟⧞ࡾୖࡀࡽ࡞ࡅࢀ

$'++'&࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊᙧᐜモࡀྡモᚋ఩࡟⌧ࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ%

ࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ⿵㒊ࢆక࠺ሙྜࡸ᥋㢌㎡ 3ࠊ᥋ᑿᮏㄽࡢᵓᡂࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ' ⠇࡛ࡣ24⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡜ྂⱥㄒࡢྡモಟ㣭せ⣲ࡢ⤫ㄒ఩

$1 &࡛ࡣ   ࡢ๓ᚋ࡟   ࡀࠊ$1&࡛ࡣ⨨࡜ゎ㔘࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᴫほࡍࡿࠋ- ⠇࡛ࡣඛ⾜◊  ࡢ๓࡟ ' ࡘࡢ   ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ࡝ࡕ✲ࢆᴫほࡋࡑࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ4 ⠇࡛ࡣࡽࡢゎ㔘ࡶࠕᮏ㉁ⓗ࡟ྍどⓗ࡛⌧ᅾࡓࡲࡓࡲ

᪂ࡓ࡞௦᱌ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ2 ⠇ࡣ⤖ㄽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ぢ࠼ࡿᫍ࡟࢝࣌ࣛࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ$1 &ࡀព࿡ⓗ࡟ኚ๎࡜࡞ࡿࡢࡣࠕᮏ㉁ⓗ࡟୙ྍど ྡモಟ㣭ᙧᐜモࡢㅖ≉ᛶྡモಟ㣭ᙧᐜモࡢㅖ≉ᛶⓗ࡛⌧ᅾࡓࡲࡓࡲぢ࠼ࡿᫍ࡟࢝࣌ࣛࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡜ྂⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᙧᐜ

࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘࡟࡞ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡼࡾࠊ

モࡢ≉ᚩࢆᴫほࡍࡿࠋ'*% ⠇࡛ࡣ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡟⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡟ࡣࠊྡモ๓఩࡟ླྀ㏙࡜㝈ᐃࡢᙧᐜࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ'*' ⠇࡛ࡣྂⱥㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᴫほࡍࡿࠋモࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ఩⨨ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ$,&࡟♧ࡍศᕸࢆ♧ࡍ࡜௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ

 ⌧௦ⱥㄒ
⌧௦ⱥㄒ


$,&

;  $%,CA&ࡸᙳᒣ $'++,&࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ

FG5 HG  HI  G5 HJ

⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊྡモ๓఩࡟⌧ࢀࡿᙧᐜモࡣ㝈ᐃ⏝ἲࠊྡモᚋ఩࡟⌧ࢀࡿᙧᐜモࡣླྀ㏙ ྂⱥㄒྂⱥㄒ⏝ἲ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ$C &ࡢゎ㔘 ྂⱥㄒࡢᙧᐜモࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡣ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ

ࡣࠕ㈐௵ឤࡢ࠶ࡿ⏨ࠖ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ$C&ࡣࠕ㈐ࡵ

Ⅼ࡛⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡜␗࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊྂⱥㄒࡢᙧᐜ

ࢆ㈇࠺⏨ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘࡟࡞ࡿࠋモࡣࠊಟ㣭ࡍࡿྡモ࡜୍⮴ࡋ࡚ࠊᒅᢡኚ໬ࢆ
♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋᙧᐜモࡢᒅᢡࡣࠊ㝈ᐃモࡢ᭷↓
$C& * 

࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᙉᙅᒅᢡࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ 

*  

$ * ᙳᒣ $'++,BC,&&$%+& * )  ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ?  $%,,1&ࡸ   $'+%+&ࠊྜྷ)          $⏣$'+%-&࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊྡモ๓఩ࡢᙧᐜモ࡛࠶ࡗ

* K 

࡚ࡶླྀ㏙ࡢゎ㔘ࢆᣢࡘሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ  ? B2%*2C&)    $  ' %2%+B%4*1&
$A&   

$%+ &࡛ࡣࠊᙧᐜモࡣࠊ㝈ᐃモ࡜ඹ㉳ࡏࡎࠊᙉD        ᒅᢡࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ$%+&࡛ࡣࠊᣦ♧モ࡜

   5 5   

ඹ㉳ࡋ࡚ᙅᒅᢡࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

D     )    㝈ᐃ࣭ླྀ㏙ࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ6  $'+++&

5  ࡣࠊᙧᐜモࡢᙉᙅᒅᢡ࡟╔┠ࡋࠊᙉᒅᢡ࡛࠶

       $ྜྷ⏣ $'+%-B2,&&

ࢀࡤླྀ㏙ࡢゎ㔘ࢆࠊᙅᒅᢡ࡛࠶ࢀࡤ㝈ᐃࡢゎ

$A&ࡢᙧᐜモ   ࡣ㝈ᐃ࡜ླྀ㏙ࡢ࡝ࡕࡽࡢ

㔘ࢆᣢࡘ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ  ゎ㔘ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ$1&ࡢ஦౛࠿$'+%+&ࡣࠊᙧᐜモࡢ⤫ㄒ఩⨨࡟╔┠ࡋࠊᒅᢡࡽࡶᨭᣢࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ࡢᙉᙅ࡟㛵ಀ࡞ࡃࠊྡモ๓఩࡟⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࢀࡤ

㝈ᐃࡢゎ㔘ࢆࠊྡモᚋ఩࡛࠶ࢀࡤླྀ㏙ࡢゎ㔘  5 *ࢆᣢࡘ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋḟ⠇࡛㆟ㄽࡍࡿࡼ࠺

    5 *࡟ࠊ6  $'+++&ࡢศᯒ࡟ࡣၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺

$1& *    *  ࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ    $'+%+&* E     5ࡢ❧ሙࢆᨭᣢࡋࠊྂⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᙧᐜモࡢศ*         $?  $%,,1B%22&&ᕸࡣ$%%&ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ



25

$%%&

    )   $  $'+%+B21&&FG  H  I  G5 HJࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ  $'+%+&ࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ࡶ⤒ྂⱥㄒ࡛ᙧᐜモࡀ ' ࡘ࠶ࡿሙྜࡣࠊ$2 &ࡢࡼ㦂ⓗ࣭⌮ㄽⓗၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆḟ⠇࡛♧ࡍࠋ࠺࡟ࠊྡモࡣᙧᐜモࡢ㛫࡟఩⨨ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞

ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊྂⱥㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚࡞ࡐ୺ ඛ⾜◊✲ࡢၥ㢟Ⅼඛ⾜◊✲ࡢၥ㢟Ⅼせ㒊⛣ືࡀ㒊ศⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡟ไ㝈ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᴫほࡋࠊࡑࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆ࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊI ⛣ືศᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ-*% ⠇࡛ࡣ L$%,,4&ࡢ I ⛣ືᯒࡣྂⱥㄒࡢᙧᐜモࡢศᕸࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ

ศᯒࢆࠊ-*' ⠇࡛ࡣ 6  $'+++&࡜   ᭷ຠ࡞ᡭẁ࡛࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ'$'+%+&ࢆᴫほࡍࡿࠋ)LVFKHU  +DXPDQQ  1 ⛣ືศᯒ⛣ືศᯒ ྂⱥㄒࡢᙧᐜモ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୺࡞ඛ⾜◊✲࡟ࠊ ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡜ྂⱥㄒࡢᙧᐜモࡢศᕸ࡟ᑐࡋ

6   $'+++& ࡜    $'+%+& ࡀ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ࡚ࠊ࠾࠾ࡼࡑ$%'&࡟♧ࡍࠊL $%,,4&ࡢ I

6  ࡣࠊ;   $%,C'&࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊᪧ᝟

⛣ືศᯒࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

ሗࢆᣢࡘᙅᒅᢡࡣ㝈ᐃ⏝ἲࢆࠊ᪂᝟ሗࢆᣢࡘ

ᙉᒅᢡࡣླྀ㏙⏝ἲࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ

$%'&F!"F6"F"JF6MF6  JF6"F"JF6MF6  J࠿ࡋࠊN  $%,12&ࡣࠊ$%4&ࡢ஦౛࡟࠾࠸࡚

♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᙉᒅᢡࡢᙧᐜモ࡜ᙅᒅᢡࡢ

F6"F"JF6MF6  JFI"IJJJJJJJJᙧᐜモ࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢព࿡ࢆ༊ูࡍࡿࡢࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸஦౛ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ࠶ࡆࠊᙧᐜモࡢᙧᘧࡀព࿡

ࢆᣢࡘ࡜௬ᐃࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸

$%'&࡛ࡣࠊIࡀ୺せ㒊⛣ື࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ6"ᣦᐃࡿࠋ㒊࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿᙧᐜモࢆ㣕ࡧ㉺࠼࡚ࠊ6୺せ㒊࡬࡜⧞ࡾୖࡀࡿࠋL $%,,4&࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊI

$%4& *>  = > ! 

⛣ືࡣᙧᐜモࡢᣢࡘᒅᢡᙧែ⣲࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᘬ

*>  O O > 

ࡁ㉳ࡇࡉࢀࡿࠋྂⱥㄒࡢᙧᐜモࡣࡑࢀࡀಟ㣭*=K7=  =K  ࡍࡿྡモ࡜ᛶ࣭ᩘ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᒅᢡኚ໬ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ



$N   $%,12B C23CC&&

ᙧᐜモࡢᚋ⨨ಟ㣭ࢆୖᡭࡃㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ

ࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࠋ

ࡲࡓࠊN  ࡣࠊ; )  ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㝈ᐃࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ  $'+%+&ࡸ Lࡉࢀࡓಶேࢆᣦࡍሙྜ࡟ᙉᒅᢡᙧᐜモࡀ౑$'+%+&࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊI⛣ືศᯒ࡟ࡣከࡃࡢ

ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ஦౛࡜ࠊ࠶ࡿࢡࣛࢫࡸ✀ࡢ࣓ࣥࣂၥ㢟Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ

࣮ࡢ࡝ࢀ࠿ࢆᣦࡍሙྜ࡟ᙅᒅᢡᙧᐜモࡀ౑୺せ㒊⛣ືࡢືᶵࡀၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࠋྂⱥㄒࡢᙧ

ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊN ᐜモࡣྡモ๓఩࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶᚋ఩࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ

ࡢ❧ሙࢆᨭᣢࡋࠊᙉᙅᒅᢡ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᙧᐜモࡢᒅᢡࢆ♧ࡍࡢ࡛ࠊ୺せ㒊⛣ືࡢ᭷↓ࡣᒅᢡ࡟

㝈ᐃ࣭ླྀ㏙ࡢゎ㔘ࡀỴࡲࡿ࡜࠸࠺❧ሙࡣྲྀࡽࡼࡗ࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊᙧᐜ

࡞࠸ࠋモࡣ$%-&࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊྡモ࡟'ࡘᚋ⥆࡛ࡁ ୍᪉ࠊ  $'+%+&ࡣᙧᐜモࡢゎ㔘ࡣ⤫࡞࠸ࠋㄒ఩⨨࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ỵࡲࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋලయ

ⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ?  $%,,1&࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ㝈ᐃᙧᐜモ$%-&.

ࡣྡモ࡟㏆࠸㊥㞳࡛ྡモ๓఩࡟⌧ࢀࠊླྀ㏙ᙧ) 

26ᐜモࡣ㐲࠸఩⨨࡟⌧ࢀࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋླྀ

࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊྜྷ⏣ $'+%-&࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ᦬ࡉ

㏙ᙧᐜモࡣྡモ๓఩࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶྡモᚋ఩࡛ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊླྀ㏙ᙧᐜモࡀ⦰⣙㛵ಀ⠇࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ୺せ㒊ྡモ࠿ࡽ➼㊥㞳࡟࠶ࡿ࡜୺

࠶ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊྡモ๓఩࡟⌧ࢀࡓ᫬࡟ᚲࡎ㛵ಀᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋモ࡜  ືモࡢ┬␎ࡀ㉳ࡇࡿ⌮⏤ࡀ୙࡛᫂࠶

ࡿࠋ

$%2& F%G5 H  G  HI  'G5 HJ  L   I$%A& *  $  & * $.  &      ࡣ$%2&ࡢྡモ๓఩ࡢླྀ㏙ᙧᐜモࡢ$ྜྷ⏣ $'+%-BC%&&఩⨨ %G5 Hࡣྂⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ฼⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗ

ࡓࠊ⌧௦ⱥㄒࡲ࡛࡟฼⏝ྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜୺ᙇྡモ๓఩࡟⌧ࢀࡿሙྜ࡟ࡢࡳᚲࡎ┬␎ࡀ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣୖ࡛ぢࡓ$%%&࠿ࡽ$,&࡬ࡢኚࡇࡽ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣつᐃ࡜࡞໬࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

ࡾၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ   ࡣ ?  $%,,1&ࡢ➼㊥㞳ࡢᴫᛕࢆ᥇⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ

$%%&FG  H  I  G5 HJ

$%C&ࡢᵓ㐀࡜ὴ⏕ࡣ➼㊥㞳ࡢᴫᛕ࡜┦ᐜࢀ

$,&FG5 HG  HI  G5 HJ

࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ" ࡣ⛣ືࡍࡿ๓ࡣ୺せ㒊 6 ࡢ⿵㒊࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⛣ືᚋࡣ   ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ኚ໬࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ$%C&!" ᣦᐃ㒊࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ఩⨨࠿ࡽ࡟♧ࡍ L $'+%+&ࡢྃ⛣ືศᯒࢆ᥇⏝ࡋ୺せ㒊 I ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚➼㊥㞳࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡣ␲ၥࡀ

࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ṧࡿࠋ-





$%C& * F!"F6"FG5 HJF6M6     ᥦ᱌
ᥦ᱌ ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ㆟ㄽࢆࡩࡲ࠼࡚ࠊḟF"F6"FG  HJF6M6FI"IJJJJJJJ ࡢᵓ㐀ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ

* F!"F"F6"FG  HJF6M6FI"IJJJJF6"


FG5 HJF6M6JJJ

$%1& F!"!F6"%  F"F6"'G  H               $ *L$'+%+B-A&&

F#"I"F#P#G5 HJJJJJJL$'+%+&ࡣࠊ$%C &࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᙧᐜモ$%1&࡛ࡣࠊ? Q  $'++2&ࡸ  R   *ࡣ඲࡚ྡモ๓఩࡟⌧ࢀࠊ㝈ᐃ࡜ླྀ㏙ࡢᙧᐜモ$'++A&࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚௬ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿศ㞳 !"ࡢูಶࡢᇶᗏ⏕ᡂ఩⨨ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊླྀ㏙ࡢᙧᐜモᵓ㐀࡜ࠊ!$'++C&࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸

ࡣ⦰⣙㛵ಀ⠇࡛࠶ࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ$%C&ࡿ #" ᵓ㐀ࢆ᥇⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ!" ࡜ "ࠊ" ࡜࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ" ࡀ !" ᣦᐃ㒊࡟⛣ືࡋ#" ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢᣦᐃ㒊࡟ᙧᐜモࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ࡚$%%&ࡢྂⱥㄒࡢㄒ㡰ࡀὴ⏕ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ᶵ⬟⠊␪ 6"% ࡜ 6"' ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ

ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ศᯒ࡟ࡣၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ? Q   $'++2&ࡸ  R    * $'++A&ࡽ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ$%2&࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࡞ࡐྡ

࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ$%1&࡛ࡢ !" ࡣࠊ;   $%,CA&モ࡟㏆࠸࡜㝈ᐃⓗ࡛㐲࠸࡜ླྀ㏙ⓗ࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࡢᣦ♧≀ಟ㣭$      &࡟㛵ࡍ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ྡモ࡜ࡢ㊥㞳࡜ゎ㔘࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶࡀࡿ㡿ᇦ࡛ࠊ୍᪉ࠊ" ࡣᣦ♧ಟ㣭$   

୙㏱࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊ$%C&ࡢ⛣ືࡢືᶵ࡜

   &࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㡿ᇦ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ

⛣ືࡀ⌧௦ࡲ࡛࡟↓ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓ⌮⏤ࡀ୙࡛᫂ᙧᐜモࡀྡモࢆᣦ♧≀ಟ㣭ࡍࡿሙྜࡣࠊࡑࡢ

27

#" ෆ࡟ᇶᗏ⏕ᡂࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢ఩⨨࡟␃ࡲࢀࡤྡモࡢୖ఩ㄒࡢ≉ᛶࢆ㏙࡭ࠊᙧᐜモࡀྡモࢆᣦ♧ಟ㣭ࡍࡿሙྜࡣࠊྡモࡀ⾲⌧ࡍࡿෆᐜࢆࠊ ླྀ㏙ࡢゎ㔘࡜࡞ࡾࠊ6"' ࡟⛣ືࡍࢀࡤ㝈ᐃࡢᙧᐜモࡀୗ఩ศ㢮ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘ࢆ⏕ࡳฟゎ㔘ࢆᚓࡿࠋ$%,&࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୰ⱥ

ࡍࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ    ) ࡢ   ࡀ !" 㡿ㄒ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ᙧᐜモࡣ 6"% ࡬⛣ືࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟

ᇦ࡟࠶ࡗ࡚ᣦ♧≀ಟ㣭ࡢሙྜࠊ  ࡢಟ㣭࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ླྀ㏙ᙧᐜモࡢ⛣ືࡣࠊࡣ ) ࡢୖ఩ㄒ  ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕၿⰋ࡞ᘚㆤ?  

ኈࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘࡟࡞ࡾࠊ୍᪉ࠊ  ࡀ " 㡿(    $'++4&࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶ௬ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ᇦ࡟࠶ࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ಟ㣭ࡢሙྜࡣࠊࠕ᭷⬟࡞ᘚㆤ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊྡモᚋ఩࡟⌧ࢀࡿᙧᐜモኈࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ!" ࡜ࡣ$4&࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡟ไ㝈ࡉࢀࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝! ࡀ┤᥋ᨭ㓄ࡍࡿ 6"% ࡣླྀ㏙࡟㛵ࡍࡿゎ㔘

ࡢ #" ෆ࡟⏕ᡂࡉࢀࡓᙧᐜモࡣྡモ๓఩࡟⛣࡟ࠊ" ࡜  ࡀ┤᥋ᨭ㓄ࡍࡿ 6"' ࡣ㝈ᐃ࡟㛵ືࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⛣ືࡀᑟࡍࡿゎ㔘࡟㛵ಀࡍࡿ⠊␪࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

ධࡉࢀࡓࡢࡣࠊ୰ⱥㄒึᮇ࡟ጞࡲࡿᒅᢡࡢỈ N TU $'++4& ࡸ ?  ࡲࡓࠊ$%1&࡟ࡣࠊ! $'++C&ࡢᥦ᱌ࡍࡿ

ᖹ໬࡜㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊྂⱥㄒࡲ࡛ࡣᙧ#   "  ࡀྵࡲࢀࡿࠋ#" ᵓ㐀࡛ࡣࠊ୺ᐜモ࡜ྡモࡢ V ⣲ᛶ࡟ࡼࡿ୍⮴࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᒅ

せ㒊ࡀ #?(# ࡛ࠊࡑࡢᣦᐃ㒊࡜⿵㒊࡟఩ᢡࡀල⌧໬ࡉࢀಟ㣭㛵ಀࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊ⨨ࡍࡿせ⣲࡟୺㏙㛵ಀࢆᣢࡓࡏࡿാࡁࢆࡍ

୰ⱥㄒ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ᙧᐜモࡣゎ㔘୙ྍ⬟࡞ V ⣲ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᙧᐜモࡣࠊ#" ෆ࡟ᇶᗏ⏕ᛶࢆኻ࠸ࠊྠ᫬࡟ࠊྡモ࡜ࡶ୍⮴ࡋ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗ

ᡂࡉࢀࡓሙྜ࡟ࡢࡳࠊླྀ㏙ࡢゎ㔘ࢆᚓࡿࠋ୍

ࡓࠋᒅᢡࡀල⌧໬ࡉࢀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊྡモᚋ఩᪉ࠊ㝈ᐃ⏝ἲࡢᙧᐜモࡣᣦ♧ಟ㣭ࡢ  ࡀᨭ㓄ࡢᙧᐜモ࡜୺せྡモࡢಟ㣭㛵ಀࡀ୙᫂░࡟ࡍࡿᶵ⬟⠊␪ࡢᣦᐃ㒊࡟ᇶᗏ⏕ᡂࡍࡿࠋ

࡞ࡾࠊಟ㣭㛵ಀࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟඲࡚ࡢᙧᐜモࢆྡモ࡟ඛ⾜ࡉࡏ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗ

ࡇࢀࡽࡢ௬ᐃ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊྂⱥㄒ࡜⌧௦ⱥࡓࠋㄒࡢྡモྃࡢᵓ㐀࡜ὴ⏕ࡣ$%,&࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᒅᢡ࡜ྡモᚋ఩ಟ㣭せ⣲࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࡀࠊᒓ᱁ྡモྃࡢᚋ⨨ಟ㣭࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶほ$%,& * F!"!F6"%  F"F6"'G  H ᐹࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ $'++1&࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ᦬ࡉ

F#"I"F#P#G5 HJJJJJJ    $&ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ        

$'+& * .7 

* F!"!F6"%G  HF"F6"'G  H  8* 7  

F#"I"F#P#G5 HJJJJJJ $NSN &) BOI*"?  BOI*"?

* F!"!F6"%G  HF"F6"'G  H $ * $'++1B%2,3%C+&&

F#"I"F#P#G5 HJJJJJJ   $N S& $'++1&࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊᒓ᱁ྡモྃࡀᒅᢡࢆ♧ྂⱥㄒࡢᙧᐜモࡣྡモࡢᩘ࣭ᛶ࡜᱁࡟ࡼࡗ࡚

ࡍሙྜ࡟ࡣᚋ⨨ಟ㣭ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ$'+ &ࡢࡼᒅᢡኚ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ$%, &࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࠺࡟ࠊྡモᚋ఩࡛࠶ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽᒅᢡࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ᙧᐜモࡢᣢࡘゎ㔘୙ྍ⬟࡞ᩘ࣭ᛶ⣲ᛶ࡜ྡモ࡞࠸஦౛ࡣ୍౛ࡶ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞

ࡢᑐᛂࡍࡿゎ㔘ྍ⬟࡞⣲ᛶࡀ   ࡍࡿࡇᒓ᱁ྡモྃࡢᚋ⨨ಟ㣭࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊV ⣲ᛶࡢ࡜࡛ᒅᢡࡀල⌧໬ࡉࢀࠊྡモ࡜ᙧᐜモࡢಟ㣭ᾘኻ࡜ᒅᢡࡢỈᖹ໬ࡀ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼㛵ಀࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋྂⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊᙧᐜモࡣࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ  ࡣㄒ㡰࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᩥἲ㛵28ಀࢆ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿഴྥࡶࠊྡモᚋ఩ಟ㣭ࢆࡾࠊ኱ኚ᭷┈࡞ࡈᣦ᦬ࡸࡈຓゝࢆ㈷ࡗࡓࠋࡇ

4

⾶㏥ࡉࡏࡓཎᅉ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡢሙࢆ೉ࡾ࡚ឤㅰࢆ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋᮏ✏࡟࠾$'%&࡟෌ᥖࡍࡿࠊ$C&࡛ぢࡓ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡟࠾࠸

ࡅࡿ୙ഛࡣࡍ࡭࡚ᇳ➹⪅࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡚ྡモࡢ๓ᚋ࡛㝈ᐃ࣭ླྀ㏙ࡢゎ㔘ࡀኚࢃࡿᙧ

ᑦࠊᮏ◊✲ࡣ W" ⛉◊㈝ '2AA+%1+ ࡢຓᡂࢆᐜモࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ '*% ⠇࡛ぢࡓࠋཷࡅࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ὀ$'%& * % 

*  ྡモಟ㣭ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡣࠊྡモ࡟ᣦ♧モ㸩ᙧᐜモࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿሙྜ࡜ 㸩ᙧᐜモࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽࡣᮏㄽ࡛ࡢศᯒᑐ㇟࡟

ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᐜモࡣࠊ#" ෆ࡟ᇶᗏ⏕ᡂࡋࡓྵࡵ࡞࠸ࠋ

ᚋࠊ6"% ࠿ 6"' ࡟⧞ࡾୖࡀࡿࠋ'  $'+%+&࡜ L$'+%+&ࢆཧ↷ࡏࡼࠋ$''& F!"F6"%  F"F6"'

-

 


F#" F#P#

I ⛣ືศᯒࡢࡉࡽ࡞ࡿၥ㢟Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ

 ➼㊥㞳࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ

౛࠼ࡤࠊ$&ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵓ㐀ࢆ௬ᐃࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
$& FG5 HFG  HIJG5 HJJJJJJJ$ *?  $%,,1B%-&&4 $'++1&ࡣㄒ㡰࡛ᩥἲ㛵ಀࢆ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ᪉ࡀࠊᚋ⨨ಟ㣭ࡢ⾶㏥࡟㛵ಀࡍࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ$''&ࡢ⛣ືࡢືᶵࡀ␲ၥ࡜ࡋࡿࡼࡾ㔜せ࡞せᅉ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡚ṧࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞✀㢮ࡢᙧᐜモࡢ⛣ື࡜ࡑ ࡢືᶵ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
 R       ?       N   ⤖ㄽ
⤖ㄽ   $'++A&      ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡜ྂⱥㄒࡢྡモಟ㣭ᙧ    N  O  ᐜモࡢ≉ᚩࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀ࡞ࡀࡽࠊศ㞳 !" ᵓ; *㐀࡜ #" ᵓ㐀ࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࡓᵓ㐀ศᯒࢆヨࡳࡓࠋ     ?* $'++1& O      ᙧᐜモࡣ #" ෆ࡛ྡモ࡜୺㏙㛵ಀࢆᣢࡘሙྜ        R 

࡟ླྀ㏙ࡢゎ㔘ࢆᣢࡕࠊ" ࡟ᇶᗏ⏕ᡂࡋࡓሙ "  R *ྜ࡟㝈ᐃࡢゎ㔘ࢆᣢࡘࠋྂⱥㄒ࡛ࡣླྀ㏙ࡢゎ;  !)$%,CA&X  B㔘ࢆᚓࡓᙧᐜモࡣ #" ෆ࡟␃ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊ    "    YᒅᢡࡢỈᖹ໬࡟ࡼࡾྡモ࡜ࡢಟ㣭㛵ಀࡀᙧ%3-4*

ែⓗ࡟⾲ࡉࢀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊྡモ๓఩࡟⧞;   Z

  %1  $%,C'& !    " 

ࡾୖࡀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ

#    $    [ *  I (\*L O   $%,,4&X  . ᮏㄽࡣ᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍➨ -- ᅇ኱఍ཱྀ࡛㢌Ⓨ⾲ࡋࡓෆᐜ࡟ຍ➹࣭ಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

"   I N    #    !" Yᇳ➹࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊ኱ᐊ๛ᚿඛ⏕ࠊ⏣୰ᬛஅඛ⏕ࠊ $ %    " ᰗ᭸ᏹඛ⏕ࠊஂ⡿♸௓ඛ⏕ࠊᒣᮧᓫᩯඛ⏕ࡼ &   '   "( )   * ࡾ㈗㔜࡞ࡈᣦ᦬ࡸࡈຓゝࢆ㈷ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ◊O    L  W  Z   W 3]

✲Ⓨ⾲ࡢ㝿࡟ࡣࠊ఍ሙ࡟࡚ከࡃࡢㅖඛ⏕᪉ࡼ

"

29





?

#QQ 123%%+ O  )   "   9   0  +   1    ## !*

2# 0       24 %+%3%'+*L  O    $'+%+&  " *  +, +-   " N("  %    N*
!  N

   $'++C& ' 

   # .?    ?    ?    I)6      $'+++& X( "  ] * 

       Y H  モࡢㄒ㡰࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㏻᫬ⓗ⪃ᐹࠖ  ୰㔝ᘯ! !  #  ୕࣭⏣୰ᬛஅ$⦅&ࠗゝㄒኚ໬`ືᶵ࡜࣓

N*    * ;* N    %2-3%1' N  O  ; *!  

$'+%+&

X         Y       %4 2-31%*     #   O   Z* " $'++'&  -                "    *ᙳᒣኴ㑻$⦅&$'++,&ࠗ᪥ⱥᑐ↷ ᙧᐜモ࣭๪モࡢព࿡࡜ᵓᩥ࠘኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ  ᮾி*? Q    5 $'++2&

X6      B " 5 

!"3  N (5 Y  %%2 
C423C1,*?    #   Z* $%,,1& X

N     I   Y  
"      [ *!*ྜྷ⏣Ụ౫Ꮚ $'+%-&ࠕᙧᐜモ࡜」ྜ୙ᐃ௦ྡ   - "   *  # 

 W    $%,12& +-          -   N("     N*    "  R *

0   #  5   O    O    " *      .; ^Q3

N  ;  $%,12&3  " * [ *  *? )  

    *?    #   Z*  6   N TU $'++4&
X  "       )
"B #5    Z  Y  #/ -2 'C131A*?   #  Z* I  (   $'++A&X   _  5     "   #    Y     30࢝ࢽࢬ࣒`࠘ 2%3CC  㛤ᣅ♫  ᮾி*

hoped to have or achieve is no longer
possible(OALD 8th edition, p. 104)(2) Bang goes my weekend!
(Taylor (2004: 64))
Bang goes ᵓᩥࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚*㸦On the Bang goes construction㸧(1)࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ Bang goes ࡣᾘኻࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ OALD ࡟グ㍕ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢ⌧㇟ࢆ஬༑ᔒ ᾏ⌮㸦Kairi Igarashi㸧ᵓᩥᩥἲࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽㄽࡌࡓ Taylor (2004)࡛ࡣࠊ

㱟㇂኱Ꮫ㸦Ryukoku University㸧ぶࡋࡳࢆࡇࡵࡓゝ࠸᪉࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⮬ศࡢே⏕ࡀ⤊ࢃࡗࡓ࡞࡝ࡢ῝้࡞ࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸quotation, construction, go, bang,౑࠼࡞࠸࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

sound emission
2.2. ≀⌮ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘㸦≀⌮ⓗ࡞᥋ゐ㸧ࡇࡢ bang ࡟ go ࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࣃࢱ࡛ࣥ≀⌮ⓗ࡞᥋ゐࢆ⾲ࢃࡍሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ(3)ࡣ⚾⮬㌟ࡀ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊbang ࡜࠸࠺㡢ࢆ⾲ࡍ⾲⌧࡜ࠊ཰㞟ࡋࡓ౛ࡔࡀࠊsmack ࡜࠸࠺㡢㇟ᚩⓗ࡞ㄒ⛣ືືモ go ࡀ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࢀࠊࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜㡢ࡢࡀ went ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡉࢀࠊ࣮࢝ࢻࡀࢸ࣮ࣈࣝ࡟㓄ᨺฟࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ⾲⌧ࡀࠊgo ࡢ௚ࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ฟࡿ㡢ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ

ࡢ㢮᥎࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᾘኻࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ᣑᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸

࠺࡟๓⨨モྃ around the table ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇࡃࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ࡜ࡶฟ᮶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊRiemer (1998)ࡣࠊ≀⌮ⓗࡇࡢ Bang goes ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧ࡟ࡣࠊ⾪ᧁ࡜㡢࡞᥋ゐ࡟኱ࡁ࡞㡢ࢆ㡢㇟ᚩⓗ࡟⾲ࢃࡍ bang,ᨺฟࢆ⾲ࢃࡍゎ㔘࡜ᾘኻࢆ⾲ࢃࡍゎ㔘ࡀ࠶

snack, slap ࡞࡝ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨᒎࢆࡓ࡝ࡗ࡚

ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᴫほࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊ㡢ᨺฟືモࡢඛ⾜◊ࡁࡓ࠿ࢆࠊOED ࢆ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡋ᳨࡚ドࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ✲ࢆᴫほࡋࠊࡇࡢࣃࢱࣥࡀ⤖ᯝ㏙ㄒ࡜ࡶඹ㉳ࡀࠊ (4a)࡛ࡣ≀⌮ⓗ࡞⾪ᧁࡸ㡢ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡀࠊࡍࡿ஦౛ࡶ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࠊgo ࢆ㡢ᨺฟ(4c)ࡸ(4d)࡛ࡣࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ⾪ᧁࡀ㉳ࡇࡾࡸࡍࡢ㉳Ⅼࢆㄒᙡ໬ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ᥐᐃࡋࠊᨺฟࡢ╔࠸ືసࡢ࠶ࡾࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ┤᥋࡟ࠖࠕࡲࡉ࡟ࠖ

Ⅼࡀᣦᐃࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠕᾘኻࠖࡢゎ㔘ࢆ࡞࡝ࡢಟ㣭ㄒྃ࡟࡞ࡿࠋRiemer (1998)ࡣ(5)ᣢࡘ࡜ㄽࡌࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭ࠿ࡽ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟

ࡢ[a]~[e]ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ẁ㝵࡟ศࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ྥࡅ࡚ࡢ㡢ኌࡢᨺฟ㸦ఏ㐩ືモ㸧࡬࡜ᣑᙇࡋ
࡚࠸ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄽࡌࡿࠋ

(3) Smack went the cards around the table.
(Katherine Mansfield, “At the Bay.”)

2. ࡩࡓࡘࡢゎ㔘(4) a. Slam went his hand to the ground.

2.1. ẚ႘ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘㸦ࠕᾘኻࠖ㸧b. They ran slap up to the door.
c. We have got a decision which is smack

Taylor (2004)࡛ࡣࠊᾘኻࡢព࿡ࢆࡶࡘ banggoes ࡢࣃࢱࣥࢆ Bang goes construction㸦௨ୗࠊagainst us.

(OED, smack v2 7b)

Bang goes ᵓᩥ࡜ࡍࡿ㸧࡜ྡ௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛

d. The train left bang on time.

࠼ࡤ OALD ࡛ࡶ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞グ㍕ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

e. I was sprung at the pictures, so banggoes my sickie.

(Riemer (1998: 171))(5) OED ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ bang ࡢព࿡ኚ໬(Reimer)(1) a. Bang went my hopes of promotion.

a. noise and impact; (noise and) impact (Bangb. used when you say that something you

31

3.2. ࠕᾘኻࠖࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

went the magazine.)

2.1.⠇࡛ぢࡓ(1)(2)࡜ྠᵝࠊẚ႘ⓗ࡞ࠕᾘኻࠖ

b. impact implying suddenness (We came bangagainst each other.)ࡢゎ㔘ࢆᣢࡘ౛ࢆᴫほࡍࡿࠋ(9)ࡢ 1993 ᖺࡢ

c. suddenness, immediacy; physical proximity౛࡛ࡣࡇࡢᾘኻࡢゎ㔘ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿࠋCOHA ࢆ(The moment I got interested in anything,ぢࡿ㝈ࡾ 20 ୡ⣖࡟ධࡗ࡚࠿ࡽࡇࡢゎ㔘ࡀぢbang goes my sleep.)ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ

d. physical proximity implying exactitude(10)ࡣ၏୍ἲຓືモࢆక࠺౛࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ⏨(Here they were right bang on hand.)࡟ᤕࡲࡗ࡚㌴ࢆ㈙࠺ࡓࡵࡢ㈓㔠ࢆᣢࡗ࡚⾜e. exactitude (As a realistic tale of low-life in࠿ࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᜍࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙ

London, it is bang on.) (Riemer (1998: 175))㠃ࡔࡀࠊࡲࡔ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸࡞࠸஦ែ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ
Bang goes ࡢᙧᘧࡣᾘኻࡢゎ㔘ࢆࡶࡘࠋ

Riemer (1998)ࡢព࿡ኚ໬࡛ࡣ(5c)ࡀᾘኻࢆ⾲
ࢃࡍࠋ(5d)(5e)ࡢ๪モⓗ࡞⏝ἲࢆ㝖ࡃ࡜ࠊṔ(9) …when they get into power, you can ownྐⓗ࡟ࡣᾘኻࢆ⾲ࡍ bang ࡣ㡢ࡸ⾪ᧁࢆ⾲ࡍ

only one property. So bang goes my trout(5a)(5b)ࡢ⏝ἲࡼࡾࡶᚋ࠿ࡽฟ⌧ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡔࠋ

farm, …

(COHA 1993 FIC AreYouMine?)(10) I was frightened to death that he'd take me
3. ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᣦ᦬ࡢ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࢹ࣮ࢱ

right on the nail and bang would go my three

3.1. ஧ḟ㏙ㄒ㸦⤖ᯝᵓᩥ㸧

years' savings for a Ford.

ࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ஦ᐇ࡜

(COHA 1917 FIC ParnassusOnWheels)ࡋ࡚ࠊࡲࡎࠊBang goes + NP ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࡢ࠶
3.3. ࡑࡢ௚

࡜࡟஧ḟ㏙ㄒࢆక࠺୍✀ࡢ⤖ᯝᵓᩥ࡟࡞ࡗ
࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛ࡣ 20 ୡ⣖༙ࡤࡲࡓࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ(11)࡛ࡣ bang ࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉ௨๓࡟ࡢࡳฟ⌧ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊ(6)(7)(8)࡛ࡣࡍ

ࢀࠊ2 ୎ࡢࣛ࢖ࣇࣝ࠿ࡽᙎ୸ࡀⓎᑕࡉࢀࡓ࡜

࡭࡚ࠊࣂࣥ࡜࠸࠺㡢࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࢻ࢔ࡀ㛤ࡃ࠶ࡿࡁࡢ㡢ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡀࠊࡑࢀࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ3 Ⓨࡢ࠸ࡣ㛢ࡲࡿሙ㠃ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࠋᙎ୸ࡀヰࡋᡭࡢ࡯࠺࡟Ⓨᑕࡉࢀࡓ㝿ࡢ㡢࡜ࡋ࡚ bang ࡀ 3 ᅇ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿ౛ࡶほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛᫬㛫ⓗ࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿ bang went the(6) Bang went the door open, and, ….

rifle ࡛ࡣ went ࡣ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛㡢ࡢᨺฟࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ

(COHA 1885 FIC HomeScenesHome)࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ came ࡢሙྜࡣࠊbang ࡜(7) Bang went the front door open and shut.
(Katherine Mansfield, “Bliss.”)࠸࠺㡢ࡀヰࡋᡭࡢ࡯࠺࡟ྥࡅ࡚ᨺฟࡉࢀ࡚

(8) I went down feet first, bang went the door࠸ࡿࡢࡣࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊྠ᫬࡟Ⓨᑕࡉࢀࡓᙎ୸
(the shots)ࡢ⛣ືࢆࡶ came ࡀ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜

open and….
1956:ࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ1 ࡲࡓࠊ(12)࡛ࡣࠊbang went ࡟https://familysearch.org/photos/stories/810939)

ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ a terrific report ࡜࠸࠺㡢(William

Moosman,

Sept

15,

ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠊࢻ࢔
ྠ୍㝵ᒙ࡟ bang ࡜࠸࠺㡢ࡢᨺฟ࡜ open ࡜࠸ࡸࣛ࢖ࣇࣝ࡞࡝㡢ᨺฟࡢ㉳Ⅼࡀ Bang goes ࡟࠺ࢻ࢔ࡢ≧ែኚ໬ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍᙧᐜモࡀ㓄⨨ࡉᚋ⥆ࡍࡿሙྜࡀ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛

ࢀࠊ⤖ᯝᵓᩥ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊᚋ

ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓ㡢⮬యࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࠋ

㏙ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊbang ࡜࠸࠺㡢ࡢᨺฟ࡜ࢻ࢔ࡢ
㛤㛢஦㇟࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࡀၥ㢟࡟࡞ࡿࠋ(11) …Now, Jim, fight for all you’re worth.”32

Bang! bang! went the two rifles. Bang! bang!

4. ඛ⾜◊✲ᴫほbang! came the shots…

4.1. ඛ⾜◊✲ 1㸸Taylor (2002, 2004)(COHA 1890 FIC SunsetPass)

ࡇࡇ࡛ Bang goes ࡟≉໬ࡋࡓᩥ⊩࡜ࡋ࡚(12) …but I had no sooner shout eel when bang!

Taylor (2002, 2004)ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋࡇࡢㄽᩥࡣ

went a terrific report which shook the whole」ᩘࡢᵓᩥࡢࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡ࡜ࡑࡢ᳇ࡳศࡅ

camp.

ࢆㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᾘኻࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ Bang

(COHA 1917 MAG Atlantic)

goes ᵓᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ(15)࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ᵝࠎ࡞ࡲࡓࠊ(13)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟▱ぬᵓᩥ࡟ฟ⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ᵓᩥࢆᤞ㇟ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚[X V NPsubj]࡜࠸

ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊෙモ࣭ᙧᐜモࡢࡘ࠸ࡓ bang ࡣ go ࡢ࠺୍ࡘࡢᙧᘧࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜ࡋࠊBang goes ࡛୺ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(14a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟௦ྡ

ࡶྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ௚ࡢᵓ

モ୺ㄒࢆチᐜࡋࡓࡾࠊ㏻ᖖࡢ Bang goes ࡢᙧᩥ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠕᾘኻࠖࡢゎ㔘ࢆࡶࡘ Bang goesᘧ࡜ࡣ㏫࡟ືモࡢ఩⨨ࡀධࢀ᭰ࢃࡗࡓࡾࠊࡲ

ᵓᩥ࡛ࡣ௦ྡモ୺ㄒࡀチᐜࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜㏙࡭ࡓࠊ(14b)࡛ࡣ⤯⦕యࡀኻࢃࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡢ࡛

࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≀⌮ⓗ࡟≀ࡸຠᯝࡀኻࢃࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺࡜࠸࠺
(15) a. There’s Harry with his red coat on. 㸦┤ࠕᾘኻࠖࡢ⾲⌧࡟࡞ࡿࠋ♧⾲⌧㸧
b. Away ran the children. 㸦⤒㊰ྃ㸧(13) I heard an awful bang go off.

c. Up on the hill used to stand the(COHA 1951 FIC ChosenCountry)

governor’s residence. 㸦ሙᡤྃ㸧(14) a. …passed him the loaded pistol. In ’bout(16) a. [X V NPSubj]

two seconds he lifted it and bang she went,b. *Bang it does. / *Bang goes it. 2

an’ down come the hawk.”(COHA 1922 FIC DaysPoorRichard )((15)(16): Taylor (2004: 66-67))

b. …Dynamotors – rather. And all of asudden they had too much juice turned on.

ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊgo ࡢ≧ែኚ໬ࡢព࿡(The milk went

Bang went their insulations – whateversour.࡞࡝)ࡸࠊᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞⛣ື(The road goesthey were.” Bang went they. Burned out –from Denver to Indianapolis.࡞࡝)࠿ࡽࠊ㐃⥆ࡋ

short circuited…

ࡓゝㄒ㡢ࡸᩥᏐิࡢᨺฟࢆ⛣ືࡢᣑᙇ࡜ࡋ
࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ

(COHA 1945 FIC MetalMonster)(17)ࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࡣ㏻ᖖࡑࡢ࠶
ࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜ Bang goes ࡀ㡢ᨺฟࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ࡜ࡍࡿ

࡜࡟᭤ࡢ୍⠇ࡀ㰯ḷ࡞࡝࡛₇ዌࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜

࡜ࠊ(14b)ࡢሙྜࡢࡼ࠺࡟⤯⦕యࡢᾘኻࡀ

࠿ࡽࠊ(18)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞┤᥋ᘬ⏝ࡢఏ㐩ືモ࡜ࡋ

Bang goes ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾲ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠊgo ࡣ㡢ᨺ࡚ ࡢ go ࡢ ⏝ ἲ ࡀ ฟ ࡚ࡃ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࢆ Taylorฟ࡜ྠ᫬࡟⤯⦕యࡀ྿ࡁ㣕ࢇ࡛ࡋࡲ࠺ࠊࡑࡢ

(2002)ࡣㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(18b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ

⤖ᯝࠊᾘኻࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࢃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㛫᥋ᘬ⏝ࡣ୙ྍ⬟ࡔࡀࠊ(18c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾲ព㡢

(1)(2)࡛ࡢ᪼㐍ࡢᮃࡳࡸ㐌ᮎఇࡳ࡜࠸ࡗࡓᢳ

࡜ࡋ࡚ pop ࡸ bang ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㛤ᑒࡸ◚⿣࡞࡝㇟ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࡢᾘኻࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ๓࡟ࠊ(14b)ࡢࡼ

࡟కࢃࢀࡿ㡢࡛࠶ࢀࡤ go ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ฟ⌧ࡍࡿ࠺࡞≀⌮ⓗ࡞ᾘኻࡀチᐜࡉࢀࡿᩥ⬦ࡀ࠶ࡗࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡶᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡓ࡜᥎ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ Ⅼࡣ௨ୗࡢ Taylor(17) The tune goes like this.

(2004)࡟ྠពࡍࡿࠋ

(Taylor (2002: 581))

33

(18) a. He went [ʃ:::].

(2006)ࢆཧ⪃࡟᳨ウࡍࡿࠋb. *He went a hushing sound.
4.2. ඛ⾜◊✲ 2㸸ᓮ⏣ (2006)

c. The light bulb went pop. (Ideophoneᓮ⏣ (2006)࡛ࡣࠊ⛣ືືモࡢ go ࡀఏ㐩ࡢ(pop, bang ࡞࡝): ᘬ⏝࡛ฟ⌧ྍ⬟)⏝ἲࢆ⋓ᚓࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࠊ⛣ື࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ

(Taylor (2004: 68))୺ㄒࡀᣦ♧ࡍࡿ≀ࡀᐇ㝿࡟㐲᪉࡬⛣ືࡋ࡚ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ(19a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾲ព㡢࡜ࡋ࡚ࢻ࢔ࢆ㛢࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊఏ㐩ືモ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ go ࡛ࡣࡵࡿ㡢ࢆ bang ࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡀ௒ᗘࡣ௚

୺ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿⓎヰ⪅ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓⓎࡢ≀࡜ࡢᛴ࡞᥋ゐࢆ⾲ࢃࡋ࡚(19b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞

ヰࡢ㉳Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࠿

㡢ᨺฟືモ࡟࡞ࡾࠊ(19c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ከᵝ࡞㡢ࡀࡽࠊ⛣ືືモ go ࡀ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗ࡟ᣑᙇࡉࢀືモ໬ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚(20)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾲ព㡢࡜ࡋࡓࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ⓗ࡞ᣑᙇࡶྵࢇ࡛

࡚ࡢ bang ࡣᘬ⏝࣭ఏ㐩ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ go ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋ࠸ࡿ࡜ㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋSweetser (1988)࡟ἢ࠸ࠊ

࡚≀⌮ⓗ࡞◚ቯࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡀࠊࡑࡢ◚ቯ࡟ࡼࡗgo ࡢ⛣ືືモ࠿ࡽᮍ᮶ࢆ⾲ࡍ be going to ࡬࡚㢼⯪ࡣᾘኻࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢᾘኻࡢゎ㔘ࢆ Taylorࡢព࿡ኚ໬ࡀࠊ⮬ᕫ࡟㏆᥋ࡍࡿ㉳Ⅼ࠿ࡽ㞳ࢀࡣᣦ᦬ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡀ(1)(2)࡛♧ࡋࡓᾘኻࡢゎ㔘ࡓ⤊Ⅼ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࠿ࡽࠊ᫬㛫ࡀࡶ࡜ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡍࡿ࡜ㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

3ࡶ࡜⤒㊰ୖࡢ⛣ື࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࠊ⌧ᅾ࠿ࡽᮍ᮶࡬ࡢ⛣ື࡬࡜ᣑᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ศᯒࡍ
ࡿࠋᓮ⏣ࡢศᯒࡣࠊࡇࡢศᯒࢆᛕ㢌࡟ࠊᅗ 1(19) a. He shut the door, bang!
b. He banged the door shut.

࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ≀ࡢ≀⌮ⓗ⛣ື࠿ࡽⓎࡏࡽࢀ

c. slam, slap, crack, clap, flap, crash, …

ࡓ㡢ኌࡢ⛣ື࡜࠸࠺ࠕࡼࡾᢳ㇟ⓗ࡛୺ほⓗ㸦[æ]㸸࢜ࣀ࣐ࢺ࣌ⓗ㸧(Taylor (2002: 582))

࡞ࠖ(ᓮ⏣ (2006: 160))ࡶࡢ࡬࡜෗ീࡍࡿ࣓ࢱ
ࣇ࢓࣮ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᣑᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

(20) a. The balloon went bang, as it burst.
b. Bang went the balloon, when it burst.

㉳Ⅼ㡿ᇦ㸸≀యࡢ⛣ື(Taylor (2004: 70))

         㸦≀⌮ⓗ⤒㊰㸧         ○          ○(20a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜ go ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ○bang ࡀ(20b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟๓⨨ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ

⮬ᕫ ㏆᥋ࡍࡿ㉳Ⅼ    㞳ࢀࡓ⤊ⅬⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊఏ㐩ືモ୍⯡࡛ࡇࢀࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊVandelanotte (2012: 194)ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍ

┠ᶆ㡿ᇦ㸸㡢ኌࡢ⛣ື         㸦ᚰⓗ⛣ື㸧ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊఏ㐩ືモ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ be like ࡜ go ࡛ࡣࠊgo ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀఏ㐩ෆᐜࡢ๓⨨ࢆチᐜࡋࡸ○ ○         ࡍ࠸ഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᚋ㏙ࡢ Levin, Song,⮬ᕫ ㏆᥋ࡍࡿ㉳Ⅼ    㞳ࢀࡓ⤊Ⅼ○and Atkins (1997: 38)࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ㡢ᨺฟືモ࡛ࡶ┤᥋ᘬ⏝ࡢሙྜ࡟ఏ㐩ෆᐜࢆ๓⨨ࡍࡿࡇ

ᅗ 1. ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗᣑ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ4 

ᙇ (ᓮ⏣ (2006: 160))

Taylor (2002, 2004)ࡢศᯒࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊᵝࠎ࡞ᵓᩥࡢᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅ࡚ Bang goes ᵓᩥࡀᏑᅾࡋ

ࡇࡇ࡛ᓮ⏣ࡣ(21a)(21b)࡟♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺

࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣㄽࡌࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡀ࡝ࡢ

࡟㡢ኌ⮬యࡣ⛣ືࡢ୺య࡟࡞ࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ

ࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࠿ࡣ༑ศ࡟ࡣㄽࡌ

ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋస⪅࡜సရࡢ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡜ྠ

ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆḟࡢᓮ⏣ᵝࠊ㡢ኌ࡜ࡑࡢ㡢ኌࢆⓎࡋࡓ୺య࡜ࡢ࣓ࢺࢽ

34     

5. 㡢ᨺฟືモࡢศᯒ࣑࣮ⓗ࡞㛵ಀ࠿ࡽࠊ㡢ኌ࠿ࡽ㡢ኌࡢฟᡤ࡛࠶
ࡿ᭷⏕ࡢ୺ㄒࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜

ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ 3.1 ⠇࡛ᣲࡆࡓ⤖ᯝྃࢆక࠺

࠸࠺ࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊBang goes ᵓᩥࡢほBang goes ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿࠋᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ

Ⅼ࠿ࡽࡣࠊ(12)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㡢※ࡢ఩⨨࡟ࠕ㖠ኌࠖ㡢ᨺฟືモࢆྵࡴ⤖ᯝᵓᩥࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋ

(a terrific report)ࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿ౛ࡀࢧ࣏࣮ࢺ࡟
࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࠾ࡼ

5.1. Levin, Song and Atkins (1997)ࡧ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡟ࡼࡿ⛣ືືモ go ࡢ㡢ࡢ⛣ື

Levin, Song and Atkins (1997)࡛ࡣࠊ㡢ᨺฟ࡬ࡢᣑᙇࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊ(22)࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼືモࡣ㠀⬟᱁(unergative)࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓ࠺࠼

࠺࡞ࠊࠕᶍೌࠖⓗ࡞⏝ἲࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡾࠊࡑࢀ

࡛ࠊ┠ⓗㄒࢆྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸

ࡀேࡢḷኌࡸ➗࠸ኌࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣ(23)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞

ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊෆⓗ࡞㡢ᨺฟ㸦ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ whisper,↓⏕≀ࡢⓎࡍࡿ≀㡢࡞࡝ࡀ┤᥋ヰἲࡢᙧࢆ

rumble ࡞࡝㡢※ࡀ㡢ࢆฟࡍࡶࡢ㸧࡜እⓗ࡞㡢⏝࠸࡚ఏ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜ᓮ⏣ᨺฟ㸦ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ jingle, rattle ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ 2 ࡘࡢ(2006)ࡣศᯒࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≀ࡢ᥋ゐ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㡢ࢆฟࡍࡶࡢ㸧ࢆ༊ูࡋࠊ
๓⪅ࡣ⮬௚஺᭰ࡀྍ⬟ࡔࡀࠊᚋ⪅ࡣ⮬ືモࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ(24)࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊఏ

(21) a. ?The sound of the bell goes, “dingdong.”㐩ࡢᵝែࢆ⾲ࢃࡍືモࡣఏ㐩ෆᐜࢆ⿵ㄒ

b. The bell goes, “ding dong.”(ᓮ⏣ (2006: 161))(22) Cows go, “moo.”(complement)࡜ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

(ᓮ⏣ (2006: 164))(23) a. Patter, patter, goes the rain.

(24) “Shakespeare!” hooted Carrie.
(Levin, Song and Atkins (1997: 54))b. Bang went the rifle. (ᓮ⏣ (2006: 169))ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ≀⌮ⓗ࡞㡢ࡢᨺฟ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࡣࠊ ࡇ ࡇ ࡛ hoot ࡣ Ⓨ ヰ ᵝ ែ ື モ (manner ofgo ࡢ⛣ືືモ࠿ࡽఏ㐩ືモ࡬ࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮

speaking verb)࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊఏ㐩ෆ࠾ࡼࡧ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ⓗ࡞ᣑᙇࡀ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᐜࡀືモ࡟ඛ⾜ࡋ࡚⌧ࢀࠊ㡢ࡢ㉳Ⅼࡀືモ࡟࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(23b)ࡀࠊᓮ⏣ (2006)ᚋ⥆ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ Carrie ࡢⓎヰࢆᣦࡋ࡛ࡣㄽࡌࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ᾘኻࢆ⾲ࡍ Bang goes࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊࡑࡢⓎኌჾᐁࡢ㡢ࡀ hoot ࡛⾲ᵓᩥ࡜ᙧᘧࢆඹ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊෆⓗ࡞㡢ᨺฟ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐ

࡜ࠊᾘኻࡢព࿡ࡣ Bang goes ࡀ඲య࡜ࡋ࡚࣓

ࡋ࡚ Bang goes ࡟ྡモྃࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿሙྜࡣࠊ

ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗ࡟ᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓ⤖ᯝ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜

(11)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ከࡃࡢሙྜࡑࡢྡモྃࡣ㡢※࡛᥎ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡟ඛ࡟(14b)ࡸ

ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ(6)(7)(8)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ bang went the

Taylor (2004)࡜ࡢ㛵㐃࡛ぢࡓ Bang goes ࡜࠸door open ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜ࡛ࡣᡬࡀ⛣ືࡋ࡚ఱ࠺ᙧᘧ඲య࡛◚⿣࣭◚ቯ࡜ᾘኻ࡜ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡇ

࠿࡜᥋ゐࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࡢ㡢࡛࠶ࡾࠊእⓗ࡞㡢ᨺฟ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜⪃࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊⓎヰᵝែື࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᓮ⏣ࡀ࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ go ࡣモ ࡣ ᵝ ែ ࢆ ㄒ ᙡ ໬ ࡋ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࡀ 㸦 cf. ᙳ ᒣࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜㉳Ⅼ࠿ࡽࡢ⛣ືࢆ⾲ࢃࡍືモ࡛࠶(2006)㸧
ࠊgo ࡣᨺฟࡢࡳࢆㄒᙡ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊ╔Ⅼࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜࠸࠺ᙧ࡛Ꮡᅾࡍࡿሙ
ྜࡣఏ㐩ືモ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ╔Ⅼࡀࡑࡶࡑࡶᣦᐃ

5.2. Goldberg and Jackendoff (2004)ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊᅗ 1 ࡛࠸࠺⤒㊰ࡀタᐃࡉࢀࡎࠊ
ᾘኻࡢព࿡࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

5ࡇ ࢀ ࡟ ᑐ ࡋ ࡚ Goldberg and Jackendoff(2004)ࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊ(25)࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
⤒㊰࡛ྃ⾲ࡉࢀࡓ஦㇟ࡀືモ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡓ㡢

35ᨺฟࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ౛࠼ࡤ(26)࡛ࡣࢺ

motion)(Goldberg (1991: 371))

࣮ࣟࣜࡀࢺࣥࢿࣝࢆ⛣ືࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ rumble࡜࠸࠺㡢ࡀᨺฟࡉࢀࡿࠋ(27a)࡛ࡣࢻ࢔ࡀቨ࡟୍ぢࡍࡿ࡜ࠊBang goes ᵓᩥࡣࠊgo ࡶ᭷᪉ྥࡪࡘ࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ bang ࡜࠸࠺㡢⛣ືࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊGoldberg (1991)ࡢ၏

ࡀᨺฟࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

୍⤒㊰ไ⣙࡟㐪཯ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ௚᪉ࠊ⤖ᯝᵓᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⤖ᯝྃࡣ openࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡾࠊbang went ࡢ㒊ศࡣ(24)(25)࡟㛵(25) Sound-emission path resultative
Syntax: NP1 V PP2㐃ࡋ࡚㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟㡢࡜ࡑࡢᨺฟࢆㄒᙡ໬

Semantics: X1 GO Path2

ࡋࠊ㉳Ⅼࡢࡳࢆྵពࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ(29)ࡢࡼ

RESULT: [verbal subevent: x1 emit sound]࠺࡟ࡑࡶࡑࡶ⛣ືࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚╔Ⅼࢆྵព

(Goldberg and Jackendoff (2004: 541))

ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ arrive ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ၏୍⤒㊰ไ⣙ࡢ㐪཯࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ

(26) The trolley rumbled through the tunnel.

open ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ᯝྃࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ

(Goldberg and Jackendoff (2004: 540))

ࡴࡋࢁ go ࡢ╔Ⅼࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ྍ⬟࡛(27) a. The door banged open.

࠶ࡿ࡜ࡶ࠸࠼ࡿࠋ

b. Here, unlike other resultatives, the verbal
subevent (banging) is a result of the(30) 㡢ᨺฟ㸸(i) ⛣ື≀࡜ࡢ᥋ゐ࡟ࡼࡿ

constructional subevent (coming open)(ii) ⛣ືࡋ࡞࠸㡢※࡟ࡼࡿ

rather than a means to it.
(Goldberg and Jackendoff (2004: 546))

ࡲࡓࠊ㡢ᨺฟࡀ⛣ື≀ࡢ᥋ゐ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࠿ࠊ
ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊGoldberg and Jackendoff ࡟ᚑ࠼⛣ືࡋ࡞࠸㡢※࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࠿ࡢ༊ูࡣࠊ

ࡤࠊ(6)(7)࡛ᣲࡆࡓ bang went the door open ࡢ

Levin, Song, and Atkins (1998)ࡢእⓗ࡞㡢ᨺฟࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜ࡟ࡣࢻ࢔ࡀ⛣ືࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚࡜ෆⓗ࡞㡢ᨺฟ࡟ᑐᛂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ(30i)ࡢሙ

bang ࡜࠸࠺㡢ࡀᨺฟࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊopen

ྜ࡛ࡣ(6)(7)(8)࡛ᣲࡆࡓ Bang went the door.

࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝྃࡶ⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ⤖ᯝ࡬⮳ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡀ⛣ືࢆྵࡴࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࠋᡬ

ࡿ⤒㊰ࡀ 2 ࡘ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࠊ၏୍⤒㊰ไ⣙ࡢ⛣ື࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Talmy ࡢ self-contained࡟㐪཯ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡳ࠼ࡿࠋ

motion ࡸᒾ⏣ࡢ internal motion ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ⪃࠼᪉ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊbang went the door ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࢻ࢔ࡢᛶ㉁࡟ෆᅾࡋࡓ⛣ືࡀ࡝ࡢ᪉

6. ⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍ Bang goes NP
Bang goes ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟⛣ືࢆྵࡴࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ

ྥ࡛⾜ࢃࢀࡓࡢ࠿ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀ

࡚⌮ゎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ(28)open/shut ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ⛣ືࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡛ࡣࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ㖠ཱྀ࡜ࡑࡇ࠿ࡽฟࡿᙎ୸ࡀ⚾࡚ฟࡿ㡢࡜ࠊࡑࡢ⛣ືࡢලయⓗ࡞᪉ྥࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡕ࡟ྥࡅ࡚Ⓨࡏࡽࢀࠊgo ࡣࡑࡢ⛣ືࡢ㉳

open/shut ࡀඹ㉳࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ(30ii)࡟

Ⅼࢆྵពࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࠶ࡓࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ(28)ࡢᅇ㌿ᘧᣙ㖠ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㡢※ࡔࡅࢆ⾲ࡋࡑࢀ⮬యࡣ⛣ືࢆྵពࡋ

(28) …fire until we got within five yards of࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣᙎ୸ࡀⓎᑕࡉ

them, when bang! bang! bang! went theirࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡑࢀࡀྥࡅࡽࢀࡓ᪉ྥ࡜

revolvers at us. We replied, and…

ࡋ࡚ at us ࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟╔Ⅼࢆ᫂

(COHA 1867 FIC WearingGrayBeing)♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊෆⓗ࡞㡢ᨺฟࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚

(29) *The box arrived open. (Verbs of directedࡶࠊ㡢ኌࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ᙎ୸࡞

36࡝ࡢ⛣ື≀ࡢ㉳Ⅼ(their revolvers)࡜╔Ⅼ(atᙳᒣኴ㑻 (2006) ࠕ㡢ᨺฟືモࢆక࠺⛣ືᵓus)࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿᙧ࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ࠶

ᩥ࡜⤖ᯝᵓᩥࠖ, ࠗⱥ⡿ᩥᏛ࠘50, 57-73,

ࡿࡶࡢࡀ኱ࡁ࡞㡢ࢆ❧࡚ࠊ╔Ⅼࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡞㛵すᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ.

࠸ሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊᾘኻࡢゎ㔘ࢆᚓࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟

Levin, Beth, Grace Song, and B. T. S. Atkins࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ 4.2 ⠇ࡢ᭱ᚋ࡛㏙࡭ࡓ⪃࠼᪉࡜ᩚ(1997) “Making Sense of Corpus Data: Aྜࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

Case

Study

of

Verbs

of

Sound,”

International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
2(1), 23-64.

* ๓㌟ࡢⓎ⾲࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ຓゝୗࡉࡗࡓᒾ⏣ᙬᚿඛ⏕ࠊ⏣୰⚽Ẏඛ⏕ࠊ⸨ᕝ຾ஓඛ⏕ࠊ㎷᪩

Riemer, Nick (1998) “The Grammaticalization௦ຍࡉࢇࠊ୰ᑿ᭸Ꮚࡉࢇࠊ኱఍ᙜ᪥ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ

of Impact: Bang and Slap in English,”ࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓᒾ⏣ඛ⏕ࠊ኱㇂┤㍤ඛ⏕ࠊ஬༑ᔒ

Australian Journal of Linguistics 18,⩏⾜ඛ⏕ࠊ᯽㔝೺ḟඛ⏕ࠊ௨๓࠿ࡽ┦ㄯ࡟஌

169-183.

ࡗ࡚ୗࡉࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ᳃ୗ⿱୕ࡉࢇ࡟ឤㅰࡍࡿࠋ

ᓮ⏣ᬛᏊ (2006) ࠕఏ㐩ືモ go ࡢព࿡ᣑᙇ

ᮏ✏ࡣ኱఍࡛ࡢⓎ⾲ෆᐜࢆ෌㘓ࡍࡿࠋ౛ᩥ᳨

࣓̿ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽࠖ,⣴࡟ࡣ COHA (http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/)ࢆ

ࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛㄽ⪃࠘No. 5, 145-177, ࡦࡘ⏝࠸ࡓࠋᣓᘼෆࡢᩘᏐࡣฟ⌧ᖺࠊୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅ࡌ᭩ᡣ, ᮾி.
Sweetser, Eve (1988) “Grammaticalization and

࡟ࡼࡿࠋ
1

ὀ

Semantic Bleaching,” BLS 14, 389-405.

࡞࠾ࠊcome ࡢฟ⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Riemer (1998)

Taylor, John R. (2002) Cognitive Grammar,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

࡟ࡶ౛♧ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
2

Taylor, John R. (2004) “The Ecology of≀⌮ⓗ࡞㡢ᨺฟࡢ౛࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀ(14)ࡢࡼ࠺

࡞౛࠿ࡽࡍࡿ࡜ࠕᾘኻࠖࡢゎ㔘ࡢሙྜࡶ୍ᒙ

Constructions,”ࡢㄪᰝࡀᚲせࡔ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

Motivation, ed. by Günter Radden and3

Klaus-Uwe Panther, 49-73, Mouton deࡇࡢⅬࡣ(14b)࡟㛵㐃ࡋ࡚᪤࡟㏙࡭ࡓࡇ࡜

in

Linguistic

Gruyter, Berlin.

ࢆඛྲྀࡾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
4

Studies

Vandelanotte, Lieven (2012) “Quotative Go andࡇࢀ࡟ࡣ quotative inversion ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ࡀ࠶

and

Be

5

࡞࠾ࠊ⮬ᕫ࡟㏆࠸㉳Ⅼ࠿ࡽࡢ⛣ືࡀᾘኻࡢ

Grammaticalization,”ゎ㔘ࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࡣࠊaway ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࢆ⪃࠼࡚

Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Disciplinaryࡶྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊ୍⯡࡟⤒㊰ࡀ᝿ᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞

Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstallerࡃ࡞ࡗࡓሙྜࡣࠊ⛣ື࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃᾘኻ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉ

and Ingrid Van Alphen, 173-202, Johnࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

Benjamins, Amsterdam.

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Goldberg, Adele (1991) “It Can’t Go Down the
Chimney Up: Paths and the English
Resultative,” BLS 17, 368-378.
Goldberg, Adele, and Ray Jackendoff (2004)“The English Resultative as a Family ofConstructions,” Language 80, 532-568.

37

Like:

Grammarࡿࠋ㸦ᒾ⏣ඛ⏕ࡢࡈᣦ᦬࡟ࡼࡿࠋ㸧

Quotatives:

.|YHFVHV  ࠊ/DNRII   ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊD
ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ឤ᝟➼ࡢᢳ㇟㡿ᇦ࡬ࡢឤぬᙧᐜモࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࡣ㌟యᛶࡸᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ᇶ
࡙ࡃࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃᴫᛕ
ⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᙧᐜモࡢព࿡ኚ໬ࡢ཮᪉ྥᛶ

㛫ࡢ෗ീࡸព࿡ᣑᙇࡣ㌟య⤒㦂ࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡋࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ ࡚ලయ㡿ᇦ࠿ࡽᢳ㇟㡿ᇦ࡬࡜୍᪉ྥ࡟⾜ࢃ

㸦2Q%LGLUHFWLRQDOLW\RIWKH0HDQLQJ&KDQJHVࢀࡿࡢ࡛㠀ᑐ⛠ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ /DNRII  ࠋ

LQ(QJOLVK$GMHFWLYHV㸧౛࠼ࡤࠊ7,0( ,6 $ 029,1* 2%-(&7 ࡸ
025( ,6 83 ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡛ࡣ㉳ᒾᶫ ୍ᶞ㸦.D]XNL,ZDKDVKL㸧

Ⅼ㡿ᇦ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࡢࡳ▱ぬྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲ

ᦤ༡኱Ꮫ㠀ᖖ໅ㅮᖌ㸦6HWVXQDQ8QLYHUVLW\㸧ࡓࠊ㔞ࡢᴫᛕࡀ㈌ᖯ⤒῭ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㝈ࡽࢀࡓ≧ἣ࡛ᢕᥱࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ᚑ࠺

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ឤぬᙧᐜモ ឤ᝟ᙧᐜモ ⛬ᗘ࡜ࠊ E ࡢ஦ᐇࡣࠊ㌟య⤒㦂ࡼࡾࡶከᒱ࡟ࢃホ౯ ୰᰾ⓗᶵ⬟ࡓࡿ⤒㦂ࡢᗘྜ࠸࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㉳Ⅼ㡿ᇦ࡜እ⏺
࡛ࡢฟ᮶஦ࡢᗘྜ࠸࡟㛵ࡍࡿ┠ᶆ㡿ᇦ࡜ࡢ㛫࡛෗ീࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡑ ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࠊ E ࡢ஦ᐇࡣࠊ㉳Ⅼ㡿ᇦ ⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᙧᐜモࡢព࿡ኚ໬࡟ࡣ DE࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿ᝟ሗࡢ࠺ࡕᛣࡾ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࡢ

ࡢࡼ࠺࡟཮᪉ྥᛶࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ

඲࡚ࡀ෗ീࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㉳Ⅼ㡿ᇦ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ⛬ᗘࡢ⃭ࡋࡉ࡞࡝ࡢ୍㒊ࡢ D  'RQ¶WJHWhot under the collar
/DNRII  ࡁࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᴫᛕ㛫ࡢ෗ീ࡟ᇶ

E  6KH ILOOHG DOO KHU SRWV DQG VWRNHG WKH࡙࠸ࡓศᯒ࡛ࡣ௨ୗࡢ஦ᐇࡀㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

 
᝟ሗࡀ෗ീࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡶㄝ࡛᫂

VWRYHWLOOWKHZDWHUFDPHWRDfurious boil

>&2&$@ D +H WKHUHIRUH IRXQG LW QHFHVVDU\ WR

DSRORJL]H IRU WKH^DQJHUILUH` LQ KLV
D ࡣᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁㄝ᫂ྍ⬟ࡔࡀࠊ

KHDUW E ࡣࠊᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃព࿡ኚ໬ࡢ

>&2&$㸦୍㒊ᨵኚ㸧@

E $QG DOO RI D VXGGHQ WKHUH ZDV EODFN

㌟యᛶࡸ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶ /DNRII   ࡢࡳ࡟ᇶVPRNH DQG WKH\ ZHUH FRPLQJ RXW DQG࡙ࡁㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ

WKH^ILUHDQJHU`ZDVFRPLQJRXWEHKLQG

Ⓨ⾲࡛ࡣࠊ DE ࡢ஦ᐇࢆព࿡㛫ࡢඹ㏻ᛶࢆ

WKHP

>&2&$㸦୍㒊ᨵኚ㸧@ᇶ࡟⤫୍ⓗ࡟ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿ௦᱌ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋD ࡢ஦ᐇࡸࠊ D ࡛ DQJHU ࡢ௦ࢃࡾ࡟ᛣࡾ࡟ ඛ⾜◊✲ᑐࡋ࡚ ILUH ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊᙧᐜモࡢព࿡ኚ໬ࡢ᪉ྥᛶࡸ࣓

࠿ࡽࠊ⇕࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄒࢆᛣࡾ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࠊᙧᐜモࡢಶࠎࡢព࿡ࡢỴᐃࡢ௙᪉ࠊ ࡜ࡣ $1*(5,6+($7 ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿ஦᯶ࢆᴫほࡍࡿࠋ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ E ࡛ࡣ ILUH

ࡢ௦ࢃࡾ࡟ DQJHU ࢆ⏝࠸࡚⅖࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿ

 ᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃศᯒ

ࡢࡀ୙⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮

 /DNRIIDQG-RKQVRQ  ࠊ/DNRII  ࠊ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ᛣࡾࡢ⃭ࡋࡉࢆ⃭ࡋ࠸⇕࡟෗ീ38ࡉࡏࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃ

஦᯶ࡶྵࡲࢀࡿ LELG  ࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛ࡶࠊࡽࡎࠊ E ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟⇕ࡢ⃭ࡋࡉࢆᛣࡾ࡟

ḟඖ✵㛫ࠊ⮯࠸ࠊⰍࠊゐぬ࡞࡝ࡢ▱ぬ࡟㛵ࢃ㛵ࡍࡿㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡿࢻ࣓࢖ࣥࡣᇶᮏࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ

ࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࡀᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃព࿡ኚ

▱ぬ௨እࡢ஦᯶࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢻ࣓࢖ࣥࡣᢳ㇟ࢻ

໬ࡢ㌟యᛶࡸ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡣㄝ࡛᫂

࣓࢖ࣥ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿ LELG ࠋࢻ࣓࢖ࣥࡢほࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢ࠺࠼ࠊ E ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ DQJHU ࡢ౑

Ⅼ࠿ࡽᙧᐜモࡢព࿡ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊឤぬᙧᐜ⏝ࡀ୙⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ E ࡢ౛࡛⇕ࡀモࡢᏐ⩏㏻ࡾࡢព࿡ࡣᵝࠎ࡞ᇶᮏࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ

ᛣࡾࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡸࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᇶ

ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽỴᐃࡉࢀࠊឤ᝟ᙧᐜモࡢᏐ⩏㏻ࡾ

࡙࠸࡚ IXULRXV ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᴫᛕ࣓ࢱ

ࡢព࿡ࡣᢳ㇟ࢻ࣓࢖ࣥࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽỴᐃࡉࢀࣇ࢓࣮࡟ࡼࡾືᶵ࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡶࢃ࠿

ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᙧᐜモࡢព࿡ࡀᣑᙇࡉࢀ

ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ E ࡢ஦ᐇࡣᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮௨

ࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢព࿡ࡣᏐ⩏㏻ࡾࡢព࿡ࡢỴእࡢせᅉ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

ᐃ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡜ࡣูࡢࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡜ࡢ ୍᪉ࠊ*UDG\   ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ

㛵ࢃࡾ࡛Ỵᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ⪃࠼࡟ᚑ࠺࡜ࠊD

ᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡸ⤒㦂ࡢඹ㉳㛵ಀ࡟ᇶ࡙࠿ࡢ KRW ࡢព࿡ࡣឤ᝟࡟㛵ࡍࡿᢳ㇟ࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡜

ࡎࠊྠࡌࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ஦≀㛫ࡸᴫᛕ㛫ࡢ㢮ఝᛶ࡟ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾ࡛ỴᐃࡉࢀࠊE ࡢ IXULRXV ࡢព࿡ࡣᇶ࡙ࡃ෗ീࡸព࿡ኚ໬࡟ࡣᑐ⛠ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

ゐぬ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᇶᮏࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡜ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾ࡛Ỵᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊᙧᐜモࡣಶࠎࡢ $FKLOOHVLVDOLRQ *UDG\      ࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁỴᐃࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࡼࡾࡶࡼ


ࡾᗈ࠸ព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ

౛࠼ࡤࠊ  ࡢ⾲⌧࡛ࡣࠊ࢔࢟ࣞࢫ࡜ࣛ࢖࢜

 'HVSLWH WKH JRRG ZHDWKHU0UV:HW]HO ZDVࣥࡢ㛫࡟⏕ࡁ≀࡛࠶ࡾຬᩒ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺㢮

LQDstormyPRRGDVDWHPSHVWఝⅬࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ࢔࢟ࣞࢫࡣຬᩒ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜


ࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ⾲⌧࡛ࡣ $FKLOOHV ࡜ DOLRQ࡜࠸࠺ㄒྃࡢ㡰ᗎࢆධࢀ᭰࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ୧⪅ࡢࡇ ࡛ࡣ VWRUP\ ࡣࠊᐇ㝿ࡢኳೃࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸࡞ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㢮ఝⅬ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࣛ࢖࢜ࣥࡀຬᩒ࡛

࠸࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊᔒ࡜࠸࠺ኳೃ࡜Ẽศ࡟ᙜ࡚࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡢㄒ㡰࡛ࡶຬᩒ

ࡣࡲࡿᛶ㉁ࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ౛࡛ࡣኳೃࡀ

࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊ▱ぬྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ឤ᝟ࡀ▱ぬྍ⬟D ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ෗ീࡀ

࡛࡞ࡃࠊࡇࡢㄒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᛶ㉁㛵ࢃࡿព࿡ᣑᙇ࡛ࡶࠊ E ࡢࡼ࠺࡟␗࡞ࡿࢱࡀ  ࡘࡢ┦཯ࡍࡿࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࡓ࢖ࣉࡢ  ࡘࡢᴫᛕࡀ㛵ࢃࡿព࿡ᣑᙇ࡛ࡶࠊ⛬ࡵ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᇶᮏࢻ࣓࢖ࣥࡸᢳ㇟ࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ

ᗘࡢ⃭ࡋࡉࡸࠊ࣐࢖ࢼࢫホ౯࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㢮ఝᛶࡀࡇࡢᙧᐜモࡢព࿡Ỵᐃ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡢ࠿ࡀ᫂ࢆぢ࠸ࡔࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡽ࠿࡛࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᙧᐜモࡀᐇ㝿࡟㏙࡭

ࡿព࿡ࡀࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ỵᐃࡉࢀࡿព࿡

 ᙧᐜモࡢព࿡ࡢỴᐃࡢ௙᪉

ࡼࡾࡶᗈࡃࠊ ࡘࡢ┦཯ࡍࡿࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡟ࡼࡗ

 /DQJDFNHU  &K   ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊᵝࠎ࡞࡚Ỵࡲࡿព࿡㛫࡟㐃⥆ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢㄒ

ゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡ࡢỴᐃࡣಶࠎࡢࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡜

ࡢព࿡ࢆࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚Ỵᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾ࡛⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡜ࡣࢥ

ࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ୰࡟ࡣⓎヰ ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿ஦᯶

ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿ≧ἣࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃᚰⓗ⤒㦂ࡸᴫᛕࠊ

 2VJRRGHWDO   ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊㄒࡢព࿡ࡢ

ᴫᛕࡢ㞟ྜయ࡜࠸ࡗࡓே㛫ࡢㄆ▱࡟㛵ࢃࡿ㐪࠸ࡣ (YDOXDWLRQࠊ3RWHQF\ࠊ$FWLYLW\ ࡢ  ࡘ39ࡢ≉ᛶࡀಶࠎࡢㄒࡢព࿡࡟࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘ㛵ࢃࡿ

ࡿࡀࠊ$FWLYLW\ ࡀ࠶ࡲࡾ㛵ࢃࡽ࡞࠸ GXOO ࡢ౑ࡢ࠿ࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿ 2VJRRG

⏝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶྠࡌ㡢㉁ࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛

HWDO   ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ(YDOXDWLRQ ࡣホ౯$FWLYLW\ ࡜࠸࠺≉ᛶࡣࠊ F ࡛ VORZ ࡢࡳࡀື࡟㛵ࢃࡿ≉ᛶ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ3RWHQF\ ࡣᵝࠎ࡞ᛶ㉁ࡁࡢ㐜ࡉࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ

ࡀ᭷ࡍࡿ⛬ᗘࡢᙉࡉ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ≉ᛶ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ

஦≀ࡢືࡁࡢࡳ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ≉ᛶ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼࡞

$FWLYLW\ ࡣ≀⌮ⓗ࡞㗦ࡉࡸ③ࡉࠊືࡁࡀᛴ࡛࠾ࡍᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊឤぬᙧᐜモࡸឤ᝟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࢃࡿ≉ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ౛࠼ࡤࠊᙧᐜモࡢព࿡࡟ࡣ 3RWHQF\ ࡜ (YDOXDWLRQ ࡢࡳ

VZHHWVRXUࠊVZHHWELWWHU ࡢ࣌࢔ࡣ (YDOXDWLRQࡀ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚ホ౯࡜⛬ᗘࡀࡇࢀࡽࡢ✀㢮ࡢᙧ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁព࿡ࡢ┦㐪ࡀグ㏙ࡉࢀࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗᐜモ࡟ࡼࡾ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

࡚ࡇࢀࡽࡢㄒࡀ࿡࡟ᑐࡍࡿホ౯ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ

ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊឤぬᙧᐜモ࡜ឤ᝟ᙧ࡜ ࡀ ㄝ ᫂ ࡉ ࢀ ࡿ ࠋ ୍ ᪉ ࠊ KHDY\OLJKW ࠊᐜモࡢᮏ᮶ࡢព࿡࡜࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡࡜ࡢVWURQJZHDN ࡢ࣌࢔ࡣ 3RWHQF\ ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁព࿡ࡢ

㛫࡟ࠊ⛬ᗘࡸホ౯ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ࡜࠸࠺୰᰾ⓗᶵ⬟┦㐪ࡀグ㏙ࡉࢀࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡇࢀࡽࡢㄒࡀ

ࡀඹ᭷ࡉࢀࠊࡑࢀࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡋ࡚ࡇࢀࡽࡢᙧᐜ

⛬ᗘࡢ኱ᑠࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ モࡢព࿡ࡀ཮᪉ྥ࡟ኚ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡲ
VKDUSGXOOࠊIDVWVORZ ࡢ࣌࢔ࡣ $FWLYLW\ ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡓࠊ༢ㄒࡸᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ྛ༢ㄒࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮

ࡁព࿡ࡢ┦㐪ࡀグ㏙ࡉࢀࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡇࢀ

ⓗព࿡ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ㛵㐃ࡽࡢㄒࡀ≀⌮ⓗ࡞㗦ࡉࡸ㏿ࡉࡢᗘྜ࠸ࢆ㏙ᛶ⌮ㄽ 6SHUEHU DQG :LOVRQ   ࡟࠾࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ࡅࡿ₇⧢ⓗ᥎ㄽࡢ㝿࡟ホ౯ࡸ⛬ᗘࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ ࡇࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ᚑ࠺࡜ࠊ⛬ᗘࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ⾲⌧࡟࠾࡜࠸࠺୰᰾ⓗᶵ⬟ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡢ࠿

࠸࡚ࠊ3RWHQF\ ࡜ $FWLYLW\ ࡢ༊ศࡀ࠶࠸ࡲ࠸

࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡸࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢឤぬᙧᐜモࡸឤ᝟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊDE

ᙧᐜモࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⌮࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⛬ᗘࡢ㧗ࡉࡣ 3RWHQF\ ࡢ⛬ᗘゎࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ♧ࡍࠋࡢ㧗ࡉࢆ⾲ࡍ⾲⌧࡛ࡶࠊ$FWLYLW\ ࡢ⛬ᗘࡢ㧗ࡉࢆ⾲ࡍ⾲⌧࡛ࡶࠊ$FWLYLW\ ࡢ⛬ᗘࡢపࡉࢆ ឤぬᙧᐜモ࡜ឤ᝟ᙧᐜモࡢ୰᰾ⓗᶵ⬟⾲ࡍ⾲⌧࡛ࡶ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ឤぬᙧᐜモࡸឤ᝟ᙧᐜモࡣ㌿⏝ࡉࢀ࡚ᮏ᮶ࡢព࿡࡜ࡣูࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡࡛⏝࠸ D $

^VWURQJVKDUS`KHDWVXUURXQGHGXVࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢሙྜࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᙧᐜ

XQEHDUDEOHDWWKLVWLPH   モࡣᵝࠎ࡞ᛶ㉁ࡢ⛬ᗘࡸホ౯ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠋᮏㄽ

>&2&$ ୍㒊ᨵኚ @ᩥ࡛ࡣᵝࠎ࡞ឤぬᙧᐜモࡸឤ᝟ᙧᐜモࡀࠊᣑ   E , ZDV HPEDUUDVVHG WR KHDU WKHᙇࡉࢀࡓព࿡࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶᏐ⩏㏻ࡾࡢព࿡࡟

^KHDY\GXOO`VRXQGRI P\ JUDQGIDWKHU Vࡼࡗ࡚ࡶᛶ㉁ࡢ⛬ᗘࡸホ౯ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ

FDQHRQWKHVWDLUV  >&2&$ ୍㒊ᨵኚ @ࡇࢀࡽࡢᙧᐜモࡢ୰᰾ⓗᶵ⬟࡜ᐃ⩏ࡍࡿࠋ

F $ODQD

WRRN

D

^VORZKHDY\`ᐇ㝿࡟ⱥㄒࡢឤぬᙧᐜモࡸឤ᝟ᙧᐜモࢆ

VWHSWRZDUG*DYLQ >&2&$ ୍㒊ᨵኚ @    ⏝࠸ࡓ⾲⌧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ

ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞୰᰾ⓗᶵ⬟ࡀᏐ⩏㏻ࡾࡢព࿡࡜ᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓព࿡࡜ࡢ㛫D ࡛ࡣ⇕ࡢ⛬ᗘࡀ኱ࡁ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣ 3RWHQF\ ࡀ࡛ඹ᭷ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ௨ୗࡢ౛࠿ࡽࢃ࠿

ᙉࡃ㛵ࢃࡿ VWURQJ ࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ$FWLYLW\

ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᏐ⩏㏻ࡾࡢព࿡࡜ᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓព

ࡀᙉࡃ㛵ࢃࡿ VKDUS ࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶ㏙࡭ࡽ࿡࡜ࡢ㛫࡟㐃⥆ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ

ࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ E ࡛ࡣࠊ㔜࠸㡢ࡢ㡢㉁ࡀࠊ3RWHQF\ D 7KHࡀᙉࡃ㛵ࢃࡿ KHDY\ ࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㏙࡭ࡽࢀ

40

IRRGWKHDWPRVSKHUH

WKH





EDFNJURXQG PXVLF DQG P\ ORYH RI KHUࢀࡽࡢព࿡ࡣឤぬᙧᐜモ࡜ឤ᝟ᙧᐜモࡢ୧

ZHUHDOOsweetDWWKDWFDIp᪉࡛Ꮠ⩏㏻ࡾࡢព࿡࡛ࡶᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓព࿡࡛

E 7KH ERRN WKH DXWKRU V VDGQHVV GHSLFWHGࡶ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ

LQLWDQGWKHZLQGRXWVLGHDUHDOOheavyࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄝ᫂࡟ࡼࡾࠊD ࠊD ࠊ D %RWKKLVPRRGDQGWKHUDLQZHUHsullenD ࠊ D ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊឤぬࡸឤ᝟ࡢᛌ࣭୙ᛌ

E %RWKWKHSHUVRQDQGWKHZLQGDUHangry ࡸዲࡲࡋࡉ࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࡀᇶ┙࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ឤぬᙧᐜモࡸឤ᝟ᙧᐜモࡢព࿡ࡀ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮

௨ୖࡢ౛࠿ࡽࠊ ࡘࡢᩥࡢ୰࡛ VZHHW ࡸ KHDY\ࠊ ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ኚ໬ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᙧᐜモࡀᮏ᮶
VXOOHQ ࡸ DQJU\ ࡀᏐ⩏㏻ࡾࡢព࿡࡟ࡶᵝࠎ࡞ࡢព࿡ࡢ࡯࠿࡟እ⏺ࡢ஦≀࡟ᑐࡍࡿホ౯ࡸᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓព࿡࡟ࡶ࡝ࡕࡽ࡟ࡶᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿឤ᝟ࡢホ౯ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡢ࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀㄝ

ᗈ࠸ព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓ

᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ DE ࠊ  ࠊ E ࠊ E ࠊ

ࡵࠊ&DUVWRQ   ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ

E ࠊ E ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊឤぬࡸឤ᝟ࡢ⛬ᗘ࡟㛵࡙ࡃព࿡ᣑᙇࡸ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࡢศᯒ࡜ྠ

ࡍࡿព࿡ࡀᇶ┙࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ឤぬᙧᐜモࡸឤ᝟ᵝ࡟ࠊᙧᐜモࡣᏐ⩏㏻ࡾࡢព࿡ࡼࡾࡶᗈ࠸ពᙧᐜモࡢព࿡ࡀ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ኚ໬

࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊࡑࡢព࿡ࡣᩥ⬦࡟ᛂࡌ࡚⌮ゎࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᙧᐜモࡀᮏ᮶ࡢព࿡ࡢ࡯࠿࡟

ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡢࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊእ⏺ࡢ஦≀ࡀ᭷ࡍࡿᛶ㉁ࡢ⛬ᗘࡸឤ᝟ࡢ⛬:LOVRQ DQG &DUVWRQ   ࡢ୺ᙇ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ

ᗘࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡢ࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿᛶ㉁ࡣ≀⌮ⓗ࡞ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࡇࢀࡽࡢᙧᐜモࡢព࿡ኚ໬ࡢ⤫≉ᛶ࡜ࡼࡾᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞≉ᛶ࡜ࡢ୧᪉࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣ

୍ⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡢ࠺࠼ࠊࡇࢀࡽ

ࡲࡾࠊᙧᐜモࡢᏐ⩏㏻ࡾࡢព࿡ࡼࡾࡶ୍⯡ᛶࡢᙧᐜモࡢព࿡ࡣࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡟ࡼࡾᣦᐃࡉࢀ

ࡢ㧗࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࡢࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࡿᙧᐜモࡢព࿡࡜ẚ࡭࡚ࡼࡾ୍⯡ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࠋឤぬᙧᐜモࡸឤ᝟ᙧᐜモࡢᏐ⩏㏻ࡾࡢព࿡

࡜࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣホ౯ࡸ⛬ᗘ ᙧᐜモࡢᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࡢ⌮ゎ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⯡ᛶࡢ㧗࠸ព࿡ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ࡜࠸࠺

ᩥ⬦ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾ

ᶵ⬟ࡀඹ᭷ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ  ⠇࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊឤぬᙧᐜモࡸឤ᝟ᙧᐜ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ⛬ᗘࡸホ౯࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࡣࠊモࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࡣࠊឤぬࡸឤ᝟ࡢ⛬ᗘࡸዲࡲࡋ   ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᵝࠎ࡞✀㢮ࡢᙧᐜモ࡜ྡモࡉࠊᛌ࣭୙ᛌ࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ

ࢆ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡓ⾲⌧࠿ࡽᢕᥱࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ࡇࢀࡽࡢᙧᐜモࡣ⛬ᗘ࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡࡜ホ౯࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࡢ୍᪉ࡢࡳࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞
 D bitterPRRGsweetKHDUWdarkPRRGdull
GD\V sweetKRPH>%1&@

࠸࠺ᛶ㉁ࢆ㏙࡭ࠊ; ࡣዲࡲࡋࡉࡸᛌ࣭୙ᛌ࡜

E sharp DQJHU hot SDVVLRQ bitter ZLQG࠸ࡗࡓホ౯ࢆࠊ< ࡣ่⃭ࡢᙉᙅࠊᛶ㉁ࡢ⃭ࡋ

>%1&@

ࡉ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ⛬ᗘࢆ㏙࡭ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᙧᐜモࡢព D sullen UDLQ grim VLOHQFH cheerful࿡ࡣ୧⪅ࡀ⤖ࡧࡘ࠸ࡓࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
㸦ࡓࡔࡋࠊ

vividFRQWUDVWVXQVKLQH࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢᙧᐜモࡣ ; ࡞࡯࡝ < ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜>&2&$@ホ౯ࡣᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ỵࡲࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
㸧E angry VWRUPfurious ERLOmodest DPRXQWࡲࡓࠊྛឤぬᙧᐜモࡸྛឤ᝟ᙧᐜモࡢព࿡                                >&2&$@࡟┦㐪ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ;ࠊ< ࡟࠾࠸࡚ホ౯ࡸ⛬ᗘ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡼࡾヲ⣽࡞ព࿡ࡣྛ༢ㄒࡸ

ࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ⛬ᗘࡸホ౯࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࡣ

ྛᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊព

ᵝࠎ࡞ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚㏙࡭ࡽࢀࠊࡇ

࿡ゎ㔘ࡢ㝿࡟ಶࠎࡢ༢ㄒࡢព࿡ࡸྛᩥ⬦ࡶ

41

㋃ࡲ࠼࡚㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ₇⧢ⓗ᥎ㄽࡀࡳࡀ㛵ࢃࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊVKDUS ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᐜモࡣ⾜ࢃࢀࠊホ౯ࡸ⛬ᗘࡢヲ⣽ࡀ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲ

ᐈほⓗᛶ㉁ࢆᥥ෗ࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿேࠎࡢᤊ

ࡓࠊࡑࡢ㝿࡟ࡣࠊ⛬ᗘࡸホ౯ࠊ୧⪅ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾ࠼᪉࡜ࡋ࡚ࣉࣛࢫ࣐࢖ࢼࢫ୧᪉ࡢホ౯ࢆᩥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࢆྛ༢ㄒࡢព࿡࠿ࡽᢕᥱࡋ࡚

⬦࡟ᛂࡌ࡚㏙࡭ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊVKDUS

ព࿡ゎ㔘ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ୧⪅ࡢ࠺ࡕ࠸

SDLQ ࡜࠸࠺ㄒྃࡣ③ࡳࡢ⃭ࡋࡉ࡟క࠺࣐࢖

ࡎࢀ࠿ࡢ᝟ሗࡀḞࡅࡿ࡜ࠊᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࢼࢫホ౯ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡀࠊVKDUSNQLIH ࡜࠸࠺ㄒྃ⛬ᗘࡸホ౯ࡢព࿡ࢆ㐺ษ࡟⌮ゎ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ௨

ࡣࢼ࢖ࣇࡢ㗦ࡉࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕᛶ⬟ࡢⰋࡉࢆ≉ᐃୗ࡛ࡑࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ぢ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

ࡢᩥ⬦࡛㏙࡭ࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ D ࡛

D E ࠊ D E ࡛ࡣࠊ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿᙧᐜモ

ELWWHU ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊⱞ࠸≀ࡣ୙ᛌ࡞࡯

࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊᮏ᮶ࡢព࿡࠿ࡽᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓព࿡

࡝่⃭ࡀᙉ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᇶ࡟㢼ࡀ୙ᛌ࡞࡛ࡢ౑⏝ࡀ୙⮬↛࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ⏝࠸࡯࡝ⴭࡋࡃᙉ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ

ࡽࢀࡿᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ⛬ᗘࡸホ౯࡟㛵ࡍ

ELWWHU ࠿ࡽ᝿㉳ࡉࢀࡿ࣐࢖ࢼࢫホ౯ࡸᩥ⬦࡟ࡿ᝟ሗࡢ∦᪉ࡀḞዴࡋࠊ㐺ษ࡞ព࿡ゎ㔘ࡀ⾜ࡼࡾࠊ⛬ᗘࡢ኱ࡁࡉࡀࡉࡽ࡟ᣦᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋ୍

ࢃࢀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑ

᪉ࠊE ࡛ࡣࠊVKDUS ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓሙྜ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ

ࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊឤぬᙧᐜモࡸឤ᝟ᙧᐜモࡢᣑᙇ

VRXU ࡢព࿡ゎ㔘࡟ࡶ୙ᛌ࡞ឤぬ࡟㛵ࡍࡿពࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࡣᵝࠎ࡞ᙧᐜモ࡟ඹ㏻ࡍࡿ୍⯡࿡࡜⛬ᗘࡢ኱ࡁࡉ࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࡀ㛵ࢃࡿࠋࡑⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊಶࠎࡢᙧᐜモࡢព࿡ࡸࡢࡓࡵࠊ࣐࢖ࢼࢫホ౯ࡀ᝿㉳ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ᙧᐜモᩥ⬦࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ

࡛࠶ࡿ VKDUS ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓሙྜ࡜㐪ࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢᙧᐜモࢆ⏝࠸ࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣ㓟ࡗࡥ࠸≀ࡣ୙ᛌ࡞ D 7KHUH ZDV QR ZLQG EXW WKH VSHHG DWZKLFKKH

WUDYHOHGFUHDWHG࡯࡝่⃭ࡀᙉ࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୙ᛌឤࢆᇶ࡟⤒῭Dࡀᝏ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⛬ᗘ

^ELWWHUVKDUS`EODVWࡢ኱ࡁࡉࡢࡳࡀㄒᙡⓗព࿡࡜ࡋ࡚㏙࡭ࡽࢀ







>&2&$㸦୍㒊ᨵኚ㸧@ࡿ VKDUS ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓሙྜ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ࣐࢖ࢼࢫホ

E $QJHU DW D ^VRXUVKDUS` HFRQRP\ ZDV౯ࡀㄒᙡⓗព࿡࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿ VRXU ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⤒EHLQJ WUDQVIRUPHG LQWR GDQJHURXV

῭ࡢᝏࡉࡀࡼࡾ᫂☜࡟㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊ

³KDWUHG´E\IRUFHVRQWKHULJKWD ࡛ឤ᝟ᙧᐜモࡢᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࡢゎ㔘

>&2&$ 㸦୍㒊ᨵኚ㸧@ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊIXULRXV ࡣᮏ᮶ᛣࡾࡢឤ᝟ࡀ⃭ D 6KH ILOOHG DOO KHU SRWV DQG VWRNHG WKHࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊIXULRXV ࡢពVWRYH

WLOO

WKH

ZDWHU

FDPH

WR

࿡ゎ㔘࡟ࡣ୙ᛌឤࡸዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟㛵D^IXULRXVSDVVLRQDWH`ERLO ࡍࡿព࿡࡜⛬ᗘࡢ኱ࡁࡉ࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࡀ㛵







E  㸦୍㒊ᨵኚ㸧ࢃࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊSDVVLRQDWH ࡢព࿡ゎ㔘࡟ࡣᛌឤ

E 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG LW LV D PLVWDNH WRࡸឤ᝟ࡢዲࡲࡋࡉ࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࡀ㛵ࢃࡽࡎ

DVVXPH WKH\ ZLOO JURZ WR DQ\ VL]H RQ

⛬ᗘࡢ኱ࡁࡉ࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࡢࡳࡀ㛵ࢃࡿࠋࡇ^LQGLIIHUHQWLQFXULRXV`VRLOࢀࡣࠊSDVVLRQDWH ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᐜモࡀࠊSDVVLRQDWH                       >%1&㸦୍㒊ᨵኚ㸧@

ORYH ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ዲࡲࡋ࠸ឤ᝟࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ



SDVVLRQDWH DQJHU ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ឤ᝟
D ࡢ ELWWHU ࡢព࿡ゎ㔘࡟ࡣ୙ᛌ࡞ឤぬࡸ⛬࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡶᙉ࠸ឤ᝟ࡢᥥ෗࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ

ᗘࡢ኱ࡁࡉ࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࡀ㛵ࢃࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ

࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࡢᙧᐜモࡣឤ᝟ࡢᙉ

VKDUS ࡢព࿡ゎ㔘࡟ࡣ୙ᛌ࡞ឤぬ࡟㛵ࡍࡿពࡉ࡟ᑐࡍࡿேࠎࡢᤊ࠼᪉࡜ࡋ࡚ᩥ⬦࡟ᛂࡌ࿡ࡀ㛵ࢃࡽࡎ⛬ᗘࡢ኱ࡁࡉ࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࡢ

࡚ࣉࣛࢫ࣐࢖ࢼࢫ୧᪉ࡢホ౯ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠋࡶࡋ42

IXULRXV ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࡜ࠊSDVVLRQDWH ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓሙྜࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ⛬࡜㐪ࡗ࡚ࠊᛣࡗ࡚࠸ࡿேࡸ⏕ࡁ≀ࡀ⃭ࡋࡃ࡚ᗘࡸホ౯ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ㝿࡟ឤぬᙧᐜモࡸឤ᝟ᙧዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ‫ࡢ‮‬Ἓ㦐ᐜモࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗ౑⏝ࡀ୙⮬↛࡜࡞ࡿࡇࡀ⃭ࡋࡃ࡚ዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ༴㝤࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊ⛬ᗘࡸホ౯࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ E ࡛ࡣࠊሗࡢ࠺ࡕ୍᪉ࡀḞࡅࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓពLQGLIIHUHQW ࡣ↓㛵ᚰ࡜࠸࠺ዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ឤ᝟

࿡ࢆ₇⧢ⓗ᥎ㄽ࡟ࡼࡾᩥ⬦࡟ྜ࠺ࡼ࠺࡟⌮࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᮏ᮶⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡇࡢᙧᐜ

ゎ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᙧᐜモࡢ࣓ࢱࣇモࡢព࿡ゎ㔘࡟ࡣዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ホ౯࡟㛵ࡍ࢓࣮ⓗ౑⏝ࡀ୙⮬↛࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡿព࿡࡜⛬ᗘࡀ࠶ࡲࡾ㧗ࡃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡜࠸࠺

ព࿡ࡀ㛵ࢃࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊLQFXULRXV ࡢព࿡ゎ㔘࡟ ⤖ㄒࡣホ౯࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࡀ㛵ࢃࡽࡎ⛬ᗘ࡟㛵ࡍᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊឤぬᙧᐜモࡸឤ᝟ᙧᐜモࡢᏐࡿព࿡ࡢࡳࡀ㛵ࢃࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊLQFXULRXV ࡜࠸⩏㏻ࡾࡢព࿡࡜ᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓព࿡࡜ࡢ㛫࡛⛬࠺ᙧᐜモࡣ↓㛵ᚰ࡞ࡇ࡜࡜࠸࠺ᝏ࠸ឤ᝟࡟ᗘࡸホ౯ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ࡜࠸࠺୰᰾ⓗᶵ⬟ࡀඹ᭷ᑐࡋ࡚ࡶヮ⣴ዲࡁ࡛࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ᝏࡃ࡞࠸ឤ

ࡉࢀࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࡇࢀࡽࡢᙧᐜモࡢព࿡᝟࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡶᮏ᮶࡝ࡕࡽ࡟ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊ㛵ᚰࡀᣑᙇࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆぢࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࡢ୰᰾ⓗࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡜࠸࠺ᐈほⓗ࡟ࢃ࠿ࡿ஦᯶࡟ᑐ

ᶵ⬟ࡣᵝࠎ࡞ឤぬᙧᐜモࡸឤ᝟ᙧᐜモ࡟ඹࡍࡿேࠎࡢᤊ࠼᪉࡜ࡋ࡚࣐࢖ࢼࢫホ౯ࡶࣉ㏻ࡋ࡚ぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶぢࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࣛࢫࡢホ౯ࡶᩥ⬦࡟ᛂࡌ࡚㏙࡭ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶

ࡣࠊᵝࠎ࡞ㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿព࿡ᣑᙇࡢ◊ࡿࠋࡶࡋ LQGLIIHUHQW ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊேࡀ

✲࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ㌟యᛶࡸ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࡀព࿡ᣑᙇࡢ

⤒㦂ࡍࡿ㛵ᚰࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀప࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ⌮ゎࡉᇶ┙࡜࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊලయ

ࢀࠊࡑࢀ࡟క࠺࣐࢖ࢼࢫホ౯ࡢࡳࡀ᝿㉳ࡉࢀࠊ ࠿ࡽᢳ㇟࡬ࡢព࿡ኚ໬ࡢ୍᪉ྥᛶ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࣉࣛࢫࡢホ౯ࡀ᝿㉳ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᅵࡢ

ᮏ᮶ࡢព࿡࡜ᵝࠎ࡞࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡࡜ࡢ㉁ࡀྲྀࡿ࡟㊊ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࠋ

㛫࡛ඹ᭷ࡉࢀࡿព࿡ࡢ୍⯡ᛶࡀព࿡ᣑᙇࡢ ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠊឤぬᙧᐜモࡸឤ᝟ᙧᐜモࡢᣑᙇᇶ┙࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶㄽࡌࡓࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ┠ᶆ㡿ࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࢆᐇ㝿࡟⌮ゎࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊಶࠎࡢᙧ

ᇦ࡛ឤ᝟௨እࡢࡼࡾලయⓗ࡛≀⌮ⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ᐜモࡢព࿡ࡸᩥ⬦ࡶ㛵ࢃࡿࡇ࡜ࢆぢ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ࡟ᑐࡍࡿホ౯ࡀឤ᝟ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡾ㏙࡭ࡽࢀᐇ㝿ࡢព࿡ゎ㔘࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊಶࠎࡢ༢ㄒࡢព

ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᙧᐜモࡢ୰᰾ⓗᶵ⬟ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽㄝ࿡ࡶ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓ࠺࠼࡛㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊ

࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊឤ᝟ᙧᐜモࡢព࿡ࡀᣑᙇࡍ

⾲ព࡜ࠊᩥ⬦࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡿ᝿ᐃ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚₇

ࡿ࡜ࠊ㉳Ⅼ㡿ᇦ࡟ᒓࡍࡿឤ᝟ࡢᛶ㉁ࡼࡾࡶ㌟

⧢ⓗ᥎ㄽࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢ㝿࡟⛬ᗘࡸホ౯࡟యᛶࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀ㧗ࡃ࡚▱ぬྍ⬟࡞่⃭ࡢ⛬㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࡀ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡ࡢゎ㔘࡟࡝ᗘࡸ⮬↛⌧㇟࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ≀⌮ⓗᛶ㉁ࡢ⛬ᗘࡢࡼ࠺࡟㛵ࢃࡿ࠿ࡀྛ༢ㄒࡸᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࡜࠸ࡗࡓᵝࠎ࡞ᛶ㉁ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿᣦᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊព࿡ゎ㔘ࡢ㝿࡟ಶࠎࡢ༢

ࡀࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࡶᙧᐜモࡢ୰᰾ⓗᶵ⬟ࡢほⅬ࠿ㄒࡢព࿡ࡸࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᩥ⬦ࡶ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚㛵㐃ࡽㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊಶࠎࡢព࿡ࡢ⌮ゎ࡟ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ₇⧢ⓗ᥎ㄽࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࠊホ౯ࡸ₇⧢ⓗ᥎ㄽࡀ㛵ࢃࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊಶࠎࡢ⛬ᗘࡢヲ⣽ࡀ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊព࿡⌮ゎឤぬᙧᐜモࡸឤ᝟ᙧᐜモ࡟≉᭷ࡢヲ⣽࡞࣓ࡢ㝿࡟ྛᙧᐜモࡢព࿡࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࠊ₇⧢ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡ࡢ⊂⮬ᛶࡶㄝ᫂ྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

ⓗ᥎ㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡿ᝟ሗࡣྛᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚␗࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព ᮏㄽᩥࡣ᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍➨  ᅇ኱఍࡛⾜ࡗ࿡࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿ஦᯶࡟ࡶ㐪࠸ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋࡓ◊✲Ⓨ⾲ࡢෆᐜࢆຍ➹ಟṇࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶

43

-RKQ%HQMDPLQV3KLODGHOSKLDࡿࠋᵓ᝿ẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊ㯮ᕝᑦᙪẶࠊฟỈᏕ඾Ặࠊ๓ᕝ㈗ྐẶ࠿ࡽ㈗㔜࡞ຓゝࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ

*UDG\ -RVHSK (   ³,PDJH 6FKHPDV DQG◊✲Ⓨ⾲ࡢ఍ሙ࡛ࡣᒾ⏣ᙬᚿඛ⏕࠿ࡽ㈗㔜

3HUFHSWLRQ 5HILQLQJ D 'HILQLWLRQ´ From࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡟グࡋ࡚ឤㅰࡢព

Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas inࢆ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏㄽᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୙ഛࡣ

Cognitive Linguistics HG E\ %HDWH +DPSH

඲࡚➹⪅࡟ᖐࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

DQG -RVHSK ( *UDG\  0RXWRQ GH
*UX\WHU%HUOLQ.|YHFVHV =ROWiQ   Emotion Conceptsὀ

*UDG\   ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣉࣛ࢖࣐࣮࣓ࣜࢱࣇ

6SULQJHU9HUODJ1HZ<RUN

࢓࣮ࡢᡂ❧ࡢ௙᪉࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୺ᙇ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ

/DNRII *HRUJH   Women, Fire, andᴫᛕ㛫ࡢ෗ീࡸព࿡ᣑᙇ࡟㌟యᛶࡸ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

Dangerous Things: What Categories Revealୖ఩ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᴫᛕྠኈࢆ෗ീࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡛

about the Mind 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &KLFDJRࡼࡾከᒱ࡟ࢃࡓࡿ෗ീࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡟

3UHVV&KLFDJR/DNRII *HRUJH   ³7KH &RQWHPSRUDU\㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ /DNRII   ࢆཧ↷ࠋ෗ീ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㉳Ⅼ㡿ᇦ࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿ᝟ሗࡢ

7KHRU\ RI 0HWDSKRU´ Metaphor඲࡚ࡀ┠ᶆ㡿ᇦ࡟෗ീࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ┠Thought HG E\ $QGUHZ 2UWRQ\ 

ᶆ㡿ᇦ࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿ᝟ሗ࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚෗ീ࡟ไ

&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV&DPEULGJH

⣙ࡀ࠿࠿ࡗ࡚㉳Ⅼ㡿ᇦ࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿ᝟ሗࡢ࠺

/DNRII *HRUJH DQG 0DUN -RKQVRQ  ࡕ୍㒊ࡀ┠ᶆ㡿ᇦ࡟෗ീࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢࡇ࡜࡟

Metaphors We Live By 8QLYHUVLW\ RI

ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ /DNRII   ࢆཧ↷ࠋ&KLFDJR3UHVV&KLFDJR



and

&DUVWRQ   ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊⓎヰࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡣᩥ

/DQJDFNHU 5RQDOG :   Foundations of⬦࡟ᛂࡌ࡚࢔ࢻ࣍ࢵࢡᴫᛕࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿ࡜࠸

Cognitive Grammar: Vol 1: Theoretical࠺ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ㛵ࢃࡾࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࠶ࡿゝㄒPrerequisites 6WDQIRUG 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV⾲⌧ࡢព࿡ࡀᩥ⬦࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚Ꮠ⩏㏻ࡾࡢព

6WDQIRUG&DOLIRUQLD2VJRRG&KDUOHV(*HRUJH-6XFLDQG3HUF\+࿡ࡼࡾᗈ࠸ព࿡ࡸ⊃࠸ព࿡࡛ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋ


:LOVRQDQG&DUVWRQ   ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊឤぬᙧ7DQQHQEDXP   The Measurement ofᐜモࡢព࿡ゎ㔘࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊឤぬ࡜ឤ᝟ࡢ୧᪉Meaning 8QLYHUVLW\ RI ,OOLQRLV 3UHVV࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿ࢔ࢻ࣍ࢵࢡᴫᛕࡀᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿ

8UEDQD
6SHUEHU 'DQ DQG 'HLUGUH :LOVRQ  ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ୧⪅࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿ  ࡘࡢ୍⯡ᛶࡢ㧗࠸ព࿡ࡀ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࠋ

Relevance: Communication and Cognition%ODFNZHOO2[IRUG
:LOVRQ 'HLUGUH DQG 5RE\Q &DUVWRQ  

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
and

³0HWDSKRU 5HOHYDQFH DQG WKH µ(PHUJHQW

Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit

3URSHUW\¶ ,VVXH´ Mind and Language Communication%ODFNZHOO2[IRUG



&DUVWRQ

5RE\Q

 

Thoughts

*UDG\ -RVHSK (   ³$ 7\SRORJ\ RI
0RWLYDWLRQ IRU &RQFHSWXDO 0HWDSKRU౛ᩥฟ඾&RUUHODWLRQYV5HVHPEODQFH´Metaphor in%<8%1& KWWSFRUSXVE\XHGXEQF >%1&@

Cognitive%<8

Linguistics HG E\ 5D\PRQG

&2&$

>&2&$@: *LEEV -U DQG *HUDUG - 6WHHQ 

44

KWWSFRUSXVE\XHGXFRFD xæ`ăŉ"BÜú/(3)2ĊĽ2Üú

2\Ø.ÊAė+/ĶŘCB(3).3

Mary 2¤¥þÉ3'Üú/John Ĩ1(3)2ĊĽÜ2\Ø.ÊAė+/ĶŘCB«¿ıŗĚ1BÜ{2WĬ/ařÒķ1+-*

2. Ü { Ķ Ř 2 é ğ :ŪOn Sequence of Tense and Double Access in ð1

äĕ2yè2éğ:/0BŚ¦(2009)?5 Kaneko (2014)Eíĵ"B Ś¦

Finite Complement Clausesū(2009)?5 Kaneko (2014)3

ReichenbachŚ¦ ĥÚŪYoshiaki Kanekoū(1947)2Ü{āŃE1

Ü{ĶŘEç¢©ŪTohoku Universityū

Ü(Evaluation Time=EvT)

ÎđÜ(Reference

Time=RT)
IVTVOŭsequence of tense, double access,`ŇÜ(Event Time=ET)2Ŧ¹Ş

n2ğ:D$/Ļ m Ü EvT 2  «(identification) 1?*-İđ"B

LF-movement of CP, chainŐ/
1. 3 ! < 1

Ļm

]Ě2î

-3(4)Ed«"B(4) [PfmP Pfm-<ST> [TP DP [T´ T-<EvTD> äĕ.3ĭŀ2«¿ıŗĚ1ĳ@CBÜ

[ModP will-<RTwill>[PerfP Perf-<RTPerf> [vP tDP{2WĬŪsequence of tense[v´ [v-V-<ET>][VP tV ...]]]]]]]]

cY SOTū/ařÒķ(double access)ĀŇ1+-Ħ®"B SOT ĀŇ3uċ13ŔŔ

Ü{2]Ě1]Ě2ßXh13Ü{2ıŗĚ<Ō9C'1ĳœįĚ1Ď¾"B

PfmP(=Performative Phrase)¨%2]@CBĀŇ. (1)13 (2a)1¯Â"BÜ

Ĳŗ3ĊĽÜ ST E; T 3ĻmÜ EvT E

2(simultaneous)ĶŘ/:(2b)1¯Â"BŋĔ2(shifted)ĶŘ¨"B(Enç (1987))

1ª^ PerfP 2]Ĳŗ3ÎđÜ RT E

: ļ V 3`ŇÜ ET E; TP / PerfP
2ŝ13ŢÇċ1 ModP(=Modal Phrase)ă

Taro said that Hanako was a college

ŉstudent.

RTmodal E;=2/"B C@2ïĪěĈ

(2) a.

Taro said, “Hanako is a college student.”]Ĳŗ3ð2?0ÆE;b.

Taro said, “Hanako was a college(1)%2]Ĳŗ3RMSNG2ŉúEđ"(5) a. T-[+Pres(ent)]ŪĀÜ{ūŭstudent.”

EvT / RT 3ÜařÒķĀŇ3(3)2?1ŔÜ{2]b. T-[+Past]ŪŔ

Ě1ĀÜ{2ıŗĚ<Ō9CB`k

Ü{ūŭRT 3 EvT ?A}.B(RT, EvT)(RT < EvT)

(6) a. Perf-[−Perf] (=ø)Ūťª^¿ūŭ
RTPerf / ETV 3Ü(3)(ETV, RTPerf)

b. Perf-[+Perf] (=have)Ūª^¿ūŭJohn heard that Mary is pregnant.

ETV 3 RTPerf ?A}(Hornstein (1990: 120))(ETV < RTPerf)(7) WILLŪâæļū:ařÒķĀŇ.3 ıŗĚ2v­ ]Ě2

RTPerf 3 RTwill ?AÀ (RTwill < RTPerf)45

]Ě2«¿Ü{3čđċ(deictic)Ü{.

ŧ.B

%

2ĻmÜ EvTD 3 PfmP ]Ĳŗ2 Pfm 1?*-«CB(11) Jill

said

that

she

had

too

many

commitments.
(8) čđċĻmÜ«(Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 151))

œį]Ĳŗ Pfm 3ŬĊĽÜ ST /%2(12) I have never said that she had too manyîÊĝġÁŧv2čđċÜ{2ĻmÜ EvTD W.B/EÎ«"B

commitments.
(ibid.: 153)

(13) John has often believed/thought/said that
he was unhappy.

(ST=EvTD)(Stowell (2007: 143))(11)3]ĚŔ

Ü{.A SOT 2uċÜ ST /W.B

0Ă.B(12)>(13)2?1]Ě k4âæª^¿2(9a)3(9b)2îŐE=Āª^¿2`k=¨"B

"0D)

)

čđċÜ{2ĻmÜ EvT 3ĊĽ

%2Ü{ĶŘİđ3(9c).B(14) a. (11)2 ] Ě ŭ (ST=EvTD) & (RTPerf <(9) a. Bill will leave Tokyo tomorrow.

EvTD) & (ETsay, RTPerf)ŪŔ

¿ū

b. (12) 2 ] Ě ŭ (ST=EvTD) & (RTPerf,b. [PfmP Pfm-<ST> [TP Bill T-<EvTD>-[+Pres] [ModP will-<RTwill> [PerfP Perf-<RTPerf>-[−Perf] [vP tBill [v´ [v-leave-<ETbuy>] [VP tleave Tokyo tomorrow]]]]]]]]c. (ST=EvTD) & (RTwill, EvTD) & (RTwill <EvTD) & (ETsay < RTPerf)ŪĀª^¿ūŔ

Ü{/Āª^¿1sŏ"B23 ]Ě

2`ŇÜ ET ĊĽÜ ST ?A=}

RTPerf) & (ETbuy < RTPerf)

)Ŕ

"0D

ÜE"/ú.A %CEō8'2(10).B
will 2RMSNG.Bâæ_÷2ŉú3

 9' (10)2Ç.2ùċ SOT Ă.ĊĽÜ/Ü.A ÎđÜ RTPerf 3%C?

BıŗĚ1Ŕ

AÀ +9AâæÜ.A Bill 2xĊ2`

3A#]Ěļ2`ŇÜ1l¨"Bť

ŇÜ3%2ÎđÜ/Ü.BčđċŔ

3. Ü { 2 W Ĭ

Ü{2:ăŉĪ/0B(15) čđċŔ

 }Ě2Ü{ĶŘKLNQEd«
2WĬ2yèEÓđ"B- Ü{

Ü{ăŉ"B/ čđċ.

Ü{2y´{Ĝ«¿ıŗĚùċ SOT ŧ.B0

2@4%2Ü{3čđċŔ

Ü{TD-[+Past].*-30@0
3.1. Ü { 2 W Ĭ 2 y ´ / ĥ  Å Kaneko (2014)3

SOT ă!BĂE(10)2?1Ĵ«'Higginbotham (2002)ęÎÔ"B?1
SOT Ă2ıŗĚ1ŔfÇ2Ŕ(10) SOT 2Ŀåe

Ü{ăŉ"B/ÜEİ"/3.# Ü2ĶŘŋĔ2ĶŘEB]Ě2ũÉºļ2`ŇÜ ET ĊĽÜ ST ?A}.BŪŔÜE"ū

(16) Gianni said that Maria was ill.

 %2ļ2«¿ıŗĚ3ùċ SOT(Higginbotham (2002: 208))46

(17) *Two years ago, Gianni said that Maria was
ill last year.

(ibid.)(20)1?*-

ťčđċŔ

AõC

ÜÅEİ"

 tikEĳ?
(17)2ť×òÅđ"?1]Ě2 Gianni

2ĊĸÜúŪ2 ·}ū/Ā2ŝ2Ŕ
·ūE"/3.0ŞnĚ1ăŉ"BŔ

=)

Ü{3Ŕ

Å

(21)3(22)2ġŀîŐE

(23)2Ü{ĶŘİđE=+

ÜŪÛ

C1¯

-

(21) Gianni said that Maria was ill.

ÜÜ{13%2?

(22) [PfmP Pfm [TP Gianni TD-[+Past] [PerfP0{Ĝ0 ]Ě2xæ`ăŉ"BŔ

Perf-[−Perf][vP tGianni say [that [TP Maria2Üú/Ü(18a) %C?A}2Ŕ

2Üú

TND-[+Past] [PerfP Perf-[−Perf]

B3%C?AÀ2Ŕ

2Üú

ill]]]]]]](18b)

tMaria be(23) ]Ěŭ(ST=EvTD) & (RTPerf < EvTD) &(18c)2xæ`Eīą1İ"/.B(RTPerf, ETsay)ı ŗ Ě ŭ (ETsay=EvTND) & (RTPerf <(18) a. In 1989, Joseph met a woman who loved
him then.

EvTND) & (RTPerf, ETbe)(Ogihara and Sharvit (2011: 641))
b. In 1989, Joseph met a woman who loved(23).3£§ŗyđ"?1ťčđċŔ

him in the 70s.        (ibid.)Ü{2Ŕ]Ě2`Ňc}2Ŕ

c. In 1989, Joseph met a woman who loved
him in the 90s.        (ibid.)İđC C1¯2?1ùċ SOT Ă2ıŗĚ1Ŕ

Ü{ăŉ"B/ ťčđċŔ

ÅoÍC ıŗĚ2`Ň3/

Ü1ăŉ"B/ŋĔ2ĶŘ1¯Â"B- SOT łÖĴ|ŖĄCB

ıŗĚ2Ü{ĶŘ2İđ3(24)10B

Ü{1Š«C ĥċ1Ü2ĶŘB3ŋĔ2(24) ]Ěŭ(ST=EvTD) & (RTPerf < EvTD) &ĶŘEB(RTPerf, ETsay)ıŗĚŭ(ETsay=EvTND) & (RTPerf , EvTND)

3.2. Ü { 2 W Ĭ 2 Ü { Ķ Ř& (RTPerf, ETbe) ð1 SOT Ă2ıŗĚ1BÜ{ĶŘEĳB Kaneko (2014).3 ťčđċÜ{2£§ŗyđ"?1 ťčđċŔ

ĻmÜ3 Pfm .30 ]Ěļ1?*«CB

9'ÜÅEđ

Ü2ĶŘ3(20)1?*-A ıŗĚ2xæ`3]Ě2 Gianni 2ĊĸÜú/Ü2Ŕ

-ŁÚCB

Ü{31ă

ŉ"B/İđC-B ıŗĚ1 will 2Ŕ(19) ťčđċ (non-deictic) ĻmÜ«¿ăŉ"B=

SOT ĀŇĳ@CB Freidin (2012)1?C4ũÉºļ3 ıŗĚ2ťčđċĻm

(25)13 (26a)1¯Â"BŋĔ2ĶŘ/(26b)Ü EvTND %2`ŇÜ ETmatrixV /W.

1¯Â"BÜ2ĶŘ¨"BB/EÎ«"B(ETmatrixV=EvTND)(20) SOT łÖĴ|ŪŢÇċū
=

ťčđċŔ

1ăŉ

(25) John said he would help.

Ü{ùċ SOT ŧ(Freidin (2012: 259, note 3))-B0@ (RT < EvTND) E(RT, EvTND) 1Þ$?

47(26) a. John said, “I would help.”(ibid.)

b. John said, “I will help.”(ibid.)

äĕ2yè1?C4 ŋĔ2ĶŘ2İđ3Ü ařÒķĀŇ.ăŉ"BĀÜ{3 ťč{ĶŘ2İđ3(27).AđċĀÜ{.0 čđċĀÜ{.BÜ2ĶŘ2İ/ÄDCBđ3(28)/0B(31)đ"?1

will 3 ]Ě2`ŇÜİ"Ŕ

2 řÒķ2Ü1¯-Ď¯ċ0âæEīą1İ"/3.0(27) ]Ěŭ(ST=EvTD) & (RTPerf < EvTD) &(RTPerf, ETsay)ıŗĚŭ(ETsay=EvTND) & (RTwill < EvTND)(31) Leo decided a week ago that he will go to
the party (*yesterday).

& (RTwill < RTPerf) & (RTPerf, EThelp)(28) ]Ěŭ(ST=EvTD) & (RTPerf < EvTD) &(Wurmbrand (2014: 413))(RTPerf, ETsay)'*-ıŗĚŭ(ETsay=EvTND) & (RTwill, EvTND)
Ŕ& (RTwill < RTPerf) & (RTPerf, EThelp)ùċ SOT Ă13čđċ

Ü{EÐš"By´{Š1~- ťčđċĀÜ{EÐš"By´{Ĝ¨"(27).3B/Ħ@CB(Kaneko (2014), Ś¦(2015))£§ŗyđ"?1ťčđċŔ

Ü{2ŔÅoÍC-A will 2R(32) ťčđċĀÜ{2y´{ĜMSNG.Bâæ_÷2ŉúEİ" RTwill
3«¿ıŗĚùċ SOT ŧ.B0]Ě2ĊĸÜú ETsay /«CBŔ

Ü?A=}2ŔÜE"Ü2ĶŘ2(28).3
1 ťčđċŔ

C1¯

@4

-

£§ŗyđ"?Ü{3 ÜÅEİ%2Ü{3ťčđċĀÜ{

TND-[+Pres].*-30@0-A ıŗĚ2âæ_÷2ŉú3]Ě2 JohnYĹ(33)3ùċ SOT Ă1B«¿Ü

2ĊĸÜú/Ü.B{2y´{ĜE9/<'=2.B

4. a ř Ò ķ(33)

 äĚ.3XĹ2Ü{ĶŘKLNQEd«
-

Ā

3

ařÒķĀŇ2yèEÓđ"B

Ŕ

čđċ

ařÒķ

(15).Ðš

ťčđċ(32).Ðš

SOT

4.1. a ř Ò ķ ı ŗ Ě 2 Ü { { Š ařÒķ3ùċ SOT Ă1ĀÜ{4.2. a ř Ò ķ ı ŗ Ě 2 Ü { Ķ Řăŉ"B1ĳ@CBĀŇ.A ð1ařÒķ×2Ü{ĶŘ1+B (29)>(30)%2tik.B(29) Leo found out that Mary is pregnant.

.3/- Leder (1991)Eíĵ"B

Leder (1991)3

ařÒķıŗĚ2Ü{EčđċĀÜ{ŪLeder (1991).3čđċÜ{(Wurmbrand (2014: 412))

E parallel tenseťčđċÜ{E serial tense(30) Leo found out that Mary will be pregnant.

/7ū/yè'X. ıŗĚ2Ü{3Ċ(ibid.)

ĽÜ(u)/2:Ġ5+@CB/"BWÒķ (single access) y è E Ó ë(30).3

âæ_÷2RMSNGĊĽÜ2

Üú/ ]Ě2`ŇÜ/Ü2Ŕ

utterance Eİ" ūÜ2 2 +

2Üú.ÊAė*-B(34) John said Mary is happy.

48' Ūu 3

(35) John

say-PAST[Mary



happy]u (37) a. Mary didn’t say [that Ann would readbe-PRESENT     

any books tomorrow].

(Uribe-Echevarria (1994: 98))

u 

b. Mary didn’t say [that Ann had read any
books last week].

a ř Ò ķ 2 Ķ Ř 3 “same-sayers” 2 { Ĝ (cf.

c.*/*?Mary didn’t say [that Ann will readany books tomorrow].

Davidson (1968))@='@CBĶŘ/]½-B(Leder (1999: 314))(ibid.)(38) Mary will not say/believe [that Ann will

 WÒķyè3cY2ú.Zy.B/ÄDCB

(ibid.)

read any books the fall].

'/4(36)Eĳ?

(ibid.)(39) Mary didn’t say [that Ann will read thesebooks].

(Uribe-Echevarria (1994: 100))(40) Mary doesn’t think [that Ann read any(36) On Monday John told me that he willbooks last week].

come to the meeting on Friday.

(ibid.)(Baker (1995: 550))(37c)/(39)2ıŗĚ1 LF 1-ģAXĊĽÜ1ÊAė+âæ_÷3ĊĽÜŖĄCB/1BĽħ2âæ_÷.B ıŗĚ2đôăCB(36).

%C&C(41a)/(41b)2İ

âæ_÷3 ]Ě2`ŇÜŪàÝÙū1ÊAė+]Ě]ŀ John 2âæ_÷.B2(41) a. LF of (37c): [CP that Ann will read any³EÚđċ1/@B/.BÜ{İbooks tomorrow][Mary didn’t say tCP]

đE[B8.B

b. LF of (39): [CP that Ann will read books
tomorrow][Mary didn’t say tCP]

4.3. a ř Ò ķ ı ŗ Ě 2 ģ A X  y è cX2ũE69 ařÒķ2ĀŇ1a(41a).3ģAX@C'ıŗĚv2«ìřÒķ2ĶŘĥċ1ă#B/EÚđÅİĀ2 any ]Ě2«İĀ didn’t 2jĄċ1/@B/2.ByèEÓë"B

2

 9#

(41b).3ģAX@C'ıŗĚ any EařÒķ2Ă.3ıŗĚ LF .

p1B'<1ť×òċ/0Bĥċ1]Ě1ģAX@CB/"B

90'<ť×òÅ3ă!0Uribe-Echevarria (1994)2yèEÑĄ"B XĹ2 Uribe-Echevarria 2ÓëErC

Uribe-Echevarria(1994: Chapter 3)3 ùċ SOT Ă1Ŕ

Ü{ăŉ"B(37a, b)/'X.

(42) a. ařÒķıŗĚ2 LF ģAX?5

Ā¿2 will ăŉ"B(37c)2×òÅ1Ď
ŕB/]ĚŔĔ2JPVāŃ

Ü{.0(38)b. ĉŊhĤ2ıŗĚ2čđċĀÜ{/(40).3(37c)2ť×òÅ3ă!0/EťčđċĀÜ{1wĶŘ Ü { 2 ú . 3 (37c) /  ! . = ı ŗ Ě c. ùċ SOT ŧ.3]Ěōŀ1?B

any E90(39)3×òċ.B/EÎÔ

2ĎŕEŁÚ"B'<ð2ÓëE0ťčđċĻmÜ«ĥċŔ

Ü{2]Ě1Ā¿2 will E;ıŗĚ<Ō9C'(37c)?5(39).3 LF .ıŗ

.}Ě2(32)2y´{Ĝ3¿Éċ{ĜĚ]Ě1ģAX@CB/Óë

/Ħ?

'

49

ařÒķıŗĚ.3(32)Eø

'"'< čđċĀÜ{ıŗĚ°rC(45) LF of (36):B %299.3(42c)2ýÅEø'"/
.0

%.

.]Ě1Ĕ

[PfmP Pfm-<ST> [CP ...TD-[+Pres]-<EvTD>...]
«ařÒķıŗĚ3 LF

ĉŊhĤ2ĀÜ{3ťč[...told-<ET>...[CP ...TND-[+Pres]-<EvTND>...]]]

đċĀÜ{1wĶŘCB 2Ĕ1?

«Bőś2qŨĲĝ.BıŗĚ2čđċĀ(46) ģAXıŗĚŭ(ST=EvTD) & (RTwill,Ü{2ĻmÜ3 œį PfmP ]Ĳŗ1?

EvTD) & (RTwill < RTPerf) & (ETcome,*-«CB WØ őś2ã±Ĳĝ.

RTPerf)BĉŊhĤ2ıŗĚ2ťčđċĀÜ{2]Ěŭ(ST=EvTD) & (RTPerf < EvTD) &ĻmÜ3]Ěļ1?*-«CB 2(ETtell, RTPerf)?1

ařÒķ2ĶŘ3ıŗĚ2 LF

ĉŊıŗĚŭ(ETtell=EvTND) & (RTwill,Ĕ1?Bőś2¨1?*-oĺC 9

EvTND) & (RTwill < RTPerf) & (ETcome,' 2 HË.BıŗĚ2ĶŘ3 őśE¿RTPerf)-Ê"B/2µĠ/-\Ø/=Ŗê.0C40@0ģAX@C'ıŗĚ2ĻmÜ3ĊĽÜ ST tik//«C-A ĊĽÜú@ĳ'âæ_3(43)-(29)Eĳ? (29)2 LF İđÜ{ĶŘİđ3(44).B

÷.B/ÚđCB ĉŊıŗĚ2ĻmÜ3]Ě2`ŇÜ ETtell /«CB2.

(29) Leo found out that Mary is pregnant.

]Ě]ŀ Leo 2ĊĸÜúEŉú/"Bâæ

(43) LF of (29)

_÷.B/ÚđC-B
 ßÀ1XĹ(31)Eĳ? (31)2 LF İđ3[PfmP Pfm-<ST> [CP ... TD-[+Pres]-<EvTD> ...]
«(47)

Ü{ĶŘİđ3(48).B[...found-<ET>...[CP ...TND-[+Pres]-<EvTND>...]]]
«(31) Leo decided a week ago that he will go to(44) ģAXıŗĚŭ(ST=EvTD) & (RTPerf,the party (*yesterday).
(47) LF of (31):

EvTD) & (ETbe, RTPerf)]Ěŭ(ST=EvTD) & (RTPerf < EvTD) &[PfmP Pfm-<ST> [CP ...TD-[+Pres]-<EvTD>...]
«(ETfind, RTPerf)ĉŊıŗĚŭ(ETfind=EvTND) & (RTPerf,[...decided-<ET>...[CP ...TND-[+Pres]-<EvTND>...

EvTND) & (ETbe, RTPerf)]]]«(48) ģAXıŗĚŭ(ST=EvTD) & (RTwill,ģAXĚ/]Ě2čđċÜ{2ĻmÜ3

EvTD) & (RTwill < RTPerf) & (ETgo, RTPerf)ĊĽÜ ST /«C-B

]Ěŭ(ST=EvTD) & (RTPerf < EvTD) &

WØ

ĉŊh

Ĥ1BıŗĚ2ťčđċĀÜ{2Ļm(ETdecide, RTPerf)Ü3]Ě2`ŇÜ ET find /«C-BĉŊıŗĚŭ(ETdecide=EvTND) & (RTwill, @1(36)2Eĳ? (36)2 LF İđ

EvTND) & (RTwill < RTPerf) & (ETgo,3(45)RTPerf)Ü{ĶŘİđ3(46).BıŗĚ yesterday E;EĳB/(36) On Monday John told me that he willĉŊhĤ2ıŗĚ3]Ě2ñ«įûįDC

come to the meeting on Friday.

50

'Üú.BWŒŝ}2ÜúEŉú/'

Hornstein, Norvert (1990) As Time Goes By:

âæ_÷Eİ"2. ÛÙ1ăŉ"B`Ň1

Tense and Universal Grammar, MIT Press,¯"Bâæ_÷13ÇċZÖ30 ģ

Cambridge, Mass.

AX@C'ıŗĚ3 ĊĽÜúEŉú/

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum'âæ_÷.B2. ÛÙ1ăŉ"B`Ň(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the

1¯"Bâæ_÷3ÇċZÖ.B

English Language, Cambridge University2+2ıŗĚ3őśE¿Ê"B2. WØ.=Press, Cambridge.
Ś¦ĥÚ (2009)ĭŀļKLNQ2ńÇċZÖ.B/őśZŖê/0BĎŜÌĒ, çb.
5. Ġ 5

Kaneko, äĕ3Kaneko (2014)2éğ:. SOT 2

Yoshiaki

Sequence(2014)“Remarks

Tense

in

of

on

English,”Ü{ĶŘyèEÓđ"B//=1 ařÒķ

Explorations in English Linguistics 28,

ĀŇ1Ş

27-55.

-ıŗĚ2 LF ģAX1,yèEÓđŚ¦ĥÚ (2015)'

ĭŀ1BÜ{2WĬ2ńýÅ/Ü{ĶŘŬ¢»¸ćÕÏŎĩĹÃŃ×Ťzįg (Ģ) ĸĮ2

F

*äĕ3Ùäĭŀ©gĘ 33¢g1BཱྀŨĊİ1,=2.B Ċİ2ţ1'%Ūö²UďĎū¢»¸ćÕÏŎĩ

('áČ0ĸ1ÈŅĆĹÃŃ×ŤŬ70-82, ĭ¬Ē, çb.

2ĐĖ3

XB

äĕ

Leder, Harry (1991) Tense and Temporal Order,¶Ê27·ºJSPSēĐň15K02

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

5892ÊE-B

Ogihara, Toshiyuki and Yael Sharvit (2011)

ó
1

¡2ᙧ

“Chapter 22: Embedded Tenses,” The¼ÇŃ1?B×ÿB %C@1ࡘ࠸
-3Ogihara and Sharvit (2011)EüOxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, ed.

2

University Press, Oxford.

SOT1Ş

-3Enç (1987)cş

by Robert I. Binnik, 638-668, Oxford

2 Ě2ľĞ0ņŃ3 Kaneko(2014)Eü
4.1Ě2?AľĞ0ņŃ3Kaneko (2014)Ś¦  Eü3

Reichenbach, Hans (1947) Elements of Symbolic
Logic, Macmillan, New York.
Stowell, Tim (2007) “Sequence of Perfect,”
RecentĦ×ÿ
Baker, Carl L. (1995) English Syntax, 2nd ed.,AdvancesintheSyntaxandSemantics of Tense, Aspect and Modality,
ed. by Louis de Saussure et.al., 123-146,

MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Davidson, Donald (1968) “On Saying That,”
Synthese 19, 130-146.

Uribe-Echevarria,

Marria(1994)

Interface

Enç, Mürvet (1987) “Anchoring Conditions forLicensing Conditions on Negative Polarity

Tense,” Linguistic Inquiry 18, 633-657.

Items: A Theory of Polarity and Tense
Interactions,

Higginbotham, James (2002) “Why is Sequenceof Tense Obligatory?” Logical Form andDoctoraldissertation,

University of Connecticut.

Language, ed. by Gerhard Preyer and

Wurmbrand, Susi (2014) “Tense and Aspect inGeorge Peter, 207-227, Oxford University

English Infinitives,” Linguistic Inquiry 45,

Press, Oxford.

403-447.

51

brothers and sisters. (McCawley 1973: 359)
%"ĉŠŝł-;>ò.ŵ

/Ŗ?,ï Ŝ Ƌ ¤ Ŝ Ƌ andƋ ¤ Ŝ.ðč*ł9=Quirk w-*%(/(4)/5%"­ƃ,ƉThe Grammar of the Numeral Noun and Noun-;)>Ɖcf. Postal

1976: 223-224, n. 6Ɗ

ConstructionƊ
(4) There are ten boys and girls in theÇöÉ úƉSatoru KobayakawaƊ

playgroup.

(Quirk et al. 1985: 966)ÎĞ-"%(6>*.ı.ōě

Ě»¿ƉDokkyo UniversityƊ
GkikXƕïŜ, ĸ~êľ, ¢řŕŸ/ three boys and girls 9¦8ºŒ&>ïŜ.

*- X and Y ľōěB Num +X + and + Y *ō*>*.ōě/;

1. /  8 -Ĉ.t&.Ğč-<?>ōƃ.ōě-& ( Jespersen /·¢-;%(5) a. Num  X * Y .¢řBōĞčƉ(/* }û&)?Bş8( >.Ğč/zn)<-t?>Ɗ
(1) Sometimes, . . . a numeral is placed before

b. Num  X * Y .śBōĞč (cf.

such a collocation as brothers and sisters:

Green and Piel 2002: 144; Postal 1976:“they have ten brothers and sisters,” which223-224, n. 6)

may be = 2 brothers + 8 sisters or any othercombinations.

)Ţ>./Ĉ.t&.­ƃ)(Jespersen 1924: 189)>

.ōě-& (/ McCawley 9=m

(6) a. ¢řōě. X .ï* Y .ï.Ľ6¢(=(2).­ -Å( A1 )Ĺ>*/A.ZQkj-/+.;,9.

)> A2 )Ĺ>*/)brothersb. +.;, X * Y ¢řōě-ě?

* sisters Bōě>·¢-/ A3 .;- ?
!?.śBį,?0,<,

>

>

*ŗ

,ŇŪ)/ three brothers and sisters Bş8,

McCawley /(3)-į;-u-;

2. (6a). ­%(/?Bş8>;) >*>B8>­ƃ

)/Ĉ.;,ōŚBĞ

> n~Š

.g]fB level 1 *«1m~Š.g]f
B level 2 *«4

(2) Q: Do you have any brothers and sisters?
A1: Yes, {three/two/one}.

m~Š

A2: Yes, {%three/*two/*one} brothers and level 2sisters. (cf. *one brother {and/or} sister)
n~ŠƏ
~ŠƏ

A3: Yes, one brother and two sisters.

n~ŠƐ
n~Š

 level 1(cf. McCawley 1973: 359)
boys : girls / level 1 -(3) [A]pparently some people can say Yes, three

52

>n~Š)

=

children / level 2 ->m~Š).Ğč-/.Ž/,>>*three boys : three girlsthreechildren ,+/Ĉ.;-ō*)>(9).Ž/Ĉ.;,VkQBš÷>.-Øő)(7) a. three [level 1 boys][M-F: 3-0]

b. three [level 1 girls][M-F: 0-3]>

(10) a. two boys and zero girls ≁ two boys and girls
b. two boys and two girls ∼ four boys and girls

c. three [level 2 children](cf. (5a)) ∼ two boys and girls (cf. (5b))[M-F: 3-0, 2-1, 1-2, 0-3]
d. three [level 1 [level 1 boys] and [level 1 girls]](10a)/ two boys and zero girls  two boys and[M-F: 2-1, 1-2]

girls *ÅÚże. three [level 1 boys] and (three) [level 1 girls]-,

*Bō(

ó(10b)-į;-two boys and two girls[M-F: 3-3]

/ four boys and girls *ÅÚżĵ.ŔçÑ. M-F /ÒŞōěè>Ģ¼.Ľ6¢ABō> l03-0 /-> Ɛ-ƎBŨ0ƐƐ-ƐBŨ0ƒ)=,<¢ř.ŕŸ)>¥*Ē-

( two boys and girls * four boys and girls /ĢÝƑu¼ÝƎu.Ľ6¢ABō.ŵ

Bé>"8-

.½Ɛu-¼.½ƏuĢ.½Əu-¼.½(9).;,Ž/Øő)> (11)/¢řBƐu¼.½.6Ƒu.Ľ6¢A.ńÝōĞč-ż>(9).ŽBō"9.)three children )



>

>

(7d))/Ģ¼BŨ¢A(Ƒu.Ľ6¢A.ńÝį?(>/ïŜĢ¼.śBōĞč)

> Ģ¼



ģ,>.)

?0Ģ.½.6ƑuĢ?!?Ƒu)¢řƔu)¢řBōōě-&>(12)/ïŜ. two  boys * girls .śBō*ðŅm/%=(

(7e)

)

>

=¢řBōĞč*/(Ł,

?0,<,

>

(/*two boys andgirls*one boys and girls 1*two boy and girl(11)*two X and Y, *three X, Y, and Z/Âş?,(12) There were . . . Michael and Anne with

?(

>

Ɛu*

*

sÁ?5)èí

Ģ¼BŨ¢A(ƏuŕŸ/),*>/their two boys and girls. (M. Ridgeway,

*)

>

How Brave the Irish Heart)(8) a. *{two/one} [level 1 [level 1 boys] and [level 1)(7d)-/, Ģ¼.Ľ6¢A.Z

girls]] (cf. McCawley 1973: 359; StampeQkjBį-ĎĨ; (13))/three

1976: 598)

brothers and sisters  three sisters Bè( >b. *two [level 1 [level 1 boy] and [level 1 girl]] (cf.
(13) Eleven-year-old Ken is one of four

Heycock and Zamparelli 2005: 228)

children. . . . Ken and his three brothers
?Blň?0Ĉ.;-,>and sisters ran very high fevers for days
after their DPT shots. . . . Two of Ken’s(9) (5a).Ğč-(/ïŜōï/

ĸ~Ƃ.ï*£)

sisters, who also had high fevers for several%(/,<,

days after their DPT shots, are also in

ƉÔ-ĻĿ>lňƊ ló(5b)learning disability classes. . . . His youngest

53

=,

sister was given only one DPT shot, and she
has no learning disabilities at all. (H. L.

Ɨ

b. Num [level 2 X and Y]Ɖ(9).Ž-ÕA

Coulter and B. L. Fisher, A Shot in the Dark),ƊƖX  Y .

)=>Ɨ

?lóPh

.<A?>./brothers andsisters B siblings .yüōě*(ĉŠŝ
ł

>*

*)

(15b)-;?0siblings .yüōě*(.

>Ɖcf. Ðđ 2012Ɗ

brothers and sisters,A$level 2 . brothers
and sisters /ĸ~Ƃ.ï/t&#ïŜ.
two *ŧ)>Ɖcf. two .śŕŸƊ(14) a. three [level 2 siblings]

(?/two siblings ń) >.*£ć)[M-F: 3-0, 2-1, 1-2, 0-3]

> lólevel 1 . brothers and sisters / two *b. three [level 2 brothers and sisters]/ŧ),[M-F: 3-0, 2-1, 1-2, 0-3]

(16a, b)-įŲ=) >(14a)/ three siblings è>Ģ¼.Ľ6¢(16) a. two [level 2 siblings] [M-F: 2-0, 1-1, 0-2]ABō( > (14b)/ siblings .yüōěb. two [level 2 brothers and sisters] (cf. *two*(. brothers and sisters (14a)*£ć.Ľ

[level 1 [level 1 brothers] and [level 1 sisters]])

6¢ABō*Bį( > (14a, b)
-Ý­ƃ*,<,ŕŸ)>three brothers and sisters į(

(13).

(17, 18)/ïŜ- two B¦7¢řŕŸ.

>./

{two/two or three/one or two} brothers and sisters(14b)ōĽ6¢A.l&) >.)zm.ŁÄBlň?0n~Š.ĸ~>)/Ý/­ƃ*,%(, Ɖ?</(15b).Ğč.Ŏx*,>ƊêľōěBm~Š.yüōě*(ĉŠ
ŝł

>*

*)

>

?ń,(17) a. Since no two people anywhere are./Ĉ.<5).Ɠ&.ĜĠ-;>exactly alike, no two brothers and n~FUKek.ŠBĞ (m~FUK

sisters get along the same. (M. B.

ek.àªBōì®lň-¾³>

Rosenberg, Brothers and Sisters)

 brother * sister /Ý.Ē)ÅĴ>Š)

b. [T]he list of family members, while longer>

than the usual two brothers and sisters of brother * sister / sibling Bt>FUKek)

the nuclear family today, is significantly>

 sibling / formal ,shorter than it would have been two
 technical ,Š)hundred years ago. (M. Griffin and A.

>ƉYallop 2004: 69Ɗ

Spanjer, “The Nisga’a Common Bowl in brother : sister /µāg]f.Š)Tradition and Politics,” Aboriginal Canada>ƉKock 2001: 1151Ɗ

Revisited, ed. by K. Knopf)(18) a. [C]onsider the kids with two loving

>*(5a).Ğč/(15a, b).;-parents—they . . . jockey for positiont)>with two or three brothers and sisters
to gain the focus of their folks. (S. T.
Olivas, When Good Kids Go Bad)(15) a. Num [level 1 [level 1 X] and [level 1 Y]]Ɖ(9).Ž-ÕƊƖX : Y /Ph)/b. It’s not good for a child to be with adults54

or one or two brothers and sisters all

girls got together. (J. M. Morgan,

the time; he must be allowed to be a child,

Recollections of a Rebel Reefer)with other children. (N. Grant, Society,b. I used to send to the national school to ask

Schools and Progress in Eastern Europe)them to let me have one or two boys andgirls who could read well, and they werelevel 2 . brothers and sisters lı.âĞ
*(ƏŠ*((to come up to me and read in the evening.

>*/Ɓ¸

ƀ:ōŚ."-9ø?((N. Morris, “An Historian’s View of>Ɖcf.

Examinations,” Examinations and English
Education, ed. by S. Wiseman)

Taylor 2012: 131-133Ɗ*@Ų level 2 .ĞčB9",(19) brothers n sisters (cf. bed n breakfast, breadboys

and girls Ý­ƃ*,<, ŕŸ,An butter, cup n saucer (Turner 2000: 117))$Ý-ż(rĴĦ,m~Š.yüōě*Ĉ-į/brothers and sisters  fellow(.ŕŸBo<?>·¢A,< >{believers in Christ/Christians}Bō) >Ɖcf.
brethren, brothersƊ )9brothers and sisters(22) a. Write down here the names of the three/Ý-ż(rĴĦ)ïŜ/¢řBō( >boys and girls from this class you
would like to play with most during(20) a. I cannot understand God’s word alone, so

break. Be sure to put down your firstnow I study the word of God with two or

three choices, first the person you would

three brothers and sisters. (W. Nee,like best to play with, then your second

The Body of Christ)

choice and then your third. (E. M.

b. Perhaps one or two brothers and sisters

Anderson, The Disabled Schoolchild)need to visit from village to village. (W.

b. [A]t most, one or two boys and girls out ofNee, Further Talks on the Church Life)

every ten thousand would develop cancer
eating French fries that they would

(siblings * Š-Ċ3>*
boys : girls

otherwise not have developed if they hadn’t.m~Š. children / formal )9 technical ,Šeaten French fries. (M. Greger, “Cancer)9,.ōě-ŗ >Øő/,Risk

"%(
boys and girls children .yüōě<http://www.care2.com/greenliving/cancer-

level 2 .ōě*(*/Ų,

risk-from-french-fries.html>)

(21)

From

FrenchFries,”

Care2.

.- (ïŜ.twoB¦7{two or three/one

c. At their New York office, she had moreor two} boys and girls /Ý.Ē)ÅĴ>

supervisory experience than she had had atĢ¼.śBōŕŸo<?>Ɖcf. (7e)Ɗ

Bailey Williams and was in charge of 2 or
3 boys and girls who helped with the filingand other office work. (S. Richardson,(21) a. With the glare of the furnaces and of the

Fearless and Free)

torches around the carrier, it was a pretty
picture and of course the young people
danced—they always did in the South in(22a)/½-èįBo>ž-Ğ<?(> ½<Œ"©±.£Ìƈ.ł.*those days when two or three boys and

55

Bŗ%(

?(

>.)children ), boys andgirls A?(>(22b)-&>

?<95"m~FUKek

Bt>;,9.)/,(/(23b).$Šĝ(=ïŜƋchildren and grandchildren /Ř¶.

. Š . ŀ = Ű  B Ŷ  > " 8 - boys andðŅ) ïŜƋsons and grandsons /Ńû.

girls Ğ?(ðŅ)Æ<A?> (23c).Ğ/ŌðŅ) children *-&>*ëÄ)>

(22c)

&<,

(/Ý.ÅĴ> level 1 .ĸ~,A)/,A?>>Ý*?0Ř¶.ðŅ).ÅĴ,level 2 .ĸ~êľōě)¢řÀĦ-Ğ?,ŕŸń)>*?0 .ĜĠ/ĔĈ-Âş-êľōě)śŕŸ.ńÝ9

*,

5=Œ

> (23b, c)-ŽBœÄ;?-(9boys and girls .

level 2 ).Ğč/5?)>*ŗ%(;(24)??five {pumpkins and watermelons/potatoes
and onions/owls and ravens/raspberries

3. (9b).
.­)/

B8>­ƃ

and blueberries}.X*Y(25) *There are five fountain pens and ballpoint.Ż. àªĦũſ Ɖsemantic distanceƊX

pens on the desk. (Kobayakawa 1995:* Y *m~Š.Ż.àªĦũſ.­ƃ-&

181; cf. Wierzbicka 1988: 510-514)

Num + X + and + Y(ŁÄ>Ɖcf. Allan 1986: 191-194Ɗ 5Âşń,BœÄ;

(24, 25))/py:ļ.ŵ
*.),ģ,>ıƄ.9.Bō X* Y ĸ~êľ?((23) a. five {sons and daughters/aunts and uncles/men

-Ë>

>

X * Y *m~and women/ladies and gentlemen/cocks andŠ.Ż.àªĦũſ/(23a).·¢;=9»hens}ƉX * Y /m~FUKek.©ŮĦs)b. five {children and grandchildren/sons and>Ɗ¢řŕŸ/-,%(>grandsons/daughters and granddaughters}(26-29))/(24, 25)*£;-ģ,c. five {brothers and uncles/sisters and aunts/uncles>ıƄ.9.Bō X * YƉ,A$ģ,>ıƄ.^TWĄĖķŚĞƊĸ~and granduncles/aunts and grandaunts}(cf. McCawley 1973: 359-360)(23a))/Ý.ÅĴ> X * Y ĸ~êm~FUKek.ä¬B*@,ō

.ı./ė,ðŅBØő*ý9ùŲ-Ğě.´)X * Y *m~Š.Ż.à

@ƉX * Y /m~FUKek>Ɗ wó)Ý.Ē

).6ÅĴ>(23a)-Ċ3>*X * Y .
Ż.àªĦũſ/»

*Ł<?>?

*ų(¢řŕŸ.ŌðŅ2.¾Ïp/Ƈ,%(>>

?</(23a)*/ģ,=m~FUKekBt>;,ĸ~êľōě)/,>.\hWQD\)>*Įş)> (23b))y.ÅĴ> X * Y ĸ~êľ?(

ń*,%(
<)

<?.ō

/(23a)*/ŵ%(Ý.ÅĴ/,>vÏ/ ?!?ÂşªĦũſ(24, 25).·¢-Ċ3(»,ľ?(=ĸ~êľ?" X * Y /Ý.èÀ.,êľ?((26) a. They also discovered five dead cats and dogs

(23c)frozen in her freezer, two dead dogs in her)/

shop and dozens of sickly, starving animals

py.6,<ļ9ģ,>ōěĸ~êľ

roaming around her apartment. (P. Caulfield,-(9Ý.ÅĴ/,56

C*ą.¢řï.6­ƃ*,>ðŅ) >“Pet Shop Owner Busted after Cops Find Five
Dogs & Cats in Her Freezer, Dozens More
Sick and Hungry,” NY Daily News.

(28) a. If 10 apples cost a penny, and 25 pears cost<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/

two-pence, and I buy 100 apples and pears

pet-shop-owner-busted-cops-find-dogs-cats-

for nine-pence halfpenny, how many offreezer-dozens-sick-hungry-article-1.115190>)

each shall I have? (P. Nicholson, A PopularƉĀĂßċ-;>Ɖ2013 Ì 11 þ 29 õƊƊCourse of Pure and Mixed Mathematics for
the Use of Schools and Students)b. Q. What kinds of regulations are there onb. 8-10 apples and pears (Granny Smith

dogs and cats?

apples and Bosc pears are a good

A. All pets are required to be under their

combination) (T. Horton, Bring It!)owner’s control at all times. Pets should be
on a leash or confined in a home or yard. A
residence is allowed a maximum of five

(29a, b))/^j*źķ.¢řō?( >dogs and cats over the age of six months,

+$<9ķŚĞ) >**(25)*Ċ3

provided that no more than three of the>*`ITW* ĊūĦĘ ·åBōō

animals are dogs. (“FAQ,” Prairie City.

ěB|*)?ń-,%( >*ÜA<http://prairiecityiowa.us/?page_id=268>)?> Ɖ^j:źķ*`ITWÃê,ż >*/a pocketful of pens (and pencils)* (26a)- &âĞĦ,ōě.¾³-;=Įş)> 5"a( /   Ō ð Ņ - “In all, cops

rescued 26 pets—dogs, cats, a rabbit, a bird anda hedgehog. . . .”*
.m~Š)

ð

> pets *cup(ful) of pens (and pencils)9ĕƊ=dogs * catsŠě?((29) a. Reger put on his own orange vest—with the>six pens and pencils lined up in their pocket?!?NcHejH.

compartment. . . . (N. Lord, Early Warming)

ī*RSdE.Ɔƅ6ůC#9.)ņ

b. He carried a briefcase and in his shirt pocket(26b)-&(9sÞ/£ć)>(27a, b).ð-/<C)>ć½B"īď<?(=¢řŕŸ.î*,%((27a)-/NcHejH-ĞŌðŅo<?(>

were no less than thirty-six pens and pencils.

5"

(V. L. Mendoza, Son of Two Bloods)

>_kf*

>

)ŗ¢řŕŸ/(30)-,>*Ö,>(27) a. [H]e juggled six apples and oranges.
(B. Fife, How to Be a Goofy Juggler)(30) a. five {cups and saucers/bows and arrows/knives

b. [W]ith four apples and oranges alreadyand forks/husbands and wives/horses and carts}

down, she has another orange to go. (Life(cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 966)

34.14)

b. five {gin and tonics/ham and eggs/fish andchips/horse and carts}(28a)/=C*ą.ïBČ8>ĺï.­ƃð*ðŅ)¢řōěń-,%(>(30a)-& (/X * Y ĆÛĦ-5*5=(28b)/ Apple-Pear Crisp * VLkW.gM

B,"8 ?!?BŨ¢A"ï)/,[- >ōě) > ś­ƃ*,<=OTW.ï*(.ŕŸ?><57)>Ɖcf. five sets of cups and saucers, fiveand the Structure of DP,” Natural Language

cup-and-saucer setsƊ (30b))/ X * Y ō9

Semantics 13, 201-270.

..l<-ŴC)=9/:t&)ÐđÍĝ (2012) şĬŗŠ¿*õŉŠÅĕĭĳl&* %"ćĪB¨( > ŏïêŭt*0<×*ð-ű> 2012 ÌÏşĬ&Ĩ.¤Ŝ.6-x./ .ě?) >ŗŠ¿OaYkŷÊťñƉ2012 Ì 9 þ 7 õƌ»ăð»¿ƊƌõāşĬŗŠ¿{ƍ

4. 7  1

Jespersen, Otto (1924) The Philosophy ofzm.ŁÄ<>;- ïŜƋ¤ŜƋ

Grammar, George Allen & Unwin, London.

andƋ¤Ŝ - (ïŜ¢řŕŸBo<

Kobayakawa, Satoru (1995) “Enumeration of?>¥/ĸ~êľ?( >¤Ŝ.m~Things and Events,” Tsukuba English

Š.ÿēĸ~êľ?( >¤Ŝm~ŠB

Studies 14, 181-194.

t>9.) >¥t&.¤Ŝ.Ż.

Koch, Peter (2001) “Lexical Typology from a CognitiveàªĦũſ+.< t&.¤Ŝ*m~and Linguistic Point of View,” Language Typology

Š.Ż.àªĦũſ+.< t&.¤and Language Universals: An InternationalŜ+.İÏ5*5=B,* %"ő°B

Handbook 2, ed. by Martin Haspelmath et al.,Łã,?0,<,1142-1178, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.

5"t&.¤Ŝ.

?lóPh.ŕŸ)>¥/

McCawley, James D. (1973) “Syntactic and Logicalĸ~êľ?"¤Ŝm~Š.yüōě*(Arguments for Semantic Structures,” ThreeÖ>¥-;> .ōě/ ģ,>ıDimensions of Linguistic Theory, ed. by Osamu

Ƅ.9./ï<?,

Fujimura, 260-376, TEC Company, Tokyo.

Ɖcf. Jespersen 1924:

188-189; Wierzbicka 1988: 510-514; Kobayakawa

Postal, Paul M. (1976) “Linguistic Anarchy Notes,”

1995Ɗ* %"l.š÷č-;%(é>Notes from the Linguistic Underground, Syntax9.)/, *>and Semantics 7, ed. by James D. McCawley,

201-225, Academic Press, New York.

* āĲ/õāŉŠ¿{Ķ33 ¯»{Ɖ2015 Ì11 þ

Quirk, Randolph et al. (1985) A Comprehensive

21 õ22 õô żŐ¹²Š»¿Ɗ->ĭĳĥ

Grammar of the English Language, Longman,ō-µ' ŦĤÚĹ.æÈğÓÙ»ŤĩŬ

New York.
Stampe, David (1976) “Cardinal Number Systems,”ŹĐ§.¡ĝ-ÿħ,JbjWB "# "CLS 12, 594-609.

5"r ÁÐđÍĝ.qĝ-/ŊĲ-Ĩ

Taylor, John R. (2012) The Mental Corpus: HowŲ "# =" ŗ*5.ŗŋ
B "# " -Ś(áţġm>Language is Represented in the Mind, Oxford



University Press, Oxford.
Turner, J. Clifford (2000) Voice and Speech inŁðęAllan, Keith (1986) Linguistic Meaning 1,

the Theatre, 5th ed., A & C Black, London.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1988) The Semantics ofRoutledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Grammar, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Green, Michael and John A. Piel (2002) Theories
of Human Development: A Comparative

Yallop, Colin (2004) “Words and Meaning,”

Approach, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

Lexicology and Corpus Linguistics: An

Heycock, Caroline and Robert Zamparelli (2005)

Introduction, ed. by M. A. K. Halliday et al.,“Friends and Colleagues: Plurality, Coordination,

23-71, Continuum, London.

58

ĹÈ(Ɔ

3 t3 Ôā"8

Ƶjă$3 some > most /)jă$3 most > someƶ
b. "(Ĵ< 2 ÅÈ(ƆƠŶƞ<¦8ŎƯ(ĵ·*t2Ôā"8Áƛ3 "(Ĵ< Ôā"8(Scope of Quantificationally Interpreted NullƵő 1 ă#*most > someƶ

Arguments)ŭŮ ƪƵTakeo Kurafujiƶ

 ČŌ#)( Takahashi (lá'Óŏ¯ƴÀËƵRitsumeikan Universityƶ(i) ŎƯ<łĺĲƋ$8Ĕö)& (ii)ŎƯ)ƙõƤĂ/)GFd_ZƤĂ'5

BdadNƸłĺ, ƙõƤĂ, GFd_ZƤ7Ŷƞ98 (iii) ƜĽ'ŵÒ98

Ă, śƃĽT\?YbDĒĵ·Üůë)śƃĽT\?YbDĒ'5
8¨ťë

8$

1. VP ł ĺ $ Ŏ Ư

2. L d I (  Ţ Ŭƃ( VP łĺ#)(1a)(ĵ·Üůë

2.1  ĵ · Ü ů ë$(1b)(¿Šë³ƚĒŵÒ98Fox

 ČŌ#)ŎƯ(2000: 91) '58$LF '8ĘƔĽÜů

ë98»©'ƥ7łĺà

$lá8E ¶ƅ0#Ŷƞ98(<úƧ82vg(55+ƭ¼Ľ&ă<ĵ"Ɗƈ8$'8Ɓ¨98 ĵ·Üůë$¿Šë³ƚĒ) LF #(ĘƔĽÜůë'57Ĵ(3) ĂËŉ#)-$=%(Āù< 2 ƦĴ(

8~ĽĲƋ#8Ɔ

t2 ô"8°Ëŉ#)

-$=%(Āù< 3 ËƜĴ(Ɔô"8

(1) a. A boy admires every teacher.

t3ƵÜůŶƞ(0¨ƶ(4) ĂËŉ#)-$=%(Āù< 2 ƦĴ(

A girl does, too.
Ƶjă$3 a > every /)Ɔjă$3 every > aƶt2 ô"8

°Ëŉ#)

-$=%(Āù< 3 ƦĴ(ƆÔā"8

b. A boy admires every teacher.

t3ƵÜůŶƞ(0¨ƶMary does, too.
Ƶő 1 ă#*every > aƶ

Takahashi (2008)(÷þƓ7(3)#)ĵ·Üůë

 Takahashi (2008) )(2)(5'ćČƃ

lƃ$ĿĽƃ(ją(ŎƯ (null argument) <¬1ă'3ĵ·Üůë$¿Šë³ƚĒŵÒ986'(4)(5'Ŏ#3ĵ·ÜůëŴ698

8$<÷þ ŎƯ3łĺĲƋ(eŋ#8$lá"(5)-(7)'ņ5Üůë

'Ú'ĵ·Ĵ8;#)&8(5) ĶkĴ) 5 rvf(ìţ<ŽÒ(2) a. "(Ĵ< 2 ÅÈ(Ɔ×ČĴ) 5 rvf(ìţ<ŽÒ

t2

Ôā"8"(Ĵ< 3

&

59



8$àpÙĲƋ'Ƥ"ÃÆ&oĥ<8(6) Ğ³Āùz($}ŮĴ)Ɔ'3z;&ÍŮĴ)Ɔ

'z$

$<÷þ8(7) ƨ)¿(zŇ<Ż²"8 /¶Ľ&àpÙ(U>#8(9a, b)Î3¿(zŇ<Ż²

"8

<0"05

(9b))ĿĽƃĂƠž(GC\bS]bD'5" pro (čŞ¨ť'&8(5)(ő 2 ă)oŖ]GM(k#ƵŽÒ

$<ņ"8Takahashi (2008) )(10)ìţĂ)$3(5

ĂƶŽÒ&

5 rvf$ìţ'ƠĽ'Ŷƞ98ŎƯ3ªę(

ø8Ũ<8$<÷þ"8

Ŷƞ (more than 5> not) $oŖ]GM(k#ƵŽÒ&ìţĂ)$3

ƶŽÒìţĂ1~4 «#$5) (ją

(9) a. *[pro2 4ĀŶƞ (not > more than¨ť#8(6)#)Ɔ]ËĴ

(Ĵ< 2 Ôā"8'b. "(Ĵ< 2 [pro2 4ĀŶƞ98ŎƯ Ğ³(Āùz'Ó"]ËĴ

Ýĵ·Ƶsome > every; ĮÏĽƶ3İ

t2 Ôā"8(10) "(Ĵ<2 [pro2 4Āĵ·Ƶevery > some; ƬĮÏĽƶ3¥8

]ËĴ

$

Ĵ< 2 [pro2 ¡Ā

#8(7)#)¿(zŇ

"

ő 1

ăő 2 ă#99'ĮÏĽ (many >t2 Ôā"8"(Ôā"8]ËĴ3 t2

Takahashi (2008: 320)

want) #3ƬĮÏĽ (want > many) #35
ŎƯ(ĵ·Üůë'Ƥ")(8)(#Ģí,)(10))àpÙƖ¤(³

5

ƚ<ņ"8$ªĉ'ĵ·Üůë3ņ

'/$2698"8Ƶmost > ű«žƶ$(8) ƠĽ'Ŷƞ98ŎƯ$s(Ư|ş

8$(10)(ő 2 ă(lƃ<÷ņĽ&'8 QP $(ŁÓĽĵ·)ůă«ž§'½#(ŁÓĽĵ·$ÜůĽ#8

ő 1 ă(ĿĽƃ

Ư

Ī#8

8$¿Šë³ƚĒ'57

|şv¾( QP 4s(ħœÈ$(ŁÓĽ8Ŷƞĵ·)ůă#(ŁÓĽĵ·$èÙƖ¤'&8$3ÜůĽ#&Šë³ƚĒ

lƃ57İĵ·<$âų9(ŚĒő 1 ă)àpoĥ98 /7¿Ú'Ĵ8(#9* į#)ÑƁ¨ť& (9b)Ƶ= (10)(ő 1 ăƶ#(W?bM)(5)-(7)(5ĘƔĽƷŶƞĽÜůë
9'3
#8$

&ă#) ĵ·(¿ŠëƘÌ9"&&ă<äŜ$='àpÙƖ¤<ƍ"Ŷƞhť'&8

;6ŎƯ<ĵ8$$$#8

ÃÆ&oĥ<8$'&8ÐƩ')(11)'ņ5

'



)&6&

Ƶ#)E ¶ƅ0<'ă<ĵ
2.2 ¿ Š ë ³ ƚ  Ē"8ƶ

 Inagaki (2001) )ćČƃ(ŎƯ<¬1ă')¿Šë³ƚĒţ(ůŕ

&$º­"8Œ(11) ĂËŉ#)"(Āù< 2 [pro2 ¡&?bRAdXbMƇē#3ĈŅ'8$)Ÿ

&

Ā

#8

t2 ô"8°Ëŉ#)(eĻư#)¿Šë³ƚĒ(ċī'Ƥ8Ą#)&w'¿Šë³ƚĒ

]ËĴ

ŪËĴ

"(Āù< ô"8

8$wÏ

60 /$28$ŎƯ'Ƥ"(i) ĵ·Ü

P^

ůë)Ņ

ƥÏĽ#8(ii)<$7P^¿Šë³ƚĒ)¹´#)&å"Ŏ$<Ű"8'Êµ8Ư) Fox (Ÿñċ8Ə(ƫ©

6yí(eųŘ

9<ģ$í®#(łĺĲƋ#)&
(14) a. >b)ŧ(Ə<ģ.
b. P^ 2 3 ƒ2 [ø] ģ.

3. í ® ƈ Ʒ ƃ ĵ ƈ Ľ > T ` d J(15) ∃ƒ[SK(ƒ)  Bill washed3.1 ƙ õ Ƥ Ă c G F d _ Z Ƥ Ăƒ(λxλy[y is CAR  x owns y])(b)] #)ŎƯ<łĺ#)&¸ÞĴï9ƭ¼ĽŎ( DPí®ƈĽƷƃĵƈĽ

'Ŷƞ98$

>T`dJ<$8~ ƙõƷGFd_ZƤĂ½Ư'Ó8ÊµĽ') (12)(5&ƜĘƔ<3Ƣ)ŧķ'Ɨĵ#8* (6)(ő<wÏ8

2 ă( 2'Ű98

(12) [DP ƒ [NP ø ]](16) a. ƒ[CH(ƒ)  x[x is a faculty meetingŎ DPƒ )ƙõƷGFd_ZƤĂ½Ư(Ŷƞ)(16a, b)(5

→ A meets ƒ(λy[y is PERSON]) after x]]
b. x[x is a faculty meeting →ƒ[CH(ƒ)
 A meets ƒ(λy[y is PERSON]) after x]]

( DP (k(Ŏ( NP )ăŦ#ŏÖë/)Ƥ$"Ŷƞ98NPÖë$Ŷƞ9»©) ƒ )ƙõƤĂƤ$Ŷ(16a)(5ƞ9»©)GFd_ZƤĂ$"ěť$ĮÏƅ0

899(ƤĂ(ÏŠ)(13)($(Āùz57g#Ɨĵ8$ƬĮÏƅ07#8ƵWinter (2000: 118) #(ÏŠ<ŕĺ'ÊµƢ

eĻf#Ɨĵ8

æ69(16b)(5

'Ğ³

æ698

"8ƶ
3.2 Ŏ Ư ( Ơ  Ŷ ƞ(13) CH=def λƒP[P ≠ ø → P(ƒ(P))]

 ŎƯ<ƙõƷGFd_ZƤĂ'5"Ŷ

SK=def λƒRx[R(x) ≠ ø → R(x)(ƒ(R)(x))]ƞ8$

$)ŎƯ<¸ČĽ'hÏŰ

Ĳ indefinite $"ó*Ĝ((14)(ăŦ#)Ə(ñċƤĴ(5ŏ"8$0&$)ŧĬ&$#8&ƠŶƞ<¦8$

$'ê;98(²Ʋ)

Hackl (2009)(đ<ĵ8$#Ŷġ#
8Hackl ) most (í®<(17)(5Ă  ~ (atomic individuals)  Ų Ă  ~"8ƵC )ăŦ#i(plural individuals) ją<¬1ƫ©<Űƶ'đ698ğƑÓƋ(ƫ©¬[y●x])ƻ$ x (ƣ'ƟŲƤ<Ű"8(#ƒ )GFd_Z

&$

<Űƶ

ƤĂ½Ư$&8GFd_ZƤĂ½Ư)~3ųĠ8

$#8

8$ŎƯ "(ƄĈ#&5

8$(14b)( ø )λxλy[y is CAR

 x owns y]$Ŷƞ98ƵÀăÉŰź CAR )

ø



$

9) ƒ (÷Ě#6;9(17) most teachers =8$'8Ƶ#) 2ƵƹP^ƶƶGF
d_ZƤĂ½Ư

λx[y  C [¬[y●x] →ÊµƢ9ĊřĽ'(14b)(ƈĳŰņ)(15)(5'&89)max{d: teachers'(x)  |x| ≥ d} >ėĺ8GFd_ZƤĂ ƒÊµƒ )

max{d: teachers'(y)  |y| ≥ d}]]61

(17))ėĺ “majority of teachers” 'ƀã8 (21)(5'Ċ

6 QP 'ƙõƤĂ½Ư

ŲĂ~(ƫ©<Ű"89<ŎƯ(ƒđ'ýĵ8$(18a, b)(ŃĳĎx)9$wÏ8/(22)'ÏŠ98Ɲħ9(19a, b)(5œÈ D'Ű98(19b)( ø )»ñ z $ majority of professors x (Ƥ R $7ÊµƠ(í®

ü9"8

~ƷDP 'ŧķ't98$w

Ï8

Ŷƞ9ŎƯ~)GFd_ZƤĂ'5(21)  [QP ƒ [-$=%(Āù]]  =" “a majority of professors at z 45” $&8ƒ(λx[y[PROF(y) ∧ y is at zi  ¬[y●x] →(18) a. ďÀ 25 #)ĩĶŝơ

max{d: PROF(x) ∧ x is at zi  |x| ≥ d} >-$=%(Ā

max{d: PROF(y) ∧ y is at zi  |y| ≥ d}]])ù<ô"8(22) Dα = λQ[a  ATOM[a ≤ α → Q(a)]]b. Ƶªę'ƶqÀ 45 #)ĐČŝơ
ƒ45 [ø] ô"8.

96<ĵ8$
(19) a. x[H criticizes x y[PROF(y)  y is at

LF )(23a, b)(5*(4)( 2(ă('Űņ98z25  ¬[y●x] → max{d: PROF(x)  x is at
z25  |x| ≥ d} > max{d: PROF(y)  y is at(23) a. ĂËŉ 32 #) D[-$=%(Āù<]2z25  |y| ≥ d}]]]ƦĴ(Ɔb. ƒ[SK(ƒ)  M criticizes (ƒ(R)(z45))]t2 ô"8D

b. °Ëŉ 37 #) [ƒ37[ø']]2

R = λzλx[y[PROF(y) ∧ y is at z

ƒ37[ø]t2Ôā"8 ¬[y●x] → max{d: PROF(x)  x is
at z  |x| ≥ d} > max{d: PROF(y)  y(23a))(24)(5is at z  |y| ≥ d}]]

ĵ·<$8Ŷƞ

Ý

æ698

(24) ƒ[CH(ƒ)  a ATOM[a ≤4.  ĵ · Ü ů ë  Ţ
 2 Ŕ#ŎƯ) Fox (Ƌ#)&$'šż9ĿĽƃƒ(λx[y[PROF(y)  y is at z32  ¬[y●x] →í®#(łĺĲ

max{d: PROF(x)  x is at z32  |x| ≥ d} >

$<0#)&(8)(5&ƜĽ&ĵ·Üůë:#)(20)(5?YbDĒ(¨ťë<Ţ

max{d: PROF(y)  y is at z32  |y| ≥ d}]])8(→ x[G-STUDENT(x)  x criticize a]]&śƃĽT\"08(23b)( 2(Ŏ( NP )99ø = λzλx[x(20) śƃĽT\?YbD

is g-student at z]ø' = λzλx[x is a majority of(i) S1 $ S2

ĘƔĽ'Ƴ{"professors at z]$Ŷƞ9(23a)ªęĿĽ

7  (ii) S1S2 ( ŀ  '  7 ƃ(iii) S1 $ S2 (£ą( LF ĘƔÝĵ·<$8Ŷƞ

æ698(đ#(Ɵų&wÏ)(23b)#Ŏ(ĿĽƃĨµĽ'Ŏ(lƃ<Ǝ

¿ Š #  8 & 6  S2 ( LF Ę Ɣ"Ŋ"8$

#8(Ŋ)(20)'57Ƃļ98

) S1 ( LF ĘƔ$ªe'&8 (20)ŧ~)ŎƯ'"3ŷ9"& vgƊƈ(2Ơ'Ƥ"(ūÛ(ÐƩŎƯ

ĝ<Ćf#Ŵ Hackl (đ#)Ĥ\?YbDĒ)ŵÒ98

Ĵ(Ċä#ÊµƢƗĵ8Ī#)

62&"3 (20)(śƃĽT(25) ĂËŉ#)-$=%(Āù< 2 ƦĴ(Ɔ

8t2 ô"8°Ëŉ#3

ƦĴ(Ɔ"(Őũƙò4) ƒ4[ø]/7J@KC&-$=%(Āù<ô"8(26a)(ő 2 ă(Ŏ(ĿĽƃ(ŧĬ&Ŷƞ)ŧ(Ç#)&ŧ(Â#8

(25)(ő 2 ă)

į#ĵ698$ĿĽ(Ŷƞ)ŗ& PF Ƨ4 LF FQd(ÿƃÝĵ·<¥8Ŷƞ)-.h¨ť##)Õ#&í®ƈƷƃĵƈĽ&8

(25)(ő 1 ă'Ŝ"ƵơWdH

đ$vg(5<'ƶļſ98$ĿĽƃ(Ý~ƣ(Ƥλxλy[y = x’s wife]ĵ·$74&8å"ŎƯ(Êµ$Ţ'&8(26)(ăŦ#)
ŏ"8698í®ƈĽ¬í'57y = x’s$)įŏ'śƃĽT\?YbDĒ)7

wife → y = x’s spouselƃ)ƵÀ¿Ă(ƶÇ 2&(#λy[y = x2’s#8æ698ő 2 ă( (5)-(7)#ĵ·Üůë<ņ&EdG

spouse] /7 y = x’s husband (Ŷƞ<Ŵ96'Ó"(20)Ɨĵ&

98(26b)3ªę#8ő 2 ă(Ŏ(Ŀ(20iii)57śƃĽT\Ľƃ)ŧ(ŧƐƏ#)&ŧ($<ŅƁ"?YbD)ƕŜ8 2 ă

LF ĘƔĽ'¿Š#8»©'ƥ7Ɨĵ8
#)ő 1 ăŧĬ#8(ăŦ#)ŧƐƏ$~(ñċƤ λyλx[y is(5)BICYCLE  x owns y]¿Š#&å"(20))Ɨ

ĵ&(6)-(7)(5ÊµƢ

VdM$Ŷƞ8-

æ6&#)¿Šë)ŏ"8$Ţ

698í®ƈĽ¬í'57y is BICYCLE →Ɨĵ8»ñ(Ɩ#ņ98

y is VEHECLE

æ698ő 2 ă(lƃ)Ő96)eŴ¿Šë<ĘƔĽ'Űņũƙò&(#Őũƙòƺ"85ĭ)VdM#89)ƃĵƈĽûƈ

'0

8

ÊµƢ)ñċ8n7

OdN'Ó"ů;98í®ƈĽÿ&('58(5#ĘƔ<½

ûƈ'5"Ɨ' ø (Ŷƞ$"8;#)&(Ÿą<8$λƒ 4ƒnumeration (k'Ħ9""

6 merge '5"ĘƔ'Õ98$;#)&$'í®ƈĽ¬í$ƃĵƈĽλyλx[y is BOAT  x owns y]

$

æ698

6. / $ 2#8å"(6)-(7)(¿Šë3ĘƔĽ# ČŌ#)ŎƯ)&(#(20)(Ɨĵ<¦&ůë

;8ă#(ĵ·Ü5+¿Šë³ƚĒ<ĖŹŎƯ) Fox (2000)(Ÿí®#(łĺĲƋ#)&5. í ® ƈ Ʒ ƃ ĵ ƈ Ľ > T ` d J ( è ų$ë

v¾'3łĺ<Ɓ¨8ąĺ)¨ť#8 Ċä'í®ƈƷƃĵƈĽđèų&

$<ņ3:= Fox (üĕ9'3$!"ŎƯ<đ8$3<÷þ8

78

Ľ&ÿ(26) a. "(Ĺë) [ŧ(Ç<]Ʊ"839&

PF Ƨ3) LF FQd#

8&6*(26)(5À¿Ă(Ç2) ƒ2[ø]łĺ(~&)ƄĈ#&uĕ$"ŎƯ)¸ÞĴï9ƙõƤĂƱ"&

8)GFd_ZƤĂ<ĵ"í®ƈƷb. "(Őƒƙò)_dG'ƃĵƈĽ'Ŷƞ98$

[ŧ(ŧƐƏ<]é'J@KC>T`dJ<

üĕ/ƜĽ'ŵÒ98ĵ·63Üůë)śƃĽT\?YbDĒ'57ß
ƍ98¨ťë

8$

$<÷

þ
*ćČŬƃËző 33 ³ÀzļŰĉļŰä$
3'¿(ą

6F[bM<ƮĮ'ÄŤĴ$ØĶňmĴ6)ĵ·Üůë

$śƃĽT\?YbDĒ'Ƥ"ċľ&ņ±<Ʈðç57îƉĸf8Čńō) JSPS ŉńƌ 15K02495 (ï<¦
"8
¢Ţăı
Fox, Danny (2000) Economy and Semantic
Interpretation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hackl, Martin (2009) “On the Grammar andProcessing of Proportional Quantifiers:
Most versus More Than Half,” Natural
Language Semantics 17, 63-98.
Inagaki, Daisuke (2001) “Ellipsis Scope inJapanese,” An Interface between Meaning
and Form: A Festschrift for Professor
Minoru Nakau, 599–613, Kurosio, Tokyo.
Takahashi, Daiko (2008) “Quantificational Null
Objects and Argument Ellipsis,” Linguistic
Inquiry 39, 307-326.
Winter, Yoad (2001) Flexibility Principles in
Boolean Semantics: Coordination, Plurality and Scope in Natural Language, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.

64the P(robe)-G(oal) system.
Chomsky (2013) introduces a new way of
Agree, applies in the configuration in (2), called{XP, YP} structures, as a side effect of thelabeling algorithm.

“Problems of Agree” in Problems of
Projection*(2)[[XP … X …] [YP … Y …]]
Before explaining the new Agree system, it

Kenta Miwa

is in order to look at three types of the labeling

Gakushuin University

algorithm in Chomsky (2013).
Keywords㸸Agree, labeling, coordination(3)a. (T)he labeling algorithm will select H
as the label. (LA (H-COMP))
b. (A): modify SO so that there is only

1. Introduction

one visible head, (LA (A))

As a result of introducing the labelingalgorithm in Chomsky (2013), a theoretical shift(B): X and Y are identical in a relev-

has occurred in the treatment of Agree, andant respect, providing the same

introduces some problems. I call these problems

label, which can be taken as the

problems of Agree (POA) in problems oflabel of SO. (LA (B))
(Chomsky 2013: 43)

projection (POP). This paper aims at solving the
problems.

The first algorithm applies when a head anda non-head syntactic object are merged. In this

2. Problems of Agree
The POA consists of two problems. The firstcase, the head determines the label of the

problem is that Chomsky (2013) has proposed a

syntactic object; I call it LA (H-COMP). The

new Agree system different from the existingother two algorithms work on {XP, YP}

one, and the two systems co-existent. In

structures where two non-head syntactic objects

Chomsky (2000, 2001), Agree is assumed toare merged. If Internal Merge applies to either

occur in the relation between X, Probe, and Y,

syntactic object, the head of the rest becomes theGoal, in (1), both of which carry unvalued/

label of the syntactic object; this way of labelinguninterpretable features.

will be referred to as LA (A). When bothsyntactic objects share relevant features, the(1)shared features become the label of the syntactic[XP X [ … [YP … Y… ] … ]]]object; this way of labeling will be referred to as
LA (B). 1

In (1), the valueless features on the Probe X
search for their identical features on the Goal Y

According to Chomsky (2013), LA (B)for the purpose of their valuation. After finding

requires the identification of the relevant

Y, the features on Y assign their values to thefeatures by some operation, and he regards

identical ones on X. This way of Agree is called

Agree as the operation for the identification. I

65

call this way of Agree in terms of LA (B) as theinternally merged. This suggests that the{XP, YP} structure system.

application of LA (A) is prior to that of LA (B)The co-existence of the two Agree systems,in the {XP, YP} structure, but it is unclear why

the P-G system and the {XP, YP} structuresuch a priority exists. 2 I call this problem thesystem, brings about a problem concerning theirpriority problem.

driving forces. In the current theory, Agree under

A clue to the solution to the problems will be

the P-G system occurs for valuation of theobtained

unvalued/uninterpretable features X and Y have,coordination and some agreement systems to be

while that under the {XP, YP} structure system

discussed in the following sections.

byexaminingthelabeling

inoccurs for the identification of the shared
relevant features. It is undesirable, within the

3. Identification in the {XP, YP} Structurestrong minimalist thesis, that the two similarsystemoperations have different motivations. I call thisA problem arises in determining the label γ
in (4). 3 What is γ? It has to be determined byproblem the co-existence problem.
The second problem concerns the application

LA (B) because the application of LA (A) to theof the labeling algorithm in {XP, YP} structures.

first conjunct XP will violate the coordinate

Chomsky (2013) has offered (4) as the syntactic

structure constraint (CSC). Then, this leads tostructure of coordination. In light of (4), the DP

another question: what features are sharedcoordination in (5a) will have a structure as in

between the heads of XP and the syntactic object(5b).

labeled α, namely X and Conj. I will tackle thesecond problem by investigating the issue of the(4)[γ XP [α Conj [β XP YP]]]

feature addition in coordination, in the rest of(Chomsky 2013: 46)(5)a.

… [John and Paul] …

b.

… [[DP John] and [[DP John]

this section.
3.1. The Feature Addition in Coordination
Coordinated singular DPs are regarded as[DP Paul]]] …

plural though the both conjuncts are singular.
The structure in (4) derives in the following way.

The comparison of number agreement in (6)First XP and YP merge into the syntactic object

shows that the coordinated subject George andlabeled β. Then, β merges with Conj to form theEric is a plural DP.

syntactic object labeled α. Finally, Internal(6)

Merge applies to XP in order to determine thelabel of β by LA (A), and the derivation ofa.

George and Eric love Patti.

b.

*George and Eric loves Patti.

coordination labeled γ converges.
This result suggests that the conjunction and has

Notice that in (5b) both heads of the two

the additional function of number features. 4

conjuncts, two DPs, carry the φ feature with thesame values, [singular], [1st person], [masculine],

The feature addition can be more clearly

which apparently meets the condition on theobserved with regard to number features in DP

application of LA (B). In fact, however, LA (A),coordination in Slovenian. The number feature

not LA (B), applies and John (or Paul) must be

in Slovenian has the value of [dual] besides

66[singular] and [plural]. The coordinated singulartheir values of gender features to be masculine

DP agrees with T as dual, not singular, in (7a),in (9c, d)-(10c, d).

and

the

coordinationoffurthersingular(9)

conjuncts in (7b) or that of a singular and duala*Juče su uništena
yesterday are destroyed.Pl.Neut

conjuncts in (7c) agrees with T as plural.

jedno selo
(7)a.

Tončekin

Tonček-Sg and

b.

sta

Igor-Sg

are-Duoneb.

village.Neut and one town.Fem

*Juče

su

uništeneprizadevna.

yesterday are

assiduous-Du

jedna varošica i jedno selo.

Tonček,Igor

Tonček-Sg

Igor-Sg and Marta-Sg

so
c.

Igor

i jedna varošica.

in Martac.

prizadevna.

one

town.Fem and one

Juče

su uništeni

yesterday areare assiduous-Pl

jedno selo

Marta

one

in njegova brata

Marta-Sg and his

brothers-Dud.

boro prišli.
will come-Pl(Corbett 1983: 177)
(10) a.

village.Neut

destroyed.Pl.Masc
I jedna varošica.

village.Neut and one town.Fem

Juče

su uništeni

yesterday aredestroyed.Pl.Macs

jedna varošica i

jedno selo.

one
The feature addition can be observed not

destroyed.Pl.Fem

town.Fem and one*jedno selovillage.Neuti jedna varošica

only in number features but also in genderone village.Neut. and one town.Fem

features. In Serbo-Croatian, gender features on T

su

(juče)

agree with those on its closest conjunct, whichareyesterday destroyed.Pl.Fem

may be named the first/last conjunct agreementb.

system.
(8)

a.

Juče

su

uništena

yesterday are destroyed.Pl.Neut
sva
b.

sela

i

c.

sve varošice.

uništene.

*jedna varošica i jedno seloone

town.Fem and one

su(Juče)

areyesterday destroyed.Pl.Neut

jedno selovillage.Neut

uništena.
I jedna varošica

one village.Neut and one town.Fem

all villages.Neut and all towns.Fem

su(juče)

sva

areyesterday destroyed.Pl.Mascsela

i sve varošice

all villages.Neut. and all towns.Fem
su (juče)d.

uništene.

are yesterday destroyed.Pl.Fem(Bošković 2009: 455)

uništeni.

jedna varošica i jedno seloone

town.Fem. and one

su(juče)

areyesterday destroyed.Pl.Macs

village.Neut

uništeni.
(ibid.: 459)

When the conjuncts are singular, however,the first/last conjunct agreement disappears. The

The disappearance of the first/last conjunctsingular counterparts to (8) do not show the first/

agreement can be regarded as a piece oflast conjunct agreement, and instead, require

evidence for the feature addition, in this case,67

the addition of gender features. The addition ofvalued, and that on Conj is assigned not bygender features results in the crash of theAgree, but by Feature Subsuming. This shows

computation because gender features, unlikethat the operation required for labeling of thenumber features, cannot conceptually be added;{XP, YP} structure in (12) is not Agree, but theconsequently, [masculine] is valued as a

identification of the shared features.

default.

5

Although both features of syntactic objects
in β and those in γ are identical, the way ofidentification distinct between β and γ. In β, the3.2. Feature Subsuming and the Identity
Condition

features are accidentally identical as the result ofI have demonstrated the feature addition in

LA (A), while in γ, which is labeled by LA (B),coordination in 3.1, but the problem still remains

the shared features are necessarily identical

how the operation works, and what is shared inbecause they are copies of ω1 on the basethe {XP, YP} structure labeled γ in (4). I assume

generated D1. Thus I posit that the followingthat the feature addition occurs on Conj, which

condition works on the application of LA (B).

follows the fact that it owes to the property of(13) The Identity Condition

Conj. Thus I posit that Conj gains the relevant
features by the operation, Feature Subsuming,

For LA (B) to apply, both heads in someshown in (11).

{XP, YP} structure, X and Y, have to sharethe copies of relevant features.

(11) Feature Subsuming 6
Given the Identity Condition, the priority

Conj shares copies of relevant features

problem can be settled. It demands that identicalwith conjuncts by subsuming them.

features on both heads are copies. The features
Feature Subsuming enables Conj to carry theon D1 and D2, however, are not copies of eachrelevant features on conjuncts. Here let us callother although they have identical values. This isthem ω features. Ω1 on the first conjunct DP1

the reason why LA (B) does not apply inand ω2 on the second conjunct DP2 arelabeling the syntactic object labeled β in the DP

subsumed onto Conj and they are added to thosecoordination.

in Conj in (12).
4. The driving force of Agree
The first problem is still unsolved. In this(12) [γ DP1[ω1] [α Conj[ω1, ω2] [β DP1[ω1] DP2[ω2]]]]section, I specify the driving force of the two
Following the assumption, the heads, D1 andAgree systems through the investigation of long

Conj, both of which are the closet heads in the

distance agreement. 7{XP, YP} structure, share the same relevantFirst, let us consider why Agree is driven

feature ω1. Shared in the {XP, YP} structure,under the P-G system. The application of the<ω1, ω1> is taken as the label of γ by LA (B).

system can be seen in the long distance

Notice that the identification via Featureagreement in (14a), whose syntactic structure is

Subsuming does not result from Agree againstshown in (14b). In (14b), T and the subject

Chomsky’s (2013) claim. Ω1 on D1 is originallybooks, corresponding to Probe and Goal

68

respectively, agree despite the internal merger ofstructure labeled α, and α is labeled <φ, φ>

the expletive there.

because their heads, D and T, share the φ feature
due to the feature inheritance from C to T(14) a.

(Chomsky 2008, Richards 2007).

There *seems/seem to be books on

The φ feature on D is valued while thethe desk.
b.

[C [there [α T [v V [there seem to be

inherited one on T is not before Agree, but it

books]]]]]

violates the Identity Condition. They have tomeet the condition for α to be labeled by LA (B)According to Chomsky (2014), the labelingbecause failure in labeling causes the syntactic

capacity of T varies cross-linguistically inobject not to be interpreted at the interfaces.

accordance with richness of agreement. In

Thus, Agree under the {XP, YP} structure

languages with rich agreement like Italian, T issystem applies and enables α to meet theregarded as a head for LA (H-COMP). On thecondition. The assumption suggests that it is theother hand, in poor agreement languages like

Identity Condition which drives Agree under the

English, T has no labeling capacity without{XP, YP} structure system.
I have identified the driving force of Agreebeing enriched by Agree under the {XP, YP}

under the P-G system as the enrichment of T’s

structure system.
The assumption predicts that T in (14b) does

labeling capacity and that under the {XP, YP}

not have the labeling capacity because it is not

structure system as the Identity Condition. This

enriched by the {XP, YP} structure system andsuggests that the two distinct Agree systems

that α is not determined. But the prediction ishave the same motivation, that is, they both

wrong; the sentence in (14a) is grammatical,

apply for the purpose of support for labeling.

which means that α in (14b) is labeled. ThisThe conclusion gives an answer to theimplies that T’s agreement with the subject

co-existence problem. The two different Agreeenriches its own labeling capacity and that Agreesystems co-exist, but they only apply in theunder the P-G system also gives a head (orseparate configurations in (1) or (2) for the same

Probe) the labeling capacity for LA (H-COMP).

purpose.

If it is true, Agree under the P-G system isconsidered to be driven to enrich the labelingcapacity of the head.

5. Conclusion

8

In this paper, I have investigated theThen, let us move onto the discussion on the

problems of Agree (POA), which I suggest

driving force of the {XP, YP} structure systemproblems of projection (POP) in Chomsky

and see its prime example, a canonical subject-(2013) bring about; the co-existence problem

predicate agreement in (15a).

and the priority problem. I have demonstrated
that the driving force of the two distinct Agree(15) a.
b.

John loves his wife.

systems, the P(robe)-G(oal) system and the {XP,[C [α John [β T [John loves his

YP} structure system, is commonly to supportwife]]]]

labeling. This is the answer to the co-existence
problem. Concerning the priority problem, theThe subject John agrees with T in the {XP, YP}

Identity Condition gives an answer. Given the69

condition, LA (A) has to apply to {XP, YP}

3structures when identical features on their heads

has no labeling capacity, it seems to me that his

are not copies.

supposition is doubtful. Here I simply posit that

Although Chomsky (2013) supposes that Conj

β is taken as Y because of LA (A), and α as Conj
* An earlier version of this paper was presented

owing to LA (H-COMP).

at the 33th Conference of the English Linguistic

4Society of Japan, held at Kansai Gaidai

Conj lexically carries a plural feature. However,

University on November 21-22, 2015. I would

the possibility is ruled out by the following

like to express my gratitude to Professor Heizo

examples. In the there construction with

Nakajima

coordinated subjects in (i), the first conjunct

and

the

audiencefor

helpful

The result, in fact, holds another possibility thatcomments and suggestions. My thanks also go toagreement applies.

Professor Alison Stewart for suggesting stylistic

(i)

a.

improvements. Any remaining errors are ofchildren at the front door.

course mine.

b.

There *is/are three children and a
man at the front door.

NOTES
1

There is/??are a man and three

Chomsky (1995) supposes that it is (ic) that is(Progovac 1994: 4)

a source of a label of some syntactic object

The singular form is in (ia) implies that theconsists of α and β among the following

possibility that Conj carries a plural feature iscandidates.

rejected.

(i)a.

the intersection of α and β

5b.

the union of α and β

default of number features.

c.

one or the other of α, β6Marušič et al. (2007) also treat [masculine] as a
I consider that Feature Subsuming is a piece of

The proposal of LA (B) may imply thatfunctions of Conj and that it does not impose

Chomsky (2013) adopts (ia) besides (ic).

any burden on the narrow syntax.

2

7

I point out copura sentences or small clause

There are some arguments over the driving

construction as other cases where the priority

force of Agree. For other proposals for the

problem occurs. Moro (2000) argues that thedriving force of Agree, see Miyagawa (2010).

subjects of the two constructions have to be8

internally merged. The copura sentence in (ia)merged is open to question. I suppose that theand the small clause construction in (ib) will

Internal Merge of there enables the Probe T tohave structures as in (iia) and (iib).

search for the Goal books by making the base(i)

generated expletive invisible.

a.

Edna is a good actress.

b.

Charles considered Edna a good
actress.

(ii)

a.
b.

In (14b), why the expletive there is internally

REFERENCES
Bošković, Željko (2009) “Unifying First and[[Edna] copula [[Edna] [a good

Last

Charles considered [[Edna] …

Language & Linguistic Theory 27, 455-496.
Chomsky,[[Edna] [a good actress]]]

Conjunct
Noam

Agreement,”

Naturalactress]]](1995)The

Minimalist

Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

This also shows that the priority problem can be

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

observed in the constructions.

70

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

Richards,

Marc

D.

(2007)“On

FeatureMinimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

Inheritance: An Argument from the Phase

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels

Impenetrability

and Juan Uriagereka, 89-115, MIT Press,

Inquiry 38, 563-573.

Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”
Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by
Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,Noam(2008)“On

Phases,”Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, ed.
by Robert Freiden, Carlos Otero and Maria
Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,Noam(2013)“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky,Noam(2014)“ProblemsofProjection: Extensions,” ms., MIT.
Corbett, Greville (1983) “Resolution Rules:
Agreement in Person, Number and Gender,”Order, Concord and Constituency, ed. byGerald Gazdar and Geoffrey K. Pullum,
175-214, Foris, Dordrecht.
Marušič, Franc, Andrew Nevins and Amanda
Saksida (2007) “Last-Conjunct Agreement inSlovenian,” Annual Workshop on Formal
Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Toront
Meeting 2006, FASL15, ed. by Compton,
Richard, Magdalena Goledzinowska andUlyana,210-227,

MichiganSlavicPublications, Ann Arbor.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (2010) Why Agree? Why
Move?: Unifying

Agreement-Based andDiscourse-Configurational Languages, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Moro, Andrea (2000) Dynamic Antisymmetry,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Progovac,

Ljiljana(1998)“Structureof

Coordination, Part 1,” GLOT International 3(7), 3-6.

71

Condition,”

Linguisticධ࡟ࡼࡾࠊᣦᐃ㒊̺୺せ㒊࡟ࡼࡿㄆྍ໬㛵ಀࡣࠊࡑࡢ⌮ㄽⓗᙺ๭ࢆ⤊࠼ࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
୺せ㒊-ᣦᐃ㒊ࡢ㛵ಀࡢᵓ⠏࡜᏶඲࡞୍⮴ᙧែ⣲ࡢල⌧࡟ࡣ┦㛵ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࢆ࡜
୍⮴㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸ేྜ᧯స࡟ࡘ࠸࡚*ࡽ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟ᅔ㞴࡜࡞ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆព

㸦Merge and Feature Sharing㸧࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࣛ࣋ࣝỴᐃࡢ࢔ࣝࢦࣜ
ࢬ࣒࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡇࡢၥ㢟ࢆྃᵓ㐀ᵓ⠏࡟࠾୕ዲ ᬸ༤㸦Nobuhiro Miyoshi㸧ࡅࡿ⣲ᛶඹ᭷࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼┤ࡍࡇ࡜᪫ᕝ་⛉኱Ꮫ㸦Asahikawa Medical University㸧ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ➨ 2 Ⅼࡣࠊ⛣ື᧯సࡀ୍ᐃࡢᵓ㐀㛵ಀࡀ᳨ฟࡉࢀࡓሙྜ࡟㐺⏝࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸Labeling Algorithm, Agreement,ࡉࢀࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ぢゎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㐃⥆ᚠ⎔⛣ືࡢ

Wager-class Verbs, CP expletives

୰㛫╔ᆅⅬ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࡀࠊሙᙜࡓࡾⓗ࡞⣲ᛶࢆ௬ᐃࡏࡎ࡟ᑟฟࡋ࠺ࡿⅬ࡛ࠊ⌮ㄽⓗ࡟㠀ᖖ࡟㨩ຊⓗ࡞ᣦ㔪ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࣛ࣋ࣝỴᐃࡢ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒ࢆ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ⛣ື⌧㇟ཬࡧ୍⮴⌧㇟ࡣே㛫࡟ᅛ᭷ࡢ⌧ᨭᣢࡍࡿ⤒㦂ⓗ࡞ドᣐࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ௒

㇟࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ⌧㇟࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᫂♧ⓗ࡞⌮ᚋࡢ⌮ㄽࡢ㐍ᒎࢆ༨࠺ୖ࡛ᚲ㡲ࡢసᴗ࡜࡞

ㄽࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊே㛫ゝㄒࡢィ⟬ࢩࢫࢸࡿࠋ࣒ࢆゎ᫂ࡍࡿୖ࡛ᚲ㡲ࡢㄢ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ(3)ࡢண

 Chomsky (2013, 2014)ࡢࣛ࣋ࣝỴᐃࡢ࢔ࣝࣛ࣋ࣝỴᐃࡢ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒ࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿ㆟ㄽࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ

ࢦࣜࢬ࣒(Labeling Algorithm)ࡣࠊ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ୺せ㒊࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ 2 ࡘࡢせ⣲ XPࠊYP ࢆేྜࡋࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊᙜヱࡢࣛ࣋ࣝࢆỴᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜

(3) 㸦ᚑ᮶ࡢព࿡࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㸧EPP/edge ⣲ᛶࡢ࠸࠺௬ㄝࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡳ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦᐃ㒊̺୺せ㒊ࡢ㛵ಀࢆᵓ⠏
࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

(1)

??
XP

௨ୗ࡛ࠊ᭱⤊╔ᆅⅬ࡬ࡢేྜ᧯సࡀ EPP/edge

YP⣲ᛶࡢࡳ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㥑ືࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡣࠊ୺せ㒊ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࠊ(2)ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ

௜ຍ㸦Head Adjunction㸧ࡢᵓ㐀ࡀ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸࡛ label ࡀỴᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋࠊᐃືモ➨஧఩ゝㄒ࡟ほᐹࡉࢀࡿCP-expletive ࠊ ࢔ ࢖ ࢫ ࣛ ࣥ ࢻ ㄒ ࡢ Stylish(2) a. XP ࡜ YP ࡀ⣲ᛶࡀඹ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡟

Frontingࠊཬࡧࠊⱥㄒࡢ wager 㢮ືモࡢᛶ㉁ࡣࠊࡑࡢ⣲ᛶ࡟ࡼࡾࣛ࣋ࣝࡀỴᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ࡀࠊ(2)ࡢண

b. XP ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ YP ࡀ⛣ືࡋࡓሙྜࠊṧ␃࠸ࡿ࡜ㄽࡌࡿࠋ

ࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ⤒㦂ⓗ࡟⿬௜ࡅ࡚ࡋࡓせ⣲࡟ࡼࡾࣛ࣋ࣝࡀỴᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋ
2. ୍ ⮴ 㛵 ಀ ࡀ ᡂ ❧ ࡋ ࡞ ࠸ ే ྜ ᧯ స 㸸 ࡇࡢᥦ᱌࡟ᑐࡋࠊᮏ✏ࡀ╔┠ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡣࠊ CP-Expletives
௨ୗ 2 Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨ 1 ⅬࡣࠊGB ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾ࡅᐃືモ➨஧఩ゝㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ࢔࢖ࢫࣛࣥࢻㄒ࣭ࢻ

ࡿᣦᐃ㒊̺୺せ㒊ࡢ୍⮴㛵ಀࡀྃᵓ㐀ࡢ≉࢖ࢶㄒ࣭࢖ࢹ࢕ࢵࢩࣗㄒ࡟ࡣࠊCP 㡿ᇦ࡟⏕ᛶ࡟㑏ඖࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋAgree ࡢᑟ㉳ࡍࡿ⹫㎡ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋCP 㡿ᇦ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ

72࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ᰿ᣐࡣ 2 Ⅼ࠶ࡿࠋ➨ 1 Ⅼࡣࠊࡇ

María snemma á fætur.

ࡢ✀ࡢ⹫㎡ࡀᩥ㢌࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ

Maria get up earlyಽ⨨ V2 ㄒ㡰࡟ࡼࡾ⹫㎡௨እࡢせ⣲ࡀᩥ㢌ࡢ

b. German

(Vikner 1995: 66)఩⨨ࢆ༨ࡵࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ⹫㎡ࡀ⏕㉳࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

*Er sagt, daß diesen Film haben dieࡇࢀࡣࠊ(4)࠾ࡼࡧ(5)ࡢᑐẚ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋHe says, that thisfilm havetheKinder gesehen.
(4) Icelandic(Vikner 1995: 70)

childrena. Það hefur komið strákur
there hascome(7) a. Icelandic

a boy

Eg veit að Það hefur komið

b. * Í gær hefur Það komið stráku
yesterday hasc. Í gær

strákur

hefur komið strákur

a boy

come

(5) Germana. Es

I know that there has

there come a boy.

yesterday has

a boy* Ich weiß, daß es

ist ein Junge gekommen
a

boy

come

b. German(Vikner 1995: 69)

there isseen

ein Junge

I know that there

come

a boy

gekommen ist

b. * Gestern ist es ein Junge gekommen

come

is

yesterday is there a boy comeࡇࡇ࡛╔┠ࡍ࡭ࡁࡣࠊ(8a)ࡢ⿵ᩥ࡛ࡢಽ⨨ V2

c. Gestern ist ein Junge gekommen
yesterday is aㄒ㡰ࡣࠊTopic Island ࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿࡀࠊ(8b)ࡢ⹫

boy come㎡ࡣ Topic Island ࢆᙧᡂࡋ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࡛
➨ 2 Ⅼࡣࠊ⿵ᩥෆࡢ⹫㎡ࡢ⏕㉳ࡢྍྰࡀࠊ⿵

࠶ࡿࠋᩥ࡛ࡢಽ⨨ V2 ㄒ㡰ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ྰ࠿࡟ࡼ
ࡾỴᐃࡉࢀࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(6b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⿵ᩥ

(8) a. * Maríui veit ég [CP1 að [CP2 Þessum hringj࡛ࡢಽ⨨ V2 ㄒ㡰ࡀ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࢻ࢖ࢶㄒ࡛

Maryi know I

ࡣࠊ(7b)ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⿵ᩥෆ࡟⹫㎡ࡀ⏕㉳lofað [TP Ólafur ei ej ]]]ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(6a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ

promised⿵ᩥ࡛ࡢಽ⨨ V2 ㄒ㡰ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࢔࢖ࢫࣛ

[lit.‘to Mary, I know that this ring Olafࣥࢻㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ(7a)ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⿵ᩥෆ࡟⹫

promised t t’]㎡ࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ஦ᐇࡣࠊ

(Rögnvaldsson and Thráinsson 1990: 32)

thatÓlafurthis ringj
ei ej ]]]

b. ? Þennan manni held ég [CP1 að [CP2 Það

Authier (1992)ཬࡧ Watanabe (1993)ࡢᥦ᱌ࢆ
᥼⏝ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ࢔࢖ࢫࣛࣥࢻㄒࡣ Iterated CPs

Thisࢆチࡍࡀࠊࢻ࢖ࢶㄒࡣチࡉ࡞࠸࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ

hafi [TP stundum verið talað illa um ei]]]

Iterated CPs ࢆチࡍ࢔࢖ࢫࣛࣥࢻㄒ࡛ࡣୗ఩

has sometimes been talked bad about e]]]ࡢ CP ࡟ࡼࡾ⹫㎡(6a)ࡸ⿵ᩥ࡛ࡢಽ⨨ V2 ㄒ㡰[lit. ‘This man, I think [that people have(7a)ࡀㄆྍࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

sometimes talked badly about t’]

man think I

that there(ibid : 33)(6) a. Icelandic(Vikner 1995: 72)
fariࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ୙ྍ౵᮲௳ࡢୗ࡛ࡣࠊ(8)ࡢᑐẚࢆࠊ

tomorrow will

escape hatch ࡢ᭷↓࡟ᖐࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ᭱ࡶ⮬↛࡛

Jón efasat um að á morgun
John doubt on that73࠶ࡿࠋ (8a)ࡢ Þessum hring ࡀ CP2 ࡢᣦᐃ㒊ࢆ

Stylish Fronting ࡣࠊ(11)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢ

༨ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ(8b)ࡢ⹫㎡ࡣ CP2 ࡢ୺ࡘ(ヲ⣽࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊHolmberg and Platzack

せ㒊࡟௜ຍࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࣛ࣋ࣝỴᐃࡢၥ㢟ࢆ

(1995),

ᅇ㑊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡺ࠼࡟ࠊCP2 ࡢ

Thráinsson (1990)➼ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸)ࠋ

Maling(1990),

Rögnvaldsson&edge ࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚せ⣲ࢆ᦬ฟࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟(11) a. ヰ㢟ࡸ↔Ⅼ࡜࠸ࡗࡓゎ㔘ࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ

࡜࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊTopic Island ࡢ㐪཯ࡀほᐹࡉࢀ1࡜࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊ୍⮴⣲ᛶࡶ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸࡞

࡞࠸ࠋ࠸⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿ.
(9)b. ๓⨨ࡉࢀࡿせ⣲ࡣࠊ㐣ཤศモࠊᙧᐜ

CP1
escape hatch

C’
C1モࠊ๪モࠊ୙ኚ໬モࠊྰᐃ㎡➼ࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡟୺せ㒊࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡉࢀࡿせ⣲࡟

CP2

að

㝈ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

C’
TP

C1
Það

Stylish Fronting ࡀ EPP/edge ⣲ᛶ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㥑

C1

hafi

ືࡉࢀࡿ୺せ㒊⛣ື᧯స࡛࠶ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ

C1

Stylish Fronting ࡟ࡼࡾ๓⨨ࡉࢀࡓせ⣲ࡣ୺せࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୍⮴⣲ᛶࢆඹ᭷ࡋ࡞࠸せ⣲ࡀే㒊࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊTopic Island ࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿࡇ࡜

ྜࡉࢀࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊᣦᐃ㒊̺୺せ㒊ࡢ㛵ಀࡣ࡞࠸࡜ண㸦Spec-Head Relation㸧ࢆᵓ⠏ࡏࡎࠊ୺せ㒊௜ࡢணࡍࡿࠋ(8a)࡜(12)ࡢᑐẚࡣࠊࡇࡀṇࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ຍ࡟ࡼࡾᙜヱࡢࣛ࣋ࣝࢆỴᐃࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺࢜
ࣉࢩࣙࣥࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟(12) Um Þennan atburðj vona ég [CP að [CP rætti

࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࢔࢖ࢫࣛࣥࢻㄒࡢ⹫㎡ࡢศᕸࡣࠊ

About this incident hope

Chomsky (2013, 2014)࡛ᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࣛ࣋

verði [ei ej á fundinum]]]ࣝỴᐃࡢ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒ࡢ⤒㦂ⓗドᣐ࡜ࡳ࡞gets+C [at the meeting ]]]ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

‘I hope that this incident will be discussed

I [CP that [CP talked+

at the meeting.’
3. ࢔࢖ࢫࣛࣥࢻㄒࡢ Stylistic Fronting(Rögnvaldsson and Thráinsson 1990: 32)

 ୖ㏙ࡢศᯒࡀṇࡋ࠸㝈ࡾ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ண

4. Allege /Wagerࡀᡂࡾ❧ࡘࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊEPP/edge⣲ᛶࡢࡳ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㥑ືࡉࢀࡿ⛣ືࡣࠊ୺せ㒊 ๓⠇ࡲ᳨࡛ウࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ2 Ⅼ࠶ࡿࠋ⛣ື࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ண ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࢔࢖ࢫࣛࣥࢻ

➨ 1 Ⅼ┠ࡣࠊEPP/edge ⣲ᛶࡢࡳ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㥑ື

ㄒࡢ Stylish Fronting ࡣࡲࡉ࡟ࡇࡢண ࢆ⿬ࡉࢀࡿ᧯స࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᣦᐃ㒊̺୺せ㒊ࡢ㛵ಀ௜ࡅࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ➨ 2 Ⅼ┠ࡣࠊ୺せ㒊࡟௜ຍࡍࡿ࢜ࣉࢩࣙࣥࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟
ࡼࡾࠊࣛ࣋ࣝࡀỴᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࢆᅇ(10) Ég hélt [CP1 að [CP2 kysst hefðu hana
I believed that㑊ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋkissed had her

margir stúdentar]] ࡇ ࡢ ⠇ ࡛ ࡣ ࠊ Postal (1974) ࡸ Bošković

her many students(1997)࡛㆟ㄽࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ≉Ṧ࡞ ECM ᵓᩥࡢ‘I believed that many students kissed her.’≉ᛶࡀࠊࣛ࣋ࣝỴᐃࡢ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ
⛣ືࡢᏑᅾ࠿ࡽண

(Vikner 1995: 116)74ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ㄽࡌࡿࠋ

 allege ➼ࡢ wager 㢮ືモࡢ ECM ⿵ᩥ୺ㄒBošković (1997)࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊ(15)ཬࡧ(16)ࡀᩥἲⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ௨ୗ 3 Ⅼࡢ≉␗࡞ᛶ㉁ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ

࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ➼఩᥋⥆ࡉࢀࡓ௦ྡモࡢࡲࡎࠊྡモྃ(᭱኱ᢞᑕ)ࡣ ECM ⿵ᩥࡢ୺౛࡛࠶ࡿ(17)ࡀ㠀ᩥ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊᙜヱせ⣲ࡀ୺せ㒊࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘ࠿ྰ࠿࡟

ㄒ఩⨨࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

㑏ඖ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡋࡼ࠺ࠋࡍࡿ࡜ࠊECM ⿵ᩥࡢ୺ㄒ఩⨨࡟ㄢࡉࢀࡿ᮲௳ࡣࠊ(18)ࡢࡼ࠺

(13) a. * He alleged Melvin to be a pimp.

࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

(Postal 1974: 304)
b.* John wagered a stranger to have been inthat haunted house. (Bošković 1997: 58)(18)

wager 㢮ືモࡢ ECM ୺ㄒࡢ఩⨨࡟࡜࡝ࡲࢀࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊᢞᑕࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸⠊␪㸦୺

(cf. John believes Mary to have kissed Bill)せ㒊㸧ࡢࡳ࡛ࠊᢞᑕࡋࡓ⠊␪ࡣ⛣ືࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࡞࠸ࠋ

ḟ࡟ࠊWh ⛣ື➼࡟ࡼࡾ ECM ⿵ᩥࡢ୺ㄒ
ࡀ⛣ືࡍࡿ࡜ᐜㄆྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ(18)ࡀࣛ࣋ࣝỴᐃࡢ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒
(14) a.

ࡀண

Who did they allege to be a pimp?

ࡍࡿ⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ ࡛ࡣࠊࡲࡎ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ ECM ᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ

(Postal 1974: 305)

believe ᆺࡢὴ⏕࠿ࡽぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ(19)ࡢ㛵㐃b. Who did John wager to be crazy?

ࡍࡿ㒊ศࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊECM ⿵ᩥࡢ VP ࡢࣛ(Bošković 1997: 61)࣋ࣝỴᐃࡢὴ⏕ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡢࡀ(20)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ2᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ⹫㎡ࡸ௦ྡモࡣࠊECM ⿵ᩥࡢ୺ㄒ఩⨨࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

(19) I believed John to be crazy.
(20) a. <ᇶᗏ㸼(15) a.

He alleged there to be stolenv(EPP ȭ) [VP V [to be [John(ȭ) crazy]]]

documents in the drawer.

b. <⣲ᛶࡢ⥅ᢎ v V㸼

(Bošković 1997: 58)

v [VP V(EPP ȭ) [to be John(ȭ) crazy]]]b. John wagered there to have been ac. <ȭ⣲ᛶࡢඹ᭷࡟ࡼࡿࣛ࣋ࣝỴᐃ>

stranger in that haunted house.

v [<ȭȭ> John(ȭ) [VP V(EPP ȭ) [to be t

(Bošković 1997: 58)(16) a.

crazy]]]]

Mary alleged him to have kissed Janeࡲࡎࠊv ࡢ EPP ⣲ᛶ࡜ȭ⣲ᛶࡀ V ࡟⥅ᢎࡉࢀ

(Bošković 1997: 58)

ࡿ[(20b)]ࠋJohn ࡢȭ⣲ᛶࡢ್ࡀ V ࡢȭ⣲ᛶb. Mary never alleged him to be crazy.

ࡢ್ࢆỴᐃࡋࠊEPP ⣲ᛶࡢせㄳ࡟ࡼࡾࠊJohn(Bošković 1997: 59)

ࡀ V ࡢᢞᑕ࡜ෆⓗ࡟ేྜࡉࢀࡿ[(20c)]ࠋࡇࡢ
ࡇࡇ࡛␃ពࡍ࡭ࡁⅬࡣࠊ(17)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢹ࣮

㝿ࠊV ࡢᢞᑕࡶ John ࡶȭ⣲ᛶࢆඹ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸

ࢱࡢᏑᅾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡿࡓࡵࠊᙜヱࡢෆⓗేྜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᙧᡂࡉࢀࡓ
ᢞᑕࡢࣛ࣋ࣝࡀࠊ⣲ᛶඹ᭷࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ỵᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋ(17) a. * Mary alleged him and her to havekissed Jane wager 㢮ືモࡢ ECM ୺ㄒࡢศᯒ࡟⛣ࡿ๓

(Bošković 1997: 59)

࡟ࠊ௨ୗࡢᑐẚࢆほᐹࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ

b.* Mary never alleged him and her to be
crazy.

(Bošković 1997: 59)75

 ࡇࡢࣛ࣋ࣝỴᐃࡢ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒࡟ࡼࡿศ

(21) a. Mike viciously alleged/announced herᯒࡣࠊ(14-16)ࡢᩥἲᛶ࡟┤ᡖⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂ࢆ୚࠼

to be a liar.

ࡿࠋwager 㢮ືモࡢ ECM ⿵ᩥࡢ୺ㄒ఩⨨࡟ࠊ

b.?*Mike viciously believed her to be aliar.

ྡモྃࡀ࡜࡝ࡲࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊ⣲ᛶ

(Nishikawa and Matsumoto 2007:235)

ࢆඹ᭷ࡋ࡞࠸୺せ㒊࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ 2 ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡀేྜࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ࡝ࡕࡽ

(21)ࡣࠊallege ➼ࡢ wager 㢮ືモࡣࠊbelieve࠿୍᪉ࢆ⛣ືࡉࡏࡿ࡜ࠊࣛ࣋ࣝࡢỴᐃࡀྍ⬟ࡢࡼ࠺࡞඾ᆺⓗ࡞ ECM ືモ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊື

࡜࡞ࡿ࡜ணస୺ᚿྥࡢ๪モ࡜ඹ㉳࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚(14)ࡢ㐺᱁ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(14b)ࡢ㛵ಀࡍࡿ㒊ศࢆ࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ஦ᐇࡣࠊ
wager 㢮ືモࡢ v ࡀ believe♧ࡋࡓࡢࡀ(25)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ3ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢண

ࢆ⿬௜ࡅࡿࡢࡀࠊᆺືモࡢ v ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ
wager 㢮ືモࡢ ECM ⿵ᩥ࡜ believe(25) a. <ᇶᗏ㸼ᆺືモࡢ ECM ⿵ᩥࡢ⤫ㄒⓗᕪ␗ࡀࠊv ࡢᛶv(EPP ȭ) [VP V [to be [who(ȭ) crazy]]]㉁ࡢ㐪࠸࡟㑏ඖ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋࠊ(22)ࢆᥦ᱌

b. <⣲ᛶࡢ⥅ᢎ v V(ȭࡢࡳ)㸼

ࡍࡿࠋ

v(EPP) [VP V(ȭ) [to be who (ȭ) crazy]]]c. <v ࡢᢞᑕᢞᑕ࡜ who ࡢෆⓗేྜ>(22) allege /wager ࡢ v ࡣࠊEdge/EPP ⣲ᛶࢆ V[?? who(ȭ) [vP v(EPP) [VP V(ȭ) [to be t࡟⥅ᢎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃಖᣢࡋ⥆ࡅࡿࠋ

crazy]]]]
d.< who ࡢ᭦࡞ࡿ⛣ື>࡛ࡣࠊ(22)࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊwager 㢮ືモࡢ୙ᐃ⿵whoᩥࡢὴ⏕ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ぢࡼ࠺ࠋ

crazy]]]][vP t [v’ v(EPP) [VP V(ȭ ) [to be t(23) * I alleged John to be crazy.

(25c)ࡲ࡛ࡢὴ⏕ࡢࢫࢸࢵࣉࡣࠊ
㸦24㸧ࡢὴ⏕(24) a. <ᇶᗏ㸼

࡜ᮏ㉁ⓗ࡟ྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࠋỴᐃⓗ࡞㐪࠸ࡣࠊ
who ࡢ᭦࡞ࡿ⛣ື࡟ࡼࡾࠊJohn ࡜ v ࡢᢞᑕࡀv(EPP ȭ) [VP V [to be [John(ȭ) crazy]]]ෆⓗ࡟ేྜࡉࢀ࡚ᙧᡂࡉࢀࡓᢞᑕࡢࣛ࣋ࣝ

b. <⣲ᛶࡢ⥅ᢎ v V(ȭࡢࡳ)㸼

ࢆỴᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋv(EPP) [VP V(ȭ) [to be John(ȭ) crazy]]]c. <v ࡢᢞᑕࡢࣛ࣋ࣝࡀỴᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸> (15-16)ࡶྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ୺せ㒊௜[?? John(ȭ ) [vP v(EPP) [VP V(ȭ ) [to be tຍ࡟ࡼࡾࠊࣞ࣋ࣝỴᐃࡢၥ㢟ࢆᅇ㑊࡛ࡁࡿࡇ

crazy]]]]࡜ ࢆ ࠊ ࢔ ࢖ ࢫ ࣛ ࣥ ࢻ ㄒ ࡢ CP-expletive ࡸStylistic Inversion ࡟ࡼࡾ♧ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ⹫㎡ࡸ

ࡲࡎࠊv ࡢȭ⣲ᛶࡢࡳࡀ V ࡟⥅ᢎࡉࢀࠊEPP

௦ྡモࡣࠊ୺せ㒊࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࡓࡵࠊ

⣲ᛶࡣ v ࡟ṧ␃ࡍࡿ[(24b)]ࠋḟ࡟ࠊJohn ࡢȭv ࡬ࡢ୺せ㒊௜ຍ࡟ࡼࡾࠊࣛ࣋ࣝỴᐃࡢၥ㢟⣲ᛶࡢ್ࡀ V ࡢȭ⣲ᛶࡢ್ࢆỴᐃࡍࡿࠋࡑ

ࢆᅇ㑊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡼ࠺ࠋࡋ࡚ࠊEPP ⣲ᛶࡢせㄳ࡟ࡼࡾ John ࡜ v ࡢᢞᑕࡀෆⓗ࡟ేྜࡉࢀࡿ[(24c)]ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊv ࡢ

(26)

vP

ᢞᑕ࡜ John ࡣȭ⣲ᛶ➼ࡢ⣲ᛶࡀඹ᭷ࡉࢀ࡚

v࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊᙜヱࡢෆⓗేྜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚

expletive/pronounᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡓᢞᑕࡢࣛ࣋ࣝࡀỴᐃ࡛ࡁࡎࠊ㠀ᩥ
5. ࡲ࡜ࡵ

࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

76

VP
v(EPP)

to be …….

ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ
ࠕEPP/edge ⣲ᛶࡢࡳ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㥑ືᯒ࡟ࡶྠᵝࡢၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡉࢀࡿ᧯స࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᣦᐃ㒊̺୺せ㒊ࡢ㛵ಀࡓ࠸ࠋ㸦Spec-Head Relation㸧ࢆᵓ⠏࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸

2࠺࿨㢟ࡀ⤒㦂ⓗ࡟ࡶጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋྜୖ┬␎ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡝ࡢ఩⨨ࡲ࡛⧞ࡾୖࡀࡿ

ࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊLabeling Algorithm ࡢ⤒㦂࠿࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᮏ✏ࡢศᯒࡢጇᙜᛶ࡜↓㛵ಀⓗ࡟ᨭᣢࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ

࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ ᭱ᚋ࡟ᮏ✏ࡢྵពࢆ⡆༢࡟㏙࡭࡚࠾ࡃࠋᮏ

3✏ࡣࠊ⛣ືࡢ᭱⤊╔ᆅⅬ࡟ EPP/Edge ⣲ᛶࡀ

There ᵓᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୺せ㒊௜ຍศᯒࢆ㐺⏝ᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆྵពࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠊ㐃⥆࡛ࡁࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆ㏣ồࡍ࡭ࡁ࡜ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ

ᚠ⎔⛣ືࡢ୰㛫╔ᆅⅬ࡬ࡢ⛣ື࡜᭱⤊╔ᆅ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᖸ΅ᅉᏊࡢไᚚ

Ⅼ࡬ࡢ⛣ື࡟ࡣࠊEPP/Edge ⣲ᛶࡀ㛵୚ࡍࡿἲࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊECM ືモࡢ⛣ືࡣࠊㄝ᫂ࡢ㒔㜿㒊₶ඛ⏕ࠊ໭ཎஂႹඛ⏕ࡼࡾࠊⱥㄒࡢ

ࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ᧯సࢆ㥑ືࡍࡿせᅉࡀ␗㉁࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Authier, J.-Marc (1992) “Iterated CPs andࡿࠋేྜ᧯స࡟ࢥࢫࢺ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡀ㐺⏝ࡉࢀ

Embedded࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺❧ሙࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ⌧ᅾࡢࢩࢫࢸ

Topicalization,”

Linguistic

Inquiry 23, 329–336.

࣒ࡣࠊ㐃⥆ᚠ⎔⛣ືࡢ୰㛫╔ᆅⅬ࡬ࡢ⛣ືࡢ

Bošković, Željko (1997) The Syntax of Nonfiniteࡓࡵࡢ⣲ᛶࢆ≉࡟௬ᐃࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶᶵ⬟ࡋ࠺

Complementation: An Economy Approach,ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊbelieve

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

ᆺ ECM ᵓᩥ࡜ wager 㢮ືモࡢ㐪࠸ࡀࠊ

Chomsky,Noam(2008)“On

Phases,”

EPP/Edge ⣲ᛶ༢⊂࡛㥑ືࡉࢀࡿ⛣ືࡀᏑᅾFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺௬ㄝ࠿ࡽᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ

Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,ᮏ✏ࡢ㆟ㄽࡀṇࡋ࠸㝈ࡾ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⛣ືࡢ᭱

ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos Peregrín⤊╔ᆅⅬ࡟ࡣ EPP/Edge ⣲ᛶࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜

Otero⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

133-166, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊedge-to-edge ࡛⛣ືࡍࡿ୰㛫ࢫࢸ

Chomsky,ࢵࣉࡢ⛣ື࡜᭱⤊ẁ㝵ࡢ⛣ືࡣ㉁ⓗ࡟␗࡞

and

Maria

Noam

Luisa

(2013)

Zubizarreta,“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.

ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ

Chomsky,Noam(2014)“ProblemsofProjection: Extensions,” ms.
* Ⓨ⾲ࡢ㝿࡟ࡣࠊ㜿㒊₶ඛ⏕ࠊ໭ཎஂႹඛ⏕ࠊ

Fanselow, Gilbert and Anoop Mahajan (2000)

୰ᮧኴ୍ඛ⏕ࠊỌ㇂୓㔛㞝ඛ⏕ࠊ㉺ᬛṇ⏨ඛ“A Minimalist theory of Wh-expletives,⏕ࠊᮡᓮ㖔ྖඛ⏕ࠊᔱᮧ㈉ᚿඛ⏕ࠊ℧⏣೺௓Wh-copying and Successive Cyclicity,” ed.

ඛ⏕࡟㈗㔜࡞ࡈ♧၀ࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋⓎ⾲ࡢ‽ഛẁ

by㝵࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊⳢ㔝ᝅඛ⏕ࠊᡞ⃝㝯ᘯඛ⏕ࠊᡞ

Wh-scopeሯᑗඛ⏕࠿ࡽ᭷┈࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋグࡋ

Benjamins, Philadelphia.

MüllerandMarking,vonStechow,

195-230,

John

Holmberg, Anders and Christer Platzack (1995)࡚ឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࠋ
1

Lutz,

ὀ

The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian℧⏣೺௓ඛ⏕ࡼࡾࠊ」ྜ୺せ㒊㸦complex

Syntax, Oxford University Press, NewYork.

head㸧ࡢᙧᡂ࡟㛵ࡍࡿၥ㢟ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺ᣦ

Maling, Joan (1990) “Inversion in Embedded᦬ࢆ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊwager 㢮ືモࡢศ

77

Clauses Modern Icelandic,” Syntax and
Semantics 24: Modern Icelandic Syntax, ed.
by Joan Maling and Annie Zaenen, 71-91,
Academic Press, San Diego.
Nishikawa, Morio and Tomoko Matsumoto(2007)“Some

AspectsofInfinitival

Complements in English,” The Humanities
56, 229-240, Kumamoto University.
Postal, Paul M. (1974) On Raising: An Inquiry
into One Rule of English Grammar and Its
Theoretical

Implications,MIT

Press,

Cambridge, MA.
Rögnvaldsson,

EiríkurandHöskuldur

Thráinsson (1990) “On Icelandic Word
Order Once More,” Syntax and Semantics
24: Modern Icelandic Syntax, ed. by Joan
Malingand

Annie

Zaenen,71-91,

Academic Press, SanDiego.
Travis, Lisa (1984) Parameters and Effects ofWord Order Variation, Doctoral dissertation,
MIT.
Vikner, Sten (1995) Verb Movement andExpletive Subject in Germanic Language,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Watanabe,

Akira

Recursion,(1993)

Factive“LarsonianCP

Complements,

andSelection,” NELS 23, 523-537.

78

can be understood as verbal irony.
(3) a. Sue: That’s the most reliable words I
have ever heard.
b. Sue: Finally.

Gradualness of Verbal Irony from the
Perspective of Attributed Source*c. Sue: Rome wasn’t built in a day.
What we notice from the examples above is thatYuki Morita

there is a kind of gradualness within the

Graduate School of Nara Women’s University

category of verbal irony, such that the term
encompasses various utterances that fit Wilson’s
definition.

Keywords㸸pragmatics, Relevance theory, verbal

Although such gradualness can be observed

irony, attribution, echoic use

in simple examples, the existence of gradualness
is rarely supposed within a single category ofverbal irony1. Since Wilson (2009) suggested

1. Introduction
In the Relevance-theoretic account, verbal

two essential elements for verbal irony, it should

irony has been characterized as an echoic

be necessary to account for each element tointerpretive use, where speakers echo utterances

examine which element affects the gradualness

or thoughts that resemble in the original content.

of verbal irony.
This paper focuses on the attributed source(1) Jack: I’ve finally finished my paper.

of verbal irony, as verbal irony essentiallySue (dismissively): You’ve finished yourinclude hearer’s identification of what the

paper! How often have I heard you say

utterance is attributed to. Verbal irony is alsothat?

examined from both speakers’ and hearers’(Wilson (2009: 202))perspectives. This paper also analyzes data from
Wilson (2009) defined verbal irony as

movies and TV cartoons.

attributive, and the speakers express ironicalattitudes that dissociate themselves from what

2. Previous studies

they attribute to.

As mentioned in the introduction, thegradualness of verbal irony is rarely identified(2) “Ironical utterances, I have argued, are not

and featured in the literature. This could be

only attributive but dissociative: the speakerbecause this gradualness is simply left as an

expresses a dissociative attitude to theassumption.

attributed thought, indicating that it is false,
under-informative, or irrelevant.”

2.1. Gradualness of lie(ibid: 221, underline mine)

Since gradualness of verbal irony is notdiscussed in most studies, let us look at a study

As might be expected, there are also otherthat deals with lying. Coleman and Kay (1981)

expressions that satisfy Wilson’s definition andsuggested

79

three

prototypeelementstoIt is also noteworthy that Wilson (2014)
mentioned the salience of verbal irony.

characterize English word lie as follows:(4) a. P is false.

(7) “According to the echoic account, not only isb. S believes P to be false.

echoing essential to irony, but the morec. In uttering P, S intends to deceive A.

salient the echoic element is, the more likely(Coleman and Kay (1981: 28))

the irony is to be perceived.”(Wilson (2014: 7))

In their study, they pointed out that even when
not all three prototype elements are satisfied, theAccording to Wilson (2014), the echoic elementutterances are still considered to be a lie.

is crucial to the salience of verbal irony. It also(5) “The

notionofprototypefollows that understanding verbal irony depends

definition

on how salient the echoic element is. Let us

suggests that utterances which have allcompare two examples, one where the echoic

three of the elements above would beconsideredfull-fledged

lies,

and

element is explicit and the other contains anthatimplicit or unclear echoic element:utterances which lack one or more of theelements might still be classed as lies, but(8) a. Peter: Ah, the old songs are still the best.

less clearly so” (ibid: 28, underline mine)

Mary (contemptuously): Still the best!
(Wilson and Sperber (1988: 145))

As underlined above, the number of theb. (Students are chatting with each other,elements present affect hearer’s understanding

and a teacher came in to the classroom)of the lie. Although they do not mention

Teacher: Looks like you guys are readygradualness, their study implied that there are

to work.

both “full-fledged” lies, and “incomplete” lies in
the category of lie.

In (8a), Mary’s ironical utterance is attributed toPeter’s utterance where he asserts his musical2.2. Gradualness of verbal irony

preference.

As cited above, from the Relevance-theoreticMarypartiallyquotesPeter’sutterance, and expresses her dissociative attitude

approach, verbal irony is attributive and at the

toward the attributed utterance.

same time, speakers express their dissociative

What her attitude reflects is that Mary does

attitude toward the attributed utterance or

not agree with the content of the utterance shethought. Wilson and Sperber (2012) stated thatechoes, and thus dissociates herself from that

irony could be attributed to a broader source

content.

(e.g., people, objects, events).

Whenhearers

encountersuch

conversations, it is possible for them to identify
the attributed source easily since the utterance is(6) “Notice that mockery and contempt are

attributed to Peter’s immediately previous

attitudes which can be expressed not only toutterance.

thoughts, but also to people, objects, events,

As for (8b), the teacher’s utterance isand so on.”attributed to a general expectation that students(Wilson and Sperber (2012: 141))80

should be working. Echoing such expectation instatement based on how clearly they were able

a situation where it is not satisfied is also

to detect its verbal irony. On the scale, fiveconsidered a type of attribution. Nevertheless,indicates it was easily understood as ironic,

for most of the hearers, (8a) is easily perceivable

while one meant it was the least easily

as a verbal irony. The difference between (8a)understood. Below, the mean value is calculatedand (8b) is how easily hearers can identify thefor each example, and arranged from highest to

attributed source of the ironic utterance.

lowest within the compared group.

So far, by observing the previous examples,
it is reasonable to think that the discussion of

3.2. Resultsverbal irony should account for how easily

First, we used the example from Wilson

hearers can identify the attributed source. It(2009) as in (9) along with two other examples

should also be pointed out here that thewhere the explicitness of the attributed source

identification of the attributed source is one ofwas modified, like in (10). Participants’ mean

the factors contributing to the various degrees ofrating value is given in (11):verbal irony.
(9) Jack: I’ve finally finished my paper.
Sue (dismissively): You’ve finished your

3. Analysis

paper! How often have I heard you say

The analysis in this section offers insight forthat?

the existence of the gradualness of verbal irony,(Wilson (2009: 202))(10) a. Sue: That’s the most reliable words I

and demonstrates how the gradualness affects
hearers’ understanding of given utterances. The

have ever heard.

data was collected based on Wilson’s definition,b. Sue: Finally.

which is cited in the introduction. The followingc. Sue: Rome wasn’t built in a day.

analysis demonstrates two main points. Firstly,(11) (10a) 3.8 , (9) 2.4 , (10b) 2.0 , (10c) 1.8

from the speaker’s perspective, we observe how
explicitness of the attributed source affects

It was hypothesized that (9) would be theverbal irony detection. The second point focuses

highest scored since it best fits Wilson’s

on how and why hearer’s identification of thedefinition. Contrary to this expectation, (11) was

attributed source affects their understanding ofrated the highest in the group. Two factors areverbal irony.

considered to have led to this unexpected result.
First, for (10a), the demonstrative pronoun‘that’ in the sentence indicates that the utterance

3.1. Methodology
using ais attributed to something mentioned in thepaper-based questionnaire. Five English native

immediate context, or at least something

speakers participated in the examination. The

identifiable by the hearer. The use of aquestionnaire was conducted in consecutive two

demonstrative pronoun implies that the form ofsteps.

verbal irony does not have to precisely replicate

The

analysis

wasconducted

the attributed utterances or thoughts.

First, participants were asked whether the

Furthermore,

given examples were ironic. The participantsin thequestionnaire, theattitude denoted in the brackets was not shown

then used a five-point scale to evaluate the ironic81

in order to examine the attributed source’s affect

The next example attested to how theexclusively. Since the participants were shown

attributed source could be outside of utterances

the example without the attitude, it is possibleor thoughts. The ironical utterance in example

that the participants recognized the utterance in(15) was attributed to an expectation thatits non-ironic echoic use. Having said this, theMiranda had before she met Daniel:

participants may have understood (9)’s verbal
irony after they noticed how Sue’s response(15) (The children sit at the table, subdued.

includes a rhetorical question. Considering these

Miranda, angrily burst into the room.

points, it is reasonable to think that (10a) was

Daniel turns to her.)more

Daniel: Hi. (Miranda looks around thesalient

unexpectedtoresultparticipants.
is

not

Thus,

the

consideredaroom.)
Miranda: Oh, Daniel, charming.

counter-example of this research.
Example (9) was from Wilson (2009), which

Daniel: Thank you, Miranda. I…I was

was used to explain her definition of verbal

going kind for a refugee motif, you know,

irony. The following example is from a TV

fleeing my homeland kind of thing. But

cartoon, which further illustrate the existence oflook at you! This lovely Dances withverbal irony gradualness.

Wolves motif! What’s your Indian name?
Shop With A Fist?
Miranda: Are my children ready yet?

(12) (Bart and Marge are looking at a picture(Mrs.Doubtfire (1993), underline mine)from seven years ago.)(16) a. Miranda: The San Diego Zoo.

Bart: You don’t look like a mom. You lookb. Miranda: Alice in Wonderland.

happy.

(17) (15) 3.6 , (16a) 3.0 , (16b) 2.6

Marge: We called ourselves the cool moms.
Bart: There’s nothing cooler than callingyourselves cool.     

In example (15), Miranda went to her estranged(The Simpsons (2011), brackets and underline

husband’s home to pick up their kids. Miranda

mine)

was visiting his home for the first time, and she
walked into Daniel’s messy room. Miranda’s(13) a. Bart: The cool moms.

ironicalb. Bart: Appearances are deceptive.

utterance

wasattributed

to

her

expectation of a clean room. By echoing her(14) (12) 3.8 , (13a) 2.2 , (13b) 1.4

expectation when it is not satisfied at all,
Miranda does not believe that the room is clean.

In this example, Bart partially quotes hisutterance.

Example (16a) was from a previous situation

Example (13) was shown to examine how

in the movie where Daniel brought a mobile zoo

quotation

hearer’s

truck home for his son’s birthday party while

identification of the attributed source. The order

Miranda is out. The example was shown toof the numbers in (14) attests that the longer thecompare with example (15), where the attributed

echoic element is, the easier it is for the hearer tosource was immediate in respect to when it was

identify the attributed source, especially when ituttered. Example (16a) was uttered previously,

was uttered in the immediate context.

and not in the context in question. Thus, themother’s

immediately
lengthprevious

affectedthe82

hearer needs to work harder to identify theto use. Afterward, Miranda easily found out that

attributed source when example (16a) is uttered

Daniel taught Natalie the inappropriate words.

in the context of the example (15). The result

Thus, as Daniel tried to protest his involvement,suggests that when the hearer cannot identify the

Miranda produces the ironic statement.

attributed source from the context present, it

Like example (9), Miranda’s turn contains

takes more effort to identify the utterance’s

two sentences that are an assertion and a

attributed source. As a result, even thoughrhetoricalparticipants understand the given examples as

understood as verbal irony, or is only the firstironic, the examples were not deemed explicit.

sentence deemed as verbal irony? In examples

question.

Are

both

sentence

Having seen Wilson’s example in example(19a) and (19b), the form of the sentences from(9), one might wonder if example (9) was lessexample (18) were maintained; these examples

explicit than (10a) because example (9) was

were shown were shown separately to thefollowed by a rhetorical question, and thus

participants.

helping the hearer recognize that the utterance is

The mean value in (20) indicates that the

not literal. What and how does the following

original quotation containing the two sentences

ironic sentence work? Let us consider the

had the highest value. Comparing the mean

example below:

value of (19b) and (19a), the rhetorical question
scored slightly higher than the assertion. Since
the mean value between (19b) and (19a) are not(18) Daniel: Look. The kids love it.
Natalie: Mommy, please, please.

far apart, it can be said that sentence form does

Miranda: I’ll think about it.

not directly contribute to the explicitness of

Natalie: We’re his goddamn kids, too!

verbal irony. Rather, the sentence’s form helps(Miranda looks accusingly at Daniel.)

facilitate the hearer’s identification of theDaniel: Kids say the darnedest things.

attributed source. For example, (19a) was scored(Miranda chuckles in a phony way.)slightly higher because the phrase like ‘any other

Miranda: Thank you. Any other choicechoice phrase’ implied that Miranda was surephrases you’d like to teach our five-year old,

DanielDaniel?

inappropriate to Natalie; it subsequently helps

previously

taughtsomething

Daniel, the hearer of the verbal irony, to identify(Mrs. Doubtfire (1993), brackets andwhat Miranda’s utterance is attributed to.

underline mine)

In sum, verbal irony is explicit to the hearer(19) a. Miranda: Thank you.
b. Any other choice phrases you’d like towhen it contains more sentences, but only if theteach our five-year old, Daniel?

sentence helps hearers to identify the attributed
source.

(20) (18) 4.0 , (19b) 3.2 , (19a) 3.0

The last set of examples in (21) to (23)In example (18), the couple’s daughter Natalie

illustrates how unintended verbal irony can be

asked her mother Miranda for more time to see

mistakenly understood. In example (21), Andyher father Daniel. However, Miranda disagreed

goes to a publishing company to interview for anwith Natalie’s idea, and Natalie answered withassistant position. Emily is a secretary at thewords that a five-year old child is not supposedcompany and she waits for Andy at the entrance.

83Once Emily meets Andy at the reception desk,

So far, we have seen examples that wereEmily realized that Andy was not wearing

intended to communicate to the hearer directly.

clothes suitable for an assistant at a fashion

However, in example (21), verbal irony was not

magazine company:

directed to the hearer but instead to otherindividuals in the situation. Thus, in the(21) Andy: Hi, uh, I have an appointment with…

questionnaire, the participants were asked to

Emily Charlton?

judge the example as if they were the audience(A young woman, Emily Charlton, appears

in that situation. Example (22a) was meant toby the receptionist desk.)

examine how an adjective denoting evaluation

Emily: Andrea Sachs?

generate non-literalness. Example (22b) is an

Andy: Yes?

example of an utterance clearly directed at the

Emily: Great. Human Resources certainly

hearer.

has an odd sense of humor. Follow me.
(Andy

gives

a

weak

smile

to

The result in (23) attest that hearer’s
theintention to communicate ironical utterance isreceptionist and follows Emily down a busy

crucial to trigger the detection of verbal irony.

corridor.)

Here, the purpose of showing ‘Great’, the(The Devil Wears Prada (2006), brackets andexample (21) and ‘Good’, the example (22a) tounderline mine)

participants was to examine the affects that the(22) a. Emily:

Good.

Human

Resources

object of the evaluation gets blurry, and thecertainly has an odd sense of humor.

followingb. Emily: You’re so fashionable.

cannot be attributed to due to the lack of clues tosentence,‘Human(23) (22b) 4.4 , (21) 3.2 , (22a) 1.2

identify the attributed source.

In the example, Emily’s ironical utterance was

3.3. Summary

Resources…’

attributed to her expectation that interviewees

So far, we have analyzed examples fromwill wear suitable clothes, which was not met

previous studies, movies, and TV cartoons. We

when she saw Andy. Emily’s utterance was not

now summarize the results and claims from theintended to communicate to Andy, and Andy

previous subsection.

also did not interpret the utterance as verbal

First, in the case where the attributed source

irony in the movie.

of verbal irony can be identified from a given

From Andy’s perspective, as the hearer, she

context, a hearer has more information on what

did not have enough assumptions to recognize

could be the utterance’s attributed source. As athat Emily’s utterance is attributively used; inresult, by being able to identify the source, thefact, she could not have access to attributed

hearer can understand the utterance as ironic..

source. From the speaker’s side, Emily did not

On the other hand, for when a hearer cannot

intend to communicate her utterance since she

identify the attributed source from a given

knows that Andy does not have enoughcontext, the hearer may not have access to theassumptions to interpret Emily’ utterance asnecessary information and fail to identify theironic. Instead of being ironic, Emily’s ironicalattributed source of the utterance. In such cases,

utterance was meant for her own satisfaction.

additional clues (e.g., tone of voice or facial

84expressions)

would

be

necessary(WilsonSemantics:(2014)).

The

English

Word

Lie,”

Language 57, 26-44.
Higashimori, Isao and Akiko Yoshimura (2003)
Kanrenseiriron no Shintenkai: Ninchi to

4. Conclusion
In this paper, I suggested that it was worth

Communication (A New Development ofconsidering the varying degrees of verbal irony

Relevance

when discussing the understanding of verbal

Communication), Kenkyusha, Tokyo.

irony.

Theory:CognitionandSperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson (1981) “Irony

Since there are limited studies that deal withand Use-Mention Distinction,” Radicalsuch topic, we have reviewed some studies that

Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 295-318,

imply the existence of the gradualness. By

Academic Press, New York.

looking closely at the attributed source of each

Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson (1986/19952)

example, I conclude that the explicitness of theRelevance: Communication and Cognition,

attributed source of verbal irony contributes toBlackwell, Oxford.

the gradualness. Moreover, it is worth noting

Wilson,Deirdre(2009)“Ironyandthat the more easily hearers can identify theMetarepresentation,” UCL Working Papers

attributedin Linguistics 21, 183-226.

sourcethe better they areatunderstanding verbal irony.

Wilson, Deirdre (2014) “Irony, Hyperbole, Jokes,

This paper’s discussion further suggests theand Banter,” Papers Dedicated to Jacquesneed for investigations into the varying degrees

Moeschler, ed. by Joanna Blochowiak,of other factors, such as speaker’s dissociative

Cristina Grisot, Stéphanie Durreleman-attitude or the harshness of the utterances.

Tame and Christopher Laenzlinger, Genève.
<www.unige.ch/lettres/linguistique/moesch
ler/Festschrift/Festschrift.php >*This paper is the revised and extended versionof the paper presented at the 33rd Conference ofWilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber (1988)

The English Linguistics Society of Japan held at“Representation and Relevance,” Mental

Kansai Gaidai University on November 22, 2015.

Representations: The Interface between

I would like to express my gratitude to the

Language and Reality, ed. by Ruth M.

audience

for

their

Kempson, 133-153, Cambridge University

constructive comments and questions.

This

Press, Cambridge.

at

the

presentation

Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber (1992) “On

research was supported in part by Nara Women’s

Verbal Irony,” Lingua 87, 53-76.

University Intramural Grant for Young Women

Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber (2012)

Researchers.
NOTES
1
In association with the gradualness, Wilson“Explaining

Irony,”(2014) discussed the continuum of verbal irony

Press, Cambridge.

Meaning

andRelevance, 123-145, Cambridge University

and relating expressions (e.g. hyperboles, jokes).
REFERENCES
Coleman, Kay and Paul Kay (1981) “Prototype85

Let us start with the synchronic category of
a- in the PE grammar. In the literature, we find
three views: (i) a- as an adjectivalizing affix, (ii)a- as a bound form of the category P, and (iii) aas a bound form of the category Pred.

The Category and Historical Development of
the Prefix a-*

2.1. a- as an AdjectivalizerTraditionally,isa-classified

asan

Akiko Nagano

adjectivalizing derivational affix (Marchand

Tohoku University(1969), Quirk et al. (1986), Beard (1995), Baueret al. (2013), among others). In my view, theKeywords㸸adjectivalization, grammaticalization,

most serious challenge to this classification isword-formation rules, productivity change

the fact that derivational morphology rarely
derives new words of a type nonexistent in
simplex, canonical vocabulary (cf. Nagano andShimada1. Introduction(2015)).

That

is,

derivational

The aim of this paper is to show that themorphology of a language does not change but

prefix a-, which goes back to stationary

rather expands its vocabulary. This means that if

prepositions in Old English (OE) and remains in

a- is an adjectivalizer, a-words should behave

words like afoot, aloud, ashore, and asleep, islike common English non-derived adjectives.
Now, consider the following three-way

not an adjectivalizing affix but rather a boundfundamental variation of simplex adjectives:

form of the functional category Pred (Bowers(1993), Baker (2003)) or Path (Ramchand(1) a.

(2008)). Also, it will be shown that predicative

Adjectives that can be used botha-words come from two different sources:

attributively and predicatively, often

grammaticalization

with a shift in meaning or form.

(HopperandTraugottb.

(2003)) and a word-formation rule (Aronoff

Adjectives

that

can

be

used

attributively but not predicatively(1976)). Although a- has been largely neglectedin word formation research due to its low

c.

productivity in Present-day English (PE), it is a

Adjectives

that

can

be

used

predicatively but not attributively

significant affix that shows that diachrony cangive rise to a synchronically peculiar affix.

According

to

Baker

(2003:ch.4),

some

There are several homophonous a- prefixes,

languages have the adjectival lexical stock thatbut our topic is the one etymologically related tois limited either to the type (1b) or to the typethe prepositions on, in, and of (Markus 1998:(1c). Other languages, including English, have137). We callitadjectives of the type (1a). English does possess“a-words.” Data without source information areseveral adjectives that belong to (1b) or (1c), buttaken from BNC.

from a cross-linguistic standpoint, its adjectival

words beginning withvocabulary is of the type (1a). If so, a- cannot be
2. Synchronic Category of the Prefix a-counted as an adjectivalizing derivational affix

86because a-words differ from English simplex

consistent with the left-headedness of a-words

adjectives in being predicative-only:

becausethey

map

a-words

ontophrasal2structures.
(2) a.
b.

The children are asleep.
2.2. a- as a P

the children asleep

 Markus (1998) and Dixon (2014: 265) claimc. * the asleep children(Markus (1998: 135))

that a- is a form of P, maintaining its original
category. In the split P analysis to be discussed

For the treatment of affixes producing so-called

in section 2.3, this P is Place. They argue that

relational adjectives, see Nagano and Shimada

this view accounts for the predicative-only(2015).

function of a-words because PPs are also

In addition to the modificational/predicative

predicative-only. Dixon (ibid.) points out thefunctions, a-words differ from English simplex

following parallelism between an a-word and its

adjectives in the following points also:

etymological counterpart:(3) a-words cannot be a complement of a(7) a.

Degree (Deg) head:
a.

The

mouse

b. * the in-bed duchessistoo*(much/far)(8) a.

alive/asleep/adrift/aglow.
b.

The

mouse

The duchess is in (the) bed.

isThe duchess is a-bed.

b. * the a-bed duchessas*(much)alive/asleep/adrift as not.

The view of a- as a P is also found in Jespersen(Beard (1995: 290))(1942: 127) and Kayne (ms.: sec.4).

(4) a-words cannot be compared:1

A full, phrasal realization of a PP is certainly*more aboard, *more abroad,predicative-only. However, if it is lexicalized or*more aloud, *more afire

realized in a smaller size, it can modify a noun(5) Some a-words can be used as adverbs

in the prenominal position. (9a) illustrates thewithout formal change: abroad, acrawl,

lexicalization of a PP, while (9b) illustrates the

afloat, away, etc. (Bauer et al. (2013: 332))

word-level realization of a PP.

(6) Adverbial a-words can be not only manner(9) a.

adverbs but also directional adverbs:a.

He read the book aloud.

b.

He shove me aside and went on his
way.

an

after-the-party

mess,

an

under-the-tree(s) picnic (Shimamura<Manner>(1986: 24))b.

<Direction>

on-basemilitary

headquarters

club,

in-city(Morita (2006: 417))

Also, it is important to point out that if awere a derivational affix, it would be deviant inThis observation casts a serious doubt on theterms of the right-headedness of English

view of a- as a P because its claim is thatmorphology

a-words are word-level realizations of a PP.

(Marchand(1969),

Kastovsky(1986), Nagano (2011)). In contrast, theThe second problem with this view is that a-alternative views to be introduced below are

attaches not only to nouns but also to adjectives

87

(e.g. alive) and verbs (e.g. afloat). Thissubject. (Deverbal a-words will be discussed in

categorial selection cannot be captured if a-

section 3.2.) It can also account for the otherbelongs to P, a category which selects an NP.

properties of a-words from (3) to (6a). First, (3)and (4) results from the fact that a Deg head

2.3. a- as a Predneeds to bind a <grade> position in its

In Nagano (2014), I proposed that a- should

complement but an intervening Pred prevents

be seen as a bound form of Pred. Pred is athe binding (see Baker (2003: sec.4.3) for

functional category that establishes a predication

details). Second, a-words can be used as manner

relation between its specifier and its complement.

adverbs, as in (6a), because this class of adverb

In Baker’s (2003) analysis, Pred selects an AP,

is predicated of an event argument (cf.

NP, or PP as its complement and takes a subject

Nishiyama (1999: sec.6, 2005: sec.2)). For

in its specifier, as depicted below.

example, (6a) involves a predication relation
between reading the book and loudness.

(10)

Nagano’s (2014) analysis, however, should be

PredP
NP

improved in two respects. First, the Pred that a-

Pred’
Pred

XP

realizes is the one for stage-level predicates.3(X= {A, N, P})

Stage-level predicates allow spatio-temporal
In English tensed clauses, Pred does not havemodifiers and can occur in the existential therea phonological realization. Bowers (1993) cites

construction, the depictive construction, and theas in a small clause as the only overt realization

complement of a perception verb (Ogawa

of Pred in English. The following predicate(2001)). As follows, a-words occur in thesecoordination proves the involvement of thecontexts:

category

Pred;

if

there

were

no

Pred,

coordination would not be possible:(12) a.
b.

(11) They regard John as crazy and *(as) a fool.

The cats have been asleep for days.
It was n’t a hoax because there werepeople asleep near the spot.

(Bowers (1993: 605))c.

if no one came for her she could beburied alive, forgotten…

Nagano’s (2014) point is that English has at leastd.

one more overt manifestation of Pred, a-, andYou can hear the chains a-jangle as you
go about and reach for the other buoy.

a-words are realizations of a Pred’ in (10). They
are generally classified as adjectives because a

Moreover, a-words allow the modifiers ofPred cannot bear tense. For example, afoot andextension completely and all:alive are non-tense-bearing predicates that(13) a.

morphologically realize [Pred’ Pred + NP] andDarling, I was n’t completely asleep
when you drove me home.

[Pred’ Pred + AP], respectively.
b.

The Pred view accounts for the categorial

It was a chance in a million that I camethrough it all alive.

selection of a- and the predicative-only functionof a-words, for as in (10), a Pred selects a NP,

As the following pair shows, unlike completely,AP, or PP complement and always introduces a88all modifies a stage-level predicate only:

he wierð on fæstum slæpe.
b.

(14) a.

c1275Laȝamon Brut (Calig.)

This can is {completely/all} empty.

b.

Heo weren on slæpe.

This idea is {completely/*all} empty.

c.

(Takshukan’s Unabridged Genius)a1375 William of Palerne
My lady lis ȝit a-slape.

d.
Next, the Pred view cannot deal with (6b).

1611 Bible (King James) Matt. viii.
24

But he was asleepe.

The directional adverbial use suggests that arealizes not only stage-level Pred but also Path.

(16a) shows that asleep is not deverbal but

Gehrke (2007), Ramchand (2008: ch.4), anddenominal; it came from the noun sleep. The

Svenonius (2010) split a spatial P into two heads,

noun sleep projects a full NP and occurs in thePlace and Path, roughly as follows:complement position of the Place head on. In(16b) the noun is directly selected by on, which

(15)

PathP

Path

then

weakensandmorphologically loses freedom into a- in (16c).4

PlaceP
Place

phonologicallyNP

The morphologization of a- is complete in (16d)in that it combines with the base without aUnder this view, the original prepositions on andhyphen.

in are Place heads. We propose that a- in (6b),The semantic change of asleep in (16a-d) ison the other hand, realizes the Path head.

not so clear, because the complement noun sleep
itself expresses an activity. However, it is

3. Historical Development

suggestive that asleep in PE is polysemous, We have seen that a- in PE corresponds either

expressing not only “sleeping” but also “numb”

to stage-level Pred or to Path. Next, let us(e.g., My hand is asleep), “inattentive,” andconsider how this correspondence developed“indifferent” (e.g., the executives who are asleep

from the Place prepositions.

to the worker’s demands). The semantic effect ofgrammaticalization can also be detected ina-words such as afoot and ashore; afoot can be

3.1. Grammaticalization
In Nagano (2014), I discussed the issue as aused in the sense of “on one’s feet,” keeping thecase of grammaticalization. Many a-words show

literal sense of foot, but the BNC searcha developmental path which is a paradigm caseindicates that it is an older usage. Moreforcommonly,

HopperandTraugott’s(2003)

afoot

is

used

in

the

sensesgrammaticalization cline: semantic abstraction“happening,” “circulating,” and “in progress”

or functionalization goes hand in hand with(e.g., There are also some changes afoot.)

formal condensation. Witness, for example, theSimilarly, ashore can be used in the sense “be on

following developmental path of asleep (the[the] shore” (e.g., life ashore), but it also

sentences are taken from the OED):

expresses

“to

the

shore”(e.g.,

Jumping ashore with the bow line, he wrapped a(16) a.

c897 K. Ælfred tr. Gregory Pastoral

clove hitch round the trunk of a palm).

Care xxviii. 195 Ðonne hnappað he oð

The grammaticalization from the Place head89

to the Pred head or the Path head can be

3.2. Emergence of a Word-Formation Ruleanalyzed as head movement in the structures

A separate discussion is in order for deverbal(10) and (15), respectively (Roberts anda-words like awhir “whirring” and aglaze

Roussou (2003)). For example, asleep and“glazing.” More examples from the 19th andashore were formed from the PlacePs on sleep

20th centuries are listed in (20) and (21),and on shore in the manner depicted in (17) andrespectively.

(18), respectively.
(20) acrack, agasp, aglare, a-chuckle, aglow,
(17)

PredP
NP

a-sprawl,
Pred’

astraddle,

atremble,awash, aboil (Jespersen (1942: 128-129))

Pred

PlacePa-a-sweat,(21) aclutter, asmirk, a-pant, asquish, a-move,

Place

NP

on

sleep

acrawl, afly (Bauer et al. (2013: 305, 332))
Characteristically, these a-words are used in

(18)

PathP
Path

participial constructions:
PlaceP

a-

Place

NP

on

shore

(22) a.

perspiration aglisten on her upper lip.
b.

The dotted arrows in (17) and (18) show theprocessof2009 Jennifer raced about, … drops ofgrammaticalization,a1867 I yearn to meet thee, soul to soul,With heaven’s delights aglisten. (OED)

Placemorpheme functionally and formally changing

These a-words differ from asleep in being

into the dominating heads Pred and Path.

genuinely deverbal (Jespersen (1942: 128)) andInterestingly, a similar developmental process

refusing the grammaticalization analysis. Whileto (17) can be assumed for the small-clause as in

the PP expressions on sleep found in the OED(11), a free realization of Pred. According toquotations

Yokogoshi (2005: sec.2), in Middle English

grammaticalization in (17), such PP counterparts(ME) and Early Modern English (EModE), as

are not found in the OED quotations of thewas a preposition, selecting NP complements

a-words in (20) and (21). Also, they are puzzling

only. It was in the 18th century that as began toin terms of the view of a- as Pred. If Pred selects

allow AP complements like (11). Yokogoshi

an NP, AP, and PP complement but not a VP, as(ibid.: 88) proposes that the following structuralin (10), why can a- occur attached to a verb?

of

asleepmotivatetheAn important fact about deverbal a-words ischange took place in small clauses with as fromthat they are relatively new formations, attested

ME to PE:

from the 19th century. In Nagano (2014), I
(19)

PP
Subj

examined 327 a-words from the OED and

PrP
P’

Subj

revealed that de-adjectival and denominal

Pr’

P

XP

Pr

XP

a-words, including pseudo-deverbal ones like

as

͐

as

͐

asleep, had been constantly formed from the13th century to the 19th century, while90

genuinely deverbal formations had been very

When the word-formation rule of a- applies torare in ME and EModE until they made a sudden

an activity or emission verb, it changes (23) into

rapid increase in the 19th century. In fact, 67%(10), deleting the DO head. A PredP can beof all the deverbal formations in my OED data

“extracted” from a verb because it is an essential

were attested in the 19th century.5 Although thiscomponent of the syntactico-semantic structureinterrelation between the base category of a- andof a verb (Baker (2003: ch.2), Ramchand (2008),

the age of an a-word is not paid due attention in

Rothmayr (2009: ch.7)).7

Nagano (2014), it suggests that the historical

How did the word-formation rule arise?

development of a- is divided into two stages, theCrucial for this question is the fact thatgrammaticalizationforgrammaticalized a-words include asleep anddenominal a-words and the word-formation

similar a-words such as afloat, ablaze, aswoon,

stage

responsible

stage responsible for deverbal a-words.

6

awane, awork, ahunt, aroar, adrift, ahold,In the first stage, a-words were formed fromadream (Nagano (2014: 234)). They are

their corresponding PPs via grammaticalization,

historically denominal, but after the loss ofas discussed in section 3.1. On/in phrases ofmorphological distinction between nouns andhigh frequency were grammaticalized into

verbs, it became possible to reanalyze them fromdenominal a-words, as in (17) and (18).

denominal formation to deverbal formation

The second stage is marked by the emergence(Jespersen (1942: 127-128)). Thus, I assume thatof a word-formation rule which maps thethe pre-existence of pseudo-verbals like asleep

morphological combination [a- + Verb] onto theled to the emergence of a mapping between thesyntactico-semantic representation of Pred’. In

form [a- + V] and the structure PredP and it

section 2.3, we saw that PE a-words have theeventually developed into a word-formation

underlying structure of Pred’ in (10). The

rule.

word-formation rule produces such words from

The word-formation rule of a- requires moreverbs by changing their syntactico-semantic

careful investigation. The first issue is its

structures. For example, (20) and (21) indicate

productivity. The second issue is that it goesthat a- combines with activity verbs (e.g.,against Monotonicity Hypothesis, which says

achuckle, acrawl, afly, a-move, astraddle) andthat “[w]ord formation operations do not remove

emission verbs (e.g., aglow, aglare, asweat),

operators from lexical semantic representations”

among others. According to Rothmayr (2009:(Koontz-Garboden (2012: 143)).

184, 185), these verbs have the following
decompositional structure:

4. Conclusion
 This paper focused on the synchrony and(23) a.
b.

<Activity>

diachrony of the prefix a-. In PE, a- is the only

The rubber duck squealed. <Emission>bound form that realizes the functional category

Irmi laughed.

Pred. A-words are stage-level predicates. The

DOP

Pred a- was historically established through the

DO’

DP
DO0

PREDP

consecutive

PRED’grammaticalization and word formation.

0* I thank the audience at the 33th ELSJPREDLAUGH/SQUEAL

91

and

interactive

workingofconference,

November

22,

2015.

Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives, Cambridge

I haveUniversity Press, Cambridge.

benefitted from the comments and questions
from Masaharu Shimada and Osamu Koma. Of

Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber and Ingo Plag

course, I am solely responsible for the contents.

(2013) The Oxford Reference Guide toThis study is financially supported by JSPS

English Morphology, Oxford University

KAKENHI Grant Number 24520417.

Press, Oxford.
Bowers,NOTES
1However, alive, awake, and asleep can be used

Linguistic

SyntaxofInquiry

24,

Dixon, R. M. W. (2014) Making New Words,
Jeanna looked different, confused,
more alive than usual.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

(BNC)

Markus, Manfred (1998) “A-adjectives (asleep

The baby is more awake now than itetc.) in Postnominal Position: Etymology as

was a few minutes ago.

a Cause of Word Order (Corpus-based),”(Kennedy and McNally (1999))2“The

591-656.

person:b.

(1993)

Predication,”in the comparison of two different states of one(i) a.

John

Explorations in Corpus Linguistics, ed. by

In Beard’s (1995) theory, this process is an

Antoinette

instance of Functional Lexical-Derivation. In

Amsterdam.

Ackema and Neeleman’s (2004) model, it

Renouf,135-146,

Rodopi,

Nagano, Akiko (2011) “The Right-Headedness

belongs to Word Syntax.

of3

On the other hand, the Pred realized by as may

Development

be the one for individual-level predicates.

Prefixes in English,” English Language and4

Linguistics 15, 61-83.

There are also examples in which theweakened

form

a

is

morphologicallyMorphology
of

and

the

StatusandCategory-Determining

Nagano, Akiko (2014) “The Multi-layered PP

independent, as in the OED example below.

Analysis and the Prefix a- in English,”(i) 1598 Their pride and mettall is a sleepe.

Interdisciplinary Information Sciences 20,5217-241.

Significantly, a- differs from the verbalizing

category-changing prefixes be-, dis-, en-, out-,

Ramchand, Gillian C. (2008) Verb Meaning and

un- in this respect. Nagano (2011) shows that

the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax,

historically, these prefixes were originallyCambridge University Press, Cambridge.

non-category-changing, selecting verbal bases,

Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou (2003) Syntactic

and started to occur with nominal bases only in

Change:the 16th and 17th centuries.

Grammaticalization, Cambridge University

6

Press, Cambridge.

Deadjectival a-words require a careful

Minimalist

ApproachtoRothmayr, Antonia (2009) The Structure of

consideration in this scenario. I leave them for

Stative Verbs, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

future research.
7

A

Yokogoshi, Azusa (2005) “On the Structural

A PredP is the sole component of a stative verb.

Change of Small Clauses: With Special

Hence, a- does not attach to this type of verb.

Reference to the Distribution of as andfor,” English Linguistics 22, 82-102.

SELECTED REFERENCES
Baker, Mark C. (2003) Lexical Categories:

92ÿǐ/ʅƹƶÐʆF

.ƎɎ.Ţķ§Ð!C"C/ȋ.ɤ:,/?.aR
YcɾsfyYR}mcTaRYcɿÚ
2!/ȵȿFºĕȑ)
^z

U

B

/ȵȿ/ɋ¡Ō― c h Y Ö / ȽBFż@.

YP.:BʅƹƶÐʆsǉɄɾLangacker 2000)FŭǍ/ȾǟmZY―

C9*/ǣǮ/Ñ¿FȫēaRY

(Aspects of Embodiment in Chaucer’s

cȵȿ.ɕĴBŸ#-Ɂ:/àȘŌFū¨#Language: Progressive Diminution in SirThopas) 
2. ³ ȧ ǣ Ǯ       Ġ ¥ȧ (Yoshiyuki Nakao) chYÖ/Ƚ /ȵȿ0łƉȅǘ-ĲĥĆđɾHiroshima UniversityɿsY/hbJ+)ŚEC=®Ã.Ʉ@C)#ɾLoomis (1940)

P



dʄ^z

YP

U

, ɋ¡Ō, ƹƶÐ,Stanley (1972)Burrow (1984)Tschann (1985)
Burdie (2008)ɿɿȅǘsY+Ĝŉs, ƗŊv\kH)EBƇǂȿ/ȿÞ/īƁʂ'/ŷ
ǲ Ƙ ɖ .   B ɗ / ų / Ò ƶ Ð
ɾ1894.5ɿaK~|Ku.ËC#

1. 0  < .

ql(bob)/ƚȘ/@¼ƇKILc¹+ĄF¿Bÿǐ*À@C#ǯɩ0
ȼ^z

U

/ǋƳ.

Fţ&)

#ȢǗıŖ(1339-1453)-

!C"C/ȵȿɴǙǚ.,/?.ɪªãBĄ0é.ªE

ȵȿ/ĕȑºĕȑF«ɘB/a&#ļ0ėɭɾ1374ʇ1386

RYcµ¡F­ǞBȾǟmZY0Ñ¿¡Ä/¹.

Bðɶ*=:ɿǷƌť.ž-)d/Űƫǘ¹ǿ/Ǜ&ß.
ā-Fɕ)ƱBȅȿƭ/ưÎŌɾȱȲǘɁ)ɠȮ-Œȑ

.ȓěC)0ı9*ɿdúā/'/ɦ Aldgate *-ǫɪɥ/ȃɼ=9.¹+Ą/ÿǐȉ.
Ǳ&)/0ÿǐ

3. ǣ Ǯ ɂ ɶ/¹+Ą.æ#ǯɩ1) RQ1ʄ^z#*ɋ¡Ō+

ȉ.Ǳ'^zUȾɅFðɶ.B^zȉ/Ǳ%U/ȾǟmZY0¢űʅƹĀÐʆ*-ʅƹƶÐʆ-/

0/ÿǐ

ȎFkJRWze~Yp

U2) RQ2ʄchYÖ/Ƚ

Y.

.

)ʅƹ

h|~.ȍȵȿ¡œŝŬBĹƶÐʆ0,/?.ǬÃÐCȵȿǈɆ

Êǘ-ȱƼ+)/ºĕȑF«

BǯɩFĲ#AȌ

<#Aȟö.ɃŴB!/ɠƼ0ìđ

3) RQ3ʄchYÖ/ȽǘĔŲǘ-ĲA(“Vision”)?A0ǋɋÐC#ʅƹƶÐʆ0!C"C,/?.

/ɩ/ǅ9A.

ŢķȵȿǈɆ/ºĕȑF«.ɫǐƼ/&#?.ŋBȱƼ4) RQ4ʄchYÖ/Ƚ

BɫA×ǉǘ.0µ)ʅƹƶ

.

)ǬÃ

)ǬÃ

ÐC#ʅƹƶÐʆ0,/?.ǚ.ɪ

Ðʆ/ĜɆ+ȓ@CB
ƇǕȨ*0 N\o}.ª@CȵȿǈɆ/ºĕȑF«ǂȿ /'chYÖ/Ƚ FÜA^zU

4 '/ RQ 0¡*

93A,.ƿƼFȎ

/ðɶ*ǘ-ǋɋ/ɩóB

.ǅ<@C#ɩ.

&#?.ŋB*ƮŒ50ÿǐȉ/ǅ<0äŽ.!/ÛǕ=«

4. Ź ƭ ɄȵȿǈɆ/ºĕȑFȸ)=ʄʅƹƶÐʆ0ƇƉȯ1)ƗŊv\kH- ȱƼ FȯB?.Bɋ¡Ð*óBÓ.ȵȿŜƭ/ðɶ+B/*0-chYÖ/Ƚŋȓ/Ź!/=/FĻŕBv\kH
ƗŊv\kH'ǋǌǘ.ÝɒɀżB+*B

ĜÐC)

ǂȿ

BÁƄ¼Ƈ/'Ɵ&)ÿǐ/¹=Ą=ȯ)Aȵ

Ȏ@C!*0Xx~ǚBchYÖ/ȽY/Xx~ĺŽK0ĜɆF

@aRYc.ɩɾ9ɿFƠ)N\o}À@CB
chYÖ/Ƚ 0Fragment

s+

VII .

U

B

Ellesmere ¼Ƈ*010 / Fragment(ŷǲ).

)ȯǱ)B+*Ȭɯ-ȵȿǈɆFÓǽ3)ƗŊȥãʄȼ^z0ġɧBǂȿ/'*/ȓFŭǍBɾCf. Cp

sǉɄʄʅƹƶÐʆFYP/ÿǐȉ/Ǳ'ŗ*U/'29 /ħǨȔ.?AÀ@C)

61 Cambridge MS / Frontispieceɿ
2)YP

B^z

*ưĭ)

À

)@C)

BY

0s

Yct_d|d#aK~|KusYĺBƇ¤ë*/aK~|Ku0

P

sF#ŒèŢķ0¤Ȕ+ɁȔ/ů

Y\V/ųÒƶB 3 'ŷǲ(Fit)@-ã*ġɧBɾLakoff and Johnson 1980,

AY\V0ýƇǘ. aabaab /ȚɳhLangacker 2000, ģƒ 2000, Fauconnier and\ 6 ȧ* 1 ɗFƘŕBa line 0 8 ɲǸTurner 2003)

4 ĸÏb line /Ġɳ0 6 ɲǸ3 ĸÏ!
)ŷǲ/ȁEA.0 bob line2 ɲǸ1 ĸÏËC)

5. Ɣ Ⱥ

BȿAŘ0ħǨȔ^zU*ȼ0ȳěȔ@ȩȳěȔ.ȿA

5.1. RQ1 / Ɣ Ⱥǯɩ/ʅƹĀÐʆ0Ļȕđǘ.ġɧ 0sYFȿB@sYFȿBœŝŬ0ǉŊǘ-“one”FňæB

+FȿB .ȿAŹ0^zŹʅƹƶÐʆ0Ļȕǘ.ġɧœ

10 ɲǸNm_c@ļ*î/aK~|ŝŬ0ȃɼǘ®Ãǘ-“many”FňæB

Ku.Wkc)(cf. ƪĦ 2008) cK|Y+R}ZKbĜɆÐ0ʅƹƶÐʆ/ȾǟmZY+ɍF/ƂŀƢC#cK|Yǵ 8 ć.ŻA .)

U

/ɕį/

B/?-v\ǘ-B*0ÿǐȉ/Y\Y!/ć@ȯ#÷0'/Ƽɾ‘this litel

ȳěB=/+ȳěCB=//ȤīƂspot’ Tr 5.1816aRYc0 Benson (1987)ɿ

ɽƻ.ɜ).ɚ-BȼȖȦ.ćFȯ?+ȹ
5.2. RQ2 / Ɣ ȺBŽ/Ǫ/ȱƼ¢.?&)=ó9CʅƹƶÐʆ/Ǭɷ0Ć 3 '/ȱƼµ)/=/Fó ɾ‘Uncircumsript, and al

maist circumscrive’ Tr 5.1865ɿȱƼ@ȯB+ @Ŧ@CB'0chYÖ/Ƚ÷/ñ:0Ć-AĞ-Aµ)óECBĝ´CB9*Fǜƃ¢ɾ§1 N

ĜɆ*B=0>¢.?&)=ó9CB

\o}

+/-

Ǳ%

ƹƶÐʆFÎƚ)

Ȏ4/ŹæŌFʅƹĀÐʆǂȿ /ŷǲƘɖɿƇ¤ë/ʅ+C1ʅƹƶÐʆ0!C+0ĜƖǘ.

hYÖ/Ƚ

ĜɆFó

(what)ʅƹƶÐʆ)*ÀAǅ<)/ŹæŌFȵ^z

U

Ǳ%

Ȏ4

.

Ǚ0!/ȵ/ɪņ0Ļȕ

94

B'Ǚ0c),G-Ta`
B!)'ȨŹ ɾhowɿ,/?

.ʅƹƶÐʆ)ÓǄ+ȼȧ@KbJMu!)aRYc[ÐB3 '0!C"Cɾǂȿ/ɔǥȇɿFÜAB

?A0ɠ-Aã&)ƚȘ)

B*0'Ǚ/ȵņ.ȯ)ȨŹ F
5.3. RQ3 / Ɣ ȺŁ.Ǡ-&)

5.3.1. a K ~  ǂ ȿ » ɵ ɞ / Œ è  

aK~|Ku0T

a`FȨŘơ*

B+äŽ.!/ȾǟmZYFėöÐɋ¡ÐBŘơ*=(1) Listeth, lordes, in good entent, / And I wol

B'9AʅƹƶÐʆFȱƼ/ǵƛǘv\telle verrayment / Of myrthe and of solas, /kH

Al of a knyght was fair and gent / In bataille+B+aK~|Ku0ʅƹƶÐʆ/ǵƛǘ-v\kH+:-CB¼ď

ǋ Adam Pinkhurst .?B^z
Xe~.Ƃ=ɑ

U+ȓ@C)and in tourneyment; / His name was sire/M}

Thopas. / Yborn he was in fer contree, / InBÁƄ¼

Flaundres, al biyonde the see, / AtƇHengwrt (Hg)¼Ƈ+ Ellesmere (El)¼Ƈ0

Poperyng, in the place.

ĩ/ǵ 1 T|u a line ǛG/ǵ 2 T|

712—20 (qCT Thop VII~d0ǶȔ)u b line!)â/ǵ 3 T|u bob line*Ł.T|uǅ<@C)ɵɳF¦&)ÊĸǂȿFř%¾ɻĂ/B/KILc0Ȫɹ/ûFɈ)ʅƹƶÐʆ/Ƚ+ÀA¾Í9

ȾǟmZYFȱȲÐɋ¡Ð#=/*0*-> =!CŖ-vc+ȜǤ*^zU/ȵȿ0Ó.Ưď*0-

+ŋ>²Ȑ+ceB¶/åÆėöÐò+ɋ/ɪªɾLanguages areåçOKhWg~FƄľC1chY

containersɿ+)ºƘǹCB

Ö+éåCc

]LchY0ĖǢ/aK~|KuFǵƛǘ-v\kH'*ǽƺFǧíŖ+

@0Ć)ȯǱ)B+ʅƹƶÐʆF!/ȷɒȵȿ @CBȖȦ.mc\KmFőɇv\ȵȿ*¿ǸÐ¿ǸÐB+*!C

ƙ!CF@ɽ<Ȥ+"C/ŒèàȘ+-B¿ǸÐCB

/ĝ´*



h\

B

ļ/¾ɋ÷0ɝɰC#õ cK|¿ʅƹƶÐʆ=ȀǬÃCB

Y+R}ZKb >ɻĂ/Ƚ /cK

aK~|KuFaK~(Tale)ŷǲYQ}WxɐA+ŋ

\V!)ȼȧ+¿ǸFȀƂ

>ĜĤ/k|]Y.=šE@ƲF0B1Bɉ)

ȁǘ.0 final –e!)aRYc[Ðɾɔǥȇɿ9*ȓěBȄɄǘ.ȵ1ʅ+k|]

Y0KS|dȏƤƕƹƶÐʆ0aRYc/ĆĞFðEµ)/FǴ&#^zUĢ.ɕĴBƗŊv\kH)

Bk|]+)ƚȘ

&)Bv\kH

<Ȥ+

}R*ȍ

+vcft

YƜ9A+ŋ

>ſ.ǅ9Aȭǳ/rp}SɾPoperyngɿɽB!)!C"C/§0´CĎȀĨ/?.ƘŕCvcft+äŽ/ïƕɟĬ*h\0ȆśCBɾCf.

popet CT VII 701.ɿ N\o}/ǚ¤ǍʅƹƶÐʆ/ȾǟmZYFĢĸĳ*ɻĂ0Ŗô-=/.)

ĽBÛɱŎĎ/ɑȒ0ɑþ/k|B]

Ƈǭ*0/¿Ǹ/µ¡°/@ɞ

/#<ƨ{

ǂȿ /Ȉ

_hǘ.ɝ

YƜ9AchYÖ0ɻĂ*0-ɻĂFȯȒĎ¨$DFÜA) RQ3 /ƔȶFȧaK~

ſ.*ƮŒ50ȿAŘ¦@ǂȿ/»ɵɞY\V@ b line + bob95ȵȿ0¤Ȕ^z/mc\Km@ ƹƶÐʆ/ƚȘ0ɠĢǘ*U

++@C)

BBherken .Ĝlistenentente .Ĝ ententverraily .Ĝ

5.3.3. bob lineʄ q l ɾ 2 ɲ Ǹ  1 ĸ Ï ɿ /verrayment Ƿŀmc\Km@/@ŒèÔ%ʅƹƶÐʆFɕ#Ţķ§Ð0

Ŷș0(2)/ĵɥȉchYÖ0ċǻ/

üŠ.ÛŃĀİCB

õ/ĉǇFĒB+ȯ@CBĪM}kH
cÖɾŀ.ļ=Ȟǔ*B+Âżɿ+ĜɱBļ0 > child 0(3)/?.ȵ

5.3.2. b lineʄʄ Ġ ɳ (6 ɲ Ǹ  3 ĸ Ï )/Œè
chYÖ0ċǻ/ĉǇelf-queene Fȟ(3) The child seyde, “Also moote I thee, /¿/ō+Ʃ<ļĉFƧ<)ċǻ/õ

Tomorwe wol I meete with thee, / Whan Iȣɡ+8ŗ4´&)

have myn armowre; / And yet I hope, parŷǲ 1 /ƂȁɞR|Ks_RY.æ&)
YÖǱ%æ&)chma fay, / That thou shalt with this launcegay

/0"ĸ/ Abyen it ful sowre./ Thy Mawe / Shal Iŵ*0+ƄľB

percen, if I may, / Er it be fully pryme ofday, / For here thow shalt be slawe.” CTThop VII 817-26(2) That he foond, in a pryve woon, / The

Cf. Sir Amiloun, as fer

contree of Fairye / So wilde; / For in thatof flint, / Wiþ wretþe anon to him he wint

contree was ther noon / That to him durste/ & smot a stroke wiþ main; / Ac he failed

ride or goon, / Neither wyf ne childe; CTof his dint, / þe stede in þe heued he hint / &Thop VII 801-06

smot out al his brain. / þe stede fel ded doun

Cf. In þis warld is man

to grounde; Amys and Amyloun 1321-17

non / þat oʒaines him durst gon, / Herl,baroun, no kniʒt. The Romance of Guy ofql*

Warwrick 148 (7-9)

B mawe .ƿƼFĺ)BBurrow(1984)03 '/ŷǲ/ɗ/ųÒƶÐB
a line *Ǳ%æǚŘFɽ<ĆƄľBb line /Ǡ
-&#+cɽ<Ȥ++FŤŮ#!CYPȼȧ*ĉĎ¨0/ȵȿǈɆFȰĕB+.0Ñ¿.ƮŒ]L»ɵɞ*ȯ#h\/ºǋ*

s+)

)

B

-

Davis (1967: 152)0ql.')(4)/?.ŤŮBĜƩBŵɻĂ@Ď¨4childe /(4) The bob ... was an afterthought of theauthor’s, and ... added after the poem wascomplete, with a few adjustments. ŒèɻĂɾMED s.v. child 6. (a) A youth of noble
birth, esp. an aspirant to knighthoodɿ@Ď¨4

childe / final –e ÆȎȻ/ŀ/Ƒ@Ƒ.ǎŌɳ+-B5++ĉŌɳ.

ą0ÆȎȻÞ*ƘŕC£ÈŌɽ@CBÆ/ql wilde +^xKtŇ=aRYcżǝ-ŒèFţ&)SÌƍwilde /ŒèF violent @ untamed

-

4ăę

/Ƅľ

Trisrem */+0ǦȾCBSir Gawain

CBR|Ks_RY=ǂȿµ¡/7

and the Green Knight (SGGK): With tonge 32,8Ĉɞ*ĉĎ¨0

On sille 55, In daye 80, With yʒe 198, etc.;Bŷǲʁ/ȁEAŖ-&#+ǡĞÐchilde ȿ.Ȭų/ǬÃ½Ȍʅ

96

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight +Auchinleck ¼Ƈ/ Trisrem: In lede 64, In tourql Thy mawe (… percen)0!C

75, At wille 394, On hand 427, In land 592, etc.

ÓǄ$*0-/Ǭ+ƛ+ɪªŌF(2)/¿Ƌ* childe +ȚɳBql wilde /Œţ%ºĕȑɽ<Ȥ+è/ăęFȯ#Œè/@0Ʃ)Ƀ

İ)

Ŵ+

h\FĀ

B

=/*0-&#Thy mawe =äƙmc\Km@Ć@C)1)mc\Km*5.3.4. K b J M u / Œ è  B

chYÖ0ĪM}kHc+/ŖBÆȎȻÞ@ predicate// Əargument 42)ɻĂÇ*ǰÅǼƈFƷ##<.ŖĜɆ0ŵµ¡@µ¡/ɞȝ 43)ȯ-ƞ¸F9+Ŗ?+BȿAŘ0chYÖ/ɻĂ+FȨÎ¤ÎȻperce 0ǈöŽÄ

?Ŗ

4+*

Cf. tomorwe …
(5) Men speken of romances of prys, / Of Hornwol meet with…)4ɿw]}aJËèC(shal)H ?

)/ÍƞFĕøÞ*ɮǼB@@ƅƉŽÄ4ɾżź/ 9 Ž.-BÆ.
(Er it be fully pryme of day;Æ/ĘFƵ9^x~Ð5)!/w]}aJ.

Ĝſ.chYÖ/v\bJYT

child and of Ypotys, / Of Beves and sir Gy, /Y=Of sir Lybeux and Pleyndamour— / But sir

*B+-@ (if I may)ËCŖ

Thopas, he bereth the flour / Of roial

0ſ.ɝ/6)/v\bJYT

Y.

CT Thop VII 897-902

chivalry!

?&)w]}aJ/Œè0ƐƸǘŒè@ȾɅǘŒè4+ºĕȑCB/?.

“the flour of roial chivalry”.ƮǙB/K

Thy mawe … perce /ȧƽ/ǈėŌ0´C

bJMu08 ɲǸ4 ĸÏ/ a line @ 6ĎȀĨ/?.Nuk|ɲǸ3 ĸÏ/ b line 4+Ɋ&)ȨECB

B!=!=/áȻ/ȾǟȌƶC#ȼȧ.0ȌƶC#Ta`]L)

XyCc/ɝ//Ȩ

ĜŉB/IKTf_R-h\.Ô

ǈ0vcftN~./Ď¨ .ɑ():B+/ flour of roial chivalry =

#ºȊŕ+=ȵBäaK~|Kus!/Ǌ.-Y*C)¡0 childe *Bɗ/Ŗ

A^zàȘŌ/=ɁG*ǟ&)#

Bɗ/¤ë0 child ¶*B

*/ b line 0chilvalry + Gy *Țɳ

B Auchinleck ¼Ƈ/ Amis andAmiloun *0Ŗ
C)U$D9#*ĝ´^zɚØĻ*ė+)Ū

U*ɕį/ chivalrie 0 final –e Ȥ+CĻœ/@

BC+0ĊĜǀF-.

Bſ.Kb= 7)thy mawe –perce / enjambementɾYj

JMu/ôĕø. roial FËƂƂǾd/@ɿ8)ŷǲ 1 /ȁȄɞR|Ks

ǘ.Ȋɮ)_R*/ɳĿ/@'9Aql/ɓË0Ñ¿.ũ&)9)Adam Pinkhurst ƀ

c\KmǘɾŔǍǘɿ-ŒèFB .ďȑǘ# Hg ¼Ƈ+ El ¼Ƈ

KILcɾql0ǵ 3 T|uƂ=ǅ|u*ƀC)BKbJMuºĕȑ/Îƚ
BȨ 1 / A .m-ŒèFǧ#A + B !C"C/ȿ/Œè

T

FȂ:ãE

B!/Ğ0chYÖàȘ*/Íƥ/Ğ.ĜŉBɿ10)¼Ƈ.
ȯ@CBǓäɾHg / mawe $.Ĝ)

B+ğ-+=ʃǬɷ/Œè
B

[1]ɻĂɛ/ɣ

(flour) [2]ɻĂ

El 0ſ.ƛȧ/Á<. herbaud(coat of mail)ɛ /ȡǺ Fɋ.B (bereth)

FËǰÅĜɆ/ɩŨŌ0mc\K[3]ɻĂɛ/h ɾʅǺʆ/vcft

ɿFə3 [4]ɺAm@ſ.@CŢķCB

97(chivalry /Thopas Fǖþ

Ȩ 1 ‘the flour of roial chivalry’/ºĕȑ
berethbecalled
by
a
title

A

carry,
give
birth toB‘flour’real/royal‘chivalry’paragon

royal
(El)

knighthood

F*BɫA.Ȍƶ)#ŷǲ/ƆĠ0aK~|Ku aabaab /mc\Km
@@CȼȧƂĞY6
@C)=

Cf. real(Hg)
MED
s.v. real.
(a) Of anarrative:
true,
actualflower /flour / bread(metonymy)ɻĂɛ/Ćȑå¿ŖY/ql

#*/ɔǥȇ0aR

Yc/ȵȿȟ¡ŷǲ9#ǂȿµ¡.Ĝ‘horse rider’ <L caballari-us(rider,horseman)Cf.
prike,
prikasour (GP:Monk)

BɠĢǘ-[Ð*ʅƹƶÐʆ0Ƃɽƻ.
ɜBaRYcƂĆ/ɩ FɁȔ0ù<)

.ȖȦ$D

Benson ǁ0/ɞ¿FsY Perceval/»ɵɞ¿/“welle”.ĜŉȿƸǘŒè)/ɣ [5]ɺA ɾşɌ#(7) His right name was Percyvell, / He was*ǰÅ@Ōǘ.ǰÅ+Ōǘfostered in the felle, / He dranke water of-Œèɿ/ɣ [6]ɺA(chivalry)

the welle: / And yit was he wyhgte Sir/ȡǺ (flour)Fɋ.B (bereth)

Perceval of Galles 5-8/?.KbJMuFȴ¡!/ŒèFŸ#.Ȃ:ãE

)+chYÖFɽ

Perceval *0ŀƣ+/Ɠ/ǋƯFțÕ

<#A+<#AǚÛBƙ-Kv

Ŗ

Xǋ:¾CŢķ§ÐɘȧB
ÿǐȉ.Ǳ'¤Ȕ^z-ɗ/KvUɻĂɛKv

5ǕġBchYÖ*0Ƭ/ƦFɸG*ǂȿ0ɔǥȇ.0/?

Xǋɇ)/ǐ.´&)#/*0-X/ʅƹƶÐʆ0ɁȔhWH~Ö.ȯ#?-ġɧ0ȯ@C-

chYÖ.0Á< -

0Đö

Ŗ

ńǊɄ.Ǒ9B/mc\.Ĝ)ŅČ-aRYc/ɩ Ÿ#-Ɂ

Km@/@sKeY/©¯Ʊ:/àȘŌFȸ)

BBenson Ƿɨȱ)

B

Bh

WH~Ö/sY/Ƃȁɞ/Ƭ/Ʀ
5.3.5. a R Y c [  Ð / Œ è  
chYÖɢF9+?

?C@Ŗ

Fɸ;.Ĝŉ

B+,

»ɬ.¾*Ǳ%

č9B/*0+(8) Till þe nynte day, byfell / þat he come to a

+D*nqȼ+)Ě/.?&)welle / þer he was wonted for to duelle /ŷɔǥȇF£±ƾCBAnd drynk take hym thare. / When he had
drunken þat tyde,/ Forthimare gan he glyde;(6) Hymself drank water of the well, / As dide/ Than was he warre, hym beside, / Of þe

the knyght sire Percyvell / So worly underlady so fre; Ibid., 2205-12

wede, /Til on a day – CT Thop VII 915-18 ʀThop: VII 712-918ɾ207 ȧɿŖFŏŐɢFțŧ)ƣ/ĮAƣ+ºBþ*Ļ(popet CT VII 701)/?-ȿAŘĜŉ

Poperyng +

ȧ'-

k|]

Y/ȭ/ƍ)/

ǏFȠá.Ď¨/?-i



child

B/Ƃȁɞ.

B+chYÖɔǥȇ*Ŗ.

+0;Dm|Y/©¯+)ºĕȑC-98BƓ.

/Ûɏ

#ºĕȑȸCB+B+sY/mc\

Horobin, Simon (2003) The Language of theKm@/@0ĢĆȗ-=/+-B
ſ.^z

U

ȟɋƛ.Ƚv}o/Ƚ .BasŖ

Chaucer

Tradition,

D.S.

Brewer,Cambridge.
ƪĦĽ¬ (2008).?&)ðɶ^zU/ȼđ

ȴƩB/*0-êȴ.?&)ðɶȴƩ{

_h/ȅ+!/Éɖ

B(fight *- debate)+.ɪªB+ɧŶǩ, Ɗ.

Ŗ
z

FU

+ /m|Y/©¯0^

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson (1980)/ 2 ǒǙ/ȿAFɕ)Ģĸô

Metaphors We Live By, The University-=/+-B'/ȽFBȿAŘ0^zUo/:$chYÖ/Ƚ

0v}/Ƚ Fɕ)Ÿ#-Œèã¾CB+ȵ&)=?

of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Langacker, Ronald W. (2000)“A DynamicĶUsage-based Model,” Usage-Based Models

=C- ɾTaleof Language, ed. by Michael Barlow andof Melibee VII 1860-65 Ùǀɿ

Suzanne Kemmer, 1-63, CSLI Publications, /?.ȵȿǈɆ/mc\Km+

Stanford.

)őĕCB=/<ƹƶÐʆFɕ)Ţ

Loomis, Laura Hibbard (1940) “Chaucer and theķǘ.ºĕȑCŒè/raWx~FĲ

Auchinleck MS: Thopas and Guy ofƴ<)+Fȯ)#ǃĕǬ0ɞ

Warwick,” Essays and Studies in Honour of¿ǘ.0ȟ@9#ɞ¿ǘ.0/ǃĕǬ+Carleton Brwon, ed. by Percy W. Long,/ɪªŌ.?&)Œè@CŒèŢķ

111-128, New York University Press, NewFŞɘ<#ǃĕǬ0ʅƹƶÐʆ/ĜɆ*York.

B+·./ǃĕǬFŒèBTa
RYc.=-&)

MacEdward, Leach ed. (1937) Amis and#

Amiloun. EETS (O.S.) 203.
Nakao,

Yoshiyuki,

Akiyuki

JimuraandÙȓŶǆ

Masatsugu Matsuo (2009) A Collation

Benson, Larry D. ed. (1987) The Riverside

Concordance to the Verse Texts of the

Chaucer, Houghton Mifflin Company,

Hengwrt and Ellesmere Manuscripts of the

Boston.

Canterbury Tales, ms.
Purdie, Rhiannon (2008) Anglicising Romance:

Burrow, John A. (1984) Essays on Medieval
Literature,

OxfordUniversity

Tail-Rhyme and Genre in Medieval English

Press,

Literature, D. S. Brewer, Cambridge.

Oxford.
Davis, Norman ed. (1968) Sir Gawain and theStanley, Eric G. (1972) “The Use of Bob-Lines

Green Knight, Oxford University Press,in

Oxford.

Mitteilungen 73, 417-426.

Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner (2003) The

Sir

Thopas,”Neuphilologische

Tschann, Judith (1985) “The Layout of ‘Sir

Way We Think: Conceptual Blending And

Thopas’

The Mind's Hidden Complexities, Basic

Cambridge

Dd.4.24,

Books.

Gg.4.27

Manuscripts,”

in

the

Ellesmere,
andHengwrt,Cambridge

The

Chaucer

Review, 20, No. 1, 1-13.

French, Walter Hoyt and Charles BrockwayģƒƝż (2000)

Hale eds. (1960) Middle English Metrical¾ǁ, Ɗ.

Romances, Russell and Russell, New York.

99Ⱦǟȵȿđ×ǉDࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ▱㆑ࡣࠊ᪥ᖖᴗົࢆ㏻ࡋ
࡚྾཰ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡲࡍࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊⱥㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Lakoff and Johnsonᦤ㣗࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄒᙡ࡟ࡼࡿࠓᛮ⪃ࠔ࡜ࠓ⌮ゎࠔ

(1980)ࡀࠊ(4)ࡢୗ⥺㒊࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ ࣓̿ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㌟యᛶ

ࢆࠕIDEAS ARE FOODࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓ࡢ཯ᫎࡢヲ⣽ᗘ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓ᪥ⱥᑐ↷◊✲̿*࣮ࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㸦Metaphors of INTELLIGENCE in Terms of
EATING: How Is Our Physical Image Projected(4) a. What he said left a bad taste in my mouth.
b. There are too many facts here for me toon Metaphors in Japanese and English?㸧

digest them all.
኱⚄㞝୍㑻㸦Yuichiro Ogami㸧

c. I just can’t swallow that claim.

኱㜰኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸦Osaka University㸧

d. That’s food for thought.

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸▱ᛶⓗᴫᛕ, ᦤ㣗ㄒᙡ, ㌟యᛶ

(3)ࡸ(4)࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿྛᩥࡣࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠕᦤ㣗άືࠖࡸࠕ㣗≀ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚▱ᛶⓗάືࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜࠸࠼ࠊᮏ✏1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

ࡢ⪃ᐹㄢ㢟࡜㛵㐃ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ᪥ᮏㄒࡸⱥㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ(1)࠾ࡼࡧ(2)ࡢ

ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࢆཧ↷ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ၥ㢟࡜ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᦤ㣗࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄒᙡ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᛮ⪃ࡸ⌮ࡍࡿ᪥ⱥㄒ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ࡣඹ㏻ᛶࡀㄆࡵࡽ

ゎࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡶᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ(3)࡜(4)ࡢ
ྛᩥࢆᨵࡵ࡚ぢΏࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ๓⪅ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀ(1) ᮏࡢෆᐜࢆᾘ໬ࡍࡿࠋ1(2) I struggled to digest the news.

ࡶࠕᦤ㣗ࠖ࡟ࡲࡘࢃࡿάືࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆࠕᛮ
2⪃ࠖࡸࠕ⌮ゎࠖࡢព࿡࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡅ࡚⾲ࡍ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᚋ⪅࡟ࡣࠕ㣗≀ࠖࢆᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢ᪥ⱥㄒ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࢆᑐ㇟

ࠕ⪃࠼ࠖࡢព࿡࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡅ࡚⾲ࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡟⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ⱥㄒ࣓ࢱ

ࡿࡶࡢ(4a, 4d)ࡸࠊཝᐦ࡟ࡣ▱ᛶⓗάື࡜ࡣ␗

ࣇ࢓࣮ࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ͆㌟యᛶࡢ཯ᫎࡢ࠶

࡞ࡿෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⾲ࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ(4c)ࡾࡼ࠺͇࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚ࠊ୧⪅ࡢ≉ᚩࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟

࡞࡝ࡶྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮

ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ࡜ࡣ༢࡞ࡿ⾲⌧ᢏἲࡢၥ㢟࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊㄆ▱ⓗ㛵㐃ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᴫほࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡲࡎࠊ᪥

࡞Ⴀࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ࡍࡿㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽⓗ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓ᮏㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㘠ᓥ (2004)ࡀࠊ(3)ࡢୗ⥺㒊࣮ほࢆ๓ᥦ࡟ࠊ▱ᛶⓗάື࡟㛵ࡍࡿᴫᛕ㸦㸻࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࢆࠕ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᾘ

୺㢟ᴫᛕ㸧ࡢࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺⓗᵓ㐀࡜ᦤ㣗άື࡟໬ࠖ࡜࠸࠺࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㛵ࡍࡿᴫᛕ㸦㸻႘㎡ᴫᛕ㸧ࡢࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺⓗᵓ㐀ࡢ㛫࡟࢔ࢼࣟࢪ࢝ࣝ࡞෗ീ㛵ಀࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ
࿪ᄮࡍࡿ

ࡓ࠺࠼࡛ࠊ᪥ⱥ୧ゝㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺㢟ᴫᛕ࡜႘࠿ࡳ○࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚ࡃࢀ

㎡ᴫᛕࡢᑐᛂᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࡋࠊ᪥ⱥᑐ↷ࡢ
ほⅬ࠿ࡽࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᐇែࢆヲ⣽࡟♧ࡍࡇ࡜୰ෆࡉࢇࡢဴᏛࡀ⌧ሙ࡛༑ศᾘ໬ࡋ

ࢆヨࡳࡿ 3ࠋࡁࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣࠋ

100

2. ၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ព࿡ࡣࠊࠕ࡞ࡐࡑࢀࡀዲࡁ࠿ࠖ(5c)ࡸࠕゝⴥࡢព࿡ ᙜ⠇࡛ࡣࠊၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿ᪥ⱥㄒ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢ

ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠖ(5d)ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍ࡭ࡃࠊࠕศᯒⓗ஦౛ࢆཧ↷ࡋࠊࡑࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ព࿡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚☜ㄆ࡟⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࠖࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇ

ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ౛ᩥࡢ཰㞟࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ๓⠇࡟♧ࢀࡽࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ࿪ᄮ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ࡣࠊࡋࡓ᪉㔪ࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࠊࡲࡎࡣࠕ࿪ᄮࠖࡸࠕᄟୗࠖ

͆ᛮ⪃͇͆ࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

࡜࠸ࡗࡓᦤ㣗άື࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺⓗせ⣲࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿㄒᙡ㡯┠࡟㛵ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡽࡀ▱ᛶ

2.1.2. ᄟୗ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ⓗάື࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿ

 2 ࡘࡵ࡟ࠊᄟୗࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠕ㣗≀ࢆ㣧ࡳ㎸࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ㎡᭩࡟ࡼࡗ࡚☜ㄆࡋࡓ࠺࠼࡛ࠊ࣓

ࡴࠖࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ࡋ

ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᏑᅾࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓ⾲⌧࡟࡚ᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࡢࡀࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ⏝࠸࡚౛ᩥ཰㞟ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡛♧ࡍ౛ᩥࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠗ⟃Ἴ㕲⏨ࡣ⛅஀ࡢ㉁ၥࡢព࿡ࡀ㣧ࡳ㎸ࡵ࢙࢘ࣈࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠘ࢆࠊⱥㄒ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠗCorpusࡎࠊ㤳ࢆ࠿ࡋࡆࡓࠋ

of Contemporary American English㸦COCA㸧࠘㸯ᅇㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࠊከࡃࡢᏊࡣࠊ

ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ᚓࡓᐇ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୗ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ

ࡍࡄ࡟ẁⴠࡢࢥࢶࢆࡢࡳࡇࡳࡲࡍ

ྛ౛ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ྾཰ࡀࡼࡃࠊᩍ࠼ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆࡍࡄ㣧ࡳ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡋࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᩚ⌮ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡇࡳᐇ㊶࡛ࡁࡿ

2.1. ᪥ᮏㄒ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ព࿡(6)ࡢ౛ᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊ
ࠕ㉁ၥࡢព

2.1.1. ࿪ᄮ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧࿡ࠖ(6a)ࠊࠕẁⴠࡢࢥࢶࠖ(6b)ࠊࠕᩍࢃࡗࡓࡇ

 1 ࡘࡵ࡟ࠊ࿪ᄮࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠕ㣗≀ࢆჶࡴࠖ࡜ࠖ(6c)ࠊ࡜࠸ࡗࡓෆᐜࡀࠕ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡝

ࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ࡋ

࠺࠿ࠖࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ

࡚ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ᄟୗ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧࡟ࡣ͆⌮ゎ͇ࡢព࿡ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

㞟ࡵࡓ▱㆑ࢆ࿪ᄮࡋࠊ⮬ศ࡞ࡾ࡟ᮏ㉁ࢆぢᢤࡇ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せࡔ࡜

2.1.3. [཯ⱄ]࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ

 3 ࡘࡵ࡟ࠊ
཯ⱄ࡟㛵ࡍࡿḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡶࠊࡼࡃࡼࡃࠊ⌮஦㛗ࡢゝ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ࿪ᄮ

ࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ⪃ᐹᑐ㇟ࡢ౛࡟࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ

ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊཎᅉࡀࢃ࠿ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋ
࡞ࡐࡑࢀࡀዲࡁ࠿ჶࡳ○࠸࡚࠸ࡃࡇ

ᛮ࠸ᾋ࠿ࡪࡲࡲ┿฼Ꮚࡢヰࢆ཯ⱄࡋ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ䛂ዲࡁ࡞ࡶࡢ䛃࠿ࡽ䛂ຮ࡚࠸ࡿ࠺ࡕ࡟ࠊ࡝ࢀࡄࡽ࠸᫬㛫ࡀࡓᙉ䛃࡟࠿ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ

ࡗࡓࡢࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ

➃ⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂ࡔࡀࠊࡇࡢゝⴥࢆࡶ࠺ᑡ

ㅮ⩏࡛Ꮫࢇࡔࡇ࡜ࢆ⮬ศ࡛཯ⱄࡋࠊ

ࡋჶࡳ○࠸࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ

ᑡேᩘࡢࢮ࣑ࢼ࣮࡛ࣝウㄽࡍࡿୖグࡢ౛ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ(5a, b)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕᮏ㉁ࢆ

཯ⱄ࡜࠸࠺άືࡣࠊ㏻ᖖࡣே㛫ࡢᦤ㣗άືࡢぢᢤࡃࠖࡇ࡜(5a)ࠊ
ࠕཎᅉࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠖࡇ࡜(5b)ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ

ࡢ๓ẁ㝵࡜࡞ࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ▱㆑ࠖࡸࡇࡢ✀ࡢ⾲⌧ࡣ௚ࡢ౛࡜ࡣ࠸ࡃࡪࢇ␗࡞ࡿ

ࠕゝࢃࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡌࡗࡃࡾ⪃࠼ࡿࡇ

ᛶ㉁ࢆక࠺ࡶࡢ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼ࡿࡀࠊ(7)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞

࡜ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(5c, d)࡛

101 ኱Ꮫࡢᅄᖺ㛫ࡣ୺࡟▱㆑ࢆ྾཰ࡍࡿ

ゝ࠸ᅇࡋࡣ⮬↛࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇ
ࡇ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕヰࡢෆᐜࠖ(7a)ࡸࠕᏛࢇࡔࡇ

ࡓࡵ࡟౑ࢃࢀࡲࡍࠋ

࡜ࠖ(7b)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᣢ⥆ࡇࡢ◊✲ᐊ࡛ከࡃࡢ▱㆑࡜ᢏ⾡ࢆ྾ⓗ࡟⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇ

཰ࡋࠊᑗ᮶◊✲⪅࡜ࡋ࡚㸯ே❧ࡕฟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ཯ⱄ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧࡟ࡣࠊ͆⥅⥆᮶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟⢭㐍ࡋࡲࡍࠋ
ࡲࡎࡣ࿡ࢃ࠺ࡓࡵࡢㄞ᭩࡜ࠊ⪃࠼᪉ⓗᛮ⪃͇ࡢព࿡ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࢆ྾཰ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢㄞ᭩ࡣࡲࡗࡓࡃู
2.1.4. ᾘ໬࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧≀ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ

 4 ࡘࡵ࡟ࠊᾘ໬ࡢᴫᛕࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡍࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ
࢓࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ

(9)ࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕ▱㆑ࠖ(9a)ࠊ
ࠕᢏ⾡ࠖ(9b)ࠊ
ࠕ⪃࠼᪉ࠖ(9c)࡞࡝ࢆࠊ⮬㌟ࡢෆ࡟ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ ᮍ▱ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ㐣ཤࡢ▱㆑࡛Ꮫࡧྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡟

࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࠊᾘ໬ࡍࡿ⬟ຊࡀ࠶ࡿ

࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ≉࡟(9b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ࠿ࡽࡶ❚ࢃࢀᚓࡓ▱㆑ࢆ⮬ศ࡞ࡾ࡟ᾘ໬ࡋࠊࡑࡢ

ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿ▱㆑ࡸᢏ⾡࡞࡝ࢆ☜ᐇ▱㆑ࢆ▱ᜨ࡟࠿࠼࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸

࡟㌟࡟ࡘࡅࠊᡃࡀ≀࡟ࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟↔Ⅼࡀᙜ࡚ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ

Ḣ⡿࠿ࡽྲྀࡾධࢀࡓᢏ⾡ࢆ᪥ᮏ࡞ࡾ
࡟ᾘ໬ࡋ࡚᪂ࡋ࠸ᢏ⾡ࠊ〇ရࢆ㛤Ⓨ྾཰࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧࡟ࡣࠊ≀஦ࢆᏛࡧྲྀࡗࡓ

ࡋ࡚ࡁࡲࡋࡓ࠺࠼࡛῝ࡃ㌟࡟ࡘࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ
͆⩦ᚓ㹼ᐃ╔͇ࡢព࿡ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ(8a)࡛ࡣ⮬ศࡀ▱ࡗ࡚
2.1.6. ᪥ᮏㄒ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࡲ࡜ࡵ

࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆཧ↷ࡋࠊࠕᮍ▱ࡢࡇ࡜ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⌮ゎࡋ࡚ぢ㏻ࡋࢆᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ(8b)࡛ࡣྲྀࡾ㎸ ௨ୖࡢศᯒࢆ㏻ࡌࠊࡇࡇ࡛ၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿ᪥ᮏ

ࢇࡔ▱㆑ࡢព࿡ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ▱ᜨ࡜ࡋ࡚౑࠸

ㄒ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㣗≀ࢆᦤྲྀࡋ࡚࠿

ࡇ࡞ࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡟Ꮫࡧྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗࡋࠊࡑࡢ

ࡽ㣴ศࢆ྾཰ࡍࡿࡲ࡛ࡢάື࡟క࠺[࿪ᄮ㹼๓ẁ㝵࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜

㸦཯ⱄ㸧㹼ᄟୗ㹼ᾘ໬㹼྾཰]࡜࠸࠺୍㐃ࡢ࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟(8c)࡛ࡣࠊၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࠕᢏ⾡ࠖࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀࠊ[[ᛮ⪃㹼㸦⥅⥆ⓗᛮ⪃㸧㹼⌮ゎࡀ࠸࠿࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࠿ࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡓ࠺࠼࡛ࠊࡑࢀࢆ

㹼⩦ᚓ㹼ᐃ╔]]࡜࠸࠺▱ᛶⓗάືࡢࣉࣟࢭ

౑࠸ࡇ࡞ࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡟⩦ᚓࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ

ࢫ࡟ᑐᛂ࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ 4ࠋࡇ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡇ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୺㢟ᴫᛕ࡜႘㎡ᴫᛕࡢྛせ⣲ࡢࡢ⾲⌧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ≀஦ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࠊ

㛵ಀࡣࠊཝᐦ࡞ 1 ᑐ 1 ࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀ࡜ࡋ࡚ᩚྜ

ࡑࢀࢆ⮬㌟ࡢ▱ᜨࡸᢏ⾡࡜ࡋ࡚⩦ᚓࡍࡿࡇᛶࡢ࡜ࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼࡞࠸ 5ࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊࡑ

࡜࡟ࡲ࡛ࡲࡓࡀࡿព࿡ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡒࢀࡢせ⣲ࡢ㓄ิࡀᙧᡂࡍࡿࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺ

ࢀࡿࠋ௨ୖࡼࡾࠊᾘ໬࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸ⓗᵓ㐀ࡀ኱ᒁⓗ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡇࡢ

࡚ࡣࠊ͆⌮ゎ㹼⩦ᚓ͇ࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡜ࡍ

࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡀᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࡿࠋ
2.2. ⱥㄒ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ព࿡
2.2.1. CHEWING ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧

2.1.5. ྾཰࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ྾཰࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊḟࡢࡼ

 1 ࡘࡵ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ࿪ᄮ࡟ᴫࡡᑐᛂࡍࡿ࡜

࠺࡞౛ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ᛮࢃࢀࡿ CHEWING ࡢᴫᛕ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ⾲⌧࡟ࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ

102

(10) a. Clinton likes nothing better than to chew

b. I stared at him for a couple of beats
while I digested the information.

over a problem endlessly.
b. “Kent Pearson,” she repeated, chewingc. Then I nab a few books and am forced toread them and digest their contents so as

over her knowledge of him.
c. She has been chewing on this thought for

to avoid embarrassment when the classtime rolls around.

several months.

d. She gave Tiffany a moment to digestࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊ
͆problem͇that information, then continued.

(10a)ࠊ͆knowledge͇(10b)ࠊ͆thought͇(10c)ࠊ

e. A rural and traditional society, with over࡜࠸ࡗࡓᑐ㇟ࢆࠊ᫬㛫ࢆ࠿ࡅ࡚(10a, 10c)ࠊ࠶

90% of its population illiterate andࡿ࠸ࡣ῝ࡃჶࡳࡋࡵࡿࡼ࠺࡟(10b)ࠊࡌࡗࡃ

unaware of modern world, could notࡾ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢ

digest this European idea in its originalࡼ࠺࡟ࠊⱥㄒࡢ CHEWING ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⾲⌧ࡣࠊform.

᪥ᮏㄒࡢ࿪ᄮ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧࡜࡯ࡰྠᵝ࡟f. they emphasize painting as a psychic and͆ᛮ⪃͇ࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

bodily process, fueled in part by the
devouring and digesting of previous art

2.2.2. RUMINATION ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧to formulate a new synthesis.

 2 ࡘࡵ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ཯ⱄࡢሙྜ࡜ྠࡌࡃࠊ
ⱥㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ RUMINATION ࡢᴫᛕ࡟ᇶ࡙

ࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊࡲࡎ(12a)࡜(12b)࡟࠾࠸

ࡃḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ

࡚ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ୺యࡀᤊ࠼ࡓࡇ࡜ࡤ(12a)ࡸ᝟ሗ
(12b)࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢព࿡ྜ࠸ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⏝ἲ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ

(11) a. He ruminated for hours about why noting

DIGESTION ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ࡣࠊ͆ᛮ⪃͇ࡢព

worked.

࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

b. Members of the team ruminated on thisquestion fordays,

weeks, ḟ࡟ࠊ(12c)ࡸ(12d)࡛ࡣࠊ᭩≀࡟᭩࠸࡚࠶

evenࡿࡇ࡜ࡸఱࡽ࠿ࡢ᝟ሗ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᛮ⪃ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊmonths.

ࡑࡢෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⌮ゎࢆᚓࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ
(11)ࡢྛ౛࡛ࡣࠊ≀஦ࡢ⌮⏤ࡸఱࡽ࠿ࡢၥ࠸

⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࡇ࡛

࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ⥅⥆ⓗ࡟⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸DIGESTION ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕჶ

ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊRUMINATION ࡟

ࡳ○ࡃࠖࡸࠕ࿪ᄮࡍࡿࠖ࡜ࠕ㣧ࡳࡇࡴࠖࢆྜ

࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ࡣࠊ͆⥅⥆ⓗᛮ⪃͇ࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࢃࡏࡓࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ͆ᛮ⪃㹼⌮ゎ͇࡟ࡲࡓࡀࡿព

ࡍࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ(12e)ࡸ(12f)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ

2.2.3. DIGESTION ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧␗ᩥ໬࡟࠾ࡅࡿ≀஦ࡢ⪃࠼᪉(12e)ࡸࠊ࠶ࡿศ

3 ࡘࡵ࡟ࠊDIGESTION ࡢᴫᛕࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡍ㔝࡟࠾ࡅࡿඛ⾜ᴗ⦼ࡢ⵳✚(12f)࡜࠸ࡗࡓᑐ

ࡿ⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ཧ↷ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚

㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢⓎ᝿ࡸព⩏ࢆ⌮ゎࡋࠊࡑࢀࡣḟࡢ㏻ࡾࠊከᵝ࡞⏝ἲࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࡽࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛῝ࡃ㌟࡟ࡘࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ᪥ᮏ
ㄒࡢᾘ໬࡜྾཰ࡢᴫᛕࢆໟᣓࡍࡿព࿡ࢆే
ࡏᣢࡘࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ DIGESTION ࡟(12) a. For a moment she sat, digesting the㛵ࡍࡿ⾲⌧ࡀ⾲ࡍࡢࡣࠊ͆⌮ゎ㹼⩦ᚓ㹼ᐃ╔͇

words, looking thoughtful.

103࡟ࡲࡓࡀࡿព࿡࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

3. ᪥ⱥㄒ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊDIGESTION ࡢᴫᛕ࡟ᇶ࡙

➨ 2 ⠇࡛ࡢ☜ㄆࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣၥ㢟࡜ࡃ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ࡣᖜᗈ࠸ព࿡ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࡍࡿ᪥ⱥㄒࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ⱥㄒࡢ DIGESTION ࡣࠊ͆ᛮ⪃㹼⌮ゎ㹼⩦ᚓࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡲࡎࠊၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ

㹼ᐃ╔͇ࡲ࡛ࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆᑕ⛬࡟ᤊ࢓࣮࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ⱥㄒࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺㢟࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

ᴫᛕ࡜႘㎡ᴫᛕࡢྛせ⣲ࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀࢆ⡆༢࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡣᅗ 1 ࠾ࡼࡧᅗ 2 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

2.2.4. ABSORPTION ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊABSORPTION ࡢᴫᛕ࡟ࡼࡿ⾲⌧࡟ࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ

㼇㼇ᛮ⪃㼉㼉䚷䚷䚷䚷㼇㼇⌮ゎ㼉㼉䚷䚷䚷䚷㼇㼇⩦ᚓ㼉㼉䚷䚷䚷䚷㼇㼇ᐃ╔㼉㼉(13) a. while learning the language, students
also absorb some knowledge of䚷䚷䚷䚷䚷㻌㼇཯ⱄ㼉㼇㻌࿪ᄮ㻌㼉䚷䚷䚷䚷㼇㻌ᄟୗ㻌㼉䚷䚷䚷䚷㼇㻌ᾘ໬㻌㼉䚷䚷䚷䚷㼇㻌྾཰㻌㼉

Aztec

history and culture࠙ᅗ 1ࠚ᪥ᮏㄒ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢᴫᛕⓗᑐᛂ㛵ಀ

b. once she was engaged in something,
she absorbed knowledge and㼇㼇ᛮ⪃㼉㼉䚷䚷䚷䚷㼇㼇⌮ゎ㼉㼉䚷䚷䚷䚷㼇㼇⩦ᚓ㼉㼉䚷䚷䚷䚷㼇㼇ᐃ╔㼉㼉

demonstrated almost immediately an
abilitytoutilizethisnew䚷䚷䚷䚷㻌㼇㻌㻾㼁㻹㻵㻺㻭㼀㻵㻻㻺㻌㼉㼇㻌㻯㻴㻱㼃㻵㻺㻳㻌㼉䚷䚷㼇㻌㻰㻵㻳㻱㻿㼀㻵㻻㻺㻌㼉䚷䚷㼇㻌㻭㻮㻿㻻㻾㻼㼀㻵㻻㻺㻌㼉understanding.

࠙ᅗ 2ࠚⱥㄒ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢᴫᛕⓗᑐᛂ㛵ಀ(13)ࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊṔྐࡸᩥ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ▱㆑(13a)ࡸࠊᏛࢇࡔ஦᯶࡟㛵ࡍࡿᅗ 1࣭2 ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᪥ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ࠸ࡎ

▱㆑(13b)ࢆࠊ⮬㌟ࡢෆ࡟ྲྀࡾ㎸ࡳࠊ౑࠸ࡇ

ࢀࡶࠊᦤ㣗άືࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᴫᛕࡀࠊ

࡞ࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡟㌟࡟ࡘࡅࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ⾲ࡉ▱ᛶⓗάືࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ

࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ᪥ⱥㄒࡢ

ABSORPTION ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾲ࡉ࠸ࡎࢀ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ㣗≀ࢆᦤྲྀࡋ࡚࠿ࡽ㣴ศࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ͆⩦ᚓ㹼ᐃ╔͇࡟ࡲࡓࡀࡿព࿡࡛

ࢆ྾཰ࡍࡿࡲ࡛ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀࠊ▱ᛶⓗάືࡢ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

㐃⥆ⓗ࡞ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺
Ⓨ᝿ࡣඹ㏻ࡋ࡚ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ

2.2.5. ⱥㄒ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࡲ࡜ࡵ

ࡇࡇ࡛ὀ┠ࡋࡓ࠸ࡢࡀࠊ᪥ⱥㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ ࡇࡇࡲ࡛ࡢ᳨ウ࠿ࡽࠊၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿⱥㄒ࣓ࢱ

୺㢟ᴫᛕ࡜႘㎡ᴫᛕࡢᑐᛂᛶ࡟┦㐪ࡀㄆࡵࣇ࢓࣮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ[࿪ᄮ㹼㸦཯ⱄ㸧㹼ᾘ໬ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨୍࡟ࠊⱥㄒࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓

㹼྾཰]࡜࠸ࡗࡓᦤ㣗άືࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀࠊ[[ᛮ࣮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊDIGESTION ࡢᴫᛕࡀࠊࡇࢀ

⪃㹼㸦⥅⥆ⓗᛮ⪃㸧㹼⌮ゎ㹼⩦ᚓ㹼ᐃ╔]]ࡢ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᾘ໬

ᴫᛕ࡟⤖ࡧࡘ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡢሙ

ࡢᴫᛕࡼࡾࡶᖜᗈ࠸ព࿡ࢆᢸ࠺࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇ

ྜ࡜ྠᵝࠊⱥㄒࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊᦤ

ࡢⅬࡣࠊ๓⠇࡛ࡢ☜ㄆ࠾ࡼࡧᅗ 1࣭2 ࠿ࡽࡶ㣗άືࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡜▱ᛶⓗάືࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ

☜ㄆࡉࢀࡿ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚➨஧࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏ

ࡀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀᴫᛕⓗ࡞࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࠊ኱ᒁⓗ࡟ᑐㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠕ㣧ࡳ㎸ࡴࠖࡸࠕჶࡳ○ࡃࠖ࡜ᛂᛶࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

࠸ࡗࡓ⾲⌧࡟▱ᛶⓗάື࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓

104࣮ⓗព࿡ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ(14)࠾ࡼࡧ

ࡀᗈ࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ 2 ࡘࡵ࡟ࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏ

(15)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊⱥㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚

ㄒ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ㣗≀ࢆ㣧ࡳ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧ㣗ࡣࡇࢀࡽ࡟▱ᛶⓗάືࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ࡋ࡚

≀ࢆჶࡳ○ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍ SWALLOWING ࡸࡢព࿡ࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋCRUNCHING ࡢᴫᛕࡣ͆▱ᛶⓗάື͇ࡢព
࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡞࠸
ࡇ࡜ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ 2 Ⅼࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓᐇ

(14) a. I found his story a bit hard to swallow.

ែ࠿ࡽࠊࡇࡇ࡛ၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿ᪥ⱥㄒ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮

b. Democrats in particular had to swallowࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡣ͆▱ᛶⓗάືࡢᥥ

things they didn’t like.
(15) a. We were using technology to crunch the෗࡟࠾ࡅࡿྛ㌟యάືᴫᛕࡢ༊ูࡀ┦ᑐⓗdata and present to the user who we think࡟᫂☜࡛࠶ࡾࠊᦤ㣗ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄒᙡ

they should connect to.

ࡀࡼࡾヲ⣽࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ͇࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࠊᑐ
ࡋ࡚ⱥㄒ࡟ࡣ͆▱ᛶⓗάືࡢᥥ෗࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ

b. Even with computers crunching thenumbers,

architecturethat≉ᐃࡢ㌟యάືᴫᛕࡀᗈ࠸ព࿡ࢆᢸ࠸ࠊࡇࡇ

flaunts࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ⾲⌧ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡼࡾ㝈ࡽࢀ࡚࠸

traditional forms is pricey stuff.

ࡿ͇࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࡲࡎࠊ(14)ࡢྛ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᄟୗ
4. ⤖ㄽ࡜ᑐᛂࡍࡿ SWALLOW ࡢᴫᛕ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ࣓ࢱ
ࣇ࢓࣮࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ௚ேࡢヰ(14a)ࢆಙ⏝ࡍࡿࡇ௨ୖࡢ⪃ᐹ࠿ࡽࠊ᪥ⱥㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀ

࡜ࡸࠊዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸஦᯶(14b)ࢆཷᐜࡍࡿࡇ

ࡶࠊᦤ㣗άື࡟㛵ࡍࡿᴫᛕࢆ▱ᛶⓗάືࡢᴫ࡜ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊⱥㄒ

ᛕ࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡅࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ࡋ࡚⾲⌧ࡍࡿ࡜ࡢ SWALLOW ࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊ
͆▱ᛶⓗάື͇࡟㛵

࠸࠺Ⓨ᝿࡟ඹ㏻ᛶࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊࡑࡢ

ࡍࡿព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᄟୗࡢᴫᛕ࡜ࡣ␗

ゝㄒ໬ࡢᐇែ࡟ࡣゝㄒࡈ࡜࡟␗࡞ࡿ≉ᚩࡀ࡞ࡾࠊ͆ᚰ⌮࣭ឤ᝟ࡢാࡁ͇࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ͆ಙ⏝࣭ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡿࠋ⡆༢࡟ࡲ࡜ཷᐜ͇࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡵ࡚࠾ࡃ࡜ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡣࠊ႘㎡ᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿᦤ
ࡲࡓࠊ(15)ࡢྛ౛࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕჶࡳ○ࡃࠖ㣗άືࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀࠊ୺㢟ᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿ▱ᛶⓗ࡜ᴫࡡᑐᛂࡍࡿ CRUNCHING ࡢᴫᛕ࡟ᇶ࡙

άືࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࠊࡼࡾヲ⣽࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡽࢀ

ࡃ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࢹ࣮ࢱࡸᩘᏐ࡟ᑐࡍ

ࡿ࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊⱥㄒ࡟ࡣࠊ

ࡿィ⟬ࡢព࿡ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ✀ࡢ⾲⌧ᦤ㣗άືࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ≉ᐃࡢㄒᙡ࡟

࡛ࡣࠊᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿせ⣲࡬ࡢᶵᲔⓗฎ⌮ࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ ᗈ࠸ព࿡ⓗᑕ⛬ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ẚ࡭࡚ࡑࡢゎࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸႘㎡ᴫᛕ࡜୺㢟ᴫᛕࡢᑐᛂᛶࡀᴫ␎ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࠊࡲࡓࠊࡇࢀࡽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣᩥࡢ୺

ࡿ࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ 6ࠋㄒࡢ఩⨨࡟ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ➼ࡢᶵᲔࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡇࡇ࡛ࡢྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࢆ㏻ࡌࠊၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿ࣓ࢱ

ࡿ౛ࡀ㢖⦾࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ

ࣇ࢓࣮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᐇ౛ศᯒ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࡑࡢᐇCRUNCHING ࡟ࡼࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡿែࢆ♧ࡍ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ᪥ⱥㄒࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࢆඹ

ព࿡࡜ࡣࠊே㛫ࡢ▱ᛶⓗάື࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜

㏻ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽᑐ↷ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ≉ᚩࡢ୍ഃࡣ࠸ࡃࡪࢇ␗࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

㠃ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

௨ୖࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ⱥㄒ࣓

௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ᖜᗈ࠸ゝㄒ⌧㇟ࢆࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢ┦㐪Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊ1 ࡘ

ど㔝࡟ධࢀ࡚⪃ᐹࢆᒎ㛤ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡛ࡵ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᾘ໬࡜ẚ࡭ࡓ㝿࡟ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ

࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࢆ㏻ࡌࠊ᪥ⱥㄒࡢゝㄒⓗᐇែࡢ

DIGESTION ࡢᢸ࠺࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡ࡢᑕ⛬ゎ᫂ࢆ㐍ࡵࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ␗࡞ࡿゝㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ

105

࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢඹ㏻ᛶ࡜␗㉁ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡉࡽ

67

࡟ぢ㏻ࡋࢆ῝ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿ ࠋཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲᫬࡟ࡣⱥㄒ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ࠕྜ⌮ⓗࠖ࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊ㐣๫࡞⯡໬࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ୺ᙇ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡓࡓࡵࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣぢ᪉* ᮏ✏ࡣ᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍➨ 33 ᅇ኱఍࡛ࡢ➹⪅ࢆᨵࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡈពぢࢆࡃࡔࡢཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎ⾲ᶵ఍ࢆࡉࡗࡓすᒣభྖඛ⏕࡟࠾♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋ

ࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓ᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍ࠊྖ఍ࢆࡈᢸᙜࡃࡔ

7ࡉࡗࡓྜྷ⏣ᝋᏊඛ⏕ࠊ኱఍ࢫࢱࢵࣇࡢⓙᵝࠊ࡜ᅵᒇ៞Ꮚඛ⏕࠿ࡽࠊព⩏῝࠸ࡈ㉁ၥ࡜ࡈព

఍ሙ࡟࠾㐠ࡧࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓⓙᵝ࡟ᚰࡼࡾ࠾♩ぢࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋ⣬ᖜࡢ㒔ྜୖࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣヲ⣽࡟⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊᣦᑟᩍᐁࡢᮌෆⰋ⾜ඛゐࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ௒ᚋࡢ◊✲ࡢᒎ㛤⏕࡜᪩℩ᑦᏊඛ⏕ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ኱㜰኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔࡟ࡶࡘ࡞ࡀࡿ㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆᐤࡏ࡚ࡃࡔ

࡛ࡢㅮ⩏࡟࠾࠸࡚ᮏ✏ࡢᐇ㉁ⓗ࡞ฟⓎⅬ࡜ࡉࡗࡓ࠾஧᪉࡟ឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋ

㛵㐃ࡍࡿ⾲⌧஦౛࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊⰼ㷂⨾⣖ඛ⏕࡞ࡿᶵ఍ࢆࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓᮡᮏᏕྖඛ⏕࡟ࠊឤㅰཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Deignan, Alice (2005) Metaphor and Corpus⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ◊✲ࡣ JSPS ⛉◊㈝
15J01863 ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

Linguistics, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

ὀ

Kövecses, Zoltan (2010) Metaphor: A practical1ࠗᑠᏛ㤋 ࢹࢪࢱࣝ኱㎡Ἠ࠘ࡼࡾࠋ

2ࠗ   !   !Introduction, Oxford University Press,  ࠘ࡼࡾࠋ

Oxford.

࢔ࢼࣟࢪ࣮ⓗほⅬࡢ᥇⏝ࡣࠊ㇂ཱྀ (2003)

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson (1980)ࢆཧ⪃࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ㘠ᓥᘯ἞ᮁ

Metaphors We Live by, University ofඛ⏕࠿ࡽࠊᮏ✏ࡀ࠸࠺ࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺ࡜ࡣࠕࣇࣞ

Chicago Press, Chicago.

3࣮࣒࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠖ࡜ࡢࡈᣦ᦬ࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋ➹⪅Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson (1999)ࡶࠊ႘㎡ࡸ୺㢟ࡢᴫᛕ㡿ᇦ࡜ࡣ͆ࣇ࣮࣒ࣞⓗPhilosophy in the Fresh, Basic Books, New▱㆑͇࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁࡶࡢࠊ࡜࠸࠺❧ሙ࡛

York.

࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࣇ࣮࣒ࣞⓗ▱㆑඲యࡢ୰ࡢ

ᯇ஭┿ே (2010)ࠕⱥㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ⌮ࠕάືࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢᵓ㐀ࠖ࡟≉࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࠊゎࠖࡢᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࠖ, ࠗᒣᙧ┴❧⡿ࡇࢀࢆࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺ࡜࿧ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋࡈពぢࢆࡃἑዪᏊ▷ᮇ኱Ꮫ⣖せ࠘46, 19-28, ᒣᙧ┴ࡔࡉࡗࡓ㘠ᓥඛ⏕࡟࠾♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋ

❧ዪᏊ▷ᮇ኱Ꮫ.

4ᛕࡢᵓ㐀ࢆ[[
5]࡛ࠊ୺㢟ᴫ

㘠ᓥᘯ἞ᮁ (2004) ࠕࠗ⌮ゎ࠘ࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮̽

]]࡛ᣓࡗ࡚♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗศᯒ̽ࠖ, ࠗ኱㜰኱Ꮫゝㄒࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ႘㎡ᴫᛕࡢᵓ㐀ࢆ[ᩥ໬Ꮫ࠘13, 99-116, ኱㜰኱Ꮫ.

ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ≉ᚩࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ⌮⏤ࡢ 1 ࡘ࡟ࠊᦤ㣗άືࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢࠊྛ㐣⛬ࢆཝᐦ࡟ษࡾ㞳ࡍ㇂୍ཱྀ⨾ (2003)ࠕ㢮ఝᛶ࡜ඹ㉳ᛶ࣓̽ࢱࣇ࢓

ࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸㐃⥆ⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

࣮෗ീࠊ࢔ࢼࣟࢪ࣮ࠊࣉࣛ࢖࣐࣮࣓ࣜࢱ

ࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵㐃ࡋࠊ㇂୍ཱྀ⨾ඛ⏕࠿ࡽࠊ㣗≀ࢆࣇ࢓࣮ࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚̽ࠖ, ࠗ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒ㣧ࡳ㎸ࢇ࡛࠿ࡽࡢࠕᾘ໬ࠖࡸࠕ྾཰ࠖࡢࣉࣟ

Ꮫ఍ㄽᩥ㞟࠘3, 23-33, ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࢭࢫࡣάື୺యࡢពᅗࢆ㉸࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ

఍.
ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂ (2000) ࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛཎ⌮࠘ࡃࢁࡋࡇࢀࡽࡢᐇ⌧ࢆᐇឤࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ⌧ᐇⓗ࡟ࡣ࠾ฟ∧, ᮾி.

㞴ࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸
࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡈぢゎࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡈពぢࢆࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓ㇂ཱྀඛ⏕࡟࠾♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋ

106

(5) John is annoying (*to those boys) to talk to(6) Sugar was very hard (*on me) to give up
Assuming that the subject is raised from someMovement and Agreement under “Defective

periphery in the embedded infinitival clause,Intervention”

along the line of Hicks (2009) or Oka (2013), let
us also analyze the tough/easy construction interms of (4).
Bruening (2014) also points out that adjuncts

Toshifusa Oka

behaves like they are defective interveners:

Fukuoka University of Education
KeywordsSubject Raising, Tough/Easy, Double(7) The budget is always annoying (*atObject, Passive, ECM/Object Raising

meetings) to talk about(8) Jean a semblé (?au cours de la réunion)
Jean has seemed during the meeting
avoir du talent

1. Defective Intervention

to have of talent

McGinnis (1998) and Chomsky (2000),among others, point out that a parametric(9) Gianni sembra (??in alcune occasioni)

difference between English and French/Italian

Gianni seems on some occasions

shows up when an experiencer PP (or dative DP)

fare il suo dovere

is added in the raising construction, as is foundto do the his dutyin (1)-(3), schematized in (4):The

defective

intervention

effectsare(1) John seems (to me) to love Maryobserved if the subject remains in situ in the(2) Jean semble (??à Marie ) avoir du talentraising construction, as in (10) and (11).

Jean seems

to MarieThe

same effect is observed by Holmberg andto have of talent

Hróarsdóttir (2003/2004), as in (12)-(14).

‘Jean seems (to Marie) to have talent’(3) Gianni sembra (??a Piero) fare il suo dovere
Gianni seems

to Piero(10) There seems/*?seem to Mary to be men in

to do the his duty

the room‘Gianni seems (to Piero) to do his duty’(4) DPnomi

TNS

PP/DPdat[XPti(Boeckx 2008)(11) On the wall seems/*?seem to Mary to be]

standing many men(12) Mér

The intervention effect found here is calledvirðast(Arano 2014)

hestarnirveraseinirmeDAT seemPL the-horsesNOM be slow

“defective” since the intervening phrase is(13)*Hestarnir“inactive” in that it does not need Case orvirðastmér

vera

seinirthe-horsesNOM seemPL meDAT be slow

agreement with Tense.

(14) Það

Hartman (2009, 2012) points out that thevirðist/*virðast

tough/easy construction reveals the intervention

EXPL

effect even in English:

hestarnir

seemSG/*PL
vera

seinirthe-horsesNOM be slow

107

einhverjum mannisome manDATIn the case of intervention here the finite verbs

framework, α probes β in terms of {τ, φ} andshow the default 3rd person singular agreement.

delete relevant features of α and β in (15).

If

In (4) the nominative DP needs to agree withγ has {τ, φ} and intervenes, then it blocks thethe matrix Tense before raising, because it willprobing and henceforce the agreement between

be out of the search domain of Tense after

α and β, assuming that the search looks soraising and cannot have a probe-goal relation

shallowly into the elements involved that it seeswith Tense under the standard minimalist

the (sets of) fatures of α, β, and γ, but not theirassumptions.

values.

The intervening phrase blocks

Thus, before the nominative DP istheraised in (4), the probing of it by Tense isnominative DP even though it does not need toblocked by the intervening PP/dative DP which

agree with Tense.

contains a τ-feature relaized as oblique or dative

theagreement

between

Tense

and

The question is, how aCase.

defective/inactive intervener blocks agreement.
In this paper we take a relativized minimality

Without going further into the precise

approach in terms of feature (type), developed

mechanism that yields defective interevention

by Oka (2000, 2001, 2013, 2015), to theeffects, let us see how the blocking can be

defective intervention.

circumvented.

See (15) for illustration:

Consider the two possible

derivations illustrated in (16a) and (16b):
(15)

α

γ

β

H

H/DP/PPH{τ, φ}{τ, φ}{τ, φ}(16)a.

[2] Move[1] Agree
DPnom
TNS
t’
DPdat /PP               [2] Agree[1] Moveb.  [3] Movet

Suppose that α is Probe, β is Goal, and γ is a
c-commanding intervening head/phrase.

As just seen, (16a) is ruled out because theEachof the three elements contains a feature set {τ,agreement is unsuccssful.

φ}.

φ is a complex of agreement features suchother hand, the nomintive DP first jumps overas person, number and gender with values, andthe intervener and lands on some position that isis referentially interpreted on nominals.

still inside the search domain of Tense.

semanticandinflectionalfeatureτ is athat

In (16b), on theThenthe DP undergoes agreement with Tense.

is

propositionally or predicatively interpreted as

Finally it is moved to Spec, Tense.

[±Past] on Tense and [+assign Agent-role to its

variations among languages and within aSpec] on ν*.

language

It is morphologically realized asarederivedfromTheparametricverbal inflections, and as a variety of Case

differences concerning whether the functionalfeatures on nominals.

Here we identify Casehead to provide
the wanted landing site canνfeatures with Case-checking/assigning ones.

appear in some appropriate position in the

These two types of features are just the two sides

relevant construction.

of the same coin.

details in the following sections.

Conventionally we have

We will consider this inbeen just referring to τ as Case when it appears
on nominals.

2. Double Object and Passivization
First let us see the double object construction,

Adopting some version of match-and-delete

which is subject to parametric differences.

mechanism of agreement in the minimalist

108

Ura

(2000), among others, argues that a correlation is

Consider the following derivations, where thefound between whether an adverb can beadverb is assumed to be licensed by ν(ASP) andinterpolated immediately after IO and whether

therefore appear close enough to ν(ASP):

DO can be passivized over IO:(22) American English(17) I gave Bill reluctantly the keys

[vP SUB [ ν(CAUS) [vP IO [ ν(HAV)ν([vP DO [ ν(ASP)ν([VP tSUB
AdverbνAgree(acc)
Agree(acc)(18) The book was given Mary by John

(23) British English

Both are allowed in British English (and,correspondingly, in Norwegian), whereas neitherisallowedinAmericanEnglishtIO V tDO] …

[vP SUB [ ν(CAUS) [vP IO [ ν(ASP)ν(A [vP t”IO [ ν(HAV)
ν(H[VP tSUB tIO V DO] …
AdverbAgree(acc)
Agree(acc)(and,correspondingly, in Danish and Swedish).
Let us assume the followoing split verb phrase
Here V is raised up to ν(CAUS) in the νPstructure for the basic transitive construction:

sturcture.
[vP SUB [ ν(CAUS) [vP DO [ ν(ASP) [VP tSUB V tDO ]]]]]          Agree (Accusative Case)(19)

Tense is merged and agrees with

SUB in Spec, ν(CAUS).
Spec, Tense.

SUB is then raised toIn (22) IO is raised to Spec,The conventional ν* fissions into ν(CAUS) andν(HAV) to satisfy ν(HAV)’s semantic property

ν(ASP), with connnotations of causative andof requiring a Goal argument in its Spec, and is

lexical aspect, respectively.

SUB appears in

Case-checked by ν(CAUS) under agreement.

Spec, ν(CAUS), whether it is assumed to be

DO is raised to Spec, ν(ASP), and Case-checked

raisedfromν
insidebase-generated there.

thelexicalVP

by ν(HAV).

or

ν(ASP), and therefore has no chance to appear

ν(CAUS) is θ-selective

and needs an external argument.

The adverb appears next to

between IO and DO.

DO is raised

In (23) IO is raised toto Spec, ν(ASP), and Case-checked by ν(CAUS)

Spec, ν(HAV) to satisfy ν(HAV)’ s property,

under agreement.

and further to Spec, ν(ASP) to be Case-checked

ν(ASP) isn’t θ-selective andtakes any argumet in its Spec, but it does notby ν(CAUS).

Case-check anything.

ν(HAV).

DO is Case-checked in situ byConsequently, the adverb appears

between IO and DO.

In the double object construction we add

Let us see next how the relative ordering of

ν(HAV), with the connotation of possessor:

ν(HAV) and ν(ASP) derives the difference
concerning passivization.

(20) The ordering of functional heads is

We add ν(PASS):

prametrizaed: ν(CAUS) - ν(HAV) - ν(ASP)(24) In pasivization ν(CAUS) alternates within American English, and ν(CAUS) -ν(PASS), which is located as the lowest of

ν(ASP) - ν(HAV) in British English.

the(21) ν(HAV) is θ-selective and requires a Goal

hierarchicalsequenceofverbalargument to move to its Spec from inside

functional heads and checks the oblique

the lexical VP.

Case of the by-DP under agreement.

ν(HAV) probes into its

search (complement) domain and checks
Theaccusative Case.

109

passivization

of

the

doubleobjectν(NULL)

constrction is illustrated in the following:-

ν(ASP)

in

English,andν(ASP) - ν(NULL) in French/Italian.
(28) ν(NULL) lacks semantic contents and(25) American English

therefore is not θ-selective.

TNS [vP IO [ ν(HAV) [vP t’ IO [ ν(Aν(ASP) [vP SUB [ ν(PASS)ν([VP by-PP tIO V tSUB
Agree(acc)

It contains the{τ, φ} set, but the τ-feature is valueless andAgree(oblique)is not morphologically realized as Case on
nominals.

    Agree(nom): unsuccessful

Its valued φ-features, however,need to be deleted under agreement as usual,(26) British English

because they are uninterpretable on verbals.
TNS [vP SUB [ ν(ASP) [vP IO [ ν(HAV) [vP t’ IO [ ν(PASS) [VP by-PP tIO
Agree(nom)Agree(acc)

V tSUB ](29) English

Agree(oblique)

TNS [vP SUB [ ν (NULL) [vP t’SUB [ ν(ASP)(A[VP PP [ V [XP tSUB
Agree(nom)(30) French/Italian

In (25) IO is raised to Spec, ν(HAV), via Spec,ν(ASP), where its accusative Case is checked by
ν(HAV) under agreement.

Agree(no Case)TNS [vP SUB [ ν(ASP) [vP t’SUB [ ν(NULL)([VP DP/PP [ V [XP tSUB

However, SUB

Agree(nom)blocking(=DO) is too far away from Tense, so that even
if it is raised to Spec, ν(PASS), it still cannot
undergo agreement with Tense, with the inactive

In (29) SUB first moves to Spec, ν(ASP),IO behaving as a defective intervener.

jumping over the intervening PP, and undergoes

In (26),on the other hand, ν(ASP) is the highest verbal

agreement

head

φ-features of ν(NULL).

andprovidestheescape

hatch

to

with

ν(NULL),

deleting

theHowever, the τ-feature

circumvent the blocking by the intervener.

of ν(NULL) is null and cannot deltete that of

SUB is raised to Spec, ν(ASP) and successfully

SUB (nominative Case in this case).

undergoes agreement with Tense, while IO is

SUB moves to Spec, ν(NULL) to undergo

raised to Spec, ν(PASS) for Case-checking andagreement with Tense to delete its τ-featurethen to Spec, ν(HAV) to satisfy ν(HAV).

before moving to Spec, Tense.

Then

ν

ν
ν

3. Raising and Tough Constructions

In (30) SUB can move to Spec, ν(ASP) via

Spec, ν(NULL) to agree with Tense.

However,SUB
doesn’t have the chance to undergoν

Now let us see how our parametric functional
theagreement with ν(NULL) in the course ofvariations found in the raising and toughderivation, because ν(NULL) is the lowest headordering

approach

can

also

explainν

above the blocking intervener.

constructions.

Consequently,

the φ-features of ν(NULL) remain undeleted,

For the class of unaccusative verbs, whichleading to unintepretablity of the features.

raising
verbs belong to, let us propose to add
νNote that the intervening phrase should beν(NULL), described as in (27) and (28), andunable to agree with ν(NULL).

consider the derivations in (29) and (30):This will

follow if we assume that inactive elements
cannot be probed though it is blocking.

(27) In unaccusatives ν(CAUS) alternates with
ν(NULL).

The

intervener in (30) is inactive in the sense that it

The ordering is parametrized:

110doesn’t contain undeleted features that require it

functional head that determins the lexical aspect,

to undergo agreement.

since adjective, unlike verbs, are necessarily

Nontheless, it blocks

agreement between ν(NULL) and SUB in situ.

stative.

This is defective intervention.

be no way to circumvent the intervention.

In terms of the

In the case of adjective, thus, there willfeature set {τ, φ}, we may be able to suppose

Bruening(2014)

points

out

that

if

the

that Agree is designed in such a way that the {τ,intervening PP is moved away then theφ} is subject to Probe only if neither τ nor φ isintervention effect disappears, observing English

deleted, noting that either τ or φ necessarily

examples as in (32) and the essentially sameneeds to be deleted in general, because the two

effect in French.

totally different types of features cannot be(32) a. The president is to many peopleinterpreted on the same item at the same time.

annoying to listen to

In (29) SUB undergoes agreement with Tense

b. Sugar is for many people difficult toafter it undergoes agreement with ν(NULL)
downstairs.

give upThis is possible because SUB is

still active after it undergoes agreement with
ν(NULL), which leaves the {τ, φ} of SUB

Here the PP appears between the surface subject

untouched and just deletes the φ-features ofand the adjective.

ν(NULL) that match those of SUB.

intervention effect is not caused by the

Next consider the case of tough movment that

unsuccessful

This means that theagreement

withTense,

andsupports our analysis where the PP between the

includes an adjective, as in (31):adjective and the infinitival clause blocks theagreement with a(NULL).

(31)
TNS

[aP SUB [ a(NULL) [AP PP

Agree(nom)

[A

[XP

tSUB

blocking

4. ECM Constructions
The intervention effects seen above all

Here the functional head a(NULL) is theinvolve intervening phrases (PPs/DPs).

adjectival version of ν(NULL), which contains

the case involving an intervening head, let us

φ-features that need to be deleted.

finally consider the ECM constructions.

Predicative

To seeLet usadjectives in Icelandic, for instance, are actually

start with the allege/wager class of verbs, whichinflected, agreeing with the subject.

show

Then it isthewell-known

property

that

the

notν unreasonable to assume that adjectives in

embedded subject requires to be wh-moved or

languages

NP-moved (See Postal (1974, 1993), among

such

as

Englishhave

abstract

others):φ-features, just like noun phrases have anνabstractτ-feature(=Case).

In

(31)

the
(33) *They alleged John to have stolen theagreement of a(NULL) with SUB in situ ismoney.

unsuccessful in presnce of the intervening PP.

(34) Who did they allege to have stolen the

If a functional head like a(ASP) were presentmoney?

between a(NULL) and the intervener, then SUB(35) John was alleged to have stolen the money.

would be able to jump over the intervener.
However, we have no reason to add such a111

If the embedded subject stays inside theprinciple of full interpretation.

If the DP isinfinitival clause (TP or CP, depending on thefurther moved from Spec, ν(ASP), the trace copy

analysis), we will have (36), and if it is raised toleft there will be invisible to interpretation, so

the matrix, we will have (37):that there will be no element causing a violation.
This is why wh- or NP-movement is obligatory
in the case of the allege/wager class.

(36)[vP SUB [ ν(CAUS) [vP ν ((ASP) [VP V [CP/TP DP                     

(37)

(Note

that this approach implies that Spec, Tense is apositon that can be somehow interpreted.

The

predication

or

key

[vP SUB [ ν(CAUS) [vP DP [ ν(ASP)([VP V [CP/TP t                      concept

might

bethematization.)
For the believe-class of verbs, we propose the

The accusative DP needs to agree withν(CAUS).

followoing derivation:

In (36), however, ν(ASP) intervenes.
(38) [ SUB [ ν (CAUS) [ DP [ ν(ν(TOP) [Remember that Case is identified with avP

τ-feature that is realized on nominals.

vP

vP

ν(
ν(ASP) [VP V[CP/TPt       Theτ-feature itself is a core property of verbal
functional heads such as Tense.

ννHere we add
the functional headν(TOP) that

Then ν(ASP)

assigns a topic-like role to its Spec.

necessarily has a τ-feature, but let us suppose tha

ν

It

ν

That

optionally appears above ν(ASP) and provide ais, ν(ASP) isn’t able to Case-check, and is

landing site for the embedded subject toinacitive in this sense.

circumvent the intervention of ν(ASP) in thethe feature is not realaized on nominals.

intervener,itblocksHowever, as a defective
agreementcase of the believe-class.

betweenν(CAUS) and the accusative DP, as far as it has

Case-checkeda τ-feature.

In (37) the agreement in question

interpreted there as an inner topic, though the

becomes successful with the DP raised to Spec,

relevant semantic restrictions may be different

ν(ASP).

from those imposed on sentential topics.

A problem arises concerning theLasnikinterpretation of the DP in the Spec position of
ν(ASP), which is not θ-selective.

by

The raised DP is(1999

ν(CAUS)andandothers)properly

arguesthat

Raising-to-Object is optional, by appealing toSuppose thata θ-selective fnctional head additionally θ-marks

the behavior of make out as in (39).

However,an argument in its Spec.

itdifferent

The argument in Spec,ispossible

that

we

have

Case-checkers for (39a) and (39b), as in (40):ν(ASP) in a simple clause is properly interpretedνin terms of the θ-marking by the lexical V,
though it is not θ-marked by ν(ASP), assuming(39) a. Mary made John out to be a fool.

that verbal functional hedas and the lexical V

b. Mary made out John to be a fool.

constitute a single θ-domain.

(40) aIn the ECM case,[vP SUB [ ν(CAUS) [vP DP [ ν(TOP) [vP ν(ASP) [vP ν(PRT=OUT) [VP V [CP/TP t

however, the argument in Spec, ν(ASP) is raisedb.

out of the θ-domain of the embedded clause, sothat the original θ-marking cannot be carried[vP SUB [ ν(CAUS) [vP ν(ASP) [vP ν(PRT=OUT)([VP

over and the argument in question violates theθ-criterion or something like that under the112

V [CP/TP DP

In (40a) the embedded subject is raised to Spec,

Lasnik, Howard (1999) “Chains of Arguments,”ν(TOP) to be Case-checked by ν(CAUS) just as

Working Minimalism, ed. by Smuel Epsteinin the believe-class.

and Norbert Hornstein, 189-215, MIT Press,

In (40b), on the other hand,

Cambridge, MA.

the embedded subject stays in situ and isCase-checked by the particle out, which acts as averbal functional head.

McGinnis,Martha(1998)

Localityin

A-Movement, Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

This is a genuin case ofThe

Oka, Toshifusa (2000) “Feature Checking andobserved behavior of make out does not

Movement,” Tsukuba English Studies 19,

necessarily provide evidence for the optionality

1-23.

“Exceptionalof RTO.

Case-marking.”

Thus,

Oka, Toshifusa (2001) “Feature Checking andRather, if our approach is on the right

Economy of Derivation,” Imi to Katachi notruck, RTO will be in fact obligatory.

Interface (The Interface between Meaning
and Form):

REFERENCES

A Festschrift for Dr. Minoru

Arano, Akihiko (2014) “Two Types of Main

Nakau, ed. by Yukio Hirose, Nobuhiro

Verb Inversion,” English Linguistics 31-1,

Kaga, Shuichi Takeda, Koichi Takezawa

22-44.

and Atsuroo Tsubomoto, 627-637, Kurosio

Boeckx, Cedric (2008) Aspects of the Syntax of

Publishers, Tokyo.

Agreement, Routledge, London.
Bruening,

Benjamin(2014)“Defects

Oka, Toshifusa (2013) “Jump and Agree,” paper
presented at the 13th Fukuoka UniversityofDefective Intervention,” Linguistic Inquiry

Linguistics Colloquium.
Oka, Toshifusa (2015) “A Minimalist Sketch of45, 707-719.
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

Some Correlations between Word Order

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

and Case,” In Untiring Pursuit of Better

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

Alternatives,

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David

Hisatsugu Kitahara, Kazuo Nakazawa,

Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155,

Tadao Nomura, Masayuki Oishi, Akira

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Saizen and Motoko Suzuki, 335-345,

ed.

by

HirokiEgashira,

Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

Hartman, Jeremy (2009) “Intervention in Tough

Postal, Paul M. (1974) On Raising: One Rule ofConstructions,” NELS 39, 387-398.
Hartman, Jeremy (2012) “(Non-)Intervention in

English Grammar and its Theoretical

A-Movement: Some Cross-Constructional

Implications, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

andCross-Linguistic

Postal, Paul M. (1993) “Some Defective

Considerations,”

Linguistic Variation 11, 121-148.

Paradigms,”

Linguistic

Inquiry24,347-364.

Hicks, Glyn (2009) “Tough-Constructions andUra, Hiroyuki (2000) Checking Theory and

Their Derivation,” Linguistic Inquiry 40,

Grammatical

535-566.

Functionsin

Universal

Grammar, Oxford University Press, New

Holmberg, Anders and Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir
(2003/2004) “Agreement and Movement inYork.

Icelandic Raising Constructions,” Lingua
113, 997-1019/114, 651-673.

113

consequences and the last section is concluding
remarks.
2. Properties of there constructions
Some properties of there constructions are

On Syntactic Structures of Inside and Outside
Verbal Existential Sentences*

discussed in this section.
2.1. Properties of IVES and OVESJun Omune

IVES

Kansai Gaidai University

is

the

unaccusative verbs.
(1) a.

Keywords㸸Exo-Skeletal Theory, Argument
Structure, There Constructions, Th/Ex,

there

construction

with

4, 5

There appeared a ship (on the horizon).
(adapted from Levin (1993: 89))

Unaccusativization of Unergative Verbsb.

There arrived three men.
(Chomsky (1981: 261))

c.

There exists a God.

1. Introduction
This paper presents an analysis of the

In this type of construction, (i) unaccusative

presentational there constructions within an

verbs representing existence or appearance are

exo-skeletal framework by Acedo-Matellán

used, (ii) PP is optional and (iii) the logical1(2010) and Acedo-Matellán and Mateu (2014).

subject is allowed to be between the verb and the

It is shown that the rightward Thematization/PP.
OVES is the there construction with

Extraction (Th/Ex) proposed by Chomsky

unergative verbs.

(2001) is applied to the logical subject of the socalled Outside Verbal Existential Sentence, if a(2) a.

verbal root (√) is externally pair-merged with the2verbalizer, v for unaccusative.

Thereupon, there ambled into the rooma frog.

In this case, an(Milsark (1974: 246))

unergative verb is “unaccusativized” in the senseb. * Thereupon, there ambled a frog.

of Mateu (2002: 91).

c. * Thereupon, there ambled a frog into
the room.

The present paper is structured as follows: insection 2, properties of there constructions withunaccusative and unergative verbs are shown.

In this kind of construction, (i) unergative verbs

In section 3, the rule of Th/Ex is outlined and its

are used, (ii) PP is obligatory and (iii) the logicalproblem is pointed out.

In addition, Th/Ex is

subject must be at the right edge of the sentence.

revisedIn

These three properties turn to be three problems

tentatively.

section4,

thein analyzing the structure of OVES.

exo-skeletal theory by Acedo-Matellán andMateu is summarized briefly.

In section 5, thesyntactic structures of Inside/Outside Verbal
Existential

Sentences3

Sectionproposed.

(IVES/OVES)
6

describes

2.2. Expl Externally Merges at [Spec, T]

are

Chomsky (2001) argues the expletive (Expl)somethere externally merges at the specifier (Spec) of

114

movement of Expl from [Spec, v] to [Spec, T].

T in his Probe-Goal-Agree system.

This analysis is theoretically elegant and(3) a.
b.

[CP [TP Expl T [vP v [VP arrive [DP apartly adopted in section 5.

man]]]]]

problem of explaining the structure of OVES[CP [TP be likely [TP Expl to arrive astill remains. The unergative verbs appear inman]]]OVES and they take an external argument.

(cf. Chomsky (2001: 16))

However, theThus, Expl may not merge at the Spec of v*
However, this analysis has at least three

because of the violation of the θ-role assignment.

theoretical problems. First, in (3a), Expl at the

To resolve the problem, this paper argues inSpec is the probe, though elements at thesection 4.3. that the unergative verbs are

position usually do not function as a probe.

“unaccusatived” by the mechanism of an

Second, the u(ninterpretable)-person of Expl

exo-skeletal theory.

agrees with a u-φ-feature of T in (3a).
However, it is dubious that a u-feature is valued

3. Th/Ex and its Problem

by another u-feature. Third, in (3b), Expl with

3.1. The Rule of Th/Ex

u-person is the goal, but usually an element with

Th/Ex is proposed by Chomsky (2001:i(nterpretable)-φ-features and Case is the goal.

20-26).

2.3. Expl Externally Merges at [Spec, v](5) a.

Richards and Biberauer (2005) elegantly

Th/Ex

is

an

operationofthephonological component.

resolve the problems, arguing Expl externallyb.

6merges at the Spec of unaccusative/passive v.

Th/Ex is applied to direct objects (DO)in the unacussative/passive structuresin order to prevent the word order,(4) [CP [TP Expl T [vP tExpl v [VP arrive [DP aman]]]]]

V-DO.

(adapted from Richards andc.

Biberauer (2005: 124))

The output of Th/Ex is substituted
leftward or adjoined rightward to vP.

d.
According to them, the content of Expl is not

The element extracted by Th/Ex is nolonger (sub)extracted.

the u-person but the i-person (3rd person) plus
Case. Thus, the difference between Expl and

The following examples show how Th/Ex

the normal DP is whether a φ-set is defective orworks in a sentence.

full.
Following their analysis, the problems
mentioned above are unraveled.

(6) a. * There came several angry men into theIn (4), T’s

room.

u-φ-set probes into Expl. Case of Expl then isb.

valued. T’s φ-set still continues to probe into

(Chomsky (2001: 20))

There came t into the room [several
angry men].

the possible candidate [DP a man], as Expl is
φ-incomplete.7

Consequently, T’s φ-set is

Th/Ex applies to the logical subject (i.e. DO) invalued and [DP a man] receives the nominative.

(6a) because of the unaccusative V-DO word

Note that the EPP feature of T is satisfied by theorder. After the application, the sentence (6b)115

structure is essentially built by two relationalis acceptable.

elements: v (eventive head) and p (adpositionalhead).

3.2. The Problem of Th/Ex

They

argue

some

semantic

interpretations are read off through the structural

Th/Ex has the following empirical problem.

configuration. Some examples are listed in the(7) a.

next table.

There came an old lady into the room.
(Mendikoetxea (2006: 136, fn. 7))b.

There came a loud scream from inside
the house.

(9)(Radford (2009: 363))

Originator[Spec, v]

Incremental Theme[Compl(ement), v]

Figure[Spec, p]

Ground[Compl, p]

The sentences in (7) and (1a) all have thePath[Compl, p]/Compl=pP

unaccusative V-DO but they are unproblematic.

Telic

Single p-projection

Besides, the survey by Julien (2002:9) and that

AtelicDouble p-projection

by me both show that (6a) sounds good enough.8

Manner√ adjoined to vc.

There arrived a train in the station.
(Deal (2009: 286))

Accordingly, Th/Ex in Chomsky’s sense is notstraightforwardly acceptable.

Nevertheless,Moreover, Non-relational elements like a root

this paper argues that Th/Ex rather applies to the

do not project structures.

“unaccusativized” constructions.

object like √P does not exist, contrary toWith respect

to “Unaccusativization,” see section 4.3.

Thus, a syntactic

Marnatz (1997). The quotations below further
explain the nature of roots in their theory.

(8) Th/Ex applies to the “unaccusativized”
construction.

(10)

As for the nature of roots, they are
constituted of two sets of properties: C and4. An Exo-Skeletal FrameworkF.

F is a set of phonological properties.

Acedo-Matellán (2010) and Acedo-Matellán

C is a set of conceptual properties readable

and Mateu (2014) develop the lexical syntactic

only at the C-I interface and unable,

approach by Hale and Keyser (1993, 2002).

therefore,

They

computation in any way.

arestrongly

influenced

by

three

neo-constructionist frameworks: the exo-skeletaltodeterminethesyntactic(Acedo-Matellán and Mateu (2014: 17))

research program, Distributed Morphology, andthe theory of relational syntax and semantics.9

Following their claim, C is the structuralThis

independentpaper

exo-skeletal

calls

their approach

frameworks,

one

of

followingproperties

Acedo-Matellán and Mateu (2014: 28, fn. 24).

semantic
while

the

(i.e.

conceptual)structuraldependent

semantic properties are interpreted by such asystem shown in (9).

4.1. Relational Elements and Roots
According to Acedo-Matellán (2010) and4.2. Exo-Skeletal Argument Structure

Acedo-Matellán and Mateu (2014), argument116

pair-merges with v.

Adopting their framework, unaccusative andunergative events of argument structure are the5. The Structures of There Constructions

following.

Adopting (4), (8) and the exo-skeletal theory
discussed above, the following hypothesis is(11) Unaccusative event: The sky cleared.

proposed.

[vP v [pP [DP The sky] [p’ p [pP p √CLEAR]]]](Acedo-Matellán and Mateu (2014: 16))(12) Unergative event: Sue danced.

5.1. Hypothesis
I assume that a verbal root externally merges[vP [DP Sue] [v’ v √DANCE]]

with p in IVES and externally pair-merges with

(Acedo-Matellán and Mateu (2014: 16))v in OVES. In the latter case, Th/Ex applies in
In (11), √CLEAR incorporates into v through theorder to prevent the “unaccusativized” √-v-DO

doubleword order.12, 13

p

for

the

phonologicalreason;phonologically empty heads need a phonologicalmatrix.10(15) a.

In (12), √DANCE also incorporates

into v for the same reason.

The structure of IVES: [vP Expl [v’ v [pP
IA [p’ (p [pP) p √]]]]b.

The structure of OVES: [vP Expl [v’ √-v[pP IA [p’ (p [pP) √-p DP]]]]

4.3. Unaccusativizationc.

Mateu (2002: 160-162) explicitly shows the

The condition of applying Th/Ex“unaccusativized” system of English unergative

Th/Ex applies if a root externallyverbs in his theory of relational syntax andpair-merges with v.

semantics.

Recapturing it in the current

framework, the so called “unaccusativization”

From (15), it follows that the syntactic structuresmeans a verbal root externally pair-merges withof IVES and OVES are derived as shown in thethe unacussative little v.

next section.

(13) Complex unaccusative event: Sue danced

5.2. The Structures of IVES and OVES
Note that T, C and, if any, the other heads areinto the room.
[vP [v √DANCE-v] [pP [DP Sue] [p’ -to [pPomitted in the following structures, because of√IN-p [DP the room]]]]]

simplification of the description.

(cf. Acedo-Matellán and Mateu (2014: 17))(16) IVES: There appeared a ship (on the
According to (9), the adjunct position of v ishorizon).

interpreted as Manner; the unergative verb dance[vP there [v’ v [pP [DP a ship] [p’ pis “unaccusativized” in (13).

√APPEAR]]]]

It can be said that

√IN modifies the locational property of p.

11

The unaccusative event is interpreted by the√APPEAR incorporates into v trough p by the

structural configuration.

same reason mentioned in section 4.2. PP on
the horizon is adjoined to something (perhaps, p’,
pP or vP) in the structure in (16), if anything.

(14) Unaccusativization is that a root externally117

grizzly bear.

(17) OVES: There ambled into the room a frog.
f.

[vP [vP there [v’ [v √AMBLE-v] [pP t a frog [p’-to [pP √IN-p [DP the room]]]]] [DP a frog]]√AMBLE

externallypair-merges

with(Lumsden (1988: 38))

A grizzly bear came out of the bushes
by running.

(18b, d, f) are the paraphrased version of (18a, c,v;

therefore, it is “unaccusativized” and structurallye), respectively.

interpreted as Manner. The unaccusative event

by bold letters represent Manner. Accordingly,

like appearance is interpreted by the whole

the claim that the main verb, precisely, thestructural configuration.

verbal root in OVES is interpreted as Manner is

Following (15c),

All the by-phrases indicatedsupported by the data.

Th/Ex applies to a frog and it affects the surface
word order in OVES.

6.2. Syntactic Data
The following data further point out the

5.3. Resolving Three Problems

non-(sub)extractability of the logical subject in

The structure proposed in the end of section

OVES.

5.2. unravels the three problems of OVES in theend of section 2.1.

(19) a. ? I saw a ship [which] there appeared t

First, an apparent unergative verb occurs inon the horizon.

OVES because its root externally pair-merges

b. ? I remember several new facts [which]with v. Second, PP is obligatory because it isthere emerged t at the meeting.

rather the core semantic predicate. Finally, thec. * I saw a fierce-looking tomcat [which]logical subject appears in the end of the sentence

there walked into the room t.

since Th/Ex applies under the condition (15c).

d. * I saw a frog [which] there ambled into
the room t.

6. Some Consequences
The proposed structures are supported by the

The data in (19a, b) and (19c, d) are thefollowing data.

examples of the wh-extraction in IVES andOVES, respectively.

6.1. Semantic Data

In the first two examples,

the wh-phrases can be extracted comparatively.

The following data show that the roots of the

However, in the others, the wh-phrases cannot

unergative verbs represent Manner in OVES.

be extracted because Th/Ex applies to them.
(18) a.
b.

There ambled into the room a frog.

According to (5d), the element extracted by

A frog came into the room by

Th/Ex is no longer extracted.

ambling.
c.

Therewalked

into

the

room

(20) a.

aportrait t on the wall?

fierce-looking tomcat.
d.

(Milsark (1974: 155))(adapted from Nishihara (1999: 392, fn. 10))

A fierce-looking tomcat came into theb. * [Of which community] did there walk
into the room a member t?

room by walking.
e.

[Of which] artist did there hang a

Suddenly, there ran out of the bushes a(adapted from Nishihara (1999: 394))

118

4

The data in (20a, b) are the examples of thewh-subextraction
respectively.

in

IVES

and

OVES,

The there constructions with unaccusative/

passive v and the logical subject at the right edge

In the former, the wh-phrase canare not discussed in this paper.

However, in the latter, the5wh-phrase cannot be done so since Th/Ex has

isapplied to the logical subject including it.

However, I follow the judgment in his earlier

According to (5d), the element extracted bybook, since my informants also judged it fine.

Th/Ex is no longer subextracted.

6

be subextracted.

Given the data above, it is supported that

The acceptability of the same sentence in (1b)judged“?”inChomsky(2001:

21).

See also Deal (2009), Hale and Keyser (2002),

and Radford (2009).
7

Th/Ex applies not to the logical subject of IVES

For the Maximization Principle, see Chomsky

but to that of OVES; hence, the derivation of(2001: 15).

(16) and (17).

8

As for a different perspective on this, see

Nishihara (2009).
9

7. Concluding Remarks
To summarize, in this paper we have argued

For the three neo-constructionist frameworks,

see Borer (2003), Halle and Marantz (1993),

about some properties of IVES and OVES

Mateu (2002) and each follow-up work.

within an exo-skeletal framework.

10

In IVES, a

Acedo-Matellán(2010)

arguesthattheverbal root is externally merged at theincorporation (in his term, conflation) in thiscomplement position of p. In OVES, a verbal

sense is a phonological operation.

root is adjoined to the little v; hence,

11“unaccusativization” of an unergative verb.

Acedo-Matellán (2010) and Marantz and Wood

Furthermore, it is shown that Th/Ex within(2015).

Minimalist Program affects the word order and

12

IA = Internal Argument, in (15).

explains the non-(sub)extractability in OVES.

13

The optional p in (15) occurs if the event is

As

for

the

lexically telic.

prepositionalroots,seeSee (9).

* I am very grateful to Yukio Oba, Nobuo Okada
andDaisuke

Hirai

for

their

invaluable

REFERENCES
Acedo-Matellán, Victor (2010)

suggestions and comments on some earlier
drafts of this paper.

Structure

I am also thankful to

Toshiaki Nishihara and the audience at the 33

and

the

Syntax-Morphology

Interface: A Case Study in Latin and Othernd

Doctoralconference of the English Linguistic Society of

Languages,

Japan for their valuable comments.

Universitat de Barcelona.

Thanks godissertation,

Acedo-Matellán, Victor and Jaume Mateu

to Stephen Shrader too for his intuition andchecking the English of this paper.

Argument(2014) “From Syntax to Roots: A SyntacticAnyremaining inadequacies are my own.

Approach to Root Interpretation,” TheNOTESThe term exo-skeletal is first introduced by

Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax, ed.

Borer (2003), to the best of my knowledge.

Florian Schäfer, 14-32, Oxford University

2

As for the verbalizer, see Marantz (1997).

Press, Oxford.

3

IVES/OVES is the term by Milsark (1974).

1

by Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer and

Borer,

119

Hagit(2003)“Exo-Skeletalvs.

Syntactic

Marantz, Alec (1997) “No Escape from Syntax:

Projections and the Lexicon,” The Nature

Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in theof Explanation in Linguistic Theory, ed. by

Privacy

John Moore and Maria Polinsky, 31-67,

Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn

CSLI Publications, Stanford, California.

Linguistics Colloquium, 201-225.

Endo-Skeletal

Explanations:

of

Your

Own

Lexicon,”on

Marantz, Alec and Jim Wood (2015) “TheGovernment and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

Interpretation of External Arguments,”

Chomsky,Noam(1981)

Lectures

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”ms., NYU. <http://psych.nyu.edu/morphla

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. byb/publications/Wood%20&%20Marantz%2

Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

02015.pdf>
Mateu, Jaume (2002) Argument Structure:

Cambridge, MA.
Deal, Amy Rose (2009) “The Origin and

Relational Construal at the Syntax-Semantics

Content of Expletives: Evidence fromInterface, Doctoral dissertation, Universitat“Selection”,” Syntax 12, 285-323.

Autònoma de Barcelona.
Mendikoetxea, Amaya (2006) “Unergatives that

Hale, Ken and Samuel Jay Keyser (1993) “On
Lexical‘Become’ Unaccusatives in English Locative

Expression of Syntactic Relations,” The

Inversion Structures: A Lexical-Syntactic

View

Approach,”

Argument
from

Structure
Building

and
20:

the

EssaysinCahierdeRecherchedeLinguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger,

Grammaire Anglaise: Points de Vue sur

ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay

I’inversion, ed. by Christine Copy and Lucie

Keyser, 53-109, MIT Press, Cambridge,

Gournay, 133-155, Ophrys, Paris.
Milsark, Gary (1974) Existential Sentences inMA.

English, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Hale, Ken and Samuel Jay Keyser (2002)

Nishihara,

Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument
MorrisandAlec

Marantz(1999)“On

Locative

Inversion and There-Construction,” English

Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Halle,

Toshiaki

Linguistics 16, 381-404.

(1993)“Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of

Nishihara, Toshiaki (2009) “Expletive Passives

Inflection,” The View from Building 20, ed.

and There Constructions with Unaccusativeby Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser,

Verbs,” JELS 26, 209-218.
Radford, Andrew (2009) Analyzing English

111-176, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Julien, Martin (2002) “On the Syntax of

Sentences:A

Minimalist

Approach,‘Th/Ex’,” paper presented at the conference

Cambridge University Press, New York.

“The Displacement Property of Human

Richards, Marc and Theresa Biberauer (2005)

Language” in University Tromsø.

“Explaining

Expl,”

The

Functionof

Levin, Beth (1993) English Verb Classes andFunction Words and Functional Categories,

Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation,

ed. by Marcel den Dikken and Christina M.

the University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Tortora,Lumsden, Michael (1988) Existential Sentences:115-153,

John

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Their Structure and Meaning, Croom Helm,
London.

120

Benjamins,ືモ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜࠊ୺ㄒࡣㄒᙡⓗព࿡࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
ືస୺ᛶࢆᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁࡎࠊูࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ
࣒ࡀ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ㠀⬟᱁ືモ࡛࠶ࡗࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣᙜ↛ࠊືస୺ᛶࡣㄒᙡ
㠀ᑐ᱁ືモᩥࡢືస୺ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

ⓗព࿡࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⏕ࡌࡿࠋ㸱⠇࡛ࡣ(2)ࡢ⎔ቃ(On the Agentivity of Unaccusative Sentences)ୗࡢືモࡣ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモᩥࡢືస኱⃝ ⪽Ꮚ (Satoko Osawa)㕥㮵་⒪⛉኱ (Suzuka University of Medical୺ᛶࡀㄒᙡⓗព࿡࡟㉳ᅉࡍࡿࡢ࡛࡞ࡃࠊูࡢ

Science)ࡍࡿࠋ㸲⠇࡛ࡣࠊ୺ㄒࡢゎ㔘ࡣㄒᙡⓗព࿡ࡢ⊂❧ࡋࡓ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡟౫Ꮡࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡
௚ࠊ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀ࡀ㛵୚ࡋᵓ㐀ⓗ୺ㄒ఩⨨࡟⏕ࡌࡓ㡯ࡀ₯ᅾⓗ࡟ືస୺࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢゎ㔘ࢆᚓࡿ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸㠀ᑐ᱁ືモ, ືస୺,⮬ືモศ㢮, ཷືᩥ, ⤫ㄒⓗ୺ㄒ఩⨨࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢᵓ㐀ⓗ୺ㄒ఩⨨࡜ࡣ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀࡛ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿ⤫ㄒⓗ㏙㒊㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ỵᐃࡉࢀࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ 㠀ᑐ᱁ືモࡣ⮬Ⓨᛶࢆ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋࠊ㏻ᖖ(1)2.⮬ືモࢱ࢖ࣉࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡢࡼ࠺࡟୺ㄒ࡟ືస୺ᛶࡣ⌧ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ

㠀ᑐ᱁ືモᩥࡢ୺ㄒࡢືస୺ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

㠀ᑐ᱁ືモᩥࡢ୺ㄒࡀពᚿࢆᣢࡕືసไᚚ

ㄽࡌࡿ๓࡟ࠊ(2)ࡢ⮬ືモࢱ࢖ࣉࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿྍ⬟࡞୺ㄒ (volitional subject)࡛࠶ࡿሙྜࠊືᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ(2)ࡢືモࡀ⌮ㄽస୺ᛶࢆᖏࡧࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࠋ(2)ࡢ౛

ୖࠊ㠀ᑐ᱁ࠊ㠀⬟᱁࡝ࡕࡽࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡶ࠶ࡿࡇ

ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊືసไᚚྍ⬟࡞୺ㄒࡣືస୺

࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࠊ⮬ືモࢱ࢖ࣉࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿᚲせᛶࢆせồࡍࡿ๪モྃ࡜㛵㐃ࡍࡿㄞࡳࡀྍ⬟࡛

ࢆㄽࡌࡿࠋ

࠶ࡿࠋ
2.1. 㠀ᑐ᱁ືモࡢྍ⬟ᛶ㸸ཷືᩥ࡜ࡢ୪⾜ᛶ(1) spontaneous reading
The last leaf fell.

 ၥ㢟ࡢ(2)ࡢືモࡀ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ

(2) agentive reading୺ㄒࡣືモ࠿ࡽㄒᙡⓗព࿡ࠕ୺㢟ࠖࢆ௜୚ࡉ

a. John intentionally fell from the climbing

ࢀ࡚ᵓ㐀ⓗ୺ㄒ఩⨨࡟ὴ⏕ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ୺ㄒࡢ
ືస୺ᛶゎ㔘ࡣㄒᙡⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽࡣㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ

structure.

࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌧㇟ࡣࠊ(3)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟b. John fell from the climbing structure toཷືᩥ୺ㄒ࡟ࡶほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ

draw attention.

(3) Mary was deliberately seduced.

ᮏ◊✲ࡣ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモᩥ࡟⌧ࢀࡿ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞

(Roberts (1987: 45))

୺ㄒࡢືస୺ゎ㔘ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⏕ࡌࡿ࠿ࢆㄽࡌࠊ୺ㄒゎ㔘࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡢ୍➃ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟
ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋཷືᩥࡢ୺ㄒࡣືモ࠿ࡽ୺㢟ࢆ௜୚ࡉࢀᵓ ḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ(2)ࡢືモࡀࡑࡶࡑࡶ㠀ᑐ᱁ື㐀ⓗ୺ㄒ఩⨨࡟ὴ⏕ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ୺ㄒࡢືస୺モ࡛࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶ࡜㠀⬟᱁ືモ࡛࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶᛶゎ㔘ࡣㄒᙡⓗ࡟ࡣㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ(2)ࡢືモࡀ㠀ᑐ᱁࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᩥ⊩࡛ࡣࠊὴ⏕୺ㄒ࡟ㄒᙡⓗព࿡௜121୚࡜ࡣ⊂❧ࡋࡓఱࡽ࠿ࡢ᪉ἲ࡛ືస୺ࡀ௜

ࡢ❧ሙ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ༑ศㄽドࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡲࡲ௬

୚ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋヲ⣽ࡣ㸲⠇ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ(2)ࡢືモࢆヲ

࡛ᚋ㏙ࡍࡿࡀࠊືモࡢព࿡௜୚࡜ࡣูࡢ࣓࢝⣽࡟ほᐹࡋ⮬ືモࢱ࢖ࣉࢆỴᐃࡍࡿドᣐࡀࢽࢬ࣒࡟ࡼࡾືస୺ゎ㔘ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿᵝᏊࢆᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୗࠊ㸱⠇࡛ࡣ⮬ືモศ㢮ࡢࢸ(4)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᅗ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ

ࢫࢺࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ(2)ࡢ⮬ືモࢱ࢖ࣉࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿࠋ(4) [TP Mary was deliberately

3. ⮬ືモࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ᳨ド[VP seduced Mary ]] ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡢ⮬ືモศ㢮ࡢࢸࢫࢺࢆ

Theme

㸱ࡘࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࢻ࢖ࢶㄒ࡜࢖ࢱࣜ࢔ㄒ࡛ࡢ᳨ド

Agent  ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ♧ࡍࠋ

(2)ࡢືモࡀ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊཷືᩥ(4)࡜୪⾜ⓗ࡟(5)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊㄒᙡⓗព࿡௜୚࡜

3.1. ⤖ᯝᵓᩥࡣ⊂❧ࡋࡓఱࡽ࠿ࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡟ࡼࡾࠊືస ⤖ᯝᵓᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚⤖ᯝྃࡣືモࡢෆ㡯ࡢ୺ゎ㔘ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

ࡳࢆླྀ㏙࡛ࡁࡿ㸦Levin and Rappaport Hovav
㸦1995㸧㸧ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚(7)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㠀⬟᱁ືモࡢ୺ㄒࡣ⤖ᯝྃࢆక࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸

(5) [TP John intentionally[VP fellAgentࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ(8)ࡢ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモࡢሙྜࠊ୺ㄒࡣ

John ]]

ෆ㡯࡜ࡋ࡚⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡓࡵ⤖ᯝྃ࡟ࡼࡿླྀ㏙

Theme

ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2.2. 㠀⬟᱁ືモࡢྍ⬟ᛶ㸸ㄒᙡⓗព࿡࡟ࡼࡿゎ㔘(7) 㠀⬟᱁ືモ(2)ࡢືモࢆ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ๓

* Dora shouted hoarse.

ᥦ࡜ࡋࠊཷືᩥ࡜୪⾜ⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡢ௚

(Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995: 35))࡟ࠊఏ⤫ⓗ࡞෗ീࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢୗ࡛ࡣูࡢྍ⬟(8) 㠀ᑐ᱁ືモᛶࡀᾋୖࡍࡿࠋ1 ఏ⤫ⓗ࡞෗ീࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡛

a. The prisoners froze to death.

ࡣࠊືモ࠿ࡽ≉ᐃࡢㄒᙡⓗព࿡ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓ

b. The bottle broke open.

㡯ࡣ⤫ㄒୖࡢ≉ᐃࡢ఩⨨࡟ᢞᑕࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ

(Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995: 39))ሙྜࠊືస୺ࡣᖖ࡟እ㡯࡜㛵ಀᛶࢆࡶࡘ࡜௬
ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ(2)ࡢ୺ㄒࡣືモࡢእ㡯఩⨨ḟ࡟ࡇࡢ≉ᛶࢆ౑࠸ࠊືస୺ࢆせồࡍࡿ๪モ࡟⏕ᡂࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊᙜヱࡢືモࡣ㠀⬟᱁ྃࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ࡟⤖ᯝྃࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆㄪ

ືモ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ᰝࡋࠊ⮬ືモࢱ࢖ࣉࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ(6) [TP John intentionally(9) a. John intentionally froze to death.

[vP John

fell ]]

b. Bill rolled out of the room on purpose.
c. Willy carefully wiggled free (of theAgentrope).
ᐇ㝿ࠊᩥ⊩ࡢ୰࡟ࡣ(2)ࡢືモࢆ “agentiveverb”ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ㠀⬟᱁ືモ࡜ぢ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶ

(9)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊືస୺ゎ㔘ࡀせồࡉࢀࡿࡢࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ⎔ቃୗ࡛⤖ᯝྃࡣㄆྍࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ

㸰ࡘࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆㄽࡌࡓࡀࠊᩥ⊩࡛ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀ

ၥ㢟ࡢືモࡣ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ

122

3.2.
 X’s way ᵓᩥ(Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995: 40))

 X’s way ᵓᩥࡣ㠀⬟᱁ືモᩥ࡛ࡣ(10)ࡢࡼ

(14) 㠀ᑐ᱁ືモ࠺࡟ྍ⬟ࡔࡀࠊ(11)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㠀ᑐ᱁ືモᩥ࡛

a. * The actress fainted a feigned faint.

ࡣ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Levinb. * The apples fell a smooth fall.

and Rappaport Hovav㸦1995㸧㸧
ࠋ(Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995: 40, 148))(10) 㠀⬟᱁ືモືస୺ゎ㔘ࡀせồࡉࢀࡿ⎔ቃୗ࡛ྠ᪘┠ⓗ… three dozen Hare Krishnas danced andㄒࡢྍྰࡣ(15)ࡢ࡜࠾ࡾࠊ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモࡢሙྜ

sang their way through Gorky Park on

࡜୪⾜ⓗᛶ㉁ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ

Sunday…
(Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995: 137))(15) a. * She fainted a feigned faint to draw(11) 㠀ᑐ᱁ືモ

attention.

a. * The apples fell their way into the crates.

b. * John intentionally fell a smooth fall.

b. * She arrived her way to the front of theline.

௨ୖࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ୍㈏ࡋ࡚ືస୺ゎ㔘

(Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995: 148))

ࡀせồࡉࢀࡿ⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᙜヱࡢືモࡀ㠀ᑐ᱁ᛶࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࠋḟ࡟ືస୺ゎ㔘ࡀせồࡉࢀࡿ⎔ቃୗ࡛ࡢ X’sຓືモ㑅ᢥ

way ᵓᩥࡢྍྰࢆㄪᰝࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ(12)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟

3.4.

㠀ᑐ᱁ືモࡢሙྜ࡜ྠᵝࡢ㠀ᩥἲᛶࢆ♧ࡍࠋ ⱥㄒ࡛ࡢ᳨ド⤖ᯝࡀṇࡋࡅࢀࡤࠊ௚ゝㄒ࡛ࡶྠᵝࡢ⤖ᯝࡀᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢ୍౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊຓືモ㑅ᢥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ほᐹࡍࡿࠋ࢖ࢱࣜ࢔ㄒ࣭

(12) a. * John intentionally fell his way into theࢻ࢖ࢶㄒ࡞࡝࡛ࡣ㠀⬟᱁ືモࡣ ‘have’ ࡟┦pool.

ᙜࡍࡿຓືモࢆࠊ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモࡣ‘be’࡟┦ᙜࡍb. * She intentionally arrived her way toࡿຓືモࢆ㑅ᢥࡋࠊ⮬ືモศ㢮ࡢᣦᶆ࡜ࡉࢀ

the front of the line.

࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௨ୗࡣ࢖ࢱࣜ࢔ㄒ(16)࡜ࢻ࢖ࢶㄒ
ࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽືస୺ᛶゎ㔘ࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿ⎔(17)ࡢ஦౛࡛ࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡢሙྜ࡟ࡶືస୺ゎ㔘ቃୗ࡛ࡶࠊᙜヱࡢືモࡣ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆせồࡍࡿ๪モྃࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
(16) ࢖ࢱࣜ࢔ㄒ
3.3. ྠ᪘┠ⓗㄒa.

ྠ᪘┠ⓗㄒࡶ㠀⬟᱁ືモ࡜㠀ᑐ᱁ືモ࡛

Gianni é caduto / *ha caduto apposta.
John is fallen / has fallen on purposeࡣᑐ↷ⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ

b.

Gianni é rotolato / *ha rotolato giù(13)(14)ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟㠀⬟᱁ືモᩥࡣྠ᪘┠

John is rolled / has rolled downⓗㄒࢆチࡍࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモᩥࡣチࡉ࡞

apposta.

࠸㸦Levin and Rappaport Hovav㸦1995㸧㸧
ࠋ

on purpose(Folli and Harley (2006: 143))(13) 㠀⬟᱁ືモ(17) ࢻ࢖ࢶㄒ

a.

Louisa slept a restful sleep.

a.  Peter ist absichtlich eingeschlafen.

b.

Malinda smiled her most enigmatic smile.

Peter is deliberately fallen asleep

123

b.

Eva ist gekommen um mir zu helfen.

ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊὴ⏕୺ㄒࡢືస୺ᛶゎ㔘ࡀㄒᙡⓗ

Eva is come in order me to helpព࿡࡜ࡣ⊂❧ࡋࡓ᪉ἲ࡛⏕ࡌࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛
ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ3 ࡘ࡟኱ู࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

(Kallulli (2006: 155))࡝ࡕࡽࡢ౛࡛ࡶ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿຓືモࡀ‘be’ ࡛(i) ᵓ㐀ⓗ୺ㄒ఩⨨࡟ᵓ㐀ⓗព࿡࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕື

࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊືస୺ゎ㔘ࡀせồࡉࢀࡿ≧ἣస୺ࠖࡀ௜୚ࡉࢀࡿࠋJackendoff (1972)ࠊTravisୗ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࡇࢀࡽࡢືモࡣ㠀ᑐ᱁ᛶࢆᣢ

(1988)ࠊRoberts (1987)௚

ࡘࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
(ii)

᳨ド⤖ᯝࡣ௨ୗࡢ࡜࠾ࡾ࡛ࠊ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞

be ືモࡀព࿡ෆᐜࢆࡶࡕࠊ⊂⮬࡟ὴ⏕ືస୺ᛶゎ㔘ࡀせồࡉࢀࡿ⎔ቃୗ࡛ࠊၥ㢟ࡢ୺ㄒ࡟ព࿡ᙺ๭ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࠋMcConnel-Ginet

ືモࡣ୍㈏ࡋ࡚㠀ᑐ᱁ືモ࡜ྠᵝࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ

(1982)ࠊWyner (1998)௚

♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
(iii)
㠀⬟᱁

㠀ᑐ᱁

(2)

⤖ᯝᵓᩥ

㸫

㸩

㸩

X’s way

㸩

㸫

㸫

ྠ᪘┠ⓗㄒ
ຓືモ㑅ᢥ

㸩

㸫

㸫

‘have’‘be’‘be’(࢖ࢱࣜ࢔ㄒ࣭ࢻ࢖ࢶㄒ)๪モࡀࡶࡘព࿡ᙺ๭(adjunct ɵ-role)ࡀ

ὴ⏕୺ㄒ࡟௜୚ࡉࢀࡿࠋZubizarreta (1982)௚
4.2.  ⤫୍ⓗศᯒ࡟࠶ࡓࡾ
ཷືᩥ࡜㠀ᑐ᱁ᩥ࡜ࡢ⤫୍ⓗศᯒࢆ⪃࠼ࡓሙྜࠊୖグࡢศᯒࡢ࠺ࡕ(ii)࡜(iii)ࡣ௨ୗࡢ
⌮⏤࡛᤼㝖ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࡲࡎ(ii)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ be ືモ࠿ࡽព࿡ᙺ๭ࡀ௜௨ୖࡢほᐹ࠿ࡽࠊᑐ᱁ືモࡣ୺ㄒࡀືస୺

୚ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ㠀ᑐ᱁ᩥ࡛ࡣ be ືモᛶࢆᖏࡧࡿሙྜࡶ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᛶ㉁ࢆకࢃ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ㠀ᑐ᱁ᩥࡢືస୺ᛶゎ㔘ࡀࡀಖᣢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ

ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊ(18)ࡢ஦౛ࡢࡼ࠺࡟

࡜ࡣࠊ(2)࡛ほᐹࡉࢀࡓ୺ㄒࡢືస୺ᛶࡀㄒ᫬ไせ⣲ࡀḞࡅࡓᑠ⠇ෆ࡛ࡢືస୺ᛶゎ㔘ᙡⓗព࿡࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊูࡢ⊂❧ࡋࡶㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ▱ぬືモࡢᑠ⠇ࡣ᫬ไせ⣲ࡓ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡟౫Ꮡࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋ

ࡀḞዴࡋࠊbe ືモࡀ⌧ࢀ࡞࠸⎔ቃࡔࡀࠊࡑ
ࢀ࡛ࡶ(18)࡛♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊཷືᩥ୺ㄒ࡟ືస

4. ᥦ᱌㸸ᵓ㐀౫Ꮡ࡟ࡼࡿព࿡௜୚

୺ᛶゎ㔘ࡣྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

3 ⠇ࡢ⤖ㄽ࠿ࡽࠊ(2)ࡢ⌧㇟ࢆ 2.1 ࡛ㄽࡌࡓཷືᩥ࡜ࡢ୪⾜ⓗ⌧㇟࡜⪃࠼ࠊ୧⪅ࢆ⤫୍ⓗ(18) We saw [Mary deliberately seduced]࡟ศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀጇᙜ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ⠇࡛ࡣࠊཷືᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿືస୺ᛶゎ㔘࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ

ࡇࡢ 2 ࡘࡢ஦ᐇࡣࠊ୺ㄒࡢືస୺ᛶゎ㔘ࡀඛ⾜◊✲ࢆ᳨ウࡋࠊᵓ㐀౫Ꮡ࡟ࡼࡿព࿡௜୚

be ືモ࡜ࡣ↓⦕࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࡢゎ㔘࡟㛵 ḟ࡟(iii)ࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊ୺ㄒࡢືస୺ᛶࡣ๪

୚ࡍࡿᵓ㐀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᪂ࡓ࡞ᥦ᱌ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋモ࡟ෆᅾࡍࡿព࿡ᙺ๭࡟㉳ᅉࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ๪モࡢᏑᅾ࡞ࡋ࡟ືస୺ᛶゎ㔘ࡣ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜

4.1. ཷືᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿືస୺ᛶゎ㔘ࡀண㸦ඛ⾜◊✲㸧

ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ๪モࡀ↓࠸⎔ቃ࡛ࡶὴ⏕୺ㄒࡢືస୺ᛶゎ㔘ࡣྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ ⤫୍ⓗศᯒࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊࡲࡎࡣཷ

஦౛࡜ࡋ࡚౑ᙺືモ have ࡢ⿵ᩥࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳືᩥࡢືస୺ᛶゎ㔘࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࢆࡼ࠺ࠋ(19)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౑ᙺືモ have ࡢ⿵ᩥ࡛ࡣࠊᴫほࡋࡼ࠺ࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣヲ⣽ࡣ␗࡞

124⿵ᩥ୺ㄒ࡟ volitionality ࡀせồࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ

(1973))ࠋ

㠀ᑐ᱁ືモࡣ⏕㉳࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(22) a. John arrived late intentionally.
(19) * Ralph had Sheila die.

b. John arrived late to impress the guests.

(Ritter and Rosen (1993: 526))(23) a. * There arrived a man reluctantly.
b. * There arrived a man to impress the(19)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⏕Ṛࡣไᚚࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶࡞

guests.

࠸ฟ᮶஦࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⿵ᩥࡢ୺ㄒࡣ㠀ᑐ᱁ື

(Osawa (2007: 326))モ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿฟ᮶஦ die ࢆࢥࣥࢺ࣮࡛ࣟࣝࡁ
ࡎࠊ㠀ᩥ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモᩥࡢ୺(22)࡜(23)ࡢᑐẚࡣࠊ㠀ᑐ᱁ᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚୺ㄒ

ㄒ࡟ືస୺ᛶゎ㔘ࡀྍ⬟࡞ᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠊ㠀ᑐ᱁ࡢືస୺ᛶゎ㔘ࡣ୺ㄒ DP ࡀᵓ㐀ⓗ୺ㄒ఩⨨ືモࡀ⿵ᩥࡢືモ࡜ࡋ࡚⏕㉳ྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ࡟࠶ࡿ᫬ࡢࡳ࡟ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢ㆟ㄽ࠿ࡽࠊཷືᩥ࡜㠀ᑐ᱁ᩥࡢືస

(20) The teacher had the children fall off the୺ᛶゎ㔘ࢆྠ୍ࡢ⌧㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡓሙྜࠊ୺

climbing structure.

ㄒࡢືస୺ᛶゎ㔘ࡣᵓ㐀࡟౫Ꮡࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀ

(Bjorkman and Cowper (2013: 7))ࡿ࡜⤖ㄽ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᵓ㐀ⓗ୺ㄒ఩(20)࡛ࡣࠊᏊ౪ࡀ୙ྍᢠຊ࡛ⴠୗࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ

⨨࡟⏕ࡌࡓ㡯ࡀ₯ᅾⓗ࡟ືస୺࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព

࡞ࡃࠊ⮬ࡽࡢពᛮ࡛ព㆑ⓗ࡟㐟ල࠿ࡽⴠࡕࡿ

࿡ࢆ௜୚ࡉࢀࠊᩥ⬦࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ゎ㔘ྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘࡟࠾࠸࡚ᡂ❧ࡍࡿࠋ(20)ࡢ౛࡛㔜࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ

せ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊືస୺ᛶゎ㔘ࡣ๪モࢆక࠺ࡇ࡜
࡞ࡃᚓࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ 4.3. ୺ㄒゎ㔘࡟㛵୚ࡍࡿᵓ㐀࡜ࡣ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモᩥࡢືస୺ᛶゎ㔘࡟๪モࡀᚲࡎ ๓⠇ࡢ㆟ㄽ࠿ࡽࠊ୺ㄒࡢືస୺ᛶゎ㔘ࢆ⏕ࡋࡶᚲせ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡴࡋࢁ୺ㄒࡢືస୺ᛶゎࡴࡢࡣ≉ᐃࡢ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅࡽ㔘ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀ₯ᅾⓗ࡟ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࢀࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࡑࡢ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡓ࠸ࠋ၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡺ࠼๪モࡀ௓ᅾࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊ

Roberts (1987)ࡣ(24)ࡢὴ⏕୺ㄒࡢືస୺

ᩥ⬦ୖせồࡉࢀ▩┪ࡀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤືస୺ᛶゎゎ㔘ࡣᵓ㐀ⓗ θ ᙺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕືస୺ࠖࡀ

㔘ࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࡢ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀࡛௜୚ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

 (ii) (iii)ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ᤼㝖ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ(i)ࡢᵓ㐀ⓗព࿡௜୚ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡀṧࡿࠋࡑࡢጇᙜᛶࡣ௨ୗ

(24) Mary was deliberately seduced.

(21)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⹫㎡ࢆక࠺㠀ᑐ᱁ືモᩥ࠿ࡽ(25)    ᚓࡽࢀࡿࠋ           ’
Ii

VPi

Agent (structural θ (21) There arrived a man.

(Roberts (1987: 46))ࡇࡢᩥ࡛ࡣࠊᵓ㐀ⓗ୺ㄒ఩⨨ࢆ⹫㎡ࡀ༨ࡵࡿࡓࡵ a man ࡣ୺ㄒ఩⨨࡟⌧ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ

ࡇࡢᥦ᱌࡛ࡣ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀࡟ຍ࠼ࠊLF ࡛ྠ୍ᣦ࡞࠸ࡀࠊព࿡ୖࡢ୺ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋ࡜

ᶆ࡟ࡼࡾ I ࢆ௰௓࡜ࡋ࡚ Spec IP ࡟࠶ࡿࡇࢁࡀࡇࡢሙྜࠊࡇࡢព࿡ୖࡢ୺ㄒࡣືస୺

࡜ VP ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟୺ㄒ࡜㏙㒊ࡢ㛵ಀࡀసࡽࢀࡿᛶ ࡢ ゎ 㔘 ࢆ ᚓ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࡣ ࡛ ࡁ ࡞ ࠸ (Kirsner࡜௬ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊLF ࡛ࡢྠ୍ᣦ

125ᶆࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚㏙㒊㛵ಀࢆసࡿࡇ࡜࡛ Spec IP ࡢ▱ぬືモࡢᑠ⠇࡟ࡣ᫬ไせ⣲ࡀḞࡅࡿࠋࡑࡢ

ࢆ୺ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆྍࡍࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡓࡵࠊRoberts ࡀ㏙㒊㛵ಀࢆ௰௓ࡍࡿ࡜௬ᐃ

࡞ࡀࡽࠊᙜ᫬ᥦ᱌ࡉࢀࡓ LF ࡛ࡢྠ୍ᣦᶆࡢ

ࡋࡓ I ࡣ↓࠸ࠋࡑࢀ࡛ࡶᑠ⠇ෆࡢཷືᩥ

࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡣ௒᪥࡛ࡣᏑᅾࡀ୙☜࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(27a,b)ࠊ㠀ᑐ᱁ᩥ(27c,d)࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ୺ㄒࡢືస

ࡲࡓࠊᥦ᱌ࡉࢀࡓ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀ࡣ᫬ไᩥ࡟ࡢࡳ㐺୺ᛶゎ㔘ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ࡝ࡕࡽࡢ

⏝ࡋࠊ๓⠇(18)࡛ほᐹࡋࡓ᫬ไせ⣲୙ᅾࡢᑠሙྜࡶᑠ⠇ෆ࡟⤫ㄒⓗ㏙㒊㛵ಀࢆ௰௓ࡍࡿ

⠇࡛ࡢ⌧㇟ࡲ࡛ࡣㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

ఱࡽ࠿ࡢᶵ⬟⠊␪ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡍ

 Roberts ࡢศᯒࡢ୰᰾ࡣࠊᵓ㐀ⓗ୺ㄒ఩⨨ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡟ࡣࡇࡢᶵ⬟⠊␪࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢヲ⣽ࢆࢆ⤫ㄒⓗ㏙㒊㛵ಀࡢ୺ㄒ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡟㆟ㄽࡍࡿ┠ⓗࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊᶵ⬟⠊␪ࡢ≉ᐃࡣ࠶ࡿࠋࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊᵓ㐀ⓗព࿡௜୚ࡣ

⾜ࢃ࡞࠸ࡀࠊI ௨እࡢᶵ⬟⠊␪ࡀࡑࡢᙺ๭ࢆ

⤫ㄒⓗ㏙㒊㛵ಀࢆᇶ࡟ᐃ⩏࡛ࡁࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶

ᢸ࠺࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ Den Dikken (2006)ࡀᥦ᱌ࡍࡿ㏙ ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ(26)࡛♧ࡍ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀࡛ᐃ⩏ࡉ㒊㛵ಀࡢ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀(25)ࢆᇶ࡟ࠊ୺ㄒゎ㔘࡟㛵ࢀࡿ୺ㄒ㸫㏙㒊㛵ಀࡢ⤫ㄒⓗ୺ㄒ఩⨨ࡀື୚ࡍࡿᵓ㐀ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

స୺ᛶゎ㔘ࢆỴᐃࡍࡿ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ

          

5. ⤖ㄽ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ୺ㄒࡢືస୺ゎ㔘           ’
YPࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ⮬ືモศ㢮ࢸࢫࢺ࡟ᇶ

(Den Dikken (2006: 11))࡙ࡁ᳨ドࡋࡓࠋ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモᩥ࡟⏕ࡌࡿືస୺

Relatorゎ㔘ࡢ஦ᐇ࠿ࡽࠊ୺ㄒࡢゎ㔘ࡀㄒᙡⓗព࿡࡟(26)࡛ࡣ XP ࡀ୺ㄒࠊYP ࡀ㏙㒊࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊ୧

ࡢࡳ౫Ꮡࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊูࡢ⊂❧ࡋࡓ࣓࢝⪅ࢆ Relator ࡀ௰௓ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ㝵ᒙⓗ࡞୺ࢽࢬ࣒࠿ࡽࡶ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢ

ㄒ㸫㏙㒊㛵ಀࢆసࡿ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡜ࡋ࡚ᵓ㐀౫Ꮡ࡟ࡼࡿព࿡௜୚

Relator ࡣ≉ᐃࡢᶵ⬟⠊␪࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠋ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモᩥ࡜ཷືᩥ࡜ࡢ୪⾜⌧ࢀࡿᶵ⬟⠊␪ࡢᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ࣛ࣋ࣝ࡜௬ᐃࡉ

ᛶ࠿ࡽࠊ୧⪅ࡢືస୺ゎ㔘ࡣᵓ㐀࡟౫Ꮡࡋࠊ

ࢀࠊTࠊ asࠊfor ࡞࡝ࡀヱᙜࡍࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ᫬

ᵓ㐀ⓗ୺ㄒ఩⨨ࡀ₯ᅾⓗ࡟ືస୺ゎ㔘࡜㛵ไᩥ࡛ࡣ T ࡀ Relator ࡜ࡋ࡚ാࡁࠊSpecTP ࡢ㐃ࡍࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࡢᵓ㐀ⓗ୺ㄒ఩㡯ࡀ୺ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

⨨࡜ࡣࠊ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀࡛ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿ⤫ㄒⓗ㏙㒊㛵 ࡇࡢᐃ⩏ࡢୗ࡛ᵓ㐀ⓗព࿡௜୚ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿಀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ỵᐃࡉࢀࡿ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠋ࡜ࠊRoberts ࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣᢅ࠼࡞࠿ࡗࡓ௨ୗࡢ
⌧㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶㄝ᫂ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋὀ㸯(27) a. We saw [Fred carelessly arrested by theƟ- ⌮ ㄽ (Chomsky (1981)), uniformity oftheta assignment hypothesis (Baker (1988)),

police]lexical-conceptual structure (Jackendoff (1990)),b. We saw [Fred arrested by the police tothe linking rule (Levin and Rappaport Hovav

save his friend](1995))࡞࡝ࢆཧ↷ࠋc. We saw [John intentionally arrive late]d. We saw [John arrive late to impress theཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Baker, Mark C. (1988) Incorporation: A Theory

guests](Osawa (2001: 365, 367))

of

126

Grammatical

Function

Changing,

Osawa, Satoko (2001) “Voice Specification in

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Phrase Structure,” English Linguistics 18.2,

Bjorkman, Bronwyn M. and Elizabeth Cowper

356-377.

(2013) “Inflectional Shells and the Syntax

Osawa, Satoko (2007) “Unaccusatives andof Causative Have,” Proceedings of the2013 Annual Conference of the Canadian

Presentational

Constructions,”

Linguistic Association.

Exploring the Universe of Language, ed. by<http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cowper/B

Masachiyo Amano, Kozo Kato, Makiyo

jorkman_Cowper_2013_revised.pdf>

Niwa,

There

Ko-ichiro

Hamasaki,Tomoyukion

Tanaka, Yusaku Oteki, Kay Nakago andGovernment and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

Eiko Mizuno, 323-340, Department of

Dikken, Marcel den (2006) Relators andEnglish Linguistics, Nagoya University,

Chomsky,Noam

Linkers:(1981)

The

Syntax

Lecturesof

Nagoya.

Predication,

Ritter, Elizabeth and Sara Thomas Rosen (1993)

Predicate Inversion, and Copulas, MIT“Deriving Causation,” Natural Language

Press, Cambridge, MA.

and Linguistic Theory 11, 519-555.

Folli, Raffaella and Heidi Harley (2006) “On the
Directed

Roberts, Ian G. (1987) The Representation of

Motion: Waltzing Matilda All Over,” Studio

Implicit and Dethematized Subjects, Foris,

Linguistica 60 (2), 121-155.

Dordrecht.

Licensingof

CausativesofTravis, Lisa (1988) “The Syntax of Adverbs,”

Jackendoff, Ray (1972) Semantic InterpretationinGenerative

Grammar,MIT

Press,

McGill Working Papers in Linguistics:

Cambridge, MA.

Proceedings of the IVth Workshop on

Jackendoff, Ray (1990) Semantic Structures,Comparative

Germanic

Syntax,6.1,

280-310.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kallulli, Dalina (2006) “Argument Demotion as

Wyner, Adam Zachary (1998) “Subject-Oriented

Feature Suppression,” Demoting the Agent,

Adverbs Are Thematically Dependent,”

ed. by Benjamin Lyngfelt and Torgrim

Events and Grammar, ed. by Susan

Solstad,Rothstein, 333-348, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

143-166,

John

Benjamins,

Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Zubizarreta,

Kirsner, Robert S. (1973) “Natural Focus andDutch

Occasional

Expletiveer,”Papers

Linguisticsin

Stanford
3,

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (1995)
At

the(1982)

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

101-114, Stanford University, California.
Unaccusativity:

Luisa

On

the

Relationship of the Lexicon to Syntax,

Agentive Interpretation: On the Semantics
of

Maria

Syntax-Lexical

Semantics Interface, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1982) “Adverbs and
Logical Form: A Linguistically Realistic
Theory,” Language 58, 144-184.

127

same

properties,

nor

are

they

exactly

complementary in distribution. I will also showthat there are tenable arguments that one
occupies N (Radford (1989) and Murasugi
Distribution of the Pro-form ‘one’ *(1991)) and that one needs to be licensed bycertain modifiers (Murasugi (1991)), owing to
the fact that the pro-form so substitutes head A
and needs particular modifiers.

Asuka Saruwatari

Following

Osaka University

theIntroduction,section2

reviews previous research on the anaphoric one
Keywords㸸syntax, pro-form one, NP-ellipsis,(i.e., Llombart (2002), Murasugi (1991) andpro-form so

Radford (1989)) and indicates some issues forwhich Llombart (2002) cannot account. Section
3 lays out the hypothesis of this paper anddiscusses the distribution of the pro-form one.

1. Introduction
Traditionally,theanaphoricone

Section 4 contains some concluding remarks.

isconsidered to be a pro-form substituting nounphrase (N′) (Jackendoff (1977), Hornstein and

2. Previous ResearchLighthood (1981) among others) since one

In this section, I will discuss Llombart’s

substitutes student in N′ in (1a, 2a) but does not(2002) theory that the anaphoric one involves

stand for the student in N in (1b, 2b).

NP-ellipsis and illustrate how his analysis raises
some problems. Thereafter, I will review

She likes the student with short hair

Murasugi (1991) and Radford (1989), both of

better than the one with long hair.

whom propose that one occupies N and that itb. *She likes the student of chemistry bettercannot assign theta roles. In particular, the(1) a.

(2) a.

than the one of physics.

former analysis argues that one needs to beN′′licensed by certain modifiers, and the latter

DET
the

b.
N′

N′

N′′

DET
P′′

student

theoffers significant data that one can take aN′Ncomplement.

P′′

student

with long hairof physics

2.1. Llombart (2002)
Contrary to the standard analyses of the

Challenging this observation, Llombart (2002)

pro-form one (Jackendoff (1977), Hornstein andclaims that the one construction involves

Lighthood (1981) etc.), Llombart (2002) argues

NP-ellipsis, in that one is inserted in Num0 inthat the one construction involves NP-ellipsis,

order

as

departing from Lobeck’s (1995) analysis that

do-support in I . Contrary to Llombart’s analysis,strong agreement features such as [+plural],in the present paper, I propose that the anaphoric[+partitive], and [+possessive] can license empty

to

give

morphologicalsupport0

different

categories. Lobeck (1995) proposes that theconstructions; they do not necessarily share theempty categories in NP-ellipsis as well as

one

and

the

NP-ellipsis

are

128

(6) a. I like this car but he prefers that one.

VP-ellipsis obey the Empty Category Principle

b. I like these cars but he prefers those.

defined in (3).

(See Llombart (2002: 59))(3) Empty Category Principle (ECP):
Now, turn to the case where an adjective[e] must be properly governed.

phrase appears as shown in (7).
In particular, Llombart proposes the following:(7) a. All the students took the exam but many
lazy ones ec failed. (Llombart (2002: 78))(4) a. The anaphoric one is inserted as a last

 b.resort procedure to give phonologicalsupport to Num0.

QP

Q

AP

many lazyb. The one construction and NP-ellipsis are

NumP

in complementary distribution and display

Num

NP

the same syntactic and semantic properties

ones{pl}

ec

in

that

their

different

surfacemanifestations are reduced to the same

Although Q head obtains [+plural], the empty

underlying construction.

element in Num0 is not licensed since there is anintervener, AP. So, one needs to be inserted here.

Llombart assumes that empty elements of

As for [+partitive], numerals such as one andfunctional categories should be licensed, but that

two and quantifiers such as many and each inthis is not the case for lexical categories in(8a) can appear in partitive constructions andwhich deletion occurs optionally. Let us observe

license empty elements unlike every in (8b).

how empty elements in NP-ellipsis are licensed(8) [+partitive]

in Llombart’s analysis. The empty categories in(5a, b) are properly licensed since there area. one/ three / many / each of the men[+possessive] and [+plural] features.

b. *every of the men(5) a.

The prominent evidence that the one

DP

mine

b.
D′

D

QP

Q

NumP

[+poss] ec

many ec
NP [+pl]construction and NP-ellipsis share the same

NumP
NP

syntactic and semantic properties in (4b) is asecfollows. First, either one or NP-ellipsis canoccur in subordinate clauses as shown in (9) asec

well as coordinate clauses in (6), whereas in
As for the sentence in (6a), that is [-plural],gapping and stripping constructions, the empty

which does not license the empty element in

category occurs in coordinates but not in00subordinate clauses as seen in (10) and (11).

Num and Num has to be overtly expressed.
Accordingly, one must be inserted as a last resort(9) a. We’ll take my car because my sister’s

procedure in order to give morphologicalec is too old.

support as in (4a), otherwise Number affix (0 for(Llombart (2002: 62))b. We’ll take my car because this one issingular and -s for plural) is stranded.

129

too old.      (ibid.: 63)

since there are [+plural] quantifiers such as some,(10) a. Mary met Bill at Berkerley, and Sue ec

a few, and several. The following is the primarypoint here: a relative clause is considered to

at Harvard. (Gapping)

occupy the same position as the adjective phrase

b. Jane studied rocks but not John ec.
(ibid.: 63)

in (7b), so that one(s) must be inserted to give(11) a. *Mary met Bill at Berkerley, althoughsupport to Num0. This prediction, however, isSue ec at Harvard. (Gapping)

not borne out, and (15c) without ones is(Stripping)b. *Jane studied rocks even though not
John ec.

(Stripping)grammatical. Some speakers who judge (15b) to(ibid.: 63)

be acceptable mention that ones is optional inthis case. Note that Llombart’s analysis fails to

Second, linguistic antecedents do not need to be

explain either of these cases: (15c) and theexpressed

optional insertion of one in (15b).

ineitherone

constructionorNP-ellipsis as (12) illustrates.
2.2. Murasugi (1991) and Radford (1989)(12) a. (looking at some cars): Do you like these

Murasugi (1991), contrary to the standard(Llombart (2002: 65))

analysis of the pro-form one treating one as N′b. (at a car dealer’s): Which one do you

constituent (Hornstein and Lightfoot (H&L)

ec?

like? I like the pink one.

(ibid.)(1981)), argues that the anaphoric one isbase-generated in N. She further attempts toThird, one construction and NP-ellipsis are in

capture the contrast in (1) by assuming that one

complementary distribution as observed in (13)can neither assign theta roles nor take aand (14), and Llombart proposes that theircomplement,

surface difference is derived from the same

proposal that a complement must be assigned aunderlying construction.

theta role by its lexical category. In addition,

following

Chomsky’s(1981)

Murasugi claims that one needs a modifier to be(13) I like the blue car but I don’t like the pink*(one).

licensed. Her generalization is shown in (16).

(Llombart (2002: 66))

(14) All the students took the exam, but many/some/ three (*ones) failed.

(16) Only overt modifiers that are sisters to(ibid.: 67)

some projection of N can license one in
the N position.

(Murasugi (1991: 88))

Now, let us consider the following data in(15). Can Llombart’s analysis capture them?

According to her analysis, the data in (17) aretreated as follows: Determiners like those(15) a. *I bought {some/ a few / several} ones.

occupy the head position of DP as shown inb. ok/?? I bought {some/ a few / several}(18a).

ones that I liked.
However,thepossessor

John

is

base-generated in N but must move to the DP
SPEC position as (18b) illustrates so that ’s isc. I bought {some/ a few / several} that I
liked.

assigned by D (see Fukui (1986)). The DP SPEC
position that is not the sister to the projection of

The sentence (15a) falls out from his analysis

N, or the trace cannot license one as shown in

130

(18b), but when the adjective phrase red appears

the ȟrole to its complement, whereas the of in

as in (18c), one can be licensed under (16).

(23) does not, but it only transmits a ȟrole of

Besides, the adjunct phrases in (17d) and (17e)student to the complement physics.

license one as demonstrated in (19a) and (19b),             

respectively.

(22) the photo of you   (23) the student of physics(17) a. those onesb. *John’s ones

d. one from Canada
e. one I like

Importantly, the data as illustrated in (20) cannot

c. John’s red ones

be explained by Llombart’s analysis, either.

(18) a. [DP [D′ [D those] [NP [N′ [N ones]]]]]
3.
 Analysisb. [DP John’si [D′ D [NP ti [NP[NP[N′[N ones ]]]]]]In this section, I will argue the followingc. [DP John’s [D′ D [NP [N′ red [N′[N ones ]]]]]]

points:(Murasugi (1991: 84-89))(19) a. [DP [D′ D [NP [N′ [N′[N one ]] [PP from(24) Distribution of the pro-form one

Canada ]]]]]]

a. The anaphoric one and NP-ellipsis do notb. [DP [D′ D [NP [NP [N′ [N onei]]] [CP Opi [C′ C

necessarily share the same properties, nor are[IP I like ti]]]]]]

they exactly in complementary distribution.
Radford (1989) claims that one is a pro-Nb. One needs to be licensed by certain modifiers

constituent because it can indeed occur with its

as Murasugi (1991) suggests (i.e., one is notcomplement. The conventional analyses such asa last resort procedure to give morphologicalH&L fail to deal with the data as illustrated insupport when NP-ellipsis is not available, so(20) with an of complement.

it should be differentiated from do-support).
c. The anaphoric one and so share some(20) a. Which photo?

similarities and function as a place holder

The one of you in a(pro-form) base-generated in N and A,

bikini?

respectively.

b. Which portrait? The one of the queen
mother? (Radford (1989: 2))
3.1. Linguistic Antecedents
Let us first discuss whether the one

Radford assumes that one is an N pro-form andconstruction and NP-ellipsis display the samehas no thematic content as defined in (21).

properties in terms of the requirement of
linguistic antecedents. As proposed by Lasnik(21) One cannot assign a thematic role to its
dependents.

(Radford (1989: 5))  and Saito (1992), NP-ellipsis is infelicitouswhen there is no linguistic antecedent as in (25).

The difference between (22) and (23) is
attributed to the function of of. Radford argues[Context: Lasnik and Saito are in a yard withthe thematic of is a preposition while theseveral barking dogs belonging to various

nonthematic of belongs to the category of Case

people.](genitive Case) particles. The of in (22) assigns(25) Lasnik: # Harry’s is particularly noisy.

131(Lasnik and Saito (1992: 161))

(28) Each (room/one) has its own shower. This is clearer when we compare the one
construction with NP-ellipsis as shown in (26),where the linguistic antecedent “book” is absent.

Second, when a speaker is indicating the item in

Notably, one is available, but NP-ellipsis is not.

discourse,

However, when the antecedent “book” isNP-ellipsis is available for both singular andlinguisticallyplural demonstratives as (29) shows.

expressed,

eitheroroneeithertheanaphoricone

orNP-ellipsis is possible as exemplified in (27).
(29) a. This letter is for my broker and that (one)is for my accountant.

[Context: Hanako and Taro dropped in at theb. These letters are for my broker and thosebookstore, and Taro seems to be deliberating a(ones) are for my accountant.

purchase.](26) a. Hanako:

Are

you

going

to

buy
Third, in the case where a definite NP occurs as

something?

in (30) and where an adjective refers to discreteb. Taro: *I’m thinking of buying Haruki

points over a (discontinuous) defined scale (e.g.,

Murakami’s.
c. Taro:colors, sizes) as in (31), both NP-ellipsis as well

I’m thinking of buying Haruki

as the one construction are acceptable.

Murakami’s new one.(27) a. Whose book are you going to buy?

(30) I saw the green unicorn and Pat saw the red

b. I’m going to buy Haruki Murakami’s.

(one).

c. I’m going to buy Haruki Murakami’s (Channon (1982: 69))(31) Betty bought a large blouse and Susan

new one.

bought a medium (one).  (ibid.: 70)

In the situation where the antecedent does notovertly appear, NP-ellipsis cannot freely occur

Fourth, although adjunct phrases such as in (32a,unlike the case of the one construction (cf. (12)).

32b) appear, one is optional. This cannot be

In other words, the anaphoric

one andpredicted by Llombart’s analysis that one must

NP-ellipsis do not always occur in the same

be inserted if such adjunct phrases occupying thecontext. Therefore, it is disputed that the one

same position as the adjective phrase in (7b)construction and NP-ellipsis display exactly theappear. Again, his analysis cannot capture thesame semantic properties.

fact that one can take a complement as in (32c).

3.2. Not in Complementary Distribution(32) a. Even though Mary’s picture that was

Although Llombart claims that one andpainted in Italy was nice, John liked

NP-ellipsis are in complementary distribution, I

Bob’s (one) that was painted in his

will provide sets of data which show that his

hometown. 

analysis is not sustainable.

[relative clause]First, according to Llombart, each obtains

b. John’s apple from America is more[+partitive] feature, but one is used optionally as

delicious than Bob’s (one) from Japan.

in (28), and the use of NP-ellipsis is possible.

[adjunct]c. John’s photo of you is nicer than Bob’s132

(one) of you.

and (37) as opposed to (38).

[complement](35) a. [QP more/less/enough/extremely [AP so]]The data above lead us to conclude that the one
construction does not involve NP-ellipsis.

b. [DegP too/as/so/how [QP much [AP so]]]Concerning of complements, two types can(See Corver (1997: 128))

arise. Even though some modifiers occur with of(36) a. more (*much) socomplements, the sequence as *intelligent one of(37) The Black Widow is poisonous, as a matterphysics is ungrammatical, whereas nice one ofb. less (*much) soof fact extremely (*much) so.

you is grammatical. As Radford suggests, it is(ibid.: 155)(38) a. John is fond of Mary. Maybe he is too

considered to be due to the ability of the theta*(much) so.

role assignment; the former of can assign thetab. John is fond of Mary. Maybe he is as

roles to its complements, but the latter cannot.

*(much) so as Bill. (Corver (1997: 127))3.3. Pro-form One and Pro-form So

Recalling the restrictions on modifiers of one

The arguments that one is an N pro-form

when it is co-occurring with a possessor phrase(Radford (1989), Murasugi (1991)) and that it

like John’s or quantifiers two, a few, and several,

requiresarecertain modifiers such as adjective phrases aresupported by the fact that the anaphoric so

required so that we find John’s red one, but notshares some properties with one.

*John’s one. Moreover, two red ones is

modifiers(Murasugi(1991))First, so substitutes A or a part of AP (A′) as

acceptable, but *two ones is not acceptable.

shown in (33) while, as has already been seen,

Before summarizing, the fact shown in (39)

one can substitute N and N′ as in (34).

that one and so can stand alone seems to be a
drawback to this analysis.

(33) a. He is very fond of his mother, but less soof his sister.

(Radford (1989: 7))(39) a. John is fond of Mary. So is Bill.

b. He used to be very fond of his sister, butthese days he is less so.

b. Svetlana has two red masks and Guido
has one too.

(ibid.)(Perlmutter (1970: 236))(34) a. the most intelligent (ones/ students)
However, so (inversion) as in (39a) is onlyb. the most intelligent (ones / students oflinguistics).

allowed to occur in a preposed position and is(ibid.)

considered to be an affirmative polarity marker,
Second, so takes complements such as of hiswhich should be treated as parallel to thesister as in (33a), together with one (innegative

photo/one of you in (20)). Third, there are someneither-inversion (see Wood (2008)). Thus, so

restrictions on modifiers. So needs to be licensed(inversion) is different from the so in question

by QP, for instance, more/less/enough/extremely(the pro-form so). Crucially, the so inversion isas demonstrated in (35a), and needs a dummy

not licensed by certain modifiers, unlike theelement much inserted to Q0 when co-occurring

pro-form so as in (40).

polaritymarkerneitherinwith Degree Phrases like too/as/so/how as in(40) a. John is fond of Mary. Bill is *(less) so.

(35b). That is why much is not necessary in (36)133

b. *John is fond of Mary. Less so is Bill.

REFERENCES
Channon, Robert (1982) “On the English
Pronoun Ø,” CLS 18, 61-71c.

Turning to one in (39b), according to Perlmutter

Chomsky,(1970), it is a numeral as “four” in (41).

Noam(1981)

Lectureson

Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Corver, Norbert (1997) “Much-Support as a Last

(41) Svetlana sold three masks and Guido sold
four.

Resort,” Linguistic Inquiry 28, 119-164.

(Perlmutter (1970: 237))

Fukui, Naoki (1986) A Theory of Category
Projection and Its Applications, Doctoral

On the whole, the anaphoric one and so

dissertation, MIT.

share the following properties: i) they substitutenot only a part of NP (N′) or AP (A′) but also N

Hornstein, Norbert and David Lightfoot (1981)

or A, ii) they take a complement, and iii) there

Explanation in Linguistics: The Logicalare some restrictions on modifiers. Since one

Problemand so display these same properties, it isLongman, London/New York.

of

Language

Acquisition,

Jackendoff, Ray (1977) X-Bar Syntax, MITreasonable to assume that one is an N pro-form

Press, Cambridge, MA.

and needs to be licensed by certain modifiers.

Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1992) Move
α: Conditions on Its Application and Output,

4. Conclusion

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

In this paper, I initially argued that theanaphoric one does not involve NP-ellipsis, in

Llombart-Huesca, Amàlia (2002) “Anaphoric

contrast to Llombart’s analysis. The NP-ellipsis

One and NP-Ellipsis,” Studia Linguistica

construction shows some restrictions when the56(1), 59-89.

antecedent is

not linguistically expressed,

Lobeck, Anne (1995) Ellipsis: Functional Heads,

whereas the anaphoric one can be used without

Licensingsuch overt antecedents. Besides, complementary

University Press, New York.

and

Identification,

Oxforddistributions of the anaphoric one and the NP

Murasugi, Keiko (1991) Noun Phrases in

ellipsis are not valid in that, in someJapanese and English: A Study in Syntax,

circumstances, either one or NP-ellipsis is

Learnability and Acquisition, Doctoral

available. Second, the present analysis has

dissertation, UConn, Storrs.

corroborated Murasugi’s (1991) claim that the

Perlmutter, David (1970) “On the Article inpro-form one occupying N needs certain

English,”modifiers, by showing that the pro-form soCollection of Papers, ed. by Manfredoccupies A and is licensed by specific modifiers.

Bierwisch

Progress
and

in

Karl

Linguistics:
Erich

A

Heidolph,233-248, Mouton, The Hague.
* I wish to thank my English informants for

Radford, Andrew (1989) “Profiling Proforms,”

judgments. I am also grateful to Masao Ochi andms., University of Essex.

Hiroshi Mito for their invaluable comments, and<http://arcaold.unive.it/handle/10278/1566>

to the members of the JELS Committee for

Wood, Jim (2008) “So-Inversion as Polarity

suggesting stylistic improvements.

Focus,” Proceedings of the 38th Western
Conference on Linguistics 19, 304-317.

134main text is taken from the Socio-Pragmatic
Corpus (Archer and Culpeper 2003). The data
come from the trial proceedings of King Charles
I, in which the King was taken to the courtroom
Pragmatic Implications of Historical Data:

as a prisoner and put on trial on the charge of

Speech Acts in the Flux of Power*

high treason. My research questions are as
follows:
I.

What are the points at issue for the judge
and the defendant?

Michi Shiina
II.

Hosei University

What speech acts do they perform?

III. Who has the power in this interaction, Lord
President or the King?

Keywords㸸historical pragmatics, criticalstylistics, Early-Modern English, speech acts

2. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Jeffries (2010) claims that noun phrases andverb phrases are two vital components in

1. Introduction

English sentences. She also suggests that

Since Jacobs and Jucker (1995), a large
number of empirical studies have shown that

implicit

ideologyisconstructed

in

the

speech-related written texts can be used as

textual-conceptual level of meaning, where thelegitimate data to investigate communication in

text producer decides how to name things, how

the past, and historical pragmatics has now

to describe processes and actions and how to

become established as a new research field. In

represent others’ speech and thought. In critical

Jucker’s view (1998), the perspective of

stylistics, therefore, analysing components of thehistorical pragmatics is much wider than asentences is the first step to investigate what thesimple combination of historical linguistics andtext is doing in relation to the text world.

pragmatics. It includes in its view all the entities

Jucker and Taavitsainen (2000: 74) argue

involved in the whole communicative situation,

that, as ‘speech acts are fuzzy concepts’, target

such

text,

expressions should be investigated in relation toaddressee/reader and context. The aims ofneighboring expressions in a ‘pragmatic space’.

historical pragmatics are twofold: (i) to describe

Culpeper and Archer (2008: 47) also observeand understand conventions of language use inthat ‘commands can blur into requests, which incommunities in the past; (ii) to describe andturn can blur into suggestions, advice or offers’.

explain the development of speech conventions

In the trial texts, however, the words tend to bein the course of time. Therefore, the approach ofused rather explicitly so that there tends to be no

historical pragmatics can be both synchronic andambiguity or misunderstanding. It is not too

diachronic.

difficult to define the speech acts performed inasspeaker/writer,

discursive

This paper is a case study in Early-Modern

the trial texts, because when the interlocutors

English society and its main purpose is to show

make ambiguous utterances, the Court always

how a discursive approach to speech acts can beasks questions to make things clear. The judge

applied to Early-Modern English trial texts. The

summarises what has been happening in the135involved in. Grammatical subjects of thecourtroom in clear and plain words.
Based upon Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) andspeech-act predicates will also be analysed to

Aijmer (1996), Culpeper and Archer (2008: 49)

see by which authority they perform thoseclassify four viewpoints by focusing on the

speech acts. What is more, the hierarchicalgrammatical subject in the utterance: (i) the

relationship in the courtroom interactions will behearer-oriented

investigatedviewpoint;

(ii)

the

by

lookingatwhetherthespeaker-oriented viewpoint; (iii) the inclusive

authorities of the court and the King stay the

viewpoint; (iv) the impersonal viewpoint. I willsame or change in the course of the trial. A

follow the analytical framework suggested by

special focus is on how the judge, referred to as

Culpeper and Archer (2008) and investigate theLord President, deals with the situation of a

viewpoints in utterances when interlocutors’

conflicting power relationship with the King andauthoritative power is negotiated through verbal

manages to pronounce a severe sentence on him.

interactions in a delicate context in which theinterlocutor’s

authoritative

power

can

be

3. Previous Studies
The data that I have been analysing aresubverted.
the

Early-Modern English spoken data in comedy

relationships between grammatical forms andand trial texts compiled in my own annotatedtheir pragmatic functions in Shakespeare’s King

corpus. Each data set includes approximately

Lear gives an insight into the analysis of

120,000 words in texts dating from 1640 to 1760.

dialogues between interlocutors with power in

In my previous analyses, I have found someflux. By observing the pragmatic functions ofgeneral patterns in the use of vocatives in trial

imperatives and interrogatives in the course of

texts, but at the same time, I have found one

the

the

particular text in which the King of England had

communicative function of directives ‘changes

been taken into prison, charged with highfrom ordering to inviting, offering and pleading’treason, and sentenced in the end. This particular(2008: 112). As the plot proceeds, Lear’s

trial text is interesting in that the hierarchicalcharacter changes from a powerful king to asocial order contradicts with their social roles in

helpless old lunatic. Deserted by his daughters,

the courtroom. This text, therefore, deserves a

Lear gradually realises that his power over his

close examination with a special focus on how

daughters is nullified and his imperatives change

thistheir pragmatic function. In this paper, I will also

between the King and the judge is reflected inobserve the interactions between the judge andtheir verbal interactions in the courtroom, and to

the king in the course of the trial to see whether

see which power relationship, i.e. social order orthe interactions change in terms of voice orsocial role, prevails.

Busse’splay,(2008)

Busse

investigation

illustrates

of

how

contradictory

Shiinaauthority as the trial proceeds.

(2014)

Early-Modern

In the following analysis, I will first examine

hierarchicalanalysesEnglishtrial

relationshipvocatives

in

texts

the

in

what issues are at stake between the judge andSocio-Pragmatic Corpus (Archer and Culpeper

the defendant in this trial by looking at lexical

2003) and discovers the following three

items in the noun phrases. Then I focus on thecharacteristics in the use of vocatives in thepredicates to see what speech acts they arecourtroom dialogues.

136I) The frequency of vocatives is very different indue time, but you are to hear the Court first.

these two text types. In comedy texts in which
everyday language use is supposedly reflected,

Although ‘Sir’ is a safe vocative used boththere are 2160 vocatives, whereas there are only

upwards and downwards, this is still an

617 vocatives in trial texts. The standardised

exceptional case because the defendant is thefrequencies per 10,000 words are 171 times inKing, who should be at the top of the social

comedies and only 50 times in trial texts,

hierarchy. In this example, the social hierarchy

respectively.

with the king at the top seems cancelled by

II) The range of the vocative choice is different

another hierarchical system in the courtroom

in the two text types. In comedy texts, a widewith the judge at the top. In other words, ‘[h]isrange of vocative form is used, from the familiar

power beyond the courtroom clashed with his

type to the deferential type, while in trial texts,

power in the courtroom’ (Culpeper and Archer

the majority, 93.7% to be precise, of the

2008: 63). Although the use of the same vocative,

vocatives are of the deferential type. The limited

Sir, hints at an equal partnership, other linguistic

choice of vocative forms also suggests a strict

features should be analysed to judge clearlylanguage code in the courtroom and thewhetherinterlocutors’ awareness of a hierarchical orderauthoritative power.

and social roles.

bothpartiesreally

exert

equal

This shows how this example is anIII) There is a unilateral use of some vocatives in

exceptional and contradictory case in which thetrial texts: My Lord is used only upwards by thehierarchy based upon social order and that based

defendant or examiner to address the judge,

upon the social role conflict with each other.

whereas title + surname is used only downwards
by the judge or examiner to address the

4. Results and Discussion

defendant or witness. Unlike these, Sir is a safe

4.1. Issues in Focus: Nominal Phrases
In order to define the subject matter invocative used both ways to a male addressee

utterances, I have collected frequently used noun

regardless of the interlocutor’s social rank.
In the quantitative analysis of my previous

phrases, which can be classified into threestudy, one example from the trial of King

semantic categories, the Court, the Country andCharles I stands out as a contradictory casePower, as shown in the following lists:

because social order and social role collide with
List 1: Noun Phrases Used by Lord President

each other.
Here is an example of bilateral use of ‘Sir’
between the defendant and the judge:

Field

ExamplesCourt

Court (85); answer (17);Justice (14); Charge (13);Example (1)sentence (11); reason(ing/s)

King (Defendant): If it please you Sir, I desire to(8); prisoner (8); Law(ful/s)

be heard, and I shall not give any occasion of(7); delay (7); Judgement (5);interruption, and it is only in a word, aJudge(s) (2); guilty (1)sudden Judgment.

Country

Lord President (Judge): Sir you shall be heard in

137

People (15); England (14);178
39

over their opponent.

Commons (10)Power

From these lists, we can see that the King

Authority (24); Jurisdiction(15); Kingdom (8); Liberty

has doubts about the authority, lawfulness, and53

jurisdiction of the court. He also believes in his(2); favo(u)r (2); word(2)status and his own authority as the King. On the
List 2: Noun Phrases Used by King Charles I

other hand, Lord President negates the authority

Field

Examplesof the defendant as the King and believes in thelaw(ful/s) (28);jurisdiction and authority of the Court.

Court

reason(ing/s) (15); sentence
4.2. Speech Acts: Verbal Phrases(10); Court (9); delay (6);Judgement (6); Charge (3);Country

Judge(s) (3); Justice (2);the interlocutors are engaged, I have collectedprisoner (2); answer (2)the verb phrases and classified them according

Kingdom (20); Englandto their illocutionary force as shown in the(10); King (10); Treaty (5);following lists.

People (4); Commons (4);Power

In order to define the speech acts in which

86

Lord President gives orders to the defendant,

56

Jurisdiction (3)King, (i) to answer to the Charge, (ii) not toAuthority (16); Liberty (12);dispute the authority of the Court; and (iii) not toword(s) (7); favo(u)r (7);interrupt but to listen to the Court. The King, the48

defendant, on the other hand, mainly makes

power (6)Note: The number in brackets indicates thethree speech acts: requests, refusal and apology.

token of each item.

First, the King requests the court (i) to explain
why he is being tried, (ii) for permission to

The words in the lists above show that the Judgespeak, and (iii) not to interrupt while he is(Lord President) and the defendant (the King)

talking. He refuses to answer, but at the end, herefer to the Court and the country that theyapologises to the judge.

belong to and dispute with regard to their own
authority. Lord President, the judge, on the one

List 3: Verb Phrases Used by Lord President

hand, emphasizes the Court and its authority andSpeechjurisdiction, but he does not make much of theAct

kingdom or the King’s authority. He even calls

Orders to

It is prayed to the Court … that

the King ‘prisoner’ and gives commands to theansweryou answer to your Charge; theExamplesdefendant King. The King, who is the defendant,

Court expects your Answer; Theon the other hand, refuses to answer and keeps

Court desires to know whether

asking questions with regard to the lawfulness of

this be all the Answer; you should

and reasons for his captivity, emphasizes hisgive them a final Answer; The

own status as the King of the country, and asks

Court have determined that you

for his liberty. They each represent the Court andought to answer the same; etc.
Ordersthe Kingdom and rely on their own authority

138

You are not to dispute ournot toAuthority; neither you nor any

disputeman are permitted to dispute thatknow by; etc.
Apologypoint; you ought not to interrupt

Pray excuse me Sir, for myinterruption

while the Court is speaking toyou; this point is not to be debated

The main speech act performed from Lordby you; Tis not for Prisoners to

President to the King is the order to answer,

require; etc.

which means to confess or deny the charge.

Orders

You may answer in your time,

From the King to the Lord President, the main

not tohear the Court first; you shall bespeech acts are to protest and to ask questions

talk butheard in due time, but you are towith regard to authority. Speech acts on the twolistenhear the Court first; it is notsides are different in terms of speech-act type,proper for you to speak; you arehedge and politeness strategies. The tone of the

not to be heard after the sentence;King’s speech acts changes in due course,

etc.

becoming less authoritative, making appeals
more earnestly, and making a supplication to the

List 4: Verb Phrases Used by King Charles I
SpeechLord President, while the judge’s illocutionary
force stays the same all the way through the

Examplestrial.

Act
Requests

I would know by what power I

to explainam called hither; Let me see a

4.3. Power and Voice: Grammatical Subjects

legal Authority warranted by theof Speech Acts

Word of God; I desire that you

Comparison of the speech acts on both sides

would give me, and all the world,

seems to suggest that the judge’s authoritative

satisfaction in this; etc.

power is stronger than the King’s in that theRequests

I think is fit at this time for me tojudge makes orders while the defendant makes

to give

speak of; let me tell you; yourequests. In order to see whether this is the case,permission shall hear more of me; I do

I would like to look at the grammatical subjects

to speakdemand that, and demand to beof the utterances. In other words, I would like toheard with my Reasons, if you

see how and by whom orders are given to thedeny that, you deny Reason; etc.

King and how the King begs and pleads to theRequests

By your favour, you ought not tojudge. The following lists show the grammatical

not tointerrupt me; I hope I shall give

subjects of speech acts in this trial proceeding.

interrupt

no occasion of interruption; I
shall not give any occasion of

List 5: The Grammatical Subjects of theinterruption; etc.

Utterances: From Lord President to the King

Refusal toI will not betray it to answer to a

Subjects

Examplesanswernew unlawful authority; I

The hearer:

you are (not) to V (10); youconceive I cannot answer this, I

youmay (not) V (4); you shall (4);you must V (3); you ought

will answer the same so soon as I

139

(not) to V (2); Neither you nor

authority. Although the judge gives orders to theany man are permitted todefendant,

dispute; etc.

unmentioned. Therefore, it is hard to say that the

The speaker: I,

I must V (5); I do V; etc.

judge as the speaker is exerting his discursive

we (exclusive)

We shall V; we should V; etc.

power over the King. Unlike the first two, theThe

The Court expects/desires/

slot of the impersonal subject is filled withimpersonal:

requires (3); The Court will

various expressions with ‘the Court’. These

the Court,

consider; the Court haveexpressions imply that it is the Court that has thethey, etc.

determined; The command of

authority and power over the King, and that the

the Court must be obeyed; theyjudge is only a medium by which the

do expect you should; The

authoritative power of the Court is exercised.

thedecision

maker

is

left

On the other hand, the King as the speaker

Court cannot V; Neither thegives directives by using imperatives and the ‘let

Court permit; etc.

me V’ structure. These utterances have theList 6: The Grammatical Subjects of thestrong illocutionary force of commands andUtterances: From the King to Lord President

requests. The king’s strong wishes are also

Subjects

Examplesexpressed in an assertive way with ‘will’ in the

The hearer:

You shall V (2); You must V;

present and past tenses as well as ‘desire’. The

you

You ought not to V; you would

king as the speaker is represented as the

V; Will you

grammatical subject and holds authoritative

Imperatives (11); let me V (7)power over the addressee. In other words, theThe speaker:

I V (desire, deny, hope, etc.)

authority of the King as the defendant-speaker isI, we(11); I shall (not) (6); I would

revealed by these grammatical forms.

(exclusive)

V (5); I do V (3); I will (not) V

Are

there

any

chronologicalchanges(3); I may (2); I must V; I

concerning the power relationship between thehope; I desire; I think is fit at

two sides of the interlocutors? The answer isthis time for me to V; Shall I

positive on the King’s side. As the trial proceeds,

Note: V refers to a verb and the numbers in

the authoritative power of the voice of King

brackets indicate frequencies.

Charles I seems gradually weakened. As List 4
shows, the King, who started the trial by giving
strongI would argue that the inventories in the lists

requestsforexplanations

of

the

can help locate where the authoritative power ofaccusation with the authoritative power of theeach speaker originates. List 5 shows that theKingdom, ended with apologies to the Court. In

first person pronoun, either the singular or pluralparticular, after the sentence was given, theform, is scarcely used as the subject. Among theauthoritative power of the King was nullified,judge’s directives with ‘you’ as the grammaticalwhile the authoritative power of the Court,

subject, the frequently used structures are ‘yourather than that of the Judge himself, seems

are (not) to V’ and the passive voice. Theserather stable and constant throughout the course

grammatical structures obscure the origin of theof the trial.

140

the Lune: Studies in Honour of Geofffrey

5. Conclusion
Although the mutual use of the same

Leech, ed. by Andrew Wilson, Paul Rayson

vocative suggests equal partnership in general,

and Tony McEnery, 37-59, Peter Lang,in the trial of King Charles I, this was not theFrankfurt.

case. At first sight, the authority seems to resideBlum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House andin the judge, but it is not in himself but in theGabriel Kasper, eds. (1989) Cross-Cultural

Court within the juristic system. Investigation of

Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies Vol.

the grammatical subjects and the grammatical

XXXI, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
Busse,

structures of the directives and assertives reveals

Ulrich(2008)“An

Inventoryofthat the discursive power of the judge does not

Directives in Shakespeare’s King Lear,”override the King’s. On the contrary, the judge is

Speech Acts in the History of English, ed. by

only a voice with which the true authority of theAndreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen,

Court exerts its power. Although the King85-114, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

follows the linguistic conventions of the

Culpeper, Jonathan and Dawn Archer (2008)

courtroom by using the honorific vocative to the“Requests and Directness in Early Modern

judge, he still believes in the hierarchical social

English Trial Proceedings and Play Texts,

structure with himself as the King at the top. The

1640-1760,” Speech Acts in the History ofKing’s authority, however, seems nullified

English, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker and Irma

towards the end of the trial, especially after theTaavitsainen,

sentence is given. Once the sentence is given to

Amsterdam.

45-84,John

Benjamins,

the king by the Court, the king is deprived of all

Jacobs, Andreas and Andreas H. Jucker (1995)

his authoritative power and status, which is all“The Historical Perspective in Pragmatics,”

reflected in the speech act verbs observed in the

Historical Pragmatics, ed. by Andreas H.

analysis here. A small attempt as this is, I hope

Jucker, 3-33, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Jeffries,

to have shed some light on the pragmatic

Leslie(2010)

Critical

Stylistics,

Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

features of speech acts made within fluctuating

Jucker, Andreas H. and Irma Taavitsainen (2000)

power relationships in the Early-Modern English“Diachronic Speech Act Analysis: Insults

period from a historical pragmatic perspective.

from Flyting to Flaming,” Journal of
Historical Pragmatics 1-1, 67-95.

* This work is supported by JSPS KAKENHI

Shiina, Michi (2014) “Shoki Kindai Eigoki no

Grant Number 25370562.

Hōteigengo no Tokuchō: ‘Torishirabe’ ni
REFERENCES
Aijmar, Karen (1996) Conversational Routines

Okeru ‘Yobikakego’ no Shiyō to Kinō

in English: Convention and Creativity,

in Early-Modern English Period: Pragmatic

Longman, Harlow.

Functions of Vocatives),” Horizons of(Characteristics of the Courtroom Language

Historical Pragmatics, ed. by Satoshi

Archer, Dawn and Jonathan Culpeper (2003)“Sociopragmatic

Annotation:

Kinsui et al. , 77-104, Hitsuji-Shobō, Tokyo.

New

Directions and Possibilities in Historical
Corpus Linguistics,” Corpus Linguistics by141

c. [Wife: I’m taking my son with me.]
Husband: You are not taking my son.
(Scandal. Season 2. #19)
d. Oh, no you don’t. You’re not playing
ⱥㄒ㐍⾜ᙧᵓᩥࡢ࿨௧ⓗ⏝ἲ     with that. (Hirtle and Curat (1986: 76))㸫ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗ⪃ᐹ㸫㸦Imperative Use of the English Presentᮏ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚௨ୗࡢ㸱Ⅼࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ

Progressive Construction: A Cognitive㸦࢔㸧⌧ᅾ㐍⾜ᙧࡀ࿨௧ⓗᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘࡼ࠺࡟
࡞ࡿኚ໬⤒㊰ࡣࠊពᅗ࠿ࡽ࿨௧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

Linguistic Account㸧㸦࢖㸧୍ே⛠༢ᩘ୺ㄒ㸦㸻ヰ⪅㸧ࡢ⾜ⅭពᅗΎỈ ၨᏊ㸦Keiko Shimizu㸧㸦୺ほⓗ㸧࠿ࡽࠊ୍ே⛠」ᩘ୺ㄒࡢ⾜Ⅽពᅗ⇃ᮏ┴❧኱Ꮫ

ࢆ፹௓ࡋ࡚ࠊ஧ே⛠㸦㸻⪺ࡁᡭ㸧࡬ࡢ࿨௧㸦㛫㸦Prefectural University of Kumamoto㸧୺ほⓗ㸧࡬࡜ኚ໬ࡍࡿࠊ㛫୺ほ໬࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦࢘㸧ヰ⪅ࡢ⾜Ⅽពᅗ࠿ࡽࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸⌧ᅾ㐍⾜ᙧᵓᩥ, ࿨௧ᶵ⬟,࿨௧࡬ࡢኚ໬ࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿ㔜せ࡞せᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ

ពᅗ, WE-mode, effective control

shared goal ࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ༠ാ⾜Ⅽ(joint
action)࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽሙ㠃ࡢᤊ࠼᪉(WE-mode)ࢆ
᥼⏝ࡍࡿ(Tomasello (2009))ࠋ
ศᯒࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ௨ୗ㸰Ⅼࢆྲྀࡿࠋ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ㐍⾜ᙧᵓᩥࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ௨

㸦࢚㸧ព࿡ࠊ᝟ሗᵓ㐀ࠊㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ㛫࡟ࡣᐦ᥋

ୗ(1)࡟౛♧ࡉࢀࡿ࿨௧ⓗ࡞ᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ஦౛

࡞┦஫㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᙧᘧࡢ㐪࠸ࡣព࿡࣭ㄒ⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ࿨௧ⓗ(imperative)࡜࠸࠺

ㄽୖࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ཯ᫎࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓ♫఍ㄆ▱ࡢᙺ๭ࡼࡾࡶࠊࡴࡋࢁ⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ⓗ(directive)࡜࠸࠺

ࡣࠊព࿡ࡢゎ᫂࡟୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡼࡾᗈ࠸ᶵ⬟࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ᪉ࡀጇᙜ࠿ࡶࡋ

㸦࢜㸧ゝㄒࡢኚ໬ࡣ₞ḟⓗ࡛ࠊලయⓗ࡞ᩥ⬦ࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡛ࡣ౫㢗(request)࡞࡝୎ᑀࡉ

ࢆᣢࡗࡓゝㄒ౑⏝ࡢ୰࡛ኚ໬ࡍࡿࠋ⌧᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡢ㧗࠸஦౛ࡶྵࡲࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ(1)ࡢ౛ࡣࡍ

㐍⾜୰ࡢኚ໬ࢆᗈࡃᩥ⬦ࡶྵࡵほᐹ࣭ศᯒࡍ

࡭࡚ẚ㍑ⓗᙉ࠸⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᛶࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡇ࡜࠿

ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᩥἲ໬◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡽࠊࠕ࿨௧ⓗ࡞ᶵ⬟(imperative-like function)ࠖ
ࢆᣢࡘ஦౛ࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ

2. ඛ⾜◊✲㸸Future ࠿ࡽ Imperative ࡬ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊᮏ᮶ࡣ࿨௧⾲⌧࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ゝㄒᙧ(1) a. She just looks at me, she kind of nods herᘧࡀ࿨௧ᶵ⬟ࢆⓎ㐩ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿኚ໬࣭ᩥἲ໬

head and she’s going: ‘Auntie Lina’s hereࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡢ࿨௧ⓗ⏝ἲ࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿࠋ

again, I’m leaving.’ So she wants to go out
on the balcony. I grab her again. ‘You wanna

2.1. Quasi-Imperative Will (Leech (20043))

go outside? You gotta go downstairs, but Leech (20043)ࡣ௨ୗ(2)࡟౛♧ࡉࢀࡿ࿨௧

you’re not going out on the balcony. Causeᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ will ࢆ Quasi-Imperative will ࡜࿧

knowing you, you’re gonna fall off.’ࡧࠊࡇࢀࡣ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪⓎಙ⪅ࡢពᅗࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ(De

Wit and Brisard (2014: 75), ୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅)࡜ゝ࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠕண

b. Tinker Bell, you’re not going in there.

Ṧ࡞⏝ἲࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡶゝ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠕヰ(Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue)⪅ࡢពᅗࠖ࡜ࠕண ࠖࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࡣ୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋ

142

ࠖࢆ⾲ࢃࡍᮍ᮶ will ࡢ≉࠺࡟࡞ࡿ㐣⛬ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ

(2) a. You will do as I say.
b. The Duty Officer will report for duty at(Leech (20043: 88))0700 hours.

2.3.ᩥἲ໬㸸Future/Prediction ࠿ࡽ Imperative ᩥἲ໬◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊண

࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃᮍ᮶

ࡢㄆ▱ᩥἲ
2.2. Langacker (2009)ࡢ

࠿ࡽ࿨௧ᶵ⬟ࡀⓎ㐩ࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺ぢゎࡀከ࠸ࠋ Langacker (2009: 157)ࡢㄆ▱ᩥἲ࡛ࡣࠊ(3)Bybee et al. (1994)ࡣࠊfuture㸦ண ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡓࡢ࿨௧⏝ἲࡢ will ࡣࠊ(4)ࡢᵝ࡟ᅗ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋㄆ㆑ⓗᴫᛕ㸧࠿ࡽ imperative ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜ࡋࠊ

ࢢࣛ࢘ࣥࢻ(G)ࡢヰ⪅࠿ࡽ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢⓎヰ⾜

imperative ࠿ࡽ future ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨ㐩ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ゝⅭ(࿨௧)ࡀ(3)ࡢᵓᩥᴫᛕ࡟ෆᅾ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࠺ࠋ࿨௧ᶵ⬟ࡢⓎ⏕㐣⛬ࢆࠊ “In a situation inwhich the speaker has authority over the(3) You will leave!

addressee, a prediction about the addressee can(4)

be interpreted as a command.” (p. 211)࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋࠊ
㹑

OS

㹆

ࡑࡢഐド࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ be going to ᙧ㹅ᘧ࡛ࡶ࿨௧ᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ౛ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(5) a. Absence of Modal b. Presence of Modal(6) You’re gonna take off your shoes before youcome in here.

C(7) Narrog (2012: 167)      

C

R

R
F

(Bybee et al. (1994: 211))F(Langacker (2009: 162)) 

ㄆ▱ᩥἲ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ mayࠊmustࠊwill ࡞࡝ࡢ Modality ᙧᘧࡣ control striving (effective
 

control 㸦 ⩏ ົ ⓗ ࣔ ࢲ ࣜ ࢸ ࢕ 㸧 ࠿ ࡲ ࡓ ࡣ
epistemic control㸦ㄆ㆑ⓗࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕㸧)ࢆ⾲

Narrog (2012: 165-168)ࡶྠᵝ࡟ࠊୖࡢ(7)ࡢ

ࢃࡍࠋୖグ(5a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊModality ᙧᘧࡀ࡞ࡼ࠺࡟ non-volitive (= epistemic) future ࠿ࡽࡅࢀࡤ ࡑࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡣ⌧ᐇ(R)࡟ᒓࡋࠊ㹋

imperative ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᮍ

odality ᙧᘧࡀ࠶ࢀࡤ(5b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⌧ᐇ(R)࡟

᮶ࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆண ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊヰ⪅ࡣ⪺ࡣᒓࡉࡎࠊeffective/epistemic control㸦ᅗ(㸳ࡁᡭ࡟⾜Ⅽࢆᐇ⾜ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟⩏ົ௜ࡅࡿࠋb)୰ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ྥ࠿࠺ⓑᢤࡁ▮༳㸧ࡀ⏕ࡌ

Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 194)ࡸ De Witࡿࠋ౛ᩥ(3)ࡢ will ࡣ effective control ࢆ⾲ࢃand Brisard (2014: 75-76)ࡶྠࡌࡃࠊᮍ᮶࡟ࡘ

ࡋ࿨௧ᶵ⬟࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡃࠋLangacker ࡣ࿨௧ࡢ࠸࡚ࡢ prediction ࠿ࡽ imperative ࡬ࡢⓎ㐩࡛will ࡀண 㸦ᮍ᮶㸧⏝ἲ࠿ࡽࡢⓎ㐩࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊಖᆏ (2014: 85)ࡣࠊពᚿ

ࡣゝࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ⌧ᅾ㐍⾜ᙧᵓᩥࡣ࠿ࡽ࿨௧࡜࠸࠺⤒㊰ࢆᨭᣢࡋࠊ
ࠕ౫㢗ࡸ࿨௧

Modality せ⣲࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡢ࿨௧ᶵ

ࡢᑐேⓗ⏝ἲࡣពᚿࡢ will ࠿ࡽㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᥎⬟࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡃᴫᛕⓗ࡞ effective control㸦(5b)ㄽࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ὴ⏕ࡋࡓࡶࡢࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ

୰ࡢⓑᢤࡁ▮༳㸧ࡀ࡝ࡢᵝ࡟Ⓨ⏕ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࡀ
ㄝ᫂ࡍ࡭ࡁၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ௨ୗࡢ➨㸳⠇࡛ࡣࠊ

2.4. Future (= prediction)࠿ࡽ Imperative ࡜⌧ᅾ㐍⾜ᙧࡀ effective control ᴫᛕࢆᣢࡘࡼ

࠸࠺Ⓨ㐩⤒㊰࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ␲ၥⅬ143 ண ࡜ࡣㄆ㆑ⓗุ᩿࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᮍ᮶ண

࡚ᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅⮬㌟ࡢ⾜Ⅽពᅗ࡛࠶࠿ࡽ࿨௧࡬ࡢⓎ㐩ࡣ epistemicЍdeontic ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ⾜Ⅽពᅗࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࡀ⾜Ⅽ㐃㙐ࡢࡲࡎ᭱ࡾࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡢᩥἲ໬ࡢ᪉ྥᛶ

ึࡢ㛤ጞⅬ࡜࡞ࡾࠊࡑࢀࢆ᭷⏺ࣉࣟࢭࢫෆࡢ

㸦deonticЍepistemic㸧࡟㏫⾜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ୍㒊㸦⌧ᐇ㸧࡜ࡋ࡚⌧ᅾ㐍⾜ᙧࡀࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖
ࡢ᰿ᣐ࡜ࣝࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓヰ⪅ࡢ⾜Ⅽពᅗࡣヰ⪅࡟┤᥋࢔࡞ࡿఱࡽ࠿ࡢ⌧ᐇࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ࿨௧ᶵ⬟࡟ᢞᙳࡉࢡࢭࢫྍ⬟࡞ෆⓗᚰ⌮≧ែ㸦୺ほ㸧࡛࠶ࡾࠊࢀࡿ⌧ᐇࡢ᰿ᣐࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢពᅗࡸィ⏬࡜࠸࠺ヰ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣ⌧ᐇ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ epistemic ࡞ᴫពᚿⓗ㸦volitive㸧࡞ᴫᛕ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ

ᛕ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

ᮍ᮶࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ண ࢆࡍࡿሙྜࠊண

ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࡢᮍ᮶ண ࠿ࡽ࿨௧࡜࠸࠺ᩥἲ໬
⤒㊰࡛ࡣࠊ㐍⾜ᙧᵓᩥࡢ࿨௧ᶵ⬟ࡢⓎ㐩ࢆㄝ(10) When I said ‘the boss’ I was referring to࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋୗࡢ(9b)࠿ࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
be going to ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ⌧ᅾ㐍⾜ᙧࡣㄆ㆑ⓗ࡞ணyou. (Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 165))(11) That is the fever, darling. Listen, I’mࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ࡟⮳ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ㐍⾜ᙧࡀ willcoming up to you! I’m leaving now, at once.

ࡸ be going to ࡜ྠࡌኚ໬⤒㊰ࢆ㎺ࡽ࡞ࡅࢀ

No don’t protest.

ࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ヂ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡢ࿨௧ᶵ⬟(Hirtle and Curat (1986: 75))࡬ࡢᣑᙇࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ࿨௧ᶵ⬟ࡢⓎ⏕(12) Vera said obstinately: “I’m not going back㐣⛬࡟᪂ࡓ࡞どⅬࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

to the house.” (Ten Little Niggers, p.160)(8) a. They’re going to get married next spring.

 Leech (20043: 61)ࡣࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡢᮍ᮶⏝ἲࡣࠊ⌧ᅾ᫬ࡢ‽ഛẁ㝵ࢆ⾲ࢃࡋពᅗࡣ⾲ࢃࡉ࡞[intention/prediction]࠸࡜ゝ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊୖࡢ(11, 12)ࡢࡼ

b. It’s going to rain all day. [prediction]࠺࡟‽ഛẁ㝵ࡸィ⏬ࡢ࡞࠸ࡑࡢሙ࡛ࡢỴᚰ(Bybee (2010: 31))ࡸពᅗࢆ⾲ࢃࡍᮍ᮶⏝ἲࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿ(Hirtle(9) a. They are getting married next spring.
[arrangement/planࠊprediction ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸]and Curat (1986), Nesselhauf (2007: 202-205))ࠋ
Nesselhauf ࡣ “a spontaneous decision” ࢆ⾲

b. *It’s raining tomorrow. [prediction]ࢃࡍ஦౛ 10 ౛ࢆ 1950-1990 ᖺࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟☜3. ヰ⪅ࡢពᅗ㸦୺ほ㸧ࡢ㛫୺ほ໬࣭Ⓨヰ⾜ㄆࡋࠊࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡀ㐍⾜ᙧᵓᩥࡢ౑⏝ቑຍࡢ୍Ⅽ໬㸸Intention ࠿ࡽ Imperative ࡬せᅉ࡛࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽពᅗࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ㐍⾜ᙧᵓᩥࡢୖグ(10-12)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾜Ⅽពᅗࢆ๓ᬒ໬ࡍ୺ほⓗ࡞⏝ἲࡀࠊࡉࡽ࡟㛫୺ほⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ⏝ἲࡢ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡀ୍ே⛠༢ᩘ୺ㄒ࡛ࠊヰ⪅࡚ࠊⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡢ force dynamics ࡜ࡋ࡚࿨௧ᶵ

⮬㌟ࡀ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ヰ⪅࠿ࡽ⪺ࡁᡭ⬟ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ

࡬ࡢ࿨௧ᶵ⬟ࡣ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࠋḟ⠇࡛ࠊヰ⪅ࡢ⾜Ⅽពᅗ㸦I-intention㸧࡜࠸࠺୺ほⓗᴫᛕࡀ࡝ࡢᵝ࡟࿨௧ᶵ⬟࡟⤖ࡧ௜ࡃ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ

3. 1. 㐍⾜ᙧ࡟ࡼࡿヰ⪅ࡢ Intention ࡢ๓ᬒ໬ 㐍⾜ᙧ㸦be V-ing㸧ࡣ᭷⏺ࣉࣟࢭࢫ㸦V㸧ෆ㒊ࡢ୍㒊ࢆࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡍࡿࠋΎỈ (2014)

3.2. WE-intention ࠿ࡽ I-Order-You intentionࡣࠊ௨ୗ(10)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ⾜Ⅽゎㄝࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀ

࡬㸸joint activity ෆࡢ“director”ࡿ㐍⾜ᙧࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡢ⾜Ⅽពᅗ㸦Ⓨヰពᅗ㸧 ࡲࡎヰ⪅⮬㌟ࡢ⾜Ⅽពᅗ࡜࠸࠺ෆⓗᚰ⌮ࢆ๓ᬒ໬ࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ᭷⏺

≧ែ㸦⌧ᐇ㸧ࡀ♫఍ⓗຠຊࢆᖏࡧࡿሙ㠃࡜ࡋࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢෆ㒊࡜ࡋ୍࡚␒ึࡵ࡟⌧ᐇ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊヰ⪅௨እࡢ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀྵࡲࢀࡿ୍ே⛠」ᩘ

144

୺ㄒ WE ࡟ࡼࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ

insisted she didn’t need it, but I told her weTomasello (2009)ࡢ࠸࠺ WE-intentionalityࠊ

weren’t going anywhere until she put it on.

shared goal ࢆࡶࡘ WE-mode ࡢ༠ാ⾜Ⅽ(joint(Flush, pp. 193-4)

activity)࡛࠶ࡿࠋWE ࡣヰ⪅ (S)࡜ࡶ࠺୍ே㹖(16) [from mother to son]ࡢ஧ே࠿ࡽᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࠋS ࡜㹖ࡀ♫఍

We are not seeing Spiderman tomorrow.

ⓗ࡟ᑐ➼࡞㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ(13)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ S ࠿(Copley (2009: 27))ࡽ㹖࡬ࡢ࿨௧࣭ᣦ♧ⓗຠຊࡣⓎ⏕ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ(17) WE-intention (asymmetry WE)Ѝ[I-OrderYou-intention㸦㛫୺ほᛶ㸧]ࡢⓎ⏕࠙㸯ே⛠」ᩘ୺ㄒ WE (symmetry)ࠚ

G

SYMMETRY WE (S+㹖): WE-INTENTION Ѝࢢ

S

H

H

ࣛ࢘ࣥࢻෆ࡟ effective control ࡣⓎ⏕ࡋ࡞࠸OSS(13) We are getting married next year.
(14) WE-intention (symmetry WE)
X
S

௨ୗࡢ(1b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ヰ⪅ࡀ off-stage ࡟⛣ືOSࡋࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡔࡅ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊヰ⪅࠿ࡽ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ࿨௧ᶵ⬟ࡀࡉࡽ࡟๓ᬒ໬ࡉࢀⓎS

ヰ⾜Ⅽᛶࡀᙉࡲࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡟࠾ࡅ

H

ࡿ participant-internal ࠿ࡽ participant-external࡬ࡢࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ agent-oriented ࠿ࡽ speaker-ḟࡢ౛ᩥ(15, 16)࡛ࡣࠊ୺ㄒࡀ inclusive WE

oriented ࡬ࡢኚ໬(Narrog (2012: 84-88))࡜ᖹ

࡛ࠊjoint activity ࡢ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀヰ⪅ S ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࢢࣛ࢘ࣥࢻෆࡢヰ⪅࠿ࡽ⪺ࡁᡭ

H ࡜࡞ࡾࠊࡉࡽ࡟ S/H 㛫ࡢ♫఍ⓗ㛵ಀࡢ㠀ᑐ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࿨௧ᶵ⬟ࡀ↔Ⅼ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛

⛠ᛶ㸦(15)࡛ࡣ඗࡜ጒࠊ(16)࡛ࡣẕぶ࡜ᜥᏊ㸧㛫୺ほ໬࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋᅗ(18)ࡣᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ࿨ࡢࡓࡵࠊᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟୺ㄒ WE ࡢ୰࡛࿨௧ࡍࡿഃ

௧⏝ἲ will ࡢᅗ(4)࡜࡯ࡰྠ➼࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(director)࠿ࡽ࿨௧ࡉࢀࡿഃ(directee)࡬ࡢ⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᛶࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋ(17)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࢢࣛ࢘

࠙㸰ே⛠୺ㄒࠚ

ࣥࢻෆࡢ S ࠿ࡽ H ࡬ࡢ force dynamics ࡀ๓ᬒ㢧ᅾⓗ I-ORDER-YOU-INTENTION Ѝ࿨௧ᶵ⬟໬ࡍࡿࠋ୍ே⛠༢ᩘ୺ㄒࡢ㐍⾜ᙧ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡓ(1) b. Tinker Bell, you’re not going in there.

ヰ⪅ࡢ⾜Ⅽពᅗ(I-intention)࡜࠸࠺୺ほࡀࠊ㠀(18) [I-Order-You-intention]ࡢ๓ᬒ໬ᑐ⛠ⓗ࡞ WE-mode ࡢ༠ാ⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾࠸࡚」ᩘ

GS⾜Ⅽ⪅㸦ヰ⪅㸩⪺ࡁᡭ㸧㛫ࡢ[I-Order-You
intention]࡜࠸࠺㛫୺ほⓗ࡞ຠຊ࡟ኚ໬ࡍࡿࠋ

OS
H

H
S

࠙㸯ே⛠」ᩘ୺ㄒ WE (asymmetry)ࠚ

 Copley (2014)ࡣࠊ⌧ᅾ㐍⾜ᙧࡀᮍ᮶ࢆ⾲ࢃ

ASYMMETRY WE (S+H): ₯ᅾⓗ I-ORDER-YOUࡍሙྜ࡟ࡣ “director”ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋḟ

INTENTION Ѝࢢࣛ࢘ࣥࢻෆ࡛ S ࠿ࡽ H ࡬ࡢ

ࡢ(19a)ࡣ “plannable”࡛࠶ࡾࠊ୺ㄒ John ࠶ࡿᣦ♧ⓗຠຊࡀⓎ⏕ࡍࡿࠋS ࡢពᅗ࡟ࡼࡿỴᐃ࠸ࡣࡑࢀ௨እࡢே≀ࡀ “director”࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮡᅾ

㸦S: director, H: directee㸧ࡍࡿࠋ୍᪉(19b, 19c)ࡣேⅭⓗ࡞ィ⏬ࡀ୙ྍ⬟(15) [from brother to sister]࡞஦ែࡢࡓࡵᐜㄆᛶࡀୗࡀࡿࠋ

I tossed Abbey one of the life vests. She

145

(19) a. John is getting married tomorrow.

ࡿࠋDe Wit and Brisard (2014: 75)ࡣࠊ౛ᩥ(1a)b. #John is getting sick tomorrow.

ࡢ㐍⾜ᙧࡢ᪉ࡀ࿨௧ᩥ㸦Don’t go out on thec. ?The sun is rising tomorrow at 6:30.

balcony.㸧ࡼࡾࡶᙉ࠸࡜ゝ࠺ࠋ࿨௧ᙧࡣ᫬ไ
ᣦᐃࢆཷࡅ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࢢࣛ࢘ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࡉࢀ࡞

(Copley (2014: 72, 76))࠸ࠋ࿨௧ᙧ࡛⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡿ஦ែࡣ⌧ᐇ࡟఩⨨࡙ㄆ▱ᩥἲ࡛ࡣࠊᩥἲ໬࡟࠾࠸࡚୺య໬ࡍࡿ

ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸Ⅽ࠿ࠊⱥㄒࡢ࿨௧ᩥ࡟ࡣ

ᴫᛕࡣᩥἲ໬௨๓ࡢ⏝ἲ ࡟ඖࠎෆᅾࡍࡿ

directive ࡛࡞࠸⏝ἲࡶከࡃᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ

(immanent)࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ(20)ࡢ୍ே⛠༢ᩘ୺ㄒ⌧ᅾ㐍⾜ᙧࡣ⌧ᅾ᫬ไࢆᣢࡕࢢࣛ࢘ࣥࢹ࢕

ࡢ㐍⾜ᙧᵓᩥ࡛⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡿ⾜Ⅽពᅗ࡟ࡣࠊᅗ

ࣥࢢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋヰ⪅ࡣ⌧ᅾࡍ࡛࡟ᡂ❧ࡋ࡚(21)ࡢⅬ⥺▮༳࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞⮬ศ⮬㌟

࠸ࡿ⌧ᐇ࡜ࡋ࡚஦ែᢕᥱࡋఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ

࡬ࡢ෌ᖐⓗ effective control (commissive)ࡀෆ

࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࿨௧ᙧࡼࡾࡶᙉ࠸࿨௧ຠ

ᅾࡍࡿ࡜᝿ᐃ࡛ࡁࠊࡇࢀࡀ㛫୺ほ໬ࡋ࿨௧࡜

ຊࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
(ii) immediacy ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࠋ࿨௧⾲⌧ࡢ㢮ᆺ࠸࠺Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟ኚࢃࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ㄽⓗ◊✲(Aikhenvald (2010: 128-133))࡟ࡼࡿ
(20) I’m leaving now. (I-intention)

࡜ࠊimmediate/delayed imperative ࢆᙧᘧⓗ࡟(21) ヰ⪅⮬㌟࡬ࡢ෌ᖐⓗ effective control

༊ูࡍࡿゝㄒࡀ࠶ࡿࠋimmediate imperative(commissive)ࡣࡍࡄࡑࡢሙ࡛ࡢ⾜Ⅽᐇ⌧ࢆồࡵࡿࡀࠊS

S

delayed imperative ࡣࡶࡗ࡜ඛࡢᮍ᮶࡛ࡢ⾜ෑ㢌ࡢ౛ᩥ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙉ࠸࿨௧ᶵ⬟ࡲ࡛

Ⅽᐇ⌧ࢆồࡵࡿࠋⱥㄒࡢ࿨௧ᙧ࡟ࡣࡇࡢ༊ู

ࡣ⾲ࢃࡉ࡞࠸ࡀࠊヰ⪅➼ࡢពᅗ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࢢࣛ

ࡀ࡞ࡃ୰❧ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᩒ࠼࡚ immediacy ࢆఏ࢘ࣥࢻෆࡢ㛫୺ほᛶ㸦directive force㸧ࡀ๓ᬒ࠼ࡿ࡟ࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟ᙧᘧࢆ㊊ࡋࡓ᭷ᶆ⾲⌧ࡀᚲ໬ࡉࢀࡿ⏝౛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ(22)ࡣヰ⪅࠿ࡽ⪺ࡁᡭせ࡟࡞ࡿ㸦Stop it already!㸧
ࠋ⌧ᅾ㐍⾜ᙧࡀ⾲࡬ࡢᣦᅗ࡛ࠊ(23, 24)ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ❧࡚ࡓィ⏬

ࢃࡍ࿨௧ᶵ⬟ࡣࠊ⌧ᅾ᫬ไ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⌧ᐇ࡜ࡋࡢ୰࡛ࡢヰ⪅ࡢᙺ๭ࢆᑜࡡ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ“director”

࡚ᢕᥱࡉࢀ⾲ࢃࡉࢀࠊࡍࡄࡑࡢሙ࡛⾜Ⅽᐇ⌧ࡢィ⏬ࡢࡶ࡜」ᩘ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡢཧ୚ࡍࡿ jointࢆồࡵࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊimmediate imperative

action ࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ(WE-mode)ࡀ⫼ᬒ࡟࠶ࡿࠋ

࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋAikhenvald ࡟ࡼࢀࡤ immediate
imperative ࡣ “urgent”ࠊ“strong”ࠊ“forceful”ࠊ(22) “if you don’t stop making so much“rude”࡜࠸ࡗࡓࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࢆᣢࡘࠋⱥㄒ࡟࠾

commotion you’re getting out until we’re࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࿨௧ᙧ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⌧ᅾ㐍⾜ᙧࡀ࠸ࢃࡤ

done here.”᭷ᶆᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚ immediate imperative ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡍ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊ(i)ࡢ࿨௧ᙧࡼࡾࡶᙉ࠸࿨

(Dancygier and Sweetser (2005: 90))௧ⓗຠຊࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩ࡜ࡶᩚྜࡍࡿࠋ

(23) “Now I’m testifying?” (Ѝ“you’replanning that I testify?”)(ibid.: 94)(iii) negative imperative (prohibitive)ࡀከ࠸ࠋ

(24) …can you tell me what I’m looking for?

ෑ㢌࡟(1)࡛♧ࡋࡓ౛ᩥࡣࡍ࡭࡚ྰᐃ࿨௧ᩥ

(China Trade, p.40)

࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡣ㐍⾜ᙧࡀ࿨௧ᶵ⬟ࢆᢸ࠺㝿ࡢ୍ࡘࡢഴྥࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ὀ┠ࡍ

4. ⌧ᅾ㐍⾜ᙧᵓᩥࡢ࿨௧ᶵ⬟ࡢ≉ᚩࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊḟࡢ➨㸳⠇࡛ࠊ࡞ࡐ⌧ᅾ㐍⾜ᙧ࡜ ࿨௧ᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ⌧ᅾ㐍⾜ᙧ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ௨ୗ

࠸࠺ᮏ᮶ modality ᙧᘧࢆḞࡃ⾲⌧ࡀ modality(i)࠿ࡽ(iii)ࡢ≉ᚩࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

ᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿ effective control㸦ᅗ(5b)୰ࡢⓑᢤ(i) ࿨௧ᩥࡼࡾᙉ࠸ directive force ࢆ⾲ࢃࡏࡁ▮༳㸧ࢆᣢࡘࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ

146

5. Reality Model (Langacker (2009))[P]ࢆ[not P]࡟ኚ᭦ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ⌧ᅾ㐍⾜ᙧࡀ࿨௧ᶵ⬟㸦effective

࠺ effective control㸦ᅗ(27)୰ࡢⓑᢤ▮༳㸧ࡀ

control㸧࡜࠸࠺ modality ᴫᛕࢆᣢࡘࡼ࠺࡟ኚ

⏕ࡌࡿࠋ஧ேࡢᴫᛕ໬⪅ࡀྠ୍ࡢ⌧ᐇ(shared໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊLangacker ࡢ Reality Model ࢆ

reality) ࢆ ඹ ᭷ ࡋ ༠ ാ ⾜ Ⅽ ࡢ ཧ ୚ ⪅ ࡜ ࡞ ࡾ᥼⏝ࡋㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ(25)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ㄆ㆑ࣦࣞ

(WE-mode)ࠊ࠿ࡘཧ୚⪅㛫࡟㠀ᑐ⛠ⓗ࡞♫఍࢙࡛ࣝࡣಶࠎࡢᴫᛕ໬⪅㸦C1ࠊC2㸧ࡣࡑࢀࡒ㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊeffective control ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋࢀ␗࡞ࡿ⌧ᐇ࡬ࡢᴫᛕ㸦RC1ࠊRC2㸧ࢆᣢࡘࡀࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ⌧ᐇࣦ࢙ࣞࣝ(R)࡛ࡣ㒊ศⓗ࡟㔜(26) a. you’re not going in there! (= (1b))࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ≉࡟⌧ᐇࡢ༠ാ⾜Ⅽ(joint

b. You’re not practising goal kicks. Chaseactivity)࡟」ᩘࡢᴫᛕ໬⪅ࡀᐇ㝿࡟ཧ୚ࡍࡿ

the ball gently!

(Flour Babies, p.40)

࡞ࡽࠊཧ୚⪅㛫࡛ࡢ negotiation ࡀᚲせ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ   c. You’re not taking my son. (= (1c))(27) effective control ࡢⓎ⏕(25) Reality Model (Langacker (2009: 290-292))

Addressee’s 

Speaker’s                       !"    !     "      
 

!

"

 #

                                                         #

   

  





#

!

      

#"!

௨ୗࡢ(26a-c)ࡢ࿨௧ᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ⌧ᅾ㐍⾜ḟࡢ(28)࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡣ๓ࡶࡗ࡚࡝ࡢ㌴ᙧ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢᵝ࡟⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚࿨௧ᶵ

࡟஌ࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺᝿ᐃ(RC)ࡀ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ⌧ᐇ࡟⬟㸦effective control㸧ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࠿ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ

࠾࠸࡚ヰ⪅࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ஧ࡘࡢ R ࡢᑐ❧ࡣ⏕ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ(27)࡟ᅗ♧ࡍࡿ⌧ᐇࣦ࢙࡛ࣞࣝࡢ

ࡌ࡞࠸ࠋᚑࡗ࡚(28)ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㍍࠸ᣦ

negotiation ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ(26a-c)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⪺ᅗ࡜࡞ࡿࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(29)ࡣヰ⪅ࡢᚰ⌮⤒㦂ࡁᡭ(C1)ࡣࡍ࡛࡟࠶ࡿ⾜Ⅽ P ࢆ㛤ጞࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ

ⓗ஦ᐇࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⌧ᐇࡣヰ⪅ࡢᚰ⌮࠿ࠊࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽពᅗࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(26a)ෆࡢ R㸦ෆⓗᚰ⌮≧ែ㸧࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿሙᡤ(there)࡟ࡍ࡛࡟⛣ື୰࡛࠶ࡿ

༠ാ⾜Ⅽ࡛ᵓ⠏ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ R 㡿ᇦࡋࠊ(26b)࡛ࡣࢦ࣮ࣝ࢟ࢵࢡࢆࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ຊ

࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ⮬ศࡢ R ࢆヰ⪅ࡢ R୍ᮼ࣮࣎ࣝࢆ㋾ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(26c)࡛ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ࡟୍⮴ࡉࡏࡿᚲせࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ effectiveᜥᏊࢆ㐃ࢀ࡚⾜ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ពᚿ⾲♧ࢆࡍ࡛࡟

control ࡶ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࠋ(30)ࡣ⫯ᐃᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ

ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᅗ(27)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡽ⪺ࡁኤ㣗ࢆࡏࡎ࡟ᖐࡿࡘࡶࡾ࡛࠸ࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐᡭࡢ RC1 ࡀ⌧ᐇ R㸦P ࢆྵࡴ㸧࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚

ࡋ࡚ࡢⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰ⪅࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛫࡛ R࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢ R ࡣヰ⪅࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ஧ே࡛స

ࡢᑐ❧ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡓࡵࠊ࿨௧ⓗຠຊࢆᣢࡘࠋ

ࡽࢀࡿ shared reality ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ(26a-c)ࡢヰ⪅(C2)ࡀ RC2 ࢆᢞᙳࡍࡿ⌧ᐇ R㸦not P㸧࡜ᑐ❧(28) By the way, you’re coming with us in VWࡍࡿࠋshared activity ࡛࠶ࡿ⌧ᐇࣦ࢙࡛ࣞࣝࡣ

and ….

ࡇࡢ஧ேࡢ⌧ᐇ(R)ࡣ୍⮴ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞

(Hirtle and Curat (1986:74))(29) Are you trying to be funny? You certainly࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾ⪺ࡁᡭ(C1)ࡢഃ࡟ࠊ⮬ศࡢ R ෆࡢ

aren’t amusing me!

147(Flour Babies, p.47)

(30) You’re staying for dinner. That’s an order.1

and Saghie Sharifzadeh, 72-86, Oxford(Love Story, p.50)

University Press, Oxford.
Dancygier, Barbara and Eve Sweetser (2005)

6. ⤊ࢃࡾ࡟

Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional<on-going extension of the present progressive>

Constructions, Cambridge University Press,

㛫
୺
ほ
໬

imperative 

intention 

ongoingness/futurate

Cambridge.
De Wit, Astrid and Frank Brisard (2014) “A   

Cognitive

GrammarAccountof୺ほ໬SemanticsofEnglishPresentthethe

Progressive,” J. Linguistics 50, 49-90.
Hirtle, W. H. and V. N. Curat (1986) “The    

Simple and the Progressive: ‘Future’ Use,” ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ⌧ᅾ㐍⾜ᙧࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࿨௧

Transactions of the Philological Society,ⓗᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡕࠊeffective control ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡼ࠺

42-84.

࡞ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕໬ࡀ㐍ࡴ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ⌧ᅾ㐍⾜ᙧࡢሙྜࠊண

ಖᆏ㐨㞝 (2014)ࠗᩥἲ໬ࡍࡿⱥㄒ࠘㛤ᣅ♫,ᮍ᮶࠿ࡽ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃヰ⪅ࡢពᮾி.

ᅗࢆ๓ᬒ໬ࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࠿ࡽ࿨௧ᶵ⬟ࡀⓎ㐩ࡋ

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum࡚࠸ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋୖグࡢᅗ࡟ࠊ㐍⾜୰ࡢ஦(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of theែࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉⓗ⏝ἲ࠿ࡽࠊヰ⪅ࡢ

English Language, Cambridge University

⾜Ⅽពᅗࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ⏝ἲࢆ⤒࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡟Ⓨヰ⾜

Press, Cambridge.

Ⅽ໬ࡋࡓ࿨௧ⓗ⏝ἲࡲ࡛ࡢᣑᙇࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࠋ

Langacker, Ronald W. (2009) Investigations in
Cognitive Grammar, Mouton de Gruyter,ὀ1Berlin.
Leech, Geoffrey (20043) Meaning and the᯽㔝೺ḟඛ⏕࠿ࡽ(30)ࡢ⏝౛ࢆࡈᣦ᦬࠸ࡓ

ࡔࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋグࡋ࡚ឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋEnglish Verb, Pearson Education, Harlow.



Narrog, Heiko (2012) Modality, Subjectivity, andཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Semantic

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2010) Imperatives

Perspective,

and Commands, Oxford University Press,

OxfordA

Cross-Linguistic
University

Press,

Oxford.

Oxford.

Nesselhauf, Nadja (2007) “The Spread of the

Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William
Pagliuca

Change:(1994)

The

Evolution

Progressive and Its ‘Future’ Use,” English
Language and Linguistics 11(1), 191-207.

ofGrammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality inΎỈၨᏊ (2014) ࠕ㛫୺ほᛶࠊ࠾ࡼࡧ⾜Ⅽ࡜

the Languages of the World, the Universityពᅗࡢ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮㛵ಀ࠿ࡽࡳࡓ⾜Ⅽゎ

of Chicago Press, Chicago.

ㄝࡢ㐍⾜ᙧࠖ
ࠗ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ఍ㄽᩥ㞟࠘➨ 14 ᕳ, 212-224, ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ఍.

Copley, Bridget (2009) The Semantics of the
Future, Routledge, New York.

Tomasello, Michael (2009) Why We Cooperate,

Copley, Bridget (2014) “Causal Chains for

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Futurates,” Future Times, Future Tenses, ed.
by Philippe De Brabanter, Mikhail Kissine

148

2. ၥ㢟ᥦ㉳ᵝࠎ࡞ゝㄒ౑⏝ࢆᢅࡗࡓඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࠊཧ୚⪅࣭⫼ᬒ࡬ࡢ▱㆑㔞࣭ゝㄒ࡞࡝ࡀ῝ࡃᙳ㡪ࡍࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿ୰࡛ࠊඛ⾜◊✲࡛╔┠ࡉࢀ࡚
㔜」Ⓨヰࡢ᪥ⱥㄒẚ㍑㸸ࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝᚰⓗ㊥

࠸࡞࠸ࠊぶ␯㛵ಀࡀ␗࡞ࡿ࣌࢔ྠኈ࡟ࡼࡿ」㞳࣭ゝㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࡣ༠ㄪᛶࡢ⏘ฟ࡟࡝࠺㛵ࢃࡿᩘࢪ࡛ࣕࣥࣝࡢ㔜」Ⓨヰࡢゝㄒ㛫ẚ㍑࡜࠸

࠿*

࠺ほⅬࡣࠊ♫఍ⓗᐇ㊶࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㔜」Ⓨヰࡀ࠸㸦A Comparative Study of Overlaps in࠿࡟┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢᵓ⠏࡟㈉⊩ࡋ࠺ࡿ࠿ࢆศᯒEnglish and Japanese: How Does theࡍࡿୖ࡛㔜せ࡞╔║Ⅼࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

Difference in Genre, Psychological Distance,ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ⱥㄒࡢྠ୍ཧ୚⪅and Language Affect Collaboration?㸧

ࢆྵࡴ」ᩘࢪࣕࣥࣝࡢ఍ヰ㛫࡛ࠊ㔜」Ⓨヰࡢ㢖ᗘࡸᶵ⬟ࡣ࡝࠺㢮ఝࡋࠊ࡝࠺␗࡞ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ

➉⏣ ࡽࡽ㸦Lala Takeda㸧ࡲࡓࠊࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝᚰⓗ㊥㞳࣭ゝㄒࡣࠊ㔜」Ⓨᮾி㟁ᶵ኱Ꮫ㸦Tokyo Denki University㸧ヰ࡟࡝࠺ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ㔜」Ⓨヰࡀ⏘ฟࡍࡿ༠ㄪᛶ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡛ศᯒࠊ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ1࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸㔜」Ⓨヰ, ␗ࢪࣕࣥࣝ 㛫ẚ㍑,

ࡑࡢ㝿ࠊ♫఍ⓗࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛ࡢⓎヰゎ㔘ࢆ᪥ⱥㄒẚ㍑, ᚰⓗ㊥㞳, ༠ㄪᛶㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ࣓ࢱࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ(Bateson(1972))ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࡑࡢゎ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡿࠋ

1. ◊✲ࡢ⫼ᬒ

3. ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜᪉ἲ

2ேࡢཧ୚⪅ࡀྠ᫬࡟༢ㄒࡸᩥࢆⓎヰࡍࡿࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࠊዪᛶ㛫ࡢ఍ヰࢆᐇ㦂ⓗ࡞タᐃࡢ

㔜」Ⓨヰࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛」ᩘࡢどⅬ࠿ୗ࡛཰㘓ࡋࡓࠕ࣑ࢫࢱ࣮࣭࣮࣭࢜ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ 2ࠖࡽᑡ࡞࠿ࡽࡠ▱ぢࡀᥦ౪ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ

ࡼࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࣌࢔࡜ⱥㄒヰ⪅࣌࢔࡛ࠊྛ

ࡇࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ఍ヰศᯒ(CA)࡛ࡣࠊ⛣⾜㐺ษ⟠ᡤ(TRP)ࡸண

11 ⤌ࡢぶࡋ࠸኱Ꮫ⏕㛫ࠊ࡞ࡽࡧ࡟ࠊྛ 11 ⤌ྍ⬟ᛶ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽ㔜」Ⓨヰࡢึᑐ㠃㛫㸦኱Ꮫᩍဨ࡜๓㏙ࡢ཰㘓ཧຍ⪅ࡢࡢሙᡤࡀศᯒࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ(Sacks et al. (1974),

࠺ࡕ 1 ྡࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ 3㸧࡟ࡼࡿ⮬⏤ᑐヰ࡜ㄢ㢟

Ford and Thompson (1996), Tanaka (1999),㐩ᡂㄯヰࡢ᭩ࡁ㉳ࡇࡋ㈨ᩱࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓ 4ࠋ

Schegloff (2000))ࠋࡲࡓࠊ♫఍ⓗࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ

ศᯒ᪉ἲࡣࠊ᭩ࡁ㉳ࡇࡋ㈨ᩱ࠿ࡽ㔜」Ⓨヰ࡟↷ࡽࡋࡓ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ᪥ⱥㄒẚ㍑࡛ࡣࠊ㔜」

ࢆᣠ࠸ฟࡋࠊ㔜࡞ࡿ➨ 2 ヰ⪅ࡢⓎヰᙧᘧ࡟ᇶⓎヰࡢ㢖ᗘ࣭ᶵ⬟࡞࡝ࡀศᯒࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ

࡙ࡁࠊ௨ୗ࡛౛♧ࡍࡿࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆక࠺㔜」(Uchida (2002), Fujii (2012), ⸨஭࣭㔠 (2014))ࠋ Ⓨヰ࣭ࠖࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆకࢃ࡞࠸㔜」Ⓨヰ࣭ࠖࠕྠࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡢศᯒᑐ㇟ࡶ༢୍ࢪࣕࣥࣝ࡟

୍㸦㢮ఝ㸧⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡿ㔜」Ⓨヰࠖ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋ⤊ጞࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࢱࢫࢡࡢ㞴᫆ᗘ(Bull and Aylett,(a) ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆక࠺㔜」Ⓨヰ1988)࣭㟁ヰ࠿ᑐ㠃࠿(ten Bosch et al., 2005)࣭

(1) (J-04_Cnv)5

ཧ୚⪅㛫ࡢぶ␯(Yuan et al., 2007)࡞࡝ࠊ≧ἣ

108 L: 㐍㊰ࠊ࡞ [ࢇ࠿Ꮫ㒊ู [ࡢ㐍㊰≧ἣ࡟ᛂࡌࡓ㔜」Ⓨヰࡢ㐪࠸ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ    ࡳࡓ࠸࡞ࡢぢ࡚ࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡶྠ୍ཧ୚⪅࡟ࡼࡿ␗ࢪࣕࣥࣝ㛫→ 109 R:ẚ㍑ࡣ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ    ࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇࠊ࠺ࢇ

149

[࠺ࢇࠊ

[࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇ

(1’) (E-04_Cnv)

ࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊWilcoxon ᳨ᐃࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ

070 L: I wanted to [kick him.

ࡑࡢᕪࡀ㢧ⴭ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡀᩓぢࡉࢀࡓࠋ→ 071 R:

ᅗ 1 ࡣࠊࢱ࣮ࣥ࠶ࡓࡾࡢ㔜」Ⓨヰࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ[Hmm.

♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(b) ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆకࢃ࡞࠸㔜」Ⓨヰᅗ 1: ࢱ࣮ࣥ࠶ࡓࡾࡢ㔜」Ⓨヰ㸦ᖹᆒ㢖ᗘ࡜(2) (J-06_Tsk)

Wilcoxon ᳨ᐃ㸧

057 L: ࡛ࠊ[࠶ࠊࡇࡗࡕ࡟᮶ࡓࡢ࠿
ࡇࡗࡕࡀᚋࡌࡷ࡞࠸
→ 058 R:  [ࡇ(2’) (E-18_Cnv)
018 L: [Well, you didn’t hate him, however    your roommate, deep…
→ 019 R: [May roommate hated him.

ୖᅗࡢ㏻ࡾࠊ᪥ⱥㄒඹࠎ⮬⏤ᑐヰࡢ᪉ࡀከ(c) ྠ୍㸦㢮ఝ㸧⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡿ㔜」Ⓨヰࡃࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ 5%Ỉ‽࡛᭷ពᕪࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋ

(3) (J-08_Tsk)
139 R: [᭱ึ࡟

ᅗ 2: ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆక࠺㔜」Ⓨヰ㸦1 ศ࠶ࡓࡾ→ 140 L: [᭱ึ࡟ୖ࡟ࡢࠊ஌ࡗࡕࡷ࠺࠿

ࡢᖹᆒ㢖ᗘ࡜ Wilcoxon ᳨ᐃ㸧(3’) (E-18_Tsk)
205 L: [And then you look sad. {@}→ 206 R: [And then you look sad.
ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢ᭷↓࡛㔜」Ⓨヰࢆศ㢮ࡋࡓࡢࡣࠊ᝟ሗࡢඹ᭷ࡢࡳࢆఏ࠼ࡿ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ
࡜ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰෆᐜ࡟㛵
ᅗ 2 ࡣࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆక࠺㔜」Ⓨヰࡢ㢖ᗘ࡛ࠊ୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍⓎヰ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢ㔜࡞ࡾ࡟࠾࠸࡚ఏ࠼ࡿព࿡ࡀ␗࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡓ࠿ࡽ୧ゝㄒ࡜ࡶ⮬⏤ᑐヰࡢ᪉ࡀከࡃࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ

࡛࠶ࡿ(ᇼཱྀ (1997: 77), ኱ሯ (2015: 172))6ࠋ

1%ᮍ‶ࡢỈ‽࡛᭷ពᕪࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋ

ࡲࡓࠊࠕྠ୍㸦㢮ఝ㸧⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡿ㔜」Ⓨヰࠖᅗ 3 ࡣࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆకࢃ࡞࠸㔜」Ⓨヰࡢ㢖ᗘ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡣࠊ⸨஭࣭㔠 (2014: 73)ࡢࠕ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋྠ᫬Ⓨヰࠖ࡟┦ᙜࡋࠊ2ேࡢᑐヰ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣㄢ㢟ཧ୚⪅ࡀྠ᫬࡟ྠࡌⓎヰࢆ⾜࠺ࡶࡢ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡍࡿࠋᅗ 3: ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆకࢃ࡞࠸㔜」Ⓨヰ㸦1 ศ࠶ࡓࡾࡢᖹᆒ㢖ᗘ࡜ Wilcoxon ᳨ᐃ㸧

4. ศᯒ
4.1. 㔞ⓗศᯒ᪥ⱥㄒࡢࢪࣕࣥࣝ࡜ぶ␯࡟ࡼࡿࢱ࣮ࣥ࠶
ࡓࡾࡢ㔜」Ⓨヰࡸࠊ๓❶࡛♧ࡋࡓྛศ㢮ࡢᖹᆒ㢖ᗘࢆศᯒࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ࠸ࡎࢀ࡛ࡶࢪࣕࣥࣝ
ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀ᭱ࡶ኱ࡁࡃᙳ㡪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ

150

ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡶⱥㄒࡶㄢ㢟㐩ᡂㄯヰࡢ(4) Ꮫ⏕ (J-22_Cnv: ヰ㢟ᥦ౪⪅ࡣ L)᪉ࡀከࡃࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡣึᑐ㠃㛫࡛ࠊⱥㄒࡣ኱Ꮫ

007 L: ┠ⓑࡢ㏻ࡾ࠶ࡿࡌࡷࢇ =⏕㛫࡛ 5%Ỉ‽࡟࡚᭷ពᕪࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ

008 R:         =࠺ࢇ [࠺    ࢇ࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇ

᪥ᮏㄒࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕㛫࡜ⱥㄒࡢึᑐ㠃㛫࡛ࡣࠊ⮬⏤ᑐヰ࡛ࡢ㔜」Ⓨヰᩘࡀ௚ࡼࡾࡶከࡃࠊ⤫ィ 

009 L:[ᬑ    ㏻࡟Ṍ࠸࡚ࡓࡢ =ⓗ࡟᭷ព࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

010 R:     

ᅗ 4 ࡛ࠊྠ୍㸦㢮ఝ㸧⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡿ㔜」Ⓨヰࡢ㢖ᗘࡢ⤖ᯝࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࠋ

=࠺ࢇ

011 L: ࡑࡋࡓࡽࠊ࢝ࣛࢫࡢ㬆ࡁኌࡀࡋࡓ    ࡢࡡ

ᅗ 4: ྠ୍㸦㢮ఝ㸧⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡿ㔜」Ⓨヰ㸦1

012 L: ࡔ࠿ࡽࠊ࠶ࠊ࡞ࢇࡔࢁ࠺ࠊ࢝ࣛࢫ    ࡀ࠸ࡿࡢ [࠿࡞࡜ᛮࡗ࡚

ศ࠶ࡓࡾࡢᖹᆒ㢖ᗘ࡜ Wilcoxon ᳨ᐃ㸧→ 013 R:    [࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇ014 L: ࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࡼࡅ࡚ࡳࡓࡢࠊࡋࡓࡽࠊ    ᬑ㏻࢝ࣛࢫࡀୖ࡟࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮ࠺ࡌࡷ    ࢇୖ౛ࡢヰ㢟ᥦ౪⪅Lࡣࠊ㏻ࡾࢆṌ࠸࡚࠸ࡓ᫬ࠊ
㊰ୖ࡟࢝ࣛࢫࡀℜṚࡢ≧ែ࡛ࡦࡗࡃࡾ㏉ࡗࡇࡢᅗ࠿ࡽࠊ཮᪉ࡢゝㄒ࡛ㄢ㢟㐩ᡂㄯヰࡢ࡚࠸ࡓࡢࢆぢ࡚ࡧࡗࡃࡾࡋࡓヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

᪉ࡀከ࠸࡜ࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀ

ࡇࡇ࡛RࡣࠊLࡀ012࡛ヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ᭱୰࡟013

ࡢ࣌࢔ࡶ 1%ᮍ‶ࡢỈ‽࡟࡚᭷ពᕪࢆ♧ࡋࡓ࡛࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆ࠺ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢ࠶࠸

ࡀࠊⱥㄒࡢึᑐ㠃㛫࡛ࡣࠊㄢ㢟㐩ᡂㄯヰ࡛ࡢ࡙ࡕࢆཷࡅ࡚ࡶࠊLࡀゝ࠸ᾷࢇࡔࡾゝ࠸┤ࡋ㔜」Ⓨヰᩘࡀ௚ࡼࡾᑡ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊ⤫ィⓗࡓࡾࡋ࡚ヰࢆ୰᩿ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢࡲ

᭷ពᕪࡣ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

ࡲ㌶㐨࡟஌ࡗ࡚ヰࢆᒎ㛤ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ḟ࡟ࠊ౛(5)࡛࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆకࢃ࡞࠸㔜」Ⓨ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞㢖ᗘࡢ㐪࠸ࡣఱࢆ≀ㄒࡗヰࢆ᥇ࡾ࠶ࡆࡿࠋ

࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋḟ㡯࡟࡚ࠊྛࢪ࡛ࣕࣥࣝࡢ౛ࢆ
ᣲࡆ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ㔜」Ⓨヰࡢᶵ⬟ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ(5) ึᑐ㠃 (J-19_Cnv: L=ᩍဨ R=኱Ꮫ⏕)4.2. ㉁ⓗศᯒ000 L: ࠼࡜ࠊࡧࡗࡃࡾࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ࠶

4.2.1. ⮬⏤ᑐヰ    ࡓࡋࠊ࡝࠺࡛ࡍ࠿ࠊ᭱ [㏆࠶ࡾࡲࡍ    ࠿᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࣌࢔࡟ࡼࡿ⮬⏤ᑐヰ࡛ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ
⏕㛫࡛ࡶึᑐ㠃㛫࡛ࡶࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆక࠺㔜」→ 001 R:         Ⓨヰࡸ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆకࢃ࡞࠸㔜」Ⓨヰ࡛ࠊ┦ᡭ    ࡋࡓ [ࡇ࡜ࡣࡢヰࢆ㌶㐨࡟஌ࡏ࡚ඛ࡟㐍ࡲࡏࡿࡶࡢࡸࠊỿ

→ 002 L: 㯲࡟ࡼࡿ㛫ࢆῶࡽࡍࡇ࡜࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀ    ࡅ࡝ࠊ࠺ࢇ

[ࡧࡗࡃࡾ[๓࡛ࡶ࠸࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࢇ࡛ࡍ

003 R: ࠼ࠊࡩࡘ࠺ࠊ᪥ᖖ [ࡢࡇ࡜࡛ {@}ከࡃぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ
ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ࠊ౛(4)ࡣࠊヰ㢟ᥦ౪⪅࡟ࡼࡿ→ 004 L:[ࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࡼ

ࠕࡧࡗࡃࡾࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࠖࡢ࢚ࣆࢯ࣮ࢻࡢ୰㏵࡛    ࡡࠊ᪥ᖖࡢࡇ࡜ࠊࡑ࠺ࡡࠊ࠶ࡓࡋࡶࠊ

⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽฟࡓ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆక࠺㔜」Ⓨヰ࡛    ࡸࡗࡥ᪥ᖖࡢࡇ࡜࠿࡞ࡗ࡚ࠊᛮ࠺ࢇ࠶ࡿࠋ    ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝151

ࡇࡢ౛ࡣࠊ㘓㡢㘓⏬ࡀጞࡲࡗࡓ┤ᚋ࡛ࠊᩍဨ    want. {@}Lࡀ኱Ꮫ⏕R࡟ヰ㢟ࢆ᣺ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

025 L: Yeah.

001࡛ヰ㢟᥈ࡋ࡟㏞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓR

026 L: Yeah, hmm, [I guess we can talk࡟ᑐࡋࠊLࡣ002ࡸ004࡛ࠊR࠿ࡽヰࢆᘬࡁฟ    about other surprising things, I’mࡑ࠺࡜ඛ࡬ඛ࡬࡜ゝⴥࢆ㔜ࡡ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡇ    [not sure.

࡜࡛ࠊึᑐ㠃࡛ᖺୗࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕࡜ࡢ㛫࡛ỿ㯲࡟

027 R:

ࡼࡿ㛫ࢆῶࡽࡍࡇ࡜࡟㈉⊩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

 [I xxx...

→ 028 R: [Let’s see, what else would be a    good surprise...

୍᪉ࠊⱥㄒヰ⪅࣌࢔ࡶࠊ┦ᡭࡢヰࢆ㌶㐨࡟஌ࡏ࡚ඛ࡟㐍ࡲࡏࡓࡾࠊỿ㯲࡟ࡼࡿ㛫ࢆῶࡽ

029 R: Oh, I recently met somebody.

ࡍࡇ࡜࡟㈉⊩ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿ㔜」Ⓨヰࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᙧᘧⓗศ㢮࠿ࡽぢ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ

ࡇࢀࡣࠊヰ㢟ࡀ㏵ษࢀࡓࡢ࡛ࠊ୧ཧ୚⪅ࡀḟ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆక࠺㔜」Ⓨヰࡣ኱Ꮫ⏕㛫࡛ࡶึ࡟⮬ศࡀヰࡍෆᐜࢆ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇ

ᑐ㠃㛫࡛ࡶከ࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆకࢃ࡞࠸

ࡇ࡛ࠊ୧⪅ࡀỿ㯲ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽヰࡍෆᐜࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ㔜」Ⓨヰࡣึᑐ㠃㛫࡟ከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

≧ἣࡶ࠶ࡾᚓࡼ࠺ࡀࠊ028࡛Rࡀ㔜ࡡࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊึᑐ㠃㛫࡛⏕ࡌࡿỿ㯲࡟ࡼࡿ㛫ࢆῶ(6) Ꮫ⏕ (E-20_ Cnv: ヰ㢟ᥦ౪⪅ࡣ L)ࡽࡍࡇ࡜࡟㈉⊩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

003 L: I was having a hard time thinking of    things, but um... oh, I was talking

4.2.2. ㄢ㢟㐩ᡂㄯヰ    about chance meetings with people୍᪉ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࣌࢔࡟ࡼࡿㄢ㢟㐩ᡂㄯヰ    where you [1 run into someone from࡛ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ⏕㛫࡛ࡶึᑐ㠃㛫࡛ࡶࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ    high-school [2 in a totally n... separateࢆక࠺㔜」Ⓨヰࡸ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆకࢃ࡞࠸㔜」

    city or another country even.

Ⓨヰ࡛ࠊ1 ࡘࡢヰ㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿ 2 ࡘࡢぢ᪉ࢆඹ→ 004 R: [1 Hmm...

       Ꮡࡉࡏࡿࡶࡢࡸࠊෆᐜ࡬ࡢ⌮ゎ࡜ඹ᭷ᛶࢆ☜ㄆࡋྜ࠺ࡶࡢࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ[2 oh yeah... like...

ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ࠊ౛(8)ࡣࠊึᑐ㠃㛫࡛࠶࠸࡙ࡕ
౛(6)ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ⏕㛫ࡢ⮬⏤ᑐヰ࡟ࡳࡿ࠶࠸࡙

ࢆకࢃ࡞࠸㔜」Ⓨヰࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ୪࡭ࡓ⤮࣮࢝ࡕࢆక࠺㔜」Ⓨヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ౛࡛ࠊヰ㢟ࢆࢻ࡟ពぢࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

᣺ࡽࢀࡓLࡀࠊ003࡛ࠊ๓࡟ᩍဨ࡜⾜ࡗࡓึᑐ㠃㛫ࡢ⮬⏤ᑐヰ࡛ࠊ㧗ᰯ᫬௦ࡢ཭ே࡜ูࡢሙ

(8) ึᑐ㠃 (J-03_Tsk: R=ᩍဨ L=኱Ꮫ⏕)ᡤ࡛അ↛෌఍ࡍࡿ࡜ࡧࡗࡃࡾࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ヰ

098 R: [ࡇࢀࡣࢆࡋࡓ࡜ఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚Rࡣࠊ004→ 099 L: [ࡇࢀ࡛“Hmm”, “oh yeah”࡜2ᅇ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆకࡗ࡚

100 R: ࡇࢀࡣఱ࠿ࡋࡽ

Ⓨヰࢆ㔜」ࡉࡏࡓࡀࠊࡑࢀࡣLࡢヰࢆṆࡵࡿ

101 R: 㣕ࡧ㉺࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑ࠺ࡔࡗ࡚    ᛮ࠸ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᲬࢆぢࡘࡅ࡚ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㏫࡟㌶㐨࡟஌ࡏ࡚ඛ࡟㐍ࡲࡏࡿ

102 R: ࡑࡋ࡚ᡭຓࡅ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ

103 R: ࡇࡢ㎶ࡀ [ࠊ⣽࠿࠸࡛ࡍࡼࡡ

ḟ࡟ࠊ౛(7)࡛ึᑐ㠃㛫ࡢ⮬⏤ᑐヰ࡛ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆకࢃ࡞࠸㔜」Ⓨヰࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ

→ 104 L:[ࡇࢀ࢜࢜ࢳ࡞Ẽࡀࡍࡿ    ࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝
(7) ึᑐ㠃 (E-03_Cnv: R=ᩍဨ L=኱Ꮫ⏕)105 R: {@}ࡇࢀࡀ [᭱ᚋ024 R: I’m not sure how much detail they

→ 106 L:

152

[Ώࡗࡓࡽ

(10) ึᑐ㠃 (E-17_Tsk: L=኱Ꮫ⏕ R=ᩍဨ)ୖ౛࡛ࠊR࡟ࡼࡿ⤮࣮࢝ࢻࡢ≧ἣᥥ෗ࡢ᭱୰
࡟ࠊLࡀ099࡛ࠕࡇࢀࠖ࡜ఱ࠿ࢆఏ࠼ࡿྜᅗࢆ

107 L: ‘Oh, there’s a stick, let me think aboutฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊ100-102ࡢRࡢ≧ἣᥥ෗    this and [go back and get the stick’.

ࢆ⪺࠸ࡓᚋࠊ103࡛Ⓨヰࢆ㔜ࡡࠊ࢜ࢳ࡜࡞ࡾ

→ 108 R:

[Uh-huh... right. =109 L:         ࡑ࠺࡞ᡤࢆぢฟࡋࡓ࡜ఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ

=Or... wait,࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆకࢃ࡞࠸㔜」Ⓨヰ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢࡇ    okay, yeah, yeah, I think that one’s

࡜࡛R࡜L࡟ࡼࡿ2ࡘࡢぢ᪉ࡀඹᏑࡋࠊࡼࡾໟ    okay.

ᣓⓗ࡟≧ἣࢆᥥ෗ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

110 L: Maybe... I think this one should be    before here, [cuz this is when he’sḟ࡟ࠊ౛(9)࡛ྠ୍㸦㢮ఝ㸧⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡿ㔜    thinking and then he’s like... ‘Oh,」Ⓨヰࢆ᥇ࡾ࠶ࡆࡿࠋ    yeah...’.
(9) Ꮫ⏕ (J-10_Tsk)→ 111 R:

[Yeah...

084 R: ࡛ࠊ㋃ࡲࢀ࡚ =085 L:

౛(10)ࡣࠊึᑐ㠃㛫࡛ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆక࠺㔜」=㋃ࡲࢀ࡚

086 L: [㣕ࢇ࡛ࠊ╔ᆅ

Ⓨヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛Rࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ108→ 087 R: [㣕㣕ࢇ࡛ࠊ╔ᆅࡋ࡚

ࡸ111࡛ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆకࡗࡓ㔜」Ⓨヰ࡛ࠊL

088 R: ࡑࢀ࡛ࠊ⮬ศࡶ

ࡀ107࡛ጞࡵࡓ≀ㄒࡢ≧ἣᥥ෗࡟㛵ࡍࡿᥦ᱌089 L: ⮬ศࡶࠊࡸࡾࡓ࠸ [࡞ࡢ㐍⾜ࢆಁࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ┦ᡭࡢព

090 R:

ぢࢆᢕᥱࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ≀ㄒసࡾ࡟༠ຊࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

[ࡸࡾࡓ࠸ [࡜    ᛮࡗ࡚→ 091 L:ḟ࡟ࠊ౛(11)࡛኱Ꮫ⏕㛫࡛ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆక
ࢃ࡞࠸㔜」Ⓨヰࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ[࡚    ᛮࡗ࡚(11) Ꮫ⏕ (E-14_Tsk)
ࡇࢀࡣࠊRࡀࠊ2ᯛࡢ࣮࢝ࢻࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ1ᯛࢆ≀

139 R: He has to bounce anyway, [he’s a ballㄒ࡟࡝࠺⧊ࡾ㎸ࡴ࠿┦ㄯࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶    anyway, he will bounce.

ࡿࠋ୧⪅ࡣࠊ084ࡢࠕ㋃ࡲࢀ࡚ࠖࢆ᚟ၐࡋࡓL→ 140 L:

ࡢ085ࢆࡁࡗ࠿ࡅ࡟ࠊ086-087࡛ࠕ㣕ࢇ࡛ࠊ╔    like... I like my version [where he’s soᆅࠖ࡜Ⓨヰࢆ㔜」ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ088    upset that he jumps off the cliff.

ࡢࠕ⮬ศࡶࠖࢆ᚟ၐࡋࡓLࡢ089ࡸࠊ089ࡢࠕࡸ

→ 141 R:ࡾࡓ࠸ࠖࢆ᚟ၐࡋࡓRࡢ090ࢆࡁࡗ࠿ࡅ࡟ࠊ    we, should we pull that up now?

090࡜091࡛ࠕᛮࡗ࡚ࠖࡢ㔜」Ⓨヰࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸

142 L: Well, yeah, are we totally finished.

[No, I[Oh, shouldࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊཧ୚⪅㛫࡛ෆᐜ࡬ࡢ⌮ゎ࡜ඹ᭷ᛶࢆ☜ㄆࡋྜ࠺ࡓࡵࡢࡶࡢ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢ౛࡛ࠊ140ࡢ“No, I like... I like my version”

௚᪉ࠊⱥㄒヰ⪅࣌࢔ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ⏕㛫࡛ࡶึᑐ

࡜࠸࠺Lࡢゝⴥ࠿ࡽࠊⓏሙ≀ࡢ1ࡘ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ

㠃㛫࡛ࡶࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆక࠺㔜」Ⓨヰࡸ࠶࠸࡙ᓴࢆ㣕ࡧ㉺࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟㊴ࡡ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࠸ࡅ࡞

ࡕࢆకࢃ࡞࠸㔜」Ⓨヰ࡛ࠊ┦ᡭࡢពぢࢆᢕᥱ࠿ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡓR࡜ࠊᙜᝨࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡛ᓴ࠿

ࡋ࡚༠ຊⓗ࡞≀ㄒసࡾࢆຓ㛗ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡸࠊ1ࡽ㣕ࡧ㝆ࡾࡓ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡓL࡛ࠊぢ᪉ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ

ࡘࡢヰ㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿ 2 ࡘࡢぢ᪉ࢆඹᏑࡉࡏࡿ

࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊRࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ぢ᪉ࡶࡢࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡢ┦㐪ࡀ࣮࢝ࢻࡢ୪࡭᪉࡟┤᥋ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ุ᩿࠿ࡽࠊ┤ᚋࡢ141

153

࡛LࡢⓎヰ࡟㔜」ࡉࡏࠊㄢ㢟ࢆ⤊ࢃࡽࡏࡿ࡭

┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢪࣕࣥࣝࡀᚰⓗ㊥㞳ࡸゝㄒࡁ࠿☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢ㔜」Ⓨヰ࡛ࠊR࡜

࡟ඃඛࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊཧ୚⪅ࡀࠕ┦஫

L࡛2ࡘࡢぢ᪉ࢆඹᏑࡉࡏ࡚ࡼࡾໟᣓⓗ࡟≧⾜Ⅽࡢ┠ⓗ࡟ᛂࡌࡓ༠ㄪᛶࠖࢆࡼࡾᙉࡃព㆑

ἣࢆᥥ෗ࡋࠊᙜヱࡢㄢ㢟ࢆ⤖ㄽ࡟ᑟ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ௒ᚋࡣࠊ࣐ࣝࢳ࣮ࣔࢲࣝࡢどⅬ࡛ࡶࠊཧ୚
⪅ࡸෆᐜ࡟ᛂࡌࡓ」ᩘࢪ࡛ࣕࣥࣝࡢ㔜」Ⓨ

5. ⪃ᐹ௨ୖࡢศᯒ࠿ࡽࠊ⮬⏤ᑐヰ࡛ࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢヰヰࡢᶵ⬟ศᯒࢆ⾜࠸ࠊཧ୚⪅㛫ࡢ༠ㄪᛶࡢ⏘ࢆ㌶㐨࡟஌ࡏ࡚ඛ࡟㐍ࡲࡏࡓࡾࠊỿ㯲࡟ࡼࡿฟ࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ㡪ࢆศᯒࠊ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊሙ

㛫ࢆῶࡽࡍࡇ࡜࡟㈉⊩ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿ㔜」Ⓨヰ࡟ᛂࡌࡓ఍ヰࡢ㐍ࡵ᪉࡟㛵ࡋࠊⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟ᙺࡀࠊㄢ㢟㐩ᡂㄯヰ࡛ࡣࠊ1 ࡘࡢヰ㢟࡟ᑐࡋ࡚❧ࡘᩍᮦసࡾ࡬ࡢ▱ぢࢆᥦ౪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ

2 ࡘࡢぢ᪉ࢆඹᏑࡉࡏࡿ㔜」Ⓨヰࡀከࡃぢࡽ* ᮏㄽᩥࡣࠊ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠࣭ᇶ┙◊✲ Cࠕⱥㄒヰ⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ㔜」Ⓨヰ࡜༠ㄪᛶࡢ⏘ฟ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ␗ࢪࣕࣥࣝ㛫ᑐ↷◊✲ࠖ㸦ㄢ㢟␒ྕ 15K02763 ◊✲௦⾲⪅㸸➉⏣ࡽࡽ㸧ࡢຓᡂࢆᚓ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡓࠋࢀࡓࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࣌࢔࡛ࡣࠊෆᐜࡢ
⌮ゎ࡜ඹ᭷ᛶࢆ☜ㄆࡋྜ࠺㔜」Ⓨヰࡀࠊⱥㄒヰ⪅࣌࢔࡛ࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢពぢࢆᢕᥱࡋ࡚༠ຊⓗ࡞≀ㄒసࡾࢆຓ㛗ࡍࡿ㔜」Ⓨヰࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࡣࠊ⥲ࡌ࡚ࠊࢪࣕࣥࣝࡢ㐪࠸ὀ␗࡞ࡿ┠ⓗࡢୗ࡛཰㞟ࡉࢀࡓ఍ヰࢆࠕࢪࣕࣥࣝࠖ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡍࡿࠋ
2ᮏࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡣࠊ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠࣭ᇶ┙◊✲ Bࠕ࢔ࢪ࢔ࡢᩥ໬࣭࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩࣙ
࣭ࣥゝㄒࡢ┦஫㛵ಀ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᐇドⓗ࣭⌮ㄽⓗ◊✲ࠖ㸦ㄢ㢟␒ྕ 15320054 ◊✲௦⾲⪅㸸஭ฟ⚈Ꮚ㸧࡟࡚཰㘓ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3ึᑐ㠃ྠኈࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࠊࢪࣕࣥࣝ㛫࡛ 1 ྡࡣྠ୍ࡢᩍဨࡔࡀࠊ1 ྡࡣ␗࡞ࡿ኱Ꮫ⏕࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
4
ࢹ࣮ࢱࡢヲ⣽ࡣࠊ஭ฟ (2014:24-27)ࢆཧ↷ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ
5ᩥᏐ໬ཎ✏ࡢグྕ (Du Bois et al. (1993),
୵⏣࣭ᐃᘏ࣭ఏ (2005))[XX㸸㔜」Ⓨヰࡢ㛤ጞ఩⨨㸻㸸ษࢀ┠࡞࠸᥋⥆  {@}㸸➗࠸6ࡇࡢᇶ‽࡟↷ࡽࡍ࡜ࠊྠ୍ෆᐜࢆ㔜ࡡࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰෆᐜ࡬ࡢ✚ᴟⓗ㛵୚ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕྠ୍㸦㢮ఝ㸧⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡿ㔜」Ⓨヰࠖࡣࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ࡟ྵࡵ࡞࠸ࠋ
1ࡀᚰⓗ㊥㞳ࡸゝㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡟ඃඛࡋࠊཧ୚⪅ࡀࠕ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ┠ⓗ࡟ᛂࡌࡓ༠ㄪᛶࠖࢆࡼࡾᙉ
ࡃព㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ㔜」Ⓨヰࡀᣢࡘ༠ㄪᛶࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ⮬⏤ᑐヰ࡛ࡣࠊ⌧⾜ࡢヰ㢟࡟஌ࡗ࠿ࡾࠊ
ỿ㯲࡟ࡼࡿẼࡲࡎࡉࢆ᭱ᑠ໬ࡋࡘࡘࣜࢬ࣒
ࡼࡃ఍ヰࢆᒎ㛤ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊཧ୚⪅㛫ࡢ㛵ಀࢆࡼࡾᐦ࡞ࡶࡢ࡟ࡋ࡚ヰࢆ෇⁥࡟㐍ࡵࡿࠊ࠸ࢃࡤ㞺ᅖẼࢆ㔜どࡋࡓᛶ㉁ࢆࠊㄢ㢟㐩ᡂㄯヰ࡛ࡣࠊྠࡌㄢ㢟ࢆ⾜࠺ཧ୚⪅࡜ࡋ࡚஫࠸ࡢぢ᪉ࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊཧ୚⪅㛫ࡢྜពᙧᡂࢆ
ಁࡍࠊ࠸ࢃࡤෆᐜࢆ㔜どࡋࡓᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢᯟ⤌ࡢୗ࡛ࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
๓❶ࡢ౛(9)࡜(10)࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࣌࢔ࡢࠕඹ᭷ᛶࡢ๓㠃໬ࠖ࡜ⱥㄒヰ⪅࣌࢔ࡢࠕព
ぢᢕᥱࡢ๓㠃໬ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠊᚰⓗ㊥㞳ࡢ㐪࠸ࡸゝㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓ㔜」Ⓨヰࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Bateson, Gregory (1972) “A Theory of Play and6. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟

Fantasy,” Steps to an Ecology of Mind:ᮏ✏ࢆ㏻ࡌࠊྠ୍ཧ୚⪅ࢆྵࡴࠊ᪥ⱥㄒࡢ
」ᩘࢪࣕࣥࣝࡢ఍ヰ㛫ẚ㍑ࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡛ࠊ
఍ヰࡢ┠ⓗࡸ᝟ሗඹ᭷㔞ࡢ᭷↓࡟ࡳࡿ༠ㄪ
ᛶࡢᛶ㉁ⓗ┦㐪ࡀᾋ࠿ࡧୖࡀࡗࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ

154

Collected

Essaysin

Anthropology,

Psychiatry, Evolution and Epistemology, ed.
by

Gregory

Bateson,177-193,Jason୵⏣⚽ஓ࣭ᐃᘏ฼அ࣭ఏᗣᬕ (⦅) (2005)ࠗࢩ

Aronson, New Jersey.

࣮ࣜࢬᩥ࡜Ⓨヰ ➨ 1 ᕳ άື࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ

Bull, Matthew and Matthew Aylett (1998) “Anᩥ࡜Ⓨヰ࠘ ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ, ᮾி.

Analysis of the Timing of Turn-taking in a
Dialogue,”኱ሯᐜᏊ (2015)ࠕ᪥࣭ⱥㄒࡢึᑐ㠃 3 ே఍Proceedings of the International Conferenceヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖ, ὠ⏣᪩ⱑ௚ (⦅)

4,ࠗ᪥࣭ⱥㄒㄯヰࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢᑐ↷◊✲—ⱥ

Corpusonof

SpokenGoal-oriented
Language

Processingㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥᩍ⫱࡬ࡢᛂ⏝࠘

1175-1178.

169-191, ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ, ᮾி.

Du Bois, John W., Stephan Schuetze-Coburn,Susanna Cumming and Danae Paolino

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail

(1993) “Outline of Discourse Transcription,”

Jefferson (1974) “A Simplest Systematics

Talking Data: Transcription and Coding

for the Organization of Turn-taking for

Methods for Discourse Research, ed. by Jane

Conversation,” Language 50 (4), 696-735.

A. Edwards and Martin D. Lampert, 45-89,

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2002) “Accounts ofLawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Conduct in Interaction: Interruption, Overlap

Fujii, Yoko (2012) “Differences of Situating Self

and Turn-taking,” Handbook of Sociologicalin the Place/Ba of Interaction between the

Theory, ed. by Jonathan H. Turner, 287-321,

Japanese and American English Speakers,”

Plenum, New York.

Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5), 636-662.

Tanaka, Hiroko (1999) Turn-taking in Japanese⸨஭ὒᏊ࣭㔠᫂ጲ (2014)ࠕㄢ㢟㐩ᡂ㐣⛬࡟Conversation, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

࠾ࡅࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢゝㄒᩥ໬ẚ㍑—᪥ᮏ

ten Bosch, Louis, Nelleke Oostdijk and Louㄒ࣭㡑ᅜㄒ࣭ⱥㄒࡢẚ㍑ศᯒ—ࠖ, ஭ฟ

Boves (2005) “On Temporal Aspects of Turn⚈Ꮚ࣭⸨஭ὒᏊ (⦅)ࠗゎᨺⓗㄒ⏝ㄽ࡬ࡢ

Takingᣮᡓ ᩥ໬࣭࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩ࣭ࣙࣥゝㄒ࠘

Speech Communication 47 (1-2), 80-86.

57-90, ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧, ᮾி.

Uchidain

Conversational(Takeda),Lala

Dialogues,”(2002)

How

isFord, Cecilia E. and Sandra A. Thompson

Projectability Relevant to the Grammar of(1996) “Interactional Units in Conversation:

Interaction?: The Case of Overlapping Talks

Syntactic,

Pragmaticin English and Japanese Conversations,

Resources for the Management of Turns,”

Preliminary research paper for the Ph.D.

Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor

thesis, Japan Women’s University.

Intonational,andYuan, Jiahong, Mark Liberman and Chris Cieri

Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A.
Thompson, 134-184, Cambridge University(2007)

Press, Cambridge.

Understandingᇼཱྀ⣧Ꮚ (1997)ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡜఍ヰศᯒ࠘“Towardsofan
SpeechIntegrated
Overlaps

inConversation,” Proceedings of Internationalࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧, ᮾி.

Congress஭ฟ⚈Ꮚ (2014)ࠕゎᨺⓗㄒ⏝ㄽ࡜࣑ࢫࢱ࣮࣭
࣮࣭࢜ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢព⩏—ᩥ໬࣭࢖ࣥࢱ࣮
࢔ࢡࢩ࣭ࣙࣥゝㄒࡢゎ᫂ࡢࡓࡵ࡟—ࠖ, ஭ฟ⚈Ꮚ࣭⸨஭ὒᏊ (⦅)ࠗゎᨺⓗㄒ⏝ㄽ࡬ࡢᣮᡓ ᩥ໬࣭࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩ࣭ࣙࣥゝㄒ࠘
1-31, ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧, ᮾி.

155

1337-1340.

on

Phonetic

Sciences16,

compare the semantic factors that determine thelogical roles of FAs and RCs, particularly reason,concession and conditional. We conclude thatthe lexical properties of predicates in FAs affect
A Contrastive Study of Free Adjuncts andthe logical role of FAs, while the referential

Relative Clauses: with Special Reference toproperties of the antecedent and the restrictive

their Logical Relationship withfunction of RCs affect the logical role of RCs.

the Main Clause*

This

paper

is

organized

asfollows.

Section 2 reviews previous studies of FAs,
which show that predicate elements affect the

Hideki Tanaka

logical role of FAs.

Setsunan University

In Section 3, we argue thatboth the referential properties of the antecedent
Keywords: free adjunct, relative clause,and the restrictive/non-restrictive distinction oflogical role, restrictive/non-restrictive use,

RCs are crucial in determining their logical role.

individual/stage-level predicate

Section 4 compares FAs and RCs with respect tothe semantic factors that determine their logicalroles.

In Section 5, we conclude andsummarize our findings.

1. Introduction
It has long been observed, from the earlystages of linguistic research, that both relative

2. Free Adjuncts
This section summarizes and discusses

clauses (RCs) and free adjuncts (FAs) may havethree previous studies.

certain logical relationships to the main clause.
For example, Quirk et al. (1972) point out that a
causal relationship can be inferred between the

2.1. Stump (1985)
Stump (1985) argues that semantic as well

FA and the main clause in (1a) and between theas pragmatic factors affect the logical roles ofRC and the main clause in (1b), respectively.

FAs.

He quotes Carlson’s (1977) predicateclassification to sort FAs into strong and weak(1) a. The girl, upset by the activities of the

adjuncts. Strong adjuncts consist of individual-

ghost, decided to leave.
(Quirk et al. (1972: 760))

level predicates (i.e., predicates that express

b. The girl, who was upset by thepermanent properties of entities, e.g., intelligent),

activities of the ghost, decided to leave.

while weak adjuncts consist of stage-level(ibid.: 759)

predicates (i.e., predicates that express temporal
events, e.g., lie on the beach).

These early studies were followed by

Stump claims that strong adjuncts aretheoretical studies that attempted to clarify how

understood as reason for the content of the main

this logical connection is inferred.

clause and weak adjuncts as conditional for the

However,these investigations dealt only with FAs, leaving

content of the main clause.

His claim is

RCs undiscussed.

supported by the following sentences (logicalroles are shown by their abbreviations in

The purpose of the present study is to156brackets: “R” for reason or cause, “C” forin addition to predicate classes. According toconditional, and “Conc” for concession):

Iwabe, whether or not weak adjuncts contain
auxiliaries determines their propositionality (See

(2)

(3)
(4)
(5)

Having unusually long arms, John can

Kaga (1985) for the auxiliary status of thetouch the ceiling. [R]copula be and the perfective have): adjuncts that

(Stump (1985: 42))express propositions (i.e., strong adjuncts andWearing that new outfit, Bill would foolweak adjuncts with auxiliaries) are understoodeveryone. [C]

as reason, while adjuncts that do not express(ibid.: 41)

Lying on the beach, John sometimes

propositions

smokes a pipe. [C]auxiliaries) are understood as conditional.

(ibid.: 98)(i.e.,

weak

adjuncts

without

Lying on the beach, John smokes cigars.
[C](ibid.: 99)

2.3. Hayase (2002)
Hayase (2002) introduces the concept of

The FA in (2) includes an individual-level“fact,” which is defined as the theoreticalpredicate, and its logical role in the main clause

opposite of an event that is connected to ais reason. On the other hand, the FAs in (3)-(5)specific point in time (i.e., a fact is temporally

contain stage-level predicates that all have anon-specific).

conditional relationship to their main clauses.

distinction, Hayase describes circumstances inOn the basis of the event/fact

which an FA has a causal or conditional reading:
2.2. Iwabe (1986)(8)

Iwabe (1986) disputes Stump’s (1985)
treatment of FAs with auxiliaries like be and
have.

(9)

Stump proposes that the presence ofWhen an FA is understood as reason, it
denotes a fact.

(Hayase (2002: 169))

When

is

an

FA

understoodasauxiliaries changes predicates from stage-level

conditional, the main clause denotes

to individual-level, on the grounds that thenon-specific events.

(ibid.: 173)

presence of auxiliaries affects the logical role of
the FAs. Take the following pair of sentences:

Let us consider how the examples in (2)-(5) are
explained with the above statements.

(6)
(7)

The FA

Asleep, Rover might not seem soin (2) denotes a fact since it contains anferocious. [C/R]

individual-level predicate and is not connected(Stump (1985: 66))

Being asleep, Rover might not seem so

to a specific point in time.

ferocious. [R](8) that the FA has a causal reading.

(ibid.)

It thus follows fromIn the case of (3)-(5), the main clauses
In (6), the FA without an auxiliary is understooddenote non-specific events since they containeither as conditional or reason.1

either an auxiliary verb or a frequency adverb, or

By contrast,

the FA in (7) contains an auxiliary and has only aotherwise have a generic or habitual reading.

causal construal.

thus follows from (9) that the FAs in thesesentences have conditional readings.

Iwabe points out that Stump’s proposal isIt

Although

Alternatively, he argues thatshe does not mention it, Hayase seems to assume“propositionality” should be taken into accountthat conditional FAs, which contain stage-levelcounterintuitive.

157

this study to pursue this issue.

predicates, do not denote facts.
Hayase (2002) also claims that concession
is a marked case of reason.

The crucial

3. Relative Clauses

difference between the two is that concession

This section will show that both thedenotes the opposite of what is expected withspecificity of the antecedent and the restrictive

general knowledge of the world.

function of RCs affect the logical role of RCs.

She argues

that the markedness of concession is indicatedby the necessity of overt markers.

For instance,

In the following sentences, restrictive RCs

nevertheless is obligatory in the following

modify generic NPs:

example:(10)

3.1. Non-referential Antecedents

Not

havingany

money,

he??(nevertheless)went

into this(11) a. Snakes

that

are

poisonous

aredangerous. [C]
b. {A/The} snake that is poisonous isexpensive restaurant.

dangerous. [C](Hayase (2002: 172))
The main clause denotes the opposite of what isThough different in form, the antecedents in

expected from the content of the FA.

these sentences are all generic NPs and hence
non-referential.

with generic NPs are construed as conditional.

2.4. Some Remarks

When non-restrictive RCs follow generic

Stump (1985) has difficulty handling theNPs, they are understood as causal.

fact that the individual/stage distinction ofpredicates

does

not

have

a

one-to-one(12)

correspondence to the strong/weak distinction of
adjuncts.

Notice that restrictive RCs

Whales, which have lungs instead ofgills, cannot breathe under water.

Hayase (2002) uses the concept of[R]fact to take the aspectual properties of FAs into
account.

The difference in construal between (11)However, it is not clear how toInand (12) leads us to conclude that the restrictive

addition, given that the weak adjunct in (6) may

function (RF) of RCs is a crucial semantic factor

have a causal reading without an auxiliary,

for the logical roles of RCs. This conclusion is

Hayase’s analysis would have to say that suchconsistent with the following description by

FAs denote facts even though they contain

Quirk et al. (1985):

diagnose whether an FA denotes a fact.

stage-level predicates.

Propositionality seems

to be a credible diagnosis for the strong/weak[R]estrictive relative clauses with general

distinction of adjuncts.

However, this theory

antecedents express conditional relationship,needs further development to elucidate theeg: Students who work hard pass their

duality of the origin of FAs’ propositionality:

exams. [‘If students work hard, they passstrong adjuncts are solely propositional, while

their exams.’](Quirk et al. (1985: 1241))

weak adjuncts become propositional when they
contain auxiliaries.

The term “general antecedents” corresponds to

It is beyond the scope of158

generic NP antecedents in this study.

restrictive RC follows a definite NP:

The

sentences in (11) have the same environment as(16)

the one described above.

The students who did not attend classes

It is worth noting that, as the following

regularly could not graduate with honors.

grammatical contrast indicates, restrictive RCs[R]

do not always correspond to when/if-clauses:
There is a controversy in the literature as towhether restrictive RCs whose antecedents are(13) a. People who never eat do not exist.

definite (hereafter, definite restrictive RCs) have

(Declerck (1988: 144))

RF.

b. !People do not exist when/if they nevereat.

Declerck (1991: 533) describes themeaning of the essay I read yesterday as a(ibid.)

particular essay being “picked out” from theisclass of essays. This explanation indicates that

ungrammatical because “the set of entities that is

he assumes that definite restrictive RCs have RF.

restricted by when/if-clause is said not to exist”

Yasui (2000), on the other hand, argues that

AccordingtoDeclerck(1988),(13b)

This means that the when/if-clausedefinite restrictive RCs do not have RF.

cannot single out any members from a given set.

Yasui’s claim is based on the anaphoric relation

It suffices here to say that restrictive RCs do not

between an NP (a book) and a pronoun (It) in thealwaysfollowing sentences:(p. 144).

correspondtoconditionals

when

predicates express existence.
(17) a. I bought a book yesterday.
b. It is about semantics.

3.2. Referential Antecedents(Yasui (2000: 578))

There is a case in which non-restrictive RCs
follow definite NPs. The following sentences

He points out that the pronoun in (17b) can be

exemplify such a case:replaced either by a definite NP (The book) or by(14)

a definite restrictive RC (The book I bought

Mary, who works hard, will pass. [R](Vendler (1968: 13))(15)

yesterday).

He claims that definite restrictive

My brother, who has lived in America

RCs do not have RF because the denotation offor over 30 years, can still speak Italian.

the definite NP and that of the antecedent of the[Conc]

definite restrictive RC is exactly the same.

(Quirk et al. (1985: 1240))

Tanaka (2015b: 122-123) argues contra
According to Vendler (1968) and Quirk et al.

Yasui (2000) that definite restrictive RCs do(1985), the non-restrictive RC in (14) ishave RF. Tanaka observes that when there is aunderstood as reason, and the one in (15) isvase containing a yellow and a red tulip, theunderstood as concession.

tulip that is yellow is used to refer to the yellow

Since reason andconcession are closely related (see Section 2.3),

tulip.

This indicates that the set of tulips is(15) can be taken as a marked case of causal

restricted by the RC concerned.

construal.

(2015b) analysis is on the right track, it is

If Tanaka’s

reasonable to suppose that definite restrictive

Let us now consider a case in which a

159

exam, which is contrasted to another set ofRCs, such as the one in (16), have RF.

students who did not pass the exam.
The fact that non-restrictive RCs do not

3.3. Semantic Factors for Logical Roles ofRCshave a conditional reading indicates that

We have so far observed the correlations

conditional RCs must have RF.

In other words,

among the referentiality of RC antecedents, thethe RF guarantees that there is a set whose

RF of RCs, and logical roles of RCs. The

members satisfy the content of the protasis andfollowing table sums up the results:

that there is also another set whose members do
not. This is parallel to the “unsettledness” ofthe protasis in indicative conditionals.

Referentiality

RF

Logical RoleEx.

non-referentialoconditional(11)

Let us now consider why the antecedent

non-referentialxreason(12)

should be non-referential when RCs arereferentialxreason(14)

understood as conditional.

referentialoreason(16)

stem from the unbounded nature of the entities

This feature maythat are involved in the protasis. This idea is
supported by the data observed by Declerck andFrom this table, one can conclude thefollowing semantic properties of RCs:

Reed (2001):(18)

An RC is understood as conditional(20) a. Cats are beautiful if they have whitewhen it is used restrictively and thefur. (Declerck and Reed (2001: 311))
b.* Twelve cats are beautiful {if/when}antecedent is non-referential.
(19)

they have white fur.

An RC is understood as reason either(ibid.)

when it is used non-restrictively or whenThis grammatical contrast indicates that entities

the antecedent is referential.

that participate in the protasis must not be
Comparing (18) and (19), a dual requirement forbounded. This requirement is closely related toconditional RCs emerges: they must have (i) RF

the non-referentiality of the antecedent of RCs.

and (ii) non-referential antecedents.

We

Given that referential antecedents are bounded,

attribute this duality to the semantic properties

it follows that the antecedent of a conditionalof conditionals.

RC must be non-referential.

We turn first to discuss the relationshipbetween conditionality and the RF of RCs.

4. Comparison between RCs and FAs

It iswidely accepted that, in indicative conditionals,

This section compares RCs and FAs in

the protasis describes possible or unsettled

regard to the way in which their logical roles are

situations.

determined.

This feature may be compared to

Let us start with FAs.

Stump

the semantic relation between a restrictive RC(1986) relies crucially on the individual/stage

and its antecedent: the antecedent of restrictive

distinction of predicates in determining theRCs denotes a subset of the members of a given

logical role of FAs.

set.

For example, students who passed anwhether an FA denotes a fact determines its

exam denotes a set of students who passed an

logical role (e.g., an FA that denotes a fact is160

Hayase (2002) claims that

understood as reason). Whether an FA denotes

logical role is predicate-dependent. This ideaa fact seems to be closely related to predicate

is illustrated by the following grammaticalclasses

contrast:

andpredicateelements

suchasauxiliaries and negatives.
(25) * All the students, who had failed the test,

The following are additional examples thatwanted to try again.

demonstrate the “predicate-dependency” of the(Quirk et al. (1985: 1241))

logical role of FAs:
(26)
(21)
(22)

wanted to try again. [R]Having made his choice, he stayed withit. [R]

All the students, having failed the test,(Tanaka (2015a: 72))

(Hayase (2002: 169))

Not finding anything to do, we strolledaround. [R]In both sentences, the main clause subject(ibid.)

contains a quantifier (all).

degrades the acceptability of (25), which has a

According to Hayase (2002), the FAs in thesesentences denote facts rather than events.

2

The quantifier

non-restrictive RC.

The

By contrast, the quantifier

FA in (21) has a present perfect form, denoting

does not affect the acceptability of (26), which

the fact that the event of making his choice has

contains an FA.

already occurred. The FA in (22) contains a

the RC in (25) and the FA in (26) have a causal

negative and is interpreted not as a single event,construal.

but as the fact that we found nothing to do.

going into the explanation of the grammatical

It should be noted that both

Lack of space prevents us fromWe

contrast between (25) and (26), but it suffices

showed in Section 3 that the referentiality of thehere to point out that an element in theantecedent of RCs plays an important role.

antecedent blocks a certain logical role of RCs,

Let us consider the case of RCs.

Let

while a similar blockage does not occur withus take the following examples:FAs. Interested readers are referred to Tanaka(23)(2015a, 2015b) for the detailed discussion.

People who are drunk should not drive acar. [C](24)

John, who is drunk, should not drive a

5. Conclusion
This study discussed semantic factors thatcar. [R]determine the logical roles of FAs and RCs.
These sentences are crucially different in the

Section 2 reviewed previous analyses of FAs andreferentiality of the noun in subject position:

showed that predicates play an important role in(23) has a non-referential noun, while (24) has adetermining the logical roles of FAs.

referential one. Since both sentences have theclaimed in Section 3 that both the referentiality

same predicate in the main clause, predicateofclass is excluded from being a determining

non-restrictive distinction in RCs are crucial forfactor for the logical role of RCs.

the logical role of RCs.

It is thus

theantecedent

and

the

We

restrictive/

In Section 4, we

obvious that the logical role of RCs is “nominal-

argued that FAs and RCs are contrastive withdependent.”

respect to semantic factors for logical roles: thelogical role of FAs is predicate-dependent while

Interestingly, RCs contrast with FAs, whose161

Declerck, Renaat and Susan Reed (2001)

that of RCs is nominal-dependent.

Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical*This is a revised version of the paper presented
at the thirty-third annual meeting of the English

Analysis, Mouton de Gruyter, New York.
Hayase,Naoko(2002)

Eigo-koubunnoLinguistic Society of Japan, held at Kansai

Kategorii-keisei (Categorization in English

Gaidai University on November 21 and 22, 2015.

Constructions), Keisou-shobou, Tokyo.

I am indebted to an anonymous reviewer for the

Iwabe, Kozo (1986) “Semantic Interpretation ofvaluable comments on an early version of thisFree

paper.

English Studies 5, 1-13.

I also thank the audience, especially

Adjunct

Constructions,”

TsukubaProf. Seiji Iwata at Kansai University, Prof.

Kaga, Nobuhiro (1985) “The Syntax of Be andTakeo Kurafuji at Ritsumeikan University, Emer.

Have: Aux or Main Verb,” Studies inProf. Kenji Kashino at Osaka Shoin Women’s

English Literature 62(2), 275-292.

University, Prof. Kozo Iwabe at Yamaguchi

Quirk, Randolph et al. (1972) A Grammar of

University, and Prof. Masaru Kanetani at theContemporary English, Longman, London.

University of Tsukuba for their constructive

Quirk, Randolph et al. (1985) A Comprehensive

comments.

Many thanks go to Michael Herke,

a lecturer at Setsunan University for acting as an
informant.

Needless to say, any remaining

errors and inadequacies are my own.

This

study is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant
Numbers 24520560 and 15K02618.

Grammarof

theEnglishLanguage,

Longman, London.
Stump, Gregory T. (1985) The Semantic
Variabilityof

Absolute

Constructions,

Reidel, Dordrecht.
Tanaka,Hideki(2015a)“Bunshisetsu

to

NOTES

Kankeisetu ga Shusetsu ni Taishite Arawasu

Stump demonstrates that, in modal contexts,

Ronri-kankei ni Tuite (On the Logicalweak adjuncts may have a causal reading as wellRelationship of Free Adjuncts and Relative

as a conditional reading.

Clauses to the Main Clause),” The Setsudai

2

It does not affect our discussion whether we

Review of Humanities and Social Sciences

follow Hayase’s (2002) or Iwabe’s (1986)

22, 57-80.

1

Tanaka, Hideki (2015b) Eigo to Nihongo ni

analysis, because they both rely on predicate
elements for logical roles of FAs.

Okeru Suuryou-hyougen to Kankeisetsu no
Kaishaku ni Kansuru Kijutsuteki, Rironteki

REFERENCES

Kenkyuu (A Descriptive and TheoreticalCarlson, Gregory N. (1977) 5HIHUHQFHWR.LQGVStudy of the Interpretation of NumberLQ

Expressions(QJOLVK,Doctoraldissertation,University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Relative

Clausesin

English and Japanese), Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

Declerck, Renaat (1988) “Restrictive When-

Vendler,Zeno(1968)

Adjectives

andNominalizations, Mouton, The Hague.

clauses,” Linguistics and Philosophy 11,

Yasui, Minoru (2000) “Kankeisetsu to Sono

131-168.

Senkoushi (Relative Clauses and their

Declerck, Rennat (1991) A Comprehensive
DescriptiveandGrammarof

Antecedents),” The Rising Generation 146

English,(9), 578-582.

Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

162

narrative. For instance, after narratives such as
Emi trusted Masashi so she confessed to him,
people can refer to any proposition to continue
their narrative (either Emi trusted Masashi or she
Planning Association of Causes andconfessed to him). The proposition they refer toConsequences in Japanese

for their continuation is called ‘anchor’ (Simner
and Pickering (2005)). This study will focus on
two hypotheses predicting how they choose thisMikihiro Tanaka

anchor in their narratives.

Konan Women’s University

The first one is called temporal recency
hypothesis (Fletcher and Bloom (1988), van den

Keywords&Narrative, causality, causes,

Broek et al. (2000)). This hypothesis predicts

consequences, Japanesethat new continuation can be linked to the priorcontext that was most recently described by thenarrative. The reason behind this is that whenpeople describe events, causes 'temporally'

1. Introduction
When people produce their utterance longer

comes earlier than consequences, the anchor

than a sentence, they have to combine theshould follow the most temporally recent

complex narrative into a coherent one. Formal

consequence (Fletcher and Bloom (1988), vanand experimental analyses of narrative discourse

den Broek et al. (2000)).

have suggested that each continuation to a

On the contrary, temporal-textual recency

discourse can link to prior context in various

hypothesis (Simner and Pickering (2005))

ways (van den Broek, Linzie and Fletcher

predicts that people tend to describe recent(2000), Simner and Pickering (2005)). However,

events rather than less recently described ones.

it has not been clear about the precise nature of

In other words, it predicts that there would bethis mechanism, and this type of study has

not only the influence of temporal recency, butmainly done in English and it is not known if thealso the influence of textual recency wheresame result can be found in other languages.

people tend to anchor their continuation which isThus, by focusing on the relationship of

linguistically closer (Simner and Pickering‘causality’ (e.g. cause and consequence), I(2005)).

present four psycholinguistic experiments in

Currently the findings about how people

Japanese to investigate two aspects of planningchoose their anchors in narratives have been

narrative discourse: (1) how they choose thisconflicted.

prior context to produce their continuation and(Fletcher and Bloom (1988), van den Broek et al.

(2) how they plan the content of the continuation(2000)) support the evidence for the temporal

in discourse.

recency hypothesis, Simner and Pickering(2005)

Althoughalso

providethetheprevious

studies'psycholinguistic'

evidence of temporal-textual recency hypothesis.

2. Selecting the Anchor
For the first question, I looked at how theyThus the purpose of this study (Experiment 1)

choose their prior context to continue their

was to make a comparison of both hypotheses in

163

(1)

terms of choosing anchor in narratives.

a. CAUSE-CONSEQUENCE
"%

2.1. Experiment 1









Emi-ga Masashi-o shinraishiteita node,In this experiment, a discourse completiontask (similar to Simner and Pickering's (2005)

kanojo-wa kare-ni uchiaketa

study) was used, but this time it was conducted

Emi-Nom Masashi-Acc trusted so,in Japanese. I presented discourse fragments for

she-Top him-Dat confessed.

completion that described the same events and‘Emi trusted Masashi so she confessed tocausality relations, and participants wrote down

him.’

the

b. CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE

sentencesthatfollowed

appropriately from each of the sentences. The



"



temporal recency hypothesis predicts that people

%

are more likely to anchor their continuations to

Emi-gaprior consequences than causes. On the otherkanojo-wa kare-o shinraishiteita-karada

hands, the temporal-textual recency hypothesis

Emi-Nom Masashi-Dat confessed because

predicts that people will prefer to continue from

She-Top He-Acc trusted.

consequences that are linguistically recent‘Emi confessed to Masashi because she

compared to less recent.

trusted him.’

MethodIn addition to this, 32 fillers which were



Masashi-ni uchiaketa nowa,

pragmatically violated sentences were presented
Participantsin this experiment.

Fourteen Japanese native speakers were paid
Procedure1000 yen (about 5 pounds) to participate in thisAs in Simner and Pickering’s study, 14

study.

participants
Materials

wererandomly

chosenandpresented with the materials in a double-sided,of

2-page booklet. Each page included six items.

CAUSE-CONSEQUENCE and the counterpart

The experimenter told participants that a series

versions of CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE wereof unrelated sentences were presented in thischosen from Simner and Pickering’s study, andbooklet and were asked to continue one sentence

they were translated into Japanese. Instead of

after each fragment. The instructions were

English names, these items used common

presented on the front of the booklet, andJapanese

repeated by the experimenter.

24

sentencesnames.

with

(1a)

order

is

the

CAUSE-CONSEQUENCE version, and (1b) is
CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE version, swapping

Results

the position of the two verbs and changing nodeThe

experimenter

assessedparticipants’completions to determine which of the two prior(so) to nowa-(dakarada) (because).

context clauses were chosen as the anchor. For
instance, an example of a clause 1 coding would164

be the continuation: )



3. Planning the Content of the Link

(They trusted each other) , and an

For the second question (how people plan

example of a clause 2 coding would be: )

the ‘content’ of their continuation), once again I(Helooked at the relationship of causality, but thispromised he didn't tell anyone about the content

time it attempted to respond to the question of(of

how people would make causality decisions'530.
her

confession)).

Other

types

of

continuations were coded as OTHER. The result

based on context.

of Experiment 1 is summarized in Table 1.

There are two hypotheses to describe thisrelationship.

Table 1
Total

The

first

one

is

the

unconditional-preference hypothesis (van den
continuations

fromcausesandBroek et al. (2000)). It suggests people simply

consequences in prior discourse; Experiment 1

have a preference to produce consequences inany occasions. On the contrary the satisfied gap

Preambles

cause

cause-consequence

hypothesis (Levelt (1989), Simner and Pickeringconsequence
23(2005)) suggests that people seek to fill gaps

110

they perceive in the developing discourse model,
consequence-cause
Proportion

43

41

30%

70%

which

means

that

peoplechoosetheircontinuation depending on the types of priordiscourse.

The results suggest that, overall people were

I used three different experiments (all of

more likely to choose consequences as anchor

them are the discourse-completion tasks) tomore than causes (p < .001). In addition to thisinvestigate which hypothesis will explain thefinding, continuations were anchored to themechanism of discourse.

consequence

more

than

when

it

was
3.1. Experiment 2

linguistically recent (CAUSE-CONSEQUENCE
was

not

Experiment 2 investigated how people(CONSEQUENCE - CAUSE condition)(70%

planned the content of continuations in narrative.

vs. 30%, t1(13)=5.88, p < .01 t2(23)=8.98, p

I presented discourse either as a discourse< .001).

context, or no context to see how the contents incondition)

than

when

it

discourse will influence people’s continuation.
Discussion

MethodThe result supports temporal-textual recency
hypothesis (Simner and Pickering (2005)),

Participantssuggesting that (1) people were more likely toTwenty Japanese native speakers were paid

produce consequence as an anchor than cause,

1000 yen to participate in this study. None ofand (2) a consequence in the second clause wasthem participated in the previous or later studies.

more likely to be chosen as the anchor than aconsequence in the first clause.

165

Materials

CONTEXT condition, one fragment was written

Two types of materials were prepared, theon one page (sixteen pages in total) in a

CONTEXT condition and the NON-CONTEXT

double-sided booklet. In the NON-CONTEXT

condition. The CONTEXT condition (as in Fig.

condition,1) was a short story taken from van den Broek etpresented with approximately five items peral. (2000) and Simner and Pickering (2005). I

page. In the NON-CONTEXT condition, thetranslated this into Japanese.

experimenter made sure that participants did not
noticesixteenthat

singlethesefragments

singlefragments

were

were

originally coming from the same story. There
were no fillers used in this experiment since I
investigated how the previous contexts would
influence people’s continuation. The rest of theprocedure was the same as in Experiment 1.
Results
Following Simner and Pickering (2005),
there were three coding for participants’continuations: CAUSE, CONSEQUENCE, or
OTHER. For example, after the fragment,!*)#
4

12"(1"-(That afternoon, she read the arts andcrafts book), the continuation such as )#/$(She had decided tomake a chair) will be coded as CAUSE (since
this means cause and necessity). On the otherFig.1 Materials for the CONTEXT condition inhands, the coding for CONSEQUENCE would

Experiment 2

be &     +   

%

(She

learned all about how to make furniture) since

The NON-CONTEXT condition, on theother hands, contained 16 individual sentences.

this

means

consequence,necessity

andThey were originally from the same story of thesufficiency. Other types of continuations werecoded as OTHER. As in Experiment 1, the

CONTEXT condition, but the orders wereexperimenter assessed participants’ completions.

randomized and this version used the different
people’s names.

Results
The results of experiment 2 reveal that, when

ProcedureAsinthe discourse fragments were presented inExperiment

1,

the

discourse

context,

completion task was used in Experiment 2.

peopletendedtocontinue

theirutterance with consequences more than when the

Twenty participants were presented with thediscourse fragment was presented out of context

materials either in the CONTEXT condition or(94% vs. 90%, t1(19)=4.14, p = .07; t2(15)=5.7,

in the NON-CONTEXT condition. In the166p < .05). Thus how they choose their contents of

CAUSE-preamble

their continuation in discourse depends on the

CONSEQUENCE-preamble (as in (2b)).

(as

in

(2a))

or

types of context.
(2)a. CAUSE - PREAMBLE

Table 2"All continuations by type, and the proportion of$#

consequences

Masashi-ga Emi-o utagatta node, kare-ga(in

relationtocauses

plus





Masashi-Nom
Causescontext?
context
non-context

Conseq

kanoj-o hihanshita.

consequences); Experiment 2
Prior



Other

-uences

Emi-Accdoubt-edso

Proporthe-Nom her-Acc blamed.

-ions‘Masashi doubted Emi so he blamed her.’

8

126

26

94%

13

118

29

90%

b. CONSEQUENCE - PREAMBLE
"



$#







Masashi-ga Emi-o konwakusaseta nowa,

3.2. Experiment 3

kare-ga kanoj-o hihanshita-karada.

Secondly (Experiment 3), I compared thesehypotheses directly by presenting the more

Masashi-Nom

Emi-Accconfuse-past

controlled discourse fragment and I focused on

because he-Nom her-Acc blamed.

the content of completions to an anchor clause‘Masashi confused Emi because he blamedthat has been preceded either by its cause or byher.’

its consequence. According to the satisfied gap
Procedure

hypothesis, more consequences will follow as a

As in Experiment 1 and 2, the discourse

continuation when the sentence is preceded bycompletion task was conducted. Ten participants

its cause than by its consequence.

were randomly assigned to each list. The
procedure was identical to Experiment 1, and theMethodcoding method was identical to Experiments 2.
Participants
ResultTwenty Japanese native speakers were paid
1000 yen to participate in this study. None ofExperiment 3 focused on those continuation

them participated in the previous or later studies.

that take the second clause as the anchor (since
the first clause was different depending on thecondition).

Materials
26 pairs were originally taken from the

The results of the Experiment 3 suggest that,materials by Majid et al. (2007) and Simner andeven the controlled fragments were presented,

Pickering (2005), and I translated all in Japanese.

people still tended to continue their discourse

Once again, two types of fragments werewith the contents of its consequence rather thanmanipulated,cause (87% vs. 82%, t1(19)=2.3, p < .05;

but

this

time

eitherwith167

t2(25)=2.5,

p < .05).

typical events (3a) or less-typical events (3b)were manipulated.

Table 3
(3)

Continuations by type (with percentages) froma. Typical event

anchor clause (clause 2) and proportion of‘!!

consequences

Isha-ga Kanja-o Naoshita(inrelationtocausesplus’

Doctor-Nom Patient-acc healed

consequences); Experiment 3‘The doctor healed the patients.’
PreamblCauses-es
cause
consequ-ence

ConseqOther-uences22

158

Proportb. Less-typical event

-ions
9

‘!!

87%’

Kanja-ga Isha-o Naoshita
13

59

7

82%

Patient-Nom Doctor-acc healed‘The patients healed the doctor.’
As in Experiment 1, 2 and 3, the materials

3.3. Experiment 4
Thirdly (Experiment 4), I looked at how the

were placed in two lists, containing one version

world knowledge (e.g. the typicality of theof each item and 23 items from each condition.

event) would influence the discourse production.

In addition to this, 16 fillers (the sentences withCorriganintransitive verbs) were used.

(1992)

suggeststhat

passages

describing typical events carry more implicit

Procedurecause than those describing less typical events.

Procedure was the same as Experiment 1 andThus if discourse fragments includes actions

3, and the coding method was identical toperformed by typical agents, people tend to

Experiments 2 and 3.

produce their fragments with more consequential
continuation,comparedtofragments

withResultless-typical events.

The results of Experiment 4 reveal thatpeople are more likely to continue the sentence

Methodwith more consequential narratives if the events
describing in the sentence is more typical thanParticipants

less typical (78% vs. 66%, t1(39)=15.93, p

Twenty Japanese native speakers were once

< .001; t2(45)=9.08, p < .05). Thus this suggests

again paid 1000 yen to participate in this study.

that people use world knowledge to produce theNone of them participated in the previous orcausality relationship in their discourse.

later studies.
Materials
Fifty-sixmaterials

wereselectedfrom

Simner and Pickering (2005), and I translated allin Japanese. Two types of fragments, either

168

Table 4

235–244.

All continuations by type, and proportion ofconsequences(in

relationtocausesLevelt, Willem J. M. (1989) Speaking: Fromplus

Intentionconsequences); Experiment 4

toArticulation,

MIT

Press,

Cambridge, MA.
Simner, Julia and Martin J. Pickering (2005)

Fragment“Planning Causes and Consequences inContinuation type

Discourse,”

conseq

type

cause

-uenceothersprop

typical

81

280

99

78%

non-typical

120

228

112

66%

JournalofMemoryandLanguage 52, 226-239.
van den Broek, Paul, Brian Linzie, Charles
Fletcher and Chad J. Marsolek (2000) “TheRole of Causal Discourse Structure in
Narrative Writing,” Memory and Cognition

4. Discussion

28, 711–721.

To summarize, this study shows how peoplechoose the anchor in order to have a successful
narrative in Japanese. I suggest that people
consideranabsenceofeithercause

orconsequence to be a gap, and seek to fill this gap
in their narrative. Furthermore, people do not
simply use causality relations to produce anutterance in their discourse, rather use featuresof textual and temporal recency to produce a
successful

narrative.

Finally,thegeneralfindings in this Japanese study are compatible
with the findings by Simner and Pickering(2005) conducted in English, suggesting that themechanism of narrative discourse, in terms of
how they choose the anchor and the content,
could be similar in both languages.
REFERENCES
Corrigan, Roberta (1992) “The Relationshipbetween

CausalAttributions

andJudgements of the Typicality of Events
Described by Sentences,” British Journal ofSocial Psychology 31, 351– 368.
Fletcher, Charles R. and Charles P. Bloom(1988)“CausalReasoningintheComprehension of Simple Narrative Texts,”
Journal of Memory and Language 27,

169

b.

Note that labeling requires not justmatching but agreement of the paired
heads. Agreement holds for a pair offeatures <valued, unvalued>ࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢᩥ୺ㄒࡢ෌᳨ウ*(Revisiting Sentential Subjects(2a, b) ࠿ࡽࡣࠊ⣲ᛶඹ᭷࡟ࡼࡿࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅ࡟

from Labeling Algorithm)ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊChomsky (2013,⣲ᛶࡢ matching ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ agreement ࡀせồࡉ2014) ࡛ࡣࠊagreement ࡜ matching ࡢ༊ู࡟㇂ᕝ ᫴୍ (Shin-ichiTanigawa)㛵ࡍࡿヲ⣽࡞㆟ㄽࡣ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᮏ✏ࡣࠊ⚟ᒸ኱Ꮫ (FukuokaUniversity)ࡇࡢ༊ู࡟ࡶ㋃ࡳ㎸ࢇࡔゝཬࢆ⾜࠺ࠋᮏ✏ࡣࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡀ T ᣦᐃ㒊࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡾࡘࡘࠊ

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ: ᩥ୺ㄒ, ࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅ, ✵⛣ື,ヰ㢟⣲ᛶࡢ agreement ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜࠸࠺✵⛣ື⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎ, ⣲ᛶඹ᭷௬ㄝ (Vacuous Movement Hypothesis: ௨ୗࠊVMH) ࡟ἢࡗࡓศᯒࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡣࠊ᱁⣲ᛶࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊTP

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

࡜ేྜࡋࡓ㝿࡟ࠊĳ ⣲ᛶࡢ agreement ࡟ࡼࡿᮏ✏ࡣࠊ(1) ࡟ᣲࡆࡿⱥㄒࡢᩥ୺ㄒᵓᩥࡢ

ࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ

ὴ⏕ࢆ෌᳨ウࡍࡿࠋᩥ୺ㄒࡀヰ㢟࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ 2 ࡘࡢ⣲ᛶࢆᣢࡕࠊC ࡀᣢࡘヰ㢟⣲ᛶࡀ T ࡬⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࡉࢀࡿሙ

(1) a.

That John won the first prize is true.

ྜ࡟ࡣࠊヰ㢟⣲ᛶࡢ agreement ࡀ⏕ࡌࠊࣛ࣋b.

To win the first prize is impossible.

ࣝ௜ࡅࡀ㐺ษ࡟࡞ࡉࢀࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ
௨ୗࠊᮏ✏ࡣࠊ2 ⠇࡛ࠊඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᴫㄝࡋࠊ

ᮏ✏ࡢ୺せ࡞┠ⓗࡣࠊChomsky (2013, 2014)ࡑ ࡢၥ㢟 Ⅼࢆᣦ ᦬ࡍࡿ ࠋ 3 ⠇ ࡛ࠊ୺࡟ࠊ

ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࢆ⢭⦓໬ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊᩥ୺ㄒᵓᩥࡢὴ

Chomsky (2013, 2014) ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࢆ⢭⦓໬ࡋ⏕࡟㐺ษ࡞ศᯒࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡓ 5 ࡘࡢ௬ᐃࢆ♧ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊ4 ⠇࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡽ

ࡲࡓࠊᮏ✏ࡣࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡢ㆟ㄽࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ

ࡢ௬ᐃࢆ᥼⏝ࡋࠊVMH ࡟ἢࡗࡓศᯒࢆᥦ᱌

Chomsky (2013, 2014) ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࡢ୰࡛ࡶ᭱

ࡍࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ5 ⠇࡛ࠊࡲ࡜ࡵࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡶᘚูⓗ࡞ᥦ᱌࡛࠶ࡿࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅ࢔ࣝࢦࣜ
2. ᩥ୺ㄒᵓᩥࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࢬ࣒ (Labeling Algorithm) ࡟ࡶ㋃ࡳ㎸ࢇࡔゝཬ ࢆ ⾜ ࠸ ࡓ ࠸ ࠋ Chomsky (2013:45) ࡜

2 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊඛ⾜◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ᩥ୺ㄒᵓᩥ࡟

Chomsky (2014:10, fn. 14) ࡣࠊ{XP, YP}ᵓ㐀ᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ 2 ࡘࡢ⛣ືศᯒࢆᴫㄝࡋࡓࡢ ⣲ᛶඹ ᭷࡟ࡼ ࡿࣛ࣋ ࣝ௜ࡅ ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊୖ࡛ࠊࡑࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊTP ⛣ືศᯒࢆᴫㄝࡍࡿࠋDelahunty(2a, b) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(1983) ࡸ %RãNRYLü (1995) ࠊ Davies and(2) a.

Mere matching of most prominent

Dubinsky (2009) ➼࡛ࡣࠊ(1a) ࡟ᑐࡍࡿศᯒ

features does not suffice. What is࡜ࡋ࡚ (3) ࡀᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

required is not just matching but actual(3) [TPagreement. Sharpening this condition
requires a closer analysis of Agree.

170

SS>ĳ@>Case]

T [vP

tSS

is true]]1

TP ⛣ືศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡀࠊDP ୺ㄒ࡜ྠᵝ

ࡤ඘㊊ࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜௬ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊヰ㢟࡟ࠊĳ ⣲ᛶ࡜ Case ⣲ᛶࢆᣢࡗࡓ≧ែ࡛ T ᣦ⣲ᛶ࡜ྠ➼ࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᩥ୺

ᐃ㒊࡟⛣ືࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋTP ⛣ືศᯒࡣࠊ

ㄒࡣࠊࡇࡢ[uF]࡟ࡼࡾࠊT ᣦᐃ㒊ࢆ⤒⏤ࡋ࡚ࠊ⧞ࡾୖࡆ (4a) ࡸ୺ㄒ࡜ືモࡢ୍⮴ (4b) ࡢTop ᣦᐃ㒊࡟⛣ືࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇ

஦ᐇ࠿ࡽᨭᣢࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ࡢ CP ⛣ືศᯒ࡟ᚑ࠺࡜ࠊඛ࡯࡝ࠊ(5a, b) ࡛♧ࡋࡓᩥ୺ㄒࡢヰ㢟≉ᛶࡶㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ

(4) a.
b.

ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ(7) ࡢ CP ⛣ືศᯒࢆ෌⪃ࡋࡓศ

That John won the first prize seems tobe true.

ᯒࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࡀࠊ(7) ࡟ࡣࠊ⌮ㄽ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚

That the president will be elected and୍ࡘၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡀᣢࡘ[uF]

that he will be preached are equallyࡸ TopP ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡢὴ⏕ࡀ

likely at this point.

཰᮰ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋඛ࡯࡝♧ࡋࡓ TP⛣ືศᯒ࡜ྠࡌ࡟࡞ࡿࡀࠊ[uF]ࡸ TopP ࡀᏑ(McCloskey (1991:564))

ᅾࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊ⌮ㄽୖࡣࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡀ T ᣦᐃ㒊ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊTP ⛣ືศᯒ࡟ࡣࠊ୍ࡘࡢ

࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡿᙧ࡛ࠊὴ⏕ࡀ༑ศ࡟཰᮰ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ

኱ࡁ࡞ၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ(5) ࡟♧ࡍᩥ୺

࠺ࠋ(7) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ศᯒࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿ࠿ࡽ࡟ࡣࠊ

ㄒࡢヰ㢟≉ᛶࢆㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ[uF]ࡸ TopP ࡀ⩏ົⓗ࡟ᚲせ࡛࡞࠸࡜ὴ⏕ࡀ཰᮰ࡋ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ヰ㢟࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ⣲ᛶࡸᢞᑕࡢᚲ↛ᛶࢆ᫂☜໬ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ(5) a. * I believe that John won the first prize௨ୖࠊ2 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊTP ⛣ືศᯒ࡜ CP ⛣ືศ

to be true.

ᯒࢆᴫㄝࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊࡑࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ

b. * To whom is that John won the firstᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ4 ⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊVMH ࡟ἢࡗࡓ௦

prize well-known?

᭰ศᯒࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࠊࡑࡢศᯒ࡟ᚑ࠺࡜ࠊඛ⾜◊(6) a. * I believe that picture, John to buy.

✲ࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࡀඞ᭹࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋb. * That picture, to whom did you give?

3. ⌮ㄽⓗ௬ᐃᩥ୺ㄒࡣࠊ(5a) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊECM ⿵㒊࡟⏕㉳

3 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊᮏ✏ࡀ᥇⏝ࡍࡿ 5 ࡘࡢ⌮ㄽⓗ௬࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡋࠊ(5b) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊWh ␲ၥᩥ࡜ࡶ

ᐃࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ

ᩚྜ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ(6a, b) ࡟♧ࡍヰ㢟໬ᵓᩥ࡛ぢࡽࢀࡿ A¶≉ᛶ࡜ྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

➨ 1 ࡢ௬ᐃࡣࠊ⣲ᛶࡢ agreement ࡜ matchingTP ⛣ືศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ A¶≉ᛶࢆᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡞

࡟㛵ࡍࡿ௬ᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡲࡎࠊ(2a) ࡟࠸ࡢࡀ᭱኱ࡢၥ㢟Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

2

ᣲࡆࡿ Chomsky (2013:45) ࡢ♧၀࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ

ḟ࡟ࠊCP ⛣ືศᯒࢆᴫㄝࡍࡿࠋTakahashi

Chomsky (2000, 2001) ࡢ Agree ࢆ෌ᐃᘧ໬ࡋ

(2010) ࡛ࡣࠊTP ⛣ືศᯒࢆᣑᙇࡋࡓ (7) ࡢࡓ (8) ࢆ agreement ࡢᐃ⩏࡜ࡋ࡚௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ

ศᯒࡀᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

3(8) {XP, YP}ᵓ㐀࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊagreement ࡀ⏕(7) [TopP[vP

SS>ĳ@>Case][uF]
tSS

is

true

Top

[TP

tSS

ࡌࡿࡢࡣࠊi ࡜ ii ࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

T

]]]

i.

{XP, YP}ࡀ<[Į][uȕ], [XĮ]>࡜࠸࠺⣲ᛶࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࢆᣢࡘࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ

(7) ࡛ࡣࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡀ>ĳ@࡜[Case]࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊゎXP ࡀゎ㔘ྍ⬟⣲ᛶ>Į@࡜ゎ㔘୙ྍ⬟㔘୙ྍ⬟࡞ F ⣲ᛶ[uF]ࢆᣢࡘ࡜௬ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸

⣲ᛶ[uȕ]ࢆᣢࡕࠊYP ࡀ>Į@ࡢゎ㔘୙ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⣲ᛶࡣࠊTop ᣦᐃ㒊࡟⛣ືࡋ࡞ࡅࢀ

ྍ⬟࡞ᑐᛂ⣲ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿ>XĮ@ࢆᣢࡘࠋ4

171

ii.

>Į@࡜>XĮ@ࡢྠ୍ᛶࢆᇶ࡟ࠊ>XĮ@࡜>Xȕ@(11) [ĮXP>ĳ]

TP>Xĳ@«Į ??

]

ࡀ┦஫ⓗ࡟๐㝖 (್ࢆ௜୚) ࡉࢀࡿࠋ(9) ࡢ௬ᐃ࡟ᚑ࠺࡜ࠊmatching ࡢሙྜ࡟ࡶࠊࡑ ࡢ ୍ ᪉ ࡛ ࠊ matching ࡟ 㛵 ࡋ ࡚ ࡣ ࠊ⣲ᛶࡢྠ୍ᛶࢆᇶ࡟ࠊTP ࡢ[uĳ]ࡀ๐㝖ࡉࢀࠊ

Chomsky (2000:122) ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ(9) ࡟♧ࡍࡼXP ࡢ[ĳ]࠿ࡽ್ࢆཷࡅྲྀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡋ࠿

࠺࡟ࠊ༢⣧࡟ 2 ࡘࡢせ⣲㛫࡟ྠ୍ࡢ⣲ᛶࡀ࠶

ࡋࠊ{DP, TP}࡟ agreement ࡣ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊĮࡿሙྜ࡟⏕ࡌࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ

࡟ࡣࠊࣛ࣋ࣝࡀ௜୚ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ḟ࡟ࠊ➨ 2 ࡢ௬ᐃࡣࠊA¶⛣ືࡢ⣲ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊChomsky (2013:47)(9) {XP, YP}ᵓ㐀࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊmatching ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢࡣࠊi ࡜ ii ࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡢ♧၀ࡸ Tanigawa (2009) ࡢศᯒࢆ᥼⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊi.

(12a, b) ࡢ௬ᐃࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿࠋ

{XP, YP}ࡀ<[Į], [XĮ]>࡜࠸࠺⣲ᛶࡢᑐࢆᣢࡘࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊXP ࡜ YP ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡀゎ㔘ྍ⬟⣲ᛶ>Į@ࢆᣢࡕࠊ(12) a.

㐀࠿ࡽᡂࡿࠋ5ࡶ࠺୍᪉ࡀ>Į@ࡢゎ㔘୙ྍ⬟࡞ᑐᛂ⣲ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿ>XĮ@ࢆᣢࡘࠋii.

ⱥㄒࡢ୺⠇ᕥ࿘㎶㒊ࡣࠊ༢୍ CP ᵓb.

A¶⛣ື࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊC ࡣࠊゎ㔘୙ྍ⬟>Į@࡜>XĮ@ࡢྠ୍ᛶࢆᇶ࡟ࠊ>XĮ@ࡀ๐࡞ Force ⣲ᛶ[uF]ࢆᣢࡕࠊwh ྃࡸヰ㝖 (್ࢆ௜୚) ࡉࢀࡿࠋ㢟ྃࡣࠊ[uF]࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿゎ㔘ྍ⬟࡞Force ⣲ᛶ[F]࡜ゎ㔘୙ྍ⬟࡞࢜࣌ࣞ

ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ(2a, b) ࡟ᣲࡆࡿ Chomsky (2013:45)

࣮ ࢱ ⣲ ᛶ [uOp] ࢆ ᣢ ࡘ ࠋ F ࡣ ࠊ࡜ Chomsky (2014:10, fn. 14) ࡢ♧၀࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ

Q(uestion) ࡸ Top(ic) ➼࡟⣽ศ໬ࡉmatching ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ agreement ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿሙྜ࡟

ࢀࠊࡑࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿࡛⌧ࢀࡿࠋࡢࡳࠊࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ

(13) a.

[Į

wh-XP[Q][uOp] CP[uQ]«]Į Q, Q>(8) ࡢ agreement ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿලయ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊA⛣ື࡟࠾ࡅࡿ DP ࡜ TP ࡢేྜࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋ

b.

[Į

topic-XP[Top][uOp]

CP[uTop]« ]Į Top, Top>
(10) [ĮDP>ĳ@[uCase]

TP>Xĳ@«] Į ĳĳ!
(13) ࡣࠊ(12a, b) ࡢලయ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊwh ྃ࡜୍⯡ⓗ࡞௬ᐃ࡟ᚑ࠺࡜ࠊDP ୺ㄒࡣࠊ(10) ࡟ヰ㢟せ⣲ࡢ $¶⛣ືࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋWh♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊゎ㔘ྍ⬟࡞ ĳ ⣲ᛶ[ĳ]࡜ゎ㔘୙␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣࠊF ࡀ Q ࡛⌧ࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ(13a) ࡢྍ⬟࡞ Case ⣲ᛶ[uCase]ࢆᣢࡕࠊTP ࡣࠊゎ㔘ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊwh ྃࡀ[Q]࡜[uOp]ࢆᣢࡕࠊCP ࡀ[uQ]୙ྍ⬟࡞ ĳ ⣲ᛶ [uĳ]ࢆᣢࡘࠋ {DP, TP}ࡀࢆᣢࡘࠋ୍᪉࡛ࠊヰ㢟໬ᵓᩥ࡛ࡣࠊF ࡀ Top<[ĳ][uCase], [uĳ]>࡜࠸࠺⣲ᛶࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡛⌧ࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ(13b) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊヰ㢟せ⣲ࡀࢆᣢࡕࠊ[ĳ]࡜[uĳ]࡜࠸࠺ྠ୍ᛶࢆᇶ࡟ࠊ[uĳ][Top]࡜[uOp]ࢆᣢࡕࠊCP ࡀ[uTop]ࢆᣢࡘࠋ

࡜[uCase]ࡀ๐㝖ࡉࢀࡿࠋDP ࡜ TP ࡢゎ㔘୙

(13a, b) ࡛ࡣࠊేྜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ 2 せ⣲㛫࡛ࠊ⣲ྍ⬟⣲ᛶࡀ┦஫ⓗ࡟๐㝖ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ

ᛶࡢྠ୍ᛶࢆᇶ࡟ࠊゎ㔘୙ྍ⬟⣲ᛶࡀ┦஫ⓗ{DP, TP}࡟ agreement ࡀ⏕ࡌࠊĮ ࡟ĳĳ!ࡢࣛ

࡟๐㝖ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ{XP, CP}࡟ agreement ࡀ࣋ࣝࡀ௜୚ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

⏕ࡌࠊĮ ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊ<Q, Q>࡜<Top, Top>ࡢࣛ࣋ࣝࡀ௜୚ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

୍᪉࡛ࠊ(11) ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊTP ࡟ేྜࡍࡿ௵ពࡢせ⣲ XP ࡀ[ĳ]ࡋ࠿ᣢࡓ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟

➨ 3 ࡢ௬ᐃࡣࠊA ⛣ື࡜⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࡢࢱ࢖࣑

ࡣࠊagreement ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ matching ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋࣥࢢ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ௬ᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡣࠊ⣲ᛶ㥑ື172࡟ࡼࡿ⛣ື࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⮬⏤ేྜ (Free Merge)

Principle) ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊⱥㄒࡢ᫬ไ⠇࡜୙ᐃモ࡟ ࡼ ࡿ ⛣ ື ࢆ ๓ ᥦ ࡜ ࡋ ࡓ ୖ ࡛ ࠊ Chomsky⠇ࡣࠊ᱁ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸࡜ㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡣࠊ

(2014:10±11) ࡟ᚑࡗࡓ௬ᐃ (14) ࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿࠋ Stowell (1981) ࡢ㆟ㄽࢆ෌ᐃᘧ໬ࡋࠊ(18) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ
(14) T ᣦᐃ㒊࡬ࡢ୺ㄒࡢ⛣ືࡣࠊC ࠿ࡽ T ࡬ࡢ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎ࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿᙧ࡛ࠊ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋ (18) ⱥㄒࡢ᫬ไ⠇࡜୙ᐃモ⠇ࡣࠊᮏ㉁ⓗ࡟ࠊ(15) [ȕ
tDP

C[uĳ]
[u
uĳ]
«

[Į

John[ĳ][uCase]

T[uĳ]

[v*P

[ĳ]ࡣᣢࡘࡀ[uCase]ࡣᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࠋ

]]](19) a.
b.

I am certain (*of) that John will win.
I insist (*on) that John win.

(14) ࡟ᚑ࠺࡜ࠊ(15) ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⮬⏤ేྜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊDP ࡀ T ᣦᐃ㒊࡟⛣ືࡋࠊࡑࡢ

(18) ࡢ௬ᐃࡣࠊᙜヱ⠇ࡀ㠀᱁௜୚఩⨨࡛࠶ᚋࠊC ࠿ࡽ T ࡬ࡢ>Xĳ@ࡢ⥅ᢎࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡿᙧᐜモ㏙ㄒࡢ⿵㒊࡟๓⨨モ࡞ࡋ࡛⏕㉳࡛

➨ 4 ࡢ௬ᐃࡣࠊ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎ࡜ VMH ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡁࡿ (19a) ࡢ஦ᐇ࡜ᙜヱ⠇ࡀᩳ᱁௜୚఩⨨௬ᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊChomsky (2013:47) ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ๓⨨モࡢ⿵㒊࡟⏕㉳࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ (19a, b)♧၀ࡸ Sakamoto (2012) ࡢศᯒࢆ᥼⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊࡢ ஦ᐇ࠿ ࡽࡶᨭ ᣢࡉࢀ ࡿࠋࡶ ࡋᙜヱ⠇ࡀ(16) ࢆ௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ

[uCase]ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᙧᐜモ㏙ㄒࡢ⿵㒊࡛ࡣࠊ[uCase]ࡀ๐㝖ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡋࠊ๓

(16) ྍ⬟࡞ሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊC ࡢ[uF]ࡣࠊ[uĳ]࡟௜

⨨モࡢ⿵㒊࡛ࡣࠊ[uCase]ࡀᩳ᱁࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆྍࡉ

㝶ࡍࡿᙧ࡛ࠊC ࠿ࡽ T ࡬⥅ᢎࡉࢀ࡞ࡅࢀ

ࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᙜヱ⠇࡟[uCase]ࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊ஦ᐇ࡟཯ࡋ࡚ࠊ(19a, b) ࡜(17) a.
b.

ࡣ㏫ࡢᩥἲᛶࡀண

Who saw Mary?
[ȕC>Xĳ>Xĳ@>uQ]
Xĳĳ @>@ > uQQ]]

T[uĳ][uQ]

[v*P

[Į

who>ĳ@[uCase][Q][uOp]twho

see Maryࡉࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ

ᩥ୺ㄒ࡟ T ᣦᐃ㒊࡬ࡢ⛣ືࡀ㛵୚ࡍࡿ࡜ศᯒࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ(4a, b) ࡟ᣲࡆࡿࡼ࠺

]]]࡞ DP ୺ㄒ࡜ࡢᖹ⾜ᛶࢆ᰿ᣐ࡟ࠊᩥ୺ㄒ࡟ࡶ
(16) ࡢ௬ᐃࡀᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿ᭱ࡶ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ࢣ࣮[uCase]ࡀ௬ᐃࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ(4a, b) ࡟ࢫࡣࠊWh ୺ㄒ␲ၥᩥ (17a) ࡛ࠊࡑࡢὴ⏕ࡀᣲࡆࡿ⧞ࡾୖࡆࡸ୺ㄒ࡜ືモࡢ୍⮴࡜࠸ࡗ(17b) ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(17b) ࡛ࡣࠊ(14) ࡢ௬ᐃ࡟ᚑ

ࡓ≉ᛶࡣࠊ[ĳ]ࡢᏑᅾࡣᨭᣢࡍࡿࡀࠊ[uCase]ࡗ࡚ࠊwh-DP ࡀ T ᣦᐃ㒊࡟⛣ືࡋࠊࡑࡢᚋࠊ

ࡢᏑᅾࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿ᰿ᣐ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠸㞴࠸ࠋC ࠿ࡽ T ࡬ࡢ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ

ࡲࡓࠊ᫬ไ⠇ࡸ୙ᐃモ⠇࡟[uCase]ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸

(16) ࡢ௬ᐃ࡟ᚑ࠺࡜ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊC ࡢ[uQ]࠺௬ᐃࡣࠊ⟶ぢࡢ㝈ࡾࠊᩥ୺ㄒࢆศᯒࡍࡿሙ

ࡀ[uĳ]࡟௜㝶ࡋ࡚ T ࡬⥅ᢎࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ

ྜ࡟ࡢࡳ᥇⏝ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ౛እⓗ࡞௬ᐃࡢࡼ

C ࡢ[uQ]ࡀ T ࡟⥅ᢎࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࠊ{wh-DP, TP}࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ(19a, b) ࡢ஦ᐇࢆ࡛ agreement ࡀ⏕ࡌࠊA/A¶⛣ື࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿࡍ㚷ࡳࠊⱥㄒࡢ᫬ไ⠇࡜୙ᐃモ⠇ࡀໟᣓⓗ࡟ྲྀ࡭࡚ࡢゎ㔘୙ྍ⬟⣲ᛶࡀ୍ᗘ࡟๐㝖ࡉࢀࡿࡾᢅࢃࢀࡿ࡭ࡁࡇ࡜ࡶᛕ㢌࡟⨨࠸ࡓୖ࡛ࠊⱥ

ࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ(16) ࡟ᚑ࠺࡜ࠊ

ㄒࡢᙜヱ⠇୍⯡࡟ࡣࠊ[uCase]ࡀḞዴࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ

wh ୺ㄒࡀ T ᣦᐃ㒊࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡿᙧ࡛ (17a) ࡢ࡜ࡍࡿ (18) ࡢ௬ᐃࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿࠋ7ὴ⏕ࡀ཰᮰ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ6

௨ୖࠊ3 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊᮏ✏ࡀ᥇⏝ࡍࡿ 5 ࡘࡢ௬᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ➨ 5 ࡢ௬ᐃࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ⠇ࡀᣢࡘ⣲ᐃࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ4 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ௬ᐃࢆ⏝࠸ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋStowell (1981) ࡣࠊ࡚ࠊᮏ✏ࡢᩥ୺ㄒ࡟ᑐࡍࡿศᯒࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ

⮬㌟ࡀ୺ᙇࡍࡿ᱁᢬ᢠཎ⌮ (Case Resistance173

{SS, TP}࡛ࠊヰ㢟⣲ᛶࡢ agreement ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ

4. ᥦ᱌࡜ศᯒ
4 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ3 ⠇࡛♧ࡋࡓ௬ᐃࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊᩥࡓࡵࠊĮ ࡟ࡣࠊ<Top, Top>ࡢࣛ࣋ࣝࡀ௜୚ࡉ

୺ㄒᵓᩥ࡟ VMH ࡟ἢࡗࡓศᯒࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ

ࢀࠊὴ⏕ࡀ཰᮰ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࡲࡎࠊヰ㢟࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ⣲ᛶࡀḞᮏ✏ࡀᥦ᱌ࡍࡿ (22) ࡢศᯒࡣࠊඛ⾜◊✲ዴࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᩥ୺ㄒᵓᩥࡢὴ⏕ࡀ཰᮰ࡋ࡞

ࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆඞ᭹ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ

࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ(20) ࡜ࡋ࡚෌ᥖࡍࡿᩥࡢὴ

CP ⛣ືศᯒࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊᩥ୺ㄒᵓᩥࡢὴ⏕࡟⏕࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ(21) ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ

ヰ㢟࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ⣲ᛶࡀ⩏ົⓗ࡟せồࡉࢀࡿ⌮⏤ࢆ᫂☜໬࡛ࡁ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᮏ✏ࡢ (22) ࡢศᯒ࡟ᚑ࠺࡜ࠊࡑࡢ⌮⏤(20) That John won the first prize is true. (=(1a))(21) [ȕ
true

C>Xĳ
>Xĳ@
Xĳ
ĳ@

[Į

SS>ĳ@

T>Xĳ@

[vP

]]]

is

ࡣࠊ᫂ⓑ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊヰ㢟࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿĮ ??

⣲ ᛶ ࡀ Ꮡ ᅾ ࡋ ࡞ ࠸ ࡜ ࠊ (21) ࡢ ࡼ ࠺ ࡟ ࠊtSS{SS, TP}࡛ agreement ࡀ⏕ࡌࡎࠊࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅ
(21) ࡛ࡣࠊ(14) ࡢ௬ᐃ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡀ TࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽὴ⏕ࡀ◚⥢ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡓࡵ࡛࠶

ᣦᐃ㒊࡟⛣ືࡋࠊࡑࡢᚋࠊC ࠿ࡽ T ࡬ࡢ⣲ᛶࡿࠋヰ㢟࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ⣲ᛶࡢᚲ↛ᛶ࡟᫂☜࡞⌮⥅ᢎࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ὀ┠ࡋࡓ⏤௜ࡅࢆᥦ♧࡛ࡁࡿⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᮏ✏ࡢศᯒ࠸ࡢࡣࠊ (18) ࡢ௬ᐃ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡀ

ࡣࠊඛ⾜◊✲ࡢ CP ⛣ືศᯒࡼࡾࡶඃࢀ࡚࠸

[uCase]ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ[uĳ]ࡀ T ࡟⥅ᢎࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ

ࡉࢀࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ{SS, TP}࡛ࠊagreement ࡀ⏕ࡲࡓࠊ(22) ࡢศᯒࡣࠊTP ⛣ືศᯒ࡛ၥ㢟ࡌ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(8) ࡜ (9) ࡢ௬ᐃ࡟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓᩥ୺ㄒࡢ A¶≉ᛶࡶࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅ

ᚑ࠺࡜ࠊేྜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ 2 せ⣲ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀゎ㔘ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㐺ษ࡟ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ(23a) ࡜୙ྍ⬟⣲ᛶࢆᣢࡕࠊࡑࡢ 2 ࡘࡢ⣲ᛶࡀ┦஫࡟ࡋ࡚෌ᥖࡍࡿᩥ୺ㄒࡀ ECM ⿵ᩥ࡟⏕㉳࡛ࡁ๐㝖ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡀ agreement ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡓࡵࠊ ࡞࠸஦ᐇࡣࠊ(23b) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ
(21) ࡢ{SS, TP}࡛ࡣࠊᐃ⩏ୖࠊmatching ࡣ⏕ࡌࡿࡀ agreement ࡣ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࠋࡑ࠺࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊ

(23) a. * I believe that John won the first prize⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ࠊĮ ࡟ࡣࠊࣛ࣋ࣝࡀ௜୚ࡉࢀࡎࠊࡇ

to be true.

ࡢὴ⏕ࡣࠊ◚⥢ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋb.

ḟ࡟ࠊ(21) ࡜ࡣᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊヰ㢟࡟㛵㐃ࡍ

(=(5a))

[Ȗ

v*
*>Xĳ
>>Xĳ@
Xĳ
ĳ@

[ȕ

[Į

tSS

be true

Tinf

SS>ĳ@>Top][uOp]
]]]

R>Xĳ@
ȕ = ??

ࡿ⣲ᛶࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜ᩥ୺ㄒᵓᩥࡢὴ⏕ࡀ཰
ECM ⿵ᩥෆ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡣࠊR ᣦᐃ㒊᮰ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ(22) ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ

࡟࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ௚ືモࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࣇ
(22) [ȕ[vP

C>Xĳ>>Xĳ@>uTop]Xĳ
X ĳ @@>> u
uT
uTo
Top
To
o p]

[Į

tSS

]]]

is true

T>Xĳ@>uTop]

࢙࢖ࢬ୺せ㒊 v*࠿ࡽ R ࡟[uĳ]ࡀ⥅ᢎࡉࢀࡿĮ Top, Top>ࡀࠊྠࡌࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ୺せ㒊࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊv*࡜ C

SS>ĳ@>Top][uOp]ࡣࠊᣢࡘ⣲ᛶࡀ␗࡞ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊForce ⣲(22) ࡛ࡣࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡀ T ᣦᐃ㒊࡟⛣ືࡋࡓᚋᛶ࡛࠶ࡿ[uF]ࡣࠊᕥ࿘㎶㒊ࡢ C ࡟ࡣᏑᅾࡍࡿ

࡟ࠊ(16) ࡢ௬ᐃ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ[uTop]ࡀ C ࠿ࡽ T

ࡀࠊv*࡟ࡣᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ

࡟⥅ᢎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ᩥ୺ㄒࡀヰ㢟⣲ᛶ࡚ࠊࡑࡶࡑࡶ v*࡟[uTop]ࡀ࡞࠸࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ

[Top]࡜[uOp]ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ(8) ࡢ௬ᐃ࡟[uTop]ࡀ R ࡟⥅ᢎࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊᩥ

ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡢ[Top]࡜ T ࡟⥅ᢎࡉࢀࡓ୺ㄒࡀ[Top]࡜[uOp]ࢆᣢࡘ࠿ྰ࠿࡟㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊ[uTop]ࡢྠ୍ᛶࢆᇶ࡟ࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡢ[uOp]࡜ T{SS, RP} ࡛ ࡣ ࠊ ĳ ⣲ ᛶ ཬ ࡧ ヰ 㢟 ⣲ ᛶ ࡢ

ࡢ[uTop]ࡀ┦஫ⓗ࡟๐㝖ࡉࢀࡿࠋ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ࠊ

agreement ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ8 ⤖ᯝⓗ174࡟ࠊȕ ࡟ࡣࠊࣛ࣋ࣝࡀ௜୚ࡉࢀࡎࠊὴ⏕ࡀ◚* ᮏ✏ࡢᵓ᝿ẁ㝵࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⌮ㄽ㠃࡟㛵ࡋ࡚⥢ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡓࡵࠊ(23a) ࡢ㠀ᩥἲᛶࡀࣛ࣋㈗㔜࡞ຓゝࢆࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓᚋ⸨ரẶ࡜Ⓨ⾲఍ࣝ௜ࡅࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㐺ษ࡟ᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࠋ

ሙ࡟࠾࠸࡚᭷┈࡞㉁ၥࢆࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓ⫈ḟ࡟ࠊᩥ୺ㄒᵓᩥࡀ Wh ␲ၥᩥ࡜ᩚྜ୙ྍ

⾗ࡢ᪉ࠎ࡟ࡇࡢሙࢆ೉ࡾ࡚ឤㅰࡋࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ

⬟࡞஦ᐇࡣࠊ(24b) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄝ᫂ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࢫ࣌࢖ࣥㄒࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽຓゝࢆࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓᅵ
ᒇுẶ࡜౛ᩥࡢᩥἲᛶุ᩿࡟༠ຊࡋ࡚ࡃࡔ
(24) a. * To whom is that John won the firstprize well-known?
b.

[ȕࡉࡗࡓ Stephen Howe Ặ࡟ࡶឤㅰࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

(=(5b))

ὀ1

wh[Q][uOp] C>Xĳ
SS>ĳ@>Top][uOp]>Xĳ@
Xĳĳ @ [u[uQ] [Į

T>Xĳ@

[vP

tSS

true

]]]

Į ??

ඛ⾜◊✲࡟ࡣࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡢ⠊␪ࢆ CP ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍぢゎ࡜ DP ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍぢゎࡢ 2 ࡘࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᮏ
✏ࡢ୺ᙇ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡣࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡢ⠊␪ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼ(12a, b) ࡢ௬ᐃ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊⱥㄒࡢ୺⠇ᕥ࿘㎶ࡗ࡚ᕥྑࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㒊ࡣࠊ༢୍ CP ᵓ㐀࠿ࡽᡂࡾࠊC ࡢ[uF]ࡣࠊ

ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᮏ✏ࡣࠊ⠊␪ࡢၥ㢟࡟ࡣ㋃ࡳ㎸ࡲࡎࠊ

[uQ]ࡸ[uTop]ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿࡛⌧ࢀࡿ࡜ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ

sentential subject ࡢ㢌ᩥᏐࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊᩥ୺ㄒ

ࡑ࠺ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ(24a) ࡛ࠊwh ྃࡀᩥ㢌࡟࠶ࡾࠊࢆ SS ࡜⾲グࡍࡿࠋ୺ㄒ࣭ຓືモಽ⨨ࡀ㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ

2

C ࡢ[uF]ࡀ[uQ]࡛⌧ࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ[Q]࡜[uOp]ࢆ

ࡢᐜㄆᗘࡢపࡉࡣࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡢ㛗ࡉࡀࡶࡓࡽࡍ

ᣢࡘ wh ྃ࡜ࡢ㛫࡛ agreement ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿᩥゎᯒࡢᅔ㞴ᛶ࡟㉳ᅉࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᩥἲ

9ᮏ✏ࡣࠊLohndal (2014) ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ(5a, b)ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ[uF]ⓗせᅉ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜࠸࠺❧ሙ࡟❧ࡘࠋᮏ✏ࡢ࢖ࣥ

ࡀ[uQ]࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ[uTop]ࡀ T ࡟⥅ᢎࡉࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺㄪᰝ࡛ࡶࠊLohndal (2014:320)ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡀ[Top]࡜[uOp]ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡀẚ㍑ⓗ▷࠸ሙྜࢆᣢࡘ࠿ྰ࠿࡟㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊ{SS, TP}࡛ࡣࠊĳ࡟⣲ᛶཬࡧヰ㢟⣲ᛶࡢ agreement ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࠋ

Delahunty (1983) ࡸ Davies and Dubinsky(5a, b) ࡢ ᐜ ㄆ ᗘ ࡀ ୖ ࡀ ࡿ ࡜ ࠸ ࠺⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ࠊĮ ࡟ࡣࠊࣛ࣋ࣝࡀ௜୚ࡉࡎࠊὴ⏕(2009) ࡜ྠᵝࡢุ᩿ࡣᚓࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

ࡀ◚⥢ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡓࡵࠊ(24a) ࡢ㠀ᩥἲᛶࡀ

3ࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽṇࡋࡃᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࠋ

Stowell (1981) ࡛ࡶࠊ኱➽࡛ࠊTakahashi (2010)

5. ࡲ࡜ࡵ

4ヰ㢟⣲ᛶࢆ௬ᐃࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸Ⅼ࡛␗࡞ࡿࡀࠊ

࡜ྠᵝࡢ CP ⛣ືศᯒࡀᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛ゝ࠺ࠊゎ㔘ྍ⬟࣭ゎ㔘୙ྍ⬟ࡢᑐࡣࠊᮏ✏࡛ ࡣࠊⱥ ㄒࡢᩥ ୺ㄒᵓ ᩥ ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚Chomsky (2014:10, fn. 14) ࡀ (2b) ࡛ゝ࠺࡜

VMH ࡟ἢࡗࡓศᯒࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࠊヰ㢟࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡇࢁࡢࠊ್ࢆᣢࡘ (valued)್࣭ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸

ࡿ⣲ᛶࡢᚲ↛ᛶࢆࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㆟(unvalued) ࡢᑐ࡜ྠ➼࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄽࡋࡓࠋᮏ✏ࡢศᯒ࡟ᚑ࠺࡜ࠊヰ㢟࡟㛵㐃ࡍ

5

ࡿ ⣲ᛶࡀ Ꮡᅾࡍ ࡿࡇ࡜ ࡟ࡼࡗ ࡚ึࡵ࡚ࠊ

໬ᵓᩥࡀᩚྜ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ (6b) ࡢ஦ᐇ࠿༢୍ CP ᵓ㐀ࡢጇᙜᛶࡣࠊWh ␲ၥᩥ࡜ヰ㢟{SS, TP}࡛ agreement ࡀ⏕ࡌࠊࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅࡀ

ࡽᨭᣢࡉࢀࡿࠋ

⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡽࡢ⣲ᛶࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸࡜ࠊࣛ

6࣋ࣝ௜ࡅࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡎࠊὴ⏕ࡀ◚⥢ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟

⏕ࡢ཰᮰࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡽ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ[uF]ࡀ C࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊᩥ୺ㄒᵓᩥࡢὴ⏕࡟ヰ㢟࡟㛵㐃ࡍ࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡽ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡶ⾲ࡍࠋࡇࡿ⣲ᛶࡀせồࡉࢀࡿᚲ↛ᛶࡀࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅࡢ

ࢀࡀᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ࢣ࣮ࢫࡣࠊWh ┠ⓗ

ほⅬ࠿ࡽಖドࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ㄒᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡛ࠊ[uQ]ࡀ T ࡟⥅ᢎ௬ᐃ (16) ࡣࠊ[uF]ࡢ T ࡬ࡢ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࡀὴࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࠊ[uQ]ࡀ๐㝖ࡉࢀࡎ࡟ṧࡾࠊὴ⏕ࡀ

175

◚⥢ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊ[uQ]ࡣࠊC

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡽ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ

Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press, Cambridge,7ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ(18) ࡢ௬ᐃࡀⱥㄒ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿ࡜

MA.

୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊ௚ࡢゝㄒ࡟ࡶᙜ࡚&KRPVN\

1RDP 

³3UREOHPVRI

3URMHFWLRQ´Lingua 130, 33-49.

ࡣࡲࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᙜヱ⠇&KRPVN\ࡀ᱁ᶆ♧ࡉࢀࡿゝㄒ࡛ࡣࠊᙜヱ⠇࡟[uCase]

1RDP 

³3UREOHPV

RIࡀ࠶ࡿࡣࡎ࡛ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕࡢ࡛ࠖᑟ࠿ࢀࡿ⠇3URMHFWLRQ([WHQVLRQV´PV0,7>3XEOLVKHG

ࡶࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ

in Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studiesࡲࡓࠊᅵᒇு (ಶேㄯヰ) ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊࢫ࣌࢖

in Honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Diࣥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑ que ࡛ᑟ࠿ࢀࡿ⠇ࡀ

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona

certain ࡸ insist ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿᙧᐜモࡸືモࡢ⿵

Matteini,㒊࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿሙྜࠊof ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ๓⨨モ deAmsterdam.]

2015,

3-16,

John

Benjamins,ࡢᤄධࡀᚲ㡲࡛࠶ࡾࠊⱥㄒࡢ (19a, b) ࡜ᑐ↷

Davies, William D. and Stanley Dubinskyⓗ࡞⤖ᯝ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞

  ³2Q WKH ([LVWHQFH DQG 'LVWULEXWLRQ ゝㄒࡢᙜヱ⠇ࡣࠊྡモⓗ≉ᛶࡀᙉ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽ

RIࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ[uCase]ࡀ௬ᐃࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ

A/Hypothesis B. Linguistic Explorations in8(23b) ࡛ࡣࠊᩥ୺ㄒࡀ[Top]࡜[uOp]ࢆᣢࡘὴ

Honor of David M. Perlmutter, ed. by Donna⏕ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(23b) ࡢ{SS, RP}࡛ヰ㢟

B. Gerdts, John C. Moore and Maria Polinsky,⣲ᛶࡢ agreement ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᩥ୺

111-128, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

6HQWHQWLDO

6XEMHFWV´

Hypothesisㄒࡢ[uOp]ࡀ๐㝖ࡉࢀࡎ࡟ṧࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡓࡵࠊ 'HODKXQW\ *HUDOG 3   ³%XW 6HQWHQWLDO
6XEMHFWV 'R ([LVW´ Linguistic Analysis 12,
ࡇࡢⅬ࡛ࡶὴ⏕ࡢ◚⥢ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
379-398.

(24b) ࡟ࡶྠᵝࡢࡇ࡜ࡀᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠋ
9ⱥㄒࡢ୺⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୺ㄒ࣭ຓືモಽ⨨ࡣࠊLohndal, Terje (2014) ³6HQWHQWLDO 6XEMHFWV␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊヰ㢟໬ᵓᩥ࡛ࡣ㐺

7RSLFV RU 5HDO 6XEMHFWV"´ Proceedings of⏝ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ୺ㄒ࣭ຓືモಽ⨨ࡢ㐺⏝ࡀ୺⠇

WCCFL 31, 315-324.

ࡢ C ࡟[uQ]ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ

0F&ORVNH\ -DPHV   ³There, It, and࡞ࡽࡤࠊಽ⨨ࡀ㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (24b) ࡛ࡣࠊ

Agreement´Linguistic Inquiry 22, 563-567.
6DNDPRWR $NLKLNR   ³)HDWXUH ,QKHULWDQFH

C ࡢ[uF]ࡀ[uQ]࡛⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

DQG9DFXRXV0RYHPHQW´ English Linguistics
29, 316-343.

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩%RãNRYLü äHOMNR   ³&DVH 3URSHUWLHV RI

Stowell, Timothy (1981) Origin of Phrase&ODXVHV DQG WKH *UHHG 3ULQFLSOH´ Studia

Structure, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
7DNDKDVKL 6KRLFKL  ³7KH+LGGHQ6LGHRI

Linguistica 49, 32-153.

&ODXVDO &RPSOHPHQWV´ Natural Language&KRPVN\ 1RDP   ³0LQLPDOLVW ,QTXLULHV
7KH )UDPHZRUN´ Step by Step: Essays on

and Linguistic Theory 28, 343-380.

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik,

Tanigawa, Shin-ichi   ³$ 6SOLW )HDWXUH

ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels andAnalysis of Topicalization and Locative

Juan,QYHUVLRQ´JELS 26, 299-308.

Uriagereka,

89-155,

MIT

Press,

Cambridge, MA.
&KRPVN\ 1RDP   ³'HULYDWLRQ E\ 3KDVH´176

elective introductory class of interculturalcommunicationforundergraduate

students,

which was taught in English as a medium of
instruction.
There were three Japanese students and one

Translanguaging in a Group Discussion in
a CLIL Classroom at a Japanese
University: A Time-aligned Corpus
Analysis*

Arabic student in the group discussion, where
both English and Japanese were used. Thus,
English they used can be English as a Lingua
Franca (ELF), which is defined as ‘any use ofEnglish among speakers of different languages

Keiko Tsuchiya

for whom English is the communicative medium

Tokai University

orchoice’(Seidlhofer

2011:7).

ELF

is‘contingent’ in its nature and the norms of
Keywords㸸translanguaging, group discussion,

discourse(i.e.

languagechoice)arenot

CLIL in higher education, English as a Lingua

pre-determined (Jenkins 2014: 36). In theFranca (ELF), time-aligned corpus

traditional English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
framework, code-switching from English to afirst language (L1) has been marked as ‘error
resulting from gap in knowledge’, while, in the

1. Introduction
Translanguaging is an emergent concept in
bi/multilingualism

andlanguageparadigm of ELF, code-switching is seen as

education,‘bilingual resource’ (Jenkins 2014:26), which

which refers to ‘both the complex language
practicesofandTranslanguaging is distinguished itself from

communities, as well as the pedagogicalcode-switching since it refers ‘not simply to aapproaches that use those complex practices’shift or shuttle between two languages, but to the(Garcia and Wei 2014:20). The notion of

speakers’ construction and use of original andlanguaging is the basis of the theory ofcomplex interrelated discursive practices thattranslanguaging as seen in the term, whichcannot be easily assigned to one or anotherplaces an emphasis on ‘the agency of speakers in

traditional definition of a language, but thatanmake up the speakers’ complete language

ongoing

plurilingual

process

individuals

chimes with the concept of translanguaging.

ofinteractive

meaning-making’ (ibid: 9).
This

study

focusesrepertoire’ (Garcia and Wei 2014: 22). I take the
on

the

use

of

definition in Garcia and Wei (2014) and use thetranslanguaging in a group discussion in aterm translanguaging to describe the complex

Content and Language Integrated Learning

discursive practices interlocutors co-construct in(CLIL) classroom at a Japanese university. CLIL

situ with more than one language.

is ‘a dual-focused educational approach in which

Why (function) and how (process) thean additional language is used for the learning

participants use translanguaging is my central

and teaching of both content and language’interest here. In terms of the first research

1(Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols 2008:9) . This

question,study examines a student group discussion in an

functions in translanguaging, from Japanese to177

Tsuchiya(2014)

identifiedfourEnglish in the film for the assignment.

ELF in particular: (1) addressee specification,(2) assertion, (3) clarification and (4) appealingforlinguistic

categorisations

assistance,
in

based

Gumperzon(1982)

the

Table 1: Participants

and

Name
(M/F)

Nationality

School

Year

CEFR

Daiki
(M)

Japan

Aviation

4

B2

Omar
(M)
Haru
(F)
Mari
(F)

Saudi
ArabiaJapan

International
StudiesInternational
StudiesInternational
Studies

2

B1

2

A2

2

A2

Klimpfinger (2007). Tsuchiya (2014) also
indicates that the participants tended to use ELF

Englishspeaking
countries
US(1 year),Canada(1 year)Thailand(3 years)US(2 mons)
Canada(2 mons)in transactional talk while Japanese was used ininteractional talk (Brown and Yule 1983). This
study, thus, focuses on the second researchprinciple, the process (how it happens), in
relation to turn-taking structure (Tsuchiya 2013),

Japan

the use of response tokens (Gardner 2002;
O'Keeffe, McCarthy and Carter 2007) and

Their levels of English vary from A2 to B2.

meta-language (Storch and Wigglesworth 2003).

Daiki spent several years in different English
speaking

2. Data and Method

experienced

A forty-minute-long group discussion was
audio-recorded,

however,

only

the

first

and

a

Omar

two-month

and

study

Haru
abroadexperience of staying in an English-speaking
country.

preliminary study, using both a quantitative
analysis

andprogrammes, while Mari did not have any

ten-minutes of the data was analysed in this
corpus-based

countries

The audio-recorded group discussion was

qualitativetranscribed and time-stamped with an annotation

conversation analytic approach. The data wassoftware tool, Transana (Fassnacht and Woods

recorded in a CLIL classroom at a university in2002).

Japan. The class was an introductory course of

Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse

intercultural communication, which was one of

in English (CANCODE) (Adolphs 2006) werethe elective courses at the university and open to

appliedall the students in any departments. Fifty-twotranscript of the conversation data was analysed

students were enrolled in the class, including six

using the methodology developed in Tsuchiyainternational students. Although the medium of(2013).

language in the class was English, the students

participants’ utterances and the time lengths ofused both English and their mother tongues intheir speaker turns both in Japanese and in ELF

group discussions.

were measured by using the time-aligned corpus

In the discussion data, three JapaneseTranscription

to

The

the

conventionstranscription.

numbers

of

in

the

Time-aligned

words

in

the

to obtain the overview of the interaction.

students (Daiki, Haru and Mari) and a Saudi

For the analysis, I distinguished speakerArabian student (Omar) were working on anturns

assignment

nameparticipant takes the floor of a conversation, s/heanonymised). For the assignment, they were

has a speaker turn, and while listening to a

producing a short film in group to describe

speaker, s/he has a backchannel turn. To make it

misunderstandings in intercultural settings. They

simple, I take any utterance with more than ordeveloped the scenario of the film and acted inequal to three words in English (three morae inproject

(see

Table

1,

178

from

backchannel

turns.

WhenaJapanese) as a speaker turn. Any utterance fewer

3. Results

than three words is classified as a backchannel

In the first ten-minute of the discussion, theturn. I annotated turn-transition point (TTP) in

two male students spoke more than the female

theastudents, and the use of ELF were mostly seen intransition-relevance place (TRP): a TRP is a

the interaction between the two male students,

possible place for turn transition (Sacks,

although Japanese was dominantly used in mostSchegloff and Jefferson 1974), whereas a TTP isof the time. Omar spoke for about four minutes

a point where actual turn exchanges occur. Then,in total which includes 46 seconds in ELF in

I added leadtime of each participant’s utterance,

total, and Daiki was in speaker status for about

which is incremented while s/he is in speaker

two and half minutes which includes 59 seconds

status and decreased while in listener status. The

in ELF in total. Mari and Haru, however, were in

leadtime was applied to measure the timespeaker status for only about one minute in total

lengths of their speaker/backchannel turns (seein Japanese except a few words in ELF in Haru

Figure 1):(see Table 3). The detail investigation wastranscription,which

differsfromconducted to reveal the discursive practices ofTurn Transition Point
Listenertranslanguaging from Japanese to ELF, which

Speaker

Daiki and Omar employed here.

leadtime

As shown in Table 4, Omar has more turns
0mm(97 in total, 16 of which are occurrences of floor
taking in ELF) than Daiki (57 in total and 12 in

yeahELF). Both frequently used Episode 1 (floor
taking after the previous speaker’s turn closing),

Figure 1: Leadtime

Episode 2 (cut-in before the previous speaker’s
Seven types of turn-structural episodes,

closing) and Episode 5 (floor taking after thewhich are categorises of turn-taking patterns,

previous speaker’s turn-giving). Omar usedwere also annotated to the transcription (seeEpisode 1 most (nine times) when he took theTable 2).

floor in ELF while Daiki took the floor in ELF
most with Episode 5 (eight times), whichindicates the turn-taking patterns where Omar

Table 2: Turn-structural episodes
Episode 1
Episode 2
Episode 3
Episode 4
Episode 5
Episode 6
Episode 7

Current speaker’s turn closing Æ Next speaker’s
turn-taking
Current speaker ’s turn keeping Æ Next speaker ’s
cut-inCurrent speaker ’s turn closing Æ (Pause) ÆCurrent speaker’s turn retaining
Current speaker ’s turn closing Æ (Pause) Æ Next
speaker ’s final turn-taking
Current speaker ’s turn giving Æ Next speaker ’sturn-taking
Current speaker ’s turn giving Æ (Pause) Æ Current
speaker ’s turn retaining
Current speaker ’s turn giving Æ (Pause) Æ Next
speaker ’s final turn-taking

initiated translanguaging from Japanese to ELF
and

Daiki

co-constructedthepractice,

responding Omar in ELF. The two female
students also frequently used Episodes 1, 2 and 5,
however, mostly in Japanese, except only two
occurrences in ELF in Haru.

(Adapted from: Tsuchiya 2013, p.100; Ohama
2006)

179

180

Speaker timein English(sec)
0:00:59 (59)
0:00:46 (46)
0:00:00 (0)0:00:06 (6)0:01:51 (111)

Speaker time
Total
(sec)
0:02:29 (149)
0:04:05 (245)
0:01:45 (105)
0:01:15 (75)
0:09:34 (574)

Daiki
Omar
Mari
Haru
Total

EPS1
16 (1)
39 (9)
22
23 (1)
100 (11)EPS2
16 (3)
24 (4)
13
10
63 (7)

EPS3
3
4
1
1
9

EPS4
3
7
5
2
17

EPS5
19 (8)
23 (3)118 (1)
61 (12)

EPS6
0
0
0
0
0

57
97
53
44
251

Speaker
Turns

EPS7
Total
0
57 (12)0
97 (16)1
53
0
44 (2)
1
251 (30)

Listener time
Total
(sec)
0:06:23 (383)
0:04:47 (287)
0:07:07 (427)
0:07:37 (457)-

Table 4: Numbers of instances of seven turn-taking episodes2

Daiki
Omar
Mari
Haru
Total

Speaker timein Japanese(sec)
0:01:30 (90)0:03:19 (199)
0:01:45 (105)
0:01:09 (69)
0:07:43 (463)

Table 3: Speaker time and listener time
Speaker time/
Speaker turns
(sec)
2.6
2.5
2.0
1.7
-

two

‘ࡔ࠿ࡽ ࡶࡋ=’, which was overlapped withpractices which lead translanguaging in the

Omar’s previous turn. Then Daiki immediately

discussion were identified: (1) the use of English

changed to ELF, uttering yeah in line 4, andresponse

answered Omar, switching to ELF in line 6.

Throughthetokens,qualitative

and

(2)

analysis,

the

use

of

meta-language, before the floor-taking in ELF.
Extract 1 is one of such examples where English

Extract 2 (at 00:03:05) 3

response1

tokenswere

observed

beforeÆ

Omarࡲ࠶࠸࠸ ㄡࡀ࡜ࡽ=floor-taking in ELF. In Extract 1, Daiki was࡜ࢀ= ࡞ࢇࡔࡗࡅ?

setting up a video camera and Haru and Omar

(okay, who films= can film=

were asking whether he got a right angle. In the

how can I say?)2

first few lines, Haru and Daiki talked in

Æ

Omar

take for us

Japanese. However, Omar uttered an English
response token yeah in line 4 before he took the
floor

in

ELF in line 5.

After[someone=] someone must

3

Daiki

[ࡔ࠿ࡽ ࡶࡋ=](So if=)Omar’stranslanguaging to ELF in line 5, Daiki

4

Daiki

[yeah]

responded to Omar in ELF in line 6, by which he

5

Omar

[video]seemed to co-construct a translanguaging space

6

Daiki

so if we are recording

where the use of ELF was also the norm.

7

the eleventh then she

8can do it <$G?>.

ÆExtract 1 (at 00:00:52)3
1Haru࠺ࢇ ᫎࡾࡲࡍ࠿㸽

Although two female students tended not to

2

Daiki

࠶࠵኱୔ኵ

respond in ELF, and stayed in Japanese

3

Haru

኱୔ኵ

interaction, translanguaging seemed not to be

4  → Omaryeahmarked by them in the discussion.

5

→ Omar኱୔ኵ Can you see?

6

Daiki

Yeah. Like front row

7

4. Concluding Remarks
Two practices, the use of English response

er through=tokens and meta-language, were observed before
beforetranslanguaging from Japanese to ELF in thefloor-taking in ELF is the use of meta-language.

discussion. Thus, the bi/multilingual speakers

In Extract 2, they were discussing who filmed

strategically negotiated the discursive norms

for them. In line 1, Omar tried to ask who was(language

choice),andgoing to film in Japanese first, but he could

constructed

theirlinguistic

conjugate the verb ‘ ᧜ ࡿ (film)’ in Japanese

co-constructing a translanguaging space byproperly and sought for assistance, uttering ausing response tokens and meta-language.

Another

discursive

practice

simultaneously
repertoire,meta-language ‘࡞ࢇࡔࡗࡅ? (how can I say?)’,This study also shed light on the potential ofwhich was followed by an ELF equivalent

the integrated research methodology of a‘someone= someone must take for us’ in line 2

quantitative

corpus-driven

as nobody offered help in Japanese. Daiki started

qualitative

discourse/conversation

responding to Omar’s statement first in Japaneseapproaches.

181

approachandanalytic

* This study is supported in part by JSPSthe

Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) No.

Language Policy, Routledge, Abingdon.

26870599.

Politics

ofAcademicEnglishKlimpfinger, Theresa (2007) “‘Mind You,

NOTES
1Additional language here refers to languages

Sometimes You Have to Mix?’ The Rolesuch as foreign language, second language,

Linguaheritage language and community language

Working Papers 16, 36-61.

of Code-switching in English as a

(Coyle, Hood and Marsh 2010:2)
2

ViennaFranca,”EnglishMehisto, Peter, David Marsh and Maria Frigols,

The numbers of floor-taking in ELF are shown

Jesus (2008) Uncovering CLIL: Content

in brackets.

and Language Integrated Learning in3

Overlapped utterances are marked with square

Bilingual and Multilingual Education,brackets. The symbol ‘=’ indicates unfinished

Macmillan Education, Oxford.

sentences and <$G?> unintelligible speech.

O'Keeffe, Anne, Michael McCarthy and Ronald
Carter (2007) From Corpus to Class
room: Language Use and Language

REFERENCES
Adolphs, Svenja (2006) Introducing Electronic

Teaching, Cambridge University Press,

Text Analysis: A Practical Guide for
Language

andLiterary

Cambridge.

Studies,

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff. and Gail

Routledge, London.

Jefferson

Brown, Gillian and George Yule (1983)
Discourse

Analysis,Turn-taking

Cambridge

Integrated

SimplestforConversation,”

Language 50, 696-735.
Seidlhofer,

Coyle, Do, Phillip Hood and David MarshContent“A

Systematics for the Organization ofUniversity Press, Cambridge.
(2010)(1974)

and

Language

Learning,

Cambridge

Barbara(2011)

Understanding

English as a Lingua Franca OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.
Storch, Neomy and Gillian Wigglesworth

University Press, Cambridge.
Fassnacht, Chris, and David Woods (2002)(2003) “Is There a Role for the Use of

Transana. Version 2.12 - Win. Computer

the L1 in an L2 Setting?,” TESOL

software,Quarterly 37, 760-70.

UniversityofTsuchiya, Keiko (2013) Listenership Behaviours

Wisconsin-Medison.
Garcia,Ofelia

and

Li

Wei

in

(2014)

Time-aligned

Translanguaging, Palgrave, London.
Response Tokens and Listener Stance,

MultimodalA

CorpusCompany, Amsterdam.

John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Tsuchiya,

Gumperz, John J. (1982) Discourse Strategies,
University

Encounters:

Analysis. John Benjamins PublishingGardner, Rod (2002) When Listeners Talk:

Cambridge

Intercultural

Keiko

Switching(2014)
to

͆Why
ELF?:

BotherAnalysingCode-switching in a Group Discussion

Press,

in a CLIL Class

Cambridge.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2014) English as a Lingua

at University inJapan,͇Waseda Working Papers in ELF

Franca in the International University:

3, 140-57.

182࡜ࡣ୍ぢṇ཯ᑐࡢࠕྲྀࡾ㝖ࡃࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡔ
࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ࡞ࡐࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡟⏕ࡌࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡜
࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࡀ㉳ࡇࡿࠋ࡞ࡐືモ forgive ࡣ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥ࡟⏕ࡌࡿ

1. ඛ⾜◊✲ࡼࡾࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿

1.1. Goldberg (1995)

㸦Why Can Forgive Appear in Ditransitive

Goldberg (1995)ࡣࠊforgive ࡣ᫬௦ࡀ㐍ࡴ࡟

Constructions?㸧

㐃ࢀ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥ࡟࠶ࡽࢃࢀࡿ౛ࡀῶࡗ
࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡋࠊforgive ࢆ౛እ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ

㎷ ᪩௦ຍ㸦Soyoka Tsuji㸧ᐇ㉁ୖၥ㢟ࢆᅇ㑊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ

኱㜰ᕷ❧኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸦Osaka City University㸧᳨࡛⣴ࢆ⾜࠺࡜ࠊBNC ࠿ࡽ 83 ௳ࠊWordbanks
࠿ࡽ 88 ௳ࠊforgive ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧ࡢ౛ࡀぢ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ㄒᙡព࿡ㄽ㸪஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥ㸪ࡘ࠿ࡾࠊᗫࢀࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࡓࡔࡢ౛እ࡜ࡣỴࡋ࡚࠸࠼࡞࠸ࠋᵓᩥࡢព࿡㸪virtual benefit

ࡲࡓࠊGoldberg ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊforgive ࡣṔྐⓗ࡟͆to give or grant͇ࡢព࿡ࢆᣢࡕ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ
0. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ࢆ࡜ࡿືモ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊ⤫ㄒࡢࣃࢱࣥࡣࡑࡢ ᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥ࡟⏕ࡌࡿືࡲࡲ࡟ࠊព࿡ࡔࡅࡀኚࢃࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺モ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ୍ぢ౛እⓗ࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿ forgive ࡀࠊࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ௚ࡢゝㄒ(ࢫ࣌࢖ࣥㄒࠊ

ᐇࡣᵓᩥࡢព࿡࡜ᩚྜࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟

࣏࣮ࣛࣥࢻㄒ➼)࡛ࡶࠊ⌧௦ⱥㄒࡢ forgive ࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ྠࡌព࿡ࢆᣢࡘືモࡀ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥ࡟⏕஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥࡣ͂NP0(X) Verb NP1(Y)ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋⱥㄒࡔࡅࡢṔྐⓗኚ㑄࡟ࡼࡿ⌮⏤NP2(Z)̓࡜࠸࠺ᙧࢆ࡜ࡾࠊࡑࡢ୰ᚰⓗ࡞ព࿡࡜ࡣ⪃࠼࡙ࡽ࠸ࠋ(Colleman and De Clerckࡣ͂X causes Y to receive Z̓࡜ࡉࢀࡿ(Goldberg

2008 ཧ↷)1995)ࠋ
1.2. Colleman and De Clerck (2008, 2011)(1)

He gave them money.

Colleman and De Clerck ࡣ forgive ࡢࠕྲྀࡾ(2)

She sent him a letter.

㝖ࡃࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡣࠊ௨ୗ㸰ࡘࡢⅬ࡛୰ᚰⓗ࡞ព࿡࠿ࡽࡢᣑᙇ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡘࡲࡾࠊZ(money, a letter)ࡣࠊY ࡟୚࠼ࡽࢀ
ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊforgive ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
Z (sins, debt)ࡣඖ࠿ࡽ Y ࡢࡶ࡜࡟࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡛

ձ a metaphorical extension from material toabstract transfers࠶ࡿࠋղ a shift in direction from a transfer towards
the indirect object to a transfer away from(3)

God forgives us our sins.

(4)

I forgave him his debt.

the indirect object
forgive ࡜ࡣࠊ㉧ࡋ(forgiveness)ࢆ┦ᡭ࡟୚࠼ࡴࡋࢁ forgive ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࠕY ࠿ࡽ(ᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞≀ࡀ┦ᡭ࡟⛣ㆡࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(ձ))ࠊ

ྲྀࡾ㝖࠿ࢀࡿࠖࡼ࠺࡟ࡶᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

⨥ࡢព㆑࡜࠸࠺ᚰⓗ࡞㔜Ⲵ(burden)ࢆࠊ┦ᡭ

forgive ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡ࡀࠊ
ࠕ୚࠼ࡿࠖ

183

࠿ࡽྲྀࡾཤࡿ(┦ᡭ࡬୚࠼ࡿࡢ࡛࡞ࡃ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽྲྀࡾཤࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ(ղ))ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸

(8) a.

ࡿࠋ

That will save me a lot of trouble.(ࠕ㠃ಽࢆࡋ࡞࠸ࠖsave)forgive ࡉࢀࡓ┦ᡭࡣࠊ☜࠿࡟㉧ࡋࢆᚓ࡚ᚰ

b.

ⓗ㔜Ⲵࢆྲྀࡾ㝖࠿ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ

That will save me fifty dollars.
(ࠕ⠇⣙ࠖࡢ save)ࡑࡶࡑࡶⱥㄒࡢ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ

c.

ࠕ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽྲྀࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡣ⾲ࡏ࡞࠸ࠋࡶ

Please save me a seat.
(ࠕྲྀࡗ࡚࠾ࡃࠖsave)ࡋࡶࠕ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽྲྀࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡀ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥ࡛⾲ࡏࡿࡢ࡞ࡽࠊ౛(5)ࡣࠕᮏࢆᙼ࠿

୍ぢ(8a, b)ࡣ X ࡀ Y ࠿ࡽ Z ࢆྲྀࡾ㝖࠸࡚࠸ࡽྲྀࡗࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡏࡿࡣࡎࡔࡀࠊᐇ

ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࠕ⠇⣙ࠖࡢ save ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳ㝿ࡣࠕᮏࢆᙼ࡟ᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡗࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡋ

ࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕ50 ࢻࣝ⠇⣙ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕ50

࠿⾲ࡉ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࢻࣝࡢฟ㈝ࢆࡋ࡞࠸ࠖࡇ࡜࡜ࠊ
ࠕ50 ࢻࣝศࡢ
ᚓࢆࡍࡿࠖࡇ࡜࡜࠸࠺஧㠃ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ཰ධ࡜

(5) I took him a book.

ࡋ࡚࠾㔠ࡀධࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ᡭඖ࡟࠶ࡿ࠾㔠࡟ኚືࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᐇ

ࡲࡓࠊColleman and De Clerck ࡣ forgive ࡜ࡣᚓࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡣᚰⓗ㔜Ⲵࢆྲྀࡾཤࡿࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊྠᵝ࡟ Y ࠿ࡽࠕ㔜Ⲵ࡜࡞ࡿࡶࡢࢆྲྀࡾ
ཤࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡢືモࡣ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥ࡟ฟ㈝ࡣ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࠋ
⠇⣙ศ(6) * She relieved him his anxiety.

㸫

㸫$50

(She relieved him of his anxiety.)㸩0     ᅗ㸯㸸ࠕ⠇⣙ࠖࡢ save(7) * She unburdened herself her immediate
thought.
(She unburdened herself of her immediateࠕ⠇⣙ࠖ࡜ࡣࠕฟ㈝ࢆࡏࡎ࡟ࡍࡴࠖ࢖ࢥ࣮ࣝ

thought.)ࠕࡑࡢศᚓࢆࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕYࡀᚓࢆ࠼ࡿࠖࢆ࠸࠺Ⅼࡀ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥࡢព

forgive ࡣ୍ぢ௚ࡢ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒືモ࡜ࡣ཯ᑐ࿡࡜ྜ࠺ࡢ࡛ࠊ
ࠕ⠇⣙ࠖࡢ save ࡣࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡟

ࡢព࿡ࡢࠕྲྀࡾཤࡿࠖࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ࠊ࡞

⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࠕ㠃ಽࢆࡋ࡞࠸ࠖsave ࡶྠᵝ࡟ࠊࡐ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥ࡟⏕ࡌࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ

ࠕ୙ᛌ࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚῭ࡴࠖ࢖ࢥ࣮ࣝࠕࡑ

ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊඛ⾜◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ༑ศ࡟ㄝ᫂

ࡢศᚓࢆࡍࡿࠖ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࡋࡁࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

ࠕ⠇⣙ࠖࡢ save ࡢព࿡ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡶ
⾲ࡏࡿࠋ

2. ືモ forgive ࡢព࿡
2.1. ᒾ⏣ (2012)(9)ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ୍ぢ㝖ཤࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃ

X saves Y Z.
=

ࢀ ࡿ஧㔜 ┠ⓗㄒ ືモࡀ ᢅࢃࢀ ࡚࠸ࡿᒾ⏣X causes Y to avoid payment of Z.

ө Y comes to have a profit equal to Z.

(2012)ࢆཧ⪃࡜ࡋ࡚ぢ࡚࠾ࡇ࠺ࠋ
Z ࡑࡢࡶࡢࢆྲྀࡾཤࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊZ
ࡢศࡢᨭᡶ࠸ࢆචࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊZ ࡢศࡔࡅ Y

184ࡀᚓࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㈇മ
2.2. virtual benefitᒾ⏣ (2012)࡟ࡼࡿ save ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕฟ㈝㸭

ᖒᾘࡋศ㸫୙ᛌ࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆࡏࡎ࡟῭ࡴࠖ࡜ࠊࠕࡑࡢศᚓࢆ
ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉ࡣࠊforgive ࡟ࡶᛂ⏝࡛ࡁ0 ᅗ㸰㸸forgive Y his sin㸩ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
forgive ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧ࡢ┤᥋┠ⓗㄒ࡜࡞ࢮࣟ࠿ࡽࣉࣛࢫ࡟࡞ࡿᚓ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ௒ᚋ㈇ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿྡモࢆࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ᳨࡛⣴ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ

ࢃࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࣐࢖ࢼࢫࡀࢮࣟ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜

௨ୗࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡿ(2 ௳௨ୖ౛ࡀぢࡘ࠿ࡗࡓ࡟ࡼࡿᚓࡀ┦ᡭ࡟⾜ࡃࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊᒾ⏣ (2012)ྡモࡢࡳࠋ[ ]ෆࡣ௳ᩘ)ࠋ

࡟ࡼࡿࠕ⠇⣙ࠖࠕ㠃ಽࢆࡋ࡞࠸ࠖsave ࡜㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

BNC 㸸 sin [15], anything [7], trespass [6],௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠊsave ࡸ forgive ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕฟ㈝everything [5], debt [4], thing [3], fighting㸭୙ᛌ࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆࡏࡎ࡟῭ࡴศࡢᚓࠖࢆ virtual[2], enthusiasm [2], lapse [2], all [2]benefit ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

Wordbanks㸸sin [8], defeat [4], thing [4], run [4],2.3. sin ௨እࡢ┠ⓗㄒ

fault [3], anything [2], debt [2],name [2], lot

forgive ࡣ┠ⓗㄒࡀ sin ௨እ࡛ࡶࠊvirtual[2], this [2], sense [2]benefit ࡢ⪃࠼᪉࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄝ᫂ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋsin
࡟㏆࠸౛࠿ࡽ㡰࡟⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡇ࠺ࠋ

sin ࡘࡲࡾࠕ᐀ᩍୖࡢ⨥ࠖࡀከࡃ⌧ࢀࡿࠋ
forgive ࡢ┠ⓗㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ᐀ᩍୖࡢ⨥ࢆ⾲ࡍձsin ࡢ୍✀࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ

sin ࡀࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

sin ࡜ྠᵝࠊ⚄࡬ࡢ㈇മ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

࢟ࣜࢫࢺᩍ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊsinࠕ⨥ࠖ࡜ࡣࠊࠕ⚄࡬ࡢ㈇മ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜ࡣࡑࢀࢆ㉧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡞ࡢࡣ⚄ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿ(Mar.2:7)ࠋ㈇മ

(10) Give us this day our daily bread andࢆ㈇ࡗࡓࡲࡲࡢ⨥ேࡣࠊṚᚋ⿢ࡁࢆཷࡅࠊỌ

forgive us our trespasses as we forgive㐲ࡢᴗⅆ࡟↝࠿ࢀỌ㐲ࡢṚࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟

those who trespass against us.  (BNC)

࡞ࡿ(Rev.21:8)ࠋ͂forgive someone his sin̓࡜ղ⚄௨እ࡬ࡢ㈇മ

࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ⚄ࡀࡑࡢ㈇മࢆᖒᾘࡋ࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊỌ㐲ࡢⱞࡋࡳࢆཷࡅࡎ࡟῭ࡴࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊ⚄ࡢ࠾ࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜ sin ࡣ⚄࡬ࡢ㈇മ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࢆ

࠿ࡆ࡛ࠊᑗ᮶⾜࠺࡭ࡁ㉢⨥ࢆࡏࡎ࡟ࡍࡴࡇ࡜

forgive ࡛ࡁࡿࡢࡣ⚄ࡢࡳࠊࡘࡲࡾ forgive ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕ⠇⣙ࠖࡢ save ࡜ྠᵝࠊZ ࡟࠶ࡓࡿࡣࠕ⚄࡬ࡢ㈇മࢆ⚄ࡀᖒᾘࡋ࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠖ

⨥㸦sin㸧⮬యࡀྲྀࡾཤࡽࢀࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸

࠶ࡾࠊ⨩ࢆཷࡅࡎ࡟ࡍࡴࡇ࡜ࡀ virtual benefitࡀࠊ㉢⨥࡜࠸࠺㈇മࢆᖒᾘࡋ࡟ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ

࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊ⌧ᅾࡣࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞᐀ᩍⓗ࡛࡞࠸ࡘࡲࡾࠊ⨩ࢆཷࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺୙ᛌ࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆࡏࡎ

ᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ forgive ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ࡟῭ࡴࡇ࡜࡛ࠊY ࡟ࡣࡑࡢศࡢᚓࡀ࠸ࡃࠋࡑ

ሙྜࠊ௚⪅࡟㏞ᝨࢆ࠿ࡅ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ㐣ࡢࡓࡵࠊ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡࡜▩┪ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ ࡕࡸ೉ࡾࡀ࠶ࡿࡅࢀ࡝ࡶ௚⪅࠿ࡽ㈐ࡵࡽࢀ
ࡎ࡟ࡍࡴࡇ࡜ࡀ virtual benefit ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ185

(12b)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ ͆Forgive me my ~͇ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㹼ࡋ

(11)
a.
b.
c.

Forgive us our debts as we also forgive࡚ࡶⰋ࠸࡛ࡋࡻ࠺࠿㸭ࡉࡏ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸

those that are indebted to us. (BNC)࠺ᙧࡢỴࡲࡗࡓ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㹼ࡋ࡚ࡶ࿶ࡵࡽ

If you forgive me my fault,¶ll forgive youࢀࡎ࡟῭ࡴࡇ࡜ࠊ㹼ࡋ࡚ࡶᐜ㉧ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ

yours.

virtual benefit ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ(WordBanks)

He can be forgiven his last three defeats -ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡸࡣࡾ forgive ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲

he was unsuited by the stiff track at⌧ࡣࠊY ࡀ virtual benefit ࢆᚓࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜

3RQWHIUDFW ODVW WLPH DQG GLGQ¶t stay six࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ୍㈏ࡋࡓㄝ᫂ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

furlongs on his two previous outings.
2.4. forgive ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡(Wordbanks)௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊforgive ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧ࡢ୰ᚰⓗព࿡ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾲ࡏࡿࠋ(11a)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᮏ᮶ࡣ X ࡟㏉ࡉࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸೉ࡾࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ(11b, c)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ X ࠿
ࡽ㈐ࡵࡽࢀ࡚↛ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ࠊ㈐ࡵࡽࢀ

(13) X forgives Y Z.

ࡿࡢࢆච㝖ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ virtual benefit ࡜࡞

=

ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ө Y comes to have gain.

X causes Y to avoid punishment for Z(sin).ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᐀ᩍⓗᩥ⬦࡛࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊY ࡀఱࡽ࠿ࡢᙧ࡛ᮏ᮶㈇࠺࡭ࡁ㈐ࢆච㝖ࡉࢀࡿ

forgive ࡣࠊ⚄࡬ࡢ㈇മ࡛࠶ࡿ sinࠊࡘࡲࡾࡇ࡜ࡀ virtual benefit ࡜࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡸࡣࡾ

ࠕᮏᙜࡣࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠖࠊ
ࠕࡢࡕ࡟ሗ࠸

forgive ࡣ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒࡢព࿡࡜▩┪ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࢆཷࡅࡡࡤ㸦㏉῭ࡏࡡࡤ㸧࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠖࡀ
ᮏ᮶୺࡞┠ⓗㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⌧ᅾ࡛ࡣཝᐦ࡟᐀ᩍ
ⓗᩍ⩏࡝࠾ࡾࡢព࿡࡛࡞࠸࡟ࡏࡼࠊ௒ࡶࡑࡢ

ճࠕ㈇മࠖࠕ㐣ࡕ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ

ᘏ㛗࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࡀ┠ⓗㄒ࡟⌧ࢀࡿࠋࡑ(12)ࡢࡓࡵࠊࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞࠸┠a. But nutrition ace Margot Brennan reckonsⓗㄒ࡜ࡣඹ㉳ࡋ࡙ࡽ࠸ࠋ

the star can be forgiven the bacon and eggs

Goldberg (1995)ࡣࠊ(14b)ࡀチࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊ

in the light of his healthy, organic,┠ⓗㄒ࡟⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿྡモࡀ⌧௦㢼࡛࠶ࡿ⾲

wheat-free choices the rest of the day.

⌧ࡔ࠿ࡽࡔ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡇࢀࡣࠊgoof(WordBanks)㸦㸦≉࡟୙ὀព࡟ࡼࡿ㸧࡬ࡲ㸧࡛ࡣࠊࠕᮏᙜࡣ

b. Miss Frost, forgive me my questionEXW,¶mࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠖࠊ
ࠕࡢࡕ࡟ሗ࠸ࢆཷࡅࡡ

intensely interested in Irish boarding houses.

ࡤ㸦㏉῭ࡏࡡࡤ㸧࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿ࡟

(WordBanks)ࡣ㍍ࡍࡂࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ୖグࡢ౛࡛ࡣ Y ࡀࡍ࡛࡟⨥ࢆ࠾࠿ࡋ࡚ࡋ

(14) a.

ࡲࡗࡓࡾ೉ࡾࡀ࠶ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ┤᥋┠ⓗ

She forgave him his sins.

b.?* She forgave him his goof.

ㄒࡀࠕ㈇മࠖࡸࠕ㐣ࡕࠖ࡜ࡣᤊ࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ
3. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟

ࡔࡀ(12a)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊthe bacon and eggsࢆ㣗࡭࡚ࡋࡲࡗ࡚ࡶ࿶ࡵࡽࢀࡎ࡟῭ࡴࡇ࡜ࠊ

forgive ࡣࠊ୍ぢ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥࡢ୰ᚰⓗពࡲࡓࡣ་⪅࠿ࡽ㣗࡭ࡿࡢࢆ⚗ࡌࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜

࿡࡛࠶ࡿࠕ୚࠼ࡿࠖ࡜ࡣ཯ᑐࡢࠕྲྀࡾཤࡿࠖ

ࢆචࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ virtual benefit ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡾࠊ౛እⓗ࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

186

ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊỴࡋ࡚༢࡞ࡿ౛እ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ ࠋ 㛫 ᥋┠ ⓗㄒ ࡛ ⾲ࡉ ࢀ ࡿ┦ ᡭ ࡟ virtual
benefit ࡀ⾜ࡁΏࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ஦ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊࡑ࠺ࡍ
ࢀࡤᵓᩥࡢព࿡࡜༑ศ࡟ᩚྜࡍࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Colleman, Timothy and Bernard De Clerck(2008) ³Accounting for Ditransitives with
Envy and Forgive´ Functions of Language
15, 187-215.
Colleman, Timothy and Bernard De Clerck(2011) ³Constructional Semantics on theMove: on Semantic Specialization in the
EnglishDoubleObjectConstruction´

Cognitive Linguistics 22, 183-209.
Goldberg, Adelle E. (1995) Constructions: A
Construction

GrammarApproachtoArgument Structure, Chicago, University of
Chicago Press.
ᒾ⏣ᙬᚿ (2012) ࠗⱥㄒࡢ௙⤌ࡳ࡜ᩥἲࡢ࠿
ࡽࡃࡾ̿ㄒᙡ࣭ᵓᩥ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ̿࠘ᮾி,
㛤ᣅ♫.
ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ
BNC: British National Corpus.
(http://bnc.jkn21.com/)
Wordbanks. (http://wordbanks.jkn21.com/)187

(2015b) argues that this correlation may notalways hold.
In this paper, I argue that the combinationof a syntactic Double o Constraint (DoC;
Hiraiwa 2010) and “the ban on extraction out of
nominal complements,” or “the ban on
extraction
fromdouble-phase
contexts(configurations)” (Bošković 2014a,b; 2015a,b)
can provide a possible solution for the issues I
brought up in my previous works (Yamaguchi
2015a,b,c).

A New Approach to the Mystery of theFactivity in Root Transformations *Maiko Yamaguchi
Osaka University (graduate student)
Keywords㸸DoC, double phase context, C-head
koto, C-head to

1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to provide a
possible explanation for the unresolved issues in
Yamaguchi (2015b) and the problems in using
correlation approaches (previous researchers’
accounts) in embedded Root Transformations(RTs) in Japanese.
It has been frequently argued that there is acorrelation between the factivity of theembedded clause and the availability of RTs in
English. It is a well-known fact that RTs, inparticular, are disallowed in the complement
clause of the factive predicate (1a). However,this correlation may not necessarily be sufficient,
as is evident from (1b).1

2. Fundamentals
In Yamaguchi (2015a), I consider aRaising-to-Object (RtO) construction as an
example of an RT, in that it involves
Topicalization at the very beginning of thederivation before reaching its landing site in thematrix clause. Throughout this paper, I willconsider RtO as a case of RT.
Let us start with the terms and their
theoretical backgrounds. I start with an
explanation of RtO.
(2)

RtO
a. * John-ga[Bill-ga orokanimo tensai-da
John-Nom[Bill-Nom stupidly-to]omot-teiru

Cthink-Prog‘Stupidly, John thinks that Bill is a genius.’b.

John-ga Bill-oi orokanimo[ ti
John-Nom Bill-Acci stupidly(1) a. * I regret the fact that each part he had to
examine carefully.
(Hooper and Thompson (1973: 479))*/okb. John regrets that this book, Mary read.
  (Maki et al. (1999: 3))

genius-Cop

tensai-da - to]omot-teiru.

genius-Cop-C]

think-Prog[ ti‘John thinks of Bill stupidly as a genius.’  (adapted from Tanaka 2002: 637-638)

Previous researchers maintain that, inJapanese, there is a correlation between thefactivity of the embedded clause and theselection of the C-head with respect to theavailability of embedded RTs. Yamaguchic. * [ti baka-da-to]jJohn-ga Bill-oi tj[ti fool-Cop-C]j

John-Nom Bill-Acci tj

omot-teiru.   think-Prog‘[ti as a fool]j, John thinks of Billi tj.’     (adapted from Tanaka (2002: 639))

188

Fernández and Miyagawa 2014), as in (5).

(2b) is a typical RtO construction. Elements that
undergo raising to the matrix clause areaccusative-marked. Here, Bill-o has been raised.
Comparing (2a) and (2b), we learn that Bill-NOM
is inside the embedded clause, since theinterjection of the high-adverb “stupidly” isungrammatical. The interjection of the same
adverb is appropriate in (2b).
(2c) is a
supporting evidence for the movement analysis
of RtO. This RtO construction is ill-formed due
to its violation of the proper binding condition.

(4) Miyagawa (2011) and Kuno (1973): C-headkoto takes presupposed complement;
C-headtotakes
non-presupposedcomplement.
(5) Jiménez-Fernández &Miyagawa (2014):
Factive Operator movement which
necessarily occurs in the presupposedcomplement disallows RT.
Keeping the above-mentioned correlations
in mind, let us observe (6); this case involves atypical factive verb, “regret,” for the matrix
predicate.

2.1 Essential Notions of the Correlation
Approaches and Associated Problems
Now, we will look at the essential notions
from the correlation analyses. As a starter, let us
look at (3). Miyagawa (2011) made aclassification on C-heads based on the verbal
classification of Hooper and Thompsons (1973).

(6)(3) Miyagwa’s (2011) Classification on C-headNon-factive:
Class A: say, report, claim… (to/koto)Class B: suppose, believe, think… (to/koto)Class C: be(un)likely, be(im)possible …(koto)
Factive:
Class D: resent, regret, besurprised … (koto)
Semi-Factive:
Class E: realize, see, find out,… (to/koto)(adapted from Miyagawa (2011: 19), andHooper and Thompsons (1973: 473-474))
AccordingtoMiyagawa(2011),
Topicalization in the embedded clause ispossible under Class A, B, and E verbs andimpossible under Class D (factive) verbs. I will
describe two other correlation approaches thatcan be disproved based on the issues that I point
out in them. One is a correlation between
C-head selection and factivity (Miyagawa 2011;
Kuno 1973), as in (4). The other is a correlation
between the factive operator movement and thefactivity in the embedded CP (Jiménez-

189

John-wa[sonotoki-no
zibun-noJohn-TOPthat time-GEN self-GEN
koudou-ga amarini-mo keisotu
actions-NOM altogether-too frivolous
dat-ta] to/koto-o koukai-site-iru.
COP-PAST COMP -ACC regret-do‘John regrets the actions of himself atthat time to have been altogether too
frivolous.’ (non-raised version)(adapted from Horn (2008:106))

We immediately notice that the complement cantake both the C-heads koto and to, in
contradiction to Miyagawa (2011).
Regarding the latter correlation approaches,
let us look at the examples consisting of a ClassE verb, “find out/spot,” for a matrix predicate.
(7)

John-wa [ Hanako-ga/-oJohn-TOP
Hanako-NOM/ACC
Amerikazin-da]
to minuita.
American-COP
C (found out)
John spotted that Hanako was an American.
(7)’# Actually, Hanako was a Japanese.
(Complement CP has factivity)(8)
John-wa [ Hanako-ga/*oHanako-NOM/ACC
John-TOPAmerikazin-dearu] koto-o minuita.
C -ACC (found out)
American-COP
John spotted that Hanako was an American.
(8)’#Actually, Hanako was a Japanese.
(Complement CP has factivity)

Along with DoC, (10) is inappropriate because
the accusative-marked elements are located in
the same Spell-Out domain; this approach seems
to be on the right track.
Indeed, the salvation strategies applied on
DoC-violation cases in Hiraiwa served to
improvethegrammaticalityoftheungrammatical sentence (8) to make itcompletely grammatical, consistently, as in (11)-(13).

In (7), the embedded clause is selected by theC-head to; in (8), it is selected by the C-head
koto. Both (7)’ and (8)’ serve to measure thepresence or absence of the presupposition in theembedded clauses in (7) and (8), respectively.
The pound signs on (7)’ and (8)’ indicate thatthe complement clauses are presuppositional inboth the C-heads koto and to. Therefore, (7) is
problematic as per Kuno and Miyagawa in thatthe correlation they put forth is not valid here. In
terms of the factive operator analysis, (7) is also
problematic in that the embedded factive CP
sanctions RT in (7).
However, at this point, the factive CP
selected by the C-head koto in (8) is puzzling.
From (7), we learned that the factive CP allows
RT. Then why is it not possible for (8) to obtainthe same grammaticality? To resolve this issue, I
apply Hiraiwa’s syntactic DoC, given in (9).

Salvation Strategies Applied on the Problematic
Example (8) (c.f. Hiraiwa 2010)(11) Scrambling
Hanako-oi John-wa [ tiHanako-ACC John-TOP
Amerikazin-dearu koto]-ominuita.
American-COP
C - ACC spotted.
John found out that Hanako was an
American.
(12)Accusative case suppression by the focus
sensitive particles
John-wa
Hanako-oJohn-TOP
Hanako-ACC
Amerikazin-dearu koto-sae/mo minuita.
American –COP
C-even/too
spottedJohn even found out that Hanako was an
American(13) It cleft
John-ga Amerikazin-dearu koto-oJohn-NOM American-COP
C-ACC
minuita-no-wa Hanako-odesu.
spotted-C-TOP
Hanako-ACC
COP
It is Hanako that John found out that (theperson) was an American(9) A Phase Theory of the DoC (The final
version): Multiple identical occurrences ofthe structural accusative Case value cannot
be morpho-phonologically realized within asingle Spell-Out domain at Transfer.
(Hiraiwa (2010:753))
Thus, (8) is derivationally allowed, but it isindependently filtered out by the strong DoC.
The structure is shown in (10).

3. Remaining Issue from my Previous
Account: Class D verb
We have hereto observed that an RtO
construction with the C-head koto version of aClass E predicate can be handled using DoC.
However, this cannot be directly extended to an
RtO construction with the C-head koto version

(10))

190

of a Class D predicate, as in (14); this is because
a Class D predicate resists the grammatical
upgrades when we apply salvation strategies on
the DoC-violation cases.2

-

(14)

John-wa sonotoki-no
zibun-noself-genJohn-top that time-gen
keisotukoudoui-o [ti amarini-mo
actions-acc altogether-too
frivolous
dat-ta]to/*koto-o koukai-site-iru
cop-past C-acc regret-do (RtO)
John regrets the actions of himself at thattime to have been altogether too frivolous.
(adapted from Horn (2008:106))-

moving element is not theta-marked by theNP.
Spec of NP is not given a theta-marking.
Double phase context: Nothing within the
YP is accessible from the XP. Extraction
is impossible.
(16) [XP=Phase [YP=Phase]] (Bošković (2015a:4)
Phase collapsing: Head movements canvoid phase-hood.

Unlike most popular approaches that consider
only vP and CP as phases, Bošković adopts acontextual view of phases in which he includes
NP, AP, and PP as well. The highest projectionsin the thematic domain and in the functional
domain can also be counted as phases. The othercrucial term to consider is “double-phase
context,” which is seen in (16). If a structure like(16) obtains, nothing can be extracted out of it.
Fortunately, this imperviousness can beovercome by “phase collapsing.” When a head
movement takes place in this structure, namely,
fromY-to-X, Bošković maintains that thearguments can be extracted.

We need to, therefore, provide a satisfactory
explanation for this state of affairs without using
correlation approaches. To do this, I claim that astrong constraint, similar to the Complex NP
Constraint (CNPC), is operative in this case.
4. Proposal
I assume that the solution to the problem
would be something like the ‘Ban on extraction
out of the complement of the nominal head’
proposed in Bošković (2014). I have adopted
key notions from Bošković’s works in (2014)
and (2015).
The relevant points are listed as in (15). The
underlined parts are particularly crucial to myanalysis.

4.1 A New Approach to the Problems
It is now appropriate to introduce my claim
consisting of two points.
(17) My Claims:- N is introduced on top of C, when C-headkoto is used.
- Phase collapsing presented in Bošković(2015a) is operaive in Japanese as well.

(15) Adopted Relevant Notions from Bošković(2014b),(2015a,b):- Every lexical phrase as well as functional
phrase is a phase.
- “the highest projection in the thematic
domain of every lexical head and thehighest projection in the non-thematic/
functional domain function as phases”(Bošković (2015a:4)- NP, AP, PP, are also Phases- NP is a phase for the moving element if theFirst, I assume that N is introduced on top of C
when the C-head koto is used for embedding.
Second, I argue that phase collapsing happens inJapanese; also, if the first claim is right, I canprovide supporting evidence for the second Japanese.
claim, that is, phase collapsing in
The first claim is supported by thefollowing claims in Boffemmeyer (2013), as in

191

(P-to-N), in Galician (D-to-V), and in
Setswana (N-to-D)(18).
(18) Boffemmeyer (2013):- Complement clause of koto is a special
case of Externally Headed Relative
Clauses.
- koto has lexical property and koto is alexical noun

As long as Bošković is right, as seen in (21),head movement between a functional head and alexical head is possible cross-linguistically.
Therefore, it may not be farfetched to assume
that there is a similar option in Japanese.
Now that we have covered the core of myproposal, let us apply my ideas to the concerned
problematic example.
First, if my claim is applied to the problematic
example of the RtO construction with a Class D
predicate like (14), we obtain a structure like
(22).

From (18), we see that complement clauses
behave as nouns and they have nominal
property.
Let us observe the actual examples.
(19) Case-marking
Sono koto owasuretathatfact ACC forget-PST
I forgot about that. (lit. I forgot that fact.)       (Boffenmeyer (2013: 127))(20) ‘it’ substitution
Yui-wa Yuuki-ga uwakina
Yui-TOP Yuuki-NOM capricious
seekaku-dearu koto-o minuiteiru.
disposition-is C-ACC discerned.
friends-TOO
it-ACC discerned.
tomodati-tati-mo sore-o minuiteiru.
‘Yui discerned that Yuuki has a capricious
disposition. Her friends discerned it, too.’(adapted from Abe (2009:75-76(2)))(22)
          NP
CP



N


[ ………….] Ckoto*RtO

Since what we get is a double-phase structure,
consisting of a CP and an NP, the RtO
construction is derivationally disallowed.
In contrast, in non-problematic cases, suchas the complement clause of the C-head toversions, we posit a structure like (23).

In (19), we see that case-marking is possible
with the C-head koto; incidentally, case-marking
is impossible with the C-head to. The second
instance demonstrates that the complement CP
can be substituted by it, as in (20); from this, it isclear that the complement CP selected by theC-head koto has a nominal property.
The final case (21) is potential supporting
evidence for my second claim. Due to the space
limitations, I have omitted examples.

(23)          VP
CP



RtO


V(non-phase head)[………….]  Cto

Since V is not a phase head, RtO can be applied
to this structure felicitously.
As for the koto CP of the Class E predicate
version, we will assume a story as (24).

(21) Bošković (2014b) and (2015a) present
cases of phase collapsing in English (C-to-P),

192

(24)
          NP
CP



RtO


N
[………….]

Ckoto

Remember that the salvation strategies for theClass E predicate types with the C-head kotoclause upgraded the sentence, but the same
strategies could not improve the Class D
predicate versions of it. This is because of phasecollapsing that occurs in Class E koto clauses.
This head movement essentially allows an RtO
construction, yet it is independently filtered out
by the syntactic DoC at a later stage.
Since the Class D predicate version could
not be improved upon by the salvation strategies,
its ungrammaticality should be attributed to thevery first stage of the derivation. Thus, an RtO
construction is disallowed in this case, mainly
due to its double-phase context.
However, note that there were some
informants who sensed grammatical upgradeswith the Class D predicate version as well. I
assume that this type of individual fluctuation ingrammaticality can be handled using (24).3
Before I conclude, I would like torecapitulate my hybrid proposal consisting of
DoC and phase collapsing of the double-phase
context. This approach can provide an
explanation for the ungrammaticality of RtO
constructions with the C-head koto.
The C-head koto version of an RtO
construction is ill-formed with both types ofpredicates. They share a double-phase context;
therefore, an RtO construction is derivationallyimpossible. However, a C-to-N movement
occurs within the Class E predicate. This C-to-N
movement sanctions the RtO construction
derivationally, but the ultimate output is
eventually filtered out as ungrammatical by the
DoC.

193

It is much simpler to explain thegrammatical version of an RtO construction with
the C-head to. Both the Class D and Class E
verbs do not constitute a double-phase context inthe first place; thus, there is no room for phasecollapsing. Since the C-head to is notaccusative-marked, the DoC does not apply tothe output either; therefore, the final output is agrammatical sentence.
5. Concluding Remarks
This paper tackled the unresolved issues ofcorrelation approaches and the problems withmy previous approach. The hybrid approach
discussed here, comprising the DoC and phasecollapsing of the double-phase context,
successfully
explainproblematic
RtO
constructions of the C-head koto version of bothClass E and Class D predicates. Subsequently,
acceptability fluctuations among individuals
could be explained based on the presence orabsence of phase collapsing.
Understanding why the Class E predicate
allows C-to-N movement while the Class D
predicate tends to reject it, is a task I must
undertake in a future study.
* This paper is based on a presentation I made at
Kansai Gaidai University. I would like to thankthe anonymous reviewers and the chair of mypresentation for their invaluable comments andsuggestions.
1

NOTES
According to Maki et al. (1999), it has beenreported that, in some dialects in English, RT isallowed in the complement of the factive
predicate as in (1b).
2

Incidentally, there are some informants who

perceived similar grammaticality upgrades in theClass D versions.
3

Though the reason is unclear, somehow, among

these informants, Class D and Class E predicate

and Pragmatics of Accusative: Quotative

versions seem to behave in a similar fashion.

Constructions

inJapanese,

Doctoraldissertation, The Ohio State University.

REFERENCES
Abe, Shinobu (2009) “Japanese Complement

Kuno, Susumu (1973) The Structure of the-izers To, Koto, and Canonical Structural

Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge,

Realization

MA.

of

Propositions,”

Kobe

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2011) “Agreements that

Yamate Daigaku Kiyoo (Journal of

Occur Mainly in the Main Clause,” ms.,

Kobeyamate University) 11, 75-87.

MIT.

Boffemmyer, Justin (2013) Attribution andJapanese,<http://web.mit.edu/miyagawa/www/pdfs/

Doctoral dissertation, the University at

Miyagawa%20Main%20Clause%20Agree

Buffalo, State University of New York.

ment%20V7.pdf>

ClausalNominalizationin

Bošković, Željko (2014a) “Now I’m a Phase,

Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. and Shigeru

Now I’m Not a Phase: On the Variability ofMiyagawa (2014) “A Feature-InheritancePhases with Extraction and Ellipsis,”

Approach

Linguistic Inquiry 45, 27-89.

Parametric Variation,”

to

Root

PhenomenaandLingua 145, 276-

302.

Bošković, Željko (2014b) “From the Complex

Yamaguchi,

NP Constraint to Everything: On Deep

Maiko(2015a)“A CaseofExtractions across Categories,” ms.,

Embedded Main Clause Properties in

University of Connecticut.

Japanese,”<http://web.uconn.edu/boskovic/ZeljkoLin

265-276.

Proceedings

of

KLS

35,

Yamaguchi, Maiko (2015b) “Is Factivity a RealgReviewFinalVersion.pdf>
Generalized XP Constraint from Phasal

Culprit in Disallowing the Root
Transformations in Japanese?” Poster

Spell-out,” ms., University of Connecticut.

presented at WAFL 11, University of York,<http://web.uconn.edu/boskovic/boskovic_

UK. June 6, 2015.

Bošković,Željko(2015a)“Deducingthe15_Deducing-the-.pdf >Yamaguchi, Maiko (2015c) “Some Consequence

Bošković, Željko (2015b) “Extraction fromfrom the Double Accusative Constraint inComplex NPs and Detachment,” ms.,

Raising

University of Connecticut.

Japanese,” Poster presented at SICOGG17,<http://web2.uconn.edu/boskovic/papers/E

Kyung Hee University, Korea. August 6,

xtractionfromComplexNPsVer1Short.pdf >2015.

Hiraiwa, Ken (2010) “Spelling Out the Double-oConstraint,” Natural

Language&

Linguistic Theory 28 (3), 723-770.
Hooper, Joan B. and Sandra A. Thompson(1973) “On the Applicability of Root
Transformations,” Linguistic Inquiry 4,
465-497.
Horn, Stephen Wright (2008) Syntax, Semantics,

194

to

ObjectConstructioninIn this paper, I will present a theoretical accountof NDPs, and propose that depictive predicatesare headed by a functional head that carries anuninterpretable feature as its complement. As for
On Nominal Depictive Predicates:

Agreement, I assume Reverse Agree (Zeijlstra

A View from Agreement*2012). If my proposal is correct, it will serve as
one argument in favor of Reverse Agree.
This paper is organized as follows. In section

Masashi Yamaguchi

2, I will show some data on NDPs. Section 3

Osaka University

presents my proposal and analysis, and section 4
provides the prediction of my proposal. Finally,
section 5 concludes the paper.

KeywordsSyntax, Depictive Predicates,
Reverse Agree

2. Data

In this section, we observe data on NDPs andsee their restrictions NDPs have, beginning withposition. The examples in (4) show that NDPs

1. Introduction
This paper focuses on the syntax of nominal

do not have to be pied-piped with a vP,

depictive predicate (NDP) constructions. Givensuggesting that they either are adjoined to a vP,

below in (1) is an example of this construction.1

or to a projection higher than vP, namely to TP.

(1) John arrived at the station [DP a happy man].

(4) a. [vP Submitted the book [DP a happy man]]John did.

It is assumed in the literature (Asada 2013) thatb. [vP Submitted the book] John did [DP aNDPs are compatible only with unaccusative

happy man].

verbs. However, the results of my informant
tests reveal that NDPs are also compatible with

Second, whether or not they are subject-oriented

transitive verbs and an unergative verbs. See (2).

or object-oriented, NDPs are incompatible withstative verbs. Observe (5).

(2) a. John submitted the book [DP a happy man ].
b. John ran to the station [DP a happy man ].

(5) a.*John knows Mary [DP a happy man].
b.*John knows Mary [DP a happy woman].

Interestingly, only subject-oriented NDPs are
acceptable. As shown in (3), objects of verbs

The examples in (5), which include the stativeand of prepositions cannot be predicated of byverb know and NDPs, are not acceptable.

NDPs.

showing that special treatment should be
provided when the verb is stative.

(3) a.*John submitted the book [DP a big mess].
b.*John ran to the station [DP a big mess].

195

b. Reverse Agree

3. ProposalXP

Before presenting a new analysis, I givesome assumptions employed in my proposal.
X[F]
3.1. AssumptionsFirst,

I

assume

that

NDPs

carry

an

YP
Y
[uF:_]

uninterpretable φ-feature that has to be valued
via Agree with their semantic subjects. One

The difference between the Chomskyan Agreepiece of evidence for the φ-feature is that NDPs

and Reverse Agree is the hierarchical relation

are required to Agree with their semantic subject,between a probe and a goal. Under theas shown in (6).

Chomskyan Agree, a probe needs to be higher
than a goal, while Reverse Agree requires a goal

(6) a. They left Cuba anarchists / *an anarchist.

to be higher than a probe.

b. John left the medical school a doctor /*doctors.

3.2. The Structure and the Analysis
Using the assumptions I presented in section(McNulty 1988: 167)

in 3.1, I propose the following structure for
NDPs.

For Agree operation, I assume Reverse Agree(Zeijstra 2012), which is defined in (7) and

DepP

(9)

schematized in (8).

Dep

(7) Reverse Agreeα Agrees β iff:

I argue that a functional head Dep constitute a(a) α carries at least one uninterpretablefeatureandβcarriesaDP[uφ:_]

matching

NDP and it takes a predicative DP as its

interpretable feature,complement. This phrase is adjoined to vP or TP.

(b) β c-commands α, andI claim that the functional head is in charge of(c) β is the closest goal to α.

the meaning of the depictive construction, which
requires the event described by the verb to(Zeijlstra 2012: 17)

temporarily overlap with the event described by(8) a. The Chomskyan Agreethe depictive predicate. For a concrete analysis

XPof the NDPs, observe (10).
YPX[uF:_](10) a. John arrived at the station [DP a happy

Y
[F]

man].
(cf. Chomsky 2000)

196

b.

vP

(12) a.

TP
AGREE
Johni
[φ] T

vP

vP

John
[φ]

vP

v

VP

DepP

v

VP Dep

Dep

DP

PP

VP

DepP

a happy man[uφ: ]

DPa happy man[uφ:_ ]

AGREE

ti

arrive

b.
c.

TP

TP
Johni
[φ]

AGREE

TP

TP

John
[φ]

TP

T

vP

DepP
Dep
vP

T

DepP

Dep

DP
AGREE

ti

DP

a happy man[uφ:_ ]

a happy man[uφ:_ ]The structure in (10b) illustrates the case where

In the structure in (12a), the DepP is adjoined to

the DepP is adjoined to vP. The matrix subject

vP, and the DP John Agrees with the NDP athehappy man from Spec, vP. The structure in (12b)unaccusative verb arrive, and raises to Spec, TP.

shows the case in which the DepP is adjoined to

In that position, the DP Agrees with the NDP a

TP, and that the NDP becomes valued via Agree

happy man, which is in DepP. As for thefrom the DP John.

DP

John

originallymergeswithstructure in (10c), the DepP is adjoined to TP.

The next issue is why the sentences withAs in the case of (10b), the NDP is valued via

object-oriented NDPs are ungrammatical. The

Agree with John, which is in Spec, TP.

relevant examples are provided in (3) andrepeated in (13) below.

Turning to the examples in (2), repeated herein (11), both examples can be accounted for with(13) a.*John submitted the book [DP a big mess].

the same analysis.

b.*John ran to the station [DP a big mess].
(11) a. John submitted the book [a happy man].
b. John ran to the station [a happy man].

I claim these examples are excluded because of
the failure of φ-feature Agreement. Observe thefollowing structure in (14).

197with NDPs.

(14) a. (=(13a))vP(16) a.*John knows Mary [DP a happy man].
vP

John

b.*John knows Mary [DP a happy woman].
Following Rapoport (1991), I argue that the

v

DepP

VP

failure of the license of an event argument
results in ungrammaticality. Rapoport adopts

DP DepV

DP

Kratzer’s

proposalthat

stage-level

predicates (SLPs) carry an event argument,a big mess[uφ:_ ]

the book[φ](1989)

while individual-level predicates (ILPs) do not,b. (=(13b))

and argue that the event argument licenses
vP

adjunct

predicates

including

depictive

predicates.
vP

John

(17) a. Ayala sold the book used.
b.*Ayala sold the book interesting.
v

DepP

VP
PP DepV
toDP(Rapoport 1991: 168)
DP

The verb sell, an activity verb, is considered to
be an SLP. The following example in (18)a big mess[uφ:_ ]

supports this claim.

the station[φ](18) a. John sold the book yesterday. (SLP)
b.*John knew Mary yesterday. (ILP)

Both of the structures in (14a) and (14b), theAn SLP describes a temporal stage of its subject,

DPs the book and the station cannot c-command,so it is compatible with temporal adverbs likethat is, Agree with the NDPs a big mess, so that

yesterday, as in (18a). On the other hand, an ILP

the φ-feature of the NDPs are left unvalued. Thisis true throughout the existence of an individual,

leads to the violation of the Principle of the Fulland temporal adverbs are incompatible with it,

Interpretation.

as in (18b). Therefore I conclude that sell carries
an event argument. As for the depictive(15) The Principle of the Full Interpretation

predicates in (17), used described the temporal

Every element must be legible at interfaces.

state, so it is an SLP and has an event argument,(Chomsky 1981)

while interesting is an ILP since it expresses aproperty of the individual. Rapoport argues that

I will next consider the reason why NDPs

in adjunct constructions, both of the matrix

are not compatible with stative verbs. Givenverbs and the secondary predicates are required

below in (16) are the examples of stative verbs

to carry event arguments to license the adjunct.

198

Both predicates employed in (17a) carry event

I have proposed that NDPs are headed by aarguments, so that the adjunct predicate isfunctional projection that takes a predicative DP

licensed. On the other hand, the adjunctaspredicate interesting in the example in (17b)

uninterpretable φ-feature that has to be valued

does not have an event argument. Therefore, theby the subject of the NDP via Agree.

predicate is not licensed, and the sentence is

Object-oriented

excluded. Rapoport claims that NP predicatesbecause the NDPs cannot be c-commanded by

are always ILPs from the following examples in

the object, and the uninterpretable φ-feature of(19).

the NDPs remain unvalued. As for the examples

its

complement.

NDPs

The

DP

are

carries

notanacceptablewith stative verbs, they are excluded because the(19) a.*Noa ate the meat a big piece.

event argument of the NDPs needs to beb.*Tal sold the tuxedos rags.

licensed by the event argument of the matrix

c.*Liat read the book a best-seller.

verb.
(ibid.)
4. Predictions

However, I claim that the examples are

My proposal predicts that the sentences with

ungrammatical because the NDPs employed theobject-oriented NDPs should be improved if theexamples are all object-oriented. I depart fromobjects raise to the position where they can

Rapoport in that respect, and argue that NDPs

c-command the NDPs. First, we consider theare SLPs and carry event arguments. Turningcase of passives, such as (22).

back to the examples with stative verbs in (18),the verb know is an SLP, so it does not have an(22) a.*John submitted the book [DP a big mess].

event argument. Therefore, the NDPs in (18) areb.?The book was submitted ti [DP a big

notlicensed,

which

leads

to

mess].

theungrammaticality. One piece of evidence for thisacount is that the sentence with a stative verb is

The

acceptable if the verb is an SLP. Observe (20).

grammaticality improves by passivization. The

example

in

(22b)

shows

that

the

structure of (22b) is illustrated in (23).
(20) John sat there a happy man.
(23)

TP

The verb sit describes the temporal state of anindividual,

so

that

temporaladverbs

can

vP

was

DPi

co-occur with it. See (21).
the book[φ](21) John sat on the chair yesterday.

vP

v

DepP
VP DepFrom the example in (21), we can conclude thatV

the verb sit is an SLP, which carries an eventtiDPa big messargument. Therefore, an NDP is compatible with
The object the book raises to Spec, TP, where it

the verb, as in (20).

199

can Agree with the NDP a big mess. Therefore,

5. Conclusion
I have argued that a functional projection

the passivization salvages the grammaticality ofheads an NDP by taking a predicative DP as its

the example in (22a).
ofcomplement. One property of the DP is that it

iscarries an uninterpretable φ-feature that has topredicted that like passivization, wh-extraction

be valued via Agree. I assumed Reverse Agree.

improves the grammaticality because the DP

The Chomskyan Agree cannot capture themoves to the sentence-initial position, where theagreement phenomenon I discussed in this paper.

DP seems to Agree with the NDP. See (24).

The Chomskyan Agree requires a probe to be

Second,we

wh-extraction.

focus

Under

on
my

the

case

proposal,ithigher than a goal. However, in my proposal, a(24) a.*John submitted the book [DPa big mess].

probe, which carries an uninterpretable feature,b.*Whati did John submit ti [DPa big mess]?

is inside DepP. The element that the probe
c-commands is the head Dep only, so that the

As shown in (24b), wh-extraction does not saveuninterpretable feature of the probe remains(24a). I argue that the wh-object cannot Agreeunvalued, which leads to the ungrammaticality.

with the NDP due to the intervention of theUnder Reverse Agree, the goal is required to be

subject DP. Observe the following structure inhigher than the probe. Therefore, it can capture(25).

this phenomenon. If my proposal is correct, it
will serve as one argument in favor of Reverse
Agree. I have not been clear how the behavior of

(25)
vP

adjectival depictive predicates are captured
under my proposal because unlike NDPs,

whati[φ] John[φ]sentences

vP

with

object-oriented

adjectival

depictive predicates are acceptable. I leave thisissue for future research.
DepP

vP

* I would like to express my gratitude to
v

Dep

VP

DP

Bernadette Denston and Sanjay Powell forcontributing to this study as informants. All thesubmitti

a big mess[uφ: _ ]deficiencies in this paper are of course mine.
NOTES

Reverse Agree requires the closest goal to1

c-command the probe. In the structure in (25),italicized, and their subjects are indicated in

the closest-goal for the relevant probe is theboldface.

In this paper, secondary predicates are

subject DP John, not the wh-object what, so thatwhat cannot Agree with the NDP. John can

REFERENCES

Agree with the NDP, but it is excluded

Asada, Yuko (2013) “Depictive Secondary

semantically since the sentence is interpreted as

Predication Revisited,” Proceedings of theJohn is a big mess.

Kansai Linguistic Society 33, 1-12.
Chomsky,

200

Noam

(1981)

LecturesonGovernment and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:
The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on
Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Haward
Lasnik

ed.

by

Roger

Martin,David

Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 1-52, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kratzer, Angelika (1989) “Stage-Level andIndividual-Level Predicates,” Papers on
Quantification,

ed.

by

Emmon

Bach,

Angelika Kratzer, and Barbara Partee, NSF
Report,

UniversityofMassachusetts,

Amherst.
McNulty, Elaine (1988) The Syntax of AdjunctPhrases, Doctoral dissertation, Universityof Connecticut.
Rapoport,

Tova(1991)“Adjunct-Predicate

Licensing and D-Structre,” ed. by Susan
Rothstein,

SyntaxandSemantics

25:

Perspectives on Phrase Structure, 159-187,
Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley.
Zeijlstra, Hedde (2012) “There Is Only One
Way to Agree,” The Linguistic Review 29.3,
491-539.



201୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࢆࠊA࡜ B ࡢ㐃⥆ⓗ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜほ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚␗㆟ࢆၐ࠼ࡿྰᐃ⾲⌧࡜࡜ࡽ࠼ࡓࡶࡢࡔ࡜ぢ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡣࠊ
ྰᐃ⾲⌧ࡢ≉ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹ㸫ࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡢ⏝౛ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟㸫ࠕྰㄆࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࠊྰᐃ⾲*⌧ࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ศ㢮ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃ

㸦A Study on the Features of Negativeࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ௚ࡢྰᐃ⾲⌧࡜ࡢẚ㍑

Expressions with Special Reference to᳨ドࡣ௒ࡲ࡛⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮

Tautology㸧ࡀྰᐃ⾲⌧ࡢ⠊␪ࡢ୰࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅ ࡽࢀࡿ ࡢ࠿᫂ ☜࡛ࡣ ࡞࠸ࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᒣᮏ ᑦᏊ㸦Naoko Yamamoto㸧

Wilson and Sperber (1992)ࡸ Carston (1996)ࡢ

ዉⰋ኱Ꮫ㸦Nara University㸧ࠕ࢚ࢥ࣮ⓗ㸦echoic㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࢆ⏝࠸࡞ࡀࡽࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮1 ࡜ࠊ࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮2ࠊ࣓ࢱゝ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ, ྰᐃ⾲⌧, ࢺ࣮ࢺㄒྰᐃࢆẚ㍑᳨ウࡋࠊྰᐃ⾲⌧ࡢ⠊␪࡟࠾ࡅࣟࢪ࣮ࡿࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

2. ྰㄆࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ⾲⌧ ࠕྰᐃࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡣࠊnegation ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊලయⓗ࡞⪃ᐹ࡟ධࡿ๓ẁ㝵࡜ࡋࡶࡢ࡜ denial ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡟኱ูࡍࡿࡇ

࡚ࠊẚ㍑᳨ウࢆ⾜࠺ 3 ࡘࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡀࠊྰㄆ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ๓⪅ࡣࠊព࿡ㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᴫᛕ࡛

ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࠊྰᐃ⾲⌧ࡢ⠊␪࠶ࡾࠊྰᐃ㎡ࡢᣢࡘാࡁࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊᩥࡢ┿⌮࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࠋ್ࢆ཯ᑐ࡟ࡍࡿാࡁࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᣦࡍࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐ ࡲࡎࠊ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡢ౛ࢆぢࡋ࡚ࠊᚋ⪅ࡣࠊⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᴫᛕ࡛

࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ࠶ࡾࠊྰᐃ㎡ not ࡢ᭷↓࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊఱ࠿
㸦඾ᆺⓗ࡞౛࡛ࡣࠊඛ⾜Ⓨヰ㸧࡟␗㆟ࢆၐ࠼(1)㹙Langton ࡣࠊࣃ࢖ࣟࢵࢺ࡟࣊ࣜࢥࣉࢱ࣮

ࡿാࡁࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᣦࡍࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ാࡁࡣࠊ୍

ࢆ᧯⦪ࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊമๆࢆΏࡑ࠺࡜ࡋ

⯡ⓗ࡟ࠕྰㄆࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋⓎヰ≧ἣ࡟࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㹛ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊྰᐃ㎡ not ࡀకࢃࢀࡿྰᐃᩥࡔࡅ

(Langton says) ³It¶s the same as cash.´࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊྰᐃ㎡ not ࡀకࢃࢀ࡞࠸⫯ᐃᩥࡶࠊ³Only cash is cash,´ the pilot said, handingࡑࡢᩥࡀఱ࠿࡟␗㆟ࢆၐ࠼ࡿാࡁࢆࡋ࡚࠸

the bond back.

ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊྰㄆࡢᶵ

(Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Codeࠊᣓᘼෆࡣ

⬟ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࠊࠕྰᐃ⾲⌧ࠖ࡜࡜ࡽᘬ⏝⪅࡟ࡼࡿ)࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮◊✲ࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊࡇࡢࠕྰㄆࡢ

ࡇࢀࡣࠊࠗࢲࣦ࢕ࣥࢳ࣭ࢥ࣮ࢻ࠘࡜࠸࠺ᑠㄝ

ᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࢆ

࠿ࡽࡢᘬ⏝࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୺ேබࡢ Langton ࡣࠊࣃ࡜ࡽ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ◊✲ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ ࢖ࣟࢵࢺ࡟࣊ࣜࢥࣉࢱ࣮ࢆ᧯⦪ࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ
୰ᮧ (2000)ࡣࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࠕA ࡣ A ࡛࠶࡟ࠊ⌧㔠࡜ྠࡌࡶࡢࡔ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࠊമๆࢆΏࡑ

ࡿࠖࡣࠊ2 ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜA ࡜ B ࡢ㐃⥆ⓗ࢝࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡀࠊࣃ࢖ࣟࢵࢺࡣࠊࡑࡢമๆࡣഇ≀ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜほࢆྰᐃࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜

ࡔ࡜ᛮ࠸ࠊLangton ࡟㏉ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋࡇࡢࡼ

202

࠺࡞ሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊcash is cash ࡜࠸࠺ࣃ࢖ࣟ

ྰᐃ࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᴫほࡍࡿࠋࢵࢺࡢⓎヰࡣࠊമๆࡣ⌧㔠࡜ྠࡌࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ ࡲࡎࠊ࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡛࠶ࡿࠋWilson

Langton ࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚␗㆟ࢆၐ࠼ࡿᶵ⬟ࢆ

and Sperber (1992)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮ࡣࠊ

ᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ࢚ࢥ࣮ⓗゎ㔘⏝ἲࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭ௨እ ḟ࡟ࠊ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡛ࡣࠊStill theࡢேࡢⓎヰࡸ⪃࠼ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊᖐᒓⓗ࡞Ⓨヰࡸbest ࡜࠸࠺ Mary ࡢⓎヰࡣࠊ࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮࡜ゎᛮ⪃ࢆ㒊ศⓗ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ඲యⓗ࡟⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࠊࡑ㔘ࡉࢀࠊMary ࡀྂ࠸ḷࡣ௒࡛ࡶ᭱㧗ࡔ࡜⪃ࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢ஋㞳ⓗ࡞ែᗘࢆఏ㐩ࡍ࠼ࡿ Peter ࡢពぢࢆཷࡅධࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ

ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(4)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࢆぢ࡚ࡳ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡼ࠺ࠋ(2) Peter: Ah, the old songs are still the best.

(4) Peter: Ah, the old songs are still the best.

Mary: (contemptuously) Still the best!

Mary: (contemptuously) Still the best! (= (2))(Wilson and Sperber (1992: 59))
Mary ࡀ㍍⶜ⓗ࡞ཱྀㄪ࡛Ⓨࡋࡓ Still the best ࡜ࡲࡓࠊ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿ(3)࡛ࡣࠊ

࠸࠺ⓎヰࡣࠊPeter ࡢ the old songs are still the㸦࠾ࡑࡽࡃ㸧⪺ࡁᡭࡢ tom[eiDouz]࡜࠸࠺Ⓨ

best ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰࢆ㒊ศⓗ࡟⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࠊ⮬ศࡢ㡢ࡸ get stressed out ࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒ౑⏝ᇦ࡟ᑐࡋ⪃࠼ࡣ Peter ࡢ⪃࠼࡜ࡣ㐪࠺࡜࠸࠺ࠊヰࡋᡭ࡚ࠊࡑ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࠊ␗㆟ࢆၐ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃Mary ࡢែᗘࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ

࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࢝ࣝ࡞Ⓨヰࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ௨እࡢே࡟ࡼ
ࡿඖࡢⓎヰࡸ⪃࠼ࢆ㒊ศⓗ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ඲యⓗ࡟⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ஋㞳ⓗ࡞ែᗘ(3) Around here we don¶t eat tom[eiDouz] andwe don¶t get stressed out. We eat tom[a:touz]ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿ࡜≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ

and we get a little tense now and then.

 ḟ࡟ࠊ ࣓ࢱゝ ㄒྰᐃ ࡟ࡘ࠸ ࡚࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
Carston (1996)ࡣࠊ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃࡢ၏୍ࡢᮏ㉁(Carston (1996: 320))ⓗ≉ᛶࡣࠊnot ࡢస⏝ᇦ࡟ධࡿせ⣲ࡀࠊSperber ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࠊ࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮ࠊ

and Wilson (1986)ࡸ Wilson and Sperber (1988,࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃࡣࠊྰᐃ㎡ not ࡢ᭷↓࡟࠿࠿ࢃ1992)ࡢព࿡࡛ࠊ࢚ࢥ࣮ⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ

ࡽࡎࠊఱ࠿࡟␗㆟ࢆၐ࠼ࡿാࡁࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊWilson (2000)

ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽ 3 ࡘࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡣࠊྰㄆ

ࡣࠊCarston (1996)ࡢศᯒࢆᨭᣢࡋࠊ࣓ࢱゝㄒࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࠊྰᐃ⾲⌧ࡢ⠊␪

ྰᐃ 3 ࡣࠊᖐᒓⓗ࡞Ⓨヰࡸᛮ⪃ࡢఱࡽ࠿ࡢഃ

࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

㠃ࢆᣄ⤯ࡍࡿാࡁࢆᣢࡕࠊ࢚ࢥ࣮ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

3. ࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮ࠊ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃ࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲(5) Around here we don¶t eat tom[eiDouz] and ๓⠇࡛ࡣࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ᢅ࠺ 3 ࡘࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡀ

we don¶t get stressed out. We eat tom[a:touz]ྰᐃ⾲⌧ࡢ⠊␪࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓ

and we get a little tense now and then. (= (3))ࡀࠊྰㄆ࡜࠸࠺ᶵ⬟ࡣࠊゝㄒ౑⏝ࡢሙ࡟࠾ࡅ
ࡿാࡁࡢ୍ࡘ࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(5)ࡢヰࡋᡭࡣࠊtom[eiDouz]࡛እ⏺

⌮ㄽⓗ⫼ᬒ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ⪃ᐹࢆ῝ࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ㛵࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿఱࡽ࠿ࡢ≀యࢆᣦࡍࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗ

㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓ࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮࡜࣓ࢱゝㄒࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊget stressed out ࡛࠶203ࡿ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡶ

ᐃ⩏࡙ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡞࠸ࠋヰࡋᡭࡣࠊtomato ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡢ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝
ᘧⓎ㡢࡜ get stressed out ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡢゝㄒ౑

(7)

In

any

genuinely

linguistic

act

of

⏝ᇦࢆゞṇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊⓎ

communication, an utterance is used toヰࡸゝㄒ౑⏝ᇦࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒⓗせ⣲ࢆ⧞ࡾ

UHSUHVHQW D WKRXJKW RI WKH VSHDNHU¶V WKDW LW

㏉ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽ࡟ᑐࡍࡿែᗘ㸦ලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ␗resembles in content (Sperber and Wilson㆟ࡸᣄ⤯࡜࠸ࡗࡓែᗘ㸧ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼

1995: chapter 4, section 7). In ordinaryࡽࢀࡿࠋ

descriptive uses of language, this thought is ୍ぢࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࢀࡽ 2 ࡘࡢゝㄒ⌧㇟࡟ࡣࡲ

about an actual or possible state of affairs. In

ࡗࡓࡃඹ㏻Ⅼࡀ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡔࡀࠊ

attributive uses, it is not directly about a state

Wilson (2000)ࡢศᯒ࡟ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮࡜

of affairs, but about another thought that it࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃࡣ࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ࢚ࢥ࣮ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸

resembles in content, which the speaker

࠺ඹ㏻Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ࢚ࢥ࣮≉ᛶࢆṇ☜

attributes to some source other than herself at࡟⌮ゎࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᐃ⩏࡙ࡅࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡁ

the current time.

ࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡎࠊWilson and Sperber (1992)ࡣࠊ
ࠕ࢚(Wilson and Sperber (2012: 128)ࠊୗ⥺ࡣᘬ

ࢥ࣮Ⓨヰ㸦echoic utterance㸧ࠖࢆ(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟

⏝⪅࡟ࡼࡿ)

ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡼࡾ⡆₩࡟ゝ࠺࡜ࠊᖐᒓⓗ⏝ἲ࡜ࡣࠊⓎヰࡀࠊ(6) [I]ndirect quotation may be used for twoⓎヰ᫬Ⅼࡢヰࡋᡭ௨እࡢㄡ࠿ࡢⓎヰࡸᛮ⪃rather different purposes ± we called themࢆࡑࢀ࡜ព࿡ෆᐜࡢ㢮ఝࡋࡓูࡢ⾲⌧࡛⾲

reporting and echoing. A report of speech or♧ࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

thought merely gives information about the
FRQWHQWRIWKHRULJLQDO«$Qechoic utterance

4. ศᯒ

VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ H[SUHVVHV WKH VSHDNHU¶Vࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡣࠊᵝࠎ࡞❧ሙ

attitude or reaction to what was said or࠿ࡽᵝࠎ࡞ศᯒࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⤫୍ⓗ࡞≉WKRXJKW«ᚩ࡙ࡅࡀᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊ࠸ࡃ

(Wilson and Sperber (1992: 59)ࠊୗ⥺ࡣᘬ⏝ࡘ࠿ࡢศᯒ࠿ࡽࠊ㸺ࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡣྰᐃⓗ࡞⪅࡟ࡼࡿ)≉ᛶࢆᣢࡘ㸼࡜࠸࠺ඹ㏻㡯ࢆぢฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ
࡛ࡁࡿࠋ㸦e.g. Grice (1989); Wierzbicka (1987);

せࡍࡿ࡟ࠊⓎヰࡸᛮ⪃ࡢᘬ⏝㸦report㸧࡜ࡣࠊ

Fraser (1988); ୰ᮧ (2000)㸧4 ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࢺ࣮ඖ࡟࡞ࡿⓎヰࡸᛮ⪃࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࢆ୚࠼ࡿ

ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡀᣢࡘ࡜ࡉࢀࡿྰᐃ≉ᛶࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿

ࡔࡅࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ࢚ࢥ࣮Ⓨヰ࡜ࡣࠊ࡟ࡍࡿࠋඖ࡟࡞ࡿⓎヰࡸᛮ⪃࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࢆ୚࠼ࡿ ࡲࡎࡣࠊ(8)࡜(9)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ

࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࡸ཯ᛂ
(8)㹙Langton ࡣࠊࣃ࢖ࣟࢵࢺ࡟࣊ࣜࢥࣉࢱ࣮

ࢆࡶ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࢆ᧯⦪ࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊമๆࢆΏࡑ࠺࡜ࡋ

ࡇࡇ࡛ゝ࠺ࠕඖ࡟࡞ࡿⓎヰࡸᛮ⪃ࠖࡣࠊ࠾࠾ࡊࡗࡥ࡟ゝ࠼ࡤࠊࠕヰࡋᡭ௨እࡢㄡ࠿ࡢⓎ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㹛ヰࡸᛮ⪃ࠖࢆᣦࡍࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢࡶࡢࡀ㛵ࢃࡿ

(Langton says) ³It¶s the same as cash.´⏝ἲࢆࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛ࡣࠊࠕᖐᒓⓗ³Only cash is cash,´ the pilot said, handing⏝ἲ㸦attributive use㸧ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ(7)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟

the bond back.

204(= (1))

(9) 㹙 ẕ ぶ ࡣ ࠊ ⁒ ឡ ࡍ ࡿ ᜥ Ꮚ ࡀ ፧ ⣙ ⪅ ࡢ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ

Samantha ࡢゝ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡋ࠿⪺࠿࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚

␒⤌ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ࡟⟅࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㹛ࡋࡲࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࠊᙼࡽࡢ፧⣙ࢆ◚ㄯ࡟ࡍࡿ&KHUL %UXVK +H¶V WDNLQJ D ORW RI ULEELQJ࡜ゝ࠸ᙇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㹛from the guys in the neighborhood. I

Mother: This marriage is off!

ZLOO WHOO \RX WKH\¶UH calling him Larry

Son: No, this marriage is not off.

Poppins.
'DQ+DUULV$QGGR\RX«\RXGRQ¶WFDUH

Samantha: What?
Son0RWKHU,¶YHEHHQWKLQNLQJODWHO\when you hear that?

Mother <RX VKRXOGQ¶W WKLQN WRR PXFK ,W

/DUU\ %UXVK $ MRE LV D MRE , GRQ¶W FDUH
DERXW LW \RX NQRZ <RX NQRZ ¶FX]

makes you bald.
Son,¶YHEHHQWKLQNLQJA deal is a deal. ,¶PQRWKLQJ « IHPDOHPDOH ,W GRHVQ¶W
PDWWHU,W¶VZRUN

going to marry Samantha.
Mother: Just come home with me, and I(ABC World News, May 4, 2009)

ZRQ¶WHYHUWHOO\RXZKDWWRGRDJDLQ

(11)㹙〇⸆఍♫ࡢ♫㛗࡜ࡑࡢጔࡣࠊ⮬♫〇ရࡢᐉఏෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㹛(Bewitched, Episode 139)

Husband<RX¶UHRXWRI\RXUPLQG
(8)࡛ࡣࠊLangton ࡣࠊ࣊ࣜࢥࣉࢱ࣮᧯⦪ࡢሗ

Wife3RVVLEO\%XW,¶PDOVRWKHVWRFNKROGHU㓘࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࣃ࢖ࣟࢵࢺ࡟⌧㔠࡜ྠ➼ࡢ౯್ࡢin the Hascomb Drug Company. You

࠶ࡿമๆࢆΏࡑ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࣃ࢖

gave me that gift yourself, you know,ࣟࢵࢺࡣࠊΏࡉࢀࡓമๆࢆ୙ᑂ࡟ᛮ࠸ࠊࡍࡄ

darling?

࡟ Langton ࡟✺ࡁ㏉ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞

Husband7KDWZDVQ¶WDJLIW7KDWZDVDWD[ሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊLangton ࡣࠊᙜヱമๆࡣࠊ⌧dodge.

㔠࡜ྠࡌࡔ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊࣃ࢖ࣟࢵࢺ

Wife: Well, no matter. Fifty-one percent isࡣࠊcash is cash ࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᙜヱമๆࡣࠊ

51%.5 And I say we take the Hascomb⌧㔠࡜ྠࡌ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚

image out of mothballs.

࠸ࡿࠋ (9)࡛ࡣࠊẕぶࡣࠊ⁒ឡࡍࡿᜥᏊ࡜

(Bewitched, Episode 141)

Samantha ࡢ፧⣙ࢆ຾ᡭ࡟Ỵࡵ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡀࠊ
ࡑࡢᚋࠊᜥᏊࡣࠊ፧⣙⪅࡛࠶ࡿ Samantha ࡢ(10)࡛ࡣࠊLarry ࡢ㏆㞄ఫẸࢆྵࡵࡓ୍⯡ࡢゝ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡋ࠿⪺࠿࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋࡑࡢࡼ

ேࠎࡣࠊ⏨ᛶ┳ㆤᖌ࡜࠸࠺⫋ᴗࡀࠊ⏨ዪࡢఏ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡟ᅔࡾᯝ࡚ࡓẕぶࡣࠊ፧⣙ࢆྲྀࡾṆ⤫ ⓗ࡞⫋ ᴗศᢸ ࠿ࡽ㐓 ⬺ࡋ࡚ ࠸ࡿ ࡓࡵࠊࡵࡿ࡜ᐉゝࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙ㠃࡛ࠊẕぶࡣࠊ

Larry ࢆ࠿ࡽ࠿࠸ࠊ➗࠸ࡶࡢ࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇ

ࡇࡢ፧⣙ࡣ↓ຠࡔ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ

ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠊ㏆㞄ఫẸࢆྵࡵࡓ୍⯡ࡢ

ᜥᏊࡣࠊA deal is a deal ࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡇࡢ

ேࠎࡣࠊ┳ㆤᖌ࡜࠸࠺⫋ᴗࡣࠊዪᛶࡔࡅࡢࡶ

፧⣙ࡣ↓ຠ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚ࡢࡔ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ

࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࠊ⪺ࡁ

࡚ࠊLarry ࡣࠊA job is a job ࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ┳ᡭࡀゝࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋ࡚␗㆟ࢆၐ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ

ㆤᖌ࡜࠸࠺⫋ᴗࡣࠊዪᛶࡔࡅࡢࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸

࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊඛ࡟♧ࡋࡓ୍⯡ ḟ࡟ࠊ(10)࡜(11)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ

ⓗ࡞ேࠎࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࢆᣄ⤯ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(11)ࡣࠊ⮬♫〇ရࡢᐉఏෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿኵ፬ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋኵࡣࠊ

(10)㹙┳ㆤᖌ࡜ࡋ࡚ാࡃ Larry ࡣࠊጔࡢ Cheri205

〇ရࡢᐉఏࢆᒎ㛤ࡍࡿ᪉ྥᛶ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊಖᏲⓗ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࡀゝ࠼ࡿࠋ࡞㊰⥺ࢆዲࡴࡀࠊጔࡣࠊⱝ⪅ࡀዲࡳࡑ࠺࡞኱ ➨୍࡟ࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡣࠊᖐᒓⓗ࡞ᛮ⪃ࡢ⫹࡞㊰⥺࡛㐍ࡵࡿ࡭ࡁࡔ࡜ពぢࢆࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ

ᴫᛕෆᐜࢆྰᐃᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶

࠾஫࠸࡟୍Ṍࡶㆡࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࡲࡗࡓࡃ

ࡿࠋCarston (2002)6 ࡢศᯒ࡟ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ࣓ࢱゝ⪺ࡃ⪥ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ኵ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊጔࡣࠊ⮬♫ᰴㄒྰᐃࡣࠊඛ࡟ゐࢀࡓ(5)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊⓎ㡢ࡸࡢᡤ᭷⋡ࡢヰࢆࡍࡿࡀࠊኵࡣࠊࡓࡔࡢ⛯㔠ᑐゝㄒ౑⏝ᇦ࡜࠸ࡗࡓゝㄒᙧᘧ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢ⟇ࡔ࡜ゝ࠸㏉ࡍࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙ㠃࡛ࠊኵࡣࠊ

࡜࿨㢟ෆᐜ㸦㸻┿⌮᮲௳㸧࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢࢆྰ

ጔࡢᰴᡤ᭷ࡣ↓ຊࡔ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊጔ

ᐃᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮

ࡣࠊFifty-one percent is 51%࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ⮬࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ྰᐃࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡣࠊⓎヰ᫬Ⅼࡢヰࡋ

㌟ࡢᰴᡤ᭷ࡣࠊ↓ຊ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ

ᡭ௨እࡢㄡ࠿࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿᛮ⪃ࡢᴫᛕෆᐜ࡛

㐩ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᙜヱⓎヰࡣࠊኵࡀ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ

࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(9)࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡛࠶ࡿẕぶ࡜࡟ᑐࡋ࡚␗㆟ࢆၐ࠼ࡿᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸

࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿᛮ⪃ࡢᴫᛕෆᐜࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊࠕࡇࡢ

ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

፧⣙ࡣ↓ຠࡔࠖࡀྰᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(11) ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ(12)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ

࡛ࡣࠊLarry ࡢ㏆㞄ఫẸࢆྵࡵࡓ୍⯡ࡢேࠎ࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿᛮ⪃ࡢᴫᛕෆᐜࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊࠕ┳ㆤᖌ࡜࠸࠺⫋ᴗࡣࠊዪᛶࡔࡅࡢࡶࡢࡔࠖ࡜࠸ࡗ

(12)㹙࠶ࡿዪᛶࡣࠊࡺ࡛ࡓࣟࣈࢫࢱ࣮ࢆ୸ࡈ
࡜ࡈ㥅㉮࡟࡞ࡗࡓヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㹛ࡓఏ⤫ⓗ࡞௙஦ほࡀྰᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

Janet and Mike were really generous; they ➨஧࡟ࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡣࠊⓎヰ᫬Ⅼࡢヰࡋ

treated us to an elaborate dinner. I had aᡭ௨እࡢㄡ࠿࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿᛮ⪃࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋ

ERLOHG OREVWHU « ,¶G QHYHU KDG P\ IRRG

ᡭࡢែᗘࢆ⾲ࡋࠊࡑࡢែᗘࡣࠊ␗㆟࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ

ORRN DW PH EHIRUH , ZDV JRLQJ WR HDW « ,Wᣄ⤯࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(8)was quite intimidating. However, food is࡛ࡣࠊࣃ࢖ࣟࢵࢺࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ Langton

food, and eventually I figured out how to࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿࠊᙜヱᩥ⬦࡛ၥ㢟࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿമ

eat the little guy.

ๆ࡟㛵ࡍࡿពぢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࡑ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠊ࡜
㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(12)࡛ࡣࠊfood is food ࡜(ஂ㔝࣭㧗ぢ (2004: 5-6))ⓎࡍࡿዪᛶࡣࠊⓎヰ᫬Ⅼࡼࡾࡶ๓ࡢᙼዪ⮬㌟
ࡇࡢ౛ࡣࠊࡺ࡛ࡓࣟࣈࢫࢱ࣮ࢆ୸ࡈ࡜ࡈ㥅㉮࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿࠊᙜヱᩥ⬦࡛ၥ㢟࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࣟ

࡟࡞ࡗࡓዪᛶࡀࠊ௒ࡲ࡛㣗࡭ࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ

ࣈࢫࢱ࣮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⪃࠼ࢆᣄ⤯ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡓ

ࡀࠊ⮬ศࢆࡌࡗ࡜࡟ࡽࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⤒㦂ࢆࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡣࠊⓎヰ᫬Ⅼࡢヰࡋᡭࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࠊᡞᝨࡗࡓࡀࠊ᭱ᚋ

௨እࡢㄡ࠿࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿᛮ⪃࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡣ㣗࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓ࡜࠸࠺⤒㦂ࢆㄒࡗࡢែᗘࢆ⾲ࡋࠊࡑࡢែᗘࡣࠊ␗㆟ࡸᣄ⤯࡛࠶ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ

ࡿ࡜≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ

food is food ࡜Ⓨヰࡍࡿዪᛶࡣࠊ௨๓ࡣࠊ┠ࡢ ➨୕࡟ࠊඛ࡯࡝ゐࢀࡓ➨஧ࡢⅬ࠿ࡽᚲ↛ⓗ๓࡟࠶ࡿࣟࣈࢫࢱ࣮ࡣࠊ⏕ࡁ≀ࡔ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸࡟ᑟࡁฟࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡔࡀࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡢゎࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊⓎヰ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡣࠊfood is food㔘࡟ࡣࠊᖐᒓⓗ࡞ᛮ⪃࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘ

࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ┠ࡢ๓࡟࠶ࡿࣟࣈࢫࢱ࣮ࡣࠊ

ࡀ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ

⏕ࡁ≀࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ

(9)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕࡇࡢ፧⣙ࡣ↓ຠࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᛮ⪃ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡀࠊ௨๓⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆᣄ⤯ࡋẕぶ࡟ᖐᒓࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭ࡛࠶ࡿᜥᏊࡣࠊ

࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

A deal is a deal ࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡑࡢᛮ⪃࡟ᑐ ୖグ(8)-(12)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ලయ౛ࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ㋃ࡲ

ࡍࡿែᗘࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊ(11)࡛ࡣࠊ

206

ࠕጔࡢᰴᡤ᭷ࡣ↓ຊࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᛮ⪃ࡣࠊኵ࡟ゝ࠼ࡤࠊ☜࠿࡟ࠊㄡ࠿ࡀゝࡗࡓ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ⪃࠼ᖐᒓࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭ࡛࠶ࡿጔࡣࠊFifty-oneࡓࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡍࡿែᗘࡣ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊⓎヰࡑ

percent is 51%࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡑࡢᛮ⪃࡟ᑐࡍࡢࡶࡢࡣࠊࡑࡢඖ࡟࡞ࡿⓎヰࡸᛮ⪃ࢆ㒊ศⓗࡿែᗘࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(12)࡛ࡣࠊࠕ┠ࡢ๓࡟࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ඲యⓗ࡟㏙࡭ࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ

࡟࠶ࡿࣟࣈࢫࢱ࣮ࡣࠊ⏕ࡁ≀ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᛮ⪃ࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮Ⓨヰࡑࡢࡶࡢࡣࠊ

ࡣࠊ㐣ཤࡢヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟࡟ᖐᒓࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊⓎヰ

Wilson and Sperber (1992)ࡢព࿡࡛ࠊ࢚ࢥ࣮Ⓨ᫬Ⅼࡢヰࡋᡭࡣࠊfood is food ࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ

ヰ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢᛮ⪃࡟ᑐࡍࡿ௨๓࡜ࡣูࡢែᗘࢆఏ㐩 ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ⪃ᐹ࠿ࡽࠊ(i) ࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡢ

ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྰᐃᑐ㇟ࡣࠊᖐᒓⓗ࡞ᛮ⪃ࡢᴫᛕෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ ௨ୖࠊ(8)-(12)ࡢ⪃ᐹ࠿ࡽゝ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙

ࡑࢀࡣࠊ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃࡢྰᐃᑐ㇟࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ

࡭࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊ≉࡟ࠊ➨஧࡜➨୕ࡢ⪃ᐹ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡇ࡜ࠊ(ii) ࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡣࠊⓎヰ᫬Ⅼࡢヰࡋࡽࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡣࠊ࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮ࡸ࣓ࢱゝㄒᡭ௨እࡢㄡ࠿࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿᛮ⪃࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋྰᐃ࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࢚ࢥ࣮Ⓨヰ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂

ᡭࡢែᗘࢆ⾲ࡋࠊࡑࡢែᗘࡣࠊ␗㆟࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊ஦ᐇࡣࡑ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞

ᣄ⤯࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ(iii) ࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡢゎ㔘࡟࠸ࠋࡣࠊᖐᒓⓗ࡞ᛮ⪃࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࡀ㛵 ࡲࡎࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡀᖐᒓⓗ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿

ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ(iv) ࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮Ⓨヰࡑࡢ࡝࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࠿ࡽ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ(7)࡛

ࡶࡢࡣࠊ࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮ࠊ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃ࡜ࡣ␗࡞

☜ㄆࡋࡓ Wilson and Sperber (2012)ࡢᐃ⩏࡟ࡾࠊ࢚ࢥ࣮Ⓨヰ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞

ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ࠶ࡿⓎヰࡀᖐᒓⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜

ࡗࡓࠋ

ࡣࠊࡑࡢⓎヰࡀࠊඖ࡟࡞ࡿⓎヰࡸᛮ⪃ࡢ⾲♧࡜㢮ఝࡋࡓูࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊ 5. ⤖ㄒⓎヰ᫬Ⅼࡢヰࡋᡭ௨እࡢㄡ࠿ࡢࡶࡢ࡛࡞ࡅ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮࡜ࠊ࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮ࠊ

ࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋୖグ࡛⪃ᐹࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ

࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃࡢẚ㍑᳨ウࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛

☜࠿࡟ࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡣࠊⓎヰ᫬Ⅼࡢ㆟ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ࡜ࠊ➨୍࡟ࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮࡟

ࡢヰࡋᡭ௨እࡢㄡ࠿࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿᛮ⪃࡟ᑐࡍࡼࡗ࡚ྰᐃࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡣࠊᖐᒓⓗ࡞ᛮ⪃ࡢᴫࡿᚰⓗែᗘࡣ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡔࡀࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟ

ᛕෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃ࡟ࡼࡗ

ࢪ࣮Ⓨヰ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊᙜヱᩥ࡚ྰᐃࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠊ➨஧࡟ࠊࢺ࣮

⬦࡛ၥ㢟࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⌧ᐇࡢ஦ែ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠊ

ࢺࣟࢪ࣮Ⓨヰࡑࡢࡶࡢࡣࠊ࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮ࡸ࣓ࢱ

ヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢពぢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋࡓ

ゝㄒྰᐃ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ࢚ࢥ࣮Ⓨヰ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠊࡀ ࡗ࡚ࠊ ࢺ࣮ࢺ ࣟࢪ࣮ Ⓨヰࡑ ࡢࡶࡢࡣࠊ

࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ㄽࡣࠊྰ

Wilson and Sperber (2012)ࡢព࿡࡛ࠊᖐᒓⓗ⏝ᐃ⾲⌧ࡢ⠊␪࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡀ௚ࡢ

ἲࡢ୍౛࡜ぢ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

ྰᐃ⾲⌧࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ≉ᛶࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜
ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡉࡽ࡟ゝ࠺࡞ࡽࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮Ⓨヰࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀᖐᒓⓗ⏝ἲ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ࢚ࢥ࣮
Ⓨヰ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࠋୖグ(6)࡟ᘬ⏝ࡋࡓ Wilson and* ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊJSPS ⛉◊㈝㸦ⱝᡭ◊✲㸦B㸧ㄢ

Sperber (1992)ࡢグ㏙࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ࠶ࡿⓎヰࡀ࢚㢟␒ྕࠕ15K16753ࠖ㸧ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅࡓࡶࡢ࡛

ࢥ࣮ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜࠊࡑࡢⓎヰࡣࠊㄡ࠿ࡀゝࡗ࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ⪃࠼ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ㒊ศⓗ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ඲

ὀయⓗ࡟⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࠊ࠿ࡘࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࠶ࡿែᗘ

1ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮Ⓨヰ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࢆ⪃ᐹᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

207

ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ௚ࡢᩥ࡟ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀ࡞࠸ A is A2ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊࡇ࡜ࡤ࡟ࡼࡿ࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮ࢆ⪃ᐹࡅࠖ㸫ࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮࡟₯ࡴㄆ▱ⓗྰᐃᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

㸫ࠖ, ࠗゝㄒ࠘11 ᭶ྕ, 71-76, ኱ಟ㤋᭩

3

ᗑ, ᮾி.

Wilson (2000)ࡣࠊ(5)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࢆࠕ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃ㸦metalinguistic negation㸧࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ

Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson (1986, 1995 2)

ࠕ࢚ࢥ࣮ⓗྰㄆ㸦echoic denial㸧ࠖ࡜࿧ࢇ࡛࠸

Relevance: Communication and Cognition,ࡿࠋࡔࡀࠊWilson ࡀ Carston (1996)ࡢศᯒࢆ

Blackwell, Oxford.
9DQGHU6DQGW5RE$  ³'HQLDO´CLS 27,

ᨭᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ

331-344.

Carston (1996)ࡢࠕ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃࠖ࡜ Wilson:LHU]ELFND $QQD   ³%R\V ZLOO EH %R\V(2000)ࡢࠕ࢚ࢥ࣮ⓗྰㄆࠖࢆྠ୍どࡍࡿࠋ4ヲ⣽ࡣ Yamamoto (2014)ཧ↷ࠋµ5DGLFDO

5

Fifty-one percent is 51%ࡣࠊ51% is 51%࡜⾲

3UDJPDWLFV¶´Language 63, 95-114.

6HPDQWLFV¶YVµ5DGLFDO:LOVRQ 'HLUGUH   ³0HWDUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ LQ

グࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ2011ᖺ࡟ࠊ࢔ࢩ࢙ࢵࢺ࣭ࢥࣞࢡࢩࣙࣥࢬ࣭ࢪࣕࣃ

/LQJXLVWLF

&RPPXQLFDWLRQ´ࣥᰴᘧ఍♫࠿ࡽⓎ኎ࡉࢀࡓ DVD ࡢᏐᖥ⾲グ

Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinaryࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿࠋ

Perspective, ed. by Dan Sperber, 411-441,

6

Carston (2002)ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠕ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃ

Oxford University Press, New York.

㸦metalinguistic negation㸧ࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ⌧Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber (1988)

㇟ࡢᮏ㉁ⓗ࡞≉ᛶࡣࠊྰᐃࡢస⏝ᇦ࡟࠶ࡿࡶ

³5HSUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG 5HOHYDQFH´ Mentalࡢࡀ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜୺ᙇࡋࠊࠕ࣓ࢱ

Representations: The Interface between⾲♧ྰᐃ㸦metarepresentational negation㸧ࠖ࡜Language and࿧ࡪࠋࡔࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᚑ᮶ࡢ࿧ࡧ᪉ࢆ᥇⏝Kempson, 133-153, Cambridge University

ࡍࡿࠋPress, Cambridge.

Reality,ed.

by Ruth:LOVRQ 'HLUGUH DQG 'DQ 6SHUEHU   ³2Q9HUEDO,URQ\´Lingua 87, 53-76.

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩&DUVWRQ5RE\Q  ³0HWDOLQJXLVWLF1HJDWLRQ

Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber (2012)

DQG(FKRLF8VH´Journal of Pragmatics 25,³([SODLQLQJ

309-330.

Relevance, ed. by Deirdre Wilson and Dan

Carston,Robyn(2002)

Thoughts

andYamamoto,)UDVHU %UXFH   ³0RWRU 2LO LV 0RWRU 2LOofEnglishNaoko(2014)

A

Cognitive

Pragmatic Analysis of Nominal Tautologies,

NominalHituzi Shobo, Tokyo.

7DXWRORJLHV´ Journal of Pragmatics 12,ྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁᏊ (2000)ࠕ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃࡢྰᐃᑐ
㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹ㸫ㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟࠾

215-220.

ࡅࡿ⤫୍ⓗつᐃࡢྍ⬟ᛶ㸫ࠖ, ࠗ◊✲ᖺ

Grice, Herbert Paul (1989) Studies in the Way ofWords,

andCambridge.

Communication, Blackwell, Oxford.
Account

Meaning

Sperber, 123-145, Cambridge University,

Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit

An,URQ\´Harvard

Universityሗ࠘➨ 44 ྕ, 51-65, ዉⰋዪᏊ኱Ꮫ.

Press,<RVKLPXUDCambridge.
ஂ㔝ᬿ࣭㧗ぢ೺୍ (2004)ࠗㅦゎࡁࡢⱥᩥἲ$NLNR

 

³'HVFULSWLYH

Metalinguistic Dichotomy?: Toward a New
Taxonom\ RI 1HJDWLRQ´ Journal㸫ෙモ࡜ྡモ㸫࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧, ᮾி.
୰ᮧⰾஂ (2000)ࠕࠕ຾ࡕࡣ຾ࡕࠖࠕ㈇ࡅࡣ㈇Pragmatics 57, 39-56.

208

of

๎ࡀാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࠊGrice ࡀ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࠿
࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡑࡢグ㏙࠿ࡽࡣࡼࡃศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ ୍᪉ Sperber and Wilson (1986, 19952)ࡣࠊ
ࠕ≉Ṧ໬ࡉࢀࡓ఍ヰࡢྵពࠖ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࡶࡢ
₇⧢ࡉࢀࡿ᥎ព࡜๰సࡉࢀࡿ᥎ព*ࡢࡳࢆ implicature (௨ୗࠕ᥎ពࠖ)࡜ࡳ࡞ࡋࠊ

㸦Deduced Implicatures and      ๓ᥦ᥎ព࡜ᖐ⤖᥎ព࡟ୗ఩ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(1a)ࡢ Peter ࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࣓࢔Created Implicatures㸧࣮ࣜࡢ㏉⟅(1b)ࡣࠊࠕ࣓࢔࣮ࣜࡣ࣓ࣝࢭࢹࢫྜྷᮧ ࠶ࡁᏊ㸦Akiko Yoshimura㸧ࢆ㐠㌿ࡋ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺᥎ពࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢ

ዉⰋዪᏊ኱Ꮫ㸦Nara Women's University㸧ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡣࠊ(2a)ࠕ㧗⣭㌴ࡣ㐠㌿ࡋ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜
࠸࠺࣓࢔࣮ࣜࡢⓎヰ࡜ࠊグ᠈࠿ࡽᅇ᚟ࡋࡓ

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ᖐ⣡, ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥ, ศᯒⓗ(ࡲࡓࡣసࡾฟࡋࡓ)(2b)ࠕ࣓ࣝࢭࢹࢫࡣ㧗⣭᥎ព, ᣑᙇⓗ᥎ព, 㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ㌴ࡔࠖࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ₇⧢つ๎࡟ࡼࡗ࡚(2c)ࠕ࣓࢔࣮ࣜࡣ࣓ࣝࢭࢹࢫࢆ㐠㌿ࡋ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸
࠺᥎ពࢆᘬࡁฟࡍࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡔࢁ࠺ ࠋ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

Sperber and Wilson ࡣࠊ᥎ㄽ㐣⛬࡟⌧ࢀࡿ఩⨨ Ⓨヰ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿព࿡࡟ࡣࠊ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ(2b)ࢆ๓ᥦ᥎ពࠊ(2c)ࢆᖐ⤖᥎ពព࿡࡜㠀᫂♧ⓗព࿡ (implicature) ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ࡜࿧ࡧࠊ඲࡚ࡢ᥎ពࡣࡑࡢ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿ࡜

㏆ᖺࡢⓎヰㄆ▱ฎ⌮ࣔࢹࣝࡢⓎᒎ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ᫂

୺ᙇࡍࡿ (Sperber and Wilson (1995: 195))ࠋ

♧ⓗព࿡ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ⤒࡚ᅇ᚟(1) a. Peter: Would you drive a Mercedes? ࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࡣ᫂☜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊimplicatureࡀᑟฟࡉࢀࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࡣࡲࡔࡼࡃศ࠿ࡽ࡞

b. Mary: I wouldn't drive ANY expensive car.

࠸࡜ࡇࢁࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡣࠊⓎヰㄆ▱ฎ⌮࡟࠾

(ЍMary wouldn't drive a Mercedes.)ࡅࡿ implicatrue ᑟฟ࡟ࠊ₇⧢ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃᖐ⣡(2) a. Mary wouldn't drive any expensive car.

ࡸ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥࡶ㈉⊩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ₇⧢

b. A Mercedes is an expensive car.

ࡉࢀࡿศᯒⓗ᥎ព࡜๰సࡉࢀࡿᣑᙇⓗ᥎ពc. Mary wouldn't drive a Mercedes.

ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡢᑟฟ㐣⛬࡟ࡣ⤫୍ⓗไᚚ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡀാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ᥎ពࢆᘬࡁฟࡍ᥎ㄽつ๎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࡣࠊ(3a)࡟♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ₇⧢ࡢᑟධつ๎ࡀ2. ඛ⾜◊✲: 2 ✀㢮ࡢ Implicature ࡜᥎ㄽつ๎࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥⓎヰฎ⌮ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟஌ࡿ࡜Ṇࡲ What is said ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ What is implicated ࢆࡽ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ฼⏝ྍ⬟࡞₇⧢つ๎ࡣ๐㝖ព࿡ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ implicature ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࢆつ๎ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

సࡗࡓ Grice ࡣࠊ༢ㄒࡀᣢࡘព࿡ࡔࡀ┿⌮᮲ ௨ୖࡢ୺ᙇࡣࠊ᥎ពࢆᘬࡁฟࡍ᥎ㄽつ๎ࡀ௳࡟㈉⊩ࡋ࡞࠸័⩦ྵព(e.g. but)࡜ࠊ఍ヰࡢ

₇⧢࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ๓ᥦ࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮ

᱁⋡ࡸ༠ㄪࡢཎ๎ࡀ㛵ࢃࡿ఍ヰࡢྵព࡟ࠊ

ࢃࢀࡿࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀ୍᪉࡛ࠊ(3b)࡟♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺

implicature ࢆ኱ࡁࡃ㸰ศࡋࠊᚋ⪅ࢆࡉࡽ࡟୍

࡟ࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᥎ㄽⓗゎ㔘⯡ⓗ఍ヰࡢྵព࡜≉Ṧ໬ࡉࢀࡓ఍ヰࡢྵពࡣࠕ㠀ㄽドⓗ(non-demonstrative)࡛࠶ࡿࠖࡘ

࡟ୗ఩ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ(Grice (1989))ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ

ࡲࡾࡣ㠀₇⧢ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜ࡶ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ

᥎ពᑟฟ࡟ࠊ₇⧢(deduction)ࡸᖐ⣡(induction)

ࡇࡢ 2 ࡘࡢグ㏙ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᩚྜࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ

࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡞ࠊලయⓗ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᥎ㄽつࡼࡃศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ

209

(3)a.'In such an [online utterance interpretation]ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ๓ᥦ(᪤▱ࡢࡶࡢ)࠿ࡽࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ๓

system, each of the above rules [introductionᥦࢆ᰿ᣐ࡟ࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ⤖ㄽ(ᮍ▱ࡢࡶࡢ)ࢆᑟ

rules of deduction], once set in motion,ࡁฟࡍࠊㄽ⌮ⓗ࡟⤫ไࡉࢀࡓᛮ⪃㐣⛬ࢆ࠸

would reapply indefinitely to its own output,

࠺ࠖ(⡿┒ (2008:2))ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ᥎ㄽࡢ⌮ㄽࡢand the derivation would never stop. … The◊✲ࢆࡑࡢ௙஦࡜ࡍࡿ(ఏ⤫ⓗ)ㄽ⌮Ꮫࡣࠊ₇

only deductive rules available for use in the⧢࡜ᖐ⣡ࡢ 2 ศἲࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡑࡢ⪃spontaneous processing of information …

ᐹࡢ୰ᚰࢆ₇⧢࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ⡿are elimination rules.'┒ (2008: 17-19)ࡀⓗ☜࡟ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺

(Sperber and Wilson (1995: 96))࡟ࠊࠕㄽ⌮ᏛࡀᩘᏛ໬ࡉࢀࠊ(࡯ࡰ₇⧢ࡢࡳࢆ

b. '[W]e implicitly assumed that the process ofᢅ࠺)ᩘᏛⓗ࡞ᙧᘧㄽ⌮Ꮫ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠿ࡽࡣࠊ

inferentialisㄽ⌮Ꮫࡣࡑࡢᮏ᮶ࡢ᥎ㄽࡢ⌮ㄽࡢ◊✲࠿ࡽ

non-demonstrative: even under the best of඲ࡃ㞳཯ࡋ͐ே㛫ࡢᛮ⪃ࡢ᪉ἲࡸㄽ⌮ࡢ◊

circumstances, we argued, communication✲࠿ࡽࡣ㐲ࡊ࠿ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ͐ே㛫may fail.'ࡀ⾜࠺ᛮ⪃ࡸㄆ▱ࡸ⾜ື̿ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ⮬⮬ ↛ゝ

comprehension(ibid.: 65)ㄒࡢ⌮ゎ࡜࠿ࠊㅖၥ㢟ࢆゎỴࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢᛮ⪃ ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ(4)ࡣࠊኴ㑻ࡢ㛗ᮇᾏእฟᙇࡀỴ࡜࠿ࠊࡑࡢ௚ࡢ▱ⓗάື̿࡟ࡣ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ࡞✀ࡲࡗ࡚ࠊᜊேࡢⰼᏊ࡟୍⥴࡟⾜ࡇ࠺࡜ゝ࠺ࡀࠊ 㢮ࡢ᥎ㄽࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡽㅖ
ⰼᏊࡣ⾜ࡇ࠺࡜ࡋ࡞࠸≧ἣ࡛ࡢ఍ヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ✀ࡢ᥎ㄽࡣྂ඾ⓗᙧᘧㄽ⌮ࡢయ⣔࡛ࡣ⾲⌧࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛ࡍࠖ(ୗ⥺ᘬ⏝⪅)ࠋ ࡇࡢఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ᙧᘧㄽ⌮࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࣃ࣮ࢫ

(4) ኴ㑻㸸࡞ࡐ࡞ࢇࡔࠊ࠾๓ࡀᮾி࡟ṧࡾࡓ࠸⌮⏤ࡣఱ࡞ࢇࡔࠋ

(Pierce)ࡣࠊ⛉Ꮫ࡟ࡣ₇⧢࡜ᖐ⣡ࡢ࡯࠿࡟࢔

ⰼᏊ㸸ṧࡾࡓ࠸ࢃࡅࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࡢࡼࠋ୍⥴ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥ(abduction)࡜࠸࠺ࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢ✀࡟⾜ࡅ࡞࠸ࡔࡅ࡞ࡢࠋ(ᕤ⸨ (1997: 83))㢮ࡢ᥎ㄽࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋࠊ(5)࡟♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡞ࠊศᯒⓗ᥎ㄽ࡛࠶ࡿ₇⧢࡜ࠊᣑᙇⓗ᥎ⰼᏊࡢࠕ⾜ࡅ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㏉஦࠿ࡽࠊኴ㑻ࡣㄽ࡛࠶ࡿᖐ⣡࡜࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡜࠸࠺ 3 ศࠕⰼᏊࡣᮾி࡟ṧࡾࡓ࠸ࠖࡢࡔ࡜ㄗゎࡋ࡚࠸㢮ࢆᥦၐࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡿࡢࡔࡀࠊࠕⰼᏊࡣኴ㑻࡜୍⥴࡟⾜ࡅ࡞࠸ࠖࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠕⰼᏊࡣᮾி࡟ṧࡾࡓ࠸ࠖࢆ₇⧢つ(5) 㸺ࣃ࣮ࢫࡢ᥎ㄽࡢ㸱ศ㢮㸼๎࡛ᘬࡁฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ ᥎ㄽ ศᯒⓗ᥎ㄽ₇⧢   ࡑࡇ࡛ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥⓎヰゎ㔘࡟࠾࠸    ᣑᙇⓗ᥎ㄽᖐ⣡    ࡚ࠊ᥎ពᑟฟ㐣⛬࡟₇⧢ࡢ๐㝖つ๎௨እࡢつ          ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥ

๎ࡀ㈉⊩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡢ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸
࠺どⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ࡣ᥎ពᑟฟ

₇⧢࣭ᖐ⣡࣭࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢ≉ᚩࡣࠊࡑࢀ

ࡢㄆ▱ฎ⌮ࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ

ࡒࢀ(6)-(8)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ(6a)ࡢࡼ

┠ᶆ࡜ࡍࡿࠋලయ౛ࡢศᯒࡢ๓࡟ࠊḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ࠺࡞୕ẁㄽἲࡣ₇⧢ࡢ๐㝖つ๎ࡢ 1 ࡘ࡛࠶᥎ㄽࡑࡢࡶࡢࡢ✀㢮ࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡇ࠺ࠋ

ࡾࠊ₇⧢࡟ࡣ(6b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᑟධつ๎ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
(7)ࡢᖐ⣡ࡣ୍⯡໬/ᢳ㇟໬ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡛ࠊ(8)3. Pierce : ᥎ㄽつ๎ࡢ㸱ศ㢮ࡢ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥࡣࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡟ࡣ⛉ᏛⓗⓎぢ ဴᏛ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡲࢀࡓㄒ⏝ㄽࡣࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮

ࡢ㝿࡟඾ᆺⓗ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᥎ㄽࢆᢅ࠺ࠋ᥎ㄽ࡜ࡣࠊࠕ࠸

(6)㸺₇⧢㸼 ┿࡞ࡿ๓ᥦ࠿ࡽᚲࡎ┿࡞ࡿᖐ

210

⤖ࡀศᯒⓗ࡟ᑟ࠿ࢀࡿᚲ↛ⓗ᥎ㄽྵពࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᥎ㄽࢆゝ࠺ࠋᣑᙇⓗ᥎ㄽ࡜ࡣࠊ

 a. ๐㝖つ๎ᖐ⤖ࡀ๓ᥦࡢෆᐜࢆ㉸࠼࡚ࠊ๓ᥦ࡟ྵࡲࢀ࡚౛ ๓ᥦ ࡇࡢ⿄ࡢ㇋ࡣࡍ࡭࡚ⓑ࠸(pЍq)ࠋ ࠸࡞࠸᪂ࡋ࠸▱㆑ࡸ᝟ሗࢆ୚࠼ࠊ▱㆑ࡸ᝟ሗࡇࢀࡽࡢ㇋ࡣࡇࡢ⿄ࡢ㇋࡛࠶ࡿ(p)ࠋ ࢆᣑᙇࡍࡿ᥎ㄽࢆゝ࠺(⡿┒ (2008: 29-35))ࠋ
 ᖐ⤖ ࡺ࠼࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ㇋ࡣⓑ࠸(? q)ࠋ  ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᖐ⤖ࡀ▱㆑ࢆᣑᙇࡍࡿ࠿ྰ



 b. ᑟධつ๎౛ ๓ᥦ       


ᖐ⤖

p

࠿࡜࠸࠺どⅬ࠿ࡽࡣࠊศᯒⓗ᥎ㄽ࡜ᣑᙇⓗ᥎qㄽࢆࠊ᥎ㄽࣃࢱࣥࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽࡣ₇⧢ࠊᖐ⣡ࠊp and q࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢ㸱✀ࡢ᥎ㄽࢆᢲࡉ࠼ࡓୖ
࡛ࠊḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡜ᖐ⣡ࡶ᥎ពᑟ(7)㸺ᖐ⣡㸼㸸㒊ศ࠿ࡽ඲య࡬ࠊ≉Ṧ࠿ࡽᬑฟ࡟㈉⊩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡑ࠺ࠋ㐢࡬࡜▱㆑ࢆᣑᙇࡍࡿ⵹↛ⓗ᥎ㄽ౛ ๓ᥦ ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ぢ࡚ࡁࡓ≟ࡣྭ࠼ࡿࠋ ᖐ⤖ ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ≟ࡣྭ࠼ࡿࠋ

4. ᥎ㄽつ๎࠿ࡽぢࡓ᥎ព Wilson (2014)ࡣⓎヰࡢ᫂♧ⓗព࿡ (⾲ព(8)㸺࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥ㸼㸸ほᐹࢹ࣮ࢱࢆㄝ᫂
ࡍࡿ௬ㄝࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚▱㆑ࢆᣑᙇࡍࡿ௬ㄝⓗ᥎ㄽ/explicature) ࡜ 㠀 ᫂ ♧ ⓗ ព ࿡( ᥎ ព  /implicature) ࢆ(9)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ᐃᘧ໬㸸㦫ࡃ࡭ࡁ஦ᐇ C ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࡶࡋ A ࡀ┿࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊC ࡣᙜ↛ࡢ஦(9)ࠕ⾲ពࡣࠊ㸰ࡘࡢᐃ⩏≉ᛶࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

᯶࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊA ࡀ┿࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼୍ࡘࡣࠊ(a)ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿ࿨㢟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ

ࡿ࡭ࡁ⌮⏤ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕヰ⪅ࡢព࿡ࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ

C ࡛࠶ࡿࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡣࠊ(b)ゎㄞ࡜᥎ㄽࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏA ࡞ࡽࡤ C ࡛࠶ࡿ    ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ྠᐃࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡍࡼࡗ࡚ࠊA ࡣ┿ࡽࡋ࠸ (ᚋ௳⫯ᐃࡢㄗㅸ)࡞ࢃࡕࠊࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓㄽ⌮ᙧᘧࢆ᏶඲౛ ࠕ໬▼ࡀⓎぢࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣ㨶ࡢ໬▼࡞࿨㢟ᙧᘧ࡟᥎ㄽⓗ࡟Ⓨᒎࡉࡏࡓࡶࡢ࡛

ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࠊࡋ࠿ࡶ㝣ᆅࡢࡎࡗ࡜ෆഃ

࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀ௨እࡢ඲࡚ࡢఏ࡛ぢࡘ࠿ࡗࡓࠖ(C)ࠋࡇࡢ⌧㇟ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ

㐩ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࡀ᥎ព࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠖ
(Wilson (2014: 137), ヂᘬ⏝⪅)ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࠕࡇࡢ୍ᖏࡢ㝣ᆅࡣ࠿ࡘ࡚ࡣᾏ࡛
࠶ࡗࡓ࡟㐪࠸࡞࠸ࠖ(A)࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋA ࡀ┿࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊC ࡣᙜ↛ࡢ஦᯶࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠊࡼࡗ

4.1. ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡼࡿ᥎ព

࡚ A ࡀ┿࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ⌮⏤ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ඛࡢ(4)࡛ኴ㑻ࡀㄗゎࡋࡓ㝿࡟⾜ࡗࡓ᥎ㄽ(Buchler (1955: 151), ⡿┒ (2008: 54, 192))ࡣࠊ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩ࡛ࣙࣥ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡍ
࡞ࢃࡕࠊ㦫ࡃ࡭ࡁ஦ᐇ CࠕⰼᏊࡀኴ㑻࡜୍⥴(6)ࡢ₇⧢ࡣࠊ๓ᥦࡢ┿ࡀᖐ⤖ࡢ┿ࢆಖドࡍ࡟⾜ࡅ࡞࠸࡜ゝ࠺ࠖࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡶ

ࡿࡀࠊ(8)ࡢ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥࡣࠊᙧᘧㄽ࡛࠸

ࡋ AࠕⰼᏊࡣᮾி࡟ṧࡾࡓ࠸࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ

࠺ࠕᚋ௳⫯ᐃࡢㄗㅸࠖࢆ࠾࠿ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᖐ⣡࡞ࡽࠊCࠕⰼᏊࡀኴ㑻࡜୍⥴࡟⾜ࡅ࡞࠸࡜ゝ࡜ྠᵝࠊ๓ᥦࡀ┿࡛ࡶᖐ⤖ࡢ┿ࡣಖドࡉࢀ࡞࠺ࠖࡢࡣᙜ↛ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ Aࠕⰼ

࠸ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࣃ࣮ࢫࡣࠊ₇⧢ࢆศศᯒⓗ᥎ㄽࠊᖐ

Ꮚࡣᮾி࡟ṧࡾࡓ࠸࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡀ┿࡛࠶ᣑᙇⓗ᥎ㄽ࡜࿧ࡪࠋศ
⣡࡜࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥࢆᣑ

ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ⌮⏤ࡀ࠶ࡿࠊ࡜ኴ㑻ࡣ᥎ㄽࡋᯒⓗ᥎ㄽ࡜ࡣࠊ๓ᥦ࡜ᖐ⤖ࡢ㛵ಀࡀࠊ୧⪅ࡢࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓࡔࠊ(9)ࡢᐃ⩏࡟↷ࡽࡋ࡚ゝព࿡ࡢㄽ⌮ⓗ㛵ಀࡢࡳ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᡂࡾ❧ࡗ࡚

࠺࡜ࠊA ࡢࠕⰼᏊࡣᮾி࡟ṧࡾࡓ࠸࡜ᛮࡗ࡚

࠾ࡾࠊ๓ᥦࡢෆᐜࡢ୰࡟ࡍ࡛࡟ᖐ⤖ࡢෆᐜࡀ࠸ࡿࠖࡣࠊⰼᏊࡀኴ㑻࡟ఏ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓࡇ࡜

211

࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࠊ᥎ព࡛࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ

࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄗゎࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ᥎ព

ࢀࡿࠋ(8)ࡢ໬▼ࡢ౛࡛ぢࡓ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥ

ࡀ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚సࡾฟࡉࢀࡿྍ

ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆᙜ࡚ࡣࡵࡿ࡜ࠊࡲࡔᐷࡿ᫬㛫࡛⬟ᛶࢆ♧၀ࡋࠊࡑࡋ࡚ᐇ㝿࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠋ

ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠕᐷࡿ᫬㛫࡛ࡍࡼࠖ࡜࠿࠶ࡉࢇࡀ

 (10)ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ[⡿す㒊㛤ᣅ᫬௦ࡢࢩࣝ

ゝ࠺(㦫ࡃ࡭ࡁ஦ᐇ C)ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ

ࣂ࣮ࣞ࢖ࢡ࡛ࠊ㕲㐨ᩜタᕤ஦ࡀ⤊ࢃࡾࠊ఍♫ࠕ▱ࡽ࡞࠸⏨ࡓࡕ࡜୍⥴࡟㝵ୗ࡟࠸࡚ࡣ࠸

ࡢᶵᲔ㢮ࢆ⟶⌮ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ࢖ࣥ࢞ࣝࢫ୍ᐙࡔ

ࡅ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼ࡓ࠸(A)࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊ

ࡅࡀཝࡋ࠸෤ࢆ⌧ᆅ࡛㉺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡔᴟᐮ

Cࠕᐷࡿ᫬㛫ࡔࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࠊፉࡓࡕࢆ㸰㝵࡟ࡢ㸰᭶ࠊす㒊࡟㤿㌴࡛ྥ࠿࠺Ẽࡢ᪩࠸ධ᳜⪅⾜࠿ࡏࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡢࡣᙜ↛ࡢ஦᯶࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ

ࡢⲨࡃࢀ⏨㐩ࡀᐟࢆồࡵ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ㸱ேࡢፉࡀࡼࡗ࡚ A ࡀ┿࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ⌮⏤ࡀ࠶࠸ࡿࡢ࡛᩿ࡾࡓ࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊ෾࠼ࡉࡏࡿࢃࡅ࡟

ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩ࡛ࣙࣥ᥎ព A ࡀ๰ࡾ࠸࠿ࡎࠊᘬࡁཷࡅࡿࠋ] ፉࡢ࣮ࣟࣛࡀḟࡢࡼࡔࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡢࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

࠺࡟㏙࡭ࡿࠋࠕࡑࢇ࡞ࢃࡅ࡛ẕࡉࢇࡣࠊ㸳ே (11)ࡶྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ[ᡭ⣬ࢆࡶࡽࡗ࡚࣊࢖ࢫ

ࡶࡢ▱ࡾࡶࡋ࡞࠸ேࡓࡕࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊኤ㣗ࢆࡋࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢫࡣࠊ࢔ࣝࢮࣥࢳࣥ࠿ࡽ࢖ࢠࣜࢫ࡟

ࡓࡃࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ⏨ࡓࡕࡣࠊഐⱝ↓ே࡟኱ࡁ࡞

ᡠࡿࠋࣅࢵࢢ㸲࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿ⛎ᐦ⤖♫ࡢᡭ࡟ࡼ㠐㡢ࢆࡓ࡚࡚Ṍࡁࡲࢃࡾࠊ኱ኌ࡛ヰࡋࠊࢫࢺࡗ࡚࣏࢔ࣟࡀ⇿Ṛࡋࡓ࡜ᛮࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ἣ࣮ࣈࡢࡑࡤࡢᗋ࡛ᐷࡿࡘࡶࡾ࡛ࠊᐷ㐨ලࢆᒣ࡛ࠊ࣊࢖ࢫࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢫࡀḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭ࡿࠋ࡜㐠ࡧࡇࢇ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋࠖ(10)ࠕ㣗஦ࡢࠕព㆑ࢆᅇ᚟ࡋࡓ᭱ึࡢ▐㛫࠿ࡽࠊ⚾ࡣࡓࡗ࠶࡜∦࡙ࡅࡀࡲࡔ⤊ࢃࡾࡶࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠊ

ࡓ୍ࡘࡢࡇ࡜ࡋ࠿⪃࠼࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ࣏࢔ࣟ

࠿࠶ࡉࢇࡣὙ࠸ᱩࡢ๓ࢆࡣ࡞ࢀ࡚ࠊᑠኌ࡛ࡺ

ࢆẅࡋࡓ≢ேࡓࡕ࡟᚟⩦ࡋࠊࣅࢵࢢ㸲ࢆ࡜ࡇࡗࡃࡾ࠸࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋIt's bedtime, girls.ࠕᐷࡿ࡜ࢇ㏣࠸ࡘࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡇࡑࡀࠊ⚾ࡢࡓࡔ୍ࡘࡢ

᫬㛫࡛ࡍࡼࠊࡳࢇ࡞ࠋࠖࡲࡔᐷࡿ᫬㛫࡛ࡣ࡞㢪࠸ࡔࡗࡓࠋࢻࢡࢱ࣮࣭ࣜࢵࢪ࢙࢘࢖ࡶྠࡌ

࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠊ࠿࠶ࡉࢇࡀࠊ▱ࡽ࡞࠸⏨ࡓẼᣢࡕࡔࢁ࠺࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡢࡔࡀࠊ㦫࠸ࡓࡇࡕ࡜୍⥴࡟㝵ୗ࡟࠸࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅࡲࡏࢇࡼࠊ࡜࠸

࡜࡟ࠊࢻࢡࢱ࣮ࡣ࡞ࡐ࠿⇕ពࢆ♧ࡉ࡞࠿ࡗ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆࡑࢀ࡜࡞ࡃ࠸ࡗࡓࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜

ࡓࠋ
ࠖ(11)ࠕ'Get back to South America'ࠕ࠶࡞ࡀࠊࡳࢇ࡞࡟ࡣࡕࡷࢇ࡜ࢃ࠿ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋࠖ(ᜠࡓࡣ༡⡿࡟ᖐࡿ࡯࠺ࡀ࠸࠸ࠖ࡜ࢻࢡࢱ࣮ࡣࡇ

ᆅヂ (1973: 305))࡜࠶ࡿࡈ࡜࡟່ࡵࡓࠋ୙ྍ⬟࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ࡝࠺
ࡋ࡚ヨࡳࡿࡢࡔ࡜ࠋ࠶ࡢ࣏࢔ࣟ࡟ࡶ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿

(10)'Even before the supper dishes were finished,ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ⚾ࡀᡂຌࡍࡿࡣࡎࡀ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺

Ma took her hands from the dishwater and࠿(࡛ࡁࡿࡣࡎࡀ࡞࠸)―ᙼࡣࡑ࠺⪃࠼࡚࠸said quietly, “It's bedtime, girls.” It was notࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ(୰ᮧヂ (2003: 278) ୍㒊ᨵኚ)ࠋ

bedtime, but they knew that she meant they
were not allowed to stay downstairs among(11)'“Get back to South America,” was his ad-

those strange men…' (Wilder (1939: 225))

vice, tendered on every occasion. Why attempt the impossible? Put as delicately as(10)ࡢ It's bedtime, girls ࡜࠸࠺ࠕ࠿࠶ࡉࢇࠖࡢ

possible, his opinion amounted to this: IfⓎヰࡣࠊࠕ▱ࡽ࡞࠸⏨ࡓࡕ࡜୍⥴࡟㝵ୗ࡟࠸

Poirot, the unique Poirot, had failed, was it࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࠖࢆ᥎ព࡜ࡋ࡚ఏ㐩ࡋࠊፉࡓࡕ

likely that I should succeed?'ࡣⓙṇࡋࡃࡑࢀࢆ⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇ

(Christie (1927: 224))

ࡢ᥎ពࡣࠊ₇⧢つ๎࡛ᘬࡁฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ୙ྍ⬟212 ࣜࢵࢪ࢙࢘࢖ࡢࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࡣ༡⡿࡟ᖐࡿ᪉ࡀ ୍⯡࡟ࠊ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥࡣㄝ᫂௬ㄝࢆᙧᡂ

࠸࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰࡣࠕ࠶ࡢ࣏࢔ࣟࡀኻᩋࡋࡓ

ࡍࡿ᪉ἲ࡛ࠊ๰ࡾฟࡉࢀࡿㄝ᫂௬ㄝ A ࡟┦ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠊ࡬࣮ࢫࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢬࡀᡂຌࡍࡿࡣࡎ

ᙜࡍࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊ
ࠕࡦࡽࡵࡁࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝ࠸᪉࡛ࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺᥎ពࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡍ࿧ࡤࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ⛉Ꮫ࡛ࡣࠕࣔࣀ

ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢ᥎ពࡣ₇⧢つ๎࡛ᘬࡁࡀⴠࡕࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺≀⌮ⓗ⌧㇟ࡢほᐹ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸

ฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ୙ྍ⬟࡛ࠊ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡼࡿ

࡚ࠊࢽ࣮ࣗࢺࣥࡀࠕ୓᭷ᘬຊࡢἲ๎ࠖࢆⓎぢࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢ㐣⛬ࡣࠊࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࡣ

ࡋࡓࡾࠊࢣࣉ࣮ࣛࡀኳయࡢືࡁࡢほᐹ࡟ᇶ࡙༡⡿࡟ᖐࡿ᪉ࡀ࠸࠸ࠖ࡜ࣜࢵࢪ࢙࢘࢖ࡀゝ࠺࠸࡚ࠕᴃ෇㌶㐨௬ㄝࠖࢆⓎぢⓎ᱌ࡍࡿࣉࣟࢭ

(㦫ࡃ࡭ࡁ஦ᐇ C)ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠕ࣏

ࢫࡣࠊ๓ᥦ࡟ྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸᪂ࡋ࠸▱㆑ࡸ᝟࢔ࣟ࡟ࡶ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ࣊࢖ࢫࢸ࢕ࣥ

ሗࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࢢࢬ࡟࡛ࡁࡿࢃࡅࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ࢻࢡࢱ࣮ࡣ⪃࠼ ࡋ࠿ࡋࡇࡢࠕࡦࡽࡵࡁࠖࡣࠊࡑࡢゝⴥࡢᣢ࡚࠸ࡿ(A)࡜ࡍࢀࡤ Cࠕ༡⡿࡟ᖐࢀ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࠖࡘ༳㇟࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊఱࡶ࡞࠸࡜ࡇࢁ࡟✺↛⌧ᡭࢆᘬ࠿ࡏࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡢࡣᙜ↛ࡢ஦᯶ࡔࢁ

ࢀࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊほᐹࡉࢀࡿ㦫ࡃ࡭ࡁ஦ᐇ

࠺ࠋࡼࡗ࡚ A ࡀ┿࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ⌮⏤ࡀ࠶C ࡢཎᅉ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚᭱ࡶጇᙜࡔ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ

ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢࣉ

ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⡿┒ (2008: 49)ࡀ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡼ

ࣟࢭࢫ࡛᥎ព A ࡀᑟฟࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽ࠺࡟ࠊࠕ࠿ࢀ(ࣃ࣮ࢫ)ࡣࡑࢀࢆࠕ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢸ

ࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚(10)࡜ྠᵝࠊࣜࢵࢪ࢙࢘࢖ࡀ≧࢕ࣈ࡞♧၀ࠖࡲࡓࡣࠕὝᐹࠖࡢാࡁ࡜࿧ࡧ͐

ἣࢆ㓄៖ࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡜࡞ࡃఏࢃࡿࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗࡋ

ே㢮㐍໬ࡢ㐣⛬ࡢ୰࡛⮬↛࡟㐺ᛂࡍࡿࡓࡵ

࡚㑅ࢇࡔⓎヰࡔ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ

࡟ே㛫⢭⚄࡟ഛࢃࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠕ⮬↛࡟ࡘ (12)ࡣࠊ࣮࣒࣍ࢭࣥࢱ࣮ᗑဨ(S)ࡀࠊᙜヱၟ࠸࡚ṇࡋࡃ᥎ ࡍࡿᮏ⬟ⓗ⬟ຊࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑ

ရ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿࠕ࠺ࡡࠖ࡟ᙜࡓࡿ㐺ษ࡞༢ㄒࡀࠊ

ࡢ㐍໬ㄽⓗㄽᣐ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡘࡲ

wale ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ thread ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ㢳ᐈ(C)ࡾ⮬↛ࡢㅖἲ๎ࡢᙳ㡪ࡢࡶ࡜࡛⫱ࡲࢀ㐍໬࡟ࡑࢀ࡜࡞ࡃఏ࠼ࡿ౛࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡶ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩ

ࡋࡓே㛫⢭⚄࡟ࡣᮏ᮶ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ⮬↛ࡢㅖἲ1๎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ṇࡋࡃ᥎ࣙࣥ࡟ࡼࡿ᥎ពࡢ౛࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ ࠋࡍࡿᮏ⬟ⓗ⬟ຊࡀഛࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࠸࠸࠿࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ࢔ࣈࢲ
(12) C: Mm, the wales are wider apart than that.

ࢡࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞♧၀ࡣࡑࢀ⮬యࡀே㛫⢭⚄ࡢ࠸

S: Okay, let me see if I can find one withࢃࡤྜ⮬↛ⓗ(ྜ⌮ⓗ)࡞ാࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺
ࡢ࡛ࡍࠋࠖ (⡿┒ (2008: 73))

wider threads. ((looks through stock))
S: How's this.

 Ⓨヰゎ㔘࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡳࢀࡤࠊほᐹࡉࢀࡓ(㦫C: Nope, the threads are even wider thanࡃ࡭ࡁ/୙ྍゎ࡞)Ⓨヰ C ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊヰ⪅ࡣ࡞

that.

ࡐࡑ࠺ゝࡗࡓࡢ࠿ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ⌮⏤ࠊࡑࢀࡶࠊ

(Jefferson (1987: 93))⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄆ▱⎔ቃ࡟ࡣྵࡲࢀ࡞࠸ A ࢆࠊࠕࡦ ௨ୖࡢ౛ࡣ᥎ពᑟฟ࡟ࠊdeduction ₇⧢ࡔࡽࡵࡁࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚๰ࡾୖࡆⓎぢࡍࡿ᥎ㄽࣉࣟ

ࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥࡀ㈉⊩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙ

ࢭࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࠕࡦࡽࡵࡁࠖࡶࠊఱࡶ࡞࠸

ྜࡶ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡜ࡇࢁ࡟✺↛⌧ࢀࡿ࡜ࢇ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸㣕㌍࡛࠶
ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊⓎヰ࡜ࡑࡢᩥ⬦ࡸグ᠈࡞࡝

4.2. ไᚚ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒

ࡢㄆ▱⎔ቃ࡟࠶ࡿ᪤Ꮡ᝿ᐃ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊ࡛ࡁࡿ ࡑࢀ࡛ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚グ᠈ࡸ▱㆑࡟࡞ࡔࡅᑡ࡞࠸ປຊ࡛᭱ࡶጇᙜ࡛ຠᯝⓗࡔ࡜ᛮ࠸᪂ࡋ࠸᝿ᐃ/௬ㄝࢆࠊ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡼ

ࢃࢀࡿ C ࡢㄝ᫂௬ㄝࢆ๰ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࡗ࡚๰ࡾୖࡆࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ ࡘࡲࡾࠊ᥎ពᑟฟ࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙ

213

ࣥࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡣࠊ኱ࡁࡃࡣࠊ(13)࡟♧ࡋࡓ㛵ࡎࡋࡶ೺ᗣ࡛࠸ࡽࢀࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸)ࠋ

㐃ᛶࡢㄆ▱ཎ๎࡟ไᚚࡉࢀࠊලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ (ii) ⰼᏊࡶࠊῧຍ≀➼ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿ㣗⏕άࢆᚰ᥃ࡅ࡚ࡶࠊ೺ᗣ࡛࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ(14)ࡢ Relevance-Guided ゎ㔘Ⓨぢἲ࡟ᚑ࠺࡜

 (iii) ⰼᏊࡣࠊῧຍ≀➼࡟⚄⤒㉁࡟࡞ࡿᚲせ⪃࠼ࡿࡢࡀጇᙜࡔ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

ࡣ࡞࠸(ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿)ࠋ
(13)㸺㛵㐃ᛶࡢㄆ▱ཎ๎㸼 ே㛫ࡢㄆ▱ࡣࠊ(ྜྷᮧ (2015: 518))

㛵㐃ᛶࡢ᭱኱໬࡜㐃ືࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ാࡃ
ഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ (Sperber and Wilson (1995:ࡇࡢబ▱ᏊࡢⓎヰࢆ⪺࠸ࡓⰼᏊࡣࠊ(15i)- (15260), ᮾ᳃࣭ྜྷᮧヂ (2003: 18))iii)࡟♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡞᥎ពࢆబ▱Ꮚࡣఏ࠼ࡓ࠸

(14)㸺Relevance-Guided ゎ㔘Ⓨぢἲ㸼ࡢࡔ࡞࡜ゎ㔘ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ᫬ࠊ᥎

 a. Ⓨヰࡢゎ㔘ࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡣࠊ᭱ᑠປ

ព(15i)ࠕேࡣ, ೺ᗣ࡛࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡟, ῧຍ≀➼ࡢ໬Ꮫ≀㉁ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿ㣗⏕άࢆࡋ࡚࠸࡚ࡶ,ຊࡢ㐨➽ࢆ㎺ࡾ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠋ
 b. 㛵㐃ᛶࡢᮇᚅࡀ‶ࡓࡉࢀࡓ᫬࡟Ṇࡲࡾ⑓Ẽ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠖࡣ, బ▱Ꮚࡢ཭ேࡢ

࡞ࡉ࠸ࠋ(Wilson (2014: 135)ࠊヂᘬ⏝⪅)ලయⓗ࡞ヰࢆࠊᖐ⣡࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᢳ㇟໬/୍⯡໬ࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᥎ពᑟฟ࡟ᖐ⣡ࡀ

4.3. ᖐ⣡࡟ࡼࡿ᥎ព

㈉⊩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡍ࡛࡟ Yoshimura (2014)࡜ྜྷᮧ(2015)࡟࠾

 ࡑࡋ࡚ࡇࡢሙྜࡶࠊ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥⓎヰゎ㔘࡟࠸࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᖐ⣡ࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿ࠾ࡅࡿ᥎ㄽไᚚ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ኱ࡁࡃࡣ

ᢳ㇟໬/୍⯡໬࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᘬࡁฟࡉࢀࡿ᥎ពࡶ

(13)ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࡢㄆ▱ཎ๎ࡀࠊලయⓗ࡟ࡣ(14)Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ(15)୍౛ࢆᣲࡆ࡚⡆₩࡟ࡢゎ㔘Ⓨぢἲࡀാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡢࡀጇ

ゐࢀࡿ࡟␃ࡵࡿࠋ(15)ࡣࠊ[ྠ❆఍࡛ࠊⰼᏊࡀ

ᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡶࠊ㕥ᮌ (1996: 96)ࡀ㏙

཭ே࡟㏆ἣࢆሗ࿌ࡋࠊᩘ࠿᭶๓࡟ฟ⏘ࡋࡓࡤ࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᢳ㇟໬࡜ࡣࠕ㠀ᖖ࡟᧯సⓗ࠿ࡾ࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡀࡁࡗ࠿ࡅ࡛㣗ရῧຍ≀ࡸ㎰⸆࡞ゝ࠸᪉ࢆࡍࢀࡤ, ලయ஦౛ࡢᣢࡘ≉ᚩࢆ࡞࡝ࡢ༴㝤ᛶࢆព㆑ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡾࠊᩱ⌮ࡍࡦ࡜ࡘ௨ୖྲྀࡾཤࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊල

ࡿ᫬࡟ࡣ㣗ᮦ࡟Ẽࢆ௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ヰࢆ]య஦౛ࡢᣢࡘ≉ᚩࡢᩘࡔࡅᢳ㇟໬ࡢẁ㝵ࡢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ἣ࡛ࡢ఍ヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆࢫࢺࢵࣉࡉࡏ
ࡿఱ࠿ࡀ↓ࡅࢀࡤࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ࡣࠕฟ᮶஦ࠖ࡜
࠿ࠕ⾜ືࠖ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕ≀యࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓලయᛶ

(15) a.ⰼᏊ: ࡔ࠿ࡽ௒ࡣࠊᕷ㈍ࡢࡔࡋࡢ⣲ࢆ౑ࢃࡎ࡟ࠊ㫎⠇࠿ࡽࡔࡋࢆసࡗ࡚ࡿࡢࠋ ࡢ඲ࡃ࡞࠸࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ࡓ࡝ࡾ╔࠸࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡔ
 b. బ▱Ꮚ㸸⚾࡟ࡶࡑ࠺࠸࠺཭㐩ࡀ࠸ࡿࢁ࠺ࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀ⫈⪅࡟ఏ࠼ࢃࠋࡑࡢேࡶࠊಖᏑᩱ࡜࠿ேᕤ⏑࿡ᩱࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡲࡉ࡟ࡑࡢ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝṆࡲࡿࡢῧຍ≀࡜࠿㎰⸆࡞࡝ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆࡍࡈ

ࡢࡀᬑ㏻࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢไᚚ

ࡃᚰ㓄ࡋ࡚ࠊ㔝⳯ࡣ↓㎰⸆㔝⳯ࢆ㈙࠺

࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡀാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠊࡑࢀࡣ

ࡋࠊ໬Ꮫㄪ࿡ᩱࡶ౑ࢃࡎ࡟ᩱ⌮ࡋ࡚ࡓࠋ ࡸࡣࡾࠊ᭱ᑡປຊࡢ㐨➽ࢆ㎺ࡗ࡚㛵㐃ᛶࡢᮇ࡛ࡶ⤖ᒁࠊࡑࡢே⑓Ẽ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࠊ௒ධ

ᚅࡀ‶ࡓࡉࢀࡓ᫬࡟ࢫࢺࢵࣉࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨ㝔ࡋ࡚ࡿࡼࠋ

ヰゎ㔘≉᭷ࡢ᥎ㄽࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀࡑࡢᙺ๭ࢆᯝ

c. ⰼᏊ㸸͐͐             ࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡢࡀጇᙜࡔ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ               㸺బ▱Ꮚࡢ᥎ព㸼 ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦౛ほᐹ࠿ࡽࠊ᥎ពᑟฟ࡟ࠊ

 (i) ேࡣࠊῧຍ≀➼໬Ꮫ≀㉁ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿ㣗⏕₇⧢ࡢ๐㝖つ๎௨እࡢᖐ⣡ࡸ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙ
ࣥࡶ㈉⊩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

άࢆࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ⑓Ẽ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ(ᚲ214ᮾ᳃໏࣭ྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁᏊ (2003) ࠗ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢ5. ⤖ㄒ
 (3a)࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊSperber and Wilson ࡀࠊ᪂ᒎ㛤࠘◊✲♫, ᮾி.

࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥⓎヰฎ⌮࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ₇⧢つ๎୕ཎ೺୍࣭㧗ぢ೺୍ (⦅ⴭ) (2013)ࠗ᪥ⱥᑐ↷ࡀ๐㝖つ๎ࡔࡅࡔ࡜ࡋࡓ⌮⏤ࡣࠊࡶࡋᑟධつⱥㄒᏛࡢᇶ♏࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧, ᮾி.

๎ࡢࡼ࠺࡞つ๎ࡀࡑࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࡢࡿ࡜ࠊࡑ

Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson (1986, 19952)

ࡢฟຊ࡟⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡚ࠊṆࡲࡽ࡞ࡃ࡞

Relevance: Communication and Cognition,ࡿ࠿ࡽࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡔࡗࡓࠋྠࡌࡇ࡜ࡣᢳ㇟

Blackwell, Oxford.

໬ࡸ୍⯡໬ࢆᢅ࠺ᖐ⣡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊཝᐦ࡟ࡣ

㕥ᮌᏹ᫛ (1996)ࠗ㢮ఝ࡜ᛮ⪃࠘ඹ❧ฟ∧ᰴ↓㝈ࡢ௬ㄝࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥ

ᘧ఍♫, ᮾி.

࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶゝ࠼ࡿࠋ

Wilson, Deirdre (2014) “Relevance Theory,” ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰࡢㄆ▱ฎ

UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 26,⌮ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀពᅗࡍࡿゎ㔘௬ㄝ࡛Ṇ

129-148, University College London.

ࡲࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡑࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆⓗ☜࡟ࢫࢺࢵ⡿┒⿱஧ (2007)ࠗ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥ―௬ㄝ࡜ࣉࡉࡏࡿไᚚ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ኱ࡁࡃࡣ

Ⓨぢࡢㄽ⌮―࠘ວⲡ᭩ᡣ, ᮾி.

(13)ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࡢㄆ▱ཎ๎ࡀࠊලయⓗ࡟ࡣ(14)Yoshimura, Akiko (2014) “Recognition of Met-ࡢゎ㔘Ⓨぢἲࡀࠊࡑࡢᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜

aphoricity,” delivered at AMPRA 2 (2nd⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ

International Conference of the American ᭱ึ࡟ゐࢀࡓ᥎ពࡢ✀㢮࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ᥎ពᑟ

Pragmatics Association, at UCLA).

ฟ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ᥎ㄽつ๎ࢆࠊ඲ࡃ᪂ࡋ࠸▱㆑ࡸ᝟ྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁᏊ (2015)ࠕ᥎ព࡜᥎ㄽつ๎ࠖ, ኱ᗞሗࢆ๰ࡾฟࡍ࠿ྰ࠿࡜࠸࠺どⅬ࠿ࡽぢࡿࡇᖾ⏨ᩍᤵ㏥⫋グᛕㄽᩥ㞟ห⾜఍ (⦅)࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ₇⧢ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ศᯒⓗ᥎ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿ

ࠗゝⴥࡢࡋࢇࡑ࠺(῝ᒙ࣭┿┦)࠘, 513-524,ศᯒⓗ᥎ព(₇⧢ࡉࢀࡿ᥎ព)࡜ࠊᖐ⣡ࡸ࢔ࣈⱥᐆ♫, ᮾி.

ࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣑᙇⓗ᥎ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿᣑᙇⓗ᥎ព(๰సࡉࢀࡿ᥎ព)ࡢ㸰✀㢮࡟ศ㢮ࡍฟ඾ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋⓎヰゎ㔘࡟࠾

Christie, Agatha (1927) The Big Four, Harperࡅࡿ᥎ពᑟฟ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡢ඲యീࡀࠊᑡࡋ᫂Collins, London. (࢔࢞ࢧ࣭ࢡࣜࢫࢸ࢕࣮.

☜࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

୰ᮧጁᏊヂࠗࣅࢵࢢ㸲࠘᪩ᕝ᭩ᡣ, ᮾி,2003)
Jefferson, Gail (1987) “On Exposed and Em-* ᮏ◊✲ࡣ JSPS ⛉◊㈝ 26370566 ࡢຓᡂࢆཷ

bedded Correction in Conversation,” Talk

ࡅࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ
1

ὀand Social Organization, ed. by John R. E.

(12)ࡣ㡲㈡࠶ࡺࡳẶᥦ౪ࡢࡶࡢ࡛ࠊMark

Lee and Graham Button, 86-100, Maltilin-

Scott Ặ࡟ࡑࡢゎ㔘ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

gual Matters, Clevedon.
Wilder, Laura Ingalls (1939) By the Shores ofཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Buchler, Justus (1955) Philosophical Writings ofSilver Lake, HarperCollins, Yew York (ࣟPeirce, Dover Publications, New York.

ಖᏊヂࠗࢩࣝࣂ࣮࣭ࣞ࢖ࢡࡢᓊ㎶࡛࠘⚟࣮࣭ࣛ࢖ࣥ࢞ࣝࢫ࣭࣡࢖ࣝࢲ࣮, ᜠᆅ୕㡢㤋᭩ᗑ, ᮾி, 1973)

Grice, Herbert Paul (1989) Studies in the Way ofWords, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

215

1. Ƃ Ħ Œ 1ƃ ß  , R @ K G f K ƅ ð ō<Workshop Report>şŜņ-),7+ß>»Ŷ:,Ƃ«ŌƃøĦŒ-KZfP¶ĐkĽ(ðōšŜċūĭĴ,ōşíň0,ťĠšŜ+ƂA Comparative Study of Japanese and English+ß,R@KGfK>Ł9Â:,Ņ¸Discourse and Its Contribution to English&ðōş,Ŝņ

ÄĨ

"),7

ðøş(ōş'ìŭ;

g,HOBf,ś,¶ĐkĽ>RfL(jřEducationƃ

ş,Ŝņ),7ş&ŵú x°ƂYuko Nomuraƃ

*ŝĬŧĖ+Ēĩř

:,2

),7

*İuĨœ

Ķí¬²ƂRikkyo Universityƃ     £+ųÛ*8řşő>ő#&«ŌĪÇƂNaohiro Tataraƃ     ü>ś3


:,



ĄŃý¬²ƂJ.F.Oberlin Universityƃ   ąŵŦÒ°ƂKishiko Uenoƃ     2. Ƃ Ħ Œ 2ƃ ş 9 +   : Ī å Æ ģ + 7
ûoŲÀ¬²ƂTokyo City Universityƃ   : Ð × æ  ƅ ō ş ( , ċ ū  8 Ƃ ŵ ú ƃ¾ŏŦÖƂKie Kudoƃ        øĭĴ-ðōşĊşŜņ+7:î±× ðø­°¬²ƂJapan Women’s Universityƃ  §,*ļBfT 15 þ,KSf_f,ħ¨÷Ĉ´ƂHirotoshi Yagihashiƃ    ĝ,Ð×,æïđ>üjřşŜņ,ùý¬²ƂKyorin Universityƃ     ş9+ðøşŜņ-ƁżÄ'ħ¨ĝ,Ð
R@KBOHdS ŏnē°ƂYoko Fujiiƃ,(.>yĨ+Æģ'Œġ:,+ðø­°¬²ƂJapan Women’s Universityƃ

¹ōşŜņ-ċūĨwżÄ',Ð

×>Ê·Ś6Ś'æ:(CfcfTƅðōšŜċū, ōşíň:(>ò8+ĞÏ8g,ļ

BfT+¹ĥ*:ű>řş&~:(>į

:

0. -  4 +;2'ðōšŜċūĭĴ-İuřş²

3. Ƃ Ħ Œ 3ƃ ş 9 + ¹  :  Ù Ĩ Ģ Ř ,ĨeŝĬřş²ĨŖĘ8ő=;İuĨîç į ―ð e ō ş , ­ Õ  p  © u Ŝ , ċŊ',ðøş(ōş,řş{ģ6ªĨiĤūü― Ƃąŵƃ

,ŝţ,qï+$&¬*ĥ*9:(į;&ƂĎhƂ1981ƃnuŜ+&ş9>:ŇÞ-ş9

Þ,yƀ,Ŕï+Ŭ%*8Ùŕ>

Ƃ2006ƃúƂ2011ƃneŏnƂ2014ƃö+*)ƃ;8,ĭĴÜÿ>5(+ðøp,;>ÙĨĢŘ(/øĭĴ'-­

ōşíň>ë¡:ś3-+ő=;&Õp©,ðeōşuŜ+:ş9+¹

*#

:ŇÞ,ÙĨĢŘ,Œï>üøcfDI^OX'-ðōšŜRfL>:

ðøş>Ő¦ōş>ŋ¿Ħ|¦ċūðøş(ōş,řş{ģ,ĞÏ> 4(ĞÏ%

$,ĥ*:ŗÄ8į¶Ÿ,ōşíäđ
+Óģ:yă>çį:ğÚ>ķ(8+ōşíň+uŜKLA`,ĥ*9>²ńņ+Øţ:ś3Ñœ'

216

&

:(>Ţ



4. Ƃ Ħ Œ 4ƃ ð ō ş u Ŝ +   : Ŝ Ž ,(6ŋ¿(rņ+$Ŷ¯eĹmű,ċūƂ¾ŏƃ

:(+Ũ£:(Ņ8;: øĭĴ'- 84Qf[ď48;

Ž-+şÉ6îđ,²ń>:!'-uŜRfL+&ŜŽº;³Ļĉ,ŜŽ0$*#&ůĳ>Ņ¸Øţ;+

5,':¶Ÿgµsh

,ōş,

:²ńņ'

#&5;8,

Ž>ĢŘ&ŜŽ,ºyĨ*ğĐŠò8¯&,çĥ*

*

(«

Î#&

2:ĆœŠò8¯2:ĵĦĨ+ŜŽ

ðÁĨ+ęØţ+őz9;:ŜŽ,Ĺmòį;:

WLfd>Øţ,h'ðøş(*),Ę8üðøş-uŜy,ōş>¹Ě*8ōş,řş{ģ,WĀĺ3āŪ'Lfd>ĢŘ:áºÑœ(*:ĦŒ

Āĺ3

:,+¹ōş-uŜ,:ĳÄ¤µ;&Ï>à$(>ò8+:(ðøş,řş{ģ,5 'çă; QdXafS>ģ

Ğäđ-,

í

4,ö*9ĺ3,g$':;+79²ńņ-¥ŸKLdMfT
5. Ƃ Ħ Œ 5ƃ ð ō ş š Ŝ ĭ Ĵ ( ō ş Ů ģ,ōşG\]UFfI^d+č48;:ō

ŉ,ěŰƄĬţ(&,šŜWLf

şŮģ(ÔŅ>h:('dKC`>ĕž:ōşíňƄƂ÷:
5 t,ĦŒÍR@KBOHdSƂŏnƃ

Ĉƃ
øĦŒ-
ðōşšŜĭĴ,Üÿ(ō79ðōšŜċūĭĴ-;;,Ċşşíň>åľ:íňÞđ(&Qd

Ŝņ,ĥ*:ŋ¿Ŗ6ġ¶iĤ,ãï>

XafS
ƂšŜaY`',KCf[+īÈƃòĮ+:5,'(Č%eØţG\]UFfI^d*

Pf`,öÕ>§QdXa

9;-ŋ¿(r0,

fS-řşŮģ>ÊÅĨ+êè:(óřş(+ĥ*:,(+²ńņ>ĩćřş,®2;:šŜ»Ŷ>5ŉ+:Ŵœ*ĭĴ'WLfd0Şº:,ĞÕ>Ĕģ:8;:(į;('šŜWLfd,Ĭţ>KC`+2'ŜċūĭĴ,Üÿ-ōşíň0ťĠ:!

ñŎ8;:ŉÕ>Ţ

'*ðøşíňĥîĢŘEbf

ĂĖĨ*ĢŘ
:(vł%õÍ+ðōşš

V`İu+:ŋ¿Ħ|*)«¼+=
6. 2 ( 4#&ö*5,' ĦŒ 12 8ðøş'-ōş+ċ1&pîĲ²,Ħ»0,ťĠ(&5ã¹Ť,Ð×eÐĢĨœĸ0,ř«Ī(5į;åĨ*æ>ő(=#

:



$29

ðøşŜņ-æ¹Ť(79ũŹ>ŀ4&ŷ=<

979¬*ŖĘ8lœŅîĠ

(:,':8+ĦŒ 34nı°eŏnē°ƂĿƃƂ2014ƃ
ŘìĨş8ðøşuŜ+&-Ŝņ©¹½

ģŢ0,âÝ <Ĝ, ûo.

795īÞ,ĦŜ,ÌŻ>Ďh¢ËƂ1981ƃ
:(*:,řş:(&ŐĨ+ŜŽ>»Ŷ738;:(=#
'áé;

7

(:~

²řş(î,LAZbJf0,

sh, 4 t,ĦŒśŢ¬}ſôÃ, ûo.

*ŝĬŧĖ0,?Xbfú´Ƃ2011ƃōşiĤ,ŒġKLA`N6šŜ»Ŷ+:ðōş,ĥ*9-ãï,ŖĘ8 źėİ, û;;,ĊşŜņęØţ+à$Ŝ

o.

217

࡜࠸࠺⊂❧ࡋࡓᩥἲ⠊␪ࡢᏑᅾࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࠊࡑ

<Workshop Report>ࢀ࡟ࡼࡾಖドࡉࢀࡿព࿡࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀ࡟≉໬ࡋࡓ mirative marker ࡜࠸࠺ᙧែල⌧ᙧࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡑࡢ᰿ᣐࢆ
ồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(1) ࡛ࡣࠊኴᏐ࡛♧ࡋࡓ-PXú᪥ⱥㄒࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࡋࡓ Mirativity ◊✲㸸⤫ㄒㄽ࣭ព࿡ㄽ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ*࡜࠸࠺ᙧែ⣲ࡀ mirative marker ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(A Study on Mirativity Focusing on Japanese

mirativity ࡣᚑ᮶ Evidentiality (ドᣐᛶ)࡟⏤and English: its Syntactic, Semantic and᮶ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡑࢀ⊂⮬ࡢ⠊

Pragmatic Aspects)␪ࢆ௬ᐃࡍࡿ DeLancey (1997) ௨㝆ࠊ
Mirative࡜࠸࠺ᩥἲ⠊␪ࡢᏑᅾࡢ᫝㠀ࢆၥ࠺㊃᪨࡛ࡢ mirativity ◊✲ࡀ㸯ࡘࡢ᪉ྥᛶ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸

ᓥ⏣㞞ᬕ (Masaharu Shimada)ࡢᙧែල⌧⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ (University of Tsukuba)     ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊMirative 
mirative marker ࢆᵝࠎ࡞ゝㄒ࡛᥈஬༑ᔒၨኴ (Keita Ikarashi)      ᙧ࡛࠶ࡿ ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ (University of Tsukuba)     ⣴ࡋࠊ  ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀ┿࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ࠿࡝࠺
1ᮏከṇᩄ (Masatoshi Honda)      ࠿ࢆၥ࠺ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔 (University of Tsukuba)
2. ᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡢ┠ⓗ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ドᣐᛶ, ࣮࢝ࢺࢢࣛࣇ࢕࣮,    ๓⠇࡛㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊmirative marker ࢆ≉᝟ሗᵓ㐀, ホ౯ࡢᙧែㄽ, ࢥࣆ࣮⌮ㄽᐃࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺㊃᪨࡛ mirativity ◊✲ࢆ㐍ࡵࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊ୺࡟ᙧែࡀ㇏࠿࡞ゝㄒࡀᑐ㇟࡜
࡞ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࡢࡣᙜ↛ࡢࡇ࡜࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡑࡢព
࿡࡛ࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊⱥㄒࡣࠊ㡢ㄪ㠃࡛ࡢ᩿∦ⓗ࡞

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟㸸Mirativity ◊✲ࡢ⫼ᬒゝཬࡣ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ mirativity ◊✲㏆ᖺࠊ୺࡟㢮ᆺㄽࡢศ㔝࡟࠾࠸࡚ mirativity(ពእᛶ) ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕ࡟ὀ┠ࡀ㞟ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡣࡉࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ
ࡇࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊᴫ␎ࠊヰ⪅ࡢⓎヰ࡟⾲ࢀࡿヰ⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜ᒅᢡࡀ㇏࠿࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ

⮬㌟ࡢࠕ㦫ࡁࠖࡸࠕண᝿እࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᚰⓗព࿡ᶵ⬟ⓗᙧែ⣲ࡶࠕࡢࠖ࡟௦⾲ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ

ࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊḟࡢࢺከᶵ⬟࡛ࠊmirative marker ࡢ≉ᐃࡀࡋ࡟ࡃࡃࠊ

ࣝࢥㄒࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊண᝿ࢆୖᅇࡿࣆ࢔ࣀࡢ࠺ࡲ

mirativity ◊✲࡛ࡢゝཬࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ࡛ࡣᩒ࠼࡚ࡇࢀ

ࡉ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡢ㦫ࡁࡢឤ᝟ࡀㄞࡳྲྀࢀࠊ

ࡲ࡛ mirativity ◊✲࡛࠶ࡲࡾᑐ㇟࡜ࡉࢀ࡚ࡇ

mirativity ࡀ㛵ࢃࡿᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

࡞࠿ࡗࡓⱥㄒࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊ
(1) kiz-iniz
daughter-your

çok

iyi

piyanomirativity ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⤫ㄒㄽࠊព࿡ㄽࠊㄒ⏝ㄽ

very

good

piano

ࡢ ほ Ⅼ ࠿ ࡽ ⪃ ᐹ ࡍ ࡿ ࠋ ࡑ ࢀ ࡟ ࡼ ࡾ ࠊ (i)çal-iyor-PXú

mirativity ◊✲ࡢ᪂ࡓ࡞ྍ⬟ᛶࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊ (ii)play-PRES-MIR(ative)ⱥㄒࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢグ㏙◊✲ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣࠊ⌮ㄽ◊µ<RXUGDXJKWHUSOD\VWKHSLDQRYHU\ZHOO¶✲ࡢ㐍ᒎࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ␗࡞ࡿⱥㄒ

(DeLancey (1997: 38))࡜᪥ᮏㄒ࡜࠸࠺ 2 ࡘࡢゝㄒ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡼࡾከ㠃ⓗ࡟ mirativity ࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜࡟
ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿⅬ࡛኱࠸࡟ព⩏ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ mirativity ࡟㛵ࢃࡿព࿡ࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟
ฟࡍ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
DeLancey (1997) ࡣ Mirative2183. ྛⓎ⾲ࡢ㊃᪨ࡳࢆᣢࡘᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊሙᡤ

 ྛⓎ⾲⪅ࡢࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡣḟࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ྃಽ⨨ᵓᩥࡣ TP ᣦᐃ㎡ࡢࢥࣆ࣮࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ඖ఩⨨ࡢୗ఩ࢥࣆ࣮ࡀⓎ㡢ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ Mikami (2010) ࡢศ(2) ஬༑ᔒၨኴ㸸ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ Mirativityᯒࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࠊⓎ㡢࡟ୗ఩ࢥࣆ࣮ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿࡢయ⣔࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ

ࡇ࡜࡜ mirativity ゎ㔘ࡢ㛫࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ┦㛵㛵(3) ᓥ⏣㞞ᬕ㸸ࠕMirativity ゎ㔘ࡢ⏤᮶࡜᝟ሗಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ

ᵓ㐀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ
(4) ᮏከṇᩄ㸸ࠕⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ Mirativity ࡢ⤫ㄒⓗල⌧໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ

* ᯇᒸ࿴⨾ඛ⏕ࠊ஭ᕝኖᏊඛ⏕ࠊ㐲⸨႐㞝ඛ⏕ࠊ㛗㇂ᕝಙᏊඛ⏕ࠊ௒㔝ᘯ❶ඛ⏕ࠊ⡿ᒣ୕௨ୗ࡟ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ㊃᪨ࢆ␎㏙ࡍࡿࠋ᫂ඛ⏕ࠊ㛗㔝᫂Ꮚඛ⏕࡯࠿ࠊከࡃࡢ⫈⾗ࡢ ஬༑ᔒࡣࠊព࿡ㄽ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽ᪥ᮏ

᪉ࠎ࠿ࡽ㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡸࡈ㉁ၥࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋㄒࡢ mirative ⾲⌧ࡢグ㏙◊✲ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᗈࡃ

ᚰ࠿ࡽឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࢆぢΏࡋࠊmirativity ࡢព࿡ࢆࡶࡓࡽ

ὀࡍᙧᘧ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡶࡢࢆ≉ᐃࡋࠊᶵ⬟࡟ࡼࡾ

1

3 ✀㢮࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕࣀࢲᩥࠖ࡟࠾

(2001)ࠊAikhenvald (2012) ࡞࡝ࡶཧ↷ࠋ୍᪉ࠊࡅࡿࠕࡢࠖࢆࢱ࢖ࣉ 1ࠊࠕࡢ࡟ࠖࠊࠕ࡞ࢇ࡚ࠖ

Mirative ࡜࠸࠺ᩥἲ⠊␪ࡣᏑᅾࡏࡎࠊࡑࢀࡽ

࡞࡝ࢆࢱ࢖ࣉ 2ࠊドᣐᛶࢆ⾲ࡍࠕࡔࡗ࡚ࠖࠊ

ࡋࡁゎ㔘ࡣࠕドᣐᛶࠖࡢാࡁ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ❧࡜ࡾࡓ࡚モࠕࡲ࡛ࠖࠊ⤊ຓモࠕࡼࠖࢆࢱ࢖ࣉሙ ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Hill (2012) ࡞࡝ࢆཧ↷ࠋ

Mirative ࢆㄆࡵࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ DeLancey

3 ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ ᓥ⏣ࡣࠊmirativity ゎ㔘ࡢ⏤᮶ࢆ࣮࢝ࢺࢢ

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Aikhenvald, Alexandra (2012) ³The Essence ofࣛࣇ࢕࣮⌮ㄽࡢୗ࡛⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡲࡎࠊᓥ⏣ࡣ
mirativity ゎ㔘࡟ࡣ᝟ሗ↔Ⅼࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜

Mirativity,´ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕࡲ࠶ࠊ࠾࠸ࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜ࠖࡢࠕࡇ

435-485.

࡜ࠖࠊࠕࡇࡢᫎ⏬ࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࡢࠖࡢࠕࡢࠖ
ࠊࠕࡇ

Cruschina,

Linguistic

Silvio(2011)

Typology

Discourse-Relatedࢀࠊ࠺ࡲࡗࠖࡢㄒᮎࠕࡗ࡛ࠖ⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡿࢥࣆ

Featuresࣗࣛࠕ࠸ࠖࡢኚ␗ᙧࢆ mirative marker ࡜ࡋࠊ

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

ࠕホ౯ࡢᙧែㄽ (Evaluative Morphology)ࠖ࡟

DeLancey,

and
6FRWW

16,

Functional

Projections,  ³0LUDWLYLW\ 7KHᒓࡍࡿᙧែ⣲࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ᝟ሗ↔Ⅼࢆ⾲

Grammaticalࢃ ࡍᶵ⬟⠊ ␪ IFoc ࢆ ௬ ᐃࡍ ࡿ Cruschina

IQIRUPDWLRQ´Linguistic Typology 1, 33-52.

(2011)ࡢ CP ᒙࡢᵓ㐀ࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࠊmirativity ࡢ

DeLancey, Scott (2001) ³The Miratvity andゎ㔘ࢆ Evaluative ᙧែ⣲࡜ IFoc ࡜ࡢᒁᡤⓗ࡞

Evidentiality,´ Journal of Pragmatics 33,㛵ಀ࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡿㄞࡳ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ

369-82.

MarkingofUnexpected ᮏከࡣࠊᓥ⏣ࡢศᯒࢆⓎᒎࡉࡏࠊⱥㄒࡢ

Hill, Nathan W. (2012) ³³Mirativity´ does not

mirativity ⾲⌧ࡢ≉ᐃ࡜ࡑࡢศᯒࢆࠊ
⤫ㄒㄽࠊ

Exist: Hdug in ³Lhasa´ Tibetan and Other࣮࢝ࢺࢢࣛࣇ࢕࣮⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᮏSuspects,´ Linguistic Typology 16, 389-433.

ከࡣࠊOn the corner was standing a woman.࡞

Mikami, Suguru (2010) ³The Locative Inversion

࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙᡤྃಽ⨨ᵓᩥࡀࠊ(i) ᪂᝟ሗࢆConstruction in English: Topicalization andᥦ♧ࡍࡿᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ(ii) ឤჃࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜

the Pronunciation of the Lower Copy,´࡟╔┠ࡋࠊሙᡤྃಽ⨨ᵓᩥࡣ mirativity ࡢㄞ

English Linguistics 27:2, 297-328.

219

✲࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ලయⓗ࡟᳨ウࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲ

<Workshop Report>ࡎࠊศᩓᙧែㄽࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ⤫ㄒ㒊㛛௨๓ࡢᙧᘧ⣲ᛶ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᧯సࢆㄆࡵ࡚࠸࡞
࠸ࡓࡵ࡟ᙧᘧ⣲ᛶࡢศࡔࡅᢞᑕࡀᙧᡂࡉࢀ
࿘⦕㒊ࡢ⤫ㄒㄽ࡜ᙧែㄽ

ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊ㸦ぢ࠿ࡅୖࡣ㸧࣮࢝ࢺࢢࣛࣇ

㸦Syntax and Morphology of Periphery㸧࢕࣮◊✲ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊᢞᑕࡸ⠊␪ࢆ⣽࠿ࡃศࡅࡿ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡟㏆࡙ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ᣦ᦬ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ⏣ᕝ ᣅᾏ㸦Takumi Tagawa㸧ࡓࠋḟ࡟ࠊ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒࡢ࿨௧ᙧ࿨௧ᩥࡢࢣ࣮

⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ㸦University of Tsukuba㸧ࢫࢫࢱࢹ࢕ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࡑࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡀᨭᣢ㑣㡲 ⣖ኵ㸦Norio Nasu㸧ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚

⚄ᡞᕷእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ㸦Kobe City University ofࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕហ⑵࿨௧ᩥࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚≉ᚩ௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ࿨௧ᩥࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ

Foreign Studies㸧எ㯮 ு㸦Ryo Otoguro㸧᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫ㸦Waseda University㸧

(1)㸦࢟ࢵࢳ࡛ࣥὙ࠸≀ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
ᐙ᪘ࡀฟ࠿ࡅ࡚࠸ࡗࡓࠋᐙ᪘ࡀ౑ࡗ

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸⤫ㄒㄽ࡜ᙧែㄽࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙

ࡓ㣗ჾࡶὙ࠾࠺࡜ᛮࡗ࡚ࢸ࣮ࣈࣝ

࢖ࢫ, ࿘⦕㒊, CP 㡿ᇦ, ࣮࢝ࢺࢢࣛࣇ࢕࣮

ࡲ࡛⾜ࡗ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ᮅ㣗ࡀ୍㒊㣗࡭ࡽࢀࡎ࡟ṧࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࢆぢ࡚㸧a. ඲㒊㣗࡭ࢁࡼ㸟

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

b. ??-*/# ඲㒊㣗࡭ࢁ㸟 ⏕ᡂゝㄒᏛࡢศ㔝࡛⵳✚ࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠊᩥ
ࡢ࿘⦕㒊㸦periphery㸧࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿㅖ⌧㇟࡟↔

ហ⑵࿨௧ᩥࡣ a) ⤊ຓモࠕࡼࠖࡀ⏕㉳ࡋ࡞࠸

Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࠊ3 ࡘࡢ◊✲Ⓨ⾲ࢆᇶ࡟ࠊ⤫ㄒㄽⓗ࡜ᡂ❧ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠊb) ㉳ࡇࡾ࠼࡞࠸஦ែࡢ࿨

◊✲࡜ᙧែㄽⓗ◊✲ࡢ᥋Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢၥ㢟௧࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦཯஦ᐇ࿨௧ᩥ㸧ࠊc) ⪺ࡁᡭ

ᥦ㉳࡜᳨ウࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡣࠊ

࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕᣦ♧ࠖࡢຊࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࠊd) ඾ᆺ

1) ᴟᑠ୺⩏⤫ㄒㄽ㸦Minimalist Syntax㸧ࠊศⓗ࡟ࡣ⊂ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠊ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ඾

ᩓᙧែㄽ㸦Distributed Morphology㸧ࠊㄒᙡᶵᆺⓗ࡞࿨௧ᩥ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡗࡓ≉ᚩࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸

⬟ᩥἲ㸦Lexical Functional Grammar㸧࡜࠸࠺ࠊࡿࠋࡇࡢហ⑵࿨௧ᩥࡢᛶ㉁ࡣࠊ⊂ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚」ᩘࡢ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳ࣭ࣔࢹࣝࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ◊✲Ⓨ࿨㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿṧᛕࡉ࣭୙ᛌឤࡢᚰⓗែᗘࢆ⾲⾲࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⤫ㄒㄽࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃලయ

ࡍࠕࡼࠖࡢᑐ㇟ࡀ࿨௧ᩥࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿᢞᑕࡢෆࠊ

ⓗ࡞ᙧែㄽࡢ◊✲࣭ࣔࢹࣝࡢᵓ⠏ࡶᑕ⛬࡟ྵᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ Fin[+Irrealis]ࡲ࡛ࢆྵࡴ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ2) ᪥ᮏㄒࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠊⱥㄒࢆࡣࡌ

ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ศᯒ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ࿨௧ᩥࡀከ

ࡵ࡜ࡋࡓㅖゝㄒ࡜ࡢᑐ↷ゝㄒᏛⓗ࣭㢮ᆺㄽⓗᒙⓗ࡞ᢞᑕ࠿ࡽᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ศᯒࢆᨭ

࡞どⅬࢆ㔜どࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺≉Ⰽࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ

ᣢࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉࡛ࠊ⤊ຓモࡸ࢖ࣥࢺ࿘⦕㒊ࡢ◊✲࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᪂ࡓ࡞どⅬ࡜㆟ㄽࢆࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ⤫ㄒⓗ఩⨨௜ࡅ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࡉᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࡽ࡞ࡿ᳨ウࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡓࠋ

2. ࿘⦕㒊ࡢ࿘⦕㒊࡜ᙧែࡢศᕸ㸸FinPࠊ

3. ࢺࣆࢵࢡࠊࣇ࢛࣮࢝ࢫࠊࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡢ┦ForceP ࡜ᒅᢡࠊ⤊ຓモ㸦⏣ᕝ ᣅᾏ㸧஫㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚(㑣㡲 ⣖ኵ) ᮏ◊✲ࡣศᩓᙧែㄽࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ࿘⦕㒊ࡢ◊ ᚑᒓ⠇࡟ࡣෆ㒊࡛ࡢヰ㢟໬ࢆチࡍࡶࡢ࡜220チࡉ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋヰ㢟໬ࡢྍྰࢆᚑᒓ

࡜ࡑࡢ⤫ㄒⓗ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡀㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜

⠇ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜㛵㐃ࡉࡏࡿศᯒࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏⓎࡀඛ⾜◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᮏ◊⾲࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢヰ㢟໬࡟ࡣㄆ㆑ⓗࣔࢲࣜࢸ✲࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢྠ✀ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊ࢕ࡀ῝ࡃ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ≉ᐃࡢ⤫ㄒ఩⨨࡟୺㢟ࡸࡣ㐃ືࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㠀ᑐ↷↔Ⅼࢆ㓄⨨ࡍࡿ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡀ୙㐺ษ࡛࠶ࡿⓗヰ㢟せ⣲ࡣㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモࠕࡔࢁ࠺ࠖࡀฟ

ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ๪モ⠇ࡀ୺⌧࡛ࡁࡿ⎔ቃ࡟ࡢࡳ⏕㉳࡛ࡁࠊࡇࡢ౫Ꮡ㛵ಀᩥࡢᶵ⬟⠊␪୺せ㒊ࡢᡂศ࡜࿧ᛂࡍࡿࡇ࡜

ࡣ Agree ࡟㑏ඖࡋ࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

࡛ㄆྍࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢᶵ⬟⠊␪ࡢᣦᐃ㒊࡟⌧ࢀࡿヰ㢟せ⣲ࡀㄆྍࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊゎ㔘୙ྍ⬟࡞ࣔ࡜࠸࠺୺ᙇࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᚑ࠺࡜ࠊ๪モ⠇ࡣࢲࣜࢸ࢕⣲ᛶࢆᣢࡘ TopP ୺せ㒊ࡀゎ㔘ྍ⬟ࡑࡢෆ㒊࡟⮬㌟ࢆㄆྍࡍࡿᶵ⬟⠊␪ࡼࡾୖ࡞ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕⣲ᛶࢆᣢࡘ ModP ୺せ㒊ࢆ c-ࡢ୺せ㒊࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄆྍࡉࢀࡿูࡢ๪モ⠇ࢆ⤫ᚚࡋࠊAgree ࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ

ᇙࡵ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ(2)ศᯒ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊヰ㢟せ⣲࡜ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕せ⣲ࡣࡢࡼ࠺࡟ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚲࡎࡋࡶྠ୍⠇ෆ࡟ඹ㉳ࡍࡿᚲせࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ஦
ᐇࠊ༢⊂࡛ࡣヰ㢟໬ࢆチࡉ࡞࠸⠇࡛ࡶࠊࣔࢲ

(2)[[[[ᩍ⛉᭩ࢆ᚟⩦ࡋࡓࡀ]ෆᐜࡀ⌮ゎࣜࢸ࢕せ⣲ࡀฟ⌧࡛ࡁࡿ⠇ࢆෆໟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ

࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛]ヨ㦂ࢆཷࡅࡎ࡟]ᐙ࡛

ሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊヰ㢟໬ࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࠋ࠸ࢃࡺࡿษ

ࢤ࣮࣒ࢆࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ]୍᪥㐣ࡈࡋࡓࠋࡾワࡵศᯒ㸦truncation analysis㸧࡛ࡣࠊヰ㢟໬ࢆチᐜࡋ࡞࠸ᚑᒓ⠇ࡣ TopP ࢆྵࡴ࿘⦕㒊ࡇࢀࡽࡣᕥ᪉࿘⦕㒊ࠊྑ᪉ࡢ㏙ㄒᙧែ཮᪉࡟

ࡀ⦰ῶࡉࢀࡓᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ

࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࣮࢝ࢺࢢࣛࣇ࢕ⓗ࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡣ⤒ࡀࠊᮏⓎ⾲࡛ᥦ᱌ࡋࡓศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊTopP ࡀ࿘㦂ⓗ࡟ᨭᣢࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ

⦕㒊ࡢᵓ㐀࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࢆᚑᒓ⠇ẖ࡟◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ௦᭰᱌࡜ࡋ࡚ㄒᙡᶵ⬟ᩥἲᣦᐃࡍࡿᚲせࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⠇ࡢ⦰ῶຠᯝࡣ Top

㸦Lexical Functional Grammar; LFG㸧࡟ࡼࡿศ࡜ Mod ࡢ Agree ࡢᡂྰ࠿ࡽᑟฟࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜

ᯒࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣ୺㢟ࠊ↔Ⅼࡢศᕸ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡣ i ᵓ㐀࡬ࡢᢞᑕ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ๪モ⠇ࡢㄆྍ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣືモࡢㄒᙡ㡯┠࡬ࡢ⣲ᛶࡢᣦᐃ࡟

4. ㏙ ㄒࡢᙧែⓗ≉ᛶ࡜࿘⦕㒊ࡢ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀ࡼࡗ࡚ṇࡋࡃᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ㸦எ㯮 ு㸧 ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠕ࠶ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵỴࡵࡽࢀࡓᵓ㐀࡟せ5. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟

⣲ࢆ㓄⨨㸦ල⌧໬㸧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᙧែ࣭⤫ㄒ࣭ ௨ୖࠊ◊✲Ⓨ⾲ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊᚑ᮶ࡢ࣮࢝ࢺࢢ

᝟ሗᵓ㐀ࡢᶵ⬟ࡀࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺࢝

ࣛࣇ࢕࣮◊✲ࡢ᭷⏝ᛶ࡜ၥ㢟Ⅼࠊ௦᱌ࡢᏑᅾ

࣮ࢺࢢࣛࣇ࢕ⓗ࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡜ࠕྛㄒᙡࡀᙧ

ࡀ࡜ࡶ࡟ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋ㉁␲ᛂ⟅࣭඲యウㄽ࡟ែ࣭⤫ㄒ࣭᝟ሗᵓ㐀ୖࡢไ⣙࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚⤌ࡳ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⤫ㄒ⠊␪ࡢ఩⨨ྜࢃࡉࡿࡇ࡜࡛⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ᵓ㐀ࡀ࡛ࡁ࠶ࡀࡿࠖ

௜ࡅ࡜ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡉࡽ࡞ࡿᩚ⌮࣭⢭⦓໬࡜࠸࠺⣧ᒁᡤⓗࡲࡓࡣㄒᙡ୺⩏ⓗ࡞࢔ࣉࣟࡀᚲせ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠊከᩘࡢᢞᑕࢆ௬ᐃࡍࡿ࡜

࣮ࢳࢆࠊᕥ᪉࿘⦕㒊ࡢ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀࡜ྑ᪉࡟⌧ࢀᙧែ࡜ࡢᑐᛂ௜ࡅ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࢮࣟᙧែ⣲ࡀࡼ

ࡿ㏙ㄒࡢᙧែⓗ≉ᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊẚ㍑ᑐ↷ࡋࠊࡾከࡃᚲせ࡟࡞ࡾၥ㢟࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠊ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ

⤒㦂ⓗ࡟ᚋ⪅ࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ࣐ࣟࣥࢫ⣔ࠊ ␲ၥࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀࠊᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡢ≺࠸࡟ἢࡗࡓ㆟ㄽࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ

ࢤ࣐ࣝࣥ⣔ࡢゝㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୺㢟ࡸ↔Ⅼࡀ
TopP ࡸ FocP ࡢᣦᐃ㒊࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡍࡿ

221

2. ࣃࣈࣜࢵࢡ࣭ࢫࣆ࣮ࢳ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪥ⱥㄒࡢ

<Workshop Report>ㄯヰᵓ㐀㸦Ted Talks) ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࣃࣈࣜࢵࢡ࣭ࢫࣆ࣮ࢳ࡟࠾ࡅ
ࡿዲࡲࢀࡿヰࡋ᪉ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ゝㄒᐇ㊶࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪥ⱥㄒẚ㍑◊✲㸸ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ(1)ࢫࣆ࣮ࢳ඲యࡢᵓᡂࠊ(2)ࢫࣆ

ゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒࡢ୧ほⅬ࠿ࡽ࣮ࢳෆ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿㄒࡸ⾲⌧࡜࠸࠺ 2 ࡘࡢ㸦Comparative Studies of Japanese and English

どⅬ࠿ࡽ᪥ⱥㄒẚ㍑◊✲ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋศᯒࡢ⤖Language Practices:ᯝࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡢࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࡣࠊㄽ᪨ࡀึࡵ࡟

Verbal and Non-verbal Perspectives㸧ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢ᰿ᣐࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵ࡟」ᩘࡢ౛ࢆ
ᣲࡆࡿ౛ドᆺࡢᵓᡂࡀⅭࡉࢀࠊࢫࣆ࣮ࢳෆ࡛

Ḉ⏣᛭ె㸦Reika Sakurada㸧ࡣࠊ᩿ゝࡸᙉពㄒ࡟ࡼࡾ☜ᐇᛶࢆᙉㄪࡋ࡚⪺᪥ᮏዪᏊ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔 (-DSDQ:RPHQ¶Vࡁᡭࡢ㈶ྠࢆಁࡍഴྥࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋヰ⪅ࡀ࣮ࣜ

University)ࢲ࣮࡜࡞ࡾ⪺ࡁᡭࢆᑟࡃࠕඛᑟᆺࠖࡢࢫࣆ࣮

㜿㒊࠶࠿ࡾ (Akari Abe)ࢳ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ᪥ᮏேࡢࢫࣆ࣮ࢳ

᪥ᮏዪᏊ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔 (-DSDQ:RPHQ¶Vࡣࠊㄽ᪨ࡣࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࡢᚋ᪉࡟ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࠊ⪺ࡁ

University)ᡭ࡟⤖ㄽࢆ᥎ᐹࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸࡞ࡀࡽ౛ࢆ✚ࡳ㮵㔝ᾈᏊ (Hiroko Shikano)㔜ࡡࡿఅ⥺ᆺࡢᵓᡂࡀⅭࡉࢀࠊࢫࣆ࣮ࢳෆ࡛

᪥ᮏዪᏊ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔 (-DSDQ:RPHQ¶Vࡣࠊ࡛ࡍࡲࡍㄪࡢ౑⏝ࡀᇶᮏ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ୰࡛ࠊ

University)୙౑⏝⟠ᡤ࡛ࡣᚰෆⓎヰ࡟ࡼࡿ⮬ᕫ㛤♧ࢆᑠ⃝㞞 (Miyabi Ozawa)⾜࠸ࠊඹឤࢆಁࡍഴྥࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋヰ⪅ࡣ⪺ࡁ᪥ᮏዪᏊ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔 (-DSDQ:RPHQ¶Vᡭࡢࣃ࣮ࢺࢼ࣮࡜࡞ࡾࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࡢᵓ⠏㐣⛬

University㸧ࢆඹ᭷ࡍࡿࠕྠ⾜ᆺࠖࡢࢫࣆ࣮ࢳ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸
࠼ࡿࠋ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ࢫࣆ࣮ࢳᵓᡂ,       ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ, ᨃఝ⊂ヰ, ୍ே⛠௦ྡモ

3. ࢱࢫࢡㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ☜ಙᗘ࡟╔┠ࡋࡓ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ౑⏝࡜ᶵ⬟ 㸦ࢱࢫࢡ)1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⤊ຓモࠕࡡࠖࡢࢱࢫࢡ ᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ⱥㄒࡢ┦஫ㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ౑⏝ࡸࡑࡢ

⾜Ⅽ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿゝㄒ⌧㇟ࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟

ᶵ⬟ࡢศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ᭦࡟ࠊࡑࡢᶵ⬟࡟㢮ఝࡼࡾࠊྛࠎࡢゝㄒ౑⏝࡜ࡑࡢ⫼ᬒ࡟࠶ࡿ₯ᅾࡍࡿⱥㄒࡢ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆඛ⾜◊✲࠿ⓗ࡞ᴫᛕࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿ஦ࢆ┠ᣦࡋࡓࠋᮏⓎࡽ㑅ᢥࡋࠊྠࡌ⎔ቃୗࡢࢱࢫࢡㄯヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚⾲࡛ࡣ 2 ࡘࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᢅࡗࡓࠋ1 ࡘࡣࠊ࣑ࢫ

ࡑࢀࡽࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟౑࠸ศࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿

1ࢱ࣮࣭࣮࣭࢜ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ ࡜࠸࠺ࣅࢹ࢜ࢥ࣮ࣃ

࡜࠸࠺᪥ⱥㄒ㛫ࡢ㐪࠸࡟╔┠ࡋࡓࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ

ࢫ࡛ࠊࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࢱࢫࢡ㸦ㄢ㢟㐩ᡂ┦஫⾜Ⅽ㸧⤊ຓモࠕࡡࠖࡣ³ୖ᪼´³ᖹᆠ´³ୖ᪼-ୗ㝆´³ୖ࡜⮬⏤఍ヰࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋࡶ࠺ 1 ࡘࡣ TED Talks

᪼-ୗ㝆-ୖ᪼´ࡢ 4 ࡘࡢ㡢ㄪࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࡀࠊ

࡜࠸࠺ࢫࣆ࣮ࢳ࢖࣋ࣥࢺࡢᫎീࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋྛヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬㌟ࡢពぢ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ☜ಙᗘࢆ㡢ㄪࢱ࢖ࢺࣝᚋࡢ()ෆࡣ࣑ࢫࢱ࣮࣭࣮࣭࢜ࢥ

ࡢ㐪࠸࡛⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ࡀ≉➹ࡍ࡭ࡁⅬ࡜ࡋ࣮ࣃࢫࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ✀㢮ࡲࡓࡣ TED Talks ࡢ㆑ู࡚ぢฟࡉࢀࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊⱥㄒࡢ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩ

ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ࡛ࣙࣥࡣヰࡋᡭࡢ☜ಙᗘࡀ⾲ฟࡉࢀࡿᶵ⬟222

ࢆᣢࡘ≀࡟⤠ࡗ࡚ほᐹࡋࡓᡤࠊⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡢ☜ࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࢹ࣮

ಙᗘࡢపࡉࢆ⾲ࡍ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ౑⏝ࢱ࡟⌧ࢀࡓ୍ே⛠௦ྡモࡢᩘࡣࠊⱥㄒࡣ᪥ᮏ

ᅇᩘࡣ᪥ᮏே࡟ẚ࡭࡚ᑡ࡞࠸஦ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

ㄒࡢ 7 ಸ࡜ᅽಽⓗ࡟ከࡃࠊࡑࡢせᅉࡣࠊⱥㄒ

᭦࡟ㄯヰศᯒ࡟ࡼࡾࠊⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡣ☜ಙᗘࡢప࡛ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ୺యࡢ㝿࡟ࡣ୍ே⛠௦ྡモࡣࡉࢆ⾲ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࡶពぢࡢ୺ᙇࢆ⾜࠺ࡢ࡟ᑐᚲࡎ᫂♧ࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣෆᅾ

ࡋࠊ᪥ᮏேヰ⪅ࡣ☜ಙᗘࡢపࡉࢆᬯ࡟♧ࡍ஦ⓗどⅬࢆ࡜ࡿࡓࡵࠊヰࡋᡭࡢෆⓗᛮ⪃ࡸឤ᝟࡛⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ឤ᝟ࡢඹ᭷ࢆᅗࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ࡀศ

ࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡶ୍ே⛠௦ྡモࢆకࢃ࡞࠸࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡢࡀつᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡔ࠿ࡽࡇࡑ㏫࡟᫂♧ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࢀ⮬యࡀ௨ୗࡢᶵ⬟ࡢ࠺ࡕ࠸ࡎࢀ

4. ࢱࢫࢡࢹ࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽぢࡽࢀࡿᨃఝ⊂ヰ࡟࠾࠿ࢆᖏࡧࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᑟ࠸ࡓ㸸࢚ࣆࢯ࣮ࢻࡢᥦ

ࡅࡿᣦ♧モࡢඹ᭷ᴫᛕ㸦ࢱࢫࢡ)♧࣭ᙉㄪ࣭᫂☜໬࣭ᑐ↷໬࣭ྠㄪ࣭ᐈほ໬ࠋ㻌 ࢱࢫࢡ࡜ゝ࠺┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢሙ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᨃఝ

ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ᫂♧ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜⮬యࡀࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞

⊂ヰ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣヰࡋᡭࡀఱࢆ⪃࠼ᶵ⬟࡬ࡢᣦᶆᛶࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡓࠋ

࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺஦ࢆࠊᨃఝ⊂ヰࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ඹ
᭷ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡓࠋ

6. ࡲ࡜ࡵ

ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟࠾࠸࡚ぢࡽࢀࡓᨃఝ⊂㻌 4 ேࡢྛ◊✲⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊ᪥ⱥㄒࡢゝㄒ౑⏝ヰࡢⓎヰ୰࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓᣦ♧モࠕ࠶ࢀࠖ࡜ that

࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿඹ㏻Ⅼࢆᑟ࠸ࡓࠋⱥㄒࡢゝㄒ౑⏝࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚ศᯒ࣭⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠸ࠊᣦ♧モࡀᯝࡓࡣࠊ┦ᡭ࡟⮬ศࡢ୺ᙇࡸ᝟ሗࢆᥦ♧ࠊࡲࡓࡣࡍࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢᶵ⬟ࡢศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗ☜ㄆࢆࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺┠ⓗࡢࡓࡵ࡟࡞ࡉࢀࡿഴ

ࡓࠋᨃఝ⊂ヰࡀⓎヰࡉࢀࡿ≧ἣ࡛ࡢᣦ♧モྥࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚᪥ᮏㄒࡢゝㄒ⌧㇟ࡣࠊࡲࠕ࠶ࢀࠖ࡟ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢព㆑ࡢ୰࡟࠶ࡿ࢖࣓

ࡎࠊ᝟ሗ࣭ឤ᝟࣭ᛮ⪃ࡸࠊࡑࢀࢆໟᣓࡍࡿ┦࣮ࢪࡀࠕ࢔⣔࡛ࠖᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ

஫⾜Ⅽࡢሙࢆࠊ┦ᡭ࡜ඹ᭷ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ

ෆⓗᛮ⪃ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఏ࠼ࡓ࠸ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡶྠ

࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ 4 ࡘࡢᐇド◊✲ࡌࡼ࠺࡟ឤࡌ࡚ḧࡋ࠸࡜࠸࠺Ẽᣢࡕࡀヰࡋ࠿ࡽࡣࠊ᪥ⱥㄒࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒᐇ㊶

ᡭࡢ(ᨃఝ⊂ヰࡢ)Ⓨヰ࡬ᘬࡁ㎸ࡳⓎヰ࡜ࡋࡢഴྥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕඹ᭷ࠖࠕᥦ♧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡀ

࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ᛮ⪃ࡢඹ᭷ࢆᅗ

ᑟࡁฟࡉࢀࡓࠋ᪥ⱥㄒࡢゝㄒᐇ㊶࡟࠾ࡅࡿ≉ࢁ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡓⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㐩ࡢ఍ヰᚩࡢ⫼ᬒ࡟ࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡀ࠸ࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊ

࡛ࡣࠊthat ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⊂ヰ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃⓎࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᩥ໬ࡸ♫఍࡟᰿ᕪࡋࡓᴫᛕࡀ࠶

ヰ࡜ࡋ࡚ཷࡅྲྀࡽࢀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣⓎヰ࡟ᑐࡋᛂࡾࠊࡑࢀࡀゝㄒ౑⏝࡟⾲ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡢ⟅ࡍࡿᙧࡢᑐヰࡀྲྀࡽࢀࡓ஦ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠋᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ࡛☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࡇࢀࡽࡢ≉ᚩࡀࠊ௒ᚋࠊⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡸ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ
⫱࡟ᛂ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㢪࠸ࠊⓎ⾲ࢆ⤊࠼ࡓࠋ㻌

5. ᪥ⱥㄒ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᫂♧ⓗ࣭㠀᫂♧ⓗᣦ♧⾲⌧࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿᣦᶆᛶ㸦⮬⏤఍ヰ㸧 ᪥ⱥㄒ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᣦ♧⾲⌧ࡢ୰࡛ὀ
ᖹᡂ 15ࠥ17 ᖺᗘ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝ᇶ┙◊✲ BࠊNo.

ࡶࠊ୺ㄒࡢ఩⨨࡛ࡢ୍ே⛠௦ྡモ࡟╔┠ࡋศ

1ᯒ࣭⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡣⱥ

15320054, ◊✲௦⾲⪅ ஭ฟ⚈Ꮚㄒ࡜ࡣᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊ୍ே⛠௦ྡモࡣ᫂♧ࡋ࡞࠸
ࡢࡀᬑ㏻࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ๓ᥦ࡟ࠊࡑࢀ࡛ࡶ᫂♧ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࡜ࡁ࠿ࠊࡑࡋ୍࡚ே⛠௦ྡモࡢ᫂♧࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣦᶆᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ

223

ċ

<Workshop Report>=9 (Langacker 2000):7=Ľ0$4ıăÀķ*Ü(9ü°*3)+Ñĝýĩ=68Ĉæý)8Ŀ>ÀĄĉºĩ%ÀĄĉ)9Ñĝ*¸ŚıăÀķ*Ó°ō*;ßZ]CFXJR%+ÀĄĉ*iv&$ĮĲĦó*öĻõ¢6-ęÇ\ĳ1Ç*¸=ŉī_"*ĄĉüĦ=Ĥ!

ŘThe Importance of Context in the Study ofMeaning: A New Horizon in Cognitive Semanticsř

2. Ċ Ŏ & Ķ İ * Ï í Ś above & below *{ .1ŊŘFumino HRULXFKLřŊe ¥ľŘDaisuke NRQDNDřč ×ĔŘSaori DDLMXřKCHLËąøë=v)$Ř{ř
KCHL{*rĕ=Ë above & below *øë (e.g. see above / below) +ĊŎýÀÃÄĖ¡¥¨¥¨őŘKeio Universityřám¥¨¥¨őŘThe University of TokyořÖß¨ĥÌġqŘJSPSř

7TIQ?]=o$É¶&:

B]Z]MŚÑĝ, ıăÀķ, öĻõ¢,Ķİ, ĀkĤî

®9&dĘ*Ì9Ģ

(cf. Boers 1996)^Ī9&¯Ćý%

9

British National Corpus *«v=Ĭ
)+é(ĀŅ

Ī7:v,above +KCHL*{­=Ħį&yĻ5 (e.g. theabove analysis / the reasons stated above)
1. ě Û &  ŕ À ĸ

below +ÑČèŁ5Ħ=Ħį&yĻıăĮĲ¨%+ıăfs*ç¼*8ÔĮĲĦó=ê#9&

ċ

5

7

(e.g. page 42 below / figure below)

0below +į{)4öĻ5¤*}â(:$v,ÀÉñ)pÑ see below %*|óŔ´ŗ¶*ěÛ)TIQ?]5TLNS]&dĘ*ĀŅ+Ķİ)9`aû(9Àıăýê#!

9&¬Ĭý)+

=Ê"&%ö$

9&ė7:9iÁ%4fs'=ïí9)»"08above Ë*+ĳ1Ç)&!$Õ$èÑ*ņÈ£<9&ą:ă*¿*3{­ý(į&yĻ$^Ô%:0%*}â+(i) ¤t4Ëą¯Ĺ=ñª5^Ôbelowv)#(ii) ç¼*fs&ç¼9Ë*+ĳ1Ç)&!$Þă*¿*¯Ĺ*jĘŎ*ŏw¾ŉī:$&3Ëą¯Ĺ*Îď)+·µý(Ç8

jí)

}

ºĩ%

8pÑ=ø

%!&ė7:9tv*/&>'+

üń$

9&½<:9*6Ñ%

9ó«*Ĳ5èÑ+Ķİ5üİ*łŌ&$uøÑĝ*ėÂb)öĻõ¢7dĘ*ĀŅ=Ù7)%

!Ñĝ*e%öĻ90ĮĲuø+ÇŘęÇ\ĳ1Çř§
$~3$Å8ċhêĜ4*ĀŅ+ĳ1Ç)ňÂ$èÅ:Ķİ*èŁ)ê#7:$

9&ė7:9ç¼4ESVND]

FX[*ÿý=Ê!$Ĥ<:9ıăÀķ

3. Ñ ĝ  7 Ī 9Æ å l ÝŚ &  * ņ+ôķý)+Ñĝ*¸=ŉī$8

È=ļ$ŘŊeř

(Langacker 1997)Ĳ5èÑ*ăĸ+öĻÑĝıăÀķ%+=3·%ģĈ:9&øëþ*Æ å l Ý (locative

alternation) +&*ņÈ&

224

ıăfs

*ÍÔ=ÚóĹ&$ė7:$

Ď=Ĩ©9**6j"*Ĥî (Q and A) =2&¤(Ĭí+(èÑlÝóĹ§9*=ĭÙ9`%ŉĩ%9^"*èÑ*e)ÔİĘ A *ăĸŋ¤^İĘ B +«Œ*èÑņÈ)+Ñĝ*ã¸4¥

İĘ A *¹ēüİ=Ðì$`ØĵA[LO]FX[%Ĩ©90z7ŃĞßĄĉ+ÆålÝį6ó:9

YGHI]*^"%

 competitive (êĜ4

9YFP)Ăÿj9İĘ B +"*èÑ*«v=ĵä (e.g. ćðÿ$ÐìýĲèÑ Sprinkle the salt over the meat /&=üW]U@*÷|5ÀĪ*¯ċ=ÆÿýĲèÑ Sprinkle the meat with salt)

ąz%*đã(a)Ĩ©)68*6ÆÿýĲèÑ¥Ň}=3

9İĘ A *¹ēüİ&û(99 supportive (Á´=ħ!
(êĜö9*

9&(b) YFP)9ÿýĲāù+óĹ+Ñr%+}â%üİ*łŌÆ ÿ ý Ĳ è Ñ ) ¤  Ī 7 : 9  & (e.g.

5¯nŏw&

Sprinkle Ø with salt) Ù7&(!:âĜ%+(a’)!Ñĝ=ėÂ$}9Æį+Ě('*TA[*Ŗàćðį+ĵÒ%

9&¤TA[*Ŗà&$ņ,:5*ßĄĉ+ JSPSñĄĉĄĉ¦ĺŘĴŕú{ 15J07850Ŋe 15J11687ř*

&(b’)

Å=$TA[*Ŗà+ŀ³fŕ)(93āù*9

ê# (cf. Brown and Yule 1983) &Ġ5

&*Ú%

9&ė7:9ćėÑòBoers, Frank (1996) Spatial Prepositions andðÿýĲèÑ+ĵÒğs*tÅºĩ(œ(')Ī7:9øëþ*Ĭí)ċ

"(7,*6

Metaphor: A Cognitive Semantic Journey along(ñª*YGHI])Ī

the7:9}²5ĶİèŁ)#¿4èÑ)ŏ9ăĸ*^Ň=èÅ$
9;

UP-DOWN

andthe

FRONT-BACK

Dimensions, Gunter NarrVerlag, Tübingen.

9&ĮBrown, Gillian and George Yule (1983) Discourse

Analysis,Cambridge

University

Press,

Cambridge.
4. Ñ ë ă ĸ & Ā k Ĥ î * Ï í Ś
co-construction = v )  $ Ř č
co-construction &+qİ)

Langacker, Ronald W. (1997) “The contextual basis

řof

cognitive

semantic,”Language

and

$İĘ B

conceptualization, ed. by Jan Nuyts and EricİĘ A *üİ=©gjn%^"*Pederson, 229-252, Cambridge University Press,

Ñ =t9óĹ%9 (Ono and Thompson

Cambridge.

1995):0%+*ĒĲýxœ¤}Langacker, Ronald W. (2000) “A Dynamicâ:$ßĄĉ%+ Santa Barbara

Usage-Based Model,” Usage-Based Models of

Corpus of Spoken American English 7*Language, ed. by Michael Barlow and Suzanne

óĹ=Ĭ®*êĜ=}âİĘ B

Kemmer, 1-63, CSLI Publications, Stanford.

İĘ A =Ĩ94* (supportive) z
8LPJC)ŏ9cĘ*ăĸŋ

Ono, Tsuyoshi and Sandra A. Thompson (1995)“What can Conversation Tell Us about*±)6!$êĜ4Đ}:9v,

Syntax?” Alternative Linguistics: Descriptive

İĘ B )ăĸ¤and Theoretical Modes, ed. by Philip W. Davis,%İĘ B +İĘ A

213-271, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

)ôĭ=ąaŐĵA[LO]FX[%ĩ

225

[II]
Eighth International Spring Forum
April 18-19, 2015

detailed explanation of the difference between(1) and (2).
It is also well known that MP adjectives
appear in a simple sentence like (3).
A Syntactic Analysis of Mental Property(3)

Adjectives and Its Implication for
Pedagogical Grammar

John was kind.

*

The grammar books do not show the relation
between (1) and (3) either.
Therefore, this paper aims to elucidate the

Takahiro Honda

syntax of MP adjectives and to point out

Kobe Women’s University

problems in the current pedagogical grammar
Keywordsmental property adjective, expletive,

regarding the construction of these adjectives. I

that-clause, JEFLL corpus, pedagogicalassume that analyzing the syntactic structure ofgrammarthe construction of MP adjectives can contributeto classroom instruction.
2. Stowell’s (1991) Analysis

1. Introduction

Stowell (1991) proposes a syntactic structure

In this paper, I analyze the construction ofmentalproperty(MP)

adjectivesandfor (1), as in (4).

its

implications for pedagogical grammar.
(4) [CP C [TP T … [AP [A kindi [AP (of) Johnj ti]]

The following are examples of a class ofadjectival predicates attributed with mental
properties (MPs):[Event PROj to help Mary]]]]1

In (4), the MP adjective selects John as a(1) a. It was kind of John to help Mary.

sentient argument, and then the complex

b. John was kind to help Mary.

adjective kind (of) John selects the infinitive asc. To help Mary was kind of John.

an event argument. According to Stowell, thesentient argument can be raised to the subject

This class of adjectives includes words such

position because an infinitive does not need toas kind, polite, rude, wise, clever, careless,be Case-marked, and hence the grammaticality

brave, and many others. This topic is wellof (1b). On the other hand, if the sentient

covered in grammar books for senior highargument is assigned genitive Case by the MP

school students in Japan. The books explain that

adjective, the event argument is raised to theJohn in (1) is the subject of the infinitival clausesubject position, as in (1c). Moreover, (1a) isjust as John is in (2).

assumedtobederived

by

means

of

extraposition.
(2)

It was important for John to help Mary.

Additionally, sentences like (3) are assumed
to be derivations from a single AP structure, as

However, the grammar books do not offer ain (5).

228

(10) The story is likely.

[CP C [TP T ... [AP John kind]]](5)(Inada (1989: 42))

The that-clause in (8) is considered to be a CP,

3. The Problems in Stowell (1991)
Under Minimalism (Chomsky (2001 et seq.)),while the one in (9) a DP. The structures of (8a)however, it is unclear why the event argumentand (9a) are (11a) and (11b), respectively, and it

can agree with T and be raised to SPEC-T in

is assumed that a phonetically null D selects a(1c)

CP in (11b).

if

infinitives

reallydonotrequireCase-marking. As for (1b), the infinitive does(11) a.

not seem to agree with anything.
Furthermore,

Stowell’s

analysiscannotseems [CP that John loves Mary].

b.

explain the ungrammaticality of (6), which lacks

is likely [DP D [CP that John lovesMary]].

the infinitive, and the difference between (7a)and (7b).

(9b) is also derived from (11b) and thanks to thisempty D, the that-clause can agree with T and(6) *It is/was wise of Rollo.

be raised to the subject position because DPs can(Wilkinson (1970: 431))

agree with T.

(7) a. Max was wise in leaving.

Thus, sentences like (8b) cannot be derived
because the that-clause, which is a CP, cannot

b. * It was wise of Max in leaving.
(ibid.: 426)

agree with T.
Furthermore, Honda (2015) proposes that theI assume that these problems arise because

expletive it in (9a) is the overt realization of a

Stowell (1991) does not clarify the status of the

D-feature in a way similar to the expletive there

expletive it.

(see Sabel (2000), Fujita and Matsumoto (2005)),
and that only the D is extracted and raised to4. The Expletive It as D

SPEC-T in (9a).2 In Fujita and Matsumoto’s

Honda (2015) proposes that a that-clause can(2005) analysis, the expletive there is a D thatbe either a CP or a DP, and that CPs do not haveselects an NP, and only the D, i.e. the expletive

any Case features or -features to account forthere, is raised to the subject position. This is

the ungrammaticality of (8b).

how the there construction is derived.
On the other hand, I assume that the(8) a. It seems that John loves Mary.

expletive it is inserted as a last resort repair

b. * That John loves Mary seems.

strategy in (8a), which indicates that these two(9) a. It is likely that John loves Mary.

its are different. As Napoli (1988) points out, theb. That John loves Mary is likely.

expletives in (8a) and (9a) behave differently.

In Honda (2015), it is assumed that the verb

(12) a. * It seems enough that John died to upset

seem selects a CP, but the adjective likely selectsme.

a DP, as we see in (10), where the subject isb. It’s likely enough that John did it [PROapparently a DP.

to convince me we ought to question
him].

229

(Napoli (1988: 328–329))

Now, we can account for (16) (= (6)) and

The following sentences also support the claim(17) (= (7)).

that these expletives are used differently in (8a)and (9a):(16) *It is/was wise of Rollo.

(= (6))(17) a. Max was wise in leaving.

(13) a. It [is likely that John loves Mary] andb. * It was wise of Max in leaving.

[is likely that Bill loves Sue].

(= (7))

b.?*It [is likely that John loves Mary] andThese sentences have a structure like (18).

[seems that Bill loves Sue].
(Honda (2015: 314))(18) [CP C [TP T ... [AP Rollo/Max wise][(inIf we apply the analysis of that-clauses toleaving)]]]that of infinitives, we can assume that the event
Since only the sentient argument Rollo/Max

argument in (14) (= (4)) is either a CP or a DP.

agrees with the matrix T, the expletive it is never(14) [CP C [TP T … [AP [A kindi [AP (of) Johnj ti]]
[Event PROj to help Mary]]]]derived from (18).

(= (4))
5. MP Adjectives in Japanese and Problems

When the event argument is a CP, the matrix T

in the Current Pedagogical Grammar

agrees with the sentient argument John, andAs seen from the above, infinitives as well as
sentient arguments can be the arguments of MP(15b) (= (1b)) is derived.

adjectives “in English.”
In contrast, Japanese MP adjectives cannot(15) a. It was kind of John to help Mary.

select event arguments, as in (19).3

b. John was kind to help Mary.
c. To help Mary was kind of John. (= (1))(19)?*[(Taroo-ga)

Hanako-oThis is because the event argument, which is[(Taro-Nom) Hanako-Acc

now a CP and has no features to agree with T,

tasukeru no]-ga

does not intervene between the matrix T and thehelpsentient argument. This makes it possible for theyasasikat-ta.

sentient argument to agree with T. If the event

kind-Past

argument is a DP, it agrees with the matrix T,‘It was kind (of Taro) to help Hanako.’Nominalizer]-Nom

since it is closer to the T than the sentientargument is. In this case, the sentient argument

This contrast, however, is not mentioned in

is licensed by the of-insertion rule, and (15c) is

school-level grammar books in Japan. They only

derived.

focus on the relation between MP adjectives andOn the other hand, (15a) is derived if the D,

their sentient arguments and point out that thewhich heads the event argument clause, and not

adjective in (15) describes the properties of thethe DP, agrees with the matrix T. Only the D,

human argument whereas the adjective in (20)which is realized as the expletive it, is extracted(= (2)) does not.

and raised to SPEC-T in (15a).

230

fact that we find no examples like (15) in the(20) It was important for John to help Mary.

JEFLL (Japanese EFL Learner) corpus (Tono(= (2))(2007)), which is a collection of more than
Although Watanuki et al. (2000), authors of one

10,000 Japanese secondary school students’of the most popular school-level grammar books

English compositions.4

in Japan, mention the relation between MP
adjectives

and

the

event

In contrast, a number of sentences like (20)argument,

appear in the corpus. We also find sentences likedemonstrating the ungrammaticality of (21b),(22) in the corpus.

they do not indicate the difference between thesestructures in English and Japanese, as in (19).

(22) John was kind.

(21) a. It was wise of John to go there alone.

This indicates that students are familiar with theb. * It was strong of John to go there alone.

adjectives per se but are not familiar in using(Watanuki et al. (2000: 281–282))

them with event arguments.

Thus, Japanese learners of English find no

6. Proposalmeans to realize that there is no suitable

Therefore, I claim that it is necessary toJapanese translation for an MP adjective

show students ungrammatical sentences like (19)construction.

and make them realize that the argument

Additionally, sentences like (15c), which

structures of MP adjectives are different inclearly show the argumenthood of the infinitive,

English and Japanese. We know that students

are rarely introduced in classroom instruction.

can use sentences like (22), and if we make them

Thereby, most Japanese learners of English

understand the difference between MP adjective

are unaware of the idiosyncrasies of MP

structures in English and Japanese, they will

adjectives in English because within the current

learn to use sentences like (15) in addition toclassroom instruction grammar books do notsentences like (22).

mention that unlike English, Japanese MPThis expectation is supported by the fact that

adjectives are unable to select event arguments,

we can find a sentence like (23) in the JEFLL

as we have seen in (19).

corpus.

There is a strong possibility that mostJapanese EFL students assume that both English(23) ... then I opened my eyes bravely I saw

and Japanese MP adjectives show exactly theblue light ...

(JEFLL: 07719)

same syntactic behavior, unless they have beenshown the contrast between the two, such as canThis indicates that there is a possibility thatbe seen in (19). Students are unlikely to realize

students may produce a sentence like (24) if they

the relation between MP adjectives and theiracquire the syntax of MP adjectives shown in

event arguments, and this prevents them from

(15).5acquiring the syntax of MP adjective sentences
correctly.

(24) I was brave to open my eyes.

This assumption is partly validated by the231either in English or in Japanese.

Furthermore, the syntactic analysis here canoffer a more detailed explanation of theThis illustrates one of the limitations of thedifference between (15) and (20) than whatgrammar-translation method, which is widelycurrent pedagogical grammar can. There is only

accepted in Japanese senior high schools,

one argument in sentences like (20). In contrast,

because we are unable to provide students with ain sentences like (15), there are two arguments.

suitable translation of (15). This can be a serious

Students can be made to realize that the

problem especially for basic/beginning-levelappearance of the preposition of refers to thelearners, because such learners can understandargumenthood of adjectives and that the sentient

English sentences only by translating them into

argument is actually an argument of theJapanese, as pointed out by Umehara (2015).

adjective in (15). That is why the sentient

Therefore, there is a need at times to teachargument can be a subject or be Case-marked by

students the differences between English andthe preposition of. Additionally, the syntactic

Japanese through these types of syntactic studies.

analysis here can explain the ungrammaticality

The findings here may be insignificant, but theyof (25).

show that it is necessary to use comparativesyntactic

studiesinteaching

idiosyncraticargument structures like MP adjectives.

(25) a. * John was important to help Mary.
b. * It was important of John to help Mary.

8. Conclusion
Unlike MP adjectives, the adjective important

In this paper, I have shown that Stowell’scannot select a sentient argument nor assign(1991) structure for (15) is on the right track if

genitive Case to it. I presume that it is important

we assume that a that-clause can be either a CP

for students to enhance their awareness ofor a DP and that the expletive it is the overt

English sentence structures by learning therealization of a D-feature, which makes it

differences in the argument structures of MP

possible to account for all the derivations inadjectives and other adjectives.

(15).
I have claimed that most Japanese learners ofEnglish have not acquired the syntax of MP

7. Further Implications

adjectives based on the JEFLL corpus. In

The reason for (19) being unacceptable may

addition, I have proposed that it is necessary to

be related to the unacceptability of (26).

show the contrast between English and Japanesewith regard to the argument structure of MP(26) *The fact that the boy helped the girl was

adjectives.

wise/kind/foolish/polite.
(Wilkinson (1970: 429))* This research was financially supported in partby grants from Yukiyoshi Institute.

This indicates that (19) may be not a translationof (15) but the Japanese counterpart of a

NOTES
1

sentence like (26). If so, we can claim that (19)This class of adjectives is called “class W

is ungrammatical because these adjectives

adjectives” in Wilkinson (1970).

cannot select nouns that correspond to “fact”

2232

Honda (2015) assumes that the D in athat-clause is phonetically null unless it is

REFERENCES
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”

assigned a Case. In (9b), what agrees with thematrix T is not the D but the DP as a whole.

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by

3

Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52, MIT Press,

Most grammar books translate (15) into

Japanese, as shown below:

Cambridge, MA.
Fujita, Koji and Masumi Matsumoto (2005)(i) Sinsetunimo,

John-wa

Mary-oGoihanchu (I): Doshi (Lexical Category

Kindly,John-Top

Mary-Acc(I): Verbs), Kenkyusha, Tokyo.
Honda, Takahiro (2015) “Kyoji It to That Setsu

tasuke-ta.

tsuite(On

theExpletiveIthelp-Pastni

and‘Kindly, John helped Mary.’That-Clauses),” Gengo no Shinso (The
Deep/True Phase of Language: Essays

Furthermore, the Japanese word sinsetu-na

Presented to Professor Yukio Oba on the‘kindness-na’ is not used in (19) because it is a

Occasion of His Retirement from Osaka

complex predicate, which consists of a noun andUniversity),a copula (see Nishiyama (1999)). Some speakers

307–318, Eihosha, Tokyo.

may accept (ii), where the phrase sinsetu-dat-ta

ed.

by

SadayukiOkada,Inada, Toshiaki (1989) Hobun no Kozo (The‘was a kindness’ is substituted for yasasikat-ta.

StructureofComplement

Sentences),

Taishukan, Tokyo.
(ii)[(Taroo-ga)

Hanako-o[(Taro-Nom)

Hanako-Acc

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture(1999) Kotogakko Gakushu Shido Yoryo

tasukeruno]-gaKaisetsu: Gaikokugo Hen / Eigo Hen (Thehelp

Nominalizer]-Nom

Course of Study for Upper Secondary

sinsetu-dat-ta.

School: Foreign Languages), Kairyudo,kindness-cop-Past

Tokyo.

‘The action that Taro helped Hanako

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science

was a kind behavior.’

and Technology in Japan [MEXT] (2009)
Kotogakko Gakushu Shido Yoryo Kaisetsu:

4Gaikokugo Hen / Eigo Hen (The Course of

According to the Ministry of Education,

Science and Culture (1999) and MEXT (2009),

Studysentences like (20), (8a), and (9a) are supposed

Foreign Languages), Kairyudo, Tokyo.

to be taught in classroom instructions but

Napoli, Donna Jo (1988) “Subjects and Externalsentences like (15) are not. However, sentences

Arguments: Clauses and Non-Clauses,”

like (15) appear in almost all school-level

Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 323–354.

Upper

Secondary

School:Nishiyama, Kunio (1999) “Adjectives and thegrammar books.
5

forCopulas in Japanese,” Journal of East

Unfortunately, the JEFLL corpus is rather

Asian Linguistics 8, 183–222.

small, and we have not been able to find anotherSabel, Joachim (2000) “Expletives as Features,”example like (23).

WCCFL 19, 411–424.
Stowell, Timothy (1991) “The Alignment of233

Arguments

in

Adjective

Phrases,”

Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads
and Licensing, Syntax and Semantics 25, ed.
by Suzan D. Rothstein, 105–135, Academic
Press, San Diego.
Tono, Yukio (2007) Nihonjin Chukosei Ichimannin no Eigo Corpus “JEFLL Corpus”(10,000 Japanese Junior and Senior HighSchool Students’ English Corpus “TheJEFLL Corpus”), Shogakukan, Tokyo.
Umehara,Daisuke(2015)“UmakuIkanai

Gakushusha-o Rikai Shiyo (Toward an
Understanding of Unsuccessful Learners),”
Nihon no Eigo Kyoiku no Ima, Soshite,
Korekara (The Present and Future English
Education in Japan), ed. by Nobuko
Hasegawa, 55–72, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Watanuki, Yo, Yoshihisa Miyakawa, Taketoshi
Sugai and Naohiro Takamatsu (2000) Tettei
Reikai Roiyaru Eibunpo (Royal English
Grammar with Complete Examples of
Usage), Obunsha, Tokyo.
Wilkinson,

Robert(1970)“Factive

Complements and Action Complements,”
CLS 6, 425–444.

234

properties.
(4) Parallelism in Ellipsis (cf. Merchant’s(2001) Focus Condition, abridged):
Ellipsis of a constituent E requires the
Sluicing with Coordinated Remnants*

presence of an antecedent A that can bemapped, via semantic operations such as
F(ocus)-closure and E-type shifting, to a

Hiroko Kimura

Hiroki Narita

Mejiro University

Nihon University

mutual entailment relation with E.
The purpose of this article is to inquire into
how these two parallelism conditions are

KeywordsSluicing, Swiping, coordination,
contrast, F(ocus)-marking

interrelated,byinvestigatingahitherto

unnoticed type of “Sluicing” (clausal ellipsis)that involves coordinated remnants, exemplified
by (5). We will refer to the relevant construction

1. Introduction

as “Coordinated Sluicing” (CS).

Coordination and ellipsis are among thedistinct linguistic phenomena that require certain(5) Someone talked about something, but I“parallelism” or “identity”. As shown in (1), thewonder [who] and [about what].

conjuncts of a coordinate structure must be(CS)

identical with respect to some formal properties,
such as category and/or grammatical functions.

Coordinated Sluicing exhibits several interesting

And for ellipsis, the elided part must be

properties that, we will argue, emerge from thehomologous to its antecedent, as shown in (2).

interaction of the two parallelism conditions in(3) and (4). To set the stage, we will first
determine in Section 2 that Coordinated Sluicing(1) a. John ate [NP a cake] and [NP a pizza]

involves coordination of multiple clauses, eachb.* John ate [NP a cake] and [PP at 4 o’clock](2) John ate a cake. Mary did e too.

of which undergoes Sluicing (clausal ellipsis).

(where e = [eat a cake], *[eat something],

We will then show in Section 3 that the*[eat a cake at 4 o’clock], …)

applicability of “Swiping” in CoordinatedSluicing provides a novel clue to the nature ofinfocus within coordination. Section 4 will deal

Coordination” and “Parallelism in Ellipsis,”with further consequences of the proposal

respectively. (3) and (4) are abridged versions ofestablished in Section 3. Section 5 will conclude

the relevant conditions, adapted from Williams

the article.

Call

these

requirements“Parallelism(1978) and Merchant (2001).
2. CS is Coordination of Sluiced CPs
Since Ross (1969), considerable attention(3) Parallelism in Coordination (cf. William’s(1978) Law of Coordination of Likes):

has been paid to “Sluicing,” i.e., clausal ellipsis

Conjuncts in a coordinate structure must be

by which an interrogative CP is phonologically

identical with respect to certain formal

reduced to a wh-phrase, as in (6).1

235

disallowed in a Coordinated Question, unlike(6) He is writing something, but I wonder[what]. (= [what he is writing])

Coordinated Sluicing (Larson (2013)).

(SS)(10) {By who/*Who by} and {about what/*what

We will call this garden-variety type of Sluicing

about} was John criticized?

“Single Sluicing,” (SS), to differentiate it from
CoordinatedSluicing,

where

(CQ)

(11) John was criticized. [Who by] and [whatmultipleabout] aren’t clear.

wh-phrases appear as coordinated remnants (see

(CS)

(5)).
A superficial look might suggest that

Thus, Coordinated Sluicing constructions are

Coordinated Sluicing is simply derived from thedifferent in certain respects from Coordinated“CoordinatedQuestions.

Question”(CQ)

construction
2(Larson (2013) and references cited therein).

Another possible source of Coordinated

The two constructions are exemplified by (7a,b).

Sluicing would be “Multiple Sluicing” (MS),exemplified in (12) (see Lasnik (2014) among(7) John

wastalkingtosomeoneabout

others).

(CS)(12)? Someone talked about something, but I

something, but I wonder…
a. [to whom] and [about what].

wonder [who about what].

b. [to whom] and [about what he wastalking]

(MS)

(CQ)
Superficially, Coordinated Sluicing differs fromIf Sluicing applies to the underscored part of theMultiple Sluicing only in that the wh-remnants

Coordinated Question in (7b), then the surface

are explicitly coordinated by and. Thus, one

string for Coordinated Sluicing in (7a) can bemight suppose that Coordinated Sluicing is just a

straightforwardly derived. However, there arevariant of Multiple Sluicing, simply derived, say,several reasons to believe that at least someby phonological insertion of and. However,cases of Coordinated Sluicing cannot be derived

Multiple Sluicing exhibits several peculiar

from a Coordinated Question. First, twoproperties that are not attested in Coordinatedargument NPs cannot form a CoordinatedSluicing. First, for Multiple Sluicing, Swiping is

Question, as shown in (8), but no suchapplicable only to the first remnant, whereas norestriction is found for Coordinated Sluicing, assuch restriction is observed for Coordinatedshown in (9).

Sluicing, as shown in (13) ((13a-c) are from
Larson (2013)).

(8) a. *Who and what did he eat?
(13) Ivan was talking, but I can’t remember…

b. *Who and what (he) ate?

a. [who to] [about what].

(9) Someone bought something yesterday, but I(MS)

b.* [to whom] [what about].

forgot [who] and [what].

c.* [who to] [what about].
Further, “Swiping” (which is an acronym fora’. [who to] and [about what].

“sluiced wh-word inversion with preposition inb’. [to whom] and [what about].

Northern Germanic”; see Merchant (2006)) isc’ [who to] and [what about].

236

(CS)

In addition, the wh-remnants of Multiple

multi-clausal

Sluicing exhibit superiority effects (Merchantundergoes Sluicing.

(2006)), whereas those of Coordinated Sluicing

structures,

each

of

which

In the following section, it will be shown

do not, as shown in (14)-(15).

that Coordinated Sluicing patterns differently
from Single Sluicing in the applicability of(14) a.?Someone talked about something, but I
wonder who about what.

Swiping.

(MS)

b.* Someone talked about something, but I
wonder about what who.

3. Swiping in Coordinated Sluicing(MS)

This section attempts to investigate the(15) a. Someone bought something yesterday,

nature of “Parallelism on Coordination” andbut I forgot who and what.

(CS)“Parallelism on Ellipsis,” examining a variety of

b. Someone bought something yesterday,
but I forgot what and who.

asymmetries(CS)

regardingthepossibilityof

Swiping.
It has been noticed in the literature that

Thus, Coordinated Sluicing clearly involves

phonological prominence exceptionally falls on

syntactic structures different from Multiple

the inverted preposition in Swiping, as shown in

Sluicing. In particular, and in Coordinated(17a,b), which is in contrast to the non-inverted

Sluicing is more than just a stylistic dummy

caseselement inserted post-syntactically.

prominence falls on the wh-word.

What

kind

of

coordinate

structurelike(17c,d),where

phonologicalisinvolved in Coordinated Sluicing, then? Here(17) John was talking, but I don’t know…

notice that the lack of superiority effectsa. [who TO]

b.* [WHO to]illustrated in (15) would be straightforwardly

c.* [TO who]d. [to WHO]

explained if the wh-phrases occur in different
clauses, and neither asymmetrically c-commands

This stress pattern is tied to another outstanding

the other. Thus, we argue that Coordinatedproperty of Swiping: Swiping is impossible

Sluicing

when

(16a)

is

coordination

of

two

the

antecedentclausecontains

theinterrogative clauses, each of which undergoes

corresponding preposition, as shown in (18)

Sluicing, as shown (16b).

(Rosen (1976), Merchant (2002)).

(16) Johnwastalkingtosomeoneabout(18) a. Mary was talking, but I don't know [whosomething, but I wonder…
a. [to whom] and [about what].

TO].
(CS)

b.* Mary was talking to someone, but I don't

b. [to whom he was talking] and [aboutknow [who TO].
c. Mary was talking, but I don't knowwhat he was talking][what ABOUT].

(coordination of sluiced clauses)

d. *Mary was talking about something, but
I don't know [what ABOUT].

To summarize, in this section we have examined
the syntactic structure of Coordinated Sluicing

Merchant (2002), among others, attempts toand concluded that it is coordination of237

coordination.

attribute these two properties to the condition on

We would like to argue that F-marking can

F-marking and givenness, stated in (19).

be licensed either by the Givenness Condition(19) Givenness Condition (Merchant (2002),(19), or by coordination-internal “contrast,” aunder Nakao, et al.’s (2006) formulation; cf.

notion recently studied by Repp (to appear),

Schwarzschild’s (1999) AVOIDF):

among others. According to Repp, coordination

The content of F-marked P should not be

is a perfect way to put multiple conjuncts ingiven.

contrast, and “contrasting constituents” withintheconjuncts

areusuallymarkedby(18b,d) violates this condition, because thephonological prominence in English. Thus,

F-markedphonological(21a,b) are felicitous in an out-of-the-blue

prominence is already given (old information) incontext (i.e., without any antecedent), but if thethe discourse. In (18a,c), on the other hand, thespeaker fails to put phonological prominence inF-marked prepositions are not already given,a parallel fashion, the results are deviant, assatisfying the Givenness Condition (19).

shown in (21c-h).

preposition

bearing

Merchant's Givenness Condition has become(21) Guess what, I found those books…

a widely accepted view in the literature of
Swiping. However, this condition faces aa. [ON this table] and [UNDER that table]

problem when we take Swiping in Coordinatedb. [on THIS table] and [under THAT table]

Sluicing

intoc.* [on THIS table] and [UNDER that table]consideration. Observe (20), which shows thatd.* [ON this table] and [under THAT table]

Swiping in Coordinated Sluicing is possible

e.* [ON this table] and [under that table]

regardless of the presence of prepositions in thef.* [on THIS table] and [under that table]

antecedent clause.

g.* [on this table] and [UNDER that table]

constructions

like

(20)

h.* [on this table] and [under THAT table](20) Johnwastalkingtosomeoneabout

something. [Who TO] and [what ABOUT]

Thus, we would like to argue that F-marking isaren't clear.

licensed when either (22a) or (22b) holds:(22) F-marking on a constituent X is licensed if

In (20), Swiping is allowed, even if there are
overt antecedents for TO and ABOUT. Previous

a. X is not given, or

givenness-based approaches to Swiping cannot

b. X is a constituent under contrast incoordination.

explain why (20) is acceptable. Something otherthan givenness is responsible here.
Recall from the previous section that

Because there is no coordination in Single

Coordinated Sluicing involves coordination of

Sluicing (18), F-marking must be licensed bySingle-Sluiced CPs. Thus, the rather unexpected

givenness (22a). Thus, as Merchant and others

grammaticality of Coordinated Swiping (20), inargue, F-marked prepositions in (18b,d) arecontrast to Single Swiping (18), should beruled out as by the givenness condition (19). On

reducedthe other hand, in Coordinated Sluicing (20),

to

some

property

peculiarto238

F-marking can be licensed by contrast (22b).

(24a) is fine because there is no Swiping. (24b)

Let us consider the whole paradigm ofis also grammatical, because TO and ABOUT

Coordinated Sluicing. First, observe (23).

are contrasting constituents and thus they canbear F-marking. In (24c,d), however, only CP2(23) [CP1 Mary was talking]. …

undergoes Swiping, and thus the phonologicala. [CP2 to WHOM] and [CP3 about WHAT]

prominence on the preposition cannot belicensed by the contrast-based resolution (22b),

aren’t clear.
b. [CP2 who TO] and [CP3 what ABOUT]

which would require an F-marked preposition in
CP3.

aren't clear.
c.? [CP2 who TO] and [CP3 about WHAT]

Nor

is

it

licensedbythenongivenness-based resolution (22a), because

aren’t clear.

the preposition is already given in the antecedentd.? [CP2 about WHAT] and [CP3 who TO]

clause, CP1. Therefore, the deviance of (24c,d)aren't clear.

can be accounted for as a failure to satisfye.? [CP2 what ABOUT] and [CP3 to WHOM](22a,b).
What remains to be accounted for is thearen't clear.

acceptability of (24e,f). In those cases, only CP3f.? [CP2 to WHOM] and [CP3 what ABOUT]
aren't clear.

undergoes Swiping, thus the contrast-based
resolution (22b) should be unavailable, just as inHere, CP1 contains no antecedent prepositions,(24c,d). Here, we argue that the Swiping in CP3

thus CP2 or CP3 can freely undergo Swiping,is licensed by taking not CP1 but CP2 as its

supported by non-givenness.

antecedent. Note the acceptability of (25).

This is in significant contrast with (24),where there are overt antecedent prepositions in(25) [CP1 Mary was talking to someone about

CP1.

something]. …
[CP2 to WHOM she was talking] and [CP3(24) [CP1 Mary was talking to someone about

what ABOUT] aren’t clear.

something]. …
a. [CP2 to WHOM] and [CP3 about WHAT](25) is minimally different from (24f) in thatCP2 does not undergo Sluicing. It is easy toaren’t clear.

observe that ABOUT in CP3 satisfies theb. [CP2 who TO] and [CP3 what ABOUT]
aren’t clear.

non-givenness requirement (22a): it can takec.* [CP2 who TO] and [CP3 about WHAT]

CP2 as its antecedent, and the structural absenceof about in CP2 can set the non-givenness ofaren’t clear.

ABOUT for the Swiping in CP3. Then, the only

d.* [CP2 what ABOUT] and [CP3 to WHOM]
aren’t clear.

thing we need to do to further derive (23e,f) ise.? [CP2 about WHAT] and [CP3 who TO]

apply Sluicing to CP2 in (24). Thus, thearen’t clear.

paradigm in (22)-(23) can be derived from thef.? [CP2 to WHOM] and [CP3 what ABOUT]

principles we have already motivated.
Notice that the proposed analysis, in which

aren’t clear.

Swiping of CP3 is allowed to take not CP1 but

239

CP2 as its antecedent, is only possible for theunified under the generalized condition in (26).3

multi-clausal approach to Coordinated Sluicing

Further, if we can reduce Parallelism inestablished in Section 2. Therefore, the data

Coordination to the nature of coordination, we

presented here lend further support to ourmay further entertain the hypothesis that

hypothesis that Coordinated Sluicing is a

Parallelism in Ellipsis is also reducible to thecoordination of sluiced CPs.

nature of ellipsis. Notice that ellipsis can be seen
as an extreme form of “defocusing,” i.e.,phonological reduction of given/recoverable

4. Refining the Parallelism Conditions
In the previous section, we observed thatparts of a target constituent E, for the sake ofF-marking in coordination may function as aemphasizing the F-marked constituent. Building

way to indicate contrast in the sense of Repp (toon this view, we may attempt to reformulate

appear). Now, observe that there is certain

Parallelism in Ellipsis as an integral part ofredundancy between Parallelism in Coordination

ellipsis (see also Kimura (2013b)):in (3) and the function of contrast F-marking.
Both coordination of X and Y and contrast(27) Parallelism in Ellipsis (revised):

between X and Y can be established only when

Ellipsis of a constituent E is phonological

X and Y share some common ground on which

reduction of E’s non-F-marked terms,

the relevant contraposition is based. One way toenabled by E’s being in mutual entailment

eliminate the redundancy is to revise thewith an antecedent A under F(ocus)-closure

formulation of Parallelism in Coordination as

and E-type shifting.

(26), which integrates the notion of contrast into
the defining property of coordination (but see

We will leave further elaboration of these

Repp (to appear) for cases of contrast other thanhypotheses for future research.

coordination).
5. Conclusion(26) Parallelism in Coordination (revised):In this article, we saw that Coordinated

Coordination is a structure that assigns

Sluicing provides a novel clue to the nature ofcontrast F-marking onto each conjunct.

coordination and ellipsis. We saw that Swiping
in Coordinated Sluicing provides apparent

We saw the effect of contrast F-marking forcounterevidence to Merchant’s non-givenness

Swiping in (21), (23), and (24). Further, observe

requirement for Swiping (19). We proposed to(1), where coordination of X and Y requires

revise Parallelisms in Coordination and incertain formal (here categorial) identity of X andEllipsis to accommodate the new data, yielding

Y. This fact can be seen as another consequence(26) and (27).

of (26): coordination must assign contrast
F-marking into the conjuncts X and Y, and it can* Part of this research is supported by the Japanbe licensed only when X and Y share enoughSocietycommon properties that allow them to stand as(Challenging Exploratory Research #25580095).

contrasting constituents. In this manner, the

for

the

Promotionof

Science

NOTES
1

paradigms in (1), (21), (23), and (24) can now be

240

The elided TP constituent here is he is writingwhat (under the current “copy theory” ofmovement,

wh-movement

would

leave

Kimura,Hiroko(2013b)“Phonological

Adjacency as a Trigger of Movement,”aEnglish Linguistics 30, 677-698.

full-fledged copy of what; cf. Chomsky 1995). It

Larson,

can nevertheless be mapped to a mutual

Bradley

The(2013)

SyntaxDependencies,ofentailment relation with the antecedent clauseNon-syntactic

via F-closure, replacing what/someone with

dissertation, University of Maryland.

E-bound variables. Thus, Sluicing satisfies

Lasnik, Howard (2014) “Multiple Sluicing inDoctoralEnglish?” Syntax 17, 1-20.

Elliptical Parallelism in (4). Note that Elliptical
Parallelism can in fact be satisfied, whether or

Merchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax of Silence:

not what undergoes Internal Merge/Move.

Sluicing, Islands and the Theory of Ellipsis,

KimuraOxford University Press, Oxford.

(2010,

2013a,b)arguesthat

wh-movement in the sluiced clause is indeed

Merchant, Jason (2002) “Swiping in Germanic,”superfluous in this respect, and hence should be

Studies in Germanic Syntax, ed. by C.

excluded by the principle of derivational

Jan-Wouter Zwart and Werner Abraham,economy (Chosmky (1995)). See Kimura (2010,289-315, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Merchant,

2013a,b) for her wh-in-situ analysis of Sluicing.
2

Jason

(2006)“Sluicing,”

The

Larson (2013) analyzes the coordinatedBlackwell Companion to Syntax, ed. byquestion in (i) as in (ii), claiming that theMartin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk,

dependency between first wh-phrase and the gap

269-289, Blackwell, London.

in

the

complement

positionofeatNakao, Chizuru, Ono Hajime, and Masaya

is

Yoshida (2006) “When a Complement PP

non-syntactic.

Goes Missing: A Study on the Licensing of(i) What and when Ivan did eat?
(ii) [CP [CP whati C] [&P & [CP whenj [C [TP Ivan

Swiping,” WCCFL 25, 297-305, Cascadilla
Press, Somerville, MA.

T [VP eat-xi tj]]]]]].

Repp, Sophie (to appear). “Contrast: Dissecting
3

In cases where a sluiced CP2 and swiped CP3

an Elusive Information-structural Notion

are coordinated ((22c-f) and (23e-f)), we assume

andthat the prosodic effect of contrast F-marking on

Handbook of Information Structure, ed. by

the wh-phrase in CP3 is effectively nullified by

Caroline Féry and Shinichiro Ishihara,

further F-marking on the inverted P, serving for

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

its

Role

in

Grammar,”OxfordRosen, Carol (1976) “Guess What about?” NELS

non-givenness.

6, 205-211.
Chomsky,

REFERENCES
Noam (1995) The

Ross, John R (1969) “Guess Who?” CLS 5,
Minimalist

252-286.

Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Schwarzschild,Roger(1999)“GIVENness,

Kimura, Hiroko (2010) “A Wh-in-situ Strategy

AVOIDF, and Other Constraints on thefor Sluicing,” English Linguistics 26,

Placement of Accent,” Natural Language

43-59.

Semantics 7, 141-177.

Kimura, Hiroko (2013a) “Max Elide andWilliams, Edwin (1978) “Across the Board Rule

Economy,” English Linguistics 30, 49-74.

Application,” Linguistic Inquiry 9, 31–43.

241

A Conj

B RC-to‘A and B’

A DJ

B RC-ka‘A or B’
(Kishimoto (2013: 192))

The Repetitive Coordinator-ka and the Syn-

Sentences in (1) consist of the coordinators andtax of Alternative Questions in Japanese*

their repetitive counterparts. Although RC issimilar to a correlative coordinator such as either

Ryoichiro Kobayashi

in English, its exact nature has not been studied

Sophia University

so far.
In English, when either appears displaced
from nominals, it marks the scope of DJ explic-

Keywords: disjunctions, alternative questions

itly, as in (2). In this connection, it has been
widely accepted that either marks the left edgeof DJs, as illustrated in (3). (2c) is derived from

1.Introduction:(3b), through gapping in the second conjunct.

This study aims to propose a unified accounton the Japanese disjunction (DJ) A ka B ka ‘either A or B’ and either-or constructions in Eng-(2)a. Mary is looking for a maid or a cook.

lish under comparative perspectives, and argueb. M. is looking for either a maid or a cook.

that Repetitive Coordinator (RC) ka in Japanesec. M. is either looking for a maid or a cook.

functions in parallel with either in English.

(Larson (1985: 218))

Based on Kobayashi (2016), I further claim that(3)a. Mary is looking for either [nominal a maid] orJapanese Alternative Questions (Alt-Q) are[nominal a cook].
b. Mary is either [vP/VP looking for a maid] orformed in a similar manner as in English (Hanand Roremo 2004), contra Uegaki’s (2014)[vP/VP looking for a cook].

claim that Japanese Alt-Qs are uniformly DJs of(adapted from Schwarz (1999: 341))

polar questions.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows.

Larson (1985) found that either affects theSection 2 is a brief review of Kobayashi (2016).

meaning of DJ. The first reading available in

Section 3 compares how Alt-Qs are constructed(2a/b) is de dicto Narrow Scope Reading (NSR):

in English and in Japanese. In section 4, I pro-

‘Mary is searching for a servant, and would bepose a unified account on the Alt-Q formation insatisfied with any individual x meeting the de-Japanese and English. Section 5 is a brief sum-

scription; x is a maid or x is a cook.’ The second

mary of the overall discussions.

reading is de dicto Wide Scope Reading (WSR):‘Mary is looking for a maid or Mary is looking

2.RC-ka in Japanese and either in English

for a cook.’ De dicto WSR can always be fol-

(Kobayashi 2016):

lowed by the continuation ‘but I don’t know

In Japanese, coordination can be constructedwhich.’1 They are summarized in (4) below.

with particles such as to ‘and,’ and ka ‘or’ in (1).
(4) a. de dicto NSR: intensional verb > or 2
(1) a. A to

B to

b. A kab. de dicto WSR: or > intensional verb

B ka

242

c. de re NSR(see Larson (1985))

tinuation, demo dochira-demo ii-soo-da-yo ‘butsagasitei-ruka

T.-Top apple-Acc looking:for-pres DJ

3sagasitei-ru

sagasitei-ru

rasiiorange-Acc

looking:for-presseem

apple or an orange.’b. Cancelation:

da.

ka

mikan-o‘It seems that Taro is either looking for anka

T.-Top apple-Acc looking:for-Pres DJ
sagasitei-ru

looking:for-Pres-Prt

a. Taro-wa ringo-oit doesn’t matter which,’ as in (5c).

mikan-oConj(7) WSR DJ:

as in (5): WSR DJ is incompatible with the con-a.Taro-wa ringo-osagasitei-ru-yo‘Actually, he is looking for both of them’Let us see how RC-ka behaves in Japanese,(5) Obligatory WSR (RC-ka):moorange-Acc looking:for-Pres RC-ka Cop#Jissai kare-wa ringo mo mikan mo‘Taro is either looking for an apple or an

gasitei-ru-yosa-orange.’b.Taro-wa ringo-omikan-osagasitei-ru

sagasitei-ru

Some speakers may interpret (6a) as ‘It seemskathat Taro is looking for an apple, an orange ordakasomething else.’ Be that as it may, the point herec.#Demo dochira-demo ii-soo-da-yo.
butwhicheveris that WSR DJ always has the exclusive-or in-okay-seem-Cop-Prt

terpretation. Thus, Kobayashi (2016) proposed‘But he doesn’t care which.’that RC-ka in Japanese and either in English
show parallelism illustrated in (8).

The prediction is borne out that either (5a) or(5b), in which RC-ka marks the right edge of DJ
(WSR), cannot be followed by (5c). Some may(8) RC-ka overtly indicates scopal properties ofsay that RC-ka itself bears exclusivity. However,DJ in parallel with either.
Scope
EnglishNSR/WSR(either) A or B [adjacent]NSR
base-generated nominal DJ
WSR
clausal/phrasal DJ/displaced either
Japanese
NSR/WSRA ka B (RC-ka) [adjacent]NSR
base-generated nominal DJ
WSR
clausal/phrasal DJ/displaced RC(adapted from Kobayashi (2016))

the inclusive-or interpretation is still available
when RC-ka is present. Pragmatically speaking,exclusivity of nominal DJs can be canceled, as
illustrated in (6). However, this is not the casewith the WSR DJ in (7).
(6) DJ (A ka B (ka)):a. Taro-wa [ringo ka mikan (ka)]-o
T.-Top

Before we close this section, there is one lastapple DJ orange (RC-ka)-Acc

sagasitei-ru

rasii

point to make with respect to the exclusivity oflooking:for-Past

seem

ka. As already noted, the exclusive-or interpreta-‘It seems that Taro is looking for an appletion is derived in WSR DJs. Sentences in (9)or an orange’

become false if Mary is looking for both a maid
and a cook.

b. Cancelation:
Jissaikare-wa

ringo

mo

mikan

actually he-Top

apple

Conj

orange(9) a. Mary-wa meido-o243sagasite-irukaM.-Top maid-Acc looking:for-Pres DJ

ocha-onon-da]ka/no]?

kokku-osagasitei-ru

tea-Acc

drink-Past

Q

cook-Acc

looking:for-Pres RC-ka Cop(ka da).

‘Did Taro drink coffee or tea?
(OKAlt-Q; ?OKPol-Q) (Uegaki (2014: 48))

‘Mary is either looking for a maid or (sheis) looking for a cook’b. Mary-wa meido-o sagasite-iru ka
kokku-osagasite-iru

It is puzzling since (10a) can not have an Alt-Q
reading though (10a) should be derived from(ka da).

(10b) through ellipsis. Uegaki proposes that an
4

Alt-Q is actually a DJ of Pol-Qs in Japanese, as‘which+ka’ and RC-ka: It is clear that dochiraka

illustrated in (11). Since (11b), in which ka ‘Q’gains exclusive-or interpretations in a different

is replaced with no ‘Q’ also allows Alt-Q read-manner, since it lexically means ‘only one of theings, he analyzes that ka in Alt-Q is always a Q

two.’ We should rather compare clausal/phrasal

particle, which is homophonous with a disjunc-

WSR DJs with RC-ka and either, excluding lex-

tive ka in Japanese.

A distinction is necessary between dochiraka

ically derived exclusive-or interpretations.
(11) a. [Pol-Q Taro-ga koohii-onon-daT.-Nom coffee-Acc

3.DJs and Alt-Qs:

ka]drink-Past Q(soretomo) [Pol-Q (T.-ga) ocha-o non-da ka]

This section investigates mechanisms of
Alt-Qs, and shows how we can obtain a unified(DJ)account on interrogative DJs in English and‘Did T. drink coffee or did he drink tea?’

T.-Nom tea-Acc drink-past Q

b. [Pol-Q Taro-ga koohii-oJapanese. Proposals in (8) may face a problem:
Alt-Q Readings are not available with nominal

non-daT.-Nom coffee-Acc

no]drink-Past Q

DJ. If nominal DJs can also be derived from(soretomo) [Pol-Q (T.-ga) ocha-o non-da no]clausal/phrasal WSR DJs, then it would be(DJ)T.-Nom tea-Acc drink-past Q(Uegaki (2014: 52))

problematic for the proposals in (8) since the
Alt-Q interpretation is apparently absent in

In English, it has been observed that inter-nominal DJ, but available in clausal DJ.

rogative DJs are ambiguous between Pol-Q and

Uegaki (2014) argues that in Japanese, theAlt-Q as exemplified in (22) and (23).

Alt-Q reading is not available when DJs are as
small as nominals, while it becomes readily(12) Root contexts: Did John eat beans or rice?

available when DJs are as big as VPs in (10).

Pol-Q: Is it true or false that John atebeans or rice?

(10) a. Nominal DJ:[Taro-ga [koohii ka ocha]-o non-da]
T.-Nom

Alt-Q: Which of these two things did Johnkaeat, beans or rice?

coffee DJ tea-Acc drink-Past Q(13) Embedded contexts:‘Did Taro drink coffee or tea?’(*Alt-Q;OK

I wonder [whether John ate beans or rice].

Pol-Q)

Pol-Q: I wonder whether it is true or false

b. Clausal/Phrasal DJ:[Taro-ga [koohii-oT.-Nomnon-dathat John ate beans or rice.

ka

Alt-Q: I wonder which of these two things

coffee-Acc drink-Past DJ

244

John ate, beans or rice.

construction.

(Han and Romero (2004: 528))
4.Alt-Q Readings and RC-ka in Japanese:
Han and Romero (2004) proposed that the syn-I argue that in Japanese an Alt-Q interpreta-

tax of whether/Q-or questions involves ellipsis

tion becomes more prominent when an appro-of the type that exists in either-or constructions,priate context is provided. van Rooy andas in (14) and (15) below.

Šafářová (2003) notes that pragmatic presuppositions are also important in Alt-Q licensing.
Weak presupposition (WP) in their terms is de-(14)a. Either John ate beans or rice.
b. Either [John ate beans] or [John ate rice].

fined as minimal evidence in the common
ground(15)a. (Q/whether) Did John eat beans or rice?
OK

(van

Rooy

and

Šafářová(2003:

296-297)).

( Alt-Q)
b. (Q/whether)i did ti [John eat beans] or(18)Presuppositions and the distinction between[John eat rice]

Pol-Q and Alt-Q:(Han and Romero (2004: 530))

a.Pol-Qs: no weak presupposition or weak
presupposition for q

In addition, they argue that whether/Q is awh-phrase that undergoes overt island-boundb.Alt-Qs: weak presupposition for q and ¬q

operator movement as in (16), capturing the in-(adapted from van Rooy and Šafářová (2003:

sight of native speakers’ that whether is a295-298))

wh-incarnation of either.
When asking an Alt-Q, a speaker is simply insearch for an answer to whether q or ¬q holds;(16)a. Did John say that Bill resigned or retired?
OK( Alt-Q)

hence he or she has to share this WP with theb. Qi Did John say [that Bill ti [resigned orinterlocutors relevant to the questions, as in (19).

retired]]?
(19) WP: John ate something.
a. Did John eat beans or rice?

The prediction is borne out that (17) lacks an

Pol-Q: Is it true or false that John ate

Alt-Q reading, for the relevant movement violates the complex NP constraint.

beans or rice?
Alt-Q: Which of these two things did(17)a. Did John believe the claim that Bill resigned or retired?

John eat, beans or rice?

(*Alt-Q)

b. I wonder [whether John ate beans or rice]b. *Qi Did John believe [CNP the claim that

Pol-Q: I wonder whether it is true orBill ti [resigned or retired]]?

false that John ate beans or rice.

(Han and Romero (2004: 535-537))

Alt-Q: I wonder which of these twothings John ate, beans or rice.

Let us now turn to the Japanese Alt-Q and DJ. I
propose that Alt-Qs in Japanese should also be

Now, consider (20): With an appropriate WP,

analyzed on a par with the English whether-Q

the Alt-Q reading becomes readily available in245

(20a) and (20b).

T.

coffee drink-past[TP Taro [VP ocha non]-da](20) Contexts/Weak Presuppositions:T.

A speaker and his/her friends are together atDJka/no]?

tea drink-past

Q‘Did Taro [drink coffee or drink tea]?’the speaker’s house. One of his/her friends,

b. Phonology:

Taro, either had coffee or tea, but theDeletion: [TP Taro [VP koohii non]-da] ka

speaker does not know which (WP: p or

[TP Taro [VP ocha non]-da] ka/no?

¬p). Then the speaker asks his/her friends...

Reanalysis:[Taro [nominal koohii ka ocha]

a. [Taro-wa [koohii ka ocha]-o non-da] no?

non]-da] ka/no?

T.-Top[Taro-wa [nominal koohii ka ocha] ka (-o)

coffee DJ tea-Acc drink-Past Q

b. Taro-wa [[koohii ka ocha ka](-o)

non]-da] ka/no?

T.-Topcoffee DJ tea-RC-ka(-Acc)

non-da]ka/no?

Although it is not clear why surface nominal DJ
does not obtain an Alt-Q reading, those withdrink-Past Q
OK

Alt-Q: ‘Which did T. drink, coffee or tea?’other lexical items would allow Alt-Q readings,

OK

Pol-Q: ‘Is it true that T. had coffee or tea?’as in (23).

Note that when Alt-Q readings are licensed, the(23) WP: You came to a party. One of yourDJ must bear WSR (Han and Romero (2004:

friends wanted to ask you when you had ar-538)). As we have seen, the presence of RC-ka

rived.

makes WSR reading more prominent. Since

Kimi-wa

koko-e[ichi-ji

Uegaki ignores RC-ka, it is difficult to retrieve

You.-Top

here-toone-o’clock DJ

underlying WSR reading from the surface nom-san-jika]-niki-ta

inal DJ.

In deriving (21a) from (22b), I as-

three-o’clock RC-ka-at

sume that PF-reanalysis (Fukui and Sakai

OK(2003)) is at work.

one or three o’clock?’ka
no?

come-pastQ

Alt-Q: ‘At which time did you come here,(cf. OKPol-Q: ‘Is it true that you come here
at one or three o’clock?’)(21) Descriptive Generalizations on Alt-/Pol-Q:
a. Taro-wa [[TP [VP koohii-o non]-da]T.-topka
We can also make Alt-Q interpretations morecoffee-Acc drink-Past DJ ?

[[ocha-onon]-da]ka]

tea-Acc

drink-past RC-ka

prominent by iterating conjuncts like in (24).

Q(24) WP: Taro either had coffee, tea or coke,b. Taro-wa [[NP koohii ka
T.-topcoffee DJocha-ka](-o)

non-da]but you don’t know which he actually had.
ka/no/?

Taro-wa [koohii

ka

ocha

ka

koora

Q

T.-Top [coffee

DJ

tea

DJ

cola

tea-RC-ka(-Acc) drink-Past(22) PF-reanalysis:non-daRC-ka]-Acc

drink-Past

OKa. Narrow Syntax:[[TP Taro [VP koohii non]-da]ka](-o)ka

Q

Alt-Q: ‘Which of these three, coffee, tea

or coke did T. drink?’

246

no?

(cf. OKPol-Q: ‘Is it true that T. drank coffee,

5.Conclusion:tea or coke?’)

To sum up, the present study proposed aunified account on DJ in English and Japanese:

We have seen that Alt-Q readings become

Japanese RC-ka overtly indicates the scope of

more prominent when relevant contexts (WP)

DJ in parallel with either in English. Moreover, I

are provided, and when DJs are followed byhave shown that Japanese interrogative DJ de-

RC-ka, as well, which is summarized in (25).

rives an Alt-Q interpretation in a similar manneras in English, which is summarized in (27) be-(25) Observations in Section 4:

low.

a.RC-ka makes WSR more prominent in de(27) RC-ka/either indicate the scope of DJ:
Scope of DJ
English: Alt-Q
NSR
NG:base-generated nominal DJ
WSR
OK: clausal/phrasal DJ
Japanese: Alt-Q
NSR
NG:base-generated nominal DJ
WSR
OK: clausal/phrasal DJ

claratives (cf. (8)).
b.Japanese DJs may obtain Alt-Q readings ininterrogatives when it allows WSR.
If (25) is on the right track, WSR DJs may show
wh-island sensitivity. This prediction is borne
out: Alt-Q readings become unavailable in com-

Given (27), we can capture the scopal properties

plex NP, as in (26b).

of DJs in English and Japanese only with
Merge-based Syntax and PF-deletion, which(26)WP: Taro either had coffee or tea, but you

contributes to the simplification of UG.

don’t know which one he actually had.
a. Taro-wa [koohii ka koocha ka](-o)
T.-topcoffee DJ tea RC-ka-Acc

non-dano?

drink-pastOK* I would like to especially thank Naoki Fukui,
Takaomi Kato and Hiroki Narita for their valuable comments on the earlier versions of this pa-

Qper. Many thanks also go to the audience and

Alt-Q: Which did Taro drink, coffee

organizers of the 8th International Spring Forum.

or tea?
OK

Usual disclaimers apply.

Pol-Q: Is it true that Taro drank coffee

NOTES

or tea?

1b. Hanako-wa [CNP [Taro-ga [koohii ka
H.-Topsive-or reading becomes more prominent (denT.-Nom coffee DJ

koocha ka](-o) non-da]

It is true when either is present, the exclu-

Dikken (2006: 702)). However, ‘either A or B’koto]-odoes not necessarily entail ‘but not both A andtea RC-ka-Acc drink-Past fact-Acc

B.’ Consider (i) below, which definitely allows

kika-nakat-ta no?

the inclusive-or interpretation.

hear-Neg-Past Q*Alt-Q: Which did Hanako hear Taro(i)If you get 100 marks in either Math or Sci-

drink, coffee or tea?
OKence, then you can have some snacks.

Pol-Q: Is it true that Hanako didn’t
hear that Taro drank coffee or

2

tea?

247

Akira Ishikawa (p.c.) pointed out to me that

intensional predicates make the distinctions be-

REFERENCES
Den Dikken, Marcel (2006) “Either-float and thetween NSR and WSR even clearer here.
3

Syntax of Co-or-dination,” NLLT 24(3),NSR DJ can readily be followed by demo

dochira-demo ii-soo-da-yo ‘he doesn’t care689-749.
Fukui, Naoki and Hiromu Sakai (2003) “The-

which’ as in (i).

Visibility Guideline for Functional Cate(i) a. Taro-wa ringo

ka

mikan

T.-TopDJorange (RC-ka)-Acc

apple

gories: Verb Raising in Japanese and Re-(ka)-olated Issues,” Lingua 113(4), 321-375.
Han, Chung-Hye and Maribel Romero (2004)

sagasitei-ru
looking:for-Pres“The Syntax of Whether/Q...or Questions:‘Taro is looking for (either) an apple or an

Ellipsisorange’NLLT 22(3), 527-564.

CombinedwithMovement,”b. Demo dochira-demo ii-soo-da-yo.

Kishimoto, Hideki (2013) “Notes on Correlative

but whichever okay-seem-Cop-Prt

Coordination in Japanese,” Deep Insights,‘But he doesn’t care which.’

Broad Perspectives: Essays in Honor of
Mamoru Saito, ed. by Yoichi Miyamoto et4al., 192-217, Tokyo Kaitakusha.

Miyama (2015: 24) observes that examples

Kobayashi, Ryoichiro (2016) “The Repetitive

such as (i) must be base-generated as nominal

Coordinator-ka in Japanese and Either incoordination:

English as Scope Indicators in Disjunc(i)a. Taro-wa[koohiikaochation,” Proceedings of the 39thAnnual Penn

T.-TopcoffeeDJtea

Linguistics Conference.

(ka)]-nodochira-ka-o

RC-ka-Gen which-ka-Acc

non-daLarson, Richard (1985) “On the Syntax of Disjunction Scope,” NLLT 3(2), 217-264.

drink-Past

Miyama, Mioko (2015) “On the Clausal Con-

‘Taro drank either coffee or tea.’b. *T.-wa [koohii-onon-danective and Nominal Connective ka ‘or’ka ocha-oT.-Top coffee-Acc drink-Past DJ tea-Acc

in Japanese,” Linguistic Research 30,

non-da (ka)]-no dochira-ka-o non-da

23-40.
Schwarz, Bernhard (1999) “On the Syntax ofdrink-Past Gen which-ka-Acc drink-past

Either...or,” NLLT 17(2), 339-370.
The sentence (ib), from which (ia) is supposed

Uegaki, Wataru (2014) “Japanese Alternative

to be derived, is totally unacceptable. She then

Questions are Disjunctions of Polar Ques-

concludes that in Japanese, a unique derivation

tions,” Proceedings of SALT 24, 42-62.

of nominal DJ is independently guaranteed,

Van Rooy, Robert and Marie Šafářová (2003)

when dochiraka ‘which+ka’ is present. However,“On Polar Questions,” Proceedings ofthis does not affect the discussions in this paper,

SALT 13, 292-309.

since dochiraka lexically derived the exclusive-or interpretation regardless of whether the
relevant DJ obtains NSR or WSR.

248

occupy Spec or Head in a CP. A natural question iswhere these differences come from. We claim thatthey naturally follow from Competition Theory,
which attributes them to the fundamental distinction
between English and Japanese in terms of language

Cross-Linguistic Variations in Realization

type.

PatternsofSpeechAct:

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2*

A Competition-Theoretic Approach

discusses the realization patterns of speech act inEnglishKazuya Nishimaki

andJapanese.

Section3

outlines

Competition Theory. Section 4 explains the

University of Tsukuba

realization patterns discussed in Section 2 based onCompetition Theory. Furthermore, this section

Keywords: speech act, morphology-syntax

demonstrates that a competition-theoretic approachcompetition, free form, bound form, CP domain

captures the realization patterns of another type of
discourse function. Section 5 examines thederivation of discourse markers. Section 6 makes
concluding remarks.

1. Introduction
Ackema and Neeleman (2004) develop a theory
that hypothesizes that the competition between

2. Different Realization Patterns of the Samemorphology and syntax results in cross-linguistic

Speech Act in English and Japanesevariations. Hence, we refer to this theory as

The contrast in (2) indicates that the combination
I tell you has a special function.

Competition Theory. Adopting Competition Theory,
this paper presents a new perspective on
cross-linguistic variations. We focus on realization(2) a. * I tell you that it is so.

patterns of speech act in English and Japanese. As(Ikarashi (2013: 112), quoted from Brown anddiscussed in Section 2, these languages realize theLevinson (1987: 190))b.

same speech act differently:

I tell you, I could fly around this roomwith my eyes closed!

(1) a.

(Ikarashi (2013: 113))

I tell you, he is an idiot.
(Stubbs (1983: 157))b.

Regarding this contrast, Ikarashi (2013) observes

Ame-da yo. ‘It is raining, I tell you.’that in (2a) the speaker and the addressee share the(Hirose (1995: 227))

information that something is so while in (2b) theFor example, speech act is encoded by expressions

speaker one-sidedly informs the addressee that thesuch as I tell you in English, as shown in (1a). On the

speaker could fly around a room with his eyes closed.

other hand, particles such as yo encode speech act inBased on this observation, he claims that I tell you isJapanese, as shown in (1b). According to a recent

used only when the speaker one-sidedly informs the

cartographic approach to clausal structures, there are

addressee who does not know the reported

cross-linguistic variations as to whether these speech

information.
As pointed out in Hirose (1995: 227), I tell you

act markers, more generally, discourse markers,

249

roughly corresponds to the particle yo in Japanese,and yo mark the same speech act means that they are

which is illustrated in (3a).

licensed in the same ForceP. In this regard, they are
different realizing forms of the same ForceP. I tell(3) a.

byooki-dayo.

you and yo also differ as to whether they occupy

Hanako-Top ill-Cop.Pre

YO

Spec or Head. It has been pointed out that there are

Hanako-wa[known only to speaker]

cross-linguistic variations as to whether functional

tenki-dane.

projections in the CP domain have their overt

good weather-Cop.PreNE

realizations at Spec or Head (see Rizzi (1997: 283)).

‘Hanako is ill.’b.

Ii

In his analysis of topic-focus system, Rizzi suggests‘It’s a beautiful day.’[known to both speaker and addressee]that in English, CP Spec is overtly realized. For(Ikarashi (2014: 8))

example, Rizzi (1997: 285) analyzes a topicalized
sentence as shown in (5).

Notice their difference in form. I tell you is a freeform as it can stand in isolation, while yo is a bound(5) [TopicP Your book [Top-F] [Topic’ [Topic0 Ø] [FinP you

morpheme that must occur sentence-finally. Hence,

should givet to Paul not to Bill.]]]we call a particle such as yo a sentence-final particle(SFP). According to Ikarashi (2014), as with I tell

In (5), the topicalized phrase your book is endowed

you, the SFP yo functions as a marker of thewith a Topic feature, when it (or rather the noun

speaker’s one-sided information giving. As shown inbook) enters into the Numeration; then, this phrase(3a), yo is used when only the speaker knows theoccupies Topic Spec, which results in a Spec-Headreported information. (3b), wherein both the speakerconfiguration. Under this configuration, the Topic

and the addressee know the information, requires

feature is checked by the null Topic Head. Hence, weanother particle ne. Our analysis so far indicates that

may safely assume that I tell you occupies Force

I tell you and yo function as markers of the speaker’s

Spec in the same way as the topicalized phrase in (5).

one-sided information giving. With this regard, they

Therefore, the sentences with the speech act marker I

can be considered markers of the same speech act,

tell you can be analyzed as shown in (6).

even though they have different forms.
The same function found in I tell you and yo(6) [ForceP I tell you [Force-F] [Force’ [Force0 Ø] [FinP he isleads us to the natural assumption that they have thean idiot.]]]same underlying structure. According to Rizzi’s(1997) Split CP hypothesis, a CP has the following

We assume that in (6) I tell you is numerated in one

articulated structures:or another way to be endowed with a Force feature,
which is checked by the null Force Head under the(4) ... Force ... (Topic) ... (Focus) ... Fin IP

Spec-Head configuration.

(Rizzi (1997: 288))

On the other hand, Tenny (2006) points out that
the SFP yo is a head of ForceP. Therefore, (7a) can

In terms of this hypothesis, Haegeman (2006)

be analyzed as shown in (7b), wherein the Forceassumes that speech acts are licensed in Forcefeature of yo is checked by occupying Force Head.

projection (ForceP), which specifies illocutionary
force. Given this assumption, the fact that I tell you

250

(7) a.

Kazuko-wa

kinoo

b.

Tokyo-eKazuko-Top yesterdayTokyo-toKare-wa

watasi-o

ika-se-ta.

Kare-Topme-Accgo-make-Past.

‘He made me go.’iki-masi-ta

yo.

go-Polite-Past

YO(Taishukan’s Dictionary, s.v. to make)‘Yesterday Kazuko went to Tokyo (I’m
(Tenny (2006: 256))

As shown in (8a), English uses a phrasal form to[ForceP Ø [Force’ [FinP Kazuko-wa …

encode a causative. As shown in (8b), its Japaneseiki-masi-ta] [Force0 yo [Force-F].]]]

counterpart is lexical. Assuming that the phrasal

telling you).’b.

form is a syntactic realization while the lexical form
To summarize, regarding the realization ofis a morphological realization, Competition Theory

speech act, English and Japanese contrast in twoviews these two forms as competing for realization

ways. One is that a speech act marker takes a freeof the same underlying structure. In the following

form in English but a bound form in Japanese; thesection, we explore how the differences between I

other is that it occupies Force Spec in English but

tell you and yo are explained within the outlined

Force Head in Japanese. In the following discussion,

framework.

we demonstrate that these contrasts naturally follow
from Competition Theory.

4.

Competition-Theoretic

ExplanationforContrastive Realization Patterns
4.1. Speech Act

3. The Outline of Competition Theory
Competition Theory is characterized by its

To begin with, let us consider the distinction

unified treatment of cross-linguistic comparison andbetween free and bound forms. Note that thisinter-modular comparison between morphology anddistinction involves the inter-modular distinction

syntax. Its core assumption is that these two modules

between morphology and syntax. By definition, free

are on an equal footing and compete for PF

forms such as I tell you are atoms visible to syntax,

realization of morphosyntactic structures; depending

while bound morphemes such as yo are atoms

on whether morphological or syntactic realization isvisible to morphology. Given this, the contrast as topreferred in a given language, cross-linguistic

which forms are selected naturally follows fromvariations occur. On this assumption, languages are

Competition Theory: English, a syntax-preferringclassified

andlanguage, syntactically realizes speech act using freesyntax-preferring languages. Under Competition

forms, i.e. syntactic atoms, whereas Japanese, a

Theory,morphology-preferring

into
we

can

morphology-preferring
analyze

Englishasalanguage,selects

syntax-preferring language and Japanese as amorphological realizations with bound morphemes,morphology-preferring language. This analysis isi.e. morphological atoms. We assume that English

confirmed by forms of a causative in the two

has no illocutionary morpheme because it can create

languages (the following examples are quoted from

illocutionary markers, whenever necessary, throughTaishukan’s Unabridged Genius English-Japanese

the reanalysis of certain types of representations (thisDictionary (Taishukan’s Dictionary)):

point is discussed in more detail later). Since I tell
you is not specialized for speech act, it is available(8) a.

for other purposes. For instance, in (9), it is used as a

He made me go.

part of a proposition. This point is clear from the fact251

that it is embedded within the subordinate if-clause.

The translation pair given in (11) indicates thecorrespondence between a tag question and the SFP
ne. They both imply that “the speaker expects to get(9) If I tell you the car is in the shop, you may

the addressee’s response agreeing with the speaker’s

conclude you can’t ask me for a ride.
(N. Cercone and G. McCalla, The Knowledge

supposition as to the given statement (Uyeno (1971:

Frontier, my underlining)117)).” Furthermore, Hasegawa (2005) points outthat English uses wh-words, e.g. what in (12a), toIn other words, I tell you is not grammaticalized as a

encode interrogative force, which Japanese marks

functional category. Therefore, it occupies Forcewith the interrogative SFP ka in (12b).

Spec and not Head. In contrast, since yo is afunctional category listed as an illocutionary maker

4.2. Evidentiality
Interestingly, there is another CP domain whereinin the lexicon, it occupies Force Head in the same

English and Japanese contrast in terms of selecting

way as inflections and complementizers.
To pursue the present analysis, let us consider

free forms or bound SFPs. Tenny (2006) proposesthat other types of speech act are consistently marked

that a CP hosts Evidential projection (EvidP), whichwith free forms in English but with bound SFPs in

specifies the kind of evidence that justifies theJapanese. The following are some examples:utterance. In English, sequences of subjects withperception verbs may function as evidential markers.

(10) a.
b.

So he came over to my place, you know.

For example, according to Anderson (1986), theSoredekare-wa

watasi-no

bracketed I hear in (13) ensures that it is fromso

he-Topmy-Gensomeone else that the speaker has got the

uti-e

ki-ta

no

ne.

information that Mary won the prize. In this regard, I

home-tocome-Past NO

NEhear marks the evidentiality of hearsay.

‘So he came over to my place, you know.’(Taishukan’s Dictionary, s.v. to know)(11) a.
b.

(12) a.
b.

(13) [I hear] Mary won the prize. (‘someone toldme’)John left, didn’t he?
John-wa

dekake-masi-ta

ne.

John-Top

leave-Polite-Past

NE(Anderson (1986: 274))

Note that in (13) the verb to hear carries no‘John left, didn’t he?’ (Uyeno (1971: 117))

sentential stress; the main predication is theWhat did Mary buy?

proposition that Mary won the prize. In this regard,

Mary-ga nani-okai-masi-taka.

the evidential usage of to hear is distinguished from

M.-Nom what-Acc

buy-Polite-Past Q

its normal usage as a perception verb. On the other
hand, Aoki (1986) observes that the evidentiality of‘What did Mary buy?’hearsay is marked with the SFP tte in Japanese.

(Hasegawa (2005: 49))
Taishukan’s Dictionary states that you know in (10a)(14) Ame-ga

is used when the speaker confirms the propositionalrain-Nomcontent to the addressee. Similarly, according to‘They say it is raining.’

hutteiru tte.
falling

TTE(Aoki (1986: 230))

Kido and Murasugi (2012: 4), the SFP ne in (10b)
In English, evidential markers may be supplied bymarks the speaker’s confirmation to the addressee.

252syntactic movement. Observing the following

to this dualness of structures as Coanalysis. On thecontrast, Shizawa (2015) claims that the so-calledother hand, the concept of Representational

Locative Inversion Constructions are permitted only

Modularity

when the utterance is based on the speaker’s direct

morphophonological representations are generated

perception:

independently of each other. Our assumption is thatstatesthatmorphosyntactic

anddiscourse markers such as I tell you are derived(15) a.

I looked at the door. Just then, into thethrough the reanalysis of their morphophonologicalroom came John.

representations generated in one of the two
independent structures.

b. * Into the room came John, because the door

Based on Coanalysis and Representational

was left open.

Modularity, we propose that the sentences with

(Shizawa (2015: 165))

discourse markers are analyzed as shown in (16).
Shizawa’s analysis suggests that inverted locative
phrases such as into the door in (15a) can be(16) [Top] /I tell you he is an idiot/

considered markers of direct evidentiality. With

[ForceP I-tell-you [Force-F] [Force’ [Force0 Ø]

regard to Japanese, Endo (2010: 80) points out that

[FinP he is an idiot.]]]this direct evidentiality is encoded without SFPs (e.g.
Kazi-da Ø. ‘A fire is occurring.’) while indirect

N= {I-tell-you [Force-F], ...}

evidentiality is marked with the SFP na (e.g. Kazi-dana. ‘It seems that a fire is occurring.’) for the context

REANALYSIS

in which the speaker merely hears the siren of a fireengine from his room.

[Bottom] /I tell you he is an idiot/

Our observation has demonstrated that in English,[IP I tell you [CP he is an idiot.]]

discourse markers are realized with various types offree forms, which consistently correspond to boundSuppose that the sentence given in (16) has top and

SFPs in Japanese. Under Competition Theory, abottom structures. In the top structure, I tell you isseries of correspondences across CP domains can beused as a speech act marker, and in the bottom

captured as parallel to the correspondence between I

structure, it is a part of a proposition. In bothtell you and yo.

structures,themorphosyntactic

morphophonologicalrepresentations

are

and

generated

independently of each other. I tell you as a speech act

5. The Derivation of Discourse Markers
The issue of the derivation of discourse markers

marker

exploits

its

morphophonologicalin English remains to be solved. Since English does

representation generated in the bottom structure.

not list discourse markers in the lexicon, they are to

This representation is reanalyzed as a single unit.

be derived by some means. Let us give a brief sketch

The reanalyzed I tell you enters the Numeration ofof the derivation, based on Di Sciullo and Williams’

the top structure, in which it is endowed with a Force(1987)

feature. Note that this reanalysis applies only to

Coanalysis

Representational

andJackendoff’s

Modularity.

Di(1997)

Sciulloandconstituents. According to Nespor and Vogel (1986:

Williams (1987) observe that a single expression can

Ch. 7), I tell you, I hear, and didn’t he constitutehave two independent structures. These authors referintonational phrases; however they are not syntactic

253constituents. Therefore, their morphophonological,

cartographic works on Japanese have revealed thatbut not morphosyntactic, representations undergo

the universal categories hosted in CP domains arereanalysis.

realized by various SFPs in this language (see EndoOn the other hand, the sentences with SFPs have(2010)). However, these works do not explain the

mono-structures. They can be assumed to be derived

fundamental question why it must select SFPs as

as shown in (17).

realization forms unlike English. According to thepresent analysis, this immediately follows from
Competition Theory because Japanese is a(17) [Top] /Ame-da yo/morphology-preferring[ForceP Ø [Force’ [FinP Ame-da] [Force0 yo [Force-F].]]]

language.

Thus,

under

Competition Theory, those cross-linguistic variations
that have been separately observed in cartographic

N= {yo [Force-F], ...}

works can be given a unified account as instances ofthe distinction between syntax-preferring and

LEXICONmorphology-preferring languages.
SFPs are numerated from the lexicon, wherein they
are originally listed. For instance, yo is endowed* An earlier version of this paper was presented atwith a Force feature in the Numeration.

the 8th International Spring Forum of the English
Linguistic Society of Japan held at Seikei University
on April 19, 2015. I would like to thank Yukio

6. Concluding Remarks
The present analysis strongly suggests that theHirose, Nobuhiro Kaga, Masaharu Shimada, Naoaki

realization patterns in CP domains differ between theWada, Masaru Kanetani, and Akiko Nagano for theirsyntax-preferring

morphology-preferring

helpful comments. This work is supported by JSPS

languages. The syntax-preferring languages realize

KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Research Activity

functional projections by temporarily-derived freeStart-up Number 26884008.

forms

at

Spec.

and

On

the

other

hand,

morphology-preferring languages have realizations

REFERENCES

with grammaticalized bound morphemes at Head.

Ackema, Peter and Ad Neeleman (2004) Beyond

If the present analysis is on the right track, it has

Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word

implications for a cartographic approach to clausal

Formation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

structures (see, for example, Rizzi (1997) andAnderson, Lloyd B. (1986) “Evidentials, Paths of

Cinque (2006)). Based on Chomsky’s (2001)

Change, and Mental Maps: Typologically

Uniformity Principle, this approach assumes that “allRegular Asymmetries,” Evidentiality: The

languages share the same functional categories and

Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. by

the same principles of phrase and clause composition,

Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols, 273-312,

although they may differ in the movements they

Ablex Publishing, Norwood, New Jersey.

admit and in the projections they overtly realize

Aoki, Haruo (1986) “Evidentials in Japanese,”(Cinque (2006: 3-4)).” On this assumption, recent

Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding ofcartographic works provide a detailed description of

Epistemology, ed. by Wallace Chafe andcross-linguistic variations as to the way that these

Johanna Nichols, 223-238, Ablex Publishing,universal categories are realized. In particular,

Norwood, New Jersey.

254

Informational Superiority,” Tsukuba English

Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson (1987)

Studies 32, 116-126, University of Tsukuba.

Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage,

Cambridge

University

Ikarashi, Keita (2014) “The Performative Clause I

Press,

Tell You and the Speaker’s Informational

Cambridge.
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,” Ken

Superiority,” ms., University of Tsukuba.

Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael

Jackendoff, Ray (1997) The Architecture of the

Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press, Cambridge,

Language Faculty, MIT Press, Cambridge,

MA.

MA.

Cinque, Guglielmo (2006) Restructuring andKido, Yasuhito and Keiko Murasugi (2012)

Functional Heads, Oxford University Press,“Gengokakutoku no Kanten kara Saguru

Oxford.

Shujoshi no Kino (On the Function of
Sentence-Ending

Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria and Edwin Williams (1987)

MarkersinChild

On the Definition of Word, MIT Press,

Japanese),” Akademia: Bungaku࣭Gogakuhen

Cambridge, MA.

(Academia: Literature and Language) 92, 1-42,

Endo, Yoshio (2010) “Shujoshi no Kaatogurafuii

Nanzan University.

Final

Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel (1986) Prosodic

Particles),” Togoron no Shintenkai to Nihongo
Kenkyu: Medai o Koete (New Developments

Phonology, Foris, Dordrecht.
Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of thein Syntactic Theory and the Analysis ofLeft-Periphery,” Elements of Grammar: A

Japanese: Beyond Propositions), ed. byHandbook of Generative Syntax, ed. by Liliane

NobukoHaegeman, 281-337, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

(The

Cartography

Hasegawa,

ofSentence

67-94,

Kaitakusha,

Shizawa, Takashi (2015) “The Rhetorical Effect ofTokyo.
Haegeman, Liliane (2006) “Argument Fronting in

Locative Inversion Constructions from theEnglish, Romance CLLD and the Left

Perspective of the Three-Tier Model of

Periphery,” Cross-Linguistic Research in

Language Use,” English Linguistics 32,

Syntax and Semantics: Negation, Tense and156-176.

Clausal Architecture, ed. by Rafaella Zanuttini,

Stubbs, Michael (1983) Discourse Analysis: The

Hector Campos, Elena Herburger and Paul

Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language,Portner, 27–52, Georgetown University Press,

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Taishukan’s Unabridged Genius English-JapaneseGeorgetown.

Dictionary (Taishukan’s Dictionary), Taishukan,

Hasegawa, Nobuko (2005) “The EPP Materialized

Tokyo.

First, Agree Later: Wh-Questions, Subjects
and Mo ‘also’-Phrases,” Scientific Approaches

Tenny, Carol L. (2006) “Evidentiality, Experiencers,to Language 4, 33-80, Kanda University ofand the Syntax of Sentience in Japanese,”

International Studies.

Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15, 245-288.

Hirose, Yukio (1995) “Direct and Indirect Speech as

Uyeno, Tazuko (1971) A Study of Japanese

Quotations of Public and Private Expression,”

Modality: A Performative Analysis of Sentence

Lingua 95, 223-238.

Particles, Doctoral dissertation, University ofMichigan.

Ikarashi, Keita (2013) “The Performative Clause I
Tell You, Interpersonal Relationship, and255

interposed morpheme -s between them.

The

form of the interposed morpheme is identicalwith that of the genitive morpheme in English,
although the former is meaningless.

the genitive compound in (1b) refers to ‘back

A Distributed Morphology Approach to
Genitive Compounds in FrisianMoreover,*scratcher,’ but not to ‘a grandchild’s hand.’The other genitive compounds in (1) have thesame status as those in (1a) and (1b).

Tatsuhiro Okubo

Okubo(2014) claims that those in (1) are derived by

University of Tsukuba

directly

mergingtwo

nouns.

The

first

Keywords: Frisian genitive compound,constituent is composed of a noun and aDistributed Morphology, predication, linking

functional head realized by a linking element atelement, topic projectionPF:(2) [N [children f-s] [book]]

1.

Introduction
Genitive

compoundsor

possessive

Okubo argues that a linking element is one ofcompounds are found in several languages.

the expletives, whose semantic contents areSome examples of them are shown in (1):1empty.
However, not all genitive compounds have(1) a.

English: children’s bookthe same status as those in (1).

b.

Japanese: mago+no+te

genitive

grandchild+GEN+hand

Examples of Frisian genitive compounds are‘back scratcher’given in (3):2, 3c.

occursin

Frisian.

Danish: fred+s+conference
peace+LINK+conferenced.

compoundOne such(3) a.

kokensflier‘peace conference’

kitchen-S-floor

Swedish: bord+s+lamp‘floor of the kitchen’table+LINK+lampb.

‘desk lamp’

loddefiem
shovel-E-handle(Mukai (2008: 189-190))‘handle of the shovel’(Hoekstra (2002: 228))

Genitive compounds are composed of two nouns
and an additional morpheme whose form

It seems that the genitive compounds in (3) arecorresponds to a genitive morpheme.

Theequal to those in (1), because they are composed

genitive morpheme lies between two nouns toof two nouns and the additional morpheme -s orlink them.

-e that formally corresponds to a genitive

According to Mukai (2008: 191), it

does not have an independent meaning.

Formorpheme in Frisian.

However, there is a

example, the genitive compound in (1a) consists

significant difference between (1) and (3); theof the two nouns children and book with thedifference in referentiality between the first256

constituents of the compounds.

The first

living room-S-door

constituents of the Frisian genitive compounds‘door of the living room’in (3) must be definite/specific, whereas those ofb.

broeksBOKSE

the genitive compounds in (1) do not have to be.

trousers-S-leg

Hoekstra‘leg of the trousers’(2002)

argues

that

these

two

differences distinguish genitive compounds inc.

foarkeTINEN

English from those in Frisian.

fork-E-teechThis paper aims to reveal the structure of
Frisian genitive compounds.

‘teeth of the fork’

In doing so, I willd.

tsjerkhôfsHAGE

make it clear that the difference in referentiality

churchyard-S-hedgeof the first constituents is reduced to the‘hedge of (around) the churchyard’

difference in underlying structures between the(Hoekstra (2002: 229))

genitive compounds in (1) and those in Frisian.
This paper is organized as follows.

SectionOn the basis that phrases in Frisian have final

2 introduces properties of Frisian genitive

accent, Hoekstra claims that Frisian genitive

compounds,

compounds have phrasal accent.

includingmentioned above.

the

two

properties

In section 3, I will argue

Second, the genitive morphemes of Frisianagainst Hoekstra’s (2002) claim that a syntactic

genitive compounds are obligatory.

approach to Frisian genitive compounds is not

linking elements whose forms are the same as

successful.

those of genitive morphemes and whose

Instead of using the framework of

Frisian has

Hoekstra, this paper adopts that of Distributed

semantic contents are empty.

Morphology (Harley and Noyer (2003), Embick

occur in NN compounds, as shown in (5):and Marantz (2008), among others).

Section 4shows the underlying structure of Frisiangenitive compounds.

(5) a.

keningsdochter

This structure explains

several properties given in section 2.

These elements

king-S-daughter

Section 5‘king’s daughter’

concludes this paper.

b.

berneboek
child-E-book2.

Properties

ofFrisian‘children’s book’

Genitive(Hoekstra (2002: 228))

Compounds
Hoekstra (2002) points out four properties ofFrisianphonological,

Although the forms of the elements are identicalmorphological, lexical-semantic, and referential.

with those of genitive morphemes, they differ in

Let us observe these properties in turn.

that,First,

genitive

unlikecompounds:

normalunlikelinking

elements,

genitive

present

genitiveN(oun)N(oun)morphemesmust

compounds that are stressed on the first element,

compounds.

This difference is clearly shown

Frisian genitive compounds always have thein the contrast of (6):

be

in

4

stress on the second constituent:(6) a.
(4) a.

keamersDOAR

b.

257

KOKENtafel ‘kitchen table’

kokensTAFEL ‘table of (in) the

compound emerges from that of the first element

kitchen’of a genitive compound.

(Hoekstra (2002: 231))

For instance, koken of

kokensDOAR denotes a definite/specific kitchen.
The NN compound in (6a) disallows linking

This property of genitive compounds leads

elements, while the genitive compound in (6b)tomust have the genitive morpheme -s.

compounds and normal NN compounds:

differenceinmorphologicalobligatoriness
difference

This

shows

betweenablocking

relation

betweengenitivealinking(8) a.

De kokensDOAR/koknedoar

elements and genitive morphemes.

The door

Third, as clearly shown in the contrast of (6),

of

the

kitchen/*kitchendooar

genitive compounds always denote a part-wholestiet yn’t kier.

relation between two nouns.

stands ajar

In fact, normal

NN compounds can denote the same relation.

‘The door of the kitchen is ajar.’

However, in contrast to genitive compounds,b.

Hy hearde

normal NN compounds can denote other

He

heard

imaginable meanings.

in*kokensDOAR/kokendoaradoor of the kitchen/kitchendoor

Fourth, the first constituent of genitive
compounds must be definite/specific, as given inklapperjen.

(7):banging‘He heard a kitchen door banging.’(7) a.

b.

De kokensDOAR
The door of the kitchen

As observed in (7), Frisian genitive compounds

stie yn’t kier.

must occur in a definite/specific context.

stood ajar

Because of this property, a genitive compound‘The door of the kitchen was ajar.’prohibits a corresponding NN compound from

*Der site

occurring in a definite/specific context, as shown

There stoodin (8a).

in/ien kokensDOAR

compound is preferred to the genitive compounda/one door of the kitchen

if the context is indefinite/non-specific, as

iepen.

shown in (8b).

In contrast, the corresponding NN

open‘There was a/one door of the kitchen

3.

Framework
Based on (8), Hoekstra (2002) argues that

open.’

Frisian genitive compounds are derived in the
In (7a), the genitive compound can occur with

lexicon.

the definite article de.

blocking occurs only in the lexicon.

However, (7b) shows

The reason behind this is that
He

that the genitive compound cannot occur withtherefore adopts a lexicalist approach andthe indefinite article in/ien.

considers the compounds to be lexicalized

Hoekstra(2002:

According to235),phrases.

the

case.

definiteness/specificity of an entire genitive

258

However, this is not necessarily the

In this section, I argue against his claim

by showing that a syntactic approach to words

so there is no blocking relation observed

based on Distributed Morphology (Harley andbetween the compounds and normal NN

Noyer (2003), Embick and Marantz (2008),

compounds derived in the lexicon.

among others), can explain (8).

this claim is based on the notion of the lexicon.

However,

According to Scalise (1984: 165), the word
3.1.

Genitive Compounds as Lexicalized‘lexicon’ refers to the lexical component and list

Phrasesof unpredictable forms of a language.

In

addition, he points out that only the latter

Hoekstra (2002) proposes the following

meaning is related to blocking.

structure for Frisian genitive compounds:

With thisseparation in mind, the lexical component is notnecessary for the explanation of the blocking(9) [AgrGP[+def] [DP[+def] [D[+def]-Ø [NPrelation observed between Frisian genitive
compounds and normal NN compounds.

koken]]] [AgrG’ AgrG-s [NP doar]]]

In fact, Embick and Marantz (2008) propose
This structure explains the four properties

that

observed in section 2.

blocking phenomena without relying on theFirst, the phonologicalDistributed

Morphology

canexplainproperty in (4) is captured because the structure

lexical component.

in (9) is a phrasal structure.

Second, therelation between glory and *gloriousity can bemorphological property in (5) and (6) is

explained by the difference in syntactic structure

accounted for because of the obligatory presence

between the two words.

of the functional head AgrG.

approach can explain the blocking relation

Third, this headFor example, the blocking

Moreover, thisis responsible for the lexical-semantic property

between a word and a phrase.

of Frisian genitive compounds; that is, theEmbick and Marantz (2008), a blocking relation

part-whole relation between two nouns.

Fourth,between the word smarter and the phrase *more

the percolation of a [+def(inite)] feature of thesmart is captured because they have the samefirst constituent to the projection AgrGP

syntactic

explains

realizations of a feature related to the meaningthereferential

property

in

(7).

but

the

phonologicalof the comparative differ from each other.

According to Hoekstra, the D head of the first

Given the analysis of Embick and Marantz, I

constituent is defective, so that it does not haveany phonological contents.

structure,

According toemploySince FrisiantheframeworkofDistributed

genitive compounds are formed in the lexicon,

Morphology to give an account of Frisianthe blocking phenomenon in (8) is also

genitive compounds.

explained.
4.
3.2.

The Structure of Frisian Genitive
Compounds and Their Properties

A Distributed Morphology Account of

Although I employ the framework of

Blocking Phenomena
Hoekstra points out that a syntactic approach

Distributed Morphology, I also partially employ

to Frisian genitive compounds fails to capture

the structure of Frisian genitive compounds

the blocking phenomenon in (8), because in this

proposed by Hoekstra (2002).

approach, the compounds are derived in syntax,

that the relation between the constituents of259

It seems to me

Frisian genitive compounds is a kind ofmove there to be licensed by the functional head.

predication.

I assume that predication in

Recall that Hoekstra (2002) argues that the first

syntax is established by any functional head, as

constituent of Frisian genitive compounds has a

proposed in den Dikken (2006).

null defective D.

With respect

Given den Dikken’s andto such functional head, unlike Hoekstra (2002),

Hoekstra’s analyses, I suggest that the trigger of

I consider genitive morphemes of Frisianthe movement of DP in (11) is the null head D ofcompounds to be meaningless, identifying themthe DP.

as the functional head f proposed by Okubo

that(2014).

compounds are explained by the proposed

I hence propose the following structure

The rest of this section demonstrates

theproperties

ofFrisiangenitive

structure.

for the compounds:

First and foremost, the lexical-semantic
property of Frisian genitive compounds must be(10) [DP D [fP NP [f DP]]]explained because genitive morphemes do not
This structure fails to explain the word order ofhave any contents in my analysis, unlike

Frisian genitive compounds because as Hoekstra

Hoekstra (2002).

(2002) argues, DP is the first constituent and NP

part-whole relation between the constituents ofthe second.

This fact means that DP in (10)Frisian genitive compounds from the beginning.

must move to the Spec position of the upper DP,

Consider the genitive compound loddefiem

as shown in (11):‘handle of the shovel’.

However, note that there is a

In this compound, fiem

‘handle’ establishes a part-whole relation withlodde ‘shovel’ because a shovel must have a(11) [DP DPi [D’ D [fP NP [f ti]]]]handle to work.

If so, the genitive morpheme

However, this account of the word order is notdoes not function to establish the relation

correct because there is an NP that is an

between the two constituents.

intervener between the upper D and the lower

part-whole relation between the constituents ofDP.

Frisian genitive compounds is established by

The immediate question is how to solve

this problem.

I claim that aencyclopedic knowledge.5

Based on den Dikken (2006), I

propose that, in (10), f moves to D, and, as a

Second, the present structure can account forresult of this movement, NP and DP are

the phonological property of Frisian genitive

equidistant to the Spec position of the upper D,

compounds; that is, the second constituent mustas shown in (12):be stressed.

According to den Dikken (2006:

82-83), the subject must be stressed in predicate(12) [DP DPi [D’ fj+D [fP NP [tj ti]]]]inversion constructions, as shown in (13):

If this analysis is on the right track, the next(13) Imogen considers the best candidate to be

problem is the trigger of the movement.

BRIAN.

Den

Dikken (2006) argues that the trigger of the(den Dikken (2006: 83))

movement of a predicate to the Spec position ofa higher functional head is the presence of the

Any other constituents cannot be stressed.

null head of the predicate.

my analysis is correct, predicate inversion

The null head must

260

If

occurs in Frisian genitive compounds.

As a

if their first constituents are pre-established inresult of this operation, the subject, which is thediscourse (cf. Hoekstra (2002: 252)).

second constituent of the compounds, must bemeans that the lower DP moves to the Spec

stressed.

position of TopP.

Third,

theobligatoriness

Moreover, Aboh (2004: 7)

genitiveargues that an element that moves to [Spec,

Den Dikken

TopP] is specified as [+specific]; hence, it(2006) argues that the presence of linkers ismoves there to check the feature under Top.

obligatory if predicate inversion occurs, as

Based on this claim, the referential property ofshown in (14):Frisian genitive compounds can be explained.

morphemes can be explained.

of

This

Let us take kokensdoar ‘kitchen door’ as an(14) a.
b.

Imogen considers Brian (to be) the

example.

best candidate.

following steps:

This compound is derived from the

Imogen considers the best candidate*(to be) Brian.

(16) a.

(den Dikken (2006:1))[DP D [TopP Top[+specificity] [fP doar [fkoken[+specificity]]]]]b.
In (14b), unlike (14a), predicate inversion

[DP

D

[TopP

kokeni[+specificity][Top[+specificity]+fj-s [fP doar [tj ti]]]]occurs; and, as a result of this, the linker to bemust be required.
genitive

In (16a), koken has a [+specificity] featureThis is the reason whymorphemesofcompounds are obligatory.

Frisiangenitive

because it has already been introduced in

In my analysis, themorphemes are linking elements.

previous discourse.

Considering

Because of the feature, it

moves to the Spec of TopP to check the same

their linking function, it is natural that they arefeature of Top.

also regarded as linkers.

Top is specified as [+specificity].

Fourth, my analysis accounts for the

lower than D.

What is important here is that
This head is

Such relation between D anddefinite/specific character of the first constituent

Top explains the fact that the entire genitiveof Frisian genitive compounds without assuming

compound is definite/specific.

the percolation of a [+def] feature.

To explain

if D were specified as [−specific], a mismatch inthis behavior, let us adopt Aboh’s (2004)

value of the feature between D and Top would

proposal that a noun has topic and focus

occur and cause the derivation to crash.

projections.

This is because

According to Aboh, there are topic

So far, I have shown how the proposed

6

structure explains the properties of Frisianand focus projections between D and N.

Based on his analysis, I modify the structure in

genitive compounds.

If my analysis is valid, it(10) as shown in (15):can also explain why the first constituents of
those compounds in (1) are not definite/specific.
This is because there is no topic projection in the(15) [DP D [TopP Top [fP NP [f DP]]]]

structure of the compounds in (1), so that DP
This structure predicts that NP or DP functions

cannot be licensed even if it is pre-established in

as a topic.

the previous discourse.

This prediction is borne out by the

Another possibility isthat genitive morphemes in Frisian are topic

fact that Frisian genitive compounds can be used261

markers, while those in English are expletives.

5

In this case, the structure of Frisian genitive

relation in the Japanese genitive compound incompounds has to be slightly modified because(1b), although there is a part-whole relation

this paper assumes a genitive morpheme of the

between a grandchild and his/her hands.

compounds to be a linking element.

In either

However, it is not a counterexample to mycase, there is a difference in structure between

analysis because the compound is lexicalized, so

genitive compounds in (1) and those in Frisian.

its meaning is non-compositional.
6

5.

There is no meaning related a part-whole

Aboh suggests that there is Num between D

Conclusion

and N.

In this paper, I have argued that Frisianto the present discussion, for which reason I

However, this projection is not relevant

genitive compounds have the structure of (14)simply ignore it.

and this structure can explain the four properties

FocP because this projection is also irrelevant.

of the compounds.

I also ignore the projection of

Given this structure, I also

explain the difference in definiteness/specificity

REFERENCES
Aboh, Enoch (2004) “Topic and Focus within

between the first constituents of the compounds

D,” Linguistics in the Netherlands 21, 1-12.

in (1) and Frisian genitive compounds.

den Dikken, Marcel (2006) Relators and* For their helpful comments, I am grateful to

Linkers:

Yukio

Predicate Inversion, and Copulas, MIT

Hirose,NobuhiroKaga,

Masaharu

The

SyntaxofPredication,

Press, Cambridge, MA.

Shimada, Naoaki Wada, Masaru Kanetani, andMy thanks also go to the

Embick, David and Alec Marantz (2008)

audience, especially Hisao Tokizaki and Yusuke“Architecture and Blocking,” Linguistic

Yoda for their invaluable comments.

Inquiry 39-1, 1-53.

Akiko Nagano.

Harley,

NOTES

Heidi

and

Rolf

Noyer

(2003)

1

GEN = genitive, LINK = linking element“Distributed Morphology,” The Second

2

The form of a genitive morpheme depends on

GLOT

the ending of the preceding element.

HoekstraBook, 463-496, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

(2002: 230) mentions that “the ‘strong’ ending -s

Hoekstra, Jarich (2002) “Genitive Compounds

appears after first elements ending in a

in Frisian as Lexical Phrases,” Journal of

consonant or a full vowel whereas the ‘weak’

Comparative

ending -e is assumed to have been added to first

227-259.

Germanic

Linguistics

6,

Word Structure 1, 178-198.

Even though the compounds in (2) are genitive

Okubo, Tatsuhiro (2014) “Expletives in Words:

compounds, Hoekstra (2002) claims that thegenitive morphemes have a meaning related to a

Linking

part-whole relation.

Wordhood,”This point is discussed in

ElementsasLingvisticæ

MarkersofInvestigationes

37-2, 225-239.

section 2.
4

State-of-the-Article

Mukai, Makiko (2008) “Recursive Compounds,”

elements that end in -e already.”
3International

Scalise, Sergio (1984) Generative Morphology,

Based on Hoekstra, this paper henceforth

Foris, Dordrecht.

indicates a stressed element by use of small
capitals.

262

ha-yeladim

le-beit-ha-sefer?

the-children

to-house-the-book‘Did you send yesterday the children toschool?’B: alaxti [vP …v

The Lack of Head Movement in Ellipsis
Constructions under E-feature Movement*].

send-Past1sg‘I sent yesterday the children to school.’(Goldberg (2005: 2))

Rumi Takaki
In the literature, it has been argued that the verb

Kyushu University

raises to T and V-related domain is deleted.
KeywordsE-feature, E-feature movement,

Therefore, the verb moves out of the deletion

ellipsis, head movementsite. This suggests that head movement is notalways bled by ellipsis.
Although some intriguing approaches havebeen proposed, they have not reached any

1. Introduction
This paper presents the mechanism of how

consensus so far. Therefore, in this paper I aim

ellipsis bleeds or doesn't bleed head movement

to give a unified mechanism of head movementin terms of E-feature movement. First, the twoand deletion marking in syntax accounting forconstruction are concerned. In sluicing withtheobjectwh-remantsininterrogative

contrast

betweensluicing

and

Verb

Stranding VP-ellipsis.

matrixclauses, T-to-C movement is bled, as shown in

The goals of this paper are the following: (i)(1) while in non-elliptical counterpart it is

to demonstrate that the (lack of) head movement

obligatory, as shown in (2).

in elliptical constructions is attributed to whether
the relevant head carries the E-feature. If it has
the E-feature, it has to stay where it is merged to(1) A: Mary will see someone.

mark the deletion site. If it does not have theB: Who (*will)?
(2) a. Who will Mary see?

E-feature, it can undergo head movement, (ii) tob. *Who Mary will see?

show that the E-feature originates in a lowest
phase head and it can move higher up the

While head movement is bled in some ellipticalderivation, and (iii) following Bocovi (2014)

constructions, there are some languages whichthat in principle full phases and phasal

allow head movement even though ellipsis takes

complement ellipsis are possible, to argue thatplace as shown in (3). (3B) is Verb Stranding

there are in principle always three options as for

VP-ellipsis in Hebrew. In this construction, theE-feature movement and there is no Agree withremaining verb has to be identical to theother heads or phrases. The properties of theantecedent verb.

E-feature are the following: (i) the E-feature canstay where it is first merged, (ii) the E-feature(3) A: alaxt

etmol

send-Past2Fsg yesterdayetcan move to a head of a complement of a phaseAcchead and (iii) the E-feature can also move to a263

higher phase head. Any other possibilities areinvited*(-Q)

Janos

excluded.

‘I don’t know if Janos invited Anna.’This paper proceeds as follows. In section 2,b. *kiváncsi

vagyok, hogyJÁNOS-ereviewing previous analyses, I will raise somecurious

I-am

János-Q

problems. In section 3, I will propose a unified

ment

el.

mechanism in terms of E-feature movement.

went

Pv

Then, in section 4, I will analyze the phenomena‘I wonder if it was János who left.’in question. Section 5 concludes this paper.

(van Craenenbroeck and MerchantComp(2013:720))
2. Previous Analyses(4) shows roughly three previous analyses
accountingfor

bleeding

effectofheadmovement in sluicing.

c. János meghívott

egy

lányt, deJanos invited

a

girl

nem

tudom

hogy

ANNAT*(-e).

but not

I-know

Comp Anna-Q‘Janos invited a girl, but I don’t know if it(4) a. [CP who will [TP twill [vP twho v [VP see]]]](e.g. Thoms (2010))

was Anna.’(Aelbrecht (2010: 162))

1b. [CP who C[SF] [TP will [vP twho v [VP see]]]]In (5a), van Craenenbroeck and Lipták (2008)
argue that the verb ‘invited’ head-moves to the(e.g. Lasnik (2001))
c. [CP who C [TP will [vP twho v [VP see]]]]Foc head in the CP domain carrying the(e.g. Merchant (2001))2

interrogative suffix -e. This -e suffix cannot
attach to any other elements, as shown in (5b).

First, in (4a), head movement from T to C takes

However, under ellipsis in (5c), the suffix needs

place and C´ is deleted. Second, in (4b), C has a

to attach to the preverbal focused element

strong feature (SF) and matching relevant‘Anna’. This suggests that the Foc head hosting

feature of T moves to C. As a result, T becomesthe -e suffix is outside of the deletion site.

phonologically defective. But the deletion of TP

Therefore, this example is problematic for (4a)voids the crash. Third, in (4c), deletion of TP iswhich deletes C head as well. Next, theprior to head movement. As a result, theproblematic example for (4c) is Verb Stranding

auxiliary cannot undergo head movement. I

VP-ellipsis in Hebrew in (3) above. There seems

assume that basically the structure in (4b) is on

to be some contradiction as for the order

the right track in that T does not move to C

between head movement and the deletion

when deletion takes place. However, theoperation. First, if PF deletion precedes PF headapproaches in (4a) and (4c) face some empiricalmovement as Merchant (2001) argues, (3)problems. First, the approach in (4a) cannot

cannot be explained since the verbs have to

explain the example in (5c), which is non-whundergo head movement prior to deletion.

sluicing in Hungarian.

Second, if head movement applies before
PF-deletion, it cannot account for the lack of(5) a. Nem

tudom,

hogy

Annát

T-to-C movement in sluicing.3 Therefore, I

not

I-knowComp

Anna

assume that head movement takes place inmeghívta *(-e)

János.

narrow syntax.

264

b. Once a head carries the E-feature, the head

Next, in section 3, I will propose a unified

has to stay where it is in order to mark themechanism based on E-feature movement.

deletion site.
c. E-feature assignment takes place after XP

3. Proposal

movement and before head movement in

3.1 The Property of the E-featureorder to value where to move (before

I assume three points as for the E-feature.

E-feature movement, MaxElide works).
d. The whole projection where the E-feature(6) a. The E-feature is an uninterpretable feature(cf. Merchant (2001)), but no Agree withis located is specified for deletion, as

other heads or phrases takes place.

opposed to Merchant (2001).

b. Only heads can carry the E-feature andConcerning (9a) and (9b), following Chomsky’s

phrases cannot.

(2008) proposal that only phase heads drive
First, as for (6a), Merchant (2001) argues that

operations, I assume that the E-feature originates

the E-feature in sluicing has the specification inin a phase head.

syntax, as illustrated in (7).
(10) [Ph2 Ph2[E] [YP Y [Ph1 Ph1 [XP X ]]]]
(7) E[uwh*, uQ*]

4

Moreover, in the minimalist theory, derivations
However, it only explains the data in sluicing.

are built up phase by phase. Therefore, once Ph1

Moreover, assuming distinct features of theis merged to XP, this XP is transferred. However,E-feature forces us to assume the different

when the E-feature merges with Phase2 in (10b),5

E-features for each elliptical construction. Next,

it is not clear whether XP, which is alreadyconcerning (6b), in a structure like (8), I assumetransferred in (10a), has to be pronounced or not.

that both of heads, X and Y can carry the

Next, as for (9c) I assume the timing of the
E-feature movement, as shown in (11).6

E-feature while neither XP nor YP cannot. Thisis because the E-feature originates in a phasehead, as I will assume in the next subsection.

(11) XP movement
head movement

E-feature movement
7(8) [XP … X… [YP …Y…]]
The timing of E-feature movement is after XP
3.2

E-feature

Movement

andmovement and before head movement. The

Deletion

reason why E-feature movement comes after XP

Marking
I consider how E-feature movement andmovement is because I assume that once XP

deletion marking work in elliptical constructions.

movement takes place, MaxElide works in

First, I assume the following four points as fornarrow syntax and it gets clear if the E-feature

E-feature movement and deletion in (9).

has to move or stay where it is.8 Further, as forthe location where the E-feature moves, I follow(9) a. The E-feature originates in a lowest phaseBocovi (2014) arguing that in principle,

head.

ellipsis of full phases and of phasal complements

265

are

possible.

Inmyapproach,

Further, Argument Ellipsis in Japanese suggests

following

this assumption is preferred.

Bocovi’s proposal, I assume that the E-feature
can move to a higher phase head, remain in-situ(15) a. Taitei-noor to a head of a complement of a higher phasegakusei-ga

where MaxElide is satisfied.

Here, I assume

most-Gen student-Nom

three

under

sensei-osonkeisiteiru.

Prof.-Acc

respect

possiblederivations

E-feature

movement.

TanakaTanakaMost students respect Prof. Tanaka.
b. __ Suzuki(12) [Option 1]: The E-feature in v stays in-situ.

Suzuki(Full phase ellipsis)

sensei-mo sonkeisiteiru.
Prof.-also respect

Most students respect Prof. Suzuki, too.

[Option 2]: The E-feature moves to a headof a higher phasal complement. (Phasal
complement ellipsis)

If Argument Ellipsis is derived by deletion and[Option 3]: The E-feature moves to a

Merchant’s assumption of the E-feature is on thehigher phase head. (Full phase ellipsis)right track, it is hard to account for the cases ofsubject argument ellipsis since there is no

As for Option 3, it isn’t directly related to thefunctional head with the E-feature which posits

phenomena in question, I’ll put it aside in thisitself in the sister position of the subject

paper.

argument. (It holds true even when the subject
moves to Spec-TP.)

Concerning (9d), Merchant (2001) proposes
the phonology of E, as shown in (13). (13)(16)

shows that the complement of a head with the[vP Sub [v´ v [VP V Obj]]]

E-feature, here, IP, is deleted at PF.
In (16), in order for the subject to be deleted, v´(13) The phonology of [[E]]: IP/E __

has to carry the E-feature based on Merchant’s(2001) system. This is an undesirable result.

However, the E-feature functions for marking

Therefore, I revise Merchant’s E-feature, assome relevant portion, therefore, the E-featureshown in (17).

and a head, which has a remnant in its specifier,seem to be incompatible in the same position.

(17) The whole projection, which carries the

Therefore, I assume the following structure inE-feature, is specified for deletion.

(14).
3.3 The Possible Derivations(14)

Based on the assumptions made in section

XPYP

3.2, there are three possible derivations asX´follows. (In the following, gray portion shows
X

WP

the deletion site which is finally deleted at PF.

[Surviving domain]
W´

Although I do not color the deletion sites which
would be marked as a deletion site in the course

W[E][Deleted domain]

of a derivation, they are actually already marked266

as a deletion site when they are transferred.)

4. Analysis
4.1 Lack of T-to-C Movement in Sluicing
The derivation of (20B) proceeds as shown(18) Option 1: The E-feature stays in-situ.

in (21).

a. [Ph1P Ph1[E] [XP X ]]b. [PhP1 WP Ph1[E] [XP X ]]c. [PhP2 Ph2 [YP WP

Y [PhP1

tWP(20) A: Mary will see someone.

Ph1[E]

B: Who (*will)?

[XP X]]]]
d. [PhP2 Ph2[YP WP

Ph1[E] [XP

X]]]]

Y

[PhP1

tWP

(21) a. [vP who Mary v*[E] [VP who V twho ]]b. [CP who C [TP MaryT[vP twho tMary

v*[E] [VP who V twho]]]]c. [CP who C [TP Mary T[E] [vP twho tMary

In (18a), phase1 with the E-feature is merged to
XP. Then WP is merged in (18b). After phase2__ [VP who

V twho]]]]d. [CP who C [TP Mary T[E] [vP twho tMary

is merged, WP moves to Spec-YP in (18c). After
this movement, MaxElide works and the__ [VP whov*v*

V twho]]]]E-feature stays in-situ since WP in Spec-YP is aremnant and, therefore, cannot be deleted. As a(21a) shows that after v* with the E-feature

result, the projection PhP1 is marked as amerges, the subject Mary merges and who

deletion site in (18d). Consequently, head

simultaneously moves to Spec-v*P and Spec-VP.

movement from Ph1 to Y is not possible since

In (21b), after who moves to Spec-CP and thePh1 carries the E-feature and has to mark thesubject moves to Spec-TP, MaxElide works anddeletion site.

the E-feature moves to T, as shown in (21c). In(21d) since T carries the E-feature, T-to-C(19) Option 2: The E-feature moving to a phasal

movement is not possible. Consequently. TP iscomplement headmarked as a deletion site.

a. [Ph1P Ph1[E] [XP X WP]]
b. [Ph1P WP ZP

Ph1[E] [XP WP X tWP ]]c. [Ph2P WP Ph2 [YP ZP
Ph1[E] [XPY [PhP1 tWP tZP

As for Verb Stranding VP-ellipsis, it has

X tWP]]]]

d. [Ph2P WP Ph2 [YPtZP

4.2 Verb Stranding VP-ellipsis

Ph1__ [XPZP

been analyzed as VP/vP deletion with verb
Y[E]

[PhP1 tWP

movement to T (cf. Goldberg (2005)). The

X tWP]]]]

derivation of (22B) is illustrated in (23).
(22) A: alaxt

In (19a), WP is the object of X and Ph1 is

etmol

et

merged with the E-feature. In (19b), WP moves

send-Past2Fsg yesterday

to Spec-Ph1P. Then in (19c), after Phase 2 isha-yeladim

le-beit-ha-sefer?

merged, WP further moves to Spec-Ph2P. Herethe-children

to-house-the-book

MaxElide works in (19d), and E-feature moves‘Did you send yesterday the children toto Y. Therefore, head movement from Y withschool?’B: alaxti [vP …v

the E-feature to Ph2 is blocked.

Acc

].

send-Past1sg‘I sent yesterday the children to school.’

267

(23) a. [vP v*[E] [VP V(send) the children]]especially grateful to Nobuaki Nishioka for hisb. [vP V-v*[E] [VP tV(send) the children]]invaluable comments and suggestions. Special

c. [TP V-T[vP __v*[E] [VP tV(send) the

thanks also go to Masako Maeda for her

children]]]valuable comments and suggestions. Remaining
inadequacies are of course my own.

In (23a), v* carries the E-feature when it is

NOTES

merged. In (23b) The verb send undergoes head1

movement to v*. In (23c), since v* carries theby A´-movement or head movement, and the

E-feature, it cannot move further. Instead, V

failure of linearization made by the movement isadjoining to v* excorporates into the T head. As

circumvented by deletion.

a result, v*P is specified for deletion.9

2

Thoms (2010) proposes that ellipsis is licensed

Merchant (2001) claims that (4c) is derived byeither deletion of TP preceding head movement
or that T has a strong feature and if it fails to

5. Conclusion

raise to C, the deletion will void the crash, which

In this paper, first, I have demonstrated thathead movement needs to take place in narrowis similar to Lasnik (1999).

syntax by pointing out the paradox of the order3of operations between head movement andpossible even when VP is deleted. This suggests

deletion at PF in relation to the bleeding effectthat movement can occur before deletion.

of head movement in sluicing and Verb

However, if movement at PF takes place before

Stranding VP-ellipsis. Second, I have argued

PF deletion, it is impossible to account for the

Verb raising in Verb Stranding VP-ellipsis iswhether head movement takes place or not isdata of the bleeding effect in sluicing.

attributed to whether the relevant head carries

4* means that these features needs strong

the E-feature or not: that is, when a head carries

agreement which triggers overt movement.

the E-feature, head movement cannot take place5

whereas when a head does not carry thedisallowed, as shown in (i).

E-feature, head movement can take place.

(i) They said they heard about a Balkan

Usually, VP-ellipsis with wh-extraction is

Finally, I have also argued that the E-feature

language, but I don’t know

does not have any content, therefore it does nota. which.

take part in any Agree. Though this analysis stillb. *which they did.

(Merchant (2008: 139))

needs closer inspection with cross-linguistic data,

However, if either the remaining subject or theit also has some possibility to be extended to

auxiliary has focus, the sentence becomesother elliptical phenomena which have been

acceptable, as shown in (ii).

traditionally treated as being produced by(ii) a. I know which books she READ, anddeletion.

which she DID’T. (Merchant (2008: 139))
b. ED attended a lecture on carpenting, but I* This article is based on my poster presentation

don’t know what MARY did.

th(Craenenbroeck and Merchant (2013: 706))International Spring Forum held at Seikei

Then, it is hard to assume that the E-features areth

University on April 19 , 2015. I would like todifferent, for example, between (ic) and thethank the audience for their comments. I am

counterpart of (ic) with the auxiliary focused.

at English Linguistics Society of Japan 8268Goldberg,

Rather, it should be the case that the E-feature

Lotus

Verb-Stranding

does not have the specification.

VP-Ellipsis:

6

Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.

In this paper, I follow Chomsky’s (2008) and I

A(2005)

Cross-Linguistic

Study,

Lasnik, Howard (1999) “On Feature Strength:

assume that after feature inheritance and XP
movement take place, MaxElide works andThree

E-feature movement occurs.

Movement,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 197-217.

7

Minimalist

Approaches

to

Overt

Lasnik, Howard (2001) “A Note on the EPP,”

As for the difference of timing between phrasal

Linguistic Inquiry 32, 356-362.

movement and head, in Chomsky’s (2008)
mechanism, for example as for v-V relation,

Merchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax of Silence:

after feature inheritance from v to V takes place,

Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis,

V agrees with the object and edge feature of V

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

triggers movement of the object to Spec-VP.

Merchant, Jason (2008) “Variable Island Repair

This Agree and movement cannot occur if the Vunder Ellipsis,” Topics in Ellipsis, ed. by Kyle

head is not located where it originates.

Johnson,8

Press, Cambridge.

Merchant (2008) formulates the definition of132-153,

Cambridge

University

Thoms, Gary (2010) “‘Verb Floating’ and VPE:

MaxElide as follows.
(i) Let XP be an elided constituent containing an

Towards a Movement Account of Ellipsis

A’-trace. Let YP be a possible target for

Licensing,” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 10,

deletion. YP must not properly contain XP

252-297.

(XP  YP).
9van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen and Anikó Lipták
though(2008) “On the Interaction between Verb

excorporation is highly restricted to occur, it

Movement and Ellipsis: New Evidence fromindeed takes place.

Hungarian,” WCCFL 28, 138-146, Cascadilla

AccordingtoRoberts(2000),

See Roberts (2000) for thePress, Somerville, Massachusetts.

example of excorporation.

van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, and Jason Merchant(2013)REFERENCES
Aelbrecht,

Lobke(2010)The“Elliptical

Phenomena,”

Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax,

Syntactic

Licensing of Ellipsis, ed. by Werner Abraham

ed.

and

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Elly

Gelderen,John

Benjamins,

Amsterdam.
Bokovi, eljko (2014) “Now I’m a Phase, now
I’m not a Phase: On the Variability of Phaseswith Extraction and Ellipsis,” Linguistic
Inquiry 45, 27-89.
Chomsky,Noam(2008)“On

Phases,”Foundation Issues in Linguistic Theory:
Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed.
by Robert Freidin, Varlos P. Otero and Mari
Luisa

Zubizarreta,

133-166,

MIT

The

Press,

Cambridge, MA.

269

by

Marcelden

Dikken,701-745,

about of a possessive relation between the indirect
and direct objects; caused motion entails the transferof the direct object to the complement of the
preposition. In this approach, the semantics of bothconstructions can be roughly represented as in (2):On the English Dative Alternation: Arguing for*

the Multiple Meaning Approach(2) a.

X CAUSES Y to HAVE Z

[DOC]

b.

X CAUSES Z to GO TO Y

[PPC]Shiro Takeuchi
University of Tsukuba

A third approach is called the verb-sensitive
Keywords㸸dative alternation, single meaning

approach (Jackendoff (1990), Rappaport Hovav andapproach, multiple meaning approach, verb-sensitive

Levin (2008)). As a representative study of thisapproachapproach, I take up Rappaport Hovav and Levin(2008) (RH & L (2008)). They argue against themultiple meaning approach. They classify relevant
verbs into two types: give-type verbs and throw-type

1. Introduction
It has long been debated whether or not theverbs. They claim that give-type verbs denote only

double object construction and its corresponding

caused possession in either construction, and that

prepositional phrase construction have the same orthrow-type verbs can denote both caused possession

distinct meanings. In (1a) is given an example ofand caused motion in the DOC, and caused motion

the double object construction, and in (1b) is givenin the PPC. That is to say, as for give-type verbs,

an example of the prepositional phrase construction:

they argue for the single meaning approach. Hereis a summary of their verb-sensitive approach and(1) a.
b.

Mike gave Mary a book.

the multiple meaning approach.

Mike gave a book to Mary.
A summary of the verb-sensitive approach

For convenience, I call the double object

DOC

construction the DOC, and the prepositional phrase

give-type

construction the PPC.

verbs

Those who assume that both constructions

caused possession caused possession

throw-type caused possession

denote one and the same meaning advocate theverbs

single meaning approach (e.g. Baker (1988), Larson

PPC

or caused motion

caused motion(1988)). Those who assume that each construction
A summary of the multiple meaning approach

denotes related, yet distinct meanings advocate theDOCmultiple meaning approach (e.g. Beck & Johnson(2004), Goldberg (1992, 1995), Harley (2003),

all dative

Krifka (1999, 2004), Pinker (1989)).

verbs

This

PPC

caused possession caused motion

approach generally entails that the DOC encodes
caused possession, and that the PPC encodes caused
motion.

This study mainly examines give-type verbs andCaused possession entails the bringing

argues for the multiple meaning approach.

270

This study is organized as follows: Section 2(4) a.

overviews previous studies. Section 3 argues forb.

Heaviness: Heavy material comes last.
Information structure: Given material
comes before new material.

the multiple meaning approach. Section 4 offers
concluding remarks.

(RH & L (2008: 156))

2. Previous Studies

They claim that these two factors play a crucial role

2.1. Examples Considered to Support thein determining the choice between the two

Multiple Meaning Approach

constructions.
examplesWe overview their heaviness account in section

considered to support the multiple meaning approach.

2.2.1 and their information-structural account in

The single meaning approach, on the other hand,

section 2.2.2.

In

this

sub-section,I

present

must explain the different acceptability of theseexamples.

2.2.1. Heaviness AccountThe differential acceptability of sentences like

It is argued that sentence (5b) supports the claim

those in (3) has been considered to support thethat heaviness determines the choice between themultiple meaning approach (e.g. Harley (2003),

DOC and the PPC. Observe (5):

Krifka (2004)). Observe (3):(5) a. # Nixon’s behavior gave an idea for a book(3) a.

to Mailer.

Interviewing Richard Nixon gave Norman
Mailer a book.

b.

(Oehrle (1976: 44))

Nixon’s behavior gave an idea for abook to every journalist living in New

b. * Interviewing Richard Nixon gave a book

York City in the 1970s.

to Norman Mailer. (RH & L (2008: 151))(RH & L (2008: 151), Snyder (2003: 35))
Sentence (3a) does not express the proposition that abook was physically transferred from somewhere to

Althoughsentence(5a)isclaimedtobeNorman Mailer.

It conveys that Mailer wrote

unacceptable out of context, it certainly is acceptable

and/or published a book by doing some interview

when the goal NP is long and heavy, as illustrated inwith Nixon; in this case, a book was created. The(5b).

creation of an entity is not compatible with theconstructional meaning of the PPC. Thus, sentence

2.2.2. Information-Structure Account
Next, let us look at their information-structure(3b) is unacceptable.

account. It is claimed that information-structural
2.2.

Heavinessandconsiderations can account for the different

Information-Structure

acceptability of sentences like those in (6):

Accounts
Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) argue that

(6) a.

the different acceptabilities of sentences observed inInterviewing Richard Nixon gave Norman
Mailer a book.

the previous section can be accounted for by(= (3a))b. * Interviewing Richard Nixon gave a bookconsidering heaviness and/or information structure.

to Norman Mailer.

They roughly dene heaviness and information
structure in the following way:271(= (3b))without religion…

Sentences like (6b) are acceptable when the theme(Bresnan et al. (2007: 73-74))

NP is given, as illustrated in (7):As illustrated in (8), when the goal NP is not heavy,(7) A: It is very difcult to get an idea for a bookB:

simply from an interview.

only the DOC is acceptable. As illustrated in (9),Well, interviewing Nixon gave an idea forwhen the goal NP is heavy, the PPC is mucha book to Mailer.

preferable to the DOC. These data indicate that wehave no choice but to employ the PPC when the goal

(RH & L (2008: 157))

NP is long and heavy; the default word order of the
In (7), the theme NP an idea for a book is introduced

PPC is appropriate in order not to violate thein the sentence uttered by Speaker A and thus given

principle of end weight.

in sentence B. It is concluded from data like thosein (5) and (7) that there is no semantic difference

3.2. Against the Information-Structure AccountLet

encoded between the two constructions.

us

investigate

thevalidityoftheinformational-structural account that we saw insection 2.2.2.

3. Arguing for the Multiple Meaning Approach

As we saw in section 2.2.2, Rappaport Hovav

3.1. Against the Heaviness AccountLet us examine the issue of heaviness. Heavyand Levin (2008) argue that sentences like (10) arematerial comes last in order to observe the principle

acceptable when the theme NP is given informationof end weight (e.g. Wasow (2002)). Acceptability

and present the data in (11):for various types of constructions can certainly be(10)overridden by this factor. However, this does not* Interviewing Richard Nixon gave a bookto Norman Mailer.

necessarily indicate that the DOC and the PPC have(= (6b))(11) A: It is very difcult to get an idea for a bookone and the same meaning associated with them.

simply from an interview.

When the goal NP is heavy, to employ the default
B:word order of the PPC is sometimes the only option

Well, interviewing Nixon gave an idea for
a book to Mailer.

available; we have sometimes no choice but to(= (7))

employ the default word order of the PPC in order to
However, the explanation of the sentence inobserve the principle of end weight.

(11B) cannot straightforwardly apply to sentences

Bresnan et al. (2007) observe the contrasts in (8)like (10), since the value of the theme NPs differs.

and (9):In (10), it is a book; in (11B), it is an idea for a book.
(8) a.

Note that sentence (10) is distinctly odd even whenThat movie gave me the creeps.

the theme NP is given. Observe (12):b. * That movie gave the creeps to me.
(Bresnan et al. (2007: 73-74))(12) A: It is very difcult to write a book simply(9) a. ??Stories like these must give people

from an interview.

whose idea of heaven is a world without

B: * Well, interviewing Richard Nixon gave areligion the creeps …
b.

book to Norman Mailer.

Stories like these must give the creeps topeople whose idea of heaven is a world272(cf. (10))

simply from an interview.

Consider also the sentences in (13):B:(13) a.

Well, interviewing Nixon gave an idea for
a book to Mailer.

Working hard for 20 years gave Mike a{house / fortune}.

We argue that some instances of the PPC, including

b. * Working hard for 20 years gave a {house /(15B), are licensed by the Conduit Metaphor.

fortune} to Mike.

The

metaphor

involves

threecomponents. See (16):The sentences in (13b) are not acceptable either evenwhen the theme is given information.

conduit

Observe(16) Conduit Metaphor (Reddy (1979), Lakoff(14):

and Johnson (1980)):i. Ideas are objects.

(14) A: It is very difcult to {build a house / makeii. Words are containers.

a fortune} simply by working hard.

iii. Communication is sending.

B: * Well, working hard for 20 years gave a{house / fortune} to Mike.

In this metaphor, communication involves ideas
These data indicate that one cannot conclude bycontained in words traveling across from the speakersimplyto the hearer.

resortingtoinformation-structural

As shown in (16i), what is made to travel by theconsiderations that there is no semantic difference

conduit metaphor is ideas or things of similar sort.

between the two constructions.
If we assume that the DOC encodes caused

They denote internal conceptual or emotional

possession, and that the PPC encodes caused motion,material and called by Reddy (1979) repertoire

we can straightforwardly account for the facts justmember of individuals. See (17):observed. That is to say, the subject referents in the
DOCs caused the indirect object referents to have(17) Repertoire Member (RM) (Reddy (1979))

things like books, houses, and fortunes; in othere.g. ideas, thoughts, meanings, or feelingwords, one can write a book, build a house, or makeWe employ the verb convey as a diagnostic for

a fortune by interviewing someone or working hardrepertoire member, as illustrated in (18):for certain years. On the other hand, the subjectreferents in the PPCs cannot cause the themes to(18) a.

move along a path to a goal, since interviewing or

to convey a(n) {idea / thought / meaning
feeling}working itself cannot physically transfer things like(cf. (15B))

books, houses, or fortunes.

b. * to convey a {TV / car / desk / chair}

3.3. Conduit Metaphor

The verb convey in this diagnostic is intended to

There still remains a question of why themean to make ideas known to somebody, not to take,sentence in (11) uttered by Speaker B, repeated here

carry or transport somebody/something from oneas (15), should be acceptable.

place to another, as in A carriage was waiting toconvey her home. If a noun can appear as the direct
object of the verb convey, it denotes a repertoire(15) A: It is very difcult to get an idea for a book273

(21) * to convey a {book / house / fortune}

member.
Let us look at the subject of conveying repertoire
members. Many different entities, including events,

The present study argues against the claim madecan convey RMs, supporting the claim that sentenceby some previous studies that some examples of the(15B) is licensed by the metaphor in question.

DOC are licensed by the conduit metaphor. I argue

Consider (19):that they are actually not licensed by it.

Forexample, Goldberg (1992) argues that sentence (22)(19) a.

excitement.
b.

is licensed by the conduit metaphor.

The passage conveys a feeling of(Reddy (1979: 313))(22) Maryi gave Joe heri thoughts on the subject.

This understanding gave meaning to(The Attack of the Blob)(Goldberg (1992: 63), with modications)

Each sentence in (19) contains an RM: a feeling of

Our account is as follows: the presence of her in the

excitement in (19a) and meaning in (19b).

As

direct object NP in (22) makes the idea Mary’s idea,

exemplied in the passage in (19a), the subject of

not Joe’s. It is difcult to suppose that Joe createdthe act of sending RMs can be inanimate.

in himself someone else’s idea. In this case, weFurthermore, not only inanimate entities but also

have no choice but to think that Mary transferred her

events or state of affairs can do the act of sending

own idea to Joe. As a result, it appears that theRMs, as illustrated in (19b). In this case, an RM isconduit metaphor applies to the DOC, but it isconveyed by the act of understanding.

illusory.

her suffering.

Thus, itseems reasonable to assume that interviewing

Only the PPC, not the DOC, can belicensed by the metaphor in question.

someone, the event denoted in the subject position of

In fact, the DOC and the PPC can denote one

the PPC in (15B), can also convey RMs.

and the same state of affairs, as a result of theWe hypothesize that the PPC encodes caused

compositionofvaluesofthearguments.

motion. Caused motion and the conduit metaphor

Nevertheless, this does not indicate that the DOC

are compatible with each other, since caused motion

and the PPC encode the same meaning and can beentails sending something from one place to another,licensed by the same metaphor. Consider (23):which is what the conduit metaphor is all about.
Therefore, the conduit metaphor can apply to the(23) a.

PPC.

b.

John gave the bell boy a large tip.
John gave a large tip to the bell boy.

I claim that the sentences in (10) and (13b),(cf. Van Bell and Van Langendonck

repeated here as (20), are not licensed by this(1996: 238))

metaphor, since nouns like books, houses, andfortunes do not denote RMs, which is illustrated in

As argued by Van Bell and Van Langedonck (1996),(21):

the difference between sentences like those in (23)can be neutralized by our world knowledge. It is(20) a. * Interviewing Richard Nixon gave a bookunderstood that giving someone a tip involves ato Norman Mailer.

transfer of a tip from the giver to the givee. In thisb. * Working hard for 20 years gave a {house /case, the interaction of values of the arguments

fortune} to Mike.

results in denoting one and the same situation, no274

(Akashi (2005: 73))

matter which construction may be employed.

If we assume that the DOC and the PPC encode

3.4. Predictable Examples

different meanings, we can straightforwardlyThis sub-section presents examples predicted toaccount for the differences in interpretation in (24)be explained by our assumptions.

and (25).

Given that the DOC denotes caused possession

The differential acceptability of the sentences inand the PPC denotes caused motion, it is expected to(27) can also be expected:

nd the meaning contrasts observed by Williams(1994: 250). Consider (24) and (25):(27) a.
(24) a.

Providence gave them a daughter.

b. * Providence gave a daughter to them.

I gave John a cold.

[not my cold]b.

I gave a cold to John.

[my cold](25) a.

I gave John an idea.

[not my idea]

Sentence (27a) denotes a situation where the theme

I gave an idea to John.

[my idea]

NP is created. The creation of a theme can only beb.

expressed in the DOC; therefore, sentence (27b) is
not acceptable.

A cold in (24a) is regarded as created within John;

Furthermore, sentence (27b) is not licensed bysimilarly, an idea in (25a) is regarded as created
A possible context for (24a) is athe conduit metaphor, since the theme daughter does

situation where the speaker kept John waiting

not denote a repertoire member, which is illustrated

outside a house or building for certain hours, andin (28):within John.

because of that John got a cold.

A possible(28)

situation denoted by (25a) is that the presence of thehusband}subject referent or its certain behavior created an idea
1

within the indirect object referent.

* to convey a {daughter / son / child / wife /On the other

hand, the direct object referents in the (b) sentences

4. Concluding Remarks

are transferred from the subject referents to the

In this study, I have argued for the multiple

complements of the preposition; the subject referents

meaning approach: the DOC is associated with thein the (b) sentences in (24) and (25) transferred theircaused possession meaning, and the PPC isown cold or idea to someone else. For example,

associated with the caused motion meaning. By

Akashi (2005) observes that a cold in sentences likecaused possession, I mean the bringing about of a(24b) denotes a virus.

A cold virus can be

relation between the subject and the elements

transferred from one place to another, and thefollowing the verb. Caused motion entails that ansentence successfully instantiates the PPC.

agent transfers a theme along a path to a goalThisinterpretation of the word cold also appears in the(Goldberg (1995)).

PPC given in (26):* I would like to thank the following people for(26)

Don’t give your cold to others! Covergiving me helpful and encouraging comments:

your nose and mouth with a tissue when

Yukio Hirose, Nobuhiro Kaga, Toshiaki Oya,you cough or sneeze, then throw the tissue

Masaharu Shimada, Naoaki Wada, and Masaru

away and wash your hands.

Kanetani. My gratitude also goes to Yuko Horita.

275

Lakoff,

I am also indebted to Chris McVay, Nicholas Wood,

GeorgeandMarcJohnson(1980)

Jennifer Sinclair, and Kevin Hemphill for kindly andMetaphors We Live By, University of Chicago

patiently acting as informants.

Press, Chicago.
Larson, Richard (1988) “On the Double Object

NOTES
1

Linguistic

Construction,”

Krifka (1999: 4) makes a similar observation.

Inquiry

19,335-391.
Oehrle, Richard (1976) The Grammatical Status of

REFERENCES

the English Dative Alternation, Doctoral

Akashi, Hiromitsu (2005) “Give-bun no Kotai
Kanosei ni Tsuite (On the Interchangebility ofdissertation, MIT.

Sentences with the Verb Give),” Eigo Goho

Pinker, Steven (1989) Learnability and Cognition:

Bunpo Kenkyu 12, 63-79.

The Acquisition of Argument Structure, MIT

Baker, Mark C. (1988) Incorporation, University ofPress, Cambridge, MA.

Chicago Press, Chicago.

Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin (2008)

Beck, Sigrid and Kyle Johnson (2004) “Double“The English Dative Alternation: The Case

Objects Again,” Linguistic Inquiry 35,

for Verb Sensitivity,” Journal of Linguistics

97-123.

44, 129-167.

Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina, and R.

Reddy, Michael (1979) “The Conduit Metaphor - A

Harald Baayen (2007) “Predicting the Dative

Case of Frame Conict in Our Language

ofabout Language,” Metaphor and Thought, ed.

Interpretation, 69-94, Royal Netherlands

by Andrew Ortony, 284-324, Cambridge

Academy of Arts and Sciences.

University Press, Cambridge.

Alternation,”

Cognitive

Foundations

Snyder, Kieran M. (2003) The Relationship between

Goldberg, Adele E. (1992) “The Inherent Semantics
of Argument Structure: The Case of theForm

English Ditransitive Construction,” Cognitive

Constructions,Linguistics 3, 37-74.

University of Pennsylvania.

Goldberg, Adele E. (1995) Constructions, University

andFunctioninDoctoralDitransitive
dissertation,

Van Belle, William and Willy Van Langendonck(1996) “The Indirect Object in Dutch,” Theof Chicago Press, Chicago.

Dative Volume 1: Descriptive Studies, ed. byHarley, Heidi (2003) “Possession and the Double
Object Construction,” Linguistic Variation

William

Yearbook 2, ed. by Pierre Pica and Johan

Langendonck, 217-250, John Benjamins,

Rooryck,

Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

31-70,John

Benjamins,

Van

Belle

and

Willy

Van

Wasow, Thomas (2002) Postverbal Behavior, CSLI

Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Jackendoff, Ray (1990) Semantic Structures, MIT

Publications, Stanford, CA.
Williams, Edwin (1994) Thematic Structure in

Press, Cambridge, MA.

Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Krifka, Manfred (1999) “Manner in Dative
Alternation,” WCCFL 18, 260-271.
Krifka, Manfred (2004) “Semantic and Pragmatic
Conditions for the Dative Alternation,”
Korean Journal of English Language andLinguistics 4, 1-32.

276

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces defining properties of NPIs, and identifies
as a real NPI in Japanese what we call an anaphoric
degree phrase (ADP), such as sonnani-ookuno-NP‘so-many-NP’. Section 3 argues for H2, based on theJapanese EPP Revisited:*

distribution of an ADP. Section 4 criticizes one of the

Negative Polarity and Degree Anaphoraprevious arguments for H1 (i.e., Miyagawa 2001) byproviding several cases against its main claim. Section 5 concludes with prospects for future research.

Hideharu Tanaka
Osaka University

2. Observations
Keywords: EPP, negative polarity, degree anaphora
2.1. An Alleged NPI in Japanese
We begin by clarifying what phrases in Japanesepattern with NPIs in English, such as any NP. A pos-

1. Introduction
This paper addresses the validity of the Extended

sible candidate is a negation-sensitive phrase com-

Projection Principle (EPP) for Japanese, which re-posed of a wh-pronoun and the focus particle moquires every clause to create the position of [Spec,‘also’, such as dare-mo ‘who-also’; call this type ofTP] by base-generation or movement (cf. Chomsky

phrase Wh-Mo. For instance, the presence of Neg

1981: 27). On this point, there are two competing

licenses the occurrence of Wh-Mo, as shown in (2):hypotheses, H1 and H2; H1 states that Japanesemust apply the EPP (e.g., Miyagawa 2001), whereas(2) a.* John-ga dare-mo nagut-ta.

H2 states that it need not (e.g., Kuroda 1988). The

J-Nom

question is which hypothesis is more adequate.

‘John hit anyone.’

In this paper, under the VP-internal subject hy-

who-also hit-Past

b. John-ga dare-mo nagura-nakat-ta.

pothesis, we make new arguments for H2 in light of

J-Nom

who-also hit-Neg-Past

negative polarity items (NPIs), which are licensed in‘John did not hit anyone.’the c-commanding domain of Neg(ation). Specifically, we show a need for the overt configuration in

Given this contrast, some previous studies treat Wh-(1b), where the Neg head nai ‘not’ c-commands not

Mo as an NPI, claiming that it is acceptable if it is

only the internal argument (IA) but also the externalinterpreted within the complement of such a proposi-argument (EA). We then argue for H2 over H1, as

tional operator as Neg (e.g., Kato 1994).
However, Watanabe (2004) shows that Wh-Mo isonly the former accepts the possibility of (1b).

not an NPI in that it lacks the properties of NPIs at(1) a. Obligatory EPPTP

t1

in (3), where non-negative markers include question
particles, conditional particles, etc.:

EA1
VP

tested cross-linguistically (cf. p. 562); they are given

b. Optional EPP
TP

Neg

T

VP

Neg

T
(3) Properties of NPIs; they …

IA

V

EA

IA

 a. can be licensed by non-negative markers.

V277

b. can be licensed across finite clauses.

See also Kataoka (2007) and Shimoyama (2011) forc. cannot be modified by the adverb almost.

similar proposals, and Yoshimoto (1998) and Nishi-

d. cannot be used as elliptical answers.

oka (2007) for the evidence that Wh-Mo must be
overtly moved as far as the edge of Neg.

Thus, Wh-Mo is contrasted with the English NPI any

Thus, the distribution of Wh-Mo does not help us

NP in these four respects, as shown in (4) and (5):choose between H1, i.e., (1a) and H2, i.e., (1b). Firstof all, note that Wh-Mo can be the external argument
EA in a negative clause (as well as the internal ar-(4) a. Have you seen anything?

gument IA), which is shown in (6):b. I didn’t say [that John admired anyone].
c.* John didn’t eat [almost anything].
d. Q: What did you see?

(6)

A: * Anything.

you-Topnani-moJohn-onagura-nakat-ta.

who-also

J-Acc

hit-Neg-Past‘Anyone did not hit John.’(Watanabe (2004: 562-565))(5) a.* Kimi-wa

Dare-momi-ta-no?
That said, the acceptability of (6) makes no argument

what-also see-Past-Q

for either (1a) or (1b), since Wh-Mo must be moved‘Did you see anything?’
b.* Boku-wa[John-gadare-mofrom its base position in order to be licensed, and

I-Top

J-Nom

who-also

cannot stay in situ. In other words, the acceptability

sonkei-siteiru]-to omowa-na-i.

of (6) only proves that EA can leave its base position

respect-do-C

by movement; this possibility can be captured, re-think-Neg-Pres

gardless of whether the EPP is obligatory or optional.

‘I do not think that John respects anyone.’c. John-wa
J-Top

[hobo

nani-mo]almost what-also

2.2. A Genuine NPI in Japanesetabe-nakat-ta.

Then, does Japanese have NPIs? We claim that

eat-Neg-Pasta more plausible candidate is what we call an ana-

‘John did not eat almost anything.’

phoric degree phrase (ADP; e.g., Matsui 2011). An

d. Q: Kimi-wa
you-Topnani-omi-ta-no?

ADP is a (nominal) phrase containing an adjective

what-Acc

see-Past-Q

with the anaphoric degree modifier sonnani ‘so’; e.g.,sonnani-ookuno-NP ‘so-many-NP’. As shown in (7),‘What did you see?’

the ADP fails to occur in an affirmative clause, but

A: Nani-mo.

the presence of Neg can license its occurrence:

what-also‘Anything’(cf. Watanabe (2004: 562-565))(7) a.* John-ga sonnani-ookuno-hito-oJ-Nom

so-many-person-Acc

Based on these differences, we follow Watanabe

nagut-ta.

(2004) in classifying Wh-Mo not as an NPI but as a

hit-Past

negative concord item (NCI). More specifically, we‘John hit so many people.’assume that Wh-Mo is acceptable only if it is inter-b. John-ga sonnani-ookuno-hito-opreted as the specifier of Neg (cf. Watanabe 2004),

J-Nom

which gives a direct account of at least (5a) and (5b).

nagura-nakat-ta.

278

so-many-person-Acc

hit-Neg-Past

Japanese. Then, our survey amounts to saying that‘John did not hit so many people.’the ADP and Wh-Mo are distinguished in how they
are licensed by Neg:

Still, we need more to show that the ADP is not an(9) The ADP must be interpreted within the com-

NCI but an NPI, since negation sensitivity is a de-plement of Neg; otherwise, it is uninterpretable.

fining property for both NPIs and NCIs.

(10) Wh-Mo must be interpreted as the specifier of

The decisive argument for the ADP being an NPI

Neg; otherwise, it is uninterpretable.

is made by showing that it holds all the properties of
NPIs listed in (3); that is, the ADP behaves the same
way as any NP does in (4). Consider the following:

Importantly, this distinction makes a prediction withregard to the relative order between the ADP and(8) a. Kimi-wa
you-Topsonnani-ookuno-neko-o

Wh-Mo. That is, it is predicted that Wh-Mo cannot

so-many-cat-Acc

follow an ADP, because such a configuration cannot

mi-ta-no?

be analyzed as having the former in the specifier ofsee-Past-Q

Neg, due to the requirement for the latter to remain‘Did you see so many cats?’

within the complement of Neg (i.e., VP); more spe-b. Boku-wa[John-gasonnani-cifically, we predict that, while the configuration in

I-Top

J-Nom

so-

(11a) can be acceptable, that in (11b) cannot:1

ookuno-hito-osonkei-siteiru]-to

many-person-Acc

respect-do-C(11) a. … Wh-Mo … ADP … Neg …
→ [NegP Wh-Mo [Neg′ [VP .. ADP .. ] Neg ]]omowa-na-i.

b. … ADP … Wh-Mo … Neg …

think-Neg-Pres→ * [NegP [Neg′ [VP .. ADP .. Wh-Mo ..] Neg ]]‘I do not think that John respects so many
people.’c.* John-wa
J-Top

[hobo

This prediction is indeed borne out, as shown below,

sonnani-almost so-

especially by the contrast between (12b) and (13b):

ookuno-ryoori-o]tabe-nakat-ta.

many-dish-Acc

eat-Neg-Past(12) a. John-wa‘John did not eat almost so many dishes.’d. Q: Kimi-wa
you-Topnani-oJ-Top

mi-ta-no?

nimotsu-o

dare-ni-mo

who-Dat-also pack-Acc

hakoba-se-taku-na-i.

what-Acc see-Past-Q

carry-Caus-want-Neg-Pres‘What did you see?’‘John does not want to have anyone carry
the packages.’

A: * Sonnani-takusanno-neko.
so-many-cat

b. John-wa‘So many cats.’

J-Top

A′: Takusanno-neko.

dare-ni-mosonnani-

who-Dat-also so-takusanno-nimotsu-o hakoba-se-taku-

many-catmany-pack-Acc‘Many cats.’

na-i.

carry-Caus-want-

Neg-PresThus, let us assume the ADP as a genuine NPI in‘John does not want to have anyone carry so279

many packages.’(13) a. John-wa

At this point, one might claim that the fact in (14)sonnani-takusanno-hito-ni

does not suffice to exclude H1, as long as it is possi-

so-many-person-Dat

ble to assume that the subject in [Spec, TP] can benimotsu-o hakoba-se-taku-na-i.

reconstructed into its base position. However, suchpack-Acc carry-Caus-want-Neg-Presreasoning makes wrong predictions cross-linguisti-‘John does not want to have so many people

cally. That is, if EPP-movement can be undone at LF

carry his packages.’for the purpose of NPI license, English should show

J-Top

sonnani-takusanno-hito-ni

no subject-object asymmetry, either. The fact con-J-Top

so-many-person-Dat

trary to this prediction is illustrated in (15):nani-mohakoba-se-taku-na-i.

b.* John-wa

what-also carry-Caus-want-Neg-Pres(15) a. Mary did not invite anyone.

‘John does not want to have so many people

b.* Anyone did not invite Mary.

carry anything.’(Kataoka (2007: 78))

This result lends further support to our position that

Thus, provided that English obligatorily applies thethe ADP and Wh-Mo behave as required by (9) and

EPP, we take the distribution of the ADP in (14) as(10), respectively.

evidence against H1.

Given the validity of (9), it follows that the dis-

We hence conclude that H2 must be adopted totribution of an ADP, unlike that of Wh-Mo, serves toensure that, as in (1b), Japanese subjects can stay inverify H1 and H2, as it is limited to the sister domain

their base positions without moving to [Spec, TP] atof Neg (i.e., VP). Specifically, if EA cannot be anall. Then, it should be addressed how to reinterpret

ADP, then H1 is preferred, and EA must leave its

evidence that has been piled up for H1. We discussbase position as in (1a); if EA can be an ADP, thenthis issue in the next section, focusing on Miyaga-

H2 is preferred, and EA can stay in situ as in (1b).

wa’s (2001) work.2 Our final position is that his empirical basis is not firm enough to establish H1.

3. Claim
We now argue for H2, namely that the EPP in

4. Discussion
Let us consider Miyagawa’s (2001) argument forJapanese is optional at best. The evidence is that EA
can be an ADP (as well as IA), as shown below:

H1. His main claim is that, in the SOV word order,
the subject (i.e., EA) must go at least as far as [Spec,(14)

Sonnani-ookuno-hito-ga

John-oTP], as in (1a). He supports his point by showing that,

so-many-person-Nom

J-Acc

if a universal quantifier (UQ) is the subject in the

nagura-nakat-ta.

SOV word order, it cannot take scope below Neg, as

hit-Neg-Past

illustrated in (16):‘So many people did not hit John.’(16)

Zen’in-ga sono tesuto-o uke-nakat-ta.

Thus, EA can remain in its base position, especially

all-Nomthat

test-Acc take-Neg-Past

within the sister domain of Neg, as predicted by H2.

‘All did not take that test.’

Crucially, this possibility cannot be captured by H1,*not > all, all > not(Miyagawa (2001: 298))

refuting its validity.

280

of evidence against Miyagawa’s claim.

This fact can be captured under H1 (and under theassumption that EPP-movement cannot be undone at

At this point, we consider a difference betweenLF); the subject UQ fails to be interpreted under Neg,(16) and (18a); the predicate in the former is tesuto-osince it must be placed in [Spec, TP]. Thus, the una-uker(u) ‘take a test’ and typically regarded as a dis-vailability of partial negation in (16) lends support totributive predicate, which requires its semantic sub-Miyagawa’s position, namely to H1.

ject to be singular. We hence take the following as aplausible generalization:

However, there are several cases incompatible
with Miyagawa’s claim. One of them is what we calla collective case, which involves collective predica-(19) In the SOV word order, the subject UQ cantion. As illustrated in (17), collective predicates, suchtake scope below Neg if the VP denotes a col-as chikara-o awaser(u) ‘join forces’, require theirlective predicate whose subject must be plural.

semantic subjects to be plural; out of the blue, theuse of a singular subject in (17a) is not felicitous,

Additional support for (19) is given by using “col-while that of a plural subject in (17b) is:

lectivizing” adverbials like issyoni ‘together’, which
turn distributive predicates into collective ones. For(17) a.# John-ga

chikara-o awase-ta.

instance, out of the blue, the adverb issyoni can only

J-Nom

force-Acc join-Past

occur with a plural subject, as shown in (20):‘John joined forces.’b. John-to-Tom-ga

chikara-oawase-ta.

(20) a.# John-ga

J-and-T-Nom

force-Acc

join-Past

J-Nom

issyonisono-tesuto-otogether that-test-Acc

uke-ta.

‘John and Tom joined forces.’take-Past‘John took that test together.’

The point is that, in the collective case, the subject
UQ can take scope below Neg, even in the SOV

b. John-to-Tom-ga issyoni

sono-tesuto-oword order. For instance, (18a) has a partial negation

J-and-T-Nom

together that-test-Acc

reading available, and it is evidenced by the fact thatuke-ta.

(18b) can be truthfully uttered after (18a) as a non-take-Past

contradictory continuation:‘John and Tom took that test together.’
What is important here is that adding issyoni to (16),(18) Collective Casea. Zen’in-ga

chikara-oawase-nakat-ta.

as in (21a), makes a partial negation reading availa-

all-Nom

force-Acc

join-Neg-Past

ble, and it is confirmed by the fact that (21b) can beuttered as a noncontradictory continuation of (21a):‘All did not join forces.’not > all, all > notb. John-to-Tom-sika kyoryokusi-nakat-tanoda.

(21) a. Zen’in-ga

John-and-T-only cooperate-Neg-Past

all-Nom‘Only John and Tom cooperated.’

uke-nakat-ta.

issyonisono-tesuto-otogether that-test-Acc

take-Neg-Past
Thus, if EPP-movement cannot be undone at LF, the‘All did not take that test together.’possibility of partial negation in (18a) makes a piecenot > all, all > not281

b. John-to-Tom-sika

issyoniJ-and-T-only

uke-nakat-‘If so, reexamine those who took it, too.’

together take-Neg-

tanoda.

Thus, the (un)availability of partial negation is de-Pasttermined, not only by syntactic factors (e.g., the SOV‘Only John and Tom took it together.’word order), but also by interpretive factors.
Summarizing so far, we have criticized Miyaga-

The generalization in (19) thus seems to be adequate,

wa’s (2001) argument for H1, namely that, in the

implying that the availability of partial negation is

SOV word order, the subject UQ cannot take scope

influenced by interpretive factors.

below Neg. We have offered three cases against his

Note that this implication is further reinforced byclaim: the collective case, the progressive case, andconsidering other cases incompatible with Miyaga-

the existential modal case, all of which make partial

wa’s claim. They are a progressive case, where thenegation readings possible. Of course, it remains toprogressive marker -teir(u) is added, as in (22), andbe clarified why it is quite difficult to obtain partial

an existential modal case, where the modal marker

negation in Miyagawa’s example in (16). All that we-kamosirenai ‘may’ is added, as in (23). That is, incan suggest is that, for some semantic reason, thethese cases, too, the subject UQ can take scope be-

distributive predicate forces the subject UQ to leave

low Neg even in the SOV word order, and this is

its base position, undergoing optional EPP-move-shown by the fact that each (b) example can be ut-

ment to [Spec, TP]; this reasoning is essentially thetered after its corresponding (a) example as a non-same as given for the semantically required (scram-

contradictory continuation:

bling) movement of Wh-Mo to [Spec, NegP] (see(10)). In any case, it is only H2 that can syntacticallyensure that the subject UQ in the SOV word order(22) Progressive Casea. Zen’in-ga
all-Nom

can be interpreted either above or below Neg.

tesuto-o uke-tei-na-i.
test-Acc take-Prog-Neg-Pres‘All are not taking the test.’

5. Conclusion

not > all, all > notb. Uketeiru-no-wa

In this paper, we addressed whether the EPP in

John-to-Tom-dake-da.

Japanese is obligatory or optional, and argued for its

be.taking-C-Top J-and-T-only-be

optionality, in the sense that the subject can remain in‘It is only John and Tom that are taking it.’its base position without moving to [Spec, TP]. The
evidence came from the distribution of an ADP,

(23) Existential Modal Casea. (Mosikasitara) zen’in-ga
possibly

all-Nomtesuto-owhich we showed is a genuine NPI in Japanese.

test-Acc

Specifically, we pointed out that an ADP can be theuke-nakat-ta-kamosirenai.

subject, and that it entails that the subject can remain

take-Neg-Past-may

within the complement of Neg. We then reconsid-‘Possibly, all may not have taken the test.’

ered Miyagawa’s (2001) evidence for the nonoption-not > all, all > notality of the EPP, and offered several cases incompat-b. Moshi soonara,ifso[[uketa]-hitotachi]-mo

ible with his main claim, suggesting that, in the SOV

took-people-also

word order, the subject UQ can take scope below

saizyuken-sa-se-yoo.

Neg in principle. Thus, this paper showed that thereexamination-do-Caus-Imp

EPP in Japanese is optional at best, and that there is282and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

no absolute evidence for its nonoptionality.
Yet there is at least one remaining issue with re-Hiraiwa, Ken (2005) “Indeterminate-Agreement:

gard to the availability of partial negation. That is, itSome Consequences for the Case system,”remains to be explained why some interpretive fac-

MITWPL 50, 93-128.

tors play a crucial role in determining the scope rela-Hoji, Hajime (1985) Logical Form Constraints andtion between universal quantification and negation,

Configurational Structures in Japanese, Doc-as suggested in Section 4; such factors include (i) thetoral dissertation, University of Washington.

collectivity or distributivity of predicates, (ii) the

Kataoka, Kiyoko (2007) “Neg o C Togyo Suru

progressivity of predicates, (iii) (existential) modality,

Huteigo + Mo (Wh-mo outside the Neg-c-

and perhaps more. Although an investigation into

command Domain),” Gengo Kenkyu 131,

these factors will reveal a new aspect of scope inter-77-131.

pretation and thus is worth making, we leave discus-

Kato, Yasuhiko (1994) “Negative Polarity andMovement,” MITWPL 24, 101-120.

sion on this point for future research.

Kishimoto, Hideki (2001) “Binding of Indeterminate* I wish to thank Tomohiro Fujii, Yuto Hirayama,

Pronouns and Clause Structure in Japanese,”

Mioko Miyama, Nobuaki Nishioka, Sadayuki Oka-

Linguistic Inquiry 32, 597-633.

da, Osamu Sawada, Maiko Yamaguchi, Masashi

Kuroda, Shige-Yuki (1988) “Whether We Agree or

Yamaguchi, and especially Kenta Mizutani for theirNot,” Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1-47.

useful discussion and comments. Any errors are of

Matsui, Ai (2011) “On the Licensing of Understating

course my own.

NPIs: Manipulating the Domain of Degrees for

NOTES
We assume that covert movement in Japanese (e.g.,

Japanese A(n)mari and Sonnani,” SALT 21,

1

752-769.

Quantifier Raising), if any, cannot be used to change

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2001) “EPP, Scrambling, andthe scope relation of two quantifiers established in

Wh-in-situ,” Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed.

surface structure (e.g., Hoji 1985, Kataoka 2007).

by Michael Kenstowicz, 293-338, MIT Press,

2

Cambridge, MA.

There is another advocate for H1, i.e., Kishimoto(2001); he explores the syntax of so-called indeter-

Nishioka, Nobuaki (2007) Eigo Hitei Bun no To-

minate binding, and claims that the nominative sub-goron Kenkyu: Sosei Syogou to Kaizai Koka (Aject must move to [Spec, TP] (at LF). However, Hi-

Syntactic Study of Negative Sentences in Eng-

raiwa (2005) argues against Kisimoto’s formaliza-

lish: Feature Checking and Intervention Effects),tion of indeterminate binding, proposing an alterna-

Kuroshio, Tokyo.

tive to it. Importantly, although Hiraiwa adopts H1,

Shimoyama, Junko (2011) “Japanese Indeterminate

his alternative approach to indeterminate binding is

Negative Polarity Items and Their Scope,”

also compatible with H2; keeping this in mind, we

Journal of Semantics 28, 413-450.

refer the reader to Hiraiwa’s original text. Thus, if

Watanabe, Akira (2004) “The Genesis of Negative

Hiraiwa’s analysis of indeterminate biding is correct,

Concord: Syntax and Morphology of Negative

then Kishimoto’s argument for H1 is not justified.

Doubling,” Linguistic Inquiry 35, 559̽612.
Yoshimoto, Yasushi (1998) “The Strong [neg] Feature of Neg and NPI Licensing in Japanese,”

REFERENCES
Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on Government

Japanese/Korean Linguistics 8, 529-541.

283

condition on movement, copied islands cannot
cause ungrammaticality Chung et al. (1995).
Still another claims that ellipsis site contains noisland violations to begin with, and assigns
How to Say Why to and Why*

completely different derivations to the sentence(Barros et al. (2014), Merchant (2001)). The
third approach assumes that ellipsis in examples

Hidekazu Tanaka

like (1) does not contain an island, but takes a

Okayama University

propositional phrase, TP, contained in the island,
as in (2).

Keywordsellipsis, island repair, infinitives,
wh-phrase, sluicing(2) They are looking for someone who speaks
a Balkan language, but I don’t know which(Balkan language) <he/she speaks t>.

1. Introduction
Island repair has been a topic of growing

Among the three previous accounts ofinterest (Bokovic (2011), Chomsky (1972),

island repair, the present paper remains neutral

Chung et al. (1995), Fox and Lasnik (2003),

in the choice of the first two, but we argue

Merchant (2001), Ross (1969)). Typically,against the third line of analysis by showing thatsubjacency

theellipsis repairs not only island violations, but

offending island gets elided along with somealso other syntactic ill-formedness caused byother syntactic entities. For example, (1) would

other principles of grammar. More specifically,

violate the complex NP constraint were it not for

we demonstrate that while the sequence why toellipsis.

is impossible (Shlonsky and Soare (2011)),violations

disappearonce

eliding the infinitive marker to avoids the(1) They are looking for someone who speaks

potential violation, a syntactic phenomenon, we

a Balkan language, but I don’t know whichclaim, is akin to island repair. Since ellipsis of(Balkan language) <*they are looking forthis sort does not contain a propositional phrase

someone who speaks t>.

that can give an illusion of the sort depicted in(2), our observation is incompatible with the

Numerous analyses have been proposed topropositional island account.

account for island repair. One school of thought

To understand the gist of our thesis,

claims that island violations introduces aconsider (3)-(8), which show that the infinitive

PF-uninterpretable feature to the derivation,complement clause can have a wh-phrase, which

which can be elided, along with other syntactic

can be a variety of wh-phrases, as the examples

materials, when deletion applies at PF (Fox andin (3)-(8) show.

Lasnik (2003)). Another school claims that
elliptical constituents are base-generated as such,and interpreted through a copying operation of(3) I asked Bill whether to serve spiced
aubergines.

the antecedent phrase at LF: since subjacecy is a(4) I asked Bill who to serve.

284

(5) I asked Bill what to serve the guests.
(6) I

asked

Bill

when

to

serve

checked by the C[WH] that probes its domain. The
adjunct wh-phrase, why, merges directly in the

spicedCP-specifier, the C[WH] that hosts why fails to

aubergines.
(7) I

asked

Bill

how

to

serve

probe its domain.

spicedaubergines.
(11) [CP what C[WH] [TP … to*CHECK … ] ](8) I asked Bill where to serve spicedprobe

aubergines.

(12) [CP why C[WH] [TP … to* … ] ]However, Shlonsky and Soare (2011) observethat the adjunct wh-phrase why is not compatible

The probing C[WH] can check the uninterpretablewith an infinitive clause. (9), thus, contrasts withfeature on to*, but since the C[WH] for why fails

in grammaticality with (3)-(8) for the majority ofto probe its domain, the uninterpretable feature

native speakers.

cannot be checked, and would cause a crash at
the PF interface, unless to* gets elided.

(9) ??I asked Bill [ why to serve spiced
2. Why-to*

aubergines ]Shlonsky and Soare (2011) offer anaaccount of the impossible sequence, why to. This

cartographic account of the contrast, according

section critically examines their account andto which infinitive clauses are truncated and thus

develops an alternative.

Shlonsky

and

Soare

(2011)

developare too small to host why ((9)), but large enoughto license all other wh-phrases ((3)-(8)). One

2.1. Shlonsky and Soare 2011

goal of this paper is to show that this account is

The examples above in (3)-(9) show

hard to maintain. We show that eliding thethat while most wh-phrases can take an infinitive

infinitive marker to in (9), salvages thecomplement, the adjunct wh-phrase why isconstruction. This point is shown by coordinatedincapable of doing so. Shlonsky and Soare offer

wh-infinitives, as represented by (10).

a cartographic account of the contrast, based on
the assumption that clauses have an articulated
structure: the traditional CP layer consists of(10) I asked Bill [ when to serve spiced
aubergines and why  ]various independent projections, an idea thatwas initiated by Rizzi (2001). The CP layer(10) involves ellipsis in the second conjunct. A

projections are listed below in the hierarchicaldetailed examination reveals that an infinitive

order.

marker, to, is present in the ellipsis site, and thateliding to salvages ungrammaticality. This is(13) ForceP > IntP > TopP > FocP > WhP >Fin(ite)P

strikingly similar to so-called island repair (Foxand Lasnik (2003), Merchant (2001), Ross
(1969)), strongly suggesting a unified account. I

The crucial assumption is that infinitive clauses

argue that an interrogative C, C[WH], carries ahave truncated structures: the projections above

PF-uninterpretable

FocP are missing in infinitive clauses. Thus, infeature,

which

can

be

285

their view, infinitive clauses can only be as large(17),

as WhP. The adjunct wh-phrase, why, is licensed

immediately followed by the adjunct wh-phrase,in the IntP-Spec, but all other wh-phrases are

why.

which

have

a

conjunction

markerlicensed by virtue of moving into the WhP-Spec.
AccordingtoShlonsky

andSoare,

since(17) Who did you meet, and why?

infinitive clauses do not have IntP, they are
incompatible with why, and hence (9) is

One intuitively plausible account of such

ungrammatical.

sections

sentences, adopted here, is that conjoined

demonstrate that their account is empiricallyinterrogative CPs can have an elliptical TP,

insufficient.

sluicing, with an E-type pronoun in the secondThe

followingclause (Merchant (2001)).
2.2. Conjoined Wh-Questions
The

standard

assumption(18) [CP Who did you meet ], and [CP why did

about

conjunction is that the conjunction marker, and,you meet [E them]]

can put together only categories of likes(Akmajian and Frank (1975), Bayer (1996)). For

Thus, we assume that (17) involves coordination

example, the two terms of conjunction must be

and sluicing. With this assumption in mind, weDPsturn our attention to the crucial sentences in

in

(14),

since

the

constituent

that

immediately follows and is a DP.

(10).

(14) [ The man and the woman ] boarded the2.3. Conjoined Wh-Infinitives
Examples

bus.

like

(19)-(20)haveconjoined wh-infinitives in the complement
position.

An exception to the generalization is thepredicate position: when the two terms of
conjunction

both

serve

as

a

(19) I asked Bill [ who to serve spiced

predicate,

aubergines and why 

asymmetric coordination is possible.

](20) I asked Bill [ when to serve spiced
aubergines and why  ](15) Jermaine is [ boring and a fool ].
Even such syntactic objects fail to give a

For Shlonsky and Soare (2011), the second

grammatical output in a non-predicate position,

conjunct must be an IntP, since it has the adjunctas (16) shows.

wh-phrase why. This is incompatible with theirassumption that infinitive clauses are truncatedto WhP. Note that the second conjunct in(16) *[ Boring and a fool ] entered the(19)-(20) must be as large as the first conjunct.

restaurant.

A straightforward account of the grammaticality
Thus, the assumption that conjunction requiresof these examples is to discard the cartographic

identical categories is on solid empirical grounds.

account, and assume that the two terms of

Against this background, consider examples likeconjunction in (19)-(20) are both CPs, as286

schematized below.

PF-uninterpretable feature assigned to an island
constituent, but ellipsis elides the uninterpretable(21) I asked Bill [CP [CP who to serve spiced
aubergines ] and [CP why 

feature. In line with this approach, let us supposethat the infinitive marker to in the domain of a]]wh-operator has a PF-uninterpretable feature, *.
The grammaticality of (19)-(20) poses an

The interrogative complementizer, C[WH], probes

interesting

problem.

its domain for a goal, a wh-phrase, which getscounterparts

of

The

these

full-fledged

examplesaremoved to the CP-specifier. Let us suppose that

ungrammatical even with an E-type pronoun in

C[WH], when it probes its domain, also checks off

place of the trace/copy position of the wh-phrase

the uninterpretable feature on to*. Under thisin the first conjunct, due to the impossible

simple mechanism, the observation that thesequence, why to*.

adjunct wh-phrase why cannot be immediately
followed by the infinitive to can be explained
away once we assume that C[WH] hosting why(22) ??I asked Bill [ who to serve and why tocannot check the uninterpretable feature on to*.

serve them ].
(23) ??I asked Bill [ when to serve spiced

At this point, an interesting possibility comes up.

aubergines and why to serve spiced

The crucial fact that why to is impossible

aubergines then ]naturally follows as long as C[WH] hosting why
does not probe its domain.

The observation here is that eliding the TP, more

On independent grounds, Rizzi (1990)

specifically, eliding the infinitive marker to,argues that why is, unlike other wh-phrases,

which immediately follows why, cancels abase-generated in the CP-specifier. In current

potential violation incurred by the why-toterms, this amounts to saying that the C[WH]sequence. One possible analysis is to attributeexternally merges with the adjunct wh-phrase,

this observation to an explanation of thewhy, which in turn means thatwell-known island repair phenomena: a sentence

not probe its domain. Since the C[WH] does notthat

subjacency

probe, it fails to check the uninterpretablebecomes grammatical when the offending islandfeature on to*, resulting in a crash of theis erased.

derivation.

(24) They are looking for someone who speaks

2.4. Conjoined Wh-Infinitives in the Subject

would

otherwise

violatea Balkan language, but I don’t know which

the C[WH] does

Position
One possible objection to the present(Balkan language) <*they are looking forargument is that the crucial examples insomeone who speaks t>.

(19)-(20)

have

an

alternative

derivation.

Consider the account of island repair in

Suppose that the conjunction marker and puts

Chomsky (1972): when a phrase moves out of

together larger constituents, say VPs, as depicted

an island, the offending phrase gets *, but

below.

deleting the entire island along with* saves(25) [VP V [WhP

the sentence. In the recent terminology, * is a287

] ] and [VP V [IntP]](28) [CP what C[WH] [TP … to*CHECK … ] ]Suppose further that Vs undergo head movement

probe

across the board to the higher v. As long as V
can select either a WhP or an IntP, we would
expect that (19)-(20) are grammatical, since the

The infinitival TP with a checked *-feature canconjunction marker and puts together two VPs

then be copied to the ellipsis site in (19)-(20).

in (25).

Assumethatthe*-feature

to

on

is

The potential objection outlined above is

LF-unintepretable. Without ellipsis, * in (9)not warranted, since the problematic conjunction

cannot be interpreted at LF, since the C[WH] doeswith an elliptical constituent can also appear in

not probe its domain since why gets externallythe subject position.

merged in its specifier.

(26)(29) [CP why C[WH] [TP … to* … ] ][ Who to serve spiced aubergines and
why 

(27)

] is the question.

[ When to serve spiced aubergines andHence, as far as the materials in this paper are

why  ] is the question.

concerned, the choice between the PF-deletionand LF-copying remains open.

The derivation analogous to (25) is not availablefor (26) and (27), since the coordinate subject* Earlier versions of this paper were presented at

infinitives are not subcategorized by a verb.

8th

Thus, (26) and (27) support our assumption that

University in April 2015 and at University of

the coordination involved in the relevant

Santa Cruz in October 2015. I would like toconstruction puts together two CPs.

thank the audience, too numerous to list here.

International

SpringForumat

Seikei

The author alone is responsible for shortcomings
3. Summarythat maybe contained herein.

This paper has shown that while thesequence why to gives rise to ungrammaticality,

REFERENCES
Akmajian, Adrian, and Heny Frank (1975) An

eliding the TP that dominates the infinitivemarker to improves the grammatical status in

Introduction

coordinated wh-infinitive constructions.

Transformational Syntax, MIT Press,

The propositional island account of

to

the

Principles

ofCambridge, MA.

island repair, shown in (2), cannot be extended

Barros, Matthew, Patrick Elliott, and Gary

the repairing phenomena incurred by ellipsis inThoms (2014) "There Is No Island

wh-infinitives. Our explanation of (19)-(20) is

Repair,"phrased on the assumption that ellipsis is to be

University

accounted for as a PF-deletion process, but it

ms,

Rutgers

College

University,

London,andUniversity of Edinburgh.

should be stressed that the LF-copying accountBayer, Samuel (1996) "The Coordination ofis also compatible with our observation. Suppose

Unike

that in the antecedent clause of (19)-(20), the579-616.

C[WH] checks the uninterpretable feature, *, onBokovic,

to.

288

Categories,"eljko(2011)

Language"Rescue

by

72,
PF

Deletion, Traces as (Non)interveners,
and the That-Trace Effect," Linguistic
Inquiry 42, 1-44.
Chomsky, Noam (1972) "Some Empirical Issues
in the Theory of Transformational
Grammar," Goals of Linguistic Theory,
ed. by Paul Stanley Peters, 260-285.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Chung, Sandra, William A. Ladusaw, and James
McCloskey
Logical(1995)"Sluicing

NaturalForm,"

and

Language

Semantics 3, 239-282.
Fox,

Danny,

andHoward"Successive-Cyclic

Lasnik(2003)

Movement

andIsland Repair: The Difference between
Sluicing and VP-Ellipsis," Linguistic
Inquiry 34, 143-154.
Merchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax of Silence:
Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of
Ellipsis,

OxfordUniversity

Press,

Oxford, New York.
Rizzi, Luigi (1990) Relativized Minimality, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rizzi,

Luigi(2001)"Onthe

Position'Int(errogative)' in the Left Periphery of
the Clause," Current Studies in Italian
Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi,
ed.

byGuglielmo

CinqueandGiampaolo Salvi, 267-296, Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Ross, John Robert (1969) "Guess Who?" CLS 5,
252-286, Chicago, Illinois.
Shlonsky, Ur, and Gabriela Soare (2011)"Where's 'Why'?" Linguistic Inquiry 42,651-669.

289

and Peperkamp, 2006; Yip, 2006; among others).
For

instance,vowel

insertion

is

both

phonologically and perceptually motivated (Itôand Mester, 1995, 1996; Dupoux et al., 1999). In
Effects of Orthography on Loanword

an Optimality Theory (OT) approach, the change

Adaptation of English Diphthong // tois required by constraints such as NOCODA andJapanese*COMPLEX (Itô and Mester, 1995, 1996; Paradis
and

LaCharité,

substitutionis1997).

Similarly,

segment

also

phonologicallyandKanako Tomaru

perceptually motivated (Kaneko & Iverson,

Sophia University

2009; Peperkamp et al., 2008; Strange et al.,2001). Strange and his colleagues suggest on the

Keywords: loanword adaptation, English

basis of the Perceptual Assimilation Model

diphthong, orthography, Japanese(PAM) that English // and // are phonetically,
and thus eventually perceptually, similar to
Japanese //, explaining why it can substitute forthem. Moreover, English final voiceless stops

1. Introduction
It is common for Japanese, as for manyare perceptually similar to Japanese geminate

languages, to import words from English. The

stops (Kaneko & Iverson, 2009); this causes

process of importing words from one language

Japanese speakers to adapt English voiceless(the source language) into another (the adapting

stops into geminates in final positions. These

language) is called loanword adaptation. In

vowel and consonant substitutions can beloanword adaptation, the phonetic structures ofobserved in the examples below.

the source language often change to conform to
the phonetic structures of the adapting language.

(1) cat //Æ 㺕㺊㺍㺢 /2/

In the case of Japanese adaptation of words fromcut //Æ 㺔㺍㺢 //English, the original words must go throughseveral changes, because the phonetic structures

English-Japanese segment substitutions areof English and Japanese are very different.

systematic except for the adaptation of English

These changes commonly include: (1) vowel

diphthong //3. That is, in Japanese loanwords

insertion (e.g., strike Æ 㺛㺢㺵㺐㺖 //1),

from English, either (1) a single two-mora vowel(2) consonant substitution (e.g., thanks Æ 㺙㺻㺖㺛or (2) a sequence of two vowels are assigned to//) or (3) vowel substitution (e.g.,

the English diphthongs //, //, and // as inEnglish // and // both represented by Japanesethe examples below.

//).
(2) English // Æ Japanese //:Studies on loanword adaptation suggest thatchanges in phonemic forms are motivated byhole Æ 㺬㺎㺷 //4

multiple factors including phonology, perception,home Æ 㺬㺎㺯 //and orthography (Kaneko and Iverson, 2009;
Kenstowicz, 2005; Silverman, 1992; Vendelin290

(3) English // Æ Japanese //:tend to reflect phonemic representations offlight Æ 㺪㺵㺐㺢 //sounds and do not always match actualnight Æ 㺣㺐㺢 //pronunciations. For example, the middle sound(4) English //ÆJapanese //:in 㺓㺢㺑㺢 ‘younger brother’ is spelled ou in its

out Æ 㺏㺑㺢 //Romancrown Æ 㺖㺵㺑㺻 //speakers tend to perceive the word as beingtranscription,andnative Japanese

pronounced with a sequence of two medial
On the other hand, English // does not

vowels,as //.

However,

its

actualshow such a straightforward adaptation. The

pronunciation is [], a long version of the vowel

vowel can be adapted as either single vowel//. Similarly, 㺒㺐㺔㺼 ‘movie’ is phonemically(single-vowel form) or a sequence of two vowels

understood as having a sequence of vowels //(two-vowel form) as shown below.

and // and thus as being pronounced //; but
in actual pronunciation, this phonemic sequence(5) English // Æ Japanese // or /e/:instead appears as []. Therefore, even if asale Æ 㺜㺎㺷 //two-vowel form is phonemically assigned to acake Æ 㺗㺎㺕 //loanword using Japanese transcription, forpaper Æ 㺫㺽㺎㺨㺽㺎 //instance 㺒㺐㺢 // ‘eight’, it is possible forstation Æ 㺛㺡㺎㺚㺌㺻 //such a loanword to be pronounced with a single

change Æ 㺟㺈㺻㺚㺼 /tɕdʑ/vowel, whether a short or long version.

(6) English // Æ Japanese //:eight Æ 㺒㺐㺢 //2.2. Acoustic Analysis

aid Æ 㺒㺐㺢㺼 //In order to investigate whether effects oforthography are active on both transcription andpronunciation of loanwords, I conducted an

The purpose of this study is to findsystematic rules for the English // adaptation toacoustic

analysisoftheJapanese.

two-vowel forms listed in (6).

loanwords

withOne male native speaker of Japaneseparticipated in recording, which was conducted

2. Effects of Orthography

in a quiet room. The speaker read each of theloanwords presented in (5), except for 㺟㺈㺻㺚㺼

2.1. Hypothesis‘change’, and in (6).

Observation of the examples above indicatesthat the orthographical effects on the adaptation

The results of the analysis are shown in Figs.

of // seem to be strong. That is, single vowels

1 and 2. These figures show a scatter plot of theare assigned when the English vowel in question

first and second formants (F1 and F2), which areis spelled with one letter, and two vowels are

criticalassigned when it is spelled with two letters (as in

two-vowel form loanwords, vowel onset, glide

the underlined portions in examples (5) and (6)).

and offset were clearly observable (Fig. 1),

However, before jumping to conclusions,suggesting that the two-vowel-form loanwords

some additional analysis should be done,

are actually pronounced with a sequence of two

because in Japanese, katakana transcriptions

distinct

291

cues

for

vowels.

vowel

On

the

perception.

other

For

hand,

single-vowel-form loanwords did not have any
clear vowel transitions; this indicates thatloanwords with a single-vowel transcription arein fact pronounced with a single vowel. Thus,
overall, according to the analysis, the loanwords
in questions are pronounced when adapted by
Japanese speakers in the same way as they aretranscribed in Japanese kana letters, suggestingthat the hypothesis is supported not only in

Figure 1. Formant transition from onset (whiteterms of kana transcriptions, which reflectdots) to offset (black dots) through glide (grayphonemic representations, but also in terms ofdots) of two-vowel-form loanwords.

pronunciation of loanwords in actual speech.
3. Discussion
3.1. Exceptions
Although the hypothesis that adaptation ofEnglish // to Japanese is influenced by theorthography of source words is supported by the
acoustical analysis, there are many exceptions.
For instance, the loanwords listed in (7) all have

Figure 2. Plot of F1 and F2 for single-vowel

the single-vowel form as opposed to theform loanwords.

two-vowel form, although they are spelled with

3.2. Orthographical Factor vs. Other Factors

two letters in the source language. Then theloanwords listed in (8) show the opposite; they

3.2.1. Nativization of Loanwords

have the two-vowel form, even the hypothesis

One possible explanation, which needs to bepredicts that they will have the single-vowel

investigated in future research, is that theform. Moreover, both single and two-vowel

exceptions described above come from nativized

forms are accepted for the loanwords in (9).

loanwords (Itô & Mester, 1993, 1995, 1996).
According to guidelines released by Japanese(7) chain Æ 㺟㺈㺎㺻 //Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science

mail Æ 㺰㺎㺷 //and(8) take out Æ 㺡㺐㺖㺏㺑㺢 //Technology,

Japanese

writersareencouraged to transcribe English diphthongs

April Æ 㺒㺐㺪㺽㺶㺷 //with a long version of a single vowel, that is, ofhate Æ 㺫㺐㺢 //the single-vowel form. Therefore, originally and(9) fake Æ 㺪㺈㺎㺖 //, 㺪㺈㺐㺖 //with the norms derived from the initialface Æ 㺪㺈㺎㺛 //, 㺪㺈㺐㺛 //guidelines,

make Æ 㺰㺎㺖 //, 㺰㺐㺖 //all

Englishdiphthongs

wereencouraged to have the single-vowel form.
However, loanwords, just like any other words,292

impression of a loanword should be similar tothe source word.
3.2.2. Sound Change of Loanwords
In order to confirm that the exceptions above
are outcome of the social factor effects, I
conducted another acoustical analysis on the
exceptional loanwords listed in (9) and the word
Figure 3. Formant transition from onset㺡㺐㺖㺏㺑㺢 ‘take out’ in (8), and compared them to(white dots) to offset (black dots) throughwords

glide (gray dots) of additionally recorded

two-vowel form (see (6)). Note that thetwo-vowel-form loanwords.

exceptions are (or can be) pronounced with thewrittenandpronounced

with

the

single-vowel form, although they should havego through sound changes as time proceeds. As

theone result, in present-day Japanese, English

two-vowel

form

accordingtotheorthography of the original words. The native

diphthongs are allowed to keep their two-vowel

Japanese speaker who had participated in thequality in loanwords with the exceptions of //previous recording also participated in theand //, probably because the sequences //additional recording, which was done in a quiet

and // tend to merge in the Japanese languageroom.

as well (see (2), (3), and (4) above). On the one

The results of the analysis show that thehand, // yields a unified form, //, with nolengths of the two-vowel utterances of the

problem; this form is encouraged by the

exceptional words (Fig. 3) were shorter (113 ms

government guidelines, and actual pronunciation

on average) than those of loanwords written andtends naturally to become // (see (2)). On the

pronounced as // (223 ms on average. See Fig.

other hand, // yields either a single or a1). In fact, the exceptions are similar in length to

two-vowel form depending on the orthography

the original English diphthongs (per Gay, 1968).

of the source word.

Therefore, loanwords that seem to contravene

In the case of //, adaptation may have been
complicated

by

the

transcriptions

based

facts
on

that
the

(1)

the orthographically based assignment rules areoldin fact changing the forms to make them moregovernment

similar to the original English words.

guidelines are still in use, and (2) Japanesesociety may have recently started to pressure

4. Conclusion

broadcasters to pronounce loanwords morefaithfully

to

the

originals,

forbroadcasters

on

the

BroadcastingJapan

Based on the observation of Japanese

instance,

loanwords from English, this study suggests
some effects of orthography on adaptation of the

Cooperation (Nippon Hōsō Kyōkai, NHK) say

English[] and [], which have never historically been

diphthong//.

However,suchadaptation may be affected by factors related toallowed in Japanese phonology. Thus, some ofthe social usage and understanding of these

the exceptions listed above may come fromwords; because of this, some loanwords may besocial factors, such as the idea that the heard

going

293

throughsoundchanges.

Althoughthorough investigation is required to confirm theM$.

existence, nature, and effects of these social

Kaneko, Emiko, and Gregory K. Iverson (2009)

factors, this study provides further evidence of“Phonetic and Other Factors in Japaneseorthographical effects on loanword adaptation as

On-Linewell as evidence that loanword adaptation

Consonants,” Studies in Language Sciences

includes multiple factors.

8:

Adaptation

Papers

from

of
the

EnglishEighthFinal
AnnualConference of the Japanese Society for1

Language Science, ed. by Shunji Inagaki andNOTESThis paper uses // to mean the Japanese

Makikounrounded, or compressed, high back vowel.
2.

Hirakawa,

179-196,

Kuroshio,

Tokyo.

The insertion of yod reflects palatalization in

Kenstowicz, Michael (2005) “The Phonetics andthe English source word (Strange et al., 2001).

Phonology

3.

Adaptation,” Proceedings of the First

This paper uses //, instead of //, for theof

KoreanEnglish diphthong in question.

European

4.

Linguistics, ed. by Sang-Jik Rhee, 17-32,

Examples listed here and henceforth consist a

subset of loanwords that fall into each category.

Conference

Loanwordon

Korean

Leiden University, Leiden.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology, Japan (1950) Kokugo

REFERENCES
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Kazuhiko Kakehi, Yuki

Shiri-zu 27 Gairaigo Hyouki (Japanese

Hirose, Christophe Pallier, and Jacques

SeriesMehler (1999) “Epenthetic Vowels in

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,

Japanese: A Perceptual Illusion?” Journal

Science and Technology Japan, Tokyo.

ofExperimental

Perception

andPsychology:

27

Loanword

Transcription),

Human

Paradis, Carole, and Darlene LaCharité (1997)

25,“Preservation and Minimality in Loanword

Performance

Adaptation,” Journal of Linguistics 33,

1568-1578.
Gay, Thomas (1968) “Effect of Speaking Rate

379-430.

on Diphthong Formant Movements,” The

Peperkamp,

Sharon,Inga

Vendelin,

Journal of the Acoustical Society ofKimihiro

Nakamura(2008)

America 44, 1570-1573.

Perceptual

OriginofItô, Junko, and Armin Mester (1993) “Licensed

“On

and
the

Loanword

Adaptations: Experimental Evidence from

Segments and Safe Paths,” CanadianJapanese,” Phonology 25, 129-164.

Journal of Linguistics 38, 197-213.

Silverman, Daniel (1992) “Multiple Scansions inItô, Junko, and Armin Mester (1995) “TheLoanword

Phonology:

Evidence

fromCore-Periphery Structure of the Lexicon

Cantonese,” Phonology 9, 289-328.

and Constraints on Reranking,” Papers in

Strange, Winifred, Reiko Akahane-Yamada,

Optimality Theory 18, 181-209.

Reiko Kubo, Sonja A. Trent, and Kanae

Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester (1996) “JapaneseNishi (2001) “Effects of Consonantal

The

of

Context on Perceptual Assimilation of

Phonological Theory, ed. by John A.

American English Vowels by JapaneseGoldsmith, 817-838, Blackwell, Cambridge,

Listeners,” The Journal of the Acoustical

Phonology,”

Handbook294

Society of America 109, 1691-1704.
Vendelin, Inga, and Sharon Peperkamp (2006)“The

Influence

Loanwordof

Orthographyon

Lingua116,

Adaptations,”

996-1007.
Yip,

Moira

(2006)

Phonology

and“Cantonese

Loanword

Optimality

Theory,”Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2,
261-291.

295

whereas

they

are

separatein

non-Voice-Bundling languages, as in (2b).
(2) a. Voice-Bundling causatives (e.g., English)¥P

A Voice-Bundling Parameter Account for
Romance Anti-causatives*[Voice, Cause]¥DPb. Non-Voice-Bundling causatives (e.g.,
Japanese)

Masaki Yasuhara
Teikyo University

¥P
Voice

Keywords㸸anti-causative, Voice-BundlingvCause¥Parameter, agentivity
In

Voice-BundlingDPlanguages,

Cause

is

combined with Voice, so the presence of Cause

1. Introduction

requires the occurrence of an external argument.

Several languages have two types of
distinguished

In non-Voice-Bundling languages, on the othermorphologically, as shown by the following

hand, Cause is independent of Voice, so the

Greek example.

presence of Cause does not require theanti-causatives,

which

are

occurrence of an external argument. Yasuhara(1) a. To ktirio

gremiseargues that Greek is a non-Voice-Bundling

apo mono tu.

language and that non-active morphology is an

the building collapsed.ACT by itself
b. To ktirio

gremistikeovert realization of Cause whereas active

apo mono tu.

the building collapsed.NACT by itself

morphology reflects its absence. Since Voice and(Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (2004:122))

Cause are separate in non-Voice-Bundling
languages,

theypermittheunaccusative

The anti-causative in (1a) has active morphology

structure in (3b) as well as that in (3a) whereas

whereas the one in (1b) has non-active

Voice-Bundlingmorphology.

structure in (3a).

languages

only

Yasuhara (2014) explains the existence of(3) a.

two types of Greek anti-causatives from thevBecome¥P

point of view of the Voice-Bundling parameter(Pylkkänen (2008)). This parameter groups

vBecome¥languages into two types, Voice-Bundling
languages and non-Voice-Bundling languages.

b.

DP

vCause¥P

Voice is the head introducing an externalargument and Cause is the head introducing avCause¥causing event. Voice and Cause are bundled
together in Voice-Bundling languages, as in (2a),

296

DP

allow

the

The purpose of this paper is to show that theanti-causatives in Romance languages are overt

Voice-Bundling parameter account is applicablerealizations of Cause, we can predict thatto Romance anti-causatives as well. Romance

non-active/marked

languages such as Italian, French and Spanish

anti-causatives

also have two types of anti-causatives, thoseinterpretations because only the former involve awith a reflexive clitic and those without it.

causing and a result event in the vP structure.

Hereafter, we will refer to anti-causatives with aSpecifically, we predict that non-active/marked

reflexive clitic as marked anti-causatives andanti-causatives encode a telic interpretation. In

those without it as unmarked anti-causatives.

fact, the following examples show that Greek

andexhibitactive/unmarked
different

aspectual

active and non-active anti-causatives exhibit(4) a. Il cioccolato si

distinct aspectual properties.

è fuso. (marked)

the chocolate REFL is melted
b. Il cioccolato è
the chocolate is(5) a.* To ktirio

fuso. (unmarked)

gremisese ena simio

the building collapsed.ACT in one spot

meltedItalian (Schäfer (2007:15), with slight
modifications)alla den gremise

entelos.

butNEG collapsed.ACT

completely

b. To ktirio

gremistike

se ena simio

I propose that Romance languages belong to

the building collapsed.NACT in one spot

non-Voice-Bundling languages and the reflexive

alla dengremistikeclitic in marked anti-causatives in Romance

butNEG

collapsed.NACT completely

languages is an overt realization of Cause

Greek (Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou

whereas it is absent in unmarked anti-causatives.

(2004:129), with slight modifications)entelos.

The organization of this paper is as follows.
In section 2, I will show that our analysis is

The active anti-causative does not go along with

empiricallyaspectuala complete change of state interpretation, as

properties of marked/unmarked anti-causatives

indicated by the incompatibility with the adverb

in Romance languages. We will compare

entelos ‘completely’ whereas this adverb is

Romance anti-causatives with those in Germaniccompatible with the non-active anti-causative.

languages, which also have two types ofThis contrast suggests that active anti-causatives

anti-causatives. In section 3, I will provide a

are associated with atelic interpretations while

syntactic account of the aspectual properties of

non-active anti-causatives are associated withthose languages. In section 4, I will give atelic interpretations. The same is true of Italian,theoretical implication for the analysis of

French and Spanish anti-causatives.

supportedbythemarked anti-causatives and reflexive passives inRomance languages. Section 5 will give(6) a. La casa è bruciata, ma non è

concluding remarks.

the house is burned

but not is

bruciata.
2. Aspectual Properties

burned

2.1. Romance Languages

b.* La casa si

If

the

reflexive

cliticsofmarkedè bruciata, ma non è

the house REFL is burned297

but not isaspectual interpretations.

bruciata.
burnedItalian (Schäfer (2007:19), with slight(8) a.*

dat het ei

zich 3 minuten langthat the egg REFL for 3 minutes

modifications)gekookt heftboiledThe achievement of a final state can be negated
in

(6a),

which

includesanb.

unmarkedhas

dat het eizich

in 3 minuten

anti-causative, but not in (6b), which contains athat the egg REFL in 3 minutes

marked anti-causative.

tijd gekookt heft

This fact indicates that the reflexive clitics inc.

Romance languages as well as the NACT
morphology

in

Greek

triggeratime boiled

has

dat het ei

3 minuten langthat the egg for 3 minutes

telicgekookt heeftinterpretation.

boiledhas

HD (Cornips and Hulk (1996:11))

2.2. Germanic Languages
Germanic languages such as German andDutch also have two types of anti-causatives. In

The marked anti-causative is compatible withthis section, I will show that they also exhibit

the time adverbial in 3 minuten ‘in 3 minutes’,distinct aspectual interpretations.

as in (8b), but not with 3 minuten lang ‘for 3

Let us first consider Dutch anti-causatives.

minutes’, as in (8a). These facts show that

According to Cornips and Hulk (1996), Heerlenmarked anti-causatives in HD cannot be

Dutch, a dialect of Dutch, may give rise to twointerpreted as atelic but it is interpreted as telic.

types of anti-causatives whereas Standard Dutch

The unmarked anti-causative in (8c), on theutilizes unmarked anti-causatives and marked

other hand, allows the atelic interpretation.

anti-causatives

are

very

restricted.

Next,

The

let

us

move

on

to

Germanabbreviations HD and SD stand for Heerlen

anti-causatives. German also exhibits two types

Dutch and Standard Dutch, respectively.

of anti-causatives. Schäfer (2007) argues thatthey do not correspond to distinct aspectual(7) HD/?*SD Het
the
HD/SD

riet

buigt

zich.

interpretations, but his argument is based on

reeds

bends REFL

degree achievement verbs, which can license‘The reed is bending.’

either a telic or an atelic interpretation. So we

Het

riet

buigt.

cannot

the

reed

bends

adverbials to German anti-causatives.
marked(Cornips and Hulk (1996:1))
allowsbothmarkedandthediagnostics

using

time

To summarize, the distinction between‘The reed is bending.’

HD

apply

and

unmarkedsystematicallycorresponds

anti-causatives
tothedistinct

aspectual interpretations in Dutch, in the sameunmarkedanti-causatives while SD permits only the latter.

way

Cornips and Hulk argue that the two types of

employed in these languages cannot be appliedanti-causatives in HD are different in theto German, so I would like to leave open the

298

as

Romancelanguages.

Diagnostics

question whether German marked/unmarked

the reflexive pronoun is merged in the specifier

anti-causativesof Voice, as shown in (12).

exhibitdistinct

aspectualinterpretations.
Although Romance and Germanic languages(11) weil

appear to show similar effects with respect to the

sich

die

Tür

because REFL theöffnet.

door opens

German (Schäfer (2007:325))

distinction between marked and unmarked
anti-causatives, section 3 will propose that

(12)

[Voice, Cause] P

Romance and Germanic languages differ withregard to the Voice-Bundling parameter. Section
4 will show that the non-Voice-Bundling
analysisofRomancelanguages

has

¥P

REFL
[Voice, Cause]¥an

die Tür

implication for the analysis of reflexive passives
Schäfer (2007) also considers the reflexivein Romance languages.

pronoun in marked anti-causatives as an externalargument.

3. The Syntax of Anti-causatives

Recall3.1. Distinct Aspectual Interpretations

that

Romancemarked/unmarked

This paper proposes that Romance languages

andGermanic

anti-causatives

exhibitsuch as Italian, Spanish and French belong to the

distinct aspectual interpretations. This effect can

non-Voice-Bundling languages and the reflexive

be attributed to the bi-eventual vP structure. The

clitics are the overt realizations of Cause.

occurrence of a reflexive clitic/pronoun results

Germanic languages such as German and Dutch,

in the existence of a causing event in addition to

on the other hand, are Voice-Bundling languages

the result event denoted by the verb, creating aand the reflexive pronouns occur in the externalcausal relation between the two events. The

argument position.

transition of events created by such a causal

The structure in (10) illustrates the structure

relation allows telic interpretations. The absenceof Romance marked anti-causatives.

of a reflexive clitic/pronoun, on the other hand,does not produce such a causal relation, so atelic(9) La branche se
the branchcassa.

interpretations are available. In this way, despite

REFL brokethe different syntactic structures, Romance and‘The branch broke.’Germanic

French (Doron and Labelle (2011:143))(10)

anti-causatives

exhibitparallelaspectual interpretations.

vCause¥P

3.2. Voice and Cause
In the literature, it has been assumed thatvCauseREFL¥

la branche

Voice introduces an external argument and is
responsibleforagentivity.

For

example,Similar analyses have been proposed by aAlexiadou et al. (2006) proposes two types ofnumber of previous studies as well (e.g. Labelle

Voice heads.

and Doron (2010)).
(13) a.

In Germanic languages, on the other hand,299

Voice [+ Agent] selects an agent

b.

external argument

may implicate the existence of an

Voice [ Ѹ Agent] selects a causer

agent.
b.

external argument

Romance unmarked anti-causatives
may not implicate the existence of anagent.

The two types of Voice heads are differentiatedwith regard to the presence or absence ofagentivity. However, the agent and the causer

The structures of marked and unmarked

thematic roles do not seem to be differentiatedanti-causatives are shown in (16).

syntactically, since they can be coordinated in(16) a.

the external argument position.

Marked anti-causative structure
vCause¥P(14) Floods and guerrilla forces ravaged the area.
(Schlesinger (1995:105))

vCauseREFL ¥In sentence (14), the causer floods and the groupb.

DP

Unmarked anti-causative structureof agents guerrilla forces are coordinated in thevBecome¥P

external argument position. The acceptability ofthis sentence means that agentivity is not

vBecome¥specified by Voice. For this reason, I assume thatDP

Voice does not specify the presence or absenceof agentivity. The function of Voice is toMarked anti-causatives include Cause, which

introduce an external argument, and therefore, it

may implicate the existence of an agent.

does not exist in unaccusative structures.

Unmarked anti-causatives, on the other hand,Cause, on the other hand, introduces a

may not include Cause, so they cannot implicate

causing event, though the content of the event isthe existence of an agent. In this way, ourunspecified. Consequently, it goes along withanalysisany eventuality, such as an occurrence of naturalanti-causatives may implicate the existence of anforce or an action of an agent. The causing event

agent. The following discussion will show that

may implicate the existence of an agent when

this analysis is supported by the phenomenon

the causing event is construed as an action of ancalled reflexive passives.

agent.

impliesthatcertaintypes

of

It has been generally observed that Romancereflexive clitics hold several functions such as
the

4. Implicationpassivizing

functionandtheI have assumed that Romance languages

anti-causativizing function, which have been

have the non-Voice-bundling property. An

distinguished in the literature. Romance clitics

immediate consequence of this assumption isthat have been assumed to work as a passivizer

that Romance languages have two types ofwill be called reflexive passives hereafter. In

anti-causatives that are characterized as in (15).

additiontoreflexive

passives,

Romancelanguages have copula passive constructions as(15) a.

Romancemarkedanti-causatives

well.

300

reflexive passives.

The reflexive passives and copula passives,
syntactic

To sum up, reflexive passives and copulacharacteristics with regard to the presence or

passives exhibit distinct behavior with regard toabsence of an external argument. Passive

the availability of an external argument, andconstructions generally license the occurrence ofreflexive passives share morphological forms

an external argument, as shown by the copulawith marked anti-causatives. These facts suggest

passive constructions in (17). Reflexive passives,thaton the other hand, do not permit the occurrence

distinguished from marked anti-causatives. Theof an external argument, as in (18).

only difference between them that has been

however,

exhibitdistinctreflexive

passives

shouldnot

betraditionally assumed in the literature is thepresence or absence of the implication of an(17) In Italia gli spaghetti sono mangiati datutti. (copula passive)

agent. In our analysis, the implication of an‘In Italy spaghetti is eaten by everybody.’

agent can be attributed to the interpretation of(18)*In Italia si mangiano gli spaghetti da tutti.

the causing event of marked anti-causatives.

(reflexive passive)

Therefore, reflexive passives can be subsumed
under marked anti-causatives in our analysis. In‘In Italy spaghetti is eaten by everybody.’
Italian (D'Alessandro (2007:48))

other words, the two characteristics of reflexive
passives, the unavailability of an external

Importantly, the unavailability of an externalargument and the isomorphism with marked

argument

anti-causatives,isacharacteristic

sharedwithnaturallyfollowfrom ouranalysis.

anti-causatives. In addition to this, it has been
observed that Romance marked anti-causatives
are ambiguous between the passive use and the

5. Conclusion

anti-causative use (e.g. Schäfer and Heidinger

In this paper, I showed that the distinction(2008), Juarros-Daussà (2000)). This ambiguity

between marked and unmarked anti-causatives

emerges because the distinction between thein Romance languages correspond to different

passive use and the anti-causative use depends

syntactic structures. Romance languages haveon the interpretations, in spite of the fact thatthethey are encoded by the same morphologicalreflexive clitics are the overt realizations offorms. In the literature, as stated in Siewierska

Cause. Our analysis is supported by the(1984), verbs whose eventuality can occur

aspectualautonomously are regarded as anti-causatives

anti-causatives and has an implication for thewhereas verbs whose eventuality requires thetheoretical analysis of reflexive passives inintervention of an agent are considered as

Romance languages.

non-Voice-Bundlingproperty,interpretations

of

and

the

markedreflexive passives.
In our analysis, however, the existence of an
agent

can

be

implicatedmarkedOya, Reijirou Shibasaki and the audience foranti-causatives as well in non-Voice-Bundlingtheir invaluable comments on an earlier version

languages. Consequently, there is no reason toof this paper. Needless to say, any remaining

differentiate

errors and shortcomings are mine.

markedby* I would like to express my thanks to Toshiaki

anti-causatives

from

301

Schäfer, Florian and Steffen Heidinger (2008)

REFERENCES
Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou“On the French Reflexive Passive and

in

the

Anti-causative,” Etudes de Linguistique

Alternation,”The

Diachronique, ed. by Benjamin Fagard,

Unaccusativity Puzzle, ed. by Artemis

Sophie Prevost, Bernard Combettes andAlexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou andOlivier Bertrand, 135-152, Peter Lang,

MartinBern.

(2004)“VoiceMorphology

Causative-Inchoative

Everaert,

114-136,

OxfordSchlesinger, Izchak M. (1995) Cognitive Space

University Press, Oxford.

and Linguistic Case, Cambridge University

Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou

Press, Cambridge.

and Florian Schäfer (2006) “The Properties
ofAnti-causatives

Siewierska, Anna (1984) The Passive: A

Crosslinguistically,”

Phases of Interpretation, ed. by Mara

Comparative

Linguistic

Frascarelli, 187-212, Mouton de Gruyter,Routledge, London.

Analysis,

Yasuhara, Masaki (2014) “The Typology of

Berlin.

Anti-causatives

Cornips, Leonie and Aafke Hulk (1996)

Denoting

Externally“Ergative Reflexives in Heerlen Dutch andCaused Event from the Viewpoint of theFrench,” Studia Linguistica 50(1), 1-21.

Voice-Bundling Parameter: Evidence from

D'Alessandro, Roberta (2007) Impersonal “si”

Japanese Anti-causatives,” paper presented

Constructions, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

in the 7th conference of Formal Approachto Japanese Linguistics.

Doron, Edit and Marie Labelle (2011) “An
Ergative Analysis of French Valency
Alternation,” Romance Linguistics 2010:
Selected Papers from the 40th Linguistic
Symposiumon

Romance

Languages(LSRL), ed. by Julia Herschensohn, 137–54,
John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Juarros-Daussà,E.

(2000)“The

Syntactic

Operator se in Spanish,” paper presented in
the 4th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium.
Labelle,

Marie

and

Edit

Doron

(2010)“Anti-causative Derivations (and Other
Valency Alternations) in French,” Probus
22, 303-316.
Pylkkänen, Liina (2008) Introducing Arguments,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Schäfer, Florian (2007) On the Nature ofAnti-causative

Morphology:

External

Arguments in Change-of-State Contexts,
Doctoraldissertation,

UniversityofStuttgart.

302                                                                                 JELS ~Ôý±~Ôþ+nªe+À©
Guidelines for Submission of Manuscripts to JELS <Ã8'ā

Āß±~Ônª*$%,(1) ~Ô¹°ÿ¸±aÀa±Ä<2% A4 È×* 7 ¹ksý_bCFYLRa[TbM, 2 ¹ksþ'
8~Ô,

2 ¾Ù'

¾ 40 á'8'(2) ¶¢ÿ¦

ÁjQ=?\&ð69%"JELS_ý±~Ôþ.doc?\<µ"e&e¶q%oÈ8'
oÈ

.docx

*µ)'

0"

Q=

.doc

+00

Q=?\£¢,

ýµ8'½âÒ9)8

UbG`,eý2.2 cþ fý3.0 cþ ý2.5 cþ±E?I, 11 T?`Mke*8Ö 1 ø+d¾Î,eó* 4 á+mÍ< 7" ,ÐQ]bI<oÈþý2.5 cþ*ç8

ë±üa¿a«aBb_bNýé0

5 ùÎ0&þ<h*%r98

ë±ü'¿+ô.« 'Bb_bN+ô, 1 áÕÍ' Bb_bN+¤ 2 á% ¸±<28ýBb_bNÿ XKQ=b, õñ¨Æë, usage-based model +5)£¢&Bb_bN<¶

Bb_bN+ô,|åA`U'|åHSbH&zw8

ë±ü,*8ìî<¶,À, ¸±ý0",ìîþ+¤:ý±Äâ+xþ*0'2
À 'K?M\<j
 MS-Word +ÞÀ¼Ý<oÈ%,)6) ÞÀ¼Ý<o;*À<¶' ±~Ô+±Äâ<2>HK[HC<jêÂaÂ,À+e*¶

'

)

<oÈ8

+i+¶¢+Øó*$%,Contributors” *¥(3)

þEnglish Linguistics + “Information for

abstract ,gã+iÿ

±~Ô*,±ü<$8'0"

ý0",~éþâæ<ý  þ*r9%æ
Q=V[bObW+úÊ&
Nihonþ

þ0"

àÜ'«¼õ+»*

9!9+ßé

àÜ+ßéâæ&,Q=bHMObWéû+1±&¶'ýpÿ² ¸ ß  ý Eiko

±ü+f*ß±ü<ý  þ*r9%Òý+3±ü+h+sé,/%ßéû<±&æí8'þ Ìâ´+K?M\6+µ,dwè2)

304²¸é*58ûÌâ&3 ConferenceHandbook *æ"ß±ü<oÈ9Forum &+Ìâ+,ß±~Ô<­u&8)Springß±~Ô+1j8SbGÊ,ry)'

nª~Ô+Q@`M+2ï1<¦á#%6­u8' CD-ROM 6+ê1u´*

PJD`Ç*5#%,Q@`M0tÅ9Ë)8æ)(*®

9%0}ö¨8"2¦Ñè+e ë±s*4?ZHM)(<oÈ8÷*,


Ú2w7,

­u8'
ànº*{vÉ©8'lÛ¡+ 1 · 10 ² 24:00ý¦Ïþ&²¸ßél+ JELS ~Ôj>N]Hýconference-elsj@kaitakusha.co.jpþ* WORD Q=?\' PDF Q=?\<ðj8

Q=?\*,ÌâÜ+¿<^bU&ær8'ýpÿ

NihonEiko.doc / NihonEiko.pdfþ
Q@bZW+Ìâ*§%Nihon


Xb\+K?M\,l: JELS ²¸ßÓ+l+Ìâ÷³
3,

SF: JELS Eiko'æ'ä*ò%8~Ô,¬í&)

ý2015 ¡ 10 · 16 ²¯þ305

Guidelines for Submission of Manuscripts to JELS
<If you write in Japanese, refer to the Japanese guideline on the ELSJ website>
Last revised October 2015
(1) Length
The length of an oral presentation manuscript, including notes and references, must notexceed seven A4 pages; that of a workshop report must not exceed two A4 pages. The
manuscript should use a two-column format with 40 lines per column. Care should be taken
to avoid overcrowding of characters or letters within the line.
(2) Format
Use the English sample file attached to the e-mail. Do not change the file extension (.doc)
when you save the file. Note that presenters at the Spring Forum are not allowed to submit aJapanese manuscript.
a. Leave margins of 2.2cm at the top, 3.0 cm at the bottom, and 2.5cm on both sides.
b. The font size should be at least 11 point.
c. There should be 4 lines of space between the top of the page and the first paragraph on thefirst page. The title, the name and affiliation of all authors, and keywords (up to five words
or short phrases) should all be centered. One line of blank space should be left between
the title and the author name(s) as well as between the author affiliation(s) and the
keywords. Two lines of blank space should be left below the keywords, at which point themain text should begin. Keywords should be written in the following format:
Keywords: xxx, yyy, zzz (e.g. Keywords: syntax, Case assignment, Multiple Agree, lightverb).
d. The title should be in bold type. Capitalize the first letter of every content word in the title.
e. Write the author’s name in the order “First name - Surname” and capitalize only the initialletters. (e.g. Jane Smith).
f. Write acknowledgements above notes, if any. Put an asterisk at the beginning of theacknowledgements.
g. Notes should follow the main text but precede the references, with the heading“NOTES.” DO NOT use MS-Word’s command for inserting automatic footnotes andendnotes.
h. Other details (including the references) should be formatted in accordance with
Information for Contributors and the latest version of the EL style sheet. No abstract isnecessary.
(3) Othera . Manuscripts written in English should be checked by a native speaker of English.
Under no circumstances may the title of the manuscript be changed in any way fromthat used at the time of presentation. English manuscripts are acceptable even when theoral presentations were made in Japanese if the English title listed in the Conference
Handbook is used in the manuscript. Presenters at the International Spring Forum may
submit only English manuscripts.
b. Do not include page numbers.
c. Please embed all fonts when creating pdf files in order to ensure that the fonts used areavailable on readers’ computers. (JELS is published as a CD-ROM.)
d. Make sure that any figures or illustrations in the paper are consistent with copyright
restrictions.
e. Manuscripts must be submitted by 24:00 on January 10th of the year following theannual Conference. Manuscripts should be sent as attachments in both pdf and doc
format to <conference-elsjkaitakusha.co.jp>*. The file name should include theauthor’s name in Roman letters (e.g. NihonEiko.pdf/NihonEiko.doc). The title of e-mailshould be “Annual Conference: name” or “Spring Forum: name” (e.g. “Annual
Conference: Jane Smith”).
f. Please note that manuscripts not in strict compliance with the Rules for JELS and thepresent guidelines will not be accepted.
*The “@” in the e-mail address has been replaced by “” for security reasons.
306

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2016年2月29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
発 行 者
日本英語学会（〒113-0023）
東京都文京区向丘1-5-2
開拓社内
電話(03) 5842-8900Ⓒ日本英語学会 2016----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------