Papers from the Thirty-Seventh Conference
November 9-10, 2019and from
the Twelfth International Spring ForumMay 11-12, 2019of
The English Linguistic Society of JapanJELS 37

日 本 英 語 学 会 第 37 回 大 会 （ 関 西 学 院 大 学 ）第 12 回国際春季フォーラム（聖心女子大学）
研究発表論文集

The English Linguistic Society of Japan
2020

The English Linguistic Society of Japan
c/o Kaitakusha
1-5-2, Mukogaoka,
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0023, JAPANPresident, Yukio HIROSE, University of Tsukuba
Vice President,Takane ITO, University of Tokyo
Secretary-General, Naoaki WADA, University of Tsukuba

JELS 37
Papers from the Thirty-Seventh Conference
November 9-10, 2019and from
the Twelfth International Spring ForumMay 11-12, 2019of
The English Linguistic Society of Japan

Edited by
The Conference Organizing Committee

Mikinari MATSUOKA, University of Yamanashi (Chair)
Norimi KIMURA, Hirosaki University (Vice-Chair)
Tomoko ENDO, University of Tokyo
Katsuya FUJIKAWA, University of Toyama
Kairi IGARASHI, Ryukoku University
Yusuke KUBOTA, National Institute for Japanese
Language and Linguistics
Masako MAEDA, Seinan Gakuin University
Taichi NAKAMURA, University of Fukui
Hiroki NARITA, Tokai University
Atsuko NISHIYAMA, Wakayama University
Keisuke SANADA, Sapporo Gakuin University
Hiroko TAKANASHI, Japan Women’s University
Saeko URUSHIBARA, University of Kitakyushu
Kiyoko YONEYAMA, Daito Bunka University
Ichiro YUHARA, Tokyo Metropolitan University

日本英語学会第37回大会（関西学院大学）
第12回国際春季フォーラム（聖心女子大学）
研究発表論文集
The English Linguistic Society of Japan2020

本書は、2019年5月11日、12日に聖心女子大学にて開催された日本英語学会第12回国際春季フォーラム、および同年11月9日、10日に関西学院大学にて開催された日本英語学会第37回大会における研究発表論文、Symposium Reports、およびWorkshop Reportsを収録しています（投稿辞退分は除く）。発表採用決定日および投稿受理日は以下のとおりです。
＜発表採用決定日＞
日本英語学会第12回国際春季フォーラム：2019年1月16日
日本英語学会第37回大会：2019年6月8日＜論文投稿受理日＞
2020年1月11日
本論集は、執筆者から提出された原稿を、大会運営委員会で書式を確認の上、全体の統一を図るため最低限の修正を施して掲載しております。個々の修正箇所については、時間的な制約もあり執筆者への確認を省き大会運営委員会の責任で補正しました。ご了承ください。
なお、各論文の内容はすべて執筆者の責任に帰されるべきものです。
第37回大会運営委員長
松岡 幹就

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

CONTENTS
I. Papers from the Thirty-Seventh Conference
一致形態の豊かさと音韻句の関係について

土橋善仁（Yoshihito Dobashi）···············································································3

混合動名詞の出現と衰退について
平田拓也（Takuya Hirata）····················································································10Information Focus Fronting and Emphasis: A Case Study of Preposing around Be with
Adjective Preposing
Masatoshi Honda·····································································································17
子どもの前置詞句単独発話―談話的文脈と前置詞ごとの相違の観点から―
堀内ふみ野（Fumino Horiuchi）············································································24
What does the Unavailability of Genitive Subject in Naxi Suggest?
Xue-Ying Hu and Hideki Maki················································································31
Prefixed Relational Adjectives in English
Takashi Ishida··········································································································38
Two Types of Instrument Subject Constructions in Context: With Special Reference to Focus
and Members in a Set
Kazuyoshi Ishikawa·································································································45
Labeling with Long Distance Feature Inheritance and Extraction out of Noun Phrases
Satoru Kanno··········································································································52
An Analysis of N-free X and N-less X Based on Construction Morphology
Yuki Kikuchi············································································································59
Labeling Algorithm に基づく主語・補語倒置の分析
小林亮哉（Ryoya Kobayashi）···············································································66
英語史における How come 構文の起源と発達について
近藤亮一（Ryoichi Kondo）
・玉田貴裕（Takahiro Tamada）······························72
言語における leakage 現象
森貞（Sadashi Mori）····························································································79
Featural Approach to Distinction of Copies and Repetitions
Takashi Munakata···································································································86
On the Domain of Minimal Search for Labeling
Takanori Nakashima·······························································································93
Morphological Markedness Hypothesis and Competition Theory: On Strong Resultatives
in Japanese and English

Kazuya Nishimaki····································································································99

構文イディオム化とその後の展開

大室剛志（Takeshi Omuro）···············································································106

Labeling Algorithm and Copy Deletion
Shogo Saito···········································································································113
受け身「ラレ」の形態分離と繋属述語仮説
高橋英也（Hideya Takahashi）
・中嶌崇（Takashi Nakajima）··························120
名詞句内における値未付与素性の役割とその帰結
田中祐太（Yuta Tanaka）····················································································127
The Origin of the Get-Passive Revisited
Junichi Toyota······································································································134
Gap between Reconstruction Effects for Binding and Scope
Hirokazu Tsutsumi·······························································································139
Speaking of 構文の成立過程に関する考察：構文化の観点から
山内昇（Noboru Yamauchi）···············································································145<Symposium Reports>
フェーズ境界を超える意味・音声解釈——フェーズ理論に基づく言語インターフェースの研究——

金子義明(Yoshiaki Kaneko)・高橋将一(Shoichi Takahashi)・稲田俊一郎(Shunichiro Inada)・瀧田健介（Kensuke Takita）・中村太一(Taichi Nakamura)・
前田雅子（Masako Maeda）·················································································152

破格構文・周辺的現象から見える言語の一般的特性

金谷優（Masaru Kanetani）
・三野貴志（Takashi Mino）
・辻早代加（Soyoka
Tsuji）
・住𠮷𠮷誠（Makoto Sumiyoshi）·································································156

統語-音韻インターフェイスに必要な情報の表示をめぐって
漆原朗子（Saeko Urushibara）・木村博子（Hiroko Kimura）・成田広樹（Hiroki
Narita）
・渡辺明（Akira Watanabe）
・多田浩章（Hiroaki Tada）[ディスカッサン
ト]··························································································································160
話しことばの研究と「スタンス」：言語形式から社会的アイデンティティまで

山下里香（Rika Yamashita）
・鈴木亮子（Ryoko Suzuki）
・高梨博子（Hiroko
Takanashi）
・岩田祐子（Yuko Iwata）・堀内ふみ野（Fumino Horiuchi）······164<Workshop Reports>
言語の多様性再考：外在化の観点から
北田伸一（Shin-Ichi Kitada）・那須川訓也（Kuniya Nasukawa）・前田雅子（Masako Maeda）・北原久嗣（Hisatsugu Kitahara）···········································168

英語史における形式の出現と消失について―生成文法理論による説明
松元洋介（Yosuke Matsumoto）・横越梓（Azusa Yokogoshi）・近藤亮一（Ryoichi
Kondo）
・山村崇斗（Shuto Yamamura）·····························································170
意味論・語用論的な分析が求められる言語現象とは何か
水谷謙太（Kenta Mizutani）
・平山裕人（Yuto Hirayama）・井原駿（Shun Ihara）······························································································································172

II. Papers from the Twelfth International Spring ForumThe Predicate Structure of Past Participial Reduced Relatives in English
Bai Chigchi···········································································································177
Remarks on Root Removal and Placement Verbs
Hideaki Gen’ey·····································································································184
Syntactic Nature and Semantic Effect of Dative Case in Japanese
Takashi Kayashima·······························································································191
Notes on Reciprocals in Korean and Japanese Ellipsis
Mika Kizu・Kazumi Yamada················································································197
Topic in Nuclear Scope
Takeo Kurafuji······································································································204

On the Semantics of the Japanese Degree Morpheme hoo

Kenta Mizutani·····································································································211
Negative WH-Phrases in Japanese
Takeshi Oguro······································································································218

Free Rule Ordering in There Constructions

Jun Omune············································································································225

A Case Study in Monadic Concepts : Comparative Constructions

Norio Suzuki·········································································································229

On Part-Whole Relations Expressed by Partitive and A out of B Constructions

Hideki Tanaka·······································································································236
How People Understand Each Other in Interaction Using Figurative Language:Comparing Japanese and English Task-based Dialogues
Midori Tanimura・Koichiro Nakamoto・Etsuko Yoshida···································243
Diachronic Changes in Expressions of Perception in the English Grammar
Junichi Toyota·······································································································250

Comparisons and Speech Acts in Japanese Exclamatives
Akitaka Yamada·····································································································256
Two Types of Anti-causatives in English: A Cross-linguistic Perspective

Masaki Yasuhara····································································································263<Workshop Report>
Pair-Merge under MERGE
Jun Omune・Hisatsugu Kitahara・Masayuki Oishi・Masashi Nomura··············270
JELS原稿作成上の注意·········································································································272

[I]Thirty-Seventh Conference
November 9-10, 2019 de zvr tTwpk
Selkirk (1986) Nespor & Vogel (1986)©
N&Sªde%+£¢kXr(KzRH
,#$

-

01

/



de

zn!

wm}lSelkirk (1996)kX¨;ZpuX$G>3, XP FF

2On Richness of Agreement and PhonologicalPhrasing3

rdeFF!

{|/nnxm©Truckenbrodt (1999)9ª«( 2Yoshihito Dobashi3&)(2) ALIGN(XP, R/L; φ, R/L): The right/left edgeof each syntactic XP is aligned with the right/leftedge of a phonological phrase φ.

!2Niigata University3401, ,#$, ,'"%*, +.01





okSVO XgkNP  VP Fr{|deF /nk#2 t.<wm} (3a) J^7`

1. 
 X=]oa<wdeS
kS

erLw«CEa<hrJ^7`©7`ª(3) a. [CP C [IP [NP Subj] I0AUX [VP V [NP Obj]]]]mLwMoml(1) D

b. ( Cznb@e'7`r7` m
%+wkvhxdeS

ra<w©Selkirk (1980)ªl
ι, φ, ω  {  |   §   ¨  ¤ § Subj)φ ( I0AUX

VObj )φj v xkN&V (p.168) !

(4)kX$RHrk7`

@c©nonrecursive side« VO Xgª8N© intonational phrase ª k d e  © phonological

RHde+zwpk(5a)J^

phraseªke'X©prosodic wordªQzl(1)

xk(3b) d7` xk(5b)der%+w«1

(
)ι
)φ
(
)φ (
)ω (
)ω
(
)ω (
The boy
will eatthe ham(4) Phonological Phrase Formation: The domainof φ consists of a C which contains a lexical
head (X) and all Cs on its nonrecursive side up
to the C that contains another head outside of the

j 4?Qk:maximal projection of X.

Xde%+rk[C = clitic group]J^7`~utk#WUXX-_X
O%*\qw(5) a. [CP C [IP [NP Subj] I0AUX [VP V [NP Obj]]]]&fw"zlb. ( CO%*xmPXnUXk4@

kXr(KRH

Subj)φ (I0AUX

V)φ ( Obj )φde zrkO%*r\q¥XnUX

j v;ZkIi@ 60-w

kXr(KRHyde zvs}l(3b)deDxk{;Z@Y1Vle¦¡§[XTwkws}l )5kSVO XgkXr(KzRH:

3§[Xk(5b)dkXde BAzk;Z¤ª¢M¯­Ä (i) q¥¥Comp-t ?j!®¢ X«®

 (Aux, V) ­ÂPerlmutter (1968), Rizzi (1982)ÃÄ

 (ii) q¥g6Eu C £$
 







(10) ChiSato & Dobashi (2016) Â

pensi

che tchi ha incontrato

Who you.think C

has metS&DÃ¥eq¤g6Eu-Sw?ÂiComp-t ?Ã£"­T¢s9¯p¨

the linguists^x

‘Who do you think (that) has met the£­q'\R<(6)linguisti?

linguists?’ÂLexical Category ConditionÃ¤© (7)£Y

Pesetsky (2017: 997)

ª£Fbh]­g6Eu that ¥O¯(.¢ %2(2)«(5)Cj*=¤(.LI ­ S&D ¤T¢>¥(10)(6) q'\R<Ä^x ¥q'h]iT­¤£"Fbh]¥iT­ÂTruckenbrodt (1999), Selkirk (1984)Ã
(7) * ( Comp )φ¤ Comp-t ?¤G¯s9­ ¢§¬±·¾°q© (10)  (9)¤¯(.(7)£ª¬1~®­ rM­
Dobashi (2017, 2019) ¥½º¿°¿´¾¶»ÂChomsky (2013, 2015)Ã¤a8(8)¤ª£that ¥)_­Tq ¯ SM ±À·Á¹²±µ£­k|£5P

£§®­ (7)£z¢(9)¤ª£q/®­ O¯(.­ £¢¬(7)¤z ¢­Äthat

Tk|£ª

`®­ 7¢

:#2@Âminimal searchÃ½º¿ BJohn )φ­¤¤ SO ¥ C-I ±À·Á¹²±µ{I¢k|+«®­Ä)φ(11) H is the label in {H, XP}.

 S&D ¥ ¤ T >¤ © e q¤
Comp-t ?¤D¢ T0­d¯s9

§lqmZ¤;­q'UÂlexical itemÃV3

 ¤>¥(5)¤¤Jfy¦ (i)(12)¤ª¢SO ¥:#2@¥¡«½º¿£¢­(ii)§¬*=¤(.¤¼³¸¶»¤

K§«¢(12a, b)£Yª£F&,¯4 ­;t¥N£ (i)¯Âsyntactic object SOÃ¤¥(11)£Yª£{H, XP}  SO  H (9) *whoi do you think [CP that [IP ti [VP ate it ]]](^x(.L¯4A½º¿°¿´¾¶»(8) whati do you think [CP that [IP John [VP ate ti]]]( thatDbh] f ¥½º¿£¢®­root R ¤ª¢qa­®£§H[ Comp-t'h]¥½º¿£¢®¢ a«®­¤?¯Y¢lq£Bn­{f, R}¥f ½º¿£¢­Ä

2. Comp-t ?¤G

(12) In {f, R},q-yq}¤v¢c(-¯Yqa. f is labelable since it is a functionalWQÂpro-dropÃ¯o±·¾°q¤ª¢lq

element that determines category.

4

b. ... )φ ( C Subj )φ ( T R-v* )φ ( Obj )φb. R is unlabelable since it alone is too“weak” to serve as a label.
Chomsky (2013:47)

wfPb>Avsppα cK R ¢«¬tR­x1#-5

{pPb>A C-I pf XEr

Wwpα xmn}Yi|pObj w

x R lXErpst{Hq*mnx'*|qβ  R-v*¥©

{{p{x^&LD3(6)ds¦§¤©zymnElX

{=F|sqSM

p;RVMx

Erqγ  T T^mnEXE

lXEr^&VMxXErq{r1#-5-G|pγ xmnEYi

tPbmnYikl"I(p|pT  R-v*w*mnx'*|qδNasukawa & Backley (2015),/|sK] R ¢«¬tR­x1#-5

q{wp (13).6q-G|pδ xmnEYi|pC  Subj w
mnx'*|qO4Ep(5)W(13) Pb®mnl"I(¯oN&V ~mn?{qPbmn

o { SO mnEYist£ª«¡p§¤©zysVM

xXEr"}p§¤©zyo oyp ¨^ £Z^ Comp-t 4
7[}tq(17)HtpChomsky

VMlXErqoo(2015)pS')`w|o |pSO mnEYip§¤©z©

^t pro-drop \Z^ Infl/T §¨¦9pJV@1#-5¤©zy%}qyp ¨<!| !¯oo(14) Pb mnEYi¯
Pb ph§¤©zysV
Mx1#-N-G|pmn}Yi|q(17) T is labelable in Italian.

o pT^p§¤©zk}p(15)

(18) a. ... [ R-v* [δ tR [ C [ Subj [γ Tlabelable [ tSubjtp(18a)Pb8e"}p (18b)tmnx'*|{¯[β R-v* [α tR Obj ]]]]]]]]!|s¯b. ... )φ ( C Subj Tlabelable R-v* )φ ( Obj )φ(15) R and T are unlabelable in English.
¬Chomsky (2015)­ ¨^pT^C T x§¤©zypγ mnEYi|pSubj  T{aup ET^2E0jmn

>A SO mnEYiQutq(16a)(10) = (19a)t ¨^cK “Mary thinks that John will buy the camera.”^x+y|p(19b)HtpU

t0pcKwK v*P 

0:_ che  R-v*¬° incontrato­~mn

>AH}p(16b)mnEYiH¯${p(7)gs¯(16) a. ... [ R-v* [δ tR [ C [ Subj [γ T [ tSubj(19) a. Chi[β R-v* [α tR Obj ]]]]]]]]

B'*|sqtppensi

che tchi ha incontrato

Who you.think C

5

has metilinguisti?

X$-;gLn'the linguists

M{XXkgybP

‘Who do you think (that) has met the¡geminate¢tusovn(21a)

linguists?’b. ( Chi pensi )φ ( che tchi ha incontrato )φXy$-;gLyn'M
WXkgbPto}n( i linguisti )φXWcghBy

bP

e9t}Fo7(21b)n}unS&D  Comp-t 5ghD

X'MWc RS y`A~n

4nT N&+\x~zn}ypgh#}yxoXw| Comp-t 58Y1z(21) a. Papá
mangia.
daddy eat.3SG(Papá)φ (mangia)φ‘Daddy is eating.’
b. La cecitá
puó
essere guarita.
the blindness can.3SG becure.PPessere guarita)φ(La ceritá)φ (puó
‘Blindness can be cured.’¡Ghini (1993)¢}onpro-drop  Comp-t 58d_.v}yz¡Pesetsky (2017)?¢o
3. Xghm
m H£I^ un(3nSVO Xi
Xy'MQK

gh#~z oxnH¤I[Zy:tn XUXn(3@Zm 2Z/A SO Ta{gh=S"CnX'MQK&,<n (19b)F un X

cnghjRy`A~Xy'MQKgh#==on}=%*

n(21)ghY1ztu

6Vo)oxnNapoli & Nespor (1979) n XnXy'MQKc RS
y`A~}S"t¥

3.1  Xm
m N&V fn XghEGnXy'MQK

(22) a. La città • cadde.

gh#tu

S"yODso‘The city fell’ v  n (20) b. L’ultimo re • morì.

Raddoppiamento Sintattico (RS) g‘The last king died.’hjXB]v`A~R

c. La religione che pratica • perde fedeli.

nX'MQKc`A~t}‘The religion he practices is losing

yS"~t¥adherents.’(20) Raddoppiamento Sintattico RS
C → [+long] /    [ ... [ ... V ]ω [ __ [+son, -nas] ... ]ω ...]φ(where the vowel V bears the main stress of
the word)}}nq•rnRS y`A~t}Fto(22a)
(22b)

!XxXnlXuXn(23c)dI

uXysnnWc RS

N&V (p.170)

y`A~toNapoli & Nespor (1979:
RS nJ>^ngh

830ff.)nXn0ksnX

nsXy6w(N,Vw(pomnl RVl$G_Ve RS xa:y/Bl Cheng & Downing (2009)p©±§Y

3

*+}sq {Px4}spV¢²¯²VpT­¡&[(19b)ghx4}s{qwV-_VJxrppro-drop Sq|l |pD’Alessandro & Scheer (2015) p

p`£®Vª¯¥¦.Rvsp^}pUk³topic´}Qc|$EVxA=|8pRS 2GOF

gh

pghDVVwµ>@g-3Z

a:|gdg

7\xpM

ghq{RV

E  5 g x d gTea:|{P}

sq(23)pM-3Z chə xpV$GOF~gh  ³ Penultimate

Lengthening¶PL´q(24a)pVxUk}T ve 

Qc|pPL a:zssq{jgdg !y]{}s¶}(25b)pVxUk}Qc|(23) Jè mmeje
is betterPL a:zs¶chə vve.
that come.3SG(24) a. ú-Síph’ ú-phekél’‘It’s better that he/she comes.’(D’Alessandro & Scheer 2015: 614)

ú-Thánd’

1-Sipho SM1-cook.for 1-Thandi
in-kû:khu)φ.

{pM-3Z chə  T ve egh

9-chicken‘Sipho cooked chicken for Thandi.’b. ín-kosíka:zi)φ í-théngel’ábá-fán’

;xs{C}sq[wJ#') ­«¯zy^E T xg
h#(fpche  ve x~gh}sIuq

SM9-buy.for
9-womanízím-ba:tho)φ.

2-boy

l p%1P|s(21)tV

10-clothesgh#(³pVx$GOF

‘The woman is buying clothes for thegh´tW/|boys.’ (Cheng & Downing (2009: 209))

twqFrascarelli (2007) p£®Vp TLV A ©²H

0X" (14) x4}sp¢²¯²9]}Uk³topic´}Qc|t{PVp£®V2p[wJ#'C}sq Frascarelli (2000) pUk | T x­«¯zypgh?Qc|sOFK±§¨² ¬±#({qtpUk

{P}s³±§²¨² ¬±p<V$GOF³(1)Ctpghghi

h;x#(|p(24a)tpVr´q{{wp(21)tp$G

 PL a:zsq{}p(24b)

OF gh|y£®

p£®V2pVxUk

VVpUk|±§¨²² ¬±#(pPL a:z¬±#(}vpUk|spW/yq| Spec-T
T´eg|±§¨

V TP *b<p(22)tp$G

l p©±§YV¤°Vp(24)2

OF~gh{Iu

7\xP|s³Cheng & Downingq(2016: 160) 6´qvp£®V2p¢²¯²V³Zeller 2004: 9)p¤°V

7ÑBresnan & Mchombo (1987: 756)ÒComp-t *K¾e£°¢®x)£¼¬»t¤¨g±jÐP¾¨·²­» N±X

Hdh³fd 15H03213Ñ

ÉÇÍÀ~³°~-~r¾e¤pro-drop ¾|¤ÑRitter (1988)Ò

Hg³DHs~'i 37 "­`tqÓF,

#Ò, 17K02806 ²@¾ ¬»Comp-t K¾e£°ÑBorer 1984Ò§¤¬S1~³4o¦»ul®¥±+¦¢®(4) ² C ³N&V 3~®²±x)£¼¬»ÑShaked (2007)Ò{(¦»3k^ÑClitic GroupÒ¾=¦ ¢¼±*¤ÇÍÂÏÐËÏÆÁÏ~ÑBPÒ³2

s~N~-~r±¸»2:a!±TheoryÒ­³(6)²7u9±_<¡ ¹¤~b\¾|£°ÑFortuny (2008:¼¬»H­³ (6) ¾&1°I133)Ò§¤¬Sandalo & Truckenbrodt (2002)

/² Elfner (2012)°¯²ÌÅÄYÑMatch®¤¬(¤¾¶»
Napoli & Nespor (1979: 830ff.)²A³ ±¸»®.±~4o¦»ul®³²

3

±+¦¨©¤¢²y~³ Comp-t K²º­»Ó “..., we find that RS is possible¾e£°¢®c¹¼¬»Barbosa et al.

between the last word of the subject and the first(2005) ±¸»®BP ³5±}4o~

word of the predicate whenever the subject isÑpost-verbal subjectÒ¾$ªª»Q±sentence-initial—regardless»ªµº~²Z±¤¬BP ³ÀÃÎ¿subject is a single word, several words, or a~ÃÀÈ²y~¹s~ÃÀÈ²y~´®!complex NP.”ofwhetherthe¤ªª»®p¼¼»T 5±ÍÊÏ­° T ±!¦»Q±»®p¹¼

pAW

Comp-t K²O%³¢¼±¤¨X­Barbosa, Pilar, Maria Eugênia L. Duarte, and»®8½¼»

Mary K. Kato (2005) “Null Subjects in
European and Brazilian Portuguese,” Journal

4. m~

of Portuguese Linguistics 4, 11-52.

 6J~³4o¦»ul®²±

Borer, Hagit (1984) Parametric Syntax, Foris,³+¦®£¼2;R·§²¸±(0Dordrecht.

£¼¬¨Dobashi (2017, 2019) ?L¤

Bresnan, Joan, and Sam A. Mchombo (1987)¨(14)²2;R±¸ºComp-t K²“Topic,GV²y~²-] T ²r2:²£Chichewa,” Language 63, 741-782.

±·®«¬a±E£¼»¸±°»

Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Laura J. DowningC­6J²x)®³]°º°~r(2009) “Where’s the Topic in Zulu?” The

2:¾e¦y~­³¾

Linguistic Review 26, 207-238.

®¤¬Pronoun,andAgreementin[£¼»v~®4o¦»ul®²­Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Laura J. Downing[£¼»®T¦»¢®±°»H³¢²(2016) “Phasal Syntax = Cyclic Phonology?”

T²&19¾e¦¾ª>¡¨

Syntax 19, 156-191.

Hdh³6J²dh®³]°ºnChomsky,

M©

Noam

(2013)“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.

­°r2:²£®xU¹±½»X¾zÐE¦»®B¨

Chomsky,Noam(2015)“Problemsof°wU¾?¦»·²­»®8½¼»Projection: Extensions,” Structures, Strategies
and Beyond, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico,8Cornelia Hamann, and Simona Matteini, 3-16,

Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel (1986)

John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Prosodic Phonology, Foris, Dordrecht.

D’Alessandro, Roberta, and Tobias Scheer

Perlmutter, David M (1968) Deep and Surface(2015) “Modular PIC,” Linguistic Inquiry 46,

Structure Constraints in Syntax, Doctoral

593-624.

dissertation, MIT.
and

Pesetsky, David (2017) “Complementizer-Trace

Phonological

Effects,” The Wiley Blackwell Companion toExternalization 4, ed. by Hisao Tokizaki, 9-23,

Syntax, 2nd Edition, ed. by Martin Everaert

Sapporo University, Sapporo.

and Henk C. van Riemsdijk, 993-1026, Wiley

Dobashi, Yoshihito (2019) Externalization:

Blackwell, Oxford.

PhonologicalRitter, Elizabeth Ann (1988) A Case Study in the

Dobashi,

Yoshihito

Phonological(2017) “LabelingPhrasing,”

InterpretationsofSyntactic

Syntax of Agreement, Doctoral dissertation,

Objects, Routledge, London.
Elfner,Emily(2012)

MIT.

Syntax-ProsodyInteractions in Irish, Doctoral dissertation,

Rizii, Luigi (1982) Issues in Italian Syntax, De

UMass., Amherst MA.

Gruyter Mouton, Berlin.

Frascarelli, Mara (2000) The Syntax-Phonology

Sandalo, Filomena, and Hubert Truckenbrodt

Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in(2002) “Some Notes on Phonological Phrasing in

Italian, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Brazilian Portuguese,” MIT Working Papers in

Frascarelli, Mara (2007) “Subjects, Topics and

Linguistics 42, 285-310.

the Interpretation of Referential pro: An

Sato, Yosuke and Yoshihito Dobashi (2016)

Interface Approach to the Linking of (Null)“Prosodic Phrasing and the That-Trace Effect,”

Pronouns,” Natural Language and Linguistic

Linguistic Inquiry 47, 333-349.

Theory 25, 691-734.

Selkirk, Elisabeth (1980) “Prosodic Domains in

Fortuny, Jordi (2008) The Emergence of Order

Phonology: Sanskrit Revisited,” Juncture, ed.

in Syntax, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

by Mark Aronoff and Mary-Louise Kean,

Ghini, Micro (1993) “Φ-Formation in Italian: A

107-129, Anma Libri, Saratoga, CA.

New Proposal,” Toronto Working Papers in

Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984) Phonology and Syntax,

Linguistics 12, 41-78.

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
(1990) “Focusing on

Selkirk, Elisabeth (1986) “On Derived Domains

Phonological Phrases in Chichewa,” The

in Sentence Phonology,” Phonology Yearbook

Phonology-Syntax Connection, ed. by Sharon3, 371-405.

Inkelas and Draga Zec, 145-161, University of

Shaked, Amit (2007) “Competing Syntactic andChicago Press, Chicago.

Phonological Constraints in Hebrew Prosodic

Napoli, Donna Jo, and Marina Nespor (1979)

Phrasing,” The Linguistic Review 24, 169-199.

“The

Consonant

Truckenbrodt, Hubert (1999) “On the Relation

Gemination in Italian,” Language 55, 812-841.

between Syntactic Phrases and PhonologicalNasukawa, Kuniya, and Phillip Backley (2015)

Phrases,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 219-255.

“Heads and Complements in Phonology: A

Zeller, Jochen (2004) “Left Dislocation inCase of Role Reversal?” Phonological Studies

Zulu,” ms., University of KwaZulu-Natal,

18, 67-74.

Nurban.

Kanerva,

Jonni M.

Syntaxof

Word-Initial9

it,...

(JOXINDEN-E2-P2,71.6)

本稿では、(3)のタイプの動名詞を混合動名詞と呼び、その出現と衰退に焦点をあてるが、上記の先行研究においては、混合動名詞の歴
混合動名詞の出現と衰退について*史的発達が十分に明らかにされていない。

（On the Rise and Decline of Hybrid Gerunds）

Tajima (1985)は中英語の動名詞のみを扱っており、近代英語以降の混合動名詞の発達に

平田 拓也（Takuya Hirata）

ついては何も述べていない。また、Visser

名古屋大学（Nagoya University）(1966)は英語史全体を通して混合動名詞の用例を観察しているものの、用例の列挙に留まっているため、その歴史的発達を明らかにキーワード：混合動名詞, 動詞的動名詞, 名
詞的動名詞, 接辞 ing, 構造拡張しているとは言い難い。
したがって、本稿の目的の 1 つは混合動名
詞の歴史的発達を、Tajima (1985)のデータ及び、2 つの近代英語のコーパス PPCEME と

1. はじめに
現代英語における動名詞は、(1)に例示さ

PPCMBE から得られたデータに基づき記述

れる動詞的動名詞と(2)に例示される名詞的することである。その際、混合動名詞の動名

1

詞全体の中での位置づけを明確にするため

動名詞に大別される。

に、動詞的動名詞、名詞的動名詞との比較も(1)... and that women can probably

行う。また、記述した歴史的発達を生成文法

achieve the same benefit by carefullyの枠組みを使いて説明を試みる。
本稿の構成は以下の通りである。
2 節では、

examining their own breasts once a(Collins #88168570)

Tajima (1985)における中英語の名詞的動名

The refurbishing of the kitchen will

詞、動詞的動名詞及び混合動名詞のデータを

cost a lot of money.

提示し、混合動名詞は 1450-1500 年に出現しmonth.
(2)たことを示す。その後、PPEME と PPCMBE(Declerck (1991: 498))から得られた近代英語におけるこれら 3 種(1)の動詞的動名詞は目的語を直接取る、副類の動名詞のデータを提示し、混合動名詞は詞による修飾が可能であるなどの動詞的な1700 年までは増加傾向にあったが、1700 年

性質を示す。対照的に、(2)の名詞的動名詞

以降は減少に転じたことを示す。3 節では、は前置詞 of を介して目的語を取ることや形

2 節で提示されたデータに基づき、混合動名

容詞による修飾が可能であること、限定詞と詞は限定詞付きの名詞的動名詞の構造に屈の共起が可能であることなどの名詞的な性折接辞としての ing を適用したことにより出質を示す。

現したと提案する。そして、動詞的動名詞の

しかしながら、英語史においてこれら 2 つ

構造が 1700 年以降に v*P から TP へと拡張の特性を併せ持つ(3)のような動名詞が存在したことが、混合動名詞の衰退に繋がったとし て い た こ と が 、 Tajima (1985) や Visser

主張する。4 節は結語である。

(1966)などで指摘されている。
2. データ(3)...that I allmost feare of the obtaining

2.1. 中英語10it(4)は Tajima (1985: 39, 80)における中英語

again'by service or by the giving it again'の動名詞のデータを一部抜粋したものであ(1450 Scrope DSP 234/25/ Tajima (1985: 80))

る。(4)のデータを見る前に、本稿での議論に関係する動名詞の具体例を(5)から(8)で示(5)と(6)は Tajima (1985)がそれぞれ Type 3 とし、その特性を観察する。

Type 4 と呼んでいるタイプの動名詞である。
(4) 中英語における目的語を伴う動名詞

これらの動名詞は of を介して目的語を取っ

1100-1200 1200-1250ていることからも分かるように、名詞的動名

Type 323

3

詞である。したがって、これらの例におけるType 48

9

接辞 ing は派生接辞であると考えられる。接Type 500

辞 ing の語基は動詞であり格付与能力を持つType 600が、この接辞が添加されると格付与能力が失われるため、目的語を取る際には前置詞 of

1250-1300 1300-1350
Type 319160が必要となる。これは、接辞 ing が派生接辞

Type 45103であり、動詞語基の範疇を名詞へと変えるこType 5123とを示している。Tajima では、これらの動名

Type 60

0

詞は限定詞の有無によって形式上区別されている。

1350-1400 1400-1450 1450-1500
Type 3

595

717

562

Type 4

250

414

594

Type 5

59

253

328

Type 6

0

0

12

(5)

次に、(7)の動名詞は Tajima が Type 5 と呼ぶタイプの動名詞である。Type 3, Type 4 とは異なり、このタイプの動名詞は前置詞 of
を介することなく目的語を取る。また、副詞との共起も可能である。これらの特性から、

with-oute hurtingue of ani-þing
without

hurting(7)は動詞的動名詞であると言える。また、of anything

この場合の接辞 ing は派生接辞ではなく、屈'without hurting of anything'

折接辞であると考えられる。屈折接辞は派生(c1280-90 The Early South-English Legendary

接辞とは異なり、添加した語基の範疇を変え

52.6/ Tajima (1985: 62))(6)aþet teない。前述したように、接辞 ing の語基は動schedunge of ower blod

until the sheddingof our詞であるが、接辞添加した後も格付与できる

bloodということは、この接辞が派生接辞であるこ'until the shedding of our blood'とを示している。

(?a1200 Ancrene Wisse 13/4-5/ Tajima (1985:

最後に、(8)は Tajima が Type 6 と呼ぶタイ

67))
(7)

bi

beryngbybearing patiently

プの動名詞であり、本稿では混合動名詞と呼paciently aduersite

ぶものである。このタイプの動名詞は(6)のadversity

Type 4 のように限定詞 the と共起できるこ'by patiently bearing adversity'とから、名詞的な特性を持つことが分かる。

(c1493 Treat.L 129.3-4/ Tajima (1985: 77))
(8)

or

bi

...by service

orby the givingit

一方で、(7)の Type 5 のように目的語を直接

the yeuynge...be seruice

取ること及び副詞と共起できることから、動詞的な特性も持つことが分かる。後者の特性

a-yenから、Type 6 の接辞 ing も屈折接辞であると11考えられる。
次に、(4)のデータを見てみると、3 つの注(9)のデータから 3 つの事実を読み取るこ

目すべき点がある。1 点目は、中英語を通しとができる。まず、名詞的動名詞は 1569 年て名詞的動名詞が動名詞全体の中で優位にまでは動名詞全体の中で最も高い割合を占あったことである。さらに細かく見ると、めていたが、1570 年以降は減少に転じた。

Type 3 は 1100 年から 1450 年までは増加傾向

しかしながら、近代英語を通じて一定程度のにあるが、1450 年以降は減少している。一割合を保っていることが分かる。

方で、Type 4 は 1300 年以降増加し、1450 年

次に、動詞的動名詞は 1570 年以降、名詞には Type 3 を上回る生起数になっていたこ的動名詞に代わり、動名詞全体の中で最も高とが分かる。

い割合を占めるようになった。

2 点目に、Type 5 は 1250 年から 1300 年の最後に、混合動名詞は近代英語を通じて動間に初出例が観察されて以来、着実に増加し名詞全体の中で最も低い割合ではあったもていたことが分かる。

のの、1500 年から 1700 年までは増加してい最後に、Type 6 は 1450 年から 1500 年の間たことが分かる。特に、1640 年から 1700 年に 12 例観察されており、他のタイプの動名の間には全体の中で 7％を占めるまでになっ詞に比べるとかなり遅い時期に出現したこた。しかし、1700 年以降は減少に転じた。

とが分かる。

1700 年から 1769 年まではピーク時よりも若干減る程度だが、1770 年から 1839 年には全2.2 近代英語体の 1.4%まで大幅に減少し、1840 年から
1914 年の間にはさらに減少し、全体の 1%を

PPCEME と PPCMBE を使用した調査から切るまでになった。

得られた、近代英語における名詞的動名詞、動名詞全体の歴史的発達に加えて、具体例

動詞的動名詞、混合動名詞のデータは(9)に示される。2を見てみると、(10)と(11)に示されるように、
近代英語になると動詞的動名詞と混合動名
詞は having + 過去分詞の形式で完了相を表(9) 近代英語における目的語を取る動名詞
1500-1569 1570-1639 1640-1700

すようになったことが観察される。

296

183

動名詞

332
(63.4%)(40.9%)(18.1%)

(10)

動詞的

185

409

755

動名詞

(33.9%)(55.6%)(74.6%)

混合

7

19

71

動名詞

(1.3%)(2.6%)(7.0%)

名詞的

Yet this Caput mortuum was so far
from having lost its Electrical Faculty...
(BOYLE-E3-H,25E.82)(11)...he was soe thorowlly bewiched as toowne the haveing writ it,...
(ANHATTON-E3-P1,2,152.12)

1700-1769 1770-1839 1840-1914
名詞的

49

75

69

動名詞

(4.8%)(7.3%)(9.5%)

これは動詞的動名詞と混合動名詞が新たな

動詞的

895

942

652

動詞的特性を獲得したことを示しており、完動名詞(88.4%)(91.3%)(89.2%)

了相を表す動名詞が 16 世紀初頭に出現した

混合

69

14

5

動名詞

(6.8%)(1.4%)(0.7%)とする宇賀治 (2000)の記述と一致する。
ここまで見てきた混合動名詞の名詞的動名詞及び動詞的動名詞との類似性は次の通12りである。混合動名詞は限定詞を伴うという

屈折接辞としての ing の両方が存在していた点において名詞的動名詞との類似性を示す。

ことになる。

一方、混合動名詞は目的語を直接取る、副詞

以上の議論に基づき、混合動名詞は、限定との共起が可能である、having + 過去分詞の詞を伴う名詞的動名詞の構造に対して屈折形式で完了相表すことが可能であるという 3

接辞としての ing を適用する選択肢が利用可点において動詞的動名詞との類似性を示す。

能になったことにより出現したと提案する。

以上の観察から分かるように、混合動名詞は

この提案を実装するために、限定詞を伴う名

名詞的動名詞よりも動詞的動名詞と多くの詞的動名詞の構造と 1700 年までの動詞的動特性を共有していると言える。

名詞の構造は、それぞれ(12)と(13)であると
仮定する。

3. 提案
この節では、混合動名詞の出現及び衰退に(12)[DP D [nP [n V + ing] [PP P NP]]]

ついて、生成文法の枠組みにおいて説明を試(13)[v*P Subj [v*ʹ[v* V+ing] [VP tV Obj]]]

みる。
まず、混合動名詞の出現には次の 2 つの要

限定詞を伴う名詞的動名詞では、ing は派生因が関与していると主張する。第一に、接辞としてレキシコンで V に添加して名詞

Fanego (2015)は限定詞を伴わない名詞的動を形成し、この V+ing から成る名詞は統語構

名詞は動詞的動名詞の発達に貢献したのに造において n に生起すると仮定する。一方、

対し、限定詞を伴う名詞的動名詞は混合動名

屈折接辞としての ing は v*に生起し、V から詞の発達に貢献したと述べている。本稿ではv*への主要部移動により V に添加されるとこの見解に従い、限定詞付きの名詞的動名詞仮定する。また、屈折接辞としての ing は動が混合動名詞の出現の 1 つの要因であった

詞語基の範疇を変えないため、それが持つ項と仮定する。この仮定は 2.1 節で見た Tajima

構造は変化しないと考えられる。したがって、(1985)のデータからも支持される。それによ

動詞語基が 2 項動詞である場合には、Subj

ると、混合動名詞が出現した 1450 年からで示される外項も存在することになる。

1500 年の間には、Type 4 の方が Type 3 より

混合動名詞は(12)の構造に対して屈折接も数的に多くなってきた。これは、名詞的動辞としての ing が適用されることにより、名詞の中で前者が後者に取って代わりつつ(12)の nP が v*P へと変化するものの、そのあったことを示していると考えられる。した上位の D 主要部が保持された結果生じたとがって、混合動名詞が出現した時期に、名詞提案する。具体的な出現過程は(14)で示す通的動名詞の中で優勢であったのは Type 4 のりである。

名詞的動名詞であり、それが混合動名詞の出(14)

現に関わる要因となったという考えは自然

a. [DP D [nP [n V + ing ] [PP P NP]]]→ b. [DP D [v*P Subj [v* V + ing] [VP tV

であると思われる。
2 つ目の要因は、動詞的動名詞の出現及びObj]]]

その増加によって屈折接辞としての ing のス
テータスが確立されつつあったことである。

(14a)の n 主要部にある派生接辞としての ing

名詞的動名詞が動詞的動名詞の出現以前かに対して、屈折接辞としての ing が適用されら存在していたことを考慮すると、動詞的動た結果、(14b)のように nP が v*P へと変化す

名詞の出現以降は、派生接辞としての ing とる。これは、屈折接辞としての ing が語基で13

ある動詞の範疇を変えないためである。一方、 的動名詞が TP まで構造を拡張し始めたこと
D 主要部は、nP よりも構造上高い位置を占を示していると考えられる。Visser はそのよめるため、派生接辞の ing が屈折接辞の ing

うな例を 1914 年までの期間に 8 例観察してに置き換わったとしても影響を受けることいるが、(16)以外の 7 例は 1700 年以降のテはなく、そのまま保持される。この提案によクストからの引用である。これを考慮すると、り、2.2.節で見た混合動名詞の名詞的動名詞

動詞的動名詞の v*P から TP への構造変化は及び動詞的動名詞との類似性が説明される。

1700 年以降に本格化したと考えられる。
2 つ目は、(17)のような対格主語動名詞の名詞的動名詞との類似性については、(14b)の混合動名詞の構造でも D 主要部が保持さ増加である。

れているため、限定詞の生起が可能であると(17)説明される。一方、動詞的動名詞との類似性

I ask where possibly at Compton Greenについては、(14b)の構造は v*を含むので、

there could be pictures without me

目的語への格付与が可能になる。また、

knowing it.

v*P/VP は副詞により修飾されるため、副詞(1872 W. Besant & J. Rice, Ready Moneyとの共起が可能であることも説明される。さMortiboy i, 289/ Visser (1966: 1184))

らに、完了相を表す having + 過去分詞の形
式は、have が v*主要部に、過去分詞が V 主

対格主語動名詞は動詞的動名詞の一種であ要部に基底生成されると暫定的に仮定する

り、Pires (2006)は現代英語の対格主語動名詞

3を TP として分析している。もしこれが正しことにより説明される。

次に、混合動名詞の衰退に関しては、1700

いとすると、(17)のような対格主語動名詞の年以降に、動詞的動名詞の構造が(13)から TP

増加は、動詞的動名詞が TP 構造を持つよう構造を持つ(15)に拡張し始めたことに起因になったこと示す証拠となる。

すると提案する。
(18) 1477 年から 1914 年の対格主語動名詞(15)[TP Subj [Tʹ T [EPP] [v*P tSubj [v*ʹ [v* V +1477-1500 1500-1569 1570-1639

ing] [VP tV Obj]]]]]

3

1

2

1640-170001700-1769 1770-1839 1840-1914
この構造の拡張は 2 つの証拠から支持され

1

4る。 1 つ目は、Visser (1966)が指摘する虚辞

1

14(Cf. Visser (1966))の there が動名詞に生起する(16)のような事実である。

(18)は Visser が挙げている対格主語動名詞の例について、1477 年から 1914 年までの分布(16)

Epicurus and his scholars of old... makeをまとめたものである。Visser はこの期間にthis an argument of there being no God.

22 例を観察しているが、(18)に示されるよう(1657-83 John Evelyn, Hist, Religion, I, 79/に、22 例中 16 例が 1700 年以降のものであVisser 1966: 1185)

る。さらに、この 16 例中 14 例が 1840-1914
年の間に集中している。これは、1914 年ま

虚辞の there は T の EPP 素性を満たすために、でに動詞的動名詞の構造の TP への拡張が完

TP 指定部に併合されると一般に仮定されて了したことを示す。以上の議論から、動詞的いる。これを踏まえると、(16)の例は、動詞

14

動名詞の TP への構造拡張は 1700 年頃からともなかったと考えられる。結果として、始まり、1914 年までには確立されたと考え1700 年以降、混合動名詞は動詞的動名詞とられる。一方で、混合動名詞については、虚も名詞的動名詞とも異なる特殊な構造を持

辞の there や対格主語との共起を示す事例がつようになったため容認されにくくなり、衰今回の調査及び筆者の知る限りの文献等に退していったと説明される。

ないことから、動詞的動名詞のような構造の
4. 結語

拡張はなく、(14b)の構造を保持し続けたと

本 稿 で は 、 Tajima (1985) の デ ー タ 及 び考えられる。
この動詞的動名詞の構造拡張の時期は混PPCEME と PPCMBE のデータに基づき、混合動名詞の衰退の時期と一致しており、混合

合動名詞は 1450-1500 年に観察されて以来、動名詞の衰退に何らかの影響を与えたと考1700 年頃までは増加傾向にあったが、1700えられる。本稿では、動詞的動名詞が TP ま

年以降に減少し始めたことを明らかにした。

で構造が拡張したことと混合動名詞の衰退

混合動名詞は、(12)の限定詞付きの名詞的動には、以下のような関係があると主張する。

名詞の構造に、屈折接辞の ing が適用されることにより出現したと主張した。また、1700(19)

動詞的動名詞:年までの混合動名詞の増加については、TP1700 年以前は節構造を持たない。

を持たないという点で混合動名詞と動詞的(= TP を含まない構造である。)

動名詞の構造が類似していたため、動詞的動1700 年以降節構造を持つ。

名詞が増加傾向にあった影響を受けて、混合(= TP を含む構造である。)

動名詞も増加したと主張した。
1700 年以降、混合動名詞:

動詞的動名詞の構造が TP へと拡張したが、出現から 1914 年まで節構造を持た

混合動名詞には変化が起きなかったため、両ない構造を保持する。

者は異なる構造を持つことになった。さらに、(= TP を含まない構造を保持する。)

名詞的動名詞とは異なり、混合動名詞は完全な名詞句構造を持たないことから(14b)が特(19)に示されるように、1700 年以前の動詞的殊な構造になり、いずれの動名詞との類推に動名詞と混合動名詞は共に節構造を持たなよっても容認されなくなったため、衰退してい、つまり TP を含まない構造を持つ点で類いったと説明した。

似していた。この類似性から、動詞的動名詞が増加傾向になると、混合動名詞も増加した* 本稿は第 37 回大会 (2019 年 11 月 10 日、と考えられる。これは、動詞的動名詞との類

於: 関西学院大学)における口頭発表原稿に推により混合動名詞の構造が容認されてい加筆、修正を加えたものである。本研究を進たことを意味する。その後、1700 年以降にめるに際し、大室剛志先生、田中智之先生か

動詞的動名詞は節構造、つまり TP を含む構ら貴重な助言を頂いた。また、研究発表時に造を持つようになったのに対し、混合動名詞

諸先生方から大変有益なご指摘や助言を頂の構造は(14b)のままであった。そのため、いた。この場を借りて、感謝の意を表する。

動詞的動名詞との構造上の類似性は失われ

なお、本稿における不備や誤りは全て筆者のた。また、混合動名詞の構造は名詞的動名詞

責任によるものである。

とは異なり、完全な名詞句構造でもないため、

注
1

名詞的動名詞との類推により容認されるこ

15

いくつかの先行研究では、(i)の所有格主語

dissertation, MIT.

動名詞も動詞的動名詞に分類されている。
(i)

Declerck, Rennat (1991) A Comprehensive

I don't mind your / John's using mybedroom.

Descriptive(Declerck (1991: 495))

Grammarof

English,Kaitakusya, Tokyo.

しかしながら、本稿では所有格主語動名詞を
動詞的動名詞には含めない。これは、所有格

Fanego, Teresa (2015) "Multiple Sources in

主語動名詞が所有格主語を伴うという点でLanguage Change: the Role of Free

名詞的特性を示すが、同時に目的語を直接取Adjuncts and Absolutes in the Formation ofるなどの動詞的特性も示すからである。このEnglish ACC-ing Gerundives," Perspective点において、所有格主語動名詞は混合動名詞

on complementation: Structure, variationと同じ性質を示すため、両者は同じタイプのand boundaries, ed. by Mikko Höglund

動名詞であると考えられるが、ここでは所有

Paul Rickman Juhani Rudanko and Jukka

格主語動名詞を考察の対象から外すことに

Havu,

する。

Bastingsotke.

2

179-205,

Palgrave

Macmillan,

Pires, Acrisio (2006) The Minimalist Syntax of

紙幅の都合上、(9)では Tajima (1985)におけう Type 3 と Type 4 を合わせて名詞的動名詞

Defective

Domains:

Gerundsandとしている。

Infinitives, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

完了を表す have が何らかの上位の機能主

Sato, Hiromi (2005) "Nominal and Verbal

要部に基底生成する可能性を排除できていCategories – A Study Based on English

ないため、この仮定は暫定的なものである。

Gerunds and Japanese Verbal Noun Clauses,

4" Studies in Humanities 157, 139-175.

3

いくつかの文献では(e.g. Sato (2005))、

Tajima,having + 過去分詞が可能であることが T 主

Matsuji(1985)

The

Syntactic

要部の証拠とされることがあるが、完了相のDevelopment of the Gerund in Middle

存在は必ずしも T 主要部があることの証拠

English, Nan'un-do, Tokyo.

とはならない。例えば、(i)のように所有格主宇賀治正朋 (2000) 『英語史』 開拓社, 東京.

語動名詞は having + 過去分詞の形式をとる

Visser,Fredericus,

Theodorus(1966)

Anことが可能であるが、(ii)のように一般に TP

Historical Syntax of the English Language,

内に生起すると考えられる文副詞とは共起Part II, E.J. Brill, Leiden.

できない。そのため、本稿は当該の形式の利
コーパス

用可能性が T 主要部の証拠とはならないとKroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Ariel

仮定する。
(i)
(ii)

John’s having passed this exam surprised

Diertani (2010) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed

us.

Corpus(Sato (2005: 145))

ofModernBritishEnglish?* John’s fortunately knowing the(PPCMBE), University of Pennsylvania,

answer kept me from falling.

Philadelphia.
Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Lauren(Abney (1987: 180))

Delfs (2004) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed
CorpusSentential

ModernEnglishPhiladelphia.

Abney, Steven (1987) The English Noun Phrase
Its

Early

(PPCEME), University of Pennsylvania,

参考文献

in

of

Aspect,

The Collins Wordbanks Online (Collins)

Doctoral16

information focus (E-IFoc). This dichotomy
leads scholars to explore the presence of E-IFoc
fronting phenomena across languages. Amongthem are Trotzke and Quaglia (2016), which
Information Focus Fronting and Emphasis:make the following two-fold claim: first, E-IFoc

A Case Study of Preposing around Be

fronting is substantiated from certain instanceswith Adjective Preposing*of particle fronting in German; second, theMasatoshi Honda
Yokohama College of Commerce“emphatic”

natureofassociatedwithlexical

E-IFocfronting

extremeness

is
(cf.

Morzycki (2012)). Such research has been
dedicated

Keywords：emphasis, focus fronting, lexicaltofocus-related

phenomenainRomance languages and German; however, lessextremeness, Preposing around Be

attention has been paid to English.
Based on these research backgrounds,
extending

1. Introduction

TrotzkeandQuaglia’s(2016)

approach to English, this paper demonstrates

Since the early stage of generative grammarthat the presence of E-IFoc fronting is supported(e.g. Gundel (1974)), it has been argued thatby Preposing around Be in English, especiallycertain word order alternations contribute tothose which include preposed adjectives.

contrastive focus, in which an element isThis paper is organized as follows. Section 2

highlighted by virtue of being contrasted andreviews Cruschina (2012) and Trotzke andselected from a set of alternatives.

Quaglia (2016). Section 3 argues that thepresence of E-IFoc fronting is corroborated by(1)[YOUR BOOK]CFoc you should give t to

Preposing around Be in English. Section 4

Paul (not mine).

[Focus Fronting]outlines the derivation of Preposing around Be(Rizzi (1997: 285), with slight modifications)on the basis of the E-IFoc approach. Section 5
concludes this paper.

Within the recent framework of the cartographyof syntactic structures, Rizzi (1997) proposes

2. Two Types of Focus Frontingthat the traditional CP domain splits into

2.1. Cruschina (2012)multiple discourse-related functional projections

According to Cruschina (2012), focus issuch as Topic and Focus. In his original split CP

mainly divided into two types: information focus

hypothesis, focus fronting is assumed to target a(IFoc) and contrastive focus (CFoc). The former

unique focus projection in the CP domain. By

is defined as the assertive part of the sentence inobserving

frontingthat it contributes new and relevant information

patterns in Romance languages (e.g. Sicilian),to the universe of discourse; the latter is defined

Cruschina (2012) develops his original split CP

as the assertion corresponding to correcting ahypothesis and proposes that the CP domain

previous innovative assertion or presupposition

includes two independent projections for focus:that the speaker does not share. Having thesecontrastive

definitions in mind, let us consider (2a, b).

non-contrastive

focus(CFoc)

focus

andemphatic

17

(2) a.

(Context: What car did John buy?)

can

be

introducedbysentence-focus

John bought [a Ferrari]IFoc

wh-questions (e.g. “Guess what?”):(Cruschina (2012: 14))b.

[YOUR BOOK]CFoc you should give t
to Paul (not mine).

(4)(= (1))

Pensa un po’... un anello di diamanti
think

a littlelea ringof diamonds

ha regalato!

The object NP in (2a), an instance of IFoc,

to-her.CL has given

serves as an answer to the wh-question. The‘Guess what! He gave her a diamond ring!’

fronted direct object NP in (2b), on the other(Bianchi, Bocci and Cruchina (2016: 14))

hand, works as CFoc, correcting the wrong pieceof information indicated by the negative tag.

These facts suggest that E-IFoc fronting, in

Due to its contrastive nature, CFoc fronting

contrast with CFoc fronting, yields structures

cannot be used as an answer to a wh-question

containing no informational partition. Another(Rizzi (1997)). Thus, one of the defining

crucial property of E-IFoc fronting is that itproperties of CFoc fronting is that it contributes

necessarily carries emphasis, or a certain

to the Focus-Presupposition articulation, in

speaker’s

which the fronted element is the focus and theunexpectedness

rest of the sentence is the presupposition.

speaker-related emotional implicature arises in

By contrast, Cruschina (2012) observes thator

implicaturesurprise.

such
No

as
such

the declarative sentence in (3Ba).

E-IFoc fronting in Sicilian can be used in thewh-question/answer context, as shown below:

emotional

Cruschina (2012) attributes the difference in

1

information structure between CFoc fronting and
E-IFoc fronting to his original split CP(3) A. Chi

hypothesis in (5b), which departs from Rizzi’s

scrivisti?

(1997) in (5a):2

What write.PAST.2SG‘What did you write?’n’articule.

B. a. Scrissi(5) a. … Force … Topic* … Focus … Topic*… Fin IP …

write.PAST.1SG an article‘I wrote an article.’(Rizzi (1997: 297), with slight modifications)b. N’articule scrissi.

b. … Force … Topic … CFoc … Topic …

an article

E-IFoc … Fin IP…

write.PAST.1SG‘I wrote an article.’(Cruschina (2012: 105), with modifications)(Cruschina (2012: 58), with modifications)
The revised split CP hypothesis in (5b) has its
Here, the sentence with E-IFoc fronting in (3Bb),

originality in assuming that the single focus

as opposed to sentences with CFoc fronting, isprojection in (5a) splits into two: CFoc andused as an answer to the wh-question in (3A).

E-IFoc. CFoc fronting targets [Spec, CFocP] andFurthermore, Cruschina observes that E-IFoc

contributes

fronting is compatible with sentence-focus

articulation, whereas E-IFoc fronting targets(all-new)[Spec, E-IFocP] and does not change thecontexts.

Thefollowing

Italianexample suggests that E-IFoc fronting sentences

to

the

Focus-Presupposition

information structure of the clause.

18

To summarize, Cruschina’s (2012) work iszu)-machen ‘to open/ to shut’), but not toan innovative attempt to provide a theoretical

non-contrastive

account of the two types of focus fronting.

#zu)-hören ‘to stop/to listen’).

However, the exact “emphatic” nature of E-IFoc

particle

verbs

(e.g.

(auf,

3

Trotzke and Quaglia (2016),

however,

fronting is still less clear. Referring to relevanceobserve that non-contrastive particle verbs allow

theory proposed by Sperber and Wilson (1995),

particle fronting only if they carry lexical

Cruschina tentatively ascribes the “emphatic”

extremeness.

nature to contextual effects. The issue inextremeness is defined as a linguistic notion,question is tackled by Trotzke and Quaglia

wherein the value denoted by a certain element(2016), which indicate the relationship between

lies outside a contextually-provided range

the “emphatic” nature of E-IFoc fronting and(Morzycki (2012)). One of its fundamental

lexical extremeness (cf. Morzycki (2012)). Theirproperties is indicated by the fact that lexicallywork is reviewed in the next subsection.

extreme adverbs (e.g. downright or just) can

Roughly

speaking,

lexicaloccur only with adjectives that can be analyzed
2.2. Trotzke and Quaglia (2016)as conveying extreme content, as shown below:

Trotzke and Quaglia’s (2016) research onparticle fronting in German will be seen as an(7) a.

extension of Cruschina’s (2012) approach to

Your

shoes

are

downright(OK

gigantic, ?? big) !!!

Germanic languages (See also Trotzke (2017)).

(Morzycki (2012: 568), with modifications)

In the literature, particle fronting has been

b.

known

as

an

instanceofvery (?? gigantic / big)verb-second(Morzycki (2012: 570))

phenomenon in German (Wurmbrand (2000)).
An extreme adverb like downright can modify(6) a.

Auf

hat er

die Tür

the extreme adjective gigantic, but it resists an

PART(open)

has he the door

additional modification by very. By applying the

gemacht (und

nicht

zu).

extreme modification test to particle verbs in

made

not

PART(closed)

German,and‘He opened (not closed) the door.’b. * Auf
TrinkenandQuaglia

identify

non-contrastive, extreme ones. The following

demcontrast shows that rausschmeißen ‘kick out’Peter with theallows an extreme modification by the extreme

hat Peter mit

PART(up) has

Trotzkegehört.

adverbregelrecht‘downright,’

whereasDrinking heard

rausbringen ‘publish’ is not compatible with‘Peter stopped drinking.’such an extreme modification.

(Trotzke and Quaglia (2016: 111))(8) a.

Costa Rica hat die

Engländer

In general, particle fronting contributes to aC.

English.PL

contrastive reading, as illustrated in (6a).

regelrecht rausgeschmissen.

Therefore, it was a general consensus that due todownright PART(out).thrown

its contrastive nature, particle fronting was‘The team of Costa Rica downright

restricted to contrastive particle verbs (e.g. (auf,kicked out the English team in the19R.

has theb.

??

world championship.’arguments shown above, Trotzke and Quaglia

Die Band hat ihr neus Album(2016) provide the following empirical andthe band has their new album

theoretical implications. On the empirical side,

regelrecht rausgebracht.

certain instances of particle fronting in German

downright PART(out).brought

lend support to the presence of E-IFoc fronting‘The band downright published theirassumed by Cruschina (2012). On the theoreticalnew album.’side, the “emphatic” source of E-IFoc fronting is(Troztke and Quaglia (2016: 121))

associated with lexical extremeness in the senseof Morzycki (2012): more precisely, lexical

More concretely, (8a) carries an emotional

extremeness may trigger E-IFoc fronting in theimplication that the Costa Rica team beat thecontext of particle fronting in German.

England team in a stunning way in a soccer

To summarize, the dichotomy of CFoc

championship. No such emotional implication isfronting and E-IFoc fronting originally proposed

involved in (8b) because rausbringen ‘publish’by Cruschina (2012) provides new empirical andsimply provides a binary option (i.e. publish

theoretical tools to sort and analyze focus

something or not). For (8b) to be fully

fronting

acceptable, certain contextual information isconnection with this, Trotzke and Quaglia’s

required such that the publishing process has(2016) work is seen as a first attempt to unify

been completed very fast, contrary to thethe E-IFoc fronting phenomena in Romance

speaker’s expectation. What is important here islanguages with those in Germanic languages.

the fact that those particle verbs which allow

However, E-IFoc fronting is an uninvestigatedextreme modification, also license E-IFoc

notion in English, another German language. If

fronting in the sentence-focus context, as shown

the E-IFoc fronting approach is extended to

below:English, it is predicted that E-IFoc fronting

phenomenaacrosslanguages.

Inshould be substantiated by certain fronting(9) Stell Dir vor! (‘Guess what!’)a.

phenomena. The next section confirms thisRAUS

hat Costa Rica

prediction by confining our attention to thePART(out)

has C.

so-called Preposing around Be.

die Engländer

R.

geschmissen!

the English.PL thrown

3. Preposing around Be Revisited‘The team of Costa Rica kicked out the3.1. Main Predictions

English team.’b. ? RAUS
PART(out)

Let us begin with a brief review of Trotzke

hat

die

Band

and Quaglia’s (2016) approach, in which those

has

the

band

particle verbs with lexical extremeness allow

ihr neues Album gebracht!

E-IFoc fronting. Their argument implies that

their new album brought

E-IFoc fronting may target predicates with

‘The band published their new album.’lexical extremeness such as extreme adjectives.

(Trotzke and Quaglia (2016: 119))

In connection with this, it is worthwhile
reconsidering Preposing around Be in English, aOn the basis of the German facts andset of linguistic phenomena in which the logical

20

subject occurs at the post-copular position and

The second evidence is presented by thethe predicate occupies the subject position, as

following fact that Preposing around Be withshown in (10b).

fronted extreme-adjectives may occur in thesentence-focus context (cf. (9a)):(10) a.

Losing

my

keys

was

most

embarrassing of all.
b.

(13) [Context: My cousin led me to his nice

Most embarrassing of all was losing

garden. I found an Akita dog sleeping in the

my keys.

garden, Pochi. Guess what?](Emonds (1976: 35))

Emonds (1976) characterizes Preposing arounda.

Pochi was humongous.

b.

Humongous was Pochi.

Be with adjective fronting as comparative
substitution, whereby the logical subject is

The third evidence is provided by the fact

replaced by the predicate taking a certainthat Preposed around Be with fronted extreme

comparative form (e.g. the superlative form).

adjectives can be used as an answer to a

The present approach, by contrast, makes thewh-question, as shown below (cf. (3Bb)):

following different predictions:(14) A: How was that Akita dog?
(11) a.

Extreme adjectives are compatible
with

PreposingaroundBe,

B: a. That Akita dog was [humongous].

butb. [Humongous] was that Akita dog.

non-extreme adjectives are not.
b.

Preposing around Be is compatible
with

the

sentence-focus

context;

support to the present approach. It should betheadjective

noted here that similar cases are readilytoreplicated by other minimal pairs (e.g. gorgeous

furthermore,functions

The three sets of data provided above lendasfrontedananswerawh-question.

vs. pretty or crazy vs. sane).
In regard to the discussion above, a few

These predictions are confirmed in the next

remarks are made below. First, according to thesubsection.

present approach, comparative substitution cases
like the one in (10b) are analyzed as the cases in

3.2. Supportive Evidence

which extremeness is given contextually (cf.

The first supportive evidence comes from(8b)). If there is not sufficient contextual

the fact that extreme adjectives such as

information for (10b) to carry extremeness, thehumongous are compatible with Preposing

sentence in question becomes unacceptable inaround Be, whereas non-extreme adjectives likethe sentence-focus context. According to my

big are not.4

informants, this prediction is correct. Second,extremeness can be provided by certain degree(12) a.
b.

OKThat Akita dog was absolutely/just {intensifiers (e.g. so), thereby allowing Preposing

humongous / ?? big}.

around Be.

{Humongous /??

Big} was that Akita

dog.

(15) a.

21

That Akita dog was absolutely so big.

b.

So big was that Akita dog.

two assumptions: first, copular sentences have
the Small Clause (SC) structure as their base

Although independent research on the exact(Stowell (1981)); second, what prevents thesemantic nature of degree intensifiers such as so

predicate adjective from remaining at [Spec, IP]

is necessary in the future (cf. Corver (1997),

is assumed to be thematic resistance principle,

Beltrama and Trotzke (2018)), the present

according to which “only [-V] categories may beapproach seems to be promising in exploring

θ-marked (Koopman (1984: 111)).”other instances of Preposing around Be.
Having provided supportive evidence for thepresent

claim

that

E-IFocfrontingis(17) a.

[vP be [SC [DP Pochi] [Adj humongous] ]]b.

... [E-IFocP [Adj humongous]i [E-IFoc’ wassubstantiated from Preposing around Be with[Fin’ [IP ti [vP (was) [SC [DP Pochi] ti ]]]]]]

adjective fronting, the next section outlines its
derivation.

Whether this tentative syntactic mechanism canbe supported and developed is open for future

4. An E-IFoc Fronting Approach to Preposing

research.

around Be
Before proceeding, a word is in order

5. Conclusion

concerning another property of the fronted
adjectivein

Preposingaroundtheclaim: first, the presence of E-IFoc fronting issubjecthood. It is a traditional observation that

empirically supported by Preposing around Be

the subject wh-element and an auxiliary allows

in English; second, lexical extremeness is

auxiliary reduction (e.g. “Which man is [=OK

proved to be a crucial factor affecting theWhich man’s] leaving first?” vs. “Which dog is

acceptability of Preposing around Be in the[= * Which dog’s] he buying?” (Kaisse (1983:

sentence-focus context. As long as the claim103)). According to my informants, a similar

above is correct and receives further supportive

pattern holds true of Preposing around Be,

evidence, the present approach will be seen as

especially in the casual speech context:

Be:

This paper has made the following two-fold5

promoting the unified approach to Romance
languages and Germanic languages from the(16)

Huge will [= Huge’ll] be that Akita dog.

E-IFoc perspective.

Taken together with this fact, the present* I would like to express my profound gratitude

approachthat the derivation of

to the following people and the audience of the

Preposing around Be must account for the

37th annual ELSJ conference for their comments

duality status of the fronted adjective: theon this study: Nobuhiro Kaga, Yoko Sugioka,

subjecthood and E-IFoc.

Takane Ito, Toshifusa Oka, Yusuke Kubota,

suggests

The duality status discussed above will be

RobertMurphy, Kazuma Fujimaki, Ikuko

captured by the following derivation: theHasebe, Ryohei Naya and Takashi Ishida. I am

predicative adjective fronts to [Spec, IFocP] via

also indebted to Rachel Ballew and Alana Poole[Spec, IP], the subject θ-position. This idea will

for kindly acting as informants. All remaining

be theoretically implemented by the following

errors are mine.

22

1

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

NOTES
The Sicilian dialect here is “spoken in

Emonds, Joseph (1976) A TransformationalMussomeli, a small town in the province ofApproachtoEnglishSyntax:Root,

Caltanissetta (Cruschina (2012: 7))”.

Structure-Preserving,

and

Local

2

Cruschina (2012) also observes some syntactic

Transformations, Academic Press, Newdifferences between CFoc fronting and E-IFoc

York.
Gundel, Jeanette K. (1974) The Role of Topic

fronting. Due to the space limitations, I will
focus on the information-structural properties ofandthe two types of focus fronting in this paper.

Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas.

3

CommentinLinguistic

Theory,Kaisse, Ellen M. (1983) “The Syntax of

See Trotzke and Quaglia (2016) for the precise

definition of contrastive particle verbs.

Auxiliary Reduction in English,” Language

459, 93-122.

The acceptability judgements in (12-16) are

Koopman, Hilda J. (1984) The Syntax of Verbs,

provided by two American native speakers ofForis, Dordrecht.

English.
5

Morzycki,

The observation made here is based on

Marcin(2012)“Adjectival

Cappelle (2002), according to which particle

Extremeness: Degree Modification andfronting also allows auxiliary contraction (e.g.

Contextually Restricted Scales,” Natural

Out will [= Out’ll] come your answer.).

Languageand Linguistic Theory30,

567-609.
Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of the

REFERENCES
Beltrama, Andrea and Andreas Trotzke (2018)“Conveying
LexicalEmphasis

andforSyntactic

Left Periphery,” Elements of Grammar:

Intensity:

Handbook in Generative Syntax, ed. byStrategies,”

Liliane1-13.

Kluwer,Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson (1995)

Bianchi, Valentina, Giuliano Bocci and Silvio(2016)

Unexpectedness

and“FocusFronting,theEvaluative

Relevance: Communication and Cognition,
Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
Stowell, Timothy (1981) Origins of Phrase

Implicatures,” Semantics and Pragmatics 9,

Structure, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

1-54.

Trotzke, Andreas (2017) The Grammar of

Cappelle, Bert (2002) “And Up It Rises: Particle
Preposing281-337,

Dordrecht.

Language and Linguistic Compass 13,

Cruschina

Haegeman,in

English,”Emphasis: From Information Structure to

Verb-Particle

the Expressive Dimension, Mouton de

Explorations (Interface Explorations 1), ed.

Gruyter, Berlin and New York.

by Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew

Trotzke, Andreas and Stefano Quaglia (2016)

McIntyre and Silke Urban, 43-66, Mouton“Particle Topicalization and German Clausede Gruyter, Berlin and New York.

Structure,” Journal of Comparative German

Corver, Norbert (1997) “Much-Support as a Last

Linguistics 19, 109-141.

Resort,” Linguistic Inquiry 28, 119-164.

Wurmbrand, Susi (2000) The Structure(s) of

Cruschina, Silvio (2012) Discourse-Related

Particle Verbs, ms., McGill University.

FeaturesandFunctional

Projections,23

CHI: On a branch.

(Lily 2;04)(3) MOT: Oh a crown how nice.
CHI: For Belle.

これらの子どもの発話は［前置詞+補部名詞

子どもの前置詞句単独発話―談話的文脈と前置詞ごとの相違の観点から―(Lily 2;02)*

句］のみから構成され、前置詞の意味上の主（Children’s Utterances Consisting of an

語と考えられる he や a crown は母親が産出

Independent Prepositional Phrase: From the

した先行発話に含まれている。つまり、前置

Perspective of Discourse Context and the

詞がその関係性を表す 2 者は単一の発話内

Differences between Prepositions）

ではなく発話横断的に言語化されている。
こうした前置詞句単独発話（前置詞句のみか

堀内 ふみ野（Fumino Horiuchi）

ら成る、主語や動詞を含まない発話）は日常

大東文化大学（Daito Bunka University）

会話で特徴的に見られるものであり、複数の話者が動的かつ段階的に文を構築していく

キーワード：前置詞句単独発話, 習得, 親子

会話の環境だからこそ観察される前置詞の会話, コーパス, 用法基盤

用法の 1 つと言える。本稿では、子どもによる前置詞句単独発話の特性をコーパスの実例をもとに分析し、子どもが相互行為の中で

1. はじめに前置詞を習得していく過程の一端を示す。

本稿では、英語圏の子どもが前置詞句を単独で使う発話（e.g. In the box.）に焦点を当て、

2. 先行研究

それらが生起する対話の文脈の特性や前置2.1. 背景と問題意識

詞ごとの生起頻度の相違を探る。

認知言語学の理論的枠組みでは前置詞の前置詞は 2 者間の関係を表し、例えば (1)意味に関する研究が多数行われてきた (e.g.

では前置詞 over が、その意味上の主語であLakoff 1987; Tyler & Evans 2003)。しかし、堀る the tablecloth と、目的語である補部名詞句

内 (2018) 等で指摘しているとおり、それら

the table の関係を表していると考えられる。

の多くは (1) のような作例に基づく単文単位の分析であり、それぞれの前置詞に結びつ(1) The tablecloth is over the table.

いた意味を単語ごとの意味ネットワークの(Tyler & Evans 2003: 65)形で示す研究が多かった。
その中で、前置詞の習得に関する研究では、

しかし、実際の会話では、必ずしも前置詞

各前置詞は語の意味的特性だけでなくそのがその関係性を表す 2 者（意味上の主語と目「使われ方」に応じて習得されていくことが的語）が同一発話に生起するわけではない。

指摘され、実例の生起文脈を広く観察する重(2) や (3) は Providence Corpus (Demuth et al.

要性が論じられてきた。Hallan (2001) は、親2006) から採取した親子会話の実例である

子会話において on と over がどのような語と（CHI は子、MOT は母親を表し、会話末尾共起しやすいかを定量的に示し、それらの習に子の名前と発話時の齢（年;月）を示す）。

得が 1 語単位で起こるのではなく使用の場
で頻繁に共起する語とのまとまり (e.g. all(2) MOT: Where's he sitting?

over X) の中で記憶・産出されていることを24論じた。Tomasello (1987) や Rice (2003) らうな、独立した従属節や等位節から構成されは、前置詞ごと、さらには各前置詞の意味ごた発話（節単独発話）で使われ始める。

との習得順序を明らかにしつつ、前置詞の習(4) Adult: Why should they come from Africa?

得にそれぞれの子どもの経験頻度が影響しChild: Because they live in Africa.

ていることを指摘した。例えば子どもは日常(Diessel 2004: 160)

的に親の注意を自分に向ける発話をしているからこそ、at は look at という表現内でまず習得されるという。さらに Rice は、経験

つまり、子どもはこれらの接続詞を先行発話の個人差を反映して前置詞の習得過程にもとの関係の中で成り立つ発話横断的な用法

個人差が見られ、必ずしも具体的・空間的なから産出し始め、月齢が進むにつれて複数の意味が抽象的な意味より先に習得されるわ

節を含む発話をするようになる。第二に、節けではないことを示した。これらの研究はい単独発話での生起頻度は接続詞によって異ずれも、前置詞が、共起関係や相互行為上のなる。例えば、習得時期が遅く 3 歳以前はあ機能といった実際の生起環境に依存して習まり使われない when 節、if 節などは、産出得されていく側面をもつことを示している。

開始当初から主節を伴って産出される傾向

これは、言語知識は使用文脈に埋め込まれたにあり、節単独発話での生起率は低い。第三形で文脈的情報を伴って記憶・構成されるとに、節単独発話が生起する際の先行発話とのい う 用 法 基 盤 の 言 語 観 (cf. Bybee 2007,

関係も、接続詞によって異なる。例えば、

2010; Langacker 2000; Tomasello 2003) を言

because 節は親からの質問への応答部に生起語習得の点からも支持する、重要な研究成果しやすい一方、so 節は子ども自身の発話に後であろう。

続して生起する傾向にあるという。

しかし、こうした前置詞の習得研究におい(5) Child: Putting it on.

ても、主に分析されていたのは発話内での語Child: So you can watch it.

と語の共起関係、あるいはその共起語とのま(ibid.: 163)

とまり(e.g. look at) が担う機能であり、複数の発話を横断して成立する構造は注目され前置詞を主要部とする構造は句であり、節ていない。また、意味や機能の観点からの分とは異なる文法的単位である。しかし、前置

析が多い一方で、前置詞が生起する発話の文

詞も 2 者間の関係性を表す機能語であり、前法的構造に着目した研究は少ない。

置詞句のみで発話を構成したり先行発話に付加したりすることが可能である点で、従属

2.2. 接続詞の習得研究

節や等位節と共通性をもつ。このことから、

一方、前置詞以外の習得研究には、発話横接続詞の場合と同様に、発話横断的な用法か

断的な構造や発話を構成する文法的単位にら習得が始まる可能性がある。Diessel (2004)

着目した研究が見られる。その 1 つであるを踏まえ、本稿では、子どもによる前置詞句

Diessel (2004) は、用法基盤のアプローチで、単独発話の使用に着目し、前置詞の習得に接接続詞の習得過程を親子会話コーパスの調

続詞と同様の傾向が見られるか観察する。

査結果をもとに分析し、次のことを示した。
3. 使用したデータおよび研究方法

第一に、早期に習得される because、and、
so、but で始まる節は最初から主節（関連すデータは、CHILDES (MacWhinney 2000)

る節）と共に使われるのではなく、(4) のよを通して利用可能なアメリカ英語の親子会話コ25

ーパスである Providence Corpus を用いた。これ

まず、子どもの月齢に応じて前置詞句単独

は、6 名の子どもの家庭内会話が、1〜4 歳の期

発話の生起率が変化するかどうかを調査し間、約 0.5〜1 ヶ月おきに収録されたコーパスでた結果を示す。表 2 は、5 名それぞれの前置ある。この中から、映像データがある 5 名のデー

詞の初出（表 1 参照）から 6 ヶ月単位で、前タ（表 1）を分析対象とした。表の「会話数」は置詞を含む発話全体のうち、前置詞句単独発

コーパスに含まれる当該の子どもの会話の話が占める割合を示したものである（横軸はセッション数であり、「前置詞の初出」には子初出からの経過月数）。

どもがコーパス上で前置詞（prep タグが付いた語）を初めて産出した齢（年;月）を示した。1

表 2：月齢ごとの生起率の変化

表 1：分析対象の子どものデータ
名前

データ範

会話数

囲（年;月）

前置詞の初出（年;月）Alex

1;04-3;05

51

1;08

Lily

1;01-4;00

80

1;08

Naima

0;11-3;10

88

1;03

Violet1;02-3;11

51

1;07

William

1;04-3;04

44

1;08

Diessel (2004) の調査によると because、and、
so、but は約 8 割が節単独発話で生起していたとされ、これに比べると、前置詞は全体的に前コーパス内の前置詞句単独発話の事例は置詞句単独発話での生起率が低い。この相違

次の手順で抽出した。まず、分析プログラムには、節と比べて句は構造的独立性が低いこと

CLAN にて特定の単語を含む発話を抽出すが反映されているのではないかと考えられる。まるコマンド kwal（Key Word and Line）を使用

た、表 2 のとおり前置詞句単独発話の産出率にし、前置詞（prep タグ）を含む子どもの発話は個人差が見られ、Alex や William はその割を自動抽出した。なお、前置詞の多くは補部合が高い。しかし、月齢ごとの変化を見ると、ど名詞句を伴わない副詞辞 (e.g. come on) の用の子どもでも共通し、前置詞の産出初期、つま法ももつが、これらは adv タグが付与されている

り月齢が低いときほど前置詞を前置詞句単独

ため抽出対象には含まれない。抽出した事例

発話の中で使用する割合が大きく、月齢が進から、タグ付けの誤りと思われる事例（動詞のむとその割合が低下していくことがわかった。

like に prep タグが付与されている事例など）を排除したところ、前置詞を含む子どもの発話が4.2. 前置詞ごとの生起頻度の相違

9,939 例あった。これらを観察し、前置詞句単独

次に、主要部の前置詞によって句単独発話

発話を手作業で抽出したところ、1,285 例が該での生起しやすさが異なるかどうかを調査

当事例として得られた。これらを、(i) 月齢に応した結果を示す。子どもの産出事例には、例

じた生起頻度の変化、（ii）主要部となる前置詞

えば between はコーパスで 5 例しか生起しなごとの句単独発話での生起頻度の相違、(iii)

いなど、定量的分析をするには十分な事例数

先行発話との関係性の観点から観察した。

がない前置詞も見られた。そのため、次の表
3 では、子どもによる産出頻度が上位の前置

4. 観察結果

詞 10 語に関して、前置詞句単独発話での生4.1. 月齢に応じた生起頻度の変化

26

起頻度および生起率を調査した結果を示しこれに続いて、for、from、in、on、with、atている。2 表 3 の「コーパス内の頻度」はは 10〜13%が前置詞句単独発話（e.g. (2)(3))

Providence Corpus 内の子どもによる当該ので生起していた。一方、表 3 で下線を付した

前置詞の全産出頻度を、「句単独発話」の「頻to、of、about を主要部とした前置詞句単独発度」はそのうち当該の前置詞が前置詞句単独

話の生起率は、3〜6%と非常に低い。用例を発話で用いられた頻度を、「割合」はそれが見ると、to は動詞 go との共起（go to X）で、

「コーパス内の頻度」に対して占める割合をof や about はこれらを含む定型表現 (e.g. a示した。

lot of X, a piece of X / how about X?)での生起頻度が高く、産出が始まる初期から前置詞句よりも大きな単位の中で用いられていた。3

表 3：前置詞句単独発話での生起頻度
コーパス

句単独発話

内の頻度

頻度

4.3. 先行発話との関係性

割合

1

in

2,329

278

12%

次に、子どもが前置詞句単独発話を産出す

2

to

1,417

51

4%

るときの先行発話の話者や形式を調査した

3

on

1,500

163

11%

結果を示す。2 節で触れたとおり、Diessel

4

of

983

31

3%

(2004) によると節単独発話には冒頭の接続

5

for

964

121

13%

詞に応じて親の発話に後続しやすいものと

6

with

853

97

11%

子ども自身の発話に後続しやすいものがあ

7

at

689

70

10%

る。これを踏まえ、表 3 に挙げた高頻度の前

8

like

582

215

37%

置詞上位 10 語を比較しながら、それぞれを

9

about

282

17

6%

主要部とした前置詞句単独発話とその先行

10

from

196

25

13%

発話との関係を観察した。なお、今回の調査
で「先行発話」としたのは前置詞の意味上の

この表から、同じ「前置詞」という品詞に主語を含む発話である。例えば次の (7) で属する語であってもそれを主要部とした句

In the sky.の直前の発話は親の Okay.だが、今単独発話の生起頻度は大きく異なり、習得の回は in の意味上の主語 a little airplane を含む基盤となる文法的単位は一様ではないこと

発話を「先行発話」とし、(7) は先行発話のがわかる。まず目を引くのは、太字で示した

話者が子どもである事例として扱った。

とおり、like の前置詞句単独発話での生起率(7) CHI: No, like a little airplane.

が 37%と突出して高いことである。(6) は

MOT: Okay.

like 句単独発話の実例で、カエルが 1 日の「やCHI: In the sky.

ることリスト」を作るという内容の絵本を読(William 3;02)

みながら発話されたものである。
また、前置詞の意味上の主語が先行文脈でも言語化されず、前置詞句だけが独立して生起(6) MOT: Toad has the list.

する事例（自分を椅子に座らせてほしい子ど

CHI: Like me!

もが椅子の横に立って In chair.と発話する、

MOT: That’s right. That's right, you wereなど）は「独立」の事例とした。4making a list, just like toad, of all thethings that he does in a day! (Lily 2;07)

4.3.1. 先行発話の話者（前置詞ごと）

27

まず、先行発話の話者を前置詞ごとに集計と、前置詞ごとに偏りが見られた。前置詞句した。その結果、表 4 のとおり、前置詞句単

単独発話での生起頻度が高い in、on、for、

独発話でそもそも生起しづらい to と of を除

with、like を対象に親の先行発話との関係をくすべての前置詞で、先行発話の話者は親で観察したところ、in と on は疑問文（典型的ある場合が過半数を占めた。接続詞の場合とには where 疑問文）への応答 (e.g. (2)) の事は異なり、先行発話の話者に関しては前置詞例が最も多く、続いて、先行発話に含まれてごとの大きな傾向の違いは見られなかった。

いた前置詞句を繰り返す事例 (e.g. (8)) も多く観察された。

表 4：前置詞句単独発話の先行発話の話者(8) MOT: No no oh no it's not in there I'm sorry
it's in this one.
CHI: In this one.

(Alex 3;02)

一方、for、with、like は親の先行発話が平叙文であり、そこに子どもが情報を付加して応答する事例 (e.g. (3)(9)) が最も多かった。
4.3.2. 先行発話の話者（月齢ごと）(9) MOT: You did drink juice there.

次に、月齢ごとに先行発話の話者が親であCHI: With a straw.

(Naima 1;09)

った割合を算出し、表 5 に示した（横軸は初出からの経過月数）。5 ここから、初期の前置

特に興味深いのは前置詞句単独発話での生詞句単独発話ほど親の先行発話を足場に産起率が高い like である。前置詞句単独発話の出される傾向にあることがわかる。つまり、

like の補部名詞句を見ると、me や this 等の直月齢が低いときほど親の発話につなげた産

示表現が 65%を占めた。具体的には、親の先出の割合が高く、対話的環境の中で前置詞句

行発話に like me を付加して第三者に関する単独発話が使われ始めることが見て取れる。

話を自分に関連づける例 (e.g. (6)(10)) や、
動作しながら like this と言い親の注意を引く

表 5：先行発話の話者が親である割合の変化

例 (e.g. (11)(12)) が繰り返し観察された。

80%
60%

(10) MOT: And he (=Nemo) started his first day

40%of school in the movie, didn't he Nemo?

20%

MOT: Yes he did.

0%

1-6

7-12 13-18

19-

CHI: Like me.

(Lily 2;07)(11) MOT: Okay, let's dance.
4.3.3. 先行発話の形式

CHI: Like this?

表 4 で示したとおり、先行発話の話者とい(William 2;04)(12) MOT: You gotta slide it down.

う観点で見ると、ほぼすべての前置詞においCHI: Like this?

(Violet 2;01)て、その先行発話の話者は親である場合が過半数を占めた。しかし、前置詞句単独発話のこうした例から、話題を発話の場と関連づけ

生起環境を先行発話の形式まで含めて見るながら会話を展開するという親子会話に頻28

出するやりとりのパターンが、like 句単独発が構築されている側面があると思われる。

話の生起頻度の高さを動機づけていると考さらに、本稿は、前置詞句単独発話での生えられる。［like+直示表現］はそうしたやり

起頻度が前置詞ごとに大きく異なることをとりの中で用いやすい型であり、「先行発話定量的に示した。前置詞の中には、動詞とのの内容を発話の場に関連づける」という会話結びつきが強い語や前置詞句よりも大きなの展開と結びついた形で繰り返し使用され、定型句の中で用いられる語もあり、必ずしも

6［前置詞+補部名詞句］の単位から産出が始記憶されていると思われる。

まるわけではない。つまり、同じ「前置詞」
5. 考察とまとめであってもそれが生起する構造的単位は多本稿の観察から、前置詞句単独発話は前置様であり、子どもは品詞のような抽象的なカ

詞の産出初期に起こりやすく、その多くが親テゴリーではなく相互行為に根ざした具体の先行発話と関連づけられて生起すること的な用法に依拠してそれぞれの語を習得しがわかった。このことから、対話における先ていることが示唆される。Rice (2003) は 9

行発話と密に結びついた構造が前置詞の習

個の前置詞の習得過程を比較し、使用上の得を促進していることが示唆される。前置詞

様々な要因によって各前置詞がその意味的

句単独発話は、主語や動詞を伴わないため、特性のみからは予測できない多様な習得過複合的構造を持った長い発話は産出できな程を辿ることを指摘した。本稿は、相互行為

い段階の子どもであっても産出しやすい形

における使われ方に応じて各前置詞の習得式であると思われる。同時に、質問への応答

過程に多様性が見られることを、習得の基盤

や、先行発話と発話の場との関連付けなど、となる文法的単位の観点からも示している。

相互行為上は十分な機能を担いうる単位で今後は、(i) 大人の前置詞句単独発話とのある。さらに、前置詞句単独発話は、前置詞

比較、(ii) like の習得過程や会話における用の意味上の主語を含まない点で先行発話へ法の分析の精緻化（さらに、それに基づく談の依存性をもち、相互行為の場において子ど話標識的な like の用法の発達経路の考察）、

もが先行発話（親の発話）と関連づけながら(iii) より多くの調査に基づく句と節の習得

発話し会話に参与することを可能にする資過程の比較などを行い、相互行為の文脈に根源となっている可能性がある。こうした相互

ざした前置詞研究の発展を目指したい。

行為上の動機づけによっても、前置詞句単独
発話は前置詞の習得初期に産出されやすい*本稿は日本英語学会第 37 回大会での口頭型となっているのではないか。

発表に加筆修正を加えたものである。発表にまた、4.3 節で見たとおり、主要部の前置対して質問・ご助言をくださった諸先生方に詞によって前置詞句単独発話の先行発話のこの場を借りて御礼申し上げたい。本研究は性質は異なる。Diessel (2004) は because がJSPS 科研費 19K13226 の助成を受けている。

why 疑問文への応答部に偏って生起するこ

注とを基に、子どもは繰り返し生じるやりとり

1に基づいて複数発話から成る構文スキーマ「初例」と見なさない立場もあるが、本稿でを形成し、その中で because を習得しているはそれらも実際の使用環境で産出された実ことを提案した。同様に考えると、前置詞も、

例の 1 つと捉え、初例として扱った。

単一発話を超えた対話のパターンの中で習3得され、先行発話と結びついた形でその知識例は、例えば次のような、先行発話にも of29

誤用や親の使用を真似て繰り返す事例は

of 句単独発話としてコーディングした事が含まれる例や of から発話を言い直したこ

corpus-based study of the acquisition of aとで of 句が単独で生起する例であった。

lexico-grammatical category,” Frequency(i) CHI: Holding up pictures of +...（中断）

and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure,4

MOT: Of animals.

ed. by Joan Bybee and Paul Hopper, 91-120,

CHI: Of jaguars.

John

歌唱や本の音読での使用は先行発話の話

Philadelphia.

Amsterdamand堀内ふみ野 (2018)「親子のやりとりにおけ者に関する調査対象から除いた。
5

Benjamins,

個人差が小さかったため、5 名分のデータ

る前置詞の使用：対話統語論のアプローをまとめて算出した値を表 5 に示した。
6
子どもの中でも Lily は like me の産出頻度

チ」, 山梨正明(編)『認知言語学論考』が高いが、2 歳 3 ヶ月頃から like を with に変Lakoff, George (1987) Women, Fire, and14, 291-327, ひつじ書房, 東京.

えた発話も度々行うようになる。

Dangerous

Things:What

Categories(ii) MOT: She's gonna have a little dinner party

Reveal about Mind, The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.

at her house.
CHI: With me.

Langacker, Ronald W. (2000) “A dynamic(Lily 3;05)

通常 like と with は類義語とはされないが、usage-based model,” Usage-based Models

実例を見ると like me と with me という発話

of Language, ed. by Michael Barlow andは第三者に関する先行発話を自分に関連づ

Suzanne Kemmer, 1-63, CSLI Publications,

けるという点で相互行為上の使い勝手が類

Stanford.

似している。Lily は、前置詞の意味ではなくMacWhinney, Brian (2000) The CHILDES

前置詞句全体が担う相互行為上の機能の類

Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, 3rd

似性に基づいて like me を拡張し、with me を

Edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

産出しているとも考えられるだろう。

Mahwah, NJ.
Rice, Sally A. (2003) “Growth of a lexical
network: Nine English prepositions in

参考文献

acquisition,”

Bybee, Joan L. (2007) Frequency of Use and theOrganizationof

Language,

Cognitive

Approaches

toLexical Semantics, ed. by Hubert Cuyckens,

OxfordRené Dirven and John R. Taylor, 243-280,

University Press, Oxford.

Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.

Bybee, Joan L. (2010) Language, Usage andTomasello, Michael (1987) “Leaning to use

Cognition, Cambridge University Press,

prepositions: A case study,” Journal of

Cambridge.

Child Language 14, 79-98.

Demuth, Katherine, Jennifer Culbertson andJennifer Alter (2006) “Word-minimality,

Tomasello, Michael (2003) Constructing aepenthesis, and coda licensing in the

Language: A Usage-based Theory ofacquisition of English,” Language andLanguage Acquisition, Harvard University

Speech 49, 137-174.

Press,

Diessel, Holger (2004) The Acquisition of

Cambridge,

Massachusetts

andLondon.

Complex Sentences, Cambridge University

Tyler, Andrea and Vyvyan Evans (2003) The

Press, Cambridge.

Semantics

Hallan, Naomi (2001) “Paths to prepositions? AofEnglishPrepositions,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

30Saturday-on egg-Nom/-Gen cheap
mise-wa kono mise desu.
store-Top thisstore be‘The store where eggs are cheap on
Saturdays is this store.’ (Japanese)

What does the Unavailability of Genitive
Subject in Naxi Suggest?

*

Since his seminal work, the phenomenon has
Xue-Ying Hu and Hideki Maki

been investigated by many linguists, such as

Gifu University and Gifu University

Miyagawa (1993, 2011, 2012, 2013), Watanabe(1996), Hiraiwa (2001), Ochi (2001, 2009),
Harada (2002) and Kobayashi (2013), among

Keywords：genitive subject, Naxi, N´-deletion,others.

the Yanbian variety of Korean, Tujia

Saito and Murasugi (1990) originally pointout that N´-deletion is possible in Japanese. The
example in (2) is from Saito et al (2008).

1. Introduction
This paper investigates syntactic properties(2) [Taroo-no taido]-waof the Naxi language, one of the 55 officially

yoi

ga,

recognized minority languages in China spoken

Taro-Gen attitude-Top good thoughnatively by about 310,000 people, most of whom

[Hanako-nolive in or around Lijiang City Yulong Naxi

Hanako-Gen attitude-Top not.good

Autonomous County of Yunnan Province, and‘Though Taro’s attitude is good, Hanako’s

shows (i) that it allows N´-deletion in our

isn’t.’ (Saito et al (2008)) (Japanese)

taido]-wa

yokunai.

definition, but (ii) that it does not allow genitive
subject. It is then argued (i) that there is not a

Maki (2019) finds certain relations between thecorrelation between the N´-deletability and theN´-deletability and the availability of genitive

availability of genitive subject in languages withsubject in languages with prenominal sentential

prenominal sentential modifiers, and (ii) that themodifiers so far examined to some depth, which

non-availability of genitive subject in the Naxi

is shown in (3).

language is attributed to the fact that the relevant
predicate is not in the adnominal form.

(3) The N´-Deletability and the Availability of
Genitive Subject in Languages with Prenominal

2. Background

Sentential Modifiers

Research has been done on the availability of✓ Genitive Subject

genitive subject in various languages, and also✓

Japanese, Mongolian,on the availability of N´-deletion in various

N´-Deletion

Urdu, Bengali

languages. Harada (1971) originally points out*that Japanese allows genitive subject, as shownN´-Deletion* Genitive Subject

Korean, Tibetanin (1).
(3) seems to show two relations in (4a, b).
(1) [Doyoobi-ni

tamago-ga/-no yasui]31

(4) a.
b.

A language allows N´-deletion. =First, Naxi is an ergative, and a head-final

It allows genitive subject.

language, as shown in (7) and (8). (7) contains

A language disallows N´-deletion. =an intransitive verb, and (8) a transitive verb.

It disallows genitive subject.
(7) Anhi

Hoqjui-ø

ceeqye.

Japanese and Mongolian, among others, allow

yesterda Hoqjui-Abs cameboth N´-deletion and genitive subject. However,‘Hoqjui came yesterday.’(8) Anhi

Korean and Tibetan does not allow either

Hoqjui-nee teiqee

N´-deletion or genitive subject. In the following,

yesterday Hoqjui-Erg bookwe will present data from Tibetan as a language

alcheecai-ø teiqhaiseiq.

that does not allow either of them.

the-Absbought‘Hoqjui bought the book yesterday.’Let us consider the Tibetan examples in (5)and (6), which are due to Daojicao (personal

As Naxi is an ergative language, the subject ofcommunication).

an intransitive verb in (7) and the object of a(5) a.

Su-yi

who-Gen attitudeb.

transitive verb in (8) pattern together, as shownrnam agyur bzang ngam?

by the absolutive marker -ø, which does notgood Q‘Whose attitude is good?’

have phonetic content. The subject of a transitive

Bkrashis-kyi [N´ rnam agyur] red.

verb is marked by the ergative marker -nee in

Bkrashis-Gen(8).

attitudebeSecond, complement clauses in Naxi are not‘Bkrashis’s attitude is.’headed by an overt complementizer, as (9)c. * Bkrashis-kyi [N´ e] red.
beshows. Note here that in spite of the fact that

‘Bkrashis’s is.’ (Tibetan)

Naxi is an SOV language, the complement

Bkrashis-Gen(6) Dering Bkrashis-ø/*-kyi

clause is placed after the verb.

thon pa-’itoday Bkrashis-Abs/-Gen arrive-Gen(9) Anhi

dustshod-ni phyidro-’i dustshod 8 red.
time-Topa.m.-Gen time

Hoqjui-nee svttvmei [Wefai

yesterday Hoqjui-Erg thought

8 be‘The time when Bkrashis arrived today is 8

mail chee libailseil lee zoq zeel].

a.m.’ (Tibetan)next.week

Wefai

come

‘Yesterday Hoqjui thought that Wefai
would come next week.’

In contrast to Tibetan, Japanese allows both
genitive subject and N´-deletion, as shown in (1)Third, the genitive marker in Naxi is -gge, asand (2).

shown in (10).
3. Data
Let us now examine Naxi examples. Naxi is(10) Hoqjui-gge teiqee

a Sino-Tibetan language. See Bradley (1997),

Hoqjui-Gen book

Lama (2012) and Thurgood (2003), among‘Hoqjui’s book’

others, for its classification within Sino-Tibetan.

32(15) a.

Note here that -gge is not D, unlike -de in

Aneiq-gge taildul me ga?

Chinese. Simpson (2003) proposes that de is D

who-Gen attitude not goodin his pursuit of the antisymmetry analysis of‘Whose attitude is not good?’b.

Chinese relative clauses. Saito et al (2008)

Hoqjui-gge [N´ taildul/e].

provide evidence for it. See the contrast between

Hoqjui-Gen

the Chinese (11) and the Japanese (12).

‘Hoqjui’s (attitude) is.’(16) [Anhi(11) * yu-de

tian(12) ame-nohiattitude

Hoqjui-ø/*-gge

ceeqye]-gge

yesterday Hoqjui-Abs/-Gen came-Gen

rain-De day

rain-Gen day

rheeq tee meeseel dee bafdai waq.

‘rainy day’‘rainy day’time

(Chinese)(Japanese)‘The time when Hoqjui came yesterday is

a.m.

8

time

be

8 a.m.’
Naxi patterns together with Japanese, as (13)shows.

These

examples

show

that

Naxi

allowsN´-deletion, but disallows genitive subject.
(13) heeqggee-gge nilwaq
rain-Genday

4. Discussion‘rainy day’Let us now examine what the Naxi examples
found in this survey might suggest for the theory

Saito et al (2008:257) state that this fact followsof (Naxi) syntax. First, the example in (16)directly if de is D and the phrases that precede

clearly shows that Naxi does not fall into thede are in the Spec of D in Chinese, given the fact

category of the languages that both allowthat adjuncts, as opposed to arguments, cannot

N´-deletion and genitive subject. This indicatesmove to the Spec of D. The fact that (13) isthat the correlation in (4a) does not hold ingrammatical indicates that -gge is not D in Naxi.

languages with prenominal sentential modifiers

Fourth, Naxi relative clauses, which areor probably in human language. This poses thefollowed by the genitive marker -gge, are notimportant question as to why Naxi exhibits thisheaded by any overt complementizer, as shown

property.

in (14).

There are two possible factors that may
disallow genitive subject in Naxi. The first is(14) [AnhiHoqjui-nee zzeegge]-gge

Naxi’s ergativity. The second is the fact that theyesterday Hoqjui-Erg ate-Gen

predicate in the prenominal sentential modifier

piqgo tee chee liu waq.

in Naxi does not have the adnominal form thatapple

may license genitive subject in other languages

thisone be‘The apple that Hoqjui ate yesterday issuch as Japanese and Mongolian.

this apple.’

The first is disconfirmed by the fact that
there is an ergative language that allows genitive

Let us now investigate whether Naxi allows

subject, such as Urdu. Urdu is an ergative

N´-deletion and/or genitive subject. Observe thelanguage, as shown below.

examples in (15) and (16).

33

(17) a.

John-ø/*-nesentential modifier in Naxi does not have theyahan ponhcha.

John-Abs/-Erg here

adnominal form, unlike Japanese or Mongolian.

arrivedThis then lends support to Maki et al’s (2016)‘John arrived here.’b.

John-ne/*-ø

kitab-ø

claim that genitive subject licensing requires

khareedi.

John-Erg/-Abs book-Abs boughtboth nominal elements and the adnominal form.

‘John bought the book yesterday.’

Maki et al (2016) propose to merge two
important(Urdu)

approaches

togenitive

subject

licensing in Japanese, namely, Miyagawa’s
In (17a), the subject of the intransitive verb

(1993,

bears

as

Watanabe’s (1996)/Hiraiwa’s (2001) adnominal

represented by -ø, which is the absolutive caseform-licensing approach into one, as shown inmarker in Urdu. On the other hand, in (17b), the

(19).

no

morphologicalcasemarker,2011)

D-licensing

approachandsubject of the transitive verb is marked with the(19) Conditions on Genitive Subject Licensing

ergative case marker -ne ‘-Erg.’ Note that theobject of the transitive verb is marked absolutive,

in Mongolian

just like the subject of the intransitive verb ina.

A genitive subject must be c-(17a). Now, as shown in (18), the subject iscommanded by a nominal element inmarked genitive in a relative clause.

a local domain.
b.

(18) [Kalrelationship with the adnominal form

John*-ne/-kiof a predicate.

yesterday John-Erg/-Genkhareedi-hui]

A genitive subject must be in a local

kitab buhut dilchasp
The conditions in (19) correctly predict thebought-Perf.Adn book very interestinghai.

unavailability of genitive subject in Naxi under

be.Pres

the assumption that the predicate in a relative‘The book which John bought yesterday isclause does not have the adnominal form. Then,very interesting.’ (Maki and Bhutto

the relations shown in (3) between the(2013)) (Urdu)

N´-deletability and the availability of genitive
subject in languages with prenominal sentential
modifiers are revised to those in (20).

These examples clearly indicate that theergativity of the language does not affect the(20) The N´-Deletability and the Availability of

appearance of genitive subject.

Genitive Subject in Languages with

Then, the remaining possibility is the second
factor. This is plausible, given the fact that the

Prenominal Sentential Modifiers

form of the predicate in the prenominal✓ Genitive Subject

sentential modifier in Naxi is morphologically✓Japanese, Mongolian,

identical to that of the predicate in the main

N´-Deletion

Urdu, Bengali

clause, as shown in (7) and (16). Therefore, we*

claim that Naxi does not allow genitive subject

N´-Deletion

becausethepredicateintheprenominal

34* Genitive Subject
Naxi

Korean, Tibetan

‘The time when Jiexi came yesterday is 8

The claim that the unavailability of genitivea.m.’ (Tujia)

subject in Naxi is attributed to the fact that thepredicate in a relative clause does not have thebyTherefore, the above examples clearly show thatexamples in other languages such as Tujia,

Tujia allows N´-deletion, but disallows genitive

which belongs to Sino-Tibetan languages, justsubject.

adnominal

form

is

further

supported

like the Naxi language. Tujia is an ergative

Note here that the form of the predicate inlanguage, with an SOV order, as shown in (21)the prenominal sentential modifier in Tujia isand (22). (21) contains an intransitive verb, andmorphologically identical to that of the predicate(22) a transitive verb.

in the main clause, as shown in (21) and (24).
Therefore, it seems that Tujia does not allow(21) Pusinie

Jiexi-ø

genitive subject because the predicate in theju.

yesterday Jiexi-Abs came

prenominal sentential modifier in Tujia does not‘Jiexi came yesterday.’ (Tujia)

have the adnominal form, just like Naxi.
shupuji.

Therefore, the unavailability of genitive subject

yesterday Jiexi-Erg the book-Abs bought

in Naxi and Tujia is attributed to the fact that the‘Jiexi bought the book yesterday.’ (Tujia)

predicate in a relative clause does not have the(22) Pusinie

Jiexi-(gu) gei cipu-ø

adnominal form in the languages.
In (21), the subject of a sentence with anThen, the relations shown in (20) between

intransitive verb is marked by the absolutive

the N´-deletability and the availability ofcase marker represented by -ø, which does notgenitive subject in languages with prenominal

have phonetic content. In (22), the subject of asentential modifiers are revised to those in (25).

sentence with a transitive verb is marked by theergative case marker represented by -ɡu, which(25) The N´-Deletability and the Availability of

may not appear. The object of a sentence with a

Genitive Subject in Languages withtransitive verb is marked by the absolutive casePrenominal Sentential Modifiers

marker represented by -ø. Wang and Maki

✓ Genitive Subject(2019) showed that Tujia allows N´-deletion, butdisallows genitive subject, as shown below.
(23) a.

Asen-nie taiducama[N´ taidu/e] hi.

Jiexi-Gen

attitude be

Jiexi-ø/*-nie

morning 8

Korean, Tibetan

That is, is there any language that disallows
N´-deletion,butallowsgenitive

subject?

Actually, there is one such language in the world

yesterday Jiexi-Abs/-Gen cametime if

Naxi, Tujia

is no language that comes to the lower left slot.

ju]haoci mai yaohutei shiqi ducu

Urdu, Bengali

Now, the question arises as to whether there‘Jiexi’s (attitude) is.’ (Tujia)(24) [Pusinie

N´-Deletion

N´-Deletion‘Whose attitude is not good?’
Jiexi-nie

Japanese, Mongolian,*hi na?

who-Gen attitude good.not be Qb.

✓

* Genitive Subject

as far as we know. That is, the Yanbian varietyhi.

of Korean currently spoken in Yanbian Koreano’clock be

35

Autonomous Prefecture of Jilin Province inN´-Deletion

Urdu, Bengali

China, wich has 75 million native speakers of*

The Yanbian Variety ofthe variety of Korean. Jin and Maki (2011, 2013)

N´-Deletion

KoreanKorean, Tibetan

report that the Yanbian variety of Korean allows
genitive subject, as shown below.

5. Conclusion
This paper investigated syntactic properties(26) Eceynu-ka/-kimantunof the Naxi language, and showed (i) that it

yesterday who-Nom/-Gen made.Adn

allows N´-deletion, but (ii) that it does not allow

lyoli-ka

genitive subject. These findings suggest (i) that

ceyil masissess ni?

dish-Nom most delicious Q

there‘[The food [which who cooked

N´-deletability and the availability of genitive

yesterday] is the most delicious?]’subject in languages with prenominal sentential(Yanbian Korean)modifiers, and (ii) that the non-availability ofisnocorrelation

betweenthegenitive subject in the Naxi language seems to
However, the Yanbian variety of Korean does

originate from the fact that the relevant predicate

not allow N´-deletion, as reported in Maki

is not in the adnominal form. This suggests the(2019).

validity of Maki et al’s (2016) Conditions on
Genitive Subject Licensing for a variety of(27) a.

Nu-ki

thaytochoci ansumni ka?

who-Gen attitude good not.beb.

languages with prenominal sentential modifiers.

Q‘Whose attitude is not good?’* We would like to thank Daojicao, Ling-Li He,

John-iYin-Ji Jin, Norimi Kimura, Takashi Munakata,John-Gen[N´ thayto/*e] imnita.
attitudebe

Keiko Murasugi, Taichi Nakamura, Michael‘John’s (attitude) is.’Sevier and Shao-Ge Wang for their valuable(Yanbian Korean)comments. All errors are our own.

Therefore, the above examples indicate that the
Yanbian variety of Korean does not allow

Bradley,N´-deletion, but allows genitive subject.

REFERENCES
David(1997)“Tibeto-Burman

Languages and Classification,” Papers inThen, the relations shown in (25) between

Southeast

Asianlinguistics

No.

14:

Languagesofthethe N´-deletability and the availability ofTibeto-Burman

genitive subject in languages with prenominal

Himalayas, ed. by David Bradley, 1–64,

sentential modifiers are revised to those in (28).

Departmentof

Linguistics,

Research

School of Pacific and Asian Studies,(28) The N´-Deletability and the Availability ofAustralian National University, Canberra.

Genitive Subject in Languages with

Harada, Naomi (2002) Licensing PF-Visible

Prenominal Sentential Modifiers

Formal Features: A Linear Algorithm✓ Genitive Subject* Genitive Subject

and Case-Related Phenomena in PF,

Japanese, Mongolian,Naxi, Tujia✓

Doctoraldissertation,

California, Irvine.

36

UniversityofNew York.

Harada, S.-I. (1971) “Ga-No Conversion and

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2013) “Strong Uniformity

Ideolectal Variations in Japanese,” GengoandKenkyu 60, 25–38.

Conversion in Japanese,” Journal of East

Jin, Yin-Ji and Hideki Maki (2011) “TheAsian Linguistics 10, 247–286.

Yanbian Variety of Korean: A Living

Ochi, Masao (2009) “Overt Object Shift in

Fossil Connecting the Missing Link
andEnglishOchi, Masao (2001) “Move F and Ga/No

Conversion,” MITWPL 39, 66–125.

KoreanConversion,”

Linguistics 30, 1–24.

Hiraiwa, Ken (2001) “On Nominative-Genitive

Between

Ga/No

Japanese,” Syntax 12, 324–362.

Japanese,”

Saito, Mamoru, T. H. Jonah Lin and Keiko

Handbook of the 142nd Meeting of the
Linguistic Society of Japan, 248–253.

Murasugi (2008) “N´-Ellipsis and theJin, Yin-Ji and Hideki Maki (2013) “The

Structure of Noun Phrases in Chinese andGenitive Subject in the Yanbian Variety

Japanese,”of Korean: A Visual Analogue Scale

Linguistics 17, 247–271.

Phase

Simpson, Andew (2003) “On the Status of
Modifying De and the Syntax of theLama, Ziwo Qiu-Fuyuan (2012) Subgrouping of(Yi)dissertation,

Languages,
University

of

Asian

Study,” JKL 1, 285–301.

Theory,Doctoral dissertation, Sophia University.
NisoicEast“N´-Deletion in Japanese: A Preliminary

Kobayashi, Yukino (2013) Japanese Case
withinof

Saito, Mamoru and Keiko Murasugi (1990)

Analysis,” MITWPL 67, 153–158.
Alternations

JournalDoctoralChinese DP,” On the Formal Way to

Texas

Chinese Languages, ed. by Sze-Wing Tangatand Chen-Sheng Luther Liu, 74–101,

Arlington.

CSLI Publications, Standford.

Maki, Hideki (2019) Daredemo Gengogaku

Thurgood, Graham (2003) “A Subgrouping of(Linguistics for Anybody), Kaitakusha,

theTokyo.

Sino-Tibetan

Languages:

The

Interaction between Language Contact,

Maki, Hideki, Lina Bao, Wurigumula Bao andMegumi Hasebe (2016) “Scrambling andChange,andInheritance,”

Genitive Subjects in Mongolian,” English

Sino-Tibetan

Linguistics 33, 1–35.

Graham Thurgood and Randy J. LaPolla,

Languages,

ed.

The
by

G.

3–21, Routledge, London.

Maki, Hideki and Amanullah Bhutto (2013)“Genitive Subject Licensing in Modern

Wang, Shao-Ge and Hideki Maki (2019) “TheUrdu,” English Linguistics 30, 191–203.

N´-Deletability and the Non-Availability

Miyagawa, Shigeru (1993) “Case-Checking andof

Genitive

Subject

in

the

Tujia

Handbook

of

the

158th

Minimal Link Condition,” MITWPL 19,

Language,”

213–254.

Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan,

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2011) “Genitive Subjects in

183–189.

Altaic and Specification of Phase,”

Watanabe, Akira (1996) “Nominative-Genitive

Lingua 121, 1265–1282.

Conversion and Agreement in Japanese: A

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2012) Case, Argument

Cross-Linguistic Perspective,” Journal of

Structure, and Word Order, Routledge,

East Asian Linguistics 5, 373–410.

37

There are, however, some controversies about
these properties. First, there are RAs whose
forms are identical with QAs. Thus (Plag (2003:
94)):
Prefixed Relational Adjectives in English*(3) a.
Takashi Ishidab.

a grammatical genius
a grammatical sentence

University of Tsukuba / JSPS Research Fellow
The adjective grammatical in (3a) classifies a
Keywords: Denominal adjective, Predicability,

type of genius (i.e. ‘a genius who specialises in

N-deletion, Contrast, Combining form

grammar’). On the other hand, grammatical in(3b) predicates a property of sentence (i.e. ‘asentence which is grammatical’). Therefore, the

1. Introduction

adjective in (3a) is an RA but the one in (3b) is a

Denominal adjectives in English can be

QA. Second and more importantly, althoughdivided into the following two types (Plag

RAs

are

known

(2003: 94), Nagano (2015: 3)):modifiers—namely,asattributive-use

only

they

cannotusedbepredicatively (i.e. *this output is industrial, *this(1) a.
b.

Relational adjective (RA)chair is wooden)—there are many cases where

e.g. industrial, wooden, algebraic

RAs can appear in predicate position under

Qualitative adjective (QA)

certain conditions:e.g. beautiful, picturesque, nervous(4) a.

Her infection turned out to be viral.

RAs differ from QAs in the extent to which they

(Levi (1978: 254))

inherit the properties of their base nouns (seeb.

Nagano (2013)). This is identical to the75 percent of French electricity is
nuclear.

(Bauer et al. (2013: 318))

difference between two types of deverbal nouns,
event nominals and result nominals; the former

The RAs viral in (4a) and nuclear in (4b) areshow much more verbal behaviour than the latter.

indeed in predicate position. We will focus

Similarly, RAs show much more nominal

particularly on this issue in this paper.

behaviour than QAs, as listed in (2) (see Levi

Interestingly, as Levi (1975, 1978) observes,(1978),

when numerical prefixes (e.g. mono-, bi-) are

Beard(1995),

Bisetto(2010),

Shimamura (2014), and Nagano (2015, 2016)):

attached to RAs, they can also appear inpredicate position (Levi (1975: 323, 1978: 24),(2) a.

Classifying Function: industrial output

underlining mine):‘output of an industry’b.

Ordering Restriction: *wooden big(5) a. * Those drawings are chromatic.

table vs. big wooden tablec.

b.

Lack of Gradability: *a very industrial

Those drawings are monochromatic.

(6) a. ? Those agreements are national.

outputb.

38

Those agreements are binational.

We call this type of RA Prefixed Relational

According to Levi, adjectivalisation (i.e. the RA

Adjectives (P-RAs). Note that the P-RAs in (5b)formation) is adjusted at a very surface level;and (6b) maintain the meaning of prenominalthat is, there is no semantic difference between

use; (5b) means ‘drawings which have one

the N-N (chemistry engineer) and the RA-N

colour’, and (6b) means ‘two nations agree on(chemical engineer). However, Levi (ibid.)something’. I argue that P-RA predicability cananalyses P-RAs differently. She explains thatbepredicability.

P-RAs are interchangeable with complex VPs

Specifically, in contrastive environments which

comprising the predicate HAVE, numerals, andevoke other members of an alternative set, thebase-nouns (ibid.: 324–327):

captured

based

on

RA

head nouns can be deleted, leaving RAs stranded
in predicate position. I contend that P-RAs can(9) a.

be considered to be one such case.

monochromatic drawings(cf. (5))= drawings which have one colour

This paper is organised as follows. Section 2b.

reviews Levi’s (1975) analysis and points out

multiracial population= population which has several races

problems with it. Section 3 explores someconditions which enable RAs to appear in

The predicate HAVE appearing in (9) is one ofpredicate position. Section 4 analyses the case of

Levi’s nine specific predicates (Recoverably

P-RAs. Section 5 provides supporting evidence

Deletable Predicates; CAUSE, MAKE, IN, FOR,(i.e.

etc.) which are used to derive the relevant NPs.

combining

forms

of

neo-classicalcompounds). Section 6 offers a brief conclusion.

The first problem is that there are other cases
where an analysis with HAVE cannot be applied

2. Levi’s (1975) Analysis and Problems(ibid.: 324):

To begin with, according to Levi (1975), thereason that RAs cannot be predicative is(10) a.

ascribed to their derivation processes (ibid.: 1):(cf. (6))= two nations agree (on X)b.

(7) a.

binational agreementsa chemical engineer

trinational coverage= X covers three nations

b. * that engineer is chemical
Levi’s analysis does not cover the verbs in (10).
Taking the example in (7), Levi argues that theMoreover, other types of prefixes behave likeunderlying N-N structure chemistry engineer isnumerical ones:

dominated by a single N-node, thus this
inseparable sisterhood relationship makes the(11) a.

RAs impossible to appear in predicate position.

The consideration of Fallacies is
extralogical. (OED, s.v. extralogical)

The derivation can be roughly sketched asb.

follows:...

aphilosophy

demandingthatutilities shall be prosocial and brought
forth ...

(8) engineer of chemistry > of-chemistryc.

engineer > chemistry engineer > chemical(OED, s.v. prosocial)This is why classic Australian fiction,
which at its best is anti-colonial and ....

engineer(The Guardian)

39

d.

The patient subsequently regained his(4) a.

preoperative weight, is nondiabetic,b.

and requires pancreatic supplements

Her infection turned out to be viral.
75 percent of French electricity is
nuclear.

(Viokase).
(Owens and Wolfman (1973))

According to Levi (1978: §7.2), RAs in
predicate position are derived by ellipsis from

It is obvious that these P-RAs are not derived

their prenominal position (cf. Nagano (2016,

from the specific VP ‘HAVE + numerals +2018), Shimada and Nagano (2018)). As

base-nouns’, as suggested by Levi (1975).

represented in (13), the RAs in (4) are not true

Second, if we adopted the above analysis

predicates such as QAs; instead, they are

and assumed that the derivatives originate in thestranded prenominal modifiers whose modifying

same bases, there would be no structural

targets have been deleted:difference between RAs and QAs. If so, we needto argue the difference between them must result
fromanothertheoretical

base.

In

(13)

X be

RA N.

fact,

monochromatic can become a QA:

That is, RAs in predicate position maintain theirprenominal use. The N-deletion analysis can be(12)

Those drawings are monochromatic.

supported by the recoverability of the head= ‘drawings which are drab (unvarying)’

nouns (based on Nagano (2016: 45)):

Levi’s problems can be summarised as follows:(14)

75 percent of French electricity is(i) there are P-RAs where the VP analysis (HAVE

nuclear {electricity / type / one}.

+ numerals + base-noun) cannot be applied; (ii)
it is difficult to distinguish P-RAs from QAs. In

This analysis is also motivated by the different

the next section, we observe conditions on RA

behaviours of Russian adjectives (Short Formpredicability to solve these problems.

(SF), Long Form (LF)). SF adjectives in Russiancannot be used prenominally, whereas LF can

3. Conditions on RA Predicability(Babby (2010: 58)):

I argue that P-RA predicability can be
explained precisely by the case of RAs. I further(15) a. * SF: vkusn-oclaim that N-deletion can be associated withvino

goodSF.NOM.N wine

contrast because of the RA’s classifying functionb.

(i.e. (2a)), which naturally evokes a set of

LF: vkusn-oe

vino

goodLF.NOM.N wine

alternatives (cf. D(iscourse)-linked wh-question(Nagano (2018: 194), Gap Hypothesis (Molnár

SF adjectives have only predicative use and a

and Winkler (2010: 1398))).

qualitative meaning as in (16a), whereas LF
adjectives have attributive use and show a

3.1. N-Deletion Analysis

classifying function even in predicate position as

Observe again the case of (4), where RAsin (16b) (ibid. (2010: 75)):

can occur in predicate position as follows:40

(16) a.

SF: Vino

bylo vkusn-o.

wineNOM.N wasb.

When the adverb primarily modifies the RA

goodSF.NOM.N

musical in (18a), it implies secondarily (cf.

‘Wine was good / the wine was good.’

mostly, mainly, largely). This implied contrast

LF: Vino

thus lets us conceive of a set of specificbylo vkusn-oe.

wineNOM.N was

goodLF.NOM.N

alternative candidates such as animal, hormonal,‘This / the wine was a good wine / one.’botanical, or aromatic in terms of therapy.
Similarly, the quantifier 75% in (18b) implies

This

fact

motivates

theapplicabilityofthat the remaining 25% of the electricity is from

N-deletion for the case of RAs in English.

other energy sources such as wind, thermal,

Levi’s second problem (i.e. it is difficult tosolar, or hydraulic.

distinguish P-RAs from QAs) can now be solved

As observed above, contrast and how it

by employing the N-deletion analysis. P-RAs inconcerns RAs when they occur in predicate

predicate position maintain their prenominal use

position can be considered a key factor in Levi’s

even in predicate position; thus, they are not true

analysis.

adjectival predicates.
4. Contrast by Prefixes
3.2. Factors Inducing N-Deletion

I argue that the case of P-RAs can also be

In this section, we observe the case of RAs

captured by contrast as observed in adverbial

without prefixes, which normally cannot occur

modifiers (e.g. primarily, 75%); however, in thisin predicate position, but under some conditions

case, contrast is brought about by prefixes per se.

can, as pointed out by Levi (1978). First, whenFirst, let us observe how numerical prefixes

there is an explicit contrastive environment (e.g.

yield a contrast:

not, but, rather than), the head nouns can beelided (cf. Levi (1978: 260)). The acceptability(19) a.

Those drawings are monochromatic.

of the expressions with a not-phrase is higher(cf. {di- / tri- / multi-}chromatic)

than that of the unattached ones as in (17a, b).

b.

Those agreements are binational.
(cf. {uni- / tri- / intra- / extra-}national)(17) a.

Her infection turned out to be {viral,c.

not bacterial / viral}.
b.

The

populationofHawaiiismultiracial.

Our firm’s engineers are {mechanical,(cf. {mono- / bi- / poly- / a-}racial)

not chemical / mechanical}.
The numerical prefixes can evoke a set ofSecond, an implied contrast also inducesalternatives by contrasting with other numbers.

N-deletion as in (18):For example, as (19a) shows, the prefix monoimplies the other type for drawings: dichromatic,(18) a.

b.

The therapy he does is {primarily

trichromatic, or multichromatic. The same ismusical / ?musical}. (Levitrue of (19b) and (19c). Second, recall regarding(1978:

260))

non-numerical prefixes that they also can occur

French electricity is 75 percent nuclear.

in predicate position (see (11)), which is in fact

(Nagano (2016: 45), cf. Bauer et al. (2013: 318))

not observed by Levi (1975, 1978). Thus:

41

(20) a.

The consideration is extralogical.

5. Contrast by Other Lexical Elements(cf. {anti- / para- / pre-}logical)b.

Along these lines, we may assume that if

Those utilities are prosocial.

RAs are affixed by lexical elements (e.g.

(cf. {anti- / contra- / non-}social)c.

prefixes) which yield contrast and induce

This classic fiction is anti-colonial.

N-deletion, they can also occur in predicate(cf. colonial, {pre- / post-}colonial)d.

position. Odagiri et al. (2019) argue that the

The patient is nondiabetic.

‘combining forms’ of neo-classical compounds(cf. diabetic, {pre- / anti-}diabetic)

evoke a contrast. For example, the neo-classicalcompound insecticide in (21a) consists of the

For example, the P-RA prosocial in (20b)noun insect and the combining form -cide:

implies that there is a contrary form of utilities
such as antisocial.

(21) a.

Therefore, in terms of contrast, prefixesb.

insecticide‘killer of an insect’hydrophobia ‘fear of water’themselves yield a set of alternatives. This fact

(cf. Scalise and Bisetto (2009: 47))

leads us to conclude that the contrast establishedbyprefixescaninduceN-deletion.

The

This combining form means ‘killer of X’.

following lexical and negative prefixes are

Similarly, -phobia in (21b) means ‘fear of X’ (cf.

examples: numerical prefixes (e.g. mono-, uni-,

Nagano (2016: 61)). These combining forms canbi-, tri-, quad-, poly-, multi-); spatio-temporalserve as stems to derive RAs. Thus:

prefixes (e.g. pre-, post-, extra-, intra-, supra-);contrastive prefixes (e.g. pro-, anti-, contra-,(22) a.

1

counter-); and negative prefixes (e.g. a-, non-)b.

insecticidal: X-cidal‘X-killing’hydrophobic: X-phobic ‘X-fearing’(cf. Nagano (2013), Plag (2003: 98–101)).
However, not all prefixes show this contrast. The

The RA form -cidal has a meaning including an

following prefixes do not fit this case because

undecided variable ‘X’. When X is determined,

they have a certain gradability relative to thethe other variables are contrastively evoked (e.g.

standard: evaluative prefixes (e.g. pseudo-,fungicidal

super-, hyper-, hypo-); negative prefixes (e.g.

‘insect-killing’). Combining forms may thus bemal-, un-, de-, dis-, in-; aspectual prefixes (e.g.

considered to evoke some set of alternatives as

be-, en-, re-). Since these prefixes attach to QAs,

prefixes do. The same is true of -phobic (e.g.

they are excluded from the current analysis.

2xenophobic

Accordingly, the P-RAs’ predicability can be‘fungus-killing’,‘foreigner-fearing’,

pesticidal

acrophobic‘high place-fearing’). Let us observe how this

explained by the same principle of RAs’

type of RA behaves in predicate position:

predicability. Levi’s first problem (i.e. there are
P-RAs where the VP analysis (HAVE + numerals(23) a.

+ base-noun) cannot be applied) can now beb.

solved through this criterion of contrast (seeThis compound is insecticidal.
This compound is insecticidal, notrodenticidal.

Naya and Ishida (to appear) for the categorial(24) a.

status of anti- and pro- and Togano et al. (tob.

appear) for a discussion of other prefixes).

This organism is hydrophobic.
This organism is hydrophobic, notaerophobic.

42

The RAs insecticidal in (23) and hydrophobic in* I have greatly benefited from discussions(24) appear in predicate position. Furthermore,particularly with Masaharu Shimada, Akiko

according to Odagiri et al. (2019), there is no

Nagano, Ryohei Naya, Masatoshi Honda, anddifference

andthe members of the Lexicon Study Circle (LSC)

acceptability,

for their thought-provoking comments andconfirming that combining form RAs yieldsuggestions. I also thank the audience at the 37th

contrast by themselves and induce N-deletion,

meeting of the English Linguistic Society ofregardless of whether they are contrasted

Japan. I am solely responsible for the contents of

explicitly or not.

this paper. This work is supported by JSPS

between(b)-examples

in

the
terms

(a)-examplesofIn this way, the case of combining form RAs

KAKENHI Grant Number 19J10598.

can be considered as supporting our analysis.

NOTES

Both prefixes and combining forms, in a sense,1

may function as classifiers to evoke a certain

previous studies. This paper thus calls them

contrast (see Nagano (2016) and Shimada and‘contrastive

Nagano (2018) for the case of Japanese).

convenience.
2

6. Conclusion

These prefixes were not given names inprefixes’

for

the

sake

of

In terms of whether or not the prefixes can be

input to create a contrast environment andWhat we have accomplished in this paper

induce N-deletion, our analysis is based on the

may be summarised as follows. First, P-RA

Lexical Integrity Principle (LIP) (see Nagano

predicability can be analysed in the same way as(2013: 112) for more details).

RA predicability (i.e. N-deletion and Contrast).
Adverbials (e.g. primarily, 75%) that modify

REFERENCES

RAs in predicate position and lexical elements

Babby, Leonard H. (2010) “The Syntactic(e.g. prefixes, combining forms) that are

Differences between Long and Short Forms

attached to RAs are equivalent in the sense thatof Russian Adjectives,” Adjectives: Formal

both can evoke a set of alternatives and induce

Analyses in Syntax and Semantics, ed. by

N-deletion. Second, lexical prefixes, such as

Patricia C. Hoffher and Ora Matushansky,

numerical, spatio-temporal, and contrastive, and

53–84, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

some negative prefixes (i.e. a- and non-) can be

Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber, and Ingo Plag

input to evoke contrast by themselves. From the(2013) The Oxford Reference Guide topoint of view of contrast, we thus no longer

English Morphology, Oxford University

need to take Levi’s predicate deletion analysis

Press, Oxford.

into account. Conversely, we have shown that

Beard, Robert (1995) Lexeme-Morpheme Base

Levi’s analysis actually presents a solution toMorphology:

deal with (P-)RA predicability. The N-deletion

Inflection and Word Formation, State

analysis and the notion of contrast can be

University of New York Press, Albany.

applied not only to numerical prefixes but also

Bisetto,A

Antonietta

General(2010)

Theoryof“Relational

to non-numerical ones. In this way, all the

Adjectives Crosslinguistically,” Lingue ephenomena of RA predicability can be captured,

Linguaggio 9(1), 65–85.

including the case of prefixed ones.

Levi, Judith N. (1975) The Syntax and43

Semantics of Nonpredicating Adjectives in

Their

English,Japanese),” paper presented at Morphology

Doctoraldissertation,

The

University of Chicago.

Predicability

inEnglishand& Lexicon Forum 2019.

Levi, Judith N. (1978) The Syntax andOwens, Mark P. and Earl F. Wolfman Jr. (1973)

Semantics of Complex Nominals, Academic“Pancreatic

Press, New York.

Presentation of a New Technique,” Surgery

Molnár, Valéria and Susanne Winkler (2010)“EdgesandGaps:

Contrast

atTrauma:Management

and73(6), 881–886.

thePlag, Ingo (2003) Word-Formation in English,

Interfaces,” Lingua 120, 1392–1415.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Nagano, Akiko (2013) “Morphology of Direct

Scalise, Sergio and Antonietta Bisetto (2009)

Modification,” English Linguistics 30(1),“The Classification of Compounds,” The

111–150.

Oxford Handbook of Compounding, ed. by

Nagano,Akiko(2015)“Eigono

Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer, 34–53,

Kankei-Keiyoshi (Relational Adjectives inEnglish),”Gendaino

KeitaironOxford University Press, Oxford.

toShimada, Masaharu and Akiko Nagano (2018)

Onsei-gaku・On’in-ron no Shiten to Ronten“Relational Adjectives Used Predicatively(Present-day Morphology, and Perspectives(But Not Qualitatively): A Comparative-

and Arguments of Phonetics・Phonology),

Structural Approach,” Lexique 23, 62–89.

ed. by Tetsuo Nishihara and Shin-ichi

Shimamura, Reiko (2014) Go to Ku to

Tanaka, 2–20, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Nagano,Akiko(2016)“Are

Nazuke-Kino (Phrases, Words, and theRelational

Naming Function), Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

Adjectives Possible Cross-Linguistically?:

The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/co

The Case of Japanese,” Word Structure 9(1),mmentisfree/2013/nov/28/cruelty-its-part-o

42–71.

f-the-australian-experience

Nagano, Akiko (2018) “A Conversion Analysis[accessedon

30th March, 2019].

of So-Called Coercion from Relational toTogano, Yuri, Nana Odagiri, and Takashi Ishida

Qualitative Adjectives in English,” Word(2019) “Prefixed Relational Adjectives andStructure 11(2), 185–210.

Their Predicativity in English,” DataNaya, Ryohei and Takashi Ishida (2019) “The
Categorial

Status of

Science in Collaboration, Volume 3, ed. by

Prefixed Words:

Yuichi Ono and Masaharu Shimada, 11–21,(Re-)examining the ‘Derivational’ Function

Generalof anti- and pro-,” Data Science inTsukuba.

Affairs

Supporting

Centre,Collaboration, Volume 3, ed. by Yuichi Ono
and Masaharu Shimada, 42–50, General

DICTIONARY

Affairs Supporting Centre, Tsukuba.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), [online]

Odagiri, Nana, Yuri Togano, Takashi Ishida, andRetrieved from https://www.oed.com/

Ryohei Naya (2019) “Nichi-Eigo ni okeru
Kankei-Keiyoshi
Jutsugo-ichi

eno

no

Keisei-Shudan

Seiki-Kanosei

to

(The

Formation of Relational Adjectives and44

instrument subject as bearing an agent role thatis interpreted as a cause of an action. Let uscompare the following examples:(2) a.

Two Types of Instrument Subject

The dishwasher cleaned the dishes.

Constructions in Context: With Special
Reference to Focus and Members in a Set(Schlesinger (1989: 193))*b. * The hammer pounded the metal flat.
(Goldberg (1995: 193))

Kazuyoshi Ishikawa
Based on his analysis, in (2a), the instrument the

University of Tsukuba

dishwasher has the ability to work by itself andKeywords： instrument subject construction,

to clean the dishes without the help of humanfocus, open proposition, members, set

beings. Hence, (2a) is naturally acceptable. In(2b), the hammer can neither move alone nor beinterpreted as causing the event denoted by thepredicate, pound the metal flat. Thus, (2b) is

1. Introduction

unacceptable.

This paper is concerned with a sentence with

Although Schlesinger (1989) succeeds in

an instrument subject. Let us consider thefollowing examples:1

explaining the acceptability of many inanimate
subject sentences in terms of the agent role, it is(1) a.
b.

John opened the door with the key.

not easy to clearly account for the reason why

The key opened the door.

(1b) is different from (2b) in acceptability,
because the subjects in (1b) and (2b) are the(Fillmore (1968: 25))

same in that the instruments, e.g., key, hammer,or cloth, can never move without human beings.

In (1a), the animate subject John used the key in

Moreover,order to open the door and the instrumentitismentioned

that

the

appears with the preposition with. In contrast, in

acceptability of a sentence with that type of(1b) the underlined inanimate object the key

instrument is relevant to another essential factor.

occupies the subject position of the sentence.

See:

Such instruments as in (1b) can occur in(3)

sentences as complements of the preposition
with as in (1a). Let us call a sentence such as
(1b)

the

Instrument

Subject

The key opened the lock.
(DeLancey (1991: 348))

Construction

2(hereafter the ISC).

DeLancey (1991) observes that the sentence inPrevious studies have mainly analyzed the(3) is acceptable as long as the underlined part

instrument subjects of the ISC as having an

the key is contrasted with other keys or means.

agent role in terms of how semantic roles, i.e.,

Along this line, Sentence (3) can denote that thetheta-roles, are involved (cf. Schlesinger (1989,

key, i.e., not other keys or means, has the1995), Dowty (1991), Nishimura (1993)).

property of opening the lock. What is important

Schlesinger (1989), in particular, regards anhere is that a sentence such as (3) is45

unacceptable without the contrast effect. Even if(5) Mother:

What happened today?

instrument subjects are analyzed as having agent

Babysitter: Henry broke the crystal vaseroles in terms of semantic roles, DeLancey’s

with a baseball bat!

(1991) observation in (3) reveals that the(6) Mother:

pragmatic factor contrast crucially improves theWhat happened today?

Babysitter: * The baseball bat broke theacceptability of a sentence like (3). It is, thus,

vase!

necessary to examine it from a pragmatic(Mack (2010: 244),

perspective. Following DeLancey (1991) andwith a slight modification)others (cf. Alexiadou and Schäfer (2006)), Mack
(2010) proposes the pragmatic condition on the

Since

the

answertoasentence-focus

ISC that an open proposition must be activatedwh-question carries new information as a whole,

in a context. The relevant concepts will be

Mack (2010) observes that the babysitter can

explained later in Section 2.

naturally answer as in (5), but cannot use the

The purpose of this paper, by employing

underlined sentence in (6) in order to report the

Mack’s (2010) pragmatic condition, is to argue

same event. This means that the ISC cannot bethat there are two types of ISC depending on

used in such a situation.
Given these observations, Mack (2010)

context. They each have, of course, their own

proposes that a sentence with the ISC ispragmatic function, as briefly indicated below:

acceptable when an open proposition, i.e.,knowledge shared by a speaker and a hearer, is(4) a. To convey a characteristic of anactivated in a context. The concept of an open

instrument subject;

proposition ordinarily indicates a propositionb. To avoid one’s responsibility or tothat contains a variable X (cf. Prince (1986)), asshow one’s modest attitude

shown in (7).
The organization in this paper is as follows.
Section 2 will give an overview of Mack’s(7) a.

(2010) pragmatic analysis. Section 3, based onb.

The key opened the lock.
X opened the lock.

her analysis, will argue that the different types of
the ISC exist in distinct contexts. Section 4 will

Unlike (7a), (7b) includes the variable X, whichshow how to classify the two types. Section 5

corresponds

will provide concluding remarks.

Additionally, the word activate means that suchtoanunsatisfied

element.

an open proposition is evoked in such a context,
i.e., between a speaker and a hearer. Mack

2. Mack’s (2010) Pragmatic Approach(2010)

This section offers an overview of Mack’s

incorporates

these

concepts

intoLambrecht’s (1994) focus definition.

(2010) pragmatic analysis. First, she shows thata sentence with the ISC differs from a normal(8) The semantic component of a pragmaticallydeclarative sentence in that it cannot be used as
an answer to a sentence-focus wh-question likestructured

proposition

whereby“What happened?”:assertion differs from the presupposition

the(Lambrecht (1994: 213))46

lecture in (11a). The proposition is considered
In (8), the assertion corresponds to focus, whichtrue and excludes the proposition that nobody

introduces

discourse,

came. In contrast, according to Mack’s focus,

whereas the rest of the clause is interpreted as

the answer in (10) is appropriately predicted,

presupposition, i.e., the knowledge that abecause the truth value of the open proposition

speaker presupposes to be shared with a hearer.

in (11b) is not decided yet, i.e., the proposition,

Lambrecht (1994) posits the relation between

nobodyfocus and presupposition. In contrast, Mack

wh-question(2010) slightly modifies his definition in (8) andproposition in (11b) and Speaker B satisfies the

posits a relation between focus and open

variable X with nobody as a focus element.

new

information

in

came,
in

is

included.

(10)

activates

Hence,

the

the

open

In this way, Mack (2010) argues that the ISC

proposition.
She distinguishes open proposition frommust be associated with an open proposition aspresupposition, because each concept affects thein (11b). Along these lines, she also states that

acceptability of a sentence differently. Let us

an instrument appears in a subject position whenrefer to the following definitions:an open proposition is activated in somegrammatical form. Let us consider the following(9) a. Presuppositions

areexamples:complete

propositions and thus can be true or(12) a. * This bullet killed Joyce Alexander.

false, believed or disbelieved.
b. Openpropositionsb.

are incomplete

The revolver which the police took

semantic objects, lacking truth values

from the appellant was loaded, withand inappropriate as objects of belief.

the exception of one chamber from(Mack (2010: 65))

which a shot had been discharged,
and it was this bullet that killed Joyce

Based on (9), let us examine these concepts with

Alexander.

a more concrete example:(Mack (2010: 246-247))(10) A: Who came to the lecture?

(12a) does not have contexts and open

B: NOBODY came.

propositions, so it is unacceptable. In (12b), the(Mack (2010: 66))

speaker says that the gun was used in a crime(11) a. Someone came to the lecture.

and that when the police checked it, a bullet had( ≠ Nobody came.)

been discharged from one chamber. Since a cleft

b. X came to the lecture.

sentence generally activates an open proposition(cf. Delin (1995)), the grammatical form in

In (10), Speaker B answers the wh-question to(12b) activates the open proposition, X killed

form

pair.

Joyce Alexander, and the instrument this bullet

Lambrecht’s focus, however, will produce theas a focus element satisfies the variable X.

wrong result that Speaker B cannot answer,

Therefore, the underlined sentence in (12b) is

because the wh-question in (10) presupposes theacceptable. Mack’s analysis, based on thecomplete proposition that someone came to therelation between focus and open proposition,anormalquestion/answer

47

leads us to believe that the ISC is highly

be two types of comparative sets, i.e., one

concerned with the pragmatic condition.

contains no human beings and the other consistsof human beings. Compare:To sum up, this section has shown that the
ISC involves the pragmatic condition; a sentence(14) a. X pounded the metal flat.

with the ISC is acceptable when a context
activates an open proposition that contains ab. X = the hammer

variable X.

↑{ the hammer / this hammer /that hammer / …}

3. Proposition
Employing

Mack’s(2010)

c. X = the hammer

pragmatic

condition, this section will refer to focus, which↑{ the hammer / that hammer /introduces new information in discourse by

Mary / John / …}

satisfying a variable X, and propose that there
are

two

types

of

the

ISC

from

a
When a context activates the open proposition insemantico-pragmatic perspective.

(14a) and the variable X is satisfied by the focus
element the hammer, two sets exist, i.e., the set

3.1. Two Types of Sets
Adopting Mack’s (2010) proposal, we positin (14b) is made up of other hammers, whereasthat there are two types of pragmatic functions

the set in (14c) includes the human beings Maryin the ISC depending on the members of a set

and John. On the basis of the two types of sets inpredicted in a context. In other words, when we(14), uses of the ISC may be classified into two

assume the relation between focus and open

types, each with a unique pragmatic function. In

proposition, a focus element is selected out of aboth cases, a sentence with the ISC is acceptablecomparative set which contains alternatives.

to my informants. In the next section, we

For example:

consider concrete examples.

(13) a. X opened the door.

3.2. Two Types of Pragmatic Functions

b. X = the key ← {the key / A / B / …}

Based on (14b) and (14c), I call the former
the Characterized ISC and the latter the

The bracket in (13b) indicates a comparative set

Substituted ISC. Let us examine the pragmatic

evoked in a context, and the arrow denotes

function of each, as shown in (15).

selecting a focus element to satisfy a variable X.
Suppose that the open proposition in (13a) is(15) a. The Characterized ISC is used when aactivated in some context. A speaker who uses

speaker attempts to convey to a hearer

the sentence the key opened the door selects thewhatfocus element the key from the comparative set,

instrument has in comparison withwhich consists of alternatives in (13b).

other instruments or means predicted

Considering that in the ISC, an instrument

kind

of

characteristics

anin a context.

occurs in a subject position where human beingsb. The Substituted ISC is used when anormally would appear (cf. see (1)), there should

speaker48

attempts

to

avoid

responsibility or to show a modest

an iron factory and is bad at following directions.

attitude by replacing human beings

Kelly made a mistake and changed the shape ofwith an instrument predicted in a

the metal, but he does not want to be blamed bycontext.

his supervisor. Kelly said the underlined
sentence in order to shift his responsibility onto

With these in mind, let us first consider thethe instrument the hammer. In this case, thefollowing example of the Characterized ISC:

hammer in (17) occurs in the subject position
instead of the human, Kelly. That is, he selected(16) GUIDE:This display shows how thethe instrument from the comparative set

metal coins were made inincluding humans.
In a similar vein, the Substituted ISC also

medieval Europe.

indicates modesty. See:

VISITOR: There are all kinds of coins.
GUIDE:

Look at the tool next to themetalcoins.

The(18) GRANDMOTHER: Good boy! I’m sohammerproud of you.

pounded the metal flat.
GRANDCHILD:

No, it wasn’t me.

In the context of (16), a visitor in a medieval

This cloth cleaned

museum stops in front of a display of coins fromthe dishes.

medieval Europe. The guide explains how coins
were made at that time. He selected the hammer

In the context of (18), Grandmother adored herout of the comparative set consisting of

grandchild and praised him because he cleaned

instruments or means, i.e., especially otherthe dishes without anyone’s help. The grandchildhammers, and said the underlined sentence insaid the underlined sentence in order to try to(16) in order to convey to the visitor how thedeflect the praise out of embarrassment. In thishammercase, the cloth in (18) occurs in the subject

was

used

and

what

kinds

of

position instead of a human, the grandchild. He

characteristics it has.

selected the instrument from the comparative set

Let us now turn to the Substituted ISC. This

including a human being.

construction in fact has two functions, avoiding

So far, we have considered both the

responsibility or showing a modest attitude, so

Characterized ISC and the Substituted ISC. The

let us consider the following two examples:

former is used in order to convey information(17) BOB:

about an instrument, whereas the latter is used in

Why is the metal flat?

KELLY: No idea.

order to push the responsibility of human beings

BOB:

onto an instrument or to show a modest attitude.

I’ll ask you again. Why is themetal flat? Did you pound it that

4. Classification Criteria

way?

This section will provide classification

KELLY: No, it wasn’t me! The hammer

criteria for determining the pragmatic type of anpounded the metal flat.

instance of the ISC. We have already seen that
sentences with the Characterized ISC and theIn the above context, Kelly works under Bob in49

Substituted ISC are used in entirely different

b. Sono hanmaa-ga

sono kinzoku-ocontexts. Moreover, there are two ways to judge

Detwhich construction a sentence with the ISC has.

tataite tairani si-ta

First, we can examine whether a sentence

hammer-Nom Det

pound flat

metal-Accnda.

do-Past Comp Cop

with the ISC can be paraphrased with arestrictive relative clause. The requisite property

Weof the grammatical form is that a head noun becorresponds to a copular sentence (cf. Kishimoto

defined by a restrictive relative clause and be(2012)), while the sentence in (21b) takes thedistinguished from others of the same class. Thisno(-da) construction (cf. Noda (1997)). The

means that the function of the form corresponds

realization of each construction in Japaneseto the process of selecting an instrument out of ashows the Characterized ISC and the Substituted

comparative set consisting of other instruments

ISC in English are pragmatically different fromor means (cf. see (14b)). Therefore, a sentenceeach other.

observethatthesentence

in

(21a)

with the ISC is identified as a Characterized ISC
when it can be paraphrased as a restrictive

5. Conclusion

relative clause. If not, it is a Substituted ISC.

This paper has argued that there are two

Along these lines, the examples in (16) and (17)types of the ISC: The Characterized ISC

are judged as follows:

conveys a characteristic of an instrument,
whereas the Substituted ISC introduces a(19) The hammer pounded the metal flat.

speaker’s intention to avoid responsibility or to(20) This is the hammer that pounded theshow a modest attitude. Moreover, I havemetal flat.

presented the classification criteria in order to→ a.

The Characterized ISC

(✓)

→ b.

The Substituted ISC(×)

identify the two ISCs.
Since, as far as I know, previous studies havenotmentioned this classification

from

a

When the sentence in (19), which is used in bothsemantico-pragmatic perspective, I have sought(16) and (17), is paraphrased as in (20), (20a)to introduce a new approach to the study of thediffers from (20b) in this respect.

ISC. In addition, I have briefly mentioned that

Furthermore,

we

can

understandthe

one ISC in English corresponds to a copulardifference through translation from English into

sentence or the no(-da) construction in Japanese.

Japanese. Given each pragmatic function in (15),In this paper, however, I have not given an

we can observe the following sentences inaccount of each construction in detail nor

3

Japanese:

explained why each ISC in English corresponds
to a different form in Japanese. I would like to(21) ‘The hammer pounded the metal flat.’a. Sono hanmaa-wa
Detsono kinzoku-ohammer-Top Det

tataite tairani si-ta
pound flat

leave further exploration of these issues for
future research.

metal-Accmono da.

* This is a revised version of a paper presented

do-Past thing Cop

at the 39th Conference of the Tsukuba English
Linguistic Society, held at the University of50

Tsukuba on November 10-11, 2018. I would like

Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, 1-88,

to thank the following people, who provided

Rinehart and Winston, New York.

helpfulcomments:

Yukio

Hirose,Goldberg,

MasaruA.

E.

(1995)A

Construction

Kanetani, Ryohei Naya, and Masatoshi Honda. I

Grammar Approach to Argument Structure,am also grateful to the audience at the meeting

University of Chicago Press, London.
Kishimoto,for their comments and questions. Needless to

Hideki(2012)“Nihongo

say, any remaining errors and shortcomings are

Kopyurabun no Imi to Koozoo (Semantics

my own.

andSyntaxofJapanese

Copular

NOTES

Sentences),” Zokusei Zyozyutu no Sekai

Underlined parts in examples of this paper are(The World of Property Predications), ed.

mine.

by Taro Kageyama, 39-67, Kurosio, Tokyo.

1

2

In this paper, I exclude so-called facilitating

Lambrecht, K. (1994) Information Structure andinstruments (cf. Levin (1993: 80)), as indicatedSentenceForm,

below:

Press, Cambridge.

Cambridge

University

Levin, B. (1993) English Verb Classes and(i) a.

Alternations, University of Chicago Press,

Doug ate the ice cream with a spoon.

b. * The spoon ate the ice cream.

Chicago.
Mack, J. E. (2010) Information Structure and the3

Licensing of English Subjects, Doctoral

The following abbreviations are used in thedissertation, Yale University.

glosses of examples in this paper: Acc =accusative, Comp = complementizer, Cop =Nishimura, Yoshiki (1993) “Agentivity andcopular, Det = determiner, Nom = nominative,

Causation in Cognitive Linguistics,” Kansai

Past = past, Top = topic.

Linguistic Society, 13, 161-171.
Noda, Harumi (1997) No (Da) no Kinoo (TheFunctions of No (Da)), Kurosio, Tokyo.

REFERENCES
Alexiadou, A. and F. Schäfer (2006) “Instrument
Subjects

Are

AgentsorPrince, E. F. (1986) “On the Syntactic Marking

Causers,”ofPresupposed

Open

Propositions,”

Proceedings of the 25th West Coast

Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of

Conference on Formal Linguistics, 40-48.

the Chicago Linguistic Society, 1-17.

DeLancey, S. (1991) “Event Construal and Case

Schlesinger, I. M. (1989) “Instruments asRole Assignment,” Proceedings of the 17th

Agents: On the Nature of Semantic

Annual Meeting of the Berkeley, 338-353.

Relations,” Journal of Linguistics 25(1),189-210.

Delin, J. (1995) “Presupposition and Shared

Schlesinger, I. M. (1995) Cognitive Space andKnowledge in It-Clefts,” Language andCognitive Processes 10, 1-31.

Linguistic Case: Semantic and Syntactic
Categories

Dowty, D. (1991) “Thematic Proto-Roles andArgument

Selection,”

Language67,

inEnglish,

University Press, Cambridge.

547-619.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968) “The Case for Case,”
Universals in Linguistic Theory, ed. by

51

Cambridge

(3) [vP Subj v* [LB2 XP2 R [LB1 XP1 Fto [AP A]]]]The first option for v* is to send features to R
Labeling with Long Distance Featureand the other is to transmit them to F, which is

Inheritance and Extraction out of Nounrealized as infinitival to in (1).

Phrases*

A problem that arises here is what features
are transmitted to Fto. I assume, following

Satoru Kanno

Chomsky (2001), that the infinitival to only has

Tokyo University of Sciencean unvalued person feature, [u-person]. It thenfollows that, unlike the “standard” featuretransmission of the [ĳ] features to R from v*, F

Keywords：feature inheritance, sub-extraction,

only receives [u-person] from v*.

small clause, resultative

Let me show how labels are determined
under these two options of FI. First, consider thecase where v* sends the [ĳ] features to R. Under

1. Problems and Solutions
The purpose of this paper is to claim that

this FI, the object DP moves to the higher

syntactic derivation permits features to beposition (XP2 in (3)). The DP and R then entertransmitted onto a lower head in a long distanceinto an Agree relation. As a result, the label

fashion. I further show that with this mechanism,(LB2) is given <ĳ, ĳ>. On the other hand, when

we can capture vP structures of various

v* transmits [u-person] to Fto, the DP moves toconstructions in terms of labeling theory.

XP1, and the DP and F Agree only for [person],I begin by discussing the ECM construction

hence the resulting label (LB1) is <person,in (1) from Lasnik (2001: 106).

person>.
Importantly, the current derivation can(1) She will prove Bob to be guilty.

account for the optionality of raising of object
DPs in ECM constructions. Either option leads

Lasnik (2001) claims that it is optional whether

to a convergent derivation at the interfaces. Thatthe object Bob in (1) moves into the matrix

is, as far as resulting structures are convergent atclause. The obvious problem that comes fromthe interfaces, ordering of applying operations is

Lasnik’s claim is how labeling is establishedopen at syntax (Epstein et al. (2017)).

under the optionality of the movement of theThe

object DP.

current

paper

also

discusses

sub-extraction phenomena. It is usually assumed

To answer this question, I propose (2).

that the possibility of extraction out of a DP
depends on its position at LF (Diesing (1992)).

(2) Long distance feature inheritance is possible.

(LF corresponds to the C-I interface in thecurrent Minimalist framework, but I will

With the long distance feature inheritance (FI)continue using the term LF throughout thispossible, the vP structure in (1) has thepaper.) With this assumption in mind, let us

following options:consider52thesub-extraction

in

ECM

position of the post-verbal DPs comes from theconstructions. See (4) as specific examples.

unavailability of passives. See (5) from Basilico(2003: 2, 11).

(4) a. *Who2 did John make [friends of t2] out [t1to be smart]?

(5) *The prisoner was {seen/made} leave.

b. ?Who1 did John make out [[friends of t1]
to be smart]?

As (5) shows, when the passive operation(Boeckx and Hornstein (2005: 36))applies to the SCs with VP predicates, theSuppose that an overt DP position at syntax

sentencesbecomeungrammatical,

which

corresponds to the DP position at LF. (4)indicates that the post-verbal DPs do not raise toindicates that the DP in the higher position

the higher object position, staying in the lower

resists the sub-extraction operation while the DP

object position.
On the LF side, the evidence for the lower

in the lower position licenses the operation.

position comes from sub-extraction. See (6) as

In this paper, I take sub-extraction to be a

specific examples from Basilico (2003: 5).

diagnostic test to indicate the DP position at LF.
If sub-extraction is successfully licensed, the DP(6) a. Whoi did you let [a rumor about ti] spreadis considered to be the lower position. If not, theDP occupies the higher position at LF.

around the entire department?

To sum up, I have proposed that FI can occur

b. Which planeti did you see [a picture of ti]

in a long distance fashion. This proposal can

appear on your computer screen?

capture the optionality of the raising found in
ECM constructions. Furthermore, sub-extraction

The sub-extraction can successfully apply to the

can apply to the DP, when it is in the lowerDPs.

position at LF.

The discussions here show that in SCs with

Importantly to the following discussions, if

VP predicates, the long distance FI is the only

the current analysis is on the right track, we

option.

expect that various ways of FI can capture avariety of constructions. In what follows, I argue

2.2. Small Clauses with AP/PP Predicatesthat this expectation is borne out, showing that

Let me turn to the discussion of the SCs withdifferent constructions adopt different ways of

AP/PP predicates. Their syntactic and LF

FI.

properties are that the post-verbal DPs are in thehigher position at both syntax and LF.
First, the passive operation is applicable to

2. Syntactic Positions and Sub-Extraction

the constructions, as in (7), and the post-verbal

2.1. Small Clauses with VP PredicatesIn this subsection, I discuss small clauses

DPs only receive a generic interpretation, as in(SCs) with VP predicates, arguing that the(8). (7) and (8) are from Basilico (2003: 2, 4).

post-verbal DPs are in the lower position at bothsyntax and LF.

(7) The prisoner is considered intelligent.

First, let me discuss their syntactic properties.

(8) The guard considers prisoners intelligent.

The first piece of evidence for a lower syntactic53

b. Her Nikes have been run t threadbare.

In (8), the bare plural DP prisoners cannot be(Carrier and Randall (1992: 191))

interpreted existentially. It has only the genericinterpretation.
(11)

Moreover, the DP can bind reciprocals

shows

that

the

DPs

can

undergowithin matrix adverbial phrases, as in (9) frompassivization. Furthermore, the DPs can bindHong and Lasnik (2010: 279).

pronouns within adverbial phrases, as in (12).

(9) The DA proved [two men guilty] during(12) a. the loud clock ticked [every babyi

each other’s trials.

awake] [at hisi/heri/itsi afternoon nap]b. they laughed [every applicanti out of the

The binding possibility suggests that theroom] [at hisi/heri job interview]

post-verbal DPs move into the higher object(Tomizawa (2007: 92))

position at syntax.
As expected from the higher syntactic

These data show that the DPs raise to the higher

position, the DPs cannot undergo sub-extraction,

position.

as in (10) from (Basilico (2003: 5)).

However, the DPs are necessarily interpreted
at the lower position at LF. This claim is(10) ?? Which studenti do you consider [a booksupported by the fact that the extraction is easilyfine out of the DPs, as in the following:

about ti] too boring for your class?

(13) Whoi are they burning books about ti toThus, the SCs with AP/PP predicates only
allow a particular type of FI: the transmission ofcinders?

(Bruening (2018: 554))

the features on v* to R.
The reason for the DPs being in the lower
position at LF is associated with a property of

2.3. Resultatives and Motion Verbs
The next constructions that I discuss are

the result XPs. Specifically, Guéron andresultative constructions and sentences with

Hoekstra (1995: 100) claim that “… it is …

motion verbs. These two show shared properties

required that the property denoted by thein that the post-verbal DPs are raised at syntax

predicate be a stage-level property.” Therefore,

but they are interpreted at the lower position at

the stage-level property of the result XPs forces

LF. The current paper only discusses resultatives

the post-verbal DPs to be interpreted at theas a representative.

lower position at LF. That is why theFirst, concerning the syntactic position of the

sub-extraction is possible in (13).

post-verbal DPs of the resultative constructions,

To sum up, resultatives show the raising of

I claim that the DPs raises to the higher position

the post-verbal DPs at syntax, but they areat syntax.

interpreted in the lower position at LF.

The first evidence that I offer is thefollowing passive sentences:

3. Sub-Extraction and the <φ, φ> LabelingIn the discussion above, we have seen that

(11) a. The seedlings were watered t flat.

when the post-verbal DPs occupy the higher

54not licensed.

position at LF, extraction out of the DPs is notpossible. This section derives this constraint

The current analysis can be extended to thefrom the labeling perspective. Specifically, thedouble object constructions. Concerning the vP

constraint can be stated as follows: the DPs thatstructure of the double object constructions, I

have entered into the <ĳ, ĳ> labeling at syntax

assume, following Anagnostopoulou (2003), that

resist the application of the sub-extraction.

the

vP

consistsofvP-Appl(icative)P-VP.

First, see the sentence in (14) (from

I

three
also

phrases:assumethat

Chomsky (1973: 249)) where the object isindirect objects are introduced by ApplP, andindefinite.

direct objects are by VP. (17) illustrates the vP
structure of double object constructions.

(14) Who did John hear stories about t?
(17) [vP Subj [vP v* [<ĳ, ĳ> DPthe doll [ApplP Appl[ĳ]

The object of this sentence can undergo thesub-extraction. The derivation is shown in (15).

[ĳ][<ĳ, ĳ> DPa girl [VP V tDP]]]]]]
[ĳ]

[ĳ]

OK

X

(15) [CP who … [Subj [vP vhear[<ĳ, ĳ> [DP stories about t]i[ĳ]

As vP contains two DPs, it follows that v¥heartransmits two sets of [ĳ] features: the one to theDPi ]]]][ĳ]

Appl head, and the other to the V head. The
indirect object enters into the Agree relation withAt syntax, the object moves to the higher

Appl, and the label becomes <ĳ, ĳ>. On theposition. The movement creates two copies ofother hand, the direct object moves to [Spec,

the object DP. The object at the higher position

VP] entering into Agree with V.

enters into the Agree relation with R(=¥hear),As expected from this Agree relation,offering the <ĳ, ĳ> labeling. These two

extraction is not possible out of the indirect

positions are also available at LF. The higher

object since the indirect object enters into the

copy cannot license the sub-extraction operation

labeling relation at syntax. On the other hand,since it has entered into the labeling relation at

sub-extraction can apply to direct objects whensyntax. On the other hand, the lower copy

they are indefinite. These expectations are borne

licenses the sub-extraction because it has notout. See (18) and (19).

entered into such a labeling relation.
(18) * Who did you say Cindy sent [a friend of t]

Next, consider the impossible sub-extraction

a picture?

of definite DPs, as in (16) from Chomsky (1973:(Runner (1998: 161))(19) a. Who did you say Cindy sent Bobby [a258).

picture of t]?

(Runner (1998: 161))b. * Who did you say Cindy sent Bobby [the(16) *Who did we hear John’s stories about t?

picture of t]?
This is because the definite DP has to stay at thehigher position at LF. This position corresponds

Let me turn to discussion of factive clauses.

to the labeling position, and the sub-extraction is

It is well-known that factive clauses behave like55

DPs. For example, when that-clauses are

there for [person]. This in turn means that theinterpreted as being factive, they can undergo

associate DP does not enter into Agree for the

Subject-Auxiliary

full set of [ĳ] features. This is why the associate

Inversion,

as

in

(20).

DP can undergo sub-extraction.

Furthermore, factive clauses can occur as a
SC-subject, as in (21).

4. Variation among Speakers
Many speakers agree with the judgment(20) a. ?? Is that John is a millionaire a lie?
b.

Is that John is a millionaire a surprise?

shown in (10). However, there are some

(Moulton (2017: 301))

speakers who judge sentences similar to (10) to
be fine. As a specific example, I cite (23) below,(21) a. ?? I consider that John is a millionaire afrom Carrier and Randall (1992: 207, n. 38).

real lie.
b.

I consider that John is a millionaire areal surprise.

(23) the gang that I consider the leaders of(Moulton (2017: 302))

immoralSince factive clauses behave like DPs, I assume
that they move to the higher position, entering

I assume that for such speakers, what is

into the Agree with the root of the verb. I claim

transmitted from v* to V is [person] instead ofthat this is the reason that factive clauses resist[ĳ]. Under this derivation, the post-verbal DP

the application of sub-extraction.

Agreesonly

for[person].

Therefore,

sub-extraction is permitted to apply to the DP.

The next interesting prediction that thecurrent analysis gives rise to is regarding

ECM constructions also show differences ininfinitival clauses. I have assumed, following

judgment among speakers. Some speakers

Chomsky (2001), that infinitival T has only

consider sub-extraction to be incompatible with

[u-person]. Given this assumption, the subject

ECM constructions, as in (24) from Chomsky

phrase that enters into the infinitival T can(1973:

undergo the sub-extraction operation. This turns

sub-extraction as being applicable, as in (25)out to be true, as in (22).

from Chomsky (2008: 153).

(22) Of which majori is it important for [[the(24) * Who do you expect stories about to terrify

249),

while

other

peopleregardJohn

students ti] to take a course in physics]]?

(25) Of which car did they believe the driver to(Egashira (2015: 151))

have caused a scandal
The correctness of the relation between the<person, person> labeling and the successful

Speakers who agree with (25) take a particular

sub-extraction

there

derivation. For example, they keep the object DP

constructions. In there constructions, extractionin the lower position. Another derivation thatis possible out of associate DPs. I assume,

allows sub-extraction to apply is that the lower

following Richards (2004), that the expletive

copy must be accessible at LF. That is, if English

there consists of the third person feature,

speakers consider the lower copy visible at LF,[person: 3rd]. Given this, T only Agrees withthe sub-extraction is licensed (see Sigurðsson

isconfirmedby56

inheritance. This mechanism can correctlyand Holmberg (2008)).

capture the optionality of the raising found in
ECM

5. The Plausibility of the Current Proposal

constructions.

Furthermore,variousThe current paper has proposed that FI

combinations of syntactic features with ways ofoccurs in a long distance fashion. The questions

FI account for the syntactic and LF properties of

to be addressed are why [person] is the target ofthe constructions such as SCs with VP predicates,

long distance FI, and what makes such

SCs with AP/PP predicates, resultatives, andinheritance possible.

motion verbs. The paper also discusses theAn answer to the first why question comes

consequences of the current proposal. The firstfrom Preminger (2011). He argues for theconsequence concerns the relationship between

Relative Aptitude for Failed Agreement (RAFA).

the <ĳ, ĳ> label and the impossibility of

The point of RAFA is that the licensing of

sub-extraction. The second consequence is that[person] must occur in a more local relation thanthe current analysis can account for variationthat of [number]. Given this, when a DP stays inamong speakers. Finally, I have shown that thethe lower position, the [person] feature (but notlong distance FI is theoretically plausible.

[number] feature) must be passed down.
The next question is how the transmission*An earlier version of this paper was presented

occurs long-distantly. To consider this question,at the 37th Meeting of the English Linguistic

let me first review Chomsky’s assumption as aSociety of Japan, held at Kwansei Gakuin

background. Assuming the structure in (26),

University in November, 2019. I would like toChomsky (2015: 14) claims that R raises to v*.

express my gratitude to the audience for theirvaluable comments. All remaining errors andinadequacies are my own. This work was partly(26) [ v* [Į DP [ R [ȕ t ….]]]]

supportedbyaGrant-in-Aid

for

Young

When R is Pair-Merged with v*, the latter

Scientists (B) (JSPS KAKENHI Grant No.

becomes invisible.

JP17K13472).

However, this is not the only possibility.
Otsuka (2017: 140) claims that the opposite

REFERENCES

pattern should be available, saying “R isAnagnostopoulou, Elena (2003) The Syntax ofPair-Merged with v*.” The current paper takes

Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics, Mouton

this derivation to be possible. Specifically, at thede Gruyter, Berlin.

first stage of the derivation, R is Pair-Merged

Basilico, David (2003) “The Topic of Smallwith v*, and R becomes invisible. Next, v*

Clause,” Linguistic Inquiry 34, 1-35.

sends its features to a lower head. Importantly,

Boeckx, Cedric and Norbert Hornstein (2005)

this transmission by-passes the next lower head

“On Eliminating D-Structure: The Case of

R since R has been already invisible. Therefore,

Binominal Each,” Syntax 8, 23-43.

the inheritance goes from v*(-R) to F.

Bruening,

Benjamin(2008)“Depictive

Secondary Predicates and Small Clause
Approaches

6. Conclusion
This paper argues for long distance featuretoArgument

Linguistic Inquiry 49, 537-559.

57

Structure,”Carrier, Jill and Janet H. Randall (1992) “The

Syntax and Semantics 28: Small Clauses, ed.

Argument Structure and Syntactic Structureby Anna Cardinaletti and Maria T. Guasti,

of Resultatives,” Linguistic Inquiry 23,

77-107, Academic Press, London.
Hong, Sungshim and Howard Lasnik (2010) “A

173-234.
on

Note on ‘Raising to Object’ in Small Clauses

Transformations,” A Festschrift for Morrisand Full Clauses,” Journal of East Asian

Halle, ed. by Stephen A. Anderson and Paul

Linguistics 19, 275-289.

Chomsky,

NoamKiparsky,(1973)

232-286,“Conditions

Holt,

Rinehart

Lasnik, Howard (2001) “Subjects, Objects, andand

the EPP,” Objects and Other Subjects, ed. by

Winston, New York.

William D. Davies and Stanley Dubinsky,

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”103-121, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by

Moulton, Keir (2017) “Determiners on Clauses,”

Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

A Schrift to Fest Kyle Johnson, ed. byCambridge, MA.
Chomsky,Noam(2008)“On

NicholasPhases,”

LaCara,Keir

MoultonandFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:

Anne-Michelle Tessier, 293-303, Linguistics

Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed.

Open Access Publication 1.

by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Mari

Otsuka, Tomonori (2017) “On Two Ways of

Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT Press,

External Pair-Merge,” Proceedings of GLOW

Cambridge, MA.

in Asia XI, volume 2, 135-146.

Chomsky,

Noam

Projection:(2015)“Problems

Extensions,”

Preminger, Omer (2011) “Asymmetries betweenofPersonStructures,

andNumberin

Syntax:A

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour ofCommentary on Baker’s SCOPA,” NLLT

Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico,29, 917-937.
Richards, Marc D. (2004) Object Shift andCornelia Hamann and Simona Matteini, 3-16,

Scrambling in North and West Germanic: A

John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Case Study in Symmetrical Syntax, Doctoral

Diesing, Molly (1992) Indefinites, MIT Press,

dissertation, MIT.

Cambridge, MA.

Runner,Egashira, Hiroki (2015) “Syugo kara-no Wh-Ido

Jeffrey

T.

(1988)

Noun

PhraseLicensing, Garland, New York.

no Kanousei-ni Tuite [On Possibilities on
Wh-Movement out of Subject],” In Untiring

Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. and Anders Holmberg

Pursuit of Better Alternative, ed. by Hiroki(2008) “Icelandic Dative Intervention: Person

Egashira,

Kazuo

and Number are separate probes,” Agreement

Nakazawa, Tadao Nomura, Masayuki Oishi,

Restrictions, ed. by Roberta D’Alessandro,

Akira Saizen and Motoko Suzuki, 150-159,

SusannKaitakusha, Tokyo.

Hrafnbjargarson,

Hisatsugu

Kitahara,

FischerandGunnar251-279,

Hrafn

Moutonde

Gruyter, New York.

Epstein Samuel, Miki Obata and T. Daniel Seely

Tomizawa, Naoto (2007) “Syntactic Structures(2017) “Is Linguistic Variation Entirelyof

Linguistic,” Linguistic Analysis 41, 481-516.

Resultatives

Guéron, Jacqueline and Teun Hoekstra (1995)

University“The Temporal Interpretation of Predication,”

79-100.

58

AnnualRevisited,”

Yamagata

Research

Report4,

(3) fat-free yoghurt, lead-free petrol,
hassle-free banking (Cruse (2011: 355))
However, few studies have focused on “nouns”
collocating with N-free/N-less. In this paper, I

An Analysis of N-free X and N-less X Basedon Construction Morphology*

investigate how N-free X and N-less X are
construed and specified through a comparison of

Yuki Kikuchi

N-free/N-less and their collocate X.

Osaka University
2. A Review of Bauer et al. (2013)This section reviews the difference in

Keywords：derivatives, collocation, corpus study,
Construction Morphology, schemas

meaning between N-free and N-less presented by
Bauer et al. (2013) as a previous study.
According to Bauer et al. (2013), the suffix-less is quite fixed in meaning and implies

1. Introduction‘absence’ or ‘loss’ (e.g. shoeless ‘the absence orThis paper presents a constructional analysisof the expressions N-free X and N-less X

lack of shoes’).

extracted from corpora.

In the literature, theconsistent privative interpretation, but it often

English suffixes -free and -less (both forming

gives an evaluative effect, when compared withadjectives) are claimed to indicate the privative

the words ending in -free (i.e. N-free).

meaning ‘without the thing denoted by the baseexample, Bauer et al. (2013) distinguish between

noun.’ Examples of the derivatives N-free andsaltless and salt-free as follows:-Less in N-less produces aFor

N-less are shown in (1) and (2), respectively.
(4) a.
(1) acid-free, care-free, duty-free, frost-free,

Saltless marks that the absence of salt
is a negative or at best neutral quality.

nuclear-free, smoke-freeb.

(2) careless, childless, endless, fatherless,Salt-free generally suggests that theabsence of salt is something desirable.

harmless, moonless(Bauer et al. (2013: 368))(Nishikawa (2006: 247, 257))
Although both saltless and salt-free in (4) mean
Some studies of derivational suffixes have‘the absence of salt,’ the two derivatives seem todescribed the meanings of -free and -less indiffer with respect to evaluative quality.

terms

of

“(un)desirability”

N-free/N-less or by the base noun.

denotedForby(4b), to put it another way, the absence of salt

In particular,

denoted by salt-free is regarded as a positive

the base noun in N-free tends to be restricted toan entity with negative evaluation.

quality.

As

These observations in (4) may hold true for

exemplified in (3), the nouns (fat, lead, andother examples of N-free and N-less in (1)-(3),hassle) combined with -free are considered to be

but Bauer et al. (2013) offer no clear explanation

something undesirable.

of how they reached the conclusions presentedin (4).

59

Further explanation will be needed tobetter understand the proper interpretations of

3.2. Findings

N-free and N-less.

Take the pair of smoke-free X and smokeless
X as an example.

Table 1 shows smoke-freeand smokeless (corresponding to the Japanese

3. Comparison of Collocates Using Corpora

kemuri-no-denai ‘without smoke’) do not share

In this section, I explore in greater detail thesemantic relationship of N-free/N-less and theira collocate X.

nominal collocates using corpus data, and show

law and tobacco are labelled by [LEMMAS], andthat this survey results in a strong association

numbers in parentheses indicate how often

between the base noun and the collocate.

smoke-free X and smokeless X occur in COCA.

3.1. Methods

Table 1: Collocates of smoke-free and smokelessTo see how N-free and N-less differ in(based on COCA)

meaning, I adopt the corpus-based method for

Word

Collocate X (freq.)

analyzing synonyms in Uchida (2014).
Uchidaillustrates

an[LAW](60)/ [ENVIRONMENT](41)/examinationofsmoke-freecollocates of two words, for example, nouns
after

the

verbs

accomplish

andIndividual collocates such as[POLICY](16)/ [WORKPLACE](16)/[LEGISLATION](11)/ [ZONE](9)/attain.

[ORDINANCE](5)/ [HOSPITAL](4)...

Although these verbs correspond to the Japanese[TOBACCO](157)/ [POWDER](34)/tassei-suru, the difference between them is assmokelessfollows: the nouns task and mission (implying‘action’) tend to occur as objects of accomplish,[PRODUCT](16)/ [CIGARETTE](10)/[FIRE](5)/ [ASHTRAY](2)/ [FLAME](2)/[GUNPOWDER](2)...

while the nouns status and fame (implying‘state’) tend to occur as objects of attain. From

Table 1 illustrates the X slot in smoke-free X is

this survey result based on COCA, he shows thatmainly filled by nouns denoting ‘places’ andthe semantic difference between accomplish and‘legal system or regulations,’ as in (5).

attain can be explained through a comparison of
their collocates.

(5) a. Many community health organizations

Adopting this method, I investigate theare eager to participate in efforts tosemantic relationship between N-free/N-less andachieve smoke-free workplaces.

nouns collocating with them using COCA, NOW,b.

..., at least 171 local housing

and iWeb.1 To search for N-free X and N-less X,

authorities in 25 states have adopted

the span for the collocates defaults to “1 word tosmoke-free policies for some or all of

the right,” and the collocates extracted aretheir housing, ...

lemmatized.

(both from COCA)

Following Uchida (2014), I

assume that the less two derivatives share a

Smoke-free workplaces in (5a) implies thatparticular collocate X, the more likely they arepeopleto differ in meaning.

I also examine what kind

Smoke-free policies in (5b) implies that peopleof nouns occur as collocates of N-free or N-less,cannot smoke in housing subject to certain

especially focusing on the semantic relationshippolicies.

of the base noun ‘N’ and the collocate ‘X.’

60

cannotsmoke

inworkplaces.

Note that (5b) does not denote ‘thelack of smoke,’ nor does smoke-free modify

fuel and coal tend to occur as collocates ofpolicy semantically.2

In any case, information

smokeless. A similar result holds for iWeb, as

about intentional removal of smoke can bein “smokeless [FUEL](246)” vs. “smoke-freeobtained from both contexts in (5).

[FUEL](5).”It follows from these observations

In contrast, nouns denoting ‘tobacco’ andthat the semantic differences between the two‘powder’ are strongly associated with smokeless,derivatives are corroborated by their collocates.

as in (6). What is remarkable here is that these

Now I focus on the semantic relationshipentities potentially emit smoke.

between the base noun and the collocates insmoke-free X/smokeless X.

(6) a.

b.

Regardless ofDespite the widely publicized decline

whether these expressions are idiomatic, theinrelation of smoke and X can be explained as

cigarette

smoking,

sales

of

smokeless tobacco are booming.

follows: (i) ‘tobacco’ and ‘powder’ potentially... black powder was replaced by aemit smoke, but ‘law’ and ‘places’ do not, andsmokeless powder called cordite.

(ii) the interpretation that smoke is (or will be)(both from COCA)

intentionally removed from (an entity involving)
X is more strongly related to smoke-free thanIn recent years, smokeless tobacco in (6a) has

smokeless.

been used in the sense of ‘tobacco that is used

The same observation applies to otherby means other than smoking (e.g. chewing

examples listed in Table 3.

tobacco, snuff)’ rather than ‘the lack of smoke intobacco.’Smokeless powder in (6b) simply

Table 3: Collocates of N-free and N-less (COCA)

means ‘gunpowder that does not involve muchWordsmoke.’ Thus, except for smokeless tobacco,child-freesmokeless in smokeless X just modifies X
semantically (cf. *Tobacco is smokeless).

childlessAlso, additional data for smoke-free X andsmokeless X are given in Table 2.

ice-freeTable 2: Collocates of smoke-free and smokelessiceless(based on NOW)
Word
smoke-freesmokeless

Collocate X (freq.)
hands-free[FUEL](2)/ [COAL](none)/ [STOVE](6)/[POWDER](none)/ [FLAME](none)...

handless[FUEL](117)/ [COAL](52)/ [STOVE](37)/

Collocate X (freq.)[LIFESTYLE](2)/ [MORNING](2)/[TIME](1)/ [SITE](1)/ [NIGHT](1)...
[COUPLE](94)/ [MARRIAGE](17)/[WOMAN](69)/ [WIFE](15)/ [MAN](12)...
[CORRIDOR](11)/ [LAND](8)/[WATER](6)/ [SEASON](3)/ [PORT](3)...
[RUM](1)/ [ICE](1)※[ICE] refers to “ice cube trays.”[DEVICE](28)/ [PHONE](23)/ [CALL](6)/[HEADSET](11)/ [CONVERSATION](4)...
[BODY](3)/ [CORPSE](2)/ [ARM](1)/[SEGWAY](1)/ [HUG](1)...

[POWDER](50)/ [FLAME](15)...

In the case of child-free lifestyle/morning
In Table 2, as numbers in parentheses show, aand childless couple/marriage, ‘people’ andgreat difference in frequency between smokeless‘marriage’ may potentially bear children or

X and smoke-free X suggests that nouns such as

create a situation of having children, but there is61

no guarantee that ‘way of living’ or ‘time’

Table 5: Collocates of N-free and N-less (iWeb)

produces such situations.

Word

As for ice-free X and iceless X, ice-freeacid-freeco-occurs with nouns denoting ‘place’ (e.g.
corridor, land, port) and ‘time’ (e.g. season,

acidless

period, summer) while iceless can co-occur with
toll-freerum and ice cube trays, which potentiallyinvolve ice.

toll-less

In hands-free X, the word hands-free

Collocate X (freq.)[PAPER](534)/ [TISSUE](214)/ [BOX](86)/[MATERIAL](61)/ [BOARD](41)...
[ORANGE](4)/ [TALLOW](2)...
[NUMBER](7173)/ [PHONE](1331)/[HOTLINE](672)/ [CALL](461)...
[ROUTE](3)/ [ROAD](1)/ [HIKING](1)...
※[HIKING] refers to “hiking trail.”designates as collocates a device, telephone, orheadset that can be operated without using one’s

Through this additional survey, we also find thehands.

strong association between the base noun andAlso, expressions like hands-freeconversation/call denote activities or functions

collocates in N-free X/N-less X.

made easier by using such devices. In contrast,

4 and 5 show, X in N-less X is strongly

handless X basically means ‘X having no hands’

associated with the entity N.

and handless designates as collocates ‘(a dead)‘mother’ and ‘breast’ are potentially capable ofbody’ or ‘electric vehicle (e.g. Segway),’ which

producing milk to feed a baby.

normally involve hands.

‘sky’ (e.g. azure sky, spring sky) and ‘time’Moreover, let us take a look at the data forFirst, as Tables
In milkless X,
In cloudless X,

potentially involve clouds from a climate

N-free and N-less extracted from other corpora.

perspective.

Below are some examples of their collocates.

‘trick’ (fun, prank, and joke) and ‘small living

In harmless X, nouns denoting

thing’ (bacteria and virus) occur as collocates.
Table 4: Collocates of N-free and N-less (NOW)
Word
milk-freemilklesscloud-free

These all potentially involve harm.

Collocate X (freq.)

and toll-less X are relatively new phrases found[DIET](7)/ [VERSION](2)/ [FOOD](2)/only in iWeb. As in (7) and (8), acidless and[YOGURT](1)/ [FORMULA](1)...

toll-less select as collocates ‘fruit’ which[TEA](2)/ [MOTHER](1)/ [DAIRY](1)/produces an acidic flavor and ‘route’ where[CUP](1)/ [BREAST](1)drivers have to pay a toll, respectively.

[IMAGERY](7)/ [MOSAIC](4)/ [MAP](3)/[PICTURE](3)/ [VIEWING](2)...

(7)[MORNING](24)/ [SUMMER](22)/cloudlessharm-free

Acidless X

Acidless oranges, which lack the distinct
acidic flavor of regular oranges.

[AFTERNOON](11)/ [WINTER](8)/(iWeb)(8) ... at my new apartment the toll-less routes[AZURE](8)/ [EVENING](7)...

were far less direct.

[CARE](2)/ [TRANSITION](1)...

frustrated at the amount of driving time

(mainly occurring in the context ofthey required ...

I began getting(iWeb)“healthcare”)
harmless[FUN](821)/ [PRANK](227)/ [JOKE](117)/

If a collocate X is a potential producer of the[BACTERIA](115)/ [VIRUS](81)...

entity N, the use of N-less X sounds naturalwhen we simply mean ‘the lack of N in X.’

62

Next, in the case of N-free X, the contexts

4. Semantic Specifications of N-free X andbelow provide pragmatic information about

N-less X

intentional removal of the entity N from X.

Now I proceed to the discussion of semantic
specifications of N-free X and N-less X, given

(9)

(10)

Google said on its blog it was mining

the descriptions in (11).

nearly a petabyte of data - more than 700

semantic representations of N-free X and N-lesstrillion pixels - in order to find the bestX,

cloud-free imagery for sharper maps.

Morphology.

I

adopt

Booij’s

To describe the(2010)

Construction

In line with this theory, I regard(NOW)

N-free X and N-less X as “constructions,”

Besides microfilm, historical documents

whether their meanings are fully compositional

are stored at the AHC in acid-free boxes

or idiomatic.

like those at the National Archives inabstract schemas of N-free X and N-less X

Washington, ...

including pragmatic meanings are formed in a(iWeb)In addition, I assume that theusage-based model by generalizing the form andAs for cloud-free X, most collocates ofmeaning of existing expressions.

cloud-free are nouns related to ‘(satellite)Let

images’ or ‘photographs,’ which do not produce

construction.

clouds.

smoke-free X expressions are illustrated in (12).

Cloud-free imagery in (9) implies that

us

first

considertheN-freeX

The schemas for individual

Google tried to capture a clear image of the earth
from space so that clouds would be out of sight(12) a. [[smoke-free]A Ni]NPj  [SEMi whereof a satellite camera. In (10), acid-free boxes

smoking is not allowed]jrefers to ‘storage boxes made from acid-free(e.g. smoke-free workplace/hospital)

paper’ for archival documents and other items.

b. [[smoke-free]A Ni]NPj  [SEMi that

The documents are preserved for long periods so

addresses non-smoking regulations]jthat they can be protected from fading and(e.g. smoke-free law/policy)

deterioration.

If we mean ‘the lack of N in X’

in the sense of making the entity N removed

Information about “intentional removal of

from X for some purpose, the use of N-free X issmoke” is facilitated by the contexts like (5).

preferable.

Individual schemas in (12) are dominated by the

Therefore, the observations developed thus

schema in (13), which is dominated by the more

far can be summarized as in (11).

abstract schema in (14).

In (13) and (14),pragmatic information on removal is specified as(11)a. The entity X in N-less X potentiallypart of the meaning.

produces the entity denoted by N (orX involves N), but X in N-free X
b.

(13)

[[smoke-free]A Ni]NPj  [SEMi without

does not.

smoke]j (Pragmatics: smoke isN-free strongly implies intentional

intentionally removed from (some entity

removal of N from (some entity

related to) SEMi)

related to) X, compared with N-less.

(14)[[Nm-free]Ak Ni]NPj  [SEMi [without
SEMm]k]j (Pragmatics: SEMm is63intentionally removed from SEMi)

For example, ‘toner’ and ‘campus’ do notX.

potentially produce alcohol, which should be
The schemas (12)-(14) are “subschemas” stored

removed to protect sensitive skin or to eliminate

in a hierarchical lexicon, where (14) derives

the illegal use of alcohol. When we say ‘thefrom the general schema for the NOUN PHRASE

lack of alcohol in X’ in this sense, alcohol-freeconstruction in (15).

toner/campus is acceptable but *alcoholless
toner/campus is not.

(15) [A N]NP (where A = adj., N = head noun)

As for fatherless X and*father-free X, nouns like child and homeco-occur only with fatherless (cf. *father-free

Next, consider the N-less X construction.

I

child/home).

assume the schemas for individual smokeless X

This is because the collocatesrefer to entities that are involved with a father.

expressions as in (16). The schemas in (16) are
dominated by (17), which is dominated by (18).

5. Reconsidering the Meanings of salt-free

The subschemas (17) and (18) specify pragmaticand saltless

information about “potential producer of N,” andTurning back to (4), I would like to think(18) derives from the general schema (15).

about the semantic difference between salt-freeand saltless again.

(16)

a.

In corpora, N-free and[[smoke-less]A Ni]NPj  [SEMi that

N-less sometimes share their collocates.

emits no smoke]j(19) shows, salt-free bread and saltless bread(e.g. smokeless powder/fuel)areb. [[smoke-less]A Ni]NPj  [SEMi usedalmostidentical

inmeaning.

As

These

expressions are exemplified in (20) and (21).

by means other than smoking]j(e.g. smokeless tobacco/product)
(17)

(18)

(19) salt-free [bread](3)/ saltless [bread](2)[[smoke-less]A Ni]NPj  [SEMi without(based on COCA)

smoke]j (Pragmatics: SEMi is potential(20) Americans don’t have a taste for saltless

producer of smoke)bread, let alone the patience for the long,[[Nm-less]Ak Ni]NPj  [SEMi [without

long chew of old Tuscan bread. (COCA)

SEMm]k]j (Pragmatics: SEMi is potential(21)

producer of SEMm)

For those on salt-restricted diets, use
salt-free bread.

(COCA)

Thus, the intermediate schemas of N-free X andWith respect to the relation of the base noun andN-less X in (14) and (18) allow us to properly

the collocate, the entity ‘bread’ potentiallyinterpret their individual expressions and to coin

involves ‘salt,’ but the subschemas [[salt-free]A

new expressions such as hands-free X and

N]NP and [[salt-less]A N]NP including pragmatic

toll-less X.

We cannot distinguish between

meanings will help to understand the differenceN-free and N-less without taking their nominal

between salt-free bread and saltless bread.

collocates into account.

Saltless bread in (20) implies simple absence of

By analyzing N-free X and N-less X as

salt. That is, salt does not realize its potential

constructions, we can explain the difference into make the bread delicious, and the absence of

acceptability of alcohol-free X and *alcoholless

salt in bread is evaluated negatively or neutrally.

64

On the other hand, salt-free bread in (21)implies that because salty bread is undesirable

REFERENCES
Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber, and Ingo Plag

for those who need to limit salt intake, salt is(2013) The Oxford Reference Guide tointentionally removed from the bread.

English Morphology, Oxford University

As aresult, the absence of salt in bread can beevaluated as desirable.

Press, Oxford.

The acceptability of

Booij, Geert (2010) Construction Morphology,salt-free/saltless bread depends heavily on the

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

perspective of conceptualizers, and especially

Cruse, Alan (2011) Meaning in Language: An

when intentional removal of salt is implied in

Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics

the context like (21), the use of salt-free bread is(Third Edition), Oxford University Press,

preferred.

Oxford.
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995) Constructions: A
Construction

6. Conclusion
In this paper, I examined the semantic

toPress, Chicago.

through a comparison of N-free/N-less and theircollocates, and argued

Approach

Argument Structure, University of Chicago

difference between N-free X and N-less X
nominalGrammarGoldberg, Adele E. (2006) Constructions atthat thisWork: The Nature of Generalization indifference can be explained by the subschemas

Language,of N-free X and N-less X.

Oxford.

The subschemas

OxfordUniversity

Press,

such as (14) and (18) will contribute to a better

Nishikawa, Morio (2006) Eigo Setsuzi Kenkyuu

understanding of the meanings of N-free and(Studies of English Affixes), Kaitakusha,

N-less. Therefore, we need to take into accountTokyo.
Uchida, Satoru (2014) “COCA wo Tsukatta

both base nouns and collocates in describing
such synonyms.

Ruigigo no Kenshoo (An Examination of
Synonyms Using COCA),” Kenkyusha Web* This paper is a revised version of the paper

Magazine Lingua,presented at the 37th Conference of the English<http://www.kenkyusha.co.jp/uploads/lingu

Linguistic Society of Japan held at Kwansei

a/prt/13/UchidaSatoru1409.html>

Gakuin University on November 10, 2019. I
would like to thank Sadayuki Okada, Shohei

CORPORA

Morito, and the audience at the conference for

Corpus of Contemporary American English

their valuable comments and suggestions.

(COCA)

All

remaining errors are, of course, my own.

Corpus of News on the Web (NOW)NOTES
1The data extracted from corpora are based on

The 14 Billion Word iWeb Corpus. (iWeb)

the last access date, January 2, 2020.
2

DICTIONARIESThis is demonstrated by the (un)acceptability

Eijiro on the WEB <https://www.alc.co.jp/>

of the following predication relations:

Oxford English Dictionary Online (OED),(i) ?*The law/policy is smoke-free.

<https://www.oed.com/>(ii) The workplace/flight is smoke-free.

65

摘されている PAB の主語の特性、および前
置要素の主語性と話題性を示すデータを提示する。
Labeling Algorithm に基づく主語・補語倒置の分析

2.1. 主語*

まず、Mikami (2009)が観察しているように、（The Analysis of Preposing Around Be Based

PAB の主語は be の右側に現れ、動詞との間

on Labeling Algorithm）
小林に数の一致を示す。

亮哉（Ryoya Kobayashi）(2)

名古屋大学大学院（Nagoya University）

a. More important are some of the
problems implicit in it.
b. More effective and certainly more

キーワード：Labeling Algorithm, PAB, 倒置,interesting, however, is a structure[…].

小節, 素性継承(3)(cf. Mikami (2009: 208))

Joining the chorus of political figures{*was / were} five former Georgia

1. はじめにsenators.

(Samko (2014: 374))

英語には主語・補語倒置 (Preposing around
Be、以下 PAB)と呼ばれる現象があり、be の(2)において、be 動詞は文頭にある形容詞句

補部を前置することにより派生されると一ではなく、文末にある名詞句との間に数の一般に仮定されている。

致を示す。(3)においても同様に、be 動詞は文頭にある分詞句ではなく、文末にある名詞(1)a. Less fortunate was the girl in the backseat.

句との間に数の一致を示す。

(Rochemont (1978: 30))

次に、(4)と(5)を参照されたい。Rochemontb. Found at the scene of the crime was an(1978)が指摘するように、PAB の主語は文のaxe.

焦点として解釈されるため、分裂文に書き換(Rochemont and Culicover (1990: 69))

えられる。

c. Joining the chorus of political figures
was former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn.

(4)(Samko (2014: 373))

a. Less fortunate was the girl in the backseat.
b. It was the girl in the back seat who was(1)に示されるように、PAB では形容詞句とless fortunate.
(Rochemont (1978: 30))

分詞句が前置要素となる。本稿では、
Chomsky (2013, 2015) に お け る Labeling(5)

Algorithm に基づく PAB の分析を提案し、そa. Standing in the doorway was John.
b. It was John that was standing in the
doorway.

の特性に理論的説明を与えることを試みる。
2. データ(Rochemont (1978: 30))

したがって、一般に旧情報を表す代名詞主語

本 節 で は 、 先 行 研 究 (Mikami (2009),

は PAB では許されない。

Rochemont (1978), Samko (2014)) において指

66

(6)

a. *Less fortunate was she / her.

り、話題化と同様の条件が PAB にも課せら

b. *Standing in the doorway was he / him.

れると考えられる。さらに、(9)に示される(Rochemont (1978: 31))

ように、PAB では wh 句が前置要素を越えて移動することができない。(10)に示されるよ2.2. 前置要素

うに、話題化においても同様の振る舞いが観

PAB の前置要素は主語性と話題性の両方察される。したがって、この事実からも、PABの特性を備えていることを見てゆく。まず、が話題化と平行的な振る舞いを示すことが(7)を参照されたい。

分かる。

(7)

(9)

a. More important seems to be a visceral
yearning for change, […]a. *Which fact do you think mostsurprising of all is?

(Mikami (2009: 209))(Iwakura (1978: 327))

b. Undermining Abbey’s confidence

b. *Whoi [sitting at the table was t i]?

seemed to be the decline in value of(Rochemont (1978: 40))

Lyoyds’ shares. (Samko (2014: 372))(10)*Which books did Lee say that withgreat difficulty, she can carry?

(7)では、be の補部に繰り上げが適用されて(cf. Mikami (2009: 215))

おり、(7a)では形容詞句が、(7b)では分詞句が文頭へ移動していると考えられる。その一3. 理論的枠組み

方で、名詞主語は be の右側に位置している

3.1. Chomsky (2013, 2015)

ため、繰り上げの適用を受けていない。この

Chomsky (2013, 2015)は、統語対象のラベ

事実は、PAB の前置要素が主語性を持つこと

ル付けは Merge とは独立した計算体系であを示している。

る Labeling Algorithm (LA)によって行われると提案している。1 統語対象のラベルの決定

次に、PAB の前置要素が話題要素としての特性を持つことを示す。(8)を参照されたい。

方法は以下に示す 3 通りである。

(8)

(11)

a. It is well known that Columbus madea. {α H, XP}

α＝H

his first voyage [...]. But less wellb. {XPi, {α ti YP}

α＝YP

known is his last voyage．

c. {α XP(F), YP(F)}

α＝<F, F>(cf. 福地 (1985: 114))
b. “We came here to defend the right of

3.2. Epstein et al. (2016)

our parliamentarians to enter their

Epstein et al. (2016)は、v*が派生に導入されown house” said Guillermo Arocha,

る前に R(oot)と外的対併合されることによ[…]. Standing next to Arocha was

り、v*の持つ[uφ]は統語部門において不可視

Mannuel Contreras […].

的となるとともに、フェイズ主要部としての(Samko (2014: 378))

ステータスを失うと提案している。この提案のもと、受動文は(12)のように派生される。

(8)において太字で示されている PAB の前置(12) [C [<φ, φ> DP[φ][uCase]i T[uφ] [v*P v*-R ti ]]]要素は、既に先行文脈で導入されている要素である。したがって、前置要素は旧情報であ67

(12)において、v*と R を外的対併合することが移動する。この移動により α のラベルはによって、v*は統語上で不可視的となり、フDP となる(cf. (11b))。そして、β に C が併合

ェイズ主要部としてのステータスを失う。v*

されるが、ここでの C は[uφ]に加えて[uTop]はフェイズ主要部ではなくなっているため、を持つが、これら 2 つの素性が T へ継承されDP は転送されず、SPEC-T へ移動可能である。 る(cf. (13c))。[uφ]は主語 DP の持つ[φ]と一致
そして、DP の持つ[φ]と T の持つ[uφ]との間関係に入ることにより削除される。英語におの素性共有により、α のラベルは<φ, φ>とな

ける T は単独でラベルになることができなる。

いが (Chomsky (2015))、β のラベルは、T へ継承された[uTop]と SPEC-T へ移動した AP

4. 分析の持つ[Top]の素性共有によって<Top, Top>

本節では、前節までの議論を踏まえた上で、 と決定される(cf. (11c))。値未付与の素性がす
PAB の派生に対する分析を提示する。本稿でべて削除され、かつすべてのラベルが決定さは、(13)に示されるように、3 つの仮定を設れるので派生が収束する。

ける。
4.2. 分詞句を伴う PAB の派生(13)a. be は補部に小節構造を取る。

本節では、分詞句を伴う PAB の派生に対(Mikami (2009), Samko (2014))

して説明を与える。まず、過去分詞を伴う

b. 前置要素は[Top(ic)]素性を持つ。

PAB は(17)のように派生される。

c. C 主要部は値未付与の φ 素性([uφ])(16)と値未付与の話題素性([uTop])を持Found at the scene of the crime was anaxe.

って派生に導入され、それらの素性
2の両方が T へ継承される。

(Rochemont and Culicover (1990: 69))(17)

4.1. 形容詞句を伴う PAB の派生[C[uφ][uTop] [β v*P[Top]i T[uφ][uTop] [vP be [αDP[φ][uCase] ti ]]]]

形容詞句を伴う PAB は(15)のように派生→ α = DPβ = <Top, Top>される。
まず、v*-R と DP が併合され、DP が SPEC-v*
(14)
(15)

Less fortunate was the girl in the backへ移動し小節構造が形成される。次に、beseat.

が併合された後に T が併合され、v*P が(Rochemont (1978: 30))

[C[uφ][uTop] [β AP[Top]i T[uφ][uTop] [vP v [VP

SPEC-T へ移動する。この移動により α のラbe [α DP[φ][uCase] ti ]]]]]

ベルは DP となる(cf. (11b))。そして、C が[uφ]→ α = DPと[uTop]を持って併合され、それらの素性を

β = <Top, Top>T へ継承する。[uφ]は主語 DP の持つ[φ]と一
まず、DP と AP の併合によって小節構造が致関係に入ることにより削除され、[uTop]は形成される。この時点では{XP, YP}構造であSPEC-T へ移動した v*P の持つ[Top]と素性共るので、α のラベルが決定されない。次に、有を行い、β のラベルは<Top, Top>となる(cf.

be 動詞と v が順に併合される。be 動詞はフ(11c))。値未付与の素性がすべて削除され、ェイズを形成せず、転送が適用されないため、 かつすべてのラベルが決定されるので派生
この時点ではラベル付けの計算は行われなが収束する。

3い。 次に、T が併合され、その指定部に AP

次に、現在分詞を伴う PAB は(19)のように

68

[VP be [α ti tj ]]]]]

派生される。
(18)(19)

Joining the chorus of political figures was(20)において、DP と AP がそれぞれ SPEC-T

former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn.

と SPEC-C へ移動する。そして、β と γ のラ(Samko (2014: 373))

ベルは素性共有によってそれぞれ<φ, φ>、a. [AspP be [α DP[φ][uCase] [v*P[Top] v*[uφ] [<φ, φ><Top, Top>となり(cf. (11c))、値未付与の素性

DPi [R[uφ] ti]]]]]

はすべて削除される。しかし、α を構成する

b. [C[uφ][uTop] [β v*P[Top]j T[uφ][uTop] [AspP be

2 つの句は両方とも移動によって残されたコ[α DP[φ][uCase] tj ]]]]

ピーであるので、ラベル付けにとって不可視

α = DP的であり、ラベル決定に参与することができ→

β = <Top, Top>

ない。これは Narita (2014)において(21)としR と目的語 DP が併合された後、目的語 DPて定式化されている。

は SPEC-R に移動する。そして v*が併合され、v*の持つ[uφ]が R へ継承されることにより、

(21)

★

{t, t}:

R と目的語 DP が素性共有を行い、この集合

CI cannot assign a legitimateのラベルは<φ, φ>となる。Chomsky (2015)にinterpretation to an SO whose two

従い、R は v*に内的対併合され、v*は不活

members are both copies/traces created性となり、フェイズ性は R で活性化される

by IM.

(Narita (2014: 112))と仮定する。次に、v*P に主語 DP が併合され、小節構造が形成されるが、Samko (2014)

したがって、この派生では、α のラベルが決に従い、be が Asp として α に併合されると定されず、CI インターフェイスにおいて適仮定する。その後、T が併合され、v*P が切な解釈が与えられないため、派生が破綻す

SPEC-T へ移動する。この移動により α のラる。実際、(22)に示されるように、このようベルは DP となる(cf. (11b))。そして、C が[uφ]な派生手順を辿ると考えられる例は非文法と[uTop]を持って併合され、これらの素性を的である。したがって、もし PAB においてT へ継承する。[uφ]は主語 DP の持つ[φ]と一C の持つ[uTop]が T へ継承されなければ、α

致関係に入ることにより削除され、[uTop]はか β のいずれかのラベルが決定できないた

SPEC-T へ移動した v*P の持つ[Top]と素性共

め、派生は破綻することになる。

有を行い、β のラベルは<Top, Top>となる(cf.
(11c))。値未付与の素性がすべて削除され、(22)

a. *Sitting on the dock the man in theblue suit was.

かつすべてのラベルが決定されるので派生

b. *Beaten to death in the park Mary was.

が収束する。

c. *Bigger than a mountain King Kong
4.3. その他の派生の可能性

was.

(Rochemont (1978: 32))

本節では、PAB は前節で述べた手順によっ4.4. 帰結てのみ派生されることを示す。その他の派生の可能性として、C の[uTop]が T へ継承され本分析の帰結として、2 節で取り上げたず、前置要素が SPEC-C に移動する派生につPAB の特性が説明される。まず、be の補部

いて考察する。4のラベルが DP となるので、新情報として焦点となるという事実が導かれる (cf. Goto(20)

[γ AP[Top]j C[uTop] [β DP[φ][uCase]i T[uφ] [vP v(2017))。また、前置要素は SPEC-T を占める

69

5. 結語ので、(7)のように繰り上げの適用を受けることが可能である。そして、(9)では(20)の派

本稿では、PAB の統語構造を LA の観点か

生と同様に、主語 DP が移動しているので、ら明らかにすることを試みた。PAB では be

小節構造のラベルが決まらず排除される。

が補部として小節構造を取り、C から[uφ]とさらなる帰結として、PAB が ECM 構文に[uTop]の両方を T へ継承することによって派生起できないという事実も説明される。

生されると主張した。さらに、本分析の帰結(23)

として、文主語構文の派生も説明される可能

a. *I believe [α less fortunate to be the girlin the black seat].

(informant)

性を示唆した。

b. *I believe [α anchoring their prize tobe pictures of former dictators].

*本稿は日本英語学会第 37 回大会での口頭(Samko (2014: 378))

発表に基づくものである。発表の準備段階において、大室剛志先生と田中智之先生から多ECM 補部は C を持たないため、[uTop]が派くの貴重なご指摘やご助言を頂いた。また、生に導入されない。したがって、前置要素が研究発表の際には、会場にて多くの諸先生方SPEC-T へ移動しても、素性共有によって αから、大変有益なご指摘やご助言を頂いた。

のラベルを決定することはできない。仮に前この場を借りて感謝を申し上げたい。なお、

置要素がさらに SPEC-R に移動したとしても、 本稿における不備は全て執筆者によるもの
R と素性共有することができず、(23)は非文である。
法的となる。

注

加えて、本発表の分析は、PAB と同様に、

1

Chomsky (2015)では、併合は自由に適用可

話題性を持つとされる文主語構文の派生に能であると仮定されており、移動の駆動要因も拡張可能である。文主語は話題性を持つとは不要である。本稿ではこの仮定に従う。

同時に、(24)に示されるように、φ 素性に関

2

して動詞との間に数の一致を示す。

Feature)が C から T へ継承されるという仮定

Kitada (2011)は φ 素性と末端素性 (Edgeに基づき、前置要素の SPEC-T への移動を A(24)[That the president will be released] andバー移動であると分析している。本稿におけ[that he will be impeached] are equally

る分析は、理論的枠組みは異なるが、Kitada

likely at this point.

と同様の方針に沿ったものである。

(McCloskey (1991: 564))3

本稿では、Chomsky (2015)に従い、LA の適用は転送時に行われると仮定する。
この事実は、C から T に継承された[uφ]と4[uTop]の両方が文主語の持つ素性と素性共

ラ ベ ル に な る こ と が で き な い (Chomsky

有を行うとすれば、正しく説明される。した(2015))。したがって、この派生では、β のラがって、(25)の例は(26)のように派生され、βベル付けのため、DP が SPEC-T に移動しな

5のラベルは<Top, Top>、<φ, φ>となる。

ければならないことに注意されたい。
5(25)

That John won the first prize is true.

本稿では文主語の範疇の問題には踏み込まず、Sentential Subject の頭文字をとって SS(Tanigawa (2018: 312))(26)

4.1 節で述べたように、英語の T は単独でと表記する。

[C[uφ][uTop] [β SS[Top][φ]i T[uφ][uTop] [vP v [VP be[AP ti AP]]]]]

参考文献

70

Chomsky,Noam(2013)“Problemsof

Publishing.

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

Noam

Projection:(2015)

Rochemont, Michael S and Peter, W. Culicover“Problems

Extensions,”of(1990) English Focus Constructions andStructures,

theStrategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

TheoryofGrammar,Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di

Samko,Bern(2014)“A

Feature-Driven

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona

Movement Analysis of English Participle

Matteini,

Preposing,” WCCFL 31, 371-380.

3-16,

John

Benjamins,

Amsterdam.

Tanigawa,

Epstein, Samuel D, Kitahara, Hisatsugu and T.

Linguistics 34, 302-330.

by External Pair-Merge of Heads,” The
Linguistic Review 33, 87-102.
福地肇 (1985) 『談話の構造』 大修館書店,
東京.
Goto, Nobu (2017) “Eliminating the Strong /Weak Parameter on T,” In Proceedings of
GLOW in Asia XI-Volume 2, ed. by
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine, MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 85, 57-71.
Kunihiro(1978)“On

Root

Transformations and the Structure-Preserving Hypothesis,” Linguistic Analysis 4,321-364.
Kitada, Shinichi (2011) “C-to-T Inheritance ofEdge

Features”

Studiesin

EnglishLiterature 52, 77-101.
McCloskey, James (1991) “There, It, andAgreement,”

Linguistic

Inquiry

22,563-567.
Mikami, Suguru (2009) “The Locative Inversion
Construction and Preposing around Be:
Why do the Sentence-initial PP and AP
Move to Spec of TP?” Tsukuba English
Studies 27, 205-222.
Narita, Hiroki (2014) Endocentric Structuring ofProjection-free Syntax, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam / Philadelphia.
Rochemont, Michael S (1978) A Theory of
Stylistic

Rules

in

English,(2018)“Agreement,

Labeling and Sentential Subjects” English

Daniel, Seely (2016) “Phase Cancellation

Iwakura,ShinichiGarland71ࢀ࠺ࡿࡀࠊ(2b)ࡢ how come ࡣ୺⠇ࡢせ⣲࡜ࡋ ࡚ ࡢ ࡳ ゎ 㔘 ࡉ ࢀ ࡿ ࠋ Collins (1991) ࡸ
Shlonsky and Soare (2011)ࡣࠊࡇࡢ஦ᐇࢆㄝ᫂
ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊhow come ࡣ CP 㡿ᇦ࡟ᇶᗏ⏕ᡂⱥㄒྐ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ How come ᵓᩥࡢ㉳※࡜Ⓨࡉࢀࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㐩࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡲࡓࠊRadford (2018)ࡣࠊhow come ᵓᩥࡣ㸦On the Origin and Development of Howヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚␗࡞ࡿᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠺ྍ⬟Come Constructions in the History of English㸧ᛶࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࠊ(3a, b)࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿ஧✀㢮ࡢᵓ㐀ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㏆⸨ ு୍ (Ryoichi Kondo)(3) a. [INTP how come (postmodifier) [INT ø]ᘯ๓኱Ꮫ (Hirosaki University)⋢⏣ ㈗⿱ (Takahiro Tamada)…]ⓚᏥ㤋኱Ꮫ (Kogakkan University)b. [INTP how (postmodifier) [INT come]…](Radford (2018: 253))࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸how come, ືモ➨஧఩⌧㇟, Late
Merge Principle, rebracketing(3a)࡛ࡣࠊhow come ࡣ༢୍ࡢ wh せ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚
INTP ᣦᐃ㒊࡟ᇶᗏ⏕ᡂࡉࢀࠊ(3b)࡛ࡣࠊhow࡜ come ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ INTP ᣦᐃ㒊࡜୺せ㒊࡟

1. ᑟධ

ᇶᗏ⏕ᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(3a, b)ࡢᵓ㐀ࡣࠊᙉព⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡟ࡣ how come ࢆ␲ၥモ࡜ࡋ࡚కモࡀヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚␗࡞ࡿศᕸࢆ♧ࡍ࡜࠸࠺

࠺(1b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞␲ၥᩥࡀᏑᅾࡋࠊwhy ࢆక࠺஦ᐇ࡟ࡼࡾᨭᣢࡉࢀࡿࠋᙉពモࡀ how come(1a)ࡢ␲ၥᩥ࡜࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ྠࡌᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ゝ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ(4a, b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥࡣ(3a)ࡢᵓ

ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ(1b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞␲ၥ

㐀ࢆᨭᣢࡋࠊᙉពモࡀ how ࡜ come ࡢ㛫࡟௓ᩥࡣ how come ᵓᩥ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠋ

ᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ(5a, b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥࡣ(3b)ࡢᵓ㐀ࢆᨭᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(1) a. Why did John leave?
b. How come John left?

(4) a. How come the hell that doesn’t(Collins (1991: 32))

happen in real life?
(itshardbeingmesometimes.blogspot.com)

ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ከࡃࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡟ࡼࡾ how come ᵓb. How come on earth he has the power
to beat the top players?

ᩥࡢ⤫ㄒⓗ࣭ព࿡ⓗᛶ㉁ࡀศᯒࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊCollins (1991)ࡸ Shlonsky and Soare(dragonsoulgame.com)(2011)࡛ࡣࠊ(2a, b)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ why ࡜ how come(Radford (2018: 252))(5) a. How the heck come I don’t get myࡢゎ㔘ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀ㆟ㄽࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

fair share?
(2) a. Why did John say Mary left?

(readersupportednews.com)

b. How come John said Mary left?

b. How on earth come you are using(Collins (1991: 33))

fahrenheit?
(volcanocafe.wordpress.com)(2a)ࡢ why ࡣᇙࡵ㎸ࡳ⠇ࡢせ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉ(Radford (2018: 253))72

(6) How come + [Subj V…] (Finite)ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊRadford (2018)࡟ࡼࡾ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓ⪃࠼ࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࠊ⏕ᡂᩥἲ⌮ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࡢ

a. he drap he head one side, he did, enୗ࡛ how come ᵓᩥࡢ㉳※࡜ṔྐⓗⓎ㐩࡟ᑐ

he ax how come Brer Rabbit got allࡋ࡚⌮ㄽⓗㄝ᫂ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊhowde luck on he own side.
(COHA,1881,NightsWithUncle)

come ᵓᩥࡢ㉳※ࡣࠊhow ࡜ come ࡀືモ➨஧఩⌧㇟࡟ࡼࡾ CP 㡿ᇦ࡟⛣ືࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᩥ࡛࠶

b. If he don’t gittin’ better, how comeࡾࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀ(3b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ CP 㡿ᇦ࡟ᇶᗏ⏕he’ss every day a little more kvieterᡂࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊhow come ᵓᩥ(COHA,1884,DrSevier)ࡀⓎ㐩ࡋࡓ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊhow ࡜ come

(Claridge (2012: 184))(7) How come (Bare)ࡀ༢୍ࡢᵓᡂ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚෌ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ

a. “How come, Peter?” demanded(3a)ࡢᵓ㐀ࡀ⏕ࡌࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚஧ࡘࡢᵓ㐀ࡀ

Jimmy Day.

ඹᏑࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ㄽࡌࡿࠋࡇࡢศᯒࡢᖐ
⤖࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊhow come ࡀ༢⊂࡛⌧ࢀࡿ౛ࡢฟ

(COHA,1922,FIC,JudithGodlessValley)⌧᫬ᮇ࡜⏕㉳ไ㝈ࡀṇࡋࡃㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜

b. Nobody know how come!
(COHA,1934,FIC,Play:PottersField)ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ(8) How come + [Subj (PP / to do / CP)](V2)

2. Ṕྐⓗ஦ᐇa. And how comes he?

Claridge (2012)ࡸ Kim and Kim (2017)ࡣ The(COHA,1833,FIC,Camillus)

Corpus of Historical American English(COHA)

b. How came it in the water?

ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊhow come ᵓᩥࡢṔྐⓗศᕸࢆㄪ(COHA,1870,MAG,Atlantic)ᰝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⠇࡛ࡣࠊྠᵝࡢㄪᰝ࡟ࡼࡾ

c. “How come you to have it to sell?”ᚓࡽࢀࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ෌㞟ィࡋࠊhow come ᵓᩥ(COHA,1852,FIC,HillsShatemuc)࡜㛵㐃ࡍࡿᙧᘧࡢศᕸࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

d. How comes it that those ruins haveᮏㄽᩥࡢㄪᰝ࡛ࡣࠊhow come ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧ

not, in part, accumulated?

ࢆ come ࡢᒅᢡ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚୕ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ(how(COHA,1836,NF,StPierresStudies)comeࠊ how cameࠊhow comes)࡟ศ㢮ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡽ୕ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⏕㉳౛ࢆࡉࡽ࡟ᅄࡘࡢ

ㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࡣ௨ୗࡢ⾲࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࢱ࢖ࣉ(FiniteࠊBareࠊV2ࠊothers)࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋFinite ࢱ࢖ࣉࡣࠊ(6)࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
how come ࡟ᐃᙧ⠇ࡀᚋ⥆ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ how comeᵓᩥࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋBare ࢱ࢖ࣉࡣࠊ(7)࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊhow come ࡀ༢⊂࡛⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋV2 ࢱ࢖ࣉࡣࠊ(8)࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊㄒᙡືモ come ࡀ୺ㄒ࡜ಽ⨨ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ how come ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࡀᙧᡂ
ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ come ࡜୺ㄒࡢಽ⨨ࡣࠊึᮇⱥㄒ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿືモ➨஧఩⌧㇟࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

73ࡇࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊV2 ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ౛ࡣ

ࢆᩥἲⓗᵓᩥ໬ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ

Finite ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ౛(how come ᵓᩥ)ࡀฟ⌧ࡍࡿ࡝ࡕࡽࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀࡟࠾௨๓࠿ࡽᏑᅾࡋࠊcome ࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᒅᢡᙧࢆ

࠸࡚ලయⓗ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐣⛬࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞

క࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡶᣦ᦬ࡉ

ኚ໬ࡀ⏕ࡌࡓ࠿ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡲ

ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊhow come ᵓᩥࡣ 1880 ᖺ௦ࡓࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᙉពモࢆྵࡴ౛࡟ฟ⌧ࡍࡿࡀࠊ1920 ᖺ௦࡜ 1940 ᖺ௦࡟Ⓨぢ((9)-(11))࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

ࡉࢀࡿ஧౛ࢆ㝖ࡃ࡜ࠊcome ࡀᒅᢡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ

ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊhow come ᵓᩥࡢ㉳※ࡣ V2 ࢱ౛ࡣほᐹࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ1 ࡲࡓࠊBare ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ౛

࢖ࣉࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡾࠊCP 㡿ᇦ࡟⛣ືࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ

ࡣࠊFinite ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ౛࡜ྠ᫬ᮇ࡟ฟ⌧ࡍࡿࡀࠊhow ࡜ come ࡀ㛵㐃ࡍࡿ఩⨨࡟ేྜࡉࢀࡿࡼ

ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ came ࡜ comes ࡣほᐹ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ how come ᵓᩥࡀ⏕ࡌࡓ࡜୺ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋFinite ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ Bare ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ౛ࡣ

ᙇࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᙉពモࢆక࠺౛ࡢศᕸࢆ⪃៖ቑຍࡍࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡾ 2000 ᖺ௦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ୍

ࡋࠊhow come ᵓᩥࡢṔྐⓗⓎ㐩࡟ࡣ஧ẁ㝵ᐃࡢ㢖ᗘ࡛ほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊV2 ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ౛ࡣ

ࡢኚ໬ࡀ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ㄽࡌࡿࠋ

ᚎࠎ࡟ῶᑡࡋ 2000 ᖺ௦࡛ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ᗫࢀ࡚
3. ศᯒ

ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᮏㄪᰝ࡛ࡣ how ࡜ come ࡢ㛫࡟ᙉ

3.1. ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳពモࡀ௓ᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࡣⓎぢࡉࢀࡓࡀ(cf.

ࡇࡢ⠇࡛ࡣࠊᮏㄽᩥ࡛᥇⏝ࡉࢀࡿ㸰ࡘࡢ⌮(9)-(11))ࠊᙉពモࡀ how come ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ౛ࡣㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ➨୍࡟ࠊᮏㄽᩥࡣⓎぢࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

Gelderen (2004, 2011)࡟ࡼࡾᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
(12)ࡢཎ⌮ࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿࠋ(9) How + postmodifier + come(12) Late Merge Principle(LMP)+ [Subj V…] (Finite)

Merge as late as possible.

How the hell come you didn’t know

(Gelderen (2011: 14))

that!
(COHA,1969,FIC,Mov:WildBunchThe)(10) How + postmodifier + come (Bare)(12)࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊLMP ࡛ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ఩⨨“Pray tell, how the hell come?”࡟⛣ືࡍࡿࡼࡾࡶࡑࡢ఩⨨࡟ేྜࡍࡿ᪉ࡀ

(COHA,1974,FIC,OneTimeISawMorning)⤒῭ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜つᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
➨஧࡟ࠊHopper and Traugott (2003)࡟ࡼࡾ

(11) How + postmodifier + comerebracketing ࡜࿧ࡤࢀ࡚࠸ࡿṔྐⓗኚ໬ࢆ௬+ [Subj (PP / to do)] (V2)

ᐃࡍࡿࠋHopper and Traugott (2003)ࡣࠊࡇࡢ

a. “How in the world came you by
this?”

Ṕྐⓗኚ໬ࡢ୍౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ(13)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ኚ໬

(COHA,1857,FIC,BrotherClerks)ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

b. Why, how on earth came you to(13) a. [I am going [to marry bill]]know anything of it?

b. [I [am going to] marry bill](COHA,1847,FIC,MadmenAll)(Hopper and Traugott (2003: 3))
Claridge (2012)ࡣࠊhow come ᵓᩥࡢⓎ㐩࡟ࡣᩥἲ໬ࡸㄒᙡ໬ࡀ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ㄽࡌࠊ

(13)࡛ࡣࠊto ୙ᐃモࡀ am going ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡋ࡚࠸

Kim and Kim (2017)ࡣࠊhow come ᵓᩥࡢⓎ㐩ࡿᵓ㐀ࡀࠊrebracketing ࡟ࡼࡾࠊto ࡀ am going74࡜ྠࡌᵓᡂ⣲࡟࠶ࡿᵓ㐀࡟෌ศᯒࡉࢀࡓ࡜

CP 㡿ᇦ࡟⛣ືࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ how ࡜ come ࡀࠊLMP࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡢᙳ㡪࡟ࡼࡾ CP 㡿ᇦ࡟ేྜࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ
ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊhow come ᵓᩥࡀฟ⌧ࡋࡓ࡜୺ᙇࡍ
ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ1880 ᖺ௦࡟࠾࠸࡚ LMP ࡟

3.2. How come ᵓᩥࡢ㉳※࡜Ⓨ㐩ࡼࡾ(16)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ṕྐⓗኚ໬ࡀ⏕ࡌࡓࡇ࡜ࡇࡢ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ3.1 ⠇࡛ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊhow come ᵓᩥࡢ㉳※࡜Ⓨ㐩࡟࡞ࡿࠋ㐣⛬࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⌮ㄽⓗศᯒࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ
ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊືモ➨஧఩⌧㇟࡟ᑐࡍࡿᶆ‽(16) a. [CP how [V+T+C come/came/comes]ⓗ࡞ศᯒ࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊ(14a)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ V2 ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ[TP Subj tV+T [VP tV] thow]]౛ࡣ(14b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘ࡜௬ᐃࡉࢀࡿ

ĺ b. [CP how [C come] [TP Subj T [VP(cf. Fischer et al. (2000))ࠋ

V…]]](14) a. And how comes he? (= (8a))(~ 2000s)(1880s ~)(16b)࡛ࡣࠊhow ࡜ come ࡣ CP ᣦᐃ㒊࡜୺せb. [CP how [V+T+C comes] [TP he tV+T㒊࡟┤᥋ేྜࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊcome ࡣ TP ୺せ㒊[VP tV] thow]]ࡢ᥋㎡࡜⤖ྜࡋ࡞࠸␲ၥᶆ㆑࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡾࠊVP ୺せ㒊ࡸ TP ୺せ㒊࡜ࡋ(14b)࡛ࡣࠊhow ࡣୗ఩ࡢ఩⨨࠿ࡽ CP ᣦᐃ㒊࡚ࡉࡽ࡞ࡿせ⣲ࡀేྜࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࡇ

࡟⛣ືࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊcome ࡣㄒᙡືモ࡜࡜࡛ࠊ
how come ࡢᚋ࡟ᐃᙧ⠇ࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿ howࡋ࡚ేྜࡋࠊTravis (1984)࡟ࡼࡾᥦ᱌ࡉࢀࡿ

come ᵓᩥࡀฟ⌧ࡍࡿࠋᮏㄽᩥࡢㄪᰝ࡟ࡼࡾ

୺せ㒊⛣ືไ⣙࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊTP ୺せ㒊ࢆ⤒⏤ࡋᚓࡽࢀࡓ(17)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡸ Radford (2018)࡟

࡚ CP ୺せ㒊࡟⛣ືࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᵓ㐀࡟࠾ࡼࡾᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓ(18)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡢᏑᅾࡣࠊ

࠸࡚ࠊcome ࡣㄒᙡືモ࡜ࡋ࡚ేྜࡋ CP ୺せ(16b)ࡢᵓ㐀ࡀ⌧௦ⱥㄒࡲ࡛Ꮡ⥆ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜㒊࡬ࡢ୺せ㒊⛣ືࡢ㐣⛬࡛᥋㎡ࢆక࠺ TP ୺࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

せ㒊࡜⤖ྜࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊᙜヱࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ౛࡟࠾
࠸࡚ come ࡣ୺ㄒࡸ᫬ไ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᵝࠎ࡞ᒅᢡ(17) How the hell come you didn’t know
that! (= (9))ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀṇࡋࡃண᝿ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ
how ࡜ come ࡀ⊂❧ࡋ࡚ేྜࡋࠊูࠎࡢ⛣ື(18) a. How the heck come I don’t get myfair share? (= (5a))᧯స࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ CP 㡿ᇦ࡟⛣ືࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࢀ

b. How on earth come you are usingࡽࡢ㛫࡟ᙉពモࡀ௓ᅾࡍࡿ(15)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛

fahrenheit? (= (5b))ࡀⓎぢࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡶࡲࡓṇࡋࡃண᝿ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ(16b)ࡢᵓ㐀ࡣࠊ2000 ᖺ௦௨㝆ࠊ
rebracketing ࡢᙳ㡪࡟ࡼࡾ(19)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ṕྐ(15) a. “How in the world came you by
this?” (= (11a))ⓗኚ໬ࢆཷࡅࡓ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ

b. Why, how on earth came you to(19) a. [CP how [C come] [TP Subj T [VP V

know anything of it? (= (11b))…]]]ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊhow come ᵓᩥࡢ㉳※ࡣࠊhow(1880s ~)ĺ b. [CP [how come] [C ø] [TP Subj T [VP V

come ᵓᩥࡀฟ⌧ࡍࡿ௨๓࠿ࡽᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ

…]]]V2 ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡾࠊV2 ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟࠾࠸࡚

75(2000s ~)(19)࡛ࡣࠊrebracketing ࡟ࡼࡾ CP ᣦᐃ㒊࡜୺

Merchant (2001)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ୺せ㒊⛣ືࡣ PF

せ㒊ࢆ༨ࡵ࡚࠸ࡓ how ࡜ come ࡀ༢୍ࡢᵓᡂ

࡛㉳ࡁࡿ᧯స࡛࠶ࡾࠊsluicing ࡟ࡼࡿ๐㝖ࡼ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚෌ศᯒࡉࢀࠊhow come ࡀ CP ᣦᐃࡾᚋ࡛㉳ࡁࡿࡓࡵࠊຓືモࡣ CP ୺せ㒊࡟⛣㒊ࢆ༨ࡵࡿᵓ㐀ࡀ⏕ࡌࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉືࡍࡿ๓࡟๐㝖ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊsluicing

ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋRadford (2018)࡟ࡼࡾᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓ࡟ࡼࡿ๐㝖ࢆචࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ

(20)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛࡜ࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡀ COHA ࢆ

Bare ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ౛ࡣ sluicing ࡟ࡼࡾὴ⏕ࡉࢀ⏝࠸ࡓㄪᰝ࡛ࡣⓎぢࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡣࠊ

ࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡍࡿ࡜ࠊMerchant (2001)ࡢศᯒࡢୗ

(19b)ࡢᵓ㐀ࡀ 2000 ᖺ௦௨㝆࡟ฟ⌧ࡋࡓ࡜࠸࡛ࡣࠊhow came ࡸ how comes ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࢆ

࠺ศᯒࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿࠋ

క࠺ Bare ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ౛ࡀほᐹࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺
஦ᐇࡣ༶ᗙ࡟ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ୺ㄒࡸ᫬ไ࡟㛵ࡋ
࡚ come ࡀᒅᢡࢆ♧ࡍ V2 ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ౛ࡢᵓ㐀(20) a. How come the hell that doesn’t
happen in real life? (= (4a))࡛ࡣࠊ(22a)࡟෌ᥖࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊcome ࡣㄒb. How come on earth he has the powerᙡືモ࡜ࡋ࡚ేྜࡋ୺せ㒊⛣ື࡟ࡼࡾ CP ୺

to beat the top players? (= (4b))

せ㒊࡟⛣ືࡍࡿࠋMerchant (2001)ࡢศᯒ࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊ୺せ㒊⛣ືࡀ PF ࡟࠾࠸࡚ sluicing ࡟ࡼ(16)࡜(19)࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿṔྐⓗኚ໬ࡣࠊ᪤Ꮡ

ࡿ๐㝖ࡼࡾᚋ࡟㉳ࡁࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ(22b)ࡢᵓ㐀ࡀ᪂ࡋ࠸ᵓ㐀࡟ྲྀࡗ࡚௦ࢃࡽࢀࡓ࡜

࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊsluicing ࡟ࡼࡿ๐㝖ࡣ come࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ᪤Ꮡࡢࡢ୺せ㒊⛣ືࡼࡾඛ࡟㉳ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ᵓ㐀࠿ࡽ᪂ࡋ࠸ᵓ㐀ࡀ⏕ࡌࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ
ព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊືモ⛣ືࡢῶᑡ(22) a. [CP how [V+T+C come/came/comes]

࡟క࠸ࠊhow come ᵓᩥࡢ㉳※࡛࠶ࡿ(16a)ࡢ

[TP Subj tV+T [VP tV] thow]]ᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘ౛ࡣῶᑡࡋ࡚࠸ࡁ 2000 ᖺ௦࡛ࡣb. [CP how C [TP Subj T [VP come …]ᴟᑡᩘ࡜࡞ࡿࡀࠊLMP ࡜ rebracketing ࡢᙳ㡪thow]]

࡟ࡼࡾ⏕ࡌࡓ஧✀㢮ࡢ how come ᵓᩥࡣ 2000(22b)࡛ࡣࠊcome ࡀ CP ୺せ㒊࡟୺せ㒊⛣ືᖺ௦௨㝆ࡶඹᏑࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡍࡿ๓࡟ TP ࡀ๐㝖ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊㄒᙡືモ࡜
3.3. ᖐ⤖ࡋ࡚ేྜࡉࢀࡓ come ࡣ๐㝖ࢆචࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ

ࡇࡢ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ3.2 ⠇࡛ᥦ᱌ࡉࢀࡓศᯒࡢᖐ

ࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ୺ㄒࡸ᫬ไ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ come ࡀᒅᢡ⤖࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊhow come ࡀ༢య࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿ Bareࢆ♧ࡍ Bare ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ౛ࡀⓎぢࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸

ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ౛ࡢฟ⌧᫬ᮇ࡜⏕㉳ไ㝈ࡀ⌮ㄽⓗ࠺஦ᐇࡀṇࡋࡃㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
୍᪉ࠊ1880 ᖺ௦࡟࠾࠸࡚ how come ᵓᩥࡀ࡟ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ
Merchant (2001)ࡣࠊsluicing ࡟ࡼࡿ๐㝖ࡣฟ⌧ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ(23)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊcome ࡀI-to-C ⛣ືࡼࡾࡶඛ࡟㉳ࡁࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡋࠊ(21)sluicing ࡟ࡼࡿ๐㝖ࢆචࢀࡿᵓ㐀ࡀฟ⌧ࡍࡿࠋࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ຓືモࡢṧ␃ࡀ୙ྍ⬟(23) a. [CP how [C come] [TP Subj T [VP V࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

…]]](21) A: Max has invited someone.

(1880s ~)b. [CP [how come] [C ø] [TP Subj T [VP V

B: Really? Who (*has)?

…]]](2000s ~)(Merchant (2001: 63))(23)࡛ࡣࠊhow ࡜ come ࡣ CP 㡿ᇦ࡟ేྜࡉࢀ

76ࡿࡓࡵࠊsluicing ࡀ TP ࢆ๐㝖ࡍࡿ᧯స࡛࠶ࡿ

(8d)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ it ࡜ that ࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡾ comeࡿࡇ࡜࡛ὴ⏕ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊhow comeࡀ๐㝖ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ1880ᵓᩥ࡜ࡣࡳ࡞ࡉ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

ᖺ௦࡟࠾࠸࡚ how come ᵓᩥ(Finite ࢱ࢖ࣉ)ࡀ
ฟ⌧ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊBare ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ౛ࡶࡲࡓฟ⌧ࡍࡿཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Claridge, Claudia (2012) “The Origins of Howࡇ࡜ࡀṇࡋࡃㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

Come

and

What…for,”EnglishHistorical Linguistics 2010: Selected

4. ⤖ㄽPapers from the Sixteenth Internationalᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊືモ➨஧఩⌧㇟࡟ࡼࡾ CP 㡿ᇦ࡟⛣ືࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ how ࡜ come ࡀࠊGelderen

ConferenceonEnglish(2004, 2011)ࡀᥦ᱌ࡍࡿ LMP ࡢᙳ㡪࡟ࡼࡾࠊ

Linguistics, ed. by Irén Hegedüs andCP 㡿ᇦ࡟ేྜࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊhow

Alexandra

come ᵓᩥࡀฟ⌧ࡋࡓ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊhow

Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Fodor,

Historical

177-196,John

࡜ come ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ CP ᣦᐃ㒊࡜୺せ㒊ࢆ༨Collins, Chris (1991) “Why and How Come,”ࡵࡿᵓ㐀࠿ࡽࠊrebracketing ࡢᙳ㡪࡟ࡼࡾࠊ

MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15,

how come ࡀ༢୍ࡢᵓᡂ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚⏕㉳ࡍࡿᵓ

31-45.

㐀ࡀฟ⌧ࡋࡓ࡜ㄽࡌࡓࠋࡇࡢศᯒ࡟ࡼࡾࠊᙉ

Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem

ពモࡀ how ࡜ come ࡢ㛫࡟௓ᅾࡍࡿ౛ࡀඛ࡟

Koopman and Wim van der Wurffฟ⌧ࡋࠊᙉពモࡀࡑࢀࡽ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ౛ࡀᚋ࡟

(2000) The Syntax of Early English,⌧ࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡀㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇ

Cambridgeࡢศᯒࡢᖐ⤖࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊhow come ᵓᩥࡢฟ⌧Cambridge.

University

Press,

Gelderen, Elly van (2004) Grammaticalization࡜ྠ᫬࡟ how come ࡀ༢య࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿ౛ࡀฟ
⌧ࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࡜ࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛࡛ࡣ

as

Economy,came ࡜ comes ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡀ

Amsterdam.

John

Benjamins,

Gelderen, Elly van (2011) The Linguistic Cycle:ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋLanguage Change and the Language1ὀFaculty,1920 ᖺ௦࡜ 1940 ᖺ௦࡟Ⓨぢࡉࢀࡿ஧౛ࡣ

Oxford.

OxfordUniversity

Press,

Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C. Traugott (2003)

௨ୗ࡟ᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(i) a. “I declare! I thought Hunchie was out

Grammaticalization,of his head. How comes [you are

Cambridge

named after that horse], girl?”

Cambridge.

2nd

Universityed.,Press,

Kim, Okgi and Jong-Bok Kim (2017) “English(COHA,1922,FIC,BettyGordonAtMountain)

How Come Constructions: A Diachronicb. Josiah, it often wonders me how
comes [a fellow that travels around

Perspective,”

Languageas much as you do still hangs on to

Information 21, 121-134.

andMerchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax of Silence:

the old horse and buggy].

Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of(COHA,1942,FIC,ComeBackWayneCountry)ࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛ࡣᐃᙧືモࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡀࠊcome

Ellipsis,ࡀ୕ே⛠༢ᩘ⌧ᅾࡢᒅᢡ࡛⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ

Oxford.

77

OxfordUniversity

Press,

Radford, Andrew (2018) Colloquial English:
Structure and Variation, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Shlonsky, Ur and Gabriela Soare (2011)“Where’s Why?,” Linguistic Inquiry 42,651-669.
Travis, Lisa (1984) Parameters and Effects of
Word

Order

Variation,

Doctoraldissertation, MIT.
ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫThe Corpus of Historical American English
1810-2009 (COHA), Brigham Young
University, U.S.A. (Mark Davies).

78

る]という命題に incline しているというもの
であり、もう一つの解釈(b)（より一般的な解釈）は、Jack は‘Jill is pregnant’[ジルは妊娠している]という命題に incline している言語における leakage 現象というものである。後者の解釈の場合、モー（On the Leakage Phenomenon in Language）

ダル表現 may は以下のメカニズムを経て従属節に生起すると論じられている。

森貞（Sadashi Mori）(2) Impressionistically, we can describe this as a

福井工業高等専門学校（National Institute of Technology,kind of “leakage”, where the inclination

Fukui College）

coded by suspect seeps into the subordinate
clause and manifests itself as the modal may.
(Langacker (2004: 564))

キーワード：leakage 現象, 否定辞繰り上げ,
虚辞の not, 可能表現の重複, 対象格表示(2)の記述を元に、(Langacker (2004)で想定された) leakage 現象は、以下のように、一般化
1. はじめに（定義）することができる。

本稿の目的は、一般に誤用とされる言語表
現の中にも、leakage 現象という観点から捉(3) 主節述語によってコード化されているえることにより、その出現を説明することが【認識・意識】が従属節に浸透し、その【認できるものがあることを示すことである。本

識・意識】が従属節において、（語彙の形

稿では、“I don’t {think/believe/know that} ￢で）言語化される現象

p.”という英語表現と、「～（ら）れることができる」（重複した可能表現）という日本

3. “I don’t {think/believe/know that} ￢p.”

語表現を取り扱う。

3.1. 二種類の “I don’t {think/believe/knowthat} ￢p.”

2. Leakage 現象とは

一般に、“I don’t {think/believe/know that}

Langacker(2004)によれば、(1)は、(a)(b)の￢p.”は(4)-(6)の実例からも分かるように、二通りに解釈できる点において、ambiguous￢p（破線下線部：エコー表現）を【緩和的である。

に否認する】表現として捉えることができる（この場合は、当然、「否定辞繰り上げ」の(1) Jack suspects Jill may be pregnant.

読みは阻止される）。

a. Jack inclines to the proposition “Jill may
be pregnant.”(4) PERRY: … But, obviously, the kid did notknow between right and wrong….

b. Jack inclines to the proposition “Jill is

ELLICOTT: I think the one thing I would

pregnant.”

disagree on is that I don't think this kid didn't(Langacker (2004: 562))

know the difference between right and一 つ の 解 釈 (a) は 、 Jack は ‘ Jill may be

wrong. He didn't know the difference

pregnant’[ジルは妊娠している可能性があ

between wrong and very wrong.

79

(CNN TALKBACK LIVE, 2002/08/09)

factor. I take him seriously.

(5) NOVAK: Congressman Ackerman, there's(ABC BRINKLEY, 1992/06/07)

been a lot of reports that Senator Kerry is not(9) LASHONDA: I have a question for that lady

doing well and a shakeup in his staff isright there. How does she know her daughter

needed. Do you believe a shakeup in his staff

don't know about sex?

is necessary?

WOMAN: I just don't think she -- I mean, I

ACKERMAN: I don't believe he's not doing

don't know that she doesn’t know. I don’t

well.

think she knows about it, you know. I mean,(CNN CROSSFIRE, 2004/08/31)

I don't think she knows anything about it.

(6) REPORTER: I'm staying here. My point is(INDEPENDENT

that if you interrupt during an interview

STATIONGERALD,

1994/07/21)

while it's going on because you don't like thequestion.

(7)’ I don't think I'm qualified to answer that…

ARMY PAO: I didn't know the- and I'm(8)’ That doesn't mean I don’t believe Ross Perottrying to tell you is, I don’t know that I don't

is going to be a factor

like the question.

(9)’ I don't know that she knows.

(ABC NIGHTLINE, 1990/10/10)
では、従属節の否定辞 not はどのようなプ
他方、(7)-(9)中の“I don’t {think/believe/

ロセスを経て生じているのであろうか？本

know that} ￢p.”は、特に破線下線部内容と稿では、認知言語学的考察を通して、その答の首尾一貫性という観点から考えた場合、従えを探ることにする。

属中の否定辞 not は余剰であり、本来であれ
3.2. 認知言語学的考察

ば、(7)’-(9)’のように表現されなければならないものである（そして、注意すべきは、「否

Langacker (2002, 2004)では、概念化者の命

定辞繰り上げ」の読みが義務的である点であ

題態度を表示するために、Epistemic Control

る）。

Cycle モデル（図 1）が提案されている。

(7) O'BRIEN: Cheri, Cheri, would you - Cheri,quick question for you. Should the troops
come out in Korea, the U.S.troops?
JACOBUS: I don't know. I don't think I'm
not qualified to answer that, probably not at
this point.

C= conceptualizer P= proposition D= epistemic dominion(CNN TALKBACK LIVE, 2002/12/27)

図 1: Epistemic Control Cycle (Langacker (2004:542))(8) BROWN: …if you ask for my personal
judgment,a

two-way contest between

そして、述語動詞が inclination stage を表し

George Bush and Bill Clinton. I think Billている場合にのみ、negative raising 現象が見

Clinton is going to win that contest. That

られることが指摘されている。

doesn't mean I don’t believe Ross Perot isn't
going to be a factor. I think he is a major(10) … an inclination stage, where the subject

80

(Langacker (2009: 316))

inclines toward a positive or negative
judgment without yet being able todefinitely resolve the matter.

そして、「P に届かない」ことを「～P に届(Langacker (2002: 200))

く」こととして捉えることで否定辞繰り上げ(11) Sumnicht (2001) argues persuasively that

現象が説明できると主張されている。

negative raising is only found with theinclination stage, where the matter is still at(13) (21) a. I don’t {believe / think / suppose/…} she can trust him.

issue.
a. I don’t believe she has any children.

b. I {believe / think / suppose /…} she
can’t trust him.

[inclination] ＝ I believe she doesn’t
have any children.

…To account for the rough equivalence ofb. I don’t believe (the theory) that God is(21)a–b, all we need say is that the negation

female. [result] ≠ I believe (the theory)in (21)a affects the polarity of thethat God isn’t female.

inclination, changing it from (positive)
inclinationc. I didn’t believe (his story) that he had to(capture)todisinclination

work late. [action] ≠ I believed (his(avoidance). That is, it affects the direction

story) that he didn’t have to work late.

of C1’s mental projection of RC1, the result
being that it does not reach P (the case of(Langacker (2002: 201))

inclination)butinsteadreaches

its

Langacker (2009)では、inclination (tentative

alternative (~P). On that interpretation

positive judgment) と disinclination (tentative(21)a is “logically” equivalent to (21)b,

negative judgment)が、それぞれ図 2、図 3 のwhich specifies a positive inclination

ように図示されるとともに、inclination を示

toward ~P. The expressions represent

す述語を否定すると disinclination を示すよ

alternate

うになることが指摘されている。

conceiving andportraying)situation.

(Langacker (2009: 317))

ways

of

construing
the

(i.e.
same

他方、Mori (2009)では、『人はもの（具体物、概念等）を受け入れようとする場合には接近し、拒絶しようとする場合には遠ざかる

図 2: Inclination (Langacker (2009: 315))

性質を有する』という一般的特性を元に、命題態度を反映した心理距離スケール（図 4）が想定され、inclination と disinclination はそれぞれ図５、図 6 のように示される。
図 3: Disinclination (Langacker (2009:315))(12)Inclination: believe, think, suppose, imagine,suspect, figure, reckon, expect
Disinclination: doubt, don’t {believe / think

図 4: Propositional Attitude and Psychological Distance/ suppose / imagine /…}(Mori (2009: 118))81

図 5: C1’s Inclination toward p (Mori (2009: 119))

図 8: C1’s Inclination toward ￢p (Mori (2009: 120))

図 6: C1’s Disinclination toward p (Mori (2009: 119))

図 9: C0’s Inclination toward ￢p (Mori (2009: 132))

ここで、I don’t {think/believe/know that}は(14) (7)-(9)の実線下線部における従属節 not

元 々 、【 緩 和 的 否 認 】 の 用 法 － Epistemic

は、I don’t {think/believe/know that}に付

Control Cycle (Langacker 2002, 2004)における与されている『￢p（否定命題）への

disinclination－のみを有していたが、心理距

inclination』が喚起する「否定命題に対離スケール上のプロファイルシフト（概念化する心的態度の表明」の意識が主文に浸者(C1)と命題(p/￢p)との間の距離認識におけ透した(seep into)ことによって生じたもる〈p からの遠さ〉から〈￢p への近さ〉へのである。したがって、実質的な意味はの転換）（図７）を契機として、【否定命題のなく、虚辞として扱われなければならな緩和的主張】の拡張用法（図 8）が創発し、いいわゆる leakage 現象の一例である。

頻度効果(Bybee and Scheibman 1999)によって、そのまとまりで『￢p への inclination』

この考え方に対して、「否定辞繰り上げ」を表す epistemic marker（概念化者は C0（話を統語的現象と見る研究者からは、covert で者）に限られる）に機能変化したもの（図 9）

あるべき痕跡が何らかの理由で overt になっであると想定すると、(7)-(9)の実線下線部にたという反論が聞こえてきそう だが、主節おける従属節 not は以下のメカニズムを経てが I don’t know that の場合にはその説明は適生起したものとして説明することができる。

用できない。というのも、I don’t know that p≠I know (that) ￢ p だからである。
また、この現象(leakage 現象)は、I don’t
think が（述語動詞の直前に置かれる）挿入⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓

節として使用されている実例においても観察される（と同時に、(15)は I don’t think が『￢p への inclination』
を表す epistemic marker
であることを示す強力な証拠となる）。

図 7: Profile Shift on Psychological Distance Scale(Mori (2009: 120))82

(15) Beijing called for emergency talks with(18) 可能表現の重複を昨今よく見聞きしま

North Korea, the United States, Japan,

す。最も多いのは「（ら）れることができSouth Korea and Russia, participants in theる」です。可能の意の「れる／られる」

six-party nuclear talks, which have been＋「できる」は誤りですから、「未然形＋suspended indefinitely. “The United States（ら）れる」か「終止形＋ことができる」

and a host of others, I don't think, are notのどちらかにしましょう。

interested in stabilizing the region through【×感じられることができる ○感じられa series of P.R. activities,” said Robert

る ○感じることができる】

Gibbs.

同様に、可能動詞に可能の意の「れる／(New York Times, 2010/11/30)られる」や「ことができる」をつけても補足すると、一般に、文中に用いられる挿いけません。
【×読められる ×読めるこ

入節 I don’t {think/believe}は肯定文とは共起とができる】

しないとされているが、実際には、下記のよ『 Hatena Blog 許 容 さ れ る 日 本 語 』(2012/08/19）

うな実例が散見される。
(16) WALTERS: Eddie Murphy, who started at

しかし、インターネット検索をすると、「～

19, had never done drugs, had never –（ら）れることができる」の実例がヒットすnever drunk, never been a drunker, neverる。ここでは、「得られることができ…」のsmoked, I don’t think, had a very strong

実例を列挙する。

and

happy

childhood,

unlikemostcomedians. Unlike many comedians.

(19) これまでの検索ツールでは得られるこ(Larry King Live, 2007/02/22)とができなかった、さまざまな資料や情(17) BLIZER: Well, given the nature of that報と出会うきっかけとして是非 KWEST

three-pronged mission, as you describe it,

をご活用ください。

150,000 troops, I don’t believe, are（関西学院大学図書館）

necessarily enough. If you had 150,000 or(20) 東北大以外の入場者が 80％を越えた今

200,000 Iraqi troops who were ready for

回の企画展においては，学外者からの期that kind of mission it might be enough, but

待を肌で感じることができ，貴重な経験

by all accounts the Iraqis are not yet up toを得られることができました。
（東北大

speed.

学附属図書館報 2005 Vo.30, No.3）(Late Edition, 2004/12/26)(21) このシンプルモデルでは，大気－陸－
但し、述語動詞の直前にのみ生起するとい

海－生命間の相互作用を具体的に解析う生起制限があることと、意味的には、「否できます．この結果を用いて地球環境変

定辞繰り上げ」の解釈が義務的であるという動を解明します．さらに，大規模計算の点に注意しなければならない。

条件設定の目安となり，より正確な結果を得られることができます．（名古屋大４．
「～（ら）れることができる」

学理学部 地球惑星科学科 地球惑星物「～（ら）れることができる」という表現は、

理講座のご案内）(22) その結果，腫瘍摘出度を高めることが一般に誤用とされている。

でき，それによって長期の腫瘍制御も良83

検索してみると以下の結果が得られた。

好な結果を得られることができています。 （大阪市立大学

プレスリリース）(25) 対象格表示：

本稿では、この表現の出現にも leakage 現・「ヲ格」－24 例 (83%)

象が関わっていることを主張する。但し、(3)・「ガ格」－ 5 例 (17%)の一般化を拡大適用し、以下のように想定すこの結果から、本来、「を得ることができる。

…」と表出するつもりであったが、leakage(23)「ことができる」によってコード化されによって、実際には、「を得られることがでている【可能】の意識が名詞化辞「こと」

き…」と表出したと想定することができる

によって名詞節に変換された文内に浸（対象格表示に「ガ」が使われている実例は、

透して、その意識が、『可能』を表す助「他動性」が希薄な状態で、「が得ることが動詞「（ら）れる」として言語化したとでき…」と表出するつもりが、leakage によ想定する。

って、「が得られることができ…」となったと想定される）。

このような想定に対して、表現上、
「～（ら）
５．まとめ

れる」の後に「ことができる」が付加される形になっているので、leakage ではないとい

本稿では、I don’t {think/believe/know that}

う反論が聞こえてきそうであるが、以下の理￢p.”という英語表現と、「～（ら）れるこ

由により、発話（表出）前に脳内に「～こととができる」という日本語表現を取り上げて、ができる」構文が立ち上がっていて、「～」

これら２つの表現が leakage（現象）の結果の箇所に文が埋め込まれた後に、発話（表出）として生じている可能性が高いことを論じされていると考えるのが妥当である。

た。また、前者の場合には、Langacker(2004)の論考から定義される leakage の規定をその「V することができる」は、次の文型で用まま適用できるのに対して、後者の場合には、いられる。

拡大適用の必要があることを指摘した。
(24)「《文型 b》[人・生き物]｛に/が/は｝文ことができる

参考文献（小泉 保 他(編) (1989: 342)）

青木ひろみ (2008) 「可能表現の対象格表示『ガ』と『ヲ』の交替」，『世界の日本語「V することができる」の「V する」が他

教育』18, 133-146.

動詞－例えば、「得る」－の場合、対象格表

荒木一雄・安井 稔(編) (1992)『現代英文法

示の助詞は「ヲ」でなければ非文となる（稀辞典』三省堂, 東京．

に、「ガ」が生起する実例も見られるが、「得文化庁 (1996)『言葉に関する問答集 総集ることができる」がこのまとまりで一つの述編』大蔵省印刷局, 東京．

語として認識され、他動詞「得る」に付随す

Bybee, Joan L. and Joanne Scheibman (1999)

る「他動性」の意識が希薄になった場合に限“The Effect of Usage on Degrees of

られる）
。
「そこで、
「～｛を/が｝得られるこConstituency: the Reduction of don't inとができ…」の文字列を、高等教育機関・学English,” Linguistics 37-4, 575-596.

術研究機関(ac.jp)に限定してインターネット

平野尊識 (1991)「語形成における『右側主84

要部の規則』の例外―『話せる』タイプ

日本英語学会．
Mori,

Sadashi(2009)

The

大言語学研究室報告』13, 27-37.

Phenomenon:

A

Cognitive

Linguistic

市川保子 (1997)『日本語誤用例文小事典』

Approach.

(Unpublished

Doctoralの動詞と『が』/『を』の交替―」，『九

NEG-Raising

Dissertation, Kanazawa University)

凡人社, 東京．
生田目弥寿(編著) (1996)『日本語教師のため

貞 (2018)「『～ないとは思わない』に訳

森の現代日本語表現文典』凡人社, 東京．

せない I don’t {think (that) / believe (that) /功雄・高梨信乃・中西久美子・山田敏弘

know that} ￢p」，JCLA 18, 431-437, 日本(2000)『初級を教える人のための日本語

認知言語学会．

庵

文法ハンドブック』スリーエーネットワ

貞（印刷中）「“p, I don’t think.”の生起に森関する認知言語学的考察」JCLA 20, 日

ーク, 東京．
小池清治・小林賢次・細川英雄・山口佳也

本認知言語学会．

(2002)『日本語表現・文型事典』朝倉書尾谷昌則 (2001)「いわゆる“対象のガ格”

店, 東京．

の正体を求めて―認知文法の観点から

保・船城道雄・本田晶治・仁田義雄・―」，『白馬夏期言語学会論集』12, 45-60.

塚本秀樹(編) (1989)『日本語基本動詞用

岡田伸夫 (1985)『副詞と挿入文』
（新英文法

小泉

例辞典』大修館書店, 東京．

第 9 巻）大修館書店, 東京．

選書

Langacker, Ronald W. (2002) “The Control

太田Cycle: Why Grammar is a Matter of Life朗 (1980)『否定の意味』大修館書店,

東京．

and Death,” JCLA 2 (Proceedings of the

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey

Eighth Annual Meeting of the Japanese

Leech,

Cognitive

Comprehensive Grammar of the English

Linguistics

Association),

193-220.

andJan

Svartvik(1985)A

Language. Longman, London.

Langacker, Ronald W. (2004) “Aspects of the

田村泰男 (1992)「『～が～できる』と『～をGrammar of Finite Clauses,” Language,～できる』について」，『広島大学留学生

Culture, and Mind, ed. by Michel Achard

センター』2, 13-20.

and Suzanne Kemmer, 535-577, CSLI

Wierzbicka, Anna. (2006) English: Meaning andPublications, Stanford.
Langacker,

RonaldW.

Culture, Oxford University Press, Oxford/(2008)

Cognitive

New York.

Grammar: A Basic Introduction, Oxford

安井

University Press, Oxford/New York.

典』大修館書店, 東京．

Langacker, Ronald W. (2009) Investigations in
Cognitive Grammar, Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin/New York.
森

貞 (2005)「『Ｖすることができる』構文における直接目的語の『ガ』格による表示について」，『日本語学会 2005 年度秋
季大会要旨集』，25-32.

森稔(編) (1987) 『[例解]現代英文法事

貞 (2009)「否定辞繰り上げ現象に関する認知言語学的考察」，JELS 26, 171-180，85

proposed by Muñoz Pérez (2018). Then, I will
discuss the analysis based on phases by Martinand Uriagereka (2014).
2.1. Muñoz Pérez (2018)

Featural Approach to Distinction of Copies
and Repetitions*

Muñoz Pérez (2018) proposes that copies are
distinguished from repetitions based on feature

Takashi Munakata

values, supposing that chain members are

Yokohama National University

determined representationally at interfaces. His
analysis relies on the following assumptions:(1) a. A valued feature is an order pair <Att,

Keywords：copies, feature valuation, caseVal>. Att is collected from the set of
attributes (cf. Number) whereas Val isdrawn from the set of values.

1. Introduction
This short paper proposes that copies areb. An unvalued feature is an order pairunified phase by phase based on the value of<Att, Ø>, where Ø is required to be

selective features, case and Q.

replaced with an item from the set ofvalues.

Under the current minimalist framework, noc. T o constit ents

indices, chains, and traces can be introduced

and

are

throughout syntactic derivation because ofof the sa e chain if iInclusiveness Condition, which bars introduction(ii)

of new elements (and features) in the course ofno syntactic e e ent et een

is non-distinct fro

hichcomputation. Nonetheless, copies of a certain

c-co

e

ers

ands ,, and there isandis non-distinct from, or which is

non-distinct fro

lexical item (LI) must be identified anddistinguished from instances of the identical LI

He also proposes Inclusion-S, which says a(i.e. repetition) for legitimate interpretations atconstit ent

C-I and SM. Also, as Chomsky (2015) declares,

if for every value ofno other syntactic building operation than Mergeinis unavailable. As Collins & Groat (2019)(2) a. Cosmo said that Cosmo was arrested t.

is non-distinct fro

a constit ent

there is an identical value

He analyzes (2) as follows:

correctly points out, given that Merge merelyb. {TP Cosmo1<case,nom> T {VP Cosmo2<case,Ø>creates a complex {X, Y} from an LI X andsaid that {TP Cosmo3<case,nom> was {VPanother item Y, copies must be distinguishedarrested Cosmo4<case,Ø>}}}}.

from mere repetitions only with Merge and otherFirst of all, case on Cosmo2 lacks value and it

inherent properties of LIs. Thus, copy instances

has no contribution to the evaluation of caseof an identical LI cannot be linked by syntactic

status, irrelevant to the determination of identity.

devices - indices or chains - formed in syntax.

Given that Cosmo1 and Cosmo2 have the samefeatures with the same attributes and value,
Cosmo2 is non-distinct from Cosmo1, due to (1)2. Featural Approach & Locality Restriction
In this section, I will first review the featuraland Inclusion-S. The same argumentation isapproach to the copy/repetition distinction

applied to Cosmo3 and Cosmo4. However,86Cosmo2 and Cosmo3 are distinct in feature value,transferred domain of a phase head are

not forming chains, because the latter has aninterpreted as copies, which is derived from PIC

extra case value <case,nom>, resulting in two(Phase Impenetrability Condition) proposed byseparate chains.

Chomsky (2000), which requires that in a phase
ith head H, the domain of H is not accessible

He extends his analysis to (3):to o erations o tside of , only H and its edge

(3) a. What did you see ti?
1

are accessible to such operations.

b. {CP What <case,acc>,< ,Q> did {TP you {v*P
2what <case,acc>,< ,3

seeBased on their analysis, students4 andwhat <case,acc>,

students3 forms a chain in a matrix clause in (5b),< ,Ø>?}}}

What2 is non-distinct from what1 because casebecause students4 and students3 are locatedvalue of these two are identical (acc). Note thatwithin the same phase domain, accessible fromthe value of , an attribute with a left-peripheral

each other. Whereas, students2 and students1 stayproperty, on what2 (and what3) is unvalued, thus

within the same transferred domain in an

irrelevant to the evaluation of the identity

embedded clause, forming a separate chain frombetween what1 and what2(/what3). As a result,the chain composed of student4 and student3:

these three instances of what forms a single(5) a. Students believe that students werechain, as desired.

criticized t.
b. {CP {TP Students4 T {vP students3 {v {VP

However, this approach has a difficulty indealing with an example in (4):believe {CP that {TP students2 {T {PartP(4) a. Who did you tell t that John met who?

were {VP criticized students1}}}}}}}}}}

b. {CP Who1<case,acc>,< ,Q> did you {vP*

Yet, their analysis faces a serious problem

2

who <case,acc>,< ,Ø>

…

tell

to deal with A’-chain. Consider (6):3(6) a. Guess {CP who students criticized t}

who <case,acc>,< ,Ø> {CP that John T{v*P met who4<case,acc>,< ,Ø>?}}}}

b. {CP who3 {TP students T {v*P who2
{students {v* {VP criticized who1}}}}}}c. Her mother told everyonei that hisi wife

Evidently, in (6b), who2 and who1 are notshould get a job. (Harper 1990)
Clearly, who1, who2, and who3 are non-distinct

located in the same transferred domains, unablebecause of the same reasoning above, forming ato form a chain, contradictory to the fact. Thus,

chain at interfaces, as predicted. However, his

it is necessary to introduce some additional

4

analysis incorrectly predicts who also becomesmechanism or device to recognize copies/chainsa member of the same chain, contra the fact, as

in Internal Merge (IM) in order to form A’-chain,

4

which is incompatible with the minimalism

illustrated in (4b). Who lacks the value ofas3

spirit, as Collons and Groat (2019) points out.

who , while it has the same case value (acc) as
33

who and it is c-commanded by who (see (4c)),which means who3/who4 form a chain. Therefore,

3. Analysis
I will extend the phase-based approach along

all instances of what are parts of the same chain.

with Martin and Uriagereka (2014). At the sametime, I will crucially make use of features

2.2. Martin and Uriagereka (2014)

contributing to the label determination.1

Martin and Uriagereka (2014) claims all
identical syntactic objects contained in theWithin the POP system (Chomsky 2013,

87

XP1,

2015), labeling failure happens withthe search burden to identify copy instances of

1

YP } with no sharing features, leaving

an identical LI should be substantially reduced.

unlabeled. This unlabeled structure can be fixed

The system simply needs to look at both1

if XP undergoes IM, making XP a lower copy,

unlabeled syntactic objects and labeled ones via

which is invisible to the labeling algorithm (LA).

feature sharing (plus, case-valued instances in an

Also, XP reaches the final landing site when it

externally merged position).

undergoes Agree in a matching feature F with Z,

In addition, due to PIC, movement is done

due to which LA can determine the label ofcyclicly. This suggests that each copy instance of2{XP , ZP} as F via sharing features, namely, F.

an identical LI is located within continuous

Consequently, XP2 becomes fixed as the topmost

adjacent phases. If an instance of an identical LI

copy. It should be noted that it is quite necessary

is found in a certain phase when another is not

12

to unify the lower copy XP with XP in order to11

located in the next relevant phase, it should be a

1

P , YP }repetition. Given the discussion above, it is safe

remains unlabeled (uninterpretable), causing

to assume the copy determination is basicallycrash at interfaces.

achieved derivationally phase to phase.

make XP invisible to LA. If not,Now, I propose the followings to derive theThis obviously shows the unification of copy
instances must be vital given that {XP, YP}

distinction between copies and repetitions:structuressubject-predicates(8) i. Instances Xn of an identical LI X with anwithin v*P) are unavoidable in syntax. Then,

unmatched feature (cf. case/Q, thosewhat is a clue indicating copy members? As

contributing to labeling) can be unified

noted, a copy instance undergoing feature

with the topmost instance X1 with asharing with another syntactic element becomesmatched one, if Xn is located in thethe topmost copy, letting LA recognize otherc-commanding domain of X1 and there

copy instances are lower copies after unification.

is no intervening instance X with a

Let consider a simple A-chain for investigation:

matched one between X1 and Xn.

(forexample,(7) a John is loved t.

ii. When X intervenes between X1 and Xn,

12

b. {John [ ,Nom] is {v {loved John [ ,case*]}}}

these lower instances are unified withX.

(7b) is a simplifying syntactic structure of (7a),where John1 is the topmost copy instance,
2iii. If feature which is unmatched lacks

1

values and hence is uninterpretable,

should be the same as John except that it has aunification applies at Transfer. If not,case feature matched with T.

this unification applies at the interfaces.

whereas John is a lower one. Note that John
2

iv. XnIn this way, under the POP System, the only

may

be

identified

with

other

difference between the topmost copy instanceinstances of X across phases, when an

and lower copy instances of some LI is theinstance of Xm is located within the next

existence of matched case feature in case ofphase boundary, once its valuelessA-movement. Remember that it is the key tounmatched feature is valued.

determine the status (topmost or lower) of a

Importantly, this proposal does not complicate

copy instance X of an LI whether X contributes

theto labeling or brings about labeling failure. Then,

minimalism spirit. Only simple unification needs

88

definitionofMerge,

satisfying

theto be introduced. The mechanism is able to pickconstructions is a phonological realization ofup copy instances easily by referring to limited<T,C>, where T is strengthened by C via

matched/unmatched features.

pair-merge. This pair-merge makes -features ofLet’s illustrate the analysis with (9) and (10):(9) a. Professors

thinkprofessors

C unseen, further depriving C of its phase status;that is, C is adjoined to T.

praiseIn (10b), copy instances with an unmatchedprofessors .
b. { P[case

Professors [ oo] v … { PT]

professors [ o4{v P professors [caseo]case, professors2 , professors3 , professors4 , andprofessors

professors5 ,] T

professors

v* -V praise

professors5 [Acc ]}}}.

1

undergo

the

with

Nom ,

unification

withbecausenoc-commanding copy instance of professors and4

At a CP/ -phase level, professors

no phase boundary intervene between them.

with an3

Consequently, the appropriate chain-like object

unmatched case is unified with professors with3

professors is derived.

Nom , because professors with a matched case,4

c-commands professors . The unmatched case

Finally, (11) is correctly excluded, becausefeature on professors4 gets valued (Nom ) due

unmatched case features on all copy instances ofto this unification. Notice that the topmost copy

professors cause crash at interface, even though3

instance, professors , contributes to the labelingthe unification would be applied to them.

of the embedded P via feature sharing with T ,(11) a. It is likely professorsi to ti seem ti to ti

4

disappear.

while the lower one, professors , would causeb. { Plabeling failure due to no feature sharing withv* if it was the topmost copy. The same

{to<T,C>}

2v

3{to<T,C>}

professors [case*]2

is likely

1

professors [case*]

explanation goes for another chain-like object
1

It1 [Nom ] T

seemconsisting of professors and professors . At aprofessors [case*]

CP/ -phase level, professor2 , lacking case value,

professors4[case*] v disappeared}

is unified with professors1 with Nom , which

Importantly, the analysis advocated here canc-commands it. As a result, these two chain-likebe extended to examples including A’-chain.

objects

without

Notice that under the POP System, Q-features onforms a trivial

wh-elements are supposed to be matched withchain, because it is marked with a different case.

that on C, contributing to the determination ofLet’s turn to (10), a raising construction:

the label of an interrogative C as Q. When C has(10) a. Professors are likely ti to ti seem ti to tino Q-feature, wh-elements cannot stay within its

arecorrectly

sorted5

corruption. Finally, professors

outSpec without causing labeling failure. Also,

disappear.
b. { P Professors [ o2] Tis likely

Q-features are interpretable, because the featuresprofessors [case*om ]{to<T,C>}

are equipped with a value necessary for the

professors [case

o

]

v

seem

interrogative interpretation at C-I and SM (seeprofessors [caseo]{to<T,C>}(8iii)). Then, it is safe to assume Q-features playprofessors [caseo] v disappear}a key role in unifying copy instances of an

Adopting the approach to pair merge of Epstein,

identical wh-item. Now, consider (12):Kitahara and Seely (2016) and Sugimoto (2016),(12) a. What does John buy ti?

I assume that the infinitive to of raisingb. { P89

What1 [Q ,Acc ] {does[Q]} John1

[Nom ]

T

[ ase

o

{v P

what [Q,Acc ] John2(15) Who1 C1 do you who2 think C2 {X T who3 T

3] v* -V buy what [Q, Acc ]}}who4 wrote this book?

In (12), given (8iii), what3 and what2 does

However, if the reasoning of Chomsky is

not need to be unified at a phase-level because

correct, professors in TP-Spec should be able tothese copy instances have matched accusative

undergo further IM in principle in (16a-e),case. In turn, all copy instances of what . arecontrary to the fact. In particular, (16a) imposes

unified across phases at interfaces, because ofa serious challenge on the current POP System,

unmatched Q-features andon these copy

because no syntactic principle bars copy

instances. Furthermore, what can get matrix

instances of an identical nominal from bearing

scope via Agree with the matrix C on Q-feature,

double nominative cases or appearing twice:2

rescuing lower copy instances of what and(16) a.* Professorsi

making a proper operator-variable chain at C-I.

think

ti

ti disappeared.

(13) a. Whoi did you tell ti that John met who?

c.* Professors are likely to professorsi think1b. {CP/ Who [Q ,Acc ] {C did[Q]} you {vP*/ti disappeared.

3

d.* Professors are likely professors to

who [Q,Acc … tell who [Q,Acc {CP/ that
4John T {v*P/ … v* -V met who [Q,Acc ]?

professors

In (13), copy instances of who and that ofdisappeared.

to

think

professors

e.* It is likely professorsi to think ti

who are properly distinguished, because who
and who have the different matched accusative

disappeared.

cases (ACC and ACC ) respectively due to thef. Professors are likely to think professors

fact that each copy instance of who and who

disappeared.
Crucially, the unification of copy instances

undergoes Agree with v*-V in distinct phases,3

tob.* Professors are likely professorsi to think

which is repeated below:

1likelydisappeared.

Let’s turn to the problematic example in (4a),

2

are

4

provides a good solution to this problem:

even if who and who c-command who .
Interestingly, this analysis solves problematic

Professors [ o(17) a.* { P2examples under the POP System of Chomsky

professors(2015). To explain that-trace effect in (14),thinkChomsky (2015) supposes that the embedded C2

professors

is nullified, letting the embedded T become ab.* { Pdisappeared}}.

ProfessorsoT are likely

professors

fixes the label of X to T in (15), enabling thethinkinstance of who in the embedded TP-Spec toprofessors{TP2

professors

the embedded T cannot become a phase head,oto professorsoprofessors
ase

]

ase

o

5

T

o

T

are likely

to professors3othink {TPodisappeared}}.

oProfessorsc.*{ PToophase head. He proposes this nullification of C2

that occupies C2, blocking the nullification of C2,

professors

o

ase

2

undergo further wh-movement in principle. If

T are likely

to professors3

o

{TP

]

professors

Tomaking the fixation of the label of X impossible.

professorsaseodisappeared}}.

This prohibits further wh-movement of who3,d.* { P ProfessorsoT are likely

which needs to stay for the labeling of T:

professors [case*] to professors [case*](14) Who do you think (*that) wrote this book?

think

90

{TP

professorsoTprofessors

ase

disappeared}}.

o1e.* { P It T is likely {X professors

copy instances of professors and professors are
given nominative case matched with T and To{to<T,C>} professors [ othink {TPrespectively. Consequently, the unifications ofprofessors

professors

professors and professors via matched caseaseof. { PToProfessors

professors
aseofeatures are successfully achieved separately,

disappeared}}
ase

T

o

ase

professors

to professorso4think {TPT professors

leading to the labeling of CP/ and TP/ . Also,

are likely

professorsocontains a theta marked copy

instance professors , whereas professors has aotheta marked member, namely, professors .

disappeared}}.

First of all, in (17a), professors should keep

Finally, I show the possibility that thisthe previous Agree information with T to beapproach might deal with parasitic gap in (18),

unified with other copy instances of professors .

along with Martin and Uriagereka (2014):

However, given that case is a reflection of Agree(18) a. Whati did you file ti without reading ei?

in-features, it cannot undergo further Agreeb. {QWhat [,Acc{

did[Q]} you …

,cc… v* -V filewith T , which changes the matched case of

<{v P

what

into Nom with overwriting. Then,

what

, cc

professors

the unification should be impossible, because

},

{ P

what

without … {v P what1

professors has a different matching nominative

, cc

C

, cc

… v* -V

reading what [Q, cc }}>}

case (Nom ) from that of other copy instances.

Apparently, instances of whatȕ and whatį should

Yet, if professors keeps Nom , a case matched

be unified respectively, because these two

with T , it prevents professors from undergoinginterrogative items are given case in different

further Agree with T , blocking feature sharing

remote phases. However, whatwith it. Clearly, this causes labeling failure.

problematic instance what , causing labelingincludes a

Next, (17b) and (17c) are ruled out, because

failure due to the lack of sharing feature with C .

there is no theta marked copy instance ofLuckily, due to (8iv) and (8i), these

professors , causing crash at C-I (cf. Chomsky

unmatched Q-features on copy instances of2013). Next, (17d) is also bad, because

what can be unified with what , because what

unmatched case features remain on professors

is located at the edge of the P

and professors , leading to crash at interfaces, letadjacent to whatalone the lack of the theta marked copy

what

hase ase as

at the edge of the v P , oth ofhichinstances of professors and professors . Finally,

are within the next adjacent phases to PThis(17e) is ungrammatical, due to the labelingmeans that, at least, whatarefailure of X. X cannot be labeled via featuretransferred together, making the identification of

sharing inwhat-features because of no agreement
1and whatin thePhase and stays

and whatpossible. Note that whatisbetween professors and to<T,C> (no -features

finally unified with what , because the latteron to<T,C>).

c-commands and is indirectly linked to theOn the other hand, (17f) has no problem.

former via what . This unification of Q-features

First, due to the fact that (i) T and professors1of what may cause all copy instances of whatĮ

and professors4

appropriately

and whatį to be unified at interfaces, possibly as-features, each of the top

a last resort. It can be said they form a single

and (ii) T

undergo Agree in91

chain-like object at interfaces. Thus, only what1

Chomsky,Noam(2015)“Problems

is pronounced and what uniformly exhibits an

Projection:interrogative

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in honour

interpretation.

Note

that

this

Extension”

inofStructures,of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di

unification rescues the labeling failure at CP/ .

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona
Matteini,

4. Conclusion

3-16,

John

and

Erich

Benjamins,

Amsterdam.

This paper challenges the problem noted by

Collins,

Collins & Groat (2019). I claim the approach

Collins

Groat(2018)

with the phase-based unification making use of“Distinguishing Copies and Repetitions,”

case/Q is responsible for the distinction between

ms.,copy and repetition. This only relies on inherentFrankfurt.

lexical properties and significantly reduces the003809>NYU

andGoethe-Universität<https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/

Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu, Kitahara andsearch burden to identify copy instances.

Daniel, T. Seely (2016) “Phase cancellation* A portion of this paper is given at the 37th

by external pair-merge of heads,” The

Annual Conference of ELSJ and Keio Study

Linguistic Review 33. 87-102.

Group. I thank the audience there for fruitful

Harper, Mary P. (1990) The Representation of

discussion. Especially, I am grateful to Nobu

Noun Phrase in Logical Form, Doctoral

Goto and Yushi Sugimoto. Finally, I wish todissertation, Brown University.

express my deepest gratitude to late Roger

Hornstein, Norbert (2009) A Theory of Syntax:

Martin, who was always interested and involved

Minimalin pursuing the severely difficult truth. NeedlessGrammar, Cambridge University Press,

to say, all remaining errors are my own.

Cambridge.

NOTES
1

and

Universal

Kitahara, Hisatsugu (2000) “Two (or More)
Syntactic

Kitahara (2000) proposes a similar analysis

Categories

vs.

MultipleOccurrences of One,” Syntax 3, 151-158.

within the early minimalist framework.
2

Operations

The ungrammaticality of other examples in

Martin, Roger A. and Juan, Uriagereka (2014)(16b-e) may be attributed to labeling failure.

“Chains in Minimalism,” in Minimalism

Note that the theta criterion might not rescue thisand Beyond: Radicalizing the Interface, ed.

problem if a nominal can bear multiple theta

by Peter Kosta, Steven L. Franks androles, as Hornstein (2009) and others argue.

TeodoraRadevabork,169-194,

John

Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Muñoz Pérez, C. (2018) “Recognizing Copies:

REFERENCES

On the Definition of Non-Distinctiveness,”

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries,”

Glossa 3, 1-29.

in Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist

Sugimoto, Yushi (2016) “De-phased by External

Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by
Roger Martin A., David Michaels and Juan

Pair-Merge

Uriagereka, 89-115, MIT Press, Cambridge.

Consequences,” Proceedings of Conference

Chomsky,Noam(2013)“Problems

of

C

to

T

and

Its

of the Student Organization of Linguistics

ofin Europe XXIV, 237–253.

Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.

92

there remains a question of how far MS will
locate heads deeply embedded in the structure.
Chomsky (2015: 6) postulates that “LA seeks
heads H within its search domain (observing thePhase Impenetrability Condition PIC),” but thisOn the Domain of Minimal Search for*

has not been empirically examined in previous

Labeling

works. Furthermore, there also remains a
Takanori Nakashimaquestion whether the PIC is the only condition to

Tohoku University

narrow the domain of MS for labeling. Consider(1).

Keywords：labeling, minimal search, freezing(1) a.

effects, wh-island effects, proper binding
condition effectsb.

{{X[F], WP}, {Y[F], ZP}}{{UP, {X[F], WP}}, {Y[F], ZP}}

Given “top-down” search, MS seeking a pair of
1. Introduction

heads in (1a) firstly reaches {X[F], WP} andChomsky (2013, 2015) proposes labeling as{Y[F], ZP}, and then finds out X[F] and Y[F]processonsimultaneously. In (1b), on the other hand, theinterpretation of a syntactic object (SO) at the“top-down” search firstly reaches {UP, {X[F],interfaces. An SO is labeled by a fixed algorithm,

WP}} and {Y[F], ZP}, secondly {X[F], WP} andLabeling Algorithm (LA). LA is a minimal

Y[F], and finally X[F]. Crucially, the “top-down”

search (MS) to detect relevant heads, which

search in (1a) locates the relevant heads X[F] andworks in the following ways: Given SO = {H,Y[F] at the same step, whereas (1b) requires anXP}, where H is a head and XP is a phrase, MS

extra step to find out X[F] after locating Y[F]. An

selects H as its label. When an SO is {XP, YP},

economy principle restricting search space for

MS cannot uniquely locate a head that provides

computation would prefer the former to the latter,a label, but there are two ways to determine asince the former narrowly restrict the searchlabel of the XP-YP structure. One case is whenspace for LA. On the basis of this idea, thisXP is moved out of the XP-YP structure. In thisarticle proposes the condition in (2).

aofprovidinginformationcase, the lower copy of XP is “invisible” to LA,
since not every occurrence of XP is in the(2) An XP-YP structure provides a label via

domain of {XP, YP}. Then, it is labeled YP.

feature sharing between X and Y only if X

Another case is when X and Y, heads of XP andand Y have the same depth of embedding.

YP, are “identical” in some relevant sense: they
involve identical agreement features [F]. Then,(2) states that X and Y must be found by theLA finds heads X and Y, providing <F, F>, a pair

“top-down” MS simultaneously. More formally,of features shared between X and Y, as its label.

depth of embedding is defined in terms of

As noted above, LA is an instantiation of MS.

set-membership: in (1a), X as well as Y is a

However, the notion of MS is not formallymember of a member of the set {XP, YP}. In

defined in Chomsky (2013, 2015). In particular,(1b), in contrast, X is a member of a member of93

a member of the set {XP, YP}, whereas Y is a

as well as C and v is a phase head, who must be

member of a member of the set {XP, YP}.

extracted to the edge of D as in (4b); otherwise,

Since the “top-down” MS requires superfluous

wh-extraction violates the PIC. Then, the subject

steps to locate relevant heads when Y and Y do

is externally merged into Spec-v, yielding (4c).

not have the same depth of embedding, theAfter introducing T as in (4d), the subject

economy condition bars labeling of the XP-YP

internally merges into Spec-T, yielding (4e). The

structure. Accordingly, (1a) provides a label <F,

derivation reaches a phase-level when C is

F> via feature sharing, whereas (1b) yields no

introduced as in (4f). In (4g), who undergoes IMlabel. This article illustrates that the condition into(2) provides a unified account for freezing

phase-head-complement (PHC) of C get labeledeffects (section 2), wh-island effects (section 3),

and transferred. Crucially, the masked SO inand proper binding condition effects (section 4).

(4g), repeated here as (5), cannot be labeled

Spec-C,

and

the

SOs

in

the

owing to the condition in (2).
2. Freezing Effects(5) {{who, {D[φ], …}}, {T[φ], vP}}

This section shows that the condition in (2)explains ban on extraction out of moved
elements (aka. freezing effects) like (3).

To label (5), LA must find the phi-features on T
and the ones on D. In (5), however, it is(3) a. ?* Whoi do you think that [pictures of ti]j

impossible to find out the relevant heads, since(5) violates the condition in (2): D is embedded

tj are on sale?

more deeply than T (i.e., D is a member of ab. ?? Whoi do you wonder [which picture ofmember of a member of the set (5), whereas T isti]j Mary bought tj?

a member of a member of (5)). Accordingly, (5)(Lasnik and Saito (1993: 101-102))

causes crash at the interfaces.
(3a) is derived in the following way (notice that

The proposed analysis also accounts for

who is a phrase (i.e., a H-XP structure), but its

freezing effects in A'-movement like (3b).

internal

Owing to the PIC, who must be extracted tostructureisabstracted

away

for

Spec-D before the object is externally merged

simplicity of illustration).

into the base position. Given that, wh-movement{D, {pictures, {of, who}}}to the embedded Spec-C yields the structure inb.

{who, {D, {pictures, {of, twho}}}}

(6).

c.

{{who, {D, …}}, vP}d.

{T, {{who, {D, …}}, vP}}(4) a.

(6) {{who, {D[Q], …}}, {C[Q], TP}}e. {{who, {D, …}}, {T, {{who, {D, …}},vP}}}

To label this structure, LA must simultaneouslyf.

{C, {{who, {D, …}}, {T, …}}}

locate the interrogative Q-features on D, on theg.

{who, {C, {{twho, {D, …}}, {T, …}}}}

one hand, and the one in C, on the other.
However, again, LA cannot find out them, since(4a) shows the stage of the derivation before thewhich and C do not have the same depth ofsubject is introduced to Spec-v. Assuming that D

embedding. Thus, the structure cannot provide a94

label.
Let us next consider extraction out of objects.

Let us first consider (9). (10) illustrates the stage(7) illustrates that a wh-phrase cannot be movedof the derivation where the subject clause in (9a)out of a shifted object, whereas it is successfullyinternally merges into Spec-T (notice that who is

extracted out of a non-shifted one.

extracted to Spec-C before EM of the subject
into Spec-v, since C is a phase-head).

(7) a. *Who did Mary call [friends of t] up?
b.

(10) {{who, {C[φ], …}}, {T[φ], vP}}

Who did Mary call up [friends of t]?
(Lasnik (2001: 110))

Assuming that C involves phi-features to agree
Suppose that the shifted object in (7a) moves

with T, LA must locate C and T simultaneously

from the base position to Spec-V, whereas theto provide a label <φ, φ>. However, LA cannot

non-shifted object in (7b) remains in the basefind out them owing to the condition in (2). Let

position (cf. Lasnik (2001) and Chomsky

us next consider (9b, c). Suppose that non-finite(2008)). Then, the sentences in (7) are structured

C is not a phase-head (Kanno (2008)). Then,as follows.

who does not have to be extracted to Spec-C
before the subject clause is merged with the(8) a.
b.

{{who, {D[φ], {pictures, …}}}, {V[φ],independent SO. Given that, (9b, c) have thetObj}}

following structures at some point of their{V[φ], {who, {D[φ], {pictures, …}}}}

derivations.
(11) a.

(8a) is an XP-YP structure. The condition in (2)prohibits labeling via feature-sharing, since D is{{C[φ], {her, {to, {who, {v, …}}}}},{T[φ], vP}}

embedded more deeply than V. In contrast, thereb.

arises no labeling failure in (8b), since it is a{{C[φ], {PRO, {being, {who, {v,…}}}}}, {T[φ], vP}}

H-XP structure. Thus, the asymmetry between
shifted and non-shifted objects is accounted for

In (11), who is located in Spec-v, the highest

in terms of labeling.

phase-edge of the subject clause. Since C and T

The proposed analysis also explains thehave the same depth of embedding, LA locates C

finite/non-finite asymmetry with respect toand T simultaneously, providing the label <φ, φ>.

extraction out of clausal subjects like (9).

Thus, sentences in (9b, c) do not result inlabeling failure.

(9) a. *Who does [that she can bake ginger
cookies for t] give her great pleasure?

3. Wh-Island Effects

b. ?? Who does [(for her) to be able to bakeThisginger cookies for t] give her great

sectionattempts

toaccountforwh-island effects like (12).

pleasure?
c. ? Who does [being able to bake ginger(12)?*To whomj did you wonder whati they gave

cookies for t] give her great pleasure?

ti tj?

(adapted from Kluender (2004: 118-119))

95(Cinque (1990: 52))

Owing to the PIC, to whom must undergo…}}. Then, the CI interface interprets what as a

successive-cyclic movement to the embedded

wh-operator, and {C[Q], …} as the scope of theSpec-C, creating configurations like (13a) or

operator. Given this much, consider (13b) again.

(13b), where the two wh-phrases occupy

It is an XP-YP structure with the label <Q, Q>.

multiple Specs-C of the embedded clause (notice

Then, XP = to whom must be interpreted as athat, given free Merge, no principle of narrow

wh-operator, and YP = {{what[Q], …}, {C[Q],syntax precludes extraction of to whom towardTP}} as its scope. However, this results in aneither the inner Spec-C as in (13a) or the outeranomalous interpretation at the CI interface:

one as in (13b)).

since what is an intermediate copy, it does not
qualify for an operator. Although the CI(13) a.
b.

{{what[Q], …}, {{to, {whom, …}},

interface forces (13b) to be interpreted as an{C[Q], TP}}}

operator-scope configuration in accordance with{{to, {whom, …}}, {{what[Q], …},

its label <Q, Q>, it contains no wh-element that

{C[Q], TP}}}may serve as an interrogative operator. Thus,(13b) is also ruled out at the CI interface.

Let us first consider (13a). To label this structure,

It is known that wh-extraction out of an

LA must locate what involving [Q], on the one

infinitival indirect question like (14) is relatively

hand, and C with [Q], on the other. However, thebetter than extraction out of a finite one likestructure in (13a) does not satisfy the condition(12).

in (2), since C is embedded more deeply than the(14) To whomj did you wonder whati to give ti

locus of the [Q] feature of the wh-phrase. Thus,(13a) cannot provide a label.

tj?

(Cinque (1990: 52))

Let us next consider (13b). This structure
does not cause labeling failure since SOi =This fact is also accounted for by the proposed{{what[Q], …}, {C[Q], TP}} is labeled <Q, Q>,

condition in (2). Assuming with Kanno (2008)

satisfying the condition in (2). SOj = {{to,that non-finite C is not a phase head, to whom

{whom, …}}, SOi} is an XP-YP structure, but isdoes not have to move toward the embeddedlabeled <Q, Q> since the lower copy to whom isSpec-C. Then, the embedded clause is structured“invisible” to LA. Accordingly, every term in

as in (15), where to whom is located in the(13b) is successfully labeled. This article,

highest phase-edge, Spec-v.

however, suggests that (13b) results in an(15) {{what[Q], …}, {C[Q], {PRO, {T, {{to,anomalous interpretation at the CI interface.
Assuming with Chomsky (2013) and Epstein et{whom, …}, vP}}}}}al. (2015) that an SO labeled <Q, Q> isinterpreted as a wh-question at the CI interface.

This structure is labeled <Q, Q>, since MS

Then, it is natural to postulate that an SO withlocates interrogative Q features on what and C

the label <Q, Q> is interpreted as ansimultaneously, observing the condition in (2).

operator-scope configuration at CI. Suppose, forThus, (14) causes no labeling failure.

example, we have a sentence like what did you
eat?, which is of the form {{what[Q], …}, {C[Q],4. Proper Binding Condition Effects

96wh-island configuration in (13a) was. Thus, (18)This section attempts to explain proper

cannot provide a label. Furthermore, the matrix

binding condition (PBC) effects like (16).

CP also causes labeling failure. (19) shows thestage of the derivation where which picture of t(16) *[Which picture of ti]j do you wonder whoi
John likes tj?

is extracted to the matrix Spec-C.

(Saito (1989: 187))(19) {{t{who, …}, {which[Q], …}}, {C[Q], …}}(16) is derived in the following way (again, theinternal structure of who is abstracted away forsimplicity of illustration).

Again, this structure cannot be labeled <Q, Q>,
since it violates the condition in (2). Thus, the(17) a.
b.
c.

{{who[Q], {which, …}}, {C, …}}sentence in (16) is faced with labeling failure{who[Q], {{twho, {which, …}}, {C,twice. This accounts for the fact that PBC effects…}}}

like (16) lead to more severe degradation in{v, {wonder, {who, {{twho, {which,acceptability than freezing effects like (20).

…}}, {C, …}}}}}d.

(20)??Whoi do you wonder [which picture of ti]j{{twho {which, …}}, {v, {wonder,

John likes tj?

{who, {{twho, {which, …}}, {C,(Saito (1989: 187))…}}}}}In the PBC cases like (16), both the root and(17a) illustrates the stage of derivation in whichembedded clauses cause labeling failure. In

which picture of who is extracted to thefreezing cases like (20), in contrast, theembedded Spec-C. Crucially, who is placed inderivation results in labeling failure only in thethe edge of which picture of t owing to the PIC.

embedded clause (see the discussion in section

In (17b), who undergoes movement to the outer2). Thus, this cumulative effect of mislabelingSpec-C. After introduction of V and v as in (17d),yields severe degradation in acceptability in the{twho, {which, …}} is extracted to the edge of v,

PBC cases.

and the PHC of v gets labeled and transferred.
5. Conclusion

However, this derivation results in labeling

Chomsky (2013, 2015) proposes that a label

failure, since the SO in (18) (i.e., the embeddedof an SO is provided by MS to locate relevant

clause) cannot be labeled.

heads. However, the notion of MS is not(18) {{who[Q], …}, {{t{who, …}, {which, …}},

clarified in Chomsky (2013, 2015), and previous
researches pay little attention to the question of{C[Q], …}}}

how far MS locates heads that provide a label.
To label this structure <Q, Q>, MS must find theThis article has addressed this issue, proposinginterrogative

who

and

C

that an XP-YP structure provides its label via

(18)

is

a

feature sharing only if X and Y have the same

involving

depth of embedding. This condition provides aagreement of C with the outer Spec-C, so it isunified account of freezing effects, wh-island

ruled out by the condition in (2), as theeffects, and proper binding condition effects. If

Q-featureson

simultaneously.

However,

multiple-Spec

configuration97

this proposal is on the right track, it is suggested

Daniel Seely (2015) “What Do We

that the domain of MS for labeling is not

Wonder Is Not Syntactic?,” Explorations

unbounded; it is narrowly restricted by a thirdin Maximizing Syntactic Minimization, ed.

factor principle that minimizes search space forby S. D. Epistein, H. Kitahara, and T. D.

computation.

Seely, 222-239, Routledge, New York.
Kanno, Satoru (2008) “On the Phasehood and* This is a revised version of Nakashima (2019)

Non-Phasehoodofand a paper presented at the 35th Conference ofLinguistics 25, 21-55.

CP,”

EnglishKluender, Robert (2004) “Are Subject Islands

the English Linguistic Society of Japan held atKansei Gakuin University, Japan, November 10,

Subject

toaProcessing

2019. I am very grateful to Yoshiaki Kaneko and

WCCFL 23, 101-125.

Account?”

Esturo Shima for their invaluable comments andLasnik, Howard (2001) “Subjects, Objects, andsuggestions. I would also thank Nobu Goto,

the EPP,” Objects and Other Subjects,

Takaaki Hirokawa, Satoru Kanno, Hisatsugu

Grammatical

Kitahara, Takashi Munakata, Satoshi Oku, Jun

Categories, and Configurationality,” ed.

Omune, Shogo Saito, Jun Tamura, Takashi

by W. D. Davies and S. Dubinsky, 103-121,

Toyoshima, Hirokazu Tsutumi, and Masashi

Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Functions,

Functional

for

their

helpfulcomments

andLasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1993) Movediscussions.

All

remainingerrorsandα: Condition on Its Application and Output,

Totsuka

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

inadequacies are, of course, my own.

Nakashima, Takanori (2019) “On the Domain ofChomsky,

MinimalREFERENCES
Noam (2008) “On

Searchfor

Explorations in English Linguistics 32,

Phases,”51-84.

Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:
Saito,

Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,

Mamoru(1989)“Scramblinged. by R. Freidin, C. P. Otero, and M. L.

SemanticallyVacuous

Zubizarreta,

Alternative

Conceptions

291-231,

MIT

Press,

Noam(2013)“Problems

Noam

Projection:

Press, Chicago and London.

(2015)“Problems

Extensions,”of

Structures,

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honor
of Adriana Belletti, ed. by E. Di Domenico,
C. Hamann and S. Matteini, 1-16, John
Benjanims, Amsterdam.
Cinque,Guglielmo

A'-Movement,”ofPhraseKroch, 182-200, the University of Chicago

ofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky,as

Structure, ed. by M. R. Baltin and A. S.

Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,

Labeling,”(1990)Typesof

A'-Dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T.

98sentence form cannot convey a constructional
meaning in Japanese, where a specific meaning
requires its dedicated morphology.
A translation pair like (2) leads Miyake toMorphological Markedness Hypothesis andthe above hypothesis.

Competition Theory:
On Strong Resultatives in Japanese and(2) a.

English*b.

This car sells well.
Kono

kuruma-wa

yoku

this

car-Topwell

Kazuya Nishimaki{ureru/* uru}.

Niigata Agro-Food University{sold /* sell‘This car sells well.’Keywords：Morphological Markedness(Miyake (2017: 69), with slight modifications)Hypothesis, Competition Theory, strong
resultatives, constructional meaning,

In (2a), which exemplifies middle constructions

morphological marking

in English, the verb to sell has passive semantics
but no corresponding passive morpheme. In theJapanesecounterpart

given

in

(2b),

the

1. Introduction: Morphological Markedness

semantics in question is marked with the

Hypothesis

morpheme -re, which distinguishes the middle

Miyake (2011, 2017) observes that Japaneseverbal cluster ureru ‘to be sold’ from the activeand English strikingly differ as to whether theybase uru ‘to sell.’morphologically mark specific meanings or not.

Under

MorphologicalMarkedness

This observation is formulated as MorphologicalHypothesis, Miyake (2011, 2017) analyzes

Markedness Hypothesis, which is given in (1).

resultative constructions like those given in (3).

(1) In order to express constructional meanings,(3) a.

Japaneseisstrongly

inclinedtobeJohn pounded the metal flat.

b. * Taro-wa sono kinzoku-o taira-ni

morphologically marked, while English is

Taro-Top themore likely to be morphologically unmarked.

tatai-ta.

(Miyake (2017: 68), my translation)

pound-Past

metal-Acc flat)‘lit. Taro pounded the metal flat.’
Miyake (2017: 68) mentions that English has a(Miyake (2017: 69), with slight modifications)

great number of ‘constructions,’ in which a
specific meaning directly correlates with a

The matrix verb to pound in (3a) and its

particularbeJapanese counterpart tataku ‘to pound’ in (3b)decomposed into the semantics of its individual

are so-called activity verbs, which do not entail

components. Miyake refers to this specificthe resultant state of action. The type of

meaning as a ‘constructional meaning.’ On the

resultative construction that involves these verbs

other hand, he points out that a particularis known as a strong resultative (see Washio

sentence

form

and

cannot99

(1997)). According to Miyake’s analysis, as

using VPs in English is unacceptable in Japanese.

stated in (1), strong resultatives like (3a) are

In this sense, it has no strong resultative. But, as

licensedthepointed out in the literature, Japanese uses suchmorphologically-unmarked encoding of theV-V compounds as those underlined in (4)semantics of ‘change of object.’ In contrast, they

instead.

inEnglishbyare impossible in Japanese, as shown in (3b).
Miyake attributes this impossibility to the lack(4) Hanako-ga

kinzoku-o (taira-ni)

of proper morphemes for encoding the relevant

Hanako-Nom metal-Acc (flat)

semantics in Japanese.

tataki-nobasi-ta.

This paper has two aims. One is to prove

pound-spread-Past

further validity of Morphological Markedness‘Hanako pounded the metal flat.’

Hypothesis. To achieve this aim, we show that it(Hasegawa (1999: 184), with slightholds true for strong resultatives in Japanese,modifications)where these constructions are also licensed byparticular markers of ‘change of state.’ More

Characteristically, they are headed by so-called

specifically, we claim that Japanese has strongchange-of-state verbs, which entail the resultant

resultatives in the form of V-V compounds. The

state of action. So, we refer to these compounds

other is to give a theoretical explanation to theas Resultative V-V Compounds (RVVCs).

generalization

MorphologicalAmong others, Hasegawa (1999) identifies

Markedness Hypothesis. Adopting Competition

RVVCs as strong resultatives in Japanese. We

Theory (Ackema and Neeleman (2004)), we

follow this analysis in assuming that strong

point out that the contrast between Japanese andresultatives are attested in Japanese, where theyEnglish in morphological markedness can be

occur as compounds.

given

by

best analyzed as a result from the competition

This assumption is empirically motivatedbetween two grammatical modules: morphology

because RVVCs are parallel in some crucial

and syntax.

properties with strong resultatives in English,

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2

regardless

of

their

different

forms:

V-V

observes that a certain type of V-V compound incompounds and VPs. For example, the following

Japanese shares the status with a strongtranslation pair shows that the entire sentence

resultative. Based on this observation, we

alters its telicity when it involves strong

demonstrate that Morphological Markedness

resultatives and RVVCs:

Hypothesis is valid for V-V compounds asstrong resultatives. Section 3 is an attempt to(5) a.

derive this hypothesis from Competition Theory.

John hammered {the metal for an hour/the metal flat in an hour}.

Section 4 makes concluding remarks.

( We c h s l e r ( 2 0 0 5 : 2 5 9 ) , w i t h s l i g h t
modifications)

2. Reconsideration of Strong Resultativesb.

2.1. V-V Compounds as Strong Resultatives

John-gasono kinzoku-oJohn-Nom the

The contrast between (3a) and (3b) tells us{iti-zikanthat the literal translation of strong resultatives

metal-Acc

tatai-ta/{an-hour.for hammer-Past /100{iti-zikan-de tataki-nobasi-ta}.

correct for RVVCs, it follows that they should{an-hour-in

have dedicated markers of ‘change of object.’ Inhammer-spread-Past

this connection, Hasegawa’s (1999) analysis is(5a) is atelic with the activity verb to hammer. In

insightful. Given the hypothesis, her analysis

this case, it occurs with a durative adverbial likestates that verbs like nobasu ‘to spread,’ which

for an hour. On the other hand, the addition ofhead RVVCs, serve as the markers. According to

the resultative predicate flat renders the sentence

this analysis, strong resultatives and RVVCs cantelic. Thus, it allows the completive in an hour.

be represented as in (7a) and in (7b),The same is true of RVVCs. The activity verb

respectively.

tataku ‘to hammer’ makes (5b) atelic, as seenfrom the occurrence with the durative iti-zikan(7) a.

[VP [V pound] the metal [VrP [Vr Res]

‘for an hour.’ On the other hand, it is telic whenhead movement

the verb forms an RVVC with the verb nobasu‘tospread.’Therefore,

thesentence[AP flat]]]isb.

compatible with the completive iti-zikan-de ‘in[VP kinzoku-o [VrP [AP (taira-ni)][Vr nobasu]] [V tataki

an hour.’ Another parallelism is that strong]]

head movement

resultatives and RVVCs change verbal argument
structures, which is illustrated in (6).

This

representation

statesthat

resultative

predicates make their own projections, whose(6) a.

Sylvester cried his eyes *(out).

heads move from Vr into V (in (7), adopting(Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995: 36-37))

Hasegawa’s notion, we symbolize the terminalb.

me-o naki-harasu ‘to cry one’s eyes

node hosting resultative predicate projections asout’ (cf. * me-o naku ‘lit. to cry one’s

VrP, and hosting their heads as Vr). Hasegawa

eyes’)

points out that this head movement licenses(Kageyama (1996: 213))

strong resultatives; heads hosted in Vr are
As seen from (6a), the intransitive verb to cry

licensers of strong resultatives. Now, as stated in

can select an object when it constitutes a strong

theresultative like to cry out. Likewise, theMarkedness Hypothesis, Miyake (2011, 2017)

intransitive naku ‘to cry’ allows an object likeobserves that encoding the semantics of ‘changeme ‘eye(s)’ within an RVVC, as shown in (6b).

of object’ licenses strong resultatives, which are

These parallelisms mean that RVVCs have theunacceptable in Japanese because it has nosame status as strong resultatives.

morpheme for the encoding. Given these points,

Introduction,

underMorphologicalSince Miyake (2011, 2017) makes nowe can assume that the licensing of strong

reference to RVVCs, it is unclear whether the

resultatives by heads hosted in Vr means that

hypothesis under discussion is valid for these

these heads encode the relevant semantics. If so,

compounds or not. Addressing this question, theit is reasonable that RVVCs have ‘change offollowing discussion proves its validity.

object’ morphologically marked by their headverbs (e.g. nobasu ‘to spread’), which move

2.2 Markers of ‘Change of Object’

from Vr into V, as represented in (7b).

If Morphological Markedness Hypothesis isNote here that Vr hosts different elements in101

English and Japanese. According to Hasegawa(= (4b))(1999: 196), the former has an abstract predicate,
which we symbolize as Res in (7a) adopting herThisnotation, under Vr. On the other hand, Hasegawa

suggests that the English-Japanese contrast in(1999: 196) points out that there is no suchmorphological markedness is relevant to theabstract predicate in the latter, where lexicaldistinction between two grammatical modules:

verbs heading RVVCs are similar in function tosyntax and morphology. As a unified approach

Res.

to

Given

MorphologicalMarkedness

phrase-compoundcross-linguistic

contrast

variations

strongly

andtheHypothesis, this ‘abstract-lexical’ contrast tells

intermodular distinction, Competition Theory is

us that ‘change of object’ is morphologically

proposed by Ackema and Neeleman (2004).

unmarked in English but marked in Japanese.

Thus, we would like to rely on this theory to

The discussion so far has confirmed that

explore why ‘change of state,’ which licenses

verbs heading RVVCs morphologically markstrong resultatives, is morphologically unmarked‘changein English but marked in Japanese.

ofstate,’ which

licensesstrongresultatives. Thus, it can be safely concluded
that Morphological Markedness Hypothesis

3.1. Competition Theory

holds true for strong resultatives in Japanese.

The core assumption of Competition Theoryis that morphology and syntax compete for3. Toward a Theoretical Explanation: A

structural

realization,

which

results

inCompetition-Theoretic Approachcross-linguistic variations. On this assumption,

The last section has proved the validity oflanguages are classified into two types. One is aMorphological Markedness Hypothesis because

language that prefers to morphologically realize

it properly describes the general fact that English

an

and

morphologicalHenceforth, we refer to this type as amarkedness. Nevertheless, as Miyake (2011:

morphology-preferring language. The other191) himself admits, this hypothesis is merely aprefers a syntactic realization of the samedescriptive generalization, which seeks for astructure.

theoretical explanation; the ultimate reason

syntax-preferring language.

Japanesecontrastinremains to be explained as to why the relevant

abstract

morphosyntactic

We

refer

to

this

structure.

type

as

a

Nishimaki (2018) analyzes English as

generalization obtains.

syntax-preferring,

Recall here that strong resultatives take VPs

andJapaneseasmorphology-preferring. This analysis is based on

in English but V-V compounds (i.e. RVVCs) as

theobservation

their forms, as illustrated in (8).

consistently

thatphrasescorrespondtoinEnglishcompounds

inJapanese. For instance, the English nominal(8) a.
b.

John pounded the metal flat.
Hanako-ga(= (3a))phrasekinzoku-o (taira-ni)

oldfriend‘long-standing

friend’corresponds to the Japanese A-N compound

Hanako-Nom metal-Acc (flat)kyuu-yuu ‘old friend,’ in the intended reading.

tataki-nobasi-ta.

Both share the structure of nominal modification

pound-spread-Pastby an adjective. In our competition-theoretic‘Hanako pounded the metal flat.’

approach, the above correspondence means that102

this shared structure is syntactically realized as awith matrix verbs (e.g. to pound in (9a)). We

nominal phrase in English because it is

suppose that Competition Theory requires these

syntax-preferring; on the other hand, the sameclusters to be syntactically realized; thisstructure is morphologically realized as an A-N

requirement triggers a special type of headcompoundismovement, known as conflation. As a result ofmorphology-preferring. The same is true of

this operation, matrix verbs and Res are realized

strong resultatives;competition-theoretically,

as monomorphemic words. The point is that, by

they select VPs as syntactically-realized forms

definition, they have no morphological internalinJapanese,which

and RVVCs as morphologically-realized ones.

1

structure. In addition, note that syntactic
realization necessarily rules out morphological3.2. How Can Morphological Markedness

internal structures from the resultant phrases

Hypothesis Follow from Competition Theory?

because they are syntactically-realized forms. If

GivenMorphologicalMarkedness

so, competition-theoretically, monomorphemic

Hypothesis, Competition Theory points to thewords

possibility that the unmarkedness of English

expressions in that neither have a morphologicalresults from syntactic realization while theinternal structure. Therefore, monomorphemic

markedness of Japanese is due to morphologicalwords can also qualify as options for syntactic

realization. In what follows, focusing on strong

realization; that is, English can use these words

resultatives, we pursue this possibility tofor syntactic realization, and their derivation

demonstrateneeds abstract elements like Res. It is reasonable

how

the

‘unmarked-marked’

contrast follows from Competition Theory.
(1999)

analysis.

Recallthesame statusasphrasalto conclude that this results in the unmarkedness

Once again, we base our discussion on
Hasegawa’s

haveof English.

fromBaker (2003: 86, 168) defines conflation as

Section 2.2 that in this analysis strong

the type of head movement that precedes

resultatives are licensed by the head movement

vocabulary insertion. This definition implies thatfrom Vr to V, which is represented as in (9).

conflated heads lose their own independent
existence in (narrow) syntax to be realized as(9) a.

[VP [V pound] the metal [VrP [Vr Res]

monomorphemic words; conflation applies toheads without any phonological shape (i.e. theirconflationb.

[AP flat]]]abstract morphosyntactic features). For example,[VP kinzoku-o [VrP [AP (taira-ni)]

let us consider how a strong resultative derives[Vr nobasu]] [V tataki

the monomorphemic verb to pound in (9a). The]]

incorporation

derivation can be schematized as follows:

Our assumption is that the license differs(10) conflation → V {POUND, Res} →between English and Japanese in such a way thatvocabulary insertion → V /pound/itreflects

syntax-preferring

the
and

distinction

betweenmorphology-preferring

Conflation moves the abstract Res into the node

languages. In English, the abstract predicate Res

V, which hosts the abstract morphosyntactic

moves from Vr into V to form verbal clusters

feature of to pound (symbolized as ‘POUND’ in103

(10)). These conflated abstract elements undergo

just as phrases. This competing relationship isvocabulary insertion to be realized as theclear from the fact that morphologically simplex

monomorphemic to pound.

words in English correspond to compounds inOn the other hand, RVVCs are licensed by
the

type

of

head

movement

known

Japanese.

This

is

illustrated

by

the

as

correspondence between English unergative

incorporation. According to Baker (2003: 86,

verbs (e.g. to walk) and Japanese verbal168), this type follows vocabulary insertion,

compounds (e.g. sanpo-suru ‘lit. to walk-do = towhich means that incorporated heads count as

walk’). Characteristically, these compounds are

independent lexical items in syntactic derivation

headed by the light verb suru ‘to do.’ It has been

because of their phonological shapes. As such,

pointed out in the literature that English

heads undergo incorporation to form compounds.

unergatives contain covert light verbs to denote

What is noteworthy here is that RVVCs haveaction. On the other hand, Japanese counterparts

their nonheads in bound forms called ren’yoomorphologically mark the semantics of action

forms. The boundness is corroborated by the factwith the overt light verb suru ‘to do.’that the nonheads cannot occur in isolation (e.g.

Interestingly, English unergatives have phrasal

tataki*(-nobasu) ‘lit. to pound-spread = to poundparaphrases known as light verb constructions(something) flat’). Also, in Japanese, other types(e.g. to walk = to take a walk). Theseof compound are mainly based on bound forms

paraphrases(e.g. kyuu*(-yuu) ‘old friend’). This is anothermonomorphemic words constitute a natural classconsequence of the fact that Japanese preferswith phrases as syntactically-realized forms.

stronglysuggestthatmorphology. Bound forms must be combinedwith other elements to constitute morphological
units

like

compounds;

they

need

4. Concluding Remarks

theThis paper has explored the validity ofmorphological support by overt elements. This

Morphological Markedness Hypothesis, which ismeans that these forms necessarily trigger

proposed by Miyake (2011, 2017), with special

morphologicalreference to strong resultatives. This hypothesis

realization.

Competition-theoretically, in RVVCs, overt

statesheads are required to support bound nonheads

unnecessary for specific meanings in English,

for morphological realization. This requirement

but are necessary in Japanese. It has been widely

is a plausible motivation for their incorporation

assumed that strong resultatives are unattested in

2

that

morphologicalmarking

isin RVVCs. Given these considerations, it isJapanese. Under the relevant hypothesis, Miyake

plausible that the markedness of Japanese is due

reduces this unattestedness to the fact thatto the fact that it needs overt morphologicalJapanese has no morpheme suitable to encode

supporters for bound forms in order tothe semantics of ‘change of object,’ which

implement morphological realization.

licenses strong resultatives. However, based on

The

present

thatinsights given in the literature, this paper has

monomorphemic words are in a competingobserved that strong resultatives can also be

relationship(i.e.

found in Japanese, where they are realized asmorphologically-realized forms) because theV-V compounds (i.e. RVVCs); their head verbs

former function as syntactically-realized forms

morphologically mark the semantics in question.

withanalysismeanscompounds

104Furthermore, our exploration points to thepossibility

that

Morphological

Baker, Mark C. (2003) Lexical Categories:

Markedness

Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives, Cambridge

Hypothesis follows from Competition Theory.

University Press, Cambridge.

This theory suggests that the descriptive

Hasegawa, Nobuko (1999) “The Syntax ofgeneralization given by the hypothesis comes

Resultatives,” Linguistics: In Search of thefrom a morphology-syntax competition, which

Human Mind: A Festschrift for Kazuko

results in the fundamental distinction between

Inoue, ed. by Masatake Muraki and Enoch

English and Japanese.

Iwamoto, 178-208, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Kageyama, Taro (1996) Doshi Imiron: Gengo to* An earlier version of this paper was presented

Ninchi no Setten (Verb Semantics: The

at the 37th conference of the English Linguistic

Interface between Language and Cognition),

Society of Japan held at Kwansei Gakuin

Kurosio, Tokyo.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (1995)

University on November 10, 2019. Thanks go totheaudience

for

their

Unaccusativity:

thought-provoking

At

the

Syntax-Lexical

questions and comments.

Semantics Interface, MIT Press, Cambridge,

NOTES
1
If RVVCs are morphological counterparts of

Mass.
Miyake, Tomohiro (2011) Nihongo Kenkyu no

phrasal strong resultatives in English, one might

Intaafeisu

wonder why the former are not so productive as

Linguistics), Kurosio, Tokyo.

the latter. The point is that grammaticalprinciples

includingthosespecified

Miyake,(Interfaces

Tomohiro(2017)

inJapanese“Nihongo

noby

Hakkenkobun (Finding Constructions inCompetition Theory are so abstract that they are

Japanese),” Kobun no Imi to Hirogari

not necessarily reflected in actual surface forms.

(Constructional Meaning and Its Extension),

We assume that these forms are determined in aed. by Midori Amano and Naoko Hyase,given language by the interaction of the relevant

65-79, Kurosio, Tokyo.

grammatical principles with its morphosyntactic

Nishimaki,

Kazuya(2018)

A

Study

on

details.

Cross-Linguistic Variations in Realization

2

Ren’yoo forms may be possible as independent

Patterns:

nouns (e.g. nomi ‘a drink’ (< nomu ‘to drink’)).

Competition Theory, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Washio,However, it has been observed in the literature

New

Ryuichi

Proposals(1997)

Basedon“Resultatives,that only a limited number of ren’yoo forms

Compositionality, and Language Variation,”allow their nominal usage, which is exceptional.

Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 1-49.

This means that ren’yoo forms as nouns are not

Wechsler, Stephen (2005) “Resultatives underthe

products of a rule-governed process.

‘Event-Argument

Homomorphism’

Model of Telicity,” The Syntax of Aspect:
Deriving

REFERENCES
Ackema, Peter and Ad Neeleman (2004) Beyond

Thematic

andAspectual

Interpretation, ed. by Nomi Erteschik-ShirMorphology: Interface Conditions on Word

and Tova Rapoport, 255–273, Oxford

Formation,

University Press, Oxford.

OxfordUniversity

Press,

Oxford.

105しかし、(1)に挙げた構文イディオムは、その一部である One’s Way が定項で、また別の一部である動詞の部分は変項である。つまり、(1a)-(1c)で目的語位置の way は一定で定項で構文イディオム化とその後の展開あるのに、動詞の部分は、make, jump, belch(Constructional Idiomatization and Itsのように変わりうる変項である。

Subsequent Expansions)(1) a. He went out and made his way to the
Savoy.

大室 剛志（Takeshi Omuro）

b. Clutching his basket tight, he jumped his

名古屋大学（Nagoya University）

way across the shallows from log to log.
キーワード：構文イディオム化、One’s Way

c. In the capital rusty vehicles belch their
way around the pot-holed streets.

構文、 半動名詞構文、共通点の抽出、文法における拡張のメカニズム

そのため、語と規則のまさに中間的な資格を持ち、語と同じように、単純にレキシコン
1. はじめにで扱ってよいのかという言語理論上の問題

構文イディオム化とその後の展開についを提起する。同時に、子供がどのような方略て論じる。２節では One’s Way 構文を構文イによりこのような一部が定項で一部が変項

ディオム化とその後の展開という観点からである構文イディオムを習得するのかとい論じる（先行研究への批判及び代案の詳細は、 う生成文法にとって重要な習得可能性の問
Omuro（2003）参照）。３節では２節の議論

題も提起する。この習得可能性を説明せずに、に傍証を与えるべく、半動名詞構文を構文化

Jackendoff (1990)のように対応規則によりたとその後の展開という観点から論じる（詳細だ記述しても、構文イディオムを真に説明しは、大室（1988, 2015, 2016）参照）。４節でたことにはならない（Omuro (2003)参照）。

は、２節の分析と３節の分析に見られる共通

本節では、One’s Way 構文全体は、構文イデ点を抽出することにより、文法における拡張ィオム化とその後の展開という過程のメカニズムに迫る。５節は結論である。

（process）を通じて得られると論じる。

2. 構文イディオム化とその後の展開：One’s

2.1. One’s Way 構文の基本タイプと派生タ

Way 構文イプ

kick the bucket のような通常の句イディオ(2) 意味の重層性

ムは、完全に固定化している（例えば、theを a に換えただけでもイディオムでなくな

イ デ ィ オ ム 論 で は 例 え ば ‘threadる）ため、レキシコンに搭載され、語を習得

one’s way through the crowd’「人ごみの中するように、子供も個々に習得する。

を縫うようにして進む」は ‘make one’s

他方、変項のみで構成される句構造規則

way through ~’「~の中を進む」の変異形（例えば、VP→V NP）は完全に生産的で、(variation)である、という風に説かれる。

その規則さえ習得すれば、その規則に合う無しかし意味論的に考えると、これは原型数の表現を子供は一々習得する必要はない。

と考えられる make に他の動詞が取っ106

て代わるという過程を経ているのではは出て来ない。その解釈は、意味の拡張に深なく、イディオムとしての ‘make one’s

く関わる Huddleston (1984: 37)の語用論的な

way’ に更にthread が重なっていると考含意（pragmatic implication）からは生じない。

えるべきであろう。（国広（1967: 121））

しかし、(4)のように自分が自分自身の道を造った時には、自分がその道を進む、という

国広（1967）の意味の重層性、即ち、基本解釈が語用論的に含意される（ある意味解釈的な make one’s way を下敷きに、それに重に推論がかかり別の意味解釈が生じることなる形で thread one’s way などは存在しては概念意味論でも広く認められている）。そいるという観察（Jackenndoff (1990)の fusion

して、自分自身の道を造るには、通常、困難(2007) のが伴う（Ishizaki (2001)の obstacle の解釈に相unification が関わる）が、One’s Way 構文を当）。したがって、この obstacle の解釈が今捉える上で、最も自然な観察である。問題は、述べた語用論的な含意に加わり、「困難があこの観察を理論的にどう捉えるかである。以りながらも自分自身の道を進むという」イデ

下、自分の考えを示す。

ィオム解釈が生じる。しかし、この派生的なやShieber(1986),

Jackendoff

イディオム解釈には(4)で示した統語構造は
2.1.1. make タイプ

合致しない。形と意味のミスマッチが生じて実際の言語習得は保守的で、step by step でいる。よって、このミスマッチを除去すると文法は拡張していく。そう考えると、文字通

同時に、この派生的なイディオム解釈に合うりの意味の時に目的語として way を認可でように、習得の次の段階で派生的規則である

きる (1a)の make という動詞から考察を始め

統語的再解釈規則が文法に導入され、統語的るのがよい。しかも、イディオム以前の、再分析がなされ、(4)の名詞句の中から前置

make が字義通りの意味で用いられ、単純合詞句がその外に出て、(5)に示された make の成によって形成される表現から考察を始め

句イディオムが作られる。

るのがよい。make は他動詞で、意味的にも(5) I made [NP my way] [PP to the top].

「道を造る」と言えるので、単純合成により(3)は形成される。

make が One’s Way 構文の動詞の頻度順位(3) I made [NP her way [PP to the top]].

で第１位である（大室（2018: 85-88）参照）。

(3)では、her way を to the top が修飾する構造

2.1.2. jump タイプになっている。(3)では I が、他人の her の道

文法が step by step で拡張すると考えると、を造っている。しかし、もちろん、I が、自次に問題とすべきは、文字通りの意味の時に分自身の道を造ることもあるので、(4)も単way という目的語は認可できないが、方向句

純合成により形成される。

は認可できる(1b)の jump のような移動様態
動詞である。

(4) I made [NP my way [PP to the top]].
(6) Miss Marple jumped into the room.
同じく単純合成による (3)と(4)だが、決定的な違いがある。(3)のように、他人の道を(6)の into the room は、Jackendoff (1990)で造っても、自分がその道を進む、という解釈

は、(7)に示したように経路（PATH）になる。

107しかし、 (8)のような日本語の移動表現を詳しく分析している影山・由本（1997）では、

この外的な移動を示すjumpタイプがmakeに

into the room は経路にならず、GOAL であり、次いで頻度が高い（大室（2018: 90）参照）。

方向の終点となる。(8)で、狭い意味での移2.1.3. belch タイプ

動経路、通路（Path of Motion）は、「東海道を」であって「静岡に」ではない。

文法拡張が(9)まで進んだ段階を考える。
(9)に含まれる way は、高見・久野（2002）(7) [PATH TO [PLACE IN [THING ROOM]]]

が言うように、内在的に長さを持つ（0 メー(8)

夜行列車は東海道を京都から静岡に進

トルの way は無い）
。よって、(9)の jump の（影山・由本（1997: 133））

ような活動を示す動詞の目的語位置に way

んだ。

が起きると、Tenny (1987)が言うように、そ
そのため、(6)には影山・由本の意味での移の 前 の 動 詞 jump が 示 す 活 動 を 量 り 分 け

動経路が形の上では無い。一方で、Levin and（measure out）
、その活動を有限化（delimit）

Rappaport Hovav (1995)によると、(6)の jump

する（Marantz (1992)も参照）。(9)まで文法がのような移動様態動詞が into the room のよう拡張した段階で、他動詞 make に加え、jump

な方向句をとった時は、元の移動様態から方のような体外的な移動を示す、多くの自動詞

向付けられた移動へと意味推移が起きる。そも One’s Way 構文に起きるという知識が既にの時には、移動経路が強く含意されるので、獲得されている。加えて、移動経路 way の(6)では、形の上では移動経路は無いが、意明示化により、移動という意味が形の上でも味上はそれが有る。よって、(6)では、意味

way により完全に保障される。そうすると、は有るが形が無い。ここでもまた、形と意味

次の段階としては、もう jump タイプの形成のミスマッチが生じている。そこで、文法習に関与した 2.1.2 節で論じたシステムは、飛得の次の段階で、way が目的語位置に形としばして（bypass）、先程述べた way の measureて存在し、しかも既に習得済みの make タイ

outer かつ delimiter の機能と矛盾しない限り

プの One’s Way 構文(5)を手本に、意味が有っで、体内的な動きだけを示す belch や他の自ても形で示されていない移動経路を、way と動詞が生起可能になる。こうして可能となっいう形で(6)に加えて、(1b)の jump のようなたのが、(1c)のような belch タイプの One’s

移動様態動詞が用いられた One’s Way 構文イ

Way 構文イディオム(10)である。

ディオム(9)が形成される。ここでは、jump(10) John belched his way out of the restaurant.

という動詞だけを取り上げて議論しているが、このメカニズムにより、実際には、jump
以外の多くの移動様態動詞が One’s Way 構文

belch タイプの場合、使われている動詞のに加わる。動詞の部分の変項化が起きたこと

意味類は、jump タイプの動詞のように、移になる（これが、構文イディオム化）。即ち、動といった１つの限られた意味類に限定さこの習得段階で、構文イディオムが確立するれるわけではない。いくつかの雑多な意味類（make one’s way をモデルとして、jump one’sから構成され、多くの動詞が臨時的に用いらway が可能となるところで、国広の重層性をれ、１回使われては捨てられるという特徴を捉えている）。

持つ（大室（2018: 93）参照）。

(9) Miss Marple jumped her way into the room.

2.2. One’s Way 構文の意識使用

108

(10)まで可能となった段階では、多くの動literature. (Gerold Frank, The Boston

詞が One’s Way 構文で使われるという言語知

Strangler)識が獲得される。よって、更なる段階として、

e. I found him very busy putting his books

動詞の部分を比較的自由に入れ替えること

in order. (James Boswell, The Life ofが可能であるというこの知識を運用の時にSamuel Johnson)

意識して、この構文をもじって言葉遊び的に使い出す。Kirchner (1951)、滝沢（1998）、

半動名詞構文(11)には、前置詞 in を伴った大室（2000）が指摘した意識使用がこれに相対応する動名詞構文が存在する。例えば、当する（学会発表では、意識使用の例を挙げ(11a)には(12)が存在する。

たが、ここでは割愛。大室（2000）参照）。
(12) Masao was spending his vacation in
2.3. ２節のまとめ

working at the Matsumoto factory inOne’s Way 構文は、一枚岩ではなく、基本

Tokyo.

メンバーから派生メンバーへと多層的に構成されている（尚、One’s Way 構文を６つに(11)の-ing形の資格に関しては、(13)に示しサブタイプ化した動的分析としては Abe

たPoutsma (1928)の見解が大変興味深い。

(2009)を参照。歴史発達に関する Izrael (1996)、
Ishizaki (2001)、Fanego (2018)の研究からも(13) (After to employ, to spend, to waste, andOne’s Way 構文が多層的に構成されているこ

verbs of a similar import, and also after theとに、間接証拠が与えられる）。

adjective busy and its synonyms, thepreposition in is sometimes dispensed with.

3. 構文化とその後の展開：半動名詞構文

This changes the status of the ing-form,
converting it into a present participle in the

本節では、２節で論じた構文イディオム化とその後の展開に傍証を与えるため、半動名

grammatical

functionofpredicative

詞構文を構文化とその後の展開という観点

adnominal adjunct. After to spend and toから論じる（つまり、構文イディオムよりは

waste the omission of in is met with only

一般的な構文にも、〜化とその後の展開といwhen these words are accompanied by anう過程（process）が平行して見られる）。

adjunct denoting a length of time.
(Poutsma (1928: 903))(11)の下線部の-ing を含んだ構文を Sweet(1891) に 従 い 、 半 動 名 詞 構 文 （ half-gerund(12)の前置詞inが削除されることにより、construction）と呼ぶ。

動名詞がpredicative adnominal adjunctの文法(11) a. Masao

vacation

機能を持った現在分詞の-ing形に変化すると

working at the Matsumoto factory in

言う。つまり、半動名詞を、動名詞から現在

Tokyo.

(Sidney Sheldon, The Chase)

分詞への変化（化け、プロセスの世界）としb. He was two weeks learning to use hisて捉えている。大室（1988, 2015, 2016）では、

flippers.

wasspending

his(MEG IV: 172)

このPoutsmaの見解を重視し、概略(14)の分析

c. He won’t have a hard time getting in.

を半動名詞構文に関して採っている。

(Web)(14) a. GiE Basic Structure: [S He [VP wasd. One had difficulty buying ‘pornographic’109

spending [NP his vacation] [PP in(15) a. They parted good friends. (NP)working at the factory]]].
E

b. Gi Model Structure: [s He [VP came [VP(Fukuchi (1976))

running]]].

b. They ran naked in the parks and on thec. Gi+1E Derived Structure: [S He [VP wasbeaches. (AP)spending [NP his vacation] [VP working

c. He came home very much depressed.
(past participle)

at the factory]]].

d. They sat talking about their plan.
(11)に見られる述語 ((11a) was spending(present participle)

his vacation ( 時間の消費) 、(11b) was two

e. He slept in his boots. (PP)weeks (時間の消費)、(11c) won’t have a hard

(Nichols (1978: 124))

time (労力の消費)、(11d) had difficulty (労力の消費)、(11e) very busy (忙しいのは、時間と半動名詞構文でも、現在分詞以外の述詞要素

労力が消費されているからこそ忙しい))は、である形容詞句、前置詞句、過去分詞句といいずれも意味として「何らかの消費」を表す。

った変異としての補部が生起すると予測さこれらの述語の後に生じた前置詞in付き動れる。実際、この予測は正しい(16)。

名詞は、それをそのまま動名詞として解釈し(16) a. *Two long-haired groupies spent an hour

た意味解釈と現在分詞として解釈した時の意味解釈とが実質的に変わらない。実際、

real nuisances at the concert. (NP)(14a)を「マサオは東京の松本工場で働くこと

b. Daedalus is designing a novel houseに彼の休暇を費やした」と解釈しようとinextension, a variable-pressure bedroom,

以下の動名詞のassertionを強く解釈して「マwhich may purchase an extra few years

サオは休暇を東京の松本工場で働いて過ごof life for its proud owners by slowing

していた」と解釈しようと、両者の解釈には

the metabolic rate of that third of their

殆ど実質的差はない。しかし、この後者の解

lifetime which they spend asleep. (AP)

釈は、むしろ、predicative adnominal adjunct(BNC)の現在分詞としての解釈であるから、その解c. For thousands of children who spend

釈に合致するように、(14a)は(14b)をモデル

their days locked up in the shanty townsとして(14c)のように統語的に再分析される

while their parents work, the streets（尚、 play a roleの後での半動名詞について

offer freedom and escape from domesticの優れた研究については桑名（2018）参照）。

violence as well as a springboard to

さ て 、 Poutsma の predicative adnominal

prostitution

adjunct は Jespersen の quasi-predicative に 相 当

participle)
d. Masao

するため、(13)のPoutsmaの見解からは、(11)

was

or

petty

crime.

(past
(BNC)

spending

hisvacationの半動名詞構文は、準述詞構文の-ing形と同working at the Matsumoto factory.

一の振る舞いを示すことが次に予測される。

(present participle)

準述詞構文の-ing形が(15)に示したように

e. She and Henry spent their spare time in（(15)はIshii (1983)より借用）、述詞としてcountry clothes. (PP) (Thomas Kiernan,の名詞句、形容詞句、前置詞句、過去分詞句

Jane Fonda)と交替可能であることから、

110

更に、大室（2016）は、Arai (1997)の研究て、狭い意味での通路が意味的に有るのに、を参考に、この統語的再分析とその後の展開それを表す顕在的な way が無いという形とに、COHAから得られる述詞要素の生起頻度

意味のミスマッチが生じた。３節でも in 付

数と歴史発達の言語資料から間接証拠を与き動名詞構文においてその統語構造と合致えている。それによると、1880年代と1890

した基本的意味解釈に加え、in 以下の動名詞

年代では、半動名詞が11例と７例であるのにの部分の assertion を強く解釈した派生的解

対しin付き動名詞が10例と2例となり、半動釈が生じ、その派生的解釈と in 付き動名詞

名詞構文がin付き動名詞をこの年代に逆転構文との統語構造との間で形と意味のミス

し多く使われ出す（尚、動的文法理論ではなマッチが生じた。３者に形と意味のミスマッ

く、Traugott and Trousdale (2013)の意味でのチが生じている点が共通点の１点目である。

構文化による半動名詞構文の分析に前田

３者とも、このミスマッチの状況下におい（2019）がある）。更に、半動名詞構文の初て、派生的な規則が文法の次の段階で導入さ出例1845年に対し、過去分詞形の初出例は約れ、当該の形と意味のミスマッチを取り除く

100年遅れて、1940年代。半動名詞の使用例

ように、つまり、派生的意味解釈に合致するの合計691例に対し、過去分詞の合計はわず

ように、基本形の統語構造が統語的に再分析か15例。形容詞句の出現も半動名詞より約されることで新たな統語構造が生じている。

100年遅れて、1942年。形容詞句の合計はわ

この点が共通点の２点目である。

ずかに16例。述詞の前置詞句は予測に反する

２節でも３節でも一旦構文イディオム化結果が出たが、それは場所句の前置詞句の出や構文化によって、それぞれ jump タイプの現が早く、そこからの拡張の結果と考えうる

構文イディオムと-ing の現在分詞形の半動（詳細は大室（2016）参照）。

名詞構文が確立された後、その後の文法展開として更なる変種が生じることを見た。２節

4. 共通点の抽出と文法における拡張のメカ

では、belch タイプの One’s Way 構文と意識

ニズム

使用の One’s Way 構文がこれに相当する。３

２節の分析と３節の分析に見られる共通

節では、-ing 形以外の述詞の過去分詞形や形点を抽出することにより、文法における拡張

容詞句の出現がこれに相当する。これが３点のメカニズムに迫る。

目の共通点である。

２節でも３節でも、基本形の統語構造に、

４点目の共通点として、２節でも３節でも、互いに実質的にはさほど変わらない多義

文法拡張は急激な変化ではなく、保守的に（ambiguity）が生じ、そのうちの派生的な意

step by step で拡張することを見た。

味解釈と基本形の統語構造の間で形と意味

文法拡張のメカニズムは、当該文法のあるのミスマッチが生じた（Syntactico-Semantic

習得段階において、形と意味のミスマッチがDiscrepancy (Kajita (1977)参照)）。２節では、生じ、そのミスマッチを除去するために派生

動詞 make が単純合成により One’s Way を目的な規則が当該文法に新たに導入される付的語に取った文字通りの解釈を持つ基本形

加過程（additive process）と言える（Kajita

から、語用論的含意により、派生的イディオ(1977)参照）。

ム解釈が生じ、単純合成の基本形の統語構造
5. 結論とこの派生的解釈であるイディオム解釈との間で形と意味のミスマッチが生じた。更に、jump が方向前置詞句をとった基本形においこれら４点を自然に捉えるには、一般言語理論として動的文法理論が必要である。

111

チョムスキーやその他の理論言語学者はれる（Kajita (1977, 1997)、Chiba et.al (2003)、「可能な文法」を定義する際に、もっぱら大河野（2012）、Nakazawa (2018)、 大室（2018）

人の文法の形式特徴のみを見て定義し、言語等参照）。

習得の途中の段階において何が起こりうるかに言及して、「可能な文法」を定義するこ参考文献とはない。この意味で彼らの文法理論は全て

Abe, Akiko (2009) “The Derivation of the One’s「静的（static）」である。対照的に梶田は、

Way-Construction: the Mechanism of the「可能な文法」を定義する際に、言語習得のExtension,” JELS 26, 1-10.

ある段階から次の段階への移行の可能性に

Chiba, Shuji et al. eds. (2003) Empirical and

言及することによって「可能な文法」を定義

Theoretical Investigatins into Language,

すべきであると強く主張する。つまり時間軸

Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

を文法理論自体に組み込むことを提案してFanego, Teresa (2018) “A Construction ofいる。この意味で彼の文法理論は、「動的Independent Means: the History of the Way（dynamic）」と言える。

Construction Revisited,” English Language

第２節では、One’s Way 構文を構文イディ

and Linguistics 23.3, 671-699.

オム化とその後の展開という観点から論じ

Ishizaki, Yasuaki (2001) “A Cognitive Approach

た。
構文イディオムである One’s Way 構文は、

to the Historical Development of the

基本タイプから派生タイプへと段階を踏む

Way-Construction,” Studies in Modern

構文イディオム化というプロセスによってEnglish 17, 51-76.

得られることを見た。そして、一旦構文イデ

河野継代（2012）『英語の関係節』開拓社, 東ィオムが成立すると、その後の展開として更京.

に派生的な belch タイプや意識使用が見られ

桑名保智 (2018) 「play a role (in) V-ing におた。第３節では、構文イディオムよりも一般

ける前置詞 in の随意性と義務性」『英的な構文においても、構文化とその後の展開

語語法文法研究』 25, 71-87.

が見られることを、半動名詞構文を取り上げ

前田満（2019）「半動名詞の発達と構文化」て論じた。-ing 形の半動名詞構文が in 付き動『近代英語研究』35, 59-84.

名詞構文から一旦成立すると、その後の文法

Nakazawa, Kazuo (2018) A Dynamic Study of

展開としてその-ing 形を核として、-ing 形以Some Derivative Processes in English

外の変種の述詞補部が生起可能になること

Grammar, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

を見た。２節の議論と３節の議論を通して、〜化というプロセスと、「一旦〜が成立した

大室剛志 (2018) 『ことばの基礎２ 動詞と構文』研究社, 東京.

後に〜が可能になる」ということを述べない

Shieber Stuart (1986) An Introduction toと One’s Way 構文も半動名詞構文もうまく

Unification-based Approaches to Grammar,

捉えられないことを見た。〜化というプロセ

CSLI, Stanford.
Traugott, Elizabeth, C. and Graeme Trousdale

スと「一旦〜が成立した後に〜が可能になる」ということを述べるには、やはり、文法(2013)

Constructionalization

and

理論自体の中に、ある文法のある段階から次Constructional Changes, Oxford Universityの段階への移行の可能性に言及するような

Press, Oxford.

法則を含められるような、時間軸の概念を組（スペースの都合上、上記以外の参考文献にみ込んだ動的文法理論が必要であると思わ

ついては大室（2018: 193-201）参照。
）

112

search domain for labeling, then it becomes
invisible to the labeling computation, and hence
the other phrase serves as a label.

This strategy

is based on the idea that Internal Merge (IM)*yields a discontinuous SO (chain), and it is theLabeling Algorithm and Copy Deletion

discontinuous element, but not each copy, that isvisible for LA.

Shogo Saito

The other strategy is using ashared (agreement) feature as in (1bii): If

Tohoku University

merged phrases are in an agreement relation, theKeywords：Labeling Algorithm, Copy Deletion,agreement feature serves as a label <F, F>.

to-contraction, auxiliary reduction, copy

Since phrasal movement always causes anrealization

XP-YP problem at its landing site, such amoving material must end up in the position
where it takes part in <F, F> labeling.
In this paper, I propose to modify the

1. Introduction

original LA, and show that the proposed labeling

The goal of this paper is to modify
Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) Labeling Algorithm

mechanism(LA), and discuss its consequences.

linguistic phenomena.

Chomsky

explains

restrictions

on

some

This paper mainly(2013) assumes that syntactic objects (SOs)targets phonological phenomena, but I also

must be labeled for interpretation at interfaces,

explore the possibility for extending my analysis

and proposes LA in (1), whereby labels are

to semantic phenomena.

determined by minimal search.
2. Proposal(1) Labeling Algorithm

My proposal is to replace the raising-baseda. [α H XP] α = Hlabeling in (1bi) by Copy Deletion-based

b. [α XP YP] (i) [XP [α XP YP]] α = YPlabeling in (2).

(ii)[α XP[F] YP[F]] α = <F, F>(2) Labeling by Copy Deletion

H = Head XP, YP = Phrase F = Feature[XP [α XP YP]] α = YPWhen a head H and a phrase XP are merged asin (1a), the former is selected as a label because

According to this proposal, an XP-YP structure

it is found by minimal search for labeling.

On

can be labeled not by raising either of the two

the other hand, when two phrases, XP and YP,phrases but by succeeding deletion operation.

are merged as in (1b), a label of the SO cannot

On the basis of Chomsky’s (2015: 6) assumption

be determined uniquely because minimal searchthat “LA must apply at the phase level, as part oflocates two heads, X and Y.

This is called

the Transfer operation,” I assume that the

To avoid this problem,

deletion operation which helps labeling must

“XP-YP problem.”

Chomsky proposes two strategies.

One isapply within Narrow Syntax, calling it NS-Copy

raising either XP or YP as in (1bi): If one of theDeletion.

phrases raises to the outside of the minimallabeling, copies that cause a labeling problem

113

Given the deletion operation forare deleted and lost within Narrow Syntax.

(5) shows that who3 is not realized though mySince this kind of copies cannot be transferred,

proposal predicts that it is transferred.

they do not have any phonological and semantic

attribute this fact to another kind of Copy

effect at interfaces.

Deletion, which is required to obtain legitimate

On the other hand, copies

I

required for labeling must not be deleted by thelinear order.

More specifically, I assume withtiming of labeling.

This kind of copies can be

Nunes (2004) that identical copies cannot besent to interfaces, and hence they have somerealized at once because such realization violates

phonological and semantic effect at interfaces.

the conditions on linear order in (6).

Thus, my proposal distinguishes copies in termsof their necessity for labeling and their(6) a.

The Irreflexivity Conditioninterpretability at interfaces, as illustrated in

If α precedes β, then it must be the(3)-(4).

case that α ≠ β.
b.

(3) a. Narrow Syntax

The Asymmetry Condition
If α precedes β, then it must be the

XP … [α XP YP]

case that β does not precede α.
(Nunes (2004: 24))b. Transfer (the timing of labeling)
XP … [YP XP YP]

In (5), realization of who1 and who3 violates thec. PF/LF
XP … YP

irreflexivity condition since who1 precedes who3(4) a. Narrow Syntax

but they are non-distinct. In addition, the copy

XP … [α XP[F] YP[F]]realization also violates the asymmetry condition
since the wh-copy who1 precedes the sequenceb. Transfer (the timing of labeling)
XP … [<F, F> XP[F] YP[F]]of do you do think but the sequence in turnprecedes the other wh-copy who3, which is not

c. PF/LF

distinct from who1.

XP … XP YP

In order to avoid such

violations, Copy Deletion is also required in theNow, one might wonder why some copies

phonological component.

apparently lack phonological effect, though they

theare required for labeling.

component

Consider the

In this paper, I namedeletion applied in the“PF-Copy

phonological

Deletion.”Asawh-question in (5a), to which my proposal gives

consequence of this operation, the wh-question

the syntactic structure in (5b) and the PF

can obtain the legitimate linear order that

representation in (5c).

includes only one wh-copy.

In the following

Assuming thisschemas, copies are numbered just for thekind of derivation, I propose that copies taking

expository purpose.

part in <φ, φ> labeling are mapped into thephonological component but deleted at a later(5) a.
b.

who do you think like dogs?

stage in A'-movement environment.

1[<Q,Q> who [Q] C[Q]-do you do thinkIn summary, I propose that Copy Deletion[CP who2 C [<φ,φ> who3[φ] T[φ] [vP who4

may apply once (or twice if necessary) and thatv-like dogs]]

their timings are regulated by labeling as part of1

3

the Transfer operation, as shown in (7).

c. * who do you do think who like dogs

114

(7)

control sentence involves certain wh-movement:

NS-Copy Deletion (Narrow Syntax)→ Labeling (Transfer)

Wanna-contractionisblockedwith→ PF-Copy Deletion (PF component)

wh-movement of an embedded subject as in (8b),though it is allowed with movement of aAsaconsequence

of

the

wh-object as in (8c).

CopyLastly, contraction isDeletion-based approach, the proposed labelingfreely allowed in a raising construction as inmechanism divides copies into two types with

(8d).
Assuming

respect to their phonological and semantic

with

Jaeggli(1980)

thateffect: If a copy undergoes NS-Copy Deletion, it

contraction requires the PF-adjacency between

cannot have any phonological and semantic

two members taking part in this phenomenon, its

effect because it is lost before Transfer.

In

distribution is accounted for by my proposal.

contrast, if a copy is not deleted within Narrow

Let us begin with sentence (8a), repeated as (9a).

Syntax, it has some phonological and semantic

My proposal gives this sentence the syntactic

effect by being sent to interfaces.

structure in (9b).

Although

In analyzing this sentence, I

some of the latter kind of copies are deleted inassume with Epstein, Kitahara and Seely (2016)

the phonological component to obtain legitimatethat a clause-selecting verb want is formed bylinear orders, I assume that these copies also

External Pair-Merge of the v-head with the roothave√want.

some

phonologicaleffects

beforeapplications of PF-Copy Deletion.

In thefollowing section, I will show that the proposed(9) a.

labeling mechanism accounts for restrictions onb.

some linguistic phenomena.

I want to/wanna meet John.
[CP C [<φ, φ> I[φ] T[φ] [vP I <√want, v>[CP C [<φ, φ> PRO[φ] T[φ]-to [vP PRO<√meet, v> [<φ, φ> √meet[φ] John[φ]]]]]]]]

3. Phonological Effect3.1. To-Contraction

Then, the syntactic structure is mapped onto the

To-Contraction is a sandhi phenomenon

linear order in (10).

Here, I assume that

where an infinitive marker to is reduced andinherently null elements (the embedded C-headaffixed to an adjacent word.

and the PRO subject) are not mapped into theIt has been

observed that its application is restricted, as

phonological component.

illustrated in (8).
(10) I want to meet meet John(8) a.
b.

I want to/wanna meet John.
Who do you want to/*wanna meet

Assuming with Ackema and Neeleman (2003),

John?

Sato (2012), and Thoms and Sailor (2017) thatc.

Who do you want to/wanna meet?

contraction applies at an early stage of thed.

John seems to/seemsta like pickles.

phonological component (immediately after
Transfer or at least before PF-Copy Deletion),In

the simple control

wanna-contractionissentence in (8a),completely

wanna-contraction requires want and to to beallowed.

adjacent in the PF-representation of (10).

However, the contraction is restricted if theSince the adjacency requirement is satisfied,115

Last, let us turn to the sentence in (8d),wanna-contraction can apply in (9a).

repeated here as (13a).

Then, let us consider the sentence in (8b),repeated as (11a).

My proposal provides

this sentence with the syntactic structure in (13b)The proposed labelingmechanism provides this sentence with theand the PF-representation in (13c).

syntactic

theanalyzing the raising construction, I adopt

Here, I assume that

Mizuguchi’s (2016) proposal that the T-head ofstructureinPF-representation in (11c).

(11b)

and

embeddedclauseisintroducedIn

an embedded subject receives Case within the

an

with

embedded clause.

externally pair-merged C-head, and assume thata <T, C> amalgam can serve as a label, unlike(11) a.

an ordinary T-head in English.

Who do you want to/*wanna meet
John?

b.

[<Q, Q> who[Q] C[Q]-T-do [<φ, φ> you[φ](13) a.

T[φ]-do [vP who you <√want, v> [CP whob.

C [<φ,c.

[CP C [<φ, φ> John[φ] T[φ] [vP Johnwho<√seem, v> [<T, C>P John <T, C>-to<√meet, v> [<φ, φ> √meet[φ] John[φ]]]]]]]][vP John <√like, v> [<φ, φ> √like[φ]who do you do want who to meet meet

pickles[φ]]]]]]]

John

c.

φ>

who[φ] T[φ]-to [vPJohn seems to/seemsta like pickles.

John seem to like like pickles

In (11b), the wh-copy taking part in <φ, φ>

In (13b), the subject copy intervenes between

labeling cannot be deleted within Narrow Syntax.

seem(s) and to, but it is deleted by NS-Copy

Consequently, the relevant copy intervenes

Deletion.

between want and to in the representation ofis satisfied, and hence to-contraction is possible(11c), and hence blocks wanna-contraction.

in raising constructions.

The relevant adjacency requirement

Next, let us move on to the sentence in (8c),repeated as (12a).

My proposal gives this3.2. Auxiliary Reduction

sentence the syntactic structure in (12b) and the

Next, let me show that my proposal accounts

PF-representation in (12c).

for some restriction on auxiliary reduction.

Aninfinitival auxiliary can be reduced in a(12) a.
b.

Who do you want to/wanna meet?

declarative sentence as in (14a), but the[<Q, Q> who[Q] C[Q]-T-do [<φ, φ> you[φ]reduction is impossible in a question as in (14b).

T[φ]-do [vP who you <√want, v> [CP who
C [<φ, φ> PRO[φ] T[φ]-to [vP who PRO(14) a.

<√meet, v> [<φ, φ> √meet[φ] who[φ]]]]]]]]b.

John should’ve left.
Should you have/*’ve hit Harry?

who do you do want to meet meet who(Lakoff (1970: 632))

Although wh-movement leaves a wh-copy

Lakoff (1970) suggests that a reduced infinitival

between want and to, it is deleted within Narrow

auxiliary verb (’ve) must cliticize onto a

Syntax for labeling. As a result, want and toprosodic host on its left, and that auxiliary

are adjacent in the phonological component, andreduction is impossible in T-to-C movement

hence contraction is possible.

environment where the reduced auxiliary is

c.

116

preceded by a silent element (or what was

the reduced auxiliary finally loses its prosodic

analyzed as trace).

host, cliticization is prohibited.

The contrast in (14) can be captured by myproposal.

3.3. Restriction on Copy Realization

Let us begin with (14a), which hasThen, I show that my proposal accounts forthe structure of (15a) and the phonologicalrestriction on copy realization. In particular, I

derivation in (15b).

attempt to explain the restriction on exceptional(15) a.
b.

[CP C[<φ,φ> you[φ] T[φ]-should have[vP you

lower copy realization observed in multiple<√hit, v> [<φ,φ> √hit[φ] Harry[φ]]]]]

wh-fronting languages such as Bulgarian.
To set the stage for the discussion, I first

you should have hit hit Harry

introduce an ordinary wh-question in Bulgarian:↓ PF-Copy Deletion
you should have hit hit Harry(17) a.

Koj

kakvo

e

kupil?

Assuming that the relevant cliticization applies

who

what

is

boughtbefore PF-Copy Deletion like the case of‘Who bought what?’

to-contraction,

it isappliedrepresentation in (15b).

b. * Koj e kupil kakvo?

in the first

Then, the infinitival

auxiliary cliticizes onto the linearly adjacent

Here, both of the two wh-phrases must be

finite auxiliary.

fronted as in (17a).

The adjacency is maintained to

two is realized at another position as in (17b),

the end, and hence the cliticization is licensed.

the wh-question is ungrammatical.

Next, consider sentence (14b), which has the
structure

of

(16a)

and

the

It has been

known that this kind of realization pattern isphonologicalderivation in (16b).
(16) a.

In contrast, if one of theobserved if wh-phrases are different words.

If

multipleawh-phrasesarehomophonous,

different realization pattern appears as in (18).

[CP C-T-should [<φ, φ> you[φ] T[φ]-shouldhave [vP you <√hit, v> [<φ, φ> √hit[φ](18) a.

Kakvo obuslavlja

kakvo

should you should have hit hit Harry

what

what

↓ PF-Copy Deletion‘What conditions what?’

Harry[φ]]]]]b.

conditions

b. * Kakvo kakvo obuslavlja?

should you should have hit hit Harry
The lower copy of should cannot undergo

In (18a), one of the homophonous wh-phrases is

NS-Copy Deletion in (16a): If it is deleted

realized not at the fronted position but at the

before labeling, it is impossible to obtain <φ, φ>object position.

label because one of the agree-mate becomes(18b) shows that it is impossible to pronounce

invisible to labeling computation. As a result,both of the identical wh-phrases

the reduced auxiliary criticizes onto the lower

sentence-initial

copy of the finite auxiliary.

wh-question with the homophonous wh-phrases

However, theIn contrast, the sentence inposition.

at theThus,

theshows the exceptional lower copy realization.

established cliticization relation is destructed at

To capture this fact, Bošković (2002)

a later stage through PF-Copy Deletion. Since

117

deleted at PF in order to obtain legitimate linear

proposes the following constraint:orders), but the latter copies cannot. Consider(19) Avoid homophonous sequences.

the structure of (20), which is illustrated in (21).

This prevents the multiple wh-question in (18)(21) [kakvo kakvo misli Ivan [CP kakvo kakvo

from containing a consecutive homophonous

C-če [<φ, φ> kakvo[φ] T[φ] [vP <√obuslavlja, v>

string (kakvo-kakvo), and forces the lower copy[<φ, φ> √obuslavlja[φ] kakvo[φ]]]]]

realization.
However, the constraint is insufficient in that

Analyzing the syntactic structure in a similar

it cannot explain some restriction on the lower

way to English, we can see that the intermediate

copy realization.

copy cannot be realized because it is deleted

Consider the following

example, in which the symbol “%” is used tobefore Transfer.

mark variation on judgment.

taking part in <φ, φ> labeling can be pronounced

On the other hand, copies

because they are sent to the phonological(20) Kakvo ( *kakvo) misli Ivan ( % kakvo)
what

what

thinks Ivan

component and interpreted there.

what

proposalstraightforwardly

Thus, mydeducestheče( kakvo) obuslavlja(kakvo)?

exceptional copy realization (and deletion)

that

what

what

pattern,conditions‘What does Ivan think conditions what?’according

to

which

lower

copy

realization is limited to agreement positions (andintermediate copies can never be pronounced).

The point here is that lower copy realization is
not licensed at the intermediate position.

This

4. Semantic Effectrestriction on the lower copy realization is not

In the last section, I explore the possibility

captured by the constraint in (19): It doesthat my proposal accounts for restrictions on

nothing other than prohibiting a homophonous

some semantic phenomena.

sequence, and hence it does not prevent othersentences in (22), which suggest the presence or

copy realization.

absence of reconstruction effect.

Therefore, if lower copy

Consider therealization is required in order to avoid ahomophonous sequence, then the intermediate(22) a. * [Which picture of Johni]j did hei like tj

copy should be a candidate for copy realization.

best?

Since the constraint in (19) cannot explain theb.

absence of intermediate copy realization, it[Every picture of Johni]j seems to himi
to be tj great.

should be explained independently.

(Lechner (2015: 1231, 1233))

The problem is solved by the Copy
Deletion-based labeling mechanism, according

These

have

co-referential

toR-expression and pronoun.

If the moving

which some copies

are sent to thesentences

PF-interface and interpreted there while others

materials leave a copy at the base-generated

are not transferred because of NS-Copy Deletion.

positions (tj), we predict that both of theGiven this, the former copies can be potentiallysentencespronounced (though some of them may be

Condition C violation.

118

are

ungrammaticalbecauseofHence, the sentences inProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.

(22) suggest that A'-movement leaves the copy

Bošković,in (22a), while A-movement does not in (22b).

ŽeljkoThe difference is explained by my proposal,

Wh-Fronting,”

whereby the sentences in (22a, b) have the351-383.
Chomsky,

structures of (23a, b).

(2002)

Noam“On

Multiple

Linguistic

Inquiry

33,(2013)“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
(23) ab.

Chomsky,… he[φ] T[φ]-did [vP [which picture ofNoam(2015)“Problems

Extensions,”ofJohn] he <√like, v> [<φ, φ> √like[φ]Projection:[which picture[φ] of John]] …

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour… to him [<T, C>P [every picture ofof Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di

John] <T, C>-to be [AP [every picture

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simonaof John] great]] …

Matteini,

3-16,Structures,John

Benjamins,

Amsterdam.
The structure of (23a) contains an undeleted

Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara and T.

lower copy at the object position, and hence

Daniel Seely (2016) “Phase Cancellation

Condition C is violated.

by External Pair-Merge of Heads,” The

On the other hand,

Linguistic Review 33, 87-102.

that of (23b) does not contain such a lower copy

Jaeggli, Osvaldo (1980) “Remarks on To

due to NS-Copy Deletion, and hence Condition
C is not violated.

Contraction,”

Thus, the A/A' -asymmetry

might be explained by my proposal.

Linguistic

Inquiry11,239-245.

The

Lakoff,discussion supports the possibility that my

George(1970)“GlobalRules,”(2015)“The

Language 46, 627-639.

analysis is extended to semantic phenomena.

Lechner,

Winfried* An earlier version of this paper was presented

Syntax-Semantics Interface,” Syntax, An

at the 37th meeting of the English Linguistic

International Handbook, ed. by Tibor Kiss

Society of Japan held at Kwansei Gakuin

andUniversity on November 9-10, 2019.

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

I would

ArtemisAlexiadou,

1199-1256,

like to express my gratitude to Etsuro Shima andMizuguchi, Manabu (2016) “De-Activation of φ

Yoshiaki Kaneko for invaluable comments andthrough Pair-Merge,” English Linguistics

suggestions.

33, 108-118.

I am grateful to the audience at

Nunes, Jairo (2004) Linearization of Chains andthe meeting for their helpful comments andquestions.

All

remainingerrorsSideward

andMovement,

MIT

Press,

Cambridge, Mass.

inadequacies are, of course, my own.

Sato, Yosuke (2012) “Multiple Spell-Out andContraction

REFERENCES
Ackema, Peter and Ad Neeleman (2003)
and

Noam

Syntax-Phonology

Interface,” Syntax 15, 287-314.
Thoms, Gar, and Craig Sailor (2017) “When

Linguistic Theory 21,

Silence Gets in the Way: Extraction from

Spell-Out,”

Do-Ellipsis in British Dialects,” paper

681-735.
Chomsky,the

Natural“Context-Sensitive
Languageat(2013)“Problemspresented at LSA Annual Meeting.

of

119

して、
「太郎」は動詞の項構造と関係がなく、いわば「犬」と「太郎」はディスジョイント(∨) の関係にある点である。他方、 (1b) は、「太郎の子ども」という状況において、所有受け身「ラレ」の形態分離と繋属述語仮説*

受け身文と見なされる。この場合、主語の「太（Morphological Decomposition of Passive

郎」が動詞「ほめる」の項でないという点で(R)are(1) の間接受け身文と同じであるが、
「太郎」

and

the

Trans-Predicate

Hypothesis）と「子ども」の間のいわゆる所有関係によって、「太郎」と「子ども」はアイデンティテ

高橋 英也 (Hideya Takahashi)ィにおいて部分的に重なり合うと言える

岩手県立大学 (Iwate Prefectural（∩）。ちなみに、(1b)では、「子ども」は、University)

対格「を」を伴っていることから、目的語の中嶌 崇 (Takashi Nakajima)

主語位置への移動により派生される英語の富山県立大学 (Toyama Prefectural

be-受け身文とは異なり、述部内に留まってUniversity)いると考えられる。最後に、(1c) の直接受
け身文は、英語の be-受け身文に最も近く、

キーワード：日本語受け身文、分散形態論、

表層の主語「ピザ」は動詞「食べる」の目的

出来文、繋属述語仮説、機能範疇 Get

語と同定される (=)。英語の be-受け身文との比較において重要なのは、(1a) や (1b) の主語「太郎」は、(1c) の「ピザ」とは異な

1. はじめにり、動詞の項構造自体に含まれないものの、

日本語では「述語」の「述」(Predicate) が「犬が吠える」のような動詞句の表すイベン

少なくとも形態的には「語」(Word) と認識

ト自体、もしくは、「花子」のような、そのされる。したがって、複合述語の形態統語論

内部に生起する項との関係性によって、動詞をどのように扱い、さらにそれを意味論と関の 表 す イ ベ ン ト に よ る 影 響 性

連づけるかは、生成文法初期から重要な課題(affectedness) を被ると解釈され、「受け身の一つであるが、未だ統一的な見解には至っ文」としての成立を保証するという点である。

ていない。その中で、受け身文は、生成文法

このような日本語受け身文が示す諸特徴の歴史において最も盛んに議論されてきたを統語構造から導出する試みとして、1970

構文の一つであり、日本語においては、間接

年代以降、画一理論 (Uniform Theory) と非受け身文 (1a)、所有受け身文 (1b)、そして画一理論 (Non-uniform Theory) の間で活直接受け身文 (1c) という３種類に大きく発な議論が交わされてきたが、未だに明らか分類されることが知られている。

な見解の一致には至っていない。
本稿では、「ラレ /(r)are/」が単一の受動形態素として英語の接辞-en に対応するもの(1) a. 太郎が犬に吠えられた。
b. 太郎が花子に子どもをほめられた。

と暗黙に捉えてきた従来の分析は、日本語述

c. ピザが子どもたちに食べられた。

語の膠着性に鑑みると、理論的必然性があるとは必ずしも言えないとする立場を取る。そ(1a) の間接受け身文で特徴的なのは、「犬」の上で、統語構造の役割に新たな考察を加え、が非能格動詞「吠える」の主語であるのに対句構造がイベントと意味解釈を効率的に結120

れば構造化された語彙素性は余剰にならざ

びつけるために最適化されていることを論

じ、日本語受け身文の新たな分析を提示する。 るを得ない。2 さらに深刻な問題は素性自体に内包されている。併合による派生を動機付ける素性は上述したものに加え、EPP, Case,

2. 理論的背景：新構成主義者理論

極少者主義理論 (Chomsky, 2000 et seq)

Wh-, Agreement (j) 等が考えられている。

では「併合」が唯一の構造形成機能でありこれらはもっぱら(形式)主語の導入、移動に(the ‘single engine’ hypothesis, Marantz

よる併合(IM)等のために必要になるが、もし

2003)、併合が派生する句構造は LF 及びこれらの素性が派生を望ましい方向に導く

PF 部門における解釈に必要かつ十分な深ために想定・導入されているのであれば、極さ (Phase) まで形成されるとそれぞれの少主義者理論の目標である生物学的見地

インターフェースに送られる。その後 LF(Evo-Devo)からの言語発現の解明には寄与

では意味解釈が与えられ、PF では語彙化、するものが少ない事を示唆する。言い換える

直線化、音韻化等の作業が行われる。句構と、生物学的な現象としての FL の出現にと(Facultéってこれらの素性は副次的であり必要前提

造 は 人 間 の 言 語 器 官

Linguistique, FL) にとって重要な位置を条件では無かった可能性が高い。
これらの考察から、本研究では、後者の見占め、中心的な役割を果たす。
併合がどの様にして句構造を形成するの方に従い、語彙形態素の持つ素性は構造を持かに関して二つの考え方がある。一つは最もたず、Argument Structure は DM に従い語広く受け入れられ、Boeckx (2014, 2015) が彙的に分離 (decomposition) された語根及「語彙中心主義」(Lexicocentrism) と呼ぶ

び形態素によって階層的に派生されると考もので、併合が結びつける語彙形態素は素性え(exo-skeletal model, Borer 2003, 2005)、(features)が束ねられたものであり、さらに「新構成主義者理論」(Neo-Constructivist

それらの素性は構造化されていると考える

Theory, Clark & Clark 1979, Filmore &ものである。この見方によると併合は素性構

Key造の指示に従って形態素を組み上げ、句構造

Bruening 2013, Myler 2018 等) の見地から、を形成してゆくことになる。1 もう一つの見併合の派生する構造は言語情報の在外化、形方は Marantz (1997, 2005, 2007), Borer

態素の直線化及び句の意味解釈を効率的に(2003, 2005, 2017), Boeckx (2011, 2014,

行うために最適化されていると考え、副次的2015), Wood (2015), Myler (2016) 等に見素性を極力排除する派生を目指す。これによられるもので、語彙形態素を素性の集合と見り受け身の形態素「ラレ」が階層構造を持ち做す事は同じであるが、素性の構造化を否定

なおかつ項を許可する助「動詞」である事をする立場である。この転回には幾つかの理由示す。これが正しければ、構造自体が意味解がある。まず構造化された形態素性が保証す釈の一部を担うとする Neo-Constructivist

る特徴として句の文法範疇、句の持つ基本的

Theory を支持する重要な証拠となる。

1997,

Borer

2003,

2005,

2017,

意味、及び句内部に現れる項の数と意味役割(q-role)等があるが、これらは拡散形態論

3. 繋属述語仮説と受け身文の構造(Distributed Morphology (DM), Marantz

本稿では、DM の想定 (2a-c)に基づき、「ラ1997)に従って形態辞を語根、「小」主要部、レ」は従来考えられてきたような単一の接Voice 等に分離する事により基本的に併合の辞ではないと考える。次に(3) および (4)みで導き出す事ができる。もしこれが正しけの提案に基づき、(5) に図示される階層構

121

造を内包する機能辞 (r)ar と e に分離され(3) は、日本語受け身文の起源に関する伝統ることを論じる。その上で、３種類の受け的な「得」説（石田 1958, 吉田 1973）の身文に対する統一的分析を提示する。

立場、および Washio (1989-1990) や鷲尾(2005) の洞察を、形態統語的に再定式化し(2) a. Root Hypothesis：語はもともと範疇

ようとする提案である。一方、(4) は、日本未指定で、範疇未指定の語根√Root と語受け身文の特徴付けとして国語学でしばv などの機能範疇主要部が統語的に併しば論じられてきた出来文説（尾上 1998a;

合することで決定される。

1998b; 2003) の洞察 (6) に基づく。

b. Single Engine Hypothesis：語形成を含む全ての構造は統語論で形成される。 (6) ラレル形述語文は、主語に立つものを場
c. Late Lexical Insertion：語彙挿入はとして、事柄を全体として発生・生起すPF で Spell-Out の後になされる。

るものとして述べる形式である。（川村(3) e：動詞「エル」が文法化した機能範疇

2005: 49）

Get で、「獲得、完遂、到達」というアスペクトに関係する意味論的概念と結び(5) の構造は、「VoiceP で表される基底イベ

つき、主題役（Benefactive, Affectee 等）

ントの発生・出現 ((r)ar) の影響を GetP 指付与により受け身文の主語を認可する。

定部の名詞句が被る (得る/e-ru/)」と読み解(4) (r)ar：軽動詞「アル」(影山 2004, 金水

くことができ、受け身文の意味解釈と文構造

2006) の文法化に由来し、イベントの「出が階層的対応関係にある事を示している。

現・発生」を表す形式述語であり、構造

まず、/a/ は、 'little' v (Marantz 2007,

的には、機能範疇の連鎖 Inch(oative)-v2013) として機能し、形式語根√Rø を動詞とを成し、その補部に Theme としてして範疇化する。これに VoiceP が内項としVoiceP を認可する。

て 併 合 さ れ 、 vP が 形 成 さ れ る 。 さ ら に
Inch(oative)が併合し、統語的に非対格構造

本稿では、InchP-vP は、受け身文におけるを持つ InchP が投射される。この時点で、VoiceP と GetP の関係性を媒介する役割を

基底イベントを表す VoiceP は、形式述語に持つ、Trans-Predicate（繋属述語）と考え、基づく TrP（＝InchP-vP）に埋め込まれる

こ れ を 「 繋 属 述 語 仮 説 （ Trans-Predicate

ことで、二次述語に類する構造関係が形成さ

Hypothesis)」と呼ぶ。

れる。他方、通常の非対格動詞の派生とは異なり、VoiceP は、格を必要としない要素で(5)あるため、それ自体が表層の主語位置へ移動することはない。それゆえ、その後の派生の

GetP{BEN, AFF}i
INCHP
vP
VoicePeiての資格を得ることになる。最後に、PF に

Get

INCH
v’

過程で、GetP が認可する名詞句が主語としGet’おける語彙挿入、およびデフォルトの子音でeある /r/（釘貫 1996, Labruine 2014, der

Chane 2016) の挿入を経て、受け身述語が√R √Rø

v

出力される。3 対応して、意味的には非対格(r)a構造を備えた Inch-vP を介した VoiceP が表す基底イベントと GetP 指定部に生起する主122

語の間での「関連付け」が、いわゆる「受け以下では、本稿で提案する受け身文の妥当身」の解釈を生み出す。4 5性を示す経験的事実について、いくつか示し

このように、繋属述語仮説に基づく分析のたい。最初に、日本語における受け身述語化

下では、日本語受け身文とは、繋属述語 TrPに課せられる制約の一つ、すなわち、「沈む」と GetP によって派生される重層的文構造の「落ちる」「冷える」等の状態変化動詞に基総称であり、従って、「ラレ」が英語の受けづく受け身文が派生されないという事実が、身文を形成する接辞-en に直接的に相当する

首尾よく捉えられることを指摘したい。これという従来の見方は否定されることになる。

らの自動詞類は、動詞の表す行為の遂行において、項がある種の制御性や意志性を示し得

4. 3 種類の受け身文に対する統一的分析

るような特殊な文脈を除くと（例：「建造し次に、前節で提示した繋属述語仮説に基づたばかりの船に 沈まれた」）、純粋な状態

く形態統語分析の下で、(1a-c) に示される 3

変化の解釈としては受け身述語化されない

種類の受け身文がどのように説明を与えら（例：「*夕陽に/*気分に 沈まれた」）。状

れるかを見る。まず第一に、間接受け身文に態変化動詞は、それが表すイベントの性質かおいては、Get の指定部として導入される主ら非対格構造を伴う VoiceP を元来派生する語は、VoiceP 内の動詞が表す下位イベント

ため、繋属述語による余剰的な非対格化の適の参与者と同一指標を付与されないことか

用は、不適格な構造を派生してしまい、またら、両者はディスジョイント (∨) の関係に

意味解釈上の破綻もきたすことから、受け身あり、排除の状況が生じている。この関係か述語化されないと言える。
また、「太郎は浜辺で風に吹かれた」「屋ら、いわゆる「迷惑」や「被害」の解釈が生根が風に *吹かれた / 吹き飛ばされた」のじる。
他方、所有受け身文では、GetP 内の主語

ような、働き掛け動詞による受け身文の容認と VoiceP 内に留まる対格目的語の間で成り性の差異については、基底イベントの「出立つ所有関係に応じて解釈が決定される。す

現・発生」の影響の有無によって決まると言

なわち、目的語の所有者が受動主語と同一指える。関連して、「城がお堀に囲まれている」

標を付与されることで、いわゆる譲渡不可能「住宅地が緑に覆われている」のような状態

所有関係が成り立っている。この場合、指標性を示す受け身文といった、従来の分析にと付与を通して、アイデンティティにおける部って容易ではない事例は、イベントの「出分的な重なり合い（∩）の関係が成立するた

現・発生」に伴う結果状態の「存在」がアルめ、直接受け身に準ずる解釈が得られる。

によって含意されることで、適格と判断され最後に、GetP の生成する主語と VoiceP

るのかもしれない。

内にある動詞の目的語である PRO が同一指さて、本節の終わりとして、畠山・本田・標を付与され、アイデンティティにおいて同

田中 (2019) における「受け身と使役の相互一関係（=）となることのみである。したが乗り入れ」について一言述べておきたい。

って、受け身の主語としての文法機能を担う要素は、同時に、動詞が表す行為の影響性を(7)ジョンはわざとトラックに追突された。

被る目的語として解釈される。これが「直接(8)ジョンは不運にもトラックに追突された。

受け身」と呼ばれる所以である。
畠山・本田・田中 (2019: 199) によると、「ラ
5. 経験的帰結

レ」は使役と受け身で多義的な振る舞いを示123

す。すなわち、(7) では、副詞「わざと」が主要部が現れる最終節点の数は（語根が現れ生起していることから、主語「ジョン」が動る位置を除くと）必然的に 2 となる。新構成

作主と同定され、したがって「ラレ」に対し主義者理論では DM 同様どれだけ細部の形て使役の意味が選択されるのに対して、主語態分離が必要なのかが議論になるが、我々のが被動作主であると解釈される (8) の「ラ仮説はその問いに対する回答となる。すなわ

レ」は受け身と見なされる。このように、日ちイベント表出に最適化された統語構造が本語の受け身文を get passive と関連づけて自動的に主要部（及び指定部）の数と位置をいる点は、本稿の分析と同一の方向性を志向決定するのである。6

しているように思われる。しかし、本稿は、
7. 今後の展望

ラレ自体が使役と受け身の間で多義性を示す語彙とは考えない。むしろ、問題の (7) (8)

最後に、繋属述語仮説の帰結の更なる追究、のような対は、いずれも受け身文であるもの

そして本研究の今後の展望について手短にの、基底イベントの「発生・出現」と Get

触れることで、結語にかえたい。本稿では、主語の結びつき方の副次的効果として、使役重層的構造から成る繋属述語 TrP を選択すと受け身の対立に類する解釈上の多義性がる主要部 Get が、受け身文の主語を認可す生じるものと捉えられる。

ることを提案した。この提案は、Get が、付与 で き る 主 題 役 が 豊 富 （ Benefactive,
Affectee, Controller 等）であり、潜在的に6. 繋属述語と新構成主義者理論

ここまで(r)ar-は「繋属述語」という機能

様々な意味解釈を許すという点で、主語と範疇であり、それは非対格構造を持つことを

VoiceP の間の多様な意味関係の構築に対応論じた。本節では、繋属述語仮説が、そもそできる（おそらく唯一の）機能範疇であるとも何故(r)ar-が受動の意味を派生できるのかいう洞察に基づく。この「Get 仮説」と、繋と言う根源的問いに回答を与える事を指摘

属述語の非対格性からの類推による「他動性したい。まず(r)ar-はコピュラ由来の a（イを示す繋属述語 (s)as 」の存在を併せて仮

ベントの発生・出現）を除いて何ら意味素性

定することで、使役 (s)as-e と受け身 (r)ar-eを持たない。語根は素性的に空(√Rø)であり、の並行的分析が可能となることが期待され

INCH もまた同様である。さらに e は多様なる。そして、可能動詞や尊敬語といった他の意味を持つ主語を認可するが、それ自体は受「ラレ」形述語も、イベントの出来を表す非動の意味を生むわけではない。そうであるな

対格構造を内包すると仮定することで、日本

らば、この繋属述語が派生する受動の意味は語のヴォイス関連現象に対する統一的な理どこから来るのであろうか。我々はその由来

解への道が拓けると考える。さらに、本動詞を繋属述語が持つ非対格構造そのものに求アルの文法化から繋属述語 TrP が派生されめたい。すなわちこの構造は FL の一部としたという想定の下で、東北地方の諸方言におて非対格的イベントを表すものとして最適

け る 、 (r)ar の 付 加 に よ る short passive

化されており、それが機能述語として再利用(Takahashi 2020) や自発・可能表現へと本されていると考えるのである。もしこの見方

稿の分析が敷衍されることも期待される。理が正しければ、統語構造自体が意味に貢献す

論言語学と方言文法の相互理解が示唆する

ると言う新構成主義者理論を支持する重要ところの大きさを改めて示すことは、本研究な証拠となる。さらに受動の繋属述語は(5)のとりわけ重要な目標の一つである。

で示したように二層構造を持つ。これにより

124

Washio 1989-1990)の延長線上に位置づけ

謝辞* 本稿は日本英語学会第 37 回大会で発表しられると言える。

た内容の一部に加筆修正を加えたものであ6る。本稿における全ての不備や誤りの責任が当性については今後の研究を待ちたい。非膠筆者にあることは言うまでもない。本研究は着言語に関しては Bruening (2013)等を参照

科 研 費 （ 基 盤 研 究(C) 17K02700,

繋属述語仮説の他の膠着言語に対する妥されたい。

19K00554）の助成を受けている。
注

主要参考文献endo-skeletal model (Borer

Borer, Hagit (2003) “Exo-Skeletal vs.

2003, 2005) と も 呼 ば れ , Lexicalist

Endo-Skeletal Explanations: Syntactic

Hypothesis において最も顕著である。生成projections

文法では Argument Structure (Grimshaw

The Nature of Explanations in
Linguistic Theory, ed. by Moore, J. &1 この見方は1990), 影 山(1993), l-Syntax (Hale &Keyser 2002)等を参照されたい。
2

Maria

and

Polinsky,

the

31–67,

lexicon,"Stanford:

CSLI.

これに加えて DM が allomorphs (Bobaljik2012) 及 び 語 彙 の 意 味 的 逸 脱 (allosemy,

Borer, Hagit (2005) Structuring Sense, Vol.

Marantz 2013, Wood 2014)を独自のルール

II: The Normal Couse of Events.

を持つ語彙部門を想定する事なく併合と階Oxford: Oxford University Press.

層構造から説明できる可能性が示され、Borer, Hagit (2017) “The Generative

Cambridge

Companionto

Lexicalist Hypothesis の動機付けはほぼ失Word,"

われたと言える。Lexicalim からの反論としChomsky, ed. by McGilvery, James,ては Willams (2007) 等を参照されたい。

110–133. Cambridge UK: Cambridge

3

University Press.

PF 部門に於ける語彙挿入によって述語がφ

音声具現するならば、TrP 内の Inch や√R

Bruening, Benjamin (2013) "By Phrases inのように音素性を持たない形態統語的要素

Passives and Nominals," Syntax 16,

で /r/ が具現すると仮定するのは、極めて自1-41.

然であると言えよう。特に、動詞語根が母音Clark, Eve & H.H. Clark (1979) “When終止である場合、√Rø に対する /r/ の挿入に

nouns surface as verbs,” Language 55,

よって、v 主要部の /a/ との間で生じる母音

767–811.
Davison, Donald. (2001) “The Logical

連鎖を防ぐことができる。
「 関 連 付 け 」 は 、 INCLUSION とForm of Action Sentences,” Essays on

EXCLUSION の対比（Washio 1995）と基Action and Events. Oxford: Clarendon

本的に同じ趣旨である。なお、Get 主語の生

Press.

4

成における移動関係の関与にはここで立ち

畠山雄二・本田謙介・田中江扶 (2018)「使入らず、TrP が GetP と VoiceP を媒介して、役を表す「受動文」」,『言語研究』

Get 主語と基底イベント内の要素との間で154, 193-204.
Howard, Irwin and Niyekawa Howard

何らかの照応関係が成立する（もしくは、成立しない）と仮定するに留める。

(1976) "Passivization," Syntax and5

Semantics 5: Japanese Generative
Grammar,ed.
byMasayoshi

本発表の分析は、伝統的な均一理論(Howard and Niyekawa-Howard 1976,

125

Shibatani,

201-237,

New

12th
Workshopon
Theoretical East Asian Linguistics(TEAL12), University of Macau.

at

York:

Academic Press.
石田春昭 (1958)「動詞未然形の性格」,『国文学』20, 44-58.

theNakajima,

影山太郎 (2004)「存在・所有の軽動詞構文

Takashi"Trans-Predicate(2020)

Hypothesisforと意味編入」, 影山太郎・岸本秀樹

Causative and Passive: A General（編）『日本語の分析と言語類型』,

Theory3-23, 東京：くろしお出版．

Predication," paper presented at theofSecondary

造：モジュール形態論からのアプロ

Workshop on Morphosyntax andLanguage Universals,
Nanzanーチ」, 影山太郎（編）『レキシコン

University.

影山太郎 (2006)「日本語受身文の統語構

フォーラム』2, 179-231, 東京：ひつじ

尾上圭介 (1998a)「文法を考える 5 出来文(1)」, 『日本語学』17-7, 76-83.

書房．
川村大 (2005)「ラレル形述語文をめぐっ尾上圭介 (1998b)「文法を考える 6 出来文て：古代語の観点から」, 『日本語(2)」『日本語学』17-10, 90-97.

文法』, 5, 39-56.

尾上圭介 (2003)「ラレル文の多義性と主語」,

Kay, Paul & Filmore, Charles, J (1999)“Grammatical

Constructions

andGrammatical

Generalizations:The『言語』32-4, 34-41．
Takahashi, Hideya (2020) "Short Passives
inTohokuDialects,"

paper

Workshopon

What’s X doing Y Construction,”presented

Language 75:1, 1–33.

Morphosyntax
andLanguage
Universals, Nanzan University.

金水敏 (2006)『日本語存在表現の歴史』, 東Washio,

京：ひつじ書房．

(2018)

allomorphy,”

A Case Study in Lexical Semantics,
Kaitakusha.
鷲尾龍一 (2005)「受動表現の類型と起源について」, 『日本語文法』5, 3-20.

https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.214.
decompositional(2014)“A

approachto

吉田金彦 (1973)『上代語助動詞の史的研究』
東京：明治書院．

Japanese passive,” Proceedings of

the

21st

"The

Washio, Ryuichi (1995) Interpreting Voice:

Glossa: A JournalofGeneralLinguistics 3 (51), 1–43, DOI:
Takashi(1989-1990)

copula“Complex

systems as suppletive

Nakajima,

Ryuichi

Review 6, 227-263.

京：和泉書院．
Neil

theJapanese Passives," The Linguistic

釘貫亨 (1996)『古代日本語の形態変化』, 東Myler,

at

Japanese/Korean

ed.
byLinguistics Conference,
Seungho, Nam et al., 89–103.
Stanford: CSLI.
Nakajima, Takashi (2019) "(R)are is not amorpheme and nothing moves inJapanese Passive," paper presented

126

の枠組みを採用する。Chomsky は統語対象がインターフェイスで適切に解釈されるにはラベルが必要であるとして、(2)に示す 3 種類の LA を提案している。
名詞句内における値未付与素性の役割とそ
の帰結*

(2)

a.

{α H, XP}

(α=H)

（The Roles of Unvalued Features in DP/QPb.

{XPi, {α ti, YP}}

(α=YP)and Their Consequences）

c.

{α XP[F], YP[F]}(α=<F, F>)

田中 祐太（Yuta Tanaka）(2a)の主要部 H と句 XP からなる H-XP 構造名古屋大学大学院（Nagoya University）

では、H がラベルとして同定される。2 つの句からなる XP-YP 構造の場合は、(2b)のよう

キーワード：値未付与素性, コピー, DP/QPに、XP が移動することでコピーとなり、LAにとって不可視的となるので YP がラベルとなる。または、(2c)のように XP と YP が卓

1. 導入

立した素性を共有することにより、<F, F>がラベルとなる。

最近の極小主義において、値未付与素性（以下、[uF]）はそれを含む統語対象をフェ3. 提案

イズとして特徴づけると仮定されている。
Narita (2014)は、フェイズが計算範囲を限定

CP/v*P が値未付与のファイ素性（以下、するという意味で計算効率に貢献するので[uφ]）を持つため、フェイズであるならば、あれば、[uF]それ自体も計算効率に貢献する

DP もファイ素性の一致の副産物として照合ことになると主張している。

される[uC]を持つのでフェイズであると仮定することができる。

(1) UG employs unvalued features as a device

1 つ目の提案として、C/v*が持つ[uφ]は素

to efficiently demarcate phase cycles.

性継承の下で、その補部の主要部に継承され(Narita (2014: 48))

るため、TP/VP が転送領域になるが、(3a)に示すように、D が持つ[uC]はその補部に継承されず、DP 全体が転送領域になると主張す

本稿では、名詞句内に含まれる[uF]が果たる。1す 2 つの役割を提案する。まず、D/Q に含まれる格素性（以下、[uC]）と Q 素性（以下、[uQ]）
が DP/QP をフェイズとして特徴づけ、

(3)

a.

[DP D[uC][iφ] [nP]] →b.

[QP Q[uQ] [DP D[uC][iφ] …]] →DP/QP 全体が転送を受けると主張する。そして、名詞句内に含まれる[uF]が、移動によって形成されるコピーを計算効率のため、不可視的にする機能を果たすと主張する。
また、(3b)に示すように wh 句は DP の上位
2. 理論的枠組みに[uQ]を含む Q を主要部とする QP 構造を持

本稿では、Chomsky (2013, 2015)によってち、[uQ]は C が持つ[iQ]に照合され、DP と提案された Labeling Algorithm（以下、LA）

同様に QP 全体が転送されると提案する。

127

(5)

2 つ目の提案として、移動によって形成さa.

Juan amaaMaría.

(SVO)

Juan love-3.SG to María

れるコピーはそれが持つ値を付与された[uF]（以下、[uF]）の数と種類によって、そ

b.

Ama

Juan a María.

の不可視性が決定されるとする(4)の条件を

love-3.SG Juan to María

提案する。一般に複数のコピーが生じる場合、‘Juan loves María’(VSO)(Gallego (2010: 221))

低いコピーが不可視的になると規定されているが、本稿では、コピーが統語部門においスペイン語は V-to-T 移動を持つ言語なので、て不可視的になるのは、計算効率のためであ2(5b)は主語が v*P に留まる(6)の構造を持つこると主張する。

とになるが、Chomsky の LA の下では、移動(4) a.

[XP [uF]i [uF]j][XP [uF]i [uF]j]

も素性共有もないので、α のラベルは決まらb.

[XP [uF]i [uF]j][XP [uF]i [uF]j]

ないと予測してしまう。

c.

[ [XP [uF]i [uF]j] … [XP [uF]i [uF]j] ](6)[TP v*＋T [α DP [v*P tv* …]]]

(α=?)(4a)に示すように、[uF]を多く含む XP、この場合は上位の XP が可視的となり、下位の(3)で提案したように、DP 全体が転送を受け

XP が不可視的となる。3 Narita (2014)に従い、るとすると、(7)に示すように、XP 全体が転[uF]への値付けが「収束」を意味するとすれ

送により不可視的となり、YP がラベルになば、より多くの[uF]を含めば含むほど、そのることが可能になる。

コピーはより収束に近いと言える。[uF]を多(7) {α

く含む、言い換えると最も収束に近い XP, YP}(α=YP)を残し、それ以外のコピーを統語操作にと(7)に基づいた(5b)の派生を(8)に示す。

って不可視的にするという主張は、計算効率の観点から自然なものと言える。逆に、(4b)に示すように、2 つの XP が持つ[uF]の(8)[CP C [TP T[uφ] [αφ [v*P v* …]]]](α=v*P)

数は同じだが、種類が異なる場合はどちらかが不可視的になっても、一方のコピーがより収束に近づくことはないので、どちらT が持つ[uφ]は下方向への Agree により、DPも可視的になる。最後に、(4c)に示すように、のファイ素性と一致する。その結果として、2 つの XP が同じ数と種類の[uF]を含む場合[uC]が値付けされ、DP 全体が転送を受け、はデフォルトとして高いコピーが可視的に統語操作にとって不可視的となるので α のなる。

ラベルは適切に v*P と決まる。
このタイプのラベル付けは英語の ECM 構

4. {文においても可能である。Chomsky (2015)は、, YP}

この節では、(3)の提案に基づき新しいタ

ECM 構文を説明する際、R は単独ではラベ

イプのラベル付けを提案し、Chomsky (2015)

ルになることができず、(9)に示すように、における問題点を解決する。

埋め込み節の主語 DP が義務的に母型節に移動し、その DP と RP がファイ素性を共有す(5)に示すように、スペイン語は SVO 語順

ることにより β のラベルが<φ, φ>と決まるとに加えて VSO 語順も可能である。

主張している。

128

(9)(14) [v*P v* [VP V[uφ] [αThey expected John to win.

φT(to) win]]][v*P v* [β DP[iφ]i R[uφ] [α to ti win]]](α=TP)(β=<φ, φ>) (cf. Chomsky (2015: 10, 14))(14)において、V が持つ[uφ]との一致により、
しかし、Lasnik (1999)は ECM 主語の母型節

DP の[uC]は値を付与され、DP 全体が転送をへの義務的移動に対する反例を観察してい受けて不可視的となる。その結果、α のラベる。

ルが適切に TP と決まる。
この節では、(3)の提案の下で、Chomsky(10) a.

Mary made John out to be a fool.

(2015)における LA にとって問題となる、スb.

Mary made out John to be a fool.

ペイン語における VSO 語順と英語の ECM(Lasnik (1999: 201))(11) a.

構文に関する事実が解決されることを示し

The DA made the defendants out to

た。

be guilty during each other’s trials.
5. 主語移動に関するパラドックス

b. *?The DA made out the defendants to
be guilty during each other’s trials.

この節では、(4)の提案に基づき、Chomsky(Lasnik (1999: 202))(2015)の分析から生じる、主語の移動に関するパラドックスを解決する。まず、(15)と(16)(10)のように、ECM 動詞 make out におけるに示す Chomsky による that 痕跡効果の説明

out は埋め込み節の主語に後続する語順にを概観する。

加えて、先行する語順も可能である。(11)(15) Who do you think read the book?

の対比が示すように、埋め込み節の主語がout に後続する語順においては、主節の付加

a.

[CP C [α whoi T [v*P ti read the book]]](α=<φ, φ>)

詞節内にある照応形を認可できない。束縛条件 A を考慮すると、(11b)における ECMb.

C [α whoi T [v*P ti read the book]]

主語は母型節に移動していないことになる。

c.

who do you think [α ti T

ECM 主語が埋め込み節に留まることができ](cf. Chomsky (2015: 10-11))

るとすると、(12)に示すように、素性共有のない非定形の T を含む α のラベルは決まらないことになるので、LA にとって問題とな(15a)に示すように、CP フェイズレベルにおる。

いて、素性共有によって α のラベルが<φ, φ>と決まる。(15b)のように、that が具現化しな(12) [v*P v* [RP R [α DPi T(to) ti win]]](α=?)

い場合、C の削除が適用されることにより、素性継承時にフェイズ性を継承した T がフAbe (2016)に従い、(13)のように、V が単独

ェイズ主要部として活性化される。その結果、でラベルになれるとすると、ECM 構文は(9)

転送領域は T の補部になるため、wh 句は転の派生に加えて、(14)の派生も可能になる。

送領域に含まれず主節に移動することが可能になる。

(13) Unlike finite T, V can serve as a label on
its own in English.

一方、(16)に示すように、C 削除が適用されない場合は CP がフェイズのままである。

(Abe (2016: 8))

したがって、主語 wh 句が転送領域に含まれ129

whom?

ないためには、CP に移動しなければならなない。しかし、Chomsky (2015)によると、英(Pesetsky and Torrego (2001: 405, fn. 9))語の T は単独ではラベルになれず、ファイ素性の素性共有を必要とする。したがって、

Pesetsky によると、(18)の対比が示すように、

wh 句が TP に留まらないのであれば、α のラ

the hell は CP に移動していない wh 句には付

ベルは決まらず、派生は破綻する。

加できない。したがって、(19)の事実は thehell が付加された主語 wh 句が CP に移動し(16) * Who do you think that read the book?
a.

[CP that [α whoi T [v*P ti read …]]]b.

[CP whoi that αていることを支持する。
(19) Who the hell bought what?

](cf. Chomsky (2015: 10-11))(Pesetsky and Torrego (2001: 405, fn. 9))

この分析の下では主語は CP へ局所的には移さらに、Douglas (2017)によると、(20)と動することができないと予測されるが、主語(21)における対比も主語 wh 句の CP への移疑問文において局所的な主語の移動が存在動の証拠となる。

(α=?)

するという証拠が先行研究により挙げられ(20) a.

ている。

I didn’t say what John saw.
(non-echo)

Mizuguchi (2014)によって提示された作用b.

域の違いに関する(17)の事実は主語 wh 句がCP に移動していることを支持する。4

I didn’t say that / whether / if Johnsaw what?

(echo)(Douglas (2017: 20))(17) a.

(21) a.

Who loves everyone?

would arrive first?

(who > everyone, *everyone > who)b.

Bill didn’t say that / whether / if who(echo)

b. * Bill didn’t say that / whether / if who

Someone likes everyone.

(someone > everyone, everyone > someone)

would arrive first.

(non-echo)(Mizuguchi (2014: 330))(Douglas (2017: 21))(17a)において、everyone は主語 wh 句より高(20)に示されるように、通常の wh 疑問文とい作用域をとることができないが、(17b)には対照的に、元位置 wh 疑問文では問い返し

おいては、everyone は主語である someone よの解釈しか許されない。(21)が示すように、り高い作用域をとることができる。この違い

主語 wh 句が補文標識よりも右、つまり TP

は主語が占める位置の違いによると考えらに留まる場合は、問い返しの解釈だけが可能れる。

であり、非問い返しの解釈（通常の疑問文のまた、Pesetsky (1987)が指摘した the hell の解釈）は許されない。Douglas によると、通分布に関する特徴からも主語 wh 句の CP へ

常の wh 主語疑問文では、両方の解釈が可能の移動が支持される。

である。したがって、この違いも主語 wh 句が占める位置の違いによるものであると言(18) a. * What did Sue give to whom the

える。

hell?
b.

以上の議論から、that 痕跡効果の派生ではWhat the hell did Sue give to

局所的な主語の CP への移動が許されない一130

方で、主語疑問文において、主語 wh 句の CP

有の下で、β と γ のラベルはそれぞれ<φ, φ>,への移動を支持する証拠が存在し、パラドッ<Q, Q>と決まる。唯一 v*P にある wh 句のみクスが生じる。このパラドックスは、(4)の[uF]を持たないので、不可視的となり、α の提案の下で解決されると主張する。まず、(4)ラベルは v*P と決まる。

に基づく that 痕跡効果の派生を(22)に示す。

この分析の下では、中間着地点としてのCP への主語の移動は許されない一方で、値(22) * Who do you think that read the book?
a.
b.

付けを含む最終着地点としての CP への主語

[CP who[uQ][uC][iφ]i that [α who[uQ][uC][iφ]iの移動は許される。これは(24)に示すように、

T[uφ] …]]

主語関係節における対比からも支持される。

(α =<φ, φ>)[CP who[uQ][uC][iφ]i that α

主語疑問文と同様に、最終着地点への主語の

φ

]

φ

移動は許されるが、中間着地点への主語の移動は許されない。

(22a)に示されるように、主語 wh 句が TP とCP に移動した後、CP フェイズレベルで T が(24) a.

持つ[uφ]との一致により、TP の wh 句の[uC]b.

I met the woman that saw John.
I met the woman (that / who) you
said (*that) saw John.

に値が付与される。結果として、CP にある(cf. Douglas (2017: 1-2))

wh 句は[uF]を持たず、TP にある wh 句は[uC]を持つ。(4a)の下では、[uF]の数が少ない CPにある wh 句が不可視的になり、[uF]の数が関係節の派生にも、wh 疑問文の派生におけ多い TP にある wh 句が可視的となり、α のる Q 素性と類似した素性共有が関わるとす

ラベルは適切に<φ, φ>と決まる。しかし、ると、(24)の対比も(22)と(23)と同じように(22b)のように、TP にある wh 句は転送領域説明される。
この節では、(4)の下で、主語の移動に関に含まれるため、主節に移動可能なコピーがするパラドックスが解決されることを示し

なくなり、派生は破綻する。

た。

一方、(4)に基づく主語疑問文の派生は(23)に示される。

6. 非適正移動(23) Who saw Mary?
a.
b.

この節では、(25)に示す一度 A バー移動

[γ who[uQ][uC][iφ]i C[iQ] [β who[uQ][uC][iφ]iを受けた要素が A 移動を受ける、いわゆるT[uφ] [α who[uQ][uC][iφ]i v* …]]]

非適正移動が許されない事実に対して、(3)[γ who[uQ][uC][iφ]i C[iQ] βφαφと(4)に基づいた説明を与える。

φ](25) * Who seems (that) will leave?

(α=v*P, β=<φ, φ>, γ=<Q, Q>)(Obata and Epstein (2011: 128))(23a)に示すように、TP に移動した wh 句が T
ここでの提案の下で、(25)は部分的にはの持つ[uφ]との一致の結果、[uC]を持ち、CP

that 痕跡効果と同じように説明される。

に移動した wh 句も C が持つ[iQ]との一致により[uQ]を持つ。どちらの wh 句も[uF]の数(26) a.

は同じであるが、種類が異なるため、(4b)に[ β who [ u C ] [ i φ ] i C [ α who [ u C ] [ i φ ] iT(will)[uφ] ti leave]]より、両方のコピーが可視的となり、素性共

131(α=<φ, φ>)b.

[ β who [ u C ] [ i φ ] i Cα(28) What do you think that John read?

φ

a.

]

φ

(26)に示すように、TP に移動した wh 句は、

b.

[v*P v*[β [QP Q[uQ]φti ]]](β =<φ, φ>)[v*P V+v* [β [QP Q[uQ]tV[uφ] α

値付けの結果、[uC]を持つ。一方で、CP に移動した wh 句はいかなる値付けにも関与しc.

]i V[uφ] [α
φ

]i

]]

[γ [QP Q[uQ]φ]i C[iQ](do) you

think [CP ti that John read ti ]]ないため[uF]を持たないことになる。(4a)の(γ =<Q, Q>)

下で、CP にあるコピーが不可視的になり、TP にあるコピーが可視的となるが、そのコピーは転送領域に含まれるため、どのコピー(28a)のように、v*P フェイズレベルで、値付も主節に移動できず、派生は破綻する。

けの結果、VP に移動した QP 内部の DP が転

この説明は that 痕跡効果に対する説明と送される。そして(28b)のように、V の v*へ同じであるが、(25)は that の有無にかかわらの主要部移動により、V がフェイズとなり、ず、非文法的であることに注意されたい。しその補部が転送を受ける。QP は転送領域をたがって、C 削除が適用され、TP にある DP

逃れているため、主節に移動することができが転送領域に含まれなかったとしても、依然る。(27)とは異なり、wh 句が主節の T が持として非文法的であるという事実を説明しつ[uφ]の値付けをする必要はなく、C が持つ

なければならない。(3)の提案に基づいた分[iQ]に値付けされるために、[uQ]を含む Q 主

析の下で、この事実も説明される。C 削除が要部さえ可視的であればよい。したがって、適用された場合の派生を(27)に示す。

(28c)に示すように、QP は主節の CP に移動することができ、[uQ]の値付けもなされるの(27) a.

C [α [QP Q[uQ]

φ

]
b.

[ CP C [ QP Q[uQ]
seem [α ti T(will)[uφ]]i T(will)[uφ]で派生は収束する。

(α=<φ, φ>)

この節では、(3)と(4)の提案に基づき、非] i T[uφ]適正移動が許されない事実に対して説明を]]与え、連続循環移動の派生は適切に収束する

φことを示した。
C 削除が適用される場合、(27a)に示すように、
7. 結語

T の補部が転送されるため、QP 構造で示された wh 句は転送領域には含まれない。しか

本稿では、(3)の提案に基づき、従来の LA

し、QP はその内部に DP を含む。ファイ素

では問題となる、スペイン語の VSO 語順と性の値付けの結果、[uC]に値が付与されると、 英語の ECM 構文に関する事実が説明される[uC]/[iφ]含む DP 全体が転送を受けることにことを見た。そして、(4)の提案に基づき、なる。したがって、(27b)のように、QP が主

主語の移動に関するパラドックスも解決さ節に移動することはできるが、主節の T が持れると主張した。最後に、(3)と(4)の下で、つ[uφ]は QP 内部のファイ素性に値付けされ非摘性移動の禁止が導かれることを示した。

5ず、派生は破綻する。 したがって、that の有無に関わらず、(26)が非文法的であるとい* 本稿は日本英語学会第 37 回大会（2019 年

うことが導かれる。

11 月 10 日、於：関西学院大学）における口一方で、(28)に示す連続循環移動を含む文

頭発表原稿に修正を施したものである。本研の派生においてはどんな問題も生じない。

究を進めるにあたって、大室剛志先生、田中132

智之先生からは貴重な助言を頂いた。また発Working Minimalism, ed. by Samuel D.

表の際に御質問・御指摘を頂いた先生方にこ

Epstein and Nobert Hornstein, 189-215,の場を借りて感謝を申し上げたい。なお、本MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Mizuguchi, Manabu (2014) “Consequences of稿における不備や誤りはすべて筆者の責任

Featureによる。

forSubject

Movement,” WCCFL 31, 325-334.

注

Narita, Hiroki (2014) Endocentric Structuring of1

転送領域は中抜き表示で示される。

2

不可視的なコピーは色付き表示で示されProjection-free Syntax, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam.

る。
3InheritanceObata, Miki and Samuel D. Epstein (2011)

本稿では、ある統語対象の[uF]は、すべてのコピー上で値付けされていなくてもどこ“Feature-Splitting

か 1 つのコピー上で値付けされていれば完

Improper Movement, Intervention, and

全解釈の原理に違反しないと仮定する。

the4

122-147.

Mizuguchi (2014)において、(17)の事実は主A/AʹInternal

Distinction,”

Merge:

Syntax14,

Pesetsky, David (1987) “Wh-in-Situ: Movement

語 wh 句が基底生成位置から直接 CP に移動している証拠として挙げられている。

and5

Obata and Epstein (2011)も、素性分離に基Representation of (In)definiteness, ed. by

づく分析の下で、非適正移動が許されない事

Eric Reuland and Alice ten Meulen,

実を主節の T の[uφ]に値が付与されないこと

98-129, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

に還元している。しかし、この分析は、現行

Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego (2001)“T-to-C

の自由併合理論の下では維持できない。

Unselective

Movement:

Binding,”

CausesThe

andConsequences,” Ken Hale: A Life inLanguage, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz,

参考文献

355-426, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Abe, Jun (2016) “Dynamic Antisymmetry forLabeling,” Lingua 174, 1-15.
Chomsky,Noam(2013)“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky,

Noam

Projection:(2015)“Problems

Extensions,”of

Structures,

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour
of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di
Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona
Matteini,

3-16,

John

Benjamins,

Amsterdam.
Douglas, Jamie (2017) “Unifying the That-trace
and Anti-that-trace Effects,” Glossa 2,
1-28.
Gallego, Ángel J. (2010) Phase Theory, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Lasnik, Howard (1999) “Chains of Arguments,”133

2.1. Inchoative Get
The more popular hypothesis of the twoargues that the inchoative get followed by anadjectival complement, e.g. The soup got cold, isthe origin of the get-passive (cf. Gronemeyer

The Origin of the Get-Passive Revisited

1999; Hundt 2001, among others). This is
Junichi Toyota

termed here the inchoative type. This hypothesis

Osaka City University

stems from a corpus analysis, and the claim isbacked up by a steady increase in the corpus
data. Researchers consider the get-passive a

Keywords：get-passive, reflexive, dialects,

dynamic counterpart of be-passive.

replication

Corpus analysis reveals that a predominantconstruction found in historical data is indeed aget + adjective, and the frequency steadily

1. Introduction
This paper critically reviews two previously

increases after the late 15th century. However, no

proposed lines of research on the origin of theconsideration is given to various semantic andget-passive. This dichotomy has not beenfunctional

resolved for about two decades now, and aconstruction. In addition, too much emphasis ispossible new direction is proposed here focusing

put on syntactic features, detailing a shift fromon

English.

an adjectival participle to a verbal one. Also, theTherefore, diachronic changes are analysed in

onset of changes is misunderstood in thistermshypothesis,

languageofcontacts

inearliergrammaticalisation

as

well

as

featuressince

associated

the

with

onset

this

of

grammaticalisation is from the 18th-19th century.

replication involving Old Norse and various
dialects of earlier English.
This paper is organised as follows: previous

2.2. Causative Get

research is reviewed first, classifying it into two

Another line of argument is based on agroups. Following the review, an alternative

construction where a causative get is used alongdevelopmental path is proposed, focusing onwith a reflexive, e.g. I got myself promoted, andetymology, replication and northern dialects of

the omission of the reflexive pronoun yields theearliertypologicalget-passive (cf. Toyota 2007, 2008). This iscomparison is made in order to highlightreferred to as the causative get. The involvement

characteristics of the get-passive.

of the reflexive indicates that the origin was

English.

Finally,asomehow related to the middle voice.
2. Previous ResearchContrary to the inchoative get, the causative

The origin of the get-passive has been

get incorporates semantically and pragmaticallyextensively discussed, and there are mainly two

peculiar features of the get-passive, as listed inlines of argument, termed here the inchoative get(1). (1a) and (1b) are typically found in the

hypothesis, and the causative get hypothesis.

middle voice (cf. Kemmer 1993), and (1c) is

Both are reviewed here to highlight what iscontrary to findings from the be-passive in

missing in the previous research.

English (cf. Toyota 2008). These two features1344.1. Etymology

suffice to claim that the get-passive is not simply
a dynamic counterpart of the be-passive, and its

Get may appear to be an Anglo-Saxon verb,

development was motivated by its own specificbut it was in fact a loan from the Old Norse geta

purposes.

‘obtain, reach’ around the 13th century. This may
account for the late development of this(1) a. The subject’s control over events isconstruction, since it needed to be firmly

traceable.

established in the language first. The Old Norseb. The subject’s generic characteristics aregeta was often used with an adjectival

responsible for events (i.e. facilitative).

complement. Old English as well as Old Dutchc. Theanimacyofthesubject

isand Old Frisian used the Proto-Germanic *getan

predominantly human.

‘seize’d. There is the lack of an agent phrase (lessanauxiliary*ghe(n)d-

forgietan ‘forget’, undergietan ‘understand,’ etc.

e. There is the lack of the dynamicofProto-Indo-European‘seize’) in a compound, e.g. OE begietan ‘beget’,

than 2-3% of all occurrences).
counterpart(cf.

Due to the way this verb was introduced,

after

there were regional variations. A transitive useweorðan ‘become.’of get (a construction with a direct object, not an
adjectival complement) was common in Old

3. Problems in Previous Research

Norse-influenced areas in the Northern &These two lines of research have contributed

Eastern parts of Britain, where the Dane law wasto our understanding of the get-passive, but

practiced. This dialectal difference has not beenshortcomings in each approach cannot go

overlooked in previous studies of the get-passive,

unnoticed. As for inchoative get, it focuses too

but it offers a key to understanding whatmuch on the surface syntactic structure, andhappened in this construction.

cannot account for the middle voice-related
semantic and functional characteristics. In

4.2. Replication

addition, as already mentioned, its estimation of

Language contact has been held responsible

the onset of the change is too early, i.e. it isfor some historical changes, and this has beenththaround the 18 -19 century.

systematically explained in Heine and Kuteva

As for the causative get, it can cover most of(2005, 2006), known as replication. This

the shortcomings in the inchoative get, and the

explains that contacts induce a general processdevelopmental

betterof grammaticalisaiton. What is unique in this

explained with this hypothesis. However, thetype of change is that loan words do not playdata cannot be easily found in the historical

any role, but a new chain of grammaticalisation

corpus.

happens using native lexicons. The target of

path

can

be

much

change is a foreign construction that exists in alanguage in contact. For instance, the future

4. An Alternative Path
There are a couple of points overlooked intense or evidential are often replicated throughthese two lines of previous research, and one cancontacts (Heine and Kuteva 2005: 265), and theat least consider the etymology of get andexamples from Romani in (2) to (4) illustratecontact-induced changes, known as replication.

one such case. The Romani speakers spread135

widely and had contacts with a very wide range

dialects spoken within the Dane Law. Since getof languages, resulting in different sources of

was originally a loan word itself, this verb was

1initially

constructions.

establishedinregional

dialects.

Following this, there was dialect mixing within
the British Isles, particularly between north andRomani of Wales (Boretzky 1989: 369)
(2) Brišindo

džala

te

del

south. Without this dialect mixing, get would not

rain

go.3SG

togive

have spread and established itself firmly in the
English language as it has today.

‘It is going to rain.’ (English be going to)

The result of earlier contacts is clearlyvisible in various parts of English grammar

Vlach Russian Romani (Boretzky 1989: 369)
(3) L-av

texav

today, and the features in (5) are perhaps the

take

to

eat

most obvious ones.

‘I

am

going

to

eat.’

(Ukrainian(5) a. Verbal‘take’-future)

conjugation(thirdpersonsingular present indicative -s)b. Third person plural pronouns starting th-

Balkan Prizren Romani (Boretzky and Igla

(e.g. they, their, them)

1999: 718)

c. The definite article the(4) Him ma

te

džav

is

that

go.1SG he.INSTR

me

lesa

The contacts in question here started at‘I will go with him.’ (Albanian/Macedonianaround the 16th to 17th centuries, triggered by a‘have’-future)

migration of people from the north (including
Grammaticalisation in replication differs
fromgrammaticalisation

without

Scotland) to London which took place after the

languageenthronement of Richard III and James I ofcontact; it takes much less time. A cycle ofEngland (or James VI of Scotland). These weregrammaticalisation is known to take aroundfollowed by the Industrial Revolution in the 18th

2,000 to 3,000 years to complete, but replication

century, which made people move north to south

requires about one-tenth of the time, i.e. 200-300

or south to north in search of work. There wereyears. Therefore, the whole chain of change isplenty of occasions to introduce get into

more easily traceable in replication.

different dialects, along with the features in (5).

5. Replication concerning the Get-passive

6. Typological Comparison

Development of the get-passive has not been

It

may

be

worth

briefly

mentioning

discussed in terms of language contact, buttypologicalreplication seems to be a good candidate toget-passive. The periphrastic passive itself is

explain how this construction emerged.

rare outside of the Indo-European family. The

comparisonsconcerningthe

Contact involved in grammaticalisation ofmost common auxiliary is the copula, and get isthe get-passive is not simple, and it is two-fold.

very rarely used (cf. Toyota 2008, 2009). AmongFirst, contact was made between Old Norse andthe rare exceptions, one of the daughter

northern and eastern dialects of English, i.e.

languages of Old Norse, Norwegian, employs få136‘get’ as a passive auxiliary. Apart fromin identifying the developmental path of theNorwegian, Dutch also uses krijgen ‘get’ in the

get-passive, and what is missing, as this paper

same construction. Both of these languages use

claims, is replication. The influence of contacts‘get’ within the northern parts of England is visible inaditransitive

construction,asvarious parts of the grammar, as in (5).

exemplified in (6) and (7).

Therefore, the get-passive could be one of theconstructions that underwent the influence ofNorwegian(6) Han fikktilsendt

language contacts.

bokenehe get.PST sent.PST.PRT book.PL.DEF

The two lines of previous research have

‘He was sent the books/The books weretended to focus on either semantic or syntactic

sent to him.’features. They have worked considerably to ourunderstanding of the construction, but in order to
see what really happened to this construction at

Dutch(7) Zetheykregenhet

uiteindrelijk

anget.PSTitfinally

indispensable.

toch

nog

nevertheless still

earlierstage,

languagecontacts

aretoegestuurd
NOTES

send.PST.PRT
1‘In the end, they were sent it anyway.’

Abbreviations used in this paper are as follows:

DEF = definite; INSTR = instrument; PL =In Old Norse, an etymological source of fåplural; PRT = participle; PST = past; SG =‘get’, i.e. fá ‘grab’ (a short form of fangan) was

singular.

not yet used in the passive, but instead verða
‘become’ acted like a passive auxiliary, and thepassive with this inchoative verb might have

REFERENCES
Norbert(1989)

Boretzky,“Zum

acted as the base for replication. English lost its

Interferenzverhaltencognate weorðan ‘become’ by Early Modern

Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenshaft

English, but its use was in serious decline in theundMiddle English period, and it is possible that the357-374.

desRomani,”

Kommunikationsforschung42,

northern dialects took an example in Old Norse,

Boretzky, Norbert and Birgit Igla (1999)verða ‘become’-passive, and replicated it using a“Balkanische (südosteuropäische) Einflüsse

then new loan word get.

im Romani,” Handbuch der Südosteuropa-

Also, Dutch had a close contact with the

Linguistik. ed. by Uwe Hinrichs, 709-731,

eastern dialects of English, in particular, East

Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.

Anglia. But considering the amount of influence

Gronemeyer,from the northern dialects, the Dutch influence

Complex

could be negligible in the formation of theGrammaticalization

get-passive.

Language and Linguistics 3, 1-39.
Heine,

7. Summary
Previous research has not been satisfactory

137

Bernd

Claire(1999)“On

Deriving

Polysemy:

and

of

Tania

LanguageContact

Change,Cambridge

the

Get,”
KutevaandEnglish(2005)

Grammatical

University

Press,

Cambridge.
Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva (2007) The
Genesis of Grammar, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Hundt, Marianne (2001) “What Corpora Tell Us
about the Grammaticalisation of Voice inGet-construction,” Studies in Language 25,
49-88.
Kemmer, Suzanne (1993) Middle Voice, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Toyota, Junichi (2007) “An Adversative Passive
in English: In Search of Origins,” The
Construction of Meaning and the Meaningof Constructions: Data–Based Approaches
to Transitivity, Motion and Causation, ed.
by Nicole Delbecque and Bert Cornillie,
143-169, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Toyota, Junichi (2008) Diachronic Change inthe English passive, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Toyota,Junichi(2009)“PassiveasaTense-aspectual Construction Revisited: aCase of Germanic Languages,” Groninger
Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik,
spezial Issue The Passive in Germanic
Languages, 200-214.

138

assumed to occupy at LF (Logical Form)
representation. May (1985), Cinque (1990), andChomsky (1993) among others propose thatreconstructed quantifiers end up occupying at
LF the very position where they take scope

Gap between Reconstruction Effects for
Binding and Scope*either by literally lowering the moved element orby retaining the lower copy of movement instead

Hirokazu Tsutsumi

of

the

higher

one.

Call

it

a

syntactic

Tohoku University

reconstruction analysis, according to which (1a),for instance, is assumed to have a representation
at LF like (2):Keywords：reconstruction, condition C, scope(2) __ is very likely [[someone from NY] to win
1. Introduction

the lottery]]

One of the intriguing properties of natural
languages is the phenomenon of reconstruction,

A second approach advocated by Cresti

where an expression that underwent movement(1995) and Rullmann (1995), which I call areceives some semantic interpretation at thesemantic reconstruction analysis, achieves the

pre-movement position. In (1), we see instances

effect of scope reconstruction by manipulatingof reconstruction for scope interpretation. The

the semantic type of a trace. If the trace isrelative scope of indefinite subject and theconverted to an individual variable of type <e>,raising predicate in (1a) is ambiguous; thethen the quantifier’s sister (T´ node) will be <e,former, having undergone A-movement crossingt>. The quantifier, being <<e, t>, t> type, applies

the latter, takes wide scope if interpreted at theto, and hence scopes over, the T´ node. On thelanding site and narrow scope if reconstructed,

other hand, if the trace is converted toi.e., interpreted at the pre-movement position

generalized-quantifier variable of type <<e, t>,marked. Scope reconstruction is also observed int>, the T´ node becomes <<<e, t>, t>, t>, andA´-movement constructions like (1b).

applies to the quantifier. The quantifier’s scope
will be that of its trace. Under this analysis, the(1) a. Someone from NYi is very likely ti to win
the lottery.

LFs∃>likely, likely>∃

(3a)

and

(3b)

correspondnon-reconstructedandreconstructed

to

the
scope

readings of (1a), respectively (x and Q stands for(Fox (2000: 145))

the individual and the generalized-quantifierb. How many people should I talk to ti?

variables, respectively):many> should, should>many(Cresti (1995: 83))(3) a. [someone from NY] λx [is very likely x
As

for

the

implementation

of

scope

to win the lottery]reconstruction, there have roughly been twob. [someone from NY] λQ [is very likely Q

ways proposed in the literature, differing in what

to win the lottery]structural position a reconstructed quantifier is139

Currently, there has been no agreement on(5) __ … pro [... Op [… [DP…name…] …

whether human language employs syntactic(6) [DP…name…] λQ[… pro [... Op [… Q …

reconstruction or semantic reconstruction, orboth (Romero (1998), Fox (1999, 2000), Sharvit

In the case of syntactic reconstruction, the(1998), Lechner (2013)). However, this article

pronoun ends up c-commanding the name at LF

provides evidence for semantic reconstruction

because the quantificational DP containing thefrom the perspective of Japanese.

name undergoes lowering to the trace position.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows:

Provided that the condition C of the binding

In section 2, I will overview argument for thetheory applies at LF (Chomsky (1993)), thesyntactic and semantic reconstruction which isname and the pronoun in this configuration

based on the condition C of the binding theory

should be interpreted disjointly. Thus, under theprovided in the literature. In section 3 I will

syntactic analysis, scope reconstruction isobserve that certain constructions in Japanese

expected to be accompanied by reconstruction

are always accompanied by scope reconstruction

for the condition C. On the other hand, in theof a moved quantifier and that in the same

caseconstructions, reconstruction for the condition C

quantificational DP containing the pronoun stays

effect is absent even when the moved element

at the surface position and hence the name isreconstructs for scope. Section 4 gives an

outside the pronoun’s c-command domain at LF.

analysis and speculates on the source ofThus, under the semantic analysis, scope

obligatory scope reconstruction in the examinedreconstruction is expected to be brought about

constructions. Section 5 is a conclusion.

without inducing the condition C effect.

ofsemantic

reconstruction

(6),

the

Romero (1998), Fox (1999, 2000) argues
2. The Condition C reconstruction effectthat the syntactic analysis is superior, with its

What distinguishes syntactic reconstruction

prediction borne out by (7):from semantic reconstruction is their prediction
for the condition C reconstruction effect. Let me(7) [How many pictures that Johni took in

explain why. Suppose that a sentence has the

Sarajevo]j does hei want the editor to publish

sequence schematically represented in (4). Here,tj in the Sunday Special?

a name is contained in the quantificational DP

many>want, *want>manythat has moved from the trace position ti, the(Romero (1998: 96))

pronoun c-commands the operator and the trace,
They observe that when many is interpreted

and the operator c-commands the trace.

within the scope of want, the pronoun cannot
take the name John as its antecedent.

(4) [[DP…name…]i [… pronoun [... Op [… ti …

On the other hand, Sharvit (1998) andFurthermore, suppose that the quantificational

Lechner (2013) cites the following sentence

DP takes narrow scope with respect to thearguing that the condition C effect is absent even

operator. Now, syntactic reconstruction andin the case of hope taking scope over many,

semantic reconstruction will give rise to thearguing for semantic reconstruction.

distinctive LFs (5) and (6), respectively:140

reading where the daremo-ni ‘everyone’ takes(8) [How many students who hate Antoni]j does

scope over dareka-ga ‘someone.’hei hope tj will buy himi a beer?
many>hope, hope>many, √de re, *de dicto(9) daremo-nii(Lechner (2013: 175))

dareka-ga

hanako-ga

everyone-Dat someone-Nom H.-Nom
Thus, it might be pointed out that different

ti sittositeru to

analyses are defending themselves based on

jealousdifferent (contradictory) judgments.

omotteru

Comp think‘Everyone, someone thinks Hanako is

It is noticeable that Lechner (2013) points

jealous of.’out that it is referential opacity of the nominal
restrictor of a quantifier that makes a difference;Thisaccording to him, when the NP student who hatereconstruction, whether syntactic or semantic, is

Anton is interpreted as transparent (de re) withrequired for quantifiers that undergoes longrespect to hope, the condition C effect is absent

distance scrambling.

observationsuggests

that

scope

while not when it is interpreted as opaque (de(10) examines the condition C effect underdicto) (Romero and Fox do not take into

scope reconstruction. The name Taroo ‘Taro’ isconsideration the de re/de dicto distinction whencontained in the scrambled phrase and is athey provide the sentence (7)).

possible antecedent of the pronoun kare thatTo examine whether quantifier scope itself

c-commands the trace of scrambling. Notice that

affects the condition C or not, it is advisable nottheto use intensional operators like want and should.

reconstructed scope interpretation.

coreferenceiscompatible

with

the

In the next section, I will employ twoquantificational DPs to examine whether their(10) [Tarooi-to hanasita daremo-ni]jscope interaction affects the condition C effect.

T.-withtalkeddareka-kara
3. Dataconstructions

everyone-Dat he-Nom

Hanako-ga tj sittositeru

someone-from H.-Nom

In this section, I will examine three kinds ofinJapanese:

long

to

distance

karei-ga

jealouskiitaComp heard

scrambling, left branch extraction, and first‘Everyone Taro talked to, he heard fromconjunct extraction and show that in these

someone that Hanako was jealous of.’constructions moved quantifiers are always
subject to scope reconstruction. At the same time,

3.2. Left Branch Extraction

I will show that the condition C effect is still

Unlike English, left branch extraction isabsent.

often acceptable in Japanese (Takahashi andFunakoshi (2013), Shiobara (2016)). Though it

3.1. Long Distance Scramblingis not observed in the literature to my knowledge,

As is widely known, the quantifier thatit seems to be the case that quantifiers cannot

underwent long distance scrambling does nottake scope at the landing site of left branchtake scope at the landing site in Japanese (Tadaextraction: In (11), the universal quantifier(1993)). For example, (9) does not have asubete-no ronbun-no ‘every paper’s’ does not141take scope over the crossed quantifier hitori-no‘[Every paper and]i, a student criticized ti

gakusei ‘a student.’

LGB’(11) [subete-no ronbun-no]i hitori-no gakuseiall-Gen
ga

contained in the fronted first conjunct quantifier.

paper-Gen one-Gen student-

ti mondai-oNom

The sentence (14) has the name Hanako
Although the pronoun kanozyo c-commands thesitekisita

trace of the first conjunct, no condition C effectproblem-Acc pointed.out

is detected and the coreference is available.

‘Every paper’s, a student pointed out
problem(14) [Hanakoi-ga kaita subete-no ronbun-to]jIn (12), the fronted quantifier contains the name

H.-NomHanako and it is a possible antecedent of the

kanozyoi-ga hitori-no gakusei-ni tj

pronoun kanozyo ‘she’ despite the fact that the

she-Nompronoun c-commands the trace of left branch

LGB-oextraction. And this time, too, the fronted

LGB-Acc introduced

quantifier has to be interpreted with scope‘[Every paper Hanako wrote and]i, shereconstruction.

introduced ti LGB to a student.’(12) [Hanakoi-ga kaita subete-no ronbun-no]j

Summarizing, long distance scrambling, left

H.-Nomwrote all-Nom

wrote all-Gen

paper-Conj

one-Gen student-Dat
syookaisita

branch extraction, and first conjunct extraction,

paper-Genkanozyoi-ga hitori-no gakusei-ni

when applied to a quantifier, are accompanied

she-Nomby the obligatory scope reconstruction of theone-Genstudent-Dat

setumeisita

fronted quantifier. Scope reconstruction of aproblem-Acc explained

quantifier phrase that contains a name that istj mondai-o‘Every paper Hanako wrote, she explained

coreferential with the pronoun c-commanding

the problem of to a student.’

the trace does not induce the condition C effect.
4. Analysis

3.3. First Conjunct Extraction
Lastly, we examine the extraction of the first

In section 2, we saw that the syntactic

conjunct (Oda (2017)). In (13), the fronted

analysis and the semantic analysis of scope

quantifier subete-no ronbun ‘every paper’ is notreconstruction

able to take scope over the crossed quantifier

concerning the condition C effect; the former

hitori-no gakusei ‘a student,’ suggesting that

requires scope reconstruction to induce thefirst conjunct extraction is also subject tocondition C effect while the latter does not. The

obligatory scope reconstruction.

data reviewed in the last section should be taken

makedistinctpredictions

to argue for semantic reconstruction being
available for human language.

(13) [subete-no ronbun-to]i hitori-no gakuseiall-Gen
ga
Nom

For concreteness, syntactic reconstruction

paper-Conj one-Gen student-ti LGB-o hihansita

assigns to the sentences (10), (12), and (14) the

LGB-Acc criticized

LFs (15), (16), and (17), respectively. In all of142them, the pronouns end up c-commanding theconstructions examined above exhibit scopenames contained in the reconstructed quantifiers.

reconstruction obligatorily. Though I have to

Thus,

the

leave this problem for future research, it might

coreference due to the condition C, contrary to

be relevant that these constructions all seem tothe fact.

involve A´-movement. See Saito (1992) and

these

LFs

incorrectly

excludeTada (1993) for long distance scrambling as[Hanako-ga

A´-movement, and Takahashi and Funakoshi[Tarooi-to hanasita daremo-ni] sittositeru to](2013) for the idea that left branch extraction in

kiita

Japanese is an instance of A´-movement.

(15) __

karei-ga(16) __

dareka-kara

kanozyoi-ga

hitori-no

gakusei-ni
5. Conclusion[Hanakoi-ga kaita subete-no ronbun-no]

In this article, I argued that human language

mondai-o setumeisita
gakusei-ni

should be equipped with the strategy of semantic[Hanakoi-ga kaita subete-no ronbun-to]

reconstruction, on the basis of the observation

LGB-o syookaisita

that long distance scrambling, left branch(17) __

kanozyoi-ga

hitori-no

extraction, and first conjunct extraction are
Semantic reconstruction, on the other hand,necessarily followed by scope reconstruction

assigns to the sentences (10), (12), and (14) thethat does not induce the condition C effect.

LFs (18), (19), and (20), respectively:

Though I motivated semantic reconstruction, I
leave it open for future research whether
syntactic reconstruction can be done away with(18) [Tarooi-to hanasita daremo-ni] λQ[karei-ga

in favor of the semantic strategy.1

dareka-kara Hanako-ga Q sittositeru to
kiita](19) [Hanakoi-ga kaita subete-no ronbun-no]
λQ[kanozyoi-ga

hitori-no* This is a revised version of the paper presented

gakusei-ni Q

at the 37th Conference of the English Linguistic

mondai-o setumeisita]

Society of Japan, at Kwansei Gakuin University(20) [Hanakoi-ga kaita subete-no ronbun-to]

on November 9-10, 2019. I would like to thankλQ[kanozyoi-ga hitori-no gakusei-ni Q

Yoshiaki Kaneko and Etsuro Shima for their

LGB-o syookaisita

invaluable comments and suggestions. I am also
grateful to the audience at the meeting for their

These LFs capture the fact correctly. On the one
hand,

the

tracesareconverted

toquestions and comments.

the

NOTES
In fact, Lechner (2013) argues that bothgeneralized-quantifier variables Q of type <<e,1t>, t> so that the fronted quantifiers takesyntactic and semantic analyses are needed toreconstructed scope, and on the other hand, that

account for the de re/de dicto effect observed forthe fronted elements stay at the landing site at(8).

LF makes it possible for the names to escape thec-command domain of the coindexed pronouns
at the same time.

Chomsky,

A comment is in order on why the

REFERENCES
Noam (1993) “A

Minimalist

Program for Linguistic Theory,” The

143

View from Building 20: Essays in Honor

Sharvit, Yael (1998) “How-Many Questionsof Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Kenneth

and Attitude Verbs,” ms., University ofHale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1-52, MIT

Pennsylvania.
Shiobara, Kayono (2016) “A Phonological

Press, Cambridge, MA.
Cinque, Guglielmo (1990) Types of A-Bar

Approach to Left Branch Condition:

Dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge,

Evidence from Exceptions in Japanese,”

MA.

MITWPL 79, 143-152.

Cresti,Diana(1995)

Reconstruction,”andTada, Hiroaki (1993) A/A-Bar Partition in

Language

Derivation, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

“Extraction
Natural

Takahashi, Masahiko and Kenshi Funakoshi

Semantics 3, 79-122.

(2013) “On PP Left-Branch Extraction

Fox, Danny (1999) “Reconstruction, Bindingofin Japanese,” University of Pennsylvania

Chains,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 157-196.

Working Papers in Linguistics 19,

Theory,andtheInterpretation

237-246.

Fox, Danny (2000) Economy and Semantic
Interpretation, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Lechner, Winfried (2013) “Diagnosing Covert
Movement: The Duke of York andReconstruction,” Diagnosing Syntax, ed.
by Lisa Cheng and Norbert Corver,
158-189,

OxfordUniversity

Press,

Oxford.
May, Robert (1985) Logical Form: Its
Structure and Derivation, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Oda, Hiromune (2017) “Two Types of theCoordinate Structure Constraint andRescue by PF Deletion,” NELS 47,
343-356.
Romero,Maribel(1998)

Focus

andReconstruction Eﬀects in Wh-Phrases,
Doctoral dissertation, University of
Massachusetts.
Rullmann, Hotze (1995) Maximality in the
Semantics

of

Wh-Constructions,

Doctoral dissertation, University of
Massachusetts.
Saito,

Mamoru(1992)“Long

Distance

Scrambling in Japanese,” Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 1, 69-118.

144

SoX に関しては、話題転換を合図する談
話標識の一つとして、様々な観点から考察が進められてきた (佐々木 (1993); 倉田 (2013);
早瀬 (2014); Bai (2015a/b/c); 山内 (2015); 横山
Speaking of 構文の成立過程に関する考察：(2016); 早 瀬 (2017a/b/c); 山 内 (2019a/b); 山*

構文化の観点から

内・新實 (2019) 参照)。一部の先行研究では、（A Study of the Development of

speaking of which (以後 SoW と略記) が、話

the Speaking-of Construction from the Perspec-

題転換を合図するチャンクとして構文化を遂

tive of Constructionalization）

げているという分析が提案されている。しかし、SoW の構文化分析には、いくつかの課
1
題点が残されている (山内 (2019b) 参照)。

山内 昇（Noboru Yamauchi）
大同大学（Daido University）

本研究では、従来の分析とは異なり、構文化は、SoW の段階にではなく、その前段階

キーワード：speaking of 構文, 構文化, 構文に相当する SoX の段階に発生しているとい化, 談話標識, 話題転換

う分析を提案する。より具体的には、SoX
は、話題転換に伴う「関係性の格率」(Grice(1975)) への違反を緩和する機能を担う談話

1. はじめに標識として構文化を遂げていると主張する。

近年、談話標識に関する研究が盛んになり、本研究の構成は、以下の通りである。第二その成立過程を Traugott and Trousdale (2013)

節では、Traugott and Trousdale (2013) によるによる構文化の観点から捉え直そうという試

構文化と構文変化の定義を確認する。第三節

みが進められている。本研究では、事例研究

では、SoX は speaking of 句の分詞構文からの一つとして、(1) に示すような、話題転換

分岐的に独立した構文であることを示す。第の際に使用される speaking of 句を取り上げ、 四節では、SoX の構文化分析を提示し、そその談話標識としての成立過程を構文化の観の妥当性を検討する。第五節は、全体のまと点から考察する (本研究における引用中の下めを述べる。

線は全て筆者による)。
2. 構文化と構文変化(1) A: I saw daddy kissing Santa Claus.

Traugott and Trousdale (以後 T&T と略記)

B: Speaking of Santa, what did he bring you(2013) は、従来の文法化と語彙化を「構文文法」(Goldberg (1995); Goldberg (2006) 参照)

for Xmas?
(Rodman (1974: 450))の観点から捉え直した論考である。T&T(2013) によれば、「構文」は、言語固有の形

speaking of 句の of の直後には、先行文脈に式と意味のペアリングと定義され、複数の構

関連する語句が生起する。名詞句だけではな

文間で階層的な構文ネットワークを構成する。

く、which などの代名詞類も生起可能である。 各構文が形成される過程は「構文化」と「構本研究では、先行文脈に関連する語句を取り文変化」に分かれる。それぞれ (2) と (3)立て、話題転換の際に使用される speakingのように定義される (本研究における引用中

of 句を便宜的に speaking of X (以後 SoX との […] は紙幅の都合から内容を一部割愛し略記) と総称する。

たことを意味する)。

145pressed the view […])、(b) remind と共起する(2) Constructionalization is the creation of

事例 (e.g. Speaking of catching flies reminds meformnew-meaningnew (combinations of) signs.

of political economy.)、(c) now that 節内に使It forms new type nodes, which have new

用される事例 (e.g. And now that we’re speak-syntax or morphology and new coded mean-ing of profits, Mr. Crashly, I have this thought toing, in the linguistic network of a population

put before you.) の形式的・概念的な混交によof speakers. [...]

り、談話標識として確立したという。しかし、(Traugott and Trousdale (2013: 22))Bai (2015a/b/c) は口頭発表の要旨が公刊され(3) A constructional change is a change affect-

たのみで、(a) から (c) の形式的・概念的混

ing one internal dimension of a construction.

交分析の妥当性は検証できない。
本研究では、便宜的に Bai が指摘する (a)It does not involve the creation of a newnode.

のみを SoX の元となる形式として仮定する。

(ibid.: 26)(4) は (a) の具体例に前後の文脈を補ったものである。

構文化とは、既存の構文ネットワーク上に組み込まれていない、新しい形式と新しい意味のペアリングが作り出されることである ((2)(4) [...] A delay in reaching a decision had thus参照)。新規のネットワーク節点は、構文化

been caused, and the President desired me toにより形成される。

make a careful study of the plan proposedand give him my conclusions.

一方、構文変化とは、意味的・統語的・形態的な側面に起きる小規模な変化である ((3)

Speaking of the general question of doing参照)。構文変化の場合、新たなネットワー

government work by contract, I expressed

ク節点は形成されない。構文変化は、構文化

the view if the contractor is competent and isの前後に発生する。構文化の前に発生する変receiving a return which insures him a profit,

化は「前構文変化」と呼ばれ、後に発生する

the contract method, as a rule, is easier for

変化は「後構文変化」と呼ばれる。

the administrative officer, [...] (COHA;

なお、構文化の枠組みは、従来の文法化のGeorge W. Goethals (1915) “The Building of

枠組みとは異なり、作用域の縮小が条件とさ

the Panama Canal,” Scribner’s Magazine 57

れていないため、作用域の拡大を特徴とする(3), 265-282)(Bai (2015b) 参照)

談話標識の成立過程に関する分析に有効である (小野寺 (2018) 参照)。

(4) は、パナマ運河を建設した人物による運河建設に関する記事の一部である。(4) の3. 分詞構文から Speaking of 構文へ

speaking of 句における of の目的語位置の語

SoX が談話標識として確立する前の段階

句は、先行文脈中の特定の語句を受けたものが何であるのかに関しては、Bai (2015a/b/c)

ではない。speaking of 句の前後で話題の転による指摘が参考になる。Bai (2015a/b/c) に換が起きていないため、下線部の speaking

よる Corpus of Historical American English (以of 句は、話題転換を合図する機能を伴わな

後 COHA と略記) を使用した調査によれば、 い。(4) の下線部は、通常の分詞構文として
SoX は、(a) 文頭に副詞表現として使用さ使用されていると考えられる。

れる事例 (e.g. Speaking of the general question

上記 (4) は 1915 年における使用例であof doing government work by contract, I ex-

るが、Corpus of Contemporary American Eng-146

lish (以後 COCA と略記) のデータを参照す

ようなチャンクを形成しており、その構文的ると、speaking of 句の分詞構文としての事意味として (7) における独自の談話的機能

例は、近年においても存在することが分かるを担う談話標識として構文化を遂げていると((5) 参照)。(5) は、米国におけるスポーツ賭いう分析を提案する。

博合法化に伴い、あるスポーツ番組で、スポ(6) a. [VP [V speaking] [PP of X]]

ーツ賭博を促すような内容が放送されたといb. [AdvP speaking of X]

う記事の一部である。

(7) 話題転換に伴う「関係性の格率」(Grice(5) [...] SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey de-(1975)) への違反を緩和する。

clined to discuss specific developments, saying he had spent the opening weekend either(6a) は speaking が of を主要部とする前置

at games or traveling to them and, hadn't

詞句を取る構造である。本研究では、便宜的

seen much TV coverage. But speaking gen-に上記 (4) と (5) のような分詞構文に対し

erally of the trend toward acceptance ofて、(6a) の構造を仮定する。一方、(6b) はsports gambling, he referenced an opinion

speaking of X という連鎖が一つのチャンク

column published in November in The Newとなる構造である。SoX の構造として (6b)York Times where NBA commissioner Adamを仮定する。

Silver called for betting on professional

次に、SoX が担う構文的意味として、(7)sports to be legalized. [...] (COCA; Georgeの談話的機能を仮定する。例えば、上記 (1)Schroeder (2015, Sep. 9) “ESPN’s shiftingの場合、Speaking of Santa の部分を削除する

line on college football betting information,”と、後続節の内容の導入が唐突になる。そのRetrieved from https://www.usatoday.com)

ため、SoX は関係性の格率に対する違反を緩和するヘッジ機能を担うと考えられる。

(4) と同様に、of の目的語位置の語句は、先以下では、SoX に観察される六点の特異

行文脈における特定の語句を受けたものでは性を指摘することにより、SoX が (6b) の形ない。後続節の内容は記事全体の話題となる

式と (7) の構文的意味を伴い、構文化を遂

スポーツ賭博に関するものであり、下線部のげていることを示す。
一点目の特異性は、既出語句以外の語句の前後で話題転換も発生していない。(5) の下線部も通常の分詞構文として使用されている。 取り立て現象である。SoX には、発話動詞
上記 (5) の事例を踏まえると、近年のspeak ((声に出して) 言う) が使用されている

speaking of 句には、話題転換を合図する談

ため、X には、先行文脈において明示的に話標識としての用法 ((1) 参照) と通常の分言及された語句が生起することが予測される。

詞構文としての用法が存在するといえる。し実際、SoX に関する従来の研究では、同表

たがって、SoX は、speaking of 句の分詞構

現により取り立て可能な語句は、先行文脈に文から分岐的に独立した構文であると考えら文字通り言及された語句であると指摘されてれる。

いる (Rodman (1974) 参照)。例えば、(1) における Speaking of Santa は、先行文脈中のSanta が文字通りそのままの形で取り立てら

4. Speaking of X の構文化分析
本研究では、T&T (2013) が提案する構文れたものである。しかし、先行文脈に文字通化の枠組みを踏まえ、SoX は、(6b) に示すり言及されていない語句が X に生起する場

147

(10) (VALERIE) Number one, establish the合がある ((8)(9) 参照)。

problem of the main character, the troubled(8)[...] (EMMA) You’re pretty handy for ateen. (LISSA) Can I play her? (VALERIE)

writer. Where’d you learn how to do all

Only if we end up doing porn star runaway

this? (AUGUST) Wood shop. Eighth grade.

or eating disorder. (SADIE) Speaking of(MARY) Oh, speaking of school, have toslutty, how did Jenna get out of this? [...]

get going. [...] (Once Upon A Time (TV se-(Awkward (TV series): Season 3 Episoderies): Season 1 Episode 20: The Stranger)

15: A Very Special Episode of Awkward)(山内 (2015: 188))(9)[...] (DONNA) Well, I believe that if you(10) では、先行文脈中の porn star を言い換

want someone to know how you feel, it's

えた slutty が生起している。Sadie による発

better to use the direct approach like this.

話は「ふしだらなと言えば、Jenna はどこに

Don't go to Africa, dill hole. [DONNA

逃げたの？」と解釈される。仮に SoX がHITS ERIC’S UPPER ARM] (ERIC) So,(6b) のようなチャンクを形成するならば、X

Hyde, speaking of annoying women whoは前置詞句の補部ではなくなるため、形容詞

hit, have you heard anything from Jackie?

句といった名詞句以外の範疇を表す語句の生(HYDE) Nope. [...] (That '70s Show (TV

起が許容される。

series): Season 7 Episode 24: Short and三点目は、生起位置の緩和現象である。仮に SoX が (6b) のような副詞句を形成する

Curlies)

ならば、副詞句が生起可能な位置に SoX が(8) では、wood shop と eight grade から推測使用されることが予測される。実際、SoXされる school が X に生起している。一方が文末に生起する事例 ((11) 参照) と非制限

(9) では、Donna に腕を殴られたという発話的関係節内に挿入句として生起する事例

場 面 に 関 す る 情 報 を 言 い 表 し た annoying((12) 参照) が存在する。

women who hit が生起している。どちらの場
合も、先行文脈に言及されていない語句が(11) A: I’ve been craving Chinese food, likeX に生起しているといえる。(8) と (9) のよ

dim sum and soup dumplings.
B: I enjoy a mushy pork, speaking of Chi-

うな事例の存在を踏まえると、SoX における speaking は、発話動詞としての意味合い

nese.
(Rodman (1974: 465); 一部修正)が希薄化していると考えられる。
二点目は、名詞句以外の範疇の取り立て現(12) [...] But, she made somewhat of an appear-

象である。一般に、前置詞の目的語位置に生ance on this weekend’s iheartradio awards

起可能な範疇は名詞句である。仮に SoX が—which we guess are like some hip, 2005-(6a) の構造を有するならば、of の目的語位

version of something called the HeartRadio置に生起する語句の範疇は名詞句に限定されawards—at least, in pre-recorded form. She

るはずである。実際、X に生起する語句のwas there to introduce her new video for

多くは名詞句相当語句である。しかし、頻度

her song Delicate, which, speaking of 2005,

はそれほど高くないものの、名詞句以外の語

sadly isn’t a cover of Damien Rice’s weepy

句が X に生起する場合がある ((10) 参照)。

song of the same name. (Greg Hudson(2018, Mar. 13) “A GIF Guide to Taylor

148

Swift’s Very Familiar-Looking New Vid(14) [...] (MOZZIE) Providing we find a way toeo,” https://fashionmagazine.com)

start selling off the art without alerting the
文末や非制限的関係節内という環境には、byfeds. (NEAL) Yeah, speaking of, Peter andthe way や incidentally など、話題転換を合Diana are up to something. (MOZZIE)

図する他の副詞句が生起可能である。それら

Feds? Up to something? Quelle surprise.

と並行的に、SoX も副詞句を形成すると考[...] (White Collar (TV series): Season 3

えられる。

Episode 8: As You Were)(山内 (2015: 196))

四点目は、SoX の単独表現としての使用である。仮に SoX が分詞構文に過ぎないな
らば、常に定形節となる主節を伴い、従属節(14) では、Mozzie による「FBI に見つからとして使用されることが予測される。しかし、 ずに宝を売る方法を見つけないと」という発SoX が主節を伴わずに単独表現として使用話に対し、Neal は speaking of を使用したされる場合がある ((13) 参照)。

上で「Peter と Diana が何かを企んでいるよ」と話題を変えている。英語母語話者の判(13)(ALEXIS) [...] I didn’t know she’d wake断によれば、Peter と Diana が feds (FBI) で

me up when it was still dark outside.

あるため、下線部は speaking of feds に言い(MARTHA) An actor learns to make sacri-

換え可能であるという。したがって、(14) のfices for his craft. Besides, we’ll all havespeaking of は speaking of feds の feds が脱plenty of time to sleep when we’re dead.

落した事例であると考えられる。(6b) のよ[CELLPHONE RINGING] (CASTLE) Oh,

うに、X が前置詞句の補部ではない形式をspeaking of dead. Castle. (Castle (TV se-

仮定するならば、同現象は前置詞句におけるries): Season 3 Episode 7: Almost Famous)

補部のみの省略ではなくなるため、文法的な逸脱を認める必要がない。

(13) では、電話を取る際に SoX が単独で使六点目は、段落末における Which, speak-

用されている。SoX の単独表現としての使

ing of... の発生である。SoX が構文化を遂げ

用は、常に主節を伴うという分詞構文一般のたならば、さらに構文変化が発生する可能性

性質から逸脱している。SoX の場合、主節がある。上述の X の脱落現象は、まさにを伴わずに成立する自立した意味を持つため、 SoX に起きた後構文変化の一例と考えられ(13) のような使用が可能になると考えられるが、段落末における Which, speaking of...

る。(6b) のように、全体が副詞句として一の発生も後構文変化の一例として挙げられる

つのチャンクを形成するならば、単独表現と2((15) 参照)。

して使用可能という特異性を捉えることがで
きる。

(15)

2. The 1990-1991 Flash Television Se-

五点目は、X の脱落現象である。SoX がries [...] and actor Mark Hamill plays(6a) のような前置詞句を伴う構造を有する

the part of the Trickster, a role he later re-

ならば、前置詞句の主要部 of のみを残した

prised in the Justice League animated se-

補部の省略は、文法的に認められないことがries. Which, speaking of...

予測される。しかし、of の直後が脱落した

3. Justice League and Justice League

事例が観察されている ((14) 参照)。

Unlimited

149

There’s seriously a lot welove about the entirety of the DCAU−−it

ける SoW の構文化分析とは異なる分析を提brought the world Batman: The Animated示している。構文化に限らず、言語変化に関

Series and for that we shall ever be grate-

する研究は、変化の過程を問題とするため、

ful [...] (Kevin Mahadeo (2013, Aug. 1)

決定的な証拠を押さえにくい場合があり、複“5.2 Reasons We’re Flash Fans,” https://数の分析が生じることは十分にあり得ると思

www.dccomics.com)

われる。二つの分析の比較検討は、今後の課(山内 (2019a: 140-141))

題とする。

(15) では、The 1990-1991 Flash Television Se-* 本論文は、日本英語学会第 37 回大会

ries と い う 小 見 出 し 付 き の 段 落 の 最 後 に(2019 年 11 月 10 日、於関西学院大学) にて

Which, speaking of… という表現が使用され、 口頭発表された原稿に加筆・修正を加えたも後続段落には Which の先行詞となる theのである。本稿をまとめるに際して、大名力
Justice League animated series に関する異なる

先生、都築雅子先生、西脇幸太氏、新實葉子

話題が展開されている。段落末における氏、佐藤翔馬氏、李嘉氏、孟鷹氏より貴重な

Which, speaking of… は、SoX が構文化を遂

ご指摘とご助言を賜りました。口頭発表の際げているからこそ発生した新たな形式であるは、司会の眞田敬介氏、早瀬尚子氏、名和俊と考えられる。

彦氏、武内志郎氏から貴重な質問とコメント

上記六点の特異性を踏まえると、近年におを賜りました。この場を借りて、心より感謝

ける SoX は、(6b) の形式と (7) の構文的意の意を申し上げます。本論文における不備や味を伴い、構文化を遂げていると考えられる。 誤りは全て筆者の責任によります。
SoX に起きた構文化と構文変化の過程をま注
1

とめると (16) のようになる。

山内 (2019b) は、SoW の構文化分析を再考し、分析の証拠として提示されたデータの(16)[speaking [of X]] > [speaking of X]

みから、SoW が構文化を遂げたとは断定で

a. [speaking of which/ø]

きないと指摘している。

b. [which speaking of ø]

2

段落末における Which, speaking of... に関する詳細に関しては、山内 (2019a) を参照
speaking of 句が (7) の談話的機能を担うよされたい。

うになり、それに伴い形式面も (6b) のように変化を遂げる。(6b) の形式と (7) の談話

参考文献的機能を伴った時点で構文化が起きたことにBai, Yinchun (2015a) “Cognitive Motivations forなる。構文化後は、which などの代名詞類がLangauge Change: A Corpus-Based Study of

X に生起した形式および X が脱落した形式

the Speaking of X Construction,” paper pre-が発生する。近年では、Which, speaking of…

sented at Changing English: Integratingという形式が発生している。

Cognitive Social & Typological Perspectives,
Helsinki, Germany.

5. おわりにBai, Yinchun (2015b) “The Roots of Multi-Word

本研究では、SoX に着目し、その談話標

Discourse Markers: A Corpus-Based Study

識としての成立過程を構文化の観点から分析

of the Speaking of X Construction,” paper

することを試みた。本研究は、先行研究におpresented at ICAME 36, Trier, Germany.

150

Bai, Yinchun (2015c) “Different Roads to Dis-化・(間) 主観化に替わるアプローチ」

course Marker: A Corpus-Based Study of the

高田博行他 (編)『歴史語用論の方法』

Speaking of X Construction,” paper present-

116-140, ひつじ書房, 東京.
Rodman, Robert (1974) “On Left Dislocation.”

ed at 14th International Pragmatics Confer-

Papers in Linguistics 7, 437-466.

ence, Antwerp, Belgium.

佐々木正彦 (1993)「Speaking of の語用論」

Goldberg, Adele (1995) Constructions: A Con-

『英語青年』4 月号, 22.

struction Grammar Approach to Argument

Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Graeme Trousdale

Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chi-

(2013) Constructionalization and Construc-cago.

tional Changes. Oxford University Press,

Goldberg, Adele (2006) Constructions at Work:

Oxford.

The Nature of Generalization in Language,

山内昇 (2015)「Speaking of の使用条件に関Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Grice, H. Paul (1975) “Logic and Conversation.”

する記述的考察」『英語語法文法研究』
第 22 号, 183-199.

Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by

山内昇 (2019a)「段落末におけ which speak-Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41-58, Aca-

ing of の諸特徴と機能」『日本語用論学

demic Press, New York.

会第 21 回大会発表論文集』第 14 号,

早瀬尚子 (2014)「Speaking of which：懸垂分

137-144．

詞構文由来の談話標識化について」『大山内昇 (2019b)「Speaking of which の構文化

阪大学英米研究』38 号, 59-69, 大阪大

分析再考」『英語語法文法学会第 37 回

学英米学会.

大会研究発表予稿集』32-39.

早瀬尚子 (2017a)「従属節からの談話標識化:
speaking of which と granted」『認知・機

山内昇・新實葉子 (2019)「話題転換マーカ

能言語学研究Ⅱ』11-20, 大阪大学大学

ーに関する日英対照研究：speaking of

院言語文化研究科.

which と「そういえば」の対応関係を例に」日本語用論学会第 22 回大会口頭発

早瀬尚子 (2017b)「分詞表現の談話標識化と表．

その条件：懸垂分詞からの構文化例」

横山仁視 (2016)「談話辞 “Speaking of X”

天野みどり他 (編)『構文の意味と拡がの用法を探る：辞書の記述とコーパスり』43-64, くろしお出版, 東京.

が示唆するもの」『京都女子大学人文論

早瀬尚子 (2017c)「従属節からの語用論的標叢』第 64 号, 47-64.

識化：発話動詞関連の懸垂分詞構文がたどる新たな構文への道」西原哲雄他(編)『現代言語理論の最前線』231-248,

コーパス

Davies, Mark (2008-) The Corpus of Contempo-

開拓社, 東京.

rary American English (COCA): 560 million

倉田誠 (2013)「談話辞 Speaking of A の機能

words, 1990-present.

と用法を再考する」井村誠他 (編)『映画英語教育学会西日本支部設立 10 周年

Davies, Mark (2010-) The Corpus of Historical

記念論文集』153-160, 映画英語教育学

American English (COHA): 400 million

会西日本支部, 大阪.

words, 1810-2009.

小野寺典子 (2018)「構文化アプローチによる談話標識の発達：これまでの文法

151

Chomsky et al. (2019) の提案によれば、転送<Symposium Report>が適用された構造は、以降の統語操作にとって不可侵領域となり、組み替え不可能になるが、もとの構造から消え去るわけでない。
フェーズ境界を超える意味・音声解釈——フェC-I インターフェースへ転送された構造は、ーズ理論に基づく言語インターフェースの解釈操作の適用対象となり、非局所的適用の

研究——

*

可能性も示唆されている。本発表では、英語（Semantic and Phonetic Interpretation Acrossの時制解釈の問題を取り上げた。

Phases: Studies on Linguistic Interfaces on the

節の時制解釈は、その節の評価時

Basis of Phase Theory）(Evaluation Time) の同定に基づいて行われる。直示的現時制の評価時は、主節の最上位

金子 義明 (Yoshiaki Kaneko)に位置する抽象的機能範疇の遂行句

東北大学 (Tohoku University)(Perfomative Phrase) の主要部 Pfm によって

高橋 将一 (Shoichi Takahashi)

発話時と同定される(cf. Kaneko (2014))が、In

青山学院大学 (Aoyama Gakuin University)

1989, Joseph met a woman who loved him in the

稲田 俊一郎 (Shunichiro Inada)90s. (Ogihara and Sharvit (2011: 641))では、同

明治薬科大学（Meiji Pharmaceutical

定子 Pfm と（転送適用後の）関係節の直示

University）

的現在時制の間には、複数のフェーズが介在

瀧田 健介（Kensuke Takita）

する。時制の一致 (sequence of tense) は、上同志社大学（Doshisha University）

位節の事象時 (Event Time) が過去時である

中村 太一 (Taichi Nakamura)

場合に認可される (cf. Kaneko (2014)) が、

福井大学 (University of Fukui)

We decided to tell the prosecutor tomorrow that前田 雅子（Masako Maeda）

we were talking to him reluctantly. (Enç (2004:

西南学院大学（Seinan Gakuin University）

205)) では、認可子 decided と（転送が適用されている）that 節の時制の間には複数のフキーワード：フェーズ, 転送, 併合, 解釈プ

ェーズが介在する。さらに、時制の二重接触

ロセス, （非）局所性(double access) 現象の解釈プロセスも、転送適用後の構造に言及することを示した。

1. はじめに

3. (発表 2) 下降外置：併合と局所性について (髙橋)

Chomsky et al. (2019) では、転送について新たな提案がなされ、フェーズ境界を超える、

生成文法理論を枠組みとした研究では、統非局所的な意味・音声解釈操作適用の可能性

語部門の簡素化が、主要な目標となっている。

が示唆されている。本シンポジウムでは、ここのような研究上のガイドラインを背景とのような展開を踏まえ、6 人の講師が 4 件のして、構造構築のための統語操作である併合発表を行い、非局所的な意味解釈・音声解釈(Merge)に関しても、簡素化が進められていについて考察を行った。

る。その結果、近年では、併合は、その適用を誘発するような要因を必要とせず、自由に

2. (発表 1) 解釈プロセスの非局所的適用の適用することができる操作であるとされて可能性について (金子)いる。また、併合は、操作の対象となった要152

素を含む集合 (set)を形成すると考えられて語構造に線形情報が存在しないとすると、こいる。集合という構成物には、要素間の前後のような線形化アルゴリズムが必要となる。

左右といった順序関係は存在しないため、統

今回のシンポジウムでは、理論的発展がも語構造においても線形情報は存在しないこたらす新しいアプローチや道具立てが、経験ととなる（これらの点及び、併合に関する詳的事実の分析に対して従来とは異なる視点

細な議論については、Chomsky et al. (2019)や洞察を与えてくれることを再確認できた。

等を参照）。
4. (発表 3) 制限的関係節における共有構造

シンポジウムにおいての発表では、このよ(稲田)

うな併合に関する理論的発展を踏まえ、ここで下降外置と呼ぶ種類の外置 (extraposition)

Chomsky et al. (2019)で提示された枠組み

に対する分析を探求した。下降外置とは、外において phase 境界を越えた再構築効果がど置された付加詞 (adjunct)が、それによって修のように保証されるか議論する。さらに、制飾される名詞句が占める表層位置よりも低限的関係節が関わる二種類の再構築効果にい位置を占めている外置のことである（下降

注目し、先行研究での代表的な統語分析を比外置の具体的な事例については、Culicover較、本枠組みにおいての妥当性を検討する。

and Rochemont (1990)、Linebarger (1980)、

Chomsky et al. (2019)では、Internal MERGE

Reeve and Hicks (2017)を参照）。シンポジウの適用によって一つの要素 (syntactic object:

ムでは、今回提案した下降外置の分析が、二SO) が workspace 上に複数生じることになる

つの点で近年の併合に関する理論と密接にと仮定する。これを occurrence の集合として関連していると考えられることについて言定義される一つの SO と捉え、それぞれの及した。第一に、外置された付加詞に修飾さoccurrence を copy と呼ぶ。また、copy の集れる名詞句が、その付加詞よりも構造上高い合を chain と呼ぶ。Chomsky et al. (2019)で直位置を占める統語構造を派生するためには、接は論じられていないが、chain は二元集合

移動によって形成された連鎖 (chain)の頭部に限られない、移動要素を共有項とする積集(head)要素ではなく、下方の要素、つまり、合群と考えることができるだろう。

下方のコピーに対して併合を適用する必要

こうした chain は、しばしば phase 境界をがあることを述べた。そして、このような併越えて形成される。例えば wh 句の長距離移合の適用の仕方は、併合が、自由に適用する

動の場合には、すでに TRANSFER が適用さことができる操作であることの帰結である

れた phase 内の wh 句の copy と phase 外の他可能性を指摘した。

要素との文法関係（c-統御や姉妹関係など）

第二に、上記のような併合の適用を経て構に基づいて SEM で解釈を受ける（再構築効

築された構造は、Fox and Pesetsky (2009)によ果）ことがある。Chomsky et al. (2019)では、り提案されている統語構造を線形化するア

経 験 的 事 実 に 基 づ き phase impenetrability

ルゴリズムを適用することにより、下降外置

condition を修正し、「all copies are available atの文法的な事例で観察される語順を導き出SEM (p.8)」と提案、これを保証していた。

せるとともに、修飾する名詞句とは不連続的

しかし、こうした長距離 A'移動に伴う再構に現れる付加詞の分布を移動の局所性から

築効果は、元位置での解釈が強制される。む

説明できることを見た。このアルゴリズムは、 しろ、何らかの付帯的な仮説 (cf. Preference
従来、移動の方向性と考えられてきた効果を

Principle (Chomsky (1995)) なしでは原理的構造の階層関係から派生するものであり、統な説明を与えられないことになる。

153

一方で、関係節に関わる再構築効果は、原

ルーシングと島の修復 (瀧田・中村・前田)

理的な説明が可能な基本的な例だと言える。

本発表の 1 つ目の目的は、いわゆる等位接

従来の関係節の再構築効果に関する先行研

続疑問文 (Coordinated Wh-Questions)と、それ究には、A'移動する wh 句に付加した関係節に（少なくとも表面上）類似した等位接続スの、wh 句の copy に随伴した解釈の可否に関

ルーシング (Coordinated Sluicing)に関するするものと、関係節内の gap 位置での関係節

Citko and Gračanin-Yuksek (2019, 以下 CGY)

主要部名詞句の解釈の可否に関するものがの主張の一部が日本語からも経験的に支持ある。これらの様々な観察を総合すると、関されることを示すことである。より具体的に係節、あるいは主要部名詞句の copy は、基は、CGY は英語タイプの言語では等位接続

本的には chain を形成するどの occurrence に

疑問文と等位接続スルーシングが異なる統おいても解釈され得ると考えられる (Fox

語的振る舞いを示すことを観察し、後者にお(1999), Henderson (2007))。

いてはスルーシングをそれぞれ含む 2 つの最後に、関係節に関わる上記の二種類の再

CP が単純に等位接続されているが、それと構築効果を保証する統語構造として、主要部異なる振る舞いをする前者の分析には、

名詞句を共有項として、chain と同様の積集

Chomsky et al. (2019) の併合の理論において合が MERGE によっても形成されるというは排除される多重支配構造

分析案（Inada (2017)）を検討する。先行研究

dominance structure) を認めざるを得ないとにおける主要部上昇分析では、主要部名詞句

いうものである。本発表では、CGY の主張の再構築効果が本枠組みにおいても copy ののうち経験的な主張、つまり等位接続疑問文

解釈によって説明されるが、関係節の付加詞と等位接続スルーシングが異なる統語的振(multi-性を説明できない。従来の関係節付加分析は、 る舞いをするということが、日本語タイプの
当然関係節の付加詞性を保証するが、線形化言語においても観察されることを、繋辞「だ」

において問題が生じる。そこで、これらの先と疑問助詞「か」の分布に基づいて示し、日行研究を踏まえ、関係代名詞句と主要部名詞

本語の等位接続疑問文について Ishii (2014)

句の間で NumP という名詞句内範疇を共有

および Kasai (2016)によって提案されてきた

し、共有項が主要部名詞句内で関係節付加位

節レベルの等位接続を含む分析はむしろ等

置より上部に移動するという分析を提示す

位接続スルーシングにあてはまると提案する。関係節の再構築効果は「all copies are

る。一方、CGY の理論的主張、つまり多重available at SEM (p.8)」に従うので、演算子の支配構造の必要性については本発表では特A'移動に依拠しない chain の形成によってそに与しない（多重支配構造を仮定しない形でれが保障されるのは望ましいと言える。ただの等位接続疑問文に関する分析は前田

し、こうした共有構造／積集合が MERGE に(2019)を参照）。

よって構築される可能性があったとしても、本発表の 2 つ目の目的は、いわゆる島の制

workspace において働く minimal search に課

約違反の修復 (island-repair)に関して、実際された resource limitation という原理（第三要には違反が含まれない基底構造を仮定する因）によって、こうした構造／集合が構築さ

Merchant (2001) の 立 場 を 推 し 進 め て い る

れれば排除されるという仮説が最近になっ

Barros, Elliot and Thoms (2014, 以下 BET)のて提示されていることにも触れる。

主張を支持する経験的根拠を提示することである。本発表では特に島の制約の中でも左

5. (発表 4) 等位接続された残余句を含むス

枝 条 件 (Left Branch Condition, LBC; Ross154

(1967))に焦点を絞り、スルーシングによってpresented at GLOW 42, University of Oslo,

LBC 違反が回避できないことを示す（瀧田Norway.

(2019)も参照）。これによって、DP をフェイ

Culicover, Peter W. and Michael S. Rochemont

ズとみなすことで LBC を統語的な制約と考(1990) “Extraposition and the Complement

えるアプローチ (Bošković (2005), Takahashi

Principle,” Linguistic Inquiry 21, 23-47.

and Funakoshi (2013), Despić (2019) など)をEnç, M. (1987) “Anchoring Conditions for

支持し、フェイズを越えた要素間の依存関係

Tense,” Linguistic Inquiry 18, 633-657.

について移動操作の観点から考察を行う。よFox, Danny (1999) “Reconstruction, Binding

り具体的には、BET が観察している形容詞句

Theory, and the Interpretation of Chains,”

がスルーシングの残余句となる場合に統語

Linguistic Inquiry 30, 157-196.
Fox,

的にも意味的にも限定用法ではなく述語用

Danny

and

David

Pesetsky(2009)

法の振る舞いを示すことが、日本語の等位接“Rightward Movement, Covert Movement,

続スルーシングにおいても観察されること

and Cyclic Linearization,” paper presentedを指摘する。この観察に基づき、限定用法のat Ben-Gurion University.
Henderson, Brent (2007) “Matching and Rasing

形容詞句を LBC に違反した形で移動し、そUnified,” Lingua 117, 202-220.

の違反をスルーシングによって修復するという派生が不可能であり、そもそも LBC 違

Inada, Shunichiro (2017) A Unified Account for

反が含まれない、残余句となる形容詞句が述Restrictive Relative Structures at the

語位置に生じる分析が適切であることを論

Syntax-Semantics

じる。

dissertation, University of Tokyo.

Interface,

DoctoralIshii, Toru (2014) “On Coordinated Multiple* 発表 1 の研究は、JSPS 科研費 JP18K00636

Wh-questions,” Proceedings of FAJL 7,(研究代表者・金子義明)の助成を受けている。

89-100.
Kaneko, Yoshiaki (2014) “Remarks on Sequenceof Tense in English,” Explorations in

参考文献

English Linguistics 28, 27-55.

Barros, Matt, Patrick Elliot and Gary Thoms

Kasai,(2014) “There is No Island Repair,” ms.,

Hironobu(2016)“Coordinated

Rutgers University, University College

Wh-questions in Japanese,” Lingua 183,

London, and University of Edinburgh.

126-148.
Linebarger,

Bošković, Želiko (2005) “On the Locality ofMarciaChristine(1980)The

Left Branch Extraction and the Structure ofGrammar of Negative Polarity, Doctoral

NP,” Studia Linguistica 59, 1-45.

dissertation, MIT.

Chomsky, Noam, Ángel J. Gallego, and Dennis

Ogihara, T. and Y. Sharvit (2012) “Chapter 22:

Ott (2019) “Generative Grammar and theEmbedded Tenses,” The Oxford Handbook

Faculty of Language: Insights, Questions,of Tense and Aspect, ed. by R.I. Binnik,

and Challenges,” To appear in Catalan638-668. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Journal of Linguistics.

Reeve, Matthew and Glyn Hicks (2017)

Citko, Barbara and Martina Gračanin-Yuksek(2019)“Conjunction

Save

Sluicing:

How

Why?,”*(and)“Adjunct Extraposition: Base Generation orMultiple

Movement?,” Syntax 20, 215-248.

paper

155

(2)

<Symposium Report>“Ho, Israel!” there boomed a voice fromthe Philistine mountain every day.

(W.

Wangerin, The Book of God for Children)(3) A: I can’t decide which toys to buy.
Should I just get everything?

破格構文・周辺的現象から見える言語の一般

B: There speaks a rich person!

的特性*（General Properties of Language as Seen from
Anomalous Constructions and Peripheral

本発表で議論した一般動詞を伴う there

Phenomena）

構文は、①there 構文の大多数は be 動詞を伴い、一般動詞は限定的なため（Yaguchi 2017）、

金谷優（Masaru Kanetani）

頻度の観点から、②一見存在や出現を表さな

筑波大学（University of Tsukuba）

い動詞を伴うため、意味の観点から、周辺的三野貴志（Takashi Mino）

である。この一見存在・出現を表さない周辺

大阪大学（Osaka University）

的な動詞を伴う there 構文は、動詞を指定し

辻早代加（Soyoka Tsuji）

た具体的な構文として成立し、下位構文とし大阪市立大学（Osaka City University）て there 構文全体の語用論的機能を果たす。

住𠮷誠（Makoto Sumiyoshi）

本発表で扱った表現群が下位構文として

関西学院大学（Kwansei Gakuin University）

確立することを順にみていく。(1) のようなcome を伴う there 構文は、現在時制では時キーワード：周辺的現象, 中核的現象, 破格

間名詞が全体の約 80% を占め（COCA）、頻構文, 規範的構文度の面で大きな偏りがある。例文 (1) は、
総称的に解釈され、人を促したりする場面で格言的に使用される。また、come は意味的に be 動詞と書き換え可能で（Yaguchi 2017）、

1. はじめに
英語の破格的・周辺的な構文の具体事例を

構文全体は存在的に解釈できる。このように、考察し、そこから見えてくる当該構文一般の他の there 構文や構成要素から予測できな特性との関係や言語の一般的特性を論じ、言い特徴を持ち（cf. Goldberg 1995）、動詞を指語体系―とりわけ英語の文法体系―のより定した下位構文（there comes 時間表現構文）

深い理解へとつなげるための議論を行うことして成立している。

とを目的として、本シンポジウムを企画した。

音放出動詞を伴う there 構文 (2) も、音
放出動詞一般には見られない特徴が there

2. 発表 1 「一般動詞を伴う There 構文の構

構文で生起した場合に観察される。音放出動

文論的分析：構文の機能と動詞（クラス）特詞は、主語に音を放出する物体が生起し、動定構文の関わり」 （三野）詞は主語の音の放出を表す（Coins and keys
jingled. （COCA））。しかし、(2) のような本発表では (1) から (3) の三種類の一般

there 構文で使用された場合、主語に voice

動詞を伴う there 構文を扱った。

などの音表現が生起しやすい。音自体は音を(1)

There comes a time in life when you have

放出しないため、(2) では、音の出現を表し

to make a sacrifice for your country.

ているといえる。この項選択に関する特異性(COCA)

から、there 音放出動詞構文という具体的な156

うな文に非常に高い割合で生じる。

下位構文を設定する必要がある。
speak を伴う直示の there 構文 (3) も、独(4) a.

自の制約を持つ。具体的には、単に遠くで話

His good looks and twinkling eyes
may have won him female fans, ....

す人を見て、(3B) とは言えないが、(3) のよb.

うに「何を買っていいか決められないから、

Their record of service has won them a
British Waterways competition.

いっそ全部買うべきだろうか。
」という、there(5)

speaks の主語名詞の「金持ち」が言いそうAnd

finally,

Oxfordshire

waterskier

な発言が先行する場合にのみ容認される。こShelley Nutt’s sparkling talent to twist andの特別な談話的制約から、there speaks 構文

turn has earned her one of the sport’s topという動詞特定構文の存在を主張した。そしhonours.
(6)て、この構文は会話の場面にある特徴を持っOne might suppose that this statesmanshipwould have gained him international

た人物像が「出現」したことを表現する。

acclaim.

上述の「周辺的現象」の議論から、 there(all from BNC)

構文の、そして言語の「一般的特性」が導かれる。there 構文では、語用と意味の側面が密接に関連し、新情報の導入という語用論的

これらの文から、win, gain, earn 二重目的語機能を果たすために、存在出現の動詞のみが表現は他の二重目的語表現とは異なり、①無使用される（cf. Levin and Rappaport Hovav

生物主語をとり、②具象領域での移譲が不可

1995）。この上位の there 構文の語用論的機能な目的語をとり、③「間接目的語の指示物

能を満たすため、周辺的で語彙的には存在出が直接目的語の指示物を持つようになる」と現を表さない come、音放出動詞、speak をいう解釈すら不可能な文がある (4b)、とい伴う there 構文は、下位構文として確立し、う、大きく三つの周辺性を示すことがわかっ

下位構文全体で存在出現を表すことで、上位た。これは Goldberg (1995) 流の二重目的語の語用論的機能を果たしている。つまり、下構文に対する考え方では、ほとんど例外と言位構文は、上位構文や動詞から予測されない

わざるを得ない。

振舞いを示す一方、上位構文である一般的な

そこで、これらの二重目的語文が、その間構文の語用論的機能に合う形で振る舞いが接目的語句を主語位置に置いた単純他動詞

規定されているのである。その際、構文とし

文 を 含 意 す る こ と に 着 目 し 、 [NPXて典型的である意味に使用が偏るのである。

win/gain/earn NPY NPZ] は [NPY win/gain/earn
NPZ] の使役化表現である、という使役分析

3. 発表 2 「win クラスの二重目的語構文のを行った。そうすれば、一見周辺性と思われ周辺性と一般性について」（辻）

た点がもはや問題ではなくなる。①主語は動

本発表で扱うのは、動詞 win, gain, earn が作主ではなく NPY が win/gain/earn するに生じる二重目的語表現である。win, gain, earn

至った理由を表すので、無生物の方がむしろは、get, find, buy などのいわゆる「獲得動詞」

生じやすく、②NPZ は移譲される物ではなと同じ分類の二重目的語動詞として扱われ

く NPY が win/gain/earn する対象であるのてきた（Goldberg 1995）。しかし、他の獲得

で、具象名詞でなくても、それどころか、③

動詞二重目的語表現のように「動作主が相手「持つ」ことすら不可能な名詞であっても自に何かを移譲することを意図する」という意

然である、ということになるからだ。同様の味に解釈できる文はほとんどなく、以下のよ使役分析が可能な例として、lose や secure157

本発表における重要な問いは、(8) のようを含む二重目的語文がある。
このように、give を中心とした Goldbergに形式的にも意味的にも（ある程度）予測可流の「二重目的語構文」の一種であると考え能な普通の文も「構文」として一般化する必ると非常に周辺的である win/gain/earn 二重要があるのかということである。先取りして目的語表現が、他の二重目的語構文とは異な言えば、「必要がある」という結論になる。

るプロセス、つまり単純他動詞文との使役交(7a, b) のような破格構文は、独自の存在理由

替によって当該の統語形式に生じているとがありながらも (8) のような規範的構文か考えると、他の動詞を含めた別の一般化が可ら情報を継承し、ネットワークを形成するこ能になった。 [NPX V NPY NPZ] という形式とで、構文に課される制約や意味や形式に関を持つ文はすべてひとつのネットワークをする情報を相互にやりとりしている。このよなす、と考えていては、説明不可能な事例がうなネットワークの一部に組み込むためにあることがわかる。二重目的語表現という現は、因果構文のような「普通の文」も構文と象全体を知るために、個々の表現の実例に詳して扱う必要がある。
因果構文は、以下のような特徴を有する：

しく目を向ける必要がある。

①主節に否定が生じる場合、因果関係全体を
4. 発表 3 「言語知識としての構文ネットワ

否定の作用域に取る、②文頭に because 節（金谷）
ーク：because 構文を例に」が生じる形式を容認する、③just, only のよ

本発表では、because が用いられる構文のうな焦点化副詞で焦点化可能である、④分析を通して、「文法知識の総体は構文ネッ

because 節を because of NP の形式で置換すトワークである」という仮説（Goldberg 2003）

ることが可能である。 because X 構文は、因を支持する主張を行う。具体的には、破格的果構文の特徴②③を有しており、推論解釈がな because 構文の事例として、(7a) のよう得にくく、意味的にも形式的にも前者は後者

な Just because of NP 主語構文と (7b) のよに内包されているため、部分リンクによってうな because X 構文を考察し、(8) のような関連付けられる。一方、Just because of NP 主

規範的な構文（因果構文）とどのように関係

語構文は、構文ネットワークに位置づけられするのかを考察する。

るまでに十分に慣習化した表現とは言えないものの、因果構文の特徴①②③を有してい(7) a.
b.

Just because of his mistake doesn’t

るため、特徴④に基づく類推によって創発さ

mean you’re going to have lights out.

れたと考えられる。

I cannot go out with you today

このように、破格構文を説明するために規

because homework.
(8)

範的な構文の情報を参照していることから、

I cannot go out with you today because I

規範的な構文に関する知識も構文ネットワ

have a lot of homework.

ークの中でとらえることは不可欠である。以上、本発表では、文法知識としての構文ネッ(7a, b) で例示される二つの構文は、実在するトワークの重要性を示した。

ものの英語の統語法では予測できない点で、「破格的」である。一方、(8) で例示される

5. 発表 4 「フレーズ接続副詞としての add

因果構文は、従属接続詞 because が二つの（住𠮷）
to that: 文接続への示唆」

定形節を接続し、特殊な意味を表さない点で、「規範的」である。

158

本発表では、以下のような例を取り上げた。

(9)To add to this, the pattern of social

う類に与えられる示唆は、①歴史的に接続副

structures was very different from that

詞は前置詞+代名詞といった複数の語連鎖のobtaining in the Danelaw… (D. Denison

固まりから発達したものがあり、add to that

& R. Hogg, Overview, A History of theとその異形についても類似の現象であるこEnglish Language)と、②単語の連鎖が別の機能を持ち始めると(10) Add to that, saving face is a big deal in
China.

連鎖全体が一般的な文法規則から解放され(CNN, May 14, 2019)

破格的な振る舞いをすることなどがある。

(11) “Added to this,” continued the Prime「多数の不正用法のなかで用意されるもの

Minister, “our farmers are complaining

は明日の言語である」というバイイのことば

that they can’t do the job properly…

が示すように、破格表現は、言語の姿の在り(J. Archer, As the Crow Flies)

ようを教えてくれる。このような観点に立てば、本シンポジウムの各発表は新たな言語観

add to that とその異形は接続副詞として機を考えるよいきっかけとなるであろう。

能している。接続副詞は閉じた類（closed
class ） と さ れ る こ と が あ る （ Greenbaum* 本シンポジウムは JSPS 科研費 17K02833,

1969）が、現代英語において、複数の語から

18J20170, 18K00637, 19K00681 の助成を受けなる連鎖が定型化し接続副詞の機能をになたものです。

うようになるものがある。接続副詞は決して閉じた類ではない。ここでは、コーパス

参考文献（COCA/COHA）の例をもとに add to that とBally, Charles (1935) Le Langage et Vie, 2eédition, Max Niehans, Zurich.（バイイ, シ

その異形の接続副詞化の発達を論じた。

ャルル. 小林英夫訳『言語活動と生活』

特に (10) と (11) の形は (9) の形に比べ岩波書店, 東京，1974）てより破格性が高まっていると言える。コー

Goldberg, Adele E. (1995) Constructions: A

パスからの例をもとにして、それぞれの表現の振る舞いを見て、その出自を考えることで、

Construction

GrammarApproachto

破格性の由来と接続副詞へと発達する道程

Argument Structure, University of Chicagoを論じた。その結果、①add to that は Add to

Press, Chicago.

this [that], that… という add の動詞のパタン

Goldberg, Adele E. (2003) “Constructions: A

を使用しながら発達したこと、②表面上の形

New Theoretical Approach to Language,”

は命令であるが意味的には命令ではないこ

Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7, 219–224.

と、③this から that へのシフトはより大きGreenbaum, Sydney (1969) Studies in English

な談話を指示対象とするための変化であり、Adverbial Usage, Longman, London.

他の接続副詞の発達と軌を一にしているこ

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (1995)となどを指摘した。また、 added to that にUnaccusativity:

At

the

Syntax-Lexical

ついては added to this, was the report of Mrs.

Semantics Interface, MIT Press, Cambridge,

Stevens, who… (COHA) のような倒置構造かMA.
Yaguchi, Michiko (2017) Existential Sentences

らの発達の可能性があることを指摘した（質疑応答にて、この発達の想定に疑問が呈され

from

the

Diachronic

たので、今後も検討を進めたい）。

Perspectives: A Descriptive Approach,
Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

このような個別の問題から接続副詞とい

159

and

Synchronic

<Symposium Report>

ついて概念的・経験的観点から議論し、より制限された文法理論のありかたを考えた。
「削除が意味解釈に及ぼす影響
2. （発表 1）

統語-音韻インターフェイスに必要な情報のについて」（木村・成田）*

表示をめぐって本発表では、省略下における構成的解釈と(On the Representation of Information

非構成的解釈の可否について、(1)の一般化

Necessary for the Syntax-PF Interface)を提示するとともに、「解釈が一つの部門で決定づけられるものではない」とする分散形

漆原 朗子（Saeko Urushibara）

態論に依拠した分析を提案した。

北九州市立大学（University of Kitakyushu）
木村 博子（Hiroko Kimura）(1) 非構成的解釈を持つ構造では、構成要素

千葉工業大学（Chiba Institute of Technology）の一部のみが焦点化を受け残余句となる場

成田 広樹（Hiroki Narita）

合、非構成的解釈が不可能で、構成的解釈の東海大学（Tokai University）

みが可能である。

渡辺 明（Akira Watanabe）
東京大学（University of Tokyo）

例 え ば 、 複 合 語 black sheep を 含 む

ディスカッサント 多田 浩章（Hiroaki Tada）

why-stripping では、複合語全体が残余句とし

福岡大学（Fukuoka University）て発音される(2B)や全体が省略される(2B’)
では、構成的解釈（黒い羊）に加えて非構成キーワード極小主義理論, 分散形態論,

PF,的解釈（厄介者）が可能である。対して、複合 語 の 一 部 の み が 残 余 句 と な る (2B’’) や

焦点, コピュラ(2B’’’)では、構成的解釈のみが可能となる。
(2) A: Ben is trying to find (any) [black sheep]

1. はじめにon the farm.

極小主義理論は限られた素性の集合、構造を組み立てる操作である併合、およびそれにB:

Why black sheep? B’:より生成されたフェイズを音韻・意味部門に

B’’: Why black?

Why?

B’’’: Why sheep?

送る転送のみを仮定する。同時に、理論は感覚運動系および概念意味系とのインターフ

また、(1)の一般化は複合語に加えて、句イ

ェイスであるスペルアウトにおいて必要十ディオムについても当てはまる。例えば、hit

分な情報を保証しなければならない。

the books を含む why-stripping の例である(3B)

転送に関しては音韻および意味の写像はは、「一生懸命に勉強した」という非構成的

平行的に収束するのが理想であるが、解釈は付与され得ず、「本にぶつかった」と

Chomsky(2013)も指摘する通り、非対称性がいう構成的解釈のみが可能である。

存在する可能性がある。さらに、分散形態論の主張に基づき語彙部門が解体された場合、(3) A: John hit the books yesterday.
B: Why the books?

派生や複合も統語論あるいはそれ以降において扱われることとなる。本シンポジウムで

本発表では、考察対象の省略構文に削除操は統語論、音韻論、形態論にかかわる問題に作が適用されている証拠を提示し、削除の適160

用要素の違いによる非構成的解釈の有無は、連濁・鼻濁音化が適用される。なお、連濁は「音韻部門の操作である削除は意味解釈に

一部の漢語に、鼻濁音化も一部の漢語・外来影響を及ぼさない」とする伝統的な理論では語に適用される（「和語化」）。これらは当該説明が難しいことを指摘した。また、構成的語彙の日本語への輸入時期、使用頻度、個人

解釈と非構成的解釈の対比は、これらの意味の親和性等に依存するため、Encyclopedia でが単一のメカニズムで決定されるのではなの随意的な素性変更（[-Y]→[+Y]）の適用をく、異なる部門に分散されていることを示唆仮定すれば記述可能となる。このメカニズムする。本発表では特に、非構成的解釈が語彙

はまた、オノマトペには連濁・鼻濁音化が決(Vocabulary, 音 韻 素 性 ) の 後 期 挿 入 と 辞 典して適用されないことも導く。なお、（発表(Encyclopedia)の情報に基づき決定されると

1）および木村・成田（2018）のデータに関する分散形態論により、特定の省略の下での連し、随意的に連濁を起こす漢語助数詞の場

非構成的解釈の欠如に対して自然な説明を合、wh-助数詞が連濁を起こしていると短縮提供するものであることを示した。さらに、応答の容認可能性が低い傾向を指摘、連濁が（複合）語も句も(1)の一般化に従うという

削除可能性に干渉する背後のメカニズムの点においても、「語と句が単一のメカニズム解明の必要性に触れた。

で生成される」とする分散形態論と整合性があることを述べた。

(1) a. Q: （エレベーターで）何階ですか。
A:

4 お願いします。

3. (発表 2)「複合語の音韻的実現およびオノ[対なんかい OK 対なんがい??]

マトペ述語の意味解釈に必要な情報」（漆原）

b. Q: （全焼したのは）何軒ですか。
A:

従来語彙部門で扱われてきた現象や、音韻4 です。
[対なんけん OK 対なんげん??]的語（phonological word）の認定に最小語の制約（The Minimal Word Constraint: MIN）がかかわる現象などについて、分散形態論の枠次に、日本語の MIN(*word > μμ)効果の組みにおいて Spell-Out（以降）ではどのよう現象として、動詞反復と軽動詞構文を見た。

な情報が必要かを検証した。

語根が 1 モーラの場合に観察される補償的

まず、複合語における連濁・鼻濁音化にお長音化（compensatory lengthening）が、「する」

いては、既知の通り、語彙の層（和語・漢語・の場合は本動詞でも軽動詞でも生じる（cf.

外来語・オノマトペ）、複合語の意味関係（修Poser (1989)）。

飾－被修飾関係（内心構造）・並列関係（等位構造））および動詞由来複合語における動(2) a. 太郎は [本を読み読み] ご飯を食べた。

詞と第一要素の意味関係（項/付加詞、人/付

b. 太郎は [テレビを見い見い/*見 見]
ご飯を食べた。

加詞）による適用の有無が観察される。語彙(3) a. 太郎は [宿題をしいしい/*し し]部門ではなく PF での適用を保証するために
二 種 の diacritic feature [ ± Yamato(Y)] [ ±メールを読んだ。

Sino-Japanese(S-J)]によって和語（[+Y][-S-N]）、b. 太郎は[メールを送信しいしい/

漢語（[-Y][+S-N]）、外来語（[-Y][-S-N]）、オ*送信し送信し/*送信し し]ノマトペ（無指定）を弁別し、それらが終端本を読んだ。

節点（terminal nodes）に存するとする。そし(3b)において動名詞＋軽動詞の反復が不可て、PF において[+Y]の素性を有する要素に161

能なことも合わせ、動名詞は統語的編入を受性はしばしば指摘されていることであるが、けずに PF に送られると論じた。

Predº と同形の形態素が分裂文に出現する

同様に、動詞と形容詞の否定形や複雑否定

Focº の位置を占めていることが指摘される

形容詞（Kishimoto and Booij (2014)）に現れのは本発表がはじめてであろう。Predº とる「さ」の分布も MIN の効果であり、これ

Focº が根本的には同じ範疇であり、焦点解釈

らが統語論の後の形態構造（Morphologicalを強制するかどうかの違いによって文中でStructure）での語彙挿入、操作が PF への入の出現位置が異なるとする分析が、今後、考力となる根拠になると論じた。

察に値する可能性として検討されるべきである。また、英語においては、Dikken 他(2000)0「Pred 」
（渡辺）
4. （発表 3）などの研究で、wh 疑問文とその答となる文

Matushansky (2019) が Predº の存在に疑義をコピュラによってつなげた形の分裂文のを呈しているが、本発表では、Nishiyama

存在が確認されているが、日本語においても(1999) によって提案されているように日本

同様の分裂文が存在することが観察される。

語の「で」が統語構造で Predº として働いて「花子が誰からプレゼントをもらったかといることをまず確認する。Matushansky がいうと田中からもらったのである。」のよう

Predº の存在を否定する根拠のひとつとしてな例がそれに当たる。こうした分裂文はこれあげているのは、Predº の候補が出現していまで詳しく研究されてこなかったが、その構ると考えられる場合に PP が述部を形成する造を可能にする原理は各言語共通であるとことがどの言語においても見られないとい考えられ、そうすると英語においても Predº

う観察である。非動詞的述部一般に用いられ／Focº が存在していると考えるべきである

るとされている Predº の性格からはこのことという結論に落ち着く。

が説明できないというのが Predº の存在の否
5. ディスカッション（多田）定につながるという議論であるが、日本語では「このプレゼントは田中からである」のよ

ディスカッションでは、焦点が関与する

うに「で」が PP の述部と共起するので、（発表 1）および（発表 2）の主張に関し、Matushansky の観察自体が誤りである。また、さらなるデータに基づいて検証がなされた。

Predº が機能範疇であることから異形態の可（発表 1）では複合語・句イディオムの能性も考えられ、特にゼロ形態が日本語に存

why-stripping において、その一部が残余する在していることも確認できる。よって、動詞

場合は構成的解釈しか可能でないという事「ある」とともに出現する「で」は Predº と実が[+F]要素への語彙挿入のタイミングでして認定するのが妥当であるという結論に説明された。その点を代替意味論（alternative

なる。

semantics（Rooth(1992)）を援用して、選言

Matushansky (2019)で考察の対象とされて（disjunction）付短縮応答、連言付短縮応答

いない、コピュラと焦点、特に分裂文との関に拡大、さらに NCI 短縮応答と音調に着目、係を発表後半では取り上げる。Hiraiwa and

NIC 解釈後の計算が問題を引き起こさない

Ishihara (2012)は文末が「だ」の形になっていことから、後期挿入のタイミングが決定的でる日本語の分裂文を分析しているが、これをあることの証左を与えた。
（発表 2）では Predº と Focº が根本的には「である」のバージョンに置き換えて「で」の句構造上の位置を同定すると、Focº になる。 同じ範疇であり、[+F]の有無によって出現が焦点マーカーといわゆるコピュラとの類縁異なることが示唆された。その点について、

162

50, 63–104.

「で」の分布をより広範なデータで検証、特に焦点辞の場合はコピュラと共起可能であ

成田広樹・木村博子（2018）「複合語を伴うるのに対し、確定回避（定延（1995））の「でWh 疑問文と短縮応答について」日本英語も」の場合は共起不可能である事実、また、学会第 36 回大会シンポジウム『言語理論形容詞類、小節、程度表現では「で」が出現における形態論の「分散」をめぐる諸問題』

不可能である事実を列挙し、提案を補強した。

横浜国立大学, 横浜.

一方、二次述語では「で」と焦点辞が共起可

Nishiyama, Kunio (1999) “Adjectives and the

能となる事実は更なる検討課題であると指Copulas in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian

摘した。

Linguistics 8, 183–222.
Poser, William (1989) “Japanese Periphrastic*各発表は以下の日本学術振興会科学研究費

Verbs

補助金の助成を受けている。

ms.,Stanford University.

and

Noun

Incorporation,”（発表 1）基盤(C)18K00660（木村）Rooth, Mats (1992) ”A Theory of Focus

基盤(C) 16K02779（成田）Interpretation,” Natural Language Semantics

基盤(B) 19H 01256（成田）1, 75-116（発表 2）基盤(C) 17K02816（発表 3）基盤(C) 15K02591
参考文献

Chomsky,Noam(2013)“Problemsofprojection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Dikken, Marcel den, André Meinunger, andChris

Wilder (2000) “Pseudoclefts andEllipsis,” Studia Linguistica 54, 41-89.
Halle,

MorrisandAlec

Marantz(1993)“Distributed Morphology and the pieces ofinflection,” The view from Building 20, ed. by
Ken Hale and Samuel. J. Keyser, 111-176,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hiraiwa, Ken and Shinichiro Ishihara (2012)“Syntactic Metamorphosis: Clefts, Sluicing,and In-Situ Focus in Japanese,” Syntax 15,
142-180.
Kishimoto, Hideki and Geert Booij (2014)“Complex Negative Adjectives in Japanese:
The

Relation

Morphologicalbetween

Syntactic

Constructions,”

and
Word

Structure 7(1), 55-87.
Matushansky, Ora (2019) “Against the PredP
Theory of Small Clauses,” Linguistic Inquiry

163

<Symposium Report>

ない話しことばの定型性、スタイルシフト、社会的コンテクストに根ざした談話で遂行されるイデ
オロギー構築や社会化などをテーマに、他の概念や方法論（用法基盤モデル、相互行為社会

話しことばの研究と「スタンス」：言語形式

言語学、フレーム理論、会話分析など）も参照

から社会的アイデンティティまでしながら、「スタンス」概念を用いることで得られ（Stancetaking in studying language in

る知見の可能性とその課題を論じた。

interaction: Linguistic forms and social

本シンポジウムは、会話内で構築されるミクロ

identities）

なアイデンティティから、会話外で構築されている（と思われる）よりマクロなアイデンティティを扱

山下 里香（Rika Yamashita）

う研究へという順に、話題報告がなされた。しか関東学院大学（Kanto Gakuin University）

し、そもそもスタンス理論は、「ミクロ」と「マクロ」

鈴木 亮子（Ryoko Suzuki）の境界を作らず、その複層的(multi-layered)な

慶応義塾大学（Keio University）

アイデンティティや、その構築に伴う言語形式

高梨 博子（Hiroko Takanashi）の創発性(creativity)を議論の対象とできるとい日本女子大学（Japan Women’s University）

うのが、全講師の共通の理解であった。

岩田 祐子（Yuko Iwata）
国際基督教大学（International Christian

2. （趣旨説明）スタンスについて（山下）University）

Du Bois (2007)は、「スタンス」を、相互行

堀内ふみ野（Fumino Horiuchi）

為において行為者が常にとり続けるものを

大東文化大学（Daito Bunka University）

指す学術用語として、次のように定義した。

キーワード：スタンス, 談話, アイデンティ“…linguistically articulated form of social

ティ, 文法, 相互行為

action whose meaning is to be construed within
the broader scope of language, interaction, andsociocultural value (2007: 139)”

1. 概要「スタンス」が具体的に何であるか、どのよ

スタンスは「評価」や「視点」などの概念を含うに表明されるのか、言語や相互行為との関め、これまで多様なアプローチで取り上げられ係などは、明示していないが、相互行為におてきたが、その概念整理が近年進められてきてけることばに関連するものとして位置付け、いる。特に Du Bois (2007) による「スタンス理

その研究を提唱した。

論」は、認知や社会性を基盤としながら言語現

特徴的なのは、対話性（dialogicality）を重象の説明も目指している点が注目に値する。

視している点である。どのようなスタンスも

本シンポジウムは、(1)「スタンス」をどのように単独に存在するのではなく、必ず何か前のス

話しことばの言語データに応用できるのか、まタンスに関連していると考えている。そのス

た、(2)そこからどのような知見が得られるのかをタンスとは、直前の発話であることもあれば、探求することを目的とするものであった。講師た

時間的にだいぶ前の発話や行為であったり

ちは、スタンスの多層性や創発性に着目しながもする。また、会話外のコンテクストを踏まら、既存の文法理論では十分に説明されていえた解釈を行う。この２点が、サックス・シ

164ェグロフ・ジェファーソンで有名な会話分析

3. （発表１）会話における繰り返し：動的なスと大きく異なる点である。その後、米国西海

タンス構築（鈴木）岸をはじめとして、多数の研究が「スタンス」

Du Bois (2007)の Stance Triangle のモデルでの基礎研究を行っており（展望論文に、Jaffe

は第一話者のスタンス表明のあと第二話者がス

2009 や Takanashi 2018 がある）
、言語人類学

タンス表明することで二者間のスタンス調整がや社会言語学にも応用されている。

行われる。本発表では三人以上の会話におけ本シンポジウムでは、主にスタンスの三角る、スタンスの違い（冗談や笑いを伴うような「安形を用いた談話の分析を中心に扱った。スタ全な」対立）が表出した瞬間とそれへの対処のンスをどのように解釈するかについて、Du Bois

ディスコースに着目し、特に「繰り返し」を中心

は、分析対象となる文の形式、すなわち語や文に検討した。Du Bois のモデルは 3 人以上の会の構成の他に、次のような点に着目するべきと話でも分析の出発点として有用であり、スタンス述べている：

が動的に構築される過程を示せることを指摘した。

(1) Who’s the stance taker?

第一話者の発話を他の話者が繰り返すこと(2) What is the object of stance?

が、様々な方向に談話を動かすことを示すため(3) What stance is the stancetaker

発表では以下の観察を取り上げた。（１）第一話

responding to?

者のスタンス表明発話の一部を第二話者が繰り(Du Bois 2007: 146, 斜体は原文通り)

返す「加勢」により、そのスタンスに同調し他の話者のスタンスとの違いを際立たせる（２）第一

また、スタンスはこれら３点をもって成立する話者のスタンス発話の中で使われた特定の表

ため、スタンスを解釈するのには同じくこの３点

現を新しいスタンス対象として取り出して繰り返が必要であることが述べられている。この３点と、すことでスタンス表明行動の「ずらし」を起こす

それぞれの項の関係を図式化したのが、スタン（３）言葉だけではなく動作を繰り返すことで話スの三角形（図１）である。

者間の「対立遊び」の側面を際立たせる。
また、繰り返しによるスタンス表明は語句、統語、プロソディ、身体など多岐に渡ることも併せて論じた。
4. （発表２）児童の会話におけるスタンス－ス
タイルおよびコードの選択（山下）
会話におけるスタイルやコード選択（スタイル
シフト・コードスイッチング）は、それぞれ語用論、
相互行為社会言語学を中心に行われてきた。
本発表では、文法と社会的相互行為をつなぐ「スタンス」という概念が、それぞれ「一言語の会

図１ スタンスの三角形 (Du Bois 2007:163 山話」・「多言語の会話」として別々に研究されが下再構成・和訳)ちであったこうした研究を、統合して分析できる可能性を持っていることを指摘した。
理論的には、会話において特定のスタイル
やコードの使用がもたらす、語用論的意味およ165

び社会的指標性は、スタンス表明と調整の繰り返し及び蓄積によって生じる(Du Bois 2007)と考えられる。本発表では、課外教室（モスク教室）における小学生児童との教師の多言語会
話（日本語・英語・ウルドゥー語）のデータを、ス
タンス概念および Stance Triangle のモデル(DuBois 2007)を応用して分析した。その結果、スタイルシフト・コードスイッチングの研究に stanceの概念や Stance Triangle のモデルを応用する

図２

ことで、従来の分析枠組みでは分析しきれなか

Trajectories

The Multiplex Stancetaking and Its

ったスタンス・コードの使用を説明することが可
6. （発表４）二言語による社会化：創発的・能であることを示した。

多層的なスタンス構築とイデオロギー（岩5. （発表３）観光場面の対話におけるスタン

田）
Du Bois (2007)の Stance Triangle のモデルをス行為（高梨）Du Bois (2007) が提唱するスタンス・トラ

使い、相互行為の参与者との間で対話を通し

イアングルのモデルを「観光場面で交わされて公的に遂行される社会的行為としての stanceる対話」に活用し、同対話におけるスタンスという観点から言語による社会化について考察

行為の多面性を明らかにした。観光都市におした。日英語バイリンガル家庭の夕食時の会話

ける観光客（ゲスト：Subject 1）と地元のガにおいて、第一話者であるイギリス人の父親

イド（ホスト：Subject 2）の英語による対話(Subject 1)が、イデオロギー（例、食事のマナー、を分析した結果、１）「観光地」と「対話者」

家庭内の父親と母親の役割、ジェンダー・イデ

双方のアイデンティティに関するスタンス

オロギー、階級意識、アメリカ英語・イギリス英語は多様な対象（Objects）に対して多面的に構に対する意識）を stance object と扱うことで自身成され、対話の中で間主観的に創発・再生産を位置付けスタンス表明をし、他の参与者であされていること、２）個々のスタンスは、時る子や日本人の母親(Subject 2)も同じようにそ

間的かつ空間的に重なるプロセスの中で累の stance object に対し自分自身を位置づけ、ス

積されていくこと、といった特徴がみられた

タンス表明をしていることを明らかにした。両者（図２）。こうしたスタンス行為の実践を通の間でスタンス表明と調整が繰り返され、このプ

じて、観光地や相手に対する認識や感情が形

ロセスが幾層にも積み重なることこそが社会化成されるとともに、ホストとゲスト双方がであると論じた。Stance triangle は会話のインタ「観光」という異文化コミュニケーションのラクションによって作られ、創発的なものである

フレームを協働で構築できる「グローバル市

ことを示した。

民」として社会化されていくことを論じた。
7. ディスカッサントより（堀内）本シンポジウムの最後に、4 名の講師による話題報告を振り返った上で、Du Bois (2007) のスタンス理論の特徴と発展可能性について議論した。まず、本シンポジウムの事例研究からうかがえるスタンス理論の特徴として、次の 3 点を166

込まれる。

挙げた。
(i) 対話性：スタンス表明は、単なる話者の感情

シンポジウムの最後に、(1)スタンス理論が既や評価の「表出」ではなく、相手ありきの「働存の理論に与える示唆は何か、(2)スタンス理論

きかけ」である。

の適用が特に有効だと思われる現象は何か、(ii) 動的特性：上記(i)により、スタンス理論は、(3)スタンス理論は言語的・社会文化的背景の相手の反応に応じたコミュニケーション上の複雑性をどこまで捉えうるか、という問題提起を「揺れ」や「ずらし」を言語使用の本質として行い、議論した。これらは今後の研究を通して織り込みうる。

さらに考察を深めていくべき課題であると思わ(iii)社会文化的文脈の重視：スタンス理論は、れる。

一時的なやりとりだけではなく、その社会文化的背景、および、累積による社会化の過

参考文献
Du Bois, John W. (2007) “ The Stance

程を捉えられる。

Triangle,”

次に、スタンス理論の適用による言語研究のStancetaking

inDiscourse:

発展可能性として、主に以下の 3 点を示した。

Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by

第一に、スタンス理論は、これまで分断されがち

Robertであった複数の領域（例、「言語」と「非言語」、

Benjamins. Amsterdam.

Englebretson,139-182,

John

Jaffe, Alexandra (2009) “Introduction: The「一言語」と「多言語」、「対話の場で創発するやりとり」と「累積による社会化」）を統合した分析をSociolinguisticsofStance,”可能にする。これによって、複数の要因が関わSociolinguistic

Perspectives,

り合う言語使用の実態を捉えた、用法基盤の研Alexandra Jaffe, 3-28, Oxford University

究を促進しうる。第二に、「スタンス表明（さらにPress, Oxford.

Stance:ed.

byは社会化）のリソースとしての文法」という視点をTakanashi, Hiroko (2018) “Stance,” Handbook

もたらすことで、文法研究と相互行為研究の接of Pragmatics: 21st Annual Installment, ed.

続を可能にしうる。特定の文法形式（例、ですまby Jan-Ola Östman and Jef Verschueren,

す調、人称代名詞、命令形）を、それが表明す173-199, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

るスタンスとの関わりの中で分析することは、文法知識が相互行為の場でいかに利用され、特定の文法形式が相互行為上どのような機能を担い、さらに相互行為の場における使用の蓄積が文法構造の形成や変化をいかに動機づけているか、といった問題の解明に貢献するだろう。
第三に、スタンス理論の適用により、相互行為
における身体の役割をより精緻に分析できる。
例えば、指差しや空間的な移動はスタンスの対
象 (stance object) の明示に寄与する一方、相手に同調する手の動きは主に評価の表明やアラインメントに関わると思われる。このように、相互行為における身体の役割をスタンスの観点から整理することが可能であり、スタンス理論は非言語表現に関する研究へも貢献することが見167

<Workshop Report>のもと、言語の基本的特性が明らかになってきた。それは、言語とは、音声と意味をつなぐ簡潔で普遍的な計算システムであり、併合という回帰的操作を原動力として非有界的言語の多様性再考：外在化の観点から*階層構造を生成する。そしてこの構造は、音（Language Variation Revisited: From Exter-

声とのインターフェースをなす感覚運動シ

nalization Perspectives）

ステムおよび意味とのインターフェースをなす概念・志向システムで適切な解釈を受け

北田伸一（Shin-Ichi Kitada）る。これが言語の基本的特性である。

東京理科大学（Tokyo University of Science）

この特性を内包する言語機能の極小主義

那須川訓也（Kuniya Nasukawa）のアプローチを究極まで追究していくと、言東北学院大学（Tohoku Gakuin University）

語の多様性は、外在化の仕組みが担うことに前田雅子（Masako Maeda）

なる。このことは、言語の獲得 (learnability)

西南学院大学（Seinan Gakuin University）

および言語の起源 (evolvability) の観点から

北原久嗣（Hisatsugu Kitahara）

動機づけられる。

慶應義塾大学（Keio University）

まず、言語獲得の観点について。Chomsky(2001) は 、 (1) の 均 一 性 原 理 (Uniformity

キーワード：externalization, learnability,

Principle) を提唱して、子どもの言語獲得を

evolvability, the Uniformity Principle

考慮に入れると、発話から容易には認識不可
能な併合操作および概念・志向システムとのインターフェースは、すべての言語に均一で

1. はじめにあると主張した。

本ワークショップの目的は、生成文法理論の最新の動向を踏まえ、言語の多様性を外在(1) In the absence of compelling evidence to the化 (externalization) の仕組みから再考する理

contrary, assume languages to be uniform,

論的意義を聴衆と共有するとともに、その実with variety restricted to easily detectable

証的研究の進展に寄与することであった。

properties of utterances. (Chomsky 2001: 2)

2. 言語獲得および言語起源の観点に動機づ帰結として多様性は、発話と結びついて、容けられる言語の多様性の担い手

易に認識可能な特性を扱う感覚運動システ

生成文法理論は、言語の多様性の解明に向ムとのインターフェースが担うことになる。

けて次の変遷を経てきた。1980 年代後半ま

次に、言語起源の観点について。近年の進でに確立した原理とパラメータのモデルで化論の研究によると、言語機能は突然生じたは、言語の多様性を、パラメータが付随するもので、多様性を内包するだけの歳月を経て規則や制約の体系によって捉えていた。1990

おらず、それ以前から存在していた感覚運動

年代に入ると、こうした規則や制約を、どのシステムが多様性を担うと推定される。

程度まで言語に固有でない一般原理に還元

すなわち、(2) に帰結として示されるようできるのかという問いを立て、普遍文法の最に、言語の多様性は、計算システムが生成し小化を目指す研究指針が打ち出された。これた階層構造を感覚運動システムが解釈可能

が極小主義プログラムである。この取り組み

な表示へと変換する外在化の仕組みが担う

168

peak を有することができない、また、矛盾ことになるのである。

する焦点韻律を有することができない」とい(2) Parameterization and diversity, then, would be

う外在化のメカニズムから生じると論じた。

mostly––possibly entirely––restricted to exter6. 多重指定部構造の再考（北原久嗣）

nalization. (Berwick and Chomsky 2016: 82)

第四に、統語論と語彙のインターフェース
以上が、言語の多様性を外在化の仕組みにの観点から多重指定部構造を分析した。φ 素

帰着させることの理論的意義である。以下で性が具現化する英語は多重指定部が不可能

は、本ワークショップの発表順に沿って、各であるのに対して、具現化しない日本語は多研究発表の中心的主張を記す。

重指定部が可能である。この言語間変異が、各言語の φ 素性が持つ特性と、「ラベルとし3. 音節構造の均一性と外在化による音声的て機能する φ 素性の構造は一義的に解釈さ多様性（那須川訓也）

れねばならない」という外在化のメカニズム

第一に、非時系列音韻論 (Precedence-freeとの相互作用の帰結として生じると論じた。

Phonology) の枠組みのもと、上述した均一* 本ワークショップの準備段階において、慶性原理に従い、音節構造も形態統語構造と同様の階層構造を呈すると主張した。その上で、音節に関わる言語間変異は、構造上の変異で應義塾大学言語文化研究所「生成文法研究会」の協力を得ました。特に、内堀朝子先生には建設的なコメントをいただきました。当はなく、階層構造を音声的に具現化（線形化

日も、多くの聴衆の方々から貴重なコメント

および音調付与）する際に表面上生じるもの

および質問をいただきました。ここに記してであると論じた。

感謝申し上げます。なお、本ワークショップで研究発表した各研究は、次の助成を受けて

4. 代名詞主語省略の再考（北田伸一）

います。日本学術振興会科学研究費補助金

第二に、統語論の観点から代名詞主語省略（基盤研究 (C) 19K00668（北田伸一）、新学術を分析した。まず、均一性原理に従い、すべ

領域研究（研究領域提案型）18H05081（那須ての言語が均一な統語構造を持つと主張し

川訓也）、基盤研究 (S) 19H05589（那須川訓也）、

た。その上で、代名詞主語省略に観察される基盤研究 (A) 19H00532（那須川訓也）、基盤研

言語間変異は、統語派生で生成されたコピー

究 (B) 15H03213（那須川訓也）、基盤研究 (B)のいずれのコピーを音声化するかについて

17H02364（那須川訓也）、若手研究 18K12412の各言語の選択と、「各投射内で音声化でき（前田雅子）、基盤研究 (C) 18K00574（前田雅る要素は一つ」という外在化のメカニズムと子）、基盤研究 (C) 19K00612（北原久嗣））。

が連動して生じると論じた。

参考文献

5. 介在効果の再考（前田雅子）

Berwick, Robert C. and Noam Chomsky (2016)
Why Only Us: Language and Evolution,

第三に、音韻論と統語論のインターフェー

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

スの観点から介在効果を分析した。具体的には、焦点要素と疑問詞の 2 つの要素間で観察

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”

される介在効果の言語間（方言間）の有無が、Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Mi-

多重書き出し (Multiple Spell-Out) 分析のも

chael Kenstowicz, 1–52, MIT Press, Cam-0と、「一つの書き出し領域は二つ以上の F

bridge, MA.

169

識の to は古英語では不定詞節の C を占めて<Workshop Report>

いたが、中英語に入り T へと統語的位置が変化したことで WH 不定詞節の生起が可能になったと主張する。古英語では to が C を占
英語史における形式の出現と消失についてめるため、WH 移動を起こすと二重詰め―生成文法理論による説明

COMP フィルターの違反となるので WH 不（On the Rise and Loss of Forms in the History

定詞は許されなかった。一方、中英語になりof English―A Generative Explanation）

to が T を占めるようになると、C を占める要素はなくなるので、二重詰め COMP フィル

松元 洋介（Yosuke Matsumoto）

ターの違反を引き起こさず WH 移動するこ

中京大学（Chukyo University）とが可能となる。従って、中英語後期に WH

横越 梓（Azusa Yokogoshi）

不定詞節が可能となった。また中英語で原形

名古屋工業大学（Nagoya Institute of

不定詞の疑問節のほうが先に出現したのは、Technology）

原形不定詞節の C には顕在的な要素がない

近藤 亮一（Ryoichi Kondo）

ため CP 指定部への WH 移動が二重詰め

弘前大学（Hirosaki University）

COMP を引き起こさないためである。

山村 崇斗（Shuto Yamamura）
2. 英語における二次叙述の史的変遷（横越）筑波大学（University of Tsukuba）

本発表では、英語の描写述語を含む構文に
キーワード：歴史的変化, 生成文法, 史的統

ついて、述語の意味タイプと指向性によって語論統語構造が異なるとする現代英語の描写述語の分析に基づいて、当該構文に起こった通時的変化に説明を与えた。14 世紀に機能範

0. はじめに疇 Pred が出現したという先行分析を受け入

これまで、多くの言語学者により、英語のれるなら、M2 期を境に描写述語構文の統語

歴史的変化に対して生成文法理論に基づい構造が変化したことになる。M3 期以降、小た分析が提案されてきた。本ワークショップ

節をとる動詞の場合は、その動詞の選択特性

では、このような方針に沿って具体的な構文に応じて補部に stage-level predicate (SLP)まや現象に関する分析を提示することで、生成たは individual-level predicate (ILP)のいずれ

文法理論に基づいた言語研究が英語の史的が現れる可能性もある。その一方で、小節を統語論研究に対して理論的貢献を果たすこ

本来とらない動詞の場合、動詞の選択特性にとが示された。

よって補部との意味関係を確立できないた
め、補部をとろうとすると、動詞と描写述語の event 項を同定することで意味関係を作ら

1. 英語史における WH 不定詞節の出現について（松元）

なければならず、そのためには両方が SLP

本発表では中英語後期に WH 不定詞節でなければならない。これに対し、変化以前（例：John has decided [what to sell tomorrow];の M1 期には動詞と描写述語の組み合わせに

A topic [about which to argue]）が可能なった

そのような制限は見られない。このことは、のは不定詞標識 to の統語位置の変化による

機能範疇 Pred の出現以前には、選択特性のものであると主張した。具体的には不定詞標関与しない付加構造によって二次叙述が実170

現されていたという主張と整合する。以上のれてきた。対比が A-NPE に責任があるとい検討に基づき、本発表では Pred 出現以前とう観点は、A-NPE の史的データを観察する以降の描写述語構文に対し、異なる統語構造

際の指針となる。Haumann (2003)は、古英語を提案した。

の soþfæstne man & unscyldigne ‘righteous
person and guiltless’のような事例を扱うが、3. 関係詞 that の歴史的変化と反 that 痕跡効

ここでは２つの形容詞に対比がみられない

果（近藤）ので、実際には A-NPE の事例ではないとわ

本発表では、関係詞 that の歴史的変化の観かる。対比の有無に基づけば、古英語では点から、現代英語の関係詞 that の統語的位置

ofer þa godan men and ofer ða yfelan ‘over

付けを特定し、主格関係節に見られる反 thatthose good men and over those evil’、中英語で痕跡効果を原理的に説明した。古英語の多く

は the good folk and the badde、初期近代英語の関係節では、豊かな屈折を伴う指示詞が関では by subtracting the lesser Longitude out of

係詞として用いられていた。Gelderen (2004)

the greater,のような事例で、形容詞に対比がは、関係詞 that は中英語においてこの指示詞みられるため、A-NPE だといえる。

から発達したと仮定し、古英語の関係節におこのことから、英語史を通じて、A-NPE

いて CP 指定部に移動していた指示詞が CPの統語構造は、Corver and van Koppen (2009)

主要部に位置する関係詞 that に変化したとに倣った、[DP D [FocP APi[+Foc] [Foc′ Foc [NP ti [NP論じている。本発表は、Gelderen (2004, 2011)

N Comp]]]]]であると論じた。

で提案されている二つの原理に基づき、CP
指定部に移動していた指示詞が、CP 主要部

参考文献として併合する that と、CP 指定部に併合す

Corver, Norbert and Marjo van Koppen (2009)

る that に変化したと主張した。前者の that

“Let's Focus on Noun Phrase,” Groninger

は指示詞が持っていた φ 素性や格素性をす

Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 48,

べて失ったが、後者の that は人称素性を保持3-26.

していると論じた。主格関係節の that の省略

Gelderen, Elly van (2004) Grammaticalization

が不可能であるのは、動詞移動が消失した結as Economy, John Benjamins, Philadelphia.

果、人称素性を保持している that の併合が当

Gelderen, Elly van (2011) The Linguistic Cycle:

該の投射のラベル付けに必要不可欠になっLanguage Change and the Language Faculty,

たためであると結論付けた。

Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Haumann, Dagmar (2003) “The Postnominal

4. 形容詞残置名詞句省略の史的変遷（山村）‘And

Adjective’

Construction

in

Old

English,” English Language and Linguistics 7,

名詞句内で形容詞が残余要素となる名詞

57-83.

省略（形容詞残置名詞句省略:A-NPE）は、
古英語では形容詞の一致屈折で認可され、現代英語では許されないと考えられてきた。しかし、例えば、色の表現は現代英語でも名詞
省略の残余となるし、先行名詞句と省略名詞句の間で、修飾語に対比があれば、A-NPEが可能である。対比による名詞省略の認可は
Corver and van Koppen (2009)などでも議論さ

171

<Workshop Report>のタイプの現象に対して、意味や文脈を考慮しない分析が提案され、その分析がタイプ 2の現象にも適用されてきた。しかし、このような分析をタイプ 2 の現象に適用した場合、

意味論・語用論的な分析が求められる言語現「何らかの条件」を捉えるために不必要な補象とは何か

助仮説が必要になり、分析の説明力が低下し（What is a Linguistic Phenomenon thatてしまう。そして、タイプ 2 の現象に関する

Requires Semantic and Pragmatic Analyses?）

3 つの事例研究を通し、タイプ 2 の現象にこそ意味論、語用論的な分析を行うべきである

水谷 謙太（Kenta Mizutani）と主張した。

大阪大学（Osaka University）
2. （発表 1） The Rescuing Effect of Degree

平山 裕人（Yuto Hirayama）

Morphemes（水谷）大阪大学/日本学術振興会特別研究員（Osaka
University / JSPS）

本発表では、tall などの永続的な性質を表

井原 駿（Shun Ihara）

す個体レベルの段階形容詞と always などの大阪大学/日本学術振興会特別研究員（Osaka

量化副詞の共起可能性を取り上げた。先行研

University / JSPS）

究では、これらの個体レベルの段階形容詞は
不定名詞句が存在しない限り量化副詞と共キーワード：意味論、語用論、量化副詞、条起できないという事実が指摘されている。そ件文、遊離数量詞

して、Kratzer (1995) はこの事実に基づき、
量化副詞には LF において束縛可能な変項が存在しなければならないという統語的な制

1. はじめに約を提案している。本発表では、個体レベル

本ワークショップでは、意味論・語用論的の段階形容詞は、比較形態素、enough などな分析が求められる現象について考察した。

の程度形態素（Degree Morpheme）を量化詞

理論言語学の分析対象として最も一般的なと用い、量化詞が指示する対象が状況に応じものは、文の容認性に関する現象である。例て変化する適切な文脈を設定することで不えば、「ある環境 X に Y という表現は生起で定名詞句が存在しない場合でも量化副詞ときず、その文は容認されない」という現象をの共起が可能になるという新たな観察を提もとに、様々な分析が提案されてきた。

示した。そしてこの新たな観察に基づき、量本ワークショップでは、容認性に関する現化副詞に対して、Kratzer (1995) らによる統

象には 2 種類のタイプが存在することを指語的な制約ではなく、Percus (2007) による語摘した。1 つ目は、「いかなる条件でも、X

用論的な制約を設定する必要があることをという環境に Y は生起できず容認されない」

主張した。

という現象である。2 つ目は、「意味、文脈に関する何らかの条件を満たせば X という

3. （発表 2 ） Pragmatics in Conditionals:

環境に Y が生起できるようになり、容認さ

Implicature,

れるようになる」という現象である。

Constraint（井原）Entailment,andHurford’s

次に、これら 2 つのタイプの現象に対する本発表では、Hurford 条件文 (Mandelkern

これまでの分析の問題点を指摘した。1 つ目& Romoli 2018) と呼ばれる、前件と後件を入172れ替えた際に文の論理構造そのものは変化

約がより高次の原理、制約に統合されていくしない一方で容認性の上では差が生じる条ことにより理論が発展していった。意味論、件文の分析を行った。まず、Hurford 条件文

語用論の分野においても同様に、様々な経験

はこれまでに提案されてきたどの分析にお的事実に基づき、近年提案されている様々ないても捉えることが困難であることを指摘

制約を統合していく動きが必要であることし、その上で、当該の条件文において容認性が確認された。

の差が生じるのは、scalar 含意から生じる自明性 (triviality) のためであると主張した。こ参考文献の分析により、still のような譲歩の談話助詞

Chierchia, Gennaro (2013) Logic in Grammar,(concessive particles) を Hurford 条件文に挿入した際に容認性が上がるという現象に関

Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kratzer, Angelika (1995) “Stage-level and

しても、一貫した説明を与えることが可能とIndividual-level Predicates,” The Generic

なった。

Book, ed. by Gregory N. Carlson and Francis J. Pelletier, 125–175, University of

4. （発表 3 ） Association between Floating

Chicago Press, Chicago.
Mandelkern, Matthew and Jacopo Romoli

Quantifiers and their Hosts beyond Islands: a(2018) “Hurford Conditionals,” Journal of

Possibility of Semantic Analysis（平山）本発表は、日本語の遊離数量詞に関して、

Semantics 35: 357–367.

Miyagawa (1989)を始めとする統語的分析でMiyagawa, Shigeru (1989) Structure and Caseは分析できない、ホスト名詞と遊離数量詞がMarking in Japanese, Syntax and

統語の島を超えて関連付けされている例を

Semantics, 22, Academic Press, New

提示し、代替案として、Nakanishi (2007)の分

York.
Nakanishi, Kimiko (2007) “Measurement in the析を拡張した意味的制約を提案した。具体的には、主文が描写するイベントの大きさと、

Nominal

遊離数量詞の意味の中に含まれる凖同型を

Linguistics

測量した出力とが相関関係になければなら

235–276.

and

Verbaland

Domains,”

Philosophy

30,

ないという制約を提案し、その制約が遊離数

Percus, Orin (2007) “A Pragmatic Constraint on

量詞だけではなく、英語の全称量化詞が、統Adverbial Quantification,” Presupposition

語の島を超えてスコープを取っている例にandも適用できることも示した。

Semantics, ed. by Sauerland Uli and Penka

ImplicatureinCompositional

Stateva, 178–213, Palgrave Macmillan,UK.

5. まとめ
3 件の事例研究の後、質疑応答の時間において活発な議論が交わされた。特に、形式意
味論、形式語用論の枠組みにおいて提案されている様々な制約の扱いに関する議論が中心となった。近年、G-triviality (Chierchia 2013)、など、意味論、語用論レベルでの様々な制約が提案されている。統語論、特に GB 理論や
ミニマリストプログラムにおいて、様々な制173

[II]
Twelfth International Spring ForumMay 11-12, 2019relation and how to represent the predicate
structure?
This paper is devoted to answering thisThe Predicate Structure of Past Participial

question. My main claim is that: The highest

Reduced Relatives in English

projection of reduced relatives is a predicate
projection, PredP. The relevant representation is

Bai Chigchi

as follows.

Inner Mongolia University of Finance andEconomics(2) NPi [PredP ti Pred0 [AspP Asp0 … ti … ]]Keywords: predicate, modification, reduced

NP originates in AspP, specifically in therelative

position of the internal argument of V, andmoves to the Spec of PredP, where a predication
relation between NP and AspP, the participial

1. Introduction

phrase, is established.2 NP further moves out ofThis paper attempts to clarify the predicate

PredP to a position where a modification relation

structure of English reduced relative clauses

is established.

headed by a past participle and to provide an
accurate

representation

of

how

they

The discussion in this paper is laid out asarefollows.

combined with the head noun, where anon-finite

postnominal participles as reduced relatives do

to

2. Predicate Structure in General

number of cross-linguistic studies including

Before elaborating on the claim in (2), we

Bolinger (1952 [1972], 1967) on Modern

first need to know how a predication relation in

English and Modern Spanish, Higginbotham

general is structurally represented. Note that a(1985) and Qurik et al. (1985: 420ff) on Modern

predication relation is often found in small

English, Stavrou (1996: 83-84) on Modern

clause structures. When it comes to small

Greek and Fischer (2000) on Old English. The
naturallyariseshere

aSection 5 concludes the paper.

been discussed in one way or another by atheninvolving

representation of how that structure is derived.

amodification relation, with the head noun, as hasquestionconstructions

evidenced. Section 4 presents a detailed

modifiers, postnominal ones generally have a
additionprevious

how such a predicate structure is empiricallywith respect to the fact that unlike prenominalinsummarizes

subject-predicate relation. Section 3 discusses

not generally differ from postnominal adjectives

relation,2

discussions on the syntactic structure ofmodification relation is involved.1 First note thatpredication

Sectionclauses, there immediately arises a question offorwhat the node SC, for Small Clause, is exactly.

postnominal participles, which are analogous to

An earlier analysis of small clauses (Stowellpostnominal adjectives:(1981, 1983) among others), which in fact does
not correlate small clauses to predication,(1) How to guarantee the subject-predicate

177

assumes the following structure for small(5) (…) [PredP NP Pred0 [XP X …]]

clauses, with the node having no its own
categorial identification; its category depends on

3. As as Evidence

that of the lexical predicates. That is, the head of

Now the crucial step is to show that PredP is

the predicate projects and determines theindeed projected in reduced relatives as well as

category of the node SC.

in small clauses. As evidence for the existenceof PredP, Bowers (1993: 605) and Moro (2000:(3) (…) [SC(=AP/NP/VP/PP)

Subject [AP/NP/VP/PP

43ff) present the following data, where as is a

Predicate]realization of Pred0.

Another view (Williams (1983) and much(6) They regard John as crazy and as a fool.

subsequent work), however, assumes that the(Bowers (1993: 605))

subject and the predicate are two separate
constituents in a predication relation, asInterestingly, this as also appears in reduced

represented below, where the category of SC isrelatives, but restricted to the past participle

not dependent on that of the predicate. It,

variant.

however, remains unclear what projection SC
should be identified as.3 SC, which itself is an ad(7) a. The plan as currently conceived is

hoc category label, lacks a particular head.

seriously flawed.
(Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1146))(4) (…) [SC [Subject] [AP/NP/VP/PP Predicate]b. Additionally, the case as presented
focuses on a broad evaluation …
(COCA [ACAD: 2003])

The mainstream analysis in recent studies,
however, holds that the correct category label
represented by SC is in fact a predicate phrase

It may well be argued that as here is a

(Bowers (1993), Svenonius (1994), Moro (2000,

relative marker, just like the complementizer2004), den Dikken (2006), Shlonsky and Rizzi

that and relative pronouns like which or who(2018)). The category label of small clauses,(Jespersen (1927: 168ff), Quirk et al (1985:

which was a subject of controversy in earlier

1115-1117), Huddleston and Pullum (2002:

approaches, is now PredP, headed by Pred01147-1148) and many others). In the following(Bowers’s Pr and den Dikken’s R), which has

sentences, as, introducing the sentential relative

propositional functions (Bowers (1993: 633),

clauses, plays the same role as which, which

Baker (2003: 35), etc), as represented below,

takes the preceding sentences as its antecedents.

where, for simplicity’s sake, ‘Subject’ and thecategory AP/NP/VP/PP are replaced by NP and(8) a. She is extremely popular among students,

XP, respectively. In such a structure, theas is common knowledge.

subject-predicate relation is mediated by the(cf: which is common knowledge.)

functional head Pred0.4

b. I live a long way from work, as you know.
(cf: which you know)178distinct from animals cannot be a PP because(Quirk et al. (1985: 1116))

prepositions
As

also

introduces

relativedonotgenerally

take

AP

complements (Bowers (1993: 596)). Rather, asclauses

containing a gap of a certain type of element.

is a lexical realization of Pred0 and as distinct(9) a. This is a photograph of the church as it was

PredP structure.

from animals is a reduced relative with the_ in 1900.

4. The Derivationb. No one thought that Margot, as she wasthen known

We now use a tree diagram to represent the, would last the distance.

PredP structure of participial reduced relatives as(Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1150))

follows.8

The gap in relative clauses introduced by as(12) a. The booksi sent ti to me are about

can also be the subject or object of the verb or a
preposition, as shown below.

global warming.
PredP(10) a. such woman as knew TomNP
booksi

Pred’
Pred0

b. such woman as Tom knew

AspP

c. such woman as Tom dreamed of

Asp0(Jespersen (1927: 168))send tib. The plani as currently conceived ti is

All this strongly suggests that as introducing
relative clauses is indeed a relative marker.5

seriously flawed.

Note that in (9) and (10), the non-reduced

PredP

relatives are in the domain of the noun phrases,

NP
plani

much as in the reduced relatives in (7). This
parallelism requires us to say that as in reduced
relatives is also a relative marker.

vP

Pred’
Pred0
as

6

AspP
Asp0

We now conclude that reduced relatives areindeed PredPs, like small clauses. Additionally,vP
conceive ti

as in reduced relatives is in fact a realization of
Pred0.7 An additional support for this argument

NP is base-generated in the thematic domain,is from the following data.

in which it gets an internal theta role, andsubsequently moves to the Spec of PredP to(11) The faculty of speech is the most salient

satisfyquality of men as distinct from animals.

the

EPP

featureof

Pred0.

The

predicativity of postnominal participles, as(Egawa (1991: 397))

opposed to the attributivity of prenominal ones,
is produced in this phase and is evaluated later at

In (11), as cannot be a preposition and as

the interface. Predication here, however, is not179the primary relation between NP and theparticipial phrase. This, I argue, can be attributed(13) The booksi sent ti to me are about global

to the fact that NP does not halt in the present

warming. (assume that PredP is not

position but further moves. In this sense,

projected)
NP

movement of NP to the Spec of PredP, creating a0head-complement configuration with Pred ,NPbooksiproduces a predication relation and further
movement of it to the final landing site produces

AspP
Asp0

a modification relation, the primary one.

vP

One might wonder why it is not the case that

send ti

NP moves directly to its final landing site,
skipping over the Spec of PredP, given that

Any attempt to find an intermediate position

PredP is not criterial and can be skipped over, as

for NP in the AspP domain would fail to assign

discussed by Shlonsky (2014a), for example.

subjecthood

This is possible in principle and in fact is what

subject-predicate

would

established. Taking this into account, the PredP

bepredicted

head-raising/headbyinternal

thetraditional

analysis

of

to

NP

and

relation

therefore
would

not

the
be

analysis puts us on right track to correctly(non-reduced) relative clauses, which does notunderstanding

postulate PredP. However, as far as predication

reduced relatives and allows us to postulate

is concerned, the PredP analysis is intriguing and

PredP so as to capture both passivization and themore convincing in light of the facts concerning

subject-predicate relation. In this sense, the Spec

as and other predication-involving constructions.

of PredP functions as a subject position much as

Most, if not all, of such constructions arein (finite or nonfinite) TP, where the Spec of TP

analyzed as small clauses with a PredP structure.

is a subject position.10

thestructureofparticipial

If we abandon the PredP analysis for reduced
relatives, how predication is computed and5. Conclusion

9expressed in syntax remains problematic.

In this paper, I have attempted to clarify the

Moreover, assuming that NP moves directly to

predicate structure of past participial reduced

its final landing site outside the clause, whether

relatives in English and to provide an accurate

PredP is present or not, would be wholly

representation of how the whole noun phrase isignorant of passivization of NP because

derived. It was shown that the preposition as

passivization is an operation of placing theserves as evidence for the predicate structure,object argument to a subject position within thewith the claim that it is a lexical realization ofclause. Note that the final landing site of

the functional head Pred0, which mediates

relativized NP, which is already beyond the

between the predicate and its subject. Having

clause, can never be a subject position. In thatshown this, I claimed that the head NP in thecase, passivization and relativization in reduced

surface structure stop over the Spec of PredP in

relatives would be undistinguishable and athe derivation to obtain subjecthood so that thesingle operation would encompass both of thepredicate-subject relation is produced and this

two, as diagrammed below.

step is followed by further movement of the NP180

out of PredP to a higher position where it enters(i) a. * The case that presented by …

a modification relation with PredP, the relativeb. * The case that to be presented by …

clause. It was also demonstrated that there must
be an intermediate position for the moving NP,

7otherwise the subject-predicate relation would

Pred0, resemble rich small clauses as opposed to

fail to be guaranteed.

bare small clauses, the latter of which is
generated without the intervention of a head, as

NOTES
1

In this sense, reduced relatives, headed bydiscussed by Moro (2000: 40ff; 2004), for

Here it is noted that reduced relatives have aexample.

modification relation, the primary one, with

8

nouns, on the one hand, and a predication

The voice projection is left out here.

9

That predication has to be computed andrelation, the secondary one, on the other hand.

expressed in syntax is not a new observation.

Modification rather than predication is primary

For example, Bowers (1993: 633, 647ff) statesin that if the latter were primary, the constructionthat Pred0 (his Pr) is required because it creates

would be something like a small clause. See thean unsaturated propositional function, which issubsequent discussion.
2

then predicated of the subject NP (his external

See Chigchi (2015) for detailed discussion onargument).

the syntactic category of reduced relatives as

10

AspP.
3

not projected above PredP for two reasons.

Williams (1983) offers evidence for the

Empirically, reduced relatives lack an overt

non-constituency. My purpose here does not

subject within them, leaving any available

require me to review the details of his

position empty. This leads to the fact that thearguments.
4

reduced relatives, being nonfinite clauses, lack

Basilico (2003), argues that the subject of

scope-discourse properties, which are typicallyverbal small clauses, e.g., I saw John leave,

selected by finite clauses (But see Chigchi

remains in its base-generated position in(2017:

thematic domain. That is, the subject is notdiscussion
Theoretically,ofapparent
SubjP

issubject out of its Spec (cf. Shlonsky and Rizzi(2018) and their related works). If we assume(…) [PredP Pred [XP NP X …]] (X=V)

that

reducedrelativesproject

SubjP,

relativization would be prohibited and theyFor extensive discussion, see Jespersen (1927:

would turn out be non-relative clauses.

168ff).
6forcriterial and therefore blacks movement of thefollowing representation.

5

§3.4)

counterexamples).

located in the Spec of Pred0. This would give the(i)

SubjP as assumed by Rizzi and Shlonsky isI, however, do not treat as in reduced relatives

REFERENCES

as a complementizer like that for the reason that

Baker, Mark (2003) Lexical Categories: Verbs,

subject-less non-finite clauses cannot be headed

Nouns,

by a complementizer, though it can be treated as

andAdjectives,

Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

a subjunct in the traditional sense.

Basilico, David (2003) “The Topic of Small

181

Grammar on Historical Principles, 7 vols.,

Clauses,” Linguistic Inquiry 34(1), 1–35.

George Allen and Unwin, London.

Bolinger, Dwight (1952) “Linear Modification,”

Moro, Andrea (2000) Dynamic Antisymmetry,

Language 67, 1117-1144, Reprinted in

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Syntactic Theory, ed. by F. Householder,

Moro, Andrea (2004) “Linear Compression as a31-51, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Bolinger, Dwight (1967) “Adjectives in English:

Trigger for Movement” Triggers, ed by Anne

Attribution and Predication,” Lingua 18,

Breitbarth and Henk van Riemsdijk, 387-430,

1-34.

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Bowers,John(1993)”The

SyntaxQuirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leechof

Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan (1985) A

Predication,” Linguistic Inquiry, 591-656.
Chigchi,Bai(2015)

Kakobunshi-oComprehensive Grammar of the English“Kouchishushoku-no

HukumuLanguage, Longman, London.

Meishiku-no

Shlonsky,Tougokouzo” (On the Syntactic Structure ofUr(2014a)“Subject

Positions,

Noun Phrases Containing Postnominal Past

Subject Extraction, EPP and the Subject

Participles), Proceedings of the 66th Annual

Criterion,” Locality, ed. by Enoch, Aboh,Conference of English Literature Society ofMaria Teresa Guasti and Ian Roberts, 58-86,

Japan pp.204-205.

Oxford University Press, New York.
Shlonsky, Ur and Luigi Rizzi (2018) “Criterial

Chigchi, Bai (2017) “Synchronic and Diachronic
Aspects of Adnominal Past Participles inFreezing

English”

Cartography of Copular Constructions,”

Ph.D

Dissrtation,

NagoyaUniversity.
Dikken, Marcel den (2006) “Relators and

in

Small

Freezing:

Theoretical

Empirical

Domains,

ClausesandApproaches

the
and

ed. by Hartmann,Predication,”

Marion Knecht, Andreas Konietzko andPredicate Inversion and Copulas,” MIT Press,

Susanne Winkler, Mouton de Gruyter,

Cambridge, MA.

Berlin.

Linkers:theSyntaxofStavrou, Melita (1996) “Adjectives in Modern

Egawa, Taiichiro (1991) A New Guide to English

Greek: An Instance of Predication or An Old

Grammar, Kaneko Shobo, Tokyo.

Issue Revisited,” Journal of Linguistics 32,

Fischer, Olga (2001) “The Position of the79-112.

Adjective in (Old) English from an Iconic

Stowell, Tim (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure,

Perspective,” The Motivated Sign. Iconicity

Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.

in Language and Literature 2, ed. by Olga,

Stowell,Fischer and Max Nanny, 249-276, John

Tim

(1983)

Categories,” The

Benjamins, Amsterdam.

“Subjects

Linguistic

across

Review2,285-312.

Higginbotham, James (1985) “On Semantics,”

Svenonius, Peter (1994) Dependent Nexus:

Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547-594.

Subordinate

Huddleston Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum

Predication

Structuresin(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the

English and the Scandinavian Languages,

English Language, Cambridge University

Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California.
Williams, Edwin (1983) “Against Small Clauses,”

Press, Cambridge.

Linguistic Inquiry 14, 287-308.

Jespersen, Otto (1909–1949) A Modern English

182

CORPUS
Davies,Mark(2008)

The

CorpusofContemporary American English (COCA),
available at http://www.americancorpus.org/.

183

was IMA Language and Riau Indonesian (RI) is
one such relatively IMA language).
In this paper, from the process-oriented
view point, I adopt the assumption that ①
Remarks on Root Removal and Placement

Associational Interpretations (or Associational

Verbs

Interpretation Rules) capture the different
aspects of one and the same event, which are

Hideaki Gen’ey

encoded in Pustejovsky’s (1995:87) qualia

Saitama-Gakuen University(which structure our knowledge of words andsuggest interpretations of words in context), ②
Associational Interpretations not only work in

Keywords：denominal verbs, a dynamic model

early

of syntax , quale, associationchildlanguage/grammar

butsurvive/remaininadvancedlanguage/grammar,

and

③

also
(adult)Associational

Interpretations survive in certain domains like

1. Introduction
This paper provides a (co-)compositional

those of denominal verbs and compound words.

account of English removal and placement verbs,

I focus on a particular verb class, which I

throughcall “Root Removal Verbs (henceforth RRV’s),”

associational semantics in the sense of Gil

as illustrated by seed the butternut. Note that I(2005) making use of Pustejovsky’s (1995)

use the term “root” to roughly mean “aqualia structure information. I would also like tomorphologicallyshow the notion of the structured parthood plays

theory-neutral way. My definition of this verb

an important role in syntax and semantics ofclass is that these verbs entail the removal of an

English (N.B. Champollion 2017:12-13). It is

entity, but the entity is not expressed by analso hoped that this paper contribute to show theargument of the verb, thus implicit. Importantly,

necessity of the “dynamic” perspective, claiming

the “removed” argument is a structured partthat

“association(tentatively represented as ≤structured) of a wholeoperator”) of the early stages of the language(= source) (normally, an inseparable/built-in part,acquisition survive/remain in adult grammars, inthus wholes are collection with internal structure,

the spirit of Kajita’s (2004) “process-oriented

similar to the finger-hand-arm relation andapproach (emphasizing the importance of theconstraints are imposed on the (structured)role that the grammars of the nonfinal stages

part-wholeplay in explaining the course of development

unacceptability of *an arm without a finger).

and the uniformity and diversity of adult

Another verb class is that of Root Placement

grammars (Kajita 1997:378).” In this context, I

Verbs (RPV’s). Root Placement Verbs (RPV’s)

would like to accept that the language

come in two types: Type ① those which entail

acquisition

the placement of an entity but the entity is notasubsettheofdenominal

rules(referring

startswithverbs,

to

an

IMA

simplerelation,

as

word”

shown

in

in

a

the

(Isolating-Monocategorial-Associational)

expressed by an argument of the verb like She

Language-like state (in the spirit of Gil (2005,

buttered the toast. and Type ② those which2010) who argues that early human language

entail a location but the location argument itself

184

is implicit like Juddy bagged the carrots. Typeshows the head-nonhead conflict (the noun is① shows interesting properties concerning thefelt to be the head of the verb phrase), defying“structured parthood.” One such example is thetheuse of milk as a RPV, to be discussed below.

conversion yields the double headed VP

Note that both RRV’s and RPV’s roughly

structure), thus at a variance with X-bar theory.

correspond to Clark and Clark’s (1979:769-771)

Note also that I have positied take as base into

Locatum verbs.

which skin or gut is incorporated, however, othersyntactic

reinterpretation(noun-verb

ablative-object- taking verbs like deprive mightalso be base (Takao Itto p.c.).

2. Three Approaches to Semantic Function of
RRV-/RPV-Forming Conversison

2.2. Hale and Keyser’s (1993) LRS or AS

In this paper, we survey two different

Haleapproaches to the semantic function of RRV／

andKeyser(hereafter

H&K)

syntactic(1993:63) argue that by Minimality, the inner VP(incorporation) approach and the associational

is a barrier to the government from the higher Vinterpretation approach referring to the qualia

and that movement of N from Spec position in

information. Note that the lexical semantic

the inner VP violates the ECP. Thus an external

approach is criticized by Nagano (2008:66-67)

argument does not incorporate. However, in thisthat the semantic diversity of conversion cannot

paper, I would like to point out one and the same

be reduced to a fixed set of LCS templates,

structure in (1) might be the legitimate LRS (orthus the discussion about it is omitted here.

AS) for root removal/placement verbs like seed,

RPV-forming

conversion:thescalp, gut, butter, milk and others. That is,
2.1. Evaluation of Noun Incorporation

movement of N (seed, scalp, gut, butter etc.)

Consider the English sentences like I saw

from Spec position in the inner VP should berows of huddled men skinning and gutting

allowed despite the violation of ECP.

fresh-caught fish. It might be argued that┌barrier

denominal verbs like skin is derived via Noun
Incorporation of skin into a light verb take on the(1) [v’ V [ VP [NP seed] [V’ V[PP P [NP theground that children acquire structures like↑

“TAKE SKIN OFF HOT DOG (An utterance of× |butternut]]]]]

a child of 21 months 4 days (Tomasello
1992:317))” fairly early, if the denominal verb

It is also intriguing to observe that there areskin appears later. Another supporting evidence

attestedof the Noun Incorporation analysis of RRV’s

removal/placement verbs as in (2), whose

like skin comes from alternations like “Theexistence is denied by H & K (1993:60-61).

[V …

P]

items

involvingroot

police took Akechi’s (finger)prints” and “The
(2) a. Cornwell, meanwhile, picked up his hat

police (finger)printed Akechi,” which resemble

and dusted it off.

possessor raising in Mohawk (Baker 1988:48,[Corpus]65). However, in English there is no possessorb. Caught a wrist and loop the rope around.

raising like Mohawk. In addition, the resultant

c. cf. The gun bearers were skinning out

structure constructed by the Noun Incorporation

the lion.

185

when RI speakers hear utterances, they figureout the meaning of them best suit to the situation,

2.3. Evaluation of Levinson (2007, 2014)
2014:212)

relying on the associational meaning of ‘eat’ andcaptures the covert (syntactic morphological)‘chicken.’ In RI there is no construction-specificparallels between sentences with implicit/root

rules of semantic interpretation. Namely, thecreation verbs like “She braided her hair” andlanguage itself does not specify or narrow down

those with the use of make like “She made her

the interpretation so that there is no other way of

hair into a braid,” through the argument

interpreting two words eat and chicken uttered instructures, with the verb in the former structure

this order than to interpret them as a verb and its

being built syntactically by incorporation,

object. Therefore, Gil (2005) argues that Reau

assuming

little v’s.

Indonesian is a relatively IMA language, aLevinson (2007, 2014) does not address

language whose word-internal morphology is“implicit/root removal verbs” and two types ofsimple (Isolating), which lacks distinction“implicit/root placement verbs.” I point out thatamong lexical categories like noun, verb,“incorporation” by head movement of root

adjective,

removal verbs leave “functional elements” likeS(entence) (Syntactically Monocategorial) andOUT stranded in syntax in Levinson’s (2007,

whose compositional semantics relying on (the)2014) framework of lexical decomposition.

Association (operator). In other words, Gil’s

Levinson(2007:

different

47,

118,

‘flavors’ of

with

just

one

open

category(2005) study of RI shows that IMA Language isbasic, from which the (complex) grammars(1) [vP vremove [√√seed [OF [ OUT [DP raisons]]]]↑develop, and it is the ways of such development|in which reside the important properties ofThus, I claim that the lexical representation for

Language Faculty, heading toward the idea of athe verbs like seed is not hierarchical.

Dynamic Model of Syntax.
The phenomenon close to IMA Language is

2.4. Evaluation of the Associational Approach

one-word utterances or two- to three-word

Making Reference to the Qualia Structureutterances at the early stages of the language

In the following I will summarize the essential

acquisition. At these stages children manage topoints of Gil (2005) to make the story clearlycommunicate

understandable.

aredispensing with the internal structures of words.

confronted with a two-word utterance (andOne morpheme is enough, and the rest are

somehow you identify two word stems, namelyinterpreted by association. Or at the early stageseat (makan in Riau Indonesian:RI) and chickenchildren merely juxtapose words and have(ayan in RI)). When the bare juxtaposition of theentirely recourse to associational interpretations.

two words, say ‘eat chicken’ is uttered in a

In the following I argue for an approach torestaurant, it might mean ‘to eat chicken.’

RRVs and RPVs as instances of V-forming

Whereas the same juxtaposition of the two

denominal conversion based on associational

words is uttered in the farm where a chicken isinterpretations making reference to the qualia

picking food/feeding, it means ‘a chicken is

information. I point out that associational

eating.’ In this way, in Riau Indonesian (RI),

semantics accommodate versatile properties ofFirst,

imagine

you

186

with

just

one

morpheme,

specifications, as in (1).

denominal-verb-forming conversion. I claim that(sowing /removal) senses of seed as a denominal
converted verb are derived through generative(1) | butter|

mechanisms in composition with its arguments|(such as seed the butternut and seed rye in the| ARGGSTR = | ARG2 = phys_object | |field) through a qualia unification operation|| ARG1 = human| || S-ARG1 = butter(Pustejovsky 1995:124). This is a formal| |(Pustejovsky 1995:67)

statement of “association which pick up the mostappropriate

meaning/interpretation

on

the

I claim that the lexical semantics for the RRV’s

situation,” which Gil (2005) claims to work atlike seed can be partially represented withthe beginning of language, where categories likeargument structure specifications, as below.

preposition and tense are not discriminated. I
claim that association survives in noun-verb(2) | seed

conversion and a few other areas.

|

To formalize a statement of properties of|
ARG1 = human|| ARGSTR = ARG2 = phys _object |IMA languages, especially the property of|

D-ARG1 = instrument |“semantically associational,” I will develop|

S-ARG1 = seed|

Pustejovsky’s (1995: 62ff.) insight into theargument structure of a word focusing on

According to Pustejovsky (1995: 63-67) the

shadow argument expressed only by operations

arguments for a lexical item, ARG1, ..., ARGn,of subtyping or discourse specification; e.g.,

are represented in a list structure where“Mary buttered her toast with an expensive

argument type is directly encoded in thebutter.” This is an example of our RPV’s. Noteargument structure, ARGSTR, as shown in (1)Pustejovsky’s (1995:28, 64) complementaryand (2) above, where D-ARG is a default

ambiguity, as in the use of hammer both as aargument, and S-ARG is a shadow argument

noun and a verb corresponds to the type of(semantically incorporated into the lexical item).

conversion relevant here. Pustejovsky (1995:65)

S-ARG can be expressed only by operations ofargues that shadow arguments refer to semantic

subtyping or discourse specification; e.g.,content not necessarily expressed in syntax, aswith the incorporated semantic content in the(3) a. John seeded a field with rye seeds.

verbs like butter in “Mary buttered her toast,”

b. cf. … braiding a traditional fishbraid

where the material being spread on the toast is

down the length of hair / Braid the locks

the “hidden argument.” Pustejovsky (1995:65)

in a Dutch braid.

claims that shadow arguments are expressiblec. cf. She braided the hair. (Levinson 2007:1)

when expressed ones stand in a subtyping
relation to the shadow arguments in examples
like

“Mary

with

(PR’s), which do not modify the DP object asmargarine/*with butter.” Pustejovsky (1995:67)

resultatives do but modify an individual peel

partially represents the lexical semantics for thecreated as a result of the (removing) event (i.e., averbshadowbutterbuttered

with

the

her

toast

Next let us consider pseudo-resultatives

argument

structure187

argument),

in

the

contextofy[(structured part_of (x, y)] (N.B. Pustejovsky

co-composition, given in (4).

1995:99). In this case, under qualia unification,(4) The rich peel potatoes thick. → At least one

the FORMAL role of the adjective is [...

thick peel was removed (from a potato).

FORMAL = thick (e1, 3)] because the adjective
thick ends up modifying peel, which is a shadow

The adjectival phrases entering into PR’s are justargument of the verb peel (which has thethose stage-level predicates which “cohere” with

FORMAL QUALE = FORMAL = physobj・

the process predicate (i.e., RRV’s here) present

thickness (x)), while the qualia structurein the phrase (N.B. Pustejovsky (1995:227-228).

( [ARGMSTR = x: Solanum tuberosum; potato]

For adjectives like thick used in composition∧[QUALIA = FORMAL = oval_shape_physobj

with the VP can be accompanied by a qualia(x)] ) of the direct object argument potatoes does

unification. The lexical representation for the

not match that of thick (i.e., *thick potatoes).

adjective thick is given below. The event

Note in passing that the expressions like “peelstructure here is defined in terms of “exhaustive

potatoes” and “core an apple” might be definedordered part of,”<∝ (Pustejovskey 1995: 69).

as creating the peel/the core by removing it fromthe potato or the apple flesh. Then the qualia forthe shadow argument of the denominal verb core(5) thick⸣(which predicates of the individual) make

EVENTSTR = | D-E1 = e2:process |reference to an AGENTIVE value of [CONST =「 E1 = e1:state

part_of| RESTR = e2<∝e1 |⸤ HEAD = e1

y:fruit) ∧AGENTIVE=

create_act(e1, w,y) ∧ TELIC = inedible] (cf.

」|

「ARG1 = 1 physobj
ARGSTR = |(x,⸣Pustejovsky 1995:123, 173). As for peel,

FORMAL = entity |substituting “fruit” by “vegetable” yields therelevant Qualia structure.

| D-ARG1 = 2

[ ⊤ ]

|

⸤ (S-ARG1 = 3

physobj)」

Next I argue that root removal/placement
verbs like seed and dust are polysemous, due to

QUALIA =「FORMAL = thick (e1, 1 ( 3 )) ⸣

associative interpretations, as shown in (6). In

⸤AGENTIVE =R (e2, 1 , (2, 3 ))」other words, these are instances of logical
The R is a predicate that is sortally structured topolysemy as a complementary ambiguity where

subsume denominal verbs like peel. The

there

stage-level predicate act as function over the VP(purporting to obviating the multiple lisitngs ofpeel potatoes, but under qualia unification, thewords), as defined in Pustejovsky (1995:2, 123).

isnochangeinlexicalcategory

FORMAL role of the adjective unifies with thatof the VP (i.e. λx [peel ARGSTR = ... S-ARG1
=

peel

...

∧ FORMAL=

remove-lcp(6) a. I seed the butternut.

(removal)b. I seed rye in a field.

(placement)

peel_¬part_of ....]). Note that the shadow
argument is related to the direct object by the

These are examples of co-compostion, where

CONSTITUTIVE(=

qualia unification results in a specific verbal

potatoes). Namely, peel and potatoes are in thesenses in context, without the need to enumerate

structured-part-of relation (defined as λ x ∃each sense (Pustejovsky 1995:223). I argue that

relation

of

ARG-2

188

this might also be a formal statement of the(6a) is [seed the_butternut … ]. The object’s

semantic association. What each sentence in (6)TELIC role “eating” is shared in this sentence.

asserts about its complements is that theWhat this expression says is that the result of

purposes associated with the object of eachremove_act is a state asserting the possibility ofpredicate is available to use – namely, thethe activity inherent in the TELIC role of theobject’s TELC quale is shared, in a modally

object. Specifically, the denominal verb seed as

subordinated form, as the value of the FORMAL

an event argument can selectively modify thequale for the main predicate seed (N.B.

event description in the TELIC quale of thePustejovsky 1995: 222). The lexical semantics

object noun (cf. Pustejovsky 1995:129). Theof the verb seed is specified for its [ARGSTR =same verbal representation for seed given above

ARG1 = 1 ∧ the shadow argument (A-ARG3,

give rise to the appropriate (but distinct)

3) = seed]. The CONST(ITUTIVE) quale of themeaning of the verb in (6b) above, where theshadow argument seed refers not only to thecomplement is in a field. Locative PPs act asparts or materials of an object but defines , forfunctions over VP to give rise to a derivative

the object, what the object is logicallyverb sense through co-composition. Note the PP(structured)(i.e.,(structured)

carries the locative sense as part of qualia(N.B.

Pustejovsky

structure. Here the preposition in only selects

1995:98-99). Its TELIC Qualia is specified as

locations that have a specific TELIC role in theirevent function λ z λ e ∃ x.y [¬eat (e,z,x.y)]

qualia structure (N.B. Pusteyovsky 1995: 232).

(¬eat = inedible)] and λ z λ e ∃ x.y

For example, a field is used for planting.

[sprout(e,z,x.y)].

QualiaSecondly, when an entity is predicated of an

structure of the verb seed [QUALIA = dc-lcp ∧in-PP, it is suggested the entity is participating in

FORMAL==the TELIC role taken from the preposition’s

remove_act

・ sow_act(e1,Thisobject (N.B. Pustejovsky 1995: 232). Namely, if

semantics of the verb seed, where the modalrye (seed(s)) is/are in a field then rye is/arestatement refers to the object’s TELIC role issituated in the specific orientation typically

explicitly given. Here “dc = direct causation”

associated with the field. The value of theand “lcp = a Lexical Conceptual Paradigm; theTELIC role of field is the activity of planting

ability of a lexical item to cluster multiple

and growing crops. The TELIC role of rye is thesenses” (Pustejovsky 1995:91, 219). For a noun

activity of producing grain. Thus, the denotationsuch as the butternut, the TELIC role isof VP [VP seed rye in a field] refers to the growth

specified for its use and function; for theofbutternut this value is the activity of eating;planting/sowing.

part

of

part_of(x,y:fruit_plant))In…

addition,∧the

AGENTIVE
1,

3)].

rye

as

a

resultoftheactionof

AGENTIVE role is specified for factors

Next, consider the paradigm: (a) milk his

involved in “bringing about” of an object and forcow (in a dairy farm), (b) milk the tea (atbutternut this value is cook_act. This expression

teatime), (c) milk the baby (lactation), and (d)is embedded into a modal context within the*milk the glass (meaning pouring milk in the

FORMAL role of the predicate seed in a

glass). In all these examples, the verb milksentence (1a) above. The (simplified) qualia

involves the value of the CONST quale. But I

structure resulting from composition with VP of

add “structured” to the relation part_of to189account for the ungrammaticality of (d). The

Publishing Company, Amsterdam.

shared association among examples (a)-(c) is

Gil, David (2010) “Early Human Language wasthat milk and his cow/the tea/the baby are

Isolating-Monocategorial-Associational,”

integrated/merged at a certain point of the event.

ms., <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org>

In such cases, I call parts like milk “structured

Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser (1993)(2017)“On Argument Structure and the Lexical

terminology. *Milk the glass is excluded because

Expression of Syntactic Relations,” The

the glass and milk do not merge.

View from the Building 20, ed. by Kenneth

part(s),”adopting

Champollion’s

Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 53-110, The

Finally, I point out that, in the expressions

MIT Press, Cambridge.

like the gun bearers were skinning out the lion,

Kajita, Masaru (1977) “Towards a Dynamic

the value of the AGENTIVE quale of the verb

Model of Syntax,” SEL 5, 44-76.

skin, removal_act, is syntactically realized as a

Kajita, Masaru (1997) “Some Fundamental

particle element out.

Postulates for the Dynamic Theories ofLanguage,” Studies in English Linguistics:

5. Conclusion
I have argued for a (co-)compositional

A Festschrift for Akira Ota on the Occasionaccount of (RR/RP)V (Verb)-forming conversion,of His Eightieth Birthday, ed. by Masatomothrough associational semantics in the sense of

Ukaji, Masaru Kajita, Toshio Nakao andGil (2005) making use of Pustejovsky’s (1995)

Shuji Chiba, 378-393, Taishukan, Tokyo.

qualia structure information represented in a list

Kajita, Masaru (2004) “Shuhen Reigai wa

structure, pointing out the problems with the

Shuhen Reigaika? (Are ‘Peripheries/

previous analyses based on the “hierarchical”

Exceptions’ Really Peripheral/argument structure. I have also shown the

Exceptional?)” Journal of Japanese

importance of the notion of the structured

Grammar 4, 3-23.
Levinson, Lisa (2007) The Roots of Verbs,

parthood in syntax and semantics. I also hope

Doctoral dissertation, NYU.

that this paper has contributed to show the

Levinson, Lisa (2014) “The Ontology of Roots

necessity of the “dynamic” perspective (Kajita

and Verbs,” The Syntax of Roots and the1977, 1997, 2004).

Roots of Syntax, ed. by Artemis Alexiadou,
Hagit Borer, and Florian Schäfer, 208-229,

REFERENCES
Baker, Mark (1988) Incorporation: A Theory of

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Grammatical Function Changing, The

Nagano, Akiko (2008) Conversion andUniversity of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Back-Formation in English, Kaitakusha,

Champollion, Lucas (2017) Parts of a Whole,

Tokyo.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Pustejovsky, James (1995) The Generative

Gil, David (2005) “Word Order without

Lexicon, The MIT Press, Cambridge.

Syntactic Categories,” Verb First: On theTomasello,

Syntax of Verb-Initial Langugaes, ed. by

Michael(1992)

First

Verbs,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley and Sheila
Ann Dooley, 243-263, John Benjamins190

(2) a.

Boku-ni-*(wa)kare-oI-DAT-*(TOP)he-ACCuragir-e-nai.
betray-POSS-NEG‘I cannot betray him.’

Syntactic Nature and Semantic Effect ofb.

Dative Case in Japanese
Takashi Kayashima

Kodomo-ni-sae

Taro-ochild-DAT-even

Taro-ACC

taos-e-ru.

Seinan Gakuin University

beat-POSS-PRES‘Even a child can beat Taro.’

Keywords: labeling, case, topic, focus
At first glance, it is not clear why topicalizing or
1. Introduction

focalizing a subject improve grammaticality. In

A construction which I focus on in this paper

this paper, I show that this fact is captured in

is a potential construction in Japanese. In thisterms of labeling algorithm (LA) proposed byconstruction, some variations of distribution ofChomsky (2013, 2015).

case is observed as shown in (1). As shown in (1c),when a subject is dative-marked, an object cannot

2. A Problem

have accusative case.

As shown in the introduction, in a potential
construction in Japanese, a dative subject cannot(1) a.

Kodomo-ga
child-NOM

hon-ga/o

co-occur with an accusative object. Ura (1999)
proposes a principled explanation for this fact.

book-NOM/ACC

yom-e-ru.
(3)

read-POSS-PRESvP‘A child can read a book.’b.

Kodomo-ni

hon-gachild-DAT

book-NOM

T

Experiencer v´
VP
Theme

yom-e-ru.

v
Vread-POSS-PRES
In (3), v is idiosyncratic in that it has optionality‘A child can read a book.’c. * Kodomo-ni

hon-o

in terms of case assignment. Concretely, v canchild-DAT

book-ACC

optionally assign accusative case to the theme. It

yom-e-ru.

can also assign dative case to the experiencer.

read-POSS-PRES

When the theme or the experiencer do not receive‘A child can read a book.’case from v, they receive nominative case from T.
This assumption derives four patterns of caseInterestingly, the same pattern of case distribution

distribution, one of which is ungrammatical as

as in (1c) is allowed if a subject is topicalized or

shown in (1c). Ura’s (1999) explanation to thisfocused as shown in (2).

ungrammaticality is as follows.

191

(4)

3 Theoretical Background

TP
vP
EXP
DAT

frameworks. One is Chomsky (2013, 2015),

v´
VP

Theme
ACC

In this section, we briefly review two major

T

[u-φ]

where the labeling algorithm is proposed. In this

v

[u-φ]

framework, it is assumed that labels of syntacticVobjects are necessary for interpretation at theIn (4), T has to have its [u-φ] checked, so it probes

interface

betweensyntaxandsemantics.

an appropriate goal. The first candidate is theChomsky (2013, 2015) claims that these labels

experiencer, but it has received dative case fromare determined through minimal search.

v and is inactivated. Then T keep probing, and it(6) a.

finds the theme. However, this argument has also

X→H
H

received accusative case from v, which meansαPαthat it cannot be an appropriate goal for
agreement with T. Eventually, T cannot agreeb.

with any argument and fails to check its [u-φ],XαPand the derivation crashes.

βP

αAlthough this explanation is simple andβpersuasive, this analysis cannot capture the factc.

shown in (2), which is repeated in (5).

X→[f, f]αP(5) a.

Boku-ni-*(wa) kare-o
I-DAT-*(TOP)[f](=(2a))γPγ[f]he-ACC

Y→βP
αP

βP

uragir-e-nai.

b.

betray-POSS-NEG

In (6a), H is the label of the syntactic object since‘I cannot betray him.’

it is closer to X. A problematic case is (b), where

Kodomo-ni-sae

Taro-ochild-DAT-even

Taro-ACC

the distance from α to X and that from β to X are(=(2b))

equal. This configuration is generally called XP-

taos-e-ru.

YP configuration and I employ this term here.

beat-POSS-PRES

Chomsky (2013, 2015) provides two strategies to‘Even a child can beat Taro.’

solve this XP-YP configuration. One is to move
either syntactic object to a syntactically higher

In both (5a) and (5b), the subjects have dative

position. After the movement of αP in (6c), thecase and the objects are accusative-marked.

trace of it is no longer visible to LA. Therefore,

Therefore, Ura’s (1999) explanation predicts thatthe label of X is determined as βP. However, thisthese two examples are unacceptable, which is

movement makes another XP-YP configuration,

not the case. Therefore, another explanation

so we need another strategy. The other way

which does not depend on φ-features checking isprovided by Chomsky (2013, 2015) is to label anecessary, and I claim that this fact can be

syntactic object with a shared prominent feature.

explained in terms of labeling.

In (6c), αP and γP share the same feature [f]. In
this case, the label of X is determined as [f, f].

192

Following this framework, labels of syntactic

With this mechanism, Saito (2016) proposes that

objects in a simple transitive sentence is as

grammatical case makes phrases invisible to LA.

follows.

With this assumption, a transitive sentence inJapanese is derived as in (9).

(7)

[φ,φ]
DP

(9)

T´
T

DP

v+R
DP

β→TP
[NOM]

v+R

v+R

T´
T
DP

[φ,φ]
DP

v+R

RP
R

v+R
v+R

DP

α→RP
DP

[ACC]

RP
R

DP

The derivation above contains two SOs which arelabeled with φ-features, which means that theWe have two SOs which contain XP-YP

sentence cannot be generated without φ-features.

configuration: α and β. In both cases, DPs have

However, there are some languages which do notgrammatical case values, which make these DPs

have φ-features, one of which is Japaneseinvisible to labeling. As a result, α is labeled as(Kuroda (1988), Saito (2007), Şener andRP and β is labeled as TP.

If so, two questions arise.

I follow these two major frameworks:

One is about case valuation. It is generally

Chomsky (2013, 2015) and Saito (2016). In theassumed that case valuation is a side effect of φ-next section, I show a theoretical possibility offeature valuation. If Japanese lacks φ-features,

Saito (2016) and make a proposal.

Takahashi (2010)).

another mechanism of case valuation is necessary
4 Analysis

which is independent of φ-features. The other isabout labeling. In (7), two syntactic objects are

In the previous section, we reviewed Saitolabeled with φ-features. Again, if Japanese lacks(2016), according to which grammatical caseφ-features, how can we label these syntactic

makes DPs invisible to LA. More accurately, it isobjects? Saito (2016) answers these questions“λ-features” which have this function, andemploying Bošković’s (2007) case valuation

grammatical case is a realization of these features.

system as shown in (8), where [u-Case] itself

λ-features receive different kinds of value fromprobes an appropriate goal.

each category, e.g. nominative from T andaccusative from v. However, dative arguments(8)

appear various syntactic position, which make it

TPDP[Case: NOM]

difficult to figure out which category provides

T´T

dative value. Here, I assume that dative case is notvPDP[u-Case]a realization of a λ-feature. If so, dative case doesv´

not make phrases invisible. With this assumption,(Bošković(2007))theungrammaticality

straightforwardly.

In (8), the DP moves to [Spec, TP], where it finds
T as a goal and [u-Case] is valued as nominative.

193

of

(1c)

is

derived(10) a. * Kodomo-ni
child-DAT

hon-ofeatures, namely topic features or focus features.

book-ACC

Here is a citation from Rizzi (2015).

yom-e-ru. (= (1c))(11) Criterial configurations are a permissible

read-POSS-PRES‘A child can read a book.’‘halting sites’ for movement because theyTPpermit proper labeling of the criterialb.
αconfiguration by the criterial feature.

TDPkodomo[DAT] RP

v´

DP
hon

R

(Rizzi (2015: 335))v
In fact, we can see that the subjects in (2a) and[ACC](2b) have discourse features. In (2a), there is a

In (10b), the candidates for the label of α is D or

topic marker -wa on the subject, which cannot bev, and minimal search cannot decide which one isremoved. Thus, the subject in (2a) has a topic

appropriate. Since dative case does not makefeature. On the other hand, there is a focus marker

kodomo invisible to LA, there is no way to decide-sae, which means that the subject has a focus

the label of α, which causes the derivation tofeature. If the subjects in (2a) and (2b) havecrash.

discoursefeatures,wecancapturetheHere, two possible questions arise. One isgrammaticality of these sentences as follows.

about why (2a) and (2b) are grammatical. The(12a) is the derivation of (2a) and (12b) is that ofway of distribution of case is the same as in (1c),(2b) respectively.

namely a dative subject and an accusative object,(12) a.

which makes us predict that these sentences are

α→[Top,Top]
DP
Top´
boku
[Top] TPTop

ungrammatical, which is not the case. The otherquestion is about why (1b) is grammatical. The
only difference is that the object is nominativemarked,

which

must

make

the

T´

sentencevP

grammatical.

DP
boku

First, we consider the first question. In
Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) framework, we haveb.

two strategies to solve [XP, YP] configuration.

Tv´

α→[Foc,Foc]DP
Top´
kodomo[Foc] TPTop

One is to move either phrase to a syntacticallyhigher position and the other is labeling with aT´

shared prominent feature. Importantly, the former

vP

strategy creates another [XP, YP] configuration

T

DP
v´
kodomoon the landing site of the moved phrase.
Therefore, eventually we have to rely on the latter

In (12a), the subject DP moves to [Spec, TopP].

strategy, namely feature sharing strategy. This

Therefore, the problem of labeling as in (10b)fact leads us to assume that there is a certain

does not occur. This subject DP shares topic

feature which enables labeling in (2a) and (2b).

feature with Top, so α is successfully labeled with

The most plausible candidate is discourse

this feature. A similar explanation can be applied194to (12b). In this case, the subject DP holds [Foc],

Since this syntactic object consists of two phrases,

and the label of α is determined with this feature.

we cannot label it, which causes this derivation toNow, we revisit to (1b). In order to explicate

crash. On the other hand, the derivation of (13a)is shown in (15)what makes this sentence grammatical, it isimportant to notice that we cannot change the(15)word order as shown in (13).
(13) a.

Kodomo-ni

hon-gachild-DAT

book-NOM

yom-e-ru. (= (1b))
read-POSS-PRES‘A child can read a book.’b. * Hon-ga[Top,Top]/[Foc,Foc]DP
kodomo[Top]/[Foc] TP

C´

DP
hon

T´
vP

T

DP
kodomo

v´

DP
hon

R

[Top]/[Foc] RP

kodomo-ni

book-NOM

C[Top]/[Foc]child-DATv

yom-e-ru.

In (15), kodomo moves to a syntactically higher

read-POSS-PRES

position, which resolves the problem of labeling‘A child can read a book.’in (14). As already discussed, this movement is
not a scrambling, so it must be another kind of A´-

The ungrammaticality of (13b) shows that the

movement,

word order in (13a) is not a result of scrambling.

focalization. Therefore, the syntactic object which

Furthermore, if Japanese employs Bošković’s

consists of the DP kodomo and C can be labeled(2007) case valuation system, hon must be atwith a discourse feature: [Top] or [Foc].

namelya

topicalizationora[Spec, TP]. With these facts, I assume that (13a)is derived from (13b) with an A´-movement of

5 Conclusion
In this paper, I pursued a possibility that

kodomo. First, I show the derivation of (13b) in

dative case is not a realization of a λ-feature. If so,(14).

a dative-marked DP is still visible to LA, which(14)

causes a problem of labeling. In order to avoid

TP
DP
hon

[NOM]

α

discourse feature, namely a topic feature or a

T

DP
v´
kodomo[DAT] RPDP
honthis problem, a dative-marked DP must hold aT´

focus feature. This assumption explains thereason why a dative-marked subject cannot co-voccur with an accusative-marked object, and theRgrammaticality improves when the dative-[u-Case]marked subject is topicalized or focalized.

If we consider the thematic interpretation, it isplausible to assume that hon merges with R andkodomo merges with v. kodomo is assigned dative

REFERENCES

case, which makes this DP inactive. As a result,

Bošković, Željko (2007) “On the Locality andhon moves to [Spec, TP] and valued as

Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even

nominative. A problem is the syntactic object α.

195

More

Minimalist

Theory,”Linguistic

Inquiry 38, 589-644.
Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,”
Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky, Noam (2015) “Problems of Projection:
Extensions,” Structures, Strategies andBeyond - Studies in Honor of Adriana
Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico, Comelia
Hamann and Simona Matteini, 3-16, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki (1988) “Whether We Agree orNot,” Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1-47.
Rizzi, Luisi (2015) “Cartography, Criteria, andLabeling,” Beyond Functional Sequence –The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 10,
314-338.
Saito, Mamoru (2007) “Notes on East Asian
Argument Ellipsis,”

Language Research

43: 203-227.
Saito, Mamoru (2016) “(A) Case for Labeling:
Labeling in languages without

φ-feature

Agreement,” The Linguistic Review 33, 129175.
Şener and Takahashi (2010) “Argument Ellipsis
in Japanese: Move, Agree or Merge?”
Nanzan Linguistics 8: 109-127.
Ura, Hiroyuki (1999) “Checking Theory and
Dative Subject Constructions in Japaneseand Korean,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 8, 223-254.

196

pronominal analysis (Hoji 1998, Ahn and Cho2010 and others).
2. Theoretical Background2.1. Null Arguments

Notes on Reciprocals
in Korean and Japanese Ellipsis*

It is well known that both Korean andJapanese allow null arguments. Focusing on null

Mika Kizu

objects, one of the typical examples is shown in

Notre Dame Seishin University(1) from Japanese (due to space limitations, only

Kazumi Yamada

Japanese examples are presented to represent the

Kwansei Gakuin University

two languages in this section).

Keywords：reciprocal, null object, argument(1) a. Kuma-wa zibun-no kuruma-o huita.

ellipsis, VP ellipsis, pro

Bear-Top self-Gen car-Acc wiped‘Bear wiped his own car.’b. Pengin-mo [e] huita.
Penguin-also wiped

1. Introduction‘(lit.) Penguin wiped, too.’This paper reports our findings on somecategorical differences between Japanese andKorean in terms of null object constructions

The object in (1b), indicated as [e], is not overtly

which include elided reciprocal pronouns. The

expressed, and yet, the elided object can befindings include inter-speaker variation in theinterpreted as Bear’s car mentioned in (1a) orinterpretation of elided reciprocals in Korean,

Penguin’s car from the context. The former

suggesting that the nature of reciprocals byreading is called ‘strict identity interpretation’certain Korean native speakers is not the same as

and the latter ‘sloppy identity interpretation’.
As is widely assumed, the null object isthat of Japanese reciprocals.
The Japanese native speakers we consulted

analyzed to be filled in with some syntactic

in this study find the referent of elided

element. The major accounts proposed for such

reciprocals ambiguous; both strict and sloppy

null

identity readings are possible. However, theV-stranding VP ellipsis (VVPE), and argument

inter-speaker variation is observed in Korean

ellipsis (AE) analyses.

nativespeakers;

someinterpretelements

includenull

pronominal,

elidedreciprocals under sloppy identity reading only

2.2. Null Pronoun

whereas others interpret them ambiguously.

The null pronominal analysis postulates anHere, we would like to discuss thisunpronounced pronoun, pro, base-generated in

micro-parametric difference from a viewpoint ofobject position (Kuroda 1965, Hoji 1998 anddistinct semantic features of reciprocal pronouns

others). This is illustrated in (1b)’ in Japanese.

in the two languages, indirectly supporting theellipsis analyses (Otani and Whitman 1991, Oku(1)’b. Pengin-mo [pro] huita.

1998, Kim 1999 among others) over the

Penguin-also wiped197

sentence in (2a), the second part of which is‘(lit.) Penguin wiped (it), too.’

represented as in (2b):Assuming that pro is equivalent to its overt(2) a. The bear washed the car carefully, but

pronoun, the most serious problem of thisthe penguin didn’t [e].

analysis is that it cannot explain the fact thatsomeelidedarguments

areb. ...the penguin didn’t [VP [VP wash the car]ambiguouslyinterpreted exemplified by (1) above. In othercarefully]

words, if a corresponding overt pronoun appears
in the elided object position, the interpretation

As (2b) demonstrates, the meaning of the secondturns out to be unambiguous.

part of the sentence in (2a) can be “wash the carcarefully”(1)’’b. Pengin-mo sore-o

includingtheadverbialphrase,huita.

carefully. Since the elided phrase [e] in (2a) is

Penguin-also that-Acc wiped

regarded as a VP in English, we assume that the‘Penguin also wiped that.’elided VP structure is to contain the adverbial
phrase modifying the VP in addition to the verb

Unlike (1b) where the object position is empty,

and its object.

(1b)’’ with the overt pronoun is interpreted only

However, regarding corresponding Japaneseas “Penguin wiped Bear’s car,” that is, the strict

sentences, some counter-argument has been

identity interpretation. Interestingly, (1b)’’ does

presented by researchers such as Oku (1998). In

not observe a sloppy identity reading when thefact, the Japanese sentence corresponding to theobject position is occupied by the overt pronoun.

English example in (2) does not express the

The difference between (1b) and (1b)’’same meaning.

indicates that the overt pronoun fails to produce
a sloppy identity reading, which consequently(3) a. Kuma-wa hayaku mizu-o

nonda.

leads us to claim that the null object position in

Bear-Top quickly water-Acc drank(1b) is not filled in with any pronominal element

Pengin-wa [e] nomanakatta.

since the sloppy identity interpretation is not

Penguin-Top didn’t-drink

available for the overt counterpart. We should‘Bear drank water quickly. Penguin

note, however, that we can still argue that the

didn’t [drink water].’null object is pronominal for the case of theb. Pengin-wa [VP hayaku [VP mizu-o ti ]]strict identity reading, which we will come backPenguin-Top1

to discuss more in detail in section 4.

quickly

water-Acc[V nomanakatta]ididn’t-drink

2.3. V-stranding VP Ellipsis (VVPE)
Anotheranalysisonelidedsentences

The second sentence in (3a) is interpreted asassumes that null object constructions in‘Penguin didn’t drink water at all,’ and crucially,

Japanese are generated via VVPE. Otani andit does not mean ‘Penguin drank water but not

Whitman (1991) propose that the head verb

quickly’.2 This fact indicates that the null object

moves out of the VP before LF Copy of the VPin (3a) does not have the source illustrated as

applies. Consider first the English VP ellipsis(3b), and thus undermine the analysis of VVPE.3

198

However, the same explanation cannot be
maintained in (6):2.4. Argument Ellipsis (AE)To overcome the problems in 2.2 and 2.3,

(6) a. Mary loves Johni, and hei thinks that

Oku (1998), Kim (1999) and others argue thatthe missing objects in Japanese and Korean are

Sally does, too.

generated by AE. The null object sentence underb. Mary loves Johni, and hei thinks thatthe sloppy identity reading in (1b) is represented

Sally does love Johni, too.

as (4b) under the AE analysis.
Unlike (5a), (6a) is perfectly grammatical in the(4) a. Kumai-wa zibuni-no kuruma-o huita.

given interpretation (he=John). By analogy fromBear-Top self-Gen car-Acc wiped

the analysis in (5), we may say that (6a)‘Bear wiped his own car.’originates from (6b), where its VP, love John, iselided. However, unlike (5a), the Condition C

b. Pengin-mo zibun-no kuruma-o huita.
Penguin-alsodoes not seem to be applicable to (6a).

wipedFiengo and May (1994) propose that actually,‘(lit.) Penguin also wiped [e].’the elided elements are not love John but love
him as illustrated in (6c).

The elided phrase in (4b) contains the exact
copy of self’s car in the antecedent sentence.
This representation explains why the sloppy(6) c. Mary loves Johni, and hei thinks that

identity interpretation is obtained; in (4b), theSally does love himi, too.

reflexive anaphor zibun is bound by its
antecedent, Penguin, in the same sentence, andFiengo and May (1994: 218) state: “in ahence, the sloppy identity reading becomesreconstruction, a nominal can take any syntactic

available. Since this analysis postulates eliding

form so long as its indexical structure (type andarguments, adjuncts such as adverbial phrases

value) is unchanged”. So under this analysis,

are not included in the ellipsis site.

(6c) can avoid Condition C violation because

As for the strict identity reading, we assume

there is no relevant R-expression in the ellipsis

that so-called ‘vehicle change’ by Fiengo andsite. Moreover, it does not violate Binding

May (1994) can deal with such interpretations.

Condition B either; the pronoun, him, is not(5) and (6) show how the idea of vehicle changebound by its antecedent, he, within the samecan explain strict identity readings.

clause, and therefore, (6a) is not ruled out.
If the operation of vehicle change applies to(5) a. *Mary hit Johni, and hei did, too.

(1), the elided object contains karei-no kuruma-ob. Mary hit Johni, and hei did hit Johni, too.

‘his car-Acc’, which is analogous to zibun-no
kuruma-o ‘self’s car-Acc’ in (1a).

If the elided VP in (5a) is represented as in (5b),(1) c. Pengin-mo karei-no kuruma-o huita.

we can account for the ungrammaticality of thesentence because the referential expression,

Penguin-also

John, is bound by its co-indexed antecedent, he,‘Penguin also wiped [Bear’s car].’and hence, violating Binding Condition C.

199

wiped

According to Fiengo and May, kare ‘he’ ininterpretation only and its strict interpretation is

kare-no kuruma in (1c) is indexically non-distinct

rejected.

from zibun ‘self’ in (1a), and the sentence(8) a. Chelswu-wa Younghi-nun

consequently yields the strict identity reading.

Chelswu and Younghi–Top
selo-lul

3. Our Research Agenda

concwunghanta.

each-other-Acc respect

In previous research, it is said that Korean
shares with Japanese the same property in their‘Chelswu and Younghi respect each

elliptical phenomena with a reflexive pronoun.

other.’
b. Tongsoo-wa Sooni-nun [e] silhehanta

However, the two languages are not always
identical in other elliptical constructions. Saito

Tongsoo-and Sooni-Top

despiseand An (2010), for instance, point out that‘(lit.) Tongsoo and Sooni despise [e].’so-called N’-ellipsis is observed in Japanese but
not in Korean due to slightly different

The judgments for (7) and (8) are based on ourparameterization of the genitive marker insertion

informant work with eight Japanese native3

another

speakers and seven Korean native speakers.

micro-parametric difference: some inter-speaker

There is a certain group of native speakers invariation in Korean but not in Japanese.

Korean (three out of seven) who allow only a

rule.

Here

we

will

show

Such micro-parametric differences can besloppy identity reading for the null reciprocalfound in null object constructions involving

pronoun selo whereas among the Japanesereciprocals. (7) is the example in Japanese cited

informants, there is no such inter-speakerfrom Takahashi (2016: 245).

variation found in our data. Here we call thegroup of Korean speakers who allow only sloppy
identity reading ‘Group A’, and the other group(7) a. Harry to Ginny-wa otagai-oHarry and Ginny-Top each-other-Acc

of Korean speakers who observe both strict andsonkeisiteiru.

sloppy identity readings ‘Group B’.
The research question is: What makes the two

respect‘Harry and Ginny respect each other.’types of groups (i.e. Group A vs. Group B and theb. Ron to Hermione-wa [e] keibetsusiteiru.

Japanese group) different? In theory, the strict

Ron and Hermione-Top despise

identity reading can be made possible by either‘(lit.) Ron and Hermione despise [e].’the null pronoun hypothesis or the VVPE/AE
analysis with vehicle change as we have

Possible interpretation in the elided object in (7b)discussed in the previous section. If the elided

is either ‘Ron and Hermione despise Harry andobject would be a pro in (7b)/(8b), it should be

Ginny’ (i.e. strict identity reading) or ‘Ron andable to refer to ‘Harry and Ginny’ or ‘Chelswu

Hermione despise each other (i.e. sloppy identity

and Younghi’ in the (a) sentences just like thereading).’ Interestingly, however, some Korean

overt pronominal counterpart, them. This line ofnative speakers find that the corresponding

analysis

Korean null object in (8b) obtains the sloppy

interpretation by Group B but fails to account forcanexplainthe one by Group A.

200

the

strictidentity

Section 4 discusses why selo in Group A

Having those characteristics of otagai in mind,

cannot be replaced by its pronominal counterpart

consider what exactly the strict identity readingand how the ellipsis analyses account for suchmeans in (7b) and (8b). Apparently, due to theunambiguous reading in Group A.

nature of the meaning of the verb, respect, only
the crossing reading similar to (10b) is obtained

4. Discussion

in the antecedent sentence in (7a) and (8a), but

4.1. Reciprocals with or without Pro

the elided sentence under the strict identity
reading in (7b) and (8b) is feasible only for the

Hoji (2006) argues that the Japanesegroup reading like (10a), as depicted in (7b)’.

reciprocal pronoun, otagai ‘each other’, consistsof pro and otagai as illustrated in (9), where the(7b)’ Ron and Hermione despise [them = Harry

anaphoric relation between otagai and its
antecedent must be understood as the one

and Ginny]

between the pro inside the otagai NP and theantecedent of pro.

Assuming the group reading is a typicalmanifestation(9) [NP proi [N otagai]]ofpronominalfeaturein

reciprocals in (9), we can claim that selo, is likely
to be different from the Japanese reciprocal,

Hoji’s analysis predicts that otagai need not be inotagai, in terms of the internal structure as far as

the local domain of its antecedent, and theGroup A is concerned. The unavailability of theantecedent of pro in the otagai NP need notstrict identity interpretation in Group A suggests

c-command pro for the referential association ofthat the reciprocal lacks pro inside its NP.

coreference.
4.2. Evidence for Non-pronominal Selo

Hoji also points out that otagai does notalways provide reciprocal interpretation; there

There are two pieces of evidence to support theare three types of interpretations for otagai as

non-pronominal nature of selo in Group A.

depicted in (10) (Hoji 2006: 127).

Comparing (11) with (12), the reciprocal pronoun,
otagai, can actually be bound by its non-local(10)

John to Bill-ga

antecedent with three possible interpretations inhissi-ni-natte

John and Bill-Nom very-hardJapanese whereas Group A finds the Korean[pro otagai]-osentence in (12) unacceptable.

urikondeita.

each-other-Acc was-promoting(11)‘[each of John and Bill]I was promoting
himselfi with utmost enthusiasm.’[John to Bill]i-wa [CP Chomsky-ga naze
John and Bill-Top
otagaii-oa. [John and Bill] promoted [John and Bill].
(=group reading)Chomsky-Nom why

suisensita no ka]

each-other-Acc recommended Q

b. John promoted Bill and Bill promoted

wakaranakatta.

John. (=crossing reading)

did-not-understandc. John promoted John and Bill promoted‘John and Bill did not understand why

Bill. (=parallel reading)Chomskyhadother/him/them.’

201

recommendedthe(Hoji 2006: 128)

interpretation in Group A in Korean because of(12)

the unavailability of strict identity reading. The(*)[Conk-wa pil]i-un [CP chomsukhi-ka
Chomsky-Nom

ellipsis analyses can explain elided selo in Groupchwuchenhayssnunci

A, however. Remember that the cases of strict

John-and Bill-Top
way seloi-lul

why each-other-Acc reommended

identity reading are based on vehicle change, butlul] molukeyssta.

since selo does not contain any pronominal

Q did-not-knowfeature, there is no possible corresponding item

‘John and Bill did not understand why

to replace the elided selo via vehicle change; a 3rd

Chomsky

person plural pronoun could be a potential

hadrecommended

theother/him/them.’candidate but does not bear the same index withselo in Group A.

It appears that selo in Group A must be locallybound by its antecedent, which is not the case in

5. Final Remarks

Group B and the Japanese group.

Most of the studies on ellipsis focus on how

Another fact is that otagai can appear intoanalyzesloppyidentity

interpretation,subject position with its antecedent following inincluding recent research such as Han et. al (tothe same clause, as illustrated by (13).

appear), which is based on experimental evidence
for the AE analysis over the other analyses. The(13)

Otagaii-no

koibito-ga [John topresent paper is agnostic on the issue of VVPE vs.

each-other-Gen lover-Nom John andAE, but examining the strict identity reading forBill]i-osome Korean speakers sheds some light on the

yuuwakusita.

Bill-Acc seduced

pronominal vs. ellipsis analyses from a new‘(lit.) Each other’s lovers seduced John

perspective.

and Bill.’With regards to the difference between Group(Hoji 2006: 128)

A and B, we should note that the two groups are
However, the corresponding Korean sentence

demographically different in that Group B

sounds degraded to Group A, as shown in (14).

consists of those who learned Japanese throughformal instruction and/or lived in Japan for many

(14)

[conk-wayears, whereas those in Group A had not received

each-other-Gen lover-Nom John-andany formal instruction in Japanese and/or had(??)Seloi-uy

ayin-inever lived in Japan.

pil]i-ul yuhokhayssta.

If we assume that the judgments by Group A

Bill-Acc seduced‘Each other’s lovers seduced John andare ‘standard’ in Korean, there is some indication

Bill.’

that the amount and quality of exposure to theJapanese language might allow selo to gain

These observations can confirm that selo inpronominal features in Group B as an instance ofGroup A in Korean does not contain any

first language attrition. We need further

pronominal feature, unlike Japanese otagai in (9).

examination to explore this possibility in future

In other words, the null pronominal analysis

research.

cannotaccountfortheelidedreciprocal

202

Hoji, Hajime (2006) “Otagai,” Theoretical and* We would like to thank Kook-Hee Gil,
Shin-Sook Kim, Jinny Park-Craig and theEmpirical

Japanese and Korean informants who we

Anaphora—Toward the establishment ofconsulted for this research, and to the audiencegenerativeat the ELSJ International Spring Forum 2019 forscience, A Report of the Grant-in-Aid fortheir valuable comments. This research was

Scientific Research (B), ed. by Ayumi

partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant

Ueyama, 126-138, Kyushu University.

ofgrammarReference
as

an

and

empirical

Kim, Soowon (1999) “Sloppy/ Strict Identity,

Number 18K00808.
1

Studies

Empty Objects, and NP-Ellipsis,” Journal of

NOTESHoji (1998) claims that sloppy identity reading

East Asian Linguistics 8, 255-284.
Kuroda,(or what he calls ‘sloppy-like reading’) is

Shige-Yuki(1965)

Generative

possible due to an indefinite pro occupying theGrammatical Studies in the Japanese

object position. See Saito (2007), which refutes

Language, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Lee, Wooseung (2016) “Argument Ellipsis vs.

Hoji’s idea of the indefinite pro.
2

V-stranding

Although the judgment given in (3) has been

VP

Ellipsisin

Korean:considered the common view in Japanese andEvidence from Disjunction,” Linguistic

Korean, Funakoshi (2016) and Lee (2016) argue

Research 33, 1-20.
Oku, Satoshi (1998) A Theory of Selection andthat the elided VP can include a VP adverb.
3

Saito and An (2010) propose that the Korean

Reconstruction

in

the

genitive marker, uy, can be inserted only when

Perspective,

Doctoralthe head noun is overt, while there is no such

University of Connecticut.

Minimalist
dissertation,

Otani, Kazuyo and John Whitman (1991)

requirement in Japanese.

“V-raising and VP-ellipsis,” Linguistic
Inquiry 22, 345-358.

REFERENCES
Ahn, Hee-Don and Sungeun Cho (2010) “MoreSaito, Mamoru (2007) “Notes on East Asianon the Absence of CP Ellipsis,” Studies in

Argument Ellipsis,” Language Research 43,

Generative Grammar 20, 137-148.

203-227.
Saito, Mamoru and Duk-Ho An (2010) “A

Fiengo, Robert and Robert May (1994) Indicesand Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Comparative Syntax of Ellipsis in Japanese

Funakoshi, Kenshi (2016) “Verb-stranding verb

and Korean,” Proceedings of the 6thphrase ellipsis in Japanese,” Journal of East

Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics

Asian Linguistics 25, 113-142.

(WAFL 6), 287-307.

Han,

Chung-hye,

Kyeong-min

Kim,

Keir

Takahashi,

Daiko(2016)“Ko-syoryaku

Ellipsis),”Nihongo-bunpo

Moulton and Jeffrey Lidz (to appear) “Null(Argument

objects in Korean: Experimental evidence to

Handbook: Gengo-riron to gengo-kakutoku

the argument ellipsis analysis,” LinguisticnoInquiry.

Handbook: from a viewpoint of linguistic

Hoji, Hajime (1998) “Null Object and Sloppy

kantenkara(Japanese

Grammartheory and acquisition), eds. by Keiko

Identity in Japanese,” Linguistic Inquiry 29,

Murasugi

127-152.

Kaitakusha.

203

et.

al,

228-264,

Tokyo:

attaches to soitu ‘that guy’, the value of which
varies depending on the value of its antecedent.
(3) [Wakate geinin-ga
Topic in Nuclear Scope*
Takeo Kurafuji
Ritsumeikan University

yakuzaeiga-ni

young comedian-NOM

J.mafia.movie-in

syutuensuru-to] taitei[soitu-wa

appear-COND

mostlythat.guy-TOPsugu

koros-are-ru.

immediately

kill-PASS-PRES

Keywords：aboutness, dynamic semantics,‘If a young comedian appears in a Japanese

donkey sentences, existential disclosure

mafia movie, mostly he is immediately
killed (in that movie).’

1. Introduction

Clearly, soitu ‘that guy’ does not identify any

This paper concerns the Japanese topic

entity since it is a variable in spite of the fact

marker -wa, which has been one of the mostthat it is wa-marked.

intensively and interdisciplinarily studied gram-

Topic-marked

donkeyanaphoraalsomatical items in the language. The notion ofaddresses an interesting question with respect totopic has been described/defined in many ways

quantification and information structures. As is(see Roberts (2011) for the survey of issues

extensively discussed by Partee (1991) among

concerning topics) and one of the main functions

others, quantification in natural language isof the marker is aboutness, as given in (1).

represented as tripartite structure: Q(restriction)(nuclear scope), and in the case of conditionals(1) The topic constituent identifies the entity orwith adverbs of quantification (henceforth,set of entities under which the information

Q-advs), the antecedent of a conditional serves

expressed in the comment constituent

as restriction and the consequent clause as

should be stored in the common groundnuclear scope, as in (4).

content. (Krifka (2008: 265))(4) MOST(λx[young-comedian'(x) ∧ appearIt follows from this characterization that thein-a-movie'(x)])(λx[immediately-killed'(x)])

topic marker cannot attach to indeterminates asshown in (2), for the topic constituent in thisAnother well-known view is that conditionals

example identifies no entity.

are topic as discussed by Haiman (1978). His
claim mainly comes from morphological and(2) *Dare-ka-wa

hon-o

yon-da.

functional perspectives, but is semantically

book-ACC

read-PAST

convincing as well, for we do have a strong‘(lit.) As for someone, he read a book.’

intuition that (3) is the statement about youngwho-∃-TOP

comedians who appear in Japanese mafia
An apparent exception is witnessed inmovies. Recently, Hara (2014) presented adonkey sentences. In (3), the topic marker

formal semantic analysis of topics by treating204them as conditionals, which is converse to

domain of dolphins trained by a trainer. On the

Haiman’s. These studies suggest that antecedentother hand, the Q-adv in (5b) quantifies theclauses of conditionals and topics be the same

domain of trainers from here who train dolphins,

creatures and both serve as restrictions insince the discourse is about the trainers fromtripartite structure.

here.

Given the idea that topics/if-clauses are

These interpretations are represented in

restrictions, the question that I would like totripartite

structureaddress is this. Why is the wa-marked donkey

respectively.

as

in

(6a)

and

(6b),

anaphora allowed to generate in nuclear scope in(3)? If it is a real topic, what is it about?

(6) a. MOST(λy[dolphin'(y) ∧ a trainer

This paper argues that the wa-marked

trains y])(λy[a trainer makes y dodonkey anaphora is not an authentic topic and isincredible things])

interpreted as part of the restriction. Moreb. MOST(λx[trainer-from-here'(x) ∧ x

specifically, it will be claimed that it istrains a dolphin])(λx[x makes a dolphin

dynamically conjoined to and interpreted in

do incredible things])

nuclear scope, forcing existential disclosure to
apply to its antecedent, from which topic-

Since dolphins are discourse-topic in (5a), thesensitivity of Q-adverbs follows.

set of dolphins trained by a trainer serves as
restriction in (6a). Likewise, the restriction in

2. Topic Sensitivity of Adverbs of Quantifi-(6b) is the set of trainers from here who trains acationdolphin.

When the antecedent clause contains two

Japanese

Q-advsalso

exhibit

topic-

indefinites and the consequent contains two

sensitivity, but their behavior is slightly dif-donkey-pronouns linked to them, asymmetricferent.

readings can emerge. How to determine

Japanese are affected by the topic-marking ofquantification domains of Q-advs is affected bydonkey anaphora (cf. Kurafuji (1999)). The

discourse factors. In particular, Q-advs are

subject and the object in the consequent clause

topic-sensitive as pointed out by Chierchiain (7) are donkey-anaphora, and the choice of(1995: 65).

case-marking on the subject affects the inter-

Asymmetricreadings

observedinpretation.
(5) a. Dolphins are truly remarkable. When atrainer trains a dolphin, she usually
makes it do incredible things.

(7) Atarasii

kyokasyo-ga

oote

new

textbook-NOM

major

b. Trainers from here are absolutely re-syuppansya-kara

de-ru-to,markable with all sorts of animals. If apublisher-fromcome-PRES-COND

trainer form here trains a dolphin, shetaiteesoko-wa/-ga

usually makes it do incredible things.

mostlythat.place-TOP/-NOM

gakkai-desore-otenzisu-ru.

In (5a), dolphins are a discourse topic, so theconference-at that-ACC exhibit-PRES

Q-adv usually asymmetrically quantifies the‘If a new textbook appears from a major

205

3. Dynamic Settings

publisher, usually it exhibits it at a conference.’

Beforediscussing how

to derivethegeneralization (9), I would like to introduce
When the subject donkey anaphora soko ‘thatsome relevant notions of dynamic semantics,

place’ is followed by -wa, (7) is true in situation

with which my analysis is presented. In(8) while false in (9). That is, the Q-adv un-particularambiguously quantifies over the domain ofquantification by Q-advs as in (5)/(6) is captured

major publishers from which new textbooks

in Chierchia’s (1995) dynamic approach.

I

will

show

how

asymmetricappear. Let me call this the publisher-oriented

In the dynamic semantics taken here, in-reading. On the other hand, when the nominative

definites are assumed to have existential

case is used for the subject donkey-anaphora, (7)quantificational force, so the logical represent-

can be interpreted as being true in (9), where thetation of a trainer trains a dolphin is something

Q-adv quantifies over the domain of new

like (11). Note that in Chierchia’s (1995)

textbooks from major publishers, though thenotations, dynamic symbols are underlined, andpublisher-oriented reading is still preferred.

the operator ↑ type-shifts a proposition into acontext change potential (CCP) of type cc (=(8) [[ major publisher ]] = {p1, p2, p3, p4}<<s, t>, t>; <s, t> is that function from possible[[ new textbook ]] = {t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, t6, t7}

assignments to discourse markers to truth[[ appear-from ]] = {<t1, p1>, <t2, p2>,

values). See Appendix for the details.

<t3, p3>, <t4, p4>, <t4, p5>, <t4, p6>, <t4, p7>}[[ exhibit-at-a-conference ]] = {<p1, t1>,

(11) ∃x∃y↑[trainer'(x) ∧ dolphin'(y) ∧ x trains y]<p2, t2>, <p3, t3>}(9) [[ major publisher ]] = {p1, p2, p3, p4}

For a Q-adv to quantify over the set of trainers[[ new textbook ]] = {t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, t6, t7}

who trains a dolphin, ∃x must be converted into[[ appear-from ]] = {<t1, p1>, <t2, p2>,

λx, and by the same token, in order to obtain the<t3, p3>, <t4, p4>, <t4, p5>, <t4, p6>, <t4, p7>}

set of dolphins trained by a trainer, y must be[[ exhibit-at-a-conference ]] = {<p4, t4>,bound by the λ-operator.

<p4, t5>, <p4, t6>, <p4, t7>}

Dynamic

semantics

enables

existential

quantifiers to be eliminated. A crucial ingredient
There might be several factors determining theis dynamic binding (12), where the scope of

domain selection by Q-advs, but the generaliza-

dynamic existential quantifier ∃ goes beyond thetion given in (10) is robust.

sentenceboundary

and

binds

variables/

discourse markers in the following CCP.
(10) The wa-marked donkey generalization
In Japanese conditional donkey sentences, a(12) ∃x[↑P(x)] ∧ ↑Q(x) = ∃x↑[P(x) ∧ Q(x)]Q-adv quantifies over a set which the wamarked variable in the consequent clause isWith Dekker (1993), Chierchia defines thea member of.

operation Existential Disclosure (henceforth,ED) as in (13).

206

derived. Two assumptions play important roles.

(13) λx[A] =def λu[A ∧ ↑u = x]First wa-marked donkey anaphora does not
Suppose A of type cc in (13) contains ansimply denote an individual variable/discourse

existential quantifier binding x. Then the task ofmarker but it is a CCP, introducing anotherthe ED operator λx is to wipe ∃ off. What ED

variable u, as defined in (16).

does is simply introduce another variable u,which is identical to x, and make it λ-bound.

(16) [[ αn-wa]] ~> ↑[xn = u](14) demonstrates how the existential quantifier
is wiped off.

Second, what is mapped to nuclear scope is not
the whole consequent clause, but (probably theminimal) IP excluding TopP dominating the(14) a. λx[∃x[↑P(x)]]b. λu[∃x[↑P(x)] ∧ ↑u = x](from (13))
c. λu[∃x↑[P(x) ∧ u = x]](from (12))∨
d. λu[λp∃x[P(x) ∧ u = x ∧ p]] (def. of ∃)e. λx[λp[P(x) ∧ ∨p]](equivalence)f. λx↑[P(x)](def. of ↑)wa-marked phrase.
(17)

XP
3

if-clause

YP

restriction

3(Q-adv)

Applying ED to (11), we obtain either

TopP
3

λx[(11)] or λy[(11)]; from the former, a set of

α2-wa

ZP

trainers who train a dolphin is obtained, while3

the latter yields a set of dolphins trained by a

(Q-adv)trainer. These sets serve as restrictions of

nuclear scope

tripartite structures. The usual free application of
λ-abstraction to donkey anaphora:IP#… pro2 …

in theconsequent clause gives rise to nuclear scope

Put it differently, the wa-marked phrase in [Spec,

representations such as λx↑[x makes y do

TopP] counts as an element in restriction, as

incredible things] or λy↑[x makes y doshown in (17).

incredible things]. With these, the dynamic

Given these assumptions, the publisher-counterpart to (6a), for example, is obtained, asoriented reading in (7) derives as follows. In

shown in (15) (see dynamic conservativity in(18), the translation of soko-wa ‘that.place-TOP,’

Appendix for the detail).

namely ↑[y = u], is dynamically conjoined with
the if-clause, and the discourse marker y is(15) ↑most(λy∃x[trainer'(x) ∧ dolphin'(y) ∧dynamically bound by ∃y.

x trains y)(λy∃x[trainer'(x) ∧ dolphin'(y) ∧ x trains y(18) ∃x∃y↑[new-textbook'(x) ∧ major-pbl'(y) ∧∧ x makes y do incredible things)

x appears from y] ∧ ↑[y = u]= ∃x∃y↑[new-textbook'(x) ∧ major-pbl'(y) ∧4. Wa-Marked Donkey Anaphora

x appears from y ∧ y = u]

Now I would like to show that the
wa-marked donkey generalization in (9) can be

After the free variable u is λ-abstracted in the207usual manner, the set of major publishers

dynamically bound by ∃.

publishing new textbooks obtains, as in (19).
Consequently, the publisher-oriented reading is(21) Wakate geinin-ga

obtained.

young comedian-NOM(19) λu[(18)] = λy∃x↑[new-textbook'(x) ∧major-pbl'(y) ∧ x appears from y]Thedefinitionof

wa-marked

yakuzaeiga-ni
J.mafia.movie-in

syutuensi-ta.

Soitu-wa

appear-PAST

that.guy-TOPsugu

koros-are-ta.

immediately

kill-PASS-PAST

donkey‘A young comedian appeared in a Japanese

anaphora in (16) and the syntax-semantics

mafia movie. He was immediately killed (inmapping in (17) bring about the ED effect.

that movie).’

Slightly different is that ED is a free operation
while dynamic conjunction of soko-wa to the(22) ∃x↑[young-comedian'(x) ∧appear-in-jm.movie'(x) ∧ u = x ∧be-killed-immediately'(x)]restriction is an obligatory process governed by(17). This is how generalization (10) derives.
An interesting consequence follows from thepresent analysis. When the accusative donkey

The free discourse marker u in (22) is inter-

anaphora sore-o is scrambled over the nomina-

preted by assignment function ω. Whatever ω(u)tive donkey in (7), the sentence becomes true indenotes, it is equal to e (= ω[x/e](x)), so it does(9) and false, or at least very difficult to interpret,

not affect the truth conditionsin (8) (the data is omitted here). That is, the
5. Back to Aboutness

Q-avd unambiguously quantifies over the set of
new textbooks published by major publishers.

The present analysis amounts saying that

Following Ishihara (2001), let us assume that-wa with donkey anaphora is not the marker ofscrambling of object is a defocalization process;aboutness. Then where does aboutness comescrambled objects bear the [-F] feature, whichfrom? Following Neeleman and Vermeulenmoves them out of the potential focus domain,(2012) among others, I assume that Topic-

namely (the minimal) IP. In our analysis, thisComment structure is represented as a pairidea can be captured as in (20).

<topic, comment> with assertion operator
ASSERT, as defined in (23).

(20) [[ soren-o[-F] ]] ~> ↑[xn = u](23) <A, λα[ASSERT[B(α)]]> is felicitous w.r.t.
context c and world w iff B(A) =1 in w andSo far, we have seen conditional donkey(the speaker believes that) B(α) updates c.

sentences with Q-advs. Now let us see a simple
narrative

sequence

case.

The

wa-marked

anaphora in (21) is generated in [Spec, TopP]

The second part of the pair is the commentand dynamically conjoined with the rest of the“about” A, so it is reasonable to regard it as asentence as ↑[u = x ∧ be-killed- immediately'(x)].

source of aboutness.
Given the format (23), the simple conditional

The whole sequence in (21) is represented as
(22),

where

the

discourse

markerx

donkey sentence (3) can information-structurally

is

208

be represented, as in (24), where ∃x is disclosed

APPENDIX

by ED, and all dynamic notions are de-dynami-

Definitions of relevant notions in dynamic

cized by ↓.

semantics (Chierchia (1995))
The set TYPE of types is defined as follows:(24) <topic, comment>i.

e, t ∈ TYPE

topic = [[λx[young-comedian'(x) ∧ii.

if a, b ∈ TYPE, <a, b>, <s, a> ∈ TYPE

appear-in-jm.movie'(x)]]]g, ωcomment = λP[ASSERT[[[most(λx[P(x)])

For each a ∈ TYPE, the set MEa of well-formed
expressions of type a is the smallest set such(λx[be-killed-immediately'(x)])]]g, ω]]that:i. DM ∈ Vare, where DM is the set of ‘dis-

What (24) means is, roughly, that (3) is about

course markers’

those who are young comedians and appear inii. Vara, Consa ∈ ME

Japanese mafia movies, and (the speakeriii. If β ∈ ME<a, b> and α ∈ MEa, β(α) ∈ MEb

believes that) asserting that most of them are

iv. If α ∈ Vara and β ∈ MEb, λα[β] ∈ ME<a, b>

killed immediately updates the current context c.

v. If φ, ψ MEt, and α ∈ Vara, then ¬φ, [φ ∧ ψ],

Intuitively this paraphrase sounds correct.

[φ ∧ ψ], ∃αφ, ∀αφ are all in MEt

Likewise, the second sentence in thevi. If β ∈ MEa, ∧β ∈ ME<s, a>narrative sequence case (21) is given informa-vii. If β ∈ ME<s, a>,∨β ∈ MEation structure (25), which means in prose that(21) is about ω(x) and (the speaker believes that)

Let U be a domain of individuals and Ω be theadding the information that ω(x) is immediately

set of DM-assignments (i.e., Ω = UDM). For any

killed updates c.

type a, the set Da of denotations of type a(relative to U) is defined as follows:i. De = U(25) <[[x]]g,ω, λx[ASSERT[[[be-killed-ii.

Dt = {0, 1}

iii. D<a, b> = DbDa

immediately'(x)]]g,ω]]>iv. D<s, a> = DaΩ, where Ω is the set of all
possible assignments to discourse markers.

6. A Concluding Remark
This paper has argued that -wa introduces a

A model M is a pair of the form <U, F>, where

free variable/discourse marker, which is trivial

U is a set of individuals and for any a ∈ TYPE,

in narrative sequence cases but plays a crucial

and α ∈ Consa, F(α) ∈ Da. Let g be anrole when Q-advs are concerned. It has been also

assignment to the variables that are not discourse

argued that aboutness comes from the ASSERT

markers (i.e., for any type a and any member aoperator. This thus amounts to saying that theof Varα – DM, g(α) ∈ Da). For any assignment

so-called “topic” marker -wa is not directly

g and any DM-assignment ω, the interpretation

associated with topics in an information-function [[ ]]g, ω is defined as follows (relative toa model M):

structural sense.

i. If α ∈ DM, [[α]]g,ω = ω(α)* This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI

ii. If α ∈ Vara – DM, [[α]]g,ω = g(α)

Grant Number 18K00595.

iii. If α ∈ Consa, [[α]]g,ω = F(α)

209iv. [[β(α)]]g,ω = [[β]]g,ω([[α]]g,ω)v.

[[¬φ]]g,ω = 1 iff [[φ]]g,ω = 0, etc.

Chierchia,

vi. If α ∈ DM, [[∀αφ]]g,ω = 1 iff for every e ∈ U,

Press.
Dekker, Paul (1993) “Existential Disclosure,”ω except that ω(α) = e. If α ∈ Vara – DM,[[∀αφ]]g,ω = 1 iff for every e ∈ Da,

Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 561-587.

[[φ]]g[α/e],ω = 1

Haiman, John (1978) “Conditionals Are Topics,”

vii. If α ∈ DM, [[∃αφ]]g,ω = 1 iff for some e ∈ U,

Language 54, 565-589.

[[φ]]g,ω[α/e] = 1, where ω[α/e] is identical toHara, Yurie (2014) “Topics Are Conditionals: Aω except that ω(α) = e. If α ∈ Vara – DM,

Case Study from Exhaustification Over[[∃αφ]]g,ω = 1 iff for some e ∈ Da,

Questions,”[[φ]]g[α/e],ω = 1.

Conference on Language, Information andviii. If α ∈ DM, [[λαβ]]g,ω = λe ∈ U. [[β]]g,ω[α/e]

The

28th

Pacific

Asia

Computation, 522-531.

(i.e., [[λαβ]]g,ω is that function h from U into
Db (where b is the type of β) such that for

Ishihara, Shin-ichiro (2001) “Stress, Focus, andany e ∈ U, h(e) = [[β]]g,ω[α/e]). If α ∈ Vara –Papers in Linguistics 39 A Few fromDM, [[λαβ]]g,ω = λe ∈ Da. [[β]]g[α/e],ω.

Building E39: Papers in Syntax, Semantics[[∧α]]g,ω = λω'[[α]]g,ω'. That is, [[∧α]]g,ω is thatand Their Interface, 142–75.

Scrambling in Japanese,” MIT Working

function h in DaΩ such that for any ω' ∈ Ω,x.

ofMeaning, Chicago, University of Chicago[[φ]]g,ω[α/e] = 1, where ω[α/e] is identical toix.

REFERENCES
Gennaro (1995) Dynamics

Krifka, Manfred (2008) “Basic Notions ofh(ω') = [[α]]g,ω'.

Information Structure,” Acta Linguistica[[∨α]]g,ω = [[α]]g,ω(ω).

Hungarica 55, 243-276.
Kurafuji, Takeo (1999) Japanese Pronouns inContext Change Potentials:

Dynamic↑φ = λp[φ ∧ ∨p] of type cc (= <<s, t>, t>)Contrast, Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers

Truth (the assertion operator ↓):University.

↓A = A(∧T), where [[∧T]]g,ω = Ω.

Semantics:

The

Null/Overt

Neeleman, Ad and Reiko Vermeulen (2012)

Dynamic conjunction and existential“The Syntactic Expression of Information

quantification:

Structure,” The Syntax of Topic, Focus anda.

A ∧ B = λp[A(B(∧p))]

Contrast, eds. by Ad Neeleman and Reikob.

∃xA = λp∃x[A(p)]Vermeulen, 1-38, Berlin, De Gruyter

Dynamic conservativity:

Mouton.

a. D'(P)(Q) = ↑D(↓P)(↓[P ∧ Q]), where

Partee, Barbara (1991) “Topic, Focus andi. P, Q are dynamic properties of type

Quantification,” SALT 1, 159-187.

<s, <e, cc>>, and D is a static

Roberts, Craige (2011) “Topics,” Semantics: An

determiner and D' is a dynamic

Internationalcounterpart of D.

Language Meaning, Volume 2, eds. byii. ↓P = λx↓[∨P(x)]Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborniii. P ∧ Q = ∧λx↓[∨P(x) ∧ ∨Q(x)]and Paul Portner, 1908-1934, Berlin, De

b. λPλQ∃x[P(x) ∧ Q(x)]Handbook

Gruyter Mouton.

210

of

Naturalconcludes this paper.
2. Observations
The first observation is the incompatibility ofOn the Semantics of the Japanese Degreehodo with other degree morphemes. As shown

Morpheme hoo*

below, the morpheme hoo cannot be used with
degree morphemes such as totemo‘very’and -Kenta Mizutani

yori‘more...than.’Osaka University(2) a. * Taro-wa totemo
Keywords： degree morphemes, gradable

Taro-Top very

adjectives, scale structures

takai-hoo-da.

se-gaheight-Nom

high-hoo-Cop‘Taro is very tall-hoo.’
1. Introduction

b. * Taro-wa Hanako-yori se-ga

Since Kennedy and Mcnally (2005), it has

Taro-Top Hanako-yori height-Nom

been pointed out that there have been various

takai-hoo-da.

kinds of degree morphemes and modifiers. The

high-hoo-Cop

aim of this paper is to argue that the Japanese‘Taro is taller-hodo than Hanako.’morpheme hoo, which combines only withgradable adjectives as in (1), is a degree

The second observation is the restriction onmorpheme in the sense of Kennedy (1999), andsubjects. The example below indicates that Giantthat this morpheme makes an obligatory

Baba, who was a very tall Japanese wrestler,

referencecannot be used with this morpheme.

to

the

contextually

determined

standard.1(3) * Giant Baba-wa(1) a.

Taro-wa se-ga

takai-hoo-da.

b. * Kono isu-wa

takai-hoo-da.

Giant Baba-Top height-Nom high-hoo-Cop.

Taro-Top height-Nom high-hoo-Cop‘Taro is tall-hoo.’se-ga‘Giant Baba is tall-hoo.’(Gradable)

mokuseina-hoo-da.

From this fact, we can see that we cannot use hoo

this chair-Top woode-hoo-cop.

if the subjects have high degrees on relevant‘This chair is wooden-hoo.’scales denoted by gradable adjectives.

(Non-Gradable)

In addition, there is some restriction oncomparison

classes(i.e.,

theobjectsof

The structure of this paper is as follows. In

comparison). Observe the following examples,

section 2, I will introduce four observations about

where the phrase X-no nakadewa denotes

this morpheme. In section 3, I will propose acomparison classes:

semantics of this morpheme and demonstrate thatthe proposed semantics can account for the(4) a.

observations presented in section 2. Section 4

Taro-wa jokki-no-nakadewa
Taro-Top jockey-Gen-nakade211

se-gatakai-hoo-da.

‘Taro is tall-hoo.’height-Nom high-hoo-Cop

b. Kono eiga-wa‘Taro is tall-hoo among jockeys.’omoshiroi-hoo-da.

this movie-Top interesting-hoo-Cop

b. * Taro-wa baskketboll senshu-no‘This movie is interesting-hoo.’

Taro-Top basketball player-Gen(7) a. Lower-closed Scale Adjectives

nakadewa

se-ga*Kono kugi-wa magatteiru-hoo-da.

nakadewa

height-Nom

this nail-Top bent-hoo-cop.

takai-hoo-da.

‘This nail is bent-hoo.’high-hoo-Cop

b. Upper-closed Scale Adjectives‘Taro is tall-hoo among basketball*Kono sao-wa

massuguna-hoo-da.

players.’

this rod-Top straight-hoo-cop‘This rod is straight-hoo.’c. Totally Closed Scale Adjectives

Given our world knowledge that in normal cases,
basketball players are tall and jockeys are not, we*Kono doa-wa

shimmateiru-hoo-da.

can see that members of comparison classes

this door-Top closed-hoo-cop

should have low degrees on relevant scales (in‘This door is closed-hoo.’this case, the tallness scale) when we use hoo.
The last observation is related to the scale

Some speakers, however, cannot feel thestructures of gradable adjectives with which hoo

examples in (7) as entirely bad. In fact, closed

combines. According to Kennedy and McNally

scale adjectives are sometime compatible with(2005) and Rothstein and Winter (2004) amonghoo, but, in what follows, I will show that in theseothers, gradable adjectives are classified into fourcases, closed scale adjectives are coerced into

types depending on whether or not the ends ofopen scale adjectives.

scales are closed:

Sasson and Toledo (2011) claims that thedifference between open and closed scale(5) a. Open Scale Adjectives

adjectives are reduced to the difference between

Example: tall, interesting

their comparison classes:

b. Lower-closed Scale Adjectives
Example: bent, wet(8) a. Open Scale Adjectivesc. Upper-closed Scale Adjectives

Their comparison classes consist of

Example: straight, drydifferent individuals in the same world-d. Totally Closed Scale Adjectives

time pair of evaluation. Hence, theExample: open, closed

comparison

isbetweendifferent

individuals.
b. Closed Scale Adjectives

As shown below, hoo can be used only with open
scale adjectives:

Their comparison classes consist of
counterparts of one individual, namely,(6) Open Scale Adjectives
a. Taro-wa

se-ga

realizations of the same individual intakai-hoo-da.

different world-time pairs. Hence, theTaro-Too height-Nom high-hoo-Cop

comparison is within the same individual.

212

To see how this idea works, let us first consider

Unlike the previous case, in interpreting closed

the sentence with the open scale adjective tall:scale

adjectives,

we

have

to

take

into

consideration the counterparts of the same(9) a. John is tall.

individual, and therefore, the comparison shouldb. Comparison between Individuals

be within the same individual but not between

John's height is compared with that of

distinct individuals.

other individuals at the same time-world

This difference between open and closed

pair.

scale adjectives makes the following prediction:c. *Comparison within the Same Individual
John’s height is compared with the(10)

If we set up contexts where closed

heights of John’s counterparts, namely,

scale adjectives are evaluated with

John’s height yesterday, John’s heightreferencetocomparison

two days ago, John’s height tomorrow,consistingof

distinctand so on.

(i.e., they are interpreted as open
scale

As shown in (9b) and (9c), in interpreting open

adjectives),classes

individuals

theybecomecompatible with the morpheme hoo.

scale adjectives, we evoke the existence ofindividuals other than the subjects and we cannot

As in the examples below, this prediction is bornetake into account the counterparts (i.e., theout.

realizations of the same individual at different(11) Context A: You see just one nail, which isworld-time pairs). Therefore, in the case of open
scale adjectives, the comparison should be

bent.

between different individuals but not within the*Kono kugi-wa

same individual.

this nail-Top bent-hoo-Cop.

magatteiru-hoo-da.

‘This nail is bent-hoo.’Compare this with the sentence with theclosed scale adjective full:(9) a. This glass is full.
b. *Comparison between Individuals
The degree of fullness of this glass iscompared with that of other glasses at the

Figure 1: Context A

same time-world pairc. Comparison within the Same Individual

In Context A, where just one nail is presented, we

The degree of fullness of this glass iscannot construct the comparison class consisting

compared with that of its counterparts atof different nails, and therefore, we can only

different world-time pairs, namely, theinterpret the adjective maggateriru‘bent’as ansame glass that is full, the same glass thatclosed scale adjective. As a result, this adjectiveis half empty, the same glass that is empty,

cannot be used with hoo in this context.

and so on.

By contrast, in Context B, where several nails
with varying degrees of bentness are presented,

213we can make the comparison class consisting of

to capture these observations.

different nails, which enables us to interpret theadjective as an open scale adjective:

3. Proposal
3.1 Observation 1(12) Context B: You see several nails, not all of

Let us begin with Observation 1, thewhich are bent.
Kono kugi-wa

incompatibility
magatteiru-hoo-da.

withdegreemorphemes.

According to Kennedy and McNally (2005)

this nail-Top bent-hoo-Cop.

among others, degree morphemes in general are‘This nail is bent-hoo.’in complementary distribution, since they arelocated in the same position, namely, the head ofa Degree Phrase. As shown below, the degree
morphemes seven feet and very cannot be used at
the same time:(14) a. *Yao is seven feet very tall.

Figure 2: Context B

b. *Yao is very seven feet tall.
(Kennedy & McNally 2005:368)

The conclusion is that the morpheme hoo cannot
combine with closed scale adjectives and if it iscompatible with them, they are coerced into open

The examples in (2) indicate that the morpheme

scale adjectives.

hoo cannot be used with other degree morphemes

Thus

far,

we

have

seen

four

basic

such as totemo‘very’and -yori ‘more ... than.’observations about hoo, which are summarized

Based on this fact, I claim that hoo is a degree

below:

morpheme in the head of a Degree Phrase.

(13) a. Observation 1

3.2. The Semantics of Hoo

The morpheme hoo cannot be used withFirst of all, I assume that gradable adjectives

degree morphemes.

denote a measure function of type <e, d> (cf.

b. Observation 2

Kennedy (1999)).

Adj + hoo cannot be used withindividuals if it is shared among(15) [| tall / se-ga takai |]interlocutors that they are definitely adj.

= x. height(x)<e, d>c. Observation 3
The morpheme hoo requires comparison

According to this analysis, the gradable adjectiveclasses whose members do not have highse-ga takai‘tall’takes an individual x as its

degrees on relevant scales.

argument and returns his or her height.

d. Observation 4

In order to capture Observations 2 and 3, I

The morpheme hoo cannot combine withpropose the semantics of hoo as follows:

closed scale adjectives.
(16) [| hoo |]= P<e,d>. C<e,t>. x. (P(x) < standard(P)In what follows, I will propose a semantics of hoo

214y [C(y) → P(y) < standard(P)])

comparison class in question are not tall, and it isP(x) > standard(P)(C)

asserted that Taro's height is greater than thestandard for tallness based on the comparison

In (16), following Beaver (2001), I adopt the -class. As a result, (1a) conveys that Taro is not tall

operator, and the materials inside this operator

but he can be considered tall if he is compareddenote presuppositions. The degree morphemewith the standard for tallness based on thehoo takes three arguments: a gradable adjective P,

comparison class whose members are not tall.

a comparison class C, and an individual x. The

Now, let us turn to Observation 2 (see (3)).

presuppositions are that x’s degree of P does not

The truth conditions of (3) are calculated as

exceed the standard for P and that for every

follows:

individual y, if y is a member of a comparison
class C, y’s degree of P does not exceed the(18) a. *Giant Baba-wa se-ga takai-hoo-da.

standard for P. The assertion is that x’s degree of(=(3))

P exceeds the standard based on C. Note that inb. [| (3) |]the assertive part, the standard is calculated based= [| hoo |] ([| se-ga takai |])([| C |])([| G.B|])on the comparison class C whose members have=(height(G.B) < standard(se-ga takai)y [C(y) → height(y)low degrees on a relevant scale. Consequently,
the standard in the assertive part is lower than a< standard(se-ga takai)])normal standard.

heigh(G.B) > standard(se-ga takai)(C)c. Truth Conditions of (3)Let me illustrate how this proposal derives(1a) is defined only when Giant Baba’s

truth conditions of (1a):height does not exceed the standard for(17) a. Taro-wa se-ga takai-hoo-da.

(=(1a))

tallness, and for every individual y, if y isb. [| (1a) |]a member of C, y’s height does not= [| hoo |] ([| se-ga takai |])([| C |])([| Taro|])exceed the standard for tallness. If= (height(Taro) < standard(se-ga takai)

defined, it is true iff Giant Baba’s heighty [C(y) → height(y)exceeds the standard for tallness based on< standard(se-ga takai)])C.

heigh(Taro) > standard(se-ga takai)(C)c. Truth Conditions of (1a)According to the underlined parts above, the(1a) is defined only when Taro’s height

presuppositions require that Giant Baba is not tall,does not exceed the standard for tallness,but actually, he is definitely tall. Hence, theand for every individual y, if y is apresuppositions of (3) are not satisfied, which

member of C, y’s height does not exceed

results in its infelicity.

the standard for tallness. If defined, it is

Let us consider Observation 3, the relevant

true iff Taro’s height exceeds the standard

example of which is repeated below:

for tallness based on C.
(19) a. *Taro-wa

baskketboll

nakadewa se-ga takai-hoo-da.

According to the above truth conditions, it isb. [| (4b) |]presupposed that Taro and the members of the215

sensyu-no(=(4b))

= [| hoo |] ( [| se-ga takai |] ) ( [| basketballcontextual)senshu-no nakade |])([| Taro])

endpoint

standard

isemployed in A’s interpretation.

= (height(Taro) < standard(se-ga takai)(Toledo & Sassoon 2011:136)y[basketball.player(y) → height(y)< standard(se-ga takai)])

What is crucial here is that closed scale adjectives

heigh(Taro) > standard(se-ga takai)(C)

do not use contextually determined standards but

c. Truth Conditions of (4b)the scales’ minimum or maximal endpoints.

(1a) is defined only when Taro’s height

Given this, the truth conditions of (7a) are

does not exceed the standard for tallness,

calculated as follows:

and for every individual y, if y is abasketball player, y’s height does not(21) a. Kono kugi-wa magatteriu-hoo-da.

exceed the standard for tallness. If(=(7a))

defined, it is true iff Taro’s height exceeds

b. [| (7a) |]the standard for tallness based on C.

= [| hoo |] ([| maggateiru|])([| C |])([| kono kugi|])= (height(this.nail) < standard(bent)

Here, I assume that the phrase baskketo bolly [C(y) → bentness(y)senshu-no nakade‘among basketball players’< standard(bent)])

denotes a comparison class whose members are

bentness(this.nail) > standard(bent)(C)basketball players, and hoo takes this phrase as its=

argument. The resulting truth conditions are (18b),(height(this.nail) < 0
y [C(y) → bentness(y) < 0])whose presuppositions require that basketballbentness(this.nail) > 0

players are not tall. However, given our world
b. standard(bent) = 0

knowledge that basketball players in general are

standard(bent)(C) = 0

considered tall, these presuppositions cannot be

c. Truth Conditions of (7a)satisfied. Hence, the infelicity arises.

(7a) is defined only when the bentness of
this nail is smaller than 0 and for every

3.3 Accounting for Observation 4
Finally, let us consider Observation 4, theindividual y, if y is a member of C, y’s

incompatibility of hoo with closed scalebentness is smaller than 0. If defined, it isadjectives. According to Kennedy and Mcnallytrue iff the bentness of this nail is greater(2005), open and closed scale adjectives arethan 0.

different in that only the former utilizes
contextual information in calculating the truth

The closed scale adjective magatteriu‘bent’isconditions, and this is summarized as (19) bya lower-closed scale adjective, and its standard isToledo and Sasson (2012):

a scale's minimum endpoint. As shown in (21b),
therefore,

(20)

the

standardfunctiontheAn adjective A is interpreted to a context-

presuppositions (=dependent standard if and only if A’s

standard function based on the comparison classscale is linguistically open. If A is

C in the assertive part ( = standard(bent)(C))

associated with a closed scale, a (non-return the same value 0. As a result, the216

standard(bent)

inand thepresuppositions and the assertion make the

Beaver, David I (2001) Presupposition andconflicting demands: the nail is lower than 0 andAssertion in Dynamic Semantics, CSLI

at the same time greater than 0. This is clearly

Publications, Stanford, CA.
Kennedy, Christopher (1999) Projecting thecontradictory, which results in the unacceptability

Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics ofof (7a).

Gradability and Comparison, Routledge,

To summarize, closed scale adjectives cannot

London, UK.

be used with hoo, because the standard functionsin presuppositions and assertions return the same

Kennedy, Christopher (2007) “Vagueness andvalue and this leads to the contradictory truth

Grammar: The Semantics of Relative andconditions. Open scale adjectives, on the other

Absolute Gradable Adjectives,”Linguistics

hand, can be used with hoo, because theirand Philosophy 30(1), 1–45.
Kennedy, Christopher and Louise McNally

standards are context sensitive, and the two(2005)

standard functions can return different values.

“ScaleModification,

Structure,

and

the

DegreeSemanticsofGradable Predicates,”Language 81(2), 345–

4. Conclusion

381.

This paper proposed that the morpheme hoo

Matsui,and

YusukeDegree Phrase and has the semantics in (16), and“Comparatives

anddemonstrated that based on this proposal, theSemantics and Pragmatics of Japanese Hooobservations in (13) can be accounted for.

Comparatives, ” Proceedings of the Fifth

is a degree morpheme located in the head of aAi

Kubota(2012)

Contrastiveness:

Conference on Formal Approaches to*Japanese Linguistics, 126-139.

I would like to thank Sadayuki Okada, Eri

Tanaka, Stephanie Solt and Yuto Hirayama for

Rotstein, Carmen and Yoad Winter (2004) “Total

their valuable comments and discussions. Of

Adjectives vs. Partial Adjectives: Scalecourse, all errors are my own.

Structure and Higher-order Modifiers, ”
Natural Language Semantics 12(3), 259–
288.

NOTES

Toledo, Assaf and Galit W Sassoon (2011)

1 There is another usage of the morpheme hoo:“Absolute vs. Relative Adjectives - Variancei) Watashi-no-hoo-ga
I-Gen-hoo-Nom

John-yori neko-owithin vs. between Individuals,”Semantics

John-yori

and Linguistic Theory 21, 135–154.

cat-Acc

aishiteiru.
love‘I love cats more than John loves cats.’(Matui and Kubota 2011:127)
For the detailed analysis of this usage of hoo, see
Matui and Kubota (2011).
REFERENCES

217

(1) a. Taroo-wa naNIMO tabe-*(nakat)-ta.
Taro-TOP anything eat-NEG-PAST'Taro ate nothing but sushi.'b.* Taroo-wa susi-sika tabe-*(nakat)-ta.
Taro-TOP sushi-SIKA eat-NEG-PAST

Negative WH-Phrases in Japanese'Taro ate nothing but sushi.'Takeshi Oguro

c. Taroo-wa rokuna

mono-oChiba University of CommerceTaro-TOP rokuna

thing-ACCtabe-*(nakat)-ta.
eat-NEG-PAST

Keywords: syntax, rhetorical questions'Taro didn't eat anything decent.'
There are three important properties of

1. Introduction

WH-mo expressions. One of them is the ability

WH-phrases are often treated on a par withto be in fragment answers, as in (2).

existential quantifiers, which is an idea that
dates back to Kuroda (1965).

(2) A: DAre-ga

In this paper, I would like to show thatkuru

Japanese WH-phrases can function as negative

who-NOM come

expressions, negative concord items, to be exact,'Who will come?'no?
Cin certain limited contexts, particularly in mono

B: DaREMO/*John-sika./*Rokuna hito.

ka rhetorical questions (MRQs), examinedanyone/John-SIKA/rokuna person

originally in McGloin (1976) and in detail by'No one./No one but John./No decent person.'Oguro (2018). I further suggest that they are
Though there are some complicating issues

focused items.

regarding the possibility of XP-sika as a
2. Three Types of Negative Sensitive Items infragment answer according to MNZ, it is clear

Japanesethat daREMO can be a fragment answer. MNZ
refer to the items that can be fragment answers

In this section, I outline the classification ofnegative

sensitive

items(hereafter,

as negative concord items (NCIs) and those that

NSIs)

cannot be as negative polarity items (NPIs).

suggested by Miyagawa, Nishioka, and Zeijlstra(2016) (herafter MNZ) and I introduce a set of

Two other properties of WH-mo expressions

assumptions to capture their behavior. Most of

are that they can be in vP and that there can be

the assumptions are taken from MNZ.

multiple occurrence of them. These properties
are illustrated in (3).

2.1 Properties of Negative Sentisitve Items
MNZ examine three types of NSIs: WH-mo(3) a. Taroo-wa[vP umaku

expressions, XP-sika, and rokuna N. All these

Taro-TOP

three NSIs are allowed in negative contexts, but

tukur]-anakat-ta.

not in affirmative contexts, as in (1).

make-NEG-PAST

naNIMOskillfully anything'Taro did not make anything well.'218

b. DaREMO

naNIMO kaw-anakat-ta.

with [uNEG] features are c-commanded by aAnyoneanything buy-NEG-PAST

goal, which is the negative operator, with Agree
applying upward. In this structure, single'No one bought anything.'

negation reading can be captured. This is a
In (3a) the WH-mo expression naNIMO

syntactic relation, in which once the agreement

appears to the right of the manner adverb umaku.

is established, NCIs may move out of theSince manner adverbs generally mark the left

c-commanding domain of the negative operator.

edge of vP, naNIMO in (3a) is in vP. As shown

In the case of NPIs, on the other hand, they havein (3b), two instances of WH-mo expressions

to remain inside its c-commanding domain since

can occur with each other.

they are semantically dependent on it.
As for the derivation of fragment answers, I

2.2 A Set of Assumptions to Capture theassume, again with MNZ, that there is a

Behavior of WH-mo expressions

functional projection FP above TP, which is not

Here I introduce some assumptions to cover

related to focus. According to MNZ, fragment

the properties of WH-mo expressions, which areanswers are a result of the fragment being raised

mostly taken from MNZ.

to [Spec, FP], followed by the deletion of the

MNZ suggest that the two properties oflower projection. When an NCI functions as aWH-mo expressions given in (3) come fromfragment answer, it first has its [uNEG] feature

their unfocused nature. Here, for the sake ofchecked by the [iNEG] feature on the negative

exposition, I assume with Rizzi (1997: 290) that

operator, whose presence is invoked by thethere is a unique structural position above TP for[uNEG] feature, and then the NCI gets raised toa focused phrase and focalization of two[Spec, FP], which is followed by the deletion ofelements is excluded.

the lower projection, in this case TP, as
illustrated in (5).

As for the licensing of WH-mo expressions,
I follow MNZ and assume the structure in (4).

(5) a.
(4) Upward Agreeb.

[FP NCI [TP [NegP Op[iNEG] [vP ... ]]]][FP NCI [TP ] F]

[TP [NegP Op[iNEG] [vP NCI[uNEG] (NCI[uNEG]) v] na[uNEG]]]

Since FP is not a focus related position,└─←──┴─←─┴─←──┘

multiple instances of NCIs can occur as a
fragment answer, as shown in (6B).

NCIs bear a formal uninterpretable negative
feature [uNEG] that must be checked by a(6) A:

Dareka-ga

nanika-othis structure, NCIs and the negative head na

someone-NOM

something-ACC

contain [uNEG] features and the covert negative

katta

no?

operator in [Spec, NegP] bears the [iNEG]

boguhtC

feature. Here, Agree of negative features works'Did someone buy something?'

formal interpretable negative feature [iNEG]. In

B:(Iya,)daREMOnaNIMO

standard Agree (Chomsky 2000; 2001). In (4),noanyoneanything(multiple) probes, that is, elements endowed(kawanakatta)

in the direction that is the opposite of the219

bought.not

effect of a negative answer. To be more precise,'No, no one bought anything.'

it has the effect of the speaker reminding thehearer that there is no individual who they canthink of that will come.

With this background, let us see the behavior

Let us now consider (9).

of WH-phrases in MRQs.

(9) A:

3. WH-Phrases in MRQs

John to Bill-wa paatii-ni iku
John and Bill-TOP party-to go

In this section, I show that WH-phrases
employed in MRQs behave as NCIs on a parkedo, kimi-mo

iku

no?

with WH-mo expressions but that they are

but

go

C

focused, unlike WH-mo expressions.

'John and B are going to the party. Are

you-also

you, too?'
B1:

3.1 Fragment Answer
Let us first consider the conversation in (7).
(7) A:B:#DaREMO B2: (*Ittai) DAre-ga!
anyonethe.hell who-NOM'No one.''Not me!'Dareka kuru

ka

na?

someone comeQ

SFP

(9B1) is not a felicitous answer, because it'I wonder if someone will come.'

contradicts what the questioner has just said,(Ittai)DAre-ga!

which is that some people are going to the party.

the.hell who-NOM(9B2), on the other hand, is fine. Interestingly, it'No one!'is incompatible with ittai and even though thesubject is a WH-phrase, it refers to the speaker.

The fragment answer in (7B) can be taken as the

In fact, they are characteristics of MRQs.

speaker insisting that no one will come or that heConsider the examples in (10).

cannot imagine any individual who will come.
(10) a.

This fragment answer, which is a form of a(*Ittai)

DAre-ga iku mono ka!

shortened rhetorical question, presumably is athe.hell who-NOM go C

truncated version of the following rhetorical'No one's going!'/'I'm not going!'b.

question.

(Ittai)DAre-ga

the.hell who-NOM(8) (Ittai) DAre-ga

kuru

no?

to iu

no?

the.hell who-NOM

com

C

C say

C

'Who the hell will come?=No one will come.'

Q
iku
go

'Who would you say is going?=No one
is going.'

It is suggested in Caponigro and Sprouse(2007) that ordinary questions can function as

The MRQ in (10a) can be interpreted in two

rhetorical questions when the answer is known

ways: One interpretation is that no one will goboth to the speaker and to the hearer. If it isand the other interpretation is that the speakerassumed that the source of (7B) is (8), then it iswill not go (Goto 2018). (10a), under the second

not surprising that the fragment answer has theinterpretation, is felicitous as an answer to (9A).

220

(10b) is a rhetorical question (Sprouse 2007),

general statement about people who have an

but cannot mean that the speaker will not go, so

advisor, not the speaker's own attitude toward(10b) is not the source of the fragment answer in

his own advisor. Thus, the fragment answer in(9B2).

(9B2) must involve an MRQ like (10a) as its
underlying structure. This means that the

Another point that shows the speaker

WH-subjects in MRQs behave as NCIs.

orientation of the WH-subject in an MRQ is

Now I would like to speculate on how agiven in (11).

fragment answer can be derived from an MRQ.
A structure based on MNZ's analysis, which(11) A: Kimi-wa sidookyoozyu-o

involves FP, would be something like (13).

sonkee-siteiru?
you-TOP academic.advisor-ACC
sonkee-siteiru?

(13)[ForceP Op[iNEG] [FP DAre-ga[uNEG] [FinP [TPt...] mono] F0] ka]

respect-ing'Do you respect your advisor?'
B: Atarimaeda. DAre-ga

The shaded part in (13) is deleted, which

Of.course who-NOM

predicts that the highest head ka must be present

zibun-no/#soitu-no sidookyoozyu-oin an MRQ-derived fragment answer. This

self-gen/the.guy-GEN advisor-ACC

prediction is incorrect, however, as shown in

mikudasu

mono

ka!

(14).

look.down

CQ'Of course. I don't look down on myadvisor!'(14) A: Kimi-mo iku

no?

you-also

Cgo'Are you going, too?'In (11B), where the WH-subject is taken to be

B: DAre-ga (*ka)!

the speaker, the pronoun that is bound by the

who-NOM Q

subject must be the 'self'-form zibun rather than'Not me!'the 'the guy' form soitu. If the WH-subject isreplaced by a WH-mo expression, as in (12), theAs shown above, the complentizer ka cannot

intended binding reading is available.

appear in an MRQ-based fragment answer. As isreported in Hasegawa (2007), martix sluicing(12)

DaREMO zibun-no/soitu-no

cases cannot involve ka, as in (15B2). As shown

anyonein (15B3), however, the addition of a sentence

self-gen/the.guy-GENsidookyoozyu-o

mikudasu

advisor-ACC

look.down

final particle saves the example.

mono

ka!

(15) A: Dareka kuru

rasii

yo.

C

Q

someone comeI.hearSFP'No one looks down on his advisor!''I hear someone will come.'
B1: DAre?

This example, however, lacks the interpretation

B2: *DAre ka?

where the subject refers to the speaker. (12) is a

B3: DAre ka ne?

221WH-phrase can be raised outside the scope ofthe operator.

In the case of an MRQ-based fragment answer,
adding a sentence final particle does not help

3.2 Remaining in-Situ

improve the grammaticality.

Oguro (2018) observes that the WH-object
in an MRQ must be fronted, as in (19).

(16) A: Kimi-mo iku no?
you-also go C(19) a. * Mary-ga'Are going, too?'NAni-oB1: DAre-ga!

Mary-NOM

B2: * DAre-ga ka!

mono

ka!

B3: * DAre-ga ka yo!

C

Q

kau

what-ACC buy'Mary will buy nothing!'b.? NAni-o

It is interesting to observe that (16B3)

Mary-gakau

significantly improves when the complementizer

what-ACC Mary-NOM buy

is omitted, as in (17).

mono ka!
C(17)

DAre-gaQ'Mary will buy nothing!'

yo!

who-NOM SFP
There is additional evidence that the WH-phrase'Not me!'in this construction must be raised. Kishimoto
Recall that DAre-ga as a fragment answer is(2009) suggests that subjects marked with karainterpreted as referring to the speaker. Given this,'from'

I speculate that an MRQ-derived fragment

WH-subject in an MRQ cannot be marked withanswer has the following structure.

it, as shown in (20).

(18)(20) a. John-kara ayamaru[SAP DAre-ga[uNEG] [ForceP Op[iNEG] [FinP [TP0stay

insidevP.

Importantly,

theJohn-from apologizet...] mono] ka] [SA yo]]'John will apologize.'b.

The structure in (18) involves Speech Act Phrase

DAre-kara ayamaru no?

(Speas and Tenny 2003, Saito and Haraguchi

who-from apologize C

2012, Haegeman and Hill 2013, Miyagawa 2017,'Who will apologize (first)?'among others), which is the highest projection inc. * DAre-kara ayamaru mono ka!

the clausal architecture and it usually hosts

who-from apologize C

discourse participants such as the speaker and'No one will apologize!'

the hearer. (The structure in (18) contains only

'I will not apologize!'d.

the speaker for the sake of simplicity.) DAre-ga

Q

DaRE-kara-MO ayamaru mono ka!

is raised to [Spec, SAP] and is interpreted as thewho-from-mo apologize C

speaker. The [uNEG] feature of the WH-phrase'No one will apologize!'Qis checked in its original position by being
The behavior of the WH-phrase in (20c)c-commanded by the negative operator, so the222contrasts sharply with that of the WH-mo

who, dealing with English examples such as (23),expression in (20d). This clearly indicates thatargue that rhetorical WH-question formation is

WH-phrases in MRQs cannot remain in vP,similar to negative-preposing.

which in turn suggests that they are focused.
(23) a. With what employee would John ever be
happy? (RQ)

3.3 Multiple Occurrenceb. With no employee would John be happy.

Another property of NCIs like daREMO(negative preposing)which is not shared by WH-phrases in MRQs
has to do with multiple occurrence. DaREMO
and naNIMO can occur with each other in a

According to Han and Siegel, (23a) is only

sentence, but DAre-ga and NAni-o fail to do so,rhetorically interpreted and its meaning is theirrespective of their ordering.

same

as

(23b),

which

involves

negative

preposing. Given this, I propose the following:(21) a. DaREMO naNIMO kau mono ka!
anyoneanything buy C(24) a. WH-phrases in MRQs are (focused)Q

NCIs rather than interrogative'No one will buy anything!'
b. * {NAni-o} DAre-ga

expressions.

{NAni-o}what-ACC who-NOM what-ACC

b. WH-MRQs are instances of negative

kau

mono

ka!

preposing.

buy

C

Q
4. Conclusion'No one will buy anything!'

In this paper, I showed that WH-phrases in
Since it is assumed here that focalization of two

MRQs are focused NCIs, which makes MRQs aelements is excluded, the degraded status ofkind of negative preposing cases, whereas(21b) indicates that WH-phrases in MRQs are

WH-mo expressions are unfocused NCIs.

focused NCIs.
References

We can summarize these as in (22).

Caponigro, Ivan and Jon Sprouse (2007)(22)“Rhetorical

WH in MRQs
WH-mo
───────────────────────────
fragment answer
possiblepossible───────────────────────────appearing in vP
impossible
possible───────────────────────────multiple occurrence
impossible
possible───────────────────────────Questionsas

Questions,”

Proceedings of SuB 11, 121-133.
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:
The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on
Minimalist Syntax in Honor of HowardLasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David
Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Put briefly, WH-phrases in MRQs are NCIs on a

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”par with WH-mo expressions, but the former are

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. byfocused and the latter are not.

Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

A clue for the nature of WH-phrases in

Cambridge.

MRQs can be found in Han and Siegel (1997),

223

Liliane

Goto, Risa (2018) Rhetorical Questions: A
Relevance

Theoretic

Approach

Haegeman,281-337,

Kluwer,Dordrecht.

toSaito, Mamoru and Tomoko Haraguchi (2012)

Interrogative Utterance in English and“Deriving the Cartography of the JapaneseJapanese, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.

Right

The

Case

of

Sentence-Final

Particles,”Iberia:An

Syntax and its Limits, ed. by Raffaella Folli,International

JournalTheoretical

Christina Sevdali, and Robert Truswell,

Linguistics 4.2 (Special Issue in Honor of

370-390, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Andrew Radford), 104-123.

Haegeman, Liliane, and Virginia Hill (2013)“The

Syntacticizationof

Discourse,”

Periphery:ofHan, Chung-Hye and Laura Siegel (1997)

Speas, Peggy, and Carole Tenny (2003)“Syntactic and Semantic Conditions on NPI“Configurational Properties of Point ofLicensing in Questions,” WCCFL 15,

View Roles,” Asymmetry in Grammar, ed.

177-192.

by Anna Maria Di Sciullo, 315-344, John

Hasegawa,

Nobuko(2007)“Sluicing

Benjamins, Amsterdam.

andSprouse, Jon (2007) “Rhetorical Questions andTruncated Wh-Questions in English and

Wh-Movement,”

Japanese,” JELS 24, 61-70.

572-580.

Kishimoto, Hideki (2009) “Topic Prominency inJapanese,” The Linguistic Review 26,
465-513.
Kuroda,Shige-Yuki(1965)

Generative

Grammatical Studies in the Japanese
Language, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
McGloin, Naomi Hanaoka (1976) “Negation,”
SyntaxandSemantics

5:

Japanese

Generative Grammar, ed. by Masayoshi
Shibatani, 371-419, Academic Press, NewYork.
Miayagawa, Shigeru (2017) Agreement beyond
Phi, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Miyagawa, Shigeru, Nobuaki Nishioka, andHedde Zeijlstra (2016) “Negative Sensitive
Items and the Discourse-Configurational
Nature of Japanese,” Glossa: a Journal of
General Linguistics 1(1): 33. 1-28.
Oguro, Takeshi (2018) “Properties of Mono Ka
Rhetorical Questions,” Proceedings of
WAFL 13, 193-204.
Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of theLeft Periphery,” Elements of Grammar:
Handbook in Generative Syntax, ed. by

224

Linguistic

Inquiry38,

ii. T inherits the valued uPhi (feature
inheritance).
Note that the original PGA by Chomsky (2000,
Free Rule Ordering in There Constructions*

2001) applies after FI (feature inheritance),4 but
this ordering causes a bad result in (1) under the

Jun Omune

free Merge model (see also Epstein, Kitahara,

Kansai Gaidai University

and Seely (2014, 2017, 2018)). In (1), if theoriginal PGA takes place, the lower John cannot

Keywords：Agree, Feature Inheritance, Freeagree with the inherited uPhi on T because lower

Merge, Unvalued Phi-featurecopies are invisible or inaccessible. The probe
uPhi does not find a possible goal (see (2i–ii)).

1. Introduction

i. FI of uPhi

ii. PGA

This paper argues that free application of(2) {C, {John, {T, {John, {hit-v, …}}}}}

rules in syntax, which is discussed in Epstein,i. PGA ii. FI of vPhi

Obata, and Seely (2017), explains someagreement phenomena of there constructions

Furthermore, Epstein, Obata, and Seely (2017)

under the free Merge model (Chomsky (2013,

argue that the ordering of rules in syntax,2015)).1

including PGA and FI, is essentially free, andthis freedom is one factor that produces
linguistic variation. Namely, they imply that

2. Analytic Assumptions
In this minimalist model, the mechanism of

PGA always applies before FI in English; theagreement is more or less unclear. For example,

opposite rule ordering of (1i–ii) (i.e. (2i–ii)) is

Epstein, Obata, and Seely (2017) and Chomsky

not assumed to be available in the language.

(2016) suggest that PGA (Probe-Goal Agree)

This paper demonstrates that the case, that is, FI(see Chomsky (2000, 2001)) still holds, but

before PGA, is possible at least in there

Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely (2017, 2018)

constructions in English.

eliminate it and unify labeling and agreement
under minimal search.2 This paper adopts the

3. Free Rule Ordering in English

former though both approaches appear to be

Let

us

promising. Let us first consider the typicalconstruction:

considerthefollowing

there

3

phi-agreement in this mechanism below:(3) There *is/are three men (in the room).
(1) {C, {John, {T, {John, {hit-v, …}}}}}(John hit Mary)PGA by Chomsky (2000, 2001) explains why

After Merge builds the structure above,

verbs agree with IA (internal argument) in there

i. The uPhi of C and John (the higher

constructions. If we, following Epstein, Obata,copy) agree and the uPhi is valued

and Seely (2017), assume that PGA holds for the(Probe-Goal Agree).

free-Merge model proposed by Chomsky (2015)225

(6) There is/are only John and Bill:

as shown in (1), then the derivation of thei.

typical there construction can be as follows:

Merge forms {C, {there, {T, {v, John
and Bill}}}}.

ii.

(4) There are three men:

PGA: The uPhi of C first probes into
there, which bears ‘only 3rd-person’i. Merge forms {C, {there, {T, {v, three(see Richards and Biberauer (2005)) ormen}}}}.
ii. FI: T inherits uPhi from C.

‘person’ (see Chomsky (2001)), andiii. PGA: The inherited uPhi on T probes

then John and Bill.
iii. FI: T inherits vPhi (valued Phi-set)

into three men.

from C.
The rule ordering of FI and PGA is opposite toIn (6ii), the uPhi of C agrees with the two(1), and it successfully explains the fact in (3).
As a result of PGA between T and three men

phi-sets: it first probes into the 3rd-person (orin (4), the phonological realization of theperson) of there because there is the closest

agreement is instantiated at T. Thus, the be-verb

phi-bearer, and further probes into the fullis phonologically realized as are. However,Phi-set of John and Bill to maximize matchingverbs do not always inflect based on theeffects (see Chomsky (2001) for Maximizationagreement with IA in the list reading. The

Principle). If externalization (i.e. mapping of‘T-probing’ PGA, therefore, fails to explain

syntax-phonology) utilizes the information of

empirical phenomena such as (5).

the agreement between C and there, T is
phonologically realized as the ‘default form is’(5) List There Constructions:due to the ‘3rd-person’ or ‘person’ of there. If

Who is still here to do the work?

externalizationa.

There is/*am/remains/*remain only

information between T and John and Bill, T isme.

realized as are. This matches with the fact in

b.

There

is/are/remains/remain

onlyutilizestheagreement(5b). In (5a), externalization exploits the

us/John and Bill.

agreement data between uPhi and there, and the(adapted from Chomsky (2000: 149, fn. 90))

verbs are realized as is and remains.
It is the null hypothesis that all agreement

This problem can be solved by adopting therelations (i.e. T-there and T-IA) are available tofree-rule-ordering system proposed by Epstein,externalization. Therefore, am and remain in

Obata, and Seely (2017). Let us focus on the two(5a) should be a valid realization, but they are

possible ordering schematically shown in (2)not. Why not? This is because externalization

again. I have already proposed that the first

does not regard the ‘first-person singular’ as aordering (2i–ii) can apply in (4), but here I also

legible agreement pair for the expletive there;

propose that the other (2i–ii) ordering is also

the contraction of there and am (i.e. there’m) isavailable in the list there construction (Theimpossible.

following analysis will be discarded and revised

The analysis in (6) may be tenable, but it canlater).

be simplified. Maximization Principle, which
requires maximizing matching effects, is not226necessary if the defective agreement (e.g. Agreeoccurs and then PGA, the uPhi inherited by T

(T, person)) is enough to externalize the default

agrees with some men alone because the lower

agreement. This is supported by minimal

copy there is invisible. Accordingly, the speakers

computation because shorter search is efficient

using this rule order (9i–ii) judge seems

than longer search. Therefore, (6) is revised andunacceptable in (8). However, if PGA firstsimplified as follows:

occurs, the uPhi on C agrees with the closest
phi-bearer there. The subsequent FI makes T(7) Revised Version of (6):i. FI of uPhi

inherit the ‘valued’ Phi from C. The speakers

ii. PGA

using this rule order (9i–ii) judge seem{C, {there, {T, {v, John and Bill}}}}acceptable

i. PGA ii. FI of vPhi

in

(8).

Therefore,

the(un)acceptability of seems in (8) is explained by
the difference of rule ordering.

When FI applies before PGA ((7i–ii)), T isrealized as is. When PGA applies before FI

5. Conclusion((7i–ii)), T is realized as are.

To sum up, FI and PGA apply freely in any
order after the phase unit (i.e. CP) has been built

4. More about Agree in There Constructions

in English there constructions. (i) When FI

Let us further consider the following

applies first, T instantiates the agreement

construction:

relation of uPhi and IA. (ii) In contrast, when
PGA applies first, T instantiates the default form

( )(8) There * seems/seem to be some men in the(i.e.

3rd-person-singular).

Interestingly,

theformer option (i) is exotic in English (see (1)),

garden.

which suggests that children need to learn this
It has generally been assumed that seem is only

order. However, the latter option (ii) is canonical.

the acceptable choice in this sentence since theThis may be a reason why the default inflection

matrix T agrees with the IA some men. Kallulli

is often observable in colloquial speech where(2008: 286), however, pointed out that seems inunacceptable expressions as in (3) are more or(8) is acceptable, and five native speakers alsoless used.

judged seems acceptable in my survey. Let us
see the structure of (8) in the proposed analysis:*I would like to express my sincere gratitude to
Miki Obata for the comment of the earlier idea

i. FI of uPhi

ii. PGAof the paper inspired by her talk held at Keio(9) {C, {there, {T,…, {there, {Tto,…, some

University. My thanks also go to the members ofi. PGA2018–2019 Keio Minimalist Syntax Group andii. FI of vPhi

men,…}}}}}

the audience in ELSJ 12th International Spring
Forum for their insightful comment.

there first externally merges with SPEC-Tto and

NOTES
The free Merge model can generate deviant

then internally merges with SPEC-T before C is1

introduced

linguistic(because

Merge

applies

expressions.

This

is

a

naturalassumption because our brain (or mind) is able

strict-cyclically in Chomsky (2015)). If FI first

227

to

recognize

andinterpretation

for

have

some

deviant

forms

Matteini,

of

John

Benjamins,

Amsterdam.

expressions

Chomsky, Noam (2016) “Puzzles about Phases,”

themselves.
2

3-16,

ms., MIT.

Labeling is just minimal search that seeks the‘headness’ of the structure. That is, the label of

Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T.

{X, YP}, which is the set of a head and a phrase,

Daniel Seely (2014b) “Agreement Is theis X. The label of {XP, YP}, where YP is a lower

Shared Prominent Feature Option of

copy, is X. The label of {XuPhP, YvPhiP} is <Phi,

POP’sPhi> if vPhi (the set of valued Phi-features) is

University of Michigan, Keio University,

the valuer of uPhi (the set of unvalued

and Eastern Michigan University.

Labeling

Algorithm,”ms.,

Phi-features). Note that XuPhP and YvPhiP

Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T.

represent that X and Y bear the unvalued

Daniel Seely (2017) “Successive Cyclic

phi-feature and a lexically/inherently valued

Wh-Movement without Successive Cyclic

phi-feature, respectively,

Crashing,” paper presented at ELSJ 10th

3

International Spring Forum.

The strikethrough letter (e.g. John) denotes theEpstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T.

lower copy in this paper.
T inherits features from C, and a (verbal) root

Daniel Seely (2018) A simpler solution toinherits features from v*. C and v* are bothtwo

assumed to be phase heads. Feature inheritancecomposite-operationis also called just ‘inheritance’ in Chomsky

presented(2015).

International Conference.

4

problems

revealed

at

about

the

Agree.

paper

20th

AnnualJSLS

Epstein, Samuel D., Miki Obata, and T. Daniel
Seely (2017) “Is Linguistic Variation

REFERENCES
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

Entirely Linguistic?,” Linguistic Analysis

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

41, 481-516.

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

Kallulli, Dalina (2008) “There Is Secondary

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David

Predication

Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155,

WCCFL 26, 279-287.

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

in

There-Existentials,”Richards, Marc and Theresa Biberauer (2005)

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”“Explaining Expl,” The Function of

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by

Function

Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

Categories, ed. by Marcel den Dikken andCambridge, MA.

Christina M. Tortora, 115-153, John

Chomsky,Noam(2013)“Problems

of

Noam

Projection:(2015)“Problems

Extensions,”andBenjamins, Amsterdam.

Projection,” Lingua 130, 33–49.
Chomsky,

Words

of

Structures,

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour
of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di
Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona

228

Functional2. Monadic Concept Examples & Some
Assumptions
Let us see monadic concepts MCs for a verb
A Case Study in Monadic Concepts:

and every for the purposes of ‘argument

Comparative Construction

structure’ and ‘quantification’ respectively (E for
events and Ǝ for existential closure; Pietroski

Norio Suzuki2012):

Kobe Shinwa Women’s University (former
professor)(1) “… lexicalizers abstract the MC STAB (E)from the relational concept STAB (x, y) or

Keywords: monadic concept, comparative

STAB (x, y, E), by drawing on thematicconstruction, generalized quantifier, conjunction,

concepts: STAB (x, y) ≡ ƎE [STAB (x, y,

abstraction over degreesE)]; STAB (x, y, E) ≡ AGENT (E, x) andSTAB (E) and PATIENT (E, y). Think ofthese
1. Introduction

biconditionals

asprovidingacontextual definition CD of STAB (E).”The goals of this paper are as follows: (i) To(Hornstein & Pietroski 2009). Look at thegive a case study in monadic concept MCfollowing example (1a) and its associatedconstruction (Pietroski 2011, 2012, 2018 a, b) in

MC STAB (E) in (1b), along with somethe domain of “comparative constructions CCs”

rather detailed procedural steps of the(basically focusing on clausal comparatives in

relevant MC construction (based on its CD

English and Japanese); (ii) To pursue an accountconstruction) shown in (1c):of CCs based on Heim’s (2006) “comparative

a. Brutus stabbed Caesar

clauses as generalized quantifiers overb.

STAB (E) ˄ Ǝ [PATIENT (E, x) ˄degrees” approach, and hence clausal

CAESAR (x)] ˄ Ǝ [AGENT (E, x) ˄comparatives both in English and Japanese areassumed to involve abstraction over degrees

BRUTUS (x)] (TENSE omitted)c. ‘StabV‘, understood as a predicate ofrather than individual comparison (but see

events, can be an instruction to fetch

Sudo’s 2009 (Invisible degree nominals in

STAB (_), a monadic concept ofJapanese clausal comparatives, In Proceedings

events, which is stored at the lexicalof the 5th workshop on Altaic formal linguistics)

address for ‘stab’, and the dyadic

and 2015 ‘hybrid’ approach to Japanese clausal

concept PATIENT (_, _) is fetchedcomparatives); and (iii) To explore the problem

from the address of some functionalof how to represent in a Pietroski/Hornstein-item ‘Θ1‘, where it is stored. And

style neo-Davidsonian semantics more intricatecomparative examples, for which the ‘contextual

also suppose (perhaps, simplifyingly)that ‘CaesarN‘ fetches CAESAR (_),

definitions’ of the relevant MCs are assumed tostored at the lexical address forbe created via conjunction of elements of very

‘Caesar’. Then the dyadic concept

restricted sorts (Hornstein & Pietroski 2009).

PATIENT (_, _) and monadic229

concept CAESAR (_) are conjoined,

instance of “reprojection” in the sense ofwith the second variable of the dyadic

Uriagereka & Hornstein (2002: 119-120),concept linked to the adjacent monadic

providing the second label for the structure

concept (i.e., CAESAR (_)) andƎ (existential closure) targeting the(Uriagereka & Hornstein 2002:117-119).
‘Every D ‘, as a device that lexicalizes amonadic concept CAESAR (_). And

quantificational concept, can be an instruction tothen, the complex monadic concept Ǝfetch a monadic concept (i.e., ‘EVERY (Q)’) of[PATIENT (E, x ) ˄ CAESAR (x)] andthings with participants. The MC EVERY (Q)the monadic concept STAB (_), aapplies to some ordered pairs if and only if theym o n a d i c c o n c e p t o f e v e n t s , a remeet three conditions: each of their IPs is one ofconjoined to create the monadic concept

their EPs; their IPs are the spies; and their EPs(along with its CD) STAB ( E ) ˄ Ǝ

are the things wearing a hat. The concept[PATIENT (E, x) ˄ CAESAR (x)] (seeMAX:Φ(_) applies to some things if and only if

Pietroski 2018a: 103-109, Hornstein &they are (all & only) the things to which Φ(_)

Pietroski 2009: 131, Suzuki 2019 forapplies (Pietroski 2018a). EVERY (_) applies tofurther details).

both the six ordered pairs: <1, 1>; <2, 1>; <3,(2) a. “If ‘every’ (which lexicalizes a3>; <4, 3>; <5, 5>; <6, 5> (three IPs, 1, 3, andquantificational concept) can take a

5, being the spies, and six EPs, 1-6, the people

predicate of individuals as its internal

wearing hats) and the three ordered pairs: <1,argument IArg and a predicate of truth

5>; <3, 3>; <5, 1> (the numbers of IPs and EPs

values as its external argument EArg, thenbeing the same) (Pietroski 2018a). Then (2bii‘every’ is satisfied by things that havewith MAX3; see Pietroski 2018a: 335-339 forindividuals as their internal participants‘conservativity’; more basically for

IPs and truth values as their external‘conservativity,’ see Lappin ed. 1996: 163 (50),participants EPs.” (Hornstein & Pietroski527) is a CD of EVERY (Q) for the latter ‘three2009)

ordered pairs’ case, with a CD of EVERY (Q)b. i) Every spy is wearing a hat.

for the other, former ‘six ordered pairs’ caseii) TENSE (PRES)/EVERY (Q)shown in (2bii with MAX6). Some implicature˄ Ǝ [INTERNAL (PRES/Q, x)(e.g., Grice’s maxim of Quantity: “Do not make

˄ MAX: A-SPY (x)] ˄ Ǝ [EXTERNAL

your contribution more informative than is(PRES, x) ˄ MAX6/MAX3/MAX∞: IS-

required”) urges you to choose (2bii with

WEARING-A-HAT (x)]MAX3) as the CD of EVERY (Q) for (2bi).

(Pietroski 2018a; PRES for present, Q

Even in the ‘six ordered pairs’ case, the CD offor quantifiers, MAX6/MAX3/MAX∞

EVERY (Q) in (2bii with MAX3) appears to be― NS)

preferred over (2bii with MAX6). As for (2biiwith MAX∞), see Hornstein & Pietroski (2009)

The interpretation of (2bi) given in (2bii) is an

for “… the external/sentential argument does

instance of second-order logic involving a

not, …, specify a second set.”

relation of two groups/sets. The MC EVERY(Q)-related portion in (2bii) is assumed to be an

3. Proposal: Comparative Constructions230

3.1. English Clausal Comparatives(Aloni & Roelofsen 2014); (ii) there are someLet us move on to the monadic concept MC

degrees of EP’s height surpassing the set of all–ER-than ( D ) ( D for degrees ― NS) forsuch degrees of IP’s height (my interpretation;comparatives. See the comparative (3a) with its(4 with MAXMARY/MAX∞)); and (iii) the

structure (3b) involving “–er-than” as ‘head’

maximal height degree that Mary reaches isof the CC taking two arguments:

more than the maximal degree of height thatJohn reaches: max (λd. Mary is d-tall) > max(λd’. John is d’-tall) (Hohaus, Tiemann, & Beck(3) a. Mary is taller than John is.
b. [[[ -er-than] [John is]] [Mary is tall]]2014; (4 with MAXMARY/MAX∞)). (Note that(based on Hohaus, Tiemann, & Beck 2014)

I follow Heim 2006:6 in assuming for ‘aIn (3) John is is the IArg of –er-than creating asemantics for the comparative morpheme –er’:[[-er]] = λdd. λd’d. d’ > d.) To the extent that theset of degrees specifying all the gradable

size of the set of degrees of John’s height isstages of John’s height, while the EArg Mary isequal to the size of the intersection of degrees oftall… may allow of two possibilities: (4 with

John’s and Mary’s heights, ‘conservativity’ of

MAXMARY and MAX∞; also Hornstein &some sort is obtained, adding to the validity of

Pietroski 2009):

interpreting (clausal) CCs as ‘generalized
quantifier’ constructions over degrees.

(4) –ER-than (D) ˄ Ǝ [INTERNAL (D, x) ˄
3.2. Japanese Clausal Comparatives[MAX: TALL (x) ˄ JOHN (x)]]I basically follow Shimoyama (2012) in˄ Ǝ [EXTERNAL (D, x) ˄ [MAXMARY/

assuming that Japanese clausal comparatives

MAX∞: TALL (x) ˄ MARY (x)]]involve abstraction over degrees along the lines“Er-than” (composed of comparativeof their English counterparts. This contrasts withmorphemes in syntax) is assumed to be able toproponents of the view that Japanese (clausal)

be an instruction to fetch the comparative MC ‘–

comparatives are parametrically limited to

ER-than ( D )’ (see (1c) above for someindividual comparison (see Simoyama 2012: 85

procedural details for MC/CD construction).

and references cited therein). Note also that

In (4 with MAXMARY), a CD of –ER-than (D)Shimoyama (2012: 110-111) pays special

is given for both the degrees of height of the IP

attention to Sudo’s (2009; also Sudo 2015)

and EP as they are (all and only) the things to‘hybrid’ approach to Japanese clausal

which ‘TALL (_)’ applies, with the IArg andcomparatives with properties from both degree

EArg creating a set of degrees. In (4 with

abstraction and individual-denoting DP analysis.

MAX ∞ ) the EArg does not specify a set.

Now look at the following phrasal and clausal–ER-than (D) applies to three similar contexts:

comparatives in Japanese (from Sudo 2015: 4):(i) both IArg and EArg create a set of degrees of(5) a. Phrasal Comparative

height (4 with MAXMARY), with “the set of
degrees d such that Mary is d tall properly

John-wa [Mary]-yori kasikoi

including the set of degrees d such that John is dJohn-TOP [Mary]-than smart

tall: λd. Mary is d tall É λd. John is d tall”‘John is smarter than Mary’231

4. Representing Comparatives in a Pietroski-b. Clausal Comparative
John-wa[Mary-gastyle Semantics

kitaisita]-yori

The discussion is based on Heim’s 2006

kasikoiJohn-TOP [Mary-NOM expected]-

comparative clauses as generalized quantifiers

than smart

over degrees. Look at the following CCs in‘John is smarter than Mary expected’English (7, 8):(7) a. Mary is taller than every boy is.

I focus on the clausal comparative in Japanese in‘for every boy x: Mary is taller than x’
LF: [wh1 [every boy is t1 tall]]2 [Mary is [-er(5b). Notice that Japanese does not havean overt morpheme for more or –er, which fact I

than t2 ] tall]assume has no significant role to play in thesubsequent analysis of Japanese clausal"x [boy (x) ® Mary’s height > x’s height]

comparatives (Sudo 2015: 4-5). Look at (6 =b. –ER-than (D)/EVERY (Q)(5b)) (M for modality ― NS; see Pietroski 2012:˄ Ǝ [INTERNAL (D/Q, x) ˄ [MAXD:

80-82, Heim 2006: 9, Shimoyama 2012: 87-88),

TALL (x) ˄ A-BOY (x)]]where the MC (MARY-ga-)KITAISITA ( M )-

˄ Ǝ [EXTERNAL (D, x)

related portion in (6b) is assumed to be an˄ [MAXD-MARY/MAXD-∞: TALL (x)instance of “reprojection” in the sense of

˄ MARY (x)]]Uriagereka & Hornstein (2002: 119-120),(8) a. The desk is wider than every couch isproviding the second label for the structure:

long.
‘for every couch x: the desk is wider than(6) a. John-wa [Mary-ga kitaisita]-yori kasikoi‘John is smarter than Mary expected’x is long’[wh1 [every couch is t1 long]]2 [the desk

(there is a possible world w based on

is [-er than t2 ] wide]

Mary’s expectation such that John is"x [couch (x) ® the desk’s width > x’s

smarter in the actual world than in w)

length]b. YORI (D)/(MARY-ga-)KITAISITA (M)b. –ER-than (D)/EVERY (Q)˄ Ǝ [INTERNAL (D/M, x)˄ Ǝ [INTERNAL (D/Q, x)

˄ [MAXD/M: SMART (x) ˄ JOHN (x)]]˄ [MAXD-LONG: LONG (x)˄ Ǝ [EXTERNAL (D, x)

˄ A-COUCH (x)]]˄ Ǝ [EXTERNAL (D, x)˄ [MAXD-JOHN/MAXD-∞: SMART (x)˄ JOHN (x)]]˄ [MAXD-WIDE-THE DESK/MAX D-WIDE-∞: WIDE (x)The comparison word yori (than), constructed as˄ THE DESK (x)]]the MC ‘YORI (D)’ with its two CDs in (6bwith MAXD-JOHN/MAXD-∞), serves as ‘(first-)

The MC EVERY (Q)-related portion in (7b)head’ of the clausal comparative in Japanese inabove is assumed to be an instance of(6a = 5b), with the ‘reprojected’ MC ‘(MARY-“reprojection” in the sense of Uriagereka &ga-)KITAISITA (M)’ providing the second label

Hornstein (2002: 119-120), which they (2002)

for the structure.

take to be the second label of the structure.

232Note that both ‘–ER-than (D)’ and ‘EVERY (Q)’˄ [MAX: RICH (x)are monadic concepts. The MC EVERY (Q)-˄ HIS FATHER (x)]]related portion in (8b) above is taken to be an˄ Ǝ [EXTERNAL (D, x)

instance of “reprojection” in the sense of˄ [MAXGEORGE/MAX∞: RICH (x)Uriagereka & Hornstein (2002), which they

˄ GEORGE (x)]],(2002) assume to be the second label of the& –ER-than (D)structure. I here assume for (8b) that the internal˄ Ǝ [INTERNAL (D, x)

argument provides a finite set of degrees of˄ [MAX: RICH (x) ˄ HIS SON (x)]]couch length, while in the external argument no˄ Ǝ [EXTERNAL (D, x)

finite set of degrees of desk width is created.

˄ [MAXGEORGE/MAX∞: RICH (x)Let us look at some more examples (9, 10)

˄ GEORGE (x)]]from Heim (2006: 8; based on Schwarzschild &Wilkinson 2002) with a ‘than’-clause-internal

5. A Note on Children’s Comparatives?

element appearing to scope out and see what we

Look at the following CC and its childcan do with these recalcitrant examples via

interpretation (11a, b; Syrett 2016: 464):

Pietroski-style semantics combined (in somecases) with reprojection in the sense of(11) a. Tim is taller than Derek (is).

Uriagereka & Hornstein (2002):b.

Children do not initially understandthat (11a) does not necessarily assert(9) a. It is warmer here today than it usually isthat Tim is tall but does assert thatin New Brunswick.

Tim’s height exceeds that of Derek’s.

‘for most times t: it is warmer here today
than it is at t in New Brunswick’

I focus in (11b) on children’s lack ofb. usually/most times t with ‘generalized

understanding that Tim’s height exceeds that ofquantifier’-construal

Derek’s. Notice that Knowlton et al. (2019: 1)–ER-than (D)/USUALLY (Q)observe that “the meaning of sentences like˄ Ǝ [INTERNAL (D/Q, x)every circle is blue could be represented in˄ [MAXD: WARM (x)speakers’ minds in terms of individuals and˄ IN-NEW-BRUNSWICK (x)]]their properties (e.g., ‘for each thing that’s a˄ Ǝ [EXTERNAL (D, x)

circle, it’s blue’; via a tool of first-order logic)

˄ [MAXD-HERE-TODAY/MAXD-∞:

or in terms of relations between groups (e.g.,

WARM (x) ˄ HERE-TODAY (x)]]‘the blue things include the circles’; via a tool ofsecond-order logic).” Capitalizing on the(10) a. George is richer than his father was andhis son will be.

distinction between tools of ‘first-order logic’‘George is richer than his father was, andand ‘second-order logic’ noted above, let us

he is richer than his son will be’

make use of these interesting grades of logic

b. & > –ER-than (D) (with ‘and’ taking

with ‘first-order logic’ developmentallyscope over the comparative ‘er than’)preceding for the purpose of accounting for the–ER-than (D)fact in (11). Look at (12a, b):˄ Ǝ [INTERNAL (D, x)

233

Note that for the relevant portion of (13) to be(12) a. –ER-than (D)˄ Ǝ [INTERNAL (D, x)

valid, all we need is the situation in which˄ [MAX: TALL (x)there is a non-null intersection of a (finite) set

˄ DEREK (x)]]of height-degrees less than John’s height˄ Ǝ [EXTERNAL (D, x)

and a set of professional basketball players

˄ [MAXTIM/ MAX∞:(in any height). I assume upward-entailingcomputation in this case to be implemented

TALL (x) ˄ TIM (x)]](λd. Tim is d tall É λd. Derek is d tall)independently of comparative interpretation (seeBarwise & Cooper 2002: 102 for ‘intersection’;b. –ER-than (D)˄ Ǝ [ARGUMENT (D, x)also see Alrenga & Kennedy 2014: 31 for˄ [MAX: TALL (x) ˄ TIM (x)]interesting discussion on and interpretation of˄ [MAX: TALL (x) ˄ DEREK (x)]]such sentences involving an existential DP as
Sarah is taller than some of my students are).

(λd. Tim is d tall ˄ Derek is d tall)

Then look at the following, preliminary MC
The CD (12a) gives the adult, second-order‘–ER-than (D)’ for (13) above via Pietroski-styleinterpretation, where two sets/groups of heightsemantics:

degrees (of Derek’s and Tim’s) serve as
arguments of the comparative MC ‘–ER-than(14) –ER-than (D)( D ).’ Notice that (12b) gives a first-order˄ Ǝ [INTERNAL (D, x)

representation with only one argument (i.e., a˄ [MAX: TALL (x)combined set of height degrees of Tim’s and˄[THINGS-LESS-TALL-THAN-JOHN

Derek’s; with lack of understanding that Tim’s⋂ PROFESSIONAL-BASKETBALL-

height exceeds that of Derek’s) for the MC ‘–

PLAYERS] (x)]ER-than (D),’ which I take to be a possible child˄ Ǝ [EXTERNAL (D, x)interpretation at least distinct from the adult˄ [MAXJOHN/MAX∞:TALL (x) ˄ JOHN (x)]]second-order interpretation of (11a) given in(12a).

7. Conclusion
Note that my basic stance on the goals of this

6. Than-Clauses Licensing Upward-EntailingCases

paper should be most evident in taking seriously

The discussion is based on Heim 2006: 6ff,

Hornstein & Pietroski’s spare neo-Davidsonian

Giannakidou & Yoon 2014: 3ff, and Alrenga &semantics rather than Frege’s Begriffsschrift

Kennedy 2014: 31ff. Look at the following

semantics, which appears to generate

example from Heim (2006: 16 (43)) displaying

expressions of boundlessly many, rarely oran upward-entailing property in the than-clause:

never attested types and to beget many
(unwanted) multiple lexical categories (Pietroski(13) John is taller than some professional

2018b). And my modest hope here in taking thisbasketball players are. Therefore, he isstance has been to contribute to the solution oftaller than some professional athletes are.

Darwin’s Problem to the extent that employing a
Hornstein/Pietroski semantics has been234

Internet.

successful in data analysis and description in thedomain of comparative constructions dealt

Lappin, Shalom, ed. (1996) The Handbook ofwith above (Hornstein & Pietroski 2009,

Contemporary Semantic Theory, Blackwell,Hornstein 2009).

Oxford:Pietroski, Paul (2011) “Minimal Semantic

REFERENCES

Instructions,” The Oxford Handbook of

Aloni and Roelofsen (2014) “Indefinites in

Linguistic Minimalism, Oxford University

Comparatives,”

NaturalPress, Oxford.

Language

Pietroski,

Semantics 22.

Paul

Conceptual

Alrenga, Peter and Christopher Kennedy (2014)(2012)“Language

Reanalysis,”Towards

anda“No More Shall We Part: Quantifiers in

Biolinguistic Understanding of Grammar,

English Comparatives,” Natural Language

John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Pietroski, Paul (2018a) Conjoining Meanings,

Semantics 22, 1-53.
Barwise,

Jon

and

Robin

Cooper

(2002)“Generalized

Quantifiers

andNaturalLanguage,”

FormalOxford University Press, Oxford.
Pietroski, Paul (2018b) “Limiting Semantic

The

Types,” Language, Syntax, and the Natural

Essential Readings, ed. by Paul Portner andSciences, 192- 211, Cambridge University

Barbara H. Partee, 75-126, Blackwell,Press, Cambridge.

Semantics:

Oxford.

Shimoyama,

Junko(2012)

Giannakidou, Anastasia and Suwon Yoon (2014)

Crosslinguistic

Variation“No NPI Licensing in Comparatives,” Taken

Comparatives,”

Naturalfrom ResearchGate.

Semantics 20, 83-113.

Heim, Irene (2006) “Remarks on Comparative

Sudo,

Yasutada(2015)“ReassessinginClausalLanguage“Hidden

NominalJapanese

ClausalClauses as Generalized Quantifiers,” Draft,

Structures

MIT.

Comparatives,” Journal of East Asian

Hohaus, Vear, Sonja Tiemann, and Sigrid Beck(2014)“Acquisitionofin

Linguistics 24, 1-51.

Comparison

Suzuki, Norio (2019) “Deriving Monadic

Constructions,” Language Acquisition 21.

Concepts for Comparative Constructions as

Hornstein, Norbert (2009) A Theory of Syntax:

a Species of Generalized Quantifier,”

MinimalOperations

andUniversal

Available at Academia.edu

Grammar, Cambridge University Press,

Syrett,Cambridge.
Operations:(2016)“AcquisitionofComparatives and Degree Constructions,”

Hornstein, Norbert and Paul Pietroski (2009)“BasicKristen

MinimalThe Oxford Handbook of Developmental

Syntax-Linguistics, 463-497, Oxford University

Semantics,” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8,

Press, Oxford.

113-139.

Uriagereka, Juan and Norbert Hornstein (2002)

Knowlton, Tyler, Paul Pietroski, Justin Halberda,“Labels and Projections: A Note on theand Jeffrey Lidz (2019) “The Mental

SyntaxRepresentation of Universal Quantifiers:

Exploring the Dynamics of Syntax, 115-135,

Evidence from Verification,” Taken from the

Routledge, London.

235

of

Quantifiers,”

Derivations:

“NP1.” These terms will also be used for the A
out of B constructions in a parallel way.)
In this paper, we will argue that true
partitives may have an indefinite NP2 under
On Part-Whole Relations Expressed bycertain conditions and express similar semantic

Partitive and A out of B Constructions*relations as A out of B does. The purpose of thispaper is twofold: (i) to show that there is a

Hideki Tanaka

subtype of partitives that is semantically close to

Yokohama National University

A out of B, and (ii) to explain (part of the)putative

Keywords：partitive, A out of B, group-member

counterexamples

to

the

Partitive

Constraint.

relation, proportion, ratio
2. Comparison of Partitives and A out of B
2.1. Syntactic and Semantic Characteristics of
1. Introduction

Partitives

Despite their structural similarities, partitives

True partitives and pseudo-partitives are(e.g. two of the five books) and A out of B

distinct in that the former express a part-wholeconstructions (e.g. two out of five books) haverelation whereas the latter do not. In a group ofreceived contrasting treatments in linguistics.

the students, for instance, a group denotes a

Theoretical studies of partitives began in the latesubset of the main set expressed by the students.

seventies. Selkirk (1977) and Jackendoff (1977)

On the other hand, a group of students denotes a

introduced a well-known distinction between

set of students as a whole. The semantic

pseudo-partitives (e.g. a group of students) anddifference comes from the (in)definiteness of thetrue partitives (e.g. a group of the students). On

NP2. We will exclude pseudo-partitives from ourthe other hand, it was not until the mid-eighties

discussion to focus on the comparison between

that Quirk et al. (1985) conducted the firsttrue partitives and A out of B constructions. For

substantial, descriptive study A out of B

simplicity, let us use “partitives” to refer to true

constructions.

partitives.

They

observed

contrastive

behaviors of A out of B and partitives:

Partitives

mustsatisfythePartitive

Constraint, whose definition is given below.
(1) a. Ten out of fourteen women were single.
b.?*Ten of fourteen women were single.

(2) Partitive Constraint(Quirk et al. 1985: 1287)

NP2 must contain a definite article, ademonstrative, or a possessive.

This contrast indicates that true partitives are(cf. Jackendoff 1977)

subject to the so-called Partitive Constraint,
which requires that the NP following of be

It has been observed in the literature that there

definite, whereas A out of B constructions do not.

are cases in which partitives are permitted that(For ease of reference, let us call the NP that

do not satisfy the Partitive Constraint. Below arefollows of “NP2” and the NP that precedes ofsome examples.

236

(3) Only one of many applicants passed the test.

examples show the range of quantifiers that can(Reed 1989: 421)

occur in the NP1 of partitives:(4) This is one of a number of counterexamples to the PC.1 (Ladusaw 1982: 240)(6) a. two of the five books[numeral Q]

b. some of the five books[cardinal Q]

The partitives in these examples are acceptablec. most of the five books [proportional Q]

even though they have an indefinite NP2. To
explain this syntactic violation, semantic andThese quantifiers are classified into two major

pragmatic solutions have been proposed, but

types: Whereas numeral and cardinal quantifiers

none of them has been fully successful.

denote numbers and quantities, proportional

Before we tackle problematic partitives, it isquantifiers denote a proportion of the set

necessary to review general characteristics ofexpressed by the NP2 (cf. Milsark 1974). It

partitives. According to Tanaka (2015), thesuffices here to see that quantifiers of both types

part-whole relations expressed by partitives areare compatible with partitives.

classified into three types: the group-member

The following example shows that M-

relation, the type-token relation, and the relation

partitives cannot occur as the logical subject of

between an entity and its inalienable parts. Eachexistential-there constructions.

type is exemplified below.
(7) *There are two of the cows in the stable.
(5) a. two of the books I read

(Diesing 1992: 72)

b. two pages of the book I readc. two copies of the book I read

The partitive requires the main set denoted by
NP2 to be introduced in previous discourse,

In (5a), two denotes a subset of the main set

whereastheexistential-there

construction

denoted by the books I read. Tanaka refers torequiresthelogicaltothis type of partitive as an “M-partitive” (orpresuppositional. Hence, the incompatibility of“M-type”), where “M” stands for member. In

partitives and existential-there constructions.2

subjectbenon-(5b), two pages is an inalienable part of the bookI

read. He calls this typeofpartitive

2.2. Syntactic and Semantic Characteristics of“I-partitives” (or “I-type”), where “I” stands for

A out of B

inalienable. In (5c), the book I read denotes a

The A out of B construction allows not only

book title, or a type, and two copies denotes its

a definite NP2 but also an indefinite NP2. It

tokens. He names this type of partitive

should be noted that the range of interpretation“T-partitive” (or “T-type”) after the initial letteris different depending on whether the NP2 isof token.

definite or not.

Partitives that relate semantically to the A
out of B construction are M-type. Thus, we will

(8)

a. two out of the five books [definite NP2]

take a close look at M-partitives. (For simplicity,→ partitive reading

we will use “partitives” to refer to M-partitives

b. two out of five books

unlessotherwise

stated.)Thefollowing[indefinite NP2]

→ either partitive or ratio reading237

A partitive reading is obtained when the NP2 isthat A out of B constructions basically express

definite. When the NP2 is indefinite, on the otherratios, and proportional readings are available

hand, not only partitive but also ratio readings

when the NP2 denotes a set whose boundary is

are possible.

clearly determined.

It is worth noting that elements in the NP1

The table below summarizes what we havemay affect the possible interpretation of A out ofseen so far.

B. As Tanaka (2012) points out, only the ratio
reading is available for the A out of B in the

Table 1: Comparison of partitives and A out of B

following example from BNC:

(Tanaka 2012: 166, modified)(9) Nearly two out of five video owners find it

Proportionaldifficult to programme their machines for

Q in NP1

recording because it is too complicated.

Definiteness(Tanaka 2012: 166)

of NP2

Partitive

A out of B

compatible

incompatible

definite

explicitness

as nearly two to count human beings, so theno needof NP2

partitive reading is excluded.

indefinite
no need for

Number-

It is inappropriate to use decimal numbers suchdefinite or

definite NP2 /explicit for
indefinite NP2

The following contrast shows that the A out

NP1-NP2

group-member

proportion orof B construction does not allow proportional

relation(proportion)

ratio

quantifiers in the NP1 position.
The concepts of “proportion” and “ratio” are(10) a. two out of the five books

distinguished here. In the case of A out of B,b. *most out of the five books

proportion refers to a relation that arises when
NP2 is definite. On the other hand, ratio refers to

It should be recalled that partitives do not havesuch a relation that is formed when NP2 issuch a restriction, as shown in (6). Below isindefinite and thus does not refer to a set whose

another example that shows the incompatibility

boundary is clearly determined. In ordinaryof proportional quantifiers with A out of B.

partitives, NP2 should be definite. A proportional
reading is made either when both NP1 and NP2(11) * Most out of fourteen women were single.

contain a determinate numeral, or when NP1

cf. (1a)contains a proportional quantifier. In other cases,a group-member reading results.

When an indefinite NP2 occurs in A out of B,
it should contain a determinate numeral.

3. Subtypes of Partitives
In this section, we will first see that(12) a. two out of the (five) books

partitives that express vague proportions like A

b.* two out of books

out of B are not subject to the Partitive
Constraint. We will then specify the conditions

This fact may lead us to Tanaka’s (2012) claim

238

for partitives to express vague proportions.

indefinite NP2.
The following table illustrates the semantic

3.1.

Vague

Proportions

Expressedbyrelationship between partitives and A out of B.

Partitives and A out of B
Let us compare the partitive and the A out of

Table 2: The semantic relationships expressed by

B constructions in the following examples:partitives and A out of B

(13) This is only one instance out of many.
Partitive(KNJED)(14) This is only one of many instances of thebreadth of Marryat’s view.
(BNCweb: EC8 373)
A out of B

The partitive in (14) is still acceptable eventhough it has an indefinite NP2. According to myinformant, the partitive is interchangeable with
the A out of B in (13). Notice that theNP1-NP2

Element

Relation

in NP2

Examplegroup-

definiteone of the (ten)memberarticleapplicants
one of manyvague

cardinal

proportionQ

applicants
one out of
manyapplicantsratio /
proportion

numeralone out of (the)ten applicants

combination of the quantifiers in NP1 and NP2 isthe same in these examples.

The top and bottom rows show the typical use ofHere is another pair of examples thatpartitives and the typical use of A out of B,

indicates the semantic correspondence between

respectively. The middle row is where partitives

partitives and A out of B constructions.

and A out of B are semantically close.
Based on the above table, we will examine(15) [T]he above example is only one out ofproblematic cases of partitives. Let us start withvery many which might have been cited.

(3) and (4). In (3), the NP1 is only one and the(BNCweb: EW7 790)

NP2 many applicants. This combination is(16) [H]e was only one of many hundreds ofexactly the same as in (14), in which a vague

men throughout the country during the

proportion is expressed. In (4), the NP2 contains

fifteenth and sixteenth centuries making

an indeterminate cardinal quantifier, a number of,such an obligation. (BNCweb: AE4 573)

so a vague proportion is expressed.
The following have been regarded as

The partitive in (16) has an indefinite NP2, many

counterexamples to the Partitive Constraint.

hundreds of men. Again, the partitive and the A
out of B in (15) share the same combination of(17) Only one of many people who saw thequantifiers (i.e. only one and many).

accident would testify.

It is reasonable to consider that the A out of(Reed 1989: 421)

(18) John was one of several students who

B in (13) and (15) express vague proportions.

arrived late.

The parallelism between partitives and A out of(Ladusaw 1982: 240)

(19) One of some boys who were playing in

B thus leads us to the idea that partitives may

the alley got arrested.

express a vague proportion when they have an

239

(Stockwell et al. 1973: 144)

(22) a. one of the many applicants(20) He ate three of some apples he found on
the ground.

b. one of many applicants(ibid.)The partitive in (22a) has a definite NP2, so the

The partitive in (17) obviously expresses a

main set should be clearly determined (i.e., it isvague proportion: Only one in NP1 is very small

likely to be introduced in previous discourse). In

compared to many people in NP2. In (18), one incontrast, the partitive in (22b) has an indefinite

NP1 and several in NP2 are compared and a

NP2 that contains a cardinal quantifier, many.

vague proportion is expressed. The partitives inHere, the NP2 makes a quantitative contrast with(19) and (20) have an indefinite NP2 with a

the NP1, and a vague proportion is expressed. In

cardinal quantifier, some, and the phrases as aother words, (22b) is semantically close to the A

whole express a vague proportion.

out of B construction.

If it is assumed that partitives have a subtype

Our analysis harmonizes with a fact aboutthat is interchangeable with A out of B, one canfronting of the of-NP. When the of-NP is

explain the above putative counterexamples topreposed, the acceptability of (3) is degraded.

the Partitive Constraint.
(23) ? Of many applicants, only one passed the3.2. Conditions for the Partitive Subtype to

test.

Express Vague Proportions
This subsection will be devoted to specifying

My informant said that the fronted of-NP should

when partitives are semantically close to A out

be definite. Comparing this with (19), Abbottof B. Quirk et al. (1985) observe that a partitive(1996) makes a parallel judgement for thewhose NP2 contains a determinate numeral isfollowing example:

unacceptable.3(24) ? Of some boys who were playing in the(21) ?* Only a few of ten reviewers praised hisplay.

alley, one got arrested. (Abbott 1996: 34)(Quirk et al. 1985: 1287)
Here, fronting the indefinite of-phrase causes

Let us suppose that the NP2 of the partitive

ill-formedness. Abbott (1996: 34) notes: “[T]hesubtype determines the boundary of a set only

preposing construction might be thought to bevaguely. A vaguely determined set in the NP2 isconnected in some way with discourse topics,

compared with the number or quantity denoted

which should be denoted by definite NPs.” Inby the NP1, and a vague proportion is expressed.

our analysis, the preposed of-NP is syntacticallyThis is not a part-whole relation in the strict

independent of the NP1, and thus should express

sense but rather supplemental information thata clearly determined set.

there are more individuals than those denoted byHere is a seemingly problematic example.

the NP1.
Let us examine the following pair on the(25) Of ten reviewers, only a few praised his

basis of the above idea:

play.

240

(Quirk et al. 1985: 1287)

Quirk et al. (1985) compare this sentence with

The partitive here does not express a vague(21) and observe that fronting the indefinite of-proportion but rather a clear proportion. How

phrase does not degrade acceptability. They note,

can an indefinite NP2 with a numeral be

however, that the fronted of-phrase has antolerated? An important clue is that suchadverbial function, and (25) can be paraphrased

partitives are likely to be used in certain contexts

by the following sentences:such as detective stories. In (27), the threepeople are candidates for the owner of a book.

(26) a. Of ten reviewers that there were, only a

The main set has thus already been narrowed

few praised his play.

down through investigation, and the NP2 isb. There were ten reviewers, but only a few

regarded as a determined set, or a pragmaticallypraised his play.

definite expression.

(Quirk et al. 1985: 1288)

Below are similar cases from Abbott (1996).

Note that the fronted of-phrase in (25)(28) We put two strawberries on each of threecorresponds to the existential-there construction.

pies (and kiwi slices on the rest).

This means that the main set denoted by the(Abbott 1996: 30)

fronted of-phrase is introduced within the same(29) All of three people (out of the 50 I wrote

sentence as its subset occurs.
Abbott(1996)

admitsto) had the politeness to respond to my
that

there

are

invitation.

(ibid.)

variations in judgment among speakers forsentences such as (24). Indeed, my informant

The NP1 of the partitives in these examples

modified his judgment of (23), which he foundcontains a proportional quantifier (i.e. each andacceptable when he realized that it correspondsall), and the NP2 contains an indefinite NP withto such paraphrases as (26). In our analysis,

a numeral quantifier (three). Since proportional

however, the indefinite of-phrase with a cardinalquantifiers cannot occur in A out of B, the above

quantifier is distinguished from the indefinite

partitives are not interchangeable with A out ofof-phrase with a numeral quantifier. When

B. It appears that the bracketed parts have somepartitives express a vague proportion, theeffects on the interpretation of the indefinite NP2.

of-phrase should contain a cardinal quantifier

These indefinite NP2s could be treated in alike many but not a numeral quantifier like ten,pragmatic way, but we must leave this issue forso as to contribute to a vague quantitative

future research.

contrast with the NP1.
5. Concluding Remarks
4. Future Research

We compared (true) partitives and the A out

Ladusaw (1982) observes that an indefinite

of B construction with respect to the part-whole

NP2 may contain a determinate number.

relations they express. Two main claims were
made: (i) partitives have a subtype that is(27) That book could belong to one of threepeople.

semantically close to A out of B and expresses a(Ladusaw 1982: 240)vague proportion, and (ii) such a partitive
subtype is not subject to the Partitive Constraint.

241

* I am grateful to Mr. Todd Hooper at Setsunan

Comprehensive Grammar of the English

University, who acted as informant and provided

Language, Longman, London.

me with the grammaticality of English examples

Reed, Ann M. (1989) “Discourse Groups andand comments about them. This paper contains

Semantic Groups,” Proceedings of the fifth

part of the results of the research supported by

Eastern States Conference on Linguistics,

JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 15K02618 and

416–427.
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1977) “Some Remarks on

19K00658.
NOTES
1 “The PC” in (4) is an abbreviation of “Partitive

Noun Phrase Structure,” Formal Syntax, ed.

Constraint.”

Adrian Akmajian, 285–316, Academic

2

by Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow andPartitives may occur in the existential-there

Press, New York.

construction (e.g., Are there many of those

Stockwell, Robert P., Paul Schachter andmachines?). Tanaka (2012, 2015) claims that

Barbara Hall Partee (1973) The Major

such partitives are not an M-type but a T-type.

Syntactic Structures of English, Holt,

Readers are also referred to Tanaka (2017), who

Rinehart and Winston, New York.

discusses why A out of B cannot express a

Tanaka, Hideki (2012) “A Contrastive Study oftype-token relation like partitives.

A of B and A out of B,” JELS 29, 163–169.

3 There is a case in which partitives can have an

Tanaka, Hideki. (2015) Eigo to Nihongo ni

indefinite NP2 with a numeral (e.g. one of threeokeru Suuryou-Hyougen to Kankeisetsu no

people). We will discuss such a case later.

Kaishaku ni kansuru Kijututeki / Rironteki
Kenkyuu (A Descriptive and Theoretical

REFERENCES
Abbott, Barbara (1996) “Doing without a

Study of the Interpretation of Quantitative

Partitive Constraint,” Partitives, ed. by

English and Japanese), Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

Jacob Hoeksema,

Expressions

25–56, Mouton de

andRelative

Clausesin

Tanaka, Hideki (2017) “of to out of ga Arawasu

Gruyter, New York.

Bubun-Zentai no Kankei” (On Part-Whole

Diesing, Molly (1992) Indefinites, MIT Press,

Relations Expressed by of and out of), The

Cambridge, MA.

Setsudai Review of Humanities and Social

Jackendoff, Ray (1977) X-bar Syntax, MIT Press,

Sciences, 127–147, Setsunan University.

Cambridge, MA.
Ladusaw,

William

Constraints

A.

(1982)“Semantic

theEnglishPartitiveon

CORPUSBritish National Corpus (BNCweb)

Construction,” Proceedings of the West
Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 1,

DICTIONARY

231–242.

Kenkyusha’s New Japanese-English Dictionary

Milsark, Gary L. (1974) Existential Sentences inEnglish,Doctoraldissertation,(KNJED), fifth ed., Kenkyusha, Tokyo.

MIT.

[Published by Garland, New York, 1979]
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey
Leech

and

Jan

Svartvik(1985)

A

242

This paper therefore explores how figurative
language is integrated in both English andJapanese task-based dialogues to achieve mutual
understanding in discourse, in particular through
How People Understand Each Other inthe comparison of visible and nonvisible accessInteractionof cooperative Lego block building task.

Using

Figurative

Language:Comparing Japanese and English Task-based
Dialogues*

2. Previous studies
According to Murphy and Koskela (2010:154),
Midori Tanimura“similes express a comparison between two

Kyoto University of Foreign Studies

distinct things through the use of expressions like

Koichiro Nakamoto

like or as” (e.g. Her eyes were like deep mountain

University of Yamanashi

pools). This example sentence is used when two

Etsuko Yoshidadifferent entities are compared, signaled by the

Mie University

expressions starting with ‘like.’ On the other hand,
metaphors “can be viewed as figuratively

Keywords: figurative language, task-based,

representing the two things as equivalent” (e.g.

interaction, joint action, situated

Her eyes were deep mountain pools.) (Murphy &Koskela (2010:154)). In this case, her eyes’ color
is viewed as the color of beautiful complex

1. Introduction

mountain water.

Figurative language such as metaphor andFigurative language above is viewed “as asimile can be used to convey meaning quickly

resource that people use while ‘talking-and-and effectively, as many are commonly used inthinking’ in specific communicative settings”

everyday life (Kövecses 2002; Lakoff & Johnson(Cameron, 2010: 88). More precisely, figurative

1980). Previous studies have carefully analyzed

language functions in discourse when its message

mechanisms of how figurative language is used inhas been already shared by the participants inmany situations (Deignan, Littlemore, & Semino,

each specific conversational situation.

2011; Lakoff, 1992). However, it is unclear how

Let us look at an example of how “the man is athese metaphors and similes are used inwolf” sentence works. According to Black (1995),

interactions where participants jointly act tothe MAN IS A WOLF metaphor “will not convey

mutually understand each other. In particular, no

its intended meaning to a reader sufﬁciently

studies seem to shed a light on comparison in

ignorant about wolves.” (p. 287). Only when theterms of whether objects in the physicalreader has enough encyclopedic knowledge,

environment are visible or not. Nor are there

which is drawn from our bodily and cultural

many studies to compare metaphor and simile use

experience (Croft & Cruse 2004), the wolf-

across languages such as native Japanese speaker

metaphor constructs their view of man. In otherand native Japanese speaker (NJS-NJS) to native

words, metaphor and simile invoke “conventional

English speaker and native English speaker

shared understandings” (Cameron et al., 2009:(NES-NES) dialogues.

11), so that a subject in a sentence is understood243

by associating an unfamiliar idea with one that is

in Swedish 90 out of 150 words, respectively. It

already known, which leads us to have better

seems to be plausible that the number ofunderstanding of complex ideas.

figurative expressions may depend on the corpus

A shared physical environment is also awhich is used for research and the types ofresource as a background to the current utterance,

metaphors which are examined.

and helps us to understand new information

Based on the previous studies, this paper(Clark, 1996). When the participants can see thehypothesizes

thatfigurative

languageasworkspace, their actions take the place of theirrecourses help us to understand new informationinteraction, replacing verbal communicationdifferently in either visible or hidden conditions.

(Gergle, Kraut, & Fussell, 2004). So that theWe also hypothesize the language constraints inparticipants achieve grounding or joint actions

each language would lead to the different ways ofthat people undertake to reach a goal inusing metaphors and similes.

interaction. On the contrary, the participants in

The major topics which this paper covers are:the task spent more time checking whether their

1. to analyze the occurrence of figurative

action were correct or not when the workspacelanguage in our task-based dialogues in

was hidden (Clark & Kruch 2004).

English and Japanese,

Related to our study, Suzuki (2009) examines

2. to analyze the occurrence of figurativeliquid metaphor such as flood, flow, pour, andlanguage when a workspace is shared between

spill,

the participants and when a workspace is notcomparing

Balanced

CorpusofContemporary Written Japanese (BCCWJ) andshared and,

Wordbanks Online. The finding shows that

3. to present how the participants put figurative

Japanese corpus has more liquid expressions thanlanguage into dialogues, and how they develop

the English one. The number of liquid metaphor

their dialogues through accumulation of

expressions in English is 133 out of 17547 words

common knowledge in Japanese and English.

(Ratio, 0.75%) while the number in Japanese is328 out of 8537 (Ratio, 3.84%). This result shows

3. Methodthat Japanese corpus has more metaphoricalexpressions

relatedtoliquid.

We video-recorded task-based dialogues from

However,

five pairs of native Japanese speakers (NJS) andNordmark and Glynn (2013) whose research

five pairs of native English speakers (NES). We

examines anxiety metaphor using online personal

used Clark and Krych’s (2004) Lego task, where

diaries and blogs shows some opposite results.

the giver, who had pictures of the Lego models,

They look at anxiety expressions (e.g. Anxiety

faced the follower across the table, and explained

attacks me. / I got anxiety and wanted to throw

each model. The follower built each model using

everything up.) and find that Japanese has theLego blocks based on instruction from the giver.

fewest metaphors related to anxiety in this corpus

They did ten designs in workspace hidden

study. Comparing the literal meaning andcondition and ten designs in the workspace

metaphorical meaning of anxiety expressions

visible conditions. The total number of trials foramong English, Swedish and Japanese, theeach pair was twenty, and the total recording

number of metaphors in Japanese expressions ishours were approximately ten hours for all pairs

the fewest, 15, followed by the 60 in English andin the study. We extracted expressions indicating244

similes such as like, kind of, kind, and sort of inthan in Japanese dialogues. Different frequency

English and -mitai, -teki, -katachi, -poi, -youna

in Japanese and English implies that English

and -nakanji in Japanese. We included somerelies heavily on figurative language for clarify ofcombined expressions in Japanese dialogues andcommunication. This is probably ascribed toEnglish dialogues. For example, combination of -language resources which Japanese and English

mitaina kanji, -youna katachide, -tekina kanji

originally contains, or different viewpoints linked

was counted one as a unit, although they can beto each language. It seems that English has many

independently used for indicating likeness.

resources that can be used as simple symbols,

We also included metaphors such as image

such as alphabets, national flags, and geometricmetaphors (Lakoff and Turner 1989) which allow

figures, which may make NESs easier to retrieve

us to map image of the first object’s general shape

the associated figurative meaning from memory.

onto the knowledge to the second. Lakoff andActual usage in English and Japanese can beTurner (1989:90) illustrate an example fromcategorized into several broad classifications.

Andre Benton’s poem about his wife which

Here are examples which were found in English

contains image metaphor: “My wife…whose

and Japanese dialogues. For instance, when thewaist is an hourglass.” In this sentence, the word

NES pairs described prototype shapes of Legohourglass evokes the mental visual image of theblocks, they used letters of the alphabet (e.g. T, V

shape of an hourglass, and this shape is mappedand U), artifacts (e.g. like a chair, looks like stairs,

onto the shape of the waist of the wife.

I gotta little step, it’s still a zigzag, start in theboat position), buildings or landmarks (e. g. like

4. Resultsa small pyramid, make a pyramid,) and someFirst, the paper demonstrates a basic statistic ofothers (e.g. looks like two mushrooms, like a

the frequency of figurative language including

teetertototterish shape). Moreover, NES pairs

metaphor and simile used in English and Japanese.

even extended ways to use figurative language,
and they creatively combined verb and noun,
which shows motion (e.g. like making a central

150

tower, a mushroom sort of growing, a pole going

100

up, like there is one central pole).

50

NJS pairs used letters of Japanese katakana(e.g. ‘ko’), artifacts (e.g. furansu no kokki mitai ni

0Japanese

English[like a French flag], totemu po-ru teki na [like a

Graph 1. Frequencies of figurative language in Japanese andtotem pole], hashi poi [kind of a bridge], kaidan

Englishmitai na [like a stair]), body parts (e.g. ao nooshiri nohoni [hip (intended meaning in English

Though both NESs and NJSs used figurative

is tail) of the blue block]). NJS pairs also

language as a resource for accomplishing theircreatively combined verb and noun, which shows

mutualbetweenmotion (e.g. Futsuni ittara tatanai darouna toiu

Japanese and English were quite different. As

youa kumitate kata de [in an assembling way like

Graph 1 shows, the number of figurative[they]don’t normally stand], Nagai bouga

language used in English dialogues was higher

arumitai na [like there is a long stick], choujyo ni

understanding, frequencies

245

kuru youna kanji [like going up to the peak ]).

figurative language, either the giver or the

It is plausible to assume from the examples

follower, as a joint action to accomplish mutual

above that these images of simple symbols based

understanding. Graph 3 presents both followers

on simile and image metaphor were shared by ad

and givers in English dialogues used figurative

hoc concept (Lawrence 1991). When thelanguage though followers tended to use less.

participants worked on each task, they talked

This result implies rather than being a passive

about objects in their sight and made use oflistener, a follower interacts in a lively way withconversational co-presence. Lévi-Strauss (1966)

a giver, which results in a better communication

who firstly used the term ‘bricolage’ revealed thatto firmly establish what is jointly shared and what

the co-creation of a work emerges from things

is not. In Japanese, on the other hand, a follower

that happen to be available around us. This may

rarely used metaphors and similes, which

be why simile and image metaphor are used a lot

indicates that they tended to minimally respondin our corpus comparing other conceptualfor efficiency.

metaphors.

60

Secondly, the frequency of figurative language

40

in workspace visible and hidden conditions is
examined. Graph 2 demonstrates the pairs of the20

participants in both Japanese and English used0

fewer in workspace visible condition than inworkspacehiddencondition.

When

the

participants can see the workspace, they do not

HiddenJapanese Giver

VisibleJapanese Follower

English Giver

English Follower

need to verbalize or explain the workspace. But

Graph 3. Comparison of hidden and visible conditions

when the participants cannot see the workspace,between a giver and a follower in Japanese and English

their check of whether mutual understanding
exists needs to be conducted verbally. Thus, it is

In order to grasp the distribution across themore likely they use figurative language wheninteraction of talk, we summarize three typicalthey are less confident that they mutuallypatterns of how figurative language is integrated

understand each other.

into the interaction between givers and followers(See Table 1).

100

Table 1. Main patterns of information flow with FL
Type 150

0visibleJapaneseType 2hiddenEnglishGraph 2. Comparison between the visible and hidden

Type 3

conditions in Japanese and English

Thirdly, the paper examines who actually used

1st turn

G: explain

2nd turn

F: check with FL

3rd turn

G: confirmation

1st turn

G: explain with FL

2nd turn

F: check

3rd turn

G: confirmation

1st turn

G: explain with FL

2nd turn

F: check with FL

3rd turn

G: acknowledgement(Note: G: giver, F: follower, FL: Figurative language)

246

Examples (1) and (2) below represent Type 1

starts in response to the source of troubles in eachwhere a follower uses FL successfully in order toconversation. These examples indicate that

achieve mutual understanding, examples (3) andmetaphors and similes give some idea of what the(4), contrary, represent Type 2 where a giver uses

prototype of the block looks like, but they do not

FL unsuccessfully, and example (5) shows Typeprovide an exact image.

3 where both a giver and a follower use FL forbuilding up their idea collaboratively.

(3) NJS3 Workspace Visible trial 1
1 G:de hantaigawa wo ao nohono ueni aka no(1) NES1 Workspace Hidden Trial 4
1 G: And so that it joins out the green and the22futatsu no yatsu wo taishou ni naru youni oite

3

kudasai hai

yellow. <-explanation

Place the red one for two spaces→3 F: And it looks like an L? <- check

symmetrically on top of the blue one on the

4 G: Yep. And then you take a little red one and→5make it no longer an L.

other side. Yes.

<- confirmation→4

6 F: Okay. (hhh)5de e chojyo no chuushin ni aono hitotsubuno
burokku wo
And one blue block at the center of the peak.
<- explanation

6 F: kore?
This one?
<-check(2) NES 2 Workspace Hidden Trial 5

7 G: hai owaridesu

1 G yellow gap each side of it

Yes we finished.

→ 2 F: Basically making a pyramid almost.

<-acknowledgement<- check(4) NJS 4 Workspace Hidden Trial 9

3 G: Yeh <- confirmation
4 F: God it.

1G: Un taishou ni naru
Yes, they are symmetrical

Metaphors and similes used in examples (1)2 F: Hai

and (2) indicate that there is some trouble orYes

uncertainty

inunderstanding

thegiver’s→3 G: jiguzagu na kanji deexplanation. So, the followers ask a question toSomething like zigzag

check their understanding using similes. This<- explanation

usage of simile worked well to allow the givers to

4 F: E h?

understand them, and the givers said “Yep” orPardon?.h“Yeh” for confirmation.

→5 G: jiguzagu na kanjide nobotte iku mitai na

The following examples (3) and (4) show

Something going up like zigzag

metaphors and similes which are used by the<- explanation

giver became a trouble source. This trouble

6 F: aka no ueni noseru tte kotosource is indicated in utterance 6 in example (3)Do I put it on the red::?

and utterance 4 in example (4), and the repair

7 G: Un aka no ueni noseru:n dakedo

247

8

Yes, you put it on the red, but

metaphors and similes are integrated into the

Aka no ueni noseteinteraction of talk.
The dialogue data interestingly showed that the

You put on the red
ki:ro o

NES and NJS pairs used different referents. For

Yellow?

example, the NES pair used the letter “L” as a

10 G: un kiro o nosete

referent, while the NJS pair used the katakana

Yes, put yellow“ko.” This is backed up by Clark’s (1996) idea of

11F:

a un wakatta wakatta midor ito onnajicommunal common ground: people in the same

12

ichinittekoto? A wakatta wakatta

community generally can understand each other’s

Ah:: yes yes ah: I see I see. So it goes in goes inlanguage. The study also revealed that co-

the same place as green. Oh: I see I see

constructing builds mutual understanding. By

Example (5) presents ‘cooperative talk’looking at the dialogues, we can see that although(Mizutani, 1993) where one speaker does not

the NES pairs and NJS pairs use different

complete a speech by herself but another speaker

expressions, they are effectively communicating

joins the speech and cooperatively finishes theand mutually understanding through the use oftalk.

metaphoric language (along with other strategies).

9 F:

Finally, it should be pointed out that the(5) NES 2 Workspace Hidden Trial 5

phenomena illustrated in this paper is not limited

1 G: number five...Okay, ehm to start it's atolinguistic

communication

but

can

be

long red, a long blue and a long yellow allunderstood by analyzing from the viewpoint of

ehm side-by-side like as if it’s making a::practice embedded in collaborative work. In other→2 F: A flag <- explanation

words, similes and metaphors which are seen in→3 G: A flag, yeah. Of a country that doesn’t exist hhh

collaborative work are used as resources forparticipants to understand each other's situation,<-acknowledgement
4 F: Yeah ss hhhhhh

and ultimately function as an in-context act to

5 G: So it goes, it goes ehm red, blue, yellow

facilitate work. This result indicates the use of
figurative language is based on objects in thefrom left to rightenvironment of our life which results in unique

6 F: Got it

forms of languages in both English and Japanese,
which may be supported by situated actions(Suchman, 1985).
Line 3 and 4 in example (4) shows both giver*Acknowledgements

and follower reached the same or similar image

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI

from the word “a flag”. This case implies

Grant Number 17K02953.

metaphor works well to share their ideas.
REFERENCES
Black, Max (1955) “Metaphor,” Proceeding of

5. Conclusion
In sum, we compared Japanese and English
task-based

dialogues

toinvestigate

the Aristotelian Society, New Series, vol. 55,

how273-294.

248

Cameron, Lynne, Maslen, Robert, Todd, Zazie,

Chicago.

Maule, John, Stratton, Peter and Stanley,

Lakoff, George (1992) “The Contemporary

Neil (2009) “The Discourse Dynamics

Theory of Metaphor,” Metaphor andApproach to Metaphor and Metaphor-led

Thought, ed by Ortony, Andrew, Cambridge

Discourse analysis,” Metaphor & Symbol,

University Press, Cambridge

24, 1-27.

Lawrence (1991) “Deriving Categories

Cameron, Lynne (2010) “The Discourse
Dynamics

Frameworkforto Achieve Goals,” The Psychology ofMetaphor,”

Learning and Motivation: Advances inMetaphor Analysis: Research Practice in

Research and Theory 27, ed by Bower

Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and theGordon H, Academic Press, San Diego, CA,

Humanities, ed by Cameron, Lynne and

1-64.

Maslen, Robert, 77-94, Equinox, London.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1966) The Savage Mind,

Clark, Herbert, H. (1996) Using language,

University of Chicago Press, London.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Murphy, M. Lynne and Koskela, Anu (2010) Key

Clark, Herbert, H. & Krych, Meredyth, A.
(2004)“Speaking

while

Terms

in

Semantics,

Continnum

Monitoring

International Publishing Group, London

Addressees for Understanding,” Journal of

Nordmark, Henrik and Glynn, Dylan (2013)

Memory and Language, 50(1), 62-81.

Anxiety between Mind and Society: A

Croft, William and Cruse, D. Alan (2004)
Cognitive

Linguistics,

Corpus-driven

Cambridge

Cross-cultural

Study

of

Conceptual Metaphors. Explorations in

University Press, Cambridge

English Language and Linguistics, 1, 107–

Deignan, Alice, Littlemore, Jeannette, and130.

Semino, Elena (2011) Figurative Language,

O’Donoghue, Josie (2009) Is a Metaphor (Like) a

Genre and Register, Cambridge University

Simile? Differences in Meaning, Effects andPress, Cambridge

Processing.

Gergle, Darren, Kraut, Robert, E. and Fussell,

UCL

Working

Papersin

Linguistics, 21, 125–149.

Susan, R. (2004) “Action as Language in a

Suchman, Lucy (1987) Plans and situatedShared Visual Space,” Proceedings of theactions: the problem of human-machine2004 ACM Conference on Computercommunication,

Supported Cooperative Work, ACM, 487–

Press, Cambridge

496.

Cambridge

University

Suzuki, Kohei (2009) Comyunikeisyon no

Kövecses, Zoltan (2002) Metaphor: A Practical

Hiyuhyogen. Nichiei Hikaku no Kanten kara

Introduction, Oxford University[How Communication is Construed on a

Press, New York

Comparison of English and Japanese] Kobe

Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark (1980)

papers in linguistics (6), 20-31.

Metaphors We Live by, University

Taniguchi, Kazumi (2003) Ninchi Imiron noof Chicago Press, Chicago

Shin-tenkai: Metaphor to Metonymy [A

Lakoff, George and Turner, Mark (1989) More

DevelopmentofCognitive

Semantics:

Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic

Metaphor and Metonymy], Kenkyusha,

Metaphor, University of Chicago Press,

Tokyo.

249

of grammatical morphemes, e.g. middle voice,reflexive, use of case markings, etc., or a
mixture of these. One complex example is foundin Serbian, where the mixture of reflexive andDiachronic Changes in Expressions ofcase marking, i.e. dative, not nominative, is

Perception in the English Grammar

observed, as shown in (1b). In such cases, any
verbs can be turned into perception verbs.1

Junichi Toyota
Osaka City University

Serbian(1) a. Ja

spavam.

1SG.NOM sleep.PRS.1SG

Keywords：perception, transitivity, alignment,
adjectival passive‘I go to bed.’ (action)b. Menise

spava.

1SG.DAT REF sleep.PRS.3SG‘I feel sleepy.’ (state)

1. Introduction
This paper aims to highlight a general
history of expressions dealing with perception

It is worth mentioning that spontaneity(in a broader sense) in English, and to describe

expressed in the middle/reflexive voice is

how structures referring to perception changed

partially responsible for the link between theand what caused such changes.

reflexive construction and perception as in (1b),The organisation of this paper is as follows:since

Variations in perception verbs in Indo-European

perception

normally

happens

spontaneously.

languages are explained first, followed byoddities of perception verbs among other verbal

3. Structural Perception in English

expressions, with an explanation of why suchoddities

emergedingrammar.

English lacks an overtly-marked middle or

Finally,

reflexive

voice,

i.e.

structural

perception.

perception verbs in English are discussed from a

However, under closer examination, there havehistorical perspective.

been some constructions designated to theexpression of perception.

2. Lexical and Structural Perception
Verbs

or

verbalphrasesreferringto

3.1. Adjectival Passive

perception can vary from language to language,

It is not well-known, but as shown in Toyota

but there are two distinctive types underlying(2013), the adjectival passive, as exemplified inthisstructural(2), is a construction denoting various senses ofperception. Lexical perception is achieved byperception. This type of construction is not

so-called perception verbs, such as see, hear, feel,found in other Indo-European languages.

variation,i.e.

lexicalandtaste, smell, etc. in English or by whatever
equivalent

in

other

languages.

Structural(2) a. I am interested in linguistics.

perception, on the other hand, expresses

b. I was amazed at his statement.

perception by certain structures or the additionc. I am satisfied with the result.

250

It resembles the verbal passive, but there aresome distinctive characteristics, both syntactic
and semantic, as listed in (2). Note that these canbe indicators, since the verbal passive has been
firmly gramamticalised in English.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of fluid-S(2) a. Actor markers are idiomatised.

system (Dixon 1994: 79)

b. The overt subject (undergoer, not actor)
is normally human.

3.2. Impersonal Verbs

c. The overt subject is not in control ofIn the history of English, there was aevents and often not acting intentionally.

construction called the impersonal verb. Its

d. Most denote mental/emotional states atcharacteristic

is

how

the

experienceristhe least, and thus can function as

case-marked. The experiencer in the nominative

perception verbs.

in Present-Day English has not been the same
throughout the history of English. This structure

The choice of past participles used in thewas frequent when the case marking was still

adjectival passive is limited, as listed in (3).

visible on nouns, but it disappeared from the

These verbs are predominantly used in thelanguage after the 17th-18th century. There wereadjectival passive, and any use in the active

roughly three main structures under the term

voice is extremely rare (cf. Toyota 2013: 36-38).

impersonal verb, as demonstrated in Table 1,

However, note that these verbs in the active

along with examples for each type in (4) to (6).

voice were common earlier, and the shift to thecurrent usage occurred around the 17th century.

Table 1. Variations in impersonal verbs
i.

DAT/

(3) abash, amaze, amuse, annoy, astonish,disappoint,

disgust,engross,

impress,

infatuate, interest, inundate, obsess, please,

ii.

-

GEN/

-

ACC

ACC/PP

exper.

Cause

NOM

-

satisfy, shock, startle, surprise.

V-

Clauseneutral

DAT/

-

V

Cause
-

ClauseACC
Cause

Toyota (2013) claims that the adjectivaliii.

passive is better considered as a case of a split

Exper

NOM

-

exper.

CAUS

GEN/PP

-

Cause

V

Cause
-

ClauseReceptCause

ergative, as shown in Figure 1, based on its
semantic contents, e.g. the verbs in (3) follow a

Type i.

pattern of accusative alignment when used in the(4) Mæg

active construction denoting action; whenmaydenoting perception or a mental state, the logicalÐeodneobject becomes the grammatical subject, making

lord.DAT Heathobards.GEN

it behave like an ergative alignment.

‘It

þæs

þonne ofþyncan

that.GEN thenmayHeaðobeardna
displeasethe

Heathobards.’ (Beo 2032)

251

displease.INF

lord

of

the

impersonal verb) dealt with action (the external
world), e.g. The noise surprised me/to me, where

Type ii.
(5) Hithe direct object was in either accusative orme reweð swa swiðe ðat Ic reste

they me rue
ne maisomuch

dative. The newer structure (the adjectivalthat I rest

passive), on the other hand, expresses an innerhabbennot may havemental state (an internal world), e.g. I was‘They [sc. souls] distress me so badly that I

surprised at the noise. Perception obviously

cannot have any rest.’ (a1225 (c1200) Vices

shifted its type from external to internal. This

and V. (1) 115.14)

change only happened in English, and bylooking at other Indo-European languages (cf.
(1) from Serbian), the change occurred perhaps

Type iii.
(6) ðæt Ic

eac

ðæs

due to the lack of a middle/reflexive voice. Thus,

ne scamigethat I.NOM also that.GEN not shamealthough the shift itself is not easily visible, the‘that I also am not ashamed of that.’ (CPchange has had a significant impact on the way

100.5)

perception is expressed in English.
6. Alignment Change and Transitivity

4. Oddities of Perception in English
Syntactically, there is an outer cause and its

As shown so far, a shift in perception did

recipient in a divalent construction, and thehappen, but what triggered it? One has to refercause is often realised as the grammaticalto the overall changes in the language, andsubject. The experiencer in perception acts as aalignment change needs to be studied in terms ofrecipientperception.

of

an

outer

stimulus,

which

corresponds to a grammatical object in an
6.1. Alignment Change

ordinary active clause. Thus, an unmarked activeas

It is known that Indo-European languages

schematically represented in Figure 1. However,

have gone through an alignment change fromPresent-Day English uses a uniform structure foractive to accusative. (cf. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov

perception and non-perception structures with a

1995; Clackson 2007, Cf. Figure 2). The most

nominative experiencer, e.g. I in I broke asignificant result of this change is the emergencewindow and I see a book.

of a transitivity-based grammar from an earlier

construction

differs

fromperception,

aspect-basedone

betweenimperfective.

Looking

perfective

andi. Active

Actor

Undergoerii. Passive

Patient

Agent

Indo-European languages, some, notably Slavic,

Outer cause

are highly sensitive to aspect, which is a residue

Figure 1. Force-dynamic concerning perception

no longer so sensitive to aspect to the sameiii. Perception Experiencer

at

the

modernof earlier active alignment. However, others aredegree as the Slavic languages. This is a result ofchange being gradual, but what has not been

5. Internal Structure of Perception

noticed is the shift in transitivity types fromExpressions of perception certainly changed

semantic to syntactic (see Toyota 2012a).

their form. The earlier structures (notably the252and it changed into syntactic transitivity in a
handful of languages in the world, including
English.
7. English Grammar and Perception
English has been rather poor at theexpression of spontaneous events, including
perception, especially when dealing with the

Figure 2. Alignment types

internal world. Therefore, perception is hard to
express linguistically, since there is a kind of

6.2. Transitivity after Alignment Change
Transitivity can be defined as an energy

energy transfer but its degree is very low.

transfer from actor to undergoer, but the way it

Human argument, for instance, is involved, but it

is expressed varies considerably from language

is the recipient of a stimulus, not an actor.

to language, or from one period to another in a

Therefore, consider the examples in (5). (5b) cansingle language. This variation is seen in

be transitive in syntactic transitivity, but

semantic and syntactic transitivity. Each can be

intransitive in semantic transitivity (cf. Hopper

defined as follows.

and Thompson 1980; Taylor 2003). On the other

Semantic transitivity is a gradient in nature

hand, (5a) can be transitive in semantic

and can be measured in terms of certain criteriatransitivity, but it is intransitive in syntactic(cf. Hopper and Thompson 1980; Taylor 2003).

transitivity.

Differences are commonly shown by alteringcasemarkings,

different(5)tense-aspects,

a. He went away.

singularity/plurality of nouns, etc. This type isb. I like cakes.

found in older English and other IE languages,c. I broke the vase.

in particular the Balto-Slavic.
Syntactic transitivity, on the other hand, is

8. Alignment Change and Transitivity
Seenbinary and can be identified by the presence or

in

terms

of

alignmentchange,absence of a direct object. The presence of aimpersonal verbs with a dative experiencer

direct object signals transitivity, and perceptions

expressand other predicates are all expressed in theexperiencer is grammatically treated as thesame manner regardless of their semantic

endpoint of an energy transfer (e.g. A flower sees

contents. This type of transitivity is rare, but isto me). When these verbs existed, transitivity

found in Present-Day English.

was semantically expressed. Following thetransitivity

disappearance

English has gone the furthest in the chain ofofsemantically,

impersonali.e.

verbs,

the

thealignment change, and although its transitivity is

emergence of the adjectival passive seems tosyntactic, archaic semantic instances may havecoincide at around the 17th-18th century. One

been sporadically retained (cf. Toyota 2012b).

may consider that the loss of the case marking is

Historically, the emergence of transitivity (froma cause of the syntactic transitivity, but thissemantic to syntactic) is a result of alignment

should not be so. In other Indo-Europeanchange. The earlier transitivity was semantic,

languages,

253

such

as

Dutch,

anobliqueexperiencer is used when a verb refers toEnglish language, where grammar tends to beperception. However, English did not opt for thesimplified at the expense of expressibility of finepreservation of this structure and chose to keep

details (cf. Toyota 2012b). The adjectival

structural uniformity, which can be considered apassive is a result of the surge of dependency onsign of syntactic transitivity.

syntactic transitivity as a result of alignment

Consideringthechronology

ofchange.

these

constructions, the adjectival passive seems toThus, perception in English involves several

have been created in order to fill a gap indifferent grammatical characteristics, and this isEnglish grammar concerning perception. Thisperhaps why the adjectival passive forms a split

new construction is advantageous in several

ergative in Present-Day English. Therefore,

respects. The expression became anthropocentric,

without

and the experiencer subject in the nominative

expressed, it is difficult to know how English

case makes the syntactic structure uniform ingrammar has been formed.

understanding

how

perceptionisEnglish grammar, e.g. I see a flower and I breaka vase. This also complies with a general

NOTES

tendency to a higher frequency of human subject.

1

It made the distinction between the external or

ACC = accusative; CAUS = causative; DAT =intentional type of perception obscure, and both

dative; GEN = genitive; INF = infinitive; NOM

types became conflated into one single type= nominative; PP = prepositional phrase; PRS =where the subject is in the nominative whether apresent; REF = reflexive; SG = singular; V =clause denotes perception or not.

verb.

Abbreviations used in this paper are as follows:

9. Summary
Perception can involve both the internal andClackson,

REFERENCESJames (2007) Indo-European

external world, and later historical changes in

Linguistics: An Introduction, Cambridge

English opted for the external world, making it

University Press, Cambridge.

difficult to express the internal world. This

Dixon, Robert Malcom Ward (1994) Ergativity,

makes perception in English odd in comparison

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

with other Indo-European languages. This is a

Gamkrelidze, Tamaz Valerianis and Vyacheslav

result of how transitivity has been integrated into

Vsevolodovich

the grammar after alignment change, i.e. earlier

Indo-European and Indo-Europeans: A

semantic

syntactic

Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of atransitivity as constructions denoting perception

Proto-Language and Proto-Culture (Partchanged.

1): Text (English Version by Johannatransitivity

shiftedto

The adjectival passive is rarely discussed in

Ivanov(1995)

Nichols), Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

terms of perception, but this is a key to

Toyota,Junichi(2009)“Passiveasaunderstanding how English has coped with theTense-aspectual Construction Revisited: Ainternal as well as the outer world. Its unique

Case of Germanic Languages,” Groninger

way of referring to the experiencer in theArbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik,nominative case suits the general changes in theSpezial Issue The Passive in Germanic254

Languages, 200-214.
Toyota, Junichi (2012) “Dialect Mixing as aLanguage Contact in the History ofEnglish,”TheoriesandPractice:

Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Anglophone Studies, editedby Roman Trušník, Katarína Nemčoková
and Gregory Jason Bell, 95-110, Tomas
Bata University, Zlín.
Toyota, Junichi (2013) “On so-called adjective
passive in English,” Belgrade English
Language and Literature Studies 5, 11-48.

255

language specific morphemes, such as the
copula marker de, the focus particle -wa, and theaddressee-honorific marker des-; n.b., zya is thecontracted form for de-wa), the basic sentence
Comparisons and Speech Acts in Japanese

structure is the same: it contains a negation

Exclamatives*

marker although the speaker is epistemicallybiased to the positive answer.

Akitaka Yamada
Georgetown University(3) Epistemically biased interrogative (EBI)

Keywords：epistemic bias, dynamic pragmatics,
stereotypes, negative exclamatives

Nomiyade-wa/zyanai-des-u-ka?

bar

COP-FOCNEG-HONA-PRS-Q‘Isn’t (this) a bar?’ (*‘Is (this) not a bar?’)However, the same sequence of morphemes

1. Introductionin (3) can also yield an exclamative, as shown inPrevious studies emphasize the importance(4) (hereafter, a negative exclamative NE).

of contextual/epistemic biases in certain types ofquestions (Ladd 10981; Büring and Gunlogson(4) Negative exclamative (NE)2000; Romero and Han 2004; Goodhue 2018).

Nomiyade-wa/zyanai-des-u-ka!

For instance, compare (1) with (2). Speakers

bar

COP-FOCNEG-HONA-PRS-Q

typically use the question in (1) in a situation‘(This) is a bar!’ (*‘(This) is not a bar!’)where contextual evidence is in favor of thenegative answer (¬p), whereas the question in

Why do an EBI and a NE share the same(2) necessarily contributes to the implicature thatgrammatical pattern? After pointing out two

the speaker thinks that the positive answer (p) is

important differences between the two clauses

more likely (hereafter, an espitemically biased(Section 2), this paper proposes à la Zanuttiniinterrogative EBI). Given the principle ofand Portner (2003) that (i) their similarity

compositionality, the latter sentence seems

reflects their semantic congruence (Section 3)

puzzling: although this sentence contains aand (ii) their differences are attributed to their

negation marker -n’t, the expected answer ispragmatics (Section 4).

negation-less.
2. Two Important Differences(1) Is this not a bar?

Despite the apparent similarity between (3)(2) Isn’t this a bar?

and (4), these two sentences exhibit sharp
contrasts in at least two ways.

The Japanese translation of (2) is given
below in (3) (Sudo 2013; Ito and Oshima 2014;

2.1. Difference 1: Pitch Accent Contour

Hirayama 2018). Although the sentence may
look

more

complicated

than

its

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the pitch contours

Englishof the sentences in (3) and (4). They are almost

counterpart (due to the presence of somethe same in prosody except for the last element

256

no
no

mi
mi

ya
ya

zya
zya

0.51
0.51

500
500
400
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
00

ii

de
de

su
su

ka
ka
1.58
1.58

Time
Time (s)(s)-ka, the mood indicating sentence-final particle.
Pitch (Hz)In the interrogative (= (3)), a rising pitch is
assigned, whereas a falling intonation is given in
the exclamative (= (4)).
no
no

0.51
0.51

mi
mi

ya
ya

zya
zya

500
500
400
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
00

na
na

ii

de
de

su
su

ka
ka

2.2 Difference 2: Addressee-Honorification
1.58
1.58
with abar

COP-FOC
zya
na
zya
na

NEG-HONA-PRS-Q
ii
de
su
de
su ka
ka

no
no

0.51
0.51

mi
mi

ya
ya

‘Isn’t (this) a bar? (intended).’Pitch (Hz)
(Hz)
Pitch

(5) (Miyagawa 2012, 2017; Yamada 2019).
nai-*(des-u)-ka?

1.58
1.58

Time
Time (s)
(s)

ka
1.8

Figure 1. The pitch contour for (3) (EBI).

addressee-honorific marker is necessary, as inde-wa/zyano mi ya zya na i de su
Time (s)ka-marked sentence, an(5) Nomiya

500
400
300
200
100
0

0.64

Time
Time (s)(s) Japanese, when one seeks a
In contemporary

response

no
no

na
na

500
500
400
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
00

no
no mi
mi ya
ya zyazya na
na

0.51
0.51

ii de
de su
su

ka
ka

Time
Time (s)
(s)

1.6
1.6

Figure 2. The pitch contour for (4) (NE).

In contrast, an exclamative is ungrammaticalwithout an addressee-honorific marker, as(7) {p (this is a bar), ¬p (this is not a bar)}.

illustrated in (6).

(8)

p1 (This is a bar),p2 (This is a French restaurant),(6) Nomiya

de-wa/zyanai-(des-u)-ka!

bar

COP-FOCNEG-HONA-PRS-Q⁝
pn (This is a school-cafeteria)‘(This) is a bar!’
mi
mi

ya
ya

zya
zya

na
na

3. Semantics

ii

de
de

su
su

Here I propose that (i) these two grammaticalkakamorphemes play a pivotal role in both

1.58
1.58

Time
Following
Time (s)(s)Zanuttini and Portner (2003), thisconstructions, but (ii) what the sentences denotestudy assumes that EBIs and NEs share the sameis the one in (8). The prominence in pitch on

propositional content (but see also Rett 2011);

nomiya ‘bar’ plays a similar role of what athey denote a set of possible answers (Hamblin

wh-phrase does in a wh-interrogative clause; cf.,

1973; Karttunen 1977; Groenendijk and Stokhof

Zanuttini and Portner 2003, who propose that

1984).

“[e]xclamatives contain a WH operator-variable
structure.’’3.1 Alternative Set
Which linguistic element is responsible for(9) Pitch-boosting: An alternative set iscreating the alternative set? Two possible

created based on the expression on which

candidates are (i) the negation marker and (ii)the pitch-boosting falls.

the focus prominence on nomiya ‘bar.’ If we
3.2 Partition

adopt the former view, we expect this set to be
the one in (7). But if we take the latter view, we

The negation marker assigns an additional

would assume that the set in (8) is what thestructure to this alternative set. Based on thesentences denote:prejacent meaning of nai (i.e., the proposition p257

= this is a bar), we can classify the propositions

determined by pragmatic principles onin (8) into two subsets; note that this is not athe basis of the sentence’s form or

partition among the worlds, but among thesemantics. The effect of an utterance ofpropositions. Let the set in (8) be S. Based ona particular sentence is determined bythis prejacent proposition, we partition the set S

pragmatic principles on the basis of

into S1 and S2 (S = S1 ⋃ S2; S1 ⋂ S2= ø):syntactic or semantic features.
In(10) a. S = {p1, p2, …, pn} = (8)dynamic

pragmatics,

one

providesS1 = {p1}analysis by clarifying the following components

c. S2 = {p2, …, pn}of the discourse model: (i) the structure

d. T = ⟦ a ka-marked sentence ⟧discourse context that spells out the contextualb.

= { S1 , S2 }information relevant for the phenomenon under= {{p1}, {p2, …, pn}}discussion;

(ii)

the

pragmatic

antecedent(11) The contribution of nai in (5) and (6):condition (the condition regarding the relation

The alternative set is partitioned based on

between the utterance and the prior context,

the prejacent meaning of nai.

determining when to consider the utterance
felicitous); and (iii) the pragmatic update

Here the assumption is that the semantics inalgorithm (the algorithm that defines the relation(10)d is the same irrespective of the difference

between the utterance and the posterior context).

between an EBI and a NE, which provides a

Let us see each in turn.

straightforward answer to the question as to why
these two sentences share the same grammatical

4.1 Structured Discourse Context

morphemes. Their similarity lies in semantics.

To avoid unnecessary complexity, this study
focuses on the two individuals, the speaker and

4. Pragmatics

the addressee, ignoring other potential discourse

However, as seen in Section 2, the twoparticipants (e.g., those present where thesentences show two significant differences. This

conversation takes place, whom the speaker andpaper takes the position that these contrasts

the addressee are both aware of). The assumed

reflect the differences in pragmatics, adopting

structured discourse context is as follows:

the following research agendas in dynamic
pragmatics (Stalnaker 1974, 1978; Gazdar 1981;(13) c = <dox, ep, stereo, STEREO, QS, … >Lewis 1979; Roberts 2012; Portner 2004, 2018):

a. dox = <doxsp, doxaddr>
b. ep = <epsp, epaddr>(12) Dynamic pragmatics (Portner 2018)c. stereo = <stereosp, stereoaddr>

a. Sentences have standard static semanticd. STEREO

values.

e. QS = < QS sp, QS addr >b. The communicative effect of utterancesin discourse is modelled as the effect

The first component is the doxastic modal

they have on the discourse context.

bases for the speaker doxsp and the addresseec. The effect of a particular sentence is

doxaddr. This speaker’s doxastic modal base (that258is, the set of propositions that the speaker thinks

zyanai-des-u-ka sentences are assumed to shareis true) is akin to the discourse commitment dc,

the same semantics (= (10)d). But they differ inor the public individual commitment (Hamblin

prosody and in collocation. I propose that these

1971; Gunlogson 2001; Farkas and Bruce 2010)

differences are ascribed to pragmatics, i.e., theyin that these sets represent the propositions not

are different in pragmatic instruction concerning

necessarily shared by the discourse participants.

the way they are related to the context (theHowever, I design them to be different, whether

antecedent condition and the update algorithm).

the propositions are publicized or not. (As longFirst, the antecedent condition for an EBI is

as the speaker does not tell a lie) what thegiven in (14). The first conjunct says that S1

speaker commits in public is a subset of what the({this is a bar}) is a subset of the speaker’s

speaker believes is true: dcsp ⊆ doxsp. I do not

doxastic modal base. That is, looking at theclaim to think dcsp is useless in the generalplace, the speaker has now stated the expression

theory of pragmatics nor do I intend to challengethat this is a bar. The second conjunct, however,the notion of dcsp. But, for our purposes, dcsp

states that although s/he thinks it is a bar, s/heplays no substantial role because unpublished

does not know that it is a bar (yet). In otherpropositions are also relevant when consideringwords, s/he is now suspecting that it is a bar.

NEs.

The second component is ep¸ representing(14) Antecedent condition (EBI):

the epistemic modal bases for the discourse⟦ NOUN de-wa/zya nai-des-u-ka ↑ ⟧cparticipants, that is, the set of propositions thatis appropriate in ceach participant knows (which do not have to be

iff S1 ⊆ doxsp ⋀ S1 ⊈ episp

committed to in public).
The third component is the stereotypicalmodalbases stereosp andstereoaddr,

Second, the antecedent condition for a NE iseachgiven in (15). This condition states that a

representing the set of propositions reflecting the

speaker felicitously utters a NE when (i) S1 is aspeaker/addressee’s

subset of the speaker’s epistemic modal baseexpectations

concerning

what the world is like (Portner 2009: 55).

(i.e., p1 is what s/he knows); (ii) S2 is not what

The fourth component is the mutually shared

the speaker expects; but (iii) other propositions

stereotypes STEREO, the set of propositions

are those the speaker stereotypically expects. In

reflecting the expectations that the speaker andthis sense, S1 and S2 are in comparison withthe addressee both share. I use SMALL CAPS torespect to the speaker’s stereotypes.

refer to a mutually shared set so as todifferentiate easily a publicized set from a(15) Antecedent condition (NE):private, concealed set.

⟦ NOUN de-wa/zya nai-des-u-ka ↓ ⟧c

Lastly, QS is the question set, consisting ofis appropriate in c

QSsp and QSaddr. QSsp is the set of questions

iff S1 ⊆ episp ⋀ S1 ⊈ stereosp ⋀ S2 ⊆ stereosp

addressed by the speaker; the same for QSaddr.
4.3 Update Algorithms
4.2 Antecedent Conditions

Also needing consideration are the pragmatic

As mentioned above, the two de-wa/

update algorithms. First, I propose that a NE is a259

proposal to update the ‘shared’ stereotypical(17) Update algorithm (EBI):

state STEREO, not the ‘personal’ stereotypical⟦ NOUN de-wa/zya nai-des-u-ka ↑ ⟧c + c =c’,state stereosp. Suppose that the addressee tookst., QS’sp = QS sp ⋃ T

the speaker to a bar, which made the speaker

when it is guaranteed that the addressee isvery surprised, because the speaker is now 15

different from the speaker.

years old and expected to visit a place suitable
for such a young teenager. Even after theThis update algorithm also has a prerequisite.

speaker produced the NE in (4), his/her private

But unlike (18), it is a language-specificstereotype stereosp would not change at all. In

condition; it must be grammatically guaranteed

contrast, by uttering the sentence, the speakerthat the speaker recognizes the presence of antries to make it to be the case that the addressee

addressee when making an response-seeking

also shares the same stereotype, that is, thequestion.

speaker proposes to update the addressee’s

It is noted that in addition to a NE, otherstereotype so that the speaker and the addressee

kinds of interrogatives are also licit without anboth agree that a 15 year-old teenager should not

addressee-honorific marker (Miyagawa 2017;

be at a place that serves alcohol. The rule in (16)

Yamada 2019). A few examples are given below:

describes this update process:(18) Rhetorical question
Nanika-no(16) Update algorithm (NE):yaku-ni⟦ NOUN de-wa/zya nai-des-u-ka ↓ ⟧c + c =c’,anything-GEN serve-DAT

st., STEREO’ = STEREO ∖ S1

Iya,

tat-anai.

when the addressee agrees on this update.

nostand-NEG

tat-u-ka?
stand-PRS-Q‘Will this be serviceable to anything? No, it
The underlined condition is the prerequisite

won’t.’ (BCCWJ; PB1n_00048)

for the context update: if this condition is not(19) Self-oriented question

met, an update would not be triggered. For

Sorosoro

ik-u-ka?

example, suppose that the addressee stubbornlysoon

go-PRS-Q

adheres to the previous stereoaddr (and thus

‘Shall I go now, won’t I?’

STEREO), by saying that a teenager can patronize(20) Topic-setting question (chapter title)

a bar. In this context, an update misfires despite

54 Ankooruwatto-wa tikaru-o

the speaker strongly thinking that p1 should not

54 Angkor Wat-TOP Tikal-ACC

be in the mutually shared stereotype. The

sinog-u-ka?

discourse effect of a NE is a proposal.

surpass-PRS-Q

Second, an EBI, as an interrogative, updates‘Chapter 54: Does Angkor Wat surpass

the speaker’s question set. As stated above, thespeaker expresses thatS1 ⊈Tikal?’ (BCCWJ; LBr2_00066)

episp through theantecedent condition. Since the speaker tells the

These examples suggest that the requirement ofaddressee about his/her lack of knowledge, thean addressee-honorific marker derives from theexpectation on the addressee is to provide ansyntax of the ka-marked sentence; it is rather

answer (if the addressee is corporative).

reasonable to assume that this requirement is in260

association with the illocutionary act of making

common ground “the set of propositionsa response-seeking question. A response-seeking

mutually held as true (ibid.: 51).” In contrast,

speech act remains unvalidated unless thethis study replaces it with episp as in (15),sentence form guarantees that the speaker points

reflecting the criticism by Rett (2011), who casts

to the addressee.

doubts on their assumption that “the denoted

When an addressee-honorific marker is

propositions are not necessarily in the common

absent, a possibility remains that the addressee

ground (ibid.: 435)’’ (note that episp is notcoincides with the speaker (e.g., (19)), in which

necessarily committed in public).

case the speaker does not force his/her addressee

Second, in place of WIDENING the domain

to take action to provide an answer. As discussedof quantification (Zanuttini and Portner 2003:

in Kikuchi (1997 [1994]) and Yamada (2019),52), this paper characterized the discourse

there is a general requirement that the target offunction as a proposal for an update of thethe honorification must not be the speaker

shared stereotypical modal base STEREO. I

her/himself. Thus, the presence of an addressee-

believe the fundamental insight is the same: anhonorific marker guarantees that the addressee is

exclamative contributed to a discourse update.

not the speaker. For this reason, the presence of

But what this study proposes is not the additionan addressee-honorific marker allows a Japaneseof an unexpected (nominal) expression, but iska-marked interrogative to be used as a

the retraction of an unexpected proposition.

response-seeking question.
REFERENCES
Büring, Daniel and Christine A. Gunlogson

5. Conclusion
Within the framework of dynamic pragmatics,(2000) Aren’t positive and negative polar

this paper proposed an analysis regarding thequestions the same? ms., UCLA/UCSC.

similarity and differences between the two

Farkas, D. F. and Roelofsen, F. (2017) “Division

de-wa/zya nai-des-u-ka constructions. First, theof labor in the interpretation of declaratives

analysis displays their similarity by theirand interrogatives,” Journal of Semantics

semantics; due to the pitch prominence on the34(2), 237-289.

focus-marked element and the presence of -nai,

Gazdar, Gerald (1981) “Speech act assignment,”

the sentences denote a set of questions. Second,

Elements of discourse understanding, ed.

it attributes their differences to pragmatics,

by Aravind Joshi, Bonnie Webber and Ivan

which involve different antecedent conditions

A. Sag 64-83, Cambridge University Press,and context update algorithms.

New York.

This analysis develops from the treatment in

Gunlogson, Christine (2001) True to form:

Zanuttini and Portner (2003); (i) the same

Risingsemantic content is proposed for EBIs and NEs

questions in English, Doctoral dissertation,and (ii) pragmatic conditions play a pivotal role

UC Santa Cruz.

in capturing their conversional effects.

Goodhue,

Two improvements are as follows. First, as

andfalling

Daniel (2018)

declaratives

On

and

asking andanswering biased polar questions, Doctoral

an antecedent condition, they propose thedissertation, McGill University.

FACTIVITY condition, relying on the notion of

Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof (1990)

261

“Dynamic Montague grammar,” Papers

priorities,” New work on speech acts, ed. by

from

Daniel Fogel, Daniel W. Harris and Mattthe

Symposium

on

Logic

and

Language, 3-48.

Moss, 296-316, Oxford University Press,

Hamblin, Charles L. (1971) “Mathematical

Oxford.

models of dialogue,” Theoria 37, 130-155.

Rett, Jessica (2011) “Exclamatives, degrees andHamblin, Charles L. (1973) “Questions inspeech acts,” Linguistics and Philosophy

Montague

English.”Foundationsof34(5), 411-442.

Language 10, 41-53.

Roberts, Craige (2012 [1996]) “Information

Hirayama, Hitomi (2018) “Discourse effects ofbiasedquestionsinstructure

Japanese.”indiscourse:

towards

anintegrated formal theory of pragmatics,”

Japanese/Korean Linguistics 25, 1-13.

Semantics and Pragmatics 5(6), 1-69.

Ito, Satoshi and David Y. Oshima (2014) “On

Romero, Maribel and Chung-Hye Han (2004)

Two

Varieties

ofInterrogatives

Negativein

Polar“On negative yes/no questions,” Linguistics

Japanese.”and Philosophy 27(5), 609-658.

Japanese/Korean Linguistics 23, 229-243.

Shimoyama, Junko and Goodhue, Daniel (2019)

Karttunen, Lauri (1977) “Syntax and semantics“Embedded negative polar questions withof questions,” Linguistics 1, 3-44.
Kikuchi,Yasuto(1997[1994])

positive epistemic bias,” paper presented at
Keigo

at GLOW-in-Asia XII and SICOGG 21,[Honorifics]. Tokyo: Kodansha.

Dongguk University, Seoul.

Ladd, Robert D. (1981) “A First Look at the

Stalnaker,

Robert(1974)“Pragmatic

Semantics and Pragmatics of Negative

presuppositions. Semantics and Philosophy,

Questions and Tag Questions.” CLS 17,

ed. by M. Munitz and P. Unger, 197-213,

164-171.

New York University Press, New York.

Lewis, David. K. (1979) “Scorekeeping in a

Stalnaker, Robert (1978) “Assertion,” Syntax

language game.” Journal of Philosophicaland Semantics 9, ed. by Peter Cole, 315-32.

Logic 8(1), 339-359.

Academic Press, New York.

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2012) Agreements that

Sudo, Yasutada (2013) “Biased Polar questions

occur mainly in main clauses. Main clauseinphenomena: new horizons, ed. by Lobke

Expressives:

Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman and Rachel

Use-Conditional Meaning, ed. by Daniel

Nye,

Gutzmann

79-112,

John

Benjamins,

Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

(2004)“The

semantics

ofimperatives within a theory of clausePaul(2009)

Paul(2018)

Explorations

inHans-Martin

Gartner,

Modality.

“Exclamative

clauses:atthesyntax-semantics

interface,”

Language

Yamada, Akitaka (2019) The syntax, semantics
OxfordandUniversity Press, Oxford.
Portner,

Beyond79(1), 39-81.

types,” SALT 14, 235-252.
Portner,andJapanese,”

Zanuttini, Raffaella and Paul Portner (2003)

phi. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Paul

and

275-295, Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2017) Agreement beyond
Portner,English“Commitment

pragmatics

addressee-honorifictoofJapanesemarkers,

Doctoraldissertation, Georgetown University.

262

anticausative in (1a) lacks such an object and iscalled an unmarked anticausative.
Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou, and Schäfer(2015) propose two types of Voice—thematicand non-thematic. The external argument of

Two Types of Anti-causatives in English: A
Cross-linguistic Perspective*

markedanticausatives

isintroducedby

non-thematic Voice and receives neither an
Masaki Yasuhara

Agent nor a Causer role. These researchers

Ibaraki University

explore

two

types

of

anticausatives

cross-linguistically and observe that Germanic
Keywords：marked anti-causative, reflexive

and Romance languages exhibit both marked

pronoun, non-thematic Voiceand unmarked anticausatives and make use ofboth types of Voice. According to them,
however,Englishhas

only

unmarked

anticausatives and the non-thematic Voice is

1. Introduction

unavailable in English anticausatives.

Germanic languages such as German andThis paper will discuss the following two

Heerlen Dutch have two types of anticausative
distinctquestions: (i) Does English have marked(Cornips and Hulk (1996), Schäfer (2008)). The

anticausatives like other Germanic languages?

examples in (1) and (2) illustrate two types of

If so, (ii) what types of verbs have the marked

anticausatives in German and Heerlen Dutch,

anticausative use in English? English is one ofrespectively.

the Germanic languages that generally possess

expressions

that

are

syntacticallymarked anticausatives, so it is reasonable toab.

assume that English possess them as well. Thisab.

paper will argue that English does possess(1) a. Das

Wasserkühlt

b. Das

Wasser

kühlt

sich

the

water

cools

REFL down

markedanticausatives

based

on

severalempirical diagnostics. The paper will also

“The water cools down.”

investigate what types of verbs can participate(Schäfer (2008:37))

in marked anticausatives. The conclusion will

(2) a. Het

riet

buigt.

b. Het

riet

buigt

zich.

be that the range of verbs permitted in English

the

reeds

bends REFL

marked anticausatives seems to be much more
restricted than in other Germanic languages.

“The reed is bending.”

This paper is organized as follows: Section(Cornips and Hulk (1996:1))
2

will

show

that

Englishparalleltohas

The anticausative in (1b) is called a marked

anticausatives

anticausative because it takes a reflexive

languages, based on several diagnostics forpronoun as the object and is apparently aanticausativity. Section 3 will investigate thetransitive verb. The subject NP, however, isrange of verbs that can be used as marked

construed as neither Agent nor Causer. The

anticausatives in English. Section 4 will present
a concluding remark.

263

other

markedGermanic

(4)2. Marked Anti-causatives in English

Reflexive Verbs of Appearance:

As mentioned in section 1, Germanic

assert, declare, define, express, form,

languages generally have marked anticausatives

manifest, offer, pose, present, proffer,

which take a reflexive pronoun. Although

recommend, shape, show, suggest(Levin (1993:85))

Alexiadou et al. (2015) argue that marked
anticausatives are not available in English,
severalresearchers

suggestthat

In the rest of this section, I will show that the

Englishreflexive pronouns, such as itself, may function

markedas(e.g.

expressions in (3) can be supported by two

Geniusiené (1987), Stephens (2006), Siemund

pieces of evidence. I will use the diagnostics(2014)). This section aims to show that Englishthat have generally been made use of to test thehasanticausativity.

parts

of

markedmarkedanticausatives

anticausatives

based

on

the

anticausative

analysisoftheFirstly, causer phrases such as due to strong

diagnostics for anticausativity.

wind and from the earthquake are licensed by

I argue that English marked anticausatives

anticausative verbs. Transitive verbs that take a

are exemplified by the following examples:

Causer or Agent subject, as well as passive
verbs, cannot take such phrases because(3) a. I’ll tell her as soon as the opportunity

syntactically they take an external causer, either

presents itself.

explicitly or implicitly. The existence of thisb. Religious faith expresses itself in aexternal causer is incompatible with thevariety of ways.

meaning of the causer phrases which alsoc. His illness began to manifest itself atsuggest the existence of another external causer.

around this time.

The sentence in (5b) is not acceptable because

d. I’ll look at my cookbooks and see if

the Agent subject John and the causer phrase

anything suggests itself.

due to strong wind express different external

e. I’ll raise the subject when a suitablecausers, and this results in contradiction.

occasion offers itself.

Anticausatives do not involve a Causer or(LDCE, the underlining is mine)

Agent subject, so they permit the occurrence ofa causer phrase, as in (5a).

The verbs in (3) take a reflexive pronoun asobject. Although they are transitive verbs(5) a. The vase broke due to strong wind.

syntactically, they denote an anticausative event.
In fact, the underlined parts in these sentencesb.* John broke the vase due to strong wind.

can be paraphrased with the single anticausative
verb appear. In this regard, the expressions inThis diagnostic for anticausativity can be(3) look similar to the marked anticausatives inapplied to marked anticausatives in German

Germanic(Alexiadou et al. (2015)).

languages

in

that

they

are

syntactically transitive and denote anticausative
events. Levin (1993) observes that this type of(6) DieTüröffnetesich

expression is possible with the following verb

the

door

openedREFL throughclass.

einen

264

Windstoß.

durch

a

pronoun occurs in the internal argument

blast-of-wind

position and the referential subject NP, such as“The door opened from a blast of wind.”Marked anticausative

his illness in (3c), is merged in the external(Alexiadou et al. (2015:33))

argument position (Yasuhara (2017)). The
partial structure of sentence (3c) is shown in(8).

Alexiadou et al. (2015) argue that the reflexive
pronoun sich occurs in the external argument(9)

position, and the other argument, Die Tür “thenon-thematic Voice P

door,” is an internal argument. They assume
that

there

are

two

types

of

Voice

His illness

cross-linguistically—thematic and non-thematic.
The former takes a thematic subject, i.e., an

non-thematic Voice

Agent or Causer NP, whereas the latter takes avPmanifests itself

non-thematic subject that has no thematic role.
In this structure, the referential subject his(7)illness is introduced by the non-thematic Voice,thematic Voice P

so it has no thematic role. However, it binds thereflexive pronoun itself in the internal argument

thematic subject

position from which the reflexive pronoun
thematic Voice(8)

receives a Patient role. As a result, thevPreferential subject indirectly receives a Patient

non-thematic Voice P

role. Since only the Patient role is involved in
the event denoted by the Voice P, an

non-thematic subject

anticausative interpretation follows (i.e., his
non-thematic Voice

illness appears.). We will leave for futurevP

research the issue of whether this analysis also
In this analysis, the subject argument sich has

applies to marked anticausatives in otherno Causer or Agent role, so it is not associatedGermanic languages.

with the event denoted by the vP. Only the

Let us return to the diagnostic based oninternal argument Die Tür “the door” iscauser phrases. The reflexive expressions in (3)thematically associated with the vP event, andare compatible with causer phrases, as shown intherefore, the verb in the sentence in (6) is(10) to (13), parallel to the German marked

syntacticallyanticausative in (6). The underlining has beentransitive

but

denotesandone by the author.

anticausative event. Consequently, a causer
phraseiscompatible

with

it

with

no
(10) His illness began to manifest itself due tocontradiction.
I will argue that the reflexive expressions in

immune deficiency.

(3) also involve the non-thematic Voice. In this(11) The sand began to form itself into

paper, contrary to the proposal of Alexiadou etgeometric patterns due to strong wind.

al. (2015), we assume that the reflexive265

(16) a.* His illness began to manifest itself by(12) Sometimes the allergy or intolerance does
improve, particularly if it has only shown

itself.

itself due to a poor immune system; but

b.* The sand began to form itself into

generally the treatment of eliminating thegeometric patterns by itself.

offending food items is long term.
(Miller Rogers and Emily White, The Everyday

This fact, however, does not suggest that the

Dairy-Free Cookbook)marked anticausative analysis of the reflexive(13) ... and the disease revealed itself due toexpressions

in

(3)

is

incorrect.

The

unacceptability of the occurrence of by itself ismalnourishment and stress.

due to the duplication of the word itself. In fact,(Ben Montgomery, Leper Spy)the reflexive expressions in (3) go along with of
The compatibility with a causer phrase suggests

its own accord, as shown by the followingthat the subject of these reflexive expressions issentences:not construed as Causer or Agent, i.e.,(17) ... a world that does not manifest itself of

non-thematic. For this reason, the Voice P
denotesananticausative

event

and

its own accord.

the(Hannah Arendt, The Life of the Mind)

occurrence of a causer phrase incurs no(18) ... the sentence had seemingly formed itself

contradiction.
Anti-causatives

generally

permitof its own accord, ...

theco-occurrence of adverbial phrases that denote(Campbell Black, Letters from the Dead)

spontaneity such as by itself and of its own(19) But the mind of God is not something thatshows itself of its own accord.

accord (Kageyama (1996)), which is the second(Mark A. Wrathall, Heidegger anddiagnostic.

Unconcealment)(14) a.
b.

(20) Plenty will reveal itself to you of its own

The door opened by itself.

accord.

The door opened of its own accord.

(Christine Sneed, Paris, He Said)
This diagnostic is also applicable to marked(21) Once the question is formulated in thisanticausatives, as shown by the German

way, the answer suggests itself of its own

example in (15):accord: modern natural science and its
nominalist philosophical premises.

(15) Die(Scott Hahn, For the Sake of Our Salvation)

Geige verstimmte

sich

the

violin got-out-of-tune

REFL

von

selbst

The fact that the reflexive expressions in (3) are

by

self

compatible with of its own accord further
supports our analysis of marked anticausatives“The violin got out of tune by itself.”in these reflexive expressions.

(Schäfer (2008:56))

To sum up, this section has shown that
Reflexive expressions in (3), however, are not

English has marked anticausatives, parallel tocompatible with by itself.

other Germanic languages. The anticausative266

analysis of the reflexive expressions in (3) ischaracteristics apparently suggest that these

supported by the availability of a causer phrasetransitive sentences are marked anticausatives.

and the adverbial phrase of its own accord.

A close scrutiny, however, reveals that they arenot. Observe the following sentences:

3. Verb Types of Marked Anti-causatives(25) a.

In the previous section, we saw that English

Bill fell and hurt himself.

b.# A stranger attacked Bill, and hemarked anticausatives are exemplified by(= Bill) hurt himself.

reflexive verbs of appearance.
(26) a.

Bill fell and cut himself on the stone.

b.# A stranger attacked Bill with a knife(22) Reflexive Verbs of Appearance:

and, he (= Bill) cut himself.

assert, declare, define, express, form,
manifest, offer, pose, present, proffer,

The sentences in (25a) and (26a) describe

recommend, shape, show, suggest

situations in which Bill got hurt due to what he(= (4))

did to himself accidently. In this sense, theThe question that arises here is that what types

subject NP of the reflexive expressions Bill hurtofmarkedhimself and Bill cut himself can be regarded as

anticausatives other than the verbs in (22). This

Agent or Causer rather than Patient. The

section will investigate the types of verbs that

sentences in (25b) and (26b) denote situations

can be used as marked anticausatives inin which a stranger attacked and hurt Bill. The

English.

stranger is the Agent of cutting or hurting Bill.

verbs

can

participatein

The first candidate verb class for marked

The reflexive expressions are anomalous in thisanticausatives is verbs related to hurt, because

context, because the subject NP of these

they can form a reflexive expression, as shown

expressions is also construed as Agent orby the sentences in (24):

Causer, and a contradiction therefore arises.
Notice that reflexive expressions in (24) arecompatible with a causer phrase, and they(23) Hurt verbs:

appear to be marked anticausatives.

burn, cut, hurt, injure, etc.
(Levin (1993:102))(24) a.
b.

(27) It was nice to have someone care whether

Bill hurt himself.

she ate and slept, whether she might hurt

Bill cut himself (on the stone).

herself due to fatigue.
(Carrie Weaver, No Time To Lose)

As for the reflexive expressions of hurt verbs,
Levin (1993:101) observes that “the subject ofthe verb is not intentionally performing theIn (27), however, the causer phrase due toaction on himself or herself and has been

fatigue refers to the reason for which she did

characterized as an experiencer or even asomething to herself and got hurt, so the subject

patient.” Thus, the transitive sentences in (24)NPtake a reflexive pronoun object, and the subject

agentivity

argument appears to be a Patient. These two

co-occurs with it.

267

of

the

reflexive

even

thoughexpression

retainsaphrasecauser(Stephens (2006:277))

Thus, we can conclude that the reflexive
expressions, suchas(24), aretransitive

sentences that take an Agent or Causer subject

Secondly, adverbs such as practically are

and a reflexive pronoun object. They are notallowed in virtual reflexive constructions, as

marked anticausatives.

shown in (32a):

The second candidate verb class for marked(32) a.

anticausatives is verbs of virtual reflexive

A recording like this practically
recommends ITSELF.

constructions.

b.* His patience practically manifested
itself.

(28) Verbs of virtual reflexive construction:(Stephens (2006:278))

solve, write, recommend, sell, etc.
(Stephens (2006))

The sentence in (32b) is an example of marked
These verbs can also participate in reflexive

anticausatives which do not permit such an

expressions, as shown below:

adverb.
Based(29) a.
b.

on

these

two

characteristics,

This problem solves ITSELF.

Stephens (2006) explains that the subject ofThis book sold ITSELF.

virtual reflexive constructions is metaphoricallyconstrued as an Agent. The situations described(Stephens (2006))

by the sentences in (29) are perceived as if a
These sentences are called virtual reflexive

problem solves itself and a book sold itself. For

constructions.

denotethis reason, virtual reflexive constructions cananticausative events. However, Stephens (2006)

be regarded as transitive sentences that take apresents two pieces of evidence for treating thismetaphorical Agent subject, and therefore, they

type of reflexive expressions as transitive

are not marked anticausatives.

They

appeartosentences with a “metaphorical” Agent subject.

To sum up, this section investigated what

Firstly, primary stress is necessarily placed

types of verbs can participate in marked
anticausatives in English. Two verb classes thaton the reflexive pronoun.

take a reflexive pronoun object and appear to(30) a.

have an anticausative event interpretation wereThese jokes write THEMSELVES.

examined, but they were shown not to be true

b.* These jokes write themselves.

cases of marked anticausatives. Based on this(Stephens (2006:277))

investigation, we can conclude that only
Notice that the reflexive pronoun of marked

reflexive verbs of appearance can be a part ofanticausatives can receive no primary stress, as

marked anticausatives in English, though weshown by the following examples of marked

need further investigation of verb classes that

anticausatives:

may be available for marked anticausatives.

(31) a.

4. Conclusion

An opportunity presented itself.

b.* An opportunity presented ITSELF.

268

Schäfer,

This paper dealt with two questions. The

Florian(2008)

The

Syntaxoffirst question was whether or not English has(Anti-)Causatives: External Arguments inmarked anticausatives, and the answer to thisChange-of-State

question was shown to be “yes.” The second

Benjamins

question was asked what types of verbs can be

Amsterdam.

Contexts,

PublishingJohn
Company,

used as part of marked anticausatives in English.

Siemund, Peter (2014) “The Emergence ofThis paper showed that the range of verbs

English Reflexive Verbs: An Analysis

available for marked anticausatives is very

Based on the Oxford English Dictionary,”

restricted,

English Language and Linguistics 18(1).

and

only

reflexive

verbs

of

49-73

appearance were attested. I hope this study will

Stephens, Nola (2006) “Agentivity and theshed new light on the research of marked

Virtualanticausatives in English.

Reflexive

Construction.”

Demoting the Agent, ed. by Benjamin* I would like to thank the chair, Hiroko

Lyngfelt and Torgrim Solstad, 275-300,

Takanashi, and the audience for their invaluable

John Benjamins Publishing Company,

comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Amsterdam.

Needless to say, any remaining errors andYasuhara, Masaki (2017) “Transitive Sentences

shortcomings are my own. This work was

Denoting an Anti-causative Eventuality insupported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid forJapanese,” Proceedings of the 19th Seoul

Young Scientists (B) Grant Number 16K21380.

International Conference on Generative
Grammar, 323-340.

References
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou,
and Florian Schäfer (2015) External
Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A
Layering Approach, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Cornips, Leonie and Aafke Hulk (1996)“Ergative Reflexives in Heerlen Dutch
and French,” Studia Linguistica 50(1),1-21.
Geniusiené, Emma (1987) The Typology of
Reflexives, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Kageyama, Taro (1996) Doshi Imiron (Verb
Semantics), Kuroshio, Tokyo.
Levin, Beth (1993) English Verb Classes andAlternations: A Preliminary Investigation,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English(4th edition) (LDCE), Longman, London.

269

b.

<Workshop Report>

Pair-Merge (a, b) = <a, b>

In the workshop, Nomura and Oishi first
discussed how pair-Merge works in various
cases, and then Kitahara explored possible

Pair-Merge under MERGE

approaches to these phenomena under MERGE.
Jun Omune (Kansai Gaidai University)

Finally, Omune argued that the asymmetries

Hisatsugu Kitahara (Keio University)

exhibitedbyadjunction/pair-Merge

werededucible from how MERGE applies.

Masayuki Oishi (Tohoku Gakuin University)
Masashi Nomura (Chukyo University)

2. Pair-Merge
Nomura scrutinized the way of structure

Keywords：Minimalist Program, Pair-MERGE,

building by Chomsky (2015) and argued that theFree Merge

argument structures of 3 verb types— transitives,
unaccusatives, and unergatives/bridge verbs—
can be built by the different timing of the

1. Introduction
The minimalist model of syntax proposed

application of pair-Merge of heads. First, whenmainly by Chomsky (2013, 2015) has one andv* and R (root) pair-merge after labeling theonly one structure-building operation, Merge,

resultant structure is that of transitives. Second,which applies freely. However, how free is freewhen they pair-merge directly from the lexicon,

Merge? Does free Merge allow extensions suchthe unaccusative structure emerges. Finally,as parallel Merge, late Merge, and sideward

when pair-Merge of v* and R takes place priorMerge?

to feature inheritance, the unergative/bridge verb

Chomsky(2019)

addressed

thesequestions, identified a flaw in the formulation of

structure comes up.

Merge, and revised Merge to MERGE, an

Oishi explored 3 types of pair-Merge:

operation applying to workspace (WS); MERGE

head-head (i.e. <X,Y>), phrase-phrase (i.e.

maps WS onto WS'. Chomsky (2019) examined<XP,YP>), and head-phrase (i.e. <X,YP>).

the nature of the WS and how freely MERGEInterestingly, he argued that the choice of

applies under general conditions, and he(set-)Merge of X and YP and pair-Merge of X

demonstrated that parallel Merge, late Merge,

and YP would lead to explain two ambiguousand other extensions of Merge do not surface

meanings of decide on. Besides, he showed theunder MERGE. This MERGE-based analysis

structure of ethical dative constructions such as

has a strong implication that pair-Merge, whichknock me at the gate is built by pair-Merge ofis an independent operation forming an orderedknock and me.

pair (see (1)), motivated by the asymmetricproperty of adjunction, is no longer available,

3. Pair-MERGE

provided that forming an ordered pair (e.g. head

As mentioned in section 1, pair-Merge ismovement) is a departure from simplest Merge.

suggested to be unavailable in the MERGE
model.

(1) a.

(simplest) Merge (a, b) = {a, b}

Conceptually,theeliminationofpair-Merge is desirable, given evolvability (see270

Chomsky et al. (2019: 249)), but it poses apair-MERGE. If we assume that the well-known

serious empirical problem; we must find a way

set-theoreticaltoofholds in the syntactic theory, unordered sets canadjunction under MERGE. Kitahara formulated

yield the adjunct relation. That is, the adjunctpair-Merge

its

structure can be produced when internal

departure to be minimum. See the following

MERGE applies immediately after {x,y} has

definition of MERGE and pair-MERGE:

been built by MERGE. In this way, IL-MERGE

explaintheunderubiquitous
MERGE,

phenomena
restricting

definition,<x,y>={x,{x,y}},solves the problem of evolvability. The proposal,
however, cannot ensure the elaborated T-to-C(2) Given WS=[P,Q,X1,…,Xn],

movement in (5). IL-MERGE is just MERGE,

MERGE(P,Q,WS)=> [{P,Q},X1,…,Xn]

which forms {T,C} instead of <T,C> in the step(3) Given WS=[P,Q,X1,…,Xn],(5a). This violates some general condition on

pair-MERGE(P,Q,WS)=> [<P,Q>,X1,…,Xn]

MERGE: 2 accessible copies of T appear in the
WS', violating Resource Restriction.

Once we assume that (3) holds, a number ofadjunction phenomena including those in section
2 could be explained under the MERGE model.
The traditional head movement (e.g. T-to-C

REFERENCES
Bobaljik, Jonathan David and Samuel Brown

movement as in (4)) as a syntactic operation(1997) “Interarboreal Operations: Headcannot be implemented for its counter cyclic

Movement

andcharacter, which violates some conditions on

Requirement,”

Linguistic

Inquiry

28,

MERGE. However, pair-MERGE ensures the345-356.
(2013)“ProblemsofChomsky,same effect as the T-to-C movement as in (5).

Noam

the

Extension

Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky,(4) WS=[{C,{EA,{T,vP}}}]=>pair-MERGE(T,Projection:

C,WS)=>*WS'=[<T,C>,{C,{EA,{T,vP}}}](5) a.

b.

Noam(2015)“Problems

Extensions,”of

Structures,

WS=[C,{EA,{T,vP}}]=>

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

pair-MERGE(T,C,WS)=>of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di

WS'=[<T,C>,{EA,{T,vP}}]

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona

MERGE(<T,C>,{EA,{T,vP}},WS')=>

Matteini,

WS"=[{<T,C>,{EA,{T,vP}}}]

Amsterdam.
Chomsky,

3-16,

John

Benjamins,

Noam(2019)“Some

Puzzling

This is, in essence, the so-called interarboreal

Foundational

Issues:The

Reading

operations in Bobaljik and Brown (1997).

Program,” Catalan Journal of Linguistics
Special Issue, 263-285.
Chomsky, Noam, Ángel J. Gallego, and Dennis

4. Immediate-Local MERGE
Omune attempted to eliminate pair-MERGE

Ott (2019) “Generative Grammar and theand proposed IL- (Immediate-local) MERGE.

Faculty of Language: Insights, Questions,

What we want is the asymmetric relation of

and Challenges,” Catalan Journal of

adjunct structures, and MERGE can yield the

Linguistics Special Issue, 229-261.

asymmetricproperty

without

postulating271

【JELS 原稿（和文原稿）の作成上の注意】＜英文原稿作成については、Guidelines for Submission of Manuscripts to JELS を参照すること＞(1) 原稿枚数：
本文・注・文献を含めて A4 用紙に 7 枚以内（シンポジウム・リポートは4枚以内、特別講演リポー
トおよびワークショップ・リポートは 2 枚以内）とする。原稿は、2 段組とし、各段 40 行とすること。
(2) 書式：
必ず、添付ファイルで送られてきた、「JELS_サンプル（和文原稿）.doc」を使用し、ファイル名を変更した上で上書き保存して使用すること。また、ファイル形式は「 .doc」のまま使用し、「.docx」に変更しないこと。（変更すると正しく表示されない場合がある。）① マージンは上（2.2 ㎝）、下（3.0 ㎝）、右（2.5 ㎝）、左（2.5 ㎝）に設定する。
② 文字サイズは 11 ポイント以上にする。
③ 第 1 頁の一段目は上部に 4 行の余白を 取り、論文題名・氏名・所属・キーワード（語または短いフ
レーズ、5 項目まで）を中央寄せにして入れる。論文題名と氏名の間、及び所属とキーワードの間は
各 1 行空白とし、キーワードの後 2 行あけて、本文を始める。
（キーワード： メタファー, 関連性理論,
usage-based model のような形式でキーワードを書く。キーワードの間は半角カンマと半角スペースで区切る。）④ 論文題名は太字にする。
⑤ 和文原稿の場合、読点・句点は、「、」と「。」を使用する。
⑥ 注は、本文（または謝辞）の後ろ（文献表の前）にまとめ、「注」とタイトルを付す。なお、MSWord の脚注機能を使用してはならない。脚注機能を使わずに注を書くこと。本文中の注番号（上付き数字）は、句点「。」の後ろにくるようにする。
⑦ 謝辞を書く場合は、アスタリスクを付け、注の上に書く。
⑧ 文 献 表 を 含 め 、 そ の 他 の 書 式 の 細 部 に つ い て は 、 English Linguistics の“Information forContributors” に従うが、abstractは不要。

272

(3) その他：① 和文原稿には和文題名をつけること。また、著者名と所属機関名の横にそれぞれの英語（または原語）表記を（）に入れて記す。著者名の英語表記では、ファーストネーム ファミリーネームの順番で、語頭のみ大文字で書くこと（例：「日本英子（Eiko Nihon）」）。また、和文題名の下に英文題名を（ ）に入れて示す（この場合も、英文題名の中の内容語はすべて、語頭を大文字で記載すること）。

② 発表時のタイトルからの変更は一切認めないが、日本語による口頭発表でも Conference Handbookに記した英文題名を使用すれば、英文原稿を提出できる。なお、Spring Forum での発表の場合は、英文原稿のみ受け付ける。
③ ページ番号は入力しないこと。
④ 作成原稿のフォントの埋め込みを必ず行ってから提出すること。CD-ROM からの読み出し時に、パ
ソコン環境によってはフォントがうまく再現されず異なる記号などに変換されてしまう危険性がある
ため、必ず確認の上、提出すること。
⑤ 論文内に図やイラストなどを使用する際には、著作権に十分留意すること。
⑥ 締め切りは、大会翌年の 1 月 11 日 午前11:59（日本時間）（必着）で、日本英語学会の JELS 原稿受付アドレス（conference-elsj@kaitakusha.co.jp）に WORD ファイルと PDF ファイルを送付する。ファイル名には発表者の氏名をローマ字で記入すること（ 例：NihonEiko.doc / NihonEiko.pdf）。 メールのタイトルは、秋の大会の発表か国際春季フォーラムの発表かに応じて、「大会: JELS 日本英子」もしくは「SF: JELS EikoNihon」と記すこと。なお，締切日時を過ぎていても JELS 原稿受付アドレスの自動応答システムによって「受領した」旨のメールが返信される場合があるが，大会運営委員会としては受領しない。
⑦ 規定に違反している原稿は掲載できない。

（2019 年 10 月 1 日改定）273

日本英語学会大会運営委員会
日本英語学会事務局

JELS 日本語執筆の場合の注および参考文献の書式について（補足資料）

JELS を日本語で執筆する場合の注と和文参考文献の例を以下に示します。外国語で書かれた参考文献については、 JELS を英語で執筆する場合と同様，学会ウェブサイト (http://elsj.jp/english_linguisticseng/information-for-contributors/ ) に掲載されている English Linguistics の参考文献の書式を参照して下さい。

注
1. 河上誓作（私信：XX 年YY 月ZZ 日）によると、以下の例は…………….
2. Oba (1997)にも指摘されているとおり、………………
3. 杉本 (1998:34)では、以下のような類例が紹介されている。
(i) I long for …………
(ii) I manage to ………………………
4. Takami (1996:51)には、以下のような………………

参考文献
小泉保 (1997)『ジョークとレトリックの語用論』大修館書店, 東京.
松本曜・田中茂範 (1997)『空間と移動の表現』研究社出版, 東京.
盛岡ハインツ・梶田優 (編) (1994)『海外言語学情報』（第7 号）大修館書店, 東京.

274

和書の場合福岡言語学研究会 (編) (1993)『言語学からの眺望』（福岡言語学研究会20 周年記念論文集）九州大学出版
論文集の場合会, 福岡.
吉村あき子(1996)『否定極性現象』博士論文, 大阪大学.

博士論文の場合

福井直樹 (1998)「極小モデルの展開」, 田窪行則他 (編) 『生成文法』（岩波講座言語の科学第六巻）, 161210, 岩波書店, 東京.

論文集収録論文の場合

大阪太郎 (未公刊)「Donkey 文の解釈について」, 未公刊論文, 日本英語大学.
未公刊論文の場合
藤田耕司 (1997)「最適派生理論の最適化に向けて」, 『英語青年』5 月号, 74-76, 研究社出版, 東京.
大津智彦 (1993)「現代イギリス英語における目的語節を導くthat の有無について」, 『論集』第 9 号, 41-50,
大阪外国語大学.

雑誌論文の場合

東京花子 (印刷中)「英語統語論について」, 『日本英語学研究』, 日本英語出版．
雑誌掲載が決定しているが未公刊の論文の場合
塚本聡 (2013)「大名力『言語研究のための正規表現によるコーパス検索』」書評, 『英文学研究』第90 巻，
155-160，日本英文学会.

書評の場合１

廣瀬幸生 (1996)「Adele E. Goldberg: Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure」
書評『英文学研究』73 巻1号, 170-174, 日本英文学会.
書評の場合２（洋書の書評を和文で執筆）
桐生和幸 (1997)「結果述語構文の言語類型論的研究」関西言語学会第 22 回大会口頭発表.
口頭発表の場合
川瀬義清 (1998)「認知的観点から見た進行形の意味」KLS (Kansai Linguistic Society) 18, 155-165.
学会等のプロシーディングスの場合
Freud, Sigmund (1905) Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, Moffat Ward, New York. （フロイト, ジグム
ンド. 生松敬三訳『機知—その無意識との関係』人文書院, 東京, 1970）
翻訳の場合
Radcliff, Allan (1940) “On Joking Relationships,” Africa 13, 195-210. （ラドクリフ, アラン. 青柳まちこ訳『未開社会における構造と機能』「（第4 章）冗談関係について」新泉社, 東京, 1975）
論文の翻訳が本の一部として公刊されている場合

275

Guidelines for Submission of Manuscripts to JELS
<If you write in Japanese, refer to the Japanese guideline on the ELSJ website>
Last revised October 2019(1) Length
The length of an oral presentation manuscript, including notes and references, must notexceed seven A4 pages; that of a symposium report must not exceed four A4 pages; that of a
special lecture or workshop report must not exceed two A4 pages. The manuscript should
use a two-column format with 40 lines per column. Care should be taken to avoid
overcrowding of characters or letters within the line.
(2) Format
Use the English sample file attached to the e-mail. Do not change the file extension (.doc)
when you save the file. Note that presenters at the Spring Forum are not allowed to submit aJapanese manuscript.
a. Leave margins of 2.2cm at the top, 3.0 cm at the bottom, and 2.5cm on both sides.
b. The font size should be at least 11 point.
c. There should be 4 lines of space between the top of the page and the first paragraph on thefirst page. The title, the name and affiliation of all authors, and keywords (up to five words
or short phrases) should all be centered. One line of blank space should be left between
the title and the author name(s) as well as between the author affiliation(s) and the
keywords. Two lines of blank space should be left below the keywords, at which point themain text should begin. Keywords should be written in the following format:
Keywords: xxx, yyy, zzz (e.g. Keywords: syntax, Case assignment, Multiple Agree, lightverb).
d. The title should be in bold type. Capitalize the first letter of every content word in the title.
e. Write the author’s name in the order “First name - Surname” and capitalize only the initialletters. (e.g. Jane Smith).
f. Write acknowledgements above notes, if any. Put an asterisk at the beginning of theacknowledgements.
g. Notes should follow the main text but precede the references, with the heading“NOTES.” DO NOT use MS-Word’s command for inserting automatic footnotes andendnotes. Footnote numbers in the body of the text should be written as superscript
numerals, and should be placed after punctuation marks.
h. Other details (including the references) should be formatted in accordance with
Information for Contributors and the latest version of the EL style sheet(http://elsj.jp/english_linguistics-eng/information-for-contributors/). No abstract isnecessary.
(3) Other instructions for submission
a . Manuscripts written in English should be checked by a native speaker of English.
Under no circumstances may the title of the manuscript be changed in any way fromthat used at the time of presentation. English manuscripts are acceptable even when theoral presentations were made in Japanese if the English title listed in the Conference
Handbook is used in the manuscript. Presenters at the International Spring Forum may
submit only English manuscripts.
b. Do not include page numbers.
c. Please embed all fonts when creating pdf files in order to ensure that the fonts used areavailable on readers’ computers. (JELS is published as a CD-ROM.)
d. Make sure that any figures or illustrations in the paper are consistent with copyright
restrictions.
e. Manuscripts must be submitted by 11:59 am on January 11th (JST) of the year
following the Spring Forum and the annual Conference. Manuscripts should be sent as
attachments in both pdf and doc format to <conference-elsj☆kaitakusha.co.jp>*. The
file name should include the author’s name in Roman letters (e.g.
NihonEiko.pdf/NihonEiko.doc). The title of e-mail should be “Annual Conference: name”
or “Spring Forum: name” (e.g. “Annual Conference: Jane Smith”). Please note that amanuscript that has reached after the above deadline will not be accepted by the
Conference Organizing Committee even if an automatic reply message confirms yoursubmission.
276

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.

277

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2020年2月28日発行
編集
日本英語学会大会運営委員会
代 表 者
廣瀬幸生
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 2020----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

278