Papers from the Fortieth Conference
November 5-6, 2022
and from
the Fifteenth International Spring ForumMay 14-15, 2022
of
The English Linguistic Society of JapanJELS 40᪥ ᮏ ⱥ ㄒ Ꮫ ఍ ➨ 40 ᅇ ኱ ఍ 㸦 ࢜ ࣥ ࣛ ࢖ ࣥ 㛤 ദ 㸧➨ 15 ᅇᅜ㝿᫓Ꮨࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛ㸦࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥ㛤ദ㸧
◊✲Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟The English Linguistic Society of Japan
2023

The English Linguistic Society of Japan
c/o Kaitakusha
22-16, Otowa 1-chome,
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-0013, JAPANPresident, Yoshiaki KANEKO, Professor Emeritus at Tohoku University
Secretary-General, Etsuro SHIMA, Tohoku University

JELS 40
Papers from the Fortieth Conference
November 5-6, 2022
and from
the Fifteenth International Spring ForumMay 14-15, 2022
of
The English Linguistic Society of Japan

Edited by
The Conference Organizing Committee
Takeru HONMA, Tokyo Metropolitan University (Chair)
Takumi TAGAWA, University of Tsukuba (Vice-Chair)

Shinya HIRASAWA, Keio University
Seishirou IBARAKI, Kwansei Gakuin University
Yusuke IMANISHI, Kwansei Gakuin University
Hironobu KASAI, Aoyama Gakuin University
Akira MACHIDA, Hiroshima University
Sumiyo NISHIGUCHI, Otaru University of Commerce
Toshiko ODA, Tokyo Keizai University
Yohei OSEKI, The University of Tokyo
Naoki OTANI, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
Yuta SAKAMOTO, Meiji University
Mina SUGIMURA, Ritsumeikan University
Takeshi USUKI, Kyoto Sangyo University
Shuto YAMAMURA, University of Tsukuba᪥ ᮏ ⱥ ㄒ Ꮫ ఍ ➨ 40ᅇ ኱ ఍ 㸦 ࢜ ࣥ ࣛ ࢖ ࣥ 㛤 ദ 㸧➨15ᅇᅜ㝿᫓Ꮨࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛ㸦࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥ㛤ദ㸧
◊✲Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟The English Linguistic Society of Japan2023

 ᮏ᭩ࡣࠊ2022ᖺ5᭶14᪥ࠊ15᪥࡟࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥ࡟࡚㛤ദࡉࢀࡓ᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍➨15ᅇᅜ㝿᫓Ꮨࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛࠊ࠾ࡼࡧྠᖺ11᭶5᪥ࠊ6᪥࡟࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥ࡟࡚㛤ദࡉࢀࡓ᪥
ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍➨40ᅇ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿ◊✲Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥࠊSymposium ReportsࠊWorkshop
Reports࠾ࡼࡧSpecial Lecture Reportsࢆ཰㘓ࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍ㸦ᢞ✏㎡㏥ศࡣ㝖ࡃ㸧ࠋⓎ⾲᥇⏝Ỵᐃ᪥࠾ࡼࡧᢞ✏ཷ⌮᪥ࡣ௨ୗࡢ࡜࠾ࡾ࡛ࡍࠋ
㸺Ⓨ⾲᥇⏝Ỵᐃ᪥㸼᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍➨15ᅇᅜ㝿᫓Ꮨࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛ㸸2022ᖺ1᭶20᪥
᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍➨40ᅇ኱఍㸸2022ᖺ6᭶5᪥㸺ㄽᩥᢞ✏ཷ⌮᪥㸼
2023ᖺ1᭶11᪥ᮏㄽ㞟ࡣࠊᇳ➹⪅࠿ࡽᥦฟࡉࢀࡓཎ✏ࢆࠊ኱఍㐠Ⴀጤဨ఍࡛᭩ᘧࢆ☜ㄆࡢୖࠊ඲యࡢ⤫୍ࢆᅗࡿࡓࡵ᭱ప㝈ࡢಟṇࢆ᪋ࡋ࡚ᥖ㍕ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋಶࠎࡢಟṇ⟠ᡤ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ᫬㛫ⓗ࡞ไ⣙ࡶ࠶ࡾᇳ➹⪅࡬ࡢ☜ㄆࢆ┬ࡁ኱఍㐠Ⴀጤဨ఍ࡢ㈐௵࡛⿵ṇࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋࡈ஢ᢎࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
࡞࠾ࠊྛㄽᩥࡢෆᐜࡣࡍ࡭࡚ᇳ➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡟ᖐࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁࡶࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ
➨40ᅇ኱఍㐠Ⴀጤဨ㛗ᮏ㛫 ⊛JELS ᥖ㍕ㄽᩥࡢᰝㄞㄽᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢྲྀࡾᢅ࠸࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
 JELS ࡟ᥖ㍕ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿㄽᩥ㸦Symposium ReportsࠊWorkshop Reports ࠾ࡼࡧSpecial Lecture Reports ࢆ㝖ࡃ㸧ࡣࠊⓎ⾲ᛂເ᫬࡟ᰝㄞࢆཷࡅ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓ᭱⤊✏ࡀ኱఍㐠Ⴀጤဨ఍ࡢ☜ㄆࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᙜᏛ఍࡛ࡣᰝㄞ௜ࡁㄽᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ぢ࡞ࡋࡲࡍࡀࠊ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࣉࣟࢩ࣮ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࢬㄽᩥ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢෆᐜࢆᨵ✏ࡋࠊࣇ࣮ࣝ࣌ࣃ࣮࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮫ⾡ㄅ࡟ᢞ✏ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣጉࡆࡽࢀࡲࡏࢇࠋ

CONTENTS
I. Papers from the Fortieth Conferenceⱥㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚⋓ᚓࡍࡿᗂඣࡢ Subject-in-situ generalization ࡜⤫ㄒᵓ㐀ᅰ㏕㞞ᙪ㸦Dansako Masahiko㸧āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 2
FormDefectiveCopy
Jun Omune āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 8(A)symmetries in Quantifer-Float between Japanese and English
Jun Kawamitsu āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 15
Pro-form ࠕࡢࠖ࡜ NP ๐㝖☾㔝⩣ຍ㸦Asuka Isono㸧āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 22
On There-Sentences Involving “Experiencer”: A Construction Grammar Perspective
Yusuke Minami āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 29
A Construction Grammar Analysis of Or Conditional Imperatives: With Special Reference to theFormation of Speech Act
Shin Tamura āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 36౑ᙺືモ⿵ᩥ࡟ฟ⌧ࡍࡿཎᙧ୙ᐃモࡢ㠀ྠ᫬ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ᮧᒸ᐀୍㑻㸦Souichiro Muraoka㸧 āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 43
ືモ cost ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡㎷᪩௦ຍ㸦Soyoka Tsuji㸧 āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 50
Characteristics of Denominal Verbs as Revealed by a Coercion-Based Analysis
Yuki Okada āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 56
ࢪ࢙ࢿ࢚ࣛࣝࢡࢫࢸࣥࢲ࣮ or whatever ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡࡜ព࿡ㄽⓗ≉ᛶࡢ㛵ࢃࡾᯇᒣຍዉᏊ㸦Kanako Matsuyama㸧āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 63㐃⤖ືモ remain ࢆకࡗ࡚⏕ࡌࡿࠕᮍ᏶஢ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ 2 ࡘࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒᵓᩥᒾᐑ ດ㸦Tsutomu Iwamiya㸧 āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 70᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒ⏤᮶ࡢእ᮶ㄒࡢືྡモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㛗㇂㒊㑳Ꮚ㸦Ikuko Hasebe㸧࣭⚄㇂ ᪼㸦Noboru Kamiya㸧 āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 77
The Historical Development of Passives of the Double Object Construction
Shota Iidaāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 84
ືモ Begin ࡢ⧞ࡾୖࡆືモ⏝ἲ࡬ࡢ㏻᫬ⓗኚ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
➟஭ಇᏹ㸦Toshihiro Kasai㸧 āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 91
A Phonological Approach to Argument Structure: NPs and PPs
Kayano Shiobara āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 97
Commitment Space Semantics and Japanese Sentence Final Particles
Daiki Matsumoto āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 103
ព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධ࡜ࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃ࡟ࡼࡿᙉไ⌧㇟ࡢศᯒ㧗ᶫ ᐶ㸦Hiroshi Takahashi㸧āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 110
Modalities of Post-Auxiliary Ellipsis: A False Dichotomy?
Yosuke Sato࣭Hajime Ono࣭Haruka Ikebuchi࣭Fuwa Makino࣭Nonoko Morita࣭Misato Nagumo āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 117

ⱥㄒࡢྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨ᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ Pair-Merger ศᯒ⏣୰බ௓㸦Hiroyoshi Tanaka㸧 āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 124<Special Lecture Report>Tつ‽෌⪃㸫ࢥࣆ࣮ᙧᡂ᧯స࡜ࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅ⌮ㄽࢆࡩࡲ࠼࡚

㰻⸨ ⾨㸦Mamoru Saito㸧āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 131        㻌<Symposium Reports>ⱥㄒࡢᖖ㆑࣭ୡ⏺ࡢゝㄒࡢ㠀ᖖ㆑㸸ⱥㄒᏛࡢ▱ぢࡀಶูゝㄒࡢ◊✲࡟୚࠼ࡿṇࡢᙳ㡪࡜㈇ࡢ
ᙳ㡪㻌኱㇂┤㍤㸦Naoki Otani㸧࣭୰ᕝ ⿱㸦Hirosi Nakagawa㸧࣭⸨⦖ᗣᘯ㸦Yasuhiro Fujinawa㸧࣭ᚋ⸨㞝௓㸦Yusuke Goto㸧࣭ᐑෆᣅஓ㸦Takuya Miyauchi㸧࣭༉⏣ ๛㸦Go Hikita㸧࣭㔝ඖ⿱ᶞ㸦Hiroki Nomoto㸧࣭㛗ᒇᑦ඾㸦Naonori Nagaya㸧 āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 133
Tense: Comparison between Japanese and English
Sumiyo Nishiguchi࣭Toshiyuki Ogihara࣭Shane Steinert-Threlkeld࣭Naoko Komoto࣭
Atsuko Nishiyama࣭Vera Hohaus࣭Giuliano Armenante࣭Britta Stolterfoht āāāāāāāāāāāā 135
ࠕぢ࠼࡞࠸ᙧែ⣲ࠖࢆࡵࡄࡿ㡢㡩⌧㇟㸸ࡑࡢ⌮ㄽศᯒࣔࢹࣝ࡜ⱥㄒ㡢㡩ㄽ࣭ᙧែㄽ࡬ࡢព࿡
ྜ࠸⏣୰ఙ୍㸦Shin-ichi Tanaka㸧 āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 138<Workshop Reports>
Search and Merge in Minimalism
Nobu Goto࣭Yushi Sugimoto࣭Andreas Blümel࣭Toru Ishii āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 142
Mapping Out the Dynamics of Variation in Ellipsis Mismatches
Yosuke Sato࣭Taichi Nakamura࣭Yuta Sakamoto࣭Kensuke Takita āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 144

II. Papers from the Fifteenth International Spring Forum
Ga/No-Nominative Conversion and A- and Aƍ-movement
Masako Maeda āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 147
Generative Typological Investigation of Indefinite Pronouns
Hiromune Oda āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 154
Default Case and Chain Interpretation
Nozomi Moritake āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 161
On the Spatial Meanings of by: A Semantic Network Analysis Based on Schema and Predominance
Shione Takahama࣭Haruka Shimura࣭Takuto Kimura āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 168
What do Mongolian Case-Marked Clauses Suggest?
Lina BaoՔHideki MakiՔSaeko Urushibara āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 175
Usage-based Construction Grammar and the Study of Language Variation and Change
Yoshitaka Shibuya āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 182
᭩ᘧつᐃ āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 189

[I]Fortieth Conference
November 5-6, 2022

(2) a. *[vP DP<CASE> [v’ v DP<ACC>]]b. [TP DPi<NOM> [vP ti [v’ v DP<ACC>]]]
SSG ࢆ௬ᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ୺ㄒ࡜ືモࡢಽ⨨⌧ⱥㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚⋓ᚓࡍࡿᗂඣࡢ
*㇟ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊࣇࣛࣥ

㸦Subject-in-situ Generalization and Syntactic

ࢫㄒࡢ⹫㎡ᵓᩥ࡛ࡣ(3a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⮬ືモ࡜୺

Structure in Child English㸧ㄒࡢಽ⨨ࡀ㉳ࡇࡾࠊVS ㄒ㡰ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

Subject-in-situ generalization ࡜⤫ㄒᵓ㐀࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊ(3b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟௚ືモ࡜୺ㄒࢆಽ⨨ᅰ㏕ 㞞ᙪ㸦Masahiko Dansako㸧ࡋࡓ VSO ㄒ㡰ࡣチࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋಽ⨨ࡉࢀࡓ୺໭஑ᕞᕷ❧኱Ꮫ㸦The University ofㄒࡀ vP ෆ࡟␃ࡲࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ┠ⓗㄒࡶ

Kitakyushu㸧

vP ෆ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡣ SSG ࡟᢬ゐࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸Subject-in-situ generalization, ゝ(3) a. Ilㄒ⋓ᚓ, ୍⮴, 㠀୺᱁୺ㄒ, T-to-C ⛣ື

est arrive un homme.

EXPL is arrived a man.
‘There has arrived a man.’b. *Il1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

aluen élève ᮏㄽᩥࡣࠊvP ෆ࡟ᵓ㐀᱁ࢆᣢࡘ୺ㄒ࠾ࡼ

EXPL has read a student-NOM

ࡧ┠ⓗㄒࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀチࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜

le livre.

ࢆつᐃࡋࡓ(1)ࡢ Subject-in-situ generalization

the book-ACC

㸦௨ୗࠊSSG㸧(Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou‘There has read a student the book.’(A&A (2001: 195, (2)))

㸦௨ୗࠊA&A㸧(2001, 2007))ࢆᗂඣࡢゝㄒ⋓ᚓࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ᳨ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋA&A (2007)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜(4)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊSSG ࡣ㡯(1) The subject-in-situ generalization (SSG)ࡢእᅾ໬ࢆつไࡍࡿᬑ㐢ⓗཎ⌮࡜ࡉࢀࡿࡓ

By Spell-Out, vP can contain only oneࡵࠊゝㄒ⋓ᚓ㐣⛬ࡢᗂඣࡶྠᵝ࡟ࡇࡢไ⣙࡟argument with a structural Case feature.

ᚑࢃ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(A&A (2007: 31))(4) [W]e argue that (1) [=SSG] is a universal(2a)࡛ࡣࠊv ࡢ⿵㒊࡟ᑐ᱁ᣦᐃࡉࢀࡓ┠ⓗㄒ

principlethat

DP ࡜ࠊvP ᣦᐃ㒊࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ᱁ࡀᣦᐃࡉࢀࡓ

externalization.

regulatesargument(A&A (2007: 31))

୺ㄒ DP ࡀ⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋSSG ࡣࠊ᭩ࡁฟࡋ
(Spell-Out) ࡢẁ㝵࡛ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵓ㐀࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⚗ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࠿ࡽ㏨ࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ ࡲࡓࠊⱥㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚⋓ᚓࡍࡿᗂඣࡢึᮇ
౛࠼ࡤࠊ(2b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ vP ᣦᐃ㒊ࡢ DP ࡀᵓ㐀ẁ㝵࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ T ࡢ⋓ᚓࡀ༑ศ࡛࡞࠸≉ᚩࠊⓗ࡟ୖ఩ࡢ఩⨨࡟⛣ືࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ(5a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡸ(5b)ࡢࡼ

ࡇࡢᵓ㐀࡛ࡣࠊvP ෆ࡟ࡣ᱁⣲ᛶࢆᣢࡘ㡯ࡣ࠺࡞᫬ไ㎡ࡸ୍⮴ᙧែ⣲ࡀ⩏ົⓗ⎔ቃ࡟࠾୍ࡘࡢࡳᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊSSG ࡢ㐪཯࡟ࡣ࠸ ࡚ ⬺ ⴠ ࡍ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࡀ ほ ᐹ ࡉ ࢀ ࡿ (Radford࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ(1990), Schütze and Wexler (1996)࡞࡝)ࠋ

2 ㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ(6)ࡢண
(5) a. Him fall down. (Nina, 2;3,14)࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ᫬ไ

㎡ࡸ୍⮴ᙧែ⣲ࡀ⬺ⴠࡋࡓ௚ືモࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ(Schütze and Wexler (1996: 670, (1a)))ᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒ࡜┠ⓗㄒࡀྠ᫬࡟ᐇ
⌧ࡍࡿ౛ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ(8)ࡣ Her ࡀࠊࡑࡋb. He bite me. (Nina, 2;2,6)

࡚(9)ࡣ Him ࡀ୺ㄒࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶࡋࡇࢀࡽ

(Schütze and Wexler (1996: 674, (9d)))ࡢᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ T ࡀᢞᑕࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶
ࢀࡤࠊࡇࢀࡽࡣ SSG ࡟᢬ゐࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㅖ≉ᚩࡀ T ࢆᢞᑕࡋ࡞࠸(2a)ࡢᵓ
㐀ࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜᝿ᐃࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ⋓ᚓࡢ᪩࠸ẁ㝵ࡢ᫬ᮇࡣࡇࡢไ⣙ࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿ(8) a. Her have a big mouth. (Nina, 2;2.6)ୖ࡛㐺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ௨ୖࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼

b. Her give a ride on the wagon.
(Nina, 2;2.6)

࡚ࠊ(6)ࢆண ࡜ࡋ࡚❧࡚ࠊCHILDES ࢹ࣮ࢱc. Her knock (th)em down. (Nina, 2;2,12)

࣮࣋ࢫ(MacWhinney (2000))ࢆ⏝࠸᳨ドࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ(9) a. Him draw another eye. (Nina, 2;2,12)b. Cause him open xxx him eyes.

(6) SSG ࠿ࡽࡢண(Nina, 2;2,12)᫬ไ㎡ࡸ୍⮴ᙧែ⣲ࡀ⬺ⴠࡋࡓ௚ືモc. Him have a paw. (Nina, 2;5,26)

ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒ࡜┠ⓗㄒࡀྠ᫬࡟ᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࡲࡓࠊ௨ୗࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࢆᣢࡘᩥ࡛
ࡶࡋゝㄒ⋓ᚓ㐣⛬࡟࠾࠸࡚ SSG ࡀస⏝ࡋ࡚࠶ࡿࡀࠊ(10a)ࡣᐃᙧࡢ௚ືモࠊ(10b)ࡣ㠀ᐃ࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊvP ෆ࡟᱁⣲ᛶࢆᣢࡘ஧ࡘ

ᙧࡢ⮬ືモࠊ(10c)ࡣᐃᙧࡢ⮬ືモࡀ⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡢ DP ࡀ࠶ࡿ(7)ࡢᵓ㐀ࡣ SSG 㐪཯࡟࡞ࡿࡓ

ࡿࠋࡵࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥࡣ⏘ฟࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀண
(10) a. Her nipped me. (Nina, 2;5,25)

ࡉࢀࡿࠋb. Her sleep in the crib. (Nina, 2;2.28)
c. Her cried. (Nina, 2;5.27)(7) *[vP DP<Non-NOM> [v’ v DP<ACC>]]
2. ᳨ドほᐹࡉࢀࡓୖグࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆⓎヰᩘ࡜ࡋ࡚⾲ 1 ࡟♧ࡍࠋ᳨ ド࡟ ࠶ࡓ ࡗ࡚ ࡣࠊ Schütze and Wexler(1996)ࡀ⏕⏘ⓗ࡞㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡢほᐹࢆሗ࿌ࡋࡓ Nina (Suppes (1973))ࡢ 1 ṓ 11 ࠿᭶ 16 ᪥

⾲ 1. Nina (Suppes (1973))ࡢ㠀୺᱁௦ྡモ୺

࠿ࡽ 2 ṓ 5 ࠿᭶ 28 ᪥ࡲ࡛ࡢ 27 ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆᑐ

ㄒࢆྵࡴᩥࡢືモ࡜ᐃᛶ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋࢹ࣮ࢱ཰㞟࡟ᙜࡓࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ୍⮴ࡢ

FiniteNonfinite

2

47

8

31

᭷↓࡜᱁ࡢᙧែࡀ㛵୚ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ୺ㄒࢆ୕ே

SNon-NOM VO⛠༢ᩘࡢ௦ྡモ࡟㝈ᐃࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊẚ㍑ࡢࡓ

(transitive)ࡵ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᐃᙧ⠇ࡢ௚ືモᩥ࡜ࠊ

SNon-NOM Vᐃᆺ࣭୙ᐃᆺࡢ⮬ືモᩥࢆຍ࠼ࡓࠋ┠ⓗㄒ࡟(intransitive)ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ௦ྡモࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃㄒᙡⓗ࡞せ⣲ࡶຍ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᶍೌࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࠊᐃᆺヱᙜࡍࡿ 88 ౛ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ⮬௚࡜ࡶ࡟ືモࡢ୙⾲⌧ࠊពᅗࡀ୙᫂࡞ᩥࡣ㝖እࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ᐃᙧࡢ᪉ࡀ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡀከࡃ⏘ฟࡉࢀ࡚࠸

3ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿ(p < .05)ࠋࡲࡓࠊSSG 㐪཯࡛TP ᣦᐃ㒊࡟⛣ືࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊvP ࡟ࡣᑐ᱁ࢆ࠶ࡿ௚ືモᩥࡀ SSG 㐪཯࡛ࡣ࡞࠸⮬ືモᩥᣢࡘ㡯ࡢࡳࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊSSG ࡢ㐪ࡢⓎヰᩘ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟⤫ィⓗ࡟᭷ព࡞ᕪࡣぢࡽ཯࡟ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊSSG ࡀ⋓ᚓࡢẁ㝵࡛ࢀ࡞࠸(p > .10)ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ SSG 㐪཯ࡢ౛ࡀᗂ

ࡶഛࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊゝㄒධຊ࡟ඣ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚≉Ṧ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⮬ືモᩥ࡜ྠࡌ⛬ࡼࡗ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⩦ᚓ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺⩦ᚓᗘ࡟㢖⦾࡟㉳ࡇࡾ࠺ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ྍ⬟ᛶࡢၥ㢟ࡶ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡜ࡽ࠼

ୖグࡢ௚ືモᩥࡢ౛ࡣ SSG ࡟㐪཯ࡍࡿࡼࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᗂඣⓎヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕSSG 㐪

࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡀࠊ࡞ࡐࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࡀ㉳ࡇࡿ཯ࡢᩥࠖࡀ⏘ฟࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋࡓ

ࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣྍ⬟ᛶࢆ஧ࡘ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡔࡋࠊ୺ㄒࡣ TP ࡢᣦᐃ㒊఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿

ࡓ࠸ࠋ࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ୺᱁࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㠀୺᱁࡜ࡋ࡚ᐇ⌧ࡍࡲࡎࠊSSG ࡣᗂඣᩥἲ࡟ࡣస⏝ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸

ࡿࡢࡣ࡞ࡐ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࡀṧࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇ

࡜࠸࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡶࡋ SSG ࡀ࡞ࡢᩥࡣ᫬ไ୍࣭⮴ᙧែ⣲ࡀ⬺ⴠࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊTࡅࢀࡤࠊvP ෆ࡟㡯ࡀ஧ࡘ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ᤼㝖ࡉࢀࡢᢞᑕࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࡑࢀࡀᐇ⌧࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸

ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊၥ㢟࡞ࡃ⏘ฟࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀㄝ

࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶㄝ᫂ࡢᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࢆ(12)࡟

࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ⋓ᚓ㐣⛬࡟࠾࠸࡚స⏝ࡋ࡚ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ

࠸࡞࠸࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊSSG ࡣᚋኳⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘ
(12) SSG ࡀ⋓ᚓึᮇ࠿ࡽసືࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࡜⪃࠼࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋA&A ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜SSG ࡣᬑ㐢ⓗཎ⌮࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊᚋኳⓗ࠼ࡓሙྜࡢၥ㢟

࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࡶࡢࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ᬑ㐢ᛶa. ୺ㄒࡀ TP ࡢᣦᐃ㒊఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿

ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ

࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ୺᱁࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㠀୺᱁࡜ࡋ࡚

SSG ࡢᚋኳᛶࢆ௬ᐃࡍࡿ࡜ࠊゝㄒධຊ࡟ᇶ࡙

ᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡢࡣ࡞ࡐ࠿
b. T ࡢᢞᑕࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ᫬ไ୍࣭⮴ᙧែ⣲ࡁࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ࡣ SSG ࡀ⋓ᚓࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞ࡅࢀ
ࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊSSG ࡣ vP ෆ࡟ᵓ㐀᱁ࡀ⬺ⴠࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣ࡞ࡐ࠿

ࢆᣢࡘ୺ㄒ࣭┠ⓗㄒࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀチࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆつᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢไ⣙ࡘࡲࡾࠊၥ㢟ࡣࡇࡢ᫬ᮇࡢ T ࡢ≉ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜

ࡢ⋓ᚓࢆಁࡍ᫂♧ⓗ࡞ゝㄒධຊࡀᗂඣ࡟୚

ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

࠼ࡽࢀࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᗂඣ࡟ࡣྰ

ࡇࡢၥ㢟ࡢゎỴࡢ⣒ཱྀ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊGuasti andᐃドᣐࡀ฼⏝୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ

Rizzi (2002), Schütze (2010), ᮡᓮ(2016)ࡀ♧࡜ࠊゝㄒධຊ࡟ࡼࡾࡇࡢไ⣙ࢆ⋓ᚓࡍࡿࡇ࡜

ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊⱥㄒࡢ⋓ᚓ㐣⛬࡛ࡣᖹླྀᩥ

ࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸(cf. Chomsky (1981))ࠋ

࠿␲ၥᩥ࠿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ຓືモ do ࡢ୺ㄒ࡜ࡢ୍

ḟ࡟ࠊᮏㄽᩥ࡛ほᐹࡉࢀࡓ౛ࡣ SSG ࡟㐪⮴ᙧែࡢᐇ⌧ࡀ␗࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓ཯ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡾࠊไ⣙࡟࠸ࠋ(13a,b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᖹླྀᩥ㸦ྰᐃᩥ㸧࡛ࡣࡣᚑࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ

ຓືモ do ࡢ୍⮴ࡀ㝶ពⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ(13c,d)ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ(11)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ vP ෆ࡟࠶ࡿ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡢࡼ࠺࡟␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣࡑࢀࡀ⩏ົⓗ࡟㉳ࡇࡿࠋࡀ TP ᣦᐃ㒊࡟⛣ືࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
(13) a. So Paul doesn’t wake up. (Adam, 3;4)(11) [TP DP<Non-NOM>i T [vP ti [v’ [vb. Robin don’t play with pens.

DP<ACC>]]]](Adam, 3;4)c. Does dis write? (Adam, 3;4)d. (Not observed) Do he go?

ࡇࡢᵓ㐀࡛ࡣࠊvP ෆ࡟࠶ࡿ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡀ

4

(Guasti and Rizzi 2002: 168)ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᮏㄽᩥ࡛ᥦ᱌ࡋࡓ(14)ࡀṇࡋࡅࢀࡤࠊຓືモࡢ T-to-C ⛣ືࢆక࠺␲ၥᩥࡢሙྜࡣࠊ

ࡇࡢ㐪࠸ࡣຓືモ do ࡢ㢧ᅾⓗ࡞ T-to-C ⛣ືᚲࡎ T ࡢάᛶ໬ࡀ㉳ࡇࡿࡓࡵࠊ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡀ

ࡢ᭷↓࡟㑏ඖ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᖹླྀᩥ࡛ほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀண ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇ

ࡣ㢧ᅾⓗ࡞ T-to-C ⛣ືࡀ㉳ࡇࡽ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ␲ၥ

ࡢணᩥ࡛ࡣࡑࢀࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ

ẚ㍑ࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ(17)ࢆタᐃࡋࠊୖ㏙ࡢ

ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣ(14)ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ

Nina ࡢヱᙜࡍࡿⓎヰࢆほᐹࡋࡓࠋ(14) T ࡢάᛶ໬௬ㄝ(17) ணࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࡲࡓࠊᖹླྀᩥ࡜ࡢ

⋓ᚓࡢึᮇẁ㝵࡛ࡣ T ࡀ኱ே࡜ẚ࡭࡚㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࢆక࠺ᖹླྀᩥࡣࠊ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒḞዴⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊT-to-C ⛣ື࡟ࡼࡾ T ࡀࢆక࠺␲ၥᩥࡼࡾࡶከࡃほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ

኱ே࡜ྠᵝ࡟సືࡍࡿ㸦άᛶ໬ࡍࡿ㸧⾲ 1 ࡛♧ࡋࡓ 88 ౛࠿ࡽࠊᖹླྀᩥ࡜␲ၥᩥ࡟
ศࡅࡓ⤖ᯝࢆ⾲ 2 ࡟♧ࡍࠋᖹླྀᩥ࡛ࡣ T-to-C ⛣ືࡀ㢧ᅾⓗ࡟㉳ࡇࡽ࡞
࠸ࡓࡵࠊT ࡀḞዴⓗ࡟࡞ࡾࠊ୍⮴ࡀ㝶ពⓗ࡟㉳ࡇࡿࠋ୍᪉࡛ࠊ␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣ T-to-C ⛣ືࡀ㉳

⾲ 2. Nina (Suppes (1973))ࡢ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࢆక

ࡇࡿࡇ࡜࡛ T ࡀ኱ே࡜ྠᵝ࡟స⏝ࡋࠊ୍⮴ࡀ࠺ሙྜࡢᩥࢱ࢖ࣉࡈ࡜ࡢ㐪࠸⩏ົⓗ࡟㉳ࡇࡿ࡜࡜ࡽ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟
⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊᖹླྀᩥ࡜␲ၥᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿຓືモࡢ

SNon-NOM୍⮴ࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࡀㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ࡛ࡣࠊSSG ࡟V(O)Declarative

Interrogative

88

0ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔ
ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋຓືモࡢ T-to-C ⛣ືࢆకࢃ࡞࠸ᖹླྀ

⾲ 2 ࠿ࡽࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ(17)ࡢண ࡝࠾ᩥࡢሙྜࠊT ࡣάᛶ໬ࡋ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ୍⮴ᙧែࡾࠊ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࢆక࠺ᖹླྀᩥࡣࠊ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒ⣲ࡣ⬺ⴠࡋࠊ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࠋᐇ㝿࡟⏘ࢆక࠺␲ၥᩥࡼࡾࡶከࡃほᐹࡉࢀࡓ(p < .01)ࠋ

ฟࡉࢀࡓᩥࢆ౛࡟࡜ࡿ࡜ࠊ(8a)ࡢᵓ㐀ࡣ(15)ࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ(14)࡟♧ࡋࡓࠕT ࡢάᛶ໬௬ㄝࠖ

ࡢࡼ࠺࡟♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢᩥ࡛ࡣ㠀୺ࡣጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ(12)࡛

᱁୺ㄒࡀ vP 㡿ᇦ࡟ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊSSG 㐪཯࡟ᣲࡆࡓၥ㢟ࡶࠊࠕT ࡢάᛶ໬ࠖࢆ௬ᐃࡍࡿࡇ

ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ

࡜࡛ゎỴ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ(12)ࢆ(18)࡜ࡋ࡚෌ᥖࡍࡿࠋ

(15) [TP Heri T [vP ti [v’ [have a big mouth]]]](18) SSG ࡀ⋓ᚓึᮇ࠿ࡽసືࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡓሙྜࡢၥ㢟(= (12))ḟ࡟ࠊຓືモࡢ T-to-C ⛣ືࢆక࠺␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ

a. ୺ㄒࡀ TP ࡢᣦᐃ㒊఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿

T ࡢάᛶ໬࡟ࡼࡾࠊ୍⮴ᙧែ⣲ࡀ⌧ࢀࠊ୺᱁࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ୺᱁࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㠀୺᱁࡜ࡋ࡚

୺ㄒࡀㄆྍࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊ␲ၥᩥ࡟࠾࠸

ᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡢࡣ࡞ࡐ࠿

࡚ࡶ(16)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡣ vP 㡿ᇦእ࡟b. T ࡢᢞᑕࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ᫬ไ୍࣭⮴ᙧែ⣲࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊSSG ࡢ㐪཯࡟ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࡀ⬺ⴠࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣ࡞ࡐ࠿

(16) [CP Doesj [TP shei tj [vP ti [v’ [have a bigࡘࡲࡾࠊ⋓ᚓࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡣ T-to-C ⛣ືࡀ㉳ࡇࡽ

mouth]]]]?

࡞ࡅࢀࡤ T ࡣάᛶ໬ࡋ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ(19)ࡢࡼ
࠺࡟ᢞᑕ⮬యࡣ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶᙧែⓗ࡟ࡣ T ࡢ≉

5ḟ࡟ࠊྰᐃ㎡࡜㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡢ┦ᑐⓗ఩⨨࡟ࡘᛶࡀ⌧ࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿࠋ(22)࡛ࡣẕぶ(MOT)ࡢ wh ␲ၥ(19) [TP DP <Non-NOM>i T(inactive) [vP ti [v’ vᩥ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᗂඣ(CHI)ࡀ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒ࡜ྰᐃ㎡
not ࡢࡳ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿ㏉⟅ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

DP<ACC>]]](22) MOT: who else is going to eat supper?

㠀୺᱁୺ㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ vP ࢆ㉺࠼࡚ TP ࡟⛣ືࡍࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊT-to-C ⛣ືࡀ㛵୚ࡋ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ

CHI: her not.

TP ࡀ୙άᛶ≧ែ࡟࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡾ୺᱁୺

MOT: she’s not going to eat supper?

ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ᐇ⌧ࡋ࡞࠸࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ

CHI: her not. (Nina, 2;5,26)

ࡓࡔࠊ᫬ไࡸ୍⮴ᙧែ⣲࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ⾲㠃ⓗ࡟⏘ฟࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ☜ㄆࡀࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࡀࠊ㠀୺ࡇࡢ౛ࡶㄒ㡰࡟╔┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡀྰ

᱁୺ㄒࡣ vP ࡟␃ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࡶᐃ㎡࡟ඛ⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྰᐃ㎡ࡢ࠶ࡿ NegP ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡶࡋ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡀ vP ࡟␃ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ

TP ࡜ vP ࡢ㛫࡟࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺㝵ᒙᵓ㐀ࢆ᝿ᐃࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࡢᵓ㐀ࡣࡸࡣࡾ SSG

ࡿ࡜ࠊ(23)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡣྰᐃ㎡ࢆ㉺㐪཯࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࠊ࡞ࡐᩥࡢ⏘࠼࡚ᩥ㢌࡟⌧ࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋฟࡀチࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺᭱ึࡢၥ㢟࡟❧ࡕ(23) [TP Heri [NegP not [vP ti (eat supper)]]]ᡠࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࡇ࠺࠸
ࡗࡓⅬࢆᡶᣔࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡀ vP ࢆ㉺࠼࡚⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍドᣐࢆ஧ࡘᣲ

ࡶࡋ vP ࡟㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡀ␃ࡲࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊnotࡆࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡎࠊ(20)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᫬ࡢ๪モࡀࠕSSG

her ࡢㄒ㡰࡟࡞ࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࡀᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࡑ࠺㐪཯ࠖࡢᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆྲྀࡾୖ

࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣ㠀୺ࡆࡓ࠸ࠋࡇࡇ࡛㔜せ࡞ࡢࡣࠊ᫬ࡢ๪モ࡜㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡣ vP ࢆ㉺࠼ࡓ఩⨨࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜

᱁୺ㄒࡢ┦ᑐⓗ఩⨨㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(20a)࡛ࡣ㠀⪃࠼ࡿࠋ୺᱁୺ㄒ her ࡀ๪モ now ࡟ඛ⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠ
ᵝ࡟ࠊ(20b)࡛ࡶ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡀ๪モ already ࡟

3. ⤖ㄒඛ⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ᮏㄽᩥࡣࠊvP ෆ࡟ᵓ㐀᱁ࢆᣢࡘ୺ㄒ࠾ࡼ
ࡧ┠ⓗㄒࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀチࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜

(20) a. Her now make a home. (Nina, 2;4,6)

ࢆつᐃࡋࡓ SSG ࢆᗂඣࡢゝㄒ⋓ᚓࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ᳨ドࡋࡓࠋSSG ࡣゝㄒ୍⯡࡟㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿไb. Her already have a bottle. (Nina, 2;5,26)⣙࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊゝㄒ⋓ᚓ㐣⛬ࡢᗂඣࡶྠᵝ࡟ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ᫬ࡢ๪モࡀ T ࡢᢞᑕ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ࡜ࡇࡢไ⣙࡟ᚑࢃ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡣࡎ࡛࠶

᝿ᐃࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ๪モࡼࡾࡶඛ⾜ࡍࡿ఩ࡿࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊண ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ᫬ไ㎡ࡸ୍⨨࡟⌧ࢀࡿ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡣ(21)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ vP ࢆ⮴ᙧែ⣲ࡀ⬺ⴠࡋࡓ vP ࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃㉺࠼࡚⛣ືࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡶࡋ vP࠼ࡽࢀࡿ௚ືモᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒ࡜┠㡿ᇦ࡟୺ㄒࡀṧࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ᫬ࡢ๪モⓗㄒࡀྠ᫬࡟ᐇ⌧ࡍࡿ౛ (Her have a bigࡀ୺ㄒ࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࡑ

mouth. (Nina, 2;2,6)) ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢ౛ࡣ

ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

SSG 㐪཯࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡀࠊ(i) ᖹླྀᩥ࡟㝈ࡾほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࠊཬࡧ (ii) 㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡣ᫬ࢆ⾲(21) [TP Heri [TP now T [vP ti make a home]]]ࡍ๪モࡸྰᐃ㎡ⱥㄒ࡟ඛ⾜ࡋ࡚⌧ࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ㠀୺᱁୺ㄒࡣ vP ࡟␃ࡲࡽࡎ TP ᣦᐃ

6㒊࡟⛣ືࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠊࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡾ

MacWhinney, Brian (2000) The CHILDESvP ෆ࡟ࡣ┠ⓗㄒࡢࡳࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊ

Project, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

SSG 㐪཯࡟ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋᮏㄽᩥ

Hillsdale, NJ.
Schütze,ࡣ SSG ࢆゝㄒ⋓ᚓࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ᳨ドࢆ⾜࠸ࠊCarson(2010)“The

Statusof

SSG ࡣᗂඣᩥἲ࡟ࡶస⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂

Nonagreeing Don’t and Theories of Rootࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋInfinitives,”

Language

Acquisition17,

235–271.
* ᮏㄽᩥࡣࠊ2022 ᖺ 11 ᭶ 5 ᪥࡟࢜ࣥࣛ࢖

Schütze, Carson and Kenneth Wexler (1996)

࡛ࣥ⾜ࢃࢀࡓ᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍➨ 40 ᅇ኱఍࡛“Subject Case Licensing and English Rootࡢཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲ࡢෆᐜ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲

Infinitives,” ed. by Andy Stringfellow,

࡛ࡣࠊ⁽ཎᮁᏊඛ⏕ࠊ኱⃝ࡩࡼ࠺ඛ⏕ࠊᆏᮏ

Dalia Cahana-Amitay, Elizabeth Hughes♸ኴඛ⏕࠿ࡽ㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡇ

and࡟グࡋ῝ㅰࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᮏㄽᩥࡣ JSPS ⛉◊Proceedings of the 20th annual Boston㈝ 20K00548, 20K00824, 21K00586 ࡢຓᡂࢆUniversityཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏㄽᩥࡢㄗࡾࡣ඲࡚➹⪅Development, 670-681.

AndreaZukowski,Conference

BUCLD
on

20:

Language

Suppes, Patrick (1973) “The Semantics ofࡢ㈐௵࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

Children’s

Language,”

AmericanPsychologist 88, 103–114.

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulouᮡᓮ㖔ྖ (2016)ࠕⱥㄒ⋓ᚓ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿຓື

(2001) “The Subject-in-Situ Generalization,

モ do ࡢ୍⮴࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄗࡾ̿⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎ࡟

andᇶ࡙ࡃศᯒ̿ࠖ
㸪ᑠᕝⰾᶞ࣭㛗㔝᫂Ꮚ࣭

the

Role

Computations,”

of

Case

in

Linguistic

Driving

Inquiry⳥ᆅᮁ (⦅)ࠗࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠿ࡽࢃ࠿ࡿゝㄒ

32,

193-231.

ኚ໬࣭ኚ␗࡜ゝㄒ⌮ㄽ࠘
㸪354-371㸪㛤ᣅAlexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou♫㸪ᮾி㸬(2007) “The Subject-in-Situ Generalization
Revisited,” Interfaces + Recursion =Language?: Chomsky’s Minimalism and theView from Syntax-Semantics, ed. by Uli
Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner, 31-60,
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Chomsky,NoamGovernment(1981)
andLectures

Binding:

The

on
Pisa

Lectures, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
Guasti, Maria Teresa and Luigi Rizzi (2002)“Agreement and Tense as Distinct Syntactic
Positions: Evidence from Acquisition,”
Functional Structure in DP and IP: The
Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 1,
ed. by Guglielmo Cinque, 167–194, Oxford
University Press, New York.

7



 


':G<:2R21-1-\PP2R
2Q13QH6I>H;N>C<-'.6C9&-H 







.=: DE:G6I>DC I6@:H 1- 6C9 2R2 >C I=:$&" (* $%, 

LDG@HE68: 6C9 N>:A9H 1-\  !:C:G6AAN HE:6@>C<-'.G:FJ>G:HI=:H>BEA:HIA6C<J6<:9:H><CI=JH$JC)BJC:

>I C:8:HH6G>AN 8DCI6>CH I=>G9;68IDG EG>C8>EA:H DG

%6CH6>!6>96>/C>K:GH>INC6IJG6A A6LH >C <:C:G6A H8>:C8:  1>I= G:<6G9 ID
-'. >C   3 >H CJAA 6C9 C  JC9:G '>C>B6A

%:NLDG9H-:6G8=] DGBDEN'>C>B6A3>:A9

3>:A9 '3 L=>8= >H 6HHJB:9 ID 7: 6 EGDE:GINHIGDC<AN'6G@DK>6C9:G>K6I>DC<:CJ>C:

D;I=:=JB6C7G6>C 1>HL=6I:K:G>HJC6;;:8I:9

:MEA6C6I>DC

7N ':G<: =:C8: >I >H 86GG>:9 DK:G >CID I=:
C:LAN 8G:6I:9 1-\ I=6I >H I=: (D.6BE:G>C<DC9>I>DC  =DBH@N 

 >CIGD9J8:H I=:#(&$)($#*G>C8>EA: D; /C>KD86A>IN X.=:DGN 6C9 I=:   #C I=>H E6E:G # EGDEDH: 6C9 9:BDCHIG6I: 6

J6A>IND;-:B6CI>8H6H&-H .=:;>C6AK:GH>DC

C:LINE:D;6EEA>86I>DCD; DGBDEN I=6I

D;/C>KD86A>IN>H=DBH@N

;DGBH6T9:;:8I>K:UDENG:A6I>DC







 

86C6HH><C6DENG:A6I>DCIDHDB:D;

  ^6HH><C:G[6HH><CHDC:6C9DCANDC:
^GDA:ID:A:B:CIH^A>C@:9ID*[ I=:;:6IJG:HI=6I8DBEDH::A:B:CIH .=:8DC9>I>DCDE:G6I:H6H6;>AI:GI=6I:A>B>C6I:H

1: 86AA I=: CDCINE>86A DEN 6HH><CB:CI

I=: JC688:EI67A: 86H:H >C L=>8= DC: ^6HH><C:G

DGB:;:8I>K:DEN DG



6HH><CH BDG: I=6C ILD ^GDA:H ID DC: :A:B:CI >CIGD9J8:H6I=:DG:I>86A;G6B:LDG@7N=DBH@N.=: J6A>IN D; -:B6CI>8H >H 9:;>C:9 >C =DBH@N  -:8I>DC L=>A: -:8I>DC  ED>CIH DJI HDB:EDI:CI>6A EGD7A:BH >C I=: HD86AA:9 HIG>8IAN'6G@DK>6C 9:G>K6I>DC -:8I>DC  H=DLH I=6I  DGEDH>I>DCH'4MI:GC6A':G<:5
6C9'6ADC:;>AAH6^EDH>I>DC  HDAK:H I=: EGD7A:BH 6EEGD68=>C< 6
<:CJ>C: :MEA6C6I>DC 6C9 -:8I>DC  6G<J:H I=6I >H 6EEA>867A: ID A>C<J>HI>8H E=:CDB:C6

':G<: C::9H ID H6I>H;N I=: 8DC9>I>DC L=:C >I

G:A6I:9ID9:E:C9:CI:A:B:CIHHJ8=6H:MEA:I>K:H

6EEA>:H .=6I>H6AA6G<JB:CIH6G::MI:GC6AANCDI

6C6E=DGH 6C9 I=: CJAA DE:G6IDG  -:8I>DC >CI:GC6AANB:G<:9L>I=-*KDG0 ,DDI  

8DC8AJ9:HI=:E6E:G    (DI: I=6I '3 B6@:H 9:G>K6I>DC HIGDC<AN'6G@DK>6C L=>8= B:6CH I=6I CD =>HIDGN D;

(&(!,& $*# &*($#

9:G>K6I>DC >H EG:H:GK:9  99>I>DC6AAN =DBH@N   =DBH@N  9:;>C:H ':G<: I=: 6G<J:H I=6I #CI:GC6A ':G<: #' >H

HIGJ8IJG:7J>A9>C<DE:G6I>DC6H;DAADLH

EG:;:GG:9ID'JC9:G-'.





8



1=:C-:6G8=]ADD@H;DG:A:B:CIHID7:

I=:>CEJID;':G<:6C97DI=#'6C9'

$D=CIG>:94$D=CIDL>C5

6G:6K6>A67A:#'>HH:A:8I:97:86JH:>I>H

DG :M6BEA: & % >C  L6H *,) >C I=:

BDG::;;>8>:CI>CI:GBHD;H:6G8=HE68:  

EG:K>DJH ;G6B:LDG@ 7JI CDI >C I=: 8JGG:CI DC: ' C::9H ID >CIGD9J8: & % L>I=>C I=: B6IG>M

H6G:HJAID;I=:A6HIILD8DC9>I>DCHI=:H:G>DJH

K* 688DG9>C< ID   & % 86CCDI B:G<:

>C9:I:GB>C68N 9D:H CDI D88JG >C I=: HIGDC<AN

>CI:GC6AANL>I=I=:B6IG>MK*6G:67:86JH:HJ8=

'6G@DK>6C HNHI:B  DCH>9:G I=: ;DAADL>C<

69:G>K6I>DC;DAADLH7JIK>DA6I:H  LDG@HE68:H;DG& % !*& %

6HH><CH I=: DEN G:A6I>DC ID I=: ';DGB:9
& % 6C9 I=: 88DBB6C9:9 & %  .=6I >H 

6  1-PP$D=CPKPR$D=CQQQQ

6C9  86EIJG: I=: :;;:8I D; *,) L>I=DJI

7  1-\\PP$D=CP#( &PR$D=CQQQQ

EDH>I>C< 6C >C9:E:C9:CI :A:B:CI *,)  -'.

'3CD=>HIDGND;9:G>K6I>DC:C67A:9I=>HC:L

#C 6 >;  L:G: CDI 69DEI:9 I=: HNHI:B

INE: D; DEN I=6I =69 C:K:G 7::C 67A: ID 7:

LDJA9CDI@CDLI=:EA68:;GDBL=>8=& %=69

8G:6I:9  88DG9>C<AN I=: 9:9J8I>DC D; *,) >H

8DB: "DL:K:G& %>HC:8:HH6G>AN>CIGD9J8:9

6C>CHI6C8:D;I=::C67A>C<;JC8I>DCD;-'.H::

7N ' CDI 7N #' 688DG9>C< ID  H>C8:

=DBH@N-*K>H6CEDH>I>DC6C96^EDH>I>DC .=:



H6B:AD<>8=DA9H;DG7IDD -*#( &>H6C

$(#(!&$!"'EDH>I>DC7JICDI6^EDH>I>DCI=:G:;DG:& %    &:I JH G:K>:L I=: 76H>8 9:G>K6I>DC D; & %

>H >CIGD9J8:9 7N #' CDI 7N ' 688DG9>C< ID

"!))(/>CI=:8JGG:CI;G6B:LDG@  .=:G:;DG:69:G>K6I>DCI=6I>HI=:B6EE>C<

D;1-DCID1-\EGD8::9H6H:ME:8I:9:K:C>;



1-\P P#( &P$D=CPKP@>HH:9'6GNQQ    ->C8: I=: HIGDC<AN '6G@DK>6C HNHI:B 9D:H

QQQ

CDIG:8D<C>O:6C#';DGB:92*L=>8==6H7::C

1-\\PP$D=CP#( &P$D=CPKP@>HH:9

86AA:9 6 8DEN I=: DE:G6I>DC DGBDEN   >H

'6GNQQQQQQ

1-P P$D=CPKP@>HH:9'6GNQQQ #( &Q

I=:G:>HCD9:G>K6I>DC6A=>HIDGN  

6AHD:HH:CI>6A>C=DBH@N

1-\\\PPP$D=CP#( &P$D=CPKP@>H
 L=>8= DEI>DC6AAN 6EEA>:H E=6H: 7N

H:9'6GNQQQQQQ

E=6H: 6HH><CH 6 DEN G:A6I>DC 22

7:IL::C 2 6C9 I=: HIGJ8IJG6AAN >9:CI>86A

.=: DJI:GBDHI 8JGAN 7G68@:IH G:EG:H:CI I=:>CH8G>EI>DC288DBB6C9:97NI=:2 

LDG@HE68:L=>8=>H:HH:CI>6AAN6CJCDG9:G:9H:I



6C9 I=: DI=:G JCDG9:G:9 H:IH 6G: HIGJ8IJG:H I=6I

(DL I=6I I=: 8DEN=DD9 =6H 7::C H:K:G:9 ;GDB

6G: ;DGB:9 7N ':G<:  DAADL>C< J6A>IN 

#'I=:G:>H6I=:DG:I>86AEDHH>7>A>INI=6I 86C

';DGBHI=:6G<JB:CIHIGJ8IJG:K*>C1- C6HH><C I=: DEN G:A6I>DC ID 6C ';DGB:9 2* 

DE:G6I>DC %*('(**!&% #(. HJGK:NH 1- 6C9

=DBH@N 

8DC;>GBHI=6II=:G:>HCDK>DA6I>DCD;/C>KD86A>IN H=DLH I=6I I=: EDHH>7>A>IN >H

G:6A6C96G<J:HI=6I*,)>HI=:86H:   ' ;JGI=:G B6EH 1- DCID 1-\ 6C9 #(.

6EEA>:H  "DL:K:G <>K:C #'DK:G'  I=>H

9  6  -DB:DC:>H>CI=:GDDB 

6EEA>86I>DC D; ' >H HDB:L=6I D99  #; #' >H

7  .=:G:>HHDB:DC:>CI=:GDDB 

BDG: :;;>8>:CI 9J: ID I=: A:6HI H:6G8= L=N 86C# (& B:G<: :MI:GC6AAN -=DJA9 #' D88JG >C

I=: ;>GHI EA68: >CHI:69 D; ' .=:H: FJ:HI>DCH

#C I=: HI6C96G9 6C6ANH>H L: 6HHJB: I=6I 7DI=

6G>H:9J:IDI=:86G:;JA:;;>8>:C8N8DCH>9:G6I>DC:MEG:HH>DCH=6K:I=:H6B:JC9:GAN>C<HIGJ8IJG:  KD>96HB6CN'H6HEDHH>7A:   4#( &7:4HDB:DC:>CI=:GDDB55.=: EGDEDH:9 EG>C8>EA:   >H I=: HIGDC<:GH>C 6)&$&%B:G<:H>CI:GC6AAN6C9L:

K:GH>DC D; #'DK:G'  # 86AA >I TKD>9

D7I6>C I=: HIGJ8IJG: D;  6  #C 8DCIG6HI >; I=:' U ' >H K:GN 8DHIAN 6C9 6<6>CHI I=:

:MEA:I>K:* (B:G<:H:MI:GC6AANL:D7I6>CI=:

:;;>8>:C8N>CI:GBHD;I=:H:6G8=HE68: (DI:I=6I

HIGJ8IJG:D;I=:A6II:G 76H>C 7

#' 6C9 ' 6G: 8DBEA:I:AN I=: H6B: DE:G6I>DC':G<:   L=>A: I=: L6N >C L=>8= ] 6EEA>:H >H  6  4HDB:DC: 4#( & 7: 4HDB:DC: >C I=:GDDB555

9>;;:G:CI  

7  4I=:G: 4#( & 7: 4HDB:DC: >C I=:    .=: FJ:HI>DCH > 6C9 >> 67DK: 6G:GDDB555

6CHL:G:97NI=:6HHJBEI>DC L=>8=>H76H:9
DCI=:HJ<<:HI>DC7N=DBH@N ;C  #; >C;:G:C8:   >H 8DGG:8I 9:G>K6I>DCH HJ8= 6H

  AA A:M>86A >I:BH DG =:69H 6G: >C:A><>7A:

 7H=DJA9I=:DG:I>86AAN7:GJA:9DJI "DL:K:G 7  7 >H D7H:GK:9 6H 6 ;68I  .=>H >H 6C

;DG#'H:6G8=:H :BE>G>86AEGD7A:BI=6IC::9HID7:699G:HH:9  

88DG9>C<AN ' >H I=: DCAN 6K6>A67A: DEI>DC

L=:C ] AD86I:H I=: A:M>86A >I:B #( &  .=: # #)# +%!#($#

6HHJBEI>DC 8DC;DGBH ID -'. G:9J8>C< I=:    .=: :BE>G>86A EGD7A:B 67DK: >H :6H>ANCJB7:G D; #'H:6G8=67A: >I:BH H><C>;>86CIAN 

HDAK:9 >; L: 8:6H: ID EJGHJ: 6 T<:CJ>C:

DG:M6BEA:>CI=:1-\\\>C#( &K

:MEA6C6I>DC >C I=: H:CH: D; =DBH@N 
 U DG :M6BEA: !DID 

6C90"!))6G:CDI688:HH>7A:IDI=:#'H:6G8=   6HHJB:H I=6I    1=6I 67DJI I=: #' D; & % >C I=: 1-\\ >C

TI=:  =:69 * (U B:G<:H :MI:GC6AAN L>I= I=: CDB>C6A)&$&%6C9I=:CB:G<:H>CI:GC6AAN  #'6C9#'6ADC:;>AAH-*#( &   4#( &7:PHDB:DC:Q>CI=:GDDB5
44#( &7:PHDB:DC:Q>CI=: ,:86AAI=6I-*#( &>H6CEDH>I>DC7JICDIGDDB55

6^EDH>I>DC J6A>IN9D:HCDIG:FJ>G:C:>I=:G#' CDG ' >C I=>H 86H: L=:G:6H #'DK:G'

99>I>DC6AAN DI=:G H8=DA6GH HJ8= 6H (DBJG6 DG KD>9 '   G:FJ>G:H #'  .=>H G6>H:H,>8=6G9H6C9>7:G6J:G:BE>G>86A EGD7A:BH E:GI6>C>C< ID :MEA:I>K:

6G<J:I=6II=::MEA:I>K:B:G<:H:MI:GC6AAN

8DCHIGJ8I>DCH DCH>9:GI=:* (8DCHIGJ8I>DC

L>I=-*K*6C9I=:CB:G<:>CI:GC6AAN  





10

6C9:6A   HHJB>C< I=6I 2 >H I=: (* )&$&% CD

  4#( & 4 (* K7: HDB:DC: >C I=:

:MEA:I>K:B:G<:H>C  #; 6EEA>:HID26C9

GDDB554(*4#( &4(*K7:HDB:DC:>C2 I=:C L: D7I6>C  6 I=6I >H  6  N

I=:GDDB555

8DCIG6HI L=:C 6EEA>:H I=: G:HJAI>C<HIGJ8IJG:>HH>B>A6GID 7I=6I>H 7  AAI=:6EEGD68=:H67DK:;DAADL  "DL:K:G

6HH><CH I=: DEN G:A6I>DC ID 6AA I=: ;:6IJG:H D;

CDC: D; I=:H: 6EEGD68=:H H6I>H;N I=: G><DGDJH

2(* 6C9 2(* :M8:EI ;DG I=:>G-'.;DG6<:CJ>C::MEA6C6I>DC

E:GHDC;:6IJG:H    9:G>K6I>DC B:8=6C>HB I=6I BDG:  DEN(*(*

G><DGDJHAN;DAADLHI=:-'.L=>8=>HDC:

I=6I 86EIJG:H A>C<J>HI>8 E=:CDB:C6 L=>A:

.=>H G:A6I>DC =6K>C< 7::C :HI67A>H=:9 :MI:GC6A

H6I>H;N>C< I=: HIG>8I 8DC9>I>DCH D;  

8D<C>I>K:HNHI:BHI=6I>H-'6C9#>CI:GEG:I  6C9   >H 8ADH:G ID 68=>:K>C< 6

>I 6H 6 9:;:8I>K: DEN G:A6I>DC  1>I= G:<6G9 ID

<:CJ>C::MEA6C6I>DC -' (* >H >CHI6CI>6I:9 6H * ( 6C9 (* >H 6H

)&$&% >C I=: EGD8:HH D; :MI:GC6A>O6I>DC  #

8=>:K>C<6<:CJ>C::MEA6C6I>DC>HI=:JAI>B6I:

>CI:GEG:IH(*6HDC:D;I=::MEA:I>K:H!** (

<D6A IDL6G9 L=>8= B>C>B6A>HI HNCI68I>8>6CH

6C9 HD ;DGI= I=6I =6K: 7::C 6HHJB:9 ID 7:6G

H=DJA9 LDG@  .=JH   6C9   6G: CDI IGJ:

HDB: 9:;:8I>K: ;:6IJG:H  .=: :MEA:I>K: * (

HDAJI>DCH  !DIDVH HDAJI>DC   K>DA6I:H  

H::BHID86C8:AI=:H:B6CI>8GDA:D;-*#( &

H>C8: I=:  T=:69U >H CDI 688:HH>7A: ID #'

:M>HI:CI>6A EG:HJEEDH>I>DC I=6I >H 6G<J:9 >C

H:6G8= DI= 6C9 ><CDG:KD>9'  =DBH@N.=: ' D; * ( L>I= HDB:L=:G: I=6I >H CDI

I=6IB:6C>C<A:HH:A:B:CIH6G:JC67A:IDG:8:>K:

-*#( & >H CDI :;;>8>:CI 7:86JH: DC: :MIG6

HJ8=

T8DHIANU'>HG:FJ>G:9  

86C8:AA6I>DC D; I=: H:B6CI>8 GDA: LDJA9 :MEA6>C    DAADL>C< -'. E6GI>8JA6GAN   L: H::@

I=: 9:;>C>I:C:HH G:HIG>8I>DC '>AH6G@  >C

6CDI=:G HDAJI>DC I=6I 6KD>9H 6H B6CN 'H 6H

* ( 8DCHIGJ8I>DCH EDHH>7AN 7N 696EI>C<EDHH>7A: .=:HDAJI>DC>H    

>:H>C<VH    6EEGD68= A:6K>C< B6CN



FJ:HI>DCH DE:C   >H H>BEAN  =:C8: >I

 

6

  #I>HG:6HDC67A:ID6HHJB:
HJ7?:8IHE:8>;>8

B:6C>C< .=:86C6HH><C6DENG:A6I>DCIDHDB:D;

DEI>DC6AAN 6EEA>:H >C 6 E=6H:  ;I:G 6EEAN>C<

I=:;:6IJG:HI=6I8DBEDH::A:B:CIH  I=: G:HJAI>C< E=DCDAD<>86A ;DGB 9:E:C9H

DCI=:BDGE=DE=DCDAD<>86AGJA:HD;>C9>K>9J6A

#C DI=:G LDG9H I=: DG><>C6A  8D>C8>9:CIANA6C<J6<:H H:: >HIG>7JI:9 'DGE=DAD<N "6AA:

6HH><CHI=:DENG:A6I>DCID6AAI=:;:6IJG:HI=6I

6C9 '6G6CIO   6BDC< DI=:GH  (DI: I=6I

8DBEDH::A:B:CIH DCH>9:G  6<6>C86C7:DC:D;I=:>CI:GEG:I>K:GJA:H7:86JH:

>C:HH:C8:>I9:I:GB>C:HL=:I=:GILDDGBDG:  44 2#( &47:2>CI=:GDDB555

>CH8G>EI>DCH=6K:I=:H6B:G:;:G:C8: .=JH 



>H6AHD6C>CI:GEG:I>K:GJA:  #C   2 B:G<:H >CI:GC6AAN L>I= -*#( &    .=: EGD7A:B D; A67:A>C< I=: * (CD'D;2D88JGHL>I=I=:EDH>I>DC;DAADL>C<8DCHIGJ8I>DC>HG:HDAK:96H6G:HJAID;   11)#'I=:DEN6HH><CB:CID; 6>HIG>K>6A N  44 2I=:G:4#( &47:2HDB:DC:>C

8DCIG6HI >;  DCAN 6HH><CH I=: DEN G:A6I>DC

I=:GDDB5555

ID I=: ;>C>I:C:HH >C;DGB6I>DC D; 2 2 >H

>CI:GEG:I:96HI=::MEA:I>K:!*6H>C 7  .=: H:I Z >H 6C 2*3* HIGJ8IJG: 6C9 I=: CDJC     >H :ME:8I:9 ID :MEA6>C I=: :;;:8IH D;

E=G6H: * ( 9D:H CDI 6<G:: L>I= I=: K:G7 6H 6C

*G>C8>EA: DCH>9:GI=:C:MIH:CI:C8: :BE>G>86A;68I .=:G:;DG:;:6IJG:H=6G>C<I=6I>H

6<G::B:CI 7:IL::C 2 6C9 #( & H=DJA9 CDI  6  $D=CEG6>H:9=>BH:A; 

D88JGHI=:A67:A;DGZ>HCDI9:I:GB>C:9 /C9:G

7  42K40255 #( & 9:;:8I>K:AN H=6G:H ;:6IJG:H I=6I >H

6<G::H L>I= 2 6C9 Z >H A67:A:9 6H I=: H=6G:9

 7>HI=:6G<JB:CIHIGJ8IJG:D; 6 #; ;:6IJG: Y  .=: A67:A >IH:A; 9D:H CDI N>:A9 I=:

DCANI6@:H6HDENI=:;JAAYH:IHD;26C92

8DGG:8I 6<G::B:CI >C;DGB6I>DC 7:86JH: >I 9D:H

I=:C2& %6C92 !$)# #; 6EEA>:HI=:

CDI 8DCI6>C I=: E:GHDC;:6IJG:  "DL:K:G G:86AA

G:HJAI>C<HIGJ8IJG:K>DA6I:H/C>KD86A>INH>C8:

I=6I26C926G:G:A6I:9JC9:G 6AI=DJ<=

DC: ^6HH><C:G I=: K:G7 I=6I >H K0 6HH><CH

I=: E:GHDC;:6IJG: 4 E:GHDC5 >H CDI  #( & >HILD ^GDA:H ID DC: :A:B:CI 2 DG I=: 8DEN E6>G

G:6A>O:9 6H 4H>C<JA6G E:GHDC5 JI>A>O>C< I=:22   B><=I :MEA6>C 6CDI=:G 6C6E=DG

G:A6I>DC6C9G:;:GG>C<ID2 AI=DJ<=L:9DCDI &* (8DEN>C<HDB:Y;:6IJG:HEDHH>7AN

9>H8JHH I=>H ;JGI=:G H>C8: >I >H 7:NDC9 I=: H8DE:

E:GHDC DG 6C9 CJB7:G ;:6IJG:H 6AI=DJ<=

D; I=: E6E:G )BJC: 6C9 %DB68=> 



;JGI=:G G:H:6G8= >H C:8:HH6GN  #C 699>I>DC CDI:

EGDEDH: 6 BDG: G:;>C:9 6<G::B:CI HNHI:B ]

I=6I 6AA I=: 86H:H >C   6C9  7 :;;:8I>K:AN

JC9:G

JH: I=: #'H D; 2 >C L=>8= ] LDG@H :;;>8>:CIAN  88DG9>C<AN I=: EGD7A:B D;

A67:A>C<I=:* (8DCHIGJ8I>DC>HHDAK:9L>I=DJI

6C98DC;DGBHHIG>8IANID-'.H::   

6C699>I>DC6ADE:G6I>DCHJ8=6H<G::H::CDI:    =DBH@N 

EHI:>C:I6A 

DC ID6KD>9>BEGDE:GDENE6>GH)BJC:6C9%DB68=>







 

#(&#)'(#$"#GDB 6C EDH>I>DC H:6G8=:H

EDH>I>DCH     DCH>9:GI=:;DAADL>C<E=:CDB:C6



 

  EGDEDH:H 6 8DC9>I>DCH 6 G:HJAI D; I=: 8DC9>I>DC =DBH@N 6G<J:H

6  P.=6I$D=CHA::EH DG$D=CIDHA::EQ

I=6I >BEGDE:G T*&+  BDK:B:CIU >H :A>B>C6I:9 

DCI=:7:9>HC:8:HH6GN 

DCH>9:G I6@:C;GDB=DBH@N

7  #I >H C:8:HH6GN PI=6I $D=C HA::EH ;DG 



$D=CIDHA::EQDCI=:7:9   6  27::6HN434;DG$D=CR3R55


#C 7I=::MEA:I>K:!*6EE:6GH6HI=:8DCIG6HI

7  B6CN7DD@H6G::6HN;DG$D=CIDG:69

ID 6 .=:JC9:GAN>C<HIGJ8IJG:D; >H(DI:I=6I 6>HI=:JC9:GAN>C<HIGJ8IJG:D;I=:  442#( &4C:8:HH6GN2555 *&+  8DCHIGJ8I>DC  7  #C  6  86CCDI



6HH><CDENID26C939J:ID 2>H>C6C

!>K:C I=6I 2 >H * * & % )#') DG &( & % *&

EDH>I>DC 6C9 3 >H >C 6C \EDH>I>DC  .=JH

12

=DBH@N 

I=:B:6C>C< .=JHI=::BE>G>86A;68IHG:<6G9>C< 8DC8AJ9:H I=6I 3 >H 6C :BEIN

:A:B:CI CJAA DE:G6IDG  6C9 HJEEDGIH 6C9I=:6C6ANH>H    86EIJG:H =>H>CH><=I HDB:L=6I 9>;;:G:CIAN  !>K:C   

86CCDI6EEAN>C 7JI 86C  $#!)#"& '

1: 6II:BEI:9 ID H::@ 6 <:CJ>C: :MEA6C6I>DC D;

 

GDB 6C EDH>I>DCA>C<J>HI>8 E=:CDB:C6 HJ8= 6H :MEA:I>K: 86C H:6G8=

8DCHIGJ8I>DCH 7>C9>C< :;;:8IH 6C9 *&+ \EDH>I>DCH9:;:8I>K:AN 

8DCHIGJ8I>DCH .D68=>:K:6<:CJ>C::MEA6C6I>DC.=>H 8DC9>I>DC HJ88:HH;JAAN :A>B>C6I:H I=: CJAA

L: B69: I=: EGD8:HH D; 9:G>K6I>DC :K:C HIG>8I:G

DE:G6IDG6H;DAADLH

7N ;DAADL>C< -'. >C I=: H:CH: D;   

DCH:FJ:CIAN L: D7I6>C:9 B6CN >CHI6CI>6I>DCH

D;I=::C67A>C<;JC8I>DCD;-'. .=:>BEDGI6CI



EGDEDH6A ;DG D7I6>C>C< I=:H: DJIHI6C9>C< G:HJAIH  27::6HN434;DG$D=CR3R55
#'

L6H DGB:;:8I>K:DEN   L=>8= >H 6AHD#'

:ME:8I:9 ID :MEA6>C A67:A>C< 6C9 6<G::B:CIH >AAJHIG6I:9 >C   3 B:G<:H >CI:GC6AAN 6C9

E=:CDB:C6 >C 6 L6N I=6I 6EEGD68=:H 6 <:CJ>C:6HH><CHI=:9:;:8I>K:DENG:A6I>DCID26C9

:MEA6C6I>DCH::)BJC:6C9%DB68=>

3 L=>8= 6G: 7DI= $%/ &&")  # 6HHJB: I=6I 8DE>:H 6AA I=: ;:6IJG:H :ME:8I ;DG I=: *6GI D; I=>H LDG@ L6H HJEEDGI:9 7N I=: $-*-

Y;:6IJG:H GJ8>6AAN>IH>BEA>;>:HI=:I=:DGN7N

%%("# !G6CI>C>9 ;DG 6GAN6G::G

:A>B>C6I>C<I=:CJAADE:G6IDG;DAADL>C<I=:HIG>8I

-8>:CI>HIH  %    # LDJA9 A>@: ID :MEG:HH

8DC9>I>DC BDI>K6I:97N-'.  BN<G6I>IJ9:IDI=:B:B7:GHD;I=:%:>D-NCI6M

    1>I= G:<6G9 ID   =DBH@N 

!GDJE6C9I=:6J9>:C8:6II=: 8DC;:G:C8:D;

9>H8JHH:H I=: :BE>G>86A HJEEDGI ;DG    .=:

I=:&-$;DGI=:>GK6AJ67A:HJ<<:HI>DCH67DJII=:

H6B:AD<>8>H>C688DG96C8:L>I=  DCH>9:G

:6GA>:GK:GH>DCD;BNLDG@   I6@:C;GDB=DBH@N    6  $D=C=6HG:69B6CN7DD@H 1- LDG@HE68: -'. I=: -IGDC< '>C>B6A>HI.=:H>H&-H&6C<J6<:-E:8>;>8DC9>I>DCH

b. B6CN7DD@H=6K:7::CG:697N$D=C H ">H6IJ<J %>I6=6G6 E 8  HJ<<:HIH >I B6N

CDI 7: '3 7JI &-H I=6I N>:A9H I=: 7>C6GN=DBH@N  S  6G<J:H I=6I 7DI= I=:

8DC9>I>DC C  8DCH>9:G>C< DGB-:FJ:C8: 6C9

68I>K:6C9I=:E6HH>K:H:CI:C8:HB:6CT$D=C>H6

I=: 8DG: DE:G6I>DC D; H:I;DGB6I>DC >C    -::KDG68>DJHG:69:GUL=>A: 79D:HCDI=6K:I=:

=DBH@N

B:6C>C<7:86JH:3>HI=::BEIN:A:B:CI      &:I JH G:8DCH>9:G    #C I=: EGDEDH:9

>C8DGEDG6I:9>CID:K:GNDE:G6I>DC -::=DBH@N

6C6ANH>H 233$%/ &&") =:C8: L:



86CCDI-::EHI:>C:I6A 

6IIG>7JI:

I=:

G:6HDC

I=6I

I=:

 S  ]>H6I=>G9;68IDGDE:G6I>DCI=6I86C7:  ;DG>C9:I:GB>C68N 

CDCKDG68>DJH B:6C>C< 6G>H:H ID I=: :BEIN=DBH@N

:A:B:CI  #CHI:69 I=: 9:;:8I>K: DEN G:A6I>DC

8DC;><JG6I>DCI=:T'6G@DK>6C<6EU7:86JH:

7:IL::C26C93=6HI=:EDHH>7>A>IND;N>:A9>C<

I=:<6EI=6I>H& %>C86CCDI7:8G:6I:9

13

 86AAHI=:*,)

L>I=DJII=:HIG>8IAN'6G@DK>6CHNHI:B  BHI:G96B #(.86C6EEAN6II=:CDCE=6H:A:K:A

=DBH@N (D6B =DBH@N T'>C>B6A>HB 1=:G:

G:1:(DL6C91=:G:6C1:"DE:ID 7JIT>CI:GEG:I6I>DCU6H

!DU %&%"/+   S  

688:HH7N:MI:GC6A8D<C>I>K:HNHI:BHI=6I>HI=:

:6A BN ,DH: -:CHDGN'DIDG-'6C9DC8:EIJ6A#CI:CI>DC6A T.=: )G><>C 6C9

DCI:CI D; MEA:I>K:H K>9:C8: ;GDB

#HNHI:BH>H6II=:E=6H:A:K:A=DBH@N

T-:A:8I>DCUU/%*.  S    .=>HE=6H:A:K:A688:HHLDJA9

>:H>C< 'DAAN    %!%!*) '#. *G:HH

:K6AJ6I:/C>KD86A>IN>C>CHI:69D;#(. 6B7G>9<:' )@J 6G<J:H;DGI=::M>HI:C8:D;

EHI:>C -6BJ:A   ">H6IHJ<J %>I6=6G6 6C9 . 

T9:;:8I>K:8DE>:HUJC9:GI=:HJ7H:I8DEN
EG>C8>EA:;DG& DENDE:G6I>DCH 

6C>:A -::AN 

-::=DBH@N&!$'#)*(,DJIA:9<:(:L3DG@ 

>7:G6J:G!DID

;DG9:;:8I>K::MEA:I>K:H 

-::=DBH@N

6C9,>8=6G9H6C9

;DGA67:A>C< !DID;D8JH:HDCI=:A67:A>C<D;I=:* (

<G::=DBH@N







T"DL

ID

&67:A (8DCHIGJ8I>DCHU%#!)  !*(*+(!&%# (% )

&$!% ))+ 

S 8DCHIGJ8I>DC6C9HDAK:H>IL>I=DJI*GD7:!D6A


(D7J

  !%!$#!)*  &(/

"6AA: 'DGG>H 6C9 A:8 '6G6CIO  



.=: 6EEGD68=;DAADLH=DBH@NVH

T>HIG>7JI:9'DGE=DAD<N6C9I=:*>:8:HD;

HJ<<:HI>DCT*G>C8>EA:D;I=:>C9>C<#C;A:8I>DCU !-(&$+!#!%:9 .=:DGN86C7:I6@:CID7:6CDEI>DCD; RU7N %:CC:I= "6A: 6C9 -6BJ:A $6N %:NH:G
S '#.*G:HH6B7G>9<:' 
=DBH@N (D6B '>AH6G@ !6GN   .!)*%*!# %*%) !%

  
 T'>C>B6A>HI #CFJ>G>:H%#!) D8IDG6A9>HH:GI6I>DC'#. (DBJG6 '6H6H=> .=: G6B:LDG@U *' / *' ))/) &%
!%!$#!)* /%*. !%

&%&( &(&!%)

&-(

'#.*G:HH6B7G>9<:'  T:G>K6I>DC 7N *=6H:U

(D6B
(D6B

*GD?:8I>DC&%)*(+*!&%

!%

* 

()'*!,

D8IDG6A

!%!$#!)*
9>HH:GI6I>DC

T<G::>C-IG>8IAN'6G@DK>6C:G>K6I>DCHU

T*GD7A:BH

E6E:G EG:H:CI:9 6I

D;





T*GD7A:BH

MI:CH>DCHU

>GHI #CI:GC6I>DC6A

DC;:G:C8:DC>DA>C<J>HI>8HD;I=:/+., *GD?:8I>DCU!%+  S 
=DBH@N)*(%

)BJC: $JC 6C9 '6H6NJ@> %DB68=> S  '#. *G:HH

6B7G>9<:' 
=DBH@N

%

/C>K:GH>IND;DCC:8I>8JI 

#  ! !% %+ :9  7N

'>8=6:A %:CHIDL>8O* 

)@J -6IDH=>     &(/ & #*!&% %'>8=6:AH 6C9 $J6C /G>6<:G:@6 S 

%

&

&%(%&%!%+!)*!) S)%!" :9  7N ,D<:G '6GI>C 6K>9

=DBH@N (D6B  TMEA:I>K:H 'DK:U

,>8=6G9H '6G8 6C9 .=:G:H6 >7:G6J:G 

D;

TMEA6>C>C< MEAU  

*(+*+()

+%*!&% &

*(*!) % /&% *+!) !% &%&+(+%*!&%&()% +%*!&%# *&(!)& (!% ##**! :9  7N A>H6 >

:9 7N'6G8:A9:C>@@:C6C9=G>HI>C6' 

DB:C>8D DGC:A>6 "6B6CC 6C9 ->BDC6

.DGIDG6

'6II:>C>

*=>A69:AE=>6*:CCHNAK6C>6 

S 

$D=C

:C?6B>CH

14

S 

$D=C

:C?6B>CH   ;   /?<JKL;<EKJ8CCF9M@FLJCPLE;<IJKFF; F_BFM@a 








8J<; FE K?< JK8E;8I; 8JJLDGK@FE K?8K K?<
CFN 8;M<I9J C@B< (&)%-%2 8I< 8;AF@E<; KF M+

 +/&&,*"+"'-',""*%(,,.'

K?< LE>I8DD8K@:8C J<EK<E:< @E 9 J?FNJ K?8K

)'+'' %"+! !,J :8EEFK 9< JKI8E;<; @E K?< .G<:  M+%LE&8N8D@KJL

GFJ@K@FE  FEJ@;<I@E> K?<J< =8:KJ @E   8E; 

"I8;L8K<.:?FFCF=&PLJ?L0E@M<IJ@KPF_BFM@a   JL>><JKJ K?< =FCCFN@E>
><E<I8C@Q8K@FE

&<PNFI;J ,L8EK@=@<I !CF8KJKI8E;@E>8E8CPJ@J:C8JJ@=@<I'89<C@E>C>FI@K?DK?<#<8; #<8;

,L8EK@=@<IJ:8EEFK9<=CF8K<;@Ek GFJ@K@FEJ F_BFM@a 

:FE=@>LI8K@FE

CK?FL>? K?@J ;<J:I@GK@M< ><E<I8C@Q8K@FE :8E',*(-,"('?8E;C< K?< LE>I8DD8K@:8C J<EK<E:<J 89FM< @K  /?@J G8G<I @EM<JK@>8K<J K?< 8JPDD<KI@<J @E

J<<DJ KF 9< :?8CC<E><; 9P K?< =FCCFN@E>

,L8EK@=@<I!CF8K, =CF8K9<KN<<E%8G8E<J<8E;

<O8DGC<J @E N?@:? K?< GI<GFJ@K@FE8C G?I8J<E>C@J? LE;<I K?< JKI8E;@E> 8E8CPJ@J < > 

=FCCFN@E>!,:8EI<J:L<K?<LE>I8DD8K@:8C@KP .GFIK@:?<   8 /?< MFK<J N<I< :8JK 8CC @E 8CG?89<K@:8C
FI;<I ,+F98CA@B    /?<I< @J 8 I<JKI@:K@FE @E JK8E;8I; E>C@J? =FI   9 /?<MFK<IJ8II@M<;8CC<O8:KCP8KJ@O ""K?<F::LII<E:<F=K?<!CF8K@E>,L8EK@=@<I!,@E   : (8IPGLKK?<9FFBJ8CCFEK?<GIFG<IJ?<C= (8C@E>  K?8K@K:8EEFK8GG<8I@EK?<M +:FDGC<D<EK $EK?<=FCCFN@E><O8DGC<J!,J8I<JKI8E;<;@EK?<

:FDGC<D<EK GFJ@K@FE F= K?< GI<;@:8K< JL:? 8J

$E 8;;@K@FE K?< )LD<I8C !CF8K@E> ,L8EK@=@<I

LE8::LJ8K@M<G8JJ@M<8E;KI8EJ@K@M< )!, @E %8G8E<J< ?8J ;@==<I<EK 9<?8M@FIJ:FDG8I<;KF E>C@J?  8  /?<JKL;<EKJ8II@M<;8CC    9  /?<JKL;<EKJN<I<8II<JK<;8CC 8  "8BLJ<@ >8   BFJJFI@  E@E I@E>F F   :  (8IP?8K<JK?<JKL;<EKJ8CC        JKL;<EKJ )FD J<:I<KCP  C 8GGC< ::       K89<K8 F_BFM@a        8K<$K@J8CJFEFK8CCFN<;=FI!,KF9<@EK?<@E@K@8C       Y/?I<<JKL;<EKJ8K<8GGC<J Z

JL9A<:KGFJ@K@FE.G<: M+ 

   9   -@E>F F   >8BLJ<@ >8   BFJJFI@       8GGC<J :: JKL;<EKJ )FD J<:I<KCP

8   /?<JKL;<EKJ8CC:FDGC<K<CPLE;<IJKFF;         BF K89<K8    9  /?<JKL;<EKJ:FDGC<K<CP8CCLE;<IJKFF;         C 8K<   :   /?<JKL;<EKJF9M@FLJCP8CCLE;<IJKFF;        Y/?<JKL;<EKJJ<:I<KCP8K<KNF8GGC<J Z

15   :   "8BLJ<@ >8    E@E B@K8 

GIFD@E<EK =<8KLI<J @E :FDDFE < >  e =<8KLI<       JKL;<EKJ )FD  C :8D<, =<8KLI< <K:  K?<P =LE:K@FE 8J K?< C89<C  /?<       Y/?I<<JKL;<EKJ:8D< Z

JL>><JK@FEJK?8KK?<3+ 4+:FE=@>LI8K@FE:8LJ<J

GIF9C<DJ F= GIFA<:K@FE ?8M< 9<<E J:ILK@E@Q<; .@E:<(@P8>8N8 K?<;@JK@E:K@FE9<KN<<E

/?<J<?8M<GIFM@;<;K?<K?<FI<K@:8C<OGC8E8K@FEJ

JL9A<:K 8E; F9A<:K )!,J ?8J 9<<E GF@EK<; FLK =FI CFE> JK8E;@E> DPJK<I@<J JL:? 8J JL::<JJ@M<

2?@C< K?< JL9A<:K )!, @E %8G8E<J< :8EEFK 9<:P:C@: FIZ DFM<D<EK ++ G?<EFD<E88E;

=CF8K<; @E .G<: M+ C@B< @E E>C@J? K?< F9A<:K

JF FE  *E K?< FK?<I ?8E; K?< ;<K8@C<; 8E8CPJ<J!,@E;@:8K<JK?<FGGFJ@K<9<?8M@FII<>8I;C<JJF=

F= : ?8M< EFK 9<<E K?LJ =8I GI<J<EK<;  2<

8EP KPG< F= M<I9  2< N@CC JL>><JK @E K?<

D<EK@FE K?@J JKIL:KLI< 8J K?< #<8; #<8;

=FCCFN@E>J<:K@FEK?8KK?<J<:FEKI8JKJ8I<:8LJ<;

:FE=@>LI8K@FE 8E; JL>><JK K?8K K?@J JKIL:KLI< @E

9PK?<;@==<I<EKJKIL:KLI<JF=!, 

HL<JK@FE:8E9<=FLE;@EK?<, =CF8KJ<EK<E:< !(*,"% $ *(-'*()(+%+ %"'  % (*",!&  JJ?FNE@EK?<GI<M@FLJJ<:K@FEN<JL>><JK  ?FDJBP  GIFGFJ<JK?<'89<C@E>

K?8KK?<# #:FE=@>LI8K@FEI<JLCKJ@EK?<C89<C@E>

C>FI@K?D ' LE;<I N?@:? 8 J<K :I<8K<; 9P

:FE=C@:K (<I>< @J C89<C<; N@K? 8 :<IK8@E 8C>FI@K?D @E

FI;<I

/?<J<KF=R#<8;#<8;S:8EEFK9<C89<C<; 

KF

9<

@EK<IGI<K<;

@E

K?<

FE:<GKL8C $EK<EK@FE8C  $ 8E; .<EJFI@DFKFI.( @EK<I=8:<J  #< :FEJ@;<IJ K?< =FCCFN@E>

$E 8;;@K@FE =FCCFN@E> ?FDJBP   N<

GFJJ@9@C@K@<J

8JJLD< K?8K K?< CFN<I :FGP ;F<J EFK :FEKI@9LK<KF K?< C89<C@E>  /?@J GIFG<IKP F= CFN<I :FGP @J8 jR#3+S   j#

8CJF JL>><JK<; 9P (8<;8    8J K?<   9 jR3+4+S  j

=FCCFN@E>

   : jR# #S  j

 $ER3+R45+SSK?<DFM<D<EK <CC@GJ@J$E 8 98J<; FE (@E@D8C .<8I:? K?< '

F= 5+ I<JLCKJ @E R 4 5+S N?<I< K?< FECP

;<K<:KJK?<:CFJ<JK?<8;N?@:?@J#8E;K?@JJ<K

M@J@9C<<C<D<EK=FI'@J4 $EJL:?8:8J<@JC89<C<;8J# *EK?<FK?<I?8E;K?<J<K@E9

i@J@;<EK@=@<;8JK?<?<8;4 ::FI;@E>CP4

8E; : :8EEFK 9< C89<C<; J@E:< K?< ' :8EEFK

@J M@J@9C< KF (. @EKF R 3+ R 4 5+SS

@;<EK@=P K?< :CFJ<JK ?<8;  J =FI K?< 3+ 4+

I<JLCK@E>@Eb9<@E>C89<C<;4 :FE=@>LI8K@FE @E 9 ?FDJBP GIFM@;<J  8 R3+R45+SSbi4

GFJJ@9C< KNF N8P JFCLK@FEJ @ JKIL:KLI<  9 R3+R45+SSb4i4

DF;@=@:8K@FE 8E; @@ GIFD@E<EK =<8KLI< J?8I@E> (8<;8  

/?< =FID<I JKI8K<>P I<JLCKJ @E K?< C89<C<;



JKIL:KLI<N?<E<@K?<I3+FI4+DFM<JFLKF=K?@J#<I <JJ<EK@8C JL>><JK@FE @J K?8K K?< DFM<; FI

J<K !FI@EJK8E:<K?<3+ZJDFM<D<EKFLKF=K?@J

<C@;<;<C<D<EKC@B<5+@E9@J@EM@J@9C<=FIK?<

J<KI<E;<IJK?<jKF9<@;<EK@=@<;8J4+ /?<C8KK<I' JF K?< i @J @;<EK@=@<; 8J 4  /?@J C<8;J KF 8

JKI8K<>P @J K?8K @= 9FK? 3+ 8E; 4+ J?8I<

C89<C89C< JKIL:KLI< @E b ;L< KF K?< R# 3+S16

:FE=@>LI8K@FE  *E K?< FK?<I ?8E; N?<E K?<I< @J

!FCCFN@E>.?CFEJBP  N<8JJLD<K?8K!,

EF DFM<D<EK FI <CC@GJ@J 8J @E 8 K?< 3+ 4+

@J 8 ?<8; F= , K8B@E> + 8J @KJ :FDGC<D<EK @E

:FE=@>LI8K@FE 8I@J<J @E b  $E K<IDJ F= K?<

 9 /?<M<I98C-FFK-@J<OK<IE8CCPD<I><;

@EM@J@9C<GIFG<IKPF=CFN<I:FG@<J@E(8<;8

N@K?K?<J<Kb@E : 0E;<IK?<'GIFGFJ<;

   ;<8CJ N@K? K?< GLQQC<J F= $EM<IJ@FE

9P ?FDJBP   K?< F9A<:K + I8@J<J KF

FEJKIL:K@FE@E E>C@J?K?FL>?N<;FEFKCFFB

.G<: - @E  ;  2?<E K?< G?8J< ?<8; M @J

@EKF ?<I 8E8CPJ@J =FI K?< JG8:< C@D@K8K@FE F= K?@J@EKIF;L:<; @EKF K?< ;<I@M8K@FE @E 

G8G<I  8J<; FE ?FDJBP   8E; (8<;8K?<J<Kbi8E;jJ?FLC;9<C89<C<;9PK?<'    N< GIFGFJ< K?8K K?< # # :FE=@>LI8K@FE

2< 8JJLD< K?8K CFN<I :FGP @J JKI@:KCP @EM@J@9C<

8I@J<J@EK?<=FCCFN@E>:FEK<OK =FI K?< ' 8E; K?< J<K b @J GIFA<:K<; 8J 8?<8; C<M<C ,  /?<E K?< i :8EEFK 9< C89<C<;

 $=K?<3+DFM<JFLKF=K?<J<KR#R#

J@E:< @K :FEJK@KLK<J K?< # # :FE=@>LI8K@FE R-

3+SSJKIL:KLI<b@JC89<C<;8J#N?@:?@J,S @E K?@J :8J< I<JLCK@E> @E K?< @CC<>@9C<EFK 8 G?I8J< C<M<C JPEK8:K@: F9A<:K 9LK 8

JKIL:KLI< ?<8; C<M<C C<O@:8C @K<D I<JLCK@E> @E K?<#<8; #<8;:FE=@>LI8K@FE@Ei  0E8::LJ8K@M<J +8JJ@M<J< <8:? F=    8  /?<JKL;<EKJ8II@M<;8CC  82< JL>><JK @E K?< =FCCFN@E> K?8K K?< C89<C@E>

    9   R,+S

=8@CLI< ;L< KF K?< # # :FE=@>LI8K@FE 8GG<8IJ @E    :   R-MR,+SSK?< , =CF8K J<EK<E:<J @E E>C@J? I<JKI@:K@E> K?<    ;   R/R-MR,+SSS

F::LII<E:<F=!,J %8G8E<J<)!,JFEK?<FK?<I<

?8E; ?8M< 8 DFI< =C<O@9C< GFJ@K@FE  2< 8I>L<R+R/R-MR,+SSSS

K?8K:C8JJ@=@<IJ@E%8G8E<J<GC8P8:IL:@8CIFC<KF

<M8:L8K<K?<# #C89<C@E>=8@CLI< =RR+R/R-MR,+SSSSSb,ij/cee '%/+"+%(,"'' %"+!

FEJ@;<I@E> K?< =8:K K?8K K?< G?8J<?FF; F= K?<

  J@E;@:8K<;@EJ<:K@FEJKI8E;@E>!,@EK?<

LE8::LJ8K@M<J8E;G8JJ@M<J@JJB<GK@:8C GJK<@E

:FDGC<D<EK GFJ@K@FE F= K?< LE8::LJ8K@M<&@K8?8I8 8E; .<<CP   GIFGFJ< K?8K K?<

G8JJ@M< 8E; KI8EJ@K@M< M<I9J @J GIF?@9@K<;  *LIM<I98C -FFK @E LE8::LJ8K@M<J 8E; G8JJ@M<J @J

8::FLEK:FII<:KCP<OG<:KJK?<LE>I8DD8K@:8C@K@<J

<OK<IE8CCP G8@I D<I><; N@K? M 8E; :8E:<CJ K?<

F=JL:?J<EK<E:<J 

G?8J<?FF;F=@KC@B<@E : #<E:<C89<C@E>8

G?8J< C<M<C FG<I8K@FE ;F<J EFK F::LI 8K K?@J /I8EJ@K@M<JGF@EK =K<IK?<D<I><IF=8?<8;F=/@E ;    8  (8IP?8K<JK?<JKL;<EKJ8CC  :K?<+DFM<JKFK?<.G<: /+GFJ@K@FE=FID@E>

    9   R,+S

8 J<K c @E  <  /?< C89<C@E> F::LIJ N?<E K?<    :   R-R,+SS?<8; F=  @J @EKIF;L:<; @EKF K?< ;<I@M8K@FE  $E    ;   R+R-R,+SSS

K?@J:8J<K?<b@E;@:8K<JK?<?<8; C<M<CJK8KLJ,



RM R + R - R ,

J@E:<K?<+?8J8CI<8;PDFM<;FLKF=K?<J<Kb 

+SSSS /?<I<=FI< K?< C89<C@E> :FE=C@:K 8I@J<J @E K?< i<b,ijee17

N?@:?:FEJK@KLK<JK?<# #:FE=@>LI8K@FEF=R-

GIF9C<D@EK?<@EK<I=8:<J +IFM@;<;K?8K/+K8B<JM

M+ 8J @KJ :FDGC<D<EK =FI J<C<:K@FE8C I<8JFEJ

,S 

/?@J

:FE=C@:K

<OGC8@EJ

K?<

LE>I8DD8K@:8C@KPF= 8 

K?< JKIL:KLI< @E   @J @E8GGIFGI@8K< J@E:< /+  2<?8M<F9J<IM<;@EK?8KK?<GI<GFJ@K@FE8C

J<C<:KJ,+EFKM+8J@KJ:FDGC<D<EK 

G?I8J<

=FCCFN@E>

!,@DGIFM<J

K?<>I8DD8K@:8C@KP  *LI 8E8CPJ@J :8E GIFM@;< 8%(,"')'+

JFCLK@FE =FI K?@J HL<JK@FE LE;<I K?< C89<C@E>

  %8G8E<J< )!,J ;@==<I =IFD E>C@J? FE<J @E=I8D<NFIB 

K?8K K?<I< @J 8E 8JPDD<KIP N?<E K?< )!, :8E

=CF8K @E K?< :FDGC<D<EK GFJ@K@FE F= K?< M<I9J

 8  (8IP GLK K?< 9FFBJ 8CC FE K?< GIFG<I

N?@:?N<I<G<8K9<CFN 

J?<C= 



9  R R 8CC K?< 9FFBJS R FE K?< GIFG<I

 -@E>F F   >8BLJ<@ >8   BFJJFI@  BF    8GGC<J :: JKL;<EKJ )FD J<:I<KCP  C

J?<C=SS    K89<K8 :  RM R K?< 9FFBJS R - R R 8CC K?<    8K<

9FFBJSRFEK?<GIFG<IJ?<C=SSSSS    Y/?<JKL;<EKJJ<:I<KCP8K<KNF8GGC<J Zb++i,j,+c-+ "8BLJ<@ >8   BFJJFI@  E@E B@K8 $E FLI 8E8CPJ@J K?< i GIFA<:KJ , 8J @KJ C89<C    JKL;<EKJ )FD J<:I<KCP  C :8D<

N?@:?@J8?<8; C<M<CC<O@:8C@K<D /?<I<=FI<K?<    Y/?I<<JKL;<EKJJ<:I<KCP:8D< Z

C89<C@E>;F<JEFK=8@C@EK?<jJ@E:<K?<J<Kj:8E

9<;<K<:K<;8J,+;L<KFK?<# 3+JKIL:KLI<F=$= F9A<:K !,J JKI8E;<; @E K?< :FDGC<D<EK

R,++S 

GFJ@K@FE 8I< LE@M<IJ8CCP GIF?@9@K<; < > F_BFM@a   %8G8E<J< :FLEK<IG8IKJ 8I<-#,+"'' %"+!

JLIGI@J@E>  J =FI K?<J< =8:KJ N< JL>><JK 98J<;

  .KI8E;@E>K?<JL9A<:K!,@EK?<@E@K@8CJL9A<:K

FE 28K8E89<     K?8K :C8JJ@=@<IJ

GFJ@K@FE @J GIF?@9@K<; 8J J?FNE @E 9  $E K?@J=FCCFN@E>)!,JGC8P8:IL:@8CIFC< #<GIFGFJ<J

J@KL8K@FEK?<J<C<:K@FE8CGIF9C<D8I@J<J 

8I@:?+ @EK<IE8CJKIL:KLI<@E%8G8E<J<  R R.L9A+ R/ R R , .L9A+SR    6 66 6)+78J<7,77
28K8E89<  -MR  *9A+USSSSSSb,i,+#< 8CJF GIFGFJ<J K?8K K?< ELD<I8C  :C8JJ@=@<I$EK?@JJKIL:KLI<K?<JL9A<:K+DFM<JFLKF=K?<:FD9@E8K@FE:FEJK@KLK<J8G?I8J< C<M<CGI<;@:8K<

J<K b 8E; 8J 8 I<JLCK F= @K K?< C89<C N@CC 9<EFK8?<8; !FCCFN@E>K?@JK?<J<EK<E:<J@E ;<K<ID@E<; 8J , J@E:< N< 8JJLD< K?< CFN<I

N?@:? @E:CL;< K?< ELD<I8CJ 8E; :C8JJ@=@<IJ 8I<

:FGP ;F<J EFK :FEKI@9LK< KF K?< C89<C@E>  /?<E

;<I@M<;@E  2<J?FN%8G8E<J<JKIL:KLI<J@E

K?< i @J @;<EK@=@<; 8J ,+ ;L< KF K?< # 3+

?<8; @E@K@8CFI;<I=FIK?<J8B<F=:FEM<E@<E:< :FE=@>LI8K@FE R, - M+S @E K?@J :8J< CK?FL>? C89<C @;<EK@=@:8K@FE ;F<J EFK =8@C N< 8 %F?E N8 ?FE   J8KJL FB8KK8 

JL>><JK K?@J JKIL:KLI< I<JLCKJ @E 8 J<C<:K@FE8C      %F?E /FG9FFB  C ::9FL>?K

18      Y%F?E9FL>?KK?I<<9FFBJ Z 8 -@E>F F  >8BLJ<@ >8   BFK89<K8     9 %F?E N8  J8KJL?FE F   B8KK8       8GGC< :: JKL;<EK )FD C8K<      %F?E /FG C  9FFB ::9FL>?K      YJKL;<EK8K<8GGC<JZ    : %F?E N8 ?FE F    J8KJLB8KK8     9           M+

      %F?E /FG9FFB :: C  9FL>?K             i      M        8J<+   b

28K8E89<  JC@>?KCPDF;@=@<;            ,+     -28K8E89<8JJLD<JK?<JKIL:KLI<@E N?<I<8        +      ,ELD9<I ?<8;  N?@:? @E:CL;<J 8 :C8JJ@=@<I        :C  8J<+   ,K8B<J )+ 8J @KJ :FDGC<D<EK 8E; 8 ELD<I8C



F::LG@<J @E .G<: +  /?<E K?< ;<I@M8K@FE

JJLD@E>K?<G8I8CC<C;<I@M8K@FEN@K? E>C@J?8

GIF:<<;JC@B<  ,+J<K@E:CL;@E>)!,8E;F9A<:K@JD<I><;N@K?



M<I98C -FFK  2?<E , =CF8K 8I@J<J 8J<+ I8@J<J 666J8KJLC76?FE777

KF.G<: - /?<C89<C@E>F::LIJ8KK?<K@D<F=K?< 8  6 6?FE76  F666J8KJLC7

D<I><I F= M  /?< C89<C b @J ;<K<:K<; KF 9< -+
8E; i @J 8CJF ;<K<:K<; KF 9< -+ K?8EBJ KF K?<

6?FE77777


J:I8D9C@E> F= 8J<+  /?@J GIFGFJ<; 8E8CPJ@J

9  6 6  6 J8KJLC77 6, 6  6 ?FE7

;F<J EFK <OG<:K K?< C89<C@E> :FE=C@:K :FDG8I<;

6  F66J8KJLC777777
:  6 6 6?FE76  F776666

KF E>C@J?J@E:<K?<%8G8E<J<)!,J8I<I<>8I;<;

J8KJLC776,6 6?FE76  F777777

8J G?I8J< C<M<C JPEK8:K@: F9A<:KJ EFK ?<8; C<M<C



C<O@:8C@K<DJ )+ F9C@>8KFI@CP DFM<J KF .G<: 8J<+ =FI :8J<

8>I<<D<EK 2?<EK?<;<I@M8K@FE<E;JLG@E 8 -#,+"')'+

K?<J<EK<E:<@E 8@J8:HL@I<; $=I<DE8EK+  /?<I< @J 8 JPDD<KIP 9<KN<<E %8G8E<J< 8E;DFM<D<EK K8I><KJ K?< .G<: ,+ GFJ@K@FE K?<E>C@J? @E K?8K )!,J 8I< 98EE<; =IFD

;<I@M8K@FE  9 @J <OG<:K<; I<JLCK@E> @E K?<

8GG<8I@E>@EK?<@E J@KLJL9A<:KGFJ@K@FEJ  9 J<EK<E:<  $E  : 8J<+ FGK@FE8CCP

DFM<J=LIK?<IKF.G<: +;<I@M@E> : RR8J<+R/RR,+8J<+JL9A<:KSR  !FCCFN@E>28K8E89<  N<8JJLD<-MR*9A<:KUSSSSSS

K?< I@:? + @EK<IE8C JPEK8O @E    2< 8CJF

b-M+i,+j

8E8CPQ<K?<:FD9@E8K@FEF=ELD<I8C:C8JJ@=@<I

N?@:?@J)!,8JK?<=FCCFN@E>

J @E;@:8K<; @E K?< ;<I@M8K@FE  @= )!, @J

JKI8E;<;@EK?<@E@K@8CJL9A<:KGFJ@K@FEGIF9C<DJ %8G8E<J< )!,J 8I< I<>8I;<; KF 9<

F=GIFA<:K@FE8I@J<@Ej .@E:<i@J;<K<:K<;8J,+

G?I8J< C<M<CJPEK8:K@:F9A<:KJ j =8@CJ KF 9< C89<C<; ;L< KF K?< 3+ 4+:FE=@>LI8K@FE R,+ - M+S @E K?@J :8J<2< ?8M< EFN GI<G8I<; KF :8GKLI< K?<

C<8;@E> KF K?< ;<I@M8K@FE KF :I8J? 8K K?<

8JPDD<KI@<J 9<KN<<E %8G8E<J< 8E; E>C@J? @EK<I=8:<J  #FN<M<I @K @J EFK 8CN8PJ KIL< K?8K

'<KLJ:FEJ@;<IK?<=FCCFN@E><O8DGC< , =CF8K @E .G<: M+ @E %8G8E<J< C<8;J KF 8E

LE>I8DD8K@:8C

19

J<EK<E:< 

@J:FLIJ< I<C8K<;

G8IK@:C<J 8CCFN K?< JL9A<:K !, KF JKI8E; @E J@KL

JKI<E>K?<E FLI 8E8CPJ@J K?8K FK?<I :C8JJ@=@<I

JL9A<:KGFJ@K@FE 

C8E>L8><J ?8M< 8 J@D@C8I :FEJ<HL<E:< @E K?<

, =CF8K G?<EFD<EFE  $= )!,J N@K? 8 :C8JJ@=@<I"8BLJ<@ >8   J8B< F    E@E ;8B< DF:FEJK@KLK< 8 G?I8J< C<M<C JPEK8:K@: F9A<:K EFK 8    JKL;<EKJ )FD J8B< :: C  FECP 8CJF

?<8; C<M<C C<O@:8C @K<D :C8JJ@=@<I C8E>L8><J    EFE;8 

8CCFN)!,KF8GG<8I@EK?<:FDGC<D<EKGFJ@K@FE    ;I8EB 

F=K?<M<I9C@B<@E%8G8E<J< /?<=FCCFN@E>;8K8    Y*ECPK?I<<JKL;<EKJ;I8EBJ8B< Z

8I<=IFD/?8@8E;LID<J< "8BLJ<@ >8   N8K8J?@ EF?FE F    JKL;<EKJ )FD DP "<E  9FFB ::IhK (<I:<;<JK?oLBB?mDplpP Jn@JnG? 8 B?8E

     K8I@ J@B8 B8N8E8B8KK8     :8I (<I:<;<J+..JK<8C     C     C FECP 9LP )<> +8JK    Z(<I:<;<JN<I<JKFC<E Z
/?8@.@DGJFE    Y*ECPKNFJKL;<EKJ9FL>?KDP9FFB Z 

B?qrK8E :8E8N  E>f8 Jd ;8LENd Kd(@P8>8N88E;I@B8N8      G<E:@C $       <M<E    9LP -<8C

!F:LJ G8IK@:C< $ FI &( @E  8E; E<>8K@M<    Y$9FL>?K G<E:@CJ Z
LID<J<.@DGJFE

GFC8I@KP @K<D ,"$ @E  D8B< )!, =CF8K @E 

.G<: M +  /?<J< J<EK<E:<J 8I< <OG<:K<; KF

:FEJK@KLK<K?<3+ 4+:FE=@>LI8K@FEJFK?<J<8I</?</?8@<O8DGC<@E@E;@:8K<JK?8K)!,@J

GIF9C<D8K@:8K=@IJKJ@>?K #FN<M<I98J<;FEK?<

JKI8E;<; @E K?< :FDGC<D<EK GFJ@K@FE F= K?<

F9J<IM8K@FE9P<CC<KK@ K?8KK?<I<@J

G8JJ@M< GI<;@:8K< N?@:? @J GIF?@9@K<; @E 8

8;@J:FLIJ< I<C8K<;=LE:K@FE8CGIFA<:K@FE!F:LJ+

EFE :C8JJ@=@<I C8E>L8>< C@B< E>C@J?  /?< J8D<@EM+ G<I@G?<IPK?<C89<C@E>GIF9C<D;F<JEFK

J@KL8K@FE:8E9<=FLE;@ELID<J<N?@:?J?FNJ

F::LI K?8K !, :8E 9< =CF8K<; @E K?< F9A<:K GFJ@K@FE F=



K?<KI8EJ@K@M<M<I9@E *EK?<FK?<I?8E;@KRR8J<+R/R,+ =F:LJR !F:R  @J EFK 8CCFN<; @E  =FI !, KF 8GG<8I @E K?<,+ =F:LJ8J<+JL9A<:KSUSSSSS@E@K@8CJL9A<:KGFJ@K@FE.G<: M+@ELID<J<8J



N<CC8J@E%8G8E<J< CK?FL>? K?< J<K b =FIDJ K?< 3+ 4+:FE=@>LI8K@FE @K @J @;<EK@=@<; 8J !F: !F: :fLE K?f8 B8t ?K8DgE :8N?E8 PfLH

N?@:?@J8J?8I<;=<8KLI<9<KN<<E,+ =F:LJ8E;

JKL;<EK )FD =I@<; I@:<   C

!F:+  #<E:< 8J CFE> 8J %8G8E<J< )!,J 8I<

?Df8 Kd

D8IB<; N@K? ;@J:FLIJ< I<C8K<; G8IK@:C<J K?<

FI;<I<;

C89<C@E>@JJL::<<;<;N@K?8GIFD@E<EK;@J:FLIJ<

Y/NFJKL;<EKJFI;<I<;=I@<;I@:< Z=<8KLI<8E;K?<;<I@M8K@FE:FEM<I><J LID<J<.@DGJFE  

 ,!* %++""*' - + ('%-"' &*$+

  2<?8M<8I>L<;JF=8IK?8K, =CF8KJ?FNJK?<  2< ?8M< @EM<JK@>8K<; K?< 8JPDD<KI@<J @E8JPDD<KIP 9<KN<<E %8G8E<J< 8E; E>C@J?  $E

, =CF8K

K?< I<D8@E;<I F= K?@J G8G<I N< F9J<IM< KF

8GG<8C@E> KF K?< C89<C@E> @DGFJJ@9@C@KP  P

20

9<KN<<E

%8G8E<J<8E;

E>C@J?GIFA<:K@FEX"' .    

=F:LJ@E>FEK?<IFC<F=:C8JJ@=@<IJN<JL>><JK<;

?FDJBP

K?8K)!,J@E%8G8E<J<8I<<OG<:K<;KF8GG<8I@E)F8D 

W+IF9C<DJ

8 DFI< =C<O@9C< <EM@IFED<EK :FDG8I<; N@K?

+IFA<:K@FE

OK<EJ@FEJX

EFE :C8JJ@=@<I C8E>L8><J C@B<-+- ", '

2(' <;  9P

E>C@J? N?<I<

F=

-+.-.+,
C@J8 @K?<I< :8E 9< 8 C89<C@E> =8@CLI< ;L< KF K?< # #

FD<E@:F FIE<C@8 #8D8EE 8E; .@DFE8

:FE=@>LI8K@FE (8KK<@E@ %F?E<EA8D@EJDJK<I;8D 

GJK<@E.8DL<C #@J8KJL>L&@K8?8I88E;/ $8D>I<8KCP@E;<9K<;KF)F9L8B@)@J?@FB8=FI

8E@<C .<<CP   W+?8J< 8E:<CC8K@FE 9P

?@JM8CL89C<:FDD<EKJ8E;JL>><JK@FEJ $NFLC;

OK<IE8C +8@I (<I>< F= #<8;JX !

8CJF C@B< KF K?8EB 4LK8 .8B8DFKF 8E; KNF"' .",-"/"0



8EFEPDFLJ I<M@<N<IJ =FI K?<@I :FEJKIL:K@M<(8<;8 (8J8BF    '89<C@E> @E $EM<IJ@FE

:FDD<EKJ  *= :FLIJ< $ ?8M< =LCC I<JGFEJ@9@C@KPFEJKIL:K@FEJ ' %",! "' .",-",   =FI8CCI<D8@E@E><IIFIJ 
 2< GLIGFJ<CP ;@JK@E>L@J? 9<KN<<E # 8E; #+

(8C@E> %F8E   W)FK<J FE HL8EK@=@<I

C89<CJ =FI K?< J8B< F= <OG<;@<E:<  2< LJ< #+

(@P8>8N8 .?@><IL   -+.-.+ ' ,

C89<CJ =FI K?< G?I8J8C <C<D<EKJ 8E; # =FI K?<+$"'  "' )', :8;<D@: +I<JJ .8E?<8; JK8KLJC<O@:8C@K<DJ 

@<>F GFJKGFJ@E>X"' .",-"'*."+2    !FCCFN@E>?FDJBP -@JJKIFE><EFL>?

(@P8>8N8 .?@><IL 8E; &FA@ I@B8N8  

KFJ<IM<8J8C89<C8=K<IF9A<:K I8@J@E> CJF-@J

W'F:8C@KP @E JPEK8O 8E; =CF8K<; ELD<I8C

@EK<IE8CCPG8@I D<I><;N@K?M8=K<IK?<C89<C@E> 

HL8EK@=@<IJX"' .",-"'*."+2  .?CFEJBP 0I    W,L8EK@=@<IJ 8J !LE:K@FE8C

 
<CC<KK@ ;I@8E8   WY$EM<IJ@FEZ 8J

#<8;J  .KL;P F= ,L8EK@=@<I !CF8K @E

!F:8C@Q8K@FEX .#- '/+,"(' "' (&'.GFIK@:?< FD@E@HL<   W /?<FIP F=

' -! !(+2 ( '"/+,% +&&+ <; 

!CF8K@E> ,L8EK@=@<IJ 8E; @KJ FIFCC8I@<J =FI

9P 8=B<   %  #LCB 8E; %<8E 4M<J +FCCF:BFEJK@KL<EK.KIL:KLI<X"' .",-"'*."+2

 V *O=FI;0E@M<IJ@KP+I<JJ*O=FI;   #<9I<NX"' .  V  .@DGJFEE;I<N

<CC<KK@;I@8E8 WJG<:KJF=K?<'FN$+
I<8X ! -+.-.+ (  '

W!CF8K@E>HL8EK@=@<IJ@ELID<J<8E;/?8@X(.+'%(-!(.-!,- !,"'"' .",-",("-2   

+-( +)!2 ( 2'--" -+.-.+, 1FC  

28K8E89< B@I8   W!LE:K@FE8C +IFA<:K@FE<; 9P'L@>@-@QQ@ V *O=FI;0E@M<IJ@KPF= )FD@E8CJ @E %8G8E<J< .PEK8O F=

+I<JJ*O=FI; C8JJ@=@<IJX-.+%'  '"' .",-"

F98CA@B%FE8K?8E8M@; (+)!(,2'-1

!(+2   ! 2'-1 ( +% '%-"(' F:KFI8C

28K8E89< B@I8   W/?< .KIL:KLI< F= +X;@JJ<IK8K@FE($/8D9I@;><(8JJ8:?LJ<KKJ !

F_BFM@a`<CABF W<:8I<=LCN?<I<PFL1(+'(($()',

=CF8K PFLI HL8EK@=@<IJX -.+% ' .  

"' .",-", <;  9P .?@><IL (@P8>8N8 8E;"' .",-"!(+2  (8DFIL .8@KF     *O=FI; 0E@M<IJ@KP?FDJBP)F8D

 

W+IF9C<DJ+I<JJ*O=FI; 

F=

21

c. [DP ࡲࡾᏊࡢ[Dƍ[nP[NP ែᗘ N ]ࡢ n ] D ]]
㸦SJ㸧㸦ibid.㸧
(3)ࡲࡾᏊ ࡢ  ࡢ  Ѝ ࡲࡾᏊ ࡢ     ᒓ᱁ pro-form
Pro-formࠕࡢࠖ࡜ NP ๐㝖*ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊHiraiwa (2016)ࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊᵓ㐀(4a)㸦Pro-form No and NP-ellipsis㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ pro-formࠕࡢࠖࡶྵࡵ࡚㍍ྡモ㸦light☾㔝 ⩣ຍ㸦Asuka Isono㸧

noun㸧ࡀ n ୺せ㒊ࢆ༨ࡵࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ㍍ྡモศᯒ஑ᕞ⏘ᴗ኱Ꮫ㸦Kyushu Sangyo University㸧࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢほⅬ࡛ࡣ(2a)ࡣ(4b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศᯒ ࡉ ࢀ ࠊ ᶆ ‽ ㄒ ࡢ ࢹ ࣮ ࢱ (1a) ࡣ ࠊ (3) ࡢhaplology ࢆ⏝࠸࡚(4c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋ

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸NP ๐㝖, pro-form, ῝ᒙ↷ᛂ, ⾲ᒙ↷ᛂ, light noun(4) a. [DP [Dƍ [nP XP n ] D ]] 㸦Hiraiwa (2016)㸧
b. [DP [Dƍ [nP [NP ࡲࡾᏊ]-ࢇ ࡜ n ] D ]]1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

㸦NJ㸧㸦ibid.㸧
c. [DP [Dƍ [nP [NP ࡲࡾᏊ]  Saito and Murasugi (1990)ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ㸦ᶆ‽ㄒ㸦௨ୗ SJ㸧㸧ࡢ NP ๐㝖ศᯒࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ(1a)ࡢᩥ

ࡢ n ] D ]]
㸦SJ㸧
㸦ibid.㸧

࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ(1b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟➨஧ྡモࡢ D ࡢ NP
 ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊM&T (2016)ࡀᥦ౪ࡍࡿ NP ๐⿵ㄒࠕែᗘࠖࢆ๐㝖ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㝖ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛ࡣ๐㝖ࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺
(1) a. ࡣࡿ࡞ࡢែᗘࡣࡲࡾᏊࡢࡼࡾࡶ❧ὴࡔ࠿ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡲࡓࠊࠕ࡜㸦ᶆ‽ㄒࡢࠕࡢࠖ㸧ࠖࡀᚑ᮶ࡢ pro-form ࡛࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࢆ

ࡗࡓࠋ㸦SJ㸧ಖᣢࡋࡓ Hiraiwa (2016)ࡢศᯒࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ♧b. [DP ࡲࡾᏊࡢ[D’ [NP ែᗘ] D]]ࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊM&T (2016)࡛ࡣᢅࡗ࡚࡞࠸ࠊ(5b)ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㛗ᓮ᪉ゝ㸦௨ୗ NJ㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᐃࡢࡼ࠺࡞㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡸ㡑ᅜㄒࡢࢹࡢ᪉ゝ࡛ࡣࠊ(2a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟௦ྡモ㸦pro-form㸧࣮ࢱࡶᤊ࠼ࡿ࡟ࡣࠊHirawai (2016)ࡢศᯒ࡟ຍ

ࡢࠕ࡜ࠖࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ㸦Maeda and Takahashi (2016)

࠼ࠊSaruwatari (2016)ࡢᒓ᱁ࡢ㡢ኌⓗᙅ㡢໬㸦௨ୗ M&T (2016)㸧㸧
ࠋM&T (2016)ࡣ(2b)ࡢ

㸦phonological reduction㸧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ

ࡼ࠺࡟ pro-form ࠕ࡜ࠖࡀ n ୺せ㒊࡜ࡋ࡚ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ

Merchant (2001)ࡀᥦ᱌ࡋࡓ E㸦llipsis㸧⣲ᛶࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋࠊNP ๐㝖ศᯒࢆ᧦ㆤࡋ࡚

(5) a. ࡣࡿ࡞ࢇែᗘࡣࡲࡾᏊࢇ࡜
࡜ࡼࡾࡶ❧ὴ

࠸ࡿࠋᶆ‽ㄒࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ(1a)ࡣࠊ(3)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺ࡸࡗࡓࠋ㸦㛗ᓮ┴༡ᮾ㒊ࠊ໭㒊㸧࡟ᒓ᱁ࡢࠕࡢࠖ࡜ pro-form ࡢࠕࡢࠖࡢ haplology

㸦M&T (2016)=(2a)㸧

㸦㔜㡢⬺ⴠ㸧࡜࡞ࡾࠊ(2c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศᯒࡉࢀ

࡜ࡼࡾࡶ❧ὴ
b. ࡣࡿ࡞ࡢែᗘࡣࡲࡾᏊࢇ࡜

ࡿࠋ

ࡸࡗࡓࠋ
㸦㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝ㸧
㸦Saruwatari (2016: 186)㸧

(2) a. ࡣࡿ࡞ࢇែᗘࡣࡲࡾᏊࢇ࡜
࡜ࡼࡾࡶ❧ὴ
2. ࢫࢥ࣮ࣉࡢ᭕᫕ᛶ㸦VP ๐㝖ࠊdo so ↷ᛂࠊ

ࡸࡗࡓࠋ
㸦NJ㸧
b. [DP ࡲࡾᏊࢇ[Dƍ[nP[NP ែᗘ N ] ࡜ n ]D]]

pro-form㸧

㸦NJ㸧㸦M&T (2016)㸧

 M&T (2016)ࡢ๐㝖࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢹ࣮ࢱࢆぢࡿ22ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᛕ㢌࡟⨨ࡁࠊM&T (2016)ࡢࢹ࣮

๓࡟ࠊdo so ↷ᛂ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿࠋࢱࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ
2.1. do so ↷ᛂ
2.2. M&T (2016)ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࢫࢥ࣮ࣉࡢ᭕᫕

Hankamer and Sag (1976)ࡣ do so ↷ᛂࢆ⾲ᒙ↷ᛂ࡜ࡋ࡚ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ῝ᒙ↷ᛂ࡜⾲ᛶ㸦VP ๐㝖ࠊdo so ↷ᛂࠊpro-form㸧ᒙ↷ᛂ࡛ࡣ♧ࡍᢤࡁฟࡋࡢྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㐪࠸ࡀ M&T (2016)ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ(9)ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ(9a)࡟⥆࠶ ࡿ 㸦 Depiante (2000) ࠊ Johnson (2001) ࠊࡅ࡚(9b)ࢆⓎゝࡍࡿᩥ⬦࡛ࠊ(9b)࡛ࡣ pro-form

Merchant (2013)㸧ࠋ῝ᒙ↷ᛂࡣᢤࡁฟࡋࢆチ

ࠕ࡜ࠖࡣ(10a)ࡢཝᐦㄞࡳ࡜(10b)ࡢ⦆ࡸ࠿࡞

ࡉ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ⾲ᒙ↷ᛂࡣᢤࡁฟࡋࢆチࡍࠋ(6a)ࠊ

ㄞࡳࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ(11a)࡛♧ࡋࡓⱥㄒࡢ VP ๐㝖࡜(7a)ࠊ(8a)ࡼࡾࠊdo so ࡣࠊ⾲ᒙ↷ᛂࡢ VP ๐ྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

㝖࡟࠾࠸࡚ྍ⬟࡞ wh ⛣ືࠊཷື໬⛣ືࠊ✵(9) a. ⸃ᦶࢇࡑࡇࡢẊᵝ࡬ࢇᛅㄔࡣ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁ

₇⟬Ꮚ⛣ືࢆチᐜࡋ࡞࠸㸦ᆏᮏ (2018)㸧
ࠋࡿࡤࡗ࡚ࢇࠊ 㸦NJ㸧(6) wh ⛣ືࠕ⸃ᦶࡢࡑࡇࡢẊᵝ࡬ࡢᛅㄔࡣ⌮ゎ࡛

a. *I don’t know which puppy1 you shouldࡁࡿࡅࢀ࡝ࠊ
ࠖ[VP adopt t1], but I know which one2 youb. ᓥཎࢇ࡜ࡣ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࢇࠋ 㸦NJ㸧shouldn’t [VP do so].

ࠕᓥཎࡢࡣ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠖ

㸦Houser (2010: 21)㸧

㸦M&T (2016: 120)㸧

b. I know which book1 Mary [VP read t1],

(10) a. ᓥཎࡢ⸃ᦶࡢẊᵝ࡬ࡢᛅㄔࡣ⌮ゎ࡛

and which book2 Bill didn’t [VP ‫]ڹ‬.

ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋb. ᓥཎࡢᓥཎࡢẊᵝ࡬ࡢᛅㄔࡣ⌮ゎ࡛㸦Fiengo and May (1994:247)㸧
(7) ཷື໬⛣ືࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ          㸦ibid.㸧
(11) a. Harry loves his mother, and Ron does,

a. *The vase1 was [VP broken t1 by thetoo.

children], and the jar2 was [VP done so],‫ݱ‬strict reading; ‫ݱ‬sloppy reading

too. 㸦Houser (2010:22)㸧

b. Harry loves his mother, and Ron doesb. One theory claims that they1 can’t [VP beher, too.

distinguished t1], while another claims‫ݱ‬strict reading; *sloppy readingthat they2 can [VP ‫]ڹ‬.
㸦Levin (1986:156)㸧

㸦ibid.: 119㸧

a. * We ate far more at the carnival [than Op

ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ(12)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࠕ࡜ࠖ࡜ᑐ࡟࡞

(8) ✵₇⟬Ꮚ⛣ື
ࡿ pro-form ‘one’ ࡶ ⦆ ࡸ ࠿ ࡞ ㄞ ࡳ ࢆ チ ࡍ

we should have [VP done so]].

㸦Llombart-Huesca (2002: 65)㸧ࠋ

㸦Thompson (2014:252)㸧
b.

Abby can play more instruments [than(12)

Op her father can [VP ‫]]ڹ‬.

I saw Janet’s beautiful picture of her cat
and Jack saw Julie’s ugly one.

㸦Winkler (2005:115)㸧

‫ݱ‬strict reading; ‫ݱ‬sloppy readingࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊdo so ࡣ῝ᒙ↷ᛂ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ
ࡲ࡛࡛ࠊ⾲ᒙ↷ᛂࡢ VP ๐㝖࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊdoࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ(13)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟῝ᒙ↷ᛂ do so ࡶ⦆ࡸ

so ↷ᛂࡀ῝ᒙ↷ᛂ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋ࠿࡞ㄞࡳࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡍࡿ㸦Houser (2010: 18)㸧ࠋ

23

(13)

Harry loves his mother, and Ron does so,㔜せ࡞ࡢࡣࠊ(16)ࡢ do so ↷ᛂࡶ(14)ࡢ VP ๐

too. 

㝖࡜ྠᵝࡢࢫࢥ࣮ࣉゎ㔘ࢆチᐜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ‫ݱ‬strict reading; ‫ݱ‬sloppy reading

࡛࠶ࡿࠋBaltin (2012: 418) ࡟ࡶྠᵝࡢほᐹࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

⦆ࡸ࠿࡞ㄞࡳ࡛ࡣࠊ๐㝖ࢆక࠺࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣศ
࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋM&T (2016)ࡶࡇࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

(16) a. A boy climbed every tree.
b. A girl did so, too. 㸦a >/ <every㸧ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ḟ࡟ࠊFox (2000)࡟♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜
M&T (2016)ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ(14)ࡢ VP ๐ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢᵝ࡞ࢫࢥ࣮ࣉゎ㔘ࡢ᭕᫕ᛶ㝖࡛ࡣ Fox (2000: 33)ࡀᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ

࡛ࡣ๐㝖ࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ศ࠿ࡽ࡞

Ꮡᅾᩘ㔞モ a ࡜ᬑ㐢ᩘ㔞モ every ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀ࠸ࠋ(15)ࡢࢫࢥ࣮ࣉゎ㔘ࡣ๐㝖ࡢ᰿ᣐ࡟ࡣ࡞

ࡶᗈ࠸స⏝ᇦࢆྲྀࡿࠋ

ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ(15b)ࡢࠕ࡜ࠖࡣ Hiraiwa (2016)ࡢᵝ࡟㏻ᖖࡢ pro-for㹫࡜ࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

(14) a. A boy climbed every tree.
b. A girl did, too. 㸦a >/ <every㸧

3. ᚑ᮶ࡢ pro-formࠕ࡜ࠖ࡜ M&T (2016)ࡢ
ࠕ࡜ࠖ(14a)࡛Ꮡᅾᩘ㔞モ a ࡀᗈ࠸స⏝ᇦࢆྲྀࡿሙ ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊᚑ᮶ࡢ pro-form ࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ☜ㄆࡋ

ྜࠊ(14b)ࡶᏑᅾᩘ㔞モ a ࡀᗈ࠸స⏝ᇦࢆྲྀࡿࠋ ࡚ࠊM&T (2016)ࡢࠕ࡜ࠖࡣᚑ᮶ࡢ pro-form ࡜(14a)࡛ᬑ㐢ᩘ㔞モ every ࡀᗈ࠸స⏝ᇦࢆྲྀࡣ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠋᐑᮏ (2016)ࡶཧ↷ࡿሙྜࠊ(14b)ࡶᬑ㐢ᩘ㔞モ every ࡀᗈ࠸స⏝

㡬ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ

ᇦࢆྲྀࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊM&T (2016)ࡣ(15)ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ

3.1 ᚑ᮶ࡢ pro-formࠕ࡜ࠖ࡜㛵ಀ⠇ࡀ most ࡜ one ࡀ࠸ࡎࢀࡶᗈ࠸స⏝ᇦࢆྲྀࡾࠊ  ࡲࡎࠊ㛵ಀ⠇࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࠋpro-form(15a)࡛ most ࡀᗈ࠸స⏝ᇦࢆྲྀࡿሙྜࡣࠊࠕࡢࠖ
㸦NJ ࡢࠕ࡜ࠖ
㸧ࡀ㛵ಀ⠇㸦௨ୗ RC㸧࡛(15b)ࡶ most ࡀᗈ࠸స⏝ᇦࢆྲྀࡾࠊ(15a)࡛ oneࡶ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᗈࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋDP ࡢࡀᗈ࠸స⏝ᇦࢆྲྀࡿሙྜࡣࠊ(15b)ࡶ one ࡀᗈ

spec ࡬ࡢ RC ࡢ⛣ືࡀకࢃ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ(17)࡛

࠸స⏝ᇦࢆྲྀࡾࠊ๐㝖ࡀ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜୺ᙇ

ࡣ spec ࡀ head ࡜୍⮴ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁࡢࡳ NP ๐㝖ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ(15b)ࡣ(15a)࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࡀ㉳ࡇࡾ࠺ࡿ࡜࠸࠺᮲௳ࡣ‶ࡓࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ

࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
(17)
(15) a. ࡓ࠸࡚࠸ࡢ⤌⧊࠿ࡽࢇ࢔ࢪ࢔ࢇ୍࠿ࡲࡾࡇࡀぢࡓ࡜ 㸦RC㸧㸦NJ㸧
ࠕࡲࡾࡇࡀぢࡓࡢࠖᅜࢇ⬺㏥ࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࡅ࡝ࠊ㸦NJ㸧
ࠕࡓ࠸࡚࠸ࡢ⤌⧊࠿ࡽࡢ࢔ࢪ࢔ࡢ୍࠿

ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊRC ࡛⏕ࡌࡿࠕ࡜ࠖࡣ๐㝖ࢆకᅜࡢ⬺㏥ࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࡅ࡝ࠊࠖ

ࢃ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࡣࠊᚑ᮶ ࡢ
pro-formࠕ࡜ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊM㸤T (2016)

㸦one >/ <most㸧b. ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࢇ୍࠿ᅜࢇ࡜
࡜ࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀ

ࡢศᯒ࡛ࡢࠕ࡜࡛ࠖࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࢇࡸࡗࡓࠋ
㸦NJ㸧
3.2 ᚑ᮶ࡢ pro-formࠕ࡜ࠖ࡜ゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࠕ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢ୍࠿ᅜࡢࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞
࠿ࡗࡓࠖ
㸦one >/ <most㸧ḟ࡟ࠊᚑ᮶ࡢ pro-form ࡣゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࢆᚲ

㸦M&T (2016: 127)㸧

せ࡜ࡋ࡞࠸ࡀࠊNP ๐㝖ࡣゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀᚲ

24

せ࡛࠶ࡿⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࠋLasnik andศᯒࡣࠊ(21b)ࡢ㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝ㸦௨ୗ NC㸧ࡸ(22)Saito (1992)ࡢᥦ᱌ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊNP ๐㝖ࡣゝㄒࡢ㡑ᅜㄒ࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡉࡽ࡞ࡿඃ఩ᛶࢆ⋓ⓗ ඛ ⾜ モ ࢆ ᚲ せ ࡜ ࡍ ࡿ ࠋ Llombart-Huesca

ᚓࡍࡿࠋNC ࡛ࡣ(21b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊඛ⾜モࡢྡ(2002)࡛ࡣࠊNP ๐㝖ࡀゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࢆᚲせモྃ࡜➨஧ྡモྃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᒓ᱁ᶆ♧ࡀ␗࡞࡜ࡋ࡞࠸౛ᩥࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ

ࡿࠋ๓⪅ࡣࠕࡢࠖࠊᚋ⪅ࡣࠕࢇࠖ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ୺

Llombart-Huesca (2002)ࡢ౛ᩥ࡛ࡣࠊྠࡌᩥ⬦せ㒊ࡢྡモࡀ㍍ྡモ㸦pro-formࠕ࡜ࠖࡸࠕ᫬ࠖ

࡛ NP ๐㝖࡜ pro-form ࢆẚ㍑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛

࡞࡝㸧ࡢሙྜ࡟ࡢࡳᒓ᱁ᶆ♧ࡣࠕࢇࠖ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྠࡌᩥ⬦࡛ẚ࡭ࡿ࡜ࠊࡸࡣࡾ NP ๐㝖࡜ pro-form͂one̓࡟ࡣ㐪࠸ࡀ(21) a. ࡣࡿ࡞ࢇែᗘࡣࡲࡾᏊࢇ࡜
࡜ࡼࡾࡶ❧࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤᮏᒇ࡟࠸ࡿ≧ἣ࡛ᗑဨ࡟ヰࡋ࠿ὴࡸࡗࡓࠋ㸦㛗ᓮ┴༡ᮾ㒊ࠊ໭㒊㸧ࡅࡿሙྜࠊ(18)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ NP ๐㝖ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ

㸦M&T (2016)=(5a)ࠊ(2a)㸧

࡞࠸ࡀࠊpro-form ‘one’ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒ

b. ࡣࡿ࡞ࡢែᗘࡣࡲࡾᏊࢇ࡜
࡜ࡼࡾࡶ❧ࢆࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ(19) ࡢ pro-formࠕ࡜ࠖࡸࠕࡢࠖࡣ

ὴࡸࡗࡓࠋ㸦㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝ㸧ᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ (20)ࡢᵝ࡟͂book̓ࡀⓎゝࡉ㸦Saruwatari (2016: 186)=(5b)㸧

ࢀ ࡿ ሙ ྜ ࡣ ࠊ NP ๐ 㝖 ࡶ ྍ ⬟ ࡟ ࡞ ࡿ ࠋ㸦Saruwatari (2016)㸧

ࡲࡓࠊ(22)ࡼࡾࠊ㡑ᅜㄒ࡛ࡣ୺せ㒊ࡢྡモࡀࠕឡࠖࠊࠕែᗘࠖ࡞࡝ࡢᢳ㇟ྡモࡢሙྜࡣᒓ᱁

(18)

Excuse me, I’m looking for Haruki‘ui’ ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊpro-form ࢆྵࡵ㍍ྡモ

Murakami’s *(new one).

ࡢሙྜࡣࠊᒓ᱁ࡀⴠࡕࡿ㸦Ⓨ㡢ࡉࢀ࡞࠸㸧

㸦Saruwatari (2016: 181)㸧

㸦Saruwatari (2016: 184)㸧
ࠋ(19) a. ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠊᮧୖ᫓ᶞࢇ࡜
࡜ࡤ᥈ࡋ࡜ࡿ
(22)࡜ࡤࡗ࡚ࢇࠋ
㸦NJ㸧ࡢ ࢆ᥈ࡋ࡚࠸
b. ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠊᮧୖ᫓ᶞࡢ
ࡿࢇ࡛ࡍࡀࠋ
㸦SJ㸧
(ibid.: 182)
(20) a. Hanako: Whose book is selling best in

Suni-uisarang-eun

Suni-Gen

love-Top

Cheolsu geo-bodakeo.

Cheolsu pro-form-thanbigࠕࢫࣥࢽࡢឡࡣࢳࣙࣝࢫࡢ
ࡢࡼࡾ኱ࡁ࠸ࠖ

this shop?
b. Clerk: Haruki Murakami’s (new one).

⾲㸯ࡣ㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝ࡜㡑ᅜㄒࡢᒓ᱁ࡢศᕸࢆ

(ibid.: 181)♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⾲ 1 ࡢ(a)~(c)ࡢ㡑ᅜㄒࡢᒓ᱁
͂ui̓ࡀ㝶ពⓗ࡞ሙྜࢆ㝖࠸࡚ࠊ⾲ 1(d)~(i)ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ(18)㹼(20)ࡼࡾࠊゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モ࡛ࡣ㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝ࡜㡑ᅜㄒ࡟ࡣ㢮ఝᛶࡀぢࡽࡀ࡞࠸≧ἣ࡛ࠊNP ๐㝖ࡣ pro-form ࡯࡝⮬⏤ࢀࡿࠋ⾲㸯(d)ࡢᵝ࡟ࠕಙᛕࠖࠊ
ࠕែᗘࠖࠊ
ࠕឡࠖ

࡟ࡣ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡎࠊpro-form ࡜ NP ๐࡞࡝ࡢᢳ㇟ྡモࡀ୺せ㒊ࡢྡモࡢሙྜ࡟ࠊ㛗㝖࡜࡛ࡣ㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋHiraiwaᓮᕷ᪉ゝ࡛ࡣᒓ᱁ࡣࠕࡢࠖ࡟࡞ࡾࠊ㡑ᅜㄒ࡛

(2016)࡛ࡣ(17)ࠊ(19)ࡶᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊ ࡣ͂ui̓ࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ⾲㸯(g)~(i) ࡢ
M&T (2016)ࡢࠕ࡜ࠖࡣ๐㝖ศᯒ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ

pro-form㸦ࠕ࡜ࠖࡸ͂keo̓㸧ࢆྵࡵࡓ㍍ྡモࡀ(17)ࠊ(19)࡟ࡣ㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ୺せ㒊࡟࡞ࡿሙྜࠊ㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝ࡛ࡣᒓ᱁ࡀ
ࠕࢇࠖ࡟࡞ࡾࠊ㡑ᅜㄒ࡛ࡣᒓ᱁ࡀⴠࡕࡿ㸦ᒓ

4. Hiraiwa (2016)࡜ Saruwatari (2016)

᱁ࡣⓎ㡢ࡉࢀ࡞࠸㸧ࠋHiraiwa (2016)ࡢ㍍ྡモ

 Hiraiwa (2016)ࡢ pro-form ࢆྵࡵࡓ㍍ྡモ

ศᯒࡢᵓ㐀࡛ࡣ pro-form ࡜ࡑࡢ௚ࡢ㍍ྡモ

25࡜ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊM&Tධࡉࢀࡓᒓ᱁ࡢ㡢ኌⓗᙅ㡢໬࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ

(2016)ࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ࡜ࠖࡣᚑ᮶ࡢ pro-formᶆ‽ㄒࠊ㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝࠊ㡑ᅜㄒࡢᒓ᱁ࡢศᕸࢆ

࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ࡞ࡐ(21b)ࡢ㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝ࡛ᒓ⤫୍ⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ(24)࡛♧ࡉࢀ᱁ࡀࠕࢇࠖ࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࠿㏣ຍࡢㄝ᫂ࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝࡢࠕࢇࠖࡣࠊᒓ᱁ࡢ㡢ࡿࠋኌⓗᙅ㡢໬㸦Phonological reduction㸧࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢᴟ➃࡞౛ࡀࠊ㡑ᅜㄒࡢ͂ui̓ࡀⴠࡕࡓ౛
㸦Genitive drop㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⾲㸯㸬 㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝࡢᒓ᱁ࠕࡢࠖ࡜ࠕࢇࠖ ࠊ㡑ᅜㄒࡢᒓ᱁

‘ui’ 㸦 Saruwatari (2016:(24)

189-191)㸧

Genitive Marker Reduction㛗ᓮ 㡑 ᅜ 㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝ࡜㡑ᅜㄒࡢ౛ᩥ
ᶆ‽ㄒࠕࡢࠖ
㸪㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝࠕࡢࠖᕷ᪉ ㄒ㡑ᅜㄒࡢ͂ui̓

ゝ
ࡢ

ࡢ

(ui)

ui

a. ⰼᏊ㹝ᮏb. ࣮࣐ࣟ㹝◚ቯЎc. ඹ⏘㌷㹝౵␎㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝd. ⰼᏊ㹝㹹ಙᛕ/ែᗘ/ឡ㹻ࠕࢇࠖe. ࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟࡜㹝࢖ࣥࢱࣅ㸦Phonological reduction㸧࣮ࣗЎf. ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝࠿ࡽ㹝ᡭ⣬ࢇØ

g. ⰼᏊ㹝{࡜/ keo}㡑ᅜㄒࡢ͂ui̓ࡀ࡞࠸౛
㸦Genitive drop㸧h. ⰼᏊ㹝᫬i. ⚄ᡞ㹝࡟ࡁ㸦
ࠕ㎶ࡾࠖ㸧㸦Saruwatari (2016: 192)㸧

⾲ 1 ࡢᒓ᱁ࡢศᕸࡣࠊHiraiwa (2016)ࡢᵓ㐀(23)࡟ຍ࠼ࠊ(24)ࡢ Saruwatari (2016)ࡢᒓ᱁ࡢ

(21b)ࡢ㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝࡸ(22)ࡢ㡑ᅜㄒࡢࢹ࣮

㡢ኌⓗᙅ㡢໬㸦phonological reduction㸧ࢆ⏝ࢱࠊࡑࡋ࡚⾲㸯ࡢᒓ᱁ࡢศᕸࢆᤊ࠼ࡿ࡟ࡣࠊ

࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ⾲ 1 ࡢ(g)~(i)ࡣᤄධ

Hiraiwa (2016)ࡢᵓ㐀࡜ Saruwatari (2016)ࡢᒓ

ࡉࢀࡓᒓ᱁ࡀ㡢ኌⓗ࡟ᙅ㡢໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸

᱁ࡢ㡢ኌⓗᙅ㡢໬㸦phonological reduction㸧࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ

(23)

DP
nP
NP

5. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡲࡎࠊVP ๐㝖ࡣ⾲ᒙ↷ᛂ࡛D

࠶ࡾࠊdo so ↷ᛂࡣ῝ᒙ↷ᛂ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᢤ
ࡁฟࡋࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡼࡾ☜ㄆࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊ

n
Ќ  

M&T (2016)ࡀ๐㝖ࡢ᰿ᣐ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡓ౛ᩥ ㍍ྡモࡢࢫࢥ࣮ࣉゎ㔘ࡀ do so ↷ᛂ࡛ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ      ᒓ᱁ᤄධ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊM&T (2016)ࡢ౛
ᩥ࡛ࡣ๐㝖ࡀྵࡲࢀࡿ࠿ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ

(24)Genitive Marker Reduction ࡢᅗࡢᵝ࡟ᤄ

♧ࡋࡓࠋ

26

Comparative Syntax of Japanese andࡲࡓࠊM&T (2016)ࡢࠕ࡜ࠖࡣࠊ๐㝖ࡀక࠺ᥦ᱌࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊᚑ᮶ࡢ pro-formࠕ࡜ࠖ࡜ࡣู

Okinawan,” NLLT 34(4), 1345-1387.

ࡢࡶࡢ࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊM&T (2016)ࡢ

Houser, Michael J. (2010) The Syntax andࠕ࡜ࠖࡣࠊᚑ᮶ࡢ pro-formࠕ࡜ࠖ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ

Semantics of Do So Anaphora, Doctoral๐㝖ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠕ㛵ಀ

dissertation,⠇ࠖࡸࠕゝㄒⓗඛ⾜モࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡛ࠖࡣ㐺⏝

Berkeley.

UniversityofCalifornia,

Isono, Asuka (2021) “Pro-form no in Japanese,”ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
M&T (2016)ࡢࠕ࡜ࠖࡣࠊᚑ᮶ࡢ pro-form

poster presented at the 14th Internationalࠕ࡜࡛ࠖࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ(5b)ࡢᵝ࡞㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝ

Spring Forum of the English Linguisticࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛ࠊᒓ᱁ࡀࠕࢇࠖ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋ

Society of Japan.

࡚ㄝ᫂ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝ࡛ࡣ୺せ㒊

Johnson, Kyle (2001) “What VP-Ellipsis Canࡢྡモࡀ pro-form ࢆྵࡵࡓ㍍ྡモࡢሙྜ࡟

Do, and What It Can't, but Not Why,” Theᒓ᱁ࡀࠕࢇࠖ࡟࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࡢ஦ᐇࡣ Hiraiwa

Handbook(2016)ࡢศᯒࢆࢧ࣏࣮ࢺࡍࡿࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟࡞ࡿ

Theory, ed. by Mark Baltin and Chrisࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋHiraiwa (2016)ࡢᵓ㐀ࢆ᥇⏝ࡋCollins, 439-479, Blackwell Publishers,ࡓୖ࡛ࠊᶆ‽ㄒࠊ㛗ᓮᕷ᪉ゝࠊ㡑ᅜㄒࡢᒓ᱁

Oxford.

ofContemporary

Syntactic

ࡢศᕸࢆ⤫୍ⓗ࡟ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊSaruwatari

Levin, Nancy S. (1986) Main-Verb Ellipsis in(2016)ࡢᒓ᱁ࡢ㡢ኌⓗᙅ㡢໬㸦phonological

Spoken English, Garland, New York.
Llombart-Huesca, Amàlia (2002) “Anaphoric

reduction㸧ࡀ᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭ࡓࠋ

One and NP-Ellipsis,” Studia Linguistica
56(1), 59-89.

* ᮏⓎ⾲ࡣ Isono (2021)ࠊSaruwatari (2016)ࠊ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍➨ 40 ᅇ኱఍࡛ࡢཱྀ㢌

Maeda, Masako and Daiko Takahashi (2016)Ⓨ⾲࡟ຍ➹ಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎ⾲ࡢ“NP-Ellipsis in the Nagasaki Dialect of㝿࡟ࡈᣦ᦬ࡸࡈຓゝࢆࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓㅖඛ⏕᪉

Japanese,” J/K Linguistics 23, 119-132.
Merchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax of Silence:࡟ࡇࡢሙࢆ೉ࡾ࡚ᚚ♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋ

Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis.
Oxfordཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Baltin, Mark (2012) “Deletion versus Pro-forms:

University

Press,

Oxford.

Miyamoto, Y (2013) “On the Unavailability

An Overly Simple Dichotomy?” NLLT 30,

of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative

381-423.

Clause,” Nanzan Linguistics 9, 51-83.

Depiante, Marcela (2000) The Syntax of Deep

Merchant, Jason (2013) “Diagnosing ellipsis,”and Surface Anaphora: A Study of Null

Diagnosing syntax, ed. by Lisa Lai-Shen

Complement Anaphora and Stripping/Bare

Cheng and Norbert Corver, 539-579,

Argument Ellipsis, Doctoral dissertation,

Oxford University Press, Oxford.
ᐑᮏ㝧୍ (2016)ࠕྡモྃෆࡢ┬␎ࠖ, ᮧᮡ ᜨ

University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Fiengo, Robert and Robert May (1994) IndicesᏊ௚ (⦅) ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲࣁࣥࢻࣈࢵࢡ :and Identity, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

ゝ ㄒ ⌮ ㄽ ࡜ ゝ ㄒ ⋓ ᚓ ࡢ ほ Ⅼ ࠿ ࡽ ࠘㸪265-298㸪㛤ᣅ♫㸪ᮾி.

Fox, Danny (2000) Economy and Semantic

Saito, Mamoru and Keiko Murasugi (1990)

Interpretation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hiraiwa,Ken(2016)“NP-Ellipsis:“Nƍ-Deletion in Japanese” The University

A

27

of

Connecticut

Working

Paperin

Linguistics III, 87-107.
ᆏᮏ♸ኴ (2018)ࠕⱥㄒࡢྰᐃ㎡⧞ࡾୖࡆ㸸so↷ᛂ࡜┦஫స⏝ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠖ᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ
఍➨ 36 ᅇ኱఍ཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲.
Saruwatari, Asuka (2016) Nominative andGenitive
Dialectal

Cases
and

in

Japanese:

From

Cross-Linguistic

Perspectives, Doctoral dissertation, Osaka
University.
Thompson, Andrea (2014). Beyond Deep and
Surface: Explorations in the Typology ofAnaphora, Doctoral dissertation, Universityof California, Santa Cruz CA.
Winkler, Susanne (2005) Ellipsis and Focus in
Generative Grammar, Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin, New York.

28

The rest of this paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 will see how the MT construction
displays two grammatical characteristics whichhave never been recognized in numerous studies
on the there construction. Section 3, from theOn There-Sentences Involving “Experiencer”:
A Construction Grammar Perspective*

perspective of Cognitive Construction Grammar,
will explore the motivating factor for the

Yusuke Minami

apparently outlandish nature of MT construction.

Kobe University

Section 4 concludes this paper.
2. Features Specific to MT Construction

Keywords㸸there construction, mental states,

2.1. Co-occurrence with the For-phrase ofexperiencer, Construction Grammar“Experiencer”
MT construction can co-occur with aprepositional phrase headed by for which

1. Introduction

specifies someone who undergoes the mental

This paper is concerned with a class of there

state designated by the PVNP, as in (4)-(7).

sentences in which the post-verbal NP (=PVNP)
position is occupied by nouns denoting mental(4)

states (=mental nouns), as exemplified in (1)-(3).

The election of 2000 brought victory, but
after eight years of George W., 2008

(1)

(2)

There is comfort in remembering that deathbrought defeat once again. Though, at least

is not the end. There is comfort in knowing

America would now be free of the incubusthat we can see those we love again.

of racism. The victor was a pleasant black(COCA 2014)

man, and there was, for me, some

But there’s consolation in the idea that

consolation in that. (COCA 2017: italics

nature is reclaiming the places it has lent toare mine)(5)people. (COCA 2012)(3)

There is liberation in being a character

There’s pride in being able to take care ofactor, especially for someone who’s used to

yourself (…). (COCA 2008)‘carrying’ movies. (COCA 2003)(6)

Sentences of this kind, which for some reasona.

There was comfort in that thought.

b.

For me, there was comfort in thatthought.

have received little attention in preceding studies,(7)

will henceforth be called “mental-state there(=MT) construction”. In this paper, I will firsta.

There is pride in being a professor.

b.

For her, there is pride in being aprofessor.

show that MT construction, despite its apparent
formal affinity with the well-studied existential
there construction, exhibits properties that

This is not observed with other types of there

cannot be attributed to the latter. I will thenconstructions such as (8) and (9), which have

explore a cognitive motivation for thosebeen often cited in traditional linguistic papers.

peculiarities of MT construction.

29

(8)

a.

There is a vase on the table.

(12) a.

b. ? For {me/her}, there is a vase on the

There was comfort in that thought.

b.

{I/she/he}table.
(9)

a.

took

comfortinthat

thought.

There was a car accident on the
highway.

At first sight, the paradigm (12) follows theb. ? For {me/her}, there was a car accident

sameon the highway.

pattern

as

(10)

and

(11).

Under

Lambrecht’s theory of focus structure, (12a) and(12b) would be analyzed as SF and PF structures,2.2. Paradigmatic Contrast

respectively.

However,one

noteworthy

Another aspect of MT construction thatdifference between (12) and the other two is thatdifferentiates it from more prototypical there

in the there construction variant (=12b), theconstructions is the type of construction withmain participant in the described scene iswhich it is contrasted paradigmatically. In the“defocused” by being demoted from the subject

literature, the existential there construction has

position. No such process is involved in either ofbeen assumed to be part of two types of(10) and (11). This suggests that the motivation

paradigmatic relations, which are exemplified byfor the variants in (12) is different in nature from(10) and (11), respectively.

that for those in (10) and (11).

(10) a.

There is a vase on the table.

2.3.

b.

A vase is on the table.

Construalc.

The table has a vase on it.

b.

Structure

vs.

Event

Any approach based solely on concepts(Lakoff 1987: 558)(11) a.

Information

related to information structure would fail to

There’s a car coming.

capture the two features peculiar to MT

A car is coming.

construction because both of them have to do(Egawa 1991: 196)

with whether a particular participant (i.e.
In either paradigm, the existential there variant

experiencer) of the described situation isand all the other alternative constructions are

expressed or not. In other words, informationdifferent in terms of information structure.

structure

Building on Lambrecht’s (1994, 2000) theory ofcharacterization of MT construction. As will befocus structure, the existential there variant has

discussed

the structure of Sentence Focus (=SF) whereas

information structure, it is necessary to take into

the other variants have that of Predicate Focus

account the event construal associated with there(=PF), i.e. the subject-predicate structure. It has

sentences in general.

alone
in

cannotwhat

makefollows,aproper

along

with

been assumed, therefore, that information
structure plays the key role in motivating both

3. A Construction Grammar Perspective

1

types of paradigmatic contrasts.

One of the fundamental tenets in Cognitive
Construction Grammar (=CCG) is that any

Turning now to MT construction, it is in aparadigmatic

relationwithalinguistic unit of any size and schematicity has

transitive

the potential to serve as a basic linguistic unit

construction, as shown in (12):called “construction”, i.e., a particular pairing of30

meaning (function) and form (Goldberg 1995,

have seen this in 2.2, referring to two types of2006, 2019, Langacker 2000, Croft 2001).

paradigmatic

contrasts

that

includethe

CCG has generally adopted the widelyexistential there construction. In addition, therecognized assumption that linguistic meaning

main interest has always centered around issues

consists of several dimensions, and a major

such as the definiteness effect, i.e. the constraint

dividing line has often been drawn between

on the definiteness of the PVNP (Abbott 1993,“information packaging” and “propositional

Birner and Ward 1998, Hannay 1985, Milsark

content”, i.e. a description of state of affairs

1974, among many others). Despite this trend,

2(Goldberg 1995: 43). The former has to do withthe existential there construction, just like the

how the speaker organizes the informationpassive construction, has an event-description

conveyed to the addressee while the latter is

aspect to it. In fact, in order to account for theconcerned with how the speaker as thepeculiar features of MT construction, it is“conceptualizer” construes the situation. It isnecessary to consider the dimension of event

well established that constructions differ as toconstrual rather than information packaging.

which level is relatively highlighted in contrast

Below, I will explore the nature of MT

to the other. Some constructions (e.g. cleft

construction by focusing on the propositional

constructions

dislocation

meaning of the existential there construction. 3.1

constructions) are connected exclusively withwill propose to assume an event construal

the dimension of information structure, and areassociated with the existential there construction

often grouped together under the name ofin general. 3.2 will sketch the peculiarity of theinformation packaging constructions (Hilpert

PVNP referent of MT construction and then2019). In contrast, the primary function of otherargue

grammaticalresultative

conceptual mismatch between the constructional

construction) is to describe a state of affairs,

meaning and the lexical meaning, claiming forhaving little to do with information structure.

the marked status of MT construction in theandright/leftconstructions

(e.g.

that

MT

construction

involvesaEssentially, between these opposite extremes

relevant paradigm. 3.3 will show that the marked

lie ‘hybrid’ constructions, one example of which

status of MT construction is supported by theis the passive construction. On the one hand, theresult of a corpus survey on the relative

passive has been seen as reflecting a specificfrequency of MS construction as compared totype of event construal, which essentiallythe transitive variant.

involves the process of agent defocusing(Shibatani 1985). On the other hand, the passive

3.1.

Event

Construal

Underlying

is thought to crucially display a feature of

Existential There Construction

theinformation packaging, as it involves the

The present study builds on a hypothesis

reversing of canonical order of the two

about the event construal associated with thearguments and is susceptible to discourse-level

existential there construction in general ([there +constraints (Birner and Ward 1998: 194-205).

be + PVNP + PP]), which is stated as follows:

As for the existential there construction,
many studies seem to have counted it as a(13) The existential there construction presents

typical information packaging construction. We

an event/situation description as a fact

31

recognized from the perspective of anand something perceived where the latter is

outside observer.

typically(14) implicatures by (13):(i) theobserverexternal

totheformer.

This

discrepancy is one of the well-discussed issues(mostly

notin linguistics as this property of mental statesnecessarily the speaker) is not a

can have its linguistic correlates (e.g. the firstparticipant

person constraint on mental state predicates in

of

the

but

event/situation

described

Japanese; see Uehara 1998).

(ii) the fact provided is to be shared withWe

people in general

have

seen

in

3.1

that

such

a

“perceiver-perceived” relation is compatible
with

the

constructional

meaningoftheThe validity of (13) could be confirmed byexistential there construction as outlined in (13);comparing (15a) with (15b):

it perfectly fits the construal under which theperceiver plays the role of “outside observer”, as(15) a.

There was a vase on the table.

b.

I could see a vase on the table.

we have seen with (15a).
By contrast, the aforementioned intimate
relation between a mental state and its

Sentence (15a) describes a particular situation,

experiencer is not as compatible with thebackgrounding the potential perceiver(s) without

constructional meaning of (13). In morewhom, in theory, the situation cannot betheoretical terms, there exists a conflict between

properly recognized. Still, the backgrounded

the meaning of a word and the meaning of aperceiver usually does not count as part of thegrammatical construction in which that word

situation described (see (14-i)). This implicatureappears, and the conflict is to be resolved

is clarified by comparing (15a) with (15b),

through the process of coercion by thewhere the “perceiver” is explicitly mentioned as

construction; the experiencer, who is inherently

a participant of the situation described.3

in an inseparable relation with a mental state, isadjusted to be someone who, from the outsider

3.2. A Mismatch between the Existential

point of view, observes their own mental state as

There Construction and the Mental State

if it were a fact that can be shared with other

PVNP

people.
Still, such a “coerced” outsider can never be

Let us turn to MT construction. What makesothera mere perceiver of the scene, because the PVNP

existential there sentences is the fact that its

referent conceptually requires identification of

PVNP refers to a mental state. As is often

the experiencer of the mental state it portrays.

pointed out, a mental state is different in nature

Take (16), for example. To make sense of thisfrom other entities (e.g. individuals and events)

sentence, one needs to know who is thein that it is inherently inaccessible to anyone but

experiencer of the mental state (“comfort”)

the individual who actually experiences it (i.e.

because it is contradictory to state that thereexperiencer). In this sense, a mental state isexists “comfort” in a particular thought withoutsomething internal to its experiencer. This is inanybody who could experience that comfort.

stark contrast to the relation between a perceiverThis is sharply contrasted with there sentencesit

conceptually

distinct

from

most

32

such as (17), which is most likely to imply thatagain next summer. There was consolation

the existence of a vase is not dependent on, orin that thought.

restricted to, any particular perceiver(s). The
3.3. Markedness of MT construction

propositional information is naturally to be

Let us have a renewed look at the paradigm

shared with people in general.

exemplified by (12), repeated here as (21) for(16) There was comfort in that thought. (=12a)convenience:(17) There was a vase on the table. (=15a)(21) a.
b.

This explains why, as we discussed in 2.1,

There was comfort in that thought.
{I/she/he}

took

comfortinthat

thought.

MT constructions could be accompanied by thefor phrase which specifies the experiencer; ithelps identify the experiencer evoked by MT

It is now clear to see that the crucial difference

construction.

between the two variants lies in how theexperiencer of the mental state (i.e. “comfort”) is(18) For the Kolman family, there is some

expressed in each construction. While the

comfort in knowing that -- even thoughexperiencer is encoded as subject of the clause

Gilberto Nunez was not convicted ofin (21b), it is made implicit (or “defocused”) in

murder -- he will spend time behind bars.

(21a). Considering our discussion in 3.2, it is(COCA 2018)predicted that the latter has the marked status in
the paradigm because it represents a construal

In (18), the MT construction is not used towhere the main participant of the situation is

describe the existence of a particular mental

deliberately defocused, costing the addresseestate as a general fact. Rather, the experience of(reader) extra effort to find out who is thea mental state is presented as a fact specifically“defocused” experiencer.
The hypothesis that MT construction is thefor the victim’s family, i.e. the experiencer of themarked alternative to the unmarked transitive

comfort.

construction in the paradigmatic relation has

There are also other ways to identify theMTbeen supported by a corpus survey throughconstruction. When the MT construction is in a

COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American

subordinate clause as in (19), the experiencer isEnglish). Six nouns were selected that frequently

manifested as subject of the main clause. In still

appear in the two constructions: comfort,

other cases, the experiencer is interpreted to beconsolation, pleasure, pride, satisfaction, andthe protagonist of the story who is referred to insolace. Their instances were collected where thethe immediately preceding context, as in (20).

noun is followed by in because it is theimplicit

experiencer

associatedwithpreposition most commonly attested in the(19) Peter said there was comfort in knowing

paradigm. As to comfort, solace, satisfaction,that others are experiencing the sameand consolation, all the examples attested in the

problems. (COCA 2012)

corpus were considered. About pleasure and(20) He thought he would be able to see her

pride, which exceeded the other nouns in

33

number, 500 randomly sampled examples werestate nouns occurring in the PVNP of theexamined. For each noun, examples of theexistential

transitive variant (e.g. She took comfort in that

instances of MT construction. In (22), forthought) as well as those of the MT variant (e.g.

instance, the experiencer of the emotion denoted

There was comfort in that thought) were pickedby the PVNP sadness is not the outside observerout in order to calculate their distribution ratio.

but the person indicated by the prepositional

As for the transitive variant, instances with thephrase.

there

constructions

constitutetransitive verbs take, find, seek, and feel werecounted. The result is summarized in Table 1.

(22) There was sadness in her eyes.

Table 1. Distribution of Mental State Nouns(i)(ii)
Percentage

MT construction and instances such as (22)
could be connected in some way by virtue of thetransitiveMTof (ii)variant

variant

comfort1522

216

12.4 %

discrepancy between the two types, however,solace

725

27

3.6 %

exactly how they are connected in the speaker’s

satisfaction

337

130

27.8 %

mind is no straightforward matter. I will leaveconsolation

79

24

23.3 %

this issue for further study.

pleasure

335

21

5.9%

pride

276

5

1.8 %

sharedschematic

expletive

structureincludingthere. Considering

the

the

semantic* I am indebted to the audience for theirinvaluable comments at the 40th national

Each noun occurs at least three times more

conference of English Linguistics Society Japan,

frequently in the transitive variant than it does inon November 5 in 2022. I would also like to

the MT variant, suggesting the markedness ofexpress my gratitude to James Crocker for his

the latter in the paradigm. 4

assistance in proofreading the paper. This
research was supported by Japanese Society for
the Promotion of Science, Grants-in-Aid for

4. Concluding Remarks

Scientific

In this brief paper, we first pointed out the

Research(C)[grantnumber:

19K00697].

existence of MT construction which shows
peculiarities that cannot be reduced to general1

properties of the existential there construction.

NOTES
The paradigm typified by (10), unlike the otherone, is also motivated by conceptual (semantic)

We then sought cognitive factors motivating MT
construction, arguing that, contrary to the tacit

distinction. See Lakoff (1987: 558) for further

assumption in the literature about the nature of

discussion on two interpretations and how they
are distributed among the three variants.

the existential there construction, the observed

2

phenomena are properly explained in terms of

As motivating factors for grammar in theframework of CCG, Boas (2013: 242) refers to

how a mental state experience is construed“properties of human interaction and cognition”,

rather than information structure organization.

which correspond to information packaging and

One remaining issue is that not all mental

propositional content, respectively.

34

The implicature status of (14) can be evidenced

Goldberg, Adele E. (2019) Explain Me This,by its cancellability in the immediate context, as

Princeton University Press, Princeton.

in a naturally-occurring example (i):(i) There was a car accident yesterday, I was

Hannay, Michael (1985) English Existentials inin there too. (COCA 2006; italics are mine)

Hilpert, Martin (2019) Construction Grammar

It should be noted here that the there-variant inand Its Application to English, 2nd Edition,

the paradigm exemplified by (10) behaves like

Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

an unmarked option: it accepts a wider range of

Kimball, John (1973) “The Grammar of

3

4

Functional Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht.

Existence,” CLS 9, 262-270.

nouns than the “bare” existential variant (=10b)(Kimball 1973) and it is “by far the more

Lakoff, George (1987) Women, Fire, andcommon option” than the have-variant (=10c)

Dangerous Things, Chicago University(Biber et al. 1999: 956).

Press, Chicago.
Lambrecht, Knud (1994) Information Structure

REFERENCES
Abbott, Barbara (1993) “A Pragmatic Accountand Sentence Form, Cambridge Universityof the Definiteness Effect in Existential

Lambrecht, Knud (2000) “When Subjects

Sentences,” Journal of Pragmatics 19,

Behave Like Objects: An Analysis of the

39-55.

Merging of S and O in Sentence-Focus

Press, Cambridge.

Constructions Across Languages,” Studies

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech,in Language 24 (3), 611-682.

Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan (1999)

Langacker,

Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written

R.

W.

(2000).

“A

Dynamic

Usage-based Model, in M. Barlow and S.

English, Pearson, Harlow.
Birner, Betty J. and Gregory Ward (1998)

Kemmer (eds.) Usage-based Models ofInformation Status and Non-canonicalLanguage, 1-63, Stanford University Press,

Word Order in English, John Benjamins,

Stanford.
Milsark, Gary (1974) Existential Sentences inAmsterdam and Philadelphia.

English,Boas, Hans (2013) “Cognitive Construction
Grammar,” In Thomas Hoffmann and
Graeme Trousdale (eds.)
HandbookofConstruction

Doctoraldissertation,MIT.

[Published by Garland, New York, 1979]

The Oxford

Shibatani, Masayoshi (1985) “Passives andGrammar,

Related233-252, OUP, Oxford.

Constructions:A

Prototype

Analysis,” Language 61 (4), 821-848.

Croft, William (2001) Radical Construction

Uehara, Satoshi (1998) “Pronoun drop andGrammar, OUP, Oxford.

perspective in Japanese,” Japanese/Korean

Egawa, Taiichiro (1991) Eibumpo Kaisetsu (ALinguistics 7, 275-289.

Guide to English Grammar), Kaneko Shobo,
Tokyo.

CORPORAGoldberg, Adele E. (1995) Constructions,

Davies,Mark(2008-)

The

CorpusofChicago University Press, Chicago.

Contemporary American English (COCA):

Goldberg, Adele E. (2006) Constructions at

560 million words, 1990-present, Available

Work, OUP, Oxford.

online at https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.

35

example (2).
(2) a.

Open the window or I’ll kill you.

b. # Open the window or I’ll kiss you.
(Lawler (1975: 371))

A Construction Grammar Analysis of
Or Conditional Imperatives: With Special
Reference to the Formation of Speech Act*In (2), the right conjunct can denote an event
such as killing but not kissing. This is because

Shin Tamura

kissing someone is generally considered to be

Graduate School of University of Tsukuba

desirable/beneficial. Clearly, the imperative of
the OCI expresses an event desirable to the

Keywords: or-conditional imperative, reasoning,speaker, while the declarative shows thecommand, statement, speech act

possibility of an event undesirable for theaddressee.
It follows from the above observations that
the OCI is used as a kind of ultimatum (cf.

1. Introduction

Davies (1986: 204–206)).

As is well known, some English expressions
may be construed as conditionals even though(3) Come on time or the boss will get furious.

they do not contain the marker if (e.g.,(Takahashi (2017: 117))

Dancygier and Sweetser (2005)). Among them,
this

study

investigatestheor-conditional

imperative (OCI), where an imperative and a

The speaker in (3) commands that the addressee

declarative are connected by the conjunction or.

arrive on schedule; if not, the boss will be mad.
The message thus includes a warning or(1) a.
b.

Stop or I’ll shoot.

ultimatum, and the right conjunct provides a

Stop! If you don’t, I’ll shoot.

reason for the addressee to comply with the
speaker’s command.

(Jary and Kissine (2014: 154))

The functional status of these OCIs can be
The speaker in (1a) orders the addressee to stop;treated in terms of speech acts: the imperative

otherwise, they will be shot. The string “orconveys the directive force such as command,

DECLARATIVE” can be roughly paraphrased

and the declarative provides a reason that theas an if-conditional as in (1b). Simply, or in thisaddressee should follow it. Although thecase behaves as an adversative link (cf. Lakoff

literature has pointed out the pragmatic aspects(1971)).

of the OCI (e.g., Lakoff (1974)), there is no
detailed account of why it behaves like an

More notable is that the imperative of the
speaker’sultimatum. That is, more explanation is needed

instruction to the addressee; if the addresseeof the functional properties. This study argues

does not follow it, an undesirable situation forthat the OCI is one instance of what Kanetani

the addressee (and sometimes the speaker) will

(2019) calls the REASONING construction,

be realized. This is clearly demonstrated inparticularly on the basis that both convey

OCI

directlycommunicates

the

36

the OCI is an instance of asymmetric or, and hedifferent units of speech acts.
The remainder of this paper proceeds asbases his argument on Goldberg’s (2006) notion

follows. Section 2 overviews the constructionalof the “amalgam construction.” A construction

analysis of OCI proposed by Takahashi (2012).

can comprise distinct constructions if they are

To deal with a remaining issue in his proposal,

semantically compatible with each other. The

Section 3 introduces Kanetani’s (2019) approach,application of this analysis to OCIs is as follows.

based

OCIs

on

which

constructions

with

the

are

amalgams

of

at

least

three

conjunction of a reason can be classified into

constructions: an asymmetric or-construction (X

two types: CAUSAL and REASONING. Then,orSection 4 proposes that OCIs can be considereddeclarative

construction

the latter type and illustrates the relationship.

asymmetricor-construction

Section 5 concludes the paper.

construction of the OCI, as confirmed in (6).

2. Takahashi (2012)(6) a.

Y),b.

Since Lakoff (1971), it has been observed

imperative

construction
(Y).

(X),

and

Thus,

the

is

a

motherEat your oatmeal or you’ll be sorry!
I want you to be quiet or the security
guards will put you outside.

that the conjunction or is classified into at leastc.

two types: symmetric or in (4) and asymmetricYour money or your life!
(Takahashi (2012: 160))

or in (5). The two differ in whether theirconjuncts are reversible or not.

Despite the fact that different constructions(4) a.
b.

You can boil an egg, or you can makeoccupy the X slots in (6), they hold in common

some sandwiches.

that they convey the speaker’s command: eating

You can make some sandwiches, orthe oatmeal in (6a), being quiet in (6b), andyou can boil an egg.

giving the money in (6c). Therefore, the OCI, or
the string “IMPERATIVE or DECLARATIVE,”(Takahashi (2012: 161))(5) a.

I want you to be quiet or the security

isamanifestation

guards will put you outside.

construction,

of

the

namely,thehigherlevel

asymmetricor-construction.

b. ?The security guards will put you

Note, however, that although Takahashi’s

outside or I want you to be quiet.

(2012) analysis comprehensively treats various(Takahashi (2012: 160))

subtypes of the asymmetric or-construction, no
If the symmetric or-construction in (4a) reverses

detailed account is provided of how the OCI

the left and the right conjuncts as in (4b), it does

gives a reason for the addressee to comply withnot significantly change the meaning. On thethe imperative, as in (7). It is a fact that theother hand, the asymmetric or-construction in

conjunction or followed by a declarative can be(5a) cannot interchange the conjuncts in (5b)paraphrased as a reason clause.

without affecting the meaning. Therefore, the
order

of

the

conjunctsin(7) a.

asymmetric

Come on time or the boss will get
furious.

or-constructions is semantically/formally fixed.
b.

Given this fact, Takahashi (2012) argues that37(= (3))

Come on time, because/for if you don’t

come on time, the boss will get

instance, the speaker in (9a) concludes that it has

furious.

rained based on the fact that the ground is wet.
The subtle but crucial difference between

Since this paraphrasability is simply an observed

CAUSALfact, what matters is to consider why the OCI

resides in whether they consist of one or two

receives such a reading. Therefore, Sections 3

speech acts. That is, the former expresses aand 4 focus on the relation between OCIs andcausal relation as a single speech act, while thebecause/for clauses to reveal how OCIs gain thelatter conveys the speaker’s conclusion and thereading of “a reason for the addressee to comply

premise to support it as two distinct speech acts.

with the command.”As evidence, Kanetani offers the data in (10).

3. Reasoning Constructions (Kanetani (2019))(10) a.

Kanetani (2019) takes a constructionalb.

approach to conjunctions of reason in English
such as because, since, and for. Very briefly, heproposesthefollowing

two

and

REASONING

constructions

Is the ground wet because it hasrained?

(Kanetani (2019: 46))

Has it rained,

because the ground iswet?

(Kanetani (2019: 53))

schematic

constructions: the CAUSAL construction, which

The arrow in (10a) illustrates that a rising

expresses a causal relation between the main andintonation works at the end of the interrogative,

subordinate clauses, and the REASONING

and it is clear that both the main and subordinate

construction, which mainly coveys the speaker’s

clauses are inside the scope of the matrix

conclusion and the premise to support it. Let us,

question. In this case, the speaker does notfor example, consider the conjunctions because

question whether the ground is wet or not, but

and

both

rather whether the rain has made the ground wet.

constructions as in (8) and (9a) (henceforth, theBy contrast, the arrows in (10b) indicate

CAUSALthedifferent intonation patterns: The main clause is

REASONING because construction), while forpronounced with a rising intonation and thecan instantiate only the latter as in (9b) (thebecause-clause with a falling intonation. Simply,

REASONING for-construction).

with the assumption that it has rained, thefor.

Becausebecausecaninstantiate

construction

andspeaker merely questions whether the ground is
wet or not. The contrast in the interrogatives(8) The ground is wet because it has rained.

reflects the different speech acts in the CAUSAL(Kanetani (2019: 1))(9) a.

and REASONING constructions.

It has rained, because the ground is wet.

A further argument for the distinction is that

(Kanetani (2019: 1))b.

the REASONING construction is compatible

He came back, for he loved her.

with

(Kanetani (2019: 53), with modifications)mainclausephenomena

such

as

topicalization or rhetorical questions. There has
The sentence in (8) has a CAUSAL construction,

been a general consensus in the literature that

where the event of raining causes the ground to

main clause phenomena are unacceptable when

be wet. On the other hand, the expressions in (9)they occur in a subordinate clause (e.g., Lakoff

are REASONING constructions in that, for(1987)). Indeed, topicalization disallows the38

girl pinched me.

CAUSAL because construction to be licensed in(Lakoff (1987: 477))(11b).
(11) a.

Sam is not going out for dinner

The imperative in (13a), as an instance of abecause his wife is cooking Japanese

prototypicalfood.

request/order the addressee to find which girlimperative,functionstopinched the speaker. In this case, the imperative(Hooper and Thompson (1973: 494))

cannotb. * Sam is not going out for dinneroccupythesubordinate

clause.

because Japanese food, his wife isContrastingly, the imperative in (13b) is licensed

cooking.

because it does not behave as a request or an(Kanetani (2019: 76))

order but rather serve to indirectly convey the
Sentence (11a) gains a wide-scope reading of thestatement that the girl pinched me. Therefore,

matrix negation, where the causal relation (i.e.,

Kanetani (2019: 52) represents REASONING

the fact that his wife is cooking Japanese foodbecause/for-constructions as shown in (14).

causes the event that Sam is going out fordinner) is rejected. More crucial is that such an(14)

expression makes the topicalization in (11b)

REASONING because/for-construction
Syn: C (Clause)2, because/for C1
Sem: SA (Speech Act)1 is a premise bywhich to motivate SA2

ungrammatical.
Note, however, that the rhetorical question in(12) may occur in the REASONING because
construction.

In summary, the English conjunctions of(12) The Knicks are going to win, because who

reasonon earth can stop Bernard?

have

two

types

of

schematic

constructions: CAUSAL and REASONING. The(Lakoff (1987: 475))

distinction is made in terms of speech act
formation: The former expresses a causal

The question in (12) does not serve to ask about

relation as one unit of speech act, while the latter

who can stop Bernard, but function to state thatconveys the speaker’s conclusion and thenobody can stop him. That is, if a main clausepremise to confirm it as two distinct units ofphenomenon can be realized in a subordinate

speech acts.

clause, the clause will be regarded as one unit ofspeech act. What matters here is, as Lakoff

4. Analysis(1987) argues, that whether or not this mainclausephenomenon

co-occurswithThis section illustrates that the OCI is aa

REASONING construction in Kanetani’s term.

subordinate clause relies on whether or not it

As observed several times, the form “orconstitutes the speech act of a statement.

DECLARATIVE” can be rephrased using abecause/for-clause as in (15b). In other words,(13) a. * I’m staying because find out which girlb.

the left conjunct conveys a speech act like apinched me.

request or command, while the right one

I’m staying because consider whichfunctions as a reason for the addressee to39

(Declerck and Reed (2001: 402))

comply with it. More striking here is that thefunctional property is found in the asymmetric

The data in (17) confirm that the left and rightor-construction in (16).

conjuncts convey different kinds of speech acts,(15) a.
b.

Come on time or the boss will get

namely, the speaker’s command or assertion andfurious.

the reason for the addressee to follow it.

Come on time, because/for if you don’t

As for the second parallel aspect, we havecome on time, the boss will get furious.

seen in Section 2 that the two conjuncts inasymmetric(= (7))(16) a.
b.

or-construction

are

not

You’d better leave, or somebody’llinterchangeable (cf. (5)). This is true for OCI as

slug you.

well, shown by (18).

(Davies (1986: 215))

You’d better leave, because/for if you
don’t leave, somebody’ll slug you.

(18) a.

Choose your financial planner wiselyor (you’ll) suffer the consequences.

It is safe to say that the reading “a reason tob. ? You’ll suffer / Suffer the consequencescomply with the speaker’s command” is not onlyor choose your financial planner

peculiar to OCIs but also to asymmetricwisely.

or-constructions. This seems puzzling but less so(Takahashi (2012: 160–161))

when the conjunctions in the attested data areconsidered to be REASONING constructions.

More notable here is that the two sentences inClearly, the functional property of the OCI (asthe REASONING construction are not reversible,

well as asymmetric or) is derived from that ofas (19) indicates.

the REASONING because/for-construction: i.e.,
forming two different speech acts.

(19) a.

He came back, for he loved her.

To confirm this, this study argues that the(= (9b))

OCI is parallel to the REASONING constructionb. ≠ He loved her, for he came back.

in the following ways: (i) compatibility with arhetoricalquestion(ii) asymmetricity

Thus, it is argued that the OCI (and asymmetricbetween the two conjuncts. As for the first, it isor-construction) and REASONING construction

clear in Section 3 that the REASONING

share (i) compatibility with a rhetorical question

construction

clauseand (ii) asymmetricity. This allows us to assume

phenomena such as rhetorical questions. Thisthat the asymmetric or-construction is a type of

can be seen in the OCI and the asymmetric

REASONING construction. More especially, theor-construction, as demonstrated by (17).

REASONING construction can be classified into

licensesandcertainmain

at least two types as shown by (20): The first is(17) a.

b.

You should not eat that cheese, or whatsomethingwill we put in your sandwiches

because/for-construction, which serves to offer

tomorrow?

the premise by which to confirm the speaker’s

Don’t eat that cheese, or what will weassertion, and the second is like the asymmetric

put in your sandwiches tomorrow?

or-construction, which expresses a reason by

40

like

the

REASONING

which to motivate the speaker’s assertion or

status of the asymmetric or-construction, wherecommand, or what the speaker primarily

the two conjuncts have two distinct units of

conveys. Then, OCIs fall into the second type.

speech acts. Further evidence is provided byThis is summarized schematically in (20).

(22).

(20)

(22) Choose your financial planner wisely or
suffer the consequences.

(cf. (18a))

REASONING Construction
As shown by (13), an imperative as a main

REASONING
Because/For-Construction
Syn: C2, because/for C1
Sem: SA1 is a premise by which tomotivate SA2.

clause phenomenon may occur in the right slotof the REASONING construction, in which caseit must function as a kind of statement (Lakoff(1987)). This is seen in (22), where the

Asymmetric Or-Construction
Syn: X2 (C2 or NP2) or Y1 (C1 or NP1)
Sem: SA1 is a reason by which tomotivate SA2 of the speaker’s assertion orcommand.

imperative does not order the addressee to suffer
the consequences but rather state that it will
happen without the proper choice of a financial
planner. Because of the functional similarity to
the REASONING construction, the left conjunct

OCI
Syn: Imperative2 or Declarative1
Sem: SA1 is a reason for the hearer tocomply with SA2 of the speaker’scommand.

of asymmetric or serves as what the speakermainly conveys (i.e., assertion or command) andthe right one as a statement giving a reason toobey it. As result, the OCI can be construed as
an ultimatum.
That said, it might be plausible to regard theWith this representation, it is possible to givefunctional property of the left conjunct as thea proper treatment of the noun type in (21c).
(21) a.
b.

speaker’s command rather than what the speakermainly communicates. However, this is not

Eat your oatmeal or you’ll be sorry!

necessarily borne out. Consider (23).

I want you to be quiet or the security
guards will put you outside.

c.

(23) They liked this house or they wouldn’t haveYour money or your life!

stayed so long.

(= (6))(Taishukan’s Unabridged Genius
English-Japanese Dictionary)

If the sentence types like (21a) and (21b) are
assumed to be prototypes of the asymmetric

The left conjunct in (23) expresses the assertion

or-construction, the conjoined noun phrases inthat they must have liked their house, but not a(21c) are analyzable as being coerced into

command. Clearly, just because there is anforming two different speech acts (i.e., theadversative link does not mean that the left

speaker’s command and the reason to comply

conjunct always functions as the speaker’swith it). This is attributed to the constructional

direction. Rather, it is best schematically41

represented as what the speaker mainly intends(1973) “On the Applicability of Rootto convey, such as an assertion in this instance,

Transformation,” Linguistic Inquiry 4,

or a command.

465-497.
Jary,

Mark

and

Mikhail

Kissine(2014)

Imperatives, Cambridge University Press,

5. Conclusion

Cambridge.

This paper has tackled how the OCI conveys

Kanetani,a kind of ultimatum, more especially, how theMasaru(2019)

Causationandright conjunct provides a reason for the

Reasoning Constructions, John Benjamins,

addressee to comply with the speaker’s direction.

Amsterdam.

It was argued that OCIs and asymmetricLakoff, George (1974) “Syntactic Amalgams,”

or-constructions are REASONING constructions

Chicago Linguistic Society 10, 321-343.

in Kanetani’s term, particularly since they can

Lakoff, George (1987) Women, Fire, andberephrased

using

Dangerous

because/for-clauses.

Things:What

Categories

Moreover, the OCI and its mother form two

Reveal about the Mind, University of

distinct units of speech acts: The left conjunct

Chicago Press, Chicago.

conveys what the speaker primarily wants, such

Lakoff, Robin T. (1971) “If’s, And’s and But’s:

as an assertion or command, and the right one

About Conjunction,” Studies in Linguistic

gives a reason to support it.

Semantics, ed. by Charles. J. Fillmore andD. Terence. Langendoen, 114-149, Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Newyork.

* I would like to thank all those who have given

Lawler, John M. (1975) “Elliptical Conditionals

comments on my presentations. I am also
grateful to Yukio Hirose, Naoaki Wada, andand/orHyperbolic

Imperatives:

Some

Masaru Kanetani for their valuable comments

Remarks on the Inherent Inadequacy ofand suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper.

Derivations,” Chicago Linguistic Society
11, 371-382.
Takahashi,

REFERENCES
Dancygier, Barbara and Eve Sweetser (2005)

Hidemitsu (2012) A Cognitive

Linguistic

AnalysisoftheEnglishMental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional

Imperative: With Special Reference toConstructions, Cambridge University Press,

Japanese Imperatives, John Benjamins,

Cambridge.

Amsterdam.
Takahashi, Hidemitsu (2017) Eigo no Meireibun

Davies, Eirlys (1986) The English Imperative,-Shinwa to Genzitu- (The Imperative in

Croom Helm, London.

English:Declerck, Renaat and Susan Reed (2001)

Myth

and

Fact),

Kurosio

Publishers, Tokyo.

Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical
Analysis, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

DICTIONARY

Goldberg, Adele E. (2006) Constructions at
Taishukan’s

Work: The Nature of Generalization in
Language,

OxfordUniversity

Unabridged

GeniusEnglish-Japanese Dictionary, Taishukan,

Press,

Tokyo.

Oxford.
Hooper, Joan B. and Sandra Thompson A.

42

c.

We can’t now let Gazza play for
England in the future.
(Felser (1999: 54))
d. ...Her early trauma made Mary seek
therapy later in life.
౑ᙺືモ⿵ᩥ࡟ฟ⌧ࡍࡿཎᙧ୙ᐃモࡢ㠀ྠ(Safir (1993: 59))᫬ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࡇࡢྠ᫬ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊஂಖ⏣ (2013: 84) ࡣୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟౑ᙺືモࡢཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥࡣࠊ୺⠇ࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡜
⿵ᩥࡢෆᐜࡢᐇ⌧࡟᫬㛫ᕪࡀ࡞ࡃࠊᴫᛕୖྠ
᫬࡟ᡂࡾ❧ࡘࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣྠ᫬࡟ᡂࡾ❧ࡘࡇ࡜ࡀ⣙᮰ࡉࢀࡓሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ୰ྑ (1980) ࡽࡢྠ᫬ᛶࡣ (2) ࡢ⏝౛ࢆㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓஂಖ⏣ (2013) ࡢ㏙࡭ࡿᴫᛕⓗྠ᫬ᛶࡣ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘࡢ᫬㛫ᕪࡲ࡛㐺⏝࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ(2d) ࡢཎᙧ୙ᐃモࡣྠ᫬ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍ୍᪉࡛ࠊ(2a-c) ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ㠀ྠ᫬ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍཎᙧ୙ᐃモࡢ౑⏝ࡣࠊ୺⠇୺ㄒࡀࡑࡢ౑ᙺ஦㇟ࢆ⮬ᅾ࡟ࢥࣥࢺ࣮࡛ࣟࣝࡁࡿሙྜ࡟㝈ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᐇドࡍࡿࠋ

㸦On the Asynchronicity of Bare Infinitives in
the Complement of Causative Verbs㸧ᮧᒸ ᐀୍㑻㸦Souichiro Muraoka㸧᪥ᮏ኱Ꮫ㸦Nihon University㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸౑ᙺືモ, ཎᙧ୙ᐃモ, ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ, ྠ᫬ᛶ, ྍไᚚᛶ1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ౑ᙺືモ࡜▱ぬືモࡣࠊ⬟ືែ⿵ᩥ࡟ཎᙧ୙ᐃモࢆྲྀࡿࠋࡇࡢཎᙧ୙ᐃモࡣ౑ᙺ࣭▱ぬ஦㇟ࡢ᏶⤖ᛶ (=(1a-b)) ࢆ

2. ౑ᙺືモ࡜▱ぬືモ⿵ᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿཎᙧ୙

⾲ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ ຍ࠼࡚ࠊ ୺⠇ືモ ࡜ࡢྠ᫬ᛶᐃモࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ≉ᛶ(=(1c)) ࢆ⾲ࡍ (cf. ୰ྑ (1980: 140))ࠋ

2. 1. ཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᏶⤖ᛶ ࡲࡎࠊཎᙧ୙ᐃモࡀ⾲ࡍ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ࡟ࡘ࠸

(1) a. …We {made / had} them march into࡚ࠊ(1a-b) ࡟♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ౑ᙺືモ࡜▱ぬthe mess hall. (completed)ືモࡢཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥࡣ᏶⤖ᛶࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡ

(Akmajian (1977: 440))b.

ࢺࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࡇࡢ᏶⤖ᛶࡣࠊ(3a) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ༢
⣧㐣ཤᙧ࡟ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡢ㢮

We watched the prisoners die.
(completed) (ibid.)ఝᛶࡣࠊ(3b-c) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥ࡛

c. *John {made / saw} Bill leave♧ࡉࢀࡿ஦㇟ࡣ༢⣧㐣ཤᙧ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡿࡇ

tomorrow.

(Hornstein (1990: 154))࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾᐇドࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ(2) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ౑ᙺືモࡢཎᙧ୙ᐃ

(3) a. She was drowned. (completion)(Declerck (1981: 97))モ⿵ᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿྠ᫬ᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ୍㒊ࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢᐜㄆྍྰᛶ࡟ᦂࢀࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ

b. He had them beat the carpet. (=Theybeat the carpet.)(Palmer (1987: 175-6))(2) a.

b.

??

YesterdayI

madec. I saw Tom get into his car and drive

John leave

tomorrow.

away. (=Tom got into his car and drove(Franks and Hornstein (1992: 45))

away. + I saw this.)(Murphy (2004: 134)).He made him leave on Wednesday on
Tuesday.,, (Anderson (2005: 35))43ࡇࡢ㢮ఝᛶࡣࠊ(4) ࡢ౛࠿ࡽࡶᐇドࡉࢀࡿࠋ࡟ࠊ㐣ཤ࡟㐳ࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡸ࿨௧ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ≀௨ୗࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊ༢⣧㐣ཤᙧ࡜ཎᙧ୙ᐃモࡣඹ⌮ⓗ࡟࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟㉳ᅉࡍࡿࠋ࡟᏶⤖ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍⅭࠊࡑࡢ᏶⤖ᛶࢆྰᐃࡍࡿ⾲(7) *Have finished War and Peace.

⌧࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢゝㄒ(Culicover (1971: 77))஦ᐇ࠿ࡽࠊ౑ᙺ࣭▱ぬືモࡢཎᙧ୙ᐃモࡣඹ࡟᏶⤖ᛶࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ≉ᛶࢆᣢࡘ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥ࡟ࡣࠊ(8) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
be + -ing ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ

(4) a. *She was drowned, but I rescued her.
(Declerck (1981: 97))(6) ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊbe + -ing ࡀ୺⠇ືモࡢ⾲ࡍ᫬b. *She made him shave but he refused.

ࡼࡾࡶ㐣ཤࢆ⾲ࡍⅭ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠᵝࡢᐜㄆྍྰ
ᛶࡀ (9) ࡢ࿨௧ᩥ࡟ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ(Givón (2001: 45))c. *I saw her drown, but I rescued her.
(Kirsner and Thompson (1976: 215))(8) a. *The movie made her be crying.
(Takahashi (2012: 132))

2. 2. ཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿྠ᫬ᛶ

b. *I saw John be sleeping.
(Declerck (1981: 91)) ๓㏙ࡢ㏻ࡾࠊཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥࡣ᏶⤖ᛶࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ≉ᛶࢆᣢࡘࡀࠊࡇࡢ᏶⤖ᛶ࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊ

(9) *Be standing now!
(㕥ᮌ࣭Ᏻ஭ (1994: 251))

ཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥࡣࠊ(5) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୺⠇ືモ࡜ࡢྠ᫬ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡇࢀࡽࡢᐜㄆྍྰᛶࡣࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡀᣢࡘ๓ẁ㝵(5) a. *Last night she {made / let} him go
tomorrow.

ᛶࡢྵព࡟㉳ᅉࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㐍⾜ᙧࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡟(Mittwoch (1990: 118))ᇶ‽᫬ࡢ๓ᚋ࡟᫬㛫ᯟࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿ࡜ศᯒࡉ

b. *(Yesterday) I saw the man cross theࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (cf. Jespersen (1931:§12.5))ࠋࡑࢀ࡟

road tomorrow.

ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊబ⸨ (2014: 101) ࠾ࡼࡧྜྷⰋ (2018:(୰ྑ (1980: 140))

199-200) ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊᇶ‽᫬௨๓ࡢ᫬㛫ᯟࡢࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣከࡃࡢゝㄒ஦ᐇ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᐇドࡍᙧᡂࡣ⩏ົⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊᇶ‽᫬௨㝆ࡢ᫬ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥࡣྠ㛫ᯟࡢᙧᡂࡣᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋబ⸨

᫬ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍⅭࠊ(6) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡑࡢྠ᫬ᛶ࡟

(2014) ࡣ (10) ࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ೵㟁ᚋ࡟ࢸࣞ㐪཯ࡍࡿ᏶஢୙ᐃモࢆ⿵ᩥ࡟⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࣅࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁࡎࠊ⇿Ⓨᚋ࡟╔㝣࡛ࡁ࡞࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ㐣ཤ࡟㐳ࡗ࡚ᙜヱࡢ஦㇟࠸ ࡜ ࠸ ࡗ ࡓ ゝ ㄒ እ ࡢ ▱ ㆑ ࠿ ࡽ ࠊ Jespersenࢆᣦ♧࠾ࡼࡧ࿨௧ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡸ▱ぬࡍࡿࡇ(1931) ࡢㄝࢆྰᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡜ࡣ≀⌮ⓗ࡟࡛ࡁ࡞࠸Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(10) a..The plane was landing when it(6) a. *We let him [have eaten supper by 4

exploded in midair (so it didn’t land).

o’clock]. (Akmajian et al. (1979: 41))

(Rothstein (2004: 39))b. *John saw Bill have left.

b..When the electricity went off they

(Hornstein (1990: 154))

were watching TV.
(Hirtle (2007: 202))ྠᵝࡢᐜㄆྍྰᛶࡀ࿨௧ᩥ࡟ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛ࡣ㐍⾜ᙧࡀᚲࡎࡋࡶᇶ‽᫬௨㝆ࡢᐜㄆྍྰᛶࡣࠊୖグࡢ౑ᙺືモࡢ౛࡜ྠᵝ

44

(12) a. You mustR have completed the workࡢ≧ἣࢆಖドࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ

by the next April.

ࡑࡢ୍᪉࡛ࠊᇶ‽᫬௨๓ࡢ≧ἣࢆಖドࡋ࡞࠸㐍⾜ᙧࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡢࡣᇶ‽᫬࡟✺ዴฟ⌧(Ⲩᮌ௚ (1977: 346))ࡍࡿ㐍⾜୰࣭ᮍ᏶஢ࡢ⾜Ⅽ࣭ฟ᮶஦ࡣࠊ≀⌮b. We hope to have finished the job byⓗ࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࠶ࡿ⾜Ⅽ࣭ฟ᮶next Saturday. (=… that we will have஦ࡀᇶ‽᫬࡟㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿⅭ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢ⾜finished…),(Swan (2016: 90))

Ⅽ࣭ฟ᮶஦⮬యࡀᇶ‽᫬௨๓࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸࡞ྠᵝࡢࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ᏶஢ᙧࡢ࿨௧ᩥ࡟ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ๓㏙ࡢ㏻ࡾࠊ㐣ཤ࡟㐳ࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ≀⌮ⓗ࡟୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ㏻ᖖࠊ᏶஢ᙧࡢ
࿨௧ᩥࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ(13) ࡛ࡣࠊᮍ᮶ࢆ
⾲ࡍ⾲⌧࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ᏶஢ᙧࡀ㐣ཤ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᮍ᮶ࢆ⾲ࡍⅭࠊᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ (cf. బ⸨ (2014: 101))ࠋ(9)ࡢ
㐍⾜ᙧࡢ࿨௧ᩥࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸⌮⏤࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡀ⾲ࡍ≧ἣ࡟ࡣᚲࡎᇶ‽᫬௨๓ࡢ≧ἣࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊⓎヰ᫬௨๓࡟㐳ࡗ࡚ࠊᙜヱࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆࡣࡌࡵࢁ࡜࠸࠺⮬ไ୙ྍ⬟࡞࿨௧ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ㄢࡍࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡓࡵ࡛࠶

(13) Have finished War and Peace byࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞࿨௧ࡣࠊ࿨௧ᩥ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿෆ

tomorrow.

ᐜࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚⮬ᕫไᚚྍ⬟࡞஦᯶࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺୍⯡ཎ๎࡟᢬ゐࡍࡲࡓࠊཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥ࡟ be + -ing ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ⾲ࡿ (cf. బ⸨ (2014: 111))ࠋ

⌧ (=(8)) ࡶ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ(14)ࡢ

 ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥࡢྠ᫬ᛶࢆᐇドࡋࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୺⠇ືモ࡜ be + -ing ࡀᮍ᮶ࢆ⾲ࡍ⾲࠺ࡿゝㄒ஦ᐇ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ౑ᙺືモࡢཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⌧࡜ඹ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊྠ᫬ᛶ࡟㐪཯ࡍ⿵ᩥ࡟᏶஢୙ᐃモࡀ౛እⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ▱ぬືモ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡣࠊ(11) ࡢࡼࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊྠᵝࡢ౛ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ

࠺࡟ࠊ౑ᙺືモࡀ࿨௧ᩥ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࠊ᏶஢୙ᐃモࡀᮍ᮶ࢆ⾲ࡍ๪モྃ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࠊ

(14) a. Let’s let Othello be thinking of hisᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⎔ቃ࡛ࡣࠊ୺⠇ືモ

next move at this point in the play.

࡜᏶஢୙ᐃモࡣ࡝ࡕࡽࡶᮍ᮶ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊୖグ࡛

(Gee (1977: 480))

ぢࡓྠ᫬ᛶ࡟㐪཯ࡋ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ

b..We’ll try to make him be singing▱ぬືモࡢཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥ࡟ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞

“Coming through the Rye” when Mary᏶஢ᙧࡣฟ⌧࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
(11)(Culicover (1979: 77))

walks in the room.
(Akmajian et al. (1979: 40))

a. Please, God, make him have arrived,by the time I get there.

ࡲࡓࠊ๓㏙ࡢ㏻ࡾࠊbe + -ing ࡢ࿨௧ᩥࡶ୍⯡(Kayne (1984: 43))ⓗ࡟㠀ᩥ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ(15) ࡣᮍ᮶ࢆ⾲b. Please let him have arrived, by thetime I get there.

ࡍ⾲⌧࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ(9) ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ㐣(ibid.)

ཤ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᮍ᮶ࢆ⾲ࡍⅭࠊᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᮍ᮶ࢆ⾲ࡍ᏶஢୙ᐃモࡣࠊᵝࠎ࡞(15) Be studying your Spanish when I get⎔ቃ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊຓືモࡸ୙ᐃモ࡟home!

ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ᏶஢୙ᐃモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ(12) ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᮍ᮶ࢆ⾲ࡍ๪モྃ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ
ᮍ᮶᫬ࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

45(Akmajian et al. (1979: 37))ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒ஦ᐇ࠿ࡽࠊཎᙧ୙ᐃモࡣ᏶⤖ᛶࡸྠ᫬ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟㠀㛫࡟ࡣ᫬㛫ⓗ࡞ࢬࣞࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛ᩥ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ᏶஢୙ᐃモࡸ be + -ing ࡀཎ࠶ࡗࡓࡾࠊฟ᮶஦ࡀᡂᑵࡍࡿࡲ࡛࡟ᙉ࠸᢬ᢠᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࡶࡲࡓ୺

ឤࡀண᝿ࡉࢀࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ‶㊊ࡀ࠸ࡃᙧ࡛⿵ᩥ⠇ືモ࡛࠶ࡿ౑ᙺືモ࡜ࡢྠ᫬ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍሙࡢ஦ែࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࠋࡇࢀ

ྜ࡟ࡣࠊᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ

ࡽࡢゝㄒ஦ᐇ࠿ࡽࠊཎᙧ୙ᐃモࡣྠ᫬ᛶࢆࠊ
to ୙ᐃモࡣ᫬㛫ᕪࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ

2. 3. ཎᙧ୙ᐃモ࡜ to ୙ᐃモࡢព࿡ⓗᕪ␗ ḟ࡟ࠊཎᙧ୙ᐃモ࡜㢮ఝࡍࡿ⤫ㄒⓗᛶ㉁ࢆ

(18) a. John forced Mary to do the dishes, butᣢࡘ to ୙ᐃモࡢព࿡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚☜ㄆࡍࡿࠋᏳ

it took hours before she did so.

஭ (1996) ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ౑ᙺ⾜Ⅽࡢ୍㒊ጞ⤊ࢆ(ᒸ⏣ (2018b: 162-3))

ぢࡓヰ⪅ࡣࠊ(16a)ࢆ⏝࠸ࠊ⩌⾗ࢆぢ࡚࠿ࡽ⌧b..He caused him to leave on Wednesday
on Tuesday.

ሙࢆཤࡾࠊ෌ࡧ⌧ሙࢆゼࢀࡿ࡜⩌⾗ࡣぢᙜࡓ,(Anderson (2005: 35))

ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠊ(16b) ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ

3. ౑ᙺືモࡢཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ (㠀)(16) a. The police made the crowd disperse.

ྠ᫬ᛶ࡜୺⠇୺ㄒ (౑ᙺ⪅) ࡢྍไᚚᛶ

(Ᏻ஭ (1996: 305))

3. 1. ౑ᙺືモࡢཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ

b. The crowd were made to disperse.

(㠀) ྠ᫬ᛶ

(ibid.)

๓⠇࡛☜ㄆࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊཎᙧ୙ᐃモࡣྠ᫬ᛶࢆ⾲ࡋࠊ᫬㛫ᕪࢆ⾲ࡍ౛ࡣ㠀ᩥ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀྠᵝࡢព࿡ⓗᕪ␗ࡣࠊ(17) ࡟ࡶぢࡽࢀࠊ          ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ୺⠇ືモ࡜ࡢ᫬㛫ᕪࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜ኱ᔒࡀ⾤ࢆく࠺࡜ྠ᫬࡟ᐙࢆಽቯࡉࡏࡓሙ

࡟ࡣࠊto ୙ᐃモࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ୍㒊ࡢඛ⾜ྜ࡟ࡣ (17a) ࡀࠊᩘ᪥ᚋ࡟ಽቯࡉࡏࡓሙྜ࡟

◊✲ࡣ (19) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞୺⠇ືモ࡜ࡢ᫬㛫ᕪࡣ (17b) ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ (cf. Lauer (2010))ࠋ

ࢆ⾲ࡍཎᙧ୙ᐃモࢆ㐺᱁ᩥ࡜ࡍࡿࠋᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢᐜㄆྍྰᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࡍࡿࠋ

(17) a..Thehurricanecollapse.

,

made

the

house
(19) a..Her early trauma made Mary seek

(Lauer (2010: 10))b..The hurricane caused the house tocollapse.

,therapy later in life.

(=(2d))

b..We can’t now let Gazza play for(ibid.)England in the future.

,(=(2c))ཎᙧ୙ᐃモࢆ⿵ᩥ࡟࡜ࡿືモࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ᒸ⏣ (2018a: 171) ࡣࠊ౑ᙺⓗാࡁ࠿ࡅ (makeࡲࡎࠊ(19a) ࡢᐜㄆྍྰᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࢺࣛ࢘

࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾲♧ࡉࢀࡿฟ᮶஦) ࡜ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᛂࡌ

࣐࡜ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ⤒㦂࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡉࢀࡿ῝࡚⿕౑ᙺ⪅ࡀ⾜࠺⾜Ⅽ (ཎᙧ୙ᐃモ࡟ࡼࡗ้࠿ࡘᣢ⥆ⓗ࡞ᚰⓗእയ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࢺࣛ

࡚⾲♧ࡉࢀࡿฟ᮶஦) ࡢ㛫࡟ࠊࢱ࢖࣒ࣛࢢࡀ

࣐࢘ࡀᙧᡂࡉࢀࡓ࡜ྠ᫬࡟౑ᙺ஦㇟ࡀᐇ⌧ᑡ࡞ࡃࠊ౑ᙺⓗാࡁ࠿ࡅࡀᡂࡾ❧ࡘ࡜ࠊ⿕౑ࡋࡓ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࡓࡵࠊ(19a) ࡣࠊࠕᗂᑡᮇᙺ⪅ࡀ⾜࠺ࢧࣈ࢖࣋ࣥࢺࡶᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ

ࡢࢺ࣐ࣛ࢘ࡀ࠶ࡿ㐣ཤࡢ᫬Ⅼ (ᬌᖺ) ࡟࣓ಖドࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋࡲࡓᒸ⏣ (2018b:

࢔࣮ࣜ࡟ࢭࣛࣆ࣮ࢆཷࡅࡉࡏࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅗ㸯163) ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ(18) ࡟♧ࡍ to ୙ᐃモࢆక࠺࡟♧ࡍྠ᫬ⓗゎ㔘ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ศᯒࡍࡿࠋືモࡢሙྜࠊ୺⠇ࡢฟ᮶஦࡜⿵ᩥࡢฟ᮶஦ࡢ

46ࢆࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊ⊂⮬ࡢ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺㄪ

ᅗ㸯㸬(19a) ࡢ᫬⣔ิᵓ㐀ᰝ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ㨱ዪࡣ࿚ᩥ࡞࡝ࢆ౑⏝࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ⮬ᅾ࡟ࡑࡢ஦㇟ࢆࢥࣥࢺ࣮࡛ࣟࣝࡁ
ࡿⅭࠊ(20a) ࡣ㐺᱁ᩥ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ(20b) ࡢᐜㄆྍྰᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊసᐙ
ࡣࣇ࢕ࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚඲▱඲⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⮬⏤࡟ሙ㠃ࢆタᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ (cf. Wadaࡑࡢ୍᪉ࠊ(19b) ࡛ࡣࠊwe ࡀ┘╩ࡸ௦⾲ྲྀ⥾

2019: 317)ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ௬࡟᫬㛫ⓗ㏫⾜ࢆ⾲ࡍᙺ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ┘╩ࡢᣦ♧ࡸ௦⾲ྲྀ⥾ᙺࡢពᚿỴ᏶஢୙ᐃモࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡚ࡶࠊᩥἲⓗ࡜ぢᐃ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊ࢞ࢨࡀ௒ᚋ࢖ࣥࢢࣛࣥࢻࡢⅭ࡟࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ (20c) ࡟㢮ఝࡋࡓ౛࡟ࡘ

ヨྜ࡟ฟሙࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀᐇ⌧࠸࡚ࠊ⏣୰࣭ᑎ⏣ (2004: 157) ࡣ (21) ࡢࡼ࠺ࡋࡓࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊஂಖ⏣ (2013) ࡢ㏙࡭ࡿࡼ࠺࡞₇๻ࡸ⯙ྎ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᣦ♧ࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ

࡟ࠊ(19b) ࡣ౑ᙺ⾜Ⅽ࡜⿕౑ᙺ⾜Ⅽࡀᴫᛕⓗཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ be + -ing ࡢ౑⏝ࡀྠ᫬࡟㸦᫬㛫ᕪࢆకࡗ࡚㸧ᡂࡾ❧ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ

ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ

⾲ࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᴫᛕⓗྠ᫬ᛶࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊ(2a-b)ࠊ(5a) ࡜ (19b) ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᐜ

(21) a. We’ll have John be thinking of herㄆྍྰᛶࡢ㐪࠸ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

long lost love at the opening of Act Ⅱᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ౑ᙺືモࡢཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥ࡟࠾

here.

(Gee (1977: 480))b. During the play, Mary had the frogs beࡅࡿ㠀ྠ᫬ᛶࡣࠊ౑ᙺ⪅࡛࠶ࡿ୺ㄒࡀᙜヱࡢentertaining the dwarfs.

౑ᙺ஦㇟ࢆ⮬ᅾ࡟ࢥࣥࢺ࣮࡛ࣟࣝࡁࡿሙྜ

(Johnson (2014: 23))

࡟ࡢࡳࠊチᐜࡉࢀࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ
3. 2. ୺⠇୺ㄒ (౑ᙺ⪅) ࡢྍไᚚᛶ

Ritter and Rosen (1993: 526) ࡸ ᪩ ℩ (2002: ୺⠇୺ㄒࡢྍไᚚᛶ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ᫬㛫ᕪࢆ⾲ࡍ198) ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ౑ᙺືモ have ࡢ⿵ᩥෆ㒊ཎᙧ୙ᐃモࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿ౛

࡟ࡣࠊ(22a) ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ die ࡞࡜ࡋ࡚௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ

࡝ࡢ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモࡣ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ(22b) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞┘╩ㄞࡳ࡛࠶ࢀࡤᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ
㐣ཤ࡟㐳ࡗ࡚⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡾࠊ⮬ᕫไᚚࡢ࡛

(20) a. Yesterday the witch made John arriveࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ⌧ᐇୡ⏺࡛ࡣ⾜࠺last night and leave this morning.
(Rothstein (2004: 159))

ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᑠㄝࡸ๻࡞࡝ࡢ௬᝿ୡ⏺

b. The writer had the protagonist have࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ(20b-c)ࠊ(21) ࡸ(22b) ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

been married three times.
(Bjorkman and Cowper (2013: 5))(22) a. *Ralph had {Sheila / his goldfish}c..The director has the chorus be singing

die.

when the show starts.

,(Ritter and Rosen (1993: 526))

b. Ralph had Sheila die in his movie.

(Bjorkman and Cowper (2013: 2))(cf. Ritter and Rosen (1993: 527))
Rothstein (2004) ࡸ Bjorkman and Cowper
ࡉࡽ࡟ Ritter and Rosen (1993) ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ౑

(2013) ࡣࡇࢀࡽࡢᐜㄆྍྰᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬᙺືモ have ࡣ⿵ᩥ࡟⹫㎡ࢆྲྀࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸

47

࠺ࡀࠊ㔠Ꮚ࣭㐲⸨ (2001: 148) ࡣࠕ⚄ࡀኳೃ࡛ࡁࡿሙྜ࡟ࠊཎᙧ୙ᐃモࡀ᫬㛫ᕪࢆ⾲ࡍࡇࢆࡘ࠿ࡉ࡝ࡿ⚄࡟࿨௧ࢆࡃࡔࡋ࡚ࠊ㫽ࡀ࡝ࡢ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ኱㝣࡟ࡶ࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛࠶
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Akmajian, Adrian (1977) “The Complement

ࢀࡤࠊ(23b) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⹫㎡ࢆ⿵ᩥ࡟ྲྀࡿ౑
ᙺືモ have ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

Structure of Perception Verbs in an
Autonomous Syntax Framework,” Formal(23) a. *John had there be computers

Syntax, ed. by Peter Culicover, Adrian

available for all the students.

Akmajian and Thomas Wasaw, 427-60,(Ritter and Rosen (1993: 541))b.

Academic Press, New York.

God had there be birds in every

Akmajian, Adrian., Susan Steele and Thomas

continent.

Wasow (1979) “The Category AUX in(㔠Ꮚ࣭㐲⸨ (2001: 148))

Universal Grammar,” Linguistic  Inquiry
10, 1-64.

ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟୺⠇୺ㄒ (౑ᙺ⪅) ࡀ౑ᙺ஦㇟

Anderson, John. Mathieson (2005) “Let and theࢆ⮬ᅾ࡟ࢥࣥࢺ࣮࡛ࣟࣝࡁࡿሙྜ࡟ࡢࡳࠊ୍

Bare Infinitive: An Exploratory Exercise in⯡ⓗ࡟㠀ᩥἲⓗ࡜ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡿ౛ࡶᐜㄆࡉࢀ

Traditional (National) Grammar,” Studiaࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡲࡓࡇࡢྍไᚚᛶ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ

Anglica Posnaniesia 41, 29-52.

ඖ᮶ྠ᫬ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍཎᙧ୙ᐃモࡀ㠀ྠ᫬ᛶࢆⲨᮌ୍㞝࣭ᑠ㔝⤒⏨࣭୰㔝ᘯ୕ (1977) ࠗຓ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ஂືモ࠘◊✲♫, ᮾி.

ಖ⏣ (2013: 84) ࡽࡢ㏙࡭ࡿᴫᛕⓗྠ᫬ᛶࢆ

Bjorkman, Bronwyn and Elizabeth Cowper௬ᐃࡏࡎ࡜ࡶࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ぢ࡚ࡁࡓ㨱ዪࡸ┘╩(2013) “Inflectional Shells and the Syntax of࡞࡝ࡢ౑ᙺ஦㇟ࢆ⮬ᅾ࡟ࢥࣥࢺ࣮࡛ࣟࣝࡁ

Causative HAVE,” Proceedings of the 2013ࡿ୺ㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡚ྍไᚚᛶࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ㠀

Annualྠ᫬ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥࡀ㐺᱁࡜ぢ࡞

of

the

Canadian

Linguistic Association, 1-11.

ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ౑ᙺ୺

Culicover, Peter (1971) Syntactic and Semanticࡢྍไᚚᛶࡀ࡝ࡇࡲ࡛ㄞࡳ㎸ࡵࡿ࠿࡟ࡼࡗ

Investigations, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ぢࡓ㠀ྠ᫬ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥࡢᩥἲᛶ࡟ᦂࢀࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜᥎

Conference

Declerck, Renaat (1981) “On the Role ofࡉࢀࡿࠋ

Progressive Aspect in Nonfinite Perception
Verb Complements,” Glossa 15, 83-114.

4. ࡲ࡜ࡵ

Felser, Claudia (1999) Verbal Complement ౑ᙺືモࡸ▱ぬືモࡢ⿵ᩥ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ

Clauses: A Minimalist Study of Directཎᙧ୙ᐃモࡣࠊ᏶⤖ᛶࡸྠ᫬ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࡋ࠿

Perception Constructions, John Benjamins,ࡋࠊ౑ᙺືモࡢཎᙧ୙ᐃモ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㠀ྠ᫬ᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ౛እࢆㄆࡵࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࡶከࡃࠊ࡝ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ᫬㛫ᕪࡲ࡛ࢆཎᙧ୙ᐃモࡀ⾲

Amsterdam.
Franks, Steven and Norbert Hornstein (1982)“Secondary Predication in Russian andࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡉࢀ࡚ࡇ

Proper Government of PRO,” Control and࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ㠀ྠ᫬ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍ౑ᙺ

Grammar, ed. by Richard Larson, Sabineືモࡢཎᙧ୙ᐃモ⿵ᩥࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ⎔ቃࢆ

Iatridou,ㄪᰝࡋࠊ౑ᙺືモࡢ୺ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ౑ᙺ⪅ࡀࠊᙜ

Utpal

LahiriandJames

Higginbotham, 1-50, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

ヱࡢ౑ᙺ஦㇟ࡢᡂ❧ࢆ⮬ᅾ࡟ࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝ

48

Gee, J. Paul (1977) “Comments on the Paper by୰ྑᐇ (1980)ࠕࢸࣥࢫ࣭࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡢẚ㍑ࠖ,Akmajian,” Formal Syntax, ed. by Peterᅧᘅဴᙗ (⦅)ࠗ᪥ⱥẚ㍑ㅮᗙ ᩥἲ࠘101-

Culicover, Adrian Akmajian and Thomas

155, ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ, ᮾி.

Wasaw, 461-81, Academic Press, New York.

ᒸ⏣⚞அ (2018a)ࠕ㧗➼Ꮫᰯ࣭ⱥㄒ⛉ᤵᴗ࡟

Givón, Thomas (2001) Syntax, Volume 2, John࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒࡢ⿵㒊ᵓ㐀ࡢᩍᤵ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍ᥦ᱌ : ஦ែࡢ⤖᮰ᛶ࡜グྕୖࡢ㊥㞳

Benjamins, Amsterdam.
᪩℩ᑦᏊ (2002)ࠗⱥㄒᵓᩥࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧ

࡟↔Ⅼ࡙ࡅ࡚㸦≉㞟 ᪂ᩍ⫋ㄢ⛬࡟ࡴࡅᡂㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽ࠘ວⲡ᭩ᡣ, ᮾ࡚㸧ࠖࠗ኱㜰኱Ꮫᩍ⫱Ꮫᖺሗ࠘,23, 169-179.
ᒸ⏣⚞அ (2018b)ࠕⱥㄒࡢ⿵㒊ᙧᘧ࡜஦ែࡢ

ி.
Hirtle, Walter (2007) Lessons on the English Verb,⤫ྜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ, ụෆṇᖾ࣭❑ⷵᬕኵ࣭

McGilI-Quen’s University Press, MontrealᑠⳢ࿴ஓ (⦅)ࠗⱥㄒᏛࢆⱥㄒᤵᴗ࡟ά

and Kingston.

࠿ࡍ ᕷἙ㈹ࡢ⢭⚄ࢆཷࡅ⥅࠸࡛࠘158216, 㛤ᣅ♫, ᮾி.

Hornstein, Norbert (1990) As Time Goes By:

Palmer, Frank Robert (1987) The English Verb,

Tense and Universal Grammar, MIT Press,

Longman, London.

Cambridge, MA.
Jespersen, Otto (1931) Modern English Grammar

Ritter, Elizabeth and Sara Thomas Rosen (1993)

on Historical Principles, Part IV, George“Deriving Causation,” Natural Language

Allen and Unwin, London.

and Linguistic Theory 11, 519-555.

Johnson, Gregory II (2014) Restructuring andRothstein, Susan (2004) Structuring Events: A

Infinitives: The View from Appalachia,

Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect,

DoctoralBlackwell, Oxford.

dissertation,

MichiganState

Safir, Ken (1993) “Perception, Selection andUniversity.
Kayne, Richard (1984) Connectedness andStructural

Binary Branching, Foris, Dordrecht.

University.

Economy,”Ms.,

Rutgersబ⸨೺ඣ (2014)ࠕ㐍⾜ᙧࡢࠕ๓ẁ㝵ࠖᛶ࡟ࡘྜྷⰋᩥᏕ (2018) ࠗࡇ࡜ࡤࢆᙬࡿ 1 ࢸࣥࢫ࣭࠸࡚ࠖࠗⱥᩥᏛㄽྀ࠘62, 99-119.

࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ࠘◊✲♫, ᮾி.

㕥ᮌⱥ୍࣭Ᏻ஭Ἠ (1994)ࠗືモ࠘◊✲♫, ᮾ

Kirsner, Robert and Sandra Thompson (1976)“The Role of Pragmatic Inference inி.
Swan, Michael (2016) Practical English Usage,

Semantics: A Study of Sensory Verb

Oxford University Press, London.

Complements in English,” Glossa 10, 200-

Takahashi,

240.

Hidemitsu (2012)

Linguisticஂಖ⏣ṇே (2013)ࠗⱥㄒᏛⅬᥥ࠘㛤ᣅ♫, ᮾ

AnalysisofA

CognitivetheEnglishImperative: With Special Reference toி.

Japanese Imperatives, John Benjamins,

Mittwoch, Anita (1990) “On the Distribution of

Amsterdam.

Bare Infinitive Complements in English,”Wada, Naoaki (2019) The Grammar of Future

Journal of Linguistics 26, 103-131.
Murphy, Raymond (2004) English Grammar in

Expressions in English, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

Use: A Self-study Reference and PracticeᏳ஭⛱ (1996)ࠗⱥᩥἲ⥲ぴ࠘㛤ᣅ♫, ᮾி.

Book for Intermediate Learners of English,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

49ࡽࡣࠊືモ cost ࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀୗグࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᢅࡗ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Pinker (1989)㸸cost ࡣࠊspare, envy, begrudge,
bet, refuse, ask, save, charge, fine, forgive, deny
ືモ cost ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡࡜࠸ࡗࡓ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒືモࡢ௰㛫࡛࠶ࡾࠊ(3)(On the Semantics of Ditransitive-Cost)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ(3) “X has the potential or desire of causing Y㎷ ᪩௦ຍ㸦Soyoka Tsuji㸧

no longer to have Z.”࿴ḷᒣ┴❧་⛉኱Ꮫ(Pinker 1989: 111)

㸦Wakayama Medical University㸧
Goldberg (2002)㸸cost ࡣ(4)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥ࡟⏕ࡌࡽࢀࠊgiving ࡢ཯ព࡛࠶ࡿ

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ᵓᩥᩥἲ, ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥ,taking away ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋ

ㄒᙡព࿡ㄽ, ᵓᩥࡢព࿡

(4) Mina cost Mel his job.  (Mina causes
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

Mel to lose his job.) ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥࡣࠊ‘NP0(X) Verb NP1(Y)“Ditransitive cost means taking away, which

NP2(Z)’࡜࠸࠺ᙧࢆ࡜ࡾࠊࡑࡢ୰ᚰⓗ࡞ព࿡

is in the antonymic relation to giving.”ࡣ‘X causes Y to receive Z’࡜ࡉࢀࡿ(Goldberg(Goldberg 2002: 332-333)

1995)ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊḟࡢ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧ࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊX㸦He/ She㸧ࡀ Y㸦them/ him㸧

Croft (2012)㸸 cost ࡣ Verbs of costing ࡜࿧࡟ Z㸦money/ a letter㸧ࢆཷࡅྲྀࡽࡏ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜

࡭ࡿ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒືモ㸦௚࡟ࡣ charge, set backゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸧ࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡾࠊ(5)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ࢆ
⾲ࡍࠋ

(1)

a. He gave them money.
b. She sent him a letter.

(5) “Acquisition of goods causes recipient tono longer have possession of money.” ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊືモ cost ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲(Croft 2012: 377)

⌧࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢゎ㔘ࡀᡂࡾ❧ࡓ࡞࠸ࠋ(3, 4, 5)࡛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡࡛ cost(2)a. The book cost him 10 dollars.

஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡ࡀ඲࡚ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࢀࡤ

b. The accident cost him his life.

ၥ㢟࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ᳨࡛⣴ࡋࡓᐇ౛ࢆ
ぢ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜ࠊ(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᝿ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ

 ᮏⓎ⾲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊ‘NPX cost NPY NPZ’ࡀࠊࡼࡾࡶࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞✀㢮ࡢྡモྃࡀ┤᥋┠ⓗ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟௚ࡢ஧㔜ㄒ఩⨨࡟⏕ࡌࡿࠋ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊୗ⥺ࡢྡモྃࡀ┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧࡜㛵ࢃࡾࢆᣢࡘࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟

┤᥋┠ⓗㄒ࡟⏕ࡌࡿᩥࡣࠊ(3, 4, 5)ࡢព࿡ࡢ

ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

Ἴ⥺㒊࡜ᩚྜࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ

2. ඛ⾜◊✲ࡼࡾ(6) ‘NPX cost NPY NPZ’ࡢ NPZ ࡜ࡋ࡚⏕ࡌࡿ

Pinker (1989), Goldberg (2002), Croft (2012)ྡモྃࡢ౛  㸦BNC, Wordbanks ࡼࡾ㸧

50

a fortune, my life, a game, promotion, his➨஧࡟ࠊTYPE 2 ࡣࠊࠕఱࡽ࠿ࡢฟ᮶஦ࡸ

son’s death, the loss, an effort, two

⾜Ⅽ㸦X㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊY ࡀ㈗㔜ࡔࡗࡓࡾ኱ษ

minutes…

ࡔࡗࡓࡾࡍࡿࡶࡢ㸦Z㸧ࢆኻ࠺ࠖࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ(10) TYPE 2-1 ㈗㔜/኱ษ࡞ࡶࡢ

ࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ‘NPX cost NPY NPZ’ࡣࠊ༢࡟a. This action was to cost young Joseph his㔠㖹࡟㛵ࢃࡿព࿡ࡸࠕኻࢃࡏࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡

life.

ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟᝿ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼࡾ

(BNC)

b. …this is costing me my health and willࡶᗈ࠸ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸

possibly cost me my job.  (Wordbanks)࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

c. The mistake cost the Enquirer several
million dollars…

3. ᵝࠎ࡞ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ cost ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧(Wordbanks)ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟ࡼࡿㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊcost஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧࡟ࡣࠊ኱ࡁࡃศࡅ࡚㸱ࡘࡢព

TYPE 2-2 ࡣ 2-1 ࡟ఝ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜࿡ࢱ࢖ࣉࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡽ ࢆᡤ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡶࡢࢆኻ࠺ࠖࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕఱ

TYPE 1, 2, 3 ࡜ࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ┤᥋┠ⓗㄒࡀ⾲ࡽ࠿ࡢฟ᮶஦ࡸ⾜Ⅽ㸦X㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊY ࡀࠊࡍࡶ ࡢࡢ✀㢮࡟ ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊୗ ఩ศ㢮ࢆ 1-1,ᚓࡽࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡢ࠶ࡗࡓዲࡲࡋ࠸ࡶࡢ㸦Z㸧

1-2…࡜࠸࠺ᙧ࡛♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

ࢆཷࡅྲྀࢀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡲࡎࠊTYPE 1 ࡣࠕఱ࠿㸦X㸧ࢆ⋓ᚓࡋࡓࡾ㐩ᡂࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ࠶ࡿே㸦Y㸧࡟ࠊ(11) TYPE 2-2 ᚓࡽࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡶࡢ

㔠㖹ࡸ᫬㛫ࡸປຊ㸦Z㸧ࡀ࠿࠿ࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲a. It was a lack of discipline and could cost
us promotion.

ࡍࠋࠕ࠾㔠ࡀ࠿࠿ࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍ TYPE 1-1(Wordbanks)

b. …it was that last 10 minutes in the Leninࡀࠊcost ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧࡟࠾࠸࡚᭱ࡶ㧗㢖ᗘ

Stadium which cost them eventual࡛ฟ⌧ࡍࡿࠋ

victory against Spartak Moscow. (BNC)c. Mutola’s generosity ultimately cost her a(7) TYPE 1-1 㔠㖹

medal.

a. An everyday grey suit cost me twelve(Wordbanks)

pounds.            
b. It cost him six hundred dollars to get theኻ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆࠕlose ࡍࡿࠖࡇ࡜࡜⪃࠼ࢀࡤࠊholes in the trunk fixed. (both from BNC)ࠕఱࡽ࠿ࡢฟ᮶஦ࡸ⾜Ⅽ㸦X㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ Y ࡀ(8) TYPE 1-2 ᫬㛫ヨྜ࡞࡝㸦Z㸧࡟ᩋࢀࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࡶࠊࡇࡢࢱ࢖

a. Learning that skill cost me many hours....

ࣉ࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

b. You can go to court and you’ll probably
win, but it will cost you three years and$ 3 million.

(12) TYPE 2-3 ヨྜ࡞࡝(both from Wordbanks)

a. It’s regrettable that an own goal cost us(9) TYPE 1-3 ປຊ

the match…

a. It cost her an effort to let him have hisb. I was going well in my second run but I
lost time at the 11th, 15th, 23rd

way and his will of her.

and 24th gates, and that cost me the race.

b. I am disabled; they cost me much labour
to raise from seed.

(both from BNC)

(both from Wordbanks)

51

 

4. ࡞ࡐⰍࠎ࡞ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡏࡿࡢ࠿➨୕࡟ࠊTYPE 3 ࡣࠊࠕఱࡽ࠿ࡢฟ᮶஦ࡸ

4.1. ၟྲྀᘬࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ

⾜Ⅽ㸦X㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊY ࡀࠊᦆኻࡸ࣌ࢼࣝࢸ
࢕㸦Z㸧ࢆ⿕ࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ(13)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ

࡝࠺ࡋ࡚ cost ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧ࡀࠊࡇࡇࡲ࡛

ࠕᦆኻࠖࡣࠊTYPE 2-1 ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿࠕ㈗㔜࡞ከࡃࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡏࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ

ࡶࡢࢆኻ࠺ࠖࡇ࡜ࡸࠊTYPE 2-3 ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ

࡚ࡣࠊFillmore (1977, 1982)ࡸ Fillmore andࠕヨྜ࡟ᩋࢀࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࡢࠊ⤖ᯝ≧ែ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜Atkins (1992)࡟ࡼࡿࠕၟྲྀᘬࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࠖࡢ⪃⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

࠼᪉ࡀ୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊsell, buy, charge,
cost ࡞࡝ࡢၟྲྀᘬ࡟㛵ࢃࡿືモࡢព࿡ࢆ⌮(13) TYPE 3-1 ᦆኻゎࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㈙࠸ᡭࡀ኎ࡾᡭ࡟㔠㖹ࢆΏࡋࠊ

a. His tenacious belief in the venture by࠶ࡿ≀ࡢᡤ᭷ᶒࡀ㈙࠸ᡭ࡟⛣ㆡࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺

keeping it running cost him heavyࡼ࠺࡞ࠊၟྲྀᘬࡢ⫼ᬒⓗ▱㆑㸦ࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ㸧ࡀ

personal financial loss….

(BNC)

ᚲせ࡛࠶ࡾࠊಶࠎࡢືモࡣࠊྠࡌࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࢆ

b. … he was willing to enter upon anႏ㉳ࡋࡘࡘࡶࠊ↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿせ⣲࡞࡝࡟㐪࠸adventure that cost him the death of hisࡀ࠶ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉࡛࠶ࡿࠋၟྲྀᘬࣇ࣮ࣞ

son.

࣒ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᅗ࡛⾲ࡏࡿࠋ(BNC)

c. The most appalling aspect of the whole
performance was the failure to eradicate
the indiscipline that had cost them defeat
against Wales.

(Wordbanks)ḟࡢ(14)࡛ࡣࠊY ࡀᦆࢆ⿕ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࡣ(13)࡜ྠࡌࡔࡀࠊZ ࡢྡモྃࡀࠊᦆኻࡸᩋ໭
ࡢ⤖ᯝ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊY ࡟ㄢࡉࢀࡿ࣌ࢼࣝࢸ࢕ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋᅗ㸯㸸ၟྲྀᘬࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ

(14) TYPE 3-2 ࣌ࢼࣝࢸ࢕

ࡇࡢࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊThe book cost him 10
dollars ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥࡀ↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࡢࡣࠊୗᅗ

a. On bad language, which cost Chelsea
their two red cards last Saturday…

ࡢኴᯟ㒊ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

b. It was a decision that cost him a ten-year
prison sentence and a subsequent life ofself-scrutiny.
c. …a DVD copy will cost you five years in
jail.



(all from Wordbanks)

cost ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟᝿ᐃࡉ
ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼࡾࡶከࡃࡢ≧ἣࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ(3,4,5)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ඛ
⾜◊✲࡛᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡓព࿡࡛ࡣࠊcost ஧㔜┠ⓗᅗ㸰㸸ၟྲྀᘬࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ         ㄒ⾲⌧ࡀ⾲ࡍព࿡ࡢ୍㒊ศ㸦ࢱ࢖ࣉ 1-1 ཬࡧ

The book cost him 10 dollars ࡢ↔Ⅼ

2-1㸧ࡋ࠿ᤊ࠼ษࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

52

I bought the book ࡜࠸࠺ࠊBuyer ࡜ Goods ࡋ࠿ii)⌧ࢀ࡞࠸ᩥ࡟ࠊfor $10 ࡸ from her ࡞࡝ࡢྃࢆ

Ѝ “~ to lose a Valuable thing”ࠑ= TYPE 2-1ࠒ

㏣ຍࡋ࡚ Money ࡸ Seller ࢆ⾲ࡏࡿࡢ࡜ࡣ㐪Ѝ “~ to lose a Valuable opportunity”

࠸ࠊcost ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ⾲⌧࡟ࡣ Seller ࢆⓏሙࡉࡏ

“X causes Y to lose money” 

ࠑ= TYPE 2-2ࠒࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋcost ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧ࡣၟ

Ѝ “~ to lose a Game” ࠑ= TYPE 2-3ࠒྲྀᘬࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊSeller ࡣ᏶඲࡟⫼ᬒ໬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࠕ࠶ࡿேࡀࠊ㔠㖹ࢆᨭiii) “X causes Y a loss of money.”ᡶࡗ࡚ၟရࢆᚓࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࡔࡅ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

Ѝ “X causes Y a Loss” ࠑ= TYPE 3-1ࠒ

ࡇࢀࡣࠊࠕၟရ㸦X㸧ࡀࠊ࠶ࡿே㸦Y㸧࡟ࠊ㔠Ѝ “X causes Y a Penalty”ࠑ= TYPE 3-2ࠒ㖹㸦Z㸧ࡢᨭᡶ࠸ࢆࡉࡏࡿࠖ࡜ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿࡇ
࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊcost ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧ࡢ⾲ࡍព࿡࡟

4.2. ௚ࡢ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧࡜ࡢ㛵㐃࠾࠸࡚᭱ࡶ୰ᚰⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊTYPE

ୖグ࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊከࡃࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ cost

1-1㸧࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ(15)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾲ࡍࡇ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧ࡔࡀࠊࡑࡢព࿡ࡣࡸࡣࡾ஧㔜࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥࡢ୰ᚰ⩏࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ͂X causes
Y to receive Z̓࡜ࡣ኱ࡁࡃ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇ

(15) cost ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧ࡢ୰ᚰ⩏ࡢᵓᩥࡢ୰࡛ࡣᴟࡵ࡚౛እⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟

“X causes Y to pay Z.”ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㸱⠇࡟♧ࡋࡓྛࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟

(X: Goods, Y: Buyer, Z: Money)

ࡣࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ௚ࡢ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧࡜ࠊᙉࡃ

㸦㸻TYPE 1-1㸧㛵㐃࣭㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢ௚ࡢព࿡ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᚓࡽࢀࡿࡢ
࠿ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊᅗ㸰࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ The

4.2.1. TYPE 1 ࡜ take ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧book cost him 10 dollars ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢ

TYPE 1 ࡣ(16)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ take ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲(i~iii)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟」ᩘ㏻ࡾࡢᤊ࠼᪉ࡀྍ⬟㸦㸻⌧࡜㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕ࠾㔠ࡀ࠿࠿ࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࢆ

alternate construals㸦Langacker 1987㸧
㸧࡛࠶ࡿtake ࡛⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ࡯ࡰ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ
ࠕ᫬㛫ࠖ࡜ࠕປ

ࡇ࡜࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

ຊࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣඹ㏻ࡢ┠ⓗㄒࢆ࡜ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛
ࡁࡿ㸦ࡓࡔࡋࠊᙜ↛࡞ࡀࡽࠕ᫬㛫ࠖࡣ cost

The book cost him 10 dollars.

ࡼࡾࡶ take ࡢ᪉ࡀࡣࡿ࠿࡟㧗㢖ᗘ࡛࠶ࡿ㸧ࠋi) “The book caused him to pay money.”ii) “The book caused him to lose money.”(16) a. …his first symphony took him 21 yearsiii) “The book caused him a loss of money.”

to write.
b. He was very weak and it took him a lot of(i~iii)ࡢᤊ࠼᪉ࡀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᣑ

effort to say it… (both from Wordbanks)ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ௚ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢព
4.2.2. TYPE 2 ࡜ lose/deny ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧࿡ࢆᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

TYPE 2-1, 2-3 ࡢ౛ࡣࠊ(17)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊືモi)“X causes Y to pay money” ࢆ lose ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼࡚ࡶྠࡌࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡏࡿࠋЍ “~ to expend Time/Labor”
ࠑ= TYPE 1-2, 1-3ࠒ(17) a. …it was the colour of his skin that lost
him the job.

53

5. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟

b. Conran’s Debenhams deal may have losthim his cool status, but he doesn’t care.

 cost ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧ࡣ౛እⓗᢅ࠸ࢆཷࡅࠊ

c. A goalkeeping error has lost us the game.

ࡑࡢព࿡ࡀ༑ศ࡟グ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ࡜ࡣゝ࠸d. I think what lost us the match againstࡀࡓ࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋㄪ࡭࡚ࡳࢀࡤࠊࡑࡢព࿡࡟ࡣ

Spain was the dejection from losing 1-0

ᣑࡀࡾࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ௚ࡢ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧࡜ᗈࡃඹto the Americans.

㏻ᛶࢆࡶࡘࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

(all from Wordbanks) ௒ᚋࠊcost ࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊ
ࠕ౛እⓗࠖ
ࠕ࿘㎶ⓗࠖ
ࡲࡓࠊTYPE 2-2 ࡣࠕཷࡅྲྀࡽࡏ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜

࡜ࡉࢀ༑ศ࡟ㄽࡌࡽࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ௚ࡢ஧

࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ(18)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ deny ஧㔜┠ⓗ㔜┠ⓗㄒືモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢព࿡ࢆヲࡋࡃㄪㄒ⾲⌧࡜㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ᰝࡋࠊ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥ඲యࡢ୰࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞
ᆅ఩ࢆ༨ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ᳨ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡃᚲせࡀ(18) a. …the cracking goal which denied them a࠶ࡿࠋfirst Premiership victory this season.
b. But in which event did the penalty denyཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Croft, William (2012) Verbs: Aspect and Causal

her a silver medal.
(both from Wordbanks)

Structure, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1977) “Topics in Lexical

4.2.3. TYPE 3 ࡜௚ࡢ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧Semantics,” Current Issues in Linguistic
Theory, ed. by Roger W. Cole, 76-138,

TYPE 3 ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕᦆ/࣌ࢼࣝࢸ࢕ࢆ⿕ࡽࡏ

Indiana University Press, Indiana.

ࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕᦆ/࣌ࢼࣝࢸ࢕ࢆཷࡅྲྀࡽࡏࡿࠖ
ࡇ࡜࡟௚࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࠕཷࡅྲྀࡽࡏࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺

Fillmore, Charles J. (1982) “Frame Semantics,”

ព࿡ࡣ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒᵓᩥࡢ୰ᚰ⩏࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ

Linguistics in Morning Calm, ed. by The

ࡓࡵࠊTYPE 3-1 ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ(19)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟

Linguistic Society of Korea, 111-137,

bring, cause ࡞࡝ࠊ TYPE 3-2 ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ(20)Hanshin Publishing Company, Seoul.

ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ bring, earn, give ࡞࡝ࠊఱ✀㢮ࡶࡢື

Fillmore, Charles J. and Beryl T. Atkins (1992)

モ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊTYPE 3 ࡢ cost ஧㔜┠ⓗㄒ⾲⌧“Toward a Frameဨbased Lexicon: The࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣࢆ⾲ࡏࡿࠋSemantics of RISK and its Neighbors,”
Frames, Fields, and Contrasts, ed. by
Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Kittay, 75ဨ102,(19) a. His bravery brought him a horrible death

Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc, Hillsdale/N.J.

at the hands of republicans.
b. … and ultimately it caused us and the

Goldberg, Adele E. (1995) A Construction

project significant loss.       Grammar Approach to Argument Structure.

(both from Wordbanks)

The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Goldberg,(20) a. …when Sinclair’s hand ball on the line
brought them a penalty.

Generalizations:

(BNC)



“Surface

Alternativeto

Langacker, Ronald W. (1987) Foundations ofc. …so the judge gave him 16 years inprison.

An(2002)

327-356.

(Wordbanks)

E.

Alternations,” Cognitive Linguistics 13,

b. That sort of behaviour could earn him a
red card.

Adele

Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisite(Wordbanks)

1, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

54

Pinker,

Steven(1989)

Learnability

andCognition: The Acquisition of Argument
Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ
BNC: The British National Corpus Online.
<http://bnc.jkn21.com/>
Wordbanks Online.
<http://wordbanks.jkn21.com/>55

spectators as we marched down thestreet.

(Clark and Clark (1979:785))

b. The new laws would increase penalties
for drivers who door a cyclist.
(Michaelis and Hsiao (2021:123))

Characteristics of Denominal Verbs as
Revealed by a Coercion-Based Analysis*

This semantic versatility of DNVs is best
Yuki Okada

confirmed by their having a wider range of

University of Tsukuba

semantics than denominal affixed verbs have.
For example, let us compare summerV with

Keywords㸸Construction Grammar, conversion,

summer-izeV based on the semantic groups ofdenominal verb, coercion, amalgam

Clark and Clark (1979:768-781):(3) a. summer in Paris(ibid:772)

a'. summerize in Heidelberg and Baden

1. Introduction

Baden

A denominal verb (DNV) is produced by a(OED)

b. summering your stove

syntactic category shift, conversion, in which therelevant category change is indirectly signaled(https://www.thefireside.co.uk/summering-your-by its inflectional and combinatory behavior

stove/, accessed Mar. DD, 2022)
b'. Let Hutzler’s summerize your homerather than its internal composition. With respect(OED)

to its semantic aspect, whether there is a limit to
the semantic variation of DNVs remains unclear.

c. summer cattle(OED)

In this respect, Kiparsky (1997:380) formulates

d. I fully summered myself into vintage

the canonical use constraint: if an action is

fashion and have almost entirely cut out

named after a thing, it involves a canonical use

fast fashion from my life, somethingof the thing. For example, bottled in (1) has the

I’ve been working very hard on.

canonical reading in that the denotatum of the(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4F4_BOD

base noun is the location to which the wine was

JzE, accessed Mar. DD, 2022)

transferred to be preserved.
(3) illustrates that summer-izeV is semantically(1) Yesterday we bottled the wine and it isdrinkable right now.

fixed to the duration (‘spend the summer’ in(Baeskow (2021:3))(3a')) or goal (‘make summer-like’ in (3b'))
meanings, whereas summerV can further express

However, English DNVs may receive a

unclassifiable meanings such as ‘keep or feed

context-dependent interpretation, as exemplified(animals) during the summer’ in (3c) andin (2), in which bottle and door deviate from the‘become absorbed in’ in (3d). The semantic

canonical readings based on the typical uses ofcomparison raises the following questions: (ხ)

the base noun referents.

why DNVs show such a semantic diversity and(ჯ) why denominal and affixed verbs that share(2) a. We were stoned and bottled by thethe same bases can co-exist, especially in cases

56when they seem to have identical meanings, as

the coerced item, and the context selects onein (3a/a') and (3b/b').

interpretation from a range of alternative
readings. Consider the following examples:

To answer these questions, I assume that thesemantic diversity of DNVs typically involves
theenriched

construal

resultingconstruction-based

coercion:theenrichment

lexicalmeaningsof(4) a. drop/want the bookfromb. discuss/finish the booksemantic(A&B (2016:629) with modifications)inmorphosyntactic context (Michaelis (2003),
Audring and Booij (A&B) (2016)). Based on

Although book has alternative readings as athis assumption, I argue that the usage ofphysical object or informational content, someinnovative

pragmaticallyof the possible readings are incompatible in (4a)motivated and thus forms an amalgam-likeand (4b). The verbs drop and want fail to match

formation serving a certain communicativewith the informational content reading in (4a),function. In section 3, I show that this analysis isjust as the physical object reading does not fit

supported by a series of examples in different

the semantic frame of discuss and finish in (4b).

DNVs

must

be

differentIn

acceptability. Before discussing the pragmatic

lexicalmotivation accompanied by the use of DNVs, I

augmented

outline what I mean by construction-based

specification in context. For example, in (5a),coercionthethe verb or construction requires an activity

plausibility of a coercion-based account on

predicate as the complement so that the

DNVs in the next section.

utterance meaning is enriched by an implicit

linguistic

contexts,

and

then

which

brieflyshow

proposecoercion-by-enrichment,
properties
or

are

the

preserved

wrappedwithoriginal
but

are

the

new

predicate informally represented as […].
2. Coercion Revisited(5) a. Mary began [...] the book.

Although examined by many studies ofb. Mary began the book after it had beenvarious theoretical backgrounds, coercion insitting on her shelf for years.

nature involves a “mismatch” between the(A&B (2016:627))

inherent semantic properties of a selector and thelexical semantics of a selected element (cf.
Lauwers and Willems (2011)). A selector can be

The acceptability of the anaphora to the book in

a construction, a word class, or a temporal(5b) shows that it retains the lexical semantics,

marker, resulting in a particular context, withsuggesting that the reading event is merely

which the selected element is not expected toaugmented in context. In this respect, Fabrizio

combine. Depending on the degree of top-down(2013:178) observes that once converted into a

influence of selectors on selected elements,

verb, a noun loses its referential index, and thus

A&B (2016) distinguish three types of coercion:

fail to introduce a discourse referent, as seen incoercion-by-selection, coercion-by-enrichment,(6).

and coercion-by-override.
resulting(6) Mary chained the chair to the wall. *It wasmeaning is a part of the semantic repertoire ofheavy. (intended meaning: ‘the chain was

Incoercion-by-selection,

the

57

heavy’)(https://www.conwaydailysun.com/outdoors/golf/courses/golf-column-avoid-the-eruption/article_

By contrast, in coercion-by-override, the6de5519a-ed69-11ea-85ab-2bb5967af15a.html,

construction acts as a strong force on the lexicalaccessed Aug. DD, 2022)

semantics, so that it “modifies, replaces, or
removes properties of the coerced item (A&B

Although the verb swim usually behaves as an(2016:628)),” leading to intercategorial change

intransitive verb, in (8a), it combines with ain words. In this type of coercion, the lexical

direct object and a directional expression. In

semantics of the inserted item does not strictlyConstruction Grammar (e.g., Goldberg (1995)),

contribute to the entire utterance’s meaning.

without positing an additional lexical entry ofConsider the following example:

swim, the independent form/meaning paring of
the caused motion construction allows the word

(7) This is so 2013.

(A&B (2016:632))

to gain the combinatoric behavior characteristicof the construction. Similarly, the idiomaticOn the form side, 2013 in (7) is modified by thedenominal readings of ‘induce someone to act

degree modifier so. On the semantic side, what

forcibly’ in (8b) and ‘toss something vigorously

is predicated by so 2013 is not necessarily

into something’ in (8c) are not strictly derivableoccurring in 2013; notably, it does not matterfrom the nouns. Instead, these idiomaticwhich year is inserted in this construction.

meanings are attributable to the semantics of thisAccordingly, the whole construction acquires anentireidiomatic meaning, ‘old-fashioned,’ at theform/meaning

expense of the lexical semantics of the inserted

analysis, often referred to as constructional

item, and 2013 formally, and semanticallycoercion (accommodation), captures “the insightfunctions as an adjective in this construction.

that many novel verb uses are nonce uses: they

construction
pairing.

asanindependentThis

constructional

I assume that the category change involved

serve an expressive purpose in a particularin the formation of DNVs occurs as the result ofcontext but may never become conventionalized

coercion-by-override when a noun is inserted in(Michaelis and Hsiao (2021:124)).” Such a

a

items

contextually determined meaning of the DNV isbelonging to the verbal category. A major

the semantic and pragmatic property imposed byargument in favor of this analysis is from thethe construction, which is typical of the relevant

idiomatic meaning of innovative DNVs. The

type of coercion.

constructional

slot

intendedforfollowing caused motion construction is an

If DNV formation is a result of a coercive,

example:online process, we should observe that theinterpretations of DNVs are regulated to some(8) a. Liberty swam the woman to shore.

degree by the syntactic frames in which theb. They sort of felt like Steve Jobs had

relevant nouns are embedded. This result occurs

railroaded them into that deal.

because a coercive process does not exist(Michaelis and Hsiao (2021:124))

without the coercing construction or context.

c. The thought of “helicoptering” my club

Consider the following examples (adapted from
Nakajima (2018:69)):

into the pond crossed my mind.

58

remains unclear (Lauwers (2014:216)). More
(9) a.
b.

The system filtered all email.

precisely, coercion refers to a case in which an

The system filtered out junk mail.

already entrenched construction combines with ac. * The system filtered junk mail.

right formal type but the wrong semantic type.

d.

For example, water, as in a water, has nothing

Sunlight filtered through the window.

that is formally exceptionable. Second, it ise. * Sunlight filtered the window.

necessary to capture the intuition that the use of
Although all the denominal interpretations in (9)a noun as a verb without any overt marking is a

are related to the shared knowledge of filters, themarkeddistinct senses (removal, passing) are products

well-established, prototypical verbs (Lauwersof syntactic context: the interpretations of(2014:215)). For example, when the mayor tried

removal and passing in (9b) and (9d) require theto Richard Nixon the tapes of the meeting is said,use of directional particles such as out andusing Richard Nixon is more informative than

through, and if not for them, as in (9c) and (9e),using erase (Clark and Clark (1979:802)),the sentences are not acceptable in the intended

evoking an image of an unscrupulous politician

meanings.

theattempting desperately to cover his/her tracks. In

inseparability of denominal interpretation andthe next section, from the coercion-based

syntactic

approach, I offer a plausible explanation for

These

examplesprofile.

confirm

Notably,

denominal

usage

of

words

pertaining

tothese problems.

interpretation and syntactic profile are so tightly
connected that denominal readings are often
unavailable

exceptinasingle3. Analysis

argument-structure configuration. (10) is some

Because there is no construction combiningof such examples (adapted from McIntyre

a nominal base with its verbal slot, I argue that(2015:1420)).

the syntactic specification of the verbal slot may
be overlaid by a certain pragmatic motivation. In
this respect, amalgams, non-standard variants of(10) soldier *(on)/pig *(out)standard constructions, may be relevant. These
The denominals in (10) are not acceptable

innovative constructions combine otherwise

without each particle despite differing inincompatible subparts of other constructions totransitivity. If DNVs were products of anserve a peculiar function (Lambrecht (1988)).

autonomous(e.g.,

This analysis can be supported from theindependently

perspective of Levinson’s (2000) M-principle:

appear in any syntactic context such that they

what is said in an abnormal way indicates an

could be fully interpretable.

abnormal,morphologicalzero-derivation),

they

would

process

non-stereotypicalsituationoreffectively

unfamiliar, infrequent concepts. In fact, this

explains the tight regulation imposed by theperspective allows us to explain the following

syntactic pattern in which a nominal word is

examples:A

coercion-based

analysis

embedded. However, this analysis also is not(11) a. * Mary guitared a song.

watertight. First, coercion is a purely semantic(Hilpert (2014:138))

notion, and how it relates to category shifts

59

b.

The verbs weekend and Sunday in (12a) andI guitared my way across the US.

(12c)(Clark and Clark: (1979:801))
c.

do

not

mean

merelyspendingaWhen this was over Grace sang andweekend/Sunday. Rather, they refer to, forguitared a song for us.

example,spending

elegant

time

in

an

(http://blueskyschoolca.blogspot.com/2019/09/re

extraordinary country. This is because thed-pine-camp-2019-by-blue-sky-learners.html,

non-conventional marked forms of the nouns inaccessed May DD, 2022)

the verbal slots of the intransitive construction
allow potential hearers to experience the(11a) is not grammatical as long as it expresses

subjective imagination evoked by holidays. Byan unmarked situation: what we usually expect

contrast, the described situation in (12d) isor playing a song with a guitar. This is because

spending (or working) time at an office on

the usage of DNVs must be pragmaticallyMonday, an everyday situation. Therefore, it ismotivated and express a certain marked situation.

pragmatically blocked from using the marked

By contrast, (11b) and (11c) express something

construction for describing such a common

more than what individuals usually expect to dosituation. The same reasoning can apply to thewith a guitar: in (11b), guitar is used in the

degraded acceptability of (12b): generally,

verbal slot of the way construction, which

compared with Sunday, Saturday does not relate

encodesvery well to the image typically associated withanagent’s

movementalong

aself-created metaphorical path by means ofholidays.

performing a particular activity to overcome

Theargument

implies

that

even

if

some obstacle (Goldberg (1995:199-217)); in theconceptually referring to the same thing,attestedisdenominal and affixed verbs that share the same

coordinated with sing in the context thatbases can be distinguished at the pragmatic level.

describes a series of acts and performances ofThis distinction is reflected in their selectional

songs at a campfire. These constructional andrestrictions on direct objects:

exampleof(11c),

theverb

linguistic co-texts enable the coerced item to(13) a. summer/*summerize your stove

have more meaning than merely playing theb. John summered/summerized my car.

guitar: ‘making money by playing the guitar’ in(11b) and ‘reciting while playing the guitar’ in(13a) shows that when denoting the goal

(11c).

meaning (cf. (3b/b')), the denominal, and affixed

Another piece of evidence is from theverbs differ in that the former can take certain

duration verbs (cf. (3a/a')):entities as their direct object, which usually do
Karen weekended in the country.

not need summer specification, whereas theb. ? Karen Saturdayed in the country.

latter cannot; a stove is not something that needs(12) a.

to be summerized and works the same in the(Clark and Clark (1979:802))John Sundayed in the country.

winter as it does in the summer. This is enabledd. * John Mondayed at the office.

by the pragmatic motivation accompanied by thec.

usage of DNVs. Specifically, the verb is attested(Nagano (2008:96), with modifications)in a headline of a feature article, which explains60the risk that stoves can become damaged over

can’t be bothered to lift anything heavy

the summer and suggests that you should(…)

prepare them for the summer. On the other hand,(http://www.vertigoshtick.com/2010/03/, access-(13b) illustrates that the affixed verb can be used

ed Sep. DD, 2022)

in the goal meaning, and the denominal one, asb. This is the Mondayest Monday that eversuch, can have multiple meanings: potentially an

Mondayed.

infinite number of interpretations without richcontextual information. My informants provide

The verb Monday in (14a) is difficult to interpret

different interpretations of the verb, such as

without referring to the contextual information:‘give the car a break for the summer’ and ‘takeit is used in the verbal slot of (all) X-ed out

the car on summer vacation.’ This semantic

construction that refers to a state, ‘exhausted

flexibility reflects the context-sensitive nature of

from X-ing to excess,’ and in the preceding

interpreting innovative verbs and should be

discourse, the information about what a role

discussed with their pragmatic characteristic.

Monday generally plays in a whole week can bediscerned. Thus, it is understood to mean to feeldepressed thinking about Monday. (14b) is a

4. Conclusion
I have clarified that construction-based

conventionalized expression that has been usedcoercion can be convincing in explaining thein an internet meme. Its meaning is typicallysemantic versatility of DNVs and its tightsimilar to that of (14a), which may be the mostconnection with the syntactic pattern in which

straightforward interpretation inferred based onthey are embedded. To supplement this analysis,

the primary function of the base noun. However,I argue that the usage of innovative DNVs mustin another situation, it can also mean to start abe pragmatically motivated and thus forms anfresh week while making a certain resolution.

amalgam-like formation that expresses a certain

Which meaning the speaker intends to convey

non-stereotypical situation. Of course, what

depends on the specific situation relevant to thepragmatic motivation is at work in the formationinterlocutors. These examples show that themust be specified. Here, I leave this issue open.

noun that can be a DNV needs to belong to the

The discussion in section 3, however,class of relational nouns, and it must be a

implies that what knowledge or information isrole-designating (frame-evoking) one in theaccessible in the context must be considered. In

context.

this connection, Clark and Clark (1979:800-802)
observe that when the effort demanded for* I thank the anonymous reviewers and theinterpreting an innovative verb outweighs any

audience at 40th Conference of the English

economy of expression, it bears a playful nuance.

Linguistic Society of Japan. I would also like toConsider the following examples:

express my profound gratitude to Yukio Hirose,
Naoaki Wada, and Masaru Kanetani for valuable(14) a. It’s Monday. (I know, I don’t need tocomments on this study. All remaining errors

remind you.) First day back at work or

and inadequacies are, of course, my own.

school after a nice, relaxing weekend(…) or you’re so Mondayed out you

61

REFERENCES
Jenny and Geert Booij

Levinson, Stephen C. (2000) Presumptive(2016)

Meanings: The Theory of Generalized“Cooperation and Coercion,” Linguistics 54,

Conversational Implicature, MIT Press,

617-637.

Cambridge, MA.

Audring,

McIntyre, Andrew (2015) ͆Denominal Verbs,͇

Baeskow, Heike (2021) “Noun-Verb Conversion
as a Metonymic Metamorphosis,” SKASE

Word

Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 18(1),Handbook of the Languages of Europe

2-34.

(Volume ϩ), ed. by Peter Müller, Ingeborg

Clark, Eve V. and Herbert H. Clark (1979)

Formation:

An

International

Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer,“When Nouns Surface as Verbs,” Language

1406-1424, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

55, 767-811.

Michaelis, Laura A. (2003) “Word Meaning,

Fabrizio, Claudia (2013) “The Meaning of a

Sentence Meaning and Syntactic Meaning,”

Noun Converted into a Verb: A Semantic

Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics,

Exploration

ed. by Hubert Cuyckens, René Dirven, andon

Italian,”RivistadiLinguistica 25(2), 175-219.

John Taylor, 163–210, Mouton de Gruyter,

Goldberg, Adele E. (1995) Constructions: A
Construction

GrammarApproach

Berlin.

toMichaelis, Laura A. and Min-chun A. Hsiao

Argument Structure, The University of(2021)

Chicago Press, Chicago.

Innovation,”

Hilpert, Martin (2014) Construction Grammar“Verbing

Insights

andDefining

into

the

Linguistic
Constructions:

Emergenceandand Its Application to English, Edinburgh

Generation of Linguistic Representations,

University Press, Edinburgh.

ed. by Mike Putnam, Matthew Carlson,

Kiparsky, Paul (1997) “Remarks on Denominal

Antonio Fábregas, and Eva Wittenberg,

Verbs,” Complex Predicates, ed. by Alex

119-128, Frontiers Media SA, Lausanne.

Alsina, Joan Bresnan, and Peter Sells,

Nagano,Akiko(2008)

Conversion

and473-499, CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Back-Formation in English: Toward a

Lambrecht, Knud (1988) “There Was a Farmer

Theory of Morpheme-Based Morphology,

Had

a

Dog:

Syntactic

Amalgams

Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

Revisited,” BLS 14, 319-339.

Nakajima,

Lauwers, Peter (2014) “Between Adjective andNoun:

Category/Function,

Hirotaka(2018)“Koopasuni

Motoduku Eigo Meisi Tenkan Dosi filter no

Mismatch,

Hureemu Imiron teki Bunseki (A Frame

Constructional Overrides and Coercion,”

Semantic

Word

and

Denominal Verb filter: A Corpus-Based

Representations, ed. by Raffaele Simone

Study),” Kobe Papers in Linguistics 11,

and Francesca Masini, 203–225, John

58-74.

Classes.

Nature,Typology

AnalysisoftheEnglishBenjamins, Amsterdam.
Lauwers, Peter and Dominique Willems (2011)“Coercion:

Definition

andDICTIONARY

Challenges,

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), [online]

Current Approaches, and New Trends,”

Retrieved from https://www.oed.com/.

Linguistics 49(6), 1219-1235.

62

whatever ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡ࢆ☜ㄆࡋ㸲ࡘ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋḟ࡟㸱⠇࡛ࠊᵓᡂせ⣲ or ࡜ whateverࡢព࿡ㄽⓗ≉ᛶࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸲⠇࡛ࠊព࿡ㄽⓗ≉ᛶࢆㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡࡟㛵㐃௜ࡅࠊorࢪ࢙ࢿ࢚ࣛࣝࢡࢫࢸࣥࢲ࣮ or whatever ࡢ

something ࡜ ࡢ 㐪 ࠸ ࢆ ᣦ ᦬ ࡋ ࡞ ࡀ ࡽ orㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡࡜ព࿡ㄽⓗ≉ᛶࡢ㛵ࢃࡾwhatever ࡢ≉ᚩࢆㄽࡌࠊ5 ⠇࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࢆグࡍࠋ㸦The Relationship Between Pragmatic
Meaning and Semantic Properties of the General

2. or whatever ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡ࡢศ㢮

Extender or whatever 㸧ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࢪ࢙ࢿ࢚ࣛࣝࢡࢫࢸࣥࢲ࣮ࡢඛ
⾜◊✲ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ whatever ࡢᯇᒣ ຍዉᏊ㸦Kanako Matsuyama㸧

㏻᫬ⓗ◊✲ 㸦Brinton (2017), McColm andዉⰋዪᏊ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸦Nara Women’s

Trousdale (2019)㸧ࡶᴫほࡍࡿࠋ㸯 ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊor

University㸧

whatever ព࿡ᶵ⬟ࢆḟࡢ㸲ࡘ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ1.
࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂ 2. ࣊ࢵࢪᶵ⬟ 3.ࢸࢡࢫࢺᶵ⬟㸦ࢺࣆࢵࢡ⤊஢㸧 4. ឤ᝟⾲ฟ㸦↓㛵ᚰ㸧ࠋ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ㄒ⏝ㄽ, ព࿡ㄽ, ࢪ࢙ࢿ࢚ࣛࣝ

㸰ࢡࢫࢸࣥࢲ࣮, ᵓᡂせ⣲ࡇ ࢀ ࡽ ࡣ ࠊ ᐇ 㝿 ࡟ ౑ ⏝ ࡉ ࢀ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ orwhatever ࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟࡜ᴫࡡ୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊព
࿡ྠኈࡣ஫࠸࡟⊂❧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㔜ᒙ
1. ᗎㄽⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࢪ ࢙ ࢿ ࣛ ࣝ ࢚ ࢡ ࢫ ࢸ ࣥ ࢲ ࣮ ࡜ ࡣ ࠊ and2.1. ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂ

things(like that)ࡸ or something(like that)࡞࡝ࠊ
ᩥᮎࡸྃࡢ᭱ᚋ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᵝࠎ࡞ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព

or whatever ࡣࠊ௚ࡢࢪ࢙ࢿ࢚ࣛࣝࢡࢫࢸࣥ

࿡ࢆఏ࠼ࡿ⾲⌧⩌ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ㸦Overstreetࢲ࣮ྠᵝࠊఱ࠿ࢆᣦ♧ࡋ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠶࠸ࡲ

(1999), Aijmer (2013), Overstreet and Yule࠸࡟࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿࡢࢆಁࡍ㸦Wagner(2021)࡞࡝㸧ࠋࡑࡢ୰ࡢ୍ࡘࠊor whatever ࡣࠊ

et al (2015)㸧ࠋ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࡣ or something ࡢ㢮ఝ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜グࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Oxford Learner’s Dictionary Online㸧ࠋ (3) …it would be like cousins brothers orsisters and parents or whatever㸦Wagner et al. (2015): 712㸧(1) You can bring wine or something.
(2) You can bring wine or whatever.

(3)ࡢ or whatever ࡣ౛࡜ࡋ࡚♧ࡉࢀࡿ๓㏙ࡢ
(1)(2)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୧⾲⌧ࡣඹ࡟ࠕ㸦࣡࢖ࣥ㸧࠿せ⣲ cousins brothers or sisters and parents ࢆఱ࠿ࠖ࡜ヂࡏࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ౑⏝ࢆぢ࡚ᡭ᥃࠿ࡾ࡟ࠊࠕぶ᪘ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ

ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊor whatever ࡣࠊor something ࡟ࡣ࡞ᙧᡂࢆຓࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᶵ⬟ࡣࠊࢪ࢙ࢿࣛࣝ

࠸ព࿡ࢆఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

࢚ࢡࢫࢸࣥࢲ࣮඲యࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞ᶵ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ Pichler and Levey (2011)ࡽࡣ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊor something ࡢ㢮ఝ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ orwhatever ࢆࠊᵓᡂせ⣲ࡢព࿡ㄽⓗ≉ᛶ࡟㐳ࡗ

2.2. ࣊ࢵࢪᶵ⬟࡚ㄽࡌࠊor whatever ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡ࢆヲ㏙ࡍ

or whatever ࡣࠊ୙ṇ☜ࡉࢆఏ࠼ࠊཝᐦࡉࢆ

ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡲ ࡎ 㸰 ⠇ ࡛ ࡣ ࠊ ඛ ⾜ ◊ ✲ ࡟ ᇶ ࡙ ࡁ or࿴ࡽࡆࡿ࣊ࢵࢪ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿ

63㸦Overstreet (1999), Aijmer (2002)㸧ࠋࢆఏ࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺グ㏙ࡣぢᙜࡓࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ

(4) Because I know when I first moved down

2.5. ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡ࡢศ㢮ࡢࡲ࡜ࡵᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊඛ⾜◊✲ࢆཧ⪃࡟ or whatever

here in like what? -nineteen eighty-six orwhatever.

㸦Overstreet (1999): 116㸧ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡ࢆ☜ㄆࡋ኱ࡁࡃ 4 ࡘ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࠋឤ᝟⾲ฟ㸦↓㛵ᚰ㸧ࡣࠊor whatever(4)ࡢ or whatever ࡣࠊ1986 ᖺࢆ࠶࠸ࡲ࠸࡟ఏ

ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡࡜ࡋ࡚㝿❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ

࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋor something ࡶྠᵝ࡟୙ṇ☜ࡉࢆ௚ࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㢮ఝ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ orఏ࠼ࡿ࣊ࢵࢪ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ศᯒࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ

something ࡸࡑࡢ௚ࡢࢪ࢙ࢿ࢚ࣛࣝࢡࢫࢸࣥ

㸦ibid㸧ࠋࢲ࣮࡜ࡢ㐪࠸ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

2.3. ࢸࢡࢫࢺᶵ⬟㸦ࢺࣆࢵࢡ⤊஢㸧

3. ᵓᡂせ⣲ࡢព࿡ㄽⓗ≉ᛶor whatever ࡟ࡣࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆ⤊஢ࡉࡏࡿാ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊor whatever ࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟ࢆࡼࡾ᫂ࡁࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦Brinton (2017)㸧ࠋࡽ࠿࡟♧ࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᵓᡂせ⣲ࡢព࿡ㄽⓗ≉ᛶࢆ♧ࡍࠋ(5) One may not like England or France?
3.1. ᵓᡂせ⣲ or

Because of imperialism, past war, war debts,

ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠊor ࡣࠊㄽ⌮᥋⥆モ࡜ࡋ࡚┿⌮᮲or whatever. But suppose burglars werebraking in to the houses of friends.

௳࡟㛵㐃௜ࡅࡽࢀࡓ⪃ᐹࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡋ
࠿ࡋ Ariel and Mauri (2018, 2019)ࡣࠊ୺ほⓗど  㸦Brinton (2017): 276㸧Ⅼ࠿ࡽ or ࡢ୰᰾ࡣࠕ௦᭰ᛶ࡛ࠖࠕᡭ⥆ࡁⓗ(5)࡛ࡣࠊor whatever ࡛ࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫ࡜ࣇࣛࣥ

ព࿡ࠖࢆᣢࡘ࡜୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋor ࢆྵࡴᵓᩥࡣࠊ

ࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢⰋࡃ࡞࠸ヰ㢟ࢆ⤊࠼ࠊBut ௨㝆᫂♧ⓗ࡟ゝཬࡉࢀࡓ㑅ᢥ⫥ࡢෆ㒊㛵ಀࢆ⪺ࡣ඲ࡃูࡢヰ㢟ࢆጞࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡁᡭ࡟ᑟࡃ࡜ᙼࡽࡣゝ࠺㸦Ariel and Mauriࢪ࢙ࢿ࢚ࣛࣝࢡࢫࢸࣥࢲ࣮඲⯡࡟ࡶࠊࡇࡢ

(2019): 41㸧ࠋ౛࠼ࡤ A or B ࡜ゝࡗࡓ࡜ࡁࠊorࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆ⤊஢ࡉࡏࡿᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ Pichlerࡣ A ࡸ B ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿ㧗ḟ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆఏ࠼ࡿ

and Levey (2011)ࡣ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ᡭ⥆ࡁⓗ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ࡜࠸
࠺ࡢࡔࠋ
Ariel ࡽࡣࠊor ࡀᩥ⬦ⓗ࡟⿵ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ

2.4. ឤ᝟⾲ฟ㸦↓㛵ᚰ㸧
or whatever ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ࡞ࡆࡸࡾ࡛ࠕ↓㛵

ࡑࡢ௚ᵝࠎ࡞ゎ㔘ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋᚰࠖ࡞ែᗘࢆఏ࠼ࡿ㸦Brinton (2017)㸧ࠋor whatever ࡣ๓⠇࡛♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ」ᩘࡢព
࿡ᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡕࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢព࿡ࡣᩥ⬦࡟౫Ꮡࡍ(6) I don’t want to talk to you. It doesn’t meanࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊAriel ࡽࡢ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠕ௦᭰ᛶ

that I hate you or whatever. I just haveࢆ୰᰾࡜ࡋࡓᡭ⥆ࡁⓗ࡞ព࿡ࠖࢆ or ࡢព࿡

nothing to do with you.

ㄽⓗ≉ᛶ࡜ࡋ࡚㆟ㄽࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࠋ

(COCA spoken 2017)
3.2. ᵓᡂせ⣲ whatever(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࠸ࡽࡔࡕࡀ㝿❧ࡘⓎヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚whatever ࡣ any ࡜ྠࡌࠕ୙ᐃࡢࣇ࣮ࣜࢳࣙ

౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡁࠊor whatever ࡣ↓㛵ᚰ࡞ែᗘ࢖ࢫ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ Horn (2000)ࡢ୺ᙇࢆࠊ

ࢆఏ࠼ࡿࠋ୍᪉ or something ࡀ↓㛵ᚰ࡞ែᗘᮏ✏࡛ࡣ᥇⏝ࡍࡿࠋHorn(2000)ࡣࠊྰᐃᴟᛶ

64㡯┠(NPI)any ࡜ࣇ࣮ࣜࢳࣙ࢖ࢫ(FC)any ࡢ⤫Israel㸦1997㸧ࡣࡇࡢᙉ໬࡜࠸࠺ᛶ㉁ࢆࠊ

୍ࡋࡓぢゎࢆ♧ࡍࠋ3 ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢࠕ୙ᐃ

any ࡣᴟᛶឤᗘ㡯┠㸦polarity sensitivity item㸧ࡢࣇ࣮ࣜࢳࣙ࢖ࢫࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゎㄝࡍࡿࠋ࡛ࠊᑻᗘⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋᑻᗘ࡜

ࡲࡎࠊwhatever ࡣ any ࡛⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋ

ࡣ⛬ᗘᛶࡢࡇ࡜࡛ࠊany ࡣࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᑻᗘࡢ➃Ⅼ㸦end point㸧ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠺ࠋ(7) Pick whatever card you want. = Pick any
card.

ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᑻᗘ࡜ࡣࠊㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝᏑᅾࡍ

㸦Horn (2000): 102㸧ࡿ⛬ᗘᛶ࡛ࠊ➃Ⅼ࡜ࡣࠊࠕ᭱ࡶ࡛ࠖ⾲ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞୍␒➃ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢ౛ᩥ(10)ࡣࠊ

(7)࡛ࡣࠊany ࡶ whatever ࡶࠕ࡝ࢀ࡛ࡶࠖ࡜࠸

᭱ୖ⣭ࡀ any ࡛⾲ࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࠺௵ពࡢ㑅ᢥࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ጤࡡ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕࣇࣜ
(10) Norm can’t solve the simplest puzzle.

࣮ࢳࣙ࢖ࢫ㸦⮬⏤㑅ᢥ㸧ࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ௵ពࠊࡲࡓ

=He can’t solve any puzzle.

ࡣ↓ᕪูⓗ㸦indiscriminative㸧࡞㑅ᢥࢆព࿡

㸦Israel (1997): 211㸧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕ୙ᐃࠖࡢᴫᛕࢆࠊKadmon and Landman(11)࡛♧ࡍ㏻ࡾ᭱ୖ⣭ࡣ whatever ࡛ࡶ⾲ࡏࡿࠋ

㸦1993㸧ࡢ⪃࠼᪉࠿ࡽㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ୙ᐃෙモ(a/an) ࡟ࡣ࠶࠸ࡲ࠸࡞ࠕࢻ࣓࢖ࣥࠖࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ
any ࡣࡑࡢ࠶࠸ࡲ࠸࡞ࢻ࣓࢖ࣥࢆᗈࡆࡿࠋ

(11) He can’t solve the simplest puzzle.
=He can’t solve whatever puzzle they have.

(8) a. An owl hunts mice.
b. Any owl hunts miceࡲࡓࠊ(12)࡛♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᑻᗘࡢ➃㸦Kadmon and Landman (1993): 359㸧Ⅼࡣࠊᴟᛶ㸦⫯ᐃяྰᐃ㸧ࡀኚࢃࡿ࡜㏫ഃࡢ
➃Ⅼ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

(8) a.ࡢࡼ࠺࡟୙ᐃෙモࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚ an owl ࡜(12) He can solve the most difficult puzzle.

ゝ࠺࡜ࡁࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࠕ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ࣇࢡࣟ࢘ࠖ࡜
࠸࠺ࢻ࣓࢖ࣥࢆ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(8) b.ࡢ

=He can solve whatever puzzle they have.

ࡼ࠺࡟ any owl ࡜ゝ࠺࡜ࡁࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ࣇࢡ(He can solve any puzzle.)ࣟ࢘ࡢ୰࡟ࡣྵࡲࢀ࡞࠸⑓Ẽࡢࣇࢡࣟ࢘࡞
࡝ࡢ౛እࢆྵࡵ࡚ࠊࢻ࣓࢖ࣥࢆᗈࡆࡿࠋࡑࡢ

(11) (12)࠿ࡽࠊwhatever ࡣࠊࠕ᭱ࡶ⡆༢ࠖ࡜ࠕ᭱

ᗈࡀࡾ㸦widening㸧ࡢᛶ㉁ࡣ whatever ࡟ࡶᙜࡶ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᑻᗘࡢ୧ഃࡢ➃Ⅼ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠋࢆྵࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ

Kadmon ࡽࡀ୺ᙇࡍࡿࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢ any ࡢᛶᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊwhatever ࡢព࿡ㄽⓗ≉ᛶࡣࠊࠕ୙㉁ࠊᙉ໬㸦strengthening㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊHorn ࡣᐃࡢࣇ࣮ࣜࢳࣙ࢖ࢫ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡣࠕ➃Ⅼ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ᩥࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࢆྵࡵ࡚ࢻ࣓࢖ࣥࢆᗈࡆࠊከࡃࡢ⮬⏤㑅ᢥࢆ♧ࡍࠖࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

(9) I am looking for a bicycle, any bicycle, thatworks.

㸦Horn (2005): 8㸧

4. ⪃ᐹ
㸲⠇࡛♧ࡋࡓព࿡ㄽⓗ≉ᛶ࡜ࠊ㸱⠇࡛ศ㢮(9)ࡢ any bicycle ࡣࠊࠕ㸦ືࡃ࡞ࡽ㸧࡝ࢇ࡞⮬ࡋࡓ or whatever ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽព࿡ࢆ㛵㐃௜ࡅ࡚㌿㌴࡛ࡶⰋ࠸ࠖࢆ⾲ࡋࠊa bicycle ࡢព࿡ࢆᙉ

ㄽࡌࠊ㢮ఝ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ or something ࡜ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ

65

4.1. ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂ

or whatever ࡣࠊor something ࡼࡾࡶ୙☜࠿ࡉព࿡ㄽⓗ≉ᛶ࠿ࡽぢࡿ࡜ࠊor whatever ࡣࢆᙉࡃఏ࠼ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࠕ୙ᐃࡢࣇ࣮ࣜࢳࣙ࢖ࢫࠖࢆࠕ௦᭰ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚
4.3. ࢸࢡࢫࢺᶵ⬟㸦ࢺࣆࢵࢡ⤊஢㸧ᑟධࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋwhatever ࡢࠕ➃Ⅼࢆྵࡵ࡚ࢻ
࣓࢖ࣥࢆᗈࡆࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺≉ᛶࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞࢝ࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆ⤊஢ࡉࡏࡿᶵ⬟ࡣࠊwhatever ࡢࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆ኱ࡁࡃᗈࡆࡿᙺ๭ࢆᢸ࠺࡜⪃࠼ࣇ࣮ࣜࢳࣙ࢖ࢫᛶࡀࠕ⥙⨶ᛶ㸦Giannakidou

ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(2001)㸧ࠖࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜࡜㛵㐃௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࠕ⥙⨶ࠖࡣࠕࡶࢀ࡞ࡃࡍ࡭࡚ࠖࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢ

(3) …it would be like cousins brothers orsisters and parents or whatever⥙⨶ᛶ࠿ࡽࠕࡍ࡭࡚ゝ࠸ᑾࡃࡋࡓࠖࡀᑟ࠿ࢀ
࡚ࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆ⤊஢ࡉࡏࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

㸦෌ᥖ㸧

๓ ㏙ ࡢ せ ⣲ cousins brothers or sisters and(5) One may not like England or France?

parents ࡜࠸࠺౛♧࠿ࡽ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ᛮ࠸ᥥ࠿ࢀ

Because of imperialism, past war, war debts,

ࡿࡢࡣࠕぶ᪘ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ୖ఩࢝ࢸࢦ࣮࡛ࣜ࠶ࡿ

or whatever. But suppose burglars wereࡀࠊor whatever ࡣࠊ㏻ᖖ࡞ࡽࠕぶ᪘ࠖ࡟ධࡾ

braking in to the houses of friends. 㸦෌ᥖ㸧ᚓ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡞ேࡶ௦᭰࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆ኱ࡁࡃᗈࡆࡿࠋ

(5)࡛ࠊor whatever ࡀࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆ⤊஢ࡋ࡚࠸ ୍᪉ or something ࡣࠊ๓㏙ࡢ౛♧ࡢ㏆ఝࡸࡿࡢࡣࠊ⥆ࡃ But ௨㝆ࠊูࡢヰ㢟࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸

㢮ఝࢆᣦࡋ୍࡚⯡ⓗ࡞ୖ఩࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆస

ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡿ࡜ Channel (1994: 119-143㸧ࡣศᯒࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ whatever㸦or ࡀ࡞࠸༢యࡢᙧ㸧ࡀࠊྠᵝ࡟ࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆ⤊஢ࡉࡏࡿᶵ
⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ Kleiner (1998)ࡢᣦ᦬ࢆぢࡿࠋ

4.2. ࣊ࢵࢪᶵ⬟ or ࡢព࿡ㄽⓗ≉ᛶ࠿ࡽぢࡿ࡜ࠊor whatever(13) Whatever. New topic. How do you feelࡣఱࡽ࠿ࡢࠕ௦᭰ࠖࢆఏ࠼ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ࣊ࢵࢪᶵ

about interracial dating on campus,⬟ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊwhatever ࡢព࿡ㄽ

㸦Kleiner (1998): 610㸧ⓗ≉ᛶ࠿ࡽぢࡿ࡜ࠊor whatever ࡣከࡃࡢ⮬⏤㑅ᢥࢆ♧ࡋ࡚୙☜࠿ࡉࢆᙉㄪࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃(13)ࡢ Whatever. ࡢᚋ࡟⥆ࡃ New topic. ࡣࠊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ᪂ࢺࣆࢵࢡࡢᑟධࢆ᫂♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊWhatever(4) Because I know when I first moved down࡛ヰ㢟ࢆษࡾ᭰࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ

here in like what? -nineteen eighty-six or ୍᪉ࠊor something ࢆྵࡴࡑࡢ௚ࡢࢪ࢙ࢿ

whatever.

࢚ࣛࣝࢡࢫࢸࣥࢲ࣮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᵓᡂせ⣲ࡢ         㸦෌ᥖ㸧ព࿡ㄽⓗ≉ᛶ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ」ᩘࡢ౛♧ࡢ᭱ᚋ࡟(4)࡛ or whatever ࡀఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊ1986 ᖺࡘࡃ࡜࠸࠺⤫ㄒⓗ≉ᛶࡀࠊࢺࣆࢵࢡࡢ⤊஢࡜࡟㏆࠸ᖺ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ㐲࠸ᖺࡶ࠶ࡾᚓࡿ

࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡ࢆᑟ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
౛࠼ࡤ or something ࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺᶵ⬟ࡣࠊor࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
୍᪉ࠊor something ࡢ some ࡀᣢࡘᏑᅾ㔞whatever ࡀᣢࡘࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆ⤊ࢃࡽࡏࡿᶵ⬟

໬(ѩ)ࡢព࿡≉ᛶࡣࠊwhatever ࡢࣇ࣮ࣜࢳࣙ

ࡼࡾࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽⓗ࡞ഃ࢖ࢫᛶ࠿ࡽᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࠕ㐲࠸ᖺࡶ࠶ࡾᚓࡿࠖࢆ

㠃ࡀ┠❧ࡘࠋḟ࡟ᣲࡆࡿࡢࡣࠊ㸱ྡ࡟ࡼࡿ఍

⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁࡎࠊ༢࡟࠶࠸ࡲ࠸ࡉࢆఏ࠼ࡿࠋ ヰ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

66

(15) A: You should try a herbal remedy.
(14) <$1> it’s like a cemetery or something.

B: Yeah, whatever.

<$2> Yeah it looks like a scene from like

(Oxford Learner’s Dictionary Online)the<$3> A film or something.

Yeah, ࡜࠸࠺ྠព࡜ඹ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ whatever<$1> +the Adams family.

ࡔࡀࠊࠕ㛵ᚰࡀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼ࡿ㏉⟅(Vaughan et al. (2017): 217)࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊor something ࡜ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ(14)࡛ࡣ᭱ึࡢ or something ࡢᚋ࡟ࠊ<$2>ࡀ

or something ࡣ⏦ࡋฟࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡛㢖⦾࡟౑ྠពࡢ Yeah ࢆᣳࡳࠊ஧ᅇ┠ࡢ or something ࡢ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊor whatever ࡛ࡣᐜㄆᗘࡀୗࡀࡿࠋᚋ ࡟ ࡣ ࠊ <$3> ࡀ ᫎ ⏬ ࡢ 㢟 ྡ 㸦 the Adams
family㸧ࢆ⟅࠼࡚༠ാⓗ࡟఍ヰࢆ᏶ᡂࡉࡏ࡚

(16) Can I buy you a beer or something?

࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊor something ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟(17) ?? Can I buy you a beer or whatever?

ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡿࢸࢡࢫࢺᶵ⬟ࡀ㝿❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊᵓᡂせ⣲ or ࡢࠕ௦᭰ᛶࠖ࡜ࠊࢺࣆ

(17)ࡢᐜㄆᗘࡢపࡉࡣࠊor whatever ࡀྵពࡍࢵࢡࢆ⤊஢ࡉࡏࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡ࡢ㛵㐃ࡣ᫂ࡿ↓㛵ᚰࡉࡀࠊ⏦ࡋฟࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡢࡽ࠿࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࢪ࢙ࢿ࢚ࣛࣝࢡ

㛫࡟▩┪ࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࢫࢸࣥࢲ࣮◊✲࡛ᗘࠎᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ᥋⥆ ࡲࡓࠊᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ or ࡀࠊ⮬⏤モࡢ⬺ⴠ࡜㛵㐃ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋor ࡢ⬺㑅ᢥࢆ┦ᡭ࡟ጤࡡࡿሙྜࠕ↓㛵ᚰࠖࢆ┦ᡭ࡟ⴠࡣࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺᶵ⬟ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࡑࡢ௚ࡢព࿡

ᑟࡃ࡜ࡍࡿ Ariel ࡽࡢᣦ᦬ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋ௨ᶵ⬟࡛ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊࢪ࢙ࢿ࢚ࣛࣝࢡࢫࢸ

ୗࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊTurner ࡀ Eliza ࡟ Eliza ࠿ Lizaࠊࣥࢲ࣮඲⯡ࡢࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡ࠿ࡽࡢ⪃ᐹࡀᚲ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࿧࡭ࡤⰋ࠸ࡢ࠿ࢆゼࡡ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

せ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
(18) Turner: Eliza? Or Liza.
Eliza:

4.4. ឤ᝟⾲ฟ㸦↓㛵ᚰ㸧Eliza or Liza.

 ឤ᝟⾲ฟࡢࠕ↓㛵ᚰࠖࡣࠊwhatever ࡀࠊ௵(Mr. Turner, cited from Ariel and Mauri (2018):

ពࡢ㑅ᢥࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ጤࡡࡿࡇ࡜࡜㛵㐃࡙ࡅ

952)

ࡽࢀࡿࠋ┦ᡭ࡟ከࡃࡢ⮬⏤㑅ᢥࢆጤࡡࡿࡇ࡜
ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ㛵ࡾࢆⷧࡃࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡃࠋ (18)࡛ Eliza ࡣ Turner ࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋࠊEliza ࡛ࡑࡢヰࡋᡭࡢ㛵ࡾࡢⷧࡉࡀࠕ↓㛵ᚰࠖࢆᑟࡃ

ࡶ Liza ࡛ࡶ࡝ࡕࡽ࡛ࡶࡼ࠸࡜࠸࠺᏶඲࡞⮬࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

⏤㑅ᢥࢆ┦ᡭ࡟♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ↓㛵ᚰࡉࢆఏ࠼
࡚࠸ࡿࠋࣇ࣮ࣜࢳࣙ࢖ࢫ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡≉ᛶࢆᣢ(6) I don’t want to talk to you. It doesn’t meanࡘ whatever ࡣࠊor ࠿ࡽ↓㛵ᚰ࡞ែᗘࢆᑟࡃ

that I hate you or whatever. I just haveࡀࠊor something ࡛ࡣ⮬⏤㑅ᢥࢆ┦ᡭ࡟ఏ࠼

nothing to do with you.    㸦෌ᥖ㸧ࡎࠊor ࠿ࡽ↓㛵ᚰࡉࡣᑟ࠿ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ

(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦࡟࠾ࡅࡿ or whatever ࠿ࡽࡣࠊ 5㸬⤖ㄽࠕ࡝࠺࡛ࡶⰋ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙉ࠸ឤ᝟⾲ฟࡀఏࢃᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࢪ࢙ࢿ࢚ࣛࣝࢡࢫࢸࣥࢲ࣮orࡿࠋࡇࡢ↓㛵ᚰࡉࡣࠊㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ whateverwhatever ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡࡜ᵓᡂせ⣲ࡢព࿡ࡀఏ࠼ࡿࠕ↓㛵ᚰࠖ࡜ྠࡌࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ㄽⓗ≉ᛶࡢࡘ࡞ࡀࡾࢆㄽࡌࠊ㢮ఝ⾲⌧࡜ࡉࢀ67

ࡿ or something ࡜ ࡢ 㐪 ࠸ ࢆ ♧ ࡋ ࡓ ࠋ orࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᙜ↛ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿

whatever ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡ࡣࠊព࿡ㄽⓗ≉ᛶ࡜ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠊor whatever ࡀఏ࠼ࡿࠕ↓㛵ᚰࠖࡢ㛵ࢃࡾ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࡇ࡜

࡜࠸࠺ྵពࡣࠊㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ whatever ࡟༢⣧ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋ࡟㛵㐃௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊorwhatever ࡢឤ᝟⾲ฟ௨እࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟ࡣࠊࢪ࢙࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂ

ࢿ࢚ࣛࣝࢡࢫࢸࣥࢲ࣮or something ࡢ㢮ఝ࡜or whatever: ➃Ⅼࢆྵࢇ࡛ࢻ࣓࢖ࣥࢆᗈࡆ

ࡋ࡚ᢅࢃࢀࠊಶูࡢ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ὀពࡀᡶࢃࢀ

⮬⏤㑅ᢥࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆᗈࡆ

࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᵓᡂせ⣲ or ࡀࠕ௦ࡿᙺ๭ࢆᢸ࠺

᭰ᛶࢆ୰᰾࡜ࡋࡓᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡ࠖࢆᣢࡕࠊ

(or something ࡣ㏆ఝࢆᣦࡋ୍࡚⯡ⓗ࡞ୖwhatever ࡣࠕ୙ᐃࡢࣇ࣮ࣜࢳࣙ࢖ࢫࠖ࡜࠸࠺

఩࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆసࡿ)ព࿡ㄽⓗ≉ᛶࢆᣢࡘ࡜ᣦᐃࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆ or࣊ࢵࢪ

whatever ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡࡜⤖ࡧ௜ࡅ࡚ㄽࡌ

or whatever: ᖜᗈ࠸⮬⏤㑅ᢥࢆ♧ࡋ࡚ࠊ୙ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡑࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟ࢆヲ㏙ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓᮏ✏࡛ࡣ or whatever ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓࡀࠊ

☜࠿ࡉࢆᙉࡃఏ࠼ࡿ
㸦or something ࡣูࡢᏑᅾࢆఏ࠼࡚୙☜࠿ࢪ࢙ࢿ࢚ࣛࣝࢡࢫࢸࣥࢲ࣮඲⯡ࡢࢿࢵࢺ࣡

ࡉࢆఏ࠼ࡿ㸧

࣮ࢡࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⾲⌧ࢆࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺᶵ⬟㸦ࢺࣆࢵࢡ⤊஢㸧ᵓᡂせ⣲ࡢព࿡ㄽⓗ≉ᛶ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿಶู

or whatever: ࡍ࡭࡚ゝ࠸ᑾࡃࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ◊✲ࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ࡜ࢆఏ࠼࡚ࠊࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆ⤊஢ࡉࡏࡿ㸦or something ࡣࠊࢺࣆࢵࢡ⤊஢ࡼࡾࡶ┦* ᮏ✏ࡣ➨ 40 ᅇ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲ཎ✏஫⾜Ⅽⓗ࡞ഃ㠃࡛ࡢᶵ⬟ࡀ㝿❧ࡘ㸧࡟ຍ➹ࠊಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࢆឤ᝟⾲ฟ㸦↓㛵ᚰ㸧㐍ࡵࡿ࡟㝿ࡋࠊዉⰋዪᏊ኱Ꮫࡢྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁᏊඛ

or whatever: ௵ពࡢ㑅ᢥࢆ┦ᡭ࡟ጤࡡࠊヰ⏕ࠊ㡲㈡࠶ࡺࡳඛ⏕ࠊ௒㔝ᘯ❶ඛ⏕࠿ࡽ㈗㔜

ࡋᡭࡢ㛵ࢃࡾⷧࡃࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ↓㛵ᚰ࡞ែ࡞ຓゝࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ◊✲Ⓨ⾲᫬࡟ࡶㅖඛ

ᗘࢆఏ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࠕ↓㛵ᚰࡉࠖࡣࠊ⏦ࡋ⏕᪉࠿ࡽࡈᣦ᦬ࡸຓゝࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢሙࢆ೉

ฟࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡢ▩┪ࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿࡾ࡚ࠊឤㅰࡢពࢆ⾲ࡋࡲࡍࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ✏࡟࠾㸦or something ࡣ↓㛵ᚰ࡞ែᗘࡣఏ࠼࡞

ࡅࡿ୙ഛࡸㄗࡾࡣ඲࡚➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡟ࡼࡿࡶ

࠸㸧

ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ὀ
㸯.

ࡇࢀࡽࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚᭱ึ࡟♧ࡋࡓ(1)࡜(2)ࡢ

ㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ whatever ࡣࠊ୺࡟ࠕ㛵ᚰࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠖࢆఏ࠼ࡿཱྀㄒ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎ ヰ ࡀ ఏ ࠼ ࡿ 㐪 ࠸ ࢆ ⪃ ࠼ ࡿ ࡜ ࠊࠕ wine or㸰.

somethingࠖࡣࠊࠕ࢔ࣝࢥ࣮ࣝ࡞࡝ࡢ㣧ࡳ≀ࠖ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂࡣࠊᣦ♧ᶵ⬟࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࡜࠸࠺୍⯡ⓗ࡞ୖ఩࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆఏ࠼ࠊ

࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡ࡢ୍ࠕwine or whateverࠖࡣࠊࠕࣃ࣮ࢸ࢕࣮࡟ᣢࡗ

ࡘ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ

࡚ࡃࡿࡶࡢࡣఱࡔࡗ࡚ࡼ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠊࡼࡾᗈ

࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
㸱.

࠸࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆఏ࠼ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ or whateverᵓᡂせ⣲ any ࢆྵࡴࢪ࢙ࢿ࢚ࣛࣝࢡࢫࢸ

ࡣࠊᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠕ↓㛵ᚰࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྵពࢆ

ࣥࢲ࣮or anything ࡢ⪃ᐹ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ✏ࢆᨵఏ࠼ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ

ࡵࡿࠋᵓᡂせ⣲ࡢព࿡ㄽⓗ≉ᛶࡀࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡

68Kadmon, Nirit and Fred Landman (1993) “Any”,ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 353-422.
Aijmer, Karin (2002) English Discourse

Kleiner, Brian (1998) “Whatever – Its Use inParticles: Evidence from a Corpus, John

‘Pseudo-Argument’,” Journal of Pragmatics

Benjamins Publishing Company,

30, 589-613.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

McColm, Dan and Graeme Trousdale (2019)

Aijmer, Karin (2013) Understanding Pragmatic“WhateverHappenedtoWhatever?”Markers: A Variation Pragmatic Approach,Categories, Constructions and Change in

Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

English Syntax, ed. by Nuria Yanez-Bouza,

Ariel, Mira and Caterina Mauri (2018) “WhyEmma Moore, Linda van Bergen and Willem

Use or?” Linguistics 56, 939-993.

B. Hollmann, 81-104, Cambridge University

Ariel, Mira and Caterina Mauri (2019) “An

Press, Cambridge.

‘Alternative’ Core for or,” Journal ofOverstreet, Maryann (1999) Whales, Candlelight,

Pragmatics 149, 40-59.

and Stuff Like That, Oxford University Press,

Brinton, Laurel J. (2017) The Evolution of

Oxford/ New York.

Pragmatic Markers in English, Cambridge

Overstreet, Maryann and George Yule (2021)

University Press, Cambridge.

General Extenders, Cambridge University

Channell, Joanna (1994) Vague Language,

Press, Cambridge.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Pichler, Heike and Stephan Levey (2011) “In

Giannakidou, Anastasia (2001) “The Meaning of

Search of Grammaticalization in Synchronic

Free Choice,” Linguistics and Philosophy 24,

Dialect

639-735.

North-East England,” English Language andHorn, Laurence R. (2000) “Any and (-) ever:Vaughan, Elain, Michael McCarthy, and Brian

Conference of the Israel Association for

Turn-final Items in Irish English,” World

Theoretical Linguistics, 71-111.

Englishes 36, 208-220.
’86

Wagner, Suzanne Evans, Ashley Hesson, Kali

Revisited: Toward a Unified Indefinite any,”

Bybel and Heidi Little (2015) “Quantifying

The Reference and Quantification: The

thePartee Effect, ed. by Gregory N. Carlson andExtenders in North American English,”FrancisLanguage in Society 44, 705-731.

JeffryR.

Fifteenthin

Clancy (2017) “Vague Category Markers as

LaurencetheExtendersAnnualHorn,of

GeneralLinguistics 15.3, 441-471.

Free Choice and Free Relatives,” The
Proceedings

Data:(2005)

Pelletier,“Airport

1-26,

CSLI,

Referential

FunctionofGeneralStanford.
Israel, Michael (1997) “The Scalar Model of
Polarity
Aspectual

Sensitivity:the

Operators,”

Case

of

the

Negationandࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ
Corpus of Contemporary American English(COCA)

Polarity: Syntax and Semantics, ed. by,
Danielle Forget, Paul Hirschbühler, France㎡᭩
Oxford Learner’s Dictionary Online.

Martineau and Maria Luisa Rivero, 209-230,
John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

69

2. Remain un-V-ed ࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒᵓᩥ
ྰᐃ㎡ un-ࢆ௜ຍࡋࡓศモᙧᐜモ㸦un-V-ed㸧ࡣࠊbe ືモ௨እ࡟ࡶࠊgo, come , become, seem,appear ࡞࡝ࠊᵝࠎ࡞㐃⤖ືモࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒ࡜
㐃⤖ືモ remain ࢆకࡗ࡚⏕ࡌࡿࠕᮍ᏶஢ࠖࡋ ࡚ 㧗 ࠸ ⏕ ⏘ ᛶ ࢆ 㢧 ⌧ ࡍ ࡿ 㸦 Schönefeldࢆ⾲ࡍ 2 ࡘࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒᵓᩥ

2015㸧ࠋ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊremain ࡢ⿵㒊࡟ un-V-ed(Two ‘Uncompleted Action’ Copulaࢆక࠺ሙྜࠊ(1a) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᇶయືモࡢ㐣ཤConstructions with Remain)ศモᙧ (V-ed) ࡛ࡣ౑⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸୺᱁⿵ㄒ⾲⌧ࡀࡋࡤࡋࡤ⏕ࡌࡿ(Huddleston & Pullum2002)ࠋᒾᐑ ດ (Tsutomu Iwamiya)኱㜰኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔 (Osaka University)(1) a. He had remained {unseen/ *seen}
throughout the meeting.

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ᵓᩥᩥἲ, 㐃⤖ືモ, ྰᐃ⾲⌧,(Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 1440)

ᙧែㄽ, ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ

b. ... women and children remain seen byauthorities,... (NZ 2019/ NOW Corpus)
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ 㐃⤖ືモ remain ࡢ⿵ㄒ࡟ศモᙧᐜモࢆక

Huddleston & Pullum (2002) ࡣࠊ(1a) ࡢ seen࠺⾲⌧ࡣ஦ែࡢ⥅⥆ࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵࠊ᏶⤖ࢆ⾲ࡍࡀ remain ࡢ⿵ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊ

ศモᙧᐜモ(V-ed) ࡣࡑࡢ⿵ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ᐜㄆࡉ

seen ࡀືモࡢཷືែ࡟㐣ࡂࡎࠊᙧᐜモ࡜ࡳ࡞

ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋTo ୙ᐃモྃ㸦to be V-ed㸧࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢ୍⯡ࡴࠊࡲࡓࡣྰᐃ㎡ un-ࢆ௜ຍࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸦ࡘ໬ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾཝᐦ࡞グ㏙࡜ࡣ࠸࠼࡞࠸ࠋ(1a) ࡢࡲࡾࠊun-V-ed ࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸧ࠊࡇࡢព࿡

remain seen ࢆ㏙㒊࡟క࠺⾲⌧ࡀ୙㐺᱁࡜ࡉไ⣙ࢆ࠺ࡅࡎ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡀࠊᚋ⪅ࡢࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊࡶࡣࡸኚ໬ࡣ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸࡜᝿ᐃࡉࢀ

᪉ࡀᵓᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢỗ⏝ᛶࡣ㧗࠸ࠋᮏ✏ࡣࠊ࠸ࡿࠕ᏶⤖ࡋࡓฟ᮶஦㸦completed events㸧ࠖࢆࡎࢀࡶࠕᮍ᏶஢ࠖࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊ⏕㉳ᩥ⬦࡟♧ࡍ㐣ཤศモࢆ⿵ㄒ࡟࡜ࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺

ᛂࡌព࿡㡿ᇦࢆศᢸࡍࡿࠊremain un-V-ed ࡜remain ࡢព࿡ไ⣙ࡢࡓࡵ㸦ᒾᐑ 2021a㸧ࠊᙜ

remain to be V-ed ࡢ 2 ࡘࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒᵓᩥࡢព

ヱᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚⿵ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡳ࡜ࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸

࿡࡜ᙧᘧ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡍࡿࠋ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ✏ࡀᥦ♧ࡍࡿゝㄒࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࠊ୺࡟

ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊࢽ࣮ࣗࢪ࣮ࣛࣥࢻࡢዪᛶࡸᏊ౪

News on the Web (NOW) Corpus ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧ࡟ᅜᐙࡢ⟶⌮ࡢ┠ࡀ⾜ࡁᒆࡁ㸦ࡑࡢᏳ඲ࡀಖ

Wordbanks ࡢ 2 ࡘࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᵓᡂࡉ

㞀ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧࡜࠸࠺≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍ (1b) ࡢࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ news ࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡍࡿࣇ࢛

remain seen ࡣࠊࡑࡢ V-ed ࡀ⾲ࡍ≧ែ࡟ኚ໬࣮࣐ࣝ࡞ゝㄒ౑⏝ᇦ࠿ࡽࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᢳฟࡋ࡚

ࡀ⏕ࡌ࠺ࡿࠊࡘࡲࡾᅜࡢᏳ඲⟶⌮ࡀ⾜ࡁᒆ࠿࠸ࡿ㸦NOW Corpus ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣⱥㄒᅪࡢࢹ࣮

࡞࠸≧ែ࡬௒ᚋኚ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ඘ศ࡟᝿ᐃ

1ࢱࡢࡳࢆ཰㞟㸧ࠋ ࡲࡓࠊ⾲ 6 ࢆྵࡵࠊ3 ⠇࡛ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࡓࡵࠊ஦ែࡢ᏶⤖ࢆ♧ࡉࡎࠊremain♧ࡍ⤫ィࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ 2022 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 1 ᪥࠿ࡽ 21 ᪥

ࡢ㏙㒊࡜ࡋ࡚ᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋᇶయືモࡢ㐣ཤศモᙧ (V-ed) ࡛ࡣ౑⏝࡛ࡢ㛫࡟ᢳฟࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡁ࡞࠸ࠕᮍ᏶஢ࠖࡢព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ remain un-V-edࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒ⾲⌧ࡣࠊᇶయືモ⮬యࡀ⾜Ⅽࡢ᏶

70஢ࢆ♧ࡍ finished, doneࠊ〇స࣭◊✲࣭㛤Ⓨ࡞ࡿ (3b)ࠖࠊࠕ⏦ࡋ❧࡚ࡀᮍᢎㄆࡢࡲࡲ࡛࠶ࡿ

࡝ࡢ⟇ᐃ⾜Ⅽࡢ᏶஢ࢆ⾲ࡍ developed, proven,(3c)ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠕᮍ᏶஢ࠖࡢព࿡ࢆࡶࡘ⾲⌧ࡀ

solved ࡞࡝࡟ྰᐃ᥋㎡ un-ࡀ௜ຍࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟

ᡂ❧ࡍࡿࠋ

2

ࡼࡗ࡚㧗࠸⏕⏘ᛶࡀ㢧⌧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ࡕ࡞ࡳ࡟ࠊ
ᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࠕ᏶⤖ࠖࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢࡢࠊᩥ⬦࡟ᛂࡌ(3) a. Major questions remain {to be answered/࡚ࠕᮍ᏶஢ࠖ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࠊẚ㍑ⓗ remain ࡢҹ unanswered/ *answered} about his⿵ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡳ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸ศモᙧᐜモ࡟

work.

ࡣ ࠊseen ࡢ௚࡟ completed, heard, written ࡞(Cobuild)b. Now only a small area at the north end of3࡝ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ ࡲࡓ᏶⤖ࡢព࿡ࢆࡶࡗ࡚࠸࡚ࡶࠊ

Melcor's land remains {to be developed/⿵ㄒ࡟࡞ࡿ un-V-ed ࡜࠸࠺ศモᙧ⮬యࡢ౑⏝ҹ undeveloped/ *developed}.

㢖ᗘࡀప࠸ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ୺᱁⿵ㄒᵓᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ࡯

(US 2018/ NOW Corpus)࡜ࢇ࡝ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡞࠸ㄒ࡟ࡣࠊceased, concluded,c. … the allegation against his client

ended, erased ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

remains {to be proven/ ҹ unproven/*proven}.

ࡓࡔࠊࡇࡢࠕᮍ᏶஢ࠖࡢព࿡ࡣࠊun-V-ed(CA 2019/ NOW Corpus)ࡔࡅࢆ⿵ㄒ࡟ࡋࡓ࡜ࡁࡢࡳࠊ⏕ࡌࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ
࡞ࡃࠊ(2a-b) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ remain to be V-ed ࡜࠸ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ2 ࡘࡢࠕᮍ᏶஢ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ୺᱁⿵ㄒᵓ

࠺ᙧᘧ࡛ࡶࠊᇶయືモࡢ㐣ཤศモᙧ࡛ࡣ౑⏝ᩥࡢព࿡ࡣ᏶඲࡟ྠࡌ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ព࿡ࡀ⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ4

୙ᐃモྃࢆక࠺⾲⌧ࡢሙྜࠊ┠ⓗࡢ㐩ᡂࢆヨࡳࡿ AGENTࠊࡘࡲࡾ㉁ၥ࡬ᅇ⟅ (3a)ࠊᅵᆅ

(2) a. That remains to be done.

(OALD)

ࡢ㛤Ⓨ (3b)ࠊ⏦ࡋ❧࡚ࡢ❧ド (3c) ࠊࢆ⾜࠺b. A key issue that remains to be clarifiedពᛮࢆࡶࡘ➨୕⪅ࡢᏑᅾࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿ୍᪉

for improved targeting is an understanding࡛ࠊun-V-ed ࡀ⿵ㄒ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓ⾲⌧࡛ࡣࠊof its heterogeneous contribution to

⾜Ⅽࡀᮍ᏶஢࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡢࡳࡀ♧ࡉdiseases.

ࢀࡿࠋ(Nature, US 2021/ NOW Corpus)(4) a. Portrait of Lisa Gherardini (Mona Lisa)ᮏ✏ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ⏕⏘ⓗ࡞ 2 ࡘࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒᵓ

remained {unfinished/ ? to be finished/ᩥࢆẚ㍑ࡋࠊ୧⪅࡟࠸࠿࡞ࡿព࿡ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀᏑ*finished} during Da Vinci's life and wasᅾࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃᐇド◊never exhibited when he was alive.
(AU 2017/ NOW Corpus)✲࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

b. New coach Moreno has experience at the3㸬㸬ࠕᮍ᏶஢ࠖࢆ♧ࡍ㸰ࡘࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒᵓᩥ

top level with Barcelona and Spain, but heremains {unproven/ *to be proven/㐃⤖ືモ remain ࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒࡣࠊ୍᫬ⓗཪ*proven} as a head coach.

ࡣ⥅⥆ⓗ࡟⏕ࡌ࠺ࡿ஦ែࢆ⾲ࡋ㸦Biber et al.

         (US 2021/ NOW Corpus)

1999ࠊLDOCE㸧ࠊ᏶⤖ࢆ♧ࡍㄒࢆ⿵ㄒ࡟࡜ࢀ
࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ(3a-c) ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡢ⾲⌧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ

c. The construction workers that were at theᇶయࡢศモᙧ࡛ࡣ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

scene remained {unharmed/ *to be୍᪉࡛ࠊto be V-edࠊun-V-ed ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡢ⿵

harmed/ *harmed} as no injuries wereㄒࢆక࠺ᙧᘧࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࡜ࠊࠕ㉁ၥࡀᮍᅇ⟅ࡢ

initially reported.
(US 2020/ NOW Corpus)ࡲࡲ࡛࠶ࡿ (3a)ࠖ
ࠊࠕᆅᇦࡀᮍ㛤Ⓨࡢࡲࡲ࡛࠶

71ࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊࣔࢼ࣭ࣜࢨࡣᮍ᏶ᡂࡢࡲࡲ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ

(5) a. [NP1 remains un-V-ed] (NP=THE PATIENT)ࡲࡓ᏶ᡂࡉࡏࡿពᅗࡀࢲࣦ࢕ࣥࢳ࡟࠶ࡗࡓ

↔ [the (intentional) action to X1 has not࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡶ୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ (4a) ࡢព࿡ࡣࠊ

been completed by being V-ed]

to be finished ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࡜ⱝᖸ␗࡞ࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡜

b. [NP1 remains to be V-ed] (NP=THE࡞ࡿ㸦ࡘࡲࡾࢲࣦ࢕ࣥࢳ࡟ࡇࡢ⤮⏬ࢆ᏶ᡂࡉ

PATIENT) ↔ [the intentional action toࡏࡿពᅗࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ㸧ࠋࡲࡓࠊto be

X1 has not been completed by being

V-ed ࢆ⿵ㄒ࡟క࠺ᙧᘧ࡛ࡣேࢆ୺ㄒ࡟ࡋࡓ

V-ed, by a (potential) agent]7

ᩥࡶ㏻ᖖࡳ࡜ࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
(6) 2 ࡘࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒ⾲⌧ࡢᡂ❧ᩘ 8ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊࠕࢥ࣮ࢳ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢຊ㔞ࡀド᫂ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠖ
ࠊࠕᘓタసᴗဨࡀ↓യࡢࡲࡲ࡛࠶

BASEࡗࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ (4b, c) ࡛ࡶࠊV-ed ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊREMAINREMAINREMAIN

UN-V-ED

TO BE

V-ED

୙ᐃモ⠇ࢆ⿵ㄒ࡟క࠺⾲⌧ࡶᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ

V-ED(4b) ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡢᐇຊࡢド᫂ࡣ࿘ᅖࡢே㛫࡛

answeredࡣ࡞ࡃ୺ㄒ⮬㌟㸦Moreno㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࡞ࡉࢀ

258

384

1

75

0

(WB*)

ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡣ unproven ࡢᇶయ࡛࠶

solvedࡿ prove ࡜࠸࠺ືモࡀࠊ෌ᖐ௦ྡモࢆ┠ⓗㄒ

137
(WB*)

࡟࡜ࡾࠊ⮬ࡽࡢຊ㔞ࢆド᫂ࡍࡿ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ⏝ἲ

finished

771

15

1

࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶ⿬௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿ㸦ex.

addressed

731

168

1

It'll take time for me to prove myself to you,...

detected

721

1

0

[24, 2006/ TV Corpus]㸧
ࠋ

proven

480

132

0

ࡲࡓࠊᘓタ⌧ሙ࡟࠾࠸࡚సᴗဨࢆ᛹ᡃࡉࡏ

diagnosed

402

0

2

ࡼ࠺࡜ᚅࡕཷࡅࡿே≀࡞࡝㏻ᖖ᝿ᐃࡉࢀ࡞

developed

368

33

0

࠸ࡓࡵࠊᬯ㯲ࡢ AGENT ࡢᏑᅾࡣࡳ࡜ࡵࡽࢀ

told

181

41

1

ࡎࠊ(4c) ࡟࠾࠸࡚୙ᐃモྃࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ⾲⌧ࡣ୙

harmed

132

0

0

done

95

151

2

㐺᱁࡜࡞ࡿࠋ5ࠕᮍ᏶஢ࠖࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊᇶయࡢศモᙧ࡛

(WB*)ࡣ౑⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ 2 ࡘࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒ⾲⌧㸦remain
un-V-ed ࡜ remain to be V-ed㸧ࡢព࿡࡜ᙧᘧ
(5)ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧᇶయࡢศモᙧࢆకࡗ࡚⏕ࡌࡿࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᵓᩥࡢ⏝౛ᩘ (6)ࠊࢆ௨ୗ࡟♧ࡍࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ(6) ࡣ NOW Corpus ࡢⱥㄒᅪࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ
࠿ࡽࠊV-ed ࡢ 30 ಸ௨ୖࡢฟ⌧⋡࡛࠸ࡎࢀ࠿
ࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒ⾲⌧ࡀᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿㄒࡢࡳࡢ⏝called

92

17

1

said

75

41

0

investigated

26

198

0

achieved

7340clarified

5

97

0

demonstrated

4

39

0

WB*=Wordbanks ࡟ࡼࡿ⏝౛ᩘ౛ᩘࢆ᥮⟬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࣀࣥࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣈࡢᅜ
ࡢ⏝౛ࠊ⿵ㄒࡀྡモྃࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿ⏝౛ 6 ࡞࡝

(5a-b) ࡢ୺ㄒࡢ㡯࡟཰ࡲࡿே࣭஦≀㸦NP㸯㸧ࢆྵࡴ⏕㉳ᩘ㸦raw frequency㸧ࡀ 3000 ௨ୖࡣࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ V-ed ࡢᇶయືモࡀ⾲ࡍ⾜Ⅽ࡟

࡟ཬࡪࢥࣟࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ≧ែኚ໬ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ఩⨨ኚ໬ࢆࡶࡓ

Wordbanks ࢆ⏝࠸࡚᥮⟬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡽࡍാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆཷࡅࡿࠊ ࡘࡲࡾཷື⪅㸦THE

72

PATIENT㸧࡜࡞ࡿ (Jackendoff 1990)ࠋ⾲ 6 ࡀ♧understood ࡸ remain to be negotiated ࡞࡝ࠊᙧࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠕᮍ᏶஢ࠖࡢព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ୺᱁⿵ㄒᵓ

ែ࣭㡢㡩ⓗ࡞⌮⏤࡟ࡼࡾ un-ࡢ௜ຍࡀᅔ㞴࡞ᩥࡣ un-V-ed ࡛ᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࡀ ࠊ୺ሙྜࢆ㝖ࡅࡤࠊremain to be V-ed ࡢ⾲⌧࡛౑ㄒࡢ஦≀ࡀ AGENT ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࡞ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁㄢ

⏝࡛ࡁࡿศモᙧࡀࠊྰᐃ㎡ࢆకࡗࡓ remain㢟㸦ᚲせᛶ㸧ࢆ♧ࡍሙྜࠊto be V-ed ࡢᙧᘧ

un-V-ed ࡢ⾲⌧࡛౑⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࢣ࣮ࢫࡣ࡯࡜

ࡢ᪉ࡀዲࡲࢀࡿࠋWordbanks ࡛ࡣࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ

ࢇ࡝࡞࠸㸦understood ࡢሙྜࠊunder-࡜࠸࠺(some) work ࢆ୺ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊremain to be done᥋㢌㎡ࡀࡍ࡛࡟௜ຍࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡲࡓࡀືモྃ࡟࡞ࡿ⾲⌧ࡀ 45 ౛ࡳࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐ

negotiated ࡢሙྜࠊn ࡀ㔜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡛㡢㡩ୖࡋࠊremain undone ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ⾲⌧ࡣ 2 ౛ࡋ࠿୙⮬↛࡞ㄒࡀᙧᡂࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊun-V-ed ࡜ࡋࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ(7) ࡢ investigated, proven,࡚ࡢ⏕⏘ᛶࡀᚓࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ㸧ࠋclarified, demonstrated ࡞࡝ࢆక࠸ࠊ୺ㄒ㸦ཷ࠸ࡎࢀ࡟ࡏࡼࠊremain un-V-ed ࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒ

ື⪅㸧ࡀ whether ࡸ if ࡞࡝࡛ᑟ࠿ࢀࡿ␲ၥ⠇ᵓᩥࡣࠊᇶయࡢศモᙧ࡛ࡣ౑⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠕᮍ

࡛࠶ࡿሙྜࡶࠊto be V-ed ࢆ⿵ㄒ࡟࡜ࡿᙧᘧ

᏶஢ࠖࢆ♧ࡍ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚㠀ᖖ࡟⏕⏘ᛶࡀ㧗ࡃࠊࡀዲࢇ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ㸦NOW Corpus ࡢⱥㄒᅪ⏕㉳ᩥ⬦࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ࠊࡑࡢୗ఩ᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ

ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊwhether ࡲࡓࡣ if ⠇ࢆ୺remain to be V-ed ࡜ព࿡ࢆศᢸࡋࠊከᵝ࡞ពㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ remain to be {investigated/ proven/࿡ࢆࡘࡃࡾࡔࡍࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ 2 ࡘࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒᵓ

clarified/ demonstrated} ࢆ㏙㒊࡟క࠺⾲⌧ࡣᩥ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⏕ࡳฟࡉࢀࡿ㧗࠸⏕⏘ᛶ࡜ỗ⏝ే ࡏ ࡚ 79 ౛ ࡳ ࡽ ࢀ ࡿ ࡢ ࡟ ᑐ ࡋ ࠊ remainᛶࡣࠊࠕಶࠎࡢᵓᡂせ⣲࠿ࡽᩥ඲యࡢព࿡ࡀ

{uninvestigated/᥎

unproven/

unclarified/࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ඘ศ࡞౑⏝㢖ᗘ

undemonstrated } ࢆక࠺⾲⌧ࡣ 8 ౛㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ ࡀࡳ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧ࢆᵓᩥ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࠖ࡜
௬ㄝࡸ஦௳࡟కࡗ࡚⏕ࡌࡿ␲ၥⅬࡣ㸦ㄡࡀゎ࠸࠺ Goldberg (2006: 6-7) ࡢᐃ⩏࡟↷ࡽࡋྜỴࡉࡏࡿ࠿࡟㛵ࢃࡾ࡞ࡃ㸧ࡋࡤࡋࡤᑐฎࡍ࡭

ࢃࡏ࡚ࡶࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ⊂⮬ࡢᵓᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆࡵࡽ

ࡁ஦᯶࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࢀࡿ࡭ࡁࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ

(7) Itremains{tobeinvestigated/

4. ⤖ㄒ

ҹ

uninvestigated/ *investigated} whether ᮏ✏ࡣࠊࠕ᏶஢ࠖࡢព࿡ࢆᣢࡘศモᙧᐜモ

her act was meant as a disruption tactic toࢆ⿵ㄒ࡟క࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ remain ࡜࠸࠺

aid escape of the said terrorist...

㐃⤖ືモࡀࠊ9 remain un-V-ed ࠾ࡼࡧ remain(GB 2021/ NOW Corpus)

to be V-ed ࡜࠸࠺ 2 ࡘࡢᙧᘧࢆ࡜ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼ
ࡾࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠕᮍ᏶஢ࠖࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࠊ⏕⏘ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ(7) ࡛ࡣࠊ㆙ᐹෆ㒊ࡢㄡࡀ௒ᚋㄪ

ᛶࡢ㧗࠸ᵓᩥࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡍࡇ࡜ࢆࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢹ

ᰝࢆ⾜࠺࠿ࡣ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ(4a) ࡢࢣ࣮࣮ࢱࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᐇド◊✲࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ

ࢫ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊAGENT ࡢᏑᅾࡣ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛₯ᅾⓗࡓࠋ(potential) ࡛࠶ࡿ (5b)ࠋࡲࡓ (3a-c) ྠᵝࠊ(7)ࡓࡔࠊ㐃⤖ືモࡢ⿵ㄒࡢព࿡ᛶ㉁ࢆศᯒࡍ

ࡢ⿵ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ to ୙ᐃモྃࢆ un-V-ed ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮ࡿ◊✲ࡣࠊⲨᮌ (1984)ࠊQuirk et al. (1985)ࠊ

࠼ࡓ⾲⌧ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣ remain to be

Huddleston & Pullum (2002) ࠊᏳ⸨ (2005) ࡞V-ed ࡢព࿡ࡀࠊremain un-V-ed ࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒᵓ

࡝ࠊᴫㄝⓗ࡞ᩥἲ᭩ࢆ㝖ࡅࡤࠊᩘᑡ࡞ࡃࠊ10ᩥ㸦඲య㸧ࡢ୍㒊࡜ࡋ࡚ໟྵࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ

go, come , become, get ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ௚ࡢ㐃⤖ືモ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ㸦ᆤ஭࣭᪩℩ 2019: 137㸧ࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡑࡢ⿵ㄒ࡟࠸࠿࡞ࡿព࿡ไ⣙ࡀ࠶ࢥ ࣮ ࣃ ࢫ ࢹ ࣮ ࢱ ࡟ ࠾ ࠸ ࡚ ࠊ remain to beࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ㐃⤖ືモࢆకࡗ࡚ὴ

73⏕ᙧᐜモࠊto ୙ᐃモࠊྃືモࡢ㐣ཤศモᙧ

NOW Corpus)̓࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠊwriting ࡀ⤊ࢃࡗࡓ࡞࡝ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⿵ㄒࢆక࠺ゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡀ⏕⏘ࡔࡅ࡛ḟࡢືస (publishing) ࡟⮳ࢀ࡚࠸࡞ⓗ࡞ࡢ࠿㸦ࡘࡲࡾࠊ࠸࠿࡞ࡿᵓᩥᙧᘧࡀᏑᅾ

࠸ಖ␃≧ែ࡟⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍᩥ⬦ࡍࡿࡢ࠿㸧ࢆㄪᰝࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜࡞࡝࡛ࠊremain ࡢ⿵ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ

࡞ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ㸦NOW Corpus ࡢⱥㄒᅪࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟࠾࠸࡚ 5౛ࠊremain uncompleted ࡣ 43 ౛㸧
ࠋ

ὀ
1

4

Plug et al. (2015) ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ゝㄒ౑

LDOCE, OALD ࡞࡝ࠊ㎡᭩࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ remain⏝ᇦ (register) ࡛ࡣࠊacademic, news,

to be V-ed㸦㏻ᖖࠊremain to be done ࡜グ㍕㸧magazine, fiction, spoken ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㡰࡟ࣇ࢛࣮ࡢᐃ⩏ࡣⱝᖸ␗࡞ࡿࡀࠊCobuild ࡢព࿡グ㏙࣐ࣝ࡜࡞ࡿ㸦ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚཰㞟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸

㸦= have not yet been done and still need to beࡿゝㄒࢹ࣮ࢱࡀ࡝ࢀࡔࡅࡢ౑⏝ᇦ࡟༊ศࡉ

done㸧࡟ࡣࠊྰᐃ㎡ࢆక࠺⌧ᅾ᏶஢ᙧࡢཷࡅ

ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊCorpus of㌟ᩥࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࠊࡇࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒ⾲⌧ࡀࡶࡘ

Online Registers of English [CORE] ࡛ࡣࠊࠕᮍ᏶஢ࠖࡢព࿡ࡀ᫂☜࡟♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡞

sport report, recipe, opinion ࡞࡝ࠊ33 ࡢ౑⏝ᇦ࠾ࠊࡇࡢᙧᘧࢆྰᐃ⾲⌧࡜ࡍࡿᤊ࠼᪉ࡣࠊⲨ

࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿゝㄒࢹ࣮ࢱࢆಶู࡟཰㞟ࡍࡿᮌ (1984: 637) ࡞࡝ࠊࡸࡸྂ࠸⏝౛㎡඾࡞࡝ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ㸧ࠋࡕ࡞ࡳ࡟ᮏ◊✲࡛౑⏝ࡍࡿ࡟ࡶࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ

2 ࡘࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡛ࡣࠊNOW Corpus ࡛ࡣ

5Nature㸦2b ཧ↷㸧ࠊWordbanks ࡛ࡣ the࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠖࡢព࿡࡛ࠊேࢆ୺ㄒ㸦ཷື⪅㸧࡜Smithsonian ࡞࡝ࠊ୍㒊ࡢᏛ⾡ⓗᑓ㛛ㄅ࠿ࡽࡍࡿ remain to be named ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡣࠊࡲࢀࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡶ཰㞟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡟ᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ (ex. Commission members2᪋タࡢ฼⏝ไ㝈ࢆ⾲ࡍ closed, shut, lockedࠊ

remain to be named [US 2021/ NOW Corpus])ࠋ

೵⫋࣭཰┘࣭㝸㞳࡞࡝ࡢேࡢάື࡟ᑐࡍࡿไ

ࡕ࡞ࡳ࡟ࠊᘓ㐀≀ࡸᶫ࡞࡝ࡀᨵ⠏࣭෌ᘓ࡟క

㝈ࢆ⾲ࡍ suspended, imprisoned, locked up,࠸ࠊࡑࡢྡ⛠ࡀኚ᭦ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ඘ศ࡟᝿ᐃ

divided, locked awayࠊ⢭⚄ⓗ࣭᫬㛫ⓗ᮰⦡ࢆ࡛ࡁࡿࡓࡵࠊࠕࡑࡢྡ⛠ࡀࡘࡅࡽࢀࠊ࠸ࡲ࡛

⾲ࡍ committed to ~ , concerned about ~ ࡞࡝ࠊࡶ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡢ remainࠕ㸦ணᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢ㸧ࡲࡔ௵࿨ࡉࢀ

஦ែཧ୚⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡢάືไ㝈ࢆ⾲ࡍ V-ed

named ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡣẚ㍑ⓗ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡣࠊྰᐃ㎡ un-ࢆకࢃ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊremain ࡢ⿵

6ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚㧗࠸㢖ᗘ࡛࠶ࡽࢃࢀࡿࠋྃືモࡢ㐣

unfinished business in Massachusetts. (USཤศモᙧࠊ௜ຍ㒊ࢆక࠺࢖ࢹ࢕࣒࢜ⓗ࡞ V-ed

2021/ NOW Corpus)̓࡜࠸ࡗࡓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ

ࢆྵࡵࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ศモᙧᐜモ (V-ed) ࡀ㐃unfinished business ࡞࡝ࠊV-ed ࡸ un-V-ed ࡀᚋ⤖ືモ remain ࡢ⿵ㄒ࡟⏕ࡌࡸࡍ࠸࠿࡟ࡘ࠸⥆ࡢྡモࢆ㝈ᐃಟ㣭ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⏝౛ࡣ⾲ 6 ࡟࡚ࡢ㆟ㄽࡣࠊᒾᐑ (༳ๅ୰) ࢆཧ↷ࠋ࠾࠸࡚࢝࢘ࣥࢺࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

3

7

Seen ࢆ⿵ㄒ࡟క࠺୺᱁⿵ㄒ⾲⌧ (remainࡓ ࡜ ࠼ ࡤ ࠊ `...legal marijuana remains`Harry, are you all right?̓`That remains to beseen) ࡣ NOW Corpus ୖࡢⱥㄒᅪࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟

seen.̓(Harry Potter and the Prisoner of࠾࠸࡚ 13 ౛ (remain unseen ࡣ 400 ౛ᡂ❧)ࠋ

Azkaban, 2004/ The Movie Corpus) ࡞࡝ࠊࡲࡓࠊfinished, done ࡢ㢮⩏ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ྠᵝ࡟

`Nobody knows what will happen͛ࡢព࿡࡛ᐃ

ࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᏶஢ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ completed ࡣࠊ`She╔㸦ㄒᙡ໬㸧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ remain to be seen ࡢࡼ

began writing the book in November, 2008 and it࠺࡞࢖ࢹ࢕࣒࢜⾲⌧࡛ࡣ㸦Cobuild Idioms

remained completed for two years before she

Dictionary㸧ࠊᬯ㯲ࡢ AGENT ࡢᏑᅾࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶ

decided to publish it on her own.(CA 2013/᝿ᐃࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᐃᆺ໬ࡋࡓ࢖ࢹ࢕࢜

74࣒⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព࿡࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙ

ᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ◊✲࡟ᒾᐑ (2021b)

ྜ࡟ࡣࠊ`...whether or not the team will succeed

ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋin their manhunt remains to be seen by viewers.
(AU 2016/ NOW Corpus)̓ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ๓⨨モཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Aarts, Bas (2012) Oxford Modern Englishby ࢆకࡗ࡚⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
⾲ 6 ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡀ 2022 ᖺࡢ 3 ᭶ࡢࡣࡌࡵࡢ 3

Grammar,㐌㛫࡛཰㞟ࡉࢀࡓⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᮏᩥ୰࡛ゐOxford.

8

OxfordUniversity

Press,

Ᏻ⸨㈆㞝 (2005)ࠗ⌧௦ⱥᩥἲㅮ⩏࠘㛤ᣅ♫,

ࢀࡓࡀࠊ2023 ᖺ 1 ᭶ 1 ᪥᫬Ⅼ࡛ࠊ
remain solvedᮾி.

ࡢ⾲⌧ࡣⱥㄒᅪ࡟ 1 ౛ᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ (ex. The
80 year long quest in finding birds remains

Biber, Douglas and Johanson Stig, Susan Conrad

solved in the forensic scientists said it was aand Geoffrey Leech (1999) The Longman

slam dunk. [US 2022-09-22/ NOW Corpus])ࠋ

Grammar of Spoken and Written English,

9

Peason Education Limited, London.

ືモࡢ㐣ཤศモᙧࢆᇶయ࡜ࡍࡿ V-ed

㸦un-V-ed ྵࡴ㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ศモᙧᐜモ࡜␗࡞

Goldberg, Adele(1995)

Constructions:ࡾࠊ୍⯡ᙧᐜモࡣ㸦ࡼࡾᜏᖖⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆࡶࡘ

Construction࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵ㸧ࠊ⿵ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸

Argument Structure, The University of࡜࠸࠺ࢣ࣮ࢫࡣᑡ࡞࠸ࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊtall ࡢࡼ

Chicago Press, Chicago.

GrammarApproachA
toGoldberg, Adele (2006) Constructions at Work,࠺࡞ᙧᐜモ࡛ࡣࠊேࡸᘓ㐀≀ࡢୖ⫼ࡸ㧗ࡉࡀ

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

௒ᚋపࡃ࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᝿ᐃࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡓࡵࠊᐜㄆ

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey Pullumࡉࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋࡑࢀ࡛ࡶࠊ
͂… the Statue of
Liberty remained tall after 126 years that month(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the(GB 2012/ Now Corpus)’ ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠊࡼࡾᕧ኱English Language, Cambridge University࡞ീࡀ᫬௦ࡢὶࢀࡢ୰࡛ḟࠎ࡜ᘓ㐀ࡉࢀ࡚

Press, Cambridge.
஬༑ᔒᾏ㔛 (2020) ࠗࡇ࡜ࡤ࡜ࢫࢥ࣮ࣉ㸰.

࠸ࡁࠊ┦ᑐⓗ࡟⮬⏤ࡢዪ⚄㸦the Statue ofྰᐃ⾲⌧࠘◊✲♫, ᮾி.

Liberty㸧ࡀ኱ࡁ࡞ᘓ㐀≀࡜ឤࡌࡽࢀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗ

ᒾᐑດ (2021a)ࠕ㐃⤖ືモ remain ࡢព࿡࡜ྰ

࡚࠸ࡃᩥ⬦࡛ࡣ remain tall ࡜࠸࠺୺᱁⿵ㄒ⾲⌧ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ᐃ㎡ un-ࢆక࠺୺᱁⿵ㄒᵓᩥࠖ ⱥㄒㄒἲ10ᩥἲᏛ఍➨ 29 ᅇ኱఍ཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲.

2 ⠇࡛ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ Schönefeld (2015) ࡣࠊbe ືモࠊremain ࢆྵࡵࠊget, become, go ࡞࡝ᒾᐑດ (2021b)ࠕunder-V-ed ࡟⏕ࡌࡿ୺᱁⿵

ࡢ㐃⤖ືモࡀ un-V-ed ࢆక࠸ࠊ࡝ࢀࡔࡅࡢ⏕ㄒᵓᩥࠖ,ࠗ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ఍ㄽᩥ㞟➨⏘ᛶࢆࡶࡘ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫୖࡢ⤫ィࢹ

21 ᕳ࠘254-265, ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ఍.

࣮ࢱࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ㐃⤖ືモࡢ

ᒾᐑດ (༳ๅ୰)ࠕ஦ែཧ୚⪅࡟ᑐࡍࡿάື

⿵ㄒ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ไ⣙ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࠿࡟

ไ㝈ࢆ♧ࡍ remain V-ed ࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒᵓ

ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⪃ᐹࡣ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡕ࡞ࡳ࡟ࠊ‘Ifᩥࠖ, ࠗᚅවᒣㄽྀ➨ 56 ྕᩥᏛ⠍࠘, ኱employees feel {underpaid/ *paid} and used,㜰኱ᏛᩥᏛ఍.
Jackendoff, Ray (1990) Semantic Structures,that will drag down motivation in a work force.

MIT Press, Cambridge.

(CA 2013/ Now Corpus)’ ࡞࡝ࠊfeel ࡸ seem ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㐃⤖ືモࡢ୺᱁⿵ㄒ࡟ࠊ᥋㢌㎡ under-

Jackendoff, Ray (1996) “The Proper Treatmentࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀࠊືస୺ࡸヰࡋᡭࡢ୺ほࡀ཯ᫎࡉof Measuring Out, Telicity, and Perhaps

ࢀࡓศモᙧ (under-V-ed) ࡢࡳࡀ⿵ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚

Even Quantification in English,” Natural

75

Language andLinguistic

Theory14,ᮾி.
Collins

305-394.

Cobuild

Dictionary

Online<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/diction

Jespersen, Otto (1917) Negation in English andary/english/>

Other languages. [Reprinted in Selected

Collins Cobuild Idioms Dictionary (2020)

Writing of Otto Jespersen (1962) 3-152,

Harper Collins UK, Glasgow.

Senjyo, Tokyo.]

Collins Cobuild Phrasal Verbs Dictionary

Plug, Ingo, Arndt-Lappe, Sabine and Braun,
Maria and Mareileet Schramm (2015)(2020) Harper Collins UK, Glasgow.

Introduction to English Linguistics, De

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
Online (LDOCE)

Gruyter Mouton, Berlin.

<https://www.ldoceonline.com/>

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey
Leech

and

Jan

Svartvik(1985)

Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary OnlineA

Comprehensive Grammar of the English(OALD)

Language, Longman, London.

<https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/>

Rundell, Michael, Milos Jakubicek and Vojtech

Oxford English Dictionary Online (OED)

Kovai (2019) “Technology and English<https://www.oed.com/>

Dictionary,” Cambridge Companion to
EnglishDictionaries,18-30,

Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.
Schönefeld, Doris (2015) “A Constructional
AnalysisofEnglishUn-participle

Constructions,” Cognitive Linguistics 26(3), 423-466.
ᆤ஭ᰤ἞㑻࣭᪩℩ᑦᏊ (2019) ࠗㄆ▱ᩥἲ࡜ᵓᩥᩥἲ࠘㛤ᣅ♫, ᮾி.
ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ
Corpus of Online Registers of English (CORE)< https://www.english-corpora.org/core/>
News on the Web (NOW) Corpus< https://corpus.byu.edu/now/>
The Movie Corpus<https://www.english-corpora.org/movies/>
The TV Corpus< https://www.english-corpora.org/tv/>
Wordbanks [ᑠᏛ㤋ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡ]<http://scnweb.jkn21.com/WBO2/>㎡᭩Ⲩᮌ୍㞝 (1984) ࠗⱥᩥἲ⏝౛㎡඾࠘◊✲♫,76

(2) a.

᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒ⏤᮶ࡢእ᮶ㄒࡢືྡモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

*in, on, over, off, up, downb.

[y BE [IN / ON z]]c.

[y BECOME [y BE [OVER z]]]d.

[y BECOME [y BE [OFF / UP /DOWN]]]㸦On Japanese Verbal Nouns Originated fromࡇࡢⅬࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ(1)ࡢືྡモࡣ(3)English Prepositions and Particles㸧࡟♧ࡍ౑ᙺ஦㇟ࡢୗ఩஦㇟㸦ᙳᒣ (1996))ࢆ
㛗㇂㒊㑳Ꮚ (Ikuko Hasebe)⾲ࡍ LCS ࢆඹ᭷ࡋࠊBE ࡢ⿵㒊ࡢࢫࣟࢵࢺ࡟⚄㇂ ᪼ (Noboru Kamiya)(2b-d)ࡢ[IN / ON / OVER z]ࡸ[OFF / UP /⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ (University of Tsukuba)

DOWN]ࡀ⿵඘㸦cf. ᙳᒣ (2002)㸧ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜
࡟ࡼࡾᙧᡂࡉࢀࡿ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸๓⨨モ, ୙ኚ໬モ, ືྡモ, ㄒ(3) [y BECOME [y BE [ᙡᴫᛕᵓ㐀 (LCS) , ᭷⏺ᛶࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ̿

]]]ࡲࡓࠊ(1)࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠕ࣮࣎ࣝࡀ࢝ࢵࣉ࡟࢖
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

ࣥࡍࡿࠖ࡜ࡑࡢ௚ືモ⏝ἲࡢࠕ࣮࣎ࣝࢆ࢝ࢵ

ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ(1) ࡟౛♧ࡍࡿⱥㄒࡢ๓⨨モࡸࣉ࡟࢖ࣥࡍࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞⮬௚஺᭰ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ୙ኚ໬モ࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒࡢືྡモ 㸦Verbal

ࡣࠊ౑ᙺ໬㸦ᙳᒣ (1996)㸧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋࠊ

Noun (VN)㸪Martin (1975)㸧ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊࡑ

ࡇࡢ⮬௚஺᭰ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡢỴᐃ࡟ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ

ࡢㄒᙡᴫᛕᵓ㐀㸦Lexical Conceptual Structure;࡟ᅛ᭷ࡢ᭷⏺ᛶࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ࣮㸦Boundedness

LCS㸧࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡍࡿࠋ

Parameter㸧ࡢ್࡛࠶ࡿ[0 bounded]㸦Kageyama(2001), ᙳᒣ (2021)㸧ࡀ㔜せ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋ

(1) 㹹ࢬ࣎ࣥ࡟ࢩࣕࢶࢆ࢖ࣥ㸭ࢪࣕࢣࢵࢺ

࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㆟ㄽࡍࡿࠋࢆࢩࣕࢶ࡟࢜ࣥ㹻ࡍࡿࠊ㹹⅗ࡵࡓ㇜ࡇࡲ

ୖグ࡟ຍ࠼ࠊ(1)࠾ࡼࡧ(4a)࡟౛♧ࡍࡿࠕ࢔⫗ࢆ㘠࡟࢖ࣥ㸭ࣁࣥࣂ࣮ࢢࢆࣛ࢖ࢫ࡟

ࢵࣉࡍࡿࠖࠕࢲ࢘ࣥࡍࡿࠖࡢᐜㄆᗘ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

࢜ࣥ㹻ࡍࡿࠊᡴࡗࡓ࣮࣎ࣝࡀ㹹࢝ࢵࣉ࡟ࡶ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ(1)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟࢖ࣥ㸭ࢢ࣮ࣜࣥ࡟࢜ࣥ㸭ࣇ࢙ࣥࢫࢆ࢜

ࠕ⤥ᩱࠖࡀࡇࢀࡽࡢ୺ㄒ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠕ࢔ࢵࣉࡍ

࣮ࣂ࣮㹻ࡍࡿࠊࢫ࢖ࢵࢳࢆ㹹࢜ࣥ㸭࢜ࣇ㹻ࡿࠖࠕࢲ࢘ࣥࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ

ࡍࡿࠊ⤥ᩱࡀ㹹࢔ࢵࣉ㸭ࢲ࢘ࣥ㹻ࡍࡿࠊࡀࠊ(4a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࠕ࢔ࢵࣉࡍࡿࠖࠕࢲ࢘ࣥࡍ

ไ㝈㏿ᗘࢆ࣮࢜ࣂ࣮ࡍࡿࠊ⑂ປ࡛ࢲ࢘ࣥ

ࡿࠖࡀ⛣ືࡢព࿡ࢆໟྵࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࡇࢀ

ࡍࡿ㸦࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺࡼࡾ㸧ࡽࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ஦ᐇ࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢㄒࡀሙᡤ⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜ࡟(1)࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ࢖ࣥࠖࡸࠕ࢜ࣥࠖ
ࠊࠕ࣮࢜ࣂ࣮ࠖ

ࡣࠊ(2b-d)ࡢ⤖ᯝ≧ែࡸ╔Ⅼࢆ⾲ࡍ LCS ࡛ࡣ࡞࡝ࡢືྡモ㸦ୗ⥺㒊㸧ࡣࠊ(2a)࡟౛♧ࡍࡿ࡞ࡃࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ⤖ᯝ≧ែࡸ╔Ⅼࢆྵពࡋ࡞࠸

in, on, over ࡞࡝ࡢⱥㄒࡢ๓⨨モࡸ୙ኚ໬モ(4b)ࡢ LCS ࢆᣢࡕࠊ(4b)ࡀ(3)ࡢ LCS ࡜ࡣ┦࡟⏤᮶ࡋࠊ࠶ࡿ≀యࡢ఩⨨≧ែࡸ఩⨨ኚ໬ࢆᐜࢀࡎࠊ⿵඘ࡀ LCS ࡛㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡛

⾲ࡍࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ(2b-d)࡟♧ࡍ LCS ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿

࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ

1ࢆᣢࡘ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

77

(4) a.

b.

*㝵ẁࢆ㹹࢔ࢵࣉ㸭ࢲ࢘ࣥ㹻ࡍࡿࠋ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊࠕ࣍ࢸࣝ࡟ࢳ࢙ࢵࢡ࢖ࣥࡍࡿࠖࡢ

cf. go {up/down} the stairsࡼ࠺࡞ⱥㄒࡢྃືモ⏤᮶ࡢືྡモࡢሙྜࠊື

䠄cf. ᆏ䛾䜰䝑䝥䝎䜴䞁䛜⃭䛧䛔䠅モ࡜୙ኚ໬モࡢ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡀಖᣢࡉࢀࠊ
ࠕ*࣍ࢸ

[y MOVE [UP / DOWN]]ࣝ࡟࢖ࣥࡍࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟୙ኚ໬モࡢࡳࢆືྡモ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

ᮏ✏ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ➨㸰ࡉࡽ࡟ࡣࠊ(6)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ(5b)ࡢ೉⏝ㄒ⠇࡛ࡣⱥㄒࡢ೉⏝ㄒࢆ⏝࠸ࡓㄒᙧᡂࡣ⏕⏘㸦ୗ⥺㒊㸧ࡀࠕࢥࣆ࣮⏝⣬ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟」ྜㄒ

ᛶࡀ㧗ࡃࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢㄒᙡⓗつ๎ࡀ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡢ୍㒊ࢆᵓᡂࡋࡓࡾࠊࠕ࢔ࣉࣟࡍࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺

ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㆟ㄽࡍࡿࠋ➨㸱⠇࡛ࡣ➨㸰⠇ࡢ㆟ㄽ࡞┬␎ᙧ࡟ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀチᐜࡉࢀࡿࡤ

ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊ(1)࡟౛♧ࡋࡓㄒࡢ LCS ࢆ᳨ウࡋࠊ࠿ࡾ࠿ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ೉⏝ㄒࢆࠕ࣮࢜ࣂ࣮࡞ࠖࡢ

ศᯒࡢ⌮ㄽⓗព⩏ࢆ㆟ㄽࡍࡿࠋ➨㸲⠇ࡣᮏ✏ࡼ࠺࡟ᙧᐜྡモ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡸࠊ
ࠕgo to ࢟ࣕࣥࡢࡲ࡜ࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

࣮࣌ࣥࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ⱥㄒࢆࡑࡢࡲࡲ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ」ྜㄒࡢᵓᡂせ⣲࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

2. ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒ⏤᮶ࡢእ᮶ㄒ
ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ(1)࡛౛♧ࡋࡓⱥㄒ⏤᮶ࡢືྡ(6) a. ࢥࣆ࣮⏝⣬ࠊ࣓ࣔḍࠊ᪩ᮅࣛࣥࢽࣥࢢࠊモࡢศᯒࢆලయⓗ࡟ᥦ♧ࡍࡿ๓࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟

ࢸ࢖ࢡ࢔࢘ࢺᐜჾࠊࣛࣥࢳᐃ㣗ࠊ࢔࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒ⏤᮶ࡢእ᮶ㄒࡢ౛ࢆඛ⾜◊✲࡟㸦ࢵ㸧ࣉࣟ㸦࣮ࢻ㸧ࡍࡿb. ࣮࢜ࣂ࣮࡞ヰࠊ࢔ࣂ࢘ࢺ࡞ᛶ᱁ࠊࡶゐࢀ࡚ᖜᗈࡃほᐹࡋࠊⱥㄒ⏤᮶ࡢእ᮶ㄒࡢ

ࢼ࢘࠸ࠊgo to ࣮࢟ࣕࣥ࣌ࣥ

ㄒᙧᡂࡸព࿡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᴫほࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ(5a)࡟ᣲࡆࡿⱥㄒ࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿ೉⏝ㄒࡣࠊ(5b)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊඖ࡟࡞ࡿⱥㄒࡢㄒ

᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ೉⏝ㄒࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࡋ

㸦ྃ㸧ࡢရモ࡟㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊ㌿᥮࡟ࡼࡾືྡモࡓㄒᙧᡂࡣ࠿࡞ࡾ⏕⏘ᛶࡀ㧗࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ໬ࡉࢀ࡚ࠕࡍࡿࠖࢆకࡗࡓࡾࠊ-r ௜ຍ࡟ࡼࡾ

(1)࡟♧ࡍⱥㄒࡢ๓⨨モࡸ୙ኚ໬モ࡟⏤᮶ࠕ㹼ࡿࠖᙧືモ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓࡾࡍࡿ㸦-rࡍࡿㄒࡶࠊ(5b)ࡸ(6)ࡢ౛࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ⏕⏘ⓗ࡟௜ຍ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ⏤ᮏ࣭ᙳᒣ (2011)ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋ᪂ࡓ࡞ㄒࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ❴ᮌ
(2005) ࡸ㛗㔝 (2019) ࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ๓⨨モ⏤(5) a. copy, memo(randum), Starbucks, running,᮶ࡢ೉⏝ㄒࡀྵࡲࢀࡿ」ྜྡモࡢ౛ࡀศᯒ

check in, take out, lunch, up(load), to goࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊⱥㄒࡢ๓⨨モ in ࡟⏤b. ࢥࣆ࣮㸦ࡍ㸧ࡿࠊ࣓ࣔ㸦ࡍ㸧ࡿࠊࢫ᮶ࡍࡿ(7a)ࡢࠕࣜࣥࢫ࢖ࣥࢩࣕࣥࣉ࣮ࠖࡢࠕ࢖

ࢱࣂࡿࠊࣛࣥࢽࣥࢢࡍࡿࠊࢳ࢙ࢵࢡ

ࣥࠖࡣࠊඖ࡟࡞ࡿⱥㄒࡢ๓⨨モࡢព࿡ࡸ⏝ἲ࢖ࣥࡍࡿࠊࢸ࢖ࢡ࢔࢘ࢺࡍࡿࠊࣛࣥ

ࡣಖᣢࡋࡘࡘࠊ(6a)ྠᵝࠊ(7a, b)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺ࢳࡍࡿࠊ࢔ࢵࣉ㸦࣮ࣟࢻ㸧ࡍࡿࠊto go

࡟」ྜྡモࢆᙧᡂࡋࡓࡾࠊ(7b)ࡢࠕࣜࣥࣉ࣮ࠖ

ࡍࡿ㸦㸻ᣢࡕᖐࡿ㸧
㸦(5b)ࡣ୍㒊ࠊ⏤ࡢࡼ࠺࡟┬␎ࡀ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡓࡾࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊⱥ

ᮏ࣭ᙳᒣ (2011)ࠊ⏣ᕝ (2018) ࡼࡾࠋㄒࡢ๓⨨モ under ࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿ೉⏝ㄒࢆྵࡴୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅ࡽ࡟ࡼࡿࠋ㸧(7a)ࡢࠕ࢔ࣥࢲ࣮ࣇ࢛࣮ࢸ࢕࣮ࠖࡣࠊ(7b)ࡢ
ࠕ࢔ࣥࢲ࣮ࣇ࢛࣮ࢸ࢕࣮ࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࢹ࣮ࠖࡢࡼ
࠺࡟ࡼࡾ኱ࡁ࡞」ྜྡモࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿࠋ

ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓືモ໬ࡢ⏕⏘ᛶࡣ㧗ࡃࠊ(1)ࡶࡑࡢ
౛࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊࠕ㹼ࡿࠖᙧືモࡢᙧᡂࡣ⌧௦࡛ࡣ㝈ᐃⓗ࡛㸦⏤ᮏ࣭ᙳᒣ(7) a. ࣜࣥࢫ࢖ࣥࢩࣕࣥࣉ࣮ࠊࢩࢳ࣮ࣗ࢜ࣥ

(2011)㸧
ࠊ
ࠕ*࢖ࣥࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡣチᐜࡉࢀ࡞ࣛ࢖ࢫ㸦ၟရྡ㸧ࠊ㹹࣮࢜ࣂ࣮㸭࢔ࣥࢲ78࣮㸭࢔ࣛ࢘ࣥࢻ㹻ࣇ࢛࣮ࢸ࢕࣮㸦ᖺ㱋㸧ሙྜࡶࠊඖ࡟࡞ࡿⱥㄒࡢ๓⨨モࡸ୙ኚ໬モᮏ

b. ࣜࣥ㸦ࢫ ࢖ࣥ ࢩࣕࣥ㸧ࣉ࣮ࠊ࢔ࣥ

᮶ࡢព࿡⏝ἲࢆಖᣢࡋࡘࡘࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢㄒᙧᡂ

ࢲ࣮ࣇ࢛࣮ࢸ࢕࣮ࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࢹ࣮ࡢつ๎ࡀࡑࡢࡲࡲ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢ

c. [ࢳ࣮ࢬ࢖ࣥ] [ࣁࣥࣂ࣮ࢢ]㸭[ࣁࣥࣂࡇ࡜ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞እ᮶

࣮ࢢ] [࢖ࣥࢳ࣮ࢬ]㸦㛗㔝 (2019:ㄒࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡟ࡼࡾືモ໬ࡉ36)㸹ୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅ࡽ࡟ࡼࡿ㸧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ㆟ㄽࡍࡿࠋ(7a)ࡢࠕࣜࣥࢫ࢖ࣥࢩࣕࣥࣉ࣮㸦conditioner in

3. እ᮶ㄒࡢືྡモ࡜᭷⏺ᛶshampoo, two-in-one shampoo㸧ࠖ࡜ࠕࢩࢳ࣮ࣗ

ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒ⏤᮶ࡢືྡモࡢ LCS ࢆ᳨࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࢫ㸦cream stew on rice㸧ࠖࠊ(7c)ࡢࠕࢳ

ウࡋࠊⱥㄒ⏤᮶ࡢእ᮶ㄒࡢືモ໬ࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣮ ࢬ ࢖ ࣥ ࣁ ࣥ ࣂ ࣮ ࢢ 㸦 cheese in hamburger࣒࡜ࠊእ᮶ㄒࡢ⮬௚஺᭰ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿

steak㸧
ࠖࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊ
ࠕ䝸䞁䝇ධ䜚䝅䝱䞁䝥䞊ࠖ࡟ࡍࡿࠋ➨㸯⠇࡛ࡶ㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ(1)ࡢእ

࡜ࠕ 䜽䝸䞊䝮䝅䝏䝳䞊஌䛫䝷䜲䝇 ࠖࠊࠕ 䝏䞊䝈ධ䜚᮶ㄒࡢඖ࡟࡞ࡿⱥㄒࡢ๓⨨モࡸ୙ኚ໬モࡣ䝝䞁䝞䞊䜾ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍࠋⱥㄒࡢ๓⨨モ⏤᮶ࡢእ(2b-d)ࡢ LCS ࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢእ᮶

᮶ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠕ࢖ࣥࠖࡸࠕ࢜ࣥࠖ࡜ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ

ㄒࡣࠊ(3)ࡢ BE ࡢ⿵㒊ࢫࣟࢵࢺ࡟(2b-d)ࡢ BEࠕ㹼ධࡾࠖࡸࠕ㹼஌ࡏࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧࡜ࡢ୪ࡢ⿵㒊ࡢ LCS㸦IN ࡞࡝㸧ࡀ⿵඘ࡉࢀࡓ(3)’⾜ᛶࡣࠊ㛗㔝 (2019)࡛㆟ㄽࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡞

ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ LCS ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ

࠾ࠊ(7c)ࡢࠕࣁࣥࣂ࣮ࢢ࢖ࣥࢳ࣮ࢬࠖ࡟࠾ࡅ
(3)’ [y BECOME [y BE [IN / ON / OVER z] /ࡿࠕ࢖ࣥࢳ࣮ࢬࠖࡣࠕࣁࣥࣂ࣮ࢢࢳ࣮ࢬධࡾࠖ

[OFF / UP / DOWN]]]ࡢࠕࢳ࣮ࢬධࡾࠖ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠕࣁࣥࣂ࣮ࢢࠖ࡟
ᑐࡍࡿಟ㣭ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ୙ኚ໬モ⏤᮶ࡢࠕ࢔ࢵࣉࠖ

౛࠼ࡤࠊ(8a)ࡢࠕ࢖ࣥ㸭࢜ࣥ㸭࣮࢜ࣂ࣮ࡍࡿࠖ

ࡸࠕࢲ࢘ࣥࠖࡶࠊ」ྜㄒࡢ୍㒊࡟ࡶ࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿࠋ

ࡣࠊBE ࡢ⿵㒊࡟(8b)ࡢ LCS ࢆ⿵඘ࡋࠊBE ࡢ୺ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠕ࣮࣎ࣝࠖ࡜ BECOME ࡢ୺ㄒࢆྠᐃࡋࡓ(8c)ࡢ LCS ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ

(7)̓ ⤥ᩱ࢔ࢵࣉࠊᆏࡢ࢔ࢵࣉࢲ࢘ࣥࠊࢲ࢘
ࣥᑍ๓(8) a.

ᡴࡗࡓ࣮࣎ࣝࡀ㹹࢝ࢵࣉ࡟࢖ࣥ㸭ࢢ(7)ࡸ(7)’ࡢ౛ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ๓⨨モࡸ୙ኚ໬࣮ࣜࣥ࡟࢜ࣥ㸭ࣇ࢙ࣥࢫࢆ࣮࢜ࣂモ⏤᮶ࡢእ᮶ㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊඖ࡟࡞ࡿⱥㄒ⾲⌧

࣮㹻ࡋࡓࠋ
b.

ࡢᮏ᮶ࡢព࿡࡜⏝ἲࡀಖᣢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ୍᪉ࠊ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢእ᮶ㄒ࡟ࡣࠊ」ྜㄒࡢᙧᡂࡸ┬␎࡞[࣮࣎ࣝ BE [IN / ON / OVER ࢝ࢵࣉ㸭ࢢ࣮ࣜࣥ㸭ࣇ࢙ࣥࢫ]]c.

࡝ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢㄒᙧᡂࡢつ๎ࢆࡑࡢࡲࡲ㐺⏝ࡍ[࣮࣎ࣝ BECOME [࣮࣎ࣝ BE [IN /ON / OVER ࢝ࢵࣉ㸭ࢢ࣮ࣜࣥ㸭ࣇࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
࡛ࡣࠊ๓⨨モࡸ୙ኚ໬モ⏤᮶ࡢືྡモࢆྵ࢙ࣥࢫ]]]

ࡴ(1)ࡢ౛ࡣ࡝࠺ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(1)ࡢࠕ㸦ࢦࣝࣇ࡛㸧ᡴࡗࡓ࣮࣎ࣝࡀ࢝ࢵࣉ࡟࢖ࣥࡍࡿࠖ

ࡇࡇ࡛ὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁⅬࡣࠊ(8c)ࡢ LCS ෆ࡟ࡣ࡜࠸࠺౛ࡣࠊᡴࡗࡓ࣮࣎ࣝࡀ࢝ࢵࣉࡢ୰࡟ධ

BECOME ࡸ BE ࡀྵࡲࢀࠊࡺ࠼࡟᏶⤖ⓗ࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊ࢝ࢵࣉࡢ୰࡟ධࡗࡓ≧ែࢆ࢝஦㇟ࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᏶⤖ᛶ㸦telicity㸧࡟ࢵࣉ࢖ࣥ(holed) ࡜࠸࠺」ྜྡモ࡛⾲ࡍࡇࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊTenny (1994) ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㆟ㄽࢆཧ↷࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ(1)ࡢእ᮶ㄒືྡモࡢࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ௨ୗࡢ஦ᐇࡀࡇࡢⅬࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿࠋ

79ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⮬௚஺᭰࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᙳᒣ
(9) a.

b.

ᡴࡗࡓ࣮࣎ࣝࡀ㹹ᩘ⛊࡛㸭*ᩘ⛊㛫㹻(1996) ࡀᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠕ౑ᙺ໬ࠖ࡟ࡼࡾ࡜ࡽ࠼

㹹࢝ࢵࣉ࡟࢖ࣥ㸭ࢢ࣮ࣜࣥ࡟࢜ࣥ

ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ(10a)ࡣ(12a)ࡢࡼ࠺

㸭ࣇ࢙ࣥࢫࢆ࣮࢜ࣂ࣮㹻ࡋࡓࠋ࡞ LCS ࢆᣢࡘࡀࠊ(13)࡟♧ࡍ౑ᙺ໬㸦ᙳᒣ㹹ᩘ⛊࡛㸭ᩘ⛊㛫㹻ไ㝈㏿ᗘࢆ࣮࢜(1996)㸧ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊୗ఩஦㇟ࢆࡶࡘㄒࡢ LCSࣂ࣮ࡋࡓ㸦ࡀៃ࡚࡚㏿ᗘࢆⴠ࡜ࡋ

࡟ୖ఩஦㇟ࢆ㏣ຍࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺᧯సࡢ㐺⏝࡟ࡓ㸧ࠋ

ࡼࡾ(12b)ࡢ LCS ࢆ⏘ฟࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ LCS ࡀ(10b)ࡢ௚ືモ⏝ἲ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࠋcf. 㹹ᩘᖺ࡛㸭*ᩘᖺ㛫㹻ᖺ㱋ไ㝈ࢆ࣮࢜(11a)ࡢ⮬ືモ⏝ἲ࠿ࡽ(11b)ࡢ௚ືモ⏝ἲࡀࣂ࣮ࡋࡓࠋᙧᡂࡉࢀࡿ㐣⛬ࡶࠊྠᵝ࡟ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
(9a)ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢືྡモࡣ஦㇟ࡢ᏶⤖ᛶࢆព(12) a.

࿡ࡍࡿࠕᩘ⛊࡛ࠖ࡜ඹ㉳ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ஦㇟

[ࢩࣕࢶ㸭ࢪࣕࢣࢵࢺ BECOMEࡢ⥅⥆ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍࠕᩘ⛊㛫ࠖ࡜ࡣඹ㉳୙ྍ⬟࡛[ࢩࣕࢶ㸭ࢪࣕࢣࢵࢺ BE [IN / ON࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ஦ᐇࡣࠊࠕᩘ⛊ࢬ࣎ࣥ㸭ࢩࣕࢶ]]]b.

࡛ࠖࡀ LCS ෆࡢ BECOME ࢆಟ㣭ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ

[⚾ ACT ON ࢩࣕࢶ㸭ࢪࣕࢣࢵࢺ]࡜࡜㛵ಀࡍࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ(9b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⤖ᯝ≧

CAUSE [ ࢩ ࣕ ࢶ 㸭 ࢪ ࣕ ࢣ ࢵ ࢺែࡢ⥅⥆ࡀ୍᫬ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊኚ໬ࡀ᪤࡟᏶⤖ࡋ

BECOME [ࢩࣕࢶ㸭ࢪࣕࢣࢵࢺ BE࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᩥ⬦࠿ࡽ᫂ⓑ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺᮲

[IN / ON ࢬ࣎ࣥ㸭ࢩࣕࢶ]]](13)௳ࢆ‶ࡓࡏࡤࠊ㠀᏶⤖ⓗ࡞஦㇟ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕᩘ⛊[y BECOME [y BE []]]㛫ࠖ࡜ඹ㉳ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢሙྜࠊ
ࠕᩘ⛊㛫ࠖ

Ѝ[x ACT ON y] CAUSEࡣ LCS ෆࡢ BE ࢆಟ㣭ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

[y BECOME [y BE []]]

㸦cf. ᙳᒣ (1996: 197)㸧

ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕᖺ㱋ไ㝈ࢆ࣮࢜ࣂ࣮ࡍࡿࠖࡣ
஦ែࡢ⥅⥆ࡀ୍᫬ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ㠀᏶⤖ⓗ࡞⾲⌧ࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿ

౑ᙺ໬࡟ࡼࡾᙧᡂࡉࢀࡓ LCS ࡟ࡣࠊCAUSEࠕᩘᖺ㛫ࠖ࡜ࡣඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾲ࡍ ACT ON➨ 1 ⠇࡛ࡶゐࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊⱥㄒࡢ๓⨨モࡸࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ௚ືモࡢ୺ㄒࡣື୙ኚ໬モ⏤᮶ࡢືྡモࡢ୍㒊ࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤ(10a)స୺࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀண

ࡸ(11a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⮬ືモ⏝ἲ࡟ຍ࠼ࠊ(10b)ࡸ

࠿ࡽࡇࡢணࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ(14)ࡢᑐẚࡀṇࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ⿬௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ

(11b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞௚ືモ⏝ἲࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(10) a.

㹹ࢬ࣎ࣥ࡟ࢩࣕࢶࡀ࢖ࣥ㸭ࢪࣕࢣࢵࢺࡀࢩࣕࢶ࡟࢜ࣥ㹻ࡋࡓ㸦ࢥ࣮ࢹ(14) a.

⚾ࡣ࣮࣎ࣝࢆࢢ࣮ࣜࣥ࡟࢜ࣥࡋࡓࠋb.

*ᙉ㢼ࡀ࣮࣎ࣝࢆࢢ࣮ࣜࣥ࡟࢜ࣥࡋ
ࡓࠋ

࢕ࢿ࣮ࢺ㸧
ࠋ
b.
(11) a.
b.

⚾ࡣ㹹ࢬ࣎ࣥ࡟ࢩࣕࢶࢆ࢖ࣥ㸭ࢪࣕ(14a)ࡢࠕ⚾ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ືస୺ࡣ ACT ON ࡢࢣࢵࢺࢆࢩࣕࢶ࡟࢜ࣥ㹻ࡋࡓࠋ୺ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚㐺᱁࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ(14b)ࡢࠕᙉ㢼ࠖ

㹹⅗ࡵࡓ㇜ࡇࡲ⫗ࡀ㘠࡟࢖ࣥ㸭ࣁࡣ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃཎᅉ࡛࠶ࡾࠊACT ON ࡢ୺ࣥࣂ࣮ࢢࡀࣛ࢖ࢫ࡟࢜ࣥ㹻ࡋࡓࠋㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ୙㐺᱁࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ(14b)⚾ࡣ㹹⅗ࡵࡓ㇜ࡇࡲ⫗ࢆ㘠࡟࢖ࣥ㸭ࡣ㠀ᩥἲⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊኚ໬࡜ࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࢆྵࡴ஦㇟࠿ࡽᵓᡂ

ࣁࣥࣂ࣮ࢢࢆࣛ࢖ࢫ࡟࢜ࣥ㹻ࡋࡓࠋࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ LCS ࡣ᏶⤖ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ(15a)80ࡢᑐẚ࠿ࡽ᫂☜࡞ࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ࢔ࢵࣉࡋࡓࠖࡸࠕࢲ

≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍព࿡㏙ㄒࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢព࿡

࢘ࣥࡋࡓࠖࡣࠕ㸯ᖺ࡛ࠖ࡜ࡣඹ㉳࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊ

㏙ㄒࡀ⾲ࡍ≧ែ࡟ࡣ⛬ᗘࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ౛࠼

஦㇟ࡢ⥅⥆ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ㸯ᖺ㛫ࠖ࡜ࡣඹ㉳࡛ࡁ࡞ࡤࠊ(17a)ࡢࠕᬬ࠸ࠖࡸ(17b)ࡢࠕ࣮࢜ࣂ࣮㸭࠸ࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊ
㸦15b)ࡢࠕᚎࠎ࡟ࠖࡣ BECOME࢔ࣂ࢘ࢺࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ≧ែ㏙ㄒ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ(17c)ࢆಟ㣭ࡍࡿ㸦ᮡᒸ࣭ᑠᯘ (2001)㸧ࡀࠊࡇࡢ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ≧ែࡢ⛬ᗘࢆ♧ࡍࠕ࠶ࡲࡾ࡟

౛࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊࠕ࢖ࣥࡋࡓࠖࡶ≧ែኚ໬ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࠖ࡜ඹ㉳୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ2ୗ఩஦㇟ࢆᣢࡘࡓࡵ࡟(15c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕᚎࠎ
(17) a.

࡟ࠖ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

b.
(15) a.

㹹㸯ᖺ࡛㸭*㸯ᖺ㛫㹻⤥ᩱࡀ㹹࢔ࢵᙼࡢヰࡣ࠶ࡲࡾ࡟ࡶ㹹࣮࢜ࣂ࣮㸭࢔ࣂ࢘ࢺ㹻ࡔࠋ

c.

ࣉ㸭ࢲ࢘ࣥ㹻ࡋࡓࠋb.

௒᪥ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾ࡟ࡶᬬ࠸ࠋ

༸ࢆ㔩࡛ᚎࠎ࡟ᅛࡃⲗ࡛ࡿࠋ

*࣮࣎ࣝࡀࣇ࢙ࣥࢫࢆ࠶ࡲࡾ࡟ࡶ࢜
࣮ࣂ࣮ࡋࡓࠋ

ACT<㔩࡛> BECOME㸺ᚎࠎ࡟㸼 BE㸺ᅛࡃ㸼c.

㸦ᮡᒸ࣭ᑠᯘ (2001: 253)㸧

ࡇࡇࡲ࡛ࠊ(1)࡟ᣲࡆࡿⱥㄒࡢ๓⨨モࡸ୙࣮࣎ࣝࡀᚎࠎ࡟࢝ࢵࣉ࡟࢖ࣥࡋࡓࠋኚ໬モ⏤᮶ࡢືྡモࡣ LCS ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ BE ࡢ⿵㒊ࢫࣟࢵࢺࡢ⿵඘࡟ࡼࡾᙧᡂࡉࢀࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ

(3)’ࡢ LCS ࡣ BECOME ࢆྵࡴࡓࡵࠊ(15a)ືྡモࡢ⮬௚஺᭰࡟ࡣ౑ᙺ໬ࡀ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡣ᏶⤖ⓗ࡞஦㇟ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ(16b)ࡢࡼ

ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠋ௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢᥦ᱌࠿ࡽ

࠺࡞౛ࡣ≧ែࡢኚ໬࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃሙᡤࡢ⛣ືࢆゝㄒ⌮ㄽⓗ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞▱ぢࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿ࠿

⾲ࡍࡓࡵࠊLCS ࡣ᏶⤖ⓗ࡞ BECOME ࡛ࡣ࡞ࢆࠕ᭷⏺ᛶࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ࣮ࠖ(Kageyama (2001))ࡃࠊ㠀᏶⤖ⓗ࡞஦㇟ࢆ⾲ࡍ MOVE ࠿ࡽᵓᡂ

ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㆟ㄽࡍࡿࠋࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ MOVE ࢆ BE

Kageyama (2001) ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ౑ᙺ஦㇟

ࡢ⿵㒊࡟⿵඘ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊBECOME ࡜ MOVE ࡢࡢᤊ࠼᪉ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆつᐃࡍࡿ᭷⏺ᛶࣃ࣓࣮ࣛ

᏶⤖ᛶ࡟▩┪ࡀ⏕ࡌࠊ(16b)ࡣព࿡ⓗ࡟୙㐺ࢱ࣮ࢆ᳨ウࡋࠊⱥㄒࡣ [+ bounded] ࡢ್ࢆࡶ᱁࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ(16a)ࡢࠕୖ

ࡘࠕ᭷⏺ゝㄒࠖࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡣ [0 bounded] ࡢ್ࡿࠖ࡜ࠕୗࡾࡿࠖࡀ㠀᏶⤖ⓗ࡞⛣ືࢆᥥ෗ࡋࠊ

ࢆᣢࡘࠕ㠀᭷⏺ゝㄒ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚

ࠕᩘศ࡛ࠖ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡜୪⾜ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࠸ࡿࠋࡼࡾලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ๓⪅࡛ࡣどⅬࡢ㉳Ⅼࡀ౑ᙺ஦㇟ࡢୖ఩஦㇟࡛࠶ࡿ ACT ࡟⨨࠿ࢀ(16) a.

㹹*ᩘศ࡛㸭ᩘศ㛫㹻㝵ẁࢆ㹹ୖࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᚋ⪅࡛ࡣどⅬࡢ㉳Ⅼࡀୗࡓ㸭ୗࡾࡓ㹻
ࠋ
㸦cf. ᩘศ࡛㝵ẁࢆ㹹ୖ఩஦㇟ࡢ BECOME ࡟࠶ࡾࠊୗ఩஦㇟ࡢ BEࡾษࡗࡓ㸭ୗࡾษࡗࡓ㹻㸧ࡤ࠿ࡾ࡛࡞ࡃࠊୖ఩஦㇟ࢆࡶࡑࡢᑕ⛬࡟ධࢀb. *㝵ẁࢆ㹹࢔ࢵࣉࡍࡿ㸭ࢲ࢘ࣥࡍࡿ㹻ࠋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ(18)࡟ᅗ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ

㸦㸻 (4a)㸧

㸦࡞࠾ࠊ‫ࡣە‬どⅬࡢ㉳Ⅼࢆ⾲ࡍ㸧ࠋ(18) [x ACT ON y] CAUSE [y BECOME [y BE [ ]]]࡞࠾ࠊ(16a)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࠕ㝵ẁࠖࢆጞⅬ࡜㝈⏺

‫ە‬Ⅼࡢ࠶ࡿ᏶⤖ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠕ㸯㝵࠿ࡽ㸲ⱥㄒ㸸[+ bounded]㝵࡬ࡢ㝵ẁࠖࢆ᝿ᐃࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ᏶⤖ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍࠕᩘ    ศ࡛ࠖࡀチᐜࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ‫ە‬   (3)’ෆࡢ BE ࡢ⿵㒊࡟ࡣࠊእ᮶ㄒࡢඖ࡟࡞

᪥ᮏㄒ㸸[0 bounded]ࡿ๓⨨モࡸ୙ኚ໬モࡀ⾲ࡍ఩⨨㛵ಀࡸ⤖ᯝ㸦ᙳᒣ (1996: 290) ࢆᨵኚ㸧81ຍ࠼࡚ࠊᙳᒣ (2021) ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡣ(19a)࡟ᅗ♧(21)࠿ࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊືモ໬ࡀྍ⬟࡞ⱥࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟஦㇟ࢆࠕⅬⓗࠖ࡟ᢕᥱࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᑐ

ㄒࡢ hammerࡋ࡚᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ(19b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕ⥺ⓗࠖ࡟ᢕ

㝖ࡁࠊࠕ㔠ᵔࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐨ලࢆ⾲ࡍྡモ࡟ࠕࡍᥱࡍࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡿࠖࢆᚋ⥆ࡉࡏ࡚ືྡモ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ

࡜ࡣ㐪࠸ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ୍㒊ࢆᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿ㸦㛗㇂㒊࣭⚄㇂ (2022)㸧
ࠋྠⴭࡣࠊ(19) a.
b.

㛤ጞ㸦ືస୺㸧ᙳᒣ (2005) ࡢᥦ᱌ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊ㐨ලࢆ⾲ࡍྡ⤊஢㸦ኚ໬⤖ᯝ㸧モࡢࢡ࢜ࣜ࢔ᵓ㐀㸦Pustejovsky (1995)㸧࠿ࡽ

㸦㏵୰⤒㐣㸧
㸦㸦ᙳᒣ (2021: 18, 45)㸧ࢆᨵኚ㸧ྲྀࡾฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᝟ሗࡀ᪥ⱥ
ㄒ࡛␗࡞ࡾࠊ๓㏙ࡢࠕ㔠ᵔࠖ࡜ hammer ࡢ㐪(19a)ࡢ㛤ጞ࡜⤊஢ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ(18)ࡢ ACT ࡜࠸ࢆࠊࡇࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᝟ሗࡢ㐪࠸࡟ᖐࡋࡓࠋ
ࠕࣁBE ࡟ࠊ(19b)ࡢ㏵୰㐣⛬ࡣ BECOME ࡟┦ᙜ࣐࣮ࣥࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞೉⏝ㄒࡀືྡモ࡜ࡋ࡚౑࠼

ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ὀពࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ

࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡶࠊ
ࠕ㔠ᵔࠖྠᵝ࡟ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ୖグࡢᥦ᱌ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛

ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ(1)ࡢ⏕⏘ᛶࡢ㧗ࡉࡸ⮬௚஺᭰

BECOME ࠿ࡽᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿ(3)ࡀືྡモࡢᙧᡂࡀチᐜࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣ᭷⏺ᛶࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ̿ࡀ㛵࡟㛵୚ࡋࠊᙧᡂࡉࢀࡓືྡモࡀ(13)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞

୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡲࡓࠊ(4a)ࡸ(21)ࡢ㠀ᩥἲ౑ᙺ໬ࡢ㐺⏝ࢆཷࡅࡿࡢࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ≉ᛶࠊᛶ࡟ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ≉᭷ࡢไ⣙ࡸつ๎ࡀ㛵୚ࡋ࡚ࡘࡲࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡣ BECOME ࡟どⅬࡢ㉳Ⅼࡀ࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㆟ㄽࡋࡓࠋ࠶ࡿ㠀᭷⏺ゝㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
4. ⤖ㄽ

࡞࠾ࠊBECOME ࢆ LCS ෆ࡟ᣢࡘㄒࡀㄒᙧ
ᡂ࡟㛵୚ࡍࡿ౛ࡣᮏ✏࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓⱥㄒࡢ

ᮏ✏࡛ࡣⱥㄒࡢ๓⨨モࡸ୙ኚ໬モ࡟⏤᮶๓⨨モࡸ୙ኚ໬モ࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿㄒࡤ࠿ࡾ࡛࡞ࡍࡿືྡモࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ

ࡃࠊࠕධ♫ࠊධᅜࠊධᐊࠊධᏛࠊධ㒊ࠖࡢࡼືྡモࡣ LCS ෆࡢ BE ࡢ⿵㒊ࢫࣟࢵࢺ࡟ඖ࡜

࠺࡞⾲⌧࡟ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊࠕධ♫㸦ࡍ࡞ࡿㄒࡢ LCS ࡀ⿵඘ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ᙧᡂࡉࢀࠊ

ࡿ㸧ࠖࡣ(20a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ LCS ࢆᣢࡘࡀࠊࡇࡢᵓ

ࡑࡢ⮬௚஺᭰ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡣࠕ౑ᙺ໬࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ

㐀ࡣ(20b)ࡢࠕධ㹼ࠖࡀᣢࡘ LCS ෆࡢ BE࡜ㄽࡌࠊࡑࡢᙧᡂ᪉ἲ࡜⮬௚஺᭰ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ

AT-INSIDE ࡢ ⿵ 㒊 ࡟ ࠕ ఍ ♫ ࠖ ࢆ ព ࿡ ࡍ ࡿ࡟ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡀ BECOME ࡟どⅬࡢ㉳Ⅼࡀ࠶

COMPANY ࡀ⿵඘ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ᙧᡂࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ࡿ㠀᭷⏺ゝㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊእ᮶ㄒࡢືྡモ࡬ࡢ㌿᥮(20) a.
b.

ධ♫㸦ࡍࡿ㸧㸸[y BECOME [y BE࡟ࡣࠊ᭷⏺ᛶࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ࣮࡜᪥ᮏㄒ≉᭷ࡢつ[AT-INSIDE [COMPANY]]]]๎ࡢ୧᪉ࡀ㛵ࢃࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄽࡌࡓࠋእ᮶ㄒࢆ⏝ධࠥ㸸 [y BECOME [y BE࠸ࡓㄒᙧᡂ඲⯡࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊලయⓗ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺

[AT-INSIDE]]]࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊඖ࡟࡞ࡿ⾲⌧ࡢᮏ᮶ࡢព࿡ࡸ⏝ἲࡀ㸦(20a)ࡣᙳᒣ (1996: 216)ࡼࡾ㸧ಖᣢࡉࢀࡘࡘࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ྠᵝࡢㄒᙧᡂࡢつ๎ࢆ㐺⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࠊࡼࡾヲ⣽᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊእ᮶ㄒࡢືྡモ࡬ࡢ㌿᥮࡟ࡣࠊୖ

࡞ศᯒࡣࠊ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

㏙ࡢ᭷⏺ᛶࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ࣮ࡢ௚࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ≉᭷* ᮏ✏ࡣࠕ᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍➨ 40 ᅇ኱఍ ࠖ
㸦2022ࡢㄒᙡⓗ࡞つ๎ࡀ㛵ࢃࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄽࡌࡿࠋ

ᖺ 11 ᭶ 5 ᪥ࠊ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥ㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌Ⓨ(21) *㔠ᒓࢆ㹹㔠ᵔ㸭ࣁ࣐࣮ࣥ㹻ࡍࡿࠋ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࠋᙜ᪥㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆୗࡉࡗࡓ

cf. hammer the metalྖ఍ࡢඛ⏕ࠊ⫈⾗ࡢ᪉ࠎ࡟ཌࡃᚚ♩⏦ࡋୖࡆ

82

ி.

ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊゝ࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊᮏ✏ࡢㄗࡾࡣ඲

ᙳᒣኴ㑻 (2021) ࠗⅬ࡜⥺ࡢゝㄒᏛ̿ゝㄒ㢮࡚➹⪅ࡽ࡟ᖐࡍࠋᆺ࠿ࡽぢ࠼ࡓ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᮏ㉁࠘,ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ
∧, ᮾி䠊ὀ1(2a)࡟ᣲࡆࡿⱥㄒࡢ๓⨨モࡸ୙ኚ໬モ࡟ࡣࠊ Martin, Samuel (1975) A Reference Grammar of㌿᥮࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ືモ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࡀ

Japanese, Yale University Press, New Haven.

࠶ࡿ㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊin ࡸ offࠊup ࡸ down㸧ࠋࡇ࠺㛗㔝᫂Ꮚ (2019)ࠕ➨㸰❶ࣞ࢟ࢩࢥࣥ⌮ㄽࡋࡓⱥㄒࡢືモࡢ౛࡜(1)ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࡢືྡモࡢ₻ὶ㸸ࣞ࢟ࢩࢥ࡛ࣥࡢ᧯స࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ೉⏝ࡢẚ㍑࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ௒ᚋࠊㄪᰝࡸศᯒࡢᑐ㇟

࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ, ᓊᮏ⚽ᶞ࣭ᙳᒣኴ㑻㸦⦅㸧ࠗࣞ࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ࢟ࢩࢥࣥ◊✲ࡢ᪂ࡓ࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࠘, 27-54,

2

ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧, ᮾி.

Ⓨヰ≧ἣ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞

❴ᮌᓫᗣ (2005) ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ౛ࡣチᐜࡉࢀࡿࠋ(ხ) a. ᡴࡗࡓ࣮࣎ࣝࡣࠊ≺ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࢆ࠶ࡲ

」ྜㄒ㸸ࠗࣜࣥࢫ࢖ࣥࢩࣕࣥࣉ࣮࠘࡜ࠗࣜ

ࡾ࡟ࡶ࣮࢜ࣂ࣮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࠋ

ࣥࢫධࡾࢩࣕࣥࣉ࣮࠘ࠖ, ኱▼ᙉ࣭すཎဴb. ཤᖺࡣ࠶ࡲࡾ࡟ࡶ⤥ᩱࡀࢲ࢘ࣥࡋࡓࠋ

㞝࣭㇏ᓥᗤ஧㸦⦅㸧ࠗ⌧௦ᙧែㄽࡢ₻ὶ࠘,
1-19, ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧, ᮾி.

ୖࡢ౛ࡢࠕ࠶ࡲࡾ࡟ࡶࠖࡣࠊࠕ࣮࢜ࣂ࣮ࠖࡸ

Pustejovsky, James (1995) The Generativeࠕࢲ࢘ࣥࠖࡀ⾲ࡍ⤖ᯝ≧ែࡑࡢࡶࡢࡢ⛬ᗘ࡛

Lexicon, MIT Press, Cambridge: Mass.

ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࠕ࣮࣎ࣝࡀ≺ࡗࡓᆅⅬࢆ㉺࠼࡚࠸ࡃ㐣⛬ࠖࡸࠕ⤥ᩱࡀୗࡀࡿ㐣⛬ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ≧ែኚᮡᒸὒᏊ࣭ᑠᯘⱥᶞ (2001) ࠕ➨  ❶ྡモ໬ࡢ㐣⛬ࢆ⾲ࡍ(3)ෆࡢ BECOME ࢆಟ㣭ࡋࠊ㸩ືモᆺࡢ」ྜㄒࠖ, ᙳᒣኴ㑻㸦⦅㸧ࠗ᪥ࡑࡢኚ໬㐣⛬࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡢゝእࡢ㦫ࡁࡸⱥᑐ↷ືモࡢព࿡࡜ᵓᩥ࠘, 242-268, ኱ಟኻᮃ࡞࡝ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㤋᭩ᗑ, ᮾி䠊⏣ᕝᣅᾏ (2018) ࠕእ᮶ㄒືྡモࡢᙧែ⤫ㄒཧ⪃ᩥ⊩◊✲࡟ྥࡅ࡚㸸⠊␪ࠊㄒ✀ࠊᙧែᵓ㐀ࠖ,㛗㇂㒊㑳Ꮚ࣭⚄㇂᪼ (2022) ࠕ᪥ⱥㄒࡢ㐨ල

Studies in Language and Literature 74, 39-58,⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ.

ྡモࡢືモ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ, ࠗእᅜㄒᩍ⫱ㄽ

Tenny, Carol (1994) Aspectual Roles and the㞟࠘44, 51-60, ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ.

Syntax-Semanticsᙳᒣኴ㑻 (1996)ࠗືモព࿡ㄽ࠘䠈ࡃࢁࡋ࠾

KluwerAcademic Publishers, Dordrecht.

ฟ∧, ᮾி䠊⏤ᮏ㝧Ꮚ࣭ᙳᒣኴ㑻 (2011) ࠕ➨㸵❶ྡモࡀ

Kageyama, Taro (2001) “Polymorphism andBoundedness
Nominalization,”Interface,in
Journalof

Event/Entityືモ࡟ኚࢃࡿ࡜ࡁࠖ, ᙳᒣኴ㑻㸦⦅㸧ࠗ᪥

Japaneseⱥᑐ↷ྡモࡢព࿡࡜ᵓᩥ࠘, 178-208, ኱ಟLinguistics 17, 29-57.

㤋᭩ᗑ, ᮾி䠊ᙳᒣኴ㑻 (2002)ࠕᴫᛕᵓ㐀ࡢᣑ඘ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ
࡜᭷⏺ᛶࠖ㸪
ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ࠘㸰ᕳ㸰ྕ, 29-45,
ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧, ᮾி䠊ᙳᒣኴ㑻 (2005)ࠕ㎡᭩ⓗ▱㆑࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ▱㆑̿ㄒᙡᴫᛕᵓ㐀࡜ࢡ࢜ࣜ࢔ᵓ㐀ࡢ⼥ྜ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠖ㸪ᙳᒣኴ㑻㸦⦅㸧ࠗࣞ࢟ࢩࢥࣥࣇ
࢛࣮࣒ࣛ No. 1࠘, 65-101, ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ, ᮾ83

CE2:53D 2ED D85 DG? C5>D5>35C 49665B 9> G8938



1B7E=5>D ?33E@95C D85 CEB6135 CE2:53D @?C9D9?>D85 D85=5 1B7E=5>D 9>  1 1>4 D85 41D9F5

1B7E=5>D 9>  2 *8B?E78?ED D89C @1@5B D85
6?B=5B 9C 31<<54 *85=5'1CC9F5 85>356?BD8 ()%' " +"%&#$)%(( +(%)


*8'1CC9F51>4D85<1DD5B1D9F56B?>D54'1CC9F5

%*"!) %$()'*) %$ 

85>356?BD81D'1CC9F5 39C1>9>CD1>35?6


)8?D1 941

B539@95>D @1CC9F5 85>356?BD8 (53'1CC9F5B14E1D5)38??<?6%17?I1+>9F5BC9DI

G85B5D85B539@95>D1B7E=5>D9CD857B1==1D931<CE2:53D1>4?33E@95CD85CE2:53D@?C9D9?>

"5IG?B4C4?E2<5?2:53D3?>CDBE3D9?>C@1CC9F5C     &>5?6D8519=C?6D89C@1@5B9CD?F5B96ID81D
*8'1CC9F5C G5B5 ?2C5BF54 G9D8 1 35BD19>

1C5CDBE3DEB1<381>75,5B2)53?>4

6B5AE5>3I D8B?E78 D85 $?4 @5B9?4 21C54 ?> 1
3?B@EC21C54 9>F5CD971D9?> 3?>DB1BI D? D85$)'%*) %$

@B5F9?EC 3<19= D81D D85I 2531=5 1 =9>?B   *85 =19> 3?>35B> ?6 D89C @1@5B 9C D85 D8B55

3?>CDBE3D9?>2ID85C9HD55>D835>DEBIG9D8C?=5

DI@5C ?6 @1CC9F5C ?6 D85 & ?E2<5 &2:53D

491<53D1< B5C94E5C <<5>   *89C @1@5B

?>CDBE3D9?>9>D8589CD?BI?6>7<9C81CC8?G>

1<C? @B?F945C CI>D13D93 1>1<IC5C 6?B D85 D8B55

9>

D85

DI@5C ?6 @1CC9F5C ?6 D85 & 1>4 D859B

7B1==1D931<CE2:53D9C9>4931D542I2?<4<5DD5BC

45F5<?@=5>D 9> D85 89CD?BI ?6 >7<9C8 1B7E9>7

D8541D9F5B539@95>D1B7E=5>D9C9D1<939J541>4

D81D D85 <?CC 1>4 B9C5 ?6 6E>3D9?>1< 8514C G5B5

D85=19>F5B29C5>3<?C54

B5C@?>C92<5 6?B D85 45=9C5 ?6 1D'1CC9F5C 1>4D855=5B75>35?6(53'1CC9F5CB5C@53D9F5<I  1 Z1  GRC-"$  ") "' &/',$(    *85?B71>9J1D9?>?6D89C@1@5B9C1C6?<<?GC   LS ?>81>4 7I65>

)53D9?>  ?F5BF95GC D85 ?2C5BF1D9?> 2I <<5>

  W*85>D857?<45>89<DG1C81>454D?D85 ?>D8589CD?B931<45F5<?@=5>D?6@1CC9F5C

   ?<4G1BB9?BX

?6D85&)53D9?> CE==1B9J5CD85B5CE<D?6

 13

*8B?E78?ED

D89C

@1@5B

13?B@EC21C549>F5CD971D9?>?6*8(53'1CC9F5C

5? 5>9C?>     2 &&/'6'-1&/' 9C (%-"

)53D9?>



133?E>DC

6?B

D85

89CD?B931<     6?B7965>>

45F5<?@=5>D?6@1CC9F5C?6D85&9>D5B=C?6    W759C79F5>D?1<<C?E<CX

D85 B9C5 1>4 <?CC ?6 6E>3D9?>1< 8514C )53D9?> 
3?>3<E45CD89C@1@5B

QD1D  "??@=1>     3 D5=1C6?BD85'1B;59C1<?GI4      F5BII5B5145B5

 ()' *) %$%(( +(%)      W D5=1C6?BD85@1B;C859C1<<?G54    *85D8B55DI@5C?6@1CC9F5C9> G5B56?E>4     1451B5138I51BX

9> D85 49665B5>D CD175C 9> D85 89CD?BI ?6 >7<9C8
*12<5  CE==1B9J5C D859B 45F5<?@=5>D1< @1D8C

G1B4?<?E>D@ <<5>   ?2C5BF542I<<5>      11>4 21B5C?31<<54WD85=5@1CC9F5CX

G85B5 D85 D85=5 1B7E=5>D 9C D85 7B1==1D931<84

*12<5  --$0 - )! .#    $( .#  #$-.),3 )!

   1C54 ?> D85 3?B@?B1 <9CD54 12?F5 D85("&$-#  

6B5AE5>3I?6*8(53'1CC9F5C9>$?481C255>
3

3

3

3

9>F5CD971D54=?>7D853?<<53D543<1EC5CG9D8



&N

S

*8'













@1CC9F5   1 @1CD @1BD939@<5 1>4 2?D8 ?6 D85

1D'













9>D5B>1< 1B7E=5>DC D85 ;9>4C ?6 3?>697EB1D9?>C(53'













C8?G> 9>   1B5 3?E>D54 1C 5F945>35 6?B D85
5H9CD5>35 ?6 D85 B5<5F1>D @1CC9F5C  %' 1>4%'B5@B5C5>DD859>D5B>1<1B7E=5>DC1>4%'9C   33?B49>7 D? <<5> *8'1CC9F5C 1>4D85@1CC9F5CE2:53D>1=5<I6?B5H1=@<596%'

1D'1CC9F5C G5B5 ?2C5BF54 6B?= & D? D859C D85 D85=5 1B7E=5>D 9> 1 79F5> 3?>697EB1D9?>

51B<I D89BD55>D8 35>DEBI 1>4 D85> D85 <1DD5B

9D9C3?E>D541C1>9>CD1>35?6*8'1CC9F5

2531=5 <5CC 6B5AE5>D 1>4 <?CD 1D <51CD 2I D85=944<5?6D856?EBD55>D835>DEBI65G453145C  %'K25259>7D?25 &25M,5>%'

<1D5B (53'1CC9F5C 31=5 D? 25 6?E>4 1>4 81F5

 &9>4931D5C1B5<1D9F5@B?>?E>

CEBF9F54 9>D? 'B5C5>D41I >7<9C8 &> D85 ?D85B



81>4*8'1CC9F5C2531=51=9>?B?@D9?>2ID85   *85B5CE<D?6D859>F5CD971D9?>9CCE==1B9J54

C9HD55>D8 35>DEBI 1>4 1B5 1<<?G54 ?><I 9> C?=5

9> *12<5  1>4 C?=5 5H1=@<5C ?6 *8'1CC9F5C

491<53DC9>'B5C5>D41I>7<9C8

1>4 (53'1CC9F5C 1DD5CD54 1B5 79F5> 9>   1>4   5C@9D5 85B 3<?C5 5H1=9>1D9?> ?6 D85 41D1

 B5C@53D9F5<I 

6B?= 1 F1B95DI ?6 D5HDC G8938 81C <54 D? D85

?2C5BF1D9?> 9> *12<5  <<5> 4?5C >?D @B?F945

*12<5  #  !, +/ (3 )! # --$0 -

CD1D9CD931< 5F945>35 6?B 9D 9> D5B=C ?6 D?;5>

.#,)/"#) * ,'$&&$)(1),-

6B5AE5>3I G8938 <51F5C ?@5> 1> 5=@9B931<F5B96931D9?> ?>41  G8? 1<C? @?9>DC ?ED

 

 

 

# 

# 

# 

D89C @B?2<5= 9>F5CD971D5C D85 6B5AE5>3I ?6

*8'



 



 





(53'1CC9F5C 6B?= $ D? 51B<I $?4 G8938

(53'









 



CE@@?BDC<<5>XC?2C5BF1D9?>?G5F5B1C9=9<1B

*8'

9>F5CD971D9?> ?6 *8'1CC9F5C 81C >?D 255>

B1D9?

 

 

 



 

 

3?>4E3D54I5D   *858I@?D85C9CG8938G9<<25D5CD5425<?G9C

  1 >496$-"%)(25 75E5>.# 'D85I
9=>=5491D<IC5<<D85C1=5

D81D *8'1CC9F5C G5B5 <5CC 6B5AE5>D D81>
(53'1CC9F5C 9> $?4 *85 >5HD C53D9?>

($% '    

CE==1B9J5C D85 B5CE<D ?6 D85 9>F5CD971D9?> 2I

  2 1>4 1D D89C *9=5 D85 $5> 2B?E78D 213;
""D81D814255>79F5>.# '

EC9>7 ''$ *85 '5>>5<C9>;9 '1BC54
?B@EC ?6 1B<I $?45B> >7<9C8 1>4

&&"      # ''$  *85 '5>>5<C9>;9 '1BC54 ?B@EC  1 6?BG1C ?665B54D8B55@?E>46?B1>?<4?6$?45B>B9D9C8>7<9C8C53?>4549D9?>1>4

3<?1;5S&,(* '     2  814 >?D 255> D1E78D D85 =?CD

1B7E5CD81DD858I@?D85C9C9C9>3?BB53D 

F1<E12<54?=5CD931>4C?391<8129DCS&-%      %'&*(($+() ) %$

85# 

36%1G1D1   *12<5 C8?GCD81D*8'1CC9F5CG5B59>4554

 

?> D85 G1I D? D859B <?CC 9> $?4 2ED G5B5

6B5AE5>D 5>?E78 D? 25 D1;5> 1C 1 =1:?B   -89<5 %1G1D1 1DDB92ED5C D85 1@@51B1>35 ?6

3?>CDBE3D9?> 3?=@1B54 G9D8 (53'1CC9F5C *89CD85>?=9>1D9F55H@5B95>35BCE2:53D?6&$% D?D89C

F5B9695C D81D D85 ?2C5BF1D9?> ?> *8'1CC9F5C 2I

@1B1=5DB93 381>75 D89C @1@5B 5HD5>4C 89C

<<5>   9C >?D 2?B>5 ?ED (1D85B *12<5 

1B7E=5>DC 1>4 1B7E5C D81D D89C 1<C? 16653D54 D859>4931D5CD81DD853?5H9CD5>35?6*8'1CC9F5C1>4

1C5 <935>C9>7 ?6 D85 41D9F5 B539@95>D 1B7E=5>D(53'1CC9F5C <1CD54 =E38 <?>75B D81> 5H@53D54

?6D85&-85>9D31=5D?251CC?391D54G9D8

C9>35 D85 5=5B75>35 ?6 D85 <1DD5B 1>4 D81D D85/E1C501>5G6E>3D9?>1<8514G8938D89C@1@5B

<?CC ?6 *8'1CC9F5C @?CC92<I ?33EBB54 9> D85

1CCE=5C 9C @@<931D9F5 BE5>9>7 

DB1>C9D9?>6B?=# D?# 'I<;;O>5>



*8EC D85 E>45B<I9>7 CDBE3DEB5 ?6 D85 &'%&%("( 

E>45BG5>DD85381>759>   *89C C53D9?> 1B7E5C D81D 1 6E>3D9?>1< 8514



G1C9>DB?4E3549>D85CDBE3DEB5?6D85&4E5

 1 /)F/( '/,* 000     &

D? 1 @1B1=5DB93 381>75 B5<1D54 D? 31C5  2 /)F//'*( '0/,* 000 =?B@8?<?7I %1G1D1  G8938 <54 D? D85 1>4G1C9>DB?4E354D?<935>C59D$

B9C5 ?6 (53'1CC9F5C )I>D13D93 1>1<IC5C ?6 D85  3 /)F/ $$ (@@</,*000 

45F5<?@=5>D ?6 D85 @1CC9F5C ?6 D85 & 9> D85

#$

89CD?BI ?6 >7<9C8 1B5 1<C? @B?F9454 G9D89> D85

=9>9=1<9CD6B1=5G?B;9>8?=C;ICC8?G>9>19>&*1D85=51B7E=5>D

G9D8C<978D=?496931D9?>C?>D85DB51D=5>D?6D85

9C 1CC97>54 133EC1D9F5 1C5 E>45B [17B55=5>D@1CC9F5=?B@85=51>4F

G9D8 F G89<5 ( 1 B539@95>D 1B7E=5>D 9C



1CC97>54 9>85B5>D 41D9F5 1C5 E>45B 9DC =5B75B

 (% *$) %$" 

G9D8 D85 F5B21< B??D ,  F5> 16D5B D85 453<9>5   C9CG5<<;>?G>31C55>49>7CG8938G5B5

?6 31C5 5>49>7C 9> $ ( 9C CD9<< 1CC97>54

B9389>&G5B5<1B75<I<5F5<<549>D85D89BD55>D8

9>85B5>D41D9F51C52ID85>E<<'85149>133?B4

35>DEBI F1> "5=5>145   ?G5F5B

G9D8%1G1D1XC@B?@?C1< >#$1C1B5CE<D?6

133?B49>7 D? <<5>   D85 B54E354 41D9F5

D85 @1B1=5DB93 381>75 9>  @@< G1CCE669H   ?> D85 ?2:53D ?6 @B5@?C9D9?>C 3?E<4 25

9>DB?4E354 9>D? D85 CDBE3DEB5 3 G85B5 (

6?E>4E>D9<D85=944<5?6D856?EBD55>D835>DEBI

1>4*5>D5B9>D?1>7B55B5<1D9?>G9D8F1>4

1C54 ?> D89C 69>49>7 %1G1D1 

@@<B5C@53D9F5<IC55C53D9?>  6?B45D19<C

 @B?@?C5CD81D D85 @1B1=5DB93 381>75 C385=1D9J54 9>    &>5 ?6 D85 3?>C5AE5>35C ?6 D85 @B?@?C54

?33EBB54G9D8D85<?CC?6D8541D9F5 CE669HC

5=5B75>35 ?6 @@<' 9C D81D 9D 133?E>DC 6?B D851 3?>C5AE5>35 41D9F5 %'C 31=5 D? B5AE9B5

<?CC ?6 1 35BD19> G?B4 ?B45B @1DD5B> ?6 D85 DG?CDBE3DEB1< 1C5 1CC97>=5>D F91 [17B55=5>D 9>

?2:53DC 9> 13D9F5 &C D 9C ?2C5BF54 9> D85

=9>9=1<9CDD5B=C

<9D5B1DEB5 D81D G89<5 D85 B5<1D9F5 G?B4 ?B45B

25DG55>(1>4*G1C6B559>&*( *85<?CC?6 >85B5>D1D9F51C5

?B45B G9D8 2?D8 259>7 >?=9>1<C G1C <?CD 2I D85  /'*%''0/%'( &0=944<5 ?6 D85 6?EBD55>D8 35>DEBI 36 <<5>

86

  "??@=1>    1>4 $31445>

D?



9=@<5=5>D1D9?> ?6 7B55 G9D8?ED 1>I 5HDB1



B5D19>

D85

CD1>41B4

4?G>G1B4   *89C @1@5B 1B7E5C D81D D85 E>45B<I9>7

C@5396931D9?> ?6 6E>3D9?>1< 8514C 9> D85 F5B21<

CDBE3DEB5 9>  1C 9D CD1>4CB5CE<DC 9> (*

4?=19>G89389C@53E<91BD?@1CC9F5C5>D5>35C?6?B45B1>4D81DD859>F5BD54?B45B9C?2D19>54F91

D85&

)8?BD )3B1=2<9>7 2I G8938 * 31> ?@D9?>1<<I   -9D8 D85 12?F5 1CCE=@D9?>C *8'1CC9F5C 9>

25 C3B1=2<54 D? 1 89785B @?C9D9?> D81> ( 1C

& 1>4 $ 31> 25 1>1<IJ54 1C 9>  G85B5

<?>7 1C D85I 4? >?D 3B?CC 1 6E>3D9?>1< 8514 36

4?DD54 <9>5C 9>4931D5 7B55 B5<1D9?>C 1>4

*1;1>?   *89C9C9<<ECDB1D549>

9BB5<5F1>D45D19<C?6D8545B9F1D9?>1B5?=9DD54  /)F/*/(/,*0000

 /*(+ /)F(+/( '                                #%'%! "              /,5>+( &*+( &0000



@@<' 5=5B754 9> #$ C? )8?BD )3B1=2<9>7



31>>?D251@@<954D?=?F5*89785BD81>(>  F 17B55C G9D8  ( 1>4 * 17B55C G9D8 *

1C 9<<ECDB1D54 9>  <5149>7 D? D85 <?CC ?6

G9D8 9DC '' 651DEB5 C1D9C6954 2I =?F5=5>D ?6*(?B45B

* %?D5 D81D 96  ( G5B5 1DD13854 D? F 1C 1>



?@D9?> F G?E<4 17B55 G9D8 * 1>4 * G9D8  (  /)F/*/ $$ (@@</,*0000

?G5F5B D89C 9C >?D 1<<?G54 C9>35  ( 31>>?D                               #%'%! "C1D9C6I D85 '' 651DEB5 ?6 * G8938 B5CE<DC 9> 1



45B9F1D9?>1< 3B1C8  *85 C1=5 B5CE<D 31> 25(( +('%# )%  ?2D19>54G9D8D85CDBE3DEB59>2    ?>DB1BID?D851>1<IC9C?6@1CC9F5C5>D5>35C   C 9C ?2F9?EC (53'1CC9F5C 31>>?D 25

9> 8?=C;IXC 

 6B1=5G?B; G8938

45B9F54 9> & 1>4 $ C9>35 ( 9C

1CCE=5C 1 45653D9F5 F 8514 D89C @1@5B 1CCE=5C

9>13D9F1D54 E>45B D85 1CC97>=5>D ?6 9>85B5>D

D81DF4?5C81F5/E[01C9>13D9F5C5>D5>35C1>4

41D9F51C5C?9D4?5C>?D5>D5B9>D?1>IB5<1D9?>

D81D D85 @1CC9F5 =?B@85=5  ( 6E>3D9?>C 1C 1>

G9D8*

5HD5B>1< 1B7E=5>D G9D8 /9[0 1>4 /E1C50 36   9F5> D85 CE775CD9?> 9> D85 <9D5B1DEB5 D81D

1;5B 5D 1<   *G? G1IC 1B5 @?CDE<1D54

1D'1CC9F5C 9>F?<F5 *?@931<9J1D9?> ?6 (

6?B (D?251DD13854D?D85F5B29D9C1DD13854D?

G8938 45B9F5C F5B2 C53?>4 ,  G?B4 G?B45B

D85F5B21<B??D9>D85<5H93?>?BD?C?=5F5B21<F1> "5=5>145    2 9C 1>1<IJ54 1C 9>

8514 9> D85 F' 4?=19> 9D85B ?@D9?> 31> 25 

D1;5>E><5CC9D<514CD?145B9F1D9?>1<3B1C8    4?@D9>7



D85C5

1CCE=@D9?>C

81C  &&/'6'-1&/'9C(%-"6?B7965>>

1>

14F1>D175 ?6 5<9=9>1D9>7 14 8?3 CD9@E<1D9?>C  / / &&/'50 '

CE381CE@G1B41C51CC97>=5>D57?<=25B7



5D 1<                                 

 ?B ?@D9?>1< 1C512C?B@D9?>

9C           //(%-"0#! */)6?B7965>>000 

>1=5<I  ! .$0$4.$)( ?6 C?=5 6E>3D9?>1<

8514 9> D85 F5B21< 4?=19> ?6 @1CC9F5C 57   ?<<?G9>71525B<95D1<.1>179 

8?CDC 1 61=9<91B D?@93 4E5 D? D85 3853;9>7 *85 @B5C5>D 1>1<IC9C 1<<?GC EC

87

' 9> 

B5AE9B5=5>D ?6 D85 '' 651DEB5 1CC?391D54 G9D8  /)F(+  / $$ (+( & 

D89C ;9>4 ?6 D?@93 *85> D85 41D9F5 1B7E=5>D           / $$ ,,5>+( &@@<(+=?F5CD?/)@53' 06?<<?G542I=?F5=5>D?6

D8569>9D5F5B2D? G8938B5CE<DC9>,                           /,*+( &0000

   *89C @1@5B 1B7E5C D81D D85 45=9C5 ?6

1D'1CC9F5C 9> D85 51B<I D89BD55>D8 35>DEBI 31>

251DDB92ED54D?D85<?CC?6 G8938<54D?D85>   F 1>4 @@< 17B55C G9D8  ( 1>4 *

@1BD91<<?CC?6, E>45BD856?<<?G9>7C35>1B9?

B5C@53D9F5<I *85> * 17B55C G9D8 ( C?

36 1525B<9 5D 1<  56?B5 $

(53'1CC9F5C1B545B9F54 D9C1CCE=5485B5D81D

<1>7E175 <51B>5BC G5B5 5H@?C54 D? C?=5 (?>@@<1>4(1B55AE949CD1>D6B?=F9>

5F945>35 6?B D85 5H9CD5>35 ?6   D81D 9C D85

D81DD85I?33E@ID8585141>4C@539695B@?C9D9?>C

1CI==5DB93 @?C9D9?> ?6 69>9D5 F5B2C D85I G5B5

?6 D85 C1=5 @B?:53D9?> 6 F 5>D5B54 9>D? 1>

@B54?=9>1>D<I <?31D54 9>   ?B   1 8514

7B55 B5<1D9?> G9D8 (  ( G?E<4 25 1

89785B D81>   9> =19> 3<1EC5C 2ED 9>

31>4941D5 6?B 17B55=5>D G9D8 * 31EC9>7 D85

851469>1< * 9> CE2?B49>1D5 3<1EC5C  > $

45B9F1D9?> D? 3B1C8 *8EC D85 @B5C5>D 1>1<IC9C

CE38 1> 1CI==5DBI 2531=5 ?@1AE5 4E5 D? D8531> 31@DEB5 D85 3?5H9CD5>35 ?6 *8'1CC9F5C 1>4<?CC ?6 851469>1< * G8938 B5CE<D54 9> D85(53'1CC9F5C6B?=#$?>G1B4C 

9>13D9F1D9?> ?6    *89C <54 D? D85 <?CC ?6   #1CD2ED>?D<51CDD85613DD81DD857B1==1B1D'1CC9F5CC9>35D85@B?:53D9?>45C97>1D546?B

D81D 1<<?GC ?><I (53'1CC9F5C 81C 255>

D85 6B?>D54 41D9F5 ?2:53D G1C >? <?>75B

@B54?=9>1>DC9>35D85# @5B9?4C55C53D9?> 

1F19<12<5

C8?E<4255H@<19>54&>5@?CC929<9DI9CD81DD89C



;9>4 ?6 7B1==1B ED9<9J5C 1 <?G 1@@<931D9F5(( +('%# %$,'(CDBE3DEB59>D85C5>C5?6'I<;;O>5>   (53'1CC9F5C5=5B7541C1B5CE<D?6D85B9C5

CDBE3DEB5 ?6 D85 &   9<<ECDB1D5C D85?6 @@<' 9> #$  9BCD D? C55 D81D 9D 494 >?D45B9F1D9?> ?6 (53'1CC9F5C G9D8 1 <?G

16653D D85 @?CC929<9DI ?6 *8'1CC9F5C 3?>C945B

1@@<931D9F5 CDBE3DEB5 16D5B G8938 * 17B55C G9D8

D856?<<?G9>7CDBE3DEB5

1>41DDB13DC(  /)F(+  / $$ (+( &@@<(+  /)F(+/,5>+( &/ $$ (+( &                 / $$ ,@@<(+*+( &0000

              /,5>+( &*+( &0001CD85

>D89CCDBE3DEB5@@<1<G1IC17B55CG9D8*C?



D81D *8'1CC9F5C 31>>?D 25 45B9F54 1>I <?>75B
>   F 1>4 @@< 17B55 G9D8 ( 1>4  (-8I 1>4 8?G D85 7B1==1B ?6 >7<9C8 31=5 D?

B5C@53D9F5<I  *85> * 17B55C G9D8 * G8938

EC5D89CCDBE3DEB51>4121>4?>54D85?>59> 

B5CE<DC9>*8'1CC9F5C 

1>4 B5=19>CD?255H@<19>54  (53'1CC9F5C 31> 25 45B9F54 G85>  ( 5>D5BC



D85 45B9F1D9?> 1DD13854 D? @@<  ?>C945B D85 %$"*( %$

CDBE3DEB5 9>   G85B5 D85 CDB9;5D8B?E78   1C54?>D853?B@EC21C549>F5CD971D9?>D89C

9>4931D5CD85<?G5B3?@I<56D2I=?F5=5>D@1@5B 81C C8?G> D81D *85=5'1CC9F5C G5B5

88

6?E>4 G9D8 1 35BD19> 6B5AE5>3I D8B?E78 D85

@B?>?=9>1< B539@95>DC D 9C ?6D5> B5@?BD54 D81D

$?4 @5B9?4 G8938 9C 9>3?>C9CD5>D G9D8 D85

D85I 1B5 =?B5 1335@D12<5 D81> D8?C5 G9D8

?2C5BF1D9?>2I<<5>  D81C255>1B7E54

>?=9>1< B539@95>DC 9> 'B5C5>D41I >7<9C8 57

D81DD85<?CC?616E>3D9?>1<8514 31EC54D85

)D?G5<<    *89C <51F5C D85 @?CC929<9DI D81D

45=9C5 ?6 1D'1CC9F5C G89<5 D85 B9C5 ?6 1

D85 45=9C5 ?6 *8'1CC9F5C ?33EBB54 51B<95B D81>

6E>3D9?>1< 8514 @@< <54 D? D85 5=5B75>35 ?6

$?4  3<?C5 5H1=9>1D9?> ?6 D89C 9CCE5 9C <56D

(53'1CC9F5C *85 @B?@?C54 1>1<IC9C 31>?@5> 2ED >?D5 D81D <<5>   D1;5C D89C

CE335CC6E<<I?6

1=5<9?B1D9?> 56653D G9D8 @B?>?=9>1< B539@95>DC*8'1CC9F5C 1>4 (53'1CC9F5C 6B?= #$

:ECD 1C 1 D5>45>3I 4E5 D? 49C3?EBC5 @B17=1D93

?>G1B4C 1>4 D85 21> ?> *8'1CC9F5C 9> D85

613D?BC*85B56?B5D85B5CE<D?6D859>F5CD971D9?>

7B1==1B D81D 1<<?GC ?><I (53'1CC9F5C 9C

9> D85 D5HD 9C 3?=@1D92<5 G9D8 <<5>XC

1DDB92ED54D?D85@?CC929<9DI?69DCED9<9J9>71<?G

?2C5BF1D9?>

1@@<931D9F5CDBE3DEB5

3?>CDBE3D9?>C9>$31>251@9535?65F945>35

>51B<95BF5BC9?>?6D89C@1@5BG1C@B5C5>D54

D81DD85B539@95>D1B7E=5>D9CC5<53D542ID85>E<<

1DD85

31@DEB5

D85

3?5H9CD5>35

D8?>65B5>35?6D85>7<9C8#9>7E9CD93



*85

5=5B75>35

'36$31445>

?6

.)@B5@?C9D9?>1<)?395DI ?6 !1@1>  1= 7B51D<I 9>452D54 D?

*?=?IE;9 *1>1;1 6?B @B?7B5CC ?6 D89C CDE4I 

W133EC1D9F5X969D17B55CG9D8F1>4W>?=9>1D9F5X

1= 1<C? 7B1D56E< D? 1E495>35C ?6 D85 3?>65B5>35

96 9D 17B55C G9D8 * -8938 F1<E5 9D 9C 1CC97>54

1>4 1<< D85 =5=25BC ?6 5@1BD=5>D ?6 >7<9C8

81F5 >?D89>7 D? 4? G9D8 D85 @8?>?<?7931<#9>7E9CD93C %17?I1 +>9F5BC9DI 6?B D859B

B51<9J1D9?> ?6  ( 1>4 4?5C >?D =1DD5B 6?B D85 *85 F1<E5 1CC97>54 D? /E1C50 ?6  ( G9<< 25

F1<E12<5 3?==5>DC 1>4 CE775CD9?>C <<

@B5C5>D@EB@?C5C

B5=19>9>75BB?BC1>49>145AE1395C1B5=I?G>

 
 5B5 1B5 D85 89CD?B931< @5B9?4C ?6 >7<9C8

9>D5BF5>D9?>8?=C;I

CD1>41B4<I&

D85B5 9C >? 3?=@5<<9>7 5F945>35 6?B D85 1B<I $944<5 >7<9C8 $

9>D5BF5>D9?>56653D9>51B<ICD175C?6>7<9C84E5

 #1D5 $944<5 >7<9C8 #$

D? D85 <13; ?6 >571D9F5 5F945>35 *8EC D85   1>4 $?45B> >7<9C8 $?4

9>13D9F1D54(4?5C>?D2<?3;D8517B55=5>D?6



 


1CCE=54

&<4

>7<9C8D 9C 1CCE=54 85B5 D81D D85 45653D9F5
4?5C>?D8?<46?B

D85 45B9F1D9?> ?6 @1CC9F5C ?6 D85 & C9>35   * G9D8 * 9>   %?D5 1<C? D81D C?=5 CDE495C

 *85C5 89CD?B931< 3?B@?B1 1B5 49CDB92ED54 ?F5B

31CD 4?E2D ?> D85 6?B=1<9J1D9?> ?6 D85 45653D9F5

D85 6?<<?G9>7 @5B9?4C        

9>D5BF5>D9?> 9> D85 C5>C5 ?6 8?=C;I             #     

C55 B?5;8E9C  BE5>9>7 #     #     "59>51>4'??<51=?>7?D85BC







$?B5D81>

49DB1>C9D9F5F5B2CCE381CW79F5X



 1>4  
<<5> I>D891   -  ,%$(" (W?665BX WC5>4X 5D3 1B5 D1B75DC ?6 9>F5CD971D9?>
G89381B5<9CD549>#5F9>  1CF5B2CD1;9>7
2?D8&C1>4.)@B5@?C9D9?>1<3?E>D5B@1BDC (&3-$- &>5 31F51D C8?E<4 25 >?D54 85B5 =?CD ?6 D85& .) ,&3 ) ,( ("&$-# <1B5>4?>

1DD5CD54 5H1=@<5C ?6 *8'1CC9F5C 9>F?<F5'B5CC&H6?B4

89,''.$&  &.$)(- !,)'("&$-# ?3D?B1< 49CC5BD1D9?> +>9F5BC9DI

1;5B $1B; "I<5 !?8>C?> 1>4 1> (?25BDC U'1CC9F5B7E=5>DC(19C54V?6=CD5B41=

#5F9> 5D8    ("&$-#  , &-- - (  
B?5;8E9C 1>C 

&. ,(.$)(-  , &$'$(,3 (0 -.$".$)( U?5C 5653D9F5

D85+>9F5BC9DI?689317?'B5CC89317?

>D5BF5>D9?> H9CDV $("/$-.$- $( .# $31445> *8?=1C 

 .# ,&(-    U*85 (9C5 ?6 D85U9DB1>C9D9F5)1D9F5 9> $944<5 >7<9C8V 3(..$

CI==5DB95C 1>4 1 *85?BI ?6 49?=

!! .- )! ),*#)&)"$& #("  54 2I

?B=1D9?>V   

1F94

BE5>9>7

5>:1=9>



BE5>9>7 5>:1=9> 

&H6?B4

+>9F5BC9DI'B5CC&H6?B4

 U5653DC ?6

%1G1D1 9B?IE;9 5653D9F5 >D5BF5>D9?>V   
8?=C;I %?1= #978D6??D81>75 U$9>9=1<9CD >AE9B95C

 UB14E1< '1B1=5DB93

(5F9C9D9>7

D85

#?CC

?6

*85 B1=5G?B;V . * 3 . * --3- )(%?>%?=9>1D9F5 H@5B95>35BC ?6 $% V$($'&$-. 3(.2 $( )(), )! )1,./$ -$() ,( ("&$-# 
'I<;;O>5>#99>1-($% 54 2I (?75B $1BD9> 1F94

$ *'B5CC1=2B9475$$93815<C 1>4 !E1> +B9175B5;1  )D?G5<< *9=?D8I    ,$"$(- )! #,- $ *'B5CC1=2B9475$ 
8?=C;I %?1= 

.,/./, ?3D?B1<49CC5BD1D9?>$ * U5B9F1D9?> 2I '81C5V

*1;1>? .E:9   U&2:53D )896D 1>4 ( &   $!  $( ("/"  54 2I

)3B1=2<9>7V   $93815< "5>CD?G93J T  $ * 'B5CC

F1> "5=5>145 >C   3(..$ -  (

1=2B9475$ 
5>9C?> 1F94   ),*#)&)"$&("&$-# $-.),$&-  $( .#  $-.),3 )!

("&$-#?<9C?B4B538D

3(.2#?>7=1>#?>4?>

.1>179 *?=?89B? 

1525B<9 B93 )EC1> '9>DJE; 1>4 >> *1I<?B
(.,)/$(","/' (.- U'1CC9F9J1D9?> 1>4

1C5CC97>=5>D U&2:53D 'B?>?E> B?>D9>7 1>4 D859>

?E2<5

&2:53D

%1DEB5 ?6 ,5B2 )53?>4 9> 1B<I >7<9C8V?>CDBE3D9?>C 9> D85 9CD?BI ?6 >7<9C8V .#$(%$("  ,  )( 54 2I (525331

   

-??4C 1>4 )1= -?<65   &H6?B4
+>9F5BC9DI'B5CC&H6?B4

 ?<=25B7 >45BC $9385<<5 )85581> 1>4
!5>>5;5 F1> 45B -1< "B?38>D8?>I51DB935)1>D?B9>91>4#1EB5>

 U$?F5=5>D5<6C 

6B?=D85?E2<5&2:53D?>CDBE3D9?>9C%?D),*/-

E<<I)I==5DB931<V T 

''$ +>9F5BC9DI ?6 '5>>CI<F1>91

?>41 )8?;?  95BD1>9 %17?I1+>9F5BC9DI 
9>

,&3

) ,(("&$-#"B?38 >D8?>I 51DB935 )1>D?B9>9 1>4 B95<--$0 - $( ("&$-# ?3D?B1< 49CC5BD1D9?>

U >D5BF5>D9?>

)!'89<145<@891 $#,)($ ./3 )!

"59>5 )D561> 1>4 D81> '??<5  #   (( &-$(%$ ,-  #   (( &-$(%$ ,- ),*/- )! ) ,( ,$.$-# ("&$-#  )($.$)()/"#?>CDBE3D9?>C''$ +>9F5BC9DI

'5>>CI<F1>91'89<145<@891 (5F9C9D54V   "??@=1> -9<<5=    ), , , $( &

90

?6

b. But if push ever did threaten to cometo shove, British and French nuclear
weapons …
(1992 Economist [Hector] / Traugott (1997:
189))ືモ Begin ࡢ⧞ࡾୖࡆືモ⏝ἲ࡬ࡢ㏻᫬ⓗኚ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

*㸦On the Diachronic Change of the Verb Beginྠᵝ࡟ࠊPerlmutter (1970)ࡣ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅ

to a Raising Verb㸧ࡿືモ begin ࡀࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝືモ࡜⧞ࡾୖࡆືモࡢ୧⏝ἲࢆᣢࡘ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(3a)࡟

➟஭ ಇᏹ㸦Toshihiro Kasai㸧࠾ࡅࡿືモ begin ࡣࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝືモ࡛࠶ࡾࠊྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸦Nagoya University㸧እ㡯࡜ࡋ࡚ Jillࠊෆ㡯࡜ࡋ࡚ to ୙ᐃモ⠇ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(3b, c)࡟࠾ࡅࡿືモ begin࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝືモ, ⧞ࡾୖࡆື

ࡣእ㡯ࢆྲྀࡽ࡞࠸⧞ࡾୖࡆືモ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢモ, ୙ᐃモᶆ㆑ to ࡢᙧᘧ⣲ᛶኚ໬, to ୙ᐃモ

ࡓࡵ⹫㎡ࡀ୺ㄒ఩⨨࡟⏕㉳ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⠇ࡢᵓ㐀ኚ໬
(3)

a. Jill began to sing.
b. There began to be a problem.
c. It began to be obvious that the trees

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

were dead.

 ⏕ᡂᩥ ἲ⌮ㄽ ࡢᯟ⤌ ࡳ࡟࠾ ࠸࡚ࠊືモ(Perlmutter (1970), cited in Hendrick (2020: 4))promise ࡜ threaten ࡣ୍⯡࡟ࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝືモ࡜ࡋ࡚ศ㢮ࡉࢀࠊ(1)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ PRO ࢆྵࡴ to ୙ᐃモ⠇ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ࡜ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ௨ୗ࡛ヲࡋࡃぢࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊྂ
ⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿືモ begin ࡣࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝືモ(1)

a. Johni promises [CP PROi to do his࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⏝ἲࡋ࠿ᣢࡓࡎࠊ⧞ࡾୖࡆືモ࡜ࡋ

homework].

࡚ࡢ⏝ἲࡣᚋᮇ୰ⱥㄒ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ึࡵ࡚ほᐹb. Johni threatens [CP PROi to call theࡉࢀࡿࠋ(4a, b)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟᪤࡟ྂⱥㄒ࠿ࡽ

police].

ືモ begin ࡀ⮬௚஺᭰ࢆ♧ࡍ⬟᱁ືモ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢ஦ᐇ

୍᪉ࠊࡇࢀࡽ㸰ࡘࡢືモࡢ㏻᫬ⓗኚ໬ࢆ◊✲ࡣ⯆࿡῝࠸ၥ㢟ࢆᥦ㉳ࡍࡿࠋ(4a)࡟࠾ࡅࡿື

ࡋࡓ Traugott (1997)࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊືモ promise

モ begin ࡣ௚ືモ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡾࠊእ㡯࡜ࡋ࡚ື࡜ threaten ࡣඖࠎࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝືモ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢస୺ࠊෆ㡯࡜ࡋ࡚୺㢟ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐ

⏝ἲࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊ୺ほ໬࡟ࡼࡿព࿡ኚ໬

ࡋࠊ(4b)࡟࠾ࡅࡿືモ begin ࡣ⮬ືモ⏝ἲ࡛ࡀ⏕ࡌࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ(2a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⹫㎡ࡢ it ࡸ(2b)࠶ࡾࠊෆ㡯࡜ࡋ࡚୺㢟ࡢࡳࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࢖ࢹ࢕࣒࢜ࡢ୍㒊ࡀ୺ㄒ఩⨨࡟⏕(4)㉳ࡍࡿ⧞ࡾୖࡆືモ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⏝ἲࢆᣢࡘࡼ

a. … he began þæt mynster,… he began the monastery,࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ

‘… he began the monastery, ’(2)a. It promises to be a hot and grueling(coaelive, ÆLS_[Maur]:216.1621)

day.

b. Þa

(1992 Guardian [Hector] / Traugott (1997: 189))

sealmas beginnen fram …

The psalm91

beginsfrom …

‘The psalm begins from …’

⾲ 1: Begin with To-Infinitives(cobenrul,BenR:18.43.8.560)

O3

O4

M1

M2

M3

M4

54

2

67

8

73

31

2

0

5

1

14

5

3.5

0

6.9

11.1

16.0

13.8

E1

E2

E3

L1

L2

L3

70

101

74

138

111

151

20

29

23

43

61

48

22.2

22.1

23.7

23.7

35.4

24.1

Animateࡲࡓࠊ(5)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ືモ threaten ࡣ‘tosubjects

appear likely to do some evil’ࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ⹫

Inanimate㎡ࡢ it ࢆక࠺౛ࡀᚋᮇ㏆௦ⱥㄒᮇ࡟࠾࠸࡚

subjects

ほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋTraugott (1997)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊືモ(%)

promise ࡣ୰ⱥㄒ࡟ࣇࣛࣥࢫㄒ࠿ࡽࡢ೉⏝ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝືモ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀጞ

Animateࡵࡓࡀࠊ⹫㎡ࢆక࠺౛ࡀほᐹࡉࢀጞࡵࡓࡢࡣࠊ

subjects(2)࡟♧ࡋࡓ⌧௦ⱥㄒࡢ᫬ᮇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

Inanimatesubjects(5)

It threatens to be wet to-night.

(%)(1846 C. Dickens Dombey & Son (1848) iv. 25:
OED online)௨ୖࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࡼࡾࠊྂⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ↓⏕≀୺ㄒࢆక࠺ືモ begin ࡢ⏝౛ᩘࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟ᑡ࡞ࡃࠊ୍᪉ࠊືモ begin ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ ⹫㎡࡜ඹࡑࡢ๭ྜࡶ㠀ᖖ࡟ప࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ

㉳ࡍࡿ౛ࡣᚋᮇ୰ⱥㄒ௨㝆࡟ほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋᮏ

O3 ࡢ᫬ᮇ࡟ほᐹࡉࢀࡿ↓⏕≀୺ㄒࢆక࠺ 2ㄽᩥ࡛ࡣ Tanaka (2007)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୙ᐃモᶆ㆑౛ࡢ࠺ࡕ 1 ౛ࡣ(6)࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࡛ࡣ↓⏕≀to ࡢᙧᘧ⣲ᛶࡢኚ໬ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࡑࢀ࡟క࠺ to୺ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ mickle thunder ࡀ to ୙ᐃモ⠇ෆ࡟୙ᐃモ⠇ࡢᵓ㐀ኚ໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿศᯒࢆ᥼⏝ࡋࠊ␃ࡲࡗ࡚㠀ᑐ᱁ືモ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ⧞

ᚋᮇ୰ⱥㄒ࡟⤫ㄒ᮲௳ࡀᩚࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ

ࡾୖࡆࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ⯆࿡῝⧞ࡾୖࡆࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀ

࠸౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶ࠺ 1 ࡘࡢ↓⏕≀୺ㄒࢆక࠺஦ࡗ࡚ࠊືモ promise ࡸ threaten ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡

౛ࡣࠊࣛࢸࣥㄒࡢ⩻ヂࢸࢡࢫࢺ࠿ࡽࡢ౛࡛࠶

ኚ໬ࡀ㥑ືᅉ࡜࡞ࡿ⧞ࡾୖࡆ⏝ἲࡢฟ⌧࡛ࡗࡓࡓࡵ౛እ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊྂⱥ

ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊືモ begin ࡢሙྜࡣ to ୙ᐃモ⠇ࡢᵓㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿືモ begin ࡣ᭷⏕୺ㄒࢆక࠺⏝ἲ㐀ኚ໬࡜࠸࠺⤫ㄒⓗせᅉ࡟ࡼࡾ⧞ࡾୖࡆ⏝ࡀᇶᮏ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ἲࡀฟ⌧ࡋࡓ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ
(6)and efneðaþærbegann to

2. ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫㄪᰝ

and even then there began Ṕྐࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ YCOE, PPCME2, PPCEME,

brastligenne micel

PPCMBE ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊto ୙ᐃモ⠇ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ

crackleືモ begin ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ1 ࡑࡢ㝿ࠊ‘and even then mickle thunder began to཰㞟ࡋࡓ⏝౛ࢆ୺ㄒࡀ᭷⏕࠿↓⏕≀࠿࡟ࡼ

crackle there’

toðunor.

mickle thunderࡗ࡚ศ㢮ࡋࡓࡀࠊࡑࢀࡣ↓⏕≀୺ㄒࡀືモÆCHom_II,_12.1:113.122.2464:

࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࡣ⾲ 1 ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ᭱⤊ࡑࡢᚋࠊึᮇ୰ⱥㄒ࡟↓⏕≀୺ㄒࢆక࠺⏝⾜ࡣ඲యᩘ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ↓⏕≀୺ㄒࢆక࠺౛ࡢ

౛ࡢᩘ࡜๭ྜࡀቑ࠼ጞࡵࡿࠋ(7)ࡀึᮇ୰ⱥ

(cocathom2,
begin ࡢእ㡯࡜ࡋ࡚ືస୺࡟ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ O3)
⧞ࡾୖࡆ⏝ἲࡢฟ⌧ࢆ♧ࡍドᣐ࡜࡞ࡿ࠿ࡽ

๭ྜࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ292ㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ↓⏕≀୺ㄒࢆక࠺౛࡛࠶ࡾࠊher⏝ࡋㄪᰝࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ(11)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⹫㎡ࡢ there

color of the face ࡀ୺ㄒ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ౛ࡀ㏆௦ⱥㄒᮇ࡟ほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ

(7)

(11)

Hire bleo

bigon toHer color of the face began tolittle skin upon it; (EEBO 1686: E3)

blakien …
pale

a. …, or until there begins to appear ab. …: there begins to be a confusion…

amongst them already;‘Her face began to pale’(EEBO 1690: E3)(CMMARGA,69.222: M1)
ືモ begin ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ௨ୖࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࡼࡾࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᚋᮇ୰ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ 10%௨ୖࡢ๭ྜ࡛

୰ⱥㄒᮇ࡟ᚎࠎ࡟↓⏕≀୺ㄒࢆక࠺⏝౛ࡀ↓⏕≀୺ㄒࢆక࠺⏝౛ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ほᐹࡉࢀጞࡵࠊ㏆௦ⱥㄒᮇ࡟࡞ࡾ⹫㎡࡜ඹ㉳࡞ࡿࠋ(8)ࡀᚋᮇ୰ⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ↓⏕≀୺ㄒࡍࡿ⏝౛ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢ

ࢆక࠺౛࡛࠶ࡾࠊit ࡀ୺ㄒ఩⨨࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸

ほ ᐹ࡟ᇶ ࡙ࡁࠊ ௨ୗ࡛ ࡣඛ⾜ ◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ࡿࠋ

Tanaka (2007)ࡢศᯒࢆᴫほࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ᥼⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝ⏝ἲࡋ࠿ᣢࡓ࡞

(8)… it begynneth to wexe࠿ࡗࡓືモ begin ࡀ⧞ࡾୖࡆ⏝ἲࢆ⋓ᚓࡍࡿ… it begins

ኚ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋto wax‘it begins to wax’
(CMMANDEV,27.666: M3)

3. to ୙ᐃモ⠇ࡢᵓ㐀ኚ໬ (Tanaka 2007)
 Tanaka (2007)ࡣྂⱥㄒ࠿ࡽᚋᮇ୰ⱥㄒ࡟

ࡲࡓࠊ(9)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟⹫㎡ࡢ it ࢆ୺ㄒ࡟ྲྀ

࠿ࡅ࡚ࠊ୙ᐃモᶆ㆑ to ࡢᙧᘧ⣲ᛶࡀ(12a)࠿

ࡿ౛ࡶࡇࡢ᫬ᮇ࡟ほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ࡽ(12b)࡬࡜ኚ໬ࡋࠊ๓⨨モ࠿ࡽᶵ⬟⠊␪࡬࡜ኚ໬ࡋࡓ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(9)

þe first day of his cristnynge hit bygan(12)

the first day of his christening it began
to reigne,

a. The Infinitive Marker To in OE
̽EPP, +inherent Case (=P)(cf. Tanaka (2007: 50))

to rain,‘the first day of his christening, it beganb. The Infinitive Marker To in LME

to rain’ (CMPOLYCH,VI,139.968: M3)(i) +EPP, +structural Case (=T/P)(ii)̽EPP, +structural Case (=P)(iii)+EPP,̽structural Case (=T)(10)࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㏆௦ⱥㄒ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⹫

(cf. Tanaka (2007: 58))㎡ࡢ it ࡀືモ rain ௨እ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ౛ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡑ ࡋ ࡚ ࠊ (13) ࡟ ♧ ࡍ ௬ ᐃ ࡟ ᇶ ࡙ ࡁ ࠊ AcI(10)

and when it began to bee some what dark,(Accusative

he went to the water syde

(Faire-Par)ᵓᩥࡢศᯒࢆヨࡳ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ3

withInfinitive) ᵓ ᩥ ࡜FP(HARMAN-E1-P2,54.292: E1)(13)

The infinitival morpheme functions as anargument iff its Case feature is licensed

ࡲࡓࠊEarly English Books Online (EEBO)ࡶ౑

93

(via Agree or inherent Case assignment).

‘from the beginning, I command ___ to(Tanaka (2007: 48))

hold the Lord’s day’
(Wulf. 296. 5 / Callaway (1913: 45), cited in(14)ࡀ AcI ᵓᩥࡢලయ౛࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ౑ᙺືモ

Tanaka (2007: 33))

made ࡢ⿵㒊࡟ᑐ᱁୺ㄒ the knight ࢆక࠺ to(17)[PP to [vP Venne-v [VP tV …]]]
(cf. Tanaka (2007: 51))୙ᐃモ⠇ࡀ⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋAcI ᵓᩥࡣྂⱥㄒ࡛ࡣほᐹࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡇࡢ஦ᐇࡣ(15)ࡢᵓ㐀(17)࡟࠾࠸࡚ to ࡀὴ⏕࡟ᑟධࡉࢀ࡚ PP ࡀ࡛࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ࡁࡓẁ㝵࡛ࠊto ࡣ୙ᐃモᙧែ⣲࡟ෆᅾ᱁ࢆ௜
(14)

ant ich makede þe
and I

cniht

to þurlinmadethe knight to pierce

godes side wiðscharpe speres ord

God’s side withsharp୚ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ(13)ࡢ௬ᐃ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ୙ᐃモᙧែ⣲ࡀእ㡯࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊᚋᮇ୰ⱥㄒ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜୙ᐃモᙧែ⣲

spear’s point

ࡀ-enne ࠿ࡽ-e ࡬࡜ᙅࡲࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࠊ௦୙ᐃモ‘and I made the knight pierce God’s side࡜ศ㞳୙ᐃモࡀฟ⌧ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊtowith the point of a sharp spear’ࡀ๓⨨モ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᛶ㉁ࢆኻ࠸ࠊᵓ㐀᱁ࢆ௜୚(JULIA 110. 238 / PPCME2: M1 / Tanakaࡋ࡞࠸ᶵ⬟⠊␪ࠊࡘࡲࡾ T ࡬࡜෌ศᯒࡉࢀࠊ

(2007: 31))ᙧᘧ⣲ᛶࡀ(12a)࠿ࡽ(12b)࡬࡜ኚ໬ࡋࡓࡇ࡜

(15)

a. [PP to [vP DP [v’ Venne-v2 [VP tV …]]]]

ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡾ AcI ᵓᩥࡢὴ⏕b. [v’ v1 [VP V [PP to [vP DP [v’ Venne-v2

᪉ἲࡀ(18)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ኚ໬ࡋࡓࠋ

[VP tV …]]]

(cf. Tanaka (2007: 50))
(18)

a. [T’ to [vP DP [v’ Ve-v2 [VP tV …]]]]b. [TP DP [T’ to [vP tDP [v’ Ve-v2 [VP tV

ࡲࡎࠊ(15a)࡟࠾࠸࡚ to ࡀేྜࡉࢀ PP ࡀ࡛ࡁ…]]]]]

ࡓẁ㝵࡛ࠊto ࡣ୙ᐃモᙧែ⣲࡟ෆᅾ᱁ࢆ௜୚

c. [v’ v1 [VP V [TP DP [T’ to [vP tDP [v’ࡍࡿࠋ(13)ࡢ௬ᐃ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ୙ᐃモᙧែ⣲ࡣእ

Ve-v2 [VP tV …]]]]]]]

㡯࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊDP ࡢᣢ(cf. Tanaka (2007: 59))ࡘ᱁⣲ᛶࡀ↷ྜࡉࢀࡎ࡟ṧࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ὴ⏕ࡣ◚⥢ࡍࡿࠋ௬࡟(15b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ẕᆺࡢ v1 ࡜ࡢ୍⮴࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᱁ࢆ௜୚ࡉࢀࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ

ࡲࡎࠊ(18a)࡟࠾࠸࡚ to ࡣ EPP ⣲ᛶࡢࡳࢆᣢDP ࡜୙ᐃモᙧែ⣲࡜࠸࠺㸰ࡘࡢእ㡯ࢆᣢࡘ

ࡘࡓࡵࠊDP ࡀ TP ᣦᐃ㒊࡬࡜ T ࡢ EPP ⣲ᛶࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊྂⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ AcI ᵓᩥࡣチࡉࢆ‶ࡓࡍࡓࡵ࡟⛣ືࡋ(18b)࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋ

ࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(16)ࡢ

ὴ⏕ࡀ㐍ࡳࠊẕᆺࡢ v1 ࡀేྜࡉࢀࡓ(18c)ࡢ

ࡼ࠺࡞ FP ᵓᩥࡢὴ⏕ࡣࠊ(17)ࡢᵓ㐀࡟ᇶ࡙ẁ㝵࡛ࠊv1 ࡀ TP ᣦᐃ㒊࡟࠶ࡿ DP ࡜୍⮴㛵ࡁㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ಀ࡟ධࡾࠊDP ࡢ᱁ࡀㄆྍࡉࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊᚋ
ᮇ୰ⱥㄒ௨㝆࡟୙ᐃモᙧែ⣲ࡀᾘኻࡋࠊඖࠎ

(16)

ic æfre fram frymðe
I

bebead୙ᐃモᙧែ⣲ࡢㄆྍࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ to ࡢ๓⨨モ

ever from beginning-DATcommandðone࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᶵ⬟ࡶᾘኻࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊto ࡟ࡼࡿ᱁௜

drihtenlican dæg୚ࡢୗ࡛୙ᐃモᙧែ⣲ࡀእ㡯࡜࡞ࡿ FP ᵓᩥ

the-ACC lordly-ACC day-ACCࡣᾘኻࡋࡓࠋ

to healdenne
to hold944. ศᯒ

ࡓࡵ࡟ TP ᣦᐃ㒊࡬࡜⛣ືࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࡢ ๓⠇࡛ぢࡓ Tanaka (2007)ࡢศᯒࢆ᥼⏝ࡋ

begynneth ࡣ⧞ࡾୖࡆືモ࡛࠶ࡾእ㡯ࢆྲྀࡽࡘࡘࠊࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝ⏝ἲࡋ࠿ᣢࡓ࡞࠿ࡗࡓື

࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊit ࡟᱁௜୚ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

モ begin ࡀࠊ⧞ࡾୖࡆ⏝ἲࢆ⋓ᚓࡍࡿኚ໬࡟

ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊit ࡣẕᆺࡢ T ࡜୍⮴ࡋࠊEPP ⣲ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊྂⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ࡯ࡰࡍ࡭

ᛶࢆ‶ࡓࡍࡓࡵ࡟ẕᆺࡢ TP ᣦᐃ㒊࡬࡜⧞ࡾ࡚ࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚᭷⏕୺ㄒࢆྲྀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ

ୖࡀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊto ୙ᐃモ⠇ࡢᵓ㐀ኚ໬ືモ begin ࡣእ㡯ࢆྲྀࡿࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝືモ࡜࡜࠸࠺⤫ㄒⓗせᅉ࡟ࡼࡾࠊືモ begin ࡢ⧞ࡾࡋ࡚ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋ(19)࡟ලయ౛ࠊ(20)࡟ to ୙ୖࡆ⏝ἲࡀฟ⌧ࡋࡓ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋᐃモ⠇ࡢᵓ㐀ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ
5. ⤖ㄒ
(19)

He began þa

to secenne swyðe

He began then to seek ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊTanaka (2007)ࡢ to ୙ᐃモ⠇ࡢ

severelyᵓ㐀ኚ໬ࡢศᯒࢆ᥼⏝ࡋࠊືモ begin ࡢࢥ࣮ða cristenan …

ࣃࢫㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ⹫㎡ࡢ it ࢆྲྀ

the Christian …

ࡿ౛ࡢฟ⌧᫬ᮇࡀࠊto ୙ᐃモ⠇ࡢᵓ㐀ࡀ TP‘Then, he began to seek the Christian …’࡬࡜ኚ໬ࡍࡿ᫬ᮇ࡜ྜ⮴ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⤒㦂ⓗ(coaelive,ÆLS_[Chrysanthus]:24.7342: O3)

ドᣐ࡜ࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊືモ promise ࡸ(20)[PP to [vP Venne-v [VP tV …]]]threaten ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊព࿡ኚ໬ࡀ⌮⏤࡛⧞ࡾୖࡆ⏝ἲࢆ⋓ᚓࡋࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊືモ begin ࡟ྂⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ୙ᐃモᙧែ⣲ࡀ᱁࡜ φ ⣲ᛶࢆక㛵 ࡋ࡚ࡣ ࠊ⹫㎡ ࡀほᐹ ࡉࢀࡿ ᫬ᮇࡀືモ࠸ὴ⏕࡟ᑟධࡉࢀࠊ-enne ࡜ࡋ࡚ල⌧໬ࡉࢀ

promise ࡸ threaten ࡼࡾࡶ᪩࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊtoࡿࠋ(20)࡟࠾࠸࡚๓⨨モ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ to ࡣ୙ᐃモ୙ᐃモ⠇ࡢᵓ㐀ኚ໬࡟ࡼࡿ⤫ㄒⓗせᅉ࡟ࡼᙧែ⣲࡟ෆᅾ᱁࡛࠶ࡿ୚᱁ࢆ௜୚ࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀ

ࡗ࡚⧞ࡾୖࡆ⏝ἲࡀฟ⌧ࡋࡓ࡜⤖ㄽ௜ࡅࡽ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ୙ᐃモᙧែ⣲ࡣ୙ᐃモࡢእ㡯࡜ࡋ࡚ࢀࡿࠋᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊ୺ㄒࡣ୙ᐃモ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃືモ begin ࡢእ㡯࡜࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝ

* ᮏㄽᩥࡣ᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍➨ 40 ᅇ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅ

⏝ἲࡢࡳࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ

ࡿཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲ཎ✏࡟ಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡑࡢᚋࠊᚋᮇ୰ⱥㄒ࡟ᶵ⬟⠊␪ T ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᮏ◊✲ࢆ㐍ࡵࡿ࡟㝿ࡋࠊ኱ᐊ๛ᚿඛ⏕ࠊ⏣୰to ࡀฟ⌧ࡋ࡚ TP ࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊ

ᬛஅඛ⏕࠿ࡽࡣ኱ኚ㈗㔜࡞ຓゝࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡲ(21)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟୺ㄒࡀ to ୙ᐃモ⠇ෆ࡟ేྜࡉ

ࡓࠊ◊✲Ⓨ⾲࡛ࡣࠊከࡃࡢㅖඛ⏕᪉ࡼࡾࠊ኱

ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋኚ᭷┈࡞ࡈᣦ᦬ࡸຓゝࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢሙࢆ೉
ࡾ࡚ឤㅰࡢពࢆ⾲ࡍࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏㄽᩥ࡟࠾ࡅ

(21)… it begynneth to wexe
… it begins

ࡿ୙ഛࡸㄗࡾࡣ඲࡚➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡟ࡼࡿࠋ

to wax‘it begins to wax’
(22)

1

ὀ
౑⏝ࡋࡓࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿ㸸(CMMANDEV,27.666: M3)

The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of[v’ v1 [VP begynneth [TP it [T’ to [vP tDP [v’

Old English Prose (YCOE), The Penn-Helsinki

wexe-v [VP tV]]]]]]]

Parsed Corpus of Middle English, Second
Edition (PPCME2), The Penn-Helsinki Parsed(22)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊto ࡣ᱁௜୚ࢆࡏࡎ EPP ⣲ᛶࡢ

Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME),

ࡳࢆᣢࡘࡓࡵࠊit ࡣ to ࡢ EPP ⣲ᛶࢆ‶ࡓࡍ

The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Modern

95

British English (PPCMBE)ࠋ

Perspectives, ed. by Toril Swan and Olaf

2

Jansen. Westvik, 185-210, Mouton deO1 (-850), O2 (850-950)࡟ࡣᙜヱࡢ౛ࡀほ

Gruyter, Berlin.

ᐹࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊ⾲ 1 ࠿ࡽࡣ┬࠸࡚♧ࡋ࡚࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ౑⏝ࡋࡓࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢྛ᫬௦༊
ศࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿ㸸O3 (950-1050), O4

ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ(1050-1150), M1 (1150-1250), M2 (1250-1350),

Davies, Mark (2017) Early English Books

M3(1350-1420),

M4(1420-1500),

Online Corpus (EEBO), Available online atE1

https://www.english-corpora.org/eebo/.

(1500-1570), E2 (1570-1640), E3 (1640-1710),
L3

Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Lauren(1840-1920)ࠋ
3
FP ᵓᩥ࡜ࡣࣇࣛࣥࢫㄒ➼࡟࠾࠸࡚୙ᐃモ

Delfs (2004) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed⿵㒊ࡢ୺ㄒࡀ✵࡜࡞ࡾࠊᩥ⬦➼࠿ࡽࡑࡢᣦ♧(PPCEME), University of Pennsylvania,ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿᵓᩥࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᣦࡍࠋヲ⣽࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

Philadelphia.

L1(1710-1770),

L2(1770-1840),

Corpusof

EarlyModernEnglishKroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Ariel

ࡣࠊTanaka (2007)ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ

Diertani (2010) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed
Bošković,ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Željiko (1997) The

CorpusSyntaxofEnglishKroch, Anthony and Ann Taylor (2000) The
Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle

Callaway, Morgan (1913) The Infinitive inInstitution

BritishPhiladelphia.

Approach, MIT Press, Cambrige, MA.
Carnegie

Modern(PPCMBE), University of Pennsylvania,

Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy

Anglo-Saxon,ofEnglish,ofSecondEdition(PPCME2),

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Washington, Washington, D.C.

Taylor, Ann, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk,

Hendrick, Randall (2020) “Formal Variation in
Raising and Control Structures,” Lingbuzz,

and1-17, https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005316.

York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of

Perlmutter, David (1970) “The Two Verbs

Old English Prose (YCOE), University of

Begin,”

Readings

TransformationalinGrammar,Beths(2003)

The

York, York.

English
ed.

Frank

by

Roderick Arnold. Jacobs and Peter Steven.

㎡᭩Rosenbaum, 107-119, Ginn and Company,

The Oxford English Dictionary Online (OED
Online), Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Waltham, MA.
Tanaka, Tomoyuki (2007) “The Rise of Lexical
Subjects

inEnglishInfinitives,”

JournalofComparative

The

Germanic

Linguistics 10, 25-67.
Traugott,Elizabeth

Closs(1997)“Subjectification and the Development of
Epistemic Meaning: the Case of Promiseand Threaten,” Modality in Germanic
Languages: Historical and Comparative96

solution to the problem of satisfying interface
conditions (Chomsky (2000) et seq.).
2.

Problems

with

the

Distribution of NP and PP Arguments

A Phonological Approach to Argument
Structure: NPs and PPs

Observational*

The English example in (1a) and the Japaneseexample in (1b) below represent an expression

Kayono Shiobarathat H calls a full-fledged temporal path, where aTokyo Woman’s Christian University

PP indicates a temporal path and functions
adverbially.

Keywords㸸argument, FORM SEQUENCE(1) full-fledged temporal path

(FSQ), nominal path, prosodya. That store is open [from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.]every day.
1. Introduction
This paper looks closely at sentencesb. Anomise-wa

mainitithatstore-Top

every.day

containing path-related expressions in English[kuzi-karagozi-made]and Japanese, as analyzed in Hirose (2007,

nine.o’clock-from five.o’clock-till

abbreviated as H henceforth). We will analyze

aiteiru. 1

the differences in the choice of arguments forbe.openverbs in Japanese and English, and show that‘That store is open from 9 to 5 every day.’these differences are partly due to the generalphonological characteristics of each language, inOn the other hand, (2) represents what H calls aparticular the fact that in English, prepositions

defective path, in which the preposition from inare usually phonologically weak, while in

English, and the postposition made in Japanese,

Japanese,are omitted to form an NP.

which

has

a

tonal

structure,

prepositions are not weak and can carry theaccent. Specifically, we propose an analysis(2) defective temporal pathemploying the FORM SEQUENCE (FSQ)

a. It will take [three to five days] for him tooperation mentioned in Chomsky (2021).

recover.

Pinker and Jackendoff (2005) argue thatargument

structure,reflecting

b. Kare-ga

syntactic

he-Nomkaifukusuru-noni
recover-Inf

properties of predicates, can be captured with[mikka-kara

ituka]

reference to word order, and therefore that word

three.days-fromfive.days

order cannot be excluded from the syntactic

kakaru-daroo.

component.

take-will

If, as this paper argues, it ispossible to find a phonological motivation for‘It will take three to five days for him

argument structure, this would support theto recover.’(H: 548-549)

Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT), which, in one
formation, states that language is an optimal

H analyzes the defective path as an NP

97

coordinated by an adpositional coordinator, to inJackendoff (1977) argues that N and P are

English and kara in Japanese.

He argues thatcomposed of different features as in (6), while

the examples in (3), which show that the verbs

Baker (2003: 303-325) argues that N is a lexical

like take and kakaru cannot take a PP, provide

category whereas P is functional.

supporting evidence for his analysis of a(6) N㸦+N, +V㸧 P㸦㸫N, 㸫V㸧defective path as an NP.

(Jackendoff (1977: 31))(3) a.

( )* It will take [from three to five days]
for him to recover.

b.

Prosodically, however, NP and PP path

* Kare-ga kaifukusuru-noni [mikka-

expressions show the same prosodic pattern as in

kara ituka-made] kakaru-darou.

(7) because monosyllabic Ps in English are(H: 551)

weak.

However, (3) presents an observational problem:

(7)

㸨

㸨

Although H presents (3a) as an ungrammatical

(from

nine)

(to

five) φsentence, the informant I consulted finds (3a)

(

nine)

(to

five) φperfect, adding that the choice between (2a) and(based on Shiobara (2022: 46))(3a) is “completely optional.” On the other hand,
the Japanese example in (3b) is less acceptable

In addition, NP and PP paths are semanticallythan (2b) for any Japanese informants I

identical (H: 549-440).

consulted.

Based on the above, I propose the derivation

Given the contrast in (3), I will posit twoof path phrases in (9) adopting Chomsky’s

research questions in (4) and discuss them in the(2021) FORM SEQUENCE (FSQ) in (8).

subsequent sections.
(8) FSQ selects m members Xi of W(orking)(4) a.

Can the English verb take take a PP,

S(pace) and yields: <&, X1, …, Xn>.

as well as an NP path argument,(based on Chomsky (2021: 31))and if so, when?
b.

(9) With Pfrom-Pto (where Pto = &), FSQ selects

Why can the Japanese verb kakaru

X1 and X2 of WS and yields: < (Pfrom), X1,

not take a PP path argument?

Pto, X2>.

3. Analysis of Path Arguments

In “Pfrom-Pto”, Pfrom is lexically dependent on Pto,

3.1. English NP and PP

with the result that Pfrom does not enter theIt seems no doubt that N and P, or NP and PP

syntactic structure and its externalization, i.e.

are different syntactic categories in English.

pronunciation, is optional. This optionality ofFor example, the verb take can take an NP, but

Pfrom can be captured in the same way that the

not a PP in (5).

externalization of a coordinator and can be
optional:(5) It will take [(*for) three days] for him torecover.

(H: 551)(10) Merging of & and FSQ yields <&, X1, …,

98

(14) How many days will it take _ for him toXn>, where Xi’s exhaust the elements ofY.

recover?

The two operations yield, forexample, [(11a)] and then, optionally,
Based on this analysis of path expression,[(11b)]:(11) a.
b.

John lived [on a farm] [with his

the answer to the question (4a) should be as

family].

follows:

John lived [on a farm] and [with hisfamily].

(15) The English V take selects an NP argument(Chomsky (2021: 32))

but never a PP.
Under

path

expression, where Pto is introduced into theexpressions, the P from in (3a) is “defective”

derivation as a coordinator (&), Pfrom is(indicated by shading) syntactically, prosodically,

lexically dependent on P t o and not

and semantically, not being incorporated into

incorporated into the syntactic structure,syntactic structure:

getting optionally externalized.

(12)

the

present

analysisof

In a P f ro m -P t o path2
V
take from

3.2. Japanese NP and PP
NP
2

three

Unlike English, NP and PP paths in Japaneseshow different prosodic patterns because the P2made has its own high-low accent.

&5

this distinction, I propose that unlike Pfrom, Pmade

tofive daysis always an independent, non-defective P andenters into the syntactic structure.

Based onThen, theOn the other hand, in (5) the argument of the V

answer to the question (4b) should be that it istake is not a path phrase and the P for, as an

because the Japanese V kakaru selects an NP

independent,

argument but never a PP, and the P in Japanese

non-defectiveP,entersthecannot be defective.

derivation and projects to PP.
The syntactically defectiveness of the P fromThe different behavior of path expressionsin (12) is compatible with the observation thatbetween English and Japanese is then reduced tothe presence of the P does not affect theaCoordinate Structure Condition violation.

properties of English and Japanese.

This

difference inthegeneral phonologicalIn

particular, a monosyllabic P is usually weak inis exemplified in (13).

English which creates rhythm through a series of(13) a.

feet, whereas in Japanese, which has a tonal* How many days will it take (from)structure, the P itself carries the accent, e.g., [Pthree to _ for him to recover?
b.

maºde].

* How many days will it take (from)_ to five days for him to recover?

3.3. Summary
Note here that movement of the argument of

The table (16) summarizes the analysis oftake does not degrade the sentence by itself.

path expressions in English and Japanese.

99105 people.’(16) Path in English and JapanesePsource-

Conj

Syntax

Prosody

Semantics

Pgoal

&=

of Pnon&of P

of Pnon&Pfrom-

Pto

Pfrom

is

weak

defective

Pto
Pkara-

Pkara

Pmade

4.2. Type of Coordinators
4.2.1. English: and, toPfrom isIn English, the coordinator and coordinates

recoverable

Pmade notnot

Pmade isdefective

weak

recoverable

not only NPs but also VPs and wh-phrases.
(18) a. [John] and [Mary] went to the movies.
b. John always [pushes the table] andI argue that the difference between English and[makes the vase fall].

Japanese is reduced to the syntactic property ofc. [What] and [when] did you eat?

the P that does not act as a coordinator, i.e., that
English from is defective and cannot be
incorporated into the structure, while Japanese

H notes that the coordinator analysis of to finds

made is non-defective. I further argue that this

support in the colloquial substitution of to forsyntactic difference is reduced to the generaland in the complement of between.

prosodic property of P, i.e., that English Ps are(19) a. The labo r union of that fact or yweak, while Japanese Ps are not weak havingorganized few strikes between [1990 andtheir own accentual properties.

2000].
b. The labor union of that fact or y

4. Supporting Evidence or Relevant Examples

organized few strikes between [1990 to

4.1. Spatial Paths

2000].

The phonologically-based analysis of path

(H: 550, fn. 6)

arguments given in section 3 was based on
temporal path examples.

4.2.2. Japanese: to, te, sosite

This section shows

In contrast with English, Japanese usesthat the analysis can be extend to the examples

different coordinators depending on what is

involving spatial path arguments.

coordinated.

As is seen in (17), the P from is optional in

For example, NPs are normally

English whereas the presence of the P madecoordinated by to, VPs by te, and wh-phrases bydegrades the sentence in Japanese in spatial path

sosite.

cases as well.2(20) a. [Tatu] to(17) a.
b.

[Minami] (to)-ga

This hall can accommodate [(from)Tatu

100 to 105 people].

eiga-ominiitta.

Kono hooru-wa hyaku-nin-karamovie-Acc

went.to.see

this‘Tatu and Minami went out to watch ahall-Top

hundred-people-fromand Minami

and-Nomhyaku-go-nin(-?*made)]movie.’

hundred-five-people-up.tob. Tatu-wa

itumo[teeburu-o

Tatu-Top

alwaystable-Acc

accommodate canosi]-te,[kabin-o otosu].

‘This hall can accommodate 100 to

push-andvase-Acc make.fall

syuuyoodekiru.

100‘Tatu always pushes the table and makes

analysis of path arguments heavily relies on FSQ

the vase fall.’and linear order in the choice of the P acting asc. [Nani-o],what-Acc

sosite[itu]

tabetaan adpositional coordinator (to in English and

and

when

ate

kara in Japanese).

However, it departs fromno?

Chomsky and furthers SMT in analyzing an

Q

English PP path as identical to an NP path in‘What and when did you eat?’terms of its prosody and explaining the(based on Shiobara (2019: 169-170))

difference in the paths between English andJapanese in terms of their general phonological

Furthermore,itisnoteworthy

thatproperties.

thecoordinator to can occur after the second
conjunct as is seen in (20a).3

This double* I am grateful to the audience at the 40th

occurrence of the coordinator can be analyzed inmeeting of the English Linguistics Society ofthe same way as the path in English in (9),Japan for their comments on the oral version of

repeated below.

Double occurrence of thethis paper. Many thanks also go to two English

coordinator to in Japanese is formulated in (21).

informants, and Chris Tancredi for comments
and stylistic suggestions. Needless to say, the(9) With Pfrom-Pto (where Pto = &), FSQ selects

author is solely responsible for any remaining

X1 and X2 of WS and yields:< (Pfrom), X1,

errors or misunderstanding of the data in thisPto, X2>.

paper.

(21) With &to-&to, FSQ selects X1 and X2 of WS
1

and yields: < X1, &to, X2, (&to)>

NOTES
The following abbreviations are used in thispaper: Acc = accusative, Cond = conditional,
5. Theoretical Implications

Gen = genitive, Inf = infinitive, Nom =One of the strongest implementations of thenominative, Q = question, Top = topic.

Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT) is found in2

Nordstrӧm (2017), who argues that we need not

the V syuuyoosuru can take the goal phrase

assume narrow syntax in the faculty of humanhyaku-go-nin-made, or at least, (i) is better thanlanguage.

The phonological approach to the(17b).

selection of path arguments pursued in this paper(i)

A Japanese speaker pointed out that as in (i),

?

Kono

hooru-wa[hyaku-go-(section 3) in contrast employs the syntactic

thishall-Top

hundred-five-structure and hence assumes narrow syntax, but

nin-made](-o) syuuyoo

thenon-syntactic

people-till-Acc accommodate

structure

dekiru.

direction

explanation

to

of
the

givingaargumentisconsistent with Nordstrӧm.

canOn the other hand, Chomsky’s (2021) FSQ‘This hall can accommodate up toin (10) assumes that word order is involved in

105 people.’the computational component and that it

In this case, however, the accusative marker -ooperates when multiple elements are linearized

can accompany the path phrase, which indicatesas in coordinating structures.

that the phrase is an NP, not a PP (Fukui (1995:

The present101116, fn. 16) as cited in Hirose (2007: 551, fn.7)).

Head Parameter,” Linguistic Inquiry 38,

Note that the accusative -o cannot accompany

548-553.
Jackendoff, Ray (1977) X’ Syntax, MIT Press,

the temporal PP path as in (ii).
(ii) Okaasan-no

kaifuku-no

Cambridge, MA.

mikomi-

Nordstrӧm, Jackie (2017) “Language withoutmother-Gen recovery-Gen prospecttosite-wa[mikka-kara

Narrow Syntax,” The Linguistic Review

as-Topthree.days-from34, 687-740.
Pinker, Steven and Ray Jackendoff (2005) “Theituka-(?*made)]-o

miteok-eba

five.days-till-Acc

estimate-Condii

Faculty of Language: What’s Special about
it?” Cognition 95, 201-236.

desyoo.

Shiobara, Kayono (2019) “Spelling-Out agood will.be‘Speaking of the prospect for yourSpell-Out of an XP-YP Structure: A Casemother’s recovery, we can say that itofwill take three to five days maximally.’

169-174.

Coordinate Structure,” JELS 36,

It remains as an open issue what the word madeShiobara, Kayono (2022) “Remarks on Hirose’sin (i) is, if not a P. For now, I take it to be an(2007) Nominal Paths,” Phonologicaloptional element like ‘up to’ in the English

Externalization 7, ed. by Hisao Tokizaki,

translation of (i).

37-50, Sapporo University, Sapporo.

3

Vermeulen, Reiko (2008) “Nonconstituent

The optional occurrence of the second
See

Coordination in Japanese: A Case of

Zwart (2005) and Vermeulen (2008) for more

Phonological Reordering,” Linguistic

examples and discussion.

Inquiry 39, 345-354.

coordinator is not limited to Japanese.

Zwart, Jan-Wouter (2005) “Some Notes on
Coordination in Head-Final Languages,”

REFERENCES
Baker, Mark (2003) Lexical Categories: Verbs,

Linguistics in the Netherlands 22, 231-242.

Nouns, and Adjectives, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
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.
Chomsky, Noam (2021) “Minimalism: Where
Are We Now, and Where Can We Hope toGo,” Gengo Kenkyu 160, 1-41.
Fukui, Naoki (1995) Theory of Projection in
Syntax, CSLI Publications, Stanford,
California.
Hirose, Tomio (2007) “Nominal Path and the102 $%#&%! ! #A G;<F F86G<BA J8 B5F8EI8 G;8 54F<6



7<FGE<5HG<BAF B9 G;8 , *F +" ! 4A7 % <A

786?4E4G<I8F8AG8A68F !% %" %$ " $ $%#&%! !  #%'$ %   #%$    &8GHF9<EFGFG4EGJ<G;+"J;<6;<FGBG;858FG



B9 @L >ABJ?87:8 G;8 @BFG <AG8AF<I8?L FGH7<87

4<><'4GFH@BGB, * <A $4C4A8F8 69  '6E847L %4A4M4J4,8<ELB.A<I8EF<GL '6E847L

 4I<F

6?4<@FG;4GG;8, *<F

C8EG<A8AGGB,TF%&$"!%%$&"! ,88 58?BJ  %8LJBE7F$4C4A8F8+"!%  4   ,-4EBB:4  %LBGBA<   ><G4 
 %#!&%! 







-4EB(B@%LBGB4G  6B@8*FG   -;<F F;BEG C4C8E 4<@F GB 8KC?4<A G;8 54F<6







S-4EB64@8GB%LBGB T

58;4I<BEB9G;8F8AG8A689<A4?C4EG<6?8F, *F+"

5  .FB! 4A7 % <A $4C4A8F8 786?4E4G<I8 F8AG8A68F

?<8

J<G; E898E8A68 GB G;8 ABG<BAF B9 ,C84>8E 4A7S(BJ4LT 6  ,%<G4 

77E8FF88  ,C86<9<64??L <G J<?? 58 CE8F8AG87
G;4G BA68 4I<FTF 

6B@8*FG 

 @B78? B9 "!&*&+" 
+"S"864@8+" T! "&!& * <F @B7<9<87 HA78E G;8
ABG<BA B9 ' "& !& G;8 58;4I<BE B9



G;8

58

4A7

,;8 CB<AGF BHG G;4G G;8E8 <F 4 F?<:;G 5HG

FGE4<:;G9BEJ4E7?L 8KC?<64G87  4F87 HCBA G;8

F<:A<9<64AG CE4:@4G<6 7<998E8A68 58GJ88A  6

F8@4AG<6BCE4:@4G<6 4A4?LF<F B9 G;8 , *F GB 58

J<G;+"4A7G;8F4@88K4@C?8J<G;BHGG;8, * 

CE8F8AG87 G;<F C4C8E 9HEG;8E F88>F GB CEBI<78 4

<EFG B9 4?? <A 5BG; 64F8F  6 CH5?<6<M8F ,TF6BA6E8G8FLAG46G<6FGEH6GHE89BEG;8C4EG<6?8F  

58?<89 G;4G G;8 CEBCBF<G<BA C  Q-4EB 64@8 GB   -;8E8FGB9G;8C4C8E<FBE:4A<M874F9B??BJF %LBGBR<FGEH8 #9+"<F45F8AG;BJ8I8EG;8E8<F#AG;8A8KGF86G<BAJ8@4>8454F<6B5F8EI4G<BA

46?84EF8AF8<A 6G;4GABG;<A:@BE8G;4AG;8

45BHGG;87<FGE<5HG<BAB9G;8, *F<ADH8FG<BA<A

CH5?<6<M4G<BA B9 ,TF E8?8I4AG 58?<89 <F <AIB?I87 

786?4E4G<I8 F8AG8A68F  ,86G<BA  <AGEB7H68F G;8#A FG4E> 6BAGE4FG 466BE7<A: GB ;8E <9 +" <F

54F<6 9E4@8JBE> B9 * 5L 4I<F  4A7

CE8F8AG G;8 HGG8E4A68 ;4F 4 F8AF8 G;4G , HGG8EF

CB<AGF BHG FB@8 B9 <GF 8@C<E<64? 7E4J546>F <A

G;8F8AG8A68<ABE78EGBC8EFH478J<G;E8FC86G?<:;GB9G;8<FFH8FGB58477E8FF87<AG;8CE8F8AG

GBG;8GEHG;9H?A8FFB9C  

C4C8E  #A F86G<BA  J8 8KG8A7 4I<FTF * 5L   &8GHF5845<G@BE8CE86<F8 I8AG;BH:;<G

@4><A: E86BHEF8 GB G;8 <784 B9 *H5?<6<F <AGH<G<I8?L GEH8 G;4G +" @4>8F G;8 HGG8E4A68

B@@<G@8AG 4A7 CEBCBF8 6BA6E8G8 FLAG46G<6

E8?8I4AG GB G;8 C8EFH4F<BA B9 CTF GEHG;9H?A8FF <G

FGEH6GHE8F 9BE G;8 , *F <A DH8FG<BA  ,86G<BA 

7B8FABG8A6B78G;<F7<F6BHEF89HA6G<BA7<E86G?L 

6BA6?H78FG;8C4C8E -;<F <F 8I<78A687 5L G;8 946G G;4G  6 J<G; +"

64A5898?<6<GBHF?L9B??BJ875L8KCE8FF<BAFG;4G

, *F

64A

FH668FF9H??L103

8K;<5<G G;4G , 7B8F ABG A868FF4E<?L J4AG  GB

DH8FG<BA<FABGDH<G86BEE86G ,8858?BJF88

6B@8 GB ;B?7 G;8 F4@8 58?<89 45BHG C  -;<F <F

4?FB '6E847L 4A7 4I<F 

F;BJA<A  







  %<G4    +" ,<AM<A4>HG8    <<>87B 4  
%BE8L4GG8 



6B@8*FG+"58?<8I8(8:!8E  :BB75HG

G;<F 7B#@CS"8 64@8 +"  1BH 7BATG ;4I8 GB 58?<8I8 <GSBG;<F T
5

G;BH:; T 4A7 )F;<@4,#L478FH 

547*B?*EFABG;8E<AG8E8FG<A:946G45BHG+"<FG;4G<G@4>8F

S#T@49E4<7#7BATGJ4AGGB T
6

, E8FCBAF<5?8 ?<45?8 9BE CTF GEHG;9H?A8FF  -;<F <F14GG8 

F;BJA<AJ;<6;<FHGG8E8749G8E<GGHEA87BHG

7B#@C

G;4G -4EB 7<7ATG 6B@8 GB %LBGB 78FC<G8 ,TFSB<G4ALJ4L T
7

HGG8E4A68B9 6 ,#L478FH
547*B?*EF
%<G4    +"  GG8  <GG4   6B@8*FG+"  G;4G

F4L*FG E<:;G  

! 
!

S#T@49E4<7#7BATGJ4AGGB! T

ML4A   .FBGH><?84E?L G;8 ! <A 7 64AABG 58 GE4AF?4G87 GB 4   ?<4E

E8I8EF87G4:DH8FG<BA<AA:?<F;F<A685BG;Q#T@   S1BHF4<7;864@8+"&<4ET

49E4<7#7BATGJ4AGGB7B<G4@#R4A7Q#7BATG

J4AG GB 7B #R FBHA7 94<E?L 4J>J4E7 <A G;<F#AG;<FF8AF8J864A4FFH@8G;4GG;8C8EFH4F<BA

6BAG8KG  -;HF <G F;BH?7 58 8@C<E<64??L B5I<BHF

89986GB9+"<FBA?L4A6<??4EL<G78E<I8F9EB@G;8

G;4G ! <F ABG 8DH<I4?8AG GB 4 E8I8EF87 G4:

9HA74@8AG4?9HA6G<BAB9G;8, *J;<6;@4>8F,

DH8FG<BA ?<45?8GBCTFGEHG;<AG;88L8FB9     +4G;8EG;8!F<A5BG;4A776BAABG8   #A FH@ +" <A 786?4E4G<I8F @4>8F ,

G;4G , 4FFH@8F <G <F B5I<BHF G;4G  ;B?7F G;8

E8FCBAF<5?89BECTFGEHG;9H?A8FF  

58?<89F 45BHG G;8 CF  #A  , 4FFH@8F G;4G G;<A>F 58?<8I8F G;4G <G <F 6B?7 :<I8A G;8 $%#&%! !  #%'$

G8@C8E4GHE8 J84G;8E  #A  , @4E>F G;8
F8AG8A68 J<G; ! FB 4F GB 8KCE8FF G;4G <G F;BH?7

&8G HF GHEA BHE 4GG8AG<BA GB !  ,4<GB 4A7 4FFH@8 G;4G G;8 C4EG<6?8 <F;4I8588AB5I<BHFG;4G,7B8FABGJ4AGGB4668CG

8DH<I4?8AGGB4E8I8EF87G4:DH8FG<BA<AA:?<F;

G;8 E8DH8FG 5L  J;<6; ;4F 4?E847L 588A

F884?FB'<L4:4J4

CH5?<6<M87 <A  5  -;HF G;8 ! <A 7 ;4F G;8

"4E4:H6;<   



89986GB9CH5?<6<M<A:,TF78F<E8GB8@C;4F<M8CTF

,4@H<! 

GEHG;9H?A8FF B5I<BHFA8FF GB   ,B 7 6BH?7 58   6B?7  !

EBH:;?LGE4AF?4G874FQ#F4<7#7BATGJ4AGGB7B<G   S#GTF6B?7<FATG<GT

4?E847LR "BJ8I8E6?BF8EF6EHG<ALE8I84?FG;4GG;<F><A7B9 $%#&%! !  #%'$

7<E86G 4FFB6<4G<BA B9 ! J<G; 4 E8I8EF87 G4:

<A4??L ?8G HF 5E<89?L 7<F6HFF %TF 7<F6BHEF8

104

9HA6G<BA  <EFG B9 4?? <G F88@F E8?8I4AG GB ,TF!8KCE8FF8F,TF4FFH@CG<BAG;4G58?<8I8FG;4G

58?<89 G;4G C <F GEH8 F<A68 G;8 HGG8E4A68 J<G; %

C J;<6; 64AABG 4?J4LF 58 8DH4G87 J<G; 4

64AABG589B??BJ875L8KCE8FF<BAF?<>8Q#7BATG

E8I8EF87 G4: DH8FG<BA <A A:?<F; 9<A4??L %

58?<8I8<GG;BH:;R ,8858?BJ 

C8EG4<AF GB ,TF 58?<89 G;4G C 5HG 6EH6<4??L <G



@4>8F,<EE8FCBAF<5?89BECTFGEHG;9H?A8FF #AG;8

%<G4    % ,<AM<G8     A4<>87B 

A8KG F86G<BA J8 <AGEB7H68 G;8 9E4@8JBE> B9

6B@8*FG%  58?<8I8!8E  (8:*EF5HG* 5L 4I<F S"864@8% #7BATG58?<8I8<GG;BH:; T

<@CBEG4A68 <A 8KC?<64G<A: G;8 FLAG4K 4A7 J;<6; J<?? 58 B9 6EH6<4?



F8@4AG<6FB9G;8, *F 

#A FG4E> 6BAGE4FG G;8 F4@8 , * <F 6B@C4G<5?8

J<G;4A8KCE8FF<BAJ;<6;CH5?<6<M8F,TFBC<A<BA

 %#!& % #(!#BE 4FFH@CG<BA G;4G  7B8F ABG ;4I8 GB 58?<8I8   #A G;8 6BAG8KG B9 7<F6HFF<A: +"TF F8@4AG<6F

G;4GC<FGEH8  

4I<F



J;4G ;8 64??F $&"!   -;<F F8@4AG<6%<G4    % ,<AM<A4>HG8   <<>87B 

9E4@8JBE> 4FFH@8F G;4G 846; 786?4E4G<I8 <F B9

6B@8*FG%58?<8I8(8:!8E:BB75HG

GLC866GJ;8E86<FG;8GLC89BE6BAG8KG



S"8 64@8 %  1BH 7BATG ;4I8 GB 58?<8I8 <G

4A7 6 G 78ABG8F 4 F8G B9 6BAG8KGF  A7 846;

G;BH:; T

786?4E4G<I8 <F 9HEG;8E 789<A87 GB G4>8 4 68EG4<ACEBCBF8F4A8K6<G<A:9E4@8JBE>B9



7<F6BHEF8C4EG<6<C4AG*BE*F4A7FH::8FGF

-;8E89BE8TF58?<8945BHGC<F<EE8?8I4AGGBG;8

BEE8DH8FGFG;4G<AG;8HC74G876BAG8KGTC<F4

HF8B9G;8, * @8@58E B9 ,TF CH5?<6 58?<89 F8G *  -;HF   ABG;8E <AG8E8FG<A: 4FC86G B9 % C8EG4<AF GB

4AABG4G<A: G;8 6BAG8KG 6;4A:8 9EB@  GB T 5L

<GF7<F6BHEF89HA6G<BAG;4G@4>8F,$$%#"!%TJ8;4I8G;89B??BJ<A:54F<6F8@4AG<6F

9BECTFGEHG;9H?A8FF -;4G<FGBF4L<G8K;<5<GFG;8

B9454E8786?4E4G<I8F8AG8A68 

BCCBF<G87<F6BHEF89HA6G<BAGB+" #G@4>8F,ABG

?<45?8GBCTFGEHG;9H?A8FF ,8858?BJJ;<6;<F 22C &33  WK N  T  O C  KTF * <ATP, 

HGG8E87 5L , 49G8E , F4<7 Q-4EB 64@8 GB %LBGB%R4A7<GGHEA87BHGG;4G;846GH4??L7<7ATG6B@8N T OC,TF*<ATP

GB%LBGB 

 





%<G4    %

GG8

<GG4

ML4A   6B@8*FG%

G;4G

F4L*FG E<:;G  

4F87 HCBA G;<F F8@4AG<6F B9 4 E8?4G<BA4? *
4I<F

9HEG;8E6?4<@FG;4G<9+"<FHF87<A4   .FBGH><786?4E4G<I8 F8AG8A68 G;8 4E:H@8AG GB J;<6; G;8    ?<4E

9HA6G<BAB9GLC866G<F4CC?<87<FFC86<9<87GB   S1BHF4<7;864@8%&<4ET

58G;8F8GB94??B9G;8*F -;HF4786?4E4G<I8

F8AG8A68 J<G; +" ;4F G;8 9B??BJ<A: F8@4AG<6F,H@@4E<M<A: FB 94E J8 ;4I8 4EE<I87 4G G;8

466BE7<A:GB4I<F

9B??BJ<A:F>8G6;B9G;87<F6BHEF89HA6G<BAFB9+"! 4A7 %  <EFG +" 54F<64??L 8KCE8FF8F ,TF 22C&+"33WK N T OCKTF*<A

J<??<A:A8FF GB G4>8 ?<45<?<GL 9BE CTF GEHG;9H?A8FF

TPK* 105

 N  T  O C  ?? B9 G;8

G;8F8@4AG<64A4?LF<FB9+"<A <F<GF<A45<?<GL*TF*F<ATP 

GB64CGHE8G;8946GG;4G +"@4>8F,?<45?8GBCTF

GEHG;9H?A8FF  HG J;4G 7B8F <G @84A G;4G ,A <@@87<4G8 I<EGH8 B9 G;<F <784 <F G;4G <G

586B@8F ?<45?8 GB CTF GEHG;9H?A8FF J;8A +" <F

6BEE86G?L 64CGHE8F G;8 946G G;4G ABG =HFG , 5HG

HF87

4?FB<F<AIB?I87<AG;8HF8B9+"     -;4G,<F?<45?8GBCTFGEHG;9H?A8FF@84AFG;4G   "BJ8I8EG;8E84E8FB@88@C<E<64?946GFG;4G

G;8 F4@8 * <F 6B@@<GG87 GB 46G <A 466BE74A68

64AABG5864CGHE875LG;<F4A4?LF<F  <EFG<G94<?F

J<G; G;8 F4@8 CEBCBF<G<BATF GEHG;9H?A8FF  -B 58

GB8KC?4<AG;8946GB5F8EI87<A  -;4G<F<9G;8

@BE8 CE86<F8 9B??BJ<A: E4A7B@  
 4A7 !8HEGF 

F8@4AG<6F B9 4 786?4E4G<I8 F8AG8A68 J<G; +" <F # 6?4<@ G;4G <G @84AF

789<A87<AG;8J4L78C<6G87<A 8KCE8FF<BAF

G;4G,<F6B@@<GG87GBG;8BG;8E*FGB46GHCBA

?<>8 QF<AM<A4>HG8 <<>87BR F;BH?7 FBHA7

C  &8G HF 64?? G;<F GLC8 B9 6B@@<G@8AG '

<A98?<6<GBHF49G8EG;8HF8B9G;8, *6BAGE4ELGB

"

946G F<A68 +" F;BH?7 FH::8FG 4 * <A FH6; 4   #AG8E8FG<A:?L!8HEGF

J4LG;4G58?<8I8FG;4GC<FGEH8<AG;8HC74G87

<F 4ABG;8E GLC8 B9 6B@@<G@8AG J;<6; J8 64??

6BAG8KG   "   HEG;8E@BE8<G<FABG6?84E;BJG;84A4?LF<F

46G HCBA C @84AF G;4G G;8 * <F 6B@@<GG87 GB

78C<6G87<A 8KC?4<AFG;8946GG;4G+"@4>8F

G;8@F8?I8F GB 46G <A 466BE74A68 J<G; C ,?<45?8GBCTFGEHG; 66BE7<A: GB !8HEGF G;<F 6BEE8FCBA7F GB G;8   #A 477<G<BA G;8 F8@4AG<6 6;4E46G8EF B9 !

*TF58?<89G;4GC<FGEH8  & !&  6?4<@FG;4GG;8E8

& !&   *TF ,8?9 B@@<G@8AG GB

(BG<684?E847LG;4GG;<F<FCE86<F8?LJ;4GG;8

4A7%E8@4<ACEB5?8@4G<6GB  I8AG;BH:;
 4A4?LF<F <F GB 8KC?4<A

&BC8E4GBE7B8FG;8BC8E4GBE<AGEB7H68F4A

G;8 58;4I<BE B9 +" 4A7 ;8A68 <G 7B8F ABG4:8AGTF CH5?<6 58?<89 45BHG C GB G;8 E8?8I4AG

A868FF4E<?L;4I8 GB 64CGHE8 G;4G B9 ! 4A7 % <G

F8@4AG<6 6B@CHG4G<BA  -;HF <G <F A4GHE4? GB

F;BH?7 58 78F<E45?8 G;4G J8 ;4I8 4 HA<9<87

4FFH@8G;4G22C&338KCE8FF8F4*<AFH6;

9E4@8JBE>G;4G8KC?4<AFG;8F8@4AG<6FB9+"!

4J4LG;4G4*<FF8?96B@@<GG87GB46GHCBAC

4A7%<A4FGE4<:;G9BEJ4E794F;<BA <AG;8HC74G876BAG8KG 

G;8 4<@ B9 4I<FTF    -4><A: G;8F8 <FFH8F <AGB 6BAF<78E4G<BA <G <F#9G;8E8<F4ABC8E4GBEE8?8I4AGGB4A4:8AGTF

F498 GB F4L G;4G FB@8 4?G8EA4G<I8 CEBCBF4? <F,8?9 B@@<G@8AG G;8A <G <F 8DH4??L A4GHE4? GB

A88787G;4GFH5FH@8FG;8G;E88, *FGB4F<A:?8

4FFH@8G;4GG;8E8<F4:E4@@4G<64?8A6B7<A:B94

G;8BE8G<64? 9E4@8JBE>  #A G;8 A8KG F86G<BA J8

*TF*H5?<6B@@<G@8AG4FJ8?? 086?4<@G;4G

J<?? F88 G;4G G;8 4<@ 64A 58 46;<8I87 5L

G;8 9HA6G<BA4? 8?8@8AG G;4G J8 64??  7B8F G;<F@B7<9L<A: G;8 E8?4G<BA4? * F8@4AG<6F=B5   <F 4 9BE68 @B7<9<8E GB 58 4GG46;87 GB

CEBCBF87 5L 4I<F 54F87 BA G;8 <784 B9 *H5?<6&4A7FC86<9<8FG;4GC<FABG=HFG4@8@58E

B@@<G@8AG  

B9 4 *TF * 5HG 4?FB 4 @8@58E B9 G;8 F4@8

*TF *H5?<6 B@@<G@8AG ,8G  J;<6; <F 4

 & !% %   % * %)  

CBB?B9CFJ;<6;4A4:8AG<FCH5?<6?L6B@@<GG87 %$!% $ " $GB46GHCBA4F<A%% %%  KTF   NC O L  * V NKP K <F   +864?? G;4G BA8 B9 G;8 CEB5?8@F <A;8E8AG GB

106

C,TF<ATP

6B@@<GG87GBLGB46GHCBACP

-;8E89BE8 <9 G;<F 9BE68 @B7<9<8E <F 47=B<A87-;HF4786?4E4G<I8HGG8E4A68J<G;LBFH::8FGF4

GB G;8 FGEH6GHE8 J8 ;4I8 G;8 9B??BJ<A:* 9EB@  GB T <A G;8 ?4GG8E B9 J;<6; ,

F8@4AG<6F

CH5?<6?L 58?<8I8F G;4G C 4A7 , <F 6B@@<GG87 GBG;8BG;8E*FGB46GHCBAC  22C&33WK N T OCKTF*   (BG<68 4?E847L G;4G '6E847LTF 

CKTF<ATPK<AGH<G<BA <F 6BEE86G?L 64CGHE87 5L G;<F CEBCBF4?

G;4A>FGBG;8ABG<BAB9GB:8G;8EJ<G;J;<6;

-;HF 4 786?4E4G<I8 F8AG8A68 J<G;  <F

<F GB 58 E84?<M87 4F +" CBFGFLAG46G<64??L G;8

F8@4AG<64??L4*789<A87<AFH6;4J4LG;4G<A

9BE68 @B7<9<8E FC86<9<8F G;4G <A G;8 HC74G87

G;8 HC74G87 6BAG8KG 4A 4:8AG <F 6B@@<GG87 GB

6BAG8KG , <F 6B@@<GG87 GB 4?? B9 G;8 *F GB 46GG;8@F8?I8F4A7G;8BG;8E*FGB46GHCBAC  

HCBA C  -;8E89BE8 TF <AIB?I87A8FF <F   (BJ J8 4E8 8DH<CC87 J<G; G;8 9BE@4?

FH668FF9H??L 64CGHE87 <A G;8 HF8 B9 +" 

4CC4E4GHF A868FF4EL GB 64CGHE8 G;8 F8@4AG<6F B9

HEG;8E@BE8   7B8F ABG FC86<9L G;4G ABG =HFG

G;8 , *F <A DH8FG<BA  #A J;4G 9B??BJF J8 F88>

, 5HG 4?FB  F;BH?7 6B@8 GB 58?<8I8 G;4G C <F

GB8KC?4<AG;8FLAG4K4A7F8@4AG<6FB9+"!4A7

GEH8 #GBA?LFH::8FGF4*<AFH6;4J4LG;4G,%54F87HCBAG;8F8@4AG<6F<??HFGE4G87<A   <F 6B@@<GG87 GB  GB 46G HCBA C <A G;8 HC74G87



6BAG8KG -;HFG;8946GB5F8EI87<A J;<6;<F* %)  %$!

CEB5?8@4G<6 GB 4I<FTF  BE<:<A4? 466BHAG&8G HF FG4EG J<G; +"  +864?? G;4G G;8 , *

64A 58 FH668FF9H??L 64CGHE87 5L G;8 CE8F8AG

@4>8F , ?<45?8 GB CTF GEHG;9H?A8FF  -;<F @84AF

4A4?LF<F  )9 6BHEF8 ,TF *H5?<6 B@@<G@8AG GB

G;4G5LG;8HF8B9+",<FCH5?<6?L6B@@<GG87GB

46G HCBA C @4>8F <G 84F<8E 9BE  GB 6B@8 GB

46GHCBAC<AG;8HC74G876BAG8KG #AF;BEG<9+"

58?<8I8 G;4G C <F GEH8 F<A68 , 586B@8F ?<45?8 GB

<F CE8F8AG G;8 4E:H@8AG B9 22C & 33 <F

<GF GEHG;9H?A8FF  #A 4 F8AF8 ;8A68 +" 946<?<G4G8F

FC86<9<874F,  

G;8 477<G<BA B9 C GB G;8 B@@BA !EBHA7
,G4?A4>8E

4F87 HCBA G;<F # 6?4<@ G;4G +" <F G;8

CBFGFLAG46G<6 E84?<M4G<BA B9 G;8 ;847 <A G;8

GE88GBC  'BE8 CE86<F8?L # 4FFH@8 9B??BJ<A:* %)  %$!

"4??84A7'4E4AGM 4A7@4ALBG;8EFG;4G   &8GHFA8KG9B6HFBA! +864??G;4GG;8, *

G;8 , * <F G;8 E8FH?G B9 /B645H?4EL #AF8EG<BA GB

8KCE8FF8F ,TF 4FFH@CG<BA G;4G  58?<8I8F G;4G C

G;8 ;847 J;<6; 7B@<A4G8F   -;HF G;8<F GEH8 J;<6; @84AF G;4G <G <F C8EG<A8AG GB TFE8?8I4AGFLAG46G<6FGEH6GHE8<FGB5878C<6G874F

58?<89 45BHG C <A G;8 HC74G87 6BAG8KG HEG;8E@BE8<G<F,J;B4FFH@8FG;4G58?<8I8F

 2 2  2  C&33+"3

G;4G C <F GEH8  -;8F8 GJB F8@4AG<6F B9 G;8 , *64A 58 FGE4<:;G9BEJ4E7?L 64CGHE87 5L 4FFH@<A:

4A7 G;8 F8@4AG<6F B9 G;<F FGEH6GHE8 <F GB 58

G;4G<AFG847B9G;8;847<F987GB J;<6;

789<A874F

8A6B78F G;8 7<F6BHEF8 477E8FF88 <A G;8 GE88GBC -;8 ;847 <F GB 58 E84?<M87 4F ! <A G;8 22C&+"33N T OC,TF*

CBFGFLAG46G<6 CEB68FF B9 /B645H?4EL #AF8EG<BA

107

BA?L J;8A <G 7B@<A4G8F   -;HF G;8 E8?8I4AG

64AJ8@B78?G;<FF8@4AG<6FB9G;8, *

FLAG46G<6FGEH6GHE8<FGB58E8CE8F8AG874F   -;8J4LJ8G4>8<FGB4FFH@8G;4GG;8E8<F4

6B@C?8K 9BE68 @B7<9<8E G;4G J8 64??   -;<F 2 2  2  C&33!3

9BE68 @B7<9<8E 6BAF<FGF B9  4A7 4A 45FGE46G



A8:4G<BA4? 499<K J;<6; J8 9<A7 <A JBE7F ?<>8

4A7G;8F8@4AG<6FB9 <F789<A87<A  

Q!"!F8AF<64?R 4A7 Q%6B@@<G@8AGR  -B:8G;8E



J<G;

 22C&!33N T OCTF*

F8@4AG<64??L 7<6G4G8F G;4G C <F ABG 4 @8@58E B9

22C

&33

G;8

9BE68

@B7<9<8E

4A4:8AGTF <AG;8HC74G876BAG8KG !<I8AG;8

CTF<ATP


946GG;4GG;8, *C8EG4<AFBA?LGB,TF58?<894A7

  F4LF G;4G 4 786?4E4G<I8 HGG8E4A68 J<G; !

*H5?<6<F6B@@<G@8AGG;8;847<F'8E:87<A

FH::8FGF 4 * 9EB@  GB T <A G;8 ?4GG8E B9

G;8 GE88GBC 4F 4A 4E:H@8AG 9BE 22& C 33 

J;<6;  CH5?<6?L 58?<8I8F G;4G C 4A7  <F-;HF 4 786?4E4G<I8 HGG8E4A68 J<G; % ;4F G;8

6B@@<GG87GBG;8BG;8E*F<A6?H7<A:,GB46G

9B??BJ<A:FLAG4K4A7F8@4AG<6F  

HCBA C  -;<F @84AF G;4G <A  4A7  ,

FH::8FGF4*<AFH6;4J4L<F6B@@<GG87GB 2 2  2  C&33%3, 4A7 G;8 BG;8E *F GB 46G HCBA C <GTF 6B?7 , 22C&%33N T OC,TF*

7B8FATGJ4AGGB7B<G #A5LFH::8FG<A:GB

C,TF<ATP

586B@8 CH5?<6?L 6B@@<GG87 GB 46G HCBA C ,<AG8A7F GB 4F68EG4<A G;4G C <F GEH8 J;<6; L<8?7F  A84G?L 64CGHE8F G;8 6BE8 F8@4AG<6F B9 G;8

G;8E8I8EF87G4:DH8FG<BAE847<A:  , * <A DH8FG<BA <G <F 4 * FH::8FG87 5L , <A   (BG<68G;4G<A5BG;8K4@C?8F!TF9HA6G<BA<F

FH6;4J4LG;4G,CH5?<6?L58?<8I8FG;4GCJ;<?8

G;8 F4@8 <G 6BAI8LF G;4G , FH::8FGF 4 6BAG8KG

G;8F4@8*<FABG6B@@<GG87GBGB46GHCBA<G

HC74G8<AFH6;4J4LG;4GC<F4@8@58EB9TF

<A G;8 HC74G87 6BAG8KG  -;<F @84AF G;4G ,<AG;8HC74G876BAG8KG #AG;864F8B95L

CH5?<6<M8F G;4G G;8L 4E8 ABG J<??<A: GB G4>8

HF<A: ! , <AG8A7F GB 6BAI8L G;4G Q F;BH?7

?<45<?<GL GB CTF GEHG;9H?A8FF  TF <A98?<6<GL G;HF

;4I8 46>ABJ?87:87 ,TF E8=86G<BA 4?E847L R

9B??BJF -;8946GFB5F8EI87<A4A79B??BJ

-;8E89BE8 G;8 CE8F8AG 466BHAG 8KC?4<AF G;8

9EB@G;84FFH@CG<BAG;4GG;8E8?8I4AG;847<FABG

F8@4AG<6F B9 ! <A  4A7  <A 4 HA<9<875HG4A7G;8F8@4AG<6FB9& E:BG;8

@4AA8E J<G; G;8 7<998E8A68 58GJ88A G;8@

CE8F8AG 466BHAG 8KC?4<AF G;8 FLAG4K 4A7

FH668FF9H??L64CGHE87  

F8@4AG<6F B9 % <A 4 94<E?L FGE4<:;G9BEJ4E7



94F;<BA * %)  %$!   <A4??L ?8G HF 8KC?4<A G;8 F8@4AG<6F B9 %  ! &$! +864??G;4GG;<F, *C8EG4<AFGB,TF58?<8945BHGC   #A G;<F C4C8E J8 F;BJ87 G;4G +" ! 4A7 %

4A7<G6EH6<4??L@4>8FG;8F4@8*<EE8FCBAF<5?8

C8EG4<A GB 4 C4EG<6H?4E 7<F6BHEF8 4:8AGTF

9BE CTF GEHG;9H?A8FF  #A G8E@F B9 G;8 CE8F8AG

7<F6B@@<G@8AG  -;8 FC86<9<6 7<F6BHEF8 89986GF

466BHAG G;<F @84AF G;4G % @4>8F , CH5?<6?L

B9 G;8 , *F 4E8 8KC?4<A87 <A G8E@F B9 G;8 9BE68

%6B@@<GG87GB46GHCBAG;8CEBCBF<G<BAJ;<?8

@B7<9<8EF4A74A7G;84A7;847FGB58

>88C<A:G;8*TF,8?9B@@<G@8AG<AG46G "BJ

'8E:87 <A G;8 GBC@BFG CBF<G<BA <A G;8 FLAG46G<6108

'6E847L ?<A 

GE88GB9887468EG4<A*GBG;8E8?8I4AGF8@4AG<6  +! % "

6B@CHG4G<BA $&% B6GBE4? 7<FF8EG4G<BA .A<I8EF<GL   '4AL <FFH8F 4E8 ?89G HAGBH6;87 <A G;<F F;BEG

B9-8K4FHFG<A '6E847L ?<A 4A7 ;E<FGBC;8E 4I<F 

C4C8E  BE<AFG4A68H?G<@4G87<F6BHEF89HA6G<BAF



Q,8AG8A689<A4? *4EG<6?8F <A $4C4A8F8R

B9 G;8 , *F F;BH?7 58 78E<I87 5L G;8!"" "

6B@5<A4G<BAB9G;8C4EG<6?8F4A7G;8<AGBA4G<BA4?

#!%  !&% !GHA<A:F 4FFB6<4G87 J<G; G;8@ F88 8FC86<4??L$ &% 87  5L 08F?8L '  $46B5F8A

'6E847L 4A7 4I<F 

4A7 1H><ABE< -4>H5B 'BHGBA 78  #A 477<G<BA G;8

, *F64A4?FB58HF87<ABG;8E6?4HF8GLC8FG;4A

!EHLG8E8E?<A 

786?4E4G<I8FH6;4F<@C8E4G<I84A7<AG8EEB:4G<I8 '<L4:4J4 ,;<:8EH  +!&* ! &$&"#%'#-*E8FF4@5E<7:8' -;8F8 <FFH8F ;4I8 GB 58 477E8FF87 <A 9HGHE8

)F;<@4 4I<7 1  

E8F84E6;   Q)A G;8 *B?LF8@L B9G;8$4C4A8F8<F6BHEF8*4EG<6?8!,GH7L

 -;<F JBE> <F FHCCBEG87 5L $,*, %%("#J<G; ,C86<4? +898E8A68 GB #AGBA4G<BAR

!E4AG(H@58E $"$'  " !&$!&"! ("# !&&'%   ,4<GB '4@BEH 4A7 -B@B>B "4E4:H6;<   
E4A7B@ +B58EG   ! &Q8E<I<A: G;8 4EGB:E4C;L B9 G;8 $4C4A8F8*#&+<:;G

"4EI4E7.A<I8EF<GL*E8FF4@5E<7:8' *8E<C;8EL

-;8

4F8

B9

 $&'&! %"!%

,8AG8A689<A4?<F6BHEF8*4EG<6?8FR $

! !&$"'&"! &" !$!&%  "4EI4E7

! !&$!&"! "'$! " "$&

.A<I8EF<GL*E8FF4@5E<7:8' !'%&%   

E4A7B@ +B58EG 

E4A7B@ +B58EG ,G4?A4>8E +B58EG  &)! +! !!'%&%!"%"#+  

"! ")$% ! !+& $ &% 


"4EI4E7.A<I8EF<GL*E8FF4@5E<7:8' 
"!%&$!!

!&$#$&&"! !&! ! $&% !



4I<F

;E<FGBC;8E



#!% B6GBE4? 7<FF8EG4G<BA .A<I8EF<GL
B9'4FF46;HF8GGF@;8EFG  !8HEGF4EG



B@@<G@8AGQB@@HA<64G<BAF

,;4E<A:

#@C?<64GHE8F

,C886;

B@@BA6GF

!EBHA7R"$&!'%&%  
"4??8 'BEE<F 4A7 ?86 '4E4AGM  
Q<FGE<5HG87 'BEC;B?B:L 4A7 *<868F B9
#A9?86G<BAR  ) $"  '! %%+% ! !'%&% ! "!"$ " +(!$" $$ 87  5L %8A "4?8 4A7 ,4@H8?
$4L

%8LF8E 

'#-

 QB@@BA !EBHA7R*E8FF

4@5E<7:8' 109

2. AGNP ࡢ≉㉁
2. 1. ෆ㒊ᵓ㐀ࡲࡎࠊAGNP ࡣ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࢆチࡍࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ୍⯡࡟(3)ࡢෆ㒊ᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘ࡜௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ
ព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධ࡜ࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃ࡟ࡼࡿᙉไ
(2) [NP [NP1 ࣘࢽࢡࣟࡢ[N T ࢩࣕࢶ]]ࡢ[NP2 L ࢧ⌧㇟ࡢศᯒ㸦An Analysis of the Coercion by Semantic

࢖ࢬࡢ[N ㉥]]]

Head Incorporation and Type Identification㸧(3) [NP NP1-ࡢ-NP2]

㧗ᶫ ᐶ㸦Hiroshi Takahashi㸧

2. 2. ⤫ㄒⓗ୺せ㒊࡜ព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊ࡢࡎࢀ᫛࿴኱Ꮫ㸦Showa University㸧

AGNP ࡢࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ≉ᚩⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࡢࡦ࡜ࡘࡣ
௚ࡢ[NP1-ࡢ-NP2]ᙧྡモྃ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ୺せ㒊ࡀ NP1 ࡟᮶ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆ♧ࡍドᣐ࡜࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ྠ᱁ᒓ᱁ྡモྃ㸪ᙉไ㸪ព࿡ⓗࡋ࡚ࡣ㐟㞳ᩘ㔞モࡢㄆྍࡀ NP2 ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ NP1

୺せ㒊⦅ධ㸪ࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃ

࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᡤ᭷ࡢࠕࡢࠖࢆྵࡴྡモྃ(4a)࡜ AGNP(4b, c)
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

࡜ࢆẚ㍑ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ[NP ࡢ NP]ᙧࢆྲྀࡿྡモྃࡢ࠺ࡕ(1)࡟ᣲࡆࡿྡモྃࡣ≉␗࡞⤫ㄒⓗࠊព࿡ⓗ(4) a. ཭㐩ࡢᮏࢆ㸰෉/*㸰ே೉ࡾࡓࠋ

ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘ(Hiraiwa (2011, 2012), ୕Ꮿ(2011)㸪
㧗ᶫ (2022))ࠋ ௨ୗࠊ㧗ᶫ (2022)࡟࡞ࡽ࠸

b. T ࢩࣕࢶࡢ L ࢧ࢖ࢬࢆ㸰ᯛ/*㸰ಶ㈙ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࢆྠ᱁ᒓ᱁ྡモྃ(Appositive Genitivec. ࢫ࢖࢝ࡢ L ࢧ࢖ࢬࢆ㸰ಶ/*㸰ᯛ㈙ࡗ

Noun Phrase, AGNP)࡜࿧ࡪࠋ

ࡓࠋ(1) a. T ࢩࣕࢶࡢ L ࢧ࢖ࢬࡉࡽ࡟ࡣ⏕㉳ࡢ⩏ົᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ(5a, b)࡟♧b. ∵୻ࡢ኱┒ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ NP2 ࢆ┬␎ࡋ NP1 ࡔࡅṧࡋ࡚ࡶᩥ඲

c. ࣋ࣥࢶࡢ୰ྂ

యࡢᐜㄆᗘ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡞࠸୍᪉࡛ࠊࡑࡢ㏫

d. iPhone ࡢ 256GB

ࡣᩥࡢᐜㄆᗘࢆୗࡆࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ NP1

e. グᛕษᡭࡢ౑⏝῭ࡳ

ࡢ᪉ࡀ୺せ㒊ⓗᛶ㉁ࢆࡶࡘ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣ AGNP ࡟ほᐹࡉࢀࡿព࿡ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ

(5) a. ࡑࡢ T ࢩࣕࢶ㸦ࡢ L ࢧ࢖ࢬ㸧ࡣ࡜࡚ࡶኚ ᭦ ࢆ ࠸ ࢃ ࡺ ࡿ ᙉ ไ ⌧ ㇟ (coercion)(Pustejovsky(1995),

JackendoffᏳ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ(1997),

b. ??ࡑࡢ L ࢧ࢖ࢬࡣ࡜࡚ࡶᏳ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

Audring & Booij (2016)௚)ࡢ୍஦౛࡛࠶ࡿ࡜

㸦㧗ᶫ 2022: 37㸧୺ᙇࡋࠊ㧗ᶫ (2022)࡛ᥦ᱌ࡋࡓ AGNP ࡢゎ
2.3. 㝈ᐃᒓ᱁ྡモྃ࡜ㄒ㡰ಽ⨨ศᯒ㔘࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡛࠶ࡿព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධ(Semantic Head Incorporation)࠾ࡼࡧࢱ࢖ࣉྠ

Hiraiwa (2011, 2012), ୕Ꮿ(2011)ࡽࡀᣦ᦬

ᐃ(Type Identification)ࢆࡼࡾ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ゝㄒᏛࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟㸪AGNP ࡢ NP1 ࡜ NP2 ࡣಽ⨨ྍ⬟ⓗ᧯స࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨࡙ࡅࠊ௚ࡢᵓᩥ࡬ࡢ㐺⏝ྍ࡛࠶ࡾࠊྡモྃ඲యࡢᣦ♧≀ࡣኚࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ

⬟ᛶࢆ♧ࡍࠋ

AGNP ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྡモྃ(6)ࢆ㧗

110

ᶫ

(2022) ࡟ ࡞ ࡽ ࠸ 㝈 ᐃ ᒓ ᱁ ྡ モ ྃ࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ

㸦Restrictive Genitive Noun Phrase, RGNP㸧࡜(9) a. ൅ࡣ[ࢩ࢙࢖ࢡࡢ࢖ࢳࢦ࿡]ࢆ㣧ࢇࡔࠋ࿧ࡪࠋ

b. *൅ࡣ[㣧ࡳ≀ࡢ࢖ࢳࢦ࿡]ࢆ㣧ࢇࡔࠋ(6) a. L ࢧ࢖ࢬࡢ T ࢩࣕࢶ(10) a. *[ࢭ࣮ࢱ࣮ࡢ࢝ࢩ࣑࢔]ࢆ㈙ࡗࡓࠋ

b. ኱┒ࡢ∵୻b. ?[ࢭ࣮ࢱ࣮ࡢ࢝ࢩ࣑࢔㸯㸮㸮㸣]ࢆ㈙c. ୰ྂࡢ࣋ࣥࢶ

ࡗࡓࠋd. 256GB ࡢ iPhonee. ౑⏝῭ࡳࡢグᛕษᡭࡲࡓᚋ࡛ㄽࡌࡿࡼ࠺࡟ AGNP ࡢᐜㄆᗘࡣㄯ
ヰ ⓗせ ᅉ࡟ࡶ ᕥྑ ࡉࢀࡿ ࡓࡵ ࠊ RGNP ࡜

Hiraiwa (2012, 2013)ࡣ AGNP ࡜ RGNP ࡢྠ

AGNP ࢆ⤫ㄒⓗ࡟㛵㐃௜ࡅࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡟㛵⩏ᛶ࠿ࡽྡモྃෆ㒊ࡢಽ⨨࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᚋ⪅࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊᚋ⪅ࡢ㐺᱁ᛶࢆಖドࡍࡿఱࡽ࠿ࡢព

ࡽ๓⪅ࢆὴ⏕ࡍࡿㄒ㡰ಽ⨨ศᯒࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ

࿡ⓗࠊㄯヰⓗ࡞㐺᱁ᛶ᮲௳ࢆタࡅ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࠸
ࡅ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(7) [[ࡳࡌࢇษࡾ-ࡢ]ࢿࢠ]э[[ࢿࢠࡢ][ࡳࡌࢇ3. 㧗ᶫ (2022)ࡢศᯒ

ษࡾ-ࡢ[e]]]๓⠇࡛ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓၥ㢟ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊ㧗ᶫࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㧗ᶫ (2022)࡛ㄽࡌࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ(7)ࡢ

(2022)࡛ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᥦ᱌ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋಽ⨨ࡀᖖ࡟㐺᱁࡞ AGNP ࢆὴ⏕ࡍࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈

ࡲࡎࠊAGNP ࡟࠾ࡅࡿຓモࠕࡢࠖࡣ NP1 ࡜

ࡽࡎࠊ(8a-c)ࡢ RGNP ࠿ࡽὴ⏕ࡍࡿ AGNP

NP2 ࢆ ࠕ ඲ య ࣭ 㒊 ศ ࠖ ࡢ 㛵 ಀ 㸦 whole-part(8a’-c’)ࡣᐜㄆᗘࡀ኱ࡁࡃୗࡀࡿࡓࡵࠊㄒ㡰ಽ

relation㸧࡛⤖ࡪព࿡ⓗᶵ⬟ࢆࡶࡘࠋ ୍᪉ࠊ⨨ศᯒ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣ⛣ື࡟ᑐࡍࡿఱࡽ࠿ࡢ᮲

RGNP ࡢຓモࠕࡢࠖࡣ NP1 ࡜ NP2 ࢆ㝈ᐃಟ௳ࢆタࡅࡿ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣὴ⏕ᙧࡢ AGNP ࡟㣭㛵ಀ㸦restrictive modification㸧࡛⤖ࡪࠋព࿡ゎ㔘ୖࡢไ⣙ࢆㄢࡉࡊࡿࢆᚓ࡞࠸ࠋ ḟ࡟ AGNP ࡢゎ㔘࡟㛵ࢃࡿ᧯స࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕࢱ
࢖ࣉྠᐃࠖ
㸦Type Identification㸧࡜ࠕព࿡ⓗ୺(8) a. ᘵࡣ[ࢫࢳ࣮ࣝ〇ࡢᮘ]ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

せ㒊⦅ධࠖ㸦Semantic Head Incorporation㸧ࡢ(RGNP)

㸰ࡘࢆ௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ

a’. ??ᘵࡣ[ᮘࡢࢫࢳ࣮ࣝ〇]ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(AGNP)

AGNP ࡢ㢮ఝ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ NP2 ࡢ୺せ㒊࡟㍍ྡモࠕࡸࡘࠖࠕࡶࡢࠖ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㡢ኌⓗ࡟✵b. ࡇࢀࡣ[຾἟⏘ࡢⴵⴇ]࡛సࡗࡓ࣡࢖ࣥ

ࡢ௦ྡモⓗせ⣲ Pro ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ(11)ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇ

ࡔࠋ(RGNP)ࢀࡣୖ࡛௬ᐃࡋࡓຓモࠕࡢࠖࡢᶵ⬟࠿ࡽ(12)b’. ??ࡇࢀࡣ[ⴵⴇࡢ຾἟⏘]࡛సࡗࡓ࣡࢖

ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ព࿡ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇ

ࣥࡔࠋ(AGNP)

ࡇ࡛㍍ྡモࡸ Pro ࡣ[EntityTHING(S)]ࡢព࿡ࢱ

c. ᤲ㝖୰࡟࠺ࡗ࠿ࡾ[஑㇂↝ࡢ─]ࢆ๭ࡗ

࢖ࣉ࡟ᒓࡍࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊࡑࢀ⮬యࡣලయⓗ࡞ព࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࠋ(RGNP)࿡ෆᐜࢆᣢࡓࡎࠊゎ㔘ࡢ㝿࡟ࡣࡑࡢព࿡ෆᐜ

c’. *ᤲ㝖୰࡟࠺ࡗ࠿ࡾ[─ࡢ஑㇂↝]ࢆ๭ࢆ௚࡟ồࡵ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࢆ⾜࠺ࡢࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࠋ(AGNP)ࡀࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃ࡛࠶ࡾࠊព࿡ෆᐜࡢ≉ᐃࢆࢠࣜࢩࣕᩥᏐࡢ࢔ࣝࣇ࢓࣋ࢵࢺȘࢆ⏝࠸ࡓྠ୍

ࡉࡽ࡟ࡣ(9)ࠊ(10)࠿ࡽࠊAGNP ඲యࡢᐜㄆᗘ

ᣦᶆ࡛♧ࡍࠋ1 (12)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃ

ࢆୗࡆࡿࡢࡣ NP1ࠊNP2 ࡝ࡕࡽࡶࡑࡢཎᅉ࡟

ࡣ NP1 ࡜ NP2 ࡢ୺せ㒊ྡモࡢ㛫࡛㉳ࡇࡾࠊྡ111

ࡇࡇ࡛ 2.3 ⠇ࡢ᭱ᚋ࡛ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓ AGNP ࡟ㄢモྃ඲యࡢព࿡⾲♧࡜⤫ㄒᵓ㐀࡜ࡢᑐᛂࡣ
(13)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡍ࡭ࡁไ⣙࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿࠋ࣏࢖ࣥࢺ࡜࡞ࡿ
ࡢࡣ(8)-(10)ࡢ AGNP ࡢᐜㄆᗘࡣⴠࡕࡿࡀࠊ

(11) ࡇࡢᗑ࡛ࡣ[NP[NP1T ࢩࣕࢶ]ࡢ[NP2[L ࢧࡇࢀࢆ(11)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㍍ྡモ㸭Pro ࢆక࠺ᙧ࡟

࢖ࢬ]ࡢ[N ࡸࡘ㸭ࡶࡢ㸭Pro]]]ࡀࡼࡃ኎

ࡍࡿ࡜ᐜㄆྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢀࡿࠋ(12) [Entity T-SHIRTSȘ]ө[Entity [Property(15) a. ᘵࡣᮘࡢࢫࢳ࣮ࣝ〇ࡢ㸦ࡸࡘ㸧ࢆ౑ࡗ

LARGE-SIZED]ҏ[Entity THING(S)Ș]]࡚࠸ࡿࠋb. ࡇࢀࡣⴵⴇࡢ຾἟⏘ࡢ㸦ࡸࡘ㸧࡛స

ࡇࡇ࡛͂AөB̓ࡣࠕB ࡣ A ࡢ㒊ศࢆᡂࡍࠖࠊ
͂AҏB̓ࡣࠕA ࡣ B ࢆ㝈ᐃಟ㣭ࡍࡗࡓ࣡࢖ࣥࡔࠋ
c. ᤲ㝖୰࡟࠺ࡗ࠿ࡾ─ࡢ஑㇂↝ࡢ㸦ࡸࡿࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
(13)ࡘ㸧ࢆ๭ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࠋ
d. ൅ࡣ㣧ࡳ≀ࡢ࢖ࢳࢦ࿡ࡢ㸦ࡸࡘ㸧ࢆ㣧ࢇࡔࠋe. ࢭ࣮ࢱ࣮ࡢ࢝ࢩ࣑࢔〇ࡢ㸦ࡸࡘ㸧ࢆ㈙ࡗࡓࠋ
(13)ࠊ(14)࡛♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ AGNP ࡶ(15)ࡢྡ
モྃࡶ඲ࡃྠࡌゎ㔘ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ୧⪅ࡢ᭱⤊ⓗ࡞ព࿡⾲♧࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸࡚ AGNP ࡔ୍᪉ࠊ(11)࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾ㍍ྡモ㸭Pro ࢆకࢃࡅࢆᐜㄆ୙ྍ࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ୧⪅ࡢ

࡞࠸ AGNP ࡢ NP2 ࡟ࡣព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධ၏୍ࡢ㐪࠸ࡣព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධࡀ AGNP ࡟࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ Entity ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࢆࡶࡘព࿡ⓗ୺せࡔࡅ㐺⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡺ࠼࡟ព࿡

㒊 THING(S)ࡀ⦅ධࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡾࡶ࡜

ⓗ࣭ㄯヰⓗ࡞㐺᱁ᛶ᮲௳ࡣព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධࡶ࡜ព࿡ࢱ࢖ࣉࡀ Property ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ NP2 ࡢ୺ࡢ㐺⏝ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟ㄢࡏࡽࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡊࡿࢆせ㒊ࠊ౛࠼ࡤ(13)࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕL ࢧ࢖ࢬࠖࡣ᪂

ᚓ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ⪃ᐹ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚㧗ᶫ (2022)ࡣ

ࡓ࡟⦅ධࡉࢀࡓ THING(S)࡜㝈ᐃಟ㣭㛵ಀࢆ(16)ࡢ᮲௳ࢆ௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣḟ⠇⤖ࡧࠊNP2 ඲యࡀ Entity ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ኚ᥮ࡉࢀ

࡛ࡉࡽ࡟ㄽࡌࡿࠋ

ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆ␎グࡋࡓࡢࡀ(14)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(16) ព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධࡢ㐺⏝᮲௳
(14)

࠶ࡿ NP ࡬ࡢព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධࡀチࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃ࡛ࡑࡢ NP ࡢඛ⾜モ࡜࡞ࡿ NP ࡢព࿡ࢱ࢖ࣉࡀ័⩦ࡸ୍⯡ᖖ㆑࡞࡝ゝㄒእࡢ▱㆑࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚᭷㝈ಶࡢୗ఩ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟వࡍ࡜ࡇࢁ࡞ࡃศࡅࡽࢀࡿ
ሙྜ࡟㝈ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

㧗ᶫ (2022: 27)

4. ᙉไ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධ ௨ୖࠊ㧗ᶫ (2022)࡟ࡼࡿ AGNP ࡢศᯒࢆᴫほࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊࡇࡇ࠿ࡽࡣࡑࡢศᯒ࡛୰ᚰ

112

ⓗ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධ࠾ࡼࡧ

᱌ࡍࡿᙉไ࡟࠿࠿ࡿ㢧ⴭࡉ㸦noteworthiness㸧ࡑࢀ࡟௜㝶ࡍࡿࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃࡀ AGNP ࡢゎ㔘ࡢㄯヰⓗไ⣙࡟ໟᦤྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ2ࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊே㛫ࡢゝㄒ࡟ᗈࡃほᐹࡉࢀࡿᙉ

ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ(18)ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉᙉไࡀチࡉࢀ࡚ࠊ(21)ไ⌧㇟ࢆᢅ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁࡿ㠀ᖖ࡟୍⯡ⓗ࡞࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣチࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊࣞࢫࢺࣛࣥᚑᴗ

ゝㄒ᧯స࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

ဨ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᐈࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿࡢ࡟ὀᩥရ࡟ὀ┠ AGNP ࡟࠾ࡅࡿព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධࡣ୍⯡ࡍࡿࡢࡣㄯヰⓗ࡟⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᐈࡢ㐃ࢀࡣⓗ࡟(17)࡟♧ࡍព࿡ࡢኚ᭦ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍࠋ

ᬑ㏻ὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁ≉ᚩ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(17) [Property X]э[Entity [Property X]ҏ[Entity Y]](21) #The blonde lady over there in the corner
wants a hamburger. (i.e. the man with theblonde lady)ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ኚ᥮ࡣ(18)ࡢᩥࡢ୺ㄒྡモ(Jackendoff 1997: 57)

ྃ࡟ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ
୍᪉ࠊ(16)ࡢ᮲௳࡛ NP2 ࡀ NP1 ࡢព࿡ࢱ࢖ࣉ
(18) The ham sandwich over there in the cornerࢆ᭷㝈ಶࡢୗ఩ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ศࡅࡿ࡜ࡣࠊ⤖ᒁࡢ

wants some more coffee.

࡜ࡇࢁ NP1 ࡢ୰࠿ࡽୗ఩ࢱ࢖ࣉࢆ㑅ࡧࡸࡍࡃࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ NP1 ࡢὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁ≉ᚩࢆ NP2ࡇࢀࡀࣞࢫࢺࣛࣥࡢᗑဨ࡟ࡼࡿⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࡀᣦᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡶゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡍ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊthe ham sandwich over there ࡣ᫂ࡽ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ(8a’=22a)ࡀᝏ࠸ࡢࡣࠊ㏻ᖖᮘࡢ⣲ᮦ࠿࡟ࡑࢀࢆὀᩥࡋࡓᐈࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࠊྠࡌ

࡟ไ㝈ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࢫࢳ࣮ࣝ〇࡜࠸࠺ᛶ㉁ࡀᮘࡢ

Entity ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢ THING ࠿ࡽ PERSONୗ఩ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ୰࠿ࡽ୍ࡘࢆ㑅ࡧฟࡍࡓࡵ࡟

࡬ࡢព࿡ኚ᥮ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡

ὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁᛶ㉁࡜ࡣ࠸࠼࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺⌮⏤࠿ኚ ᥮ ࡣ ࠕ ࢱ ࢖ ࣉ ᙉ ไ ࠖ (type coercion)ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀᐙලᗑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦ࢆ୚

(Jackendoff 1997: 58)ࠊࡲࡓࡣࠕᣑᙇ࡟ࡼࡿᙉ

࠼࡚ࠊࢫࢳ࣮ࣝ〇࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮘࢆ᭷㝈ಶࡢไࠖ(coercion by enrichment)(Audring & Booijୗ఩ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ศࡅࡿᒓᛶ࡟࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡍࡿ

2016㸧࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿᙉไ⌧㇟(coercion)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

࡜ᐜㄆᗘࡣୖࡀࡿࠋ3(18)࡛㉳ࡇࡿࢱ࢖ࣉᙉไࡣᴫ␎(19)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟
⾲グ࡛ࡁࠊࡇࢀࡣព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධ(17)ࢆࣃ

(22) a. ??ᘵࡣ[ᮘࡢࢫࢳ࣮ࣝ〇]ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࣛࣇࣞ࢖ࢬࡋࡓ(20)ࡢព࿡ኚ᥮࡜㔜࡞ࡿࠋ≉b.㸦ᐙලᗑ࡛㸧?[ᮘࡢࢫࢳ࣮ࣝ〇]࡛࡞࡟

࡟ኚ᥮ᚋ࡟ࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜ࡢྡモྃ୺せ㒊ࡀព࿡࠿Ⰻ࠸ࡢࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡍ࠿㸽ⓗ࡟ಟ㣭せ⣲࡟ࠕ᱁ୗࡆࠖࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ(16)ࡢ᮲௳ࡀࢱ࢖ࣉᙉไࡢ㢧ⴭࡉࡢㄯヰⓗไ⣙࠿ࡽࣇ࢛࣮ࣟࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼(19) [Entity THINGȘ]э[Entity PERSONࡿ࡜ࠊAGNP ࡟࠾ࡅࡿព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධࢆࢱ

CONTEXTUALLY ASSOCIATED WITH

࢖ࣉᙉไ࡟୍⯡໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡣጇᙜᛶࡀ࠶

THINGȘ]ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
 AGNP ࢆᙉไ⌧㇟࡜ࡳࡿࡶ࠺ࡦ࡜ࡘࡢ⌮(20) [Property X]э[Entity THING WHICH HAS
THE PROPERTY OF X]⏤ࡣࠊᙉไࡢ㉳ࡇࡾࡸࡍࡉࡢẁ㝵ⓗ࡞㐪࠸ࡀ
AGNP ࡟ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙉไࡣ(18)ḟ࡟ព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධࡢ㐺⏝᮲௳(16)࡟┠ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᩥ⬦࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࡑࡢሙ࡛㸦on the spot㸧ࢆྥࡅࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ Nunberg (1995: 114㸧ࡀᥦ

THING ࠿ࡽ PERSON ࡬ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉᙉไࡀ㉳113ࡇࡿࡶࡢ࠿ࡽࠊ͆She drives a Honda.͇ ࡟ぢࡽࢆᚓࡿ࡜ศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࢀ ࡿ ୗ ఩ ࢱ ࢖ ࣉ ᙉ ไ 㸦 subtype coercion;ḟ࡟ Ass Camouflage Construction (Collins,

Pustejovsky 1995: 113㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄒᙡⓗ᝟ሗ࡜

Moody and Postal 2008)ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋ(25)ࡢ

ࡋ࡚ Qualia ࡟ᣦᐃࡉࢀࡓព࿡᝟ሗ࡟ᇶ࡙

ື モ ࡢ ⿵ 㒊 ྡ モ ྃ ࡣ ‘she, who is a stupid࠸ ࡚ ᙉ ไ ࡀ ㉳ ࡇ ࡿ ࡶ ࡢ ࠊ ࡑ ࡋ ࡚ the richperson’࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣᥦ႘ⓗ࡞ࢱ(=[Entity PEOPLE] WHO ARE RICH])ࠊgo for a࢖ࣉᙉไࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(26)࡟

drink (=[Entity ALCOHOLE] FOR DRINKING)ᙜヱྡモྃࡢព࿡⾲♧ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣព࿡

ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ័⏝⾲⌧໬ࡉࢀ࡯ࡰ↓᮲௳࡟ᙉไⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ PERSON ࡀᑟධࡉࢀ

ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡶࡢࡲ࡛ẁ㝵ⓗ࡞㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣ‘ass’࠿ࡽࡢᥦ႘࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㥑ྠᵝ࡟ AGNP ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠕL ࢧ࢖ࢬࠖࠕ኱

ືࡉࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࡑࡢ PERSON ࡀྡモྃᣦ┒ࠖࠕ୰ྂࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ෆᅾⓗ࡟ព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊ᐃ㒊ࡢ HER ࡜ࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃ࡟ࡼࡾᣦ♧≀ࡀ≉⦅ධࢆཷࡅࡸࡍ࠸ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕᙉไࢆཷࡅࡸࡍ

ᐃࡉࢀࠊୖ㏙ࡢゎ㔘ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿࠋ

࠸ᛶ㉁ࢆࡶࡘࡶࡢ࡜ࠊ(22b)ࡢࠕࢫࢳ࣮ࣝ〇ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡑࡢሙ࡛࿘ᅖࡢᩥ⬦࡟ᇶ࡙࠸୍࡚

(25) They done arrested her stupid ass.

᫬ⓗ࡞ᙉไࢆཷࡅࡿࡶࡢ࡜࡟ศࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ

(26) [HERȘ[[STUPID]ҏ[PERSONȘ]]]5. ௚ࡢᵓᩥ࡬ࡢᛂ⏝࡞࠾ࠊAss Camouflage Construction ࡣ᮰⦡࡟ ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ㄽࡌ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊㛵ࡋ࡚⤫ㄒⓗ࡞୺せ㒊࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃᣦᐃ㒊ࡀ↷⦅ධ࡜ࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃࡀ AGNP ࢆྵࡴᙉไ⌧㇟ᛂᙧࡢඛ⾜モ࡜ࡋ࡚ാࡃ࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩࡀ࠶ࡿࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ព࿡᧯స࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ

ࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣ PERSON ࡢ⦅ධ࡜ࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃ࡟

࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀࡑࡢ௚ࡢᵓᩥ࡟ࡶᗈࡃ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡼࡗ࡚ྡモྃᣦᐃ㒊 his ࡢព࿡ෆᐜࡀ୺せ㒊ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦౛ࢆ௨

ass ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ PERSON ࡟ᣢࡕ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ

ୗ࡛ࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

࡜ࡋ࡚ㄝ᫂ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡲࡎ(23)ࡢ Qualitative Binominal Noun Phrase(Ike-uchi 1986, Aarts 1998, Dikken 2006)࡟࠾

(27) a. His ass done messed himself up.

࠸࡚ࡣ㞃႘ⓗࢱ࢖ࣉᙉไࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃b. *His ass done messed itself up.
(Collins, Moody and Postal 2008: 39)

࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(23a)ࡢព࿡⾲♧ࡣ(24)ࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࢁ࠺ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ
ࠕ=ࠖࡣྠ୍㛵ಀ(identical ➨㸱࡟ Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 410-)

relation)ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

ࡀ Fused-head Construction ࡜࿧ࡪ(28)ࡢࡼ࠺
(23) a. the angel of a girl࡞⾲⌧ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋ

b. this jewel of an island(28) a. He ignored the most important of her(24) [[PERSONȘLIKE AN ANGEL]=[GIRLȘ]]criticisms. (Huddleston and Pullum
2002: 332)

(24)࡛♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊྡモྃ angel ࡟ࡣព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ PERSON ࡀࡶࡓࡽࡉࢀࠊ

b. Colton Pointz, Brayden Reites andࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜୺せ㒊࡛࠶ࡗࡓ angel ࡣಟ㣭㒊࡬࡜

Michael Joyce were not the likeliest of᱁ୗࡆࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡟ࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃࡀ㐺⏝ࡋࠊguys to come together.

PERSON ࡢព࿡ࢱ࢖ࣉࡣ GIRL ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ

(https://www.bub-city.com/live-music/b

Ỵࡲࡾࠊྡモྃ඲యࡣ‘an angelic girl’ࡢゎ㔘

ack-country-roads-band-7-14-22/)114

<accessed 15/9/2022>

ᐃࡣᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(28b)ࡢ the likeliest of guys to come together ࡛(32) ኴ㑻ࡢࣂ࢝ࡀࡲࡓ࠸ࡓࡎࡽࢆࡋࡓࠋ

ࡣ㸲⠇࡛ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓ the rich ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᙉไ࡜ྠ

(33) [[Entity TAROȘ]=[Entity FOOLISHPERSON]Ș]ࡌࡃࢱ࢖ࣉᙉไࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ Entity X ࡀᑟධࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥ
࡟≉᭷࡞ࡢࡣࠊྠ᫬࡟ࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃࡀ㐺⏝ࡋࠊ

6. ⤖ㄒ

X ࡢព࿡ෆᐜࡀ௜ຍモࡢ of guys ࠿ࡽࡶࡓࡽ

AGNP ࢆࡣࡌࡵ࡜ࡋ࡚ゝㄒ࡟ࡣᙉไ⌧㇟࡜ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ the likeliest ࡣ‘theࡋ࡚ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁࡿᵝࠎ࡞ព࿡ⓗ୺

guys who are likeliest to…’࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋせ㒊ࡢ⦅ධࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㧗 ᶫ(2022)࡛ AGNP ࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢព࿡ⓗ᧯స(29) [PROPERTY LIKELIEST] э [ENTITY[PROPERTY࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ᱌ࡋࡓព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධ࠾ࡼࡧࡑ

LIKELIEST] ҏ [ENTITY XĮ]] ᄬ [ENTITY

ࢀ࡟௜㝶ࡍࡿࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃࡀࡇࢀࡽࡢᗈ⠊࡞GUYSĮ]]

ᙉไ⌧㇟ࢆ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ᢅ࠼ࡿᬑ㐢ⓗ࡞ゝㄒⓗ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡜ࡋ࡚ே㛫ࡢゝㄒ▱㆑ࡢ୰࡟఩

➨㸲࡟␲ఝ㒊ศᵓᩥ㸦Ლ⏣ 2011, Keizer⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ

2007㸧࡟┠ࢆྥࡅࡿࠋὀ(30) Two bottles of wine were fermenting.

1(31) [[THINGĮ IN TWO BOTTLES]=[WINEĮ]]PropertyࠊTHINGࠊPERSONࠊT-SHRIT ࡞࡝ࡇ ࡇ ࡛ ព ࿡ ࢱ ࢖ ࣉ ࡜ ࿧ ࡪ ࡢ ࡣ Entity ࠊ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚౛࠼ࡤ
THING=T-SHIRT ࡢࡼ࠺࡟๓⪅ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢල

(30)࡛ࡣ CONTAINER ࠿ࡽ CONTENT ࡬ࡢ
4᥮႘ⓗࢱ࢖ࣉᙉไ ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠊ యⓗ࡞ព࿡ෆᐜࡀỴࡲࡿࠋࡲࡓ 5 ⠇࡛ࡳࡿࡼࡇࢀࡶព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධ࡟ࡼࡿ THING ࡢᑟ࠺࡟ࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃࡀ௦ྡモࡢ↷ᛂ࡟㏆࠸㛵ಀධ࡜ࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚(31)ࡢゎ㔘ࢆᚓࡿࠋࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ(26)ࠊ(33)ࢆཧ↷ࠋᩘࡢ୍⮴࠿ࡽ two bottles of wine ࡢ⤫ㄒⓗ୺

2せ㒊ࡣ bottles ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࡀࠊືモ‘predicate transfer’࡜࿧ࡪ㏙㒊࡟ᑐࡍࡿព࿡

ferment ࡢ㑅ᢥไ㝈࠿ࡽព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊ࡣ᫂ࡽኚ᭦࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ Nunberg (1995)

࠿࡟ wine ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(31)ࡢព࿡⾲♧ࡣព࿡ⓗ୺ࡢไ⣙ࢆࢱ࢖ࣉᙉไ࡟ᣑᙇࡋ࡚ㄽࡌࡿࠋ

せ㒊 THING ࡢෆᐜࡀ WINE ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧3ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࡢ஦ᐇࢆㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ5࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᐇ౛ࡀぢࡘ࠿ࡿࠋ᭱ ᚋ ࡟ ⳥ ᆅ (2008) ࡀ ホ ౯ ⓗ ྠ ᱁ ᵓ ᩥ(i) a. [ࣈ࣮ࣜࣇࢣ࣮ࢫࡢ㠉〇]࡛࠾ࡍࡍࡵ

ṇ☜࡟ࡣ Nunberg (1995)ࡀᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠕࠥ〇ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྡモྃࡀ NP2 ࡜࡞ࡿ AGNP

(Evaluative Appositive Construction)࡜࿧ࡪ(32)ࡣ㸽(https://mens-modern.jp/7617)

ࡢ⾲⌧ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡶព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊<accessed 3/9/2021>⦅ධ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕࣂ࢝ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ Property ࡀb. ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ[≀ᖸࡋ➎ࡢ࢔࣑ࣝ〇]ࡢࡈࡘ

FOOLISH-PERSON ࡜࠸࠺ Entity ࡟ኚ᥮ࡉࢀ

࠸ࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ⪏Ⲵ㔜ࡣ 20kg ఩࡛ࡍࡋࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ࡀࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡟⌧ࢀࡿ⨬ࡾ[͐](https://realestate.yahoo.co.jp/knowl

ㄒࡣ㎡᭩ࡢ୰࡛᭱ึ࠿ࡽ Entity ࡢゎ㔘ࡀ୚

edge/chiebukuro/detail/1466487689/)

࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ࠸ࡎࢀ

<accessed 3/9/2021>
4࡟ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃ࡟ࡼࡿ PERSON ࡢ≉

115ࡇࢀࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡶࠕࡸ࠿ࢇࡀἛࡃࠖ
ࠕ㛗࠸ᮏࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ

inverted relativization in Japanese: A silent

5ࡓࡔࡋࠊᩘࡢ୍⮴࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࢱ࢖ࣉᙉไ࡛ࡣ

linkerၥ㢟ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋNunberg (1995)ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ

Linguistics 48.2, 348-388.

andHiraiwa,࠺࡟ࢱ࢖ࣉᙉไ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚(ii)ࡢゎ㔘ࢆᚓࡿ(i)inversion,”

Ken

Journal(2013)

of“Kuroda’sࡢ୺ㄒྡモྃࡣ⤫ㄒⓗ୺せ㒊࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃព࿡

Left-Headedness and Linkers,” In Bjarkeⓗ୺せ㒊࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᩘࡢ୍⮴ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋFrellesvig and Peter Sells (eds.), Japanese(i) That (*those) french fries is (*are) getting

Korean Linguistics 20, CLSI Publications,

impatient.

Stanford, CA, 329-345.

(Nunberg 1995: 120)

Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum(ii) [THAT [PERSON WHO ORDERED(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the

FRENCH FRIES]]

English Language, Cambridge University(iii)

Press, Cambridge.
Ike-uchi,

Masayuki

appositional(1986)

of“Nounswithcomplements

andpseudo-partitive NP’s,” English Linguistics
3, 98-117.
Jackendoff. Ray (1997) The Architecture of theLanguage Faculty, MIT Press, Cambridge,MA.
ࡇࡇ࡛ࡶព࿡ⓗ୺せ㒊⦅ධ࡜ࢱ࢖ࣉྠᐃࡀ

Ლ⏣ᖾᰤ (2011)ࠕ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᨃఝ㒊ศ㐺⏝ࡋࠊ(iii)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡⾲♧ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿ࡜

ᵓ㐀̿ᵓᩥࡢᣑᙇ̿ࠖࠗ༓ⴥ኱Ꮫேᩥ⛉ศᯒྍ⬟࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ␲ఝ㒊ศᵓᩥ࡜ࡇࡢࢱ

Ꮫ◊✲࠘22, 1-15.

࢖ࣉᙉไ࡛ᩘࡢ୍⮴࡟⤫ㄒⓗ୺せ㒊ࡀ㛵ࢃKeizer, Evelin (2007) The English Noun Phrase:ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡛㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣఱࡽ࠿ࡢㄝ

The Nature of Linguistic Categorization,᫂ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢၥ㢟࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ௒ᚋࡢ

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

ㄢ㢟࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

⳥ᆅᮁ (2008)ࠕホ౯ⓗྠ᱁ᵓᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ
㔠Ꮚ⩏᫂㸪⳥ᆅᮁ㸪㧗ᶫ኱ཌ㸪ᑠᕝⰾᶞ㸪ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Aarts, Bas (1998) “Binominal noun phrases inᓥ㉺㑻(⦅)ࠗゝㄒ◊✲ࡢ⌧ᅾ̾ᙧᘧ࡜ព
࿡ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࣮ࢫ࠘, 㛤ᣅ♫, ᮾி,English,” Transactions of the Philological

280-290.

Society 96. 1, 117-58.
Audring,

Jenny,

୕Ꮿ▱ᏹ (2011)ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙

and Geert

Booij(2016)

࢖ࢫ࠘, ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧, ᮾி.

“Cooperation and coercion,” Linguistics 54.

Nunberg,

4, 617-637.

meaning,”

Collins, Chris, S. Moody, and P. M. Postal(2008)

Geoffery“An

AAE(1995)

Journalof“Transfers

ofSemantics

12,

109-132.

camouflage

Pustejovsky, James (1995) The Generative

construction,” Language 84.1, 29-68.

Lexicon, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Dikken, Marcel den (2006) Relators and Linkers,㧗ᶫᐶ (2022)ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢྠ᱁ᒓ᱁ྡモྃࡢ

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

ゎ㔘࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࠖࠗ㒔␃ᩥ⛉኱Ꮫ◊✲⣖Hiraiwa, Ken (2012) “The mechanism of

せ࠘95, 17-39.

116

(1) a. John must wash his car every day, andPeter must, too. (root; *epistemic)b. John doesn’t obey his mother, but hemust his father. (root; *epistemic)c. Sam must know more syntax than Max

Modalities of Post-Auxiliary Ellipsis:
A False Dichotomy?

*

must phonology. (root; *epistemic)(McDowell (1987:230−234))(2) a.* John must be eating already, and Bill

Yosuke Satomust, too.

Tsuda University

b. John must be a good boy, and Bill must,

Hajime Ono
Tsuda University

too. (root; *epistemic)

Haruka Ikebuchi(Asakawa and Kamata (1986:187, 188))(3) a.* John must be tall, and Bill must, too.

Tsuda University

b. Peter must be polite to his parents, andFuwa Makino

you must, too. (root; *epistemic)

Tsuda University(Imanishi and Asano (1990:348, 349))

Nonoko Morita
Tsuda University

The other observation is that the root

Misato Nagumo

interpretation

Tsuda University

constraint above applies fornecessity, but not possibility, modals (Gergel(2003, 2007, 2009); Aelbrecht and Harwood

Keywords㸸post-auxiliary ellipsis, modal syntax,(2019)), as shown by the examples in (4−6).

same subject requirement, voice mismatch,
modal complement ellipsis(4) a.* Mary must have fallen from the oldladder, and Peter must, too. (necessity)b. Mary may have fallen from the older

1. Introduction

ladder, and Peter may, too. (possibility)

In this paper, we will propose a new analysis(Gergel (2007:176))of modal syntax and its interaction with

(5) a.* Mary must be a successful student, andPost-Auxiliary Ellipsis (hereafter, PAE).

they say Frances must, too. (necessity)

There are two well-known observations madein the literature on modality and modally licensed

b. Mary may be a successful student, andPAE in English. One observation is that PAE

they say Frances may, too. (possibility)

licensed by a modal is permitted only when it has(Gergel (2007:176))a root interpretation (Asakawa and Kamata(6)* Although Mike shouldn’t have eaten, Betsy
should. (epistemic)(1986); McDowell (1987); Imanishi and Asano(Sag (1976:28))(1990); Drubig (2001); Gergel (2003, 2007,
2. Epistemic Necessity Modals License PAE.

2009); Aelbrecht and Harwood (2019), among

Our point of departure in this paper is that theothers). This observation is illustrated in (1−3).

second observation is not entirely adequate.
Contrary to Gergel (2003, 2007, 2009), there are117

grammatical cases of PAE licensed by epistemicThisnecessity modals (see also Huddleston andcross-linguistic

Pullum (2002) and Aelbrehct and Harwood(1975), Brennan (1993), Butler (2003) and(2019)). Consider examples in (7−11).

Gergel (2009), among others). We mention two

hierarchyissupported

observations

by

(see

many
Pampellsuch cases here for reasons of space. Firstly,(7) A sick feeling coiled in my stomach as I

consider examples in (13a, b) from Una.

concluded that he already knew about me.
− He must.

(13) a. Er(Aelbrecht and Harwood (2019:508))(8)

bin-kwan-de-darib.

she go-FUT-3SG-PROBABILITIVE‘She might go.’

“There must be something wrong withbuk-ti-nyi.

b. Niyou,” Donald said, “So there must.”

I(Aelbrehct and Harwood (2019:49)(9) A: They must have made a mistake.

sit-ABIL-PRES‘I can sit.’(Una: (13a, b) from Louwerse (1988),

B: Yes, they must.

as cited in Cinque (1999:55))(Huddleston and Pullum (2002:1520))(10) A: Does Fred think that Busan is the capitalIn (13a), the epistemic modal affix occursof South Korea?

further to the verb stem than the future tense

B: Yes, he must. After all, that’s what hemorpheme whereas in (13b), the root modal

wrote on his geography quiz.
(Michael Barrie (p.c.))affix is attached to the verb stem before the(11) A: Do you think Mary will be angry, given

present tense morpheme. Given Baker’s (1988)

that I just broke her favorite mug?

Mirror Principle, these morpheme orderings

B: She must.

support the relative hierarchy of epistemic and(Mike Barrie (p.c.))root modals indicated in (12). Secondly, in thoseIn all these examples, the modal auxiliary must is

dialects that permit double modal constructions,used as an epistemic necessity modal, but

as shown in (14), the first modal must be

nonetheless the resulting PAE is grammatical.

interpreted as an epistemic modal whereas thesecond one must be interpreted as a root modal.

3. Cartography of Modal Syntax and ModallyThis interpretive restriction thus further supports

Licensed PAE

the modal hierarchy in (12).

Our analysis of the facts noted in theprevious sections is built on Cinque’s (1999)(14) You might could broad jump the Grandmodal hierarchy, particularly, his finding that

Canyon, and John might cold, too.

epistemic modals are located higher than tenses,(Pampell (1975), as cited in Drubig (2001:39))

which are, in turn, located higher than root
modals, as schematically represented in (12).

We propose that root modals, epistemic
possibility modals, and epistemic necessity(12)… Modnecessity > Modpossibility … Tense …

modals are associated with the syntactic

Modvolitional > Modobligation > Modability/permission

derivations shown in (15), (16), and (17),respectively.

118

Note a critical difference between the two types of(15) The syntax of root modals[TP Subj …T… [VoiceP Subj [Voice′ Voice

examples: in all the grammatical examples,[Mod1P Mod1 [vP v+V Obj] ]]]]

TP-internal materials in the ellipsis clause,
including(16) The syntax of epistemic possibility modals

subjects,

structure-matching[FP Subj [Mod2P Mod2 [TP Subj ...T…[VoiceP Subj

areidentical

to

their

correspondents

in

the

antecedent clause. Here, we attempt to capture thisidentity requirement on the antecedent-elliptical[Voice′ Voice [Mod1P Mod1 [vP v+V Obj] ]]]]]]

clause pair in terms of the notion of parallelism(17) The syntax of epistemic necessity modals

domain adapted from Takahashi and Fox (2005).

[FP Subj [Mod2P Mod2 [TP Subj ...T…[VoiceP Subj

To illustrate how this notion works, consider the[Voice′ Voice [vP v+V Obj] ]]]]]

following representation of an antecedent-ellipticalclause pair, which Takahashi and Fox call a

We suggest that root modals such as must, may

re-binding configuration, where variables are freeand can start their lives in the Mod1 head position

inside both the antecedent clause (AC) andand license the ellipsis of its vP complement. Thiselliptical clause (EC) which are bound by somederivation correctly predicts the grammaticality

focus-marked expressions outside these clauses.

of examples such as (1), (2b) and (3b). As for(18) Re-binding and Parallelism Domain

epistemic possibility modals such as may/mightand can/could, we argue that they are also

Antecedent: [ZP… XPx… [… [AC…x…] ]]base-generated in the Mod1 head, licensing its vP

Ellipsis:complement to elide, but they undergo additional[WP…YPx…[… <EC…y…> ]](adopted from Takahashi and Fox (2005:228))

successive-cyclic movement to the higher Mod2
position responsible for epistemic force. ThisWP, where the variable y is bound by YP outside

analysis accounts for examples such as (4b) andthe elliptical clause, bears a parallel structural(5b). Finally, we propose that epistemic necessity

relationship with ZP, where the variable x is

modals such as must and should are directly

similarly bound by XP, also outside the presumed

base-generated in the Mod2 head position and thisantecedent clause. For this reason, ZP and WPtime license their sister TP complement toform parallelism domains and are identical,

undergo ellipsis. Since the ellipsis size of themodulo focus-marked materials. Following RoothMCE licensed by this type of modal is TP,(1992), Fiengo and May (1994) and Takahashi

examples such as (1), (2a), (3a), (4a), (5a) and (6)and Fox (2005), we assume that it is this sense ofare correctly excluded on the ground that thestructural parallelism that licenses the EC shown

TP-internal materials in the elided clause are notin (18). We further assume that identical variable

identical to those in the antecedent clause,names cannot be assigned to variables bound byfollowing a standard version of the identity

distinct binders (Sag (1976); Heim (1997)) in acondition on TP-ellipsis such as the mutual

parallelism domain, as stated in (19).

identity condition of Merchant (2001).
(19) No Meaningless Coindexation

Now, what about the contrast between theseungrammatical examples, on one hand, and the

If an LF contains an occurrence of agrammatical examples in (7−11), on the other?

variable v that is bound by a node α, then all

119Table 1: Root-Epistemic Asymmetries

occurrences of v in this LF must be boundby the same node α.

and vP vs. TP-Ellipsis(Heim (1997:202))

Root
Given this parallelism theory of ellipsis

Epistemic

Epistemic

possibility

necessity

licensing, let us see how it accounts for the

Modal syntax

(15)

(16)

(17)

ungrammaticality of PAE in (1a) under the

Ellipsis size

vP

vP

TP

epistemic

Different subj‫(ݲ‬1a)‫(ݲ‬4b)*(4a)representation of the relevant parts of the

Voice

ShouldShould be Should NOT

antecedent and elliptical clauses is shown in (20).

mismatch?

be OK

OK

(20) * John must wash his car every day, andNote that in (15) and (16), the Voice headPeter must, too. (root; *epistemic) (=(1a))

responsible for voice specifications are external to

Antecedent:[ZP…John1…[AC…t1 washthe ellipsis site, unlike in (17), the relevant head ishis car]…]contained within the ellipsis site. Let us assume

reading

Ellipsis:

of

must.

A schematic

]

be OK

[WP…Peter2…<EC…t2 wash

Merchant’s (2008, 2013) theory of voice

his car…>

mismatches according to which VP-ellipsis, not]pseudogapping, allows voice mismatches because
We claim that this representation does not meet

only in the derivation of the former case, thethe identity requirement on ellipsis because ZP

Voice head endowed with the feature determining

and WP, parallelism domains, have two different

the voice morphology of the sentence is external

subjects/binders binding two different variables.

to the ellipsis site. Given this theory, our analysis

This way, the notion of structural parallelism

makes the prediction highlighted in grey in Table

derives the ‘same subject requirement’ imposed

1, namely, that PAE cases licensed by root andon PAE of epistemic necessity modals, for it

epistemic possibility modals should, but thoserequires TP-level semantic identity between thecases licensed by epistemic necessity modals

antecedent-elliptical clause pair.

1should not, accept voice mismatch. Examples in(21−22) show that this prediction is borne out.

4. New Empirical and Typological Predictions
In this section, we wish to explore two(21) a. Please read the message carefully,

consequences of our proposed analysis of modalphrased better than I could, below, as we

syntaxOne

look for new respondents for a workshop

consequence is concerned with the availability

with Professor Michael Fishbane. [root]of voice mismatches under PAE; the otherb. This information should not be released

consequence is related to non-trivial similarities

to the media by anyone, but Trump’s

between English PAE and Modal Complement

enemies might. [epistemic possibility]

and

its

relation withPAE.

Ellipsis (MCE) in Romance languages.

((21a) from Merchant (2013:80);

Let us explore the first consequence above(21b) from Si Kai Lee (p.c.))regarding voice mismatch by reviewing ouranalysis developed thus far. Table 1 sums up our
main proposals developed thus far in this paper.

120

in those contexts.

(22) a.* This information should not have beenreleased to the media, but Trump’s(24)* Il

enemies must. [epistemic necessity]
b.* Thebelovedchampion

must

have

faut

remplacerl’ampoule, deit needs replacethe.bulb

outperformed his hated rivals as theirl’escalier,recent lackluster performances suggest

the.staircase but

they should. [epistemic necessity]−elle est

coincée.

itjammed(Si Kai Lee (p.c.))

mais

is

of

elle ne peut

pas

it

NEG

NEG can‘Someone should replace the bulb in the
The other consequence of our proposed

staircase, but it can’t. − It’s jammed.’

analysis of modal syntax is that it opens a new
avenueofcommonalities

research

intobetweenEnglish(Dagnac (2010:165))

investigating
PAE(25)* Ce problème aurait

andthis problemdûêtre résolu,

must.be.PST-COND solved

so-called Modal Complement Ellipsis (MCE) inmais visiblement personne n’a pu.

Romance (Dagnac 2010; see also Aelbrecht

but(2010) for examples of Dutch MCE and their‘This problem should have been solved,

analysis in terms of derivational ellipsis).

but obviously nobody could.’

obviously

Dagnac makes a couple of observations highly

nobody NEG can.PST(Dagnac (2010:165))

reminiscent of the major properties of PAE wehave pointed out above. Firstly, French, Italian

5. Conclusion

and Spanish, all known to be non-VP-ellipsis

In this paper, we have argued that the actual

languages, somehow allow ellipsis only after

size of modally licensed PAE, vP-ellipsis orroot modals, as shown in (23). This is quite

TP-ellipsis, depends on modal force. If thissimilar to what we have seen in the English PAE

analysis is tenable, then our new findingcases licensed by root modals with the different

challenges the common wisdom that English has

subject as illustrated in (1), (2b) and (3b).

TP-ellipsis only under sluicing and fragments. We
have further indicated that our analysis allows us(23) Toma pu

to find initially unexpectedvoir Lee, mais Maire

commonalities

between certain cases of PAE in English andTom

can.PST see

n’apas pu. [root modal]

MCE in Romance languages. The overall results

NEG

can.PSTof our paper show that the observed interaction

Lee butMary

between modality and ellipsis cannot be captured‘Tom could see Lee, but Mary couldn’t.’

by simple semantic dichotomies like root vs.

(Dagnac (2010:158))

epistemic or necessity vs. possibility. Instead, itSecondly, MCE prohibits voice mismatch, as

must

shown in (24) and (25), which Dagac takes tofine-grained cartographic structures underlying

show that its derivation involves TP-ellipsis inthese distinctions along the lines of Cinque’s

the same way we have argued that PAE involves(1999) cartographic theory of modal syntax and

TP-ellipsis under epistemic necessity modals on

their resulting size differences in ellipsis.

the basis of the impossibility of voice mismatch

121

be

approached

with

care

through

REFERENCES
Lobke (2010) The* This research is supported by KAKENHI JP
19K00560(YosukeSato).

For

Aelbrecht,

valuable

Syntactic

discussions on this paper, we thank Mike Barrie,Licensing of Ellipsis, John Benjamins,

Yoshi Dobashi, Yusuke Imanishi, Yoshiaki

Amsterdam.

Kaneko, Satoru Kanno, Shin Kitada, Si Kai Lee,

Aelbrecht, Lobke and William Harwoord (2019)

Taichi Nakamura, Tadao Nomura, Yoshiki“Predicate Ellipsis,” The Oxford Handbook

Ogawa, Yuta Sakamoto, Motoki Sato, EtsuroofShima, Ken Takita, Yuta Tatsumi, Yusuke Yagi,

Craenenbroeck and Tanja Temmerman,

Dwi Hesti Yuliani, and the audience members at

504-525, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ellipsis,ed.

byJeroenvanAsakawa, Teruo and Seizaburo Kamata (1986)

the 40th Annual Conference of the ELSJ.

Zyodoosi (Auxiliaries), Taishukan, Tokyo.

NOTES
We are aware of two problems with thisBaker, Mark (1988) “The Mirror Principle andanalysis. Firstly, our analysis implies that subjects

Morphosyntactic Explanation,” Linguistic

must be obligatorily reconstructed into an

Inquiry 16, 373-415.

1

Brennan, Virginia (1993) Root and Epistemic

identity-calculation domain, unlike objects, forthe grammaticality of (1b, c) indicates that the

Modal

Auxiliary

Verbs,

Doctoralantecedent and elliptical clauses do not need todissertation, University of Massachusetts,

share the same object for PAE to be obtained.

Amherst.

Given our analysis, we can only conjecture at this

Butler, Johnny (2003) “A Minimalist Treatment

stage of our research that subject reconstruction isof Modality,” Lingua 113, 967-996.
Cinque,obligatory whereas object reconstruction is not

Guglielmo(1999)

Heads:

Adverbs

andforced for some reason we do not understand. We

Functional

A Cross-Linguistic

are currently working out a solution to this

Perspective, Oxford University Press, Newproblem based on von Fintel and Iatridou’s

York and Oxford.

Principle.

Dagnac, Anne (2010) “Modal Ellipsis in French,

Secondly, the same subject requirement alluded to

Spanish and Italian: Evidence for ain the text does not hold for sluicing, another case

TP-Deletionof TP-ellipsis (Merchant 2001), unlike those PAE

Linguistics 2008: Interactions in Romance,cases licensed by epistemic necessity modals (e.g.,

ed. by Karlos Arregi, 157-170, John

(7−11)), as witnessed by the grammaticality of (i).

Benjamins, Amsterdam.

(2003)

Epistemic

Containment

Analysis,”RomanceDrubig, Han Bernhard (2001) “On the Syntactic
Form of Modality,” ms., University of(i) I know which professor1 [TP t1 likes thisTübingen.

paper], but I don’t know which student2 [TP t2

Fiengo, Robert and Robert May (1994) Indiceslikes this paper].

and Identity, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
von Fintel, Kai and Sabine Iatridou (2003)

Thanks to Yusuke Yagi (p.c.) and Yuta Tatsumi(p.c.) for helpful discussions on these problems“EpistemicContainment,”and suggestions based on von Fintel andInquiry 34, 173-198.

Linguistic

Gergel, Remus (2003) “Modal Syntax: Detecting

Iatridou (2003).

its Parameters with VP-Ellipsis,” SKY122the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, 1-6.

Journal of Linguistics 16, 27-56.

Sag, Ivan (1976) Deletion and Logical Form,

Gergel, Remus (2007) “Interpretable Features inDoctoral dissertation, MIT.

vP-Ellipsis: On the Licensing Head,”

Takahashi, Shoichi and Danny Fox (2015)

Proceedings of ConSOLE XIV, 165-188.

“MaxElide and the Re-binding Problem,”Gergel, Remus (2009) Modality and Ellipsis:
DiachronicandSynchronic

SALT XV, 223-240.

Evidence,

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York.
Heim, Irene (1997) “Predicates or Formulas?
Evidence

fromEllipsis,”

SALT

VII,

197-221.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey Pullum(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the
English Language, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Imanishi, Noriko and Jiro Asano (1990) Syoou
to Sakuzyo (Anaphora and Deletion),
Taishukan, Tokyo.
Louwerse, John (1988) The Morphosyntax of
Una in Relation to Discourse Structure: A
Descriptive Analysis, Pacific Linguistics,
Series

B,

No.

100,

Departmentof

Linguistics, Research School of PacificStudies, Australian National University.
McDowell, Joyce (1987) Assertion and Modality,
Doctoraldissertation,

UniversityofSouthern California.
Merchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax of Silence:
Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Merchant, Jason (2008) “An Asymmetry in
Voice Mismatches in VP-Ellipsis andPseudogapping,” Linguistic Inquiry 39,
169-179.
Merchant, Jason (2013) “Voice and Ellipsis,”
Linguistic Inquiry 44, 77-108.
Pampell, John R (1975) “More on Double
Modals,”

Texas

Linguistic

Forum

2,

110-121.
Rooth, Mats (1992) “Ellipsis Redundancy andReduction Redundancy,” Proceedings of123

(2) a. SO = {XP, YP}࡛ XP ࡀࢥࣆ࣮ࡢሙྜࠊ
LA ࡟࠾࠸࡚㠀ྍどⓗ࡜࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ YP ࡀࣛ࣋ࣝ࡜࡞ࡿ э [YP { _XP, YP}]
b. SO = {XP, YP}࡛ XP ࡜ YP ࡀ୍⮴⣲ᛶࢆඹ᭷ࡍࡿሙྜࠊ<F, F>ࡀࣛ࣋ࣝ࡜࡞ࡿⱥㄒࡢྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨ᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
Pair-Merger ศᯒ*э [<F, F> {XP[F], YP[F]}]㸦Pair-Merger Analysis of Extraposition from DP(2a)ࡣྡモྃࡸ Wh ྃࡢෆⓗేྜ᫬ࡢేྜせConstruction in English㸧⣲ࡢᇶᗏ఩⨨ࡢࢥࣆ࣮࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ(2b)ࡣ୺ㄒ
⏣୰ බ௓㸦Hiroyoshi Tanaka㸧࡜ T ୺せ㒊㛫ࡢ φ ୍⮴ࡸ Wh ␲ၥモ࡜ C ୺⏘ᴗ་⛉኱Ꮫ㸦Sangyo-Ika University㸧せ㒊㛫ࡢ Q ୍⮴࡛㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ(3)࡟♧ࡍ๪モせ⣲ࡢ࣮࣮ࣛ࣋࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ࣛ࣋ࣜࣥࢢ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒,ࣝ௜ࡅ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ(2)ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡢ᪉⟇ࡶ㐺⏝Pair-Merger, ྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨, ⠇ቃ⏺ไ㝈,࡛ࡁࡎࠊูࡢ⪃࠼ࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ㡯࡜௜ຍモࡢᑐẚ(3) a. Bill was dancing while he was singing. эSO = {vP, CP} = [? {vP, CP}]1. ࣛ࣋ࣜࣥࢢ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒࡜ Pair-Merger

b. John dropped the dishes with a crash. эSO = {v*P, PP} = [? {v*P, PP}]ศᯒ
 Chomsky (2013, 2015) ࡛ࡣࠊ஧㡯ࡢ⤫ㄒᑐ㇟≀ (syntactic object: SO) ࡢ⮬⏤ేྜ࡟ࡼࡇࡢၥ㢟ࢆゎỴࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ཧ⪃࡟࡞ࡿࡾసࡽࢀࡿ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᴫᛕ࣭ពᅗ

ࡢࡀ Chomsky (2004) ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ Pair-Merger ศ(C-I) ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡛ࡢゎ㔘ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ᚲ

ᯒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(4)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡣᚑ᮶ࡢ

せ࡞ࣛ࣋ࣝ௜୚ࡢ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒ (Labeling௜ຍ (adjunction) ࡟┦ᙜࡋࠊేྜᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿ

Algorithm: LA) ࡀᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋLA ࡣࠊ⤫ㄒᑐ㇟ ≀㛫࡟ 㠀ᑐ⛠ ⓗ࡞ 㛵 ಀࢆタ ࡅࠊ᭱ᑠ᥈ᰝ (Minimal Search: MS) ࡢᴫᛕࡢࡶ

ordered set ࢆసࡿ᧯స࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿࠋ࡜࡛୺せ㒊ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟Ỵᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋ
(4) For SO = {α, β}, Pair-Merger (a descendant(1) a. SO = {H, XP} э MS ࡟ࡼࡾ୺せ㒊ࡀ

of adjunction in earlier theories), as anࣛ࣋ࣝ࡜࡞ࡿ э [H {H, XP}]asymmetric merger operation, makes an

b. SO = {XP, YP} э MS ࡛ࣛ࣋ࣝࡀỴᐃordered set between merged elements <α, β>.

࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ э [? {XP, YP}] (XP-YP ၥ㢟)(Chomsky (2004: 117-118))(1a)ࡢ୺せ㒊࡜ྃࡢేྜ࡛ࡣ MS ࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸

(4)ࢆᛂ⏝ࡋࡓศᯒࡀࠊEpstein, Kitahara and࡚୺せ㒊ࡀࣛ࣋ࣝ࡟࡞ࢀࡿࡀࠊ(1b)ࡢྃ࡝࠺

Seely (EKS) (2016) ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ(5)࡛♧ࡉࡋࡢేྜ࡛ࡣࠊ᭱ᑠ᥈ᰝࡢࡶ࡜࡛ࣛ࣋ࣝࡀỴࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㠀ᑐ᱁ືモࡸཷື໬ືモࡢὴ⏕ᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿ㸦ࠕXP-YP ၥ㢟ࠖ㸧ࠋࡇࡢၥ㢟࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ୺せ㒊ࡢ v*࡜ືモࡢࢆゎỴ࡛ࡁࡿ᪉⟇࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ(2)࡟♧ࡍ஧㏻ࡾ

R(oot)୺せ㒊࡜ࡢ㛫࡛እⓗ Pair-Merger ࡀ㐺ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

⏝ࡉࢀࠊv*ࡀὴ⏕ୖ㠀ྍどⓗ࡟࡞ࡾࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ
≉ᛶࢆኻࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠊR ࡀᙜヱືモࡢࣛ࣋ࣝ࡟

124

Chomsky’s.

࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡶ࡜࡙ࡃ࡜ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋ
(5) In “weak” verbal derivations, v* becomes

ExDP ࡣࠊ(8a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟୺ㄒෆ (ExSubj) ࠿ࡽinvisible (and thus is no longer theࡶࠊ(8b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟┠ⓗㄒෆ (ExObj) ࠿ࡽࡶ㐺phase-head) with the application of external⏝ྍ⬟࡛ࠊ᧯సࡢ㝶ពᛶࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽእ⨨せ⣲Pair-Merger of verbal R(oot) and phasal v*,(Ex(traposed element)) ࡀ௜ຍᵓ㐀ࢆᙧᡂࡍresulting in the label [R <R, v*>].

ࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡍࡿศᯒࡀ୍⯡ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦cf. Ross
(1986)ࠊRochemont and Culicover (1990)ࠊ୰ᓥ

(5)ࡢศᯒࢆ(3)࡟ᛂ⏝ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ(6)࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿ

(1995)㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡽᩥᮎ࡟⏕ᡂࡉࢀࡿ Ex ࡣㄒ㡰

ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊCP࣭PP ࡀ㍍ືモྃせ⣲࡟ Pair-Mergerⓗ࡟㞳ࢀࡓ఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿྡモྃ࡜ಟ㣭㛵ಀࡀࡢ㐺⏝ࢆཷࡅࡓ⤖ᯝࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࣛ࣋ࣝࡀ㍍

ᙧᡂࡉࢀࡿࡢࡀ≉ᚩⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋTanaka (2009:ືモྃせ⣲࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊ

183) ࡣࠊ୧⪅ࡢಟ㣭㛵ಀ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᩥἲⓗ≉CP࣭PP ࡣὴ⏕ୖ㠀ྍどⓗ࡟࡞ࡿࠋᚩࡣࠊ(9)ࡢ C-I ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ᮲௳ࡢࡶ࡜
࡛ᑟฟࡉࢀࡿ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠋ

(6) a. SO = {vP, CP} = [vP < vP, CP>] ( = (3a))
b. SO = {v*P, PP} = [v*P <v*P, PP>] ( = (3b))(9) The modification interpretation is formed
within a single transferred domain.

ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ௜ຍモせ⣲ࡢేྜ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣛ࣋
ࣝ௜ࡅ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊPair-Merger ศᯒࢆᛂ⏝ࡋ(9)࡛ࡣࠊྠ୍ᩥ୰࡛ಟ㣭せ⣲࡜⿕ಟ㣭せ⣲ࡓ➨୕ࡢࠕXP-YP ၥ㢟ࠖࡢゎỴἲࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡀ㞳ࢀࡓ఩⨨࡟࠶ࡾࡘࡘࡶಟ㣭㛵ಀࢆᙧᡂࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ(7)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ1࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡞஦㇟࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢせ⣲㛫ࡢᒁᡤⓗ࡞㝵ᒙ㛵ಀࡀ C-I ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ

(7) SO = {XP, YP}࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊXP ࡀ௜ຍモࡢୖุ࡛ㄞࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺๓ᥦࡢࡶ࡜࡛ࠊExDP

ሙྜࠊPair-Merger ࡢ㐺⏝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ LA ࡟ᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ Ex ࡜ྡモྃࡢಟ㣭㛵ಀࡣࠊྠ࠾࠸࡚㠀ྍどⓗ࡜࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊYP ࡀ୍ࣛ࣋ࣝࡢ㌿㏦㡿ᇦࡢࡶ࡜࡛Ỵᐃࡉࢀࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡉ࡜࡞ࡿ э [YP <YP, XP>]ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊEx ࡢేྜ఩⨨ࡣ㌿㏦㡿ᇦ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚つᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ(7)ࢆࡶ࡜࡟ⱥㄒࡢྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢࡑࡇ࡛ࠊLA ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㌿㏦㡿ᇦ࡟እ⨨ (Extraposition from DP: ExDP) ᵓᩥࡢࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋCP ࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ㡿ᇦࡣ C ୺せὴ⏕ࢆศᯒࡋࡑࡢᩥἲⓗ≉ᚩࢆゎ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ㒊ࡢ⿵㒊఩⨨ࡢ<φ, φ>ࣛ࣋ࣝ㸦ᚑ᮶ࡢ TP㸧ࡀ㌿㏦㡿ᇦ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ୍᪉ v*P ࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ㡿ᇦࡣࠊ

2. ⱥㄒࡢ ExDP ᵓᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

ື モ ࡢ R ୺ せ 㒊 ࡀ v* ୺ せ 㒊 ࡟ ෆ ⓗⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ(8)࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊྡモྃ

Pair-Merger ࡢ㐺⏝ࢆཷࡅࡓࡢࡕࠊv*࡞ࡽࡧ࡟ෆ࡟ᇶᗏ⏕ᡂࡋࡓ PP ࡸ CP ࡀࠊᩥᮎ఩⨨࡟

v*࠿ࡽ R ࡟⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࡉࢀࡓ φ ⣲ᛶࡀὴ⏕ୖ㝶ពⓗ࡟ేྜࡉࢀࡿ ExDP ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿྑ᪉ే㠀ྍどⓗ࡟࡞ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ⛣⾜ࡉࢀࡓࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ

2

୺せ㒊ࡢ R ࡢࢥࣆ࣮ࡢ⿵㒊఩⨨ࡀ㌿㏦㡿ᇦྜ⌧㇟ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ

࡟࡞ࡿ࡜᝿ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(8) a. [A review _ ] came out yesterday of thisࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ(10)࡟♧ࡍ㌿㏦㡿

article.

ᇦ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࢆ⾜࠺ࠋb. John read [a paper _ ] over the summer of125

(10) a. CP 㡿ᇦ㸸C ࡢ⿵㒊࡛࠶ࡿ<φ, φ>ࣛ࣋ࣝ

ࡍࠊExSubj ࡢືモྃ๐㝖࡜ ExObj ࡢ␲ఝศ⿣ᩥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᩥἲᛶࢆㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ4㸦ᚑ᮶ࡢ TP㸧㡿ᇦࡀ㌿㏦ࡉࢀࡿ
b. v*P 㡿ᇦ㸸v*ࡢ⿵㒊࡛࠶ࡿ<φ, φ>ࣛ࣋(12) a. [A MAN _ ] came in with blond hair,ࣝ㸦ᚑ᮶ࡢ RP㸧㡿ᇦࡀ㌿㏦ࡉࢀࡿ

and [a WOMAN _ ] did [vP e ] too.
CP 㡿ᇦ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊLA ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊb. [A MAN _ ] came in with blond hair,C ࡢ⿵㒊࡛࠶ࡿ<φ, φ>ࣛ࣋ࣝ㡿ᇦࡀ㌿㏦ࡉࢀ

and [a WOMAN _ ] did [vP e ] withࡿ࡜᝿ᐃࡍࡿࠋ୍᪉ v*P 㡿ᇦ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊR

BROWN hair.
(13) a. What John did was draw [a picture _ ]࠿ࡽ v*࡬ࡢෆⓗ Pair-Merger ࡢ㐺⏝࡟ࡼࡾ v*

on the wall of his brother.

࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ R ࡀ㠀ྍどⓗ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜᝿ᐃࡍࡿࠋ

b. *What John did of his brother was draw

ࡇࡢෆⓗ Pair-Merger ࡣࠊR ⮬㌟ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦࣜ
࣮ࢆỴᐃࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿ᧯స࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

[a picture _ ] on the wall.
(Culicover and Rochemont (1990: 30))

ࡲࡓ(7)࡛♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊPair-Merger ᧯సࡣࠊేྜせ⣲ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡀ⤫ㄒⓗ࡟㠀ྍどⓗ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࠊv*࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ R ࡀ㠀ྍ(12)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊExSubj ࡛ࡣ๐㝖ࡉࢀࡓ vP 㡿どⓗ࡟࡞ࡿ୍᪉ࠊv*ࡣྍどⓗ࡛ࣇ࢙࢖ࢬᛶࢆ

ᇦෆ࡟እ⨨ PP ࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡚ࡶྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸

ᢸ࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺᝿ᐃࡣ⌮ㄽⓗ࡟ၥ㢟࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ㐺᱁࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ๐

ࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࠊv*ࡢ⿵㒊せ⣲࡛࠶ࡿ<φ, φ>ࣛ࣋ࣝ

㝖 vP ෆ ࡟ እ ⨨ PP ࡀ ྵࡲ ࢀࡓ (12a)࡛ ࡣ㸦ᚑ᮶⌮ㄽ࡛ࡢ RP㸧㡿ᇦࡀ㌿㏦㡿ᇦ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

vP-edge ࡟ࠊྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸(12b)࡛ࡣ TP-edgeࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞㌿㏦㡿ᇦ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ࡜ࠊ(9)࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀእ⨨ PP ࡀేྜࡍࡿ࡜ศᯒ࡛ࡁ

ࡢ C-I ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ᮲௳ࡢࡶ࡜࡛ Ex ࡢࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᩥἲᛶࢆṇࡋࡃㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ

ేྜඛࢆศᯒࡍࡿࠋExSubj ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ Ex ࡣ୺(13)ࡣ ExObj ࡟␲ఝศ⿣ᩥࡀ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࠊືㄒ࡜ྠࡌ㌿㏦㡿ᇦ࡛࠶ࡿ TP-edge ࡶࡋࡃࡣモྃࡀࡑࡢ↔Ⅼ໬఩⨨࡟⏕ᡂࡉࢀࡓ஦౛࡛

vP-edge ࡟ేྜࡉࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ ExObj ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࠶ࡿࠋ(13a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ Ex ࡀ↔Ⅼ໬఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿEx ࡣ┠ⓗㄒ࡜ྠࡌ㌿㏦㡿ᇦ࡛࠶ࡿ RP-edgeሙྜࡣ㐺᱁ࡔࡀࠊ(13b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ Ex ࡀࡑࡢ఩఩⨨࡟ేྜࡉࢀࡿࠋ3⨨࡟࡞࠸ሙྜࡣ୙㐺᱁࡜࡞ࡿࠋᮏศᯒࡢᯟ⤌ḟ࡟እ⨨ࡀ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡓせ⣲㛫ࡢࣛ࣋ࣜࣥ

ࡳ࡛ࡣࠊExObj ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ Ex ࡢేྜඛࡣືモࢢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋEx ࡟ࡣ Pair-Merger ࡀྃෆ࡛࠶ࡿ RP-edge ࡜࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᑐ

㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ⓗ࡞ేྜ≉ᛶ࡟ẚࢆṇࡋࡃᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡼࡾࠊExSubj ࡛ࡣ< TP/vP, Ex>ࠊExObj ࡛ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᮏศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊExSubj ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ<RP, Ex>࡜࠸࠺ ordered set ࡀసࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢ

Ex ࡀືモྃෆእ࡟⏕㉳࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ⤖ᯝࠊEx ࡣὴ⏕ୖ㠀ྍどⓗ࡟࡞ࡾࠊేྜඛ

ExObj ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ Ex ࡀືモྃෆ࡟ไ㝈ࡉࢀࡿࡢせ⣲㸦ExSubj ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ TP ࡶࡋࡃࡣ vPࠊ࡜࠸࠺⤒㦂ⓗ஦ᐇࢆ㐺ษ࡟ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ

ExObj ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ RP㸧ࡀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࣛ࣋ࣝ

࡛ࡁࡿࠋ࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡀ(11)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3. ศᯒ
3.1. Ex ࡢ㠀ྍどⓗ≉ᛶ(11) a. ExSubj = [TP/vP < TP/vP, Ex>] ๓⠇࡛ᥦ♧ࡋࡓ Pair-Merger ศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊEx

b. ExObj = [RP <RP, Ex>]ࡀὴ⏕ୖ㠀ྍどⓗ࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࡢෆ㒊࠿ࡽࡢせ⣲ࡢྲྀࡾฟࡋࡸࠊEx ⮬యࡢ᭦࡞ࡿෆⓗ௨ୖࡢศᯒ࡟ࡶ࡜࡙ࡃ࡜ࠊ(12)࡜(13)࡟♧126

ేྜࡀ㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ண
ࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢணࡀࡶࡓࡽࡉⓗ࡟㠀ྍどⓗ࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ(15b)ࡸ(15d)ࡢࡼ

ࡢጇᙜᛶࡣࠊ(14)࡜(15)ࡢ஦

࠺࡞࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺࡣ⏘ฟࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜ศᯒࡉ

౛࠿ࡽ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ࢀࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᚲ↛ⓗ࡟ྑᒇ᰿ࡢไ⣙ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྑ᪉⛣ື⊂⮬ࡢつᐃࡶ୙せ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ(14) a. *Which bookj did [a review _i ] come outࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ ExDP ᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⠇ቃ⏺ไ㝈

last week [of _j]i ? (ExSubj)ࡢ஦ᐇࡣ㐺ษ࡟ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡓࡀࠊྠᵝࡢ A ࣂ(Wexler and Culicover (1980: 335))࣮≉ᛶࢆᣢࡘ Wh ⛣ື࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㐃⥆ᚠ⎔ⓗb. *Whoj did you show [a picture _i ] to࡞ෆⓗేྜࡢ㐺⏝ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ

Martha [of _j]i ? (ExObj)

Wh ྃࡢෆⓗేྜ࡟ࡣ Wh ྃ࡜୺⠇ࡢ C ୺せ㒊㛫ࡢ[Q]⣲ᛶࡢ୍⮴࡜<Q, Q>ࣛ࣋ࣜࣥࢢࡀ

(Baltin (1984: 159))(15) a. [That [a review _ ] came out yesterdayᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿほⅬ࠿ࡽㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ

of this article] is catastrophic.

Wh ⛣ື࡜ ExDP ࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ⛣ືࡢ㐃⥆ᚠ⎔ᛶ

b. *[That [a review _ ] came out yesterday _ ]࡟㛵ࡍࡿᑐẚ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୧⪅ࡢ୍⮴ࡢ᭷↓is catastrophic of this article. (ExSubj)

ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ

(Ross (1986: 4))
3.2. ௜ຍモせ⣲ࡢእ⨨c. It was believed [that John saw [a picture_ ] in the newspaper of his brother] by ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᢅࡗ࡚ࡁࡓእ⨨ࡢ஦౛ࡣࠊEx ࡀ

everyone.

㡯 (argument) ࡢࡶࡢࡔࡗࡓࡀࠊ(16)࡟♧ࡉࢀ

d. *It was believed [that John saw [a pictureࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ௜ຍモせ⣲ࡢእ⨨ࡶ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ

_ ] in the newspaper _ ] by everyone ofࡇࡢሙྜࠊ(16a-b)ࡢ ExSubj ࡜ࠊ(16c-d)ࡢ

his brother. (ExObj)

ExObj ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊEx ࡀ(Rochemont (1992: 375))

PP ࡛ࡶ CP ࡛ࡶ㐺⏝ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ5(cf. What do you think [ _ that John eat _ ]?)(16) a. [A man _ ] appeared with green eyes.
b. [A book _ ] appeared which was written(14)ࡣࠊExSubj࣭ExObj ඹ࡟ࠊEx ෆ࠿ࡽࡢせby Chomsky. (ExSubj)⣲ࡢྲྀࡾฟࡋࡀ㐺⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸஦ᐇࢆ♧ࡋ࡚c. John read [a book _ ] over the summer࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ㠀ᩥἲᛶࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ Ex

by Chomsky.

඲యࡀ Pair-Merger ࡢ㐺⏝࡟ࡼࡾ⤫ㄒⓗ࡟㠀

d. I called [somebody _ ] yesterday who Iྍどⓗ࡟࡞ࡾࠊࡑࡢෆഃ࡟࠶ࡿ Wh ྃ࡬ࡢ࢔couldn’t stand. (ExObj)

ࢡࢭࢫࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀせᅉ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ḟ࡟(15)ࡣࠊEx ࡀ㐃⥆ᚠ⎔ⓗ࡟⠇ቃ⏺ࢆ㉺ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞௜ຍモせ⣲ࡢእ⨨ࡢὴ⏕ࢆ⪃ᐹ࠼࡚ෆⓗేྜࡀ㐺⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸஦ᐇࢆ♧ࡋ࡚ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊEx ࡀಟ㣭ᑐ㇟ࡢྡモྃ࡟┤᥋࠸ࡿ㸦(15a-b)ࡀ ExSubjࠊ(15c-d)ࡀ ExObj ࡢྑ᪉௜ຍࡍࡿ࡜ศᯒࡍࡿ࡜ࠊEx ⮬యࡀ௜ຍ஦౛㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ⠇ቃ⏺ไ㝈࡜࿧ࡤࢀࠊRoss

モ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ(15)ࡢ⠇ቃ⏺ไ㝈ࡢ஦౛࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ

(1986) ➼ ࡛ ࡣ ྑ ᒇ ᰿ ࡢ ไ ⣙ (Right RoofPair-Merger ࡢ㐺⏝࡟ࡼࡾὴ⏕ୖ㠀ྍどⓗ࡞Constraint) ࡜࠸࠺ࠊྑ᪉⛣ື⊂⮬ࡢไ⣙࡛つせ⣲࡟᭦࡞ࡿෆⓗేྜࡀ㐺⏝࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡾࠊ

ᐃࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ⌧㇟ࡔࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢ⌧㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

(16)ࡢ࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺࡀὴ⏕ࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡣࠊEx ࡀ᭱ึࡢእ⨨᧯సࡢẁ㝵㸦(15a)࡞ࡽၥ㢟ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ

ࡧ࡟(15c)㸧࡛ Pair-Merger ࡢ㐺⏝࡟ࡼࡾ⤫ㄒࡼࡗ࡚௜ຍモせ⣲ࡢእ⨨࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊEx127

ࡀὴ⏕఩⨨࡟┤᥋እⓗేྜࡢ㐺⏝ࢆཷࡅࡿb. *[That [someone _ ] exists _ ] is a࡜ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢὴ⏕఩⨨ࡣࠊ(9)ࡢ C-I ࢖ࣥ

foregone conclusion who can beat youࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ᮲௳࡜(10)ࡢ㌿㏦㡿ᇦࢆࡩࡲto a pulp. (ExSubj) (⏣Ꮚෆ (1995: 44))࠼ࠊExSubj ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ TP-edge ࡶࡋࡃࡣc. [That Sam didn’t pick [those packages up

vP-edge ࡟ࠊExObj ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ RP-edge ࡟࡞_ ] which are to be mailed tomorrow] isࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࣛ࣋ࣝࡢ≉ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ㡯ࡢሙྜ

possible.
d. *[That Sam didn’t pick [those packages

࡜ྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ศᯒࡢጇᙜᛶࡣࠊ(17)࡟♧ࡍࠊ

up _ ]] is possible which are to be
mailed tomorrow. (ExObj)

ExSubj ࡜ ExObj ࡢ Ex 㛫ࡢㄒ㡰ࡢᑐẚ࠿ࡽㄝ(Ross (1986: 166-167))᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
(17) a. [A man _i] came into [the room _j] last
night

[that

I

had

just

(18)ࡢ Ex ෆ࠿ࡽࡢྲྀࡾฟࡋࡢ஦౛࡟㛵ࡋ

finished

࡚ࠊExSubjࠊExObj ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ㠀ᩥࡔࡀࠊࡇࢀ

painting]j [who had blond hair]i.

ࡣ㡯ࡢ஦౛࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊPair-Merger ࡢ㐺⏝࡟ࡼ

b. *[A man _i] came into [the room _j] lastࡾ Ex ෆ࠿ࡽࡢ Wh ྃࡢྲྀࡾฟࡋࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸

night [who had blond hair]i [that I had

Ⅼ࠿ࡽㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ

just finished painting]j.

ḟ࡟(19)ࡢ⠇ቃ⏺ไ㝈ࡢ஦౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ௜

(Rochemont and Culicover (1990: 53))

ຍモせ⣲ࡢእ⨨ࡢ஦౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ㡯ࡢእ⨨࡜ྠᵝࡢ⠇ቃ⏺ไ㝈ࡢᑐẚࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋᮏ

(17a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊExObj ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ Ex ࡣ ExSubjศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊ௜ຍモࡢእ⨨ࡣእⓗేྜࡢ㐺⏝࡟ࡢࡑࢀ࡟ㄒ㡰ⓗ࡟ඛ⾜࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊ(17b)ࡢࡼ

ࡼࡾࠊEx ࡀ┤᥋ὴ⏕఩⨨࡟ేྜࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ

࠺࡟ࠊ୧⪅ࡀ㏫ࡢㄒ㡰ࡢሙྜࡣ୙㐺᱁࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (19b)ࡸ(19d)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㠀ᩥἲⓗ࡞஦౛ࡀὴ⏕ࡉࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ㠀ᩥࡇࡢᑐẚࡣࠊExSubj ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ Ex ࡀ TP ࡶࡋ
ࡃࡣ vP ࡛࠶ࡾࠊExObj ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ Ex ࡢ RP ࡼ

ἲᛶࡣ(9)ࡢ C-I ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ᮲௳ࡢࡶ

ࡾࡶୖ఩࡟ేྜࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᮏศᯒࡢᯟ⤌࡜࡛ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ(19b)࡜(19d)ࡳ࡛⮬↛࡟ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ࡛ࡣࠊEx ࡜ࡑࡢಟ㣭ᑐ㇟ࡢྡモྃࡀྠ୍ࡢ

௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᮏศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊEx ࡀ௜ຍモ㌿㏦㡿ᇦ࡟ྵࡲࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ(9)ࡢ᮲௳㐪཯ࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ㡯࡜ྠᵝࡢేྜᵓ㐀ࡀ⪃࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ௜ຍモࡢእ⨨࡟࠾࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᩥἲ≉ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶྠᵝࡢணࡅࡿ⠇ቃ⏺ไ㝈ࡢᑐẚࡣ㡯ࡢሙྜ࡜ࡣ␗࡞

ࡀࡶࡓࡽࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣ(18)࡜(19)ࡢ஦

ࡾࠊ(9)ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ᮲௳㐪཯࡜࠸࠺
ほⅬ࠿ࡽㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

౛࠿ࡽ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

(19)ࡢ஦౛࡟㛵㐃ࡋ࡚ࠊWh ␲ၥᩥ࡟࠾ࡅ
(18) a. *Whatj did [a man _i] enter [who wasࡿእ⨨ࡢ஦౛ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ(20)ࡣᩥ㢌ࡢ Wh

wearing _j]i? (ExSubj)ྃࢆಟ㣭ᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ㛵ಀ⠇ࡀእ⨨ࡢ㐺⏝ࢆ(Baltin (1984: 159))

ཷࡅࡓ஦౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

b. *Whatj did John invite [several people _i] tothe party [who gave _j to Mary]i? (ExObj)(20) a. [How many people _i]j did John say he(Rochemont and Culicover (1990: 39))

visited _j last night [that he has known(19) a. [That [someone _ ] exists who can beatfor a long time]i?

you to a pulp] is a foregone conclusion.

(Rochemont and Culicover (1990: 37))128

b. [What secret documents _i]j did theb. I saw [the (best) picture _ ] yesterday

British government announce they werefrom the museum. (Adjunct ExObj)

about to reveal _j last week [that would(cf. I saw [a (very good) picture _ ] yesterdaychange our view of history]i?

of the museum. (Argument ExObj))(Rochemont (1982: 152))(Fox and Nissenbaum (1999: 8-10))(20)ࡢ Wh ྃ࡜ Ex ࡢὴ⏕఩⨨ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜୍

㡯ࡢእ⨨ࡣෆⓗేྜࠊ௜ຍモࡢእ⨨ࡣእⓗేぢ⠇ቃ⏺ไ㝈㐪཯ࡢࡼ࠺ࡔࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ Exྜ࡜࠸࠺ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ␗࡞ࡿ✀㢮ࡢేྜ᧯స࡟ࡣ௜ຍモ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࡢಟ㣭ᑐ㇟ࡢ Wh ྃࡢ᭱ࡼࡗ࡚ὴ⏕ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᮏศᯒࡢࡶ࡜࡛ࡣࠊ

⤊ⓗ࡞ేྜ఩⨨࡛࠶ࡿ CP-edge ࡟┤᥋እⓗ(21)ࡢ᮰⦡ཎ⌮ C ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᑐẚ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ

ేྜࡢ㐺⏝ࢆཷࡅࡿ࡜ศᯒࡍࢀࡤࠊWh ྃ࡜ྡモྃෆ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ Ex ࡢࢥࣆ࣮ࡢ᭷↓ࡢほⅬ

Ex ࡣඹ࡟ࢹࣇ࢛ࣝࢺࡢ CP ㌿㏦㡿ᇦ࡟ྵࡲ

࠿ࡽࠊ(22)ࡢᐤ⏕✵ᡤࡢㄆྍ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᑐẚ࡟ࢀࠊ཰᮰ὴ⏕ࡀᑟฟࡉࢀࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊෆⓗేྜ࡟ࡼࡿእ⨨᧯సࡀᚑ᮶ࡢ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟(9)ࡢ᮲௳ࢆᇶᮏ࡜ࡋࡓᮏศᯒࡢ

A ࣂ࣮⛣ື࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ࡜᝿ᐃࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ

ᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛ࡣࠊ୍ぢ⠇ቃ⏺㐪཯ࡢࡼ࠺࡞௜ຍモෆⓗేྜ࡟ࡼࡿㄆྍࡢ᭷↓ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ(23)ࡢእ⨨ࡢ㐺᱁ᛶࢆࡶ㐺ษ࡟ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ

ࡢᐃᛶຠᯝ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᑐẚ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊྡモྃྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

ෆ࠿ࡽࡢ Ex ࡢෆⓗేྜࡢ᭷↓࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡇࢀࡽࡢᑐẚࡢㄝ᫂ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜

4. 㡯࡜௜ຍモࡢᑐẚࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠊ㡯ࡢእ⨨࡜௜ຍモࡢእ⨨ࡑࢀࡒ
5. ศᯒࢀࡢὴ⏕࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊ୧⪅ࡢὴ⏕఩⨨࡬ࡢేྜᡭẁࡀ␗࡞ࡿ࡜Ⅼࢆ⪃៖ࡍᮏ✏ࡣࣛ࣋ࣜࣥࢢ࢔ࣝࢦࣜࢬ࣒ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ

ࡿ࡜ࠊEx ࡢಟ㣭ᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿྡモྃෆ㒊࡟ࠊ

࡛ࠊPair-Merger ࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ⓗ࡞ేྜ≉ᛶࢆⱥㄒEx ࡢࢥࣆ࣮ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࠿ྰ࠿࡜࠸࠺ὴ⏕ୖࡢ ExDP ᵓᩥࡢእ⨨᧯స࡟ᛂ⏝ࡋࡓࠋ≉࡟ࠊࡢ┦㐪ࡀᑟฟࡉࢀࠊࡇࡢࢥࣆ࣮ࡢ᭷↓ࡢほⅬእ⨨᧯సࡀ(9)ࡢ C-I ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ᮲௳

࠿ࡽࠊ୧⪅ࡢ㛫࡟ᩥἲⓗᑐẚࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ

ࡢࡶ࡜࡛㥑ືࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺⤫ㄒὴ⏕ศᯒࡢணࡶ࡜࡛ࠊࡑࡢከᵝ࡞ᩥἲ≉ᛶࢆㄝ᫂ࡋࡓࠋ

ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ண

ࡢጇᙜᛶࡣࠊ(21)࠿ࡽ(23)ࡢᑐẚ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ* ᮏ✏ࡣ᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍➨ 40 ᅇ኱఍ཱྀ࡛㢌Ⓨ(21) a. ?/*I gave himi [a picture _ ] yesterday of⾲ࡋࡓཎ✏࡟ຍ➹࣭ಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

John’si mother. (Argument ExObj)ᮏ◊✲ࡢ♏ࢆసࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓすᒸᐉ᫂ඛb. I gave himi [a picture _ ] yesterday from⏕ࠊⓎ⾲ࡢᚚྖ఍ࢆ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓ௒す♸௓ඛ⏕John’si collection. (Adjunct ExObj)

ࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊⓎ⾲᫬࡟㈗㔜࡞ᚚຓゝࢆᥦ౪ࡋ࡚

(22) a. I read [a book _ ] [before reading an article

࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓすཎಇ᫂ඛ⏕ࠊ኱᐀⣧ඛ⏕ࡢඛ⏕pg] about John. (Argument ExObj)

᪉࡟῝ࡃឤㅰࢆ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋ

b. *I read [a book _ ] [before reading anὀarticle pg] from John’s library. (Adjunct1ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ MS ࡣ㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜᝿ᐃࡍࡿࠋ

ExObj)

2ෆⓗేྜせ⣲ࢆኴᩥᏐࠊࡑࡢᇶᗏ఩⨨ࢆୗ(23) a. ??I saw [the (best) picture _ ] yesterday of⥺㒊࡛⾲グࡍࡿࠋ

the museum. (Argument ExObj)

3

129ࡇࡢ⤖ᯝ Ex ࡢేྜඛ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊRochemontand Culicover (1990)ࡢ⿵㒊ཎ⌮ (Complement୰ᓥᖹ୕ (1995) ࠕ୺ㄒ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨㸫⤫ㄒㄽ

Principle) ࡛ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜࡯ࡰྠᵝࡢే࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ᳇ࡳศࡅ̿ࠖ, ࠗ᪥ⱥㄒࡢྑ

ྜ఩⨨ࡀᑟฟࡉࢀࡿࠋ

᪉⛣ືᵓᩥ㸫ࡑࡢᵓ㐀࡜ᶵ⬟㸫࠘, 㧗ぢ

4೺୍㸦⦅㸧, 17-35, ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ, ᮾி.

(12)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ኱ᩥᏐ⾲グࡢせ⣲ࡣᑐẚᙉໃ

Rochemont, Michael (1982) “On the Empiricalࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௜ຍモせ⣲ࡢእ⨨࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ(16)௨㝆ࡢ౛ᩥ

Motivation࡛ࡣྡモྃෆ࡟ࡑࡢᇶᗏ఩⨨ࢆ♧ࡍୗ⥺ࢆ

Linguistic Inquiry 13, 150-154.

5

of

the

Raising

Principle,”タࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ௨㝆࡛ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊྡ

Rochemont, Michael (1992) “Bounding Rightwardモྃෆ࡟ Ex ࡣేྜࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊࡇࡢୗ⥺A´-Dependencies,” Island Constraints, ed. byࡣྡモྃ࡜ Ex 㛫ࡢಟ㣭㛵ಀࢆ౽ᐅⓗ࡟♧ࡍHelen Goodluck and Michael Rochemont,⾲グ࡞ࡢ࡛ὀពࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ

373-397, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Rochemont, Michael and Peter W. Culicover (1990)
English Focus Constructions and the Theory ofཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Baltin, Mark (1984) “Extraposition Rules andDiscontinuous

Constituents,”

Grammar,

Linguistic

Cambridge

University

Press,

Cambridge.

Inquiry 15, 157-163.

Ross, John Robert (1986) Infinite Syntax!, Ablex

Chomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatory

Publishing Corporation, New Jersey.

Adequacy,” Structures and Beyond: The⏣Ꮚෆ೺௓ (1995) ࠕ㠀ᑐ⛠⤫ㄒㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ

Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol.3,ࠗྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡢእ⨨࠘ࠖ, ࠗ᪥ⱥㄒࡢྑ

ed. by Adriana Belletti, 104-131, Oxford᪉⛣ືᵓᩥ㸫ࡑࡢᵓ㐀࡜ᶵ⬟㸫࠘, 㧗ぢ

University Press, Oxford.

೺୍㸦⦅㸧, 37-53, ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ, ᮾி.
Tanaka, Hiroyoshi (2011) “On Extraposition

Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,”
Lingua 130, 33-49.

from NP Constructions: A Phase-based

Chomsky, Noam (2015) “Problems of Projection:
Extensions,” Structures,

Strategies

Account,” English Linguistics 28, 173-205.

andWexler, Kenneth and Peter W. Culicover (1980)

Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana

Formal Principles of Language Acquisition,

Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Hamann and Simona Matteini, 3-16, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Culicover, Peter W. and Michael S. Rochemont(1990) “Extraposition and the Complement
Principle,” Linguistic Inquiry 21, 23-47.
Epstein, Samuel, Hisatugu Kitahara and Daniel
Seely (2016) “Phase Cancellation byExternal Pair-Merger of Heads,” The
Linguistic Review 33, 87-102.
Fox, Danny and Jon Nissenbaum (1999)“Extraposition and Scope: A Case for Overt
QR,” ms., MIT. <http://web.mit.edu/fox/www/Extraposition&QR.ps>.

130

<Special Lecture Report>๭ࡀ㸰ࡘࡢ㡯࡟୚࠼ࡽࢀ࠺ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ
2. ᪥ⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅ
Chomsky (2013) ࡣࠊྡモྃࡢศᕸࠊ≉࡟⛣Tつ‽෌⪃㸫ࢥࣆ࣮ᙧᡂ᧯స࡜

ືࡢᛶ㉁ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅ

ࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅ⌮ㄽࢆࡩࡲ࠼࡚

ࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋేྜ࡟ࡼࡾᙧ

㸦The T-Criterion Reconsidered:ᡂࡉࢀࡿᵓ㐀ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢ㸱✀㢮࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(1) a. J = {X, YP}

A Consequence of Form Copy and Labeling㸧b.

J = {XP, YP}

c. J = {X, Y}ᩪ⸨ ⾨㸦Mamoru Saito㸧(a) ࡛ࡣࠊJෆࡢ᥈⣴ࡀ༢⊂ࡢ୺せ㒊 X ࢆぢฟࣀ࣮ࢺࣝࢲ࣒ΎᚰዪᏊ኱Ꮫ

ࡋࠊX ࡀ Jࡢࣛ࣋ࣝ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ(b, c) ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ

㸦Notre Dame Seishin University㸧࠺࡟ࣛ࣋ࣝࢆỴᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡎࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣ᤼㝖ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ(b) ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢሙྜ࡟ࣛ

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸T つ‽, ᴟᑠ୺⩏࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ,࣋ࣝ௜ࡅࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࠊチᐜࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅ, ከ㔜㡯, ↔Ⅼ(2) a. XP ࡀ Jእ࡟⛣ືࡋࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊYP ࡢࣛ࣋ࣝࡀ Jࡢࣛ࣋ࣝ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
b. X ࡜ Y ࡀ୺せ⣲ᛶ f ࢆඹ᭷ࡍࡿሙྜ
࡟ࡣࠊJࡣ <f, f> ࡜ࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅࡉࢀࡿࠋ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
T ᙺ๭࡜㡯ࡀ 1-1 ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ T つ௚ືモᩥࡢᵓ㐀ࢆ౛࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ(2) ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ‽ࡣࠊLGB ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚᭱ࡶᇶᮏⓗ࡞ཎ⌮࠺࡟㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࢆぢࡼ࠺ࠋࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ᱌ࡉࢀࡓࠋ୍᪉࡛ࠊD ᵓ㐀ࡀ(3) [D DP1 [TP T [E DP1 [v*P v* [VP V DP]]]]]

㝖ཤࡉࢀ࡚௨㝆ࠊࡇࡢཎ⌮࡟ᑐࡍࡿ␲ၥࡀᥦ

DP1 ࡀ Eᣦᐃ㒊࠿ࡽ Dᣦᐃ㒊࡟⛣ືࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ

♧ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋᮏㅮ₇࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢᩥἲ⌮ㄽ࠿

Eࡢࣛ࣋ࣝࡣ v*࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊDP1 ࡜ T ࡣ Iࡽࡢ᏶඲࡞㝖ཤࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠋ

⣲ᛶࢆඹ᭷ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊDࡣ <I, I> ࡜ࣛ࣋ࣝ௜

T つ‽࡟ᑐࡍࡿࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢᢈุࡣࠊ㡯ࡀ㸰ࡅࡉࢀࡿࠋࡘ௨ୖࡢ T ᙺ๭ࢆᢸ࠸࠺ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶

I⣲ᛶ୍⮴ࢆḞࡃ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࠊI ⣲ᛶࡢඹࡗࡓࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊHornstein (1991) ࡣࠊไᚚࡢ⛣᭷࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚᫬ไᩥ࡟ࣛ࣋ࣝࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜

ືศᯒ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࡇࡢ⤖ㄽࢆᑟ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋSaito (2018) ࡣࠊChomsky (2015)

Chomsky (2021) ࡣࠊࡇࡢὝᐹࢆཷࡅ⥅ࡂࠊࢥࡀᥦၐࡍࡿᙅ୺せ㒊ࡢᶵ⬟࡟ᚤಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࣆ࣮ᙧᡂ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ㡯ࡀ㸰ࡘ௨ୖࡢ T ᙺ๭ࢆᢸࡘࡘࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥἲ᱁ࠊᚋ⨨モࠊ㏙㒊ᒅᢡࢆ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡍࡿศᯒࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᙅ୺せ㒊࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡇࡢၥ㢟ࢆゎỴᮏㅮ₇࡛ࡣࠊT ᙺ๭ࡣ㸰ࡘ௨ୖࡢ㡯࡟୚࠼ࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥἲⓗ≉ᚩ࡟ㄝ᫂ࢆ୚

ࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜ࡍࡿ T つ‽ࡢࡶ࠺୍᪉ࡢ୺ᙇ࡟

࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᥦ᱌࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ

↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓࠋࡲࡎࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊከ㔜㡯ࢆྵ(4) ࡛ࡣࠊ᱁/P ࡀᙅ୺せ㒊࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࣛ࣋ࣝ

ࡴ౛ࡀࠊࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅ⌮ㄽ࡟ࡼࡾ᤼㝖ࡉࢀࠊTࢆ౪⤥࡛ࡁࡎࠊJ ࡣ T ࡜ࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅࡉࢀࡿࠋつ‽ࡣవ๫ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢୖ

(4) J = {{DP, ᱁/P}, TP}࡛ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊSaito (2016, 2018) ࡢࡇࡢ௬ㄝࡣࠊ᫬ไᩥ࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊྠᵝ࡟ (4) ࡢᥦ᱌࡟ᇶ࡙ࡅࡤࠊከ㔜㡯ᩥࡀ㐺ษ࡟ࣛ࣋ࣝ௜

ᵓ㐀ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿከ㔜୺ㄒᩥࡸࢫࢡࣛࣥࣈࣜࣥ

ࡅࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄽࡌࠊKuroda (1988) ࡀᥦ♧ࡋࢢᩥࡀ㐺ษ࡟ࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆண

ࡓከ㔜┠ⓗㄒࡢ౛ࢆ⤂௓ࡋࡘࡘࠊᐇ㝿࡟ T ᙺ

ࡍࡿࠋ

131

3. T つ‽ࡢ㝖ཤ࡬஧㔜㡯ࡢ㸰ࡘ┠࡟↔Ⅼᑠ㎡ࢆຍ࠼ࡿ࡞࡝ࡋ

ⱥㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ T ᙺ๭ࡀ㸰ࡘࡢ㡯࡟୚࠼ࡽ࡚ࠊ↔Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡋࡸࡍࡃࡍࡿ࡜チᐜᛶࡀࢀࡿ౛ࡣࠊT つ‽࡜ࡣ⊂❧࡟ࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅ⌮ㄽྥୖࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ௨ୗࡢ౛ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ஧

࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᤼㝖ࡉࢀࡿࠋ㔜㡯ࡢ㸯ࡘ┠ࡣࠊ↔Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ㸰ࡘ(5) a. *Mary [D [VP ate only apples] fruits].

┠ࡢ௦᭰㞟ྜࢆ⾲ࡍᙺ๭ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(9) [ⰼᏊࡀᯝ≀ࢆ㣗࡭ࡓࡢ] ࡣࠊࡾࢇࡈࢆ

b. *Mary [D [VP went to France] to Europe].
(5) ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊD ࡣࣛ࣋ࣝࢆ

㸯ࡘࡔࡅࡔ.
(9) ࡣࠊᯝ≀ࡢ୰࡛ࠊⰼᏊࡀ㣗࡭ࡓࡢࡣࠊࡾ

୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ୍᪉࡛ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᑐᛂࡍࡿ౛

࡛ࡣࠊᩥἲ᱁࡜ᚋ⨨モࡀᙅ୺せ㒊࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ ࢇࡈࢆ㸯ࡘࡔࡅࡔ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ஦ᐇࡣࠊ
ࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅ࡟ၥ㢟ࡣ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ

᏶඲ゎ㔘ࡢཎ⌮ࢆࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢせ⣲ࡀព࿡ゎ㔘ヱᙜࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ౛ࡀᩥἲⓗ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊT つ࡟ᅛ᭷ࡢ㈉⊩ࢆࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ࡍࡿ

‽ࢆ㝖ཤࡍ࡭ࡁ┤᥋ⓗ࡞ドᣐ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

᪥ᮏㄒࡀࠊ(5a) ࡟㢮ఝࡍࡿ౛ࢆチᐜࡍࡿࡇ5. ⤖ㄽ࡜ࡣࠊࡍ࡛࡟ Kuroda (1988) ࡀ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Kuroda ࡢ୺ᙇࡣࠊᢳ㇟᱁ࡸ T ᙺ๭ࡢ௜୚ࢆ

ᮏㅮ₇࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅ⌮ㄽࡀྵࡴ㛵ಀࡀⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ 1-1 ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ

ከ㔜㡯ࢆ᤼㝖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾

᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ 1-0 ࡸ 1-ከࡶチᐜࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ

࠸࡚ࡣࠊT つ‽࡟཯ࡋ࡚㡯ࡢ㔜」ࡀほᐹࡉࢀ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୗࡣࠊKuroda ࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ஦ᐇࡣࠊT つ‽ࢆ᏶඲(6) a.??ṇ⏨ࡀⰼᏊࢆ㢋ࢆᡴࡗࡓ.

࡟㝖ཤࡍࡿ᰿ᣐ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊከ㔜㡯࡟ㄢࡏb. [ṇ⏨ࡀⰼᏊࢆᡴࡗࡓࡢ] ࡣ㺂㢋 (ࢆ) ࡔ.

ࡽࢀࡿព࿡ⓗ᮲௳࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ(6a) ࡣࠊ⾲ᒙⓗ࡞஧㔜ᑐ᱁ຠᯝ࡟ࡼࡾチᐜᗘࡀⴠࡕࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢຠᯝࡣࠊ(6b) ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,”࠺࡟ࠊᑐ᱁ྡモྃࢆ㸯ࡘ⛣ືࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ

Lingua 130, 33-49.

ᅇ㑊ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊKuroda ࡣࠊ(6) ࡛ࡣ㸰ࡘࡢᑐ᱁ྡモྃࡀ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ୺㢟ࡢ T ᙺ๭ࢆཷChomsky, Noam (2015) “Problems of Projection:
Extensions,” Structures, Strategies andࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄽドࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

Beyond, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico, et al.,ከ㔜㡯⌧㇟ࡣࠊ┠ⓗㄒࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊᚋ⨨モ

3-16, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

ྃࡸእ㡯࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ(7) ࡣࠊጞ

Chomsky, Noam (2021) “Minimalism: WhereⅬࢆ⾲ࡍᚋ⨨モྃࡀ㔜」ࡍࡿ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

Are We Now, and Where Can We Hope to(7) [᪥ᮏ࠿ࡽཧຍ⪅ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡢ] ࡣ㺂ᗈᓥ࠿Go,”ࠗゝㄒ◊✲࠘160, 1-41.

ࡽ (ࡔࡅ) ࡔ.
ⱥㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ T つ‽࡟᢬ゐࡍࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁ

Hornstein, Norbert (1999) “Movement andࡓ౛ࡀࣛ࣋ࣝ௜ࡅ⌮ㄽ࡟ࡼࡾㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿ࡜

Control,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69-96.

ࡍࢀࡤࠊKuroda ࡢ㆟ㄽࡣࠊT つ‽ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟

Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) “Whether We Agree orᑐࡍࡿ཯ド࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼┤ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

Not,” Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1-47.
Saito, Mamoru (2016) “(A) Case for Labeling,”
The Linguistic Review 33, 129-175.

4. ከ㔜㡯࡟ಀࡿព࿡ⓗไ⣙(8) ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ஧㔜㡯ࡣᖖ࡟チᐜࡉࢀ

Saito, Mamoru (2018) “Kase as a Weak Head,”ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊព࿡ⓗไ⣙ࡀㄢࡏࡽࢀࡿࠋ

McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 25,(8) *[ⰼᏊࡀᚭࢆྏࡗࡓࡢ] ࡣ㺂Ꮫ⏕ࢆ㸱ேࡔ.

382-391.

132ࡋࡓࡾゝㄒࢆẚ㍑ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿ㝿ࡢ⌮ㄽⓗ๓
ᥦࡸグ㏙⿦⨨࡜ࡋ࡚ᗈࡃඹ᭷ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋඹ
㏻ࡢᴫᛕࡸ⌮ㄽࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊゝㄒ㛫ࡢẚ㍑ࡀᐜ᫆࡜࡞ࡾࠊୡ⏺ࡢᵝࠎ࡞ゝㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
ⱥㄒࡢᖖ㆑࣭ୡ⏺ࡢゝㄒࡢ㠀ᖖ㆑㸸ᬑ㐢ᛶࡸ┦ᑐᛶࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊⱥㄒ

ⱥㄒᏛࡢ▱ぢࡀಶูゝㄒࡢ◊✲࡟୚࠼ࡿ㸦Ꮫ㸧ࡢゝㄒ◊✲୍⯡࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㈉⊩ᗘࡣ㧗࠸ṇࡢᙳ㡪࡜㈇ࡢᙳ㡪࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ1 ୍᪉࡛ࠊ6000 ࠿ࡽ 8000 ࠶ࡿ࡜*㸦Common Knowledge in English is Notࡉࢀࡿゝㄒࡢ 1 ࡘ࡟㐣ࡂ࡞࠸ⱥㄒ࠿ࡽ୍⯡Always Common in World Languages: The໬ࡉࢀࡓᴫᛕࡸ⌮ㄽࡀゝㄒࡢᖖ㆑࡜ࡉࢀࠊಶ

Positive and Negative Effects of Englishูゝㄒࡢศᯒࡸゝㄒࡢẚ㍑ࢆ⾜࠺㝿ࡢ㸦ᬯ㯲Linguistics on the Study of Individualࡢ㸧ᇶ‽࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡬ࡢᠱᛕࡀⱥㄒᏛࢆྵࡴ
ከࡃࡢ◊✲ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠋ2

Languages㸧 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣࡢ୰ࠊᮏࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࡛࢘ࡣࠊ
኱㇂ ┤㍤㸦Naoki Otani㸧ࢥ࢖ࢧࣥㅖㄒࠊࢻ࢖ࢶㄒࠊࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࠊ࣐࣮ࣞ

ᮾிእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ㸦TUFS㸧

ㄒࠊࢱ࢞ࣟࢢㄒࠊ࣐ࣛ࣍ࣟࢵࢺㄒࡢලయⓗ࡞୰ᕝ ⿱㸦Hirosi Nakagawa㸧⌧㇟ࡢศᯒࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊⱥㄒᏛ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᴫᛕࡸ

ᮾிእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ㸦TUFS㸧

⌮ㄽࡀྛゝㄒࡢศᯒ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚⸨⦖ ᗣᘯ㸦Yasuhiro Fujinawa㸧࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋ≉࡟ࠊྛㅮᖌࡀᐇ㝿ᮾிእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ㸦TUFS㸧࡟ಶูゝㄒࢆศᯒࡍࡿ㝿࡟ឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡿⱥㄒᚋ⸨ 㞝௓㸦Yusuke Goto㸧㸦Ꮫ㸧ࡀ୚࠼ࡿ㈇ࡢᙳ㡪ࢆ᳨ウࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊⱥ

ᮾிࣟࢩ࢔ㄒᏛ㝔㸦Tokyo Institute of Russianㄒࡢ◊✲࠿ࡽⓎᒎࡋࡓᴫᛕࡸ⌮ㄽࢆゝㄒࡢLanguage㸧ẚ㍑ࡢᣦᶆ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡿጇᙜᛶࡸࠊⱥㄒࡢ⌧ᐑෆ ᣅஓ㸦Takuya Miyauchi㸧㇟ࡔࡅࢆぢ࡚ゝㄒ୍⯡ࡢᬑ㐢ⓗ࡞≉ᚩࢆㄒᮾி኱Ꮫ㸦The University of Tokyo㸧ࡿ༴㝤ᛶ➼ࠊⱥㄒᏛࡢ▱ぢࢆྛゝㄒࡢศᯒ࡟༉⏣ ๛㸦Go Hikita㸧ᛂ⏝ࡍࡿ㝿ࡢὀព࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

ᮾிእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ㸦TUFS㸧㔝ඖ ⿱ᶞ㸦Hiroki Nomoto㸧

2. ⱥㄒᏛࡀಶูゝㄒࡢ◊✲࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ㡪౛ᮾிእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ㸦TUFS㸧 ࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࡛࢘ࡣࠊྛㅮᖌࡢⓎ⾲࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ㛗ᒇ ᑦ඾㸦Naonori Nagaya㸧ⱥㄒࡢ◊✲࠿ࡽⓎᒎࡋࡓᴫᛕࡸ⌮ㄽࡀಶูᮾி኱Ꮫ㸦The University of Tokyo㸧ゝㄒࡢ◊✲࡟ᵝࠎ࡞㠃࡛ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿ
Ⅼࡀሗ࿌ࡉࢀࡓࠋ᭱ึ࡟ࠊⱥㄒ㸦Ꮫ㸧ࡀಶู࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ⱥㄒᏛ, ಶูゝㄒ◊✲, ẚ㍑࣭

ゝㄒࡢ◊✲࡟୚࠼ࡿⰋ࠸ᙳ㡪ࡢ౛ࢆグࡍࠋ

グ㏙ࡢ≀ᕪࡋ, ⱥㄒᏛࡢຌ⨥ձ ▱㆑ࡸⓎぢࢆඹ᭷ࡍࡿ㝿ࡢᡭẁ࡜ࡋ࡚ᗈࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⮬㌟ࡢ◊✲ࢆᅜ㝿
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

ⓗ࡟Ⓨಙࡍࡿ୺せ࡞፹య࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ⌧ᅾࠊⱥㄒࡣゝㄒᏛ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᐇ㉁ⓗ࡞ඹ㏻ղ 㡢㡩࣭ᙧែ࣭ᩥἲ࣭ព࿡ⓗᵓ㐀ࡢグ㏙ࡸゝㄒ࡜࡞ࡾࠊಶูゝㄒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ▱ぢࢆඹ᭷ࡍẚ㍑࡟⏝࠸ࡿグ㏙ࡢ⿦⨨࡟ࠊⱥㄒ㸦Ꮫ㸧ࡿ㝿࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠ᫬࡟ࠊⱥㄒࡢ◊✲ࡢ▱ぢࡀᙉࡃ཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ࢸࣥࢫࠊ

࠿ࡽⓎᒎࡋࡓᴫᛕࡸ⌮ㄽࡀࠊಶูゝㄒࢆ⪃ᐹ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࠊࣦ࢛࢖ࢫࠊࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࠊ➼㸧ࠋ

133

3. ࡴࡍࡧճ 㡢㡩ㄽ࣭ᙧែㄽ࣭⤫ㄒㄽ࣭ព࿡ㄽ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽ➼ࡢᵝࠎ࡞㒊㛛ࡢゝㄒ⌮ㄽ㸦⏕ᡂ㡢㡩 ᮏࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࡛࢘ࡣࠊⱥㄒ㸦Ꮫ㸧ࡀᵝࠎ࡞ㄽࠊศᩓᙧែㄽࠊ⏕ᡂ⤫ㄒㄽࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒ㠃࡛ಶูゝㄒࡢ◊✲࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿⅬᏛࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡞࡝㸧ࡢከࡃࡀⱥㄒ㸦Ꮫ㸧ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋࡑࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊẚ㍑ࡢ≀ᕪࡋ࡟ࡢ▱ぢ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ⱥㄒࡢᵓ㐀ࡀᙉࡃᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟մ ⱥㄒ㸦Ꮫ㸧ࡢ◊✲࠿ࡽⓎᒎࡋࡓグ㏙⿦⨨ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ◊✲ࡢⓎಙຊࡸࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕ࡢ

ࡸ⌮ㄽࢆ㐺⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊಶูゝㄒෆࡢ኱ࡁࡉ࡟➃ࢆⓎࡍࡿၥ㢟ࡶྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ୍

◊✲ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣᤊ࠼࡟ࡃ࠸⌧㇟ࡀⓎ᥀ࡉ᪉࡛ࠊⱥㄒ㸦Ꮫ㸧ࡀಶูゝㄒ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ◊✲ࢀࡓࡾࠊ⌧㇟࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⌮ゎࡀಁ㐍ࡉࢀࡿࠋ どⅬࡢᥦ౪ࡸ᝟ሗࡢඹ᭷➼ࡢⅬ࡛ࠊᜠᜨࢆ୚
࠼࡚࠸ࡿ⌧≧ࡶ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ
ඹ㏻ࡢᴫᛕࡸ⌮ㄽࢆ⏝࠸࡚ゝㄒࢆศᯒࡍࡿ ゝㄒᏛࡣඹ㏻ࡢ┠ᶆ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕே㛫ࡀᣢࡘゝࡇ࡜࡛ࠊゝㄒ㛫ࡢẚ㍑ࡀᐜ᫆࡜࡞ࡾࠊୡ⏺ࡢㄒ▱㆑ࡸゝㄒ⬟ຊࡢ࠶ࡾࡼ࠺ࢆゎ᫂ࡍࡿࠖ࡜

ᵝࠎ࡞ゝㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᬑ㐢ᛶࡸ┦ᑐᛶࡀ᫂ࡽ

࠸࠺౑࿨ࢆᢸ࠺Ꮫၥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ┠ⓗࢆ㐩ᡂ࠿࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊⱥㄒ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅࡓẚ㍑

ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊྛゝㄒࡢ◊✲⪅ࡀྍ⬟࡞㝈ࡾᐈほࡢ≀ᕪࡋࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ಶูゝㄒࡢ⌧㇟ࢆศᯒࡍ

ⓗ࡞≀ᕪࡋࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊᆅ㐨࡟ྛゝㄒ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊಶูゝㄒෆ㒊ࡢ⪃ᐹࡔࡅ࡛ࡣᤊ࠼

ࡿ⌧㇟ࢆほᐹ࣭グ㏙୍࣭⯡໬ࡋࡓ࠺࠼࡛ࠊ㛫࡟ࡃ࠸ࠊྛゝㄒࡢ≉ᚩࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡿࠋẚ㍑

ゝㄒⓗ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿඹ㏻ᛶࡸ┦ᑐᛶࢆㄽࡌ࡚

ࡢ≀ᕪࡋࢆᥦ౪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛ࠊ⌧௦ࡢゝㄒᏛ࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡣ୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘ࡀࠊ

࡟ᑐࡍࡿⱥㄒᏛࡢ㈉⊩ࡣ㧗࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡶ⥆ࡃᖜᗈ࠸஺ὶ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠊⱥㄒᏛࡀಶ ୍᪉࡛ࠊⱥㄒ㸦Ꮫ㸧ࡀಶูゝㄒࡢ◊✲࡟୚ูゝㄒࡢ◊✲࡟ᵝࠎ࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿ⌧࠼ࡿ㈇ࡢᙳ㡪౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶሗ࿌ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡓࠋ

≧ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿ➃⥴࡜࡞ࢀࡤᖾ࠸࡛࠶ࡿࠋձ ಶูゝㄒࡢ㔜せ࡞≉ᚩࡀࠊⱥㄒࢆ๓ᥦ࡜* ᮏ✏ࡣ JSPS ⛉◊㈝ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡲࡍ

ࡋࡓᬯ㯲ࡢ≀ᕪࡋࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡍࡿࡇ

㸦ㄢ㢟␒ྕ 22H04929, 22K18249, 21K00522,

࡜࡛ࠊぢⴠ࡜ࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

20H00011, 19K00657, 18H00664, 18K00526㸧

ղ ᬯ㯲ࡢ๓ᥦ࡛࠶ࡿⱥㄒⓗ࡞ᵓ㐀ࡀ↓ᶆὀ࡜࡞ࡾࠊಶูゝㄒ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ≉ᚩࡀ᭷ᶆ1㸦ࡲࡓࡣ౛እ㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ฎ⌮ࡉࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺

ᅜ㝿㡢ኌᏐẕ㸦IPA㸧࡞࡝ࡀࠊゝㄒࢆẚ㍑ࡍ

ࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟ࠊࢠࣜࢩ࢔ㄒ࣭ࣛࢸࣥㄒࡢᩥἲࠊ

࡜ࠊ₯ᅾⓗ࡞୍⯡໬ࡀ᩿ᛕࡉࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ ࡿ㝿ࡢ≀ᕪࡋ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᙺ๭ࢆᢸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2
ճ 」ᩘࡢグ㏙⿦⨨ࡸ⌮ㄽࡢ୰࡛ࠊⱥㄒࡢ⌧౛࠼ࡤࠊᓠᓊ (1988) ࡛ࡣࠊᏙ❧ㄒࢆศᯒ㇟ࢆ࠺ࡲࡃㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿグ㏙⿦⨨ࡸ⌮ㄽࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃㅖㄒࡢᙳ㡪࡛ࠊᩥἲ⠊ࡀࠊಶูゝㄒࢆศᯒࡍࡿ㝿࡟ඃໃ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ␪࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢྡモࡢᛶࠊᩘࠊ᱁ࡢ༊ูࡀ࡞࠸ࠊմ ಶูゝㄒࢆᐇ㝿࡟ศᯒࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊⱥㄒ࡟
ືモࡢά⏝ࠊἲࠊ᫬ไࡢᑐ❧ࡀ࡞࠸ࠊᙧែㄽ
㏆࠸ᵓ㐀ࢆ᝿ᐃࡍࡿ᪉ࡀࠊ୍⯡࡟ཷࡅධ࡛࠸࠺᥋㎡ࡀ࡞࠸ࠊရモࡢ༊ูࡀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺

ࢀࡽࢀࡸࡍࡃ࡞ࡿࠋ

ᾘᴟⓗ࡞ᐃ⩏ࡋ࠿࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࠕゝㄒᏛࡢյ 㠀ⱥㄒ⣔ࡢಶูゝㄒࡢ◊✲⪅ࡢ࠶࠸ࡔ༡໭ၥ㢟ࠖࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡛ࡶࠊᩘࡀከࡃⓎಙຊࡢᙉ࠸ⱥㄒ⣔◊✲ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ᓠᓊ┿⍆ (1988)ࠕᒅᢡࡶά⏝ࡶ࡞࠸ゝㄒ㸫⪅ࡢᙳ㡪ຊࡢ๓࡟ࠊ཯ド࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㆟ㄽࡀࢱ࢖ㄒࠖ,ࠗゝㄒ࠘➨ 17 ᕳ 8 ྕ, 90-95㸬༑ศ࡟࡞ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.

134

marker -kamosirenai with the morpheme -ta.

<Symposium Report>

Nishiguchi considered the so-called past tense of
surprise or discovery, which is a modal past,
based on the anaphoricity of the pronoun.
Tense: Comparison between Japanese andNishiyama analyzed the deictic uses of the

English*English and Japanese present-time adverbs, now
and ima, whose referents appear to be locatedSumiyo Nishiguchi

within different ranges of time. Hohaus shared

Otaru University of Commercesome of the findings from her lab on the

Toshiyuki Ogihara

processing of tense in English, and ended withsome thoughts on Japanese.

University of Washington
Shane Steinert-Threlkeld
University of Washington

2. (Lecture 1) Extensional vs. Intensional

Naoko Komoto

Approaches to the Semantics of Non-veridical

National Institute of Technology, Ishikawa

BeforeCollege(Toshiyuki

Ogihara

and

Shane

Steinert-Threlkeld)
We discussed the behavior of tense

Atsuko Nishiyama

morphemes in before/mae and after/ato clauses

Wakayama University

inVera Hohaus

EnglishandJapanese.

We

compared

The University of Manchester

Anscombe’s (1964) purely extensional analysis

Giuliano Armenanteand Beaver and Condoravdi’s (2003) intensional

Universität Potsdam

analysis of before/after. Anscombe’s (1964) is

Britta Stolterfoht

deceptively simple and requires no intensional

Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingensemantics. Beaver and Condoravdi (2003)
proposed an alternative analysis in which after

Keywords㸸adverb, evidential, modal, now,and before are lexical converses and the clausal

processing

complement of after and before denotes theearliest time at which the sentence is true at anyof the “accessible” worlds. Anscombe (1964) ismore parsimonious than the proposal in Beaver

1. Introduction
topicsTense is one of the most controversial

and Condoravdi (2003), and it makes moreinaccurate predictions about the data if it islinguistics.

This

symposiumtenses,morphemes

andsupplemented by a small number of pragmatic

adverbs in English and Japanese from different

principles. By replacing the universal quantifierperspectives. Ogihara and Steinert-Threlkeld

in Anscombe’s original proposal with a negateddiscussed the behavior of tense morphemes inexistential, we can also explain some additional

temporal adverbial clauses (such as before/mae

data involving expletive negation (Jin andand after/ato clauses) in English and Japanese.

Koenig 2019) in many languages.

highlighted

Komotodiscussed

tense

the

meanings

oftheevidential marker -rashii and the epistemic1353. (Lecture 2) Some Evidential and Epistemic

5. (Lecture 4) Granularity of Now in English

Markers,

and Japanese (Atsuko Nishiyama)

Past

Tense

Morpheme,

andThis talk compared the uses of the

Perspective Shift (Naoko Komoto)In this talk, I discussed the meanings

English and Japanese present-time adverbs nowof the evidential marker rashii ‘it seems’ and theand ima ‘now.’ They both refer to the time ofepistemic marker kamosirenai ‘may’ with theutterance in conversation and a time in narrative

past tense morpheme -ta. They are sparingly

discourse, but they seem different in the range ofused in spoken language and sometimes intime they refer to. For example, ima can occur inwritten texts, as studied in Nihongo Kijutsu

the past out of the blue, while now cannot. This

Bunpoo Kenkyuukai (2003). I am examining

talktheir semantics in terms of perspective. Some ofpast-narrative discourse in Altshuler (2016) andthese expressions can convey the same meanings

extended it to the deictic uses of now and ima.

without the past tense morpheme -ta, while

The difference is pragmatically explained,

others do not. Investigating both types ofcombined with reference time updates in Partee

examples, I showed that they can be described in(1984), via different implicatures in the tense

terms of perspective shift along the lines ofandAbrusán (2021).

Japanese.

4. (Lecture 3) Surprise Past and Modal

6. (Lecture 5) Embedded Tenses in English:

Subordination (Sumiyo Nishiguchi)

The View from Processing” (Vera Hohaus,

This paper argued that the past tense ofmodifiedaspectthesystemmeaningofbetweennow

EnglishinandGiuliano Armenante and Britta Stolterfoht)

surprise or discovery as in While I thought thereThis

was no cat in this island, it was here! wheninterpretation

finding what has not been expected or missing

clauses in English, and “...the puzzling fact that

(Teramura 1984, others) is a modal past in view

most, but not all, occurrences of past tenseof the anaphoricity of the pronoun. While theconvey a meaning of anteriority” (Heim 1994).

pronoun in the sentences in past tense can refer

This fact is not only a puzzle for semantic theory

back to the indefinites in the antecedent of theand our understanding of the mapping between

conditional or in the previous sentence, those inform and meaning, but also for sentence

the present tense do not allow coreference. The

processing. We first reviewed some of the key

antecedent contains an attitude verb or aapproaches to embedded tenses and discuss thenecessity modal. In order to allow anaphoric

processing predictions they translate to. We thenreference of pronouns, the subordination relation

presented

is required between two sentences, and modal

experiments from joint work with Giuliano

element should be present in the consequent.

Armenante (Universität Potsdam) and Britta

Modal subordination has been observed in

Stolterfoht

English (Roberts 1989), main clauses in German

Tübingen) that were designed to test these

Konjunctive I (Potts 2005, others) and in

predictions.

a

talk

revisitedthetemporalofcomplement

andrelative

battery(Eberhardofcomprehension

Karls

Universität

Japanese (McCready and Asher 2006).
*

136

This

symposiumwas

supported

by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 20K00665.

and Pronominal Anaphora in Discourse,”
Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 683-721.
Teramura, Hideo (1984) Nihongo no Shintakusu

REFERENCES
Abrusán, Márta (2021) “The Spectrum of

to Imi (Japanese Syntax and Meaning) II,

Perspective Shift: Protagonist Projection
VersusFree

Indirect

Kuroshio, Tokyo.

Discourse,”

Linguistics and Philosophy 44, 839–873.
Altshuler, Daniel (2016) Events, States andTimes, De Gruyter, Berlin.
Anscombe, Gertrude E. M. (1964) Before andAfter, Philosophical Review 73, 3-24.
Beaver, David and Cleo Condoravdi (2003) “A
Uniform Analysis of Before and After,”
SALT 13.
Heim, Irene (1994) “Comments on Abusch’s
Theory of Tense,” Ellipsis, Tense andQuestions, ed. by Hans Kamp, 143-170,
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Jin, Yanwei and Jean-Pierre Koenig (2019)“Expletive Negation in English, French,and Mandarin: A Semantic and Language
Production Model,” Empirical Issues in
Syntax and Semantics 12, 157-186.
McCready, Eric and Nicholas Asher (2006)“ModalSubordinationinJapanese:

Dynamics and Evidentiality,” Proceedingsof the 29th Annual Penn Linguistics
Colloquium, University of Pennsylvania
Working Papers in Linguistics 12, 237-249.
Nihongo Kijutsu Bunpoo Kenkyuukai (2003)
Gendai Nihongo Bunpoo 4: Dai 8-bu
Modaritii (Modern Japanese Grammar 4:
Part 8 Modality), Kurosio, Tokyo.
Partee, Barbara H. (1984)
Temporal“NominalandAnaphora,” Linguistics andPhilosophy 7, 243-286.
Potts, Chris (2005) The Logic of Conventional
Implicatures, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Roberts, Craige (1989) “Modal Subordination137

 mÙ/Æ,%¥Ì\ ¿ÈÖ×ËJË * jh/M , (h.º|,Ã·/',Ö×¥ÌÞ    `mÙ

 L¾Ö× ¦Ë\B;E¿ÈÖ×ËJË
#



jh

1I:K=318

R!Ý :1> ,,Ö×Ä_­T

Ú':A@A>A9;53>IBA@7@57A8U"@G;D;4>7%ACB:7?7DV

É+-,TSÖ"EDAC?3>@3>JD7D3@6"?B>;53E;A@D8AC

× Ë Ú %ACB:A>A9;53>>J A@6;E;A@76 ':A@A>A 

@9>;D:':A@A>A9J%ACB:A>A9JÛ

9J%'Û,YÖ×­T
É+-,Ö×TSËÚ':A@A>A9 ;53>>J A@6;E;A@76%ACB:A>A9J'%Û,

ªN VLÚ):;@ ;5:;*3@3=3Û %'PvyÚ*:7+@;G7CD;EJA8*A=JAÛZ ÖÀhÚGAH7>5A3>7D 

57@57 63; =;C3;67=;C3;

wJ343 ;5KHK<ÞÖ×  1I:K=318

J347)$ Û! "¢¨§sÃ · Öt{¥aÚÄ_Ñ©/¢¨§s &^Ô,

(73>;K7 %ACB:7?7 Ñ ¦ËT63;=3DJAF=367=3DJA=3vÚ} ÛÛ)È³aÚÄ_Ñ©/kÈJ£È&^Ô,T C3;DFC7DFD1

8  H3; H3; 93J3 93J3  H7 H7 93J3  !'Þ¼®­ ¿È!9G¢¨ÚlÇÎÛ¢¨Ï/U.iÖ]*

93J3H1H1Ú4C4CÛ

Û
W¹{
ÚÈØ)È~±Å­®´W¹%%j/u¢¨,Ã · xp,

r#

q

Ä_Ñ©/^ÔJ²,TÏ/U.j/u , ¤!

:3 ;DJ3:7DJ3e»ÛcÎÚBNC?;E B7C?OEÛ)ÖÊÚ3FE;A@  ,L'%3FE;A@ 3FE;A@Û(Ã ·ÏÍn,

Út 6I@72A! * ozD;@ E3D;@630Û ¯ Èr!

\µÖ {XÚÏ * Û/}ÖµTÚ`(ÝÖµ/Â¡,0+ Ö{¥,Ã T CA=7DJA@CAG63;J3?A@6A·°®-.,ÁhÈJÕf

63;1C
43E7@6343KIÛLÈF?E Ö×¥Ì/Ä¬J¸QËÁÈr!}BKDTÚ`, ¦Ë\ B;E¿ÈÖ ( Ý B K D / Â ¡  ,  T  BAE3 ×ËJËM

BA BAE3@:@:DFDF DF8K8K

¦Ë­!Ã,jh/º|,·

Ö{¥!



Z!È Ðg«O 3>>A?ACB:J!tid
L½T=3E E3=3E E3b- -É+-,

(73>;K7 %ACB:7?7Ú*,j [¥d/Â¡,^¶ß(%ÛÉ+- ¦Ë­!%'Ò,º'%\ R «,%' !0++-,  * Ã ·­'KÚÕ¢¨UÈJ{È:1>

È~Û# Ä_Ñ©Î Ã+- 

(%




*

*

Ö{¥,

ÓM,



Ü



138

'K

qr#

{

^ ¶

83;E:8F>@7DD 5A@DEC3;@E <( \

ZU!-,L'% !l¾Y%

-!Ö×ud/U!Èr>G8t L½TÚD1%I _)GK9I Ä_!@)}ÖµT}BKDT Ö× ^¶!Ó.+ÛL^¶ ?3C=76@7DD 5A@DEC3;@EÇ­·,Û
Y

+

<

UÈJ£ÈJ{tÈÚ)%Û Ç( \-,- *

Î!-+ 'K^q{

­

^¶

\Ì %, ,(% *(W,*   +mÙ!-Z Vxw +-,Ú)W,kÈÚ/Û {p,¤, "Ç¥Ì! %'!ÈHÇ,Û'%,\ +Ã-"Ç!Ã ·,0GA;571/Öt[¥,ÁhÈÄ 3 %' ÇÄ_,È³a_È³TÉ+-,  D;C;:F=; =3?;D;C;:F=; 93?;au ª%%ÚTS  EA;C7EEA B7B3EA;C7EEA 47B3

,iD1%I _)G1F#K K

4 '% ÁhÈr,,ÂÉtd

=3D33?3 =3D3 3?3 93D3Ô;

K9I

Ä_

ËÛÖ×T(iÉ+-, j!'% (, -½ «..!

     =3D3=AF?AC; =3D3 =AF?AC; 93D3
µ¶;  +,mÙ-,Ã

·^¶DI5I/',7FIÇÄ_,È³a/º -" %'% mÙ,ÁhÈr,,ÂÉtd/

º -" '% , +,%

3  Ç,UÈJ£ÈJ{tÈÇ Â/w ¯h­ \  3?3 0GA;571 =3BB33?393BB3Ô4 ,  4AF7=; 0GA;571 =3;DJ34AF7=; 93;DJ3Á2¤Ì/´,

 Ñ¦ËRÓÃ ,
¬&

D;?; 0GA;571 D;?;D;?;K;?;&&(Ã

:A@A 0GA;571 :A@A:A@A4A@A·/© ¥Ì ®L­\rC"EA3@6%7DE7C  

4  ÇUÈJ£ÈJ{tÈ

EA;C7EEA Y B77B331F#K K
'+-,



=A=FD3; Y DJ3=3;SÑ¤2





D3C3 Y D3C3++3  kÈ0U È³ )% ÇÎ



:A=A Y :A=A  

,



\

×[!

*%

  3;E:(%3;E:

4  ÁhÈ,Ç ¬¥ZU

D;C;:F=; 0GA;571 =3?;D;C;:F=;93?;au ª^¶DI5I ¹¤ +!3ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ
È!kÈ Ç, 3?;DA Y D;CF?;DAD;CFjP

(%)

3;E: ©S-,
2

¤ 0DJ31kÈÖ]/MTh. ÁhÈr/8ÖÉ,ÂÉ/, kÈd.!"EA3@6Ã Ç­·0GA;571*,(%7DE7C  ! 3;E:w -(% *¬¥,/1z{Ç Â .,Ú}¬­139

/ 1I;8;=KEC34F C34FD"D"ÞÇ,  + ÇÑ©!kÈd

@3E;G;K3E;A@³udÛÊJÒhËÁÈÚ:;EA 4;EA

-+>G8/tÇ,È-

¦!*~%,L4.=3H3CF 93H3CF/.,/.,

%D3?F K3?F]
ÞÇ³udÛÇÎ!4* Ã · Y(À/L¾ÁhÈÄ\~ ,0GA;571/MÁhÈÇ­·/-+/_!) ©,

·J( ·JÇ·!q­kÈ

,,+3

À~^¶DI5I·±/Lz°Õi1z(!*Âf (%3;E:  

)ECF;<=7  -AC6 3;E:8F>@7DD B;EkÈLÉ kÈd( Ã

%¿È ËÁ! 8>;B 8>AB· ©+-, I³

Ú ÖOÛE77@J H77@JÚ[ÖOÛ *_ -, 3(%(% B;E*(Zl,/£ÇÎ

DI5I*,

3;E: )  (Í«dÐ¦ M%-,/£OÇkÈi-+È³0GA;571· iDIE   !Ç¥Ì*,

 +(3

À~!,ÂÉtd^q«pÂ, Ê¹-,, "E7? 3@6 CC3@97?7@E

-Z!0GA;571-Ã ·^¶DI5I/" ¦Ë*! (% B;E  =-',7FI% mÙ,,¿'(ÁhÈ mÙ

!

3?3 9FÔ[=; =A =397ÏEF=; EF=F JAÃ ·WD7 DA ?F=F¼D;CA D;C3 9;=FÇ¥Ì¡´Û)¿È*Ä_ÐgÚD;@9 D3@9

,*~+"EA 3@6 %7DE7C  /©%''%Ö O  Ú 3?7 ®L­\rC ¤,q

D77 D3H=77B =7BEH;@ HA@Û­! '% , %' ,(% *,Ã · [¥*!

*Ã  !Ã · Ö×·

·o0GA;571/M

A@7E   +Ã· Öt[¥! (%

*I

>G8

\!
Ñ©-,

"E7? 3@6 'CA57DD "' ¦Ë Zl,/£, ¤(ËÂ, LØ   !*±+-,K,Â

ÉÁhÈ!^­e,ÂÉÁhÈ

 LK%±Ã­º|

Ú=L=F D3@=LDJ3LGD»:PE7CF ;=74Q=FCA  * Ã ·! (% $E·Û)+]ÁhÈÚJ3?L =3H3

*?'vz-Ö×·cdEN 3D;sÃÛ!e,ÂÉ

[¥ 



-, {Ñ 1I:K=318¥ÌI 7-,¤®ÁhÈ,ÂÉ K:Ô+-/£%`! ¥Ì

~¢¬z-,¿ÈÂ*,   !ËÁÁhÈ

+]ÁhÈÈ  Ú D;@97C DP@9 

'K6

Ã
HC;E7CFDEC;3 !Q@93CJÛ/À~,'&I%{tJ{ÈÚ=3E3 =3E3:·,03@61· Ú58 )53>;D7

:
B;=3 B;=3!!
ÞÇ

7E 3>   Û W¹ n¹Ç»ÈÚe,ÂÉ

³udÛ{3{ÈÚD;H3 D;H3.

nÛ A¹Ç»ÈÚK,ÂÉ AÛ *

.DF=7 DF=7ÅÅ=;EF =;EF%,Ú )
GD 3@6Û


 ¸

140



03@61SD,,ÂÉI)53>;D7)7C9;A@EA@;7EE3;D7EEA3@6?;>;3@A
F7G3C3   S)7>75E;A@ ;@ A?BAF@6 (% *[¥d-, , nªN   !hÈÁhÈÃ

;@9 3@6 7C;G3E;A@T

+-,uÖÚB;@<3? ,ÂÉ 76  4J -A>893@9 C7DD>7CÈmÖÊ"  %! Nk-,¥ÌÛ   g J

;7E7C$3DEA8D=J&D=3C'87;887C3@6C3@K

0Ð­(3;@7C   #A:@7@<3?;@D?DE7C63? ²F­10²F­Ð­10Ð­*)ECF;<=7 3CA>;@7   S(76FB>;53@E 3@6

ud/Ê$È±*uÖÑ©
Ñ©1Û

:KI,

&FEBFE**+;@$H3=H3>3T !"¥iJ /£ *Iº"

Jud/Ã uÖ· !

" Û      SDÚbÏdJØÏdJNÏdÛØ§4  ÁhÈI,\-"®L­À~ o+-,Ã ·¦Ë­\¿ÈEÇdÏ 7@y2¨  Qv26I@72AÃ /´¼¿È\ÇSD DA8E7@7@C;5:7@>;9:E7@* 

·/',Ö×¥ÌÞ ¦ËÛ, i,%y,\\B;E¿ÈÖ×ËJË# 

,Ã · [¥ pjhÚ     

( (% 5x(,k ÛÙDIEJ%'K8  (73>;K7 

%ACB:7?7 ! "E7? 3@6 CC3@97?7@E /| ­Ë -

K%(Ö× 

,

1I:K

ÞÈ Ç ÖO +=318/x¡,Ñ ¦ËÃ¿È*Ä_EÇ Ðg¿È©+-,¤!>Æ%.

y2¨  Qv26I@72AÃ '% ,(>Æ0·/',Ö×¥ÌÞ ¦ËÖ×· Ú· 9JÖÊJIÛ\B;E¿ÈÖ×ËJË# )Ö×YÚËÁÛ/vzÃ jhÚ     

· [¥p( (%

Û
Ù

-¥Ì
+

<,!Ô+0+

ªNVL  hÈ

Ö×­^

uÖ¥Ì

¥

¥-,

iJudÞÛ ÏSD*,(, ­Ë/o(% ^¶(ÈHo®L­À~¿Èy2¨  Qv2, ,Ú  [¥

6I@72AÃ% %Ö×­Ân Ó,ÔÑ ¦Ë,Ö×¥ÌÞ ¦Ë\B;E¿! aB)69/X !ÈÖ×ËJË# jhÚ

    Û
Ù

¶*



¸

Gº

jf  È·/'ËÁÁhÈ

A@7E F>MC;3   S"E7? 3@6 CC3@97?7@E,Ö×'K6&IAC "E7? 3@6 'CA57DDT    

¿Èy2¨  Qv26I@72A .,Ã

"EA #F@=A 3@6 C?;@ %7DE7C   


·/',Ö×¥ÌÞ ¦Ë\B;E¿ÈÖ×ËJ

  Ë# jhÚ
    ÛÙ  %"*'C7DD3?4C;697% 

141

"(2.?05 .002@@6;4 !, 1<2@ ;<A 3<99<D

+<?8@5<='2=<?A

:6;6:.96AF /BA "(2.?05 .002@@6;4 +( 1<2@)52 /6<96;4B6@A60@:6;6:.96@A =?<4?.: 6:=<@2@<;2 6:=<?A.;A 0<;16A6<; <; "2?42 0.9921

'#' # # "! (""6;6:.9-6291"-"-?2>B6?2@3<?"2?42A<
42;2?.A2<;9F<;2;2D.002@@6/92292:2;A6;+(#</B<A<.;1=?<56/6A@A523<?:.A6<;<3.;F:<?2)5B@63

)<F<*;6C2?@6AF" 6@ .==9621 A< % .;1 & A< =?<1B02 H% &I

-B@56(B46:<A< <;9F H% &I 6@ 0<;@612?21 <;9F <;2 ;2D*;6C2?@6AF<3)<8F<.002@@6/92 292:2;A D5605 @.A6@362@ "- $; A52;1?2.@9K:29 <A52?5.;163"6@.==9621A<%.;1&D52?2&*;6C2?@6AF<3JAA6;42;

6@ . A2?: <3 % A< =?<1B02 H% &I D52?2 %

)<?B@566 

0<;A.6;@ . 0<=F <3 & A52 D5<92 42;2?.A21 H&

"2676*;6C2?@6AF

H% &II .;1 A52 ?.6@21 & .?2 0<;@612?21 ;2D

.002@@6/92 292:2;A@ D5605 C6<9.A2@ "-
5<:@8F

2FD<?1@"2?42'2@<B?02'2@A?60A6<; @B442@A@A5.AA56@.==.?2;A"-C6<9.A6<;6;"6@06?0B:C2;A21/F"6;6:.9

"6;6:.9(2.?05#<:6;.9(A?2;4A5%.?.:2A2?

(2.?05"(A529<D2?&6@M=?<A20A21N/F"(
52;02<;9F<;2;2D.002@@6/92292:2;A6@.1121
#)'$*) $#

@.A6@3F6;4"-$;2<3A5282F0<;02=A@.@@B:21   ; <?12? A< .==9F .; <=2?.A6<; 6A 6@ 36?@A

52?2 6@ 00<::.;1 92:2;A@ 6; . 00<::.;1

;202@@.?F A< 12A2?:6;2 A52 6A2:@ A< D5605 A52?29.A6<; .?2 =?<A20A21 /F "- /BA 292:2;A@ A5.A

<=2?.A6<; 6@ A< /2 .==9621 )52 =?<02@@ <3.?2 ;<A 6; . 00<::.;1 ?29.A6<; .?2 ;<A

12A2?:6;6;4 6A2:@ 6@ 0.9921 (2.?05 Q .;1 A52@2)52?23<?2 M2EA2;@6<;@ <3 "2?42N @B05 .@

6A2:@ .==2.? 6; !2E60<; !2E .;1 D<?8@=.02

=.?.9929 :B9A616:2;@6<;.9 @612D.?1@ .;1 9.A2

+( 5<:@8F   .@@B:2@ M(2.?05 Q

"2?42A5.A.11:<?2A5.;<;2;2D292:2;A@A5.A

6@ . A56?1 3.0A<? 292:2;A <; A52 @5293 .;1.?2 ;<A 6; . 00<::.;1 ?29.A6<; 0.;;<A @B?C6C2

.C.69./92"- )5.;8@ A< "( <;9F " .;1 " 5.C2

3<?

.;F

<=2?.A6<;N

;

A52

/6<96;4B6@A60@:6;6:.96@A =?<4?.: A5.A @228@

A52<?2A60.9

@6:=92 @<9BA6<;@ 3<? 0<:=BA.A6<;.9 @F@A2:@

@A?B0AB?2/B6916;4 <=2?.A6<; 5<:@8F (2.?05 Q 6@ 12@64;21 A< M1< .@ 96AA92 D<?8 .@

:.82@ :.E6:B: B@2 <3 "( ;<A <;9F .?<B;1

=<@@6/92N (2.?05 Q 6@ 0?B06.99F 6;C<9C21 6; A52"2?42 /BA .9@< 6; <?:<=F .; <=2?.A6<; A<@6:=92@A 0<:/6;.A<?6.9 <=2?.A6<; "2?42 D5605

3<?: . <=F ?29.A6<; .:<;4 @A?B0AB?.99F

=?<1B02@ AD<:2:/2?21 @2A@ )52?2 .?2 AD<612;A60.9 6;@0?6=A6<;@ =?2@2;A6;4 .; 6;A2?2@A6;4

3<?:@ <3 "2?42 EA2?;.9 "2?42 " .;1.;.9F@6@ 3<? A52 0<;A?<9 :<1B92 9@< !./296;4

;A2?;.9 "2?42 " .;1 A526? 6;=BA@ .?2

94<?6A5: 6@ ;<A 16@0B@@21 6; A52 0B??2;A

12A2?:6;21 .;1 =?<C6121 /F (2.?05 Q " .;13?.:2D<?8/BA5<:@8F" ?2>B6?2 (2.?05 Q A< .002@@ !, .;1 +(. @A6:B9.A6;4 .;.9F@6@ <3 9./296;4 <3 @F;A.0A60

?2@=20A6C29F .;1 =?<C612 .;F AD< 292:2;A@ %</720A@ B;12? "( ; A56@ D.F "( 6@ 122=9F

& .@ 6;=BA 5<:@8F 

6;C<9C216;6:=<?A.;A<=2?.A6<;@@B05.@"2?42 .@@B:2@ A5.A

142@A.AB@

.@

A52



@6:=92@A

12C29<=@<?:<=F .;1 !./296;4  122= @AB1F <3 6A@

12A2?:6;2?@ 6; 9.;4B.42@ 9682 ;496@5 2?:.;

;.AB?2 D<B91 02?A.6;9F /2 :2.;6;43B9 6;

.;1A.96.;<;A52<;25.;1.;1'B@@6.;%<96@5

29B061.A6;4A52<=A6:.912@64;<39.;4B.42)52

.;1 <@;6.;(2?/<?<.A6.; <; A52 <A52? +2.8

=B?=<@2<3A56@D<?8@5<=D.@A<2E.:6;2(2.?05

.;1@A?<;43B?A52?:<?22E56/6A=<<?./@2;A.;1

.;1

?605 ;<B; 6;3920A6<; ?2@=20A6C29F 92;16;4

"2?42

3?<:

:B9A6=92

=2?@=20A6C2@

=.?A60B9.?9F D6A56; A52 3?.:2D<?8 <3 5<:@8F

2:=6?60.9@B==<?A3<?A52612.



 .;1 A< 0<;@612? A52 <=A6:.9 12@64; <3

9.;4B.42;.116A6<;A<A52=?2@2;A.A6<;@<;A52 ' # ' *#' ($*'

9.A2@A ?2@2.?052@ /F A52 920AB?2?@ D2 =?<C6121

()' ) $# )( $#(&*#(# !!#(<==<?AB;6A62@3<?.0A6C216@0B@@6<;D6A5.B162;02$*$)$#$'*( :2:/2?@ @< A5.A A52 :22A6;4 0<B91 =?<C612   #</B <A< .;1 )<?B @566 =?<=<@21 A5.A

6;A2?.0A6C216@0<C2?62@"2?42/<A5EA2?;.9"2?42.;1;A2?;.9"2?42

6@ A<A.99F 3?22 3?<: '2@<B?02 '2@A?60A6<;

*,)') $##'

! "  .;1 A5.A

*( * "$)$

(2.?05QA<12A2?:6;2A526;=BA<3"2?42</2F@   -B@56(B46:<A<16@0B@@21A52.?056A20AB?2<3'2@<B?02 '2@A?60A6<; A5.A 6;09B12@ 6;.?6AF .;1A52

3?.:2D<?8

%5.@2 :=2;2A?./696AF <;16A6<;  !

 6; A2?:@ <3 A52     " )52F

@A?B0AB?2 /B6916;4 @2.?05 .;1 2EA?.0A6<; ;

@5<D21 A5.A A52 =?<=<@21 A52<?F .99<D@ B@ ;<A

5<:@8F  "2?42 6@ ?2@A?60A21 /F .;

<;9F A< 12?6C2 A52 6;@645A@0<;@2>B2;02@ <3

<C2??2.056;4 =?6;06=92 '2@<B?02 '2@A?60A6<;

"6;6:.9 -6291 /BA .9@< 0?2.A2 . ;2D ;.AB?.9

D5605 F6291@ . :6;6:.9 <BA=BA <3 "2?42 <;

09.@@ D5605 0.;;<A /2 </A.6;21 <A52?D6@2 3<?D<?8@=.02.@21<;A56@3?.:2D<?8<;2<3A52

C.?6<B@ :<C2:2;A ?2@A?60A6<;@ @B05 .@ A52

A52<?2A60.90<;@2>B2;02@D.@A5.AD5.A6@0.9921

3?22G6;4 23320A A52

A52 <;16A6<; <; EA?.0A6<; <:.6; 6@ ;<A .

.;A69<0.96AF23320A ;.AB?.9 09.@@ A52 @B/720A 0<;16A6<; .;1 A52

.17B;0A0<;16A6<;/BA?.A52?A52@B/720A6@9.;1+2A5.;8.99A52=.?A606=.;A@6;A56@D<?8@5<=

.;1 A52 .17B;0A 6@9.;1 .?2 6;12=2;12;A

D<?8@=.02/.@21=?<=<@21 /F 5<:@8F "2?42

=52;<:2;.D5605.?242;2?./92/F4?.::.?

 A?.02 23320A A52 

5<:@8F %! # #$#)'  )- -  # "!

#<.:





%?<720A6<;N !

'+ ) #)$" #!$" #

5<:@8F

 #'( !."!#<.:%?<720A6<;



M%?</92:@<3

  


M%?</92:@

EA2;@6<;@N<3

 ! !   ;1?2.@ 9K:29 =?<=<@21 A52 #<:6;.9  " ! (A?2;4A5 %.?.:2A2? )52 0<?2 612. 6@ A5.A A52 21/F96@.6<:2;60<

0.A24<?6G6;4 52.1  0<:2@ 6; A52 =.?.:2A2?@<?;296. .:.;; .;1 (6:<;. ".AA26;6

@A?<;4 .;1 D2.8 3<? A52 =B?=<@2@ <3 9./296;4 6;

 <5;2;7.:6;@:@A2?1.:

5<:@8FO@ 

 @2;@2 2 @5<D21 A5.A A52

5<:@8F #<.:  M"6;6:.96@: +52?2

=<@AB9.A6<; <3 D2.8 .;1 @A?<;4  .99<D@ 3<? .

?2+2#<D.;1+52?2.;+2<=2A<

B;6360.A6<; .;1 121B0A6<; <3 A52 16@A?6/BA6<; <3

<N "!    143

distinction between PF-deletion and LF-copy. He<Workshop Report>

first introduced Matsuo’s (1998) observation that
aspectual mismatch is allowed under VP-ellipsis
and pseudogapping but is disallowed under
Antecedent-Contained Deletion (ACD) in English

Mapping Out the Dynamics of Variation
in Ellipsis Mismatches*

and her analysis of the contrast: VP-ellipsis andpseudogapping are derived via PF-deletion so that

Yosuke Sato

aspectual mismatch is possible, whereas ACD is

Tsuda University

derived through LF-copying, which copies theTaichi Nakamura

already determined aspect in the antecedent onto

Tohoku University

an ellipsis site, thus the mismatch in question being

Yuta Sakamoto

impossible. He further showed that aspectual

Meiji University

mismatch is disallowed under argument ellipsis in

Kensuke Takita

Japanese, supporting the claim that argument

Doshisha University

ellipsis is implemented via LF-copying. Moreover,he examined the possibility of extraction out of an

Keywords㸸antecedent-contained sluicing,

English ACD site and a Japanese argument ellipsis

aspectual mismatch, labeling, LF-copy,

site, demonstrating that overt extraction, e.g.,

PF-deletion, causative alternation, gapping

wh-movement, is allowed out of neither domain,which indicates that the otherwise two different
phenomena can be unified through LF-copying.

1. Introduction
3. Revisiting Antecedent-Contained Sluicing: A

The objective of this workshop was two-fold.

View from Labeling

One was to demarcate the range of possible
mismatches in ellipsis in language, for, to the best

Takita proposed a syntactic identity-basedof our knowledge, there is no such project underanalysis of “antecedent-contained” sluicing (ACS).

way. The other objective was to bring specific

In ACS, an infinite regress problem would bemismatch phenomena in particular languages toinevitable if what is elided within an adjunct clausebear on current issues regarding ellipsis mismatch,were TP taking the matrix TP as its antecedent.

such as the character of identity conditions on

Although it has been argued that in ACS the elided

ellipsis, size of ellipsis sites, the operational

TP takes the matrix vP as its antecedent, hedistinction underlying ellipsis, and the etiology ofproposed that ACS involves vP-ellipsis withellipsis mismatch in natural language syntax.

syntactically identical vP-antecedent, where theelided vP directly serves as the complement of the

2. Mismatch under Ellipsis: Its Consequenceinterrogative C. The infinite regress problem does

for the PF-deletion vs. LF-copying Debate

not occur because there is no containment relation

Sakamoto discussed certain cases of aspectual

between the antecedent matrix vP and the elided vP

mismatch under ellipsis in English and Japanesewithin the adjunct clause. As for the otherwise

and maintained that (in)tolerance of the mismatch

illegitimate selectional relationship between C andin question can be adopted as a diagnostic for thevP, he proposed to reduce its illegitimacy to144labeling. Assuming that labeling is required for theof possible and impossible mismatches in various

purpose of linearization, he claimed that ellipsis

languages, that PF-deletion of an XP requires

can “repair” the labeling failure, rendering theidentity of an YP, a sister to X. The mismatch cases

selection of vP by C possible.

examined

included

VP-ellipsis

and

voice

mismatch

pseudogapping

in

under
English,polarity/finiteness/tense mismatches under sluicing

4. Argument Structure Mismatches in Gapping
causative/inchoativein English, antecedent-ellipsis size mismatch undermismatches in Gapping in English and Japanese.

antecedent-contained sluicing, causative/inchoative

He showed that a causative antecedent allows its

mismatch under VP-ellipsis in English, caseinchoative variant to be gapped but not vice versa

particle/focus mismatches under argument ellipsis

in English. He also showed that a causativein Japanese. Sato then argued that this sort ofantecedent licenses Gapping of its inchoative

mismatch is the norm rather than exception,

counterpart and the opposite is also true inderived through the interaction of a version of theJapanese, as far as the two alternants have an

non-simultaneous transfer model with certain

identical morphological form. Then, he developed

conceptions of computational efficiency imposed

an account for the cross-linguistic differences,on PF-LF information trafficking in a dynamic

building

derivational model.

Nakamuraon

discussed

the

verb

phrasestructures

independently proposed for English and Japanese
for

the

6. International Workshop on Ellipsis Mismatch

Assuminga

The presenters received valuable feedback

movement-and-deletion approach to Gapping infrom the audience at the workshop, but they all

English, he argued that an inchoative verb isagreed that this 135min workshop was hardly

recoverable from its causative counterpart insufficient for serious discussion on the nature ofEnglish because the structure of the latter contains

ellipsis mismatch. For this reason, the presenters

the structure of the former. On the other hand, heare currently working together to organize anassumed thatan instance ofinternational workshop on this very same topic at

non-constituent deletion in Japanese and claimed

Tsuda University in September 2023 as a spin-off

that the causative and inchoative alternants thatfrom this workshop. Stay tuned for further

have an identical morphological form have quiteannouncements on the Tsuda workshop!

in

the

literaturecausative/inchoativetoaccount

alternation.

Gapping issimilar structures and only differ in that an externalargument is projected in the causative alternant.

* This workshop is supported in part by JSPS

Thus, not only can the causative verb serve as the

KAKENHIantecedent of the gapped inchoative counterpart,(Nakamura), 18K00659 and 21H00532 (PI:but also the inchoative verb can license Gapping of

Hiroki Narita) (Takita), and 19K00560 (Sato).

Grant

Numbers

21K00568

the causative counterpart in Japanese.
REFERENCES
Matsuo, Ayumi (1998) A Comparative Study of

5. A Mismatch Theory of Ellipsis

Tense and Ellipsis, Doctoral dissertation,

Sato addressed the question why there is

University of Connecticutt, Storrs.

mismatch in ellipsis in language. He developed a
new generalization, based on a detailed catalogue

145

[II]
Fifteenth International Spring ForumHowever, the configurational definition fails to
specify the A/A′-properties of intermediate
positions of movements.

Therefore, Martinand Uriagereka (2019) suggest the possibility
Ga/No-Nominative Conversion and A- andthat A/A′-movement distinctions are madeA′-movement

contextually under the phase theory, based on*

copy formation/chain; two copies are regarded
Masako Maeda

as A-copies when they are contained in a single

Kyushu University

transfer domain, while the copies are regarded as
A′-chains when only part of the chain is

Keywords：ga/no conversion, A/A′-movement,

contained in the transfer domain of a phase.

subject positions, phases(2) Phase-based A/A′-definition
a. A-chain: the two occurrences contained in
1. Introduction
For

the

the same transferred domain is regarded astransparent

mapping

tothecopies [i.e., A-copies].

syntax-semantics interface, it is important tob. A′-chain: only part (i.e., the tail and/or

specify which place an element occupies in thesome intermediate link) of the chain issyntactic structure and what kind of property

contained in the domain of phase.

that position exhibits. Especially, it is important(Martin and Uriagereka (2014: 176))

to identify whether it is an argument position(A-position) or not (A′-position). Under theIproposethat

configurational definition of A/A′-positions, it iscopy-based A/A′-definitions are both necessary,

assumed that an A-position is a potential thetaand these definitions, in conjunction with theposition (Chomsky (1981)) or a Case position

phase theory advocated by Saito (2017a), lead to(Bošković (2001, 2007)), while an A′-position isthe expectation that some movements ina position where an element receives aJapanese exhibit A- and A′-properties (Mahajan

discourse-configurational value, such as topic or(1990), Saito (1992), Tada (1993)). I show that

focus (Rizzi (1997, 2006)).

this

expectation

the

is

configurational

borne

out

based

and

on

ga/no-nominative alternation in the Hichiku(1) Configurational A/A′-definition

dialect of Japanese (HJ).

a. A-position: a potential theta position

2. Assumptions and Proposal
2.1. ga/no Nominative Subjects in theHichiku Dialect(Chomsky (1981: 47)) or a Case position(Bošković (2001, 2007)).
b. A′-position:
element

theposition
receives

where

an

In this section, I examine subject positions inaJapanese in light of ga/no nominative alternation

discourse-configurational value, such as

in the Hichiku dialect of Japanese (HJ), which is

topic or focus (Chomsky (2000), Rizzi

spoken in Kyushu, southwestern Japan. Unlike(1997, 2006)).

Standard Japanese exemplified in (3a), HJ

147

allows no nominative subjects in cases like (3b).

(5) a. Taroo-ga

iintyoo (desu) tai.

Following Kato (2007), Nishioka (2013, 2018,

Taroo-NOM chair2019) assumes that the ga nominative subject‘Taroo is the chair.’ (exhaustive focus)

moves to Spec, TP, while the no nominative

b. *Taroo-no

subject remains in Spec, vP in HJ.

COP

PRT

iintyoo (desu) tai.

Taroo-NOM chair

COP

PRT

‘Taroo is the chair.’ (*exhaustive focus)(3) a. [CP C [TP DPgai T [vP ti …]]]b. [CP C [TP(Nishioka (2019: 31))

T [vP DPno …]]]
2.2. The Case Position of Nominative Objects

The assumption that the no nominative subjects

In Japanese, when a main verb or a causative

are located in a lower position than the ga

suffix (s)ase is followed by the potential suffix

nominative subjects is confirmed by the contrast

rare/(r)e, which makes a complex predicatein (4). Only the ga nominative subject, which

stative, the object may be marked as either

moves to TP, may precede the sentential adverb.

accusative or nominative (Kuno (1973)). (6a) is
a case of the potential construction (PC), and(4) a. Uresikakotuni ame-ga/no
happilyhuri-yoru.

(6b), the causative-potential construction (CPC).

rain- NOM/NOM fall-PROG‘Happily, it is raining.’
b. Ame-ga/*no(6) a. Mai-ga

uresikakotuni huri-yoru.

rain-NOM/*NOM happily

melon-o/ga

tabe-rare-ru.

Mai-NOM melon-ACC/NOM eat-POT-PRS‘Mai can eat melon.’

fall-PROG(Nishioka (2013: 180))b. Mai-wa

Ken-ni

Mai-TOP Ken-DAT

melon-o/ga
melon-ACC/NOM

Kato (2007) and Nishioka (2013) further

tabe-sase-rare-ru.

observe that the difference in the morphology of

eat-CAUS-POT-PRS

the nominative element contributes to the‘Mai can make Ken eat melon.’semantic

interpretation

of

the

subject.

Specifically, it is observed that an element

Following Tada (1992), Yatsushiro (1999), andmarked with the no-nominative Case cannot be

Kasai (2018), among others, I argue that whileinterpreted as a topic or a focus. That is,

accusative objects (AOs) are licensed by V,

no-nominative

thenominative objects (NOs) overtly move to vP

anti-topic/focus property. (5a) shows that inthat hosts the potential affix rare/(r)e as its head

Japanese, the nominative subject only gets the(vPrare).

Case

possesses

exhaustive-listing focus interpretation when thepredicate is individual-level (Kuno (1973)). In(7) a. [vPrare NomObji [vPvoice [VP ti V]]rare/(r)e]light of the obligatory focus interpretation on the(PC)subject in (5a), the ungrammaticality of theb. [vPrare NomObji [vPvoice [vP(s)ase [vPvoice [VP tino-nominative subject in (5b) suggests that the
no-nominative

subject

resists

V]] (s)ase]] rare/(r)e]

(CPC)

focus

interpretation (Nishioka (2013, 2018, 2019)).

2.3. Phases and Transfer Domains
Saito (2017a, 2019) argues that when C/v

148

inherits its φ-features to T/V, the phasehood isembedded vPvoice.

also inherited to the lower head. For instance, inEnglish, when C/v inherits φ-features to T/V,

(10) a. [ vPrare NomObji [vPvoice [VP ti V]] rare/(r)e]

T/V also becomes a phase. Saito further assumes(PC)

that a phase is transferred at the completion ofb. [ vPrare NomObji [vPvoice [vP(s)ase [ vPvoice [VP ti

the next higher phase. Under the assumption, TP

V]] (s)ase]] rare/(r)e](CPC)

is transferred at the completion of the higher
phase CP in English. Under Saito’s phase theory,

As schematized in (10a), the movement of NO

in Japanese, which lacks φ-feature agreement,in PC is within the single transferred domain

C does not inherit its φ-features nor the

because there is no intervening phase. In

phasehood to T. This in turn leads to thecontrast, NO in CPC moves across the transfer

assumption that what is transferred at thedomains, as shown in (10b).

completion of CP is vP, not TP.
2.4. Proposal: A and A′-movement(8) a. T/V inherits phasehood from C/v* together

If we entertain the configurational/contextual

with φ-features.

A/A′-distinctions (1)-(2) under the Phase theory

b. A phase HP is transferred upon theof Saito (2017a, 2019), it is expected thatcompletion of the next phase up.

Japanese has A and A′-movement, that is,(Saito (2019: 32))

movement for Case across transfer domains.

(9) a. English(11a) is a schematized derivation where the[ CP C [ TP Subji T [ vP ti [VP …]]]]

subject moves from vP to TP for

b. Japanesethega-nominative Case in HJ. The movement is an[ CP C [TP Subji T [ vP ti …]]]

A-movement since it is for Case. At the same

(Saito (2019: 32))

time, it counts as an A′-movement because themovement crosses the transfer domains. (11b)

Under Saito’s phase theory, the movement of theshows that the no-nominative subject resides in a

subject from Spec, vP to Spec, TP is operated

pure A-position, as it is merged in an A-position

within a single transfer domain in English, as

and does not move. (11c) shows the movement

schematized in (9a). In contrast, in Japanese, theof NO in PC. This movement is a puresubject moves across the transferred domains on

A-movement, because it is for Case and is

its way to its Case position, Spec, TP, as shownwithin a single transfer domain. (11d) is ain (9b).

schematized derivation of NO in CPC, where theTurning to vP phases in Japanese, following

object undergoes movement from the lower vP

Bošković (2014), I assume that the highest headphase to the specifier position of the higher vPin the phase-edge domain is the phase head:phase. The movement is A-movement as it is forhence, in PC the vP phase is vPrare. Regarding

Case. This movement is also A′-movement as it

CPC, as a vP phase is defined as a domain forcrosses the transfer domains.

argument structure and causative constructions(11) a. [ CP C [TP DPgai T [ vP ti …]]]

have two argument structures, I assume that
CPC has two vP phases: the matrix vPrare and theb. [CP C [TP149

T [vP DPno …]]]

c. [ vPrare NomObji [vPvoice [VP ti V]] rare/(r)e]transferred. This movement to obtain Case is(PC)

regardedd. [ vPrare NomObji [vPvoice [vP(s)ase [ vPvoice [VP ti
V]] (s)ase]] rare/(r)e]asan

A-movement

under

the

configurational definition of movement. At the(CPC)same time, as the object moves out of the lower
phase, it is regarded as an A′-movement underNow, given that no-nominative subjects resist

the phase-based A/A′-definition. Therefore, theA′-properties such as topic or focus, and thatmovement of the nominative object in (11d) has

A-movement in (11a, d) counts as A′-movement

both A-and A′-properties.

as well, it is expected that the nominal phrases in
(11a,

d)

cannotbemarkedwith

The assumption that the movement in PC isthe

A-movement, while that in CPC is A- andno-nominative Case. In the following sections I

A′-movement,

examine the expectation with ga/no-nominative

optional/obligatory focus interpretation of NO inalternation in HJ. First, the next section focusesthese constructions.

on the Case properties of NOs schematized inaccountsfortheNishioka (2018) observes that the objects of(11c, d).

PC in HJ exhibit not only accusative/nominative
alternation,

3. Nominative Objects in (Causative-)

but

also

ga/no-nominative

alternation, as shown in (12a). However, thePotential Constructions

ga/no-nominative alternation on the object does

As is stated in the preceding section, I argue

not occur in CPC, as in (12b). This is becausethat NOs overtly move to vPrare.

the movement in (12b) has both A-andA′-properties. This leads to the obligatory focus(11) c. [ vPrare NomObji [vPvoice [VP ti V]] rare/(r)e]interpretation of NO, which in turn prohibits the(PC)

no-nominative object from occurring in Spec,d. [ vPrare NomObji [vPvoice [vP(s)ase [ vPvoice [VP ti

vPrare because of the anti-focus/topic property ofV]] (s)ase]] rare/(r)e](CPC)

the no-nominative Case.

The object can receive the nominative Case after(12) a. Taroo-ga

eigo-ba/?ga/no

moving to Spec, vPrare in PC, as this movement

Taroo-NOM English-ACC/?NOM/*NOM

is within a single transfer domain, as shown indekuru (to).

(11c). Note also that this movement is a purecanA-movement, as the movement is for Case and‘Taroo is capable of English.’

is operated within the same transfer domain.

(Nishioka (2018: 167, slightly modified))

The object in CPC can also move to Spec,

PRT

b. Maki-wa Ken-ni

kome-ba/ga/*novPrare, as shown in (11d). This is because theMaki-TOPKen-DAT rice-ACC/NOM/*NOM

lower vP phase is transferred at the completiontabe-sase-rare-ru (toof the higher vP phase. When the object gets its

eat-CAUS-POT-PRS PRT PRT

Case licensed by vrare, the lower copy also

‘Maki can make Ken eat rice.’yo).

satisfies its Case requirement under the identity
via copy formation (Chomsky (2021)). Thus, the4. Other Cases of ga/no Alternation in HJ

lower copy does not cause any problem when

4.1. Restructuring Verbs

150

Other cases of NOs in complex predicates

The A- and A′-properties of the movement leadsalso disallow ga/no-nominative alternation. For

to the obligatory focus/topic interpretation of theinstance, restructuring verbs followed by the

subject in Spec, TP. This accounts for the factpotential affix such as kari-ni ik-e-ru ‘can go tothat the no-nominative subject may not appear inborrow’nominative/accusative

Spec, TP in an SOV word order sentence, as

alternation on the object (Takahashi (2012)). In

shown in (14a) and (15a). Note that it may

such

appear in Spec, vPvoice in a scrambled sentence,aexhibitcase,thehowever,ga/no-nominative

alternation is disallowed in HJ.

where the object can satisfy the EPP feature of T,
as exemplified in (14b).

(13) a. Boku-ga tosyokan-ni hon-o
I-NOM

library-to

book-ACC/ga/*nokari-ni

ik-e-ru.

(14) a. Jiroo-ga/*noson hon-ba

Jiroo-NOM/*NOM that book-ACC/NOM/*NOM borrow-NI go-POT-PRS

yon-da.

‘I can go to the library to borrow a book.’read-PST

b. Hanako-ga‘Jiroo read that book.’

atode tosyokan-de zassi

Hanako-NOM later library-at magazine-o /ga/*nokari-teb. Son hon-ba

ik-e-ru.

Jiroo-ga/no

yon-da.

that book-ACC Jiroo-NOM/NOM read-PST-ACC/NOM/*NOM borrow- TE go-POT-PRS(Nishioka (2019: 33))

‘Hanako can borrow a magazine at the(15) ??/?Taroo-no

library and go (somewhere) later.’susi-ba

kuu-ta ken

Taroo-NOM sushi-ACC eat-PST because
Jiroo-mo kuuta.

I assume that in such restructuring constructions,

Jiroo-also eat-PST

NO undergoes A-movement for Case into vPrare‘Because Taroo ate sushi, Jiroo also atein the matrix vP out of the embedded vP phase,it.’(Nishiokoa (2019: 34))

which adds A′-properties to the movement; themovement must yield focus interpretation. As
no-nominative

objects

interpretation,theyresistcannot

such
occur

in

4.3. wh-no

focus

The focus property of the moved element inthethe above cases are defined in a configurational

restructuring construction.

/contextual way; none of the above nominal
elementsisintrinsicallyfocused.

The

configurational/contextual A/A′-distinction is

4.2. Subjects in Spec, TP
The analysis is further extended to thefurther supported by the Case-marking of

movement of the subject from Spec, vPvoice towh-phrases in HJ. Saito (2017b) argues that

Spec, TP; this movement is A-movement as thewh-indeterminatephrasessubject is assigned the nominative Case in Spec,

operators

need

TP. The movement also has A′-properties as it

quantificational force by (covertly) moving tocrosses the transfer domains, as shown in (11a).

the specifier position of the question particle -ka

thatin Japanesetospecifyaretheiror the focus particle -mo. Under the assumption,(11) a. [ CP C [TP DPgai T [ vP ti …]]]

wh-indeterminate phrases in an A-position is yet
to possess a wh-feature. Therefore, it is expected151

that wh-indeterminate phrases in an A-position

constructions undergo A and A′-movement to its

can be marked with the no-nominative Case. It is

Case position (vPrare). Furthermore, it is shown

after the movement of a wh-phrase to an

that

A′-position that the wh-phrase receives ananti-topic/focus property; that is, they resist

interrogative feature.

being

no-nominativeinelements

A′-positions.

exhibit

Some

cases

the
of

A-movement of NO crosses the transfer domains,(16) a. Dai-ga/noki-ta

and thus exhibit both A- and A′-properties,

to?

who-NOM/NOM come-PAST PRT

prohibiting the no-nominative Case.

‘Who came?’b. Hon-ba

dai-ga/noto?

* This research is supported by JSPS KAKENHI

book-ACC who-NOM/NOM read-PST PRT

Grant Numbers 18K12412, 21K00586 (PI:‘Who read the book?’

Nobuaki Nishioka), and 18K00574 (PI: Yoichi(17) Kono hon-ba
this

yon-dadai-noMiyamoto). This research is also supported bybook-ACC who-NOM

the JSPS Core-to-Core Program, A. Advanced

yomi-mo se-n-yatta.

Research Networks “International Researchread-also do-NEG-PAST

Network for the Human Language Faculty”‘Nobody read this book.’(#JPJSCCAJ221702004)

given

to

Yoichi

Miyamoto.
Further, under the configurational/contextual
A/A′-distinction, it is expected that wh-no in PC

REFERENCES
Bošković, Željko (2001) “A-movement and theis allowed, while wh-no in CPC is not allowed,
because the NO wh-no in PC undergoes

EPP,” Syntax 5, 167-218.

A-movement, while that of CPC undergoes A

Bošković, Željko (2007) “On the Locality andand A′-movement, which results in focus

Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even

interpretation

More Minimal Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry

that

is

inconsistent

withno-marking.

38, 589-644.
Bošković, Željko (2014) “Now I’m a Phase,to?

Now I’m Not a Phase: On the Variability of

Maki-TOP what-NOM eat-POT-PRS Q

Phases with Extraction and Ellipsis,”‘What can Maki eat?’

Linguistic Inquiry 45, 27-89.

(18) a. Maki-wa

nan-notabe-re-ru

b. *Maki-wa Yuki-ni

nan-noChomsky,

Maki-TOP Yuki-DAT what-NOM

Noam(1981)

Lectureson

Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

to?

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

eat-CAUS-POT-PRS Q

The Framework,” Step by step: Essays on‘What can Maki have Yuki eat?’

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howardtabe-sase-raru-ru

Lasnik, ed. by R. Martin, D. Michaels, J.
5. Conclusion

Uriagereka and S.J. Keyser, 89-155, MIT

In this paper, I have argued that NOs

Press, Cambridge, MA.

undergo A-movement to vPrare in potential

Chomsky, Noam (2021) “Minimalism: Where

constructions, while those of causative-potential

Are We Now, and Where Can We Hope to152

Go,” Gengo Kenkyu 160, 1-41.

Left Periphery,” Elements of Grammar:

Kasai, Hironobu (2018) “Case Valuation after
Scrambling:

Nominative

Objects

Handbook of Generative Syntax, ed. byin

Liliane Haegeman, 281-337, Dordrecht,

Japanese,” Glossa: A Journal of General

Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Rizzi, Luigi (2006) “On the Form of Chains:

Linguistics 3. 127, 1-29.
Kato, Sachiko (2007) “Scrambling and the EPP

Criterial

Positionsand

ECP effects,”

in Japanese: From the Viewpoint of theWh-movement: Moving on, ed. by Lisa

Kumamoto

Cheng

DialectinJapanese,”thProceedings of the 4 Formal Approaches

Saito,

Kuno, Susumu (1973) The Structure of theLanguage,

Cambridge,

Corver,97-133,Mamoru(1992)“Long-distance

Scrambling in Japanese,” Journal of EastMA,

Asian Linguistics 1, 69-118.
Saito, Mamoru (2017a) “Notes on the Locality

MIT.
Mahajan,NorbertCambridge, MA, MIT Press.

to Japanese Linguistics, 113-124.
Japanese

and

Anoop

Distinction

K(1990)

The

A/A-barof Anaphor Binding and A-movement,”andMovement

Theory,English Linguistics 34, 1-33.
Saito, Mamoru (2017b) “Japanese Wh-phrases

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Martin, Roger and Juan Uriagereka (2014)asOperators

withUnspecified“Chains in Minimalism,” Minimalism andQuantificational Force,” Language andBeyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces, ed. by

Linguistics 18, 1-25.
Saito, Mamoru (2019) “On the Causative

Peter Kosta, Steven L. Franks, Teodora
Radeva-Bork

and

Lilia

Schürcks,

Paradoxes:

169-194, John Benjamins.

Derivations

andTransfer

Domains,” Nanzan Linguistics 15, 25-44.
“Kumaoto

Tada, Hiroaki (1992) “Nominative Objects in

Hoogen-kara Miru Nihongo-no Syugo-no

Japanese,” Journal of Japanese Linguistics

Toogo Iti (On the Syntactic Position of

14, 91-108.

Nishioka,

Nobuaki(2013)

Subjects in Japanese from the Viewpoint ofTada, Hiroaki (1993) A/A-bar Partition in

the Kumamoto Dialect),” Gengogaku-kara

Derivation, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

-no

Tyooboo

Linguistics

fromTakahashi, Masahiko (2012) “On Restructuring

FukuokaInfinitives in Japanese: Adjunction, Clausal

176-188, Fukuoka,

Architecture, and Phases,” Lingua 122,20132013),

Linguistic Circle,

(A
ed.

View
by

Kyushu University Press.

1569-1595.

Nishioka, Nobuaki (2018) “On the Positions of

Yatsushiro, Kazuko (1999) Case Licensing andNominative Subject in Japanese: Evidence

VP

from Kumamoto Dialect.,” Proceedings ofUniversity of Connecticut.

the 10th Workshop on Altaic Formal
Linguistics, 165-177.
Nishioka,

Nobuaki(2019)

Discourse-configurationality and the Scopeof Negation, Nanzan Linguistics 14, 25-55.
Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of the153

Structure,

Doctoraldissertation,

fine-grainedclassification

of

the

relevant

indefinite pronouns; specifically, one type of“interrogative-based”

indefinite

pronounisallowed only in languages that have affixal
definite articles or lack definite articles. I thenGenerative Typological Investigation ofIndefinite Pronouns*

propose a deduction of the generalizationbuilding on a version of the NP/DP-language

Hiromune Oda

distinction advocated by Talić (2017); essentially,

The University of Tokyo

variation in the structure of nominal phrases is
crucial for availability of the relevant pronouns.

Keywords：indefinite pronouns, generative
2. Sorting Out the Terminology

typology, NP/DP-language distinction,

Haspelmath (1997) observes that there areparameterization in minimalism

two

ways

to

derive“interrogative-based”

indefinite pronouns. In one form, interrogative
pronouns

1. Introduction

andindefinite

pronounsareIn his seminal work, Haspelmath (1997)

morphologically identical, e.g., Chinese shenme,

classifies indefinite pronouns into two major

which can mean ‘what’ or ‘something’, as shown

types. One is a generic-noun-based indefinite

in (3) and (4). In the other form, interrogative

pronoun, which is derived from a generic noun;

pronouns require a quantificational particle/affix

e.g., some-thing in English, which is composed

to form indefinite pronouns. A representative isof the quantificational element some and theJapanese nani ‘what’, which requires thegeneric noun thing. The other type is an

disjunctive/question marker ka to have theinterrogative-based indefinite pronoun, which isinterpretation of ‘something’, as shown in (5).

derived from interrogative pronouns; e.g.,(4) Ta yiwei wo xihuan shenme?

shenme in Mandarin Chinese as illustrated in (3),where the interrogative pronoun is used tohe think I

express the interpretation of ‘something’.

‘What does he think I like?’

like

what
(Li 1992:125)(5) a. Kare-wa nani-*(ka)-ga sukida.
(3) Ta yiwei wo xihuan shenme.
he think I

likehe-Topwhat

what-KA-Nom like‘He likes something.’‘He thinks I like something.’ (Li 1992:125)

b. Kare-wa nani-(*ka)-ga sukina no?
he-Top what-KA-Nom like

Haspelmath raises the question whether there isQ‘What does he like?’a typological correlation between the type ofindefinite pronouns and other properties of
relevant languages, but he leaves it open.

It should be pointed out here that the term

1“interrogative-based”

indefinite

pronounis

In this paper, I address this issue from theactually quite misleading. Chinese shenme isgenerative linguistic perspective. I first establish

interpreted as an interrogative pronoun (meaning

a novel typological generalization under a more

‘what’) with interrogative force, but as an154

(meaning(6) A bare indeterminate pronoun (BIP) is a‘something’) with declarative force (but with nopronoun whose interrogative and indefinite

dedicated particle for this use). Likewise,

uses have the same form.

existential

indefinite

pronounJapanese nani is interpreted as an interrogative(7) A compositional indeterminate pronoun

pronoun (meaning ‘what’) with interrogative(CIP) is a pronoun which functions as anforce, but as an existential indefinite pronoun

interrogative pronoun with interrogativewith the particle ka. Thus, the interpretation offorce and functions as an indefinite pronoun

thewith a quantificational particle/affix.

relevant

pronounsdependsontheenvironment in which they occur, and theinterrogative form is not a primitive (i.e., theBelow I focus on CIPs, establishing a novel

base form) in these languages; if they weretypological generalization.

inherently

interrogative,theinterrogativeinterpretation would need to be “canceled”

3.

somehow in the indefinite usages, and it is

NP/DP-language Distinction

Indeterminate

PronounsandthetechnicallyTo the best of my knowledge, the first (andimplemented. Actually, this point was alreadyonly) generative work that addresses the issue of

noticed and discussed as early as by Kuroda

correlation between the typology of indefinite(1965), who calls the relevant pronouns inpronouns and another linguistic property is

Japanese indeterminate pronouns, and has been

Watanabediscussed a great deal and elaborated on in the“interrogative-based” indefinite pronouns into

formal linguistic literature (e.g., Huang 1982,

the Chinese-type and the Japanese type, which

Nishigauchi 1990, Shimoyama 2006, amongexactly correspond in my terminology to BIPs

many others). Below I gloss indeterminate

and CIPs, respectively (though he does notpronouns with English interrogative pronouns,

provide precise definitions of the relevant

only for presentational purposes. It should be

pronouns). Interestingly, Watanabe notes that the

kept in mind that indeterminate pronouns

productivity of CIPs correlates with the absence

themselvesof definite articles. For instance, Japanese andunclear

how

do

this

not

could

be

inherently

have

the

pronounsare

Recallthat

divides

respectively (for space reasons, I present partial

notparadigms taken from Watanabe 2004).

sufficient to define the pronouns in question,either.

first

productive CIPs, as shown in (8) and (9),It should be immediately added here thatindeterminate

Watanabe

Russian, which lack definite articles, haveinterrogative interpretation.
Kuroda’s(2004).

Chineseindeterminate(8) Japanese

pronouns do not require any quantificational
particles/affixes for the indefinite pronominal

indet

$

neg

"

usage, unlike those in Japanese, which require apersondare

dare-kadare-modare-moquantificational particle/affix. I take this as

thing

nani

nani-kanani-monani-moindicating that indeterminate pronouns should

place

doko

doko-ka doko-mo doko-mo

further be separated into two types. I define the

time

itsu

itsu-ka

Chinese-type indeterminate pronouns as (6) andthe Japanese-type indeterminate pronouns as (7).

155—

itsu-moarises from insights of previous works. Notice(9) Russian
indet

$

neg

that Bulgarian and Romanian are languages withpersonkto

kto-toni-ktoaffixal definite articles (for the affixal status of

thing

cto

cto-toni-ctothe Hungarian definite article, see MacWhinney

place

gde

gde-toni-gde1976). Interestingly, Talić (2017) argues that

time

kogda

kogda-toni-kogda

languages with affixal definite articles patternwith languages without definite articles in a

There is also a striking diachronic change that

number of respects; for instance, she establishes

shows this correlation; Latin, which lacked

the generalization (12), which is exemplified bydefinite articles, had productive CIPs, whereas(13)-(15).

most Modern Romance languages, which have(12) Languages that allow adverb extraction out

acquired definite articles, do not have them.

of predicative adjectival phrases either lackdefinite articles or have affixal definite(10) Latin
indet

$

neg

personquis

ali-quisquis-quam(13) *Terriblyi, he was [ti tired].

thing

quid

ali-quidquid-quam(14) Strašnoi je bila [ti umorna].

place

ubi

ali-cubi

usquamtime

quandoali-quando umquam

articles.

terribly is been(English)tired.F.SF‘She was terribly tired.’(Serbo-Croatian)(15) Užasnoi bjah [ti umoren].

(11) Italian
Q

$

neg

terribly was

personchiqualcuno

nessuno‘I was terribly tired.’

thing

che

qualche cosa

niente

place

dove

in qualche luogo

in nessun

It may then be that affixal article languages

luogo

pattern with article-less languages with respect(mai)

to CIPs, too (see also Reuland 2011, Despić

timequando qualque volta

2015,

and

Oda

tired

2021

(Bulgarian)fortypological

generalizations with a similar language cut).

Although the correlation between articles
and CIPs appears to be robust, Watanabe ac-

In order to confirm if this is indeed the case,knowledges that Bulgarian, Romanian, andI have conducted a large-scale cross-linguistic

Hungarian have productive CIPs although thesesurvey of indefinite pronouns, in which I havelanguages have definite articles. Watanabe inchecked 138 languages that have “interrogative-

fact does not provide a clear descriptive

based” indefinite pronouns. Among the 138

generalization regarding CIPs that accommodate

languages, 80 languages are identified as having

these languages. He attempts to offer an analysis

productive CIPs (the remaining 58 have BIPs).

in

with

Among those 80, 66 languages lack definite

quantificational affixes/particles, but his analysis

articles: Ainu, Awa Pit, Badimaya, Bawm,

is not empirically motivated due to the lack of a

Bengali, Buriat, Cahuilla, Chantyal, Djingili,

clear descriptive generalization.

Old English, Estonian, Evenki, Garo, Georgian,

which

CIPs

undergoagreement

Gitksan, (West) Greenlandic, Hayu, Hunzib,

This being said, there is a possibility that156

Hupa, Jakaltek, Old Japanese, Present Japanese,

not be (fully grammaticalized) articles. Thus, I

Kannada, Ket, Kham, Kodava, Korean, Korku,

propose the following generalization:

Latin, Latvian, Lezgian, Limilngan, Lithuanian,Meithei,(16) Languages that have productive CIPs either

Micmac, Mundai, Muruwari, Nanai, Navajo,

have affixal definite articles or lack definite

Newar,

articles.

Maithili,

Malayalam,
Nez

Manipuri,

Perce,

Ngankikurungkurr,

Ngiyambaa, Okinawan, Iron Ossetic, Polish,
Huallaga Quechua, Imbabura Quechua, Russian,

It should be noted that (16) is a one-way

Serbo-Croatian,

Shoshone,correlation; there can be affixal-article languages

Sinhala, Takelma, Tamil, Telugu, Tiwi, Udihe,and article-less languages that do not have

Ukrainian, Warndarang, Yakut, Yup’ik, andproductive CIPs. What is important here is that

Yuwaalaraay.

14

productive CIPs are never allowed in non-affixal

languages, 12 have affixal articles: Assamese,

article languages, whereas they are in principle

Basque, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Itzaj, Karok,

allowed in affixal article and article-less

Lillooet, Macedonian, Digor Ossetic, Romanian,

languages. Below I offer a deduction of (16).

Shipibo-Konibo,

Among

the

remaining

Tonkawa, and Wichita. The remaining two
4. Deduction of the New Generalization

languages, which appear to have non-affixal

Let

articles, are Yiddish and Sorbian.
A word of caution is in order here regarding
the

two

languages

thatappear

to

have

us

start

from

the

structureindeterminate

pronouns.

Kurodaproposes

Japanese

CIPs

that

of

(1965)

consistofnon-affixal definite articles. The definite articles

PRO(noun) and IND(terminate); essentially,in Yiddish do not have a form distinct fromPRO specifies the domain of quantification (e.g.,demonstratives, the two being differentiated only

person, thing), and IND marks the entire phrase

by stress (Margolis 2011:122). Given Bošković’s

as a CIP. Regarding the categorial status of(2016) definition of definite articles I adopt here,

indeterminate pronouns, Huang (1982) proposes

under which definite articles obligatorily occurthat they are generally NPs. Building on thesein a definite nominal phrase and have a distinct

two works, I propose that indeterminate

form from demonstrative, Yiddish articles may

pronouns in general are NPs which consist of

actually

Sorbian,

Root that specifies the domain (e.g., person,

Schaarschmidt (1984) reports that the younger

thing), and N (or n; I use the label N hereaftergeneration of speakers, who only use Sorbian in

only for presentational purposes). In addition,schools, use definite articles considerably lessfollowing Saito (2017), I suggest that this N isfrequently than the older generation of speakers,

the locus of the parametric variation in the

who learned Sorbian through German. Jentschpresence/absence of an unvalued operator(1980) and Lötzsch (1968) also note that definite

feature. If this N bears an unvalued operator

articles in Sorbian are not obligatory in thefeature, the entire NP is a CIP of the Japanesecontext of definite interpretation and that theytype, as schematized in (17a). This operator

are not used in some cases where definite

feature is valued as ["], [$], etc. by aarticles would be expected in German. These

quantificational particle/affix for indefinite (andpoints indicate that Sorbian articles may actuallysimilar) usages. On the other hand, if this feature

not

be

articles.

For

157

is absent on N, we obtain a BIP of the Chineseof Bošković’s generalizations is that they have atype, as schematized in (17b). Since there is no

two-way language cut, i.e., whether a language

operator feature that requires valuation, thehas definite articles (“DP-language”) or not

entire NP does not require a quantificational(“NP-language”). DP must project above NP in

particle/affix (see Oda 2022 for more discussion

DP-languages,of the difference between CIPs and BIPs).

NP-languages. Interestingly, however, based onwhereas

it

does

not

in

a number of observations, Talić (2017) claims
that(17) a. [NP NOp[_] [Root]] (CIP)b. [NP N [Root]]

we

need

a

three-way

cut

of

the

NP/DP-language distinction; namely, non-affixal(BIP)

article languages, affixal article languages, andLet us now turn to the relevance of thearticle-less languages. What is important for our

definite articles for the (un)availability ofcurrent purpose is that Talić argues that DP may

productive CIPs in a given language. Bošković

be absent in affixal article languages in the(2008, 2012) argues that languages with definite

absence of a definite article. For instance,

articles have a DP layer above NP as the highest

Dubinsky and Tasseva-Kurktchieva (2014) show

projection of the nominal domain, whereasthat in Bulgarian adjunct extraction out of alanguages without definite articles lack the DP

nominal phrase is disallowed when the definite

layer so that NP is the highest projection in thearticle is present with a quantifier but it isnominal domain. His main argument is based onallowed when the article is absent in sucha number of cross-linguistic generalizations thatenvironments, as shown in (20).

he establishes, e.g., (18) (note that (18) is a(20) [Otone-way correlation; see Bošković 2008, 2012
for more generalizations).

koj

universitet]i sreštna-hafrom which university

met-theynyakolko(*-to) studenti ti?
(18) Only languages without definite articles

several-the

students

may allow adjunct extraction out of anominal phrase.

Appealing to the deduction of (18) by Bošković,(19) a. *[From which city]i did Peter meet [girlsti]?
b. [Izin which the presence of DP blocks theextraction(English)Dubinskyandargue that DP is absent in (20) in the absence ofis Ivan met

the definite article (see Talić 2017 for more data

[djevojke ti]?
girls

question,

Tasseva-Kurktchieva (2014) and Talić (2017)

kojeg grada]i je Ivan sreo

from which cityinand discussion).

(Serbo-Croatian)

Building

on

this,

I

proposethat

in

Abstracting technical details away, Bošković

non-affixal article languages DP must project

proposes that DP blocks the extraction inabove indeterminate pronouns, which are NPs,question in languages with definite articles (cf.

whereas it can be absent in affixal-article(19a)), whereas DP is absent in article-lesslanguages and article-less languages (note that

languages, so that the extraction is (in principle)

the definite article is absent in the case of

possible (cf. (19b)). Now, one important aspectindefinite pronouns). In addition, I suggest that158

this DP bears a valued operator feature iOp[Q],of the relevant pronouns, I have established thewhich gives the value to the operator feature ofnovel generalization that languages that have𝑛/N and marks the indeterminate pronoun as ancompositional indeterminate pronouns either“interrogativeoflack definite articles or have affixal definite“interrogative pronouns” in non-affixal article

articles. I have then offered a deduction of thelanguages is schematized in (21).

generalizationby

analysisindeterminate

pronoun”.

Thestructureofadopting

Saito’s(2017)

pronouns

andextending Talić’s (2017) proposal regarding(21) [DP DiOp[Q] [NP NuOp[Q] [Root]]]

variation in the structure of nominal phrases.
languages,

This is an appropriate locus of parameterizationindeterminate pronouns necessarily becomein minimalism, given the Borer-Chomsky

interrogative

Conjecture, according to which all parametric

Thus,

in

non-affixal

articlepronouns,resultingintheunavailability of productive CIPs. In other words,

variationisreducedtodifferent

featureindeterminate pronouns are “primitives” acrossspecifications in the lexicon. The generative

languages, but the presence of the relevant D inframework thus sheds new light on the typology

non-affixal article languages necessarily makesof indefinite pronouns, which has been primarily

them interrogative pronouns.

discussed in the non-generative literature.

Note that the proposed parametric variation
regarding indeterminate pronouns is essentially* This paper stems from chapter 3 of mylexical; (i) the difference between CIPs and BIPs

doctoral dissertation (Oda 2022). I am gratefulis attributed to the presence/absence of theto Vicki Carstens, Ian Roberts, Mamoru Saito,

unvalued operator feature (Saito 2017) and (ii)and especially Željko Bošković for invaluable

the

above

comments and suggestions. I also thank thetheaudience of SF 15 for comments and discussions.

presence/absence of a bundle of features that
Structure Theory (Chomsky 1995). Thus, theAll remaining errors are, of course, my own.
NOTES
1
Haspelmath (1997: ch.9) first hypothesizes that

proposed

generalization

the word order of VP could be relevant for the

regarding indeterminate pronouns is appropriate

division of indefinite pronouns, but based on aparameterization in minimalism given thelarge-scale survey, he concludes that there is no

so-called Borer-Chomsky Conjecture, according

such correlation.

presence/absence

indeterminate

NP

of

D(P)

amounts

tocorresponds to D under the Bare Phrase
deductionoftheto which all parametric variation is reduced to

REFERENCES
Baker, Mark (2008) “The Macroparameters in adifferent feature specifications in the lexicon(Borer 1984, Chomsky 1995, Baker 2008).

Microparametric World,” The Limits ofSyntactic

Variation,ed.

5. Conclusion

Biberauer,

351-374,

John

In this paper, I have addressed the issue of what

Amsterdam.

property in a language correlates with the types

byTheresa

Benjamins,

Borer, Hagit (1984) Parametric Syntax, Forisof indefinite pronouns, which was left open by

Publications, Dordrecht.

Haspelmath (1997). Sorting out the definitions

159

Sorabistiske

Bošković, Željko (2008) “What Will You Have,Přinoški

kVI.

Mjezynarodnemu Kongresej Slawistow w

DP or NP?,” NELS 37, 101-114.

Praze 1968, 21-36, Domowina, Bautzen.

Bošković, Željko (2012) “On NPs and Clauses,”

MacWhinney,

Discourse and Grammar: From Sentence

Brian(1976)“Hungarian

Types to Lexical Categories, ed. by GüntherResearch on the Acquisition of Morphology

Grewendorf and Thomas Ede Zimmermann,and Syntax,” Journal of Child Language 3,

179–242, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

397-410.
Margolis, Rebecca (2011) Basic Yiddish: A

Bošković, Željko (2016) “On Second Position
Clitics Crosslinguistically,” Formal Studies

Grammarin Slovenian Syntax: In Honor of Janez

London.

23-54,

Johnthe

Benjamins,

Noam(1995)The

Minimalist

TheoryofGrammar,

Kluwer,Oda, Hiromune (2021) “Decomposing andProgram, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Deducing

Despić, Miloje (2015) “Phases, Reflexives, andStanley

andTasseva-Kurktchieva(2014)“Onthe

Coordinate

Structure

Constraint,” The Linguistic Review 38,

Definiteness,” Syntax 18, 201-234.
Dubinsky,Routledge,

Dordrecht.

Amsterdam.
Chomsky,

Workbook,

Nishigauchi, Taisuke (1990) Quantification in

Orešnik, ed. by Franc Marušič and RokŽaucer,and605-644.
Mila

Oda, Hiromune (2022) The NP/DP-languagetheDistinction as a Scale and Parameters in

NP/DP Frontier: Bulgarian as a Transitional

Minimalism,

Case,” Poster presented at the 89th Annual

University of Connecticut.

Meeting of the Linguistic Society ofDoctoral

Dissertation,

Reuland, Eric (2011) Anaphora and Language

America, Portland, OR.

Design, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Haspelmath, Martin (1997) Indefinite Pronouns,

Saito, Mamoru (2017) “Japanese Wh-phrases as

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Operators

Huang, C.-T. James (1982) Logical Relations in

withUnspecified

Quantificational Force,” Language andChinese and the Theory of Grammar,

Linguistics 18, 1-25.

Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,

Schaarschmidt, Gunter (1984) “Theme-rheme

MA.

Structure and the Article in Sorbian,”

Jentsch, Helmut (1980) Die sorbische Mundart

Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle ofvon Rodewitz/Spree, Domowina, Bautzen.

the University of Victoria 4, 75-90.

Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) Generative Grammatical

Shimoyama,

Junko(2006)“Indeterminate

Studies in the Japanese Language, Doctoral

Phrase Quantification in Japanese,” Natural

Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Language Semantics 14,139-173.

Li, Audrey Yen-Hui (1992) “Indefinite Wh in

Talić, Aida (2017) From A to N and Back:

Mandarin Chinese,” Journal of East Asian

Functional and Bare Projections in the

Linguistics 1, 12-155.

Domain of N and A, Doctoral Dissertation,

Lötzsch, Ronald (1968) “Einige Auswirkungendas

Purismusauf

dieUniversity of Connecticut.

grammatische

Watanabe, Akira (2004) “Indeterminates andNormierung slawischer Schriftsprachen,”

Determiners,” WAFL 1, 390-405.

160

student absent.
(i) *one > likely, (ii) likely > one(Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2012: 387))
Default Case and Chain Interpretation*

In (1a), an existential quantifier can take scopeover negation, which is naturally captured by

Nozomi Moritake

QR. In contrast, the inverse scope interpretation

Graduate School of Kyushu Universityin (1b) is blocked, which is unexpected since QR
is available in (1a). For (2b), if QR were

Keywords：there-constructions, Quantifier

applicable to the associate, the existential

Raising, default case, chain, scrambling

quantifier could take wider scope than likely,
just like the interpretation in (2a). However, thisis not the case in (2b), which is readily captured
by assuming that the associate cannot undergo

1. Introduction

QR. These facts suggest the prohibition of QR of

The purpose of this paper is twofold: tothe associate in there-constructions.

discuss what Default case is and to propose thecondition posed by the SM interface when a

3. Case-Marking in There-Constructions

chain is interpreted. This condition successfully
accounts for why Quantifier Raising (QR) of an

Based on Chomsky (2000 et seq), Case

associate in there-constructions is prohibited.

assignment takes place as a reflex of phi-feature

Finally, this paper will demonstrate intriguing

agreement. Chomsky (2000, 2001) argues thatconsequences for scrambling in Japanese.

the associate in (3) obtains nominative Case
since it agrees with a finite T, which is
responsible for nominative Case assignment.

2. The Prohibition of QR of Associates in
There-constructions(3) There are many people here.

It has been acknowledged that the associate
in there-constructions cannot induce an inverse

However, the following examples show that thisscope interpretation, as shown in (1b) and (2b).

argument is incorrect:(1) a.

I

haven’tmet

manylinguistics(4) a.

students.

There is only me/*I in the garden.
(Sobin (2014: 386))(i) not > many, (ii) many > notb.

b. * There’s I.

There aren’t many linguistics students(Schütze (1997: 136))

here.
(i) not > many, (ii) *many > not

As shown in (4), it is only the associate with

(Chomsky (1991: 38))(2) a.

accusative form that is licensed. Chomsky’s(Exactly) one student is likely to be(2000, 2001) idea is thus no longer tenable.

absent.
b.

Maling and Sprouse (1995) argue that a(i) one > likely, (ii) likely > one

copula assigns abstract accusative Case to the

There’s likely to be (exactly) one

associate. However, the copula is claimed to161have no Case-assigning property (Schütze

4.3

The

Theoretical(1997) and Moritake (2022)). Sobin (2014) and

Default Case

ImplementationofMoritake (2022) argue that the associate in

At this point, it remains uncertain how

there-constructions does not receive abstract

default case is theoretically implemented.

Case, but is pronounced with default accusative

According to Schütze (2001) and McFadden

1

We assume with Sobin (2014) and(2007), default case is not abstract Case but

Moritake (2022) that the associate carries default

morphological case. It follows that a DP

accusative case instead of nominative Case.

pronounced with default case is marked withcase.

morphological case rather than abstract Case.
Although

4. Default Casetheassumptions

offeredby

Schütze (2001) and McFadden (2007) seem

4.1 Theoretical Assumption: [uCase]

promising,In the current theory, noun phrases are

they

do

not

go

beyondtheintroduced into the derivation with an unvalued

description that default case is morphologicalCase-feature ([uCase]) (Chomsky (2000) and hiscase. It nevertheless remains unclear how default

subsequent works). The value of [uCase] iscase can be formally implemented within thedetermined in the course of a derivation.

recent theoretical framework (Chomsky (2000 etseq)). Central to the recent minimalist program
framework is that noun phrases are introduced

4.2 Default Case in English
It is assumed that DPs are pronounced with

into the derivation with [uCase], and its featuredefault case when they receive no abstract Case

specification is determined in narrow syntax. We(Schütze (1997, 2001), McFadden (2004, 2007),

will establish a theoretical implementation ofand others). Schütze (1997, 2001) extensively

default case along with this framework.

discusses under what circumstances default case

Recall that DPs lack abstract Case when theyis used. According to Schütze (1997, 2001),

are pronounced with default case (Schütze

left-dislocated DPs reveal what default case is in(2001) and McFadden (2007)). This assumption

languages. For instance, they are pronounced

implies that [uCase] on such DPs is unspecified

with accusative case in English, as shown in (5).

in narrow syntax. Based on these assumptions,
we put forth the following proposal:(5) Me/*I, I like beans.

(Schütze (2001: 210))(6) DPs are pronounced with default case when

The left-dislocated DP appears with accusative

their [uCase] remains unvalued at theform in (5), although it cannot establish any

Sensorimotor (SM) interface.2

agreement relation with heads capable ofassigning Case. Schütze (1997, 2001) claims

Crucial to this proposal is that [uCase] functions

that this fact can be accommodated by assuming

as a command with which to pronounce DPs.

that me in (5) is pronounced with default

Our proposal is more desirable than Schütze’s

accusative case. Following Schütze (1997, 2001),(2001) and McFadden’s (2007) in that it

weprovides a theoretical explanation of how default

assumethat

Englishutilizesdefault

accusative case.

case is implemented in line with Chomsky’s
recent framework. Moreover, there is no need to162

(9) There is only me in the garden.

suppose default case assignment in narrow(Sobin (2014: 386))

syntax. Rather, our proposal just regulates how
the SM interface interprets DPs with [uCase].

It is argued in Section 3 that an associate in
5. Proposal

there-constructions is pronounced with default

5.1 Sportiche (2016)

case. [uCase] on only me in (9) is thus unvalued

This subsection reviews Sportiche’s (2016)at the SM interface. It has been assumed since

analysis. See the sentence in (7a). According toChomsky (1981) that a single syntactic object

Sportiche (2016), as shown in (7b), Mary0 has

itself consists of a chain, which is called a trivial[uCase], and Mary1 obtains nominative Case as

chain.

a reflex of phi-feature agreement via matrix T,

capture the grammaticality of (9) since the trivial

after which it moves to matrix Spec-T.

chain has no valued feature. This example, ofSportiche’s(2016)

analysiscannotcourse, does not render Neglect untenable, but
we should understand that Neglect is limited to(7) a. Mary seems to be happy.

cases with the nontrivial chain.

b. [[Mary2 [NOM] [T [seems [Mary1 [NOM] [to[be [Mary0 [uCase] happy]]]]]]]]

5.3 Chain Interpretation at the SM Interface
Sportiche (2016) points out that although

Although Neglect captures cases including[uCase] on Mary0 in (7b) is illegible at thethe nontrivial chain as we have seen, it cannot be

Conceptual–Intentional interface, the sentence inapplied to the trivial chain, as in (9). We thus

3(7a) is well-formed.

propose the interface condition in (10).

Sportiche (2016) thenassumes the operation called Neglect in (8).
(10) If there are multiple occurrences of a single
DP in a derivation, they must have a valued(8) Neglect
Any material at any interface can befeature in order for them to form aignored up to crash.

nontrivial chain and be representationally(Sportiche (2016: 4))

identified as a series of copies at the SM
Based on Neglect, an illegible feature can beinterface; they are regarded as a repetition

neglected at the interfaces. According tootherwise. This condition, however, isSportiche, Neglect can be applied to syntactic

irrelevant to just one occurrence of a single

objects with illegible features only if a chain

DP, since it consists of a trivial chain byestablished by them has a valued feature. The

itself regardless of whether it involves angrammaticality of (7a) can be captured sinceunvalued or valued feature.

Mary2 and Mary1 have a valued Case-feature in
their nontrivial chain, which allows Mary0 withThis interface condition entails Neglect, at least[uCase] to be neglected at the interfaces. The

in spirit, but we consider that it is in fact thederivation thus converges at the interfaces.

necessary condition for the proper (non)trivial
chain, which is relevant at the SM interface.
The intuition behind this condition lies in

5.2 The Limit of Neglect

how the pronunciation of syntactic objects is

Consider (4a), repeated here as (9).

163determined. The SM interface must identify

which QR applies to many linguistics students.

whether syntactic objects make the nontrivial

In this case, there are two occurrences of thechain or trivial chain in order to utter themassociate. Since there is no valued feature in thecorrectly. It has been tacitly assumed that the

nontrivial chain, these two occurrences are taken

chain must properly be established for the

to be a repetition, which results in gibberish atcorrect pronunciation (e.g. Chomsky (1981)).

the SM interface. Thus, QR cannot apply to the

Accordingly, there must be some licensing

associate in there-constructions.
One may wonder why (12a) is grammatical.

condition for the chain in the theory. Recall thatthe chain must include the valued feature to(12) a. Whati is there ti in the refrigerator?

apply Neglect, as argued by Sportiche (2016).
We do not assume Neglect, but this can be(Aissen (1975: 7))

restated as the prerequisite for the nontrivial

b. What[vQ], [uCase] … What[uQ], [uCase] …

chain, whereas it does not matter for the trivial
chain. We have proposed the feature-based

The sentence in (12a) contrasts sharply with thatlicensing condition for the chain with thein (11a) with respect to a possibility of

distinction between nontrivial and trivial chains.

movement. Here, an unvalued Q-feature ([uQ])Note that this condition is not intended toon what turns into a valued Q-feature ([vQ]) at

neglect

Spec-C, as in (12b), which satisfies the condition

illegible

syntactic

objectsattheinterfaces.

for the nontrivial chain in (10). Thus, twooccurrences of what in (12b) are identified as the

6. Analysis

same copy and pronounced correctly.

First, let us consider (9). The associate only
me is composed of a trivial chain with [uCase].

7. Extension: Bare DP Scrambling

Based on (10), [uCase] does not induce any

It is assumed that scrambled objects inproblem at the SM interface, as the associate

Japanese must bear an overt Case-marker (Saito

consists of the trivial chain. The grammaticality(1985)). See (13) (in what follows, DP-ø standsof (9) is thus accounted for by our analysis.

for a DP without the overt Case-maker).

Let us turn to the examples with QR. Take(1b), represented here as (11a), for instance.

(13) Ringo-o/*øi

John-ga ti tabe-ta.4

apple-Acc/ø John-Nom(11) a. There aren’t many linguistics students

eat-Past‘John ate an apple.’here.
(i) not > many, (ii) *many > notIn (13), the scrambled object ringo ‘apple’ must

(Chomsky (1991: 38))

have accusative Case. However, the sentence inb. many linguistics students[uCase] … many(14) is acceptable, although the scrambled object
ringo-dake ‘only an apple’ is bare.

linguistics students[uCase] …

(14) Ringo-dake-o/øi

Assuming that QR occurs in narrow syntax (e.g.
BobaljikandWurmbrand(2012)),

therepresentation in (11b) poses a problem, inJohn-ga titabe-ta.

apple-only-Acc/ø John-Nom

eat-Past‘It is only an apple that John ate.’164

As discussed in Section 4.2, left-dislocatedlong as our discussion is correct, scrambled DPs

DPs reveal what default case is in languages

need some valued feature, not restricted to Case.
As we can see, the proposed chain condition(Schütze (2001)). With this in mind, see (15).

suggests a close association with the theoreticalkare-wa

tensai-da.

implementation of default case. For one thing,

John-ø/Nom/Acc he-Top

genius-Cop

the moved DP with [uCase] is licensed only(15) John-ø/*ga/*o,when its unvalued feature other than [uCase]‘John, he is a genius.’

obtains a value. For another, the in-situ DP withAs shown in (15), only the bare DP is[uCase] is licensed even if it lacks any valued

appropriate for the left-dislocated DP. We argue

feature. In both cases, the relevant DP isthat the bare DP is pronounced with default nullpronounced with default case. Our proposal forcase in Japanese. In light of this proposal, barethe chain condition is thus inseparable from theDPs in (13) and (14) have no value of [uCase].

nature of default case proposed in Section 4.

See the following rough representation of (13):8. Apparent Counterexamples(16) Ringo[uCase] … Ringo[uCase] …

One might predict that the examples in (18)undermine our proposal.

There are two occurrences of DP with [uCase].
(18) a. *Who does it seem to like Mary?

It is erroneously expected that they are both

(Chomsky (1981: 175))

pronounced since they are identified as ab. *It was believed Mary.

repetition due to the lack of valued feature. Thus,(Lasnik (2008: 19))

the scrambled DP needs overt Case when (13) isuttered in out-of-the-blue contexts.
Conversely, Case need not be overt in (14),The nontrivial chain made up by who in (18a)where the scrambled object obtains a focus

should be licensed since [uQ] on who obtains ainterpretation with a focus-particle dake ‘only’

value at Spec-C, as shown in (19a). Furthermore,

being attached to it. Assuming that the DP canthe trivial chain of Mary in (18b) should also be

have the unvalued focus-feature ([uFoc]), which

licensed without any Case value, as in (19b).

becomes the valued focus-feature ([vFoc]) after(19) a. Who[vQ], [uCase] … Who[uQ], [uCase] …

it moves to the CP domain, the representation of(14) will roughly be shown in (17).

b. … Mary[uCase] …

(17) Ringo-dake[vFoc], [uCase] … Ringo-dake[uFoc],

However, (18) may be ruled out by independentassumptions suggested by Chomsky and Lasnik[uCase] …

(1977), McFadden (2004), and others. Details
What is crucial here is that [uCase] remains

aside, these studies suggest that the expletive it

unvalued but [uFoc] gets a value, which is a

is licensed only if there is a proper CP associate

striking difference from (16): [vFoc] licenses thein the sentence. See the following examples:

nontrivial chain in (17). The sentence in (14) is(20) a. It is likely [CP that John is sick].

thus correctly interpreted at the SM interface. As

165

to abstract Case, whereas ‘case’ refers tob. It would be unfortunate [CP for John tomorphological case.

be sick].

2

c. It would be unfortunate [CP to be sick].
(McFadden (2004: 322))

Under our analysis, [uCase] is sent to theConceptual–Intentional (C–I) interface as well.

d. It is unclear [CP what to do].

If so, one might consider that the derivation does
not converge since the unvalued feature is(Chomsky and Lasnik (1977: 449))
5

generally assumed to be illegible at the C–I

e. *It is certain [TP to leave].

interface (see also footnote 4). See Epstein,(Chomsky and Lasnik (1977: 472))

Kitahara, and Seely (2010) for a possibility thatf. *It is [NP a man] in the garden.

[uCase] is invisible to the C–I interface and(Lasnik (1995: 18))

causes no violation.
In (20a-d), the expletive it is available with the3

CP associate. In contrast, it is not licensed whenno superfluous symbols in representations.”

there is no CP, as in (20e) and (20f). The

Following this, Sportiche (2016) argues that

ungrammaticality of (18) can be reduced to theChomsky (1995: 27) claims that “there can be[uCase] induces a problem at LF.
An anonymous reviewer wonders whether the

licensing condition for the expletive it. Thus, we

4argue that (18) is compatible with our proposal.

bare object ringo ‘apple’ can be interpreted as a
topic, with a small pro in the object position,

9. Conclusion

instead of the trace, in (13). It is assumed that

We have argued that DPs with [uCase] are

the sentence-initial topic is base-generated atuttered with default morphological case (Schütze

Spec-C, and the small pro, instead of that trace,(2001) and McFadden (2007)). Moreover, we

occupies the argument position in Japanese

have offered the licensing condition for the(Saito (2010) and references cited therein).

(non)trivial chain, which accounts for the ban ofGiven this, the sentence in (13) looks like (15)

QR of the associate in there-constructions. The

with respect to the relation between the(un)availability of scrambling in Japanese is also

sentence-initial element and the (overt or covert)

claimed to be captured by our proposal.

resumptive pronoun. However, (13) seems to

In our analysis, unvalued features are relateddiffer from (15) in that ringo ‘apple’ in (13)to chain licensing, in fact, nominal licensing.

cannot be interpreted as the topic without a topic

Without unvalued features, we cannot explain

marker -wa, in contrast with John in (15). A

how the chain (nominal) is licensed. The

further investigation is left for future research.

presence of unvalued features may thus be5

deduced from chain (nominal) licensing.

out that (20e) is unacceptable only when it is

Chomsky and Lasnik (1977: 472, fn. 84) point

used as the expletive. If it has a particularreference, the sentence becomes acceptable.

* I am greatly indebted to Nobuaki Nishioka forproviding me with invaluable comments. I also
thank Laurence Craven for suggesting stylistic

REFERENCES
Aissen, Judith (1975) “Presentational-There

improvements. All remaining errors are my own.
1

Insertion: A Cyclic Root Transformation,”

NOTES
This paper uses the term ‘Case’ when referring

CLS 11, 1-14.

166

Zubizarreta, 17-41, MIT Press, Cambridge,

Bobaljik, Jonathan David and Susi WurmbrandMA.

(2012) “Word Order and Scope: Transparent

Maling, Joan and Rex A. Sprouse (1995)

Interfaces and the 3/4 Signature,” Linguistics“Structural Case, Specifier-Head Relations,

Inquiry 43, 371-421.
Chomsky,Noam(1981)

Lecturesand the Case of Predicate NPs,” Studies inonComparative

Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

Germanic

Syntax,ed.

byHubert Haider, Susan Olsen, and Sten Vikner,

Chomsky, Noam (1991) “Some Notes on

167-186, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Economy of Derivation and Representation,”
Principles and Parameters in Comparative

McFadden, Thomas (2004) The Position ofGrammar, ed. by Robert Freiden, 417-454,

Morphological Case in the Derivation: A

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Study of the Syntax-Morphology Interface,

Chomsky,Noam(1995)The

DoctoralMinimalist

dissertation,

UniversityofPennsylvania.

Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

McFadden, Thomas (2007) “Default Case and

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

the Status of Compound Categories in

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

Distributed Morphology,” Proceedings of theLasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels,

30th Annual Penn Linguistic Colloquium,

and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155, MIT Press,225-238.
Moritake, Nozomi (2022) “On Case-Marking in

Cambridge, MA.

There-Constructions:A

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. byApproach,”

University

Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

Review 64, 63-84.

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”

KyushuDefault

case
EnglishSaito, Mamoru (1985) Some Asymmetries in

Cambridge, MA.

Japanese and their Theoretical Implications,

Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik (1977)

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

“Filters and Control,” Linguistic Inquiry 8,

Saito, Mamoru (2010) “Semantic and Discourse

425-504.

Interpretation

Epstein. D. Samuel, Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T.

of

the

Japanese

Left“Uninterpretable

Periphery,” The Sound Patterns of Syntax, ed.

Features: What Are They and What Do They

by Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Lisa Rochman,

Do?,” Exploring Crash Proof Grammars, ed.

140-173, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

by Michael T. Putnam, 125-142, John

Schütze, Carson (1997) Infl in Child and Adult

DanielSeely(2010)

Language: Agreement, Case, and Licensing,

Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Lasnik,Howard(1995)“Last

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Resort,”Schütze, Carson (2001) “On the Nature of

Minimalism and Linguistic Theory, ed. by

Default Case,” Syntax 4, 205-238.

Shosuke Haraguchi and Michio Funaki, 1-32,

Sobin, Nicholas (2014) “Th/Ex, Agreement, andHituzi Syobo, Tokyo.

Case in Expletive Sentences,” Syntax 17,

Lasnik, Howard (2008) “On the Development of

385-416.

Case Theory: Triumphs and Challenges,”

Sportiche, Dominique (2016) “Neglect,” ms.,

Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, ed.

UCLA. [lingbuzz/0027775]

by Robert Freiden, Carlos Otero, and Maria

167

Section 2 in some detail.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2
reviews the previous studies on preposition by,
Hanazaki and Kato (2004), Hanazaki (2005) andOn the Spatial Meaning of by: A Semantic

Hirasawa (2019). Section 3 analyzes spatial

Network Analysis Based on Schema andmeanings of by and X by X, the latter including

Predominance*the types of <Bit by bit> and <Side by side>,and establishes their schemas and a semantic

Shione Takahama

network between them. Section 4 is a brief

Graduate School of University of Tsukuba

conclusion.

Haruka Shimura
Graduate School of University of Tsukuba

2. Previous Studies on Preposition By

Takuto Kimura

2.1 Hanazaki and Kato (2004), Hanazaki

Graduate School of University of Tsukuba(2005)
Hanazaki and Kato revise the analysis

Keywords：Preposition, Semantic network,

presented by Tyler and Evans (2003), andImage schemas

propose six steps to determine distinct meaningsof by, as shown in (1).

1. Introduction(1) A Revised Model for Principled Polysemy

Some previous studies (e.g., Hanazaki and

Step 1: collect authentic data using a

Kato (2004), Hanazaki (2005) and Hirasawa

bottom-to-top approach;(2019)) show that the preposition by has many

Step 2: identify the distinct senses using1

uses. Hanazaki and Kato (2004) and Hanazaki

two steps;(2005) observe various meanings of by, and[1] abstract away the spatial relations

establish their schemas and a semantic network

for the TR and LM for sense A;

between them, based on predominance. With[2] combine the resulting schema

respect to spatial meanings, they establish two

withschemas: one is the <Near/Out of the domain>

extra-linguistic information in a

type; the other is the <Bit by bit> type, which issentence that contains B; if thederived from the <Near/Out of the domain> type.

meaning of the sentence can be

However, there are some problems with theirinferred, B is not a distinct sense;

analysis: (i) the <Near/Out of the domain>

if the meaning of the sentenceschemacannot be inferred, it is a distinct

cannotexplainsome

differences

between the prepositions by and near; (ii) also,

sense.

the schema cannot deal with two spatial

Step 3: attest

linguisticthepolysemousandnetworkmeanings involving the notion of movement;

through meaning extension based(iii) side by side, which differ from thoseon pragmatic strengthening rather

illustrating the schema <Bit by bit> is notthan a metaphor;considered. These problems are dealt with in

Step 4: examine

168

the

networkfromadiachronic perspective;

However, there are some problems with their

Step 5: determine the network center inanalysis. First, the schema <Near /Out of thedifferent historical periods for thedomain> cannot explain the differences between

preposition

by and near, as shown in (3).

based

predominance/most

on

the

frequently

used sense of the central meaning(3) a. I live near/by the sea and I was on thein the semantic network;

bench last week…

Step 6: apply three inferencing strategies:(Shimada (2013: 28-29))

best fit, knowledge of real-world,b. His grandparents were living near/*by

force dynamics, and topologicalthe city at the time.

extension.

(Shimada (2010: 38-39))(Hanazaki (2005: 428))
In (3a), both near and by are available with an

Based on the six steps, they establish a semantic

entity like sea. In (3b), however, by is not

network of by. In this study, step 2 and step 5

available with an entity like city because it isare crucially relevant to the following discussion

incompatible with the entity whose area is vague.

(see Hanazaki and Kato (2004) and Hanazaki

Second, Hanazaki and Kato do not postulate that(2005) for a full account of the six steps and<Near/ Out of the domain> involves the notion

their semantic network of by.

of movement, so this schema cannot deal withIn step 2, they identify the distinct meanings

the instances expressing transfer. Consider (4).

of by using two sub-steps.
(4) a. He’d gone by the Gazette parking lot(2) a. I live in the moment day by day.

and peeked inside a blue Ford Fiesta[…]

b. I live in the moment <Near/Out of thedomain>.

(Mitch Albom, The First Phone Call

(Hanazaki and Kato (2004: 29-30))

from Heaven, cited in Hirasawa (2019:130))(2) examines whether day by day is distinct fromb. I said: “Let’s go by my place and pickthe <Near/Out of the domain> type. If theup your fancy suitcase. It kind ofconcept of <Near/Out of the domain> isworries me”.

embedded in (2a), as shown in (2b), the meaning(Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodof (2a) cannot be inferred from that of (2b).

bye, cited in Hirasawa (2019: 130))

Therefore, they claim that day by day is distinct
from the <Near/Out of the domain> type, andThe sentences in (4) include the phrase go by.

classified into the <Bit by bit> type.

However, these meanings are different from

Step 5 concerns how to determine the central

each other. (4a) means that a man had gone

meaning. Hanazaki (2005) says that the central

across a parking lot, and (4b) indicates thatmeaning is the most predominant one, that is,someone will drop in at a place like someone’s

the one used most frequently, which means

house. Finally, it seems difficult to directly relate

predominance and has been changing over time.

the <Near/Out of the domain> type to the <Bit169

by bit> type because there are too manyIn (6a), the sentence describes the situation ofdifferences between them. Hanazaki seems tostanding near the window, in (6b), the speakeroverlook a certain type of instances; (5)went across the house, and in (6c), a man

illustrates this.

dropped in at someone’s house. He claims thatthese meanings are used properly because they(5) Then, as we were sitting in the dull light,

employ different types of predicates.

side by side on the edge of his bed, he said
to me.

Although his study does not aim to establish(Never Let Me Go, p. 245)

a semantic network of by, there are at least somerelations between the three spatial meanings

In the <Side by side> type, focal entities

because they have similarities in term offunction as TR and LM at the same time, andsemantic properties. We assume that native

they are close to each other. Also, it does not

speakers also know the conceptual constitution

have the notion of transfer, which differs fromwhich by itself has, and construe the meaning of

the <Bit by bit> type. Considering this point, theby in a sentence, especially a new one, by<Side by side> type seems to be located between

referring to the meaning of a more central or

the types of <Near/ Out of the domain> and <Bit

predominance meaning/sense.

by bit>.
3. An Analysis of Three Spatial Meanings of
2.2 Hirasawa (2019)

By and the Meanings of X by X

Hirasawa explores what lexical knowledge

In order to solve the problems above, weon the preposition by English native speakers

firstly examine the three spatial meanings of byacquire from a perspective of Construction

and the types of X by X, and presents their

Grammar. He claims that native speakers cansemantic properties. At the end of the section, a

use by appropriately because each meaning of bysemantic network of by reflecting their schemas

is stored as lexical knowledge in their mind. As

is established based on predominance.

for spatial by, he proposes three types in (6):3.1. Vicinity in the Horizontal Plane(6) a. he would often stand by the window.

First, we present the <Vicinity in the(Kazuo Ishiguro, The Remains of thehorizontal plane> type as the central meaning ofDay, cited in Hirasawa (2019: 111))

spatial by. Observe the differences between by

b. I saw it in the window as I went by, so I

and near.

thought of you and how you werealways wanting one.

(7) a. There are a few benches by/near the(Roald Dahl, “Dip in the Pool”, cited inriver….

Hirasawa (2019: 120))(Shimada (2013: 28-29))

b. A robot submarine is deployed * by/nearc. I just came by to visit poor little

the sea floor.

(Shimada (2013: 28))

Stephanie.
(Bewitched, Season 3, Episode 20, cited

As shown in (7), near can denote both horizontal

in Hirasawa (2019: 128))

proximity to the river and vertical proximity to
the sea floor. On the other hand, by describes

170

only horizontal proximity to the river.

Judgingacross> type is a distinct meaning of by.

from this point, this spatial meaning indicates

The

that TR locates horizontally close to LM, and<Goingacross>

type

has

three

significant properties. Firstly, by comparing by

2

they are either in contact or no contact. This

with through, we confirm one of its properties,

meaning has the following semantic properties

as shown in (9).3of [Horizontal(H)], [No contact or contact(NC/C)] and [Static (S)]. In addition, this spatial(9) a. We drove by the tunnel.

meaning has another property: by is onlyb. We drove through the tunnel.

compatible with the entity which has the distinct
boundary of an area. As discussed in

By describes the situation of going across near(3), by is incompatible with city, and cooccurs

the tunnel, whereas through expresses thewith sea. As for city, the boundary is vague

situation of going into and out of the tunnel.

between a city center and a countryside. On theThis observation leads us to say that the <Goingother hand, the boundary between a sea and sea

across> type has the properties of [B] and [NC].

shore is clear. So, we assume that the by has the

In addition, this by indicates straight forward

property of [Bounded (B)].

movement:

Summarizing

theseobservations,the<Vicinity in the horizontal plane> type is(10) a. A stray cow wanders by.

constructed with the four semantic properties of(Full House, Season 2, Episode 13,[H], [NC/C], [S] and [B]. This schema will be

Working Mothers, cited in Hirasawa

shown in Figure 1 below.

(2019: 123))b. A stray cow wanders.

3.2. Going Across
Let us see another spatial meaning, the(10a) indicates that a stray cow goes straightly,<Going across> type. First, we examine whether

although in (10b) it goes unsteadily. In otherit is a distinct meaning through step 2 in (1).

words, by implies that TR goes straightly. This
characteristic makes it clear that this by involves(8) a. A train bellowing by just over myhead,…

the property[TR-horizontal-moving(THM)].

(The Body, p. 79)

To summarize these observations, the <Goingb. ?? A train bellowing <Vicinity in theacross> type has three semantic properties: [B],horizontal plane> just over my head…

[NC] and [THM]. This schema will be presented
in Figure 1 below.

In (8), the verb bellow does not involve thenotion of transfer. However, the sentence

3.3. Dropping In

describes the situation of the train going across

Let us turn to the meaning <Dropping in>.

the speaker’s head while blowing its whistle.

First, we check whether this by is a distinct

When the concept of <Vicinity in the horizontal

meaning, as the meaning <Going across> does.

plane> is embedded in the position of by, as in(11) illustrates.

(8b), the meaning of (8a) cannot be inferredfrom that of (8b). Because of this, the <Going(11) a. I just came by to visit poor little

171

Stephanie.

another TR. We argue that the <Bit by bit> type(Bewitched, Season 3, Episode 20, cited

has a distinct meaning because the otherin Hirasawa (2019: 128))

meanings cannot express the situation where theb. ?? I just came <Vicinity in the horizontal

LM for a TR can be shifted to serve as anotherplane>/<Going across> to visit poor

TR, as shown in (13b)little Stephanie.

The <Bit by bit> type involves two
properties. (14) illustrates.

We claim that this by is a distinct meaning
because the same meaning of (11a) cannot be(14) The house was painstakingly searched,inferred from (11b).

room by room, drawer by drawer, cupboard

The <Dropping in> type has three vitalby cupboard.

(BNC)

properties. (12) illustrates:
The sentence denotes that a TR shifts into a LM(12) I’ll be by to pick the tickets up thisand a new TR is replaced close to another LM.

afternoon.

In addition, the distance between TR and LM is(Full House, Season 5, Episode 6, cited invague. From these observations, the <Bit by bit>

Hirasawa (2019: 129))

type seems to have the two semantic properties
of [TR-horizontal-shifting(THS)] and [NC/C].

The sentence indicates that the speaker will
move horizontally to and drop in at a shop.

3.5. Side By Side

Without by, the sentence does not describe thehorizontal

movement.

BecauseofThis sub-section observes the meaning of

these

<Side

by

side>.

First,

thismeaning

isobservations, the <Dropping in> type needs thedistinguished from the other meanings of by due

three semantic properties of [THM], [C] and [B],to the two sup-steps in (1).

and its schema will be drawn in Figure 1 below.
(15) a. Then, as we were sitting in the dull light,
3.4. Bit By Bit

side by side on the edge of his bed, he

In this sub-section, the meaning <Bit by bit>said to me.

is observed. First, we examine whether this(cf. (5))

b. ?? Then, as we were sitting in the dull

meaning is distinct from the other meanings.

light, side <Vicinity in the horizontal
plane>/<Going(13) a. I live for the moment day by day.

across>/<Droppingin>/<Bit by bit> side on the edge of his(cf. (2))

bed, he said to me.

b. ??I live for the moment day <Vicinity inthehorizontal

plane>/<Going(15a) indicates that two persons reciprocally

across>/<Dropping in> day.

function as TR and LM at the same time. The<Side by side> type is another distinct meaning

Sentence (13a) denotes that the entities (day) arebecause the others do not describe the situation

located independently of each other, and a TR iswhere the focal entities function as TR and LM

placed close to the LM, which functions as

reciprocally at the same time.

172

We now consider three important properties

meaning to another, based on the inheritances ofof the by with this meaning.

some higher-level properties. In this case, themeanings of <Going across>, <Dropping in>(16) Side by side on the narrow shawl knelt theand <Side by side> are derived from the central

two wanderers the little prattling child andmeaning through inheriting such properties as

reckless, hardened adventurer.

[NC and/or C], [B] and [H]. The <Bit by bit>

(A Study in Scarlet, p. 84)

type is extended from the <Side by side> typethrough the properties [NC/C] and [TLS], which

In (16), two focal entities like wanderers are intransform with the notion of movement. The

the limited area, or narrow shawl, and function

semantic network of by is described in Figure 1,

as TR and LM reciprocally at the same time. In

which shows the image schemas of the five

addition, the distance between the two entities ismeanings.

not obvious, as with the <Bid by bit> type.
Accordingly, the <Side by side> type involves[B], [TR-LM Switching (TLS)] and [NC/C].
3.6. The Central Meaning and Semantic
Network
This sub-section determines which one of
the five meanings is the central meaning of by,
and establishes its semantic network. First, thecentralmeaning isdeterminedbased onpredominance (cf. (1)), We collected 1320
examples of by from seven novels (Never Let
Me Go, The Body, A Study in Scarlet, 1984,

Figure 1

The Semantic Network of By

Death on the Nile, Lord of the Flies, and The
Great Gatsby), and found 177 instances of the

4. Conclusion

spatial meanings and X by X. 124 examples ofIn this study, we have constructed the more

<Vicinity in the horizontal plane> were found,elaborate image schemas of the three spatial

and therefore the <Vicinity in the horizontal

meanings and X by X, based on previous studies’

plane> type is the most frequently used meaning,observations and the examples collected fromor predominance, and occupies the center

seven literary works. With the image schemas of

position of the semantic network. 22 instances ofthe meanings of by, we have shown some<Going across> and two instances of <Dropping

differencesin> were found. Besides these spatial meanings,

prepositions such as near and through.

22 examples of <Side by side> and 21 examples

from

the

meanings

of

other

The semantic network explains how theof <Bit by bit> were founded.

meanings of by relate to each other, and how

Next, we examine how the semantic network

native speakers construe the meaning of by in ais developed. According to Lakoff (1987), a

sentence, especially a less frequently used type.

semantic network has developed by relating one173

* We would like to express our sincere gratitude

Imi—near no Imi to Taihisite— (Theto Naoaki Wada for his invaluable comments.

meaning of By: in contrast to Near),”Also, we would like to thank Shinya Hirasawa

Gunma Zyosi Daigaku Kiyoo, 31, 37-44.
Shimada,for the helpful comments.
1

Although

NOTES
Otani (2013:12-13)

Hiroshi(2013)“Zentisi

byno

Imi—Hitotsuno Imi wo Motomete— (TheMeaning of By : A Monosemic View),”

defines

prepositions used adverbially as particles, weGunma Zyosi Daigaku Kiyoo, 34, 27-38.

regard them as “preposition” as well in thisTyler, Andrea, and Vyvyan Evans (2003) The

paper.

Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial

2

In informant surveys, the <Vicinity in the

Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition,

horizontal plane> type may allow both the cases

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

where TR is in contact to and in no contact toLM (e.g., The bicycle is by the building.).
3

TEXTS

We asked some native speakers to explain theChristie, Agatha (2010) Death on the Nile: The

differences between by and through, obtain theclassic murder mystery from the Queen ofcomments in the main text.

Crime (English Edition), Harper Collins,
UK.
Doyle, Arthur C. (1887) A Study in Scarlet

REFERENCES
Hanazaki, Miki and Kozo Kato (2004) “The(AmazonSemantic Network of by (2),” Studies inClassics

Edition),AmazonClassics.

Humanities: Culture and Communication

F. Scott, Fitzgerald. (2013) The Great Gatsby

38, 23-38, Shinshu University.

(English Edition), Amazon Classics.

Hanazaki, Miki (2005) “Toward a model ofKazuo, Ishiguro (2005) Never Let Me Go: With

principled polysemy,” English Linguistics

GCSE and A Level Study Guide (Faber

22, 412-442.

Educational Editions), Faber and Faber,

Hirasawa, Shinya (2019) Zentisi by no Imi o

London.

Sitteirutowa Nani o Sittteiru to Iukoto

King, Stephen (1982) The Body, Viking. US.

Nanoka—Tagiron kara Taisyouron e—

Orwell, George (1949) 1984 (Amazon Classic(What It Means to Know the Meanings ofEdition), Amazon Classics.

the Preposition By), Kurosio, Tokyo.

William Golding (2016), Lord of the Flies

Lakoff, George (1987) Women, Fire, andDangerous

Things:What(Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition) (English

Categories

Edition), Penguin Classics

Reveal About the Mind, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Otani, Naoki (2013) A Cognitive Analysis of theGrammaticalized Functions of English
Prepositions: From Spatial Senses toGrammatical and Discourse Functions,
Kaitakusya, Tokyo.
Shimada,Hiroshi(2010)“Zentisi

by

no

174

come-Past]-NML-Acc
oboe-te-i-ru.
remember-te-be-Pres‘I remember that Taro came to Tokyo.’
What Do Mongolian Case-Marked Clauses
Suggest?*In each of (1) and (2), the matrix verb takes adeclarativecomplement

clause,but

theLina Baocomplement clause is followed by the accusative

Qiannan Normal University for Nationalities

case marker -i/-yi, which is optionally followed

Hideki Makiby the possessive pronoun -ni, in the Mongolian

Gifu University

example in (1), and is followed by the

Saeko Urushibara

nominalizing element -no in the Japanese

The University of Kitakyushu

example in (2). The difference between (1) and(2) lead us to raise the research question in (3).

Keywords: case-marked clauses, genitive(3)

subjects, Japanese, mixed categories, Mongolian

Research Question
What do Mongolian case-marked clausessuggest for the theory of syntax?

1. Introduction
In the Khorchin dialect of Mongolian

In this paper, we will address research question(Mongolian, hereafter), an Altaic language,(3), and argue for the following. First, Maki etspoken in Inner Mongolia, case-marked clausesal.’s (2016) conditions on genitive subject

show properties slightly different from those inlicensing need to be revised. Second, thesimilar languages such as Japanese, as shown

predicate followed by the accusative casebelow. (1) and (2) are Mongolian and Japanesemarker in Mongolian is a kind of mixed category,

examples, respectively.

which is seen in languages such as Quechua.
Third, there is no C projection for indirect(1)[Tokyo-duquestions in Mongolian, and the relevant Q

Bagatur-Nom [Tokyo-to

feature seems to reside on T in indirect questions

Ulaɣan-ø/-uin Mongolian. Fourth and finally, in Japanese,

Ulagan-Nom/-Gen

accusative case-marked interrogative clauses are

ire-gsen]-i(-ni)

a projection of C, and accusative case-marked

come-Past.Adn]-Acc(-PoP3)

declarative clauses are a projection of Tčegejile-jü

followed by the nominal element -no.

Baɣatur-ø

baina.

The organization of this paper is as follows.

remember-CVS be.Pres.Con(2)‘Bagatur remembers that Ulagan came to

Section 2 reviews (i) the mechanism of genitive

Tokyo.’

subject licensing in Mongolian reported in Maki

Watashi-wa [Tookyoo-ni Taroo-ga/-no

et al. (2016) and (ii) the mechanism ofI-Top

accusative subject licensing in Mongolian[Tokyo-to

Taro-Nom/-Gen

reported in Maki et al. (2015) as background to

ki-ta]*(-no)-o

175

the subsequent sections. Section 3 provides(6) shows that the object is moved to theexamples of Case-marked clauses in Mongolian.

sentence-initial position by scrambling, and theSection 4 discusses what the findings of thissentence is grammatical with a genitive subject.

paper suggest for the theory of (Mongolian)

Note that in (6), the genitive subject issyntax. Finally, Section 5 concludes the paper.

c-commanded by the scrambled object and is ina local relationship with the adnominal form of
the predicate. Note that the Japanese counterpart

2. Backgroundof (7) disallows the genitive subject, as shown inFirst, Maki et al. (2016) propose (4) to(8).

capture the genitive subject distribution in
Mongolian and Japanese. See Harada (1971) for(7)

the origin of the research on genitive subject

Kinoo

kono

yesterday Hanako-Nom/-Gen thislicensing based on Japanese examples.

hon-o
(4)

Hanako-ga/*-nokat-ta-yo.

Conditions on Genitive Subject Licensing

book-Acc buy-Past-Prt

a.

‘Hanako bought this book yesterday.’A genitive subject must be(8)

c-commanded by a nominal elementb.

Kono hon-o

kinoo

in a local domain.

thisbook-Acc yesterday

A genitive subject must be in a local

Hanako-ga/*-norelationship with the adnominal

Hanako-Nom/-Gen

form of predicate.

‘This book, Hanako bought t yesterday.’t kat-ta-yo.
buy-Past-Prt(4a) corresponds to Miyagawa’s (1993, 2011)

This is precisely because the contrast between

D-licensing approach, and (4b) to Watanabe’s

conclusive and adnominal forms of verb is(1996)/Hiraiwa’s (2001) C-licensing approach.

neutralized in modern Japanese, so that the verb

Maki et al. (2016) claim that genitive subjects in

kat-ta ‘buy-Past’ in front of the particle yo seems

Altaic languages must satisfy both to be licensed,

to be in the conclusive form, which further

which is evidenced by (5) and (6).

supports the necessity for the dual licensing
approach in (4).

(5)

ene

Second, Maki et al. (2015) argue that while

yesterday Ulagan-Nom/-Gen thisgenitive subjects are disallowed, accusative

nom-i

subjects are allowed in clauses headed by C,Öčügedür Ulaɣan-ø/*-u

qudaldun-abu-ɣsan-siu.

suggesting the generalization in (9).

book-Acc buy-take-Past.Adn-Prt‘Ulagan bought this book yesterday.’(6)

Ene nom-i(9)öčügedürGeneralization about the Distribution ofthis book-Acc yesterday

Accusative Subjects in MongolianUlaɣan-ø/-uAn accusative subject may appear int

Ulagan-Nom/-Gen

non-matrix clauses whose heads are not

qudaldun-abu-ɣsan-siu.

genuinely nominal in nature. Therefore, it

buy-take-Past.Adn-Prt

may appear in temporal, conditional and‘This book, Ulagan bought t yesterday.’reason clauses as well as complement

176

clauses, but not clauses adjacent to overt

baina ‘remember-CVS be.Pres.Con’ take bothnominal heads.

declarative and interrogative clauses, as shownin (13) and (14). Note that CVS means converb
suffix.

The examples that follow all fall undergeneralization (9). First, while it is not permitted(13) Baɣatur-øin a matrix clause, an accusative subject is[Tokyo-du

allowed in a reason clause, as shown in (10) and

Bagatur-Nom [Tokyo-to(11).

Ulaɣan-ø/-u/*-i
Ulagan-Nom/-Gen/-Acc
ire-gsen]-i(-ni)(10) Öčügedür Ulaɣan-ø/*-i/*-u
yesterday Ulagan-Nom/-Acc/-Gen

come-Past.Adn]-Acc(-PoP3)

büjigle-gsenčegejile-jüügei.

baina.

dance-Past.Adn Neg

remember-CVS be.Pres.Con‘Ulagan did not dance yesterday.’‘Bagatur remembers that Ulagan came toTokyo.’(11) Öčügedür Ulaɣan-ø/-i/*-u(14) Baɣatur-ø

yesterday Ulagan-Nom/-Acc/-Genbüjigle-gsen[aliqota-duBagatur-Nom [which city-toügei učir-ača,

dance-Past.Adn Neg becauseUlaɣan-ø/-u/*-ibügüdeger-øUlagan-Nom/-Gen/-Acc

sedkil joba-jai.

everyone-Nom heart worry-Past.Con

ire-gsen]-i(-ni)‘Because Ulagan did not dance yesterday,

come-Past.Adn]-Acc(-PoP3)

everybody was worried.’čegejile-jübaina.

remember-CVS be.Pres.Con
Second, an accusative subject cannot appear in a

‘Bagatur remembers which city Ulagan

relative clause (whose head is clearly nominal),

came to.’as shown in (12).
In (13) and (14), the complement clauses are
directly followed by the accusative case marker(12) [Öčügedür Ulaɣan-ø/*-i/-u-i.

[yesterday Ulagan-Nom/-Acc/-Gen
qudaldun-abu-ɣsan] nom-i

Note that declarative complement clauses

nama-dubuy-take-Past.Adn] book-Acc me-tocannot be followed by the complementizer gejüüjegül.

‘that,’ or the genitive case maker -u, as shown in

show

(15).

‘Please show me the book which Ulagan(15) *Baɣatur-øbought yesterday.’[Tokyo-du

Bagatur-Nom [Tokyo-toUlaɣan-ø/-u/-i

3. Data

ire-gsen]

Ulagan-Nom/-Gen/-Acc come-Past.Adn]

Having outlined the particular background,
let us now examine accusative Case-marked

gejü/-u-yi

clauses in Mongolian. Verbs such as čegejile-jü

that/-Gen-Acc remember-CVS

177čegejile-jübaina.

‘I remember which city Hanako came to.’be.Pres.Con(19) *Watashi-wa [dono machi-ni‘Bagatur remembers that Ulagan came to

I-Top

Tokyo.’

Hanako-ga[which city-to
ki-ta]

Hanako-Nom come-Past]
However, declarative complement clauses can

to /koto-obe directly followed by the noun učir ‘fact,’ asComp /fact-Acc remember-te-be-Pres

shown in (16).

‘I remember which city Hanako came to.’(16) Baɣatur-ø

oboe-te-i-ru.

[Tokyo-duSecond, let us turn to examples with a

Bagatur-Nom [Tokyo-to

declarative complement clause. (20) and (21)Ulaɣan-ø/-u/*-i

indicate that declarative complement clauses in

ire-gsen]

Ulagan-Nom/-Gen/-Acc come-Past.Adn]

Japanese must be followed either by the genitiveučir-icase marker or nominalizer -no, or the noun kotočegejile-jübaina.

fact-Acc remember-CVS be.Pres.Con‘fact.’ In Mongolian, declarative complement‘Bagatur remembers the fact that Ulagan

clauses must be followed either by thecame to Tokyo.’accusative case marker -i, or the noun učir‘fact.’

Let

us

now

considertheJapanesecounterparts of the Mongolian sentences shown(20) Watashi-wa [Tookyoo-ni Hanako-ga

above. First, let us consider examples with an

I-Top

interrogative

ki-ta]-no/koto-ocomplement clause.

(17)–(19)[Tokyo-to

Hanako-Nom

indicate that interrogative complement clauses income-Past]-NML/fact-Acc

Japanese must be followed by the questionoboe-te-i-ru.

particle ka. This kind of overt question particle

remember-te-be-Pres

does not exist in Mongolian.

‘I remember that Hanako came to Tokyo.’(21) *Watashi-wa [Tookyoo-ni Hanako-ga
I-Top(17) Watashi-wa [dono machi-ni
I-Top

ki-ta]

Hanako-Nom

ki-ta]-o/-to[which city-to

Hanako-ga[Tokyo-to

come-Past]-Acc/-Compka(-o)

Hanako-Nom come-Past] Q-Acc

oboe-te-i-ru.

oboe-te-i-ru.

remember-te-be-Pres

remember-te-be-Pres‘I remember that Hanako came to Tokyo.’‘I remember which city Hanako came to.’
4. Discussion(18) *Watashi-wa [dono machi-ni[which city-to

Let us consider what the above facts suggest

ki-ta](-no)-ofor the theory of syntax. First, if (4) is correct,

Hanako-Nom come-Past](-NML)-Acc

there must be a nominal element in each of (13)oboe-te-i-ru.

and (14) that can satisfy (4a). In each of (13) andremember-te-be-Pres(14), the subject of the embedded complement

I-Top
Hanako-ga

178clause can be marked genitive. The question is

genitive subject in (22). Therefore, ‘c-command’how it can be licensed. As there is no obviousin (4a) should be revised to ‘m-command.’noun in each example, the relevant licensing

Second, as the adnominal form of theelement should be the adnominal form of thepredicate in each of (13) and (14) must satisfy

predicate itself, which is followed by the(4b) as well as (4a), the complex predicate

accusative case marker -i. However, if theshould be both nominal and verbal. This

complex of the predicate and T (V-T complex) issuggests that the complex predicate followed bythecannotthe accusative case marker in Mongolian is a

c-command the genitive subject due to the T’kind of mixed category, which is observed in thenode, as shown in (22).

Quechuan example in (25).

(22) [VP [TP NP-Gen [T’ [VP V] T] V](25) [Xwancha-q-hamu-sqa-n-ta]

genitive

subject

licensor,ityacha-ni[Juan-Gen-come-NML-3-Acc] know-1↑_____*_____|‘I know that Juan came.’
Note that as (23) and (24) are also grammatical,(Lefebvre and Muysken (1988: 2), slightly

the genitive subject in each case seems to bemodified)outside of VP, and in the Spec of T.
Lefebvre and Muysken (1988) demonstrate that(23) Baɣatur-ø[öčügedürlanguages

such

as

Quechua

have

mixed

Bagatur-Nom [yesterday

categories, based on their study of examples thatUlaɣan-ø/-u/*-i

involve nominalization such as (25). Quechua istere nom-i

Ulagan-Nom/-Gen/-Acc that book-Acc

one of the official languages of Peru and Bolivia,

qudaldun abu-ɣsan]-i(-ni)

and spoken in the Andean region of Southbuy

America by more than 10 million people.

take-Past.Adn]-Acc(-PoP3)čegejile-jübaina.

Lefebvre and Muysken (1988: 2) state that

remember-CVS be.Pres.Con“Quechua nominalized verbs constitute a true

‘Bagatur remembers that Ulagan bought

mixed

the book yesterday.’combination [+N, +V]” on the basis of the fact(24) Baɣatur-øcategory,

definedbythefeature[öčügedürthat the nominalized verb bears a Case marker

Bagatur-Nom [yesterday-ta ‘-Acc,’ which is a property of [+N] elements,Ulaɣan-ø/-u/*-i

ali

nom-i

and the nominalizing suffix -sqa- ‘-NML-’

Ulagan-Nom/-Gen/-Acc which book-Acc

encodes past tense, which is a property of [+V]

qudaldun abu-ɣsan]-i(-ni)

elements, given the fact that only verbs can bearbuy

a tense marker.

take-Past.Adn]-Acc(-PoP3)čegejile-jübaina.

Furthermore, this kind of mixed category isremember-CVS be.Pres.Con

also seen in old Japanese, as shown in (26).

‘Bagatur remembers which book Ulaganbought yesterday.’(26) […namida-no otsuru]-o[…tear-Gen

Rather, the complex predicate m-commands thedrop.Adn]-Acc

oshinuguikakushite…

179hide…

questions in Mongolian. If this is true, it‘…(he) hid the tears dropping down …’

suggests that the relevant Q feature seems to(Nowaki, Genji Monogatari (Chapter

reside on T in indirect questions in Mongolian.

‘Nowaki,’ The Tale of Genji))

Fourth and finally, in Japanese, accusative
case-marked

interrogative

clausesareaMoreover, this kind of mixed category inprojection of C, as shown by (29), andMongolian is also followed by the dative caseaccusative case-marked declarative clauses are amarker or the postposition du ‘to,’ as (27) shows.

projection of T followed by the nominal element-no, as shown by (30).

(27) Baɣatur-ø[Ulaɣan-u

Bagatur-Nom [Ulagan-Gen(29) Watashi-wa [dono machi-ni

ire-gsen]-du(-ni)

I-Top[which city-to

come-Past.Adn]-to(-PoP3)

Taroo-ga/*-nosoči-jai.

Taro-Nom/-Gen come-Past] Q-Acc

surprise-Past.Con

oboe-te-i-ru.

‘Bagatur was surprised at the fact that

remember-te-be-Pres

Ulagan came.’‘I remember which city Taro came to.’ki-ta]*(ka)(-o)(30) Watashi-wa [Tookyoo-ni
It is important to note here that a predicate can

I-Top

be both nominal and verbal only when it is

Taroo-ga/-nocase-marked;

Taro-Nom/-Gen come-Past]-NML-Acc

apredicate

is

only

verbal[Tokyo-toki-ta]*(-no)-o

otherwise. This prevents the predicate in (5)oboe-te-i-ru.

from being nominal, as it is not case-marked.

remember-te-be-Pres

Hence, it cannot license the genitive subject in‘I remember that Taro came to Tokyo.’(5), as schematically shown in (28).
In (29), the subject in the embedded clause(28) [VP [TP NP-Gen [T’ [VP V] T-siu] V]

cannot be marked genitive, although there is agrammaticality variation among informants of↑_____*_____|

Japanese. The indirect question marker -ka
cannot be deleted. Since -ka is assumed to be a

Third, the fact that (14) is ungrammaticalwith an accusative subject suggests that there iscomplementizer,

no C projection for indirect questions ininterrogative clauses are a projection of C,

Mongolian. Maki et al. (2015) claim that

although the accusative case marker itself can begeneralization (9) implies that a clause that

deleted. In (30), the subject in the embedded

allows an accusative subject is characterized as aclause can be marked genitive, and theCP. If their claim is correct, the fact that (14) isnominalizer -no cannot be deleted. The fact that

ungrammatical with an accusative subject

the subject in the embedded clause can besuggests that the indirect question in (14) is notmarked genitive seems to suggest that there is acharacterized as a CP, which in turn indicatesnominal element that m-commands the subject,that there is no C projection for indirect

if we assume that the conditions on genitive180

accusative

case-marked

subject licensing in (4) are general enough toearlier version of this paper. All errors are ourapply to Japanese as well as Mongolian. Sinceown.

the particle -no is followed by the accusative
case marker, it is not implausible to assume that-no functions as a nominal element that

REFERENCES
Harada, S.-I. (1971) “Ga-No Conversion andcontributes to genitive subject licensing. If thisIdiolectal Variations in Japanese,” Gengois correct, the embedded clause taken by verbs

Kenkyu 60, 25–38.

such as oboeteiru ‘to remember’ is a TP, which

Hiraiwa, Ken (2001) “On Nominative-Genitive

is nominalized by no. Of course, there is a

Conversion,” MIT Working Papers inpossibility that the complex of the predicate andLinguistics 39: A Few from Building E39,

T in the embedded clause in (30) is characterizeded.

as a mixed category, that is, a verbal noun, even

Matushansky, 66–125, Cambridge, MA.

in modern Japanese, just like Mongolian. We

Lefebvre, Claire and Pieter Muysken (1988)

by

Elena

Guerzoni

andOra

Mixed Categories: Nominalizations inwill leave this issue for future research.

Quechua, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Maki, Hideki, Lina Bao, Wurigumula Bao and5. Conclusion
This paper addressed research question (3).

Megumi Hasebe (2016) “Scrambling and

The answers to (3) are summarized below. First,

Genitive Subjects in Mongolian,” English

Maki et al.’s (2016) conditions on genitive

Linguistics 33, 1–35.

subject licensing need to be revised in such a

Maki, Hideki, Lina Bao and Megumi Hasebe

way that ‘c-command’ in the conditions should(2015) Essays on Mongolian Syntax,

be interpreted as ‘m-command.’

Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

Second, the predicate followed by the

Miyagawa, Shigeru (1993) “Case-Checking andaccusative case marker in Mongolian is a kind of

Minimal Link Condition,” MIT Working

mixed category seen in languages such as

Papers in Linguistics 19: Papers on Case

Quechua and old Japanese.

and Agreement II, ed. by Colin Phillips,
213–254, Cambridge, MA.

Third, there is no C projection for indirectquestions in Mongolian, and the relevant Q

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2011) “Genitive Subjects infeature seems to reside on T in indirect questions

Altaic and Specification of Phase,” Lingua

in Mongolian.

121, 1265–1282.
Watanabe, Akira (1996) “Nominative-Genitive

Fourth and finally, in Japanese, accusativea

Conversion and Agreement in Japanese: A

projection of C, and accusative case-marked

Cross-Linguistic Perspective,” Journal of

declarative clauses are a projection of T

East Asian Linguistics 5, 373–410.

case-marked

interrogative

clausesarefollowed by the nominal element -no.
TEXT
* We would like to thank the audience at the

Genji Monogatari: written by Murasaki Shikibu

ELSJ 15th International Spring Forum, Kazuma

around the early 11th century. Shinpen

Fujimaki, Yusuke Imanishi, Takashi Munakata

Nihon

and Hiromune Oda for valuable comments on an

Shogakukan, Tokyo.

181

Koten

BungakuZenshuu,

2010), the social turn has not yet permeated CL
to the point where we can confidently say that it
is now firmly established in this framework.
This paper maintains that it is vital for CL toaccomplish the social turn. Specifically, theUsage-based Construction Grammar and the*article argues that the study of language

Study of Language Variation and Change

variation and change has a deep connection with
Yoshikata Shibuya

Usage-based Construction Grammar (henceforth,Kanazawa University

UBCG; see e.g. Diessel 2015), and that thesocial turn in CL will play an essential role not

Keywords：Usage-based Construction Grammar,

only in the development of research on language

language variation and change, the social turnvariation and change, but also in the pursuit of
an integrated theory of language (Croft 2016).
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2
provides an overview of what is meant by the

1. Introduction
Linguistics

social turn in CL. Section 3 illustrates studies(henceforth, CL) can be traced back to the

conducted from a socially-informed UBCG

mid-1970s (for details, see Geeraerts 2010).

perspective.

Early studies were followed in the 1980s by acontributions that UBCG can make to the study

series of epoch-making works including Lakoffof language variation and change and the(1987) and Langacker (1987). In the 1990s, theconstruction of a theory of language. Section 5framework expanded greatly, backed by manysummarizes the article with a brief note on

influential studies grounded in the principles andfuture prospects.

The

originsofCognitive

Section4

discusses

theassumptions of CL in areas such as historical
2. The social turn in CL

linguistics, functionalist typology, and language
acquisition. Then in the early 21st century CL

The fundamental principle that characterized

faced two major turning points. The firstthe 20th century CL research was “the Cognitive

challenge was the “quantitative turn” (Janda

Commitment” that the account of human2013: 1), the shift to quantitative (statistical)

language should align with what we know about

studies using corpora, experiments or both. The

the mind and the brain (Lakoff 1990: 40).

majority of contemporary CL research is now

Guided by this principle, CL rapidly developed

empirically based, which suggests that theas a new paradigm in the late 20th century.

framework has moved almost entirely in a

However, in the early 21st century, somequantitative direction. The second challenge islinguists began to raise questions about the way

what is sometimes called the “social turn”

the CL research had previously been conducted.

(Harder 2010: 3), which emphasizes the

For example, Croft (2009: 395) highlighted theimportance of incorporating a social perspective

fact that in traditional CL, consideration of theinto CL research. Although there has been asocial aspects of language, such as interactions

number of publications in this direction (e.g.

between speakers, was lacking. At the same time

Kristiansen and Dirven 2008; Geeraerts et al.

he also emphasized the need for CL to stop

182

focusing only on the processes that take place

Incorporating a realistic view of language“inside the head” and instead go “outside theusers will also lead to a non-traditional view ofhead” of the language user by incorporating thethe standard language and of native speakers.

perspectives of sociolinguistics and pragmatics.

For example, discussing the problems inherent

This shift, called the social turn, i.e. thein the concept of Standard English and the“expansion of CL into the social sphere” (Harder

traditional definition of native English speakers,

2010: 443), has important implications. One of

Shibuya (2022) argues that in order tothe most important changes brought about by theaccommodate reality, UBCG should abandon thesocial turn concerns the reformulation of theidealized view of English and the traditional

notion of language users. Simply put, the social

classification system of its speakers. From aturn will require CL to take a more realistic viewsociolinguistic perspective, Blommaert (2005:

of

350).

390-391) calls the use of language names suchSpecifically, the idealized view of speakers, as

as English and French a manifestation of “folkpostulated by Chomsky (1965: 3) and implicitly

ideologies

long accepted by cognitive linguists (Dąbrowska

sociolinguists need to focus on varieties of

2015: 663), will naturally no longer be tolerated.

language that speakers actually use, such as

Instead, what will be required of CL is to pursue

repertoires, registers, styles, genres, and modes

the linguistic knowledge of language users asof usage. As an approach that prioritizes thesocial agents who flexibly change their language

study

use according to the social context.

sociolinguistics, it is of natural consequence that

languageusers(Hilpert

2015:

of

of

language”,

languageusearguingsimilarly

that

to

Hilpert (2015: 350) illustrates this as follows.

UBCG needs to recognize the importance ofFor example, the way a speaker conveys astudying the language that speakers actually use.

request of stepping aside to the interlocutor

Looking at actual language use by speakers,

depends on a variety of social factors including

one will quickly realize that language is full of

how well the speaker knows the person and how

variations and that language is constantly

much the request interferes with the person’schanging. This is the reality of language, as has

personal sphere (Brown and Levinson 1987).

long been recognized in sociolinguistics (see e.g.

The socially-grounded use of language can also

Labov 1972). Most strongly associated withbe seen in the phonological choices by speakers.

studying language variation and change is

For example, as has been widely described in the

typically a branch of sociolinguistics calledsociolinguistics literature, whether [ŋ] or [n] is“variationist

used in the pronunciation of the final part of2012). However, as will be discussed below,

running depends on the social relationship

UBCG can also make a significant contribution

between the speaker and the interlocutor. Social

in this area of language research.

sociolinguistics”(Tagliamontefactors can also underlie vocabulary selection.
3. Variation studies in UBCGFor example, while the choice of the words coat,jacket, and anorak is motivated by theDue to limitations of space, only two studies

prototypicality of the referents in question, theare presented below to illustrate the significanceuse of these words can also be sociallyof UBCG in variation research. Interested

motivated (Grondelaers and Geeraerts 2003).

readers are referred to the relevant literature (e.g.

183

Grondelaers and Geeraerts 2003; Kristiansen

Coupland(1988),

where

the

relationshipand Dirven 2008; Geeraerts et al. 2010).

between the pronunciation of a and the local

Hollmann and Siewierska (2011) investigate

Cardiff culture was discussed. Inspired by thisdefinite article reduction (DAR) in Lancashire.

study by Coupland, Hollmann and Siewierska

In this region of northwestern England, there issuggest that speakers of Lancashire dialect may

variation in the realization of the article in theuse a local variant in order to mark Lancashiredefinite NP construction. For example, DAR canidentity in a specific construction which

result in a vowel-less form, as shown by thedescribes a focal element of their local culture.

phonetic symbols [θ], [t], and [ʔ] in (1a-c)

Smallholdings refers to small-scale farming, an(Hollmann 2013: 503). There are several

important part of Lancashire’s cultural identity,interesting points about DAR, but here we focus

which,

onunderlies the omission of the in (1c).

theomissionofthedefinite

articlerepresented by the symbol ∅ in (1c).

HollmannandSiewierska

argue,The study on DAR by Hollmann andSiewierska shows that high token frequency(1) a. Oh yes yes they were a primary school

does not automatically lead to a reduction. A(.) Miss Riley she were er (.) er in the/[θ]reduction can be made for focal elements within

infants you see and then you went up

a given social-cultural context. This is a fact that

into the/[ʔ] big school (ED)cannot be explained solely by cognitive factors

b. go through Townley Park (.) and Mr

such as frequency effects. Hollmann and

McKay were the/[t] er park keeper thenSiewierska’s study demonstrates the importance(ED)of incorporating a social perspective into UBCG.

c. No it were ni—it were nice because they

The next study to be mentioned here is

had them big pipes (.) ’cos we had them

Hollmann and Siewierska (2007), another study

big pipes in the/[ʔ] greenhouses up the/∅on Lancashire dialect. In this dialect, there issmallholdings you know them big (ED)also variation in the realization of the possessive
pronoun. As shown by the examples below, theNote that the omission of the definite article

first-person-singular possessive pronoun my may

occurs when the subsequent noun is of a specific

be realized as [maɪ] as in (2a), or as the shorter

type, such as smallholdings. Hollmann andform [mi] as in (2b), or reduced variants as inSiewierska state that frequency effects do not(2c-d) (Hollmann 2013: 505):

explain this phenomenon, because as with otherregions in England, in Lancashire too, the(2) a. I couldn’t play for them because theysmallholdings is found less frequently than

couldn’t afford my/[maɪ] football shoes.

commonly frequent definite article NPs such as(JA)

the man and the house. In the face of this,b. I was so young then like and er me/[mi]Hollmann and Siewierska argue that thebrother took the opportunity and he went.

omission of the definite article as in (1c) may(HF)

require an explanation in terms of Lancashirec. when I was four I used to go round thisculture. An earlier study on the relationshiphouse with my/[ma] eyes closed. (RG)

between pronunciation and local culture includes

d. I remember my/[mə] father coming out a184variation, but also for linguistic theorization.

small room. (CS)

4. Implications of the social turn in CL

Hollmann and Siewierska refer to the“alienability hierarchy” (Nichols 1988): ‘body

Croft (2010: 1) considers language change toparts and/or kinship terms > part-whole > spatial

be fundamentally a two-step process consisting

relations > culturally basic possessed items >of innovation and propagation. For instance,other’. In this implicational hierarchy, those on

pronouncing or using a word in a novel way

the left side represent possessive nouns that are

which differs from its original usage is anconceptually closer to the possessor (see also

exampleHollmann 2013: 506). Haspelmath (2006) argues

variation, meaning that it is possible that boththat what underlies the alienability effects isthe original and novel forms can coexist at thefrequency, because the frequency of body partsame time in a speech community. Propagationand kinship nouns tends to be higher than that ofis the phenomenon whereby the innovatedothervariant takes root, or is propagated, in the speechsemantic

categories.

Hollmannandofinnovation.

Innovation

yieldscommunity.

Siewierska, however, maintain that the reductionof my cannot be explained by frequency effects

In Croft’s two-step model, a distinction isalone, because they will not explain the highmade between three types of linguistic variations

degreepossessive(Croft 2010: 3). First-order linguistic variation

reduction in constructions with a number ofrefers to the variation observed in the context ofrelatively infrequent kinship terms such as

language use in which individual utterances

stepfather and niece. Instead, Hollmann andoccur as a result of innovations by language

Siewierska

high-frequency

users. Second-order variation is the variation

first-person-singular possessive – kinship noun

that occurs as a result of a gradual process ofconstructions, the possessive may be initially

propagation. This is a variation found in

reduced, which can then result in the creation ofsocially-valued variants in a given society,the constructional schema [my KIN], in which

which

my is a reduced form. In their view, as a result ofliterature as sociolinguistic variables (Labovthe similarity-based classification, constructions

1972: 271). Third-order linguistic variation

with reduced my occur more frequently inrefers to the result of the fixation of variants

low-frequency constructions than would be

across dialects and languages. In the two-step

expected purely from frequency effects.

model, third-order variation is considered theoffirst-person-singular

argue

that

in

resultAs demonstrated by the two studies above, asocially-informed

UBCG

approach,areofknown ininnovation,thesociolinguistics

propagation,anddivergence of speech communities.

which

integrates social and cognitive perspectives, can

Croft’s two-step model is a usage-based

provide a powerful explanation for language

model where language use is assumed to lead tovariation (see Hollmann 2013: section 27.4 forlanguage change (Croft 2010: 3). Each of thefurther details). Importantly, as will be discussed

linguistic variation types constitutes the research

below referring to the model proposed by Croft

topic for the respective approaches exploring(2010), UBCG’s full-fledged entry into variation

language use. First-order variation can beresearch is crucial not only for studying

explained by UBCG. More specifically, UBCG

185

can be useful in offering accounts for variationoftypology

andin terms of the mechanism by which it arises.

approaches, however, cannot independently

These will include explanations based on

explaindomain-general cognitive processes, accounts

extinction, because these problems also involve

based on frequency effects and constructional

mechanisms underlying language variation andschema as seen above through Hollmann andlanguage

Siewierska (2007, 2011), and the insights fromtheoreticalthe exemplar model (e.g. Bybee 2010). As fordeveloped in UBCG will be essential. Each of

second- and third-order variations, as mentioned

these approaches has so far tended to pursue

above, the former falls under the scope of

their respective research agendas independently

sociolinguistics, while the latter is covered byof one another. Consequently, the vector of

linguistic typological studies.

research has not been directed towards thelanguagechange,sociolinguistics.
diversityandprinciples

and

These
languagetoexplain

them,

and

methodologies

While each of these approaches has its own

construction of a theory of language. This is notemphasis and agendas, as approaches toa favorable situation for linguistics. As Croft

language use, they share a common goal of(2016: 599) argues, going forward, the relevant

modeling language variation and language

approaches should operate together towards

change. This implies that a partnership can or

achieving a theory of language. The social turnshouldthein CL is thus critical, as it can provide a point ofpartnership of these approaches has significant

contact between different approaches towards

implications not only for the study of language

the construction of a theory of language.

variation

exist

and

among

change,

them.

but

Indeed,

also

for

the
5. Concluding remarks

theorization of language. Namely, as Croft(2016) argues, the linkage between theseThis article argued that it is essential for CL

approaches will facilitate the construction of a(or UBCG as an approach in CL) to accomplish

theory of language. A theory of grammar is not athe social turn both from the perspective of its

theory of language. The same is true of apotential contribution to the study of language

morphological theory, a semantic theory, avariation and change, and, as Croft (2016)

phonological theory, etc. Furthermore, neither

argues, with respect to its potential contribution

CL, sociolinguistics, nor typology are theories ofto the construction of a theory of language.

language. Since language involves a variety of

Variation and change are among the mostphenomena, a theory of language, by definition,

fundamental phenomena in language. Studying

should refer to a model that comprehensively

variation and change implies studying language

explains a range of phenomena involved inuse. A comprehensive explanation of language

language. More specifically, a theory ofuse will require close collaboration between notlanguage should not only explain variation andonly CL, sociolinguistics, and typology, but alsochange, but it should also include in its scope

many other relevant approaches. As described byissues concerning the diversity of the world’s

Geeraerts (2010), 20th century linguistics was

languages and also issues related to the death ofmarked by a high degree of detachment fromlanguages (Croft 2011). Understanding thesecontext, but since the birth of CL, the trend invarious issues of language requires the insights

language186

researchhas

shiftedfromMassachusetts.

decontextualization to recontextualization. The
social

turn

in

CL

is

part

of

Coupland, Nikolas (1988) Styles of Discourse.

this

Croom Helm, London.

recontextualization trend. Despite the fact thatthe social turn is an important agenda for CL to

Croft, William (2009) “Towards a Social

address, the number of studies in this direction is

Cognitive Linguistics,” New Directions instill limited. Croft (2016: 599) mentions that

Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Vyvyan Evans

non-Chomskyan linguistics needs to stop being

and Stéphanie Pourcel, 395-420, John

divided in this century. Approaches that seek to

Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Croft,

understand language use need to strengthen their

William(2010)“The

Originsofinterconnectedness, because it is through their

Grammaticalization in the Verbalization ofcollaboration that the construction of a theory ofExperience,” Linguistics 48(1), 1-48.

language can be initiated. The social turn of CL

Croft, William (2011) “Language Structure in its

thus has tremendous implications. The field of

Human Context: New Directions for the

linguistics has now reached a critical juncture:

Language Sciences in the Twenty-first

the question is whether it will succeed inCentury,” Cambridge Encyclopedia of the

breaking out of the age of fragmentation so as toLanguage Sciences, ed. by Patrick Hogan,move into the age of integration. Never has there

1-11.

been a time when collaboration between

Cambridge.

Cambridge

University

Press,

Croft, William (2016) “Typology and the Future

approaches is more needed than now.

of

Cognitive

Linguistics,”

Cognitive

Linguistics 27(4), 587-602.

* I am grateful to the English Linguistic Societyof Japan for inviting me to the 15th InternationalDąbrowska, Ewa (2015) “Individual Differences

Spring Forum. Special thanks are due toin Grammatical Knowledge,” Handbook ofProfessor Yosuke Sato and Professor Akira

Cognitive

Machida for their support.

Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 649-667,

Linguistics,

ed.

by

Ewa

De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin.
Diessel,

REFERENCES
Blommaert, Jan (2005) “Situating Language

Holger(2015)

Construction

Grammar,”“Usage-based
HandbookofRights: English and Swahili in Tanzania

Cognitive

Revisited,” Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(3),Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 295-321,

390-417.

De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin.

Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson

Geeraerts,

Dirk

Linguistics,(2010)

ed.

by

Ewa

“Recontextualizing(1987) Politeness: Some Universals in

Grammar: Underlying Trends in Thirty

Language Usage. Cambridge University

Years of Cognitive Linguistics,” Cognitive

Press, Cambridge.

Linguistics in Action: From Theory to

Bybee, Joan L. (2010) Language, Usage andApplication and Back, ed. by Elżbieta

Cognition. Cambridge University Press,

Tabakowska, Michał Choiński, and Łukasz

Cambridge.

Wiraszka, 71-102, De Gruyter Mouton,

Chomsky, Noam (1965) Aspects of the Theory ofSyntax.

MIT

Press,

Berlin and New York.

Cambridge,

Geeraerts, Dirk, Gitte Kristiansen, and Yves

187

Peirsman,eds.

(2010)

Advances

Janda,

in

Laura

A.,

ed.

(2013)

Cognitive

Cognitive Sociolinguistics. De Gruyter

Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn. The

Mouton, Berlin and New York.

Essential Reader. De Gruyter Mouton,
Berlin.

Grondelaers, Stefan and Dirk Geeraerts (2003)

Kristiansen, Gitte and René Dirven, eds. (2008)“Towards a Pragmatic Model of Cognitive
Onomasiology,” Cognitive Approaches to

Cognitive

Lexical Semantics, ed. by Hubert Cuyckens,

Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems.

René Dirven, and John R. Taylor, 67-92,

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York.
University

Harder, Peter (2010) Meaning in Mind andDangerous

Gruyter Mouton, Berlin.
(2006)

Contrasts

in

Pennsylvania

Press,

Lakoff, George (1987) Women, Fire andSocial Turn in Cognitive Linguistics. De

AlienabilityofPhiladelphia.

Society: A Functional Contribution to theMartinLanguage

Labov, William (1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns.

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Haspelmath,

Sociolinguistics:

Things:What

Categories“Explaining

Reveal about the Mind. Chicago University

Adnominal

Press, Chicago.
Lakoff,

Possession: Economy vs. Iconicity,” paper

George(1990)“The

Invariancepresented at the 2nd Conference on the

Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on

SyntaxImage-schemas?,” Cognitive Linguistics

of

the

World’s

Languages,

1(1), 39-74.

Lancaster University, UK.
Hilpert, Martin (2015) “Historical Linguistics,”

Langacker, Ronald W. (1987) Foundations of

Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by

Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical

Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak,

Prerequisites. Stanford University Press,346-366, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin.

Stanford.

Hollmann, Willem (2013) “Constructions in

Nichols, Johanna (1988) “On Alienable andCognitive Sociolinguistics,” The Oxford

Inalienable Possession,” In Honor of Mary

Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed.

Haas: From the Haas Festival ConferencebyGraemeon Native American Linguistics, ed. by

Trousdale, 491-509, Oxford University

William Shipley, 557-609, Mouton de

Press, Oxford.

Gruyter, Berlin and New York.

ThomasHoffmannandHollmann, Willem and Anna Siewierska (2007)

Shibuya, Yoshikata (2022) “Rethinking Native“A Construction Grammar Account ofEnglish Speakers’ Linguistic Knowledge inPossessive Constructions in Lancashirea

Dialect:

andConstruction Grammar Research,” Papers

andfrom the 22nd National Conference of the

Challenges,”

Some

Advantages

EnglishLanguage

Linguistics 11(2), 407-424.

SocialContext:

Implications

forJapanese Cognitive Linguistics Association,

Hollmann, Willem and Anna Siewierska (2011)404-409.

“The Status of Frequency, Schemas, andTagliamonte,

Sali

A.

(2012)

Variationist

Change,Observation,

Identity in Cognitive Sociolinguistics: A

Sociolinguistics:

Case Study on Definite Article Reduction,”Interpretation. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.

Cognitive Linguistics 22(1), 25-54.

188

【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。）、下（3.0 ㎝）、右（2.5 ㎝）、左（2.5 ㎝）に設定する。
① マージンは上（2.2 ㎝）② 字体は、本文、注、参考文献のいずれにおいても、和文をMS明朝、英文をTimes New Romanとし、文字サイズは 11 ポイント以上を使用する。
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。参考文献に2語以上の学術誌・学会誌・Working Papers・
Proceedings等を挙げる際、比較的よく知られているものは略記を用いてもよい（別紙参照）。ただし、同一原稿の参考文献内では統一的に用いること。

189

(3) その他：① 和文原稿には和文題名をつけること。その下に英文題名を（ ）に入れて示すこと（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。ハイフンでつながれた語の後半部分やコロンの後の語も同様）。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）」）。大学英語表記は公式ウェブサイトの表記とすること。特に、英語でUniversity of 〇〇という形式の場合、定冠詞Theの有無に注意すること。
大学院生の場合は日本語表記の後に大学名のみ英語（または原語）表記を（）に入れて記す（例：「〇〇大学大学院（〇〇 University/(The) University of 〇〇）」）。
② 発表時の論文題名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。学会のウェブサイトに掲載される電子版で、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-jels@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しない。
（2021年6月21日改定）

190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。
なお、学術誌・学会誌・Working Papers・Proceedingsのうち比較的よく知られているものについては、頭文字語による略記を用いてもかまいません（別紙参照）。ただし、同一原稿の参考文献内では統一的に用いてください。

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.

191

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 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

192

Guidelines for Submission of Manuscripts to JELS
<If you write in Japanese, refer to the Japanese guideline on the ELSJ website>
Last revised June 2021
(1) Length
The length of an oral presentation manuscript, including notes and references, must not exceed
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 must use a twocolumn format with 40 lines per column. Care should be taken to avoid overcrowding ofcharacters 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 a Japanesemanuscript.
a. Leave margins of 2.2cm at the top, 3.0 cm at the bottom, and 2.5cm on both sides.
b. The font must be Times New Roman and the font size must be at least 11 point.
c. There must be 4 lines of space between the top of the page and the first paragraph on the first
page. The title, the name and affiliation of all authors, and keywords (up to five words or shortphrases) must all be centered. One line of blank space must be left between the title and theauthor name(s) as well as between the author affiliation(s) and the keywords. Two lines ofblank space must be left below the keywords, at which point the main text must begin.
Keywords should be written in the following format: Keywords: xxx, yyy, zzz (e.g.
Keywords: syntax, Case assignment, Multiple Agree, light verb).
d. The title must be in bold type. Capitalize the first letter of every content word in the title,
including the words after the colon Also, capitalize the first letter of both parts of thehyphenated word (e.g. South-East).
e. Write the author’s name in the order “First name - Surname” and capitalize only the initialletters. (e.g. Jane Smith). Notation of affiliation must be identical to the one used in its official
website. Pay a close attention to the existence/absence of “The” in front of “University of XX.”
f. Write acknowledgements above notes, if any. Put an asterisk at the beginning of theacknowledgements.
g. Notes must follow the main text but precede the references, with the heading “NOTES.” DO
NOT use MS-Word’s command for inserting automatic footnotes and endnotes. Footnote
numbers in the body of the text must be written as superscript numerals, and must be placed
after punctuation marks.
h. Other details (including the references) must be formatted in accordance with Information
for Contributors and the latest version of the EL style sheet (http://elsj.jp/english_linguisticseng/information-for-contributors/). No abstract is necessary. When listing journals, working
papers and proceedings with two or more words as references, abbreviations may be used(refer to the attached list). Be consistent within references.
(3) Other instructions for submission
a . Manuscripts written in English should be checked by a native speaker of English. Underno circumstances may the title of the manuscript be changed in any way from the one used at
the time of submission. The English manuscript is accepted even when the oral presentation
was made in Japanese provided 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 on the ELSJ website.)193

d. Make sure that any figures or illustrations in the paper are consistent with copyright
restrictions.
e. Manuscripts must be submitted by 11:59 am on January 11th (J ST) of the year following
the Spring Forum and the annual Conference. Manuscripts must be sent as attachments inboth pdf and doc format to <conference-elsj☆kaitakusha.co.jp>*. The file name must
include the author’s name in Roman letters (e.g. NihonEiko.pdf/NihonEiko.doc). The title ofe-mail must be “Annual Conference: name” or “Spring Forum: name” (e.g. “Annual
Conference: Jane Smith”). Please note that a manuscript that has reached after the above
deadline will not be accepted by the Conference Organizing Committee even if an automatic
reply message confirms your submission.
f. Please note that manuscripts not in strict compliance with the Rules for JELS and the present
guidelines will not be accepted.
g. Graduate students must indicate their affiliation so that they can be identified as graduate students(e.g. Graduate School of University of XX, XX University Graduate School.
*The “@” in the e-mail address has been replaced by “☆” for security reasons.

194---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2023ᖺ2᭶28᪥Ⓨ⾜⦅  㞟
᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍኱఍㐠Ⴀጤဨ఍
௦ ⾲ ⪅
㔠Ꮚ⩏᫂
Ⓨ ⾜ ⪅
᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍
㸦ࠛ112-0013㸧
ᮾி㒔ᩥி༊㡢⩚1-22-16஧ぢࣅࣝ5F 㛤ᣅ♫ෆ㟁ヰ03-5395-7101

᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍ 2023----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------