Papers from the Thirty-Eighth Conference
November 7-8, 2020and from
the Thirteenth International Spring Forumof
The English Linguistic Society of JapanJELS 38

日 本 英 語 学 会 第 38 回 大 会 （ オ ン ラ イ ン 開 催 ）第 13 回国際春季フォーラム（開催中止）
研究発表論文集

The English Linguistic Society of Japan
2021

The English Linguistic Society of Japan
c/o Kaitakusha
22-16, Otowa 1-chome,
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-0013, JAPANPresident, Yukio HIROSE, University of Tsukuba
Vice-President, Yoshiaki KANEKO, Tohoku University
Secretary-General, Naoaki WADA, University of Tsukuba

JELS 38
Papers from the Thirty-Eighth Conference
November 7-8, 2020and from
the Thirteenth International Spring Forumof
The English Linguistic Society of Japan

Edited by
The Conference Organizing Committee
Norimi KIMURA, Hirosaki University (Chair)
Saeko URUSHIBARA, The University of Kitakyushu (Vice-Chair)
Tomoko ENDO, The University of Tokyo
Katsuya FUJIKAWA, University of Toyama
Takeru HONMA, Tokyo Metropolitan University
Seishirou IBARAKI, Kwansei Gakuin University
Kairi IGARASHI, Ryukoku University
Masako MAEDA, Seinan Gakuin University
Sumiyo NISHIGUCHI, Otaru University of Commerce
Atsuko NISHIYAMA, Wakayama University
Yohei OSEKI, The University of Tokyo
Yuta SAKAMOTO, Meiji University
Keisuke SANADA, Sapporo Gakuin University
Hiroko TAKANASHI, Japan Women’s University
Ichiro YUHARA, Tokyo Metropolitan University

日 本 英 語 学 会 第 38回 大 会 （ オ ン ラ イ ン 開 催 ）第13回国際春季フォーラム（開催中止）
研究発表論文集
The English Linguistic Society of Japan
2021

本書は、2020年5月9日、10日に関西大学にて開催予定であった日本英語学会第13回国際春季フォーラム、および同年11月7日、8日にオンラインにて開催された
日本英語学会第38回大会における研究発表論文、Workshop ReportsおよびSpecial
Lecture Reportsを収録しています（投稿辞退分は除く）。発表採用決定日および投稿受理日は以下のとおりです。
＜発表採用決定日＞
日本英語学会第13回国際春季フォーラム：2020年1月17日
日本英語学会第38回大会：2020年6月9日＜論文投稿受理日＞
2021年1月11日
本論集は、執筆者から提出された原稿を、大会運営委員会で書式を確認の上、全体の統一を図るため最低限の修正を施して掲載しております。個々の修正箇所については、時間的な制約もあり執筆者への確認を省き大会運営委員会の責任で補正した箇所があります。ご了承ください。
なお、各論文の内容はすべて執筆者の責任に帰されるべきものです。
第38回大会運営委員長
木村 宣美

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

CONTENTS
I. Papers from the Thirty-Eighth Conference
Immediate Containment
Norimasa Hayashi ····················································································· 2
対格主語動名詞の史的発達についての一考察平田拓也（Takuya Hirata） ········································································ 9
The Role of Extremeness in English Binominal NPs and Its Theoretical Implications
Masatoshi Honda ···················································································· 16Freezing Principle in English Cleft Sentences
Yasuyuki Kitao ······················································································ 23
引用句構文の通時的変化に関する一考察小林亮哉（Ryoya Kobayashi） ·································································· 30
The Derivation of the Cognate Object Construction via Co-composition
Kazuya Kudo ························································································· 37「説得する」類動詞と多重ニ格構文
前澤大樹（Hiroki Maezawa） ··································································· 44
Indexical Structures of “Bound” Plurals
Asako Matsuda······················································································· 51
As N as 構文の N
松田佑治（Yuji Matsuda） ······································································· 58
英語の There 受動文が許容する語順パターンに関する通時的変遷と主語移動の適用可能性
三上 傑（Suguru Mikami） ···································································· 65
In-situ focus 文の構造
森山倭成（Kazushige Moriyama） ····························································· 72
反応目的語構文（ROC）の統語的・意味的特徴について
西原俊明（Toshiaki Nishihara）・古川武史（Takeshi Furukawa） ····················· 79
Interpretive Economy and Presuppositions
Toshiko Oda ·························································································· 85
A Consideration on Pair-Merge of Arguments: From a Perspective of Experiencers and Superiority
EffectTomonori Otsuka ···················································································· 92
形と意味の“ミスマッチ”を考える：認知文法からみた V すぎる構文
佐藤らな（Rana Sato） ··········································································· 99
A Syntactic Analysis of Japanese Compounds with the Labeling Algorithm
Ryosuke Sato ························································································ 106
Explanatory-Resultative Effects Involved in the Present Perfect Progressive: A Cognitive Grammar
Approach
Haruka Shimura····················································································· 113
収束性を伴うフェイズ
田中章太（Shota Tanaka） ······································································ 120

近代英語における借用語動詞の受容について －persuade に焦点を当てて－
遠峯伸一郎（Shinichiro Tomine） ····························································· 127
英語における主格ゼロ関係節の通時的発達について
内田脩平（Shuhei Uchida）····································································· 134
二重目的語構文が表す事象構造と所有代名詞の指示の関係について
植田正暢（Masanobu Ueda） ··································································· 141
アメリカ英語における fixing to の発達
渡辺拓人（Takuto Watanabe） ································································· 148<Special Lecture Reports>
動的文法理論とその展開―語法文法研究から理論へ
中澤和夫（Kazuo Nakazawa） ································································· 155
歴史語用論の歩み：分類・射程・拡がりから見える分野の特徴
小野寺典子（Noriko Onodera） ································································ 157<Workshop Reports>
統語領域における copy をめぐる諸問題 –copy 派生メカニズムの単純化
宗像孝（Takashi Munakata）・林愼将（Norimasa Hayashi）
北原久嗣（Hisatsugu Kitahara）・後藤亘（Nobu Goto）・石井透（Toru Ishii）
豊島孝之（Takashi Toyoshima）······························································· 159
Case Alternations
Sumiyo Nishiguchi・Shao Tianxiao・Hisako Takano
Daniela Caluianu・Mark Holst (Chair) ··························································· 161

II. Papers from the Thirteenth International Spring Forum
Short-Distance Movement in That-Relative Clauses
Takashi Ikeda ······················································································· 164
Two Types of Germanic Suffixes Forming Relational Adjectives in English
Takashi Ishida・Yuri Togano・Ryohei Naya·················································· 170
Restricting Accessibility to MERGE -A Deterministic Theory of MovementToru Ishii ···························································································· 177
English Manner-of-Motion Verbs in Transitive Construction
Kotaro Maeda ······················································································· 184

Nominative Objects and Scope in JapaneseNozomi Moritake ··················································································· 191
Extraposition as Late-Merger or Agreement
Naoki Nakamura・Kazuyoshi Ishikawa・Shohei Nagata ···································· 198
Deducing Transfer Domain from Labeling
Takanori Nakashima ··············································································· 205

A Comparative Study between Japanese and American Mother-Child Interactions During Joint PictureBook Reading
Moeko Ozaki ························································································ 212
What Defines Phases?
Yuya Sakumoto ····················································································· 218
Passive Participles Movement in the History of English
Siyang Xia ··························································································· 225
How to License NPIs and PPIs in the Than-Clause Across More Than- and Less Than-Comparatives
Norio Suzuki ························································································ 231
A Unified Account of Mad Magazine Sentences and Non-canonical Types of How Come Construction
in English
Takahiro Tamada・Ryoichi Kondo ······························································ 236
On the Functional Differences in Optional Subject Auxiliary Inversions
Kazuhiro Tokunaga ················································································ 241
On the Distribution of the Genitive Case Marker in the Manchu Language
Shao-Ge Wang・Hideki Maki ···································································· 248<Workshop Report>
Some Concepts and Consequences of MERGE
Satoru Kanno・Hisatsugu Kitahara・Nobuhiro Miyoshi・Miki Obata···················· 255
書式規定 ········································································································ 257

[I]Thirty-Eighth Conference
November 7-8, 2020

(3) a. {α X, YP}(α=X)

b. {α XP, YP}(α=X)

c. {γ {α X[uF], WP}, {β Y[F], ZP}}
Immediate Containment*(α=X, β=Y, γ=<F, F>)

Norimasa Hayashi(3a) shows a set from a head and a phrase, where

Kyushu University/JSPS

Minimal Search (MS) locates the head todetermine α=X. The sets in (3b, c) are formed by

Keywords：syntax, labeling algorithm, contain,

two phrases. In (3b), the moved SO YP becomes

wh operator, Case

invisible to MS, and the remaining head X
serves as the label. In (3c), both heads X and Y
are located by MS. Then, the agreement features

1. Introduction: Labeling Theory

shared by X and Y provide the unique label.

This study aims to discuss how labels restrict

Following the labeling theory, this study will

possible interface interpretations. The proposals

show that the interpretive mechanism based on

are: i) the interfaces interpret the structurelabels works both at the C-I and SM interfaces.

according to the containment relation between

The next section introduces Epstein, Kitahara

the set and the syntactic objects (SOs) and ii) if

and Seely (EKS) (2017), on which my proposal

an SO is located in the position where it canisprovide the label, the SO is immediatelyinterpretive rule at the interfaces. In sections 4

contained by the set and must be interpreted

and 5, I will discuss how the proposal works at

according to the set.

each interface, focusing on wh interrogatives and

In Chomsky (2013, 2015), Merge is defined

based.

Then,

section3

proposesanCase manifestation. Section 6 is the conclusion.

as the set-forming operation from two SOs.
2. Epstein, Kitahara and Seely (2017)(1) Merge (X, Y) ={X, Y}

EKS (2017) argue that probe-goal Agreeshouldbereplaced

by

MS

and

Merge does not specify the identity of the set.

feature-assignment in the morpho-phonological

Then, the set must be assigned the label to becomponent. Their empirical basis concerns theinterpreted at the interfaces, as suggested in (2).

following wh phrase.

(2) For a syntactic object SO to be interpreted,(4) {γ {β which[uQ], dog} {α C[int], …}}

some information is necessary about it:(α=C, β=which, γ=<int, int>)

what kind of object is it? Labeling is theprocess of providing that information.

If [uQ] on wh operators determine their(Chomsky (2013: 43))

interpretations

via

probe-goalAgree,

thefeature-valuation of which in (4) would fail since
The following schemata show how labels are

it only c-commands dog. (5) shows EKS’s

assigned to each set.

proposals.

2

feature-assignment in (8). Since Y is contained(5) a. Agree does not take place in syntax.

in set β labeled <F, F>, [uF] on Y is alsob. MS replaces probe-goal Search (Agree).

assigned the value from [F] on Z. Note that thec. The morpho-phonological component

problem of [uF] is illegibility at the interfaces.

interprets [uF] based on the label <F, F>.

Then, if the interfaces interpret the setsaccording to the labels, it is natural to assume

According to EKS, the label <int, int> only hasthat the interfaces interpret [uF] according to thethe interpretation of the information of valued

label of the set which contains [uF].

[int] on C since [uF] on a wh operator is empty.
If so, the information of the label <F, F> suffices(7) Interpretation by Contain (to be revised)

to determine the interpretation of [uF]. Note that

The interpretation of an SO X is defined by

EKS’s proposal is not a mere replacement but

the identification label of the set containing

also has a theoretical advantage. (6) shows theX.

steps in each framework, where fewer steps are(8) {β Z[F] {α X[uF] {...Y[uF]...}}

required in EKS’s system.

(α=X, β=<F, F>)(6) a. The framework with (syntactic) Agree

Further, I propose a new relation (9) and aninterpretive rule (10).1

i. valuation of [uF] by Agree→ii. MS(labeling)→iii.

morpho-phonologicalrealization of valued [uF] at the SM(9) Immediately Containinterface.

A set A with label L immediately contains

b. EKS (2017)

an SO X iff X provides (part of) L.

i. MS (labeling)→ii. feature-assignment(10) Given the following structure and someat the morpho-phonological component.

operation that can assign [F´]{β Z[F] {α X[uF] {...Y[uF]...}}

Extending EKS’s (2017) framework, I will

(α=X, β=<F, F>)

propose the totally representational model for

then, the interpretation of [uF] on Y may be

the C-I/SM interfaces.

[F] or [F´], whereas [uF] on X has toreceive the interpretation of [F].

3. Proposal
I start with rule (7), which is not a new(10) is based on the following reasoning: X inproposal but deducible from (2). The proposal is(10) (partly) assigns the label <F, F> and thedifferent from EKS (2017) in two points: i) EKS

label <F, F> identifies the set. Then, [uF] on X

suggest that feature-assignment takes place atmust receive the value from [F] on Z since it is

the morpho-phonological component, but I

inconsistent that label β is defined by X whereas

assume both of the C-I/SM interfaces interpret

X is interpreted independently of the label. In[uQ] according to the label, and ii) Although MS

contrast, Y is just contained in the set labeled <F,serves in EKS’s proposal, I argue that the

F>. [uF] on Y can be interpreted by the label <F,

containment relation suffices to hold the relation.

F>, but it is an option. If another mechanism canThen,assign a different value [F´], [uF] on Y can betheproposal

allowslong-distance3interpreted as [F´]. Extending the relationb. Q2: for which x, x knows where webeyond [uF], I summarize (7) – (10) as follows:bought what
A2: John and Tom (knows where we(11) Interpretation by Containbought what).

Given the structure{β Z[F] {α X[uF] {...Y...}} (α=X, β=<F, F>)

If covert movement is assumed to explain thei. Y, contained in the set labeled <F, F>,

matrix scope, the analysis must clarify why the

may be given the relevant interpretation

wh island effect is not observed in covert

according to the label at the interfaces.

movement. The proposed framework naturally

ii. X, immediately contained in the set

solves the puzzles. Consider the following
structure:2

labeled <F, F>, must be given therelevant interpretation according to thelabel at the interfaces.

(14) {δ who[uQ] {γ T[int] ... {β where[uQ] {αC[int]...what[uQ]}}

The next two sections discuss how the proposed(α=C, β=<int, int>, γ=T, δ=<int, int>)

relation works at the C-I/SM interfaces.
I assume that [uQ] on wh operators are
4. Rigid/Optional C-I Interpretationinterpreted based on the label <int, int>. Since

4.1. Multiple Wh Construction

who and where provide the labels <int, int>, they

The first issue concerns the following

are immediately contained by the sets δ/β,

multiple wh interrogative clause.

respectively. Then, they receive the rigid surface
scopes by rule (10). On the contrary, although(12) Who knows where we bought what?

what requires the label <int, int> to assign theinterpretation to its [uQ], any <int, int> label

The puzzle is two-fold: i) how [uQ] on in-situ

does not require what in labeling. In such a case,what is assigned and ii) why in-situ what canwhat can take either of the matrix or embedded

take either matrix/embedded scope whereas

scope by the Choice Function proposed by

who/where must take the surface scopes. They

Reinhart (1998).

are particularly relevant to the (standard)This section has discussed how the proposal

Agree-based framework with covert movement.

naturally

accommodates

themultiplewhFirst, since what does not c-command its goal,

construction. The next section concerns whsome additional assumption is necessary forisland phenomena.

[uQ] on what. Second, The scope optionality of
what

is

shown

by

the

followingtwo

4.2. Wh Islandinterpretations (cf. Baker (1970)).

(15) shows a typical example with a whisland with the structure.

(13) a. Q1: for which <x, y>, x knows where
we bought y(15) a. *What did you ask where she ate?

A1: John knows where we bought pizza,b. {ε what[uQ] {δ did[int] you ask {γTom knows where we bought books...

what[uQ] {β where[uQ] {α C[int] she ate

4what[uQ]}}}see this, let us consider the following structure:(α=C, β=γ=<int, int>, δ=C[int], ε=<int,int>)(18) {γ DP2[phi] {β DP1[phi] {α T[uphi], ...}}}(α=T, β=<phi, phi>, γ=??)Since a copy of an SO is invisible to MS, what is
not the source of label γ=<int, int>; the set

When MS is applied to (18), the three SOs

inherits the label from set β. Then, derivationally,DP2[phi], DP1[phi], and T[uphi] are located.

what is not immediately contained by set γ.

Note that the unique label is assigned in labeling

However, I assume that the C-I interface cannot

when MS locates one element. In the XP-YP

have access to the derivational history and that

configuration, the agreement features provide

thethe label <F, F> because [uF] is empty so that

C-I

interfacecannotdistinguishthefollowing schemata:MS only locates the valued [F]. In contrast, there
are two visible SOs in (16): DP1 and DP2. Then,(16) a. {γ what[uQ] {β where[uQ] {α C[int], ...}}

the unique label cannot be assigned. Turning(α=C, β=γ=<int, int>)

back to (17), if what is immediately contained inb. {γ what[uQ] {β where[uQ] {α C[int], ...}}

set β, what must provide the label. If so,(α=C, β=γ=<int, int>)

however, label β cannot be defined for the same
reason as (18). Therefore, it follows that what

In (16a), label γ=<int, int> is provided by what,must not provide label β, which means thewhere, and C[int] as a structure with multiple

occurrence of what must be a copy and must not

specs. In (16b), what is a copy and invisible tobe immediately contained by set β. If theMS, and label γ inherits label β. Since theargument is on the right track, what is exemptedinterfaces cannot see the derivational history,

from the wh island effect and is assigned thewhat is assumed to be immediately contained inunique matrix scope by label γ.

3, 4(16b) as well as (16a).

This section has demonstrated how theThe discussion so far has deduced wh island

proposed framework deduces the wh islandeffects from Immediately Contain. The literatureeffects. Since the island effect is mysterious inreports that wh island effects disappear in

the free Merge hypothesis, I have deduced thesubject wh interrogative clauses.

effect from an interpretive constraint. The next
section concerns the SM effect of my proposal.

(17) a. What do you wonder who saw?
(George (1980), Chomsky (1986: 48))

5. Rigid/Optional SM Interpretationb. {γ what[phi][uQ] do[int] you wonder

5.1. Rigid Case{β what[phi][uQ] {α who[phi][uQ]

In the following rudimentary sentence, Cases

T[uphi][int] saw what[phi][uQ]}}must be rigid.

(α=β=<phi, phi>/<int, int>, γ=<int, int>)(19) a. I like him.
C deletion is applied to (17) and T has bothb. {η C {ζ I[phi] {ε T[uphi] {δ I[phi] {γ R-v*

[uphi] and [int]. Unlike (15), the copy of what in{β him[phi] {α R[uphi], him[phi]}}}}}}}(17b) is not immediately contained by set β. To(α=R, β=<phi, phi>, γ=δ=R-v*, ε=T,5

ζ=<phi, phi>, η=C)label β=<phi, phi> in the structure (21c).
However, the focus is not immediately contained,

Following EKS (2012), I assume the following

and therefore, there is another default option of

assignment rules:(21b). Similar examples are shown as (22a, b),
where there is inter-speaker variation.5 In the(20) a. The label <phi, phi> from a nominal andthere construction, there and the logical subject

T assigns nominative Case to themerge in (22c), where there copies [phi] fromnominal contained.

the logical subject. This copying is executedb. The label <phi, phi> from a nominal andeither by feature inheritance or feature sharing

R assigns accusative Case to theby MS. Since there does not have full [phi], thenominal contained.

label <phi, phi> cannot be provided. Theinter-speaker variation lies in whether this deficit

Nominative Case on I is straightforward; since I

label (here, <person, person>) can assign theis immediately contained in set ζ labeled <phi,nominative Case.6 The same optionality is foundphi> and no other set labeled <phi, phi> contains

in other languages. (25) shows the structure of

I. Him, on the other hand, is contained in the two(23) and (24).

sets labeled <phi, phi>: β and ζ. However, him isalso immediately contained in set β, and the(23) Er läßt

ihn {einen guten Mann/ein

interpretation according to β is forced. Then, thehe let-3SG him {a good man-ACC/ anominal providing the label <phi, phi> receives

guter Mann}the rigid Case.

good man-NOM} COP-3SG

sein.
(German)‘He lets him be a good man.’
5.2. Optional Case

(Schütze (1997: 87))

If nominals do not provide the label <phi,(24) Ég taldi

phi>, the Case is optional.

I{hana/*hún}vera

believed {her-ACC/*she-NOM} to.bekennara/*kennari.
(21) a. It was I whom public opinion eventuallycondemned.

teacher-ACC/*NOM(Smits (1989: 300))(Icelandic)‘I believed her to be a teacher.’b. It is me who(m) John is after.

(Maling and Sprouse (1995: 170))(Akmajian (1970: 152))(25) {ζ R-v* {ε DP[phi] {δ R[uphi] {γ NP[phi] {βc. {β it[phi] {α T[uphi] {predP I/me ...}}}

T {α be, Pred NP[phi]}...}}}}}(α=T, β=<phi, phi>)(α=be, β=γ=T, δ=R, ε=<phi, phi>, ζ=R-v*)(22) a. ?There am I.

(Schütze (1997: 136))b. There’s me.

(Schütze (1997: 136))

In the German example (23), a predicate

c. {δ C {γ there[person] {β is[uphi] {αnominal appears in the ECM construction. Since

there[person], I[phi]}}}}

the default Case in German is nominative, the(α=I, β=T, γ=<person, person>, δ=C)predicate nominal is optional between theaccusative Case according to label ε=<phi, phi>(21) and (22) involve nominals after copular be.

and the default nominative Case.

In (21a), the focus I is nominative according to

The Icelandic example (24) complicates the6discussion. The first contrast is expected; sinceprobe-goal/spec-head agreement in a principled

the matrix object provides label ε=<phi, phi>, itway. Finally, sections 4 and 5 demonstrate thehas to be accusative. However, unlike German,

descriptive power in the proposed framework.

the optionality of the predicate nominal is notfound here. I do not have any answer to the* I am greatly indebted to Nobuaki Nishioka forquestion of why the default nominative isproviding me with valuable comments. I would

precluded in this case. Nevertheless, I do not

like to express my gratitude for fruitful

assume that Icelandic has a different Case

comments to the audiences of the 38th annual

assignment

ELSJ conference for their comments, including

system

from

other

languages.

Instead, Icelandic does not depend on an option

Hisatsugu

which other languages use. This speculation is

Omune. This research was supported by JSPS

consistent

KAKENHI Grant Number 20J11905.

withChomsky’s(1995:

192)

suggestion that linguistic variation is an issue for1

externalization.

Kitahara,

Takahiro

Honda,Jun

NOTES
The name is the same as Immediately Contain

In sum, this section has proposed the Case

in Chomsky (2000, 2001), but the natures are

assignment system based on labels. The

different. Chomsky defines the notion by Merge

c-command-basedin syntax, while I define the relation at theframework

needs

some

stipulations to make a distinction between rigid

interfaces according to labels.

Cases in (19) and optional Cases in (21) and (22).

2

In both cases, T c-commands the (logical)

to subject wh interrogative clauses.

subjects in the base-positions. Traditionally,3

spec-head agreement explains the difference, butthat it does not provide the label since an SO can

the speculative notion spec is no longer useful inmove after it assigns the label (for example, an

the minimalist program. One may assume

object wh operator can move after labeling in the[uCase] on nominals following Bošković (2007),

v*P phase).

but such an analysis does not capture nominative

4

Case in (21) and (22). Thus, integrating

is located in the position where it can provide

spec-head/probe-goal

thethe label <F, F>. I do not assume an operation

notion of (Immediately) Contain is the best way

like Neglect in Sportiche (2016) to ignore ato explain the phenomena.

problematic copy. I would like to thankagreement

under

Following Chomsky (2015), I apply C deletion
The copy status of what in (16b) does not mean

The C-I interface interprets an SO when the SO

Hisatsugu Kitahara for bringing up this issue.
6. Conclusion

5This study has proposed a new relation
Immediately

Containandmechanismatinterfaces

there sentences with a nominative subject.

interpretive

6

tocaptureAlthough I assume [person] following Chomsky

optionality at the C-I/SM interfaces. Chomsky’s(2000, 2001), Hazout (2004) and Richards(2013) view (2) provides the conceptual basis(2008) argue that there has [3-person] andfor this proposal since all of my proposals (7) –[unumber]. Any proposal is consistent with my(11) are based on (2). (11) is also theoreticallyanalysis as long as there provides the deficit

desirablelabel.

the

since

it

an

For example, Huddleston (1984: 69) excludes

cangeneralize

7

Which feature(s) there has is controversial.

Akmajian,

REFERENCES
Adrian (1970) “On

Epstein, Samuel David, Hisatsugu Kitahara and
Deriving

T. Daniel Seely (2017) “Successive Cyclic

Sentences from Pseudo-Cleft Sentences,”

Wh-Movement without Successive Cyclic

Linguistic Inquiry 1, 149-168.

Crashing,” Paper presented at ELSJ 10th

Baker, C.L. (1970) “Notes on the Description ofInternational Spring Forum, Meiji Gakuin

English Questions: The Role of an Abstract
Question

Morpheme,”

Foundations

University, Tokyo.

ofGeorge,Language 6, 197-219.

Leland.

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even

Hazout, Ilan (2004) “The Syntax of Existential

More Minimal Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry

Constructions,”

38, 589-644.

393-430.

Chomsky, Noam (1986) Barriers, MIT Press,

Grammar(1995)

The

Linguistic

Inquiry35,

Huddleston, Rodney (1984) Introduction to theCambridge, MA.
Noam

Analogical

Generalization in Natural Language Syntax.

Bošković, Željko (2007) “On the Locality andChomsky,(1980)

Minimalistof

English,Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Maling, Joan and Rex A. Sprouse (1995)

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:“Structural Case, Specifier-Head Relations,

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

and the Case of Predicate NPs,” Studies in

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

Comparative Germanic Syntax, ed. by

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David

Hubert Haider, Sten Vikner and Susan

Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155,

Olsen,MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Publishers, Netherlands.

167-186,

KluwerAcademic

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”

Reinhart, Tanya (1998) “Wh-in-Situ in the

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by

Framework of the Minimalist Program,”

Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

Natural Language and Semantics 6, 29-56.

Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,NoamRichards, Marc, D. (2008) “Quirky Expletives,”(2013)“ProblemsofAgreement Restrictions, ed. by Artemis

Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky,

Noam

Projection:(2015)

Alesiadou and T. Alan Hall, 181-213,“Problems

Extentions,”of

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.

Structures,

Schütze, Carson T. (1997) INFL in Child andStrategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

Adult Language: Agreement, Case andof Adriana Belletti, ed. by Domenico, Elisa,

Licensing, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Cornelia Hamann and Simon Matteini, 3-16,

Smits, Rik (1989) Eurogrammar: The Relative

John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

and Cleft Constructions of the Germanic

Epstein, Samuel David, Hisatsugu Kitahara andand Romance Languages, Foris, Dordrecht.

T. Daniel Seely (2012) “Structure Building

Sportiche, Dominique (2016) “Neglect (OrThat Can’t Be!,” Ways of Structure

Doing Away with Late Merger andBuilding, ed.by Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria

Countercyclicity),”andhttps://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002775>

Vidal

Valmala,253-270, Oxford

University Press, Oxford.

8

ms.,

UCLA.

<

Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern
English (PPCEME)と The Penn Parsed Corpus
of Modern British English, Second edition(PPCMBE2)から得られたデータに基づき、対対格主語動名詞の史的発達についての一考

格主語動名詞の頻度の上昇時期を明らかに察*すること、およびその頻度の上昇の要因を明（A Consideration of the Historical

らかにすることである。具体的には、前述のDevelopment of Gerunds with Accusative

コーパスを用いた調査により、対格主語動名

Subjects）

詞は 1670 年代に頻度が上昇し始め、その後は安定した頻度を保っていることを示す。ま平田 拓也（Takuya Hirata）

た、この頻度の上昇は、動詞的動名詞の構造

名古屋大学大学院（Nagoya University）

が FP から TP へと拡張したことにより、動名詞内部で T から動名詞の主語への格付与

キーワード：対格主語動名詞, 動詞的動名詞,が可能になったことに起因すると主張する。

構造拡張, 動名詞内部での格付与

本稿の構成は以下の通りである。
2 節では、
PPCEME と PPCMBE2 から得られたデータを提示し、近代英語期における対格主語動名

1. はじめに詞の頻度は 1670 年代に上昇し、その後は安宇賀治 (2000)は、(1a)の通格主語を伴う動

定した頻度を保っていたことを示す。この頻

名詞、および(1b)の対格の代名詞主語を伴う

度の上昇時期は、虚辞を伴う動詞的動名詞、動名詞は、共に中英語では稀であったが、近および文副詞と共起する動詞的動名詞の例

代英語に入り次第に頻繁になったと論じてが見られるようになった時期とおおよそ一いる。本稿では、(1a)と(1b)のような例を合致していることから、動詞的動名詞の内部構

わせて対格主語動名詞と呼ぶことにする。

造の変化が対格主語動名詞の頻度の上昇に影響を与えたと主張する。また、対格主語動(1) a. I was dismayed at the editor rejecting myarticle.

名詞と動詞的動名詞のいくつかの統語的類(Declerck (1991: 495))

似性も概観する。この類似性から、動詞的動

b. I wouldn’t like the idea of you travelling

名詞の構造の変化が対格主語動名詞に影響

to some exotic country on your own.

を与えたとする主張の妥当性が支持される。

(Declerck (1991: 495))

3 節では、この頻度の上昇の要因は、動詞的動名詞の内部構造が FP から TP へと拡張したことにあると主張する。
4 節は結語である。

しかしながら、宇賀治(2000)では、対格主語
動名詞が頻繁になった正確な年代が述べら

2. データ

れておらず、頻度の変化を示す具体的なデー

PPCEME と PPCMBE2 を用いた調査結果

タも与えられていない。加えて、対格主語動は、表 1 に示す通りである。

名詞が頻繁になった要因についても言及がないため、なぜ近代英語において対格主語動

表 1: 近代英語期の対格主語動名詞の生起数

名詞が頻繁になったのかも不明なままであおよび 50 万語あたりの頻度る。
これら 2 点を踏まえて、本稿の目的は、The

9(2) Epicurus and his scholars of old... make this1500-1569 1570-1639 1640-1700
生起

5

3

20

an argument of there being no God.

頻度

4.4

2.4

19.2

(1657-83 John Evelyn, Hist, Religion, I, 79/
Visser 1966: 1185)

1700-1769 1770-1839 1840-1914
生起

34

65

51

頻度

20.3

35.1

24.5

虚辞は T の持つ EPP 素性を満たすために挿入されるという、極小主義における一般的な注目すべき点は、1639 年以前は対格主語仮定に従えば、(2)のような動詞的動名詞は動名詞の頻度が極めて低かったが、1640 年

その内部構造に少なくとも TP を含むというから 1700 年においてその頻度が大きく上昇ことになる。

し、その後は多少の増減はあるものの安定し加えて、(3)で示すように、certainly のようた頻度を保っていることである。ただし、頻な文副詞を伴う動詞的動名詞も、対格主語動度の上昇が 1640 年代に入ってすぐに起こっ名詞の頻度の上昇時期とほぼ同様の時期にたわけではないことが、観察された 20 例の観察されるようになった。(3)の例は、初期テクストの年代をまとめた表 2 より明らか

近代英語期のコーパスである Early Englishとなる。

Books Online (EEBO)からの用例である。1 一般に文副詞は TP に付加すると仮定されてお表 2: 1640-1700 年の生起例のテクストの年代

り、この種の副詞が動詞的動名詞と共起する

年代

1640s

1650s

1660s

という事実も、動詞的動名詞の構造には少な

生起数

1

1

1

くとも TP が存在することを示している。

テクスト数

1

1

1

年代

1670s

1680s

1690s

生起数

6

7

4

テクスト数

5

3

3

(3) that is, in certainly discovering the meaningof the Holy Ghost(EEBO/A41608 1685)

虚辞の there や certainly のような文副詞を伴う動詞的動名詞が観察される時期が、対格観察された 20 例のうち 3 例は、1640 年代

主語動名詞の頻度の上昇が始まる時期とおから 1660 年代の 3 つの異なるテクストからおよそ一致しているという事実は、動詞的動のものである。残る 17 例に関しては、1670

名詞の内部構造の変化が対格主語動名詞の年代の 5 つのテクストから 6 例、1680 年代

頻度の上昇に影響を与えたことを示していの 3 つのテクストから 7 例、そして 1690 年
代の 3 つのテクストから 4 例となっている。
観察された 20 例の内、17 例が 1670 年代以ると考えられる。
これは、対格主語動名詞と動詞的動名詞の統語的な並行性からも支持される。(4)から降のテクストにおいて観察されるというこ(6)で示すように、対格主語動名詞が生起でとから、対格主語動名詞の頻度の上昇は 1670

きる統語的位置は、主語位置、前置詞補部、

年代に始まったと結論付けられる。

そして動詞補部である。これらの位置は名詞

興味深いことに、対格主語動名詞の頻度のが生起する統語的位置と並行的であり、対格上昇時期は、Visser (1966)が観察している、

主語動名詞は、それが生起する統語的位置に(2)のような虚辞を伴う動詞的動名詞の出現

ついては名詞的特性を示す。(7)から(9)で明時期とおおよそ一致している。

らかなように、同様のことが動詞的動名詞に

10

(12) And by him having foiled the Devil; in his Power,

も当てはまる。

all the Saints overcome the Devil […](4) To this I answered, That if Appetites being(EEBO/A49801, 1659)

Natural, was an Argument for the indulging
them […](13) I hope they will pardon me in not writing,(BURNETROC-E3-P1,39.57)[…](EHATTON2-E3-P2,2,153.15)(5) […] I must entirely declare against such(14) Besides these, they would have every day

Children losing their Time about thatsome practice of writing English headily

Language;(WEBSTER-1718-1,15.51)(BRINSLEY-E2-P1,23.216)(6) and, after some Contest, sent Messengers to(15) Yet this Caput mortuum was so far fromknow his Pleasure, who returning, positively

having lost its Electrical Faculty[...]

forbad him going to Mexico,(BOYLE-E3-H,25E.82)(COOKE1-1712-1,1,418.27)(7) Slitting the bark is an excellent additional

上記に示した 4 つの統語的並行性は、対格主

help to most of the foresaid evils […]語動名詞と動詞的動名詞が類似した構造を(LANGF-E3-H,114.174)

持つことを示していると考えられる。もしこ(8) she took occasion upon considering her own

れが正しいとすると、動詞的動名詞の構造にCase here in England, in France, and in her

変化が生じた場合に、その変化が対格主語動

own Country […]名詞にも影響を与えたということは十分に(THOWARD2-E2-P2,104.339)あり得る。したがって、対格主語動名詞の頻(9) and left off making any further inquirie;

度の上昇には、動詞的動名詞の構造変化が関(COVERTE-E2-H,14.53)

与しているという前述の考えは妥当なものであるといえる。

対格主語動名詞と動詞的動名詞の動詞的

次節では、動詞的動名詞が TP 構造を持つ特性の 1 つは、目的語を直接取ることである

ようになったことにより、動名詞内部での T(e.g. (5)/(7))。さらなる動詞的特性として、否から主語への格付与が可能になったことが、

定辞 not との共起が可能であること、副詞にその頻度の上昇の要因であると提案する。

よる修飾が可能であること、having +過去分
3. 提案

詞の形式で完了相を表すことが可能である

まず、本稿の提案にとって重要となる 4 つことが挙げられる。対格主語動名詞の用例を(10)から(12)、動詞的動名詞の用例を(13)からの仮定を(16)に挙げる。

(15)にそれぞれ示す。
(16) a. T は解釈不可能な数素性を持つ。
(10) Which word by way of terror sometime

b. 解釈不可能な数素性のみを持つ不完全

used, by them not having the Spirit, extend

な T も一致により対格の付与が可能である

it to their Non plus ultra, […]が可能である。

(1647 E. Douglas Mystery Gen. Redemptionc. 接辞-ing は解釈可能な φ 素性と解釈

13 / OED Online)

不可能な格素性を持つ。

(11) and […] I am driven by him falsely

d. vP 領域は複数の機能主要部から構成

reporting my words, […]されており、これらの主要部は顕在的(EEBO/A02635, 1567)

な要素がある場合にのみ存在する。

11

第一に、Arano (2014)に従い、(16a)のよう

よって、T はそれ独自で素性を持つことになに T は元々解釈不可能な数素性を持つと仮り、(18)の事実は(16a)を支持する証拠となる。

定する。Arano は、(17a)に示すように、T はこれが正しければ、C を欠く構造において、それ独自で解釈不可能な数素性を持つ一方

T は数素性のみを持つという点で不完全でで、(17b)に示すように、解釈不可能な人称あるといえる。本稿では、数素性のみを持つ

素性は C が持ち、T が C に選択される場合

T を不完全な T と呼び、数素性および人称素にのみ C から T へと継承されると提案して性を持つ T と区別する。

いる。紙幅の都合上、以下では、人称素性を第二に、これに関連して、不完全な T も一P、時制素性を T、数素性を N と略記する。

致により格付与が可能であると仮定する。不また、破線の矢印は素性継承を表し、取り消完全な T は解釈不可能な数素性を持つため

し線は、継承された素性が C に残っていなに探査子となり、適合する目標子と一致するいことを示している。

必要がある。したがって、格付与が一致の副
産 物 で あ る と す る 、 極 小 主 義 の 考 え (e.g.

(17) a. C [P, T] …T [N]

Chomsky 2000)に従えば、不完全な T も格付

b. C [P, T] …T [P, T, N]

与の前提条件を満たしていることになる。そ(cf. Arano (2014: 25))のため、数素性のみを持つ不完全な T も格付与が可能であると考えるのは不自然ではな

Arano は(16a)を支持する証拠として、(18)のい。そうすると次に問題となるのは、不完全

VP 省略を挙げている。

な T がどのような格を付与するのかである。
一般に T が付与するのは主格であるが、主格(18) The printer works, but the copier doesn’t
seem to.

が付与される定形節において、T が数素性に(Wurmbrand (2012: 4))

加えて人称素性も持つことを踏まえると、不完全な T が付与する格は主格であるとは考

Lobeck (1990)は、ある機能主要部がその補部えられない。そのため、本稿では、不完全なの省略を認可する場合には、その指定部にあT が付与する格は対格であると仮定する。

る要素と主要部が指定部-主要部の一致関係

さらに、Sugiura (2014)に従い、(16c)のように入る必要があると主張している。これを踏に接辞-ing は解釈可能な φ 素性と解釈不可能

まえると、(18)において不定詞節補部の VPな格素性を持つと仮定する。この仮定は対格が省略できるという事実は、T 主要部である

主語動名詞と動詞的動名詞の生起位置から

to と主語 the copier が指定部-主要部の一致関支持される。前述のように、これらの動名詞係に入っていることになる。(18)では、主語の生起位置は、主語位置、前置詞補部、そしと T 主要部の一致関係であるため、それに関て動詞補部である。これらの位置は格付与位

わる素性は φ 素性であると考えられ、主語と置であり、一般にこれらの位置には名詞など

T 主要部が共に φ 素性を持つということになの解釈不可能な格素性を持つ要素が生起する。ここで、(18)の不定詞節は繰り上げ述語る。格付与が一致の副産物であるとすると、seem に選択されている点に注意する必要がこの位置に生起する要素は、解釈可能な φある。一般に繰り上げ述語が取る不定詞節は素性を持つことになる。これを考慮すると、C を伴わない TP であると仮定されている。

対格主語動名詞と動詞的動名詞の生起位置

したがって、(18)では、T は C からの素性継が格位置であるという事実は、これらの動名

承の結果、何らかの素性を持つわけではない。 詞は解釈可能な φ 素性と解釈不可能な格素12

(20) [FP EAi [iφ, uCase] [F -ing [iφ, uCase] [EPP]] [vP ti [vʹ

性を持つということになり、ゆえに、(16c)[v Vj +v] [VP …tj…]]]]の仮定は妥当であると思われる。
最後に、Harwood (2018)に従い、(16d)のよ(21) [TP EAi [iφ, ACC] [Tʹ [T [EPP, uNum]] [FP ti [F -ing

うに仮定する。具体的には、vP 領域は、(19)[iφ, uCase] [EPP]] [vP ti [vʹ [v Vj+v] [VP…tj…]]]]]]の構造を持つと仮定する。2
この構造の拡張により、動名詞内部に不完(19) [FP [F ing] [vPperfP [vperf have] [PerfP [Perf -en] [vP

全な T が出現し、動名詞内部での格付与が可EA [vPʹ v [VP V IA]]]]]]

能になったこと、および前節でみた動詞的動(cf. Harwood (2018: 442))

名詞との類似性から、
対格主語動名詞も 1670
年代に(21)の構造を持つようになったこと

vPperfP 以下の構造は基本的に Harwood (2018)を提案する。

に従っている。v は補部に VP を選択し、外項を導入する。PerfP 主要部には完了形態素(22) […] I must entirely declare [against such-en が基底生成される。PerfP は vperf に選択さChildren losing their Time about that

れ、その主要部には完了の have が基底生成

Language;](WEBSTER-1718-1,15.51)

される。本稿では、vP 領域の最上位の投射(23) a. [TP such childreni [iφ, ACC] [Tʹ [T [EPP uNum]]

として FP を仮定し、主要部 F は EPP 素性を[FP ti [F -ing [iφ, uCase] [EPP]] [vP ti [vʹ [v Vj+v]

持ち、この主要部に接辞-ing が基底生成され[VP…tj…]]]]]]

ると仮定する。主要部 F はその補部に

b. [PP against [uφ] [TP such childreni [iφ, ACC]

vP/vPperfP のいずれかを選択する。この選択関[Tʹ [T [EPP uNum]] [FP ti [F -ing [iφ,ACC] [EPP]]

係は、これらの投射の主要部が主要部 F に基[vP ti [iφ, uCase] [vʹ [v Vj+v] [VP…tj…]]]]]]]

底生成される接辞-ing の適切なホストとして機能することから導かれる。また、(19)に(21)の構造に従えば、(22)の角括弧部分の派

おいて、否定辞の not と副詞は VP/vP に付加

生は(23)のようになる。(23a)の段階において、されると仮定する。

解釈不可能な数素性を持つ T が探査子とな

また、Harwood は、vP は外項を導入する

り、FP 指定部の EPP 素性を満たすために移ため常に存在する一方で、それ以外の機能投動した主語 such children を目標子として見つ

射はその主要部が顕在的である場合にのみけ、両者の間で一致が生じる。この一致によ存在するとしている。例えば、完了の have

り、T の解釈不可能な数素性は主語により値が存在する場合にのみ、vPperfP が投射される付けおよび削除される。同時に主語の格素性としている。本稿でも、(19)の vP 以外の機は対格と値付けられる。また、T の EPP 素性

能投射は、その主要部が顕在的である場合にを満たすために、主語 such children は TP 指のみ存在すると仮定する。

定部へと移動する。この段階では接辞-ing の(16)の仮定を踏まえた上で、(2)のような虚格素性は値付けられないが、(23b)の段階で辞を伴う例、および(3)の文副詞伴う例の出動名詞外にある前置詞が探査子として機能現を証拠として、
動詞的動名詞の構造が 1670

し、その目標子として接辞-ing を見つけ、こ

年代に(20)の構造から TP を含む(21)の構造

れらの要素間で一致が起こることにより、接を持つようになったと提案する。紙幅の都合

辞-ing の解釈不可能な格素性は対格と値付上、以下では、議論に関係する投射のみを示けられる。すなわち、対格主語動名詞の主語す。

への格付与は動名詞内部の不完全な T によ

13

り、接辞-ing への格付与は動名詞外の格付与

部での格付与という選択肢はない。結果とし子により行われる。最後に、本稿では、Embickて、対格主語動名詞の主語と接辞-ing は共にand Noyer (2001)で提案された PF 操作である

動名詞外の要素から格付与される必要があ

Lowering を採用する。これにより、接辞-ing

る。本稿では、1 つの格付与子が 1 つの名詞は音韻部門においてその補部である v へと

句にのみ格付与を行うとする考えに基づき、移動することにより、適切な host に添加す(25a, b)で示すように、動名詞外の要素は接辞る。また、(12)のような完了形の例の場合に-ing に格付与すると仮定する。したがって、は FP の補部が vPPerfP であり、接辞-ing が vperf

対格主語動名詞の主語は統語部門では格付にある have に添加し、Perf 主要部の接辞-en

与されないことになり、このままでは派生がが v にある本動詞に添加する点を除けば、破綻してしまう。そのため、格付与されてい(23)と同様に派生される。

ない名詞句は音韻部門へと排出された後に、次に、1670 年代以前の対格主語動名詞のデフォルト格としての対格を付与される。し

頻度の低さについて説明を試みる。本稿では、 かしながら、この対格付与は一致に基づく格
この頻度の低さは、対格主語動名詞の主語へ付与が行われない場合に限り適用可能な有の格付与が動名詞内部の T との一致ではな

標な仕組みであるため、それに依拠して派生

く、デフォルト格という有標な仕組みによりされていた 1670 年以前の対格主語動名詞は行われていたことに起因すると主張する。

有標な構文であるといえる。この有標性ゆえ

Schütze (2001: 206)では、デフォルト格は、概に、1670 年以前は頻度が低かったと説明さ

略、格素性を持たない名詞表現、または格素れる。一方、1670 年代以降はデフォルト格性を持つものの統語において格を付与されとしての対格付与ではなく、一致に基づく対ない名詞表現に対して付与される格と定義

格付与が可能になったため、対格主語動名詞される。彼は Spell-out 後に、英語におけるの有標性はなくなり、結果として頻度の上昇

そのような名詞表現には対格がデフォルトが起こったと説明される。

格として付与されると提案しており、本稿で
4. 結語

もこれに従う。

本稿では、対格主語動名詞の頻度が上昇し(24) a. [FP DPi [iφ] [F -ing [iφ, uCase] [EPP]] [vP ti [vʹ [v

た時期、およびその要因を明らかにすること

Vj +v] [VP …tj…]]]]を試みた。まず、対格主語動名詞の頻度がb. [FP DPi [iφ, uCase] [F -ing [iφ, uCase] [EPP]] [vP ti

1670 年代以降に上昇したことを、PPCEME[vʹ [v Vj +v] [VP …tj…]]]]と PPCMBE2 を用いた調査により実証した。

(25) a. [XP X [uφ] [FP DPi [iφ] [F -ing [iφ, uCase] [EPP]][vP ti[vʹ [v Vj +v] [VP …tj…]]]]]

また、この頻度の上昇は、動詞的動名詞がTP まで拡張した結果、(21)の構造が利用可能

b. [XP X [uφ] [FP DPi [iφ, uCase] [F -ing [iφ, uCase][EPP]][vP ti [vʹ [v Vj +v] [VP …tj…]]]]]になり、動名詞内部での主語への格付与が可能になったことに起因すると主張した。一方、1670 年代以前は、対格主語動名詞がデフォ

前述のデフォルト格の定義を考慮すると、ルト格としての対格付与という有標な仕組

1670 年代以前の対格主語動名詞の構造は、みに依拠していたため、頻度が低かったと説(24a, b)のいずれかの構造が可能であったと明した。

考えられる。これらの構造は、(21)とは異なり T を持たない FP であるために、動名詞内* 本稿は第 38 回大会 (2020 年 11 月 7 日、
於:14

オンライン開催)における口頭発表原稿に加Lobeck, Anne (1990) “Functional Heads as

筆、修正を加えたものである。本研究を進め

Proper Governors,” NELS 20, 348-362.

るに際し、大室剛志先生、田中智之先生から

Schütze, Carson (2001) “On the Nature of
Default Case,” Syntax 4, 205-238.

貴重な助言を頂いた。また、研究発表時に諸Sugiura, Katsuya (2014) A Synchronic and先生方から大変有益なご指摘や助言を頂いた。この場を借りて、感謝の意を表する。な

DiachronicStudy

お、本稿における不備や誤りは全て筆者の責

Participial

Constructions

任によるものである。

Doctoral Dissertation, Nagoya University.

GerundiveinandEnglish,宇賀治正朋 (2000) 『英語史』開拓社, 東京.

注
1

of

Visser,EEBO から得られた用例に関しては、スラFredericus,

Theodorus

Syntaxof(1966)

ッシュ以降に、テクストの個体識別番号、テ

Historicalthe

クストの年代の順で情報を記す。

Language, Part Ⅱ, E.J. Brill, Leiden.

An

EnglishHarwood (2018)では、PerfectP と vP の間に

Wurmbrand, Susi (2012) “Tense and Aspect invPprog と ProgP という 2 つの投射を、
vP と VP

English Infinitives,” ms., University ofの間に VoiceP という投射をそれぞれ仮定しConnecticut.

2ている。しかし、これらの投射は本稿の議論とは関係がないため割愛した。これらの投射

コーパス

については Harwood (2018)を参照されたい。

Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Ariel
Diertani(2016)

The

Penn-Helsinki

参考文献

Parsed Corpus of Modern British English

Arano, Akihiko (2014) “Two Types of Main

Second Edition (PPCMBE2), University

Verb Inversion,” English Linguistics 22,

of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

22-44.

Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Lauren

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

Delfs (2004) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

CorpusMinimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard(PPCEME), University of Pennsylvania,

Lasnik,Philadelphia.

ed.by

Roger

Martin,David

Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155,

of

Early

ModernEnglish

Early English Books Online (V3) (EEBO (V3))

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Declerck, Renaat (1991) A Comprehensive
Descriptive

Grammarof

辞書

English,The Oxford English Dictionary Online (OED

Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Embick,David“Movement

andOnline), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Noyer

Operations

Rolf
after

(2001)
Syntax,”Linguistic Inquiry 32, 555-595
Harwood, William (2018), “Reduced Relatives
and Extended Phases: A Phase-Based
Analysis of the Inflectional Restrictions on
English Reduced Relative Clauses,” Studia
Linguistica 72, 428-471.

15

considering the syntactic and semantic nature of
the first noun in terms of nominal gradability (cf.
Morzycki (2012b)) and “extremeness” in thesense of Morzycki (2012a). Empirically, theThe Role of Extremeness in English

study demonstrates that the first noun slot is

Binominal NPs and Its Theoreticalcompatible only with nouns that allow extreme

Implications*

modification (e.g., absolute idiot). For example,
in the case of an (absolute) idiot of a man, theMasatoshi Honda

first noun with extremeness functions as a

Yokohama College of Commerce

metaphor for the second noun. Theoretically, thestudy argues that predicate inversion in the

Keywords：binominal NPs, extremeness,

nominal domain enables such an extreme

gradability, metaphor, predicate inversion

figurative interpretation.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 reviews previous studies on BNPs and1. Introduction

identifies several empirical problems. Modifying

English binominal NPs (BNPs) (e.g., an idiot

the predicate inversion approach to BNPs (e.g.,of a man) have long inspired empirical and

Den Dikken (2006)), section 3 proposes antheoretical interest from linguists due to theiranalysis based on extremeness. Section 4

unique syntactic and semantic properties. BNPs,

provides evidence for the proposed analysis.

in general, have the following syntactic form: N1

Section 5 states a theoretical consequence of theof a(n) N2, where the two nominal elements areproposal and offers concluding remarks.

separatedbythepreposition-like

of.

In

linguistics literature, BNPs have been studied to

2. Previous Studies

reveal (i) the syntactic and semantic nature ofThis section reviews previous studies on thethe first noun (i.e., N1) and (ii) the role of thefollowing two main aspects of BNPs: the role ofpreposition-like of. As for (i), scholars havethe preposition-like of and the categorial statusargued that the first noun behaves like a gradableof the first noun.

predicateand modifies thesecond noun

(Ike-uchi (1997); see also Aarts (1998)); hence,

2.1. The Role of the Preposition-like Of

the first noun carries degree-related readings. As

It has been observed in linguistics literaturefor (ii), scholars have pointed out that thethat BNPs carry figurative meanings (e.g.,

obligatory occurrence of the preposition-like ofAustin (1980), Den Dikken (2006); see also

yields figurative readings in BNPs (e.g., Den

Aarts (1998: 151)). More specifically, Den

Dikken (2006)). With this background in mind,

Dikken (2006) observes that the occurrence oftheempirical

the preposition-like of signals that a BNP must

characterization of BNPs presented in previous

receive a figurative interpretation.1 For example,

work and identifies several empirical problems

the BNP in (1a) can be paraphrased by the DP

that they encounter. In the spirit of Bolinger

with the figurative marker like in (1b). In(1972), this study analyzes binominal NPs bycontrast, the DP without the preposition-like ofpresent

study

reviewsthe16

in (2) cannot carry such a figurative meaning;

The examples in (4) suggest that angel is not a

however, it remains acceptable as a root

gradable adjectival predicate because it does notcompound that denotes “a village with lots ofoccur in comparative sentences nor allow

jewels” or “a village where jewels are made.”modification by very. If the same noun with thesuperlative form occupies the first noun slot in(1) a.

a jewel of a village

BNPs, then the unacceptable status greatlyb.

a village like a jewel

improves (although it remains imperfect fora jewel village

some native speakers, as Ike-uchi admits), as

(*)

(2)

shown in (5a); likewise, the unacceptable status
Because the occurrence of the preposition-like ofof (4b) and (4c) also slightly improves, as

triggers figurative readings, as Den Dikken

illustrated in (5b) and (5c), respectively.

(2006: 170) observes, the following statement

Ike-uchi’s (1997) observation encourages aresults in inconsistency:

theoretical treatment of the first noun as a
gradable adjective (see Asaka (2002) for a(3)# That idiot of a man is not an idiot.

related but different approach). This approach isof theoretical interest, but as discussed below,

Following Den Dikken (2006), this paper
assumesthattheoccurrence

of

the

the

examples

in

(5)

must

be

carefully

reconsidered.

preposition-like of enables figurative readings in
BNPs.

2.3. The Degree-relatedness of the First Noun
Bolinger (1972: 75-76, fn.14) explores the

2.2. The Categorial Status of the First Noun

syntactic and semantic status of the first noun inPrevious studies observe that the first noun

BNPs in terms of what he calls “degree nouns.”behaves like an adjective (e.g., Ike-uchi (1997),

Presenting contrasts like (6) and (7), Bolinger

Aarts (1998)). For example, an angel of a girlargues that the first noun slot of BNPs must be

carries a meaning similar to an angel-like girl.

occupied

Presenting the examples in (4) and (5), Ike-uchi

meanings.

by

nouns

with

degree-related

2(1997: 534-535) argues that the first noun
behaves as if it is a gradable adjective and(6) a. * John is a lawyer of a man.

modifies the second noun.

b.

John is a shyster of a man.

(7) a. * Bill is a lad of a man.
(4) a. * Mary is the most angel that I haveb.

Bill is a brat of a man.

(8) a. # lawyer → l a w y e rever met.
b. * Mary is a more angel than Jane.

b.

shyster → s h y s t e rc. * She is a very angel.
(5) a.

Mary is the most angel of a girl that I

According to Bolinger, a noun like shyster

have ever met.

carries a negative meaning (e.g., dishonest

b. ?? Mary is a more angel of a girl thanc.

??

lawyer), and the relevant negative connotation

Jane.

can be emphasized by prosodic intensification

She is a very angel of a girl.

(8b); meanwhile, a noun like lawyer does not17carry such a negative meaning nor does it

definitively conclude that the first noun can be

tolerate prosodic intensification (8a). The same

theoretically treated as a gradable adjective or its

contrast holds for brat and lad.

equivalent.

Although we must clarify the notion of

In order to solve the empirical (anddegree nouns, we can safely say that any

theoretical)

problems

identified

in

this

analysis of binominal NPs must account for

subsection, the next section takes up the

Bolinger’s (1972) observation.

“degree-related” nature of the first noun in termsof its gradability and extremeness.

2.4. Empirical Problems
Having reviewed existing observations and3. Proposal

arguments, let us now point out the empiricalThis section has two purposes. First, it

problems with which they may be confronted.

explores the possibility of characterizing the“degree-related” nature of the first noun in terms

First, Den Dikken’s (2006) argument that the“extremeness”

occurrence of the preposition-like of is basicallyofappropriate;

Second,however,considering

it

with

(cf. Morzycki

modifying

Den

Dikken’s(2012a)).
(2006)

Bolinger’s (1972) observation (cf. (6) and (7))

syntactic analysis of BNPs, it proposes theircompels a recognition that figurative readings ofsyntactic derivation.

BNPs must be “degree-related.” For example,
nothing,

inprinciple,

prevents

usfrom

3.1. Extremenesscomparing man to lawyer; a figurative statement

Brdar-Szabó and Brdar’s (2010) observationsuch as “That man is like a lawyer” is acceptable.

that BNPs function as a means of hyperbole

However, the unacceptable status of *a lawyer

offers a key insight into the nature of the firstof a man suggests that BNPs do not simply carrynoun. According to them (Brdar-Szabó andfigurative

Brdar’s (2010: 400), “[p]robably one of the mostmeanings

butratherexpress“degree-related” figurative meanings. Of further

prominent

empirical and theoretical interest is the exact

intensification, i.e. to express the assertion thatnature of the “degree-relatedness” involved in

an entity possesses some property to a very highthe first noun slot of binominal NPs.

degree, that the circumstances and/or effects offunctionsofhyperboleisSecond, Ike-uchi’s (1997) argument that thean event are extreme, etc.” For example, in a

first noun in a BNP behaves like a gradable

BNP like an angel of a girl, the girl is comparedadjective must be carefully reconsidered for atto an angel’s beauty (or nice personality);

least two reasons. First, given the marginal

notably, this figurative relationship is associatedacceptability of (5b) and (5c), they fail towith “extreme” intensification (see Carston andeffectively prove his argument. Although my

Wearing (2015) for a related argument). This

four informants agreed that (5a) is the mostholds for other examples like a fool of a man.

acceptable, it remains far from acceptable.

The present study approaches this hyperbolic

Second, comparative forms like (5a) and (5b)property with recourse to Morzycki’s (2012a)

can be considered as instances of metalinguistic

concept

comparatives as per Morzycki (2012b), rather

hyperbole as a primary function of an extreme

than ordinary ones. For these reasons, we cannot

adjective. Helpful to note here is that extreme

18ofextremeness,which

identifies

adjectives, such as huge, differ from neutral

absolute idiot). This parallelism implies that

adjectives, such as big, in that, unlike the latter,extremeness exists in both adjectives and nouns.

the

with

Additionally, this parallelism also implies that

extremeness, signaling that a degree exists

gradability exists in both the adjectival andoutside of a particular range unique to anominal domains (see also Morzycki (2012b)).

particular context. This difference is indicatedSuch a parallel view on gradability allows us toby their capacity to be modified by extreme

ascribe the hyperbolic property of BNPs to theadverbs (e.g., absolutely, downright, outright)

linguistic concept of extremeness, with theand to raise objection. Regarding the former, ansemantic property expressed as a part of theextreme adjective like huge can be modified bysystem of nominal gradability.

formerarelexically

endowedabsolutely; meanwhile, a neutral adjective

Based on the above discussion, the present

cannot.

study proposes that the first noun of a BNP
carries extremeness and can therefore have a(9) a. John’s shoes are (very/??absolutely) big.
b. John’s

shoes

are

hyperbolic function. Accordingly, following??

( very/absolutely)

Morzycki (2012a) and putting aside the formalhuge.

semantic approach to analyzing extremeness,this study assumes that any predicate that

Regarding the latter, extreme adjectives are

encodes extremeness is endowed with the lexical

especially useful for objecting to a statement in afeaturepreceding discourse. According to Morzycki

adjective to be modified by extreme adverbs (cf.

(2012a: 572), when a speaker has uttered (10)(9)) and to raise objection (cf. (10)).

[+E(xtreme)],whichenablestheand her interlocutor wishes to object to hercharacterization, (11a) is preferred to (11b).

3.2. Syntactic Derivation of Binominal NPs
The present study proposes an analysis of(10)(11) a.
b.

??

Clyde isn’t particularly wealthy.

BNPs on the basis of Den Dikken’s (2006)

No, he’s (outright) destitute.

analysis, according to which predicate inversion

Yes, he’s (outright) destitute.

derives BNPs. Due to space limitations, a
simplified version of Den Dikken’s analysis isThis pattern clearly contrasts with the way the

introduced below (see also Den Dikken (1998)).

neutral adjective poor behaves, as shown below:

Based on Moro’s (1997) observation that thepresence of the copula (to be) indicates predicate(12) a. ?? No, he’s very poor.
b.

inversion (cf. (13b)), Den Dikken (2006) argues

Yes, he’s very poor.

that the preposition-like of speaks to predicate(Morzycki (2012a: 572))

inversion in the nominal domain (cf. (14b)). In
Den Dikken’s approach, the BNP in (14b) is

Furthermore, Morzycki (2012a) argues thatderived from the underlying structure like theextreme modification (cf. (9)) can be observed

one in (14a) by applying predicate inversion toacross syntactic categories. For example, antheextreme modification pattern like absolutely

operation is triggered to license the figurative

idiotic has an adnominal counterpart (e.g.,interpretation.

19

noun

jewel.

The

predicateinversion(13) a. Imogen considers Brian (to be) the best
candidate.

enables BNPs to carry hyperbolic (i.e., extreme)(Den Dikken (2006: 177))

figurative meanings.

b. Imogen considers the best candidate *(tobe) Brian.

In sum, this section has proposed an approach(Den Dikken (2006: 177))

to analyzing BNPs based on extremeness and(14) a. a village like a jewel

predicate inversion. The next section presents

b. a jewel *(of a) village

supportive evidence for the proposed analysis.

More precisely, Den Dikken assumes that the

4. Supportive Evidence

BNP in (14b) has the underlying structure in

The analysis of BNPs proposed in the(15a), in which village is generated as theprevious section makes the following two

subject of the small clause (SC) and jewel as thepredictions: first, the first noun only allows

predicate of the SC. The predicate noun also

modification by extreme adnominal modifiers;

involves the null figurative morpheme denoted

second, BNPs behave like extreme adjectives in

as SIMILAR, which enables a figurative

contexts in which they are used to raisemeaning on the semantic side. Next, the head X

objections. This section provides the results ofmoves to the upper head Y, which allows the

my informant survey and then takes them up to

predicate inversion to apply to the predicate

prove the two predictions stated above.

noun with the null morpheme SIMILAR. In the
resulting structure in (15b), the Y head isphonologicallyrealizedasof,

4.1. Degree Modification

andThe first piece of evidence for the argument

phonologically marks the inverted predicatethat the first noun must carry extremeness isnoun occupying [Spec, YP] and licensing thebased on the fact that the contrasts in (6) and (7)null predicate SIMILAR. As a result, the BNP

presented by Bolinger (1972) correlate with theircarries the figurative meaning in (15b).

(in-)compatibility

withextremeadnominal

modifiers, as shown below:(15) a. [XP(=SC) [Subj a village] [X’ X [Pred
SIMILAR jewel] ]](16) a. * an absolute lawyer

b. [YP [Pred SIMILAR jewel]j [Y’ Y(= of) +b.

Xi [XP(=SC) [Subj a village] [X’ ti tj ]]]]

an absolute shyster(17) a. * an absolute ladb.

an absolute brat(cf. (6a))(cf. (6b))(cf. (7a))(cf. (7b))

Furthermore, the present study deepens Den
Dikken’s (2006) analysis of predicate inversion

Adnominal modification patterns involving idiot

by assuming that any noun that occurs as aoffer further supporting evidence. Morzycki

predicate in an underlying SC structure must(2012b) points out that idiot can be modified byhave the [+E(xtreme)] feature, which yields anthree types of adnominal modifiers: slight, big

extreme interpretation on the semantic side. Thisand absolute. These three adnominal modifiers

modified analysis proposes that BNPs areyield different degree-related interpretations:derived by applying predicate inversion to aabsolute

noun with [+E] generated as the predicate of thedegree-intensification (although big is weaker

underlying SC structure. This derivation process

than absolute), and slight points to a minimum

20

denotes

extremeness,

big

adds

value. Of these three adnominal modifiers,

My informants all agreed that in this context in

absolute is the best when it occurs with the firstwhich a speaker has uttered (20) and hernoun in BNPs, as shown below:

interlocutor wants to object to the characterization,(21a) is much more appropriate a response than(18) a.

a(n ){* slight

/

?(?)

big

/

(21b). The same is true of the next example.

absolute }idiot of a manb.

a/the {??

bigger /?

This subsection has shown that BNPs andbiggest } idiot

extreme adjectives behave similarly in theof a mancontext of an objection; this strongly evidences
the present proposal that binominal NPs carry

It should be noted that other nouns, such as

extreme figurative meanings.

angel and Rolls-Royce, only allow modification
by absolute, which can occur in the first slot; in

5. Concluding Remarks

this case, it functions to intensify the figurative

The present study has shown that BNPs

meaning of BNPs in (19).3

carry hyperbolic (extreme) figurative meanings
and identified the first noun as the source of(19) a.
b.

a(n) {* slight / * big / absolute }extremeness.

Based

on

this

empirical

angel of a girlobservation, the study has proposed a syntactica(n) {* slight / * big / absolute }analysis of BNPs, according to which predicate

Rolls-Royce of a hotel

inversion is applied to the first noun, whichcorresponds to the predicate noun in the

Ultimately, this subsection has provided

underlying SC structure.

supportive evidence for the present approach inIf this study’s proposal is indeed on the rightterms of degree modification.

track, then it will provide independent supportfor Beltrama and Trotzke’s (2019) claim that
extremeness (or, as they put it, “emphasis for4.2. Raising Objection
The second prediction of the present analysis

intensity”) may trigger syntactic operations

is that BNPs behave like extreme adjectives inacross languages (see also Honda (2018))

contexts in which they are involved with raisingan objection (cf. (11)). According to my* I would like to thank Nobuhiro Kaga, Seizi

informants, this prediction is also correct, as

Iwata, and Tetsuya Kogusuri for their valuable

confirmed by the following contrasts:

comments at the 38th Annual ELSJ Online
Conference. My special thanks go to Seizi Iwata(20)

John isn’t particularly a smart person.

for providing me with invaluable literature, which(21) a.

No, he is an (absolute) idiot of a man.

encouraged me to consider the relationshipYes, he is an (absolute) idiot of abetweenman.

preparation for the oral presentation, I greatlyThis isn’t particularly an ugly village.

benefited from comments and suggestions by

No, it’s a jewel of a village.

Koichi Nishida, Hiroaki Konno, and Ryohei Naya.

Yes, it’s a jewel of a village.

I am also grateful to Rachel Puckett, Alana Poole,

b.

??

(22)
(23) a.
b.

??

extremenessandmetaphors.

In

Emi Tsuyuki, and Breanna Conner for kindly

21Bolinger, Dwight (1972) Degree Words, Mouton,

acting as informants. This work was supported by

The Hague.

the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science

Brdar-Szabó, Rita and Brdar Mario (2010)(Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists, Grant No.
20K13065). All remaining errors are my own.

“Mummy, I Love You like a Thousand

NOTES
Den Dikken (2006: 172-175) refer to examples

Ladybirds: Reflections on the Emergenceof this kind as comparative BNPs (e.g., a horror

Hyperboles,”of a story, a beauty of a parlor).

Epistemology of Metaphor and Other

2

The simplified examples here were created

Tropes, 382-427, ed. by Armin Burkhardt

based on the ones in Bolinger’s (1972: 75-76,

and Brigitte Nerlich, Walter de Gruyter,fn.14) work. My four informants confirmed that

New York/Berlin.

1

therelevant

examplescorrectlyof Hyperbolic Effects and the Truth ofreflect

TropicalTruth(s):The

Carston, Robyn and Catherine Wearing (2015)

Bolinger’s original argument.

“Hyperbolic Language and its Relation to3

One may wonder whether absolute can be an

Metaphor

adjective here, rather than an adnominal degree

Pragmatics 79, 79-92.

modifier.

This

problemdemands

andIrony,”

Journalof

Dikken, Marcel den (1998) “Predicate Inversion

carefulconsideration, but if it is an adjective, a

in

DP,”

statement like “That angel is absolute” or “ThatMovement in the Determiner Phrase, ed. by

Rolls-Royce is absolute” should be fine.

Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder,

However, contrary to the expectation, my

177-214, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

informants observed that these statements do not

Dikken, Marcel den (2006) Relators andPossessors,

The

Predicates

Syntaxofandmake sense. To the extent that this observation is

Linkers:

Predication,correct, we can say that absolute in (19) is an

Predicate Inversion, and Copulas, MITinstance of an adnominal degree modifier.

Press, Cambridge.
Honda, Masatoshi (2018) A Cartographic
Approach

REFERENCES
Aarts, Bas (1998) “Binominal Noun Phrases indissertation,

Ike-uchi, Masayuki (1997) “An Analysis of an

Asaka, Toshihiko (2002) “A Lexical Licensing
theDoctoral

Linguistic

University of Tsukuba.

Society 96, 117-158.
ofFocus-Related

Phenomena.

English,” Transactions of the Philological

AnalysistoAdjectival

Angel of a Girl Type NPs (I),” Bulletin of

Noun

Joetsu University of Education 16, 529-542.

Construction,” English Linguistics 19, 113-141.

Moro, Andrea (1997) The Raising of Predicates,

Austin, Frances O. (1980) “‘A Crescent-Shaped

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Jewel of an Island’: Appositive Nouns inMorzycki,Marcin(2012a)Degree“Adjectival

Phrases Separated by Of,” English Studies

Extremeness:

Modification

and61, 357-366.

Contextually Restricted Scales,” Natural

Beltrama, Andrea and Andreas Trotzke (2019)

Language and Linguistic Theory 30, 567-609.

“Conveying Emphasis for Intensity: Lexical

Morzycki, Marcin (2012b) “The Several Faces

and Syntactic Strategies,” Language andof

Linguistic Compass 13, 1-13.

WCCFL 29, 187-195.

22

Adnominal

DegreeModification,”(5) a. ?Whoj was it [a picture of tj]i that hedecorated his door with ti?
b. ?Whatj was it [a review of tj]i that they hadthat argument about ti?
Freezing Principle in English Cleft Sentences

c. ?Which booksj is it [the covers of tj]i thatwe’ve got to paste these labels on ti?

Yasuyuki Kitao(Pinkham and Hankamer 1975: 440)

Aichi University

d. ?Whatj was it [an increase in tj]i that theparliament discussed ti?
(Hartmann 2018: 199)

Keywords: It-clefts, Freezing Principle, Relative
clauses, Head-raising, Substitution structure

Given that the focus phrase in English it-clefts
undergoes syntactic movement, the extraction of
1. Extraction from the Focus Position in

the wh-phrase in (5a−d) would interfere with theEnglish Cleft Sentences

Freezing Principle (Wexler and Culicover 1980,
etc.).

The examples cited in (1)−(4) strongly

However, (5a−d) are grammatical.

Assuggest that English cleft sentences (it-clefts)

stated in (6), the Freezing Principle dictates thatinvolve syntactic movement.

additional extractions from moved elements areunconditionally banned.

Frozenness, a basic(1) ?*[Which drink]i was it Boris who bought ti?

consideration of the principle, is defined in (7).

(2) *Howi was it Boris [who bought the drink

Rizzi (2006, 2010) recaptures this principle inti]?

(Reeve 2012: 27)

the current theoretical model as Criterial(3) *It is [John’s book]i that Bill met a woman[who had not read ti].

Freezing, stated in (8).

(Rizzi 2013: 171)(4) a. ??It was every boyi’s mother that hei saw(6) Freezing Principle (FP)first.
b.

If a node A of a phrase-marker is frozen, no

It was hisi mother that every boyi saw
first.

node dominated by A may be analyzed by a

(Percus 1997: 344)

transformation.
(Wexler and Culicover 1980: 119)(1) shows that the extraction of focus phrase
obeys the wh-island condition.

(7) The definition of frozenness

The ungram-If the immediate structure of a node in amaticality of (2) and (3) indicates that thephrase-marker is nonbase, that node is frozen.

formation of it-clefts conforms to the adjunct(op. cit., p. 119)condition and the complex NP constraint.

The(8) Criterial Freezing

difference in grammaticality of (4a, b) reveals

A phrase meeting a criterion is frozen inthat weak crossover effects (WCO effects) exist

place.

(Rizzi 2006: 112)

in English it-clefts.
However, a further extraction from theIn (5a−d), the wh-phrase is moved from thefocused position is allowed if a DP is focalized

focus phrase that has undergone syntactic

in English it-clefts, as exemplified in (5a−d).

movement.

23

This additional movement seems

toviolateFreezing.

theFreezing

Principle/Criterial(11) a. */??[Whose book]j do you wonder [[DPhow many reviews of tj]i John read ti]?

However, (5a−d) are grammatical.

The examples cited in (9) indicate that thisprinciple is tenable.

b. */??[Whose mouth]j do you wonder [[PPSubextraction (topicaliz-

how far into tj]i the dentist stuck his

ation) is applied to a topicalized phrase in (9a),finger ti]?

(Corver 2017: 1720)

and wh-movement is implemented from anelement that has undergone topicalization in (9b).

Thus, the dissimilarity in availability ofBoth subextractions result in ungrammaticality.

subextraction from dislocated elements between
DP clefts and PP clefts is a mystery that needs(9) a. ??[Vowel harmony]j, I think that [TP [DPexplanation.

In this paper, I argue that thearticles about tj]i, [TP you should read ti

dissimilarity is rooted in the difference in

carefully]].

derivational structures between DP clefts and PP

b. ??Whoj do you think that [DP pictures ofclefts.

tj]i, John wanted ti?
2. Substitution vs. Adjunction in English(Lasnik and Saito 1992: 101)

it-Clefts
2.1 Substitution Structure for DP Clefts

Interestingly, in English it-clefts subextraction from a PP focus element is not allowed, asIproposethatDPcleftscreatetheThis shows that English it-clefts“substitution” structure, which derives English

conform to the Freezing Principle if the focused

restrictive relative clauses. According to Kayne

element is categorized as PP.

(1994), etc., English restrictive relatives involvein (10a−c).

overt phrasal movement of the relative head to(10) a. *Whoj was it [with a picture of tj]i that heSpec-CP and the D head takes this relative

decorated his door ti?

clause CP as its complement.

b. *Whatj was it [about a review of tj]i thatis represented in (12).

This derivation

1

they had that argument ti?
c. *Which booksj is it [on the covers of tj]i(12) [DP [D the] [CP placei [C′ that Tim visited ti]]]that we’ve got to paste these labels ti?
(Pinkham and Hankamer 1975: 440)

Thus, it is shown that the promotion/
head-raising makes a substitution structure: The

If both DP clefts and PP clefts are derived inraised

head

moves

to

Spec-CPofthethe same way, subextaction from the focusedcomplement of DP.

phrase should have the same outcome withclefts also form the substitution structure, andrespect to grammaticality.

they involve the promotion of the focus phrase

The examples cited

I claim that English DPin (11) show that “Freezing effects” arise in theto Spec-CP of the presuppositional clause.

situation where a wh-phrase is subextracted fromthis vein, I argue that English DP clefts area dislocated wh-phrase.

regarded as a sort of “relative clause.”

extractioninThis reveals that sub-wh-interrogatives

obeys

the

In

In thismodel, (13) is derived as in (14), which involves

Freezing Principle.

raising of the DP/NP focus to Spec-CP.

24

(13) It was a [picture]i that he decorated his door

Therefore, the NP focus does not get frozen.

with ti.

Consequently, a wh-phrase in the NP focus,(14) [TP it wasV [VP tV [DP a [CP [picture]i that [TPwhich is on the phase edge, can be extracted.

he decorated his door with ti]]]]]The validity of the substitution structure for
DP/NP clefts and my suggestion regarding theWith this substitution structure in mind, let us

focus NP in the raised position being unfrozen

consider (5a), reproduced here as (15), which

will be discussed in detail in Section 3.

involves the subextraction of the wh-phrase from
2.2 Adjunction Structure for PP Clefts

the focused DP.

Next, let us consider the structure of PP clefts.
(15) ?Whoj was it [a picture of tj]i that he

I claim that unlike DP/NP clefts, PP clefts

decorated his door with ti?

cannot have the substitution structure.

This(16) [CP C <+wh> [TP it wasV [VP tV [DP D (a) [CPproposal is supported by the fact that PPs cannot[NP picture of who]i that [TP he decorated his

be the head of restrictive relative clauses.

door with ti]]]]]]?

(18a−d) indicate that only nominals can be the(17) [CP Whoj wasV [TP it t′V [VP tV [DP D (a) [CP [NPhead of English restrictive relatives.

The

picture of tj]i that [TP he decorated his door

underlined part is supposed to be the head of thewith ti]]]]]]?

relative clause.
(18) a.

As represented in (16), the wh-feature on thematrix C needs to be checked.

Peter put it under the table where I had
put it earlier.2

The NP focus

picture of who is dislocated to the left-edge ofb. *Bill was drunk which was disgusting.

the CP phase in the presuppositional clause byc. *John answered the question politely

promotion/head-raising.

which I thought was how he should

The promotion of thehave answered it.

focus phrase creates the substitution structure,d. *The cheese was bought by John which

and the focus phrase is on the edge of the CP
phase.

was fortunate.

Thus, the NP focus directly moves to(Fabb 1990: 60)

Spec-CP, namely the phase-edge, by promotion;and hence, who can be extracted from the NP

The

substitution

focus without violation of Phase Impenetrability

restrictive

Condition (Chomsky 2000).

unavailability of PP relative heads provides

relative

structurecanderiveclauses.

Hence,

theplausible support for the argument that PP clefts

Yet wh-movement from the NP focus does notcannot have the substitution structure.

result in violation of the Freezing Principle.
The solution suggested here is that the

Further, I suggest that PP clefts create thesubstitution structure for DP/NP clefts enables“adjunction” structure for their focalization. Let

this subextraction of who.

us examine (19), which involves PP in the focus

There is a chain

position.

between the raised element, namely the NP
focus, and its θ-position.

This PP cleft is derived as in (20).

However, under this(19)

subextraction structure, no feature sharing takes

It was [with a picture]i that he decorated
his door ti.

place in the raised position of this focused NP.

25

(20) [TP it wasV [VP tV [FocP [PP with a picture] [CPextracted from this raised PP, it would involve
dislocation from the adjunct and interfere with

[PP with a picture]i C <+FOC>

violation of the adjunct condition.

MATCHING <+FOC>
that [TP he decorated his door ti]]]]]Let us suppose that there is another derivation
for the extraction of the wh-phrase.

Since theThe <+Foc> feature on the C head in the

PP focus in the phase-edge of the presuppo-

presuppositional clause attracts the PP with asitional clause is frozen, let us assume that who

picture to the Spec-CP.

in the adjoined PP in FocP is subextracted.

The focused elementwith a picture is adjoined, namely basegenerated,

in

the

FocP onpresuppositional CP.

top

This extraction is represented in (23).

of the

The adjoined focus(23) [CP C <+wh> [TP it wasV [VP tV [FocP [PP withelement and the raised PP in the left-edge of thepresuppositional clause form the Matchinga picture of who] [CP [PP with a picture of

relation.

who]i C <+FOC>

The adjoined focus PP is identified

MATCHING <+FOC> ⇒ Frozen

with the raised PP in the embedded Spec-CP by
this Matching operation.

that [TP he decorated his door ti]]]]]]

3

On the basis of this Matching model, let us
examine (10a), reproduced here as (21), which

Given this wh-extraction, it would not cause a

involves wh-movement from the focus PP in the

Freezing violation.

However, this extraction

it-cleft.

from the adjoined PP would result in the lack ofidentity with the matched PP in Spec-CP.

(21) *Whoj was it [with a picture of tj]i that heHence, this alternative derivation is not allowed

decorated his door ti?

either.

(22) [CP C <+wh> [TP it wasV [VP tV [FocP [PP witha picture of who] [CP [PP with a picture of

3. Similarity between English DP/NP Clefts

who]i C <+FOC>

and English Restrictive Relatives

MATCHING <+FOC> ⇒ Frozen

In Section 2, I argued that English DP clefts

that [TP he decorated his door ti]]]]]]

create the substitution structure.

This meansthat English DP clefts show the same syntactic
As discussed in (20), the adjoined focus PP inbehavior as restrictive relatives.

In this section,

FocP and the raised PP in the embedded

I shed light on reconstruction/connectivity

Spec-CP enter into the Matching relation.

effects and investigate the similarity between

These PPs are identified under the Matchingthese two constructions.

I argue

English restrictive relatives show reconstruc-that this feature sharing via Matching makes thetion/connectivity effects regarding Condition A

raised PP frozen, and the wh-phrase cannot beof binding theory and idiom chunks.

extracted from the raised PP.

the following:

relation and share the feature <+FOC>.

If who isConsiderextracted from the PP in Spec-CP, this extraction(24) a. The portrait of himselfi that Johni painted

yields violation of the Freezing Principle/
Criterial Freezing.

is extremely flattering.

Should the wh-phrase be

26

b.

The interest in each otheri that John

possible in Matching relative clauses (Sauerlandand Maryi showed was fleeting.

2000, Aoun and Li 2003, Cecchetto 2005, etc.).4(Schachter 1973: 32-33)

Let us now examine reconstruction effects(25) a. The headway that we made wassatisfactory.

for DP/NP clefts.

(Brame 1968)

thatb. The careful track that she’s keeping of

DP/NP

The examples in (27) reveal

cleftsshow

reconstruction/connectivity effects.

her expenses pleases me.
(Schachter 1973: 32)(27) a.

It is herselfi that Maryi trusts the most.

b.

It was a picture of herselfi that Maryigave to John.

The promotion/head-raising of the relativec.

head creates a movement chain between the

It’s careful track that she’s keeping ofher expenses.

relative head and its gap, enabling reconstructionof the head.

(Kiss 1998: 259)
(Reeve 2012: 47)

In this substitution structure, theThe presence of reconstruction/connectivity

relative head directly moves to Spec-CP thatThat is, theeffects for DP/NP clefts supports the analysis

relative head in the θ-position is “promoted” topresented here: They create the substitution

the external head position.

structure.5

appears as the complement of D.

This syntactic chain

enables the reconstruction of the relative head.
4. Conclusion

However, English restrictive relatives do noteffects

I have argued that the presence or absence ofregarding Condition C of binding theory.

Freezing effects between DP/NP clefts and PP

Consider the examples in (26).

clefts depends on the differences in their syntac-

show

reconstruction/connectivity

tic structures.
(26) a.

the picture of Billi that hei likes

substitution structure: The NP focus directly(Munn 1994: 402)

moves to Spec-CP that is the complement of D

The accident of Johni’s that hei willb.

DP/NP clefts are derived by theby promotion/head-raising.

In this respect, DP

never forget is the one that affected himi

clefts are a sort of “relative clause.”

first.

substitution structure enables subextraction from

(Cecchetto 2005: 26)

The

the focus NP, since no feature sharing takes
The Matching structure is proposed for thoseplace in the edge position of the CP phase.

relative clauses that do not show reconstruction/connectivity effects.

On the other hand, PP clefts cannot make a

In this structure, thesubstitution structure but instead create therelative head is not directly moved to the“adjunction” structure.

external head position. The Matching relation<+FOC> feature in C in the presuppositional

between the external relative head and the raisedclause, and the PP focus is independently

element in the left-edge of the relative clauseadjoined on top of the embedded CP.

guarantees the identification of these two

two PPs enter into Matching relation, and thiselements.

Since the external head and its

Matching operation gets the raised PP frozen.

θ-position are not linked by a syntactic chain,

Consequently, additional extraction from thereconstruction in the relative clause is notraised PP is not allowed by Freezing Principle/

27

PP is attracted by the

TheseCriterial Freezing.

The validity of the5

Masao Ochi pointed out the necessity of

substitution structure for DP/NP clefts isshowing the lack of reconstruction/connectivity

demonstrated by the presence of reconstruction/effects for PP clefts.

connectivity effects of the focused DP/NP.

clefts is constrained more severely than DP

6

The occurrence of PP

clefts (Delahunty 1982).

Hence, I have not* This is the revised version of a paper presented

prepared convincing data for the unavailability

at the 38th Conference of the English Linguisticof reconstruction for PP clefts. I leave thoroughSociety of Japan. I wish to express my gratitude

analysis of this issue for future research.

to the audience at the conference who gave me

6invaluable comments, especially Toru Ishii,

possibility of analyzing PP clefts by the

Hisatsugu Kitahara, Hiroki Maezawa, Masao

substitution structure. Given that P is aOchi, Hidekazu Tanaka, and Saeko Urushibara.

functional

category

All remaining errors are my own.

[PP-DP-NP]

isThis study isSpace does not permit me to explain the

an

for

nominals

ExtendedandProjection

supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific(Grimshaw 2000), PP can be regarded as a phase

Research, Grant Number 18K00553.

(Citko 2014, etc.).

NOTES
The promotion/head-raising analysis of English

the phase-edge, and then can undergo further
movement and make a substitution structure.

restrictive relatives is also suggested by Brame

However, P is stranded in the base position;(1968), Schachter (1973), Vernaud (1974),

hence, PP cannot occur in the focus position in

Bianchi (1999), Cecchetto (2005), etc.

its derivation.

1

2

This is deemed grammatical, but the relative

DP can move to Spec-PP,

Thus, PP clefts cannot bederived by the substitution structure.

clause takes NP table, not PP under the table, as
its head.
3

REFERENCES
Aoun, Joseph and Yen-hui Audrey Li (2003)

The rudiments of this “adjunction” structure

for it-clefts were presented by Chomsky (1977).

Essays

Sauerland (2000), Fox (2002), Aoun and Li

Derivational Nature of Grammar: The(2003), Cecchetto (2005), and others elaborated

Diversity of Wh-Constructions, MIT Press,

this model and suggested this adjunction model

Cambridge, MA.

theRepresentational

andBianchi, Valentina (1999) Consequences offor the structure of relative clauses that show noreconstruction effects of the relative head.

on

Antisymmetry: Headed Relative Clauses,

This

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

elaborated adjunction model is often referred toBrame, Michael K. (1968) “A New Analysis ofas the Matching Analysis.
Aoun and Li (2003:110) argue that wh-relatives

the Relative Clause: Evidence for analso do not show reconstruction/connectivity

Interpretive Theory,” ms., MIT.

4

effects as in (i a−b).

Cecchetto, Carlo (2005) “Reconstruction in

They also propose the

Matching structure for wh-relatives.

Relative Clauses and the Copy Theory of(i) a. ??The headway which Mel made wasTraces,” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5,
ed. by Pierre Pica et al., 5-35, John

impressive.

Benjamins, Amsterdam.

b. ??The careful track which she’s keeping

Chomsky, Noam (1977) “On Wh-movement,”of her expenses pleases me.

28Formal Syntax, ed. by Peter W. Culicover245-273.

et al., 71-132, Academic Press, New York.

Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1992) Move

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

α: Conditions on Its Application and

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

Output, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

Munn, Alan (1994) “A Minimalist Account of

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin et al., 89-155,

Reconstruction Asymmetries,” NELS 24,

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

397-410.
Percus, Orin (1997) “Prying Open the Cleft,”

Citko, Barbara (2014) Phase Theory: An

NELS 27, 337-351.

Introduction, Cambridge University Press,

Pinkham, Jessie and Jorge Hankamer (1975)

Cambridge.

“Deep and Shallow Clefts,” CLS 11,

Corver, Norbert (2017) “Freezing Effects,” The429-450.

Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax

Reeve,(Second Edition), Volume III, ed. by Martin

Matthew(2012) Clefts andtheirEveraert and Henk C. van Riemsdijk,

Relatives, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

1711-1743, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken,

Rizzi, Luigi (2006) “On the Form of Chains:
Criterial Positions and ECP Effects,”

NJ.
Delahunty, Gerald P. (1982) Topics in the Syntax

Wh-Movement: Moving On, ed. by Lisaand Semantics of English Cleft Sentences,

Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver,

Indiana97-133, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

University

Linguistics

Club,

Rizzi, Luigi (2010) “On Some Properties ofBloomington, IN.

Criterial Freezing,” The Complementizer

Fabb, Nigel (1990) “The Difference between
EnglishFox,

Restrictive

andPhase: Subjects and Operators, ed. by E.

Nonrestrictive

Relative Clauses,” Journal of Linguistics

Phoevos

26, 57-78.

University Press, Oxford.

Danny(2002)

Deletion

and

Copy

TheoryOxford169-186.

ofSauerland, Uli (2000) “Two Structures for

Movement,” Linguistic Inquiry 33, 63-96.

EnglishGrimshaw, Jane (2000) “Locality and Extended
Projection,”

17-32,

Rizzi, Luigi (2013) “Locality,” Lingua 130,

“Antecedent-ContainedthePanagiotidis,

Restrictive

Relative

Clauses,”andProceedings of the Nanzan GLOW 1999

Insertion, ed. by Peter Coopmans et al.,(Proceedings of the Second GLOW Meeting115-133, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

in Asia), ed. by Mamoru Saito et al.,

LexicalSpecification

351-366, Nanzan University, Nagoya.

Hartmann, Jutta M. (2018) “Freezing in it-clefts:
Movement

andFocus,”

Schachter,Freezing:Paul(1973)“FocusandTheoretical Approaches and Empirical

Relativization,” Language 49, 19-46.

Domains, ed. by Jutta M. Hartmann et al.,Vernaud, Jean Roger (1974) French Relative
Clauses, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

195-224, De Gruyter, Berlin.

Wexler, Kenneth and Peter W. Culicover (1980)

Kayne, Richard S. (1994) The Antisymmetry ofSyntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Formal Principles of Language Acquisition,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Kiss., Katalin É. (1998) “Identificational Focus
versus Information Focus,” Language 74,

29しているものとなると、私の知る限りでは存在しない。2 本稿では、QC の歴史的発達を歴史コーパスから得られたデータに基づき明らかにし、それに対して極小主義の枠組みを
引用句構文の通時的変化に関する一考察*

用いて理論的説明を与えることを目的とす(A Consideration of the Diachronic Change inる。具体的には、QC では、文頭の引用句がQuotative Constructions)

動詞の意味の希薄化を引き起こした結果、動詞移動が消失したとされる 18 世紀以降にお小林亮哉（Ryoya Kobayashi）

いても動詞の屈折領域への移動が保持され名古屋大学大学院（Nagoya University）ていると主張する。さらに、現代英語において顕著に観察される倒置の随意性は、発音対

キーワード：引用句, 動詞第二現象, コピー

象となるコピーの位置の違いから導かれる

理論, 倒置と主張する。
2. コーパス調査

1. はじめに

本節では、歴史コーパス YCOE, PPCME2,

引用句を伴う(1)に示す文は引用句構文

PPCEME, PPCMBE を用いて実施したコーパ(Quotative Construction: 以下 QC)と呼ばれ、ス調査の結果を提示し、QC の発達過程につとりわけ、主語と動詞の倒置が生じている

いて概観する。3 コーパス調査は語順別、つ(1b) の よ う な 文 は 引 用 句 倒 置 (Quotative

まり SV 語順か VS 語順かに分けて行った。

Inversion)と呼ばれる。(1)における対比が示

まず、古英語期から初期中英語期までの QC

すように、QC における倒置は随意的に生じの生起数について概観する。また、Kemenadeる。1(1997)や Fischer et al. (2000)が指摘しているように、古英語期から初期中英語期までは、(1) a. “We haven’t had that spirit here since

名詞句主語と代名詞主語は生起する位置が1969,” the captain said.

異なるとされているため、主語の種類を名詞

b. “We haven’t had that spirit here since

句と代名詞に分けてデータを集計した。時代

1969,” said the captain.

区分ごとの集計結果は表 1 と表 2 に示されて(Gyoda (1999: 276))いる。 (2)は古英語期からの例、(3)は初期中英語期からの例である。

QC は古英語期からすでに観察され、現代英語の QC と同様に、引用句に主語と動詞が後

表 1: OE-初期 ME の QC の生起数（名詞句）

続する語順を示す。本稿におけるコーパス調

O1/2

O3

O4

M1

M2

査によると、QC は古英語から現代英語に至

SV

0

0

0

0

0

るまで、ほぼ同じ形を保持しているが、QC

VS

1

3

1

16

5

における倒置の随意性は現代英語において

表 2: OE-初期 ME の QC の生起数（代名詞）

顕著に見られる傾向であり、初期英語におい

O1/2

O3

O4

M1

M2

ては VS 語順が圧倒的多数を占める。QC の

SV

2

2

3

10

0

歴史的発達について扱っている文献は非常

VS

0

4

1

6

0

に少なく、極小主義の枠組み内で分析を提示

30

SV
VS

(2) a. Iacob, cwæð he.
Jacob, said he.
‘ “Jacob,” said he.’(cootest,Gen:32.27.1336)
b. Ongitaþ, mine þaConsider, my the
Saint

SV
VS

(coverhom,HomU_7_[ScraggVerc_22]:20.2824)
he

seið.

he

said

SV
VS

‘ “Listen to me, daughter,” he said.’b.‘Where is he?’ said the kyng.

46

98

E3

L1

L2

L3

0

0

0

8

18

12

71

44

M4

E1

E2

1

5

1

6

48

7

91

90

E3

L1

L2

L3

4

0

11

24

9

2

58

18

haue I ben,”seyd þe preste,

There have I been

said the priest(CMKEMPE,58.1300)‘ “Where is he,” said the king.’(5) a. But only he would be mayster of his(CMMALORY,3.64)

horsses, the Scripture sayeth,(LATIMER-E1-H,32L.240)

表 1 と表 2 が示すように、非常に少ない数で

b. Are you my uncle? sayes Will.

はあるが、QC は古英語期から既に存在して(ARMIN-E2-H,43.304)

いたことが分かる。また、よく知られている(6) a. ‘Jump in,’ Fleetwood said to his man.

ように、古英語期から初期中英語期の時期に(MEREDITH-1895,19,162.648)

は動詞第二現象(Verb Second: 以下 V2)が観

b. “He must be a first-rater,” said Sam.

察されるため、それに伴い、VS 語順が多く(DICKENS-1837,546.56)

見られると考えられる。とりわけ、主語が名詞句である場合には、VS 語順のみが観察さ

表 3 と表 4 が示すように、QC においては、れることが傾向として顕著である。その一方

後期中英語期以降も VS 語順が優勢であるこ

で、主語が代名詞である場合には、VS 語順とが分かる。Haeberli and Ihsane (2016)によるだけでなく、SV 語順も観察されることが分と、動詞の屈折領域への移動は 15 世紀半ば

かる。

から衰退し始め、18 世紀中に消失した。し次に、後期中英語期以降の QC の生起数をかし、2 つの表から明らかなように、現代英表 3 と表 4 に示す。(4)は後期中英語期から語で頻繁に観察される SV 語順が QC においの例、(5)は初期近代英語期からの例、(6)はて増加し始めるのは、後期近代英語期に入っ

後期近代英語期からの例である。

てからである。この事実は、屈折領域への動表 3: 後期 ME 以降の QC の生起数（名詞句）
E1

M3‘ “I have been there,” said the priest.’

Where is he, said the king

M4

205

(4) “Þer

(CMHALI,127.9)

M3

16

表 4: 後期 ME 以降の QC の生起数（代名詞）children

Isidore.’hear me daughter0dearestIsidoreme dohter1

leofestan bearn,‘ “Consider, my dearest children,” said Saint(3) a. Iher

1

SV
VS

cwæð Sanctus Isodorus,
said

0

E2

詞移動が消失したとされる 18 世紀以降においても、QC においてはそれが保持されていることを示唆している。

31

(7) a.
3. QC における動詞の意味の希薄化と動詞

He giggled and said, “Cochon.”b. *He giggled, “Cochon.”(内田 (1979: 24))

移動(8) a. “He worked hard,” Madame Volet said

本節では、QC における動詞移動と引用句

and giggled.

の関係について考察する。本稿では、Gyoda(1999)に従い、QC における動詞は助動詞

b. “He worked hard,” Madame Volet giggled.

have や be などと同様に意味的に軽いために、(内田 (1979: 24))

T に移動可能であると仮定する。内田 (1979)によれば、QC に現れる動詞は[say＋α]とい(7a, b)の対比が示すように、引用句が前置さう意味特性を持ち、1 語で[say＋α]の意味をれていない場合、動詞 giggle は単独で引用句表す動詞と、[say＋α]のうちの α の部分の意を補部にとることができず、say が義務的に味のみを表す動詞の 2 種類に分類される。こ必要であることがわかる。一方、(8a, b)の対

こでは内田 (1979)に従い、前者を R1、後者比が示すように、引用句が前置されている場

を R2 と表記する。表 5 は R1 と R2 に分類さ合は、giggle だけで容認可能であり、say のれる動詞の具体例を示したものである。

生起は義務的ではない。コーパス調査から得られたデータを見てみると、古英語期から中

表 5: 現代英語の QC に現れる動詞

英語期までは、QC に現れる動詞は最も規範

R1

answer, declare, demand, explain, insist,

的な伝達動詞である say やその祖語のみであpromise, recommend, suggest, whisper,った。しかし、初期近代英語期から R1 に分etc.

類される動詞が徐々に QC に生起し始め、後

burp, giggle, groan, growl, laugh, shriek,

期近代英語期には R2 に分類される動詞を含

sigh, sing, sob, weep, etc.

め、生起する動詞の種類が大幅に増加する。

R2

表 6 はコーパス調査から得られた QC に生起
R2 に分類される動詞は、発話行為そのものする動詞を時代区分ごとに分類したものでとは直接的に結び付かない動詞であるが、発ある。(9)はコーパス調査から得られた具体話に付随する話者の伝達的意図を表すこと例である。

が可能である。本稿では、Gyoda (1999)に従い、QC では文頭の引用句によって say の意

表 6: QC に現れる動詞の史的変化

味が伝達されると仮定し、その結果として、OEcweþan (say), secgan (say)

動詞の意味が希薄化され、その役割は話者のMEseien (say), quethen (quote), crien(cry)

伝達的意図を補足するという機能的役割に変化していると主張する。2 節でのコーパス

EModE say, quoth, cry, answer, tell, reply

調査が示しているように、古英語から現代英

LModE say, cry, answer, tell, reply, inquire,

語に至るまで、QC は同じ形式で存在し続けinterpose, add, ask, sigh, exclaim,ていること、および say やその祖語が最も頻

explain,繫に QC において用いられてきたことを考慮

observe, rejoin, venture, whisper …

すると、この仮定は自然なものであると言えetc.

る。また、この仮定は(7)と(8)に示される例

murmur,repeat,resume,(9) a. “You see how these fellows drink, andによって経験的にも支持される。

smoke, and roar,” replied Mr Pickwick.
(DICKENS-1837,547.72)

32

b. “I only wish she could help looking like a

操作の下で素性照合を行う。その結果、T のgirl of seventeen,” sighed Mrs. Curtis.

持つ[uφ]は値を付与され、転送時に削除され(YONGE-1865,172.348)

る。その後、主語が、T の持つ EPP 素性を満c. “This comes of being the youngest of the

たすために TP 指定部に移動する。そして、

family,” observed Colin meditatively.

(10c)に示すように、v*P の末端に位置する引

(YONGE-1865,177.485)

用句は C の持つ EF によって牽引され、CP指定部に移動する。2 節で言及したように、したがって、これらの事実は、文頭に位置す

古英語期から初期中英語期までは V2 が観察る引用句によって担われる say の意味の伝達されるため、動詞は主要部移動により C まが、後期近代英語期に確立されたことを示唆

で移動する。上記の派生過程を経て、「引用していると言える。以上の議論を踏まえ、本

句・動詞・主語」の倒置語順が派生される。

稿では、QC における動詞の屈折領域への移表 2 で見た主語が代名詞の場合における動が 18 世紀以降も観察されるのは、引用句

SV 語順と VS 語順のバリエーションについの前置による動詞の意味の希薄化が後期近ては、Kemenade (1997)に従い、代名詞は動代英語期に起こったことに起因すると主張詞に付加する接語であると仮定し、その付加する。

位置によって語順の違いが生じると主張する。すなわち、(11)に示すように、代名詞主

4. QC の派生

語が動詞の左側に付加すれば SV 語順(cf.

本節では、前節までの議論を踏まえた上で、 (11a))が、右側に付加すれば VS 語順(cf. (11b))
QC の派生に対して極小主義の枠組みを用いが派生されることになる。

て理論的説明を与える。まず、古英語期から
初期中英語期までの QC の派生を(10)に示す。 (11) a. [CP Quote Pro-V [TP tSubj[iφ] tV[uφ][EPP][v*P tQuote [v*P tsubj tV [VP tV tQuote ]]]]](10) “Quote” + Verb + Subject

b. [CP Quote V-Pro [TP tSubj [iφ] tV[uφ][EPP]a. [v*P Subj[iφ] v* [VP V Quote ]][v*P tQuote [v*P tsubj tV [VP tV tQuote ]]]]]

b. [CP C [TP Subj[iφ] T[uφ][EPP] [v*P Quote [v*P tsubj V[VP tV tQuote ]]]]]

次に、後期中英語期から初期近代英語期まc. [CP Quote V [TP Subj[iφ] tV[uφ][EPP] [v*P tQuote [v*P

での QC の派生を(12)に示す。Fischer, et al.

tsubj tV [VP tV tQuote ]]]]](2000), Haeberli and Ihsane (2016)によれば、後期中英語期に V2 現象は消失した。したがっまず、(10a)に示す v*P フェイズにおいて、主て、それ以降の動詞の移動先は C ではなく T

語が v*P 指定部に、引用句が動詞の補部にそである。

れぞれ併合される。引用句は v*の末端素性(Edge Feature: 以下 EF)(Chomsky (2008))によ(12) “Quote” + Verb + Subjectって牽引され、v*P の末端に移動する。このa. [v*P Subj[iφ] V [VP tV Quote ]]移動により、引用句は転送を回避することにb. [CP C [TP V[uφ][EPP] [v*P Quote [v*P Subj tV

なり、次の CP フェイズにおいてもアクセス[VP tV tQuote ]]]]]

可能となる。次に、(10b)に示す CP フェイズ

c. [CP Quote C [TP V[uφ][EPP] [v*P tQuote [v*P Subj

において、T の持つ解釈不可能な φ 素性([uφ])tV [VP tV tQuote ]]]]]

が主語の持つ解釈可能な φ 素性([iφ])と一致

33

(10)と同様に、v*P フェイズにおける派生は

コピーは移動した要素と同一の意味素性と(12a)のようになる。ここでは、Alexiadou and

音韻素性を持つと考えられる。3 節での仮定

Anagnostopoulou (1998)や Tanaka (2002)に従が正しいとすれば、QC では後期近代英語期

い、動詞屈折の豊かな言語は、V の T への顕以降も V が T まで顕在的に移動することが在的な移動によって T の持つ EPP 素性を満可能であるため、本提案の下では、音韻部門

たすことができるという仮定を採用する。こで発音される主語のコピーの位置に基づき、の仮定に従うと、(12)では、T の持つ EPP 素

語順の相違が導かれると主張する。QC にお性が V の T への顕在的移動によって満たさける VS 語順は、TP 指定部へ移動した主語れるため、主語が基底生成位置に留まることのコピーを削除し、元位置である v*P 指定部が可能となる。そのため、(12b)において、v*に位置する主語のコピーが音韻部門においに位置する V は T へと顕在的に移動する一て発音対象として選ばれることによって派

方で、外項として併合された主語は v*P の指生される。その一方で、v*P 指定部に位置す

定部の位置に残置する。したがって、V2 現る主語のコピーが削除され、TP 指定部に移象が消失した 15 世紀以降は、動詞が C まで

動した主語のコピーが音韻部門で発音対象移動しなくとも、主語が基底生成位置に残置として選ばれる場合には、SV 語順が派生さすることによって VS 語順が派生される。

れる。5

最後に、後期近代英語期以降の QC の派生

最後に、現代英語において容認度が極めてについて考察する。(13)は SV 語順の派生、低い、(15)に見られる代名詞主語を伴う QC(14)は VS 語順の派生である。

4における VS 語順について議論する。本稿では、Diesing (1992)の Mapping Hypothesis を採(13) [CP Quote C [TP Subj [iφ] V[uφ][EPP] [v*P

用し、基底生成位置に残置する主語に与えら

tQuote [v*P Subj[iφ] tV [VP tV tQuote ]]]]]

れる解釈上の問題から、容認度の低下が説明(14) [CP Quote C [TP Subj[iφ] V[uφ][EPP] [v*P

されると主張する。

tQuote [v*P Subj [iφ] tV [VP tV tQuote ]]]]](15) a. ??”Don’t snore,” pleaded they.
Fischer et al. (2000)や Nawata (20009)の観察

b. ??“I’ve lost my key,” said he.
(Collins and Branigan (1997: 7))に従うと、後期近代英語期までに動詞の屈折体系は豊かではなくなっていると考えられる。そのため、本稿では、この時期までに動Diesing によると、vP 内、つまり、基底生成

詞移動によって T の持つ EPP 素性を満たす

位置に残置する主語は、文における nuclear

ことができなくなったと主張する。したがっscope に写像され、焦点としての解釈を受けて、T の持つ EPP 素性を満たすためには、Tる。これは松原 (2019)によるインフォーマとの φ 素性における一致操作の後、主語がント調査から経験的にも支持される。それ

TP 指定部へ移動することが必要になる。

によると、QC が VS 語順の場合、主語に強後期近代英語期から生起数の増加が観察声が置かれ、発話した人物が誰であるのかがされる QC における倒置の随意性は、音韻部より強調される。加えて、VS 語順は発話者門において発音対象となる主語のコピーのが誰かを明確にするために使用される傾向

位置の相違に起因すると主張する。Chomskyがあることも指摘されている。それゆえ、こ(1995)によって提案された移動のコピー理の調査は、VS 語順における主語が焦点の解論の下では、移動によって元位置に残される釈を与えられるという考えを支持するもの

34

である。

注

これが正しいとすると、典型的に旧情報を1

引用句を伴う文には、他にも(i)に示すよう表す代名詞主語は基底生成位置には残置せなタイプがあるが、これらは本稿の分析対象

ず、通常の主語位置である TP 指定部へと移に含まれない。

動する必要があることになる。主語が TP 指(i) a. “In those days”, Sue admitted, “we were

定部へ移動するならば、本分析の下では動詞

heavily in debt.”

は T に位置するので、SV 語順が派生される(Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1027))

ことになる。その一方で、名詞句主語は基底b. Asked Harry: “When on earth will the

生成位置に残置することによって焦点の解

fishing begin again?”

釈を受けることに問題はないため、主語が(Collins and Branigan (1998: 10))

TP 指定部へ移動した場合は SV 語順が、主2語が残置した場合は VS 語順が派生されるこ研究については Cichosz (2019)を参照。

とになる。したがって、名詞句主語の場合は

3

2 通りの語順の派生が可能である。

る歴史的時代区分および、表に記載されていQC の歴史的発達について扱っている先行
本稿におけるコーパス調査において仮定する略語が示す期間は以下に示す通りである。
5. 結語

古英語期 (700-1100): O1(-850), O2(850-950),

本稿では、歴史コーパスを用いて QC の歴O3(950-1050), O4(1050-1150), 中 英 語 期史的発達を明らかにし、その派生に対し理論(1100-1500): M1(1150-1250), M2(1250-1350),

的説明を与えることを試みた。コーパス調査

M3(1350-1420), M4(1420-1500), 初期近代英の結果から、QC はその発達過程において、語期 (1500-1700): E1(1500-1569), E2(1570-16

最も規範的な伝達動詞 say を伴う VS 語順の39), E3(1640-1710), 後期近代英語期 (1700-

形で使用され続けてきたことが観察された。

1900): L1(1710-1779), L2(1780-1849), L3 (18また、近代英語期に文頭の引用句により動詞

50-1920).

の意味の希薄化が生じた結果、動詞移動が消4失されたとされる 18 世紀以降においても、るコピーを、取り消し線は削除されるコピー

QC においては動詞の屈折領域への移動が保を、それぞれ表している。

持されている可能性を示唆した。さらに、現

5代英語において観察される QC における倒置上げ構文に関する分析を拡張したものであの随意性は、音韻部門において発音対象となる。

(13)と(14)における囲み線は発音対象とな

この分析は、Bobaljik (2002)における繰りるコピーの違いから導かれると主張した。
* 本稿は日本英語学会第 38 回大会での口頭

参考文献
Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou

発表に基づくものである。発表の準備段階に(1998) “Parameterizing AGR: Word Order,

おいて、大室剛志先生と田中智之先生を初め、

V-movement, and EPP Checking.” Natural

多くの諸先生方から貴重なご指摘やご助言

Languageを頂いた。また、研究発表の際には、諸先生

491-539.

and

Linguistic

Theory16,

方から、大変有益なご指摘やご助言を頂いた。 Bobaljik, Jonathan D. (2002) “A-chains at the
PF Interface: Copies and ‘Covert’
この場を借りて感謝を申し上げたい。なお、
本稿における不備は全て執筆者によるもの

Movement,”

である。

Linguistic Theory 20, 197-267.

35

NaturalLanguageandChomsky,Noam(1995)The

Minimalist

松原史典 (2019) 「引用句倒置の認可条件にProgram, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,Noam(2008)“On

ついて」日本英文学会第 91 回大会 シン

Phases,”ポジウム『倒置現象をめぐって』2019Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:

年 5 月 26 日, 安田女子大学.

Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,

Tanaka, Tomoyuki (2002) “Synchronic anded. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero andDiachronic aspects of Over Subject Raising

Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 89-155, MIT

in English” Lingua 112, 619-646.

Press, Cambridge, MA.

内田聖二 (1979)「直接話法と伝達動詞」『語

Cichosz, Anna (2019) “Parenthetical Reporting

法研究と英語教育』第 1 号, 22-34.

Clauses in the History of English: theDevelopment of Quotative Inversion,”

コーパス

English Language and Linguistics 23,

Kroch, Anthony, and Ann Taylor (2000) The

183-214.

Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle

Collins, Chris and Phil Branigan (1997)

English,“Quotative Inversion,” Natural Language

SecondEdition(PPCME2),

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

and Linguistic Theory 15, 1-41.

Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Ariel

Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem

Diertani (2010) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed

Koopman and Wim van der Wurff (2000)

CorpusofModernBritishEnglishThe Syntax of Early English, Cambridge(PPCMBE), University of Pennsylvania,

University Press, Cambridge.

Philadelphia.

Gyoda, Isamu (1999) “On the Quotative

Kroch, Anthony and Beatrice Santorini (2004)

Construction in English: A Minimalist

The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early

Account,” English Linguistics 16, 275-302.

Modern English (PPCEME), University ofHaeberli,

Eric

and

Tabea

Ihsane(2016)

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Revisiting the Loss of Verb Movement inTaylor, Ann, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk

the History of English,” Natural Language

andand Linguistic Theory 34, 497-542.

York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum

York, York.

Speech,” The Cambridge Grammar of theLanguage,ed.

byRodneyHuddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum,
947-1030, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Kemenade, Ans van (1997) “V2 and Embedded
Topicalization in Old and Middle English,”in Ans. van Kemenade and Nigel. Vincent(eds.),

Parameters

of

Beths

(2003)The

Old English Prose (YCOE), University of(2002) “Content Clauses and Reported
EnglishFrank

Morphosyntactic

Change, 297-325, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.

36

2. Characteristics of the CO Construction
We begin by defining the CO construction
discussed in this paper. In particular, we firstneed to differentiate the following three similar

The Derivation of the Cognate Object*

constructions.

Construction via Co-composition(2) True CO Construction

Kazuya Kudo

a. Mary laughed a hearty laugh.

Ryukoku University

b. John slept a sound sleep.
(3) Transitivising Object (TO) Construction

Keywords: cognate object, Generative Lexicon,

a. Sue sang a charming song.

co-composition, qualia structure, resultant object

b. Sam danced a merry dance.
(4) Adverbial CO Construction
a. The tree grew a century’s growth within

1. Introduction

only ten years.

This paper aims to provide a new theoreticalb. The stock market dropped its largest

account of the following three characteristics ofdrop in three years today.

the English cognate object (CO) construction in
the framework of Generative Lexicon proposed

Massam (1990) argues that the true instance ofby Pustejovsky (1995).

CO construction is (2), where unergative verbs
take their COs in object position, as distinct(1) a. Only unergative verbs can appear in thefrom the construction in (3), where transitive

CO construction.

verbs happen to co-occur with their COs (seeb. In the CO construction, the object mustalso Macfarland (1995)). In (4), unaccusative

be a cognate of the verb.

verbs appear to take their COs, but according toc. In the CO construction, the object needs

Nakajima (2006), they occupy adjunct positiona modifier.

rather than object position.1
We will argue that these characteristics can be

As we will see below, only the construction

explained in terms of the well-formednessin (2) exhibits all the characteristics in (1). First,

conditions for deriving this construction via

as shown in (5) and (6), only unergative verbs,

co-composition between verbs and their COs.

not unaccusative verbs, can appear in the COconstruction.2

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2
summarizes the three characteristics of the COconstruction in (1). After reviewing the semantic(5) a. Bill sighed a weary sigh.

transformation operation called co-composition(Jones (1988: 89))

in section 3, we apply it to the derivation of theb. John screamed a terrifying scream.

CO construction in section 4. Section 5 gives an(Moltmann (1989: 300))

elucidation of the three characteristics in (1).

c. Dorothea smiled a wicked smile.

Section 6 is the conclusion.

(Massam (1990: 161))

37

As shown in (10), COs without modifiers are

d. Bob grinned a sideways grin.

basically unacceptable.

(Kuno and Takami (2004: 105))(6) a. * The glass broke a crooked break.
b. * The actress fainted a feigned faint.

(10) a. * Willy sneezed a sneeze.

c. * She arrived a glamorous arrival.

b. * Neil laughed a laugh.

d. * The apple fell a smooth fall.

c. * The actress smiled a smile.

(Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995: 40, 148))(Rice (1988: 209))

From contrasting these examples, Massam

Again, the TO construction differs from the true

(1990), Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995), andCO construction in that it does not require a

Macfarland (1995), among others, have argued

modifying phrase for the object (e.g. Sue sang athat the CO construction serves as a diagnostic

song./Sam danced a dance.).
In summary, it can be seen that only the true

for the unergative-unaccusative distinction.
Second, the object in the CO construction

CO construction has all the characteristics in (1),must be a noun phrase that is cognate with theso this paper will focus on this construction andverb. As shown in (7), noun phrases of different

discuss its derivation.

etymology from the verb cannot be an object in
3. Co-composition

this construction.

Co-composition is a generative device forlexical creativity postulated in Pustejovsky’s(7) a. * He laughed a cynical grin.
b. * The dog howled fierce barks.

(1995) Generative Lexicon framework. It is atc. * Ellen sneezed a dry cough.

work through the derivation of syntactic phrases,
where multiple elements within a phrase behave(Kuno and Takami (2004: 117))

as functors, generating non-lexicalized sense forthe words in composition.

The TO and adverbial CO constructions aredifferent from the true CO construction in that

For example, the verb bake, which isthey allow objects that are not cognate to theoriginally a change of state verb as in (11a), canverb, as shown in (8) and (9).

be co-composed with the object cake in (11b) togenerate a creation sense.

(8) a. Sue sang {a lullaby/the part of Carmen}.
b. Sam danced {a jig/a piece from Swan
Lake/something

involvinglots(11) a. John baked the potato.

ofb. John baked a cake.

pirouettes}. (b. from Jones (1988: 89))(9) a. The

tree

trunk

grew

a

century’s

According to Pustejovsky (1995), in order for

expansion within only ten years.

co-composition to take place, the relation calledb. The stock market dropped 250 points
today.

cospecification must be established between the(Nakajima (2006: 676))

words to be composed. Suppose that the qualia
structures of bake and cake are (12) and (13),Third, the object in the CO construction

respectively.

needs a modifying phrase, such as an adjective.

38

What this analysis suggests is that the conflated(12) bakesense for the verb bake exists only phrasally, andQUALIA = state_change_lcp
FORMAL = bake_result (e2, y)

only co-compositional operations can consist of

AGENTIVE = bake_act (e1, x, y)

the underlying sense of the verb to give rise to
the new interpretation.

(13) cakeQUALIA = CONST = y

4. Derivation of the CO Construction

FORMAL = x

Now we apply this generative operation to

TELIC = eat (e2, z, x)

the derivation of the CO construction.

AGENTIVE = bake_act (e1, w, y)

To begin with, it should be noted that the CO
Here, bake and cake can be co-specified in theconstruction has similarities in meaning with theagentive role of each qualia structure. In thislight verb construction (see Quirk et al. (1985),

situation, the function application with qualia

Macfarland (1995), and Huddleston and Pullum

unification in (14) may be applied instead of the(2002)). In fact, many CO constructions can beusual one (Pustejovsky (1995: 124)).

paraphrased into light verb constructions withoutchanging their cognitive meaning.

(14) For two expressions α, of type <a,b>, and β,(16) a. Marcy had a wonderful dream.

of type a, with qualia structures QSα and(cf. Mary dreamt a wonderful dream.)

QSβ, respectively, if there is a qualia value
shared by α and β, then we can define theb. Charlie gave his son a wry smile.

qualia unification of QSα and QSβ, QSα П(cf. Charlie smiled his son a wry smile.)c. I take a deep breath and try to relax.

QSβ, as the unique greatest lower bound ofthese two qualia structures.

(cf. I breathe a deep breath and try torelax.)(Höche (2009: 231, 244, 248))

The result of co-composition involves asemantic representation at the VP level that is

What this means is that the object in the CO

identical in structure to the lexical form for aconstruction is an event nominal that describes

creation verb as in (15).

the process of an event. By definition, the event
expressed by an event nominal occurs when the(15) bake a cakeaction represented by the verb from which it is

EVENSTSTR = E1= e1: process

derived is performed, so the same agentive role

E2 = e2: stateis necessarily defined for both the verb and the

RESTR = <∝noun derived from it. For example, the lexical
semantic representations of the verb laugh and

ARGSTR = ARG1 = x: animate_ind

the noun laugh can be described as follows.

ARG2 = y: artifact
D-ARG1 = w: material(17) laugh (verb)

QUALIA = create_lcp

EVENTSTR = E1 = e1: process

FORMAL = exist (e2, y)

ARGSTR = ARG1 = x: human

AGENTIVE = bake_act (e1, x, w)

QUALIA = AGENTIVE = laugh_act (e1, x)

39

Thus, by considering that the CO construction is(18) laugh (noun)

derived via co-composition between verbs and

QUALIA = FORMAL = y: event

their COs, the semantics of this construction can

AGENTIVE = laugh_act (e, x)

be well captured.
In short, the verb and the object in the CO
5. Elucidation of the three characteristics

construction are always in such a semantic
relationship that allows for co-composition.

Given the derivation described in section 4,

When co-composition applies, the verb phrase

we can now understand the three characteristics

forms a structure that contains the same lexicalof the CO construction listed in (1).
First, in order for co-composition between

conceptual paradigm as a creation verb, as inverbs and their COs to take place, object(19).

position must be syntactically vacant for theverb’s non-lexicalized object: hence (1a). In the(19) laugh a laughCO construction, the verb and its CO constitute

EVENSTSTR = E1= e1: process
E2 = e2: statea regular VP that is subject to though-attraction,

RESTR = <○∝as in (22a), and VP-preposing, as in (22b).

ARGSTR = ARG1 = x: human(22) a. Smile a happy smile though Chris did,

ARG2 = y: event(everyone could see that her happinessQUALIA = create_lcp

was forced). (Macfarland (1995: 103))

FORMAL = exist (e2, y)
AGENTIVE = laugh_act (e1, x)

b. I wanted Chris to smile a happy smilethat day, and smile a happy smile she did

A direct consequence of this analysis is that COthat way.

(Macfarland (1995: 104))

is schematically a resultant object that resultsfrom the action denoted by the verb (Quirk et al.

In addition, as shown in (23), the verb and its(1985), Macfarland (1995), Kuno and Takami

CO must be adjacent to each other to allow for(2004), Nakajima (2006)). In fact, as shown in

the function application given in (14).

(20) and (21), COs cannot be pronominalized in
the same way as ordinary resultant objects, on(23) a. Let Ben run (*quickly) a little run.

the grounds that the same event never happens

b. Ben sneezed (*that way) a glorious

twice, nor can they be modified by definite

sneeze.

(Massam (1990: 166))

articles, since resultant objects must not be
definite.

Second, in order for co-composition to apply,
there must be cospecification between verbs and(20) * John smiled a smile then Mary smiled it.

their COs. Therefore, they must be cognate so(cf. *John baked a cake and then I baked it.)that they share the same agentive role in their(Massam (1990: 181))

qualia structure: hence (1b). A piece of evidence(21) * John screamed {this scream/every screamthat semantic composition between verbs andwe heard today}.

(Moltmann (1989: 301))

objects has accomplished in the CO constructionis the constraint that the personal pronoun of the40

Importantly, as shown in (26), modifiers of aobject, if any, must be the same as the subject.

CO do not have to be adjectives, as long as theprinciple is respected.

(24) Gabriel sneezed {a/his/*her} hefty sneeze.
(Massam (1990: 173))(26) a. She smiled a smile without humor.
In our analysis, COs that specify the content(Horita (1996: 235))of the action denoted by the verb (see Omuro

b. Amy smiled a smile to examine closelyin the mirror.

(2000)), such as in (25), are no exception, as the(Massam (1990: 179))

events expressed by these objects can be thoughtc. He smiled what I thought was a cynicalof as a proper subset of those expressed by thesmile. (Kuno and Takami (2004: 118))

main verb (i.e. cackle = laugh in a high-pitched
Also, if the absence of modification has special

voice, grin = smile showing one’s teeth).

significance, the CO without a modifying phrase
seems still acceptable.

(25) a. Van Aldin laughed a quiet cackle ofamusement.

(27) As he knew it must be another bibliophil he(Agatha Christie, The Mystery of the Blue

said nothing but smiled a smile.

Train, cited in Omuro (1990: 76))b. “Letʼs wipe our brows and smile a(Omuro (2004: 146))

graduation grin,” said Ms. Ator of
In (27), by contrasting with he said nothing in

Reisterstown.
(T. W. Waldron, The Baltimore Sun,the preceding context, it is interpreted that thecited in Macfarland (1995: 90))

smile he gave was totally unremarkable. Our
analysis can also provide a plausible explanation
for the acceptability of these examples.

Thus, even in these examples, the agentive rolesof the verb and the object are the same, and we

What our analysis implies is that the CO

can assume that the specific manners of action

construction is an expression that focuses on the(underlined

situation rather than the occurrence of an event.

above)

aredefinedintheThen, it follows that in the CO construction, theconstitutive role of each object noun.
Finally, in order for co-composition to occur,

content of the event cannot be asked in what,

there must be a linguistic reason (i.e. motivation)(28a), negation does not scope over the action,for it to occur. As we can see from (19), the(28b), no manner adverbs can be added, (28c),

event type of the verb phrase laugh a laugh isand speaker-oriented adjectives cannot be

exhaustive ordered overlap (<○∝) of “process”

modifiers of the CO, (28d).

and “state.” This is essentially the same as“process” alone expressed by the verb laugh in(28) a. * What did Miss Marple smile?

(17); laughing for ten minutes is semantically(cf. How did Miss Marple smile?)

equivalent to making a laugh for ten minutes.

(Omuro (1990: 75))

Therefore, if there is no modifier on the CO, theb. # The old man did not smile a happy

CO construction is worthless in terms of thesmile, that is, he did not smile.

principle of economy: hence (1c).

(based on Iwakura (1976))41

To conclude this paper, let us review thec. * Tom slept a sound sleep happily.

functional constraints imposed on the CO(Iwakura (1976: 60))

construction, as discribed in Kuno and Takami

d. * Hans smiled an evident smile.

(2004: 129-130) as follows.

(cf. Evidently, Hans smiled.)(Massam (1990: 174))(31) A. In the CO construction,i. the intransitive verb must represent

There is also evidence to suggest that the COconstruction

servesasacomplement

an activity or event involving atotemporal process, andadverbial modification of verbs. For example,

ii. the object NP must represent a(29) shows that manner adverbs cannot be

specific state or event that belongs tolayered, but modifying phrases on a CO can.

the set of the possible states or events
resulting from the activity or event.

(29) a. * She smiled warmly happily.

B. The CO construction is a marked(Omuro (1991: 68))

construction, and its use must beb. She smiled a warm happy smile.

justifiable;
Furthermore, there are examples, such as (30),iii. the speaker’s specific reference to thewhere a CO is used to express a situation thatstate or event represented by the CO

cannot be expressed with an adverb.

must be either conventionally orcontextually justifiable;
iv. in active sentences, if a CO does not(30) a. * He sneezed (most) tremendously.

have a modifier, as in laugh laughs, it(Dixon (1991: 125))is tautological and therefore, there isb. He sneezed a tremendous sneeze.

no justification for its use.
In light of these observations, it seems safe toconclude that COs are richer in modification

Although these constraints accurately describe

function than adverbs to modify unergative

the semantic properties of the CO construction,verbs. More specifically, we can even speculate

it has never been explained why such constraints

that the CO construction may have developed

exist. If the claims in this paper are correct, allhistorically to cover those complex modals thatthe constraints in (31) can be rationalized, whichcannot be expressed by adverbs in unergativemeans that we now have a better understanding

sentences.

of the CO construction in English.

6. Conclusion* I am grateful to Toshio Hidaka, Kentaro

In this paper we have argued that the CO

Nakatani, Yoko Yumoto, and other members ofconstruction is derived via co-composition

Kansai Lexicon Project for their valuable

between verbs and their COs. We have shown

suggestions on earlier versions of this paper. I

that the three characteristics given in (1) can bealso thank the audience at ELSJ 38, especiallyaccounted for in terms of the well-formedness

Takane Ito and Takeshi Omuro for their helpful

conditions for this operation.

comments. All errors are mine.

42

NOTES1
According to Nakajima (2006), adverbial CO

Unaccusativity:

constructions are also possible with unergative

MA.

At

the

Syntax-Lexical

Semantics Interface, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Macfarland, Talke (1995) Cognate Objects andverbs, but in such cases, the modifiers attachedto the CO express adverbial meanings such as

theduration, frequency, and extent of the action.

English,2

Northwestern University.

The verb die is excluded from the discussion,

Argument/AdjunctDistinction

Doctoralindissertation,

since the phrase die a ... death has a different

Massam, Diane (1990) “Cognate Objects ashistorical derivation process from other CO

Thematic Objects,” The Canadian Journal

constructions (see Kuno and Takami (2004) forof Linguistics 35, 161-190.
Moltmann, Friederike (1989) “Nominal anddetails).

ClausalOmuro,

Constructionsin

CognateEnglish:25,

Objects,” Linguistic Inquiry 37, 674-684.

Oxford.
(2009)CLS

Nakajima, Heizo (2006) “Adverbial Cognate

English Grammar, Oxford University Press,
Silke

Predicates,”

300-314.

REFERENCES
Dixon, R. M. W. (1991) A Semantic Approach to

Höche,

Event

Takeshi(1990/1991)“Dozokuno

Tokuisei

Cognate‘Object’Object‘Mokutekigo’

Kobun

A

(Peculiarities

ofCognitive-Linguistic Account, Gunter Narr

Constructions),” The English Teachers'

Verlag, Tübingen.

Magazine 39(9), 74-77, 39(10), 78-80.
39(11), 68-72.

Horita, Yuko (1996) “English Cognate Object
Constructions

and

Their

Omuro, Takeshi (2000) “Tokuteiteki na Dozoku

Transitivity,”

Mokutekigo ni tsuite (On Specific Cognate

English Linguistics13, 221-247.

Objects),” The English Teachers' Magazine

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum

49(6), 29-31.

(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the

Omuro, Takeshi (2004) “Kihonkei to Hensyu no

English Language, Cambridge University

Dotei ni Azukaru Daikibo Kopasu: Dozoku

Press, Cambridge.
Iwakura, Kunihiro (1976) “Dozoku Mokutekigo

Mokutekigo Kobun o Rei ni (On the Roleto Yotai no Fukushi to Hitei (Cognate

of Large Corpora in Identifying a Basic

Objects, Manner Adverbs, and Negation),”Form and Variants: The Case of the

The English Teachers' Magazine 25(3),Cognate Object Construction), English

60-63.

Corpus Studies 11, 137-151.
Pustejovsky, James (1995) The Generative

Jones, Michael A. (1988) “Cognate Objects andLexicon, MIT Press, Cambridge: MA.

the Case-Filter,” Journal of Linguistics 24,

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey

89-110.

Leech,

Kuno, Susumu and Ken-ichi Takami (2004)

and

Jan

Svartvik(1985)A

Functional Constraints in Grammar: On

Comprehensive Grammar of the English

the Unergative-Unaccusative Distinction,

Language, Longman, London.
Rice, Sally (1988) “Unlikely Lexical Entries,”

John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

BLS 14, 202-212.

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (1995)

43例えば被動者の作用域を見ると、(2)のように、「だけ」により焦点化された被動者は、
主節述語「説得」に対し、ヲ格なら高い、ガ
格なら低い作用域のみをとり、ニ格の場合は「説得する」類動詞と多重ニ格構文

両者の間で曖昧である。

(Settokusuru-Class Verbs and Multiple
Ni-Constructions)(2) a. 太郎が花子だけを進学するよう説得した。

(だけ>説得/*説得>だけ)b. 太郎が花子だけに進学するよう説得

前澤 大樹 (Hiroki Maezawa)
藤田医科大学 (Fujita Health University)

した。

(だけ>説得/説得>だけ)c. 太郎が花子だけが進学するよう説得
キーワード：「説得する」類動詞, 多重ニ格

した。

(*だけ>説得/説得>だけ)

構文, 素性継承, 格の上書き, 内在格
更に、擬似分裂文では、ヨウ節とともに焦点位置に置かれる場合、被動者は(3)に示す通りニ格・ガ格はとれ、ヲ格はとれない。2

1. 導入
本稿では、(1)に見るような「説得する」(3)等の動詞がとる構文間の交替現象を扱う。この類の被動者は、(1b)のように単独ではヲ格太郎が説得したのは、花子{*を/に/が}進学するようにだ。

で現れるが、主題としてヨウ(ニ)節を伴う場
合は、(1a)のようにヲ格・ニ格・ガ格の何れ以上に基づき、ニ格被動者の構造的位置に

1でも標示可能である。

ついて考えてみると、(4)に見るように主節でニ格・ヲ格被動者が共起できない事実は、(1) a. 太郎が花子{を/に/が}進学するよう両者が同一の項であることを示唆する。一方、(5)のようにニ格被動者がヨウ節内でガ格被(に) 説得した。
b. 太郎が花子{を/*に/*が}説得した。

動者と共起できる事実は問題となる。ガ格被動者が埋め込み主語なら、ニ格被動者はヨウ節内でどのような位置を占めるのだろうか。

本稿の主な目的は、「説得する」類の動詞の VP 内構造を明らかにしつつ、(1)のパラダ(4) * 太郎が{花子を息子に/息子を花子に/花イムに説明を与えることである。

子に息子を/息子に花子を} (粘り強く)

本稿の構成は次の通りである。2–5 節で被進学するよう説得した。

動者の構造的位置と位置付け、ヨウ節の外(5)部・内部構造を検討した後、6 節で分析を提太郎が来年次郎に息子が留学するよう説得した。

示する。7 節では分析をゲルマン語の二重目的語動詞に拡張する。8 節は結論である。

3. 多重ニ格構文
3.1. 「自分」の束縛

2. 被動者の構造的位置
幾つかの事実が、ヲ格被動者は主節、ガ格

注目されるのはニ格被動者の主語として

被動者はヨウ節の要素であり、ニ格被動者がの性質である。再帰詞「自分」は主語指向性

その点で曖昧なことを示唆する。

を持つが(Katada (1991)等)、(6)のようにヨウ

44

した。

節内のニ格被動者は「自分」の先行詞となれる。(7)で同一指示の代名詞によりヨウ節か(12) a. 太郎が来年花子に教え子が息子がら排除された場合、ニ格被動者が自分を束縛進学するよう説得した。
b.(?)太郎が来年花子に教え子に息子ができない事実は、主語性がヨウ節内のそれに進学するよう説得した。

限られることを示す。

(13) ... (～に) [Subj Subj ... Subj ... 説得](6)――ニ―→|←―ガ―太郎が花子 i に自分 i の息子が進学するよう説得した。

(7)

4. ヨウ節の構造的位置

太郎が花子 i に[自分 i の息子が彼女{*i/j}

次に、ヨウ節が補部か付加詞かを明らかにを尊敬するよう]説得した。

するため、そこからの抜き出し可能性を検討
3.2. 尊敬一致

する。ヨウ節からの抜き出しは(14)に示すよ(8)からは、主語性の指標である尊敬一致

うに被動者がヲ格なら悪く、ニ格なら良いことが分かる。

が「説得する」類の埋め込みニ格被動者を標的とし得ることが分かる。代名詞として振る舞う「閣下」((9)参照)をヨウ節内に置くと、(10)に見るようにニ格被動者は埋め込み述(14) a. 太郎が花子{を/に}ステージで 踊るよう説得した。
b. どこで i 太郎は花子{*を/に} ti 踊る

語の尊敬一致を引き起こせない。つまりヨウ節内のニ格被動者のみが主語性を示す。

よう説得したのですか。
c. [Opi 太郎が花子{*を/に} ti 踊るよう(8)

太郎は{先生/*花子のやつ}においでに説得した]場所

なるよう 説得した。
(9) a. * 大統領 i が閣下 i を嫌っておられる。

また、逆にヨウ節の wh 島からの抜き出し

b. 大統領 i が[国務長官が閣下 i を嫌ってを見ると、(15)のようにヨウ節の抜き出しは被動者がヲ格をとると容認性が低く、予期さいると] ご存じだ。
(10) 太郎が大統領 i に顧問の野郎が{*閣下 i/れる非対称性が現れる。また、予測通り、補?議長}をご批判になるよう説得した。

部と付加詞のヨウ節は(16)のように共起可能である。

3.3. 多重主語(15) [進学するよう]i みずきは[光男が朱莉

従って、ニ格・ガ格被動者の両方がヨウ節{(?)?を/に}ti 説得したかどうか]尋ねた。

の主語だと結論される。本稿では、ヨウ節内のニ格被動者は、(11)のような多重主語構文(16) 太郎が(天邪鬼の)彼女が進学しないようの高位の主語がニ格で具現したものだと提花子{*を/に}進学するよう説得した。

案する。(12)のように多重主語構文の主語の5. ヨウ節の大きさ

うち複数がニ格を担うことも可能であり、一般化は(13)に示すように、原理的には主語の更に、ヨウ節の大きさを検討する。(17)にうち最上位から任意の個数がニ格を、それ以見るように、ヨウ節内には様態副詞・時間副

降がガ格を担って現れる、というものである。 詞・主語指向副詞は生起可能、文副詞は不可能である。加えて、(18)–(20)のように提題話(11) 太郎が花子が息子が進学するよう説得

題は生起できず、対比話題や焦点句は生起で45

(24) 太郎が花子に{?進学を/[Compl 進学する

きる。
(17) 太郎が花子{を/に/が} {急いで/来年/抜よう]/[Adjunct 進学するよう]}説得した。

け目なく/賢明にも/*驚いたことに}留6.1. 項構造

学するよう説得した。
(18) A: 花子のベンツ、どうしたの？

先ず(22a)について考える。(25a)が条件 C?? B: 太郎が花子{を/に} [ベンツは AT 息子に違反しないことから、主節に顕在的に生起が乗るよう]説得したって。

しないとき、ニ格被動者の統語的な投射は義(19) A: ベンツもフォルクスワーゲンも息務的でない。よって影山(1996)の枠組みの下で、「説得する」類に対しては、(26)のよう子さんが乗るって？
B: (確かに、)太郎が花子{を/に} [ベンな語彙概念構造を基盤として、(27)に示す 3

ツは CT 息子が乗るよう]説得したら通りの項構造への写像が認められ、対応してしいけど。

(28)のような統語構造を投射すると考えら(20) A: 太郎は、何を買うよう説得したの？

れる。

B: 太郎は花子{を/に} [羽毛布団を F 息(25) a. 太郎が花子が進学するよう説得した。

子が買うよう]説得したんだよ。

(但し「被動者＝花子」)
b. proi [[Compl 花子が i 進学するよう]

Miyagawa (2017)に基づけば、日本語では提題
話題が TopP 指定部に、対比話題は FinP 内に√説得]➡条件 C 違反

(26) LCS: [x ACT] CAUSE [yi BECOME [yiあると考えられる。更に(20)の適格性からす
ると、Rizzi (1997)の分離 CP 構造の下で、ヨBE [WITH [√説得(z) AT yi]]]]HAVE

ウ節は FocP であり(21)の構造を持つと結論(27) a. AS: xAgent, <yPatient, zTheme>

できる。

b. AS: xAgent, <zTheme>(21) [FocP 羽毛布団を F [FinP ベンツは CT

c. AS: xAgent, <yPatient>(28) a. [vP <Agent> [v′ [√P <Patient>[TP 息子が Subj [vP ... ] T] Fin] Foc][√′ {DP/FocP}<Theme> √説得]] v]]
b. [vP <Agent> [v′ [√P {DP/FocP}<Theme>

6. 分析
残る疑問は(22)に掲げる 2 つである。注目√説得] v]]c

しておきたいのは、「説得する」類と「教え[vP <Agent> [v′ [√P <Patient> √説得] v]]

る」の類似性である。(23)と(24)のパラダイ
ムを比較されたい。つまり「説得する」類は、6.2. 格(22b)での問題は、ヨウ節内でのニ格付与「教える」型に近い性質を持つ二重目的語動詞だと考えられる。

の機序である。ニ格被動者の位置を特定する
ため、ヨウ節主語と対比話題の相対語順を見(22) a. 「説得する」類の動詞はどのようなると、(29)のように、対比話題への先行はガ項構造を持つのか。

格主語では不可能、ニ格主語では可能である。

b. 「説得する」類の動詞による格付与

この事実は、(30)のようにニ格被動者が Fin

はどのように行われるのか。

指定部にあり、その主要部 Fin がニ格付与子(23) 太郎が 子供たちに{自制を/[Compl 自制するだとすれば理解できる。3 ここでは、問題のよう]/?*[Adjunct? 自制するよう]}教えた。

格付与能力は主節動詞のニ格素性が節境界

46

を跨いで Fin へと継承されることより獲得さ(35a)を受動化した(36a)は問題無く容認可能

れると提案する。以上より、ヨウ節には(31)であり、(35b)を受動化した(36b)についてもの構造が与えられる。

疑問は無い。問題は(35c)の受動化で、一見被動者・主題の何れも主語となれるようだが、(29) A: ベンツもフォルクスワーゲンも息よく観察すると、DP が主題のとき、主題が主語の(36c)が同程度のやや低い容認性を示

子さんが乗るって？
a. B: (確かに、)太郎が花子に[息子{*がすのに対し、被動者を主語とする(36d)は完/?に}ベンツは CT 乗るよう]説得し全に文法的である。(35c)と(36d)の差は軽微

たらしいけど。

だが実質的なもので、動詞の語彙によっては、(37)–(38)のように明瞭な違いが現れる。

b. B: (確かに、)太郎が花子に[ベンツは CT
息子{が/に}乗るよう]説得したらし(35) a. 太郎がAgent 花子をPatient 説得した。

いけど。
(30) a. ... [FinP 息子に[ベンツは CT [TP 息子がb. 太郎がAgent {?進学を/進学するよ[vP ... ] T] Fin]] ...

う}Theme 説得した。
c. 太郎がAgent 花子にPatient {?進学を/進学

b. ... [FinP ベンツは CT [息子に[TP 息子が[vP ... ] T] Fin]] ...

するよう}Theme 説得した。

(31) [[FocP (Focus) [Foc′ [FinP Subj Subj ...

(36) a. 花子がPatient 説得された。

[Fin′ [TP Subj Subj ...

b. ? (花子の)進学がTheme 説得された。

[T′ vP T]] [Fin iCase]]] Foc]] 説得 s-]c. ? 進学がTheme 花子にPatient 説得された。

Inheritanced. 花子がPatient {進学を/進学するよう}Theme 説得された。
(37) a. * 太郎が花子に遅刻を叱った。

6.2.1. 格の上書き

b. 花子が遅刻を叱られた。

次に、ヨウ節主語がニ格を担う機序を考える。ここでは、ヨウ節主語に付与されたガ格(38) a.?? 太郎が花子に無礼をたしなめた。

がニ格で「上書き」される可能性を追求し、

b. 花子が無礼をたしなめられた。

(32)–(33)を提案する。ガ格を付与されたヨウ節
主語は、(34)に示すように更に Fin と Agree しこの状況は、「説得する」類が、潜在的に4て値 D()を与えられ、結果ニ格で具現する。

は被動者と主題の両方をヲ格で標示し得るにも関わらず、実際には主題へのヲ格付与は(32) Values of features are features.

Poser (2002)の言う「深層二重ヲ格制約」によ(33) 格素性の値と形態的具現

り、被動者がヲ格を付与されない場合に限ら

a. 主格＝ガ格: Case(N())

れると考えると理解できる。つまり(36d)は

b. 与格＝ニ格: Case(N(D()))(35c)ではなく(35a)の受動化であり、可能な

c. 対格＝ヲ格: Case(N(D(A())))

格付与パターンは(39)・(40)の 2 通りである。

(34) [ ... [TP [DP uCase(N(D()))] [vP ... ]Value(39) a. <Patient>ヲ (<Theme>ヲ) 説得[T iCase(N())]] ... [Fin iCase(N(D()))]

b. 太郎が花子を(*{進学を/進学するよ
う Compl })説得した。
c. 花子が(進学を/進学するよう)説得さ

6.2.2. ヲ/ニ交替と構造格・内在格
続いて受動化についての事実を検討する。

47

れた。

(40) a. (<Patient>ニ) <Theme>ヲ 説得い。よって(64)の構造は実現不可能であり、b. 太郎が(花子に) {?進学を/(次郎{が/(39b, c)の主題の生起不可能性が導かれる。こに})進学するよう}説得した。

の問題は、主題が統語的に投射しない場合にc. ? 進学が(花子に)説得された。

は解消される。ここで Maezawa (2020)による(43)の提案を採用し、終端要素融合が主要部(39)–(40)を説明するため、本稿では Harley

移動より経済的だとすると、主題を欠く場合(2002)、Holmberg et al. (2019)及び Arad (1996)(42)の構造は(44b)のようになり、被動者はらに基づいて、二重目的語動詞一般に前置詞

PHAVE の姉妹となって Agree が可能である。

PHAVE と機能主要部 Asp 及び Del の投射を含(43) Terminal fusion

む VP 構造を仮定し、Chomsky (2007 以降)の素性継承を採用する。この仮定の下で、(40a)

An SO that consists of a pair of terminalsのように被動者がニ格、主題がヲ格で標示さ{X, Y} can be fused into a single terminal

れれば(41)の、(39a)のように両者ともヲ格で[X, Y] if X and Y are not incompatible in

標示されれば(42)の構造が与えられる。(41)

terms of feature composition.
(Maezawa (2020: 9))と(42)の違いは、前者では Del が内在ニ格、Asp が構造ヲ格素性を担うのに対し、後者で(44) a. [PP DPPatient [P′ [AspP √説得 Asp] PHAVE]
Terminal fusion

は PHAVE が構造ヲ格、Asp が内在ヲ格素性をb.

担う点である。

DPAgent(41)[

DPAgentv[]

Inheritance

DPPatientuCase()

Deli

DPThemeuCase()

√説得

PHAVE
Agree
Asp
uCase(N(D(A())))(45)・(46)に示すように、格素性の値を Asp・

Agree

Agree し、(39d)・(40d)が派生される。重要なのは、(39b, c)と異なり(39d)が主題の生起を[v

DPPatientuCase()

許す点で、これは、被動者は T によってガ格]Delを付与されるため、PHAVE との位置関係は最Inheritance

早問題とならないためである。

PHAVE
uCase(N(D(A())))

i

i

Del
√説得‐Asp‐PHAVE
uCase(N(D(A())))
Agree

これらの構造に受動化を適用すると、

DPAgent

DPThemeuCase()] Inheritance

PHAVE から得られない主題・被動者は T と

i

(42)

i

iCase(N(D()))

DPPatientuCase()

v

√説得

(45)

Asp
iCase(N(D(A())))

v

Agree

Del

しかし(42)の構造には問題がある。つまり、
PHAVE は被動者を c 統御しないので、それとAgree 関係が成立せず、格素性が付値されな

DPThemeuCase()
iϕ48

iCase(N(D()))

DPPatientuCase()iϕPHAVE
Asp Agree
√説得

ϕ

(46)

説明される。先ず、ノルウェー語型の二重目
的語構文は、日本語と平行的に(49)の 2 通りvの構造をとり得ると考えられる。(49a)では、Del
DPPatientuCase()iϕ

Del が内在与格を被動者に付与する一方、
Asp は構造対格を主題に付与する。(49b)では

PHAVE

逆に、Asp が内在対格を主題を付与すると同
Asp
iCase(N(D(A()))
√説得
)
Agree

DPThemeuCase()iϕ

時に、構造対格は Del によって被動者に与えられる。日本語との違いは、二重ヲ格制約の対応物を欠く点である。これは、当該言語では PHAVE ではなく Del が構造対格を継承し、

7. 二重目的語構文の受動化

主題の有無に関わらず被動者を c 統御する

以下では、分析を拡張してゲルマン諸語のためである。

二重目的語構文に於ける受動化可能性の違(49) a.

いに説明を与える。
二重目的語構文を有するゲルマン語に於

DPAgent

いて、受動文の主語になれるのは、アメリカ[v

英語等では被動者のみ、ドイツ語等では主題

Del
iCase(N(D())) DP
PatientuCase() Pのみであり、ノルウェー語等では、主題・被HAVE

動者の何れも主語となり得る。

Agreeb. Mary was given a red bike yesterday.

b.

[
Inheritance(Platzack (2005: 1))

v

]

Del
uCase(N(D(A()))) DP
PatientuCase() P(47) a. Ich habe den Männern den Wagen gegeben.
have the men.DAT the car.ACC given

HAVE

b. * Die Männer sind den Wagen gegeben.
the men.NOM is

Agree
Asp

the car.ACC given

iCase(N(D(A()))) √c. Der Wagen ist den Männern gegeben.
(Sprouse (2011: 330))(48) a. Jeg har gittI(49)の構造に受動化を適用した場合は、構

mannen boken.

造対格が吸収されるため、 (a)の主題と(b)のhave given man.DEF book.DEF

b. Mannen/Han

ble gitt

被動者は対格を得られず、後の段階で主格をboken.

付与される。一方、Del・Asp の内在格付与

man.DEF/he.NOM was given book.DEF
c. Bokenble gitt

能力は維持されるため、結果(a)では主題を、

mannen/ham.

(b)では被動者を主語とする受動構文が得ら

book.DEF was given man.DEF/him.ACC[Norwegian]

DPThemuCase()Agree

the car.NOM is the men.DAT given[German]DPThemuCase()Agree

DPAgentc. * The red bike was given Mary yesterday.

I

AspuCase(N(D(A()))) √Inheritance(46) a. John gave Mary a red bike yesterday.

[American English]]

れ、(48)の事実が導かれる。

(ibid.: 329)

次に、受動化によって主題のみが主語となれるドイツ語型の二重目的語構文は、常に(49a)型の構造をとると考えられる。ドイツ語

本分析の下では、この違いは以下のように49

に少数存在する被動者が受動文主語となり

the View from Syntax-Semantics, ed. by

得る動詞は例外的に(49b)型の構造をとるとUli Sauerland and Hans Martin Gärtner,

考えられ、その場合被動者は予測通り対格で1-31, Mouton de Gruyter, New York.
Holmberg, Anders, Michelle Sheehan and

現れる。
最後に、被動者のみが受動文主語となれる

Jenneke von der Wal (2019) “Movement

アメリカ英語型では、二重目的語構文 は

from the Double Object Construction Is(49b)型の構造のみをとると考えられる。

Not

Fully

Symmetrical,”

Linguistic

Inquiry 30, 677-721.
影山太郎 (1996)『動詞意味論: 言語と認知の

8. 結語

接点』, くろしお出版, 東京.

本稿では、「説得する」類動詞の格付与特Katada, Fusa (1991) “The LF Representation of

性に説明を与えることで(1)のパラダイムを導出した。更に、分析をゲルマン語の二重目

Anaphors,”

的語構文へと拡張し、それらの受動化可能性

287-313.
Maezawa,の違いにも説明を与えた。

Hiroki

Alternations
この類に属すると思われる動詞としては、(2020)in“Word

English22,
Order

Comparative

1-13.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (2017) “Topicalization,”

他に次のものが挙げられる: 諭す、促す、さGengo Kenkyu 152, 1-29.

そう、励ます、勧誘する、脅す、なだめる、…
2

Inquiry

Constructions,” Tokai English Studies 2,

注1

Linguistic

Platzack,

他に、被動者と副詞の相対語順、否定極性

Christer(2005)“Cross-Germanic

項目の認可、量化被動者と量化副詞の相対作

Promotion to Subject in Ditransitive

用域等からも同じ結論が得られる。

Passives — a Feature-Driven Account,”3

この見解の下では、Fin と Agree した上位

Grammar and Beyond. Essays in Honor of

主語は押し込み(tucking in)操作によって語

Lars Hellan, ed. by Mila vulchanova and

順を維持したまま Fin 指定部に移動すると考Tor A. Åfarli, 135-161, Novus Press, Oslo.
Poser, William J. (2002) “The Double-O

えられる。
4

Constraints in Japanese,” ms., University

ガ格付与が随意的という可能性は排除さ

of Pennsylvania.

れると思われる。(13)の一般化を説明するためには、基底位置が低いほど優先的にガ格をRizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of the

付与されるという不自然な仮定を採らねばLeft Periphery,” Elements of Grammar, ed.

ならないからである。

by Liliane Haegeman, 281-337, Kluwer,
Berkeley.
Sprouse, Rex A. (1995) “The Double Object

参考文献
Arad, Maya (1996) “A Minimalist View of the
Syntax-Lexical

Semantics

Construction in the Germanic Languages:
Some Synchronic and Diachronic Notes,”

Interface,”

University of London Working Papers in

Insights

Linguistics 8, 215-242.

Methodology

Interfaces+

RecursionGermanicinLinguistics

Transition,

ed.

I:
by

Irmengard Ruch and Gerald F. Carr,

Chomsky, Noam (2007) “Approaching UG from
Below,”

in325-342, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

=

Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and50

Sudo (2014)) largely due to the clarification of
the problem by Rullmann (2003, 2004).
The issue may be summarized as follows. The
most common view for dependent plural facts
Indexical Structures of “Bound” Plurals*

like (1) assumes that the bound plural pronoun isa minimal pronoun. It is born with no ϕ-features

Asako Matsuda

such as person, number and gender, and remains

Ochanomizu University

so even at LF. Its ϕ-features are transmitted fromits binder by a purely syntactic operation, not

Keywords：bound plural pronouns, first person,

affecting its semantic interpretation (Heim (2008),

shifty indexicals, partial binding, split binding

Kratzer (1998, 2009)).
Such an assumption seems to correctlypredict the contrast between (3a, b).

1. Issue and Goal
This study focuses on two kinds of(3) a.

phenomena involving the plurality of boundAll men1 think they1 are the smartest
person in the world.

pronouns. One is dependent plural phenomenab. # They are the smartest person in theas in (1a), where the morphologically plural

world. (Rullmann (2003: 243))

bound pronoun they appears to be interpreted asa singular bound variable, at least in one reading(3b) is infelicitous based on the world(1b). The other is partial or split binding as inknowledge that there could not be more than one(2), in which the pronoun they seems to besmartest person in the world. However, when thebound by more than one antecedent. Bothsame clause is embedded under think as in (3a),examples are taken from Rullmann (2003:

it becomes felicitous. This fact appears to follow

243-244). The indices are shown below simply

naturally from the minimal pronoun approach:to express the intended readings. I do notthey in (3a) originates without a number featurepresuppose their syntactic representation.

and may be read as a singular variable regardlessof its formally transmitted plural feature.

(1) a. All men1 think they1 are smart.

However, as pointed out by Rullmann (2003),

b. ∀x [man(x). x thinks that x is smart]this approach cannot be extended to split binding(2) Every woman1 told [her1 husband]2 thatfacts like (2). If they in (2) were to be generated

they1+2 should invest in the stock market.

ϕ-featureless, where would it get its plural
number feature from? Both binders are singular.

These examples represent issues that date

It appears that not all variable pronouns areback to at least the 1980s. Fruitful discussions

born as a minimal pronoun; some seem to enteron examples like (1) and (2) can be found in thethe derivation with certain features. If so, we

literature, such as Higginbotham (1985) andneed to consider what kind of features variable

Partee (1989). However, the past two decades

pronouns may start their lives with. Various

have seen a surge in interest for thesestudies have proposed alternative or revised

phenomena (e.g. Heim (2008), Kratzer (2009),

views, but we have yet to reach a consensus.

51

The goal of this study is to propose achampions, in which we refers to the utterer andsystematic morphosyntactic account for theseothers; no single utterance has we designating

phenomena. The novelty of the analysis lies in

multiple authors.

its focus on the indexicality of the boundHowever,pronouns occurring under attitude verbs.

there

are

certainenvironments—which, to my knowledge, havenot been covered in the literature—where the

2. Bound We as Multiple-Author We

multiple-author we seems both semantically and

To begin with, this paper focuses on thesyntactically feasible. This occurs in certain

bound we, as seen in (4a), and then extends the

structural positions, including inside clauses

analysis to include they. The conclusion will beembedded under attitude or communicationthat the bound plural they enters the derivation

verbs such as think, hope, and tell, aswith an internal structure that looks like thedemonstrated in (4a).

structure of certain instances of we.
The first-person plural we normally involves(4) a.

associative plurality. The plurality of we is

We each/all think we’re the smartest
person in the world.

construed differently from that of additiveb. # We’re the smartest person in theplurals such as dogs. We usually refers to theworld. (Rullmann (2004: 161))

author of the utterance context and some
non-authors.

Dogs,

in

contrast,

normally

I assume that the embedded we in (4a) is an

designates multiple dogs. In fact, the question of

instance of multiple-author we, but the matrix wewhether we could ever refer to multiple authorsin (4a, b) is an associative-plural we. The contrast

remains controversial to date.

in the felicitousness between (4a) and (b) arises

Some linguists argue that the notion of

from the different kind of we appearing in each

multiple Is, or multiple-author we, is at least

example.

Roughly,themultiple-author

weconceptually plausible (e.g. Cysouw (2003),

represents a plurality of authors in a plurality ofHarbour (2016)). They take the choric use of we

attitude contexts, while the associative we(e.g. football fans shouting we are the champions

designates the author and others in a single

in synch) as an instance of multiple-author we.

context. I follow Schlenker (2003) in assuming

However, the classical view exemplified by Boas

attitude verbs as quantifiers over contexts, where(1911: 39) holds that “A true first person plural

each context determines an author, a time, and a[1+1] is impossible because there can never beworld (and sometimes an addressee) of thought,

more than one self.” Harley and Ritter (2002)

belief or utterance. The multiple-author we may

suggest a similar view that the multiple-author we

occur felicitously only in attitude complements

is semantically impossible.

that describe the attitudes of multiple attitude

I mostly side with the latter classical view

holders in multiple contexts. Root clauses do not

and do not consider the choric we as an instanceallow multiple-author we because they describeof multiple-author we. This is because, for eachan attitude of the author of the actual utterance, in

person shouting we in chorus, there is only one

which there could not be more than one author.

author I and others joining in the shouting. EachThus, we in (4b) could only be an associative

person makes only one utterance, e.g., we’re theplural.

52

(4b) is infelicitous because it denotes a set ofcontexts a, b, and c. It designates a cumulation

propositions which contradict one another. The

of authors in multiple contexts. Crucially, this

we in (4b) is an associative we, as diagramed indoes not give rise to a contradictory reading(5a) with a denotation (5b). (4b) describes asince there is only one person who is thesituation where person a, who is a member of we,

smartest in each self-ascriptive thought context.

is the smartest; person b, another member of we,

Nevertheless, it involves a semantic plurality inis the smartest; person c, yet another member ofthat

we, is the smartest; and so on. This brings aboutauthor-context pairs; the plural feature of thea contradiction because if person a, who may bebound we in (4a) is not semantically null, nor isthe author, is the smartest, another person cannot

it just formally transmitted from its antecedent.

be the smartest person in a single context (c*itquantifies

overpluralities

ofI must mention that the view represented instands for the actual utterance context).

(6a, b) directly builds on LaTerza, Chacón,
Johnson, Kramer, and Rood (2014), who present(5) a. Associative wea (author)

the denotation of the Amharic plural shifted
indexical in a sentence like (7) as “the authors of

c ...

b
context
context
context
a=caa*

C” (p. 267).

b. ⟦Associative we⟧c*(7) ɨt∫’t∫’u-wot∫t-u= a plurality of individuals inclusive ofcandidate-PL-DEF

the author of c* in c*.

ɨnn-a∫änƒ-all-änal-u

1PL-win.IMPF-AUX-1PL

say.PF-3PL

In contrast, (4a) with a multiple-author we‘[The candidates]i said that WEi will win.’

describes a situation where each member of we(LaTerza et al. (2014: 259))

is thinking I’m the smartest person. The minimal
pronoun approach appears to account for thisThe multiple-author view partially solves thefact, but the present multiple-author view,question of why (8) may not denote the same

illustrated in (6a, b), also predicts the same fact.

meaning as (4a). In addition, sentences like (9)pose a puzzle for the minimal pronoun approach(6) a. Multiple-author (additive) we

since there is no plural antecedent; but it isunproblematic in the present framework because
we in (9) is taken to be a plural in its own right,

author context
contexta*a=c
authorcontext b

authorcontext c

for being a multiple-author we.
(8) We all think I’m the smartest.
(9) Al and I both believed we were going to beCb. ⟦Multiple-author we⟧elected president. (Rullmann (2004: 161))= the authors of C in C.
3. Extension to They
The multiple-author we quantifies overThis section extends the multiple-author

multiple authors of distinct contexts, such as

view of we to the third-person plural they. Since

53

the

early

works

on

binding,suchas(12) Associative plural we/they

Higginbotham (1985) and Heim, Lasnik, andDP

May (1991), we have known that some instances

AUTHOR(SG) D0of bound third-person plurals, such as they in our
first example (1a), involve indexicality—thefirst-personness or the second-personness. For
example,(10)

allowsforan

I-reading,

NumP
Num0 NPPL
N0+human group

According to Vassilieva, associative plurals

you-reading, and we-reading of they.

internally represent at least two nominals: one is
an NP with a non-descriptive [+human] group(10) John and Mary told each other that theyreference, ranging over sets of individuals

should leave. (Heim et al. (1991: 64))

including both singletons and non-singletons.
The other nominal is a Spec DP nominal, which

I take the intended reading of (1a)/(3a) to be

specifies the group’s most salient member,

analogous to the I-reading of (10), which in turncontributing to narrowing down the range of sets

impliestheof individuals. More precisely, (12) exemplifies

multiple-author reading of the embedded we inthe structure of the exclusive associative we (i.e.

(4a). The minimal semantic contrast between wewe excluding the addressee) with the author atin (4a) and they in (3a) is that while the former

Spec DP as the most salient member of thedesignates the authors of a plurality of contexts

group. The Spec DP nominal semantically

inclusive of the author of the actual utterance

behaves like a prenominal possessive; as a result,context, the latter denotes the authors of multiple

the entire associative DP is interpreted as ancontexts exclusive of the author of the actual

author’s group. This properly captures thecontext as shown in (11a, b).

meaning of exclusive associative we and they

that

it

is

analogoustowhich refer to the author and some others of aC(11) a. ⟦Multiple-author we⟧

relevant context.

= the authors of C inclusive of the

Extending these notions, I propose that the*author of c in C.

multiple-author readings (6a, b) and (11a, b),C

b. ⟦Multiple-author they⟧

available for the embedded we in (4a) and for= the authors of C exclusive of thethey in (1a) and (3a) arise from structure (13).

*author of c in C.
(13) Multiple-author we/they
4. Indexical Structures of Bound Plurals

DP

The next question is: Where do the

AUTHOR(PL)
D0

associative plural readings illustrated in (5a, b)
and the multiple-author readings in (6a, b)/(11a,b) derive from? My proposal is that they arise
from the internal structure of the pronouns.

NumP
Num0 NPSG
N0+human group

In contrast to (12), this structure has a plurality ofFirst, building on the research of Vassilieva

authors at Spec DP and a singleton NP, which is(2005), I propose (12) as a structure that gives

reflected in the singular feature on Num. While itrise to associative plural readings.

may not make sense to have a plurality of salient54

members for a singleton, this captures the notion

5. Implementation: Why Third-Person?

shown in (6a, b). The entire DP picks out a single

Then, why is the bound they with an author

individual from each context, yet a cumulation offeature realized in third person? A crucial notion

contexts amounts to designating a plurality ofhere is that the author feature is not equivalent to

individuals. In a sense, the notion is analogous to

the first-person feature. I assume Late Insertion

the meaning of the reflexive ourself in sentences

as in Halle and Marantz (1993); thus what is tolike “…we just have to do what’s best for

be pronounced as they in the target sentences

ourself,” mentioned in Wallenberg (2005: 322).

enter the derivation with one of the structures in

The core idea is that the plurality and the(12), (13), and (15), though their person (first,

indexicality of they are semantically interpreted

second, or third) is not yet specified.

due to its internal structure. A variety of

As suggested in Schlenker (2003), in

indexical readings associated with the pronoun

English-type languages, the author feature isthey are captured as structural ambiguities.

defined as first person, only when it is identified

In this framework, the split bound reading ofas the author of the actual utterance context. This(2), repeated here as (14), is assumed to arise

implies that, in elsewhere cases where it isfrom the internal structure of they as in (15),identified as the author of a shifted nonactual

which looks like that of the inclusive associative

context, it falls under third person (in contrast to

we, i.e. we designating I, you and optional others.

context-shifting

languages

likeAmharic(Schlenker (2003)). (16a, b) exemplify the pattern(14) Every woman1 told [her1 husband]2 thatfor English.

they1+2 should invest in the stock market.
(15) Inclusive associative plural we/they(16) a. author+actual context: 1st personb. author+nonactual context: 3rd person

DP
AUTHOR
NumP
ADDRESSEE
D0
Num0 NPPL
N0+human group

I assume that a C(omplementizer) head in
the lower CP domain hosts a context parameter
responsible for this person identification process.

This study suggests a different view fromI posit two types of context parameters:some well-known morphosyntactic analyses onContext+actual (Cx+actual) and Context-actual (Cx-actual).

personal pronouns, including Déchaine andIn canonical root clauses, the C head hosts

Wiltschko (2002), that assume a smaller structure

Cx+actual, which defines the actual utterance

for variable pronouns. However, some pronouns

context with coordinates such as authorc*,seem to allow bound readings due to theiraddresseec*, timec*, and worldc*. In embedded

indexical structure. Traditionally, indexicals may

attitude clauses, C hosts Cx-actual with coordinates

be viewed as nonvariables, but since their values

such as authorc’, addresseec’, timec’, and worldc’

are context-dependent, they covary with the(ascontext when the context behaves like a variable,

coordinates do not necessarily shift in one fell

typically in the complements of attitude verbs.

swoop,

This, in effect, creates indexical variables.

parameters for a more precise picture; however,suggestedinrequiring

Bianchiadditional(2003)).

These

varietiesoffor simplicity, I focus only on these varieties here.

55

I propose (17) as a first approximation. It

plurals. One advantage of the proposed system isderives the multiple-author reading of (1a).

that it disallows crossed-readings without relying
on multiple indices. In the system, the matrix(17) All men1 think they1 are smart.

argument(s) and the embedded subject are notbound to each other via the same index/indices.

move…thinkagree[CP Op C0(Cx-actual) [TP [DP AUTH(PL) D0[NumP Num0(SG) [NP N0]]] are smart]]

Their values covary by the matrix subject being

The C head with a nonactual context parameter

matrix subject and object being the source and-actualCx

the experiencer of an attitude and the embedded
subject being the author of that attitude; or by theagrees with the Spec node (author) of thegoal of the reported speech and the embedded

embedded subject DP, determining its person.

subject being the author and addressee of that

Simply put, DPs with an author Spec node arespeech. Another advantage is that person andmorphologically realized in third person when

number features of the bound pronouns can bethey agree with C hosting Cx-actual; they are

determined without the computation of multiple

realized in first person when they agree with Cfeatures transmitted from the antecedents.

+actualthat hosts Cx(see Matsuda (2019) for related

However, we evidently need more precise

discussions). (18) represents the derivation of (2)and generalizable accounts of C-level agreement.

with a split bound reading. Again, the Spec DP

Presently, bound plurals at nonsubject positions-actualnode agrees with C with Cx

making theare left unaccounted for. Furthermore, we lacksubject appear in the third-person form.

hard evidence as to whether the intended readingsof (1a) and (2) necessitate de se/te readings, even(18) Every woman1 told [her1 husband]2 thatthough this empirical question is crucial for thethey1+2 should invest in the stock market.

development of the proposed framework. These

move

issues will be addressed in future research.
agree… [CP Op C0(Cx-actual) [TP [DP AUTH ADDR D0[NumP Num0(PL) [NP N0]]] should…

* A major part of this study was presented at the

The null operator is presupposed for deNovember 7, 2020. I thank the audience there

se/te readings which seem obligatory for thefor their fruitful discussion. I am also grateful torelevant interpretations. Previous works on de se

Tohru Noguchi for his insightful comments.

attitudes including Chierchia (1990) suggest that

This project is funded by JSPS KAKENHI

λ-abstraction(Grant-in-Aid

over

the

subject

creates

38th conference of the ELSJ held online onaproperty-denoting CP, giving rise to a de sefor

Early-Career

Scientists:

20K13062).

construal. Slightly revising this approach, I
assume that the de se/te abstraction only targets

REFERENCES
Bianchi, Valentina (2003) “On Finiteness as

the Spec DP node (see Matsuda (2019)).

Logophoric Anchoring,” Temps et Point de
6.

Advantages and Remaining Issues

Vue, ed. by Jacqueline Guéron and Liliane

This study proposed that certain boundTamowski, 213-246, Université Paris X,

plurals have a structure similar to first-person

Nanterre.

56

Boas, Franz (1911) “Introduction,” Handbook ofKratzer, Angelika (2009) “Making a Pronoun:

American Indian Languages Vol. 1, ed. by

Fake Indexicals as Windows into theFranz Boas, 1-83, Bureau of American

Properties of Pronouns,” Linguistic Inquiry

Ethnology, Washington D.C.

40, 187-237.

Chierchia, Gennaro (1990) “Anaphora andAttitudes

De

Se,”

Semantics

LaTerza, Christopher, Dustin Chacón, Jen

andJohnson, Ruth Kramer, and Morgan RoodContextual Expression, ed. by Renate(2014) “Plural Shifted Indexicals are

Bartsch, Johan van Benthem, and Peter van

Plural:Emde Boas, 1-32, Foris, Dordrecht.

Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of

Cysouw, Michael (2003) The Paradigmatic

the North East Linguistic Society, 259-269.

Structure of Person Marking, Oxford

Matsuda, Asako (2019) Person in Partial

University Press, Oxford.
“Decomposing

MorrisandAlecAmharic,”

University.

Pronouns,”

Partee,

Linguistic Inquiry 33, 409-442.
Halle,

fromControl, Doctoral dissertation, Ochanomizu

Déchaine, Rose-Marie and Martina Wiltschko(2002)

Evidence

Barbara(1989)“Binding

Implicit

Variables in Quantified Contexts,” CLS 25,

Marantz(1993)

342-356.

“Distributed Morphology,” The View from

Rullmann,Hotze(2003)“Bound-Variable

Building 20, ed. by Kenneth Hale andPronouns and the Semantics of Number,”Samuel Jay Keyser, 111-176, MIT Press,

Proceedings of the Western Conference on

Cambridge, MA.

Linguistics: WECOL 2002, 243-254.

Harbour, Daniel (2016) Impossible Persons,Rullmann, Hotze (2004) “First and Second

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Person Pronouns as Bound Variables,”Harley, Heidi and Elizabeth Ritter (2002)

Linguistic Inquiry 35, 159-168.

“Person and Number in Pronouns: A

Schlenker,

Philippe(2003)

“A

Plea

for

Feature-Geometric Analysis,” Language 78,

Monsters,” Linguistics and Philosophy 26,

482-526.

29-120.

Heim,

Irene

(2008)“Features

on

Bound

Sudo, Yasutada (2014) “Dependent Plural

Pronouns,” Phi-Theory: Phi-Features across

Pronouns

Modules and Interfaces, ed. by Daniel

Functions,” Natural Language Semantics

Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar,22, 265-297.

35-56, Oxford University Press, New York.

Vassilieva,

Heim, Irene, Howard Lasnik, and Robert May(1991)“Reciprocity

and

with

Maria

Skolemized(2005)

ChoiceAssociative

andPronominal Plurality, Doctoral dissertation,

Plurality,”

SUNY Stony Brook.

Linguistic Inquiry 22, 63-101.

Wallenberg, Joel C. (2005) “A Story of the

Higginbotham, James (1985) “On Semantics,”

AmericanLinguistic Inquiry 16, 547-593.

-self:

A

Case

Study

in

Morphological Variation,” University ofKratzer, Angelika (1998) “More Structural

Pennsylvania

Analogies Between Pronouns and Tenses,”Working

Linguistics 11, 321-334.

Proceedings of the 8th Semantics and
Linguistic Theory Conference, 92-110.

57

Papersin(2) Flavors like rhubarb-vanilla sorbetto andkaffir lime, pink peppercorn are about as
San Francisco as it gets; […](The New York Times, 2014/6/3) (ibid.: 218)
As N as 構文の N*(3) Pirates of the Caribbean is as Disney as it（N in as N as Constructions）

gets, and it never gets old!

(ibid.: 218)

(4) John’s haircut is as 2019 as they come.
松田 佑治（Yuji Matsuda）(ibid.: 219)

立命館大学（Ritsumeikan University）(5) This right here is me. 100% me. As me as it
gets.1(ibid.: 219)

キーワード：as N as 構文, 転換, 上書き強制,
いずれも、as … as it gets（この上なく …）

固有名詞の属性・性質

や as … as they come（この上なく …）の…に N が単独で生起している。2 松田 (2019:
1.1. はじめに219) は、as N as it gets / as N as they come 構

本稿の目的は、as N as 構文における固有文の N には、都市名、機関名、スポーツ名、

名詞 N の分析を通して、非段階的な固有名

季節、ブランド名、出来事、食物、年代を示

詞 N が、段階性を持つ形容詞的な語に、どす固有名詞が生起すると指摘する。このようのような原理で転換するのかを明らかにすに as … as 構文の … に N が単独で生起することである。

る構文を、議論の便宜上 as N as 構文と呼ぶ。

本稿の構成は以下の通りである。2 節では、本稿の分析の中心である as N as 構文を定

3. 先行研究の概観義する。3 節では、先行研究を概観し、明ら松田 (2019: 220) は、as … as it gets や as

かにすべき論点を改めて提示する。4 節では、… as they come に N が修飾されることによ

先行研究で指摘されている以外の as N as 構って、as N as 構文の N が形容詞的に強調さ文を取り上げる。5 節は、人称代名詞が比較れていると指摘している。つまり、N を「形級化・最上級化される事例を指摘する。6 節

容詞的なもの」として判断していると思われ

では、非段階的な固有名詞 N が、なぜ段階る。

性を持つ形容詞的な語に転換するのかを明

そこで、本節では、名詞から形容詞への転らかにする。7 節は結語である。

換が生じる事例を挙げている先行研究を概観する。

2. as N as 構文
松田 (2019) は as … as 構文の … の位

3.1. very N (いかにも N/とても N)

置に、単独で固有名詞 N や人称代名詞（対以下の例を見られたい。

格）が生起する言語事実を指摘している。
(6) a. They’re very Oxbridge.
(1) If the first part of Trump's video sounds(Quirk et al. 1985: 248)

nothing like his usual style, then the lastb. His accent is very Mayfair (verypart is as Trump as it gets.

Harvard).

(NBC News, 2016/10/8) (松田 (2019: 218))

58(ibid.: 1562)

Quirk et al. (1985) は、(6a, b) における(coercion) を 、 選 択 強 制(coercion by

Oxbridge、Mayfair、Harvard を、名詞から形

selection)、拡充強制 (coercion by enrichment)、

容詞へ転換した語であると脚注で指摘して上書き強制 (coercion by override) の 3 つのいる。

タイプに分類している（3 つの用語の訳出は、同様に、Huddleston and Pullum (2002) も、

住吉・鈴木・西村 (2019:10) に従った）。こ(7) における Oxbridge を名詞から形容詞へこでは、本議論と関連する上書き強制

転換した語と記述している。

(coercion by override) の事例を確認する。4(7) He has a very Oxbridge accent or His(8) This is so 2013.

accent is very Oxbridge.

(Audring and Booji (2016: 625, 632))(Huddleston and Pullum. 2002: 1643)
Audring and Booji (2016: 633) によると、形式
しかし、Quirk et al. (1985) と Huddleston and

上は、2013 が so と結合されることによっ

Pullum (2002) は、共に事実を単に規定するて、形容詞として機能すると指摘している。

にとどまり、(6) と (7) はどのような仕組み

また、意味的には、so 2013 を ‘typical ofの下で、非段階的な語である固有名詞が、段2013’ であると分析している（必ずしも 2013

階的な形容詞へと転換されるのかという詳年に起こったことを示すとは限らない）。

細な分析がない。

(8) は、Quirk et al. (1985) と Huddlestonand Pullum (2002) の事例と異なり、2013 と3.2. 上書き強制(coercion by override)

いう年代が形容詞として転換される事例で3.1.節で観察した事例は、強制 (coercion)

あることが興味深い。しかし、Audring andという概念・事象に分類できると思われる。

Booji (2016) においても、Quirk et al. (1985)

強制 (coercion) は、これまでに Pustejovsky

や Huddleston and Pullum (2002) らと同様に、(1995)、Jackendoff (1997)、Taylor (1998, 2002)、

なぜ固有名詞から形容詞への転換が起こる

Audring and Booji (2016) などによって指摘のかという根本的な分析はなされていない。

されている重要な論点である。Taylor (2002:287) によると、強制 (coercion) とは「ある3.3. 本稿の論点（言語）単位が別の（言語）単位と結合した

Quirk et al. (1985)、Huddleston and Pullum

とき、隣接するその別の単位に影響を及ぼし、 (2002)、Audring and Booji (2016: 632) は、段
結果としてそれの（意味等に関する）指定に階性を持たない固有名詞や年代が、very や変化を引き起こす現象」を指すという（訳出so で強調される事によって、形容詞としては、西村 (編) (2018: 233) に従った）。また、転換する事実を指摘している。5 しかし、前Taylor (1998: 194) は、「ある語がある構文の述したように、それらの先行研究は単なる言構成要素として用いられた場合、その構文の語事実の規定にとどまり、なぜ固有名詞 N

意味がその構成要素の意味に影響を与え、そが形容詞的な語へと転換されるのかというの構文全体の意味に矛盾しないようにその根本的な説明が欠けている。そこで、本稿で構成要素の意味が（強制的に）変容を受けるはその原理を分析する。

ことである」と指摘している（訳出は、西村(編) (2018: 233) に従った）。3

4. 松田 (2019) 以外の as N as 構文

Audring and Booji (2016) は、さらに強制3.3.節で問題提起した問いに答える前に、59

松田 (2019) で指摘されていない as N as 構
文をいくつか示す。

4.3. John is as N as N. (N は同一)以下の事例を見られたい（口頭発表の際に4.1. as N as possible / as N as (…) can be

は、取り上げていない）。

程度性を強調するという点では、as … as it
gets/as … as they come と近接した意味を持(13) John is as Trump as Trump.

つ as … as possible (できるだけ…) や as …

（ジョンはトランプ大統領と同じくらas NP can be (NP がなりうるだけの…) も同いトランプだ）

様に、… の位置に N を共起できる。本節で(インフォーマント提供)

は、人称代名詞が共起する事例を観察する。
(12) とも関連するが、(13) における as … as
(9)

I thought in the moment, you know, betterの間の Trump は、トランプ大統領という人

to be as myself as possible, […]物そのものを指しているのではなく、トラン
プ大統領という人物から推察される様々な(COCA, Spoken 2019, PBS NewsHour)

性質・属性を示していると思われる。したが(10) Michelle Obama: What I vowed is that Iって、ここでも形容詞的なものとして固有名

want to be as me as I can be.

詞 Trump が上書きされ、John はトランプな(CNN, 2017/1/13, Live Event/Special)

人物であると解釈される。
それぞれ下線部の意は、(9)「できるだけ私自身でいる」、(10)「私がなりうるだけの私」

5. 人称代名詞の比較級化・最上級化である（as much me/myself as … のように、筆者の知る限り、これまで指摘されていな

直前に much を生起させるインフォーマン

いものの、人称代名詞（対格）や再帰代名詞

トもいる）。

が、比較級化したり、最上級化されたりする事例がある。

4.2. as N as ever / John is as John as ever.
as … as ever (相変わらず…) の … の位置(14) “I'm more me than I've been for ages.”にも、N が共起する。

(COCA, Web 2012)(15) In fact, over the weeks, Diane seemed to(11) She was as prosperous-looking as ever, as

become more herself.

blond as ever, and as California as ever.

(COCA, Fiction 2006)(B. Paul, Good King Sauerkraut)(16) And it’s the most me I’ve ever felt in my(12) John is late again! He never changes!

whole life.

John is as John as ever.

(Grey's Anatomy, Season 15, Episode 12)(インフォーマント提供)(17) He said he felt the most himself when he
was under the sky. (COCA, Fiction 2006)

それぞれ下線部の意は、(11)「相変わらずカ
リフォルニア的だ」、(12)「相変わらずジョ

上記のような人称代名詞（対格）や再帰代名ンはジョンだ」で、固有名詞 California と、

詞は、臨時的に形容詞的な語として比較級

as … as の間の John が、形容詞的なものと化・最上級化したものである。7 よって、こして上書きされている。6

れら事例も上書き強制 (coercion by override)60

の一部とみなせる。

(立川 (2020: 217)) (cf. 佐藤 2020: 61-62)

また、固有名詞も形容詞的な語として比較級化されることがある（口頭発表の際には、

例えば、Oxbridge という固有名詞 1 つをとっ取り上げていない）。以下、2020 年度のアメてみても、その 1 語には「権威のある、伝統リカ大統領選を戦うためには、トランプ大統のある、最高峰の」などの様々な属性・性質

領よりも、よりトランプな（より残酷な移民が入り込んでいる。したがって、Oxbridge

対策をとるような）候補者を立てないと選挙が持つ多数の性質・属性に全体 (または一では戦えないという文脈の実例である。

部) が強調されるような文脈が整えば、統語上形容詞が求められる位置にも、Oxbridge(18) There will be forces in the party arguingが生起できると考えられる。つまり、固有名

that the only path to victory is to be even

詞の持つ増大な性質・属性そのものが、固有more Trump than Trump, […]名詞から形容詞的な語へと転換する原理を(The Washington Post 電子版, 2019

支えているのである。なお、本稿では、固有/11/13, Paul Waldman 氏執筆)

名詞に加えて、人称代名詞（対格）や再帰代
名詞も形容詞的な語へと転換する事例を指ここでの more Trump の Trump も、固有名摘してきたが、そもそも、人称代名詞が指す

詞から形容詞的な語へと転換した事例であものは、本来は固有名詞であるため、人称代る。

名詞や再帰代名詞も、固有名詞と同様に、形容詞をいくつ重ねても定義し尽くせない性

6. 固有名詞から形容詞への転換の原理

質・属性を持つと考えるのが自然であろう。

本節では、固有名詞が潜在的に持つ性質・

ただし、筆者は段階付けが可能な名詞であ属性という観点から、固有名詞 N から形容れば、その名詞が形容詞的な語へと転換でき詞的な語へと転換がなされる仕組みを明らると論じてはいない点に注意されたい。例えかにする。

ば、success/problem のような普通名詞も、段階付けが可能である （詳細は Huddleston and6.1. 固有名詞が持つ増大な性質・属性

Pullum (2002: 532) を参照されたい)。しかし、

立川 (2020: 217) は、以下の図１が示すよ

これらの普通名詞は、それぞれに対応する形

うに、固有名詞は形容詞をいくつ重ねても定容詞形 successful や problematic が存在する。

義し尽くせないほどの多数の性質・属性を内したがって、その語に対応する形容詞形 1 語

包していると指摘する。また、形容詞→普通のみで、その性質・属性を記述することが十名詞→固有名詞の順で属性の数が増大する分に可能であるため、固有名詞ほどの多数の一方、個体の数は減少するという。8

性質・属性を持っているとは言えない。したがって、段階性を持つ success/problem でも、

形容詞

普通名詞

固有名詞

「かわいい」

「ハーフ」

「マリー」

名詞から形容詞への転換が起こらない。
(19) a. It was as {*success/*problem} as it

非特殊化(−)

中間(0)特殊化(+)

一つの属性

多数の属性

最多数の属性

最多数の個体

多数の個体

唯一の個体

図1

gets.
b. It was as {successful/problematic} as
it gets.

形容詞→普通名詞→固有名詞

61

では、固有名詞の形容詞形が存在している

文の N の位置に共起できない N を分析する。

事例を見てみよう。
6.2. as N as 構文に共起できない N(20) a. John is as America as it gets.

松田 (2019: 221) は、脚注で「おそらく、

b. John is as American as it gets.

N 単独では抽象度が著しく高く、他者との間で典型例や象徴の概念を共有できない N、例(松田 (2019: 220)

えば temperature (温度)、version (… 版)、
固有名詞 America には、それに対応する形

weather (天気)、time (時間) などは生起しに

容詞形 American が存在しているが、(19a)

くいと思われる」と分析している。これらのと は 異 な り 、 (20a) は 容 認 さ れ る 。 松 田

名詞は、いずれも普通名詞であり、固有名詞(2019: 220) は、形容詞 American は、「アメよりも性質・属性の数が劣るため（図 1 参照）、

リカ人的な」という民族の意と、「アメリカas N as 構文の N には共起できない。

（合衆国）的な」という国家の意を併せ持つでは、松田 (2019: 221) を基にして、as N as

ため、後者の意をより明確に示すために、名構文に共起できない N を、より詳細に分析

詞 America が選択される可能性があると、しよう。

(20a) が容認される理由を分析している。
しかし、本節では、松田 (2019) と別の観(22) a. This is as {*world/*weather/*season/

点から、その理由を提示する。そもそも、(19a)*something /*temperature/*time}as itの普通名詞 success/problem と異なり、(20a)gets.

は固有名詞 America が生起している点が重b. This is as {*cm/*version/*edition}as it

要である。既述のとおり、固有名詞は、形容

gets.

詞をいくら重ねても記述し切れないほどの性質・属性を持つ。したがって、辞書に規定

まず、(22a) で共起しているような N は、抽されているような形容詞形 American の性象度が著しく高い普通名詞である。次に、質・属性の数よりも、固有名詞 America の(22b) のような名詞は、直前に修飾語がなけ

方がはるかに性質・属性の数を上回っている。 れば、その語だけでは性質や属性を捉えにく
そのように考えれば、(20a) が容認される正い。したがって、(22a, b) で示されたような当性があると思われる。

タイプの名詞は、他者との共通概念を共有で以下の事例も、同様の説明で処理できる。

きないため、as N as 構文の N には共起できない。もちろん、上書き強制 (coercion by
override) もなされない。

(21) a. This watermelon neck pillow is about
as summer as it gets. [headline]

7. 結語(松田 (2019: 218)

以上の議論から、上書き強制 (coercion byb. This watermelon neck pillow is about

override) により、非段階的な語である固有as summery as it gets.

名詞が形容詞的な語へと転換する理由を、以season の下位語である summer は、固有名

下のように結論付ける。

詞よりの名詞である。したがって、(21a) は容認される。

[1] 固有名詞や人称代名詞は、形容詞をいく

次節では、(19)-(21) に関連し、as N as 構ら重ねても記述し切れないほどの増大62

な性質・属性を持つ。したがって、as N

ある」という意である。

as 構文のような、ある一定の環境で Nの内部にある性質・属性が強調されるよ(i) The book itself is as me as it gets. Who

うな文脈が整えば、臨時的に N が形容

chose the words? Who lived the life?

詞的な語として転換し、上書き強制(J. Carswell, Talk of Treasure)(coercion by override) がなされる。
[2] [1] の主張の補強証拠として、形容詞 1

2

松田 (2019) は、NP be as N as it gets / NP be

語でその性質・属性が十分に記述できる

as N as they come 構文を、以下のように定義

success/problem のような普通名詞は、asしている。

N as 構文の N の位置に共起することはできない。また、上書き強制 (coercion by

NP is a very typical type of someone or

override) もなされない。

something found in N. / NP embodies theessence of N.

(松田 (2019: 221))

以下、今後の検証すべき課題の一部を示す。
3[3] 図 1 から、普通名詞もある程度の性質・

八木 (1987: 49) も、「強制」という語そのものは用いていないが、同じ趣旨の記述があ属性を持つことが窺える。あるインフォ

る（cf. 西村 (編) (2018: 233)）。

ーマントは、例えば、family (家族) は普4

通名詞であるものの、ある共同体内で共制 (coercion by override) を、「語の意味が言通した「家族」の概念・性質・属性が獲語使用の場面に応じてその場かぎりで変更得されれば、as N as 構文に生起できるされるもので、文脈や言語外の知識にもっとという見解を示している。よって、今後も強く依存するタイプである」と捉えている。

は普通名詞も視野に入れた分類を視野5に入れる必要がある。

以下に示しておく。

住吉・鈴木・西村 (2019:10) は、上書き強very N や so N と同様に、too N の事例も[4] 本稿では、N が形容詞化しているかどうかのテストを一切していない。よって、(ii) This city disappoints me. It's too New

N に対する適切なテストを提示する必York: big buildings and taxicabs.

要があろう。

(COCA, Fiction 2002, Literary Review)* 本稿は、日本英語学会第 38 回大会

6

ただし、単独で John is as John as ever. は使(2020 年 11 月 7 日、Zoom 利用によるオンラ

用しにくく、(12) のような、ある一定の文

イン開催) にて研究発表した内容に、修正を脈が必要である。なお、ここでは作例を提示施したものである。質疑応答の際に、貴重なしたが、以下のような実例もある。

ご指摘していただいた先生方に感謝申し上げる。なお、本文中の下線・太字は、すべて(iii) Nothing changed Tuesday. Washington is

筆者によるものである。

as Washington as ever.

注
1(The Washington Post 電子版, 2017/6/13,

口頭発表の際には、(5) ではなく、以下のJerry Brewer 氏執筆)

事例の方がより好例と判断し、差し替えて提示した。いずれも「この上なく私（自身）で

763

ただし、more - /most- による比較級化と最東京, 論創社.

上級化に限られ、-er / -est による変化はできない。
8

Taylor,立川 (2020: 217) は、オットー・イェスペ

John

Robert“Syntactic(1998)

Constructions as Prototype Categories,”

ルセンの『文法の原理』(The Philosophy ofThe

Grammar) 基にして、図 1 を作成している。

Cognitive and Functional Approaches toNew

Psychologyof

Language:

Language Structure. Ed. M. Tomasello.
参考文献
Audring, Jenny and Greert Booij (2016)

Hillsdale NJ: Laurence Erlbaum, 177-202.
Taylor, John Robert (2002) Cognitive Grammar.

“Cooperation and Coercion,” Linguistics 54,

Oxford, Oxford University Press.
八木孝夫 (1987)『程度表現と比較構造』（新617-637.

英文法選書 第 7 巻）東京, 大修館書店.

Huddleston, R. and G. K. Pullum (2002) The
Cambridge
Language,

GrammaroftheCambridge,

English
コーパス

Cambridge

University Press.

Corpus of Contemporary American English

Jackendoff, Ray (1997) The Architecture of the(COCA)

Language Faculty, Cambridge, MIT Press.
西村義樹 (編) (2018)『シリーズ認知言語学入
門 <第 4 巻>認知文法論 I』大衆館書店,
東京.
松田佑治 (2019)「N の典型例や象徴を示す
as N as it gets / as N as they come 構文―as… as 構文の … の位置に名詞が生起しう る 例 ― 」『 英 語 語 法 文 法 研 究 』 26,
216-222.
Pustejovsky, James (1995) The Generative
Lexicon. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J.
Svartvik.

(1985)A

Comprehensive

Grammar of the English Language, London,
Longman.
佐藤らな (2020)「名詞が程度性を持つとき:
N すぎる構文を通して」第 160 回日本言語学大会予稿集.
住吉誠・鈴木亨・西村義樹 (2019)「慣用表
現・変則的表現はどう考察されてきたか」『慣用表現・変則的表現から見える英語の姿』(住吉誠・鈴木亨・西村義樹(編)) 東京, 開拓社.
立川健二 (2020)『言語の復権のためにソシュール、イェルムスレウ、ザメンホフ』

64

また、当該構文を通時的に見てみると、現代英語で許容される二つの語順パターンに加えて、以下の(2)に挙げられている、「虚辞‐be‐受動分詞‐DP‐PP」語順を有した例
英語の There 受動文が許容するも観察されることになる。

語順パターンに関する通時的変遷と主語移動の適用可能性*(2) a.

(...) þere coude be founde no（The Diachronic Change in the Word Order(...) there could be found no

Patterns of the Expletive Passives and thedefaute in hem (...)

Applicability of the Subject Movement）

default

in him(...)(CMCAPCHR, 51.586/ 本多 (2015: 278))
三上傑（Suguru Mikami）

b.

東北大学（Tohoku University）

And there was made a grete hale inand there was made a great hall in
the palysse,

キーワード：There 受動文, 通時的変遷, 主語

the palace

移動, 義務的適用, 主語位置

(CMGREGOR, 96.22/ 本多 (2015: 285))(3) There 受動文に関する三つの語順パター
ンの生起頻度 (50 万語あたり):

1. はじめに

語順パターン

M3

M4

現代英語において There 受動文は、(1a)にDP‐受動分詞‐PP

6.48

25.89 46.67

示した主語要素が受動分詞に先行する「虚辞受動分詞‐PP‐DP

3.89

23.07 17.61‐be‐DP‐受動分詞‐PP」語順と、(1b)に示

受動分詞‐DP‐PP

3.89

26.91

した主語要素が文末に生起する「虚辞‐be

E1

7.04

(本多 (2015: 281)による図表から一部抜粋)‐受動分詞‐PP‐DP」語順を許容する。
この主語要素が受動分詞に後続する語順パ(1) a.

There were several large packages

ターンの生起頻度に関して、本多 (2015)はplaced on the table.
b.

(3)の表にまとめられているように、後期中There were placed on the table several

英語期には、他の語順パターンと同様に観察

large packages.

されていたものの、初期近代英語期を境に著

c. * There

wereplacedseverallarge

しく減少させたとしている。

packages on the table.

本稿では、この英語の There 受動文におけ(西原 (2009: 209))

る許容可能な語順パターンの通時的変遷を、
主語移動の適用可能性の観点から捉えるこ

これらの統語派生をめぐっては、主語要素にとを試みる。具体的には、当該構文が「存在」

重名詞句転移が適用されることで派生するを表す本動詞 BE の補部として「結果的状況」

として、多くの先行研究で見解が一致していが選択された複文構造を有し、その補文内でる後者の語順パターンに対して、前者の語順

主語移動が適用されるとする派生を提案すパターンについては、これまで様々な分析がる (cf. 竹沢 (2000, 2001))。そして、後期中提案されてきている (cf. Chomsky (2001), 西

英語期まで非対格動詞を伴う従属節におい原 (2009), 本多 (2015), etc.)。

65

て主語移動の適用が随意的であったとする

通時的に変遷したとする分析を提案する。具田中 (2010)の分析に着目し、後期中英語期

体 的 に は 、 Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou

における There 受動文の語順パターンに関す(1998)に従い、一致形態素が豊かな言語では、る多様性と初期近代英語期以降のその消失

T の有する EPP 素性の要請が V-to-T 移動をが、当該時期における主語移動の適用可能性

介して満たすことができると仮定する。英語の相違に還元されると主張する。

において一致形態素は、古英語期と中英語期にはすべての動詞形に表れていたものの（特2. 英語における主語移動の義務的適用とそに過去時制では一致形態素と時制形態素がの変遷独立して具現していた）、初期近代英語期に現代英語において、主語要素は動詞のタイ

入ると、三人称単数現在形、および二人称単プに関係なく、T の有する EPP 素性の要請を数現在形と過去形を除く、すべての動詞形に満たすために、TP 指定部へ義務的に主語移おいて消失したとされる。田中はこの動詞屈動を起こすとされる。一方、通時的にも多く

折接辞の通時的変化に着目し、一致形態素がの場合には主語要素が定形動詞に先行し、とある程度豊かであった後期中英語期までは、

りわけ他動詞文では現代英語と同じように、

非対格動詞文において、T の有する EPP 素性

主語要素が TP 指定部へ義務的に移動するとの要請が統語対象の指定部位置への併合に考えられている。しかしながら、Kemenade

加えて、動詞の主要部移動を介して満たすこ(1997)や Ohkado (1998)によると、古英語と中とが可能であったと主張している。1 そして、英語において、受動動詞を含む非対格動詞を

初期近代英語期に入り、一致形態素が消失す

伴う従属節では、主語要素が定形動詞に後続

ると、V-to-T 移動の適用が不可能になったこする語順パターンも可能であったとされる。

とで、T の有する EPP 素性の要請が主語要素（または虚辞）の指定部位置への併合によっ(4) in a worshipful town wher

wasて満たされなければならなくなったと分析

in a worshipful town wherewas

している。2 すなわち、英語では初期近代英o parysch church &語期以降、EPP 素性の要請を満たすための手

tweyn chapelys

a parish church and two

段が一本化されたことで、主語移動適用の義

chapels

務化が生じたということになる。

annexid
united‘in a worshipful town where a parish church

3. There 受動文の複文構造分析と主語移動

and two chapels were united’の適用可能性(KEMPE I. 58.265/ 田中 (2010: 91))

本稿では、There 受動文の具体的な派生を提案するにあたり、竹沢 (2000, 2001)による(4)では先行詞を伴う関係節において受動動

日本語の「アル完了文」の分析を概観したい。

詞が用いられているが、主語要素が be 動詞

以下の(5a)に例示される「アル完了文」におに後続しているのが確認できる。このことか

いて、動詞「アル」は他動詞の分詞形である

ら、古英語と中英語では、少なくとも非対格「V－テ」に後接し、完了相・結果相の解釈

動詞を伴う従属節において、主語移動の適用を生じさせるアスペクト補助動詞として機が義務的ではなかったと言える。

能するとされる。竹沢は、その動詞が主動詞

この事実を捉えるため、田中 (2010)は、に付加することで、他動詞の外項が抑制され、英語において EPP 素性の要請の満たし方がまた対格付与能力も吸収されることから、当66

該構文が統語的に、一種の受動文として捉え

この補文内での主語移動を伴う複文構造られるとしている。また意味的には、主動詞

分析に、先に確認した主語移動の適用可能性の表す動作によって引き起こされる「結果的に関する通時的変遷についての田中 (2010)

状況（AspP）の存在」を表しているとし、(5b)の知見を組み込むと、後期中英語期におけるに図式化された複文構造を提案している。

There 受動文の語順パターンに関する多様性と初期近代英語期以降のその消失は、以下の(5) a.
b.

駐車場に車が止めてある（こと）(7)にまとめられているように、当該時期の[TP 車が i [VP [AspP PRO [Asp’

主語移動の適用可能性の相違に還元される

主語移動[VP 駐車場に

ti 止め-テことになる。

]

Asp ]] アル ] T ]～LME

EModE～

主語移動の適用

随意的

義務的

この複文構造において、主語要素は補文内に

DP-受動分詞-PP✓✓

基底生成した後、主節の TP 指定部へ主語移

受動分詞-DP-PP

✓

*

(7)

動を起こすことになる。
本稿では、この「アル完了文」の複文構造

すなわち、主語移動の適用が義務的となった分析を援用し、
英語の There 受動文に関して、

初期近代英語以降は、主語要素の AspP 指定

以下の(6a)に示されているような、「存在」を部への義務的移動を介して、必然的に主語要表す本動詞 BE がその補部として「結果的状素が受動分詞に先行した「虚辞‐be‐DP‐況」を選択している複文構造を提案する。3

受動分詞‐PP」語順のみが生成されることになる。それに対して、主語移動の適用が随意(6) a.

的であった後期中英語では、主語移動の適用

TPを介して生成される語順パターンに加えて、

there
T

主語移動が適用されない場合には、主語要素

vP

[EPP]

が受動分詞に後続する「虚辞‐be‐受動分詞vVb.

‐DP‐PP」語順が生成されることになる。4

VP
AspP

4. 「虚辞‐be‐受動分詞‐DP‐PP」語順の認可と主語移動の随意的適用の相関

BE

AspP

前節では、後期中英語期に There 受動文が示していた語順パターンの多様性が、当該時

DP
Asp

期における主語移動の随意的な適用可能性

VP

[EPP]
主語移動

DP

V

から自然に導かれることを明らかにした。本PP

節では、主語要素が受動分詞に後続した語順

主要部移動の例が観察されていた後期中英語期の文献を調査し、本分析の妥当性を立証する。

そして、その補文内では、(6b)に図式化され本稿が具体的な調査対象として取り上げているように、主語要素が Asp の有する EPP

たのは、本多 (2015)によるコーパス調査で素性の要請を満たすために、AspP 指定部へ

「虚辞‐be‐受動分詞‐DP‐PP」語順の例

主語移動を起こすと主張する。

が観察される文献として挙げられていた

67

『John Capgrave’s Abbreuiacion of Cronicles』

確認でき、主語移動が適用されていないことと『The Historical Collections of a Citizen ofが示唆される。

London in the Fifteenth Century』の二つである。

次に、V-to-T 移動の適用可能性に関する議そして、本稿の分析から予測される非対格動論に移りたい。田中 (2010)によると、T の有詞を伴う従属節における主語移動の随意的する EPP 素性の要請を満たす手段として、な適用可能性と V-to-T 移動の適用可能性、動詞の主要部移動が可能である場合に、主語

さらには There 受動文が許容する語順パター

移動の随意的適用が許容されることになる。

ンの多様性について確認作業を行った。

したがって、主語移動が適用されない場合にまずは、非対格動詞を伴う従属節における生成される「虚辞‐be‐受動分詞‐DP‐PP」

主語移動の適用可能性について考察したい。

語順の例が観察される文献では、V-to-T 移動

本稿では(6b)に図式化したように、主語要素の適用を示唆する事例が観察されると予測が受動分詞に後続した「虚辞‐be‐受動分詞される。この主要部移動の適用可能性は、動‐DP‐PP」語順は、補文内で主語要素の詞と否定辞の相対的位置関係から確かめら

AspP 指定部への主語移動が適用されない場れることになるが、英語における否定文の史合に生成されると分析した。したがって、当的発達に関して、安藤 (2002)は、後期中英

該語順の例が観察される文献では、主語移動

語期には、(9b)に示されている動詞が否定辞の随意的適用が容認され、その移動が適用さに後続する型よりも、(9a)に示されている否れていないことを示唆する事例が存在する

定辞に先行する型の方が優勢だったと指摘と予測されることになる。

している (cf. Roberts (2007))。

(8) a.

... was a parlement at Norhampton,(9) a.

was a parliament at Northampton,b.

I not say (まれ) : 15c-EModE

where was reysid a grievous taskec.

I do not say

I say notwhere was raised a grievous task

: 14c 末-EModE: 16c-17c に確立(安藤 (2002: 112))‘... was a parliament at Northampton,
where a grievous task was levied’

そして、Pollock (1989)に従い、否定辞は TPと vP の間に基底生成するということを考慮(Capgrave 184.27-28)b.

þe town

すると、この事実は当時、動詞が否定辞を越the Lord Spencer took the town

えて T まで主要部移動を起こしていたと示

of Crotey, where were killed IIII.

唆することになる。この動詞と否定辞の相対

of Crecy, where were killed four

的位置関係について文献を確認してみると、

hundred armed men(10)に示されているように、動詞が否定辞にhundred armed men

先行している例が観察されることになる。

þe Lord Spencer tok‘the Lord Spencer took the town ofCrecy, where four hundred armed men
were killed’(10) a.

(Capgrave 165.13-14)... he asked why sche came not to
he asked why shecame not tosoper
事実、(8)の例では先に確認した(4)の例と同supper様に、関係節において受動動詞が用いられて‘... he asked why she did not come to

いるが、主語要素が動詞に後続しているのがsupper’68(Capgrave 49.33)

b.

for he sparyd not hyr malysse, nor

DP‐PP」語順の生成と主語移動の随意的なfor he spared not her malice, nor

適用可能性の間に強い相関性が存在すると

hyr falssenysse, nor gyle, ...

いう本稿の主張は、経験的にも支持されるこ

her falseness,とになる。

nor gile,‘for he did not spare her malice, nor
her falseness, nor wile, ...’

5. TP 指定部の「主語位置」としての位置づけの確立とその帰結(Gregory 224. 28-29)

ここまで本稿では、英語の There 受動文がこのことから、主語要素が受動分詞に後続す許容する語順パターンに関する多様性の消る語順パターンの例が観察される文献では、

失が、後期中英語から初期近代英語への移行

実際に V-to-T 移動が適用されており、主語期に生じた主語移動の適用に関する義務化

移動の随意的適用が許容される条件が満たにより生じたと主張した。

されていたということになる。

先に述べたように、現代英語では動詞のタ

最後に、There 受動文が許容する語順パタ

イプに関係なく、主語要素が TP 指定部へ義ーンの多様性について考察したい。本稿の分

務的に主語移動を起こす。したがって、当該析に基づくと、「虚辞‐be‐受動分詞‐DP‐

位置は常に主語要素によって占められるこ

PP」語順は、先の(7)の表で見たように、主とから、いわゆる「主語位置」としての機能

語移動の随意的適用が許容される場合に生を確立していると考えられる。しかしながら、成されることになる。したがって、当該語順

後期中英語期までは、非対格動詞文においての例が観察される文献では、主語移動の適用

主語移動の適用が随意的であるなど、TP 指を介して生成される「虚辞‐be‐DP‐受動

定部が必ずしも主語要素によって占められ

分詞‐PP」語順の例も同時に観察され、語順ていなかったということを考慮すると、そのパターンの多様性が見られると予測される。

当時は主語位置としての機能を完全に有していなかったのではないかと考えられる。

(11) a.

There was he robbed of mech good
there was he robbed of much money(12)

which he had gadered

V-to-T 移動:

which he had gathered

主語移動:
TP 指定部(Capgrave 243.7-8)
b.

～LME

EModE～

≒主語位置

＝主語位置

の位置づけ:and there were cartayne personys
and there were quartan persons

主語移動適用の義務化

done unto dethe,done toそして、本稿の分析に基づくと、初期近代英death (Gregory 176.16-17)語期以降、V-to-T 移動が消失し、主語移動のそして、実際に文献を見てみると、(11)に示適用が義務化されたことで、TP 指定部が常されているように、主語要素が受動分詞に先に主語要素によって占められるようになり、行する語順パターンの例も観察され、当該時現在の主語位置としての位置づけを完全に期に二つの語順パターンが共存していたの確立させたのではないかと考えられる。本節が確認できる。

では、この英語における TP 指定部の主語位以上の観察から、「虚辞‐be‐受動分詞‐

置としての位置づけの確立が、間接受動文の69

史的発達を適切に捉えられる可能性を提示

務化され、TP 指部が主語位置としての位置

し、本分析のさらなる妥当性を立証したい。

づけを完全に確立すると、その指定部位置を

現代英語において二重目的語構文は、以下占める統語対象についても主語要素としての(13)の対比によって示されているように、の特性を有していなければならないという

間接目的語のみが受動化可能であるとされ強い統語的要請が生じることになる。その結る。ここで論じる間接受動文とは、その間接

果、TP 指定部を占める間接目的語について

目的語に受動化が適用された構文を指す。

も「主語化」が進み、間接受動文の使用が一般的になったと説明されることになる。5(13) a.

She was given a birthday present.
6. まとめb. * A birthday present was given her.

本稿では、英語の There 受動文が「存在」(14) But me was toold, certeyn, nat longe
agoone is, That ...

を表す本動詞 BE の補部として「結果的状況」(Lit.)‘But me was told, certainly, not longが選択された複文構造を有し、その補文内でago, that ...’

主語移動が適用されるとする派生を提案し(Chaucer, Wife of Bath’s Prologue 9-10/ 安

た。そして、主語移動の適用が初期近代英語

藤 (2002: 104))

期を境に義務化されたとする史的事実に着目し、There 受動文が後期中英語期に示した先行研究によると、14 世紀後半から観察さ語順パターンの多様性と初期近代英語期以れるようになった当該構文は、15 世紀後半

降のその消失が、当該時期における主語移動

まではその使用が一般的ではなかったとさの適用可能性の相違から自然に導き出せるれる (cf. Denison (1993), 安藤 (2002), etc.)。

ことを明らかにした。

また、それ以前には、(14)に示されているよ
うに、間接目的語が与格で具現されたまま、* 本稿は日本英語学会第 38 回大会で口頭発動詞の前位置を占めていたとされる。

表した原稿に加筆・修正を加えたものである。

この間接受動文の段階的な史的発達に関執筆にあたり、多くの方々から貴重なご助言して、本稿の見方に基づくと、主語移動適用や有益なコメントをいただいた。この場を借の義務化に伴い、TP 指定部が主語位置とし

りて感謝を申し上げたい。また、本稿は科研ての位置づけを完全に確立させた帰結とし

費若手研究（課題番号 18K12409）の成果のて捉えることが可能になる。すなわち、後期一部である。尚、本稿における不備はすべて

中英語期に入ると、先行研究で指摘されてい筆者の責任によるものである。

るように、格の水平化とそれに伴う内在格の注

不認可により、動詞の前位置を占める名詞句

1

が主格を帯びた主語要素として解釈されよ

PHON 素性と PRED 素性への分割を提案し、うになり、間接受動文が観察され始めること

古英語と中英語では主要部移動により前者になる。しかしながら、この段階では、主語の要請のみが満たされ得ると主張している。

移動の適用が非対格動詞文で随意的である

2など、TP 指定部は主語位置としての位置づ

V-to-T 移動は、一致形態素の消失に伴い、16けを完全に確立しておらず、当該構文の使用

世紀中に消失したとされる。

も定着するには至らなかった。その後、初期

3

近代英語へ移行する際、主語移動の適用が義て、「BE‐過去分詞」が「～された状態で存70

厳密に言うと、田中 (2010)は EPP 素性のRoberts (1993)等によれば、英語史において

保坂 (2014)は、英語の beon 受動態に関し在した」という意味を表し、BE 動詞が「存文の史的発達と素性継承システムのパ在」を表す本動詞として機能していた可能性

ラメータ変化」,『コーパスからわかるについて指摘している。

言語変化・変異と言語理論２』（小川芳4樹・編）, 91-112, 開拓社, 東京.

本稿では、「虚辞‐be‐受動分詞‐PP‐DP」語順の生成に関して、多くの先行研究

西原俊明 (2009)「There 受動文と非対格動詞と同様に、重名詞句転移の適用を伴う派生をを含む There 構文について」, JELS 26,

想定しているが、その詳細な議論については、

209-218.
Ohkado, Masayuki (1998) “On Subject Extra-論を改めることとしたい。
間接目的語の「主語化」分析は、ほぼ同時

position Constructions in the History of期に生じた虚辞 there の主語化に関する史的English,” Studies in Modern English 14,

事実からも支持される。その議論の詳細につ53-78.

5

Pollock, Jean-Yves (1989) “Verb Movement,

いては、三上 (2019)を参照されたい。

Universal Grammar, and the Structure ofIP,” Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365-424.

参考文献
Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou

Roberts, Ian (1993) Verbs and Diachronic(1998) “Parameterizing AGR: Word Order,

Syntax: A Comparative Study of English

V-Movement, and EPP Checking,” Naturaland French, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Roberts, Ian (2007) Diachronic Syntax, Oxford

Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 491539.

University Press, Oxford.

安藤貞雄 (2002)『英語史入門』, 開拓社, 東竹沢幸一 (2000)「アルの統語的二面性：be/京.

have との比較に基づく日本語のいくつ

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”

かの構文の統語的解体の試み」,『東アKen Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by

ジア言語文化の統合的研究』筑波大学学

Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

内プロジェクト研究成果報告書, 76-100.
竹沢幸一 (2001)「コピュラ動詞アルの語彙

Cambridge, MA.

的二面性とその構文的具現」,『意味とDenison, David (1993) English Historical

形のインターフェイス：中右実教授還暦

Syntax, Longman, London.
本多尚子 (2015)「There 受動文の史的発達に

記念論文集（下巻）』, 中右実教授還暦関して」『, 英語と文学、教育の視座』, 渋記念論文集委員会（編）, 713-723, くろ

谷和郎・野村忠央・土居峻（編）, 277-289,

しお出版, 東京.

DTP 出版, 東京.

田中智之 (2010)「EPP 再考：英語史における保坂道雄 (2014)『文法化する英語』, 開拓社,

主語の分布を証拠として」,『名古屋大東京.

学文学部研究論集（文学 56）』, 83-98.

Kemenade, Ans van (1997) “V2 and Embedded

調査資料

Topicalisation in Old and Middle English,”

Gairdner, James, ed. (1986) The Historical Col-Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, ed.

lections of a Citizen of London in the Fif-

by Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent,teenth Century, Camden Society, London.

326-352, Cambridge

Lucas Peter J. ed. (1983) John Capgrave’s

University Press,

Cambridge.

Abbreuiacion of Cronicles, Early English

三上傑 (2019)「英語における場所句倒置構

Text Society, Oxford.

71準に基づいて、これらの語が CP の領域に生起すると考えたくなるかもしれない。しかし、
CP の主要部を認定するには、より多くデー
タの観察を積み重ねて考察する必要がある。
In-situ focus 文の構造*

本論では、この構文に現れる「の」とコピ（The structure of in-situ focus constructions）

ュラが CP の主要部なのかについて詳しく検討していく。最終的には、「の」は CP（FinP）

森山 倭成（Kazushige Moriyama）の主要部だが、コピュラは CP の主要部では

神戸大学大学院 / 日本学術振興会特別研究

なく、VP の主要部であると結論づける。

員（Kobe University / JSPS）

本論の議論は、以下のように進める。第 2
節では、先行研究の分析を概観する。第 3 節

キーワード：CP、主要部、焦点、非上昇構

では、In-situ focus 文のコピュラは CP の主要

文、カートグラフィー

部ではなく、VP 主要部であることを示す。
第 4 節では、この構文の「の」は CP の主要部であり、カートグラフィーの枠組みのもと

1. はじめにでは、
FinP の主要部と考えられることを示す。

日本語は、終助詞に代表されるように、

第 5 節では、主語位置を同定することで、CP の領域と関係づけられる要素を豊富に有In-situ focus 文の統語構造を明らかにする。

する言語である。日本語は、主要部後行型の第 6 節は結語である。

言語なので、語順を手掛かりにすれば、比較的容易に、CP に現れる主要部を特定できる。

2. 主要部の統語範疇をめぐって

しかし、ある要素が CP と関係を持つかど

生成文法の枠組みで In-situ focus 文を扱っうかを検証するには語順を見るだけでは不た文献には、Hiraiwa and Ishihara (2012)と十分である。このことは、In-situ focus 文とTerada (1993)がある。(1a)に示しているよう呼ばれる構文に現れる「の」とコピュラに関に、Hiraiwa and Ishihara にとっては、「の」する事実から示唆される。「の+コピュラ」

は TP を補部に取る Fin 主要部、「だ」は Focからなる構文は、節内に現れる特定の句また主要部である。「だ」が Foc を占めているのは文全体を強調、焦点化する働きがあることは、この構文が焦点化に関与すると考えられから、In-situ focus 文と呼ばれる（Hiraiwa andているからである。一方、(1b)に示すように、

Ishihara (2012)）。（In-situ と呼ばれるのは、

Terada (1993)にとっては、「の」は N 主要部

この構文の派生に A'-移動が関与しないためであり、「だ」は V 主要部である。

である。）例えば、「彼が犯人だったの{だ/(1) a. [FocP [FinP [TP …T] の Fin] だ Foc]

である}」という文は、「彼が犯人だった」

b. [TP [VP [NP [TP …T] の N] だ V] T]という文に「の+コピュラ」が付くことで、それがない場合と比較して、文の内容がより強調されることになる。

これらの分析の対立は、少なくとも二つの「の」とコピュラは、語順を見る限り、時問題を提起する。第一に、In-situ focus 文に

制辞より右側に現れている。また、CP の要

おけるコピュラは CP の主要部なのか、VP

素は談話に関係する特性を持つことも知らの主要部なのかを明らかにする必要がある。

れているので（Rizzi (1997)）、この二つの基「だ」は時制辞よりも右側に現れるので CP

72

に現れると考えることもできるし、通常のコ

続は、主要部が CP に基底生起されるかどう

ピュラとみなして VP に現れると考えることかを確かめるための単純なテストとして有もできる。第二に、この構文の「の」が NP効である。

の主要部か、CP の主要部かを議論する必要

時制辞の「た」は、In-situ focus 文のコピがある。「の」は形式名詞と呼ばれるが、生ュラにも問題なく付く。(3a)では、過去の時

成文法の枠組みでどう捉えるべきかに関し

制辞がコピュラの右隣に現れている。コピュては、共通した見解があるわけではない。次

ラがあらかじめ CP に生起するのであれば、節以降では、これらの問題に関して議論する。 (2c)と同じように非文になることが予測される。(3a)が文法的であるということは、これ
3. コピュラの構造位置

らのコピュラは、(2a, b)に現れている丁寧語

本節では、過去時制辞と副助詞の挿入・伝と同じく、述語が投射する句の中に留まって聞を表す「そうだ」への埋め込みに関するデいると言うことができる。

ータから、In-situ focus 文に現れるコピュラ(3) a. 太郎が来たの{だ/であ}った。

の「だ」と「である」は、節の周縁部に現れb. 太郎は何も言わずにただ黙々と作業をる主要部ではなく、VP に現れる主要部であることを示す。加えて、派生のどの段階にお続けるの{だ/であ}った。

いても CP と関係をもたないことを示す。
まず、過去時制の「た」は、CP に基底生

ちなみに、Hiraiwa and Ishihara (2012)は、成される要素に付かない。このことは、形容

意味的な観点から、過去の時制辞が付くデー

詞述語文に現れる丁寧語の「です」が過去時

タは、CP 主要部分析にとって必ずしも問題

制の接続を許さないことから確認できる。

とならないとしている。(3a)のような文が発(2)に示すように、丁寧語は、動詞述語文と話されるのは、話し手が「太郎が来た」こと

名詞述語文では時制辞の左隣に表出し、形容を想起した場合に限られるので、この文は純詞述語文では時制辞より右側に表出する。

粋な過去を表しているわけではない。このこと か ら 、 Hiraiwa and Ishihara (2012: 155,

(2) a. 太郎は本を読みました。

footnote 16)は、この構文における「だった」

b. 今日は雨でした。

を modal particle と呼び、「た」は TP の主要

c. 花子はかわいかった{です/*でした}。

部ではないとしている。だが実際には、In-situ
focus 文であっても、過去を表す用法が存在

形容詞述語文の「です」には時制辞の「た」する（日本語記述文法研究会(編) (2003: 202)）。

が付かない（辻村(1967)）。これは、形容詞(3b)において、埋め込み節の時制は非過去で述語文の「です」が TP よりも上位の投射にあるが、主節のコピュラに過去時制が付くこ

生起していることによる。時制辞の「た」は、とで、文全体としては過去の解釈が可能とな

述語からなる句をその補部に取ることはでる。つまり、この文では、主節の「た」が時きる。(2a, b)の動詞述語文と名詞述語文の丁制の解釈を決定づける役割を担っていると

寧語は、顕在的統語論の段階では述語の内部いうことである。

に含まれるので、過去時制が付けられる。し次に、副助詞の挿入と伝聞の「そうだ」へ

かし、(2c)の形容詞述語文では「です」が CPの埋め込みのデータから、In-situ focus 文のに現れる。T 主要部は CP を補部に取らない

コピュラは、LF の段階においても動詞句内ので非文となる。このように、過去時制の接に留まったままになることを示す。過去時制

73

の「た」の接続の可否から顕在的統語論におのである。

けるコピュラの生起位置を確かめられるこ(5)は、In-situ focus 文の「である」への副とが明らかになったが、LF の段階で CP へと助詞の挿入が可能であることを示している。

移動する可能性は排除できない。Miyagawa(5a)では、「で」と「ある」の間、(5b)では(1987)や Kishimoto (2013a)は、動詞述語文や「である」の直後に「さえ」が挿入されてい名詞述語文に現れる丁寧語は、表層構造ではる。(5)の事実は、この構文の「である」がTP より下に生起するが、LF 移動によって

LF 移動の適用を受けないことを示している。

CP へ移動すると提案している。丁寧語が CP
への LF 移動を受けることは、副助詞の挿入(5) {a. 命が助かるのでさえあれば / b. 命がのデータから検証できる。(4)に示されるよ

助かるのでありさえすれば}、あとはど

うに、丁寧語に副助詞を付加することはでき

うでもいい。

ない（岸本秀樹先生、私信）。一般に、副助詞は動詞の連用形に付くことができる。丁寧

一方で、コピュラの「だ」の場合は、副助語の「まし」と「でし」も連用の形を取って詞が挿入できない。例えば、「*命が助かるいるので、形態的には副助詞が付いてもよさのだっさえすれば、あとはどうでもいい」とそうだが、事実としては非文と判断される。

いう文において、コピュラの連用形の「だっ」に副助詞の「さえ」を続けることはできない。

(4) a. *太郎はその本を読みましさえ(し)た。

この文の容認性には、形態音韻的な要因が関b. *太郎は優秀でしさえ(し)た。

わっている。副助詞が動詞句に付く場合、通常、音便化は生じない。動詞の「切る」は時日本語の否定辞研究を行った Kishimoto

制辞の「た」が直接付くとき促音便化によっ(2013b)は、副助詞が主要部移動を阻止するて「切った」となるが、副助詞の「さえ」がことを論じている。日本語では、否定辞の作付くときは「切りさえした」となり、「*切用域が TP まで拡がることから、否定辞の「なっさえした」とはならない。要するに、副助

い」は FinP（CP）への主要部移動を受ける

詞が付くときは音便化が起こらない。「だ」としている。否定辞の「ない」は、形態的にの連用形には、「だっ」と「で」があり、前は形容詞と同じ活用をするので、「花子がか者は促音便化が起こっているので副助詞のわいくさえある」のような形容詞述語文と同付加を許容しない。「だっ」には、これに対じように、副助詞が挿入できても良いように応する（「だり」のような）促音便化しない思える。しかし、「*花子がそれを食べなく形態が存在しないので、副助詞が挿入されるさえある」のような文が非文であることからと不適格になる。

分かるように、否定辞に「さえ」などの副助「だ」が LF で主要部移動しているかどう

詞を続けることはできない。このことは、副かは確かめられないが、「だ」は、しばしば、助詞が否定辞「ない」の CP への主要部移動「である」の縮約形であるとされるを阻止することを示唆している。(4)の丁寧（Nishiyama (1999)など）。本論でも、「だ」

語も、否定辞の「ない」と同じように CP へを「である」の縮約形と考えることにする。

移動すると考えれば、否定辞に関するデータ

In-situ focus 文におけるコピュラの「だ」と共通の説明が与えられることになる。つまと「である」が CP と関係を持たないというり、「さえ」が介在することで、丁寧語の主仮説は、伝聞の「そうだ」に関する事実から要部移動が阻止され、容認されない文となるも間接的に支持される。(6)に示すように、

74

伝聞の「そうだ」は、否定辞を含む FinP ま
でを補部に取り、それより上の CP 要素は補(8) 大統領が来日したの{だ/である}そうだ。

部に取れない。FinP より上位の日本語の CP
主要部には「だろう」や「まい」のような本節で見てきた、過去時制辞と副助詞の挿CP モーダル、終助詞、丁寧語などがある。

入・伝聞を表す「そうだ」への埋め込みに関これらの要素は、(7)のように、FinP を補部するデータを考慮すると、In-situ focus 文はにとる伝聞の「そうだ」に埋め込めない。

以下のような構造を持つと言える。動詞句分裂の仮説（split VP hypothesis）に基づいて、(6) 太郎が来なかったそうだ。

コピュラは vP 内の要素であると想定する。

(7) a. *太郎が来るだろうそうだ。

「である」は、「で」と「ある」の間に副助

b. *太郎が来るねそうだ。

詞を挿入できるので、両者を独立した別々の

c. *太郎が来ましたそうです。

語であると見て、「で」を Cop 主要部とみなすことにする。構造は[TP [vP [VP [CopP [[TP …](7c)の非文法性は、丁寧語のように、TP のno] de] V] ar] T]となる。（また、「だ」は「で下位に生起した後に、CP への LF 移動の適用ある」の縮約形として具現化される。）

を受ける要素であっても、伝聞を表す「そう本節では、三つの証拠から、In-situ focus

だ」への埋め込みが不可能であるということ

文のコピュラが CP 主要部ではなく、動詞句を示している。伝聞の「そうだ」は FinP をの主要部であることを示した。ここまでの議補部に取るので、
FinP より上位の投射と関係論でコピュラの構造位置は同定されたが、づけられる丁寧語に移動先を提供しない。こIn-situ focus 文の「の」の統語範疇についてのため、非文と判断される。

は別個の議論が必要である。第 4 節では、「の」が CP の主要部であることを示す。

ちなみに、「だろう」のかわりにモーダル
述語の「かもしれない」を伝聞の「そうだ」

4. 「の」の統語範疇に埋め込むことは可能である。「太郎が来るかもしれないそうだ」のような文は容認され

本節では、カートグラフィーの枠組みを用る。これは、「かもしれない」が CP モーダ

いて、In-situ focus 文における「の」は、FinP

ルではないことによる。過去時制の「た」をの主要部であることを示す。

伴って「太郎が来るかもしれなかった」のよ

第 2 節で概観したように、Terada (1993)はうな文を作ることができるので、「かもしれIn-situ focus 文の「の」を NP の主要部としてない」は TP 内部に現れるモーダルである

おり、Hiraiwa and Ishihara (2012)は CP の主要（Kishimoto (2013a)）。（「そんなことを言部としている。もっとも、Terada (1993)では、ったら泣いちゃうかもしれないだろう」のよ「の」が N 主要部であることを示す証拠がうに、モーダルの共起も可能である。）

提示されているわけではないが、「の」は形(8)に示されるように、In-situ focus 文を「そ式名詞と呼ばれるので、このことから「の」うだ」に埋め込むことは可能である。このこを N 主要部とみなすことも不可能ではない。

とから、コピュラは、少なくとも FinP 以下

しかし、「の」を NP であると仮定した場に存在することが示唆される。さらに、これ合、いくつかの問題が生じる。まず、In-situ

まで見てきた統語テストを考慮に入れると、

focus 文においては、「が/の」交替が不可能

コピュラは、CP 領域と関係を持たないと言である（三上 (1953: 234–235); 野田(1997);

うことができる。

Hiraiwa and Ishihara (2012)）。(9a, b)の対比は、

75

「が/の」交替がこの構文では許されないが、のような文は文法的である。日本語は主要部「本」のような名詞を置き換える代名詞の後行型の言語なので、文の左端に現れる句の「の」の場合は許されることを示している。

構造位置を特定することが難しい。このため、上の例において、トピックの「は」が「の」(9) a. 太郎{が/*の}来たの{だ/である}。

節の内部にあるのか外部にあるのか、表面的

b. 君{が/の}読んだのを私に貸して。

な語の配列からだけではすぐには判別できない（cf. 野田(1997: 35, 62–63)）。

次に、(10)は、In-situ focus 文における「の」トピックが「の」節の内部に収まらないこ

節からの項の移動が複合名詞句制約に違反とは、「も」の等位接続を用いることで検証しないことを示している。一般に、複合名詞

できる（Saito (2015)も参照）。(11)では、CopP

句内部から の要素の 抜き出し はできない

同士が「も」によって等位接続されている。

（Saito (1985)）。(10)では、ニ格項の「嵐山(11a, b)の対比は、主格主語は CopP の内部にに」が「の」節の中から抜き出されており、収まるが、トピックは CopP の内部に収まらどちらも文法的である。このことは In-situ

ないことを示している。一方、「太郎は部屋

focus 文の「の」が名詞句を形成しないと考を片付けたのでも、ゴミを出したのでもな

えれば説明できる。

い」のように、等位接続される CopP の外側に現れると文法的になる。ここでは、このト(10) a. 嵐山に i 太郎が[[花子が ti 行った]の]ピックは主節の TopP 指定部に移動しているだと思っている。

と考えておく。

b. [[桃太郎が ti 行った]の]だと信じら(11) a. [CopP 太郎が部屋を片付けたので]もれているのは鬼ヶ島に i だ。

[CopP 次郎がゴミを出したので]もない。
(9)と(10)の事実は、In-situ focus 文の中核を

b. *[CopP 太郎は部屋を片付けたので]も[CopP 次郎はゴミを出したので]もない。

なす「の」は、補文標識化しており、名詞としての性質をすでに失っていることを示している。以上のことから、本論では、「の」(11b)から分かるもう一つのことは、トピッ

が CP の主要部であるという立場を取る。

クが「の」節の内部に現れないということでHiraiwa and Ishihara (2012)は、In-situ focus

ある。CopP の内部には「の」節が含まれる文に現れる「の」は FinP の主要部であるとので、トピックが「の」節に収まるのだとすしている。Rizzi (1997)の分裂 CP 仮説ではれば(11b)は文法的になるはずである。このCP 領域は[ForceP [TopP* [FocP [TopP* [FinP [TP …]]]]]]

ため、In-situ focus 文の「の」は TopP よりもの階層をなす。FinP の主要部は、CP の最も低い位置にある投射の主要部であるという低い構造位置に現れ、TP を補部に取る。しことになる。Rizzi (1997)の枠組みでは、Fin

かし、Hiraiwa and Ishihara では Fin 主要部分

主要部が唯一の候補となる。FocP や ForceP

析の証拠が示されていない。

にはトピックが収まるが、TP を補部に取る

ここでは、トピックの「は」のデータから

Fin にはトピックが収まらないからである。

In-situ focus 文の「の」が TopP よりも低い「の」の Fin 主要部仮説は、その補部にトFinP の位置に現れることを示す。
この構文にピック以外の CP 主要部も生起できないこと

は、トピックを生起させることができる。実を予測する。この予測は正しく、「*太郎が際、「太郎はその本を読んだの{だ/である}」

来るだろうのだ」、「*太郎が来ますのです」、

76

「*太郎が来るねのだ」のように、それぞれ、経由して A-移動する要素がないからである

CP モーダル、丁寧語、終助詞を埋め込んだと言える。（「先生は美人でいらっしゃる」

文は非文である（野田 (1997)）。一方、「太のような文は文法的なので、コピュラを尊敬

郎は来なかったのだ」のように、否定辞は表語化できないというわけではない。）

出できる。これは、否定辞の移動先となる

一方、複文構造をなし、上昇構文とされる

FinP の主要部位置（「の」の起こる位置）が「ている」構文の場合、埋め込み節の動詞も提供されるためである。

主節の動詞も尊敬語化が可能である。実際、

以上、本節では、In-situ focus 文の「の」「先生がお走りになっている」とも「先生がは CP 主要部であり、カートグラフィーの枠

走っていらっしゃる」とも言うことができる。

組みでは、FinP の主要部であることを示した。 これは、尊敬の対象となる人物の「先生」が派生の途中で埋め込み節と主節の vP の両方
5. 非上昇構文を経由することによる。

本節では、In-situ focus 文における主語位

次に、第 4 節で示した等位接続のデータか

置について検討し、この構文の統語構造を示らも、ガ格主語が主節に移動しないことが分す。近年の研究では、複文構造をもつ構文のかる。(11)で見たように、ガ格主語は「も」中には、ガ格主語が主節の TP 指定部まで上で接続される CopP の内部に収まる。主節の昇するもの があるこ とが報告 されているTP 指定部は CopP の外側にあるので、(11)の（Kishimoto (2012)）。これに対して、Terada

データは、ガ格主語が主節の TP 指定部への(1993)は、In-situ focus 文の主語は、上位節まA-移動の適用を受けないことを示している。

で移動せず、埋め込み節の TP 指定部に留まもちろん、(13a)に示しているように、等位接るとしている。本節では、二つの経験的証拠

続された句の内部にある動詞を尊敬語化すを挙げて、Terada (1993)の非上昇構文分析をることはできる。しかし、(13b)に示される

支持する。

ように、主節の動詞は尊敬語化できない。

Terada (1993)では取り上げられていないが、非上昇構文分析を支持するさらなる証拠(13) a. [CopP 山田先生が部屋をお片づけになとして、In-situ focus 文では、主節の動詞のったので]も[CopP 岡田先生がゴミをお主語尊敬語化が不可能である（関連する議論出しになったので]もない。

については、竹沢 (2016)を参照）。(12)は、

b. *[CopP 山田先生が部屋を片付けたの埋め込み節の動詞は尊敬語化を受けることで]も[CopP 岡田先生がゴミを出したのができるが、主節の動詞ではそれが許されなで]もいらっしゃらない。

いことを示している。
これらの事実から、In-situ focus 文に現れ
(12) a. 先生がお走りになったの{だ/である}。 るガ格主語は主節には移動しないという、
b. *先生が走ったのでいらっしゃる。

Terada (1993)の分析が支持される。また、これまでに見てきた事実を踏まえると、In-situ

Kishimoto (2012)によれば、主語尊敬語化のfocus 文の統語構造は、(14)のようになる。

ターゲットとなる名詞句は A-移動の際に vP（「だ」は「である」の縮約形として実現す

指定部を経由しておく必要がある。In-situ

る。）前節までに論じたように、この構文でfocus 文を非上昇構文だと考えると、(12b)がは、「の」は FinP（CP）の主要部であり、非文であるのは、主節の動詞の vP 指定部を

コピュラは vP を投射する主要部である。さ77

らに、本節の議論からガ格主語は埋め込み節

in Honor of Mamoru Saito, ed. by Y.

内の TP 指定部に留まると考えられる。

Miyamoto, D. Takahashi, H. Maki, M.
Ochi, K. Sugisaki, and A. Uchibori,(14) [TP [vP [VP [CopP [FinP [TP SBJ…] no] de] V] ar] T]

192-217, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2013b) “Verbal Complex
Formation and Negation in Japanese,”

本節では、ガ格主語の構造位置について議論するとともに、本論における In-situ focus

Lingua 135, 132-154.
三上章 (1953)『現代語法序説: シンタクスの文の統語構造を示した。

試み』刀江書院, 東京.
6. 結語

Miyagawa, Shigeru (1987) “LF Affix Raising in

日本語統語論における CP の研究では、語Japanese,” Linguistic Inquiry 18, 362-367.

順や談話との関連性に基づいて、CP の主要

日本語記述文法研究会 (編) (2003)『現代日本部が認定されることがある。しかし、本論の語文法 4 第 8 部モダリティ』くろしお

議論から示唆されるように、この二つの基準

出版, 東京.

からだけでは CP の主要部かどうかを判別す

Nishiyama, Kunio (1999) “Adjectives and the
Copulas in Japanese,” Journal of East

ることはできない。
本論では、In-situ focus 文における「の」Asian Linguistics 8, 183-222.

は CP の主要部であり、コピュラは VP の主野田春美 (1997)『の(だ)の機能』くろしお出要部であることを論じた。このことを示すた

版, 東京.

めに、過去時制、取り立て詞の挿入、伝聞のRizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of the「そうだ」、複合名詞句制約、等位接続など

Left Periphery,” Elements of Grammar:に関わるデータを提示した。さらに、尊敬語

Handbook of Generative Syntax, ed. by L.

化と等位接続に関する事実から、この構文がHaegeman, 281-337. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Saito, Mamoru (1985) Some Asymmetries in

非上昇構文であることを論じた。

Japanese

and

their

Theoretical

Implications, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

* 本研究は JSPS 科研費 JP19J20008 の助成をSaito,

受けている。

Mamoruselection:(2015)“Cartography

Case studies

in

and

Japanese,”

参考文献

Beyond Functional Sequence, ed. by U.

Hiraiwa, Ken and Shinichiro Ishihara (2012)

Shlonsky, 255-274. Oxford University“Syntactic Metamorphosis: Clefts, Sluicing,

Press, New York.

and In-Situ Focus in Japanese,” Syntax 15,

竹沢幸一 (2016)「日本語モーダル述語構文

142-180.
Kishimoto,の統語構造と時制辞の統語的役割」, 藤
Hideki(2012)“Subject

田耕司・西村義樹 (編)『日英対照 文法

Honorification and the Position of Subjectsと語彙への統合的アプローチ』, 55-76,

in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian

開拓社, 東京.

Linguistics 21, 1-41.
Kishimoto,

Hideki(2013a)Terada, Michiko (1993) “Null-expletive subject“Noteson

in Japanese,” Kansas Working Papers in

Correlative Coordination in Japanese,”

Linguistics 18, 91-110.

Deep Insights, Broad Perspectives: Essays

辻村敏樹 (1967)『現代の敬語』共文社, 東京.

78

2. ROC の統語的・意味的特徴

ここでは、ROC の統語的、意味的特徴を概観する。ROC は、(2b)が示すように、本来自動詞である動詞に名詞句が後続する形式
反応目的語構文(ROC)の統語的・意味的特徴をとる。Reaction Object (以下、RO)は、(2)について*における PP 前方位置(動詞の直後)(2b)、PP（A Syntactic and Semantic Analysis of

後方位置(2c)にも生じる。後述するが、ROC

Reaction Object Constructions）の基本語順は、(2b)であり、(2c)には重名詞
句移動構文と同じ特性を示すことに注意が西原俊明 (Toshiaki Nishihara)

必要である。

長崎大学 (Nagasaki University)
古川武史 (Takeshi Furukawa)(2) a. She smiled to him.

福岡工業大学 (Fukuoka Institute ofb. She smiled her thanks to me.

Technology)

c. She smiled to me the heartfelt thanks I had
been hoping for.
次に、自動詞と共に生じる RO の統語的特キーワード：反応目的語構文、同族目的語構
文、項性、語彙従属化

徴として他動詞の目的語のような項性を示すことを挙げることができる。重名詞句である(3b)の場合を除き、動詞と名詞句の間に副1. はじめに詞は介入できない。また、(4a)(4b)が示すよ

英 語 に は 、 (1) に 示 す 反 応 目 的 語 構 文

うに、付加詞と考えられる二つの句、すなわ(reaction object construction)、あるいは動作表

ち across-句、at-句の語順変更は可能であるが、現構文 (gesture-expression construction）と呼(4d)(4f)から明らかなように RO とこれらのばれる構文が可能である。

いずれかの語句との語順変更は不可能である。つまり、重名詞句の場合を除き、RO が(1) She smiled her thanks.

付加詞と考えられる語句よりも右側の位置に生じることはできない。これらの事実は、

本稿では、(1)に示す反応目的語構文 (以下、RO が他動詞の目的語と同じように項位置でROC)の統語的・意味的特徴について明らかある目的語位置を占めていることを表してに し 、 同 族 目 的 語 構 文 (cognate object

いる。

construction)(以下、COC)に類似した派生メカ
ニズムを想定することで ROC の統語的・意(3) a.*She smiled warmly her thanks /味的特徴を捉えられることを明らかにする。

appreciation.
b. She smiled warmly the thanks we felt we

また、ROC 内の動詞に後続する名詞句は項

deserved.

性を有し、セット併合かペア併合かの選択に(4) a. She smiled across the table at her husband.

よって、二つの異なる語順が可能であること

b. She smiled at her husband across theも明らかにする。

table.
c. She smiled her thanks at her husband.

79

d.*She smiled at her husband her thanks.

ることを (9)(10)が示している。これらの事

e. She smiled her thanks across the table.

実も ROC において動詞に後続する名詞句がf. She smiled across the table *her thanks /目的語同様、項性を有することを示している

the thanks he felt he deserved.

と言える。
(9) a nod / smile / murmur of thanks / approval

また、他動詞文の目的語に適用可能な操作である Wh-移動、受動化、though 移動や do so(10) a half-smiled thanks / a warmly smiled

置換の適用が RO にも適用可能である。このthanks1

事実を(5)〜(7)が示している。

次に、ROC、及び RO の意味的特徴につい(5) a. What did he nod his agreement of?

て 見 て い き た い 。 Jespersen (1928) 、 Levinb. What did he woof his agreement at?

(1993)によると、意味的特徴として ROC は(6) a. After a delay, her reluctant approval was(11)の意味を持つと考えられている。

finally smiled in our direction, and webegan the work immediately.

(11) “express (a reaction) by V-ing,” where “V”

b. A heartfelt thanks was smiled by Mary.

is the basic sense of the verb.

(7) a. Smile her thanks though she did, I didn’t(Levin (1993: 98))

recognize it.
b. She smiled her thanks to me, and I did so,

Levin(1993)によれば、非言語的表現動詞類、

too.

wink 動詞類、発話様態動詞類が ROC に生じる。2 これらの動詞に加えて、(11)の意味を

上記の事実は、RO が他動詞の目的語に近い持つことが可能な音創出動詞 tut-tut、woof、

ものであり、項性を持ち合わせていることを

voice、hum、eco、bark なども ROC に生じる示している。この事実をさらに支持するものことができる。(12)がこの事実を示している。

として、COCA からの用例(8)を挙げることができる。(8)は、RO が return の目的語とし(12) a. Seed tut-tuts his thanks.
b. Atlas woofed his agreement.

て共有されていることを示すものである。

(COCA)

c. They barked our good mornings.
(8) Buddy spotted John and smiled a hello,
which John returned ▲.

つまり、ROC は、話者の表情や音などを通して話者の態度や意見、気持ちなどを伝える(3)〜(8)の事実と特徴に加えて、ROC に生構文だと言える。ROC が持つ意味的特徴と起する動詞が名詞化された場合、動詞の目的

して(11)を満たす必要があるが、相手に伝え語に相当する名詞句が of の後に生じることられる内容は動詞が表す行為によって制限が 可 能 で あ る 。 ま た 、 Levin & Rappaportが加えられると考えられる。3 動詞 nod は容(1986)では、他動詞とその目的語の関係にあ認・同意する内容、理解、満足感、感謝、励る場合、動詞が受動分詞化して名詞句を修飾

ましなど様々なことを伝えることが可能ですることが可能であることが指摘されていあるが、動詞 laugh、shrug は、選択制限がる。これらの事実が、ROC に生起する動詞

nod よりも厳しいという事実が存在する。

が名詞化された場合、RO との間にも見られCOCA からの例である(13)が示すように、動80

詞 laugh は、容認とコメント、動詞 shrug は、口にするとその行為は終了すると考えられ

不確かさ、無関心、謝罪などしか表すことがるが、感謝の念は何度でも笑顔に乗せて伝えできないように思われる。また、動詞の意味

ることが可能だと考えられる。したがって、によっては、ひとつの行為によって二つのこ

appreciation の場合は、結果として、again andとを相手に伝えることも可能である。 (14)again と共起できることになる。また、ROC

では、お礼と受け入れの表明がうなずきによに進行相が可能であるということ(15b)、非有って伝えられている。ここで見た制限は、動界を表す for-句や while- 句と共起可能であ詞が指定する名詞句の意味素性としてある

るという事実を示す(15c)(15d)は、ROC の解種の指定がなされていると考えられる。

釈に関して非有界の解釈が可能であることを示している。

(13) laugh: approval, comment

ここでジェスチャー動詞に触れておきた

shrug: apologies, helplessness, indifference,

い。(16a)のジェスチャー動詞も一見するとuncertainty

ROC に生起する動詞に類似しているように(14) ...nodded his thanks and acceptance of her

見える。ジェスチャーにより、話者の考えや

present.

気持ちを伝えることが可能である。しかしな(https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~spok/heidi/heidi.html)

がら、(16b)から明らかなように、(11)の意味に合致しないことから ROC とみなすことは

さらに、ROC の意味的特徴として次の事できないと思われる。

実を挙げることが可能である。通例、RO は
ROC に生起する動詞の行為の結果を表す目(16) a. He gestured his agreement.
b. Barkinflas gestured his agreement by的語であり、ROC の解釈は有界であると考えられる。しかしながら、動詞が表す意味、

clenching a large fleshy fist.
(COCA(下線は、筆者))

及び後続する名詞句の意味によっては非有界の解釈が可能になることを(15)が示してい前節で RO は、統語的に項性を持つことを指る。

摘したが、動詞と RO の密接な関係を副詞の(15) a. She smiled her appreciation / *her thanks

解釈の点からも触れておきたい。(17)の文にagain and again.

含まれる副詞は、うなずきによって嫌々なが

b. He came into the room just as she was

ら同意したことを示すものである。(17)の文

smiling her appreciation.

は、 (18)の解釈を持ち、(11)の意味に合致し

c. She smiled her appreciation repeatedly /ている。

for several minutes (until he finally
noticed).

(17) a. He reluctantly nodded agreement.

d. The bookman smiled his thanks while heb. He grudgingly nodded agreement.

followed the craftsman’s scrutiny of the(18) He expressed reluctant agreement by nod-pages.

ding.

(Cable (2012), The Flower of the
Chapdelaines)

最後に、RO の意味的特徴として指示的であるという事実がある。(2c)(3b)から明らか

お礼の言葉を伝えるという発話行為は、一度なように、RO には形容詞や関係詞節などの81

修飾語句がつき、RO は指示的である。 ここ

強く示すものである。

で注意すべきは、ROC の場合、COC とは異(22) ?What kind of smile did Chris wonder

なり、V-Adj-DP(動詞・形容詞・名詞)の連鎖

whether Lee smiled? (大庭 (2013:62))

では形容詞は後続する名詞句を修飾する解釈のみが可能となるという点にある。つまり、 (23) Smiles were smiled, goodbyes were waved,
次節で取り上げる COC 内に生起する形容詞

and a good time was had by all.

が持つ二つの解釈の両方を有してはいない。

(Wanner (2009: 72))

換言すると、RO に非指示的な解釈は容認さ(24) a. Smile a happy smile though Chris did, no
one questioned her energy.

れないことになる。

b. Chris smiled a happy smile, and Mary
(19) a. He nodded enthusiastic agreement.

did so, too.

b. He gently nodded enthusiastic agree-c. Chris smiled a happy life, and Mary did

ment.

so, too.

(大庭 (2013:62))(19a)において形容詞が名詞句を修飾し、動詞

次に、COC の意味的特徴について RO とを修飾していないことは(19b)から明らかで並行的に捉えられる事実を確認することにある。

する。大庭 (2013)によれば、COC においても有界・非有界の解釈が可能である。大庭は、

3. COC との類似点

Tenny (1994)が指摘している(25)をもとに、

この節では、同族目的語構文（以下、COC）

COC においても有界・非有界の解釈が可能との類似点を考察する。まず、COC の場合であることを述べている。for-句と共起可能

も(20)(21)から明らかなように、(2b)(2c)と同な こ と か ら COC が 表 す 出 来 事 は 非 有 界

じ語順が可能である。また、COC の場合、(atelic)であるとし、また、in-句と共起可能な

重名詞句移動が適用された(21b)の場合を除ことから出来事は有界の解釈が可能である

き、動詞と同族目的語 CO との間に副詞は介としている。

在できない。
(25) a. Mary laughed a mirthless laugh for hours(20) a. She smiled at him the most beautiful/ in an hour.

smile he had ever seen.

b. Josie danced a silly for hours / in one

b. She smiled her most radiant smile at him.

hour.

(Tenny (1994: 39))

(Flesler and Wanner (2001:7))(21) a.*She lived happily a life.

また、大庭 (2013)は、CO には形容詞や of-b. She lived happily a life that most people

句などの修飾語句がつくと CO の内容はよりmight consider boring.

具体的になり、指示的になると述べている。
これは、１節で RO に関して見た事実と同じ

さらに、 (5)~(7)で観察した事実、Wh-移動、である。しかしながら、ここで RO と CO の

受動化、though 移動や do so 置換などの操作違いについて触れておきたい。CO は RO とが CO にも適用可能であることが(22)~(24)かは異なり、非指示的である場合が許されるとらわかる。これらの操作が適用可能であるという特徴を持つ。大庭 (2013)によると、(26a)いう事実は、CO と RO との統語的類似性をの問いに対する答えである(26b)では、CO は82

指示的でなく、形容詞は様態の副詞のように(31)解釈できる。この点は、先に見た(19)が示す[vP v [AspP RO [Asp’ [Asp] [VP[RO]

事実とは異なることに注意したい。他方、(27a)の質問に対する応答である(27b)は、CO[V’[V][PP ]]]]

は指示的になる。RO と CO に関するこの違いは、3 節において ROC の派生を考察する

大庭(2013)によれば、(28)の構造における機際に違いとして反映させることになる。

能範疇 small v と AspP は、Travis (2012)の分
析の援用であり、それぞれ(29)の意味構造の(26) a. How did Catherine smile?

CAUSE と BECOME に対応している。
また、

b. She smiled a {sudden / *thin-lipped}

Large V は EXIST / EXPRESSED を表すと分smile.

析されている。この仮定は、本来自動詞であ(27) a. What sort of smile did Catherine smile?

るものが EXIST / EXPRESSED の述語に語彙

b. She smiled a {*sudden / thin-lipped}

的に従属化することによって目的語をとる

smile.

(Horita (1996: 238-239))

他動詞になるという Massam (1990)の分析を取り込んだものである。また、CO が指示的

4. ROC の派生である場合は元の位置から AspP の指定部位

ここでは 1 節及び 2 節で指摘した事実をも置へ移動し、そこで有界的な出来事の解釈がとに、COC を分析した大庭 (2013)の分析を与えられると分析されている。さらに、大庭一部援用し、ROC の派生を考える。大庭(2013)は Marantz(2005)にしたがい、small v(2013)では、COC の構造として(28)が仮定さに動詞の root を直接的に併合し、この操作がれている。また、(28)は、(29)の意味構造を

語彙従属化の効果をもち、「手段」の解釈が反映するものとして捉えられている。

なされると分析されている。ROC の派生に(28)(29)をもとに ROC の構造、及び派生は、関しても大庭(2013)が採用している Massam(30)(31)であると考える。

(1990)、Marantz (2005)の分析を援用することにする。また、1 節で見た統語的特徴をもと(28) [vP v [AspP CO [Asp’ [Asp] [VP [CO] [V]]]]]に、ROC の基本構造は(30)であると仮定する。

(29) a. [x CAUSE [y BECOME EXPRESSED]]

さらに、AspP には、[±telic]という素性を仮BY [x verb]

定し、RO は AspP の指定辞へ移動すると考b. [x CAUSE [yi BECOME EXIST]]える。この移動を駆動するのは small v に付与される[±telic]という素性だと仮定する。4

BY [x verb]i

この移動により V-DP-PP の語順配列になる。
また、動詞が[±telic]素性のどちらを選択す
るかで有界、非有界のいずれかの解釈が決定されると仮定する。
(30)

ここで問題になるのが、(2c)(3b)(4f)における語順である。文末における名詞句は重名詞
句移動 (Heavy NP Shift)が適用された例と類似の特徴を示す。つまり、重名詞句でないとV-PP-DP の語順を取ることは容認されない。
これまでの研究から重名詞句は付加部の位

83

(i)*Her assent was smiled.
(Huddleston and Pullum (2002:305))(ii)*A cheerful welcome was beamed by Sandra.
(Levin (1993: 98))

置にあることが指摘されている。この事実を併合という操作に当てはめて考えると、派生のある段階で名詞句をペア併合する派生の選択肢があると考えられる。(20a)から分かる

2

ように、このオプションは COC にも存在すると考えられる。文末の位置を占める重名詞
句は、情報構造上、焦点が置かれる。この事
実から、ペア併合による派生オプションは、
英語の文末焦点の原理にしたがうオプショ
ンとして存在していると考えることができる。
この節では、(29)の下に示した構造、及び(30)(31)で示した RO の移動から RO が動詞に

非言語的表現動詞類としては、frown, sigh,chuckle などが挙げられる。
3
ROC に同じ動詞を用いていたとしても男女間で生起できる名詞句に違いが見られる
場合がある。また、名詞句の前に形容詞が生じやすい場合とそうでない場合がある。これ
らの特徴は、大変興味深い事実であり、詳細については、今後の研究の課題としたい。
4
AspP の指定辞への移動は small v 内の素性が駆動するという分析は、大庭の分析とは異なる。

直接後続する語順の文が派生されると分析参考文献した。また、重名詞句との関係からペア併合

Flesler, Claudia and Anja Wanner (2001) “Theの適用を受け、RO が右側の文末の位置を占める語順を含む文が派生されると分析した。

Syntax of Cognate and Other Unselected
Objects,” Structural Aspects of SemanticallyComplex Verbs ed. by Nicole Dehé and Anja

5. 結語

Wanner, 105-130, Peter Lang, Frankfurt, Bern

本稿では、ROC の統語的、意味的特徴を

and New York.

概観し、COC との類似性に触れ、ROC の構

Jespersen, Otto (1928) Modern Grammar of造と派生について提案を行った。両構文の動English on Historical Principles, George

詞に後続する名詞句には項性が観察され、意Allen and Unwin, London.

味的には有界的な出来事、非有界の両方を表

Levin, Beth (1993) English Verb Classes and

すことが可能であること、名詞句がセット併

Alternations: a Preliminary Investigation,

合される派生とペア併合される派生が存在

Chicago University Press, Chicago.

することを明らかにした。さらに、CO と RO

Marantz, Alec (2005) “Objects out of theが示す解釈の違い、RO は常に指示的である

Lexicon: Objects as Events,” ms., MIT.

という事実は RO の ASspP の指定辞への移動

Massam, Diane (1990) “Cognate Objects asにあると分析した。

Thematic Objects,” Canadian of Journal of
Linguistics 35, 161-190.

*本稿の内容に関して、Thomas Wasow 氏、小大庭幸男 (2013) 「英語の同族目的語構文の野尚之氏に貴重なご意見をいただいた。ここ

統語特性について」『関西英文学研究』6,に感謝の意を記したい。

59-65, 関西英文学会（日本英文学会）

注1
受動化が適用できるかどうかは、受動文の主語がトピックとして機能できるかどうかの問題であり、文法性は意味的・語用論的な要因に影響を受けると考えられる。下記の例
は、(6)に挙げた用例の判断とは異なり、不適格であるとみなされている例である。

Travis, Lisa deMena (2010) Inner Aspects: The
Articulation of VP, Springer, Dordrecht.
Wanner, Anja (2009) Deconstructing the English
Passive, De Gruyter, Mouton.

84

Mary’s grade. Of course the same interpretation
can be obtained with Mary’s, but the point of (4)is that the comparison with Mary’s grade is still
possible with Mary. Compared to comparison
allows such flexible interpretations. However, itInterpretive Economy and Presuppositions*comes with restrictions. The example in (5)Toshiko Oda

intuitively makes a comparison between John’sTokyo Keizai University

brother’s age and Mary’s age, and it never draws
a comparison with Mary’s brother’s age.

Keywords：Interpretive Economy,(5) Compared to Mary, John’s brother is older.

presuppositions, comparison, compared to

The lack of comparison with Mary’s brotheris puzzling. We have observed in (4) that Mary

1. Introduction

intuitively refers to Mary’s grade. In (5),The goal of this study is to argue that theamountofpresuppositionsissubject

however, Mary never refers to Mary’s brother.

toInterpretive Economy, an economy principle

The case of (5) suggests that syntactic

proposed by Kennedy (2007). Evidence isanalysis is not a good option. One may analyze

obtainedthe case of (4) with a deletion, as in Mary’s

from(un)available

readings

ofgrade. However, -’s grade is not even a

compared to comparison in English.
There are at least two types of phrasal

constituent to begin with. Even if we assume

comparison constructions in English. One is the

such deletion of non-constituents, it is difficult

standard more than comparison as shown in (1),to explain why similar deletion of Mary’s

and the other is compared to comparison as

brother is not possible for (5).

shown in (2). They appear to have similar

We should instead pursue a semanticinterpretations.

analysis that is flexible enough to provide acomparison with Mary’s grade in (4) while being(1) John is older than Mary.

constrained so as not to allow a comparison with

(2) Compared to Mary, John is older.1

Mary’s brother in (5). How is this possible?
In this study, I will argue that the key to

However, careful observation reveals that thesolving this puzzle is Interpretive Economy

two types of comparison behave differently. For(Kennedy 2007), which requires truth conditions

example, (3) is nonsensical, while (4) is sensible

to be made with minimal contextual information.

and intuitively makes a comparison between

I will adopt the semantics of compared toJohn’s grade and Mary’s.

comparison in the manner of Hohaus (2015),
which relies heavily on context. I will then show

(3) #John’s grade is better than Mary.

1that in the case of (5), the comparison between(4) Compared to Mary, John’s grade is better.

John’s brother and Mary’s brother requires more
contextual information than that between John’s

In other words, Mary in (4) intuitively refers tobrother and Mary. Thus, Interpretive Economy85

A sensible comparison of John’s grade andbans the former and allows only the latter.
The organization of this paper is as follows.

Mary’s grade is not possible in (3). Such

Section 2 reviews the frameworks of more thaninterpretation requires the LF structure given incomparison and compared to comparison, and(10). John needs to move out of the NP, which isobserves how the contrast between (3) and (4)ruled out by the left branch condition (Rossarises. Section 3 analyzes the (un)available1967).

interpretations of the compared to comparison in(5). I will argue that the possible readings are(10) [ John [[DegP –er than Mary][2[1governed by Interpretive Economy. Section 4[[NP t1-’s grade] is t2-good]]]]]

attempts

todiscusswhat

isconsidered

economical by Interpretive Economy and clarify

I now explore the semantics of compared toissues for further research. Section 5 provides

comparison.2 Unlike more than comparison,concluding remarks.

there are not many proposed frameworks forcompared to comparison. Hohaus (2015) is the
only option to my knowledge that is explicit

2. Semantics of Two Types of Comparison
This section reviews the basic frameworks ofenough to adopt. According to her framework,

more than comparison and compared to

the LF structure of (2) will be as in (11).

comparison and shows how the contrast between(3) and (4) arises.

(11) [[FrameP FRAME Compared to Mary] [3[[DegP

I will first review Heim’s (1985) semantics–er d7][1[John is t1-old s3]]]]]of phrasal more than comparison for the purposeof our discussion. The LF structure of (3) is

The compared to-phrase is part of FrameP on top

given in (6). The antecedent John’s grade andof the structure. Crucially, it is not an argument

DegP undergo movement, which leaves aof the comparative morpheme. The argument ofpredicate of <d,<e,t>>. The semantics of thethe comparative morpheme is d7, a free variable

comparative morpheme for phrasal comparativesof degree.

by Heim is shown in (7). I assume that gradable

The meaning of the main clause John ispredicates are type <d,<e,t>>, as exemplified inolder is calculated normally. The comparative(8) (Cresswell 1976, von Stechow 1984). The

morpheme given in (12) makes a comparison

truth conditions give in (9) end up being awith a free variable of degree, the value of

nonsensical comparison between John’s grade

which is determined by the context.

and Mary herself.
(12) 〚-er〛=d<d>.D<d,t>. MAX(D)>dc(6) [[NP John’s grade][[DegP –er than Mary][2[1What, then, is the contribution of Compared[t1 is t2-good]]]]](7)〚-er〛=y<e>.p<d, et>.x<e>.MAX(d. p(d)(x))

to Mary? Hohaus argues that it contributes
presupposition that a comparison in the main

> MAX(d. p(d)(y))(8) 〚good〛=d<d>.x<e> x is d-goodclause must be made with a grade related to(9) MAX(d. good(d)(John’s grade)) > MAX(d.

Mary. Put differently, it narrows down situations
so that no other comparison takes place. A

good(d)(Mary))86

similar idea has been proposed by Beck et al.

(17) s:s MIN(s*.x<e>,<s,<e,d>>(2004) for the role of yorimo ‘than’-phrases in[(s*)(x)(s*)(Mary)]).

Japanese. However, Hohaus crucially assumes

MAX(d. John is d-old in s)>g(7)(18) 〚d7〛g= g(7) the age of Mary in sthat compared to-phrases are part of the LF
structure and contribute presuppositions, while
neither of these is assumed by Beck et al.

We can now explore how the sensible

The compositional semantics of FrameP isreading of (4) is obtained. The LF structure ofshown in (13) through (16). Compared to Mary(4) is given in (19).

refers to some kind of degree comparison with
Mary as shown in (13). FRAME operator, defined(19) [[FrameP FRAME Compared to Mary] [3[[DegP

as in (14), takes a frame setting phrase such as a–er d7][1[John’s grade is t1-good s3]]]]]

compared to phrase and adds its meaning as apresupposition in a minimal situation. The

The semantics of FrameP is the same as in (16).

minimality operator is defined as in (15). Given

The truth conditions of the sentence are given inthese ingredients, the FrameP in (11) contributes(20). When defined, the sentence is true if andadegreeonly if John’s grade is better than a contextuallycomparison with Mary takes place in a minimal

given degree. The contextually given degree issituation as in (16).

naturally understood as the grade of Mary, as

presupposition

that

a

relevant

shown in (21), because of the presupposition. In(13)〚Compared to Mary〛=s
.x<e>,this case,  in the presupposition serves as a<s,<e,d>>[(s)(x) (s)(Mary)]function that takes an individual and maps to thegrade of the individual. This flexibility of  is(14)〚FRAME〛=p<s,t>.q<s,t>.s:MIN(p)(s).q(s)the secret behind the sensible reading of (4).

(Hohaus (2015:68))(15)〚MIN〛=p<s,t>.s.p(s) & s’[s’≺s &p(s’)](20) s:s MIN(s*.x<e>,<s,<e,d>>(Hohaus (2015:68))[(s*)(x)(s*)(Mary)]).

(16)〚FrameP〛=q<s,t>.s: sMIN(s*.x<e>,MAX(d. John’s grade is d-old in s)>g(7)<s,<e,d>>[(s*)(x) (s*)(Mary)])(21) 〚d7〛g= g(7) the grade of Mary in s

The truth conditions of (2) are given in (17),This section reviewed the semantics of thewhich roughly means that the sentence is

two types of comparison and how the contrast

defined if a situation is small enough to only

between (3) and (4) arises. The semantics ofhave a degree comparison with Mary. When

compared to construction relies on contextual

defined, the sentence is true if and only if John’s

information, namely presuppositions and free

age is greater than a contextually given degree.

variables of degree. This contextual dependency

The contextually given degree is naturally

gives compared to comparison some flexibility

understood as the age of Mary, as shown in (18),in its interpretation.

due to the presupposition. Put more formally, in the presupposition serves as a function that

3. Compared to Comparison and Interpretive

takes an individual and maps to the age of the

Economyindividual.

87

We have seen that compared to comparison

degree is understood as the age of Mary, as

enjoys flexibility that is not available for more

shown

in

than comparison. Nevertheless, compared topresupposition.

(25),

which

satisfies

thecomparison is not a magic bullet—it comes withsome restrictions. We have already seen that (5)(23) [[FrameP FRAME Compared to Mary] [3[[DegP–er d7][1[John’s brother is t1-old s3]]]]]

makes a comparison with Mary herself, and it
never makes a comparison with Mary’s brother.

(24) s:s MIN(s*.x<e>,<s,<e,d>>

Why is that the case?

[(s*)(x)(s*)(Mary)]).
MAX(d. John’s brother is d-old in s)>g(7)I propose that there is an economy principle(25) 〚d7〛g= g(7) the age of Mary in sthat governs (un)available interpretations ofcompared to comparison, namely Interpretive

This means that  in the presupposition serves as

Economy by Kennedy (2007) as cited in (22).

a function that takes an individual and maps tothe age of the individual. This is more formally(22) Interpretive Economy
Maximizethecontribution

presented as in (26)ofconventional meanings of the elements of(26) =x<e>.s
. the age of x in sa sentence to the computation of its truth
conditions. (Kennedy (2007: 36))

Second, consider the interpretation of theThis means that this principle allows “contextual

unavailable reading, namely a comparison of

dependent truth conditions only as a last resort”

John’s brother’s age and Mary’s brother’s age.

(Kennedy (2007:4)). Presuppositions are a type

The LF structure is the same as in (23). As forof

Therefore,

the relevant truth conditions given in (27), theInterpretive Economy is expected to choose an

assertion part is the same as that of (24). Theinterpretation with less presuppositions among

difference appears in the presupposition. For themultiple candidates. This is why compared tosake of comparison, let us retain the meaning ofcomparisons have unavailable interpretations

 as in (26). In that case, the presupposition indespite their flexible mechanism.

(27) requires an additional function , i.e., acontextual

information.

Let us now return to the case of (5), where afunction that takes an individual and maps to thecomparison is made between John’s brother’s

brother of the individual. With this extra 

age and Mary’s age, not between John’sfunction, the free variable of degree isbrother’s age and Mary’s brother’s age. This isunderstood as the age of Mary’s brother, as

because the truth conditions of the former

shown in (28).

involve less presupposition than those of the(27) s:s MIN(s*.x<e>,<s,<e,d>>latter.
First, consider the LF structure and the truth[(s*)(x)(s*)((Mary))]).
MAX(d. John’s brother is d-old in s)>g(7)conditions of the available interpretation given
in

(23)

and

(24),

respectively.

(28) 〚d7〛g= g(7) the age of Mary’s brotherThe

presupposition requires that a relevant degree

in scomparison involves Mary. The free variable of88This means that the truth conditions in (27)Interpretive Economy is that an interpretation

require two functions in their presupposition as

does not require context-dependent semantics.

listed in (29).

Kennedy discusses a difference between relative
gradable adjectives and absolute gradable(29) =x<e>.s
. the age of x in s

adjectives in proposing Interpretive Economy.

=x<e>.s
. the brother of x in s

Let us see an example. Short is a relative
gradable adjective, and bent is an absolute

When we compare (29) with (26), (29) comes

gradable adjective. The semantics of short in its

with an extra function, namely . Because of

positive form is context dependent. Thus,

this extra function, a comparison with Mary’s

whether or not (30) is true depends on its

brother requires more contextual informationutterance context. Even a person with a height ofthan a comparison with Mary herself. Thus, the

180cm can be considered short in a basketball

truth conditions given in (27) is banned byteam. On the other hand, the semantics of bent inInterpretive Economy.

its positive form is not context-dependent. Bent

In summary, the combination of Hohaus

comes with a lower closed scale (Kennedy and(2015) and Kennedy (2007) captures the

McNally 2005)—any non-zero degree of being(un)available

tobent counts as bent. Kennedy argues that relative

comparison. The semantics of compared tointerpretation of bent in its positive form iscomparison proposed by Hohaus (2015) enjoys

possible in principle, but it is blocked byflexible interpretations that are not allowed forInterpretive

more

context-dependent semantics.

thanreadings

ofcomparison

compared

due

to

its

Economybecauseof

its

context-dependent semantics. Nevertheless, itcomes with a restriction, namely Interpretive(30) X is short.

Economy as proposed by Kennedy (2007),(31) X is bent.

which requires truth conditions to involve
minimum context-dependent information.

Another state that is considered economical
by Interpretive Economy is that an interpretation
requires less contextual information than others.

4. What is Considered Economical byInterpretive Economy

This is what I have proposed in this paper. When

This section discusses what is considered

we have no option but to choose from

economical by Interpretive Economy. The

context-dependent interpretations, one with thediscussion

least

in

this

sectionremains

quite

context

dependenceischosenbyunderdeveloped at this time partly because of theInterpretive Economy. Thus, (5) allows only alack of research on Interpretive Economy. To mycomparison between the age of John’s brotherknowledge, Interpretive Economy has very little

and the age of Mary.

supportive phenomena thus far, and its nature isTheabove-mentioned

two

cases

are

yet to be explored. I hope that this section willreasonably clear. However, identifying andbe the first step toward a better understanding of

measuring contextual information can be a

Interpretive Economy.

challenging task. In the case of (5), for instance,

One state that is considered economical by

the amount of contextual information that I

89

discussed is limited to that in a minimal situation.

instance, at least some phrasal bi-comparatives

However, contextual information can be addedin Mandarin behave more like compared tooutside such minimal situations overtly orcomparison rather than more than comparisoncovertly.

3,4

The

issue

of

identifying

and(Oda 2020). More cross-linguistic research is tomeasuring relevant context information that is

be conducted.

subject to Interpretive Economy is left for future
research.

* I thank the anonymous reviewers and theaudience of the 38th meeting of the English

5. Conclusion

Linguistics Society of Japan. I particularly

I have argued that (un)available readings ofbenefitted from comments by Yusuke Kubota

compared to comparison are governed by

and Takeo Kurafuji during my oral presentation

Interpretive Economy, which requires minimal

at the conference. This work was inspired by An

involvement of context in truth conditions.

(2019, 2020), which discusses similar data in

When multiple interpretations are possible for a

Korean. Both An’s works and this study werecompared to comparison, one with the leastscheduled to be presented at a workshop on

presupposition

Interpretive

comparative constructions at Konkuk University,

Economy. To my knowledge, this is the first caseSeoul, in March 2020. Although the workshop

in which an economy constraint is proposed for

was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I

comparedtoit

am grateful to those who planned the conference.

providesfurtherInterpretive

All errors present in this manuscript are my own.

Economy, which has very little empiricalThis work was supported by the Japan Society

supportfor the Promotion on Science KAKENHI Grantatischosencomparison.
support

this

time.

by

Additionally,for

Nevertheless,thechallenging task of identifying and measuring

Number 20K00582.

contextual information is left for future research.
1

It is worth noting here that the analysis in

NOTES
The judgment can be ‘*’ as it is semanticallythis paper does not exclude the possibility ofill-formed.

syntactic deletion. In the case of (32), for2

instance, the syntactic deletion of grade is very

compared to comparison discussed in this paper

likely. It’s truth conditions will be calculated byinvolve

Hohaus’s framework.

comparative forms rather than positive forms.

It is important to note that all examples ofadjectives

in

main

clausesin

The corresponding sentences with positive forms(32) Compared to Mary’s [NP grade], John’s

exemplified in (i) have “vague” semantics, andgrade is better.

they have very different semantics from the datain this paper. See Sawada (2009) for details.

The contrast between more than comparison(i) Compared to Mary, John is old.

and compared to comparison discussed in this3

paper has an implication for cross-linguistic

interesting issue of how the interpretation ofresearch.

likerelevant free variables of degree can be affected.

compared to comparison are very likely not to

For instance, I have argued that , the brotherbe equivalents of more than comparison. For

function in (24), is blocked by Interpretive

Comparisons

thatbehave90

Takeo Kurabuji (p.c. 2020) raised an

An, Duk-Ho (2020) “Reduced NP Comparatives

Economy. However, the same information canbe overtly added as in (i), for instance.

in Korean and Their Implications,” Journal(i) If Mary has a brother, John’s brother is olderof East Asian Linguistics 29, 337-364.

compared to Mary.

Beck, Sigrid, Toshiko Oda, and Koji Sugisaki

Whether or not a comparison with Mary’s(2004)

brother can be enforced is an interesting issue.

Semantics of Comparison: Japanese vs.

However, relevant judgements are not available

English,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics

yet, and I leave the issue for further research.

13, 289-344.

4“Parametric

Variation

intheAn important question was raised by Yusuke

Cresswell, Maxwell J. (1976) “The Semantics of

Kubota (p.c. 2020). Though I do not have a clear

Degree,” Montague Grammar, ed. byanswer yet, it will be useful to state the question

Barbara Partee, 261-292, Academic Press,

here for further research: How do semantics and

New York.

pragmatics interact in determining possible

Heim, Irene (1985) "Notes on Comparatives andreadings? For instance, (i) out of the blue

Related Matters,” ms., University of Texas

compared the degree of Peter’s advisor and thatat Austin.

of Mary.

Hohaus, Vera (2015) Context and Composition,(i) Compared to Mary, Peter’s advisor is more

Doctoralcompetent.

dissertation,

University

ofTübingen.

However, native speakers may have different

Kennedy, Christopher (2007) “Vagueness andintuition when good context is provided. For

Grammar: The Semantics of Relative andinstance, imagine a situation in which people are

Absolute Gradable Adjectives,” Linguistics

talking about advisors of graduate students, andand Philosophy 30, 1-45.

Peter and Mary both have their own advisor. In

Kennedy, Christopher and Louise McNally

that situation, the pragmatically normal reading,(2005)

that is, a comparison of two academic advisors,“ScaleStructure,

DegreeModification, and the Semantics of Gradable

could be enforced, and a relevant free variable

Predicates,” Language 18, 345-381.

degree can be understood as the degree ofRoss, John R. (1967) Constraints on Variables

competence of Mary’s advisor. Similar data inin Syntax, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

(ii) was suggested by Takeo Kurafuji (p.c. 2020).

Sawada, Osamu (2009) “Parametric aspect of(ii) Compared to Germany, the capital city of

implicit comparison: An economy-based

Tokyo has more population.

approach,”

Unfortunately, the facts have not yet been

JournalofPragmatics

Toshiko(2020)“PragmaticComparison

in

41,

1079-1103.

confirmed, and I will leave this issue for further

Oda,

research.

Mandarin

PhrasalChinese,”Proceedings of the 19th Meeting of the Texas

REFERENCES
An, Duk-Ho (2019) “Reduced NP Comparatives

Linguistic Society, 43-61.
vonin Korean,” paper presented at Comparative

Stechow,

Arnim(1984)“Comparing

Syntax and Language Acquisition 9, Nanzan

Semantic Theories of Comparison,” Journal

University.

of Semantics 3, 1-77.

91

is basically capable of producing any type ofstructures, including undesirable ones. One
factor to limit this type of over generation is theLabeling Algorithm in the next section.

A Consideration on Pair-Merge ofArguments: From a Perspective ofExperiencers and Superiority Effect*

2.2. Labeling Algorithm
Chomsky (2013) introduces the minimal
search-based operation called the Labeling

Tomonori Otsuka

Algorithm (henceforth “LA”). The LA requires

Kyushu Universitythat any syntactic constituent be labeled to allow
for interface interpretation, with unlabeledconstituents being regarded as “uninterpretable.”

Keywords：Experiencer, Pair-Merge, Superiority

In the process of the LA, minimal search

Effectexplores a structure, detects the nearest head ineach relevant set, and then determines the head
1. Introduction

as its label. When a set involves one head andRecent theoretical research in Minimalist

one set, the process is simple, as in (2a), as theProgram has examined set-Merge that results in

LA uniformly determines the label based on thea set of two arbitrary items (Chomsky et al.

nearest head, X. However, the procedure(2019)). However, another merger operation

becomes more complicated when a set contains

called pair-Merge has been less investigated.

two sets, as shown in (2b), in which the twoThis research seeks to demonstrate usefulness of

involved heads are equidistant, which means thatpair-Merge by assuming that it is applicable not

the LA is unable to determine the label.

only to adjuncts but also arguments (Otsuka(2)(2017)) from the “Experiencer” perspective,
which is underlined in (1).
(1)

a. {XP X, {Y…}}
b. {?? {X…}, {Y…}}Chomsky (2013) proposes two solutions forJohn seems to Mary to be honest.

this situation. The first one is via sharing some
2. Theoretical Backgroundprominent features between the two equidistant

2.1. Free Merger

heads, as shown in (3a), with the LA uniquely

Recent theoretical research concluded that

determining the label for the relevant set frommerge operations were not triggered, but it could

the shared features of the two heads. The secondbeMerger”

solution is to internally merge either of the twoframework (see Chomsky (2015)) to bothheads, as shown in (3b), which is based on theexternal merge and internal merge, which usedassumption that a part of a chain is invisible toto be known as Move. Namely, the two

the LA, with the head that remains in its position

operations

not undergoing any internal merge becoming thefreelyapplied

are

under

interwoven

“Free

when

forminglabel for the set.

syntactic structures.
However, under this framework, the syntax

92

(3)

a. {<f, f> {X[f]…}, {Y[f]…}}clause. Therefore, John within the relative clauseb. {XP {X…}, {Y…}}does not violate condition C in its basegenerated position, but it does at the final
landing position. This is why He in the matrix
clause cannot co-refer to John and he in the

However, there is another way to circumvent

embedded clause can.

the “XP-YP” situation in (2): pair-Merge shownin the next subsection.

(4)
2. 3. Pair-Merge

Hei asked which picture of Bill [thatJohni*/j liked] hej bought t.

Chomsky (2004) introduces an operation(Chomsky (2004: 117-118)

called pair-Merge, which is defined as a merger(Indexes added by TO)

operation subclass. The motivation for the
3. A Brief Consideration on “Superiority”

introduction of pair-Merge is to explain theunique status of adjuncts. Pair-Merge creates an“Superiority” basically stipulates that anordered pair and ensures that either of the items

item cannot be displaced over another item fromin the pair can remain visible in the syntactic

the same category. As the examples for thecomponent, with the other rendered invisible.

double object construction in English in (5)Therefore,

as

exemplify, while the indirect object can be theextraction, are not applicable to the invisible

subject of the sentence in passives, the direct

item in the pair, which explains the asymmetricobject cannot. This “Superiority” effect is based

status of adjuncts including adjunct islands.

on the premise that the higher item c-commands

syntactic

operations,such

However, if a pair-Merged item remains

the lower one, as shown in (6).

invisible until the interfaces, it is unperceivableand violates the Full Interpretation condition.

(5)

This leads to a proposal for an operation called

a. John was sent t the book.
b.* The book was sent John t.

SIMPL(ification) to “reveal” the invisible item

(6)

a. I showed Mary herself (in the mirror).

at the interfaces. Therefore, pair-Merge ensuresb.* I showed herself Mary (in the mirror).

that either of the pair-Merged items is invisiblec. I gave every workeri hisi paycheck.

only within the syntactic component. This

d.* I gave itsi owner every paychecki.

resolves the “XP-YP” problem exemplified in(Barss and Lasnik (1986: 347-50))(2b), as either of the merged items can become
invisible to the LA.

However,howcan“Superiority”

beChomsky (2004) proves that pair-Merge canformalized under the Free Merger framework, inaccommodate examples such as (4). Given thatwhich both a displacement operation, namely,

pair-Merge renders an item invisible only withininternal merge, and external merge are freely

the syntax, the pair-Merged relative clause in (4)applicable? More specifically, Attract Closest

is invisible in its base-generated position(Richards (2001)) and Relativized Minimality(represented as t). Nevertheless, it comes back(Rizzi (1990)) are no longer tenable under the

into sight when SIMPL is applied at the end offramework that has no triggers for merger

the derivation after internal merge of the relative

operations.

93

“Superiority”

Unfortunately, while this paper cannot offer

presupposesac-commanda full proposal to reformulate “Superiority,” itrelationship between the relevant items, if there

does suggest a possible direction to proceed, as

were no c-command relationship between thethere is a possibility to embed the chain-subject and the Experiencer, there would be noformation process into the LA. Assume that it isproblem. Empirical facts, however, guarantee

not that the LA cannot see a part of a chain, as

the c-command relationship, as exemplified inclaimed by Chomsky (2013), but that the LA can(7) by virtue of conditions A, B, and C. (7)see one category only once, with all other items

indicates that the subject c-commands thefrom the same category being treated as copies

Experiencer, and the Experiencer c-commandsof the first detected item in the same chain.

the complement clause, from which the subject

Moreover, the head the LA searches out in an

launches.

NP-label determination is not N but n as
Chomsky (2007) argues. Hence, the LA cannot(7)

a. Johni seems to himselfi t to like cheese.

refer to lexical information on N and cannot

b.* It seems to himi that Johni likes cheese.

distinguish two different NPs within one domain.

(Lebeaux (2009: 32))

Therefore, there is a possibility that the LA
could incorrectly treat multiple NPs within the

Therefore, a contradiction arises; although

single LA domain as one chain and produce a

the Experiencer c-commands the subject in (7)“gibberish” chain that includes different NPs.

in its base position, the subject can be dislocated

The results in such a “gibberish” chain could

to a higher position than the Experiencer,

then lead to a reformulation of “Superiority”

without causing a “Superiority” violation. This

within the syntactic component under Free

contradiction has attracted the interest of several

Merger.

studies, which are briefly presented in the next

This assumption is preliminary and needs

subsection.

further elaboration. However, what should beemphasized is that Superiority” can have an

4. 2. Previous Studies

effect even under Free Merger. Hence thesubsequentdiscussion

is

based

on

Due to space limitations, this subsection

thisroughly sketches two positions without going

presumption.

into the detailed mechanisms. The first position
is represented by Kitahara (1997) and Epstein et

4. Problem

al. (1998) and basically claims that the4.1. Phenomenon

Experiencer in English does not c-command the

It is standardly assumed that the subject insubject in its original position but ends up c-

the raising construction undergoes the raisingcommanding the complement clause only after

from within the complement clause. In English,

the subject is raised. The other position fromthis raising process takes place beyond the

Boeckx (1999, 2008) argues that although theExperiencer.

theExperiencer in English c-commands the subject

Experiencer is an argument like the subject, thisin the base-generated position, subject raising israising process needs to be regarded as apermitted. This paper basically takes the former“Superiority”

position in the later discussion. For other

Nevertheless,violation.

given

Of

that

course,as94

previous studies, readers can consult Aranob. <Obj[uCase], {R[uPhi]…}>(2017), who succinctly reviews relevant issues.

(The shading represents an invisible status)

What is notable here, however, is that mostprevious studies are not compatible with the

If an argument does not relate to u-Phi or

recent Free Merger framework, in which theu-case feature valuing, it is compatible withsubject raising is not triggered by anything but ispair-Merge,

applied freely as one instance of free merger

Experiencer in English. Note that as theoperations. As no other arguments in any otherinfinitival T in English is standardly assumed toconstructions other than the Experiencer ignore

lack u-Phi features, no problem with the u-Phi“Superiority” and because it is confined tofeatures

English (as shown in 5.2.), the phenomenon

Experiencer in English has its u-case featureinvestigated here could be seen to be anvalued by the preposition to (or the u-case“exceptional” case. Therefore, it is ideal tofeature somehow receives a default value), there

accommodate

this“Experiencer

paradox”

is also no problem with the u-case feature.

withoutneedtospecialRather, if the Experiencer in English set-Merges,

theintroduce

apparatuses.

which

is

is

the

expected.

case

for

Moreover,

the

if

the

the “XP-YP” situation shown in 2.2. emerges
and the labeling always fails. Therefore, in

5. Analysis

summary, the Experiencer in English may in

5.1. Solving the Paradox

principle set-Merge or pair-Merge, but labeling

As was touched on in the introduction, thissucceeds only when it pair-Merges. This

research assumes that pair-Merge is also

indicates that in a convergent derivation, theapplicable to arguments. Therefore, under thisExperiencer is always invisible within the syntax,

assumption, any argument can in principle

which

undergo both set-Merge and pair-Merge. Note,violation arises.

however,

that

this

does

not

lead

then

means

that

no

“Superiority”

toovergeneration because other factors limit(9)a. <TP to Experiencer, {to…}>

possible derivations. For instance, if the subject

b. {?? to Experiencer, {to…}}

is pair-Merged in a standard tensed sentence, it(Shading represents an invisible status)

becomes syntactically invisible and therefore
cannot deal with the u-Phi features on T, which(10) John seems to Mary t to be honest.

also means the u-case feature on the subjectokremains unvalued as well. Similarly, if the object
participates in a derivation vie pair-Merge, theAfter SIMPL, the Experiencer returns to au-Phi features on R and the u-case feature on thevisible status and the desirable c-command

object remain unvalued; therefore, in therelationship holds in the C-I Interface. This

derivations for normal sentences, the pair-Merge

sufficiently explains (7).

invisibility always causes u-Phi and u-caseMorefeature problems.

importantly,

approachhere

accounts for the “exceptional” status of theExperiencer

(8)

the

without

havingtointroduce

additional apparatuses: the Experiencer ina. <Subj[uCase], {T[uPhi]…}>95

English is exceptional because it pair-Merges

that

Maria

was

tired.

even though it is an argument, and pair-Merge is‘Maria seemed to my friends to be tired.’(Treggo (1996: 106))an independently motivated operation to explain
the unique status of adjuncts rather than being ad
hoc device.

Interestingly, even when the experiencer is not

The next subsection expands the approach

overt, the clitic is observed. Therefore, thehere to different languages.

existence of a clitic implies the presence of an
overt or covert Experiencer. Therefore, the clitic

5. 2. Expansion of the Analysis

here is not actually a type of pronoun but a typeThe discussion so far has led to anof marker to indicate the existence of the

expectation of the following three logicalExperiencer. Then, consider (13).

possibilities.
(13) a. Me(11) The Experiencer:

parece que este

to me seems that thistaxistataxi drivera. always set-Merges.

esta

cansado.

b. always pair-Merges (=English).

is

tired

c. may set-Merge or pair-Merge.

‘It seems to me that this taxi driver istired.’As shown, (11b) is the case for English.

b.* Este taxista

mepareceHowever, as shown later, the other possibilities

thisaccommodate cross-linguistic facts, with (11a)estar cansado.

corresponding to some Romance languages

to be tired(including Catalan, Galician and Romanian),‘This taxi driver seems to me to bewhich here is represented by Spanish, and (11c)tired.’

being the status for Italian. Following thetaxi driver

to me seems

c. Este taxista

parece estar

classification in Arano (2017), this research

thissurmises that (11a) may also include Insularcansado.

Scandinavian languages and (11b) may involve

tired

Mainland Scandinavian languages.

‘This tax driver seems to be tired.’Due totaxi driver

space limitations, however, the discussion in thisseems to be(Treggo (1996: 105))

subsection is confined to Spanish and Italian.
(13a) is a case with a covert Experiencer but
5. 2. 1. Spanish

without subject raising, which is grammatical.

Spanish has a unique phenomenon called
CliticDoubling,

as

in

(12),

where

(13b) indicates that the subject cannot move tothethe sentential “subject” position when the covert

Experiencer appears with a clitic.

Experiencer exists. In (13c), the Clitic Doublingis(12) Lesnotobserved,

which

means

that

an

parecio(a mis amigos)

Experiencer is not present, and the sentence isto them seemed(to my friends)

grammatical with the subject raised to the

que

Maria

estabacansada.

“subject” position. Therefore, as can be seen,

96

subject raising is always banned when an (overt

follows. When the Experiencer is a full NP, itor covert) Experiencer exists in Spanish.

set-Merges, and when it is a clitic, it pair-Merges.

Intriguingly, Toreggo (1996) argues that

Thus, only when the Experiencer is a full NP is a

Clitic Doubling occurs to license the case of the“Superiority” effect produced. The reasoning

Experiencer. If this intuition is correct, this canhere presupposes that the labeling does not fail

be reanalyzed in the present framework as

because of the “XP-YP” situation formed by thefollows: the Experiencer in Spanish should

Experiencer and the infinitival TP. This isalways be syntactically visible; otherwise thepresumably because the Italian infinitival T has

u-case valuation would fail. It could be further

u-Phi features, and thus, if the Experiencer exists

assumed that the clitic in the Clitic Doubling

to the left of the infinitival clause, the labelingsupports the labeling process for the “XP-YP”

succeeds via the prominent Phi feature sharing.

situation created by the Experiencer and its

Further, as Chomsky (2015) argues, as themerged set (TP, RP or whatever).

Italian T itself is strong enough to be a label,

In summary, the Experiencer in Spanishlabeling is still possible even if the Experiencer

needs to be syntactically visible so that labelingmoves out from the left of the infinitival TP toand the u-case valuation succeed. Hence, if itsomepair-Merges, the derivation does not converge

following grammatical examples, no labelingand therefore, it must always set-Merge. As the

problems

Experiencer in Spanish is necessarily visible, theExperiencer is an NP, it does not intervene“Superiority” effect is observable in Spanish,

between the base and moved subject positions,and the fact is fully captured.

that is, there is no “Superiority” violation.

5. 2. 2. Italian(15) a. A Mariaj, Giannii sembra tj

The

examples

in

(14)

show

typicalhigherposition.

arise,

Therefore,

and,

even

in

thoughto Maria

Gianniseems

Experiencer behaviors in Italian. When the[tiesserestanco].

Experiencer appears as a full noun phrase,

to.be

ill

subject raising is not permittable; however,‘To Maria, Gianni seems to be ill.’when it is a clitic, the subject successfully moves

b. A chij

to the “subject” position.

sembra Giannii tj [tito whom seems Gianni

the
the

essereto.bestanco]?
(14) a.* Gianni sembra a Maria essere stanco.

ill

Gianni seems to Maria to be ill‘To whom does Gianni seem to be ill?’‘Gianni seems to Maria to be ill.’(Bošković (2011: 4))(Bošković (2011: 4))
b. Gianni gli

6. Conclusion

sembra essere stanco.

Gianni to her seems to beillThis research revealed that the assumption to‘Gianni seems to her to be ill.’

permit pair-Merge of arguments can account for(Boeckx (2008: 150))

the idiosyncratic behaviors of the Experiencer inEnglish. Furthermore, this approach can be

The explanation is quite straightforward, as

extended to cross-linguistic explanations of97

Experiencer behaviors, which was exemplified

Operations and Optimal Derivations, MIT

for Spanish and Italian.

Press, Cambridge, MA.
Larson, Richard K. (1988) “On the Double* I would like to express my sincere gratitude to

Object Construction,” Linguistic Inquiry 19,

the floors and the chairpersons at Fukuoka Riron

335-391.

Gengogaku Kenkyukai (Fukuoka Theoretical

Lebeaux, David (2009) Where Does Binding

Linguistics Workshop) held at Seinangakuin

Theory Apply?, MIT Press, Cambridge,

University and the 38th general meeting of theMA.
Otsuka,ELSJ. I thank Enago for stylistic improvement.

Tomonori(2017)“RadicalFree

Merger,” English Linguistics 34, 34-68.
SELECTED REFERENCES

Richards,

Arano, Akihiko (2017) “On Intervention inExperiencers,”

Exploration(2001)

Movementin

Language: Interactions and Architectures,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Move and Agree: A Case of Dependencies
acrossNorvinRizzi, Luigi (1990) Relativized Minimality, MITin

Press, Cambridge, MA.

English Linguistics 31, 1-30.

Toreggo, Esther (1996) “Experiencers andBarss, Andrew and Howard Lasnik (1986) “A
Note on Anaphora and Double Objects,”

Raising

Linguistic Inquiry 17, 347-354.

Comparative Grammar, ed. by Robert

Boeckx,CedricC-Command(1999)

StudiaLinguistica 53, 227-250.
Boeckx, Cedric (2008) Aspects of the Syntax ofAgreement, Routledge, NY.
Bošković, Željko (2011) “Rescue by PF
Deletion, Traces as (Non)Interveners, andthe That-Trace Effect,” Linguistic Inquiry
42, 1-44.
Chomsky, Noam, Ángel J. Gallego and Dennis
Ott (2019) “Generative Grammar and theFaculty of Language: Insights, Questions,andChallenges,”

Catalan

Journalof

Linguistics Special Issue, 229-261.
Collins, Chris and Erich Groat (2018) “Copies
andRepetetions,”

ms.,

New

York

University. [lingbuzz/003809]
Epstein, Samuel David, Eric M. Groat, Ruriko
Kawashima, and Hisatsugu Kitahara (1998)
A Derivational Approach to Syntactic
Relations, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kitahara,

Hisatsugu(1997)

Current

Freidin, 101-120, Dordrecht.

“Conflicting

Requirements,”

Verbs,”

Elementary

98

Issuesin

の概念構造内に存在する「段階性のある要素」を意味作用のターゲットとして選択すると考えられている( 由 本 1997, 2005,

Nakamura 2003, Kikuchi 2013, 東寺 2018 他) 。
形と意味の“ミスマッチ”を考える：

本稿は認知文法の観点から V すぎる構文

認知文法からみた V すぎる構文*を再検討することにより、V すぎる構文にお(Revisiting the Syntax-Semantics “Mismatch”

いて、「-すぎる」は意味的にも動詞と結合しin Japanese V-sugiru:ていることを示し、これまで主張されてきたA Cognitive Grammar Perspective)「形態的には V１と結合しているが、概念構造ではそうではないというミスマッチ (由佐藤らな (Rana Sato)

本 2005: 265) 」は、無反省に受け入れられて東京大学大学院 (the University of Tokyo)

きた恣意的な前提によるものであることを明らかにする。

キーワード：認知文法, -すぎる, ミスマッチ
2. 先行研究由本 (1997, 2005) は、影山 (1993) の複合
1. はじめに動詞の分類に従い、「-すぎる」は統語的複合

日本語の「動詞の連用形＋すぎる」という動詞 (V すぎる) の後項動詞であるとする。

形式で、何らかの過剰性を表す構文 (以下、

影山は、日本語の複合動詞は、レキシコンでV すぎる構文) には、形式と意味の間にいわ形成される「語彙的複合動詞」と、統語構造

ゆる「ミスマッチ」があると考えられてきた。

において形成される「統語的複合動詞」に区別されると主張しており、V すぎる構文は補(1)a. 美しすぎる (too beautiful)

文構造をとる統語的複合動詞とされている。

b. 静かすぎる (too quiet)(2)

そして、前節でも触れた通り、V すぎる構

a. 働きすぎる (work too long)

文の意味は「-すぎる」が表す過剰の意義素

b. 早く食べすぎる (eat too early)

TOO がなんらかの要素と結びつくことにより決まるとされる。由本 (2005: 246) は「こ(1a) は形容詞「美しい」の表している性質の TOO はその意味からして、段階性を有すが過剰であることを示し、 (1b) では形容動る要素と結び付かねばならない。しかし、形詞「静か」が表している性質の過剰を表して態上は、「過ぎる」自体は動詞と結合するのいると解釈され、「ミスマッチ」はないとさだから、TOO は結合する動詞の LCS の中かれる。一方で、V すぎる構文である (2a) はら、段階性が認められる要素を探し出してそ「働く」ことそれ自体というよりも「働く時れをターゲットとして選択し、その要素に対間の長さ」などが、 (2b) は副詞の「早く」して「過剰」の意味を付加すると考えられる」が表す関係が過剰だと解釈される。このようと述べ、V すぎる構文における「-すぎる」に V すぎる構文では「-すぎる」が形態的にの働きを次のように規定している。

結合するのは前項の動詞 (V１) であるにも(3)

かかわらず、意味的には他の要素に結びつい「「過ぎる」は統語構造内においてているとされてきた。先行研究では基本的に、統率する要素の中から [+gradable]「過剰」の意義素 (TOO) が V１の作る補文

素性を探し、それをターゲットとし99

て選択する。
」(由本 2005: 264)

次の (7) (8) が、難しさの過剰を表していると仮定し、由本の分析に従うと、どちらも

例えば (4) の場合、 (5) の統語構造を持ち、段階性のある要素「難しい」が TOO のター

統語構造内で [+gradable] を持つ要素としゲットになり、概念構造は同一となると予測て「大きいケーキ」が選択される。そして、される。しかしこのような説明には、 (少な概念構造においてはその名詞句の持つ段階

くともこれだけでは) (7) で「わざと」を用

性 の あ る 素 性 [+gradable] を 持 つ 性 質 にいることは極めて不自然であるという事実

TOO が付与されると考える ( (6) を参照) 。

を説明できないという問題がある。

(4)

(7)

花子が大きいケーキを焼き過ぎた。

(由本 2005: 265)

教授は (*わざと) 難しい問題を出(Nakamura 2003: 489)

しすぎた

(5)

(8)

教授は (わざと) 難しすぎる問題を出した(Nakamura 2003: 489)

2.2. 問題点②(9) のように段階性を持つ副詞が複数ある例、もしくは (10) のように副詞が明示されていなくとも、過剰である要素の候補となるものが複数存在している例は観察される。
そしてその要素全てが実際に過剰であり、それが原因で腰痛になるのだと解釈することは不可能ではない (例えば運ぶ時間が長い
ことと、頻度と荷物の数が多いことは両立す(6)る) 。このように複数の段階性のある要素が過剰になることはあり得るが、その場合どのようにターゲットが選択されるのか不明である。

このような V すぎる構文の構造的な規定、そして TOO を付与するという分析に対して(9)

早くたくさん食べすぎた。

(10)

彼は荷物を運びすぎて、腰痛になった。

(たとえ理論的前提が異なっていたとして
3. 認知文法による記述

も) 異論を唱えている先行研究は見当たらない。先行研究で論点となるのは主に、「-

以下では、認知文法の観点から V すぎるすぎる」が統語構造上のどの程度の深さまで構文に分析し、上記の問題は全て解消されるの要素を選択できるかといったことである。

ことを示す。

しかしながら、以上の分析では以下に示す事
3.1 V すぎる構文の特性

実を適切に説明することができない。

認知文法では、典型的に、２つの成分構造
2.1. 先行研究の問題点①(component structures) が組み合わされて合100

成構造 (composite structure) が成立する場合、 強調の DO のような高度に抽象的な意味を一方の構造に他方の構造によって精緻化さ持つ要素と見なすことで、単に「過剰」の意れる (詳細が特徴づけられる) schematic な部

味を付与するだけではなく、強調の DO と同分があると考えられている。そのような部分

じように、動詞によって精緻化されるのことを elaboration site (以下 e-サイト) と呼schematic な意味を持つと考えることができ

ぶ (Langacker 2008: 198) 。

る。認知文法の観点からは、「-すぎる」は単「-すぎる」の分析に入る前に、強調など

なる「過剰の付与」ではなく、抽象度が高く、に用いられる英語の DO (e.g. I DO have that!)

構成要素によって精緻化される必要があるの分析を紹介する。この DO は意味内容のう意味を持つ要素だと説明することができる

ちほとんどの部分が e-サイトとなっているのである。

(図 1 左下網掛け) と考えられる (Langacker「-すぎる」の意味は図 2 のように表示で1991: 137) 。DO の e-サイトは本動詞 (e.g. I

きる。網掛けは e-サイト、t→は時間の推移

DO love you であれば love) の意味によってを表す。四角の中の太い矢印は行為・状態に精緻化されるため、合成構造の概念内容にお含まれる何らかの側面が過剰となっている

ける独自の貢献は見られないが、それでも高ことを表している (太い矢印の色が薄くな

度に抽象的な意味は持っていると考えられっている部分はスケール上を過剰になる地る。

点まで推移する過程がベースとして存在す
ることを簡略化して表している)。1 X は一種のスケールの基準点 (期待される値) であり、これも他の要素によって精緻化される。
V すぎる構文における「-すぎる」は動詞によって精緻化されることで機能するのである。

図 1 DO の意味表示 (Lagnacker 1991: 137)「-すぎる」の性質はこの DO と類比的である。由本 (2005: 222f.) は「-すぎる」は文
脈さえ整えば、どんな V１とも結合するほど

図 2 「-すぎる」の意味

生産性が高く、どのような動詞に後接しても

2.1 節で指摘した通り、先行研究に従い、意味機能は「過剰の付与」で一貫していると「-すぎる」は「TOO の付与」のみを行なっ主張している。これは「-すぎる」が DO のていると考えるだけでは、 (7) 「教授は (*ように「過剰の付与」以外では表現の概念内

わざと) 難しい問題を出しすぎた」と (8)容に貢献していないという直感を反映した「教授は (わざと) 難しすぎる問題を出しものと考えられる。しかしながら、概念内容た」の違いを説明できない。TOO が付与さに貢献していないことが確かだとしても、それるのはどちらの文でも「難しい」であり、れだけでは「過剰の付与」以外に意味を持た概念構造は同一になってしまうはずである。

ないとまでは言えないだろう。
「-すぎる」を「-すぎる」の意味は TOO の付与のみである

101

と考えるならば、この問題を解決することは意味的に結びつく副詞や形容詞の前に現れ不可能である。ありうる応答として、「-すぎることが慣習化しており、(11b) のように動る」には「非意図」という素性 (たとえば詞に直接結びつくことはできない。一方日本[-intention] とでも表示されるような要素)

語では同じ状況を (12a) で表すことができも含まれており、それも過剰の意味とともにるが、一方で (12b) のように「-すぎる」が動詞に付与されていると考えることで、認知副詞に直接後接することはできない。仮に英文法の分析を持ち込まなくともこの問題を日語における伝達内容が等しい (たとえば解決できるという考えが予想される。しかし、 真理条件的に等価だ) としても、CP は同一ではないのである。3(7) における「出しすぎる」では、「出す」という行為自体は「意図的」に行われている(11)のであり、単純に「出す」に非意図性を付与

a. you’ve arrived too earlyb. *you’ve too-arrived early

するという解決策を取るわけにはいかない(12)

ように思われる。「出す」ことではなく「出a. 早く着きすぎた
b. *早くすぎる着いたしすぎる」ことが非意図的であることを示す
説明が必要になる。
前述のように、「-すぎる」の schematic な

何らかの行為・状態が過剰であること自体意味を認め、V すぎる構文の意味が（多くのに概念的問題があるわけではない。実際、日場合）「わざと」となじまないのだと考える

本語では、走ることの過剰を表すために「走2

ことでこの問題は解消される。 「-すぎる」

りすぎる」のように動詞に直接「-すぎる」の意味は「素性の付与」に尽きるのではない。

が後接する表現を用いることができる。一方

また、先行研究では、段階性のある要素に、

で英語では同様の意味を表すために run too

TOO が付与されて意味が決まると考えるた

much のように too が何らかの副詞と組み合め、 (7) (8) は意味的に同一であると仮定さわされた表現を用いなければならない。これれていたが、認知文法では複合的な表現がどは、日本語から見れば「ミスマッチ」であるのように組み合わされるのか (compositional

ことになってしまうだろう。つまり、V すぎ

path：以下 CP) をも含めた全体を複合的な表る構文で取り上げられてきた「ミスマッチ」

現の意味と考えるため、 (7)・(8) に見られは「-すぎる」の意味は (おそらくは英語のる意味の違いを CP の差異として自然に捉

too の意味と等しいと考えられているであえることができる。同一の状況を表していてろう) 意義素 TOO (に尽きるの) であり、意も、CP が異なっていれば、複合的な表現の味的に結びつくのは形容詞や副詞のはずだ、

意味において、相違が生じることは全く不思

つまり英語と日本語は同様に働くはずだと議ではない。

いう前提に立ったことによって生じたのだと言える。4

3.2 run too much はミスマッチ？
3.3 副詞を伴う V すぎる構文の事例

そもそもどのような経路で伝達される意
味にたどり着くのが慣習的かは言語によっ

認知文法の立場からは、副詞に TOO が付て (１つの言語の内部でも) 異なりうる。例

与されると考えられてきた例についても、ミ

えば、以下の (11a) は too が副詞の前に置かスマッチはなく、むしろ自然な形での実現とれることによって、到着の早さの過剰を意味して捉えることができる。図 3 に示すように、する。英語では過剰を表す副詞である too は

副詞は、「何らかの関係」をトラジェクター

102とした非時間的な関係をプロファイルするいる。もしくは、「V すぎる」が表すプロセとされる (Langacker 2008: 116) 。(動詞、形スによって副詞の e-サイトが精緻化される

容詞、前置詞などによって表される) トラジと言える。

ェクターとなる関係は、他の要素によって精このような関係によってこの表現が構成緻化される e-サイトである。すなわち、動詞されることを考慮すると (9) の「早くたくを修飾する副詞は動詞と結びつくことで e-さん食べすぎた。」のように複数の副詞が動

サイトが精緻化される。そして、V すぎる構

詞を修飾していても問題はないことがわか

文は (副詞による修飾を伴った) 動詞が表る。V すぎる構文で焦点化される過剰の意味

すプロセスのある側面が過剰となっているはあくまで前項の動詞の意味によって精緻ことを表している。

化された結果生じるものであり、その時いく
つの副詞が動詞を修飾していても問題はないのである。
3.4 フレーム内の要素の焦点化
ここまで見てきたように特定の副詞的な要素にのみ「-すぎる」の意味が結びついていると考えるべき理由はない。では、V すぎる構文の過剰の意味はどのようにして決ま

図 3 副詞るのだろうか。

図４は副詞を伴う V すぎる構文の意味を

認知言語学では、そもそも「一般に言語表表している。要素をつなぐ矢印は精緻化の関係を表し、点線は一致関係を表す。動詞は、副詞の e-サイトを精緻化し、同時に「-すぎ現の (慣習化したものを含む) 意味の成立には、狭義の言語的 「( 辞書的」、「意味論的」、「コンテクスト中立的」) な要因のみではな

る」の e-サイトを精緻化している。動詞が副く、通常言語外的とされる (「百科事典的」、詞によって修飾されている場合、その「修飾「語用論的」、「コンテクスト依存的」な) 要を受けた動詞」が「-すぎる」を精緻化して

図 4 副詞を伴う V すぎる構文の意味

103

因も決定的に関与しており、いわゆる言語的長さ」が過剰だと解釈される理由を説明する

な意味の多くは、実際には、言語外的な知識ことができない。この文は「荷物を運ぶこと」

を基盤としてはじめて成立しうる」 (西村の一般的な知識のフレームを参照して初め

2007: 654) と考える。これはもちろん V すぎて適切に解釈できるものであり、そのようなる構文に限ったことではない。

情報を度外視して、なんらかの段階性

西村 (2007: 654) は、「特集: 形と意味のミ( [+gradable] 素性) のある要素への過剰の付

スマッチ」において換喩を取り上げ、以下の与と説明して済ませることなど到底できなように述べている。ある表現の複数の用法間いだろう。5に換喩的な関係がある場合の多くは、百科事

V すぎる構文において過剰として解釈さ

典的な知識のまとまり全体、すなわちフレーれるスケールは以上のようにフレームの中

ムにアクセスした上で、その異なる局面や段で焦点が当てられる側面であって、由本のい階に焦点を合わせる能力が関与している。例う「段階性のある要素」では説明しきれない

えば「村上春樹を読む」の理解には〈村上春多くの情報を含むものである。由本 (2005:

樹〉のフレーム全体にアクセスした上で「読355 ) は「たとえば、「走りすぎた」や「パンむ」という動詞の意味と整合する局面［村上を作りすぎた」といっても、走った時間ある

春樹の作品］に焦点を合わせるプロセスが含いは距離や作ったパンの量が、何を超えて行まれていると考えられる。

き過ぎているのかは表現されないのが普通

V すぎる構文の意味も、動詞の喚起するフで、その判断の基準は文脈から読み取られてレームを考慮しなければ導かれないものでいるか、あるいは、社会通念としての「標準」ある。段階性のある要素にのみ「-すぎる」

として解釈されているのである」と述べておの意味が結びついていると考えるべき理由

り、段階性のある副詞的要素の「標準」に関はなく、また、何が過剰であるのかを特定のしては百科事典的知識の必要性を認めてい素性に限定するような枠組みであっても、実る。しかしながら V すぎる構文において表際には無意識に百科事典的知識を参照した

現される事態のどのような側面が過剰とな上で特定の組成と過剰の関係を構成していっているのかということも「文脈」や「社会るものと考えられる。例えば、 (9) 「彼は通念」なしには解釈不可能である。フレーム

荷物を運びすぎて、腰痛になった。」を理解

全体にアクセスした上で、文脈と整合するよするためには、「腰痛になる」要因になるよ

うに過剰となる内容に焦点を合わせると考うな仕方で「運ぶ」という事態が過剰であっ

えると、その内容の豊かさに制限はない。

たのだと解釈することが必要である。先行研
4. おわりに究において主張されているように、運ぶ時間の長さが過剰だったのだと解釈することも日本語の V すぎる構文は、動詞の意味の可能であるが、仮に荷物があまりに軽ければフレームから導かれる特定の行為ないし状腰痛になる可能性は低いだろうし、荷物の運態が何らかの点で過剰であることを表すた

び方も腰に負担がかかるような仕方で、少なめに用いられる構文である。V すぎる構文の

くとも身体を使って運んでいなければ腰痛

意味は要素が持つ素性の単なる総和ではなになることはないため、ただ時間が長いと解く、どのように構成されるのかも含む形で構釈するだけでは不十分である。また荷物を運成されているのだと考えると、複数の副詞がぶ時間の長さは腰への負担と (概ね) 比例

現れる文の解釈も、真理条件的に等価と思わするという知識に言及しなければ、「時間のれる文同士の違いも明確に捉えることがで

104

Kikuchi, Akira (2013) A Phonologically Empty

きる。
「-すぎる」が意味的にも動詞と複合してDegree Adverb: A Case from a Verb Excessいると考えることにはなんら問題はない。V

in Japanese. 『言語におけるミスマッ

すぎる構文の「ミスマッチ」は、過剰は意義

チ：福地肇教授退職記念論文集』85-106,

素 TOO によって表示されるという日英語の東北大学大学院情報科学研究科.
Langacker, Ronald.W. (1991) Concept, Image,

差異を無視した根拠のない前提から生じた

and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of

幻影にすぎない。

Grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.

* 日本英語学会第 38 回大会の発表の際にはLangacker,

フロアの先生方から有益なご意見・ご質問をRonald.W.

(2008)

Cognitive

いただいた。ここに記すとともに感謝を申し

Grammar: A Basic Introduction, New York:上げたい。

Oxford University Press.
Nakamura, Tsuguro (2003) “ Notes on the

注「何らかの側面」の特定には動詞と結びつJapanese Supporting Verb SUGIRU :A

いたフレームを参照する必要があることはSyntax-Semantics Mismatch.”In Empirical

3.4 節で述べる。

and2

文脈や動詞によって「わざと」が共起でき

Language : A Festschrift for Masaru Kajita.

るかどうかの判断は異なり (e.g. うちの猫

Edited by Chiba, Shuji et al. 477-492.

は毛玉を吐くためにわざと食べすぎる) 、どTokyo: Kaitakusha.

1

Investigations

into

西村義樹 (2007)「換喩と文法」『英語青年』のような条件で「わざと」と共起できないのかについてはより詳細な観察が必要である。
3

Theoretical「早く着きすぎる」と「着くのが早すぎる」

653-655, 第 152 巻, 11 号.
野矢茂樹 (2011) 『語りえぬものを語る』東京: 講談社.

は容認度に差があり、また、情報構造が異なる。認知文法では、情報構造も意味の一部に

佐藤らな (2019)「天使すぎるアイドルは何含めるため、両者の意味は異なると言える。

が過剰なのか―N すぎる構文の意味―」

これについて詳しくは別稿に譲る。

『東京大学言語学論集』41 号, 279-294.

4

東寺祐亮 (2018)「V スギル構文の統語的条件

Kikuchi (2013) は統語構造内に DegP という副詞的要素を仮定し、「-すぎる」は必ずそと解釈」『日本語文法』3-19, 18 巻 1 号.

れに結合するのだとしている点でこの前提

由本陽子 (1997)「動詞から動詞を作る」影

を強く推し進めていると言える。

山太郎・由本陽子『語形成と概念構造』

553-127, 東京: 研究社.

より厳密にいうならば、「運ぶ」もしくは

そこで登場するあらゆる概念に関する「典型由本陽子 (2005)『複合動詞・派生動詞の意的な物語」 (野矢 2011) を参照しなければ、

味と統語―モジュール形態論から見た意味にたどり着くことは難しい。名詞に「-日英語の動詞形成―』東京: ひつじ書房.

すぎる」が後接する N すぎる構文についても同様のことが言える (佐藤 2019) 。
参考文献

影山太郎 (1993)『文法と語形成』東京: ひつ
じ書房.

105

(1) a. Shinkon

ryoko

newly.wedb. *Shinkon

de ryokonewly.wed
A Syntactic Analysis of Japanese Compounds

travelas(2) a. Yakinikutenwith the Labeling Algorithm

travelkeieishabarbecue-shop ownerb. *Yakinikuten

Ryosuke Satowo keieishabarbecue-shop ACC owner

Kochi University(3) a. Sotsugyoshiki

shuryogo

graduation-ceremony finishb. Sotsugyoshiki

Keywords：Japanese compounds, Labeling
Algorithm, categorial feature sharing

ga

after
shuryograduation-ceremony NOM finish
go

(ni)

after

(at)

1. Introduction
Kageyama (2001, 2009, 2013) groups

The phrase (1b) corresponding to the lexicalJapanese compounds into three types: lexical,

compound (1a) does not have the intended+

post-syntactic, and Word compounds. The first

meaning. You can say (1a) without actuallytype is formed in the lexicon. The second type istraveling, but (1b) describes an actual event. In

formed after syntax, namely in phonology. The

addition, as the ungrammaticality of (2b) shows,

third type shows the intermediate behavior of thethe Word+ compound (2a) has no counterpart in

two. The purpose of the paper is to develop

the first place. On the other hand, theKageyama’s analysis by proposing the syntactic

post-syntactic

structures with the Labeling Algorithm incorresponding phrase with the same meaning, as

Chomsky (2013, 2015).

shown in (3b).

compound

(3a)

has

the

The next section overviews Kageyama’s

Secondly, as shown in the bracketed parts inobservation. Section 3 proposes the structure of(4), subject honorification does not occur inthe compounds based on the Labeling Algorithm.

lexical (4a) and Word+ (4b) compounds, but it

Section 4 shows a new analysis of thedoes in postsyntactic compounds (4c).

compounds. In section 5, I present further
consequences

of

the

analysis.

Section6(4) a. *Sensei wa [sinkon-go-ryokoo]

concludes the paper.

teacher TOP [newly.wed-HON-travel]ni dekake rareta

2. Kageyama’s (2001, 2009, 2013)

to went.out

Observation“The teacher went for his honeymoon.”This section shows the behavior of three1

types of compounds.

(Shibatani and Kageyama (1988: 474))
b. *?[tyokiFirst, post-syntactic

go-taizai-keikaku][long-term HON-stay-plan]compounds have the corresponding clauses, but+

lexical and Word compounds do not (in their“the plan for a long-term stay”(Kageyama (2001: 249))

intended meanings).

106

c.

sensei-ga

both on Amerika and hoomon.
Fourth, as shown in (6), lexical and Word+teacher-NOM[Yooroppa go-taizai][Europe

HON-stay]nocompounds form “anaphoric islands,” whileGEN

postsyntactic compounds do not.

ori
occasion(6) a. *Teitoku“while the teacher stayed in Europe”

admiral(Kageyama (2001: 249))
As shown in the ungrammaticality of (4a) and(4b), lexical and Word+

TOP

kampo shagekinonaval bombardment

GEN

ori,

compounds cannot

hasore ha jidaiokure
TOP obsolete

when itinclude polite words such as italicized go, while

dato

i

as shown in (4c), post-syntactic compounds can

COMP

say PAST

without problems.

“When they fired from the sea, theThird, the three types of compounds showtta.

admiral said that it is obsolete.”differences in accent. While lexical compounds

b. *Teitoku hahave only one accent overall, Word+ andadmiralTOP

postsyntactic compounds can have two or morehushinsen

accents overall. The “|” in (5) indicates asuspicious ship bombardment

phonetic boundary.

junbi(5) a. yama
mountainsore hait| noborisupai sentta.

| climbing

spy

dato

i

TOP

ship COMP say PAST

“When they prepared to fire on a

(Shibatani and Kageyama (1988: 459))

suspicious ship, the admiral said it is ab. zenkoku | nodoziman-taikai

spy ship.”singing-contest

c. Teitoku“All-Japan amateur singing contest”(Kageyama (2001: 247))
c. Amerika | hoomon (-tyuu)
Americaori,

preparation GEN when“mountain climbing”

all-JapannoshagekihaadmiralTOPhushinsen

shagekinosuspicious ship bombardment GEN

visit

ori,

“(middle of) visiting America”

sore hawhen it(Shibatani and Kageyama (1988: 459-460))
For example, the lexical compound (5a) has

TOP

dato

i

COMP

say PAST

supai

sen

spy

ship

tta.

“When they fire on a suspicious ship,+

only one accent as a whole, while the Word (5b)the admiral said it is a spy ship.”and post-syntactic compounds (5c) have an
accent on each of the elements separated by the(6a) shows that the constituent kampo of the“|.” That is, (5b) has accents both on zenkoku

lexical compound kanpo shageki cannot be

and nodoziman-taikai, while (5c) has accentsreferred to by the pronoun sore. Similarly, (6b)107

There are two possibilities: first, the two rootsshows that the constituent hushin sen of the+compound hushin sen shageki junbi(Rs) are merged and then, the nominalizer n iscannot be referred to by the pronoun sore. On

merged. The other possibility is that each root R

the other hand, as shown in (6c), it is possible tois first merged with the nominalizer n, and thenrefer to the constituent hushin sen of thethe complex is merged. Note that n is a

postsyntactic compound hushin sen shageki byfunctional head that determines the category, so

the pronoun sore.

n cannot be merged with each other.

Word

In addition, since a Case particle is an
3. A Proposal Based on the Labelingelement

that

combineswithacomplete

Algorithm

word/phrase, a lambda feature can be added to

To explain the facts that we have seen thus

the internal structure of (8b), which forms afar, this section presents a new analysis using thenoun at the part indicated by “( ).”Labeling Algorithm in Chomsky (2013, 2015).

more possibilities arise, shown in (9).

Thus, two

The labeling algorithm is the algorithm shown in(9) a. The possibility of not adding a lambda(7), which is used to determine labels forfeature to the resulting syntactic object

syntactic elements.

(8b)
b. The possibility of adding a lambda(7) a. If XP and Y merge: Y becomes thefeature to the resulting syntactic object

overall label.

(8b)b. If XP and YP merge:(i) If XP is dislocated, Y is the overall
label.

I argue that (8a), (9a), and (9b) correspond to
Japanese lexical, Word+, and postsyntactic(ii) If XP and YP have a common
feature F, then F is the overall label.

compounds,c. The English T and root cannot participate

respectively.

Morespecific

structures are shown in (10). In (10), the label α

in label determination.

and subscripts are added for explanatory
purposes.

Furthermore, Saito (2016) argues that the Caseparticle in Japanese is an anti-labeling feature λ,(10) a.

and elements with this feature do not participate
in label determination.
Now, in Distributed Morphology, a “word”
is considered to be formed from a root (R) and afunctional head (categorizer) which determineb.

the category. If a compound is formed bymerging a root and nominalizer (n), then the two
ways of formation in (8) are expected.
(8) a. (R + R) + nb. (R + n) + (R + n)108As shown in (11), lexical and Word+ compoundsc.

do not contain λ features inside. Therefore, Caseparticles are not realized. On the other hand,post-syntactic compounds contain a λ feature inthem. If it has a phonological feature, a phrase is
In (10a), R1 and R2 are first merged to form aformed. If it does not, a postsyntactic compoundcomplex α. Since R cannot participate in label

is formed.

determination, the label of α is undetermined atSecond, the fact in (4) that subject

this point. α is further merged with n. Since only

honorification words do not occur in lexical andn has label determination capability at this point,

Word+

the overall label is nP. Subsequently, α ispostsyntactic compounds is explained by theinterpreted as n′. In (10b, c), R1 and R2 are

general property that such words can only occur

merged with n1 and n2, respectively, to form nP1

at word/phrase boundaries. As is evident fromand nP2. Then these nP1 and nP2 are further(12), the number of nPs that exist within lexical

merged. In (10b), the feature that n(P)1 and n(P)2

andhave in common at this point is nominal features.

postsyntactic compound has two nPs.

compounds,

Word+

but

compounds

areisallowed

0

while

in

the

Therefore, following (7b-ii), the entire label isdetermined to be nP by sharing the nominalfeature.

Subsequently,

nP1

and

nP2

(12) a. [nP [α = n′ [R shinkon][R ryoko]] n]
b. [nP [nP1 → n1′ [R choki] n] [nP2 → n2′ [Rareinterpreted as n1′ and n2′, respectively. On the

taizaikeikaku] n]]c. c. [nP2 [nP1 [R Yooroppa] n-λ][nP2 [R taizai]

other hand, in (10c), since n1 has λ, n1 cannot
participate in label determination and n(P)2 isn]]chosen as the overall label.2
Note that nP1 and nP2 in (12b) are eventually
4. An Analysis

interpreted as n1′ and n2′, respectively. Therefore,

In this section, I show how the facts inin (12a, b), the number of nPs that exist inside is(1)-(6) can be explained based on the proposals

0. Hence, the number of clause boundaries isin the previous section.

also 0. On the other hand, there can be multiple

First, the facts in (1)-(3) that post-syntacticnPs in a postsyntactic compound. (12c) has twocompounds have the corresponding clause but

nPs, nP1 and nP2. Therefore, there is a single

lexical and Word+clausecompounds do not isboundary

withinthispostsyntactic

explained by the presence or absence of λcompound and thus a subject honorification

features. The structure of the (a) examples inword can occur.
Third, the fact in (5) that there are(1)-(3) are shown in (11).

differences in the accents of the three types ofcompound words is explained in terms of the(11) a. [nP [α = n′ [R shinkon][R ryoko]] n]number of n. Following Marantz (2001), Aradb. [nP [nP → n′ [R yakinikuten] n] [nP → n′ [R(2003), and Anagnostopoulou (2014), let us

keieisha] n]]assume that the functional categories thatc. [nP [nP [R sotsugyosiki] n-[λ ga]][nP [Rdetermine the categories form a phase. Then, n’sshuryogo] n]]109complement forms a transfer domain. Since thedomains are formed accordingly (the shadedtransfer domain is the domain that is transferredareas). Therefore, these Word+ and postsyntactic

to the phonological form, it is assumed thatcompounds can have two accents.

accent assignment occurs in each of these

Fourth, the fact in (6) that lexical and Word+

domains. Now, consider the internal structures(but not post-syntactic) compounds form anof (5) shown in (13).

“anaphoricisland”

canbeexplainedbyassuming that pronouns can refer to only nP.
(13) a.

Pronouns can basically refer to only a “word” or“phrase,” not its internal elements. Therefore, it
is reasonable to assume that only a “word” nP
can be referred to. The (parts of the) structuresof (6) are given in (14).
(14) a. *[nP [α = n′ [R kampo]i [R shageki]] n] nob.

ori, sorei ha jidai okure da to i tta.
b. *[nP [nP → n′ [R hushin sen] n]i [nP → n′ [Rshageki junbi] n]] no ori, sorei ha supaisen da to i tta.
c. [nP [nP [R hushin sen] n-λ]i [nP [R shageki]n]] no ori, sorei ha supai sen da to i tta.
As is clear from the structures in (14), lexicaland Word+ compounds do not contain an nP in
their structure. Note in particular that the nP inc.

(14b) is eventually interpreted as n′. Therefore,
these internal elements cannot be antecedents forthepronouns.

On

the

other

hand,

the

post-syntactic compound in (14c) contains an nP,
so that this nP can act as an antecedent for the
pronoun.
5. Further Consequences

In the lexical compound (13a), the number of n
is 1 and consequently, the transfer domain is alsoThis section shows further consequences of

1 (the shaded area). Therefore, only one accent

the present analysis. First, based on the analysis,

is assigned. On the other hand, Word+ andwe can explain the differences in interpretation.

post-syntactic compounds can have more than 1

Lexical compounds, unlike Word+ compounds

n in their structures. This means that they canandhave more than 1 transfer domains where

non-compositional interpretations. For example,

accents are assigned. In the case of (13b, c),thethere are two n’s in each case, and two transfer“honeymoon” can be said without actually110

post-syntactic
lexicalcompounds,

compoundshinkon

have
ryoko

traveling, but the Word+ compound yakinikuten(16) a. He was the groundsman, handyman,keieisha “barbecue restaurant owner” and theif-there’s-any-sort-of-difficulty-ask-

post-syntactic compound sotsugyosiki syuryogo

William-and-he’ll-fix-it-for-you“after graduation ceremony” can only be used if

person about the place.
b. We’ve got a

the person actually owned a barbecue restaurant

what-the-unions-will-allow-us-to-print

and the graduation ceremony was completed.
This fact is explained in terms of thepress.

difference in the number of n’s and thec. The oldmanage-somehow-on-a-shoestring

associated number of transfer domains. The+

days were definitely gone.

lexical, Word , and postsyntactic compounds(Bauer, Lieber, and Plag (2013: 489),

have the structure in (15). The shaded area inboldface in the original)(15) indicates the transfer domain.
(17) a. ryoko ni
trip(15) a. [nP [α = n′ [R shinkon][R ryoko]] n]
b. [nP [nP1 → n′ [R yakinikuten]] n] [nP2 → n′ [Rikokyampen

DAT let’s-go-on

campaign“the let’s-go-on-a-trip campaign”

keieisha]] n]]
c. [nP [nP1 [R sotsugyosiki] n-λ][nP2 [Rb. jitaku de shigoto shiyo
home

at

work

let’s-dogekkanshuryogo] n]]month-long-campaign
As is clear from (15), there is only one transfer“the let’s-work-at-homedomain for the lexical compound (15a) while themonth-long-campaign”+

Word and postsyntactic compounds have twotransfer domains. Since transfer domains are the

However, there is no counterpart to thearea to be transferred to the logical form, I

postsyntactic compounds that we have seen thus

assume that the interpretation is determined byfar. This fact itself has often been pointed out inthis area. Then, the structure is interpreted only

previous studies, but the reasons for this haveonce in (15a) and twice each in (15b, c). In othernot been seriously considered.

words, in (15b, c) the interpretation process

If the present analysis is correct, then a λproceeds step by step. This explains why lexicalfeature is needed to form a postsyntactic

compounds

non-compositional

compound. This λ feature originally corresponds+

interpretations, whereas Word and postsyntactic

to Case markers. Since Japanese is a language

compounds have compositional ones.

that uses Case markers to indicate Case, we canhave

Second, the present analysis explains why

use the implicit Case marker, the λ feature. On

there are no postsyntactic compounds in English

the other hand, English does not use Caseas there are in Japanese. It is known that there ismarkers. Therefore, it cannot use the implicit

an English counterpart (16) to Japanese (17),Case marker, λ feature. Thus, English cannot
form post-syntactic compounds. This is shownin (18), where (18a) and (18b) show Japaneseand English, respectively.

111

the Interpretation of Roots: The Case of(18) a.

Hebrew Denominal Verbs,” NLLT 21,
737-778.
Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber and Ingo Plag
(2013) The Oxford Reference Guide to
English Morphology, Oxford Universityb.

Press, Oxford.
Chomsky,Noam(2013)“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky,

Noam

Projection:(2015)“Problems

Extensions,”of

Structures,

In (18b), it would be possible to share nominal

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

features and determine the overall label as nP,

of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di+

which would form a Word compound. However,I will not go any further into English Word+

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona
Matteini,

1-16,

John

Benjamins,

Amsterdam.

compounds in this paper, as their existence itself

Kageyama, Taro (2001) “Word Plus: The

needs to be examined in more detail.

Intersection of Words and Phrases,” Issues
6. Conclusion

in Japanese Phonology and Morphology,

The paper has given a new analysis of threeed. by Jeroen van de Weijer and Tetsuo

Japanese compounds using Chomsky’s (2013,

Nishihara, 245-276, Mouton de Gruyter,2015) Labeling Algorithm, and we have also

Berlin.

shown the consequences of the analysis. If the

Kageyama, Taro (2009) “Isolate: Japanese,”present analysis is correct, it can provide a

The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, ed.

principled

by Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer,

explanation

for

the

differences

512-526, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

between the three types of compounds.

Kageyama,1(2013)“Postsyntactic

NOTES

Compounds and Semantic Head-Marking

I adapt for consistency the notations in thein Japanese,” Japanese/Korean Linguistics
20, 363-382.

example sentences cited in this paper.
2

Taro

Marantz, Alec (2001) “Words,” ms., MIT.

Note that the bar levels in (10) are different

from the traditional bar levels of the X-bar

Saito, Mamoru (2016) “(A) Case for Labeling:

theory. I treat as bar levels those that do not fallLabeling in Languages without Φ-Feature

into traditional heads or maximum projections.

Agreement,” The Linguistic Review 33,
129-175.

REFERENCES

Shibatani, Masayoshi and Taro Kageyama

Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2014) “Roots and(1988) “Word Formation in a Modular

Domains,”

Theoretical

Linguistics

Theory40,ofGrammar:Postsyntactic

Compounds in Japanese,” Language 64,299-310.

451-484.

Arad, Maya (2003) “Locality Constraints on

112

describes a situation occurring at least once
before the speech time, as in (2). This use
includes the “experiential” and “resultative”
uses.
Explanatory-Resultative Effects Involvedin the Present Perfect Progressive: A(2) a.

The taxi has arrived.

*(Leech (2004: 39))

Cognitive Grammar Approachb.
Haruka Shimura

Be careful! John has been painting thedoor.

(Araki and Yasi (1992: 1126))

University of Tsukuba
It should be noted that the PPP in (2b) describes
Keywords：Present Perfect Progressive,the occurrence of John’s painting the door in the

Explanatory-resultative effects, Cognitive

past and may further imply, as a resultant state,

Grammarthat the paint on the door has not dried yet at the
speech time.
Thus far, the PPP has generally been

1. Introduction

analyzed in the same way as the PP and only a

The Present Perfect (PP) and the Present

few studies have directed attention to the PPP.

Perfect Progressive (PPP) in English are said to

However, a certain use of the PPP has somerefer to “past involving the present” in theproperties which cannot be found in the PP (cf.

previous studies (cf. Comrie (1976), Leech

Depraetere (1999), Depraetere and Reed (2000)).

(2004)); they are both associated with the notion

For example, the indefinite use of the PPP canof current relevance and thus denote a past

be used to “explain” the present state bysituation related to the speech time. Putreferring to its cause in the past.

differently, when a speaker uses these perfecttenses, he/she is concerned with the relation(3) A: You look tired.

between the present and past situations.

B: Yes, I’ve been working too hard lately.

Some previous studies have claimed that the(Declerck (1991: 164))

perfect tenses are divided into two major uses
(cf. Declerck (1991) and Depraetere and Reed

In (3), by using the PPP, Speaker B “explains”(2000)). One is the continuative use, which

the state of his/her feeling tired now by referring

describes a situation or a habit that started in theto his/her hard work as a cause. (2b) can also bepast and continues up to the present, as in (1).

analyzed in the same way. Based on the term
proposed by Declerck (1991), I refer to this(1) a.
b.

I’ve lived in this neighborhood since I

phenomenon as “the explanatory-resultative

was a kid.

effects.”(Leech (2004: 36))

I have been working in the garden

The effects cannot be analyzed in terms ofsince 8 o’clock. (Declerck (1991: 100))lexical aspects. Depraetere (1999) touches onthem in light of telicity, but there is no

The other use is the indefinite use, whichcorrelation between the effects and telicity,113because both a telic predicate, as in (2b), and an

cognitive

schemaisdefinedastheatelic predicate, as in (3), are used in the PPP

schematization of each component’s properties

implying the explanatory-resultative effects.

from the perspective of Cognitive Grammar.

The effects in question seem not to appear in

Langacker (2001) proposes that, when athe indefinite use of the PP, as in (4), and theconceptualizer (i.e., a speaker or hearer)

continuative use of the PPP, as in (5).

construes a situation, it is divided into two types
in terms of whether it includes the beginning and(4) I have worked the whole day.

end points (temporal boundaries) or not: a(Radden and Dirven (2007: 217))

perfective or imperfective situation. The former(5) I have been shampooing this poodle for half

is a situation whose temporal boundaries arean hour [and I’m still trying to rinse theincluded in the range of the conceptualizer’s

soap out of its fur]. (Declerck (2006: 236))

consciousness. Therefore, when this situation is
described, he/she construes the beginning,(4) indicates that the speaker finished working,process and end of the situation involved. On thefocusing on the resultant state deriving from theother hand, the latter is a situation whose

completion of the event. (5) expresses the

temporal boundaries are not contained in thesituation of shampooing the poodle, whichrange of the conceptualizer’s consciousness.

continues into the speech time. It seems that

When this situation is denoted, he/she pays

these perfect tenses do not “explain” the present

attention only to the process of the situation.

state in the same way as the indefinite use of the

These situations are described by the relation

PPPs in (2b) and (3).

between the concepts of scopes and profiling. As

A question, then, arises as to why thefor the former, Langacker claims that two types

indefinite use of the PPP denotes a situation withof scope are necessary to interpret a situation.

the explanatory-resultative effects. As far as I

One is the maximal scope (MS), whichknow, there is no systematic explanation about

embraces an overall content relevant to thethis point. In order to explain it, I attempt tosituation (including the background knowledge).

analyze the PPP in the Cognitive Grammar

The part within the MS corresponds to theapproach, based on which I will construct the“background.” The other is the immediate scopecognitive schemata of the continuative and(IS), which subsumes the selected segment ofindefinite uses of the PPP, and claim that the

the MS that is directly involved with theschema of the indefinite use can evoke thesituation. Therefore, the part within the IS

explanatory-resultative effects.

corresponds to the “foreground.” Moreover, thepart within the IS that can attract more attention

2. Cognitive Schemata of the Progressive

and be more salient is the profile and such an

Aspect and the Present Perfectoperation is called profiling. A situational type isThissectionoverviews

thecognitive

determined by the interaction among the two

schemata of the progressive aspect and thescopes and profiling.

Present Perfect (PP) in the Cognitive Grammar
approaches adopted in Langacker (1991, 2001,

2.1. The Progressive Aspect2008) and De Wit (2017). In this paper, the term

Let us now turn to the progressive aspect,114

which constitutes the core meanings of thethe process is the target of this situation, so thePreset Perfect Progressives (PPPs). By using thepart within the IS-ing is profiled. In this figure

analytical tools introduced above, I will show

and elsewhere, the concept of profiling is

how the progressive aspect can be treated.

represented by a bold line; the timeline isLangacker (2001) argues that the progressive

represented by an arrow with t.

aspect serves as zooming in on a dynamic
situation. In other words, when expressing asituation

intheprogressive

aspect,2.2. The Present Perfect

theAlong the same lines, De Wit (2017)

conceptualizer construes it from the internal

attempts to illustrate the cognitive schemata of

viewpoint and is not conscious of its beginning

the Present Perfects (PPs). As we saw in theand end points.

introduction, the PP describes a prior situation
relevant to the present state (i.e. current(6) I’m writing a letter.

(Leech (2004: 24))relevance). Therefore, when a conceptualizer
utilizes the PP, he/she is concerned with the(6) describes the situation of the speaker’spresent state. This induces De Wit to suggest

writing a letter, an ongoing situation at thethat the PP imposes the IS on a portion of the

speech time. Because the progressive aspectpresent state. Hereafter, the IS associated withinvolves the role of taking an internal viewpoint,

the property of the PP is referred to as the IShave.

the conceptualizer focuses his/her attention on

Based on these observations, she constructs thethe process of the situation.

schemata of the continuative and indefinite uses

These observations are reflected in Figure 1;of the PP.

the IS is put on the middle of a perfectiveFirstly, let us observe the continuative use, as

situation and excludes the temporal boundaries.

in (7), which expresses that the conceptualizers

This is because the progressive aspect turns a

became acquainted with each other several years

perfective situation into an imperfective one.

ago and their relationship still lasts at the
speech time.
(7) We’ve known each other for years.
(Leech (2004: 36))
The continuative use of the PP is schematized in

Figure 1 Progressive Aspect(cf. Langacker (2001: 259))

Figure 2. As with the progressive aspect, the MS

The property of the progressive aspect, i.e. thesituation involved. On the other hand, the IShavefunction of zooming in, is represented by the IS,

is imposed on the portion of the situationand such a scope is referred to as the IS-ing.

holding at the speech time (represented by theembraces the whole context relevant to the

While the IS-ing covers the middle part of the

zigzag part). Because the conceptualizer focusessituation involved, the MS embraces the wholeon the state holding at the speech time, the IShave

content related to it. The conceptualizer pays

occupies the same portion covered by the IST,

more attention to the process of the situation, i.e.

which is profiled (i.e., IShave =IST).

115

attention to the state at the speech time, that is,
the state within the IShave=T, which is profiled.
Based on the above cognitive schemata, inthe following section, I will schematize the twouses of the Present Perfect Progressive (PPP).
Figure 2 The continuative use of
the PP (cf. De Wit (2017: 34))

3. The Cognitive Schemata of the PPP
In this section, in terms of the interaction

Next, the indefinite use describes a priorbetween the scopes and profiling, I willsituation, which was completed before theconstruct the schemata of the two uses of the

speech time. Moreover, it can imply an

PPP. I assume that the PPP has both the property“entailed” resultant state, which is derived fromof the progressive aspect and that of the PP, and

the

an

the two uses reflect them. Thus, the PPP has two“implicated” resultant state, i.e. a state inferred

immediate scopes, IS-ing and IShave. What type offrom or triggered by the prior situation involved.

cognitive schema a PPP represents depends oncompletion

of

the

situation,or

how the IS-ing operates interactively with the(8) Someone has broken her doll.

IShave.

(Leech (2004: 39))3.1. The Schema of the Continuative Use
In (8), the speaker represents the situation ofFirstly, let us observe the continuative use ofsomeone’s breaking her doll and focuses on thethe PPP. This use denotes a situation thatentailed resultant state, which was caused

occurred in the past and leads up to the speech

directly by this event, that is, her doll is stilltime or beyond. However, this use of the PPP is

broken at the speech time. The indefinite use isdifferent from that of the PP in that the PPP canschematized in Figure 3.

use a non-stative predicate to express thesituation in question, while that of the PP
basically cannot.
The semantics of the continuative use of the
PPP can be analyzed in terms of the propertiesof the progressive aspect and the PP. By taking
an internal viewpoint, the perfective situation is

Figure 3 The indefinite use of
the PP (cf. De Wit (2017: 33))

re-interpreted as the imperfective one. In otherAs with the continuative use, the IShave subsumes

the process of the situation involved. By virtue

a portion of the resultant state holding at theof the property of the PP (i.e. current relevance),

speech time. Because of current relevance, thehe/she focuses on the situation especiallyindefinite use is concerned with the resultant

holding at speech time.

words, the conceptualizer is concerned only withstate holding at the speech time, so the area

The schematization of this use of the PPP iscovered by the IShave coincides with that covered

illustrated in Figure 4, where the properties ofby the IST. In addition, the conceptualizer pays

the progressive aspect and the PP are reflected in116the IS-ing and IShave, respectively: the IS-ing covers

use are schematized in Figure 5.

a middle portion (process) of the perfective
situation, while the IShave and IST occupy thesame portion as the speech time. Note that in thecase of the continuative use the IShave covers the
portion within the IS-ing which is profiled.

Figure 5 The indefinite use of the PPPThe IS-ing and IShave occupy different time ranges.
As with the continuative use, because of current
relevance, both the IShave and the IST occupy the
Figure 4same range as the speech time, in which some

The continuative use of the PPP

resultant state holds. In other words, theThe schema in Figure 4 expresses that theresultant state holding at the speech time is

PPP can use a non-stative predicate for thesalient, so the conceptualizer is concerned with

continuative use.

it. On the other hand, the IS-ing is imposed only
on the process of the prior situation and turns the

3.2. The Schema of the Indefinite Use

perfective situation into an imperfective one,

Secondly, let us turn to the indefinite use ofwhich reflects the property of the progressive

the PPP. This use expresses a situation that

aspect. Thus, only the internal part of theoccurred before the speech time, as with the PP.

situation covered by the IS-ing is paid attention to

However, the difference between the two perfectand emphasized. Therefore, this cognitivetenses is that the PPP focuses more on the priorschema guarantees only an occurrence of thesituation and can only express an implicatedsituation involved, so the resultant state within

resultant state, which can be inferred from thethe IShave is interpreted as an implicated resultant

prior event.

state.

Consider (2b) again. The speaker focuses on

In addition, it should be noted that thethe prior situation (i.e. John’s painting the door)

process (middle part) of the prior situationand can denote an implicated resultant state

receives more attention because it is profiled.

triggered by the prior situation, i.e. the paint ofThis is because this use of the PPP is intended tothe door has not dried yet in this case. Based on

represent what cannot be expressed by thethese observations, we can say that by virtue ofindefinite use of the PP, where the present state

the property of the PP, the indefinite use of theis profiled.

PPP is concerned with the present state, while by

In the next section, by utilizing thesevirtue of the property of the progressive aspect,cognitive schemata of the PPP, I will provide an

we pay attention to the process of the prioranswer to the question of why the indefinite use

situation. Therefore, in this use, our attention isof the PPP, but not the indefinite use of the PP

paid to both situations.

and the continuative use of the PPP, denotes a

These semantic properties of the indefinite

situation with the explanatory-resultative effects.

117

4. The Explanatory-Resultative Effects

Thus, the explanatory-resultative effects do not

I will claim that the differences between thehappen.

cognitive schemata of the three perfect tenses

As a consequence of this analysis, it isplay a crucial role. Let us first consider why thepossible to account for why some instances ofindefinite use of the PPP can be accompanied bywhat Declerck (2006) calls the “up-to-now” use

the explanatory-resultative effects. The cognitive

have the explanatory-resultative effects. This use

schema in Figure 5 merely guarantees thehas both semantic properties of the continuative

occurrence of the situation, not the completion

use and the indefinite use and describes aof it, and the resultant state captured by the IShavesituation or a set of situations holding in a

is an implicated resultant state, which iscertain period of time ranging from the past to

triggered by the situation involved. Furthermore,

the present but excluding the speech time, as inbecause of current relevance, a conceptualizer isYour little boy has been jumping and shouting

concerned with the relation between the present

for the whole morning (Chen (1982: 183)). In

state and the prior situation, both of which arethis example, the speaker “explains” why he/shesalient, while the process of the prior situation isis irritated now by describing the situation

profiled and is the most prominent part. Thus,

involved as the cause of his/her present state.

the profiled portion of the past situation within

In our cognitive approach, the IS-ing and thethe IS-ing is described in reference to the present

IShave of this use each ocuppy the distinct

resultant state within the IShave, and one infers

portions, as in Figure 6.

from the implicated resultant state that the priorsituation is the cause of that resultant state. Since
the resultant state is not derived from thecompletion of the prior situation but triggered byits occurrence, one has to infer the relation of thetwo situations and thus reasoning comes intoplay. Hence comes the “explanation” function of
the indefinite use of the PPP. This is why theFig. 6 The up-to-now use of the PPP

indefinite use of the PPP can be accompanied by

All the situations which occurred repetitively

the explanatory-resultative effects.

before the speech time are regarded as a whole.

By contrast, the cognitive schema of the

In the same way as the other uses of the PPP, theindefinite use of the PP (cf. Figure 3) only has

up-to-now use imposes the IS-ing on the middle

the IShave, so the prior event is not covered byportion of the situation (i.e. a set of situations),

any IS and thus it is not emphasized. Therefore,

and the part within the IS-ing is profiled. In

although the indefinite use of the PP has current

addition to this, the IShave subsumes a state at therelevance, it cannot evoke the effects in question.

speech time, an implicated resultant stateWith respect to the continuative use of the PPP,

triggered by the prior situation, since thethere is no boundary between the present andsituation involved does not continue into thepast situations (cf. Figure 4) and thus anspeech time.

inferencing process like the one for the

By assuming this schema, the conceptualizer

indefinite use of the PPP is not in operation.

is concerned with the resultant state at the118speech time, but more with the process of the

English Tense System: A Comprehensive

prior situation; since the portions of the ISs of

Analysis (The Grammar of the English Verb

the two situations occupy different time ranges,

Phrase Volume 1), Mouton de Gruyter,he/she can reason that the occurrence of the

Berlin and New York.

prior situation is a cause for the present state.

Depraetere, Ilse (1999) “Resultativeness and theTherefore, as with the indefinite use, theIndefinite Progressive Perfect” Thinking

up-to-now

English Grammar: To Honour Xavier

use

can

evoke

the

explanatory-resultative effects.

Dekeyser, Professor Emeritus, ed. by Guy
Tops, Betty Devrieudt and Steven Geukens,

5. Conclusion

227-238, Peeters, Leuven.

In this paper, I have analyzed the PPP underthe

cognitive

approaches

developed

Depraetere, Ilse and Susan Reed (2000) “ThebyPresent Perfect Progressive: Constraints on

Langacker (2001) and De Wit (2017), based on

Its Use with Numerical Object NPs,”

which I constructed the cognitive schemata of

English Language and Linguistics 4,

the continuative and indefinite uses of the PP

97-114.

and the PPP. The reason why only the indefinite
use

of

the

PPP

can

show

De Wit, Astrid (2017) The Present Perfective

theParadoxexplanatory-resultative effects is due to its

acrossLanguages,

OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

cognitive schema (Figure 5). Because of the

Hornby, Albert S (1975) Guide to Patterns andsimilarities of the cognitive schemata, theUsage in English (2nd ed.), Oxford

up-to-now use of the PPP can also show the

University Press, Oxford.

same effects, which supports our analysis.

Langacker, Ronald W. (1991) Foundations of
Cognitive Grammar, Volume 2: Descriptive* I would like to express my gratitude to theApplication, Stanford University Press,

audience at the conference. I would also like to

Stanford.

thank Naoaki Wada for valuable comments on

Langacker, Ronald W. (2001) “The English

this paper. Of course, any errors in this paper are

Present Tense,” English Language andmy own responsibilities.

Linguistics 5, 251-273.
Langacker,

RonaldW.

(2008)

Cognitive

REFERENCES
Araki, Kazuo. and Minoru Yasui (1992) Gendai

Grammar: A Basic Introduction, Oxford

Eibumpo Jiten (Dictionary of the Modern

Leech, Geoffrey (2004) Meaning and the

University Press, Oxford.

English Grammar), Sanseido, Tokyo.

English Verb (3rd ed.), Longman, London.

Chen, Chung-yu (1982) “On the Time Structure

Radden, Günter and René Dirven (2007)of English Verbs,” Papers in Linguistics

Cognitive

15.3, 181-190.

Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Declerck, Renaat (1991) A Comprehensive
Descriptive

Grammarof

English,Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Declerck, Renaat (2006) The Grammar of the

119

EnglishGrammar,John

の現象には補文の目的語位置からの演算子
移動があると仮定し、説明のため、以下のような提案を行った。
収束性を伴うフェイズ*(4) a. Unvalued features on the head of the（On Phases with Convergency）

complement to the phase head keep thephase open.

田中 章太（Shota Tanaka）

b. The locality domain for the phenomenathat give rise to the bound pronoun effect関西外国語大学大学院（Kansai Gaidai University）

is the phase.
c. Bound pronouns optionally enter the

キーワード：フェイズ, Q 素性, ECM 構文, 多derivation with unvalued φ-features.

重 WH 疑問文, 問い返し疑問文(Grano & Lasnik (2018: 482))(3a)では、CP 内の主語 Mary と時制要素 T の

1. はじめに

φ 素性の一致により、T の値を持たない φ 素

本稿の目的は収束性にもとづいたフェイ性に値が与えられる。T はフェイズ主要部 C

ズ理論において、(1)と(2)で示した ECM 構文の補部の主要部であるため、(4a)に従うと CP

や多重 WH 疑問文がどのように派生される

フェイズが完成する。その後、CP フェイズのかを説明することである。

から演算子が取り出されると、(5)で示した
フェイズ不可侵条約の違反になるため、(3a)(1) Who did you expect your mother all to meetat the party?

は非文となる。

(McCloskey (2000: 70))

(2) Who remembers where we bought which
book?

(5) Phase Impenetrability Condition(Baker (1970: 215))

In phase α with head H, the domain of H is
not accessible to operations outside α, only H

2. 収束性を伴うフェイズ

and its edge are accessible to such operations.
(Chomsky (2001: 108))

英語において、(3a)のような埋め込み節からの取り出しは節境界(clause-boundary)を超えることになるため、非文となる。しかし、一方、(3b)の CP 内の主語は束縛代名詞 he で(3b)のように、当該名詞句の主語が束縛代名あり、(4c)に従うと、φ 素性は値を持たずに詞の場合は、取り出しが可能となる。

派生に導入される。この場合、he が持つ φ
素性は T が持つ φ 素性に値付けできないた(3) a. *The book is too dear for Jim to claim [CPめ、CP フェイズが完成しない。したがって、

that Mary lent __ to Ann].

演算子は CP を超えて移動が可能であり、(3b)b. The book is too dear for Jim1 to claim [CPが問題なく派生される。

that he1 lent __ to Ann].

しかし、G&L では説明できない事実が２(Grano & Lasnik (2018: 481))

つ存在し、その１つが ECM 構文における補文からの取り出し可能性についてである。

Grano & Lasnik (2018)(以下(G&L))では、こ120

(6) I believe John to be the winner.

は[person]素性のみを有し、それ以外の素性(Chomsky (1986: 189))

は欠けていることが示唆されている。もしこ(7) John is believed to be the winner.

の仮定が正しいとすると、(10)の your motherには値のある φ 素性が存在するため、Tdef の(6)は ECM 構文であり、(7)はその受動文であφ 素性に値を与えることになる。したがって、る。ECM の補文不定詞節の範疇は一般的にG&L の提案(4a)に従うと、CP フェイズが完

TP であると考えられてきた。しかしながら、成し、ECM の補文主語である your mother のMcCloskey (2000)や Boskovic (2007)は次のよ

取り出しが不可能となる。(7)のような補文

うな例から、ECM 補文不定詞節は CP と分析

主語が受動化されている場合においても同している。

様の理由で取り出しができなくなることが予測されるが、事実と合っていない。

(8) What all do you think (all) that he’ll say (all)さらに２つ目の問題点として、(2)((11)としthat we should buy (all)?

て再掲)の多重 WH 疑問文があげられる。(12)(McCloskey (2000: 62))は(11)が持つ多重 WH 疑問文の特徴を示した(9) a. Who did you arrange [all for yourものであり、Pair-List 読みが可能であること

mother to meet at the party]?

がわかる。

b. *Who did you arrange [for your mother all
to meet at the party]?

(11) Who remembers where we bought which(McCloskey (2000: 70))

book?

(10) Who did you expect your mother [all to(Baker (1970: 215))(12) John remembers where we bought themeet at the party]? (McCloskey (2000: 70))

physicsbookandMarthaandTedremember where we bought The Wizard of(8)に示したように、what を修飾する浮遊数

Oz.

(Baker (1970: 215))

量詞 all は CP 指定部位置に残留する。
また、
不定詞構文を含む場合は、(9a)のように、all

Chomsky (2015)では、WH 句には値を持たな

は不定詞節の補文標識とされる for の直前に

い Q 素性が存在することが示唆されており、現れることができる。しかし、(9b)では all

C と一致関係を作ることで、C からの値付けが埋め込み節内の CP と TP の間に位置してが行われる。(12)の Pair-List 読みが可能であおり非文となっている。

ることを考慮すると、(11)では who と同様に

これらのことを考慮して(10)を考えてみwhich book が広い作用域をとり、その両方がる。all は(9b)と同様の位置にあるように見え

主節の C からの Q 素性の値付けを必要とす

るが、非文とならない。この事実は all が補る。埋め込み節の we の φ 素性は T の φ 素性

文の CP 指定部に存在し、your mother が主節と一致関係を作り、T の φ 素性に値付けが行の v*P に移動していると考えることで説明

われる。この場合、G&L の提案(4a)に従うと、ができる。

CP フェイズが完成することになる。which

以上のことから、従来 TP と考えられてきbook はそのフェイズ内に存在しているため、た ECM 補文は CP であることがわかる。

主節の C が which book の Q 素性に値付けをしかし、G&L に従うと、(10)の文法性が説行うとフェイズ不可侵条約の違反となる。し明できない。Chomsky (2001)では、ECM 構

たがって、G&L の分析では、誤った予測を文の補文不定詞節の T は Tdef であり、φ 素性することになる。

121be the winner]]]]3. 分析
Chomsky (2008)以降、値を持たない φ 素性

上述した通り、ECM の T は Tdef であり、は C や v*に含まれており、それぞれ T や V[person]素性以外の素性が欠けている。したに素性が継承されると考えられている。

がって、ECM 主語である John は T と一致関係を作り、T の φ 素性に値付けを行う。しか(13) “… C and v* are the phase heads, and their

し、φ-complete の一致ではないため、(14)にAgree-feature is inherited by the LI they

従うと CP はフェイズにならない。
その結果、select.”

その後の派生において、John は主節の TP 指

(Chomsky (2008: 15))

定部に移動可能であるため、(15)の受動文が本稿では(13)をもとに、フェイズに一致の概問題なく派生される。

念を加えた(14)を提案する。

数量詞残留が起こる ECM 構文に関しても同様の説明が可能となる。

(14) Agreement Phase
機能範疇 T や語彙範疇 V と DP の間で φ(16) Who did you expect your mother all to meet

素性に関する完全な一致関係が作られ

at the party?

るとすぐ にフェ イズが 完成し 、 Phasea. [CP C [<φ,φ> your mother [TP to [v*P tyour

Head の補部が転送される。

mother [v*P meet who all]]]]]

b. [CP≠phase C [<φ,φ> your mother [TP to [v*P
(14)で用いられている、「完全な一致関係」

tyour mother [v*P meet who all]]]]]と は 、 φ 素 性 に 含 ま れ る [person] 素 性 と

c. [who all [CP C [<φ,φ> your mother [TP to[Number]素性が単一の DP が持つ φ 素性と一[v*P tyour mother [v*P meet twho all]]]]]]

致することである。以下、[person]素性とd. [<Q,Q> who [……[v*P v* [<φ,φ> your mother[Number]素性の両方持つ φ 素性を φ-complete[VP expect [CP twho all [CP C [<φ,φ> tyour mother1と記す。 この提案を用いて、問題となって[TP to [v*P tyour mother [v*P meet twho

いた ECM 構文に観察される事実や多重 WH

all]]]]]]]]]]]

疑問文の Pair-List 読みの可能性を再考する。
(16)において、ECM 主語の your mother と T
3.1. ECM 構文とその受動化の間で一致関係が作られるが、φ-complete の2 節において、G&L の分析は ECM 構文の一致ではない。したがって、(14)を考慮する

受動文や数量詞残留現象を説明することがと、フェイズが完成しないため、your mother

できないと指摘した。本節では、まず、ECM

は主節の VP に移動可能となる。また、その構文における補文主語の受動化の派生を考移動によって expect-your-mother-all-to というえてみる。

語順になることも説明可能となる。

(15) John is believed to be the winner.

3.2. 多重 WH 疑問文

a. [CP C [<φ,φ> John [TP to be the winner]]]

2 節において、G＆L の分析では多重 WH

b. [CP≠Phase C [<φ,φ> John [TP to be the

疑問文の WH-in-situ に値付けができないと

winner]]]指摘した。ここでは、その問題に対して説明

c. [John … … [CP≠Phase C [<φ,φ> tJohn [TP to

を行う。

122

その後 LF に転送された段階で[uQL]素性が C(17) Who remembers where we bought whichbook?

と一致関係を作り、C が持つ Q 素性から値が(Baker (1970: 215))

与えられる。その結果、主節の who が広い(18) John remembers where we bought theスコープを取ると同時に、which book も広い

physics book and Martha and Ted

スコープを取ることが可能となる。

remember where we bought The Wizard ofOz.

また、LF において、主節の who と which(Baker (1970: 215))

book が演算子合併を行うことで、(18)のような Pair-List 読みが出ることから、(17)の派生(17)では埋め込み節内の which book は可視的が正しく行われていることになる。

に移動していないが、(18)の返答が可能であることから、who と共に解釈されることを示

4. 帰結

している。補文内の主語は補文の T 主要部と4.1. 弱フェイズ

完全な一致関係を作っているため、(14)によChomsky (2000)以降、他動詞文で用いられり補文 CP はフェイズとして機能する。したる v*P はフェイズと考えられてきた。その理

がって which book が移動しないことに対し由として、それぞれの動詞が持つべきθ役割ては説明が与えられるが、主文の C によるの全てがそれぞれの項に与えられると、命題

値付けが行われず、Q 素性の値付けに関してを成すと考えられてきたからである。

は問題が残ったままである。そこで、本稿でしかし、受動文や非対格文で用いられるは以下のような Q 素性の細分化を提案する。

vP の場合でも、同様に、それぞれの動詞が持つべきθ役割の全てがそれぞれの項に与(19) QS-Feature と QL-Feature

えられていることから、フェイズを成すと考a. QS-Feature は統語部門で Q 素性の一致えられる。
このことから Chomsky (2000)では CP とを要請する。
b. QL-Feature は LF で Q 素性の一致を要

v*P は強フェイズ、vP を弱フェイズと仮定し、請する。

弱フェイズはフェイズ不可侵条約の影響を受けないという提案を行なった。この弱フェ(19b)の [QL]素性は統語部門において、値がイズを用いた受動文の派生は以下の通りで与えられずに残っていたとしても、フェイズある。

の完成に影響を与えないと考える。
(20) John was hit.

この提案を用いて(17)を再考する。(17)では who には[uQS]素性が存在し、which book

[TP John was [vP=weak phase hit tJohn ]]には[uQL]素性が存在すると仮定する。[uQS]
素性は統語部門での一致を要請するため、主目的語である John が主語の位置である TP

節の CP 指定部まで移動する。一方、which

指定部に移動している。もし vP が強フェイ

book は埋め込みの CP フェイズに含まれておズであれば、John の取り出しはフェイズ不可り、統語部門において操作を加えることがで侵条約の違反になるため、問題となる。しかきない。しかし、which book は[uQL]素性をし、vP は弱フェイズであるため、John が取持ち、LF での値付けを要請するものである

り出されたとしても問題が生じることはな

ため、フェイズ内に含まれていても問題が生い。したがって、受動文の派生がうまくいくじない。主節の C が who と一致関係を作り、ことがわかる。

123しかし、Simplicity の観点から、２つのフる事実も説明が可能となる。

ェイズを仮定することには疑問が生じる。そ(23) a. *What did Ann go home [after Mary read

こで、本稿での提案を用いると、弱フェイズt]?

を独立して仮定しなくても、その効果を演繹(Grano & Lasnik (2018: 494))

b. *Who does Phineas know a girl [who is

的に導き出せることを示す。
Chomsky (2001)や Gallego (2010)では、受動

working with t]?

文や非対格文の生成の際に用いられる v は(中島 (2016: 111))c. *What did Mary believe the fact [thatvdef であり、[person]素性が欠けているというJohn had stolen t ]?

(江頭 (2019: 42))ことが示唆されている。これを考慮した上で、(23a)は付加部の島、(23b,c)は複合名詞句から受身文の派生を見ていく。

WH 句が抜き出された例である。付加部は主(21) John was hit.

節とは別のワークスペースで生成されると

a. [vP≠phase hit John]

考えられるが、これが主節と併合される時期

b. [TP John was [vP≠phase hit tJohn ]]については Wurmbrand (2014)の提案を採用する。

(21)では v から V に素性が継承され、John とV の間で一致関係が作られる。しかし、v か(24) Merge at Transfer

ら V に継承された素性は φ-complete ではな“Two objects can undergo a ‘last minute’

いため、(14)に従うとフェイズが完成しない。

Merge after the two structures have been

したがって、John に vP 外部から操作を加えtransferred (after syntactic structure

ることが可能となり、T が派生に導入された

building is completed), but before they are

段階で、その指定部に移動することが可能と

spelled-out.”(Wurmbrand (2014: 154))なる。
ちなみに、Richards (2004)では、弱フェイ(24)は統語対象物が、転送された後、Spell-Out

ズが Spell-Out や PIC と関係ないのであれば、される前の段階で併合される操作である。

フェイズとする必要はないと主張している。

この操作を用いると、(23)の付加部は主節とは別のワークスペースで生成され、それぞ(22) “If they are irrelevant for Spell-Out and the

れが転送された後に(24)が適用される。しかPIC then they are not phases at all in any

し、この時、付加部内に存在する WH 句に

useful, meaning sense. A weak phase isは[uQS]素性が存在し、すでに転送されていsimply a non-phases; all phases must be

るため、統語部門での一致の要請を満たすこ‘strong’.”とができない。したがって、[uQS]素性の値(Richards (2004: 66))

付けが行われないまま派生が終わり、インターフェイスにおいて Full Interpretation により以上のことから、これまで受動文や非対格文で仮定されていた弱フェイズを独立して破綻してしまうため、(23)は非文となる。

仮定しなくても、本稿の提案を用いるとそのまた WH 疑問文には WH 句が島の内部に効果を演繹的に導き出せることがわかる。

残っているような現象も存在する。

4.2. 島の制約と問い返し疑問文(25) a. Who likes books that criticize who?
b. Who got jealous because I speak to who?

次に、(19)を用いれば、島を含む文に関す

124

(Fiengo, Huang, Lasnik & Reinhart

では WH 句の[uQL]素性には値がついていな(1988: 81))

いが、LF での一致を要請するため、転送後に主節の C から値が与えられることになる。

(25a)は複合名詞句制約、(25b)は付加部の島したがって、Q 素性の値付けが問題なく行わの例である。これらの文では、それぞれの付れることになる。

加部内に WH 句が含まれており、これらがまた、問い返し疑問文には、(27EQ)のよう持つ[uQ]素性に値付けを行わなければならに WH 句が移動しない場合と(27EQ’)のようない。この場合、付加部の中に含まれる whoに WH 句が移動する場合がある。

は[uQL]素性を持つと仮定すると説明が可能(27) U:となる。付加部は主節とは別のワークスペー

Mary had tea with Cleopatra?

スで生成され、Merge at transfer の段階で併合

EQ: Mary had tea with whoE?

される。[uQL]素性は LF での一致を要請する

EQ’: WhoE did Mary have tea with?

ため、転送後に主節の C と一致関係を作る(Sobin (2010: 132))

ことで、付加部内に存在する WH 句にも Q
素性の値付けが正しく行われる。その結果(27EQ’)の場合、WH 句に[uQ(EQ)S]素性が存在(25)が正しく派生される。

すると仮定する。このように考えると、WH

また興味深いことに、問い返し疑問文では、 句は統語部門で連続循環的に移動し、C の指島の制約が弱まるということが挙げられる。

定部で一致関係を結び、Q 素性の値が与えられることになる。したがって、移動を起こす(26) a. U: Mary left [after John met

問い返し疑問文に関しても、細分化された Q(mumble)].

素性を用いることで説明が可能となる。

EQ: Mary left [after John met whoE]?
(Chernova (2015: 185))

5. まとめb. U: I was surprised at the rumor [that he

本稿では「一致によるフェイズ」を提案し、

bought the parachute].

ECM 構文の派生、さらには弱フェイズの効

EQ: You were surprised at the rumor [that

果が自動的に出てくることを説明した。さらhe bought whatE]?

に、Q 素性の細分化を行うことで、多重 WH(Inada and Imanishi (2003: 233-234))

疑問文や島の制約、問い返し疑問文の派生に対して説明を行なった。

(26)の U は Utterance、EQ は Echo Questionの略である。島の内部に含まれる WH 句の*本稿は日本英語学会第 38 回大会での口頭[uQ]素性には値付けを行わなければならな

発表に基づくものである。発表の準備段階か

いが、島は CP フェイズを成しており、[uQ]

ら貴重な助言をしていただいた大庭幸男先

素性への値付けはフェイズ不可侵条約の違生や平井大輔先生、大宗純先生、山口真史先

反となり、問い返し疑問文の派生に問題が生

生、研究発表の際に貴重な助言やご指摘を頂じる。しかし、これらの WH 句には[uQ(EQ)L]

いた諸先生方にはこの場を借りて感謝申し

素性が存在すると仮定すると説明できる。島上げたい。なお、本稿における不備は全て執は付加部であるため、主節とは別のワークス

筆者によるものである。

ペースで生成され、転送後に Merge at

注1

Transfer で主節と併合される。転送前の段階

125

英語では、[Gender]素性は動詞との一致現象

に関与しないため、本稿では φ 素性に含まれLasnik, and Tanya Reinhart (1988) “Theないと仮定している。

syntaxof

Wh-in-situ,”

WCCFL7:

Proceedings of the Seventh West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics, 81-98.

参考文献
Baker, Carl L. (1970) “Note on the Description

Gallego, Ángel J. (2010) Phase Theory, John

of English Questions: The Role of an
Abstract

Question

Benjamin, Amsterdam.

Morpheme,”

Grano, Thomas and Howard Lasnik (2018)

Foundations of Language 6, 197-219.

“How to Neutralize a Finite Clause

Chernova, Ekaterina (2015) The Syntax ofBoundary: Phase Theory and the Grammar

WH-Movement in Multiple (True and Echo)

of Bound Pronouns,” Linguistic Inquiry 49,

Questions:465-499.

DoctoralA

Q-Particle

dissertation,

Approach,

UniversitatdeInada, Toshiaki and Noriko Imanishi (2003)

Girona.
Chomsky,“What Wh-Echo Questions Tell Us aboutNoam(1986)

Knowledgeofthe Architecture of Language Faculty,”

Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use,

Empirical and Theoretical Investigations

Praeger, New York.

into Language: A Festschrift for Masaru

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”

Kajita, ed. by Shuji Chiba et al., 241-280,

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by

Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

McCloskey, James (2000) “Quantifier Float andCambridge, MA.
Chomsky,Noam

Wh-movement(2008)“On

Phases,”

in

a

Irish

English,”Linguistic Inquiry 31, 57-84.

Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:

中島平三 (2016)『島の眺望:補文標識選択とEssays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,

島の制約と受動化』研究社, 東京.

ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero andRichards, Mark D. (2004) Object Shift andMaria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT

Scrambling in North and West Germanic: A

Press, Cambridge, MA.

Case Study in Symmetrical Syntax, Doctoral

Chomsky,Noam(2013)“Problemsofdissertation, University of Cambridge.

Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky,

Noam

Projection:(2015)

Sobin, Nicholas (2010) “Echo Questions in the“Problems

Extensions,”of

Minimalist Program,” Linguistic Inquiry 41,

Structure,131-148.

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honor of

Wurmbrand, Susi (2014) “The Merge Condition:

Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico,A

Cornelia Hamann and Simona Matteini,

Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the

3-16, John Benjamins Publishing Company,

Interfaces, ed. by Peter Kosta, Steven L.

Amsterdam.

Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork and Lilia

江頭浩樹 (2019)「叙実動詞補文・名詞補文・syntactic

Schürcks,

approach130-166,

toJohn

selection,”

Benjamins

Publishing Company, Amsterdam.

非架橋動詞補文からの取り出しの禁止について」『大妻比較文化:大妻女子大学
比較文化学部紀要』第 20 号, 39-67.
Fiengo, Robert, C.T. James Huang, Howard

126

eow

to gehealdenne

youDAT

to hold <ÆCHom II, 21 181.47>‘those things that I order you to hold’((2), (3), Los (2005:53-54))
近代英語における借用語動詞の受容について－persuade に焦点を当てて－(2) は「駆り立て」の動詞 tihst が「NP＋to（Remarks on Verbs Borrowed in Modern

不定詞」補文を取る例である。NP が対格とEnglish: With Special Reference to Persuade）

なっていることに注意されたい。(3) の「命令・許可」の動詞 bebeode が「NP＋to 不定詞」

遠峯 伸一郎（Shinichiro Tomine）

を取る例では NP が与格である。
「駆り立て」

鹿児島県立短期大学（Kagoshima Prefecturalの動詞と「命令・許可」の動詞は使役に類似

College）

した意味を表す点で共通するが、OE ではこのように NP の格に違いがある。この違いはキーワード：借用語, 項構造, 目的語コント

NP と to 不定詞に与えられる意味役割の違い

ロール補文, ラテン語, 近代英語を反映していると考えられる (Los (2005)) 。
(4) Seocum

1. はじめにSick1

現代英語 では order, encourage を含む多く

mannum, andcildum,manDAT,

childrenDAT,

and

we ne bebeodað nan fasten.

の動詞で目的語コントロールの「名詞句 2＋

we not orderto 不定詞」補文が見られる。

‘We do not order sick people and children to

no fast <HomM 7 23>

fast.’(1) a. I ordered him to go.

(5) Nub. I ordered him [PRO to go]

ic bebeode beacen

Now I order

portentACC

ætywan,appearINF,<And 727>(1) では目的語 him が‘to go’の主語として仮‘Now I order a portent to appear’

定される音形を持たない代名詞 PRO の先行(6) tihte

詞である（稲田 (2000: 第５章)）。

þæturged theto þæra

目的語コントロールの「NP＋to 不定詞」

halige mædenACC
holy

deoflamaidenoffrungum

to theGEN demonsGEN sacrificeDAT

補文は、歴史的観点からは二種類に分けられ3る (Los (2005)) 。次に OE の例を挙げる。

<ÆLS (Lucy) 57>‘urged the holy maiden to sacrifice to(2) Onhwilcum

godum

tihst

þu

demons’

in

which

gods

urgest thouustogelyfenne?

(4) では「命令・許可」の動詞が二重目的語

usACC

to

believeTO-INF

構文で使われている。二重目的語構文は授受の 動 詞 で 典 型 的 に 見 ら れ 、 与 格 NP の<ÆLS (George) 148>

‘Which gods do you urge us to believe in?’(3) ðathose((4)-(6), Los (2005:53-55))‘Seocum mannum and cildum’は受領者項であðincg ðe ic bebeode

り、対格 NP の‘nan fasten’は主題項であるとthings that I order

考えられる。つまり、「命令・許可」の動詞

127

は、命令や許可という情報の授受、すなわち割で区別されうることが明らかになった。こ伝達を表すと考えられる。「命令・許可」のれら二種類の動詞が OE と PE で同様の性質

動詞の受領者項は、(5) に見るように随意的を示すのであれば、少なくとも本来語ではそである。(6)では「駆り立て」の動詞が主題の間に変化がなかったと想定される。しかし、を表すと考えられる対格 NP に加えて to-PP「駆り立て」の動詞の１つとして挙げられるを取る。この PP は to の意味から着点項であpersuade は ModE の借用語である。借用語でると考えられる。

あることが理由で本来語とは異なる性質をPE でも類似の違いが観察される。

見せるのだろうか。本論は persuade に焦点を当て、その借用当時の調査・分析を行う。具

(7) a. John ordered Tom to leave immediately.

体的には、The Oxford English Dictionary (2ndb. He commanded us patience.

edition)（以下、OED2）の引用例から資料を

c. John ordered the prisoner to be transferred

収集し、借用元言語であるラテン語（以下 L）

to the prison hospital.

の対応語の性質と比較しながら、資料を検討((7a, c), Chiba (1985)4)する。そして ModE は PE と異なり、persuade(8) a. John persuaded Tom to leave immediately.

が「命令・許可」の動詞としての用法と、「駆b. *He persuaded the Town Hall to be

り立て」の動詞としての特徴を併せ持ったこ

demolished.

とを明らかにする。

c. He persuaded John { into going to see thedoctor / *to a doctor }.

2. 資料((8b, c), Los (2005:251))

本節では、まず、L における persuade の対
応語の性質を概観する。その後、ModE にお(7a, b) を観察すると、PE の「命令・許可」

ける persuade の性質を観察する。

の動詞は OE の (3), (4) と同様に「NP＋to 不2.1. L における対応語の性質

定詞」補文を取り、二重目的語構文が可能で
あ る こ と が 分 か る 。 (7c) は 目 的 語 の ‘the

Persuade の L の対応語 persuadeo は Lewis

prisoner’が意味的に受領者とは考えられず、

and Short (1879)（以下 LS）によれば次の意

OE の (5) と同様に「NP＋to 不定詞」補文が味を持つという。

全体として主題であると考えられる。(8) は「駆り立て」の動詞の「NP＋to 不定詞」補(9) a. ‘to bring over by talking, to convince of

文が「命令・許可」の動詞のそれとは異なる

the truth of any thing, to persuade’

性質を持つことを示す。(8a) に見るように、

b. ‘to prompt, induce, prevail upon, persuade
to do any thing’「駆り立て」の動詞も「命令・許可」の動詞(ibid. s.v. persuadeo)と同様に「NP＋to 不定詞」補文を取るが、(8b)は被説得者が随意的でないことを示す。そしこれらは PE persuade でも見られる。意味はて (8c) から、被説得者は着点へ移動する主L から大きく変化していないようである。次

題であることが窺われる (Los (ibid.)) 。ただに対応する例文を観察する。

し、PE においては、OE と異なり着点が to-PP(10) mihi

で具現しない。
以上から、OE と PE の両方で「駆り立て」の動詞と「命令・許可」の動詞が項の意味役

128

persuaderi

numquamme

be-persuaded neverpotuit,animos ...

vivere, etc.

can

soul

to-be-alive‘I was persuaded that soul can never be alive’(11) numquam
never(13) は「NP＋that 節」補文の例、(14), (15) はtamen haec

felicitas「NP＋to 不定詞」補文の例である。(13) かstill

fortuneら (15) より、説得内容は that 節や「NP＋to

this

illi

persuasit

neglegentiam

不定詞」で具現することが分かる。被説得者

himpersuades

negligence

は (13), (15) において NP で具現する。

‘This fortune still never persuades him ofnegligence’(12) persuasit(16) 1675 WOOD Life (O.H.S.) II. 332, Ieityrannidis finem facere

he-persuaded him tyranny

persuaded the society to set it above theto endarches, but I was not then heard.

‘he persuaded him to end tyranny’(17) 1593 SHAKES. 3 Hen. VI, III. iii. 176 ... to((10)-(12), LS)

perswade me Patience?

(10), (11) は (9a) に対応する例文である。

(16) は「NP＋to 不定詞」補文の例である。

(10) は被説得者 mihi が与格であり、説得内

これは一見したところ PE に見られる「NP容 ‘animos ... vivere’ が不定詞付き対格であ＋to 不定詞」補文と同じであると思われるが、る。(11) は説得内容 neglegentiam が対格で、but 以下を参照すると、PE と異なり含意性が被説得者 illi が与格で具現する二重目的語構ないことが分かる。(17) は二重目的語構文文である。(12) は (9b) に対応する。被説得の例である。

者 ei は (10) と同様に与格である。説得内容‘tyrannidis finem facere’ は不定詞である。(12)(18) a1643 LD. FALKLAND, etc. Infallibility

は一見したところ PE の「NP＋to 不定詞」補(1646) 97 The grossest errours, if they..be

文に対応するように見えるが、(12) に後続

but new, may be perswaded to theする文脈を参照すると、PE と異なり L では

multitude.

含 意 性 (Karttunen (1971)) が な い （ 遠 峯(19) 1588 PARKE tr. Mendoza’s Hist. China 128(2020)）
。

There

was

none

that

bettercoulde..perswade with His Majestie the2.2. ModE の資料

great importance of that ambassage.
5

本節は ModE persuade の特徴を見る。

(20) 1565 T. STAPLETON Fortr. Faith 59 S.
Augustin persuadeth with him to leaue ...

(13) c1595 CAPT. WYATT R. Dudley’s Voy. W.

(21) 1553 T. WILSON Rhet. (1580) Pref.,Ind. (Hakl. Soc.) 9 Wee had sight of a

These..perswaded with them what was

saile..the which wee weare perswaded wasgood, what was bad, and was gainfull forone of our consorts.

mankinde.

(14) 1553 KENNEDY Compend. Tract. in

(22)

1656

RIDGLEY

Pract.

Physick.

44

Wodrow Soc. Misc. (1844) 105 The Jewis

Physicians perswade that..the Artery shallperswaded circumcisioun to be necessare

be cut...

with Baptime.
(15) a1555 RIDLEY Lament. Churche (1566) B(18) から (21) では被説得者が to もしくは

viij, They are perswaded it to be truth.

with で導かれる前置詞句である。説得内容は、

129

(18), (19) のように NP であったり、(20) の与格構文は二重目的語構文と史的に競合関ように to 不定詞であったり、(21) のように係にあるが (Colleman and De Clerck (2011))、

間接疑問であったりする。(22) は被説得者

persuade においても L に由来する二重目的語がないことに注意されたい。

構文と並んで与格構文が見られる。さらに、(22) のように与格項が現れない例に注意さ(23) 1560 J. DAUS tr. Sleidane’s Comm. 408 b,

れたい。Landau (2000:157-160) は、PE と現

Ambassadours... might ...perswade them to代イタリア語の例を挙げて、主題項（対格項）peace.

と異なり、受領者項（与格項）は必ず具現す(24) 1865 DICKENS Mut. Fr. I. vi, Be persuaded

る訳ではないと指摘する。

into being respectable and happy.
(25) a1657 R. LOVEDAY Lett. (1663) 22 The(26) a. Mary forced *(John) [PRO to sing]neezing-powder I take constantly, but haveb. John convinced *(Mary) [PRO tomuch adoe to perswade it to make me

believe him].

neeze.

(27) a. John said (to Mary) [PRO to listen tohim](23), (24) は着点項を含むと判断できる例で

b. Mary helped (John) [PRO (to) do theある。PE では (8c) に見るように不可能な着dishes]

点が to-PP で具現するパターンは、ModE で(28) a. Lo psichiatra (gli) ha detto [di PRO

は (23) のように可能であった。(25) は「NPparlare di se stessi].

＋to 不定詞」補文の例だが、NP が無生物で‘The psychiatrist said (to him) to speak

あり、被説得者とは考えられない。

about himself.’b. Il generale ha ordinato (ai soldati) di

3. 考察

partire.

3.1. ModE persuade の性質‘The general ordered (to the soldiers) to

本節では L persuadeo と ModE persuade のleave.’

補文パターンの比較を交えて ModE persuade((27)-(29), Landau (2000:158, 161))の性質を検討する。まず L persuadeo は、(11),(12) に見るとおり、被説得者が与格であり、(26), (27) は PE の例である。Force, convince

説得内容は不定詞や対格 NP であった。(16),の目的語は対格項であり、具現が義務的であ(17) に見る ModE でもこれらの性質が観察る。これに対して、say, help は目的語が与格される。この類似から、ModE persuade は L項であり、具現が随意的である。(28) は現

persuadeo の性質を引き継いでいると考える

代イタリア語の例である。与格項を取る動詞

ことができる。加えて、被説得者が与格とな

detto, ordinato では与格項の具現が随意的でるのは、ModE persuade が (3) に見られる「命ある。与格項の随意性は PE とイタリア語の令・許可」の動詞の性質を持ったことを示唆

いずれでも見られるものであり、意味役割にする。

よって規定される普遍的な現象であると考L に由来すると考えられる ModE persuade

えられる。従って、(22) のように与格項がの性質としてさらに２点挙げることができ具現しない例は、ModE persuade が与格項をる。１つは、(18) から (21) に見るような、取る「命令・許可」の動詞であることの傍証

二重目的語構文と対応する与格構文である。

であると見做すことができる。

130

もう１つ L に由来すると考えられる ModEとは、persuade の目的語 NP が対格項になっpersuade の性質は、説得内容の項が不定詞付たことを意味する。これは persuade が (26)

き対格になることである。(10), (14), (15) をに例示した convince に近づく変化している

参照されたい。不定詞付き対格を取ると言うことを意味する。

性質も、(5) と (7c) に見るように「命令・なお、(25) のように persuade が無生物の許可」の動詞に見られる。

目的語を取るのは、「命令・許可」の動詞でModE persuade が「命令・許可」の動詞と受領者項が具現しない不定詞付き対格の補して情報の伝達を表したことは、説得内容が文（(5) を参照）と類推が働いたことによる

間接疑問の(21) からも窺われる。Huddleston

かもしれない。
ModE は変化の過渡期であり、and Pullum (2002: 976) は、間接疑問を補文に「命令・許可」の動詞と「駆り立て」の動詞取る述語として tell, inform など TELLING の意の間で相互に影響があったとしても不思議味を持つものを挙げる。このことは ModE

ではなかろう。

persuade が TELLING の意味を持つ「命令・許可」の動詞としての性質を持ったことを示す。 4. まとめ
このように、ModE persuade は、L での性

本発表では ModE で英語に借用された動質を引き継ぐ「命令・許可」の動詞としての

詞 persuade の受容過程を特に補文に注目し性質を見せたが、それと同時に L には見られて観察しその特徴を明らかにした。ModEない性質をも持った。(23), (24) に含まれる

persuade は「命令・許可」の動詞の特徴と「駆to や into で導かれる PP は着点項であると考り立て」の動詞の特徴を併せ持ったことを明えられる。また、(25) は、(16) と同様に「NPらかにした。

＋to 不定詞」補文を取るが、(16) と異なり、このように ModE persuade は二面性を持っNP は無生物であり、NP を受領者と見なすこたが、「命令・許可」の動詞としての側面はとは難しい。以上の点から、(23) から (25)

「駆り立て」の動詞としての側面に駆逐されの persuade は、L の性質に由来しない、着点た。これは被説得者が対格になる変化であり、項とその着点へ移動する主題項を取る「駆り次のような例にその結果が見られる。

立て」の動詞の特徴を示していると考えられる。この「駆り立て」の動詞の用法は OE 以(29) 1555 EDEN Decades 93 To persuade hym ofthe..munificence..of owre men.

来見られる「駆り立て」のパターンを踏襲して成立した可能性がある。
本節では ModE persuade が PE と異なり、「命令・許可」の動詞としての用法と、「駆(29) で被説得者が対格であることに注意されたい。

り立て」の動詞としての特徴を併せ持ったこ

本論の最後に今後の課題を４点挙げる。まず、L persuadeo の資料調査と検討が課題の一とを明らかにした。

つ と し て 挙 げ ら れ る 。 本 論 で は ModE
3.2. ModE から PE での変化

persuade が L persuadeo の性質の性質を引きPersuade は、ModE に見られた「命令・許継いで「命令・許可」の動詞の性質を示した可」の動詞の特徴を PE までに失い、「駆りとした。この見解が妥当であるなら、立て」の動詞の用法が残した。Persuade におpersuadeo が L において「命令・許可」の動

いて「命令・許可」の動詞の用法が失われ、詞の性質を示したことが予想される。この点「駆り立て」の動詞の用法が残ったというこを実証的に検討する必要がある。

131

次 に 、 ModE で 含 意 性 を 持 た な か っ たを指摘する。

persuade が PE までにどのようにして含意性を獲得したか明らかする必要がある。その際(34) a1577 Sir T. SMITH Commw. ii. ii. (1584)に、PE では二項動詞で含意性がないことに

40 The speaker hath no voice in the house,

注意を払う必要があると思われる。

nor they will not suffer him to speake inany bill to mooue or disswade it.

(30) I persuaded him, but he wouldn’t do it.

(35) 1605 CAMDEN Rem. (1637) 246 Some

（多々良・谷・八木橋 (2012)）

disswaded him to hunt that day; but heresolved to the contrary.

この事実は persuade の含意性が語ではなく(36) 1555 EDEN Decades Sect. i., Peter Martyr’s

句レベルで実現している可能性を示唆する。

Dedication (Arb. 63) Ascanius..dissuaded

次に「命令・許可」の動詞について検討を

me from my purpose. But seeing that I was

深める必要がある。「命令・許可」の動詞は

fully resolued to departe..required me to

英語史を通して受領者項の具現が随意的で

wryte vnto hym.

あった。この随意性は (5) や (7) のように補文に不定詞付き対格が現れる例だけでな

ModE の dissuade は、(34) に見るとおり説得

く、目的語がなく主題を表す to 不定詞のみ

内容を NP で取り、(35) に見るとおり PE とが見られる例でも観察される。

異なって非含意的である。これらは ModE のpersuade に見られた特徴であり、persuade と(31) 1745 P. Thomas Jrnl. Anson’s Voy. 294 He

dissuade が PE までに同様の変化を経たこと

ordered to nail up such of the Cannon asが推測される。また (36) に見るとおり、PE

could be fought.

に見られる「NP＋from＋NP」のパターンも見られるが、これも PE と異なり含意性がな

このパターンは PE では容認度が低い (Chiba(1985:87),

Jackendoffandいのは興味深い。

Culicover(2003:530)) 。

* 本論文は日本英語学会第 38 回大会における口頭発表に加筆と修正をおこなったもの(32) *John { a) commanded b) ordered } toleave immediately.

である。発表当日に貴重な質問とコメントを(Chiba (ibid.))戴いた眞田敬介先生、保坂道雄先生、柴﨑礼(33) ??The authorities order/advise/encourage

士郎先生に感謝する。なお、本論文の一切のnot to shoot oneself.

不備や誤りはすべて筆者の責任による。

(Jackendoff and Culicover (ibid.))

注1

以下 PE とする。450 年から 1100 年までの

このパターンが廃れた要因として「駆り立英語を古英語 (OE)、1100 年から 1500 年のて」の動詞の影響で目的語が義務的になった

英語を中英語、1500 年から 1900 年までの英可能性が考えられるが、今後詳細に検討する

語を近代英語 (ModE)、1900 年以降の英語を必要がある。

PE とする。

最後に、persuade と同様に ModE で L から

2

以下 NP とする。

借用され、persuade とは対義的な関係にある

3

以下の例で使われる下付きの ACC, DAT,

dissuade について考察をする必要があること

GEN, TO-INF はそれぞれ「対格」
、
「与格」
、

132

「属格」
「to 不定詞」を表す。

convinceとpersuadeの補部に焦点を当て

4

Chiba (ibid.:89-91) は (7c) のような受領者て－」『大学院年報』第37号, 41-56, 立正がないタイプの例が PE で容認度の揺れを見

大学大学院文学研究科.

せると観察する。この点についての史的観点
辞書からの考察は今後の課題としたい。
5

Lewis, Charlton T. and Charles Short (1879) A

以降の例文で出典の示されていないもの

Latin

は OED2 からの引用である。

Dictionary,

Clarendon

Clarendon. （ Perseus

DigitalPress,
Library(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/)にて

参考文献

Chiba, Shuji (1985) “On Transitive Verb Phrase

利用）(LS)

Complementation,” English Linguistics 2,

Simpson, John A. and Edmund S. C. Weiner

81-102.

(eds.)(1989)The

OxfordEnglishColleman, Timothy and Bernard De Clerck

Dictionary, 2nd edition on CD-ROM(2011) “Constructional Semantics on the

Version 1.14 (1994), Oxford University

Move: On Semantic Specialization in thePress, Oxford. (OED2)

EnglishDoubleObjectConstruction,”

Cognitive Linguistics 22, 183-209.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the
English Language, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
稲田俊明 (2000)『補文の構造第四版』大修館書店, 東京.
Jackendoff, Ray and Peter W. Culicover (2003)“The

Semantic

Basis

of

Control,”Language 79, 517-556.
Karttunen, Lauri (1971) “Implicative Verbs,”
Language 47, 340-358.
Landau, Idan (2000) Elements of Control:
StructureandMeaningin

Infinitival

Constructions, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Los,

Bettelou(2005)

The

Rise

of

the

To-Infinitive, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
多々良直弘・谷みゆき・八木橋宏勇 (2012)「英語と日本語に現れる言語と文化の相同性」『言語文化研究』第 3 号, 61-80, 桜
美林大学.
遠峯伸一郎 (2020)「初期近代英語におけるラテン語借用語の受容について －133

(cochronE,ChronE_[Plummer]:878.1.1209)b. ich knewe hym in þat trauailI[isknew him in that hard work is

to-fore me]prior

英語における主格ゼロ関係節の通時的発達

me‘I knew him engaging in that harder workについて*
（On the Diachronic Development of Subject

than me.’(CMEARLPS,87.3828)

Zero Relatives in English）
本稿の目的は、(2)のような初期英語にお内田 脩平（Shuhei Uchida）

ける SZR が、現代英語では容認されなくな

名古屋大学大学院（Nagoya University）

った理由を明らかにすることである。近年の研究によって、初期英語では空の代名詞主語
pro が許されていたことが明らかになっておキーワード：主格ゼロ関係節、pro、EPP

り、pro が SZR も同様に認可していたと主張する。また、この主張は歴史コーパスによ1. はじめにる調査に基づき、英語史における pro の分布

現代英語において、主格の定形関係節はと SZR の分布が並行的であるという事実か(1)に示すように顕在的な関係詞によって導ら支持されることを示す。具体的には、SZR

かれる必要があり、主格ゼロ関係節(Subject

は空主語 pro が関係節内の T が持つ EPP 素

Zero Relatives、以下 SZR)は通常許されない。

性と解釈不可能な φ 素性を満たすことによ

しかし、初期英語では SZR が一定の頻度でり派生されていたが、英語史において pro が観察されることが知られている。(2a)の古英認可されなくなったため、SZR が消失した語、(2b)の中英語の例において、それぞれ角と主張する。

括弧で示される関係節は顕在的な関係代名
2. 英語史における pro と SZR

詞や補文標識に導かれていないゼロ関係節
であり、かつ主語が空所となっている。

初期英語において、pro が許されていたかどうかは議論が分かれているが、Gelderen(1) I met the woman *(that/who) saw John.

(2000)は古英語において pro が認可されてい(Douglas (2017: 1))(2) a. &þæs oðres þoneand the other’s thehi

たと主張している。Gelderen は(3)の例においmæstan dælて、下線の引かれた節は主語が空となっていmost

るが、動詞 ongan の屈折から、3 人称男性単

dale

geridon butan þam cynge

数の指示的な代名詞が脱落しており、pro がthey reached against the kingÆlfrede [little werede
Alfred

許されていたと主張している。

unyðelice

little observer uneasily(3) Forþa

ic nu wille geornlice to Godeæfterwudum for]therefore I now want

after woods

cleopian pro Ongan þa

wentearnestly to God
giddien‘and they reached the other’s best valley

speak

against King Alfred who went easily with

‘Therefore, I now want to speak to God

little observer behind woods.’

earnestly. Then he began to sing.’

134

began then sing(Alfred, Boethius 9.28–9/Gelderen (2000: 131))

係節における関係代名詞の分布について調査を行った。

Gelderen の 主 張 の 妥 当 性 は 、 Walkden

現代英語では一般に SZR は許されないが、(2013)のコーパスを用いた調査によって裏

特定の環境において容認されることが知ら付けられている。また、縄田 (2012)は中英れている。(5a-c)に示されるように、主に口語に関するコーパス調査を行い、初期中英語語において there や here で始まる存在構文の期まで pro が認可されていたことを観察し関連要素、および本動詞 have の補部に後続ている。Gelderen、Walkden、縄田の調査にする位置では SZR が容認される。したがっおいて、古英語期から初期中英語期におけるて、(5)のような環境に生起する関係節とそ

pro の分布について、(4a-c)の特徴が見られれ以外の関係節を区別して調査した。

ることが報告されている。
(5) a. There was something broke in him.
(4) a. pro の生産性はテクストによって異b. Here’s the one’ll get it for you.
c. We had a client came in about two weeks

なる。
b. pro は従属節よりも主節において高ago.

(Erdmann (1980: 149))

い頻度で観察される。
c.（古英語に関して）pro の解釈に関す

また、Lambrecht (1988)によれば、(5c)のよる人称分離現象が認められる。

うな have の補部に SZR が後続する場合、(cf. 縄田 (2012: 102-103))

その補部名詞句は不定である一方で、その主語は代名詞になる傾向がある。本稿では、(5c)(4a)に述べたように、pro が生産的であるかのような SZR が後続する本動詞 have の補

否かはテクスト間で差があることが知られ部名詞句は、there 構文などの存在構文におている。また、pro が従属節よりも主節における関連要素と同様に、情報構造上の焦点要

いて高い頻度で観察されるという(4b)の特素であると仮定する。そして、新情報を表す

徴は、初期中英語期まで見られる傾向である。 焦点要素に後続する(5a-c)のような SZR は(4c)における pro の解釈に関する人称分離と口語に限られるが、現代英語でも容認されるは、3 人称代名詞の脱落は多く見られるのにという点で、(2a, b)のような純粋な SZR と対し、1 人称または 2 人称代名詞の脱落はまは区別すべきであるとする立場をとる。そしれであることを意味する。これは動詞の屈折て、現代英語だけでなく通時的にも、焦点要から主語の人称が判断可能な古英語期に見素に後続するタイプとそれ以外のタイプでられる特徴である。(2)のような SZR においは分布が異なることを調査から示す。

ても、(4)と同様の特徴が見られるかどうか調査に際して、空主語 pro と顕在的な代名を 検 証 す る た め に 、 歴 史 コ ー パ ス (The

詞主語の割合を調査した Walkden (2013)や縄York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old

田 (2012)の方法に従い、古英語の場合はゼEnglish Prose (YCOE) 、 The Penn-Helsinki

ロ関係節と顕在的な指示詞によって導かれ

Parsed Corpus of Middle English, Second

る関係節の割合、中英語以降ではゼロ関係節

edition (PPCME2)、The Penn-Helsinki Parsedと wh 関係代名詞を伴う関係節の割合を調

Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME)、査した。調査を並行的にするため、古英語期

The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Modernの不変化詞 þe によって導かれる関係節や、British English (PPCMBE))を用いて、主格関中英語期以降の補文標識 that によって導か

135

れる関係節は調査から除外している。また、

導かれていない。

初期英語では関係代名詞と補文標識が共起
表 1：焦点要素に後続しない SZR1,2する二重詰め COMP の配列が可能であったが、これらも調査から除外する。

EOE

LOE

M1

M2

また、古英語では指示詞が関係代名詞とし

SZR

9

21

8

2

て用いられていたため、当該の節が主節か関

SR

277

267

29

48

係節のどちらであるのかを判断するのが難

割合

3.2

7.9

27.6

4.2

M3

M4

E1

E2

しい場合がある。具体的には、(6)のような
例では、太字となっている指示詞 se が指示

SZR

3

9

8

9

代名詞と関係代名詞のどちらであるのかが、

SR

155

487

1135

1745

形態統語的に曖昧である。したがって、本調

割合

1.9

1.8

0.7

0.5

E3

L1

L2

L3

SZR

8

1

0

1

SR

1655

1034

1352

944

割合

0.5

0.1

0

0.1

査では指示詞によって導かれる節が関係節であることを保証するために、(6)のような例を除外し、従属節において優勢な語順であった、定形動詞が節の末尾に生じる節のみを数値に含めることとした。
(6) soðlice nu(7) a. & ðu

Truly now you in

censt and his naman hælend

son

beget and his name savior

genemnest; Se‘and you may hold on that yourself
uneasily, which accesses you.’(codicts,Prov_1_[Cox]:1.70.129)

great and of theb. Soðfeste men [heom kepten

hehstan sunu genemned.
Highest Son

yourself uneasily

on-bear that you accessesbyð mære and þæs

who/he isyou mayunyðonberan þæs [ðe onbecymeð]womb conceive and

sunu

name

and

þu on innoðe geeacnast andmeaht þeon

genuine men them care about oncalled‘Truly, you will become pregnant and givebirth to a son, and you will name him Jesus.
He will be a great and will be called thenihtes;]sæidon,nightssaid‘genuine men who care about them atnight said that…’

Son of the Highest.’(CMPETERB,50.245)(Gospel, Luke 1. 31-32/Hosaka (2010: 66))

次に、表 2 は焦点要素に後続する SZR の

まず、表 1 は焦点要素に後続しない、つ生起状況を示し、(8)に具体例を挙げる。(8a,まり純粋な SZR の生起状況を示し、(7)に具体例を挙げる。表の 2 段目は SZR の生起数、3 段目は主格関係節の総数を示す。この数値には、SZR と顕在的な指示詞または wh 関
係代名詞によって導かれる主格関係節が含まれる。4 段目はその総数に対する SZR の割合である。(7a, b)では、括弧内の関係節の主語が空所となっており、顕在的な関係詞に136b)において、角括弧で示される SZR は there
構文の関連要素を修飾している。

表 2：焦点要素に後続する SZR3期以降は非文法的になったと考えられる。こ

EOE

LOE

M1

M2

れは縄田が主張する pro の消失時期と一致す

SZR

1

0

0

0

る。さらに、(4a)で見たテクストによる生産

SR

6

7

0

6

性の差も同様に観察された。 (9)に縄田の調

割合

16.7

0

0

0

査で pro が見られたテクストと、本稿の調査

M3

M4

E1

E2

で SZR が観察されたテクストを提示する。

SZR

6

23

28

44

pro と SZR 両方を許すテクストを太字で示し

SR

24

85

227

434

ている。

割合

25.0

27.1

12.3

10.1

E3

L1

L2

L3

SZR

430

7

10

5

SR

14.9

185

252

213

割合

0.5

3.8

4.0

2.3

(9) pro と SZR を認可するテクスト
a. pro: Ancrene Riwle, Hali Meidhad, St.
Juliana, St. Katherine, The Lambeth
Homilies, The Peterborough Chronicle,
Sawles(8) a. For ther is a versifiour [seith that ‘the
For there is a poet

cause

Trinity

Homilies,

Kentish Sermons

says that ‘theb. SZR: Ancrene Riwle, St. Katherine,

ydel man excuseth hym in winter byidle man excuses

Warde,

The

him in winterLambethPeterboroughof…]

Homilies,

The

Chronicle,

The

Ormulum, Vices and Virtues, Trinity

because of…

Homilies, Ayenbite of Inwyt‘for there is a poet who says that the idle
man excuses him in winter because of…’

表 1 における M1、M2 期の SZR 計 10 例の内、

CMCTMELI,233.C2.639)

7 例は(9)の太字で示したテクストからの例

b. There was another of my neighbours

であり、両者を許すテクストが重複している[had his wife much troubled]

ことが分かる。以上の観察に基づき、初期英(GIFFORD-E2-H,B1V.96)

語において認可されていた pro が関係節内で生起し、SZR が派生されていたという仮説を

表 1 と 2 における 2 種類の SZR の分布に立て、次節で構造分析とその妥当性を議論すは大きな差がある。まず、表 2 に示されるよる。

うに、存在構文などの焦点要素に後続する
SZR は後期中英語期に見られるようになり、
後期近代英語まで生産的であることが分か

3. 分析
本節では、焦点要素に後続する SZR と純る。また上述したように、現代英語でも口語

粋な SZR はいずれも従属ではなく、並列のにおいて容認される。中英語期以降に増加し統語構造を持っていたと提案する。また、提た理由は、there 構文がこの時期にその用法

案する構造により、前節で提示したデータがを拡大させたことが原因であると考える。そ説明されることを示す。

の一方で、表 1 における純粋な SZR に関して、Walkden (2013)や縄田 (2012)に従い、2

3.1. 焦点要素に後続する SZRパーセントを超えることが文法性の基準でthere 構文などに生じる SZR の先行研究であるとすると、M2 期までは文法的だが、M3ある、Erdmann (1980)、Lambrecht (1988)、中137

澤 (2006)らは文全体が従属構造でなく、並するようになる。したがって、この時期に純列構造を持つと主張して い る。例えば、

粋な SZR が非文法的になったという事実がLambrecht は(10a)の文が概略(10b)の構造を説明される。さらに、(11)では 2 つの TP が持つと提案している。

従属関係にあるのではなく、共に主節として並列されている。したがって、本節の分析は(10) a. There was a farmer had a dog.

pro が主節において高い頻度で観察されると

b. [CP [TP there was [NP a farmeri (Focus)]]いう(4b)の事実とも合致する。

[TP [NP a farmeri (Topic)] had a dog]]

また、(12)に示されるように、古英語期では指示詞が関係代名詞としても機能しておLambrecht は、there 構文が導入する関連要素

り、指示詞は 3 人称の代名詞である。ここでと同一指示の NP が関係節内にも生起する構の分析では、純粋な SZR は関係節を形成せ造を提案し、このような構造を持つ文を提示

ず、TP が並列された構造であるため、実際的関係節構文と呼んでいる。(10b)では、aに省略されているのは関係代名詞ではなくfarmer が 2 つの節において多重支配されてい指示代名詞である。したがって、(4c)で見たる。また、重要なのは 2 つの TP は並列の関3 人称代名詞の場合に脱落が起こりやすいと係にあり、それぞれの TP が独立した命題でいう観察とも矛盾しない。したがって、(4a-c)はなく、文全体として 1 つの命題を表すといの pro の分布に関する特徴と SZR の分布にう点である。そして、多重支配されている関する特徴は並行的であることが示された。

NP の内、片方のみが発音されると仮定されている。本稿では、焦点要素に後続する SZR(12) butongeme secgan þæt [þætに関して(10b)のような構造を仮定し、このWithout you me said

構造が現代英語だけでなく英語史を通じてis be

保持されていると考える。

is by thisthat that

soð
true

þisum,]‘Without you said that, which is true about
3.2. 純粋な SZR

this’(coaelhom, Hom_22:378.3503)

次に、(1a, b)のような焦点要素に後続しな
い純粋な SZR も、(10b)と類似した(11)の構造

最後に、ここで提案された SZR の構造のを持つと提案する。2 つの TP が並列されてみが TP までしか投射されない一方で、SZRいるという点では(10b)と同じであるが、2 つ以外の関係節は CP 構造を持つことを示す。

目の TP において pro が主語位置を占めていまず、that 関係節、および対応する古英語期

るという点において(10b)とは異なる。

の þe 関係節の派生は(13)のようになる。

(11) [CP C [TP Subj[φ] T[EPP, uφ] …] [TP pro[φ] T[EPP,(13) I met the woman [CP Opi that [TP ti sawuφ]…]]John]](11)において、2 つ目の TP 内における T が関係節内の T が持つ EPP 素性と解釈不可能

持つ EPP 素性と解釈不可能な φ 素性は pro

な φ 素性は空演算子によって照合される。こによって照合される。M3 期以降、pro が認れまで見てきた SZR の構造との違いは、that

可されなくなると、T の EPP 素性と解釈不可

関係節は顕在的な補文標識の存在によって、能な φ 素性が照合されず、(11)の派生は破綻

CP まで投射されることが保証されている点138である。一方、(11)の SZR の場合、顕在的な林愼将氏から、大変有益なご指摘やご助言を補文標識が無く、また演算子の移動がないた

頂いた。この場を借りて感謝を申し上げたい。

め、CP 構造を持つことを示す証拠がない。

なお、本稿における不備は全て執筆者によるまた、目的語が空所となる関係節の構造はものである。

以下の通りである。

注1(14) a. I met the man ø Mary saw

YCOE、PPCME2、PPCEME、PPCMBE の時代区分は O1 (-850)、O2 (850-950)、O3

b. [CP C [TP I[φ] T [EPP, uφ] [DP the man] [CP Opi(950-1050)、O4 (1050-1150)、M1(1150-1250)、

C [TP Mary T[EPP, uφ] ti]]]]M2(120-1350)、M3(1350-1420)、M4(1420-1500)、E1 (1500-1569)、E2 (1570-1639)、

関係節内の T が持つ EPP 素性と解釈不可能

E3 (1640-1710)、L1 (1710-1779)、L2

な φ 素性は主語により照合される。また、関(1780-1849)、L3 (1850-1920)である。本稿で係節内には空所があり、演算子移動によっては O1 と O2 を合わせて EOE(初期古英語)、

関係節が CP まで投射されることが保証さる。 O3 と O4 を合わせて LOE(後期古英語)としてそのため、SZR の場合のみ CP 構造を持つ証いる。
拠がなく、TP までしか投射されない。その2

一方で、SZR 以外の関係節については、演算の時代と比べて高くなっているが、これは初

子移動、または顕在的な補文標識により CP

期中英語では指示詞の関係代名詞としての構造を持つことが保証される。

用法が衰退し、加えて wh 関係代名詞も未発

表 1 では、M1 期において SZR の割合が他達であったため、総数自体が少ないことが原
4. 結語因であると考えられる。中英語のコーパスで

本稿では、英語における SZR を焦点要素ある PPCME2 では関係節を導く that はすべに後続するものとしないものに区別し、コーて補文標識としてタグ付けされており、M1

パス調査に基づき通時的発達の違いを明ら期の主格関係節の 29 例は、that 以外の形態かにした。英語史における SZR の分布は pro

で生じた指示詞の関係代名詞、および wh 関の分布と並行的あることを示し、純粋な SZR

係代名詞を伴う関係節の総数である。M1 期

は pro を伴う構造を持っていたと主張した。

は動詞の屈折が完全には消失していない例

2 種類の SZR の構造については、両者とももあり、動詞の屈折と中性単数としての that

TP が並列された構造であると提案した。そが一致していないとは言い切れないこともして、現代英語では許されない純粋な SZR

事実である。このような例における that が補が消失したのは、初期中英語において pro が文標識ではなく、関係代名詞である可能性も認可されなくなり、関係節内の EPP 素性とあるが、本稿ではコーパスのタグ付けに従い、解釈不可能な φ 素性が照合されなくなった

M1 以降の that を補文標識としてみなす。
3
Breivik(1983)などで詳しく調査されているからであると主張した。

ように、古英語期には there 構文以外の存在* 本稿は日本英語学会第 38 回大会での口頭構文もあるが、これらは調査から除外してい発表に基づくものである。発表の準備段階でる。

は、大室剛志先生と田中智之先生から多くの貴重なご指摘やご助言を頂いた。また、研究発表の際には、伊藤隆男先生、縄田裕幸先生、

139

参考文献
Breivik, Leiv E. (1983) Existential There: ASynchronicandDiachronic

Study,(PPCMBE), University of Pennsylvania,

Department of English, Bergen University.

Philadelphia.

Douglas, Jamie (2017) “Unifying the That-Trace

Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Lauren

and Anti-That-Trace Effects,” Glossa: A

Delfs (2004) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed

Journal of General Linguistics 2, 1-28.

CorpusErdmann, Peter (1980) “On the History of

of

Early

ModernEnglish(PPCEME), University of Pennsylvania,

Subject Contact-Clauses in English,” Folia

Philadelphia.

Linguistica 1, 139-170.

Taylor, Ann, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk

Gelderen, Elly van (2000) A History of English

and

Frank

Beths

(2003)

The

Reflexive Pronouns: Person, Self, andYork-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus ofInterpretability,

Old English Prose (YCOE), University ofJohn

Benjamins,

Amsterdam.

York, York.

Hosaka, Michio (2010) “The Rise of theComplementizer That in the History ofEnglish,” Language Change Variation from
Old English to Late Modern English, ed. by
Merja Kyto, John Scahill and Harumi
Tanabe, 59-78, Peter Lang, Berlin.
Lambrecht, Knud (1988) “There Was a Farmer
Had

a

Dog:

Syntactic

Amalgams

Revisited,” BLS 14, 319-339.
中澤紀子 (2006) 「There 接触節と関係代名
詞の顕在化: ナーサリー・ライムの場合」『近代英語研究』第 22 号, 71-91.
縄田裕幸 (2012) 「古英語・中英語における「空主語」の認可と消失―話題卓立言語から主語卓立言語へ―」『島根大学教育学部紀要』40, 101-110.
Walkden, George (2013) “Null Subjects in Old
English,” Language Variation and Change,
25, 155-178.
コーパス
Kroch, Anthony and Ann Taylor (2000) The
Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle
English,SecondEdition(PPCME2),

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Ariel
Diertani (2010) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed
CorpusofModernBritishEnglish140

(2a)の her は主語を指すことができないのに対して、(2b, c)の her は関節目的語しか指すことできない。
文内における代名詞の照応関係は生成文
法では統語構造の問題として扱われてきた

二重目的語構文が表す事象構造と所有代名*詞の指示の関係についてが、(2)に示す事例の統語構造に差はないと（Ditransitive Event Structures and the

考えられ、別の要因に説明を求める必要があ

Reference of Possessive Determiners）

ると考えるのが自然である。
本稿では、認知文法（Langacker (1987, 1991

植田 正暢（Masanobu Ueda）など)）の枠組みで照応関係を体系的に扱っ

北九州市立大学（University of Kitakyushu）ている Van Hoek (1997)に従い、この問題に取り組む。Van Hoek によると、代名詞とそのキーワード：二重目的語構文, 事象構造, 所

先行詞の関係は参照点モデル（reference point

有格代名詞, 参照点構造, 内在的関係

model）（Langacker (1993)など）によって捉えられるという。Van Hoek は、(3)の引用箇所
が示すように、代名詞の先行詞はその支配域

1. はじめに（dominion）内で参照点（reference point）と本稿では、英語の二重目的語構文の直接目して機能するほどに認知的な際立ちが高く的語に所有格代名詞が生じる事例を取りあなければならないとしている。

げ、所有格代名詞の照応関係について論じる。
(3) The antecedent for a pronoun must be

具体的には(1)のような事例が当てはまる。

sufficiently(1) Alice handed Beth her letter.

salient(i.e.,

distinct

andprominent) within the context in which thepronoun appears that it can plausibly be(1)の例を英語母語話者に提示し、her の照応

construed as a reference point with theを尋ねると、her は主語の Alice を指す読み

pronoun in its dominion.

と間接目的語の Beth を指す読みがあるとい(1997:57))(Van Hoekう。この言語事実はありふれたものであり、特に注目するには値しないであろう。ところ

認知的な際立ちはさまざまな要因によっが(2)で示すように、一見したところ(1)と同て決まるが、節内においては profiling やじ形式を持つ事例の中には主語しか指せな

trajector/landmark の関係が関わる。(4)の対比

いもの、あるいは間接目的語しかさせないもも認知的な際立ちから説明できるという。

のが存在する。
(4) a. I gave Sami hisi book.
(2) a. Alice gave Beth her worried look. (herb. * I gave himi Sami’s book.

=✓Alice / *Beth)b. Alice gave Beth her look at the

二重目的語構文の間接目的語と直接目的語

document. (her = *Alice /✓Beth )を比較すると、Langacker による分析（e.g.,c. Alice envied Beth her success. (her =Langacker (1991b:331-332)）では、間接目的*Alice /✓Beth )語に生じる recipient は「主体的に関わる参与

141

者（active participant）」と見なされ、直接目(6) John gave Harry his bicycle for the day: but

的語よりも際立ちが高い要素となる。すると、

the bicycle just sat there the whole day, I(4a)に示すように、間接目的語 Sam が直接目

guess

的語内の所有格代名詞 him の先行詞になる(1976:24))

Harry

didn'tneed

it.

(Oehrle

ことは問題ないが、(4b)のように、際立ちの低い直接目的語内に生じている所有格名詞

1 つはジョンと自転車の関係、もう 1 つはハSam が間接目的語 him の先行詞になること

リーと自転車の関係である。ジョンは自転車はできない。

に対して本来的な所有者であるのに対して、以上の理論的道具立てを整えたところで、ハリーは自転車を一時的に利用できる関係(2)に立ち戻ると、どのような時に間接目的となる。ここで直接目的語に生じている所有

語は所有格代名詞の先行詞になれるくらい格代名詞に注目すると、所有格代名詞は本来に際立っていると捉えられるのかという問的な所有者であるジョンを指し、一時的な利題が浮かび上がる。本稿では、(2)の各文が用者であるハリーを指すことはない。所有者持つ事象構造にその答えがあることを示す。

の手元を離れてもなお所有者のものであり続ける関係と言い換えることができる。この2.「所有格代名詞+名詞」と内在的関係につように、物理的近接性に影響を受けることないてく、不変的に成り立つ関係を内在的な関係と所有格代名詞を伴う名詞句は定的呼ぶ。二重目的語構文の直接目的語に生じる（definite）な表現であり、所有格代名詞と主代名詞と主要部名詞の関係は内在的な関係

要部名詞の間の意味関係は厳密な意味でのになるということがこの後の議論で重要と所有関係以外の関係を表すことができるこなる。

とが知られている（cf. Heine (1997), Taylor(1989)など）。また、所有格代名詞と主要部

3. 使役の事象構造と所有格代名詞の照応に名詞の間の関係が成立する時間は主動詞がついて指し示す時と一致するとは限らない。たとえ3.1. 所有変化に含まれる 2 つの関係ば(5)では、お茶を入れる前からすでにその使役の事象構造について論じる前に、そのお茶の「所有者」が決まっている。

前提となる所有変化を見ておこう。二重目的語構文が表す所有変化は Langacker の分析に

(5) ... she started cooking his tea in the kitchen.

よると、図 1 のように捉えられる。

(Tell it to the Bees, 下線部筆者)
このような特徴は二重目的語構文の直接
目的語に所有格代名詞が生じる場合でも当てはまる。さらに注目したいのは所有格代名
詞と名詞の間の関係である。典型的な二重目
図 1 典型的な所有変化の事象構造

的語構文は所有変化を表すが、ひとえに所有変化といっても実際には複数の関係が関わる。Oehrle (1976)の考察にもとづくと、(6)でこの事象構造には 2 つの過程が含まれていは直接目的語の自転車に対して 2 種類の関ることが見てとれる。1 つは agent（AG）が係が関わる。

theme（TH）を recipient（RCP）の支配域（D）

142

に移動させる過程であり、もう 1 つは RCP
が TH を受けとる過程である。一般的にダイナミックな過程である AG からの移動が知覚的に顕著なため AG からの移動の過程が前景化されやすいが、RCP の側の過程が含ま

図 2 RCP の側から TH を受けとる過程れるというということは、この過程にも光が当てられる可能性があるということである。

これが 3.2.2 で見ることになる間接使役の経その点を窺い知ることができるのが offer の験的な基盤となる。

事例である。英語学習者用辞書の 1 つである
LDOCE の定義を見ると、offer は(7)にあるよ

3.2. 直接使役と間接使役で前景化される関

うに手の中のものを相手に差し出すことで、係の違い相手がとれるようにするという行為を表す

所有変化をもととして比喩的に拡張したことができる。

二重目的語構文の意味に使役がある。二重目
的語構文は直接使役、間接使役の 2 とおりの関係を表すことができる。1 ここでいう直接(7) to hold something out to them so that they
can take it. (LDOCE, 下線部筆者)

使役、間接使役という用語は、間接目的語と直接目的語の間の関係を表すために用いる。

次の事例を例にとってみよう。

具体的には、(9a)が直接使役の例、(9b)が間接使役の例となる。

(8) He held out his hand and offered me asweet.

(9) a. She gave him a look.
b. The other man shook his head, held up(8)は AG が RCP に手を差し出し、
RCP が TH

his paper, and shouted out, ‘Canを受け取れるようにするという行為を表す。

anybody read this?’

一見すると、ありふれたやりもらいを表すよ‘Give me a look at it,’ Cameron

うに思われるかもしれないが、AG が行った

shouted back. (BNC:A0N 351-352, 下

ことは手の中のものを RCP がアクセスでき

線部筆者)

るようにするまでの過程であり、RCP の支配域に TH を取り込むことは最終的には RCP(9a)では、間接目的語 him は見られる客体とに委ねられる。つまり、AG がその支配域内

して a look の目的語のように解釈され、(9b)にアクセスできるようにしたという点がこでは、間接目的語 me は見る主体として look

こでの議論の要となる。

at it の主語のように解釈される。
Shibatani and植田 (2018a, b,)および Ueda (2019)では、Pardeshi (2002) が 言 う patient causee とTalmy (2000)の force dynamics の知見にもとagentive causee に近いものと言えよう。

づき、第三者が AG の支配域にアクセス可能

ここで(2a-b)に立ち戻ると、直接目的語のにするために障壁を取り除くモデルを提案

所有格代名詞が主語しか指せない場合は直している（図 2）。図 2(i)では、RCP は TH に接使役の事例に相当し、間接目的語しか指せ

アクセスできない状態を表し、(ii)では障壁ない場合は間接使役に相当することに気づが取り除かれた結果、RCP が TH を自らの支く。では、なぜこのような差異が生じるのだ

配域に取り込んだ状態を表す。

ろうか。次節では事象構造という観点からこ143の差異について説明を試みる。

代名詞に内在するものと見なすことができる。内在的な関係も成り立っていることを指3.2.1. 直接使役

摘しておきたい。

直接使役は、所有変化に含まれる 2 つの過程のうち Agent からの移動が前景化され、3.2.2. 間接使役

CAUSATION IS TRANSFER メタファーによって次に、(9b)を取りあげたい。(9b)が表す事

使役の事象構造に写像されたと考えられる象構造では、「その書類を見ること」が主語（cf. Kövecses (2010)）。(9a)の事象構造は図 3である男性から間接目的語であるキャメロのような構造であると考えられる。

ンのところへ移動するとは考えにくく、男性はキャメロンが書類を見ることを可能にするという関係が成り立っていると考えるのが自然である（cf. Cattell (1984)）。この関係
を植田 (2018a, b)および Ueda (2019)では、キ

図 3 (9a)の事象構造

ャメロンと、彼女が書類を見るという関係は、
当該関係の成立を阻害する障壁を取り除く

この構造では間接目的語に生じる him がことで成り立つモデルを提案した。そのモデ

action chain の終端に位置づけられ、典型的な

ルを図式化したものが図 4 となる。

他動的な事象構造に近いものとなる。
Langacker (1991:324-329)に従えば、間接目的語に生じる意味役割は主体的な関わる参与者である。しかし、直接使役では、間接目的語に生じる参与者からはそのような主体性
図 4 (9b)の事象構造に関わる特徴は消えると考えられる。その点は、(10)にあるように、視線を受ける側はその視線を主体的に所有するわけではないこ

図 4(i)では、見る人と書類の間に障壁が存在とから示される。

することで書類にアクセスできない状態にあるが、(ii)に示すように、障壁を取り除く(10) *She gave him a look, and he still has it.

ことで書類にアクセス可能な状態になる。この構造は、所有変化に潜在する RCP が受け

図 3 に戻ると、この事象構造では、action

とる過程をもととして、CONTROL IS HOLDING

chain の性質上、look よりも上流にある主語

メタファーによって写像されたものである

が際立ちの高いものとみなされる。すると、ことを Ueda (2019)で提案した。なお紙幅の同様の構造を持つと考えられる(2a)の場合、都合、詳細については Ueda (2019)を参照さ

所有格代名詞の先行詞は action chain の上流

れたい。

に来る主語しか指さないことになる。さらに、

図 4(ii)では、直接目的語 look は間接目的

所有格代名詞を伴う名詞句における所有格

語 me の支配域と一致し、me と it（=書類）代名詞と主要部名詞の関係は内在的な関係の関係を名詞化して表現している。look とが成り立つことを 2 節で見たが、(2a)の her

me の関係は、行為とその参与者の関係とし

worried look は彼女がいつも見せる心配な表て捉えることができ、look は＜見る行為主体

情という意味であり、表情の主である所有格＞に内在すると言うことができる。

144

以上をふまえて(2b)に戻ると、(2b)の事象(12) a. Kate envied her mother her good looks.

構造は図 4(ii)に類似するものと考えること

b.* Kate envied her mother ø good looks.

ができる。すると、look が示す領域内においc

She envied them the sense of occasionて認知的に際立つのは間接目的語のみとな

andtogetherness

る。さらに 2 節で見たように、所有格代名詞(BNC:HJH 1265)

that

they

had.

と主要部名詞の間の関係は内在的なものであり、(2b)の her と look の関係にも当てはま

このような特徴は＜羨み・妬み＞を表す事態る。以上から、(2b)の所有格代名詞は間接目

では当然のものと思われる。羨み・妬みは、的語のみを指す解釈になると説明される。

羨んだり、妬んだりする以前から他人が何らかの属性を有している必要がある（図 5(i)）。

4. 属性を表す表現

この関係に対して、羨む・妬む主体が心的接触をするのである（図 5(ii)）
。

二重目的語構文としては特異な意味を持
つ envy や begrudge などから成る構文クラス
は transfer を表さないことが知られている（cf.
Shibuya and Nozawa (2008)、Tsuji (2017)など）。
このクラスの構文は直接目的語が間接目的語の属性を表す。2(11) a.

He envied the prince his fortune.

図 5 (12a)の事象構造(Goldberg (1995:132))
b. You surely don't begrudge him his

つまり、属性は羨まれたり、妬まれたりする

happiness. (OALD)

以前からその持ち主に内在的に属し、それゆえ定的なものと見なされる。このような羨

定 量 的 な 分 析 を し た と こ ろ 、 envy とみ・妬みの事象構造の特徴が定量的な調査のbegrudge は興味深いふるまいを示した。BNC

結果に反映されていると考えられる。また、で所有格代名詞が間接目的語を指す事例数

本稿の主目的である所有格代名詞の照応にを調査したところ、give の場合、無作為抽出

ついて言えば、羨み・妬みの事象構造では、で得た 1 万例のうち、二重目的語構文の件数

属性はそれを有する間接目的語の支配域にが 4,215 例見つかったが、その中で該当する

含まれるものであり、その中において認知的事例が 142（3.4%）であった。これに対して、際立ちが高い間接目的語が所有格代名詞のenvy の場合、二重目的語構文の全事例数で唯一の先行詞となるのである。

ある 49 件のうち該当数が 34（69.4%）であ属性を表す表現は envy や begrudge に限らり、begrudge の場合、33 例中 15 例（45.5%）

れるものではなく、give でも表現することがが該当した。この事実は envy と begrudge の可能である。直接目的語が所有格代名詞を伴事象構造と深く関わりがあると考えられる。

い、内在的な関係にある場合、属性は動詞がenvy を例にとってさらに詳しくデータを指し示す時よりも前に成立していることが見ると、(12a-b)の対比が示すように、直接目

次の例から観察できる。なお、この点につい的語は定的でなければならない。(12c)が示すては所有格代名詞とその主要部名詞の関係

ように、所有格代名詞が生じない場合には、が成立する時と主動詞が指し示す時がずれ代わりに the などが用いられる。

る場合があることを思い起こされたい。

145

大橋の知見をふまえると、lose には envy・(13) a. It’s the thyme that gives the local

begrudge と類似する特徴があることが分か

mutton its superb flavour. (BNC:HHA

る。lose の場合、主動詞が指し示す時よりも2800)

前に関節目的語が直接目的語を所有する関b. It’s the thyme that gives the local

係が成立しており、その関係に対して原因を

mutton a superb flavour.

表す主語が直接目的語に影響を及ぼすことになる。したがって、所有格代名詞の先行詞(13)の例はともに地元のマトン料理がおいは間接目的語の支配域において決定される

しいことを述べている点では共通するが、細ことになる。

かな解釈の違いがある。直接目的語が所有格
代 名 詞 を 伴 っ て い る (a) の 場 合 、 envy ・6. おわりに

begrudge の例でも観察したように、間接目的

本稿では、二重目的語構文の直接目的語に語と直接目的語の間の内在的な関係が先に生じる所有格代名詞が、主語しか指せない事

成り立つことになる。つまり、おいしい地元

例や間接目的語しか指せない事例を取りあのマトン料理には必ずタイムが付きものでげ、その理由を force dynamics と参照点構造あることになる。一方、(b)では、間接目的にもとづく事象構造、および所有格代名詞と語と直接目的語の間の関係が最初から成立

主要部名詞の間の関係から説明した。

しているわけではない。地元のマトン料理に

本稿の議論は Van Hoek の枠組みを補完す

もともとタイムは使われていないが、タイムるものであり、照応関係が認知言語学的の道を加えるとおいしくなるという解釈である。

具立てによって体系的に扱えることを補強

これまで envy や begrudge が典型的な事例するものである。

とは異なることが観察されてきたが、典型的な事例との関連性について十分に議論され* 本稿のもととなった口頭発表は、Uedaてきたとは言えなかった。本稿での議論は、(2019)の一部を修正し、発展させたものであ

典型的な事例と envy 等の事例が所有格代名る。口頭発表の際にコメントを下さった岩田

詞の機能や参照点構造にもとづく事象構造

彩志氏に感謝を申し上げたい。

の点で連続的に関係があることを示唆的に

注1示すものである。

岩田彩志氏より用語の使用が不適切であるという指摘をいただいたが、本稿では発表
5. lose時の用語をそのまま使うこととする。

二重目的語動詞 lose の直接目的語に所有

なお、岩田氏より間接使役は「許可」と言格代名詞が生じる場合、所有格代名詞は間接うべきであるという指摘をいただいたが、目的語しか指すことができない。

permission が生じる事例は所有格代名詞の照応が、本稿で間接使役と呼ぶ事例とは異なる(14) the mistakes which lost him his kingdom

ため「許可」とは言いがたい（e.g., I’ll give you(LDOCE){my/*your} permission to go.）
。この点を考慮すると、本稿で間接使役と呼んでいる事例は大橋 (2004)はこの lose の用法について、「可能」と言った方が適切かもしれない。

直接目的語を間接目的語の支配域から外に2移動させる意味であることを観察している。

していると言えないと思われるかもしれな

146(11a)の his fortune は the prince の属性を表い。しかし、莫大な富を持っていることが王85-126. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

子の経済的な状態を特徴づけることから、こShibuya, Yoshikata and Hajime Nozawa (2008)

こではこのような事例も属性を表すものと“Systematicity

inEnglishDitransitive

して扱う。

Idioms,”『日本認知言語学会論文集』8巻, 368-376, 日本認知言語学会.
Talmy, Leonard (2000) Toward a Cognitive

参考文献

Cattell, Ray (1984) Composite Predicates inEnglish,SyntaxandSemantics

Semantics, Vol. 1: Concept Structuring

17,

Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Academic Press, Sydney.

Taylor, John R. (1989) “Possessive Genitives inGoldberg, Adele E. (1995) Constructions: A
Construction

GrammarApproach

English,” Linguistics 27, 663-686.

toTsuji, Sonoka (2017) “Why Can the Verb Envy

Argument Structure, University of Chicago

Appear in the Ditransitive Construction?,”Press, Chicago.

QUERIES 50, 18-35.

Heine, Bernd (1997) Possession: Cognitive

植田正暢 (2018a)「2 つの目的語の関係––障Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization,

壁モデルにもとづく二重目的語構文のCambridge University Press, Cambridge.

分析––」, 大橋浩他(編)『認知言語学研

Kövecses, Zoltán (2010) Metaphor: A Practical

究の広がり』, 18-34, 開拓社, 東京.

Introduction 2nd ed., Oxford University

植田正暢 (2018b)「可能を表す二重目的語構Press, Oxford.

文の意味とその経験的基盤」,『日本認Langacker, Ronald W. (1987) Foundations of

知言語学会論文集』18 巻, 162-170, 日本

Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical

認知言語学会.

Prerequisites, Stanford University Press,

Ueda,

Stanford, CA.

Masanobu

Causation:

Langacker, Ronald W. (1991) Foundations of(2019)A

Transfer

Cognitive

andConstruction

Grammar Approach to English Ditransitive

Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive

Constructions,Application. Stanford University Press,

Seinan Gakuin University.

Stanford, CA.

Van

Langacker, Ronald W. (1993). “Reference-point

Hoek,

Karen

Conceptual

Constructions,” Cognitive Linguistics 4,

Doctoraldissertation,(1997)

Anaphora

andStructure,

UniversityofChicago Press, Chicago.

1-38.
Oehrle, Richard T. (1976) The Grammatical

コーパス

Status of the English Dative Alternation.

British National Corpus (BNC)

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
大橋浩 (2004)「lose の意味」, 河上誓作教授

辞書

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

退官記念論文集刊行会(編)『言葉のから(LDOCE), Pearson Education Limited,

くり』, 英宝社, 東京.
Shibatani, Masayoshi and Prashant Pardeshi

Harlow.

(2002) “The Causative Continuum,” The

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (OALD),

Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Manipulation, ed by Masayoshi Shibatani,147とする OED (s.v. fix v. 16.a.) や DARE (s.v.
fix v 3) の見解とは異なる。形式面の発達について、Myers (2014: 43-53) は、初期近代の
be fixed to do/upon doing といった「意思」や*

アメリカ英語における fixing to の発達「未来」のニュアンスを含んだ形式、18 世（The Development of Fixing To in American

紀の fix for doing/to do といった形式を経て、English）

19 世紀の南部アメリカ英語での fixing to の文法化に至ったとしている。さらに、近年の渡辺 拓人（Takuto Watanabe）

アフリカ系アメリカ英語 (AAE) では、finna

関西学院大学（Kwansei Gakuin University）

等の縮約形として使用される (Green (2002:
70-71), Myers (2014: 42))。

キーワード：南部アメリカ英語、アフリカ系

用法の発達について、Smith (2009: 15-16)

アメリカ英語、近接未来表現、文法化は 1924 年以前の南部文学のコレクション
Library of Southern Literature2 から集めた初期の用例とインターネット上で収集した現代

1. 導入の用例を比較し、不定詞が有界動詞から非有界動詞 (特に状態動詞) を含むように変化「～しようとしている」という近接未来の1意で使用される FIXING TO はもっぱらアメリしたとしている。加えて形式による用法の違カ英語に特徴的な口語表現であり、南部方言

いについて、fixing to, fixin’ to, finna の 3 形に由来するとされる。20 世紀後半以降のそ式と私的動詞 think, believe, know のコロケーの社会言語学的特徴については、オクラホマ

ションを検索すると、finna とのコロケーシ

州を調査した Bailey et al. (1993) によると、

ョンがもっとも多いので、finna が未来表現

若い世代や都市部での使用拡大が観察されとしてもっとも一般化した意味をもっているという。アメリカ英語の一般的傾向としてるとしている。Myers (2014: 52) は、(1) に

南部方言以外への拡大が見られるとされる引用する Smith (2009: 13, (4)) を論拠に、一 方 で (Gilman (1994: 449), Peters (2004:

fixing to が認識用法として近接未来を指し始209))、特に容認性が高いのは南部方言であめたのは 19 世紀中頃からであるとしている。

ることも報告 されている ことから (Staub
and Zentz (2017))、依然として地域差は存在(1) “Yes, an’ looks like a thunder-storm a-fixin’

するようで ある。用 法の特徴 については

to gether this minute,” added a voice outside

Ching (1987) がインフォーマント調査を行

the door. (Stuart (1897) In Simpkinsville

い、不定詞で表される行為の実現までわずか[Smith (2009: 13, (4))])3

な遅れがある、その実現までに何らかの準備
ここに挙げた先行研究は、たとえば OED的行動が伴う、不定詞部の解釈は瞬間的であり継続的ではない、といった点を挙げている。 のような辞書の記述に比べ、より詳細な議論
通 時 的 発 達 を 扱 っ た 研 究 に は 、 Smithを提供しているものの、それでも不十分な点(2009) と Myers (2014) がある。両者とも、を含んでいる。Smith (2009) と Myers (2014)

FIXING TO の起源は「意思を定める」の fix での議論はどちらも限られたデータに基づいあるとする (Smith (2009: 13), Myers (2014:ており、特に通時的側面についてはそれが顕46))。これは、「準備する」の fix からである著である。Smith (2009) が依拠した初期の用148

例は 14 例のみであり、現代の用例もインタ

fixing to faint or something.” The prime

ーネット検索の結果であるため再現性に欠intent of this recital, as set forth at the

ける。Myers (2014) も、ほとんどが OED や

beginning, was to tell why Mr. Max Lobel

DARE, Wentworth (1944) といった辞書の用

had an attack of apoplexy. (Cobb (1922)

例に立脚しているため、包括的な調査とは言Sundry Accounts [COHA])
b. A faint call was heard, the girl in the

いがたい。
本研究では、先行研究に認められるデータ

distant magnolia.... “Hurry, she’s fixin’ toの不足や偏りを補い、特に次の 2 点を扱う。

fall,” said Pauly. ... They made fast to the1.

19 世紀から現在に至るまでの fixing totree and took in the girl and her goat.

の用法の変遷。特に、近接未来用法の拡(O’Donnell (1935) Jesus Knew, Harper’s

大や定着の程度。

Magazine [COHA])

2.

形式の違い (fixing to, fixin’ to, finna) に

c. “Only I saw the track before they tore it

よ る 差 違 に つ い て 先 行 研 究 (Smith

up. I saw where it was going to happen.”2009) の検証。

“But you didn’t know hit was fixing tohappen when you seed the track. So

2. 手法

nemmine that. I heard. And I reckon they

本研究では、COHA と COCA を使用し、

ain’t gonter git that away from me,

19 世紀以降のアメリカ英語から用例を収集

neither.” (Faulkner (1936) Raid, The

した。検索語には fixing, fixin(’), a-fixing,

Unvanquished [COHA])4

a-fixin(’), finna の 5 つを指定した。fixing は右d. When he awakened the sun was near to側 5 語以内に to を含む用例から該当例を、

the mountains, fixing soon to sink from

それ以外は各形式に不定詞が後続している

sight. (Guthrie (1947) The Big Sky

用例を手作業で抽出し、およそ 1000 件を得[COHA])た。なお finna は COHA でヒットしなかった。

e. Dick broke into Evans’ thought, saying,

またその他の縮約形 fixina, fixna, fitna (Green“Fixin’ to storm, west.” Not till then had(2002: 70)) は COHA, COCA 共にヒットしEvans paid any mind to the cloud that had

なかった。

risen low over the hills. “That the way
storms come from here?” (Guthrie (1949)
The Way West [COHA])5

3. 結果と考察
3.1. 用法の発達
無生物主語や非対格動詞、状態動詞など、

there 存在文での使用は、(3) のように 21
世紀に入ってから初めて観察される。

「意思」の意味から離れて近接未来を指す用
例は 1920 年代から観察され始める。(2a) は
体調の変化、(2b) は木からの落下、(2c) は(3) “There’s fixing to be some tough love.

出来事の発生、(2d-e) は自然現象という文脈

There’s fixing to be some guys who won’tである。(2c) では going to と同義に用いられend up in this room....” (USA Today, 2015ている。

[COCA])(2) a. “Look out—catch him, Quinlan!” cried

Myers (2014: 52) は、19 世紀半ばの認識的用

Mr. Geltfin. “Look at his face—he’s法への発達として、(1) のような天候に関す149

る文脈での用例を強調しているが、そのよう

表 1: COHA における FIXING TO

な用例は周辺的である。COHA で確認できた1850-

天候に関する用例は (2e) を含めた 7 例のみ

1899

である。

6

-1949

-1999

2000-

合計

ﬁxing to

3

54

95

19

171

文法化の進んだ用例が 19 世紀から存在し

ﬁxin(’) to

14

86

44

8

152

たことは事実であっても、そのような用法が

a-ﬁxing/

広まりを見せたのは 20 世紀に入ってからと

a-ﬁxin(’) to

0

4

6

0

10

するのが妥当であろう。現代でも「有生物主

合計

17

144

145

27

333

語 (人) + 動作動詞」が典型的であり、FIXING

per mil

0.332

1.206

1.159

0.916

TO は依然として「意思」を指す用法がメインである。

表 2: COCA における FIXING TO

3.2. 形式による比較
まず、COHA と COCA のデータを用いて、各形式の分布を通時的、共時的に概観する。
表 1 は COHA のデータを形式別に年代で比

TV

MOV

SPOK

BLOG

WEB

fixing to

28

116

70

24

12

fixin(’) to

19

54

6

10

7

finna

19

39

0

3

3

a-fixin(’) to

1

1

1

0

1

合計

67

210

77

37

23

per mil

1.051

3.269

0.604

0.295

0.177

FIC

MAG

NEWS

ACAD

合計

a-fixing/

較したものである。FIXING TO の初出は 1855年であるため、表 1 に 19 世紀前半は含めていない。また、ほぼフィクションにのみ生起しているため、ジャンルでの比較は行っていない。20 世紀前半以降、全体の使用頻度に大きな変動は認められないが、優勢な形式が20 世紀前後半で逆転している。20 世紀前半

fixing to

109

25

27

1

412

までは fixin(’) to が、後半からは fixing to がfixin(’) to

48

4

10

0

158

優勢となる。 表 2 は COCA のデータを形式

finna

0

0

0

0

64

別にジャンルで比較したものである。どのジ

a-fixing/ャンルでも fixing to が優勢であり、これは

a-fixin(’) to

1

0

0

0

5

COHA のデータとも符合する。また、口語寄

合計

158

29

37

1

639

りのジャンルに分布が偏っていることも読per mil

1.322

0.228

0.301

0.008

7

み取れる。
表 1 および表 2 のデータは、Smith (2009:

優勢な形が fixin(’) to から fixing to に交替

15-16) の示すシナリオと異なる。Smith はしたことは、fixin(’) to の使用文脈と関係がfixing to, fixin’ to, finna と音声的に縮約が進あるようである。19 世紀の fixin(’) to の用例

むほど文法化の程度も進んでいると述べては 14 例中 13 例が、(4) のように AAE の発

いるが、少なくとも最初の 2 つの形式につい音を忠実に記述しようとした Joel Chandlerては、それとは反対の通時的変化が認められHarris (Green (2002: 170-171)) による、Uncle

るからである。以下では、まず、fixing to とRemus シリーズからのものである。

fixin(’) to の関係について詳細を論じ、その後 finna の特徴について考察する。

(4) Co’se Brer Rabbit know de game dat Brer150

Fox wuz fixin’ fer ter play, en he ’termin’

right. Julia, how you been, child? ...”

fer ter outdo ’im, (Harris (1895) Uncle(Baldwin (1979) Just Above My Head)10
b. “Can’t say. But it was in her room. Get

Remus, His Songs and His Sayings)

what I mean? And I saw her up there
20 世紀に入ると特定の作品や作家の影響

before naked as a worm when I was fixingは認められないものの、fixin(’) to は AAE の

to put up the tree. She jumped back, but

特徴が反映された文脈での使用が多く観察

didn’t do no good. She don’t know I got

される。COHA のコンコーダンスラインを目

eyes in the top of my head....” (Morrison

視した範囲では、20 世紀前半で 76.7% (66/86(1981) Tar Baby)11例)、後半で 77.3% (34/44 例) がそのような文
脈での使用である。(5a-b) のように、極端に以上を踏まえると、
優勢な形式が fixin(’) toも見える程度まで発音によって AAE を表し

から fixing to に変わったことに用法の変化

8ているものも見受けられる。

や文法化が関係しているとは言えない。むしろ、20 世紀を通じて AAE の表し方の変わっ(5) a. “Well, Ah wasn’ fixin’ to tell M’lissy,” he

たことが関わっているようである。20 世紀

acknowledged. “Know you not that that so

アメリカ文学作品において AAE を含む方言

good little woman would r-rather beの表し方が、発音よりも文法や語彙などに頼hungr-ry than have you give her money

るものになったという文体上の変化が指摘

that you gained by br-reaking the law?”

さ れ て お り (Green (2002: 197); Preschler“Well, Ah wasn’ fixin’ to give hit to her.”(2003))、fixin(’) to の使用が減ったこともそ(Smith (1903) A Tar-Heel Baron)の影響によるものと考えられるだろう。

b. Boy! You got nawthin’ to do all day but

その傍証となる用例を見ていきたい。19

stand in mah path? You fixin’ to get y’se’f

世紀の fixin(’) to が AAE を表記したものであsoaked? (Algren (1956) A Walk on theることを (4) で見たが、20 世紀前半でも9

fixin’ to と AAE が結びつけられているケース

Wild Side)が見つかる。(7a-b) に引用する Gone with the
fixing to も上と同様に集計すると、20 世紀

Wind の連続した会話部分は象徴的である。

前半で 14.8% (8/54 例)、後半で 18.9% (18/95(7a) は主人公 Scarlett (白人) の、(7b) は例) が AAE の特徴が見られる文脈である。

Mammy (黒人) の発話である。Scarlett の発話

fixin(’) to とは異なり、過度に発音に頼ったは標準的な綴りで示されている一方、表し方をする文脈は見当たらない。(6a-b) はMammy の発話は非標準的な綴りであり、こ文法的特徴 (you/we was, how you been, 二重の文脈における fixing to と fixin’ to の違いは否定など) で AAE を表示している。

話者の出自を示すための使い分けと解釈できよう。12(6) a. She waved and called, “Hey, you two ingreen there! Was you fixing to sneak past(7) a. “... Are you going to argue with me about

my house?” “No such thing,” Crunch

a little matter of Mother’s curtains when

grinned, looking upward. “No such thing,that trash Emmie Slattery who killed

ma’am.

for

Mother is fixing to move into this housedirections.” “Look like you got directed

and sleep in the bed Mother slept in?”

We

was

just

asking151

(Mitchell (1936) Gone with the Wind
[COHA])
b. “Who is you fixin’ ter git money frum dat
you needs a new dress?” (ibid.)とはいえ、fixin’ to と AAE を結びつける表記ばかりではない。William Faulkner の作品(COHA に収録されている限り) では、登場人物の人種に関わらず fixing to が使用され

図 1: COHA における -in(’) で終わる動名ている。(2c) は黒人の Ringo による発話であ

詞・現在分詞 (per mil)

るが、(8) の Ratliff は白人である。13
最後に finna の用法に注目したい。表 2 に(8) “That’s right,” Ratliff said. “All I wanted

示した COCA の 64 例中、finna と私的動詞のwas jest a note for it. But he insisted on

共起は皆無である。また COCA の関連する

making me a partner. And I’ll tell you

全用例内で比較しても、fixing/fixin(’) to より

something else we’re fixing to do. We’refinna の方が状態動詞と多く共起するとは言

fixing to open a wholesale.” (Faulkner

えず、Smith (2009: 16) の主張は確認できな(1957) The Town [COHA])

い。つまり finna を文法化の進んだ形と考えるのではなく、Green (2002: 71) の述べると(6a-b) に引用した用例とも合わせて考える

おり、fixing to と finna の主な差違は発音上と、20 世紀中頃以降、書き言葉では話者ののものと捉えるのが妥当であろう。

人種にかかわらず fixing to の綴りを用いる

COCA のデータを見ると、finna の使用さことが一般的になっているようである。14れる文脈は極めて限られているようである。

書き言葉における -in(’) (-ing の [ŋ] がジャンル別分布 (表 2) を見ると TV, MOV に[n] となる形式) 全体の減少もそのさらなる集中しているが (19+39/64 例)、その中でも A傍証となるだろう。15 図 1 に示しているのは、 Madea Family Funeral (2019; MOV) (17 例)、-in(’) の語尾で表記される動名詞・現在分詞

Legends of Chamberlain Heights (2016-2017;(“*in_v?g*” で検索) の時代別頻度である。

TV) (9 例) のように、一部の作品に偏っていそこから明らかなように、20 世紀前半に頻る。また、集中して finna が現れるのは 2010

度のピークがあり、後半にかけて減少する傾年代以降で、
finna の (少なくとも文字化され16

向がある。 fixin(’) to の減少もこの一般的なる文脈への) 出現は極めて最近のことであ変化と軌を一にしたものと解釈できよう。

ることが分かる。finna を fixing to と言い直している (9) は、その新規性について示唆的である。
(9) I’m ready, First Lady, ma’am. I been training
mighty hard, and I’m finna beat you thistime.
“Finna,” Elvis? “Finna”?
’Scuse me, ma’am. I meant “fixing to.”152

(Family Reunion, 2019 [COCA: TV])

た書誌情報が付されているケースが他にも多く見つかった。以下の引用例では可能な限

このやりとりで “First Lady” と呼びかけらり原典を調査し、COHA で誤った書誌情報がれている Amelia は信心深く古風な女性であ付されている場合はその旨を注記する。

り、Elvis はその孫娘に恋心を持つ少年であ

5

17

る。

この二人の世代差が finna の使用、まCOHA の 書 誌 情 報 で は Jackson (1949)

Lottery, or the Adventures of James Harris であた、それに対する (おそらくは) 規範主義的る。

態度の有無に現れていると見ることも可能

6

であろう。

“a-fixing up to rain” という形で生起する。
7

4. 結論

このうち 3 例が Lytle (1957) Velvet Horn に
表 1、表 2 には 100 万語当たりの換算値を付しているが、この数値は南部方言のテキス本研究では、COHA および COCA から収トがコーパスの各時代・ジャンルに含まれる集した用例を元に、FIXING TO の発達につい割合に影響され得ることに注意が必要であて先行研究の主張を検証した。「意思」からる。

独立して「近接未来」を表す文法化の進んだ

8

用法について、Myers (2014) は 19 世紀中頃

れほど正確に反映しているかの問題には立から始まったとしているが、COHA のデータ

ち入らない。

の示すところでは、そのような用法が拡大し9始めるのは 1920 年代以降であることが明ら

Island である。

かになった。また、形式による用法の違いに10

ついて、Smith (2009) の主張を裏付けるようThursday the Rabbi Walked Out である。

なデータは確認されなかった。むしろ、Smith11(2009) の主張に基づくと高くなると予想さ

Without End である。

れるであろう fixin(’) to の使用頻度は、20 世

12紀後半以降、fixing to よりも低くなっている

たび指摘される黒人への差別的描写の問題

ことが明らかになった。この背景には、アメについては立ち入らないが、fixing と fixin’

リカ文学における AAE を含めた方言の表現の綴りの使い分けにそのような背景が存在

法の変化という文体的な要素が考えられる。

する可能性も十分考えられるだろう。
13

このような表示が AAE の実際の特徴をどCOHA の書誌情報では Roberts (1956) Boon
COHA の書誌情報では Kemelman (1978)
COHA の書誌情報では Gray (1981) World
この作品 (または映画版) に対してたび

登 場 人 物 の 情 報 は The Digital* 本研究は JSPS 科研費 JP19K13230 の助成

Yoknapatawpha Project <https://faulkner.drupal.

を受けたものである。

shanti.virginia.edu/> による (2020 年 12 月 30
日閲覧)。

注
1

14

以下、綴りの異なる形式を含めた代表形をBernstein (2003: 115-116) は Linguistic

FIXING TO と表記する。

Atlas of the Gulf States (Pederson et al.

2<https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/>(1986-1992)) のデータをまとめて、20 世紀後

3

用例中の太字は筆者によるものである。以半の南部では、fixin to が黒人・白人で同程下同様。

度に用いられていると報告している。ただし、4COHA の書誌情報によるとこの用例の出

この fixin to という綴りが、話し言葉では一典は Barnes (1938) Wisdom’s Gate であるがこ様に語末が [n] という発音で終わることをれは誤りである。本調査では COHA で誤っ示しているのか、それ以外の発音も含む代表

153

形なのかは不明である。
15
このように [ŋ] が [n] と発音されること

of the Gulf States, University of Georgia

は AAE の特徴であるとはいえ、AAE にのみPeters, Pam (2004) The Cambridge Guide to

Press, Athens, GA.

限られる訳ではないことに注意が必要であEnglishUsage,る (Green (2002: 121-122))。

Press, Cambridge.

Cambridge

University

CQPweb <https://cqpweb.lancs.ac.uk> を用

Preschler, Heidi (2003) “Language and Dialect,”

いて Brown と Frown を同様に検索すると

The Continuum Encyclopedia of American( 検 索語 には “*in_V*G” を指 定) 、 110 例

Literature, ed. by Steven R. Serafin and(Brown) から 58 例 (Frown) に減少する。なAlfred Bendixen, 644-646, Continuum,

お、Brown では 110 例中 64 例 (58.2%) が 1

New York.

16

Smith, K. Aaron (2009) “The History of Be

つのテキストに集中して生起する。
17

Fixing登場人物の情報は英語版 Wikipedia の当

Grammaticization,To:

該ページ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Sociolinguistic Distribution and Emerging

Family_Reunion_(TV_series)> による (2020

Literary Spaces,” English Today 25, 12-18.
Staub, Peter and Jason Zentz (2017) “Fixin’ To,”

年 12 月 30 日閲覧)。

Yale

Grammatical

Diversity

Project:

English in North America. <http://ygdp.

参考文献
Bailey, Guy, Tom Wikle, Jan Tillery and Loriyale.edu/phenomena/fixin-to> Updated by

Sand (1993) “Some Patterns of Linguistic

Katie Martin (2018). (Accessed on 30 Dec.,

Diffusion,”2020.)

Language

Variation

andChange 5, 359-390.
Bernstein,

Cynthia(2003)“Grammatical

コーパス

Features of Southern Speech: Yall, Might

British National Corpus (BNC)

Could, and Fixin To,” English in the

Brown

University

Standard

CorpusofSouthern United States, ed. by Stephen J.

Present-Day American English (Brown)

Nagle and Sara L. Sanders, 106-118,

Corpus of Contemporary American English

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

(COCA)

Ching, Marvin K. L. (1987) “How Fixed is

Corpus of Historical American English (COHA)

Fixin’ To?,” American Speech 62, 332-345.

Freiburg-Brown Corpus of American English

Gilman, E. Ward, ed. (1994) Merriam-Webster’s
Dictionaryof

English(Frown)Usage,

Merriam-Webster, Springfield, MA.

辞書

Green, Lisa J. (2002) African American English:
A

Linguistic

Introduction,

Dictionary of American

Cambridge(DARE),

University Press, Cambridge.

Belknap

Regional English
Press

of

Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Myers, Jay L. (2014) “Fixin’ To: The Emergence

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Oxfordof an American Quasi-modal,” American

University Press, Oxford.

Speech 89, 42-73.

Wentworth, Harold (1944) American Dialect

Pederson, Lee, Susan L. McDaniel and Carol M.

Dictionary, Thomas Y. Crowell, New York.

Adams, eds. (1986-1993) Linguistic Atlas

154

<Special Lecture Report>

2. Grammatical Dynamism (aka. Dynamic
Model of Grammar)
Kajita の動的文法理論と修正理論を見る。
2.1 Kajita (1977, 2002): K-Model

動的文法理論とその展開―語法文法研究(1) If the grammar of a language L at stage i,

から理論へ

G(L,i), has property P, then the grammar（Grammatical Dynamism and Itsof the language at the next stage,

Development: In Search for a Theory throughG(L,i+1), may have property P’. (Kajita

the Studies of Grammar and Usage）

2002: 161)
(2) The Kajita Format (K-model)

中澤 和夫（Kazuo Nakazawa）

If A, then B is possible (= If A, then B or

青山学院大学（Aoyama Gakuin University）~B).
Problems with K-Model(i) “How far it goes” and “When to stop”

キーワード：動的文法理論, 反証可能性, 説(ii) Tautology

明理論

2.2 Revised model: R-model (cf. Nakazawa
1. Case Studies

2018a)

4 つの事例研究を簡単に見ていく。

(3) The Revised Format (R-Model)
If B, then A.

1.1

The

Englishhead-internal

relative(i) Accidental Gap/Accidental Hap

clauses: (Nakazawa 2018a, 中澤 2018b)(ii) R-Model: ~tautology (cf. falsifiability)

Peculiarity of the construction: the head inside(iii) Explanation

the relative clause
3. Advantages of R-Model
1.2 The Dungeon construction: A syntactic

3.1 The vowel in money

hapax legomenon: (Nakazawa 2018a)
Peculiarity of the construction: with followed by

3.2 On ‘peculiarity’: How and why thetheme/subject/agent

construction is peculiar
3.2.1 K-Model: [[P]] + p = [[P’]].

1.3 The post-nominal modifier combined: (中The problem: why is it the case that this very

澤 2017)p and no other is added to [[P]] to derive

Peculiarity of the construction: all basic[[P’]]? Why not otherwise?

features missing

3.2.2 R-Model: [[P’]] – [[P]] = p.
The peculiarity: it just happens that the

1.4 The verb allege as a semi-auxiliary verb:

difference between [[P’]] and [[P]] is p.

(中澤 2020)(a) head in HIRC: how peculiar! (cf. §1.1)

Peculiarity of the construction: emergence of the(b)semi-auxiliary use of allege“command”

inconstruction (cf. §1.2)

155

the

Dungeon(c) scaffolding in combined construction (cf.
§1.3)

English, Sanseido, Tokyo.
Kajita, Masaru (1977) “Towards a Dynamic(d) verb type change of allege from

Model of Syntax,” SEL 5, 44-76.

believe-type to want-type (cf. §1.4)

梶田優（1984）「英語教育と今後の生成文法（1）-（6）」（『学校新聞』（1983-1984）

3.3 Multiple motivations for extension

文英堂．東京）宇賀治正朋（代表）『言K-Model: [[P]] + {p1 & p2} = [[P’]] (Are two

語普遍性と英語の統語・意味構造に関す

or more motivations possible? Why and how

る研究』昭和 57・58 年度科研研究成果

is this very {p1 & p2} chosen?)

報告書, 60-94.

R-Model: [[P’]] – [[P]] = p (p = {p1 & p2},

Kajita, Masaru (1997) “Some Foundational{p1 or p2}, or whatsoever. No such ‘why’

Postulates for the Dynamic Theories ofproblems arise.)

Language,” Ukaji et al. (eds.), 378-393.

3.3.1 allege (cf. §1.4)

Kajita, Masaru (2002) “A Dynamic Approach to

3.3.2 Nomura (2019a, b)

Linguistic

3.3.3 N. Nakazawa (2006)

161-168.

Variations,”

Kato(ed.),

中澤和夫 (2015) 「統語的機能構造につい4. Postscriptて」江頭浩樹他編『より良き代案を絶(4) この障壁を打ち破るためには、「可能なえず求めて』開拓社，東京，267‐278．

文法」の限定の仕方について、発想を根中澤和夫（2017）「後位修飾語 combined の本からあらためねばならない。（梶田

語法」英語語法文法学会第 25 回大会，

1984（3））専修大学．

(5) Chomsky argues for the instantaneous

Nakazawa, Kazuo (2018a) A Dynamic Study ofmodel.

Some Derivative Processes in English

Kajita argues against the instantaneous

Grammar:model, and proposes a dynamic model, i.e.

Towardsa

Theoryof

Explanation, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

K-Model.

中澤和夫（2018b）「潜伏名詞句の意味論と統Nakazawa argues against K-Model, and

語論をさぐる」日本英語学会第 36 回大proposes a revised model, i.e. R-Model.

会シンポジウム「名詞句をめぐる拡張の諸相」横浜国立大学．
中澤和夫（2020）「19 世紀における動詞 allege

主な参考文献Bolinger, Dwight (1975) “On the Passive inの助動詞化」近代英語協会第 37 回大会．

English,” Adam Makkai and Valerie Becker

中澤紀子（2006）「There 接触節と関係代名詞

Makkai (eds.) The First LACUS Forumの顕在化―ナーサリー・ライムの場合」

1974, Hornbeam Press, SC, USA, 57-80.

『近代英語研究』22，71-91.

Jackendoff, Ray S (1973) “The Base Rules for野村忠央（2019a）｢仮定法の倒置をめぐって｣

Prepositional Phrases,” Anderson and日本英文学会第 91 回大会シンポジウム

Kiparsky (eds.), 345-356.

「倒置現象をめぐって」 安田女子大学．

Kajita,Masaru(1968)

Generative-Transformational

Study

A

野村忠央（2019b）｢仮定法の倒置をめぐって｣of『 日 本 英 文 学 会 第 91 回 大 会

Semi-Auxiliaries in Present-Day American

Proceedings』．

156

<Special Lecture Report>

欧州 T-V 言語の人称代名詞の使用と社会的要因「力関係と親疎」の関係についての考察の基礎を築いている。ドイツ語研究では、そもそも語用論的・社会言語学的関心が高かったと思われるが、1970 年代には既に歴史語

歴史語用論の歩み：*

分類・射程・拡がりから見える分野の特徴

用論という呼び方が用いられていた。また、（Review of Historical Pragmatics: Features

日本語研究においては、特に国語学の流れのCaptured from Its Classification, Range, and

中に、敬語史・待遇表現史と呼べる伝統が早Development）

くからある（山田 (1924)・時枝 (1941)）。
世界的な通説から最初の論文集とされる

小野寺 典子（Noriko Onodera）

Jucker (1995)（前出）の冒頭言でも「歴史語青山学院大学（Aoyama Gakuin University）

用論が全く新しい名称であるとか、新しい領域を描くということではない」(Jacobs andJucker (1995: 26)と述べている。

キーワード：歴史語用論, 意味機能変遷, 間

ただ Jucker 氏が「歴史語用論」という名を主観的から接続的機能へ

用い、領域を明示的に立ち上げたことで、それまで各個別言語で別々に行われてきた研
0. はじめに究を 1 つの土俵に上げやすくなった。例えば、本講演の前半で、「歴史語用論」分野の歩

歴史語用論というまとまりの下に、アラビ

み、射程となるテーマ、分類から見えてくる

ア・日・英・伊・ネワール語研究者が一堂に特徴を報告した (1-3)。後半では、講演者の集い、議論・発信したりする機会が増えたこ「意味機能変遷のもう 1 つの傾向？：間主観とは利点であろう。

的から接続的機能へ」という通時的語用論研
究について報告を行った (4)。

2. 日本における歩み
日本では 2005 年に、初めて「歴史語用論」

1. 歴史語用論の歩み

ワークショップが行われた。金水敏氏がオー

1.1. 1995 年創設説

ガナイズ、福元広二氏・小野寺・森山由紀子

言語学において歴史語用論という下位分

氏がパネリストとして「談話標識の通時的発野が創設されたのは、通説では 1995 年、

達（前者 2 名）・敬語の通時的発達（森山氏）」

Zurich 大学の Andreas H. Jucker 教授が論文集について報告した。こうした初期のトピック

Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments

は、現在も多くの観察が続けられている。

in the History of English を刊行した年とされ日本でも、共同・個別の科研費によるプロる。

ジェクトをはじめとして、研究が蓄積され、現在までに歴史語用論という冠を配した 3

1.2. 1995 年より以前

冊の論文集が刊行された。最初の『歴史語用しかし、1995 年以前にも実は歴史語用論

論入門』(2011)から今年でちょうど 10 年が経と呼べる研究が行われていたことは事実でち、増刷された。
『歴史語用論の世界』(2014)、あるため、その点を振り返った。英語研究で『歴史語用論の方法』(2018)と続いている。

は、1960 年に Brown and Gilman による論文

国内外の関連研究会として、HiSoPra 研究

The pronouns of power and solidarity があり、会・日本語用論学会、IPｒA・DiPVaC・East

157

Asian Pragmatics の存在についても報告した。 4. 意味機能変遷のもう 1 つの傾向？：間主
観的から接続的機能へ

3. 歴史語用論分野の位置づけ・特徴

最後に講演者の現在の研究を報告した。意

近代の言語研究史における歴史語用論の味変遷研究において、Traugott (1982, 1989)

位置づけを、堀田(2017)を参照して行った。

が提案した「命題的＞接続的＞表出的（のちI. 19 世紀に言語の中心領域に対する歴史的に（間）主観的に置き換えられる）」という研究（比較言語学・文献学）がなされ、II. 20

機能変化の方向性は、分析の大きな指針とな

世紀に非歴史的研究（構造主義や生成文法）

り、多言語において実証されてきた。ところがなされた。III. 20 世紀後半に、周辺領域（社が、最近になってこの方向の逆向きとも取れ

会・語用）の非歴史的研究（社会言語学・語る「間主観的＞接続的へ」という変化が複数

用論）が発達し、最後に空いていたスロット

言語で報告されるようになった。

IV.で、周辺領域の歴史的研究（歴史語用論/

他者への働きかけである間主観的機能が、

社会言語学）が興ったという経緯を報告した。 談話をつないでいく接続的機能の動機づけ
歴史語用論の分類は、まず、語用論的フィとなっているようで、英日伊露中語ほかの言ロロジーと通時的語用論に分けられる。そし語から報告が寄せられている。

て、通時的語用論はさらに通時的「形式－機意味変遷では、上記の Traugott 提唱の方向

能対応付け」と通時的「機能－形式対応付け」の他にも、様々な傾向・方向性があるのかもに分類される(Jacobs and Jucker 1995; 高田他しれない。現在、通言語的に検証中である。

2018:7 の図式参照)。語用論的フィロロジー
研究と通時的語用論研究では、見る対象・研

主な参考文献究成果の性質が全く異なる。前者では、例え

堀田隆一 (2017)「HiSoPra＊に参加して（２）」ば、特定時代の特定の国家全体におけるイデ『hellog～英語史ブログ』#2884 (2017 年

オロギー・文化の変容といった、マクロな視3 月 20 日) http://user.keio.ac.jp/～rhotta/

点からの描写が可能である。一方、後者の代

hellog/2017-03.html

表的研究トピックに文法化・構文化があるが、 Jucker, Andreas H., ed. (1995) Historical
人のコミュニケーションの最もミクロな場

Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in

面に視点を置き、一言語形式(例:英語接続詞

the History of English, John Benjamins,

while)の通時的発達を見るという具合である。

Amsterdam.

上の、語用論的フィロロジーと通時的語用

金水 敏・高田博行・椎名美智（編）(2014)

論の性質の異なりは、そもそも語用論に対す『歴史語用論の世界：文法化・待遇表るヨーロッパ的/アングロアメリカ的捉え方

現・発話行為』ひつじ書房, 東京．

の違いに由来することを説明した。前者は、高田博行・椎名美智・小野寺典子（編）(2011)

社会全体のコンテクストに基盤を置く語用『歴史語用論入門：過去のコミュニケー論であり、社会言語学と重複すると言ってもションを復元する』大修館書店, 東京.

良い。後者は、グライス理論等を基礎に、含高田博行・小野寺典子・青木博史（編）(2018)

意や場面における意味を中心に取り扱う。

『歴史語用論の方法』ひつじ書房, 東京．

Jucker 氏が、この両地域の考え方を含めたとTraugott, Elizabeth Closs (1989) “On the Rise of

ころも、歴史語用論分野の射程の広さ・言語

Epistemic

学一般に与える示唆の大きさの源になってExample of Subjectification in Semantic

いると思われる。

Change,” Language 65:1, 31-55.

158

Meanings

inEnglish:An

<Workshop Report>

2. copy の役割と copy 個体集合の認定
極小理論では、Chomsky (1995) が痕跡に代わるものとして、copy を導入して以来、移動は copy を含む操作だと考えられてきた。

統語領域における copy をめぐる諸問題–

copy 派生メカニズムの単純化*(1) a. Which picture of himself did John see?

（Some Issues on the Syntactic Notion Copy:b. [CP [Which picture of himself]i did Johnj

Deriving Simplest Copy Formation）

T Johnj see [which picture of himself]j?

宗像 孝（Takashi Munakata）(1b) では、which picture of himself が移動先

横浜国立大学（Yokohama National University）

である CP-Spec において演算子としての役

林 愼将（Norimasa Hayashi）

割を果たし、
元位置では see の目的語として、

九州大学大学院（Kyushu University）

Theme の意味役割を担い、2 つの copy によ北原 久嗣（Hisatsugu Kitahara）って which picture of himself が担う解釈が表慶應義塾大学（Keio University）

されている。又、himself は John に束縛され後藤 亘（Nobu Goto）

る必要があるので、元位置で解釈され、copy

東洋大学（Toyo University）

によって束縛の関係性が保証されている。又、石井 透（Toru Ishii）

以下の二文を区別するには、A 移動である受明治大学（Meiji University）

け身文において、copy の関係が形成される

豊島 孝之（Takashi Toyoshima）

必要があり、(2b) の文では Popi と Popj は区

東北学院大学（Tohoku Gakuin University）

別される必要がある。そして、(1b)/(2a) ともに移動先の copy が発音される保証がある。

キーワード：コピー形成、格、解釈規則、(2) a. [TP Popi1 is [VP loved Popi2]].

最小計算の原理、局所性

b. [TP Popi1 T [v*P Popi2 loved Popj3]
1. はじめに

しかし、Chomsky (2020) を中心に、移動

copy は極小理論の誕生とともに、痕跡にに関与する併合は句を組み合わせるだけの置きかわるものとして提案されて以来、統語構造を組み立てる操作であり、copy を作り計算及び音声・意味の解釈の根本を成すもの

出す余地はない。又、inclusiveness condition

として、必然的に存在するものである。しかにより、統語計算の途中で copy の関係を保し、可能な操作が併合（Merge/MERGE）の証する連鎖や痕跡を導入することは禁止さみとする昨今の理論では、別途に copy を算れている。Collins & Groat (2018) が指摘する出するものは存在しえない（Chomsky 2020）。

ように、統語計算に必須である copy の形成

この問題に対して、5 人の講師が各々の視点(もしくは導入) を標的にした別個の操作及から copy の導出及び解釈に関係する提案をび道具立ては認められない。すなわち、copy

行い、指定討議者の豊島講師も加わり、現状

個体集合の形成は、併合及びインターフェーにおける copy 形成について、最適解を追いスの解釈原理、もしくは一般的な最小計算な

求め、理論に寄与するものである。

どの原理、語彙項目・構造の性質から導き出される必要があり、言語の特性を明らかにす159

める Resource Restriction を満たす手続きであるには、このジレンマを解く必要がある。

り、copy の概念はこの併合適用手続きの帰3. 宗像: 統語派生メカニズムにおける Copy

結として捉えられると主張した。

と素性一致のミニマリスト的最適性につ

6. 石井・後藤: ATB 解釈に寄与する格の役

いて昨今のラベリング仮説から、copy 個体集

割合の同定の必要性を指摘し、ラベリングには

併合の曖昧な適用を排除する Determinacy

φ 素性の一致が必須なことに言及した。このを概観し、copy 個体集合の同定が重要な役

φ 素性の一致の際に、格付与が伴うので、最割を果たす ATB 構文を分析した。併合によ

上位の copy 個体は認可された格を有し、他る copy 個体集合の同定とは別に、phase を越の copy 個体は格が欠落することに着目し、えた copy 個体集合の同定では θ 役割及び格

copy 個体の集合形成は phase ごとに格素性にが関わっていることを示した。ATB 構文の基づいて行われると主張した。

wh 要素が[+Case, +θ-role]の場合、同一解釈しか許容されないが、 [+Case, +θ-role]以外の場

4. 林: 反 Self-MERGE としての反局所性

合は copy 個体集合が分離される非同一解釈

copy 個体の解釈を二種類に分け、i. 統語が許容されることを示した。

領域内で決定される copy の集合形成と ii. イ
ンターフェース上で解釈規則によって決定* 本ワークショップ開催にあたり、準備段階

される二種類があることを示した。特に、iから貴重なご助言をいただき、尽力して下さにおいて、copy 個体の形成が阻害される例

った内堀朝子氏に大いに感謝する。又、ワーとして、反局所性の現象をあげ、同一の語彙

クショップに参加し、議論に貢献した聴衆の項目が続けて直上に併合を適用された場合、皆様に深い謝意を表するものである。なお、

統語計算上、構造として認識されないもので

本ワークショップで研究発表した各研究は、あると主張した。又、ii では、What did you buy

以下の助成を受けている。日本学術振興会科

what and sell what? の ATB 構文のように、学研究費補助金 (特別研究員奨励費

phase を越える場合、インターフェースの解

20J11905 (林愼将)、基盤研究 (C) 19K00612

釈規則の相互作用によって、copy 個体の集(北原久嗣)、基盤研究 (C) 18K00666 (石井透)、合が同定されると主張し、再述代名詞など音基盤研究(C) 19K00692 (後藤亘)、基盤研究が異なっても意味的に copy とみなせるもの(C) 18K00543 (豊島孝之))にも分析が適用できることを示した。
参考文献

5. 北原: MERGE に基づく copy の概念にCollins,

Collins

and

Erich

Groat

(2018)

ついて“Distinguishing Copies and Repetitions,”

Chomsky (2020) の枠組みのもと、併合は、

ms., NYU & Goethe-Universität Frankfurt.
<https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/ 003809>

語彙項目・統語構造ではなく、統語作業領域（Workspace WS）に適用され、新たに集合

Chomsky,が 1 つ加わることで、WS を更新する操作に

Noam(1995)The

Minimalist

Program, MIT Press, Cambridge.

改訂された。その適用は、WS の terms へのChomsky, Noam (2020) “UCLA Lectures,” ms.,

access を保証する No Tampering Condition とArizona University & MIT. < https://ling.

WS の accessible terms の増加を最小限にとど

auf.net/lingbuzz/005485>.

160

<Workshop Report>(2) A: Who played the ball?
B: Mike played basketball.
(Maiku-ga basukettobooru-o yatta)(3) A: Did Mike and Kim play the ball?

Case Alternations

B: Mike played basketball, but Kim didn't.
(Maiku-wa basukettobooru-o yatta-ga

Sumiyo Nishiguchi

Kimu-wa yaranakatta）

Otaru University of Commerce(4)

Shao Tianxiao

A: What happened?
B: Mike played basketball.

Otaru University of Commerce(Maiku-ga basukettobooru-o yatta)

Hisako Takano
Otaru University of Commerce

Even though the responses in English are

Daniela Caluianu

identical in (1)(2)(4), there

Otaru University of Commerce

occur

wa/ga

alternations in Japanese, due to the different

Chair, Mark Holst

types of

Otaru University of Commerce

subjects. This study overcomeschallenges in translation by utilizing suchfunctional concepts in translation processes. The

Keywords：topic, abstract case, change ofresults of the questionnaire survey showed thatlocation, dative subject

this method is effective for Chinese students.
3. Discussant 2 “Ga/no conversion and the

1. Introduction

abstract

This workshop discussed case alternations incaseassignment

inJapanese”

reexaminedthesyntactic(Hisako Takano)Japanese from various areas of linguistic studies:Thispedagogy, syntax, semantics and typology.

paper

environment where so called ga/no conversion(Harada 1971) occurs, not to propose any new

2. Discussant 1 “A study of translation ofanalysis, but rather to widen the scope ofJapanese

discussion by pointing out an apparently

andEnglishsubjects:

wa/ga

alternation" (Shao Tianxiao)

coinciding phenomenon, which has not been

For native speakers of Mandarin Chinese, amuch discussed in the relevant literature, i.e., thelanguage without case-marking, the choice

unavailability of a topic NP. For seeking a casebetween wa and ga can be challenging whenassignment system which can explain bothtranslating

information

phenomena, two Japanese complementizers, no

structure, the sentential subjects can be classified

and to were examined with respect to theinto four classes—topic, contrast, exhaustive

distribution of the structural cases. It was argued

listing and neutral description (Kuno 1973).

that Japanese genitive case, no, nominative casefromEnglish.

Inga, and topic case wa are structurally assigned(1) A: What did Mike do?

by the head, N, Infl(T), and Comp to its spec NP

B: Mike played basketball.

respectively, independently from the theta(Maiku-wa basukettobooru-o yatta)

assignment of the verb. Finally this study in161general provided some argument to defend thecategories affects the results of linguistic

abstract/structural case assignment in Japanese

investigation.

as opposed to those analyses of Japanese cases

Haspelmath's comparative concepts ‘dative’ andbeing morphological ones (Aoyagi 2006).

‘subject’ (Haspelmath, 2010) suggests that theAninitialanalysis,using

two languages exhibit similar cross-linguistic
4. Discussant 3 “Ni/e alternations and change

tendencies. A more fine-grained examination onof location in Japanese” (Sumiyo Nishiguchi)

language specific constructions indicates that the

Nishiguchi discussed two classes of verbs in

Romanian DSC is closer, both in its extension

Japanese: (i) verbs that allow alternations

and intension, to the Japanese double nominative

between ni “dative/locative” and e “goal” caseconstruction. The differences come down to themarkers, and (ii) verbs without ni/e alternations.

language specific properties of the dative case.
The Japanese dative is a locative marker and the(1) Karen-ga

eki-ni/e

it-ta(koto)DSC involves viewing the experiencer as a

Karen-NOM station-DAT/LOC go-PAST fact

location for a particular state or judgment. In“Karen went to the station.”

Romanian, the dative case is closely associated(2) Inu-ga

kainushi-ni/*e ni-ta(koto)

with possession, prototypically with inalienable

dog-NOM owner-LOC/LOC resemble-PAST factpossession, and DSC implies a more intimate“The dog resembled the owner.”

relation between an experiencer and the objectof the experience. This raises the issue of theShe claimed that noun phrases with nirole of the language specific properties of the“DAT”/e“LOC” phrases are arguments of thedative morpheme for the semantic interpretationachievement verbs, often of transfer, that allow

of DSC and the balance between universalism

ni/e alternation. In contrast, ni “LOC” /e “LOC”

and particularism in linguistic inverstigation.

marked phrases are adjuncts with stative
unaccusative or transitive achievement verbs

6. Summary

without ni/e alternations. E is more concerned

Althoughcasealternations

may

puzzlewith the physical direction towards the goal

language learners, they shed light on the(Kaiser et al. 2001) although ni and e are often

informationinterchangeable (Tanaka and Matsumoto 1997).

semantic

While the allative case marker e entails change

functional approach to be useful for the choiceof location and does not entail arrival, ni refers

between topic and nominative markers in

to a goal/location and entails arrival.

Japanese.

andsyntactic

distinctions.

Syntactically,

structures,

Experiments

andprovednominative-genitive

case alternation in Japanese implies structural
5. Discussant 4 “The dative subject

case assignment instead of morphological one.

construction in Japanese and Romanian”

The presence or absence of case alternations(Daniela Caluianu)

coincide with syntactic and semantic differences.

Using the contrastive analysis of the Dative

A typological comparison

betweendativeSubject Construction (DSC) in Japanese andsubjects in Romanian and dative-nominative

Romanian as a case study, this presentation

alternation

offered some reflections on how the choice ofsimilarity and variance.

162

in

Japanese

revealed

semantic

[II]Thirteenth International Spring Forumreading. Then in order to explain the difference,a functional head F is introduced in a derivationof short-distance that-RCs. Moreover, theproposal makes it possible to solve a labeling
Short-Distance Movement in That-Relative
Clauses

problem between a moved head nominal and CP*(RC), which is in a {XP, YP} configuration.
This paper is organized as follows. Sections

Takashi Ikeda

2 briefly summarizes two analyses regarding

Aichi Prefectural University

that-RCs. Section 3 shows core data concerning
idioms in a short-distance and a long-distance

Keywords：that-relative clause, short-distance,

that-RC. Section 4 proposes a new analysis,

long-distance, idiom, labeling

employing a functional head F to explain apeculiarity in a short-distance that-RC. Section 5
is a conclusion.

1. Introduction
A that-relative clause (henceforth, RC) can

2. Two Analyses in RCs

be made from idioms. Examine the following

Aoun and Li (2003) claims that a that-RC

sentence:

derives through raising of a head nominal(promotion analysis) while a wh-RC motivates a
relative(1) The beans that Mary spilled caused apronoun movement(wh-movement

analysis). Examine the following sentences:scandal.

(3) a.

The example involves the idiom spill the beansmeaning ‘to tell somebody something secret’,

The headway that Mel made wasimpressive.

b. ?? The headway which Mel made wasand maintains the idiomatic reading. The

impressive.

that-RC in (1) derives in the short-distance(4) a.

environment. With this in mind, examine the

The careful track that she’s keepingof her expenses pleases me.

following sentence:b. ?? The

careful

track

which

she’s

keeping of her expenses pleases me.

(2) The beans that John thought that Mary

(Aoun and Li (2003: 110))

spilled caused a scandal.
The idiomatic reading is unavailable in (2). The

The examples involve idioms make headway

use of the that-RC in the long-distanceand keep track of, meaning ‘to progress’ and ‘toenvironment brings about the unavailability ofknow

idiomatic reading.

that-RCs maintain the idiomatic readings, but

aboutsomething’ respectively.

The

The current paper argues that there is a

the wh-RCs do not. If the head nominals

difference between a short-distance and aheadway and track move from inside the RCs

long-distance that-RC, mainly focusing on

after establishing a relation with the verbs makeavailability

and keep to obtain the idiomatic interpretation,or

unavailabilityofidiomatic164

the promotion analysis nicely explains theboketu-o horu (grave-ACC dig) and abunai

grammaticality. In the wh-RCs, the relative

hashi-wo wataru (dangerous bridge-ACC cross),

pronoun which is first generated as the object of

the object position of the verbs has to be

the verbs make and keep, then moved to Spec,CP.

occupied by the nouns in the derivation of the

The head nominals headway and track are

RCs. The idiomatic reading in RCs supports theassumed to be base-generated in the main

promotion analysis in Japanese.

clauses. Consequently, there is no relation
between the verbs and the nouns, and hence, the

3. A Comparison between a Short-Distanceungrammaticality.

and a Long-Distance That-RC

The validity of the promotion analysis isThis section will show core data concerning

confirmed in Japanese, too. Consider theidioms to demonstrate a difference between

following sentences:

short-distanceandlong-distance

that-RCs.

Again, examine the following sentences:(5) Raibaru-wa [John-ga
rival-TOPboketu-o-NOMmizukara e hotta]
himself

dug(7) = (1)totemo yorokonda.

grave-ACC very

The beans that Mary spilled caused ahappy.

scandal.

‘(Lit.) The rival was very happy about the(8) = (2)grave that John himself dug’

The beans that John thought that Mary‘The ruin John himself brought about madehis rival happy’

spilled caused a scandal.

(Kitao (2009: 33))

(6) Sono eiga-wa [Mary-ga e watatta]

The promotion analysis predicts (7) to have thethat movie-TOP -Nom crossed

idiomatic reading meaning‘to tell somebody

abunaimigotonisomething secret’ ; however, this is unavailable.

elegantly.

Namely, a scandal was caused by some beans,hasi-odangerous bridge-ACC
Saigensita.

not secrets, in (8). Japanese analogous examples

reconstructed

are as follows:‘(Lit.) That movie elegantly reconstructed
the dangerous bridge Mary crossed’(9) Raibaru-wa [Mary-ga [John-ga‘That movie elegantly reconstructed therival-TOP

dangerous action Mary committed’e hotta-to](Morita (2013: 120))-NOM
omotta]dug-COMP thought

mizukara-NOM himself
boketu-ototemograve-ACC veryyorokonda.
The examples involve the idioms such as

happyboketu-o horu (grave-ACC dig) and abunai‘The rival was very happy about the gravehashi-wo wataru (dangerous bridge-ACC cross)that Mary thought that John himself dug’meaning ‘to bring about one's own ruin’ and‘to
make a risky attempt’ respectively. As argued in
the explanation for (5) and (6), considering aclose relation between the verbs and the nouns,

165enables F to be merged with NP in (11). F itself(10) Sono eiga-wa [John-ga [Mary-ga e-NOMis a pure functional item employed whenomotta] abunai

merging two SOs such as NP and CP (RC) in thethat movie-TOP -NOM
watatta-to]

derivation of that-RCs.

crossed-COMP thought dangerous

Then FP comprised of F and the headhasi-omigotonisaigensita.

bridge-ACC

elegantly

reconstructednominal moves upward to Spec,CP. Though FP‘ That movie elegantly reconstructed theis not a lexical item, the other edge feature of F

dangerous bridge that John thought that

motivates

Mary crossed’

Chomsky (2000), a selector or probe projects.

merge

with

CP.

AccordingtoThus, when the head nominal moves to Spec,CP,(9) and (10) derive through taking the RCs in (5)FP that selects CP projects, which results inand (6) as a complement of the to-clauseshort-distance movement of the head nominal.

(that-clause) respectively. In these long-distanceThis derivation is schematically represented ascases, idiomatic reading disappears. Instead,follows:

they possess a reading where an entity has a(12)physical existence. In (9), the rival was happyFP

about the physical grave, not the ruin committed
FPi [edge, edge] CP (RC)by John, and in (10), the movie reconstructed thephysically dangerous bridge, not the riskyFattempt. Examples (8), (9) and (10) imply thatNP[edge, edge]

short and long-distance that-RCs are derived

tidifferently.
In the present section, I have shown that a

The derivation explains why idiomatic reading ishead nominal made from idioms cannot move

unavailable in long-distance that-RCs. Once FP

long-distance. Idiomatic reading is available

merges with CP (RC), the FP decides the label.

only in short-distance that-RCs.

FP cannot move along with NP stranding CP(RC) because FP forms a constituent as a whole.

4. A Derivation of a Short-Distance That-RC

The idea that a moved element projects iswith a Functional Head F

not new. Cecchetto and Donati (2010) andDonatiThis section will illustrate how that-RCs are
1

andCechetto(2011)

argue

that

derived in short-distance movement. I propose

free-relatives are derived through projecting

the following structure for the head nominal:

movement by a lexical item. The derivation is asfollows:(11) [FP F NP]
In this structure, I argue that the functional head
F with two edge features takes the head nominal
as its complement. Following Chomsky (2008),
edge features permit a lexical item to be mergedwith syntactic objects. One of the features166

(13) I read [what you read.] (slightly modified)

Regarding word order in Japanese, a head

what

nominal follows its RC. A functional head F
with two edge features can explain the fact on

what

CP

the basis of head-parameter. F and FP take NP
and CP as a complement respectively. InC

you read what

Japanese, a head (lexical item) follows its(Donati and Cechetto (2011: 523))

complement, so NP precedes F. FP is not a head,but an edge feature enables FP to function like a

According to them, the lexical item what

head. As a result, FP follows CP in accordance

provides the label. Donati and Cechetto (2011)

with head-parameter. As argued, FP is madeapplies the analysis to a phrasal head nominal infrom F and NP. Thus, a head nominal follows its

RCs. After projecting movement by a lexical

RC as shown below:

item, syntactic objects are late-merged to thelexical item. In the derivation, no labeling(14) CP (RC) >> [FP NP >> F]problem between a head nominal and CP occurs
because the moved head nominal always serves

In this manner, correct word order for Japanese

as a lexical item, which is in a {X, YP}

RCs is obtained.

configuration.

In the previous research of RCs by Kayne

The derivation seems attractive, but raises a(1994), Bianchi (2000), including Aoun and Li

problem with idioms. As argued in Section 2,(2003), they posit the premise that D selects CP

RCs made from idioms maintain idiomatic(RC). Observe the following structure forreading. In order to obtain idiomatic reading, an

that-RCs in their framework:

object position of a verb has to be occupied by aspecific noun. Considering the idiom involving(15) (abstracting away from the irrelevant

an adjective phrase like abunai hashi-wo wataru

details)(dangerous bridge-ACC cross) meaning ‘ toDPmake a risky attempt’ from (6), the modifier also
plays an important role for the idiomaticinterpretation.

The

idiomatic

readingisunavailable

without

abunaialthoughtheD

CP (RC)NPi

CP (RC)

modifier is late-merged in Donati and Cechetto(2011). Therefore, it is natural to derive the headnominal as a phrase that can involve a modifier.

ti

In (11), I propose a phrasal head nominal.
Furthermore, FP comprised of F and NP projects

They assume that the head nominal moves towith an edge feature when merged with CP (RC).

Spec,CP in accordance with the promotion

This makes it possible to solve the labeling

analysis, and CP is selected by D. Here, aproblem between a moved phrasal head nominal

question arises of whether D can select CP or

and CP (RC), which is in a {XP, YP}

not. Kayne defends the structure (15), noting theconfiguration, without assuming late-merge.

following example:

167

(16) a. *the Parisb.

(18) F:λPλQλx [P (x) & Q (x)]the Paris that I knew(19) a.

(Kayne (1994: 103))b.

Mary bought the book that John wrote.
λx [FP book (x) & John wrote (x)]He claims that a proper noun cannot cooccur

The functional head F is semantically describedwith the, but it is not true when used in RCs. The

in (18). Following the description, the head

consequence is directly drawn from the structure

nominal in (19)a is represented with & in (19)b.

(15) because D the does not select NP Paris, butThis representation predicts the restriction ofdoes CP (RC) instead. Additionally, Bianchi

movement like Across-the-Board. Accordingly,(2000) argues that D turns CP (RC) into a

the movement of either NP book or CP John

nominal phrase which can occupy an argument

wrote is prohibited in short-distance that-RCs

position in a main clause.

employing the functional head F. This also

As for my proposal, examine the following

explains unavailability of idiomatic reading instructure:long-distance that-RCs.
Besides, (17) prevents D from having a

(17)

DP

specific function by Bianchi (2000) such as
category-changing from CP (RC) to DP. In (17),DFP

D does not select CP in the first place. Therefore,
there is no need for D to have the function.

FPi

CP (RC)

Lastly, a problem what triggers movementof head nominals in that-RCs remains unsolved.

FNP

On the point, Kayne (1994) mentions that Dtiwhich selects CP (RC) requires head nominals
be in a position governed by it. Assuming that

The selectional problem between D and CP (RC)minimizing the role of D is on the right track,

does not occur because D selects FP. The

Free Merge by Chomsky (2004) is a promising

structure correctly expects the grammaticality ofsolution. Free Merge permits iterative merge of(16)b in line with the explanation by Kayne

syntactic objects in derivations, which involves(1994). As argued above, F is merely ano configurational checking. Movement of headfunctional item, which is different from CP in

nominals driven by Free Merge allows athesimplified derivation in that-RCs.

possession

of

many

discourse-related

properties such as force, topic, focus, finiteness,
etc. Superficially, it seems as if D selects CP;

5. Conclusion

however, it is an apparent affinity.

The present paper has argued that the

Semantically, the head nominal is interpretedfunctional head F with two edge features is

as an intersection of two sets NP and CP (RC). If

employed when deriving the short-distancethat is the case, D the makes it possible tothat-RCs. It first merges with NP, secondarychoose one reference out of the intersection. FP

with CP (RC), moving upward to Spec,CP. In

corresponds

accordance with Chomsky (2000), F that selects

to

the

intersection

in

(17).

Specifically, examine the following sentences:

CP (RC) projects. In the following derivation, D

168

selects FP that is considered to be the

Uriagereka, 89-155, MIT Press, Cambridge,

intersection of the two sets NP and CP (RC).

Massachusetts.

Moreover, this paper has indicated that there

Chomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatory

is a difference between a short-distance and a

Adequacy,” Structures and Beyond: The

long-distance

Cartography

availability

that-RC
or

on

the

unavailability

basis

of

of

idiomaticof

Syntactic

Structures

volume 3, ed. by Adriana Belletti, 104-131,

reading. The distinction is crucial to investigate

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

the nature of that-RCs.

Chomsky,

Noam

“On

(2008)

Phases,”Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:* I would like to express my gratitude to the

Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,

13th

Forum

ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero andOrganizing Committee for the opportunity toMari Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166, MITpresent this paper. My thanks also go to Hisashi

Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

ELSJ

International

SpringDonati, Caterina and Cecchetto, Carlo (2011)

Morita for his invaluable comments.

"Relabeling Heads: A Unified Account for

NOTES
Due to the limited space, the derivation ofRelativization

long-distance that-RCs is omitted.

Inquiry 42, 519-560.

1

Structures,"

Linguistic

Kayne, Richard (1994) The antisymmetry ofsyntax,REFERENCES
Aoun, Joseph and Yen-Hui Audrey Li (2003)
Essaysonthe

RepresentationalMIT

Press,

Cambridge,

Massachusetts.

andKitao,

Yasuyuki(2009)The

Natureof

Derivational Nature of Grammar, MIT

Relativization: A Minimalist Perspective,

Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

doctoral dissertation, Osaka University.

Bianchi, Valentina (2000) “Some issues in the

Morita, Hisashi (2013) “Optional Movements

syntax of relative determiners,” The syntax

Deriveof

US-China Foreign Language 2013, Vol.11,

relativeclauses,ed.

byArtemisAlexiadou, Paul Law, Andre Meinunger,

Japanese

Relative

Clauses,”645-658.

and Chris Wilder, 53-82, John Benjamin,

Schachter,

Amsterdam.

Paul(1973)“FocusRelativization,” Language 49, 19-46.

Cecchetto, Carlo, and Caterina, Donati (2010)“On labeling: Principle С and head
movement,” Syntax 13, 241-278.
Chomsky, Noam (1977) “On Wh-Movement,”
Formal Syntax, ed. by Peter Culicover,Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian,
71-132, Academic Press, New York.
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist inquiries:
The framework,” Essays on Minimalist
Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by
Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan

169

and

modifiedbyanadverbial

modifier(i.e.

systematically) and directly takes a grammaticalobject (i.e. all the evidence). Spencer andNikolaeva (2017: 80) explain that destroying is a
Two Types of Germanic Suffixes Forming
Relational Adjectives in English

form of the lexeme DESTROY and not a distinct*

lexeme from its base verb. In other words, thelexeme DESTROY is forced to occur in the

Takashi Ishida

gerundive form as in (1) due to the syntactic

University of Tsukuba / JSPS Research Fellow

environment;itfulfilsthefunctionof

Yuri Togano

grammatical subject, which is required to be a

University of Tsukuba

noun. In this sense, destroying in (1) is like

Ryohei Naya

inflected words. Such mixed categories can thus

University of Tsukuba

be continuous between the two morphologicaldomains, namely, derivation and inflection.

Keywords: denominal adjective, derivation,

Category mixing is also found in category

inflection, transposition, suffixal statuschanging from Noun to Adjective. Spencer andNikolaeva’s recent series of studies on nominal
modification argue that denominal adjectives are

1. Introduction

divided into two groups, according to whether

There is an extensively discussed topic in the
field

of

morphology:

whetherthethey are outputs of (normal) derivation or thosetwoof category-changing inflection (Spencer andmorphological domains derivation and inflection

Nikolaeva (2017), Nikolaeva and Spencer

are clearly separated or are continuous in nature(2020)), as will be shown in Section 2. They

(see e.g. ten Hacken (2014), Štekauer (2015)).

particularly focus on relational adjectives (RAs),

Such a ‘continuity’, for example, can bea subtype of denominal adjectives. RAs (inobserved in ‘mixed categories’, which stems

English, e.g. industrial, wooden, algebraic)from category changing such as from action

differ from qualitative adjectives (e.g. beautiful,nominalisations. Consider destroying in (1).

picturesque, nervous) in that they inherit thenominal properties of their base nouns such as(1){The Government’s/Their} systematicallylack of gradability (e.g. *very industrial) anddestroying all the evidence appalled us.

predicability (e.g. *the output is industrial) (see(Spencer and Nikolaeva (2017: 80))

Levi (1978) and Bisetto (2010) for otherproperties). Spencer and Nikolaeva (2017)

The form destroying in (1), like a noun, has areveal that while Uralic and Altaic languages

possessive form specifier The Government’s /have RAs in the realisational forms of their base

Their. Given that derivation is canonicallynoun lexemes like destroying in (1), English has

responsible for category changing, destroying in

RAs as distinct lexemes from their base noun

(1) appears to be a derivative. However, it

lexemes. In this way, RAs are in fact divided

retains the verbal properties and is not quite

into two types: the inflected word-type RAs, asdifferent from the verb destroy; like a verb, it isin Uralic and Altaic languages, and the170derivative-type RAs, as in English.

the syntactic category of a lexeme without

The present study, however, points out informing a new and distinct lexeme (i.e. theSection 3 that the English RAs containing -en

category changing in inflection). They especially(e.g. wooden, woollen, oaken) behave not onlycall

as derivatives for some speakers but also as

transpositions—asinflected words for others, which raises thetransposition—toquestion why there is such dual behaviour. We

transpositional

answer this question in Section 4 by considering

derivation. The term ‘transpositional’ is used

the properties of -en as a Germanic suffix andhere

the diachronic change in English from atranspositions in that the processes related tosynthetic language to an analytic language.

both types of adjectives do not add some new

These factors crucially determine whether an RA

meanings to the relevant base nouns (Spencer

is a derivative-type or an inflected word-type inand Nikolaeva (2017: 84)). For example, theEnglish morphology. Our own analysis leads toexpression industrial output (RA-Noun) is fully

the conclusion that the dual behaviour of RAs

synonymous with industry output (Noun-Noun)with -en reflects the transition of the suffix in its(Levi (1978: 4)). The significant differencefunction

between true transpositions and transpositional

betweenthetwomorphologicaldomains, namely, from inflection to derivation.

thebecauselexemeslies,

denominal

adjectives,

true

the

outputsofdistinguish

them

from

lexemes,
they

not

are

in

the

outputs

similarsemantics,

to

but

of
true

in

morphology; the latter are distinct lexemes from
2. Category Mixing in Denominal Adjectives
2.1. Transpositional

Lexemeandtheir base nouns but the former are not.

True

To judge whether a denominal adjective is aTranspositiontranspositional lexeme or a true transposition,

This subsection introduces the criterion for

Spencer and Nikolaeva rely on some properties

the dichotomy of denominal adjectives inof lexical integrity (see also the Atom Condition

Spencer and Nikolaeva’s studies. One strikingof Williams (1981)), which states that syntactic

difference between derivation and inflection isprocesses and operations do not have directthat derivation, but not inflection, is concerned

access to the internal structure of words. Spencer

with the formation of new words; derivation

and Nikolaeva (2017: 82) focus particularly on

forms a new lexeme from a given existing

the Base Noun Modifiability Property (hereafter,

lexeme and inflection realises a word form of a

BNMP) of given forms. That is, when alexemesyntactic

denominal adjective is a derivative, it contains

environment where the lexeme appears. Spencer

the base noun as its part, which thus cannot be

and Nikolaeva’s studies demonstrate that someaccessed by another modifier (i.e. attributively

denominal adjectives are new lexemes, distinct

opaque). In this case, the derivative is afrom their base nouns (i.e. derivatives) andcompletely different lexeme from its base noun,others are word forms that nominal lexemes takenamely, a transpositional lexeme. On the otherin the syntactic environment of attributive

hand, when the word in question is an inflectedmodification (i.e. inflected forms).

form of the base noun or a true transposition, theappropriate

for

the

Nikolaeva and Spencer (2020) use the term

word remains the same single lexeme and thetransposition to refer to the process that alters

relevant noun is accessible to attributive171

modification (i.e. attributively transparent).
Let

usconsiderthispropertyphrase does not have the meaning in (4a), butinonly has the meaning in (4b). In contrast, (3b)uncontroversial instances of derivatives andwith the base noun of the RA has both readings

inflected words. In trusted friendless, forin (4a) and (4b).

example, trusted cannot modify friend, a part offriendless, and so the expression fails to mean

(3)

‘without trusted friends’ (Spencer and Nikolaeva(2017: 82); hence, friendless is a different(4)lexeme from its base friend. In trusted friends,

a.

high tidal fluctuationsb.

high tide fluctuationsa.

‘fluctuations at high tide’b.

‘high fluctuations in the tide’

however, trusted successfully modifies friend;(Nikolaeva and Spencer (2020: 291))

namely, friends is just an inflected form of thelexeme FRIEND, not a distinct lexeme from

This fact indicates that the RA tidal is a lexeme,

FRIEND.

distinct from its base noun tide.

On this basis, Spencer and Nikolaeva adopt

Similarly, RAs with -en behave in the samethe BNMP as a strong test for identifying

way as those with -al in terms of the BNMP

whether denominal adjectives are transpositional(Spencer (2018)). For example, Brazilian in (5a)lexemes or true transpositions.

cannot modify the base wood of the RA woodenand (5a) does not denote (6a) but only (6b),2.2. Two Types of Denominal Adjectives

whereas (5b) has both interpretations in (6).

Nikolaeva and Spencer (2020) find thedenominal adjectives as true transpositions in(5)

Uralic and Altaic languages based on the factthat they show the BNMP. Let us observe the(6)example in (2) from the Southern Tungusica.

a Brazilian wooden bowb.

a Brazilian wood bowa.

‘a bow made of Brazilian wood’b.

‘a wooden bow made in Brazil’

language, Udihe.
(2)(Spencer (2018: 267))gaŋa

sele-metada

Note that not all denominal adjectives in

hard

iron-RA

arrow

English are transpositional lexemes. Denominal‘an arrow made of hard iron’

adjectives with -ed show the BNMP and are(Nikolaeva and Spencer (2020: 95))

counted as true transpositions. For instance, bluein (7a) can modify the base eye of eyed, yielding

The RA sele-me ‘iron’ can be modified by thethe reading of (8) in the same way as in (7b).

adjective gaŋa ‘hard’ and the whole expression
means ‘an arrow made of hard iron’.

(7)

Unlike the RAs in Udihe, English RAs do
not show the BNMP, which means that they are(8)transpositional lexemes. For instance, let usa.

a blue-eyed boyb.

a blue-eye boy‘a boy who has blue eyes’(Spencer (2018: 266))

consider the case of the RA tidal, which isderived from the noun tide. High in (3a) cannot

Nikolaeva and Spencer (2020: 35), in fact, domodify the base noun tide and the nominal

not clearly state that English -ed adjectives are172instances of true transpositions because of “the‘screens made of carved oak’meagre morphology” of Present-day English,
but the BNMP observed in (7a) persuades us toNote that the judgements by the informants areat least claim that -ed adjectives can behighly consistent; that is, the BNMP of RAs

regarded―rather

with -en here is not concerned with any stylistic

than

as

transpositional

lexemes―as true transpositions.

or rhetorical effects of the relevant expressions

Accordingly, the BNMP test tells us thatin (9)–(11). If a speaker only accepts (5a) in theRAs with -al and -en belong to transpositional

meaning of (6b), (s)he judges the other examples

lexemes, while -ed adjectives are attributed toin the same way; if a speaker answers that (5a)true transpositions.

has the meaning of (6a), (s)he can interpret allother examples in the same way.

3. RAs with -en as True Transpositions?

This result implies that the morphological

Given the discussion so far, -ed seems to be

status of RAs with -en varies amongst speakers;

an exceptional suffix in English. This section,

for those who interpret (5a) only as ‘a wooden

however, points out the possibility that there isbow made in Brazil’, the adjectives areanother similar suffix.

transpositional lexemes, while for those who

Interestingly,

oursurvey

shows

that,

allow the (6a)-interpretation, they are true

depending on the speaker, RAs with -en can alsotranspositions.2 In other words, -en is different

show the BNMP. We find that the expression infrom other suffixes in that it functions as a(5a), for instance, can mean ‘a bow made ofderivational suffix like -al in some speakers, but

Brazilian wood’ in (6a), in which case wooden

like -ed in others. In the next section, weshows the BNMP. Importantly, RAs with -en arepropose a possible analysis of such a peculiarity

more likely to show the BNMP than those withof -en.

-al or -ic, which do not normally show theproperty.1 Similar judgements are confirmed in

4. Analysis

the following additional data, where the notation

4.1. The Origin of the Suffix -en‘ ’ indicates that not all speakers accept the%First, let us consider why RAs with -en, as

given reading:well as -ed adjectives, can behave as truetranspositions. What groups -en with -ed and

(9)

a.
%

b.
(10) a.
%b.

stale oaten loafs

distinguishes the two from -al are their origins;‘loafs made of stale oat’

while -al is a Latinate suffix, -en and -ed

stale oat loafs

originate in Old English (OE). The difference in‘loafs made of stale oat’

the origin between Latinate suffixes andcoarse woollen stockings

Germanic suffixes can be assumed to be‘stockings made of coarse wool’

specified in the Lexicon in the form of thecoarse wool stockings

feature [±Latinate].

‘stockings made of coarse wool’(11) a.
%b.

The effects of the feature distinction ofcarved oaken screens[±Latinate] on morphological processes can be‘screens made of carved oak’observed

caved oak screensnominals are divided into two types based on the

173

in

deverbalnominals.

Deverbal

4.2. The Loss of Inflectional Suffixes andextent to which they retain the verbal propertiesof their base verbs. Compare destroying in (1),the Status of -en

an example of verbal gerunds, and assignment in

The above consideration indicates that -en(12), known as a complex event nominal

can be an inflectional suffix in that it is(Grimshaw (1990)).

involved in an adjectival form of a noun
lexeme required by the syntactic environment(12) The constant assignment of unsolvableofattributive

modification.

Importantly,

Spencer and Nikolaeva’s (2017) observation

problems must be avoided.
(Grimshaw (1990: 50))

suggests that languages having RAs of truetransposition-type are typically agglutinative and

Recall from Section 1 that destroying in (1) isrich in inflectional elements. Given that OE wasstill verbal while it functions as a noun in theansentence and that it is considered as a form of

agglutinative, and both -en and -ed originated in

the lexeme DESTROY. Importantly, these verbal

OE, it is reasonable to assume that they

properties are observed only in gerunds, but not

originally have inflectional roles for nouns andin complex event nominals. As shown in (12),maintain the roles in some Present-day English

they are totally nominalised in that they are

speakers. An indication of the inflectional status

modified by adjectives, and not adverbs, andof -en can be found in south-western dialects ofthey cannot directly take grammatical objects ofBritish English, where “the suffix is of common

the base verbs; namely, they are distinct fromoccurrence, being added without restriction totheir base verbs. Here, focussing on their

all nouns denoting the material of which

suffixes, we recognise that -ment is a suffix withanything is composed, as in glassen, steelen,the [+Latinate] feature and -ing with thetinnen, papern, etc.” (OED, s.v. -en (suffix4)).

[–Latinate] feature (cf. Giegerich (1999)). The

The above assumption enables us to explain

contrast observed in deverbal nominals, together

why RAs with -en do not show the BNMP forsome speakers, especially when we consider

with that found in denominal adjectives,inflection-richlanguage,thoughnotinthe diachronic change in English.
It is a known fact that English has lost its

determining which type of word can be formedrich inflection system over time (i.e. in OE,

by a given suffix. If the suffix has theadjectives agreed with nouns in gender, number,[+Latinate] feature, it yields a lexeme distinct

and case), and it has been relying on word orderfrom the base (e.g. see (3a) for RAs; see (12) forto represent grammatical relations instead. This

deverbal nominals) and in contrast, if the suffixchange may affect the suffixal status of -en.

has the [–Latinate] feature, it yields truetranspositions (e.g. see (7a) for -ed adjectives;

The OED states that “[f]rom 16th century
onwards there has been in literary English asee (1) for verbal gerunds).3

growing tendency to discard these adjectives forindicates that the feature specification of[±Latinate]

plays

an

importantrole

Then, one question arises: although thethe attributive use of the noun, as in ‘a gold

suffix -en belongs to the [–Latinate] class, whywatch’; […]” (cf. a golden watch). This may

does it not exhibit the BNMP for some speakers?

be considered as a part of the diachronicchange of English (i.e. from a synthetic

Let us discuss this in the next subsection.

174

language to an analytic one), where many

discussion so far indicates that the continuity

inflectional elements have been disposed of. If

observed in English RAs with -en can beso, the role of -en has been changing and has

attributed to the two types of -en, which is

begun to acquire the status of a derivational

specified as [–Latinate] (i.e. Germanic): -en as

suffix for nouns. Speakers recognising RAs
with -en solely as transpositional lexemes,

an inflectional suffix and as a derivational suffix.

which do not show the BNMP, have -en as animplication. If -en is originally an inflectional

exclusively derivational suffix for nouns. The
inconsistent behaviour of RAs with -en

suffix, we can safely assume that it may haveamongst speakers reflects the transition of -en

old times than it has in Present-day English. In

from an inflectional element to a derivational

other words, if -en adjectives are just inflected

one.

Lastly, our analysis has an interesting

had a wider semantic range (e.g. polysemy) in

4

forms of the relevant nouns, it is not surprising

One might ask why -en is losing its
inflectional function while -ed is not. We

that they have the potential to denote many

provide a possible answer to this question bynouns. Given this assumption, it can be impliedconsidering the difference in productivity

that its broad sense has been gradually restricted(more precisely, profitability) of the two
suffixes. As explained by Marchand (1969:

to a certain specific meaning such as a quality of264), the suffix -ed “has been productive at all‘made of silk’). If our analysis is correct, thetimes, chiefly with concrete, less often with
abstract substantives”. As for -en, “it is only insuffix’s ‘semantic’ transition also needs to berelations between the nouns and their modifying

material (e.g. wooden ‘made of wood’, silken

studied in future research.

a few cases (e.g. wooden, woollen, earthen,wheaten) that these words [i.e. RAs with -en]

* This study is an extended version of the paper

are still familiarly used in their lit[eral] sense”

presented at the 40th annual meeting of the(OED, s.v. -en (suffix4)). Thus, since -ed ismore productive than -en, it has more chance

Tsukuba English Linguistic Society. We haveof being used with its original function as anwith Masaharu Shimada, Akiko Nagano, Nanainflectional suffix; -en has been limitedly used

Odagiri, and the members of the Lexicon Studyand turned gradually into a derivational one
available for certain nouns.

Circle. We would like to thank two anonymous

greatly benefited from discussions particularly

reviewers of the ELSJ for their comments andsuggestions. Our thanks also go to the

5. Concluding Remarks

informants who have kindly acted. We are solelyThis study shows a kind of continuity

responsible for the contents of this paper. Thisbetween derivation and inflection in English

work is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant

morphology by giving a possible explanation to

Numbers 19J10598 and 19K13218.

the question of why the RAs with -en show dual

NOTES

behaviour in terms of the BNMP. On the basis of1

the discussion by Spencer and Nikolaeva, oursuch as generative grammar, however, show theanalysis can be supported by considering the

BNMP, as in [[generative gramma]-tical]RA

origin of the suffix and its suffixal status. The

studies175

The RAs from some lexicalised expressions‘studiesofgenerativegrammar’(#‘generative studies of grammar’).
2

Marchand, Hans (1969) The Categories andOne may doubt whether RAs with -en are

Types

of

Present-Day

Englishoutputs of transposition, because the process

Word-Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic

does not add some new meanings to the inputs,

Approach,but they actually express ‘made of/consisting of’Verlagsbuchhandlung, Münhen.

C.

H.

Beck’schethe base nouns. It is true that transposition does

Nikolaeva, Irina and Andrew Spencer (2020)

not enrich the semantics of the inputs, but this is

Mixed Categories: The Morphosyntax ofa typical case. Spencer and Nikolaeva (2017: 83)
state that “some transpositions can be associated

Noun
Modification,
Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.

with additional semantic content”. When we

Nishiyama, Kunio and Akiko Nagano (2020)

regard RAs with -en as true transpositions, they

Keitairon to Rekisikon (Morphology andcan fall under ‘meaning-bearing transpositions’.

Lexicon), Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

nominals. What is important here is that -ing can,Spencer, Andrew (2018) “Review Article:
Lexical Structures: Compounding and thebut [+Latinate] suffixes such as -ment never,

Modules of Grammar, by Heinz J.

form gerunds. See Nishiyama and Nagano

Giegerich, Edinburgh University Press,(2020: Ch. 2) for the relevant discussion.

Note that we are not arguing that -en behaves

Edinburgh, 2015,” Word Structure 11(2),
254–276.

inconsistently in a single speaker. The results

Spencer, Andrew and Irina Nikolaeva (2017)

3

4

Note that -ing can also produce complex event“Denominal
Categories,”of our informant survey show that thejudgements of a single speaker are perfectly
consistent, as stated in Section 3.

Adjectives as Mixed
Word Structure 10(1),79–99.
Štekauer, Pavol (2015) “The Delimitation of
Derivation

REFERENCES
Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber, and Ingo PlagandWord-Formation:

An

Inflection,”International(2013) The Oxford Reference Guide to

Handbook of the Languages of Europe

English Morphology, Oxford University

Volume 1, ed. by Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg

Press, Oxford.

Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer,

Bisetto,Antonietta(2010)“Relational

218–235, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin.

Adjectives Crosslinguistically,” Lingue eten Hacken, Pius (2014) “Delineating Derivation
and Inflection,” Oxford Handbook of

Linguaggio 9(1), 65–85.
Giegerich, Heinz J. (1999) Lexical Strata in
English:Morphological

Causes,

Effects,

Cambridge

Phonological

Derivational Morphology, ed. by Rochelle
Lieber and Pavol Štekauer, 10–25.
Williams, Edwin (1981) “On the Notions‘Lexically Related’ and ‘Head of Word’,”

University Press, Cambridge.
Grimshaw, Jane B. (1990) Argument Structure,

Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245–274.

The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Levi, Judith N. (1978) The Syntax and

DICTIONARY

Semantics of Complex Nominals, Academic

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), [online]

Press, New York.

Retrieved from https://www.oed.com/

176

accord with the Strong Minimalist Thesis. The
desiderata restrict what MERGE can do,
maintaining a narrow concept of Merge, i.e.
External Merge (EM) and Internal Merge (IM),
Restricting Accessibility to MERGE

while ruling out extensions of Merge like*- A Deterministic Theory of Movement -Parallel Merge, Late Merge, and Sidewards
Merge. One of the desiderata is the principle ofToru Ishii

Determinacy (1) (Chomsky 2019: 275), though

Meiji University

its exact formulation and consequences are left
untouched:

Keywords ： MERGE, Resource Restriction,
Determinacy(1) The Principle of Determinacy
If the structural conditions for a rule holds
for some workspace, then the structural

1. Introductionchange must be unique.

Chomsky, Gallego, and Otto (2019) discuss
the basic properties of human language, i.e.

Goto and Ishii (2018, 2019, 2020) explicate

discrete infinity and displacement, claiming thatthe principle of Determinacy, proposing that

any

Determinacy

linguistic

computational
hierarchicaltheorymust

assumesystemthat

constructs

structures

with

a

shouldbeformulated

asacondition on the input of MERGE. We havedisplacement.

arguedthat

theinput-based

Determinacy

possible formulation of a structure-building

Impenetrability Condition (PIC) gives us aoperation is a set-formation that takes syntactic

unifiedobjects (SOs) X and Y, and forms {X, Y}, which

phenomena, which have been explained byis called Merge. Chomsky (2019, 2020) anddifferent constraints or principles. This paper

Chomsky, Gallego, and Ott (2019) argue,

focuses on presenting conceptual support for

however,

Goto

exocentricaccount

various

movement

form

constructions

like

the

subject-predicate

movement, thereby showing that our approach isconstruction,

Merge

must

be

desirable

not

only

deterministic

Phase

we

to

Ishii’sthewhenallowed

and

of

with

of

Chomsky (1995) claims that the simplest

thatcoupledprinciple

empiricallytheory
but

of
also

construct SOs in parallel and bring them

theoretically. The organization of this paper is as

together somewhere. This tacitly presupposes

follows. Section 2 overviews Goto and Ishii’sthat there is a workspace (WS). They propose(2018, 2019, 2020) input-based principle ofthat the right and simplest version of Merge

Determinacy and its consequences. Section 3

should be on WS not on SOs, reformulatingpresents conceptual support for our approach.

Merge as MERGE, an operation on WS:

Section 4 makes concluding remarks.

MERGE maps WS = [X, Y] to WS' = [{X, Y}].
Chomsky (2019) gives seven desiderata thatany

computational

operationsfor

2. Goto and Ishii’s (2018, 2019, 2020)

human

principle of Determinacy

language including MERGE should meet in

Goto and Ishii (2018, 2019, 2020) propose

177the input-based principle of Determinacy (2):b.

[CP what [C [TP John [T [vP John[v-R(BUY)(2) Goto and Ishii’s (2018, 2019, 2020)

[RP

what

[R(BUY)what]]]]]]]]

principle of Determinacyc.

Determinacy applies at the input of[vP you [v-R(SAY) [RP what [R(SAY)[CP what [C-that [TP John [ ...

MERGE.

d.

[CP what [C-that [TP you [T [vP you[v-R(SAY)

According to the principle of Determinacy (2), if

[RP

what

[R(SAY)[CP what ...

there is an ambiguous rule application at thepresent stage of a derivation, a Determinacy(3) represents successive cyclic IM of theviolation occurs. Suppose that MERGE takes

wh-phrase what. In (3a), we apply IM to what,

WS1 = [{a, {b, c}}, d] as its input and maps it tomoving what from its base position to the Spec

WS2 = [{c, {a, {b, c}}}, d], which is the case ofof Root (R). In (3b), we apply IM to what again.

IMofWe assume with Chomsky (2015) that v

Determinacy (2) applies at WS1. Since there isbecomes invisible because of pair-Merge with R.

only one copy of c in WS1, we have only one

R inherits phasehood from v; R-complement

option to create WS2, i.e. to move c in the baseundergoes Transfer. Although there are two

position. There is no ambiguous rule application

copies of what, i.e. the one in the Spec of R andat the present stage of the derivation; this does

the other in the base position, the latter, which is

not violate the principle of Determinacy (2).

within R-complement, is not accessible due toSuppose further that MERGE takes WS2 as its

the PIC. There is only one accessible copy of

input and then maps it to WS3 = [{c, {c, {a, {b,what, i.e. the copy in the Spec of R; there is noc}}}}, d], i.e. multiple applications of IM to c.

Determinacy violation. In (3c), we apply IM to

We have two copies of c at WS2, which is thewhat again. Only the copy of what in the Spec of

input of MERGE. We have two options to create

C is accessible and all the other copies of what

WS3, i.e. either to move the higher copy of c orare not accessible due to the PIC; there is no

the lower copy of c. Note that according to

Determinacy violation. Hence, the PIC resolves

general recursion, any syntactic object once

ambiguous rule application problems induced bygenerated in WS is accessible to MERGE. This

multiple applications of IM.

of

c.

The

input-based

principle

ambiguous rule application violates the principle

Goto and Ishii argue that the input-basedof Determinacy (2). We would predict that noprinciple of Determinacy (2) coupled with thesuccessive cyclic IM is ever allowed, which is

PIC gives us a unified account of various

an undesirable result.

movement phenomena like the subject condition,

Goto and Ishii argue that such an ambiguous

no vacuous topicalization, that-trace effects, therule application problem induced by multiple

freezing effects with topics, further raising, noapplications of IM can be resolved by the PIC as

superfluous

illustrated in (3):anti-locality effects, which have been accounted

steps

in

a

derivation,andfor by different constraints or principles. Due to(3) What did you say that John bought t?
a.

limitations of space, I will only look at the[RP what [R(BUY) what]]subject condition and the that-trace effect (see178

Goto and Ishii (2018, 2019, 2020) for morewhen we are to move who to the Spec of C,

consequences of the input-based principle ofthere are two copies of who, i.e. the one is within

Determinacy coupled with the PIC).

the Spec of R and the other within thecomplement of R. The latter, however, is not

2.1. The Subject Condition

accessible due to the PIC after R-complement

The subject condition effect (4a) and its

Transfer; there is no Determinacy violation.

cancellation with an expletive (4b) (Stepanov

The principle of Determinacy (2) together(2007: 92)) follows from the principle ofwith the PIC also accounts for the absence of theDeterminacy (2) coupled with the PIC as

subject condition effect in Japanese as shown inrepresented in (5a) and (5b):(8) (see, among others, Kayne (1984), Lasnik
and Saito (1992), and Ishii (1997, 2011)):(4) a.* Who did [pictures of t] please you?
b. Who is there [pictures of t] on the wall(8) ? Dare-ni [John-ga [[ Mary-ga(5) a. [CP who [C-did [TP [pictures of who] [Tb.

who-Dat John-Nom Mary-Nomt atta]met[vP [pictures of who] [v …

koto]-ga mondai-da to] omotteru] no[CP who [C-is [TP there [T [vP [pictures

fact-Nom problem-is C thinkof who] [v …

Lit. ‘Who, John thinks that [the fact that

Q

Mary met t] is a problem.’In (5a), when we are to move who to the Spec ofC, there are two accessible copies of who, i.e.

In (8), where dare-ni ‘who-Dat’ is scrambled out

the one in the Spec of T and the other in theof the subject phrase. If we assume with, among

Spec of v; this violates Determinacy. In (5b), on

others, Fukui (1986) and Kuroda (1988) thatthe other hand, since the Spec of T is occupied

subjects in Japanese stays in the Spec of v, theby the expletive there, there is only one copy ofderivation of (8) is represented in (9):who, which is within the Spec of v; there is no
Determinacy violation. Unlike extraction out of(9) [CP dare-ni [C [CP T [vP [Mary-ga

a subject, extraction out of an object such as (6)who-Datis allowed:

Mary-Nomdare-niattakoto]-ga [v* [ ...

who-Datmet

fact-Nom(6) Who did you see [a picture of t]?
(7) a. [RP [a picture of who] [R(SEE) [aIn (9), there is only one copy of dare-ni

picture of who]]]‘who-Dat’ within the Spec of v; there is nob. [CP who [C-did [CP you [T [vP you

Determinacy violation.

[v-R(SEE) [RP [a picture of who]
[R(SEE) [a picture of who]]]]]]]]]

2.2. The That-trace Effect
The that-trace effect (10) follows from the

The principle of Determinacy (2) together withprinciple of Determinacy coupled with the PIC

the PIC correctly predicts this subject-object

as represented in (11):asymmetry with respect to extraction. The
derivation of (6) is represented in (7). In (7),(10)*Who do you think that t saw Bill?

179

(11) [CP who [that [TP who [T [vP who [v …

b.

Quelle étudiante crois-tu
which student

qui

believe-you that

In (11), when we are to move who to the Spec oft va partir?

C, there are two accessible copies of who, i.e.

go leavethe one in the Spec of T and the other in the

Lit. ‘Which student do you believe thatSpec of v; this violates Determinacy. If theis going to leave?’complementizer that does not appear, thethat-trace effect is canceled as shown in (12).

As advocated by Rizzi and Shlonsky, if the

We assume with Chomsky (2015) that when thesuffix -i of the complementizer qui in Frenchcomplementizer that does not appear, C is(15b) behaves like the expletive there in English

deleted(14b), the derivations of (14b) and (15b) are

and

vP

undergoesTransfervia

phasehood inheritance from C to T. The

represented in (16) and (17), respectively:

derivation of (12) is represented in (13):(16) [CP what [C-that [TP there [T-is [vP what [v(12) Who do you think t saw Bill?

[ ...

(13) [RP who [R [CP C à Ø [TP who [T [vP who(17) [CP quelle étudiante [C-que [TP i [T [vP[v …

which student

that

quelle étudiante [v [ ...
In (13), when we are to move who from the Spec

which student

of T to the matrix Spec of R, there is only one
accessible copy of who in the Spec of T; there is

In (16), since the Spec of T is occupied by theno Determinacy violation.

expletive there, there is only one copy of what in

Our analysis of the that-trace effect can

the Spec of v; there is no Determinacy violation.

subsume Rizzi and Shlonsky’s (2007) skipping

Likewise, in (17), since the Spec of T is

strategy. When an expletive appears in the Spec

occupied by the suffix -i of the complementizer

of T, the that-trace effect is canceled as shown inqui, there is only one copy of which student in(14) (Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007: 126)):

the Spec of v; there is no Determinacy violation.
The principle of Determinacy (2) coupled(14) a.* What do you think that t is in the box?

with the PIC also accounts for the absence of theb. What do you think that there is t in thethat-trace effect in Italian and Japanese. It isbox?

well-known (see, among others, Rizzi (1990))
that Italian lacks the that-trace effects as shown

In French, if the complementizer is qui insteadin (18) (Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007: 127)):of que, the that-trace effect is canceled (Rizzi
and Shlonsky (2007: 131)):(18) Chi credi [che t vincerà]?
who think(15) a.* Quelle étudiante crois-tu

que

that

win

‘Who do you think that t will win?’which student believe-you thatt va partir?

If we assume with Rizzi (1990) that pro appears

go leavein the Spec of T, the derivation of (18) is180

represented in (19):

3. Conceptual Support for Goto and Ishii’s(2018, 2019, 2020) Approach(19) [CP chi [C-che [TP pro [T [vP chi
what

that

Goto and Ishii’s input-based principle ofwho[v*-R(VINCERÁ) [ ...
winDeterminacy

coupled

with

the

PIC

has

conceptual

advantages

over

the

approachadvocated by Chomsky (2019, 2020) and
Chomsky, Gallego, and Ott (2019). Their notion

In (19), there is only one copy of who in theof Determinacy requires subsequent rules toSpec of v; there is no Determinacy violation.

apply in a deterministic way, which ensures thatAs pointed out by Ishii (2004), there is no

WS should be kept minimal throughout athat-trace effect in Japanese as shown (20),derivation. In other words, they claim that

where the subject null operator OP is moved out

Determinacy applies at the output of MERGE.

of the that-clause (Ishii (2004: 212)):

Under their notion of Determinacy, if MERGE
creates WS that could potentially lead to an(20) [OP [John-ga [t Mary-ni
John-Nomhanasikaketa

ambiguous rule application at a subsequent stage

Mary-Dat talked toof derivation, a Determinacy violation occurs.

to] omotteiru] yorimo] harukani ookuno

Suppose MERGE takes WS1 = [{a, {b, c}}, d]C think

than

far

as its input and maps it to WS2 = [{c, {a, {b,hito-gaSusy-nihanasi tagatte itamorec}}}, d], which is the case of IM of c. According

people-Nom Susy-Dat wanted to talkto their system, Determinacy applies at the‘Far more people wanted to talk with Susy

output of MERGE, i.e. at WS2. In WS2, there

than John thinks that talked to Mary.’

are two copies of c. This induces an ambiguous
rule application for subsequent derivation, sinceGiven that subjects in Japanese stay in the Specif we apply IM to c in subsequent derivation, forof v, the derivation of (20) is represented in (21):example, there is no unique way to apply IM to cdue to its two copies. Hence, their notion of(21) [CP OP [TP [vP OP [RP Mary-ni

Determinacy

Mary-Datapplication

R(HANASIKAKE)] v-R(HANASIKAKE)]
talk to
C-to]

Past

that

of

IM,

always

rule

out

an

which

is

clearlyanundesirable result.

talk to

T-ta]

would

Chomsky (2019, 2020) presents a way out of
thisproblem;suchanambiguous

ruleapplication problem can be resolved by minimal
search, part of Resource Restriction (RR).

In (21), there is only one copy of OP within theChomsky argues that recursion for language isSpec of v; there is no Determinacy violation.

different from general recursion in that theHence, the absence of the that-trace effect informer is subject to RR, which limits resources,

Italian and Japanese follows form the principle

i.e. elements accessible to operations, to beof Determinacy (2) coupled with the PIC.

restricted to a minimum. He claims that RR
includes both minimal search and the PIC. In
WS2 = [{c, {a, {b, c}}}, d], although there are

181

two copies of c, minimal search selects the

Furthermore, the output-based principle ofhigher copy of c. While the higher copy of c is

Determinacy advocated by Chomsky (2019,

accessible, the lower copy of c is not; there

2020) and Chomsky, Gallego, and Ott (2019)

would not be any Determinacy violation.

has a look-ahead property in that we have to

Under Chomsky’s view of RR, however,look at a subsequent stage of a derivation tothere is a redundancy between minimal search

decide whether Determinacy gets violated or not.

and the PIC regarding accessibility. If there are

Such a look-ahead property, which necessarily

two copies of an element in WS, minimal searchincreases computational burden, should bealways makes its higher copy accessible and its

eliminated (see, among others, Chomsky 2000;

lower copy inaccessible. The PIC makes2004). Under our input-based principle ofaccessible the elements in the edge of a phase

Determinacy, on the other hand, if there is anhead and inaccessible the elements within aambiguous rule application at the present stage

Transfer domain, i.e. in the complement of a

of a derivation, a Determinacy violation occurs.

phase head. Since a copy in the edge of a phase

Since we can decide whether Determinacy getsalways appears in a higher position than a copy

violated only based on the information available

in the Transfer domain, minimal search wouldat the present stage of a derivation, ourmake the effects of the PIC vacuous when we

input-based principle of Determinacy does notdecide whether a copy is accessible. As an

have a look-ahead property

illustration, let us consider (22):
4. Conclusion(22) [ X [PH [ ... X ... ]]]This paper has first overviewed Goto and Ishii’s(2018, 2019, 2020) input-based principle ofIn (22), PH is a phase head, and X undergoes IM

Determinacy and some of its consequences. It

from within the complement of the phase head,

wasi.e. the Transfer domain, to the edge of the phasedeterministic theory of movement also receives

head. The PIC makes the lower copy of X,

conceptual support from the fact that it does notwhichdomain,have a look-ahead property or a redundancy

inaccessible. If we also assume minimal search

between minimal search and the PIC regarding

as part of RR, however, this effect of the PIC isaccessibility.

iswithintheTransfer

then

shown

that

Goto

and

Ishii’s

vacuous. This is because minimal search selects
the higher copy of X, which is in the phase edge,* This is an extended and revised version ofand makes the lower copy of X inaccessible.

Goto and Ishii (2018, 2019, 2020). This work is

Since the need to eliminate redundancies has

supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number

been a working hypothesis in the linguistic

19K00692.

inquiry, such a redundancy should be eliminated(Chomsky 1995: 152). Under Goto and Ishii’s
approach, on the other hand, RR only includes

Chomsky,

REFERENCES
Noam (1995) The

Minimalist

the PIC, an independently motivated condition

Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

for Transfer; there does not exist any such

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquires:

redundancy regarding accessibility.

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

182

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

GLOW in Asia XII and SICOGG 21, ed. by

Lasnik,” ed. by Roger Martin, David

Sae-Youn Cho, 91-110, Hankook, Seoul,

Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-115,

Korea.

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Goto, Nobu and Ishii Toru (2020) “The

Chomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatory

Determinacy Theory of Movement,” NELS

Adequacy,” Structures and Beyond: The

50 Volume Two, 29-38.

Cartography of Syntactic Structures Vol. 3,

Ishii, Toru (1997) An Asymmetry in theed. by Adriana Belletti, 104-131, Oxford

Composition of Phrase Structure and its

University Press, Oxford.

Consequences,

Chomsky,Noamprojection:(2015)“Problems

Extensions,”ofDoctoraldissertation,

University of California, Irvine.

Structures,

Ishii, Toru (2004) “The Phase Impenetrability

Strategies and Beyond, ed. by Elisa Di

Condition,

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona

Hypothesis and That-t Effects,” Lingua

Matteini,

114.2, 183-215.

3-16,

John

Benjamins,

Amsterdam.
Chomsky,theVacuous

Movement

Ishii, Toru (2011) “The Subject Condition andNoam(2019)“Some

Puzzling

its Crosslinguistic Variations,” WECOLFoundational

Issues:The

Reading

2011, 407-418.

Program,” Catalan Journal of Linguistics

Kayne, Richard (1984) Connectedness andBinary Branching, Foris, Dordrecht.
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki (1988) “Whether We Agreeor Not: A Comparative Syntax of English
and Japanese,” Papers from the Second
International Workshop on Japanese
Syntax, ed. by William J. Poser, 103-143,
CSLI, Stanford.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1992) Move

Special Issue, 263-285.
Chomsky, Noam (2020) “The UCLA Lectureswith an Introduction by Robert Freidin,”ms., University of Arizona and MIT,
LingBuzz http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/
005485.
Chomsky, Noam, Ángel Gallego, and Dennis
Ott (2019) “Generative Grammar and theα: Conditions on its Application andFaculty of Language: Insights, Questions,andChallenges,

Catalan

JournalOutput, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

of

Fukui, Naoki (1986) A Theory of Category

Rizzi, Luigi (1990) Relativized Minimality, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Rizzi, Luigi and Ur Shlonsky (2007) “Strategies

Projection and its Application, Doctoralof Subject Extraction,” Interfaces +dissertation, MIT.

Recursion

Linguistics Special Issue, 229-261.

Goto, Nobu and Ishii Toru (2018) “SomeConsequences

of

MERGE

Minimalism

and=

Language?
and

the

and

Meiji

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Lingbuzz

https://

ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004108.
ofDeterminacy

from

Hans

MartinGärtner,

115-160,

Stepanov, Arthur (2007) The End of CED?

Goto, Nobu and Toru Ishii (2019) “ThePrinciple

View

Syntax-Semantics, ed. by Uli Sauerland

Determinacy,” ms., Toyo University andUniversity,

Chomsky’s

andMinimalism and Extraction Domains,its

Syntax 10, 80-126.

Implications for MERGE,” Proceedings of183

run verbs can describe), (iii) claims that the
crucial difference between roll verbs and run
verbs is the “complexity” of manner of motion,and (iv) formalizes said generalization within
English Manner-of-Motion Verbs inTransitive Construction

the theory of Generative Lexicon (Pustejovsky*(1995), Pustejovsky and Batiukova (2019)).

Kotaro Maeda

2. Similarities

The University of Tokyo

Previous studies tended to analyze (1) and (3)as instances of the same inchoative/causative

Keywords：lexical semantics, manner/result

alternation, while treating the alternation in (2)roots, complexity of manner, generative lexicon

differently (Levin (1993: 27-31), among others).
Certainly, roll verbs are similar to verbs likebreak in allowing various subjects, but different

1. Introduction

fromEnglish manner-of-motion verbs like roll andrunverbs,

which

imposeanimacy

constraint on the subject.

run, as well as change-of-state verbs like break,appear in both intransitive and transitive(4)

constructions.

a. The man/the stick/the wind rolled theball.
b. The vandals/the rocks/the storm broke(1)a. The ball rolled down the hill.

the windows. (L&RH (1995: 103))

b. Bill rolled the ball down the hill.

c. The general/*the downpour/*the tear(Levin (1993: 265))(2)

gas marched the soldiers to the tent.

a. The mouse ran through the maze.

(L&RH (1995: 112))b. We ran the mouse through the maze.
(LevinandRappaport

Hovav

Roll verbs, however, behave similarly to run(henceforth L&RH) (1995: 111))(3)

verbs in the following two ways.

a. The cup broke.
b. Janet broke the cup. (Levin (1993: 29))2.1. Entailment of Changes and Telicity
First, roll verbs and run verbs entail neither

We classify three types of verbs here: roll verbs

change of state nor change of location, contrary(e.g. bounce, slide), run verbs (e.g. jump, march),to break verbs. This characteristic allows an

and break verbs.

explanation of the difference in telicity between
the two types.1

Comparing these three types of verbs, thisstudy (i) emphasizes the similarity between rollverbs and run verbs, (ii) proposes that transitive(5)

a. Hanako bounced the ball for two

constructions with these three types of verbs

minutes, but it never moved evendescribe two types of events, (“physicallyslightly from the spot.

caused” ones, which three types can describe,b. Taro ran the radio-controlled car forand “mentally caused” ones, which only roll andtwo minutes, but it never moved even184slightly from the spot.

causation interpretation is possible, as in (10b),(6) *Hanako broke the vase, but it was still

where the general merely orders the soldiers tocompletely intact.

roll down the hill. As for run verbs, conversely,(7) Taro broke the vase *for/in two minutes

a mental causation interpretation is dominant, aswith bare hands.

exemplified in (11b). In some contexts, however,a physical causation interpretation is possible, as
22.2. Two Types of Caused Eventsin (11a), where the mother causes her sleeping

Second, transitive constructions of roll verbs

baby to jump on the chair, for example, by

and run verbs can describe “physically caused”

lifting his/her body.

events, defined in (8), and “mentally caused”
ones, defined in (9). Admittedly, run verbs have

3. Complexity of Manner of Motion

a slight difficulty with physically caused events

Although we have found similarities between

because of the “complexity” of manner, as willroll verbs and run verbs so far, there is abe described below. On the other hand, breakdifference in the manner complexity of theverbs generally describe only physically caused

actions they describe. To put it briefly, theevents.

physical action of “running” is more complex
than that of “rolling,” due to which almost all(8) Physically caused events are a type of
causalevent,

in

which

one

physical and solid objects can “roll” while

entity’s

objects that can “run” are very restricted. Such a“physical” action on the other entity causes

complex event is hard for an external causer toa change of state/location of that entity.

bring about physically, which is likely the reason(9) Mentally caused events are a type of causalthat the interpretation of mental causation is

event, in which one animate entity’s

dominant.

“mental” inducement toward the otheranimateentitycausesachangeof

3.1. Scale of the Complexity

state/location of that entity.

As an anonymous reviewer points out, not all(10) a. The father slid his daughter to therun verbs can appear in transitive constructions,other side of the skating rink.

as below (Tenny (1995: 211)).

b. The general rolled the soldiers down
the hill during a rigorous training(12) Laurasession.

*ambled/*bounded/*cavorted/*climbed/*cr(11) a. The mother jumped her sleeping

awled/*dashed/?hastened/*inched/?jogged/

baby on the chair.

*meandered/*plodded/*romped/*scrambledb. The jailer ran a prisoner to the gate.

/*scurried/*shuffled/*staggered/*tramped/*
traveled/*waddled/*zoomed/*boated/*buse

As for roll verbs, a physical causationd/?dogsledded/?skated/?skied/?taxied/*crui

interpretation is dominant. This is exemplified in

sed/*boogied/*bopped/?tapdanced(10a), where the father causes his daughter tofriend to her door.

skate, perhaps by pushing her body or pullingher(13) Laura

her hands. In some contexts, however, a mental

marched/walked/bicycled/boated/canoed/fe185rried/helicoptered/drove/flew/paddled/rowevarious causers as in (4a).

d/danced/waltzed her friend to her door.

As (14) shows, there certainly exists a
difference between roll verbs and run verbs inThis difficulty run verbs in (12) show can

the complexity of manner of motion, which

also be attributed to the complexity of manner ofresults in the difference of selectional restriction

motion. For instance, walk can appear inon subject and of dominant interpretation.

transitive constructions as in (13) while plod

Nevertheless, in some contexts, run verbs cancannot, as in (12). This contrast arises from thedescribe physically caused events like (5b) andmanners encoded in them. The manner encoded(10a) although run verbs are not homogenous asin plod (e.g. “walk doggedly and slowly within (12) and (13). The difference of theheavy steps” (OED)) is more complex than thatcomplexity, therefore, should not be treated as ain walk (e.g. “move at a regular pace by lifting

categorical one but as a matter of degree. Thisand setting down each foot in turn, never havingline of explanation will be compatible withboth feet off the ground at once” (OED)). In

certainother words, the manner of plod is a subtype ofdecompose verb meaning, as will be seen.

lexicalsemantic

theorieswhich

3that of walk. The same argument applies toother verbs such as run and scurry.4 Thus, we

3.2. Manner Roots vs. Result-State Roots

assume a scale of (simplicity or) complexity of

In some current studies of “argument

manner as below.

realization” (L&RH (2005)), it is assumed that averb meaning can be separated into an(14) Scale of Complexity of Manner5

idiosyncratic part called “root” and a structural√ROLL < √WALK, √RUN < √PLOD, √SCURRY

part called “event structure.”6, 7 Roots have

←simpleencyclopedic

complex→contents(Harley

and

Noyer

(1999)) and fall into some ontological categories
The simpler the manner encoded in a verb is,(e.g. manner, instrument, container, internallythe more easily the verb can appear in transitive

causedconstructions; the more complex the encoded

Rappaportmanner is, the more difficult the verb is to use

RH&L) (2010), √agentive, √internally caused,transitively. That is, the complexity of manner√externally caused, √cause unspecified inaffects the strictness of selectional restriction on

Alexiadou et al. (2006, 2015)).8 Event structure

subject in transitive constructions. A highlyis “typically taken to encode the skeletal

complex manner of motion (e.g. √PLOD) cannot

structure of linguistically significant event

be induced by an external causer. It can betypes” (Rappaport Hovav (2017: 79)) and isrealized by only the internal causer of the action

directly related to argument realization. Roots,(e.g. plodder), so verbs like plod cannot appear

however, are indirectly related to it byin transitive constructions. A complex manner ofdetermining which event structure a certain root

motion (e.g. √WALK, √RUN) can be induced bycan be integrated into. Below, RH&L (2010: 24,

some restricted causers as in (2) and (11) but not

cf. RH&L (1998)) show the patterns of the

by inanimate causers as in (4c). A simple mannerintegration.

of motion (e.g. √ROLL) can be induced by186

state,

externally

Hovav

and

caused
Levin

state

in

(henceforth,(15) a. manner → [x ACT<MANNER>]

3.3. Formalization within Generative Lexicon(e.g. jog, run, creak, whistle, . . .)Instead of employing event structure (orb. instrument → [x ACT <INSTRUMENT>]

syntactic structure), we employ the framework(e.g. brush, hammer, saw, shovel, . . .)ofc. container → [x CAUSE [y BECOME

Generative

Lexicon(henceforth,

GL)(Pustejovsky (1995) Pustejovsky and Batiukova(2019)) for technical reasons (Maeda (2018)).10

AT <CONTAINER>](e.g. bag, box, cage, crate, garage,

Below are the stipulative descriptions of verb

pocket, . . .)semantics of the three types (cf. Pustejovsky

d. internally caused state → [x <STATE>](1995: 186)).

(e.g. bloom, blossom, decay, flower, rot,rust, sprout, . . .)(16) Roll Verbs
λyλxλe1λe2∃P∃√MANNER-complex

e. externally caused, i.e., result state →
[[x

ACT]

CAUSE

[y

BECOMEAGENTIVE = [√MANNER

break,dry,[α:(e1, x, y)] ∧FORMAL = [P(e2, y)] ∧ e1 <∝ e2]<RESULT-STATE>]](e.g.

-complex

harden,melt,(17) Run Verbs
λyλxλe1λe2∃P∃√MANNER+complex

open, . . .)[α:

AGENTIVE = [√MANNER+complex(e1, x, y)] ∧FORMAL = [P(e2, y)] ∧ e1 <∝ e2]“Roots are intergrated into event schemas asarguments [(e.g. (15c-e)] or modifiers [(e.g.

(18) Break Verbs(15a-b)] of predicates in the event schemas.

λyλxλe1λe2∃√RESULT∃R [α: AGENTIVE =Roots are italicized and in angle brackets […]”

[R(e1, x, y)] ∧ FORMAL = [√RESULT(e2, y)](RH&L (2010: 24)). As such, the integration∧ e1 <∝ e2]

depends on what ontological category a root
belongs to. Once the integration completes, theBy and large, AGENTIVE and FORMAL roles

information of the argument configuration in thecorrespond with [x ACT] and [y BECOME

event structure will be mapped to syntax. As a

<RESULT-STATE>] respectively.11 √MANNER is

result, a sentence will be generated.

a predicate in the AGENTIVE role, while √RESULT

Our proposal is that given the similarities

is in the FORMAL role. The semantics of rollbetween roll verbs and run verbs, √ROLL andverbs and run verbs are identical except for their√RUN fall under the category “manner,” but even

expedient index (i.e. -complex, +complex) of

within the same category, their encyclopedic√MANNER. It is not exactly a binary feature butcontents, especially, complexity of manner ofrather a gradient property based on the scale ofmotion are different. Such a difference affects

manner complexity, i.e., (14). Also, in (16) andtheir integrations, which results in the patterns(17), both √MANNER-complex and √MANNER+complex

seen in (4), (12) and (13). As with RH&L (2010),

can take an argument “x” as well as y, while in

we assume that √BREAK falls under the category(19), √MANNER++complex (e.g. √PLOD, √SCURRY)“result state.” In this respect, roll verbs andcannot, because of its high complexity.

break verbs diverge, while roll verbs and run(19) λyλxλe1λe2∃P∃√MANNER++complex

verbs form the same category.9

AGENTIVE

187[α:= [√MANNER++complex(e1, y)] ∧FORMAL = [P(e2, y)] ∧ e1 <∝ e2]

constructions. The similarity between roll verbs
and break verbs is a superficial one. In the caseAsaconsequence,possessof roll verbs, various causers are allowed(e.g. √PLOD, √SCURRY) cannot

because their √MANNER is not complex. In theappear in transitive constructions. Thus, thecase of break verbs, those are allowed because

manner complexity determines whether anno √MANNER is specified in the first place.

√MANNER++complex

verbs

which

external causer (i.e. x) can be introduced into e1

There are some issues to be contemplated inor not. This is defined as (20).

future research. First, the semantic descriptionsin (16)-(18) do not reflect the difference in(20) Introduction of External Causer

entailment of changes between roll/run verbs

For any complexity of a manner which isand break verbs.12 Also, other verbs in Tennyeither -complex or +complex,(1995)’s list such as vehicle verbs (e.g. bus,

√MANNER-/+complex

(e1,

y)

→

canoe, helicopter, taxi etc.) are still unexplained.

√MANNER-/+complex(e1, x, y)Perhaps, dance verbs can be accounted for by
the manner complexity (though the difference(20) predicts that in transitive constructions of

between waltz and boogie may not be). Lastly, inroll/run verbs an internal causer referred to by

this paper the concept of complexity is defined

the object noun always embodies a manner ofin the way of “is_a relation” (e.g. plod is amotion specified by √MANNER. In fact, such a

subtype of walk but not vice versa). It should be

prediction seems to be borne out. Every internal

defined more precisely.

causer in the examples given so far embodies themanner of motion specified by the root, whether* This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI

its caused event is physically caused one or

Grant Number JP20J12446.

mentally caused one. As for external causers (i.e.

NOTES
The test for the entailment of change ofsubjects), they are not an inherent argument of

1√MANNER but one introduced by (20), so it is not

location in (5) is based on the advice fromobligatory that an external causer embody aJoseph Tabolt.

manner of motion specified by the root (e.g. “the2father” in (10a) possibly does the action of

between these caused events and direct/indirect

skating but “the mother” in (11a) possibly does

causation. Nevertheless, I stipulate that both

not the action of jumping).

types of events can be regarded as direct

In this paper, we will not discuss the relation

causation if ‘enabling condition’ (Wolff (2003))
4. Summaryor ‘feasibility’ (Maeda (2020)) is taken into

The complexity of manner of motion isconsideration.

different between roll verbs and run verbs,

3

which I claim results in the difference of their

may be amble, bounce, cruise, meander, shuffle,

selectional restriction on subject and of theirstagger, tramp, and waddle.

dominant

4interpretations.

Nevertheless,we

Other verbs in (12) which are subtypes of walk

Other verbs in (12) which are subtypes of runconclude that as a whole, roll verbs and run

may be dash, hasten.

verbs behave in the same way in transitive

5

188

The reason why we use “√” will be explained

in the following section.

and6

Instead of event structure, structural meanings

Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A

are

Layering Approach, Oxford University

sometime

called“lexicalconceptual

structure (LCS)” or “event schema.”
7

Florian

Schäfer

Ausensi, Josep (2019) “Rethinking (In)direct

the idea of the separation of verb meaning is also

Causation:Twofound in construction grammar (e.g. Goldberg

Causative

Verbs,”(1995))<lingbuzz/004881>

syntactic

approaches,i.e.,constructionist (e.g. Marantz (2013)).
8

External

Press, Oxford.

In addition to L&RH’s projectionist approach,and(2015)

classesofms,LexicalLingBuzz.

Beaver, John and Andrew Koontz-Garboden

Some issues concerning √internally caused are(2012) “Manner and Result in the Roots ofdiscussed in Alexiadou (2014).

Verbal Meaning,” Linguistic Inquiry 43,

9331-369.

This categorization is also compatible with the“manner/result

complementarity(MRC)”

Beaver, John and Andrew Koontz-Garboden

hypothesis (e.g. Beaver and Koontz-Garboden(2020) The Roots of Verbal Meaning,(2012, 2020), Levin (1999), L&RH (1991a,

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

1991b, 1995, 2013, 2014), Rappaport Hovav

Goldberg,

Adel(1995) Constructions:A

Grammarto(2008, 2017), Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1998,

Construction2010) etc.).

Argument Structure, University of Chicago

10

Press, Chicago.

Maeda (2018) criticizes Kageyama (2000)’s

analysis of English manner-of-motion verbs inHarley,

Heidi

and

Rolf

Noyer

(1999)Morphology,”Glottransitive constructions.

“Distributed

11International 4, 3-9.

GL assumes “qualia structure” for lexical

Approachmeaning of noun and verb. The structure

Kageyama, Taro (2000) “Zitakoutai no Imiteki

consists of four qualia: FORMAL, AGENTIVE,

Mekanizumu (Semantic Mechanism in

TELIC, and CONSTITUTIVE.

Inchoative/Causative Alternation,” Nitieigo

12no

It can be assumed that a result state (i.e.

Zitakoutai(Inchoative/Causativechange of state or change of location) is entailed

Alternations in Japanese and English) ed.

in break verbs but only implicated in roll/run

by Tadao Maruta and Kazuyoshi Suga,verbs (cf. Ausensi (2019), Martin (2018)).

33-70, Hituji Shobo, Tokyo.
Levin, Beth (1993) English Verb Classes and

REFERENCES
Alexiadou, Artemis (2014) “The Problem with

Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation,

Internally Caused Change-of-State Verbs,”

Levin, Beth (1999) “Objecthood: An Event

The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Linguistics 52, 879-909.

Structure Perspective,” Proceedings of CLS

Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou,

35, 223-247.

and Florian Schäfer (2006) “The Properties
ofAnticausatives

PhraseofLevin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav

Crosslinguistically,”

Interpretation,ed.

(1991a) “The Lexical Semantics of Verb of

Mara

Motion:The

PerspectivefromFrascarelli, 187-211, De Gruyter, Berlin.

Unaccusativity,” Thematic Structure: Its

Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou,

Role in Grammar, ed. by Iggy Rocca,

189247-269, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

The Lexicon, Cambridge University Press,

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav

Cambridge.

(1991b) “Wiping the Slate Clean: A Lexical
Semantic

Exploration,”

Cognition

Rappaport Hovav, Malka (2008) “Lexicalized

41,

123-151.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (1995)
Unaccusativity:

At

the

Meaning

andtheStructureof

Event,”

Syntax-Lexical

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (2005)

Hovav,“GrammaticallyCambridge

Categories

University Press, Cambridge.

Malka
Relevant

Underlie(2017)
OntologicalManner/Result

Complementarity,” MIT Working Papers in

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (2013)

Linguistics 86, 77-98.

“Lexicalized Meaning and Manner/Result
StudiesandJohn Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Rappaport

Complementarity,”

Theoreticalof Aspect, ed. by Susan Rothstein, 13-42,

MA.
Realization,

TemporalCrosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantic

Semantics Interface, MIT Press, Cambridge,

Argument

InternalinRappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin (1998)

the“Building Verb Meanings,” The Projection

Composition and Decomposition of Eventof Arguments: Lexical and Compositional

Predicates, ed. by Boban Arsenijević, Berit

Factors, ed. by Miriam Butt and Wilhelm

Gehrke, and Rafael Marín, 49-70, Springer,

Geuder,Dordrecht.

California.

Maeda, Kotaro (2018) “Eigo Idou Dousi no
GoitekiSiekika

Causativization

of

ni

tuite

MotionCSLI

Publications,Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin (2010)(LexicalVerbs

97-134,“Reflections

inComplementarity,”on

Manner/Result
LexicalSemantics,

English),” paper presented at Morphology

Syntax, and Event Structure, ed. by Malka

and Lexicon Forum, Tsukuba University,

Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron, and Ivy

Ibaraki.

Sichel, 21-38. Oxford University Press,

Maeda, Kotaro (2020) “Sieki Setuzi -(S)ase no

Oxford.

Imikinou (The Semantic Function of a
Causative

Suffix“-(S)ase”),”

Tenny, Carol (1995) “Modularity in Thematic

paperversus Aspectual Licensing: Path andpresented at the 161st Meeting of theMoved

Linguistic Society of Japan, Online.

Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue

Marantz,

Alec(2013)“VerbalArgument

Objects

inMotion

Verbs,”

Canadienne de Linguistique, 40, 201-234.

Structure: Events and Participants,” Lingua

Wolff, Phillip (2003) “Direct Causation in the130, 152-168.

Linguistic Coding and Individuation ofMartin, Fabienne (2018) “Time in Probabilistic

Causal Events,” Cognition, 88, 1-48.

Causation: Direct vs, Indirect Uses of
Lexical Causative Verbs,” Proceedings of

DICTIONARY

Sinn und Bedeutung 22, 107-124.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Oxford

Pustejovsky, James (1995) The Generative

University Press, Oxford.

Lexicon, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Pustejovsky, James and Olaga Batiukova (2019)190

2. Previous Analysis
Interestingly, Nominative objects show adifferent behavior from Accusative objects withrespect to scope. Tada (1992) and Koizumi
Nominative Objects and Scope in Japanese*(1994) attribute it to differences in Case
marking.

Nozomi Moritake
Kyushu University(2) a.

John-ga

migime-dake-oJohn-Nom right.eye-only-Acc
Keywords：Japanese, Kumamoto Japanese,tumur-e-ru.

Focus, Case, Scope

close-can-Pres(Tada (1992: 94))

‘John can close only his right eye.’(i) can > only (ii) ?*only> can
1. Introductionb.

The aim of this paper is twofold: (i) we will

John-ga

migime-dake-ga

John-Nom right.eye-only-Nom

clarify the derivation of Nominative objects intumur-e-ru.

Japanese,close-can-Pres

and

(ii)

attempt

to

solve

the

long-standing problem regarding the scope(ibid.)(i) *can > only (ii) only > canphenomenon.

(3) a.

Kuno (1973) points out that in Japanese, theJohn-ga

migime-dake-oJohn-Nom right.eye-only-Acc

object of transitive verbs can be marked withtumur-e-na-i.

Nominative Case -ga instead of Accusative Case

close-can-Neg-Pres-o when the stative suffix is attached to the‘John cannot close only his right eye.’transitive verb as in (1).

(i) Neg > can > onlyb.

(1) a.

John-ga

migite-oage-rare

John-ga(Koizumi (1994: 221))

migime-dake-ga

John-Nom right.eye-only-Nom

John-Nom right.hand-Acc raise-cantumur-e-na-i.

(Koizumi (1994: 222))-ru.

close-can-Neg-Pres-Pres(i) only > Neg > can‘John can raise his right hand.’b.

John-ga

migite-ga

age-rare

Following Takezawa’s (1987) claim that

John-Nom right.hand-Nom raise-can

Nominative Case is associated with T, Koizumi-ru.

(1994) proposes that the Nominative object-Presmoves to Spec TP and is licensed by T via
spec-head agreement. Spec TP is higher thanIn (1b), the stative suffix -rare ‘can’ is attached

NegP and VP containing the stative suffix, andto the verb age ‘raise.’ Hence, the object can bethus Nominative objects can take scope overmarked with Nominative Case. In the next

those two constituents (cf. Tada (1992)). Thissection, we will review the previous analysis.

derivation is illustrated succinctly in (4)(irrelevant points are omitted here):

191

(4)

[CP [TP Subji Objj-Nom [NegP [VP ti tj V]

researchers

argue

that

Japaneselacks

Neg] T] C]

phi-features (e.g. Kuroda (1988), Saito (2016),
among others). Thus, we must assume that Case

3. Problems with Koizumi (1994)

assignment

The data in (5) suggest that the Case drivenisindependentofphi-featureagreement.

movement analysis of Nominative objects is

Miyagawa (2011) proposes that phase heads

insufficient.

in Japanese have Case-feature, though they lackphi-features. It follows that C and v bear valued(5) a.

Zikan-ga na-katta-ga, John-wa

Nominative

time-Nom not-Past-but, John-Top

respectively. T inherits the former and V theisoidelatter. We adopt Miyagawa’s (2011) claim.

oba-no-ie-ni

kao-o

and

Accusative

Case-features,

hurriedly aunt-Gen-house-to face-Acc

Furthermore, we assume with Bošković (2007)-das-e-ta.

and Saito (2016) that Case valuation takes place-visit-can-Past

in a spec-head relation as in (6) (the head

‘While he does not have much time,

directionality is irrelevant here):John can visit aunt’s house in a hurry.’b.

Zikan-ga na-katta-ga, John-wa(6) a.

time-Nom not-Past-but, John-Top
isoideoba-no-ie-ni[CP C [TP XPi [u-Case] [T’ T [Nom] [vP ti…]]]] → [u-Case] receives [Nom]kao-gab.

hurriedly aunt-Gen-house-to face-Nom[vP v [VP XPi [u-Case] [V’ V [Acc] ti]]]→ [u-Case] receives [Acc]-das-e-ta.
4.2. The Structure of vP
In (5), the adverb isoide ‘hurriedly’ modifies the

Miyagawa (1989) argues that the stative

verb, so that it is adjoined to vP. Oba-no-ie-ni ‘tosuffix -rare ‘can’ can absorb Accusative Caseaunt’s house’ is an argument related to location.

from the transitive verb (cf. Takahashi (2010)

Following Murasugi (1991) and Yatsushiro

and Ura (1999)). We try to clarify this(1999), we consider that such an argument ismechanism.

situated in VP. Given these points, it can beproposal for pair-merge, we claim that v can besafely argued that the object kao ‘face’ in (5b)pair-merged with the stative suffix -rare ‘can,’can receive Nominative Case without movement

which is illustrated in (7). In this case, theto Spec TP, contradicting Koizumi’s (1994)

category of the derived head becomes V since aanalysis. However, if Nominative objects canpair-merged element is on a separate plane, andstay in VP, a problem arises: how can wethus is invisible in narrow syntax.

Based

on

Chomsky’s(2004)

establish the scope discrepancy in (2) and (3)?
(7)
4. Proposal

V ((-rar)e)v [Acc]V ((-rar)e)4.1. Case Assignment in JapaneseChomsky (2000, 2001, 2008) proposes that

It follows from (7) that Accusative Case-feature

in English, Case assignment takes place as aon v is invisible. We assume here that this is areflex of phi-feature agreement. However, many

Case absorption mechanism.

192

However, the object must obtain Case tosalvages the object. The derivation of (9b)satisfy the Case Filter (Chomsky (1981)). We

suggests that Nominative objects can remainthus adopt Aoyagi’s (2006) proposal thatwithin VP. This discussion leads us to the1

Nominative Case is assigned by default.

conclusion that Nominative objects need not
move out of VP contra Tada (1992) and Koizumi(8) In Japanese, DP is marked as Nominative(1994).

Case by default only when it cannot receive
any structural Case.

5. Scope
Now, we face the difficulty in establishingConsidering all the discussions above, thethe scope discrepancy in (2) and (3). In our

structures of (1a, b) are illustrated as (9a) andproposal, Nominative objects can stay in VP.

(9b), respectively.

Therefore, we wrongly predict that Nominative
objects is in scope of the stative suffix and(9) a.

John-ga migite-o age-rare-ru.

negation contrary to the facts in (2) and (3).

CP
TP

C

Johni-gaT’

Note that in (2) and (3), an inherently

VPru

focused constituent dake ‘only’ is attached to

V (-(rar)e)

objects. This means that objects receive a focus

v’interpretation in these cases.

vP
ti
VP

v [Acc]migitej-oMiyagawa (2010) proposes that the phaseV’head C in Japanese bears topic/focus-featurestjb.

5.1. Miyagawa (2010, 2013)age

instead of phi-features. He claims that it isJohn-ga migite-ga age-rare-ru.

topic/focus-features that are inherited by T in

CP

Japanese.

TP
Johni-ga

C
ru

VP
tj

focus-feature. The following diagrams showV’

Miyagawa’s (2010, 2013) proposal.
V(-(rar)e)V’v [Acc] V(-(rar)e)(10) a.

topic-feature

CP

age

In (9a), v is not attached to the stative suffix. In
case,

v

successfully

or

C’
(𝛼P)2

this

(2013)and claims that the phase head v bears the

VP

migitej-ga

Miyagawa

extends Miyagawa’s (2010) mechanism to vP

T’ti

Furthermore,transmits(YPj [topic] [focus])

the

(𝛼’)

TP

Case-feature to V and Case valuation takes place

XPi [topic] [focus]

in VP. In (9b), on the other hand, v is

vPpair-merged with the stative suffix. Therefore,ti

the Case-feature on v cannot be inherited by V.
The default Nominative Case assignment then193

focus-feature

C
(𝛼)
T’

(tj)

T

b.

vP

Subj

case that T is responsible for non-defaultv’VP
XPi [focus]v

Nominative Case assignment because T retains

focus-feature

its ability for Case assignment. The derivation isV’tithen illustrated in (12).
V(12) [CP [TP Johni-ga migime-dakej-ga [VP ti [VP tj

We adopt this mechanism to explain the facts in[V’ tj age]] [rare-v]] ru] C](2) and (3).
In (12), the focused Nominative object moves to
5.2. Analysis

Spec TP where it satisfies focus via agreement

First, we will tackle the scope difference inwith T involving the focus-feature inherited(2). In (2a), the focused Accusative object takes

from C. This analysis captures the scope

scope under the potential suffix -rare ‘can.’ Wediscrepancy in (2).

propose that the phase head v in (2a) can pass
not

only

the

Case-feature

but

also

The above analysis also explains thethedifference in (3). The derivation of (3a) and (3b)focus-feature to V in this case. The object canare illustrated in (13a) and (13b), respectively.

thus satisfy focus as well as Case at Spec VP.

Here, the same explanation of (2) holds true ofThis derivation is as follows:(3). What we assume here is that NegP is locatedbetween TP and vP (cf. Pollock (1989)).

(11) [CP [TP Johni-ga [VP [vP ti [VP migime-dakej-o[V’ tj age]] v] rare] ru] C](13) a.

[CP [TP Johni-ga [NegP [VP [vP ti [VPmigime-dakej-o [V’ tj age]] v] rare] na](11) shows that the focused Accusative object isi] C]

located at Spec VP where it is lower than theb.

potential suffix. The derivation of (11) can thus

[CP [TP Johni-ga migime-dakej-ga [NegP[VP ti [VP tj [V’ tj age]] [rare-v]] na] i] C].

capture the fact that the relevant object is in
scope of the potential suffix in (2a).

5.3. Kumamoto Japanese

As for (2b), the focused Nominative object

This proposal is supported by empirical datatakes scope over the potential suffix. Recall thatfrom Kumamoto Japanese (=KJ, which isin (2b), the phase head v is pair-merged with the

spoken in southwestern Kyushu in Japan). Kato

potential suffix. Hence, neither the Case-feature(2005, 2007) show that Nominative Case isnor the focus-feature on v can be transmitted toexpressed not only by -ga but also -no in KJ,

V. This means that focus cannot be satisfied inwhich is illustrated in (14).

VP. Note that T can inherit the focus-featurefrom C as proposed by Miyagawa (2010). Hence,(14) a.

John-wa nihongo-ga

dekur-u. (KJ)

we propose that if the Nominative object isJohn-Top Japanese-Nom can-Pres

focused, it must move to Spec TP to meet focus.

‘John is capable of Japanese.’

Spec TP is higher than the potential suffix, andb.

thus the focused Nominative object takes scopeJohn-wa nihongo-no

dekur-u. (KJ)

John-Top Japanese-Nom can-Presover it in (2b). Furthermore, we assume in this194

According to Kato (2007), a subject with ga-

can-Pres

Nominative Case is outside vP, while a subject‘John is capable only Japanese.’with no-Nominative Case is within vP. Buildingb. * John-wa nihongo-dake-no

on Kato (2007), we further assume here that theJohn-Top Japanese-only-Nom

ga-marked object in (14a) is outside vP, whereas

dekur-u. (KJ)

the no-marked object is within vP. Then, why

can-Pres

are

there

two

different

realizationsofNominative Case in KJ?

The KJ data corroborates our argument. In 4.1

Let us consider the KJ data in (15).

and 4.2, we have observed that in Standard
Japanese, if Nominative objects are outside VP,(15) Kozutumi-dake/sae-ga/*no todoi
parcel-only/even-Nom-ta(bai). (KJ)

they receive structural Nominative Case and aarrivefocus interpretation, whereas if they are within(Nishioka (2019: 32))

VP, they receive default Nominative Case and-Past (final particle)

show the anti-focus effect. The KJ data in (14)‘Only/Even a parcel has arrived.

and (16) also show the same phenomenon. In
short, we can draw the diagram below. In (17),(15) shows that elements with focus particles

SJ stands for Standard Japanese.

such as -dake ‘only’ or -sae ‘even’ cannot be
accompanied by no-Nominative Case, while(17)

such focus particles are compatible with

Outside vP

Inside vP

ga-Nominative Case. Nishioka (2019) deduces(subject / object)(subject / object)

this

fact

from

the

assumption

that

no-Nominative Case has an anti-focus property.

SJ

Based on this discussion, Nishioka (2019) also
argues that ga-marked subjects in Spec TP
receives a focus interpretation. This argument
derives

from

the

KJ

discourse-configurational

ga-Nom(Focused)ga-Nom(Focused)ga-Nom(default)(Non-Focused)
no-Nom(default)(Non-Focused)3

property of Japanese. Nishioka (2019) discusses
only subjects, but we will show that this line ofWhat is important here is that when Nominative

research can be extended to objects. As we have

objects are realized, the phase head v isalready seen, Nominative objects in KJ are

pair-merged with the stative suffix, which

expressed in two ways: one is ga-Nominative

prohibits the Accusative Case-feature andCase, and the other no-Nominative Case.

focus-feature from being transmitted to V from v

Interestingly, ga-marked Nominative objects canin Standard Japanese and KJ. This mechanism

be focused as in (16a), but no-marked

crucially correlates with the dichotomy ofNominative objects cannot as in (16b).

Nominative Case realization in KJ, which is notsuperficially obvious in Standard Japanese, but(16) a.

John-wa nihongo-dake-ga

this distinction underlies in both Standard

John-Top Japanese-only-Nom

Japanese and KJ.

dekur-u. (KJ)195

6. Conclusion

in Japanese, topic or focus must be activated due

In this paper, we examined the long-standing

toalanguageparticularproperty:

problem of Nominative objects in Japanese. We

discourse-configurationality (Kiss (1995)). His

shed new light on it adopting Miyagawa (2010,

original claim is as follows:2013).

Japanese(i) Topic/focus must always be activated incorroborates our proposal with respect to thematrix clauses, while only focus can becorrelation between Nominative Case marking

done so in subordinate clauses in Japanese.

and the focus interpretation. This new analysis(Nishioka (2019: 30))canMoreover,solve

lingering

Kumamoto

problems

regarding

Nominative objects.

REFERENCES
Aoyagi, Hiroshi (2006) Nihongo no Josi to* This paper is based on the 13th meeting of The

Kinohantyu(Particles

andFunctional

English Linguistic Society of Japan International

Categories in Japanese), Hitsuji Syobo,

Spring Forum (the earlier version of this paper

Tokyo.

has already been presented at the 72 meeting of

Bošković, Željko (2007) “On the Locality and

The English Literary Society of Japan Kyushu

Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even

Branch held at the Prefectural University ofMore Minimal Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry

Kumamoto (October 27, 2019). I revised it to a38, 589-644.

ndChomsky,large extent and submitted the revised version toNoam(1981)

Lectureson

the Spring Forum mentioned above.) I am

Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

greatly indebted to Nobuaki Nishioka for

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

providing me with invaluable comments. I am

The framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

also truly thankful to Edmundo Luna for

Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard

suggesting stylistic improvements. Needless to

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David

say, all remaining errors are my own.

Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155,

1

Note

that

NOTES
Aoyagi (2006)

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
arguesthat

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”

Nominative Case is only assigned by default in

A Life in Language, ed. by Michael

his approach. However, we assume here that

Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press, Cambridge,

Nominative Case can be structurally assignedMA.

via spec-head agreement with T. Default

Chomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatory

Nominative Case assignment then takes place if

Adequacy,” The Cartography of Syntactic

and only if no structural Case is assigned as in

Structures. Vol. 3, Structures and Beyond,(8) (for a detailed discussion of default Case, see

ed. by Adriana Belletti, 104-131, Oxford

Schütze (2001)).

University Press, Oxford.

2

Chomsky,

According to Miyagawa (2010), 𝛼P isNoam(2008)“On

Phases,”optionally projected and the head 𝛼 receives

Foundational issues in linguistic theory, ed.

topic/focus-features from C when necessary. For

by Robert Freiden, Carlos Otero, and Mariaa detailed discussion, see Miyagawa (2010).

Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT Press,

3

Cambridge, MA.

Nishioka (2019) argues that in the root clause196

Kato, Sachiko (2005) “Kumamoto Hogen ni

25-55.

okeru ‘Ga’ to ‘No’ no Tukaiwake ni Kansite

Pollock, Jean-Yves (1989) “Verb Movement,(On the Distinction between ‘Ga’ and ‘No’

Universal Grammar, and the Structure ofinIP,” Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365-424.

Kumamoto

Dialect),”

Gengogaku

Ronshu 9, 25-36, Tohoku University.

Saito, Mamoru (2016) “(A) Case for Labeling:

Kato, Sachiko (2007) “Scrambling and the EPPLabeling in Languages without Phi-Feature

in Japanese: From the Viewpoint of theAgreement,” The Linguistic Review 33,

Kumamoto Dialect of Japanese,” MIT

129-175.

Working Papers in Linguistics 55, 113-124.
Kiss,

KatelinÉ.

(1995)

Schütze, Carson (2001) “On the Nature of“Discourse

Default Case,” Syntax 4, 205-238.

Configurational Languages,” Introduction,

Tada, Hiroaki (1992) “Nominative Objects in

ed. by Katelin É. Kiss, 3-27, Oxford

Japanese,” Journal of Japanese Linguistics

University Press, Oxford.

14, 91-108.

Koizumi,Masatoshi(1994)“Nominative

Takahashi, Masahiko (2010) “Case, Phases, andObjects: The Role of TP in Japanese,” MIT

Nominative/Accusative

Working Papers in Linguistics 24, 211-230.

Japanese,”

Kuno, Susumu (1973) The Structure of the

of

East

in

Asian

Linguistics 19, 319-355.

Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Miyagawa,

JournalConversion

Takezawa, Koichi (1987) A Configurational
Approach to Case-Marking in Japanese,

Shigeru(1989)

StructureandDoctoralCase-Marking in Japanese, Academic Press,
San Diego, Calif.

dissertation,

UniversityofWashington.
Ura, Hiroyuki (1999) “Checking Theory and

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2010) Why Agree? Why

Dative Subject Constructions in JapaneseMove?: Unifying Agreement-Based andand Korean,” Journal of East Asian

Discourse-Configurational

Languages 8, 223-254.

Languages,

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Yatsushiro, Kazuko (1999) Case Licensing andMiyagawa, Shigeru (2011) “Genitive Subjects in

VP

Altaic and Specification of Phase,” Lingua
Miyagawa, Shigeru (2013) “Strong Uniformity
Ga/No

Conversion,”

EnglishLinguistics 30, 1-24.
Murasugi, Keiko (1991) “Locative/Temporal vs.
Manner/Reason Phrases,” Kinjo Gakuin
Ronshu, Studies in English Literature andLanguage 33, 153-170, Kinjo Gakuin
University.
Nishioka,

Nobuaki“Discourse-configurationality(2019)
andDoctoralUniversity of Connecticut.

121, 1265-1282.
andStructure,

the

Scope of Negation,” Nanzan Linguistics 14,

197

dissertation,

2.1. Asymmetries in Subject Extraposition
Previous

studieshaveobservedthatasymmetries in subject extraposition are in somerespects attested. First, the extraposition from
Extraposition as Late-Merger or Agreement

the definite host NP is not allowed, as is seen in(1) (cf. Huck and Na (1990:52)).

Naoki Nakamura
University of Tsukuba(1) a.

A guy just came in that I met at
Treno’s yesterday.

Kazuyoshi Ishikawa
University of Tsukuba[indefinite]b.?? The guy just came in that I met at
Treno’s yesterday.

Shohei Nagata[definite]

University of Tsukuba
Second, Johnson (1985:109, 111) observes
Keywords: Extraposition, QR, Late-merger,

that the extraposition from the subject NP is

A-bar movement, Scattered Deletion

possible only in the case of unaccusative
predicates as in (2a); unergative predicates do
not allow for subject extraposition, as in (2b):1. Introduction
In this paper, we are particularly concerned(2) a.

with the adjunct extraposition from the subject

Men appeared from Tanzania. [unacc.]

b.* A man whispered from Niue. [unerg.]

in English. It has been argued that theavailability of that extraposition is restricted in

In summary, asymmetries are observed indefiniteness and types of predicate; it has also

the following respects: (i) indefinite vs. definite,

been observed that such restrictions can beand (ii) unaccusatives vs. unergatives.

overridden by contrastive foci. In this paper, we
propose two distinct derivations for such

2.2. Rescue by Contrastive Focus

restricted cases as well as for cases with foci.

We observed above that the formedness of

The organization of this paper is as follows:

the extraposition is associated with a property

Section 2 observes general linguistic facts on

imposed either on the extraposed element, theextraposition from subject NPs. Section 3

host NP, or the predicate. Notably, the relevant

introduces Fox and Nissenbaum’s (F&N) (1999)

context, more precisely a contrastive focus,

QR-and-late-merger analysis for the adjunct–rescues such degraded examples (small capitals

complement asymmetry of object extraposition.

indicate a focus). (cf. Huck and Na (1990:61))

Based on this analysis, we propose two(3) The guy just came in that I met at TRENO’S

derivations for the case of the subject in Section
4. Section 5 offers a principled account foryesterday.

unaccusative–unergative asymmetry. Section 6(cf. (1b))(4) a.* The book came out by Obama.

summarizes the paper with a conclusion.

b.

The book came out by OBAMA (, notby TRUMP).

2. General Observations

198

In (3) and (4b), the extraposed elements containb.?/*Which pictures of Johni does hei like?

the contrastive focus elements, which arecontrasted with a material in each context.

Notably, F&N (1999:8–9) observe that theWe also observe that the degraded extra-

adjunct–complement

position from unergative subjects improves in its

asymmetry

is

also

observed in rightward movement.

acceptability (cf. Johnson (1985:109) for (5)):(8) a.

Johni’s collection.

(5) a.* A man jumped with a green parachute.
b.

I gave himi a picture yesterday fromFirst, a man with a GREEN parachuteb.* I gave himi a picture yesterday ofJohni’s mother.

jumped, and then a man jumped with a
BROWN parachute.

(6) a.* A student ran in the schoolyard withb.

Extraposition of the adjunct in (8a) does notblue hair.

exhibit the condition C violation: the boundA student ran in the schoolyard withreading of him as John is allowed. By contrast,

BLUE hair (, not with BROWN hair).

extraposition of the complement in (8b) does
exhibit this violation. To capture this fact, F&N

Hence, in addition to the constraints provided in(1999) propose that extraposition of an adjunct2.1, we have exemplified that degraded cases

is not derived by its movement operation. Morethat are due to the violation of such constraints

precisely, it is derived via Quantifier Raisingcome to be acceptable when an extraposed(QR) of the host NP and late-merger of theelement contains a contrastive focus element.

adjunct that modifies it, which is illustrated in

Syntacticallyfocus-rescue(9) (shading indicates QR). In this connection,

strategy indicates that the extraposition from thelate-merger is originally proposed by Lebeaux

subject may undergo two distinct processes: onefor the asymmetry in the leftward movement, asobeys the constraints; the other is associatedin (7); F&N invokes it for the case involved.

speaking,

thiswith foci. The next section introduces F&N(1999) approach to the adjunct–complement(9) a.

asymmetry attested in the object extraposition.

[TP Wei [T [VP ti [V’ saw a painting
yesterday] a painting]].

b.
3. Adjunct–Complement Asymmetry and LM[QR][TP Wei [T [VP ti [V’ saw a painting
yesterday] a painting by John]]. [LM]Lebeaux (1988) first argued that thegenerative process of a complement is distinct

Traditionally, QR has been regarded as a covert

from that of an adjunct. In particular, the former

operationislatterimplemented in LF rather than syntax (i.e.,counter-cyclically. This is attested by the

T-model of the grammatical architecture). F&N

presence/absence of reconstruction effects in(1999), on the other hand, assume that every

wh-movement (cf. Lebeaux (1988:102) for (7)):

permutational operation, either overt or covert,

derivedcyclically

and

the

(May

(1977)),

and

thus

is

is implemented in syntax, and the c/overt(7) a.

Which pictures that Johni took does hei

distinction is originated in the chain pronunci-

like?

ation (single output model (Bobaljik (2002)));199

namely, the pronunciation of the head of a chain

complement of the verb appear adjoins to the vP

results in “overt” while that of the tail leads to(covert movement (QR)); (ii) the adjunct with“covert.” This model potentially allows covert

green eyes late-merges to the QR-ed element;

movement(iii) the base-generated unaccusative subject

to

feed

the

subsequent

overt

movement––a crucial assumption for F&N’s

undergoes A-movement to Spec, TP.

analysis (originally coined as “overt” QR).

This derivation can structurally account forthe observation by Huck and Na (1990); namely,

4. Proposal and Analysis

extraposition from the definite subject is ruledThis section argues how F&N’s (1999)

out by virtue of the condition of Scope Economy,

proposal on the extraposition from the object can

advocated by Fox (1999). Scope Economy states

be extended to the case of the subject whichthatdoes not require a contrastive focus. Our

semantically vacuous [; namely, QR] does notproposal is as follows: the subject extraposition

apply when it has no effect on semantics” (Foxwithout a focus undergoes QR of a host NP to(1999:3)).

the edge of vP and the subsequent late-merger ofquantificational, and thus do not normally affectits extraposed element; meanwhile, those thatthe scope relation, this leads to the ban on QR torequire a focus involve parallel movement of athehost NP along with an adjunct to be extraposed

analysis, thus, naturally captures the fact that theboth to the Spec, TP and to the TP-internal

extraposition from the definite NP is normally

Focus projection (e.g., Jayaseelan (2002),

prohibited. By contrast, we will observe later

Overfelt (2015)), and the scattered deletion for(Section 4.2.1) that this case of extraposition

pronunciational reasons (Nunes (2004)).

may undergo another derivation associated with“scope-shifting

BecausedefiniteNP.

operations

definiteThe

cannot

NPs

are

be

not

QR-and-late-mergera focus because it does not involve QR.
4.1. Subject Extraposition Without a Focus
4.1.1. Unaccusative and Indefinite Subjects
Letusconsideradjunct

Let us observe some pieces of evidence,extraposition from the unaccusative subject ispresented by F&N, for QR-and-late-merger

derived.

Unaccusative

analysis of adjunct extraposition from the object.

Hypothesis (Perlmutter (1978)), subjects ofFirst, the adjunct extraposition of the object

According

to

how
the

the

4.1.3. Evidence for QR-and-LM Analysis

unaccusative verbs are base-generated as thecan obviate the condition C (cf. F&N (1999:8):

complement of a verb ― a position also(11) a.??/*I gave himi a picture [from Johni’s

designated for an object. Observe the following
illustration ((10a) is from Guéron (1980:637)):

collection] yesterday.
b.

(10) a.
b.

I gave himi a picture yesterday [fromJohni’s collection].

A man appeared with green eyes.
[TP A mani [T [vP [v’ appeared <a mani>]a mani with green eyes]]].

The canonical sentence in (11a) resists thereading in which the R-expression John is boundThe derivation of the adjunct extraposition fromby the pronoun him. On the other hand, thethe unaccusative proceeds as follows: (i) the

extraposed sentence in (11b) is licit even though200the R-expression follows the pronoun linearly. If

having evidence PGi [that what you

the condition functions in terms of thetold me is right]i.

hierarchical,

c-command

relationship,[Complement]

thisb.* I presented an argument ti before

illuminates the fact that the extraposed element

having evidence PGi [that you told mein (11b) does not exist in the c-command domain

about]i.

[Adjunct]of the pronoun even as a silent copy. Therefore,
F&N (1999) regard the rescue of the violation of

It is well known that the parasitic gap takes

condition C in (11b) as an indication thatplace only when its associate undergoes A-bar

late-merger

themovement. The parasitic gap is appropriately

extraposition of an adjunct instead of movement.

licensed in (13a), in which the complement of

In our proposal, if late-merger takes place

the host nominal is extraposed. In contrast, thisin the extraposed adjunct from the unaccusative

is not the case when the extraposed element is an

subject, the same result should be observed here.

adjunct. According to F&N, this asymmetry is

As we predict, the condition C obviation is also

taken to be evidence that the extraposed

attested (cf. Reeve (2011:155) for (12)):complement undergoes A-bar movement and the

takes

place

in

deriving

extraposed(12) a.?? It seemed to heri that a man had arrived

does

not;

or,

more

particularly, it involves late-merger.

that Maryi know from school.
b.

adjunct

In the same vein, we show that the same

A man seemed to heri to have arrived

holds in the case of a subject:that Maryi knew from school.
(14) a.?? A booki came out ti yesterday without
The R-expression Mary in the extraposed

revising PGi [by Obama]i.

relative clause is bound in (12a). Although it isb.

possible to assume that QR and late-merger take

A booki came out ti yesterday without
revising iti [by Obama]i.

place in (12a), the condition C violation mustoccur even with this assumption, because in thisThis further indicates that the unaccusative typecase, the attachment site of the late-merger is in

is derived in the same way as the type of objects.

the embedded clause, which is c-commanded by
the pronoun. On the other hand, if the host NP a

4.2. Subject Extraposition with a Focus

man undergoes A movement to Spec, TP of the

4.2.1. Definite NPs

matrix clause, the condition C effect is obviatedWe have suggested that the QR-and-latein (12b). This is because the late-merger takes

merger analysis is only relevant to the case ofplace in the matrix TP-domain, which is outside

indefinite NPs due to Scope Economy. The caseof the c-command domain of her. These dataof the definite NP in (3) and (4b), on the other

lend

the

hand, should undergo another type of derivation.

unaccusative case involves QR and late-merger.

We propose that this derivation involves parallel

Next, F&N (1999:10) observe that parasitic

movement both to Spec, TP and to TP-internal

credence

toour

proposalthatgaps are banned in the adjunct extraposition.

FocP, as assumed by Jayaseelan (2002), Overfelt(2015), and among others. The derivation for(13) a.

I presented an argument ti before(4b) is illustrated as follows:201

Hence, sentence (17a), which is acceptable(15) a.

The book came out by OBAMA.(= (4b))

without a focus, is ambiguous in scope.

b.

[TP The book by Obama [T’ PAST [FocP

Meanwhile, an unergative extraposition (cf.

[vP [v’ came out <the book by(17b)) necessarily shows the higher scope of the

Obama>]] the book by Obama[FOC]]]].

extraposed element. This gap suggests that thederivation for an unergative extraposition is

The point is that, unlike the derivation for the

distinct from those with an unaccusative.

indefinite NP, the element to be extraposed (i.e.,
by Obama) is generated along with the subject.

(17) a.

A man appeared with every talent.
(unaccusative, ∃>∀, ∀>∃)The subject DP as a whole moves to Spec, TP
and, at the same time, to the TP-internal FocP tob.

A man jumped with EVERY TALENT.
(unergative, ∃>∀, *∀>∃)

check a focus feature. Then, scattered deletion
takes place: the subject is pronounced at Spec,(cf.* A man jumped with every talent.)

TP and the element to be extraposed is at the
FocP. Hence comes extraposition of the adjunct.

The other, the more striking evidence is
attested in parasitic gaps. On the basis of the ban

4.2.2. Unergative Subjects
We

have

also

observed

on parasitic gaps in (18), we have argued that the
that

the

extraposition of the indefinite subject involves

extraposition from unergative subjects must

QR of the host and late-merger of the extraposed

involve a contrastive focus (cf. (5b) and (6b)).

adjunct. Those associated with a focus, we

The relevant derivation is similar to the definite

propose, involve A-bar movement of a subject

case, the only difference being that thealong with the associated adjunct, which leads

unergative subject underlyingly occupies Spec,

us to predict that this extraposition licenses

vP. The derivation of (6b) is illustrated below:

parasitic gaps. This prediction is borne out:(16) [TP A student with blue hair [T’ PAST [FocP [vP(18) a.

The booki came out ti yesterday[vP <a student with blue hair[FOC]> [v’ v [VP

without revising PGi [by OBAMA]i.

ran]]] in the schoolyard] a student with blueb.?? The booki came out ti yesterday

hair[FOC]]]](cf. (6b))

without revising iti [by OBAMA]i.

In Section 5, it will be addressed why unergative

Notably, the PF operation, scattered deletion, is

subjects cannot undergo the derivational process

also supported: because the verb revisingthat unaccusatives can.

requires a nominal complement, the corresponding parasitic gap should be nominal, too. Given

4.2.3. Evidence for Scattered Deletionthat a parasitic gap pertains to a phrase A-bar

Two pieces of evidence come from scopal

moved, it is thus implied that what is A-bar

facts and parasitic gap licensing. First, it is

moved to FocP is the nominal phrase the bookobserved that the scopal ambiguity is always

by Obama rather than observable part of it (i.e.,

attested between a host NP and its extraposed

by Obama). At PF, scattered deletion takes placeelement (i.e., Williams’ (1974) generalization).

perhaps because of the pronunciation; since202

Spec, TP must be phonologically filled with theDutch and German. Based on his insight,

subject in English, the pronunciation of Spec,

Miyagawa (2011) claims that the optionality of

FocP necessarily targets the rest of the subject.

QR and scrambling is constrained by an Edge

In summary, we propose that the subject

Feature (EF) on a phase head (v and C) as well

extraposition involves two derivational sources:as Scope Economy. Regarding scrambling in

one in line with F&N’s (1999) QR-and-late-

Korean and Japanese, Ko (2013) proposes thatmerger analysis; the other with focus movement

the lack of subject scrambling (e.g., Saitoof the subject as a whole and scattered deletion.

(1985)) (and other quantifier-floating facts thatare not captured by Saito as well) is explained in

5.

A

Note:

Unaccusative–Unergative

terms of the EF-based approach to scrambling.

Asymmetry and QR as Covert ScramblingMore precisely, because the unergative subject isFinally, we address the question of why an

outside of the c-command domain of a v head,unergative subject may not involve QR. In the

an EF on v cannot allow the subject to scramble

case of definite NP, we claim that the prohibition

to the edge of vP. Although space limits prevent

is naturally accounted for in terms of Scopeus

Economy (Fox (1999)). However, if the

hypothesize that QR is a covert counterpart ofextraposition without a focus involves QR, it

scrambling, and moreover, we speculate thatremains unclear why the unergative subject does

Ko’s principled account of the unavailability of

not undergo QR (cf. (5) and (6)). Given the factsubject scrambling is accommodated to thethat the extraposition from the unaccusative

predicate asymmetry of the extraposition.

fromdiscussing

Ko’s

arguments,

we

subject is allowed without a focus, as in (2a), it

If QR is triggered by Agree with an EF of ais indicated that the unaccusative–unergativev and attaches to the (outer) Spec, vP, on a par

asymmetry is tied to the underlying position ofwith scrambling (Ko (2013)), it is entailed thatthe subject (Johnson (1985)). In particular, thewhile the unaccusative subject or the object may

unaccusative subject occupies the complement

involve QR while the unergative subject may notof V while the unergative subject is base-since the latter is the outside of v’s c-command

generated in Spec, vP. One may consider that thedomain. The schemata are illustrated as follows:

asymmetry is ascribed to the timing of spell-out
stemming from the strong/weak distinction of(19) a.

phasehood. However, an explanation would be[TP A mani [T’ T[EPP] [vP a man [v[EF] [VParrived <a man>]]]]]

ad hoc unless it includes why such a distinction[unacc.]b.* [TP A mani [T’ T[EPP] [vP a man [vP <ais relevant. In line with this reasoning, we wouldman> [v[EF] [VP jumped]]]]]][unerg.]like to address the question from another respect.
In fact, this issue would bring to light the

Unlike the unaccusatives as in (19a), thesymmetry between QR and scrambling.

unergative subject a man is base-generated in

A discussion has been raised about whatthe (inner) Spec, vP, the position that the v head

derives the optionality of movement (e.g.,cannot c-command, as in (19b). Thus, QR of theJohnson (2000)). Regarding QR, Johnson (2000)

unergative subject is ruled out in principle as far

proposes that the operation is similar to what is

as the EF-based approach to QR is concerned.

called scrambling found in languages such as

Although we need to develop a parallelism

203between scrambling and QR in more detail, the51–77.
Jayaseelan, Karthik (2002) “IP-internal Topic

possibility is worth exploring in future research.

and Focus Phrases,” Studia Linguistica
6. Conclusion
We

have

55(1), 39–75.
observed

that

the

adjunct

Johnson, Kyle (1985) A Case for Movement,

extraposition from the subject is constrained in

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

some respects and that the degraded cases

Johnson, Kyle (2000) “How far will quantifiers

improve if contrastive foci are assigned to thego?,” Step by Step, ed. by R. Martin, D.

extraposed element. We have proposed two

Michaels and J. Uriagereka, 187–210, MITtypes of derivational process for the subject

Press, Cambridge, MA.

extraposition: (i) QR-and-late-merger process,

Ko,

Heejeong(2014)

Edges

insyntax:originally advocated by F&N (1999), and (ii)

Scrambling and cyclic linearization, Oxford

scattered deletion (e.g., Nunes (2004)). These

University Press, Oxford.

two sources are evidenced by binding andLebeaux, David (1988) Language Acquisition

parasitic gap facts. Finally, we have discussed

and the Form of the Grammar, Doctoral

unaccusative–unergative asymmetry originallydissertation, University of Massachusetts,

noticed by Johnson (1985), which could, we

GLSA, Amherst.

suggest, shed light on the issue regarding thesymmetryoftwooptionalMay,movements:

Robert(1977)

The

Grammarof

Quantification, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (2011) “Optionality,” Thescrambling and QR.

Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism,
REFERENCES
Bobaljik, Jonathan (2002) “A-chains at theed. by C. Boeckx, 354–376, Oxford Press,‘Covert’

Nunes, Jairo (2004) Linearization of Chains andPF-interface:

CopiesandMovement,”

NaturalLanguage

Oxford.

andSideward

Linguistic Theory 20(2), 197–267.

Movement,

MIT

Press,

Cambridge, MA.

Fox, Danny (1999) Economy and Semantic

Overfelt, Jason (2015) “Unbounded successive-

Interpretation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

cyclic rightward movement,” Lingua 162,

Fox, Danny and Jonathan Nissenbaum (1999)

1–31.

“Extraposition and scope: a case for overt

Perlmutter, David (1978) “Impersonal Passives

QR”, Proceedings of the 18th West CoastandConference on Formal Linguistics, ed. S.

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of theBird, A. Carnie, J. D. Haugen & P.

Berkeley Linguistics Society 38.

theUnaccusative

Hypothesis,”

Reeve, Matthew (2011) “The Syntactic Structure

Norquest, 132–144. Somerville, Cascadilla
Press, MA.

of English Clefts,” Lingua 121, 142–171.

Guéron, Jacqueline (1980) “On the syntax andSaito, Mamoru (1985) Some Asymmetries insemantics of PP extraposition,” Linguistic

Japanese and their Theoretical Implications,

Inquirly 11: 637–678.

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Huck, Geoffrey James and Younghee Na (1990)

Williams, Edwin (1974) Rule Ordering in Syntax,“Extraposition and focus,” Language 66,

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

204

2. Preliminary Assumptions
Before proposing an alternative analysis, letme introduce some preliminary assumptions.
*

Deducing Transfer Domain from LabelingFirst, I assume with Chomsky (2013, 2015) thata label of a syntactic object (SO) is determined

Takanori Nakashima

by a fixed algorithm, Labeling Algorithm (LA).

Tohoku University

LA is an instantiation of Minimal Search (MS)to detect relevant heads, which works in the

Keywords：Transfer, Labeling, Minimal Search,following ways: Given SO = {H, XP}, where H

transparency of non-finite clauses, the boundis a head and XP is a phrase, MS selects H as its

pronoun effects

label. When an SO is {XP, YP}, LA cannot
uniquely locate a head that provides a label, butthere are two ways to determine a label of the

1. Introduction

XP-YP structure.

One case is when XP is

One of the most fundamental questions in

moved out of the XP-YP structure. In this case,generative syntax concerns the nature of thethe lower copy of XP becomes “invisible” to LA,

mechanism that gets the hierarchical structures

providing the label YP. Another case is whenaccessedlanguage-external

X and Y, heads of XP and YP, are “identical” incomponents, the systems of meaning and sounds.

the sense that they involve identical agreement

In minimalism, this question is addressed by thefeatures F.

phaseseq.).

providing <F, F>, a pair of features shared

According to this, syntactic structures are

between X and Y, as its label. Otherwise, anaccessed by external systems in a cyclic manner:

SO cannot bear a label, thereby violating Fullonce a unit called phase (CP or v*P) is

Interpretation at the interfaces.

totheorythetwo(Chomsky(2000)

etconstructed, a phase-head-complement (PHC,
TP

or

VP)

is

transferred

toThen, LA finds heads X and Y,

If we take the Inclusiveness Condition

the(Chomsky (1995) et seq.) strictly, labeling must

Conceptual-Intentional (CI) interface and thebe simultaneous with Transfer.

If Labeling

Articulatory-Perceptual (AP) interface (or, in the

tookInclusivenesslatest term, externalization). Once transferred,

Condition would be violated since it introduces

the domain is rendered inaccessible to any

projection, an object extraneous to syntax. On

furtherthe other hand, if Labeling took place after

syntactic

operations

(the

Phase

Impenetrability Condition (PIC)).

place

beforeTransfer,

Transfer, Labeling could not feed interpretation

However, the question remains unanswered

at CI interface and externalization. Therefore,

why the PHC, not the phase itself, undergoes

Labeling must be carried out as a part ofTransfer. Furthermore, it was left unanswered

Transfer.

why PHCs are accessed by external systems in a

Second, I assume with Kitahara (2017) andcyclic way. This article attempts to solve these

Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely (EKS) (2018), that

long-standing puzzles about the domain andAgree (Chomsky (2000) et seq.) is eliminabletiming of Transfer.

from narrow-syntax. They claim that Agree is

205

a

composite

operation

consisting

of

(i)

F-CI and the one involving valued F+CI to provide

probe-goal search and (ii) feature-valuation,

the label <F, F>. In other words, (1) states that

reducing that the former to (MS) for Labelingonce an unvalued -CI feature enters into the(simultaneous search for relevant heads into an

configuration where the “top-down” MS may

XP-YP structure carried out in a “top-down”

pair it with its counterpart, Transfer applies tofashion), and the latter to feature-assignment at

the SO properly containing these features,the morpho-phonological component. Suppose,

eliminating F-CI at the CI interface and assigningfor example, we have an SO = {{n[vφ], RP},values to F-CI at externalization. Consider (2).

{T[uφ], v*P}}, which is created by free Internal
Merge of an nP into Spec-T.

Then, the(2) a.

{T[uPhi], v*P}

“top-down” MS for Labeling simultaneouslyb.

{{n[vPhi], RP}, {T[uPhi], v*P}}

finds n and T involving valued and unvalued Phi.

c.

{C, {{n[vPhi], RP}, {T[uPhi], v*P}}}At the morpho-phonological component, featureassignment takes place between these two heads

The SO in (2a) is not qualified for Transfer

as a reflex of Labeling: uPhi on T gets valued,

under (1) since uPhi on T is not eliminable:

based on the relation between n and T

Within this domain, MS does not find out theestablished via MS.

head involving the +CI features to be paired

Third, I assume that syntactic features arewith uPhi on T. The SO in (2b) is qualified for

divided into two types; +CI features that play

Transfer, since the “top-down” MS may

some role at the CI interface, and -CI features

simultaneously locate X with valued +CIthat play no role there (cf. EKS (2010)). Given

features, on the one hand, and Y with -CI

this definition, uPhi and uCase (unvalued Casefeatures, on the other, within this domain.

features) are classified as -CI, since they play no

is not qualified for Transfer, although uPhi on T

role in semantic interpretation.

In contrast,

is eliminable in this domain. This is because

unvalued wh-features on wh-phrases are +CI,(2c) is not a minimal SO: (2c) is larger than (2b).

since they determine the interpretation ofThus, (2b) is uniquely identified as TD.

wh-phrases

asrelative,interrogative,

or

(2c)

A question immediately arises why theexclamative (Chomsky (2015: 13, fn. 16)).

transferred SO must be minimal. I suggest thata principle of minimal computation in (3), a

3. Deducing the Domain of Transfer

third factor condition in the sense that Chomsky

With these assumptions in place, this article(2005), dictates that the path of MS to locate

proposes to characterize the Transfer Domain

eliminable -CI features must be minimized as far(TD) as in (1).

as possible.

(1) TD is the minimal SO containing eliminable(3) Minimize the path of MS within TD.

-CI features.
Let us define the path of MS as the sets
Let us define eliminability of -CI features as

dominating a relevant head. For example, infollows: -CI features F-CI are eliminable iff MS(2b), the number of sets dominating T is two: {T,for LA may locate the head involving unvaluedvP} and {{n, RP}, {T, v*P}}, whereas in (2c),206the number of sets dominating T is three, {T,other,

vP}, {{n, RP}, {T, v*P}}, and {C, {{n, RP}, {T,Crucially, γ does not qualify for Transfer since itvP}}}. Suppose also that the “top-down” MS

is not the smallest SO containing eliminable F-CI:

is carried out in a step-by-step fashion: namely,

Locating R requires more steps of MS within γ

it firstly locates the largest SO (= TD), andthensubsequently looks for a member of the set, acharacterize TD in the v*P area with themember of a member of the set, and so on (thisprinciple in (1).

procedure terminates when it locates a head
involving F-CI).

toprovidewithin

β.

the

label

Thus,

we

<Phi,

Phi>.

successfully

Let us next consider how the derivation

Then, the principle in (3)proceeds in the CP area. The derivation of an

selects (2b) over (2c), since the path (= theembedded CP = [γ C [β EA [α T [tEA [v …]]]]] (=number of steps of the “top-down” MS) is(I think) that John met Mary), is shown in (5).

minimized in (2b).
Let us consider how the system works.

(5) a.

Consider the derivation of v*P = [γ v* [β IA [α Rb.

{EA[vPhi], {T, v*P}} (= β)tIA]]] (= (John) met Mary) in (4).

c.

{C[uPhi], {EA[vPhi], {T, v*P}}} (= γ)d.

{C, {EA[vPhi], {T[uPhi], v*P}}}e.

{C, {EA[vPhi], {T[uPhi], v*P}}}(4) a.

{R, IA[vPhi]} (= α){T, v*P} (= α)b.

{IA[vPhi], {R, tIA}} (= β)c.

{v*[uPhi], {IA[vPhi], {R, tIA}}} (= γ)Firstly, EM of T forms the set α. Secondly, thed.

{v*, {IA[vPhi], {R[uPhi], tIA}}}EA in Spec-v* undergoes IM to Spec-T, forminge.

{v*, {IA[vPhi], {R[uPhi], tIA}}}β. At this point, nothing is transferred since the
SO contains no -CI features. Thirdly, C withFirstly, External Merge (EM) of the verbal root

uPhi externally merges, forming γ. Here, theis firstly applied to the internal argument (IA)minimal SO containing -CI features is C, but itwith valued phi-features (vPhi), forming the set

is not eliminable.

α. At this point, nothing is transferred since theTransfer at this point. Fourthly, the uPhi on C

SO contains no eliminable F-CI. Secondly, IAgets inherited by T.

undergoes Internal Merge (IM) to Spec-R,

containing -CI features is T, but uPhi is notforming the set β. Again, nothing qualifies foreliminable within this domain. The next larger

Transfer. Thirdly, v* involving uPhi externally

SO is α, but uPhi is not eliminable within α,

merges, forming γ. Here, the uPhi on v* is noteither.

eliminable, and nothing undergoes Transfer.

qualifies for TD, since within β, MS for

Fourthly, uPhi on v* gets inherited by R. Then,

Labeling may simultaneously locate T with uPhi,

the minimal SO containing F-CI is R, but uPhi ison the one hand, and the head of EA, n withnot eliminable within this domain.

The next

vPhi, on the other, to provide the label <Phi,larger SO is α, but uPhi is not eliminable withinPhi>. Thus, we successfully characterize TD inα, either. The next larger SO is then β. Here,the embedded CP area as well as the v*P area.

Then, nothing undergoes
The minimal SO

The next larger SO is then β.

ββ qualifies for TD, since within β, MS may

One may wonder how to Transfer the root

simultaneously locate R with uPhi, on the one

CP = [γ C [β EA[vPhi] [α T[uPhi] [tEA [v* …]]]]].

hand, and the head of IA, n with vPhi, on the

Notice that if we transferred β, C would be left

207

in the narrow syntax, thereby yielding nointerpretation at CI and externalization.

This article suggests that although Transfer

For

is applicable at any point of derivation,

this reason, transferring β is excluded from thesuccessive-cyclicity is ensured by Determinacy

options to converge the derivation. Then, theput forth by Chomsky (2019).

next larger domain γ is nominated as the domain
within which the path of MS is minimized.

(8) Determinacy

Thus, transferring γ converges the derivation, as

If the structural conditions for a rule are met,well as minimizing the path of MS as far as

the structural change has to take place in a

possible.

fixed and determinate manner.

4. Deducing the Timing of Transfer

Determinacy dictates that derivation must

Let us turn to the question of what

proceed in a deterministic way. In other words,

determines the timing of Transfer. So far, wea structure cannot include more than one

have simply stipulated that Transfer takes placeelement to which a syntactic rule may be applied.

just after a phase head (C or v*) is introduced

Althoughandcondition on Merge, suppose that Transfer is

uPhi

is

inherited.

However,

this

Determinacyisproposedasaincorrectly excludes derivation from (4a) toalso subject to Determinacy.

(4b): β is transferred just after v* is introduced,

correctly rule out the derivation in (7): In (7a),prohibiting the wh-phrase from moving on.

there are two -CI-features, uPhi on T and uPhi
on R.

(6) a.
b.

Then, weGiven (1), the minimal domain[γ v* [β WH [α R[uφ] …]]]

containing them, namely β and ζ, must undergo[δ WH [γ v* [β tWH [α R[uφ] …]]]]

Transfer. However, this leads to Determinacy
violation, because it includes two candidates ofSo, suppose that Transfer may take place at any

Transfer, β and ζ. Accordingly, Transfer of β

point of derivation. Then, β may be transferred

must be applied before the next higher locus ofafter wh-movement. However, this assumption

uPhi, namely C, is introduced.

cannot account for successive-cyclicity of

The Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC)

movement. In (7), for example, the wh-phrase

in the sense of Chomsky (2001) follows fromin Spec-R can be extracted to Spec-C without

Determinacy. Given the structure [ZP Z … [HPleaving a copy at the edge of v*P, because β is

[H YP]], where Z and H are phase heads, (9)transferred after wh-movement.

holds.

(7) a.

(9) Phase Impenetrability Conditionb.
c.

[C [ζ EA [ε T[uφ] [δ tEA [γ v* [β WH [αR[uφ] …]]]]]]]The domain of H is not accessible to[WH [C [ζ EA [ε T[uφ] [δ tEA [γ v* [β tWH

operations at ZP; only H and its edge are[α R[uφ] …]]]]]]]]

accessible to such operations.

[WH [C [ζ EA [ε T[uφ] [δ tEA [γ v* [β tWH[α R[uφ] …]]]]]]]]As discussed before, once a higher locus of uPhi(= (I wonder) who John admires)is introduced, the lower domain containing uPhi
cannot undergo Transfer owing to Determinacy.

208

So, the derivation must proceed as in (10).

gave ti tj?
b.

(10) a.

[γ v* [β WH [α R[uφ] …]]]

To whomj did you wonder whati togive ti tj?

(Cinque (1990: 52))b.

[δ WH [γ v* [β tWH [α R[uφ] …]]]]c.

[ζ EA [ε T [δ2 tEA [δ1 WH [γ v* [β tWH [α(11) shows that the wh-island violation isR[uφ] …]]]]]]]

relaxed when the embedded clause is non-finite.

d.

[C [ζ EA [ε T[uφ] [δ2 tEA [δ1 WH [γ v*…]]]]]]e.

(12) a.

[WH [C [ζ EA [ε T[uφ] [δ2 tEA [δ1 tWH [γTo whomj did you wonder [γ whati C [βthey T gave ti tj]]?

v* …]]]]]]]b.

To whomj did you wonder [γ whati C [βT give ti tj]]?

The wh-phrase in (10a) is extracted to the edgeof v*, as in (10b).

To avoid Determinacy

In (12a), β is counted as TD owing to theviolation, Transfer is applied at any point ofeliminable uPhi on the finite T. Then, to whom

derivation before introduction of C, as illustrated

must be extracted to the embedded Spec-C

in (10c). In (10d), C is introduced and uPhi isthanks to the PIC, but it is occupied by what,inherited by T.

thereby causing the wh-island violation.

In (10e), the wh-phrase isIn

extracted from Spec-v* to Spec-C (ζ is subject to(12b), by contrast, β is not counted as TD, sinceTransfer at any point of derivation after (10d),the non-finite T lacks uPhi.

unless the next higher locus of uPhi isdoes not have to be extracted to the embedded

introduced). Thus, the PIC in (9) follows fromSpec-C, and hence wh-island violation is

Determinacy: Transfer is, in principle, applied atcircumvented.

Then, to whom

any point of derivation, but Determinacy sets theupper bound of application of Transfer.

5.2 The Bound Pronoun Effects
Second, the proposed system accounts for

5. Some Consequences

the bound pronoun effects (BPE). Grano and

The proposed system predicts that β in (4)Lasnik (2019) (G&L) observe that someand (5) is not counted as TD when T or R does

clause-bounded

constructions

becomenot involve eliminable uPhi.

This section

transparent when a clausal subject is replaced

verifies this prediction, by providing a unified

with a bound pronoun. (13) illustrates the BPE

account for transparency of non-finite clausesin the gapping construction.

(section 5.1) and the bound pronoun effects(section 5.2).

(13) a.

Mary likes apples and Ann <likes>
oranges.

5.1 Transparency of Non-finite Clauses

b. *Mary claims that Jill likes oranges andLet us firstly consider the finite-nonfinite
asymmetrywithrespectto[Anntransparency,<claims

[that

Jill

likes>

oranges]].

illustrated in (11).

c. ?Maryi claims that shei likes oranges and[Annj(11) a. ?*To whomj did you wonder whati they<claimsoranges]].

209

[that

shej

likes>

(Grano and Lasnik (2019: 466-467))

attractive, it is not without a problem. To be
specific, they leave unexplained why unvalued(13a) is a canonical case of gapping.
showsclause-boundedness

features

on

the

head

of

the

gappingphase-head-complement keeps the phase open.

Crucially, as shown in (13c),

This stipulation is eliminated by the systemclause-boundedness of gapping is relaxed when

proposed in this paper: β in (15) is not counted

the pronoun she bound by Ann occupies theas TD when the uPhi on T cannot participate insubject position of the embedded clause.

feature-sharing owing to lack of vPhi on the

Grano and Lasnik (2019) also observe the BPEs

pronominal subject. Thus, the proposed system

in too/enough movement, comparative deletion,

provides a more principled explanation to theantecedent contained deletion, quantifier scope

BPE.

constructions.

of

(13b)

interaction, and multiple questions.
Grano and Lasnik try to account for the BPE,

6. Conclusion

assuming that (i) the CP phase is responsible for

The current phase theory (Chomsky (2000)

clause-boundedness, (ii) a bound pronoun may

et seq.) left the question unanswered what

enter into the derivation without phi-feature

determines the domain and timing of Transfer.

values, (iii) unvalued features on the head of theSection 2 proposed that the TD is deducible

phase-head-complement (i.e., uPhi on T) keepfrom MS: TD is a domain within which MS may

the CP phase open. Given these, the embedded

locate a pair of heads involving ±CI features,

CP in (13b) (= γ in (14)) is counted as a phase,with the path of search minimized. Section 3

since the uPhi on T undergoes deletion as aargued that the PIC in the sense of Chomsky

reflex of valuation from the vF on Jill.

(2001) follows from Determinacy put forth by

Therefore, the phasal CP blocks long-distance

Chomsky (2019). Section 5 proposed a unified

gapping.

account for transparency of non-finite clauses
and bound-pronoun effects. If this approach is(14)Mary claims that Jill likes oranges and Ann

on the right track, the stipulations about the<claims [γ that [β Jill[vPhi] T[uPhi] likes>

domain and timing of Transfer is eliminated, andoranges]]

TD and PIC naturally follow from principles ofminimalcomputation

anddeterministic

By contrast, the embedded CP in (13c) (= γ inderivation, third factor conditions on language(15)) is not counted as a phase, since the uF on T

design.

cannot be deleted owing to lack of vF on thebound pronoun she.
keeps

the

CP

Accordingly, uPhi on T

open,

thereby* This article is a revised and extended version

permittingof Nakashima (2020).

long-distance gapping.

I am very grateful to

Yoshiaki Kaneko and Esturo Shima for theirinvaluable comments and suggestions. I would(15)Mary claims that Jill likes oranges and Anni

also thank members of the Department of<claims [γ that [β shei T[uPhi] likes> oranges]]

English Linguistics of Tohoku University. Allremaining errors and inadequacies are, of course,

Although the analysis by Grano and Lasnik is

my own.

210

Chomsky,

REFERENCES
Noam (1995) The

Chomsky,

Minimalist

Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Noam(2019)“Some

Puzzling

Foundational

Issues:The

Reading

Program,” Catalan Journal of Linguistics

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

Special Issue 2019, 263-285.

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

Cinque,Guglielmo(1990)

Typesof

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

A'-Dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge,

Lasnik, ed. by R. Martin, D. Michaels, and

MA.

J.

Uriagereka,

98-155,

MIT

Press,

Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T.

Cambridge, MA.

DanielChomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”

Seely(2010) “Uninterpretable

Features: What Are They and What Do

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by M.

They

Do?,”

Exploring

Crash

Proof

Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press, Cambridge,

Grammars, ed. by M. Putnam, 125-142,

MA.

John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Chomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatory

Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T.

Adequacy,” Structures and Beyond, ed. by

Daniel Seely (2018) “A Simpler Solution

A. Belletti, 104-131, Oxford University

to Two Problems Revealed about thePress, Oxford.

Composite-Operation

Chomsky, Noam (2005) “Three Factors inAgree,”

paper

presented at the Japanese Society for

Language Design,” Linguistic Inquiry 36,

Language

1-22.

International Conference, held at Bunkyo

Chomsky, Noam (2007) “Approaching UG frombelow,”

Interfaces+

Recursion

Sciences

20th

AnnualGakuin Univeristy, August 2-3, 2018.

=

Kitahara,

Hisatsugu(2017)“Maximizing

Language?: Chomsky’s Minimalism andSyntactic Minimization: Five Preliminary

the View from Syntax-Semantics, ed. by U.

Studies,” Reports of the Keio Institute of

Sauerand

Culture

and

H.-M.

Gärtner,

1-30,

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Chomsky,Noam(2008)

and

Linguisitc

Studies48,

239-265.

“On

Phases,”Grano, Thomas and Howard Lasnik (2019)

Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:“How to Neutralize a Finite Clause

Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,

Boundary: Phase Theory and the Grammar

ed. by R. Freidin, C. P. Otero, and M. L.

of Bound Pronouns,” Linguistic Inquiry 49,

Zubizarreta,

465-499.

291-231,

MIT

Press,

Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,

NoamNakashima, Takanori (2020) “Deducing Transfer(2013)“ProblemsofDomainProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky,

Noam

Projection:(2015)

MinimalSearch,”Explorations in English Linguistics 34,“Problems

Extensions,”

from

of

19-34.

Structures,

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honor
of Adriana Belletti, ed. by E. Di Domenico,
C. Hamann and S. Matteini, 1-16, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.

211

argues that while Japanese and American
children both acquire empathetic speech througha similar process during their first five years oflife, Japanese caregivers tend to immerse their
A Comparative Study Between Japanese andchildren in empathetic speech from infancy andAmerican Mother-Child Interactions During

gradually decrease the amount of scaffolding

Joint Picture Book Reading

provided,

whereasAmericancaregivers

strategically use less empathetic speech in the
Moeko Ozaki

infant stage and increase the proportion of such

Keio University

as the children cognitively develop.

Keywords: Interactional Linguistics, language

2. Methodsocialization, empathetic speech, picture book

2.1 Data Collection Method

reading, mother-child discourse

A total of 106 Japanese and 179 American
mother-child dyads were observed reading The
Very Hungry Caterpillar (Harapeko Aomushi) to

1. Introduction

their children. Participants were recruited from

Language socialization is said to begin fromthemoment

a

child

has

socialthe researcher’s friends and family, online publiccontact

recruiting websites, and public posts on social(Schieffelin and Ochs, 1986). Throughout

networking

childhood,culturally

December 2020. The participants were asked toappropriate form of communication from their

video-record themselves reading the book tocaretakers. Extensive research has revealed that

their children in their native language andJapanese mothers are affection oriented andanswer a questionnaire about their demographic

value

while

backgrounds. This book was chosen because it isAmerican mothers are information oriented anda best-selling book that is widely accepted in

respect independence (Crane and Fernald, 2016;

both America and Japan, the narrative does not

Hess et al., 1980; Ishizaki, 1996; Markus andhave a didactic tone, and the arrangement of

Kitayama, 1991). Clancy (1987) maintains that

pictures and text layout is mostly the same

Japanese

conduct

between the Japanese and English versions,

empathy training by using declaratives instead

making it easier to compare. The purpose of thisof imperatives to discipline their children (i.e., “I

study was not disclosed to the participants

feel bad for the toy” instead of “Play with the

before the video recording so as not to influence

toy gently”). However, almost no previous

thestudies explain the developmental process via

sessions.

children

learninterpersonal

motherstherelationships,of2-year-olds

servicesparent-child

from

July

conversation

2019

duringtothewhich children are socialized.
Therefore, this paper aims to understand how

2.2 Coding of Data

American and Japanese children acquire their

All utterances

capturedon the video

respective styles of empathetic speech in therecordings were transcribed. Any utterances that

context of joint picture book reading. This paper

could not be deciphered within three passes and212children’s non-verbal vocalizations were codedcharacters, such as Kawaisōni ‘Poor thing.’

as unintelligible. Utterances were segmented

Kanashisō dane ‘He looks so sad,’ was dually

into individual units based on Kroll’s Idea Unit

coded as referring to internal states and also as(1977). While the Phrases and Clauses Unit

empathizing with others.

proposed by Brown et al. (1984) has been more

(3) Assimilations: utterances in which thewidely employed in studies of spoken language

speaker is speaking from the characters’ point of

among adults, the Idea Unit is more applicableview, such as paku paku paku ‘nom nom nom,’

to linguistically immature children because theyor “Ugh” when the caterpillar has a stomachrarely speak in complete phrases. Kroll definesache.

the Idea Unit as “a chunk of information which
is viewed by the speaker/writer cohesively as it

3. Results

is given a surface form” (Kroll, 1977, 89). In

3.1 Preliminary Analysis

principle, in this method, every new idea is

The researcher first conducted a preliminary

considered a new utterance. To determine what aanalysis using a multiple regression to rule out

new idea is, Kroll employs as set of syntactic

the possibility that any results obtained from thisstructures as an operational definition: (1) Fullstudy stem from the participants’ demographic

relative clauses when the relative pronoun was

backgrounds, instead of purely linguistic andpresent, (2) phrases set off from the sentence

age-based features. Because there was a sizablewith commas, (3) verbal elements as objects, (4)difference in the length of the book reading

reduced clauses in which a subordinator issessions and the amount of conversation

followed

between the reader and child, all analyses werebyanon-finite

verb,

and

(5)

post-nominal -ing phrases used as modifiers, as

conducted

concerningthe

proportionofwell as absolutes, appositives, and verbals. For

utterances in which a speaker used a specificexample, “Sue roared all the harder./ She

utterance type. This was calculated by dividing aclaimed I looked funny,/ clinging there,/speaker’s total number of utterances for a

screaming./” Kroll (1977, 91) considers this text

specific code by the total number of thatto represent four idea units.

speaker’s utterances.

Upon defining empathetic speech as the

The results indicated that the overall

verbalization of an affective response that stems

correlation between participants’ demographic

from the understanding and sharing of otherbackgrounds and utterances was insignificant

people’sconcerning

based on a probability of under 0.05. The only

empathetic speech included the following three

two demographic factors with a slight influencecodes:

were that American children with mothers who

feelings,

uttterances

had higher levels of education tended to use(1) Reference to internal states: utterances

empathetic speech less often (β (coefficient)=

referringor-.254, p = .012) and that Japanese children who

perceptions, such as Kanashisō dane ‘He looks

were more frequently read to tended to use

so sad,’ or Itaiyo! ‘Ouch!’

empathetic speech more often (β (coefficient) =(2) Empathizing with others: Any utterances-.243, p = .037). Neither the American nor the

expressing sympathy or empathy toward theJapanese mothers’ utterances were correlated

to

the

characters’emotions213

with their demographic factors.
3.2 Maternal Empathetic Speech
The maternal and children’s proportions ofempathetic speech in terms of the child’s age
were graphically analyzed with scatter plots. In
all of the figures, the horizontal axis is thechild’s age by year, and the vertical axis is the
proportion of empathetic speech. Each plot

Figure 2

represents one mother-child dyad.

American Mother’s Proportion of Empathetic

As shown in Figure 1, the Japanese mothers

Speech by Child Agestarted using empathetic speech with theirchildren when their children were 2 months old,
and the proportion of empathetic speech peaked
at a maximum of 100% when the children wereapproximately 8 months old. This gradually
decreased as the children matured, with the
exception of a few outliers, until the proportion
fell below 20% when the children were 4–5
years old.
Contrastively,

3.3 Children’s Empathetic SpeechtheAmericanmothers’

Both Japanese and American children

empathetic speech followed a pattern that wasstarted using empathetic speech when they were

opposite that of the Japanese mothers. As shown

approximately 18 months old. While there werein Figure 2, except for a few outliers, American

not enough utterances to conduct a statisticallymothers only used empathetic speech for lesssignificant comparison, the Japanese children’s

than 20% of their utterances until the children

use of empathetic speech increased when they

were over the age of three. When the children

were 2–3 years old, until the maximum

were 3–4 years old, a maximum of 40% of the

proportion reached 40%. On the other hand, thematernal utterances consisted of empathetic

American children began using a relatively highspeech.

proportion of empathetic speech when they were
2 years old, which gradually decreased as they

Figure 1

matured. By the age of five, the American

Japanese Mothers’ Proportion of Empathetic

children’s utterances consisted of almost zero

Speech by Child Age

empathetic utterances.
Figure 3
Japanese Children’s Proportion of Empathetic
Speech by Age

214

girls are no longer expected or perceived to be
more caring and empathetic than boys.
Upon confirming through the preliminary
analysis that any statistical trends in the data
were based on language and the child’s age, themothers’ and children’s empathetic speech wereanalyzed for the Japanese and American samples
separately.
Figure 4

The findings on the difference between

American Children’s Proportion of Empathetic

Japanese

Speech by Age

empathetic

andAmericanspeechparental

evoke

an

use

of

importantdiscussion. While previous research points outthat the Japanese are generally more empathetic
than Americans (Karasawa et al., 2006), thefindings from this study suggest that this may
not be a consistent cultural characteristic but
rather an age-sensitive pass-point. The results
showing that Japanese mothers used a highproportion of empathetic speech at the infantile
4. Discussion

stage and gradually decreased this proportion as

This paper sought to address how American

the children developed may indicate that manyand Japanese children acquire their respective

Japanese parents initially immerse their children

styles of empathetic speech in the context ofin a rich amount of empathetic speech but

joint picture book reading. The preliminary

gradually decrease the amount of scaffolding toanalysis of the influence of demographic factors

encourage their children to use such speechon the mothers’ and children’s utterances

independently. On the other hand, American

revealed that the overall correlations between

parents may use less empathetic speech in theparticipants’ sex, age, education, frequency of

infantile stage, but they later increase thebook reading, and the number of times they had

amount of scaffolding in alignment with theirread the book prior to this study werechildren’s linguistic and cognitive competence.

insignificant. While some previous research has

Thus, the high value that many Japanese placeshown that a child’s gender and parental readingon empathetic speech may not be a permanent or

frequency influence how parents read to theirconstant cultural characteristic.

children (Teale, 1986; Fletcher and Reese, 2005),

This is further supported by the finding thatthe findings of this study did not prove a reliableboth American and Japanese children usedcorrelation between demographic backgroundempathetic speech in approximately the sameand empathetic speech during book reading. The

proportions, but at different ages. While thelack of a correlation between gender andAmerican children used the highest proportion

empathetic speech may suggest a change inof empathetic speech immediately after they

parents’ perception of gender roles, in whichbecame verbal, at approximately 18 months old,215

the Japanese children began using a low

the conclusion that the assumption proposed byproportion of such speech, which gradually

the previous literature that the Japanese are moreincreased as they matured. Based on theempathetic may be myopic or, at the least, an

understanding that children’s speech is primarily

overgeneralization.

acquiredvalue empathetic speech and simply socialize

throughconversation

with

their

caregivers, it is anticipated that the parent’s

Americans

may equally

their children using a different approach.

values, as indicated by utterance types, areHowever, caution is required in generalizing

projected onto their children’s speech, resulting

the findings of this study. Firstly, the sample

in children born to empathetic parents using

size proved insufficient considering the wide age

relatively more empathetic speech (Watanabe

span of 0–4 years. Ideally, each age groupand Takiguchi, 1986). However, this was not theshould have at least thirty samples to allow acase for 2-year-old children in this study, as cancross-sectional analysis.

be seen in the results.

Secondly, the conclusions of this study only

On the other hand, the findings that theapply to a very specific context because they

4-year-old Japanese children used substantiallystudy was based on the joint reading of a single

more empathetic speech than the Americans

book. Further analysis based on different books

could also be interpreted as indicating thatand situations, such as free-play or classroom

Americans are more empathetic in the initial

settings, would be beneficial in testing thestage but that the Japanese learn to value

generalizability of the findings of this study.

empathetic speech more than Americans in the

Thirdly, a more precise analysis of eachlong run. This could mean that the American

individual code is necessary to draw precise

children acquire empathetic speech at a younger

conclusions about the process by which children

age than Japanese children but gradually shift toacquire empathetic speech. Consolidating theplacing value on other conversation skills, such

codes is beneficial in terms of shedding light onasthe bigger picture, but it also obscures

statingtheiropinions

anddescribing

illustrations. Meanwhile, Japanese children may

significant details.

acquire empathetic speech at a slower pace thanFinally, although the general concept of

the American children, but they continue

language socialization is that mothers and theirincreasing the proportion of such as they mature.

children are in a mutual relationship in which

While this interpretation would partiallythe children’s utterances influence and sculpt the

support the view that the majority of Japanesemothers’ utterances and vice versa, this paper

are more empathetic than Americans, thedid not address the way in which children’s

assumption that the Japanese are consistently

speech may have influenced maternal utterances.

more empathetic cannot account for the findings

Integrating this factor instead of solely focusingthat the Japanese intentionally decreased theiron

use of empathetic speech when caring for theirutterances will allow a more dynamic and

0–4-year-old children and that the maximum

multi-faceted approach to language acquisition

proportion

through mother-child communication.

ofempathetic

speechwasapproximately the same, at 40%, for both
Japanese and American parents. This leads to216

independent

maternal

andchildren’s

REFERENCES
Brown, Gillian, et al. (1984) Teaching Talk:

andIntercultural

Comparisons

Strategies for Production and Assessment,

andCambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Research 20, 33–42.

among

Three Cultures, Japan, the United States,

Carle, Eric (1969) The Very Hungry Caterpillar,

China),”

Human

Developmental

Kroll, Barbara (1977) “Combining Ideas in

World Publishing Co, New York.

Written and Spoken English: A Look at

Carle, Eric (1976) Harapeko Aomushi (The Very

Subordination

andCoordination,”

Hungry Caterpillar), translated by Hisashi

Discourse across Time and Space, ed. by

Mori, Kaiseisha, Tokyo.

Elinor Ochs Keenan and Tina L. Bennett,

Clancy, Patricia M. (1987) “The Acquisition ofCommunicative

Style

in

69–108, University of Southern California,

Japanese,”

California.

Language Socialization Across Cultures,Markus, Hazel R. and Shinobu Kitayama (1991)

213–250.

“Culture and the Self: Implications for

Crane, Lauren S. and Anne Fernald (2016)

Cognition,“Cultivating American and Japanese-Style
Relatedness

Through

Emotion,andMotivation,”

Psychological Review 98, 224–253.

Mother–Child

Schieffelin, Bambi B. and Elinor Ochs (1986)

Conversation,” Discourse Processes 54,“Language Socialization,” Annual Review

317–337.

of Anthropology 15, 163–191.

Fletcher, Kathryn L. and Elaine Reese (2005)“PictureBook

ReadingChildren:A

Conceptual

with

Teale, William H. (1986) “Home Background

Young

and

Framework,”

Young

Children’s

Literacy

Development,” Emergent Literacy: Writing

Developmental Review 25, 64–103.

and Reading, ed. by William H. Teale andHess, Robert D., et al. (1980) “Maternal

Elizabeth

Expectations for Mastery of Developmental

Sulzby,173–206,

Ablex

Publishing, New Jersey.

Tasks in Japan and the United States,”

Watanabe, Yayoi, and Chihiro Takiguchi (1986)

International Journal of Psychology 15,“Youji no Kyokan to Hahaoya no Kyoukan

259–271.

tono Kankei (The Relationship between

Ishizaki, Rie (1996) “Ehon Bamen ni okeru

Toddlers’

EmpathyandMothers’

Hahaoya to Kodomo no Taiwabunseki:

Empathy),” Kyoiku Shinrigaku Kenkyū, 34,

Fōmatto36–43.

no(Discourse

Analysis

Conversation
Reading:

Kakutoku

KojinsaofMother–Child

DuringPicture-Book

Acquisition

Individual

toofFormatDifferences),”andHattatsu

Shinrigaku Kenkyū 7, 1–11.
Karasawa, Mayumi, et al. (2006) “Youji kyōiku
noBunkateki

Chūgokuni

Imi:

Nihon,

Amerika,okeru

Bunkakanoyobi

Bunkanai Hikaku (Cultural Meaning of
Early Childhood Education: Intracultural217

syntactic operations.1 Hence, phases play a
crucial role in the development of generativegrammar.
The aim of this paper is to refine the concept
What Defines Phases?*of phases. More specifically, we reexamine howphases are defined. We claim that what is needed

Yuya Sakumotofor phases is an unvalued phi feature while

Kyushu University

arguing against the necessity of a Tense feature
for phases, which is put forth by the analysis by

Keywords：phase theory, phi feature, infinitives,

Kanno (2008).

adjunct island effects, pair-Merge

The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
In section 2, we will see the phasehood of
infinitives. Section 3 discusses Kanno (2008).

1. Introduction

In section 4, we will introduce empirical andLet us start with a brief introduction oftheoretical problems which Kanno (2008) faces.

phases. The concept of phases is first introduced

Then, in order to resolve issues remaining in theby Chomsky (2000) and further developed inprevious literature, section 5 will propose an

Chomsky (2001, 2004, 2008, 2013, 2015). It isalternative analysis, and by extension, we willargued that phases are computational units ofprovide a phase-based explanation for adjunctsyntactic derivations, and transitive v*P and CP

island effects and revise pair-Merge. Section 6

form a phase. Under the phase theory, sentences

concludes this paper.

are constructed separately phase by phase. Once
syntactic operations in a phase have been
completed,

the

phase

head

transfers

2. Phasehood of Infinitives

its

It has been argued by a number ofcomplement to the Conceptual-intentional (CI)

researchers that infinitival constructions ininterface and the Sensorimotor (SM) interface.

English do not constitute a phase (Grano and

Therefore, no elements within the complement

Lasnik (2018), Kanno (2008), Miyagawa (2011),

of phases can be accessed. This constraint is

Wurmbrand (2013)). In the previous literature,

named the Phase Impenetrability Condition

wh-island and Quantifier Raising (QR) are used

(PIC).

asdiagnosesofthephasehoodofCPcomplements. In the following subsections, we(1) Phase Impenetrability Condition

reexamine whether infinitival complements

In phase α with Head H, the domain of H isconstitute a phase or not.

not accessible to operations outside α, only H
and its edge are accessible to such operations.

2.1 Wh-Island Effects(Chomsky (2000: 108))

It is well known that wh-island effects canvanish if the embedded complement is nonfinite,

Due to this concept, the computational burden is

as shown in (2).

dramatically reduced since the domain of theearlier phases is rendered inaccessible to later(2) a.

218

Whati do you wonder [howj PRO torepair ti tj ]?

(Manzini (1992: 51))

3. Kanno (2008)b. * Whati do you wonder [howj Maryrepaired ti tj ]?

In this section, we will discuss Kanno (2008),(ibid.)

which attempts to provide the explanation forthe (non-)phasehood of infinitives. He provides

Kanno (2008) and Grano and Lasnik (2018)

an intriguing proposal that the presence of anargue that extraction from the control wh-island“Agree feature” and a Tense feature on CP

iscontrol

makes CP a phase, while the absence of one orcomplements does not constitute a phase and isboth features makes it a non-phase. Under his

not subject to the PIC.

proposal, finite complements have both features,

possible

because

C

of

the

thereby constituting a phase, while control,
2.2 Quantifier Raising

ECM, and raising complements lack one or both

We can also check the phasehood of relevant

features, hence leading to no phases. This

constructions with QR. It has been well known

proposal is a promising candidate for defining asince May (1977) that QR is ‘clause-bounded’ asphase, as it can explain the behavior of all theshown in (3).

infinitival complements, as exemplified in (2)and (4).

(3)

Someone thinks that John loves everyone.
(∃>∀, *∀>∃)(Takahashi (2010: 331))

4. Empirical and Theoretical Problems
Here we argue that Kanno (2008) faces

Cecchetto
Takahashi(2004),(2010)

andMiyagawa(2011),

empirical

Wurmbrand(2013)

empirical problem is the control construction inprovide a phase-based account for QR and they

andtheoreticalproblems.

One

European Portuguese, as shown in (5).

maintain that QR is a syntactic movement which
also obeys the PIC. In (4), for instance, C of the(5) a.

O que (.que) perguntaste

control complement in (4a), the Exceptional

what

Case-Marking (ECM) complement in (4b), andcomo/quando arranjar?

the raising complement in (4c) does not

how/whenconstitute a phase. This is clearly shown by the‘What did you wonder how/whenfact that QR is possible from infinitival

to fix?’complements:

wondered-you(Eduardo Raposo (p.c.))b. * O que (.que) perguntaste
what(4) a.

wondered-you

At least one professor claims/tends tocomo/quando arranjares?

read every journal. (∃>∀, ∀>∃)

how/when(Grano and Lasnik (2018: 467))b.

to-fixto-fix.2sg‘What did you wonder how/when

Someone expects Sue to marry every

to fix?’(Eduardo Raposo (p.c.))boy. (∃>∀, ∀>∃)
(Wurmbrand (2013: 278))
c.

(5a)

containsanon-inflected

control

Someone seems to attend every class.

complement, while (5b) includes an inflected(∃>∀, ∀>∃) (Cecchetto (2004: 369))

control complement (arranjares ‘fix’ is the 2sg
form of the inflected infinitive). A wh-phrase can219be extracted from the wh-control complement infirst place defines a phase if v*P is taken into

(5a), in contrast with (5b). What is crucial here

consideration as well.4 In general, v*P does notis that the only difference between (5a) and (5b)have a Tense feature, so that it is unclear how

is the existence of an “Agree feature” (phiv*P can constitute a phase without a Tensefeature) in the control complement. The

feature. It would be desirable to unify the way ofdifference in grammaticality cannot be explained

defining phases. Interestingly, Richard (2012)by Kanno (2008) since it assumes that theand Otsuka (2014) provide a phase-basedpresence of both “Agree feature” and Tense

analysis for the connection between phi featurefeature is necessary for phasehood and that C ofagreement

control complements does not have a Tense

Swedish, Norwegian, and French (Richards

feature.

(2012: 205)), for example, when A-movement is(inflection)

andmovement.

In

The second empirical problem is that his

observed, inflection is also found on passive

approach cannot be applied to for-DP-infinitives

particles, whereas when A-movement is not seen,in (6).2

it is not found. For these facts, Richards (2012)
proposes that when a partially defective v head(6) a.

b.

A different student wanted to readcontains uninterpretable features, it triggers the

every book. (∀>∃)

transfer (see also Richard (2012) and Otsuka(Johnson (2000: 199))(2014) for detailed analyses and remaining

A different student wanted for you toproblems). What is important here is that anread every book. (*∀>∃)

unvalued phi feature triggers transfer at the(ibid.)

v(*)P level. Apparently, a Tense feature is not
If to infinitives have for-DP, inverse scope (∀>∃)

related to constituting a phase.

is impossible, as in (6b). From this observation,
Wurmbrand(2013)

arguesthat

5. Proposal

3

for-DP-infinitives constitute a phase. Hence, it

Recall that the inflected infinitive in (5b)is difficult to assume that a Tense feature isconstitutes a phase. This is a clear indication that

related to the determining factor of phases.

an unvalued phi feature (“Agree feature”) is theMoreover, it is unlikely that C of control

determining factor of phases, irrespective of acomplements does not have a Tense feature. As

Tense feature. Concerning phases, Chomsky

Kanno himself notes, Landau (2000) argues that(2015) makes the following statement:

some types of control constructions do have theproperty of Tense. Kanno avoids this issue by(7) [L]anguages

arguing that control complements of this type do

assigned

not show full temporal properties that finite

positions. These features mark phases, aclauses exhibit. But his argument is notparticular execution of strict cyclicity,

persuasive, and (5) and (6) suggest that a Tense

well-motivatedfeature is not related to any property for phases.

computational efficiency[.]Kanno (2008) also has a theoretical problem

havevaluesinunvaluedfeatures,certainstructuralongrounds

of(Chomsky (2015: 5))concerning v*P phases. Since it assumes that v*Pis also a phase, a problem arises as to what in the

Extending this suggestion, we argue that an220

unvalued phi feature constitutes a phase andfeature attracts DP to the TP Spec position in theshow that this can successfully capture thiscomplement clause. However, as Epstein,

empirical fact in (5b) and (6b): a Tense feature is

Kitahara Seely (2014: 471 fn. 24) argue, Free

5

Merge allows both one-fell-swoop A-movement

no longer necessary for the determining phases.

and successive-cyclic A-movement. Thus, the
5.1 Analysis

argument that an unvalued phi feature attracts

5.1.1 Control in European Portuguese

DP is no longer available for explaining the

Our analysis straightforwardly provides angrammaticality of (8) and (9) under Free Merge.

explanation for the asymmetry of (5a, b). Under

Hence, there is no reason for us to assume theour proposal, C of the inflected control

existence of an unvalued phi feature in CP ofcomplements in (5b) does constitute a phase

ECM and raising complements.

because it bears an unvalued phi feature. In
contrast,

C

of

the

non-inflected

control

5.1.4 Adjunct Island Effects

complement in (5a) does not bear an unvalued

Finally, we extend our phase-based analysis tophi feature and no phases are constituted; thus,

the adjunct island to account for the extraction

extraction from it is allowed in (5a) unlike (5b).

condition analogous to infinitive clauses. It has
been observed traditionally that extraction from

5.1.2 For-DP-infinitives in English

adjunct clauses is impossible, which is called

With regard to the for-DP-infinitive as in (6b),adjunct island (Ross (1967)). Under Chomsky

we argue that C of control complement has an(2004, 2008), the adjunct island effect isunvalued phi feature, which is made evident by

explained by pair-Merge, which yields ordered6the existence of DP in Spec TP. This is why thepairs,

corresponding

toAdjunctioninfor-DP-infinitive constitutes a phase, so that

Government and Binding theory. Chomsky uses

extraction from it is made impossible, as showna “separate plane” for the pair-Merged adjunct,in (6b).

so that adjunct is invisible in syntax and
extraction from the adjunct is thus impossible.

5.1.3 ECM and Raising

However, Truswell (2011) observes that there

We claim that C of ECM and raising

are cases where extraction from adjunct clauses

complements does not have an unvalued phi

is not always impossible, as we can see the(Agree) feature, contrary to Kanno’s (2008)

difference in acceptability between (10) and (11).

argument. For the existence of an unvalued phi

As Oseki (2015) points out, if the adjunct islandfeature, Kanno provides the following evidence:is truly invisible in syntax, we cannot explain
why extraction from (11) is possible.

(8)

Johni seems to Mary [t to appear tohimselfi t be happy].

(10) a. * Whoi did John go home [before he(Castillo, Drury, and Grohmann (1999: 29))(9)talked to ti]?

Mary believes the students all to know
French.

b. * Whoi did John go home [after he(Boskovic (2001: 68))

talked to ti]?
c. * Whoi did John fall asleep [while he

These data seem to suggest that an unvalued phi

was talking to ti]?

221

(11) a.
b.
c.

(Truswell (2011: 176))

To conclude, we have explored how phases

Whati did you come round [to work on

are defined. We have also seen the intriguingti ]?

proposal for defining phases which Kanno

Whoi did John get upset [after talking(2008) makes and pointed out its empirical andto ti]?

theoreticalproblems.

Then,

Whati did John come back [thinking

Chomsky’s(2015)

suggestion,

about ti]?

proposed that an unvalued phi feature constitutes(Truswell (2011: 129))byextendingwehavea phase and provided a principled explanation
for remaining issues in the previous literature,

Since pair-Merge was originally invented for an

while eliminating redundancy. Furthermore, we

empirical reason (Chomsky (2004: 117)), thehave showed that our proposal can be extended

grammaticality of (11) is highly problematic.

to the adjunct island effects and put forth a

The fact that extraction from a nonfinite adjunctrevised restriction on pair-Merge.

is possible indicates that the adjunct is visible insyntax, unlike Chomsky’s (2004) assumption.

* I am very grateful to Nobuaki Nishioka for his

This leads us to propose the following:

invaluable comments and suggestions. I am also
truly thankful to Toshiaki Inada for constructive(12) A pair-Merged syntactic object does notcomments and helpful advice. My thanks also go

contribute to labeling but is visible into Edmund Luna for suggesting stylistic

syntax.

improvements. Needless to say, all remaining
errors and inadequacies are my own.

By (12), extraction from an adjunct clause is a

NOTES

theoretically viable option, contrary to the1previous literature. Then, why is extraction frompoint out that this view is not literally correct

finite adjunct clauses impossible? This paper

since Merge can be applied to the whole phasedemonstrates

be(Obata (2010)). Since this discussion goes7

attributed to the PIC under the phase theory.

beyond the domain of this paper, we leave it forFirst, following Haegeman (2012), we assume

future research and just assume the general viewthat the edge of an adjunct cannot be used as anof the PIC.

escape hatch because of the existence of the2

temporal operator in its Spec CP. In (10), C inconstructions, which are exhaustive control andthe adjunct clause has an unvalued phi feature,

wh-infinitival constructions under Landau’s

constituting a phase, so that the wh-phrase(2000)

cannot be extracted due to the PIC. On the otherfor-DP-infinitives, as he notes.

hand, in (11), C in the adjunct clause does not3have any unvalued phi features; thus, no phases

in value selection is a crucial factor thatare constituted, and wh-extraction is therefore

determines whether the top projection of a

that

its

invisibility

can8

possible.

However, Chomsky, Gallego and Ott (2019)

Kanno (2008) focuses on a subclass of control

classifications

and

not

on

Wurmbrand (2013) proposes that the difference

clausal complement is a phase or not. Since
for-DP-infinitives lack value selection, they are

6. Conclusion

phases. We will seek another possibility of why

222

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

they constitute a phase without appealing tovalue selection.

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

4Kanno (2008: 24 fn. 2) states that he focuses

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

on only CP and his proposal makes a different

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David

claim from Chomsky’s (2008). Instead, we will

Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155,

attempt to capture the phasehood of CP and v*P

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”

without appealing to the idea of a Tense feature.
This proposal can be supported by anaphor

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. bybinding, as analyzed by Saito (2017a, b). On the

Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

basis of Quicoli’s (2008) phase-based analysis ofCambridge, MA.

5

its locality, Saito (2017a, b) proposes that

Chomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatorytransfer domain is changed if T lacks phi feature

Adequacy,” Structures and Beyond: The

agreement, which precisely captures the peculiar

Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3, ed.

anaphor biding phenomena. Even if transfer

by Adriana Belletti, 104-131, Oxford

domain is changed, Saito (2017a, b) assumes

University Press, Oxford.
Chomsky,that CP is always a phase.

Noam(2008)“On

Phases,”Martin (1996) argues that for has a phi feature

Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory,in order to explain the incompatibility ofed. by Robert Freidin, Carls P. Otero andfor-infinitives with PRO.

Maria L. Zubizarreta, 133–166, MIT Press,

7

Cambridge, MA.

6Phase-based approaches to adjuncts are also

Chomsky,

proposed in previous studies. See Narita (2011)(2013)“ProblemsofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.

among others.
8

Noam

Chomsky,

Truswell (2011) claims that extraction fromNoam(2015)“Problems

adjuncts is also affected by semantic andProjection:

pragmatic factors. What is crucial here is that

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

it is syntactically possible if C of adjunct clausesof Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di

does not constitute a phase.

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona
Matteini,

Extensions,”

of

3-16,

John

Structures,

Benjamins,

Amsterdam.

REFERENCES
Bošković, Željko (2001) “Floating Quantifiers

Chomsky, Noam, Ángel, J. Gallego, and Dennisand θ-Role Assignment,” NELS 31, 59-78.

Ott (2019) “Generative Grammar and theCastillo, Juan C., John Drury and Kleanthes K.

Faculty of Language: Insights, Questions,

Grohmann (1999) “Merge Over Move andand Challenges,” Catalan Journal ofthe

Linguistics Special Issue, 229-261.

Extended

Projection

Principle,”

University of Maryland Working Papers in

Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara and T.

Linguistics 8, 63-103.
Cecchetto,theSearch: Implications for Successive-Cyclic

Locality Conditions of QR: Consequences

A-Movement and the Conception of thefor

Postulate “Phase”,” Linguistic Inquiry 45,

the

Carlo

(2004)

Daniel Seely (2014) “Labeling by Minimal

Theoryof“Explaining
Phases,”NaturalLanguage Semantics 12, 345-397.

463-481.

223

Grano, Thomas and Horward Lasnik (2018)of Michigan.

“How to Neutralize a Finite ClauseOseki, Yohei (2015) “Eliminating Pair-Merge,”

Boundary: Phase Theory and the Grammar

WCCFL 32, 303-312.

of Bound Pronouns,” Linguistic Inquiry 49,

Otsuka, Tomonori (2014) “An Extension of465-499.

Feature-Inheritance,” English Linguistics

Haegeman, Liliane (2012) Adverbial Clauses,
Main

ClausePhenomenaand31, 509-544.

theQuicoli, A. Carlos (2008) “Anaphora by Phase,”

Composition of the Left Periphery, Oxford

Syntax 11, 299-329.

University Press, Oxford.

Richards,

Johnson, Kyle (2000) “How Far will Quantifiers

Marc

D.

(2012)“On

Featurego?” Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist

Inheritance, Defective Phases, and theSyntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by

Movement-Morphology

Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan

Phases: Developing the Framework, ed. by

Uriagereka,Ángel J. Gallego, 195-232, De Gruyter

187-201,

MIT

Press,

Connection,”

Mouton, Boston, MA.

Cambridge, MA.
Kanno, Satoru (2008) “On the Phasehood andRoss, John Robert (1967) Constraints on

Nonphasehood of CP,” English Linguistics

Variables in Syntax, Doctoral dissertation,

25, 21-55.

MIT.
Saito, Mamoru (2017a) “Notes on the Locality

Landau, Idan (2000) Elements of Control:
StructureandMeaning

inof Anaphor Binding and A-Movement,”

Infinitival

Constructions, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

English Linguistics 34, 1-33.

Manzini, Maria Rita (1992) Locality: A Theory

Saito, Mamoru (2017b) “A Note on Transfer

and Some of Its Empirical Consequences,

Domain,” Nanzan Linguistics 12, 61-69.

MIT Press, Cambridge.

Takahashi, Masahiko (2010) “Case, Phases, andMartin, Roger (1996) A Minimalist Theory of
PRO and Control, Doctoral dissertation,

Nominative/Accusative

University of Connecticut.

Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics

May,

Robert(1977)

The

GrammarofConversion

in19, 319-155.

Quantification, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Truswell, Robert (2011) Events, Phrases andMiyagawa, Shigeru (2011) “Optionality,” The

Questions, Oxford University Press,

Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Narita,Hiroki(2011)

Interpretation,

Phasing

DoctoralWurmbrand, Susi (2013) “QR and Selection:
in

Full

Covert Evidence for Phasehood,” NELS 42,

Dissertation,

ed. by Stefan Keine and Shayne Sloggett,277-290.

Harvard University.
Obata, Miki (2010) Root, Successive-Cyclic andFeature-Splitting

Oxford.

Internal

Merge:

Implications for Feature-Inheritance andTransfer, Doctoral dissertation, University

224

b. andcwædonþætsetima forþ

and

said

that

the time away

agan

wære

and

þæt folc

passed were

andthat people

Passive Participles Movement in the Historywæregewergodþearleof English*

were

weariedexceedingly‘and said that the time had been passing
Siyang Xia

away, and that the people were

Aichi Shukutoku University

exceedingly wearied.
(coaelive, ÆLS_[Martin]:1416.6907)

Keywords: passive participle movement,
floating quantifier, multiple agree

This

study

investigatesthehistoricaldevelopment of the word-order pattern in (2) byemploying the historical corpora and explaining
1. Introduction

the reason it was lost in the history of English

In Present-day English (PE), a passive

within the framework of minimalist program

participle must not occur in the position(Chomsky (2000, 2001)).

preceding a floating quantifier (FQ) or aThis paper is organized as follows. Section 2

vP/VP-adverb, as shown in (1).

examines the historical distribution of thepassive participle with respect to FQs and(1) a. * The votes have been counted all.

adverbs. The investigation reveals that the(Bobaljik (1995: 206))

Part-FQ/Adv word order was lost during Section

b. ??/* Ever since then, our invitations

3 proposes an analysis of the syntactic derivation

have no longer been acceptedof Part-FQ/Adv word orders. I claim that aalways by your parents.

passive(Caponigro and Schütze (2003: 296))

movement to a higher projection out of vP in

participle

mightundergohead

Early English, by postulating a functional
In Early English, however, the participle-FQ

projection.

Section4

discusses

why

the

(Part-FQ) word order or the participle-adverb

participle movement was available until the 15th

(Part-Adv) word order was permissible, as thecentury but became unavailable from then on.

examplesSection 5 is the conclusion.

from

the

York-Toronto-Helsinki

Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE)
illustrate in (2).

2. Historical Data
I examine the distribution of the passive(2) a. ac

hys wundra næron

awriteneparticiple with respect to FQs and adverbs in the

but his wonders weren’t

writtenhistory of English by employing the YCOE, The

ealle

Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English,

all

Second Edition, and The Penn-Helsinki Parsed‘but his wonders were not all written’

Corpus of Early Modern English. As the(coaelhom, ÆHom_6:318.1025: LOE)

interpretation of a participle in BE passive is225

sometimes ambiguous between its verbal and(CMMALORY,69.2362: LME)

adjectival forms, it is difficult to distinguish thiscategory based on their forms. Following

Table 2. Relative Orders of vP/VP Adverbs andWasow (1977), who demonstrated that verbal

Passive Participles

passive participles are neither formed from

EOE

LOE

EME

LME

unaccusative verbs nor prefixed with un-, this

Adv-Part

215

375

99

355

study focuses on participles of transitive verbs

Part-Adv

8

128

19

3

without the un- prefix. As for adverbs, this study

Part-Adv (%)

3.6

25.4

16.1

0.8

focuses on vP/VP adverbs occuring in the
middle field, which express manner, time,
frequency, place, means, etc. The results of thisinvestigation are summed up in Tables 1 and 2.
Some examples are given below each table.1
Table 1. Relative Orders of FQs and Passive
LOE

EME

LME

FQ-Part

4

51

18

35

Part-FQ

0

17

8

7

Part-FQ (%)

0

25

30.8

16.7

E2

E3

Adv-Part

17

38

25

Part-Adv000Part-Adv (%)

0

0

0

(4) a. We habbaþ nu gesæd sceortlice

Participles
EOE

E1

We havenow related briefly

on ðysum gewryte hu se

halga

in thiswriting how the holy

Marcuswæs gemartyrod.

Mark

Avas martyred.

‘We have now related briefly in this
E1

E2

E3

writing how the holy Mark Avas

FQ-Part

17

38

25

martyred.’Part-FQ000(coaelive, ÆLS_[Mark]:104.3277: LOE)

Part-FQ (%)

0

0

0

b.

þt Iesucrist for beode ear ha beo isetwel.

(3) a. Hi

wurdon ða gebysgode on

They werethen engaged‘that Jesus Christ forbids before he isinset well’heora gebedum ealle,
their prayer(CMANCRIW-1,II.188.2676: EME)

all

c.

for þi wil sain benet þat it be saide‘Then they were all engaged in theirhezlikeprayer’‘St. Benet wish that it is highly said for(coaelive, ÆLS_[Sebastian]:350.1421: LOE)

them’

(CMBENRUL,19.641: LME)b. þt forte alesen moncun þt schulde beon
forloren al

Tables 1 and 2 provide clear evidence that

‘until release mankind who should all be

the distribution of Part-FQ/Adv word order

destroyed’

occurred with a certain frequency until the end(CMJULIA,100.79: EME)

c. And so were they buryed bothe,of Old English (OE), even though this‘And so they were both buried’

distribution

226

is

lower

than

that

of

the

FQ/Adv-Part order. In Early Middle English(6) a. I(EME), however, the Part-FQ/Adv word orderlibri sono tutti letti.

the books are

was attested to decline from the end of 14th

b. I

all

(Italian)

readlibri sono letti tutti.

century and was ultimately lost during the 15th

the books areread allcentury.

‘The books are all read.’(Cirillo (2009: 32))

3. Analysis
This section provides an analysis of the(7) a. Los libros son todos leídos. (Spanish)syntactic derivation of Part-FQ/Adv word orders.

the books are all

Following Sportiche (1988), I assume that an FQ

readb. ? Los libros son leídos todos.

is stranded in the position where the associatedthe books are read

DP is base-generated. Moreover, according to‘The books are all read.’

Cinque’s (1999: 116ff) cartographic analysis onall(Cirillo (2009: 38))

the position of adverbs, the ungrammaticality of(1) follows immediately from the failure of the

In the Italian sentences in (6), the FQ tutti

licensing of an FQ or a vP/VP adverb in a clause‘all’ can occur in the position either preceding or

final position, as represented in (5).

following the participle letti ‘read’. In the
Spanish sentence given in (7), the FQ-Part word(5) * [TP DPi [Tʹ have [PerfP been [vP ti [vʹ Part

order is also highly acceptable.

[VoiceP -en [VP [FQ/Adv] [VP tV ti]]]]]]]]

Furthermore, Caponigro and Schütze (2003:
296)

With the assumption that the position of anprovideacomparison

betweentheplacement of English and Italian passive

FQ/adverb is universally fixed, the occurrence ofparticiples, as in (8) and (9).

a Part-FQ/Adv word order should be consideredas the result of the movement of the participle. A(8) a. Ever since then, our invitations have nonatural question to ask is why it moves, that is,longer always been accepted by yourwhat is the motivation for participle movement?

parents.

Given that Early English had a richer systemb.??/* Da quella volta in poi, inostriof inflectional morphology than PE (e.g.,

from thattime in then the our

Roberts (1993), van Gelderen (1993), Biberauer

invitenon

and Roberts (2010)), the movement can be

invitations notareconsidered as a result of the richness of verbal

semprestati

accettati dai

agreement morphology. On the one hand,alwaysbeen

acceptedlanguages

have

tuoi

genitori.

participles moving to a higher position, such as

yourparents

with

rich

inflection

cansono più
any-longer
by-theItalian and Spanish, as exemplified in (6) and (7).
On the other hand, participles remain in the(9) a.??/* Ever since then, our invitations havebase-generated position in languages with weak

no longer been accepted always byinflection (for instance, PE).

your parents.
b. Da quella volta in poi, i nostri inviti non

227sono più stati accettati sempre dai tuoihælendbecome into

hisgenitori.

Saviourcame

his(Caponigro and Schütze (2003: 296))

apostolum &towæron þeahhwæðere

apostlesand werethoughGiven the standard assumption that adverbþa durabelocene.

positions are universal (Cinque 1999), it is

the gates

closed.NOM.FEM.PL

shown that Italian passive participles are raised‘Everybody wonders how the Saviour

higher than PE passive participles. In contrast tocame to his apostles, even though the(8a) and (9a), (8b) and (9b) show that the adverb

doors were closed’

always can only precede the passive participle in(ÆCHom I, 16: 308.27 / Los (2015: 83))

PE, whereas the Italian adverb is much morenatural following the passive participle. Under(11)

the assumption that FQs or vP/VP adverbs are…[FP Parti [vP FQ/Adv [vP DPj ti [VoiceP -en[VP ti tj]]]adjoined to [Spec, vP/VP], I postulate that thelanding site of participle movement is F, which

Adapting (11), I will discuss why theis the head of a higher functional projection

Part-FQ/Adv word order was available until theabove vP, bearing [EPP], which can trigger the

15th century but became unavailable from thenmovement of the participle. As the annotation of

on in the following section.

the Italian and OE examples represented in (10a,b), a passive participle in these languages bears

4. Participle Movement in Early English

an agreement inflectional morpheme along withThe derivation of (2a) (repeated in (12a)) is

its internal argument DP. As there are more thanrepresented in (12b).

two elements in this Agree relation, I adopt
Hiraiwa’s (2001) Multiple Agree approach and(12) a. ac

hys wundra næron

awriteneassume that F acts as a probe and enters into abut his wonders weren’t

writtenMultiple Agree relation with the subject DPeallebearing [iφ] and [uCase] as well as the passive

allparticiple bearing [uφ] and [uCase]. As a result‘but his wonders were not all written’of agreement, the passive participle undergoes(coaelhom, ÆHom_6:318.1025: LOE)

successive cyclic head movement to F, asb. [TP hys wundrai [Tʹ næron [FP awritene

schematized in (11).

[vP [QP ealle] [vP ti [vʹ tV [VoiceP -en [VP tVti]]]]]]](10) a. Le

ragazze

sonothe.FEM.PL girls.FEM.PL are.PL
state

In (12a), the passive participle in the v headarrestate.

successfully enters into a Multiple Agreebeen.FEM.PL arrested.FEM.PL

relation with the probe T and subject DP in‘The girls have been arrested.’Spec-vP. As a result, the participle moves to(D’Alessandro and Roberts (2008: 478))

Voice head past the FQ, deriving the Part-FQ

b. Gehwa

wundrað

Everybody wondershu

seorder. Similarly, the derivation of (2b) (repeated

how thein (13a)) is represented in (13b).

228

Late Old English (950−1150), Early Middle(13) a. andcwædonþætsetima forþ

and

said

that

the time away

(1350−1500),

agan

wære

and

þæt folc(1500−1710), E1 (1500−1569), E2 (1570−1639),

passed were

andthat people

E3 (1640−1710).

wæregewergodþearlewere

weariedexceedingly

English (1150−1350), Late Middle English
Early

ModernEnglishREFERENCES
Biberauer, Theresa and Ian Roberts (2010)‘and said that the time had been passing
away, and that the people were

“Subjects, Tense and Verb-movement,”

exceedingly wearied.

Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in(coaelive, ÆLS_[Martin]:1416.6907)

Minimalist

Theory,ed.

byTheresab. [CP þæt [TP folc i [Tʹ wære [FP gewergod

Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts[vP [QP þearle] [vP ti [vʹ tV [VoiceP -en [VP tV

and Michelle Sheehan, 263-302, Cambridgeti]]]]]]]

University Press, Cambridge.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David (1995) Morphosyntax:

According to Wojtyś (2016:197), the loss ofinflectional

endingsofpassive

The Syntax of Verbal Inflection, Doctoral

participles

dissertation, MIT.

reached its peak in the 14th century. The demise

Caponigro, Ivano, and Carson T. Schütze (2003)of the Part-FQ/Adv order is thus a consequence“Parameterizingof the loss of movement and agreement ofMovement,”passive participles.

(2) :293–308.

Passive
Linguistic

Participle
Inquiry

34

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:
5. Conclusion

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

This study confirms that a passive participle

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

could occur in the position preceding an FQ or a

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, DavidvP/VP adverb until the 14th century. It was

Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155, MITargued that a passive participle may enter into a

Press, Cambridge, MA.

Multiple Agree relation with a functional head F

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”and the subject DP. The landing site was argued

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by

to be the head of FP. When the English passive

Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

participles lost their inflection morphemes, theCambridge, MA.

movement ceased to be available.

Cinque,Guglielmo

Functional(1999)

Heads:A

Adverbs

andCross-linguistic* I would like to thank Takeshi Omuro,

Perspective, Oxford University Press, New

Tomoyuki Tanaka, and Chigchi Bai for their

York.
Cirillo, Robert (2009) The Syntax of Floating

valuable comments and suggestions. I am solely

Quantifiers: Stranding Revisited, Landelijke

responsible for any remaining errors.

Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap, Utrecht.

NOTES
Here are the standardly assumed historical

D’alessandro, Roberta and Ian Roberts (2008)

periods of English: Early Old English (500−950),“Movement and Agreement in Italian Past

1

229

Participles

andDefective

Phases,”

Linguistic Inquiry, 39 (3), 477-491.

CORPORA

Gelderen, Elly van (1993) The Rise of

Kroch, Anthony and Ann Taylor (2000) The

Functional Categories, John Benjamins,

Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle

Amsterdam.

English,Hiraiwa, Ken (2001) “Multiple Agree and theDefective

Intervention

Constraint

secondedition(PPCME2),

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

inKroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Lauren

Japanese,” The Proceedings of the HUMIT

Delfs (2004) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed

2000, ed. by Ora Matushansky and Elena

Corpus

Gurzoni,(PPCEME), University of Pennsylvania,

MIT

Working40,

67–80,

Linguistics

Papersin

MITWPL,of

Early

ModernEnglishPhiladelphia.

Cambridge, MA.

Taylor, Ann, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk

Kayne, Richard (1989) “Facets of Romance Past

and

Frank

Beths

(2003)

The

Participle Agreement,” Dialect Variation

York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus ofand the Theory of Grammar, ed. by Paola

Old English Prose (YCOE), University ofBeninca,

York, York.

85–103,Foris,

Dordrecht.

Reprinted in Richard Kayne, Parameters

Wojtyś, Anna (2016) ‘Suffixal Past Participle

and Universals, 25–39, Oxford University

Marking in Mediaeval English’, Anglica 18,

Press, Oxford.

45-70.

Kroch, Anthony (1989) “Reflexes of Grammar
in Patterns of Language Change,” Language

DICTIONARY

Variation and Change 1, 199–244.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Oxford

Los, Bettelou (2015) Historical Syntax of

University Press, Oxford.

English, Edinburgh University Press.
Mitchell, Bruce (1985) Old English Syntax, 2vols., Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Mustanoja, Tauno F. (1960) A Middle English
Syntax, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Roberts, Ian (1993) Verbs and Diachronic
Syntax: A Comparative History of English
and French, Dordrecht, Kluwer.
Sportiche, Dominique (1988) “A Theory of
Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries forConstituent Structure,” Linguistic Inquiry
19, 425–449.
Wasow, Thomas (1977) “Transformations andthe Lexicon,” Formal Syntax, ed. by Peter
W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow and Adrian
Akmajian, 327-360, Academic Press, New
York.

230

We will see the following four cases with
their varying possibilities: i) an NPI in the thanclause of a more than-CC ((1a, b)); ii) a PPI in thethan-clause of a more than-CC ((1c)); iii) an NPI

How to License NPIs and PPIs in theThan-Clause Across More Than- andin the than-clause of a less than-CC ((1d, e)); &iv) a PPI in the than-clause of a less than-CC

Less Than-Comparatives((1f)):

Norio Suzuki

(1)

a.

Kobe Shinwa Women’s University

Sarah was taller than anybody had
expected.

(former professor)b.

Belinda is much richer than I will everbe. (NPI-licensing; Rullmann 1995: 64)

Keywords: NPIs, PPIs, Comparativesc.

John is taller than some professional
basketball players are. → John is taller
than some professional athletes are.

1. Introduction(some as a PPI/‘upward entailing’;

It is well-known that the than-clause of more

Giannakidou & Yoon (2017: 3)

than-comparative constructions CCs can licensed.

negative polarity items NPIs and much recent

Sarah was less tall than anybody had
expected.

semantic work has pointed to positive polaritye.

items PPIs also being licensed in this position.

Belinda is less rich than I will ever be.
(NPI-licensing; Rullmann 1995: 80)

While not much attention has been paid to lessf.

Fewer students danced than teachers

than-CCs, it has been pointed out that the than-sang a ballad. → Fewer students danced

clause of less than-CCs is upward- entailing, withthan teachers sang. (‘upward-entailing’;

NPIs also occurring in this position.

Rullmann 1995: 79, note 4)

The aim of

this paper is to explore licensing(-like) properties

3. Assumptions and Analysisof the than-clause across more than- & less thanCCs.

We specifically focus on possible

The standard of comparison contributed

appearances of positive & negative polarity itemsby the than-clause provides a finite set/interval(PPIs, NPIs) with varying acceptability in CC

of degrees, informationally being a discourse-

than-clauses.

given topic of some sort ((2ai), ii)).

The analysis here is couched in

I take “-

Heim’s (2006a) CCs as generalized quantifiers

er/less (= -er+little)” as the heads of the CCs

over degrees approach to clausal comparatives,

taking two arguments (2bi), ii)); based on Heim

with the internal argument specifying a finite set

2006a,b; also Morzycki 2016):& the external argument not specifying such a set(based on Hornstein & Pietroski 2009).

(2)

a.

i)

Mary is taller than John is.

(withMary being 180cm & John 170cm)

2. Typical Examples to Account For

ii)

231

John is less tall than Mary is.

b.

i) [[ -er [INTERNAL than John is]]ii)

lines of Chierchia (2013: 30-31, 34; with D for[EXTERNAL Mary is tall-(er e) [e]]]individuals, ALT for a set of alternatives, (4c) as

Mary’s height: (0 ~ 180cm),

any’s normal semantic value, and (4d) as any’s

John’s height: (0 ~ 170cm)[[less=-er+little [INTERNAL thanfocus value constituted by sets of values of the

Mary

is]]

[EXTERNALJohn

same type as any):is(less=er+little e) tall [e]]](4)a. ‖There aren’t anyF,D cookies left‖= ¬∃xMary’s height: (180cm ~ ∞),∈ D [cookies (x) ∧ left(x)]John’s height: (170cm ~ ∞)b.

ALT = {¬∃x ∈ D’ [cookies (x) ∧left(x)]: D’ ⊆ D}c.

The focus of the CC in (2ai)) is the existence ofsome degrees of Mary’s height surpassing the setof all such degrees of John’s height.

‖anyF,D‖= λPλQ ∃ x ∈ D [P(x) ∧Q(x)]The focus

d.

of the CC in (2aii)) is the existence of somedegrees of John’s height falling below the set of‖anyF,D‖F = {λPλQ ∃x ∈ D’ [P(x) ∧Q(x)]: D’ ⊆ D}

all such degrees of Mary’s height.
Anycarriesaninherent(phonologically

4. Licensing Requirements for NPIs andunrealized) focal feature F, which signals that any

PPIs: Some Basic Considerations

associates with a set of alternatives constrained as

The following may give us some material toin (4) above.

start with:

The focal feature on any is thelexical property distinguishing it from plain
existentials which is used to code the fact that the

(3)

a.
b.

NPI-licensing requires the presence ofalternatives with which a statement involving any

some finite set/interval of degrees.

can be contrasted involve existentials with

PPI-licensing requires the presence ofsmaller domains.

some set/interval of degrees.

requirement

that

The system in (4) points to thetheoriginal

individuals

associated with any be larger than any of its
As for (3b), I keep for part of its exposition toalternatives.

Chierchia (2013: 37, note 16: “… plain

associated with any cannot be infinite, theindefinites likeresulting set of individuals turns out to be finite

some/acan

also

activate

subdomain alternatives. If this is so, then polarity

Since the original individuals(see (3a)).

items and plain indefinites are identical in both

Chierchia (2013: 32, 36-39) further derives

meaning and alternatives. The only difference

thebetween the two is whether the alternatives havestressed, any acts as a “domain widener.” If

to be obligatorily used (i.e., factored into theany (eventually, its semantics must always

meaning) or not” (emphasis ― NS); see also

involve O) comes with obligatorily active

Chierchia 2013: chapter 2).

We will see somealternatives, they must always be factored into

baseline logic below for (3a) purposes along themeaning through alternative sensitive operators,

232

observation

that,

when

contrastively

such as only/O, which “use up” active alternatives

communicatively useless; see Chierchia 2013:

associated with the contrastive focus.

Look at39-40.) It also turns out that we are left with(5) below, where the logical form of (5a) is (5b),the original domain D for individuals, which

in which O targets the alternatives associated withmust somehow be ‘finite.’any.

popularized points of view to the effect that it isIn (5b), the first argument of O is the

to

prove

Note that there aresubscripted variable C ranging over alternatives

impossiblethatsomethingis(i.e., a set of propositions) and its second

absent/nonexistent.

argument is the prejacent sentence in squareimpossible to prove that something is absent inbrackets; with ‘O’ in (5b) as the null counterpart

the absence of the finite domain of its existence.

of only, which is a standard device for

But given a finite domain for its existence, it

exhaustifying:

may not be so difficult to find out whether

Indeed, it would besomething is absent or present.
(5)
(6)

a.

There aren’t anyF,D cookies left.

b.

OC [There aren’t anyF,D cookies left]

swan problem.”a.

¬∃x ∈ D [cookies (x) ∧ left(x)]science and the scandal of philosophy,” accordingb.

{¬∃x ∈ D’ [cookies (x) ∧ left(x)]:to C.D. Broad.

D’ ⊆ D}observations you have made that “swans are

Recall the Problem of induction/”Black“Induction is the glory ofIn spite of the great number ofwhite,” you cannot be sure by inductive reasoning
The assertion is expressed truth-conditionally inthat the next time you see a swan, it will be white,(6a), while the alternatives are as in (6b) in virtue

excluding the possibility of it being black (basedof the lexical constraint on any (see (4) above).

on the information taken from Wikipedia:

All the members of the alternative set in (6b) are

Problem of induction).

entailed by the assertion (6a).

result of the Problem of induction should be theThen the result ofof

It seems that the net

exhaustifying (6b) is simply equivalent to theimpossibility

provingsomething’s

plain assertion:

nonexistence, which would somehow come to bepossible when you are given a finite domain (i.e.,(7)

OC [There aren’t anyF,D cookies left] =not infinite) for the purposes of its existence.

[There aren’t anyF,D cookies left]

Generally, you assert that something is= ¬∃x ∈ D [cookies (x) ∧ left(x)]nonexistent in the context of a case of NPIlicensing.

Uttering “There aren’t any books on

Then (5a) turns out to be a plain negative

the desk,” you want to convey the nonexistence

existential statement, returning the meaning ofof books on the desk.

the assertion unaltered.

And this result will

via inductive reasoning) have it that you cannot

ensue whenever a word like any occurs in theprove the nonexistence of something without alocal environment of a downward entailing (DE)

finite domain for the purposes of its existence.

operator.

(Note that the case of any not

Then you obtain an argument of a ‘third-factor’within the scope of a DE operator, ‘There are
anyD cookies left,’ would lead to a contradiction,sort for the necessity of a finite domain for NPIlicensing.

233

Popularized views (i.e.,Moreover, if people’s mistaken belief (i.e.,

contributes to satisfying (3a) for the purposes of‘mistaken’ in the sense of the ‘scandal of

NPI-licensing.

philosophy’) is coped well with as a ‘third-factor’I take the licensing requirements (3a, b) toresource incorporated into and contributing to thebe the baselines to account for the unmarked

making of language (like NPI-licensing cases),status of NPI-licensing in the than-clause of morethis may create quite an interesting aspect ofthan-CCs ((1a, b)) and PPI-licensing in the than-human language, which may continue to remainclause of less than-CCs ((1f)).

attomarked cases of PPI-licensing in the than-clausedevelopmentally believe whales to be a species ofof more than-CCs ((1c)) & NPI-licensing in thefish.

than-clause of less than-CCs ((1d, e)):5. Some Consequences

(9)

the

level

Returningoftochildren

(3a,

who

b),

seem

part

of

a.

Let us see theJohn is taller than some professional

thebasketball players are. → John is tallerconsiderations entering into the logic leading tothan some professional athletes are.

(3a, b) may be found in (8) below:(= (1c))
b.

(8)

a.
b.

John is taller than max (λd. Ǝx[tall (x, d)

For NPI licensing, you need a set with a˄[things-less-tall-than-John∩

maximal degree other than ∞.

professional-basketball-players] (x)])

For PPI licensing, you only need a set
with ∞.

c.

d.

The requirement in (9b) is that there be a non-null

A than-clause, which is the firstintersection of a (finite) set of height-degrees lessargument

than John’s height and set of professional

of

the

comparative

construction as a generalized quantifier,basketball players (in any height).

naturally gives an environment for

upward-entailing computation is implemented

NPI-licensing.

independently of comparative interpretation.

What happens when the than-clause

Look at (10) before getting on to (1d):licenses a PPI?

See the following:i) John is taller than some professionalii)

I assume that

(10)

Lucinda is driving less fast [than [isbasketball players are. (= (9) below)

allowed on this highway].

John is taller than max (λd. Ǝx[tall (x,(Heim 2006b, 35 (1))d) ˄ [things-less-tall-than-John ∩professional-basketball-players]

Suppose that the posted speed limit is 65mph(x)])(65mph ~ ∞) and the posted minimum speed
40mph (40mph ~ ∞).

Given the finite speed

The set of professional-basketball-players can beinterval of 40 ~ 65 mph obtained from the abovein any height, satisfying the PPI licensing

two points of speed, we get the two readings: (i)requirement in (3b).

“less-than-max” => < 65mph; & (ii) “less-than-The presence of the(maximal) height-degree less than John’s heightmin” => < 40mph (Heim 2006b).

234

dissertation, University of Massachusetts,
(11)

a.

Sarah was less tall than anybody had
expected.

Amherst.

(= (1d); with Sarah being

150cm)b.

Sarah’s height: (150cm ~ ∞)c.

Sarah was less tall than max/min((anybody-had-expected) (M) ˄ λd.
Ǝx[tall (x, d) ˄ Sarah (x)])

For the purposes of the requirement (3a), we needa finite set/interval of degrees of Sarah’s height
for the than-clause.

Suppose then that Sarah’s

heights a la anybody-had-expected are: min:
160cm ~ ∞ & max: 170cm ~ ∞, leading to a finite
set/interval of height degrees: 160cm ~ 170cm.
Then in this case as well, we get two
interpretations: i) Sarah’s actual height < min:
160cm, & ii) Sarah’s actual height < max: 170cm.

REFERENCES
Chierchia, Gennaro (2013) Logic in Grammar,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Giannakidou, Anastasia and Suwon Yoon
(2017) “Rethinking Negative Polarity andFree Choice in Comparatives,” Taken fromthe Internet.
Heim, Irene (2006a) “Remarks on Comparative
Clauses as Generalized Quantifiers.” Draft,
MIT.
Heim, Irene (2006b) “Little,” SALT 16.
Hornstein, Norbert and Paul Pietroski (2009)“Basic Operations: Minimal Syntax Semantics,” Catalan Journal of Linguistics
8, 113-139.
Morzy cki, M arcin (2016 ) Modi f ica ti on ,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rullmann, Hotze (1995) Maximality in the
Semantics of Wh-Constructions, Doctoral

235

the subject John is marked nominative followedby the inflected verb left.
(3)

How come John left?

A Unified Account of Mad Magazine(Collins (1991: 32))

Sentences and Non-canonical Types of How
Come Construction in English(4) is another variant of the canonical type of
HCC with nominative subjects followed by

Takahiro Tamada

to-infinitives instead of finite verbs.

Kogakkan University
Ryoichi Kondo(4)

Hirosaki University

how came he to have such daughters?
(COHA,1846,FIC,ElinorWyllysVolume1)

Keywords：How Come constructions, Mad

Kondo and Tamada (2020) suggest that come in

Magazine Sentences, default case, EPP effect(3) is base generated under C as a result of
reanalysis of V-element into C-element in linewith Late Merge Principle (Gelderen (2004,

1. Introduction2011)), or base generated in the specifier of CP

Akmajian (1984) discussed a special class of

forming a constituent with how, whereas came

exclamative sentences which is dubbed Mad

in (4) is base generated under V and raised to theMagazine Sentences (henceforth, MMs), which

CP domain through T. Their derivations areis illustrated in (1).

shown in (5) and (6) respectively (cf. Kondo andTamada (2020: 75) for the original derivations).

(1)

What! Her call me up?! Never.
(Akmajian (1984: 3))

(5)

a.

[CP how [C come] [TP John T [νP tJohn[VP left]]]]MMs share a common property with a specialb.

type of How Come Construction (henceforth,tJohn [VP left]]]]

HCC) in (2): their subjects appear in the(6)accusative form.
(2)[CP [how come] [C Ø] [TP John T [νP[CP how [V+ν+T+C came] [TP he tV+ν+T [νP tV+ν
[VP tV the [to have such daughters]]] thow]]“How come him to mention me at all?”

The similarity between (2) and (4) in word order(COHA,1932,FIC,Store)

would lead us to assume that come is a lexicalverb in (2), though these examples are different(2) is not a typical type of HCC in that thein that only in (4) is come inflected.

subject appears in the accusative form as him

The purpose of this paper is to account forfollowed by the to-infinitive to mention. We callthe similarity between (1) and (2) and thethis type non-canonical type of HCC. What we

difference between (2) and (4) within thecall a canonical type of HCC is the one withminimalist theory. Adopting the framework of

nominative subjects, as illustrated in (3), where

Chomsky (2008), this paper will propose that in236

MMs and the non-canonical type of HCC, theThe first property is the same as that of thehead of CP is merged without φ-features andnon-canonical type of HCC, as we have seen intense feature. It will be argued that the lack of(2). The second and third property can also be

the relevant features in C leads to the assignment

seen in the non-canonical type of HCC as in (2),of an accusative case to the subject in the two

as well as in the canonical type of HCC as in (3).

constructions.

In addition to these syntactic properties,
there is an important phonological constraint in

2. Properties of Mad Magazine Sentences

MMs: the subject forms an obligatory intonation

Before proceeding to a detailed analysis, letcenter, and thus it is always stressed, as shown

us look briefly at some of the syntacticin (10).

properties of MMs (see Akmajian (1984) and
Schütze (1997) for further properties of MMs
not listed here).

(10) a.

Him get a job?!

b.

* ’im get a job?!

First, the subjects appear in the accusative(Akmajian (1984: 8))

form in MMs, as we have seen in (1). This isalso seen from the following pair of examples,

The ungrammaticality of the example in (10b)which shows that it is impossible for the subjects

would suggest that the subjects in MMs cannot

to appear in the nominative form.

be phonologically reduced due to its status as afocus. We will argue below that this property can

(7)

a.

What! Her call me up?! Never.

be regarded as the same as that of wh-movementb.

What! *She call me up?! Never.

of how in HCC.

(Schütze (1997: 189))
3. Theoretical Background
Second, the verbs in MMs are not inflected for

In this paper, we adopt the frameworktense, person and number. The inflected verbs

presented by Chomsky (2008). He assumes thatbroke and worries are used in (8a) and (8b)

T inherits φ-features and tense feature from C.

respectively, which leads to ungrammaticality.

This enables T to serve as a probe and establish
an Agree relation with the goal DP, valuing and

(8)

a.
b.

* What?? Him broke a promise???

deleting its Case feature. As a result, it is

Never!

attracted to the specifier of TP. Under the

What?? Him worry/*worries?

assumption, the nominative case is assigned to

Never!

the subject through an Agree relation in(Schütze (1997: 189))

φ-features, but if T does not inherit them from C,
Third, MMs do not allow the presence of modals,

the relation cannot be established.

which occupy the domain of TP.
4. Analysis(9)

What?? Him (*will/should/could/would/

Extending Chomsky’s (2008) assumption,

can/must/might) leave the firm??? Never!

we propose that, in MMs, C is introduced into

(Schütze (1997: 189))

the derivation without φ-features and tensefeature. This means that T cannot inherit any

237

features from C and function as a probe. As aresult, the subject cannot be assigned any kind of(12) [CP how C [TP T [νP [V+ν come] [VP tV him [toCase, and thus realizes as an accusative form as

mention me at all]]] thow]] (= (2))

a default case, which is licensed independentlyof T (cf. Schütze (1997) and Osawa (2011)).

In (12), the subject him is base generated in theAlong this line, the sentence in (11a) is derived

internal argument position of the unaccusative

as in (11b).

verb come. Since C lacks φ-features, T cannot
inherit them, which forces the subject to realize(11) a.

What! Her call me up?! Never.

as an accusative form and stay in its original(= (1))

position. Given that wh-movement is an instance

b.

of
CP

focalization,

it

is

how

that

undergofocalization to move to Spec-CP in suchsentences, but not the subject him. The

her

Cˊ

derivation in (12) is different from that in (6), in
which come moves to the head of CP throughCTP

the head of TP, creating the sequence of how
come.

T

νP

It has been argued so far that the subjects in
MMs and the non-canonical type of HCC have

ther

νˊ

different properties from those in other finite
constructions. Under the present analysis, in

V+ν

VP

MMs, the movement of the subject to thecallsentence-initial position is an instance of
tV

me up

focalization. On the other hand, in the
non-canonical type of HCC, how undergoes

In (11), since T cannot inherit φ-features andfocalization. It is concluded from the discussion

tense feature from C, the relevant affixes cannot

in this section that the EPP effect is absent in thebe created to attach to a lexical verb, and an

two constructions because of the lack of theAgree relation cannot be established between therelevant features to be inherited from C to T.

subject and T. Thus, the subject is assigned anaccusative case as a default case, but not a

5. Further Consequence

nominative case. As we have seen above, theThe present analysis can account for the

subject in MMs must be stressed. This leads uspresence of the sentence such as (13), which is a

to assume that her undergoes focalization,

variant of the non-canonical type of HCC.

moving from its original position to the left
periphery of CP.
The

present(13) How come that he knows so much about
analysisis

immediately

the yacht?

extended to the non-canonical type of HCC in(COHA,1950,FIC,LoveHonor)(2). Thus, the sentence in (2) is derived as
schematized in (12).

(13) can be regarded as a variant of (14) that238

lacks the pronominal subject it.

types of HCC that the subject appears in theaccusative form. Since C lacks φ-features and(14) How comes it that those ruins have not, intense feature in both constructions, T cannot

part, accumulated?

inherit them, which forces the subject to be(COHA,1836,NF,StPierresStudies /licensed by default case. As a consequence ofKondo and Tamada (2020: 73))

this analysis, we have accounted for thepresence of the variant of HCC such as (13)Kondo and Tamada (2020) argue that thewhere the expletive it is absent and a that-clausesentences in (4) and (14) are classified into thedirectly follows come. Since T cannot inherit

same category, because in these sentences, comeany feature form C, it cannot function as a probe,

is analyzed as a lexical verb in that it inflects forso that there is no need to insert the expletive it

tense, person and number and agrees with theto the specifier of TP to satisfy the EPP.

subject. This leads us to assume that thesentence in (14) has the same structure as (4), as

REFERENCES
Akmajian, Adrian (1984) “Sentence Types andschematized in (15).

the Form-Function Fit,” Natural Language(15) [CP how [V+ν+T+C comes] [TP it tV+ν+T [νP tV+νand Linguistic Theory 2, 1-23.

[VP tV [CP that …]]] thow]]

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:
The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

Integrating this assumption with the present

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

analysis, (13) would be derived as in (16).

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David
Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155,(16) [CP how C [TP T [νP [V+ν come] [VP tV [CP that

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

…]]] thow]] (= (13))

Chomsky,Noam(2008)“On

Phases,”Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:
Assuming with Chomsky (2000) that the

Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,

expletive subject it is inserted to satisfy the EPP,

ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero andserving as a probe which locates T as a goal,

Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166, MITthen the absence of it in (13) immediately

Press, Cambridge, MA.

follows from the present analysis. In (16), C is

Collins, Chris (1991) “Why and How Come,”

introduced without φ-features and tense feature

MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15,

and thus T cannot inherit any features from it, so

31-45.

that the EPP effect does not arise (see Radford

Gelderen, Elly van (2004) Grammaticalization(2018: 270ff) for another analysis of the variant

as Economy, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

of HCC where a that-clause directly follows

Gelderen, Elly van (2011) The Linguistic Cycle:
Language Change and the Languagecome).

Faculty, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kondo, Ryoichi and Takahiro Tamada (2020)

6. Conclusion
This paper has accounted for the common“Eigoshi ni okeru How come Koubun noproperty between MMs and the non-canonicalKigen to Hattatsu ni tsuite (On the Origin

239

and

Development

of

How

Come

Constructions in the History of English),”JELS 37, 72-78.
Osawa, Satoko (2011) “The EPP and Mad
Magazine Sentences,” IVY 44, 19-36.
Radford, Andrew (2018) Colloquial English:
StructureandVariation,

Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.
Schütze, Carson T. (1997) Infl in Child andAdult

Language:

Licensing,

DoctoralAgreement,

Case,

dissertation,

MIT,

Cambridge, MA.
CORPUS
The Corpus of Historical American English
1810-2009(COHA),

Brigham

Young

University, U.S.A. (Mark Davies).

240

(2) below (a capitalized word indicates anaccented element):(2) a. ??Anna is taller than was SHE.
On the Functional Differences in Optional(Quirk et al. (1985: 1382))*

Subject Auxiliary Inversions

b. (?)She was as delighted with thesuggestion as was he. (Yagi (1987: 88))

Kazuhiro Tokunagac. They go to concerts frequently, as do I.
(adapted from Culicover (2013: 106))

Osaka University
Keywords: Subject Auxiliary Inversion, ClauseThis contrast between (2a, b) and (2c) raises the

Combination, Comparative Clauses, As-Clauses

question of why only SAM is always acceptable,
while the acceptability of SCC is not stable.

in Manner Use

In addition to the difference in acceptability,
as we will see in Section 2, SCC plays a
1. Introduction

different role in context than does SAM in termsof topic persistence.

Optional subject-auxiliary inversion (SAI)
can appear in comparative clauses (hereafter

The present study attempts to clarify theSCC) and as-clauses in manner use (hereafterfactor making the difference between SCC andSAM), as in the examples in (1) (underlining

SAM, focusing on their syntactic clausalmine):

integrity.1 Consequently, I argue that as-clauses
in manner use are originally less integrated with

(1) a. I spend more than do my friends.

the main clause than are comparative clauses,(Quirk et al. (1985: 1382))

which

b. …, I did not see her as often as did

theirfunctional

orientationdifferently when SAI is applied to them.

Francis, to whom she frequently camefor advice …

affects

This paper will proceed as follows: in(Yagi (1987: 88))

Section 2, we will look at how different SAI inc. Ed build a canoe, as did his wife.

comparative clauses is from that in as-clauses in(Potts (2002: 639))

manner use, in light of research results from
Tokunaga’s corpus survey (in press). Section 3 isMany scholars have argued that SAI in (1) isdevoted to Green’s (2017) analysis of two types

triggered by (the principles of) end-weight andof clausal integrity: clause combination andend-focus (Quirk et al. (1985); Yagi (1987);

event integration. In Section 4, we analyze the

Yoshida (1998); Biber et al. (1999); Huddleston

clausal integrity of comparative clauses andand Pullum (2002); Culicover (2013)).

as-clauses in manner use. Section 5 concludes

Suchexpositions,however,arethe study.

unsatisfactory because they have not treated SAI
with personal pronoun subjects in much detail.

2. Functional Asymmetry between SAI in

SAI as in (1) differs in acceptability when

Comparative Clauses and that in As-clauses

personal pronoun subjects are postposed, as inof Manner2241

topic) → [S3] ✗The key problem with the existing accounts
is that they have tended to focus on a

I longed to depart this noisome hole assingle-sentence-based analysis, albeit significant,avidly as did they [= the wreckers]. [S1] We

rather

SAI

were at this tedious work for the rest of theconstructions in (1) and (2) behave in context.

watch. [S2] The Wreckers tried to lighten

For this reason, Tokunaga (in press) conducted atheir burden with common shipmate raillery,corpusof[S3] as when Goldenrod said to Crossgrain,

Contemporary American English (COCA) on the“Had’st not thou once a wife who smelled

web and its full-text data available on a Linux

as of this place?”thanconsidering

survey

using

how

the

the

Corpus3

server at Ritsumeikan University. The corpus(COCA: fiction)(4) [S1] N → [S2] N (omitted but identical)

research reveals that there is a distributional

Wolstenholme said her children weredifference between SCC and SAM. The former

shaking and terrified, as was she. [S1] She

tends to occur less frequently than the latterran upstairs and [S2] frantically started

when these clauses have personal pronoun

packing when her fiance [sic] reminded her

subjects.

of their plan, to leave in their own vehicles,with the children and their dog, when the

Table 1: The Distribution of SCC and SAM withwater went down.

(COCA: news)

Personal Pronoun Subjects
Sub-corpora

SCC

SAM

As the two examples of SCC in (3) illustrate, theAcademic

0

4

consecutive topical referents (e.g. subject and

Fiction2

18

direct object) that refers to the postposed

Magazine

011

subjects in comparative clauses cannot be found

News

0

7

in the subsequent sentences. In contrast, as for

Spoken0

15

SAM, 18 out of 55 cases (32.5%) exhibit the

Total

0

55

function of introducing their postposed subjects
into the subsequent discourse. This result

In addition, SCC plays a different role in context

suggests that SCC is less motivated than SAM

than does SAM. SCC is not used to introduce

from the viewpoint of discourse. As the

postposed subjects into the subsequent discourse,

examples in (3) show, the function of SCC does

unlike SAM. Compare SCC in (3a, b) with SAM

not change in that SCC simply conveys thein (4) (“S” stands for “sentence”):

standard of comparison, regardless of SAI. On
the other hand, SAM like (4) can serve to
introduce its subject into the subsequent context(3) a. [S1] ✗ (no TP)“Our own soldiers suffer in Northern

via SAI. However, this raises the question ofprison camps,” Lee said, “though thewhat causes the functional difference. One of theNorth has more to spare for captives

possible factors is clausal integrity because

than do we. [S1] The North has more tocomparative clauses depend on a main clause,

spare for everyone.

(COCA: fiction)

but as-clauses in manner use can be separatedb. [S1] ✗ → [S2] N (but not continuousfrom their main clause. McCawley (1988: 696)
points out that comparative clauses need

242

in

“compared constituents,” as in (5a) and (5b):manner

use,

how

main

clausesandsubordinate clauses are integrated must be
considered. In this section, we look at Green’s(5) John is more worried about the future than
Mary (is), but not(2017) two types of clausal integrity: (i) clausea. more worried about the environment than

combination and (ii) event integration.

Bill (is).
3.1. Clause Combinationb. *than Bill (is).

Green (2017) investigates the English clause(6) John is as anxious to finish the job as
George is, but not

systemdiachronicallyandsynchronically,a. as determined to do it right as Mary is.

suggesting that there is a difference of integrity

b. *as Mary is.

in English combined clauses. Green (2017)classified them into nine categories, as in (8).

(adapted from McCawley (1988: 696))(8) a. Coordinate (symmetric)

By contrast, SAM can be employed as an
insubordinate clause. In (7), the as-clause is

He hated Leeds and everyone hates

situated after a paragraph gap (“//” indicates a

Leeds
b. Coordinate (asymmetric)

paragraph gap).

I must tread gingerly this week or things(7) He knew something they did not, and they

will backfirec. Adverbial

did not know the difference: this was one

I’ll show you, when you some [sic] out

thing that marked him as an artist whiled. Comparative

they painted portraits. // As did I. My part

It is probably more than the car is worth

in the story is yet to come. (COCA: fiction)

e. Relative
Given the examples in (5), (6), and (7), it can be

I’ve got another girl that does all my

hypothesized that the difference in integrity canbuyingpossibly affect these functional orientations

f. Content
I think that is rightwhen SAI is applied to them. More concretely,comparative

clausesareorientedg. Past Participle

tointra-sentential functions because of tight clausal

You don’t want the ground splatteredintegrity, while as-clauses in manner use arewith horrible things
h. Present Participle

oriented to extra-sentential functions because of

there was a problem buying the houseloose clausal integrity. To clarify this property, it

i. Infinitival

is necessary to consider their degree of clausal
integrity. In the following section, we will

I’ve got enough for tomorrow to get me

examine this difference in integrity.

there

3. Two Types of Clausal Integrity(adapted from Green (2017: 36))

Based on the category in (8), Green (2017: 36)

Before shifting to the analysis of the clausal

proposes a hierarchy for combined clauses

integrity of comparative clauses and as-clauses(“Inf.,” “Part.,” “Adv.,” “AC,” and “SC” stand

243

for

“Infinitival

Clause,”tense-aspect“Participle,”

continuity

and

(ii)

subject“Adverbial,” “Asymmetric Coordination,” andcontinuity. Based on these results, Green (2017:“Symmetric Coordination”). In (9), clause43) concludes that “[n]one of the distributions

integrity ranges from the tightest to the loosest.

strikingly favored discontinuity or continuity
between the tense-aspect of verbal elements in aform” and the tense-aspect (dis)continuity does

(9) The Hierarchy of Combined Clauses innot support the hypothesis in (10).

English:Inf. > Present Part. > Past Part. > Content

On the other hand, Green (2017) maintains

Clause > Relative Clause > Comparativethat the subject (dis)continuity verifies thisClause > Adv. Clause > AC > SC

hypothesis. The tighter the integration of clausesis (e.g., “To-infinitival,” “Present participle,”(adapted from Green (2017: 36))and “Past participle”), the more frequently they
comparative

represent a stronger tendency to have the sameclauses are tighter than adverbial clauses

subject, which suggests that the clauses withbecause comparative clauses are “not often easytight integration tend to share the same subjects

to remove, nor a background proposition” (e.g.,with the main clauses (e.g., Non-Finite andShe ran faster than all her colleagues did.), andSemi-Finite clauses such as Infinitival Clauses

sluicing and verb substitution are applicable

and Present/Past Participle).

Green(2017)

comments thatwhen “the main clause verb is carried over to the

In contrast, loosely integrated clauses aresubordinate clause” (p. 38). On the other hand,often used with different subjects between theadverbial clauses show less integration thanmain clauses and subordinate clauses (e.g.,comparative clauses in (9) in that they are

Finite clauses such as “Content clause,”

optional, and there is a gap between main

“Relative clause,” “Comparative clause,” andclauses and subordinate clauses “by a comma in“Adverbial clause”).5 This tendency corresponds

writing or intonational reset in speech” (p. 38).4

to (9) above.

To demonstrate that there are different levels

In

Section

4,

we

will

examinetheof integration in the English clause system,

tense-aspect continuity and subject continuity ofGreen (2017) conducts corpus research andcomparative clauses and as-clauses in mannerattempts to prove the following hypothesis:

use in order to analyze the integration of bothclauses.

(10) “The more integrated a clause, the more
one might expect it to have a more

4. Integrity of Comparative Clauses andintegrated function and share the tense,

As-Clauses in Manner Use

aspect and participants of the clause withwhich it combines”

In this section, we will consider the(Green (2017: 40))

differenceofclausalintegrity

betweencomparative clauses and as-clauses in manner
In order to clarify the degree of integrationuse, based on Green’s (2017) study. For thisbetween main clauses and subordinate clauses,

purpose, corpus data including both clauses areGreen (2017: 43-44) examines the nine types ofobtained from COCA, and analyzed with theclauses in (9) from two perspectives: (i)two criteria utilized in Green’s (2017) work: (i)244tense-aspect

continuity

and

(ii)

subject

significant difference between the two clauses (pcontinuity. As for the data we will examine here,= .28 > .05). It follows that neither tense nor

comparative clauses without SAI amount to 50

aspect continuity would work as a criterion forclauses in number (than-clauses and equatives

clarifying clausal integration of the two clauses,

each account for 25 clauses), and the data ofas Green (2017) points out.8

non-SAI in as-clauses in manner use also
4.2. Subject Continuity

account for 50 clauses in number. Note that thegoal of this research is to examine the clausal

Having examined tense/aspect continuity, we

integrity of both types of clauses. This approach

now turn to the topic of subject continuity. Tableis not concerned with SAI. Therefore, the data of3 represents the distribution of subject continuity

the two clauses containing SAI are notfor comparative clauses and as-clauses inconsidered in this section.

6

manner use.

4.1. Tense-Aspect Continuity

Table 3: Clause Type and Subject Continuity

First, we look at tense-aspect continuity. If a

(Non_SAI)

main verb in a main clause represents the same

Clause Typetense/aspect as a subordinate clause, the clausal
9Same

Different

Subject

SubjectN

integrity can be considered high. Conversely,

Comparative

24 (44%)26 (56%)50

when

As (manner)

13 (26%)37 (74%)

50

Total

37 (37%)63 (63%)

100

the

two

clausesshow

different

tenses/aspects, the clausal integrity can beevaluated as loose. The tense-aspect continuityof the two clause types is given in Table 2.

In comparative clauses, the ratio of comparative
clauses (44%) with the same subjects is nearly

Table

2:

ClauseType

andTense-Aspect

the same as the ratio of those with the different

Continuity

subjects (56%). This implies that the integrity ofClause Type

T/A

T/A

N

comparative clauses can be regarded as a matterdiscontinuity continuity
7of chance level. In other words, the degree ofComparative

6 (12%)

44 (88%)50

their clausal integration seems to be variable. On

As (manner)

11 (22%)39 (78%)50

the contrary, the distribution of as-clauses is

Total

17 (17%)83 (83%)100

uneven. The ratio of as-clauses with different
subjects (74%) is higher than the ratio of thoseIn this case, comparative clauses exhibit higher

with the same subjects (26%). This distribution

tense/aspect continuity than do as-clauses ofalso reaches statistical significance (p = .03

manner. We also see a different distribution in< .05). We can deduce from the result thatthe tense/aspect discontinuity between the two

as-clauses of manner can be regarded as clauses

clauses. As-clauses of manner tend to represent

with lower the degree of integrity in comparison

discontinuity of tense/aspect more frequently

to comparative clauses. As (9) shows, the lower

than do comparative clauses. Although theseclausal integrity becomes, the more subordinate

differences can be seen in Table 2, there is noclauses become independent from main clauses.

245Thus, it can be posited that as-clauses can beprepared for the English Linguistic Society ofconsidered more independent from the main

Japan 13th International Spring Forum (Mayclause than comparative clauses, and that the2020; this forum was canceled due to theformer type of clauses in expected to assume an

coronavirus). I would like to thank Sadayuki

additional function outside of the sentence in

Okada and Eri Tanaka for helpful comments. All

which it is embedded: the as-clauses can exhibit

remaining errors are entirely my own.

an extra-sentential function of introducing their1

inverted subjects as new topics in the subsequentNOTES
Tokunaga (in press) addresses this problem

discourse when SAI is applied to them. On thefrom a cognitive semantic perspective.

contrary, comparative clauses cannot exhibit

2This section is based on Tokunaga (in press).

such a discourse function because they are

3

Therefore, this study deals mainly with Modern

closely connected with their main clause.

American English (the corpus survey was

Therefore, their function is simply to present the

conducted on September 13, 2020). Currently, I

standard of comparison, regardless of SAI.

ama

Post-Master’s

Researcher

at

the

Ritsumeikan University Graduate School of
5. Conclusion

Language Education and Information Science. I

This paper has been concerned with thedifferenceinclausalintegrity

obtained an appropriate qualification for accessbetweento a corpus server containing the text data.

comparative clauses and as-clauses in manner4use. Based on Green’s (2017) framework, wecategorized

have examined the integrity of these clauses

modifier, adjunct, and independent. According tofrom the following two perspectives: (i)Green (2017: 35), the complement level is thetense-aspect(ii)

tightest among them, followed by the modifier

subject-continuity. As for the former case, therelevel. The adjunct level is third in the hierarchy,

is no significant difference between the two

while independent has the loosest integration.

clauses, whereas a significant difference can be

According to his classification, comparative

found in the latter case. This finding suggests

clauses fall under (i) complement and (ii)that subject-continuity may affect the functional

adjunct, as illustrated below.

continuity

andorientation of SCC and SAM. As-clauses are

In

his

research,
into

four

syntactic
levels:functioniscomplement,(i) Adjunctoriginally less integrated with the main clause

Many more birds had been sold inthan are comparative clauses. Therefore, whenretail outlets than had been bred inthey are used as a marked construction, theircaptivity.

unique extra-sentential discourse function can be(ii) Complement

observed. Comparative clauses, on the other[T]he faces aren’t as pretty as they

hand, are closely integrated with their main

once were.

clause.

Thefunctionislimitedto(Green (2017: 42))the

However, he does not explain why thepresentation of the standard of comparison eventhan-clause in (i) has higher integrity than thewhen SAI is applied to the clause.

equative in (ii). This analysis seems problematic
because comparative clauses need “compared
constituents” (McCawley (1988: 696)), as* This article is a revised version of the handout

246

mentioned in (5) and (6). For this reason, in thisEnglish, Pearson, Harlow.
Culicover, Peter W. (2013) Grammar andstudy, than-clauses and equatives are regarded ascomplements in accordance with McCawley’sComplexity,(1988) analysis.

Oxford.

5

As

for

Asymmetric

Coordination

Green,

andOxfordClarence

University(2017)

Press,

Patterns

andSymmetric Coordination, the cases of the same

Development in the English Clause System: A

subjects in the former coordination are observed

Corpus-Basedmore frequently than in the latter. This trend

Springer, Singapore.

Grammatical

Overview,

suggests that the integrity of the former is tighter

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum

than that of the latter. Therefore, Asymmetric(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of theCoordination

English Language, Cambridge University

isplacedbeforeSymmetric

Press, Cambridge.

Coordination in (9).
6There is another reason why SCC and SAM are

McCawley, James D. (1998) The Syntactic

not dealt with in this section. The data of the

Phenomena of English (2nd ed.), The

former are rarely found in COCA (only three

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Potts, Christopher (2002) “The Syntax andcases), unlike SAM (50 cases). Hence, thisresearch focuses on non-SAI data.

Semantics of As-parentheticals,” Natural

7

Comparative clauses consist of the data of

Languagethan-clauses (25 cases) and equatives (25 cases).

623-689.

andLinguistics

20,

TheoryQuirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey

In Table 2, three cases of tense or aspectdiscontinuity can be obtained from each of the

Leech

and

former and the latter data, which means that theComprehensive Grammar of the English

rest of the data (22 cases in each clause type)

Language, Longman, London.
Tokunaga,show the same tense or aspect as their mainJan

SvartvikKazuhiro(in(1985)

press)

A“The

clauses.

Categorization of SAI in As-clauses in

8

MannerAlthough Green (2017) does not adopt this

Use

from

the

Viewpointofcriterion, it is employed in this study in order toDiscourse-Modality,” Papers from the 21st

confirm whether tense-aspect continuity is

National

relevant to the difference between comparative

Cognitive Linguistics Association.

of

the

Japanese

Yagi, Takao (1987) Teido Hyogen to Hikaku

clauses and as-clauses of manner.
9

Conference

Kouzo, Taisyukan, Tokyo.

The data of than-clauses consist of six cases

Yoshida, Seiji (1998) Zoku Eigo Kyoshi nowith the same subjects and 19 cases withtameno Eibunpo, Kenkyusha, Tokyo.

different subjects. The data of equatives include
18 cases with the same subjects and seven cases

CORPORAwith different subjects.
DaviesMark(2008–)

Contemporary

REFERENCES
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech,

The

CorpusofAmericanEnglish:560

Million Words, 1990–present.
The

Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan (1999)

Full-text

Data

of

The

CorpusContemporary American English.

Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written

247

of

that of the Yanbian variety of Korean, (ii) that (i)implies that there is no correlation between the
N´-deletability and the availability of genitive
subject in human language, and (iii) that theconditions on genitive subject licensing inOn the Distribution of the Genitive Case*

Mongolian proposed by Maki et al (2016) apply

Marker in the Manchu Language

not only to Mongolian, Japanese and the
Yanbian variety of Korean, but also to Manchu.

Shao-Ge Wang
Gifu University

2. Background

Hideki Maki

Research has been done on the availability ofGifu University

genitive subject in various languages, and also
Keywords: genitive subject, Mongolian, Manchu,

on the availability of N´-deletion in various

N´-deletion, the Yanbian variety of Korean

languages. Harada (1971) originally points outthat Japanese allows genitive subject, as shownin (1).

1. Introduction(1) [Doyoobi-niThis paper investigates the distribution of thetamago-ga/-no yasui]genitive case marker in Manchu, a Tungusic

Saturday-on egg-Nom/-Gen cheap

language spoken in Manchuria, and elucidates

mise-wa kono mise desu.

the mechanism behind it. We owe all examples

store-Top thisused in this paper to Shuo Wang, an instructor of‘The store where eggs are cheap on

Manchu at Hebei Normal University for

Saturdays is this store.’ (Japanese)store beNationalities. There are no existent monolingual
speakers of the language, but some 100 people

Since his seminal work, the phenomenon has

are bilingual of Manchu and Chinese, and there

been investigated by many linguists, such as

are some 1,000 people who are not bilingual of

Miyagawa (1993, 2011, 2012, 2013), Watanabe

these, but can read, write, speak and translate(1996), Hiraiwa (2001), Ochi (2001, 2009),

Manchu, one of whom is Shuo Wang.

Harada (2002) and Kobayashi (2013), among
others.

Our findings are as follows. First, thegenitive subject is allowed in Manchu. Second,

Saito and Murasugi (1990) originally point

in sentences with no overt relative head, headedout that N´-deletion is possible in Japanese. The

by de isitala ‘until,’ for example, the genitive

example in (2) is from Saito et al (2008).

subject is allowed. Third, the Transitivity(2) [Taroo-no taido]-wa

Restriction does not hold. Fourth, the genitive

yoi

ga,

subject is disallowed in embedded clauses. Fifth

Taro-Gen attitude-Top good though

and finally, N´-deletion is impossible.

[Hanako-no

It will be argued that these findings suggest

taido]-wa

yokunai.

Hanako-Gen attitude-Top not.good(i) that the distribution of the genitive case‘Though Taro’s attitude is good, Hanako’s

marker in Manchu is more or less identical to

isn’t.’ (Saito et al (2008)) (Japanese)248(6) Dering Bkrashis-ø/*-kyi

Maki (2019) finds certain relations between

thon pa-’ithe N´-deletability and the availability of

today Bkrashis-Abs/-Gen arrive-Gen

genitive subject in languages with prenominal

dustshod-ni phyidro-’i dustshod 8 red.

sentential modifiers so far examined to sometime-Top

depth, which is shown in (3).

‘The time when Bkrashis arrived today is 8

a.m.-Gen time

8 bea.m.’ (Tibetan)(3) The N´-Deletability and the Availability of
In contrast to Tibetan, Japanese allows both

Genitive Subject in Languages with Prenominal

genitive subject and N´-deletion, as shown in (1)Sentential Modifiers✓ Genitive Subject✓

Japanese, Mongolian,N´-Deletion

Urdu, Bengaliand (2).

* Genitive Subject

3. Data*

Korean,Let us now examine sentences with theN´-Deletion

Tibetangenitive subject in Manchu. Just like Japaneseand Mongolian, Manchu also allows thenominative/genitive alternation. First, in relative(3) seems to show two relations in (4a, b).

clauses, the subject can be marked genitive, as(4) a.

shown in (7).

A language allows N´-deletion. =It allows genitive subject.

b.

(7) [Sikse

A language disallows N´-deletion. =It disallows genitive subject.

Jangsan’-ø/-it udaha]yesterday Zhangsan-Nom/-Genboughtbithe-oci

ere bithe inu.

Japanese and Mongolian, among others, allow

book-Top

this book beboth N´-deletion and genitive subject. However,‘The book Zhangsan bought yesterday is

Korean and Tibetan does not allow either

this book.’N´-deletion or genitive subject. In the following,
we will present data from Tibetan as a language

While (7) contains a gap in the relative clause,that does not allow either of them.

(8) does not.

Let us consider the Tibetan examples in (5)(8) [Sikseand (6), which are due to Daojicao (p.c.).

Jangsan’-ø/-iinjebuhe]yesterday Zhangsan-Nom/-Gen laughed(5) a.

Su-yi

who-Gen attitudeb.

baita baita

rnam agyur bzang ngam?

fact

good Qinu.

problem be‘Whose attitude is good?’‘The fact that Zhangsan laughed yesterday

Bkrashis-kyi [N´ rnam agyur] red.

is a problem.’Bkrashis-Gen

attitudebeSecond, in sentences with no overt relative‘Bkrashis’s attitude is.’head, headed by de isitala ‘until,’ for example,

c. * Bkrashis-kyi [N´ e] red.
Bkrashis-Gen

the genitive subject is allowed.

be‘Bkrashis’s is.’ (Tibetan)249

(9) Aga-ø/-i(12) [[Sikse

waqihiyame nakaha

Jangsan’-ø/*-i

t1 udahaboughtrain-Nom/-Gen completely

stopyesterday Zhangsan-Nom/-Gende isitala, Jangsan’-ø

albanbou-deseme] Liisy’-ø

gvnimbi] bithe-oci, tere

until

Zhangsan-Nom office-at

that

Lisi-Nom think

bihei

bi.

bithe.

all.the.way wasbook‘Zhangsan was at his office all the way‘The book which Lisi thinks [that Zhangsan

until it stopped raining.’bought t yesterday] is that book.’(13) Baɣatur-ø

Third, the Transitivity Restriction does notbook-Top that[öčügedür Ulaɣan-ø/-u t1

Bagatur-Nom

yesterday Ulagan-Gen

hold in Manchu. Japanese has a phenomenon

qudaldun-abu-ɣsan/*-ab-čaithat the genitive subject cannot co-occur with an

buy-take-Past.Adn/-take-Past.Con that

accusative ‘-o’ marked object. The restriction

bodu-ɣsanprohibiting

itthink-Past.Adn book-Top this book

Restriction(hereafter,iscalledthe‘TransitivityTR).’ (The

TR

gejü]

nom1-bol ene nom.

is‘The book which Bagatur thought [thatdiscussed by Harada (1971), Miyagawa (1993),

Ulagan bought t yesterday] is this book.’

Watanabe (1996), Hiraiwa (2001) and Ochi
(2009), among others). The TR in Japanese is

Fifth and finally, N´-deletion is not possible

shown below.

in Manchu, as shown below.

(10) [John-ga/*-no hon-oJohn-Nomkashita] hito

book-Acc lent(14) We-i

persontuwaraba-øsain akv?

who-Gen attitude-Nom good not‘the person to whom John lent a/the book’‘Whose attitude is not good?’(Watanabe 1996: 389, ex. 37a)(15) Jangsan’-i
Zhangsan-Gen

On the other hand, the TR does not hold in[N´ tuwaraba/*e].
attitude‘Zhangsan’s (attitude).’Manchu, as shown below.
4. Discussion(11) [Sikse

Jangsan’-ø/-itere

Let us now consider what the observed facts

yesterday Zhangsan-Nom/-Gen thatmight suggest for the theory of (Manchu) syntax.

bithe-bejuwen buhe ningge, Liisy’ inu.

First, the findings suggest that Manchu andbook-Acc lend give person Lisi be

Japanese differ in the Transitivity Restriction.

‘The person who Zhangsan lent the book toConsider again the contrast between (11) andis Lisi.’(10). In order to see if the TR is a general
phenomenon in Altaic languages, let us examine

Fourth, the genitive subject is not allowed inother Altaic languages. First, Maki et al (2015)

embedded clauses in Manchu, as shown in (12),show that in Mongolian, the TR is not observed.

in contrast to Mongolian, as shown in (13).

Second, Xie and Maki (2019) show that Kazakh
does not show the TR effect. Third, Kornfilt(2003) shows that in Turkish, the TR is not

250

(18)*John-un wancenhi

observed, either. Fourth, Qiu and Maki (2020)

pi(H)/pi(L)show that Azerbaijani does not show the TR

John-Top completely rain.Nom/rain.Gen

effect. Fifth and finally, Jin (2014) shows thatkkun-u-l

the Yanbian Variety of Korean (YK, hereafter)

stop-Past-Adn until office-at

shows the TR effect, as shown below.

‘John was at his office until it stopped

kkaci samusil-ey issessta.
wasraining completely.’(H)(16) [John-i /-i(L)chayk-uThird, Manchu, Japanese and YK do not

John-Nom/*-Gen book-Acc
salamallow the genitive subject in complement clauses.

lend-Past-Adn person

Compare the Manchu example in (12) with its‘the person to whom John lent a/the book’Japanese and YK counterparts in (19) and (20).

pillyec-u-n](19) Taroo-ga [kinoo

Note that in colloquial YK, although no overt

Hanako-ga/*-not1case marking is found for nominative or genitive,

Taro-Nom yesterday Hanako-Nom /-Gen

pitch accents are used to distinguish between thekatta

two grammatical cases:(L)is associated with

examplesfromvariousomotta hon1-wa

konobought Comp thought book-Top thisgenitive case, while (H) with nominative case.
These

to]

hon da.
book beAltaiclanguages show that in terms of the Transitivity‘The book which Taro thought [that Hanako

Restriction, only Japanese and YK patternbought t yesterday] is this book.’(20) John-i

together, and Manchu patterns together with theezey

other Altaic languages such as Mongolian,John-Nom yesterday

Kazakh, Turkish and Azerbaijani. This indicates

Meyari(HLL)/*Meyari(LLL) t1 sattathat the Transitivity Restriction is restricted to a

Mary-Nom/-Genbought Compfew Altaic languages, and Japanese and YK aresaygkakhan chayk1-un ichayk ita.

such exceptional languages, while Manchu is not.

thought

We will leave open this perplex issue within‘The book which John thought [that Mary

Altaic languages.

bought t yesterday] is this book.’kobook-Top this book be

Second, both Japanese and Manchu allow
the genitive subject in the ‘until’-clause, while

These examples indicate that Manchu patterns

YK does not. Compare the Manchu example in

together with Japanese and YK, not Mongolian.

(9) with its Japanese and YK counterparts inFourth, the findings suggest that in terms of(17) and (18).

N´-deletion, Manchu pattens together with YK,
not Japanese. Compare the Manchu examples in(17) John-wa [ame-ga/-no

yam-u

made]

(14) and (15) with the YK and Japanese

John-Top rain-Nom/-Gen stop-Pres until

counterparts in (21a, b) and (22a, b).

ofisu-ni i-ta.
office-at be-Past(21) a.

Nu-ki

thayto choci ansumni ka?

‘John was at his office until it stopped

who-Gen attitude good not.beraining.’‘Whose attitude is not good?’

251

Q

b.

John-i[N´ thayto/*e] imnita.

John-Gen

attitude✓ Genitive Subject

be‘John’s (attitude) is.’ (YK)(22) a.

Dare-no taido-ga

yoku nai✓Japanese, Mongolian,N´-Deletion

Urdu, Bengali*

who-Gen attitude-Nom good not

N´-Deletion

YK, Manchu* Genitive Subject

Korean, Tibetan

desu ka?
beb.

Q(24) shows two important things. First, Manchu‘Whose attitude is not good?’

patterns together with YK with the two

John-no[N´ taido/e] desu.

properties, namely, the N´-deletability and theJohn-Gen

attitude beavailability of genitive subject. Second, and‘John’s (attitude) is.’ (Japanese)more importantly, the facts about Manchu andYK clearly indicate that there is no correlation(23) summarizes the distribution of the genitive

between the two properties.

case marker in Japanese, Manchu and YK.

Now, (24) clearly shows the non-correlation
between the N´-deletability and the availability(23) On the Distribution of the Genitive Caseof genitive subject, which further raises theMarker in Japanese, Manchu and YK

question as to whether the upper right corner isJapanese

ManchuYKan accidental gap, or some languages come to

Genitive Subject

√

√

√

the gap. Hu and Maki (2019) and Wang and‘Until’-Clause

√

√

*

Maki (2019) found that Naxi and Tujia, which

Transitivity Restriction

√

*

√

are considered officially identified minority

Complement Clauses

*

*

*

languages of China, do not allow genitive

N´-Deletion

√

*

*

subject, but do allow N´-deletion. Therefore,
these two languages fill the gap at the upper
right corner, as shown in (25).

(23) shows that Manchu seems to be placed
between Japanese and YK, as it partially patterns(25) The N´-Deletability and the Availability of

together with Japanese, and at the same time,

Genitive Subject in Languages withpartially patters together with YK.

Prenominal Sentential Modifiers

However, from the viewpoint of the relations
between the N´-deletability and the availability✓ Genitive Subjectof genitive subject in languages with prenominal✓

Japanese, Mongolian,

sentential modifiers so far examined to someN´-Deletion

Urdu, Bengali

depth, Manchu patterns together with YK, as*

shown in (24).

N´-Deletion

YK, Manchu* Genitive Subject
Naxi, Tujia

Korean, Tibetan(24) The N´-Deletability and the Availability of(25) thus clearly indicates that there is no

Genitive Subject in Languages withcorrelation between the two syntactic properties,

Prenominal Sentential Modifiers

namely, the N´-deletability and the availabilityof genitive subject.

252

Fifth and finally, the conditions on genitiveof the Manchu language, and showed (i) that the

subject licensing in Mongolian proposed bygenitive subject is allowed, (ii) that in sentences

Maki et al (2016) apply not only to Mongolian,with no overt relative head, headed by de isitala

but also to Japanese, YK and Manchu. The‘until,’ for example, the genitive subject isconditions on genitive subject licensing inallowed, (iii) that the Transitivity Restriction

Mongolian are shown below.

does not hold, (iv) that the genitive subject isdisallowed in embedded clauses, and (v) thatN´-deletion is impossible. We also argued that

(26) Conditions on Genitive Subject Licensing
in Mongolian

these findings suggest (i) that the distribution ofa.

A genitive subject must be

the genitive case marker in Manchu is more orc-commanded by a nominal element inless identical to that of the Yanbian variety of

a local domain.

Korean, (ii) that (i) implies that there is no

A genitive subject must be in a local

correlation between the N´-deletability and therelationship with the adnominal form

availability of genitive subject in humanof a predicate.

language, and (iii) that the conditions onb.

genitive

subject

licensingin

Mongolian

These two conditions correctly predict the

proposed by Maki et al (2016) apply not only to(un)grammaticality of the examples with the

Mongolian, Japanese and the Yanbian variety ofgenitive subject, if we assume (27).

Korean, but also to Manchu.

(27) a.

There is an abstract distinction* We would like to thank Shuo Wang, an

between the conclusive form and the

instructor

adnominal form in Manchu, just like

University for Nationalities, for the Manchu

Japanese.

examples used in this paper and his valuable

De isitala ‘until’ has nominality, andcomments. All errors are our own.

b.

ofManchuat

Hebei

Normalthe predicate that precedes it has its
adnominal form in Manchu, just like

REFERENCES
An, Duk-Ho (2012) “NP-Ellipsis, its Impostors

Japanese.
c.

The predicate that precedes theand Minor Argument Pronominalization incomplementizer seme ‘that’ does not

Korean,” Korean Journal of Linguistics 37,

have its adnominal form in Manchu,

345–356.
Harada, Naomi (2002) Licensing PF-Visible

just like Japanese.

Formal Features: A Linear Algorithm and
Therefore, the conditions on genitive subject

Case-Related Phenomena in PF, Doctoral

licensing in Mongolian proposed by Maki et al

dissertation,(2016) apply not only to Mongolian, Japanese

Irvine.

UniversityofCalifornia,

Harada, S.-I. (1971) “Ga-No Conversion andand YK, but also to Manchu.

Ideolectal Variations in Japanese,” Gengo
Kenkyu 60, 25–38.

5. Conclusion

Hiraiwa, Ken (2001) “On Nominative-Genitive

This paper investigated syntactic properties

253

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2013) “Strong Uniformity

Conversion,” MITWPL 39, 66–125.

andHu, Xue-Ying and Hideki Maki (2019) “WhatConversion,”

Ga/No

EnglishLinguistics 30, 1–24.

does the Unavailability of Genitive
Subject in Naxi Suggest?” paper read atOchi, Masao (2001) “Move F and Ga/No

the 37th Conference of the English

Conversion in Japanese,” Journal of East

Linguistic Society of Japan.

Asian Linguistics 10, 247–286.
Ochi, Masao (2009) “Overt Object Shift in

Jin, Yin-Ji (2014) Shukaku Zokukaku Kootai-ni
Kansuru

HikakuKenkyuu

Japanese,” Syntax 12, 324–362.

(A

Comparative

Study

of

Nominative-

Qiu, Xiao-Shi and Hideki Maki (2020) “TheGenitive

Conversion),

Doctoral

Genitive Case Marker in Azerbaijani,”

Yokohama

National

Posterdissertation,
University.

withinPhase

Linguistic

ThirteenthofJapan,

Kansai

Saito, Mamoru, T. H. Jonah Lin and Keiko
Murasugi (2008) “N´-Ellipsis and theKornfilt, Jaklin (2003) “Subject Case in Turkish
Clauses,”Society

University, May 10, 2020.

Theory,Doctoral dissertation, Sophia University.
Nominalized

The

International Spring Forum by the English

Kobayashi, Yukino (2013) Japanese Case
Alternations

Session,

Structure of Noun Phrases in Chinese andSyntactic

Structures and Morphological Information,

Japanese,”ed. by Uwe Junghanns and Luka Szucsich,

Linguistics 17, 247–271.

Journal

of

East

Asian

Saito, Mamoru and Keiko Murasugi (1990)

129–215, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New“N´-Deletion in Japanese: A Preliminary

York.

Study,” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 1,

Maki, Hideki (2019) Daredemo Gengogaku

285–301.

(Linguistics for Anybody), Kaitakusha,

Xie, Yu-Han and Hideki Maki (2019) “On theTokyo.

Distribution

Maki, Hideki, Lina Bao and Megumi Hasebe

ofGenitive

Subjectin(2015) Essays on Mongolian Syntax,

Kazakh,” Handbook of the 159th Meeting

Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

of the Linguistic Society of Japan,
215–221.

Maki, Hideki, Lina Bao, Wurigumula Bao andMegumi Hasebe (2016) “Scrambling andWang, Shao-Ge and Hideki Maki (2019) “TheGenitive Subjects in Mongolian,” English

N´-Deletability and the Non-Availability

Linguistics 33, 1–35.

ofGenitive

Language,”

Miyagawa, Shigeru (1993) “Case-Checking and

Subject

in

the

Tujia

Handbook

of

the

158th

Minimal Link Condition,” MITWPL 19,

Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan,

213–254.

183–189.

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2011) “Genitive Subjects in

Watanabe, Akira (1996) “Nominative-Genitive

Altaic and Specification of Phase,”

Conversion and Agreement in Japanese: A

Lingua 121, 1265–1282.

Cross-Linguistic Perspective,” Journal of

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2012) Case, Argument

East Asian Linguistics 5, 373–410.

Structure, and Word Order, Routledge,
New York.

254taken to be part of the third-factor principle of<Workshop Report>

minimal search (Chomsky 2013). Thus, Merge,
no longer being responsible for labeling, simply
takes two syntactic objects α and β and forms a
two-membered set, as shown in (1).

Some Concepts and Consequences of(1) Merge (α, β) = {α, β}

MERGE

*

(1) shows that Merge is a symmetrical operation
Satoru Kanno

in that it encodes neither α nor β as a label forTokyo University of Science

the resulting set, meaning that Merge is

Hisatsugu Kitahara"projection-free" (see, among others, Collins

Keio University

2002 and Chomsky 2007).

Nobuhiro Miyoshi
Asahikawa Medical University

2. MERGE

Miki Obata

The formulation of Merge in (1) is simple andHosei University

clear, but from a minimalist perspective, it isunclear how exactly Merge operates to generate

Keywords：MERGE, multi-dominance, minimal

derivations. It must be the case that suchsearch, Case/agreement

generative procedures presuppose the existenceof a workspace (WS), where syntactic objects
constructed by Merge are made available forsubsequent operations, but the notion of WS

1. Introduction
Since Aristotle, language has been seen as

itself has remained vague. To fix this problem,"sound with meaning." An important finding ofChomsky (2017) makes WS explicit andmodern linguistics is that sound and meaning arereformulates Merge as an operation on WS,

mediated by hierarchical structures. To explain

called MERGE.
Under MERGE, the derivation proceeds aspermissible hierarchical structures of language,
generativegrammarians

proposedfollows:

phrase(2) a. WS = [α, β, γ]

structure rules and transformations. However, in
mid-1990s,

such

structure-building

b. MERGE (α, β, WS)

andc. WS' = [{α, β}, γ]

movement operations were unified under the(2a) shows a derivational stage where WS

single operation Merge.
The first formulation of Merge is found incontains three syntactic objects. (2b) means that

Chomsky (1995). In that formulation, Merge

MERGE operates on WS, selecting α and β. As a

combines two syntactic objects together withresult, WS is updated to WS', as in (2c). Noticelabeling as a suboperation, incorporated as partthat WS' contains the newly created set {α, β}of the Merge operation.

and the unselected object γ, but not the selected

In his subsequent work, however, Chomsky

objects α and β.

(2004) modifies the Merge operation, dispensing

Chomsky(2019a,b)

arguesthat

thewith the labeling algorithm stipulated as part of

MERGE-based analysis, if on the right track,

the definition of Merge. Instead, labeling is

calls

255

for

a

new

approachtoso-called"multi-dominance" phenomena.
* This workshop was partly supported by JSPS
3. Consequences of MERGE
Theoreticallyspeaking,

KAKENHI
MERGE

(2)

is

Grant

Number

JP20K00669,

JP20K00670.

arguably preferable over Merge (1) because theformer clarifies that so-called "movement" is an
illusion; there is no "raising" or "lowering."

REFERENCES
Noam (1995) “BareChomsky,

PhraseWhat MERGE (2) does is select α, β from WS

Structure,”

and form {α, β}, which enters WS', and the rest

Theory and the Minimalist Program, ed. byfollows

Gert

from

third-factor

considerations.

Nevertheless, MERGE (2) confronts a number

Government

Webelhuth,and383-439,

Binding
Blackwell,

Oxford.

of empirical questions related to the problem ofChomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatory

descriptive adequacy. Thus, a tension arises

Adequacy,” Structures and Beyond: The

between theoretical explanation and empirical

Cartography

description.

Volume 3, ed. by Adriana Belletti, 104-131,

of

Syntactic

Structures,

Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chomsky, Noam (2007) “Approaching UG from

4. The Organization of the Workshop
This workshop was designed to demonstrate

Below,”

Interface+

Recursion=

the following points:

Language?: Chomsky’s Minimalism and the(i) we first review the core concepts of MERGE,

View from Syntax-Semantics, ed. by Uli

and then identify empirical issues, paying

Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner, 1-30,

special attention to MERGE (on the one hand)

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

and minimal search, labeling, and the theory ofChomsky, Noam (2017) A talk given at theCase and agreement (on the other). By

workshop entitled “Generative Linguistics

addressing these issues, we identify andin the 21st Century: The Evidence and theinvestigate further consequences of MERGE.

Rhetoric,” the University of Reading, May(ii) in order to resolve the tension between

11, 2017. https://www.facebook.com/searchtheoretical explanation and empirical description,/top/?init=quick&q=University%20of%20R

we clarify how a MERGE-based approacheading%20chomsky&tas=0.218665566062

relates to notions such as minimal search,

55472.

labeling

andagreement(whichinvolves

Chomsky,Noam(2019a)MIT

Lectures.

φ-features and Case). These notions are of

http://whamit.mit.edu/2019/05/06/noam-ch

critical importance for the current minimalistomskys-lectures-now-online/

investigation.

Chomsky, Noam (2019b) UCLA Lectures.
https://linguistics.ucla.edu/noam-chomsky/
Collins, Chris (2002) “Eliminating Labels,”

5. Conclusion
We strongly believe that pursuing these issues

Derivation

andExplanation

in

the

leads us to a deeper understanding of the

Minimalist Program, ed. by Samuel D.

language faculty and a deeper inquiry into a

Epstein and T. Daniel Seely, 42-64,

profound nature of the human mind.

Blackwell, Oxford.

256

【JELS 原稿（和文原稿）の作成上の注意】＜英文原稿作成については、Guidelines for Submission of Manuscripts to JELS を参照すること＞(1) 原稿枚数：
本文・注・文献を含めて A4 用紙に 7 枚以内（シンポジウム・リポートは4枚以内、特別講演リポー
トおよびワークショップ・リポートは 2 枚以内）とする。原稿は、2 段組とし、各段 40 行とすること。
(2) 書式：
必ず、添付ファイルで送られてきた、「JELS_サンプル（和文原稿）.doc」を使用し、ファイル名を変更した上で上書き保存して使用すること。また、ファイル形式は「 .doc」のまま使用し、「.docx」に変更しないこと。（変更すると正しく表示されない場合がある。）① マージンは上（2.2 ㎝）、下（3.0 ㎝）、右（2.5 ㎝）、左（2.5 ㎝）に設定する。
② 文字サイズは 11 ポイント以上にする。
③ 第 1 頁の一段目は上部に 4 行の余白を 取り、論文題名・氏名・所属・キーワード（語または短いフ
レーズ、5 項目まで）を中央寄せにして入れる。論文題名と氏名の間、及び所属とキーワードの間は
各 1 行空白とし、キーワードの後 2 行あけて、本文を始める。
（キーワード： メタファー, 関連性理論,
usage-based model のような形式でキーワードを書く。キーワードの間は半角カンマと半角スペースで区切る。）④ 論文題名は太字にする。
⑤ 和文原稿の場合、読点・句点は、「、」と「。」を使用する。
⑥ 注は、本文（または謝辞）の後ろ（文献表の前）にまとめ、「注」とタイトルを付す。なお、MSWord の脚注機能を使用してはならない。脚注機能を使わずに注を書くこと。本文中の注番号（上付き数字）は、句点「。」の後ろにくるようにする。
⑦ 謝辞を書く場合は、アスタリスクを付け、注の上に書く。
⑧ 文 献 表 を 含 め 、 そ の 他 の 書 式 の 細 部 に つ い て は 、 English Linguistics の“Information forContributors” に従うが、abstractは不要。

257

(3) その他：① 和文原稿には和文題名をつけること。また、著者名と所属機関名の横にそれぞれの英語（または原語）表記を（）に入れて記す。著者名の英語表記では、ファーストネーム ファミリーネームの順番で、語頭のみ大文字で書くこと（例：「日本英子（Eiko Nihon）」）。また、和文題名の下に英文題名を（ ）に入れて示す（この場合も、英文題名の中の内容語はすべて、語頭を大文字で記載すること）。

② 発表時のタイトルからの変更は一切認めないが、日本語による口頭発表でも Conference Handbookに記した英文題名を使用すれば、英文原稿を提出できる。なお、Spring Forum での発表の場合は、英文原稿のみ受け付ける。
③ ページ番号は入力しないこと。
④ 作成原稿のフォントの埋め込みを必ず行ってから提出すること。CD-ROM からの読み出し時に、パ
ソコン環境によってはフォントがうまく再現されず異なる記号などに変換されてしまう危険性がある
ため、必ず確認の上、提出すること。
⑤ 論文内に図やイラストなどを使用する際には、著作権に十分留意すること。
⑥ 締め切りは、大会翌年の 1 月 11 日 午前11:59（日本時間）（必着）で、日本英語学会の JELS 原稿受付アドレス（conference-elsj@kaitakusha.co.jp）に WORD ファイルと PDF ファイルを送付する。ファイル名には発表者の氏名をローマ字で記入すること（ 例：NihonEiko.doc / NihonEiko.pdf）。 メールのタイトルは、秋の大会の発表か国際春季フォーラムの発表かに応じて、「大会: JELS 日本英子」もしくは「SF: JELS EikoNihon」と記すこと。なお，締切日時を過ぎていても JELS 原稿受付アドレスの自動応答システムによって「受領した」旨のメールが返信される場合があるが，大会運営委員会としては受領しない。
⑦ 規定に違反している原稿は掲載できない。

（2019 年 10 月 1 日改定）258

日本英語学会大会運営委員会
日本英語学会事務局

JELS 日本語執筆の場合の注および参考文献の書式について（補足資料）

JELS を日本語で執筆する場合の注と和文参考文献の例を以下に示します。外国語で書かれた参考文献については、 JELS を英語で執筆する場合と同様，学会ウェブサイト (http://elsj.jp/english_linguisticseng/information-for-contributors/ ) に掲載されている English Linguistics の参考文献の書式を参照して下さい。

注
1. 河上誓作（私信：XX 年YY 月ZZ 日）によると、以下の例は…………….
2. Oba (1997)にも指摘されているとおり、………………
3. 杉本 (1998:34)では、以下のような類例が紹介されている。
(i) I long for …………
(ii) I manage to ………………………
4. Takami (1996:51)には、以下のような………………

参考文献
小泉保 (1997)『ジョークとレトリックの語用論』大修館書店, 東京.
松本曜・田中茂範 (1997)『空間と移動の表現』研究社出版, 東京.
盛岡ハインツ・梶田優 (編) (1994)『海外言語学情報』（第7 号）大修館書店, 東京.

259

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）, 161論文集収録論文の場合

210, 岩波書店, 東京.
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，書評の場合１

155-160，日本英文学会.

廣瀬幸生 (1996)「Adele E. Goldberg: Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure」
書評『英文学研究』73 巻1号, 170-174, 日本英文学会.
書評の場合２（洋書の書評を和文で執筆）
桐生和幸 (1997)「結果述語構文の言語類型論的研究」関西言語学会第 22 回大会口頭発表.
口頭発表の場合
川瀬義清 (1998)「認知的観点から見た進行形の意味」KLS (Kansai Linguistic Society) 18, 155-165.
学会等のプロシーディングスの場合
Freud, Sigmund (1905) Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, Moffat Ward, New York. （フロイト, ジグム
ンド. 生松敬三訳『機知—その無意識との関係』人文書院, 東京, 1970）
翻訳の場合
Radcliff, Allan (1940) “On Joking Relationships,” Africa 13, 195-210. （ラドクリフ, アラン. 青柳まちこ訳『未開社会における構造と機能』「（第4 章）冗談関係について」新泉社, 東京, 1975）
論文の翻訳が本の一部として公刊されている場合

260

Guidelines for Submission of Manuscripts to JELS
<If you write in Japanese, refer to the Japanese guideline on the ELSJ website>
Last revised October 2019(1) Length
The length of an oral presentation manuscript, including notes and references, must notexceed seven A4 pages; that of a symposium report must not exceed four A4 pages; that of a
special lecture or workshop report must not exceed two A4 pages. The manuscript should
use a two-column format with 40 lines per column. Care should be taken to avoid
overcrowding of characters or letters within the line.
(2) Format
Use the English sample file attached to the e-mail. Do not change the file extension (.doc)
when you save the file. Note that presenters at the Spring Forum are not allowed to submit aJapanese manuscript.
a. Leave margins of 2.2cm at the top, 3.0 cm at the bottom, and 2.5cm on both sides.
b. The font size should be at least 11 point.
c. There should be 4 lines of space between the top of the page and the first paragraph on thefirst page. The title, the name and affiliation of all authors, and keywords (up to five words
or short phrases) should all be centered. One line of blank space should be left between
the title and the author name(s) as well as between the author affiliation(s) and the
keywords. Two lines of blank space should be left below the keywords, at which point themain text should begin. Keywords should be written in the following format:
Keywords: xxx, yyy, zzz (e.g. Keywords: syntax, Case assignment, Multiple Agree, lightverb).
d. The title should be in bold type. Capitalize the first letter of every content word in the title.
e. Write the author’s name in the order “First name - Surname” and capitalize only the initialletters. (e.g. Jane Smith).
f. Write acknowledgements above notes, if any. Put an asterisk at the beginning of theacknowledgements.
g. Notes should follow the main text but precede the references, with the heading“NOTES.” DO NOT use MS-Word’s command for inserting automatic footnotes andendnotes. Footnote numbers in the body of the text should be written as superscript
numerals, and should be placed after punctuation marks.
h. Other details (including the references) should be formatted in accordance with
Information for Contributors and the latest version of the EL style sheet(http://elsj.jp/english_linguistics-eng/information-for-contributors/). No abstract isnecessary.
(3) Other instructions for submission
a . Manuscripts written in English should be checked by a native speaker of English.
Under no circumstances may the title of the manuscript be changed in any way fromthat used at the time of presentation. English manuscripts are acceptable even when theoral presentations were made in Japanese if the English title listed in the Conference
Handbook is used in the manuscript. Presenters at the International Spring Forum may
submit only English manuscripts.
b. Do not include page numbers.
c. Please embed all fonts when creating pdf files in order to ensure that the fonts used areavailable on readers’ computers. (JELS is published as a CD-ROM.)
d. Make sure that any figures or illustrations in the paper are consistent with copyright
restrictions.
e. Manuscripts must be submitted by 11:59 am on January 11th (J ST) of the year
following the Spring Forum and the annual Conference. Manuscripts should be sent as
attachments in both pdf and doc format to <conference-elsj☆kaitakusha.co.jp>*. The
file name should include the author’s name in Roman letters (e.g.
NihonEiko.pdf/NihonEiko.doc). The title of e-mail should be “Annual Conference: name”
or “Spring Forum: name” (e.g. “Annual Conference: Jane Smith”). Please note that amanuscript that has reached after the above deadline will not be accepted by the
Conference Organizing Committee even if an automatic reply message confirms yoursubmission.
f. Please note that manuscripts not in strict compliance with the Rules for JELS and thepresent guidelines will not be accepted.
*The “@” in the e-mail address has been replaced by “☆” for security reasons.

262

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2021年2月28日発行
編集
日本英語学会大会運営委員会
代 表 者
廣瀬幸生
発 行 者
日本英語学会（〒112-0013）
東京都文京区音羽1-22-16 二見ビル5F 開拓社内
電話03-5395-7101（代表）Ⓒ日本英語学会 2021----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------