Papers from the Thirty-Second Conference
November 8-9, 2014
and from
the Seventh International Spring Forum
April 19-20, 2014
of
The English Linguistic Society of JapanJELS 32

日 本 英 語 学 会 第 32 回 大 会 （ 学習院大学）・
第 7 回国際春季フォーラム（同志社大学今出川キャンパス）研究発表論文集

The English Linguistic Society of Japan
2015

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

JELS 32
Papers from the Thirty-Second Conference
November 8-9, 2014
and from
theSeventhInternational
SpringForum
Forum
the Sixth International Spring
April 19-20, 2014
of
The English Linguistic Society of Japan

Edited by
The Conference Organizing Committee
Tadao MARUTA, Tokyo University of Science (Chair)
Hidemitsu TAKAHASHI, Hokkaido University (Vice-Chair)
Yoshihito DOBASHI, Niigata University
Miki HANAZAKI, Shinshu University
Akira HONDA, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies
Shungo KANAZAWA, University of Kochi
Masumi MATSUMOTO, Osaka Kyoiku University
Junya MORITA, Kinjo Gakuin University
Kazuyo MURATA, Ryukoku University
Miki OBATA, Tokyo University of Science
Yoshiki OGAWA Tohoku University
Hajime ONO, Tsuda College
Osamu SAWADA, Mie University
Takeshi YAMAMOTO, Kinki University
Tomohiro YANAGI, Chubu University

日 本 英 語 学 会 第 32回 大 会 （ 学習院大学）・
第7回国際春季フォーラム（同志社大学今出川キャンパス）研究発表論文集
The English Linguistic Society of Japan2015本書は、2014年4月19日、20日に同志社大学今出川キャンパスにて開催された日
本英語学会第7回国際春季フォーラム、および同年11月8日、9日に学習院大学にて開催された日本英語学会第32回大会における研究発表論文とWorkshop Report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7回国際春季フォーラム：2014年1月16日
日本英語学会第32回大会：2014年6月7日＜論文投稿受理日＞
2015年1月10日
本論集は、執筆者から提出された原稿を、大会運営委員会で書式を確認の上、全体の統一を図るため最低限の修正を施して掲載しております。個々の修正箇所については、時間的な制約もあり執筆者への確認を省き大会運営委員会の責任で補正しました。ご了承ください。
なお、各論文の内容はすべて執筆者の責任に帰されるべきものです。
第32回大会運営委員長
丸田忠雄

CONTENTS
I. Papers from the Thirty-Second Conference
様態・結果の相補性からみた動詞 move
出水孝典（Takanori Demizu）········································································· 3
Why, What…For, How Come and Why the Hell
遠藤喜雄（Yoshio Endo） ············································································· 10
A Doubling Constituent Account of Relative Clause and Binding Facts
Jason Ginsburg ···························································································· 17
The Particle DOWN and Fictive Motion: An Analysis from the Viewpoint of the Speaker’s Line of Sight
and His Perceptual Reduction
濱上桂菜（Keina Hamagami）········································································ 23
直接引用文の文法特性
廣江 顕（Akira Hiroe） ·············································································· 29
英語の緊密同格表現に関する一考察岸浩介（Kohsuke Kishi） ··········································································· 35

Of-Insertion as a Repair Operation in Syntax
北田伸一（Shin-Ichi Kitada） ········································································· 42
英語の動詞 sigh の意味論
小早川暁（Satoru Kobayakawa） ································································· 49

英語史における場所句倒置構文の発達
小池晃次（Koji Koike） ··············································································· 56
仮主語 it を伴う外置構文の派生について
近藤亮一（Ryoichi Kondo） ·········································································· 63
CP 領域のカートグラフィーに基づいた主格・属格交替現象の統語論的分析
小菅智也（Tomoya Kosuge） ········································································· 70
Controller Restrictions and Embedded Force
松田麻子（Asako Matsuda） ·········································································· 77
使役移動構文と結果構文における心理的変化を表す用法の意味的特性
中尾朋子（Tomoko Nakao） ·········································································· 84
Verb-Particle Combinations as Seen from Multi-Level Lexical Insertion
納谷亮平（Ryohei Naya） ············································································· 91
前置詞の補語句として用いられる前置詞句の名詞的用法について
大谷直輝（Naoki Otani） ·············································································· 98
補文標識一致と素性継承
大塚知昇（Tomonori Otsuka） ····································································· 105
2種類のit is (just) that 節構文
佐藤翔馬（Shoma Sato） ············································································ 112

Toward a Unified Explanation of Multiple Dependencies
塩原佳世乃（Kayono Shiobara） ······································································ 119
ワード・サーチを伴う指示について
須賀あゆみ（Ayumi Suga）········································································· 125
An Argument Structure Alternation of Psych Verbs under VP-Deletion
椙本顕士（Kenji Sugimoto）・中村太一（Taichi Nakamura） ····························· 132
Production of an Allophonic Variant in a Second Language: The Case of Intervocalic Alveolar Flapping
田嶋圭一（Keiichi Tajima）・北原真冬（Mafuyu Kitahara）
・米山聖子（Kiyoko Yoneyama） ································································· 139
可能を表す ar 動詞における接尾辞 ar の形態統語的役割について
高橋英也（Hideya Takahashi）・新沼史和（Fumikazu Niinuma） ························ 146
The Syntactic Structure of Possession and Prenominal Adjectives in Japanese
辰己雄太（Yuta Tatsumi） ·········································································· 153
連結的知覚動詞の使い分けと認知プロセス：lookとappearのテクスト内生起順序をめぐって
徳山聖美（Kiyomi Tokuyama） ···································································· 160
英語の「左方転位」構文における転位要素と照応表現の意味関係について
山内昇（Noboru Yamauchi） ···································································· 167

日本人大学生英語学習者の英語の/ɹ/と/l/の知覚における相対的語彙親密度の影響について
米山聖子（Kiyoko Yoneyama）・中村祐輔（Yusuke Nakamura） ························ 173
文法と談話のインターフェイス：「孤独な」if 節をめぐって
吉田悦子（Etsuko Yoshida）········································································ 179
A Contrast between the Finite and the Non-finite Adjuncts on Extraction
吉村理一（Riichi Yoshimura） ····································································· 186<Workshop Reports>
ラベルについて後藤

亘（Nobu Goto）

・成田広樹（Hiroki Narita）

小畑美貴（Miki Obata） ············································································· 193
英語の史的統語変化とその中核：生成文法理論の視点から
本多尚子（Shoko Honda）

・宋

松元洋介（Yosuke Matsumoto）

蔚（Song Wei）
・山村崇斗（Shuto Yamamura） ···················· 195

Case and Agreement Revisited: Why do Unvalued Features Exist?
北原久嗣（Hisatsugu Kitahara） ・野村昌史（Masashi Nomura）
小林ゆきの（Yukino Kobayashi） ································································· 197
Clauses on the Move: A Historical-Contrastive Approach to English and German
柴﨑礼士郎（Reijirou Shibasaki）

・大塚

瞳（Hitomi Otsuka）

東泉裕子（Yuko Higashiizumi）

・Jerzy Nykiel ·············································· 199

On the Phasehood of CP and Other Projections
安井美代子（Miyoko Yasui） ・Željko Bošković
水口 学（Manabu Mizuguchi）

・長南一豪（Kazuhide Chonan ） ····················· 201

相互行為における日英語比較研究：言語実践の分析を中心に
春名弥郁（Miiku Haruna）
鹿野浩子（Hiroko Shikano）

・阿部あかり（Akari Abe）
・小澤雅（Miyabi Ozawa）······························ 203

II. Papers from the Seventh International Spring Forum
Does Modern Chinese Allow Genitive Subjects?
Ling-Yun Fan, Can Wang, and Hideki Maki ······················································· 207
The Historical Development of English Middles
Shuang Feng ····························································································· 214
A QR-based Approach to the Internal Reading of Tigau
Yoko Fujii ································································································ 221
On the Differences between the φ-features and the θ-features
Chihiro Fujimori ························································································ 228
Stack-Based Agree
Jason Ginsburg and Sandiway Fong ································································· 235
An Analysis of the Hito-N Construction in Japanese with Special Reference to the Cognate Object
Construction in English
Ikuko Hasebe, Noboru Kamiya, and Masatoshi Honda ··········································· 242
Biblical English as a Linguistic Corpus
Isao Hashimoto ·························································································· 249
One Syntactic Structure for Four Voices in Japanese
Takashi Kayashima ····················································································· 256
On Syntactic Complex Verbs in Japanese and Korean
Yasuhito Kido, Masahiko Dansako, and Yoko Isse ················································ 262
A Scale in Scalar Adjectives in Corpus
Naoki Kiyama ··························································································· 269
Emphasis Generation Scheme
Hideo Kobayashi ························································································ 276
Semantics of English Determiners
Jangsong Lee ···························································································· 283
A Merge Condition-Based Approach to Doubling Constituents
Akitoshi Maeda ························································································· 290
VP-Deletion, Parallelism, and the Role of Aux: A Phase-Theoretic Approach
Masako Maeda and Taichi Nakamura ······························································· 297

Puzzles with the Desirative Predicate Hoshii ‘Want’ in Japanese
Hideki Maki and Satoru Yokoyama ·································································· 304
Recursive Compounds in Phase Theory
Makiko Mukai ···························································································· 311
Voice Alternation in Japanese Sentence Fragments
Kento Nagatsugu ························································································ 318
The Relationship between Subjective Ellipsis and Grammatical Patterns
Kayoko Shibata ························································································· 325
Problems of Feature Inheritance
Sho Shimokariya ························································································ 332
Ellipsis Licensing under E-Feature Movement
Rumi Takaki ····························································································· 339
Stress and Restrictiveness in Phrase and Compound
Hisao Tokizaki··························································································· 346
Effects of Perception on Loanword Adaptation from English to Japanese: The Case of Schwa Vowels
Kanako Tomaru ························································································· 353
Comparison of English and Japanese Conditional Clauses
Akitaka Yamada ························································································· 360
Eliminating the EPP toward a Principled Explanation: Labeling in the ECM Construction
Toshiyuki Yamada ······················································································ 367
On the Availability of the Causative Alternation: Evidence for Externally Caused Eventuality
Masaki Yasuhara ························································································ 374
Graduality and Type Four Verbs
Yusuke Yoda and Jongkyun Mok ····································································· 381<Workshop Report>
Revisiting Talmy’s Framing Typology
Kimi Akita, Tamayo Saito, Ryan Spring, Naoyuki Ono, and Yo Matsumoto ················· 388

書式規定 ············································································································· 391

[I]Thirty-Second Conference
November 8-9, 2014

(Levin & Rappaport Hovav 2013: 50)
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞┦⿵ᛶࡣࠊㄒᙡ஦㇟㗪ᆺ࡛ㄒ᰿㸦<>࡛♧ࡉࢀࡓ㒊ศ㸧ࡀ ACTࠊBECOME ࡜࠸
࠺ᇶᮏ㏙ㄒࡢ୍᪉ࡢࡳ࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࢀࡿࡇ
࡜࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ

ᵝែ࣭⤖ᯝࡢ┦⿵ᛶ࠿ࡽࡳࡓືモ move*(The Verb Move and Manner/Result(3) The lexicalization constraint: A root canComplementarity)

only be associated with one primitiveฟỈᏕ඾ (Takanori Demizu)

predicate in an event schema, as either an⚄ᡞᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ (Kobe Gakuin University)

argument or a modifier.
(Rappaport Hovav & Levin 2010: 26)

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ᵝែ࣭⤖ᯝࡢ┦⿵ᛶࠊㄒᙡ஦㇟

(4) a. manner → [ x ACT<MANNER> ]㗪ᆺࠊ⛣ືᵝែືモࠊ┠ⓗືモࠊᑻᗘࡢ࠶ࡿ

(e.g., jog, run, creak, whistle,...)

ኚ໬࡜࡞࠸ኚ໬

(Rappaport Hovav & Levin 2010: 24)
b. result (inherently directed motion)
Ѝ [ BECOME [ y <STATE> ] ]1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

(e.g. arrive, enter, ...)

ㄒᙡព࿡ㄽ◊✲⪅ࡢ㛫࡛ࡼࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸(cf. Rappaport Hovav & Levin 2010: 24)

ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊLevin ࡜ Rappaport Hovav ࡣ୍㐃ࡢㄽᩥ࡛ࠊືసືモࢆᵝែືモ㸦㸻ࠕ࡝ࡢࡼᮏ✏࡛ㄽࡌࡿືモ move ࡣ⛣ືືモࡢ୍✀࠺࡟ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ㸧࡜⤖ᯝືモ㸦㸻ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊᵝែ࣭⤖ᯝࡢ┦⿵ᛶ࠿ࡽࠕ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࠿ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ㸧࡟஧ศ⛣ືືモࢆぢࡓሙྜࠊ⛣ືᵝែືモ㸦㸻ᵝែࡋࠊࡑࡢ␗ྠࢆㄽࡌ࡚ࡁࡓࠋືモ㸧࡜᭷᪉ྥ⛣ືືモ㸦㸻⤖ᯝືモ㸧࡟ୗ఩༊ศࡉࢀࡿࠋ

(1) a. MANNER VERBS: nibble, rub, scribble,(5) a. ⛣ືᵝែືモ㸸࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⛣ືࡋࡓ

sweep, flutter, laugh, run, swim...
b. RESULT VERBS: clean, cover, empty, fill,࠿ࢆ⾲ࡍࡀࠊ⛣ືࡋ࡚࡝ࡇ࡟࠸ࡿ⤖freeze, kill, melt, open, arrive, die, enter,ᯝ ࡜ ࡞ ࡗ ࡓ ࡢ ࠿ ࡣ ⾲ ࡉ ࡞ ࠸ ࠋ (e.g.

faint...

amble, crawl, hop, jog, limp, run, swim,
walk, ...)

(Rappaport Hovav & Levin 2010: 21)b. ᭷᪉ྥ⛣ືືモ㸸࠶ࡿሙᡤ࡟࠸ࡿ࡜
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ༢୍ࡢືసືモࡀᵝែ࡜⤖ᯝࡢ୧᪉࠸࠺⤖ᯝࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡔࡅࢆ⾲ࡋࠊࢆㄒᙡ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆᵝែ࣭࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡑࡇ࡟฿㐩ࡋࡓࡢ࠿ࡣ⾲⤖ᯝࡢ┦⿵ᛶ࡜࠸࠺ᙧ࡛ᐃᘧ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡉ࡞࠸ࠋ(e.g. arrive, come, enter, exit,
fall, go, rise, ...)
(cf. Levin & Rappaport Hovav 2013: 52)(2) MANNER/RESULT COMPLEMENTARITY:
Manner and result meaning components arein complementary distribution: a verb

ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊBeavers et al. (2010)ࡣ(7)ࡢ౛

lexicalizes only one.

ᩥࢆᣲࡆ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ
ືモ move ࡣᵝែࡶ⤒㊰㸦㸻

3⤖ᯝ㸧ࡶ⾲ࡉࡎࠊࡓࡔ⛣ືࡢ஦ᐇࡢࡳࢆ⾲ࡋ㢮࡛ࡁࠊୖグࡢၥ㢟ࡀゎᾘࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⾲⌧ୖࠊ➨୕ࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚

ࡲࡓࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ࠊLevin ࡜ Rappaport Hovav

࠸ࡿࠋࡢᑻᗘ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ᪂ࡋ࠸ศ㢮ࡢඃ㉺ᛶࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

(6) Indeed, in addition to the options [i.e. Path
as Verb and Manner as Verb], there is a

2. ⛣ືᵝែືモ move

seldom discussed third option: encoding

2.1. ⛣ືᵝែືモ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁ ࡓືモ

NEITHER manner nor path in the main

move

verb, but rather encoding BOTH as⛣ືືモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヲ⣽࡞⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸satellites. English instantiates this option asࡿ Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1992: 252-260)࡜

in [(7)].

Tenny (1995: 214-216)࡛ࡣࠊ⛣ືືモࢆ௨ୗࡢ㸱ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࠊືモ move ࢆ roll ື(7) John moved stealthily out of the bedroom.

モ࡟ྵࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(manner=adverb, path=adposition)(Beavers et al. 2010: 361-362)(8) a. arrive class: arrive, come, go, depart,ࡶࡋ Beavers et al.ࡢゝ࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊືモ movefall, return, descend ...

ࡀᵝែືモ࣭⤖ᯝືモࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࡜ࡶ␗࡞ࡿ✀㸦᭷᪉ྥ⛣ືືモ㸧㢮ࡢືモࡔ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊmove ࡢㄒ᰿ࢆㄒᙡ஦

b. roll class: roll, slide, move, swing, spin,㇟㗪ᆺෆ࡛ ACTࠊBECOME ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࡜ࡶ㛵rotate ...

㐃࡙ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊㄒᙡ஦

㸦⛣ືᵝែືモ㸹ືస୺ᛶࡀᮍᣦᐃ㸧㇟ᵓ㐀㗪ᆺࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟ࠊ␲ၥࢆᢞࡆ

c. run class: run, walk, gallop, jump, hop,࠿ࡅࡿ஦ᐇ࡜࡞ࡿࠋᵝែ࣭⤖ᯝࡢ┦⿵ᛶࡢ኱

skip, swim ...

ᯟࢆಖᣢࡋࡓࡲࡲ࡛ࠊࡇࢀࢆ࡝࠺ᢅ࠺ࡢ࠿ࢆ

㸦⛣ືᵝែືモ㸹ືస୺ⓗ㸧ᮏ✏࡛ࡣㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
௨ୗࠊࡲࡎ㸰⠇࡛⪃ᐹࡢᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿືモࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ⛣ືᵝែືモࡀࠊ୺ㄒࡢືస୺

move ࡀࠊᚑ᮶ࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣᵝែືモ࡟ྵࡵࡽᛶࡢⅬ࡛␗࡞ࡿࠊ㸰ࡘࡢୗ఩㢮࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿ࡜ࡉ

ࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡇ࡜ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃࠋḟ࡟㸱⠇࡛ࠊᵝࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍⯡ⓗ࡞⛣ືᵝែືモ࡛࠶ࡿ runែ࣭⤖ᯝࡢ┦⿵ᛶ࡟᭰ࢃࡿࠊᑻᗘࡢ᭷↓࡟ࡼືモ㸦walk ࡸ run ࡞࡝㸧࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢ୺ㄒࡀᚲ

ࡿ┦⿵ᛶ࡜࠸࠺᪂ࡓ࡞どⅬࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ

↛ⓗ࡟ືస୺࡜࡞ࡿࡀࠊroll ືモࡢሙྜࠊື

ືモ move ࢆᑻᗘࡢ࡞࠸ኚ໬࡜࠸࠺ࠊࡼࡾ኱

స୺࡟ࡼࡿࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝࢆᚲࡎࡋࡶకࢃࡎࠊ

ࡁ࡞ศ㢮࡟⮬↛࡞ᙧ࡛ໟᦤ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧እᅾⓗ࡞ຊ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⛣ືࡀ㉳ࡇࡾ࠺ࡿ≧ἣࡍࠋࡑࢀࢆࡩࡲ࠼࡚ࠊ㸲⠇࡛ືモ move ࡜ᚑࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1992:

᮶ࡢᵝែືモࡀඹ㏻ࡋ࡚㛵㐃࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿ஦

253)ࡣ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࢆࡉࡽ࡟ᩜ⾝ࡍࡿᙧ㇟ᵓ㐀㗪ᆺࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊ㸳⠇࡛⤖ㄽࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ ࡛ ࠊ Tenny (1995: 214-215) ࡣ Laura /Theඛྲྀࡾࡋ࡚㏙࡭ࡿ࡜ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ Levin ࡜

package rolled.࡜࠸࠺౛ࢆᣲࡆࠊroll ືモࡣ୺

Rappaport Hovav ࡟ࡼࡿ㏆ᖺࡢ◊✲࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ㄒࡀືస୺࡛࠶ࡿ㠀⬟᱁ⓗ⏝ἲ࡜ࠊ୺ㄒࡀ୺

࡚ᑻᗘ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࢆᑟධࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᵝែ࣭㢟࡛࠶ࡿ㠀ᑐ᱁ⓗ⏝ἲ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ㸰㏻ࡾࡢ౑࠸

⤖ᯝࡢ┦⿵ᛶࢆᑻᗘ㸦㸻⤖ᯝ㸧ࡢ᭷↓ࡔ࡜෌᪉ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ࠸

ศᯒࡍࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊືモ move ࢆࠊ⛣ࡎࢀࡢሙྜࡶࠊືモ⮬యࡣࠊ⛣ືࡢ᪉ྥ࣭⤖ືᵝែືモࢆྵࡴ㠀⤖ᯝືモࡢ୍✀ࡔ࡜ศᯝ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃᵝែࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

4ࡘࡲࡾࠊroll ືモࡣ୺ㄒࡢືస୺ᛶࠊࢥࣥ

࡜࠸࠺୺ᙇࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࢺ࣮ࣟࣝྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ᮍᣦᐃ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡶ
ࡢࡢࠊrun ືモྠᵝ࡟ࠊᵝែືモࡢ୍✀ࡔ࡜(10) If “moving” were subtracted from, say,⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ“walking”, there would be no “walking”

Beavers et al.ࡢᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿືモ move ࡢ౛(7)(even if executed “in place”). “Walking” isࡣࠊ୺ㄒࡀ John ࡞ࡢ࡛๓⪅ࡢືస୺ⓗ⏝ἲa specific type of “moving”.

࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

(Kudrnáčová 2008: 105)2.2. ືモ move ࢆ⛣ືᵝែືモ࡟ศ㢮ࡍ࡭ࡁୖグࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ᑐࡍࡿഐド࡜ࡋ࡚ࡔࡀࠊᑠㄝ

௚ࡢ᰿ᣐ

࡛Ⓩሙே≀ࡀṌࡁᅇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ

ືモ move ࢆ᭷᪉ྥ⛣ືືモ㸦㸻⤖ᯝືモ㸧

ືモ walk ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓグ㏙ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓᚋࠊືモ࡟࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ⛣ືᵝែືモ㸦㸻ᵝែືモ㸧ࡢ୍✀ኚ໬ࢆ௜ࡅࡿᙧ࡛ືモ move ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓ౛ࢆࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ᰿ᣐࡣ௚࡟ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ

ᣲࡆࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊMurphy (2010: 126)ࡣࠊ⛣ືᵝែືモ࡛࠶ࡿ crawl, walk, jog, run, jump ࡞࡝(11) He walked across the living room, turnedࢆືモ move ࡢୗ఩ㄒ⩌࡜ࡋࠊព࿡ⓗୖୗ㛵

right down a hall, past two closed doors.

ಀࢆ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᅗ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

[…]There were two more bedrooms in thehouse. The owners slept in one. Two otherhouse guests occupied the other. As quietly
as possible, the man opened the door to thefirst bedroom. There were two beds, eachobviously containing only one person. He

ࡲࡓࠊFellbaum (2013: 373)ࡣࠊ⛣ືᵝែືモ

closed the door and moved to the next

࡛࠶ࡿ jog, swim, bike ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊmove/travelroom.

ࡢᵝែ࡛࠶ࡿⅬ࡜ࠊᚲ↛ⓗ࡟⛣ື஦㇟

(Peter Benchley. 1991. Jaws. New York:(moving event)࡛࠶ࡿⅬࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ

Ballantine Books)᰿ᣐ࡜ࡋ࡚(9a)(9b)ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
௨ୖ࠿ࡽࠊືモ move ࡣࠊᵝែࡶ⤖ᯝࡶ⾲ࡉ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺➨୕ࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⛣ືᵝ(9) a. To jog/swim/bike is to move in someែືモ࡜ྠࡌࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ධࢀࡿࡢࡀ⌮࡟࠿

manner.

࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡐ(6)࡛㏙

b. *She jogged/swam/biked but did not
move.

1

࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊືモ move ࡟ࡣලయⓗ࡞ᵝែࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ

ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊKudrnáčová (2008: 105)ࡀࠊ⛣ືᵝែືモ walk ࡢព࿡せ⣲࠿ࡽࠊືモ move ࡢព

3. ᵝែ࡜⤖ᯝࡢぢ┤ࡋ࿡ࢆᘬࡃ࡜ࠊࡶࡣࡸ walk ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࡇ࡜

3.1. ᑻᗘᛶ࡜࠸࠺᪂ࡓ࡞どⅬࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࠊࡑࡇ࠿ࡽࠊwalk ࡣ move ࡢ≉ᐃࡢලయⓗᵝែࢆࡶࡓ࡞࠸ືモ move ࢆࠊ⛣ືࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣ⤖ᒁࠊ

ࠕᵝែࠖືモ࡟ྵࡵ࡚ᢅࢃࡊࡿࢆ࠼࡞࠸࡜࠸

Murphy ࡜ྠࡌࡃࠊwalk ࡀ move ࡢୗ఩ㄒࡔ

࠺ၥ㢟ࡢ᰿ᗏ࡟࠶ࡿࡢࡣࠊ
ࠕᵝែࠖ㸦࠾ࡼࡧࠕ⤖

5ᯝࠖ㸧࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡢ୙᫂░ࡉ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

࡟⯆࿡῝࠸Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿࠋRappaport Hovav &㏆ᖺࡢ Levin ࡜ Rappaport Hovav ࡢ◊✲࡛

Levin (2010: 33)ࡣࠊᑻᗘࡢ࡞࠸ኚ໬ࢆ⾲ࡍືࡣࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣࢆಟṇࡍࡿᙧ࡛ࠊᵝែ࡜モ࡟ࡣ exercise ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ືモࡶྵࡲࢀࠊࡇࡢ

⤖ᯝࢆ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ᐃ⩏ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆヨࡳ࡚࠸ࡿࠋሙྜࠊືモࡢㄒᙡ໬ࡍࡿኚ໬ࡀࡑࢀ࡯࡝ලయ

᪂ࡓ࡞ษࡾཱྀ࡜ࡋ࡚ᙼዪࡽࡀᑟධࡋࡓࡢࡣࠊ

ⓗ(specific)࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ࠶ࡿ✀ࡢάື(some sortᑻᗘ(scale)࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊືof activity)ࡢࡳࢆព࿡≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜㏙࡭సືモࡣࡍ࡭࡚ఱࡽ࠿ࡢኚ໬ࢆྵࡳࠊ⤖ᯝື࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢືモ exercise ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊFellbaumモࡣᑻᗘࡢ࠶ࡿኚ໬ࠊᵝែືモࡣᑻᗘࡢ࡞࠸

(2013: 374-378)ࡣࠊ┠ⓗືモ(purpose verb)࡜

ኚ໬ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚෌ศᯒࡉࢀࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ ࠸࠺࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆ᪂タࡋࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ព࿡࡛ࡢ
ࡇࢀࡽ㸰✀㢮ࡢኚ໬ࡀ┦⿵ศᕸࢆ࡞ࡋࠊືモᵝែືモ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ┠ⓗࡀㄒᙡ໬ࡉࢀᵝែࡣ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿୍᪉ࡢኚ໬ࡋ࠿ㄒᙡ໬࡛ࡁ࡞࠸

ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡣᮍᣦᐃ࡞ືモࡔ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(13) We will refer to verbs like exercise, treat,
cheat, control and help as PURPOSE(12) We suggest that all result roots specify
scalar changes, while all manner roots

VERBS, ....

(Fellbaum 2013: 374)

specify non-scalar changes. These two
types of change are in complementaryືモ move ࡶࠊ⛣ືᵝែ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕ఩⨨࣭distribution: a root may only lexicalize oneጼໃࢆኚ࠼ࡿࠖ(to change from one place ortype.

position to another)࡜࠸࠺┠ⓗࢆㄒᙡ໬ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࢀࡤࠊFellbaum ࡢゝ࠺┠ⓗືモ࡟

(Rappaport Hovav & Levin 2010: 28)

ྵࡵ࡚ᢅ࠼ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇࡇ࠿ࡽ⤖ᒁࠊᵝែ࣭⤖ᯝࡢ┦⿵ᛶࡣࠊ༢࡞

ࡓࡔࡋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊFellbaum ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᵝែືࡿᑻᗘࡢ᭷↓࡬࡜㑏ඖࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋᚋ

モ࣭⤖ᯝືモ࡟┠ⓗືモࢆຍ࠼ࡓ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺࡛ぢ࡚࠸ࡃࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࡇࢀࡣ Levin ࡜ Rappaportࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᵝែືモ࡜┠ⓗືモࡀ㸯ࡘࡢ࢝

Hovav ࡢᥦၐࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ┦⿵ᛶࢆ෌⪃ࡍࡿࡓࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆ࡞ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡀ⤖ᯝືモ࡜ᑐ❧ࡍࡿࡵࡢࡁࢃࡵ࡚㔜せ࡞ほⅬࡔ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡯࠺ࡀࠊᑻᗘᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ┦⿵ᛶ㸦㸻ኚ໬ࡢᑻᗘᛶࡢ㐪࠸࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟ල

༢࡞ࡿᑻᗘࡢ᭷↓㸧࡜࠸࠺᪂ࡓ࡞ぢ᪉࡜࠺ࡲయⓗ࡟ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⤖ᯝືモࡢㄒᙡ໬ࡍ

ࡃ㐺ྜࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

ࡿᑻᗘࡢ࠶ࡿኚ໬ࡣࠊRappaport Hovav (2008:
3.3. ᑻᗘ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ┦⿵ᛶࡢぢ┤ࡋ17)ࠊRappaport Hovav & Levin (2010: 28)࡟ࡼ
ࡿ࡜ࠊ༢୍ࡢᒓᛶࡢ್㸦㸻ᑻᗘ㸧࡟ἢࡗࡓ࠶

(12)࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᵝែ࣭⤖ᯝࡢ┦⿵ᛶࡣࠊࡿ᪉ྥ࡬ࡢኚ໬ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ୍᪉ࠊᵝែືモࡀ⾲␌❵ࠊ༢࡞ࡿᑻᗘࡢ᭷↓࡬࡜㑏ඖࡉࢀࡿࠋࡘ

ࡍᑻᗘࡢ࡞࠸ኚ໬ࡣࠊRappaport Hovav (2008:ࡲࡾࠊᚋࡢ Levin & Rappaport Hovav (2013:17)ࠊRappaport Hovav & Levin (2010: 32)࡛ࠊ

50)࡛ࠊ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᵝែ࣭⤖ᯝࡢ┦⿵ᛶ࡜࠸」ᩘࡢኚ໬ࡀྠ᫬㐍⾜ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࡝ࢀࢆᑻᗘ

࠺⏝ㄒࢆ౑࠸⥆ࡅ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡿࡀࠊᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟ࡣ࡜ࡍࡿࡢ࠿Ỵࡵᡭࡀ࡞ࡃࠊ༢୍ࡢኚ໬ᑻᗘࢆ

exercise ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ලయⓗᵝែࢆࡶࡓ࡞࠸ᑻᗘ

ᢳฟ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡔ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡢ࡞࠸ኚ໬ࢆ⾲ࡍືモࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ
Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2010: 33)࡛ࡍ࡛࡟

3.2. ᑻᗘࡢ࡞࠸㠀ᵝែືモㄆࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡇ࠿ࡽฟ࡚ࡃࡿᖐ⤖ࡣࠊᵝែືモࡀᑻᗘࡓࡔࡋࠊᑻᗘࡢ࡞࠸ኚ໬࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡉࡽ

6ࡢ࡞࠸ኚ໬ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ࡣゝ࠼ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊᑻᗘࡢ

low degree of semantic specification allows࡞࠸ኚ໬ࢆ⾲ࡍືモ࡟ࡣࠊᵝែືモࡔࡅ࡛࡞

for a wide range of meanings and syntacticࡃࠊFellbaum ࡢゝ࠺┠ⓗືモࡶ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ

contexts. Verbs with less lexically specified࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

semantic content we call WEAK verbs.

ࡘࡲࡾࠊ┦⿵ᛶࢆ࡞ࡍࡢࡀᑻᗘࡢ᭷↓࡛࠶

(Ritter & Rosen 1996: 42)ࡿ௨ୖࠊ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵝែ࣭⤖ᯝࡢ┦⿵ᛶ࡜࠸࠺ゝ࠸᪉ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀࠊ ୙㐺ษ࡞࿧ࡧ᪉

ࡇࢀ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊ㠀⤖ᯝືモࡢୗ఩㢮࡛࠶ࡿ(misnomer)ࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ⤖ᯝ㸦㸻ᑻᵝែືモ࡜┠ⓗືモࡢ␗࡞ࡿⅬࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚

ᗘࡢ࠶ࡿኚ໬㸧࡜┦⿵ᛶࢆ࡞ࡍࡢࡣࠊᵝែ࠾ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ࠸ࢃࡺࡿᵝែືモࡣࠊ㠀⤖ᯝືモࡢࡼࡧ┠ⓗ㸦㸻ᑻᗘࡢ࡞࠸ኚ໬㸧࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ

࠺ࡕࠊㄒᙡⓗ࡞ព࿡ᣦᐃࡀᙉࡃࠊᵝែࢆᵓᡂᚋ⪅ࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡓ㠀⤖ᯝືモ࡜࠸࠺࢝ࢸࢦࣜ

ࡍࡿ」ᩘࡢኚ໬ࡀヲ⣽࡟ㄒᙡ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࣮ࢆタᐃࡋࠊࡑࢀࡀ⤖ᯝືモ࡜┦⿵ᛶࢆ࡞ࡍᙉ࠸ືモࡔ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊexercise ࡸ move࡜ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ

ࡢࡼ࠺࡞┠ⓗືモࡣࠊㄒᙡⓗ࡞ព࿡ᣦᐃࡀᙅ

ḟ࡟ၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࡢࡣࠊ㠀⤖ᯝືモࡢୗ఩㢮ࡃࠊᵝែࡀᣦᐃࡉࢀࡎ࡟࠶ࡿ✀ࡢάື࡛࠶ࡿ

࡛࠶ࡿᵝែືモ࡜┠ⓗືモࡢ␗ྠ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇ

ࡇ࡜ࡀ₍↛࡜ㄒᙡ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᙅ࠸ືモࡔࢀࡽࡀᑻᗘࡢ࡞࠸ኚ໬ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜࠸࠺ඹ㏻Ⅼ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࢆࡶࡘࡇ࡜ࡣ⮬᫂࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊᕪ␗ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿᚲ
4. ஦㇟ᵓ㐀㗪ᆺ࡟ࡼࡿ㠀⤖ᯝືモࡢ⪃ᐹせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡑࢀࢆࠊRitter & Rosenࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ㆟ㄽࢆࡩࡲ࠼࡚ࠊ௨ୗ࡛ࡣືモ(1996)ࡢゝ࠺ືモࡢᙉᙅ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
Ritter & Rosen ࡣࠊྠࡌ⛣ືᵝែືモ࡛࠶

move ࡀ஦㇟ᵓ㐀㗪ᆺ࡜࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㛵㐃࡙ࡅࡿ walk ࡜ run ࡟ከ⩏ᛶࡢ㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࠊrunࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡢ᪉ࡀ walk ࡼࡾࡶࡣࡿ࠿࡟ከࡃࡢព࿡࡛⏝ᵝែ࣭⤖ᯝࡢ┦⿵ᛶࡀࠊ༢࡞ࡿᑻᗘࡢ᭷↓࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࢆㄝ᫂ࡍ

࡬࡜㑏ඖࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ┦⿵ᛶࢆࡿࡓࡵࠊㄒᙡⓗ࡞ព࿡ෆᐜࡢᣦᐃ㸦࠸ࢃࡤព⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿㄒ᰿࡜ᇶᮏ㏙ㄒࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏつ࿡ⓗ࡞⦡ࡾ㸧ࡀ walk ࡛ࡣᙉࡃ run ࡛ࡣᙅ࠸๎ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ಟṇࡉࢀࡿࠋࡓࡵࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐪࠸ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚
࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࢆᙉ࠸ືモࠊᙅ࠸ື(15) a. non-result→[ x ACT<NON-SCALAR CHANGE> ]モ࡜࿧ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ

b. resultЍ[ BECOME [ y <SCALAR CHANGE> ] ](14) We propose that a verb like walk has asemanticࡘࡲࡾ㠀⤖ᯝືモ㸦ୗ఩㢮࡜ࡋ࡚ᵝែືモ࡜

representation, and that this high degree of┠ⓗືモࢆྵࡴ㸧ࡣᑻᗘࡢ࡞࠸ኚ໬ࢆㄒᙡ໬

lexical specification narrows the range ofࡋ ACT ㏙ㄒ࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ

interpretations and syntactic contexts it can⤖ᯝືモࡣᑻᗘࡢ࠶ࡿኚ໬ࢆ⾲ࡋ BECOME

be used in. Verbs with enough lexical㏙ㄒ࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࢀࡿࠋ

highlyspecified

lexicalsemantic content to restrict their syntactic⛣ືືモ࡟ヰࢆ㝈ࡿ࡜ࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡞⛣ືᵝែbehavior and interpretation we call STRONGືモ࡛࠶ࡿ walk, run㸦㸻ᵝែືモ㸧ࡶࠊືసverbs. A verb like run, in contrast, is both୺ࡀ୺ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ⛣ືືモ move㸦㸻┠ⓗືモ㸧

semanticallyinࡶࠊ࡜ࡶ࡟ᑻᗘࡢ࡞࠸ኚ໬ࢆ⾲ࡍ㠀⤖ᯝືモ

numerous syntactic structures. A relatively࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ஦㇟ᵓ㐀㗪ᆺ࡛ࡣྠࡌ

flexibleandappears7

(15a)ࡢᵓ㐀ࢆྲྀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋືモ walk࡟஦㇟ᵓ㐀㗪ᆺ࡛ ACT ࡟㛵㐃࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ

ࡸ run ࡣࠊRitter & Rosen ࡢゝ࠺ព࿡ⓗᣦᐃࡢ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋᙉ࠸ືモ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᡭ㊊ࡢືࡁ࡞࡝ࡶྵࡵࡓᵝ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᮏ✏ࡢព⩏ࡣࠊⓎ⾲๓࡟ᰝㄞែࡀ᫂☜࡟ᣦᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊືモ move⪅࠿ࡽ㡬࠸ࡓࠕmove ࡣ⛣ື㸭ᵝែࡢ஧ศἲ

ࡣࠊRitter & Rosen ࡢゝ࠺ព࿡ⓗᣦᐃࡢᙅ࠸

࡛ࡣᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡀᑻᗘᛶࡢ᭷↓࡛ࡣᤊ࠼ືモ࡛ࠊ఩⨨ኚ໬࡜࠸࠺₍↛࡜ࡋࡓ┠ⓗࡢពࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ Levin ࡽࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸

࿡ࡋ࠿ᣦᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

ศ㢮ࡢඃ㉺ᛶࢆ♧ࡍ᰿ᣐ࡜࡞ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᩥゝࡋ࠿ࡋ࠸ࡎࢀࡢືモࡶࠊ⛣ືࡢ᪉ྥ࣭⤖ᯝ࡟㞟⣙ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋ௒ᚋࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᑻᗘ

࡜࠸࠺ᑻᗘࢆ⾲ࡉࡎࠊ᭷᪉ྥ⛣ືືモ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡢᑟධࡀࠊ௚ࡢືモࡢศᯒ࡟࡝࠺ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿࡢ

࠸࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊㄒ᰿ࡢព࿡ⓗᣦ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊ◊✲ࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋᐃ ࡢ ᙉ ᙅ ࡢ ᕪ ␗ ࡟ ࡼ ࡗ ࡚ ࠊ Murphy ࡸFellbaum ࡢゝ࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ⓗୖୗ㛵ಀࡀᡂὀ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊLevin &* ᮏ✏ࡣ᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍➨ 32 ᅇ኱఍㸦᪊㸸Ꮫ⩦㝔኱Ꮫ㸧

Rappaport Hovav (1992)ࡸ Tenny ࡛ືモ move

࡛ 2014 ᖺ 11 ᭶ 9 ᪥㸦᪥㸧࡟Ⓨ⾲ࡋࡓཎ✏࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࠋ

ࡀ⛣ືᵝែືモ࡟ྵࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢ

ྖ఍ࢆࡋ࡚ୗࡉࡗࡓᮏከၨඛ⏕ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧ఍ሙ࡛ࢥ࣓ࣥ

ᑻᗘࡢ࡞ࡉ࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩࢆ┤ឤⓗ࡟ᤕࡽ࠼࡚

ࢺ࣭㉁ၥࢆୗࡉࡗࡓ᪉ࠎ࡟ࡣឤㅰࡋࡓ࠸ࠋᮏ✏ࡣ➹⪅

2ࡀ༤ኈㄽᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚❧࿨㤋኱Ꮫ࡟ᥦฟࡋࠊ2015 ᖺ㛤ᣅ♫࠸ࡓࡶࡢࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ

ࡼࡾฟ∧ࡉࢀࡿணᐃࡢ Demizu (2015)ࢆᇳ➹ࡋࡓ㝿࡟ࠊ

5. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟

ࡑࡇ࡟཰ࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓෆᐜࢆⓎᒎࡉࡏࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ

ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᵝែ࣭⤖ᯝࡢ┦⿵ᛶࢆࡑࡢࡲࡲ

Talmy (2000)ࡢ㢮ᆺㄽ࡜ࡶ㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ௒ᅇࡑࢀ࡟

ゎ㔘ࡋ࡚ືモ move ࡟࠶࡚ࡣࡵࡓሙྜࠊᵝែ㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣㄽࡌ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

ࡶ⤖ᯝࡶ⾲ࡉ࡞࠸ືモ move ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀ࡟ࡶ఩

1⨨࡙ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡎࠊศ㢮ࡀ◚⥢ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆྵពࡋࠊ(9b)࡜ྠᵝ࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠊࡶࡋࡑ࠺ࢆෑ㢌࡛ぢࡓࠋ㸰⠇࡛ືモ move ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᚑࡔ࡜ࡍࢀࡤ move ࡀ⛣ືᵝែືモࡢୖ఩ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ᰿ᣐ

᮶ࡢศᯒࢆ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡾࠊືモ move ࡀᵝែࢆ⾲࡟(9b)ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㡬࠸ࡉ࡞࠸࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ⛣ືᵝែືモ࡟ྵࡵࡓࠋࡇࢀ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᩆᛴᝈ⪅ࡀព㆑ࡢ࡞࠸≧ែ࡛⑓࡚ᢅࢃࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡇ࡜ࢆᴫほࡋࡓࠋ㸱⠇࡛ࡣ㝔࡟ᦙ㏦ࡉࢀࡿ≧ἣࢆᥥ෗ࡋࡓࠊNew York Times ࡢグ

Levin ࡜ Rappaport Hovav ࡀ㏆ᖺࠊᵝែ࡜⤖஦࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ௨ୗࡢ౛ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ

ᯝࢆࠊᑻᗘࡢ࡞࠸ኚ໬࡜ᑻᗘࡢ࠶ࡿኚ໬࡜ࡋ

(i) a. Victoria arrived unconscious in cardiac and࡚෌ᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᑟධࡋࠊᵝែࢆ⾲ࡉ

respiratory arrest at Brookdale Hospital at about࡞࠸ Fellbaum ࡢゝ࠺┠ⓗືモࡶࠊᑻᗘࡢ࡞

6:50 P.M. on Monday.

ᮏከၨඛ⏕ࡼࡾࠊarrive ࡶ⛣ືືモ࡛࠶ࡿ௨ୖ move࠸ኚ໬࡟ྵࡲࢀࠊືモ move ࡀࡑࢀ࡟┦ᙜࡍ

(New York Times, 1992/03/04)

ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᵝែ࣭⤖ᯝ࡛ࡣb. He was subsequently taken to the Bellevue Hospital࡞ࡃࠊᑻᗘࡢ᭷↓㸦ࡘࡲࡾ㠀⤖ᯝືモ࡜⤖ᯝCenter, where he arrived in a coma and died 13ືモ㸧ࡀ┦⿵ᛶࢆ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࠊ㠀days later.

(New York Times, 1985/08/22)⤖ᯝືモࡢୗ఩㢮ࢆ࡞ࡍᵝែືモ࡜┠ⓗື⛣ືᵝែືモࡀືస୺࡛࠶ࡿேࢆ୺ㄒ࡜ࡍࡿሙྜࠊᚲ

モࡢ㐪࠸ࡣࠊRitter & Rosen ࡢゝ࠺ືモࡢᙉࡎࡑࡢேࡀ move ࡋ࡚࠸࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ

ᙅࡢ㐪࠸࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ⥆ࡃ㸲⠇࡛ࡣࠊ ᭷᪉ྥືモࡢ arrive ࡛ࡣࠊᮏேࡀព㆑ࡢ࡞࠸≧ែ࡛ືࡑࢀࢆ஦㇟ᵓ㐀㗪ᆺ࡜㛵㐃࡙ࡅࠊ⛣ືᵝែື࠿࡞࠸ࡲࡲᦙ㏦ࡉࢀࡓሙྜ࡟ࡶ౑࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ

モ walk, run ࡶࠊ⛣ື┠ⓗືモ move ࡶࠊ࡜ࡶືモ arrive ࡢㄒ⩏ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡣࠊ୺ㄒࡀ move ࡍࡿࡇ࡜8ࢆྵពࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊືモ arrive“The Lexical Semantics of Verbs of Motion:ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᭷᪉ྥ⛣ືືモࡀࠊ࡝࠺࠸࠺ព࿡࡛⛣ືࢆ⾲

Theࡍ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㞴ၥ࡜㛵ಀࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ௒ᅇࡣ

Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, ed.

ࡇࢀ௨ୖ᥀ࡾୗࡆ࡞࠸࡛࠾ࡃࠋ

by I.M. Roca, 247-269, Foris Publications,

2

Berlin.

఍ሙ࡛す⏣ග୍Ặࡼࡾࠊ⛣ືᵝែືモࡣ Talmy (2000)

Perspectivefrom

Unaccusativity,”ࡢゝ࠺⾨ᫍᯟ௜ࡅⓗ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊືモᯟ௜ࡅゝㄒ

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (2013)࡛࠶ࡿ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࠕ??ḟࡢ㒊ᒇ࡟Ṍࡃࠖࡀ୙⮬↛࡛࠶“Lexicalized Meaning and Manner/Resultࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊືモ move ࡢሙྜࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࠕḟࡢ㒊

Complementarity,”ᒇ࡟⛣ࡿ㸭⛣ືࡍࡿࠖࡀ⮬↛࡞ࡢࡣ࡝࠺ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡢ࠿

Composition and Decomposition of Event

࡜࠸࠺㉁ၥࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢヲ⣽ࡣࠊᑗ᮶ࡢ

Predicates, eds. by Boban Arsenijevic, Beritㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࡀࠊ➹⪅ࡣ Demizu (2005)࡛ࠊTalmy ࡢ㢮Gehrke, and Rafael Marín, 49-70, Springer,ᆺㄽࡣࠊᮏ᮶ࡢ஧㡯ᑐ❧ⓗ࡞ぢ᪉ࢆ᥇ࡿࡼࡾࠊືモᯟ

Dordrecht.

Studiesinthe௜ࡅᛶࡀࡍ࡭࡚ࡢゝㄒࡢᇶᗏ࡟࠶ࡾࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ⾨ᫍᯟMurphy, M. Lynne (2010) Lexical Meaning,௜ࡅゝㄒࡢࡳ࡛⾨ᫍᯟ௜ࡅⓗࡀ௜ຍⓗ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

ࢆ୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⾨ᫍᯟ௜ࡅᛶࡣࠊ⾨ᫍᯟ௜ࡅⓗRappaport Hovav, Malka (2008) “Lexicalized⾲⌧࡛ࠊRitter & Rosen ࡢ࠸࠺ືモࡢᙉࡉࡀ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘࡲ

MeaningandtheInternal

Temporal࡛チᐜࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࡢ⛬ᗘࡔ࡜⌧ᅾ➹⪅ࡣ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉ

Structure of Events,” Theoretical andࡽ࡟ࠊ⾨ᫍᯟ௜ࡅᛶ⮬యࡣ㐃⥆ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᭷↓ࡢᓧู

Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semanticsࡀᅔ㞴࡞ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ࡶ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽ࡟㛵of Aspect, ed. by Susan Rothstein, 13-42,ࡋ࡚ࡣᑗ᮶ࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin (2010)

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩“Reflections

Beavers, John, Beth Levin, and Shiao Wei Tham

Complementarity,”

Journalof

Linguistics

Semantics,

Sichel, 21-38, Oxford University Press,

Takanori(2015)

Lexicalization

Oxford.

Typology and Event Structure Templates:
TowardLexicalRappaport Hovav, Edit Doron, and Ivy

46,

331-377.
Demizu,Manner/Result

Syntax, and Event Structure, eds. by Malka(2010) “The typology of motion expressions
revisited,”on

Isomorphic

Macroevent

andMapping
Syntactic

Ritter, Elizabeth and Sara Thomas Rosen (1996)

between“Strong and Weak Predicates: Reducing theStructures,

Lexical Burden,” Linguistic Analysis 26,
29-62.

Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

Talmy, Leonard (2000) Toward a Cognitive

Fellbaum, Christiane (2013) “Purpose Verbs,”
Advances in Generative Lexicon Theory, eds.

Semantics:

VolumeII:

Typology

andby James Pustejovsky et al., 371-384,

Process inConcept

Structuring,MIT

Springer

Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Science+BusinessMedia,

Dordrecht.

Tenny, Carol (1995) “Modularity in Thematic

Kudrnáčová, Naděžda (2008) Directed Motion

versus Aspectual Licensing: Paths andat the Syntax-semantics Interface. Masaryk

Moved Objects in Motion Verbs,” Canadian

University, Brno.

Journal of Linguistics 40, 201-234.

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (1992)

9

focus, relatives, and so forth, as shown in (1),and that scope/discourse interpretations are
determined by a family of principles, theCriteria, which require a scope- or discourserelated element to enter into a Spec-head

Why, What…For, How Come and Why theHell*agreement relation with respect to features of
the relevant class: e.g. Q, Top, Foc, R, Mod
and so forth for questions, topic, focus,

Yoshio Endo

relatives, and modifier respectively.

Kanda University of International Studies(1) Force

Top*

Int

Top*

Mod*

Top*

Fin

IP

Keywords: Criterial Freezing, CP, ReasonP

Focus(Rizzi 2004)

A head endowed with the relevant feature
attracts a phrase bearing that feature, and thus
designates a position dedicated to the relevant
type of interpretation. According to Rizzi

1. INTRODUCTION
In

this

paper,

I

will

discuss(2006), the creation of a criterial configurationsomefreezes the structure by Criterial Freezing:

wh-expressions asking for reasons such as
why, what…for and how come in the(2) Criterial Freezing: A phrase meeting aframework of the cartography of syntactic

criterion is frozen in

structures, a project aimed at devising as

place

detailed as possible a map of syntactic

Thus, in (3a), once a wh-element is moved into

configurations.

the clause initial position to enter into aThis paper is organized as follows. I will

Spec-head configuration with CQ, it is frozen

first introduce Rizzi’s (2001) classic idea that

there and may not move further, as shown by

why is base generated in the CP zone,

the ungrammaticality of (3b):Shlonsky and Soare’s (2011) recent proposal(3) a. Bill wonders [which book CQ [shethat why is base generated in ReasonP in theread t]]IP zone and Endo’s (2014) idea that there isb. *Which book CQ does Bill wonder

another ReasonP. I will next explore a new[t’ CQ [she read t]]?

dimension of the cartography of syntactic

With this background in mind, let us

structures by discussing some variations in

examine the following asymmetry between

the use of how come among speakers. I will

why and other adjuncts like how with respect

finally touch on the syntactic position

to negative islands (the relevant example being

occupied by why the hell.

taken from Shlonsky and Soare 2011):(4) a. Why didn’t Geraldine fix her bike?

2. Rizzi (2001, 2004) and Shlonsky andb. *How didn’t Geraldine fix her bike?

Soare (2011)

This asymmetry stems from the fact that why is

Based on the idea that the CP zone isexternally merged in the CP zone. Unlike how,characterized by scope/discourse properties

which is displaced from a position lower than(cf. Chomsky 2001), Rizzi (1997, 2001,

negation (Neg), Rizzi (2001, 2004) proposes

2004) claims that there are various functionalthatheads in the CP zone for questions, topic,

InterrogativeP (henceforth, Spec, Int) in a

10

why

is

base

generated

in

Spec,

position higher than Neg, and thus does not

Neg, and thus movement from this position

cross negative islands.

into the CP zone induces a negative island

Rizzi

also

discusses

someviolation.

movement

properties of why. For instance, why is

To summarize, Shlonsky and Soare postulate

ambiguous in (5), allowing both matrix andthe following hierarchical structure for why andembedded interpretations. That is, why can behow.
(6) Int > ReasonP (= why) > Neg > how . . .

interpreted as questioning the reason for yoursaying something, where why is associated withthe verb say in the matrix clause (matrix

3. TWO REASONP PROJECTIONS

construal); alternatively, it can be construed

In this section, I will discuss another type ofwith the lower clause questioning the reason

sentence,for John’s leaving, where why is associatedwhy-clauses, which also asks for reasons: thewith the verb left in the embedded clausesplit form what . . . for. Consider, for instance,(embedded construal). He claims that why may

the following sentence with the pair consistingraise from its “base” position in the embeddedof what and for, which asks for the reason forSpec, Int and move to the same position thatyour coming to the United States:

to

but

distinctfrom(7) What are you coming to the Unitedhosts other moved wh-expressions (embedded

States for?

construal), or it may be base generated in the

As pointed out by Peter Svenonius (personal

matrix CP (matrix construal).

communication), this type of split what-for(5) Why did you say Geraldine fixed her

sentence is sensitive to negative islands:

bike?

(8) * What aren’t you coming to the United

Shlonsky and Soare (2011) argue against

States for? 1

external Merge of why in Spec, Int from theviewpoint

similarof

Criterial

Freezing.

In

theThis observation suggests that what and for are

embedded construal in (5), if why were to bebase generated in a position lower than Neg,base generated in Spec, Int, a criterial position,and that what jumps over Neg, violating theit should not be able to move into the matrix

negative island constraint. In the terminology

clause, because it would be frozen in place inof Shlonsky and Soare, there would be anotherSpec, Int in the embedded clause by Criterial

ReasonP below Neg from which the what ofFreezing. To solve this problem, Shlonsky andwhat for raises to the target IntP: ReasonP1

Soare postulate the presence of a ReasonP in(why) > Neg > ReasonP2 (for what). 2

the IP zone, where why is base generated.

As Byron Ahn (personal communication)

Because, being located in the IP zone, ReasonP

points out, the idea that what in what foris not a criterial position, why, which is basequestions is lower than Neg gains support fromgenerated in Spec, ReasonP in the embedded

sentences like (9), where the reason expression

clause in (5), can move into the matrix clauseheaded by for is always inside the scope of Neg,

in the embedded construal by passing though

as opposed to the reason expression headed by

the specifier position of Fin, which is assumed

because (of), which is ambiguous between two

by Rizzi and Slonsky (2006) to be a non-readings, one inside and one outside the scope

criterial position. As for the negative islandof Neg: 3

effect in (4b), Shlonsky and Soare follow

4(9) a. John didn’t do it for food.

Rizzi’s idea that how is base generated below(not > for food, *for food > not)11

b. John didn’t do it because of food. 5

See Endo (2014) for discussion of thesemantic interpretation of the WHAT assigned(not > for food, for food > not)in IntP2, the landing site of WHAT.

Some languages can express a meaningsimilar to the split form what . . . for in English,
but with the preposition for missing. This type

4. HOW COME

of question shows sensitivity to negative

In this section, I will explore a newislands, which again suggests that there is adimension of the cartography of syntactic

ReasonP below Neg in which wh-elements

structures by looking at variations in the use

askinggenerated.

of how come among speakers. I will first(Hereafter, I will use WHAT to denote the type

introduce some previous analyses of howof what asking for a reason.) Obenauer (2006)

come and then show variations in the use ofcalls such question forms surprise-disapproval

how come among speakers.

forreasonsquestions (SDQ).

are

base

6

As

communication)(10) a. Chto yu smejoshsja ?(Russia)

generation

what you laughCinquenotes,

strategy(personal

Rizzi’sofbase-mergingawh-expression directly in the CP zone seems

b. Cosa (*non) ridi ? (Italian)necessary for how come, which may only bewhat (*not) laughc. Nani-oGuglielmo

construed

nai-teiru no (Japanese)

with

the

matrixclause,asoriginally pointed out by Zwicky and Zwicky

what-Acc cry-Asp Q(1971).

What is the semantic interpretation of
WHAT which is assigned in ReasonP2? As(13) How come you say that John is mad?

an OUP reviewer points out, while why-

(ok matrix, *embedded)

questions have the interpretation of both

Collins (1991) claims that how come is“rationale” and “cause,” WHAT questions

base generated in the C head of the matrix

only have the interpretation of “rationale,” asclause, and thus may not appear in theshown in (11) and (12). Based on thisembedded clause and undergo long-distanceobservation, I suggest that ReasonP2 involves

movement into the matrix clause, becausethehead movement is generally clause bound.

semantic

interpretation

relatedtoShlonsky and Soare (2011) point out a“rationale” while ReasonP1 involves thesemantic interpretation of Cause:

potential problem with Collins’ analysis by(11) Why is grass green?

observing that how come patterns with aa.

phrasal element like why, not with a head

So that caterpillars can play on it.

element like if and whether, which do not(Rationale)b.

participate in Sluicing.

Because God created it that way.

(14) They thought John left early, but(Cause)they didn't tell me why/how come/(12) What is grass green for?
a.

*whether/*if φ.

So that caterpillars can play on it.

On the basis of this observation, they suggest(Rationale)that how come is base generated in theb. *Because God created it that way.

specifier position of XP. To be more specific,(Cause)they adopt Rizzi’s (2001) idea that Italiancome mai ‘how come’ is base generated in

12Spec, Int in the CP system in (15), and they

Tsai (2008) proposes on independent grounds.

also base generate how come in Spec, Int:

Because Force and Fin are not separately(15) ForceP

IntP

TopP

FocP

projected in the absence of an interveningModelement, where how come is base generated

WhP Fin(ite)P
Shonsky and Soare’s idea is supported byin Spec, Force for many speakers, Fin is notobservation by Zwicky and Zwicky (1973)

separately projected in (16), and thus thatthat some speakers allow how come to becannot appear in the head position of FinP,

followed by the complementizer that:which is not projected. 7(16) How come that she has read the

As expected, some speakers who do notbook]?

like how come immediately followed by that

Let me explain why how come is followed

as in (18a) find the use of that moreby that in terms of Shlonsky and Soare’s IntP

acceptable in (18b), where an underlined

analysis of how come. Rizzi (1997) claims

adjunct phrase intervenes between how comethat Force and Fin takes an amalgamatedand that, as reported in Radford (2014): 8

form in the absence of any constituent/s(18) a. *How come that I fell in love withpositioned between them, and they aresomeone like you?

independently projected in the presence ofb. How come, after a long drawn-out

intervening material. In addition, based on

conflict, that the Israelis andthe example in (17), Rizzi (2013: 209) claims

Palestinians still haven’t madethat when Force and Fin are separately

peace?

projected in the presence of an intervening

In (18b), Force and Fin are separately

element, that may occupies the head position

projected in the presence of an interveningof FinP:

adjunct phrase, where Fin head can host that.

(17) I think that, if they arrive on time,

Although it is not clear why some speakers

that they will be greeted.

like Kayne do not like how come followed by

Given these ideas, how come is expected tothat even in the presence of an intervening

be followed by that in (16), where Force andmodifier as in (18b), I speculate that such

Fin are separately projected in the presence of

speakers do not possess what we might callthe intervening element. How come is found“special” that which may only appear in a

in IntP between Force and Fin, and that canvery special environment like a Fin head.

appear in the head position of FinP.
An

informalquestionnaire

As Radford (2014) points out, thosesurveyspeakers who allow how come to be

conducted by Andrew Radford and me

immediately followed by that also allow theshowed that many English speakers do not

sequence how come that to be followed by alike how come immediately followed by that.

modifier (Mod) or a focus (Foc) element:(See Radford (2014) for the details of thissurvey.)Forinstance,

Richard(19) a. How come that in 2012 not manyKaynepeople seemed too worried about(personal communication) points out that hethe pending apocalypse?

doesn’t like how come followed by that at allb. How come that nowhere in thein any environments.

Bible does anyone mention the

I suggest that many English speakers basedinosaurs?

generate how come in Spec, Force, which

Because Force is followed by Mod and Foc in13the CP system in (15), the sequence how

why is accompanied by the non-D-linked

come that may be followed by the modifier inelement the hell.

2012 and the focus element nowhere in the(21) Why the hell did you say that John isBible in (19).

mad? (ok matrix, ??embedded)

At this point, one may wonder where that

(Ochi 2004)

appears in (19). Based on Collins’ (1991: 43)

Here, the embedded reading seems to beidea that how come presupposes the truth ofdifficult.

its complement (cf. Fitzpatrick (2005) andassumption that why the hell is base

Conroy (2006)), Radford (2014) suggests thatgenerated in Spec, Int, where it is frozen andthat is a factivity head projecting into a FactP

thus mayin how come that questions, where FactP is

movement into a higher clause. 11

This

would

not undergo

followonthea long-distancelocated between Force and Foc in the CP
system in (15). 9

6. CONCLUSIONTo

There is still another variation of thesummarize,

we

have

seen

varioussyntactic position of how come. Ochi (2004: 34,

base-generated positions for why, what..for,fn.7) observes that some speakers do not like to

how come and why the hell in the CP zone:

have how come in embedded questions. I(22) [Speech-actP how come [ForceP howsuggest that such speakers base generate howcome [IntP how come, why the hell

come in the specifier position of what…[FinP…[ReasonP1 (high) why >Haegeman and Hill (2014) call Speech-ActP,

Neg > [ReasonP2 (low) WHAT

which is found above ForceP. As Heizo
Nakajima and Andrew Radford (personal

NOTES
I am grateful to the following people forinvaluable comments: Guglielmo Cinque,
Richard Kayne, Takeo Kurafuji, Heizo
Nakajima, Rachel Nye, Andrew Radford,
Luigi Rizzi, Hidekazu Tanaka and theaudience at the 32nd Conference of English
Linguistic Society of Japan held at Gakushuin
University on November 9.
1Andrew Radford (personal communication)
pointsout
thefollowing
potential
counterexample (italicised):(i)Immigration Officer: What are you coming
to the US for?
Immigrant: What aren’t I coming to the US
for?!!!
(implication: EVERYTHING in the US
attracts me to it)
The italicised clause appears to be
exclamative in function. I have no analysis
for this kind of exclamative structure, leaving*

communication) point out, speech acts describe
properties of utterances not of clauses, andhence only sentences, i.e. root clauses, can beassociated with speech acts, not subordinate
clauses. Thus, such speakers base generate howcome in Spec, Speech-ActP.
To summarize this section, I discussed a
new dimension of the cartographic project byillustrating variations among speakers in theuse of how come in the CP zone. The
variations can be summarized below: 10(20) Type A: [IntP how come [Fin (that)Type B: [ForceP how come [Fin thatType C: [ForceP how come [FactP (that)…Foc…Mod…[FinP (that)Type D: [Speech-actP how come5. WHY THE HELL

Let us finally turn to the case in (19),which is pointed out by Ochi (2004), where14

9

it for future research.
2
Collins (1991: 32) claims that reason
adverbials can originate as IP or VP adjuncts.
Following Cinque (1999) and Rizzi (2004), I
will assume a phrase structure withoutphrasal adjunction.
3
One may wonder how the question form For
what is derived? I suggest that such aquestion form is derived by deleting thehigher material preceding the PP for what
before it undergoes movement: did you cometo the United States for what?
4
One may wonder if ReasonP2 can bedispensed with by assuming that the meaningof asking for a reason comes from the
preposition for. This idea is argued against by
the cross-linguistic facts below, where a
preposition or a post-position corresponding
to for is absent.
5
Andrew Radford (personal communication)
points out that in a sentence like John didn’t
do it for love of his country the PP for love of
his country can be interpreted outside thescope of negation. More study is needed inthis area.
6
As Obenauer notes, the SDQ interpretation
is optional in English. In our framework, thismeans that English has an option to target
either IntP, where no SDQ interpretation is
assigned, or ForceP, where the SDQ
interpretation is assigned.
7
That may not appear in the head position ofForceP because of the contradictory force
specification which results from combining
interrogative how come with declarative that.
8
In the informal questionnaire survey
conducted by Andrew Radford and me, 5/19
informants who gave a low acceptability
rating to the sentence How come that I fell inlove with someone like you? gave a highrating to the sentence How come I fell I lovewith someone like you, and that you fell inlove with someone like me?

Radford (2014) also discusses the factive
nature of English exclamatory clauses. He
reports that exclamatory clauses can containthat not only in embedded clauses but also inroot clauses for some speakers as in How
quickly that people forget!, where thatappears in the head position of FactP. Notethat the corresponding exclamatory clauses inJapanese is formed by combining the factive
morpheme koto in the head position withnante hayaku ‘how fast’ in its specifier
position:(i) Nante hayaku wasureru koto!
how quickly forgetfact	  ‘How quickly people forget’
In addition, the Japanese how come
expression dooiu koto is created by
combining the factive morpheme koto ‘that’in the head position with dooiu ‘how’ in thespecifier position:(ii) Ko-nai-to-wa
dooiu koto?
come-not-that-Top how fact
‘How come you will not come?’
These facts might suggest that how come andthe factive head are found in the same local
domain in Japanese. If we keep to Chomsky’s(2001) Uniformity Principle, how come andthat might also be found in the same local
domain of FactP in English.
10
Andrew Radford (personal communication)
points out the following ordering restriction
between how come and a topic element:(i) a. I wish I knew [how come major
issues like that, politicians are
reluctant to tackle]
b. *I wish I knew [major issues
like that, how come politicians
are reluctant to tackle]
At this point, it is not clear to me whether
how come is in ForceP or IntP.
11
Andrew Radford (personal communication)
points out that there are two factors
supporting the alternative view that why the15English,” Information Structure andhell is an operator binding a variable. One isthat why the hell triggers Auxiliary Inversion,and Shlonsky & Soare (2011: 666) say that
only a wh-operator triggers Auxiliary
Inversion. The other is that how the hell canhave a long distance construal, e.g. in:
A: Why did you do it?
B: Why the hell do you think I did it?
Further research is required in this area.

Agreement,” ed. by Victoria CamachoTaboada et.al.,11-54, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam.
Radford, Andrew (2014) “How Come
Questions with How Come are
Different?” ms., University of Essex.
Rizzi, Luigi (1990) Relativized Minimality.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rizzi, Luigi (2001) “On the Position of

REFERENCES‘Int(errogative)’ in the Left Periphery ofChomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by

the Clause,” Current Studies in Italian

Phase,” Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed.

Syntax, ed. by Guglielmo Cinque andby Michael Kenstowicz,” 1–52, MIT

Giampaolo Salvi, 267–96, Elsevier,Press, Cambridge, MA.

Amsterdam.

Cinque, Guglielmo (1999) Adverbs andRizzi, Luigi (2004) “Locality and Left

Functional Heads, Oxford University

Periphery,” Structures and Beyond,Press, Oxford and New York.

Volume 3, ed. by Adriana Belletti, 104–

Collins, Chris (1991) “Why and How Come,”

131, Oxford University Press, New

MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15,York.

31–45.

Rizzi, Luigi (2006) “On the Form of Chains,”

Conroy, Anastasia (2006) “The Semantics of

Wh-Movement: Moving On, ed. by Lisa

How Come,” University of Maryland

Cheng and Norvert Corver, 97–133,

Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 1-24.

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Endo, Yoshio. 2014. “Two ReasonPs,” toRizzi, Luigi (2013) “Notes on Cartography

appear in Beyond Functional Sequence,and Further Explanation,” Probus 25,

ed. by Ur Shlonsky, Oxford University

197-226.

Press, Oxford.

Rizzi, Luigi and Ur Shlonsky (2006)

Fitzpatric, Justin (2005) “The Whys and How“Satisfying the Subject Criterion by aComes of Presupposition and NPI

Non-Subject,” Phases of Interpretation,

Licensing in Questions,” WCCFL 24, 138-

ed. by Mara Frascarelli, 341-361, Mouton

145.

de Gruyter, Berlin.

Obenauer, Hans-Georg (2006) “Special

Shlonsky, Ur and Gabriela. Soare (2011)

Interrogatives,” Romance Language and“Where’s ‘Why’?” Linguistic Inquiry 42,

Linguistic Theory 2004, ed. by Jenny

651–69.

Doetjes and Paz Gonzalez, 247–73,

Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan (2008) “Left Periphery

John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

and How-Why Alternations,” Journal ofOchi, Masao (2004) “How Come and Other

East Asian Linguistics 17, 83–115.

Adjunct,” Language and Linguistics

Zwicky Arnold and Ann Zwicky (1973)

5, 29–57.

“How Come and What For,” OSU

Radford, Andrew (2013) “TheWorking Papers in Lingusitics 8, 173–

Complementiser System in Spoken

185.

16

withinadoubling

constituent(DC)

structure. The proposed structure has theform [pronoun r-expr], where r-expr refers
to an r-expression. In this structure, self is a
A Doubling Constituent Account ofD phase head. In addition, they propose an

Relative Clause and Binding Facts

operation of Last Resort.

Jason Ginsburg(1) Last Resort: when a phase becomes

Osaka Kyoiku University

complete, unlicensed elements within it
become accessible to further operations.

Keywords: coreference, relative clauses,(Adaptedphases, doubling constituents

2012a:310)

from

Fong

and

Ginsburg

Certain relative clauses have a DC structure
1. Introductionof the form [pro r-expr]. In this structure,

The goal of this paper is to provide a unified

certain D heads, such as which can be aaccount of certain basic relative clause andphase head. I demonstrate how thesebinding data via a doubling constituent

proposals account for certain relative clauseanalysis. Fong and Ginsburg (2012a, b)

construction data.

accountfor

typicalbindingdatabydeveloping a doubling constituent analysis,

3. Binding

based on Kayne (2002), combined with the

Examples (2a-b) show that a reflexive, butview that a derivation is constructed in

not a pronoun, can be locally bound. In (2a),phases (Chomsky 2001, etc). In this paper, I

with the structure in (3a), there is a DC ofextend the analysis of Fong and Ginsburg

the form [he John] that merges with a(2012a, b) to account for i) certain relative

determiner ‘self’, that is a phase head. (Inclause data and ii) data from Munn (1994)

the diagram, copies of syntactic objects arethat involve the interaction between binding

underlined.) Morphological merger results

and relative clauses.

in pronunciation of ‘self’ and ‘he’ as himself.
When v* is merged, the DP [self [he John]]

2. Basic proposals

obtains Case (i.e., himself obtains Case) andFong and Ginsburg (2012a,	
  b) propose abecomes complete. Since the v*P phase ismodified version of Kayne’s (2002) viewcomplete, Last Resort applies, therefore

that certain co-reference relations originate

making17

theunlicensed

r-exprJohn

accessible to probe-goal search. As a result

4. Relative Clauses

the r-expr John Merged with v*. The head T

I propose that certain relative clauses areundergoes phi-feature Agreement with John,

formed with a DC structure, akin to thatan EPP/EF drives remerge, and John

found in the above binding constructions

becomes fully licensed by T.

(2a-b).

The

proposedrelativeclauseIn (2b), with the structure in (3b), Last

structure is of the form [pro r-expr], which

Resort cannot apply in a timely fashion tocontains a silent case-marked pronominal

enable the r-expr John to become accessible

head, loosely referred to as pro. A relative

to v*. The smallest phase containing the DC

clause DP is base generated as an object andis the v*P, but the v*P is not a complete

raises to the specifier of a projection in thephase, since it lacks a specifier. Since theleft periphery of a clause, followed by

v*P is not complete, the r-expr does not

remerge of the r-expr component of the DC

become accessible to v* and the derivation(via Last Resort) in the specifier of a higher

crashes due to the lack of a subject.

position in the left periphery. I assume asplit-CP projection (Rizzi 1997), with a(2) (a) John1 praises himself1.

TypP (for clausal typing) and a CP, but there
are other possibilities (e.g., Aoun and Li(b) *John1 praises him1. (Kayne

2003 utilize TopP and ForceP).

2002:146)(3) (a)This proposal adopts Bianchi’s 2000
view

that

a

relativeclauseinvolves

movement to a projection in the left
periphery.
Examples (4a-b) have the structures in(5a-b). In (5a), a DC structure headed by pro
is base generated in object position, and the
DC Merges with the D which, a phase head,
forming a relative DP. An EPP feature on
Typ probes for the relative DP, forcing it to(b)move to the specifier of Typ. Once therelative DP moves to the clausal periphery,
the DP phase becomes fully licensed,
possiblyforreasonsofsemantic

interpretation. Since the DP [which [propicture]] is a phase and it is fully licensed,

18

the unlicensed r-expr picture, via Last(b)

Resort, becomes accessible to syntactic
computations. A higher left-peripheral head
C is merged. C has an EPP feature that
attracts the now available picture, whichmoves to [Spec, CP]. The fully-formed CPthen Merges with D, and the relative clauseis completed.
Example (4b) has the structure in (5b).
This is identical to (5a) except that D (also aphase head) is not pronounced and the Typhead is pronounced as that.
Note that (6) is ill-formed. I assume that(4) (a) the picture which Bill liked

some form of the Doubly Filled Comp Filter(b) the picture that Bill liked (Bianchi

is at work, thereby permitting either which

2000:124)or that to be pronounced, but not both.

(5) (a)(6) *the picture which that Bill liked
Note that relative clauses with which thatare found in Middle English (Santorini &Kroch: 2007). It may also be that PFconstraints (Kandybowicz 2006) are at workin modern English to rule out constructions
such as (6).
This analysis presents a unified accountof constructions with that and those withwhich. This analysis, however, differs fromaccounts such as those of Bianchi (2000)
and Kayne (1994), who assume quite
different structures for these two types of
constructions. In Bianchi (2000), (4a) and(4b) have the structures in (4a’) and (4b’).

19

(4) (a’) [DP the [CP picturej C [XP [DP which tj]ireconstruct to satisfy Principle A. (7b)

X Bill liked ti]]]should be ill-formed if the picture-NP(b’) [DP the [CP[DP D picture]i that Bill

reconstructs to its base position (PrincipleB) and if the picture-NP doesn’t form a

liked ti]]binding domain.
In (4a’), the DP which picture raises to the

I propose that the relative clause in (7a)specifier of a left-peripheral projection XP

contains two DCs of the form [pronoun

and picture further raises, without its D head,r-expr], shown in (8).

to [Spec, CP]. In (4b’), the DP [D picture]raises to [Spec, CP] and the null D(8) (a) DC1: [pro picture-NP](b) DC2: [he Bill]

incorporates with the external D the.
In

typicalhead-promotion(c) [DC1 pro [picture of [DC2 he Bill]]]accounts(Bianchi 2000, Kayne 1994, Hornstein 2001,
etc.), a single N, such as picture in (4a-b),

The DC2 (8b) is contained within the DC1

obtains a theta-role in its base position, and(8b), so there is the structure DC3 (8c),then it seems to obtain another theta-role inwhere DC refers to a doubling constituent,its derived position. In my analysis, due tonot the label.

the doubling constituent structure, there are

The derivation of (7a) is shown in (9a).

two distinct nominal elements that are able

The lower DC1 is fully licensed when of isto obtain separate theta-roles.

merged,so

ther-exprBill

becomes

accessible via Last Resort. When v* is
5. Relative clause constructions andmerged, v* requires a subject. Thus, thebindingr-exprThis

analysis

predicts

an

Bill

is

mergedinsubject

interestingtheta-position with v*. The relative DPinteraction between relative clauses andeventually moves to the specifier of a Typcertain binding effects, exemplified byprojection. At this point, the relative DP(7a-b).

becomes fully licensed, and the r-expr
component,(7) (a) the picture of himself1 that Bill1 likes

which

is

the

picture-NP,

becomes free. The free picture-NP then(Munn 1994:402)

remerges in specifier position of C, and the(b) *The picture of him1 that Bill1 likes

complete CP merges with the D the to form

(note that I find this to be ill-formed)

a complete relative clause.

Munn (1994) points out that in the

In (7b), shown in (9b), the DC, lacking

well-formed (7a), the picture-NP mustthe D self, is not a phase. When the DC head20

he is licensed, the r-expr is not accessible tocontaining a DC is complete, an unlicensed

Last Resort. When v* is Merged, the r-expr

r-expr component of the DC becomes

is not contained within a complete phase,accessible to syntactic computations.

since the v*P is still not complete, as it lacks

This analysis can predict basic binding

a subject. There is no element available forfacts (2a-b), relative clause structures (4a-b),

Merge in subject position, and the derivationand data that involve both binding andcrashes.

relative clause structures (7a-b).
(2) (a) John1 praises himself1.
(b) *John1 praises him1.

(9) (a)(4) (a) the picture which Bill liked(b) the picture that Bill liked(7) (a) the picture of himself1 that Bill1 likes(b) *The picture of him1 that Bill1 likes
If this analysis is on the right track, thenDC structures are a part of certain syntactic
computations

involving

coreferenced

elements. I leave for further analysis
examination of how this analysis can beextended to other constructions that involve(b)

coreference.
References
Aoun, Joseph and Yen-hui Audrey Li (2003)
Essays on the representational andderivational nature of grammar: Thediversity of wh-constructions, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bianchi, Valentina (2000) “The raising
6. Conclusion:

analysis of relative clauses: A reply toThis paper takes the position that certain

Borsley,” Linguistic Inquiry 31, 123-140.

andChomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation bypronoun-antecedent structures are generated

phase,” Ken Hale: A life in language, edwith DC structures, and are subject to a Lastby Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52, MIT

Resort process, whereby when a phase

Press, Cambridge, MA.

types

of

relativeclause21

Fong,

Sandiway

and

Jason

GinsburgMunn, Alan (1994) “A Minimalist account(2012a) “Computation with doublingof

constituents: Pronouns and antecedents

Proceedings of NELS 24, ed. by Mercein

Gonzalez, 397-410, GLSA, University

Phase

Theory,”Towardsabiolinguistic understanding of grammar:reconstructionof Massachusetts.

Essays on interfaces, ed. by Anna Maria

Santorini, Beatrice and Anthony Kroch

Di Sciullo, 303-338, John Benjamins,(2007)

Amsterdam.

language:

An

using

Trees

Fong,

Sandiway(2012b)

and

Jason

Ginsburgofcoreference“Modeling

Proceedings

of

the

13

Tokyo

Yukio Otsu, 61-80, Hituzi Publishing
Company, Tokyo.
Norbertminimalist(2001)

theory

Move!

of

A

construal,

Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Kandybowicz, Jason (2006) “Comp-trace
effects explained away,” Proceedings ofthe 25th West Coast Conference on
Formal Linguistics, ed. by Donald
Baumer, David Montero, and Michael
Scanlon, 220-228, Cascadilla Press,
Somerville, MA.
Kayne, Richard (1994) The antisymmetry ofsyntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kayne, Richard (2002) “Pronouns and theirantecedents,”

Derivation

andexplanation in the Minimalist Program,ed. by Samuel David Epstein and T.
DanielSeely,

133–166,thesyntaxofonlineintroduction/syntax-textbook/>

Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed., byHornstein,Thenaturalprogram,ms.,<http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice

relations in multi-object constructions,”th

asymmetries,”

Blackwell,

Malden, MA.

22straight line emerging from an animated entity.
Down in (3) expresses the line of Tom’s sight,
which, as the direction in (2b), can be horizontal.
(1) This fence goes from the plateau to the valley.
(Talmy, 2000: 99)(2) a. John walked down the street.1
b. The coffee shop is down the street.
(3) Tom turned to look back down the street.

The Particle DOWN and Fictive Motion:
An Analysis from the Viewpointof the Speaker’s Line of Sight
and His Perceptual Reduction
Keina Hamagami
Graduate School of Osaka University

Several kinds of fictive motion perceived byhuman beings have been demonstrated and havebeen compared with factive motion in Talmy(2000). However, as far as down is concerned,
examples such as (4) do not seem to havecorresponding factive ones.

Keywords: subjectification, particle, down,
fictive motion

1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to analyze themotivation of the use of down in expressions offictive motion and to illustrate its various
meanings. Among various fictive motion
expressions, I focus on “Access Paths” (Talmy(2000); also called “Access Path Expressions” inMatsumoto (1996)) and “Line of Sight” (Talmy(2000)) to point out that the meaning of thesubjectified down has been entrenched, or fixed
as a meaning, to the extent that it is used in
expressions of Line of Sight.
One can perceive “motion with no physicaloccurrence” (Talmy 2000: 99), that is, fictive
motion, as in the following examples. In (1),there is no factive moving entity, but the speaker
perceives the line of the fence as an entity
moving from the plateau to the valley. (2b) is anexpression of Access Path, which describes theway to follow to reach a static object. Down in(2b) is ambiguous in that it can express adownward direction or a horizontal direction.
The latter meaning is based on perception offictive motion of one moving toward the coffee
shop, like John does in (2a). (3) is an expressionof Line of Sight, which describes an intangible(4) He saw Mary down at the coffee shop.
What is more, the use of down in (3) isdifferent from that in (2b), in that theconceptualizer of the illusional size reduction isrepresented as the subject, Tom. This paper
examines various examples of down in fictive
motion and proposes that the conceptualizer ofsubjectification can be represented as a result ofentrenchment of its subjectified meaning.
2. Down in Factive Motion
Before considering down in fictive motion, I
review the motivation of using down to represent
factive motion.
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) refer to the upthat means ‘approaching’ in phrases like (5)based on the metaphor “FORESEEABLE
FUTURE EVENTS ARE UP (and AHEAD).” 2
When an object approaches a person, it seems tobecome larger, so the person perceives the top of
the object as if it is moving upward. Hamagami(2014) extends the motivation for the use of up
as the metaphor for approaching to the use ofdown to mean ‘away from the speaker,’ as in (6).

23Namely, in the speaker’s perception, John’s size
undergoes illusional reduction as he walks awayfrom the speaker.

imagines a person who walks away from
him/her in order to give rough directions to thecoffee shop. If one says that something is down
the street, he/she does not give its exact location
but just indicates the direction to it. As (8) shows,
one can use down the street even if s/he does notknow the exact place.

(5) All upcoming events are listed in the paper.
(6) John walked down to the station.
Hamagami (2014) deals with cases where
the speaker perceives factive motion of an entitythat is going away from him. When there is no
factive motion perceived in an event, however,does the speaker assume illusional reduction andhow does it impact the meaning of the phrase?
In section 3, I show examples of down in fictive
motion and analyze them. In section 4, I
consider the matter of Access Path and the Lineof Sight.

(7) tra. The coffee shop is down the street.
b. John walked down the street.
(8) yThe coffee shop? It’s down the street. But I
don’t know exactly where it is. Maybe it’sacross from the bank.
The down that refers to a horizontal direction
is not always used in copula form but can also
precede a noun. (9) means the locker is in a
direction away from the speaker along the hall.
Down the hall is just a direction, so it does not
specify the exact location of the locker to use.
Nevertheless, using down referring to ahorizontal direction, one can locate a place byadding a number to skip count by, like five in(10), or a distance to go, like halfway in (11a).
Once the speaker locates the place, a downphrase can specify it, for example, the place of
Sharon and Holly joining Denise in (11a). The
place where Holly and Sharon joined Denise
could be represented as at the middle of theextremely long check-in-queue as in (11b), but(11a) is more suitable to use to indicate that they
do not wait at the end of the queue but walkalong to cut it. In fact, the use of down implies
the viewpoint of the perceiver who is at the endof the queue, and the imaginary fictive
movement away from the perceiver coincides
with the factive one of Holly and Sharon.3 Down
evokes the dynamic movement of Holly andSharon to skip the line, though it is not
represented verbally.

3. Down in Fictive Motion
In this section, three types of down are examined.
In the first two types, the direction away fromthe speaker and the shared knowledge of alocation correspond to Access Path. In the lastone, the trajectory of line of sight corresponds toLine of Sight.
3.1. Direction away from the Speaker
Example (7a) is uttered to tell where one canfind the coffee shop. In it, down indicates the
direction along the street to the coffee shop. The
use of down in (7a) seems to derive from that in(7b). In (7b), the factive motion of John’s
walking is present. Down the street in (7b)means that the speaker perceives John’s moving
as going away from him along the street, that is,
in a direction away from the speaker along thestreet. The speaker of (7a), on the other hand,does not perceive any actual factive motion, but
imagines fictive motion of one going away from
him toward the coffee shop. Thus, down thestreet in (7a) means the same as in (7b); thedifference, however, is that in (7a) the speaker(9) ffYou can use the locker down the hall.

24

(10) Look at the man five down from the oldwoman.
(11) a. Holly followed Sharon and they joined
Denise halfway down the extremely longcheck-in queue. “I told you we should havecome earlier,” Denise moaned. (PS, I LOVEYOU)
b. Holly followed Sharon and they joined
Denise at the middle of the extremely longcheck-in queue. “I told you we should havecome earlier,” Denise moaned.

familiar location so that the hearer can identify the
new location, that of the bookstore. However, thesame usage of down can be seen even in aphrase that is not uttered to lead the hearer to aplace. (14) indicates that the subject saw Mary at
a moment in the past, and the event occurred in acoffee shop whose location the hearer knows.
(13) The bookstore is down around the bank.
(14) He saw Mary down at the coffee shop.
The down that implies shared knowledge oflocation is used even when the place in question
is far enough away from the speaker and thehearer, as Kyoto is from A and B, who live inTokyo, in (15). A is aware that B knows about
the shop and its location, which allows A to use
down.

The adverbial down can also be usedpreceding static spatial expressions, like in in(12b).4 (12b) includes a colloquial expression
with down, down in the city; there are people
who claim it is not standard. Nevertheless, down
can be used by some people to indicate that theoffice is not in the area where the speaker andthe hearer are, but in the city. It means that an
imaginary person has to go into the city to findthe office. Without down, as we can see in (12a),the speaker indicates simply that the office is in
the city and he does not consider going acrossthe border of the city. Thus, (12a) can be usedeven when the speaker and the hearer are in thecity, although (12b) cannot.

(15) A and B live in Tokyo. A spent a weekend in
Kyoto, and B knows about it.
A: Do you remember Hannari, the famous
coffee shop in Kyoto we went to lastyear?
B: Yes, of course. We ate a large parfait
there.
A: I went to the coffee shop again, and I
saw Mary down there.

(12) a. His office? It is in the city.
b. His office? It is down in the city.5

However, if the hearer, B, does not know theplace and cannot visualize its location, the use ofdown is not acceptable, as in (16). In (16), B
says s/he has never been to Kyoto, so s/heobviously cannot locate the shop, which
precludes A from using down.

3.2 Shared Knowledge of a Location
In the following examples, down is used to
imply that both of the speaker and the hearer
have shared knowledge about the location of theobject of the preposition. In (13), the speakertells the hearer the location of the bookstore. If
the speaker uses down before around the bank, itmeans that the hearer knows the location of thelandmark, or the bank. The fact that the hearer
knows the location of the bank may be obvious
because the speaker needs to first give the hearer a(16) A and B live in Tokyo.
A: Do you know about Hannari, the famous
coffee shop in Kyoto?
B: No, I’ve never been to Kyoto.
A: Well, I saw Mary {*down there/there}.

25

As the shared knowledge of location
motivates the use of down before theprepositional phrase, it is impossible to use
down before a prepositional phrase with anindefinite article in it, as seen in the contrast
between (17a) and (17b). In (17a), the hearer canidentify the station from the context (forexample, if they have only one in the town), andthe speaker can use down. In contrast, in (17b)the station where the speaker ate lunch is left
unspecified, so the hearer cannot identify thelocation, and down cannot be used.

imaginary route to the place in question as its
starting point. Adding down before theprepositional phrase, the speaker encourages thehearer to share the imaginary movement awayfrom them to the place in question, that is, toturn his/her attention to that place (which would
be impossible if the hearer could not identify theplace). This implies that the bookshop is
accessible for the hearer because the hearer
knows well about the location of the bank in(13), that the place where the speaker saw Maryis an unexpected one in (15), or that the woman
should realize what place she would be taken toin (18).

(17)sa. I ate lunch down at the station.
b. * I ate lunch down at a station.

3.3 Trajectory of Line of Sight
Down in the following examples indicates the
trajectory of line of sight. Example (19) meansthat the speaker turned around and looked in the
direction away from him along the road. In (20),
BJ glanced in the direction away from him along
the aisles.6 There seems to be no particular
object in these cases at which the subjects (he in(19) and BJ in (20)) direct their gaze.7

The use of down referring to the sharedknowledge of location could pragmatically force
the hearer to comprehend a location. We want totalk with you down at the station in (18) is a
fixed expression among American police
officers. In (18), Tony talks to a woman whom
he has just met. Using down in the first phrase assoon as he met the person (and showed hisbadge) forces the woman to understand that theplace he refers to is not any other station but thepolice station (see footnote 5).

(19) He turned to look back down the road.
(CONTAGION)(20) BJ advanced beyond the checkout registers
and started glancing down the aisles,
looking for either Jack or Slam.
(CONTAGION)(18) He pulled open the door to see Tony alreadyconversing with the woman. “We want totalk with you down at the station,” Tonywas saying, trying to imitate Angelo.
Angelo could see that he was holding hisbadge too high (…). (BLINDSIGHT)

The meaning of down in (19) and (20) is thesame as that in 3.1, but it is different from thedown in 3.1 and 3.2 in how it is used. In fact,
down referring to the trajectory of line of sightpermits representation of who it is that thedirection is away from, that is, the subject, he in(19) and BJ in (20). This seems a subtle
difference, but it is a big issue from the point ofview of subjectification (Langacker (1990),(1991)), which is detailed in the following

Even in the use of down referring to sharedknowledge of location, the speaker imagines avirtual person who goes away from him to thebookstore in (13), the coffee shop in (14), thefamous coffee shop in (15), the station in (17a),and the (police) station in (18). Importantly, insuch cases, the speaker includes the hearer in the26

section.

5. Conclusion
This article examined three types of down infictive motion: expressing a direction away fromthe speaker, shared knowledge of a location, andthe trajectory of line of sight. The last typeallows the representation of conceptualizer inthe linguistic expression because of the fixationof the subjectified meaning. As the next step, it
is necessary to examine other types of down andexpressions other than down to find out when
the conceptualizer in subjectification can be
represented.

4. Subjectification and the Entrenchment of
the Meaning“Subjectification” is “a semantic shift or
extension in which an entity originally construed
objectively comes to receive a more subjective
construal” (Langacker, 1991: 215).8 The downthat indicates the illusional reduction in size of aperson or object moving away from the speakeris an example of subjectification. One can use
down to say He scaled down the photo whens/he recognizes an objective reduction in size.
However, when one says He walked down to thestation, s/he recognizes subjectively a reductionin the size of the moving entity, that is, s/heconsiders the moving entity as if it becomes
smaller (Hamagami (2014)).
The problem is that the conceptualizer in a
subjectification must be off-stage. That is, when
down is subjectified, the “conceptualizer,” or the
person who recognizes the illusional reduction,must not be represented in the verbal
expressions. So when one says The coffee shop
is down the street (the same as (7a)), theconceptualizer of the illusional reduction in size
cannot be represented. One does not need toexpress who the conceptualizer is, because it isobviously the speaker. The same is true even in
the acceptable examples from (8) to (18).
However, examples (19) and (20) seem
problematic. As mentioned earlier, the subjects
he and BJ are expressed as conceptualizers.
One possible solution to this problem
involves the concept of entrenchment of
meaning. The meaning ‘in the direction awayfrom the speaker’ has become so fixed that insome expressions of line of sight, it can now be
used with a conceptualizer subject, which is a
usage unrelated to subjectification.

Acknowledgements* An earlier version of this paper was presented
at the 32nd Conference of the English LinguisticSociety of Japan at Gakushuin University(November 9, 2014). I would like to express mygratitude to the chair Shungo Kanazawa, toKiyomi Tokuyama, to Koichi Nishida, to Seizi
Iwata, and to the attendees for their constructive
comments and suggestions. In addition, I would
like to thank the anonymous reviewers of the
ELSJ committee for their valuable comments.
Needless to say, all remaining inadequacies in
the paper are mine.
Notes
1. Though it is ambiguous in nature, down in theexamples in this article always means horizontal
direction away from the speaker unlessotherwise noted.
2. This metaphor is based on another metaphor,“MORE IS UP; LESS IS DOWN.”
3. In this case, the perceiver can be Holly andSharon or the author, but it is not determinable.
4. Definitely there are other examples of theadverbial down in the text, like the acceptableones from (13) to (18).
5. The expression down in the city might havearisen in relation to the historical fact that cities
used to be built in low areas, like a seaside or a27

riverside. In such an area, for people living inupper areas, major facilities are found in the
downward area. There must be many factors that
determine the meaning of down in a sentence,
which is a subject for future research.
6. Japanese seems to have no way to express the
trajectory of line of sight with an optical verb
like “look.” One can say mado no hou wo miru(‘look in the direction of the window’) but
cannot say douro ni sotte miru (‘look down theroad’). Some might assert that the former
expression indicates the trajectory of line ofsight, but it does not. In fact, it just leaves thetarget to look at ambiguous. That is, the speaker
does not know or is not sure of what exactly tolook at.
7. In cases where the subject does not knowwhat to look at when s/he turns around, one
would just say hurimuku (‘turn around’) inJapanese.
8. See Langacker (1990, 1991).

Reveal about the Mind, University of
Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. (1980).
Metaphors we live by, University of
Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1990). “Subjectification.”
Cognitive Linguistics 1(1), 5-38.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Foundations ofcognitive grammar, Volume 2, Descriptive
Application. Stanford University Press.
Matsumoto, Yo. (1996). “How abstract issubjective motion? A comparison ofcoverage path expressions and access pathexpressions.”
Conceptual
Structure,
Discourse and Language, 359-373.
Talmy, Leonard. (2000). Toward a Cognitive
Semantics, Volume 1, Concept Structuring
Systems, London: MIT Press.

REFERENCED NOVELSBLINDSIGHT, Robin Cook / CONTAGION,
Robin Cook / PS, I LOVE YOU, Cecelia
Ahern
REFERENCES
Hamagami, Keina. (2014). “Eigo huhenkasi
down niokeru shutaika -‘sagaru’ kara
‘toozakaru’ heno imikakucho” (Thesubjectification of the particle down:
expansion of meaning from “downward” to“going away”). Proceedings of the Seventh
Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive
Linguistic Association, 455-463.
Honda, Akira. (1994). “From spatial cognition
to semantic structure: the role of subjective
motion in cognition and language.” English
Linguistics, 11, 197-219.
Lakoff, George. (1987). Women, Fire, andDangerous Things: What Categories28 ᮏㄽࡢᵓᡂࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨ 1 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊDQ ࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅCollins (1997)ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊDQ ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᇶᮏⓗ௬ㄝࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ➨ 2 ⠇࡛ࡣ DQࡣ௜ຍモ⠇ࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡢᥦ᱌ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ
DQ ࡢᇙࡵ㎸ࡳᙧᘧ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠕ〄ᇙࡵ㎸ࡳࠖ࡜࠸࠺᪂ࡋ࠸⤫ㄒ᧯సࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ➨ 4 ⠇ࡣ㢮ᆺㄽⓗ࡞⪃ᐹ࡜ࡋ࡚᪥ᮏㄒࡢ DQ ࢆほᐹࡋࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ㄒᙡⓗᘬ⏝࣐࣮࣮࢝ࡀ࠶ࡿ
ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡿ┦㐪Ⅼ࡜ࡑࡢᖐ⤖ࢆ᥈ࡿヨࡳࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ➨ 5 ⠇ࡣ⤖ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

┤᥋ᘬ⏝ᩥࡢᩥἲ≉ᛶ(Grammatical Properties on Direct Quotes)ᘅỤ 㢧 (Akira Hiroe)㛗ᓮ኱Ꮫ (Nagasaki University)࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸┤᥋ᘬ⏝ᩥࠊ௜ຍモ⠇ࠊⓎヰࡢຊࠊCP ᣦᐃ㎡

1. ஦ᐇ࡜ၥ㢟
DQ ࡟ࡣࠊ௨ୗ(2)࡟౛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ᇶᮏⓗ࡟௨ୗࡢ 4 ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

0. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ┤᥋ᘬ⏝ᩥ(direct quote:DQ)ࡢᩥ
ἲ≉ᛶࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࠊ௨ୗ(1)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ 4 Ⅼࢆ୺
ᙇࡍࡿࠋ

(2)

(1) (i) DQ ࡣࠊ௜ຍモ(adjunct)ࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
(ᘅỤ(2012, 2013))ࠋ
(ii) DQ ࡣࠊCollins (1997)ࡢ୺ᙇ࡜ࡣ␗࡞
ࡾࠊ᱁⣲ᛶࢆࡶࡘྡモ⾲⌧࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
(contra de Vries (2008))(iii) DQ ࡣࠊ⿵ᩥ໬㎡ࢆ௓ࡉࡎ࡟ࠊゝࢃࡤࠕ〄࡛ࠖᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ୺⠇ ࡜ ࡣ ␗ ࡞ ࡿ Ⓨ ヰ ࡢ ຊ (illocutionary
force)ࢆᇙࡵ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ(iv)DQ ࡣࠊCP ࡢᣦᐃ᫬ࡢ఩⨨࡟⛣ືࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࠋ

a.

John said, “The pizza delivery is lateagain.”
b. “The pizza delivery is late again,”John said.
c. “The pizza delivery is late again,”said John.
d. Said John: “The pizza delivery is lateagain.”(2)࡛ほᐹࡉࢀࡿ఩⨨௨እ࡟ࡶࠊDQ ࢆศ᩿ࡍࡿ఩⨨࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
(3) a.

ࡇࢀࡲ࡛⏕ᡂ⤫ㄒㄽࡢ⌮ㄽⓗ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚
ࡣࠊDQ ࢆྵࡵࡓᩥ඲యࡢ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀≉ᛶࢆゎ᫂ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ヨࡳࡓ⪃ᐹࡣ࠶ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡢ(e.g.,Branigan (2011), Branigan and Collins (1993),
Collins (1997), Collins and Branigan (1997),
among others)ࠊDQ ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡢᩥἲ≉ᛶࢆᤊ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ヨࡳࡓㄽ⪃ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ
DQ ࢆྲྀࡾᕳࡃ⤫ㄒ⎔ቃࠊ≉࡟ DQ࡜㑅ᢥ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ୺⠇ືモ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ୺⠇㏙㒊㸧ࢆ෌᳨ウࡋࠊDQ ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵓ㐀ࢆ࿊ࡋࠊ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ
࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘ࢆཷࡅࡿ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

29“Quite honestly,” Sue replied, “It’shighly unlikely.”b. “Well,” Sue said, “Would you help
me to finalize the contract?”ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊKurihara (1985)ཬࡧᒣཱྀ(2009)࡟ᚑ
࠸ࠊ(2a)࡜(2d)ࢆࠕᑟධᆺ(introductory clause):ࠖࠊ(2b)ࠊ(2c) ࠊࡑࢀ࡟(3)ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࢆࠕᤄධᆺ
(parenthetical clause)ࠖ࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ࿧ࡪࡇ࡜
࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
DQ ࡟㛵ࡋࠊCollins (1997)ࡣࠊ(4)࡛㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ᇶᮏⓗ࡞௬ㄝࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (6b)ࡢ௬ㄝࡀṇࡋ࠸࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊDQ ࡣࠊྡモ㸦ྃ㸧ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ఩⨨࡟⌧ࢀࡿᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࡀண
᝿ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢண ࡣ஦ᐇ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋ
(10)ࢆ᳨ウࡋ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ

(6) Collins (1997)ࡢ௬ㄝ
a. DQ ࡣ୺⠇ືモ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡓ⿵ᩥࡢ఩⨨࡟⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
b. DQ ࡣ᱁⣲ᛶࢆᣢࡘྡモ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(10) a. *“Help me!” startled the man.
b. *Gabrielle added some supportive
evidence to “This man murdered
my friend.”  c. *I could understand what he wanted
from“Could you help me thisweekend?”
d. *“John called us” was repeated over
and over by Max.

Collins ࡣࠊDQ ࡣ௚ືモࡢ┠ⓗㄒࡢ఩⨨࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊDQ ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ
஦ᐇࢆヲ⣽࡟ほᐹࡍࢀࡤࠊࡑࡢ௬ㄝ࡟ࡣၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ௨ୗࡢ౛ࢆ᳨ウࡋ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ(7) a. This guy saw me walking by with acigarette and he went “Hey, you gotone.͇(ᒣཱྀ (2009:219))
b. The man laughed, “You really
believe that's true?”c. He nodded, “Yeah, yeah.”(10a)࡛ࡣ᫬ไᩥࡢ୺ㄒ఩⨨ࠊ(10b)ཬࡧ(10c)࡛ࡣ๓⨨モࡢ⿵㒊ࡢ఩⨨ࠊࡲࡓ(10d)࡛ࡣཷ
㌟ᩥࡢ୺ㄒ఩⨨࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ DQ ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜㠀ᩥ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢ౛࠿ࡽࠊ(6)ࡢ DQ ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ Collins(1997)ࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ࡣၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ

(7a-c)ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶᑟධᆺࡢ౛࡛ࠊ(7a)ࡢ goࠊ(7b)ࡢ laughࠊࡑࢀ࡟(7c)ࡢ nod ࡣ⮬ືモ࡛࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊDQ ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠᵝࡢ஦౛ࡀᤄධᆺ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ᩘከࡃほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ 2. ᥦ᱌(8)ཬࡧ(9)ࢆ᳨ウࡋ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊDQ ࢆ௨ୗ(11)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᥦ᱌ࡋࠊ
ࡑࡢᖐ⤖ࢆ᥈ࡾࡓ࠸ࠋ
(8) a. “I'm sorry,” she wept.
b. “Me too!” squeaked the tiny girl.
(11) DQ ࡣ᱁⣲ᛶࢆᣢࡘྡモ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㡯c. “And then, in 1967, we saw the start(argument)࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ௜ຍモ⠇ࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚
of the plumbing problem—” droned࠸ࡿࠋmy uncle.
(ᘅỤ (2012, 2013))(9) a. “Yes, that’s right,” Claire nodded
her head.
ࡑࡢドᣐ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ௨ୗ(12)࡜(13)ࢆ᳨ウࡋ࡚b. “You are all wrong!”, John charged
ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
into the room.
(12) a. Sue said, “John murdered a strange
c. “What is going on here?”, Peterman!”
sensed that something was wrong.”b. Francine whispered that we should
turn down the stereo.
(8a)ࡢ weepࠊ(8b)ࡢ squeak ࡑࢀ࡟(8c)ࡢ drone(13) a. *Who did Sue say, “John murdered?”ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ⮬ືモ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(9a)ࡢ nodࠊb.*What did Francine whisper that we(9b)ࡢ charge ࡑࢀ࡟(9c)ࡢ sense ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ
should turn down?
௚ືモ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ┠ⓗㄒࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ
⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ

30

(12b) ࡣ Ⓨ ヰ ᵝ ែ ື モ (verb of manner-ofspeaking)ᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡾࠊⓎヰᵝែືモᵓᩥࡢ
that ⠇ࡣ௜ຍモ⠇ࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⌮ゎࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ(Baltin (1982))ࠋ(13a)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ wh ྃࡢྲྀࡾฟࡋࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡀ♧ࡍࡶࡢࡣࠊⓎヰᵝែືモᵓᩥࡢ that ⠇࡜ྠᵝࠊDQࡀ௜ຍモ⠇ࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᙉ
ࡃ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ➨஧ࡢドᣐ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ(14)ࢆ᳨ウࡋ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
(14ab)࡛ࠊᮏ᮶ࠊ⿵㒊ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊ(14a)࡛ほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
DQ ࡣ⏕㉳ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(14) a. the motto "I don't bow for the
bigwigs"
b. *the motto that I don't bow for the bigwigs

୺ᙇࡣ MCP ࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡍ⌮⏤࡟ࡣ࡞ࡿࡶࡢ
ࡢࠊ࡞ࡐ DQ ࡜࠸࠺௜ຍモ⠇࡛ࡢࡳ MCP ࡀ
ほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ࠸࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣఱࡽ
⟅࠼ࢆᥦ౪ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊDQ ࡜࠸࠺௜ຍモ⠇࡛ࡢࡳ࡞ࡐ
MCP ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ࠸࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤫ㄒ᧯సࢆ௬ᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ㄝ᫂ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ(17) 〄㸦┤᥋㸧ᇙࡵ㎸ࡳᩥἲ⠊␪ Į ࡀ㠀㑅ᢥⓗ࡟୺⠇ືモ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㏙㒊㸧࡟ࡼࡾ⿵ᩥ໬㎡ࢆ௓ࡉࡎ࡟ᇙ
ࡵ㎸ࡲࢀࡓሙྜࠊĮ ࡣ〄࡛㸦┤᥋㸧ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(17)ࢆ(18)ࡢ౛࡛ලయⓗ࡟ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚ࡼ࠺ࠋ
(18) a.

“Are you ok?”, the police officer said
to a lying man.
b. The police officer asked a lying man
if he was ok.

ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ(15a)(15b)࡛ࡶࠊᮏ᮶ࠊ⿵㒊ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡞࠸ྡモ proverb ࡜ novel ࡟ DQ ࡀᚋ⥆ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(15) a. the proverb “If the shoe fits, wear it.”b. the novel “War and Peace”(de Vrie (2008))
௨ୖࡢ⪃ᐹ࠿ࡽࠊDQ ࡀ௜ຍモࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᮏㄽࡢ୺ᙇࡀṇࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡦ࡜ࡘ␲ၥⅬࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋⱥㄒࡢሙྜࠊ୍⯡࡟௜ຍモ⠇࡛ࡣ DQ ࡛ほᐹࡉ ࢀ ࡿ ࡼ ࠺ ࡞ ୺ ⠇ ⌧ ㇟ (main clausephenomena:MCP)ࡣ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ࡞ࡐ DQ ࡜࠸࠺⤫ㄒ⎔ቃ࡟㝈ࡗ࡚ MCP ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢ࠿࡜
࠸࠺␲ၥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(16) a.

Bob said, “Never did I dream ofseeing you here!”b. Sue whispered, “Have I met you
before?”c. Gabrielle said, “My lovely daughters,
I am proud of.”(18b)ࡣ(18a)ࢆ㛫᥋ヰἲ࡟㌿᥮ࡋࡓᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(18a)࡛ࠊAre you ok?࡜࠸࠺ DQ ࡣࠊୖ㏙ࡋࡓ
ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୺⠇ືモ said ࡟ࡼࡾ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ
࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢ DQ ࡣ⿵ᩥ໬㎡ࢆ௓ࡉࡎ࡟ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊゝࢃࡤ(17)࡛ᐃ⩏ࡋࡓ〄ᇙࡵ㎸ࡳࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ〄ᇙࡵ㎸ࡳࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡓ DQ ࡣࠊ୺⠇ࡢⓎヰࡢຊ࡟ࡣᨭ㓄ࡉࢀࡎࠊ⊂⮬ࡢⓎヰࡢຊࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜࡛ MCP ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ୍
᪉ࠊ(18b)࡛ࡣࠊif ࡜࠸࠺␲ၥࡢⓎヰࡢຊࢆᣢࡘ⿵ᩥ໬㎡ࢆ௓ࡋ࡚ DQ ࡀ㸦㛫᥋ⓗ࡟㸧ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୺⠇ࡢⓎヰࡢຊ࡟ᨭ㓄㸦ྜᡂ㸧ࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ࡛ࡣࠊDQ ࡀ〄ᇙࡵ㎸ࡳࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⤫ㄒ⎔
ቃ࡛ࡣࠊⓎヰࡢຊ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㝈ࡾࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺
࡟஧ࡘࡢ␗࡞ࡿⓎヰࡢຊࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜
࡟࡞ࡾࠊLF ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟
ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿(F:Ⓨヰࡢຊ)ࠋ
(19) [ . . F 1 . . [ DQ . . .F 2 . . ]]DQ ࡀ⊂❧ᩥ࡜ྠࡌ⤫ㄒ⎔ቃࡔ࡜࠸࠺㏻ㄝࡢ

31she replied.

ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ୺⠇࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿⓎヰࡢຊࢆ㐺ษ࡟ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞᮲௳ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿ
(cf. Meinunger (2006))ࠋ

(Huddleston (2002:1026))(23) a. He was shocked by how I said,“Leave me alone!”b. *He was shocked by how “Leave mealone!” I said.
(24) a. They couldn't figure out where she
was saying, “Help me! ”
b *They couldn't figure out where “Helpme!" ” she was saying.
(25) a. I was curious as to why Amy said,“I love typhoons.”b. * I was curious as to why “I lovetyphoons,” Amy said.

(20) ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀࡓⓎヰࡢຊࡢゎ㔘᮲௳ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀࡓࠊ୺⠇࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿⓎヰࡢຊࡀ㐺ษ࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᇙࡵ㎸ࡳᩥࡣ୺⠇ࡢ CP ᣦᐃ㎡ࡢ఩⨨࡟⛣ືࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡑࡶࡑࡶ⿵ᩥ໬㎡ࡣࠊⓎヰࡢຊཬࡧἲ(mood)ࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⿵ᩥ໬㎡ࡀᢞᑕࡍࡿᣦᐃ
㎡ࡢ఩⨨࡟ࠊDQ ࢆゎ㔘ࡢࡓࡵ࡟⛣ືࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ୙⮬↛࡞ࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢศᯒࡢጇᙜ ᛶ ࢆ ᳨ ドࡍ ࡿ 㝿 ࠊ Hooper and Thompson(1973)ࡀᥦ♧ࡍࡿศᯒࡀ♧၀ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(22a)ࡢ when䚸(23a)ࡢ howࠊ(24a)ࡢ whereࠊ(25a)ࡢ why ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ CP ࡢᣦᐃ㎡ࡢ఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(22b)࠿ࡽ(25b)ࡀ࠸
ࡎࢀࡶ㠀ᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡣࠊ(20)ࢆ௬
ᐃࡍࢀࡤࠊDQ ࡀ CP ࡢᣦᐃ㎡ࡢ఩⨨࡟⛣ື࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ

(21) He said it’s just started to rain.
a. He said X.
b. It’s just started to rain.
(Hooper and Thompson (1973: 475))
Hooper and Thompson ࡣࠊ(21)࡟౛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽືモ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㝈ࡾࠊ(21a)࡜(21b)ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀࠕ᩿ᐃ(assert)ࠖࡉࢀ࡚
࠸ࡿࠊ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋᮏㄽ࡛ࡢศᯒ࡟↷ࡽࡋྜࢃࡏࢀࡤࠊHe said it’s just started to rain ࡢᩥ࡛ࠊ(21a)ࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎ(21b)ࡶ୺⠇࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡑ࠺ࡋࡓゎ㔘ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊ
(19)࡛ᇙࡵ㎸ࡳ⠇ࡢ F 2 ࡀ F 1 ࡢᨭ㓄ࢆཷࡅ࡞࠸ᙧᘧ࡛ LF ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ゎ㔘ࢆཷࡅࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ(20)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᮲௳ࡀ㐺ษ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ DQ ࡀ LF ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡛㐺ษ࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊDQ ࡣ CP ࡢᣦᐃ㎡࡟⛣ືࡍࡿ࡜ࡢ᮲௳ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࡀࠊࡑ࠺⪃࠼ࡿ᰿ᣐࡀ
Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠋ௨ୗࡢ౛ࢆ᳨ウࡋ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
(22) a.

I was taken aback when she replied,“I live alone.”b. *I was taken aback when “I live alone,”32

3. 㢮ᆺㄽⓗ⪃ᐹ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒ௨እࡢࠊ౛࠼ࡤ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ
DQ ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡸࢫ࣌࢖ࣥㄒ࡟
ࡣࠊⱥㄒ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊࠕ࡜ࠖࡸࠕࡗ࡚ࠖ࡜
࠸࠺ㄒᙡⓗ࡞ᘬ⏝࣐࣮࣮࢝ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓ
ࡵࠊ➨ 1 ⠇࡛ⱥㄒࡢ DQ ࡛ほᐹࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡞
ᑟධᆺ࡜ᤄධᆺࡢ༊ูࡶ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞ࡃࠊ࡯
ࡰᤄධᆺ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡼࡃࠊືモ࡜ࡢඹ㉳ไ㝈ࡶᴟࡵ࡚⦆࠸(e.g., ✄⏣ (2010, 2012), ᒣཱྀ(2009))ࠋ
(26) a.

ࠕࡲࡗࡓࡃࡶ࠺ࠖ࡜㝯ࡣ➗ࡗࡓࠋb. ࠕ⚾࡟ࢃ࠿ࡿࢃࡅ࡞࠸ࡌࡷ࡞࠸
ࡢࠖ࡜ἲᏊࡣ㏨ࡆࡓࠋ
c. ࠕࡈࡵࢇࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠊࢡ࣮ࣜࢽࣥ
ࢢ࡛ࡍࠖ࡜ᡞࡀ㛤࠸ࡓࠋd. ࠕ࠾ᐈᵝࡀ࠾╔ࡁ࡟࡞ࡾࡲࡋ
ࡓࠖ࡜ࠊỈࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࡓࠋ18, 1-13.
Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Collins, Chris (1997) Local Economy, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Collins, Chris and Phil Branigan (1997)“Quotative Inversion,” Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 15, 1-41.
De Vries, Mark (2008) “The representation of
language within language: a syntacticopragmatic typology of direct speech”, Studia
Linguistica, volume 62, Issue 1, 39-77.
⸨⏣ಖᖾ (2000) ࠗᅜㄒᘬ⏝ᵓᩥࡢ◊✲࠘,࿴
4. ⤖ㄒ
Ἠ᭩㝔.
 ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ┤᥋ᘬ⏝ᩥࡑࡢࡶࡢࡢᩥἲ≉ᛶᘅỤ㢧 (2012) ࠕ┤᥋ᘬ⏝ᩥࡢᇙࡵ㎸ࡳ࡟㛵ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࠊCollins (1997)ࡀᥦ᱌ࡋࡓ௬ㄝ࡛ࡣࡍࡿぬ᭩ࠖࠗᑦ⤍Ꮫᅬ◊✲⣖せA࠘, ேᩥ࣭
DQ ࡢᩥἲ≉ᛶࢆ༑ศ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ
♫఍⛉Ꮫ⦅, ➨6ྕ, 99-108.
♧ࡋࠊDQ ࡑࢀ⮬యࡣ௜ຍモ⠇ࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸
ᘅỤ㢧 (2013) ࠕ┤᥋ᘬ⏝ᩥࡢᇙࡵ㎸ࡳࠖࠗゝࡿ࡜ࡢ୺ᙇࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓ⿵ᩥ໬㎡ࢆ௓ࡏࡎㄒᏛ࠿ࡽࡢᒎᮃ2013࠘, ⚟ᒸゝㄒᏛ఍⦅,࡟ DQ ࢆᇙࡵ㎸ࡴࠊ〄ᇙࡵ㎸ࡳ࡜࠸࠺⤫ㄒ᧯
203-215.
సࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ᧯సࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼ
Hooper, Joan B. and Sandra A. Thompson “Onࡾࠊ୺⠇࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿⓎヰࡢຊࡀ⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿຠ
the Applicability of Root Transformations,”ᯝࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡀ㐺ษ࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ
Linguistic Inquiry 4, 465-479.
CP ࡢᣦᐃ㎡ࡢ఩⨨࡬ࡢ⛣ືࡀせồࡉࢀࠊᤄ
Huddleston, Rodney (2002) “Content Clausesධᆺࡢሙྜࡢ DQ ࡣࠊCP ࡢᣦᐃ㎡࡟࠶ࡿࡇ
and Reported Speech,” The Cambridge࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋࡓࠋ
Grammar of the English Language, ed. by ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼ࢀࡤࠊᑟධᆺࡢሙྜࡢ
Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum,
DQ ࡶ LF ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡛ CP ࡢᣦᐃ㎡
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,࡟⛣ືࡍࡿ⪃࠼ࡿ᪉ࡀ⌮ㄽⓗ࡟ࡶᮃࡲࡋ࠸ࠋ
947-1030.
ࡘࡲࡾࠊᑟධᆺࡢሙྜࡣ DQ ࡢ CP ᣦᐃ㎡࡬✄⏣ಇ᫂ (2010) ࠕ␲ၥᩥࡢ⡆␎ᛂ⟅࡜↔Ⅼ໬
ࡢ LF ⛣ືࠊᤄධᆺࡢሙྜࡣ DQ ࡢ CP ᣦᐃ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖࠗᩥᏥ◊✲࠘, ➨107ྕ,115-136.
㎡࡬ࡢ㢧ᅾⓗ⛣ືࠊ࡜ࡑࢀࡒࢀᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
✄⏣ಇ᫂ (2012) ࠕᶵ⬟ᣑᙇࣔࢹࣝ࡜ゝㄒ㐠⏝ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ♧၀ࡋࡓࠋࡢせㄳ  ၥ㏉ࡋ␲ၥࡢᛂ⟅࡟㛵ࡍࡿぬ᭩ࠖࠗᩥᏥ◊✲࠘, ➨109ྕ, 87-108.
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩:Baltin, Mark R. (1982) “A Landing Site for
Meinunger, André (2006) “The discourse status
Movement Rules,” Linguistic Inquiry 13, 1–of subordinate sentences and some38.
implications for syntax and prgmatics“, eds.
Branigan, Phil (2011) Provocative Syntax, MIT
by Valéria Molnár and Susanne Winkler, The
Press, Cambridge, MA.
architecture of focus, Berlin: Mouton deBranigan, Phil and Chris Collins (1993) “VerbGruyter, 459-487.
Movement and the Quotative Construction inᒣཱྀ἞ᙪ (2009) ࠗ᫂ᬓ࡞ᘬ⏝, ࡋ࡞ࡸ࠿࡞English,” MIT Working Papers in Linguisticsᘬ⏝̿ヰἲࡢ᪥ⱥᑐ↷◊✲࠘㸪ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ
(26)࡛ほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ DQ ᵓᩥ࡛ࡣࠊDQ ᵓᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿືモࡢព࿡ⓗ≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿࡣࡎࡢᘬ⏝࣭ሗ࿌࡜࠸ࡗࡓព࿡ࡀ
࡞࠸ࡤ࠿ࡾ࠿ࠊఏ㐩ⓗ࡞⾜Ⅽ࡛ࡉ࠼࡞࠸
(26b)ࡢࠕ㏨ࡆࡿࠖࡀチᐜࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲ
ࡓࠊ⸨⏣(2000)ࡀᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊືモࡢⓎヰ୺య࡜ DQ ࡢⓎヰ୺యࡀ␗࡞ࡿ
(26c)࡜(26d)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡶࡲࡓチᐜࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ஦ᐇࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊDQࡀ㸦ᤄධ㸧ືモ࡟㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡓ㡯࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ
࡜ࢆᙉࡃ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

33

∧㸬

34

モࡀ⏕㉳࡛ࡁࡿࡀ㸪(2b)ࡢ⥭ᐦྠ᱁࡛ࡣࡑࢀࡀチࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ(2) a.

the author, probably H. L. Mencken(McCawley (1998:469))ⱥㄒࡢ⥭ᐦྠ᱁⾲⌧࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹ*b. * the author probably H. L. Mencken

㸦A Study of Close Appositives in English㸧

(ibid.:469) ➨஧࡟㸪ඛࡢ(1a)ࡀ♧ࡍ㏻ࡾ㸪ᘱ⦆ྠ᱁ࡢሙྜᓊ ᾈ௓㸦Kohsuke Kishi㸧ࡣ DP1 ࡜ DP2 ࡀࠕྠࡌᣦ♧≀ࢆᣦࡋ㹙…㹛┦஫ᣦᮾ໭Ꮫ㝔኱Ꮫ㸦Tohoku Gakuin University㸧

♧ⓗ㸦co-referential㸧ࠖ㸦Ᏻ஭㸦1987:14㸧
㹙 㹛ෆࡣ
➹⪅㸧࡛࠶ࡾᚓࡿࡀ㸪Burton-Roberts (1975)࡟ࡼࡿ

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸⥭ᐦྠ᱁㸪ᑠ⠇㸪Relator Phrase,(3)ࡀ♧ࡍ㏻ࡾ㸪⥭ᐦྠ᱁ࡢሙྜࡣࠕ2 ࡘࡢྡモྃࣇ࢙࢖ࢬࡢᣑ኱㸪ᣦᐃⓗゎ㔘ࡀ⾲ࡍࡶࡢࡀࡲࡗࡓࡃྠ୍࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣチࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠖ㸦cf. ibid.:396 ᘬ⏝ࡣⲨᮌ㸦1986:14㸧ࡼࡾ㸧ࠋ(3) a. * The author of ‘Ulysses’ Joyce is buried in1㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

Zurich.

 ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣⱥㄒࡢྠ᱁⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋⱥ

b. * Linguistics the study of language (ibid.:396)

ㄒࡢྠ᱁⾲⌧ࡣከᒱ࡟Ώࡿࡀ㸪2 ࡘࡢྡモྃ࠿ࡽࡇࢀࡣ㸪Burton-Roberts (1975)࡟ࡼࢀࡤ⥭ᐦྠ᱁⾲࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡟ᑐ㇟ࢆ⤠ࡿ࡜㸪Burton-Roberts (1975)⌧඲యࡀࠕ‘A+B’࡛ 1 ࡘࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸ᐇయ࡟ゝཬࡍࡿࡸᏳ஭㸦1987㸧࡟ࡼࡿ㸪࣐࡛࢝ࣥ༊ษࡽࢀࡓ(1a)⾲⌧ࠖ㸦cf. ibid.:396 ᘬ⏝ࡣⲨᮌ㸦1986:14㸧ࡼࡾ㸧ࡢࠕᘱ⦆ྠ᱁㸦loose apposition㸧ࠖ㸦DP1, DP2 ᆺ㸧ࡔ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤ DP1 ࡜ DP2 ࡀࠕྜᡂ࡜㸪ࡑࢀࢆ⏝࠸࡞࠸(1b)ࡢࠕ⥭ᐦྠ᱁㸦closeⓗ࣭⤫ྜⓗࠖ࡟᪂ࡓ࡞ಶయࢆᣦࡍ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ4

apposition㸧ࠖ㸦DP1 DP2 ᆺ㸧࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࠋ1 ➨୕࡟㸪
Burton-Roberts (1975)࡟ࡼࡿ(4)ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ(1) a. Sterne, the author of Tristram Shandy, returned
to London.

(Burton-Roberts (1975:396))࠺࡟㸪ᘱ⦆ྠ᱁ࡢ DP1 ࡟ࡣ୙ᐃෙモࡶ⏕ࡌ࠺ࡿࡀ㸪(Burton-Roberts (1975:391))⥭ᐦྠ᱁ࡢሙྜࡣ㏻౛㸪୙ᐃෙモࡣ⏕ࡌࡎ㸪௦ࢃb. The poet Burns was born in 1759. (ibid.:391)

ࡾ࡟ᐃෙモ the ࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋ(1a)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ⏕ᡂᩥἲ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࡀ࠶ࡿ(4) a.

୍᪉࡛㸪(1b)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡲࡓ㸪

An upholsterer, Mr. Pontefract, called today.
(Burton-Roberts (1975:414))

ࡑࡢᩘᑡ࡞࠸ඛ⾜◊✲࡟ࡶၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮ

b. * A poet Burns (cf. (1b))ࢃࢀࡿࠋ2(ibid.:401) ➨ᅄ࡟㸪McCawley (1998)ࡢ(5a)ࡀ♧ࡍ㏻ࡾ㸪ᘱ ࡑࡇ࡛㸪ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ㸪Ᏻ஭㸦1987㸧࡟ᚑ࠸㸪⥭ᐦ⦆ྠ᱁ࡣ㛵ಀ⠇࡛ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪ྠ᱁ࡀࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡋ㸪ࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ

Burton-Roberts (1975)ࡢ(5b)ࡀ♧ࡍ㏻ࡾ㸪⥭ᐦྠ᱁ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘᑠ⠇ᵓ㐀࠿ࡽὴ⏕ࡉࢀࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍ

࡛ࡣྠᵝࡢゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡀチࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ᮏㄽࡢศᯒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪⥭ᐦྠ᱁ࡢㅖ≉(5) a.

ᚩࡀㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪ὴ⏕ࢆࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ༢఩

Albert Swenson, who is a recent winner of
the Illinois State Lottery, has announced that࡛⾜࠺࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿ㏆ᖺࡢᴟᑠ୺⩏⌮ㄽ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚

he plans to move to Bermuda.

ᨭᣢ᰿ᣐࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ㄽࡌࡿࠋ

(McCawley (1998:468))2㸬⫼ᬒ ̿ᘱ⦆ྠ᱁࡜⥭ᐦྠ᱁ࡢ┦㐪Ⅼ̿

b. * Burns who is the poet
(Burton-Roberts (1975:399)) ᘱ⦆ྠ᱁࡜⥭ᐦྠ᱁࡟ࡣ㸪࣐࢝ࣥࡢ᭷↓࡜࠸ࡗࡓ⾲㠃ୖࡢ㐪࠸࡟ຍ࠼࡚㸪௨ୗ࡟♧ࡍ㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽ
ࢀࡿࠋ3 ➨୍࡟㸪McCawley (1998)ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ

3㸬⥭ᐦྠ᱁ࢆᢅࡗࡓඛ⾜◊✲࠺࡟㸪(2a)ࡢᘱ⦆ྠ᱁࡛ࡣ DP1 ࡜ DP2 ࡢ㛫࡟ᩥ๪ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ⏕ᡂᩥἲ⌮ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛ࡢ⥭ᐦྠ᱁

35ࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࢆ⤂௓ࡋ㸪ࡑࢀࡽࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ ࡲࡓ㸪௜ຍ㒊࡜ྠࡌ㝵ᒙ࡟⌧ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪E
 Burton-Roberts (1975:400)ࡣ㸪⥭ᐦྠ᱁࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪 ࡣ௜ຍ㒊࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ண ࡉࢀࡿࡀ㸪ࡑ(6a-e)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ὴ⏕ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡢண ࡣ(9)ࡀ♧ࡍ㏻ࡾ㸪ᚲࡎࡋࡶṇࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࠋ

(6) a. [det] Burns [det] Burns be poet Ѝ(9) a. the ripper Jack / Jack the ripper

b. [det] Burns WH be poet (by relativisation,b. the words in English / *in English the words(9a)ࡢ⥭ᐦྠ᱁࡛ࡣ DP1 ࡜ DP2 ࡀ஺᭰ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ

oblig.) Ѝc. The Burns who is a poet Ѝࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪(9b)ࡢྡモྃ࡜๪モྃࡢሙྜࡣࡑࡢࡼ

d. The Burns poet (by relative reduction, opt.) Ѝ࠺࡞஺᭰ࡣ㉳ࡇࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ6 ຍ࠼࡚㸪๪モྃࢆక

e. The poet Burns (by attributive preposing,ࡗࡓྡモྃࡢෙモࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶᐃෙモ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀ

oblig.)(cf. Burton-Roberts (1975:400))

ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞ࡃ㸦e.g. a girl under the tree (cf. (4b))㸧
㸪

ࡲࡎ(6a)ࡢᵓ㐀࠿ࡽ⩏ົⓗ࡞㛵ಀ⠇໬࡟ࡼࡾ(6b)ࡲࡓ㛵ಀ⠇ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ⾲⌧ࡀᑡ࡞࠿ࡽࡎྍ⬟㸦e.g.

ࡀὴ⏕ࡉࢀ㸪ෙモࡢᤄධ࡟ࡼࡾ(6c)ࡀ㸪ࡑࡢᚋ㸪the boy who is on the baseball team (cf. (5b))㸧࡛࠶ࡿ㝶ពⓗ࡞㛵ಀ⠇⦰⣙ࢆ⤒࡚(6d)ࡀὴ⏕ࡉࢀ㸪᭱⤊

࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࡶၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ7ⓗ࡟ྡモ poet ࢆ⩏ົⓗ࡟๓⨨ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ

 McCawley (1998:478)ࡣ⥭ᐦྠ᱁࡟ᑐࡋ࡚(10a,(6e)ࡀὴ⏕ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡢኚᙧ᧯స࡟b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵓ㐀ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(10a)࡛ࡣ DP2ࡣ㸪⌧⾜ࡢᴟᑠ୺⩏⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣ᥇⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡼ

࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿせ⣲㸦yori㸧ࡀ௜ຍ㒊࡜ࡋ࡚ Nˊ⠇Ⅼ࡟࠺࡞㸪ᅛ᭷ྡモࢆ㛵ಀ௦ྡモ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡿ᧯స

௜ຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ Jackendoff (1984)࡜ྠᵝࡢၥ㢟㸦(6a, b)㸧ࡸ㸪(6e)ࢆᑟࡃࡓࡵࡢ㸪ᵓᩥᅛ᭷ࡢ⩏ົࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪Jack the ripper ࡢࡼⓗ࡞๓⨨᧯సࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢࡲࡲ⥔ᣢࡍࡿ࠺࡞஦౛࡟ࡣ㸪(10b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤫ㄒᵓ㐀ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚

5ࡢࡣᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

࠾ࡾ㸪(9a)ࡢ஺᭰ࢆᤊ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ࡣࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

 Jackendoff (1984)ࡣ㸪Jackendoff (1977)ࡢ X ࣂ࣮(10) a.

NP⌮ㄽࡢᘧᆺࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࡓୖ࡛㸪⥭ᐦྠ᱁࡟ᑐࡋ࡚(7)Detࡢᵓ㐀ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

the

(7)
Art

Nˊ
Nˊ

NP

A

N

Japanese

N
N

E

b.

NP
Det

?

Nˊ

ø N

NP

Nˊ yori Robert Frost the poetN

postposition (cf. McCawley (1998:478))(Jackendoff (1984:36))

The poet Burns ࢆ౛࡟࡜ࡿ࡜㸪(7)ࡢ Art ⠇Ⅼࡣ the㸬ศᯒ4㸬࡟㸪ࡲࡓ୺せ㒊 N ࡣ poet ࡟㸪E ⠇Ⅼࡣᅛ᭷ྡモ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ⥭ᐦྠ᱁࡟ᑐࡍࡿศᯒࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋࡲ

Burns ࡟㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀᑐᛂࡍࡿࠋJackendoff (1977)࡟

ࡎ㸪Ᏻ஭㸦1987㸧࡛ࡣ㸪(11)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪⥭ᐦྠ᱁ࡼࡿ࡜㸪E ࡢ఩⨨ࡣᮏ᮶௜ຍ㒊ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ఩⨨࡜⪃

ࡢ 2 ࡘࡢ DP ࡀࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺ㄒ࡜㏙ㄒ࡟

࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪Jackendoff (1984)࡟ࡼࡿ(8)ࡀ㐺᱁ᑐᛂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺┤ほࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

h࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡍࡿ࡜㸪౛࠼ࡤ(8a)ࡢྠ᱁ㄒ p ࡜(11) ࡇࢀࡽ㹙㸻⥭ᐦྠ᱁㹛ࡢ 2 ࡘࡢྡモྃࡣ㸪➼௜ຍ㒊 in English ࡣྠ୍㝵ᒙ࡟⌧ࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ

ྕ࡛⤖ࡤࢀࡿ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡾ㸪NP1 is NP2 ࡟ࡋࡓࡀ㸪ࡑࡢሙྜࡣ㸪2 ࡘࡢせ⣲ࢆేྜ㸦Merge㸧ࡍ࡜ࡁ࡟⌧ࢃࢀࡿ be ືモࡣ㸪እᘏᛶࡢ୰㌟ゎ

ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ᵓ㐀ࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿ Chomsky (1995, 2000)ࡢ

ࡁ ᩥ 㹙 㸻 Halliday (1967a, b) ࡢ extensiveᴟᑠ୺⩏⌮ㄽ࡛⚗ࡌࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸪୕ཪᯞศ࠿ࢀᵓ

decoding㸦i.e. Akmajian (1970)㸪Higgins (1973)㐀ࢆ௬ᐃࡏࡊࡿࢆᚓ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡢᣦᐃⓗ㸦specificational㸧ゎ㔘㸧㹛࡟⌧ࢃࢀࡿ

(8) a. the sound ph in English (Jackendoff (1984:28))

be ືモ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

b. the song cycle I Hate Music by Leonard
Bernstein㸦Ᏻ஭㸦1987:16㸧
㹙  㹛ෆࡣ➹⪅㸧(ibid.:28)(11)ࡢ♧၀ࡣ㸪Chomsky (1970)௨᮶ඹ᭷ࡉࢀ࡚࠸

36

(18) a. […] [A]ll predication relationships areࡿࠕ⠇࡜ྡモྃࡢᖹ⾜ᛶࠖࡢⓎ᝿࡟ࡼࡾᨭᣢࢆཷ
ࡅࡿࠋ(11)ࡀṇࡋ࠸࡜ࡍࡿ࡜㸪(12)ࡣ㸪(13)ࡢࢥࣆ

syntactically represented in terms of a structureࣗࣛᩥ࡟ᑐᛂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

in which the constituents denoting the(12) the ripper Jack / Jack the ripper

predicate and the subject are dependents of a(13) The ripper is Jack. / Jack is the ripper.

connective or RELATOR […].

 ḟ࡟㸪⥭ᐦྠ᱁ࡢ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ(Den Dikken (2006:11) [  ]ෆࡣ➹⪅)b. […] [T]he RELATOR […] is an abstract

ୖ㏙ࡢ㏻ࡾ⥭ᐦྠ᱁ࡀࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥ࡟ᑐᛂࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜㸪ࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࢆὴ⏕ࡉࡏࡿ㝿ࡢ⤫ㄒᵓ

functional head―not a novel lexical category,㐀ࡀࡇࡢ⾲⌧ࡢὴ⏕࡟ࡶ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽ

not even a specific functional element (like Tࢀࡿࠋࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࢆὴ⏕ࡉࡏࡿᶆ‽ⓗ࡞᪉ἲࡢ୍

or D or some such), but a placeholder for any

ࡘ࡟㸪Stowell (1978), Moro (2000), Den Dikken

functional head in the structure that mediates a(2006)࡞࡝࡟௦⾲ࡉࢀࡿ㸪ᑠ⠇ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓศᯒࡀ࠶

predication relation between two terms [=theࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ㸪Moro (2000)ࡣ(14)࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺

subject and the predicate] […].

࡟㸪ࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࡢὴ⏕࡟ᑠ⠇ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(ibid.:15 [  ]ෆࡣ➹⪅)㸦(14a)ࡣ୺ㄒྡモྃࡀ IP ࡢᣦᐃ㒊࡟⛣ືࡋࡓᵓ(18)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ Relator ࡢ⪃࠼ࡣ㸪ླྀ㏙㛵ಀࢆᢸ࠺࠶

㐀㸪(14b)ࡣ㏙ㄒྡモྃࡀ IP ࡢᣦᐃ㒊࡟⛣ືࡋࡓࡽࡺࡿᶵ⬟ⓗせ⣲࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡾ㸪ࡑࡢⅬ୍࡛⯡ᛶᵓ㐀࡟ᑐᛂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸧ࡀᴟࡵ࡚㧗࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ㸪ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣᑠ⠇ᵓ㐀(14) a. [IP DPi [VP V [SC ti DP]]] (canonical)

࡜ࡋ࡚ RP ࢆ᥇⏝ࡋ㸪⥭ᐦྠ᱁⾲⌧ࡢὴ⏕࡟ࡶ(cf. Moro (2000:42))RP ࡀ㛵ࢃࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ

b. [IP DPi [VP V [SC DP ti]]] (inverse) (cf. ibid.:42) ᑠ⠇ᵓ㐀ࡣ㸪ఏ⤫ⓗ࡟ࡣ⿵ᩥᵓ㐀ࡢࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࡔࡀ㸪㏆ᖺ㸪ᑠ⠇࡜ྡモྃࡢὴ⏕ࢆ㛵

௨ୖࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼㸪ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ⥭ᐦྠ᱁⾲⌧ࡢὴ⏕࡟㛵㐃௜ࡅࡿ㸪ࡶࡋࡃࡣᑠ⠇ࢆྡモྃࡢὴ⏕࡟฼⏝ࡍࡋ࡚(15)ࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋࡿ◊✲ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪Nakajima (1991)ࡣ㸪(15) ⥭ᐦྠ᱁⾲⌧ࡣᑠ⠇ᵓ㐀࠿ࡽὴ⏕ࡉࢀࡿࠋ(19a)ࡢືྡモᵓ㐀ࡀ㸪(19b)࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿ㏻ࡾᑠ⠇ (15)ࡢ୺ᙇࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼㸪ḟ࡟㸪ᑠ⠇ᵓ㐀࡜ࡋ࡚࡝࡜ྠࡌᵓ㐀㸦AgrP㸧ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ศᯒࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵓ㐀ࡀ㐺ษ࠿⪃ᐹࡋࡼ࠺ࠋⰋࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚ᵓ㐀࡜ࡋ࡚(19c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵓ㐀ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࠸ࡿ㏻ࡾ㸪ᑠ⠇ᵓ㐀ࡣ㸪ᚑ᮶㸪(14)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ sc ࢆ(19) a. Fred’s singing the national anthem, everyone
anticipated.

᭱ୖ఩ࡢ⠇Ⅼ࡜ࡍࡿᵓ㐀ࡔࡗࡓࡀ㸪ෆᚰᛶࢆ㔜ど(Nakajima (1991:43))

b. Small clauses and Poss-ing [gerunds] areࡋࡓ㏆ᖺࡢྃᵓ㐀⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣ㸪ᑠ⠇ࢆ㸪ఱࡽ࠿ࡢᶵ

analyzed as AgrP [, …].

⬟ⓗ୺せ㒊ࡢᢞᑕ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛

(ibid.: 52 [  ]ෆࡣ➹⪅)࠼ࡤ㸪Bowers (1993)ࡣ㸪(16)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪ᑠ⠇ࢆᶵ

c. [DP NP=John’s [Dˊ D=ing [AgrP ... [VP …]]]]⬟⠊␪ Pr ࡢᢞᑕ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿᵓ㐀ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(16) [PrP NP (subject) [Prˊ Pr XP (predicate)]]X = {V, A, N, P}(cf. ibid.:43)(cf. Bowers (1993:595))

ࡲࡓ㸪RP ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ Den Dikken (2006)ࡣ㸪ࡲࡓ㸪Den Dikken (2006)ࡣ㸪(17)࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺

(20a)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ an idiot of a doctor ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡀ࡟㸪ᑠ⠇ࢆ Relator ࡀᢞᑕࡉࢀࡓ Relator Phrase(20b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㸦RP㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿᵓ㐀ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(20) a. an idiot of a doctor / a jewel of a village(17) [RP [XP SUBJECT] [Rˊ RELATOR(Den Dikken (2006:162))[YP PREDICATE]]] (cf. Den Dikken (2006:13))

b. [DP Dø [RP [NumP an [NP idiot]][Rˊ RELATOR=of [NumP a [NP doctor]]]]]Den Dikken (2006)ࡣ㸪ࡇࡢ RP ࢆ(18)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ླྀ㏙㛵ಀࢆ⾲♧ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ⓗせ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚ᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

37(cf. ibid.:168)ࡉࡽ࡟㸪(21a)ࡢࠕX ࡢࣂ࢝ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࢆᢅࡗ࡚(24a, b)ࢆ௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ

ࡓ⳥ᆅ㸦2008㸧ࡶྠᵝ࡟ RP ࢆ᥇⏝ࡋ㸪ࡇࡢ⾲⌧(24) a. ⥭ᐦྠ᱁ࡢ D ࡣ R ࢆ㢧ᅾⓗ࡟≌ᘬࡍࡿࠋࡢᇶᗏᵓ㐀࡜ࡋ࡚(21b)ࢆ௬ᐃࡋࡓ࠺࠼࡛㸪୺ㄒྡb. ⥭ᐦྠ᱁ࡢ D ࡣ[EPP]⣲ᛶࢆᣢࡘࠋ

モྃ࡜㏙ㄒྡモྃࡢ⛣ືࢆ⤒࡚(21c)ࡢᵓ㐀ࡀὴຍ࠼࡚㸪Chomsky (2000)࡟ࡼࡿᶆ‽ⓗ࡞௬ᐃ(25a)⏕ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦࡞࠾㸪⳥ᆅ㸦2008:286,

࡜㸪Den Dikken (2006)࡟ࡼࡿ(25b)ࢆ௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ

fn.3㸧
࡛ࡣ㸪
ࠕn ࡣ nominalizer ࢆ⾲ࡍࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸧 (25) a. Phases are propositional.
(Chomsky (2000:107))(21) a. X ࡢࣂ࢝㸦ࡀࡲࡓࡋ࡛࠿ࡋࡓ㸧㸦cf. ⳥ᆅ㸦2008:280㸧
㸧

b. Small clauses are phases.

b. [DP [nP [RP [NP1 X](-no) [Rˊ [NP2 baka] R]] n] D](Den Dikken (2006:113))

㸦cf. ibid.:286㸧
c. [DP [NP1 X]i-no [nP [RP ti [Rˊ [NP2 tj] tj]] bakaj] D] ࡇࡇ࡛㸪ୖ㏙ࡢ(24a, b)ࡢጇᙜᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸୍࡚ゝ㏙
࡭࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ(24a, b)ࡣ㸪௨ୗࡢ⤒㦂ⓗ஦ᐇࢆㄝ㸦cf. ibid.:286㸧

᫂ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡎ(24a)࡟ࡘ

 ⥭ᐦྠ᱁⾲⌧ࡣゎ㔘ୖ㸪᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ྡモྃࡔࡀ㸪 ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟(26)ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
(26) a. the symbol $ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪ྡモྃࡢὴ⏕࡟ᑠ⠇ᵓ

(Jackendoff (1984:26))

b. the noise ***** [raspberry, imitation of a goat,㐀ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ⪃࠼᪉࡟ࡣ୍ᐃࡢ୍⯡ᛶࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ

etc.]

ࡇ࡜ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼㸪ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ㸪Den Dikken (2006)࡜⳥

(ibid.:26)

ᆅ㸦2008㸧ࡢศᯒ࡟ᚑ࠸㸪⥭ᐦྠ᱁⾲⌧ࡶ㸪୧⪅Jackendoff (1984)ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿ㏻ࡾ⥭ᐦྠ᱁࡟ࡣᅛ

࡟ࡼࡿᵓ㐀࡜ᴫࡡྠᵝࡢᇶᗏᵓ㐀(22a)ࢆᣢࡘ࡜

᭷ྡモ௨እ࡟ࡶ㸪㡢ࡸ࣓ࣟࢹ࢕㸪グྕ࡞࡝ࡀ⏕ࡌ௬ᐃࡋ㸪ࡑࡇ࠿ࡽ㸪(22b)ࡶࡋࡃࡣ(22c)࡜ࡋ࡚ὴ

ᚓࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢせ⣲ࡣ⤫ㄒ⣲ᛶࢆᣢࡘࡢ࠿୙࡛᫂

⏕ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ศᯒࡍࡿࠋ

࠶ࡾ㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡀᵓ㐀࡟ᑟධࡉࢀࡓሙྜࡢࡓࡵ࡟㸪(22) a. [DP D [RP [DP Jack] [Rˊ R [DP the ripper]]]]᭱ప㝈㸪RP ࡢ⿵㒊఩⨨㸦e.g. the symbol㸧ࢆୖ఩b. [DP [DP Jack]i [Dˊ D+Rj [RP ti [Rˊ tj [DP the ripper]]]]]

ࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ࠿ࡽྍどⓗ࡟ࡋ࡚࠾ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ10

c. [DP [DP the ripper]i [Dˊ D+Rj [RP [DP Jack] [Rˊ tj ti]]]]ࡇࡇ࡛㸪(24a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ R ࡀ D ࡟୺せ㒊⛣ືࡍࡿ(22a)࡛ࡣ㸪࠸ࢃࡺࡿᑠ⠇୺ㄒ㸦Jack㸧࡜㏙ㄒ㸦the࡜௬ᐃࡍࢀࡤ㸪RP ࡢ⿵㒊఩⨨ࡶୖ఩ࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ࡟

ripper㸧ࡀ㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀ RP ࡢᣦᐃ㒊࡜⿵㒊࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡜ࡗ࡚ྍどⓗ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࡑࡢ

࡚࠸ࡿࠋRP ࡢୖ࡟ࡣ DP ࡀᢞᑕࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ࡼ࠺࡞⛣ື࡟ࡼࡾ RP ࡢᣦᐃ㒊࡜⿵㒊ࡀ㸪᥈ᰝせࡇࢀࡣ㸪⥭ᐦྠ᱁⾲⌧඲యࡀᐃྡモྃ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘⣲㸦D+R㸧࡟࡜ࡗ࡚࡝ࡕࡽࡶࠕ➼㊥㞳㸦equidistant㸧ࠖࡉࢀࡿ୍᪉࡛㸪Jackendoff (1984)ࡀᣦ᦬ࡋࡓ(23)ࡀ

㸦cf. Chomsky (1995:185)㸧࡟࡞ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛

♧ࡍ㏻ࡾ㸪㏻ᖖ DP ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ NP ࡟௜ຍࡉࢀࡿ࡜

࠼ࡤ Chomsky (1995)ࡣ㸪(27a)ࡢᵓ㐀ࢆ⏝࠸࡚㸪⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿไ㝈ⓗ㛵ಀ⠇࡟ࡼࡿಟ㣭ࡀチࡉࢀ࡞(27b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟つᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

8, 9(27) a. [XP Spec1 [Xˊ X [YP Spec2 [Yˊ Y ZP]]]]࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡿࠋ

(23) a. ?*the song cycle I Hate Music that Lenny
wrote(cf. Chomsky (1995:182))(Jackendoff (1984:31))

b. In the abstract case (11) [=my (27a)], if Y

b. ?*the noise **** that Harry is always making

adjoins to X, […] then Spec1 and Spec2 areequidistant from ZP […].

(ibid.:31)(ibid.:185 [  ]ෆࡣ➹⪅) ḟ࡟㸪(22b-c)ࡢὴ⏕࡟㛵ࢃࡿ୍㐃ࡢ௬ᐃ࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚㏙࡭ࡿࠋࡲࡎ㸪ࣇ࢙࢖ࢬࡢୖ఩࡟ᢞᑕࡉࢀࡿᶵ

࡞࠾㸪(27b)࡛ࡣࠕ⛣ືࡍࡿせ⣲࡟࡜ࡗ࡚➼㊥㞳ࠖ⬟ⓗ୺せ㒊ࡀࡑࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢬࡢ୺せ㒊ࡢ㢧ᅾⓗ⛣࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ゝ࠸᪉࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪Chomskyື࡜㸪ࣇ࢙࢖ࢬෆࡢせ⣲ࡢᣦᐃ㒊࡬ࡢ⛣ືࢆᘬࡁ(2000)ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛ࡣ㸪౛࠼ࡤࠕୖ఩ࣇ࢙࢖ࢬࡢ᥈

㉳ࡇࡍ࡜ࡍࡿ Den Dikken (2006:110-117)ࡢⓎ᝿࡟ᰝせ⣲࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㸪ୗ఩ࣇ࢙࢖ࢬࡢᣦᐃ㒊࡜⿵㒊ࡀᚑ࠸㸪ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ㸪RP ࡢୖ఩࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ D ࡟ࡘ࠸

ࠗ➼㊥㞳࠘
㸦
ࠗྍどⓗ࠘
㸧࡟࡞ࡿࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡞࠾ࡉࢀ

38ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡓ Den Dikken (2006)ࡶ㸪ྠᵝࡢࡢㅖ≉ᚩࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿ࠿⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡲ

ࡇ࡜ࢆ(28)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡎ㸪⥭ᐦྠ᱁࡟ᩥ๪モࡀ⏕㉳ࡋ࡞࠸ࡢࡣ Nakajima(28) Movement of the head of a phase to a higher head(1991)࡟ࡼࡿ(33)ࡀ♧ࡍ㏻ࡾ㸪ࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜ᑠ⠇ෆ࡟

F extends the phase to FP.

ࡑࢀࡀ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ

(Den Dikken (2006:115))(33) ?* John considers [Mary probably scared of ḟ࡟㸪(24b)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋMcCawley (1998)

snakes]̿certainly, she is scared of snakes.

ࡢ(29)ࡀ♧ࡍ㏻ࡾ㸪RPࡢ⿵㒊the well-known operas(Nakajima (1991:40))

ࡀ」ᩘᙧ࡟࡞ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢⅬ࡛ࡇࡢせ⣲ࡀ⥭ᐦྠ᱁඲ ➨ 2 ࡟㸪Ᏻ஭㸦1987㸧࡟ᚑ࠸⥭ᐦྠ᱁࡜ࢥࣆࣗ

యࡢᙧែ࣭⤫ㄒⓗ࡞୰ᚰ࡜࡞ࡿࡀ㸪ࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓせࣛᩥ࡜ࡢ㢮ఝᛶࢆᤊ࠼ࡿᮏㄽࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣ㸪(34)࡜

⣲ࡣ RP ࡢ㡿ᇦ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ DP ࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ࡜

(35)ࡣඹ࡟ࠕྡモྃ the ripper ࡢኚ㡯ࡢ್ࢆ Jack⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽ㸪Safir (1983)ࡢ(30)ࡀ♧ࡍࡀᣦᐃࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ Akmajian (1970)ࡸ Higgins㏻ࡾ㸪ᑠ⠇ࡀ୺ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿሙྜࡣ༢ᩘࡢ୍

(1973)࡟ࡼࡿ
ࠕᣦᐃⓗゎ㔘ࠖࢆᣢࡘ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

11⮴ࢆ♧ࡍ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(34) The ripper is Jack. / Jack is the ripper. (=(13))(29) the well-known operas Norma and Tosca(35) the ripper Jack / Jack the ripper (=(12))(McCawley (1998:473))

ࡇࡢ⪃࠼ࡀṇࡋ࠸࡜ࡍࡿ࡜㸪the ripper ࡢኚ㡯ࡢ್(30) Workers angry about the pay is just the sort ofࢆ Jack ࡀᣦᐃࡋ࡚ึࡵ࡚ the ripper Jack ඲యࡢᣦsituation that the ad campaign was designed to♧ᑐ㇟ࡀ☜ᐃࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸪⥭ᐦྠ᱁඲యࡀࠕྜᡂ

avoid.

ⓗ࣭⤫ྜⓗࠖᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ12(Safir (1983:732))࡞࠾㸪DP ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࿨㢟ࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵ
㸦cf. Chomsky ࡉࡽ࡟㸪⥭ᐦྠ᱁࡟ᐃෙモࡢࡳࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ஦ᐇࡶ㸪(1970)㸧
㸪ࡑࢀࡀࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶᶵ⬟ࡍࡿ࡜௬ᐃ

Declerck (1983)࡟ࡼࡿ(36a)࡜ Akmajian (1970)࡟ࡼ

ࡍࢀࡤ㸪(24b)ࡣ㸪(31)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ Chomsky (2000)ࡢ

ࡿ࡟ࡼࡿ(36b)ࡢᑐẚࡀ♧ࡍ㏻ࡾ㸪ᣦᐃᩥ୍⯡ࡢᛶつᐃ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶᨭᣢࢆཷࡅࡿࠋ㉁࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

(31) The head H of phase Ph may be assigned an(36) a.

EPP-feature.

The bank robber is John Thomas.
(Declerck (1983:216))(Chomsky (2000:109))b. * A fool is John.

 ௨ୖࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜㸪(24a)࡟ᚑ࠸ D ࡀ R ࢆ㢧ᅾ(Akmajian (1970:166))ⓗ࡟≌ᘬࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ㸪᥈ᰝせ⣲㸦D㸩R㸧࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ ᭱ᚋ࡟㸪⥭ᐦྠ᱁⾲⌧ࡢὴ⏕࡟㛵ಀ⠇ࡢᏑᅾࢆRP ෆࡢᣦᐃ㒊࡜⿵㒊ࡢ୧⪅ࡀࠕྍどⓗࠖ㸦ࠕ➼㊥௬ᐃࡋ࡞࠸ᮏㄽࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣ㸪(5b)ࡢ*Burns who is㞳ࠖ㸧࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪Chomsky (2000)࡟ࡼࡿ(32)the poet ࡀὴ⏕ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ13ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ୙ྍ౵ᛶ᮲௳㸦PIC㸧࡟㐪཯ࡍࡿࡇ࡜
6㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟

࡞ࡃ㸪RP ෆࡢᣦᐃ㒊ࡶࡋࡃࡣ⿵㒊ࡀ D ࡢ[EPP]⣲ᛶࢆᾘཤࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ DP ࡢᣦᐃ㒊࡟⛣ືࡍࡿࠋ  ௨ୖ㸪ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ㸪Ᏻ஭㸦1987㸧࡟ᚑ࠸⥭ᐦྠ᱁(32) Phase-Impenetrability Conditionࡀࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡋ㸪୍ぢࡍࡿ࡜⤫In phase D with head H, the domain of H is notㄒⓗศᯒࡀᅔ㞴࡟ぢ࠼ࡿ⥭ᐦྠ᱁⾲⌧ࡀ㸪ᑠ⠇

accessible to operations outside D, only H and its
edge are accessible to such operations.

㸦㸻RP㸧࡜࠸࠺⤫ㄒᵓ㐀࠿ࡽὴ⏕ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ศᯒ
ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪ࡇࡢศᯒࢆࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁᥦ

(Chomsky (2000:108))♧ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡛㸪ὴ⏕ࢆࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ༢఩࡛⾜࠺࡜୺ᙇࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪(22a)࠿ࡽ Jack ࡀ⛣ືࡍࢀࡤ(22b)ࡀ㸪ࡍࡿ㏆ᖺࡢᴟᑠ୺⩏⌮ㄽ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᨭᣢ᰿ᣐࡢᥦ

the ripper ࡀ⛣ືࡍࢀࡤ(22c)ࡀὴ⏕ࡉࢀࡿࠋ౪ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ㸬ㄝ᫂
5㸬
 ➨4⠇ࡢศᯒ࡟ࡼࡾ➨2⠇࡛ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓ⥭ᐦྠ᱁

39

ὀ

McCawley (1998:473)ࡶ㸦᰿ᣐࡣ㐪࠺ࡀ㸧ྠᵝࡢ⤖*ᮏㄽࡣ㸪2014 ᖺ 11 ᭶ 8 ᪥࡟㛤ദࡉࢀࡓ᪥ᮏⱥ ㄽࢆᑟࡁฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
8.
McCawley (1998:473)ࡣไ㝈ⓗ㛵ಀ⠇ࡢ௜ຍࡶㄒᏛ఍➨ 32 ᅇ኱఍㸦᪊ Ꮫ⩦㝔኱Ꮫ㸧◊✲Ⓨ⾲ྍ⬟ࡔ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪Jackendoff(1984:31)ࡣ㸪ᐜ
㒊㛛࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲ࡢෆᐜ࡟ຍ➹࣭ಟṇࢆຍ࠼ㄆྍ⬟࡞஦౛࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㛵ಀ⠇ࢆ
㸦ᙧᘧୖ㸪
ไ㝈ⓗ
ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙜ᪥㸪ྖ఍ࢆົࡵ࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓᑠ⏿⨾㈗ඛ⏕㸪࡞ࡽࡧ࡟㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࣭㉁ၥࢆࡃ ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ㸧ゎ㔘ୖ㸪㠀ไ㝈ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ぢࡔࡉࡗࡓ㸪すᒣభྖඛ⏕ࢆࡣࡌࡵ࡜ࡍࡿ⫈⾗ࡢ ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ㸪Jackendoff (1984)ࡢุ᩿
᪉ࠎ࡟ᚰࡼࡾឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ᮏⓎ⾲ࡢ‽ 9.࡟ᚑ࠸㆟ㄽࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࠋไ㝈ⓗ㛵ಀ⠇ࡀ௜ຍࡍࡿᇶᮏⓗ఩⨨࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ഛẁ㝵࡛ⲡ✏࡟┠ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓ⳥ᆅᮁඛ
⏕࡟ཌࡃ࠾♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࠋ࡞࠾㸪⬮ὀ 12 ࡟ࡶ࠶ ࡣ㸪Jackendoff (1977)࡞࡝ࢆཧ↷ࠋ࡞࠾㸪ࡇࡢ஦ࡿ࡜࠾ࡾ㸪すᒣ㸦2003㸧ࡣ㸪ࠕ㠀㣬࿴ྡモࠖࡢ⌮ ౛ࡣ㸪N ௨እࡢᢞᑕࡀ DP ࡜ RP ࡢ㛫࡟࠶ࡿ࡜௬
ㄽࢆ⏝࠸࡚㸪ᮏㄽࡢ➨ 5 ⠇ࡢ(35)࡟ᑐࡋ࡚➹⪅ࡀ ᐃࡋ࡚ࡶㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
10.
ᑠ⏿⨾㈗ඛ⏕㸦⚾ಙ㸧ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟㸪౛⾜ࡗࡓࡢ࡜ྠᵝࡢㄝ᫂ࢆ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ஦౛࡟ᑐࡋ࡚
୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⌮ㄽࢆᮏ◊✲࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ά࠿ ࠼ࡤ୺⠇ࡢせ⣲㸦v ࡸ T㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡶ RP ࡢෆ㒊ࡍ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓ㸪ᮏㄽ ࡀྍどⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜㸪⥭ᐦྠ᱁⾲⌧ࡢ୍㒊ࢆ࡛ฟ඾ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ⱥᩥࡢᐜㄆᛶࡢุ᩿ࡣ㸪 ⛣ືࡉࡏࡽࢀࡿ࡜ண ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡀ㸪ࡑࡢண ࡣ
Dale K. Andrews ඛ⏕㸦ᮾ໭Ꮫ㝔኱Ꮫ෸ᩍᤵ㸧࡟ࡼ ṇࡋࡃ࡞࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ Kubo (2009)࡟ࡼ
ࡿࠋឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࠋゝ࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃ㸪ᮏㄽ࡟࠾ ࡿ(i)ࡣ㸪ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞⛣ືࡀチࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ㸦஭ୖ࡯࠿
㸦1985:81-82㸧ࡶཧ↷ࠋ㸧ࡅࡿ୙ഛࡸㄗࡾࡣ඲࡚➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡟ᅉࡿࡶࡢ࡛ ᰿ᣐ࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿࠋ
(i)
a.
We
saw
the
opera
‘Carmen’yesterday.
࠶ࡿࠋ1.
(Kubo (2009:29))ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ㸪ㄝ᫂ࡢ౽ᐅୖ㸪⥺ᙧ㡰ᗎࡢୖ࡛ 1 ␒
b. ?? We saw the opera yesterday, ‘Carmen’.
┠ࡢྡモྃࢆ DP1㸪2 ␒┠ࡢྡモྃࢆ DP2 ࡜࿧ࡪࠋ2.
(ibid.:29)୧ྠ᱁⾲⌧ࡢグ㏙ⓗഃ㠃࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪Curme୺⠇ࡢせ⣲࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ྍどⓗ࡞ࡢࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞せ(1931)ࡸ Quirk et al. (1972, 1985)㸪Ⲩᮌ㸦1986㸧
㸪Ᏻ஭㸦1987㸧࡞࡝ࢆཧ↷ࠋࡲࡓ㸪ᘱ⦆ྠ᱁ࢆᢅࡗࡓ㸪 ⣲࡛࠶ࡿ࡭ࡁ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
11.
஦ᐇ㸪(29)ࡣ(i)ࡢ㏻ࡾ」ᩘᙧࡢ୍⮴ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ⏕ᡂᩥἲ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡢ◊✲࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪De Vries(i)The
well-known operas Norma and Tosca(2006)ࡸ Citko (2008)㸪Kubo (2009)࡞࡝ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
3.
were/*was
performed last month.
Ⲩᮌ㸦1986:13-16㸧࡜Ᏻ஭㸦1987:13-16㸧࡛ࡣ㸪 .
12
すᒣ㸦2003:33-40㸧ࡣ㸪᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕ୺ᙺࠖ࡞࡝
௨ୗࡢ➨஧㸪➨୕ࡢ┦㐪Ⅼࢆྵࡵ࡚㸪୧⾲⌧࡟㛵㸦౛࠼ࡤࠕತඃࠖ࡞࡝࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ㸧ࠕ㠀ࡍࡿᵝࠎ࡞≉ᚩࡀࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪Kubo ࡢ⾲⌧ࢆ㸪㣬࿴ྡモࠖ࡜࿧ࡧ㸪ࠕ㠀㣬࿴ྡモࡣ࠿࡞ࡽࡎࠗX(2009)ࡶ㸪ࡇࡇ࡛ᢅࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸┦㐪Ⅼࢆ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿
ྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡽࡀᮏㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛࡝ࡢࡼ ࡢ࠘࡜࠸࠺ࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࢆせồࡋ㸪ࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱࡢ್
ࡀᐃࡲࡽ࡞࠸࠿ࡂࡾ㸪ព࿡࡜ࡋ࡚᏶⤖ࡋ࡞࠸ࠖ㸦cf.
࠺࡟ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࡣ௒ᚋࡢ◊✲ㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
4.
Burton-Roberts (1975)ࡣ㸪⥭ᐦྠ᱁⾲⌧඲యࡀ 2 ibid.:33㸧࡜ㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ᢅ࠺ⱥㄒࡢ theࡘࡢྡモྃ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿࠕព࿡ⓗ࣭⤫ㄒⓗ⤫ྜయ ripper ࡞࡝ࡶすᒣ㸦2003㸧ࡢࠕ㠀㣬࿴ྡモࠖ࡟ヱ㸦semantic and syntactic synthesis㸧ࠖ㸦cf. ibid.:396㸧 ᙜࡍࡿ࡜ࡍࢀࡤྠᵝࡢㄝ᫂ࡀྍ⬟ࡔࡀ㸪ࡑࢀ࡟ヱᙜࡍࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣ௒ᚋ᳨ドࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞࠾㸪
࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
5.
(6a, b)࡟㛵ࢃࡿၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠕໟᣓᛶࡢ᮲௳ the ripper ࡞࡝ࡢྡモྃࡀኚ㡯ࢆྵࡴࡇ࡜ࢆಖド㸦Inclusiveness Condition㸧ࠖ㸦cf. Chomsky (1995: ࡍࡿ௚ࡢ⌮ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪Den Dikken (2006:94-95)
ࡀ♧၀ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟㸪ᣦᐃᩥࡢ DP ࡜ྠᵝ㸪the ripper228)㸧ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
6.
Burton-Roberts (1975:401-402)ࡣ㸪Jack the ripper ࡀ⦰⣙⮬⏤㛵ಀ⠇࡟㢮ఝࡋࡓᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘ࠿㸪ᆺࡢㄒ㡰ࡀࠕᑐẚࡢᶵ⬟㸦contrastive function㸧ࠖ㸦cf. Partee (1987)ࡸZamparelli (1995)ࡢศᯒ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ<e,ibid.:402㸧ࢆᣢࡘࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪the ripper Jack ᆺࡣࡑ t>ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ㛵ᩘ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋᚓࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ⪃࠼᪉ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡚ࡶ㸪࠸࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶⰋ࠸࡜㏙࡭࡚ 13.
௬࡟㛵ಀ⠇ࡀὴ⏕࡟㛵୚ࡍࡿ࡜ࡋࡓሙྜ㸪ᮏ࠸ࡿࠋㄽࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣ RP ࡢᣦᐃ㒊ࡲࡓࡣ⿵㒊࡟ CP ࡀ⏕
7. Jackendoff (1984)࡟ࡼࡿ(i)ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟㸪ᅛ᭷ྡ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡀ㸪ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࡑ࠺࠸࠺ᑠ⠇ᵓ㐀モࢆ N ࡢ⿵㒊࡜ࡍࡿศᯒࡶࡲࡓ᥇⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛㠀ᩥ(i) the famous composer of lieder Johannes Brahms(Jackendoff (1984:33)) ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ
࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽ⿵㒊࡜ࡋ࡚⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡣࡎࡢ of lieder ࡜
Johannes Brahms ࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞࠾㸪40ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩୍ぴ
Akmajian, Adrian (1970) Aspects of the Grammar of
Focus in English, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
[Published by Garland, New York, 1979]Ⲩᮌ୍㞝㸦⦅㸧
㸦1986㸧
ࠗⱥㄒṇㄗ㎡඾࠘◊✲♫㸪ᮾி㸬Bowers, John (1993) “The Syntax of Predication,”
Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591-656.
Burton-Roberts, Noel (1975) “Nominal Apposition,”Foundations of Language 13, 391-419.
Chomsky,Noam(1970)“RemarksonNominalization,”
Readings
inEnglishTransformational Grammar, ed. by Roderick A.
Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum, 184-221, Ginn &Co., Waltham, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The
Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist
Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger
Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka,
89-155, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Citko, Barbara (2008) “An Argument against
Assimilating Appositive Relatives to Coordinate
Structures,” Linguistic Inquiry 39, 633-655.
Curme, George O. (1931) Syntax, Heath, Boston.
Declerck, Renaat (1983) “‘It is Mr. Y’ or ‘He is Mr.
Y’?” Lingua 59, 209-246.
Dikken, Marcel den (2006) Relators and Linkers: The
Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, andCopulas, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Halliday, Michael A. K. (1967a) “Notes on Transitivity
and Theme in English Part 1,” Journal of
Linguistics 3, 37-81.
Halliday, Michael A. K. (1967b) “Notes on
Transitivity and Theme in English Part 2,” Journalof Linguistics 3, 199-244.
Higgins, Francis R. (1973) The Pseudo-cleft
Connectedness in English, Doctoral dissertation,
MIT. [Published by Garland, New York, 1979]஭ୖ࿴Ꮚ࣭ᒣ⏣ὒ࣭Ἑ㔝Ṋ࣭ᡂ⏣୍㸦1985㸧
ࠗ⌧௦ࡢⱥᩥἲ 6 ྡモ࠘◊✲♫㸪ᮾி㸬Jackendoff, Ray (1977) X-bar Syntax, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Jackendoff, Ray (1984) “On the Phrase the Phrase‘the Phrase’,” Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 2, 25-37.
⳥ᆅᮁ㸦2008㸧ࠕホ౯ⓗྠ᱁ᵓᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ㔠Ꮚ⩏࣭᫂⳥ᆅᮁ࣭㧗ᶫ኱ཌ࣭ᑠᕝⰾᶞ࣭ᓥ㉺㑻㸦⦅㸧ࠗゝㄒ◊✲ࡢ⌧ᅾ࠘280-290, 㛤ᣅ♫㸪ᮾி㸬

41

Kubo, Yoshihiro. (2009) “A Note on Two Types ofApposition,” The Bulletin of Central ResearchInstitute, Fukuoka University. Series A: Humanities
9 (7), 27-35, Fukuoka University.
McCawley, James D. (1998) The Syntactic
Phenomena of English (Second Edition), The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Moro, Andrea (2000) Dynamic Antisymmetry, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Nakajima, Heizo (1991) “Reduced Clauses andArgumenthood of AgrP,” Topics in Small Clauses:
Proceedings of Tokyo Small Clause Festival, ed. by
Heizo Nakajima and Shigeo Tonoike, 39-57,
Kuroshio, Tokyo.
すᒣభྖ㸦2003㸧
ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒྡモྃࡢព࿡ㄽ࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽ̿ᣦ♧ⓗྡモྃ࡜㠀ᣦ♧ⓗྡモྃ̿࠘ࡦࡘ
ࡌ᭩ᡣ㸪ᮾி㸬Partee, Barbara (1987) “Noun Phrase Interpretation
and Type-shifting Principles,” Studies in Discourse
Representation Theory and the Theory ofGeneralized Quantifier, ed. by Jeroen Groenendijk,
Dick de Jongh, Martin Stockhof, 115-143, Foris,
Dordrecht. [Reprinted in Semantics: Critical
Concepts in Linguistics. Volume II Generalized
Quantifiers and Scope, ed. by Javier
Gutiérrez-Rexach, 2003, 152-180, Routledge,
London.]Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech,
and Jan Svartvik (1972) A Grammar ofContemporary English, Longman, London.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech,
and Jan Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language, Longman,
London.
Safir, Kenneth J. (1983) “On Small Clauses as
Constituents,” Linguistic Inquiry 14, 730-735.
Stowell, Timothy (1978) “What Was There before
There Was There,” CLS 14, 458-471.
Vries, Mark de. (2006) “The Syntax of Appositive
Relativization: On Specifying Coordination, False
Free Relatives, and Promotion,” Linguistic Inquiry
37, 229-270.
Ᏻ஭⛱㸦⦅㸧
㸦1987㸧
ࠗ౛ゎ ⌧௦ⱥᩥἲ஦඾࠘኱
ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ㸪ᮾி㸬
Zamparelli, Roberto (1995) Layers in the Determiner
Phrase, Doctoral dissertation, University ofRochester. [Published by Garland, New York,
2000]

(3)

The question is [(of) whether it is trueor not].

Of-Insertion as a Repair Operationin Syntax*

This strongly suggests that of in (1) (and (3)) is
not inserted in PF to avoid some linear adjacency.
Of course, of has no effect on the LF interpreta-

Shin-Ichi Kitada

tion.

Tokyo University of Science

Hence, of in examples like (1) should be

inserted in syntax.

In this paper, I would like tofocus on this type of of-insertion and claim that
Keywords: of-insertion, labeling, repair, optionality

the mechanism involved in the of-insertion plays
a significant role in understanding aspects of thetheory of syntax.
This paper is organized as follows: section

1. INTRODUCTION
It is a well-known fact that the preposition

2 will sketch the main outlines of Chomsky’sof is optionally inserted between a nominal and(2013) labeling algorithm.

its appositive wh-clause as in (1):pose that of-insertion is a syntactic operation to

Section 3 will pro-repair a defect in terms of labeling. Section 4(1) a.
b.

The question [(of) whether it is true orwill provide evidence for the present proposal.

not] may be raised.

Section 5 will explore further theoretical possi-

Please give me an indication [(of) how

bilities of the present analysis.

to do it].

discuss a case where of-insertion applies obligatorily.

Section 6 will

Section 7 is the conclusion.

The purpose of this paper is to propose that ofinsertion in (1) applies as a repair operation in

2. LABELING ALGORITHM
Chomsky (2013) asserts that labeling is

syntax.

necessary for identifying the category of a syn-

The important thing to notice, here, is that
there seem to be two kinds of of-insertion.

tactic object at the interfaces and proposes aIttheory of the labeling algorithm.

has been generally assumed that of is obligatori-

When a lexi-0

ly inserted between two nominal phrases as incal item (H ) merges with a phrase (YP), as in(2):(4), the label of H0 is qualified as the label of thewhole phrase.

(2)

John’s criticism *(of) the book.
(4)

X0

XP
+

YP ĺ

For example, Richards (2010) brings up an example like (2) to maintain that of must be in-(YP), as in (5), the label of the whole phrase isadjacency of the same DP categories (see also

assumed not to be determined and interpreted at

However,the interfaces.

of-insertion in (1) is optional; of need not be inserted.

YP

When a phrase (XP) merges with another phrase

serted obligatorily in PF so as to avoid the linear
Chomsky (1981); Stowell (1981)).

X0

Furthermore, even when a nominal is(5)

not adjacent to its appositive wh-clause, of may

XP +

YP ĺ
XP

be inserted as in (3):42

YP

Chomsky (2013) argues for two ways of deter-

Given this labeling algorithm, the next section

mining the label: to raise one of the phrases or towill propose a repair operation in syntax.

share the prominent feature of the phrases.
The first strategy works when the subject
DP merges with the verb phrase v*P.

3. OF-INSERTION AS A REPAIR OPERATION IN

In (6a),SYNTAX
In this section, I propose that of-insertionfor example, the DP the boy merges with the v*Papplied in a sentence like (9) is a syntactic oper-

saw the dog, as illustrated in (6b):ation to repair a defect in terms of labeling.
(6) a.

The boy saw the dog.
(9)

[Į [DP the boy] [v*P saw the dog]]b.

The question [(of) whether it is true ornot] may be raised.

(=(1a))The label of the whole phrase (Į) is unlabeled,To

One of the key assumptions that the current

avoid this undesired result, the subject is raised

Minimalist theory adopts is that Merge applies

as in (7):freely (see Chomsky (2004, 2007, 2008, 2013)).

since the two elements are both phrases.

This assumption leads to the view that there are[[DP the boy]i…[Į=v*P [DP the boy]i [v*P
saw the dog]]](7)

at least two ways to merge a nominal with its
appositive wh-clause, as given in (10):Assuming that the lower part of the moved ele-

not]]determined and interpreted as v*P.

b.

The second strategy is used in a wh-question.

In (8a),(10a) illustrates that the N0 question merges with

the DP which boy moves to merge with the CP
saw the dog.

the appositive wh-clause; (10b) illustrates that

The label of the whole phrase is

the DP the question merges with the appositive

unlabeled, since DP and CP are both phrases.

wh-clause.

To determine the label, the second strategy is

The label of Į in (10a) is determined im-used to require a prominent feature to be the label.

mediately as NP, since the head N0 is qualified

The prominent feature is a Q-feature inas the label of the whole phrase, as discussed inthis case, because it is shared by the wh-phrase
and the CP under consideration.

(4) above.

Then, the la-bel of the whole phrase is interpreted as the Q-(11)

feature as in (8b).
(8) a.
b.

Which boy saw the dog?
<Q,Q>
DP[Q]
which boy C[Į [DP the question] [CP whether it is trueor not]]

The wh-question is generated by moving

a wh-phrase to sentence-initial position.

[Į [N question] [CP whether it is true or(10) a.

ment is invisible to labeling, the label of Į is

CP[Q]

NP
N

CP

questionwhether it istrue or not

On the other hand, the label of Į in (10b) is notdetermined, since the two elements are phrases.

TP

To make matters worse, the two strategies on thesaw the dog

labeling algorithm discussed in section 2 do not

43The first strategy re-ble the label of the whole phrase to be the ĳ-

quires one of the merged phrases to be raised.

features, because the question has the ĳ-features

However, the nominal and its appositive wh-in common.1

clause are adjacent to each other, so that the firstpair the defect of labeling.2

help determine the label.

In this way, of is inserted to re-

The second strategy ap-

Notice that the ĳ-features inherent in theplies when there exists a prominent feature thatappositive wh-clause move to the edge of thethe merged phrases share.

clause, which receives support from two pieces

strategy is not usable.

However, there is nosuch prominent feature: the DP the question hasof evidence.

ĳ-features while the appositive wh-clause has awith head movement in Belfast English.

Q-feature.

fast English has head movement in an embedded

Hence, the label of Į in (10b) is left

The first evidence is concernedclause as well as a root clause.

undetermined.

Bel-

One restriction

In this paper, I propose a syntactic opera-

imposed on such movement is that head move-tion that repairs the defect of labeling in (10b).

ment cannot co-occur with the wh-phrase, as the

The key point is that the appositive wh-clausecontrast in acceptability between (14b) and (14c)

has ĳ-features as its inherent property.

shows:

Evi-

dence for this point is provided by the sub(14) a.

ject-verb agreement: the verb agrees in number

had left].

with a wh-clause, as shown in (12):b.
(12) a.

They couldn’t work out [had we left].

c. * They couldn’t work out [whether had[Whether he should be found guilty] is/

we left].

*are crucial.
b.

They couldn’t work out [whether we(Henry (1995: 107))[Whether he should be found guilty]
and [whether he was present at theWith these observations in mind, let us consider

scene of the accident in the first place]ĳ-feature movement in the appositive wh-clause*was/were irrelevant.

under consideration.

(15a) shows that of is op-

tionally inserted when no head movement applies.

Assuming that the ĳ-features inherent in the appositive wh-clause are originally on C0 of the

However, (15b) shows that of fails to beinserted when head movement applies.

clause, I claim that they move to the edge of theclause and are pronounced as of, as illustrated in(15) a.

(13):

it was true or not.
b.

(13)

We discussed the question (of) whether<ĳ,ĳ>

true or not.
(Alison Henry (personal communication))

[ĳ]

DP[ĳ]
the question [ĳ]ofWe discussed the question (*of) was it

<Q,Q>
DP

The failure of of-insertion in the Belfast English
example of (15b) is straightforwardly accountedCPfor by the impossibility of excorporation prowhether C[ĳ]TP

posed by Baker (1988).

Once was moves

whether it is (through T) to C, the part of the C cannot untrue or not
dergo any operation, including ĳ-feature move-

ment to the edge of the clause as in (16):After this movement, the moved ĳ-features ena-

44

(16)

[ >ĳ@ [CP [C>ĳ@ was] [TP T [VP was …]]]]]

by an adjunct as in (19):Therefore, the impossibility of of-insertion in(19) a. * Jack met the king of England, and I(15b) indicates that ĳ-feature movement applies

met the one of France.

in the appositive wh-clause.

b.

The second evidence is related to the in-Jack met the king from England, and I
met the one from France.

applicability of of-insertion in a (Standard) Eng-(Jackendoff (1977: 58))

lish sentence such as (17):The present analysis argues that of is not inserted(17)

The question (*of) if it is true or not

when the nominal has the complement relation

may be raised.

with its appositive wh-clause but of is inserted
when the nominal has the adjunct relation with
0

Given that if occupies the C position in the ap-

the clause.

positive wh-clause, the impossibility of of-inser-

nominal should not be able to be substituted fortion in (17) is the same as that of (15b): ĳ-fea-

the pronoun one when of is not inserted, while0

The prediction, then, is that theture movement from the C position is a type ofthe nominal can be replaced by one when of is

excorporation:

inserted.

This prediction is borne out by thefollowing sentences:(18)[ >ĳ@ [CP [C>ĳ@ if] [TP T [VP …]]]]](20) a. * The question [whether it is true] is dif-Hence, these two pieces of evidence support theferent from the one [whether there isview that ĳ-feature movement applies in the ap-

really a difference in degree].

positive wh-clause.

b.

To review the discussion up to this point,

The question [of whether it is true] isdifferent from the one [of whether

the generalization is that of is not inserted when

there is really a difference in degree].

0

the nominal head (N ) merges with its appositive
wh-clause whereas of is inserted when the nom-

The difference in grammaticality between (20a)inal phrase (DP) merges with its appositive wh-and (20b) shows that the appearance of of plays

clause.

In other words, of is not inserted whena crucial role in specifying the syntactic relation

the nominal selects the appositive wh-clause as

between a nominal and its appositive wh-clause.

its complement whereas of is inserted when the

Only when of is inserted, the nominal can be

nominal merges with the appositive wh-clause

substituted for one; and the appositive wh-clause

3

qualified as the adjunct.

The next section will

has the syntactic status of an adjunct.

This isdemonstrate that the distinction obtains between

an immediate consequence of the present analy-

the complement and the adjunct on the basis ofsis.

one substitution.
5. OTHER THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIESThis section examines three types of syn-4. ONE SUBSTITUTION
It has been argued that a nominal headtactic environments in which of-insertion may

cannot be substituted for the pronoun one when

apply and concludes that of-insertion cannot ap-

it is followed by a complement, while the nomi-

ply in all of these environments.

nal can be replaced by one when it is followed

The first case is relevant to a case where a45

nominal merges with its appositive that-clauseIn this case, of cannot be inserted.

as in (21).

analysis gives a simple account of this case as
well.

(21)

The present

The free application of Merge produces

I heard a rumor (*of) that John was

two kinds of derivational possibilities as in (25a)guilty.

and (25b):

Different from the case where a nominal merges[AP [A sure [CP whether it is true or(25) a.

not]]]

with its appositive wh-clause discussed in pre4

vious sections, of fails to be inserted in (21).

[Į [AP sure] [CP whether it is true or
not]]

b.

This inapplicability of of-insertion is accounted
for as a consequence of the present proposal

The label of the whole phrase in (25a) is deter-

coupled with the free application of Merge.

mined as AP.

The free application of Merge produces

On the other hand, the label in

two kinds of derivational possibilities as in (22a)(25b) is undetermined.

Although the whether-and (22b):

clause has the ĳ-features that are used to repair
the defect of labeling, the adjective has no such(22) a.

[NP [N rumor [CP that John was guilty]]]ĳ-features.

b.

[Į [DP a rumor] [CP that John was
guilty]]to be the label, the feature must be shared by

In order for the prominent feature

both the phrases that merge.

Accordingly, thelabeling of (25b) remains undetermined, resultThe label of the whole phrase in (22a) is deter-

ing in the ungrammaticality.

mined as NP.

not inserted, the sentence is grammatical.

On the other hand, the label in(22b) is undetermined.

In fact, the that-clause

Only when of is

The third case is concerned with a case indoes not have ĳ-features, as given in (23):which an adjective merges with its appositive
that-clause as in (26):(23) a.

[That you won] is wonderful.

b.

(26)

[That he lost] and [that you won] is/I am not sure (*of) that it is true.

*are wonderful. (Ross (1973: 147))
Here, of is not inserted.

The reason for thisThe examples in (23) show that the verb does

impossibility of of-insertion is clear.

not agree in number with the that-clause.

application of Merge produces two kinds of der-Since

The freeivational possibilities as in (27a) and (27b):

the existence of ĳ-features is significant for repairing the defect of labeling, the nonexistenceof ĳ-features on the that-clause makes the repair(27) a.

[AP [A sure [CP that it is true]]]

operation inapplicable and of cannot be inserted.

b.

[Į [AP sure] [CP that it is true]]

The second is about a case in which an
The label of the whole phrase in (27a) is deter-

adjective merges with its appositive wh-phrase
as in (24):5mined as AP.
termined.

(24)

The label in (27b) is left unde-

Neither the adjectival phrase nor the

I am not sure (*of) whether it is true orthat-clause has ĳ-features, so that the option ofnot.

repairing the defect of labeling by inserting of is
not utilized.

46

Thus, the grammatical sentencedoes not involve of-insertion.

that knowledge selects PRO as its specifier, different from other lexical items, including possi-

6. A CASE OF OBLIGATORY OF-INSERTION
In this section, I would like to consider ability.

case where Abney (1987) argues that of-inser-

theory.

tion applies obligatorily.

This PRO binds John in (30a), yielding

the violation of the Condition C of the binding

The example of (28)

Evidence for the existence of PRO is pro-is a case in point:

vided by the appearance of the overt pronominal
element in the sentence involving knowledge as(28)

the knowledge *(of) who John saw

in (31):(Abney (1987: 174))(31) a.
The present analysis wrongly predicts that of isinserted optionally in this case.

our knowledge that John might failb. * our possibility that John might failThe reason for(ibid.: 168)

this is the following: the free application ofMerge produces two kinds of derivational possi-

That is, Chomsky’s (1986) argument is equiva-

bilities as in (29a) and (29b):

lent to saying that knowledge must merge withPRO as its lexical inherent property.

(29) a.
b.

[N knowledge] [CP who John saw]
[DP the knowledge] [CP who John saw]This

property prevents us from applying the application of Merge given in (32a); only the option of(32b) is produced.

The label of (29a) is easily determined as NP;(32) a. * PRO [N knowledge [CP who John saw]]b. [NP PRO knowledge] [CP who John saw]

the label of (29b) can be interpreted as ĳ-features by applying of-insertion as a repairing operation.
I would like to argue that the reason for

The label of (32b) forces of-insertion as a repair

the obligatory of-insertion in (28) is reduced tooperation to apply, so that the example of (28)the property inherent in the word knowledge.

involves obligatory of-insertion.

Chomsky (1986) points out that the lexical
item knowledge has a peculiar property with respect to binding.

7. CONCLUSION
In this paper, I have discussed a certain

Let us consider the following

type of of-insertion.

sentences:

Apparently, this type ofof-insertion is optional.
(30) a. * the knowledge [that Johni might fail]bothered himib.

However, the present

proposal implies that the optionality of the ofinsertion is reduced to the free application of

the possibility [that Johni might fail]

Merge coupled with the repair operation respon-

bothered himi (Chomsky (1986: 167))

sible for labeling algorithm in syntax.

In thissense, this paper has a great contribution to un(30a) shows that John, embedded in the apposi-

derstand the optionality of the linguistic theory.

tive that-clause, cannot have a coreference relation with him of the matrix object.

* An earlier version of this paper was presented atthe 32nd Meeting of the English Linguistic Society ofJapan held at Gakushuin University in November,2014. I would like to express my deepest gratitude

Such a co-reference relation is possible in (30b).

This

difference leads Chomsky (1986) to conclude47

to Takamichi Aki, Akihiko Arano, Yoshihito Dobashi,
Nobu Goto, Jason Ginsburg, Alison Henry, Yoshiaki
Kaneko, Hiroshi Hasegawa, Satoru Kanno, Tadao
Maruta, Akiko Nagano, Heizo Nakajima, Masaru
Nakamura, Tadao Nomura, Yoshiki Ogawa, Naoto
Sato, Yosuke Sato, Etsuro Shima, Takahiro Tozawa,
James Unger, and the audience at the meeting fortheir invaluable comments and suggestions. This
work is supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid forYoung Scientists (B) from Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science (Grant No. 25770182). Allremaining errors and inadequacies are my own.

with of-insertion. By contrast, Huddleston and Pullum (2002) shows that a sentence of this type cannot
involve of-insertion. This issue may have to do withthe difference between American English and British
English or the historical difference.

REFERENCES
Abney, Steven (1987) The English NP in Its
Sentential Aspect, Doctoral dissertation,
MIT.
Baker, Mark C (1988) Incorporation: A Theory
of Grammatical Function Changing, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, Noam (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use, Praeger,
New York.
Chomsky, Noam (2007) “Approaching UG frombelow,” Interface + Recursion = Language?, ed. by Uli Sauerland and HansMartin Gärtner, 1-29, Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin.
Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” Fundamental Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in
Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa
Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Henry, Alison (1995) Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect Variation and Parameter Setting, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Jackendoff, Ray (1977) X-Bar Syntax: A Study ofPhrase Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Jespersen, Otto (1927) A Modern English
Grammar III, Allen and Unwin Ltd, London.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey
Leech, and Jan Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language,
Longman, London.
Richards, Norvin (2010) Uttering Trees, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ross, John Robert (1973) “Nouniness,” Three
Dimensions of Linguistic Theory, ed. by
Osamu Fujimura, 137-257, TEC Company,
Ltd., Tokyo.
Stowell, Tim (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure,
Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

NOTES
1
One might wonder how the label of the wholephrase in (13) is determined technically as ĳ-features.
Chomsky (2013) assumes that mere matching of theprominent feature does not suffice for the label; theagreement relation is necessary between the probe
and its goal. The ĳ-features of the nominal and the
ĳ-features of the appositive wh-clause in (13) seem to
be both interpretable; there seems to be no agreement
relation between them. I will leave this issue forfurther research.
2
The present analysis assumes that the ĳ-featuresof the appositive wh-clause are not visible to the label
at first. In order to be visible, the ĳ-features need tomove to the edge of the clause, which is pronounced
as of. This argument predicts that a sentence like(12) should involve of-insertion because the ĳ-fea
tures of the appositive wh-clause enter into an agreement relation with the verb. However, of cannot be
inserted:(i) *Of [whether he should be found guilty] is
crucial.
3
Akiko Nagano (personal communication) points
out that a similar argument applies in Japanese nominal compounds. In Japanese, a linking element no‘of’ appears in a certain compounds: it does not appear in syntactic compounds constructed by a head
and its argument, whereas it appears in modificational
compounds and coordinate compounds constructedby a head and its adjunct.
4
Jespersen (1927) provides evidence for of-insertion in this type of sentence:(i) [That his treatment of Old Tom was sound],he presently had proof *(of).
(Jespersen (1927: 30))
Furthermore, my informants have pointed out to me
that this of cannot be omitted. I will leave this issue
unresolved in the present paper.
5
Jason Ginsburg (personal communication) informs me that of-insertion can apply in (24), thoughof has the same meaning as about. One of my informants, who is an American, has said the samething. The other informant, who is a British person,
has judged the sentence with of-insertion to be bad.
Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1985)
shows that a sentence like (24) is grammatical even48

う〉と〈吐く〉の両方を表すようにみえる。(4a,b)は、息を吸ってため息をつくか、息を吐いてため息をつくかで異なる。共に容認される文だが、興味深いことに、(4a)の方が(4b)に比べてより慣習的な言い回し、特別な文脈を必要としな

英語の動詞 sigh の意味論	 (The Semantics of the Verb Sigh)

い表現のようである。sigh が〈吐く〉を表すとすると、自然な呼吸の仕方（吸う、吐くの繰り小早川	
  暁 (Satoru Kobayakawa)

返し）に合致するのは(4a)になる。sigh が〈吸獨協大学 (Dokkyo University)

う〉と〈吐く〉の両方を表し、〈吸う〉で始まるとすると、自然な呼吸の仕方に合致するのは(4b)になる。(4b)に比べて(4a)の方が慣習的であキーワード：英語の動詞 sigh、呼吸ドメイン、
プロファイルるという事実を捉えようとすれば、sigh が〈吐く〉のみを表すと考えるのが理に適う。sigh は「〈吸う〉と〈吐く〉
」なのか「
〈吐く〉
」なのか。

1	
  はじめに

本稿では、二つの見方を統合する方途を探る。

英語の動詞 sigh に対して英英辞典が与える語釈は２種類に大別できる。息の出入りに関しここで、タルミーの言う full-cycle と one-way
resettable について補足しておこう。
(5) a. *The beacon flashed and then went off.

て〈吸う〉と〈吐く〉の両方を含む語釈(1)と〈吐[full-cycle]

く〉のみを含む語釈(2)である。
(1) to take and then let out a long deepb. He fell and then got up.
[one-way resettable]

breath that can be heard, to show that

(Talmy 2000a: 63; 2000b: 68)

you are disappointed, sad, tired, etc[.](2)(OALD 8, s.v. sigh; cf. LDOCE 6)

full-cycle は、
逆方向の状態変化（たとえば、
flash

When you sigh, you let out a deep breath,

であれば、「明かりが点く」（暗い状態から明るas a way of expressing feelings such as

い状態への変化）と「明かりが消える」（明るdisappointment, tiredness, or pleasure.

い状態から暗い状態への変化））を併せ持つも(COBUILD 7, s.v. sigh; cf. CALD 4, MED 2)のである（sigh が〈吸う〉と〈吐く〉から成る

タルミーによるアスペクト分類によれば、(1)は full-cycle に相当し、(2)は one-way resettableの で あ れ ば 、 full-cycle に な る ）。 one-way
resettable は、一方向的な状態変化（たとえば、に相当する（Talmy 2000a: 63-64; 2000b: 67-69）。

fall であれば、立っている状態から立っていな

そして、(1, 2)それぞれに、それを支持する証

い状態への状態変化）を表し、繰り返すことが拠が見つかる。
(3) a. You just sighed three times in a row.

できるものである（sigh が〈吐く〉のみから成(K. Scott, This Is So Not Happening)

タルミーによれば、The beacon flashed.と He

b. He kept sighing.
(4)

るのであれば，one-way resettable になる）。

(Talmy 2000a: 48)

fell.は、反対表現（expressions of reversal）（上a. He {breathed in/inhaled} and (then)

掲の例の and then 以下の表現）と共起するか

sighed.

否かで異なる。(5a)は、暗い状態から暗い状態

b. He {breathed out/exhaled} and (then)への状態変化を表すことになり、容認されない。

sighed.

本論に入る前に、(6)のデータと、それに対するクロフトの解説(7, 8)を頼りに、研究対象となる言語データの性質について確認しておこう。
(6) a. Jack ate1 (= consume) a pizza with Jill.

(3)は sigh の繰り返しを表す表現である。ここで繰り返されているのは、吸って吐くことであり、吐くことではない。(3)によれば、sigh は〈吸49b. Jack ate2 (= dine) lunch with Jill.

は eat1）は、(9)にあげてあるように確認できる。

(Croft 1998: 169)とはいえ、この種の例は 2 例にすぎず、食事相手(6a)と(6b)は共に容認される表現だが、それぞれを表す表現と食事を表す表現が共起する例の方

動詞の意味が異なる。それと連動して、目的語の表す意味も異なる。(6a)の a pizza は「食べ物」

が多く見つかる。(10a, b)を参照されたい。
(9) a. [She] ate1 peanut-butter sandwiches

を表す目的語であり、(6b)の lunch は「食事」

with her children[.] (BNC, ACS 879)
b. He ate1 pork chops in tomato sauceを表す目的語である。共に容認される表現だが、(6a)が使用されることはほとんどない。食事相with us that evening[.] (BNC, FAT 725)

手を表す表現（with Jill）が使われるのは、食(10) a. EaterSBJ eat Food ItemOB with Co-EaterOBL

事をとるという意味の eat2 が食事を表す目的語

BNC では２例
b. EaterSBJ eat MealOB with Co-EaterOBLをとる場合のみであるというのがクロフトの観察である。詳細は、次の(7, 8)を参照されたい。
(7) [T]he syntactic collocates of eat ‘consume’ (withある表現が見つかるか否か、あるいは、どの

a type of food as direct object) and of eat ‘dine’

程度見つかるかは、コーパスの規模による。こ(with the name of a meal as direct object) are

こでは、ある表現が容認されるか否かではなく、

distinct: the comitative argument (referring toa fellow eater) occurs only with the latter use in

よく使用される表現とあまり使用されない表
現の違いを意味あるものと見なし、これを説明

the corpus. That is, one finds sentences of theの対象とし、必要に応じてウェブ（特に Google

type Jack ate lunch with Jill but not Jack ate a pizza

Books）をコーパスとして利用する。

with Jill, although the latter would be judged2	
  sigh の意味構造

BNC では９例

grammatical on introspection. (Croft 1998: 169)

本稿では、sigh が表す意味の一部（physical

Most English-speaking linguists would notdomain に関わる意味）は呼吸ドメインとプロ

reject a sentence such as I ate a pizza with Carol

ファイルにより捉えられることを論証する

as unacceptable. But it appears that one would（Taylor 2003: 87-90 の Monday の分析を参照）。

rarely if ever actually say such a thing. . . .

具体的には、①呼吸ドメインは〈吸う〉と〈吐く〉

Grammatical unacceptability is only a weakをまとまりとする単位の繰り返しから成り（ただindicator of the actual grammatical patterns in

し、最後は〈吸う〉）、②sigh は呼吸ドメインを構

language use that tell us about the semantics of
the words and constructions of the language.

成する単位の一部である〈吐く〉をプロファイル
する。
（cf. inhale, breathe in, yawn, gasp, etc.）こ(Croft 2009: 18)

れを図式化すれば、(11)のようになる。(11a)は呼より一般化した形で述べると、容認される表

吸ドメインを表し、(11b)は sigh の意味構造を表

現には、よく使用される表現からほとんど使用

す。(12)に示してあるのは、吸うと吐くの単なるされない表現まで、さまざまある。容認される繰り返しである。これは、ここで退けられる考えからといって、使用されるとは限らない。よく方である。

使用される表現とそうでない表現を識別し、両(11) a. ［〈吸う〉̶〈吐く〉］ ［〈吸う〉̶〈吐者の違いを説明しようとするならば、容認性のく〉］ ［〈吸う〉̶〈吐く〉］̶〈吸う〉

判断以外のデータを頼みとする必要がある（cf.

b. ［〈吸う〉̶〈吐く〉］ ［〈吸う〉̶〈吐(8)Taylor 2012: 9-13）。

く〉］ ［〈吸う〉̶〈吐く〉］̶〈吸う〉

そこで、クロフトが利用した 200 万語から成る(12)〈吸う〉̶〈吐く〉̶〈吸う〉̶〈吐く〉

コーパスよりも規模の大きい 1 億語から成るコーパス（BNC）を検索してみると、食事相手を

̶〈吸う〉̶〈吐く〉
以下では、まず、(11a)の呼吸ドメインを例証表す表現と食べ物を表す表現が共起する例（動詞する。その過程で、呼吸ドメインが(12)のような、50

単なる〈吸う〉と〈吐く〉の繰り返しから成る

そこから逸脱するものは非典型的な呼吸であのではないことを確認する。次に、sigh が呼吸り、そのような呼吸の仕方を描写する表現は特ドメインの一部をプロファイルすることを示す。

別な文脈を必要とし、典型的な呼吸の仕方を描

呼吸ドメインについて論じるにあたり、まず、呼吸に関する基本語 breathe が呼吸ドメインを写する表現と比べてあまり用いられず、用いられる際には特別な意味をもつことになる。以下、反映すると仮定する。(13)に示すように、sigh(17a, b)にあげる例は、それぞれ、吸うのを繰りについては対立していた２つの辞書が、breathe

返す表現と、吐くのを繰り返す表現である。
(17) a. Being misunderstood is like having toについては、ほぼ同様の語釈を与えている。
(13) a. to take air into your lungs and send it

breathe in and in and in again without again through your nose or

no out-breath. The lung hurts and themouth[.]

sorrow can become a physical pain.

(OALD 8, s.v. breathe)b. When people or animals breathe, they(T. M. Finser, Organizational Integrity)

take air into their lungs and let it out

b. When we make a non-stop dash

(COBUILD 7, s.v. breathe)toward recovery from a disaster, it’s

(13a, b)は、どちらも breathe が〈吸う〉と〈吐like breathing out and out and out

く〉から成ることを示している。
これと併せて、breathe が繰り返しを表すとand out—until one has to gasp for air!
God can breathe out and out and out

いう母語話者の直観により、呼吸ドメインが

the breath of life, but we who are not〈吸う〉と〈吐く〉の繰り返しから成ることがthe Creator were created to breathe in

確認できる（cf. Talmy 2000a: 49, 63; 2000b: 68）。

as well as out.

again.

さて、呼吸ドメインの身体的基盤であると考(G. L. Harbaugh, Act of God/Active God)

えられる呼吸運動は、吸う、吐くを繰り返すの(17a, b)が示すように、自然でない呼吸の仕方を表が自然であり、吸うのを繰り返したり、吐くのす表現は、好ましくないことを表すのに用いられを繰り返したりするのは自然ではない（cf.

る。これは、心の乱れが呼吸の乱れにつながるこ

Hewitt-Taylor 2011: 60）。これを反映して、吸とによる。心のあり方と呼吸のあり方は換喩的なうと吐くの等位接続表現は、吸うと吸うや、吐関係にあるといえる（contra Fesmire 1994）。

くと吐くの等位接続表現よりも多く見つかる。

次に、呼吸ドメインが〈吸う〉と〈吐く〉を(14-16)は、
BYU-BNC（Davies 2004-）とCOCA（Davies 2008-）を調査した結果である（以下、単位（［〈吸う〉̶〈吐く〉］）とする根拠を述べよう（cf. Talmy 2000a: 63; 2000b: 68）。

コーパスは 2014 年 9 月 15 日に参照）。
(14) a. breathe in and (breathe) out [13, 83]

まず、(18)にあげるような語があることそのものが、〈吸う〉と〈吐く〉がまとまりを成すこと

b. inhale and exhale [3, 61]を示している（なお，suspire には sigh の意味(15) a. breathe in and (breathe) in [0, 0]もあり、呼吸とため息の接点となっている）。
(18) breathe, respire, suspireb. inhale and inhale [0, 1](16) a. breathe out and (breathe) out [0, 0]

また、(19)のような、a breath cycle や abreathing cycle という表現（［〈吸う〉‒〈吐く〉］というまとまりを表す）の存在も，ここでの主b. exhale and exhale [0, 0]
角括弧内の左側には BYU-BNC での数、右側にくを表す表現で、BYU-BNC と COCA を合わ

張の裏付けとなる。
(19) a. During quiet respiration, about 40% of a

せると 160 になる。(15)は吸って吸うで、両方を合わせても 1、(16)は吐いて吐くで、0 である。

breath cycle is devoted to inspiration,and expiration takes up about 60% of

呼吸ドメインは、典型的な呼吸の仕方を表す。

the cycle. (J. Kreiman and D. Sidtis,

は COCA での数を記してある。(14)は吸って吐51

and E. Caldwell, Nursing Assistant)

Foundations of Voice Studies)b. [I]nstruct the client to attempt to stretchb. Count one breath in and out as 1, the nextout a breathing cycle to a count of about

breath in and out as 2, and so on. (G.

8 seconds. This can be 4 or 5 seconds
breathing in and 3 or 4 breathing out. (D.

Andrews et al., The Treatment of Anxiety
Disorders, 2nd ed.)H. Barlow and J. A. Cerny, Psychological

ここで少し観点を変えて、
breath という名詞を観Treatment of Panic)

察してみよう。breath は〈吸う〉と〈吐く〉の両方

c. A respiratory cycle is a single cycle ofを表したり〈吸う〉や〈吐く〉を表したりする。
(23) a. She stood for a moment, hardly able

inhalation and exhalation. (F. H. Martini,to draw breath, hardly able to think.

Anatomy and Physiology)
d. [T]he verb breathe suggests greater(P. Wentworth, Girl in the Cellar)

fusion across its inhalation-exhalation

b. [C]lose your eyes, take a deep breath, andcycles than does the locution take breaths.

slowly as you let your breath out, say,(Talmy 2000a: 57)“Thank you, Lord.” (D. Vaughan, Do You

さらに、〈吸う〉を表す表現と〈吐く〉を表Know How to Pray As You Should?)

す表現は概念的にまとまりを成す。(20a, b)の回
数表現は〈吸う〉と〈吐く〉の合計を表すが、(23a)の draw breath の breath は吸って吐くことを表し、(23b)の take a deep breath の a breath

これは、(21a, b)における回数表現が合計を表す

は吸うこと、let your breath out の breath は吐のと並行的である。
(20) a. She breathed in, breathed out three

くことを表す。これは、モノ化の対象が〈吸う〉

times before climbing the half-repaired

ると考えることにより説明できる事実である。

と〈吐く〉から成る［〈吸う〉̶〈吐く〉］であsteps and going into the house.

ここで、繰り返しの単位を［〈吸う〉̶〈吐く〉］(N. Roberts, Sea Swept)

と考え、
［
〈吐く〉
］̶［
〈吸う〉
］と考えないのは、

b. We breathe a lot. At rest we inhale and吸って吐くという表現が、吐いて吸うという表

exhale about 12 times per minute on

現よりも多く見つかるという事実による（cf.

average. So, someone who’s 20 years old

Cooper and Ross’s (1975: 67) “Me First” principle）。

has already taken 126,144,000 breaths.

概念的に、まとまりを成す単位が［〈吸う〉̶〈吐That’s a lot of breaths.
(J. Reynolds, Trumpet for Dummies)く〉］であると考えれば納得のゆく事実である。
以下、(24, 25)に BYU-BNC と COCA の検索(21) a. Before he left for London in 1737,

結果をあげておく（表記については、前掲のデJohnson had tried and failed three times

ータと同様である）。
(24) a. breathe in and (breathe) out [13, 83]

to become a schoolteacher. (C. N. Parke,b. inhale and exhale [3, 61]

Samuel Johnson and Biographical Thinking)(25) a. breathe out and (breathe) in [1, 3]

b. He was released at age thirty-nine afterb. exhale and inhale [0, 2]

spending almost half his life in prison,
tried and convicted three times for a(24)は(14)で確認したものと同じ、吸って吐くの

crime he didn’t commit.

データで合計 160 である。他方、(25)に示すよ(I. G. Goldman, Sick Justice)

うに、吐いて吸うのデータは合計 6 である。次

また、次の(22)は、〈吸う〉と〈吐く〉が慣習の(26)はこの結果を裏付けるデータである。
(26) in and out/??out and in (Ariel 2010: 44)

的に１つとして数えられることを示している。
(22) a. Count one inhalation and one exhalation

さらに、呼吸に関して(27)のような助言がさ

as one respiration. (B. R. Hegner, B. Acello,れるのも、通例は［〈吸う〉̶〈吐く〉］が単位

52

プロファイルすることを論じてゆく。
まず、
sigh

であることを示していると理解できる。
(27) Try starting each breath cycle with anが〈吐く〉の意味をもつという点では、上で参

exhalation. Rather than breathing in and

照した２種類の英英辞典は一致している（さらbreathing out, switch to “breathe out, breathein.” Close your eyes and repeat to yourselfに、sigh が uniplex で punctual aspect を表す
ことについては Talmy 2000a: 48, 2000b: 281 を

several times: “Breathe out, breathe in.”参照）
。sigh が〈吐く〉をプロファイルするの(Scheinbaum 2012: 45)

は、ため息の呼気が普段の呼気より長く、音を次に呼吸ドメインの始まりと終わりについ伴うため、注意を引くことがその契機となる。

て確認しておこう。英語には(28a, b)のような慣また、(30)が示唆するように、呼吸にかかわる一連の語（すなわち、呼吸ドメインに基づい用的な言い回しがある。
(28) a. draw one’s first/last breathて捉えられる一連の語）は息の出入りという点

b. The moment we take our last breath on

で対立している。息の出入りというのは、呼吸

earth, we take our first breath in heaven.

にかかわる動詞を捉えるのに有意義な観点で(H. Lockyer, All the Promises of the Bible)ある。sigh は〈吐く〉をプロファイルするとい

one’s first breath は生まれ出た時の息を表し、う点で、〈吸う〉をプロファイルする yawn や

one’s last breath は亡くなる時の息を表す。
(28a)だけでは息の出入りに関しては不分明だ

gasp などと対立する。
(30) Explain each of the following in terms ofが、(28b)によれば、どちらも吸うであることがbreathing in and out: a yawn, a gasp, a

うかがわれる（cf. take a deep breath）。

cough, a sigh, a laugh.

さらに、draw one’s first breath や take one’s(M. Roberts and N. Ingram, Biology, 2nd ed.)last breath が使われるのと同様の文脈で take

ところで、ある種のドメインは、その構成要

one’s last gasp という表現が使われる。gasp は素の間に順序の概念を含んでいる。そのような吸気を表すので one’s last breath についても同ドメインを背景とし、構成要素のプロファイル

様に考えてよいであろう。以下、(29)に、最初によって捉えられる語には順序がある。たとえと最後がいずれも吸気であることが確認できは、曜日は週のドメインを背景とし、週のドメるデータをあげておく。
(29) a. A newborn baby takes in a long deep

インには順序がある。そして、曜日はその順序

breath, and as it exhales, its life on Earth
begins. Likewise, when it is time to die,

うなテストによって確認できる。(31a)は週のドメインに合致するが、(32b)は合致しない。
(31) a. Sunday {is followed by/comesに従う形で把握される。この順序は、(31)のよ

we take one last gasp for air before

before} Monday.

death occurs. From the first breath tob.??Monday

the last breath, to breathe is to live.

{isfollowed

by/comes

before} Sunday.

(M. Seidman, Balancing the Chakras)
b. The baby may draw its first breath as

これと同様のことが呼吸ドメインについても

soon as the chest is freed, or when the

言え、吸って吸うこと、吐いて吐くことは、呼entire baby emerges. There is a pause,

吸ドメインに合致しないことになる。

the lungs then inflate, and with the first

さて、ここで話を sigh に戻すと、通例、このexhalation breath may make a sound or

動詞は punctual aspect を表すとされる。たとcry as the air passes through the vocal

えば、Talmy (2000b: 281) は She sighed atcords. (C. A. Bean, Methods of Childbirth)
以下では、sigh が呼吸ドメインを構成する

exactly 3:00.といった例により、それを例示している。語彙的アスペクトの観点からは確かにそ［〈吸う〉̶〈吐く〉］という単位の〈吐く〉をうであるが、sigh が表すため息の意味（すなわ53ち、sigh のプロファイル）は広がりをもつといするが、(35b)では〈吐く〉のあとに〈吐く〉がった側面もある。(32a)では sigh が深さに由来

続き、呼吸ドメインに合致しない。呼吸ドメイする程度副詞を伴っており、(32b)では sigh がンに合致する方が多く生じるのは道理である。

継続時間表現 for a few seconds を伴いながら、繰り返しでなく、長いため息を表している（cf.

(36)においては、deeply という副詞が加わることにより、a の文と b の文の間の差は、(35)よHe coughed for a few seconds.）。そして、(33)

りも、さらに大きくなる。(36b)が、(35b)と比はため息の３つの局面について指摘している。
(32) a. He sighed {deeply/shallowly}.

べると、呼吸ドメインからの逸脱が大きくなるからである。

(cf. He heaved a {deep/shallow} sigh.)sigh が〈吐く〉で始まることは、(37a, b)のデb. Charlie then sighed for a few seconds

ータによって確認できる。これらは、(34a, b)の前

before continuing to ponder.

後を入れ替えたものである（大槻まい氏による）。
(37) a. He {breathed in/inhaled} and (then)(J. Green, Mind Diversion)

sighed.

(33) Every sigh has a beginning, middle, andb. He {breathed out/exhaled} and (then)end with a stress somewhere along thetimeline.

sighed.

(Stern 2010: 142)

それでは、sigh が広がりをもつとすれば、どのような内部構造をもつのだろうか。以下では、

ここでは、〈吸う〉のあとに sigh が続く(37a)の方が、〈吐く〉のあとに sigh が続く(37b)よりもsigh が〈吐く〉で始まり〈吐く〉で終わること

多く見つかる。sigh が〈吐く〉で始まるのであを明らかにする。sigh が〈吐く〉で終わることれば、〈吐く〉よりも〈吸う〉のあとに多く生は、(34a, b)のデータによって確認できる。
(34) a. He sighed and (then) {breathed

じるのは当然である。(38, 39)は、(35, 36)と同様、Google Books による検索の結果である。
(38) a. {breathed in/inhaled} and (then)in/inhaled}.
b. He sighed and (then) {breathedsighed 62 件
b. {breathed out/exhaled} and (then)out/exhaled}.
(cf. Talmy 2000a: 63; 2000b: 68)

sighed 23 件
(39) a. {breathed in/inhaled} deeply and(34a, b)は共に容認されるが、sigh のあとに〈吸(then) sighed 116 件
b. {breathed out/exhaled} deeply andう〉が続く(34a)の方が、sigh のあとに〈吐く〉が続く(34b)よりも多く見つかる。(35, 36)は、
Google Books（books.google.com）による検索(then) sighed 7 件の結果である。セーフサーチはオフにし，言語(38a)は〈吸う〉のあとに〈吐く〉が続き、呼吸設定は英語とした（2014 年 9 月 15 日参照）。
(35) a. sighed and (then) {breathed in/inhaled}ドメインに合致するが、(38b)は〈吐く〉のあと

59 件
b. sighed and (then) {breathed out/exhaled}

そのため、(38a)の方が(38b)よりも多く生じる。

20 件(36) a. sighed and (then) {breathed in/inhaled}の文の間の差がさらに大きくなるのも、上と同

deeply 20 件b. sighed and (then) {breathed out/exhaled}

ここで、名詞の sigh を観察してみよう。このに〈吐く〉が続き、呼吸ドメインに合致しない。
deeply を付け加えた(39)において、a の文と b
様の理由による。
語は、上で確認した breath とは違い、〈吐く〉の意味しかもたない。この事実は、動詞の sighdeeply 2 件が〈吐く〉をプロファイルするという考え方と調和するものである。
(40) a. Mrs. Capps drew a sigh. . . . (cf. 23a)以上の結果は、sigh が〈吐く〉で終わるのであれば、予想される結果である。(35a)では〈吐く〉のあとに〈吸う〉が続き、呼吸ドメインに合致

54

Davies, Mark. (2004-) BYU-BNC. (Based on the(J. Stringfellow, Faith Walks)b. Carl took a deep sigh. . . .

British National Corpus from Oxford University(cf. 23b)

Press). <http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/>(P. M. Dubal, Crimes against Humanity)

Davies, Mark. (2008-) The Corpus of Contemporary
American English: 450 million words, 1990-present.

c. [He] let a deep sigh out.
(cf. 23b)(R. Mellito, The Halford Colony)<http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/>(40a, b, c)は、それぞれ動詞が異なるにもかかわらず、いずれも、ため息をつくという意味を表す。

Fesmire, Steven A. (1994) “Aerating the Mind:

次の(41)は、breath と sigh が等位接続されてThe Metaphor of Mental Functioning As

いる例である。それぞれ同じ動詞を共有しながBodily Functioning,” Metaphor and Symbolic

ら、くびき語法にならず、(23)と(40)で確認した

Activity 9, 31-44.
Hewitt-Taylor, Jaqui (2011) Working with

通りの意味解釈がなされている。
(41) a. Rockwell drew a deep breath and asigh of relief.

Children Who Need Long-Term Respiratory
Support, M & K Update, Keswick, Cumbria.

(W. H. Schmaltz, Hate)

Scheinbaum, Sandra (2012) How to Give Clientsb. Dan took a deep breath and a sigh.
(T. Harding, Let’s Go Get’em)

the Skills to Stop Panic Attacks: Don’t Forget toc. He let out his breath and a sigh of relief.
(D. M. Cece, The Rodeo Southwest)

Breathe, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London.
Stern, Daniel N. (2010) Forms of Vitality:

3	
  むすび

Exploring Dynamic Experience in Psychology,

ここでは、呼吸ドメインが［〈吸う〉‒〈吐く〉］という単位の繰り返しから成り、〈吸う〉で終the Arts, Psychotherapy and Development,

わることを明らかにした。そして、sigh はそのTalmy, Leonard (2000a) Toward a Cognitive

単位の〈吐く〉の部分をプロファイルする。つSemantics, Volume I: Concept Structuring Systems,

まり、〈吸う〉と〈吐く〉は非対称的な関係に

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

ある。
英英辞典の sigh に関する２種類の語釈は、Talmy, Leonard (2000b) Toward a Cognitive

プロファイルに加え、呼吸ドメインの〈吸う〉

Semantics, Volume II: Typology and Process in

を語釈に含めているか否かで異なるものと理

Concept Structuring, MIT Press, Cambridge,

解できる。

MA.
Taylor, John R. (2003) Linguistic Categorization,
3rd ed., Oxford University Press, New York.

参考文献
Ariel, Mira. (2010) Defining Pragmatics, Cambridge

Taylor, John R. (2012) The Mental Corpus: How
Language Is Represented in the Mind, Oxford

University Press, Cambridge.

University Press, Oxford.

Cooper, William E. and John Robert Ross (1975)“Word Order,” Papers from the Parasession on
Functionalism, ed. by Robin E. Grossman, L.

付記

James San, and Timothy J. Vance, 63-111,

本稿は、日本英語学会第 32 回大会（2014 年 11

CLS, Chicago.

月 8 日、9 日、於 学習院大学）における研究発

Croft, William (1998) “Linguistic Evidence and表に基づくものである。質疑応答の折、岩田彩志、Mental Representations,” Cognitive Linguistics

柏野健次の両先生に有益なコメントをいただい

9, 151-173.

た。また、中右実、廣瀬幸生の両先生には、草稿

Croft, William (2009) “Connecting Frames andConstructions: A Case Study of Eat and Feed,”にお目通しいただき、ありがたいご助言と励ましのお言葉をいただいた。ここに記して感謝申し上Constructions and Frames 1, 7-28.

げる。

55

詳細な言語事実に基づき、深刻に議論されてこなかったように思われる。そのため、古・中英語における LIC の統語構造については、実際のところ未解明の部分が多く、その歴史的発達の英語史における場所句倒置構文の発達*

道筋も明らかとされていないのが現状である。

(The Development of Locative Inversion

そこで本論文では、歴史コーパスからの新たなConstruction in the History of English)

言語事実を示しながら、現行の極小主義の枠組
みの下、英語史の各段階における LIC の統語構

小池 晃次 (Koji Koike)

造を提案する。そして、LIC 発達の全体的道筋

名古屋大学 (Nagoya University)を明らかにすることを目的とする。
2. 背景

キーワード: 場所句倒置構文、V2 現象、

この節では、LIC の通時的分析の基盤となる、

比較的豊かな一致形態素

現代英語における LIC の分析、及び古・中英語
における V2 の分析を概観する。
1. 導入(1)に示されるように、文頭に場所句があり、

2.1. 現代英語における LIC

その後ろで主語と定形動詞が倒置した表層形

Koike (2013)は、Rizzi (1997)の分離 CP 仮説をを持つ文は場所句倒置構文(locative inversion

採用しながら、現代英語における LIC は、2 タ

construction、以下 LIC)と呼ばれ、これまで多く

イプの統語構造を持つと主張する。
1 つ目のタイプは、(3)に示される統語構造をの共時的研究がなされてきた。
(1) a. On the stage appeared a man.

持ち、その主語 DP のスペルアウト位置から(Coopmans (1989: 73))

SpecVP タイプと呼ぶことにする。

b. In the swamp were found two children.

(3) 現代英語における SpecVP タイプの LIC(Bresnan (1994: 95))

[TopP PP Top[EF] [FinP Fin [TP PP T[EPP] [vP Vf+v

そして、それらの研究によって現代英語におけ[VP DP [V′ tV PP ]]]]]]る LIC の統語構造は、かなりの程度明らかとなっている。他方で、(2)に示されるように、LIC

Chomsky (2008)における「1 つのフェイズ内には古・中英語において既に観察されるにもかか1

わらず、その通時的研究は極僅かしかない。

おける異なる主要部による操作は同時に適用(2) a. On þisum þrim stelum stynt seされる」という考えの下、TopP フェイズにおいon these three supports stood theてT の EPP 素性とTop の末端素性が同時に探査

cynestol

する。これによって場所句 PP は、V の補部位

royal-dwellingb.

(colsigewZ,ÆLet_置から SpecTP と SpecTopP の両方へ同時に移動

4_[SigeweardZ]:1217.598: O4)

する。2 その後、各構成素のうち最高位のコピ

Of Anna wæs geboren Maria
from Anna was bornーのみが顕在的にスペルアウトされる。

Maria

さて、(3)では主語 DP は移動せず、故に基底(CMKENTHO,139.143: M1)

位置である SpecVP でスペルアウトを受ける。

その上、古・中英語における LIC は暗黙のうちこのことは、実際に(4)において、主語 DP Ianに単なる V2 現象の一例として済まされ、故にが、v にある emerged と vP に右付加した with

56

b.

句の間に現れている事実からも覗うことがで[TopP PP [FinP [TP [TP DP have [vP [vP

きる。
emerged DP PP ] over the last century ]](4) a. From the cottage emerged Ian with aspade, rubber boots and an enthusiastic
expression.

DP ]]](Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995: 266))
b. [TopP PP [FinP [TP PP [vP [vP emerged DP(PP: out of the mud-brick … ziggurats,
DP: the traces of … civilization)

PP ] with a spade, … expression ]]]]
(PP: from the cottage, DP: Ian)

加えて、この分析は Culicover and Levine (2001)

そして、この分析は Bresnan (1994)以来観察されが観察するように、このタイプにおける文頭場てきた、このタイプにおける文頭場所句が持つ所句は話題性だけを持ち、他方で、主語 DP は

話題要素としてかつ統語的な主語としての二重いもの限られるという事実を正しく捉えら重の特性に原理的説明を与えられると論じてれると主張している。
本論文では、現代英語における、これら 2 タいる。
2 つ目は、(5)に示される統語構造であり、そイプを LIC 発達の到達点として見据えながら、こでは主語 DP が右方向へ重名詞句転移(heavy

次節以降では古・中英語に話を移していく。

NP shift、以下 HNPS)を受けている点が特徴的で
2.2. 古・中英語における V2 現象ある。このことに着目し、このタイプを HNPS

古・中英語がもつ主要な特性の１つに、定形タイプと呼ぶことにする。

動詞が 2 番目の位置を占めるという、動詞第二(5) 現代英語における HNPS タイプの LIC[TopP PP Top[EF] [FinP Fin [TP [TP DP T[EPP] [vP

位(verb second、以下 V2)現象と呼ばれる現象がある。この現象に関する先行研究の中でもVf+v [VP DP [V′ tV PP ]]]] DP ]]]Nawata (2009)は、話題要素で始まる V2 構文に(7)の構造を与えている。
(7) [TopP Topic Top [FinP V [TP Subj T [vP … ]]]]T の EPP 素性が探査し、主語 DP を SpecTP へ
牽引する。
それから、
主語 DP は HNPS を受け、(cf. Nawata (2009: 262))

TP に右付加する。他方で、Top の末端素性が探主語は SpecTP、
話題要素は SpecTopP を占める。

査し、場所句 PP を SpecTopP へ牽引する。その定形動詞は、これから 4 節において詳述される

後、各々最高位のコピーのみが顕在的にスペル

ように、豊かな一致形態素との関連において3

Fin まで主要部移動する。こうして、話題要素+アウトされる。

さて、このタイプの派生が可能であることは、 動詞+主語という V2 の倒置語順が生成される。
(6)に示されるように、主語 DP the traces of cities

ある人は、T-to-Fin 移動の結果、倒置が起こっ… がvPに右付加した付加詞over the last centuryていることに目をつけ、古・中英語における LICに後続する位置に現れている事例によって経も(7)の構造で事足りると考えるかもしれない。

験的にも裏付けられる。

しかし Nawata (2009)によっても注意が喚起さ(6) a. Out of the mud-brick ruins of temples andれるように、この分析を単に LIC に適用しただ

ziggurats have emerged over the last

けでは不十分である。なぜなら、仮にも古・中century the traces of cities whose names

英語における LIC が(7)の構造のみであったと

evoke the rise of human civilization.

すると、V2 現象、即ち T-to-Fin 移動の消失後、(Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995: 266))

話題要素+主語+動詞という語順になり、倒置語

57

順を持つはずのLIC は消失したと誤って予測しa good resoundてしまうからである。これと同時に、T-to-Fina good reason

移動の消失後も、なぜ LIC は依然として倒置構(CMWYCSER,267.719: M3)

文として存在しているのかという疑問が生じ

b. [TopP PP [FinP may [TP PP tT[EPP] [vP tv [VP tVる。そこで次節では、古・中英語における LICについて 3 タイプの統語構造を提案することで、[TP PP [T[EPP] be][vP maad DP PP ]]]]]]]

これらの問題・疑問の解決を試みる。
(PP: of þis trewþe, DP: sych a good
resound)

3. 古・中英語における LIC
この節では、主語 DP のスペルアウト位置に埋め込み節の T の EPP 素性によって、PP は埋着目しながら、古・中英語における LIC につい

め込み節 SpecTP へ移動する。さらに主節の Tて 3 タイプの統語構造を提案する。

の EPP 素性によって、PP は主節 SpecTP へ移動する。他方で、Top の末端素性によって、PP は3.1. SpecVP タイプ

SpecTopP へ牽引される。それから、SpecTopP

1 つ目は、(3)と同様に、主語 DP が SpecVPにある最高位の PP コピーのみが顕在的にスペに留まるタイプである。

ルアウトされ、(9a)の表層語順が生成される。

(8) 古・中英語におけるSpecVPタイプのLIC

このように、場所句 PP は A 位置である SpecTP[TopP PP Top[EF] [FinP Vf+v+T+Fin [TP PP

へ移動しているからこそ、不適性移動(improper
movement)とならずに、さらに主節への A 移動
を受けることができる。4tT[EPP] [vP tv [VP DP [V′ tV PP ]]]]]]

さて、主語 DP が SpecVP に留まる点は、(10)T の EPP 素性と Top の末端素性が探査し、場所によって経験的にも裏付けられる。(10)では、

句 PP を SpecTP・SpecTopP の両方へ同時に牽引比較的短い主語DP nan winter が、
否定副詞næfre

する。他方で、定形動詞は豊かな一致形態素をに後続している。

引き金として、Fin まで主要部移動する。最後(10) a. On Egypta lande ne cymð næfre nanに、各々最高位のコピーのみが顕在的にスペル

on Egypt’s land not comes never no

アウトされ、場所句 PP+定形動詞+主語 DP といwinterう V2 の倒置語順が生成される。

winter(8)の構造を、経験的な事実と照らし合わせな(cotempo,ÆTemp:4.53.185: O3)

がら検討する。まず、場所句 PP が SpecTP を占b. [TopP PP [FinP ne cymð [TP PP [vP næfre [vP

める証拠としては、(9)において LIC が may と

DP PP ]]]]]

いう法助動詞と共起しているという事実が挙(PP: on Egypta lande, DP: nan winter)

げられる。Roberts (1993)と共に、法助動詞は 16

Biberauer and Roberts (2010)に従い、否定副詞は世紀以前では繰り上げ動詞であったことを考英語史を通じて vP の左側に付加していると仮えると、(9)の文頭場所句 of þis trewþe は所謂定すると、(10b)に示されるように、主語 DP は

「主語繰り上げ」を受けていることになる。こ

派生の間中、動詞句内部に留まることで næfre

のことは循環的な A 移動を使って、本分析の下に後続する位置でスペルアウトを受ける。

(9b)のように説明される。
(9) a. Of

þis trewþe may be maad sych

from this truth

3.2. HNPS タイプ

may be made such

2 つ目は、(5)と同様に、主語 DP が HNPS を58

3.3. SpecTP タイプ

受けるタイプである。
(11) 古・中英語における HNPS タイプの LIC

3 つ目は、V2 に基づく構造であり、その主語[TopP PP Top[EF] [FinP Vf+v+T+Fin [TP [TP DP

DP のスペルアウト位置から SpecTP タイプと呼ぶことにする。

tT[EPP] [vP tv [VP DP [V′ tV PP ]]]] DP ]]]]

(13) 古・中英語における SpecTP タイプの
LIC
[TopP PP Top[EF] [FinP Vf+v+T+Fin [TP DP

T の EPP 素性によって、主語 DP は SpecTP へ
移動し、その後 HNPS を受けて TP に右付加す

tT[EPP] [vP tv [VP DP [V′ tV PP ]]]]]]

る。他方で、Top の末端素性によって、場所句
PP は SpecTopP へ牽引される。それから定形動
詞は Fin まで主要部移動し、こうして V2 の倒

主語 DP は SpecTP へ移動し、他方で場所句 PP

置語順が生み出される。

は SpecTopP へ移動する。それから、定形動詞

Pintzuk and Kroch (1989)によると、HNPS は古は Fin まで主要部移動する。
さて、(13)の派生が可能であったことは、(14)

英語の頃から利用可能であり、そして、このことは、(12)の LIC においても観察される。(12)の事例によって裏付けられる。

では、主語 DP a wundorlic wæterscipe … は累加(14) a. In hiʒe halle of hevene com he nevere

的な付加詞 gehende þam temple を跨いで文末へ

in high hall of heaven comes he never(CMPOLYCH,VI,185.1324: M3)

転移されている。
(12) a. On þære byrig wæs gehæfd, gehendeb. [TopP PP [FinP com [TP DP [vP nevere [vP …

on the burg was retained near
þam temple, an wundorlic wæterscipe,

DP PP ]]]]]

the temple a wonderful water-bodyBethsaida gehaten
Bethsaida(PP: in hiʒe halle of hevene, DP: he)called(14b)が示すように、主語 DP は本分析に沿って(coaelhom,ÆHom_2:10.250: O3)

SpecTP へ移動することで、否定副詞 nevere に先行する位置でスペルアウトを受ける。さらにb. [TopP PP [FinP wæs [TP [TP DP [vP [vP(14)では、主語 DP が代名詞であることに注目する。動詞句内部の要素は核作用域(大まかには

gehæfd DP PP ] gehende þam temple ]]焦点領域)へ写像されること(cf. Diesing (1992))、
そして、HNPS は転移された要素を焦点化する

DP ]]]こと(cf. Rochemont and Culicover (1990))を踏まえると、旧情報を表す代名詞は焦点となれず、(12b)が示すように、付加詞 gehende þam temple

故に vP/VP 内部に留まることも HNPS を受ける

は vP に右付加していると仮定すると、主語 DPこともできないと考えられる。すると(14)ははそれを越えて右方へ移動することで、この付SpecVP タイプでも HNPS タイプでもない、も加詞に後続する位置でスペルアウトを受ける。

う１つ別のタイプの LIC の存在を示唆し、ここ

当該の DP は、音韻的に長いことを考慮すると、での V2 に基づく派生を支持している。
この 3 節をまとめると、古・中英語の LIC に

この右方移動は、古英語の他の所でも見られる
HNPS と想定するのが妥当であろう。

ついて SpecVP タイプ・HNPS タイプ・SpecTP
タイプという 3 タイプの統語構造を提案した。

59

4. 豊かな一致仮説

タイプでは、主語 DP は定形動詞に常に先行し、(15)に示されるように、古・中英語は比較的

LIC に特徴的な倒置語順を生成できなくなっている。現に、SpecTP のタイプでは代名詞主語が豊かな動詞一致形態素を持っていた。
(15) 古・中英語における比較的豊かな動詞現れることを見たが、そうした事例は(18)の M4

一致形態素期を最後にそれ以降観察されなくなる。

presentpast(18) In Samary deied he

sg

pl

sg

pl

in Samaria died he

1 -e

-en

-de

-den

(CMCAPCHR,34.71: M4)

2 -st

-en

-dst

-den

こうして、SpecTP タイプは 14 世紀から 16 世紀

3 -th

-en

-de

-den

にかけて消失したと結論付けられる。5(cf. Nawata (2009: 269))

16 世紀以降、動詞一致形態素は、さらなる水文献では「豊かな一致仮説」の名の下に、定形平化を受け、17 世紀までに 2 人称一致形態素

動詞の Fin や T への移動を、これらの一致形態-(e)st が消失した(cf. Görlach (1991))。この消失に素と関連付ける一群の先行研究がある。これら

よって、過去時制では人称の区別が無くなる。

の筋に沿って、3 節において、定形動詞は Fin

すると、(19)において Roberts (2007)に従うと、

まで主要部移動すると主張してきた。

T への動詞移動は人称による区別を形態的手掛ところが、これらの一致形態素は後期中英語

かりとしていたため、この形態素の消失と共に
v-to-T 移動は失われることになる。

以降、段階的な水平化を受ける。初めに、複数(19)

一致形態素-en は 14 世紀から 16 世紀にかけて

If (finite) V is marked with person

消失したと言われている(cf. Nawata (2009))。すagreement in all simple tenses, this

ると、(16)に引用されるように、数の一致形態

expresses a positive value for V-to-T

素が T-to-Fin 移動の存在を示す形態的手掛かり

parameter.

(Roberts (2007: 137))であったため、
この形態素の消失と共に T-to-Fin

したがって、後期近代英語以降、定形動詞は v

移動も消失することになる。

のみ移動するようになる。こうして、定形動詞(16) If a language has a distinctive numberの構造位置だけを変えながら、2 節で見たようagreement morpheme, it exhibits the V2

な形で SpecVP タイプ・HNPS タイプの 2 タイ

word order (i.e. T-to-Fin movement).

プが現在まで生き残ってきたのである。

(cf. Nawata (2009: 248))

これまでの議論に基づき、英語史におけるT-to-Fin 移動の消失は定形動詞の位置に関する

LIC 発達の道筋は(20)にまとめられる。

変化であるため、当然、主語と定形動詞の相対(20) 英語史における LIC 発達の道筋

語順にも影響を与える。(17)は T-to-Fin 移動消失

OE

後の 3 タイプにおける主語 DP と定形動詞の構

SpecVP タイプ

造配置を表している。

HNPS タイプ(17) a. SpecVP タイプ

ME

ModE

PE

SpecTP タイプ
14c[TP PP Vf+v+T [vP … DP … ]]b. HNPS タイプ

16c

古・中英語では、SpecVP タイプ・HNPS タイプ・[TP [TP DP Vf+v+T [vP … ]] DP ]SpecTP タイプという 3 タイプの LIC が存在しc. SpecTP タイプた。しかし、14 世紀から 16 世紀にかけて、[TP DP Vf+v+T [vP … ]]T-to-Fin 移動の消失により SpecTP タイプでは倒決定的なことに、他の 2 タイプと違って SpecTP

置語順が派生されなくなったことで、SpecTP60

タイプの LIC は消失した。他方で、残りの 2 タ

Lasnik and Saito (1992)や Mikami (2010)を参照。

イプは、定形動詞の構造位置だけを変えながら、 なお、SpecTP への移動の際、場所句 PP は主語
DP を跨いで移動するが、それらは同じ V の最現在まで存続してきた。

少領域内に存在し、T から等距離(cf. Chomsky
5. 結語(1995))であるため、この移動において局所性違

本論文では、歴史コーパスからの新たな言語

反は生じないと考える。

事実を示しながら、英語史における場所句倒置

3. (5)は Culicover and Levine (2001)によって提案

構文の発達を考察してきた。古・中英語では、された分析を最新の極小主義に合わせ、改良をSpecVP タイプ・HNPS タイプ・SpecTP タイプ

施したものである。彼らの考えに沿って、主語という 3 タイプの LIC が存在したと主張した。

の HNPS は TP 領域における操作であると想定

この分析は、とりわけ動詞後位の主語 DP が示されている。なぜなら、このタイプにおける場

す、他の構成素との語順のバリエーションを正所句 PP は統語的な主語性を欠くことを考慮す

しく捉えることができる。それから、初期近代

ると、主語 DP が T の EPP を満たすために

英語にかけて SpecTP タイプは消失したのに対SpecTP へ移動せざるを得ないからである。

して、SpecVP タイプ・HNPS タイプは現在まで

4. LIC は法助動詞と共起し辛いため(cf. 鈴木

生き残ってきたと論じた。これによって、V2(1986))、古・中英語における PP の主語性につ現象消失後も、なぜ LIC は倒置構文として存在

いては議論の余地がある。このことを考慮し、しているのかは、標準的な V2 タイプに加えて、

古・中英語における SpecVP タイプの LIC につSpecVP タイプ・HNPS タイプが元々存在し、そいては、(i)の腹案を示唆しておく。
(i) [TopP PP [FinP Vf+v+T+Fin [TP tT[EPP] [vP tv [VP

れらが T-to-Fin 移動消失後も、その動詞移動に依存することなく倒置語順を生成できるから

DP [V′ tV PP ]]]]]]であるとして説明された。
* 本論文は日本英語学会第 32 回大会(2014 年11SpecTP は、何物によっても占められていない。

月 8 日、於学習院大学)における口頭発表原稿に他方で、T の EPP 素性は豊かな一致形態素を伴

加筆・修正を施したものである。本研究を進めった定形動詞がT へ主要部移動する際に満たさるにあたって、大室剛志先生、田中智之先生、れる(cf. Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998),

そして柳朋宏先生からは貴重な助言を頂いた。

Tanaka (2002))。この分析の下では、豊かな動詞

ここに記して感謝の意を表する。なお、本論文

一致形態素が失われると、動詞に代わって何か

における誤りや不備は全て筆者の責任による。

が SpecTP へ移動しなければならず、こうして(3)で見たように、場所句 PP が SpecTP を占める

注ようになったのである。

1. 本論文における古・中英語の事例は、The

5. SpecTP タイプが消失したことは、現代英語にYork-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old

おいて代名詞主語を含む LIC が、(直示的な場

English Prose (YCOE)・The Penn-Helsinki Parsed

合を除き)非文であることからも支持される。

CorpusofMiddleEnglish,Second edition(i) *Rosei? Among the guests of honor was
sitting shei/heri.

(PPCME2)から引用されている。

(Bresnan (1994: 86))

2. この分析の１つの利点は、SpecTP からの短距離の話題化を仮定せずに済むことである。短参考文献

距離の話題化が不可能である点については、Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou

61

(1998) “Parameterizing AGR: Word Order,

Construction in English: Topicalization and theV-movement, and EPP-checking,” Natural

Pronunciation of the Lower Copy,” English

Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 491-539.

Linguistics 27, 299-328.

Biberauer, Theresa and Ian Roberts (2010)

Nawata, Hiroyuki (2009) “Clausal Architecture and“Subjects, Tense and Verb -movement,”

Inflectional Paradigm: the Case of V2 in the

Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist

History of English,” English Linguistics 26,

Theory, ed. by Theresa Biberauer, Anders

247-283.

Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan,Pintzuk, Susan and Anthony S. Kroch (1989) “The263-303, Cambridge University Pr ess,

Rightward Movement of Complements andCambridge.

Adjuncts in the Old English of Beowulf,”

Bresnan, Joan W. (1994) “Locative Inversion andLanguage Variation and Change 1, 115-143.

the Architecture of Universal Grammar,”Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left

Language 70, 72-137.

Periphery,” Elements of Grammar: Handbook of

Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program,

Generative Syntax, ed. by Liliane Haegeman,

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

281-337, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” Foundational

Roberts, Ian (1993) Verbs and Diachronic Syntax: A

Issues in Linguistic Theory, 133-166, MIT Press,

Comparative History of English and French,

Cambridge, MA.

Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Coopmans, Peter (1989) “Where Stylistic andRoberts, Ian (2007) Diachronic Syntax, Oxford

Syntactic Processes Meet: Locative Inversion in

University Press, Oxford.

English,” Language 65, 728-751.

Rochemont, Michael S. and Peter W. Culicover

Culicover Peter W. and Robert D. Levine (2001)(1990) English Focus Constructions and the“Stylistic Inversion i n English: A

Theory of Grammar, Cambridge University Press,

Reconsideration,” Natural Language andCambridge.

Linguistic Theory 19, 283-310.

鈴木猛 (1986) 「倒置構文における前置詞句とDiesing, Molly (1992) Indefinites, MIT Press,

分詞」, 『英語教育』第 35 巻, 67-69, 大修館

Cambridge, MA.

書店, 東京.

Görlach, Manfred (1991) Introduction to Early

Tanaka, Tomoyuki (2002) “Synchronic andModern English, Cambridge University Press,

Diachronic Aspects of Overt Subject Raising in

Cambridge.

English,” Lingua 112, 619-646.

Koike, Koji (2013) “Two Types of Locative
Inversion Construction in English,” English

コーパス

Linguistics 30, 568-587.

Kroch, Anthony and Ann Tayler (2000) The

Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1992) Move α:

Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English,

Conditions on Its Application and Output, MIT

Second edition (PPCME2), University ofPress, Cambridge, MA.

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (1995)

Taylor, Ann, Anthory Warner, Susan Pintzuk andUnaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics

Frank Beths (2003) The York-Toronto-Helsinki

Interface, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE),

Mikami, Suguru (2010) “The Locative Inversion

University of York, York.

62

で、2 種類の外置構文の派生を考察し、その派生により 2 節で概観した両者の統語的違いが説明されることを示す。5 節では、結論
仮主語 it を伴う外置構文の派生についてを述べる。

(On the Derivation of Extraposition
Constructions with the Dummy It)

2.

2 種類の外置構文
2 種類の外置構文には、しばしば先行研究

近藤 亮一 (Ryoichi Kondo)

で指摘されているように、3 つの顕著な統語名古屋大学大学院 (Nagoya University)

的違いがある。第一に、Napoli (1988)が指摘しているように、(2a)におけるタイプ A の外キーワード：外置構文, 仮主語 it, 素性共有,

置構文では it が付加詞節の PRO をコントロθ 素性ールすることが可能だが、(2b)におけるタイプ B の外置構文ではそれが不可能である。
(2a, b)のいずれも that 節を含むため、この対

1.

導入

比は it の特性の違いを反映していると考え

本論文では、(1a, b)に見られる仮主語 it とられる。

that 節を伴う外置構文の構造と派生につい(2) a.

Iti’s likely enough that John did itて考察する。

[PROi to convince me that we(1) a.

ought to question him]

It is obvious that the world is round.
[Type A]b.

(Akmajian and Heny (1975: 280))b.

[PROi to upset me]

It seems that Ralph alreadyskimmed the milk.

* Iti seems enough that John died(cf. Napoli (1988: 328-329))[Type B]

第二に、(3)に見られるように、タイプ A の(Napoli (1988: 326))

外置構文では that 節から wh 要素を摘出する(1a)のような外置構文は連結動詞と NP またことはできないが、タイプ B の外置構文では AP で構成される述部を持ち、(1b)のようはそれが可能である。

な外置構文は述部として連結動詞のみを含(3) a.

む。以下では、これら 2 種類の外置構文は* Why did it seem miraculousthat John left? (Stroik (1996: 248))

異なる構造と派生を持ち、前者に現れる itb.

How does it appear he got lost?

は that 節の指定部に併合される指示代名詞(Zaring (1994: 566))

であるのに対して、後者に現れる it は that

第三に、Napoli (1988)が示唆しているように、

節とは独立して主節の TP 指定部に併合され(4a)におけるタイプ A の外置構文は文主語構る虚辞であると主張する。便宜上、(1a)の外文に言い換えられるが、(4b)におけるタイプ

置構文をタイプ A、(1b)の外置構文をタイプ

B の外置構文はそれが不可能である。

B と呼ぶことにする。

(4) a.

本論文は以下のように構成される。2 節で[That the world is round] is
obvious.

は、タイプ A とタイプ B の外置構文に関す(Akmajian and Heny (1975: 280))

る三つの統語的違いを概観する。3 節では、
本論文で採用する理論的枠組みを提示する。
4 節では、3 節で提案した理論的枠組みの下b.

* [That Ralph already skimmed
the milk] seems.
(Napoli (1988: 326))

63

b.
3.

[VP arrived(Thi) Fagan(Thi)]

理論的枠組みSharing

Pesetsky and Torrego (2007)等は Agree を素性の共有であると主張している。本節では、

c.

[TP Fagan(Thi)j T [vP tj arrived(Thi)[VP tV tj]]]

この素性共有の仕組みと素性を用いた θ 理
論を組み合わせた新しい枠組みを提案する。

まず、(7a)において arrived と Fagan が併合

まず、値を持つ素性と値未付与の素性の素性

し、VP を形成する。次に、(7b)において arrived

共有の一例として、(5)のような事例を提示にある Theme (以下、Th)という値を持つ θする。

素性と Fagan にある値未付与の θ 素性 (以下、(5) a.

[α(valued)… [β(unvalued)…]]u-θ 素性)が Agree により値を共有する。この段階で arrived の θ 素性は既に放出されたとb.

Sharing見なされ、その他の項と素性共有することは[α(valuedi)… [β(valuedi)…]]できない。これは、素性に基づく θ 理論にお(5a)において、α にある値を持つ素性が β にいて θ 基準を再定式化したものである。最後ある値未付与の素性と Agree する。その結果、 に、(7c)において Fagan は主節の T の EPP(5b)において、α と β の素性の値が共有され素性を満たすために TP の指定部に移動する。

る（素性共有した素性は同一指標により示さ

ここでは、Sauerland (2003)と Legate (2003)にれる）。このメカニズムでは、最終的に値を従い、非対格構文の vP がフェイズであり、付与されるのであれば、値未付与の素性同士

内項の A 移動が vP 指定部を経由すると仮定

が Agree することも可能とされている。(6a)する。A 移動が非対格構文における vP の指において、β と γ にある値未付与の素性同士定部を経由している証拠として、Sauerland

が Agree により素性を共有する。次に、(6b)(2003)は(8)のような再構築に関する事例をにおいて α が派生に導入されると、その値を提示している。

持つ素性と β の値未付与の素性が Agree し、(8) a.

father [ti to be smart].

その結果 α、β、γ が同じ素性の値を共有する(Sauerland (2003: 310))ことになる。
(6) a.

Every childi doesn’t seem to hisi

[β(unvaluedi)… [γ(unvaluedi)…]]b.

every childi doesn’t [vP ti seem tohis father [TP ti to be smart]]

Sharingb.

(cf. Sauerland (2003: 312))[α(valuedi) … [β(valuedi) …

(8a)のような繰り上げ構文において、主節の主語位置にある数量表現 every child は前置

Sharing

詞句 to his father 内の代名詞 his を束縛し、尚[γ(valuedi)…]]]

且つ否定の作用域内に含まれる解釈が可能

このような素性共有のメカニズムにである。この解釈は LF における再構築によBošković and Takahashi (1998) や Hornsteinり得られると仮定し、Sauerland (2003)は(8b)(1999)等で提案されている素性に基づく θ 理の派生を提案している。(8b)では、every child

論を組み合わせると、非対格構文の派生はは埋め込み節の TP 指定部から vP の付加位(7)のようになる。

置を経由して主節の主語位置に A 移動して

(7) a.

いる。この派生では、vP の付加位置におけ[VP arrived(Th) Fagan(u-θ)]る every child の再構築が可能となり、それが64

代名詞を束縛し、尚且つ否定の作用域内に含いて、2 種類の外置構文の違いに原理的説明

まれる解釈が可能であることが説明される。

を与える。

さらに、Legate (2003)は A′移動もまた非対格構文の vP の付加位置を経由していると主張

4.

している。Legate (2003)によれば、(9a)のよ

4.1.

説明
派生

うな受動態の動詞を含む文において、wh 句

本節では、3 節の仮定に基づき、2 種類のに埋め込まれている代名詞 he と指示表現

外置構文の派生について考察する。Iwakura

Mary はそれぞれ主節の主語 every man と文(2002)では、(11)に示すように、that 節の主要末の前置詞句内の代名詞 her と同一指示を持部 C が EPP 素性を持ち、それを満たすため

つ解釈が可能である。この解釈を得るには、に it が CP 指定部に併合され、その後主節のhe が every man に束縛され、尚且つ束縛条件

TP 指定部に移動すると仮定されている。

C に違反しないように Mary が her に構成素(11) [TP iti is obvious [CP ti [C′ that (EPP) [TP the

統御されない位置に wh 要素全体が再構築さ
world is round]]]]れなければならない。したがって、(9a)は(9b)の構造を持つと分析される。

この仮定に基づくと、タイプ A の外置構文(9) a.

[At which of the parties that heiの派生は(12)のようになる。

invited Maryj to] was every(12) a.

[CP it(u-θi)[C′ [C that(u-θi, EPP)] …]]

mani introduced to herj?
b.

[at which of the parties that hei

Sharingb.

invited Maryj to]k was every mani

[AP obvious(Thi) [CP it(Thi) [C′ [C[vP tk introduced [VP tV to herj tk]]?
(cf. Legate (2003: 507))

Sharingthat(Thi, EPP)]…]]](9b)では、wh 要素が vP の付加位置を経由しc.

て文頭に A′移動している。この派生では、[TP itj T [vP tj [vʹ is [VP tV [AP obvious

wh 要素は vP の付加位置で再構築されること[CP tj [C′ that …]]]]]]]

が可能であり、そこでは he が every man に束

まず、(12a)において CP 指定部に併合された

縛されることができ、尚且つ Mary は her に

it と C が Agree することにより、it と that 節

構成素統御されることはない。したがって、の u-θ 素性が共有される。次に、(12b)にお当該の表現間の同一指示関係が説明される。

いて obvious と it が Agree により θ 素性を共これらの証拠から非対格構文の vP をフェ有し、その結果、that 節もまた同じ θ 素性をイズであるとし、その補部である VP は(10)共有することができる。最後に、(12c)におに示すフェイズ不可侵条件により外部からいて it が主節の T の EPP 素性を満たすためのいかなる操作も受けることはできないとに、vP 指定部を経由して TP 指定部に移動す

仮定する。

る。

(10) The Phase Impenetrability Condition

一方、タイプ B の外置構文の派生は(13)The domain of H is not accessible toのようになる。

operations outside HP; only H and its(13) a.

[VP seems(Thi) [CP [C that(Thi)] …]]edge are accessible to such operations.
(Chomsky (2001: 13))

Sharing

次節では、本節で仮定したメカニズムを用

65

b.

[TP it(u-θ) T [vP seems [VP tV [CP that

この分析は(15)と(16)の文法性の違いにより…]]]]支持される。Napoli (1988)によると、知覚動

まず、(13a)において seems と that 節が併合さ

詞の非定形補部節における主語位置は非指れ、それらが Agree により θ 素性を共有する。 示的な要素によっては占められることはでしかし、(12)の派生とは異なり、that 節の主きない。

要部 C は EPP 素性を持たないため、it が CP

(15) a.

We all watched it become clear that

指定部に併合されることは ない。次に、

he wasn’t going to show up at the(13b)において主節の T の EPP 素性を満たす

church.
b.

ために、TP 指定部に it が直接併合される。

I watched it becoming ever more

フェイズ不可侵条件によると、この段階ではclear that he wasn’t going to show

既にフェイズ主要部の補部である VP はアクup.
(16) a.

セス不可能であるため、it は that 節と Agree* I could actually see it appear that hewas sad.

により θ 素性を共有することはできない。
b.
4.2.

(Napoli (1988: 338))* I couldn’t see it appearing that hewas sad.

帰結(Napoli (1988: 337))

前節で提案された 2 種類の外置構文の派(15)の知覚動詞の補部節には、タイプ A の外生により、2 節で見た両者の振る舞いの違い

置構文が埋め込まれ、(16)では、タイプ B のが原理的に説明されることを示す。第一に、外置構文が埋め込まれている。タイプ A のコントロールに関する違いは、it の位置付け

外置構文における it は指示代名詞としてのの違い、つまり、代名詞か虚辞かということ位置づけを持つので、知覚動詞の補部節におに還元される。タイプ A の外置構文におけける主語位置に生起することができ、タイプ

る it は、that 節と θ 素性を共有できるため、

B の外置構文における it は虚辞としての位置

that 節を指す指示代名詞としての位置付けづけを持つので、そのような位置には生起でを持つことができるが、タイプ B の外置構

きない。

文における it は、u-θ 素性に値付けがなされ第二に、wh 移動に関する違いは、it が併ないため、虚辞としての位置付けを持つこと合される位置の違いにより説明される。(17a)になる。指示内容を持つ要素のみが PRO をに見られるように、タイプ A の外置構文でコントロール可能であるということを考慮

は it が that 節の指定部に併合されるため、すると、(14a)に示すように、指示代名詞とwh 要素はその位置を経由することができず、しての位置づけを持つタイプ A の外置構文

直接主節の vP 指定部に移動することになる。

における it が PRO をコントロール可能であ

しかし、この移動はフェイズ不可侵条件に違り、(14b)に示すように、虚辞としての位置反する。つまり、主節の vP の段階では既にづけを持つタイプ B の外置構文における it

埋め込み節の TP はフェイズ不可侵条件によはそれが不可能であるということが説明さ

りアクセス不可能であるため、そのような移れる。

動は許されない。一方、(17b)に見られるよ(14) a.

b.

[TP itj’s(Thi) T [vP tj likely(Thi)うに、タイプ B の外置構文では it が主節のenough [CP tj [C′ [C that(Thi)] …]]

TP 指定部に併合されるため、そのような問[PROj …]]]

題は生じない。

* [TP itj(u-θ) T [vP seems(Thi) enough[CP [C′ [C that(Thi)] ...]] [PROj …]]]

66

(17) a.

b.

* [CP whyi did [TP itj T [vP ti tj seem

タリア語のような動詞の屈折が豊かな言語

miraculous [CP tj [C′ [C that(EPP)] [TPにおいて、動詞の屈折接辞は代名詞としての…ti]]]]]]

位置づけを持ち、T へ移動することで EPP[CP howi does [TP it T [vP ti appear

素性を満たす。したがって、(20a)のような動[CP ti [C′ C [TP … ti]]]]]]

詞が文頭に生起するギリシャ語の例は、

この分析は通言語的観点から支持される。

(20b)の構造を持つと分析される。

(18)のアイスランド語の外置構文では、仮主(20) a.

diavase ena pedi/kathe pedi

語は随意的であるが、それが生起する(18a)readの事例では埋め込み節からの摘出は不可能

toであり、それが生起しない(18b)の事例ではbook可能である。

‘A/every child read the book’(18) a.

b.

* Maríu erþaðhörmulegt að

Mary

is

it

deplorable thatJón

skuli hafa barið.

a child/every childvivlio.

(Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998: 512))b.

[TP [[V+v diavase]+T(EPP)] [vP ena
pedi/kathe pedi tv [VP tV to vivlio]]]John shall have hit(20b)において、V と v の複合体が T に移動‘It is deplorable that John has hit

することで、T の EPP 素性が満たされる。まMary’ (cf. Thráinsson (1979: 196))

た、(21a, b)に示される接語が義務的であるイ

Maríu erhörmulegt

að Jónタリア語の Fiorentino 方言では、(21c)に示す

Mary

is

deplorable that John

ように、T の EPP 素性は接語の併合により満skulihafa barið.

たされ、文頭の Mario は話題化位置に基底生

shallhave hit

成される。

(cf. Thráinsson (1979: 195))(21) a.

Mario e parla.
‘Mario speaks’

最後に、文主語構文に言い換えられるか否b.

かに関しては、that 節の主要部 C の EPP 素* Mario parla.

(Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998: 528))

性の有無に関係があると主張する。(19)に見c.

られるように、文主語構文において that 節が[CP Mario C [TP [[Cl e]+T(EPP)] [vP
perla [VP tV]]]]

等位接続された場合、動詞は複数の一致を示す。

この提案に基づき、C の EPP 素性は φ 素性(19) [That the president will be reelected] andと格素性を持つ that が C へ併合することに[that he will be impeached] are equallyより満たされると仮定する。(12)と(13)の派

likely at this point.

生で示したように、タイプ A に生じる that

(McClosky (1991: 564))

節の主要部 C は EPP 素性を持つが、タイプ

このため、文主語構文の that 節は φ 素性と格B に生じる that 節の主要部 C は持たない。し素性を完備していると考えられる。ここで、たがって、2 種類の外置構文の文主語構文に

この φ 素性と格素性は that が D として併合

言い換えられるか否かに関する違いは、(22a,することで得られると提案する。Alexiadoub)の対比として説明される。

and Anagnostopoulou (1998)では、名詞的な素(22) a.

[TP [CP [C′ [[D that(φ, case)]+C(EPP)][TP ...]]]i T(EPP) is obvious ti]

性を持つ主要部が併合あるいは移動するこb.

とにより EPP 素性が満たされると提案され* [TP T(EPP) [vP seems [CP [C′ [C that][TP ...]]]]]ている。この提案によると、ギリシャ語やイ67

(22a)において、タイプ A で生じる that 節は

5.

結論

主要部 C に EPP 素性を持つので、それを満

本論文では、タイプ A とタイプ B の外置たすために、φ 素性と格素性を伴う that が要構文の根本的違いは that 節の主要部 C の EPP求される。このため、that 節は主節の T と素性の有無であると主張した。タイプ A のAgree することが可能となり、T の EPP 素性

外置構文は、that 節の主要部 C に EPP 素性を満たすために TP 指定部に移動することがを持つため、it は CP 指定部に併合される。

できる。一方、(22b)において、タイプ B にしたがって、タイプ A の外置構文では、it

生じる that 節の主要部 C は EPP 素性を持たは that 節との θ 素性の共有により指示代名詞

ないので、φ 素性と格素性を持つ that が併合

としての位置づけを持ち、wh 要素の連続循されることはなく、that 節が T と Agree する

環移動を阻止する。さらに、タイプ A の外ことができないため、TP 指定部に移動する

置構文で用いられるような EPP 素性を持つことはできない。この分析が正しければ、外that 節は φ 素性と格素性を持つ that の C への置構文と文主語構文の違いは、C の EPP 素併合を許し、that 節の TP 指定部への移動を性の満たされ方の違いに還元することがで可能にする。これに対し、タイプ B の外置

きる。つまり、外置構文では it の CP 指定部

構文は、that 節の主要部 C に EPP 素性を持への併合により EPP 素性が満たされ、文主たないため、it は主節の TP 指定部に直接併語構文では φ 素性と格素性を持つ that の C合される。したがって、タイプ B の外置構への併合により満たされる。さらに、この分文では、it は that 節と θ 素性を共有せず虚辞

析では、(23a, b)に見られる対比も説明することしての位置づけを持ち、wh 要素の連続循とができる。

環移動を阻止することはない。さらに、タイ(23) a.

[That the teacher was lying] was

プ B の外置構文で用いられるような EPP 素

hardly obvious.

性を持たない that 節は、φ 素性と格素性を持* [The teacher was lying] was hardly

つ that の C への併合を許さず、that 節の TP

obvious.

指定部への移動は不可能である。

b.

(Stowell (1981: 396))(23)では、主語位置にある that 節において
that は義務的であるということを示してい参考文献る。本論文の分析では、(23a, b)の対比は(24)Akmajian, Adrian and Frank Heny (1975) Anのように説明される。

Introduction(24) a.

[TP [CP [C′ [[D that(φ, case)]+C(EPP)]

Transformational Syntax, MIT Press,[TP ...]]]i T(EPP) was hardly

Cambridge, MA.

thePrinciplesofAlexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou

obvious ti]b.

to* [TP T(EPP) was hardly obvious [CP(1998) “Parameterizing AGR: Word

[C′ [C Ø(EPP)] [TP ...]]]]

Order,

V-movement,
Naturaland

EPP

Languageand(24a)では、文主語構文における that 節を T

Checking,”と Agree 可能にする要素は φ 素性と格素性をLinguistic Theory 16, 491-539.

持つ that であるため、それを欠く(24b)は C

Bošković, Źeljko and Daiko Takahashi (1998)の EPP 素性を満たせないだけでなく、(22b)“Scramblingと同じように、T と Agree することができず

Linguistic Inquiry 29, 347-366.

and

Last

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

TP 指定部に移動することはできない。

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by68Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Hornstein, Nobert (1999) “Movement andControl,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69-96.
Iwakura,Kunihiro(2002)“A

Minimalist

Approach to Expletive Constructions inEnglish,”EnglishLinguistics

19,

186-210.
Legate, Julie A. (2003) “Some Interface
Properties of the Phase,” Linguistic
Inquiry 34, 506-516.
McCloskey, James (1991) “There, It, andAgreement,” Linguistic Inquiry 22,563-567.
Napoli, Donna J. (1988) “Subjects and External
Arguments: Clauses and Non-Clauses,”
Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 322-354.
Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego (2007) “The
SyntaxofValuation

and

the

Interpretability of Features,” Phrasal
and Clausal Architecture, ed. by Simin
Karimi, Vida Samiian and Wendy K.
Wilkins, 262-294, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam.
Sauerland, Uli (2003) “Intermediate Adjunction
with A-movement,” Linguistic Inquiry
34, 308-314.
Stowell, Tim (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure,
Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Stroik, Thomas (1996) “Extraposition andExpletive-movement:

A

Minimalist

Account,” Lingua 99, 237-251.
Thráinsson,

Höskuldur(1979)On

Complementation in Icelandic, Garland,
New York.
Zaring, Laurie (1994) “On the Relationshipbetween Subject Pronouns and Clausal
Arguments,” Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 12, 515-569.

69

(3) 本稿での仮定
a. 連体形形成と属格付与は別々の機能範疇の役割である。
b. 節の機能範疇の名詞性はそれがCP 領域のカートグラフィーに基づいた生じる統語環境によって異なる。

主格・属格交替現象の統語論的分析*

以下、まず、第 2 節で先行研究の概略とそ(A Syntactic Analysis of Nominative-Genitiveの問題点を示す。次に、第 3 節では、節の主

Conversion: A View from CP Cartography)

要部要素の種類によってさまざまな統語的振る舞いの差が見られることを示す。第 4 節

小菅智也 (Tomoya Kosuge)

では、第 3 節で観察した事実を説明する。第東北大学大学院 (Tohoku University)

5 節はまとめである。

キーワード：属格主語、連体形、カートグラ

2. 先行研究

フィー、名詞性

本節では、日本語の主格属格交替現象を扱っている先行研究として、Miyagawa (1993)

1. はじめに等による D 分析と、Hiraiwa (2001) 等による

本稿では、日本語の主格属格交替現象を扱

C 分析を概観し、それぞれの問題点を述べる。

う。(1) のように、日本語では主節主語の属

具体的には、両分析共に、節主要部の種類に格標示は許されないが、名詞節内などの特定よって生じる様々な統語的振る舞いの差をの環境下であれば、主語の属格標示が可能ととらえきることができないことを指摘する。

なる。例えば(2) のような関係節内では属格主語が可能である。
(1)

太郎{が/*の}来た。

(2)

太郎{が/の}来る可能性

2.1. D 分析
2.1.1. 主張
Miyagawa (1993) は、主語が主格標示され日本語の主格・属格交替現象は Harada

るか属格標示されるかで、主要名詞との作用(1971) 以降、さまざまに論じられているが、域関係が異なることを観察した。主語が主格

属格主語の認可に関しては、Miyagawa (1993,

標示された(4a) では「可能性」が主語より広2011), Ochi (2001), Maki and Uchibori (2008)

い作用域を持つ読みのみが可能だが、主語が等による D 分析と Watanabe (1996), Hiraiwa

属格標示された(4b) では主語が「可能性」(2001, 2002) 等による C 分析の二つの立場がよりも広い作用域を持つ読みも可能となる。

1

対立している。

(4)

以下では、属格主語を許す節には、その主

a. ルビーかダイヤが高くなる可能が 50%以上だ。

要部要素の種類によってさまざまな統語的i.

振る舞いの差が見られることを示し、その事

ii. *ルビーかダイヤ>可能性

実を、Hiraiwa (2001)等による C 分析を可能性>ルビーかダイヤ

b. ルビーかダイヤの高くなる可能

Cinque (1999) の CP 領域のカートグラフィ

性が 50%以上だ。

ーの観点から修正し、(3) の二点を仮定する

i.

ことで説明する。

ii. ルビーかダイヤ>可能性

可能性>ルビーかダイヤ(Maki and Uchibori (2008: 195))

このことから Miyagawa は、(4a) の主語は補70

文内で主格を与えられている一方、(4b) の

b. 雨の降る(*その)おそれがある

主語は「可能性」よりも構造上高い位置、即(8)

その{時/前/可能性/おそれ}

ち DP 指定部まで移動し、属格を与えられて属格主語が D によって認可されているとすいるとし、(5) のような構造を提案した。

ると、(7) で属格主語を含む節と D の音形具

(5) a.

現である「その」が共起できない理由が説明

DP

できない。
NP
CP
TP

D

2.2. C 分析N
本2.2.1. 主張

C

Hiraiwa は次の(9, 10) のように、名詞を主要部としない節内でも、属格主語が生起可能

太郎が買ったな例が存在することから、D 分析が妥当でな

DP

b.

太郎のi

(9)

NP
CP
TP

いことを示した。

D'D

この辺りは [日{が/の}暮れるにつれて] 冷え込んでくる。
(Hiraiwa (2002: 547))

N本(10) ジョンは [時{が/の}経つとともに]C

メアリのことを忘れていった。(ibid.)
また、Hiraiwa は、(11) に見られるように、

ti 買った(5) の構造から、(4a, b) の解釈の差は次のよ

属格主語が可能な節内では述語の形態が連うに説明できる。(4a) では、主語が TP 内部

体形となることから、主格属格交替現象は、で主格を受け取るため、「可能性」より狭い

C のゼロ接辞が動詞を牽引することで生じ作用域を持つ解釈のみが可能となる。一方、る述語連体形によって引き起こされるとし、(4b) では、主語が属格を受け取るために、(12) の構造を提案した。

LF で DP 指定部まで移動する。主語が元位(11) ジョンの好きな音楽

置で解釈された場合、「可能性」より狭い作

(12)

CP

用域を持つ読みが生じ、DP 指定部で解釈さCaffix [ф]

TP

れた場合、
「可能性」より広い作用域を持つ
T[ф]

vP

読みが生じる。

DP subj [ф]

2.1.2. 問題点

v'

VP

しかし、D 分析には以下の問題が存在する。

v

属格付与

次の(6, 7) では、属格主語を含む節と「その」が共起した場合に、容認性の差が生じる。ち2.2.2. 問題点

なみに、(6, 7) における主要名詞は(8) に示

しかし、C 分析にも次の問題点がある。次す通り、いずれも単独では「その」と共起可の(13)-(14) の例では、述語の形態は連体形

能である。

であり、Hiraiwa の分析では、属格主語が可

(6)
(7)

a. 太郎の来た(その)時能であると予測されるが、実際には不可能で

b. 太郎の来る(その)前ある。

a. 雨の降る(*その)可能性がある71

(13) 海{が/*の}きれいなはずだ。

c. その部屋{が/*の}きれいな(14) 海{が/*の}きれいなのに{はず/よう/つもり}だ。

以上、本節では D 分析、C 分析それぞれのd. その部屋がきれいな(*その)主張を概観し、その問題点を指摘した。具体{はず/よう/つもり}だ。

的には、両分析とも、主要部要素の種類によ(19) 傾向(がある)/こと(がある)って生じる統語的振る舞いの差をとらえき

a. きれいな{はず/よう/つもり}

れないという問題を指摘した。

b. (その){傾向/こと}c. 太郎{が/?*の}来ることがある。

3. 節主要部とその振る舞いの差異

d. 太郎が来る(*その)ことがある。

本節では、さまざまな節主要部が見せる統(20) おかげ/せい

語的振る舞いの差を、より具体的に観察する。

a. 水がきれいな{おかげ/せい}

以下(15)-(23) の(a)-(d) はそれぞれ、(a) 先行

b. (その){おかげ/せい}

する述語が連体形であるか、(b) 主要部要素

c. 太郎{が/??の}来た{おかげで単独と「その」との共起が可能か、 (c) 先行/せいで}、次郎が帰った。

する節内での属格主語の認可が可能か、(d)d. 太郎が来た(*その){おかげで先行する節と主要部要素との間に「その」が/せいで}次郎が帰った。
(21) 可能性/おそれ介 在可能 かを 示して いる 。 (15)-(23) は、(a)-(d) のテストに対し、それぞれ異なる結果

a. 水がきれいな{可能性/おそれ}を示し、主要部要素の名詞性に差があること

b. (その) {可能性/おそれ}が示される。

c. 雨{が/?の}降る{可能性/おそ(15) とともに、につれてれ}がある。
d. 雨が降る(*その){可能性/おそa. (形容動詞でのテストが不可能)

れ}がある。

b. (*その){とともに/につれて}(22) 時間(だ)/季節(だ)c. 日の暮れる{とともに/につれて}

a. 夕焼けがきれいな{時間/季節}

d. 日が暮れる(*その){とともに/につれて}

b. (その){時間/季節}(16) ところ/のc. そろそろバス{が/の}来る時間だ。

a. きれいな{ところ/の}d. そろそろバスが来る(*その)時間だ。

b. (*その){ところ/の}c. 太郎の歩いている{ところ/の}(23) 時d. 太郎が歩いている(*その){ところ

a. 夕日がきれいな時間/の}b. (その)時(17) ので/のに/らc. 太郎{が/の}来る時

a. きれいな{ので/のに/ら}

d. 太郎が来る(その)時

b. (*その){ので/のに/ら}

以上をまとめると、表 1 が得られる。

c. 太郎{が/*の}来る{ので/のに/ら}
d. 太郎が来る(*その){ので/のに/ら}(18) はず/よう/つもり
a. きれいな{はず/よう/つもり}b. (その){はず/よう/つもり}72

(26) 本稿での仮定

表 1：主要名詞の振る舞いの差
d. 節+その+主要部

c. 属格主語

b. その＋主要部

a. 連体形a. 連体形形成と属格付与の役割は(15)とともに/につれて

-

*

√

*

(16)ところ/の

√

*

√

*

(17)ので/のに/ら

√

*

*

*

(18)はず/よう/つもり

√

√

*

*

(19)傾向/こと(がある)

√

√

?*

*

(20)おかげ/せい

√

√

??

*

(21)可能性/おそれ

√

√

?

*

(22)時間(だ)/季節(だ)

√

√

√

*

(23)時

√

√

√

√

別々の機能範疇が担う。
b. 節の機能範疇の名詞性は、それが生じる統語環境によって異なる。
以上を踏まえ、(27) の統語構造を提案する。
NP

(27)
FP

N
時

MoodSpeechActP

F
可能性

ModEpstemicP

MoodSpeechAct[Gen]/[Polite]

TP

ModEpstemicはず

ModRootPT[連体形]

以下、(27) の構造について説明していく。

表 1 が示す通り、節主要部となる要素の種類によって、さまざまな統語的振る舞いの差が4.1. 連体形形成接辞

観察される。

まず、連体形形成の接辞の位置だが、これは ModRoot と ModEpistemic の間、つまり T の

4. 分析

位置に生起すると主張する。
「はず、可能性、

本節では、前節(18), (21), (23) の間で観察時」はこれより構造上高い位置に生じるので、された差に焦点を当て、それらが何故生じるいずれの例においても、先行する述語が連体のかを説明する。本稿では、Hiraiwa (2001) の形である事実が説明できる。

C 分析を、Cinque (1999) の CP 領域の構造を

ModRoot、連体形接辞、ModEpistemic の位置関用いて修正し、さらに(26) の二点を主張す

係は、根源的モーダル、認識的モーダルそれる。

ぞれに先行する述語の形態から確かめるこ(24) 採用する仮定群とが出来る。認識的モーダルに先行する述語

a. Hiraiwa (2001) の C 分析の形態が連体形となることは、既に(13) ((28)

b. Cinque (1999) の CP 領域の階層として再掲)にて観察した。このことから、構造((25))連体形形成接辞が T に生じると主張するこ(25) MoodSpeechAct > MoodEvaluative >とは妥当であると言えるだろう。

MoodEvidential > MoodEpistemic >(28) 海{が/*の}きれいなはずだ。

T(Past) > T(Future) >MoodRoot/ T(Anterior) > AspectPerfect

4.2. 属格付与>AspectProgressive /AspectCompletive >Voice

次に、MoodSpeechAct 位置を見る。本稿では(Cinque (1999: 55))

この位置に、丁寧表現に関わる機能範疇と属格付与の素性を持つ機能範疇が、相補的に生じると主張する。これは、属格主語の分布と73

丁寧表現の分布が相補的であることから確

表 2：属格主語と丁寧表現の分布

かめることが出来る。(29)-(32) のように、a.属格主語b.丁寧表現丁寧表現が可能な節では、属格主語は許され(29)主節*√ない。一方、(33)-(36) のように、属格主語(30)ノデ節*√

が可能な節では丁寧表現は許されない。

(31)ノニ節*√(29) 主節(32)ラ節*√a. 太郎{が/*の}来た。

(33)関係節√*

b. 太郎が来ました。

(34)コト節√*(35)ニツレテ節√*(36)マデ節√*(30) ノデ節
a. [太郎{が/*の}来たので]、出発しよう。
b. [太郎が来ましたので]、出発しま

4.3. はず・のにしょう。

さて、ここで、先行する述語は連体形であ(31) ノニ節

るが、属格主語を許さない「はず」、「のに」a. 太郎は[先生{が/*の}来たのについて考える。(37) では、単文内で、下に]、挨拶をしなかった。

線部の二か所に連体形接辞が生じているが、b. 太郎は[先生が来ましたのに]、挨

属格主語は不可能である。

拶をしませんでした。

(37) 海{が/*の}きれいなはずなのに 2, 3(32) ラ節

本稿では、連体形形成と属格付与は別々の機a. [太郎{が/*の}来たら]、出発し能範疇によって行われているとしているのよう。

で、それらが連動しない場合があると正しく

b. [太郎が来ましたら]、出発しまし予測する。しかし、(37) で属格主語が許さょう。

れないのは何故かという疑問が残る。ここで(33) 関係節は、丁寧表現との相補性の観点からの説明を

a. 太郎{が/の}買った本行う。 (38) で示す通り((31) も参照)、ノニ

b. *太郎が買いました本

節では、丁寧表現が可能である。

(34) コト節(38) 海がきれいなはずですのにa. 太郎は[次郎{が/の}したこと]

本稿では、この種の節では、「です・ます」

を知っている。

の形態具現の有無に関わらず、MoodSpeechActb. *太郎は[次郎がしましたこと]を知に、丁寧表現形成の機能範疇が生起し、属格っている。

付与の機能範疇は生じないと考える。つまり、(35) ニツレテ節

ノニ節 では、MoodSpeechAct を[Polite] が占め

a. [日{が/の}暮れるにつれて]人るため、属格主語が不可となる。次に「はず」が増えてきた。

だが、(39) に示す通り、これに先行する述

b. *[日が暮れますにつれて]人が増え

語を丁寧形にすることは許されず、属格主語てきた。

との相補性が成立していないように見える。

(36) マデ節(39)*太郎が来ますはずだ。

a. [太郎{が/の}来るまで]待とう。

しかし、(39) の非文法性は、MoodSpeechAct >b.*[太郎が来ますまで]待ちましょう。

ModEpistemic の階層関係から生じると考えら以上をまとめると、表 2 が得られる。

74

れる。実際、この階層関係を反映した(40) の本発表では、(47)の FP と MoodSpeechActP はい

語順は正文となる。

ずれも CP 領域の機能範疇であると考える。

(40) 太郎が来るはずです。

(45) の語順を導くには、「可能性」を元位置

つまり、「はず」の場合も、MoodSpeechAct をに残し、FP 内部から MoodSpeechActP を移動さ

[Polite] が占めているため、属格が不可能とせる必要がある。この移動は、CP 内から他4なる。 ちなみに、(41) に示す通り、関係節の CP を動かすものであり、AOA 違反が生じ、等も、主要名詞に後接する形であれば、丁寧

結果、(45) は非文となる。一方、(46) の語

表現と共起可能である。

順は、「時」を元位置に残し、FP を移動させ(41) それは太郎が買った本です。

ることで生じる。この場合、FP の上には、C(40) は(41) が正文となるのと同じ理由で許相当の機能範疇は投射しておらず、AOA 違

されているとも考えられるが、両者には(42)

反は生じない。

に示す構造の違いがあると仮定しておく。

DP

(47)

(42) a. [CP 太郎が来るはずです]b. [CP それは[NP[CP 太郎が買った]本]

その

です]

NP

(42a) の「です」は「はず」と同じ節内に生FP

じるが、(42b) の「です」は関係節内には生N
時×
MoodSpeechAct P

じない。

D

F
可能性

4.4. 可能性/時

以上、本節では、Hiraiwa (2001) の C 分析

最後に「可能性」タイプと「時」タイプにを Cinque (1999) の CP 領域のカートグラフ

つ い て 見 る 。 本 稿 で は 、「 可 能 性 」 は 、ィーの観点から修正し、(i) 属格付与と連体

MoodSpeechActP の上に生じる C 相当の機能範形形成が別々の機能範疇によって担われる

疇(ここでは仮に FP としておく)の主要部に、べきだということ、(ii) 節主要部は、その名「時」はさらに上の NP の主要部として生じ詞性に応じて生起位置が異なることを主張

5

ると主張する。 両者は属格付与の機能範疇

し、第 3 節で観察した、節主要部のタイプごを内包する位置に生じるので、(21c), (23c)とに見られるさまざまな統語的振る舞いの((43)-(44) として再掲) において、属格主語差を説明した。

が許される理由が説明できる。
5. まとめ(43) 雨{が/?の}降る{可能性/おそれ}

本稿では、主格・属格交替現象について論がある。

じてきた。ここでは、Hiraiwa (2001) らの C

(44) 太郎{が/の}来る時
しかし、(21d), (23d) ((45)-(46) として再掲)

分析を、Cinque (1999) の CP 領域の構造にで観察した通り、両者には、主要部と先行す

基づき修正し、述語連体形形成の接辞と属格る節の間に「その」が介在できるかどうかで付与の機能範疇を区別すべきであることを差がある。本稿では、この差を、A-over-A

論じた。また、連体修飾節を伴う名詞は、そprinciple (AOA)によって説明する。

の動詞性に応じて、生起位置が異なることを(45) 雨が降る(*その){可能性/おそれ}

みた。

がある。
(46) 太郎が来る(その)時75

Hiraiwa, Ken (2001) “On Nominative-Genitive

注*本稿は、第 32 回日本英語学会において口頭

Conversion,” MIT Working Papers in

発表した内容に加筆、修正を加えたものであLinguistics 39: A Few from Building E39:

る。本稿の執筆に当たり、貴重なご意見を頂

Papers in Syntax, Semantics, and Their

いた小川芳樹先生、菊地朗先生、長野明子先Interface, ed. by E. Guerzoni and O.

生、また、発表時に貴重なご意見、ご質問をMatushansky, 66-125.

頂いた藏藤健雄先生、松本マスミ先生、西山Hiraiwa, Ken (2002) “Nominative-Genitive

國雄先生、には、この場を借りて心からの謝Conversion Revisited,” Japanese/Korean

意を表したい。言うまでもなく、本論文中のLinguistics 10, 545-558.

不備は全て筆者の責任によるものである。

Hiraiwa, Ken and Shinichiro Ishihara (2002),

1. この他に、主語の格標示は、それが生じ“Missing Links: Cleft, Sluicing, and ‘no da’る環境が、[+Tense] の領域内であるか

construction in Japanese,” MIT Working[-Tense] の領域内であるかで決定するとす

Papers in Linguistics 43, ed. by Tania Ioniin,

る、Kobayasi (2012) 等がある。

Heejeong Ko, and Andrew Nevins, 35-54.

2. この例は、コピュラ/連体形接辞の生起位

Kobayashi,

Yukiko(2012)“Anti-Licensing

置が単文内に少なくとも二か所存在するこTheory of Unmarked Case and Ga/Noとを示唆する。実際、Hiraiwa and Ishihara

Conversion,” Online Proceedings of GLOW

(2002) に従えば、複数のコピュラが含まれin Asia IX.

ると考えられる(i) も単文と分析される。

Maki, Hideki and Asako Uchibori (2008)“Ga/No(i) 一番静かなのは、太郎だ。

Conversion,”The

Oxford3. 本稿では、主格の認可も、CP 領域の機能

Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, ed. by

範疇によって行われると考えるが、具体的にShigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito,

どの要素が主格の認可を担うのかについて

192-216, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (1993) “Case Checking andは、残された問題とする。
4. 「はず」の場合でも、(i) のように、「の」Minimal Link Condition,” MIT Working

を伴い埋め込まれると、属格主語を許す。

Papers in Linguistics: Papers on Case and(i) 太郎の買うはずの本

Agreement 2, 213-254.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (2011) “Genitive Subjects in[Polite]/[Gen]の選択が最終的にどのように決定されるかについては、残された問題とする。

Altaic and Specification of Phase,” Lingua

5. 「可能性」は蓋然性を表す要素であるの

121, 1265-1282.
Ochi, Masao (2001) “Move F and Ga/No

で、本稿では、FP もモダリティーの一種であると考える。

Conversion in Japanese,” Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 10, 247-286.
Ross, John Robert (1973) “Nouniness,” Three

参考文献
Cinque,Guglielmo(1999)

Adverbs

Dimensions of Linguistic Theory, ed. by

andOsamu Fujimura, 137-257, TEC, Tokyo.

Functional Heads, Oxford University Press,

Watanabe, Akira (1996) “Nominative-Genitive

New York.
Harada, Shin-Ichi (1971) “Ga-No Conversion

Conversion and Agreement in Japanese: A

and Ideolectal Variations in Japanese,”

Cross Linguistic Perspective,” Journal of

Gengo Kenkyu 60, 25-38.

East Asian Linguistics 5, 373-410.

76

Rooryck (2000: 74-75) and Landau (2000: 5):(3) Kimi proposed to Sandyj [PROi/j/i+j to do
the dishes].
(4) The chairi preferred [PROi+ to gather at 6].
Controller Restrictions and Embedded Force*

Example (3) illustrates control shift allowing
subject, object, and split control: PRO can refer

Asako Matsuda

to Kim, Sandy, or both. Example (4) exhibits

Ochanomizu University

partial control: the chair constitutes only asubset of the reference set of PRO.

Keywords: control shift, split control, partial

The question arises as to whether complement

control, force, semantic selection

control necessarily involves obligatory control.
The answer to this is not simple since even incases like (3) and (4), controller choice is not

1. Introduction
Generativecompletely arbitrary. As for (3), a possible
linguists

have

often

vieweddiscourse topic, say David, cannot control PRO.

complement control exemplified in (1) and (2)In (4), a reading in which the chair is not part of

below to involve obligatory control (Williams

the reference set of PRO is impossible. Neither(1980), Borer (1989), and Hornstein (1999)

allows a generic controller.

among others), although the terminology and thespecific

definition

somewhatvary

It seems that the reference of PRO is often

among“neitherarbitrary

nor

fully

deterministic”

linguists.

(Landau (2000: 1)). It is not uniquely determined;(1)

Johni promised Maryj PROi to leave.

possible interpretations of PRO are just restricted(2)

Johni persuaded Maryj PROj to leave.

in a certain manner. The challenge we are faced

Roughly put, they have coindexed PRO (or, pro orwith is to capture the right level of restrictions on

trace) with one of the matrix DPs, illustrating thatthe interpretation of PRO under minimalist

PRO has a uniquely determined local controller.

assumptions.

variousThis paper presents Japanese complement

exceptions have been noted repeatedly. A

control data, in which embedded clauses show

well-known

non-obligatory

overt force morphology. Remarkably, as I willinterrogative complement control for which aargue, force turns out to be a key player,

At

the

same

time,

exception

however,is1

generic controller is an option. In addition, theimposing interpretative restrictions on PRO. I dofact that even non-interrogative complement

not treat the instances of split control, control

control does not quite meet the obligatory

shift, and partial control as exceptions, but rather

control criteria has been pointed out since theview them as a window to the core mechanism

very early stage of the study. Rosenbaum (1967)

ofobserved control shift and Jackendoff (1972)

accommodates both the typical “obligatory”

split control. Wilkinson (1971) touched oncomplement control cases and those withpartial control, although this did not draw

somewhatlinguists’consequences of a single mechanism.

attention

until

Landau(2000).

Consider the following examples taken from77

complement

different

control.

Mybehaviors

proposalasnaturalcomplement in (5) appears with the particle -tai,

2. Japanese Data
Consider the Japanese complement control

which represents the optative (Opt) force.

data below. As suggested by Fujii (2006), each

Likewise, the intentive (Int) particle -(y)oocomplement clause occurs with a distinct

occurs in (6); the imperative (Imp) particle -e/-ropostverbal particle.

in (7); the promissive (Prm) particle -(r)u in (8);(5) Taroi-wa[PROidaigaku-e

and the exhortative (Exh) particle -(y)oo in (9).

Taro-Top[

university-to

The intentive and the exhortative particles haveiki-tai-to]

negat-ta.

identical phonological forms, but I distinguishgo-Opt-Cto] hope-Past

them as two different particles. The particle -(r)u‘Taro hoped to go to university.’

is standardly analyzed as a nonpast tense particle.

(Subject Control)

Nevertheless, I argue that it also bears a(6) Taroi-wa[PROidaigaku-e

promissive force in certain contexts (seeTaro-Top[

university-to

Matsuda (to appear)).

ik-oo-to]kuwadate-ta.

I find that each sentence shown above, itself ago-Int-Cto]attempt-Past

declarative (Decl), has an embedded clause‘Taro attempted to go to university.’

inside it with an independent force. The left

(Subject Control)

column in Table 1 lists the combinations ofmatrix and embedded forces for sentences (5) to(7) Hanakoi-wa Taroj-ni [PROj(9).

Hanako-Top Taro-Dat [daigaku-e

ik-e-to]university-to go-Imp-Cto]meireisi-ta.

Table 1. Force and Control Patternorder-Past(5)’ [Decl hope [Opt]](6)’ [Decl attempt [Int]](7)’ [Decl order [Imp]](8)’ [Decl promise [Prm]]

yakusokusi-ta.

=> subject control=> subject control=> object control=> subject control
across object(9)’ [Decl propose [Exh]] => split control
Moreover, I find some correlation between

promise-Past

the embedded force and the control pattern: an‘Hanako ordered Taro to go to university.’(Object Control)(8) Hanakoi-wa Taroj-ni [PROiHanako-Top Taro-Dat [daigaku-e

ik-u-to]university-to go-Prm-Cto]‘Hanakopromised

Taro

to

go

to

optative, intentive, or promissive complement

university.’

gives rise to subject control; an imperative(Subject Control across Object)complement brings about object control; and an(9) Hanakoi-wa Taroj-ni [PROi+j

exhortative complement, split control. The right

Hanako-Top Taro-Dat [hand column in Table 1 summarizes thisdaigaku-e

ik-oo-to]university-to go-Exh-Cto]teiansi-ta.

observation.

propose-Past

Although controlled clauses in English do not‘Hanako proposed to Taro to go to

exhibit overt force morphology, I hold that

university (together).’similar forces covertly exist in them, and in the(Split Control)counterparts of many other languages.

I argue that controlled complements have theirown specific force and that it is overtly
expressedinJapanese.

For

instance,

3. Force and Person Restrictions

thePortner (2004) associates the clausal force

78

with

personrestrictions

on

the

inherent in the speaker and the addressee person

subject.

Employing the notion of the To-Do List, heindexicals.

proposesof

speaker/addressee indexicals do not always referimperatives is to add a property to the To-Do

to multiple speakers or addressees; they refer to

List of the addressee. Similarly, the promissivea group of people in which the speaker or theforce adds a property to the speaker’s To-Do

addressee is included. Consider Table 3, adapted

List, and the exhortative force to the To-Do List

from Wechsler (2010: 335).

of both the speaker and the addressee. Zanuttini,

Table 3. Possible Meta-persons and Attested

Pak, and Portner (2012) analyze Korean data inaddressee(s); and an exhortative subject refers to

Pronoun Types
Possible
Attested
1+2
A. Inclusive first (+SP, +AD)
1+2+3
1
B. Exclusive first (+SP, -AD)
1+3
2
C. Second (-SP, +AD)
2+3
3
D. Third (-SP, -AD)In the left column, ‘1’ stands for the speaker,

both the speaker(s) and the addressee(s).

‘2’ the addressee, and ‘3’ any non-participant in

that

the

discourse

function

which these forces are overtly realized, andconclude that an imperative subject always
refers to the addressee(s) of the utterance. This
holds true even with a null or a proper namesubject. In like manner, a promissive subjectrefers to the speaker(s) exclusive of theI adopt their conclusion and extend it toThe

plural

forms

of

the

the speech act; this column lists the seven

optative and intentive subjects. Each force

logically

possible

imposes person restrictions in its own way as

However,

accordingtosummarized in Table 2.

languages

seem

make

Table 2. Subject Restrictions by Force
Force
Restrictions
optative（+SP, -AD）
SP=speakerintentive（+SP, -AD）
AD=addressee
imperative（-SP, +AD）‘+’=inclusive
promissive （+SP, -AD）‘-’=exclusive
exhortative （+SP, +AD）

distinctions, A to D, at maximum as shown inin boldface) or requires the inclusion of them. I

Japanese is just like Korean regarding theassume that the person features relevant to theinterpretation of imperative, promissive, andembeddedexhortative subjects. Moreover, distribution of

constructions have an inherent associative nature.

the Japanese optative and intentive particles

I will come back to this notion later to accountreveals that they can only occur with the speaker

for partial control.

combinations
to

of

them.

Wechsler(2010),

only

four-way

the right column. Most notably, none of thecategories A, B, and C, which correspond to theperson features I adopt in this study, prohibits
the inclusion of the third non-participants (i.e. ‘3’forcesincomplement

control

subject as discussed in Matsuda (to appear).
5. Semantic Selection

It appears that these clausal forces restrict

I observe a particular relation between thesubject interpretations.

matrix predicate and the embedded force inJapanese

4. Associative Semantics

complement

control

data:

the

This section discusses the nature of thepredicates such as negau ‘hope’ and nozomu

speaker/addressee features. Wechsler (2010)‘wish’ appear with an optative complement;

holds that the notion of associative semantics is

kuwadateru ‘attempt’ and kimeru ‘decide’79

yakusokusuru

merged does PRO get them valued through C to‘promise’ and tikau ‘vow’ with a promissive;

T inheritance and T-PRO Agree. In this Agreemeireisuru ‘order’ and sijisuru ‘instruct’ with anrelation, T begins with uninterpretable but

imperative; and teiansuru ‘propose’ and sasou

valued person features, which will value the‘ask out’ with an exhortative.

person features on PRO; these features become

cooccurwithanintentive;

interpretable on PRO by Agree. This ensures the

I argue that the notion of semantic selection

restrictive interpretation of PRO.

(s-selection) introduced in Grimshaw (1979)
captures this relation. Grimshaw posits that the

Crucially, in my proposal, there is no

predicates such as wonder select interrogatives

coindexation or direct syntactic relationshipwhile those like amazing select exclamatives.

between the matrix DP and PRO. Their referents

Some predicates select both semantic types (e.g.

may just happen to be identical as in the cases ofknow) or neither (e.g. think). They do not have to(1) and (2), but they need not be. All that is

be a biunique relation. Likewise, I maintain thatassumed between the matrix and the embedded

the control predicates such as order and promiseclauses is a selectional relationship between theselect an imperative and a promissive respectively.

predicate and the embedded force.

In English, these embedded forces are not overtly

Note that the embedded clause has its own

manifested, but they are in Japanese. The

force and its own person features on C

Japanese predicate teiansuru ‘propose’ and its

independently

Englishthepredicate does not assign the embedded force by

predicates selecting multiple forces, giving rise to

selection. If a control predicate, say promise,

control shift as I will discuss later.

occurs with a declarative that-clause as in (11)counterpart

proposerepresent

below,

the

of

the

matrixembeddedclauseclause.

remainsTheadeclarative; the sentence is grammatical since

6. Proposal

promise also selects a declarative clause.

I propose that the derivation of complement(11) John promised Bill that he would leave.

control proceeds as follows:(Borer (1989: 73))(10)inheritS-Selection

Consequently, the interpretation of the embedded

DP Pred (DP)[CP Cforce(±SP, ±AD) [TP T(±SP, ±AD) [vP

subject in (11) is not restricted. As mentioned in

PRO(±SP, ±AD)…]]].

Borer (1989), he in (11) can refer to John, Bill, or
neither. Similarly, person restrictions are not

Agree

The first two DPs represent the matrix subject

imposed on a nominal complement. In (12) below,

and object. The bracketed CP represents thethe pronoun his can refer to John or any otherembedded clause, in which T and PRO share theperson. Even her can appear in the same position.

same person features by Agree (Chomsky (2000,(12) John promised his/her return.

2001)). The person features on T are inherited

The matrix and the embedded clauses in afrom C (Chomsky (2008)), which represents thecomplement control construction are on a parembedded force. Note that the person featureswith each other with respect to their force. If theare specified as (±SP, ±AD), depending on theembedded force meets the matrix predicate’s

force type. PRO merges at spec vP with its

selectional

person features unvalued. Only after C isgrammaticality; if not ungrammaticality. In the80

requirement,

it

leads

to

sentence, I ate an apple, the predicate eat does

the speaker is Kim and the addressee Sandy;

not make an apple an edible object; an apple is

PRO refers to both Kim and Sandy.
Case (13) repeats (3). Thus, it is three-way

edible by its very nature. The same thing holds

ambiguous. When the embedded force isfor controlled complements.

promissive, the associated feature is (+SP, -AD),This boils down to saying that, at least inaregiving rise to subject control, while ansubject to person restrictions in the way I

imperative complement with (-SP, +AD) brings

propose here, while tensed declarative (orabout object control. Ambiguity arises because

subjunctive) that-clauses and nominals are notpropose s-selects at least these three force types:

because they lack the relevant forces discussed

exhortative, promissive, and imperative. Thisin this paper.

explains how one type of control shift is brought

English,only

infinitival

complements

about.
7. Split Control, Control Shift, and Partial Control

There is another type of control shift with beThis section illustrates that my system isallowed to complements. I contend that this typetolerant enough to allow split and partial control

resorts to the pragmatic process coercion as

and control shift, but stringent enough to rulementioned in the literature by, for example,

out unwanted interpretations of PRO. Let us firstJackendoff and Culicover (2003). Consider (14):consider split control case (3), repeated here as(14) Kim promised Sandy [PRO to be allowed
to leave].

(13):

Here, Sandy, the object, is often understood to(13) Kim proposed to Sandy [CP CExh(+SP, +AD)

be the referent of PRO despite the fact that

PRO(+SP, +AD) to do the dishes].
I assume that the embedded clause is exhortative,

promise normally manifests subject control. I

meeting the selectional requirement of theassume that such a shift arises from a selectional

predicate propose. The embedded C represents

mismatch between the matrix predicate and thethe exhortative force with the associated person

embeddedfeatures, (+SP, +AD). Through the process I

promissives, and exhortatives (but not optatives)proposed, PRO ends up with the same person

only denote intentional actions. In (14), however,features.

the embedded clause denotes a nonintentional

force.

Intentives,

imperatives,

One caveat: the speaker/addressee notion I

situation; it could not possibly be a promissive,

adopt here is different from the standard notions

but promise s-selects a promissive. This leads toof the first- and the second-person pronouns. It

ungrammaticality for some speakers of English,

requires a shifted interpretation as discussed in

but for some others, this triggers coercion to

Delfitto and Fiorin (2011). While the referents

shift the controller. My proposal does not predictof the pronouns I and you are fixed to the

how the controller is determined under coercion,

speaker and the addressee of the speech time

but it at least predicts the trigger of coercion.

context,

thespecific

referentof

Now consider the instance of partial control

thespeaker/addressee feature is determined relative(15), repeating (4).

to the event context of the immediately higher(15) The chair preferred [CP COpt(+SP, -AD)clause. In (13), the matrix event is that of Kim

PRO(+SP, -AD) to gather at 6].

proposing something to Sandy. In such a context,

The speaker of the matrix context, the referent of81

the chair, is not identical with that of PRO. The

complement clause ends up as two separate DPs

chair only constitutes part of PRO. This fact

or as a singular DP in the matrix clause. The

falls

of

Agree theory allows partial control throughassociative semantics (section 4). The embedded

C-mediated Agree, but it does not explain which

force in (15) is optative with the feature (+SP,matrix argument partially controls PRO, nor-AD). This feature does not require or prohibit

does it account for split control or control shift.

the inclusion of other people who are neither the

In fact, the Agree theory and my proposal share

speaker nor the addressee. In (15), the embedded

the view that the person features on C play an

predicate gather requires a collective or plural

important role in control, a view that dates backsubject, bringing about a partial reading: PRO

to Borer (1989). However, my proposal cruciallyrefers to the chair plus some other people.

differs from the Agree theory in that theout naturallyasaconsequence

My proposal also accounts for canonicalembedded C does not receive its person features

obligatory complement control. Example (1) canfrom the matrix argument by Agree; I assume

be represented as follows:that the person features originate in the(16) John promised Mary [CP CPrm(+SP, -AD)embedded C as a representation of the clausal
force. Although my proposal is greatly inspired

PRO(+SP, -AD) to leave].
The embedded force is promissive. PRO has theby Landau’s observation that partial control isfeature (+SP, -AD), which could refer to thepervasive, our accounts are quite different.

speaker only (i.e. the referent of John), or the
9. Conclusion

speaker plus some others (i.e. the referent ofJohn plus others). Thus, the obligatory readingThis study introduced a new, force-based

remains a possibility under my proposal.

approach to complement control. Crucially, it

Furthermore, my proposal correctly predicts thatmeets the spirit of minimalism: it employs no

it is just an option. If the context is properly

device that is construction-specific; the Phase

fixed, it is possible to interpret PRO to refer to

Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky (2001)) isJohn and, say, his family. This precisely

fully respected. My proposal focuses on thecaptures the pervasiveness of partial control asembeddedpointed out by Landau (2000).

constructions and their person restrictions on theforcesincomplement

control

subject. It gives a whole new look to thephenomena by capturing just the right level of

8. Theoretical Consequences
The most prominent syntactic approaches tointerpretative restrictions on PRO in infinitival

control, i.e. the movement theory (Hornstein

complements. I believe it serves as an important(1999)) and the Agree theory (Landau (2000)),

clue in understanding the phenomena.

do not provide a systematic account for
Notes

complement control, which often exhibits looser
restrictions than was once assumed. Split control*

and partial control are unexplainable under the

32nd conference of the English Linguistic

movement

complicatedSociety of Japan held at Gakushuin University

stipulations and devices. It is hard to think of ain Tokyo on November 8, 2014. I am grateful to

movement process in which a plural DP in thethe audience there for their insightful questions

theorywithout

82

A major part of this study was presented at theJackendoff, Ray and Peter W. Culicover (2003)

to which this paper attempts to offer a brief andpartial answer.

“The Semantic Basis of Control in English,”1

Language 79, 517-556.

Interrogative complement control is outside theLandau, Idan (2000) Elements of Control:

scope of this paper.

StructureandMeaningin

Infinitival

Constructions, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

References
Borer, Hagit (1989) “Anaphoric Agr,” The Null

Matsuda, Asako (to appear) “Complement

Subject Parameter, ed. by Osvaldo Jaeggli

Control without a DP Controller,” Journal ofand Kenneth J. Safir, 69-109, Kluwer,

the Ochanomizu University English Society 5

Dordrecht.

[online].
Portner,

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

Paul(2004)“The

Semanticsof

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

Imperatives within a Theory of Clause

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

Types,” Proceedings of SALT 14, 235–252.
Rooryck,

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels,

Johan(2000)

ConfigurationsofJuan Uriagereka, and Samuel J. Keyser,

Sentential Complementation: Perspectives

89-155, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

fromRomance

Languages,

Routledge,

London.

Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”
Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. byRosenbaum, Peter S. (1967) The Grammar ofMichael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

English Predicate Complement Constructions,Cambridge, MA.

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Phases,”Wechsler, Stephen (2010) “What 'You' and 'I'

Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:

Mean to Each Other: Person Indexicals,

Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed.

Self-Ascription, andby Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, andLanguage 86, 332-365.

Chomsky,Noam(2008)“Onof Mind,”Wilkinson, Robert (1971) “Complement Subject

Maria L. Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT Press,

Deletion and Subset Relations,” Linguistic

Cambridge, MA.

Inquiry 2, 575-584.

Delfitto, Denis and Gaetano Fiorin (2011)“Person

TheoryFeaturesandWilliams, Edwin (1980) “Predication,” Linguistic

Pronominal

Inquiry 11, 203-238.

Anaphora,” Linguistic Inquiry 42, 193-224.
Fujii, Tomohiro (2006) Some Theoretical Issues

Zanuttini, Raffaella, Miok Pak, and Paul Portner

in Japanese Control, Doctoral dissertation,(2012) “A Syntactic Analysis of Interpretive

University of Maryland.

Restrictions on Imperative, Promissive, andExhortative Subjects,” Natural Language &Grimshaw, Jane (1979) “Complement Selection

Linguistic Theory 30, 1231-1274.

and the Lexicon,” Linguistic Inquiry 10,279-326.
Hornstein, Norbert (1999) “Movement andControl,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69-96.
Jackendoff, Ray (1972) Semantic InterpretationinGenerative

Grammar,MIT

Press,

Cambridge, MA.

83

(2) では、目的語位置に感情の経験者である「人」が生起し、前置詞 into 句に感情を表す名詞句が生起する。(2) の例において感情を表す名詞
使役移動構文と結果構文におけるの生起する位置をみると、into 句の目的語とな

心理的変化を表す用法の意味的特性っており、ある状態の結果を表す表現としても(A Comparative Look at the Semantic Features

見なすことができる。つまり、(2) での into 句of Psychological Caused-Motion and Resultative

は、結果構文における結果句としても捉えられConstructions)

ると考えられる。本稿では、(2) のタイプを構
文 Ⅱ と呼ぶことにする。1

中尾朋子 (Tomoko Nakao)	  (1) と (2) をみると、どちらの構文タイプも

大阪大学大学院 (Osaka University)

感情語が生起し、生起する動詞は文字通りの物
理的な行為を表さず、表現全体として「人をあキーワード：構文文法, 感情を表す名詞,

る心理状態にさせる」という心理動詞的な意味を表すという点が共通している。これらの 2 つ

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  構文の意味的特性の構文タイプは、共通する部分は認められるが、それぞれに生起する感情語の意味的な特性、ま1. はじめにた構文としての特性は、どのように異なってい	  感情を表す名詞が生起する、[ V NP1 into

るのかという疑問が生じる。

NP2 ]という形式をとる表現には、意味的に類似	  本稿では、このような疑問に対して、構文文する 2 種類のタイプがある。

法 (Construction Grammar) の観点より構文Ⅰと	  一つ目は、感情を表す名詞を目的語にとり、構文Ⅱに生起する感情語の特性を考察し、それ

into 句にその感情の経験者である「人」やぞれの意味的な特性を捉えることを目的とす「人の心」等が生起するタイプである。たとえる。構文Ⅰと構文Ⅱにおける、それぞれの関連

ば、 (1) のように、感情の抽象的な移動を表し、する構文の一般的な意味特性と比較すること「人をある感情の状態にさせる」という意味をで、2 種類の構文タイプの特性を捉えられるこ表す。

とを指摘する。また、これらの構文タイプの考(1) a. The news struck fear into the hearts of his

察を基に、構文Ⅰと構文Ⅱは、個別の語が特定

enemies.

される具体的なレベルでの構文として捉えら(1) b. The teacher instilled confidence into his

れることを示唆する。

students.
また、(1) は、感情を表す名詞を目的語にとる

2. 先行研究と枠組み「使役移動構文」とみなすことできる。本稿で	  構文 Ⅰ と構文 Ⅱ は、それぞれ物理的な移動は、(1)のような事例を構文Ⅰと呼ぶことにする。

を表す表現に感情を表す名詞が生起すること	  二つ目は、構文Ⅰと形式は同様であるが、感から、メタファー的に心理状態の変化を表して情を表す名詞が into 句に生起する構文タイプでいる。そこで、本稿対象の 2 構文に関連するメある。たとえば、 (2) のように、経験者を示す

タファーについての先行研究を確認しておく。

目的語が into 句に生起する感情を表す名詞の次に、本稿の枠組みである構文文法のアプロー

示す状態になるという意味を表す。

チを概観する。さらに、事例パターンとスキー(2) a. The question threw Mary into a panic.

マ性の高い構文レベルを捉えるため、語彙の詳

bbbbb. His words sent his wife into a frenzy.

細な意味を重視する構文文法の立場を概観し、

84

2.2 構文文法の観点参考とする。

	  本稿の枠組みである構文文法での関連する
2.1 メタファーの観点

先行研究を概観する。

	  Lakoff (1990) では、構文 Ⅱ にあたる事例を	  まず、Goldberg (1995) で提案された構文文法

取り上げて、メタファーの観点から一つの分析の分析では、さまざまな構文に見られるメタフを与えている。(3) に見られるように、本研究

ァーの動機付けを積極的に採用する。具体的なにおける構文 Ⅱ は、CAUSES ARE FORCES（使事象を表す構文から抽象領域へと拡張される

役は力である）というメタファーの関わりが考事例では、体系的なメタファーによって動機づ察される。

けられる。Goldberg は、構文 Ⅰ と構文 Ⅱ との(3) The home run sent the crowd into a frenzy.

関連性が見られる物理的な目的語の移動を表(Lakoff (1990: 62))

す使役移動構文	 (=(6a)) と目的語の状態変化を

Lakoff (1990) は、動詞の使用にも注目しており表す結果構文 (=(6b)) をメタファー的拡張によ

また、send は、基本的に移動の開始の使役の部って動機づけられるとしている。

分を含意しているという。この分析は、本稿の(6) a. Joe kicked the bottle into the yard.

対象と関連しており、示唆に富むが、感情に関bbbbb. Joe kicked Bob black and blue.

わる表現に特定したものではない。さらに、こ(Goldberg (1995: 88))のメタファー表現で使用される動詞は、ある一

つまり、「状態変化は位置変化 ( Change of State

定の使役動詞類が生起すると指摘される。

as Change of Location)」というメタファーによっ(Kövecses (2000))。Kövecses (2000)では、(3)と同て 2 構文の関係を捉えられる。とりわけ、様のメタファーで、drive, send, push, keep など

Goldberg (1995)では、(6a) のような使役移動構の動詞の使用が見られることを挙げ、その例と文の方向句と(6b) のような結果構文の結果句して (4) を示している。また、感情を表す場合にみられる、位置変化と状態変化というメタフにも見つけられることも指摘し、 (3) と同じ

ァー的な対応関係に注目している。

frenzy を用いた (5) を例として示す。
(4)a.

bbbbb.

さらに、以上に示される使役移動構文と結果

Circumstances drove him to commit

構文の構文間の対応関係を基に、Goldberg andsuicide.

Jackendoff (2004)では、この 2 つの構文を総じて

I pushed him into washing the dishes.

一つの結果構文のカテゴリ―としてまとめて(Kövecses (2000: 53))いる。しかし、個々の事例のレベルの構文に目を向けると、(6b) の結果構文の表す事態は目的(5) The news sent the crowed into a frenzy.
(Kövecses (2000: 53))

語の物理的な状態変化を表し、結果句に主にメ

このような (3) や (5) の感情や心理的な変化

タファーの焦点が当たっているが、構文 Ⅰ やを表す表現を構文という形式と意味のペアと構文 Ⅱ では、表現全体がメタファー表現となして捉え直すことで、それぞれの個別の特性をるため、メタファー的な対応付けが異なってい探る可能性が広がると予測する。つまり、これる。本稿で対象とする構文の意味的特性を、大らの表現を別の観点から構文研究の対象としきな結果構文のカテゴリーで捉えることは困ても扱えると考えられる (cf. Sullivan (2013))。

難である。Goldberg and Jackendoff (2004) は広く

構文Ⅱだけでなく、構文Ⅰも同様に、メタファ

結果構文を捉えることには有益だが、本研究対ー的な目的語の使役移動を表す表現とみなす

象を含むさまざまな構文の特性を捉えるにはことができるため、以下では構文として分析す事例のレベルで動詞等の語彙やその構文の意る。

味を詳細に分析することが必要である。つまり、

85

Goldberg (1995) および Goldberg and Jackendoff

詳細に分析することが可能となる。

(2004) での結果構文と使役移動構文に関する	  Boas (2003) は、語彙の詳細な意味を重視する

議論よりも、さらに特定した事例のレベルの構

構文文法のアプローチで、実例を基にして結果

文での分析が必要であると言える。

構文の考察を行い、個別の動詞が事例のレベル
で一つの構文をなしていることを示唆してい2.3 語彙・構文文法的アプローチ

る。たとえば、Boas (2003) は、drive crazy 結果	  本稿では、構文文法の枠組みにおいて、語彙構文に関して、drive が結果句に意味的な制限をや事例のレベルの構文を積極的に取り入れる与えているということを British National Corpus

立場をとる研究 (Boas (2003), Iwata (2008),etc.)（以下 BNC）の生起件数の観察から指摘する。

を参考にする。事例のレベルの具体的な構文の(8) は、drive crazy 結果構文の事例であり、 (9)特性を捉えるために、構文スキーマの階層性がは Boas (2003)で示された結果句のデータの一想定され、Croft (2003, 2012) や Iwata (2008) に部である。(以下、[ ]内は生起件数を示す。)

おいて提示されている。構文の階層では、スキ(8) The continuous noise was driving me crazy.
(LDOCE)ーマ的な抽象的な構文が上位レベルにあると(9) mad / to madness [108 /5], crazy [70],すれば、下位レベルには実際の構文の生起例でto distraction [27], insane [23], wild [22]構成される。Iwata (2008) は、使役移動構文に生起する put を中心に見た構文の階層性の例を(Boas (2003:129))

提示している。この構文のスキーマは、(7a-d)

Boas は、(9) の BNC のデータより、drive の意

は、それぞれのレベルでの構文を示している。

味が否定的な心理状態を表す結果句を指定す(7) a. Syn: [NP V NP PP]ると指摘する。つまり、個別の動詞がある一定=Sem “…………”の共通する意味を持つ語と共起する性質があ(caused-motion construction)

り、その動詞との共起性を中心として一つの構

b. Syn: [NP V NP PP]

文パターンを抽出できると言える。

= Sem “…………”

	  また、(8) の構文のスキーマの階層にあてはめると、drive crazy 結果構文は、特定の動詞のc. Syn: [NP [throw / put / push] NP PP]

使用により意味的な特性を捉えられる、(7c) で=Sem “…………”

示される verb-specific-construction であると考え

d. Syn: [ John put the box on the desk]
	
  	
  	
  =Sem “…………”られる。構文 Ⅰ と構文 Ⅱ に関しても、同様に(Adapted from Iwata (2008))

下位のスキーマレベルにおいてそれぞれの詳

最もスキーマ性の高い上位の構文のレベルは細な意味的な特性を分析することが可能であ(7a) の使役移動構文のスキーマを示す。(7b)は、るという予測が立つ。また上位のスキーマ的構

個々の動詞が生起する構文において put とその文との関連性を認めることで、構文 Ⅰ と構文類似する意味・用法を持つ動詞のクラスが生起

Ⅱ をそれぞれに関連する一般的な構文の特性する構文 verb-class-specific construction が構成

から捉えられると考えられる。次節以降では、される。また、(7b) の下位のレベルの (7c) で

構文 Ⅰ と構文 Ⅱ を、構文のスキーマ性の観点は、個々の動詞の使用が指定される構文、も取り入れ、それぞれの意味的な特性を明らか

verb-specific construction が構成されている。こにする。

の (7b) と (7c) における下位の構文のレベルを想定することで、具体的な事例に基づいて、

3. 感情を表す名詞と構文の意味的な特性

語の意味も含めたその構文の意味的な特性を	  本節では、構文タイプごとの感情を表す名詞86

の生起に注目し、構文 Ⅰ と使役移動構文の意(12) The name of the manufacturer struck fear

味的な特性および構文 Ⅱ と結果構文の意味的and awe into the American automobile

な特性を比較する。構文 Ⅰ は、感情の移動物

industry for a long time.

と捉えると、全体として感情のメタファー的なしたがって、構文Ⅰでは、抽象的な移動のなか

使役移動を表す構文とみなすことができる。そで瞬間的な変化を含む感情を表す名詞ではな

して、構文 Ⅱ は、into 句を心理的な状態変化のく、状態的な感情を表す名詞が生起すると言え結果を表す表現とすると、全体を心理的な状態る。この意味的特性は、使役移動構文の基本的変化を表す構文として捉えることができる。まな意味特性によって関連づけられる。一般的なた、この 2 つの構文タイプに生起する感情を表

使役移動構文では目的語の状態変化を含意しす名詞の性質を考察することによって、一般的ない移動を示すという特性との関連性が見らな構文の意味的特性との関連性について考察

れ、構文Ⅰにおいては、目的語である感情を表していく。

す名詞は変化を含意しない性質であるということがわかる。

3.1 構文 Ⅰ と使役移動構文	  以下は、BNC での構文 Ⅰ の目的語として生	  構文 Ⅰ を使役移動構文のメタファー的な用起する感情を表す名詞の例である。

法とみなすと、感情を表す名詞は目的語位置で(13) a.

fear [48], terror [12], scare [3], awe,

あるため、「移動物」として捉えられる。つまtrepidation, chill, worry , despair, guilt,

り、構文 Ⅰ に生起する感情を表す名詞は、使

distress [1]b. confidence [3], pride and honour,

役移動構文の目的語の意味特性との関連性を

enthusiasm, excitement, respect, [1]示すと予測が立つ。
	  使役移動構文の目的語に生起する移動物は(14) a. This is what strikes fear into the hearts of

その移動の過程で状態変化を含意する場合、経

all but the most experienced […].

路を特定することが不可能であるとされていaaaaab. ‘No one cares to remember whether theる (Goldberg 1995)。たとえば、(10a) のように、

author of the most fascinating allegory

状態変化動詞が使役移動構文と共起すること

that ever struck despair into the souls of

は困難となるが、(10b) のように、移動の過程

imitators was a Dissenter.’

で目的語への状態変化を示さない動詞は生起

aaaaac. He couldn't instil enough confidence into
her, that was the trouble.

できる。
(10) a. * The man broke the chair into the room.

aaaaad. He has also gradually collected a team ofbbbbb. *The man pushed the chair into the room.

the best teachers in the world; and has

この使役移動構文の意味制約は、感情のメタフ

personallyァー的な移動を表す構文Ⅰの場合、関連する特enthusiasm into all the students.

instilled

tremendous

性があるのかを考察する。構文 Ⅰ では、(11) の(BNC)

ように、点的な感情を表す名詞 surprise, startle

注目すべきことは、恐怖を表す fear, terror の生などを目的語として生起することは難しい。

起が多く見られ、それらと共起する典型的な動(11) a. * Jean put a surprise into you.

詞は strike が挙げられる。また、肯定的な感情

b. * Jean struck a startle into you.

を表す語の生起数は多くはないが、感情のカテ

一方、 (12) のように、fear や awe は状態的なゴリーが限定されており、instill (instil) が共起感情を表すと考えられ、構文Ⅰに生起し、長期動詞となる。つまり、confidence や respect は間を表す句で修飾することもできる。

instill とパターンをつくる。(14) は、BNC で検87

索した例の一部である。目的語となる感情語は3.2 構文 Ⅱ と結果構文

静的・状態的な性質を表すものが見つけられる。

	  構文 Ⅱ に関しては、感情を表す名詞の生起	  構文 Ⅰ は、静的な感情を表す名詞と特定の位置は、into 句の目的語であり、この into 句は、動詞によってパターンを構成していることがある一種の状態変化を表す結果句としても捉見られ、 (7c) で提示される、下位レベルの構えられる。そこで、結果構文の結果句の特性に

文 verb-specific construction として位置づけられ焦点を当て、構文 Ⅱ と結果構文を比較する。

ると考えられる。以下に示すように、特定の名

	  まず、結果構文の結果句には、あるスケール

詞との意味的に適合したパターンをつくる。

の最終点を表すという意味制約が、Goldberg(15) 	
  strike {fear / terror / awe / despair /(1995)、Vanden Wyngaerd (2001)、鈴木 (2007)

trepidation} into someone

等において認められ、提案されている。たとえ(15)でみられる strike は、fear 以外の恐怖語の生ば、結果句には、(18)のように最終点を示す特起例も見られ、否定的な感情を表す語が生起す性を持つ語は生起する。

る。また、strike の構文パターンでは、文脈も含(18) flat, smooth, sober, dead, sick(Goldberg (1995: 195))

めて意味的に適合する場合は、肯定的な感情を表す語との使用もある。

一方、(19)では、最終点を示す特性を持たない(16) I contrast this with the emotion […] as they

ような語は、結果構文との共起ができない。
(19) a. * The bear growled us afraid.

sing the ‘Star Spangled Banner’, ‘God Blessbb. * He encouraged her confident.

America’, ‘America’ and other such anthems
which strike pride and honour into one's soul.

(Goldberg (1995:195))(BNC)

鈴木 (2007) では、この制約を拡張的に解釈す(16) は、インフォーマントによれば特殊な文脈

ると、前置詞の場合にもその傾向があることをでのみ容認される例である。(16) では、感情を指摘しており、(20) で挙げられる前置詞句は、表す名詞は pride and honour が生起しており、主身体の通常の状態から否定的な方向への変化

語 anthem と意味的に適合することで、容認でという、ある意味での最終点への到達を示してきるという。

いると分析する。鈴木 (2007) では、このよう	  (17) で示されるもう一つのパターンでは、なある意味での最終点を機能不全状態である

instill と肯定的・否定的な感情を表す名詞とのとしている。

意味的な適合が見られる。
「徐々に」という動(20) to death, to sleep, to exhaustion, to / into tears

詞の表す感情発生の意味と fear などの恐怖を表	  構文 Ⅱ においても、結果構文で指摘されてす語やconfidence, respect などの肯定的な感情をいるような意味的特性が見られるかを考察す表す意味が適合していることが考えられる。

る。BNC で構文Ⅱの事例を検索すると、(21) の(17) instill {fear / terror / confidence / respect /ような感情を表す名詞との共起が見つけられ、(22) では、その事例パターンの一部を示す。

enthusiasm} into someone(21) a. negative emotion: panic [6], rage [6],	  以上のように、構文 Ⅰ は個別の動詞を特定した下位レベルの構文でまとめられているこ

fury [5], despair [4], anger [2], perplexity,とが確認できる。さらに、一般的な使役移動構

apathy, agitation, unhappiness [1]文の意味特性との関連性を捉えられることか

bb b. positive emotion: ecstasy [7], enchantment

ら、上位の使役移動構文との関連性があること

paroxysm of bliss, a transport of joy,を指摘する。つまり、構文Ⅰは、使役移動構文

transports of delight [1]	
 の一つの下位構文として捉えることができる。

88c. neutral emotion: frenzy [20]

(22) a. DJs are whipping them into a frenzy of

情の状態を示すと考えられる。(24) のような表

anticipation from a stage perched above

現においては、frenzy を含め極度な感情を表す

the masses.

語は共起することが困難であるとわかる。
(24) ?? People can behave calmly in {a frenzy/abb. You clever boy!’she would cry, throwing

panic /a transports of joy}.

her arms around him, and sending him
into a transport of joy.

また、構文Ⅱにおける動詞と感情を表す名詞とのパターンに注目すると、send, throw, drive

cc. What she saw mirrored there threw her
into a panic.

などの使役移動に関わる動詞が生起し、動詞のdd. Chapman's famous translation of Homer,

意味要素が構文の意味や感情を表す名詞の特which sent Keats into ecstasies, is in

性との共起性が捉えられる。

twenty-four books, but they are contained(25) a.

send someone into {a frenzy /a fury /transports of delight}

comfortably in one folio volume.

b b. throw someone into {a panic /a rage}(BNC)

cccccc. drive someone into {despair /* a paroxysm(21) の構文Ⅱと共起する感情を表す名詞は、構of bliss}

文Ⅰの場合と異なり、肯定的な感情を表す名詞も否定的な感情を表す名詞など生起例が見ら(25a, b) のように、
send, throw は感情の肯定や否れ、感情のカテゴリーにも偏りがあまりないこ

定に関しては特定しない。一方、(24c) のようとがわかる。

に drive はその働きかけの早さには指定は厳し	  また、(22) の事例より、構文Ⅱには frenzy,

くないかもしれないが、否定的な感情を表す名

panic, fury などある感情の極度な状態を示す語

詞と共起するという傾向がみられる。つまり、が 生 起 す る こ と が 見 ら れ る 。 (22b) で の構文Ⅱで見られるパターンは、動詞が特定されtransports of 句に注目すると、 (23a) で見られるる verb-specific construction で捉えられる。

ように、joy のみの使用は難しいが、transports of	
  したがって、構文 Ⅱ では、感情のカテゴリ

joy として強い感情を表す場合、容認可能になーにはあまり制限はないが、自己制御できないる。同様に、 (23b) と (23c) の例でそれぞれ示

ような極度の感情を表す名詞が生起すると言されるように、基本的な感情のカテゴリーを表える。そして、動詞と感情を表す名詞との適合

す fear や happiness は、構文Ⅱに生起することパターンが見られ、下位のレベルでの構文としは困難である。

て捉えることが可能である。

(23) a. The news sent my wife into {* joy /a
3.3 まとめtransport of joy}.
bbbbb. The disaster threw us into {* fear /a panic}.

	  以上の考察より、構文 Ⅰ と構文 Ⅱ に生起すc. The receipt of this letter threw Clara into

る感情を表す名詞の特性に注目することで、構{* happiness / ecstasy}.

文 Ⅰ は、使役移動構文と、構文 Ⅱ では、結果

このような構文Ⅱで見られる意味的な特性は、

構文と、意味的な性質を関連付けられることが結果構文の一般的な意味特性と関連づけられわかる。つまり、構文Ⅰも構文Ⅱも全体として、ると考えられる。つまり、結果構文における結経験者をある心理状態にさせるという意味を

果句が状態の最終点を示すという制約との関示すのだが、それぞれに生起する感情語の特性連性が捉えられる。

を分析すると、関連する一般的な構文の意味特	  特に、frenzy は、構文Ⅱでの BNC での生起例

性が異なる。さらに、構文Ⅰ及び構文Ⅱは、Iwata

では最も頻出するが、自己制御できない強い感(2008) で提示される構文の階層性を踏まえる

89

と、個々の動詞が特定される下位のレベルで構EnglishResultatives

asaFamily文によって構成されていると分析できる。

Constructions,” Language 80-3, 532-568.

ofIwata, Seizi (2008) Locative Alternation: A
4. 結語

Lexical-Constructional	  本稿では、感情を表す名詞が生起する 2 種類

Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Approach,Johnのタイプの構文タイプを一般的な構文の意味

岩田彩志 (2009) 「2 種類の結果表現と構文理特性との比較により、それぞれの関連性を考察

論」, 小野尚之 (編)『結果構文のタイポロ

した。

ジー』, 171-216, ひつじ書房, 東京.

まず、主に感情を表す名詞と構文との共起性

Kövecses, Zoltán (2000) Metaphor and Emotion:を分析することで、一般的な使役移動構文と結Language, Culture, and Body in Human

果構文の意味的特性との関連性を捉えられる

Feeling,ことを指摘する。次に、具体的なレベルの構文

Cambridge.

Cambridge

University

Press,

として構文Ⅰと構文Ⅱを捉えると、動詞と感情

Lakoff, George (1990) “The Invariance Hypothesis:を表す名詞との相互作用を示しており、下位のIs Abstract Reason Based on Image-Schemas?,”

レベルで捉える必要性を指摘する。つまり、具Cognitive Linguistics 1-1, 39-74.
Sullivan, Karen (2013) Frames and Constructions in

体的なレベルの構文を捉えることで、感情を表す名詞と構文との意味的な適合関係を示すこMetaphoricとができる。

Amsterdam.

Language,John

Benjamins,

鈴木亨 (2007) 「結果構文における有界性制約
注を再考する」, 小野尚之 (編)『結果構文研

1. 本稿では、It worked himself into a frenzy.のよう

究の新視点』, 103-141, ひつじ書房, 東京.

な再帰代名詞を目的語にとる形式は対象とVanden Wyngaerd, Guido (2001) “Measuring
Events,” Language 77-1, 61-90.

していない。

Wierzbicka,

Anna

Emotions

acrossLanguages and Cultures: Diversity and

参考文献
Boas, Hans C. (2003) A Constructional Approach to

Universals,

Resultatives, CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Cambridge.

Croft,(1999)

Cambridge

William(2003)“Lexical

Rules

Constructions:

A

False

Dichotomy,”

コーパス

Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of

British National Corpus. (BNC)

University

Press,

vs.

Günter Radden, ed. by Hubert Cuyckens,
Thomas Berg, René Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe

辞書

Panther, 49-68, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 5th
Edition. (LDOCE)

Croft, William (2012) Verbs: Aspect and Causal
Structure, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995) Constructions: A
Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Goldberg, Adele E. and Ray Jackendoff (2004) “The90to VPCs, yielding verb-particle nouns.
It
seems, however, that this prediction is partiallycorrect and partially incorrect, because the two
types of VPCs, aspectual VPCs and idiomatic
VPCs, show contrasting behavior in conversion.
Idiomatic VPCs, but not aspectual ones, can beconverted into nouns. The purpose of this paper is to answer the question of why aspectual
VPCs and idiomatic VPCs behave differently
within the framework of multi-level lexical insertion proposed by Emonds (2000). After abrief introduction of the two types of VPCs, wesummarize the basic facts about their behavior in
overt suffixation and conversion in the next section.

Verb-Particle Combinations as Seen from
Multi-Level Lexical Insertion*
Ryohei Naya
University of Tsukuba
Keywords: affixation, conversion,
nominalization, semi-lexical categories

1. Introduction
It has been pointed out that verb-particle
combinations (VPCs) such as drink up and lookup are in a paradoxical situation in that they behave as words in some cases and as phrases inother cases. One approach to VPCs claims thatthe verb and particle form a single head. Ifthey constitute morphological units, it is naturalthat their category can be changed by overt affixation (e.g. drinkupable, look-upable).
Overt affixation is not the only process of
category change. Lexical items also change
their category by means of conversion, which
does not involve any concomitant change inform (cf. Lieber (2005: 418)). According toNagano (2008: Ch. 4), previous studies of conversion are divided into five different approaches. One of them is called the zero-derivation
approach, which attributes the category-changing function to the attachment of aphonologically null suffix to a stem (Marchand(1969) and Kiparsky (1982), among others).

Aspectual and Idiomatic VPCs and their
Behaviors in Derivational Morphology
Aspectual VPCs and idiomatic VPCs are exemplified in (1) and (2), respectively.
(1) a. John drank up the beer.
(McIntyre (2004: 546))
b. Greg cleaned up the car.
(Dehé (2002: 6))(2) a. Mikey looked up the reference.
(Johnson (1991: 593))
b. John coughed up the money.
(Los et al. (2012: 17))
These two types of VPCs differ in semantic
compositionality: Aspectual VPCs, but not idiomatic VPCs, have compositional meanings.
The particles in aspectual VPCs contribute aspectual information to the meaning of the preceding verb. For example, the particle up in
drink up in (1a) adds the meaning of completion(‘completely’) to that of the verb drink. As a

Under this approach, conversion is characterized
as a kind of suffixation, more specifically, a
process of covert suffixation.
Given the zero-derivation approach to conversion, it is predicted that a zero-suffix as well
as overt suffixes like -able can also be attachedresult, the VPC drink up as a whole has thecompositional meaning ‘to drink completely.’On the other hand, the meaning of the idiomatic
VPC look up ‘to consult’ is non-compositional inthat it is not derived from summing up themeanings of the verb and the particle.

2.

91Both aspectual and idiomatic VPCs can behosts of the overt suffixes -able and -er (cf. Far-are explained within the framework of multi-level lexical insertion proposed by Emonds

rell (2005)), as the examples in (3) and (4) show.
(3) a. Certainly drinkable, but also
drinkupable.
(http://www.wine-lovers-page.com/forum/village/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8487)
b. a check-offable list,
give-awayable, pay-offable loan
(Taniwaki and Tono (2009: 312))(4) a. Every word in the grid should be
look-upable somewhere: dictionary, geography [book], movie lists,song lists, somewhere. (Coral
Amende, The Crossword Obsession: The History and Lore of theWorld’s Most Popular Pastime)b. laugh-offable, drop-inner(Taniwaki and Tono (2009: 312),
Thim (2012: 31))
As a result of overt suffixation, the category of
VPCs in (3) and (4) is changed from a verb into
an adjective or noun.
Although the two types of VPCs show thesame behavior in overt suffixation, the situation
is different in the case of conversion, as mentioned above. The examples in (5) and (6)show that idiomatic VPCs, but not aspectual
VPCs, can be converted into nouns.
(5) *a drink-up (of water), *a chew-up (offood), *a finish-up (of the work), *aneat-up (of food)(Miller (2013: 35))(6) a look-up, a break-out, a fill-in, awind-up(Miller (2013), with modifications)(2000), which is outlined in the next section.
3.

Theoretical Assumptions
Emonds (2000) decomposes the lexicon into
two subparts: the Dictionary and the Syntacticon.
The former stores lexical categories (N, V, A,
and P) and the latter stores functional categories
including inflectional and derivational affixes.
According to Emonds (2000), lexical categories
are different from functional categories in that
only the former have purely semantic features f,
which do not have any role in syntax (Emonds(2000: 7)).
Emonds (2000) assumes that there are subsets
of N, V, A, and P that lack f, that is, concrete
meanings. These subsets, having only abstract
meanings or grammatical roles, are called
grammatical or semi-lexical N, V, A, and P (cf.
Emonds (2001: 29)). According to Emonds(2000: 9), semi-lexical nouns include one, self,thing, and stuff, and so forth. Since semi-lexical
categories do not have f, they are to be stored in
the Syntacticon.
Emonds (2000) hypothesizes that lexical insertion takes place at three levels and that theelements in the Dictionary and those in the Syntacticon are different in the levels at which they
can be inserted. This hypothesis, which iscalled multi-level lexical insertion, is schematized in (7) (cf. Emonds (2000: 117, 437)).
(7) Multi-Level Lexical Insertion
Dictionary(i)

These facts indicate that overt suffixes can be
attached to both aspectual and idiomatic VPCs
but a zero-suffix can be attached only to idiomatic VPCs.
The rest of this paper will show that the behaviors of VPCs in suffixation and conversion

Lexical Choice

Syntacticon
(iii)

(ii)
Spell-OutPF

LF

In (7), downward arrows (i), (ii), and (iii) represent three types of lexical insertion, which are92

called Deep Insertion, Syntactic Insertion, andPF Insertion, respectively (Emonds (2005: 237)).

The two types of nominals are different in thatthe noun examination refers to a concrete entity

Deep Insertion takes place before syntactic derivations. Syntactic Insertion happens just priorto Spell-Out. PF Insertion takes place after
Spell-Out. Items in the Dictionary are exclusively introduced to the derivation through Deep
Insertion, as indicated by downward arrow (i).
Items in the Syntacticon, on the other hand, canbe inserted at different stages of a derivation, as
downward arrows (ii) and (iii) represent. First,
the items that are compositionally interpreted at
LF undergo Syntactic Insertion. This type of
insertion is exemplified by derivational morphology. Second, the items that do not contribute to LF are subject to PF Insertion. The
items inserted at PF are, for example, expletives
and inflectional affixes.
In addition, some free grammatical morphemes and derivational affixes can be inserted
via the Dictionary, as represented by the leftward arrow in (7). In this case, the items fromthe Syntacticon undergo Deep Insertion like
items in the Dictionary. Unlike the Syntacticon
items that undergo Syntactic Insertion, those that
undergo Deep Insertion have specialized lexical
meanings and can be parts of idioms. Thus, by
this hypothesis, the semantic contributions offree grammatical morphemes and derivational
affixes differ according to the level where they
are inserted.
The different types of insertion have othereffects as well. Emonds (2000: Ch. 4.7.2) illustrates the effects, referring to the distinction
between the two types of derived nominals: result nominals and complex event nominals inin (8a), but in (8b) it refers to an event. Moreover, the complex event nominal inherits theargument structure of its base verb (cf. to examine the patients) but the result nominal does not.
Emonds (2000) explains these contrasts byassuming that the derivational suffix -tion can beinserted at different levels; the suffix -tion undergoes Deep Insertion in result nominals and it
undergoes Syntactic Insertion in complex event
nominals. Emonds (2000) assumes that thebase of -tion serves as a head until the suffix is
inserted. Since the suffix of result nominals isinserted at the beginning of derivations, the verbal base does not serve as a head during the derivation, and thus it cannot take arguments. By
contrast, since the suffix of complex event nominals undergoes Syntactic Insertion, the verbal
base can serve as a head until Syntactic Insertion.
It is this verbal head that selects its complement
during the derivation. Therefore, only complex
event nominals have argument structures. In
the next section, I consider how particles in
VPCs can be captured within this framework.

Grimshaw’s (1990: Ch. 3) terms, which are exemplified in (8a) and (8b), respectively.
(8) a. The examination was on the table.
b. The examination of the patients
took a long time.
(Grimshaw (1990: 49))emphatic word right modifies only prepositions,
not other syntactic categories such as adverbs
and adjectives, as indicated in (9).
(9) a. * Bill visits Europe right often, frequently, etc.
b. * Those girls were right attractive.

4.

Particles as Semi-Lexical Categories
I propose that particles are prepositions thatlack semantic content, that is, semi-lexical prepositions stored in the Syntacticon. In fact, there
are reasons to believe that particles belong to thecategory P and that they lack purely semantic
features f.
First, particles should be regarded as prepositions, based on the observations in Emonds(1985). According to Emonds (1985: 257), the

93

c.

He lives right up the street.
(Emonds (1985: 257, 258))

5. Analysis
5.1. Multi-Level Insertion of Particles
Section 4 showed that particles are stored in
the Syntacticon. This means that they can, in
principle, be inserted at any of the three levels.
I argue that the particles in aspectual VPCs andthose in idiomatic VPCs are inserted at different
levels. Given that both types of particles obviously contribute to the interpretation, the possibility of PF Insertion of particles is excluded.
Then, we have two possibilities: Syntactic Insertion and Deep Insertion.2

He further shows that the word right can also
modify particles such as up as in (10).
(10) They looked it right up and left.
(Emonds (1985: 258))
This indicates that particles should be characterized as a variety of prepositions.
Furthermore, it can be concluded that particles
lack the purely semantic features f. Emonds(1985: 261, 262) states that nouns without“specificity” cannot be in focus position. For
example, the noun stuff cannot be focused incleft sentences:(11) * It was some stuff that I received in the
mail.
(≠ I received some stuff in the mail,where some stuff is not drug slang andis not specific.)(Emonds (1985: 262))
Recall that the noun stuff is an example of asemi-lexical noun. Given that the noun stuff
does not have purely semantic features f, we canregard the lack of “specificity” as the absence off in Emonds’ (2000) framework. Assumingthat cleft sentences provide a diagnostic for thepresence and absence of the f feature, let us observe the following cleft sentences where particles are in focus position:(12) a. * It was up that I made the exam.
b. * It was up that I looked the word in
Webster’s Third.
(Delahunty (1984: 76))
The ungrammaticality of theses sentences showsthat whether the VPC is aspectual or idiomatic, aparticle lacks f.1 Therefore, we can conclude

To determine which type of particle undergoes
which insertion, let us focus on the semantic
aspects. Recall that the Syntacticon items that
undergo Syntactic Insertion are compositionallyinterpreted, while those that undergo Deep Insertion have non-compositional meanings.
Given that aspectual VPCs have compositional
meanings but idiomatic VPCs do not, the particles in the former are inserted at the level ofSyntactic Insertion and those in the latter at thelevel of Deep Insertion. This is represented in(13), where the arrow (=>) indicates Syntactic
Insertion.
(13) a. Aspectual VPC:[V [V drink] [PRT Ø (=> up) ] ]b. Idiomatic VPC:[V [V look] [PRT up] ](PRT = Particle)
This analysis is supported by a fact concerning argument structure. Given the derivation of
VPCs in (13), it turns out that the head of aspectual VPCs is a simple verb until the insertionof the particle, while that of idiomatic VPCs isthe verb-particle complex. If so, we can pre-that particles belong to the category P but theylack f.
In the next section, I distinguish between two
types of VPCs, based on the semi-lexical property of particles, and explain their contrasting
behavior in conversion shown in section 2.

dict that an aspectual VPC, but not an idiomatic
VPC, inherits its argument structure from theverb used therein, in parallel to the case of complex event nominals discussed in section 3.
This is in fact the case, as shown in (14) and
(15).

94

drink (up) the beerclean (up) the car

Given that overt suffixes like -able and -er are
introduced at the level of syntactic derivation,

look *(up) the reference
cough *(up) the money(cf. Los et al. (2012: 16))
These examples show that aspectual VPCs havethe same argument structure as their verbs but
idiomatic VPCs do not; that is, they do not inherit the verb’s argument structure. This is because the arguments in (14) are selected by theverbs drink and clean, but those in (15) are selected by a verb-particle complex.

both aspectual VPCs and idiomatic VPCs can be
inputs of the derivation involving them, deriving
the examples in (3) and (4).

(14) a.
b.
(15) a.
b.

5.3. Two Types of VPCs and Covert Suffixation
Finally, why is it that idiomatic VPCs can beconverted into nouns but aspectual VPCs cannot? To answer the question, I propose that azero-nominalizer undergoes only Deep Insertion.
Since the particles of idiomatic VPCs are already inserted at the level of Deep Insertion, thezero-nominalizer can be attached to the combinations as a whole. On the other hand, the par-5.2. Two Types of VPCs and Overt Suffixation
As is noted in section 2, there is no difference
between aspectual and idiomatic VPCs in overt
suffixation. Namely, affixes like -able and -er
can be attached to both types of VPCs. I will
explain this fact in this subsection.
First, let us examine the insertion level of thesuffixes -able and -er. I argue that these suffixes are inserted at the level of Syntactic Insertion. In fact, Emonds (2000) assumes that thesuffix -er of productive agentive nominals likeintroducer in (16) is inserted during the syntactic
derivation.
(16) A nervous student was selected as introducer of the panelists to the president.
(Emonds (2000: 157))
Since the verbal base serves as the head until thesuffix is inserted, the agentive noun is compatible with the elements selected by the verb (cf.
introduce the panelists to the president). The
same is true of the suffix -able, as shown in (17).
(17) These bolts are removable.
(Randall (1988: 131))

ticles of aspectual VPCs are not inserted until
the level of Syntactic Insertion and aspectual
VPCs cannot be inputs of a zero-nominalizer.
Therefore, idiomatic VPCs, but not aspectual
ones, can be converted into nouns.
This proposal is supported by the following
facts. First, zero-derived nouns do not selectarguments. As shown by the examples in (18),the zero-derived nouns are incompatible with thearguments that the underlying verbs can take.
(18) a. * John’s reject of her offer
b. * their drink of much wine
(Shimamura (2009: 112))
This fact strongly suggests that the zero-nominalizer is a suffix that is only effective inthe Dictionary.
Second, zero-derived nominals have specificmeanings that seem to be assigned in the Dictionary, but not through a syntactic derivation.
For example, while the noun judger, where thesuffix -er undergoes Syntactic Insertion, hasvarious meanings corresponding to the meaningsof its verbal counterpart, the zero-derived noun
judge has the meaning of ‘Justice.’

The example in (17), where the argument appears in a subject position (cf. remove thesebolts), shows that the derivative inherits the argument structure from the underlying verb.
The argument-taking property of the suffixes
indicates that they undergo Syntactic Insertion.

6. Concluding Remarks95

In this paper, based on the framework of
Emonds (2000), I was concerned with the issue

Nobuhiro Kaga, Masaharu Shimada, Naoaki
Wada, Masaru Kanetani and Akiko Nagano.

of why aspectual and idiomatic VPCs behave thesame way in overt suffixation but not in covert
suffixation. To answer the question, I examined the levels of lexical insertion of particles,
the suffixes -able and -er, and a zero-nominalizer. In the analysis proposed here,
the behaviors of aspectual and idiomatic VPCs
in overt and covert suffixation are a consequenceof the different insertion levels at which they
operate.
This paper indicates that suffixes can differ
from one another in the levels at which they are
inserted. This appears similar to the basic assumption of the level-ordering hypothesis (e.g.
Kiparsky (1982)); that is, the assumption thatderivational suffixes can be classified into Level
1 suffixes, which cause a stress shift, and Level
2 suffixes, which do not cause a stress shift.
Given that in the hypothesis, a zero-nominalizer
is assumed to be a Level 1 suffix (cf. recórdV >récordN ) and -able and -er are Level 2 suffixes(cf. recórdable, recórder), Level 1 suffixation
seemingly corresponds to Deep Insertion andLevel 2 suffixation to Syntactic Insertion.
However, this is not correct. Consider the suffix -tion. Since the suffix -tion is a Level 1
suffix (cf. exámine > examinátion), one might
predict that it undergoes Deep Insertion. As
mentioned in Section 3, the suffix can also undergo Syntactic Insertion, forming complex
event nominals. The level-ordering hypothesis
cannot fully explain the facts, and it thus needs
an additional distinction, as Randall (1988)
points out. In this sense, the model in this pa-

Needless to say, any remaining errors andshortcomings are my own.

Emonds (2005) assumes that certain prefixes
are Ps inserted at PF. Based on the complementary distribution between the particle up andthe prefix re- as in (i), he assigns them the samegrammatical status; in his words, the prefix re“is also a P appearing inside the verb” (cf. Keyser and Roeper (1992)).
(i)a. Let’s build (up) our defenses.
b. Let’s rebuild (*up) our defenses.
(Emonds (2005: 259)
According to Emonds (2005), the feature complex of re- and that of particles appear in the
post-verbal position in syntax. They differ inthat while the latter is lexicalized in that position,
the former is lexicalized in pre-verbal positionby the prefix. He argues that such lexicalization is implemented by PF Insertion. For moredetailed discussion, see Emonds (20005: Sec.

per is more favorable.

5.2.).

Notes*
I would like to express my gratitude to the following people for invaluable comments on earlier versions of this paper: Yukio Hirose,

References
Dehé, N. (2002) Particle Verbs in English: Syntax,
Information Structure and Intonation, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

1Particles are often called intransitive prepositions because they do not take complements (e.g.
Emonds (1985)). However, not all intransitive
prepositions are particles. For example, thepreposition in in (i), which takes no complement,
can be focused as in (ii).
(i)
The salesman found John in.
(ii) It was in that the salesman found John.
(Emonds (1995: 11))The sentence in (ii) shows that this preposition
has f, and thus it is a lexical preposition.
Therefore, in spite of its intransitivity, the preposition in (i) is stored in the Dictionary, unlike
particles.

296Delahunty, G. P. (1984) “The Analysis of English Cleft Sentences,” Linguistic Analysis 13,

van Kemenade (2012) Morphosyntactic
Change: A Comparative Study of Particles

63-113.
Emonds, J. E. (1985) A Unified Theory of Syntactic
Categories, Foris, Dordrecht.
Emonds, J. E. (1995) “Secondary Predication,
Stationairy Particles, and Silent Prepositions,”
Hasegawa Kinsuke Kyozyu Kanreki Kinen
Ronbun Syuu (A Festschrift for Professor
Kinsuke Hasegawa), ed. by A. Baba, et al.,1-20, Kenkyusha, Tokyo.
Emonds, J. E. (2000) Lexicon and Grammar:
The English Syntacticon, Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin.
Emonds, J. E. (2001) “The Flat Structure
EconomyofSemi-Lexical
Heads,”
Semi-Lexical Categories: The Function ofContent Words and the Content of Function
Words, ed. by N. Corver and H. vanRiemsdijk, 23-66, Mouten de Gruyter, Berlin.
Emonds, J. E. (2005) “The Computational Lexicon,” English Linguistics 22, 232-266.
Farrell, P. (2005) “English Verb-Preposition
Constructions,” Language 81, 96-137.
Grimshaw, J. (1990) Argument Structure, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Johnson, K. (1991) “Object Positions,” Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 577-636.
Keyser, S. J. and T. Roeper (1992) “Re: The Abstract Clitic Hypothesis,” Linguistic Inquiry
23, 89-125.
Kiparsky, P. (1982) “Lexical Morphology andPhonology,” Linguistics in the Morning
Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL-1981, ed.
by In-Seok Yang, 3-91, Hanshin Publishing
Company, Seoul.

and Prefixes, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Marchand, H. (1969) The Categories and Typesof Present-Day English Word-Formation: A
Synchronic-Diachronic Approach, 2nd Edition, C. H. Beck’sche, Munich.
McIntyre, A. (2004) “Event Paths, Conflation,
Argument Structure, and VP Shells,” Linguistics 42, 523-571.
Miller, G. D. (2013) “On the History and Analysis
of
V-P
Nouns,”
Historical
Word-Formation and Semantics, ed. by J.
Fisiak and M. Bator, 31-58, Peter Lang,
Frankfurt am Main.
Nagano,A.
(2008)
Conversion
andBack-Formation in English: Toward a Theoryof Morpheme-Based Morphology, Kaitakusha,
Tokyo.
Randall, J. H. (1988) “Inheritance,“ Syntax and
Semantics 21: Thematic Relations, ed. by W.
Wilkins, 129-146, Academic Press, NewYork.
Shimamura, R. (2009) “Eigo no Meisika ni okeru Hukuzatu Zisyoomeisi to Kekkameisi ni
tuite (Complex Event Nominals and Result
Nominals in English Nominalization),” Tsudajuku Daigaku Kiyo 41, 97-134.
Taniwaki, T. and Y. Tono (2009) “Kudoosi(Phrasal
Verbs),”
Niti-ei-taisyoo
Keiyoosi-Hukusi no Imi-to Koobun (A Contrastive Study of the Meanings and Constructions of Adjectives and Adverbs in Japaneseand English), ed. by T. Kageyama, 293-324,
Taishukan, Tokyo.

Lieber, R. (2005) “English Word-Formation
Processes: Observations, Issues, and Thoughts
on Future Research,” Handbook of
Word-Formation, ed. by P. Štekauer and R.
Lieber, 375-427, Springer, Dordrecht.
Los, B., C. Blom, G. Booij, M. Elenbaas, and A.

Thim, S. (2012) Phrasal Verbs: The English
Verb-Particle Construction and Its History,
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

97ᩥἲ᭩࡛ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Quirk et al. 1985;
Huddleston and Pullum 2002㸧ࠋ๓⨨モྃࡢྡモⓗ⏝ἲ࡟ࡣࠊ୺࡟ࠊ๓⨨モྃࡀ୺ㄒ࡜࡞ࡿ(2)ࡢࢱ
࢖ࣉ࡜ࠊ๓⨨モྃࡀ๓⨨モࡢ⿵ㄒྃ࡜࡞ࡿ(3)ࡢ

๓⨨モࡢ⿵ㄒྃ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ๓⨨モྃࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋྡモⓗ⏝ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚*(Prepositional Phrases as a Complement of(2) (a) Near Boston has always appealed to me.

Prepositions)(b) From my house to the station is a goodwalk.

኱㇂┤㍤ (Naoki Otani)(c) By special delivery is good for sendingி㒔ᗓ❧኱Ꮫ (Kyoto Prefectural University)

letters.

(᭷ᮧ 1987: 22)(3) (a) He picked up the gun from under the table.
(b) Food has been scarce since before the war.

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸๓⨨モྃࡢྡモⓗ⏝ἲࠊ(c) We didn’t meet until after the show.

ືᶵ࡙ࡅࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࠊ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶ(Quirk et al. 1985: 658n)(2)ࡢ⏝ἲࡣࠊ๓⨨モྃࡀ୺ㄒྃࡢࡼ࠺࡟᣺⯙࠺
1.

ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

ࡓࡵࠊ๓⨨モྃ୺ㄒᵓᩥ࡜ࡶ࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢᵓ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊThe British National Corpus㸦BNC㸧ᩥࡣࠊ⤫ㄒⓗ࣭ព࿡ⓗ࡞ศᯒࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ୍

ࡢᐃ㔞ⓗ࡞ㄪᰝࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࠊ๓⨨モࡢ⿵ㄒྃ࡜ࡋ

౛ࢆᣲࡆࡿ࡜ࠊ୺ㄒ࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モྃࡢᣦ♧ᛶࡀ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ๓⨨モྃࡢྡモⓗ⏝ἲࡀᣢࡘᩥἲ

㧗࠸Ⅼࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦᭷ᮧ 1987; ฟཎⓗ࣭ព࿡ⓗ≉ᚩࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

1998; ᒾᓮ 2009㸧
ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(3)ࡢ⏝ἲ࡛ࡣࠊ๓⨨ ๓⨨モྃ࡟ࡣࠊ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ྡモྃⓗ࡟᣺⯙࠸ࠊ モྃࡀ๓⨨モࡢ⿵ㄒྃࡢࡼ࠺࡟᣺⯙ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
௚ࡢ๓⨨モࡢ⿵ㄒྃ࡜࡞ࡿ⏝ἲࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ

๓⨨モࡣㄒ※ⓗ࡟ࡣࠊྡモྃࡢ๓࡟㸦pre-㸧⨨(1) (a) John appeared from under the table.

࠿ࢀࡿ㸦position㸧ࡶࡢ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ๓⨨モ(b) He didn’t appear until after the show.

ࡢ⿵ㄒྃ࡜ࡋ࡚ྡモྃࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ๓⨨モྃࢆ(1)࡛ࡣ๓⨨モྃࡢ under the table ࡜ after the࡜ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ๓⨨モࡢ⿵ㄒྃ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⏝ἲshow ࡀࠊ๓⨨モ from ࡜ until ࡢ⿵ㄒྃ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚

ࡣ୺ㄒྃ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ẚ࡭࡚ࠊᩥἲ㠃࡛ࡶព࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ๓⨨モྃࡀ௚ࡢ๓⨨モࡢ࿡ 㠃 ࡛ ࡶ ౑⏝ ࡀ 㝈 ᐃ ⓗ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ ౛࠼ ࡤ ࠊ⿵ㄒྃ࡜࡞ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ୺せ㒊࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 640) ࡣࠊ୺せ㒊࡜モ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ⿵ㄒྃࡢ୺せ㒊࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モࡢ⤌ࡳ࡞ࡿ඾ᆺⓗ࡞๓⨨モࡣ from, since, till, until ࡛ྜࢃࡏࡣ㝈ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࠶ࡾࠊ๓⨨モྃ඲యࡢព࿡ࡣ✵㛫ⓗព࿡࡜᫬㛫 ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ45 ಶࡢ୺せ࡞๓⨨モࢆᐃ㔞ⓗ࡟ㄪⓗព࿡࡟㝈ࡽࢀࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⿵ㄒྃ࡜

ᰝࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ๓⨨モࡢ⿵ㄒྃ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ๓⨨モࡢ⏝ἲࡣࠊ๓⨨モྃ୺ㄒࡿ๓⨨モྃࡢྡモⓗ⏝ἲ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿᩥἲⓗ࣭ពᵓᩥ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿ(2)ࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ẚ࡭࡚ࠊศᯒࡀ㐍ࢇ࿡ⓗ≉ᛶࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫㄪᰝ

࡛࠸࡞࠸ࠋ⌧ᅾ࡛ࡶࠊ୍㒊ࡢᩥἲ᭩࡛ゝཬࡉࢀ

࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ほᐹࡉࢀࡓ[๓⨨モ][๓⨨モ][ྡモ]ࡢ⤌࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢ㸦Huddleston and Pullum 2002㸧
ࠊヲࡳྜࢃࡏࡢഴྥࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿせᅉࢆㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡋ࠸グ㏙ࡸព࿡ⓗ࡞ศᯒࡣ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ
3.
2.

✵㛫ㄆ▱࡜๓⨨モࡢ᣺⯙࠸ ๓⨨モࡀᣢࡘព࿡ࡣㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢ◊✲ࣃࣛࢲ๓⨨モྃࡢྡモⓗ⏝ἲ࢖࣒࡛ࡣࠊึᮇࡢ㡭࠿ࡽ୺せ࡞⪃ᐹᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿ ๓⨨モྃࡢྡモⓗ⏝ἲࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟ከࡃࡢ

98

㸦Lindner 1981; Brugman 1988㸧
ࠋㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ࡛ࡣࠊ

down, during, for, from, in, into, like, near, of,ே㛫࡟ࡼࡿ✵㛫ࡢᤊ࠼᪉ࡀ๓⨨モࡢᩥἲⓗ࣭ព

off, on, onto, out, over, since, through,࿡ⓗ᣺⯙࠸ࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿ࠿ࡀ㆟ㄽࡉ

throughout, till, to, toward(s), under, until, up,ࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ◊✲࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ๓⨨モࡣᐈ

upon, with, within, withoutほⓗ࡞ୡ⏺ࡢ࠶ࡾࡼ࠺ࢆ⾲ࡍࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊே

(4)ࡢ 45 ࡢ๓⨨モ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ๓⨨モྃࡢྡモⓗ㛫ࡀ୺ほⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡓୡ⏺ࡢ࠶ࡾࡼ࠺ࢆ⾲ࡍⅬࡀ⏝ἲࡢ⏝౛㸦from under the bed ࡞࡝㸧ࡣ BNC ࡟᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟ࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࠊ࣓

௜ᒓࡢࢥࣥࢥ࣮ࢲࣥࢧ࣮ࢆ⏝࠸࡚(5)࡜(6)ࡢᡭ

ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࠊ୺య໬࡞࡝ࡢㄆ▱⬟ຊࡸࠊⓒ⛉஦඾㡰࡛཰㞟ࡍࡿࠋ

ⓗ▱㆑ࡸࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ▱㆑ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟๓

(5) BNC ࡢࠕඹ㉳᳨⣴ࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ୰ᚰㄒࡢ๓⨨モࡢᩥἲⓗ࣭ព࿡ⓗ᣺⯙࠸ࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿ࠿ࡀ⨨モ࡜ࠊࡑࢀ࡟⥆ࡃ๓⨨モ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ୙ኚ໬

㆟ㄽࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋモ㸦ࡘࡲࡾࠊ๓⨨モࡢ๪モⓗ⏝ἲ㸧ࢆ᳨⣴ ⌧ᅾ࡛ࡶࠊ๓⨨モࡢ᣺⯙࠸ࡣࠊᵝࠎ࡞⌧㇟࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ[๓⨨モ 1][๓⨨モ 2]ࡢࣃࢱ࣮

㛵㐃௜ࡅࡽࢀ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ◊✲ࡀ┒ࢇ࡟⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࣥࢆᢳฟࡍࡿࠋ

ࡿࠋ୍౛ࢆᣲࡆࡿ࡜ࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡞ㄒᙡ㛵ಀ㸦཯⩏(6) ࠕㄒ(ྃ)㞟ィࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ2 ࡘ┠ࡢ๓⨨モᚋᛶࡸ㢮⩏ᛶ࡞࡝㸧࡟࠶ࡿ๓⨨モࡢศᯒࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡢ 1-3 ㄒ࡟⌧ࢀࡿྡモ㸦from behind Adam,๓⨨モࢆfrom-to ࡸup-down ࡞࡝ࡢ཯⩏ⓗ࡞ᑐ࡜from under the table, from within his ownࡋ࡚ࡳࡓሙྜࠊ୧⪅ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣࠊศᕸࠊ㢖ᗘࠊ᭷

party㸧ࢆ཰㞟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ[๓⨨モ 2]࡟ᚋ⥆ᶆᛶࠊព࿡ᣑᙇ࡞࡝࡟೫ࡾࡀぢࡽࢀࠊᩥἲ࡜ពࡍࡿྡモྃࡢഴྥࢆㄪ࡭ࡿࠋ࿡ ࡢ ୧ 㠃 ࡛㠀 ᑐ ⛠ ⓗ ࡞≉ ᚩ ࡀ ほ ᐹࡉ ࢀ ࡿ ௨ୖࡢᡭ㡰࡛཰㞟ࡋࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⏝࠸࡚ 2 Ⅼࡢ

㸦Stefanowitsch and Rhode 2004; ▼ᶫ 2007; ኱஦౛◊✲ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ஦౛◊✲ 1 ࡛ࡣࠊ๓⨨モࡢ⤌

㇂ 2012, 2013㸧ࠋࡇࡢゝㄒࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࢆືࡳྜࢃࡏࡢഴྥࢆㄪᰝࡋࠊඹ㉳ࡋࡸࡍ࠸๓⨨モᶵ࡙ࡅࡿᇶ┙࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ஦ែࢆᢕᥱࡋࠊព࿡ࢆ⏕ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
஦౛◊✲ 2 ࡛ࡣࠊᡂࡍࡿᇶ┙࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㌟యࡢᙺ๭ࡀὀ┠ࡉࢀ࡚࠸๓⨨モྃ⿵ㄒࡀ᭱ࡶ㢖⦾࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ from ࡟ᚋࡿࠋ㸦Lakoff 1987, Lakoff and Johnson 1999; Tyler⥆ࡍࡿ๓⨨モ࡜ྡモࡢഴྥࢆㄪᰝࡍࡿࠋ

and Evans 2001㸧ࠋ ௨ୖࡢ⫼ᬒࡢࡶ࡜ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡲࡎࠊ๓⨨モ

5.

⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹ

ྃࡢ⿵ㄒྃ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ๓⨨モྃࡢྡモⓗ5.1.

஦౛◊✲ 1: ๓⨨モࡢ㐃㙐⏝ἲ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ≉ᚩࢆࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᐃ㔞 ᭱ึ࡟ࠊ๓⨨モࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡢഴྥࢆㄪ࡭ࡿ

ⓗ࡟ศᯒࡋࠊㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓศᕸⓗࡓࡵࠊBNC ࡢඹ㉳᳨⣴ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ(4)ࡢ 45 ࡢ๓࡞≉ᚩࢆㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ⨨モ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ๓⨨モ࡜୙ኚ໬モࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ㢖ᗘࡀ 30 ᅇࢆ㉸࠼ࡿ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡣ඲

4.

㒊࡛ 145 ㏻ࡾぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ⤌ࡳࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜᪉ἲㄽ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ๓⨨モྃࡢྡモⓗ⏝ἲࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿྜࢃࡏࡢලయ౛ࢆぢࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ๓⨨モྃࡢྡモࡓࡵࠊAltenberg and Vago (2010: 65) ࡀᣲࡆࡿ୺

ⓗ⏝ἲ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ(7a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞๓⨨モࢆෆᅾࡍせ࡞ 45 ࡢ๓⨨モࢆ⪃ᐹᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࠊ
ࡑࡢ๓⨨モ࡟ࡿືモ࡟๓⨨モࡢ௜ຍྃࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀ㠀ᖖᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ๓⨨モྃࡢ≉ᚩࢆࠊBNC (World Edition)࡟ከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ≉࡟ࠊ(7b)ࡸ(7c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ཷືែࢆ

ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ㄪᰝࡍࡿࠋ

ྵࡴᩥ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠿ࡗࡓࠋ(4) about, above, across, after, against, along,(7) (a) I will actually be working to start with in thisamong, around, at, before, behind, below,

area here. [F77: 66]

beneath, beside, between, beyond, by, despite,(b) Such diagrams are graphically referred to as99

s-plane diagrams. [K90: 1255]

10from outside

3.78 (73)(c) This afternoon she was being cared for by

11

from outside of

3.31 (16)police and relatives. [K1V: 2088]

12

from throughout

3.10 (67) ୍᪉ࠊ๓⨨モࡢ⿵ㄒྃ࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モྃࡶぢࡽ13through till

2.87 (11)ࢀࡓࡀࠊඛ⾜◊✲ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝

14

like unto

2.71 (8)ࡀ✵㛫ⓗព࿡࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ᫬㛫ⓗព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚

15from beside

2.35 (33)16from underneath2.25 (11)17from atop

2.01 (5)࠸ࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊලయⓗ࡞஦౛ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜ࠊ(8a)ࡸ(8b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ✵㛫࣭᫬㛫௨እࡢព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ๓⨨モྃࡸࠊ(8c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟๓⨨モྃ඲య⾲ ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡢᙉ࠸๓⨨モࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡀ័⏝ྃⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ⏝ἲࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ(8) (a) [I]t would all be funded from within the ⾲࠿ࡽࠊBNC ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ๓⨨モࡢศᕸ࡟㛵ࡋ

contract. [G4H: 756]࡚ࠊ௨ୗࡢⅬࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ๓⨨モྃ(b) How about with a man? [C8D: 2490]

ࡢ୺せ㒊࡜࡞ࡿࡢࡣ from ࡀᅽಽⓗ࡟ከ࠸ࠋࡲ

(c) [I]t is a voice from beyond the grave …

ࡓࠊfrom ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ๓⨨モྃ࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ➨[G2V: 1860]୍࡟ࠊᙧᘧࡢ㠃࡛ࡣࠊ஧㡢⠇௨ୖ࡛࠶ࡾࠊunder ඹ㉳㢖ᗘ࡟ࡼࡿ๓⨨モࡢ㞟ィ࡛ࡣࠊ๓⨨モྃࢆ㝖࠸࡚ࡣࡍ࡭࡚ࠊa-, be-, ࡞࡝ࡢ᥋㎡ࢆྵࢇ࡛ࡢྡモⓗ⏝ἲࢆᢳฟ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊㄒྃࡢ

࠸ࡿࠋ➨஧࡟ࠊព࿡ࡢ㠃࡛ࡣࠊ✵㛫ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡢᙉࡉࢆ ࡿ T ࢫࢥ࢔ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ๓⨨ᣢࡘ๓⨨モࡀከ࠸ࡀࠊat, in, on ࡢࡼ࠺࡞඾ᆺⓗモ㛫ࡢ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡢᙉࡉࢆ ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ15 ࡢ๓࡞๓⨨モࡣ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ➨୕࡟ࠊୖୗ࡛ぢ࡚⨨モࡢ㐃㙐࡟᭷ព࡞㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ 2 ௨ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊunder ࡸ beneath ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᇶ‽ࡢୗഃࢆୖࡢᩘ್ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓ㸦⾲ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋ⾲ࡍ๓⨨モࡣ from ࡜ࡢ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡀᙉ࠸ࠋ

 T ࢫࢥ࢔ࡀ㧗࠸⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࢆᐇ㝿࡟ぢࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ๓⨨モࡢྡモⓗ⏝ἲࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ

5.2.

onto as ࡜ onto by ࡣࠊT ࢫࢥ࢔ࡣ㧗࠸ࡀࠊ࡯࡜

஦౛◊✲ 2: ๓⨨モྃෆࡢྡモྃ ḟ࡟ࠊ⾲ࡢ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡢᙉ࠸๓⨨モࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࢇ࡝ࡀ๓⨨モ௜ࡁືモࡢཷືែ㸦be looked ontoࡏ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿྡモࢆㄪᰝࡋ࡚ࠊྛ๓⨨モࡢ⤌ࡳas, be set onto by㸧࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡓࡵࠊ⾲࠿ྜࢃࡏࡀ⾲ࡍព࿡ࡢഴྥࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋㄪᰝࡢ⤖ࡽࡣ㝖እࡋࡓࠋ⾲ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊT ࢫࢥ࢔ࡀ㧗ᯝࠊ௨ୗࡢⅬࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ➨୍࡟ࠊ๓⨨࠸⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡣࠊthrough till ࡜ like unto ࢆ㝖࠸モࡢ⿵ㄒ࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モྃࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡀ✵㛫ⓗព࡚ࠊfrom ࡀ୺せ㒊࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ

࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᫬㛫ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࡶࡢ

#

๓⨨モྃ

T ࢫࢥ࢔(㢖ᗘ)1from behind

21.89 (610)2from within

17.56 (587)behind, under, beneath, beside ࡣࠊ㌟య㒊఩㸦nose,3

from under

12.49 (468)arm, brow㸧ࡸ᪥ᖖⓗ࡟ࡼࡃぢࡿ஦≀㸦desk, door,

4

from beneath12.22 (180)tree㸧࡞࡝ࠊど⏺ࡢ୰࡛༊ษࡽࢀࡿྡモ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋ

5from among

9.92 (233)ࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊacross, around, throughout ࡣࠊᅜࡢࡼ

6from across9.62 (217)࠺࡞ᗈ࠸㡿ᇦࢆ⾲ࡍㄒྃ㸦country, world㸧࡜ඹ7from around9.61 (281)

㉳ࡋࡓࠋ1

8

from amongst

6.65 (73) ➨஧࡟ࠊඛ⾜◊✲ࡢゝཬ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ๓⨨モ

9from beyond

4.57 (77)ࡢ⿵ㄒྃ࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モྃ࡟ࡣ✵㛫ⓗព࿡࡜᫬㛫ࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟ᑡ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ㸦from throughout the year,
through till the end ࡞࡝㸧ࠋ✵㛫ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡢሙྜࠊ

100

(12) (a) He was chosen from the group.

ⓗព࿡ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ(9)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㞟ᅋࡸ⤌⧊ࢆ⾲(b) He was chosen from {within / *in} theࡍព࿡ࡸࠊ(10)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟್ẁ࡞࡝ࡢᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞㡿group.

ᇦࢆ⾲ࡍព࿡ࡶほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ

(11a) ࡜ (12a) ࡢᩥࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀࠕᮘ㸦ࡢ⾲ഃ㸧(9) (a) There were one or two escapees from within
his group, however.

࠿ࡽࠖࠊࠕ㞟ᅋ㸦ࡢ୰㸧࠿ࡽࠖ࡜⮬↛࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ(b) Other directors will be appointed fromࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊon ࡸ in ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊࠕ⾲㠃࡬ࡢ

within the company, Pegasus says.

᥋ゐࠖࡸࠕᐜჾࡢෆഃࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ✵㛫ⓗ࡞㛵ಀࢆ(c) The President appoints the Prime Minister᫂♧ࡍࡿᚲせࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ⮬↛࡞᥎ㄽࡀ㞴ࡋ

and Cabinet from among the members of࠸᭷ᶆ࡞஦ែࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࠊ๓⨨モࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

the unicameral House of Assembly.

౛࠼ࡤࠊྠࡌ᥋ゐࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊᩥ⬦࠿ࡽࡢ(d) You have to write about it from outside᥎ㄽࡀྍ⬟࡞⾲ഃ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ᭷ᶆⓗ࡞⿬ഃࢆ⾲

experience.

ࡍሙྜࠊ(11b) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊunderneath ࢆ⏝࠸࡚(10) The price of the base DCE license costs from᫂♧ⓗ࡟♧ࡍᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ3 ࡲࡓࠊᩥ⬦࠿ࡽໟᦤ

between $150-$2,400 depending on the㛵ಀࡀ᥎ㄽ࡛ࡁࡿ (12a) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊໟ

2

number of components chosen.

ᦤ㛵ಀࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿሙྜࠊ(12b) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ቃ⏺ࢆ(9)ࡸ(10)ࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊ๓⨨モྃ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿྡモྃᙉㄪࡋࡓwithinࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(11) ࡸ (12) ࡣࠊࡀᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ᴫᛕࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㞟ᅋࡸ⤌⧊ࡣࡲⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗព࿡ࡸ↔Ⅼ໬࡞࡝ࠊ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࡞▱㆑࡜ࡲࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࣓ࢱ

ࡸᤊ࠼᪉㸦construal㸧ࡀ๓⨨モࡢศᕸࢆືᶵ࡙

ࣇ࢓࣮ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚✵㛫ⓗ࡞㡿ᇦ࡟ぢ❧࡚ࡽࢀࡿࡇ

ࡅࡿ౛࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ

࡜ࡶከ࠸ࠋ
6.2.
6.

⪃ᐹ

஧✀㢮ࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶ ➨஧࡟ࠊ௒ᅇࡢㄪᰝ࠿ࡽ✵㛫㛵ಀ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ஧ ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ[๓⨨モ][๓⨨モ][ྡモ]ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ✀㢮ࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࠋ୍ࡘ┠ࡣࠊᆶ┤࡟࠾ࡅࡿ೫ࡗࡓศᕸࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿせᅉ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚㍈ࡢୖୗ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋfrom ࡟ᚋ⥆ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡍࡿ๓⨨モ࡛ࡣ under, beneath, underneath ࡞࡝ࠊᇶ‽ࡢୗഃࡢ㡿ᇦࢆ⾲ࡍ๓⨨モࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿഴྥ

6.1.

᭷ᶆ࡞஦ែ࡜↓ᶆ࡞஦ែࡀᙉ࠸ࠋᣦ♧ᛶࡀ㧗࠸๓⨨モྃࡣࠊྡモⓗ࡞≉ ➨୍࡟ࠊ௒ᅇࡢㄪᰝ࡛ࡣࠊfrom ࡣ at, in, on ࡞ᛶࢆᣢࡘⅬࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊୖୗ࡛ࡣୗࡢ᪉ࡀࡲ

࡝ࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞✵㛫㛵ಀࢆ⾲ࡍ๓⨨モ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ

࡜ࡲࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀbehind ࡸ beneath ࡞࡝ࡢᙧែⓗ࡟ࡶព࿡ⓗ࡟ࡿࠋඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡶࠊover ྃ࡜ under ࡛ྃࡣࠊunderࡶ㠀඾ᆺⓗ࡞๓⨨モ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋࡸࡍ࠸Ⅼࡀ☜ㄆࡉྃࡢ᪉ࡀྡモⓗ࡞᣺⯙࠸ࡀᙉࡃぢࡽࢀࡿⅬࡀᣦࢀࡓ㸦⾲ཧ↷㸧ࠋࡇࡢഴྥ࡟ࡣࠊat, in, on ࡀ⾲ࡍ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦኱㇂ 2012㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ఩⨨㛵ಀࡀ඾ᆺⓗ࡞✵㛫఩⨨࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㛵ಀࡣࠊᡃࠎࡀㄆ㆑ࡍࡿୡ⏺࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊఱ࠿ࡢୗ

ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊfrom ࡣ㉳Ⅼࢆ⾲ࡍࡢ㡿ᇦࡣࠊୖࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟ẚ࡭࡚ࠊᆅ㠃ࡸᨭ࠼࡞࡝

๓⨨モ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊat, in, on ࡀ⾲ࡍ✵㛫ⓗ࡞఩⨨࡟ࡼࡗ࡚༊ษࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡀከ࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡲ࡜

ࡣ඾ᆺⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ(11a) ࡸ (12a) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࠋ᫂♧ࡋ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊᩥ⬦࠿ࡽ᥎ㄽࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ஧ࡘ┠ࡣࠊ㉳Ⅼ࡜฿╔Ⅼࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(11) (a) He wiped off some water from the table.

㉳Ⅼࢆ⾲ࡍ from ࡟ࡣᵝࠎ࡞ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ๓⨨モྃ(b) He wiped off some water from {underneath࡜᭷ព࡞⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡀࠊ╔Ⅼࢆ⾲ࡍ to/ *on} the table.

࡟ࡣ๓⨨モྃ࡜ࡢ᭷ព࡞⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡣぢࡽࢀࡎࠊ101

from࡜toࡣᑐ↷ⓗ࡞᣺⯙࠸ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࠊࡓ࡟ព࿡ࢆ௜୚ࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ஦ែࡢ୍㒊⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍ⾲⌧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊFillmore (1997)࡛ᣦ

ศࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀ࡞࠸

᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㉳Ⅼ࡜฿╔Ⅼࡣ㠀ᑐ⛠ⓗሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊᩥࡢ኱ពࡣኚࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ(15a)࡛ࡣࠊ

࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㉳Ⅼࡣ᭷ᶆ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

within ࡀゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀ࡚ࡶࡉࢀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊ௰㛫࠿(13) The cat ran behind the sofa. (ibid.: 3)ࡽᢈุࢆཷࡅࡿⅬࡣኚࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊwithin(13)ࡢ๓⨨モྃ࡟ࡣࠊሙᡤࡢゎ㔘㸦㸻ࢯࣇ࢓࣮ࢆ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊእ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕ௰㛫ෆ࠿ࡢᚋࢁ࡛ࢿࢥࡀ㉮ࡗࡓ㸧࡜ࠊ฿╔Ⅼࡢゎ㔘㸦㸻ࡽࠖᢈุࢆࡉࢀࡓ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀࡿࠋ(15b)ࢯࣇ࢓࣮ࡢᚋࢁࡲ࡛⊧ࡀ㉮ࡗࡓ㸧ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ

ࡶྠᵝ࡟ࠊaround ࡀゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶᩥࡢ኱

ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ(13)ࡣࠊ㉳Ⅼࡢゎ㔘㸦㸻ࢯࣇ࢓࣮ࡢᚋ

ពࡣኚࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࡀࠊaround ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠕୡ⏺

ࢁ࠿ࡽ⊧ࡀ㉮ࡗࡓ㸧ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ㉳Ⅼࡢゎ㔘ࢆ୰ࡢ⮳ࡿᡤ࠿ࡽࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀࡿࠋ(15c)ࡍࡿሙྜࠊThe cat ran from behind the sofa. ࡢࡼ࡛ࡣࠊtill ࡀゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠕ4 ᭶ࡲ࡛ࠖ࡜

࠺࡟ࠊfrom ࢆ⏝࠸࡚♧ࡉ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡇ

࠸࠺ព࿡࡟࡞ࡿࡀࠊtill ࡀゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ

ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⛣ືࡢ㉳Ⅼ࡜╔Ⅼ࡛ࡣࠊ╔Ⅼࡣ↓ᶆ࡛ࠕ4 ᭶ࡢ᭱ᚋࡲ࡛ࠖ࡜࠸࠺╔Ⅼࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀࡿࠋ

࠶ࡿࡓࡵ㸦to ࢆ⏝࠸࡚㸧♧ࡉ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ⮬↛࡟᥎ ஧ࡘ┠ࡣࠊ⿵ㄒྃ࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モྃࡀ୺せ㒊࡜ㄽࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊ
㉳Ⅼࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࡣࠊ
ゝㄒⓗ࡟from࡞ࡿ๓⨨モࡢព࿡ࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࢆ⏝࠸࡚♧ࡍᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞㉳Ⅼ࡜╔(16) (a) He picked up the gun from under the table.

Ⅼࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊto ࡜ࡣᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ from ࡣ(b) His mother’s voice was cold from behind4

the make-up towel.

ᵝࠎ࡞๓⨨モྃ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽ࠼ࡿࠋ

(16)ࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊ⿵ㄒྃෆࡢ๓⨨モ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ๓
6.3.

⨨モྃ඲యࡀ⾲ࡍ఩⨨㛵ಀࡀ≉ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

๓⨨モྃ⿵ㄒࡢศ㢮 ➨୕࡟ࠊ๓⨨モࡢ⿵ㄒྃ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ๓

ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ⿵ㄒྃෆࡢ୺せ㒊࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モࡣ᭷

⨨モྃࡣࠊᶵ⬟࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ(14)࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿࠊᶆ࡞఩⨨㛵ಀࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(16a)࡛ࡣࠊunder୕✀㢮ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࠋ࡟ࡼࡾࠊࢸ࣮ࣈࣝࡢ࿘ࡾࡢ㡿ᇦࡢ୰࡛ࠊୗഃࡢ

(14) (a) ᙉㄪᆺ 㸸⿵ㄒྃ࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モྃࡀ୺せ㡿ᇦࡀ≉ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋunder ࡀ࡞࠸ from the table 㒊࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モࡢព࿡ࢆ ᙉㄪ ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠺ሙྜࠊ㖠ࡀ࠶ࡿሙᡤ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࠕࢸ࣮ࣈࣝ(b) ≉ᐃᆺ 㸸⿵ㄒྃ࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モྃࡀ୺せࡢୖࠖࡸࠕࢸ࣮ࣈࣝࡢ㸦ᘬࡁฟࡋࡢ㸧୰ࠖ࡞࡝ 㒊࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モࡢព࿡ࢆ ≉ᐃ ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞఩⨨㛵ಀࡀႏ㉳ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊunder ࢆ(c) ௜୚ᆺ 㸸⿵ㄒྃ࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モྃࡀ୺せ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࢸ࣮ࣈࣝࡢୗ࡜࠸࠺୍⯡ⓗ࡛ࡣ 㒊࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モ࡟ព࿡ࢆ ௜୚ ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡞ࡃࠊ᭷ᶆ࡞ሙᡤࡀ≉ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊ(16b)௨ୗ࡟ࠊ୕✀㢮ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࢆ㡰࡟ࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ୍ࡘ

ࡢ behind ࡶࢱ࢜ࣝࡢ௜㏆ࡢ୰࡛ࡶࠊ
ࠕᚋࢁഃࠖ┠ࡣࠊ⿵ㄒྃ࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モྃࡀ୺せ㒊࡜࡞ࡿ๓ࡢ㡿ᇦࢆ≉ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉ᐃᆺࡢ๓⨨モྃ⿵ㄒ⨨モࡢព࿡ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡢሙྜࠊ๓⨨モ඲యࡀ⾲ࡍ఩⨨ࡀ㏻ᖖࡢ᥎ㄽ࡟

(15) (a) Mr. Gonzalez has also come in for criticism

ࡼࡾᑟ࠿ࢀ࡙ࡽ࠸ࡓࡵࠊ๓⨨モྃ⿵ㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡚from within his own party.

᭷ᶆ࡞఩⨨㛵ಀࢆ≉ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ(b) There are numerous varieties of mustards ୕ࡘ┠ࡣࠊ⿵ㄒྃ࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モྃࡀ୺せ㒊࡜from around the world, …

࡞ࡿ๓⨨モ࡟ព࿡ࢆ௜୚ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ(c) So I thought, oh that’s great, we’ve got theሙྜࠊ๓⨨モྃࡢ⿵ㄒྃࡢ୺せ㒊࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モ

business through till April.

࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ᪂ࡓ࡞఩⨨㛵ಀࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ⿵

(15)࡛ࡣࠊ⿵ㄒྃෆࡢ๓⨨モࡣ୺せ㒊࡜࡞ࡿ๓ㄒྃࡢ୺せ㒊࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モࡀゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙ⨨モࡢព࿡ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࠋ⿵ㄒྃෆࡢ๓⨨モࡣ᪂ྜ࡜ࡉࢀࡿሙྜ࡛ࡣ⾲ࡉࢀࡿ஦ែࡀ␗࡞ࡿࠋ

102

(17) (a) This time they approached from across theࡢศᕸࡢ೫ࡾࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿせᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
᭷ᶆᛶࠊ

field above the bank, a roundabout route.

㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࠊ๓⨨モྃ⿵ㄒࡢᶵ⬟࡞࡝ࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒ(b) Designed by Hawksmoor in 1731, it wasᏛࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋnot completed until after his death.

 ๓⨨モࡣ୰ᚰⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡣ✵㛫ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᩥ

(c) People would still be living here who hadἲ໬ࡀ㐍ࢇࡔရモࢡࣛࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ๓

been in residence since before the war and⨨モࡢศᕸࡢ೫ࡾࡢㄪᰝࡣࠊ✵㛫ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟

(17)࡛ࡣ๓⨨モ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ๓⨨モྃ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᪂

ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᢳ㇟

ࡓ࡞ព࿡ࡀ௜୚ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(17a)࡛ࡣࠊfromⓗ࡞ᴫᛕࡸᩥἲᶵ⬟ࡢᇶ┙࡜ࡋ࡚✵㛫ⓗ࡞఩⨨across the field ࡀࠕ㔝ཎࡢྥࡇ࠺ഃ࠿ࡽࠖ࡜࠸࠺

㛵ಀࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆㄽࡌࡿ࠺

஦ែࢆ⾲ࡍࡀࠊ
ࠕྥࡇ࠺ഃࠖࡢ㡿ᇦࡣ across ࡟࠼࡛㔜せ࡞ゝㄒⓗ࡞ᡭ᥃࠿ࡾ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡼࡗ࡚♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊ᫬㛫ࢆ⾲ࡍ๓⨨モࡢ౛ ⌧ᅾࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡸᶵ⬟ゝㄒᏛ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊゝ

࡛࠶ࡿ(17b)࡜(17c)࡛ࡣࠊuntil ࡸ since ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣㄒࡢᩥἲⓗ࣭ព࿡ⓗ᣺⯙࠸ࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿᵝࠎ࡞⾲ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ព࿡ࡀࠊ⿵ㄒྃࡢ୺せ㒊࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡸไ⣙ࡀᥦၐࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣ୺モ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚௜୚ࡉࢀࡿࠋ(17b)ࡣࠕᙼࡀṚࢇࡔᚋࠖ

࡟ࠊBNC ෆࡢ๓⨨モࡢศᕸࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓࡀࠊ኱㔞࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡟࡞ࡿࠋafter ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ

ࡢゝㄒࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ೫ࡾࢆᐃ㔞ⓗ࡟ศᯒࡍuntil ࡀ⾲ࡍࠕ㹼ࡲ࡛ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡟ࠕ㹼ࡢᚋࠖࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᮏ✏ࡢᡭἲࡣࠊゝㄒࡢᶵ⬟ⓗ࡞ไ⣙࡟࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡀ௜୚ࡉࢀࠊ඲యࡣࠕ㹼ࡢᚋࡲ࡛ࠖ

㛵ࡍࡿ௬ㄝࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢᐇドⓗ࡞ศᯒᡭἲ

࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(17c)ࡣࠕᡓதࡢ๓࠿

࡜ࡋ࡚ᛂ⏝ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ

ࡽࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡟࡞ࡿࠋbefore ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼ
ࡗ࡚ࠊsince ࡀ⾲ࡍࠕ㹼࠿ࡽࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡟ࠕ㹼ὀࡢ๓ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡀ௜୚ࡉࢀࠊ඲యࡣࠕ㹼ࡀጞ* ᮏ✏ࡣ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠ⱝᡭ◊✲㸦B㸧㸦◊✲ࡲࡿ๓࠿ࡽࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ㄢ㢟␒ྕ㸸26770171㸧ࡢ⿵ຓࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋⱥ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ๓⨨モࡢ⿵ㄒྃ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽㄒᏛ఍࡛ࡢⓎ⾲᫬࡟ࠊ❴ᮌᓫᗣࠊྜྷᕝṇேࠊ୰ࢀࡿ๓⨨モࡢᶵ⬟ࡣࠊඛ⾜ࡍࡿ๓⨨モ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ๓⨨モࡢ⿵ㄒྃ࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モྃ࡟ᮧᩥ⣖ࠊᇼෆࡩࡳ㔝ࡢྛẶ࡟ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋ
1. ྜྷᕝṇேẶ࠿ࡽࠊ[๓⨨モ][๓⨨モ][ྡモ]ࡢ
㐃⥆࡛ࡣࠊ๓⨨モྃෆࡢᵓ㐀ࡀ(i)࡜(ii)ࡢ஧✀㢮࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ࡢࡈᣦ᦬ࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋ (i)[[prep] [prep NP]] (ii)[[prep prep] [NP]](i)࡛ࡣࠊ⿵ㄒྃ࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モྃࡀ୍ࡘࡢࡲ࡜ࡲ

ぢࡽࢀࡿ≉ᚩࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊBNC ࢆ⏝ࡾ࡜࡞ࡾ୺せ㒊࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ㸦౛࠸࡚ࠊ஧✀㢮ࡢᐃ㔞ⓗ࡞ㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ➨୍ࡢ[from][around the world]㸧
ࠋ(ii)࡛ࡣࠊ」ྜⓗ࡞๓ㄪᰝ࡛ࡣࠊ๓⨨モࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࢆㄪᰝࡋ࡚ࠊ୺⨨モࡀ⿵ㄒྃ࡜࡞ࡿྡモྃ࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡃࠋࡇࡢⅬせ㒊࡜࡞ࡿ๓⨨モࡣᅽಽⓗ࡟ from ࡀከ࠸Ⅼ࡜ࠊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ᳨ドࡀᚲせࡔࡀࠊ(i)ࡢሙྜࡣྡモfrom ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ๓⨨モࡣ at, in, on ࡞࡝ࡢ඾ᆺⓗࡢ✀㢮ࡀ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘ㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ(ii)ࡢሙྜࠊྡ

࡞๓⨨モ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ஧㡢⠇௨ୖࡢ๓⨨モࡀ⌧ࢀモ࡟ࡣẚ㍑ⓗከᵝ࡞✀㢮ࡀධࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜

ࡿⅬࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋ➨஧ࡢㄪᰝ࡛ࡣࠊ๓⨨モ࡟ᚋࡢຓゝࢆཷࡅࡓࠋ⥆ࡍࡿྡモࢆศ㢮ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ๓⨨モྃ⿵ㄒ࡟

2. ࡇࡢ౛࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊࣇࣟ࢔࠿ࡽ㛫㐪࠸࡛ࡣ࡞ࡣ᫬㛫࡜✵㛫ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ㞟ᅋࠊ⤌⧊ࠊ್ẁ࡞࠸࠿࡜ࡢᣦ᦬ࢆཷࡅࡓࡀࠊ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺࡢ(i) ព࿡ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࠊ(ii) ព࿡ࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿࠊ(iii)ព࿡ࢆ௜୚ࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺୕✀㢮࡟኱ู࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
7.

ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡝ࡢᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ࡀ࠶ࡿⅬࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋ ࢳ࢙ࢵࢡ࡟ࡼࡾၥ㢟࡞࠸Ⅼࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋ
3. Ⓨ⾲ᚋ࡟❴ᮌᓫᗣඛ⏕࠿ࡽㄒᙧᡂ࡛ࡣ ḟ࡟ࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝほᐹࡉࢀࡓ๓⨨モ

103

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

floor-to-ceiling shelf ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ from ࡣゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀࡎ࡟ to ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢ

Lakoff, George (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous

ሙྜ from ࡣ᫂♧ࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊᩥ⬦࠿ࡽ᥎ㄽࡀྍ

Things: What Categories Reveal about Mind,⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋᩥ⬦࠿ࡽ᥎ㄽࡀྍ⬟࡞↓ᶆ࡞఩⨨㛵The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lakoff,ಀࡣゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࠊୖグࡢ౛ࡣࠊ

GeorgeandMark

Johnson(1999)

from ࡢᚋ࡟ at, in, on ࡀᚋ⥆ࡋ࡞࠸Ⅼ࡜ඹ㏻ࡋ

Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

and its Challenge to Western Thought, Basic

4. Fillmore (1997)ࢆࡣࡌࡵ࡜ࡍࡿ㉳Ⅼ࡜฿╔

Books, New York.
Lindner, Suzan J. (1981) A Lexico-semantic AnalysisⅬࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࡢ㆟ㄽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୰ᮧᩥ⣖Ặ࡟

of English Verb-particle Constructions with UPຓゝࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋ

and OUT. Doctoral dissertation, University ofCalifornia at San Diego.

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Altenberg, Evelyn. P. and Robert M. Vago (2010)኱㇂┤㍤ (2012) ࠕ͆John walked over/under the

English Grammar: Understanding the Basics,

bridge͇ ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹ ̿ᩥἲࡢ㌟యⓗ࡞

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

ᇶ┙࡜ⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗព࿡̿ࠖࠗゝㄒ◊✲࠘141᭷ᮧවᙯ (1987) ࠕ๓⨨モྃ୺ㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖࠗ, ⱥᕳ, 47-58.

ㄒ㟷ᖺ࠘ 4 ᭶ྕ, 22, ◊✲♫ฟ∧, ᮾி.

Otani, Naoki. (2013) A Cognitive Analysis of theBrugman, Claudia. (1988) The Story of Over:

Grammaticalized

FunctionsofEnglishPolysemy, Semantics and the Structure of the

Prepositions:

From

SpatialSenses

Lexicon, Garland Press, New York. (The story ofGrammaticalandDiscourse

Functions,over. Berkeley: University of California at

Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

Berkeley, MA thesis. 1981.)

toPanther, Klaus-Uwe and Günter Radden (eds.)

Fillmore, J. Charles (1997) Lectures on Deixis, CSLI

(2011) Motivation in Grammar and the Lexicon,

Publications, Stanford.

John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia.

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002)

Quirk, Randolph, Sydney Greenbaum, Geoffrey

The Cambridge Grammar of the English

Leech and Jan Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive

Language,

Grammar of the English Language, Longman,

Cambridge

University

Press,

Cambridge.

London.

ฟཎ೺୍ (1998) ࠕ๓⨨モྃ୺ㄒᵓᩥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ

Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Ada Rohde (2004) “The୍⪃ᐹ ̿ㄆ▱ᩥἲ࡜࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢲࣥࢫ⌮ㄽ

Goal Bias in the Encoding of Motion Events,” In̿ࠖࠗேᩥ⛉Ꮫㄽ㞟㸺ᩥ໬ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙ

Günter Radden and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.)ࣥᏛ⛉⦅㸼࠘➨ 32 ྕ, 25-36.

Studies in Linguistic Motivation, 249-267,▼ᶫ⨾⏤⣖ (2007) ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒ౑ᙺ⛣ື⾲⌧࡟࠾

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York.

ࡅࡿࠗ㉳Ⅼ࠘
࣭ࠗ╔Ⅼ࠘⾲⌧ࡢㄆ▱ⓗ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࠖ
KLS (Kansai Linguistic Society) 27, 162-172.

Tyler,

Andreaand“Reconsideringᒾᓮᏹஅ (2009) ࠕ๓⨨モྃ୺ㄒ࡜ᣦ♧ᛶࠖJELS

VyvyanEvansprepositional(2001)

polysemy

networks,” Language 77 (4), 724-765.

26, 81-90.
Jones, Steven, M. Lynne Murphy, Carita Paradis and㸦ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸧

Caroline Willners (2012) Antonyms in English:
Construals,

Constructions

andBritishCanonicity,

National

Corpus(Availableat

http://www.corpora.jp/~scn/bnc.html?page=top)104

ᅾࡍࡿࠋᮏ᮶ࠊ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡛ゎ㔘ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡞⣲ᛶࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࣑ࢽ
࣐ࣜࢫࢺࡢ᏶඲ゎ㔘ࡢᴫᛕ࠿ࡽࡣዲࡲࢀ࡞
࠸ࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࣑ࢽ࣐ࣜࢫࢺࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛ
⿵ᩥᶆ㆑୍⮴࡜⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎ*ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘୙ྍ⬟⣲ᛶࡀࠊ⛣ືࡸ

(On Complementizer Agreement and୍⮴࡞࡝ࡢ⤫ㄒ⌧㇟ࡢᘬࡁ㔠࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺

Feature-Inheritance)❧ሙࡀ࡜ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ❧ሙࡢࡶ࡜࡛ࡣࠊ
ゎ㔘୙ྍ⬟⣲ᛶࢆ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟⮳ࡽ኱ሯ ▱᪼ (Tomonori Otsuka)

1ࡏ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺⤫ㄒ㒊㛛࡛ฎ⌮ࡍࡿ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ

஑ᕞ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔 (Graduate School of Kyushu⤫ㄒⓗ⛣ືࡸ୍⮴ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋᚑ

University)ࡗ࡚ࠊᮏㄽᩥ࡛ぢࡿ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑୍⮴ࡢࡼ࠺࡞୍⮴⌧㇟ࡣࠊ࣑ࢽ࣐ࣜࢫࢺࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛࡣ

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ECM ᵓᩥࠊᙅࣇ࢙࢖ࢬࠊ⿵ᩥ

(2)ࡢ᝿ᐃࡢࡶ࡜࡛࡜ࡽ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ௨

ᶆ㆑୍⮴ࠊ㐟㞳ᩘ㔞モୗ࡛ࡣ⣬㠃ࡢ㒔ྜୖࠊゎ㔘୙ྍ⬟⣲ᛶࢆ u-Fࠊゎ㔘ྍ⬟⣲ᛶࢆ i-F ࡜⾲グࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
 (2) ୍⮴ࡣ u-F ࡢ↷ྜ࡟ࡼࡾ⏕ࡌࡿᴫせ Richards (2007)ࡣࠊChomsky (2007, 2008,

1.2. ⣲ᛶࡢ⤫ㄒⓗ࡞್(value)2013)ࡢ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎ࡟ᙉຊ࡞⌮ㄽⓗᨭᣢࢆ♧ ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊEpstein et al. (1998)ࡀᣦ᦬

ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ Richards (2007)ࡢ᝿ᐃࡢࡶ࡜

ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊཝᐦ࡟ࡣࠊᙜヱࡢ⣲ᛶࡀゎ㔘࡛ࡣࠊ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑୍⮴ࡀㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ

ྍ⬟࠿୙ྍ⬟࠿ࡣ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟⾜ࡃ࡛ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣ୺ᙇ࡜ࡋ࡚⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࡀ⿵㒊ࡢࡲ࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ Chomsky୺せ㒊ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ c ⤫ᚚ㡿ᇦෆ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ

(2001)ࡣࠊ⤫ㄒⓗ࡞್࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࢆᑟධࡋ

୺ せ 㒊 ࡟ ࡶ ྍ ⬟ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࡜ ୺ ᙇ ࡋ ࠊ Rizziࡓࠋ(1997)௨㝆ࡢ CP ࣮࢝ࢺࢢࣛࣇ࢕࡟ᇶ࡙࠸

 (3) a. i-Fゎ㔘㸸ྍ⬟⤫ㄒⓗ࡞್㸸᭷࡚⿵ᩥᶆ㆑୍⮴ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ
b. u-F1. ᑟධ㸸⌮ㄽⓗ⫼ᬒゎ㔘㸸୙ྍ⬟⤫ㄒⓗ࡞್㸸↓1.1. ⣲ᛶ↷ྜ(3a)࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊi-F ࡜ࡣ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ ࣑ࢽ࣐ࣜࢫࢺࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛࡣࠊㅖ⌧㇟ࡢ࢙࢖ࢫ࡛ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࠊ⤫ㄒ㒊㛛࡛ࡣ⤫ㄒⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂࡟㝿ࡋࠊ⣲ᛶ࡟ὀ┠ࡀ㞟ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

್ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⣲ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿ୍᪉ࠊ(3b)࡟♧ (1) John likes dogs.

ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊu-F ࡣ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡛

John: [interpretable ĳ-featuresT:ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡎࠊࡲࡓ⤫ㄒⓗ࡞್ࡶᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࠋ

(3rd person, singular, masculine)]ࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡾࠊᙜヱࡢ⣲ᛶࡢ⤫ㄒⓗ࡞್ࢆぢ[uninterpretable ĳ-features]ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡑࡢゎ㔘ࡢྍྰࢆ⤫ㄒ㒊㛛(1)ࡢ John ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྡモࡣ୕ே⛠ࠊ༢ᩘࠊ࡛ࡶ▱ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀᑟ࠿ࢀ

⏨ᛶ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ⣲ᛶ(ゎ㔘ྍ⬟࡞ Ǘࡓࠋ⣲ᛶ)ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ୍᪉࡛ࠊືモ ࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢ⣲ᛶࡢ⤫ㄒⓗ࡞್࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕ

ࡢᒅᢡ࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀࡓࡇࢀ࡜ᑐᛂࡍࡿゎ㔘࡛ࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞฼Ⅼࡶ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡁ࡞࠸⣲ᛶ(T ࡢゎ㔘୙ྍ⬟࡞ Ǘ ⣲ᛶ)ࡶᏑ

 (4) John likes dogs.

105

(4)࡟ࡣ୍⮴ࡀᏑᅾࡋࠊࡇࢀࡣ(2)࡟ᚑ࠸ u-F௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࠕdeletionࠖ࡜ࠕerasureࠖࡢ↷ྜࡢ⤖ᯝ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ

࡜࠸࠺వ๫ⓗ࡞᧯సࡀ⊂⮬࡟ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡇࡇ࡛ࠊu-F ࡀⓎ㡢࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ௨ୖࠊ

ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ

⤫ㄒ㒊㛛࡛↷ྜ࡟ࡼࡾฎ⌮ࡉࢀࡓ u-F ࡀ࡝ ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⣲ᛶࡢ⤫ㄒⓗ࡞್࡜࠸࠺

ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㡢ኌ㒊㛛ࡲ࡛฿㐩ࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺

ᴫᛕࡢᑟධࡢ⤖ᯝࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ၥ㢟ࡀᾋୖ␲ၥࡀᾋୖࡍࡿࠋ

ࡋࡓࠋ ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊChomsky (2000)ࡲ࡛ࡢᯟ⤌ (6)↷ྜࡉࢀࡓ u-F ࡣ i-F ࡜༊ู࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࡳ࡛ࡣ஧㔜ࡢ᧯సࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋu-F (7) a. i-Fゎ㔘㸸ྍ⬟⤫ㄒⓗ್㸸᭷

ࡣࠊࡲࡎ↷ྜ࡟ࡼࡾࠕdeletionࠖࢆࡉࢀࡓᚋࠊ
b. u-F౫↛࡜ࡋ࡚ὴ⏕࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ⥆ࡅࠊ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ
࢙࢖ࢫ࡟㏦ࡽࢀࡿᡤ࡛ࠕerasureࠖ࡟ࡼࡾ᏶

ゎ㔘㸸୙ྍ⬟⤫ㄒⓗ್㸸↓c. ↷ྜࡉࢀࡓ u-F඲࡟ᾘཤࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡇࡢ
ᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛ࡣ Epstein and Seely (2002)ࡀᣦ᦬

ゎ㔘㸸୙ྍ⬟

ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࠕdeletionࠖ࡜ࠕerasureࠖ࡜࠸⤫ㄒⓗ್㸸᭷

࠺వ๫ⓗ࡞᧯సࡢ᝿ᐃࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺

(7a)࡜(7c)࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ↷ྜࠊࡘࡲࡾ್ࡢ

ၥ㢟ࡀⓎ⏕ࡍࡿࠋ
ࠕerasureࠖࡀ u-F ࢆ᏶඲࡟ࢥࣆ࣮ࢆཷࡅࡓ u-F ࡣࠊ(7c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ౫↛ᾘཤ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ࡞ࡐูಶ࡟ࠕdeletionࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡇࢀࡀ u-F ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮

࡜࠸࠺᧯సࡀᚲせ࡞ࡢ࠿ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡛ࡣㄞࡵ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊ⤫ㄒⓗ࡞್ࡲࡓ⣲ᛶࢆ᏶඲࡟ᾘཤ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠕdeletionࠖࡣᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀண

࡜ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᧯స࡞ࡢ࠿ࡶ୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡗ࡚ࠊ⤫ㄒⓗ࡞್ࡢᑟධࡢ⤖ᯝࠊu-F ࡣ↷ ࡋ࠿ࡋ⤫ㄒⓗ࡞್࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡀ Chomskyྜᚋ࡛ࡣ i-F ࠿ࡽ༊ู࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜

(2001)࡟ࡼࡾᑟධࡉࢀࡓ⤖ᯝࠊࠕdeletionࠖࠊࡀᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࠋChomsky (2001)࡛ࡣࡇࢀ࡟ᑐ

ࡘࡲࡾ⣲ᛶࡢ↷ྜࡣ್ࡢࢥࣆ࣮᧯స࡛࠶ࡿ

ࡋࠊu-F ࡣ↷ྜᚋࡍࡄ࡟㌿㏦ࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࡜࡜ࡽ࠼┤ࡉࢀࡿࠋ௬࡟⤫ㄒⓗ࡞್ࡢࢥࣆ

࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺୺ᙇࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊEpstein࣮ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊu-F ࡣ㡢ኌ㒊㛛࡛㐺ษ

and Seely (2002)ࡀᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ↷࡞Ⓨ㡢ᙧᘧࢆᚓࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ

ྜᚋࡍࡄ࡟㌿㏦ࡉࢀࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ౫↛࡜ࡋ

ࠕdeletionࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ↷ྜ᧯స࡚ࠊᙜヱ⣲ᛶࡢ↷ྜ๓ࡢ≧ែࢆ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡿࡣࠊu-F ࡢⓎ㡢ᙧᘧࢆỴࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟⊂⮬࡟

ࠕlook backࠖࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ࣑ࢽ࣐ࣜࢫࢺᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࠋ

ࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛࡣࡇࢀࡣዲࡲࢀ࡞࠸ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ

 (5) a. u-F[

i-F[value]↷ྜ࡜㌿㏦ࡣྠ᫬࡟㉳ࡇࡽࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠊ

i-F[value]

࡜࠸࠺ண

]

b. u-F[value]

Agree

ࡉࢀࡿࠋᚑ

ࡀᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࠋ

್ࡢࢥࣆ୍࣮᪉࡛ࠊࠕerasureࠖࡣ Spell-Out ࡜࠸࠺⣲ᛶ

1.3. ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎ㸸Richards (2007)ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ

ࡢᾘཤ᧯స࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋࠕdeletionࠖࡀ್ ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࡢㄝ᫂࡟ᙜࡓࡾࠊࡲࡎࡣࣇ࢙࢖

ࡢࢥࣆ࣮࡜࡜ࡽ࠼┤ࡉࢀࡓ௨ୖࠊu-F ࡣ⤫ࢬ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࣇ࢙

ㄒⓗ࡞್ࡢࢥࣆ࣮ࢆཷࡅࡓᚋࡶὴ⏕࡟Ꮡᅾ

࢖ࢬࡣ Chomsky (2000)࡟ࡼࡾᥦ᱌ࡉࢀࡓᴫ

ࡋ⥆ࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ u-F ࡣᮏ㉁ⓗᛕ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⌧⾜ࡢ࣑ࢽ࣐ࣜࢫࢺࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ

࡟ព࿡㒊㛛࡛ゎ㔘࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ

ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊᩥࡣࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ࡜࠸࠺

Spell-Out ࡣࠊu-F ࢆព࿡㒊㛛࡟⾜࠿ࡏࡎ㡢༢఩࡛ὴ⏕ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࣇ

ኌ㒊㛛ࡔࡅ࡟㏦ࡿࡓࡵ࡟⊂⮬࡟ᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ࢙࢖ࢬࡣ CPࠊv*P ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࣇ

106࢙࢖ࢬࡀ᏶ᡂࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡑࡢ⿵㒊ࡣ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮

ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ

ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟㌿㏦ࡉࢀࡿ࡜᝿ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

 (10) ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎ࡟ࡼࡾ u-F ࡣ㌿㏦㡿ᇦෆ࡟࠾࠸࡚↷ྜࡉࢀࡿ

ࡇࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡍ࡛࡟㌿㏦ࡉࢀࡓ㡿ᇦ࡬ࡢ⤫ㄒ᧯సࡢ㐺⏝ࢆ⚗ࡌࡿࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ୙ྍ౵

ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ(11)࡟ᴫ␎ⓗ࡟♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

᮲௳࡞࡝ࠊ⌮ㄽⓗ࡞ᥦ᱌ࡀᑟ࠿ࢀࡓࠋࡇࢀ

 (11) a. [Spec [Ph-H [Comp-H͐]㌿㏦]]

ࡽࡣ(8)࡟ᴫ␎࡛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(8)࡛ࡣ Ph[u-F]
b. [Spec [Ph-H [Comp-H͐]㌿㏦]]ࡣࣇ࢙࢖ࢬࠊH ࡣ୺せ㒊ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 (8) [Spec [Ph-H [Comp-H͐]㌿㏦]][][u-F] ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎ ⥆࠸࡚ Chomsky (2008)ࡢ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࡢㄝ᫂ࡲ ࡎ (11a) ࡟ ぢ ࡽ ࢀ ࡿ ࡼ ࠺ ࡟ ࠊ Chomsky࡟⛣ࡿࠋChomsky (2008)࡛ࡣࠊC ࡟㑅ᢥࡉ

(2008)࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊu-F ࡀࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ୺せ㒊࡟Ꮡᅾࢀࡓ T ࡣ᏶඲࡛࠶ࡿ(ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕᒅᢡࠊ᱁௜୚

ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ㌿㏦ࡉࢀࡿ㡿ᇦࡀࣇ࢙࢖ࢬࡢ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ)࡜࠸࠺⤒㦂ⓗほᐹ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ⣲ᛶ⥅⿵㒊࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺᝿ᐃࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊu-Fᢎࡢ᝿ᐃ࡟ࡼࡿㄝ᫂ࡀヨࡳࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡣ↷ྜࡉࢀࡓ㝿࡟㌿㏦ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ

Chomsky (2001)࡛ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊT ࡣ C(11b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ୺せ㒊ࡀࡑࡢ⿵㒊࡟㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣᒅᢡࡀ⌧ࢀ᱁௜୚࡟ࡢ୺せ㒊࡟ u-F ࢆ⥅ᢎࡍࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢ u-F ࡣ㛵ࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺᏶඲࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ≉ᛶࢆ♧ࣇ࢙࢖ࢬࡢ㌿㏦㡿ᇦ࡟ྵࡲࢀࠊᚑࡗ࡚↷ྜࡍࡀࠊC ࡟㑅ᢥࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡣḞዴⓗ࡞ࡶࡉࢀࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟㌿㏦ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡢ ࡜ ࡋ ࡚ ࡢ ᣺ ࡿ ⯙ ࠸ ࢆ ♧ ࡍ ࠋ Chomsky ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࡣࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ୺せ㒊ୖࡢ(2001)࡛ࡣࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ஧✀㢮ࡢ T ୺せ㒊

u-F ࢆ㌿㏦㡿ᇦෆ࡟཰ࡵࡿ᧯స࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸

ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊChomsky (2008)࡛ࡣࠊT࠺⤖ㄽࡀᑟ࠿ࢀࡓࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࡣࡑࡶࡑࡶ✵ࡢḞዴⓗ࡞୺せ㒊࡛࠶ࡿ࡜᝿

ࡢ⌮ㄽⓗ⿬௜ࡅ࡜ࠊ↷ྜ࡜㌿㏦ࡢྠ᫬ᛶࡢᐃࡋࠊC ࠿ࡽ u-F ࡀ⥅ᢎࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊTㄝ᫂ࡀ୍ᣲ࡟࡞ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢ

ࡀ᏶඲࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ጞࡵࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ

Richards (2007)ࡢᥦ᱌ࡣ Chomsky (2007)࡟

⣲ᛶࡢᘬࡁΏࡋ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃㄝ᫂ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡇ࠾࠸࡚᥇⏝ࡉࢀࠊ᭱᪂ࡢ Chomsky (2013)࡟

ࢀ࡟ࡼࡾ஧✀㢮ࡢ T ࡜ࠊC ࡟ࡼࡿ㑅ᢥࢆ᝿࠾࠸࡚ࡶ౫↛࡜ࡋ࡚⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࡢ⌮ㄽⓗ⿬௜ᐃࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ

ࡅ࡜ࡋ࡚ゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

 (9) a. T [

]Ḟዴⓗ

b. C[

2. ၥ㢟ᥦ㉳] T[u-F]᏶඲

 ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠊRichards (2007)ࡢᥦ᱌࡟⮳ࡿࡲ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎ ࡲࡓࡉࡽ࡟ࠊChomsky (2008)ࡣࡇࡢ᝿ᐃ࡛ ࡢ ⌮ ㄽ ⓗ ኚ 㑄 ࢆ ぢ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࡛ ࠊ Richardsࢆ୍⯡໬ࡋࠊ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎ࡜࠸࠺᝿ᐃࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚(2007)ࡢㄽࡢ㔜せᛶࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋᮏ⠇࠸ࡿࠋ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࡢ᝿ᐃࡢࡶ࡜࡛ࡣࠊu-F ࡣ࡛ࡣࡇࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ

ࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ୺せ㒊࡟Ꮡᅾࡋࠊ⿵㒊ࡢ୺せ㒊࡟⥅ᢎࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࡇࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡣࠊ

2.1. Richards (2007)ࡢᖐ⤖⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࡣ T ࡢ㑅ᢥᛶࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ࢔

 Richards (2007)ࡢ(10)ࡢ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎ࡟ࡼࡾࢻ࣍ࢵࢡ࡞᝿ᐃ࡛ࡋ࠿࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

u-F ࡣ㌿㏦㡿ᇦෆ࡟࠾࠸࡚↷ྜࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸ ࡇࡇ࡛ Richards (2007)ࡀࠊࡇࡢ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎ࠺ᥦ᱌ࡣࠊ(12)ࡢᖐ⤖ࢆᑟࡃࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⌮ㄽⓗ࡞⿬௜ࡅ࡜ࠊ1.2 ࡛ぢࡓ↷ྜ (12) ↷ྜࡉࢀࡿ u-F ࡣࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ୺せ㒊࡟࡜㌿㏦ࡢྠ᫬ᛶࡢၥ㢟ࡢゎỴࢆ୍ᜥ࡟⾜࠺ṧࡗ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࠋ

ᥦ᱌ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋRichards (2007)ࡢᥦ᱌ࡣ(10)ࡇࢀࡣࠊ1.3 ࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ௬࡟ u-F ࡀࣇ࢙

107࢖ࢬ୺せ㒊࡟ṧࡗࡓ≧ែ࡛↷ྜࡉࢀࡓሙྜࠊ

ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆぢࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ

ࡇࡢ u-F ࡣᙜヱࣇ࢙࢖ࢬࡢ㌿㏦㡿ᇦ࡟ྵࡲ

ࡲࡎࡣ(14)࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࠊすࣇ࣐ࣛࣥㄒࡢᡤ

ࢀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊᚑࡗ࡚↷ྜ࡜㌿㏦ࡢྠ᫬ᛶࡀ

᭷⪅ࡢศ㞳࡜࠸࠺⌧㇟࡟ゐࢀࡿࠋᏲࡽࢀࡎࠊu-F ࢆ㐺ษ࡟ฎ⌮࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿ

 (14)࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊすࣇ࣐ࣛࣥㄒ࡛

ࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡣࠊᡤ᭷⪅ࡀ⿕ᡤ᭷≀࡜ศ㞳ࡋ࡚⾲⌧ࡉࢀ ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞཯

ᚓࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆ Haegeman and Koppen (2012)౛࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡢࡀࠊ௨ୗ࡟ぢࡿ⿵ᩥࡣ External Possessor (EP)࡜ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ᶆ㆑୍⮴࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑୍⮴࡛ࡣࠊࣇ࢙

 (14) …omda-n

࢖ࢬ୺せ㒊࡛࠶ࡿ C ࡟ᒅᢡࡀ⾲ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

because-Pl(13)ࡣすࣇ࣐ࣛࣥㄒࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

juste

underencomputer kapot

theircomputer broken

 (13) ͐omda-n
because-Pldieventen

toen

just

those

guys

then

was.

juste

gebeldjustphoned have-Pl

die

venten

toen

those

guys

then

was

een.

‘…because those guys’ computer broke‘…because those guys called just

just then.’then.’(Haegeman and Koppen (2012: 444))(14)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕtheirࠖࡣࠕthose guysࠖࢆᣦࡋ࡚

(Haegeman and Koppen (2012: 443))(13)࡛ࡣ C ୺せ㒊࡛࠶ࡿ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑࡟୍⮴ࡀ࠸ ࡿ ࠋ ࡇ ࡇ ࡛ ࡣ ࠕ those guys ࠖ ࡜ ࠕ their⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ CP ࡀࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ࡛࠶ࡿ

computerࠖࡢ㛫࡟ࠕjust thenࠖ࡟ᙜࡓࡿ๪モ࡜࠸࠺⌧⾜ࡢ᝿ᐃ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ࡜ࠊ(13)ࡢ౛ࡣࠊ

ࡀධࡾࠊᡤ᭷⪅ࡀ⿕ᡤ᭷≀࠿ࡽศ㞳ࡉࢀ࡚C ୺せ㒊࡟୍⮴ࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡍ u-F ࡀṧࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⯆࿡῝࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࠊᡤ᭷⪅ࡀศ㞳ࡋࡓ࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡣ(12)ࡢ

ሙྜ࡜ࡋ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡛ࠊ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑࡟⌧ࢀࡿᒅ

Richards (2007)࠿ࡽᑟ࠿ࢀࡓᖐ⤖࡟཯ࡍࡿᢡࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

 (15) a. … omda-n/*omdat

André en ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊඛ⾜◊✲࡛ Richards (2007)

because-Pl/because

André andࡢㄽࢆ᧦ㆤࡍࡿヨࡳࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ ౛࡜

Valèretoen justunderenࡋ࡚ Chomsky (2007)ࡸ Miyagawa (2010)ࡣࠊ

Valèrethen justtheir⿵ᩥᶆ㆑୍⮴ࡣ㞄᥋ᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ㡢ኌ㒊㛛ࡢ

computer

kapot

was.

᧯స࡛ࠊ⤫ㄒ㒊㛛ࡢ᧯స࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺᝿

computerbrokenwasᐃࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡀ㡢ኌ㒊㛛ࡢ᧯స࡛b. … omdat/*omda-nAndré en࠶ࡿ௨ୖࠊ⤫ㄒ㒊㛛࡛ࡢၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿ↷ྜ࡜

because/because-Pl

André and㌿㏦ࡢྠ᫬ᛶࡣၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ

Valèreunderencomputerࡇࡢ᝿ᐃࡣࠊHaegeman and Koppen (2012)

Valèretheir

computerࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ࡼࡾၥ㢟ࢆᢪ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

kapot

was.

brokenwas

2.2. Haegeman and Koppen (2012)ࡢ୺ᙇ

‘…because André and Valère’s Haegeman and Koppen (2012)ࡣ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑

computer broke ( just then).’୍⮴ࡀ⤫ㄒ㒊㛛ࡢ᧯స࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺୺ᙇࢆ

(Haegeman and Koppen (2012:⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୺ᙇࡢ᰿ᣐ࡜࡞ࡿࡢࡣࠊ⿵ᩥ

449))(15a)ࡣࠕjust thenࠖ࡟ࡼࡾᡤ᭷⪅ࡀศ㞳ࡉࢀᶆ㆑୍⮴ࡀ୍⮴ᑐ㇟ࡢෆ㒊ᵓ㐀࡟ᕥྑࡉࢀ

108

࡚࠸ࡿ౛࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑ࡣࠊ

࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࠕAndré andศ㞳ࡉࢀࡓࠕAndré and Valèreࠖ࡜୍⮴ࡋࠊ

Valèreࠖ࡜ࠕtheir computerࠖࡀ୍ࡘࡢᵓᡂ⣲」ᩘᙧࡢᒅᢡࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ(15b)࡛

ࢆ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞

ࡣࠊࠕjust thenࠖࡀᏑᅾࡏࡎࠊᡤ᭷⪅ࡀ⿕ᡤ㠀㞄᥋㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿせ⣲࡜ࡢ୍⮴㛵ಀࢆㄝ᫂᭷≀࡜ศ㞳ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜࠊ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑ࡢ

ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋᵓᡂ⣲ࡢᴫᛕࡣ⤫ㄒᒅᢡࡀࠊࠕAndré and Valèreࠖ࡜ࠕtheir computerࠖ㒊㛛ࡢ≉ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࢀ

ࡢ඲య࡟୍⮴ࡋ࡚⌧ࢀࠊᚑࡗ࡚༢ᩘᙧࡢᒅ

ࡽࡢ౛ࡣࠊ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑୍⮴ࡀ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀ࢆཧ↷ᢡࡀฟ⌧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡜࡛ࡁࡿẁ㝵ࠊࡘࡲࡾ⤫ㄒ㒊㛛࡛⏕ࡌࡡࡤࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ(16)࡟ᴫ␎࡛⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

 (16) a. [C…EP…[…t DP…]] (=(15a)) ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊ(15a)ࠊ(15b)ࡢ౛ࡣࠊ㡢ኌⓗ㞄᥋ᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ศᯒࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡓඛ⾜◊✲୍⮴b. [C…EP-DP…[…t…]] (=(15b))ࡢ᝿ᐃ࡛ࡣㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿
ࡋࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࡇࢀࡽࡢ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑୍⮴ࡢ౛୍⮴ ࡇ ࡇ ࡛ ࠊ Chomsky (2007) ࡸ Miyagawaࡀ⤫ㄒ㒊㛛ࡢ᧯స࡛࠶ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑

(2010)ࡀ୺ᙇࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑୍⮴ࡀ୍⮴ࡣ(12)࡟♧ࡉࢀࡓ Richards (2007)ࡢ᝿

㞄᥋ᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ㡢ኌ㒊㛛ࡢ᧯స࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸

ᐃ࠿ࡽᑟ࠿ࢀࡿᖐ⤖࡟཯ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⣲ᛶ⥅࠺᝿ᐃࡢࡶ࡜࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ⌧㇟ࡣከࡃࡢ

ᢎࢆᨭ࠼ࡿ Richards (2007)࡟⤒㦂ⓗၥ㢟ࢆၥ㢟ࢆᢪ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ(15a)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋࡑࡶࡑࡶ⣧⢋࡞㞄᥋ᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡅࡤࠊ
(15a)ࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑ࡣࠊ୪ิࡉࢀ

3. ᥦ᱌

ࡓࠕAndré and Valèreࠖࡢෆࠊ㞄᥋ࡍࡿࠕAndréࠖ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊRichards (2007)ࡀᢪ࠼ࡿ⿵ᩥᶆ

ࡢࡳ࡜୍⮴ࡋࠊ༢ᩘᙧࡢᒅᢡࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࡇ࡜㆑୍⮴࡟㛵ࢃࡿၥ㢟࡟ᑐࡋࠊ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࡢᣑࡀணᙇ࡜ CP ࣮࢝ࢺࢢࣛࣇ࢕ᵓ㐀࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁㄝ᫂

ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋᐇ㝿ࡢ(15a)ࡢᒅᢡࡣ

୪ิ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿせ⣲ࠕAndré and Valèreࠖ඲ࢆヨࡳࡿࠋయ࡜୍⮴ࡋࠊ」ᩘᙧࡢᒅᢡࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᚑࡗ࡚(15a)ࡢᒅᢡࡣ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑୍⮴ࡀ㞄᥋

3.1. ๓ᥦ㸸CP ࣮࢝ࢺࢢࣛࣇ࢕ᵓ㐀ᛶ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃᵓ㐀࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ ᮏㄽᩥࡢ୺ᙇࢆ⾜࠺๓࡟ࠊ๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡿ᝿

ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊࡇࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊᐃࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡲࡎᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊRizzi (1997)ᙜヱゝㄒ࡛ࡢ୪ิせ⣲ࡣ㡢㡩ⓗ࡟୍ࡘࡢሢ

ࡢᥦ᱌࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊCP ࡣ࣮࢝ࢺࢢࣛࣇ࢕ᵓ㐀࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ࡜᝿ᐃࡍࢀࡤࠊ㑊ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ

ࢆᣢࡘ࡜᝿ᐃࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓ㔜せ࡞Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊྍ⬟࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࡢࡼ

Maeda (2013)࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊࡇࡢ CP ࣮࢝ࢺࢢࣛࣇ

࠺࡞᝿ᐃࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ(15b)ࡢ౛ࡀỴᐃⓗ࡞࢕ᵓ㐀ࡣὴ⏕ⓗ࡟⏕ᡂࡉࢀࡿ࡜᝿ᐃࡍࡿࠋ

ၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ(15b)࡛ࡣ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑ୖࡢ୍⮴ࡣ

Maeda (2013) ࡛ ࡣ Chomsky (2013) ࡢ༢ᩘᙧ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣࠊᡤ᭷⪅࡜

ࠕlabeling algorithmࠖ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊC ୺せ㒊ࡀ⿕ᡤ᭷⪅඲యࡢ DPࠊࡘࡲࡾࠕcomputerࠖࢆὴ⏕ⓗ࡟ᕥ࿘㎶㒊ࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸୺せ㒊࡜ࡍࡿ DP ࡜୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡿࡀࠊ⣬㠃ࡢ㒔ྜୖࡑࡢヲ⣽ࡣ๭ឡࡍࡿࠋ

ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ஦ᐇࢆ㡢ኌⓗ࡞⾲ᒙㄒ㡰ࡢ
ほⅬ࠿ࡽ࡜ࡽ࠼┤ࡍ࡜ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑

3.2. ᮏㄽᩥࡢ୺ᙇ

ࡣࠊ㞄᥋ࡍࡿࠕAndré and Valèreࠖࢆ↓どࡋࠊ ࡇ ࢀ ࡲ ࡛ ࠊ (17a) ࡟ ♧ ࡉ ࢀ ࡿ ࡼ ࠺ ࡟ ࠊ㞄᥋ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠕtheir computerࠖ࡜୍⮴ࡋ

Richards (2007)ࡢᖐ⤖࡛࠶ࡿࠊࠕ↷ྜࡉࢀࡿ109

u-F ࡣࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ୺せ㒊࡟ṧࡗ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࠖ

ࡣࠊᕥ࿘㎶㒊ࡢ᭱ୖ఩࡛࠶ࡿ Force ఩⨨࡟࡜࠸࠺᝿ᐃࡢࡶ࡜࡟ㄽࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊ㔜Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ࡜᝿ᐃࡍࡿࠋ⥆࠸࡚(19c)࡟ぢࡽࢀ

せ࡞Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑୍⮴ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿୖ

ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ(18)ࡢ᝿ᐃ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊv*࡟࠶ࡿู࡛ࡢ᪉ἲࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ༶ࡕ(17b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ

u-F ࡀࠊV ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ Force ࡟ࡶ⥅ᢎࡉࢀࡿࠋ

⿵ᩥᶆ㆑ୖࡢ u-F ࡀࡑࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ࡟⏤᮶ࡍᚑࡗ࡚(19d)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊForce ୖࡢ u-F ࡣศ㞳ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊḟࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝୖ఩

ࡋࡓᡤ᭷⪅ EP ࡜୍⮴ࡋࠊࡲࡓࡇࡢ u-F ࡣࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ୺せ㒊࠿ࡽཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶

v*࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㌿㏦ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ↷ྜ࡜ࢀࡤࠊ↷ྜ࡜㌿㏦ࡢྠ᫬ᛶࡀಖᣢࡉࢀࡿࠋ

㌿㏦ࡢྠ᫬ᛶࡀಖࡓࢀࡿࠋ2

 (17) a.* [Spec [Ph X [Comp Y͐]㌿㏦]]

 ⥆࠸࡚(15b)ࡢὴ⏕࡟⛣ࡾࡓ࠸[u-F] (20) a. [CP C [TP͐EP-DP͐]㌿㏦]

okb. [Ph Z [͐[Ph X [Comp Y͐]]]㌿㏦][]

b. [ForceP Force͐EP-DP͐[FinP Fin [TP[u-F]͐t͐]]]

ࡇࢀࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣ(18)ࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ

c. [v*P v* [VP V͐[ForceP Force͐EP-DP

 (18) ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࡣࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ୺せ㒊࠿ࡽ⿵

[u-F]㒊ࡢ୺せ㒊࡬ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊc ⤫ᚚ㡿͐[FinP Fin [TP͐t DP͐]]]]]

ᇦෆ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ୺せ㒊࡟ࡶ㐺⏝ྍ

d. [v*P v* [VP V͐[ForceP Force͐EP-DP⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡇࢀ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊ(15a, b)ࡢὴ⏕ࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀ

[u-F](19)ࠊ(20)࡛ぢ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ

͐[FinP Fin [TP͐t DP͐]]]]㌿㏦]

 (19) a. [CP C [TP͐EP-DP͐]㌿㏦]

ὴ⏕ࡢ኱㒊ศࡣ(19)࡜ྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ
ࡇࡢሙྜࠊ(20a)࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᇙࡵ㎸ࡳ
CP ᣦᐃ㒊࡟⛣ືࡍࡿせ⣲ࡀࠊศ㞳ࡋࡓᡤ᭷b. [ForceP Force͐EP͐[FinP Fin [TP ͐t⪅ EP ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࡇࢀࢆྵࡴ DP ඲య࡜࡞DP͐]]]

ࡿࠋ෌ࡧ(20b)࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ CP ࡢ࣮࢝c. [v*P v* [VP V͐[ForceP Force͐EP͐[u-F]ࢺࢢࣛࣇ࢕ᵓ㐀ࡀᙧᡂࡉࢀࠊ(20c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟
⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࡀ Force ࡟ࡲ࡛ᗈᇦ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋ[FinP Fin [TP͐t DP͐]]]]](20d)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ Force ୖࡢ u-F ࡣศ㞳ࡋࡓᡤd. [v*P v* [VP V͐[ForceP Force͐EP͐᭷⪅ EP ࢆྵࡴ DP ඲య࡜୍⮴ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡣ↷[u-F]ྜ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ v*࡟ࡼࡾ㌿㏦ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

[FinP Fin [TP͐t DP͐]]]]㌿㏦]
ࡲࡎ(19a)࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᇙࡵ㎸ࡳ CP ௨ୗ࡟ὴ⏕ࡢせⅬࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍࠋࡲࡎすࣇࡢὴ⏕ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ㝿ࠊศ㞳ࡋࡓᡤ᭷࣐ࣛࣥㄒࡢ EP/EP-DP ࡣᇙࡵ㎸ࡳ CP ࣮࢝ࢺ⪅ EP ࡀ CP ࡢᣦᐃ㒊࡟⛣ືࡋࠊ⿵㒊ࡢ TPࢢࣛࣇ࢕ࡢᕥ࿘㎶㒊࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࡇࡢ

ࡣ㌿㏦ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊ(19b)࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼᕥ࿘㎶㒊ࡣࠊCP ࣇ࢙࢖ࢬࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ᧯స࡛

࠺࡟ࠊMaeda (2013)࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊC ࡣࠕLabelingࡣ㌿㏦ࡉࢀࡎ࡟ṧࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ⥆࠸࡚

Algorithmࠖ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊὴ⏕ⓗ࡟ᕥ࿘㎶㒊ࢆ(18)࡟ࡼࡾ v*P ࣇ࢙࢖ࢬ࡛ࡢ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࡀᙧᡂࡍࡿࠋศ㞳ࡋࡓᡤ᭷⪅ EP ࡣᚑࡗ࡚ᕥ

Force ࡟ࡶ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ Force ୖࡢ u-F

࿘㎶㒊ࡢ࡝ࡇ࠿࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡀࠊ

ࡀᕥ࿘㎶㒊࡟࠶ࡿ EP/EP-DP ࡜୍⮴ࡍࡿࡇᮏㄽᩥࡢ୺ᙇ࡜ࡣ┤᥋㛵ಀࡋ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡇ

࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊࡇࢀࡽࡣ v*࡟ࡼࡾ㌿㏦ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇ࡛ࡢ఩⨨ࡀఱࡢᣦᐃ㒊࡟࡞ࡿ࠿ࡣ㆟ㄽࡋࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ↷ྜ࡜㌿㏦ࡢྠ᫬ᛶࡀಖᣢࡉ

࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑

ࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ Force ୖࡢ u-F ࡣ

110

Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory,
ed. by R. Freidin, C. P. Otero and M. L.
Zubizarreta,
133-166,
MIT
Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of
Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Epstein, Samuel David, Eric M. Groat, Ruriko
Kawashima, and Hisatsugu Kitahara (1998)
A Derivational Approach to Syntactic
Relations, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Epstein, Samuel David and T. Daniel Seely(2002) “Rule Applications as Cycles in a
Level-Free Syntax,” Derivation andExplanation in the Minimalist Program, ed.
by S. D. Epstein, and T. D. Seely, 65-90,
Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Malden, MA.
Haegeman, Lilian and Marjo van Koppen(2012) “Complementizer Agreement andthe Relation C0 and T0,” Linguistic Inquiry
43, 441-454.
Maeda,
Masako(2013)
Derivational
Feature-Based Relativized Minimality,
Doctoral dissertation, Kyushu University.
[Published by Kyushu University Press,
Kyushu, 2014]
Miyagawa, Shigeru (2010) Why Agree? Why
Move?, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Richards, Marc D. (2007) “On Feature
Inheritance: An Argument from the Phase
Impenetrability Condition,” Linguistic
Inquiry 38, 563-572.
Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of theLeft Periphery,” Elements of Grammar, ed.
by L. Haegeman, 281-337, Kluwer,
Dordrecht.

ᒅᢡ࡜ࡋ࡚⌧ࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑୍⮴ࡀㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
4. ࡲ࡜ࡵ ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࢆᣑᙇࡍࢀࡤࠊCP࣮࢝ࢺࢢࣛࣇ࢕ᵓ㐀ࡢࡶ࡜ࠊすࣇ࣐ࣛࣥㄒ
ࡢ⿵ᩥᶆ㆑୍⮴ࢆ Richards (2007)ࡢ㆟ㄽࢆ
◚Რࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆぢࡓࠋ௒ᚋࡢᒎᮃ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⣲ᛶ⥅ᢎࢆᣑᙇࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛௚࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌧㇟ࡀㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿ࠿᥈ồࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋὀ* ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍➨ 32 ᅇ኱఍(2014ᖺ 11 ᭶ 9 ᪥ࠊ᪊㸸Ꮫ⩦㝔኱Ꮫ)࡛ࡢⓎ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎ⾲ࡢⲡ᱌࠾ࡼࡧㄽᩥ
ࡢసᡂ࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊすᒸᐉ᫂ඛ⏕ࡼࡾ኱ኚ᭷
┈࡞ࡈᣦ᦬ࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡓⓎ⾲ᙜ᪥࡟ࡣᑠ
ᕝⰾᶞඛ⏕ࠊᑠ⏿⨾㈗ඛ⏕ࠊᚋ⸨ரඛ⏕࡟㈗㔜࡞ࡈᣦ᦬ࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢሙࢆ࠾೉ࡾࡋ
࡚ឤㅰࡢពࢆ⾲ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ1
hakata-yamakasa715@ab.auone-net.jp2࡞࠾ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ୺ᙇ࡜ࡣ┤᥋㛵ಀࡋ࡞࠸ࡓࡵヲ⣽ࢆ๭ឡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊV ࡟⥅ᢎࡉࢀ
ࡓ u-F ࡣ୺⠇ࡢ┠ⓗㄒ DP ࡜୍⮴ࡋࠊ↷ྜࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢ㝿ࠊ↷ྜࡉࢀࡓ V ୖࡢ u-F ࡶv*࡟ࡼࡾ㌿㏦ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ↷ྜ࡜㌿㏦ࡢྠ᫬ᛶࡀಖᣢࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:
the Framework,” Step by step: Essays on
Minimalist Syntax in Honor of HowardLasnik, ed. by R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J.
Uriagereka, 89-155, MIT Press, Cambridge
MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”
Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by M.
Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2007) “Approaching UGfrom Below,” Interfaces + Recursion =Language?, ed. by U. Sauerland and H-M.
Gärtner, 1-29, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,”

111

b.

Nobody has invited me to dance.
It/*this/*that is that I am not pretty
enough.
(ibid.:206)

2 種類の it is (just) that 節構文*(Two Types of the It is (just)(3)に示したように、it is that 節構文に副that-Construction)

詞 just が介在し it is just that の形をとる例も散見される。このような例は it’s just that 節

佐藤翔馬 (Shoma Sato)構文と呼ばれる場合がある(大竹 (2002)を名古屋大学大学院 (Nagoya University)

参照)。
(3)

キーワード：it is that 節構文、it’s just thata.

I didn’t mean to upset you.
It’s just that I had to tell somebody.

節構文、付加疑問文、副詞 just、(Oxford Advanced Learner’s

補文標識 that

Dictionary)
1.

b.

はじめに

No, I do like Chinese food.
It’s just that I’m not hungry.

(1)に示したのは it is that 節構文と呼ばれ(Longman Dictionary ofる構文の例である。この構文には原因・理Contemporary English)

由を提示する機能があるとされている(Bolinger (1972), Declerck (1992)を参照)。

本研究では便宜上、(1)に示した it is that 節(1)a.

Nobody has invited me to dance.

構文と、(3)に示した副詞 just が介在していIt is that I am not pretty enough.

る it’s just that 節構文を合わせて「it is (just)(Declerck (1992: 209))b.

that 節構文」と呼ぶことにする。

He was shot in his house.

ここで、本研究では次の(4)の問題を提起

It is that he knew too much.

したい。

(ibid.: 219)(4)
1

it’s just that 節構文を、単に it is that 節

また、この構文の主語 it は虚辞 であるとさ

構文に副詞 just を加えたものである

れている(Declerck (1992)を参照)。it is thatとみなし、両者をひとまとめにして取節構文の主語 it が虚辞であるということは、り扱ってよいのか。

次の(2a)と(2b)を比較することで明らかと2.

なる。(2a)ように、it is because であれば it

提案以外にも this is because や that is because がここではまず、Bolinger (1972)による観察可能である。一方、(2b)のように、it is thatを取り上げたい。Bolinger によれば、(5a)節構文の場合は it しか許されない。

のように、it is that 節構文の場合は補文標識
that の省略は許されないが、一方、(5b)のよ

(2)

a.

Nobody has invited me to dance.

うに、副詞 just が介在していれば補文標識

It/this/that is because I am not pretty

that を省略しても差し支えない。

enough.

112

(5)a. * It’s

he can’t make up his

るということを示す。

mind.
b.

It’s just(7)

he can’t make up

his mind.
(Bolinger (1972: 36))
Bolinger (1972:36)によれば、(5a)の be 動詞

Type A

Type B

原因・理由

事情の説明

意味

の提示

機能

「（単に）

はコピュラであり、that が because の意味に「ただ/～だからだ」

解釈されるので省略不可能であるのに対し、付加(5b)の be 動詞は存在動詞、いわば happen

疑問の意味であり、that は省略可能である。(5a,b)

文における be 動詞の意味の違いについて、副詞

Bolinger は詳細に議論しているわけではな

just

く、直感に基づいた主張であるように思わ補文れる。しかし、本研究は、(5a)のような例

標識において補文標識 that が because の意味に

that

ちょっと
～なのだ」

主節照応/

従属節照応

従属節照応

のみ

随意的

義務的

省略不可

省略可

解釈されるので省略不可能である、という主張に注目したい。
it is that 節構文において、補文標識 thatが because の意味を担っているということ

検証

3.1.

付加疑問文と副詞 just

ここではまず、Type A と Type B を付加疑については、次の(6)のような例から明らか

問文を通して比較する。具体的には、Type A

となる。
(6)

3.

の場合、付加疑問節は主節と従属節のどちらにも照応するのに対し、Type B の場合、

‘It’s not because you’re loaded that I

付加疑問節は従属節にのみ照応するという

worry after you,’ she shouted.

ことを示す。

‘It’s that I think you’re gay!

次の(8)では、it is (just) that 節構文が Why(British National Corpus:

ではじまる疑問文に対する応答として現れ

HTS 2643-2644)ている。

(6)では、It’s not because の文に続いて it is(8)that 節構文が現れているので、ここでの It’s

A: Why doesn’t he take the plunge?
B: It’s (just) that he doesn’t havethat は It’s because の意味であると理解でき

the money, {isn’t it? / does he?}る。
本研究は、Bolinger の主張を足掛かりに、
it is (just) that 節構文には(7)の表に示したとおり、少なくとも Type A と Type B の 2 種[Type A]
(Bolinger (1972: 35)を参考)(8)では、話者 A の「彼はなぜ結婚しないの類が存在すると主張する。次の 3 節では、だろう」という質問に対して、話者 B が「（単Type A と Type B は意味機能に加え、付加疑に）彼にはお金がないからだ」というよう問節が照応する節、副詞 just の随意性、補に原因・理由を提示している。このように、

文標識 that の省略可能性において違いがあ113

既出の事柄に対して原因・理由を提示する

B: I’d love to, but I can’t.

例を Type A とする。Type A の例である(8)A: It’s (just) that you’re a little tired,{isn’t it? / aren’t you?}

では、付加疑問節は主節照応の isn’t it?も従[Type A]

属節照応の does he?も許される。また、Type
A の場合、次の(9)のように、it is (just) that S1that S2 の形で、it is (just) that 節構文がどの(11)では、話者 B が話者 A の誘いをはっきような事柄に対して原因・理由を提示してりと断っているため、後に続く話者 A の it is

いるのかを下線部 S2 の位置に明示すること(just) that 節構文は、「話者 B は飲みに行くができる。

ことができない」という事柄に対して、「（単に）君は少し疲れているからだ」というよ(9)It’s (just) that he doesn’t have the money

うに原因・理由を提示することができるよthat he doesn’t take the plunge.

うになる。したがって、この例は Type A に(Bolinger (1972: 36)を参考)

分類される。(11)では、(10)とは異なり、付加疑問節は従属節照応の aren’t you?だけで次の(10)では、話者 A が話者 B を飲みになく、主節照応の isn’t it?も許される。

誘っているが、話者 B は I’d love to, but ...

ここで、さらに副詞 just にも注目する。

と言って口ごもる。それに対して話者 A は原因・理由を提示する Type A の例である(8)it is (just) that 節構文を用いて発話する。

や(11)では、副詞 just は随意的である。Type
A の機能は原因・理由を提示することであ(10) A: Do you want to go for a beer?

るため、just がなければ it is because の意味

B: I’d love to, but …

に解釈され、just があれば it is just because

A: It’s *(just) that you’re a littleの意味に解釈されるだけである。つまり、

tired, {*isn’t it? / aren’t you?}

原因・理由の提示という機能は just の有無[Type B]には関係がないので just は随意的である、(Ikarashi (2013: 67)を参考)と考えられる。一方、Type B の例である(10)は副詞 just がなければ不完全であるので、(10)では、(9)の下線部にあたるような事柄

just が意味的に重要な役割を担っているとは現れていない。したがって、(10)におけ推察される。さらに、次の(12)を見る。(12)る it is (just) that 節構文は、原因・理由を提のように、it’s just that とだけ発話し、言葉示しているというよりは、「君はただ少し疲に詰まる例が少なからず見られる。

れているんだ」といった意味であると考え(12) “What’s the matter baby?” …

られる。このような例を Type B とする。
Type B の例である(10)では、付加疑問節は“Um―” I answered. “Nothing Brooke.

従属節照応の aren’t you?しか許されない。

It’s just that ... you know I love you
right?”(10)を次の(11)と比較する。(10)とは異なり、(11)では、話者 A に飲みに誘われた話“Of course I do. And I love you too.”

者 B は、口ごもることなく I’d love to, but I“It’s just that.”

can’t.と発話する。

“Come on baby, speak to me, speak tome.”(11) A: Do you want to go for a beer?

“It’s just that. I feel like a loser, you114

know, not being able to find out who

解釈されるはずの that が省略されているたis responsible for all this madness.”

めに容認されないと考えられる。

(Anthony Ogunware (2007) Chiller:

次の(14)は、副詞 just がなければ不完全Friend at Day, Killer by Midnight)になることから、Type B であると考えられる。

(12)の例は原因・理由を提示しているとは(14) a.

考え難いので、Type B とする。このような

She felt her face going red ―“I’m sorry Rob, it’s *(just) that

例では、話者は it’s just that と発話すること

I’m, um, overwhelmed.”

で、日本語の「ただ…」や「ちょっと…」(Collins COBUILD Advancedといった表現のように、事情を説明しようとしていると考えられる。また、it’s just that

Dictionary of English

がひとまとまりとなり、事情を説明する際(例文のみ))
b.

の緩和表現として機能しているようにも見Your hair is all right;
it’s *(just) that you need a haircut.

える。つまり、Type B の場合、it’s just that(ibid. (例文のみ))の部分はひとまとまりとなって副詞化しており、もはや主節としての資格が希薄になっていると考えられる。そのように考えれ次の(15a,b)は(14a,b)から補文標識 that を省ば、Type B の場合には付加疑問節が主節に略した例である。

照応することができないということにも納(15) a.

得がいく。

She felt her face going red ―“I’m sorry Rob, it’s just

3.2.

I’m, um, overwhelmed.”

補文標識 that[Type B]

ここでは、補文標識 that に注目したい。
b.

具体的には、Type A の場合、補文標識 thatYour hair is all right;
it’s justは省略不可能であるのに対し、Type B では

you need a haircut.
[Type B]

省略可能であるということを示す。
次の(13)は、話者 A の I wonder why.という発話に it is (just) that 節構文が後続してい筆者のインフォーマントによれば、(15a,b)ることから、原因・理由を提示する Type Aのような言い方は非常にくだけた言い方での例であるべきである。

はあるが、可能であるという。2 これは、Type
A の that が because の意味を担っていると(13) A: He was shot in his house.

いう点で意味的に 重要であるのに対し、

I wonder why.

Type B の that は意味的に重要ではないから

B: * It’s (just)
too much.

he knew

であると考えられる。
[Type A]

上記(12)では、話者が it’s just that とだけ(Declerck (1992: 209)を参考)

発話して言葉に詰まっている例を見たが、(12)を次の(16)と比較されたい。(16)では、2 節で触れた Bolinger (1972)の主張によれ

話者は it’s just とだけ発話して言葉に詰まば、補文標識 that は because の意味を担っっている。

ている。しかし、(13)では because の意味に

115

(16) “He’ll do what he needs to do.

(18) a.

He told me he would.”

付加疑問節は文の主要な部分(main assertion) に照応する。

“Is that all he told you?”(cf. Hooper (1975: 104))“What do you mean?”b.

“Nothing. It’s just ... it’s just ...

付加疑問節は文の命題内容に照応する。

How can you trust him?”(cf. 中右 (1994: 169))(The Vampire Diaries(Season 4, Episode 8)

具体例として、(19)のような例が挙げられ(山内昇氏の指摘による))る。
(19) a.

(16)の例が、(12)のような例から補文標識John thinks the war is ending,{*isn’t it? / doesn’t he?}that が省略されたものであるとすれば、(Cattell (1973: 613))

Type B の場合は that が省略可能であるといb.

う本研究の主張を支持している。

I suppose the war is ending,{isn’t it? /*don’t I?}

4.

(ibid.)

it is (just) that 節構文と付加疑問文
3.1 節において、Type A の it is (just) that

(19a)では、主節に照応している付加疑問節

節構文の付加疑問節は主節照応も従属節照

doesn’t he?は容認されるが、従属節に照応し応も可能であるのに対し、Type B の場合はている isn’t it?は容認されない。したがって、

従属節照応のみであることを見た。ここで主節 John thinks は主要な部分もしくは命題

は、it is (just) that 節構文と付加疑問文につ内容に含まれる。一方、(19b)では、従属節

いてもう少し深く掘り下げたい。

に照応している付加疑問節 isn’t it?は容認

まず、付加疑問節を従属節照応にする主されるが、主節に照応している don’t I?は容節表現は、(17)に挙げるものなどがある。

認されない。したがって、(19b)の主節 I
suppose は主要な部分もしくは命題内容に(17) I believe/suppose/guess/reckon,は含まれない。

it seems/appears, it follows,

ここで、it is (just) that 節構文に話を戻す。

this means, etc.

Type A の it is (just) that 節構文では、付加疑(cf. Huddleston & Pullum (2002: 894))

問節は主節に照応することが可能であった。
つまり、Type A の場合、主節は主要な部分(17)から、付加疑問節を従属節照応にする

もしくは命題内容に含まれるということで主節表現は主に、従属節の内容に対する話ある。一方、Type B の場合は、付加疑問節

者の真偽判断を表すような、いわば意味的が主節に照応することは不可能であった。

に軽い表現であることがわかる。次の(18a)つまり、Type B における主節は主要な部分のように、Hooper (1975)は、付加疑問節はもしくは命題内容には含まれないと言える。

その文の主要な部分(main assertion)に照応

このことは、Type A が原因・理由の提示とすると主張している。また、(18b)のように、いう機能を持っているのに対し、Type B の中右(1994)は、付加疑問節はその文の命題

主節はもはや主節としての資格が希薄とな内容に照応すると主張している。

っており副詞化している、という本研究の主張を支持している。

116しかし、ここで一つの疑問が残る。次の扱ったに過ぎない。この構文の実例を観察(20)は Type A の例である(8)を再録したもの

してみると、一見したところどちらの Typeである。(19)で見たように、通例、付加疑とも判断できない例が見られる。したがっ問節が主節照応の場合には従属節照応は許て、さらに多くの Type を設けなければならされず、従属節照応の場合には主節照応はない可能性や、2 つの Type をさらに細分化許されない。しかし、(20)のように、Type A

しなければならない可能性がある。また、2の it is (just) that 節構文の場合には主節照応

つかもしくはそれ以上の Type が、お互いにの(20b)も従属節照応の(20c)も許される。

全く独立したものであるというわけではな
く、それぞれの Type の間にはグラデーショ(20) a.
b.
c.

Why doesn’t he take the plunge?

ンがあり、連続体を成している可能性もあIt’s (just) that he doesn’t haveる。この点を明らかにするためには、数多

the money, isn’t it?

くの実例を観察し、文脈の中でこの構文がIt’s (just) that he doesn’t have

どのような働きをしているのかを見極め、

the money, does he?

記述していく必要がある。
(cf. (8))
注

筆者のインフォーマントによれば、(20)の* 本稿は、日本英語学会第 32 回大会(2014ように付加疑問節が主節照応と従属節照応

年 11 月 9 日、於：学習院大学)での口頭のどちらも可能である場合、照応する節に

発表に基づくものである。発表の準備に

よってニュアンスが異なるという。このこ際し、貴重なご助言とご指摘をくださっとについては明確な結論が得られているわ

た大名力先生、成田克史先生、大島義和

けではないが、現時点では、主節照応と従先生、中右実先生、大室剛志先生、滝沢属節照応の意味の違いは「確認の焦点の違直宏先生に、発表当日に有益なご意見をい」にあるのではないかと考えている。す

くださった岩崎永一先生、大竹芳夫先生、

なわち、(20b)のように主節照応の場合は大橋浩先生、柏野健次先生、西田光一先

「因果関係が成立するか」を確認し、(20c)

生、野村忠央先生に、発表に際し司会をのように従属節照応の場合は「従属節の内務めてくださった村田和代先生に、貴重容が真であるか」を確認する、というような例を提供してくれた山内昇氏に、このにである。しかし、これは現時点における場を借りて厚く御礼申し上げます。なお、単なる推測にすぎず、この点については今

本稿における不備や誤りはすべて筆者

後の課題としたい。

の責任による。
1. 虚辞という言葉によって筆者が意図し5.

ているのは、it is that 節構文の主語 it は、

おわりに
本研究は、it is (just) that 節構文には少な

天候の it や外置文の it などのいわゆる虚くとも Type A と Type B の 2 種類が存在す

辞の it と呼ばれるものに含まれるといるということを、付加疑問文、副詞 just、うことだけであり、意味や指示対象を持

補文標識 that という 3 つの証拠に基づいてたないということまで意図しているわ

主張した。しかし、現時点では、最も命題

けではない。虚辞の it が本当に意味や指的・客観的である Type A と、最もモダリテ

示対象を持たないのか、ということは重ィ的・主観的である Type B の 2 種類のみを要な問題ではあるが、本稿では紙幅の関117

係上、扱わないことにする。いわゆる虚Perspectives of Inference, Specification,

辞の it が意味や指示対象を持つというand Contrast,” JELS 30, 64-70.
Lakoff, Robin (1969) “A Syntactic Argument

主張については、Bolinger (1977: 66-89),

for

中右 (2013)等を参照されたい。

Negative

Transportation,”

CLS

5,

140-147.

2. 実際には、補文標識 that を省略した例を容認できないとするインフォーマント

Nakau, Minoru (1992) “Modality and Subjec-

もいた。しかし、そのインフォーマント

tive Semantics,” Tsukuba English Studies

は Bolinger (1972)が容認可能であるとし

11, 1-45.
中右実 (1994) 『認知意味論の原理』 大修ている(5b)の例も容認しなかったため、補文標識 that の省略に関しては話者の館書店, 東京.

間で許容度に違いがあるようである。ま中右実 (2013) 「非人称 it 構文 ―語法と文た、そのようなインフォーマントであっ法の不可分な全体を構文に見る―」『英ても、(15a)の例には um という間投詞が語語法文法研究』第 20 号, 5-34.

あることもあり、くだけた場面であるこOtake, Yoshio (2002) “Semantics and Func-とがうかがえるので、容認度が高いと述

tions of the It is that-Construction and the

べている。

Japanese No da-Construction,” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 43, 143-157.
参考文献

大竹芳夫 (2002) 「英語の it’s just that 構文

Bolinger, Dwight (1972) That’s That, Theに関する実証的考察」 『信州大学教育

Hague, Mouton.

学部紀要』第 107 号, 88-100.

Bolinger, Dwight (1977) Meaning and Form,

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey

Longman, London.

Leech and Jan Svartvik (1972) A Compre-

Cattell, Ray (1973) “Negative Transportation

hensive Grammar of the English Language,

and Tag Questions,” Language 49, 612-639.

Longman, London.

Declerck, Renaat (1992) “The inferential it is
that-construction and its congeners,” Lingua 87, 203-230.
Delahunty, Gerald (1990) “Inferentials: The
Story of a Forgotten Evidential,” Kansas
Working Papers in Linguistics 15, 1-28.
Hooper, Joan B. (1975) “On Assertive Predicates,” In Kimball, John P., ed. Syntax and
Semantics 4, 91-124, Academic Press, NewYork.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the
English Language, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Ikarashi, Keita (2013) “The Discourse Function of the It is that-Construction: From the118

b. Ai

Bj

Ai

Bj

I call the MDs in which the occurrenceof A and B on the left is pronounced

Toward a Unified Explanation ofMultiple Dependencies*
Kayono Shiobara
Tokyo Woman’s Christian University“leftward MDs”, and those in which
the occurrence of A and B on the rightis pronounced “rightward MDs”
respectively.
Despite the alleged

Keywords: multiple dependency,
Interwoven Dependency Construction,
prosodic prominence, edge-weight

performance preferences, we find anumber of examples with crossed
dependencies.
Building upon myprevious work on MDs including

1. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to
explore the division of labor between

multiple wh-movement, object shift,
multiple XP shift, and multiple
Extraposition from NP (Shiobara(2009)), I mainly discuss in this paper
special cases of multiple wh-movementin English and multiple scrambling inJapanese which represent the so called
Interwoven Dependency Construction

syntax and phonology, and more
broadly, between the cognitive andperformance systems of language, by
examining various types of multiple(IDC) (Zhang (2007) and references

well studied but only independently.
The term “dependency” in thispaper refers to the relation between adisplaced element and its related (andtherein) as instances of leftward MDs,
and the rightward counterpart of IDC
in English as instances of rightward
MDs. I will argue that leftward or
rightward, many properties of MDs areco-indexed) counterpart.
In thecontext of psycholinguistics, it has
been
noted
that
performance
preferences regarding MDs are (1a)phonological in nature. This suggeststhat performance-driven phonologicalprinciples should play an importantrole in explaining the properties ofnested > (= ‘preferred over’) (1b)crossed (Fodor (1978), Rochemont andCulicover (1990), Pickering and Barry(1991)):Bj
Bj
Ai(1) a. Aicrossed as well as nested MDs.

dependencies (MDs) which have been

2. Phonological Approach to MDs
2.1. Leftward MDs
First, let us look at examples withleftward MDs.
(2) Wh-movementa. [How many cakes]i and [How>119

many letters]j (respectively)
did May bake _i and John write_j , this morning?

phonological component, and then M
undergoes a phonological movement
into the sentence-initial position.

b. %[How many letters]i and [HowThe prosodic amalgamation does notcare about the order of two wh-phrases,

many cakes]j did May bake _j
and John write _i , thismorning?
((2a) is from Zhang (2007), andand the nested ordering is allowed asshown in (2b) (at least for somespeakers, see note 1).
(3) a. prosodic amalgamation
… wh
…
wh …

(2b) is mine.)
Example (2a) involves multiple
wh-movement with the Interwoven
Dependency Construction (IDC). The(M(M wh) and (M wh))sentence forces a distributive reading,whether the adverb respectively isb. phonological movement…
(M (M wh) and (M wh))present or not.
Contrary to theperformance preference mentioned in(1), IDC represents crossed MDs by

The freedom of the wh-phrase orderingdefinition, and it has been a challengetosyntactic
approaches (Postal(1998:163)) (but see Zhang (2007) for asideward movement analysis of IDCs).

suggests that sentences like (2a) and(2b) should not be derived in thesyntax where this kind of optionality is
generally prohibited.

When the order is changed andnested MDs are formed as in (2b), thesentence becomes unacceptable forsome speakers (as indicated by % in
front of the sentence).㸯

A consequence of the phonologicalapproach to multiple wh-movement isthat wh-phrases should be interpreted
in their base position, and thisprediction is borne out by binding

Focusing on the phonologicalproperty of multiple wh-phrases,
namely, the fact that English
wh-phrases are prosodically prominent

examples in (4).
(4) a. [Which man]i and [which
woman]j did respectively thedoctor talk to _i about

and
their
multipleoccurrences
construct their own prosodic domain, I
propose a phonological analysis
schematizedin (3): first,
twowh-phrases are amalgamated into a

himselfi, and the lawyer talkto _j about herselfj?
b. [Talking about one man anda woman:][Which picture of himselfi]

prosodic

unit M (e.g. phonologicalphrase, intonational phrase) via thecoordinator and introduced in theand [which story of herselfj]
did the doctor show himi _and the lawyer tell herj _ ,120respectively?
c. [Which picture of himselfi] and[which story of herselfj] did thef.

omotteiru (koto)(Sorezore) (M atarashii huku
(respectively) new clothes

lawyer tell herj _ and theto atarashii kutu-o) John-ga

doctor show himi _ ?

and new shoes-ACC John-NOM[Kiyomi-ga ki-te
Kiyomi-NOM wear-and((4a) is from Zhang (2007), and(4b,c) are mine.)㸰,㸱
Another welcome consequence ofMasami-ga haita to] itteita
Masami-NOM put.on C said
(koto)(fact)‘John said that Kiyomi put

the phonological approach to multiple
wh-movement is that it naturally
extends to another leftward MD,
multiple scrambling in Japanese,on new clothes and Masami
put on new shoes’

which has been independently given aphonological analysis (see Agbayani etal. (2012) and references therein).
(5) a. Hawai-dei John-ga [Kiyomi-g.

?(Atarashii huku to atarashii

Hawaii-in John-NOM Kiyomi-

kutu-o) John-ga [Masami-ga
hai-te Kiyomi-ga kita to]ga _i Masami-ni purezento-o
NOM Masami-DAT present-ACC
katta to] omotteiru (koto)bought C think (fact)itteita (koto)( (5a,b,c,e) are from Agbayani etal. 2012, and (5d,f,g) are mine.)
As the contrast in (5a) and (5b) shows,‘John believes that Kiyomi
bought a present for Masami
in Hawaii’b. ??Purezento-oi Masami-nij
Hawai-dek John-ga [Kiyomi-

long-distance scrambling of multiple
phrases is degraded.
However, as
Koizumi (2000) and Fukui and Sakai(2006)
pointout,
multiplelong-distance scrambling improves if

ga _k _j _i katta to] omotteiru

the scrambled element forms a
prosodic domain M, as in (5c). In such

(koto)c. (M Puresento-o Masami-ni
Hawai-de) John-ga [Kiyomi-a case, the scrambled phrases do nothave to stand in a nested dependency

ga katta to] omotteiru (koto)d. (M Hawai-de Masami-ni
puresento-o) John-ga[Kiyomi-ga katta to]omotteiru (koto)(5c), but can be crossed (5d) or partial(5e). The acceptable example in (5f)
represents the IDC, and the nested
counterpart in (5g) is also acceptable
though somewhat degraded.

e. (M Masami-ni Hawai-de)
John-ga [Kiyomi-ga
purezento-o katta to]Agbayani et al. (2012) provide aphonological analysis of long-distancemultiple scrambling in Japanese,121

claiming that the scrambled element
forms a recursive prosodic phrase,
namely a major phrase.㸲 Based on the

one phonological phrase, as proposed
by Zec and Inkelas (1990) for XP shift.
Generalizing their analysis, I propose

facts in (5) and Abayani et al.’s
analysis, I analyze long-distancemultiple scrambling in Japanese (witha phonological movement analysis ofrightward MDs in line with that ofleftward MDs, schematized in (8).
(8) a. prosodic amalgamation… XP …
XP …

or without IDC) as instances ofphonologicalmovement,asisschematized in (6).
(6) a. prosodic amalgamation… XP …
XP …

(M (M XP) and (M XP))b. phonological movement… (M (M XP) and (M XP))(M(M XP) to (M XP))This

explains how the XP shiftexamples with IDC ((7a)) and without((7b)) are derived, and naturally
extends to Right Node Raisingb. phonological movement(M (M XP) to (M XP))…
2.2. Rightward MDs
Let us turn to examples involving
rightward IDC.
(7) a. ?John normally takes _i andexamples in (9) (Postal 1998:134). In

Mary drinks _j at thecafeteria (M [a very light
breakfast]i and [two glasses ofenergy drink]j)??(respectively).

(M [oysters]i and [clams]j ),respectively.
A phonological movement analysis
of rightward IDC is also compatible
with the often made observation that

fact, multiple XP shift with IDC just is
Right Node Raising.
(9) John loves _i and Mary hates _j

Mary drinks _j at the cafeteria(M [two glasses of energy
drink]j and [a very lightrightward dependency is stylistic innature and does not feed syntax(Chomsky 1995:324).
However, another representative

breakfast]i).
XP shift is a representative ofrightward dependency, and it is often
argued that it is phonologicallyconstrained. In particular, the moved

case of RM, Extraposition from NounPhrase (EXNP), seems more restricted
than other MDs, and the example with
IDC in (10a) is strictly prohibited.
Using different relative pronouns does

element
must
beprosodicallyprominent and of some weight, say anintonational phrase with more than

not help to improve the sentence much,
as is shown in (10b).
(10) a. *John normally takes ab. ?John normally takes _i and122

breakfast plate _i and a
glass of energy drink _jaround 6:30 (M [which

into the differences between leftward
and rightward MDs, and why edge
positions are related to weight at all,includes a boiled egg andtwo croissants]i and [whichshouldleadustofurtherunderstanding of the nature of thesyntax-phonology interface, and therelationship between the language
cognitive and performance systems ofdoes not contain any
additives]j) (respectively).
?*b. John normally takes abreakfast plate _i and calls
his girlfriend _j in the earlymorning (M [which includes aboiled egg and two

language.
Notes*

An earlier version of this paper waspresented at the 32nd meeting of thecroissants]i and [who lives inEnglish Linguistic Society of Japan helda small town inFukushima]j).
At this point, I have no clear
explanation of EXNP cases, and only

at Gakushuin University in November
2014. I would like to thank the audienceat the meeting for valuable questions andcomments, though I have not been able tospeculatethatrightward
MDs
involving adjuncts like (10) need to bestrongly motivated for performancereasons for them to happen and torespond to them in the present paper yet.
Any remaining inadequacies are my own.
㸯Among the five informants I consulted,

two of them accepted (2b) while the otherproperly associate the adjuncts with
their antecedents (cf. Frazier andClifton (1996), Hawkins (1994, 2004)).

three totally rejected it.
㸰An informant I

consulted prefers

putting respectively in front of did in (4a).
㸱

3. Summary

The judgment of (4c) is due to an

informant who accepted (2b).

In sum, MDs, whether leftward or
rightward, are analyzed as instances㸲

See Agbayani et al. (2012) for six

welcome consequences of the phonologicalof phonological movement which
achieves “edge weight”:
sentence-

approach, including wh-scrambling andbinding facts.

initial weight as in (3b) and (6b), or
sentence-final weight as in (8b). The
characteristic properties of MDs welooked at are (i) the moved element
needs to be “multiple” to achieve a

References

Agbayani, Brian, Chris Golston and Toru Ishii(2012) “Prosodic Scrambling,” MITWPL 64(Proceedings of the 5th FAJL), 15-24.

certain phonological weight, and (ii)that the order of the moved phrases isirrelevant.
Further investigations

Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist
Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Fodor, Janet D. (1978) “Parsing Strategies and123Constrains on Transformations,” Linguistic

Zhang, Niina Ning (2007) “The Syntactic

Inquiry 9, 427-473.

Derivations of Two Paired Dependency

Frazier, Lyn and Charles Clifton (1996)

Constructions,” Lingua 117, 2134-2158.

Construal, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Fukui, Naoki and Hirom Sakai (2006) “TheVisibility Guideline for Functional
Categories: Verb Raising in Japanese andRelated Issues,” Theoretical Comparative
Syntax, by Naoki Fukui, 289-336, Routledge,
New York.

Hawkins, John A. (1994) A Performance
Theory of Order and Constituency,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hawkins, John A. (2004) Efficiency andComplexity in Grammars, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Koizumi, Masatoshi (2000) “String Vacuous
Overt Verb Raising,” JEAL 9.3, 227-285.
Pickering, Martin and Guy Barry (1991)“Sentence Processing without Empty
Categories,” Language and Cognitive
Processes 6, 229-259.

Postal, Paul M. (1998) Three Investigations ofExtraction, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rochemont, Michael. S. and Peter W. Culicover(1990) English Focus Constructions and theTheory of Grammar, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Shiobara, Kayono (2009) “A Performance BasedApproach to Multiple Dependencies,”
Journal of Bunkyo Gakuin University
Department of Foreign Languages andBunkyo Gakuin College 9, 57-70.

Zec, Draga and Sharon Inkelas (1990)“Prosodically Constrained Syntax,” The
Phonology-Syntax Connection, ed. by Sharon
Inkelas and Draga Zec, 365-378. Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago.

124

成の電話会話コーパス CallHome Japanese,
CallFriend Japanese の音声データを用いた（トランスクリプトに使用した記号の意味については、文末に記載した一覧を参照のこと）。
ワード・サーチを伴う指示について
1. 先行研究
本研究が依拠する会話分析の手法を用いた指示研究を紹介し、相互行為の視点から指示を捉えるための基本概念についてまとめる。

(Name Search and Reference Negotiation)
須賀 あゆみ (Ayumi Suga)
奈良女子大学 (Nara Women’s University)
キーワード: 指示，ワード・サーチ，会話分析
0. はじめに
本発表では、会話の話し手は聞き手の反応をみながら発話や行動を随時調整しているとして、会話を相互行為と捉える視点から、「ワー
ド・サーチを伴う指示」という現象に注目し、指示が相互行為によって成り立つものであることを主張する。
会話の中で指示が行われるとき、話し手が選択した表現に対して、聞き手が逐一反応を示すということではない。そのため、指示という現象は、話し手の表現選択の問題と捉えられがちである。しかし、相互行為の視座による指示研
究(Sacks & Schegloff (1979), Hayashi (2005),
林(2008)など)において指摘されているように、話し手が対象を指示する上で何らかの困難に直面したときに、その問題に対処するやりとりのなかに、指示が相互行為によって成り立つものであることの証拠をみてとることができる。
本発表では、話し手が意図した指示対象の「名前」が思い出せず、適切な指示表現を産出できない状況での相互行為に注目する 1。そのような状況で、話し手は、忘れてしまった「名前」を探しつつ、指示対象を適切に同定しなければならない。一方、聞き手は指示対象の「名前」が提示されないなかで、話し手が意図する
指示対象の認識を探索しなければならない。このような問題に、参与者はどのように対処しつ
つ指示を確立するのだろうか。
分析には、日本語母語話者による対面会話の録画データと、Linguistic Data Consortium 作

125

1.1. 指示交渉にみる指示表現の選好
Sacks & Schegloff (1979) は、英語の会話において、聞き手が認識できると想定した人物を指示する場合、(1)に示すように、会話者間で指示対象の認識をめぐる交渉が行われることから、指示表現の選好という概念を提唱している。
(1) [Sacks & Schegloff 1979: 19 一部改変 太
字・囲みは発表者による]
01
A: … well I was the only one otherthan than the uhm tch Fords?,
02
03
Uh Mrs. Holmes Ford?
04
You know uh the [the cellist?
05
B:[Oh yes.
06
She’s she’s the cellist.
07
A: Yes08
B: ye[s09
A:[Well she and her husband
10were there….

(1)の 2 行目で、A は、フォード夫妻のことを言及しようとするとき、Fords という「名前」
によって B が指示対象を認識できるかどうか確信がもてないため、Fords?と、「名前」の形式を上昇調イントネーションで発話し、聞き手の反応をみている。しかし、直後に聞き手から反応がないので、3 行目で、指示対象を限定し、Mrs. Holmes Ford?と発話する。この直後にも、聞き手から反応がないため、A は 4 行目の発話
を開始し、
the cellist という「描写」(description)の形式を提示している。(聞き手が指示対象の認識ができることを示す反応は 5 行目に遅れて生じている。)
このような事例から、Sacks & Schegloff は、

聞き手が指示対象を認識できると想定している場合には、話し手は、複数の可能性の中から、聞き手がその表現で認識できると思われる指示表現を会話のその場その場でひとつずつ用る、という指示表現の選好性を見出している。
さらに、Schegloff (1996)では、最初に Mrs.
Holms Ford という「名前」が提示されるが、聞き手からすぐに反応がなかったので thecellist という「描写」が提示されていることか
らもわかるように、「描写」よりも「名前」でた場合には、A が指示対象を適切に理解していることを demonstrate していることになる。なぜなら、仮に in the center of the town と反応を返したならば、A が誤って指示対象を理解しているということが表面化するからである。一方、A が(b)のように Oh Pacific Palisades.と、B の発話と同じ表現を繰り返して理解を示したならば、指示対象の理解を claim することにはなるが、B が意図した指示対象を A が認識しているということを実証することにはならない。

指示する方が選好すると主張している。

Heritage は、日常会話の指示はほとんどの
場合、指示対象の認識は暗黙に claim されると述べている。つまり、会話の進行性が滞ることがない限り、話し手が提示した表現で聞き手が指示対象を認識できるものとみなして、会話が進められるということである。しかし、会話者間で指示対象の認識の共有を追求し、
demonstration が行われる場合もあるとし、ワード・サーチの事例もそのひとつとして扱っている。(3)に Heritage(2007)の事例を引用する。
Nic は指示しようとした人物の名前を忘れ、3行目で再度 that 名詞句を用いている。

1.2. 指示交渉と進行性(1)のような指示交渉が示すもうひとつのポイントは、指示が会話の主活動を実現するための副次的な活動として捉えられるということである。Hayashi (2005)、Heritage (2007)、串田(2008)は、指示交渉によって停滞するターン
や連鎖の進行性をできるだけ損なわずに指示交渉がどのように実践されるかということについて論じている。Hayashi(2005)は、ターンの進行性と文法の活用という観点から、日英語の指示交渉を比較検討し、そのなかでワード・サーチの分析も行っている。詳細は 2.2 節で述べる。

(3) [Heritage 2007: 275 太字は発表者による]
01 Nic: I hate that fuckin guy who
02
does those c’mmercials
03
that assho[le04 Sha:[Weh Al[an:゜uh ゜]
05
Alan Hammil?
06 Viv:[Oh Alan]

1.3. 指示対象の認識の追求と進行性
Heritage (2007)は、Sacks (1992)が提案した“demonstration” と“claim”という概念を用いて、聞き手が指示対象を適切に認識できたかどうかが相互行為上明らかになる場合とそ

聞き手の Sha と Viv は、Nic が 1-2 行目で用うでない場合があることを次のように指摘している。

いたwho does those c’mmercials という「描写」
によって提供される情報を資源として、指示対象の名前を記憶から引き出すことに成功し、5行目と 6 行目で、各自の指示対象の理解を(2) [Sacks 1992, vol2: 141]
01 A: Where are you staying?
02 B: Pacific Palisades.
03 A:(a) Oh at the west side of town.
(b) Oh Pacific Palisades.

demonstrate している。Heritage は、このように指示対象の認識の共有を追求することで、指示を確立することはできるが、その分会話の進行性が犠牲になるとし、会話者が指示対象の共1 行目で A が質問した場所について、2 行目

有認識の追求と進行性とのジレンマのなかで行動することを余儀なくされている実態を捉で B が Pacific Palisades と「名前」で返答し、これに対して A が(a)のように Oh at the west

えている。

side of town.と、別の表現を用いて理解を示し126

2. 日本語のワード・サーチを伴う指示では、日本語会話にみられるワード・サーチを伴う指示現象にはどのような特徴があるだ
ろうか。

ン」という「名前」がまさに思い出そうとしていたものであるということを承認している。
12 行目の「あれ」は、A が聞き手との間で指示対象の認識を共有できたとみなしていることを指標している。進行性の観点からみると、
1-7 行目までのワード・サーチのための指示交渉によって遅れた、会話の主活動の開始 12 行
目のターン冒頭に置かれた「あれ」が合図している。これは、日本語では文内の意味役割に関わらず名詞句をターンの冒頭に置くことがで

2.1. 指示認識の追求と「あれ」による主活動の開始 (再開)日本語においても、会話者間での認識の共有を追求するため連鎖の拡張が生じる。(4)は、親しい間柄の大学生女子 3 人による対面会話の一きるという文法が活用されたものである (cf.
須賀 (2007b))）。

場面である。話し手 A は、自分の好きな漫才コンビのことを話そうとして、「名前」が思い出せない困難に陥っている。1 行目の「誰やったっけ」は、A が「名前」を思い出せない人物を言及しようとしていること、2 行目の「なんやったっけ」は A がその名前を探そうとしている
ことを表している。

2.2. Place-holder「あれ」による指示交渉の先送り (Hayashi 2003a,2003b, 2005)
Hayashi (2003a, 2003b, 2005)は、日本語の文構造（名詞句が述語より先行すること）に起因して生じる、ワード・サーチのための指示交渉によるターンの進行性の阻害を回避するた
め、「あれ」を place-holder として用いることによって、ワード・サーチを先送りするプラク
ティスがあることを指摘している。例えば、(5)で色々な作家の作風について意見を述べ合う場面で生じた、「あれもあんまり怖くなさそう
じゃないの」(1 行目) のような場合である。

(4) [Doo3] ((A がナイナイの岡村のまねをして C
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14

がコメントした後))A: あ n の 誰>やったっけ< あの:::(0.8)>なん<やったっけ 岡- え ない↑ナイナイに n 似とる人おらん?
(0.3)
A: 新人 [で:B:
[キンコン?
A: そう[ キ ンコ : ]::ンC:>[キ h ングコ h ングや h]<(0.7)
B: ((C の方を向いて)) [出][てん ↑な:]
C：
[出た]
A:
↑[あれ: あれ]
↑ありか:と思うんけど好きなんやけどな↓見よって::

(5)
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

3 行目で、A は「ナイナイに n 似とる人」という「描写」を用いて、指示対象の属性に関する情報を提供している。これが、聞き手の探索の資源となる。この後に、聞き手から、名前候補が提示されないので、5 行目で「新人」という「描写」を提示することによって、聞き手に探索の資源を追加提供する。6 行目では、聞き手のひとり B から、「キンコン？」という名前の候補が提示されると、7 行目で、A は、「そう
キンコ:::ン」と言って、B が提示した「キンコ127[CallFriend Japanese 1841]
Y: =うん. .hh↑あれもあんまり怖く
なさそうじゃ(ないの あ) 最近の
あの有名な.hh あの: は-あ:(れ)
なんだっけ
(0.3)
Y: よく映画んなる人
(0.2)
M: 誰¿
(0.2)
Y: シドニー・シェルダンじゃなくて[なんだっけ]M: [ あ : : ]えっと::(.)
ジョン,(0.5)グリシャム¿(0.7)
Y: じゃないよ:(0.3)
Y: °え°恐怖えい画ばっかり(って)()の人だよ.=
M: =あ:: スティーヴン・キング

20
(0.3)
21 Y: そう
22
(0.3)
23 M: う::[ん .hh[あ↑れ]↑は: ↑でも:24
.hh あれ怖くなかった:¿なんか:

1 行目で Y は念頭にある作家の名前がすぐに出てこなくても、「あれ」を place-holder として活用することで、ワード・サーチより先に文を発話することが可能になっている。
そして、このようなプラクティスは、進行性の問題だけでなく、「あんまり怖そうじゃない」という述語の部分を、ワード・サーチの資源として聞き手に提供することができるという点
でも、指示の達成に寄与するものであると
Hayashi は分析している。
以上、本節では、英語と同様に日本語でも、「名前」の探索と指示対象の認識を追求するた
めに相互行為連鎖が拡張すること、阻害されがちな進行性の確保に志向したプラクティスがあることを確認した。
3.「名前」の探索の成功が危うい状況での対処
ワード・サーチ（「名前」の探索）の成功は、会話参与者の知識や経験に負うところが大き
いため、指示交渉の結果必ずしも成功するとは限らない。本節では、聞き手の知識の欠如や、話し手の想定のずれなどが原因でワード・サー
チの成功が危うい状況に注目し、そのような状況のなか、会話参与者はどのように指示上の問(6) [CallFriend Japanese 1841]
01 Y: シャイニングはね:, 監督があの02
ほら°°(.h[h)°°え:っと::
03
::::[
:
]誰だっけ((とぎれ))04[((機械音))](0.8)
05
06 Y: 有名な人
07
(1.4)
08 M: え:¿09
(0.5)
10 Y: 2001 年作った人.
11 (0.7)
12 M:え h と:あの:>ヨシダ<さんの13
好きな人::?
14 (0.3)
15 Y: <キューブリック.>
16 M: ゜.hhhh゜あ:知[らない.]

10 行目で Y が提示した「2001 年作った人」という描写は、M にその知識がないため、ワード・サーチを成功に導く資源にはならない。そこで、M が取った行動は、「>ヨシダ<さんの好きな人::？」(12・13 行目)と尋ね、別のタイプの資源を要求することである。そうすることで、M は過去に Y が好きな監督が誰であるかを聞いた経験があれば、その記憶から候補者の名前を引き出すことができるかもしれない。
拙論(2014)では、
指示対象の
「名前」
、
「属性」
、
指示対象に関わる「共有経験」が、認識探索の資源になりうることを主張した。この「吉田さんの好きな人？」という要求は、指示対象に関わる「共有経験」を資源として、指示対象の認る認識追求
話し手は指示対象を聞き手が知らないと想定しているとき、ワード・サーチの成功が危うい状況に陥ることがある。例えば、(6)は、(5)と同じ電話会話であるが、様々な映画の作品が話題になっている。Y はＭが「シャイニング」

識探索の突破口を開こうとしたものとみなすことができる。さらに、6-12 行目の一連のやりとりは、話し手と聞き手が個別に獲得した知識が、認識探索及び「名前」の探索の資源として有用でない場合は、両者の「共有経験」から得た知識が活用される、という可能性を示唆しているといえるだろう。
聞き手が指示対象を知らないと想定してなされたワード・サーチの事例をもうひとつみておこう。(7)では、K(男性)が香水を替えようとという映画を見たことがないと知り、監督が誰であるか言及し始めたとたん、その名前を忘れした話を聞いた後、I（女性）は自分が昔試した
ティファニー社の香水のことを話そうとして、てしまう。

その銘柄名を忘れてしまう。

題に対処し、会話を進行させているのかという観点から事例を検討することにする。
3.1. 聞き手からの新たな資源の要求・提示によ128

(7) [CallFriend Japanese 4044]
01 I:.hhhh あのね: で 機会があったら02
ティファニーの::,
03 K:う:ん あれ?
04 I: .hh
05 (0.3)
06 I: n?
07 K: え? >ティファニー<の何¿08 I: ティファニーの:09 K: うん
10 I: ゜え:と なんだっけ名前 >あ<11
忘れちゃった ゜((ささやき声で))12<ティファニーの香水>があるの<ね?=
13 K: =うん 知ってる あの色:n の(.)した
14 (0.3)
15 K: (.) ティファニー(.)ブルー¿
16 I: そう そう そう そう <そう>
17 I:.hh あれ:も>すごい<私の候補にあった
18のね,
19 K: う:んから指示交渉の続行を求めたことで、指示を達成することが可能となっている。この場合も、「あれ」を用いて、会話の主活動が再開されている。
3.2. 「名前」探索の断念と会話の進行
1.1 節で述べた「名前」の選好は、人がある
対象を「名前」で同定することができるならば、
あえて「属性」を知っているかどうか確認しな
くても、対象を認識できるものとみなして会話を進めることができるということを意味する。
ここで、「名前」の探索を追求しようとした事
例を取り上げる。
(8)は、日本にいる B が、アメリカに住んでいる幼少の孫（娘 A の子）のために日本のビデオを送ってあげようとして、どのようなものがよいのかを娘のＡに相談している。B が『ひょっこりひょうたん島』を候補に挙げ、A がそれに同意した後の会話である。

I は、8 行目の「ティファニーの:」の後に言おうとした香水の「名前」を探そうとしたが思い出せないことを、10-11 行目で明示している。
その後すぐさま、12 行目で、「香水」という普通名詞を代入するという策により表現産出の問題に対処し、「…があるのね」という、聞き手が知らないと想定した対象を指示するフォーマット（cf. 須賀(2007b)を用いて、会話を進行させている。
これに対して聞き手 K は、13 行目で「あの色：n の(.)した」と言い、その香水の「色」を知っていることから I が意図する対象を認識で(8) [CallHome Japanese 2208]
01 A: なんかこの間ほらパパが買って来た(.)
02
西遊記のビデオにも:
03 A: [じゃじゃ丸]が出てく04 B: [うん うん].
05 A:じゃじゃ丸じゃないや >なんだっけ<
06.hhh えっと: 何とか鬚? [ 赤鬚:?]
07 B:[うん うん].
08 A:[赤鬚]じゃなくてな(h)んだ(h)っけ(heh)

きると主張するが、その承認は得られていない(14 行目)。そこで、15 行目では「ティファニー・

09 B:[うん]ブルー」という、カンパニー・カラーの正式名称を提示している。K はこの香水の「名前」も

11 A:
12 (0.5)

知らず、最も重要な属性である「におい」も知らないが、カンパニー・カラーの正式名称とい13 B: .hh あ: ↑<そうね>, .hh

う、この香水がどんなものか理解できるだけの知識があるということを主張し、I から「そう15 A: う:ん

10 B: な:んか出て来るよ=う[ん.

14

そうそうそう<そう>」と承認を得ている。
この事例が示すように、聞き手の知識に関し[う:ん.

↑そんなのもまあいいかも知れないね?

A は 3 行目で一度発話した「じゃじゃ丸」とて、話し手が実際とは異なる想定をしていることが、会話の中で判明することがある。(7)では、この想定のずれを解消するために、聞き手の方

129

いう名前の誤りに気づき、訂正しようとして、
5-6 行目と 8 行目で「名前」探索を行うが、聞き手 B からの提示は得られない。10 行目の Bの不定代名詞を用いた「な：んか出てくるよ」

探索を続行しようと思えばできるはずであるが、A はそれを断念している。Ｂにとっては、

さらに、本研究は、次のことがらを示唆している。
1) 指示は、必ずしも言語形式上の結びつき（e.g. Halliday & Hasan（1976））によって保証されるものではなく、活動として成り立つものである。

孫がどんなビデオを好むかがわかればよく、西遊記の登場人物の「名前」が何であるかがわか2) 話し手は聞き手の認知状態に合わせて対象を指示する表現形式を選択している (cf.

らないとしても、何かそういう雰囲気の人物が存在するという程度の理解ができれば十分でPrince (1992) , Gundel et al. (1983)) 。ただし、 常に話し手が聞き手の認知状態を前ある。それは、12 行目の「そんなのもまあいいかもしれないね」という発話に示されている。

もって想定できるわけではなく、聞き手の承認を得て初めて確定することがある。時

この事例は、聞き手の行動によって、話し手が名前の探索を断念して、会話の主活動の進行性

間の流れの中で変化するものである（e.g.
(7)）
。

という発話は、A が探している名前を自分も思いつかないことを示すとともに、「名前」探索を止めて会話を先に進めることを奨励しているように聞こえる。その直後に、A は「名前」

3) 単に特定の対象を同定するだけでなく、どのような対象であるのかを聞き手に認識・理解させる属性指示的側面(cf. Donnellan(1966))も指示活動の一部である( e.g. (3-7))。

が優先されうるということを示している。
４．結語
本発表では、「ワード・サーチを伴う指示」という現象を記述し、指示が相互行為として成り立つものであることを示す証拠事例のひとつを提示した。3.1 節では、聞き手が指示対象を認識できないと想定している場合でも、聞き手の側から指示交渉（すなわち名前探索と認識
探索）を続行するよう要請があることを示した。
3.2 節では、会話の主活動を遂行するために十「名分な程度の指示対象の理解が得られれば、前」の探索より進行性が優先されることを観察した。
また、本研究では、会話者の実践の中に、言語の相互行為上の役割を見出すことができる
ことを示した。
・進行性に関わる機能として、「あれ」は、指示交渉によって分断された主活動の開始を合図する(e.g. (4))。指示交渉を先送りして進行性を優先する（Hayashi 2003, 2005）。
・指示対象の認識に関わる機能として、「あれ」
は「聞き手が指示対象を認識できると判断していることを指標する(e.g.(4)(7))。普通名詞は、
聞き手は指示対象を認識できないと想定していることを指標する(e.g.(7)の「香水」)。不定代

謝辞：本発表に際して、聴衆の方々より貴重なご意見をいただいた。また、本研究の過程で、関西会話分析研究会、奈良女子大学英語学・言語学研究会のメンバー諸氏より有益なコメントをいただいた。心より感謝申し上げます。
注
1.「ワード・サーチ」は，通常様々な言葉を探すことを意味するが、本研究では，特定の指示対象の「名前」を探す行為に限定する。

参考文献
Donnellan, Keith S. (1966) “Reference andDefinite Descriptions,” Pragmatics －Critical Concepts－3, ed. by A. Kasher, 5-23,
Routledge, London. [Reprinted from The

Philosophical Review 75, 281-304.]
Gundel, Jeanette. K., Nancy Hedberg and Ron
Zacharski (1993) “Cognitive Status and the
Form

of

Referring

Expressions

inDiscourse,” Language 69, 274-307.

名詞「なんか」は、指示対象（の存在）を認識できることを指標する(e.g. (8))。

Halliday, M. A. K. and Ruqaiya, Hassan(1976)Cohesion in English. Cambridge

130University Press, Cambridge.

GeorgeHayashi, Makoto (2003a) Joint Utterance
Benjamins,

Irvington

Publishers, New York.

Construction in Japanese Conversation,
John

Psathas,15-21,

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1996) “Some Practices

Amsterdam/

for

Philadelphia.

ReferringtoPersonsin

Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a

Hayashi, Makoto (2003b) “Language and the

Systematics,” Studies in Anaphora, ed. by

Body as Resources for Collaborative Action:

Barbara A. Fox, 437-485, John Benjamins,

A Study of Word Searches in JapaneseAmsterdam/ Philadelphia.

Conversation,” Research on Language and須賀あゆみ (2007a) 「指示交渉と『あれ』の相互

Social Interaction 36:2, 109-141.

行為上の機能」溝越彰 他 (編)『英語と文法

Hayashi, Makoto (2005) “Referential Problemsと―鈴木英一教授還暦記念論文集』157-169,

and Turn Construction：An Exploration of

開拓社, 東京.
須賀あゆみ (2007b) 「相互行為としての指示―指an Intersection between Grammar andInteraction,” Text 25:4, 437-468.

示対象の認識確立に関わるプラクティス―」

林誠 (2008) 「会話における『指示』と発話の文『奈良女子大学研究教育年報』3: 63-73.

法構造」児玉一宏・小山哲春（編）『言語と須賀あゆみ (2014) 「受け手の知識に関する想定

認知のメカニズム―山梨正明教授還暦記念論と二段構えの指示交渉―日常会話の分析から文集』603-619, ひつじ書房, 東京.

―」『英語学英米文学論集』40:1-23, 奈良女

Heritage, John (2007) “Intersubjectivity andProgressivity

inPerson(and子大学英語英米文学会.

Place)

PersonReferenceinInteraction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social
Perspectives, ed. by Enfield, Nick. J. andTanya Stivers, 255-280. Cambridge
Reference,”

トランスクリプトに使用した記号一覧[

重複の始まり]

重複の終わり=切れ目ない接続

(0.7)

間隙（秒）

(.)

0.1 秒前後の間隙

識と進行性のやりくり―」『社会言語科学』：

音声の引き延ばし

10 (2): 96-108.

－

音声の中断

↑/↓

直後の音調が高い

University Press, Cambridge.
串田秀也 (2008)「指示者が開始する認識探索―認Prince, Ellen F. (1992) “The ZPG Letter:
Subjects, Definiteness, and Information-./?/¿/,下降調・上昇調・やや上昇調・継続を示す抑揚

status,” Discourse文字

Description: Diverse
Analyses of a Fund-raising Text, ed. by˚文字˚ 周辺と比べて小さい音量, 低い音

Mann,

A.

hh

呼気音

Benjamins,

.hh

吸気音

WilliamC.

andThompson, 295-325. John

SandraPhiladelphia / Amsterdam.

周辺と比べて大きい音量，高い音<文字> 周辺と比べて速度が遅い

Sacks, Harvey (1992) Lectures on Conversation>文字< 周辺と比べて速度が速い

vol.2, Blackwell, Oxford.

(( )) 転記者による注釈

Sacks, Harvey and Emanuel A. Schegloff (1979)(文字) 不明瞭な音声“Two Preferences in the Organization of(Reference to Persons in Conversation and
Their Interaction,” Everyday Language:

Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by

131) 聴き取り困難な音声

VHFWLRQ  ZH ZLOO GLVFXVV VHYHUDO FRQVHTXHQFHVWKDW RXU DQDO\VLV KDV IRU L  VOXLFLQJ RI

worryW\SH SV\FK YHUEV LL  93 GHOHWLRQ RI

$Q$UJXPHQW6WUXFWXUH$OWHUQDWLRQRI3V\FKDQRWKHUSV\FKYHUEbotherDQG LLL 93GHOHWLRQ

9HUEVXQGHU93'HOHWLRQ 

RI FKDQJHRIVWDWH YHUEV  ,Q VHFWLRQ  ZH ZLOO

SUHVHQWFRQFOXGLQJUHPDUNV  .HQML6XJLPRWRDQG7DLFKL1DNDPXUD+RNNDLGR8QLYHUVLW\RI(GXFDWLRQDQG

$3URSRVDO

8QLYHUVLW\RI)XNXL:HSURSRVHWKHIROORZLQJ93VWUXFWXUHIRU

worryW\SH.H\ZRUGVDUJXPHQWVWUXFWXUHDOWHUQDWLRQYRLFH

FRQVWUXFWLYLVW YLHZ RI WKHPDWLF UROHV )ROOL DQGPLVPDWFKV\QWDFWLFLGHQWLW\ 

SV\FKYHUEV

IROORZLQJWKH

+DUOH\  +DUOH\     D >v3-RKQvVWDWLYH>93ZRUU\DERXW0DU\¶V







SRRUKHDOWK@@,QWURGXFWLRQE >v30DU\¶VSRRUKHDOWK>vƍvFDXVH>v3-RKQ

7KLV SDSHU LV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK SV\FK YHUEVvVWDWLYH>93ZRUU\@@@@

WKDWH[KLELWWKHIROORZLQJDOWHUQDWLRQ  

6LQFH ERWK WKH LQWUDQVLWLYH DOWHUQDQW LQ D  DQG D -RKQZRUULHGDERXW0DU\¶VSRRUKHDOWKWKHSDVVLYHRQHLQ E UHDOL]HWKHVDPHWKHPDWLF

E -RKQZDVZRUULHGDERXW0DU\¶VSRRUUROHV ZH SURSRVH WKDW WKH\ KDYH WKH VDPH 93

VWUXFWXUH D  ZKHUH WKH OLWWOH vVWDWLYH KHDG

F 0DU\¶VSRRUKHDOWKZRUULHG-RKQ 

KHDOWK 

UHTXLUHV WKDW LWV VSHFLILHU EH LQWHUSUHWHG DV DQD  VKRZV WKDW WKH YHUE worry KDV DQ

H[SHULHQFHU DQG WKH OH[LFDO YHUE worry UHTXLUHVLQWUDQVLWLYH YDULDQW E  VKRZV WKDW LW KDV D

WKDW LWV FRPSOHPHQW EH LQWHUSUHWHG DV D

SDVVLYH YDULDQW  ,Q ERWK YDULDQWV John LV

VXEMHFWPDWWHU  7KH FDXVDWLYH DOWHUQDQW LQ F 

LQWHUSUHWHG DV DQ H[SHULHQFHU DQG Mary’s poor

KDVWKHVWUXFWXUH E ZKLFKHPEHGV v3LQ D 

health DV D VXEMHFWPDWWHU RI HPRWLRQ  ,Q

XQGHU WKH OLWWOH vFDXVH KHDG ZKRVH VSHFLILHU LV

DGGLWLRQ WKH YHUE KDV D FDXVDWLYH YDULDQW DV

LQWHUSUHWHGDVDFDXVHU  

VKRZQ LQ F  ZKHUH Mary’s poor health LV

:H DVVXPH WKDW WKH VXEMHFWPDWWHU UROH LQ

LQWHUSUHWHG DV D FDXVHU DQG John DV DQE  LV UHDOL]HG DV D QXOO DUJXPHQW   

H[SHULHQFHU  ,QWKLVSDSHUZHZLOOH[SORUHWKH

$FFRUGLQJWR3HVHWVN\  DFDXVHUUROHDQG

93 VWUXFWXUH RI WKH YDULDQWV E\ ORRNLQJ DW WKHD VXEMHFWPDWWHU UROH DUH QRW SHUPLWWHG WR EH

EHKDYLRUWKH\VKRZXQGHUHOOLSVLV  

UHDOL]HGVLPXOWDQHRXVO\DVLOOXVWUDWHGLQ D   D

7KH SDSHU LV RUJDQL]HG DV IROORZV LQ

7KHWHOHYLVLRQVHWZRUULHG-RKQDERXWVHFWLRQZHZLOOSURSRVHD93VWUXFWXUHIRUWKH WKHYHUDFLW\RI%LOO¶VDOLELWKUHH YDULDQWV  ,Q VHFWLRQ  ZH ZLOO EULHIO\                3HVHWVN\  

UHYLHZ0HUFKDQW¶V  V\QWDFWLFDSSURDFKWRE  7KHWHOHYLVLRQVHWPDGH-RKQZRUU\PRUSKRV\QWDFWLFPLVPDWFKHVLQHOOLSVLV  %DVHG DERXWWKHYHUDFLW\RI%LOO¶VDOLELRQKLVDSSURDFKZHZLOOWKHQSURYLGHQRYHOGDWD                         LELG 

RIOLWWOHvPLVPDWFKHVLQ93GHOHWLRQDVHYLGHQFHF  7KHWHOHYLVLRQVHWZRUULHG-RKQ     

IRU WKH VWUXFWXUH SURSRVHG LQ VHFWLRQ   ,Q





132

                         LELG 

+HDUJXHVKRZHYHUWKDW D LVVHPDQWLFDOO\ODUJHUVWUXFWXUHWKDWLQFOXGHVWKHYRLFHKHDG LHFRKHUHQW EHFDXVH WKH FRQWHQW D  LQWHQGV WR

FRPSOHPHQW RI &   )XUWKHUPRUH 0HUFKDQWFRYHU FDQ EH H[SUHVVHG ZLWK WKH V\QWDFWLF

  REVHUYHV WKDW DUJXPHQW VWUXFWXUHFDXVDWLYH LQ E   )XUWKHUPRUH LQ F 

DOWHUQDWLRQV DUH QRW IRXQG EHWZHHQ DQWHFHGHQWDOWKRXJK WKH WHOHYLVLRQ VHW FDXVHV -RKQ WR

YHUE SKUDVHV DQG HOLGHG YHUE SKUDVHV  7KDW LV

H[SHULHQFH ZRUU\ WKH VXEMHFW PDWWHU RI WKHWR VD\ LI RQH GLDWKHVLV YDULDQW LV IRXQG LQ DQWKRXJKW LWVHOI PD\ KDYH QRWKLQJ WR GR ZLWK WKHDQWHFHGHQW SKUDVH WKHQ WKDW VDPH YDULDQW PXVWWHOHYLVLRQVHW  7KDWLVWRVD\WKHWHOHYLVLRQVHW

RFFXU LQ WKH HOLGHG SKUDVH XQGHU 93 HOOLSVLV 

PD\ SURYRNH ZRUULHV DERXW LWVHOI RU RWKHU+HFODLPVWKDWWKHVHIDFWVIDOOLQWRSODFHLIWKHUH

PDWWHUV UHODWHG WR LW  &RQVLGHULQJ WKHVH IDFWVH[LVW KHDGV WKDW JRYHUQ DUJXPHQW VWUXFWXUH

ZH DVVXPH WKDW WKH VXEMHFWPDWWHU DUJXPHQWDOWHUQDWLRQDQGDUHSODFHGEHORZWKHYRLFHKHDG 

DSSHDUV FRYHUWO\ LQ WKH FRPSOHPHQW RI 9 DQG7RLOOXVWUDWHOHWXVFRQVLGHUWKHH[DPSOHLQ  

WKLVQXOODUJXPHQWLVLQWHUSUHWHGLQVRPHZD\DVZKLFKLOOXVWUDWHVYRLFHPLVPDWFKHVLQ93HOOLSVLV 

LGHQWLFDO WR RU GLIIHUHQW IURP WKH FDXVHU

:H LQGLFDWH WKH HOLGHG PDWHULDO LQ DQJOHGDUJXPHQW  

EUDFNHWVLQWKHH[DPSOHDQGWKHWDUJHWRIHOOLSVLV

LQWKHER[QRWDWLRQ D 7KHMDQLWRUPXVWUHPRYHWKHWUDVK$Q$QDO\VLV,QWKLVVHFWLRQZHDGRSW0HUFKDQW¶V  

ZKHQHYHULWLVDSSDUHQWWKDWLWVKRXOGEHWKHRU\ RI 93 GHOHWLRQ DQG DUJXH WKDW RXU

UHPRYHG!    0HUFKDQW  

SURSRVDOLVVXSSRUWHGE\VRPHQRYHOIDFWVDERXWE L >9RLFH39RLFH>$FWLYH@>v3WKHMDQLWRUvFDXVH

WKH93GHOHWLRQRISV\FKYHUEV    >93UHPRYHWKHWUDVK@@@







LL>9RLFH39RLFH>$FWLYH@ >v3proLvFDXVH>93 7KH6\QWDFWLF,GHQWLW\&RQGLWLRQRQ93  UHPRYHLW@@ E\;3L @'HOHWLRQ)LUVW ZH UHYLHZ 0HUFKDQW¶VEL VKRZVWKHDQWHFHGHQWYHUESKUDVHVWUXFWXUH
 

DQG ELL WKHHOLGHGYHUESKUDVHVWUXFWXUH  7KHDSSURDFK WR HOOLSVLV  0HUFKDQW   SRLQWV

VDPH IXQFWLRQDO KHDG vFDXVH LV XVHG LQ ERWK v3VRXW WKDW 93 GHOHWLRQ SHUPLWV YRLFH PLVPDWFKHVDQGLQWKLVVHQVHWKH\DUHV\QWDFWLFDOO\LGHQWLFDO 

EHWZHHQ WKH DQWHFHGHQW DQG WKH HOLGHG YHUE

7KXVWKHH[DPSOHLVDFFHSWDEOH  1H[WFRQVLGHUSKUDVHZKLOHYRLFHPLVPDWFKHVLQODUJHUHOOLSVLVWKH H[DPSOH LQ   ZKLFK VKRZV OLWWOH v

W\SHV OLNH VOXLFLQJ DUH QRW WROHUDWHG  7KHPLVPDWFKHVLQ93HOOLSVLV  7KHFKDQJHRIVWDWHFRQWUDVW OHDGV KLP WR DUJXH WKDW WKH LGHQWLW\YHUE melt KDV DQ LQWUDQVLWLYH YDULDQW DQG D

UHODWLRQ LQ HOOLSVLV LV VHQVLWLYH QRW RQO\ WR

FDXVDWLYH

VHPDQWLFVEXWDOVRWRV\QWD[  7KHQWRDFFRXQWFDXVDWLYHLQFKRDWLYHDOWHUQDWLRQ /HYLQ  

IRU WKH IRUPHU IDFW KH SURSRVHV WKDW WKH KHDG D

RQH

DQG

HQWHUVWKH

%LOOPHOWHGWKHFRSSHUYDVHDQGWKH

WKDWHQFRGHVYRLFHPRUSKRORJ\LVH[WHUQDOWRWKH PDJQHVLXPYDVHGLGPHOW!

YHUESKUDVH  6SHFLILFDOO\93HOOLSVLVFDQDOORZ                   6DJ  YRLFH PLVPDWFKHV EHFDXVH LW WDUJHWV D VWUXFWXUHE L  >9RLFH39RLFH>$FWLYH@>v3%LOOvFDXVH>93

WKDWH[FOXGHVWKHYRLFHKHDG LHFRPSOHPHQWRI   PHOWWKHFRSSHUYDVH@@@

9RLFH   2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG VOXLFLQJ GRHV QRW

LL >9RLFH39RLFH>$FWLYH@ >v3vXQDFFXVDWLYH>93

DOORZ YRLFH PLVPDWFKHV EHFDXVH LW WDUJHWV D   PHOWWKHFRSSHUYDVH@@@133EL DQG ELL LQGLFDWHWKHFDXVDWLYHDQWHFHGHQWE  ZKHUH HOOLSVLV WDUJHWV WKH ER[HG VWUXFWXUH

DQG LQWUDQVLWLYH HOLGHG YHUE SKUDVH VWUXFWXUHWKH FRPSOHPHQW RI 9RLFH  7KH FDXVDWLYH

UHVSHFWLYHO\  7KH\KDYHGLIIHUHQWOLWWOHvKHDGV

YDULDQW KDV WKH YHUE SKUDVH VWUXFWXUH LQ D 

vFDXVH DQG vXQDFFXVDWLYH  $V D UHVXOW WKH V\QWDFWLFZKLFKHPEHGVWKHHOLGHGv3VWUXFWXUH E XQGHU

LGHQWLW\ UHODWLRQ LV QR ORQJHU PDLQWDLQHG DQGWKHOLWWOHvFDXVHKHDG  

HOOLSVLVLVQRWSHUPLWWHG   D >9RLFH39RLFH>$FWLYH@>v30DU\¶VSRRU







KHDOWK>vƍvFDXVH>v3-RKQvVWDWLYH>93ZRUU\ 7KH93'HOHWLRQRI3V\FK9HUEVZLWK 

@@@@@/LWWOHv0LVPDWFKHVE >9RLFH39RLFH>s$FWLYH@>v3-RKQvVWDWLYH>93,Q WKH SUHYLRXV VHFWLRQ ZH KDYH VHHQ WKDWZRUU\DERXW0DU\¶VSRRUKHDOWK@@@

DUJXPHQW VWUXFWXUH DOWHUQDWLRQV DUH IRXQG

,Q WKLV FDVH WKH V\QWDFWLF LGHQWLW\ FRQGLWLRQ

EHWZHHQDQWHFHGHQW93VDQGHOLGHG93VLIERWKEHWZHHQ WKH HOLGHG SDUW DQG WKH DQWHFHGHQW LV

GLDWKHVLV YDULDQWV KDYH WKH VDPH W\SH RI OLWWOH v

VDWLVILHG EHFDXVH WKH DQWHFHGHQW VWUXFWXUH

KHDGDQGWKDWVXFKDOWHUQDWLRQVDUHQRWIRXQGLI

HPEHGVWKHHOLGHGv3VWUXFWXUH  )XUWKHUPRUHLI

WKH\ KDYH GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI OLWWOH v KHDG  ,Q

WKH QXOO VXEMHFWPDWWHU DUJXPHQW LV LGHQWLILHG

OLJKW RI WKLV LQ WKLV VHFWLRQ ZH H[SORUH ZKHWKHUZLWK WKH FDXVHU DUJXPHQW LQ D  VHPDQWLF

WKHVWUXFWXUHZHSURSRVHGLQ  LVFRUUHFW

LGHQWLW\ LV DOVR PDLQWDLQHG  7KXV ZH SUHGLFW

WKDWHOOLSVLVVKRXOGEHSRVVLEOH  7KLVSUHGLFWLRQ)LUVW FRQVLGHU WKH LQWUDQVLWLYH YDULDQW DQGWKH SDVVLYH YDULDQW  5HFDOO WKDW WKH\ KDYH WKHLVERUQHRXWE\WKHGDWDEHORZ  

VDPHVWUXFWXUHXSWR9RLFHDQGLQFOXGHWKHVDPH D 6XVDQVDLGWKDW0DU\¶VSRRUKHDOWKLOLWWOHvKHDGvVWDWLYHDVLOOXVWUDWHGLQ D DQG E 

ZRXOGZRUU\-RKQMDQGKHMGLGZRUU\UHVSHFWLYHO\  

DERXWLWL!

 D >9RLFH39RLFH>$FWLYH@>v3-RKQvVWDWLYH>93E 6XVDQVDLGWKDW0DU\¶VSRRUKHDOWKL







ZRUU\DERXW0DU\¶VSRRUKHDOWK@@@

ZRXOGZRUU\-RKQMDQGKHMZDV

E >9RLFH39RLFH>$FWLYH@>v3-RKQvVWDWLYH>93

ZRUULHGDERXWLWL! 

ZRUU\DERXW0DU\¶VSRRUKHDOWK@@@D  VKRZV WKDW WKH LQWUDQVLWLYH YDULDQW FDQ EH

$VVXFK93HOOLSVLVVKRXOGEHSRVVLEOHLQHLWKHU

GHOHWHG  ,Q E WKHSDVVLYHYDULDQWLVGHOHWHG  

DQG HLWKHU RI WKHP FRXOG EH WKH DQWHFHGHQW 



7KLV

WKH

ZKHUH WKH LQWUDQVLWLYH RU SDVVLYH YDULDQW LV WKHLQWUDQVLWLYHWRSDVVLYH FRPELQDWLRQ DQG LQ E 

DQWHFHGHQW DQG WKH FDXVDWLYH RQH LV HOLGHG 

IRUWKHSDVVLYHWRLQWUDQVLWLYHFRPELQDWLRQ  (DFK YHUE SKUDVH VWUXFWXUH LV VFKHPDWL]HG LQ D -RKQZRUULHGDERXW0DU\¶VSRRUKHDOWKL   LVVKRZQ

LQ

D 

IRU

)LQDOO\FRQVLGHUWKHUHYHUVHSDWWHUQRI  

DQG%LOOZDVZRUULHGDERXWLWL!WRR          D    >9RLFH3
    9RLFH    >s$FWLYH@>v3-RKQvVWDWLYH>93







E -RKQZDVZRUULHGDERXW0DU\¶VSRRU ZRUU\DERXW0DU\¶VSRRUKHDOWK@@@

KHDOWKLDQG%LOOGLGZRUU\DERXWLWL!

E

>9RLFH39RLFH>$FWLYH@>v30DU\¶VSRRU

WRR                      KHDOWK>vƍvFDXVH>v3-RKQvVWDWLYH>93 ZRUU\@@@@@

6HFRQG FRQVLGHU WKH FDVH ZKHUH WKHFDXVDWLYH YDULDQW LV WKH DQWHFHGHQW DQG WKH,Q WKH FDXVDWLYH VWUXFWXUH LQ E  WKH ER[HG

LQWUDQVLWLYH RU SDVVLYH YDULDQW LV HOLGHG  7KHVWUXFWXUH LQFOXGHV WKH OLWWOH vFDXVH KHDG ZKLFK LV

LQWUDQVLWLYHRUSDVVLYHYDULDQWKDVWKHVWUXFWXUHLQ

QRW LQFOXGHG LQ WKH LQWUDQVLWLYH RU SDVVLYH

134

DQWHFHGHQW  7KLVPHDQVWKDWWKHHOLGHGSDUWDQG

WKHFRPSOHPHQWRI&  ,QWKLVFDVHWKHWDUJHWRI

WKH DQWHFHGHQW DUH QRW V\QWDFWLFDOO\ LGHQWLFDO 

HOOLSVLV DOZD\V LQFOXGHV 9RLFH SKUDVH DV

7KHUHIRUH ZH SUHGLFW WKDW HOOLSVLV VKRXOG EH

LOOXVWUDWHGLQ E   

LPSRVVLEOH  7KLVLVFRQILUPHGE\WKHIROORZLQJ D >9RLFH39RLFH>$FWLYH@>v30DU\¶VSRRUGDWD  

KHDOWK>vƍvFDXVH>v3-RKQvVWDWLYH>93ZRUU\@@@@@ D

6XVDQEHOLHYHGWKDW-RKQLZRUULHG









 DERXW0DU\¶VSRRUKHDOWKMEXWLWMGLG

E >9RLFH39RLFH>s$FWLYH@>v3-RKQvVWDWLYH>93 QRWZRUU\ KLPL!        







E

6XVDQEHOLHYHGWKDW-RKQLZDVZRUULHGE  LV QR ORQJHU D VXEVHW RI WKH DQWHFHGHQW DERXW0DU\¶VSRRUKHDOWKMEXWLWMGLGD  EHFDXVH WKH IRUPHU GRHV QRW LQFOXGH WKH

 QRWZRUU\KLPL!

vFDXVH KHDG WKDW WKH ODWWHU SRVVHVVHV  7KXV ZHZRUU\DERXW0DU\¶VSRRUKHDOWK@@@,Q D ZKHUHWKHDQWHFHGHQWLVWKHLQWUDQVLWLYH

PDNH D IXUWKHU SUHGLFWLRQ WKDW VOXLFLQJ LQ WKLVYDULDQW HOOLSVLV RI WKH FDXVDWLYH YHUE SKUDVH LV

FDVH VKRXOG EH LPSRVVLEOH  7KLV SUHGLFWLRQ LV

QRWDOORZHG  )RU E ZKHUHWKHDQWHFHGHQWLV

ERUQHRXWE\ D ZKHUHWKHLQWUDQVLWLYHYDULDQWWKHSDVVLYHYDULDQWWKHVDPHUHVXOWREWDLQV  

LVHOLGHGDQG E ZKHUHWKHSDVVLYHYDULDQWLV,Q VXPPDU\ DVVXPLQJ WKH V\QWDFWLF

HOLGHG

LGHQWLW\FRQGLWLRQRQ93HOOLSVLVZHKDYHDUJXHG

 D,NQRZVRPHWKLQJZRUULHG-RKQLEXW,

IRU WZR SRLQWV  )LUVW ZH KDYH VKRZQ WKDW WKH

 GRQ¶WNQRZDERXWZKDWKHLZRUULHG!

LQWUDQVLWLYH DOWHUQDQW RI WKH SV\FK YHUE KDV WKHE,NQRZVRPHWKLQJZRUULHG-RKQLEXW,

VDPH v3 VWUXFWXUH DV WKH SDVVLYH RQH  6HFRQG GRQ¶WNQRZDERXWZKDWKHLZDV

ZH KDYH HVWDEOLVKHG WKDW WKH FDXVDWLYH DOWHUQDQW ZRUULHG!

LQFOXGHV WKH v3 VWUXFWXUH RI WKH LQWUDQVLWLYH RUSDVVLYH DOWHUQDQWDVDVXEVHW   7KH3V\FK9HUEbotherDQG93'HOHWLRQ

7KHYHUEbotherEHORQJVWRWKHVDPHSV\FK&RQVHTXHQFHV

YHUE FODVV DV worry /HYLQ    +RZHYHU,Q WKLV VHFWLRQ ZH ZLOO GLVFXVV VHYHUDODFFRUGLQJWRRXULQIRUPDQWWKHIRUPHULVVOLJKWO\FRQVHTXHQFHV WKDW RXU DQDO\VLV KDV IRU L 

GLIIHUHQWIURPWKHODWWHULQDUJXPHQWUHDOL]DWLRQVOXLFLQJ RI worryW\SH SV\FK YHUEV LL  93

DVVKRZQLQ    

GHOHWLRQ RI SV\FK YHUEV VXFK DV bother XQGHU D

/XFLHERWKHUHGDERXWDPDWKSUREOHP 

OLWWOH v PLVPDWFKHV DQG LLL  93 GHOHWLRQ RI

E  /XFLHZDVERWKHUHGDERXWDPDWKFKDQJHRIVWDWHYHUEVXQGHUOLWWOHvPLVPDWFKHV  









F  7KHPDWKWHDFKHUERWKHUHG/XFLH  $UJXPHQW6WUXFWXUH0LVPDWFKHVLQ G  7KHPDWKWHDFKHUERWKHUHG/XFLH

6OXLFLQJ,QVHFWLRQZHDUJXHGWKDW93HOOLSVLVLV$OWKRXJK RXU LQIRUPDQW DOORZV WKH YHUE bother

SHUPLWWHG LQ LQWUDQVLWLYH RU SDVVLYH VHQWHQFHVWR KDYH WKH SDVVLYH XVH LQ E  DQG WKHZLWK worry ZKHQ WKH FDXVDWLYH DFWV DV

FDXVDWLYH XVH LQ F  KH GRHV QRW DOORZ LW WR

DQWHFHGHQW EHFDXVH WKH HOLGHG v3 LV D VXEVHW RI

KDYH DQ LQWUDQVLWLYH XVH XQOLNH WKH YHUE worry 

WKH DQWHFHGHQW v3  /HW XV FRQVLGHU WKHQ WKH$GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH YHUE bother LV DOORZHG WR

FDVH ZKHUH WKH WDUJHW RI HOOLSVLV LV H[WHQGHG WR

UHDOL]HDOOLWVWKUHHWKHPDWLFUROHVVLPXOWDQHRXVO\135

 SUREOHP  DERXWDPDWKSUREOHPDVVKRZQLQ G   ,QWKLVVHFWLRQSXWWLQJDVLGH

WHQWDWLYHO\SURSRVHWKHIROORZLQJVWUXFWXUH  

WKH UHDVRQ IRU WKH IDFW WKDW WKH LQWUDQVLWLYH  >9RLFH39RLFH>$FWLYH@>v3WKHPDWKWHDFKHU

YDULDQW LV XQDFFHSWDEOH ZH FRQVLGHU WKH 93

vFDXVH>93ERWKHU/XFLH@DERXWDPDWKVWUXFWXUHRIWKHUHPDLQLQJDFFHSWDEOHYDULDQWVE\

SUREOHP@@ 

ORRNLQJ DW WKH EHKDYLRU WKH\ VKRZ XQGHU 93

7KH FUXFLDO SRLQW LV WKDW WKH H[SHULHQFHUHOOLSVLV  /HWXVILUVWFRQVLGHUWKHGDWDLQ    

DUJXPHQW Lucie LV QRW LQWURGXFHG E\ WKH OLWWOH  -RKQVDLGWKDWWKHPDWKSUREOHPLZRXOG

vVWDWLYH KHDG EXW E\ WKH OH[LFDO 9  8QGHU WKLVERWKHU/XFLHMDQGVKHMZDVERWKHUHGSURSRVDO ZH FDQ H[SODLQ ZK\  LV

DERXWLWL!

XQDFFHSWDEOH EHFDXVH WKH FDXVDWLYH DQWHFHGHQW$FFRUGLQJWRRXULQIRUPDQWZKHQWKHFDXVDWLYH

GRHV QRW LQFOXGH WKH OLWWOH vVWDWLYH KHDG EXW WKHYDULDQW F  LV WKH DQWHFHGHQW DQG WKH SDVVLYH

SDVVLYHHOOLSVLVWDUJHWGRHV  

RQH LV GHOHWHG WKH VHQWHQFH LV DFFHSWDEOH 

6HFRQGFRQVLGHUWKHUHYHUVHSDWWHUQEHORZ

 6XEMHFWDQG$X[LOLDU\)RFXVLQ93 -RKQVDLGWKDW/XFLHLZRXOGEHERWKHUHG

'HOHWLRQ DERXWDPDWKSUREOHPMDQGLWMGLGERWKHU:HGHDOWZLWKPRUSKRV\QWDFWLFPLVPDWFKHV KHUL!

LQ WKH 93 HOOLSVLV RI FKDQJHRIVWDWH YHUEV OLNH

:KHQ WKH SDVVLYH DOWHUQDQW DSSHDUV LQ WKHbreakDQGmeltLQVHFWLRQ   ,QWKLVVHFWLRQDQWHFHGHQW YHUE SKUDVH DQG WKH FDXVDWLYH RQH LV

ZH ZLOO VKRZ WKDW PRUSKRV\QWDFWLF PLVPDWFK

XVHG LQ WKH HOLGHG YHUE SKUDVH WKH VHQWHQFH LV

SKHQRPHQD DUH PRUH FRPSOH[ WKDQ WKH\ PLJKWXQDFFHSWDEOH  7KHVH IDFWV PD\ OHDG XV WR WKHDSSHDU DW ILUVW EXW WKDW WKH VDPH FRPSOH[LW\ LV

VDPH FRQFOXVLRQ DV LQ WKH FDVH RI worry WKHQRW UHSOLFDWHG LQ WKH FDVH RI worryW\SH SV\FKSDVVLYH DQG FDXVDWLYH YDULDQWV LQ E F  KDYHYHUEV  )LUVW FRQVLGHU

WKHVWUXFWXUHVLQ DE UHVSHFWLYHO\  

XQDFFXVDWLYH DOWHUQDQW LV XVHG LQ WKH DQWHFHGHQW D >9RLFH39RLFH>$FWLYH@>v3/XFLHvVWDWLYH>93

DQGWKHSDVVLYHRQHLQWKHHOOLSVLVWDUJHW    D

ERWKHUDERXWDPDWKSUREOHP@@@   ZKHUH WKH7KH9$6(GLGQ¶WEUHDNWKRXJKWKH







E >9RLFH39RLFH>$FWLYH@>v3WKHPDWKWHDFKHU











E  7KHVQRZ','1¶7PHOW\HVWHUGD\  /DVWO\ FRQVLGHU WKH VHFRQG FDXVDWLYH YDULDQW

LQ G   ,IWKLVYDULDQWKDGWKHVDPHVWUXFWXUH

$V GLVFXVVHG LQ VHFWLRQ  WKH FRQGLWLRQ RQ

DV WKDW RI F  ZLWK WKH QXOO DUJXPHQW RYHUWO\V\QWDFWLFLGHQWLW\EHWZHHQWKHDQWHFHGHQWDQGWKH

UHDOL]HGDVWKHSUHSRVLWLRQDOSKUDVHabout a math

HOLGHG YHUE SKUDVH LV QRW VDWLVILHG EHFDXVH WKH\problemWKHFDXVDWLYHDQWHFHGHQWVKRXOGOLFHQVH

KDYH GLIIHUHQW v KHDGV vXQDFFXVDWLYH DQG vFDXVDWLYH

93 GHOHWLRQ RI LWV SDVVLYH FRXQWHUSDUW 

7KLVLVVKRZQDJDLQLQ      +RZHYHU WKLV SUHGLFWLRQ LV FRQWUDGLFWHG E\ WKH D >9RLFH39RLFH>$FWLYH@ >v3vXQDFFXVDWLYH>93 

vFDXVH>v3/XFLHvVWDWLYH>93ERWKHU@@@@  :,1'2:ZDVEURNHQ!
 WKRXJKLW:,//EHPHOWHG! 

GDWDLQ    





 

-RKQVDLGWKDWWKHPDWKWHDFKHUZRXOGE >9RLFH39RLFH>$FWLYH@ >v3proLvFDXVH>93  ERWKHU/XFLHLDERXWDPDWKSUREOHPM DQGVKHLZDVERWKHUHGDERXWLWM!

7KXV ERWK D  DQG E  ZRXOG EH SUHGLFWHG

7KXVLWDSSHDUVWKDWWKHYDULDQWLQ G GRHVQRW

WREHXQDFFHSWDEOH  ,QIDFWDFFHSWDELOLW\YDULHV

KDYH WKH VDPH VWUXFWXUH DV WKDW RI F   :H

GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH ORFDWLRQ RI IRFXV .HUW]

136



913@@@ 913@@ E\;3L @   6SHFLILFDOO\ YRLFH PLVPDWFKHV LQ 93

VWUXFWXUHV IRU WKH SV\FK YHUE worry LWVGHOHWLRQ DUH UXOHG RXW LI IRFXV LV SXW RQ WKHLQWUDQVLWLYH DQG SDVVLYH YDULDQWV KDYH WKH VDPH

VXEMHFW RI WKH HOLGHG FODXVH DV VKRZQ LQ D  VWUXFWXUH DQG LWV FDXVDWLYH RQH KDV D VWUXFWXUH

2QWKHRWKHUKDQGWKH\DUHSHUPLWWHGLIIRFXVLVZKLFK LQFOXGHV WKH LQWUDQVLWLYH RU SDVVLYH  v3

SXW RQ WKH DX[LOLDU\ YHUE DV LQ E   7KHVWUXFWXUH DV D VXEVHW  :H KDYH VKRZQ WKDW WKH

VDPH FRQWUDVW LV IRXQG LQ WKH IROORZLQJVWUXFWXUHV ZH SURSRVH DUH VXSSRUWHG E\ QRYHOH[DPSOHV  

GDWD FRQFHUQLQJ 93 HOOLSVLV  :H KDYH DOVR D

7KH:,1'2:ZDVEURNHQDQGWKHVKRZQ WKDW L  WKH VWUXFWXUHV ZH SURSRVH DUH

 9$6(GLGEUHDN!WRR 

FRUURERUDWHGE\GDWDIURPVOXLFLQJDQG LL WKH\







E "7KHVQRZLV*2,1*WREHPHOWHG

FDQ EH H[WHQGHG WR WKH SV\FK YHUE bother DQG

 WKRXJKLW','1¶7PHOW! 

LLL WKH93GHOHWLRQRISV\FKYHUEVLVVXEMHFWWR-RKQEURNHWKH:,1'2:DQGWKH

DGLIIHUHQWFRQGLWLRQIURPWKDWRIFKDQJHRIVWDWH 9$6(GLGEUHDN!WRR 

YHUEV   D
E  (YHU\RQH75,('WRPHOWWKHVQRZEXW









 LW','1¶7PHOW!  D

7KHUHWKHYDVHEURNH²,EHW







 -2+1GLGEUHDNWKHYDVH! 

SUHVHQWHG DW WKH QG PHHWLQJ RI WKH (QJOLVKE  7KHVQRZ','1¶7PHOWWKRXJK/LQJXLVWLF 6RFLHW\ RI -DSDQ KHOG DW *DNXVKXLQ

8QLYHUVLW\RQ1RYHPEHU  :HZRXOG HYHU\RQH75,('WRPHOWLW!

$Q HDUOLHU YHUVLRQ RI WKLV SDSHU ZDV([DPSOH   LV WKH UHYHUVH SDWWHUQ RI     OLNH WR WKDQN WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV WR WKH PHHWLQJ IRU([DPSOHV   DQG   XWLOL]H WKH FDXVDWLYHWKHLUYDOXDEOHFRPPHQWV  /DVWEXWQRWOHDVWZH

DOWHUQDWLRQ  7KHVDPHSRLQWFDQEHPDGHDERXWZRXOGOLNHWRWKDQN0D[3KLOOLSV-UZKRNLQGO\WKHP  

DFWHG DV DQ LQIRUPDQW  .HQML 6XJLPRWR¶VUHVHDUFK ZDV VXSSRUWHG E\ *UDQWLQ$LG IRU+HUHOHWXVUHFRQVLGHUWKHH[DPSOHLQ  DVUHSHDWHGLQ    <RXQJ 6FLHQWLVWV %  1R  IURP WKH D -RKQZRUULHGDERXW0DU\¶VSRRUKHDOWKL-DSDQ 6RFLHW\ IRU WKH 3URPRWLRQ RI 6FLHQFH 

DQG%LOOZDVZRUULHGDERXWLWL!WRR   

7DLFKL 1DNDPXUD¶V UHVHDUFK ZDV VXSSRUWHG E\







E -RKQZDVZRUULHGDERXW0DU\¶VSRRU*UDQWLQ$LG IRU <RXQJ 6FLHQWLVWV %  1R

KHDOWKLDQG%LOOGLGZRUU\DERXWLWL!

 IURP WKH -DSDQ 6RFLHW\ IRU WKH

WRR                     

3URPRWLRQRI6FLHQFH  $OOUHPDLQLQJHUURUVDUH

,Q   LQ VSLWH RI VXEMHFW IRFDOL]DWLRQ 93

RIFRXUVHRXURZQ  

HOOLSVLVLVSRVVLEOH  7KLVVXJJHVWVWKDWGLIIHUHQWFRQGLWLRQV DUH DW ZRUN LQ 93 'HOHWLRQ RIFKDQJHRIVWDWH YHUEV DQG SV\FK YHUEV RI

1RWHV

worryW\SH ZKLFK OHDGV XV WR DVVXPH WKDW WKH

DOWHUQDWLRQV WKH WZR YHUEV SDUWLFLSDWH LQ VKRXOG

GHILQHG E\ WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI WKH V\QWDFWLF

EHVWUXFWXUDOO\GLIIHUHQWLDWHGSRVLWLRQV WKDW WKH DUJXPHQWV RFFXS\ DQG WKHIXQFWLRQDO KHDGV WKDW LQWURGXFH WKHP  7KHQ,Q WKLV IUDPHZRUN WKHPDWLF UROHV DUH

&RQFOXVLRQ 

YHUE DOWHUQDWLRQV DUH FDSWXUHG E\ K\SRWKHVL]LQJ,Q WKLV SDSHU ZH KDYH SURSRVHG WZR 93

GLIIHUHQW IXQFWLRQDO KHDGV RQ WRS RI D VLQJOH137

YHUEDOURRW   

DQG 7RYD 5DSRSRUW  2[IRUG

8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV2[IRUG $WWKH(/6-PHHWLQJ3URIHVVRU.RML)XMLWD

SRLQWHGRXWWKDWZHVKRXOGILUVWRIIHUDGHILQLWLRQ.HUW] /DXUD   Ellipsis Reconsidered

IRU SV\FK YHUEV  +H VXJJHVWHG WR XV WKDW LW LV

'RFWRUDOGLVVHUWDWLRQ

FUXFLDO IRU WKHP WR VHOHFW FDXVHU UROHV &DOLIRUQLD6DQ'LHJR

8QLYHUVLW\RI

+RZHYHUWKLVGHILQLWLRQLWVHOIFDQQRWDSSO\RQO\/HYLQ %HWK   English Verb Classes andWR SV\FK YHUEV EXW LV DOVR DSSOLFDEOH WR

Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation

FKDQJHRIVWDWHYHUEVOLNHbreakDQGmeltZKLFK8QLYHUVLW\RI&KLFDJR3UHVV&KLFDJRWDNH FDXVHU UROHV DV WKHLU VXEMHFWV  $V

0HUFKDQW -DVRQ   ³$Q $V\PPHWU\ LQ

GLVFXVVHG LQ VHFWLRQ  WKH ODWWHU EHKDYHV

9RLFH 0LVPDWFKHV LQ 93(OOLSVLV DQGGLIIHUHQWO\ IURP WKH IRUPHU LQ 93 HOOLSVLV 

3VHXGRJDSSLQJ´ Linguistic Inquiry 

7KHUHIRUH LQ WKLV SDSHU ZH ZLOO GHILQH WKHUHOHYDQWYHUEVDVEHLQJDEOHWRVHOHFWH[SHULHQFHU

0HUFKDQW -DVRQ   ³9RLFH DQG (OOLSVLV´
Linguistic Inquiry

UROHVDQGFDXVHUUROHV  $WWKH(/6-PHHWLQJ3URIHVVRU0LNL2EDWD

3HVHWVN\'DYLG

 

Zero

Syntax:DVNHG XV ZKDW WKH GLIIHUHQFH LV EHWZHHQ WKHExperiencers and Cascades 0,7 3UHVVLQWUDQVLWLYH YDULDQW DQG WKH SDVVLYH RQH   ,Q

&DPEULGJH0$

WKLV SDSHU ZH VLPSO\ DVVXPH WKDW WKH FUXFLDO

6DJ ,YDQ   Deletion and Logical Form
'RFWRUDOGLVVHUWDWLRQ0,7

GLIIHUHQFHOLHVLQWKHYDOXHRIWKHYRLFHKHDGWKH
IRUPHU KDV WKH SOXV YDOXH DQG WKH ODWWHU KDV WKHPLQXV YDOXH  6XEVHTXHQW GHULYDWLRQV RI ERWKYDULDQWVDUHOHIWIRUIXWXUHUHVHDUFKWKRXJK  

5HIHUHQFHV)ROOL 5DIIDHOOD DQG +HLGL +DUOH\ ³)ODYRUVRIv&RQVXPLQJ5HVXOWVLQ,WDOLDQ
DQG (QJOLVK´ Aspectual Inquiries HG E\
3DXOD

.HPSFKLQVN\

DQG

5RXP\DQD

6ODEDNRYD6SULQJHU'RUGUHFKW  )ROOL5DIIDHOODDQG+HLGL+DUOH\  ³2QWKH
/LFHQVLQJ RI &DXVDWLYHV RI 'LUHFWHG
0RWLRQ :DOW]LQJ 0DWLOGD $OO 2YHU´
Studia Linguistica
+DUOH\+HLGL  ³+RZ'R9HUEV*HW7KHLU
1DPHV"

'HQRPLQDO

9HUEV

0DQQHU,QFRUSRUDWLRQ DQG WKH 2QWRORJ\ RI 9HUE
5RRWV LQ (QJOLVK´ The Syntax of Aspect:
Deriving

Thematic

andAspectual

Interpretation HG E\ 1RPL (UWHVFKLN6KLU

138





GRQDWLYH$(VSHDNHUVSURGXFHDOYHRODUIODSVLQVSRQWDQHRXVVSHHFKLQWKHILUVWSODFH"   +RZ

ZHOO FDQ -DSDQHVH OHDUQHUV RI (QJOLVK -( 

SURGXFH DOYHRODU IODSV LQ (QJOLVK"    +RZ3URGXFWLRQRIDQ$OORSKRQLF9DULDQW 

VWURQJO\ LV -( VSHDNHUV¶ SURGXFWLRQ RI DOYHRODULQD6HFRQG/DQJXDJH7KH&DVHRI 

IODSV UHODWHG WR (QJOLVK ODQJXDJH H[SHULHQFH" ,QWHUYRFDOLF$OYHRODU)ODSSLQJ

7KHVH SXUSRVHV ZHUH SXUVXHG E\ DQDO\]LQJ

VSHHFKFRUSRUDFRQWDLQLQJSURGXFWLRQVE\$(DQG

.HLLFKL7DMLPD +RVHL8QLYHUVLW\ -( VSHDNHUV DQG E\ FRQGXFWLQJ D VSHHFKSURGXFWLRQH[SHULPHQWZLWK-(VSHDNHUV

0DIX\X.LWDKDUD :DVHGD8QLYHUVLW\ 

.L\RNR<RQH\DPD 'DLWR%XQND8QLYHUVLW\ &25386$1$/<6(6%XFNH\H&RUSXV.H\ZRUGVDOYHRODUIODS$PHULFDQ(QJOLVK

7KH %XFNH\H &RUSXV RI FRQYHUVDWLRQDOFRUSXVDQDO\VLVSURGXFWLRQH[SHULPHQWODQJXDJHH[SHULHQFH

VSHHFK 3LWW HW DO   FRQWDLQV UHFRUGLQJVIURP$(VSHDNHUVIURP&ROXPEXV2+86$



FRQYHUVLQJ IUHHO\ ZLWK DQ LQWHUYLHZHU  7KHFRUSXVFRQWDLQVDSSUR[LPDWHO\ZRUGVRI

,1752'8&7,21
,QWHUYRFDOLFDOYHRODUIODSSLQJWKHUHDOL]DWLRQVSHHFKZLWKRUWKRJUDSKLFWUDQVFULSWLRQVDQGWLPH

RI LQWHUYRFDOLF W DQG G DV DQ DOYHRODU IODS LV

DOLJQHGSKRQHWLFODEHOV  %DVHGRQWKHSKRQHWLF

FRPPRQO\REVHUYHGLQ$PHULFDQ(QJOLVK $( ODEHOV IODS UDWH ZDV FDOFXODWHG E\ GLYLGLQJ WKH

LQLQWHUYRFDOLFSRVLWLRQHJletterladderDIWHUDQXPEHURISURGXFWLRQVRIDJLYHQZRUGWKDWZHUHQDVDO RU OLTXLG HJ winter shelter DQG DFURVVWUDQVFULEHG ZLWK D IODS E\ WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI

ZRUGERXQGDULHVHJget onsee you tomorrow 

SURGXFWLRQV RI WKDW ZRUG  )ODS UDWH ZDV DOVR$OYHRODUIODSVGRQRWOH[LFDOO\FRQWUDVWZLWKRWKHUFDOFXODWHGIRUWZRZRUGSKUDVHVVXFKDVget on

VRXQGVLQ(QJOLVKEXWIODSSLQJLVNQRZQWRRFFXU

2XW RI DOO ZRUGV WKDW DSSHDUHG DW OHDVW ILYHKLJKO\UHJXODUO\LQFHUWDLQGLDOHFWV  0HDQZKLOHWLPHVLQWKHFRUSXVDQGZHUHSURGXFHGZLWKDIODSSURGXFWLRQRIDOYHRODUIODSVE\VHFRQGODQJXDJHDW OHDVW RQFH N   IODS UDWH ZDV  RQ/  OHDUQHUV KDV QRW EHHQ H[WHQVLYHO\DYHUDJH DQG UDQJHG IURP  WR  

LQYHVWLJDWHG VLQFH WKH\ DUH QRW FRQWUDVWLYH 

6LPLODUO\ IRU WZRZRUG SKUDVHV 1   IODS1HYHUWKHOHVV LW PLJKW VWLOO EH WR WKH OHDUQHUV¶

UDWH ZDV  RQ DYHUDJH DQG UDQJHG IURPDGYDQWDJH WR EH DEOH WR SURGXFH WKHP WR   ,W VKRXOG EH SRLQWHG RXW WKDWDSSURSULDWHO\ HVSHFLDOO\ LI WKH\ ZDQW WR VRXQG

WRNHQVWKDWZHUHQRWFRXQWHGDVIODSSHGLQFOXGHQDWLYHOLNHWKRVHSURGXFHGZLWKDUHJXODUQRQIODSSHGWRU

7KH SXUSRVH RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ LV WR

GDVZHOODVWKRVHZLWKPDVVLYHUHGXFWLRQHJ

LQYHVWLJDWHKRZRIWHQQDWLYH-DSDQHVHOHDUQHUVRI

letterSURGXFHGZLWKQRSHUFHLYDEOHLQWHUYRFDOLF(QJOLVK SURGXFH DOYHRODU IODSV LQ (QJOLVK DQGFRQVRQDQW  7KHVH RYHUDOO UHVXOWV LQGLFDWH WKDWKRZ ODQJXDJH H[SHULHQFH LQIOXHQFHV WKHLU$(VSHDNHUVUHJXODUO\SURGXFHDOYHRODUIODSVRQSURGXFWLRQ RI DOYHRODU IODSV  7KUHH VSHFLILF

D UHJXODU EDVLV EXW WKDW IODS UDWH YDULHV ZLGHO\TXHVWLRQV ZHUH SXUVXHG    +RZ FRQVLVWHQWO\DFURVVZRUGVDQGSKUDVHV

139(QJOLVK5HDGE\-DSDQHVH (5- &RUSXV

132

7KH(QJOLVK5HDGE\-DSDQHVH (5- FRUSXV
durationofstay(month)

0LQHPDWVXHWDO  FRQWDLQVUHFRUGLQJVRI-DSDQHVHVWXGHQWVIURPXQLYHUVLWLHVDFURVV-DSDQ UHDGLQJ OLVWV RI (QJOLVK ZRUGV DQGVHQWHQFHV  (DFK VSHDNHU UHDG  VHQWHQFHV 
3URGXFWLRQ RI DOYHRODU IODSV ZDV FKHFNHG E\SRWHQWLDOO\IODSSDEOH

<60

108

60Ͳ80

96

80Ͳ10084100Ͳ120

72
60
48
36
24

DXGLWRU\ LQVSHFWLRQ RI  VHQWHQFHV WKDWFRQWDLQHG

120

12

VHJPHQWV0

DSSUR[LPDWHO\WRNHQV   

0

5HVXOWV UHYHDOHG WKDW IODS UDWH ZDV YLUWXDOO\

5

10

15

20

25

30

ageofarrival(year)  )ODSVZHUHSURGXFHGLQRQO\WRNHQVLQ)LJXUH  6FDWWHUSORW RI LQGLYLGXDO SDUWLFLSDQWV¶ VHQWHQFHV  7KLV VXJJHVWV WKDW -DSDQHVH

DJHRIDUULYDO xD[LV GXUDWLRQRIVWD\ yD[LV 

XQLYHUVLW\ VWXGHQWV W\SLFDOO\ GR QRW SURGXFH

DQG72()/L%7VFRUHUDQJH SORWWLQJV\PEROV DOYHRODU IODSV  *LYHQ WKLV UHVXOW WKH IROORZLQJH[SHULPHQW LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK-DSDQHVHOHDUQHUVZLWKVRPHH[SHULHQFHOLYLQJLQ$PHULFDSURGXFHDOYHRODUIODSV0DWHULDOV5HDGLQJPDWHULDOVZHUHVHQWHQFHVFRQWDLQLQJZRUGVDQGSKUDVHVWKDWFRQWDLQHGWRUGWKDW352'8&7,21(;3(5,0(07

ZHUH SRWHQWLDOO\ IODSSDEOH  7KH IODSSDEOH

0HWKRGVVHJPHQWVZHUHOLPLWHGWRWKRVHWKDWRFFXUUHGDIWHU

3DUWLFLSDQWVD YRZHO SRWHQWLDOO\ IODSSDEOH W RU G DIWHU$JURXSRI-(VSHDNHUVZKRKDYHOLYHGLQQDVDOV DQG OLTXLGV ZHUH QRW FRQVLGHUHG LQ WKH

WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV IRU YDU\LQJ OHQJWKV ZHUH

SUHVHQW VWXG\  7KH PDWHULDOV FRQVLVWHG RI WKHUHFUXLWHGIRUSDLGSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQWKHH[SHULPHQWIROORZLQJW\SHVRILWHPV IHPDOHV  PDOHV DJH PHDQ   DJH 6LPSOH ZRUGV 1   0RQRPRUSKHPLF

UDQJH    0RVW SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH

XQLYHUVLW\ VWXGHQWV LQ WKH 7RN\R PHWURSROLWDQZRUGVZLWKDIODSSDEOHWRUGHJletterparty

DUHD  $JHRIILUVWDUULYDOLQWKH86YDULHGIURP 6XIIL[HG ZRUGV ZLWK D VWHPILQDO IODSSDEOH

DJH 86ERUQ WR\HDUV  'XUDWLRQRIVWD\LQ

W 1  HJwritinggreaterRUG 1  

WKH 86 YDULHG IURP  PRQWKV WR  \HDUV 

HJridinggrader$FWXDORUGHULYHG72()/L%7VFRUHVYDULHGIURP 3KUDVHVZLWKDIODSSDEOHWRUGHLWKHULQ WR    )LJXUH  VKRZV D VFDWWHUSORW WKDWLQWHUYRFDOLFSRVLWLRQ ³HDV\´SKUDVHV1  

LQGLFDWHV LQGLYLGXDO SDUWLFLSDQWV¶ DJH RI DUULYDO

HJget itset upRULQLQWHUYRFDOLFSRVLWLRQGXUDWLRQRIVWD\DQG72()/L%7VFRUHUDQJHDIWHU UHGXFWLRQGHOHWLRQ RI WKH IROORZLQJFRQVRQDQW ³KDUG´ SKUDVHV 1   HJ getherhit them 1RQIODSSLQJZRUGV 1  WKDWGRQRWVKRZDOYHRODUIODSSLQJLQ$PHULFDQ(QJOLVKHJ
thirteenreturn

140

7KH  WDUJHW LWHPV ZDV HDFK HPEHGGHG LQ WKHWUDQVFULEHGDVDIODS G[ RUDZHDNIODS G[[ DUH

FDUULHUVHQWHQFH³6D\BBBQRZ´  

VKRZQLQGDUNHUVKDGHV  3URFHGXUH

dx

3DUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH UHFRUGHG LQGLYLGXDOO\ LQ D
GLIIHUHQW UDQGRPL]HG OLVWV RI WKH  VHQWHQFHV 
7KH PDWHULDOV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG RQ D ODSWRSFRPSXWHU VFUHHQ XVLQJ D VHQWHQFH SUHVHQWHUSURJUDP LPSOHPHQWHG RQ 3UDDW %RHUVPD DQGtranscription

TXLHW URRP  (DFK SDUWLFLSDQW UHDG DORXG WZR

dxx

d

t

t+C

other

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
simple:HHQLQN   'HOOZR    5HFRUGLQJV
ZHUHPDGHXVLQJDKHDGPRXQWHGPLFURSKRQHRU

suffixed/t/

suffixed/d/"easy"
phrase"hard"
phraseitemtypenonͲ
flapping



DGHVNWRSPLVFURSKRQHDQGVDYHGRQWRDGLJLWDO)LJXUH'LVWULEXWLRQRISKRQHWLFWUDQVFULSWLRQVUHFRUGLQJGHYLFHDWN+]VDPSOLQJIUHTXHQF\

DVDIXQFWLRQRILWHPW\SH  7KHODEHO³G[´VWDQGV

DQGELWUHVROXWLRQZKLFKZHUHODWHUVDYHGDVIRU D IODS DQG ³G[[´ IRU D ZHDN IODS  ³W&´

DXGLRILOHVLQGLFDWHVWIROORZHGE\DFRQVRQDQW:KHQIODSUDWHLVWDNHQDVWKHSHUFHQWDJHRI$QDO\VLV
2I WKH WZR UDQGRPL]DWLRQV UHDG E\ HDFKWRNHQVWUDQVFULEHGHLWKHUDVDIODS G[ RUDZHDNSDUWLFLSDQWWKHILUVWUDQGRPL]DWLRQZDVDQDO\]HGIODS G[[  UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW IODS UDWH ZDVLQWKHSUHVHQWVWXG\IRUDWRWDORIXWWHUDQFHVDSSUR[LPDWHO\  IRU VLPSOH ZRUGV  VSHDNHUV  LWHPV   )RUHDFKXWWHUDQFH

DQG VXIIL[HG ZRUGV ZLWK W    6XIIL[HGD MXGJPHQW ZDV PDGH DV WR ZKHWKHU WKH WDUJHWZRUGV ZLWK G VKRZHG D VRPHZKDW ORZHU IODSVHJPHQWZDVSURGXFHGDVDQDOYHRODUIODSXVLQJ

UDWH    7KH ORZHU IODS UDWH IRU G LV

WZRPHWKRGV  SKRQHWLFWUDQVFULSWLRQE\RQHRIFRQWUDU\WRVWXGLHVWKDWUHSRUWHGWKDWIODSUDWHZDVWKHWKUHHFRDXWKRUVEDVHGRQDXGLWRU\LQVSHFWLRQKLJKHUIRUGWKDQIRUW HJ+HUG-RQJPDQDQG

RI HDFK XWWHUDQFH   DFRXVWLF DQDO\VLV RI HDFK6HUHQR    7KHORZHUIODSUDWHIRUGLQWKH

XWWHUDQFH EDVHG RQ DFRXVWLF SDUDPHWHUV WKDW DUH

SUHVHQW VWXG\ PD\ EH GXHWR WKHSRVVLELOLW\ WKDWRIWHQ VDLG WR EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DOYHRODU IODSV 

WKH WUDQVFULEHUV ZHUH PRUH FRQVHUYDWLYH LQ

7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ IRFXVHV RQ WKH SKRQHWLFODEHOLQJDGDVDIODSWKDQDWDVDIODSDVGLVWUDQVFULSWLRQV JLYHQ E\ WKH WUDQVFULEHUV IRUPRUH SHUFHSWXDOO\ VLPLODU DQG WKHUHIRUH

GHWDLOVRQWKHDFRXVWLFDQDO\VLVVHH.LWDKDUDHWDO

FRQIXVDEOHZLWKDIODSWKDQWLV  )ODSUDWHIRU

 

³HDV\´SKUDVHVVXFKDVget itZDVZKLFKZDVDVKLJKDVWKDWIRUVLPSOHZRUGVDQGVXIIL[HG5HVXOWVDQGGLVFXVVLRQZRUGV ZLWK W  7KLV UHVXOW ZDV VRPHZKDW7UDQVFULSWLRQE\LWHPW\SH

VXUSULVLQJVLQFHIODSSLQJDFURVVZRUGERXQGDULHV)LJXUH  VKRZV WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI SKRQHWLF

ZDVH[SHFWHGWREHPRUHGLIILFXOWIRU-(VSHDNHUVWUDQVFULSWLRQVJLYHQE\WKHWUDQVFULEHUVIRUWKH-(WKDQ IODSSLQJ ZLWKLQ D ZRUG  ,Q FRQWUDVW IODSVSHDNHUV¶ XWWHUDQFHV VKRZQ VHSDUDWHO\ IRUUDWHIRU³KDUG´SKUDVHVVXFKDVget herZDV

GLIIHUHQW LWHP W\SHV  3HUFHQWDJHV RI WRNHQVZKLFKZDVFRQVLGHUDEO\ORZHUWKDQWKDWIRU³HDV\´141

SKUDVHV  7KLVUHVXOWVXJJHVWVWKDWVRPHSKUDVHVWDNHQDVDURXJKHVWLPDWHRIIODSUDWHVE\QDWLYHSDUWLFXODUO\ WKRVH WKDW UHTXLUH DQ DGGLWLRQDO$( VSHDNHUV EHFDXVH WKH -( DQG $( GDWD DUHSKRQRORJLFDO SURFHVV RI FRQVRQDQW UHGXFWLRQ RU

EDVHG RQ GLIIHUHQW VSHHFK VW\OHV ODE VSHHFK YVGHOHWLRQ HJ get her Ѝ  get ’er ZHUH LQGHHG

FRQYHUVDWLRQDOVSHHFK   

GLIILFXOW IRU -( VSHDNHUV WR H[KLELW IODSSLQJ LQ )LQDOO\IODSUDWHIRUQRQIODSSLQJZRUGVVXFKDV

100%
90%

J1

80%

J2

VRPHWLPHV RYHUJHQHUDOL]HG DQG SURGXFHG

70%

J3

60%

J4

50%

J5

40%

AE

DOYHRODUIODSVLQZRUGVWKDWQDWLYH$(VSHDNHUVGRQRWSURGXFHIODSVLQ

flaprate

thirteen ZDV  VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW -( VSHDNHUV

30%



20%
10%

)ODSUDWHE\VSHDNHUJURXS

0%
simple7KH-(VSHDNHUVZHUHIRXQGWRYDU\JUHDWO\LQ
WKHGHJUHHWRZKLFKWKH\SURGXFHGDOYHRODUIODSV

suffixed/t/

suffixed/d/"easy"
phrase"hard"
phrasenonͲ
flapping

stimulustype

LQWKHH[SHULPHQW  )ODSUDWHYDULHGIURP)LJXUH)ODSUDWHRI-(VSHDNHUJURXSV--DQG

WRGHSHQGLQJRQWKHVSHDNHU  *LYHQVXFK$(VSHDNHUVDVDIXQFWLRQRILWHPW\SH

YDULDELOLW\DFURVVVSHDNHUVLWPD\EHSRVVLEOHWR

H[DPLQHZKLFKLWHPW\SHVZHUHUHODWLYHO\HDV\WR)LJXUH  LQGLFDWHV WKDW IODS UDWH VKRZHG D

IODSDQGZKLFKLWHPW\SHVZHUHUHODWLYHO\GLIILFXOWVWDLUFDVHOLNHLQFUHDVHIURP-WR-IRUPRVWLWHPWRIODS  )RUH[DPSOHLWPLJKWEHWKHFDVHWKDWW\SHVLHVLPSOHZRUGVVXIIL[HGZRUGVZLWKWVSHDNHUV ZLWK UHODWLYHO\ KLJK RYHUDOO IODS UDWHV

DQG G DQG HDV\ SKUDVHV  7KLV VWDLUFDVHOLNH

H[KLELWHG IODSSLQJ LQ PRVW ZRUGV DQG SKUDVHVSDWWHUQ ZDV WR EH H[SHFWHG IURP WKH ZD\ WKHZKHUHDV VSHDNHUV ZLWK UHODWLYHO\ ORZ IODS UDWHVVXEJURXSV ZHUH GHILQHG DQG GHPRQVWUDWHV WKDW

H[KLELWHGIODSSLQJLQRQO\FHUWDLQLWHPW\SHVVXFKIODS UDWH LQ IDFW YDULHG VXEVWDQWLDOO\ DFURVV

DVZRUGVEXWQRWLQRWKHUVVXFKDVSKUDVHV  ,Q

VSHDNHUV  $VLQ)LJXUHIODSUDWHVIRUVXIIL[HG

RUGHU WR H[DPLQH VXFK SRWHQWLDO GLIIHUHQFHVZRUGVZLWKGZHUHORZHUWKDQWKRVHIRUVXIIL[HG

DFURVV LWHP W\SHV DV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH VSHDNHUV¶ZRUGV ZLWK W WKLV WUHQG ZDV REVHUYHG DOVR IRURYHUDOO IODS UDWH WKH -( VSHDNHUV ZHUH GLYLGHGQDWLYH$(VSHDNHUV  0HDQIODSUDWHVIRUVRPHRILQWRILYHHTXDOVXEJURXSV 1 LQHDFKVXEJURXS 

WKHKLJKHUVXEJURXSVHJ-DQG-DSSHDUWREHDFFRUGLQJWRWKHLURYHUDOOIODSUDWH  7KHKLJKHVWFRPSDUDEOHWRWKDWIRUQDWLYH$(VSHDNHUV  )ODSRIWKHVSHDNHUVZDVGHVLJQDWHG-WKHQH[W

UDWHVIRU³HDV\´SKUDVHVZHUHVLPLODUWRWKRVHIRU

ZDVGHVLJQDWHG-DQGVRRQGRZQWRWKH

VLPSOHZRUGVDQGVXIIL[HGZRUGVZLWKWIRUDOO

ORZHVWZKLFKZDVGHVLJQDWHG-

ILYH VXEJURXSV VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW -( VSHDNHUV)LJXUH  VKRZV IODS UDWHV IRU WKH ILYHVKRZHGWKHVDPHGHJUHHRIIODSSLQJLQZRUGVDQG

VXEJURXSV RI -( VSHDNHUV DV D IXQFWLRQ RI LWHP

³HDV\´ SKUDVHV UHJDUGOHVV RI WKHLU RYHUDOO IODSW\SH  $OVR VKRZQ DUH IODS UDWHV RI QDWLYH $(UDWH  ,Q FRQWUDVW IRU ³KDUG´ SKUDVHV IODS UDWHVSHDNHUVREWDLQHGE\VHDUFKLQJIRUWKHWDUJHWZDVH[WUHPHO\ORZ EHORZ IRUJURXSV--

LWHPVLQWKH%XFNH\H&RUSXVDQGFDOFXODWLQJWKH

DQG ZDV KLJKHU   RQO\ IRU JURXS -UDWH DW ZKLFK WKHVH LWHPV ZHUH IODSSHG LQ WKHVXJJHVWLQJ WKDW H[FHSW IRU -( VSHDNHUV ZKRFRUSXV  7KH$(VSHDNHUV¶GDWDVKRXOGRQO\EH

VKRZHG WKH KLJKHVW RYHUDOO IODS UDWHV -  PRVW

142

-( VSHDNHUV GLG QRW VKRZ IODSSLQJ LQ ³KDUG´&RUUHODWLRQVZLWKVSHDNHUUHODWHGIDFWRUVSKUDVHV  )RUQRQIODSSLQJZRUGVIODSUDWHZDV*LYHQWKHVXEVWDQWLDOLQWHUVSHDNHUYDULDELOLW\HLWKHU ]HUR RU FORVH WR ]HUR IRU PRVW JURXSVLQIODSUDWHDPRQJWKH-(VSHDNHUVLWLVLQVWUXFWLYHLQFOXGLQJQDWLYH$(VSHDNHUVEXWZDVIRU

WR ILQG RXW WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK IODS UDWH ZDVJURXS-DQGIRUJURXS-VXJJHVWLQJWKDWUHODWHGWRWKHVSHDNHUV¶ODQJXDJHH[SHULHQFHDQG

-(VSHDNHUVZLWKKLJKHUIODSUDWHVWHQGHGWRRYHU

SURILFLHQF\ DV GHSLFWHG LQ )LJXUH   7DEOH 

JHQHUDOL]H DQG SURGXFHG DOYHRODU IODSV HYHQ LQVKRZVSDLUZLVHFRUUHODWLRQVDPRQJIRXUYDULDEOHVZRUGV LQ ZKLFK QDWLYH $( VSHDNHUV GR QRWRILQWHUHVWDJHRIILUVWDUULYDOLQWKH86 $2$ 

SURGXFHIODSVWRWDO GXUDWLRQ RI VWD\ LQ WKH 86 '26  72()/$ WZRIDFWRU DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH ZLWK

L%7VFRUHDQGIODSUDWH  6WDWLVWLFDOO\VLJQLILFDQWVXEJURXS OHYHOV-- DVDEHWZHHQVXEMHFWVFRUUHODWLRQVDUHLQGLFDWHGZLWKDVWHULVNV  

IDFWRU LWHP W\SH  OHYHOV  DV D ZLWKLQVXEMHFWIDFWRUDQGIODSUDWHDVWKHGHSHQGHQWYDULDEOHZDV

7DEOH&RUUHODWLRQVDPRQJDJHRIILUVWDUULYDOLQFRQGXFWHG  5HVXOWV VKRZHG VLJQLILFDQW PDLQWKH86 $2$ GXUDWLRQRIVWD\LQWKH86 '26 

HIIHFWVRIVXEJURXS>F  p@DQG

72()/ L%7 VFRUH DQG IODS UDWH  $VWHULVNVLWHP W\SH >F   p  @ DQG D

LQGLFDWHVWDWLVWLFDOO\VLJQLILFDQWFRUUHODWLRQVVLJQLILFDQW LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ VXEJURXS DQG

LWHP W\SH >F   p  @  )XUWKHU

$2$

 

DQDO\VLVRIWKHVXEJURXSE\LWHPW\SHLQWHUDFWLRQ'26

ZDV FDUULHG RXW E\ WHVWLQJ WKH VLPSOH HIIHFW RI

72()/

VXEJURXS IRU HDFK LWHP W\SH  5HVXOWV UHYHDOHG

IODSUDWH 

WKDWWKHVLPSOHHIIHFWRIVXEJURXSZDVVLJQLILFDQWp p

IRU DOO LWHP W\SHV H[FHSW QRQIODSSLQJ ZRUGV p

$2$

'26

72()/

IODSUDWH









    

   

p    0XOWLSOH FRPSDULVRQV LQGLFDWHG WKH5HVXOWVVKRZWKDWIODSUDWHZDVVLJQLILFDQWO\IROORZLQJ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV DW WKH p  QHJDWLYHO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK $2$ LQGLFDWLQJ WKDWOHYHOIRUHDFKLWHPW\SHVLPSOHZRUGV--

VSHDNHUVZKRDUULYHGLQWKH86DWD\RXQJHUDJH---VXIIL[HGZRUGVZLWKW---

LQFOXGLQJ 86ERUQ VSHDNHUV  WHQGHG WR KDYH

--VXIIL[HGZRUGVZLWKG-----

KLJKHU IODS UDWHV  5HVXOWV DOVR VKRZ WKDW IODS³HDV\´ SKUDVHV -  -  -  - - ³KDUG´

UDWH ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ SRVLWLYHO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWKSKUDVHV - - - -  -  )RU QRQIODSSLQJ

'26 DQG 72()/ L%7 VFRUH LQGLFDWLQJ WKDWZRUGV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH IRXQG

VSHDNHUVZKROLYHGLQWKH86IRUDORQJHUSHULRGDPRQJWKHILYHVXEJURXSV  

RI WLPH DQG VSHDNHUV ZKR VFRUHG KLJKHU RQ

,QVKRUWIODSUDWHYDULHGVXEVWDQWLDOO\DFURVV

72()/ L%7 WHQGHG WR KDYH KLJKHU IODS UDWHV -(VSHDNHUV  )ODSUDWHVIRU³HDV\´SKUDVHVZHUH

$OO RI WKHVH FRUUHODWLRQV DUH LQ WKH H[SHFWHGVLPLODUWRWKRVHIRUZRUGVIRUPRVWVSHDNHUVEXWGLUHFWLRQ  $PRQJ WKH WKUHH VSHDNHUUHODWHG

IODS UDWHV IRU ³KDUG´ SKUDVHV ZHUH YHU\ ORZ IRUIDFWRUV 72()/ L%7 VFRUH VKRZHG WKH KLJKHVW

PRVWVSHDNHUVH[FHSWJURXS-WKHVSHDNHUVZLWKFRUUHODWLRQ ZLWK IODS UDWH VXJJHVWLQJ WKDWWKHKLJKHVWRYHUDOOIODSUDWHVVWDQGDUGL]HG WHVW VFRUHV WKDW UHIOHFW OHDUQHUV¶RYHUDOO(QJOLVKSURILFLHQF\ZDVDEHWWHUSUHGLFWRU143

RI IODS UDWH WKDQ VLPSOH PHDVXUHV RI (QJOLVK

OHVVIUHTXHQWO\LQ³KDUG´SKUDVHVVXFKDVget herODQJXDJH H[SHULHQFH VXFK DV DJH RI DUULYDO DQG

DQG hit them ZKLFK UHTXLUH DQ DGGLWLRQDOGXUDWLRQRIVWD\  +RZHYHULWVKRXOGEHSRLQWHGSKRQRORJLFDO SURFHVV RI FRQVRQDQW UHGXFWLRQ RU

RXWWKDWWKHVHWKUHHVSHDNHUUHODWHGIDFWRUVZHUH

GHOHWLRQ  6RPH OHDUQHUV HYHQ RYHUJHQHUDOL]HG

DOOKLJKO\FRUUHODWHGZLWKRQHDQRWKHUDVVKRZQDQG SURGXFHG DOYHRODU IODSV LQ ZRUGV WKDW $(LQ 7DEOH   7KXV LW ZRXOG EH PLVOHDGLQJ WR

VSHDNHUV W\SLFDOO\ GR QRW SURGXFH IODSV LQ HJDWWHPSWWRLGHQWLI\DVLQJOHIDFWRUWKDWH[SODLQVWKH

thirteenDQGreturn

REVHUYHGYDULDELOLW\LQIODSUDWH  )LQDOO\WKHWKLUGTXHVWLRQKDGWRGRZLWKWKH

H[WHQW WR ZKLFK OHDUQHUV¶ SURGXFWLRQ RI DOYHRODU

',6&866,21

IODSVZDVUHODWHGWRODQJXDJHH[SHULHQFH  :KLOH

7KH SXUSRVH RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZDV WR

-DSDQHVHXQLYHUVLW\VWXGHQWVLQWKH(5-&RUSXVLQYHVWLJDWHKRZZHOOQDWLYH-DSDQHVHOHDUQHUVRIZKRKDGQRUHSRUWHGH[SHULHQFHRIOLYLQJLQ1RUWK(QJOLVKFDQSURGXFHDOYHRODUIODSVLQ(QJOLVKDQG

$PHULFD DOPRVW QHYHU SURGXFHG DOYHRODU IODSVKRZODQJXDJHH[SHULHQFHPLJKWDIIHFWWKHH[WHQWOHDUQHUV LQ WKH VSHHFK SURGXFWLRQ H[SHULPHQWWR ZKLFK WKH\ SURGXFH DOYHRODU IODSV  7KUHH

ZKR VSHQW DW OHDVW  PRQWKV LQ WKH 86 GLGVSHFLILFTXHVWLRQVZHUHSXUVXHGSURGXFHDOYHRODUIODSVWRYDULRXVH[WHQWV  7KLV

7KH ILUVW TXHVWLRQ DVNHG KRZ FRQVLVWHQWO\VXJJHVWV WKDW VSHQGLQJ WLPH LQ DQ (QJOLVKQDWLYH $( VSHDNHUV SURGXFHG DOYHRODU IODSV LQ

VSHDNLQJ FRPPXQLW\ PD\ SOD\ D FUXFLDO UROH LQ

VSRQWDQHRXV VSHHFK  $QDO\VLV RI WKH %XFNH\H

LPSURYLQJ&RUSXV RI FRQYHUVDWLRQDO $PHULFDQ (QJOLVKSURQXQFLDWLRQ VXFK DV DOYHRODU IODSSLQJ 

VXJJHVWHG WKDW $( VSHDNHUV GLG SURGXFH IODSV)XUWKHUPRUH FRUUHODWLRQ DQDO\VLV EHWZHHQ IODSIUHTXHQWO\  +RZHYHU IODS UDWH YDULHG ZLGHO\

UDWHDQGVSHDNHUUHODWHGIDFWRUVVXJJHVWHGWKDWWKH

DQG FRQWLQXRXVO\ DFURVV LWHPV  7KHVH UHVXOWVDJHRIILUVWDUULYDOLQWKH86GXUDWLRQRIVWD\DQG

VXJJHVWWKDWZKLOHIODSSLQJLVLQGHHGFRPPRQLQ

72()/L%7VFRUHZHUHDOOPRGHUDWHO\FRUUHODWHG

$PHULFDQ (QJOLVK LW LV QRW D FDWHJRULFDO DOORUZLWK IODS UDWH  7KDW LV IODS UDWH WHQGHG WR EH

QRQHSKHQRPHQRQEXWUDWKHUDJUDGLHQWSURFHVVKLJKHU IRU -( VSHDNHUV ZKR DUULYHG LQ WKH 86

7KH VHFRQG TXHVWLRQ LQTXLUHG KRZ ZHOOHDUO\ LQ WKHLU OLIH LQFOXGLQJ 86ERUQ VSHDNHUV -DSDQHVHOHDUQHUVRI(QJOLVKFDQSURGXFHDOYHRODUZKRVWD\HGLQWKH86IRUDORQJSHULRGRIWLPHIODSVLQ(QJOLVK  $QDO\VLVRIWKH(QJOLVK5HDGDQGZKRKDGKLJKVFRUHVRQ72()/L%7  

FHUWDLQ

DVSHFWVRI(QJOLVKE\ -DSDQHVH (5-  &RUSXV VXJJHVWHG WKDW

7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ KDV FHUWDLQ OLPLWDWLRQV DV

-DSDQHVH XQLYHUVLW\ VWXGHQWV W\SLFDOO\ GLG QRWZHOO DV VXJJHVWLRQ IRU IXWXUH UHVHDUFK  )LUVWSURGXFH DOYHRODU IODSV+RZHYHU WKHIODS UDWHV RI -( DQG $( VSHDNHUV LQ )LJXUH 

SURGXFWLRQ H[SHULPHQW LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\

FDQQRW EH VWUDLJKWIRUZDUGO\ FRPSDUHG EHFDXVHGHPRQVWUDWHGWKDWOHDUQHUVZLWKVRPHH[SHULHQFH

WKH $( VSHDNHUV¶ IODS UDWHV ZHUH EDVHG RQ D

OLYLQJ LQ $PHULFD GLG SURGXFH DOYHRODU IODSV 

FRQYHUVDWLRQDO VSHHFK FRUSXV UDWKHU WKDQ ODE/HDUQHUV ZHUH DEOH WR SURGXFH DOYHRODU IODSVVSHHFK  )RUDPRUHGLUHFWFRPSDULVRQDVLPLODUZLWKLQZRUGVVXFKDVletterDQGwritingDVZHOODVSURGXFWLRQ H[SHULPHQW QHHGV WR EH FRQGXFWHG

DFURVVZRUGERXQGDULHVLQ³HDV\´SKUDVHVVXFKDV

ZLWK$(VSHDNHUV  6HFRQG72()/L%7VFRUHV

get in DQG set up WR DERXW WKH VDPH GHJUHH 

IRU VRPH -( VSHDNHUV ZHUH GHULYHG IURP D

+RZHYHUOHDUQHUVSURGXFHGDOYHRODUIODSVPXFKFRQYHUVLRQIRUPXODEHFDXVHWKHVSHDNHUVGLGQRW144

UHSRUW 72()/ VFRUHV RU KDYH QRW WDNHQ WKH WHVW

5()(5(1&(6

EHIRUH  ,W ZRXOG EH LGHDO WR XVH DFWXDO WHVW%RHUVPD3DXODQG'DYLG:HHQLQN  Praat:

VFRUHV IRU DQDO\VLV RI VSHDNHUUHODWHG IDFWRUV 

doing phonetics by computer8QLYHUVLW\RI

7KLUGDVVKRZQLQ)LJXUHPDQ\-(VSHDNHUV¶$PVWHUGDP KWWSZZZIRQKXPXYDQO

DJH RI DUULYDO ZDV FOXVWHUHG QHDU DJH  ZLWKSUDDW!

GXUDWLRQRIVWD\XQGHUPRQWKVUHIOHFWLQJWKH

'HOOZR 9RONHU   ³3UDDW SOXJLQV´ UZH

IDFWWKDWPDQ\RIWKHVSHDNHUVLQWKHSURGXFWLRQ

Phonetics Laboratory8QLYHUVLW\RI=XULFKH[SHULPHQWOLYHGLQWKH86GXULQJFROOHJHIRURQH

KWWSZZZSKRODEX]KFKVWDWLFYRONHURUWZRVHPHVWHUVRQDVWXG\DEURDGSURJUDP  ,W

VRIWZDUHKWPO!

ZRXOGEHLGHDOWRKDYHDPRUHHYHQO\GLVWULEXWHG

+HUG:HQG\$OODUG-RQJPDQDQG-RDQ6HUHQR ³$QDFRXVWLFDQGSHUFHSWXDODQDO\VLVVDPSOHRI-(VSHDNHUV  

RI W DQG G IODSV LQ $PHULFDQ (QJOLVK´

%HDULQJ WKHVH OLPLWDWLRQV LQ PLQG UHVXOWV RI

Journal of Phonetics

WKHSUHVHQWVWXG\VXJJHVWWKDWOLYLQJRUVWXG\LQJ
LQ DQ /VSHDNLQJ FRPPXQLW\ PD\ KDYH D

.LWDKDUD 0DIX\X .HLLFKL 7DMLPD DQG .L\RNR

VLJQLILFDQW LPSDFW RQ OHDUQHUV¶ GHYHORSPHQW RI

<RQH\DPD   ³3URGXFWLRQ RI D QRQSURQXQFLDWLRQVNLOOVLQ/  

SKRQHPLF YDULDQW LQ D VHFRQG ODQJXDJH$FRXVWLF DQDO\VLV RI -DSDQHVH VSHDNHUV¶$&.N2:/('*E0(176

SURGXFWLRQ RI $PHULFDQ (QJOLVK IODS´Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

7KLVUHVHDUFKZDVSDUWO\VXSSRUWHGE\*UDQWV

LQ$LGIRU6FLHQWLILF5HVHDUFKE\-636WR0DIX\X.LWDKDUD QR   .HLLFKL 7DMLPD QR0LQHPDWVX1REXDNL<RVKLKLUR7RPL\DPD.HL

 DQG.L\RNR<RQH\DPD QR<RVKLPRWR .DWVXPDVD 6KLPL]X 6HLLFKL

DQG 

1DNDJDZD 0DVDWDNH 'DQWVXML DQG 6KR]R

0DNLQR   ³(QJOLVK 6SHHFK 'DWDEDVH

127(6

5HDG E\ -DSDQHVH /HDUQHUV IRU &$//



72()/L%7VFRUHVZHUHQRWDYDLODEOHIRUDOO

6\VWHP 'HYHORSPHQW´ Proceedings of the

RI WKH -( VSHDNHUV LQ WKH H[SHULPHQW  ,Q VXFKInternational Conference on Language

FDVHVFRQYHUVLRQIRUPXODVZHUHXVHGWRFRQYHUWResources and EvaluationVFRUHVRIRWKHUVWDQGDUGL]HGWHVWVWR72()/L%7

3LWW 0DUN /DXUD 'LOOH\ .HLWK -RKQVRQ 6FRWWVFRUHV  )RU 72(,& VFRUHV WKH IROORZLQJ.LHVOLQJ :LOOLDP 5D\PRQG (OL]DEHWKIRUPXODZDVXVHGWRILUVWFRQYHUWWKHPWR72()/

+XPH DQG (ULF )RVOHU/XVVLHU  

3%7VFRUHV72()/3%7 72(,&î 

Buckeye Corpus of Conversational Speech

7KHQ 72()/ 3%7 VFRUHV ZHUH FRQYHUWHG WR

QG UHOHDVH  'HSW RI 3V\FKRORJ\ 2KLR

72()/ L%7 VFRUHV EDVHG RQ WKH WDEOH LQ WKH6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\ 'LVWULEXWRU KWWSZZZIROORZLQJ VLWH KWWSZZZFRQYHUVDWLRQMSIDTEXFNH\HFRUSXVRVXHGX!

IDTHQJOLVK72(,&72()/KWPO  )RU (,.(1

VFRUHVWKH\ZHUHFRQYHUWHGWR72()/L%7VFRUHV

EDVHG RQ WKH WDEOH LQ WKH IROORZLQJ VLWH



KWWSLHOWVQDYLFRPVFRUHBFRQYHUVLRQKWPO

145

本稿は、ar 動詞がどのように派生されるのか、という問題について再検討を行うものである。特に、西尾(1954)が指摘した「可能」を表す ar 動詞に焦点を当て、分散形態論に可 能 を 表 す ar 動 詞 に お け る 接 尾 辞 ar の
形態統語的役割についておける基本的枠組みと重層的な動詞句構造*を採用した上で、接尾辞 ar が Cause の主要(On the Morphosyntax of the Affix ar in部を占めると提案する。そして、接尾辞 arPotential Forms in Japanese)の生起と外項の認可との間の形態統語的な相互作用によって、自動詞化の効果がもたら

高橋英也 (Hideya Takahashi)

されることを論じる。さらに、接尾辞 ar か

新沼史和 (Fumikazu Niinuma)

ら成る動詞句構造におけるアスペクト性が、

岩手県立大学 (Iwate Prefectural University)ar 動詞類が示す「可能」の解釈の出自であ

盛岡大学 (Morioka University)

ることを主張する。
1. 接尾辞 ar による可能形式

キーワード：可能動詞, 接尾辞 ar, 分散形態「可能」とは、「人間や動物などの有情物(と論, 重層的 v システム, 潜在的出来事項

きに非情物)が、ある動きを行おうとするとき、それを実現することができる(肯定文)/
できない(否定文)といった意味を表す、動詞の文法的・意味的なカテゴリー(渋谷0. はじめに
動詞の自他交替において問題となること(2006:59-60))」である。その中で、とりわけの１つは、交替が派生的であるかどうか、と生成文法の枠組みで、これまで集中的に議論いうことである。すなわち、自動詞と他動詞されてきたのは、主として助動詞(r)are を用の間で方向性を持った派生関係が存在する

いた形式である。この形式では、与格主語とのか、あるいは、同じ語根(Root)から自動詞

主格目的語を許すにも関わらず、「*太郎にピと他動詞がそれぞれ形成されるのかが問題

ーマンを食べられない」のように、与格主語である。そして、そのような方向性の有無とと対格目的語が共起することはできない。

共に、どういった文法的操作が自他交替に関それに対し、ar 動詞の中に「可能」の意与するのかが、もう１つの大きな問題である。 味を表すものがあることを西尾(1954)が指影山(1996)によれば、他動詞から自動詞を摘している。西尾が挙げているのは「務まる」

派生する２種類の語彙的操作が存在するとのような二項動詞であるが、「募金がなかなされている。１つは反使役化と呼ばれ、動詞

か集まらない」や「無風では凧は簡単に上がの語彙概念構造上で外項と内項を同一化さらない」のように、たとえ項が 1 つしか具現せるものであり、日本語の e 自動詞をはじめ、 しない場合も含めて、ar 動詞は須く潜在的
通言語的に自動詞を派生させる操作であるに「可能」の意味を表し得る。助動詞(r)areとされている。もう１つは、脱使役化と呼ばとの関連で特に興味深いことは、「太郎に大れ、他動詞の語彙概念構造上で外項が抑圧さ役が/*を務まらない」が示すように、ar 動詞れることで自動詞化がなされるというもの

も対格目的語を認可しない点である。
このような助動詞(r)are と ar 動詞の間にで、日本語の ar 動詞がそれに該当すると考見られる平行性が、モジュール形態論を前提えられている。

146

とする影山(1996)においては容易に予測さら統語構造に至る写像の過程で、いかなる影れず、むしろ、単なる偶然としか捉えられな響を被ることもないはずだからである。

いことを見逃すべきではない。以下では、影	
  動作主に関する問題は、次の(4)において山(1996)の意味論的分析の問題点を指摘し、も見られる。

形態統語的アプローチによる代案を提示し(4) 仲間は/*募金はわざと集まらなかったていく。

（cf. 仲間を/募金をわざと集めた）
2. 脱使役化分析の問題点
	
  影山(1996)の分析は、語彙意味論の研究を

脱使役化の適用によって、対象(Theme)であ中心に広く受け入れられてきたが、その中心

る内項「仲間」と「募金」は共に ar 動詞の的主張 (1)は経験的にも理論的にも妥当と主語として昇格するにもかかわらず、両者ははいえない。

副詞「わざと」との共起関係において差異を示す。名詞句が意味的に担う有生性に由来す(1) a. ar 動詞は、対応する他動詞から(語彙概ると考えられるこの差異も、影山(1996)の分

念構造に適用される脱使役化により)

析では無条件で予測することはできない。語派生的に形成される。

彙概念構造において、「仲間」と「募金」は、b.したがって、ar 動詞において動作主は主題役割が対象として同定されているのみ抑制されており、それは統語的に具現であり、副詞「わざと」の認可に要求されるしない。

意味的要素「意図性/動作主性」の認可については不明だからである。

	  まず第一に、次の(2)と(3)が示すように、

	  さらに、自他において慣用句的な意味が異(1b)に反して、ar 動詞文において、対応するなる事例も、影山(1996)の分析に対する大き

他動詞文の動作主主語が抑制されない事例

な挑戦と言える。

が存在する。
(5) a. 頭を下げる(＝謝罪する) / 頭が下がる(2) 太郎が大学に受かった(＝感服する)(3) a. 太郎が つり革に 掴まった

b. 口を塞ぐ(＝始末する) / 開いた口が塞

b. *太郎が 幸運に 掴まったがらない(＝驚く)(cf. Takehisa (2013))(2)と(3a)では、脱使役化の適用の結果として慣用句の形成において、統語構造と意味解釈抑制されるはずの動作主が、依然として arを結びつけるいかなる理論を想定しても、他

動詞「受かる」「掴まる」の主語として生起動詞から ar 動詞が派生されると仮定する限している。影山(1996)のように、語彙概念構り、自他の間での慣用句解釈の不一致は全く造から項構造への写像を仮定するならば、この謎となってしまう。

の事実は全く予測されない。さらに、(3b)で	  もっとも、現代語では接尾辞の形態と意味

は、「つり革に」とは対照的に「幸運に」がが理想的なあり方で対応していないことは「掴まる」と共起できないことが示されてい確かなようである。しかし、だからと言って、るが、この対比も、影山(1996)の分析では特上述の一連の問題に直面した際に、「（古語と別な規定なしに捉えることができない。何故は異なり）現代日本語では、接尾辞 ar と脱なら、他動詞の内項「幸運」は、意味構造か使役化の間には完全な一致はなく、個々の動147

詞について規則の操作の適用可能性を指定（そして、それと引き換えに、実際に動詞がしておく必要がある。(日高(2012: 3))」と述表す行為を遂行する動作主が背景化されるべることで批判を回避することも、接尾辞ため）、ar動詞の解釈においては状態変化のar の生産性という観点からは著しく言語学最終局面での結果状態が前景化している、と的直感に反している。

見るのが正しいと言える。その意味で、動作	  さて、影山(1996)のアプローチは、このよ

主の抑制は外的要因の導入とトレード・オフ

うな経験的問題に加えて、理論的にも妥当性の関係となっており、それを単純な意味要素を欠くと思われる。Koontz-Garboden (2007,の削除と見做すことはできない。実際に、次2009)は、語の形成と意味の関係に、次の(6)の(9)に見られるように、問題の外的要因の制約が働くことを論じている。

は時として「で」格の付加詞として具現する。

(6) Monotonicity Hypothesis: 語形成規則は意(9) a. ナイフで入れた切れ目のおかげで、味を取り除かない。(cf. Kiparsky (1982))

パンにチーズが挟まった
b. SNS の力で、その噂が広まった
c. 必死の努力で、太郎にその大役が務まところが、脱使役化規則は、他動詞の語彙概
念構造から動作主/使役主を削除するというった(こと)

点で、明らかにこの制約に抵触するため、語形成規則として適格とは言えないことにな

ここで重要なことは、接尾辞 ar の付加によってしまう。

って導入される外的要因が、解釈の上で含意	  ここで、ar 動詞の解釈について詳細に検されるだけでなく、付加詞としての実体を伴討すると、意味要素の削除ではなく、むしろって統語構造上に具現し得る点である。次節

接尾辞 ar による意味要素の「付け足し」をで提示する本稿の分析では、この外的要因に伺わせる事実が存在する。独立した議論としついて、非顕在的な統語的実体である出来事て、須賀(1980)は、ar 動詞化では「外的要因項(Event Argument)であると仮定する。

による何らかの状態変化が含意される」と論	
  さて、須賀(1980)の観察を踏まえると、「集じている。次の(7)と(8)の例を見られたい。

める」のほうが CONTROL 型の事象構造に対応する他動詞構造を有し、一方で、ar 動(7) a. 条件が 緩んだ/緩まった	  	 詞「集まる」では脱使役化の適用によって

b. 緊張が 緩んだ/*緩まった

BECOME 型の事象構造を表す自動詞構造に(8) a. 糸が棒に 絡んだ/絡まった	 変換されている、という語彙意味論的なの分

b. 客が店員に 絡んだ/*絡まった

析は著しく妥当性を欠くものと結論づけられる。むしろ、「集める/集まる」はいずれも

ar自動詞である「緩まる」「絡まる」では、「他動詞」構造の動詞句を構成するが、前者「緩む」「絡む」では認められないような、

では動作主が、後者では非顕在的な出来事項

外的要因(External Cause)による状態変化とがそれぞれ外項として生起している点で異いう、ある種の使役関係が成立していることなるのみであると考えるのが正しい。

が分かる。この事実は、接尾辞arのもたらす	 意味的効果が、単に動作主の抑制のみではな

3. 形態統語的アプローチ

いことを示唆している。すなわち、接尾辞ar3.1. 基本的前提

が状態変化を引き起こす外的要因を導入し	  具体的な分析のメカニズムを提示するの148

に先立って、必要となる前提事項について簡的併合(Internal Merge)されることで動作主と潔に列挙する。まず、本稿では、分散形態論

して認可されることも、原理的に可能となる。

の基本的想定である、(10a)の Single Engine

ここで、本稿で想定する動詞句の基本構造は、Hypothesis と、(10b)における Late Lexical

次の(12)のようになる。

Insertion を採用する。
(12) [VoiceP 外項 [CauseP [vP 内項 [√Root] v](10) a. 語形成を含む全ての構造は統語論でCause] Voice]形成される。
b. 統語論における併合の対象となる原3.2. 分析

始項は、範疇未指定の語根と機能範疇

	  これらの前提を踏まえて、本稿では次の主要部であり、語彙挿入はPFで起こる。 (13)を主張する。
(13) a. 接尾辞arはCauseの主要部として具現

本稿の分析は、脱使役化分析が立脚するモジ
ュール形態論とは異なり反語彙主義的立場する。

をとる。したがって、自他交替に関して、そb. 接尾辞arとして具現するCauseは非顕れを形態的に具現する接尾辞の統語的特性

在的な出来事項を外項として導入すに還元しようとする方向性を指向する。それる。

はすなわち、自他交替について、一方から他方への派生関係ではなく、共通の語根と異なすると、例えば、ar動詞「集まる」を含む節る接尾辞の組み合わせから得られる相互作の統語的派生の一部は(14)と(15)のように示用の帰結として捉えることを意味する。

されることになる（非顕在的な出来事項をe	  本稿で採用するその他の前提事項は、以下として示す）。

の(11)に示す通りである。
(14) 募金が集まる (こと)(11) a. 動詞句はv, Cause, Voiceによる構成さa. [CauseP e [vP 募金[√atsum ] v] ar]b. [TP 募金iが[CauseP e [vP ti [√atsum ] v] ar]れる重層的な構造をとり、内項はvにT]より認可される。
b. 動作主性/意図性は有生性と結びつい(15) 仲間が集まる (こと)たVoiceの素性であり、その意味におa. [CauseP e [vP 仲間 [√atsum ] v] ar]いて主題役「動作主(Agent)」はVoiceb. [TP 仲間iが[VoiceP t'i [CauseP e [vP ti [√atsum ]から認可される。(cf. Reinhart (2002))v] ar] Voice] T](11a)におけるvは、派生の第一段階で語根と語根√atsumが動詞化子vによって範疇Vとし

外的併合される機能範疇であり、いわゆる動ての資格を得て、vはさらにCause (=ar)によ

詞化子(Verbalizer)としての役割を担うと同って選択され、全体の構造がCausePまで拡張

時に内項を認可する。一方、(11b)を前提とされる。Causeの主要部であるarは非顕在的することで、単純な他動詞構造においてな出来事項を外項として認可するため、対応

Voiceに外的併合される外項が動作主としてする他動詞の主語となるような名詞句が無認可されるのに加えて、vP内に導入された有条件で導入されないこと (*学生が募金が集生性を示す内項が、派生の過程でVoiceに内まった）は自明と言える。また、(14)と(15)149

共に内項が最終的に主語位置に繰り上がる

本稿では、Appl(icative)主要部が与格認可に派生を辿るが、 (11b)にしたがって、有生性関与するという Aoyagi (2014)の主張を採用を備える(15)の「仲間」のみが、Voiceによっし、接尾辞 ar が随意的に Appl を選択するとて意図性に関わる意味素性の認可を介して、仮定して、ar 動詞「務まる」の動詞句に対動作主として解釈される。

して次の(20a)の構造を提案する。

(16) 仲間は/*募金はわざと集まらなかった(20) 太郎に大役が務まる（こと）(= (4))

a. [CauseP e [ApplP 太郎 [vP 大役 [√tsutom]v] Appl] ar]b. [TP 太郎 i に[CauseP e [ApplP ti [vP 大役がこのように、本稿の分析では、主題役「動作[√tsutom ] v] Appl] ar] T]

主」の認可について、動詞句を構成する特定の機能範疇vの特性に還元するため、影山(1996)の分析とは異なり、(16)に見られる主(20a)から(20b)への派生において、「太郎」

語名詞句による差異は全く問題にならない。

は Appl から主語位置に直接繰り上がるため、

次に、2つの項が具現する「務まる」のよ

それが主語性を示す一方で動作主として認うなar動詞の場合に目を転じてみたい。これ可されないことが首尾よく捉えられる。ここ

らの動詞類は、以下の３つの点で助動詞

で、Ura(1996)において、助動詞(r)are が本動(r)areと平行的な性質を持つ。まず、本稿の詞の対格付与の能力を奪う機能範疇と仮定

冒頭で触れたように、これらのar動詞は対格されていた点は、非常に示唆的と言える。本

目的語を認可しない。

稿の分析が正しければ、接尾辞 ar は、Ura(1996)における助動詞(r)are の場合と平行的(17) 太郎が/に 大役が/*を 務まる（こと）に、節の格パタンの決定に役割を果たす機能範疇と言えるからである。
では、上で脱使役化分析の反例としてあげそして第二に、与格または主格により標示さた(2)と(3)（(21)として再掲）に立ち返り、本れる外項は主語性を示す。

稿で提示した分析の下で改めて検討したい。
(18) a. 太郎 i に [自分 i の可能性を広げる大(21) a. 太郎が大学に受かった役]が 務まった（こと）
b. 先生にあの大役がお務まりなった（cf. 太郎が大学を受けた。）

c. [PROi 育児をしながら] 花子 i にこの

b. 太郎が つり革に/*幸運に 掴まった
(cf. 太郎が つり革を/幸運を 掴んだ）大役が務まるだろうか
再帰代名詞「自分」の束縛、尊敬語の認可、(21)について、脱使役化分析の下では、他動

そして「ながら」節の主語 PRO の認可とい詞から自動詞が派生されるので、他動詞文のう診断法のいずれにおいても、与格標示され主語名詞句が ar 動詞で生起することは原理

た外項は主語としての資格を有する。最後に、 的にあり得ないはずである。その意味で、(21)の ar 動詞文の主語として「太郎」が生起問題の外項は動作主性を示さない。

することは、脱使役化分析では全く予測され(19) *太郎が/にわざと大役が務まった（こと） ない。一方、本稿の分析では、自他交替においていかなる派生関係も存在せず、問題の名150

詞句「太郎」は、ar 動詞の内項として構造(compositionality)」が成立している限りにおに導入されたものが派生の最終段階で T にいては、本稿の分析の下では、慣用句として繰り上がったと分析されるのみである。実際の解釈は(23)に示されるそれぞれの動詞句に、(21a)における「太郎」は、自らの意思で構造と結びつくはずである。

大学を「受ける」主体とも見ることができる
が、一方では、設定された入学選抜を通過し(23) a. [CauseP [vP

頭 [√sag ] v] er]

さえすれば（言い換えると、その段階ではも

a'. [CauseP [vP

頭 [√sag ] v] ar]

はや、自らの意思にすら関わらず）「受かる」

b. [CauseP [vP 口 [√husag ] v] φ]という意味では、対象(Theme)として同定さb'. [CauseP [vP 口 [√husag ] v] ar]

れると言える。また、本稿の分析では、「掴まる」の内項である(21b)の「太郎」は、(15)

本稿の分析では、自他交替を派生関係としての「仲間」の場合と平行的に、派生の過程で、捉えないため、「下げる/下がる」と「塞ぐ/Voice における意図性に関する素性の認可を塞がる」における自他の間で、それぞれ全く介して動作主性を獲得するわけで、脱使役化

別個の慣用句が形成されることは全く問題

分析では捉えられない日本語話者の持つ解にはならない。むしろ、想定される(23)のい

釈上の直感を正しく反映していると言える。

ずれの構造においても、CauseP を領域としささらに、(21b)における「に」句の容認度て、その内部に生起した内項、語根、そしてに関する差異についても、統語と意味の適切接尾辞の組み合わせに対して固有の慣用的な対応という観点から、自然な説明が与えらな意味が割り当てられると仮定することは、れる。すなわち、「太郎」は、何らかの外的十分に蓋然性があると言える。

要 因 に よ っ て 「 つ り 革 」 を 着 点 (Goal)/ 場(Locative)とした位置変化を被る対象である

4. ar 動詞における可能の解釈の出自意味で、内項として正しく認可される。一方

最後に、ar 動詞における可能の解釈の問で、「幸運に掴まる」という事象は、外的要題について考察したい。本稿では、ar 動詞因の関与に関わらず「太郎」にとっていかなの動詞句構造が示す事象構造のアスペクト

る位置変化も含意しないため、対象として同性に説明の鍵を求めたい。

定されない名詞句「太郎」が最終的に意味解

まず、ar 動詞は、「ている」形における解釈上の破綻を引き起こす。

釈や、時間を表す副詞との共起関係から、「到同様に、(5)（(22)として再掲）のように、
ar 動詞とそれに対応する他動詞の間で慣用

達(Achievement)」としてのアスペクト性を持つと言える。

句としての意味に不一致が生じる事例につ(24) a. 空に凧が上がっている (結果/*進行)

いても再考したい。

a'. 空に凧が 5分で/??5分間 上がった(22) a. 頭を下げる(＝謝罪する)

b. 亀裂が広がっている（結果/*進行）

a'. 頭が下がる(＝感服する)

b'. 亀裂が 5日で/*5日間 広がったb. 口を塞ぐ(＝始末する)
b'. 開いた口が塞がらない(＝驚く)(24a, b)は「ている」形と共起した ar 動詞が慣用句の意味が動詞句の領域によって規定

結果状態の継続の解釈を持つことを示し、まされる(cf. Marantz (1997))とすると、(22)におた、(24a', b')では ar 動詞の動詞句が表す事象

けるそれぞれの慣用句で「意味の合成性が限界性を有することが示されている。実際

151

に、この事実は、行為動詞や達成動詞とは異見られるにもかかわらず、統語的には「他動なるものであり、到達動詞の場合と平行的で詞」としての動詞句構造を有することとなる。

ある。こういった ar 動詞における「到達」

最後に、方言文法における事実から、arとしてのアスペクト性は、ar 動詞の外項が動詞が示す「可能」の解釈が、本稿で提案し出来事項であるために、（通常であれば）動た接尾辞 ar の統語的および意味的特性に自作主を使役主とするはずの使役事象の側は然に還元できる可能性について論じた。

背景化され、それに相反して被使役事象が前景化されることに還元されると説明できるかもしれない。
ここで、独立した議論として、渋谷(2006)
は、多様な地域の方言に関する調査から、行為の「完遂」を表す形式に関して、「自発」
としての用法を経由して、最終的に「可能」の用法に至るという連続性が存在すると論注* 本稿は、日本英語学会第 32 回大会で発表した内容の一部に加筆修正を加えたものである。本稿における全ての不備や誤りの責任が筆者にあることは言うまでもない。本研究は 科 研 費 ( 基 盤 研 究 (C)26370453 お よ び
26370463、ならびに若手研究(B)25770156)の助成を受けている。

じている。
すると、接尾辞 ar が、(i)機能範疇 v の具

主要参考文献現として外的要因を外項/使役主とする動詞

Aoyagi, Hiroshi. (2014) "Morphological Case

句を形成し、(ii)その事象構造の最終局面にMarking in Japanese Revisited,"paper

おける被使役事象を前景化させ、(iii)「到達」

presented at Workshop on K-Jというアスペクト性を決定しているという

Linguistics.
影山太郎 (1996)『動詞意味論―言語と認知

本稿での議論が正しい限りにおいて、ar 動
詞が潜在的に「可能」の解釈を持つことは、の接点』くろしお出版．

方言形式の観察からの敷衍により自然に導Marantz, Alec. (1997) "No Escape From Syntax:

かれると言える。実際に、「（気分が）上がる

Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the/下がる」や「（髪が）決まる」のような、arPrivacy of Your Own Lexicon,”University

動詞を用いた自発表現が少なからず見られ

of Pennsylvania Working Papers in

ることは、その傍証と言えるかもしれない。

Linguistics 21: 201-225.
西尾寅弥 (1954)「動詞の派生について ー自結びとして、本稿の議論をごく手短に振り他対立の型によるー」『国語学』
17: 105-117.

返りたい。まず、影山(1996)の脱使役化分析

Pylkkänen, Liina. (2008) Introducing Arguments.

5. 結語

MIT Press.

の経験的および理論的な問題点を示した。次に、分散形態論の基本的枠組みの下で、接尾渋谷勝己 (2006)「第 2 章 自発・可能」小林

辞 ar を独立した機能範疇 Cause として同定隆・佐々木冠・渋谷勝己・工藤真由美

する代案を提示した。そして、ar 動詞の特・井上優・日高水穂 (編著)『シリーズ
方言学２ 方言の文法』岩波書店.

性が、重層的に拡張された動詞句構造における接尾辞 ar の形態統語的性質から直接的に

須賀一好 (1980) 「併存する自動詞・他動詞導出されることを論じた。

の意味」『国語学』120: 31-41.

本論の分析が正しければ、ar 動詞においては、表層的に具現する項の結合価の減少が152

(1) a. This is John’s old car.
b. N-modifying reading
John’s & old(car)The Syntactic Structure of Possession andc. POSS-modifying reading

Prenominal Adjectives in Japanese

former(John’s & car)(Larson and Cho (2003: 219))

Yuta Tatsumi
Osaka University

They further point out that there is a correlation
between interpretation and the position in

Keywords: possessives, adjectives, direct

which an adjective occurs.

modification, indirect modification

When a sentence

contains two temporal adjectives, the one
immediately preceding a common noun has the
N-modifying reading.

For instance, in (2a)1. Introduction

thereceives

Larson and Cho (2003) offers a structural

N-modifying reading, and the POSS-modifying

analysis of the ambiguity of a temporal

reading such as (2c) is not allowed.

adjective in a possessive nominal.

adjective

only

the

Althoughtheir analysis captures the semantic ambiguity(2) a. John’s new old car

in English, their analysis faces some empiricalproblems when it comes to Japanese.

b. an old car that John has newly comeIn thisto ownpaper, I argue that the ambiguity found inc. * a new car that John used to own

Japanese comes from the internal structure ofprenominal adjectives.

old(Larson and Cho (2003: 220))

My proposal supports

the argument that Japanese adjectives canOn the other hand, when the word order of two

make use of both direct modification andtemporal modifiers is reversed as in (3a), theindirect modification.

possibleinterpretationisaltered.

The

adjective old in (3a) receives only the
2. Larson and Cho (2003)

POSS-modifying reading, and the N-modifying

Larson and Cho (2003) observes that areading such as (3b) is ruled out.

temporal adjective in a possessive has thesemantic ambiguity as in (1).

On an

(3) a. John’s old new car

N-modifying reading, John’s old car “can referb. * an old car that John has newly cometo an object that John possesses and that is an
old car.” (Larson and Cho (2003: 219))

to ownOn ac. a new car that John used to own

POSS-modifying reading, it refers to “a carthat John formerly owned.” (ibid.)
under

the

POSS-modifying

reading(Larson and Cho (2003: 220))

Since
the

Based on this contrast, Larson and Cho (2003)

adjective old does not directly modify the

proposes that the semantic ambiguity of acommon noun, “there is no need for the car totemporal adjective can be reduced to thebe old in absolute term.” (ibid.: 220)

structural ambiguity, as shown in (4).

153b. [DP THE old [PP [NP car] [Pʹ TO [DP
(4)

XP’s

A1

a. John’s

old

A2

N

John]]]](POSS-mod.)carb. John’sold

In (6a), the temporal modifier attaches directlycarto the possessee phrase, and it receives the(Larson and Cho (2003: 220))

N-modifying reading.

On the other hand, in

If a temporal modifier is located in the position(6b) the temporal adjective attaches to the PP,

of A1, it is interpreted as the POSS-modifying

whichreading.

between John and car.

On the other hand, if the adjective isrepresents

thepossession

relationIn this position, thein A2 position, it receives the POSS-modifying

temporal adjective old modifies the possession

reading.

relation, and has the POSS-modifying reading.

Following the analysis that a possessive
nominal contains a form of disguised locative,

3. Japanese

Larson and Cho (2003) offers the following

Larson and Cho (2003) accounts for thesyntactic structure.

N-modifying/POSS-modifying ambiguity byassuming that the semantic ambiguity of a(5)

temporal adjective can be reduced to the

DP
DP 1
John

structural ambiguity.

Dʹ′D

ambiguity similar to the one found in English

PP

D

P

NP

THE

to i

car

is observed in Japanese.

Pʹ′
P

tDP1

(7) a. Taro-noti“ ’s ”As shown in (7), thehurui kuruma

Taro- GEN old

car‘Taro’s old car’First, the possessor phrase John is Merged withthe head of locative PP.

b. N-modifying reading

Second, theTaro’s & old(car)possessee phrase car is Merged as the specifierof the PP.

At this point, a possession relation

is formed.

The head of the locative PP isc. POSS-modifying reading
former(Taro’s & car)incorporated into the definite determiner.

When the temporal adjective is interpreted as

This aggregate is pronounced as the Saxon

the N-modifying reading, the car that the noun

genitive ’s in English.

phrase refers to must be an old one.

In addition to theOn theincorporation of the head of the PP, thePOSS-modifying reading, the noun phrase

possessor phrase is moved to Spec,DP.

refers to the car which John used to own, and it

Underthis analysis, the two positions of a temporal

is not necessarily interpreted as an old one.

modifier as in (4) can be represented as

Given this ambiguity, we may expect that

follows.

Larson and Cho’s analysis will be extended tothe ambiguity found in Japanese.

(6) a. [DP THE [PP [NP old car] [Pʹ TO [DPJohn]]]]

However,

their analysis faces some problems when it(N-mod.)comes to Japanese possessives.

154

First of all, the word order of prenominal

As shown in (10), Japanese exhibits a clear

adjectives has little effect on the ambiguity incontrast with Korean in this respect.

Japanese, as shown in (8a, b).

temporal adjective is ambiguous regardless ofThe

whether or not it precedes a color adjective.
(8) a. Taro-no

atarasii hurui

Taro-GEN newoldkurumacar(10) a. Taro-no

Taro-GEN blue(√ N-mod., √ POSS-mod.)b. Taro-no

huruiatarasii kuruma

Taro-GEN old

new

aoi

atarasii

kurumanew

car‘Taro’s new blue car’car(√ N-mod., √ POSS-mod.)b. Taro-no(√ N-mod., √ POSS-mod.)atarasiiaoi

Taro-GEN new
Remember that Larson and Cho’s (2003)

kurumablue car(√ N-mod., √ POSS-mod.)structural analysis relies crucially on theobservation that there is a correlation between

Thus, the examples in (10) also show that it isinterpretation and the position in which andifficult to apply Larson and Cho’s structuraladjective occurs.

analysis to the ambiguity found in Japanese.

The examples in (8) showthat in contrast to English the ambiguity foundIn addition to the absence of the correlationin Japanese is not tied to the positional

between the word order and the ambiguity,difference.

there is evidence that Japanese possessives is

Larson and Cho (2003) points out that

not tied to the presence of DP, in contrast towhen a temporal adjective co-occurs with aEnglish.

color adjective as in (9), Korean shows thegenitive is blocked by the presence of asame correlation between the word order anddemonstrative in English, as shown in (11a).

interpretation as in English.

Only when theOn the other hand, Japanese possessor phrases

temporal adjective immediately precedes thecan co-occur with demonstrative elements suchcommon noun, it receives the N-modifying

as kono ‘this’, as shown in (11b).

reading as in (9a).

respect, Japanese behaves like Serbo-Croatian,in(9) Koreana. John-uywhichmorphologicallypalan sayJohn-GEN bluechapossessor

phrasesareadjectives,

accordingtonew caris a new model’say

In thisBošković (2005).
(11) a. * this my book‘the car of John’s that is blue and thatb. John-uy

It is well-known that a Saxonb. kono watasi-no hon(N-mod.)
palan

cha

John-GEN new blue

car

this
c. ta

I-GEN
moja slika

this my‘the car that John has newly come toown and that is blue’(English)(Japanese)book(Serbo-Croatian)picture (Bošković (2005: 6))(POSS-mod.)Moreover, an attributive adjective cannot be(Larson and Cho (2003: 221))

followed by a possessor phrase in English, asshown in (12).

155can be interpreted as a nonintersective reading,(12) a. * round John’s tablein addition to an intersective one.

(Sproat and Shih (1991: 571))
b. * red my pen

On theother hand, when the same adjective beautiful(Radford (1988:143))

is used as a predicate of the sentence, it isJapanese adjectives are not subject to thisinterpreted as an intersective reading only, as

restriction, as shown in (13).

shown in (14b) (Larson (1998)).

(13) a. hurui Taro-no(14) a. Olga is a beautiful dancer.

oldkuruma= ‘Olga is a dancer and Olga is

Taro-GEN car

beautiful’‘Taro’s old car’= ‘Olga is beautiful as a dancer/ Olga(√ N-mod., √ POSS-mod.)b. atarasii Taro-no
new(Intersective reading)dances beautifully’

kuruma(Nonintersective reading)Taro-GEN car

b. That dancer is beautiful.

‘Taro’s new car’(√ N-mod., √ POSS-mod.)√ Intersective, *Nonintersective

All the above examples of ordering ofBased on the above distinction between

prenominal modifiers indicate that there is little

intersective/nonintersective reading, I assumeevidence that Japanese possessives are tied tothat Japanese prenominal adjectives can havethe presence of DP.

the following two structures. 1

Rather, Japanesepossessor phrases behaves like adjectives.
Given that Larson and Cho’s (2003) structural(15) a. N-modifying Reading

analysis relies crucially on the presence of DP,[NP [RC proi hurui] [NP Ni]]

I conclude that it is difficult to extend theirb. POSS-modifying Reading

analysis to the ambiguity found in Japanese.

[NP [AP hurui ] [NP N]]

4. Proposal

Here, following Cinque (2010), I refer to the

In the previous section, I argued that Larson

structure such as (15a) as indirect modification,

and Cho’s structural analysis suffers fromand (15b) as direct modification.

some problems when it comes to the ambiguity

assume that Japanese prenominal adjectives

observed in Japanese. Given this, the question

make use of both direct modification and

immediately arises as to how we can explain

indirect modification.2

Thus, I

the ambiguity in Japanese. In this section, I

In (15a), the temporal adjective hurui isoffer an analysis of the ambiguity focusing on

used as a predicate of the sentence within thethe internal structure of prenominal adjectives.

relative clause.

On the other hand, thetemporal adjective directly modifies a noun
4.1. Intersective/Nonintersective Adjectives
Itiswell-known

that

only

intersective

adjectives allow a predicative use.

As shownphrase in (15b).
I assume that an intersective reading
corresponds to the N-modifying reading.

in (14a), if an adjective is used attributively, itInother words, if a temporal adjective has the156structure (15a), it receives the N-modifying
reading.

b. Taro-no [ CP/IP proi hurukat-ta] kurumai

On the other hand, I assume that if

Taro-GEN

old-PAST car

the temporal adjective directly modifies thenoun phrase as in (15b), it can receive a

Further evidence comes from the behavior ofnonintersective reading, and it corresponds tothe word tokubetsu ‘special’.

the POSS-modifying reading.

word tokubetsu can modifies a noun phrase or

Basically, thea predicate of the sentence by using the suffix
4.2. Evidence-ni and -na.

There is evidence that the ambiguity found in

the suffix -na must be attached to tokubetsu inJapanese arises from the structures in (15).

order to modify a noun phrase.

First, when the Japanese adjective hurui ‘old’

hand, the suffix -ni must be used so thatis used as a predicate of the sentence, only the

tokubetsu obtains an adverbial interpretation,

N-modifying reading is available, as shown inas shown in (19b).

(16).

The examples in (18) show thatOn the other

Since a temporal adjective receives the

N-modifying reading only when it is used as a(18) a. Hanako-ga[ NP Taro-no

predicate of the sentence, the fact is consistent

Hanako-NOM

with the proposed analysis.

tokubetsu-na uta]-ospecial-NA(16) a. Taro-no

kuruma-ga

Taro-GEN car-NOM

hurui.
oldsong-ACC listen-PAST[ NP Taro-nob. * Hanako-ga
Hanako-NOM

hurukat-ta.

Taro-GEN car-NOM

old-PAST

Taro-GENtokubetsu-ni uta]-o(√ N-mod., *POSS-mod.)kuruma-ga

kii-ta.

‘Hanako listened Taro’s special song.’‘Taro’s car is old.’b. Taro-no

Taro-GEN

special-NI‘Taro’s car was old.’(19) a. * [S Taro-ga

song-ACC listen-PAST
tokubetsu-na utat-ta].

Tar-NOM special-NA(√ N-mod., *POSS-mod.)b. [S Taro-ga
Moreover, when a prenominal adjective issing-PAST

tokubetsu-ni utat-ta].

Tar-NOM special-NI

inflected with -ta, the adjective is interpreted

kii-tasing-PAST‘Taro specially sang.’

only as the N-modifying reading, as shown in(17a).

Under my proposal, this fact is nicely

The proposed analysis correctly predicts that if

captured because -ta cannot occur within an

tokubetsu-na is used with a temporal adjective

adjective phrase.

and a possessor phrase as in (20a), it will yield

Thus, (17a) is analyzed asin (17b) under my proposal.

the semantic ambiguity of a temporal adjective.
As shown in (20a), this prediction is borne out.

(17) a. Taro-no

hurukat-ta

Taro-GEN old-PAST

kurumaUnder the proposed analysis, the noun phrase

car-NOM(20a) can be analyzed as in (20b) or (20c).

‘Taro’s car that was old.’(20) a. Taro-no(√ N-mod., *POSS-mod.)tokubetsu-na

Taro-GEN special-NA157

huruikurumaThe suffix -ni is not allowed to occur within a

old

car

noun phrase, and the structure (21b) is ruled‘Taro’s special old car’b. Taro-noout.

(√ N-mod., √ POSS-mod.)available, the noun phrase (21a) has an[ NP [ tokubetsu-na]

intersective reading (i.e. the N-modifying

Taro-GEN

special-NA

reading).

[NP [AP hurui] kurumai]]oldc. Taro-no

Since only the structure (21c) is

Thus,

the

proposed

analysiscorrectly captures the unambiguity of (21a).

car[ NP [ tokubetsu-na]

Taro-GEN

5. Possessives in Japanese

special-NA

So far, I have argued that the ambiguity[NP [RC proi hurui] kurumai]]between the N-modifying reading and theoldPOSS-modifying reading can be analyzed incarterms of the internal structure of a prenominal
The structure (20b) is interpreted as theadjective.

POSS-modifying

indirect modification, the noun phrase receives

reading,

whereasthethe N-modifying reading.

structure (20c) receives the N-modifying
reading.

If a prenominal modifier is used as

Note that the proposed analysis relies onThus, the ambiguity of (20a) isneither the presence of DP nor a locative PP.

accounted for.
The proposed analysis further predicts that

Instead, I assume that Japanese prenominal

if tokubetsu-ni is used with a temporalmodifiers such as adjectives and possessor

adjective and a possessor phrase as in (21a),phrases adjoin to a noun phrase.

the temporal adjective must be interpreted asassumption is consistent with the freedom of

the N-modifying reading.

the word order of prenominal modifiers inThis is because ofThis

Japanese discussed in section 3.

the presence of the suffix -ni.

For the semantic computation, I assume,(21) a. Taro-no

following Larson and Cho (2003), that a

tokubetsu-ni

Taro-GEN special-NI

Japanese possessor phrase is of type <e,t>.

hurui kuruma

Instead of a covert postposition, I assume thatold

there is a meaning-shifting operator whichcarintroduces the extrinsic possession relation‘Taro’s car that is especially old’b. * Taro-no
Taro-GEN(√ N-mod., *POSS-mod.)POSS.

[ NP tokubetsu-ni

be represented as follows (cf. Barker (1991)).

special-NI[NP [AP hurui] kurumai]]oldc. Taro-no(22) a. [NP ∅poss + Taro]car→ λxλy[POSS(x)(y)](Taro)[ NP [RC proi tokubetsu-ni

Taro-GEN= λy[POSS(Taro)(y)]∪special-NIb. [ NP kuruma]

hurui] kuruma i]
oldThus, the semantic computation can→ λy[kuruma(y)]

car

158

Notesc. [NP Taro-no kuruma]

1→ λx[λy[kuruma(y)](x)I leave open the issue as to whether hurui∧ λy[POSS(Taro)(y)](x)]can be divided into a stem and the inflection -i.

= λx[kuruma(x) ∧ POSS(Taro)(x)]2

See Yamakido (2000) for the independentargument that Japanese prenominal adjectives
In step (22c), I make use of Predicate

can make use of indirect modification.

Modification, which is defined as follows.
References(40) Predicate Modification

Barker, Chris (1995) Possessive Descriptions,
CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.

If α is a branching node, {β, γ} is the set

Bošković, Željko (2005) “On the Locality ofof α’s daughters, and [[β]] and [[γ]] areboth in D <e,t>, thenLeft Branch Extraction and the Structure of[[α]] = λx ∈ De . [[β]](x) = [[γ]](x) = 1.

NP,” Studia Linguistica 59, 1-45.
Cinque, Guglielmo (2010) The Syntax of(Heim and Kratzer (2000: 65))

Adjectives: A Comparative Study, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.

The proposed analysis can account for the fact

Heim, Irena and Angelika Kratzer (1998)

that the interpretation of Japanese prenominal
modifiers is not tied to their word order.

Semantics

This

in

Generative

Grammar,Blackwell, Oxford.

is because a possessor phrase in Japanese isLarson, Richard K. (1998) “Events andrelated to a common noun via Predicate

Modification

Modification, just like adjectives.

in

Nominals,”

SALT

8,

145–168.
Larson, Richard K., and Sungeun Cho (2003)

6. Conclusion
In this paper, I have argued that Larson and“Temporal Adjectives and the Structure of

Cho’s

Possessive DPs,” Natural Language and(2003)

structural

analysisoftheSemantics 11, 217-247.

ambiguity between the N-modifying reading
and the POSS-modifying reading cannot be

Radford, Andrew (1988) Transformational

applied to the ambiguity found in Japanese.

Grammar : A First Course, Cambridge

Instead, I proposed that the ambiguity in

University Press, Cambridge.

Japanese comes from the internal structure of

Sproat, Richard and Chilin Shih (1991) “Theprenominal adjectives, rather than the syntactic

Cross-linguistic Distribution of Adjective

position in which they occur.

Ordering

The proposed

Restrictions,”

Interdisciplinary

analysis relies on the distinction between direct

Approaches to Language, ed. by Carol

modification

Georgopoulos

andindirectmodification.

andRobertaIshihara,

565–593, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Although there is much more to be said about

Yamakido,

the formalization of the semantic computation

Hiroko(2000)“Japaneseof the POSS-modifying reading, I leave thisAttributive Adjectives are Not (All) Relativecomplex issue for future research.

Clauses,” WCCFL 19, 588-602.

159

࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊどぬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ look ࡜

appear ࡀ⏕㉳ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊᐇ㝿࡟(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
2 ࡘࡣၥ㢟࡞ࡃ౑࠸ศࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(2) a. John looks happy.

㐃⤖ⓗ▱ぬືモࡢ౑࠸ศࡅ࡜ㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭࢫ㸸look ࡜ appear ࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺෆ⏕㉳㡰ᗎࢆ

b. John appears happy.
(3) In this modified Mercator Projection someࡵࡄࡗ࡚
(A Choice between Tow Copulativeof the curvature of the earth is accepted

Perception Verbs and Its Cognitive Process :into the map, bending the lines of latitude

On the Order of Look and Appear thatin order to reduce distortion of land areas

Appear in the Same Text)

relatively

far

from

the

equator.

Nonetheless Alaska still looks muchᚨᒣ⪷⨾ (Kiyomi Tokuyama)

larger than Mexico, and the former Soviet⚄ᡞᕷእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔

Union appears larger than Africa, which(Kobe City University of Foreign Study)

is roughly 25% larger in land area.
(American Studies International, 2000)

࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸㐃⤖ⓗ▱ぬືモࠊlook ࡜ appearⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡣࡇࡢ 2 ࡘࢆ↓ព㆑࡟౑࠸ศࡅ࡚

ࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࠊㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭࢫࠊ㑅ዲὀど࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊlook ࡀࢤ࣐ࣝࣥㄒ⏤᮶࡛

appear ࡀࣛࢸࣥㄒ⏤᮶࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ※ࡢ㐪࠸ࡸࠊlook ࡀ༢㡢⠇࡛ appear ࡣ」㡢⠇࡜࠸࠺ ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ⱥㄒ࡟ࡣ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⩏ົⓗ࡟ᙧᐜモ࠶ࡿ࠸㡢㡩ⓗせᅉࠊࡲࡓ㔜」ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵࡢ⾲⌧ୖࡢࡣྡモྃࡢ⿵ㄒࢆక࠸ࠊ୺ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿᑐ㇟ࡢᒓᛶ

ᕤኵ࡜࠸࠺⌮⏤௨እ࡟ࠊࡑࡢㄆ▱ⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟

ࡸ≧ែࢆุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡍࡿ▱ぬືモᩥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ㐃ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛᫂☜࡟ゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗ⤖ⓗ▱ ぬືモᵓᩥ (Copulative PerceptionࡓࠋVerb Construction㸸௨ୗ CPV ᵓᩥ) ࡜࿧ࡤࢀ ࡑࡇ࡛ᚨᒣ (2013)࡛ࡣࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆక࠺

࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺㄪᰝ࠿ࡽࠊlook ࡜

appear ࡀㄆ▱ⓗ࡞ືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ศᴗࡉ
(1) (a) John looks happy.

ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ(b) This cake tastes good.

 ᮏ✏ࡣࠊᚨᒣ (2013)࡟௨ୗࡢ 2 Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚(c) This cloth feels soft.

᪂ࡓ࡞⪃ᐹࢆຍ࠼ࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡀ↓ព㆑࡟⾜(d) That sounds reasonable.

࠺୧⪅ࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࡢഴྥᛶࢆࠊࡼࡾ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍ

(e) This flower smells sweet.

ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋձ ྠ୍ሙ㠃࡛ࡢ look ࡜ appear ࡢฟ⌧㡰ᗎ࡟(Taniguchi 1997: 270-271)╔┠ࡋࠊlook ඛ⾜ࡀ appear ඛ⾜ࡼࡾ㔞ⓗࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡟ࡣ Rogers࡟ከ࠸஦ᐇࢆ♧ࡋࠊ㉁ⓗ࡞ศᯒ࠿ࡽࠊࡑࢀ

(1971)ࠊTaniguchi (1997)ࠊ㇂ཱྀ (2005)ࠊᮏከ

ࡀᚰ⌮Ꮫ࡛ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ㑅ዲὀどࠖ࡟ぢ(2005)ࠊGisborne (2007, 2010)࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡽࢀࡿࠊ⚾ࡓࡕࡢࢹࣇ࢛ࣝࢺࡢㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭ CPV ᵓᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ1 ࡘࡢ▱ぬࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡟ᑐࡋ

ࢫࡀゝㄒ஦ᐇ࡟ࡶ཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂

࡚ 1 ࡘࡢ୺せ࡞▱ぬືモࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿࡢࡀᇶᮏ

ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

160

ղ ᙧᐜモ⿵ㄒࡢẚ㍑⣭ࡀ look ࡼࡾ appear ࡟ᑐ㇟ࡢᒓᛶ࣭≧ែࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿሙྜࠋ

࠾࠸࡚ከࡃぢࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࠿ࡽࠊ▱ぬ(c) ▱ぬ୺య࡟࡜ࡗ࡚☜ಙᗘࡢ㧗࠸ุ᩿ࢆᑐ

୺యࡀุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡋࡓᑐ㇟ࡢࠕぢ࠼࡜ᐇ㉁㇟ࡢᒓᛶ࣭≧ែ࡟௜୚ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿሙ

࡜ࡢ஋㞳ࠖࡀࡼࡾ኱ࡁ࠸ሙྜࢆ appear ࡀྜࠋཷࡅᣢࡘഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ

appear㸸▱ぬ୺యࡢ⬟ືᛶࡀ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ప࠸▱ぬ⤒㦂࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃุ᩿/ホ౯ࢆ⾜࠺࡜ࡁࠋ୺࡟ࠊ(a)(b)(c)௨እࡢሙྜࠋ ᚨᒣ  
どぬ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ CPV ᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ look ࡜

appear ࡢព࿡ࡣࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡶࠕ㹼ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼(5)ࡣ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺㄪᰝ࡜ᐇ౛(BNC ࡞࡝)ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ఝ࠿ࡼࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࢆほᐹࡋࡓ㝿࡟ぢ࠼ࡓഴྥࢆᩚ⌮ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛

ࢀࡒࢀࡢㄒࡀᣢࡘඖ᮶ࡢព࿡ࡣ(4)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟␗

࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ⏝ἲࡢ࣮ࣝࣝࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ

࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡞࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊlook 㑅ᢥ࡛ࡣࠊ୺࡟(5a)-(5c)ࡢ

(4) a. look㸸to direct one’s sight; to apply one’s

3 ࡘࡀ⤡ࡳྜࡗ࡚ࠊ▱ぬ୺యࡀᑐ㇟࡟⬟ືⓗ࡟(OED)ど⥺ࢆྥࡅࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ഴྥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

power of vision.

b. appear㸸to come forth into view, as from♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

a place or state of concealment, or froma distance; to become visible; to seem.

 ศᯒ᪉ἲ

(OED)ᮏ✏࡟࠾ࡅࡿᐇ౛ࡣࠊࡍ࡭࡚ COCA ࠿ࡽࡢ(4a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ look ࡟ࡣࠕᑐ㇟࡟ど⥺ࢆྥࡅ࡚ࠊ

ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋAppear ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ CPV ᵓᩥ 5536

ព㆑ࡋ࡚ࡑࡢᑐ㇟ࢆぢࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ

౛ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊlook ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ CPV ᵓᩥࡀ 270 ౛࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊappear ࡟ࡣ(4b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕぢ࠼࡞࠿ぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛ࠊ๓ᚋࡢᩥ⬦ࡀ୙᫂ࠊ࠶ࡿ

ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡀ⌧ࢀ࡚ぢ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព

࠸ࡣ 2 ࡘࡢᑐ㇟ࡀẚ㍑࣭ᑐ❧ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸

࿡ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊlook ࡟ࡣ⬟ືⓗ▱ぬࡢព࿡

32 ౛ࢆ㝖࠸ࡓ 238 ౛ࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋ

ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ่⃭ࡢᨺฟ࣭ฟ⌧ࢆ⾲ࡍ

1 ࡘࡢᐇ౛ࡢ୰࡟ look ࡜ appear ࡢ 2 ࡘࡢ

appear ࡟ࡣඖ᮶⬟ືⓗ▱ぬࡢព࿡ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

CPV ᵓᩥࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᢅ࠺ CPV ᵓᩥࡣ඲ࡇࢀࢆࡶ࡜࡟ CPV ᵓᩥ࡬ࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࢆ᥎ᐃࡍ

㒊࡛ 576 ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᙧᐜモ⿵㒊ࡢෆヂࡿ࡜ࠊlook ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡣ୺యࡀᑐ㇟ࢆ⬟ࡣࠊlook ࡟ඹ㉳ࡍࡿᙧᐜモࡀ 135 ࢱ࢖ࣉࠊືⓗ࡟▱ぬࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊࡑࢀࢆุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡋࠊࢀࢆ▱ぬࡋุ࡚᩿࣭ホ౯ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ぢ᪉ࡀጇᙜ

appear ࡟ඹ㉳ࡍࡿᙧᐜモࡀ 146 ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛࠶ࡗ
ࡓࠋCPV ᵓᩥࡢᙧᐜモ⿵㒊࡟╔┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊlook࡜ࡢࡳࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ appear ࡜ࡢࡳඹ㉳ࡋࡸࡍ࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊCPV ᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ appear

ᙧᐜモࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ᢅࡗࡓࡇࢀࡽࡢᙧ

࡜ look ࡣࠊᙧᘧࡣྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶㄆ▱ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ᐜモࡣࠊࡍ࡭࡚ look ࡜ appear ࡢ୧᪉࡜ඹ㉳ࡀࡀ␗࡞ࡾࠊࡇࡢ㐪࠸ࡀศᴗ࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜

ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆCOCA࡜ BNC࡞࡝࡛☜ㄆ῭⪃࠼ࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᩚ⌮ࡋࡓࠋࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᙧᐜモࡣ look ࡜ࡔ

appear ࡢሙྜࡣᑐ㇟ࡀ⌧ࢀࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ୺యࡀࡑ

ࡅࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ appear ࡜ࡔࡅඹ㉳ࡍࡿ✀㢮ࡢᙧ(5) look㸸▱ぬ୺యࡢ⬟ືᛶࡀ┦ᑐⓗ࡟㧗࠸▱ぬᐜモ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤒㦂࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃุ᩿/ホ౯ࢆ⾜࠺࡜ࡁࠋCPV ᵓᩥࡣ look ࡜ appear ࡢධࢀ᭰࠼ࡀ᏶඲

(a) ホ౯ࡉࢀࡿᒓᛶࡀࠊᑐ㇟ࡢෆᅾⓗᒓᛶ࡛࠶࡟ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᩥࣞ࣋ࣝࡢほᐹࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠊ୧⪅ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ㝿ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ

ࡿ࡜ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠋ(b) ▱ぬ୺య࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᚰ⌮ⓗ㊥㞳ࡀࡼࡾ㏆࠸࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ

161

✏࡛ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᩥ⬦ⓗせᅉ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࠊ▱ࡕࡽࡶ▱ぬ୺య࡟࡜ࡗ࡚᭱ࡶ⯆࿡࣭㛵ᚰࡢ࠶ࡿぬ୺యࡀᑐ㇟ࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ

㝿❧ࡗࡓᑐ㇟࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⬟ືⓗ࡟ど⥺ࢆྥࡅࡿ࠸࡚ヲ⣽࡟ほᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊlook ࡜ appear ࡢ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋゝ࠸᥮㑅ᢥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ(5a)-(5c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᮲௳࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ㑅ዲὀど࡜࠸࠺⬟ືⓗどぬࡀㄏⓎࡉࢀࡿ (㇂୍ཱྀ⨾ /RRNDSSHDU ࡢฟ⌧㡰ᗎ࡜ㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭࢫ

ඛ⏕ࡢࡈᣦ᦬࡟ࡼࡿ)ࠋ௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᮏ✏࡛ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊCPV ᵓᩥࡢ look ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⬟ືࡣ look ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⬟ືⓗ▱ぬ(5a)-(5c)ࢆ㑅ዲὀどⓗ▱ぬࢆࠊⓎ㐩ᚰ⌮Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㑅ዲὀど࡜㛵㐃࡜㛵㐃㐃௜ࡅ࡚ᢅ࠺ࠋ

௜ࡅ࡚ㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡿࠋ (6)ࡣ⑂ࢀࡁࡗ࡚࠸ࡿኵࢆぢ࡚ࠊ࠸ࡘࡶࡣⱝࠎ

ࡋࡃぢ࠼ࡿࡢ࡟ࠊ௒᪥ࡣ 15 ṓᖺୖ࡜࠸࠺ᖺ㱋/RRN ࡜ DSSHDU ࡢฟ⌧㡰ᗎᕪࢆ③ឤࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺ෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ྠ୍ሙ㠃࡛ look ࡜ appear ࢆక࠺ CPV ᵓᩥ(6) He looked his age today. She was acutelyࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿ 238 ౛ࢆほᐹࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ[⾲ 1]ࡢࡼ࠺
࡟ look ࡀ appear ࡼࡾࡶඛ࡟ฟ⌧ࡍࡿ᪉ࡀ㔞ⓗaware࡟ከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓ (஧㡯᳨ᐃ p<.01)ࠋ

between them at this moment, seeing the[⾲ 1]

wrinkles around his eyes, the deep laugh

of

the

fifteen-year

distance

look ඛ⾜

appear ඛ⾜ィlines framing his mouth. Usually he

163

75

238

appeared younger -- there was a bounce tohim, an energy, a brightness that radiated࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢᕪࡣఱࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ

youth. Not today. Not now.
(Robert Ferrignio, Dead Man’s Dance, 1995)㑅ዲὀど SUHIHUHQWLDOORRNLQJ ୍⯡࡟ேࡣࠊࡼࡾዲࡴ᪉࡟ど⥺ࢆ㢖⦾࡟ྥࡅࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୍᪉ࡼࡾ௚᪉ࢆዲࢇ࡛ὀどࡍࡇࡢሙྜࡢ 2 ࡘࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡣࠊ୍ேࡢኵࡀࡶࡘ 2

ࡿ୍㈏ࡋࡓ཯ᛂࢆࠊⓎ㐩ᚰ⌮Ꮫ࡛ࡣࠕ㑅ዲὀどࠖࡘ ࡢ␗ ࡞ࡿ ᒓᛶ࡛ ࠶ࡿ ࠋ ୗ⥺ 㒊͆ at this࡜࿧ࡪ㸦Fantz 1963ࠊ↓⸨ 1994ࠊୗᲄ 2000ࠊ

moment͇࠿ࡽࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊほᐹ⪅࡛࠶ࡿጔ

2006ࠊ2008ࠊ Park, Shimojo & Shimojo 2010ࠊࡣ௒ࡇࡢሙ㠃࡛ࠊࠕᖺ㱋ᕪࢆ③ឤࡋࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ

ᒣཱྀ 2010 ࡞࡝㸧ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ2 ࡘࡢᑐ㇟ࢆぢࡿሙ࠸ࡘࡶ࡜㐪࠺ኵࡢෆᅾⓗ࣭ᮏ㉁ⓗ࡞ᒓᛶ࡟Ẽ࡙ྜࠊࡑࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚ほᐹ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊࡼࡾ⯆࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢண᝿እࡢ᪂ࡓ࡞Ⓨぢࡣࠊ௒ࡲ࡛ぢ࡚࿡࣭㛵ᚰࡢ㧗࠸ࡶࡢࡸ㝿❧ࡘࡶࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⬟ࡁࡓኵࡢᒓᛶࡼࡾࡶࠊጔ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㝿❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋືⓗ࡟ど⥺ࢆྥࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺ㄆ▱ࡢഴྥࡀࢹࣇ

ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ⬺㥆໬࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᪂ወ่⃭࡟ᑐࡍ࢛ࣝࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ど⥺࡞࡝ࡀ೫ࡿ࢝ࢫ

ࡿ㑅ዲࡀୖ᪼ࡋࡓ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ

ࢣ࣮ࢻ⌧㇟ࡣࠊどぬࡔࡅ࡟≉ู࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⫈ぬࡼ࠺࡞᮲௳࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㑅ዲὀど࡜࠸࠺⬟ືⓗどࡸゐぬ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᥈⣴άືࡸᐃ఩཯ᛂ(่⃭࡟ᑐぬࡀㄏⓎࡉࢀࠊappear ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ⬟ືⓗ▱ぬࡢࡋ࡚⬟ືⓗ࡟㑅ᢥࡋ⾜ືࡍࡿ཯ᛂ)࡟ࡶඹ㏻ࡍ

look ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ᭱ᚋࡢ͆Notࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ (ୗᲄ 2008: 31)ࠋࡲࡓࠊ

today. Not now.͇࠿ࡽࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕ࠸ࡘࡶㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗほⅬ࡟࠾ࡅࡿศᯒ࡛ࡶࠊCPV ᵓᩥࡣᐇ㝿ࡢᖺ㱋ࡼࡾⱝࡃぢ࠼ࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺┠ࡢ๓ࡢࡢ look ࡣ᥈⣴άືࢆ⾲ࡍ (ᮏከ 2005: 74)ࠋࡇ

⌧ᐇ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠊ(5a)-(5c)௨እࡢኵࡢぢ࠿ࡅࡢࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ2 ࡘࡢᑐ❧ࡍࡿᑐ㇟ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿሙ

ᒓᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ appear ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ5 ேྜࠊ⬟ືⓗ▱ぬࢆ⾲ࡍ look ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ㝿ࡢㄆ▱ࡢ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺ࡟ look ࡜ appear ࡢ⟠ᡤࢆⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ♧ࡋࡓ (5a)-(5c)࡜㑅ዲὀどࡣࠊ࡝✵ᡤ࡟ࡋ࡚☜ㄆࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ඲ဨࡀࡇࡢ㡰ᗎࡢ

162᪉ࡀዲࡲࡋ࠸࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ look ࡜ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶࠊ▱ぬ୺య࡜ᑐ㇟ࡢᚰ⌮ⓗ㊥㞳ࡢ㐪࠸appear ࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ(5)ࡢศᯒࡀࠊᚰ⌮Ꮫⓗࢆ⾲ࡍ 1 ౛࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ὀពࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ         ࡞ほⅬ࠿ࡽࡶ⿵ᙉࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ࡛ࡣࠊ࡞ࡐ㑅ዲὀど࡜࠸࠺⬟ືⓗ▱ぬࢆ⾲ࡍ$SSHDU ඛ⾜ࡢᐇ౛

look ࡀ appear ࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿ㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ

 ࡛ࡣ㏫࡟ࠊappear ඛ⾜ࡢࡶࡢࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟

࠺࠿ࠋㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠊ㔞ⓗ࡟ࡣ lookඛ⾜ࡢ༙ศ௨ୗ࡛࠶ࡿ appear ඛ⾜࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ

/RRN ඛ⾜ࡀ⾲ࡍព࿡look ࡢ㑅ᢥࡀ⬟ືⓗ࡞▱ぬ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ ྠ୍ሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ look ඛ⾜ࡀ appear ඛ⾜ࡼࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
(8)࡛ࡣࠊ
͆appear colored͇࡜͆look colored͇ࡾࡶ㔞ⓗ࡟ከ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ2 ࡘࡢᑐ㇟ࡀᏑ
ᅾࡍࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣࠊ (5a)-(5c)ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚

ࡀ౑࠸ศࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ㄏⓎࡉࢀࡓ㑅ዲὀど࡜࠸࠺⬟ືⓗ▱ぬ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⯆࿡࣭㛵ᚰࡢ㧗࠸ࡶࡢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ඛ࡟㏙࡭ࠊ

(8) Ninety nine percent of the stars appearḟ࡟௚᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡍࡿࡢࡀ⮬↛ࡢὶࢀ࡛white. … Several bright stars do appear࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ⚾ࡓࡕࡀᑐ㇟

colored to the naked eye, however --ࢆㄆ▱ࡍࡿ㝿ࡢࢹࣇ࢛ࣝࢺࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀࠊゝㄒorange Arcturus, blue Rigel, yellow࡟ࡶ཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ

Capella, red Betelgeuse, and others.

 (7)ࡶ look ඛ⾜ࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

More

stars

look

coloredthroughtelescopes, which collect much more light(7) A man's wardrobe has gained a new set

than our eyes. The bigger the scope, theof rules, one of which is that we all wantmore colored stars it will show.

to look taller and thinner. A coat that falls(Astronomy, 2004)

below the knee shortens a man. This is amathematical

issue

and

not

a

⣬ᖜࡢ㒔ྜ࡛┬␎ࡋࡓᩥ⬦ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ⫗philosophical one! It's what I call the║࡛ 99%ࡢᫍࡀⓑࡃぢ࠼ࡿࡢࡣᐇ㝿࡟ⓑ࠸࠿

Napoleon and Mussolini problem -- thoseࡽ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᫍ⮬యࡢග㔞ࡀ඘ศ࡛࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡟

two men did all they could to appearⰍぬࡀ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊࡂࡻࡋ

bigger than they were.

ࡷᗙࡢ࢝࣌ࣛ࡞࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㠀ᖖ࡟᫂ࡿ࠸࡛ᫍ

(Town and Country, 2008)࠶ࢀࡤࠊᮃ㐲㙾ࢆ౑࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊ⫗║࡛ఱࡢປຊࡶకࢃࡎ࡟㯤Ⰽࡸ㉥࡟ぢ࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ

͆(W)e all want to look taller and thinner.͇

appear ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ⫗║ࡼࡾከࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⫼ࡀ㧗ࡃ࡚ࢫ࣒࡛ࣜ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ዲࡲ

ࡃࡢගࢆ㞟ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡞ᮃ㐲㙾ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ࡋ࠸≧ἣࡣࠊ⏨ᛶࢆぢࡿ୺య࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ぶ㏆ឤࡀ

ほᐹࡍࢀࡤࠊࡼࡾከࡃࡢᫍࡀⰍ࡙࠸࡚ぢ࠼ࡿ࡜࠶ࡾࠊᚰ⌮ⓗ㊥㞳ࡀ㏆࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ look ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉ࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ⬟ືⓗ࡞ほᐹࢆ⾲ࡍ look ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
͆those two men did all they࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ▱ぬ୺యࡢ⬟ືᛶࡀ┦ᑐⓗ࡟

could to appear bigger than they were.͇ࡢࡼ㧗࠸▱ぬ⤒㦂࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃุ᩿/ホ౯ࢆ⾜࠺㝿࡟ࡣ࠺࡟ࠕᐇ㝿ࡼࡾኴࡗ࡚ぢ࠼ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺┦ᑐⓗ࡟ዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸≧ែ࡟ࡣ appear ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀ࡚࠸

look ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
࡛ࡣࠊ࡞ࡐ appear ࡀ look ࡟ඛ⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ

ࡿࠋణࡋࠊዲࡲࡋ࠸ᒓᛶࡀᚲࡎ look ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ㏫

ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ(8)࡛ࡣᮃ㐲㙾ࡢࢫࢥ࣮ࣉࡀ኱ࡁࡅࢀ

ࡀ appear ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ(7)ࡣ࠶

ࡤ኱ࡁ࠸࡯࡝ࠊග㔞ࡀቑຍࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ

163

どぬ⣽⬊ࢆ่⃭ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊⰍぬࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜⤖ㄽࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ┦ᑐ㢖ᗘࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊAcademic࡙ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ୰࡛᭱ࡶ୺ᙇ

J(ournal) ࡜ࡼࡾᑓ㛛ⓗ࡞ Magazine1 ࡛ࡣࡋࡓ࠸஦᯶ࢆᚋ࡟ᣢࡗ࡚ࡃࡿ᪉ࡀࠊࡇࡢሙྜࡣ

appear ඛ ⾜ ࡢ ᪉ ࡀ 㧗 ࡃ ࠊ ࡼ ࡾ ኱ ⾗ ⓗ ࡞ㄝ᫂࡜ࡋ࡚ຠᯝⓗࡔ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

Magazine2 ࡜ Spoken ࡛ࡣ look ඛ⾜ࡢ᪉ࡀ㧗[⾲ 1]࡟♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ඲యⓗ࡟ࡣ⚾ࡓࡕࡢ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ㑅ዲὀど࡞࡝࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ look⮬↛࡞ㄆ▱ࡢὶࢀ࡛࠶ࡿ look ࡀඛ⾜ࡍࡿሙྜඛ⾜࡜࠸࠺⚾ࡓࡕࡢࢹࣇ࢛ࣝࢺࡢㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭࡀከ࠸ࡀࠊࡑࡢ㏫ࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡୖࡢ

ࢫࡀࠊࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣝ࡞ሙྜࡼࡾࡶࠊヰࡋゝⴥࡸ኱せᅉࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢ㝈ࡾ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᐇ㝿⾗㞧ㄅࡢࡼ࠺࡞࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣝ࡞ሙ㠃࡛ከࡃ࡟ appear ඛ⾜ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆほᐹࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ(8)௨እ

ぢࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࡈࡃ⮬↛࡞⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㏫࡟ࠊᏛ࡟ࡶ appear ࡟ࡼࡿㄝ᫂ࡢᚋ࡟ by the same⾡㞧ㄅ࡞࡝ࡢࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣝ࡞፹య࡛ࡣࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࢹ

token ࡸ all in all ࡞࡝ࢆకࡗ࡚ look ࡛⤖ㄽ࡙ࣇ࢛ࣝࢺࡢㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ୺ᙇ

ࡅࡿ౛ࡸࠊalthough ࡸ even though ((10)ࢆཧ

ࡸㄝ᫂࡟ຠᯝⓗ࡞ࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿሙྜ↷)࡞࡝࡜ඹ㉳ࡋ࡚ࠊ๓⨨ࡁࡸ᩿ࡾࡢࡼ࠺࡞ὀ㔘ࡀከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࡇࢀࡲ୍࡛⯡ⓗⓎヰࢆ௜ຍࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࢆࡶࡘ๓఩⠇ࢆ appear࡟ࠊࠕlook ࡣᇶᮏㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣝ

࡛⾲ࡋࡓ࠶࡜࡟ࠊ▱ぬ୺య࡟࡜ࡗ࡚☜ಙᗘࡢ㧗࡞ሙ࡟ࠖࠕappear ࡣࣛࢸࣥㄒ⏤᮶࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࣇ

࠸ෆᐜࢆ⾲ࡍᚋ఩⠇ࢆ look ࡛♧ࡍ౛ࡶぢࡽࢀ࢛࣮࣐ࣝ࡞ሙ࡟ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜ゝࡿࠋ࠺࡜┤ឤⓗ࡟ゝࢃࢀ࡚᮶ࡓ౑࠸ศࡅ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊlook ඛ⾜࣭appear ඛ⾜࡜ COCA ࡢලయⓗ࡞⌮⏤ࡢࡦ࡜ࡘࢆᐇ㝿࡟౑⏝ࡢሙ㠃࠿ྛࢪࣕࣥࣝ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ[⾲ 2]࡟♧ࡋࡓࠋCOCAࡽ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡣ Academic Journal, Magazine, Newspaper,
Fiction, Spoken ࡢ 5 ࡘࡢࢪࣕࣥࣝ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿࡀࠊ

 $SSHDU 㑅ᢥࡢഴྥᛶ㸸ᙧᐜモ⿵ㄒẚ㍑⣭

Magazine ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ⤒῭࣭ሗ㐨࣭⛉Ꮫᢏ⾡ࡢ

 2 ࡘ┠ࡢ┠ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠊᙧᐜモ⿵ㄒࡢẚ㍑⣭࠿ࡼ࠺࡞ࠊࡼࡾᑓ㛛ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࠿ࡽࠊፗᴦ࣭⨾ᐜ࣭ࡽぢࡓ appear 㑅ᢥࡢഴྥᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿ๓

ࣇ࢓ࢵࢩࣙࣥࡢࡼ࠺࡞኱⾗ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࡲ࡛⠊ᅖ࡟ࠊࡲࡎᐇ౛࠿ࡽ CPV ᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ appearࡀᗈࡃࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ㞧ㄅࢆྠᵝ࡟ᢅ࠺࡟ࡣၥ㢟ࡀࡢព࿡ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿ (appear ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢヲࡋ࠸࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ௨ୗࡢ 2 ࡘ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋ⪃ᐹ࡟ࡣ῝⏣ (2005)ࡀ࠶ࡿ)ࠋ

TIME, Newsweek, Forbs,
Smithsonian, Science News, Astronomy...

͆<RXORRNFROG͇YV͆,ORRNFROG͇

Magazine1:

Magazine2: Men’s Health, Cosmopolitan,(9)ࡣࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫ࢖ࣦࡢኪ࡟ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢺࢆ㈙Shape, Harper’s Bazaar, Boys Life…

࠸ồࡵࡿேࡓࡕࢆྲྀᮦࡍࡿ CNN ࡢ␒⤌࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࢟ࣕࢫࢱ࣮࡜࣏࣮ࣞࢱ࣮ࡢ஧ேࡢ㛫࡛
͆look

[⾲ 2]

cold͇࡜͆appear cold͇ࢆ౑࠸ศࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(࢝ࢵࢥෆ㸸┦ᑐ㢖ᗘ)L ඛ⾜ 163

A ඛ⾜ 75

Academic J.

11 (6.7)

9 (1
12.0)

(9) Carol Costello: …we decided to send Sam

Magazine1.

32 (19.6)

24 (3
32.0)

Greenfield to Rockefeller Center in New

Magazine2.

45 (2
27.6)

7 (9.3)

York City to find out what everyone is

Spoken15 (99.2)

4 (5.3)buying in these last hours of Christmas

Newspaper

14 (8.6)6 (8.0)Eve. Oh, you look cold.

Fiction46 (28.2)

25 (33.3)

Sam Greenfield, CNN Correspondent: No,
I just appear cold. Everybody else is cold.

164⾲⌧࡟ࡣࠊ
͆John looks / appears younger than

Carol, it's beautiful out here. (CNN, 2002)

Bill.͇ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୺ㄒࡢᒓᛶࢆ௚ࡢᑐ㇟ࡢᒓᛶ
ᨺ㏦ᒁෆ࡟࠸ࡿ࢟ࣕࢫࢱ࣮ࡀࣟࢵࢡࣇ࢙࣮ࣛ

࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡶᙜ↛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
͆John looks /ࢭࣥࢱ࣮࡛ᐮ࠸୰ྲྀᮦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࣏࣮ࣞࢱ࣮ࡢ

appears younger than his age.͇ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ௚

ᵝᏊࢆぢ࡚ࠊ
͆Oh, you look cold.͇࡜ุ᩿ࡋ࡚

ࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡢẚ㍑࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ୺ㄒࡢᒓᛶࢆࡑࡢᑐ

࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࡢ࣏࣮ࣞࢱ࣮ࡣୗ⥺ࡢ͆No,͇࡜㇟⮬యࡢᐇ㉁(John ࡢᐇ㝿ࡢᖺ㱋)࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࠊ

͆Everybody else is cold.͇࠿ࡽࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ

㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜ࡟ࡶࡋࡤࡋࡤࡳࡽ

ࠕ⚾ࡀᐮ࠸ࡢࡣぢ࠿ࡅࡔࡅ࡛ࠊᐇ㝿ࡣᐮࡃ࡞࠸ࠖ ࢀࡿࠋ[⾲ 3]ࡢࠕappear+ẚ㍑⣭ࠖ70 ౛୰ 61 ౛࡜࠸࠺ࡢࢆ͆I just appear cold.͇࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡀࡇࡢ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᑐ㇟ࡢぢ࠼ࡀࡑࢀ⮬ศࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ⮬ศ࡛ࢃ࠿ࡿࡣࡎ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊᬑ㏻ࡣ

⮬యࡢᐇ㉁࡜஋㞳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᗘྜ࠸ࡀ኱ࡁ࠸ሙ

ࢃࡊࢃࡊ CPV ᵓᩥࢆ౑࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃ be ືモ࡛ྜ࡛ࠊ2 ࡘࡢືモࢆ౑࠸ศࡅࡿ㝿࡟ࡣ appear

͆I’m not cold.”࡜ゝ࠺࡜ࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࠾ࡑࡽ

ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
(10)ࡣࢸࣞࣅ࡛ᨺᫎࡉࢀࡓ࢚ࣜࢶ࢕ࣥࡢ₇ㄝࡃࡇࡢሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠊ࣏࣮ࣞࢱ࣮ࡶࣔࢽࢱ࣮ࢆぢ࡞ࡢᵝᏊ࡟㛵ࡍࡿグ஦࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡀࡽࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࣔࢽࢱ࣮࡟ᫎࡿ⮬ศࡢጼࢆព㆑
ࡋ࡚ࡢⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊCPV ᵓᩥࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚࠸(10) On the screen was an old broadcast ofࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
CPV ᵓᩥࡢ look ࡜ appear ࡣ࡝ࡕࡽࡶどぬ

Yeltsin addressing a crowd. Even though࡟ࡼࡿぢ࠼ࢆ⾲ࡍࡀࠊappear ࡣሙྜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚

he had a way of thrusting his neck out inࡣ㘒ぬ࡟ࡼࡿ༳㇟ࢆ⾲ࡍ (ᑠす 1970: 246) ࡇorder to hide his double chin and make his࡜࠿ࡽࠊᐇ㉁࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡗࡓ≧ἣࢆ⾲ࡍྍ⬟ᛶࡀ

jaw appear stronger, he didn't look good on

look ࡼࡾࡶ㧗࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡶእ

camera.

(New Yorker, 2004)ぢࢆ⾲ࡍࡀࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ 2 ࡘࡀే⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
ሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊlook ࡼࡾ appear ࡢ᪉ࡀࡼࡾᐇ㉁࡜

ୗ⥺㒊͆Even though͇ࢆక࠺๓఩⠇࡛࠶ࡿࠕ஧

࠿ࡅ㞳ࢀࡓぢ࠿ࡅࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇ

㔜࠶ࡈࢆ㞃ࡋ࡚ࠊ(ᙉࡉࡢ㇟ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿ)࠶ࡈࢆᐇ

ࡢሙྜࡢ͆just͇ࡣࡲࡉ࡟ࠕᐮࡑ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡔ㝿ࡼࡾᙉࡃぢࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟…ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣ͆makeࡅࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୧⪅ࡢᑐ❧ࢆᙉㄪࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ

his jaw appear stronger͇ (appear+ẚ㍑⣭) ࡛ࡢࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ

ᐇ㉁࡜ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞
ດຊ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚඲ࡃ࠺ࡲࡃ⾜$SSHDU ࡜ẚ㍑⣭

࠿࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ୺ᙇࡋࡓ࠸☜ಙᗘ

CPV ᵓᩥ඲యࢆぢࢀࡤࠊࢹ࣮ࢱᩘࡢከ࠸ lookࡢ㧗࠸ෆᐜࡢᚋ఩⠇ࡣ͆he didn't look good on࡟ẚ㍑⣭ࡀከࡃඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡢࡣᙜ↛࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ

camera.͇࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ look ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

✏ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ look ࡜ appear ࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿ୰࡛ẚ㍑

ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ appear 㑅ᢥࡀ(5)ࡢࠕ▱ぬ୺యࡢ⬟ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞⯆࿡῝࠸⤖ᯝࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ ືᛶࡀ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ప࠸▱ぬ⤒㦂࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃุ᩿࣭ホ[⾲ 3]

౯ࢆ⾜࠺ሙྜࠖ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ศᯒ࡜ࡶᐦ᥋
look+ẚ㍑⣭

26

appear+ẚ㍑⣭

70(ࡑࡢ࠺ࡕ୧᪉ẚ㍑⣭)(19)࡟㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟

Look ࡜ appear ཮᪉࡜ඹ㉳࡛ࡁࡿᙧᐜモ⿵ㄒ
[⾲ 3]࠿ࡽࠊlook ࡜ appear ࡛ࡣ appear ࡢ᪉ࡀ

ࢆక࠺ CPV ᵓᩥࡢሙྜࠊᩥࣞ࣋ࣝࡢほᐹࡔࡅẚ㍑⣭࡜ከࡃඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋẚ㍑⣭ࡢ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢ⧄⣽࡞౑࠸ศࡅࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

165

ุ᩿ࡍࡿࡢࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊศᯒࢆࢸࢡࢫࢺᏛ࠿ࡽぢࡓᩥἲ⌧㇟࠘ ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧఍, ᮾி.
ᑠす཭୐ (1970) ࠗ⌧௦ⱥㄒࡢᩥἲ࡜ㄒἲ࠘ ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ,ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ࡲ࡛ᗈࡆ࡚᝟ሗ㔞ࢆቑࡸࡍ࡜ࠊ⢭ᗘࡢ㧗࠸ほᐹࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡾࠊ▱ぬ୺యࡀᑐ㇟ࢆ࡝ࡢ

ᮾி.
↓⸨㝯 (1994)ࠗ㉥ࢇᆓ࠿ࡽࡳࡓୡ⏺㸸ゝㄒ௨๓ࡢගᬒ࠘ㅮ

ࡼ࠺࡟ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࡢ
⤖ᯝࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞౑࠸ศࡅࡣㄒ※࣭㡢㡩ⓗせ⣲ㄯ♫, ᮾி.

ࡢ㐪࠸ࡸ༢࡞ࡿ㔜」ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞

Park, Junghyung, Eiko Shimojo and Shinsuke Shimojo.

࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊゝㄒ౑⏝⪅ࡀ⮬ぬࡋ(2010) “Roles of Familiarity and Novelty in Visual࡚࠸࡞࠸ㄆ▱ⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆࠊࡑࡇ࡟ぢฟࡍࡇ࡜Preference Judgments are Segregated across Object

ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋCategories,” PNAS 107-33, 14552-14555.
Rogers, Andy (1971) ͆ Three Kinds of Physicalᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᚲ

Perception Verbs,͇CLS 7, 206-222.

ࡎࡋࡶᐇドⓗ࡟◊✲ࡉࢀ࡚᮶࡞࠿ࡗࡓ┤ឤࡸෆ┬࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃㄝ᫂ࡢጇᙜᛶࢆࠊᐈほⓗ࡛ඹ᭷ྍୗᲄಙ㍜ (2000) ࠕ࠾࡜࡞ࡣ࡝ࡇࡲ࡛㉥ࡕࡷࢇ࠿㸽㸸ㄆ▱⬟࡞ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ

Ⓨ㐩ࡢ♫఍ᛶ࡜㐃⥆ᛶࠖThe Japanese Society of Baby㞄᥋ศ㔝࡛࠶ࡿᩥయㄽࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺศᯒ࡞࡝࡟ࠊ

Science, ➨ 10 ᅇ Ꮫ ⾡ 㞟 ఍ බ 㛤 ࢩ ࣥ ࣏ ࢪ ࢘ ࣒ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㈉⊩࡛ࡁࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧(2000.6.13).

ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ

(http://www.crn.or.jp/LABO/BABY/SCIENCE/10_4.
HTM)௒ᚋࡣࠊ୺ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࡢே⛠ࡢ೫ࡾ࡟

ୗᲄಙ㍜ (2006) ࠗࡲ࡞ࡊࡋࡢㄌ⏕㸸㉥ࡕࡷࢇᏛ㠉࿨࠘᪂╔┠ࡋࠊ⿵㒊࡟࠾ࡅࡿᙧᐜモࡢ✀㢮࡜ࡢ㛵㐃࠿ࡽࠊᑐே㛵ಀ࡟ࡶ look ࡜ appear ࡢ㑅ᢥࡀ㛵ࢃ᭙♫, ᮾி.
ୗᲄಙ㍜ (2008) ࠗࢧࣈ࣑ࣜࢼ࣭ࣝ࢖ࣥࣃࢡࢺ㸸᝟ື࡜₯ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋᅾㄆ▱ࡢ⌧௦࠘ࡕࡃࡲ᪂᭩, ᮾி.

‫ޚ‬Ⓨ⾲ࡢ‽ഛẁ㝵࠿ࡽࠊᒣཱྀ἞ᙪඛ⏕࡜ᮏከၨඛ⏕Taniguchi, Kazumi (1997) “On the Semantics and࡟㈗㔜࡞ຓゝ࡜ከ኱࡞ࡈᣦᑟࢆ࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋ

Development of Copulative Perception Verbs inࡲࡓࠊⓎ⾲ࡢ㝿࡟ࡣྖ఍ࡢ㔠⃝ಇ࿃ඛ⏕ࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊEnglish:᯽㔝೺ḟඛ⏕ࠊᒾ⏣ᙬᚿඛ⏕ࠊ᪩℩ᑦᏊඛ⏕ࠊ㇂ཱྀ

Linguistics 14, 270-299.

A

Cognitive

Perspective,”

English㇂୍ཱྀ⨾ (2005) ࠗ஦ែᴫᛕࡢグྕ໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ୍⨾ඛ⏕ࠊฟỈᏕ඾ඛ⏕ࠊ኱㇂┤㍤ඛ⏕࡟኱ኚ᭷┈࡞ࡈពぢࢆ㈷ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋᚰ࠿ࡽឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ

ⓗ◊✲࠘ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ, ᮾி.
ᚨᒣ⪷⨾ (2013) ࠕᵓᩥࡢⓎ㐩࡟ࡼࡿືモࡢㄆ▱ⓗศᴗ㸸ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㐃⤖ⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ appear ࡜ look ࡢศᕸࢆFantz, Robert (1963) ͆ Patter Vision in Newborn

୰ᚰ࡟ࠖ,ࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛㄽ⪃࠘11, 231-269, ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ,Infants,͇Science 140, 296-297.

ᮾி.
ᒣཱྀ┿⨾ (2010) ࠕஙඣࡢどぬୡ⏺㸸◊✲᪉ἲ࡜㏆ᖺࡢࢺ῝⏣ᬛ (2005) ࠕⱥㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿฟ⌧ࡢ▱ぬ㸸୺యࣆࢵࢡࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ, Vision 22-1, 13-19.

ᛶ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃࡛ࠖ
ࠗ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ఍ㄽᩥ㞟࠘5, 186-196.
Gisborne, Nikolas (2007) ͆ A History

of English

㸺㎡඾㸼

Evidential Verbs of Appearance,͇English Language

OED㸸Oxford English Dictionary (1989), 2nd edition.

and Linguistics 11-1, 1-29, Cambridge University㸺ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸼
BNC㸸The British National Corpus

Press, Cambridge.
Gisborne, Nikolas (2010) The Event Structure of(http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc).

Perception Verbs, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

COCA㸸The Corpus of Contemporary American English(http://corpus.byu.edu/coca).

ᮏከၨ (2005) ࠗ࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢲࣥࢫࡢㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽ㸸⏕ែᚰ⌮166

3
その関係が同一指示に限られていない。

(3)

Windows, doors, beds, dressers — everything in the room was burned to a crisp.
(Long (1961: 31))

英語の「左方転位」構文における転位要素と照応表現の意味関係について∗(3) では everything が照応表現として機能して(The Semantic Relations between theいる。MLD 構文に限らず，複数個の要素からAnaphoric Expressions and the Dislocated

それらをまとめる上位カテゴリーが推論され，

Elements in Left Dislocations of English)

その上位カテゴリーを everything で受ける場合がある (大名 (2008) を参照)。同様に (3) に山内 昇 (Noboru Yamauchi)

おいても，転位要素から上位カテゴリーが推論

名古屋大学大学院 (Nagoya University)

され，everything はその上位カテゴリーを受けていると考えられる。従って，(3) では転位要キーワード: 左方転位，転位要素，照応表現，

素と照応表現には同一指示以外の関係が成立し意味関係，カテゴリー化ている。
本研究は，なぜ MLD 構文では転位要素と照応表現に同一指示以外の関係が成立するのかを

1. はじめに考察する。本研究の主張は次に示す通りである。

左方転位 (Left Dislocation; 以後 LD と略記)

(4)

構文とは，ある要素が文頭に生起し，後続節で転位要素と照応表現の関係づけには認知的な推論操作が働いているため，同一指示

その要素を受ける照応表現が使用されるという以外の関係が成立する。

1
LD 構文には，(1) と (2) で示す
構文である。

ように，1 個の要素が生起するものと，複数個

この分析に従うと，MLD 構文では，複数個のの要素が生起するものとがある。

転位要素から上位カテゴリーが推論される。照(1)

応表現はその推論された上位カテゴリーを受け

Her parents, they seem pretty uncaring.

ることで，転位要素と照応表現に同一指示以外(Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1408))(2)

Initiative,

self-reliance,

maturityの関係が成立する。

—

本稿の構成は次の通りである。第 2 節では，

these are the qualities we’re looking for.

LD 構文における転位要素と照応表現の関係づ(ibid.: 1751)

けに関して，先行研究における主張を概観し，(1) では 1 個の要素が，(2) では複数個の要素

本研究の問題提起を行なう。第 3 節では，上記が生起している。本研究では (1) のように 1 個(4) の分析の根拠となる事例を考察する。第 4の要素が生起する LD 構文を Single XP Left

節では，同一指示性の条件を満たさない SLD

Dislocation (以後 SLD と略記) 構文と呼ぶこ構文に対しても，本研究の分析が適用可能であとにする。また，(2) のように複数個の要素がることを示す。第 5 節ではまとめを述べる。

生起するものを Multiple XP Left Dislocation

2. 先行研究の概観

2(以後 MLD と略記) 構文と呼ぶことにする。

典型的な SLD 構文では転位要素と照応表現

最初に，Lambrecht (2001) は LD 構文の定に同一指示の関係が成立するとされている。し義の中で転位要素と照応表現の関係に関して，

かし，次の (3) で示すように，MLD 構文では

次の (5) のように述べている。

167

(5) “ The role of the denotatum of the dis-

立してもよいことになってしまう。また，SLD

located constituent as an argument or

構文では同一指示性を必要条件とし，MLD 構

adjunct of the predicate is represented

文では十分条件とすれば，転位要素の数で条件

within the clause by a pronominal ele-が異なることが偶然として扱われることになっment which is construed as coreferentialてしまう。LD 構文のより妥当な認可条件を定with the dislocated phrase.”

めるには，なぜ MLD 構文では転位要素と照応表現の間に同一指示以外の関係が成立するのか(Lambrecht (2001: 1050))

を考察する必要がある。

(5) から，Lambrecht (2001) は転位要素と代名詞等の照応表現には同一指示の関係が成立する

3. 転位要素と照応表現の意味関係4と捉えていることが分かる。

前節で提起した問題に対して，本研究は (4)次に，Huddleston and Pullum (2002) は転で示した分析を提案する。

位要素と照応表現に同一指示の関係が成立していない事例として (6) を挙げている。

(4)

転位要素と照応表現の関係づけには認知的な推論操作が働いているため，同一指示(6)Bill, Paul, Harry — managers like them以外の関係が成立する。

should get the boot.
MLD 構文において，この分析を図示すると次(Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1413))の (8) のようになる。

(6) では Bill，Paul，Harry という人名が転位要(8)素となり，照応表現として managers like themが使用されている。Huddleston and PullumXP(2002) は (6) に関して，次の (7) のように述べ
ている。

...

XP

...

XP [S . . . XPi . . . ]まず，複数個の転位要素から認知的な推論操作
5により一種の上位カテゴリーが推論される。
照(7) “ . . . the relation between prenuclear con-

応表現は転位要素ではなく推論された上位カテ

stituent and the subject of the nucleus is

ゴリーを同一指示的に受けることで，転位要素

no longer one of coreference: Bill, Paul,と照応表現には同一指示以外の関係が成立する。

and Harry form a subset of the managers.”

CATEGORYi

以下では，(4) の分析における認知的な推論操(ibid.)

作には少なくとも 4 つのタイプがあり，推論操(7) で述べられているように，上記 (6) の転位要

作の働き方が異なると，転位要素と照応表現に

素と照応表現には，同一指示の関係ではなく，下成立する関係も異なることを示す。

位/上位の関係が成立している。従って，MLD

第一に，上記 (3) では，転位要素と照応表現

構文では転位要素と照応表現に同一指示以外のの関係づけに，代表例から上位カテゴリーを推関係が成立する場合があることが分かる。

論するという操作が働いている。

上記 (3) や (6) のような事例は，LD 構文の(3)

認可条件を定める上で示唆的である。転位要素と照応表現の同一指示性を必要条件とすれば，Windows, doors, beds, dressers — everything in the room was burned to a crisp.

(3) や (6) のような事例は認可されなくなって(3) の後続節は「部屋の中にあるすべてのもの

しまう。かといって，同一指示性を十分条件にが燃えてしまった」という意味である。部屋

過ぎないとするだけでは，どのような関係が成の中には転位要素以外のものもあるはずなの168の文である。

で，転位要素は部屋の中にあるものの代表例であると考えられる。また，(3) には but chairs,(10)tables, and racks were not burned という節

James Vane, Basil Hallward, Sybil

を後続させることができないため，照応表現のVane –– these deaths were not impor-everything は転位要素だけではなく，転位要素

tant to him now. Nothing could change
that. He must think of himself.

6
本研究に含まれていない情報も受けている。

では (3) における転位要素と照応表現の関係を(The Picture of Dorian Gray)group-membership の関係と呼ぶことにする。

(10) では，作中で死亡した人物の名前が転位(4) の分析に従うと，転位要素から「部屋の中に要素となり，それらの人物が共通して持つ属性

あるすべてのもの」というカテゴリーが推論さ

名 deaths が照応表現に含まれている。そのたれ，そのカテゴリーを everything で受けること

め，転位要素と照応表現には事物/属性の関係がで group-membership の関係が成立する。

成立している。(4) の分析に従うと，転位要素

第二に，次の (9) では，転位要素の共通性にから「人の死」という属性がメトニミー解釈に基づいて上位カテゴリーを推論するという操作

より一種のカテゴリーとして推論される。そしが働いている。この例はある海外ドラマに登場て，その推論された「人の死」というカテゴリー

する悪の組織に関して述べている箇所である。

を these deaths で受けることで，事物/属性の(9)関係が成立する。

Even though the Company may not be

第四に，(11) では，部分光景から全体光景を

morally blameworthy for adopting the

推論するという操作が働いている。この例は発goal of mastery, it is blameworthy for

展途上国のソマリアにあるレストランが西洋風

many of the things it’s done. Kidnap-に変わりつつあるという新聞記事の冒頭一文目

ping, spying, imprisonment, not to men-である。

tion the nuclear explosion plot –– these
activities are villainous by almost all(11)

moral standards.

Beachfront dining, fresh lobster, anda European clientele: Somalia’s restau-(Heroes and Philosophy)

rant scene is quickly changing for the(9) では共通性を持つ要素が転位要素となり，better.

(The Daily Yomiuri)

その共通性に基づく一般化により導かれた(11) では，部分光景を表わす要素が転位要素と7

名称 activities が照応表現に含まれている。

なり，全体光景を表わす Somalia’s restaurant

本研究では (9) におけるような関係を kind-scene が照応表現として機能している。そのた

membership の関係と呼ぶことにする。(4) のめ，転位要素と照応表現には部分/全体の関係が分析に従うと，転位要素から共通性に基づく一成立している。(4) の分析に従うと，転位要素か般化により「組織的な秘密活動」というカテゴ

ら「洗練されたレストランの光景」という全体光リーが推論され，そのカテゴリーを these ac-

景が推論され，その推論された光景を Somalia’s

tivities で受けることで kind-membership の関

restaurant scene で受けることで，部分/全体の係が成立する。

8
関係が成立する。

第三に，次の (10) では，メトニミー解釈に

上記 4 つの事例から，MLD 構文では転位要

よって，事物からその属性を推論するという操素と照応表現に多様な意味関係が成立できるこ

作が働いている。この例は主人公が過去に犯しとが分かる。MLD 構文を LD 構文に関する研た殺人よりも自分の将来を案じている場面の地究の考察対象に含めるとすれば，多様な意味関

169

係を考慮して，LD 構文の認可条件を定める必(13) では全体を表わす the children in the hos-

要がある。(4) の分析に従い，転位要素と照応

pital が転位要素となり，部分を表わす most

表現は認知的な推論操作により関係づけられてが照応表現として使用されている。そのため，いるとすれば，具体的にどのような認知的な推(13) では転位要素と照応表現に全体/部分の関論操作が可能なのかを明らかにすることで，成係が成立している。(4) の分析に従うと，転位要

立可能な意味関係を規定できるようになる。

素から「入院中の子どもたち」という構成員が部分として推論され，その構成員の一部を most
で受けることで，全体/部分の関係が成立する。

4. 同一指示性を満たさない SLD 構文
SLD 構文では，転位要素と照応表現に同一

第三に，次の (14) では，転位要素と照応表

指示の関係が成立するとされている。しかし，現の関係づけに上位カテゴリーから下位カテゴ

SLD 構文においても，転位要素と照応表現には10
リーを推論するという操作が働いている。

同一指示以外の関係が成立する場合がある。同一指示性を満たさない SLD 構文に対しても，上(14)

記 (4) の分析を適用可能である。

[From a TV interview about the availability of child care]

第一に，次の (12) では，転位要素と照応表現

That isn’t the typical family any-の関係づけに属性から事物を推論するという操

more. The typical family today, the作が働いている。

husband and the wife both work.

(12)(Lambrecht (1994: 193))

The ham sandwich in the corner, hewants some more coﬀee.

Lambrecht (1994) は (14) を代名詞等の照応(Cf. Jackendoﬀ (1997: 54))

表現が後続節で使用されていない事例として挙(12) の転位要素 the ham sandwich in the cor-

げている。しかし，後続節の the husband andner はメトニミー解釈により「ハムサンドを注

the wife を転位要素 the typical family today

文した客」を意味している。照応表現 he は転と関係づけられる照応表現とみなせば，転位要

位要素ではなく「ハムサンドを注文した客」を

素と照応表現には上位/下位の関係が成立して受けている。従って，転位要素と照応表現にはいると考えられる。(4) の分析に従うと，the

属性/事物の関係が成立している。(4) の分析に

typical family today という転位要素からその従うと，転位要素から「ハムサンドを注文した

下位カテゴリーが推論され，そのカテゴリーの客」という事物が推論され，その事物を he で受

一部を the husband and the wife で受けるこけることで，属性/事物の関係が成立する。

とで，上位/下位の関係が成立する。

第二に，次の (13) では，転位要素と照応表現

上記の事例からも，従来の LD 構文の研究での関係づけに全体から部分を推論するという操分析されている同一指示の事例は全体の一部に9作が働いている。

過ぎないことが分かる。MLD 構文と SLD 構
文において，同一指示以外の関係が成立する事(13)

Most children flourish. Most children例に対して (4) の分析を適用できるため，LDlive and grow up. Even the children in

構文は転位要素と照応表現に有意味な関係づけ

the hospital, most get well and go homeが成立すれば構文として認められると考えられ

and live happily. Pediatrics is a compar-

る。このことは LD 構文の認可にはヒトの認知atively happy field, a field full of happy

機能の一つであるカテゴリー化の仕組みが関与

endings.

していることを意味している。

(Prince (1997: 138))

170

たい。また，MLD 構文において NP 以外の要

5. おわりに素が生起する事例については，山内 (2014: 250,

最後にまとめを述べる。第 2 節では，SLD
構文では典型的に転位要素と照応表現に同一指

253) を参照されたい。

示の関係が成立するとされているのに対して，

3

MLD 構文ではその関係が同一指示に限られな転位要素と照応表現の間に成立する関係についいことを示した。さらに、MLD 構文を LD 構ては言及していない。

文の考察対象とする上で生じる問題を提起した。

4

第 3 節では，MLD 構文では転位要素と照応表

位要素と照応表現に成立する同一指示性は十分現の関係づけに認知的な推論操作が働いている条件であり，必ずしも満たす必要がないとしてため，同一指示以外の関係が成立するという分いる。

析を提示した。さらに，認知的な推論操作には

5

4 つのタイプがあり，推論操作の働き方が異なるという点に関しては，人間の認知機能の一つ

ると，転位要素と照応表現に成立する関係も異であるカテゴリー化に関する研究を手がかりとなることを示した。第 4 節では，MLD 構文にしている。カテゴリー化の基本的な概念に関し対して提示した分析は，同一指示性の条件を満ては，Rosch (1978)，Barsalou (1983) 等々をたさない SLD 構文に対しても適用可能である

参照されたい。

ことを示した。

6

Long (1961) は (3) の例を挙げてはいるが，Lambrecht (2001) は，(14) の例を示し，転複数個の要素から上位カテゴリーが推論され(3) は転位要素が代表例となるカテゴリーに含まれるものはすべて燃えてしまったという解注

釈になるため，そのカテゴリーに含まれると考本論文は，日本英語学会第 32 回大会 (2014

えられる椅子やテーブルが燃えていないとなる

年 11 月 9 日，於学習院大学) において口頭発と矛盾文になってしまう。なお，(3) の照応表∗表された原稿に加筆，修正を行ったものである。

現が these の場合は矛盾文にならない。

本稿をまとめるに際して，大名力先生，大島義

7

和先生，中右実先生，大室剛志先生，滝沢直宏先

スキー，ワインという要素が並べられると，共生，佐藤翔馬氏より，貴重なご指摘やご助言を通性に基づき酒という上位カテゴリーが推論さ賜った。また，口頭発表当日に貴重な質問とコれる。3 つ以上の表現が並び，表現されている

メントを戴いた浅野一郎先生，小野創先生，塩以上のものを表すことに関しては Overstreet

原佳代乃先生，西田光一先生，本多啓先生にこの(1999) を参照されたい。

場を借りて厚く御礼申し上げる。なお、本論文

8における不備や誤りは全て筆者の責任による。

れたレストランの光景」をあえて「(発展途上国本研究では構文名として「左方転位」というの) ソマリアにあるレストラン」で受けること

1

MLD 構文に限らず，例えば，ビール，ウィ(11) では，転位要素から推論される「洗練さ用語を使用するが，生成統語論におけるようなにより意外性の効果が生じている。

移動操作を想定するわけではない。また，文頭9に生起する要素を「転位要素」と呼び，後続節には含めていない。なお (13) の転位要素にはで転位要素の指示対象と意味的に関係づけられeven が含まれているが，Gundel (1974: 89) はる要素を「照応表現」と呼ぶことにする。

even を含む NP は転位できないとしている。

2

Prince (1997) は (13) の事例を考察の対象

この点に関しては今後の課題とする。

NP ではなく XP とする理由は，NP 以外にLambrecht (1994) は (14) の例を挙げていAP や PP なども文頭に生起するためである。

10

SLD 構文において NP 以外の要素が生起する

るが，転位要素と照応表現の意味関係に関して事例については，関 (2001: 66-67) を参照されは言及していない。

171

参考文献

course,” Directions in Functional Linguistics,

Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1983) “Ad Hoc Cate-ed. by Kamio Akio, 117-

143, John Benjamins, Amsterdam andgories,” Memory & Cognition 11 (3), 211-

Philadelphia.

227.

Rosch, Eleanor (1978) “Principles of Cate-

Gundel, Jeanette M. (1974) The Role ofgorization,” Cognition and Categoriza-

Topic and Comment in Linguistic The-

tion, ed. by Eleanor Rosch and Bar-ory, Doctoral dissertation, The Univer-

bara B. Lloyd, 27-48, Erlbaum, Hills-

sity of Texas.

dale. [Reprinted in Concepts: Core Read-

Huddleston, Rodney D. and Geoﬀrey K. Pul-ings, ed. by Eric Margolis and Stephenlum (2002) The Cambridge Grammar ofLaurence, 1999, 189-205, MIT Press,

the English Language, Cambridge Uni-

Cambridge.]

versity Press, Cambridge.

Ross, John R. (1967) Constraints on Variables

Jackendoﬀ, Ray (1997) The Architecture of

in Syntax, Doctoral dissertation, Mas-

the Language Faculty, MIT Press, Cam-sachusetts Institute of Technology. [Re-bridge.

produced by the Linguistics Club of In-

Lambrecht, Knud (1994) Information Structure — Topic, Focus, and the Mental

diana University, 1968, and published

Representations of Discourse Referents,

as Infinite Syntax! by Ablex, Norwood,
1986.]

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

関茂樹 (2001)『英語指定文の構造と意味』東京：

Lambrecht, Knud (2001) “Dislocation,” Lan-

開拓社．

guage Typology and Language Univer-

山内昇 (2014) 「英語における「多重 XP 左方転sals 2, ed. by Martin Haspelmath, Ekke-

位」構文の統語的派生について」JELS 31,

hard König, Wuldf Oesterreicher and249-255.

Wolfgang Raible, 1050-1078, Walter deGruyter, Berlin and New York.

参考資料

Long, Ralph B. (1961) The Sentence and Its
Parts — A Grammar of Contemporary

Associated Press (2012, June 9) “Visitors To

English, The University of Chicago Press,‘Failed State’ Somalia Can Now Eat Lob-

Chicago and London.

ster at This Luxury Beachfront Restau-

大名力 (2008)「カテゴリー形成，パターン認識

rant,” The Daily Yomiuri, 12.

と構文」日本英語学会第 26 回大会シンポ

Robichaud, Christopher (2009) “Corporate

ジウム「英語構文研究：言語理論とコーパ

Capers: The Moral Dimensions of Work-ス」口頭発表 (Conference Handbook 26,

ing for the Company,” Heroes and Philos-

240-245)．

ophy — Buy the Book, Save the World,
ed. by David K. Johnston, 45-48, John

Overstreet, Maryann (1999) Whales, Can-

Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.

dlelight, and Stuﬀ Like That: General
Extenders in English Discourse, Oxford

Wilde, Oscar and Jill Nevile (Retold) (2008)

University Press, New York and Oxford.

The Picture of Dorian Gray, Simplified

Prince, Ellen F. (1997) “On the Func-

ed., Oxford University Press, New Yorkand Oxford.

tions of Left-Dislocation in English Dis-172

日本語母語話者を対象とした知覚実験から明らかにした。被験者群は米国滞在歴が長い日
本人母語話者（Experienced Japanese（EJ）：米
国滞在期間平均 21 年）と米国滞在歴が短い日
日本人大学生英語学習者の英語の/ɹ/と/l/

本人母語話者（Inexperienced Japanese（IJ）: 米の知覚における相対的語彙親密度の影響に

国滞在経験平均 2.4 年）であった。収集されついてた刺激語に対する語彙親密度と音素認識正答(The Effect of Relative Lexical Familiarity on

率の分析から以下の３つの結果を得た。

English /ɹ/ and /l/ Phoneme Perception by
Japanese University English Learners)【結果１】/ɹ/と/l/の音素認識正答率はミニマ
ル・ペアを形成する２つの単語においては，

米山聖子 (Kiyoko Yoneyama)*

相対的語彙親密度の高い語彙（“positive” set）

中村祐輔 (Yusuke Nakamura) **の場合よりも相対的語彙親密度の低い語彙（“negative” set）の場合よりも高い*大東文化大学 (Daito Bunka University),【結果２】英語力の違いにより，相対的語彙**大宮東高校 (Omiya Higashi High School)

キーワード：音素認識，相対的語彙親密度，

親密度は英語力の低い人ほど影響を受ける【結果３】相対的語彙親密度は曖昧性が高い

主観的語彙親密度，第二言語，英語学習

音の方がそうでないものより強く影響する
実験結果から，Flege et al. (1996)は主観的語

1. はじめに

彙親密度ではなく相対的語彙親密度が英語の日本語母語話者にとっての英語の/ɹ/と/l/の語頭の/ɹ/と/l/の認識に影響していることを主

知覚の困難さはこれらの音が日本語に存在し張した。しかしながら，相対的語彙親密度がないことに起因していることは広く知られて主観的語彙親密度から間接的に計算されたもいるが（e.g., Goto, 1971; Dickerson, 1974;のであることを理由に，Flege et al. (1996)は相Sheldon and Strange, 1982），その知覚に語彙親

対的語彙親密度の測定方法の検証の必要性も密度が関与していることも報告されている

指摘している。本研究では Flege et al. (1996)（e.g., Yamada, Tohkura and Kobayashi, 1992）。

で提案されている語彙親密度の測定方法を採

この場合の語彙親密度は個人がある単語に対用し，日本人大学生英語学習者を対象とした

してどの程度なじみがあるかを示す指標であFlege et al. (1996) の実験１を実施することでる「主観的語彙親密度」をさすことが多いが，相対的語彙親密度の妥当性を再検討する。

例えばミニマル・ペアといった聴覚的に類似した単語間の語彙親密度の差を示す「相対的2. 実験

語彙親密度」という指標も存在する。

2.1 実験方法

Flege, Takagi and Mann (1996) は米国に滞在

被験者は聴覚に問題のない 24 人の日本人大する日本語母語話者を対象とした英語の語頭

学生英語学習者である（男性 9 名，
女性 15 名）。

の/ɹ/と/l/の二肢強制選択法による同定実験を

24 名の被験者のうち 1 名（女性）は 9 ヶ月の間行い，/ɹ/と/l/の語頭の音素認識は相対的語彙

米国留学経験者であるが，残りの被験者は 3 ヶ親密度に影響を受けることを米国に滞在する

173

月以上の英語滞在経験はない典型的な日本人単語に対する２回の判断の平均から主観的語

大学生英語学習者である。Flege et al. (1996)

彙親密度と相対的語彙親密度を算出した。

の米国滞在歴が短い被験者（IJ）の米国滞在期
2.2 主観的語彙親密度と相対的語彙親密度

間は平均 2.4 年であることから，本研究の被験者 24 名は Flege et al. (1996) の IJ よりもさら

ここでは，語彙親密度のデータと同定実験に英語力が低い英語学習者群として位置付けから得られた音素認識正答率の分析を通して，ることができる。

Flege et al. (1996) で指摘されている相対的語

刺激語は Flege et al. (1996) の実験１で使彙親密度の有用性について再検討する。

われた語頭に/ɹ/と/l/の音素対立を持つ 23 組の図１に主観的語彙親密度と相対的語彙親密

英語の一音節語ペアである（e.g., red - led,度の相関を示す。図１から，主観的語彙親密

room-loom）。そのうち３つのペアは無意味語

度と相対的語彙親密度は互いに強い相関を示を含んでいる（line - rine*, luck - ruck*, run

すことがわかるが（Spearman 𝜌𝜌 = 0.69, df =44, p < 0.01），その相関は Flege et al. (1996)- lun*）。

で報告されているほどではなかった（r = 0.75,

二肢強制選択法による同定実験では，被験df = 90, p < 0.01）。

者はヘッドフォンから単語を聴き，その単語の語頭の音が/ɹ/か/l/のどちらだったかを正確かつ迅速に判断し，指定されたキーボード上のキーを押すよう指示された。
同定実験終了後，
刺激語 46 語に対する語彙親密度も合わせて被験者より収集した。その際，Flege et al. (1996) の指摘の通り，収集方法に修正を加えた。本実験では，ミニマル・
ペアの単語を同時に被験者に提示し，それぞれの単語に語彙親密度評価を行うことで，相対的語彙親密度を直接的に得ることとした。

図 1: 主観的語彙親密度と相対的語彙親密度の相関

セッションは 2 つあり，セッションでは 23
組のミニマル・ペアに対応するトライアルが行われた。各トライアルでは，ミニマル・ペ/ɹ/と/l/の音素認識正答率と２種類の語彙親

アを画面上に２つの単語が視覚的・聴覚的に密度との相関を図２と図３に示す。スピアマ

呈示され，被験者は単語ごとに１から７のスンの順位相関係数から/ɹ/と/l/の音素認識正答率は相関的語彙親密度（Spearman 𝜌𝜌 = 0.70,

ケールで語彙親密度を判断した。例えば，df = 44, p < 0.01)）の方が主観的語彙親密度

room – loom というミニマル・ペアの場合，よりも強く相関があることが明らかになった

room に対しての語彙親密度判断と loom に対（Spearman 𝜌𝜌 = 0.55, df = 44, p < 0.01)。こしての語彙親密度判断をそれぞれ１から７ののことは，上述の通り相対的語彙親密度と主スケールで判断した。刺激語呈示の順番も考慮し，１つのミニマル・ペアに対して語彙の観的語彙親密度では互いに強い相関を持って順番が異なる２回の試行を行った（e.g. １回いるが，相対的語彙親密度の方が/ɹ/と/l/の音目：room – loom, ２回目：loom – room）。各

素認識正答率を予測するよりよい要因である

174

ことを示していると解釈できる。

100%Correct ID

80
60

EJ
IJ

40

UJ

20
0

/ɹ/

/l/

図 4: 被験者グループと音素別刺激語の音素認識正答率
図 2: 主観的語彙親密度と平均音素認識正答率（%）

2.2 の分析から相対的語彙親密度の有為性が再確認されたので，本論文では刺激語を語頭の音素と相対的語彙親密度に基づいて音素
認識正答率の分析を行うこととする。
初めに，刺激語を６つのグループに分類した。ミニマ
ル・ペアの２つの単語について一方の単語が他方よりも相対的親密度が高いグループをポ
ジティブセット，一方の単語が他方よりも相対的親密度が低いグループをネガティブセッ
ト，２つの単語が同等の相対的親密度を持つ

図 3: 相対的語彙親密度と平均音素認識正答率（%）

グループをニュートラルセットの３つに分類
し，更にそれぞれ語頭の音素ごとに下位分類

2.3 音素認識正答率分析

し た （ ポ ジ テ ィ ブ セ ッ ト ： /ɹ/-positive,

まず，刺激語の音素認識正答率を刺激語の/l/-positive; ネガティブセット：/ɹ/-negative と語頭音に分けて比較した。図 4 に本研究の日/l/-negative; ニュートラルセット：/ɹ/-neutral

本人大学生英語学習者（UJ）のデータを Flegeと/l/-neutral）。

et al. (1996) の日本人米国滞在経験者の２つ

ここからは，Flege et al. (1996)で得られた３のグループのデータ（EJ と IJ）と共に示す。

つの結果について検証を行う。初めに，相対

Flege et al. (1996) の日本人米国滞在経験者の的語彙認識度は音素認識度に影響はあるかど

データとは異なり，2 つの音素に対する音素

うかという点について検討する。図５は３段

認識正答率の差は認められなかった（F(1,23)階の相対的語彙親密度の音素認識正答率を語= 0.586, p = 0.452; 語頭が/ɹ/の刺激語：61.7%；

頭の音素ごとに示したものである。語頭が/ɹ/

語頭が/l/の刺激語：64.1%）。このことは，日で始まる刺激語の音素認識正答率は相対的語

本人大学生英語話者は Flege et al. (1996)の被彙親密度の下位グループによって異なること

験者群とは異なり，/ɹ/と/l/のどちらの音素にが明らかになった（F(2,26) = 26.257, p < 0.05;

対しても，等しく曖昧な音である可能性が高/ɹ/-positive:

いと言える。

79.3%;/ɹ/-neutral:

53.6%;/ɹ/-negative: 51.1% ）。 下 位 検 定 の 結 果 ，175

/ɹ/-positive は/ɹ/-neutral と/ɹ/-negative との間の母語話者（Inexperienced Japanese, IJ）のデー

有意差は認められたが（ともに p < 0.001 レ

タとともに表にしたものである。
Flege et al. (1996) の EJ と IJ のデータは，ポベル），/ɹ/-neutral と/ɹ/-negative との間の有意ジティブセットとネガティブセットの平均音差は認められなかった。
また，語頭が/l/で始まる刺激語の音素認識

素認識正答率の差は英語力と逆相関を示して正答率は相対的語彙親密度の下位グループにいる。ポジティブセットとネガティブセット

よって異なることが明らかになった（F(2, 26)の平均音素認識正答率の差はIJ が30%であるのに対し，EJ は 15%であった。つまり，英語= 27.091, p < 0.05; /l/-positive: 78.3%; /l/-neutral:

力が低いほど，ポジティブセットとネガティ

68.8%; /l/-negative: 46.3%）。下位検定の結果，ブセットの平均音素認識正答率の差は大きく全てのグループ間で有意差が認められた（p <なるということである。このことは IJ の方が0.001 レベル）
。これらの結果は，日本人大学

EJ よりも相対的語彙親密度の影響を強く受生英語学習者の英語の語頭の/ɹ/と/l/の音素認

けていることを示している。

識正答率は相対的語彙親密度の低い語彙より

本研究の日本人大学生英語学習者（UJ）のも相対的語彙親密度の高い語彙の方が高いこ

ポジティブセットとネガティブセットの平均とから導き出される結果１と一致するもので音素認識正答率はそれぞれ 78.6%と 48.7%で%Correct ID

ある。
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

あり，その差は 29.9%であった。ポジティブ
セットとネガティブセットの平均音素認識正答率の差は EJ と比較すると倍以上の差であったが，IJ との差は認められなかった。米国
滞在経験の長い日本語母語話者（EJ）よりもPositive

日本人大学生英語学習者のほうが相対的語彙

Neutral

親密度の影響を強く受けることがこの結果はNegative示している。今回の実験結果は Flege et al.
(1996) の結果２と同様の結果であるといえ/ɹ/る。また，IJ と日本人英語学習者（UJ）の英/l/

語力の差がこの指標で示せなかったことにつ

図 5: 音素と３段階の相対的語彙親密度（Positive, Neutral,

いては，両者の英語力の違いを区別する別のNegative）別音素認識正答率

指標の存在を示唆するものである。

次に，英語力の違いにより，相対的語彙認

表 1: 平均音素認識正答率

識度は英語力の低い人ほど影響を受けるという結果２の検証は，ポジティブセットとネガ
ティブセットの平均音素認識正答率の差を比較することで可能となる。表１は本研究の日
本 人 大 学 生 英 語 学 習 者 （ Undergraduate
Japanese, UJ）のポジティブセットとネガティ

Positive

Negative

Difference

EJ

91.0%

76.0%

15.0%

IJ

85.0%

55.0%

30.0%

UJ

78.6%

48.7%

29.9%

最後に Flege et al. (1996) の仮説から導き出

ブセットの平均音素認識正答率とその差をされた相対的語彙親密度は曖昧性が高い音のFlege et al. (1996)の米国滞在歴が長い日本

ほうがより強く影響するという結果３につい人母語話者（EJ）と米国滞在歴が短い日本人

176

て検討した。具体的には，音素認識正答率にの結果は合致している。従って，Flege et al.

よって/ɹ/と/l/のどちらが曖昧性の高い音であ(1996) から導き出される結果３を支持する

るかを判断し，それぞれのポジティブセット

ものであると結論付けることができる。

とネガティブセットの平均音素正答率の差を3. まとめと展望比較した。Flege et al. (1996) の結果では，ポジティブセットとネガティブセットの平均音

本研究では，Flege et al. (1996) で主張され

素認識正答率の差と音素の知覚の曖昧性に起ている相対的語彙親密度の有用性を，日本人因する音素認識正答率とは逆相関が成り立つ

大学生英語学習者を対象とした実験結果ととされる。/ɹ/と/l/の平均音素認識正答率とポFlege et al. (1996)で導き出された３つの結果

ジティブセットとネガティブセットの平均音を検討することにより再検証した。今回の結素認識正答率の差をそれぞれ表２と表３に示果は Flege et al. (1996)の結果と合致しており，す。

Flege et al. (1996)の主張する相対的語彙親密度の実在性を支持するものであった。
表 2: 平均音素認識正答率の比較

今後の研究の方向性を２点挙げておきたい。

EJ&IJ/ɹ/ (84%) > /l/ (70%)

まずは，異なる実験手法を駆使した多角的な

UJ/ɹ/ (61.7%) ≒ /l/ (64.1%)

相対的語彙親密度の実在性検証の必要性である。反応時間の分析や分別実験結果を検討す

表 3: ポジティブセットとネガティブセットの平均音素ることにより，更なる相対的語彙親密度の有認識正答率の差の比較

用性について包括的に検討が必要であろう。

EJ&IJ/ɹ/ (13%) < /l/ (32%)

また，音素知覚における相対的語彙親密度

UJ/ɹ/ (28.2%) ≒ /l/ (31.0%)と英語学習者の英語力との関係の解明も必要である。本研究では，日本人大学生英語学習

米国滞在日本人被験者（IJ と EJ の両方）の者（UJ）と Flege et al. (1996) の米国滞在歴が場合，/ɹ/の平均音素認識正答率の差（13%）

短い日本人母語話者（IJ）は相対的語彙親密は/l/の平均音素認識正答率の差（32%）より

度に影響を同程度受けているにも関わらず，も低いが，それぞれの音素に対する音素認識

語頭の音の認識正答率に差が生じているとい

正答率は/ɹ/（84%）の方が/l/（70%）よりもうとても興味深い結果が得られた。しかしな

高く，逆相関が成り立っている。
これに対し，

がら，逆相関を示すポジティブセットとネガ

日本人大学生英語学習者（UJ）の場合，/ɹ/のティブセットの音素認識正答率の差と音素のポジティブセットとネガティブセットの平均

知覚の曖昧性に起因する音素認識正答率が英

音素認識正答率の差（28.2%）は/l/のポジティ

語力とどのように関わっているかについてはブセットとネガティブセットの平均音素認識

明らかになっていない。更なる検証が求めら

正答率の差（31%）とほぼ同等であり，それれる。

ぞれの音素に対する平均音素認識正答率もほぼ同じであった（語頭が/ɹ/の刺激語：61.7%；

参考文献

語頭が/l/の刺激語：64.1%）。音素の知覚の曖

Dickerson, Lorna (1974) Internal and External

昧性に起因する音素認識正答率が同等な場合，

Pattering of Phonological Variability in the

ポジティブセットとネガティブセットの音素

Speech of Japanese Learns of English:

認識正答率の差も同等であると予測と本実験

Toward a Theory of Second-language

177

Acquisition.
dissertation,

Unpublished
University

Ph.D.

of

Illinois,

Urbana-Champaign.
Flege, James E., Naoyuki Takagi and Virginia
Mann (1996) “Lexical familiarity andEnglish-language experience affect Japanese
adults’ perception of /ɹ/ and /l/,” Journal of
AcousticalSocietyof

America99(2),

1161-1173.
Goto, Hiromu (1971) “Auditory perception bynormal Japanese adults of the sounds ‘L’ and‘R’,” Neuropsychologia 9, 317-323.
Sheldon, Amy and Winifred Strange (1982)“The acquisition of /r/ and /l/ by Japaneselearners of English: Evidence that speech
production can precede speech segmentation,”
Applied Psychology 3, 243-261.
Yamada, Reiko, Yoh’ichi Tohkura, and Noriko
Kobayashi (1992) “An effect of wordfamiliarity

onnon-native

phonemeperception: Identification of English /r/, /l/and /w/ by native speakers of Japanese,”
Second Language Speech, ed by Allan Jamesand Jonathan Leather, 103-118, Mouton de
Gruyter, The Hague.

178

て機能していることを主張する。
2. 背景：談話における文法
英語の話しことばでは、because, when, if
文法と談話のインターフェイス：「孤独な」のような接続詞に導かれる副詞節が、主節をif 節をめぐって伴わないことがある。書きことばの視点から

The Interface between Grammar and Discourse:

は、一見逸脱しているように見えるが、会話

Centering on Isolate if clauseを言語使用の場面に即して分析すると、従属
節と主節という関係性ではなく、複数の節連

吉田悦子 (Etsuko Yoshida)鎖の中で、独立したターンとして機能し、連三重大学 (Mie University)

続したプロセスの一形式とみなすのが可能なケースがある。こうした「従属節の主節化」

キーワード：if 節、従属節の主節化、対話、と 言 わ れ る 現 象 に つ い て は 、 ‘the

談話、相互行為、語用論

conventionalized main use of what, on prima
facie

grounds,

appeartobeformally

subordinate clauses’ 「形式的には一見明白な基準で従属節のように見えるものの慣習化

1. はじめにされた主節用法」 (Evans 2007: 367；堀江・

本稿の目的は、後続の主節を前提としな

パルデシ 2009）と説明される。

い英語の条件節が「孤独な」独立節を形成していることに注目し、文法と談話のインター

さらに、変異の視点から、Cheshire（ 2005：

フェイスを実現する語用論的なメカニズム82)は相互行為の談話において用いられる定の一端を明らかにすることである。こうした形化した(prefabricated) 構造が、統語的変異

if 節の働きは、「不完全」な「省略」ではの分析に結びついていることを指摘し、なく、「独立節」のようにふるまい、主節用

discourse-oriented analysis の必要性を議論し法として相互行為に基づく構文パターンへている。

と慣用化されていく過程を含んでおり(Stirling 1998)、談話の展開に応じた節連鎖

3．事例分析：独立節としての「孤独な」if

を 形 成 し て い る と 考 え ら れ る (Miller and節

Weinert 1998/2009; Miller 2011)。分析は、自まず、利用した対話データは 1990 年代に然会話データの観察に基づき、標準英語、非エディンバラ大学で開発された大規模な対標準的変種、
フィンランド語 jos ‘if’節 (Laury

話コーパスプロジェクト（HCRC 地図課題対2012)、対応する日本語における類似の構文

話コーパス）を基盤としているが（オリジナ

形式 (大野・ジョーンズ 2005)などを比較す

ルコーパス）、その後、異なるデザインで新る方法をとる。そして、こうした独立節 if

たに実験をおこなって収集したスコットラ

節は、指示や、要求、提案という発話行為

ンド英語 8 対話分のコーパスである。この新を伝達しながら、聞き手の反応をとらえつ

しい対話データがオリジナルのコーパスとつ、会話を構築しようとする相互行為的な異なる点は, 地図に描かれている目標物に働きと密接に結びついていることを指摘す

名前をつけていないことである。このため二る。さらにこうした従属節の主節化ともいえ名の対話者は互いに協力して地図の目標物

る現象は、談話の開始部や転換部の合図としの名前を決定しながら対話を進めることが179

求められる（詳細は吉田 2002 を参照）。
従来、if 節には以下のような３つのタイ(3)プが認められるが、Type 3 が問題となる：

TA 49: {m erm} If you just draw a line along
the bottom

Type 1. conditional clause + main clause

TB 50: Of the page?

Type 2. main clause + conditional clauseTA 51: < Yes. Until you're level with where /Type 3. standing conditional clause only

TB 52: right
TA 53: the diagram is. >この Type 3 の例を見てみよう。

TB 54: Okey dokey.

(1)
(4)

TA 3: If you go down to the bottom left hand

TA 78: Well, are you able {a t}... If you bringcorner of your page,
TB 4: Aha.

your line up the right hand side,

TA 5: do you have a van?

andbring it round and over.
(Lleq4c8)

TB 79: < Those funny objects, sort of buildings,(2)/

TA 61：If you go {a t} between the mountain

TA 80: Yeah, up over the top of it.
TB 81: ruins, things. >and the trees.
TB 62: Right.

TA 82: Right.

TA 63: And then you go down below the trees
towards the right hand side,(5)
TA 157：Right. If you... Do you have a cross(Lleq4c9)

with a {c finish}?
TB 158：No.

まず、この分類に従うと、地図課題対話

TA 159：Right. Do you have a... a... I don't

データの if 節 64 例(8 対話分)のうち、40 例

really know what it is, it looks like a...

の Type3 が認められた（Yoshida 2011）。オ

TB 160：Got a level crossing or something, like

リジナルコーパスのデータにおいては、90afence.

例の if 節のうち、59 例の Type3 が認められ(Lleq4c2)ており(Miller and Weinert 1998/2009)、いずれも T3 の頻度が顕著であった。こうした帰次に、こうした if 節の特徴的構文には、結節をもたない「孤独な」if 節の主な伝達

If you go to. . .;機能は、協働作業において伝えられる教示

you (just) draw a line . . . ; If you continue that

や、やんわりとした命令、指示(directives）

line . . .

という行為を示す。この教示は、典型的に

move . . .

発話開始時に現れ、指示から情報とりのた

場所への誘導表現である。そして、 談話要めの質問というプロセスへの連鎖や（1）、素（＝地図の目標物）を導入する前の、バッ指示からさらに次の指示へと移っている連

クグラウンドとして 機能しており、しかも鎖へと引き継がれる（2）。さらに以下の例

ほぼすべてが直説法である。

をあげておく。

If youtake your pen . . . ; If

; If you bring your line . . .

; If youが多く含まれ、これらは、方向や続いて、If 節の後続に注目して、If 節では180

じまる発話連鎖パターンのタイプを調べる

なう話し手の戦略やポライトネスの意識、と以下のような 5 つの連鎖が認められる:

対話者間の親近性などもかかわっている可I.

Do you have / Have you got～で談話能性を示している。

要素を導入:例(1)II.

There’s / There’s no ～で談話要素を導Type of Conditional Clauses in Map Task Dialogues

入、あるいは位置の描写：例(3)III.

Directives の連鎖(e.g. you go down

25…)に続き、I や II でのパターンが後続 :

20

例(2)
IV.

15

作業者による共同発話で、談話要素を導入する:例(4)T3 <conditional only>
T2 <main-conditional>
T1 <conditional-main>10

V. false start を経て、I のパターンへ直続:

5

例(5)
0

さらに、談話的特徴 として、(1) 談話セ

4c1 4c2 4c3 4c4 4c5 4c6 4c8 4c9

グメントの冒頭に出現すること、(2) 聞き手の確認を要する点、（あいづちによる認定）

ここでは 3 節の分析をふまえて、類似の(3) 音調は下降調であること（聞き手は帰結機能をもつ他言語の例を取り上げ、言語類節を期待していない）から、if-節は、聞き手型的な特徴を探ってみる。まず、独立節とに対して新しい談話要素を導入する前に必しての if 節と関連する機能を共有する事例

要なバックグラウンドを提示する機能をもと考えられるフィンランド語の jos ‘if’節は、

つことが予測される。つまり、こうした独

insubordinate で suspending である構文とし

立節の if 節が伝達しているのは、指示するて提示され（Laury 2012）、談話内で様々なという行為に伴い、聞き手の反応をとらえ提案や要求を表すことが指摘されている。

ようとする相互行為的な働きであるといえLaury(2012)の分析では、こうした jos ‘if’節る。

は、全体 42 例のうち 24 例を占めることが報告され、さらに節連鎖において、他の談話標識と結びつき、話題を制御したり、発

4．考察
では、ジャンルという視点から、独立的話 権 を 保 持 す る 役 割 を 担 っ て い る (Lauryif 節は課題遂行対話で多用される特徴的なand Ono 2014)。

発話パターンであるが、自由会話ではどう

次に、このフィンランド語 jos 節とスウだろうか。また、指示(directive) としての if-ェーデン語の if 節の例 om 節を比較した

節はどんな環境で選択されるのだろうか。

Laury, Lindholm and Lindström (2013)による

確かに、課題遂行対話では if 節の「指示」と、jos 節 (Fn)と om 節（Sw)の独立的用法の用法が顕著だが、すべてのデータに同様

は、合わせて 134 例で、このうち、79 例がに見られるというわけではない。以下のグ

directives の機能を示している。いずれも、

ラフに示されるように、8 対話のうち、5 対

主に依頼として dispreferred action を伴う場

話では、条件節による指示タイプは 3 例以合いに用いられる例が見られる。まず、フ下にすぎない (Yoshida 2011)。このことは、ィンランド語の例を見てみる。

Type3 の用法の生起には談話に新要素を導入することを想定して指示(directive)をおこ

181

05B:

(6)

[a:h (.) jasá::‘Oh, I see.’09 Missu:
niij jos tota, te Maksasitte(261)

sittem meille

さらに、業務的な相互行為（医者と患者のtakas.
PRT ifPRT

then

1Pl.-ALL backやりとり） では、診療という場で日常的な2Pl. pay-COND-2Pl.

行為に対する要求を伝える例がある：‘So if um, you would pay us back then.’(9)
10 Anna:

05 so om dujoo-o ? totta

kai.

PRT

PRT

true –PARslappnar

dár

PRT

there

sá
so if

you relax-PRS

so‘Yeah, of course’‘So, if you relax there then.’(247)

06 ((4 s.pause. L(doctor)
同様に、私的な電話会話におけるスウェー
デン語

av

twists P(patient)’sarms))

om 節による依頼の例では、依頼された行為が相手にとって負担になることが

ここでは行為としておこなうことがより慣示唆されている。

習化している点に特徴があり、地図課題対話と同様、直説法が用いられている。
また、本来なら従属節として用いられ(7)る節が、独立節を形成している例は、以下

06Ｃ:
om du
hámta
if

kan
mej

áka

のように when 節にも見られ、導入された話

á

題について再度言及し、注意を喚起する働

dá

きがある。

you can. PRS go-INF and fetch –INF

me then‘if you could come and pick me up then.’(10) (the boys are talking about one of their

07T: mm.

teachers, who was married to someone I knew.
Jenny (me) was the fieldworker)

しかし一方で、次の例のように相手にとっNobby: yeah Miss Threadgold she ain’t badてむしろ好ましいといえる申し出の場合もRob: yeah she.she went camping with usある。

Jenny: yes he told me she’d been camping
Nobby: when we went camping(8)

Rob: she’s a good laugh

03A:

Jenny: is she?

= att

om du skulle

That

if

sitta

Nobby: yeah

dä:r(Cheshire 2005, 91)

you will.COND sit-INF there‘If you could sit there’
04

de e

Cheshire は、if 節と同様、独立的 when 節をbättre siolar där

特別な主節構文ととらえ、話し手が、会話をit be. PRS better chair-PL. there‘There are

展開させるような話題を始める合図として

better chairs over there.’182提示されていると分析する。そして、導入され た 話 題 に つ い て 再 度 言 及 し (echoing the同様にとらえると、「けど」「で」「て」「たwords)、共有された思い出を語る展開につなら」は、次のように地図課題対話においても

１

げられる。

連鎖が見られる。

次のような独立的 because 節においても、
because は談話標識として導入され、協同発(13)話(co-construction)を形成している。

06:01:740-06:01:910 G:*で 06:02:700-06:05:270 G:こんどは*きたに<250>いくんです(11)

A: The races that we call primitive andけどthe ones that are conserving the world.

06:03:300-06:05:310 F:

B: Cos they adapt to it.

<280>はい(Biber et al. 1999:835)*ん<230>はいきたに

06:08:240-06:09:350 G:のつりばし 06:11:050-06:12:380 G:をとおりたいんですけど*おこうした節連鎖の談話機能に注目し、話し手

06:12:210-06:14:130 F:の発話意図と聞き手の解釈に委ねられた相つりばしをとおるんですねつぎは互行為として構文を分析することは意義が*あっ<240>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 中略あるだろう。

06:24:530-06:27:340 G:+つりばしをわたるところ*までま最後に、日本語の類例についてだが、あたこう

まり顕著ではないが、条件節を導く「と」06:25:780-06:26:540 F:の形式が類似の機能をもっている可能性が

06:27:770-06:28:470 F:こをえがく

ある： G:よんせんちぐらいきたにいくと

06:29:000-06:29:120 F:ん

F:んはい(cd) この他、教示を導く節形式と*はいはい 06:29:340-06:31:340 G:まっすぐじゃなくて*かーぶするか

して「て」「けど」が多用され、節連鎖をんじで形成している。大野･ジョーンズ (2005）で06:30:270-06:30:590F:*はいは、形式の使用頻度に差があることが報告さ>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>中略

れている（「たら」48.0％;「と」25.4%;「ば」

 06:50:930-06:54:860 G:*でつりばしの<310>わた

24.3%;「なら」2.3%）。実際の例では、条件

る<290>でふ<350>つりばしをわたっ*て節の形式が時間を表していて、「たら」や「と」06:54:780-06:56:070F:が使用され、連続した節連鎖を形成し、発話<200>わったっ<280>て権の保持が意図されている２：*はい06:56:260-06:57:420 G:わたりおえた*ら
06:57:210-06:57:470 F:

(12)

*はい

07:00:770-07:01:620 G:んと
 07:02:670-07:05:790 G:また*まっすぐじゃなくてちょっ

A:あいちゃん知ってるって[言われて]K:とまるいかんじで[うん]

A: 何とか言ったら

07:03:350-07:03:570 F:

*はい

K: うん
A: あたしは実は昨日聞いてね

ま た 、 仮 説 の シ ナ リ オ (hypothetical

すごいびっくりしちゃったんだけどとか言

scenario)と呼ばれる、現実に体験するかもしってれなかった仮想の出来事にふれる談話の中で、日本語条件節の連鎖が用いられ、同じ経（大野･ジョーンズ 2005）

183

験を共有するプロセスの一つとしてとらえ

リオでの用法は、例(10)の when 節の用法とが使用。直示用法的（ ‘You know the time thatsuch-and –such happened’ in Miller 2011)使用が見られる。
２
なかでも、条件節の多くが接続詞として形類似しており、話題の再開という談話上の共式化、語彙化している。（「そうしたら」「そられることを秦（2014）が指摘している。このように過去の時間を共有する仮説のシナ３通性がある。

うすると」「それなら」など） 。また、接続詞以外で語彙化、慣用句化した例が 34 例

5．結び

（e.g.たとえば、ひょっとしたら、どっちか

自然対話理解のプロセスは、相互行為に基って言うと、できるなら、など）示されていづく構文パターンと密接に結びついているる。
ことを見てきた。相互行為における if 節の東日本大震災の当日に英国から日本にフ役割として（1）形式的には 独立節‘if 節’は、 ライトする予定だった女性（A さん）について、C さんと B さんが、その共有している経主節であり、場面に応じて慣用化した定形表
験に言及して、再び話題を開始している部分現である。（2）語用論的な発話の力により、に独立条件節が用いられている（3C, 4B）。
(間接的な）指示、依頼、提案として示され
1. C「いちお：さ：：よかったよね」（←Aる。 （3）談話標識として、聞き手の注意をの実体験の評価付けを先取り。）
喚起し、談話の方向付けをおこなっている。 2. A：(.)ま：：ね：：↑（.）[前の日だったら
そして、基本の定形表現が創発的に発話され、
3. C： [前の日とか周辺の表現と発話連鎖をくりかえすことで、
4. B： [いちんち前だったら談話標識のようにふるまう現象としてとら
5. C：前日だったらもっと (.) 何時？ 昼か
6. B：降りたら(.) 降りたらすぐ地震があった
えられる。したがって、節連鎖のプロセスにくらいじゃないですか
おいて役割があり、「孤独」ではない。
３

今後の課題としては、こうした分析を可能にする 2 つの言語観に注目し: (1) 理想の話

参照文献

し手という固定観念を捨てた言語理念、言語

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech,の変異をもとらえた「マグナ・シンタックス

Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan (1999)(magnasyntax)」の考え（Miller 2011）およびLongman Grammar of Spoken and Written(2) 日本語の事例を分析した「多重文法」(岩English, Pearson Education, Essex.

崎印刷中)のモデル[「話し言葉」、「書きCheshire, Jenny (2005) “Syntactic variation and

言葉」の違いは認知論的に解明されるべきと

spokenいう立場（特に形式名詞「こと」の分析）で、Variation : Reconciling the2 つの違った文法体系、つまり多重文法、がand the Social, ed. by Leonie Cornips and

個人話者の中に存在し、影響し合うしくみを

Karen P. Corrigan, 81-106,

考察するアプローチ。]を参照し、本稿で扱

Benjamins, Philadelphia.

った現象とどう関連づけられるかについて、考察を進めたい。

language,”

Syntaxand

BiologicalJohn

Cumming, Susanna, Tsuyoshi Ono and Ritva
Laury (2006/2011) “Discourse, Grammar
and Interaction,” Discourse Studies: A
Multidisciplinary１

データ：自由会話（12-16 –year-old working
class adolescents in Reading, UK）で男性のみ

Introduction(2ndedition) ed. by Teun A. Van Dijk, 8-36,

184

Laury, Ritva and Ono Tsuyoshi (2014) “The

Sage.
Evans, Nicholas (2007) “Insubordination and its
uses,”

Finiteness:

empirical

Theoreticalfoundations,

ed.

by

limits of grammar: Clause combining in

andFinnishIrina

Pragmatics 24: 3, 561-592.

Nikolaeva, 366-431, Oxford University

andJapaneseconversation,”

Miller, Jim (2011) A Critical Introduction to

Press, Oxford.

Syntax. Continuum, London.

秦かおり(2014) 「国外在留邦人が語る東日

Miller, Jim and Regina Weinert (1998/2009)

本大震災: 対面の場における意見交 渉

Spontaneous Spoken Language. Syntaxの過程とアイデンティティ表出を分析

and Discourse (2nd ed.), Clarendon Press,

する」，『言語文化研究』40，123-142，

Oxford.

大阪大学.

大野剛・キンバリー・ジョーンズ（2005）「文堀江薫・パルデシ・プラシャント(2009)『言法規則の使用と形式の選択の実

語のタイポロジー－認知類型論のアプ

際：会話における「条件節」の観察ローチ－』研究社, 東京.

から」，南雅彦編『言語学と日本語教

Iwasaki,Shoichi

育 IV』，73-85, くろしお出版, 東京.

(forthcoming)“Multiple-Grammar Model for Speaker’s

Stirling, Lesley (1998) “Isolated if-clauses in

Linguistic Knowledge”

Australian English,” The Clause in English,
ed. by Peter Collins and David Lee,

岩崎勝一（印刷中）「多重文法」，林宅男(編)『講座

273-294, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

言語研究の革新と継承: 語 用

Thompson, Sandra and Paul Hopper (2001)

論』，ひつじ書房, 東京.
Laury,

Ritva(2012)

Non-Integrated
Conditional

FinnishClauses“Transitivity,“Syntacticallyasjosargument‘if’

Cross-linguistic

Conversation:
Perspective,

non-integrated

conditional

Yoshida, Etsuko (2011) Referring Expressions

inin English and Japanese: Patterns of use indialogue

231-270,

processing,Amsterdam.

quasi-subordination:

Helsinki LXXXVI, ed. by Eva Havu andHyvärinen,

the241-249，三重大学.

“Syntactically

Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de
Irma

and

作成：報告」，『人文論叢』第 19 号,

and Contrasting Syntactic Structures. FromtoFrequency

話コーパスの概要と転記テキストのspoken Finnish and Swedish,” Comparing
dependencyfrom吉田悦子(2002)「日本語名称なし地図課題対Johnclauses

Evidence

Benjamins, Amsterdam. 27-59.

A

Laury, Ritva, Camilla Lindholm and Jan(2013)

structure:

Joan Bybee and Paul Hopper, 27-59, John

Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Lindström

andEmergence of Linguistic Structure, ed. by

Laury, Ritva. and Ryoko Suzuki, eds. (2011)
instructure,

conversation,”

Directives,”

Discourse Processes 49, 213-242.
Subordination

clauseSociétéNéophilologique, Helsinki.

185

John

Benjamins,

exceptions as given in (2).
(2) a. Whati did John arrive[whistling ti ] ?
(Borgonovo and Neeleman 2000: 200)b. Whati did John drive Mary
crazy [whistling ti ] ?

A Contrast between the Finite andthe Non-finite Adjuncts on Extraction(Truswell 2007a: 1357)
As is clear from (2), it has been reported

Riichi Yoshimura
Graduate School of Kyushu Universitythat extraction of wh-elements fromnon-finite adjuncts is possible in some

Keywords: Adjunct Condition, defective CP
structure, phase theory

cases. We will investigate what motivates
this (un-)grammatical contrast between (1)and (2) to arise focusing on the adjunction
positions and underlying structures of therelevant adjuncts in the sections below.

1. Introduction
This paper aims to attest that a contrast
between the finite and the non-finite
adjuncts on extraction is derived from theiradjunction sites and the difference of theirinner structures. In general, it isprohibited to extract any elements fromfinite adjuncts which appear at the end of
the sentence as shown in (1).
(1) a. * Which cari, will Michelle’s

2. Previous Work2.1. Condition on Extraction Domain
In this section, we will take a generalview of Condition on Extraction Domain(CED) advocated by Huang (1982). CED isformulated
under
the
descriptive
generalization in (4) to capture theexamples of Subject Condition in (5a) andAdjunct Condition in (6b) in a uniform
manner.
(3) Condition on Extraction Domain
A phrase A may be extracted out of a

insurance premium increase
if she buys ti?
b. * Rich’s sports cari, Michelle’s
insurance premium will
increase if she buys ti.
(Taylor 2007: 191)c. * Whoi did John come backbefore I had a chance to talkto ti ?
(Huang 1982: 497)
d. * Whoi did Mary cry after Peterdomain B only if B is properly
governed.
(Huang 1982: 505)(4) α properly governs β iff α governs β,
and (a) or (b):(a) α is lexical (N, V, A, P but not I
or C)(Lexical Government)

hit ti ?
(ibid.: 503)
e. * Whoi do you sleep because
John saw ti ?
(Hunter 2011: 124)
For example, (1a) shows that extraction ofwhich car out of the sentence-final if-clauseis illegitimate. This is so-called the effect of
Adjunct Condition. However, there are(b) α is co-indexed with β(Antecedent Government)(5) a.?* Whoi did [pictures of ti]
please you?
(Huang 1982: 22)b. * Whoi did Mary cry [after
Peter hit ti] ?
(ibid.: 503)
The definition of “proper government” in186leads this example to the unacceptability of
extracting the wh-element from thelanguages as long as he investigates
although there are gaps in acceptability on
extraction out of a subject among
languages. Let us look over his analysis for
Adjunct Condition below. Stepanov (2001,
2007) indicates there are two types ofmergers: Substitution Merge and Pair
Merge. He suggests that it is required to

adjunct clause.
The analysis based on CED faces

apply a less-loading merger (Substitution
Merge) in priority to the heavier one (Pairtheoretical and empirical challenges in
addition to the fact that this approach is

Merge) employing Least Tampering
Condition (LTC) in (6) devised by Chomsky

not consistent with the latest minimalist
theory. Firstly, CED forces a subordinate(2000).
(6) Least Tampering Condition (LTC)
Given a choice of operations
applying to a syntactic object
labeled α, select one that does notchange @ (α). @ (X): a set ofc-command relations in a syntactic
object labeled X.
(Stepanov 2001: 102)
(cf. Chomsky 2000: 137)
On that basis, he proposes Late Adjunction
Hypothesis (LAH) which enforces theapplication of adjunction (Pair Merge) only
after all applications of Substitution Merge
complete in a derivation. The situation inwhich all operations of Substitution Merge
are exhausted is defined as the one that allkinds of syntactic operations are enforced
except for Pair Merge and just before
spelling out. Hence, the operation of
adjunction (Pair Merge) is applied in acounter-cyclic way.

(3) is depicted in (4). Let us check how CED
works taking up a concrete example. The
adjunct after-clause in (5b) is not lexically
governed by the verb cry in its main clause.
That is, the adjunct clause is not properly
governed. The unsatisfiability of CED

clause to be properly governed by a lexical
head as we saw in (5b), but it is obscure
why the possibility of extracting a elementfrom a subordinate clause totally relies on
the relevant lexical heads. Secondly, CED
cannot capture examples which show thatmovement of some elements from a subject
or an adjunct is available since thisapproach is created under the assumptionthat any extraction out of subject andadjunct positions is fully banned. As
Stepanov (2007) points out, there are somecases where displacement of an item from asubject is permitted in natural languages.
CED falsely precludes those valid
examples. For the reasons denoted above,
CED is not the best way to explain thecontrast between in (1) and (2).
2.2. Late Merger Analysis
We will review the late merger analysis
proposed by Stepanov (2001, 2007).
Grounded on the issues of CED, he insiststhat it is not appropriate to deal with
Subject Condition and Adjunct Conditionin the same manner. According to
Stepanov’s conclusion, Adjunct Condition
seems to be a universal condition for all(7) Late Adjunction Hypothesis
Any adjunction must take place
after
all
applicationsofsubstitution Merge have applied.
(Stepanov 2007: 110-112)
Now, we will see how Stepanov’s analysis
works taking a look at the examples in (8).

187

(8) a. How/ ?With what did John fix
the car?
b.*What did John go to bed after
Peter fixed?
(Stepanov: 2007: 112-113)
In (8b), extracting wh-element what fromthe adjunct after-clause results in theungrammaticality. As reviewed above, theoperation of adjunction (Pair Merge) must
be applied only after all applications of
Substitution Merge complete. In short, thismeans that C head in the root clause is notwhere displacement cannot occur. In thetheoretical perspective, it is not obvious
how to reflect the existence of the relevant
uninterpretable feature on the label of an
adjunct. Even if a certain mechanism
ensures the way, the conceptual groundstill remains opaque. Furthermore, under
LAH, it is not possible to cover the cases in(2) where extraction out of adjunct clauses
is allowed. In (2), the related adjunctconstructions must counter-cyclically takepart in their derivations because it is quite

accessible to the relevant wh-element due
to the consequence that all applications of
Substitution Merge are finished and the
adjunct clause post-cyclically takes part in
the derivation. It is, therefore, not possible
to displace the wh-phrase out of the
adjunct clause in (8b). As for the case in(8a), Stepanov argues that the optionalityof Substitution Merge or Pair Merge for an
adjunct depends onwhether it has anuninterpretable wh-feature or not. While
how and with what in (8a) haveuninterpretable wh-features, after in (8b)does not have it. Accordingly, Substitution
Merge is applied to how and with what in(8a) and they can be cyclically taken into

unlikely to make an assumption that theparticipial
constructions
have
uninterpretable wh-features. This leads us
to expect that it is impossible to move anelement out of the adjunct construction,
but this prediction is clearly wrong.
Bearing these issues in mind, we will see anovel approach presented in this paper
next section.

displaceable to the specifier of CP. To sum
up, Stepanov’s approach can nicely account

3. Proposals
3.1. Inner Structure of Finite Adjuncts
In this section, we assert that there are
two types of finite adjuncts employing
Haegeman (2006). One is Central
Adverbial Clause give in (9) and the otheris Peripheral Adverbial Clause shown in(10). The former has a modifying function
to the events represented in a main clause.
In other words, it works as a relation of

for Adjunct Condition by postulating LAH
in (7) since it forces an adjunct which does

cause and effect. It does not have an
independent ForceP, so that it depends on

not have an uninterpretable wh-feature tojoin in a derivation counter-cyclically.

its root clauses. On the other hand, thelatter provides background information orevidence of assertion in a main clause.
Therefore, it has an independent ForceP.
(9) Central Adverbial Clause:
It contains a function ofmodifying events/states of affairs
expressed in the main clause andthe derivation. As a result, they can beaccessed by C head in the main clause andHowever, there are some theoretical andempirical issues for his analysis, too. His
analysis needs to assume there is an
uninterpretable wh-feature available in thecase where movement out of the clause ispossible, but it is not the case for the one188has no illocutionary force in its
own structure.
(10) Peripheral Adverbial Clause:It
expresses
anindependent
proposition that serves as theimmediate discourse backgroundto the associated clause andpossesses its own illocutionary
force independent from the mainclause.
(Haegeman 2006: 29 -36)
The specific examples are exhibited inapproach to things.
b.* I didn’t drop the class because
frankly I didn’t like it, I
dropped it because it was too
expensive.
(Haegeman 2006: 32)
The high adverb frankly which is
associated with an illocutionary act andassumed to adjoin to a CP layer can appear
in the Peripheral Adverbial Clause in (12a)but it is not the case for Central Adverbial
Clause in (12b). Secondly, an imperative(11). Let us observe their characteristics
below.
(11) a. If your back-supporting
muscles tire, you will be atincreased risk of lower-backpain.
b. If we are so short of teachers(‘Jobs crisis grows as new termlooms’, August 30), why don’t
we send our children toGermany to be educated?
(Haegeman 2006: 29)
In (11a), the finite adjunct clause modifies
its main clause and expresses the causal
linkage. This type of the finite adjunct iscalled Central Adverbial Clause. In (11b),

form can be utilized in the Peripheral
Adverbial Clause in (13).
(13) The students should have enoughmoney, although remember weare expecting a drop in thedepartment funding.
(Haegeman 2006: 32)
From the above, we may conclude that
there is syntactic distinctness between
Central and Peripheral Adverbial Clauses.
The difference can be summarized as
below.
(14) a. Central Adverbial Clause:
Sub Mod* Fin
b. Peripheral Adverbial Clause:
Sub Force Top* Focus Mod* Finon the other hand, the finite adjunct clauseindicates the background or the basis for

What is most crucial is that there is a
projection of Force in Peripheral Adverbial

the utterance in the root clause. This kindof the finite adjunct is regarded as

Clause but not in Central Adverbial Clause.
Once we look back at the date in (1), we

Peripheral Adverbial Clause. These are
distinct differences between these adjunctcome to realize that they are all classified
into the cases of Central Adverbial Clause.

clauses. Firstly, we will see distribution of ahigh adverb frankly in (12).

Then, we assume they do not have ForcePin their finite adjunct clauses. In addition,(12) a. [A referendum on a united
Ireland]…will be a good thing,

we also suppose that CP and vP are phases
and they respectively inherit various

because frankly they need tobe taken down a peg and comefeatures to the lower heads T and V
following Chomsky (2000, 2004, 2008). In

down to earth and be a little
bit more sober in their

this paper, we consider the highest
projection ForceP in the articulated CP

189domain has an edge feature and it is adriving force for some items to move up. As
for a phi-feature, it is inherited from Finhead to the lower T head. The relevant
derivation is described below.
(15) * Which cari, will Michelle’s
insurance premium increase
if she buys ti? (= (1a))

it is allowed to displace some elementsfrom Peripheral Adverbial Clause because
they have the driving force. Interestingly,
this prediction is proved to be correct byfollowing examples.
(17) a. Mike Daisey. His one-manshow about Apple is going backon stage this month in New
York at the Public Theater. The
full show has this entire otherstory line about Steve Jobs
[that you will have to buy atheater ticket [if you want tohear __ ]].
b.? The book, which [if you
study__ thoroughly], you will
surely pass the exam is now
available in the bookstore.
(http://arnoldzwicky.org/2012/01/
26/extraction-from-adverbial-sub
ordinate-clause/)
In (17), both two examples are classified
into Peripheral Adverbial Clauses based on
the definition in (10) and a syntactic test

The derivation in (15) is the case of Central
Adverbial Clause. The wh-phrase which
car moves from its base position to the edge
of vP due to the edge feature lying on v
head. At the next CP stage, there is not an
escape hatch for the wh-phrase since weassume that this kind of the finite adjunctclause does not have an edge feature which
is a driving force. As a result, the relevant
wh-phrase is left in the transfer domain.
This means that C head in the root clause(that is, tag question (see Haegeman 2006)).
Both cases show it is possible to extract
some items from the finite adjunct clauses.
Under the proposals in this paper, thesecannot access to the wh-phrase in theadverbial clause. In short, this case isexamples can be elucidated.

captured under Phase Impenetrability
Condition (PIC) presented in (16).

3.2.

(16) Phase Impenetrability Condition
In phase α with head H, the domain

We have viewed the trigger of making
differences of grammaticality on extractionof H is not accessible to operations
outside α; only H and its edge areout of the finite adjunct clauses in the lastsection. In this section, we will deal withaccessible to such operations.
(Chomsky 2000: 108)

the non-finite adjunct clauses which are
acquitted of Adjunct Condition. We will

Inner Structure of Non-finite
Adjuncts and Their Positions

What we can expect under the proposals
here is that it is prohibited to extract any

start withstructures.

elements out of Central Adverbial Clauses
since they do not have edge features while(18) a.

190

investigating

their

inner

John hugged Mary [(in order)
to make himself happier].

b. * John hugged Mary [(in order)
to make herself happier].
(Truswell 2007b: 190)
Condition A test is applied in (18) and theresult leads us to understand that the
subjects in the main clauses can be
antecedents of reflexive pronouns but theobjects cannot.
(19) a. * John hugged Mary [(in order)
to make him happier].
b. John hugged Mary [(in order)
to make her happier].

The non-finite adjunct clause headed bywhistling adjoins to vP in the root clausebased on the assumption made above.
Following Hornstein (2001), and Nunes(Truswell 2007b: 191)
Condition B test is implemented in (19)and the consequence shows that the
subjects in the main clause cannot be
antecedents of pronouns while the objects
can. It seems to be safe to suggest that
non-finite adjuncts adjoin to vP which isout of the c-command domain of a object ina main clause. Moreover, (20) also supports
this suggestion.
(20) John dove from the cliff [(inorder) to impress Mary], thenFred did [(in order) to get awayfrom her].
(Jones 1991: 62)
In (20), VP deletion is applied in thesubsequent clause, but the non-finite

assembled in parallel. The subject John inthe adjunct clause is base-generated in theouter spec of vP and displaced from its baseposition to the specifier of TP because of
EPP feature lying on T head. Note that thenominative case is not assigned to thesubject John in this position since theadjunct clause does not have CP layer. As aresult, a phi-feature is not inherited to T
head. The subject John obtains thenominative case only after applying theoperation of Sideward Movement to it andadjunct is not elided. For this reason, thenon-finite adjunct seems to adjoin to vP.

reaching the specifier of TP in the root
clause. All copies of the subject John except

Now, we will check the inner structure andadjunction position of a non-finite adjunctreferring to a concrete example and its
derivational illustration in (21).

for the highest one are deleted. As for thewh-phrase what, it is moved out of the baseposition due to the edge feature placing onv head and it is located in the inner spec of(21) Whati did John arrive [whistlingti ] ? ( = (3a))

vP in the adjunct clause. Importantly, thisposition is accessible from C head in the(2001, 2004), we suppose that the mainclause and the adjunct clause aremain clause because the adjunct clausedoes not have CP layer. That is, it is a
non-phase TP, and for this reason,
extraction of the wh-phrase what islegitimate. Thus, wh-phrase what isaccessed by C head and moves up to the191specifier of CP thanks to the edge feature
sitting on C head.
4. Conclusion
We have challenged to solve the mysteryof the grammatical contrast between thefinite adjuncts and the non-finite adjuncts
on extraction throughout this paper. Anedge feature lying on Force head could be afactor of making such a grammaticaldifference. Needless to say, there still
remain some complexities to solve

Haegeman, Liliane (2012) “The Syntax of
MCP: Deriving the Truncation Account,”
Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons,ed. by L. Aelbrecht et al., 113-134, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam / Philadelphia.
Hornstein, Norbert (2001) Move! A
Minimalist Theory of Construal,
Blackwell, Oxford
Huang, James (1982) Logical Relations in
Chinese and the Theory of Grammar,
Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Hunter, Tim (2011) Syntactic Effects ofespecially in the non-finite adjuncts. I set
them aside for the future work.

Conjunctivist
Semantics:
Unifying
Movement and Adjunction, John

Selected References
Borgonovo, Claudia and Ad Neeleman(2000)“Transparent
Adjuncts,”
Canadian Journal of Linguistics 45,
199–224.
Chomsky,Noam(2000)“Minimalist
Inquiries: The Framework,”Step by Step,ed. by R. Martin at al., MIT Press,
Cambridge.
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by
Phase,” Ken Hale: A Life in Language,
ed. by M. Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,
Cambridge.
Chomsky,Noam(2008)“On

Phases,”Benjamins, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia.
Jones, Charles (1991) Purpose Clauses:

Syntax, Thematics, and Semantics ofEnglish Purpose Constructions, Kluwer
Academic Publications, Dordrecht.
Stepanov, Arthur (2001) “Late Adjunction
and Minimalist Phrase Structure,”
Syntax 4, 94-125.
Stepanov, Arthur (2007) “The End of CED?
Minimalism and Extraction Domains,”

Syntax 10, 80-126.
Taylor, Heather (2007) “Movement from
IF-clause
Adjuncts,”
UMWP
in
Linguistics 15, 192-206.
Truswell, Robert (2007a) “Extraction
from Adjuncts and the Structure ofFoundational Issues in Linguistic
Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger
Vergnaud, ed. by R. Freidin et al.,Events,” Lingua 117, 1355–1377.
Truswell, Robert (2007b) LocalityofWh-movement and the Individuationof Events, Doctoral dissertation,

133–166, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Haegeman, Lilliane (2006) “Argument
Fronting in English, Romance CLLD,
and the Left Periphery,” Negation, Tense

University College London.

andClausalArchitecture:
Cross-linguistic Investigations, ed. by R.
Zanuttini, et al., 27–52, Georgetown
University Press, Washington, DC.

192

proposal, I have considered two specific empirical<Workshop Report>

puzzles that have resisted a satisfactory explanationin the literature on there-constructions: Lasnik’s(1995) minimal pair and Takano’s (1998) ECM
ラベルについてparadigm. Maintaining much of the spirit of the(On Label)minimalist program, I have demonstrated that they
can be unified under the labeling theory.

Nobu Goto (Toyo University),
3. Symmetric Syntax, Asymmetric Linearization

Hiroki Narita (Nihon University),(Hiroki Narita)

Miki Obata (Tokyo University of Science),

It has been customarily stipulated that every
Keywords: Labeling Algorithm, endocentricity,

linguistic phrase is “endocentric,” i.e., analyzable as alabel-free mechanism of linearization, partial“projection” of a single designated lexical item (LI),

wh-movement in German, Full Interpretation

called the “head.” However, Chomsky (2013),
Narita (2014) and Narita and Fukui (2014) argue that
this “universal endocentricity” stipulation has lost its
ground in the contemporary theory of Merge-based

1. Introduction
The three studies are brought together in the namesyntax without X-bar theory (i.e., projection-freeof “Raberu nitsuite (On Label)” with an aim to bringsyntax). They specifically argue that structures of the

new insight into the nature of labels and related issues.

form {XP, YP}, where XP and YP represent two
phrases, fail to define their head LIs and hence they
qualify as “exocentric.” Building on this move, this

2. On the Necessity of Labeling in Narrow Syntax

talk will cast doubt on the dominant assumption,(Nobu Goto)

sharedIn this talk, taking seriously Chomsky’s (2013)bytraditional

directionality-parameter,conservative approach to the necessity of labeling –various versions of Kayne’s (1994) antisymmetry,“all SOs that reach the interfaces must be labeled,” I

Fukui and Takano’s (1998) theory of Demerge, etc.,

have considered how syntactic objects (SOs) inthat every application of linearization makes recourse

there-constructions are labeled to satisfy the general

to endocentricity (labeled input). An alternative,

principle. First, I have identified some potential

label-free mechanism of linearization is proposed forproblems of labeling in there-constructions thatexocentric {XP, YP} structures, which takes theremain unclear under Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely’s

cyclicity of phase-by-phase derivation as its(2014) labeling analysis of Merge-over-Move, andnecessary component (extending and refining

then argued that they are resolved by interaction of

Narita’s (2014) theory of linearization).

Chomsky’s (2014) labeling theory and Abe’s (to4. Labeled vs. Unlabeled Syntactic Objects

appear) Move-approach to there-constructions. I
have shown that our labeling analysis of there-(Miki Obata)

constructions can not only overcome the theoretical

Chomsky (2013, 2014) argue that syntactic

worries but also make the correct empiricalobjects (SO) need to be labeled to get interpreted at

predictions about the distribution of the expletive

the interfaces. This presentation considers whether

there and the associate. As a consequence of thelabels are required equally at the CI interface and at

193

Lingua 130, 33-49.

the SM interface and also examines whether

Chomsky, Noam (2014) “Problems of Projection:

unlabeled SO are all excluded at the interfaces.

Extensions,” ms., MIT.

Under Chomsky’s Labeling Algorithm, there are
two ways to label {XP, YP}: [1] modify SO (byEpstein, Samuel D. (1999) “Un-principled Syntax:

raising either XP or YP) so that there is only one

The Derivation of Syntactic Relations,” Working

visible or [2] X and Y are identical in a relevant

Minimalism, ed. by S. D. Epstein and N.

respect, providing the same label, which can be taken

Hornstein, 317-345, MIT press, Cambridge, MA.

as the label of the SO (Chomsky 2013). Considering

Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T.

English,Daniel Seely (2014) “Labeling by Minimal

intermediate landing sites can be labeled as CP by

Search: Implications for Successive Cyclic[1] while the final landing site can be labeled as QP

A-Movement and the Elimination of the Postulateby [2]. However, partial wh-movement in German‘Phase’,” Linguistic Inquiry 45, 463-481.

successive

cyclicwh-movement

inthrows doubt on [1] and [2]: Was glaubt [TP Hans [CPFukui, Naoki and Takano, Yuji (1998) “Symmetry

mit wem [TP Jakob jetzt _ spricht]]]? ‘WHAT doesin Syntax: Merge and Demerge,” Journal of East

Hans think with whom Jakob is now talking?’

Asian Linguistics 7, 27–86.

(McDaniel

1989)

In

this

sentence,

Kayne, Richard S (1994) The Antisymmetry oftheSyntax, MIT press, Cambridge, MA.

wh-interrogative mit wem (PP) moves to theintermediate Spec-CP and stays there. The

Lasnik, Howard (1995) “Case and Expletives

wh-expletive was is inserted into the matrix Spec-CP.

Revisited: On Greed and Other Human Failings,”

Note that the intermediate C(P) is [-Q] since it is

Linguistic Inquiry 26, 615-633.
McDaniel, Dana (1989) “Partial and Multiple

selected by the verb think. In other words, there is noshared feature between C and the wh-interrogative

Wh-Movement,”

Naturalmit wem. Neither [1] nor [2] can label {PP, CP}.

Linguistic Theory 7, 565-604.

Language

andNarita, Hiroki (2014) Endocentric Structuring ofWith respect to this problem, I propose: if certain

Projection-free Syntax, John Benjamins.

syntactic objects are not interpreted at the CI
interface (i.e. no violation of Full Interpretation),

Narita, Hiroki and Naoki Fukui (2014) “Toji Kozo

labels are not required. (See also Epstein et al. 2014)

no Naishinsei to Taishosei ni tsuite” [“On the

In the above case, the wh-phrase is not interpreted at

Notions of Endocentricity and Symmetry in

the intermediate landing site since C is [-Q]. That is,

Syntactic Structures”]. Gengo no Sekkei, Hattatsu,{PP, CP} does not need to be labeled. I also propose

Shinka: Seibutsugengogaku Tankyu [The Design,that the phonological component can detect andDevelopment and Evolution of Language:linearize representations based on the history of

Explorations in Biolinguistics], ed. by Koji Fujita,

Merge (Epstein, 1999), so that unlabeled syntactic

Naoki Fukui, Noriaki Yusa and Masayuki

objects are not excluded at the SM interface.

Ikeuchi, 37-65. Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Takano, Yuji (1998) “Object Shift and Scrambling,”
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16,

References

817-889.
Abe, Jun (to appear) “How to Probe Expletives,”
Studia Linguistica.
Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,”194

<Workshop Report>

メター変化の観点から(本多尚子)

現代英語(PE)では (1)の他動詞虚辞構文(TEC)は原則許されない(田中(2010: 84))。
英語の史的統語変化とその中核：(1) * There someone ate an apple.

生成文法理論の視点から

他方英語では、中英語(ME)期半ばから初(The Locus of Historical Syntactic

期近代英語期(EModE)初頭まで TEC の例

Changes in English: From theが観察される。TEC が現代アイスランド語

Perspective of Generative Grammar)

でも許されるため、当該時期の英語の TEC
は現代アイスランド語のそれと同じ仕組み

本多尚子 (Shoko Honda)の派生が仮定されている。もしそうならば、

北海道教育大学札幌校 (Hokkaido

英語の TEC で現代アイスランド語のそれ

University of Education Sapporo)と全く同じ性質が予測されるが、実際には、

宋

英語の TEC は否定の文脈を好み、現代アイ

蔚 (Song Wei)

愛知淑徳大学 (Aichi Shukutoku

スランド語よりも厳しい制限を持つ。

University)

本発表では、この制限の違いを捉え、英松元洋介 (Yosuke Matsumoto)

語の TEC の発達過程を明示化・説明した。

中京大学 (Chukyo University)

具体的には、現代アイスランド語と異なり、

山村崇斗 (Shuto Yamamura)

その出現には、there 構文への Neg-v*-V 複

筑波大学 (University of Tsukuba)

合主要部の導入、その消失には、v(*)-to-Neg
パラメター変化が関わったと主張した。特に、本分析では、再分析及びパラメター変キーワード：英語史、統語変化、パラメタ化に関する Roberts (2007)の考えに基づき、ー、再分析、素性構成

v*-to-Neg パラメター変化は実質的には機能範疇 Neg が Grewendorf & Sabel (1999)
により仮定される scrambling 素性を持つこ

0. はじめにとを止めたという再分析の結果であると提言語間の統語的差異をパラメターの値の案した。

違いに帰す生成文法の枠組みでは、英語の史的統語変化は各時代の英語間の統語的差

2. A Feature-Based Analysis of Paratactic

異だと考えられる。Roberts (2007)は再分

Negation in the History of English (宋蔚)析を｢機能範疇の素性構成の変化｣と定義し、本発表では、歴史コーパスを用いた独自

これがパラメター変化の表れのひとつだとの調査に基づき、Jespersen’s cycle の Stage

主張している。本ワークショップでは、あTwo ne との比較分析を行うことで、反意述る統語範疇の素性構成の違いを言語間の統語における並列否定の歴史的変遷について、語的差異や史的統語変化とする観点から、理論的説明を試みた。

英語史に見られるいくつかの構文の変化の主張をまとめると、 ne を伴う反意述語に中核を探り、現代語と通言語的研究との有おける並列否定は英語の歴史における否定機的融合を目指した。

一 致 現 象 で あ り 、 認 可 の 仕 組 み は Song(2013) に 主 張 さ れ た Jespersen’s cycle のStage Two ne の仕組みと類似している。

1. 他動詞虚辞構文の通時的発達 - パラ

195

Chomsky (2000, 2001)の枠組みにおいて、与するようになった。これにより前置詞句

否定辞が持つ[i-Neg]素性と[u-Foc]素性はの内部構造も単層の PP 構造から、vP と同

ne が持つ[u-Neg]素性と[i-Foc]素性と一致

様に階層的な pP 構造へと変化した([PP P

し、否定の意味を生み出す。異なる点としNP]→[pP p [PP P NP]])。pP から要素が移動ては、Jespersen’s cycle の Stage Two におい

する際、その端([Spec, pP])に立ち寄った後ては、否定辞は not であるが、並列否定にに語順の情報は確定するので、以後の派生

おいては、否定辞は反意述語に含まれる否で語順の情報の矛盾は発生しない。つまり、定演算子であるという点である。並列否定

pP 構造に変化したことで ME 以降前置詞の消失は[u-Neg]素性を持つ Stage Two ne

残留の使用は拡大した。

の消失と同時期であり、Stage Two ne が消失したことにより消失した。Not が ne の代

4. 英語疑似空所化の史的統語変化

わりに並列否定に現れない理由は、ne が[u-(山村崇斗)

Neg]素性と[i-Foc]素性を持つ一方、 not が助動詞と VP 内要素が省略を免れ残余とその反対の[i-Neg]素性と[u-Foc]素性を持なる疑似空所化(PSG: John bought more

つからである。意味解釈上の傾向によってbooks than Bill did magazines.)では、VP

起こりやすい並列否定は Stage Two ne より省略の適用範囲外への要素の移動が論点の200 年ほど早く出現し、Jespersen’s cycle を

ひとつとなっている。PSG は PE だけでなStage Two へ進ませたと考える。

く OE 期 か ら 観 察 さ れ て き た (Warner(1993))。本発表では、英語助動詞は OE 期

3. 英語史における pP フェイズの発達 前置詞残留を中心にからずっと(1)のように v に生成され、要素の移動が vP1 への付加だと仮定した。

(松元洋介)PE で広く容認される前置詞残留は、他の(1)[vP1 MODAL-v [vP2 -an [RootP Root OBJ]]]

ゲルマン諸語では厳しく制限される。一方、Pintzuk and Taylor (2006)の｢OE･ME で前置詞残留は古英語(OE)において限定的は基底語順を OV/VO とする両文法が競合に容認されていたが、ME 期に PE と同じし、O が肯定表現の時、基底 OV から表層容認性を獲得した。本発表の主張は、1)前置

VO を得る右方移動、否定表現では基底 VO

詞残留の容認性に関する通言語的差異はから表層 OV を得る左方移動の可能性があ

PP の構造の違いに起因し、2)英語史における｣という主張に基づき、OE･ME の PSG

る前置詞残留の容認性の変化は PP の構造を統語分析した。PE では基底語順でも表層変化によるということの 2 点である。

語順でも VO で、表層 OV が無いため、右ゲルマン諸語で一般的に前置詞残留が許方移動のみの統語分析を要する。vP への左されないのは、PP からの要素の抜出により方移動が可能な文法から不可能な文法への変P とその補部の相対語順の情報が変更され化は、Chomsky (2013)の Labeling Algorithm(P-Obj.→Obj.-P)、その結果循環線形化(Foxに基づき、v の Focus 素性の消失によってand Pesetsky (2005))の制約に違反するた説明した。Focus 素性を持つ残余要素は vPめである。ここで反局所制約(Abels (2003))と内併合するが、v が Focus 素性を持つ場

により[Spec, PP]への移動は禁止される。

合、Focus 素性によってラベル付けされ vP

OE の前置詞残留の容認性の低さも同様にの左側に現れるが、 v が Focus 素性を失う

説明される。OE において P は補部に与格と vP の左側を着地点として利用できなくを付与していたが、ME になると対格を付

なった。

196

languages such as English and Japanese, we discuss<Workshop Report>

various issues related to those unvalued features.
2. On the role of unvalued features (Hisatsugu
Kitahara)

Case and Agreement Revisited: Why do

Kitahara begins with a mini tutorial on someUnvalued Features Exist?

historical developments concerning the role ofHisatsugu Kitahara (Keio University)

unvalued features in minimalist inquiries. He thenMasashi Nomura (Chukyo University)

points out that Chomsky's (2013) valuation-based

Yukino Kobayashi (Tsukuba University ofanalysis of labeling is inconsistent with Chomsky's

Technology)(2008) probe-goal analysis of valuation, in which theunvaluedfeaturespostulated

to

implement

Keywords: minimalist syntax, unvalued features,

wh-movement (e.g., [uQ], [uWh], see Chomsky

phi-agreement, structural Case, morphological2000) are eliminated. One possible way out of thiscase, phase, set-Merge, pair-Merge, labeling by

problem, Kitahara suggests, is to extend Chomsky's

minimal search(2013) “invisibility” analysis to the complement
domain of the phase-head. Assuming γ to be indomain D if and only if every occurrence of γ is a

1. Introduction

term of D, minimal search won't be able to “see” aIn the early stage of minimalist theorizing, thelower copy of the wh-expression (bearing unvalued

presence of unvalued features was recognized as aQ) inside the complement domain of the phase-head.

serious problem, and why they exist became one of

The interpretation of the wh-expression is in effectthe core minimalist questions. To answer thispostponed

question, the minimalist program pursued an

wh-expression gets transferred.

until

the

highest

copy

of

the

intuition that they are implemented for movement,
where movement is, by hypothesis, required to

3. Unvalued features and phase domains (Masashi

satisfy

Nomura)Full

Interpretation,

and

this

pursuitsubstantiated the view that movement is carried out

Nomura discusses an operation called pair-Merge,in the interest of valuing those features. One recent

which is introduced in Chomsky (2004, 2014).

development in minimalist theory, however, is that

Observing that v* becomes invisible to the labeling

Merge, formulated in the simplest form, applies

algorithm when pair-Merge [R-v*] applies, Nomura

freely as long as it conforms to third factor principles

proposes that even if something pair-Merged has ansuch as the no-tampering condition and theunvalued feature it becomes invisible and that at CI

condition of inclusiveness. It is not “purposeful” inlevel, only things that are set-Merged check thethe sense of early minimalism; Merge is no longer

feature valuation. Therefore, if pair-Merge applies

driven by convergence conditions (e.g. the valuation

prior to inheritance, uninterpretable phi-features willof phi or Case features). With this (seemingly

remain unvalued but do not cause the derivation toparadoxical) background, in this workshop, wecrash because it is invisible at CI. This assumption

address, once again, why unvalued features such as

explains how unvalued features of unergative verbs

Case on N or phi on T exist. Drawing data fromand bridge verbs can be discharged. He then197

suggests that this mechanism can be applicable to
how Case-valuation takes place in Japanese complex

5. Summary

predicates, some of which contain more than one v*,

The proposals, presented in this workshop, give us

only one of which has to be in charge of valuing

new insights concerning why unvalued features such

Case. If operations ought to apply freely, there is a

as Case on N or phi on T exist, which in turn lead us

possibility that pair-Merge applies prior to set-Merge.

to new directions for further investigation.

He suspects that a derived sentence in such a way is
an instance of unaccusative/passive constructions.

References

Thus, visibility of unvalued (phi-)features is

Baker, Mark, and Nadya Vinokurova (2010) “Twocrucially related to phase domains. Namely, we need

Modalities of Case Assignment in Sakha,”

not assume “weak phase” to explain all the above

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28,

cases and (free application of) pair-Merge delineates593-642.
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: Thephase domains.

Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on
4. Morphological case and phase theory (Yukino

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik,

Kobayashi)

ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan

Kobayashi talks on Case/case within phase theory.

Uriagereka, 89-155, MIT Press, Cambridge,

Based on the recent approach of free Merge,

MA.

Kobayashi proposes a case valuation system in theChomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatory

morphological component and argues that valuation

Adequacy,” Structures and Beyond: Theof unvalued case features is required from the SM

Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3,

system, in order to encode structural relations thated. by Adriana Belletti, 104–131, Oxford

are made by Merge in Narrow Syntax but are lost

University Press, Oxford.

when they are externalized/linearized. Taking theChomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” Foundationalsame line with the hierarchically ordered case

Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor

marking systems (Marantz 1991 among others),of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Robert

Kobayashi proposes a three-way case valuation

Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa

system for Japanese, consisting of a lexicallyZubizarreta, 133-166, MIT Press, Cambridge,

determined case and two types of spell-out domain

MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,”

dependent cases, and demonstrates that the proposed

Lingua 130, 33-49.

system can capture Nominative Genitive Conversion

Chomsky, Noam (2014) “Problems of Projection:

in a straightforward manner. Adding an Agree-type

Extensions,” ms., MIT.

case valuation to these three case valuation types,

Marantz, Alec (1991) “Case and Licensing,”

Kobayashi suggests that four types of case valuation

Proceedings of ESCL 91, 234-253.

are allowed in principle, and notes that the proposedsystem predicts that a single language may at once
have both an Agree-type case valuation and an
Agree-free case valuation, in addition to a lexicallydetermined case, which is observed in languages
such as Sakha (Baker and Vinokurova 2010).

198

<Workshop Report>

papers on clause constructions will bringcorroborative evidence for what Laury et al.
(2014) demonstrate in their volume.
(1) Paper 1: “The discourse-based development

Clauses on the Move: A HistoricalContrastive Approach toof shell nouns constructions in English: The

English and Germancase of the problem is (that) and that’s the
problem” (Reijirou Shibasaki)

Reijirou Shibasaki (Meiji University)(2) Paper 2: “Discourse functions of shell noun

Hitomi Otsuka (University of Bremen)constructions in German: With a focus on das

Yuko Higashiizumi (Tokyo Gakugei University)

Problem ist, (dass) and das ist das Problem”

Jerzy Nykiel (University of Bergen)(Hitomi Otsuka)(3) Paper 3: “The diachrony of insubordinate
because-clauses and their discourse functions”

Keywords: shell noun constructions,insubordination, purpose clauses, clause(Yuko Higashiizumi)(4) Paper 4: “The diachrony of so that and the CP

constructions and change

cycle” (Jerzy Nykiel)
1. Introduction
This research project began with some naïve

2. Papers 1 & 2questions: how (re)capturing grammar in a data-

Shibasaki and Otsuka make contrastive

oriented framework gains a new understanding ofinvestigations into the so-called ‘shell noun’linguistic structures. As summarized in Laury,constructions (SN constructions) with special

Etelämäki and Couper-Kuhlen (2014), i.e. areference to the problem is (that) in American

special issue of Pragmatics: Approaches toEnglish and das Problem ist, (dass) in German,

Grammar for Interactional Linguistics, whatmainly in the twentieth century. In theattracts the attention of linguists is how actual

constructions, both problem and Problem provide

data can serve as a guide to specifications of one

shells for the immediately following clauses that

linguistic theory or another. In fact, Laury et al.

express complex and elaborate chunks of(2014) include a variety of case studies that draw

information, which is called ‘shell contents’practical conclusions from the perspectives of(Schmid 2000: 7). In other words, these SN

Discourse-Functional

constructions can appear only in front of theGrammar,Cognitive

Grammar, Construction Grammar, Emergent

corresponding shell content clauses.

Grammar and Online Syntax, and Social Action

While

these

constructions

show

some

Formats, all of which can be considered as thediscourse-functional similarities to each other,outcomes of research collaboration.

there are some differences as well. For example,

In the nature of the research trend, however, thethe so-called ‘double IS’ constructions (ormajority of relevant research outcomes are‘reduplicative copula’ or ‘2-B’ constructions), i.e.,

synchronic-oriented. In addition, any useful ideas

the problem is is, …, can be attested in American

to make their ways over to the generative side are

English but not in German. In addition, a new

not mentioned in Laury et al. (2014).

merger construction i.e., that’s the problem is that,a type of ‘apo koinou’ construction, is attested

In view of the present situation, the following

199

only in American English. In other words,

Present-day English so that is used side by side

American English changes at a faster rate thanwith so as a purpose subordinator.

German, with respect to the emergence of

The survey results tell us that the variation inconstructional variations.

the form of so that, from Old through Present-day
English, follows from grammaticalization and the

3. Paper 3

economy principle known as the Head Preference

Higashiizumi investigates the position in

Principle as postulated by van Gelderen (2004,

which because-clauses appear in relation to their2011). Following Nykiel (2014), the paper

reference clause in the history of English. Recent

invokes

empirical studies of Present-day English havegrammaticalization in order to show that they canshown that utterances or turns start with the

be combined with the formalist ones resulting incausala wider picture of the grammaticalization cycle ofconnective

because(andthevariants ’cause, cos, cuz, etc.) in spoken

functionalist

mechanisms

ofso that.

conversation, which serves to provide “a reason
for something that precedes it, rather than for

References

something that follows it” (Couper-Kuhlen 2011:

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2011) “When turns

section 2); such because-clauses can be countedstart

as ‘insubordination.’(www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/08/

Higashiizumi(2014)

examinedwithbecause,”retrievedfromcouper-kuhlen/).

because-clauses in the British English data taken fromGelderen, Elly van (2004) Grammaticalization

ARCHER 3.1 and illustrated that there are someas Economy, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

examples of insubordinate because-clauses at theHigashiizumi, Yuko (2014) “More thoughts on

start of a turn in the conversation segments ofstand-alone because-clauses from a historical-‘drama’ and ‘fiction’ and in the ‘letter’ in Modern

pragmatic perspective,” The Proceedings of the

English. Building on the survey result, she

16th Annual Conference of the Pragmatics

analyzes the data collected from the Corpus ofSociety of Japan (PSJ) (Vol. 9)

English Dialogue to further explore the discourse

Laury, Ritva, Marja Etelämäki and Elizabeth

functions of insubordinate because-clauses.

Couper-Kuhlen, eds. (2014) Special Issue:
Approaches to Grammar for Interactional

4. Paper 4

Linguistics, Pragmatics 24 (3).
Nykiel,Nykiel delves into the diachrony of so thatJerzy(2014)“Grammaticalizationfrom both generative and functional perspectives.

Reconciled,” Language Sciences 42, 1-14.

So (that), unlike any other form of the same

Schmid, Hans-Jörg (2000) English Abstract

function, has been present in English since its

Nouns as Conceptual Shells, Walter dewritten beginnings. Already in Old English so

Gruyter, Berlin and New York.

that is a primary purpose subordinator that far
outnumbers prepositional purpose subordinators.
What seems to have been characteristic of so that
all along is a series of modifications to its form:
þæt, þæt þe, þætte, or swa þæt(te) in Old English
and mostly so that and that in Middle English. In

200

b. Someone likes everyone. (∃>∀; ∀>∃)

<Workshop Report>

A-properties of the subject in Spec,CP arededucible if ϕ-features are assumed to climb up
from non-phasal T onto phasal C, which makes
λ in (1) labeled as T(P). In long-distance subject

On the Phasehood of CP and

wh-movement like (3):Other Projections(3) *Who do you think that [λ 〈who〉 left]?
Manabu Mizuguchi (Dokkyo Medical

the overt complementizer prevents ϕ-features

University),

from climbing onto C, with the result that λ isŽeljko Bošković (University of Connecticut),left unlabeled for the weakness of English T, vi-

Miyoko Yasui (Dokkyo University),

olating FI. The absence of that-trace effects in

Kazuhide Chonan (Universitas Darma Persada)

Italian and other languages is expected giventhat their T with ϕ-features is strong enough to

Keywords: wh-subject, Phase-Impenetrability

serve as a label.

Condition, antilocality, head movement,

3. On Extraction from Clausal and Other Com-quotative inversion

plements Functioning as Phases (Željko
Bošković)This paper proposed to extend the complex NP

1. Introduction

constraint to a more general ban on extraction

This workshop explored the architecture ofout of complements of Ns, As, Ps, and erga-clausal projections, focusing on their labelingtive/passive Vs as exemplified in (4a,b).

and (non-)phasehood through the recursive ap-(4) a. *How did you hear [? ti [NP rumors

plication of free Merge as well as their legibility[? ti [CP that John bought a house ti ]]]]

at the interfaces.

b. *How did it [? ti [VP appeal to Mary[? ti [CP that John fixed the car ti]]]]

2. Phases, Labeling and Wh-Movement of the

The generalized complex XP constraint is ar-

Subject (Manabu Mizuguchi)

gued to follow from a version of the Phase-This paper argued that simplest Merge de-Impenetrability Condition that allows extraction

duces the Vacuous Movement Hypothesis forof a phasal complement but not its constituents

subject wh-movement, in which a subject

as well as antilocality that requires movement towh-phrase is internally merged only with CP.
(1)[CP who [C [λ T [v*P 〈who〉 [v* [VPcross at least one labeled projection. Under the]..]assumption that the highest extended projections

CP in (1) is built up without tampering the ex-of thematic as well as the highest projections of

isting structures or violating interface conditions

functional domains constitute phases, (4a,b) in-

like Full Interpretation (FI). Empirical supports

volve movement into the embedded CP, whichcome from scope relations of the subject in (2)is a case of merging non-heads and thus produc-

as well as anti-agreement in Kinande, XP mer-es an unlabeled projection (represented as ?).

ger in Yiddish, and quantifier float in West Ul-

The next phase is the projection headed by ru-

ster variety of English.

mor/appeal, but this movement does not cross a(2) a. Who loves everyone? (wh> ∀; *∀>wh)201

labeled projection, violating antilocality.

up CP.

As for deep extraction from complex VPs
headed by unergative Vs such as (5), vP above

5. Quotative Inversion in Indonesian and English

VP is a phase.

(Kazuhide Chonan)(5) How did you [? ti [vP [VP think [? ti [CP that aBer- and meN- in Indonesian can be analyzed
as light verbs prefixed on unergative and transi-

dog bit John ti]]]]]The movement from embedded CP to the matrix

tive roots, respectively. This paper observed thatvP crosses a labeled projection, VP; hence, no

the prefixes are disallowed in contexts such as

violation of antilocality arises, in contrast to (4b)

Quotative Inversion (8b), wh-subject (9b), andwith an ergative verb.

imperative (10).
(8) a. John *∅/ber-kata, “Terima kasih.”John

4. Internal Head Merger and Upward Feature√SAY

thank youb. “Terima kasih.” ∅/*ber-kata John.

Sharing (Miyoko Yasui)
As an alternative to the analysis of adjoining a‘John said “Thank you.”’head to an existing higher head, this paper ar-(9) a. John mem-beli apa?

gued that internal head merger proceeds as in (6)John

in parallel to a sequence of external mergers as‘What did John buy?’in (7).

√BUY whatb. *Siapa mem-beli buku?

(6) a. [VP [V are] flying]]

whob. [TP [T are][vP young eagles 〈are〉√BUY book‘Who bought a book?’[VP 〈are〉 flying]]](10) ∅/*Mem-baca buku itu! ‘Read the book!’c. [CP [C are][TP young eagles 〈are〉√READ book the[vP 〈young eagles〉 〈are〉 [VP 〈are〉 flying]]]]

It can be said that Indonesian prefixed verbs(7) a. [VP [V be] flying]cannot move to a position higher than T. Moreb. [TP [T will][vP young eagles [v be]

generally, a verbal root cannot bear more than

[VP 〈be〉 flying]]]

one V-related uninterpretable feature to build up
CP and other projections above TP via its itera-c. [CP [C if][TP young eagles [T will][vP 〈young eagles〉 [v be][VP 〈be〉 flying]]]]tive internal mergers, unlike are in (6). The dif-In (6), distinct uninterpretable features of areference could be attributed to a morphophono-

become interpretable by its iterative mergers

logical interface condition that bans double pre-with an appropriate syntactic object, whereby

fixation in Indonesian and its absence in Eng-

the resultant structures get properly labeled, justlish.

as distinct lexical items extend and label the
6. Concluding Remarks

structures with their inherent features in (7).
Many of the problematic aspects of head

Given Chomsky’s current theory of phases,

movement under its traditional conception dis-the analyses of deep extraction out of comple-

appear straightforwardly: the Extension Condi-

ments and other data proposed in this workshop

tion is not violated; and the moving head isturned out to suggest the validity of more dy-

identical to its host by definition. The proposal

namic views on clausal projections in the com-

supports the upward feature sharing in building

putational system.

202

＜Workshop Report＞

1. 日英語会話開始部分における相互行為の開始と会話進行(自由会話)
会話開始部分において会話はどのように開始し進行されるのか、また先生－学生関係が進行にどのように影響するのかを分析した。英語会話では課題遂行が意識されていた。会話開始部分から主題への移行型は(1)自主的に話し出す、(2)相手の質問に答えて移行するの 2 つである。会話開始部分が無く即座に主題を話し出したり、また短い例が多い。時間配分や基準を満たしているか等、課題遂行について確認する発話がみられる。日本語会話では相手との関係構築が意識される。移行型は(1)、(2)、(3)相手に質問したのち自ら話し出すの 3 つである。
先生と学生がほぼ同数の発話のやり取りをする。挨拶交換で会話を開始する例が半数である。会話開始者、進行役は両言語で先生が担うことが多いが、以下の差がある。
英語会話では進行役は先生が担うことが多いが学生も行う。もしくは先生が一方的に進行を取り決める。主題への移行は先生・学生両方が主導者となり得る。日本語会話
では先生が進行役をして学生を導き、学生は先生に任せきりのことが多い。主題への移行は先生主導である。

相互行為における日英語比較研究：言語実
践の分析を中心に(A Comparative Study of Japanese andEnglish Interactions: Analyzing
Language Practices)
春名弥郁 (Miiku Haruna)
青山学院大学大学院 (Aoyama Gakuin
University)
阿部あかり (Akari Abe)
日本女子大学大学院 (Japan Women’s
University)
鹿野浩子 (Hiroko Shikano)
日本女子大学大学院 (Japan Women’s
University)
小澤雅 (Miyabi Ozawa)
日本女子大学大学院 (Japan Women’s
University)
キーワード：会話開始部分、不同意表現、
方向指示詞、コンテキスト

0. はじめに
言語実践活動にみられる様々な現象を、
日英語母語話者による、同一条件下で取られ映像・文字化されたコーパスデータ（以下ミスター・オー・コーパス1から分析する。
データはタスク（課題達成相互行為）、ナラ
ティブ（語り）、自由会話、の 3 部構成からなっている。本発表では、既存の理論を基盤に成り立つ言語の普遍性を追究するのではなく、言語実践にみられる現象を以下の 4 つの観点から比較・考察し言語個別の相違に着目した。各タイトル後の( )内はミスター・オ
ー・コーパスのデータ種類を示す。

2. タスクにおける日英語の不同意表現の仕方(タスク)
タスクを用いて日英語の不同意表現までに至る会話参与者同士のやりとりの長さに焦点を当てて分析を行った。先行研究では
日英語共に CA に基づき 2,3 ターンのやりとりから不同意表現を観察しているが、本研究では日英語母語話者が同じように 2,3
ターンで不同意表現を表すのかを明らかにする目的で、今回は verbal な要素のみを観察した。その結果少なくとも本研究のデー
タでは、日本語母語話者の不同意表現の総数は英語母語話者の約 1/3 だったのに対し、不同意表現までに至るターン数は英語母語話者の約 2 倍であり、最高ターン数に至っ

1平成 15〜17 年度科学研究費基盤研究 B、

No. 15320054, 研究代表者

井出祥子。

203

ては約 5 倍という結果となった。また、直前に発せられた相手の意見に不同意を示す
英語母語話者に対して、日本語母語話者は
課題達成までに参与者同士で積み上げたプ
ロセスに対して不同意が示される点を指摘し、両者の会話構築プロセスには大きな差があるため、そもそも不同意表現の定義が異なる可能性も見出した。以上の事から、日本語の不同意表現は英語と同じ様に 2,3ターンのやりとりのみでは全てを説明することはできないと結論づけた。
3. 日 英 語 に お け る 直 示 用 法 の 指 示 詞 表
現：身体の動きから見られる認識の違い(タスク)
タスクを用いて日英語母語話者たちがカードに描かれたキャラクターをどの様に認識し、指示詞使用がされるのかを、指示詞と共に表れる話し手の手の動き(pointing)を考察した。英語母語話者はナラティブ視
点でもって、カードの遠近を知覚し、一連の流れが flow のように pointing で表されていた。日本語母語話者もナラティブ視点での「コ」系と「ソ」系があり、指示詞の示す場所を点で以て pointing した。しかし、日本語母語話者にはキャラクター視点の「コ」系と「ア」系も見られた。
「コ」系はナラティブ・キャラクターの両方の視点があったが、聞き手あっての指示詞使用が「ソ」
系と「ア」系には見られた。
「ソ」系は話し
手の直接話法に応答する形で用いられていたが、「ア」系はカードの中の聞き手に対して用いられた。日本語の指示詞使用はカードと実空間を刻々と変化する、状況をよりダイナミックに捉え、カード外の遥かなる向こう側を手の甲で pointing されていた。
4. 指示表現の選択とコンテキスト共有(自由会話)
日英語会話において、初めて指示される
特定の第三者の主語が明示されない（日本語では主語が表れない、英語では代名詞を204指す）ことに着目し、非明示でもその指示対象が聞き手に伝わる要因として話し手と聞き手のコンテキスト共有を考えた。最初の指示で非明示的な表現が観察された組は、
日本語では 13 組中 5 組、英語では 11 組中
1 組であった。非明示的な指示表現の指示対象としては、日本語では 3 例が「（話し手または聞き手と）近しいと考えられる異性」を指すものであった。英語では「両親」を指す指示表現“they”が 1 例のみ観察された。
このように非明示的表現でも聞き手にそれが誰を指すのかが伝わる要因として、日本
語では関連のある語を用いて聞き手の背景にある情報を呼び起こされたという認知的プロセスに加え「何も言わない」ことによる指標性を利用し、参与者がコンテキストを共有することが考えられた。一方英語では明示的に表す場合がほとんどであり、例
外的に見られた一例では、日本語にも見られたような認知的プロセスが観察された。
5. まとめ
4 名の各研究結果から、課題遂行までに見られる日英語の差を以下 2 点見出した。
1 つ目は、課題遂行における人間関係の再構築の差である。ここでの人間関係の再構
築とは、関係を維持しつつダイナミックに動くコンテキストの中で言語使用を行うことで関係構築し直すということを指す。英語では、人間関係の再構築よりも課題遂行に重きを置いているのに対し、日本語では
課題遂行よりも人間関係の再構築に重きを置いているということが言える。2 つ目は、会話構築の差である。英語では、会話参与
者は 1 つの課題を遂行する目的を持ち、それぞれ独立した個人が課題を遂行するという特徴があるのに対し、日本語では、会話
参与者は先にお互いの関係を構築した上で課題を共に遂行するという特徴がある。
以上のように、同一のコーパスデータを使用した 4 人の分析結果から、このような
日英語の根本概念が明らかになった。

[II]Seventh International Spring Forum
April 19-20, 2014

sections. Section 3 provides data with genitive
subjects in Chinese. Based on the newly found data,
Section 4 discusses what they might suggest for thetheory of (Chinese) syntax. Finally, Section 5
Does Modern Chinese Allow Genitive Subjects?

concludes this paper.

Ling-Yun Fan, Can Wang, and Hideki Maki

2. BACKGROUNDThis section reviews the mechanisms of genitive

Gifu University

subject licensing involved in Japanese andMongolian.

Keywords: case, Chinese, genitive, Japanese, subject

Haradanominative/genitive(1971)
case

discussed

markeraalternation

phenomenon in Modern Japanese (Japanese,
1. INTRODUCTION

hereafter), called the ga/no conversion, as illustrated

Harada (1971) pointed out that Japanese allowsin (1).

genitive subjects. Maki et al. (2010) then point out(1) [Doyoobi-ni tamago-ga/-no yasui]that Mongolian, another Altaic language, also allows

Saturday-on egg-Nom/-Gen cheap

genitive subjects. Maki et al. (2008) and Maki andmise-wa kono mise desu.

Bhutto (2013) show that non-Altaic languages such

store-Top this store be

as Bengali and Urdu also allow genitive subjects. All‘The store where eggs are cheap onthese languages possess rich case markers, one of

Saturdays is this store.’

which is the genitive case marker. These facts

Since his seminal work, the phenomenon has been

indicate that Altaic and Indo-European languages

investigated by many linguists, such as Miyagawa

allow genitives subjects, and at the same time, raise(1993, 2011, 2013), Watanabe (1996), Hiraiwa

the question of whether languages surrounded by(2001), Ochi (2001, 2009), Harada (2002), and Makithese two language families, which belong to aand Uchibori (2008), among others.

language family different from them, may also allow

Two major approaches have been proposed ingenitive subjects. The purpose of this paper is then toterms of what licenses genitive subjects in Japanese:

investigate whether Chinese, a language from the(i) the D-Licensing Approach by Miyagawa (1993),

China-Tibetan language family, possess genitive

Maki and Uchibori (2008), and Miyagawa (2011),

subjects. This investigation has not been conducted,

amongas Chinese does not have rich case markers.

Form-Licensing Approach by Watanabe (1996) andHowever, it has a morphological genitive/possessive

Hiraiwa (2001), among others. In this paper, for themarker de ‘of,’ although it does not have asake of discussion, we assume the conditions onmorphological nominative case marker. We will thengenitive subject licensing in (2), which Maki et al.

examine if Chinese allows genitive subjects marked(2010) proposed for Mongolian.

others,

and

(ii)

the

Adnominal(2) Conditions on Genitive Subject Licensing inwith de in this paper.

Mongolian

The organization of this paper is as follows.

a.

Section 2 reviews the mechanisms of genitive

A genitive subject must be
c-commanded by a nominal feature, andsubject licensing involved in Japanese andb.

Mongolian as the background to the subsequent

207

A genitive subject must be in a local

relationship with the adnominal form of

3. DATAthe predicate.

(Maki et al. (2010))

Let us now consider Chinese data. Before examining(2a) and (2b) are in a sense a mixture of thewhether it allows genitive subjects, it is worthwhile

D-Licensing Approach and the Adnominal Form

reviewing basic syntactic properties of Chinese. First,

Licensing Approach in Japanese. Maki et al. (2010)

Chinese is an SVO language, as shown in (6), andreached the conditions in (2) based on thean adverb such as zuotian ‘yesterday’ may follow or

Mongolian examples in (3) and (4).

precede the subject, as shown in (7).
(6) Zhangsan mai-le(3) öčügedür Ulaɣan-u

Zhangsan buy-ASP this-CL bookyesterday Ulagan-Gen
qudaldun-abu-ɣsan/*-čai‘Zhangsan bought this book.’nom(7) a.

buy-take-PAST.ADN/-PAST.CON bookmai-lezhe-benshu.

Ulaɣan-u

bookyesterday I-Nom Ulagan-Gen
qudaldun-abu-ɣsan /*-čai‘Zhangsan bought this book yesterday.’

gejü
b.

buy-take-PAST.ADN/-PAST.CON that
bodu-ɣsanZhangsan zuotian

Zhangsan yesterday buy-ASP this-CL‘the book which Ulagan bought yesterday’(4) öčügedür bi-øzhe-ben shu.

Zuotian Zhangsan mai-lezhe-benyesterday Zhangsan buy-ASP this-CL

nomthink-PAST.ADN bookshu.

‘the book which I thought [that Ulagan

book
Second, in nominal expressions in Chinese, de ‘of’bought t] yesterday’
In (3), the genitive subject is allowed only when themarks the possessor of a given noun, as shown in

predicate is in the adnominal form. Note that the(8).
(8) Zhangsan de shu

genitive subject is disallowed without a nominal

Zhangsan DE bookhead, as shown in (5).
(5) Ӧčügedür Ulaɣan-ø/*-u‘Zhangsan’s book’nom-ø

yesterday Ulagan-Nom/-Gen book-Acc

Third, in relative clauses in Chinese, de ‘of’ must

qudaldun-abu-čai .

appear between a head noun and the relative clause,buy-take-PAST.CON

as shown in (9).
(9) Zhangsan mai *(de) shu‘Ulagan bought a book yesterday.’In (4), the genitive subject is allowed in the

Zhangsan buy DE bookembedded clause headed by the [-Q] COMP. Maki‘the book which Zhangsan bought’

et al. (2010) call the genitive subject that appears in

Note that de ‘of’ does not appear after the subject ofan embedded clause a “deep genitive” subject. Thea simple sentence, as shown in (10).

important point about (4) is the fact that the genitive(10) * Zhangsan de mai-lezhe-ben shu.

subject is permitted only when the predicate in the

Zhangsan DE buy-ASP this-CL bookembedded clause is in the adnominal form. These‘Zhangsan bought this book.’facts led Maki et al. (2010) to claim the two

Let us now examine whether Chinese allows

conditions in (2). In the following discussion, we

genitive subjects.1 The data in the b-examples inwill assume the conditions in (2) for Japanese,(11)-(14) show that relative clauses in Chinese

Mongolian, and Chinese.

actually allow genitive subjects. Note that in all these208examples, an adverb precedes the subject, which

this-CLbook DE thing/fact everyone

guarantees that the subject is within the relative

jingya-le.

clause rather than in DP SPEC. In (11), the relative

surprised-ASP(14) a.

head is a non-argument reason expression liyou

Xingqiliu Zhangsan mai de shu‘reason,’ in (12), it is a non-argument time

Saturday Zhangsan buy DE book

expression shijian ‘time,’ in (13), it is a non-lexical

shi zhe-ben.

expression shi ‘thing/fact,’ and in (14), it is an

is this-CL

argument nominal expression shu ‘book.’‘The book which Zhangsan bought on(11) a.

Saturday is this.’

Zuotian Zhangsan mai na-ben shu

b. Xingqiliu Zhangsan de mai de shu

yesterday Zhangsan buy that-CL bookde liyou shi zhe-ge.

Saturday Zhangsan DE buy DE book

DE reason is this-CL

shi zhe-ben.

‘The reason why Zhangsan bought thatis this-CL
Let us then examine whether deep genitive

book yesterday is this.’b.

(12) a.

Zuotian Zhangsan de mai na-ben

subjects are allowed in Chinese. Consider theyesterday Zhangsan DE buy that-CL

examples in (15) and (16).

shu de liyou shi zhe-ge.

(15) a.

book DE reason is this-CL

Lisi think

Zuotian huoche dao

shi zhe-ben.

yesterday train

Beijingzhan

de shijian shi 3 dian.

‘The book which Lisi thinks that

DE time is 3 o’clock

Zhangsan bought is this.’b.

Zhangsan DE buy DE

Lisi think

Zuotian huoche de dao

shu shi zhe-ben.

yesterday train

book is this-CL

DE arrive(16) a.

de shijian shi 3 dian.

Lisi shuo [Zhangsan mai] de shu

Beijing Station DE time is 3 o’clock

Lisi say

Duiyu xingqiliu Zhangsan mai

shi zhe-ben.

onis this-CL

Saturday Zhangsan boughtzhe-ben shu de shi,dajia

Zhangsan buy DE book

‘The book which Lisi said that

this-CL book DE thing/fact everyone

Zhangsan bought is this.’

jingya-le.

b.

Lisi renwei [Zhangsan de mai] deBeijing Station yesterday is 3 o’clock.’

Beijingzhan(13) a.

Zhangsan buy DE bookis this-CL

arrive Beijing Station‘The time when the train arrived atb.

Lisi renwei [Zhangsan mai] de shub.

Lisi shuo [Zhangsan de mai] desurprised-ASP

Lisi say‘Everyone was surprised at the fact thatshu shi zhe-ben.

Zhangsan bought this book onbook is this-CL

Zhangsan DE buy DE

Saturday.’The b-examples in (15) and (16) are actually

Duiyu xingqiliu Zhangsan de maigrammatical in Chinese. Therefore, Chinese allows

ondeep genitive subjects, just like Mongolian.2 Note

Saturday Zhangsan DE boughtzhe-ben shu de shi,dajia

that Japanese does not allow deep genitive subjects,

209

as shown in (17).
(17) kinoo(Yanbian variety of Korean)watashi-ga John-ga/*-noyesterday I-Nom
katta

to

(Jin and Maki (2013))
Note that in (19), while NP(H) has a high pitch accent,John-Nom/-Gen

omotta hon

and is considered to appear in the nominativebought that thought bookenvironment, NP(L) has a low pitch accent, and is‘the book which I thought [that John bought

considered to appear in the genitive environment.

t] yesterday’

It has also been pointed out that someIndo-European languages such as Bengali (Maki et

4. DISCUSSION

al. (2008)) and Urdu (Maki and Bhutto (2013))

The above section showed for the first time thatallow genitive subjects, as illustrated in (20) and (21),Chinese allows genitive subjects. Let us thenrespectively.

consider what the present study may suggest for the(20) [Gor-e

John-erpor-a]

boi-titheory of (Chinese) grammar. First, if the present

house-in John-Gen read-NML book-the

study is correct, not only Altaic and Indo-European

mojar.

languages, but also part of China-Tibetan languages,

interestingallow genitive subjects. It has been pointed out that

‘The book which John read in the house is

Altaic languages such as Japanese (Harada (1971)),

interesting.’

Mongolian (Maki et al. (2010)), Turkish (Kornfilt(Bengali) (personal communication with

(2003)), and the Yanbian variety of Korean (Jin and

Sikder Murshed)

Maki (2013)) allow genitive subjects. The examples(21) [KalJohn-kikhareedi-hui] kitabfrom Turkish and the Yanbian variety of Korean are

yesterday John-Gen bought-PERF bookshown in (18) and (19), respectively.

buhut dilchasp(18) a.

[Ben-im aile-m-ivery interesting be.PRES

I-Gen family-1.SG-Acc‘The book which John bought yesterday is

terket-tiğ-im]very interesting.’

söylebti-si

abandon-FN-1.SG rumor-CMPM

b.

hai.

(Urdu) (Maki and Bhutto (2013))‘the rumor that I abandoned my family’

From the viewpoint of geography, the areas where(Kornfilt (2003, 69) slightly edited)

China-Tibetan languages are spoken are surrounded[Ben

aile-m-iby the areas where Altaic and some Indo-European

I.Nom family-1.SG-Acc

languages are spoken. This raises the interesting

terket-ti-m]question of whether Chinese, an instance ofsöylebti-si

abandon-PAST-1.SG rumor-CMPM

China-Tibetan languages, may also allow genitive‘the rumor that I abandoned my family’

subjects, which are characteristic of Altaic languages(Turkish)and some Indo-European languages like Urdu. The(Kornfilt (2003: 70) slightly edited)
(H)

(L)

(19) [Zigum nae /nae

present study provides an answer to this question.
The answer is positive, which suggests an interestingssun] gul-i

now I.Nom/I.Gen wrote character-Nom

view of the proto language family for Altaic, Indic,

boini?

and China-Tibetan. At the present moment, theseeChina-Tibetan family is completely independent of‘Can you see the character I wrote now?’

the other families, but this study may affect this210

(24) [kinoo

traditional idea, and opens up the way to reconsider

Taroo-ga/*-no

Jiroo(-o)

the origin of the China-Tibetan family, which might

yesterday Taro-Nom/-Gen Jiro-Acc

constitute part of the proto language family

hometa] riyuu

including the three families.

praised reason

Second, examples such as (11b), which has a‘the reason why Taro praised Jiro yesterday’

transitive verb with an overt object, show that the

Let us now consider the Chinese counterpart of (24)Transitivity Restriction on genitive subjects, whichshown in (25).

prohibits co-occurrence of an accusative DP with a(25) zuotian

Zhangsan (de) biaoyang Lisu

genitive subject (See Harada (1971), Miyagawa

yesterday Zhangsan DE praise(1993), and Watanabe (1996)), is not operative inde liyou

Chinese, unlike Japanese. (22) illustrates theDE reason

Transitivity Restriction effect in Japanese.

‘the reason why Zhangsan praised Lisi

(22) [kinoo

yesterday’

Taroo-ga/*-no

hon-o

Lisi

yesterday Taro-Nom/-Gen book-Acc(25) is grammatical with the genitive subject, whichkatta] miseindicates that the Transitivity Restriction is notbought store

observed in Chinese. Therefore, the fact that Chinese‘the store where Taro bought a bookobjects do not bear the morphological accusative

yesterday’case marker is not crucial to the Transitivity(Ochi (2009: 327), slightly edited)

Restriction.

One may, however, argue that Chinese does not have

Third, the Chinese examples with genitive

an overt accusative case marker, which makes the

subjects raise the interesting question related to theTransitivity Restriction lifted, as the example in (23)validity of Hiraiwa’s (2001) generalization shown inin Japanese is considered to be good.

(26).

(23) [kinoo(26) The Nominative-Genitive Conversion

Taroo-ga/-no

hon katta]

yesterday Taro-Nom/-Gen book bought(NGC) Universal

mise

Nominative-Genitive Conversion is possible

store

only in a language L which employs the‘the store where Taro bought a book

C-T-V AGREE strategy in relativization;yesterday’

consequently, NGC is not observed in the(Ochi (2009: 328), slightly edited)languages which use overt wh-movement

Ochi (2009: 335) suggests the possibility thatstrategy or overt complementizer strategy

without the accusative case marker, the object andin relative clause formation.

the verb may constitute a unit, so that accusative(Hiraiwa (2001: 113))

Case checking is not involved in (23), which lifts the

The central claim in (26) that a genitive subject isTransitivity Restriction. Interestingly enough, whenpossible only in a language L which employs thethe object is not a common noun, unit forming

C-T-V AGREE strategy in relativization, may be

between the verb and the object without thechallenged by examples such as (11b) in Chinese.

accusative case marker is not successful, and the(11b) involves relativization. However, it is not clear

Transitivity Restriction effect shows up, as shown inthat the C-T-V AGREE strategy is employed in this(24).

case. For the sake of discussion, let us consider the211two possibilities regarding the position of theTurkish, and unlike Japanese. Third, and finally,

invisible COMP in (11b), as shown in (27).

Hiraiwa’s (2001) claim that a genitive subject is(27) a.

[…NP-Gen…V NP-Acc…C] DE N

possible only in a language L which employs theb.

[C…NP-Gen…V NP-Acc…] DE N

C-T-V AGREE strategy in relativization needs to bereconsidered.

In (27a), the V and C cannot be adjacent due to theintervening direct object (NP-Acc). In (27b), the V
and C cannot be adjacent due to the intervening

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

subject (NP-Gen). Note that the C-T-V AGREE may

We are indebted to Naoyuki Akaso, Lina Bao, Ying

take place in Japanese, as shown in (28), which

Bi, Jessica Dunton, Yosuke Fukumoto, Yong-Xin

represents the schematic structure of (1) with theGao, Yin-Ji Jin, Megumi Hasebe, Shigeru Miyagwa,

genitive subject..

Yoichi Miyamoto, Sikder Monoare Murshed,(28) […NP-Gen…A/V T C] N

Fumikazu Niinuma, Masao Ochi, Osamu Sawada,

In (28), A or V and T+C are adjacent to each other,

Shigeki Taguchi, Min-Wen Tsai, Akira Watanabe,

which can constitute an amalgamated complex

Wurigumula, Toshiyuki Yamada, and Ru-Wen

predicate in overt syntax. The other languages that

Zhang for valuable comments on an earlier version

allow genitive subjects such as Mongolian, Turkish,of this paper. All errors are our own.

Bengali, and Urdu all have an amalgamatedcomplex predicate in overt syntax, as shown in (28).

NOTES

However, in Chinese, this kind of complex predicate

1

is not formed in overt syntax, yet genitive subjects

genitive subjects in Chinese vary from speaker toare allowed in this language. Therefore, this seems

speaker. The informants’ ages and birthplaces are notto suggest that the claim that a genitive subject isrelevant factors for the variation in the judgments.

possible only in a language L which employs theWe will leave the cause of the variation for future

Note that the grammaticality judgments on

C-T-V AGREE strategy in relativization needs to beresearch.

reconsidered. To be precise, C may not be relevant in2

the languages that allow genitive subjects. Note that(i), which has a deep genitive subject in a gapless

Murasugi (1991) convincingly shows that Japaneseprenominal sentential modifier, is not consistent

relative clauses are IPs, not CPs.

among those who allow genitive subjects in

Note that the grammaticality of the b-example in

Chinese.
5. CONCLUSION(i) a.

Duiyu Lisi shuo [Zhangsan mai-leThis paper investigated whether Chinese wouldonpossess genitive subjects, and found that it actuallyzhe-ben shu] de shi,did. Based on the newly found data, we suggested

this-CL book DE thing/fact everyone

the

and

jingya-le.

ofsurprised-ASP

following.

Indo-European

First,

notlanguages,

only
but

Altaicalso

partLisi say

Zhangsan buy-ASP
dajia

China-Tibetan languages, allow genitive subjects.

‘Everyone was surprised at the fact that

Second, the Transitivity Restriction on genitive

Lisi said that Zhangsan bought thissubjects, which prohibits co-occurrence of an

book.’

accusative DP with a genitive subject, is notb.(*)Duiyu Lisi shuo [Zhangsan deoperative in Chinese, just like Mongolian and

on

212

Lisi say

Zhangsan DE

mai-le(WAFL6), ed. by Hiroki Maezawa and Azusa

zhe-ben shu] de shi,buy-ASP this-CL book DE thing/fact

Yokogoshi, 229–245, MITWPL, Cambridge,

dajia

MA.

jingya-le.

Maki, Hideki and Amanullah Bhutto (2013)

everyone surprised-ASP
Therefore, in this paper, we will put aside examples“Genitive Subject Licensing in Modern Urdu,”

such as (ib), leaving the issue of the variation in

English Linguistics 30, 191–203.
Maki, Hideki, Kenichi Goto, and Mohammed

grammaticality for future research.

Joynal Abedin (2008) “On the Distribution of
REFERENCES

Nominative and Genitive Case in Modern

Harada, S.-H. (1971) “Ga-No Conversion andBengali,” Proceedings of the 137th Meeting of
the Linguistic Society of Japan, 286–291.

Ideolectal Variations in Japanese,” Gengo

Maki, Hideki and Asako Uchibori (2008) “Ga/No

Kenkyu 60, 25–38.

Conversion,”

Harada, Naomi (2002) Licensing PF-Visible Formal

HandbookofJapanese

andLinguistics ed. by Shigeru Miyagawa andCase-Related Phenomena in PF, Doctoral

Mamoru Saito, 192–216, Oxford University

dissertation, University of California, Irvine.

Press, Oxford.

Features:A

LinearAlgorithm

Miyagawa, Shigeru (1993) “Case-Checking and

Hiraiwa, Ken (2001) “On Nominative-Genitivein

Minimal Link Condition,” MIT Working

Linguistics 39: A Few from Building E39, ed.

Paper in Linguistics 19: Papers on Case andby Elena Guerzoni and Ora Matushansky,

Agreement II, ed. by Colin Phillips, 213–

66–125, MITWPL, Cambridge, MA.

254, MITWPL, Cambridge, MA.

Conversion,”

MIT

Working

PapersJin, Yin-Ji and Hideki Maki (2013) “The Genitive

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2011) “Genitive Subjects in

Subject in the Yanbian Variety of Korean: A

Altaic and Specification of Phase,” Lingua

Visual Analogue Scale Analysis,” MIT

121, 1265–1282.

#67:

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2013) “Strong Uniformity andProceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic

Ga/No Conversion,” English Linguistics 30,

Formal Linguistics (WAFL8), ed. by Umut

1–24.

Working

Papersin

Linguistics

Murasugi, Keiko (1999) Noun Phrases in JapaneseӦzge, 153–158, MITWPL, Cambridge, MA.

and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability

Kornfilt, Jaklin (2003) “Subject Case in Turkish
Nominalized Clauses,” Syntactic Structures

andand Morphological Information ed. by Uwe

University of Connecticut.

Asian Linguistics 10, 247–286.

Maki, Hideki, Lina Bao, Qing-Yu Wu, WurigumulaOchi, Masao (2009) “Overt Object Shift in

Bao, Asako Uchibori, Fumikazu Niinuma, and(2010)

Japanese,” Syntax 12, 324–362.

“The

Watanabe, Akira (1996) “Nominative-Genitive

Nominative/Genitive Alternation in Modern
Mongolian,”

MIT

Working

dissertation,

Conversion in Japanese,” Journal of East

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.

Goto

DoctoralOchi, Masao (2001) “Move F and Ga/No

Junghanns and Luka Szucsich, 129–215,

KenichiAcquisition,

Papersin

Conversion and Agreement in Japanese: A

Linguistics #61: Proceedings of the 6th

Cross-Linguistic Perspective,” Journal of East

Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics

Asian Linguistics 5, 373–410.

213

characterized in terms of the change in themanner of specifying the modal operator in T:
from the direct merger of a modal in T, which is
the most basic strategy, to the covert movementof an adverb, which is a later development.

The Historical Development ofThis paper is organized as follows. Section 2

English Middles*

introduces some basic properties of English
FHQJ Shuang

middles. Section 3 conducts a historical survey

Graduate School of Nagoya Universityof the two types of middles based on OED.
Section 4 proposes a syntactic analysis of their

Keywords: dispositional modality, root modality,

historicalmodal operator, facility adverb, event adverb

concluding remarks.

development.

Section5

offers

2. The Properties of English Middles
1. Introduction

2.1 The Aspectual Condition

This paper attempts to account for the

The aspectual condition on English middles ishistorical development of English middles, bydefined as in (2) and illustrated by the examples

applying the analysis of Massam (1992) thatin (3).

they have a modal operator in T to be specified(2) Only(transitive)

activities

andby a modal or an adverb. Generally speaking,accomplishments

middles are classified into two types, as shownformation.

in (1a, b), respectively.

(Ackema and Schoorlemmer (2005: 178))(1) a. Type I:

undergomiddle(3) a. activity verbs

These novels read *(easily).

The car drives easily.
(Kageyama (2004: 121))

These novels read *(like mysteries).
b. Type II:b. accomplishment verbs

Dirt will/could rub off when it is dry.

The food cooks easily.

Type I middles as in (1a) involve a facility(Roberts (1987: 196))

adverb like easily, or an event adverb like likec. state verbs

mysteries, without which the sentences would*The Eiffel Tower sees easily.

become ungrammatical. In contrast, Type II

d. achievement verbs

middles as in (1b) are grammatical without an*French acquires easily.

(ibid.)

adverb, but must be accompanied by a modal

In (3a, b), drive and cook are an activity verb

like will or could. Both types have a modal

and an accomplishment verb, respectively, andinterpretation in that they denote the possibility

the grammaticality of the examples shows thatof the event and the implicit agent’s ability tothey can undergo middle formation. In contrast,

carry out the event. Based on this and thein (3c, d), see and acquire are a state verb and ananalysis of Massam (1992), this paper proposes

achievement verb, respectively, and they cannot

that the development of English middles can beundergo middle formation, in accordance with214the aspectual condition in (2). Furthermore,embodies her claim under the Revised Extended

Zwart (1998) points out that verbs which are

IP (REIP), as shown in (6), where FA and EA

stative/non-eventive cannot undergo middle

represent facility adverbs and event adverbs,

formation because of its function to form arespectively.2

generalization over events, as shown in (4).1(6) [υP [VP1 EA[VP1 pro [V1͛V1 ]]] [VP2… [VP3EA(4) The middle construction is a formation of[V3͛ patient]]]](Matsumoto (1996: 53))

a generalization over events, and hence

Matsumoto argues that facility adverbs areverbs which are stative/non-eventive are

directly merged in the adjunct position of VP1,

necessarily excluded as they do not denoteas they are related to the implicit agent pro

events.

(cf. Zwart (1998:113-115))

merged in [Spec, VP1]. The modality denoted by

Section 4 probes into the aspectual properties

facility adverbs is agent-oriented modality. On

shared by activity and accomplishment verbs

the other hand, event adverbs are related to theand attempts to provide a syntactic account ofstate/property of the surface subject (the patient)

the aspectual condition on English middles.

and hence they are VP3 adjuncts; the modality
denoted by event adverbs is dispositional
modality.3

2.2 Adverbial Modification
According to Fellbaum (1986), only facility

Based on Matsumoto (1996), section 4adverbs and event adverbs can appear in English

attempts to account for the development of

middles, as shown in (5).

English middles in terms of the change in theuse of facility adverbs and event adverbs.

(5) a. facility adverbs(easily, fast, quickly, in a jiffy, etc.)
Cotton irons easily.

3. The Distribution of Middles in OED

b. event adverbs

I have collected the historical data on English(smoothly, like salt, etc.)

middles from OED on CD-ROM by utilizing its

No salt shakes like salt.

quotation

searchfunction.

The

resultis(Fellbaum (1986: 123))

summarized in Table 1, which represents the

Facility adverbs as in (5a) refer to the degree of

numbers of their tokens and the percentages offacility/easiness or the speed with which theeach type. This shows that middles emerged in

implicit agent can perform the action expressed

the 16th century, when only Type II wasby the verb. In contrast, event adverbs as in (5b)available; then, Type I appeared in the 17threfer to the state or property of the patient during

century and increased its frequency thereafter.

or after the action, so they are related to theTable 1. The Distribution of Middles in thesurface subject.

History of English
2.3 Modality

16C

17C

18C

19C

1901-

0

19

31

79

20

35%

55%

54%

62%

Based on Fellbaum (1986), Matsumoto (1996)

Type

claims that different syntactic positions ofIfacility adverbs and event adverbs lead to

Type

6

35

25

66

12

different modal readings in English middles. She

II

100%

65%

45%

46%

38%

215

It is worthwhile to note that the emergence ofT. Given this and the assumption in section 3,

middles coincides with the establishment of thethis paper proposes that the development ofmodal system in the history of English. Since theEnglish middles can be divided into four stages,

seminal work by Lightfoot (1979), there have

which are characterized in terms of the change

been a number of studies on the development ofin the manner of specifying the modal operator

the modal system and it is generally agreed thatin T.

modals were reanalyzed from main verbs toauxiliaries in the 16th century. To take one of theStage I

recent studies, Biberauer and Roberts (2010)

In Stage I (16C), only Type II which involves

propose the following reanalysis of modals.

a modal without adverbial modification was(7) a. [TP Subji T [VP Modal [TP ti T [ʋP ti ʋ

attested, as shown in (9).

VP]]]](9)
REANALYSIS

a. Looke you Francis, your white Canuas
doublet will sulley (sully).

b. [TP Subji Modal (T) [ʋP ti ʋ VP]]

(1596 Shakes. 1 Hen. IV, ii. iv. 84)(Biberauer and Roberts (2010: 280))

b. My clayth will nocht stenȝie (stain).

In (7a), the modal is a main verb taking a(1568 Sat. Poems Reform. xlviii. 15)

sentential complement which is merged in V.

c. ….And never may your meat digest.

This bi-clausal structure was reanalyzed in the(1586 Marlowe 1st Pt. Tamburl. iv.)

16th century as the mono-clausal one in (7b),d. I finde it nowe for a setled truth͏thatwhere the modal is directly merged in T. In what

the purple dye will neuer staine.

follows, this reanalysis will be shown to have(1579 Lyly Euphues (Arb.) 82)

led to the emergence of middles in the 16th

Therefore, it is plausible that the development

century.

of modals led to the emergence of middles in the
16th century, because modals can now specify
the modal operator by being directly merged in

4. A Syntactic Analysis of the Development ofEnglish Middles

T in accordance with the assumption madeFollowing Massam (1992), this paper assumes

above.

that English middles have a null modal operator

Moreover, this paper proposes that thein T, represented as Op in (8a, b), to be specified

aspectual condition on middles (see (2)-(4))

either by a modal or an adverb, which yields thefollows from the assumption in (8) that theymodal interpretation.

involve a modal operator in T. According to(8) a. [TP NP [T Modal (Op)] [[ʋP[VP V……]]]]

Fábregas and Putnam (2014), the event variable
in middles must be bound by an operator. Under

b. [TP NP [T (Op)] [ʋP[VP ADV [VP V…]]]]

the present analysis, the modal operator in T
serves to bind the event variable provided by an(the dotted line represents LF movement)

activity or accomplishment verb, as shown in

If this is correct, there will be two modes of(10).

specifying the modal operator: direct merger of a(10) a. Looke you Francis, your white Canuas

modal in T and covert movement of an adverb to

doublet will sulley (sully).

216

(1596 Shakes. 1 Hen. IV, ii. iv. 84)b.

modal interpretation in middles.

TP
DP

T'
ʋP

your white T
Canuas doublet

Stage II

will ʋ

Stage II covers the first half of the 17th
VP

century.

sulley(e) V
sulley

DP

First

of

all,

Type

II

middlesaccompanied by facility adverbs became attested

your whitein this stage, as shown in (12).

Canuas doublet(12) a. Grape…it is reporte…will keep better

As shown in (10b), the modal operator in T isin a vessel half full of wine, so that thelexicalized by will, and it binds the event

grapes touch not the wine.

variable of the verb sully which has moved to ʋ,(1626 Bacon Sylva §627)

through existential closure. As the modalb. Is't a Cleare businesse? Will it

operator gives rise to stative/non-eventive

mannage well? My name must not besemantics, the sentence has a modal and hence

vs'd else.

stative interpretation. Although English middles(1625 B. Jonson Staple of News iv. i,)do not have morphology associated with theirc. The Yards may slip vp and downe

stative interpretation, languages such as Greek

easily vpon the Masts.

and Italian have a special verbal inflection/clitic(1627 Capt. Smith Seaman's G. v. 20)

which appears in middles, as shown in (11a, b),

Besides, there were also a few instances ofrespectively. Lekakou (2002: 406) proposes thatType II middles accompanied by event adverbs,

Greek middle verbs carry an imperfective

as shown in (13).

morpheme and it allows an otherwise eventive(13) a. A kind of steel…which would polishverb to have a modal reading as a derived stative.

almost as white and bright as silver.

Moreover, Cinque (1988) analyzes the clitic si in(1626 BACON Sylva item 849)

Italian middles as being generated in T.

b. The Dromidor…will ride aboue 80(11) a. Greek middles
Kovi

afto

miles in the day.
tocut-IMPERFE-3SG(1632 Lithgow Trav. vi. 298)

psalidi?
this the scissors

c. Before you paste your Paper on the‘Do these scissors cut ?’

form,first Tallow him, so will the(Lekakou (2002: 406))

Canvas and Paper slip off withoutb. Italian middles

starting or tearing.
(1669 Sturmy Mariner's M.v. xii. 63)

Questo vestito si lava facilmente.
‘This suit si washes easily.’(Cinque (1988: 559))

Stage III

Because of the interpretive similarity between

In Stage III (the second half of the 17th

English middles and Greek/Italian middles, thiscentury), Type I middles, namely middles withpaper assumes that the modal operator in T in

adverbial modification which do not involve a

the former serves the same function as the verbal

modal, began to emerge. This stage saw theinflection/clitic in the latter, giving rise to theappearance of those with a facility adverb, as217

shown in (14).

(16) a. If they handle moist or clammy,(14) a. There is no Merchandize in thiswhen you squeeze them they are

Ware-House which sels better, thenfit to bag. (1727 Bradley Fam. Dict.

certain Fans.

Hop-garden)b. (Red Jessamine)…many red(1656 Earl of M. tr. P. i. i. 4)
b. When the Shank of a Letter has a

Flowers cut like Honeysuckle.
(1729 in Dampier's (ed. 3) III. 452)

proper thickness, Founders say. It rubs
well. (1683MOXON Mech. Exerc.

c. (The horse) …Rides with herxxiv. 389)

Tongue out of her Mouth.

c. Being washed three or four times, it(1714 Ibid. No. 5195/4)

bites or eats not, but dries quickly.

In this stage, the modal operator in middles(1677 Moxon Mech. Exerc. 242)

can be specified not only by facility adverbs but

It indicates that the mode of licensing the modal

also by event adverbs. Take the middle sentence

operator was extended from the direct merger ofin (16a) as an example, whose syntactica modal to the covert movement of a facility

structure is shown in (17).

adverb in this period. Let us take the middle

(17)

TP

sentence in (14c) as an example, whose syntacticDP

structure is shown in (15).

they

(15)

TP

DP
it

ʋP

T
(OP)

T′

ʋ

VP1

handle FA
ʋP

T

(Op)

Tʹ

ʋ

VP1
pro

VP1

dry FA
quickly pro

VP3
VP1

EA

….……..
EA

VP3

moist or clammy V

VP3
LF movement…

handleDPthey

LF movement

VP3
V

DP

The change in this stage could be viewed as

dry

it

an extension in the manner of specifying theIn (15), the facility adverb quickly adjoined tomodal operator: it can now be licensed by the

VP1 moves to T at LF to specify the modal

covert movement of event adverbs which

operator in accordance with the assumption incontribute to the disposition of the patient.

(8), giving rise to root, to be more precise,
agent-oriented modality (see section 2.3).

5. Concluding Remarks
This paper has attempted to account for thehistorical development of middles in history ofStage IV
In Stage IV (18C), Type II middles with an

English in terms of the change in manner of

event adverb began to be attested, as shown in

specifying the modal operator in T. Moreover,(16).

following the notion of dynamic enrichment, it
was suggested that the modal interpretation in218

middles was enriched in the 18 century with thevan Riemsdijk, 131-203, Blackwell

appearance of event adverbs.

Publishing, Oxford.
Biberauer, Theresa and Ian Roberts (2010)

NOTES“Subjects, Tense and Verb Movement,”* This is a revised version of the paper presented

Parametric Variation: Null Subjects inat the 7th International Spring Forum of the

Minimalist

English Linguistic Society of Japan at Doshisha

Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts

University (April 19, 2014). An extended

andversion has appeared as FENG (2014). I would

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

like to express my sincere gratitude to Takeshi

Cinque, Guglielmo (1988) “On Si Constructions

Omuro, Tomoyuki Tanaka, Tomohiro Yanagi andand the Theory of Arb,” Linguistic

all the members of Department of English

Inquiry 19, 521-581.

Linguistics, Nagoya University for their helpful

Theory,Michelleed.

bySheehan,Theresa
263-302,

Fábregas, Antonio and Michael Putnam (2014)

suggestions and valuable comments. I am also“The

grateful to the participants of the conference,

Structures with and without Agents,” The

who gave me valuable comments. Needless to

Linguistic Review 31 (2): 193-240.

say, all remaining errors and inadequacies are

Emergenceof

MiddleVoice

Fellbaum, Christiane (1986) On the Middle

mine.

Construction in English, IndianD University

1

According to Mulder (1992), achievement

Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana.

verbs denote an action which is instantaneous. In

FHQJ, Shuang (2014) “On the Development ofother words, there are no intermediate stages andMiddles in the History of English,” IVY 47,

the only thing of importance is the end of the

21-401DJR\D8QLYHUVLW\Kageyama, Taro (2004) “The Interaction ofaction. This paper assumes with Mulder that thesituationthatachievement

verbs

Lexical Conceptual Structure and Qualia

denoteresembles a kind of state.

Structure in Middle Constructions,” Eibei

2

According to Matsumoto (1996), VP2 in (6)Bungaku (English and American Literature),

serves to introduce an event argument. One of48, 117-133.ZDQVHL*DNXLQ8QLYHUVLW\the characteristics of middles is that [Spec, VP2]

Lekakou, Marika (2002) “Middle Semantics andis not projected.

its Realization in English and Greek,” UCL

3Working Paper in Linguistics 14, 399-416.

Given the fact that middles are defined as an

ascription of a dispositional property to the

Lekakou,

Marika(2005)

In

the

Middle,surface subject (cf. Lekakou (2005)), it isSomewhat Elevated: the Semantics ofreasonable to argue that English middles involve

Middles and Its Cross-linguistic Realization,

dispositional modality.

Doctoral dissertation, University College
London.

REFERENCES

Lightfoot,Ackema, Peter and Maaike Schoolemmer (2005)

David(1979)

Principles

ofDiachronic Syntax, Cambridge University“Middles,” The Blackwell Companion

Press, Cambridge.

to Syntax, ed. by Martin Everaert and Henk

Massam, Diane (1992) “Null Object and219

Non-thematic Subjects,” Journal of
Linguistics 28, 115-137.
Matsumoto, Masumi (1996) “Modality in the
EnglishMiddleandtheJapanese

Potential,” JELS 13, 51-60.
Mulder, Rene (1992) The Aspectual Nature of
Syntactic

Complementation,

Doctoral

Dissertation, University of Groningen.
Roberts, Ian (1987) The Representation of
Implicit and Dethematized Subjects, Foris,
Dordrecht.
Zwart,

Jan-Wouter(1998)“Nonargument

Middles in Dutch,” *URQLQJHU $UEHLWHQ]\UJHUPDQLVWLVFKHQ/LQJXLVWLN 42, 109-128.

DICTIONARYThe Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2nd ed.
on CD-ROM, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

220a plurality over which distribution of a
relational adjective takes place in order tomake an internal reading possible.

Regarding

A QR-based Approach to the Internal

this type of reading, our present concern is

Reading of Tigau

how we can capture the proper relationshipbetween a relational adjective and a plurality.
On this issue, Tonoike (2013) offers an

Yoko Fujii

Agree-based analysis of the internal reading.

Osaka University

On the other hand, this paper considers
potential problems of the Agree-based analysis

Keywords: (sentence-)internal reading, scope,and proposes a Q(uantifier)R(aising)-based

QR, phaseapproach to it. The gist of my proposal is thata plurality must c-command a relational
1. INTRODUCTION

adjective or its trace to license an internalThis paper examines the (sentence-)internalreading.

reading of relational adjectives such as
differentinEnglishandits

2. PREVIOUS ANALYSIS

Japanesecounterpart tigau. The internal reading is a

2.1. DATA

distributive reading licensed by a plurality, as

Before moving on to the discussion, let us

exemplified in (1):observe the data of relational adjectives. The
following English examples are from Carlson

Bob and Alice attend different classes.

(1987) and three generalizations about them(e.g. Bob attends Biology 101 and Aliceare made by Tonoike (2013).

(1) a.

Although thegeneralizations are based on English data, it

attends Philosophy 799)

will be shown that the same goes for Japanese(Carlson 1987: 532)

data.

b. Taro-to-Hanako-ga

First of all, Generalization 1 is given in

Taro-and-Hanako-Nom(2) and illustrated in (3) and (4) ((1a, b) aretigau-hon-okat-ta.

repeated here as (3a) and (4a) respectively.):different-book-Acc

buy-past(2) Generalization 1: “When a relational‘Taro and Hanako bought different
books.’

adjective and a plurality occur in the same(e.g. Taro bought Barriers and Hanako

clause, order does not matter”(Tonoike 2013: 223)bought LGB)
(3) a.
b.

The internal reading of (1a) requires the class

Different cats chased the two rats.

(4) a. Taro-to-Hanako-ga

Bob attends to be different from the one Aliceattends.

Bob and Alice attend different classes.

Taro-and-Hanako-Nom

Likewise, in (1b), the book Tarobought must be different from the one Hanako

tigau-hon-okat-ta.

bought under this reading.

different-book-Acc

buy-past‘Taro and Hanako bought different

As shown in (1), a sentence has to contain

221In (6) and (7), the plurality is in the mainbooks.’

clause and the relational adjective is in theb. Tigau-gakusei-ga

embedded clause. This structure also allows

different-student-Nom
LGB-to-Barriers-o

kat-ta.

an internal reading.

Finally, Generalization 3

LGB-and-Barriers-Acc

buy-past

refers to the structure where an internal reading
is unavailable:‘Different students bought LGB andBarriers.’(8) Generalization 3: “If the relationship isIn (3a), the plurality Bob and Alice precedes

reversed (i.e., if the adjective is in the main

the relational adjective while in (3b) theclauserelational adjective precedes the plurality thecomplement clause), no internal reading

two rats. Internal readings are available forobtains.”

and

the

plurality

is

in

the

(Tonoike 2013: 224)

both sentences in accordance with (2). In asimilar way, in (4a, b), although the plurality
and the relational adjective appear in reverse

Note here that (9) and (10) below lack anorder, both of them receive an internal reading.

internal reading or at least it is degraded in

The order, however, would matter if there is acontrast to the examples above (Hereafter,clause boundary between them, as summarized

doublein (5):

unavailability or the marginality of an internal

questionmarks

indicatethereading.):(5) Generalization 2: “When they are separated(9) a. ??Different students think that America

by a clause boundary, the plurality mustwasc-command the adjective”

discovered

by

those

two

famous explorers.

(Tonoike 2013: 224)

b. ??It seems to different people that those
two colors are emanating from these(6) and (7) are examples demonstrating (5):pieces of cloth.
(10) ??Tigau-sensei-ga(6) a. Mike and Bob think that different

different-teacher-Nom

explorers discovered America.

Taro-to-Hanako-ga

b. It seems to Fred and Susan that

LGB-odifferent colors are emanating fromTaro-and-Hanako-Nom

the same piece of velvet.

kat-tatoomot-teiru.

buy-past

COMP

think-pres.

(7) Taro-to-Hanako-ga‘Different teachers think that Taro andTaro-and-Hanako-Nom
tigau-gakusei-ga

LGB-Acc

LGB-o

Hanako bought LGB.’

kat-tadifferent-student-Nom LGB-Acc buy-pastomot-teiru.

In (9) and (10), the relational adjective is in the

COMP think-pres.

main clause and the plurality is in theto‘Taro and Hanako think that different

embedded clause.

students bought LGB.’

not license an internal reading.

222

This configuration does

2.2. AGREE-BASED ANALYSIS

In this case, [+d] on different explores andIn order to capture these generalizations,different colors is first picked up by C by

Tonoike (2013) proposes an Agree-based

Agree, and then the matrix v picks it up. The

analysis of the internal reading of different.

matrix v ultimately assigns [+d] to Mike andHe assumes that a relational adjective enters

Bob or Fred and Susan by Agree.

thederivation

with

a

featureOn the other hand, in (9), the feature

value[+distributive], which is transmitted to a phasevaluation does not succeed.

head by Agree.

Then, the phase head works

has the following structure at some stage of the

as a probe, starts searching for a closest

derivation (Transfer is indicated by strikeout.):

pluralityandassignsthefeature[+distributive] to it by Agree.

Notice that (9)value(13) a. [different students v* [think [thatIn short, a[+d]successful assignment of the feature value[…those two famous explorers… ]]from a relational adjective to a plurality via aphase head results in the intended internalb.

[v [to different people] seems [thatreading.

[+d]

Let us consider how this analysis works
with Carlson’s data.
derivation

of

(3)

[…those two colors…]]

First of all, the
is

given

in

(11)

As illustrated in (13), at the point when [+d] on([+distributive] is represented as [+d] and Bob

different students and different people enters

and Alice as B&A.) :the derivation, the embedded TPs containing
those two famous explorers and those two(11) a.
b.

[B&A v* [attend different classes]]colors have been already transferred. Thus,[+d] [+d]the intended feature valuation is not achieved.

[+d][Different cats v* [chased the 2 rats]][+d]     [+d]This is why (9) lacks an internal reading under[+d] Tonoike’s analysis.

(Tonoike 2013: 224)
3. POTENTIAL PROBLEM

In (11a), [+d] on different classes is assigned to

As shown above, the Agree-based analysis

Bob and Alice via v.

Likewise, in (11b), [+d]correctly predicts the availability and theon different cats is assigned to the two rats via

unavailability of the internal reading inv.

Carlson’s data.

Nevertheless, it involves anThen, consider how feature valuation

undesirable operation, namely Agree both in anproceeds across a clause boundary in (6),upward direction and a downward direction.

which is repeated here as (12):In this sense, it is not a satisfactory analysis.
In addition to the theoretical problem,(12) a. Mike and Bob think that different

Tonoike’s

analysis

potentially

faces

an

explorers discovered America.

empirical problem. A problematic example

b. It seems to Fred and Susan thatcomes from Japanese causative constructions,different colors are emanating froma typical example of which is given below:

the same piece of velvet.

223

(14) Hanako-ga(17) [vP tigau-sensei-ga

Taro-ni

Hanako-Nom Taro-Dat[+d]Jiro-ohihans-ase-ta.

[VP [vP Taro-to-Hanako-ni

Jiro-Acc

criticize-cause-past[V kaw]]] [V ase]]][VP LGB-o‘Hanako made Taro criticize Jiro.’
Accordingly, it is expected that the feature
It is argued by Murasugi and Hashimoto

valuation will succeed in this example, which(2004) and Saito (2011), among others that themeans Tonoike’s analysis predicts that (16)embedded clauses of Japanese causatives arereceives an internal reading, contrary to fact.

vPs, as illustrated in (15):
4. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS(15) [TP Hanako-gai [vP ti [VP [vP Taro-ni

4.1. QR-BASED APPROACH[VP Jiro-o [V hihans]]] [V ase]]]As an alternative to the Agree-based analysis, I[T ta]]

propose a QR-based approach.

My mainclaim is that a plurality must take scope over a
Given

this

structureofarelational adjective in order to obtain an

causative

construction, the unavailability (the deviancy

internal reading.

at least) of the internal reading found in therealized, the proposed requirement could be

following example might be difficult to

met by the QR of the plurality.
Letaccount for under the Agree-based analysis

us

When the reverse order is

begin

by

reviewing

threesince nothing seems to go wrong with theassumptions that we will utilize in thefeature valuation in this example:

discussion to follow.

First of all, I adopt the

Scope Principle argued by Aoun and Li (1989),
given in (18):(16) ??Tigau-sensei-ga
different-teacher-Nom
Taro-to-Hanako-ni

LGB-o

Taro-and-Hanako-Dat

LGB-Acc(18) The Scope Principle
A quantifier A has scope over quantifier B

kaw-ase-ta.

in case A c-commands a member of the

buy-cause-past

chain containing B.

‘Different teachers made Taro andI also assume with Cecchetto (2004) andHanako buy LGB.’

Takahashi (2010), that QR is phase-bound.
In (16), as indicated by double question marks,

The phase-boundedness we assume with theancurrent proposal is summarized in (19):internal

readingisnotavailable.

Nevertheless, when [+d] on tigau-sensei is(19) Phase-bounded QR

introduced into the derivation, the plurality

QR cannot apply across a phase boundary.

Taro-to-Hanako, which occupies the lower
Spec, vP position is still accessible to syntactic

Finally, following Takahashi (2010), I assume

operations, as shown in (17):that vP phases are created via Case-valuation.

224

More precisely, Takahashi (2010) defines a vP

4.2. ANALYSIS

phase as in (20):With these assumptions in mind, now I
demonstrate how my proposal captures theinternal reading. Let us first consider the(20) Contextually-determined phases
A vP will count as a phase only when its

problematic example for the Agree-basedhead values Case of an internal argument.

analysis. The example is repeated in (22) and
its derivation is given in (23) (The shade
represents a phase.):Regarding the assumption given in (20), one of
the examples Takahashi provides is shown in(22) ??Tigau-sensei-ga(21):

different-teacher-Nom(21) Nominative/ Accusative conversion
a. John-ga

migime-dake-o

Taro-to-Hanako-ni

LGB-o

Taro-and-Hanako-Dat

LGB-Acc

John-Nom right.eye-only-Acc

kaw-ase-ta.

tumur-e-ru .

buy-cause-pastclose-can-pres.

‘Different teachers made Taro and‘John can close only his right eye.’

Hanako buy LGB.’(?*only>can, can>only)
b. John-ga(23) [TP tigau-sensei-gai [vP ti [VPmigime-dake-ga

John-Nom right.eye-only-Nom[vP Taro-to-Hanako-ni

tumur-e-ru.

[VP LGB-o

QRclose-can-pres.

[V kaw]]] [V ase]]] [T ta]]

‘John can close only his right eye.’(only>can, can>only)

As illustrated in (23), since the internal(Takahashi 2010: 335)

argument LGB is marked as accusative Case,the lower vP is working as a phase.

(21) is an example of what is called theAccordingly, there exists a vP phase boundary

Nominative/ Accusative conversion.

between a trace of tigau-sensei and theNotethat accusative and nominative objects exhibit

plurality Taro-to-Hanako.

different behavior with respect to scope in (21).

cannot undergo QR beyond the phase boundary,

As for the scope interaction between thewhich in turn prevents it from c-commanding

potential affix e ‘can’ and dake ‘only’, (21b)the trace of tigau-sensei in the matrix Spec, vP

can take the inverse scope interpretation but

position and taking scope over it. This is why(21a) cannot.

an internal reading is impossible in thisTakahashi accounts for thisTaro-to-Hanako

contrast assuming that the vP of (21a), wheresentence.

Case of the accusative object is valued by v, isaccounts for the unavailability of the internal

working as a phase which blocks the QR of

reading of (22) in the light of the unavailability

dake but the vP of (21b) is not a phase.

of the QR of the plurality.

Infact, this assumption is particularly important

To put it briefly, my proposal

Compare (24) to (22) and notice that (24)for the following discussion.

receives an internal reading unlike (22):225

In (26), tigau-gakusei is the subject of the(24) a. Tigau-sensei-ga

embeddeddifferent-teacher-Nom

clauseandthepluralityTaro-to-Hanako-ohashir-ase-ta.

LGB-to-Barriers is the object of it. Therefore,

Taro-and-Hanako-Acc

run-cause-pastboth of these two elements are located in thelower vP, as illustrated in (27):‘Different teachers made Taro andHanako run.’(27) [TP Tanaka-sensei-gai [vP ti [VPb. Tigau-sensei-ga
different-teacher-Nom[vP LGB-to-Barriers-oj vP tigau-gakusei-ni

Taro-to-Hanako-ni

hashir-ase-ta.

Taro-and-Hanako-Dat

run-cause-past[VP tj [V kaw]]][V ase]]][T ta]]

‘Different teachers made Taro andAlthough the lower vP becomes a phase by its

Hanako run.’head valuing Case of the embedded object, theQR of LGB-to-Barriers is considered to be

The derivation of (24) is given below:

valid since it does not move across the phaseboundary.

(25) [TP tigau-sensei-gai

Thus, the plurality can take scopeover the relational adjective in this example.

[vP Taro-to-Hanako-o/-nij vP ti [VP [vP tj [VP
4.3. BACK TO CARLSON’S DATA

[V hashir]]] [V ase]]] [T ta]]

Finally, we reexamine Carlson’s data under the
The difference between (22) and (24) is thecurrent proposal to see the analysis works with

type of verb.

English data as well. (3) is repeated as (28):

Crucially, the unergative verb

hasir ‘run’ in (24) does not take an internalargument.

(28) a. Bob and Alice attend different classes.

Without any Case-valuation on theb.

internal argument, our assumption concludes

Different cats chased the two rats.

that no vPs become a phase in (25).
Therefore, we can apply the QR of theIn (28a), the required relation is realized sinceplurality as shown in (25) and obtain thethe plurality overtly c-commands the relational

internal reading.

adjective.

which is possible as shown in (29):Moreover, the example of (26) further
supports my analysis.

(28b) needs the QR of the plurality,

If my account is on theright track, (26) should receive an internal(29) [TP different catsi [vP the two ratsj

reading and it actually does. Consider (26):(26) Tanaka-sensei-gavPti[VP chased tj ]]]tigau-gakusei-niThen, (6) is repeated here as (30):

Tanaka-teacher-Nom different-student-Dat
LGB-to-Barriers-o

kaw-ase-ta.

(30) a. Mike and Bob think that different

LGB-and-Barriers-Acc

buy-cause-past

explorers discovered America.

‘Prof. Tanaka made different students buy

b. It seems to Fred and Susan that

LGB and Barriers.’

different colors are emanating fromthe same piece of velvet.

226

In (30), the relational adjective and the

6. CONCLUSION

plurality are overtly in the right order so theyIn this paper, I have argued that the internal

meet a condition.

reading of relational adjectives is best captured

Finally, the structure of (9),the internal reading of which is degraded, isin terms of scope interaction.

Under mygiven in (31):analysis, the internal reading is available when
the plurality takes scope over the relational
adjective.

(31) a. [different students think [CP that [TPb.

Particularly, by adopting QR andAmerica was discovered by thoseexamining how phases affect it, my proposal

two famous explorers]]]

accommodates the data which should be[it seems to different people [CP thatproblematic for the previous analysis as well as[TP those two colors are emanating

Carlson’s data.

from these pieces of cloth]]]REFERENCES
Aoun, Joseph and Yen-hui Audrey Li (1989)

Since the upper bound of the plurality is a CPphase, those two famous explorers and those“Scopetwo colors cannot take scope over different

Inquiry 20, 141-172.

Constituency,”

Linguistic

Carlson, Greg (1987) “Same and Different:

students or different people, which are locatedabove the CP.

and

Some

This is why an internal reading

Consequencesfor

SyntaxandSemantics,” Linguistics and Philosophy 10,

is impossible in (9) under the current proposal.

531-565.
Cecchetto, Carlo (2004) “Explaining the

5. CONSEQUENCE
Carlson (1987) points out that not only a plural

Locality Conditions of QR: Consequences

NP but also conjoined VPs or PPs can license

for the Theory of Phases,” Natural

an internal reading, as exemplified in (32):

Language Semantics 12, 345-397.
Murasugi, Keiko and Tomoko Hashimoto(32) a.

(2004) “Three

Different people discovered America

Evidence for the v-VP Frame,” Nanzan

and invented bifocals.

Linguistics 1, 1-19.

b. Max put different plates on the table

Saito, Mamoru (2011) “Two Notes on Featureand in the cupboard.

Inheritance: A Parametric Variation in the(Carlson 1987: 538)

Distribution

of

the

NanzanTakahashi, Masahiko (2010) “Case, Phases,

internal reading gets licensed in those cases

and Nominative/Accusative Conversion in

One possibility is aninvisible NP such as an event argument within

Japanese,”a sentence works as a licensor instead of a

Linguistics 19, 319-355.

Journal

of

East

Asian

Tonoike, Shigeo (2013) “An Agree-based

plural NP and it is the event argument that
undergoes QR.

EPP,”

Linguistics 7, 43-61.

At this point, a question arises as to how theunder my proposal.

Pieces of Acquisition

It follows that when the event

Analysis of the Internal Reading ofargument takes scope over the relational

Different and RNR Structures,” JELS 30,

adjective, an internal reading is obtained.

222-228.

227

Hornstein (1999) proposes several assumptions
on MTC, some of which are listed in (2), which I
will assume in this paper.
(2) a.
b.

On the Differences

θ-roles are features on verbs.
A D/NP “receives” a θ-role by checkinga θ-feature of a verbal/predicative

between the φ-features and the θ-featuresphrase that it merges with.
c.

Chihiro Fujimori

There is no upper bound on the numberof θ-features a chain can have.

Hirosaki University (part-time)(Hornstein (1999: 78))

Keywords: the θ-features, Feature Inheritance,2.

θ-driven movement, backward control

Feature Inheritance and the Uninterpretable θ-features

2.1 Kitada’s (2013) Analysis
Next, I will deal with Kitada’s (2013)

In this paper, I’d like to distinguish the φ-analysis, which incorporates Hornstein’s (1999)

features/the Case feature from the θ-features interms of what motivates movement for valuation/licensing and where the motivations are.
1.

features are introduced on the phase heads andthat the φ-features on C are inherited by T; andFirst, I’d like to review the Movement

the φ-features on v are inherited by V.

Theory of Control (or, MTC) argued by Hornstein
In the Principle and Parameter

approach, the (Obligatory) Control construction
as in (1a) was assumed to have PRO in theinfinitival clause, which is c-commanded by and[CP [C’ C[φ] [TP [T’ T[φ] … ]]]]b.

[vP [v’ v[φ] [VP [V’ V[φ] … ]]]]

features are uninterpretable, they are also

However, Hornstein (1999) argues that

introduced on the phase head v.

PRO is a trace, or a copy, of A-movement.
(1) a.

(3) a.

Then, Kitada (2013) argues that, since the θ-

co-indexed with the DP in the matrix clause, as(1b).

mechanism (or, FI) proposed by Chomsky (2008).
Chomsky (2008) claims that the uninterpretableθ-roles as Features: Hornstein (1999)(1999).

assumptions in (2) into Feature Inheritance(4) [vP [v’ v[Ag][Th] [VP [V’ V … ]]]]

John hoped to leave

Furthermore, Kitada also argues that four types ofb.

Johni hoped [PROi to leave]c.

[IPJohn[θ-H][θ-L][VP<John[θ-H][θ-L]>hoped

inheritance possibility should arise, depending onwhether the θ-features on the phase head v are[IP<John[θ-L]> to [VP<John[θ-L]> leave]]]]inherited or not.

In (1c), John is base-generated as an embedded(5) a.

[vP [v’ v[Ag] [VP [V’ V[Th] … ]]]] [Ag]>[Th]In the course of the derivation,b.

[vP [v’ v [Th] [VP [V’ V[Ag] … ]]]][Th]>[Ag]John moves to the matrix SpecvP, at which the θ-c.

[vP [v’ v [VP [V’ V[Ag][Th] … ]]]] [Ag]=[Th]role of the matrix verb hope is assigned.

As a

d.

[vP [v’ v[Ag][Th] [VP [V’ V … ]]]] [Ag]=[Th]result, John receives two θ-roles.

Thus,

subject, at which the θ-role of the embedded verb
leave is assigned.

228

2.2 Problems

Hypothesis leads to the conclusion that [Th] on v

[PROBLEM 1] Thematic Hierarchy (TH)must be always inherited by V, which in turn

Although

Kitada’s(2013)

claim

indicates that Kitada’s assumptions in (5b-d)

ismust be illegitimate.

interesting, he does not mention when and why
the θ-features remain on v or are inherited by V:that is, in his analysis, the inheritance of the θ-[PROBLEM 2] Uniformity of Theta Assignment

features is completely optional.

Hypothesis (UTAH)

However, therelative height among the θ-roles, specificallyFurthermore, Kitada’s analysis violates the

Ag>Th, has been strictly constrained by the

Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis

Thematic Hierarchy (TH).

(UTAH) as well, which is defined as (9).

In this respect, the FI(9) Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis

patterns in (5b-d) obviously violate TH.

(UTAH) (cf. Baker (1988, 1997) etc.)(6) Thematic Hierarchy (cf. Baker (1997),
Larson (1988) etc.)

Identical thematic relationships between

Agent > Theme > Goal > Obliques (manner,

items are represented by identical structural

location, time, ...)

relationships between those items at thelevel of D-structure.

For example, under Kitada’s analysis, the simple
transitive sentence as in (7) could have the FI

Kitada argues that in the active cases the FI

pattern either in (5a) or in (5b).

However, thepattern in (5a) takes place, while, in the passive

derivation in (7b) is obviously wrong; that is, incases, the FI pattern in (5b) takes place.

the sentence John hit Mary, neither can John be

However, given that passive sentences are“a hittee,” nor Mary can be “a hitter.”derived from their active counterparts, it is quite(7) John hit Mary

mysterious that actives and passives have[vP John [v’ v[Ag] [VP V[Th] Mary]]] (=(5a))

different argument structures; that is, Kitada’s

b. * [vP John [v’ v[Th] [VP V[Ag] Mary]]] (=(5b))

analysis on actives and passives is incompatiblea.

This leads to the conclusion that [Ag] mustwith UTAH.

always remain on v, while [Th] must always be(10) a.

inherited by V.

This conclusion is reinforced by

the cases of unaccusative verbs.

Unaccusative

verbs have only one θ-feature [Th].

Under

b.

[vP John [v' v[Ag] [VP stole[Th] the book]]](11) a.

The book was stolen by John (cf. (5b))

b.

[vP The book [v' was[Th] [VP stolen[Ag] by

Kitada’s analysis, [Th] could remain on v (8a) or
be inherited by V (8b).

John stole the book (cf. (5a))

John]]]

However, as Baker(1997) argues, if [Th] remained on v, it could not

2.3 Proposals

induce the Unaccusative Hypothesis, which isNow, I’d like to sum up my arguments above

widely or universally accepted and attested.

and offer some proposals as in (12).

(8) The pond froze(12) a.

a.

[vP [v’ v [VP Vunacc[Th] the pond]]] (=(5a))

The uninterpretable θ-features (i.e.,[Ag] and [Th]) are introduced on thephase head v.

b. * [vP the pond [v’ v[Th] [VP Vunacc]]] (=(5b))
b.

Therefore, the acceptance of the Unaccusative229(à la Kitada (2013))

Whenever the θ-features arise, TH andUTAH force

X undergoes movement iff without(i) [Ag] to remain on v, andmovement the structure will crash.
b.

(ii) [Th] to be inherited by V.

[unvalF]-driven movement (Bošković(2011))(contra Kitada (2013))
Thus, while I agree with Kitada (2013) in that the[TP T[val/uCase] [vP NP[unval/uCase] … ]]uninterpretable θ-features are introduced on the>>>[TP NP[unval/uCase] T[val/uCase] [vP tNP …]]

phase head v, I disagree with him in that theUnder Bošković’s analysis, since the Case feature

inheritance of the θ-features is not optional, butof John in (13b) is valued and deleted in therather TH and UTAH strictly constrain that [Ag]embedded subject position, it no longer has any

remain on v and [Th] be inherited by V.

motivation to move further for the Case reason,
so it cannot move to the matrix subject position.

3.

Bearing this in mind, let us see whether the

Differences between the φ-features andthe θ-features

θ-features can be treated just as the Case feature

In this section, I will turn to the discussion

Bošković argues about.

Suppose that theof the treatment of the φ-feature (or the Caseelement in SpecvP always bears [Ag] and thefeature) checking, and show the differences

element in the complement of V always bears

between the φ-features and the θ-features.

[Th], as I argued in (12).

As shown in (13), it is well known that once

This would mean thatthe θ-features on the target are [valued] while

the Case feature of a DP is checked and deleted,those on the moving elements are [unvalued].

the DP cannot move further to check (an)other(15) a.

John[Ag] criticized Mary[Pat/Th]

Case feature(s), which is called “the freezingb.

Mary[Ag] criticized John[Pat/Th]

effect.”c.

[vP SUBJ[unval/uθ][v’ v[val/uθ(Ag)] [VP [V’(13) a.

John is likely to be smartV[val/uθ(Th)] OBJ[unval/uθ]]]]]

b. * Johni is likely ti is smart

However, if this analysis were correct, we wouldThis indicates the crucial difference between the

get in trouble; as shown in (13), when the

φ-features/the Case feature and the θ-features:

unvalued θ-feature of John is valued and deleted

while a DP can license multiple θ-features, it isby the valued θ-feature on v, John no longer has

only once that the DP can check its Case feature.

any unvalued θ-feature that drives further θ-I will argue what makes this difference.

feature-driven movement, which cannot accountAs for Case licensing, Bošković (2007,

for movement into θ-positions.

2011) offers an insightful analysis, the so-called“goal-driven movement.”(16) a.

In particular, in hisb.

John hoped to leave[vP John[unval/uθ] [v’ v[val/uθ] [VP leave]]](2011) system, what drives movement is the

Therefore, I conclude that the idea of the goal-

unvalued Case feature on the moving DP, or “adriven movement cannot be extended to thegoal.”

movement driven by the θ-feature of the moving

Bošković reformulates Last Resort as in(14a), and the moving DP moves in order to haveelement.

its unvalued feature valued and deleted.
(14) a.

If so, how should we treat the movement

Last Resort (Bošković (2007, 2011))

driven by the θ-features?

230

Here, I’d like topropose as in (17), which makes a clear

unvalued Case feature of John is valued anddistinction between the φ-feature checking anddeleted.

the θ-feature checking.

licensed, the derivation legitimately converges.

(17) a.

the φ-feature/Case feature licensing= the goal-driven movementb.

Now that there are no features to be4.

the θ-feature licensing

A

Consequence:

Backward

Control(Polinsky and Potsdam (2002))
If the current analysis is on the right track, I= the target-driven movement
I will assume that the unvalued Case feature

believe that we can account for backward control

on DPs motivates movement of the DPs forargued by Polinsky and Potsdam (2002) (or,valuation, as Bošković (2011) argues, while the

P&P).

which is an ergative language, the predicate

θ-features on the probing heads motivateagrees with the Absolutive element.

movement of the DPs for licensing, as Hornstein(1999) argues.

‘begin’ or -iča ‘continue,’ an unusual agreement

Case feature of DPs function as a probe, while thepattern realizes, as shown in (19).

θ-features on the probing heads function as a(19) kid-bā

probe.

‘The girl began to feed the cow’(18) John hoped to leave

In (19), the matrix verb ‘begin’ agrees with theErgative element ‘girl’, not with the Absolutive
element.

to [vP <John> … ]]]]]
c.

clause, as shown in (20a), which agrees with theFirst, in (18a), John is base-generated in thematrix predicate.

embedded SpecvP, at which the θ-feature [Ag] on

Following MTC, they further

argue, Δ can be regarded as a DP which has

the embedded v is checked and deleted by the DP.

moved from the embedded clause, as shown in

However, the unvalued Case feature of John is(20b).

not valued at that position, so due to (18a) John

(20) a.

has to move to have its Case feature valued.
Next, in (18b), John moves to the Spec of thematrix v, at which the θ-feature [Ag] is checked
Here, there are no θ-b.

features unchecked; however, the unvalued Casefeature of John is still not valued at that position,so again due to (14a) John has to move to have its
Case feature valued.

To account for this, P&P propose that

there be the empty element (Δ) in the matrix[TP John[unval/uCase][θ] [T’ T[val/uCase] [vP … ]]and deleted by the DP.

y-begin-Past.Evid

repeated in (18), can be accounted for.

[vP John[unval/uCase][θ] [v’ v[Ag] [VP hope [TPb-išr-aoq-siderivation of the sentences such as (1), which is

b.

ziya

girl.II-Erg cow.III.Abs III-feed-INF II-

Given these proposals, let us see how the[vP John[unval/uCase][θ] [v’ v[Ag] [VP leave]]]

However,when the matrix verbs are aspectual, such as -oqa

This means that the unvalueda.

According to P&P, in the language Tsez,

And finally, in (18c), JohnΔi[kid-bāiziya

II.Absgirl.II-Erg

cow.III.Absb-išr-a]y-oq-si

III-feed-INF

II-begin-Past.Evid<kid>[kid-bāziya

girl.II.Abs

girl.II-Erg

cow.III.Absb-išr-a]y-oq-si

III-feed-INF

II-begin-Past.Evid

Given that Δ bears the Absolutive Case, it ismoves to the matrix SpecTP, at which the231reasonable to say that the matrix predicate ‘begin’b.

[vP [VP [vP girl [v’ … ]] begin] v[Ag]]agrees with the Absolutive Δ in the matrix clause,c.

[vP girl[θ] [VP [vP <girl> [v’ … ]] begin]

not with the Ergative ‘girl’ in the embedded
clause.

v[Ag]]

Thus, P&P elegantly account for thed.

derivation of backward control.

[TP [vP girl[θ] [VP [vP <girl> [v’ … ]] begin]v[Ag]] T[ ]]However, I’d like to point out that there aresome problems in their analysis.

First, in (23a), after ‘feed’ merges with ‘cow’, v isFirst, P&P

merged.

This v has [Ag], so when ‘girl’ isargue that the movement of ‘girl’ takes placemerged in SpecvP, [Ag] on the v is checked by thecovertly.

However, P&P themselves show theθ-feature of ‘girl.’ Furthermore, at that position,

example which indicates that Δ can bind the‘girl’ is Case-licensed as Ergative, since Ergativereflexive expression in the matrix clause, as

is taken to be an inherent Case, which is licensed

shown in (21).

at the θ-marked position (cf. Legate (2008),(21) Δinesā nesiri [irbahin-āi

halmaɣ-or

Woolford (2006) etc.).

Refl.I.Dat

friend-Dat

Case-licensed, so it has no motivation to move

Ibrahim.I-Erg

Notice here that ‘girl’ isfurther for the Case reason.

ɣutku

rod-a]

Ø-oq-sihouse.Abs

make-INF I-begin-Past.EVID

Next, in (23b), thematrix v is merged, which has [Ag].

Here I will

‘Ibrahim began, for himself, to build a houseassume that although ‘girl’ does not havefor his friend’[unval/uCase] to drive the movement, [Ag] on theIt has been argued that covert movement does not

matrix v drives the overt movement of ‘girl’ to

provoke a new binding possibility, so it is unclear

have [Ag] checked.

why covertly moved Δ induces a new binding

to the matrix SpecvP, at which [Ag] on the v isrelation with the reflexive in the matrix clause.

checked by the θ-feature of ‘girl.’

Thus, in (23c), ‘girl’ moves
Given that

Second, P&P argue that aspectual ‘begin’ is‘for himself’ in (21) is VP-adjoined, ‘girl’ c-different from non-aspectual ‘begin’ in that thecommands ‘for himself,’ accounting for theformer does not have an Absolutive Case feature,binding relation in (21).

while the latter does have.

matrix T is merged.

(22) Control -oqa does not have an Absolutive

assume that T does not have the Absolutive Casefeature.

Case feature. (P&P (2002: 270))

Here, following P&P, I will

Thus, ‘girl’ remains at SpecvP.

Now, there are two occurrences of ‘girl;’ one

If this is correct, it is also unclear why Δ can bear
Absolutive in the matrix clause.

Finally, in (23d), thein the embedded SpecvP and the other in the

In thediscussion below, I’d like to show some solutions

matrix SpecvP.

for these problems.

MTC, that it is the lower ‘girl’ that is chosen to bepronounced.

First, following the current analysis, I’d like

Here, I will assume, following

In MTC, all but one copy should

to show the derivation of backward control as in

be deleted and even the lower copy can be(23) (here, the words in Tsez are replaced by theretained for pronunciation.

corresponding words in English.)

is chosen to be pronounced, resulting in backward(23) a.

control.

[vP girl[unval/uCase][θ][v’ [VP [V’Thus, the lower ‘girl’

Then let us turn to the second problem; how

cow[unval/uCase][θ] feed[val/uCase][Th]]] v[Ag]]]232

Since ‘girl’ in (23)DP’s Case feature is valued and deleted, it loses

is Case-valued as Ergative in the embedded

any motivation to move further for the Caseclause, in order to identify Δ as Absolutive,

reason.

Multiple Case Checking mechanism (or, MCC) is

analysis, it can move for the θ reason.

necessary.

that the θ-driven movement is A-related, if theto specify Δ as Absolutive.

In what follows, I will assume what

However, as I assume in the current
Given

Bejar and Massam (1999) point out.

Case-valued DP moves out of its Case licensing(24) Multiple Case Checking (MCC)

position for the θ reason, the DP loses its Case“… if a DP receives more than one structural

status and it has to be re-Case-licensed by theCase, the last one received will be the one

higher Case licensor.
However, in the current analysis, I followthat is pronounced.”a.

b.

(Bejar and Massam (1999: 71))

P&P’s assumption that “control -oqa ‘begin’ does

Teiteike[e

not have an Absolutive Case feature.”nearlySUBJNCT buy

Erg

Tsez backward control, even if the Case-licensed

Sione]taha

fale

DP moves out of the Case licensing position, the

Sione

one

house

DP could not get licensed as Absolutive in the

fakatauThus, in

‘It nearly happened that Sione bought amatrix clause.

house.’

Here, the argument by Legate (2008) is

Teitei[aSione]i ke

nearly Abs
ti

Sione

suggestive.

fakatau

How should we treat this?

She argues that when a DP cannot

get any Case, Absolutive should be assigned as a

SUBJNCT buy

taha

fale

default.

one

house

(26) “… the “Absolutive” is the default morpho-‘Sione nearly bought a house.’

logical realization of abstract Case features,

Bejar and Massam argue that when MCC takes

used when no realization of the specific Case

place, it is the highest Case which is pronounced.

feature is available.”(Legate (2008: 55))

This means that the lower Case(s) is/are

In fact, she exemplifies the default Case

overridden by the highest Case.

However, they

assignment by showing the cases of hanging

do not account for why it is so.

Now, I will

topics as in (27).

In these examples, theassume as in (25).

topicalized DPs are base-generated in the A’-(25) Case licensing configuration

position, where no Case feature is licensed.

If: [XP Y[unval/uCase] [X’ X[val/uCase]]]there were no Case-licensing mechanism, theOnce Y moves from the Case licensing

DPs would be Caseless, violating the Case Filter.

position (i.e., SpecXP) to another A-related

To avoid this, Legate argues that Absolutive

position, Y cannot bear the Case which isshould be assigned as a default Case.

licensed by X.

(27) a.

Ngarnkamarda,

kakalyalya,

As I argued above, if we follow Bošković (2011),

pink.cockatoo.Abs pink.cockatoo.Abs

Case licensing takes place by means of thengula-ngku-ju

movement of a DP which has [unval/uCase] to thethat-Erg-Top Pres.Imperf eat-NonPast

Spec position of the Case licensor.

watiya-warnu -watiya-ngarnarra

Once the233kanga-rnitree-fromtree-dweller.Abs

Selected References-miyi-ji

Bejar, Susana and Diane Massam (1999) “Multiple

fruit.Abs-Top

Case Checking,” Syntax 2, 65-79.

‘The pink cockatoo eats those acacia

Baker, Mark (1988) Incorporation: A Theory ofseeds’ (Warlpiri)b.

c.

Grammatical Function Changing, UniversityKoefifineia,

to fakaata:

Pred

Abs

woman that

to

let

Baker, Mark (1997) “Thematic Roles and Syntactic

mai

e

ia

ke

uta

e

Structure,” Elements of Grammar, ed. by

DIR1

Erg

she

SUBJ

take

Erg

Lillian Haegeman, 73-137, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

auemotoka:

haana

I

Abs

car

her

of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Bošković, Željko (2007) “On the Locality andMotivation of Move and Agree: An Even More‘That woman, she’ll let me take her car’Minimal Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 38, 589-

(Niuean)644.

voaurat,

ali

DEM

woman.Abs

Ali.Abshai

samajhte

Bošković,thinks

(2011)“On

Unvalued

Uninterpretable Features,” NELS 39, 109-120.

ki sudha-nethatŽeljkoChomsky, Noam (2008) "On Phases," Foundational

Sudha-Erg

Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays ofus-sebaatkiyaa

thaa

Jeanronger Vergnaud, ed. by Robert Freidin,

her-Commatter.Abs

do.Perf be.Past

Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta,‘That woman, Ali thinks that Sudha

133-166, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

talked to her.’ (Hindi)

Hornstein, Norbert (1999) “Movement and Control,”Now, recall the derivation of backward
control shown in (23).

Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69-96.

‘girl’ is base-generated

Kitada, Shin-ichi (2013) “Feature Inheritance andin the embedded SpecvP, at which it is Case-

Four Types of Argument Structure,” JELS 30,

valued as Ergative.

97-103.

Then ‘girl’ moves to thematrix SpecvP to license the θ-feature [Ag] on thematrix v.

Legate, Julie Anne (2008) ‘Morphological andGiven (22), this movement is assumed

Abstract Case,” Linguistic Inquiry 39, 55-101.

to be A-related, so ‘girl’ cannot maintain its Case

Larson, Richard (1988) “On the Double Object

status as Ergative.

However, the matrix

Construction,” Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335-391.

aspectual verb ‘begin’ does not have an

Polinsky,

Maria

and

Eric

Potsdam(2002)

Absolutive Case feature, so ‘girl’ cannot get any“Backward Control,” Linguistic Inquiry 33,

Case in the matrix clause.

245-282.

To avoid the Case

Filter, following Legate (2008), the default Caseassignment

qualifies

thehigherPotsdam,‘girl’ as

and

Maria

Polinsky(2012)“Backward Raising,” Syntax 15, 75-108.

Absolutive.
(28) <kid>

Eric

Woolford, Ellen (2006) “Lexical Case, Inherent[kid-bāziya

b-išr-a]y-oq-siCase, and Argument Structure,” Linguistic>>> kid ‘girl’ is marked as Abs as a default

Inquiry 37, 111-130.

234

the structure in (1b), assuming that v*
assigns Case to a DP object (Chomsky
2001), v* must check the V label, the V
head and D label, before it finds D,
Stack-Based Agreeassuming that D has uCase. T also must
check the v* label, before it can Agree with

Jason Ginsburg (Osaka Kyoiku University)and assign Case to the subject I.1

Sandiway Fong (University of Arizona)(1) (a) I eat food.
(b)

Keywords: Agree, probe-goal search, stack,cost

1. Introduction
Under the standard Phase Theory view (cf.
Chomsky 2001, 2008, etc.), Agree is acomplexoperation

in

which

an

Next, consider the complex construction

uninterpretable feature (uF) functions as a(2a), with the structure in (2b).

probe that searches through its search(2) (a) There are likely to be several prizes

domain for a matching interpretable goal

awarded. (Adapted from Chomsky(iF). Probe-goal search is a computationally2001)2(b)

expensive operation that requires a probe toevaluate all of the features in its searchdomain until it finds a matching goal (ifpresent).

We

propose

that

a

novel

“search-free” stack mechanism for Agreerelations can replace standard probe-goalsearch. We develop a method of evaluating
the cost of standard probe-goal search versus
stack-based Agree and we attempt todemonstrate that the stack-based Agreemethod is more economical than probe-goalsearch.

In (2b), we assume, following Richards
2007 and Sobin To Appear, that theConsider how Agree works. In (1a), with235

expletive there is initially Merged in a

Agrees with	  ‘several prizes’ – uCase on

verbal projection at a position below T.

the object is checked as a result ofMovement of the object several prizes to a

phi-feature agreement, and uPhi on T are

position higher than the participle is anchecked by the phi-features of the object.

instance of thematic extraction (TH/EX).

Lastly, T Agrees with Prt – uCase on Prt is

The head Prt has an Edge Feature (EF)checked as a result of phi-feature agreement.
We(Chomsky 2008) that attracts the object, thus

proposethat

relegating

Agreeaccounting for TH/EX. Although Chomsky

relations to a stack mechanism leads to a

(2001) suggests that TH/EX is a PF

simplification of the Agree relations in thisoperation, we follow Deal (2009) and Sobin

type of construction.

(To Appear) who analyze TH/EX as being
part of narrow syntax. We also utilize a type

2. Proposals

of v, referred to as v~ (Deal 2009, Sobin To

We propose that there is a simpler searchAppear),andmechanism than typical probe-goal search.

unaccusative constructions. This head v~

There is no need to check all of the labels

has a split EPP feature (Sobin To Appear)within a search domain. Rather, we propose

essentially consisting of [uTheta] andthat all derivations are obligatorily funneled[uN/D] features. The [uTheta] feature mustthrough a stack data structure, which is abe checked by a theta-role bearing NP/DP.

last-in, first-out (LIFO) list with a uniqueThis determines where the NP/DP that

Top of Stack (TOS). For example, in (3), theundergoes TH/EX is visible. The [uN/D]

numbers 1 and 2 are pushed onto the stack.

feature must be checked by a DP/NP, so

Then, the last element to be pushed on, theMerge of an expletive with v~ is permitted.

number 2, is the first element to be popped

In (2b), the [uTheta] feature of v~ isoff, leaving the number 1.

checked via Agree with the object several(3)

prizes and the [uN/D] feature of v~ isPushchecked by external Merge of the expletive

1

that

occursinpassive

there.

Push
1

2

Pop
2

2

1

1

The Agree relations in (2b) are quite

The stack mechanism is utilized in acomplex. First, Prt Agrees with ‘several

derivation as follows. For example, Merge α

prizes’, resulting in checking of uPhi on Prt.

(a head/label) with β. If β has an

In addition, the matrix T undergoes three

uninterpretable feature, uF, then push	  βAgree relations. T Agrees with the Expl -onto the stack, where it becomes the uniqueuPhi on T check uPerson on the Expl. T also

Top of the Stack (TOS). A probe on α peers

236into the stack and Agrees with the TOS β, iffood is now fully licensed, it is popped off

agreement is possible (e.g., α has a uF and β

the stack. In (4c), the subject I is Merged

has a matching interpretable feature iF).

and pushed onto the stack due to is uCase

Crucially, when a stack is populated byfeature. When T is Merged, (4d), uPhi on T

more than one element, only the TOS isprobe into the stack and find the TOS I. T

visible to a probe. If all the features of theand I form an Agree relation, so that uPhi on

TOS are checked, then the TOS is popped

T and uCase on I are checked. An EF on T

off the stack, and the next element in theforces I to remerge with T and the fully

stack, if present, moves to the top position

licensed subject is popped from the stack.

(becoming

Lastly, C* (the * indicates that C is a phase

the

TOS),

thus

becoming

available to future Agree operations. The

head)

is

MergedTOS must be popped before any otherconverges (4e).

elements in the stack can be popped.

(4)

and

the

derivation

(a)

(b)

Stack:

Stack: Pop I

3. Derivations
We examine Agree in the derivations of asimple sentence, (1a), and the more complex
sentence (2a), repeated below.
(1) (a) I eat food.

[D D food[uCase]](2) (a) There are likely to be several prizes
awarded.

(c)(d)

We compare the costs of these derivations ascalculated via stack-based Agree and typicalprobe-goal search.
The derivation of (1a) proceeds asshown in (4a-e). In (4a), V merges with the
DP object food and food is pushed onto thestack because it has a uCase feature. In (4b),Stack:

when v* is Merged, v* looks into the stack[N I[uCase]]and finds the TOS food, resulting in an
Agree relation being established whichchecks uPhi on v* and uCase on food. Since

237

Stack: Pop Icost for Agree, Push/Pop, and stack depth.

(e)Cost is calculated as shown in Table 1.
Operation Cost
Agree
+1 for each Agree operation
Push/Pop +1 for each Push operation(Push onto stack) or Pop
operation (Pop off stack)
Stack+1 each time that the stack has
Depth
an element in it
Table 1: Stack Model

The total cost of computing a derivation
is equivalent to the number of Merge
operations combined with the number of

The costs for example (1), repeatedAgree operations. This is uncontroversial.

below as (1’), are summarized in Tables 2-5.

Since different models of cost compute thesame tree, we have equal numbers of(1’) I eat foodMerges. Since the cost of Merge is equal, it
isn’t necessary to calculate this cost (at least
not for comparing models). However, thecost of Agree is unclear. We have two.

models of Agree: one stack-based and a(standard) search-based model. This raises
the issue of how to fairly compare theTables 2-4 show cost as calculated using

models with respect to cost when they use

stack-based Agree. Table 2 shows Cost

different mechanisms. The most economical

when calculated conservatively, taking into

approach should be favored from theaccount Agree, Push/Pop and Stack Depth.

3perspective of Minimalism.

Table 3, shows cost calculated for Agree andWe calculate cost of the Stack Model inStack

3 ways, as shown in (5).

Depth,

assuming

that

Push/Pop

operations do not incur a cost (i.e., these
operations are free). Table 4 shows the cost(5) Methods for calculating costcalculated

Method 1: Agree + Push/Pop + Stack Depth

assuming that Stack Depth does not have an

Method 2: Agree + Stack Depth

associated cost. Lastly, Table 5 shows cost

Method 3: Agree + Push/Pop

calculated in the probe goal model, in which

for

Agree

and

Push/Pop,case every element that is checked by a
These methods utilize a combination of aprobe incurs a cost of 1. For example, in238order for the probe v* to Agree with the DP

conservative model obtains a cost of 8. The

food, it must first check the label of V, thecost for the probe-goal model is 6, which ishead V, the label of D and the head D,

identical to the cost in the stack-based Table

where it finds a phi-feature goal, resulting in

4, but 1 higher than the cost in Table 3,a cost of 4.

which shows cost calculated using only
Agree and Stack Depth.

Operation

Cost

Agree

2

Push/Pop

4

Stack Depth2

Totals8

The costs for sentence (2), repeatedbelow as (2’), are shown below in Tables
6-9.
(2’) There are likely to be several prizes
awarded.

Table 2: Agree + Push, Pop + Stack Depth
Operation

Cost

Agree

2

Stack Depth

3

Totals5

Table 3: Agree + Stack Depth
Operation

Cost
Tables 6-8 show costs for the stack model,

Agree

2

calculated with the three different methods

Push, Pop

4

discussed above (Agree, Push/Pop and Stack

Totals6Depth; Agree and Stack Depth; Agree andPush/Pop), and Table 9 provides the cost for

Table 4: Agree + Push/Pop

the typical probe-goal model.
Operation

Cost

Search6

Table 5: Probe-goal Model
Overall, the costs for sentence (1), as
shown in Tables 2-5, are similar. The most239

Operation

Cost

is probably least conservative. Note that for

Agree

4

this example, calculating stack depth (Tables

Push, Pop

4

Stack Depth

10

Totals186-7) greatly increases the cost, comparedwith Table 8, which does not calculate stack
depth. The cost for probe-goal search, 23, asshown in Table 9 is clearly the highest.

Table 6: Agree + Push/Pop + Stack Depth

For the complex example (2), which
involves a multiple Agree relation, theOperation

Cost

overall cost is clearly lower with a Stack

Agree

4

model than for probe-goal search. This can

Stack
Depth

11

be accounted for if Multiple Agree is

Totals15

simpler with the Stack Model, since a probe
only peers into a stack, and does not have tolook through all intervening nodes in a tree.

Table 7: Agree + Stack Depth
Total
Cost

4. Conclusion

Agree

4

derivational model. The probe-goal model

Push/Pop4and stack model seem to perform similarly

Totals8

Operation

We

have

proposedaStack-based(with a possible slight advantage to thestack-model) for simple sentences. The stack

Table 8: Agree + Push/Pop

model, however, performs better than theprobe-goal model for complex sentences,

Operation

Total
Cost

Search23even in cases in which a very conservative
approach is taken to calculating cost.
In this paper, we have examined

Table 9: Probe-goal Modelcalculations of the cost of agreement
relations in derivations incorporating a stackOverall, for sentence (2), the stack model

mechanism versus derivations that utilize

has a lower cost than the probe goal model,

typical probe-goal search. We argue that theranging from 8 to 18, depending on thestack is more economical in terms of actual

method of calculation. The cost in Table 6 iscost and in terms of the general Minimalist

most conservative, since it takes into

Program goal to eliminate unnecessary

account Push/Pop and stack depth insearch;addition to Agree, and the result in Table 8

240

i.e.,

economy.

Searchinthestack-based model is confined to a stack, so
there is no need to check irrelevant nodes.

ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, andHowever, more work is needed to determine

Maria-Luisa Zubizaretta, 133-166, MIT

exactly how to best calculate the cost of a

Press, Cambridge, MA.
Deal, Amy Rose (2009) “The origin andderivation.

content of expletives: Evidence from“selection”,” Syntax 12, 285-323.
1

We use Bare-Phrase structure style trees.
For example, a maximal projection labeled
v* equals vP, etc. Unpronounced copies areunderlined.

Richards, Marc (2007) “Object shift, phases,
and transitive expletive constructions inGermanic,”

Linguistics

Variation

Yearbook 6, ed. by Pierre Pica, Johan

2

Example (2) is identical to example (4bi)from Chomsky (2001), except that there isthematic extraction, which we find to be
more natural.
(4bi) There are likely to be awarded several
prizes. (Chomsky 2001:7)

Rooryck, and Jeroen Van Craenenbroeck,139-159, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Sobin, Nicholas (2014) “TH/EX, agreement
and

Case

in

expletive sentences,”

Syntax 17, 385-416.

3

Note that in a sense, there are more
operations associated with the Stack thanwith typical probe-goal search; a stackrequires the operations of push and pop,
whereas Agree requires search. We are notsure if this is meaningful. It may be that if
there is a stack, the operations of push andpop come for free. It is also not clear if there
should be a cost associated with stack depth.
It may also be that the typical probe-goalsearch operation has various subcomponents that add to the cost.
References
Chomsky, Noam	  (1995) The Minimalist
Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation byphase,” Ken Hale: A life in Language, ed.
by Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,”
Foundational issues in linguistic theory;
essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,

241Section 2 goes into the syntactic structuresof the COC and the HNC. Section 3
considers the HNC in terms of lexical
semantics
withreferencetotheboundedness parameter proposed by
Kageyama (2001). Section 4 has a glance atsome other constructions relevant to the
HNC. Section 5 is a summary of this paper.

An Analysis of the Hito-N Construction in
Japanese with Special Reference to the
Cognate Object Construction in English
Ikuko Hasebe,* Noboru Kamiya,** andMasatoshi Honda** University of Tsukuba

2. The Syntactic Structures of the HNC** Chiba University

and the COC
In this section, paying close attention to
the parallelism between the HNC and theCOC, we will put forth a syntactic analysisof the HNC. A clue to our analysis lies intelicity and also in the result- and mannerreadings of the constructions.
Let us begin with telicity. As
demonstrated by Ito, Sugioka, and Yumoto(2013), the event denoted by the verb in the

Keywords: Cognate Object, Hito-N
Construction, Boundedness Parameter

1. Introduction
This paper aims to reveal the syntactic andsemantic properties of the so-called “hitoNoun Construction” (henceforth, HNC) in
Japanese, where the “(numeral) quantifier”
hito is followed by a noun. (1) is an exampleof the construction.
(1) a. Hito-ase
kaku.
HITO-sweat sweat
Lit. ‘(to) sweat a sweat’b. Penki-ohito-hake
paint-Acc
HITO-brush
nuru.
paint
This

HNC is “bounded” because a nounaccompanied by hito plays a role of adelimiter. This is illustrated in (2).
(2) Kesa-wa
30 pun-de
this.morning
30 minutes inhito-hataraki
shita.
HITO-work
did
Lit. ‘(I) did a job in 30 minutes thismorning.’
cf. ??Kesa-wa

Lit. ‘(to) spray a brush of paint’
construction has something in

this.morning
hataraita.

30 pun-de
30 minutes incommon with the Cognate Object
Construction (henceforth, COC) in English,

worked(Ito, Sugioka, and Yumoto (2013))

as shown below. Thus, assuming
Nakajima’s (2006) proposal that a cognate

The contrast in (3) shows the same point as(2).

object occupies an argument position insome case, while it resides in an adjunct(3) a.

Ame-gaRain-Nomichi-jikan futta.
an-hour for fell.

position in another, we will argue that thesame is also true of the hito-nouns in (1a)Lit. ‘Rain fell for an hour.’b. *Hito-ame
ichi-jikan futta.

and (1b).
This paper is organized as follows:

HITO-rain an-hour for fell.

242

cf. Hito-ame isshun-defutta.
HITO-rain a moment-in fell.
Lit. ‘Rain fell in a moment.’
Another property relevant to the present
discussion is the interpretation associatedwith the HNC. As shown in (4), the nounphrase1 hito-ase in (4a) is associated withthe product of the event denoted by theverb, and hito-hake in (4b) is construed
with some sort of “manner” of the event.
(4) a. Hito-ase
kaku.
HITO-sweat sweat
Lit. ‘(to) sweat a sweat’b. Penki-ohito-hake
paint-Acc
HITO-brush
nuru.
paint
Lit. ‘(to) spray a brush of paint’
The properties reviewed above isreminiscent of the COC in English. Moreto the “product- (or result-) reading.” In
contrast, the one in (6b) plays a role of an
adjunct, associated with the “mannerreading.” Thus, the underlying structuresfor (6a, b) will be (7a, b), respectively.
v*P(7) a.

v*’

NP

v*

the baby

VP
V’

V
slept

AdjunctNP

a sound sleep

vP

b.

v’

specifically, Nakajima (2006) points outthat a cognate object is responsible forchanging the telicity of the event denotedby the verb, as illustrated in (5).
(5) a. Mary laughed {for an hour / *inan hour}.
(Tenny (1994:39))
b. Mary laughed a mirthlesslaugh {for an hour/in an hour}.

v

VP

V’
V
grew

Adjunct
NP a century’s growth
the tree(Nakajima (2006))
Furthermore, it has a “product” reading in

In passing, it is also worth considering
Matsumoto’s (1996) analysis of the cognate

some, but a “manner” reading in another,as demonstrated in (6a) and (6b),object construction. She claims thatcognate objects are all associated with therespectively.
(6) a. The baby slept a sound sleep.

complement position to a verb, irrespectiveof whether they have a “product-reading”b.

The tree grew a century’s
growth within only ten years.

or “manner-reading” in our sense. She
further argues that whether a cognate(Nakajima (2006))
Nakajima claims that these properties

object is subject to passivization or not isdependent upon its “referentiality” in thecome from the position of a cognate object
in syntax. In particular, he proposes thatsense of Borer (1994). “Referentiality” isdefined as follows:

the cognate object in (6a), for example,
occupies an argument position, giving rise243

(8) a.

Specifics,
definites,
andquantifiers which move out of
the nuclear scope.
b. (Referential)
non-specifics
which are subject to existential
closure.
c. (Non-referential) non-specifics
which incorporate.
(Borer (1994))
For example, the sand in (9a), some sandin (9b), and sand in (9c) correspond to (8a),(8b), and (8c), respectively. Borer (1994)
claims that the passive counterpart of (9c)is ill-formed, as in (10c), because nonreferential non-specific NPs incorporate.
(9) a. Anna collected the sand.
b. Anna collected some sand.
c. Anna collected sand.
(10) a. The sand was collected (byAnna).

d. * A never-ending / sudden smile
was smiled.
(Matsumoto (1996))
Though Matsumoto’s (1996) analysis isvery attractive, we would like to employ
Nakajima’s (2006) analysis of the cognate
objectconstruction,
becausesomeunaccusative verbs are compatible withcognate objects, as pointed out by Kuno
and Takami (2002) and Nakajima (2006).
The relevant example is repeated here as(12) (see Kuno and Takami (2002) for otherexamples).
(12) The tree grew a century’s growthwithin only ten years.
(Nakajima (2006)) (= (6b))
The example shows that some, not all,cognate objects take a position for an
adjunct, as argued by Nakajima (1996).
This is because the complement position tob.

Some sand was collected (byAnna).
c. * Sand was collected (by Anna).
((9) and (10): Borer (1994))
Matsumoto argues that a similar analysis
to the one in (9) and (10) is applicable tothe cognate object construction. Morespecifically, the cognate object in (11a),an unaccusative verb is designated for thesole argument of the verb, as is widelyassumed, and hence it is not available forcognate objects.
Let us go back to the structure of the
HNC. Taking into account the parallelism
between the COC and HNC (in particular,
the fact that both have two readings), it iswhich has the result-reading (the productreading in our sense), is subject toreasonable to claim that the noun phrase
accompanied by hito takes a position of anpassivization, as in (11c), because it isreferential. In contrast, the one in (11b),

argument in syntax in (4a), while it plays
a role of an adjunct in (4b). The relevantwith the action-reading (the mannerreading in our terms), is not, as in (11d),

portion of the structure is shown in (13).
Thus, our position, in which syntax plays abecause it is not referential.
(11) a. Mary smiled a beautiful /central role, is different form Ito, Sugioka,
and Yumoto’s (2013), which propose an

mysterious smile.
Mary smiled a never-ending /analysis of the HNC in terms of lexical
semantics.

b.

sudden smile.
c. ? A beautiful / mysterious smile
was smiled.

244

v*P

(13) a.

Siegel (1978), Kageyama (1996), among
others), (15) shows that ame ‘rain’ is thesole direct internal argument of the verb
furu ‘fall.’(15) Ame-furirain-fall

v*’

NP

v*

VP
adjunctV’‘rainfall’
cf. Ame-ga

NP

V
kaku

Rain-Nom fell
Lit. ‘Rain fell.’
In other words, furu is an unaccusative
verb, with the underlying structure very
similar to (13a). Then, it follows that (14)has the “product-reading” because hitoame in (14) takes a position for a directinternal argument.

hito-ase

v*P

b.

v*’

NP

v*

VP
adjunct
hito-hake

3. The Boundedness Parameter and the
Two Constructions
The previous section has shown that theV’NPfutta.

HNC and the COC have something incommon, which has given birth to thestructure for the HNC quite similar to theone for the COC. In this section, we would
like to take up a difference between the twoconstructions, showing that it has
something to do with the “boundedness
parameter” proposed by Kageyama (2001).

Vnurupenki-oIn this connection, we would like to showthat the HNC with a weather verb lends
further support for the structure in (13a).
The relevant example is shown in (14).
(14) Hito-ame
isshun-defutta.
HITO-rain a moment-in fell.
Lit. ‘Rain fell in a moment.’

An important difference between the twoconstructions is that unergative verbs are

The example indicates not only thatweather verbs are compatible with thecompatible with the COC both with“product-reading” and with “manner-

HNC, as mentioned above, but also that it
has a “product-reading” (i.e. it describes

reading,” but the HNC with unergative
verbs in Japanese only have a “manner-

the situation in which a certain amount ofrain was “created” during a short period ofreading.” This is surprising because a hitoN takes a position for a direct internaltime). The relevant reading seems to beclosely associated with the underlying

argument, expected to have a “productreading.” See (16) and (17).

structure of weather verbs. Given that not
an external argument but a direct internal(16) a.
b.

argument may be integrated with a verbal
root to form a compound (Roeper and

The baby slept a sound sleep.
The tree grew a century’s
growth within only ten years.
(Nakajima (2006)) (= (6))

245

(17) Taro-wa hito-nemuri shita.
Taro-Top HITO-sleep did
Lit. ‘Taro did a sleep.’
Hito-nemuri in (17) is not a sort of the
product associated with the verb, but a sortof the “manner” in the sense that it has[x ACT ON y] CAUSE [y BECOME [y BE AT-z]]

i)
●
ii)
iii)

●
●

(Kageyama (1996:290), with minor
modifications)
Going back to the difference between(16) and (17), we would like to propose that
English, being a [+bounded] language, hasan option which changes an atelic event
into a telic one by means of a cognate object
in a complement position and that the
introduction of a measuring phrase insyntax is not strong enough to create theboundary of an event in Japanese because
it is a [0 bounded] language. Thus,
Japanese makes use of a morphologicalstrategy, i.e. nominalization of anunergative verb to create the boundary,which lies behind in (17).

something to do with the “length” of theevent (hito-nemuri stands for taking a nap
only for a short while).
In this connection, it is worth pointing
out that the HNC in Japanese, whenaccompanied by transitive verbs such as

kaku “sweat” and unaccusative verbs suchas (ame-ga) furu “rain,” have “productreading,” where something (e.g. sweat andrain) comes out as a result of the event
described by the verbs.
We would like to claim that this is thesituationwherethe“boundedness
parameter” (Kageyama (2001)) comes into

To sum up this section, we have argued
that the similarity and difference of the
COC and the HNC are closely associatednot only with their syntactic structures but
also
semantic(ormorphological)
parameters. The next section will have alook at some other constructions andphenomena relevant to the HNC.

play. Kageyama argues that each language
has one of the options for the boundednessof an event: [＋bounded], [0 bounded], and[－bounded]. The first option is taken up by
English, and the second, by Japanese. The
third is associated with Chinese. The
properties of the first two are summarizedin (18).2 See also the diagram in (19).
(18) [ ＋ bounded] language: speakers’
strong

4. The Light Verb Construction andtendency to the boundaries of
events denoted by verbs (i.e.,

Quantifier RaisingThis section will take a look at the light

endpoints of events like a result ora goal).

verb construction and quantifier raising.
Let us start with the light verb

[0 bounded] language: a weaktendency to the boundaries

construction. (20) is an example of theconstruction in Japanese, where the light(19) Difference in the perspectives oflanguages

verb suru ‘do’ is accompanied by the“deverbal” noun ichi-betsu ‘a glance.’ 3

viewpoint

indicatesaOption (i): taken up by English
Option (ii): taken up by Japanese(20) Ichi-betsu
a-glance

Option (iii): taken up by Chinese

suru
give

Lit. ‘(to) give a glance’

246One of the properties of the construction isthat it is highly productive not only inJapanese but also in English, in the sensethat a “deverbal” (or zero-derived) noun isaccompanied by a wide range of verbs togive birth such a lexical unit in English.
(21) shows some examples in English.
(21) a. give {a cry / a laugh / a sob / a
cough / a shout / a sigh}b. give NP {a kick / a bump / a look
/ a rub / a hug / a flip / a rebuke/ a boil}c. have {a laugh / a sit-down / aswim / a look / a think / a talk /a bite / a taste}(Kageyama (1996))
According to Kageyama (1996), each of theexamples in (21) has the following
meaning:(22) a. EXPERIENCEa [+bounded] language and Japanese beinga [0 bounded] language. To be more precise,the light verb construction is prevalent inEnglish because a [+bounded] language
has a highly productive process by which averbal root is changed into a nominal one.
In contrast, a [0 bounded] language does
not have such an option, which lies behindthe little productivity.
Let us move onto quantifier raising,which plays an important role in our
analysis. The example relevant to thediscussion is (1b), repeated here as (23) for
the sake of convenience.
(23) Penki-ohito-hake
nuru
Paint-Acc HITO-brush paintLit. ‘(to) spray a brush of paint’
The point here is the status of hito-hake.
Ito, Sugioka, and Yumoto (2013) claim that
it is a measuring phrase. Given the statuse.g., He cried.
He caught a cold.
b. ACT ON
e.g., He looked at her.
He kicked the ball.
c. ACT (ON)e.g., He walked in the garden.
(Kageyama (1996))

of the phrase and the position of ameasuring phrase in syntax proposed by
Tenny (1994), it is reasonable to supposethat it takes a position of a direct internalargument, though it is not made explicit intheir analysis. However, our position isdifferent from theirs. It is much morereasonable to suppose that hito-hake is

Another important property relevant to
the discussion here has something to do

subject to quantifier raising, adjoined to VP.
This is illustrated in (24).

with telicity. While the verbs cry, kick andlaugh all describe atelic (or unbounded,(24)

continuous) events, the events describedby the light verbs (with their nominal

VP
Adjunct
hito-hakei

counterparts) in (21) are telic ones
(Kageyama (1996:83)). The construction isV’NPti penki-oVnuru

similar to the HNC in this respect (see (2)and (3)), but the former is different fromthe latter in its productivity. The light verb
construction in English is more productive

Because of the position of the phrase, (23)has a manner-reading, not a product-

than its Japanese counterpart, which
seems to be associated with English being

reading.

247

5. Conclusion
In this paper, we have provided an analysisof the hito-N Construction in Japanese,claiming that a noun phrase accompanied by

References
Borer, Hagit (1994) “The Projection of
Arguments,”
UniversityofMassachusetts Occasional Papers 17,
19-47.
Ito, Takane, Yoko Sugioka, and Yoko

hito plays a role of an adjunct with mannerreading and that a hito-NP with a productYumoto (2013) “Mono Meishiku-ni
Fuka Shite Dousakaishaku-o Hikidasu‘Hito ’ nitsuite (On the Quantifier ‘hito ’Giving Rise to the Activity Reading
through Adjunction to Entity Nouns),”
the paper presented at MLF 2013, held
at Keio University, on September, 8th.
Kageyama, Taro (1996) Doshi Imiron(Verb Semantics), Kurosio Publishers,
Tokyo.
Kageyama, Taro (2001) “Polymorphism
and Boundedness in Event/Entity
Nominalization,” Journal of Japanese
Linguistics 17, 29-57.

reading takes a position of a direct internalargument. Then, we have discussed not only
the parallelism but also the difference
between the HNC in Japanese and the COC
in English, showing that the “boundedness
parameter” is responsible for the difference.

Notes* This is a revised and enlarged version of
the paper delivered at the 7th International
Spring Forum of English LinguisticSociety of Japan, held at Doshisha
University on April 20. We would like tothank the participants in our presentation
for beneficial comments and discussion. It
goes without saying that any shortcomings
in this paper are ours.

as an NP for the sake of exposition. Due tolimitations of space, we leave open theexact syntactic status of the hito-phrase.

Kuno, Susumu and Ken-ichi Takami(2002) Nichi-eigo-no Jidoshi Kobun (AStudy of the Intransitive Constructions
in English and Japanese), Kenkyusha,
Tokyo.
Matsumoto, Masumi (1996) “The Syntax
and Semantics of the Cognate Object
Construction,” English Linguistics 13,

Interested readers are referred to
Matsumoto (1996), implying that the199-220.
Nakajima, Heizo

1 In this paper, thehito-phrase is treated(2006)“Adverbial

syntactic category of the hito-phrase is an
NP.

Cognate Objects,” Linguistic Inquiry 37,
674-684.

2 Since Chinese has nothing to do with thediscussion here, we will not go into the

Roeper, Thomas and Muffy E. A. Siegel(1978) “A Lexical Transformation for

details of the language.
3 The difference between the HNC and the

Verbal Compounds,” Linguistic Inquiry
9, 199-260.

light verb construction in Japanese lies inverbs: the former is accompanied by verbs

Tenny, Carol (1994) Aspectual Roles andtheSyntax-Semantics
Interface.

with some lexical content, such as kaku
‘sweat’ and nuru ‘paint,’ but the latter is

Kluwer, Dordrecht.

accompanied by the light verb suru ‘do’with little lexical content.

248

Biblical English as a Linguistic Corpus
Isao Hashimoto
Kansai Gaidai University
Keywords: biblical languages, translated English,
syntactic fusion, calque, linguistic data

1. INTRODUCTION
Biblical English contains useful, suggestive andnoteworthy data which can help explain or trigger
new analyses of linguistic phenomena.
Ifcomplex factors reside in biblical English, it isbecause, as Hashimoto (2008) points out, it istranslated English. Biblical translations into
English began in the OE period, and countlessrevisions and new translations have been
produced since then.
At the same time,
expressions appearing in the translations havebeen quoted and referred to in various ways in allsorts of fields and settings, so that many
expressions in the biblical languages have left
their linguistic marks on English usage beyond
the confines of the biblical translations. Someof these expressions have been absorbed into
English as they had linguistic structures similar to
those found in English, and some have appearedin English wearing the linguistic coats of English,
though their original functions differ from thoseof their English counterparts. The aim of thispaper is to analyze translated biblical English andto discuss its usefulness as linguistic data.
To discuss the influence of the biblical
languages on English, it is necessary to examine
the relations between English expressions andtheir counterparts in the Hebrew of the Old
Testament, the Greek of the Septuagint, the Greek249

of the New Testament and/or the Latin of the
Vulgate, while considering the history of English
biblical translations and the translation methods
used in each of the English Bibles (cf.
Cunningham (2014).
The history of English biblical translations canbe divided into two periods: the period of indirecttranslation from the Latin of the Vulgate, and thatof the direct translation from the  original
languages of the Old Testament and the New
Testament.
The direct translation from theGreek of the New Testament began in 1525, andthat from the Hebrew of the Old Testament(hereafter, Hebrew) began in 1530, though themethod of translating indirectly from the Latin of
the Vulgate have been continued in Catholictranslations.
The most influential and important biblicallanguage is Hebrew among the three, because itis an original language of the Old Testament, and
the Greek of the Septuagint, the Greek of the New
Testament and the Latin of the Vulgate frequently
adopt or borrow words, phrases and linguistic
elements from Hebrew.
One of the other important aspects to bear inmind is that each of the biblical languages,
especially Hebrew, which belongs to a different
language family from that which includes English,
Latin and Greek, has its own distinctive linguisticfeatures.
Take, for example, the question of sensitivity
to context. English is the language of a “lowcontext culture,” while Hebrew belongs to a“high context culture,” as suggested by Hall andHall (1990: 6-7). One typical example is the
Hebrew conjunction -ʥ, which consists of one
letter, and is a prefix. This is called waw, whichis the name of this letter as well as thisconjunction, and is the most frequently occurring
conjunction in the Hebrew Bible. Its frequency
is one element of the characteristic prose style ofthe Hebrew Old Testament.

As for its function, it is abstractive and realized
only in context. It can perform the same conjunctive function as the English words and, but,or, that, when, while, as, for, if, as if, and though,and it can also function like a conjunctive adverbial, such as furthermore, henceforth, moreover,thus, therefore, as context requires, Furthermore, when it is prefixed to a verb, it can convert
the aspect of the verb, from the perfect to theimperfect and vice versa, with or without
continuing to perform its conjunctive function (cf.
Waltke and O’connor (1990: 519- 42). This is
one of the main reasons why interpretations of
Hebrew sentences often vary from one historicalperiod to another and from translator to translator.
Table 1 shows translations of the Hebrew
conjunction waw in eight verses of the KingJames Bible (hereafter, KJB) published in 1611
and the same verses in the Living Bible (hereafter,
LB) of 1980.

KJB has a strong tendency to reproduce theexpressions and style of the original. Most of
the waws are replaced by and in KJB, which isone of the characteristics of the prose style of thisBible, just as waw is characteristic of the Hebrew
Old Testament. In other words, the Hebrew
style is reproduced in KJB by means of thistranslation method. On the other hand, a varietyof conjunctions are used in LB and cases arefound where no translation is given. This is atranslation method which aims to reproduce themeaning of the original.

250

If we did not know any better, these differencesin the translation of the Hebrew conjunction waw
between the two English Bibles might lead us to
speculate that various functional and semanticchanges in the use of and had occurred during the369 years between 1611 to 1980.
The imperfect aspect of verbs is another typicalexample of the sensitivity of Hebrew to context.
This, too, has caused fluctuations in English
biblical translations. The imperfect aspect ofverbs has the potential to express a wide range ofdiverse moods, such as indicative, subjunctive,
volitional, optative and potential, and it can also
express duration and habitualness (cf. Lambdin(1971: 99-105)). The imperfect form of theverb ʮʥʷ (= rise or arise), for example, expresses
the following functions and meanings: “Herise(s)/ rose, will/would rise, can/could rise,
may/might rise, shall/should rise, must rise,
want(s) to rise, continue(s) to rise, used to rise.”
The citations (1b) to (1f) are examples oftranslations of the imperfect verb in the㻌 thirdperson and plural of the verb ʮʥʷ in II Samuel(22:39). They are direct translations from the
Hebrew sentence (1a) in the five different periods.
(1a) ʯʥʮʥʷʩ ʠʬʥ
lit. trans. [and-not they-rise]
Hebrew Bible(1b) 1560: they shal not arise, Geneva Bible(1c) 1611: that they could not arise:
KJB(1d) 1970: they rise no more;News English Bible(1e) 1982: and they cannot rise;
Good News Bible(1f) 2007: so that they did not arise;
New Revised Standard Version
The grammatical function assigned to thisHebrew imperfect verb depends on theinterpreter’s reading. Therefore, these different
translations made in the different periods are not
the result of historical changes of the functions of
the English modal auxiliaries.
2. LINGUISTIC INFLUENCE

In discussing the influence of the biblicallanguages on English, attention should be paid tothe following three features.
A. High frequency of the same phrase orsimilar syntactic devices
B. Calque or loan translation
C. Hybrid or syntactic fusion of English andthe biblical languages
They do not always appear clearly and separately
but two or three of them sometimes intertwine toconstitute a single phrase with a collocative
meaning in English.
2.1. HIGH FREQUENCYOne of the typical examples of high frequency
is and, as pointed out above. To this category
belongs the construction “it came to pass thatclause.” This has been discussed by Hashimoto(1985). Its variant, shown in (2a), also belongs
to this category. We can derive an adequate
explanation for the construction of the sentencefrom English grammar. But analysis also showsthat the syntax of the original language,
underlined below, has been retained.
(2a) And it shall be, when the LORD brings you
into the land of the Canaanites and theHittites and the Amorites and the Hivites
and the Jebusites, which He swore to yourfathers to give you, a land flowing withmilk and honey, that you shall keep thisservice in this month.
New King James Version, Exodus 13:5(2b) ʹʣʧʡ ʺʠʦʤ ʤʣʡʲʤʚʺʠ ʺʣʡ -ʥ AT ʤʩʤʥlit. trans. [and-it-shall-be TA and-you-
shall-keep service this in-month this] (=And it shall be TA and you shall keep thisservice in this month)
Hebrew Bible, Exodus 13:5
The sentence (2a) consists of “and it shall be +temporal adverbial (hereafter, TA) + that-clause,”which is a reflection of a Hebrew grammaticaldevice to introduce a future time of an episode.
This construction often appears in KJB as a result

251

of a literal translation of the Hebrew construction(2b), and this translation method is still employed
today, as shown in (2a).
This Hebrew construction in the imperfectaspect “͐-ʥ AT ʤʩʤʥ” [and-it-shall-be TA and…] has been usually translated word for word
except for the last conjunction waw, which has
been translated by the English conjunction that to
introduce an English complement clause. As aresult, the construction shown in (2a) appears
very often in English Bibles. This type oftranslation method first appears in the Greek of
the Septuagint, as shown in (2c):(2c) țĮ੿ ਩ıĲĮȚ TA țĮ੿ ...
Septuagint, Exodus 13:5
As this Hebraism in the Septuagint was brought
into the Greek of the New Testament, as pointed
out by Sherman (1937), it appears in English New
Testaments. This is an example of the intertwining of the calque and the hybrid.
2.2. SYNTACTIC CALQUE
The following examples (3a) to (3c) arecitations from Exodus (4:5) of English
translations from the OE to ModE periods.
(3a) ModE: the LORD, the God of their ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob
New Revised Standard Version(3b) ME: God of thi fadres aperide to thee God
of Abraham, and God of Ysaac, and God
of Jacob.
Wycliffite Bible(3c) OE: Drihten þindra fædera God þe ætywde,
Abrahames God ŉIsaaces God ŉ Iacobes
OE HeptateuchGod(3d) Latin: Dominus Deus patrum tuorum Deus
Abraham Deus Isaac Deus Iacob
Vulgate(3e) -!: '!+ ~hrba yhla ~tba yhla hwhy
Qxcy yhlalit. trans. [Yahwe God-of their-father
God-of Abraham God-of Jacob God-of

Isaac]Hebrew Bible
The phrase is well known to most Christians. A
famous joke was born from this passage. That

Anglo-Saxon Gospels, John 18:30
These collocations are acceptable to English
syntax, but their high frequency is very
conspicuous and unique to the Bible. They haveappeared since the OE period, as shown in (4e)and (4f). After the OE period, when biblicaltranslations were made indirectly from the Latinof the Vulgate, such collocations occurred withhigh frequency even in OE versions of the New
Testament, as shown in (4f). These collocations
are easy to explain in terms of English grammar.
Interestingly enough, they correspond to one orother of the two grammatical devices veryfrequently used to introduce direct speech in the
Hebrew Bible. One of them is a periphrastic
infinitive of a verb corresponding to the English
verb say rmal [to-say], and another is “waw +is: How many gods can you find here? The
answer is, of course, one. This syntax cannot
be explained and has never been accepted by
English grammar. However, it was alreadyused in OE and ME versions of the Bible, as
shown in (3b) and (3c). These OE and ME
versions are indirect translations from Latin, andthey occur there as the calque of the Latin of the
Vulgate (3d). The Latin translation itself is alsoa calque of the original phrase with its Hebrew
syntax, shown in (3e). In Hebrew, when thehead of a noun phrase is followed by more than
one noun phrase, the head should be added toeach of the noun phrases repeatedly. This
imperfect form of the same verb” = ʸʮʠʩʥ [andHebrew syntax has been copied and repeated bysays] (= and said), which expresses the perfecttranslators, and is accepted only in the biblicalaspect, because the conjunction waw can convert
setting, probably because it is used in anthat aspect, as noted above.
important context of the Bible.
In the Latin of the Vulgate, the periphrastic
2.3. HYBRID OR SYNTACTIC FUSION
infinitive rmal [to-say] is replaced by the present
In English biblical translations, we very often
participle dicens, and “waw + imperfect verb” by
see a tautological phrase such as spoke and said,
et dixit. This type of construction, characterized
told and said, asked saying, spoke saying where a
by a fusion of the Hebrew and the Latin syntaxes,
verb of speaking in a finite form or the present
first appears not in the Latin of the Vulgate but inparticiple follows another verb of speaking, as
the Greek of the Septuagint. It was the writers
shown in (4a) to (4f):of the New Testament who brought this Hebraism(4a) The king spoke and said to the wise men
into the Greek of the New Testament, e.g.,of Babylon, New American Standard
avpekri,qhsan kai. ei=pan (John 18:30), avpekri,nato
Bible, Daniel 5:7
le,gwn pa/sin o` VIwa,nnhj (Luke 3:16) (cf.
(4b) My lord asked his servants, saying, ‘Have
Hashimoto (1983)).
you a father or a brother? New Revised
The OE biblical translators rendered the Latin
Standard Version, Genesis 44:19
collocations faithfully, and instances of “a verb of(4c) And Ioshua adiured them at that time,by saying/and said” occurredsaying, Cursed be the man before the Lord,  speaking   followedfrequently in OE biblical translations. This
KJB, Joshua 6:26
translation method has endured to the present day.
(4d) And she vowed a vow, and said, O Lord
If we consider (4c) and (4d) from the point ofof hostes,  
KJB, 1 Samuel 1:11
view of the original language, it is not saying and(4e) God ða spræc to NOE, ðus cweðende
said but adiured in (4c) and vowed a vow in (4d)OE Heptateuch, Genesis 8:15
that have an illocutionary force.
(4f) hig 7 swaredon 7 cwædon to him

252

3. USEFULNESS AS LINGUISTIC DATA
One reason why the complexities of biblical
English considered so far are important is thatthey provide data which can be used to explain
linguistic phenomena. For example, thefollowing tentative analysis using data frombiblical translations found in Hashimoto (2012)
aims to clarify the development of English
compound numerals. No previous discussion of
the topic has been either this detailed or based ondata that is as reliable.
Three basic types of the numerals from 21 to
99 have occurred in the history of English. The
first type is “one and twenty,” which will becalled the OE type, because it was dominant in
the OE period. The second type is “twenty andone,” which will be called the Middle type,because it appeared between the first and the third
types in the history of English. The third type is“twenty-one,” which will be called the Modern
type, because it is the standard expression ofcompound numerals in present- day English.
In Shakespeare, it is the OE type which
predominates, accounting for about 70.6 % of thenumerals in his works, (cf. Hashimoto (2005:126)). On the other hand, in KJB, the Middle
type is dominant (about 76.5%). It is generally
said that English compound numerals havechanged from the OE type to the Modern type via
the Middle type. Why did KJB keep one stepahead of Shakespeare in the development of
numerals, although it is generally conservative inits style and usage?
To make clear the process of the development, I
examined the following nine Bibles, (a) the Hebrew
Bible, (b) the Vulgate, and seven English Bibles
translated for about 216 years from c.1395 to 1611.

the examination of each version of the Old
Testament is twenty seven books from Genesis toDaniel, except in the case of Tyndale’s
Pentateuch. 375 examples of compound
numerals were collected from the twenty-sevenbooks of the Hebrew Old Testament. Elevenexamples of the compound numerals were foundin the Four Greek Gospels. As the number in
the Four Gospels are small, the data from the Old
Testament will be the focus here.

㻌

Table 2
Bibles

OE
type
(%)

Middle㻌 Modern㻌
type㻌
type
(%)
(%)

(a)

32.8

67.2

0

(b)

0

11.2

88.3

(c)

90.2

9.8

0

(d)

n/a

n/a

n/a

(e)

98.2

1.8

0

(f)

73.1

26.9

0

(g)

16.2

83.8

0

(h)

42.1

5.4

52.5

(i)

23.2

76.5

0.3

(NB, rounded to one decimal place)

Table 2 shows the distribution of thecompound numerals in each version.
Tyndale’s Pentateuch is unique in that about 95%of the compound numerals are expressed as
Roman numerals, as in “xxxv. yere” (Genesis
11:12). Such expressions are very suggestive andprovide interesting data for anyone interested in
the history of compound numerals. This will be
discussed on another occasion.
Schibsbye (1977: 112) suggests that the
English Modern type originates in French at theend of the 15th century. This claim will beeasily denied by the statement by Wagner andPinchon (1962: 107). They state that in the
French classical period from 1600 to 1700, units
still be coordinated with tens by the conjunction
et.
If their statement is right, the English

They are: (c) Wycliffite Bible (c.1395), (d)Tyndale’s Pentateuch (1350), (e) Coverdale
Bible (1535), (f) Geneva Bible (1560), (g)Bishops’ Bible (1568), (h) Rheims-Douai Bible(1609–10), and (i) KJB (1611). The scope of253Modern type occurred much earlier than the
French Modern type, without the influence ofFrench. This fact is shown in the Table 2.
In the Hebrew Old Testament there are two
types, the OE type and the Middle type, and thelatter is dominant (67.2%). In the Vulgate, theMiddle type is minor (11.2%) and the Modern
type is dominant (88.3%). In Latin, the generalorder is the same as in Modern English and the
Middle type occurs very rarely according to
Mountford (1962: 45). This suggests that the
Middle type in the Vulgate was influenced by thatin the Hebrew Bible.
The frequency of the OE type in the Wycliffe
Bible is very high, demonstrating the stable statusof this type. Dramatic changes occur during the
EModE period. Instances of the Middle typeincrease and the Modern type appears at the
beginning of the seventeenth century. Thesechanges occurred as a result of, and wereaccelerated by, successive translations of the
Hebrew Middle type and the Latin Modern type.
4. CONCLUSION
Although traces of syntactic elements of the threebiblical languages lie deep below the surface ofbiblical English, careful analysis can reveal theirpresence and the resulting picture furnishes a
corpus which promises to make an invaluable
contribution to the linguistic analysis of English.

Englyshe (1535) E. Cervicornus & J. Soter?
Cologne? or Marburg?
Geneva Bible (The) = The Bible and Holy
Scriptvres Conteyned in the Olde and Newe Testament. Translated according to theEbrue and Greke, and Cönferred With theBest Translations in Diuers Languages(1560), Rouland Hall, Geneva.
Good News Bible (The): Todays English Version,(2002) American Bible Society, New York.
Greek New Testament (The) = The Greek 
Testament (1873), ed. by Henry Alford, Lee
and Shepard, Boston.
Hebrew Bible (The) = Biblia Henraica (1977), ed.
by Rudolf Kittle, Deutsche Bibelstiftung,
Stuttgart.
KJB = The Holy Bible: A Facsimile of theAuthorized Version Published in the Year
1611 (reprinted. 1982), Nan’un-do, Tokyo.
Living Bible (The) (1974), Tyndale House,
Illinois.
New American Standard Bible (The) (1995),
Foundation Publications, La Haba.
New English Bible (The) (1970), OUP, Oxford.
New King James Version (The) = The Holy Bible:
New King James Version (2013), Thomas
Nelson, Nashville.
New Revised Standard Version (The) = The Holy
Bible Containing Old and New Testamentswith Apocryphal/Deutero-canonical Books,
OUP, New York and Oxford.
References
OE Heptateuch (The) = The Old English Version
A. Bibles Examinedof the Heptateuch: Ælfric’s treaties on the
Anglo-Saxon Gospels (The) = The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, andOld and New Testament and his preface to
Old Mercian Versions (1871-87), ed. byGenesis (reprinted. 1969), ed. by Samuel
Walter William Skeat, CUP, Cambridge.
John Crawford, EETS. OS. 160, OUP,
Bishops’ Bible (The) = The Holie Bible  ConOxford.
teynynge the Olde Testament and the Newe
Rheims-Douai Bible (The) = The Holie Bible(1568) R. Jugge, London.
Faithfvlly Translated into English, ovt of the
Coverdale Bible (The) = The Byble: that is the
Avthentical Latin: diligently conferred withholy Scrypture of the Olde and New
the Hebrew, Greeke, and other editions in
Testament, faithfully translated in todiuers languages (vol. I, 1609, vol. II, 1610),

254

Laurence Kellam, Douai.
Septuagint (The) = Septuaginta 2 vols (1935), ed.
by Alfred Rahlfs, Deutsche Bibelstiftung,
Stuttgart.
Vulgate (the) = Biblia Sacra Iuxta ulgatam
versionem 2 vols (1969), ed. by RobertWeber, Württembergische Bibelanstalt,
Stuttgart.
Tyndale’s Pentateuch = The Fyrst Boke ofMoses Called Genesis, The Seconde boke ofMoses, Called Exodus,... (1530) Hans Luft,
Malborow.
Wycliffite Bible (The) = The Holy Bible: containing the Old and New Testament, with the
Apocryphal Books in the earliest English
versions made from the Latin Vulgate byJohn Wycliffe and his followers 4 vols.
(reprinted 1982), ed. by Josiah Forshall andFrederic Madden, 1850, AMS Press, NewYork.

B. References Cited
Cunningham, Valentine (2014) “Thou Art
Translated: Bible Translating, Heretic
Reading and Cultural Transformation,”
Literature and the Bible: A Reader, ed. by Jo
Carruthers, Mark Knight and Andrew Tate,155-162, Routledge, London and New York.
Hall, Edward Twitchell and Mildred Reed Hall
(1990) Understanding Cultural Differences,
A. Nicholas Brealey, Boston and London.
Hashimoto, Isao (1983) “The Influence of the
Hebrew Infinitive on the English Biblical
Translations,” Studies in Humanities(Bulletin of Shinshu University) 17, 93-117.
Hashimoto, Isao (1985) “It comes to pass that͐to Heburaigoho” (It comes to pass that ͐
and a Hebraism), Chubu Eibungaku (theEnglish Literal Society of Japan: Regional
Branch of Chubu District) 7, 49-66.
Hashimoto, Isao (1998) Seisho no Eigo to
Heburaigoho (Biblical English and255

Hebraisms), Eichosha, Tokyo.
Hashimoto, Isao (2000) Seisho no Eigo: Kyuyaku
Genten kara Mita (Biblical English: Basedon the Hebrew Old Testament), Eichosha,
Tokyo.
Hashimoto, Isao (2005) Eigo-shi Nyumon(Introduction to the History of English),
Keio University Press, Tokyo.
Hashimoto, Isao (2008) “Hebraisms in English
Bibles,” Studies in English Medieval
Language and Literature 22, 3-16, Peter
Lang, Frankfurt am Main.
Hashimoto, Isao (2012) “The Development of
Compound Numerals in English Biblical
Translations,” Middle and Modern English
Corpus Linguistics: A Multi-dimensional
Approach (Studies in Corpus Linguistics50) 49-58, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Lamdbin, Thomas Oden (1973) Introduction to
Biblical Hebrew, Darton, Longman andTodd, London.
Mountford, James (1962) Kennedy’s Revised
Latin Primer, Longman, Essex.
Schibsbye, Knud (1977) Origin and Developmentof the English Language, Nordisk Sprog
Kulyurforlag, Copenhagen.
Sherman E. Johnson (1937) “The Septuagint andthe New Testament,” Journal of Biblical
Literature, 56 (4), 331-345.
Wagner, Robert-Léon and Jacqueline Pinchon(1962) Grammaire du Français Classiqueet Modern, Librairie, Hachette, Paris.
Waltke, Bruce K. and Michael Patrick O’connor(1990) An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
Syntax, Eisenbraus, Indiana.

(2) Passive
Taroo-ga

Hanako-ni

Taroo-NOM Hanako-DAT
tatak-(r)are-ta.
hit-PASS-PASTOne Syntactic Structure for Four Voices in“Taroo was hit by Hanako.”

Japanese
Takashi Kayashima(3) Causative

Graduate School of Kyushu University

Taroo-ga

Hanako-*o/ni

Taroo-NOM Hanako-ACC/DAT

Keywords: voice, passive, causative, potential,
volitionality

kusuri-onom-(s)ase-ta.

medicine-ACC take-CAUSE-PAST“Taroo made Hanako take medicine.”

1. Target(4) Potential

Looking at only English, we have just two

a. Taroo-ga

types of voice, namely, active voice and passive

eigo-ovoice. However, in Japanese, causatives andTaroo-NOM English-ACC

potentials are also categorized as types of voice.

hanas-(r)eru (koto).

Nevertheless, this categorizatoin is due to only

speak-CAN

their morphological and cognitive semantic“Taroo can speak English.”similality, and no explanation with principle has
b. Taroo-ni/ga

been given. The first target in this paper is toeigo-ga

propose the first explanation which can capture

Taroo-DAT/NOM English-NOM

the four kinds of voice in Japanese in a unified

hanas-(r)eru (koto).

way. I will show this analysis has an advantage

speak-CAN

with respect to the analysis of Japanese indirect“Taroo can speak English.”passives. In addition, concerning causatives andpotentials, there are some cases where caseIn (3), although the Causee Hanako is an object,

distribution cannot be explained by the current

we cannot mark it as Accusative but it has to becase-valuation system. The analysis in this paper

marked as Dative. This phenomenon was first

can also explain these case distributions. Four

explained by Harada (1973), in which thetypes of voice are shown below, and case“double-o constraint” is proposed, which bans

distributions in need of consideration are in bold

marking more than two DPs as Accusative in a

print.

single clause. (4) are examples of sentences
which indicate someone’s capability. Although(4a) shows the pattern of case-marking which is(1) Active
tatai-ta.

naturally expected in current case-valuation

Hanako-NOMTaroo-ACC hit-PAST

system, the distribution of case such as in (4b) is“Hanako hit Taroo.”possible as well.

Hanako-ga

Taroo-o256

2. Proposal

feature it has. Therefore, it always makes a

2.1. Volitional feature checking

phase, even in passives.

In this paper, I propose structure (5) for four(5)

types of voice (actives, passives, causatives andTP

potentials). I assume that a functional projection,T’

whose head has a feature [± vol(itional)], exists

VoiceP

T

Voice’

between TP and vP. This functional projection

vP Voice [svol]

decides the voice of sentences, so I call thisDPfunctional projection VoiceP. A head of thisv’[svol]

VP

projection probes the goal which has the sameDPvolitional feature. When Voice head finds anV[svol]

appropriate DP as a goal, this DP moves to [Spec,
VoiceP]. Based on whether voice has [+ vol] orv

2.2. Case valuation[- vol] and which DP has the volitional feature

Generally, it is assumed that Nominativethat matches the feature of voice, the voice ofcase is assigned from T and Accusative case issentences is decided.

assigned from V, and I follow this assumption in

Currently, the minimalist program is based

this paper. In addition, I assume that Dative caseon phase theory (Chomsky (2001)). According

is assigned from v. This assumption comes fromto this framework, a derivation proceeds by

the typological fact that Dative case is strongly

phases.

a

associated with the semantic role Agent (andcomplement of a phase head is transferred, and

Goal) (Woolford (2006)). As Agent is assigned

transferred components can no longer befrom v, it is natural to assume that [Spec, vP] is aaccessed from a derivation. For instance, VP is

Dative case position. (6) shows where a certaintransferred when the derivation reaches vP, so

DP is assigned which case.

Once

a

phase

is

completed,

VP is invisible from T. In this paper, I assume(6)

VoiceP exists between TP and vP. What I willTP
[NOM] T’

make clear is whether VoiceP is a phase or not.
VoiceP is a functional projection which concerns

VoiceP T

arguments’ event roles. In this view, it can be

Voice’

said that this projection belongs to the vP

vP Voicedomain rather than the CP domain. As VoiceP is[DAT] v’the highest projection of the vP domain, I

VP

assume here that VoiceP is a phase and vP is a

[ACC] Vv

complement of a phase head, Voice. In addition,
I have to refer to the difference of phase between

3. Analysis

actives and passives. Generally, it is assumed

Here, I show four patterns of derivation: active,that transitive v makes a phase head andpassive, causative and potential voice. First, letintransitive v does not. In this paper, in bothme show the derivation of actives below. The

actives and passives, v has the same property. As

volitional features which match each other are infor Voice, the only difference is the volitionalbold font.

257

Taroo. In the end, Taroo moves to [Spec, TP](7) a. Hanako-ga Taroo-o tataita. (Active)TPand is assigned Nominative case. Since Hanako

Hanako T’remains in [Spec, vP], it is assigned Dative case

b.

by v.

VoiceP T

The consequence of this analysis is that the

Hanako Voice’

structure of passives is the same as that ofvP Voice [+ vol]Hanakoactives, and this has an advantage over generalv’[+ vol]VP

analyses. Generally, it is assumed that inv

passives v lacks an ability to assign Accusative

Taroo V[- vol]case. However, this general assumption faces a

In active sentences, Voice has [+ vol], the DP inserious problem when it comes to JapanesevP Spec has [+ vol], and the complement of V

indirect passives such as (9).

has [- vol]. Thus, in (7b), Voice finds Hanako as(9) Taroo-ga

an appropreate goal, then Hanako moves todoroboo-ni kuruma-o[Spec, VoiceP]. After that, T attracts Hanako to

Taroo-NOM thief-DAT car-ACC

its Spec, and assigns it Nominative case. Since

nusum-(r)are-ta.

Taroo remains in a complement position of V, it

steal-PASS-PAST.

is assigned Accusative case.

“Taroo had his car stolen by a thief.”

Next, we move on to passives.
In (9), although v of the sentence is passive, theembedded object is marked Accusative. Based(8) a. Taroo-ga Hanako-ni tatak-(r)are-ta.
(Passive)on general assumptions, kuruma in (9) cannot beTPmarked Accusative as v lacks an ability to assignb.

T’

Accusative case. In order to capture this fact, it

VoiceP T

is necessary to assume that this v is the same as

Taroo
Taroo

that of Actives. In the theory presented here, in

Voice’
vP Voice [- vol]fact passive v is same as passive one. Generally,
the problem we face when we assume that v

Hanako v’[+ vol]Taroo[- vol]VP

assigns Accusative case in passives is that thev

semantic object becomes impossible to move toVsubject

positonbecause

of

the

Phase

The structure of passives is basically the same as

Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky (2001)). In

that of actives. The only difference is the feature

this theory, when v can assign Accusative case it

Voice has. Concretely, in contrast to (7), Voiceis transitive v, which is a phase head. Therefore,

has [- vol] in (8). The DP in vP Spec has [+ vol],in passives, if v can assign Accusative case, T

and the complement of V has [- vol] as in active

cannot see below v because VP has been alreadysentences.

holds

transferred. In contrast, in this paper, the phasebetween Voice and Taroo, which results in thehead is Voice. In (8b), when T probes anmovement of Taroo to [Spec, VoiceP]. Thus,

appropriate goal, Taroo has already moved towhen T probes an appropriate goal, it finds[Spec, VoiceP], which is an edge of a phase.

Therefore,

agree-relation

258

(11)a. Taroo-ni/ga eigo-o/ga hanas-(r)eru (koto).

Therefore, even if v can assign Accusative caseb.

in passives no problem arises.

TP
Taroo T’

Next, we move on to causatives.

VoiceP T
Taroo Voice’(10) a. Taroo-ga Hanako-ni kusuri-ovP Voice [- vol]nom-(s)ase-ta. (Causative)
b.

TP

Taroo

Taroo T’

VP

VoiceP T

eigo

vP Voice [+ vol]c.

VoicePv

eigo

Hanako v’[- vol]VP

TP
eigo T’

Taroo v’vPv
V[- vol]Taroo Voice’[+ vol]v’[- vol]T

Voice’

vP Voice [- vol]v

Taroo v’kusuri V[- vol][- vol]

VP v

eigo

Here, as for what structure produces a causativeV[- vol]meaning, I follow Hale and Keyser (1993) andHarley (2008). According to them, when a vPd.

selects another vP, a causative meaning appears.

TP
Taroo

Therefore, I assume the structure of causative is

eigo

as in (10). As for the feature of volition, since

T’

VoiceP T

the sentence is active, Voice has [+ vol]. The DP

Taroo

in higher [Spec, vP], that is, the causer, has [+eigo

Voice’
vP Voice [- vol]vol], and the DP in lower [Spec, vP], that is, thecausee, has [- vol]. The complement of V has [-Taroo v’[- vol]vol]. When Voice searches for an appropriate DP
which has the same volitional feature as it does

VP

eigo

[- vol]in (10b), it finds Taroo. When the derivationv

V

converges, Taroo is assigned Nominative by T,

In potential sentences such as (11a), Voice has

Hanako is assigned Dative from v, and kusuri is[-vol], the DP in vP Spec has [- vol], and theassigned Accusative from V. Note that thecomplement of V has [- vol]. In that case, three

distribution of case in (3) is expected in thispatterns of derivation are possible. If Voice finds

structure. As Causee is base-generated in vP

only the DP in [Spec, vP], the derivation

Spec, which is Dative case position, Causee isproceeds as in (11b). Voice attracts Taroo to its

always marked as Dative, not Accusative.

Spec. So when the derivation has converged,

Finally, let me show the derivation of

Taroo is in [Spec, TP] and eigo remains in thepotentials below.

complement position of V. Therefore, Taroo is
assigned Nominative case by T and eigo is259

assigned

Accusative

case

by

V.

If

the

(12) is an indirect passive sentence in Japanesecomplement of V is found by Voice, theand (13) is the structure of (12), following

derivation proceeds as in (11c). Eigo moves to

Pylkk¦nen (2002). APPL in (13) is LOW APPL,[Spec, VoiceP] overtaking Taroo, so when thewhich creates a possession relation. Therefore,

derivation has converged, eigo is in [Spec, TP]

APPLP in (13) represents the proposition thatand Taroo remains in [Spec, vP]. Therefore, eigo

Taroo has a car. Please note that the use of theis marked as Nominative and Taroo is marked asterm Voice in (13) differs from the way the term

Dative. When we scrabble DPs, the word orderis employed here. Pylkk¦nen (2002) uses the“Taroo-ni eigo-ga hanaserukoto” is obtained. If

term to refer to a functional head with the sole

Voice finds both the DP in [Spec, VP] and the

purpose of introducing an external argument.

complement of V, the derivation proceeds as in

The problem is that it is not clear why (13) can(9d). As both DPs move to [Spec, VoiceP], they

converge only as a passive. In other words, whymove to [Spec, TP] afterwards. Then, both DPs(13) cannot end up as the active sentence in (14)are marked as Nominative.

is not clear.

4. Further issues(14) *Doroboo-ga Taroo-ni

kuruma-othief-NOM Taroo-DAT

This analysis can explain a problem

car-ACC

concerning Pylkkänen (2002). In Pylkkänen

nusum-da.

(2002), seven argument introducers are proposed.

steal-PAST.

These argument introducers explain a lot of“ (Intended) ‘The thief stole Taroo’s car.”phenomena concerning arguments in a vast
range of languages. However, this analysis

In (13), when T serches for an appropriate goal,cannotit first finds doroboo in [Spec, VoiceP].

capture Japanese indirect

passives

Therefore, there is no reason why doroboo

correctly.

cannot move to the subject position.
(12) Taroo-ga

Following

doroboo-ni kuruma-otheassumptions

derivation of (12) is as follows.

Taroo-NOM thief-DAT car-ACC
nusum-(r)are-ta.

(15)steel-PASS-PAST.

TP
Taroo T’

“Taroo had his car stolen by a thief.”

VoiceP T(13)

Taroo Voice’TP
Taroo T’vP Voice[- vol]

VoiceP T

doroboo v’

doroboo Voice’

VP[+ vol]vP Voicev

APPLP V

VP v

Taroo APPL’[- vol]APPLP V

kuruma APPL

Taroo APPL’kuruma APPL

260

here,

the

In (15), Voice head has [- vol]. When theHale, Kenneth and Samuel J. Keyser (1993)

derivation has proceeded to VoiceP, Voice“On Argument Structure and the Lexical

searches for an appropreate DP which has amatching volitional feature. Doroboo is an agent,
who intentionally causes the stealing event, andExpression of Syntactic Relations,” The
View from Building 20:

Essaysin

Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by

therefore has [+ vol]. As this feature doesn’t

Halematch the Voice head’s feature, probe continues

KennethandKeyserSamuel,53-108, MIT Press, Cambridge.

and finds the DP Taroo, which has [- vol]. Thesefeatures match and Taroo moves over doroboo toHarada,Sin-iti(1973)“CounterEqui-NP[Spec, VoiceP]. In this way, I can provide a

Deletion,”

AnnualBulletin

Researchreason why passivization is obligatory in

Institute of Logopaedics and Phoniatrics,

indirect passives in Japanese.

11, 131-154, Tokyo University.

Harley, Heidi (2008) “On the Causative
Construction,” Oxford

5. Conclusion

Handbookof

In this paper, I proposed a syntactic

Japanese Linguistics, ed. by Shigeru

structure from which four kinds of Voice

Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito, 20-53,(Actives, Passives, Causatives and Potentials)

Oxford University Pres, Oxford.
Pyllkänän,are generated. The analysis here has advantages

Arguments,

as follows. ձ  This structure naturally
explains the peculiar destribution of case in

Inquiry 37, 111-130.

Japanese indirect passives, an embedded object
is assigned Accusative case raises a problem.
With the theory employed here, passives havethe same structure as actives, so the fact
described above is naturally explained. ճ In
Pylkk¦nen (2002), the problem of Japaneseindirect passives requiring the movement of
indirect object to subject position is left open.
According to this paper, the motivation for sucha movement is to check the volitional feature of
Voice and an indirect object.

References
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”
Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed.
1-52,

DoctoralIntroducing
Dissertation, MIT.

Case and Argument Structure,” Linguistic

generally-accepted assumptions, the fact that, in

Kenstowicz,(2002)

Woolford, Ellen (2006) “Lexical Case, Inherent

Japanese causatives and potentials. ղ Under

by Michael

Leena

MIT

Press, Cambridge.

261

(2013), LCVs project a single maximal projection, vP, comprising a V1 and V2 complex. In
contrast, SCVs have the form of their maximal
projection (Saito 2013). Their syntactic structures are shown in (1).

On Syntactic Complex Verbs inJapanese and Korean(1) a. LCVs

b. SCVs

vP

vP2

Yasuhito Kido1, Masahiko Dansako2,
and Yoko Isse

3

v′

v2′

VP
Graduate School of Kobe University1,
2

v

VP2

V
3

Kyushu University , and Fukuoka University

vP1

V1

v2

V2

V2

v1 ′
VP1

Keywords: Japanese syntactic complex verbs,

v1
V1

Korean complex verbs, subject honorification,
Verbal noun phrase

Kageyama (1993) argues that there are at least
three ways to distinguish SCVs from LCVs byfocusingonthedifferencesinsyntactic

structure; these are shown in (2), (3), and (4).

1. Introduction

First, let us look at the test that substitutes soo su

In this paper, we investigate whether the‘do so’; conjugated here as soo si.

Korean complex verb sicakhata (시작하다),‘start’, has the similar properties as the Japanese(2) Substitution with soo su1

syntactic complex verb with the same meaning,a. Taroo-ga

hajimeru (始める). In particular, we propose

ki-okiri-taosi-ta.

that although Korean complex verbs where V2 isTaroo-NOM tree-ACC cut-topple-Past

sicakhata bear properties similar to the Japanese‘Taroo cut down the tree.’syntactic complex verb hajimeru in the sense

b.* Hanako-mo soo si-taosi-ta.

that the three tests discussed below can be

Hanako-also soapplied to V1 in Korean complex verbs, the verb

‘Lit., Hanako also started to do so.’sicakhata differs from hajimeru in terms ofc. Taroo-ga

do-topple-Past

naki-hajime-ta.

c-selection of the complement. While sicakhata

Taroo-NOM cry-start-Past

takes a verbal noun phrase (VNP) as its com-‘Taroo began to cry.’plement, hajimeru takes a projection vP.

d. Hanako-mo
Hanako-also

soo si-hajime-ta.
so

do-start-Past‘Hanako also began to do so.’

2. Complex Verbs in Japanese
2.1 Nature of Syntactic Complex Verbs
In this section, we give an overview of the

The phrases (2a) and (2b) show examples ofdifference between syntactic complex verbs

LCVs, whereas (2c) and (2d) show SCVs. In the(SCV) and lexical complex verbs (LCV) in Jap-

case of LCVs, as is seen in (2b), it is difficult toanese. According to Kageyama (1993) and Saito

substitute soo su for V1 since V1 as an LCV does262not project vP, as shown in (1a). In contrast,

agrees with its argument, a person worthy of

SCVs can be replaced, as seen in (2d) because

respect, with the feature [+honorific], asboth V1 and V2 project vP, as is illustrated in

explained in (4).

(1b).
Second, the substitution of Sino-Japanese(4) Subject honorification in Japaneseverbs for V1 can be used to examine whether

vP

complex verbs are LCVs or SCVs. This test is

Argumentv′

applied to the whole set of words, rather than toparts of the set, as shown in (3).

VP
TARGET(3) Substitution with Sino-Japanese verbs
a. Taroo-ga

ki-o

V-v
[+honorific](Kishimoto 2007:96)

kiri-taosi-ta.

Taroo-NOM tree-ACC cut-topple-Past

Assuming that Kishimoto’s (2007) account is‘Taroo cut down the tree.’correct, it is predicted that applying honorifica-

b.* Taroo-ga ki-otion to only V1 in LCVs will be unacceptablebassai si-taosi-ta.

T-NOM tree-ACC logging do-topple-Pastbecause they will no longer bear a single vP;‘Lit., Taroo cut down the tree.’however, since SCVs do bear two vPs, as shownc. Taroo-ga

naki-hajime-ta.

in (1b), they can accept honorification. This is,

Taroo-NOM cry-start-Past

in fact, what happens. An example of this for an‘Taroo began to cry.’LCV is shown in (5).

d. Taroo-ga

gookyuu si-hajime-ta.

Taroo-NOM crying

do-start-Past(5) a. Ito-sensei-ga ki-o‘Taroo began to cry.’Dr. I-NOM

kiri-taosi-ta.

tree-ACC cut-topple-Past

b.* …… o-kiri-ni-nari taosi-ta.
Phrases (3a) and (3b) are examples of LCVs. In

cut-HON topple-Past

contrast, (3c) and (3d) are SCVs. It is inappro-c. …… o-kiri-taosi-ni -nat-ta.

priate to substitute Sino-Japanese verbs for V1

cut-topple-HON-Pastbecause LCVs are pairs of single words V1 and‘Dr. Ito cut down the tree.’V2, as seen in (1a). In contrast, V1 in SCVs canbe replaced as in (3d) since V1 projects its

In (5b), it is shown that subject honorificmaximal projection, namely, VP1, which is dis-marking is not limited to only V1, but extends totinct from VP2.

the whole LCV kiri-taos, as in (5c), because

The third test to distinguish LCVs from

LCVs bear only a single VP-shell structure, as

SCVs is to adjoin an honorific expression to V1

presented in (1a). In contrast to LCVs, SCVs

by using o-V-ni naru ‘V-Hon.’ According tobear two-layered vPs, as illustrated in (1b).

Kishimoto (2007), the subject-honorification

Therefore, since there are two different positions

mechanism in Japanese SCVs is accounted forbase-generated for the subjects; namely, a Specby means of a spec-head agreement. Moreof vP1 and a Spec of vP2, SCVs such as

concisely, subject honorification is allowed only

V1-hajimeru bear two different syntactic struc-when the verb with a subject honoric marker

tures.

263

(6) a. Ito-sensei-ga bentoo-o tabe-hajime-ta.

the stem of V1. In this way, it is broadly accepted

Dr. I-NOM boxed lunch-ACC eat-start-Past

that some Korean LCVs are similar to Japanese
LCVs.

b. …… o-tabe-ni-nari hajime-ta.
eat-HON

start-Past

c. …… o-tabe-hajime-ni-nat-ta.

3.2 SCVs in Korean

eat-start-HON-Past

The case is different for SCVs in Korean.

‘Dr. Ito started to eat a boxed lunch.’

Following Tsukamoto’s (2012) suggestion, it isappropriate to argue that Korean has few SCVs

Subject honorification in (6b) and (6c) issimilar to those in Japanese. Instead, the events

appropriately legitimized for the following rea-denoted by the Japanese SCVs are rephrased insons. In (6b), the lexical subject is originatedexpressions other than complex verbs. Examples

from the Spec of vP1, so that the honorific(8a), (9a), and (10a) are Korean, while (8b), (9b),marker is attached to the stem of the downstairsand (10b) are the Japanese equivalents.

verb, tabe ‘eat.’ In (6c), however, the subject isbase-generated in the Spec of vP2. Therefore, the(8) a. Yenghui-ka

tosirak-ul

honorific marker is attached to the stem of the

Yenghui-NOM boxed lunch-ACC

whole verb, tabe-hajime ‘eat-start.’

mek-nun-kes-ul

ic -ess-ta.

eat-Rel-NMNZ-ACC forget-Past-Decl.
‘Yenghui forgot to eat a boxed lunch.’

3. Complex Verbs in Korean
In this section, we give an overview of stud-b. Taroo-ga bentoo-o tabe-wasure-ta.

ies of Korean complex verbs. There are similari-

T-NOM b.l.-ACC eat-forget-Past

ties and differences between Japanese complex‘Taroo forgot to eat a boxed lunch.’verbs and Korean complex verbs. The properties
of LCVs and SCVs in Korean are discussed in(9) a. Yenghui-ka tosirak-ul ta mek-ess-ta.

that order.

Y-NOM

b.l.-ACC all eat-Past-Decl.

‘Yenghui ate a boxed lunch completely.’b. Taroo-ga bentoo-o tabe-oe-ta.

3.1 LCVs in Korean
According to Wada (2011), there are Korean

T-NOM b.l.-ACC eat-finish-Past

LCVs that bear properties similar to those of‘Taroo finished eating a boxed lunch.’Japanese LCVs in that V1 directly attaches to V2,
as shown in (7).

(10) a. Yenghui-ka tosirak-ul kyeysok
Y-NOM(7) a. olu-nayli-ta

b.l.-ACC successively

mek-ess-ta.

ascend-descend-Decl

eat-Past-Decl.

‘To do up-down’‘Yenghui continued to eat a boxed lunch.’b. ttwi-nol-ta

b. Taroo-ga bentoo-o tabe-tuzuke-ta.

jump-play-Decl‘To bum around’

T-NOM b.l.-ACC eat-continue-Past(Wada 2011:84)‘Taroo continued to eat a boxed lunch.’

In (7a) and (7b), for example, V2 is attached to

In (8a), the complex NP mek-nun-kes, rather

264

than the complex verb mek-icnunta ‘eat-forget,’the complement of sicakhata, as shown in (12).

is used to express the same meaning as the Jap(12) Yenghui-ka

anese tabe-wasureru ‘forget to eat something.’

tosirak-ul

To denote the events expressed in Japanese as

Yenghui-NOM boxed lunch-ACC(9b)

mek-kiand(10b),

therespective

Koreansicakh-ess-ta.

denotations (9a) and (10a) indicate the events by

eat-suffix start-Past-Decl.

using adverbs such as ta ‘all’ and kyeysok‘Yenghui started to eat a boxed lunch.’‘successively,’ rather than by using complex
verbs.

It is sufficient to consider the suffix ki attached

From the above, Tsukamoto (2012) con-to the stem of the verb mek as creating a verbal

cludes that there are no longer SCVs in Korean.

noun, rather than as nominalizing the verb.3
Furthermore, it is considered that Korean com-

3.3. Some Intriguing Properties of Sicakhata

plex verbs such as mekki sicakhata resemble

With respect to Tsukamoto’s (2012) descrip-

Japanese SCVs such as tabe hajimeru in thetions of Korean complex verbs, Baek (2005)

sense that V2 is attached to verbs (or verbal

states that sicakhata ‘start’ expresses the eventsnouns). This raises a question. Is there a config-

inferred from an inchoative reading by attachinguration between verbal nouns and sicakhata as

sicakhata to V1, in the same way that hajimeru

V2, in the same way as for Japanese SCVs where‘start’ does in Japanese, as shown in (11):

V2 is hajimeru?

(11) Yenghui-ka

4. Hypothesis

wul-kisicakh-ess-ta

Yenghui-NOM cry-suffix start-Past-Decl.

4.1 Working Hypothesis‘Yenghui began to cry.’

To clarify the question of the previous section, we consider the following working hy-

In (11), sicakhata is attached to wul-ki, which

pothesis.

means ‘cry-suffix, but not the stem of V1, wul.’
With respect to the suffix ki, Ito (2012) argues(13) Korean complex verbs where V2 is sicak-that ki serves two functions as a suffix inhata have the same properties as Japanese

Korean: it turns verbs into gerunds or verbal

SCVs where V2 is hajimeru.

2nouns, and it turns verbs into nouns. In thispaper, we adopt the latter proposal for the

4.2 Prediction

following reasons. When the suffix ki is used forIf (13) is correct, then the three tests shown

nominalization of a verb, the verb to which ki isin (2), (3), and (5) and (6) will succeed for

attached is not expected to assign an accusative

Korean complex verbs where V2 is sicakhata.

case to its complement because Korean nouns

Stated another way, the substitution withcannot assign an accusative case to theirkuleykey hata ‘do so,’ the substitution with Si-

complement. However, verbal nouns can do so

no-Korean verbs, and subject honorification,

because they retain the nature of verbs. Notably,

will be applicable to Korean complex verbs

a verb stem with the suffix ki can assign an ac-

where V2 is sicakhata.

cusative case to its complement when the verb is265

pelmokhata in (15b) can be rephrased as

5. Result and Discussion
In this section, we investigate the results ofbatuboku suru ‘cut the tree’ in Japanese.

applying the three tests to V1 in Korean complex

This suggests that there is a configuration

verbs. First, let us look at the substitution with

between V1 and V2 because the two tests noted

kuleykey hata in Korean.

above, the substitution of V1 with kuleykey hataand the substitution of V1 with Sino-Korean(14) a. Yenghui-ka

tosirak-ul

verbs succeed for Korean complex verbs where

Yenghui-NOM boxed lunch-ACC

V2 is sicakhata. We next consider whether

mek-kisicakhata c-selects vP as its complement in thesicakh-ess-ta.

eat-suffix start-Past-Decl.

way that hajimeru c-selects vP as its comple-‘Yenghui started to eat a boxed lunch.’ment. To make progress on this question, we

b. Kuliko, Chelswu-to

kuleykeyAnd,

Chelswu-also soha-ki

sicakh-ess-ta.

consider subject honorification as the third test.
Beforelookingattheresultofasubject-honorification test, we give an overview

do-suffix start-Past-Declofseveralprevious

studiesonthe‘And, Chelswu also started to do so.’subject-honorification mechanism in Korean. It
is well-known that there is a bound morpheme,

In (14b), tosirakul mek in tosirakul mekki is ex-(u)si, which acts as a suffix attached to verb

pressed as kuleykey ha from kuleykey hata. It

stems to represent honorific meanings in Korean.

means that the test regarding the substitution of

In addition, we assume here that there is sub-V1 for kuleykey hata succeeds when applied toject-verb honorific agreement in Korean (seeKorean complex verbs where V2 is sicakhata.

Choi 2003, Kim 2010, among others, for more

The second test is the substitution for Si-

about this assumption). For example, Choi

no-Korean verbs.

(2003) postulates that an agreement projection
AgrP occurs above VP when (u)si occurs in a(15) a. Yenghui-ka

head of the AgrP. In this paper, although thisnamwu-lul calu-ki

Yenghui-NOM tree-ACC

cut-suffix

issue is extensively discussed in relation to thesicakh-ess-ta.

subject-honorification mechanism in Korean, we

start-Past-Decl

tentatively assume that AgrP in studies of‘Yenghui started to cut the tree.’

Korean concerning subject honorification isb. Yenghui-ka
Yenghui-NOM

pelmok-ha-ki

identical to vP in studies of Japanese concerning

logging-do-suffix

subject honorification. This is because bothsicakh-ess-ta.

AgrP in Korean and vP in Japanese are situatedstart-Past-Decl

above VP and create spec-head agreement.

‘Yenghui started logging.’

Therefore, we assume that the subject honorificsuffix (u)si occupies a head of vP.

As in (15b), it is shown that V1 can be

If the working hypothesis presented in (13)substituted with Sino-Korean verbs. In otheris correct, then (u)si can be attached not only towords, namwu-lul caluta in (15a) is restated as

the stem of V2 but also to a stem of V1. Now,

ki-o kiru ‘cut the tree’ in Japanese, andconsider (16), in which the honorific suffix (u)si266

is used as the third test.

While hajimeru takes vP to its complement,sicakhata takes a VNP to its complement, as
namwu-lulpresented in (17). Hence, the working hypothe-

Lee-teacher-HON-NOM tree-ACC

sis presented in (13) is rejected because

a. calu-ki

c-selection(16) Lee-sensayng-nim-i

sicakha-si-ess-ta

cut-suffix start-HON-Past-Decl

regardingthecomplementisdifferent between hajimeru and sicakhata.

(V1-suffix V2-HON)
b.* calu- ki-si sicakh-ess-ta

6. Consequence and Implications
In this paper, we have presented a new syn-(V1-suffix-HON V2)

tactic structure for complex verbs where V2 isc.* calu-si-ki sicakh-ess-ta(V1-HON-suffix V2)

sicakhata in Korean, comparing this with SCVs

‘Dr. Lee started to cut down the tree.’in Japanese. Korean complex verbs where V2 issicakhata bear properties similar to Japanese

The suffix (u)si can follow V2 when it is

SCVs in that two tests, the substitution withsicakhata, as shown in (16a). However, contra-

kuleykeyry to the prediction, (u)si is never attached to V1

Sino-Korean verbs, succeed for V1 in Korean

caluta (‘cut’), as illustrated in (16b) and (16c).

complex verbs, as mentioned in (14) and (15).

These mean that Korean complex verbs where

However, sicakhata differs from hajimeru in

V2 is sicakhata are not identical to SCVs interms of c-selection: sicakhata takes a VNP to

Japanese. If they were the same syntactic struc-its complement, while hajimeru takes a vP to its

ture, then they would necessarily show the same

complement. This result suggests that evenresults on the three tests. However, Korean

though the tests to distinguish between LCVs

complex verbs behave differently from Japa-

and SCVs succeed for V1, this does not mean

nesesubjectthat Korean complex verbs as discussed here

honorification, as shown by the tests in (16b)correspond to Japanese SCVs. In other words,

and (16c). Consequently, we propose the fol-these tests may indicate that there is alowing for the syntactic structure of Korean

configuration between V1 and V2, but it does notcomplex verbs where V2 is sicakhata, using the

make sense to regard the complex predicates thatsame sentence as in (16).

pass the tests as SCVs, even when there is a

SCVs

with

respect

to

hata

and

the

substitution

withconfiguration. As is the case with previous stud(17)CPies, these three tests have been used to examine

TPNP
Dr. Leei-nim-i

T′C

whether or not complex predicates are SCVs.

-ta

Here, in the case of Korean complex verbs suchT

as V-sicakhata, while Tsukamoto (2012) argues-essthat there are few SCVs in Korean, Beak (2005)

v2

argues that complex verbs where V2 is sicakhata-si

are identical to Japanese SCVs where V2 is

vP2

ti

v2′
VP 2

VNP
VP1
NP

V1

namwu-lul

calu

V2

VN sicakha

hajimeru. Our consequence in this paper implies-kithat Tsukamoto’s proposal could be more
adequate than Beak’s (2005) one.

267

Acknowledgements

Natural Language: TLS 5 Proceedings, ed.

We are indebted to four native Korean speakers

by W.E. Griffin, 157-166, Texas Linguistics

who judged the grammatical correctness ofForum 53.

many sentences. Special thanks go to Hiroaki

Ito, Hideto (2012) “Kodai, Zenki Tyusei

Tada, Fumio Mohri, Eiji Yamada, and Hideki

Tyoosengo ni okeru Meisika [On the Nom-

Kishimoto for helpful suggestions and com-inalization in Old and Early Middle Kore-

ments. This research is supported by a grantan],” Tokyo Gaigo Daigaku Ronsyuu 85,

from the Japan Society for Promotion of Science,

77-104.

KAKENHI24520684(Grant-in-Aid

for

Kageyama, Taro (1993) Bunpoo to Gokeisei

Scientific Research (C) “An empirical study on[Grammar and Word Formation],linguistic

Hituzi Syoboo, Tokyo.

knowledge

andspontaneous

production in L2 acquisition: Discussions from

Kim, Lucy K. (2010) “Korean Honorificacquisition of morphology”).

Agreement too Guides Null Argument
Resolution: Evidence from an Offline Study,”

Notes

Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Penn

1 NOM = Nominative, ACC = Accusative, Rel =Linguistics Colloquium, Volume 16, Issue 1,

Relative, NMNZ = Nominalizer, Decl = Declara-

101-108.

tive, HON = Honorific

Kishimoto, Hideki (2007) “Notes on Syntactic

2 Tsukamoto (2012) regards the suffix ki as turning

Complex Verb Construction in Japanese,”verbs into nouns.

Kobe Papers in Linguistics 5, 93-109.

3

Unlike sicakhata, other verbs cannot directly

Saito, Mamoru (2013) “Conditions on Japanesetake a V1 that is attached to a suffix ki for the

Phrase Structure: From Morphology tocomplement, as seen in (i):Pragmatics,” Nanzan Linguistics 9, 119-145.

(i) Taroo-ka

Tsukamoto,tosirak-ul

Hideki(2012)“NihongotoTaroo-NOM boxed lunch-ACC

Tyoo-sengo ni okeru Hukugoodoosi [On thea.* mek-ki

ic-ess-ta

Complex Verbs in Japanese and Korean],”eat-suffix forget-Past-Decl.

Keitairon to Toogoron no Soogosayoob.* mek-ki

kkuthn-ess-ta-Nihongo

eat-suffix finish-Past-Decl.
c.* mek-ki

Gengogaku

kesokh-ess-ta

toKankokugo

Kenkyuu-[The

no

TaisyooInteraction

between Morphology and Syntax: The

eat-suffix continue-Past-Decl.

Contrastive Linguistics in Japanese andKorean], 201-243, Hituzi Syoboo, Tokyo.
Wada, Manabu (2011) “Hutatu no Goitekikin-

References
Baek, Yiyun (2005) “The Acquisition of Japa-

mitusei-Kankoku go (to Nihon go) no

nese Complex Verb ‘~hajimeru’ and ‘~dasu’

Hukugoodoosi- [Two kinds of lexicalbyintegrity: a study on opaque verbal com-

Korean-speaking

Learners,”

Ningenplexs

Bunka Ronsoo 8, 307-315.
Choi, Incheol (2003) “A Constraint-based
approach to Korean

Partialin

Korean(andJapanese)],”Yamaguchi Daigaku Bungakukai si 61,

Honorific

83-104.

Agreement,” The Role of Agreement in268

argue the data based on the statistical results.
2. Adjectives with endpoint or without endpoint2.1. Kennedy and McNally (2005)

A Scale in Scalar Adjectives in Corpus1

Gradable adjectives have been classified in a
number of ways. One of the recent classification

Naoki Kiyama2

is whether the standard of comparison is relative

Osaka University

or absolute. The distinction is illustrated in thefollowing examples:

Keywords: scalar structures, copulas, speaker
orientedness, corpus, quantitative study(2)a. My son is tall (for his age).
b. Michael Jordan is tall (for a basketball
player).

(3)

1. Introduction

a. My son is awake.
b. Michael Jordan is awake.

This paper investigates the context in which
semantic shift occurs in scale structures in

The adjective tall is said to have a relative

English. What we call semantic shift in thisstandard. This is because (2a) is true if his height

paper is expressions like the followings:

is compared with others, say 6 year old boys,(1)and his height exceeds the standard. Similarly,

a. Although from the outside Sugar looked(2b) is true if we compare with a height of anvery complete. (BNC: CGJ-10363,4)

average male adult. It is nonsense to assume ab. [M]y bladder suddenly seemed very full.

standard based on 6-year old when one is talking(HW8-3205)

about the height of a basketball player. Thus thec. the recording quality throughout is very

standard of comparison in (2) is contextuallyacceptable. (BMC 1609)

determined, or relative to the context. On the

Adjectives underlined in (1), complete, full, andcontrary, if one is awake, then it does not matter

acceptable denote either a maximal or minimum

who it is, as is illustrated in (3). As apoint on scales. Thus these adjectives areconsequence, awake has an absolute standard,

logically unmodifiable with such modifiers as

which is insensitive to a context in which itvery. Though illogical, these expressions are notoccurs. Adjectives such as (2) is called relative

quite rare. Given this fact, a question arises:

adjectives, those similar to (3) are absolute

When do these expressions occur? In this paper,

adjectives, following Unger (1975).

we suggest that this semantic shift occurs whenThis

distinctioniseasilycapturedinthe speaker wants to show their attitude or how

co-occurrences of degree modifiers. Degree

they perceived the situation.

adverbs are classified into two types, one

This paper is organized as follows: We willreferring to maximum or minimum, and thereview a previous work first, and then move toother to degrees. Relative adjectives do not havethe hypothesis. In the following section, data

endpoints, so degree modifiers that refer toand methods will be reviewed, and we will

either maximum or minimum do not co-occur.

269

Such adjectives nicely fit with modifiers

experiment has to be accurate, otherwise thereferring to degrees such as very, so, pretty andresult may be meaningless. Thus although (6b)so on. On the contrary, absolute adjectives haveis grammatically correct, it sounds strange.

endpoints

2.2. Questioninnature,thus

modifierswithmaximum or minimum value like completely,

Kennedy and McNally (2005) have investigatedfully, and others, are semantically coherent. This

the importance of scale structures in great detailfact is illustrated in (4) and (5) respectively.
(4)

and when absolute adjectives cannot extend to

a. Her brother is completely ??tall/??short.

relative-like interpretation. However, they do(Kennedy and McNally (2005: 355))

not describe what context semantic shift, like inb. Max is fully ??eager/??uneager to help.

(1), occurs. It is interesting if there is a tendency(ibid.)(5)

therefore worthwhile further investigation.

a. The flower was fully open/closed. (ibid.)

3. Semantic shift and speakers

b. The figure was completely

As we have seen, whether or not very full isvisible/invisible. (ibid.)permitted

depends

onhowimprecise

Even though the standard of comparison isinterpretations are compatible with the context:

lexically encoded, absolute adjectives may be

If the context requires a rigid precision like aninterpreted relative-like way. This is clear fromexperiment, then expressions like very full are

the sentence like The restaurant is very

not allowed. Whether or not the context requires

full/empty tonight. Full and empty are supposedsuch a precision partly depends on speaker’s

to have endpoints, but this can be easily

judgment. Thus it should be predicted that someoverridden by a context. Thus “[a]bsolutekind of modality-like expressions co-occurs withadjectives

such a loose talk.

permitrelative-like,

impreciseinterpretations (Kennedy and McNally (2005:

4. Data and methods371))”. However, this extension is not freely

This section will go over the corpus data that weallowed. The restriction is that "[w]hen thecontext

isincompatiblewithuse in this study. As Bolinger (1967) illustrates,

imprecisepredicative and attributive uses of adjectives areinterpretations – when precision is important –different constructions, thus it is necessary to

the use of very with these adjectives is precluded

treat them separately. As Kennedy and McNally(ibid.)". This limitation is illustrated in themainly deal with the predicative one, this paper

following contrast:(6)

will examine the predicative use of adjectives

a. The restaurant is very empty/full tonight.

further below. The forms which this study(ibid.)

investigates are listed in (7). The copulas in (7)b. ♯Whoops! This beaker is very full. I’d

are taken from Quirk et al. (1985: 1172) as isbetter pour out some of that liquid.

given in (8), and the modifiers are from Paradis(ibid.)(1997: 49) as listed in (9). We slightly modified
her list to avoid ambiguous meanings such as

For restaurants, the precision is not important toquite which are classified as both TOTALITY

describe how full or empty it is, whereas, theand DEGREE adverbs. This paper will call the270form in (7a) Rigid use, that in (7b) Loose use.

be used in the relative-like form, we have to

The actual data is shown in (10) and (11)choose absolute adjectives from the corpus. In

respectively.

order

(7)

techniquearbitrarinessinchoosing

named

Distinctive

Collexeme

Analysis (Gries and Stefanowitsch: 2004). This

Adjectivesi

technique is used to calculate a preference ofb. Loose use

lexical items that occur in two competing

Copulas + Degree modifiers +constructions. Consider a case of give that

Adjectivesi

occurs in the double-object and the dative

Copulasconstruction in English. This technique revealsget, feel, sound, look, seem, go, become,that

remain, taste, stay, be, keep, prove, appear,give

significantly

occursinthedouble-object construction, meaning, it is thefall, smell, turn, come (c.f. Quirk et al.

construction that give prefers. In our present(1985: 1172))
(9)

avoid

adjectives, we made the most of a statisticala. Rigid use
Copulas + Totality modifiers +

(8)

to

study, if an adjective, say, empty occurs in aa. TOTALITY adverbs:
perfectly, completely, almost, absolutely,
totally, utterly, half (c.f. Paradis (1997:

Rigid use significantly more frequently, then theadjectivehas

anabsolute

standard,

andvice-versa. Some of randomly chosen absolute49))

adjectives are given in (12).

b. DEGREE adverbs:
very, too, fairly, slightly, somewhat, any,(12) vital, essential, intact, laughable, incidental,

extremely, much, pretty, highly, terribly,

unsuited, feasible, opposed, blind,awfully, enough (ibid.)

inevitable(10) Rigid use

5. Examinationa. The race itself was very well organised
but I was absolutely amazed at the way

5.1. The distribution of copulas in each use

in which the. . . (CB4-243)

As we stated above, our hypothesis is that theb. He looked awfully amazed when mothersemantic shift is sensitive to the speaker’s

said I could not go with him to see his

mental attitude. A component that likely showsbooks. (ABL-854)

such an attitude in our present forms is copulas.

(11) Loose use

Thus it is not surprising to compare theira. In Britain it is easy to forget that, while

frequencies between the Rigid and Loose use. In

we may have the publicly available

thiselectoral register, we are almost alone indifference based on a percentage of frequencies

Europe . . . (BNE-848)

of each copulas. The result is shown in Table 1.

b. He suddenly felt very alone. (G0L-

study,

wecalculated

coefficientof

The first column from the left in Table 1 is a1648)

frequency of the copulas that occur in the Looseuse. The second column shows a frequency of

There are a few things to mention about the

copulas, co-occuring with the Rigid use. The

data. Because this study aims to investigate arightmost column shows a frequency gap intendency of when absolute adjectives happen to271

Loose (%)

Rigid (%)

DIFFERENCE

Preferred in

keep

0.00

0.10

-1.00

NA

smell

0.00

0.10

-1.00

NA

taste

0.00

0.10

-1.00

NA

prove

0.00

0.50

-1.00

Rigid

go

0.00

0.40

-1.00

Rigid

appear

0.00

0.30

-1.00

Rigid

become

0.58

1.94

-0.54

Rigid

be

81.98

93.53

-0.07

NA

remain

0.58

0.30

0.32

NA

seem

5.23

1.99

0.45

Loose

get

0.58

0.10

0.71

Loose

look

3.49

0.30

0.84

Loose

sound

4.65

0.25

0.90

Loose

feel

2.91

0.10

0.93

Loose

SUM

100

100

Table 1: Frequencies and a statistical result
5.2. Semantic coherency of copulas and the uses

between two uses. If the result is closer to 1 inin adjectives

the absolute value, the larger difference the two
frequencies

have.

Whether

the

value

is

From the statistical perspective, we concluded

positiveor negative shows which use is morethat there are some differences in a distribution

frequent. If it is negative, then Loose use is moreof copulas between the two uses. Then, what are

frequent, and if positive, Rigid use is more

the difference among those copulas? At firstfrequent. Note that if a frequency of either use isglance, the result of Table 1 shows the0, then the value which the calculation returns isdifference in terms of some speakers' attitude. In

always 1 in the absolute value. Thus we have toorder to make the term "attitude" clear, it is

be careful whether such values are truly

necessary to go further detail to understand whatsignificant, or they are merely false-positive. In

it is.

this case, though it is arbitrary, we go throughLooking at Table 1, appear shows a different

copulas that occur at least 0.3 times: prove, go

distribution from seem and look, which behave

and appear. Furthermore, the difference values

quite similarly in a way that a proposition withof remain and be are too low to conclude thatthem can be negated as in (13).

there is a significant difference between the uses.
(13) His leg appeared/looked/seemed broken,

As a result, we can conclude that go, appear andbut actually not.

become are more frequent in Rigid use than in
Loose use. On the other hand, seem, get, look,

We give two features that distinguish appear

sound and feel are preferred in Loose use.

from look and seem. First, when these copulas
are used in adverbial form, apparently and272

as iflike

as though

SUM

look

35.79

44.43

34.59

114.82

feel

35.90

27.18

35.37

98.46

seem

15.00

12.22

16.13

43.35

sound

9.31

14.17

8.94

32.41

become

0.05

0.60

0.00

0.65

get

0.02

0.26

0.02

0.30

appear

3.68

0.21

4.85

8.73

go

0.25

0.92

0.09

1.27

Table 2: Collocational frequencies of copulas and as if, like and as though in COCA
seemingly, their meanings are very different.

proposition imaginary statement. For example,

This is illustrated in (14). Apparently andin (15), none of the participants is literally an

seemingly can be used in a quite similar way, butangel, but the speaker imagines that he or thethe former can also express that the utterance is

guy is. In this sense, the context expressed withwithout doubt. This is confirmed with the fact

thethat apparently can be replaced with obviously

unobservable. Thus, seem and look are lessand evidently, and seemingly changes thefactuality-based, on the contrary, appear ismeaning drastically as it is shown in (14).

based on the fact more than the other two

nonfactuality

phrasesareobjectively

copulas are.

(14) a. Apparently, he is linked to this murder.
b. Obviously, he is linked to this murder.

(15) a. He sings as if he were an angel.

c. Evidently, he is linked to this murder.

b. He sings as though he were an angel.

d. ♯Seemingly, he is linked to this murder.

c. bald tattooed guy sings like an angel.5
Given

Second, as Dixon (2005) says, copulas liketheobservations

ofsemantic

feel, sound, look and seem co-occur with as if

differences in their adverbial forms and semanticphrase, though nothing is mentioned on appear.

coherency with nonfactuality expressions, it is

In order to confirm this description, we lookedreasonable

at collocations of as if and some other similar

co-occur in Rigid use are factuality-based

expressions, like and as though. The result isutterance, whereas those that prefer Loose use

shown in Table 2, given in a percentage of thearecolumn.

utterance.

tonon-fact,
If

concludeor

speaker’sthenonfactuality-based

The result is significant. Copulas like look,that

copulasthought

speaker
copulas,

that

based

uses

the

whetherthefeel, seem and sound frequently co-occur withutterance is true or false depends on the speakertarget phrases, whereas copulas from become to(Croft (2001: 217)).
Then, in what context does the semantic shift

go rarely do.
Then, what do as if, like and as thoughin adjectival scalar structures occur? Based onphrases mean? Though further study is required,

the statistical observations, the shift occurs when

for the present, we analyze them as nonfactuality

the utterance is heavily based on speakers'

phrases,thought. On the other hand, if the utterance isnamely,thephrases

make

the

273

more factuality-based, then less likely the shift

Dr. HARUKI Yoshitaka, Dr. HAYASE Naoko,

occurs.

Dr. SHIBUYA Yoshikata, Dr. AKITA Kimi,

6. Conclusion

anonymous readers, Mr. ASAI Ryosaku, Mr.
GOTO Hideki, Ms. NAKAO. I also thank Ms.

In this paper, we investigated in what context

SULLIVAN Sara for proofreading. Needless tothe semantic shift occurs in scalar structures insay, remaining errors are mine.

English adjectives, following Kennedy and

2

McNally (2005). Though they point out thatkiyama.naoki@gmail.com

3

All the instances cited in this form are taken

absolute

adjectives

arereadily

usedinfrom British National Corpus (hereafter BNC),

relative-like use, they do not go any further

and without any notation, emphases are mine.

detail.
The result led us to conclude that if the
speaker is less committed to the fact, then the4

All the emphasis are mine.

5

The example is taken from: https://www.

youtube.com/watch?v=fGUIqUanAwQ

shift tends to occur, whereas, if the expression ismore factuality-based utterance, then less likely

References

the shift occurs.

Bolinger,

Our present research has at least one

Dwight(1967)"Adjectives

inEnglish," Lingua 18, 1–34.

implication. We concluded that the semantic

Croft, William (2001) Radical construction
grammar: Syntactic theory in typologicalshift occurs when a speaker shows their mental
attitude. This is very similar to a process ofperspective,

subjectification (Traugott (2003)).

OxfordUniversity

Press,

Oxford.

[S]ubjectification is the mechanism

Dixon, R. M. W (2005) A semantic approach towhereby meanings come over time toencode or externalise the SP/W's per-English grammar (Second edition),
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

spectives and attitudes as constrained

Gries, Stefan and Anatol Stefanowitsch (2004)

by the communicative world of the speech"Extending

event,'real-world'

corpus based perspective on 'alternations',"characteristics of the event or situation

International journal of corpus linguistics 9,

referred to (ibid.: 126).

97–129.

ratherthan

collostructional

analysis:aKennedy, Christopher and Louise McNally
Although our present study is a synchronic(2005) "Scale structure and the semantic

research, we can still say that the semantic shift

typology of gradable predicates," Language

is a "snapshot" of a process in subjectification.

81, 345–381.
Paradis, Carita (1997) Degree modifiers of

NOTES
1

adjectives

I owe my deepest gratitude to Mr. MIZUTANI

inspokenBritishEnglish,Chartwell-Bratt, London.

Kenta for his extraordinarily tolerant advice. I

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey

would also like to express my gratitude to Dr.

Leech,SAWADA Osamu, for his insightful comment

comprehensive grammar of the English

after the conference. I am also very grateful tolanguage, Longman, London.

274

and

Jan

Svartvik(1985)A

Rotstein, Carmen, and Yoad Winter (2004)"Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: Scale
structureandhigher-ordermodifiers,"

Natural Language Semantics 12, 259–288.
Traugott,Elizabethsubjectification

to(2003)"Fromintersubjectification,"

Motives for language change, ed. by Hickey
Raymond, 124–139, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Unger, Peter (1975) Ignorance: A caseofskepticism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

275

rule-bound processes allows the speaker toautomatically generate emphatic utterances inthe speech organs.

Although past studies showthat emphasis is also made to draw a contrast
between the two things, also known as

Emphasis Generation Scheme*“contrastive accent” (Bolinger (1961: 83)), EGS
does not incorporate this type of emphasis in its

Hideo Kobayashi

theoretical framework.

Osaka Prefecture University

Figure 1 presents a flow chart for EGS
showing emphatic speech production processes

Keywords: emphatic cues, generation process

in English that are manifested in the degree ofextraordinariness of the target matter (See Figure1).

1. INTRODUCTION
This study reinvestigates the notion of emphasis,
proposingan

EGS(Emphasis

Generation

Initial process

INTENDINGEMPH
Analyzing process

Scheme) to account for extraordinariness inemphatic speech in English.

The model

ANALYZINGCONTEXT
Selecting process

indicates the underlying speech production
processes

involvedinmakingthetarget

SELECTINGEMPH-CUES

structures emphatic.
The working definition of emphasis in thisSound

study is: emphasis is the intentional stressing of
an information unit by the speaker signaling the

Rhetoricalinformation

unit,

highlighted

bySyntactic

Encoding processaddressee to pay special attention to its meaning
within the context of the utterance.

Morpho-lexicalE NCODING UTTERANCE

This

Articulating process*EFFORTits

extraordinary degree or by contrastive effects,
ARTICULATINGSPEECH-ORG

allows the addressee to prioritize the importanceof various message elements sent by the speaker.
To put it differently, the notable lack ofEmphatic
whisperemphasis leads to uncertainty where theutteranceinEmphatic utterance
in normal voice

Figure 1: A flow chart for EGS in English

addressee cannot distinguish important message
elements from the lesser ones.

EGS is composed of five processes: initial,
2. EGS

analyzing, selecting, encoding, and articulating

Based on Levelt (1989)’s speech production(See Figure 1).

model, the present author developed EGS as acontains a rule or rules for the speaker totheoretical framework for a series of rule-boundobserve at the time of producing an emphatic

processes embedded in the mind of a nativeutterance in context.

speaker of English.

metaphorically represents an EGS context inThis embededness of276

Each of these processes

The outer squarewhich the posited rules for emphatic productionof the initial process into the analysis of social

operate.

and situational factors in the context.

In EGS, the operation of the internallyembeddedproduction

rules

for

In thisemphatic

connection, Levelt (1989: 65) states “Theutterance leads to articulation in the speech

speaker … takes into account the rights,

organs from which the emphatic utterance iscapabilities, propensities, and feelings of thetransmitted to the addressee by means of soundother parties.”

signals.

In Figure 1, the arrow is indicative of

speaker to weigh up a wide array of social andthe output of one specific process that forms thesituational factors in the context so that the

input of the next process.

speaker can choose appropriate emphatic cue(s)Initially the speaker

The target rule requires thedoes not have input to decode but intending

in the following selecting process.

Foremphasis produces the necessary rules.

These

example, as McMahon (2002) notes, the way ininitial emphatic rules become the input for thewhich the speaker articulates his/her words cannext stage in the EGS and, in like fashion, output

depend on what kind of impression he/sheprecedes input through the remaining stages

wishes to make and the formality of the situation.

until, through the mediation of the speech organs,

Other factors that the speaker considers at thethe speaker transmits an emphatic message totime of speech involve who the speaker wishes

the addressee.

to identify with, who the speaker is talking to,
the volume of noise which surrounds the

3. COMPONENT PROCESSES

speaker, and the frequency of the words

To understand EGS better, let us now define(Roach et al. (2003)).

each rule in the processes of EGS.

the analyzing process.

The initial
EMPH

This process is called

process contains the rule INTENDING

for

The speaker then takes the product of thisthe speaker to decode first and foremost.

Thisfactoring process and goes on to the selecting

rule requires the speaker to define what

process with the rule SELECTINGEMPH-CUES.

information unit to emphasize in order to raiseThis rule requires the speaker to select or

the degree of extraordinariness of the target

combine linguistic cues for the purpose ofword or phrase.

emphasis

The speaker is required todecide the degree of extraordinariness.

with

an

appropriate

degreeofThe

markedness so that the addressee will pay

speaker wishes to get the importance of thespecial attention to an emphasized information

target information unit across to the addressee sounit of importance (Levelt (1989)).

that the addressee will notice its markedness.

linguistic cues include any of the following:

The term markedness here refers to what is notsound, rhetorical, morpho-lexical, and syntactic.

normal or natural in the Prague School of the

These cues are readily available in the speaker’s

1930’s.

working memory.

The

Each of the terms or cues

The outputs of the initial process, which

represented in Figure 1 under the label

contain what information unit to emphasize, its

SELECTINGEMPH-CUES is a cover term for a fullmeaning and the degree of extraordinariness theterm, for example, sound represents sound cues.

speaker wishes to raise, are sent to the ensuing

Satisfying SELECTINGEMPH-CUES withprocess with rule called ANALYZINGCONTEXT

thechosen cues for emphasis causes the speaker to.

proceed to the next stage.

As a result, the speaker incorporates the outputs

277

Here the information

units are encoded in the correct grammatical

3.1. SUPPORTING EXAMPLES

order and their phonological forms retrieved

This subsection presents two representative(Levelt (1989)).

examples which endorse the underlying rules of

encoding

This process is called therule

EGS since the author created EGS inductively as

Only after the encoding

well as on the Levelt (1989)’s speech production

process

ENCODINGUTTERANCE

.

with

the

process is completed does an emphatic utterance

model.

take its phonemes thus triggering the ruleof the adverb “maybe,” as discussed by Bolinger

ARTICULATINGSPEECH-ORG

to

begin

The first example concerns emphasis(1978: 487).

theAs the initial process starts, theThe speaker makes

speaker has to meet the rule-based requirements.

his/her articulatory effort to pronounce each

INTENDINGEMPH causes the speaker to decide onphoneme of the emphatic utterance.

Within thewhat information unit to emphasize, i.e. máybe.

matrix of EGS, emphasis takes two sound forms,

INTENDINGEMPH also requires the speaker toemphasisinmap the expression of emphasis to the target

Emphasis inword at an appropriate level according to his/herarticulating process.

inwhisperandnon-whisper (Coleman (1914)).

emphasisnon-whisper causes violation of *EFFORT sincedegree of suspiciousness.

the speaker is expected to expend moresees to it that the target matter is given a degree

articulatory energy for emphasis than usual.

of extraordinariness set at a more than usual.

*EFFORT means that the principle of linguistic

For the sake of argument, the speaker has a few

economy should be respected at the time oflevels of suspiciousness about a thing; that is,

articulation

contrast,

high level of suspiciousness–say high, medium,emphasis in whisper does not violate *EFFORTand low–about something, and further that eachsince the speaker expends less articulatoryof the three levels will variously influenceenergy than usual when he/she whispers.1

his/her pronunciation of the word ‘maybe.’

Regarding(Tanaka

whispery(2009)).

voice,

By

HarrisThus, the speaker

The analyzing process sets in with the outputs

andRubinstein (1975: 262) say that “…speakers offrom the initial process.

English, … associate a LOUDER VOICE withwishes to give the addressee an impression thatsome degree of ‘anger’ or ‘disturbance’; orhe/she is “emphatically skeptical” (Bolinger

SOFT,(1978: 487)) about things at hand.

LOW

tone

with

‘intimacy’orSuppose the speaker

This causes

A posteriori, the present

the speaker to shift stress to the edge in theauthor argues that whispering for emphasis also

target word as in “maybe” (Bolinger (1978:

helps create “intimacy or confidentiality” (Harris487)) in the selecting process.

and Rubinstein (1975: 262)) among those who

emerges as a result of the stress shift since theparticipate in a conversation.

If we interpret

final CV syllable -bé that normally does not

whispery voices for emphasis as a linguistic

attract primary stress bears it (Burzio (1994)).

apparatus that helps the speaker exude “intimacy

Evidently, stress shift is one of the sound cuesor confidentiality” (Harris and Rubinstein (1975:

for emphasis.

‘confidentiality’.”Markedness262)) towards the addressee, then it can be

ENCODINGUTTERANCE helps the speaker set allargued that the speaker is arguably programming

the words and phrases in grammatical order andwhether to use whispery voices in the analyzing

assign them an appropriate phoneme (Levelt

process of EGS.

(1989)).

278

The target word is assigned /meɪ.bi:/

(where the final syllable receives primary stress).

word-initial onsets would give a playful orWhen the speaker emphasizes the target word injocular impression on a Japanese addressee andnon-whispering voices, violation of *EFFORT is

instead chooses r-sound lengthening as a marker

triggered in due course so that based on theof emphasis in order to describe extraordinarily

assigned phonemes, the speech organs will all

heavy damage of the tsunami (Kobayashi

collaborate in producing the emphatic sounds in(2014a)).

the articulating process so that the target word

tempo when he/she pronounces the target word

will be transmitted to the addressee via soundfor emphasis, resulting in r-sound lengthening.

The speaker is going to reduce theAfter this, the rule ENCODINGUTTERANCE

signals.
Another example concerns the epenthesizing

requires the speaker to arrange all the words andof a reduced vowel in the word-initial onsets ofphrases in grammatical order so that thewords whose syllabic structure is CCVC such as

utterance can be made.

crash and crunch (Cassidy (1983)) when theconsider the target utterance “A giant tsunami

target words are emphatically pronounced in

was crrrashing the shore!”

American English.

As EGS starts with the ruleʤaɪənt tsʊnɑ:mi wəz kɼ:æʃɪŋ ðə ʃɔ:r/ aretheassigned to the utterance in an orderly manner

INTENDING

EMPH,

speakercreatesan

To see this, let us
The phonemes /əintention of deciding to use the verb crash, when

which accords with English grammar.

emphasizing the severity of damage caused

thewhen tsunami crashed onto the shores of

non-whispering voices, violation of *EFFORT

northeastern Japan on March 11, 2011 expresses

will be triggered so that the speech organs will

its significance as in (1-B).

collaborate in producing the target utterance.

speaker

wishes

to

say

When

these

in

ARTICULATINGSPEECH-ORG requires the human(1) “A: Did you see the tsunami on TV?
B: Yeah, the giant tsunami was crashingspeech organs to move in an orderly manner so

the shore.” (Kobayashi (2014a))that emphatic sounds will be generated for the

Speaker (A) assumes that the speaker (B) is

purpose at hand and thereafter transmitted to theaware that the tsunami claimed a large number

addressee.

of people’s lives when he asked the question.
Speaker (B) confirms his supposition and3.2. EMPHATIC CUES

emphasizes the seriousness of the damage theThis subsection addresses each emphatic cue

Japanese suffered to the present author who isthat is used in the selecting process of EGS withthe addressee (A).

familiar examples.

The speaker is going tooffer condolences to the relatives of those wholost their lives in the wake of the huge
earthquakes.
beginsAs noted in §3, sound cues is a cover term-full

The selecting process

term being phonetic and phonological cues for

The rule ANALYZING

deals with this process.
with

SELECTING

consideration.

emphasis.

requires the speaker tovariously

that

EMPH-CUES

3.2.1 SOUND CUES

CONTEXT

Phonetic
involvescues

makingforemphasisprominenceinchoose appropriate linguistic cues for emphasis

intonation; reducing and increasing local tempo;

in the context.

The speaker intuits that

decreasing and increasing the syllable length.

epenthesizing

reducedBy contrast, phonological cues for emphasis

the

vowel

in

the

279

includes

inserting

schwa

in

hyperbole.

word-initial

Hyperbole (also referred to as

biconsonantal onsets as well as word-initial

exaggeration or overstatement) is defined astriconsonantal

substitution of a stronger expression for a

consonantal

onsetsclusters

andinheterosyllabic

AmericanweakerEnglishone,

creating

counter-actuality(Wolfram and Johnson (1982); Cassidy (1983);(McCarthy and Carter (2004)), that is, a

Hooperdiscrepancy between reality and impossible(1976);

Kobayashi(2014b))2

andLet us see

worlds (Bolinger (1972)).

In utterance

could be irony and emphatic if someone(2-a) where the auxiliary will in prominence iscomplained to one of the waiters about the delay

headed by the second person pronoun, theat the restaurant.

speakerorqueue which people in general make at theexasperation at the addressee’s continuing

restaurant cannot be as long as a million miles.

baiting of other children.

The actual queue might be about 20 yards long

applying higher degree of stress.
some examples of sound cues.

wishestoexpressannoyanceat the most.

In Example (2-b) Cruttenden (2008: 179)

Utterance (3) below

Common sense tells us that a

In order to make the complaint,shows that “any initial accented vowel may be

the speaker exaggerates the fact that he/she has

reinforced by a preceding glottal stop when

been waiting in the sandwich line for ages andparticular emphasis is placed on the word” in RP

has become very impatient.

It seems that in(3) “The line for sandwiches was a million

example (2-b), the initial syllable of the word

… miles … long!” (Kreuz and Roberts

empty /em.ti:/ gain “a feature of the onset of(1995: 29))

(Received Pronunciation).

initial vowels” (Cruttenden (2008: 181)) underemphatic pronunciation, as in [ʔem.ti:].

3.2.3 MORPHO-LEXICAL CUES

The

glottal stop also resolves the vowel-voicelessEnglish morphology permits an intensive prefix

plosive sequence, as in (2-c) where an “emphatic

to be appended to the root causing the word toarticulation of the glottal component will readily

lengthen by one syllable of the prefix.

convert this ([stɒʔp]) into an ejective, thusthe[stɒp’]” (Wells 1982: 261).

onomatopoeic words such as blam and flop (Seespeaker

wishestoemphasize

When
the

Utterances 4-a, 4-b), he/she appends the(2) a. “Why will you keep teasing the otherchildren?” (Declerck (1991: 361))

intensifying prefix ker- to the word, and it forms

b. “It’s [ʔ]empty.” (Cruttenden (2008:

an adverb or a verb (Cohen (1976); Cassidy(1983)).

179))

English allows the speaker to choose anc. “Stop!” (Wells (1982: 260))emphatic word as a lexical cue for emphasis

Although Wells (1982) and Cruttenden (2008)
show the use of [ʔ] as a marker of emphasis,

instead of a general word or phrase.

there have been few formal accounts of the(4-c) shows that the emphatic word eviscerate isissue.

selected instead of weaken or make somethingmuch weaker (Sinclair (2008)).
(4) a. “ker-blam.”

3.2.2 RHETORICAL CUES
This sub-section takes a closer look at anb. “ker-flip ker-flop.”

example of rhetorical cues for emphasis:(Miller (2014: 164))

280

Utterance

suchc. “Democrats say the petition will

INTENDINGEMPH

as

CONTEXT

andeviscerate state government.” (Sinclair

ANALYZING(2008: 534))

In this respect, [ʔ] may be another piece ofin the mind of the speaker.

evidence that confirms the operation of all the
3.2.4 SYNTACTIC CUES

processes in EGS.

We turn to inverted utterance (5-a), which
represents the combination of a sound cue with a

NOTES

syntactic cue for emphasis (See Figure 1).

The*My gratitude goes to those who came to see a

speaker emphasizes the information unit, which

poster of EGS and offered me invaluable

he/she is going to pre-pose in the target utterance

comments at the 7th International Spring Forum.

in the selection process of EGS (Curme (1931);

1 “All other things being equal, whispery voice,

Bolinger (1986)).

The speaker arranges thefor instance, will be accompanied by lower

combination of inversion and intonational

amplitude” whereas there is a high likelihood

prominence over the inverted words as emphaticthat “tense voice will be accompanied by acues (Huddleston (1988)).

greater amplitude range” (Pittman (1987: 103)).

Utterance (5-b) shows that certain adverbs

2 The degrees of stress phonologically range

such as absolutely, terribly, and extraordinarily

from three to six different levels in American

are available as syntactic cues for emphasis.

English (Wolfram and Johnson (1982)).

Gradations of the state of being rotten show
itself according to the adjectival phrases such as

REFERENCES

slightly rotten, very rotten, and absolutely rotten

Bolinger, Dwight (1961) “Contrastive Accent

in an ascending order.

and Contrastive Stress,” Language 37(1),(5) a. “In not many years will Christmas

83-96.

fall on Sunday.” (Emonds (1976: 28))

Bolinger, Dwight (1972) Degree Word, Mouton,
The Hague.

b. “Absolutely rotten.”

Bolinger, Dwight (1978) “Intonation Across(Coleman (1914: 14))

Languages,” Universals of Human Language
4. CONCLUSION

Vol. 2 Phonology, ed. by Joseph H.

This paper adumbrates EGS, a theoreticalGreenberg, 471-524, Stanford University

framework governing the generation of emphatic

Press, Stanford, CA.

EGS isBolinger, Dwight (1986) Intonation and its

composed of five different processes, each ofParts: Melody in Spoken English, Stanford

which has its own rules for the native speaker ofUniversity Press, Stanford, CA.

utterances in the spoken English.

English to decode in the order shown in Figure 1

Burzio, Luigi (1994) Principles of English Stress,

so that the emphatic utterance will be articulated

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

in the speech organs and transmitted to theCassidy, Frederick G. (1983) “The Intensive

Establishing thePrefix ker-,” American Speech 58, 291-302.

robustness of EGS requires the present author to

Cohen, Gerald (1976) “Origin of ker-in Kerflop,

further investigate examples of emphatic cues

Kerplunk, etc,” Comments on Etymology 6,that support the operation of the underlying rules

1-24.

addressee via sound signals.

281

Symbolic Activity 10, 21-31.

Coleman, Henry O. (1914) Intonation andLevelt, Willem J. M. (1989) Speaking: From

Emphasis (Trans. by Iwasaki Tamihei),

Intention to Articulation, The MIT Press,

Kenkyusha, Tokyo.
Cruttenden,

Alan(2008)

Cambridge, MA.

Gimson’s

McCarthy, Michael and Ronald Carter (2004)

Pronunciation of English, Hodder Education,“There’s Millions of them: Hyperbole in

London.

EverydayCurme, George O. (1931) Syntax, D. C. Heath

Conversation,”

JournalofPragmatics 36, 149-184.

and Company, Boston, MA.
Declerck, Renaat (1991) A Comprehensive

McMahon, April (2002) An Introduction to

Descriptive Grammar of English, Kaitakusha,

English Phonology, Edinburgh University

Tokyo.

Press, Edinburgh.
Miller, Gary D. (2014) English Lexicogenesis,

Emonds, Joseph E. (1976) A Transformational
ApproachtoEnglishStructure-Preserving,

Syntax:Root,

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

and

Local

Pittman, Jeffrey (1987) “Listener’s Evaluations

Newof Voice Quality in Australian English

Transformations, Academic Press,

Speakers,” Language and Speech 30,

York.

99-113.

Harris, Richard M. and David Rubinstein (1975)“Paralanguage,

Communication,

Roach, Peter et al. (2003) Cambridge English

andCognition,” Organization of Behavior in

Pronouncing

Face-to-Face Interaction, ed. by Adam

University Press, Cambridge.
Sinclair,

Kendon, Richard M. Harris and Mary R.

John

Advanced

Key, 251-276, Mouton, The Hague.

Dictionary,(2008)

Cambridge

Collins

Dictionary

COBUILD

of

English,HarperCollins, Glasgow.

Hooper, Joan B. (1976) An Introduction to

Tanaka, Shin-ichi (2009) Nichijō-Gengo ni

Natural Generative Phonology, Academic

Hisomu Otohōsoku no Sekai (Phonology

Press, New York.

of

Huddleston, Rodney (1988) English Grammar:
An Outline, Cambridge University Press,

Everyday

Language),

Kaitakusha,

Tokyo.

New York.

Wells, John C. (1982) Accents of English 1: An

Kobayashi, Hideo (2014a) “A New Look at

Introduction, Cambridge University Press,

Cassidy (1983),” poster presented in the 3rd

Cambridge.

Biennial Sound Change Conference in

Wolfram, Walt and Robert Johnson (1982)

Interacting Human Systems.

Phonological Analysis: Focus on American

Kobayashi, Hideo (2014b) “Schwa Epenthesis

English, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Positioning and Syllable Contact,”
Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Phonology and Morphology,
227-230.
Kreuz, Roger J. and Richard Roberts M. (1995)“Two Cues for Verbal Irony: Hyperbole andthe Ironic Tone of Voice,” Metaphor and282

In order to solve the problems raised mainly by
the discourse binding phenomena, Heim (1982)
assumes that (i) indefinites are bound variables;(ii) anaphoric pronouns are (plain) boundvariables; (iii) determiner every is capable ofbinding multiple variables in its scope(unselective binding); and (iv) the existential

Semantics of English
Determiners

quantifier (÷) is given to the nuclear scope of aquantifier and to a discourse (existential closure).
The DRT of Kamp and Reyle (1993) basically
accepts her assumptions on quantification.

Jangsong Lee
Korea Military Academy, Korea

DRT further modifies its assumptions so as toadopt the claims that English determiners beclassified into individual denoting (or nonquantificational) determiners such as a, some,
1,2,3, etc. and quantificational ones such as
every, most, many, few, etc. Then, individual
denoting determiners form indefinite nounphrases by combining with common nouns, andthe resulting indefinite noun phrases are justvariables without rendering any quantificational
force. The third assumption above is changed sothat quantificational determiners are capable ofbinding multiple variables.

Keywords: quantificational, individualdenoting, discourse anaphora, distributivity,
proportion problem
0. Introduction
This paper aims to propose a unified approach tothe semantics of English determiners such asa(n), some, every, most, etc., which will explain
quantification and distributivity in the unified
way, by modifying some assumptions of the
Discourse Representation Theory (DRT).1)

In addition, this approach deals with thequantification in sentence (4) differently fromthe quantification caused by quantificational
determiners. Sentence (4) means that there are atleast 2 students who came in, and is translated as(5), roughly. However, the determiner some is a
non-quantificational determiner which does nothave any quantificational force. Then, thequantification in (4) should be treated differently.

1. A Non-Unified Approach to Quantification
Traditionally, the English determiner a(n) is
treated as the existential quantifier (÷) and every
as the universal quantifier (ȯ), with a sentence
as their quantification scope. However, a(n) canbind a variable which occurs in a subsequent
sentence, while every cannot, as in (1)(1)

a. [A student]i came in the room.
[He]i sat down on a couchb.[Every student]i came in the room.
*[He]i sat down on a couch.

(4)

Some students came in.

(5)

Somex [students(x)  x came in]

DRT solves this problem through distributivity
such that a non-quantificational NP denotes a set
consisting of individuals and a distributive
predicate following the NP is applied to every
individual of the set. Thus, sentence (4) is firsttranslated into (6), then into (7), which isequivalent to (5) except for the presence of aplural variable X which is to be mapped to a setof at least two individuals.

The traditional approach cannot explain the twodeterminers’ behaviors in a so-called ‘donkey
sentence’ like (2), whose intuitional meaning isrepresented as in (3). In (3), the pronoun it isbound by every but not by a, and the indefinite
noun phrase a donkey is translated as if it isevery donkey.
(2) Every farmer who owns [a donkey] beats [it].

(6)(3) ȯxȯy[[farmer(x)donkey(y)  x owns y]→ x beats y]

÷ X [student(X)  | X | ≥2
 X [came-in]distributive]283

(1987:
192)
quantificational.
Roberts
first
proposed this classification and hisclassification is adopted by Kamp andReye (1993).2) To evaluate whether or not
this classification of determiners is wellgrounded, I will examine the classificatory
criteria of Roberts.
The first test provided in Roberts (1987) toclassify determiners into quantificational andindividual-denoting (or non-quantificational) isthat quantificational NPs cannot be antecedents
of discourse anaphora while individual-denoting
ones can as in (10)

÷ X [student(x)  | X | ≥2(7)

 ȯ [x୰X → x came-in]]
In short, this approach treats quantificational
force in two distinct ways: the quantificational
force of a sentence with a quantificational
determiner originates from the quantificational
determiner, and the quantificational force of asentence whose subject has a nonquantificational determiner comes from its
distributive predicate. In this sense, this is a nonunified approach toward quantification.

(10) a. [Every student]i came in.
*Hei sat down on a couch.

For the sake of convenience, I here introduce thebox notation, as a notational variant of thepredicate logical formula, proposed by Kamp
(1981 and Kamp and Reyle (1993) to represent a
discourse. They stipulate that an indefinite NP(or an individual denoting NP) should introduce
a new discourse referent which acts just like avariable in a predicate logical language together
with appropriate conditions, which is in turnequivalent to predicate logical formulas. A
quantificational determiner introduces a duplex
condition which is composed of two boxes
connected by the quantifier of the NP. Now
discourses (1a) and (1b) are represented as (8)and (9), respectively.3)b. [Some students]i came in.
Theyi sat down on a couch.
But this test is misleading because aquantificational NP can be an antecedent of adiscourse anaphora as in (11). Note that pronoun
they but not he is proper in this situation.
(11)

a. Every student came in.
They gathered in the hall.
b. Most (Many, or Few) students came in.
They gathered in the hall.

The second test is that only individual-denoting
NPs can occur felicitously as the subject of apredicate with a floated quantifier, and NPs withmost, many and few cannot felicitously occur at
those positions.

(8)

x,y
student(x)x came-in-the room
y=x
x sat-down-on-a-couch(12)a. The students all left.
b. #Few students all left.

(9)This test is also inappropriate because, as Dowty(1986) points out, the appropriateness of (12)depends on the definiteness of the determiners.
He judges sentence (13) to be unacceptable.

<;
6WXGHQWV [ 

HYHU\

[FDPHLQ
WKHURRP

(13)*Some students all left.

The third test is that only individual-denoting
NPs can be the objects of the prepositions
among and between as shown in (14).

\ [\VDWRQDFRXFK

2. A Unified Approach Toward Quantification
DRT’s non-unified approach to quantification
mainly stems from the classification of English
determiners into quantificational and non-(14) a. Ellen found a thistle among some roses.
b. #Ellen found a thistle among few roses.
However, Root (1986) reports that even NPs

284with individual-denoting determiners such as
some (stressed) and numerals such as five are notaccepted as complements of the preposition
among. It means this test is also dubious as abasis of the classification of determiners.
(15)

 X [came-in]distributive]b. ÷X[student(X)  | X | = | student|
 X [came-in]distributive]c. ÷X[student(X)  | X | ≥ 1/2 | student |*among many (every, most, some, five)ducks

 X [came-in]distributive]

Now, it can be said that the classification ofEnglish determiners into quantificational andnon-quantificational is not well grounded. Then,a non-unified approach based on this sort ofdeterminer classification is not tenable, either.

(19) a. ÷X[student(X)  | X | ≥2
 ȯx[xùX → x came-in] ]b. ÷X[student(X)  | X | = | student| ȯx[xùX → x came-in] ]c. ÷X[student(X)  | X | ≥ 1/2 | student |As an alternative approach to quantification, I
propose a set of assumptions specified in (16).

 ȯx[xùX → x came-in] ](16) (i) All the English NPs are variables of theirown kinds--singular or plural.
(ii) The quantificational force of a sentence
uniquely comes from predicates, but notfrom determiners.
(iii) The function of the determiner of an NP
is to specify the cardinality of the set towhich the NP is mapped.
(iv) Only two quantifiers are allowed--theexistential quantifier ‫ ׌‬and the universal
quantifier ‫ ׊‬. The existential quantifier isprovided to the discourse and thenuclear scope of a quantifier, whereas
the universal quantifier is introduced dueto the distributivity of a predicate.

The binding relation and the meaning of thedonkey sentence (2) are explained properly inthis approach. Sentence (2) is first translated into
(20), then into (21) due to the distributive
predicate, and finally into (22) by unselective
binding.
(2) Every farmer who owns [a donkey]i beats [it]i.
(20)

(21)

In this approach, all the determiners are dealt
with on the same footing: it does not distinguishdeterminers as being quantificational and nonquantificational; it maintains that all thedeterminers assume the same role as theindicator of the cardinality of a set; and no
determiners have quantificational force. From
now on, I call the approach which accepts theassumption set of (16) as the Unified Approach
toward Quantification and Distributivity.

(22)÷X[farmer-who-own-a-donkey(X) | X | = | farmer-who-own-a-donkey |X [beats it]distributive]
÷X[farmer-who-own-a-donkey(X) | X | = | farmer-who-own-a-donkey | ȯ [[xùX  donkey(y)  x owns y] →[ x beats y]]÷X[farmer-who-own-a-donkey(X) | X | = | farmer-who-own-a-donkey |ȯxȯy [[xùX  donkey(y)  donkey(y) x owns y] → [ x beats y]]

3. More Evidence for the Unified Approach
3.1 Discourse Binding
DRT proposed by Heim (1982), Kamp (1981)
and Kamp and Reyle (1993), does not
explain why the binding relation in (10a) is
acceptable. Note that in (10a) the pronoun theyrefers to a plural entity made of all theindividuals who are students.

Now, sentences in (17) are first converted into
(18), then into (19), respectively.
(17)a. Some students came in.
b. Every student came in.
c. Most students came in.

(10a)

(18)

a. ÷X[student(X)  | X | ≥2This phenomenon does not pose any problem to
the Unified Approach because the NP Every
student introduces a plural variable which is to285[Every student]i came in.
[They]i gathered in the hall.

be mapped to the set of all the students and to bebound by the existential quantifier provided byexistential closure. The variable introduced by
They is legitimately linked to the plural variablewhich is introduced by Every student. However,
it is problematic to DRT because the NP Every
student introduces a singular variable in thescope of the universal quantifier introduced by
the determiner every. The variable translated
from pronoun They in (10a) cannot be equated to
the variable introduced by Every student since
there is a mismatch between the types of the twovariables--one is singular and the other is plural.
The two variables are not in the same scope of aquantifier, either.

In sum, the proportion problem poses two important
problems: whether or not the unselective binding
assumption should be maintained and where andhow the universal meaning of the indefinite NP is
obtained. The quantifiers in (24) bind only
variables introduced by the quantificational NPs(most men, many men, etc.), but not the variable
introduced by the indefinite NP (a donkey). If
unselective binding is discarded, then theuniversal reading of the indefinite NP of an
original donkey sentence and various donkey
sentences in (24) is unable to be accounted. If it
is maintained, it should be found the way how toallow the quantifiers (most, many, etc.) to bind
only the variables introduced by thequantificational NPs.

3.2 Proportion Problem
The proportion problem poses a serious problem
to the assumption of unselective binding. This
problem occurs in donkey sentences which have,as their subjects, those NPs with quantificational
determiners which are not fully universal likesentence (23).
(23) Most farmers who own [a donkey]i beat [it]i.
If most is an unselective quantifier, thensentence (23) would mean that most farmers
who own a donkey beat most donkeys they own.
However, sentence (23) actually means thatmost farmers who own a donkey beat every
donkey they own. This phenomenon seems as if
the quantifier only binds the variable introducedby most farmers, but not the variable introduced
by a donkey. That’s why this problem is also
called the problem of asymmetric quantification(in Root 1986).

In this way they weaken unselective binding to
the extent that only non-designated variables areunselectively bound by an invisible universal
quantifier. For example, in sentence (2), theindefinite NP a donkey gets its universal
meaning from the invisible universal quantifier.
(2) Every farmer who owns [a donkey] beats [it].
Then, a donkey sentence cannot be regarded as a
powerful proof in favor of unselective binding.
And this approach does not still show why theinvisible, given in default, quantifier should beevery.6)

Interestingly, in a donkey sentence, an indefinite
NP in the relative clause is interpreted
universally regardless of the determiner of thesubject NP. Sentences in (24) are interpreted
roughly for most (many, few, some, three) men,x, who own a donkey, y, which is owned by sucha man x, x beats y.4)
(24)

Kamp and Reyle (1993) try to solve thequestions by stipulating that the quantifier of aquantificational NP bind only the designatedvariable which is introduced by that NP(“principal discourse referent” in their term), andan invisible universal quantifier unselectively
bind the other variables in its scope. Thisapproach is not different from the approaches
which maintain that the donkey sentence, forexample, sentence (23), has a complex quantifier
like most-every.5)

On the other hand, the Unified Approach solves
the two problems inherent in the proportion
problems, keeping unselective binding intact.
This approach makes explicit that the indefinite
NP of a donkey sentence gets its universal
reading owing to the distributivity of thepredicate. The universal quantifier which is
given by the distributive operation of thepredicate unselectively binds variables in its
scope. I will show how the two problems area. Most men who own a donkey beat it.
b. Many men who own a donkey beat it.
c. Few men who own a donkey beat it.
d. Some men who own a donkey beat it.
e. Three men who own a donkey beat it.

286

but the NP with most can take gathered in thesolved in the Unified Approach by taking
sentence (23) as an example. Sentence (23) is
first translated into (25), then, into (26) by the
distributivity of the predicate. In (26), theuniversal quantifier unselectively binds variables
x and y, making it equivalent to (27).

hall as its predicate while the NP with PDQ\cantake gathered in the hall and performed asymphony. This data points to that the capabilityof a quantificational NP to take a collective
predicate varies, providing strong counterevidence against the non-unified approach.

(25) ÷X[farmer-who-own-a-donkey(X) | X | ≥ 1/2 | farmer-who-own-a-donkey |X [beats it]distributive](29) a. *Every student gathered in the hall.
b. *Every student performed a symphony.
c. *Every student is a large group.

(26) ÷X[farmer-who-own-a-donkey(X) | X | ≥ 1/2 | farmer-who-own-a-donkey | ȯ [[xùX  donkey(y)  x owns y] →[ x beats y]](30) a. Most students gathered in the hall.
b. *Most students performed a symphony.
c. *Most students are a large group.

(27) ÷X[farmer-who-own-a-donkey(X) | X | | ≥ 1/2 | farmer-who-own-a-donkey |ȯxȯy [[xùX  donkey(y)  donkey(y)(31) a. Many students gathered in the hall.
b. Many students performed a symphony.
c. *Many students are a large group.

 x owns y] → [ x beats y]]
Representation (27) means that there is a groupconsisting of more than half of the farmers who
own a donkey and each member of the groupbeats every donkey he owns. In this approach,the universal quantifier every is introduced by
the distributive predicate but not by any
determiners, and it binds all the variables in its
scope unselectively. The existential quantifiers
are provided to the discourse by the existential
closure.

Meanwhile, a non-quantificational NP can befollowed by each of these predicates as in (32)(32) a. Fifty students gathered in the hall.
b. Fifty students performed a symphony.
c. Fifty students are a large group.
The data also show that the classification ofpredicates into distributive or collective iscoarse-grained. The classification should be
more fine-grained to cope with the data. I
roughly classify the predicates as in (33) a la
Dowty (1986, p112).7)

3.3 Combinatorial Strength of Determiners
In a non-unified approach, a quantificational NP
is predicted to be followed only by a distributive
predicate but not by a collective one while a
non-quantificational NP by either a distributive
predicate or a collective one. However, thisprediction is wrong because counter examples
are easily found as in (28).
(28)(33) Classification of PredicatesDistributive: fall asleep, …
Type 1 Collective: gather, …
Type 2 Collective: perform a symphony,…
Type 3 Collective: be a large group, …

a. Most students gathered in the hall.
b. Many students gathered in the hall.
c. Few students gathered in the hall.

The date above indicate that there is a certain
ordering among the types of predicates such thatwhile an NP can take a Type 3 collective
predicate, it can also take a distributive, Type-1,
or Type-2 collective predicate. If an NP can takea Type-2 collective, then it also takes Type-1
collective or distributive predicates. I

Moreover, one quantificational NP is different
from another in terms of its ability to takecollective predicates as in (29), (30) and (31).
Note that the NP with the determiner every
cannot be followed by any collective predicates,287

figuratively refer to Type-1 collective predicatesas being stronger than distributive ones. Then
distributive predicates are the least strong, andType-3 collectives the strongest

quantificational force of a sentence is obtained
through the distributivity of the predicate of thesentence but not from the determiner of its
subject NP; and (iii) unselective binding andexistential closure are maintained intact.

In the same vein, determiners should beclassified more fine-grained as in (34).

I have also shown that the Unified Approach canproperly explain the phenomena of (i) discourse
binding where a pronoun and its antecedent are
not in the same sentence, (ii) the proportional
problem or the asymmetric quantification where
unselective binding does not seem to beobserved; and (iii) varying degree ofcombinational strength of determiners withpredicates.

(34) Classification of Determiners
Type1: can only take a distributive predicate:a(n), every, each, both
Type2: can take a distributive or Type-1
collective: most, few
Type3: can take a distributive, Type-1, or Type-2
collective: many, a few, all, some
Type4: can take a distributive, Type-1, Type-2,
or Type-3 collective: the, the two, two

Notes

Then, the varying degrees in the combinatorial
strength of determiners are not properly
addressed by the non-unified approach whichclassifies determiners into two categories ofquantificational
determinersandnonquantificational ones. This approach is not able
to explain the fact that a quantificational NP cantake a collective predicate which requires a set
denoting noun phrase. Furthermore, the fact thata certain quantificational NP can take a certain
type of collective predicates while cannot not be
followed by another type of collective predicatesraises a difficult problem to solve to thisapproach.

1) The main ideas of the paper were firstpresented in the author’s Ph. D. dissertation.
2) Roberts (1987) classifies English
determiners into quantificational andindividual- denoting. Among
quantificational determiners are each, every,
nosg/pl, most, few, many, both, neither, etc.
Individual denoting determiners are a,somesg/pl, 1,2,3,…, thesg/pl, this, that, these,
those, etc.
3) DRs are organized in such a manner that theMain DR is accessible from sub-DRs, andThe left DR of a complex condition
introduced by a quantificational determineris accessible from the right DR. That is, adiscourse referent in the Main DR can belinked to a discourse referent of a sub-DR
which is introduced by a pronoun. But a
discourse referent introduced by a pronoun
into the main DR cannot be linked to a
discourse referent of a sub-DR.

The Unified Approach proposed solves the
problem of diverse combinatorial strength ofdeterminers (i) by letting a determiner require acertain type of predicates which are ordered interms of combinatorial strength, and (ii) byassuming that a quantificational NP denotes a set
or an i-sum, thus being translated as a pluralvariable. In other words, a certain type ofdeterminer requires or subcategorizes a certain
type of predicate, thus allowing quantificational
determiners to combine with appropriate
predicates.

4) Heim (1990) reports that this reading ofsentence (24) was acknowledged by many
authors including Root (1986), Rooth(1987), and others. Kamp and Reyle (1993)
also judge that the indefinite NP a donkey
has a universal reading.

4. Conclusion
So far, after critically reviewing a non-unified
approach to quantification and distributivity, I
have formulated a Unified Approach byasserting that (i) every NP with a determiner is avariable of its kind (singular or plural); (ii) the5) Büerle and Egli (1985), Rooth (1987), andReinhart (1987) propose a complex quantifier
such as most-every.

2886) Heim (1990) also points out some problems
in this kind of approach as follows:“There are two big problems about this kindof approach: One is whether there is any
principled way of predicting the force of theimplicit secondary quantifier. …The second
question is how to implement the analysis
without ad hoc maneuvers in either thesyntax or the semantics. (Heim 1990: 163)”

7) Classification of Predicates (Dowty 1986:
112)
I. Purely distributive predicate: fall asleep,
be pregnant, …
II. Collective predicates with distributive
sub-entailments:
A. Collectives whose only entailments
may be distributive sub-entailments:
gather, …
B. Collectives with both collective anddistributive entailments:
be a happy couple, surroundthe fort, …
III. Purely collective predicates:
be numerous, be few in number, bea large group, …
IV. Predicates ambiguous between
Collective (II-B) and Distributive:

Kamp, Hans (1981) ペA Theory of Truth andSemantic Representation, ペ in Jeroen
Groenendijk, Theo M, v. Jassen &Martin Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods
in the Study of Language, vol. I,
Mathematische Centrum, Amsterdam,
Reprinted in Groenendijk, Jassen &Stokhof (eds.) (1984) Truth,
Interpretation and Information, Foris
Dordreicht.
Kamp, Hans and Uwe Reyle (1993) From
Discourse to Logic: An Introduction to
Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural
Language,
FormalLogic
andDiscourse Representation Theory,
KluwerAcademic
Publishers,
Dordrecht.
Lee, J. S. (1994) Distributivity and
Quantificationin
Discourse
Representation
Theory,Ph.
D.
dissertation, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Roberts, Craige (1987) Modal Subordination,
Anaphora and Distributivity, Ph. D.
dissertation,
UniversityofMassachusetts, Amherst.
Root, Rebecca (1986) The Semantics ofAnaphora in Discourse, Ph. D.
dissertation, University of Texas Austin.
Rooth, Mats (1986)ペNP Interpretation in
Montague Grammar, File Change

Semantics, and Situation Semantics,ペmanuscript, CSLI, Stanford University.

References
Büerle, Rainer and Urs Egli (1985) "Anapher,
Nominalphrase and Eselssaetze,"in Arbeitspapiere desSonderforschungsbereichs 99,
Konstanz.
Dowty, David R. (1986) "Collective Predicates,
Distributive Predicates, and All,"ESCOL 1986, 97-115.
Heim, Irene (1982) The Semantics of Definite
and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph. D.
dissertation,
UniversityofMassachusetts, Amherst.
_______ (1990) "E-type Pronouns and Donkey
Anaphora," Linguistics and Philosophy
13, 137-177.

289

which includes a universal quantifier and Bound
Pronoun (BP). In (2a), the interpretation as describedin (i) is available.
(2) a. Everyonei thinks that hei is smart.

A Merge Condition-Based Approach to
Doubling Constituents*(i) If we assume everyone such as John,
Bill, and Bob, John/ Bill/ Bob thinks that

Kyoto Career College of Foreign Languages

John/ Bill/ Bob is smart respectively.
b. Someonei thinks that hei is smart.

(Part-Time Lecturer)(i) If we assume someone such as John,

Akitoshi Maeda

John thinks that John is smart.
Keywords: Merge Condition, Doubling Constituent,

In (2a), everyone can c-command he and the same

Movement Theory of Antecedent,

type of index is assigned to both everyone and heSpecific-Feature, A-Binding

respectively. This means that everyone and he are
identical since it is possible for (2a) to meet (1). Thus,(1) is able to account for the co-referential reading in

1. INTRODUCTION(2a).

The purpose of this paper is to show that the Merge

However, under the framework of the Minimalist

Condition (Wurmbrand 2014) may restrict theProgram (MP), (1) does not go thorough because

applicability of Movement Theory of Antecedent

indices obviously violate the Inclusiveness Condition(MTA) based on Doubling Constituents (Kayne(Chomsky 1995, 2000) defined in (3).

2002, 2005). In order to demonstrate it, I propose that(3) Inclusiveness Condition

Specific-F(eature)s are subject to the Mergea. Any structure formed by the computation

Condition. In addition, I also argue that both the[…] is constituted of elements already

MTA and A-Binding (Reinhart 2006, Reuland 2010)

present in the lexical items selected for N;

are indispensable.

no new objects are added in the course of

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2

computation apart from rearrangement ofoutlines the mechanism of MTA and presents alexical projects.

potential empirical problem against the MTA.

(Chomsky (1995: 228))

b. No new Fs are introduced by Human

Section 3 offers my assumptions, proposal and

Language Computation.

analysis. Finally, section 4 concludes this paper and(Chomsky (2000: 113))

points out a remaining issue.

Chomsky assumes that there are no indices in the
Numeration (Chomsky 1995) so they have to be

2. MTA AND ITS EMPIRICAL PROBLEM

introduced at some stage of the derivation. But (3)2.1.	
  BACKGROUND

does not permit the introduction. Therefore, within

In this section, I briefly provide the theoreticalthe framework of the MP, we cannot adopt (1) since

background. To begin with, let us review the(1) is based on indices which are incompatible withtraditional approach called Bind (Chomsky 1981) to(3).

the typical binding phenomenon defined in (1).
(1) Bind

2.2.	
  MECHANISM

α binds β iff α c-commands β and α and β are

In contrast, it is possible for the MTA to capture

co-indexed.

(2a) without utilizing indices. For (2a), Kayne (2002,(Chomsky (1981: 184))(1) enables to deal with the basic data as in (2a)2005) presents the mechanism illustrated in (4).

290

2.3.	
  EMPIRICAL PROBLEM

	  (4) everyone thinks that [everyone, he] is smart

2.3.1.	
  MIYAMOTO (2008)
We confirmed the theoretical advantage of MTA in

Antecedent-Movement(4) is a part of the derivation of (2a). First of all, in (4),section 2.2. However, there is a potential empiricaleveryone and he form the syntactic unit called

problem against the MTA. Before I present the

Doubling Constituent in the sense of Kayne. Afterproblematic data of the MTA, we need to observe

that, only everyone antecedent-moves to the subject

theposition in the matrix clause. With these steps in

Clause-Boundedness Restriction (May 1977) as

mind, Kayne assumes that the antecedent-movement

shown in (6).

enable to deal with the co-referential interpretation in	  (6)	
  a. Someone loves everyone.
[∃ > ∀]	  or	  [∀ > ∃]	  (ambiguous)(2a)becausemovements

canestablish

the

basic

quantifier

scopeinteractionand(i) If we assume someone such as Maryco-referential relation between moved and in situ
1elements. In conclusion, the MTA enables toand everyone such as John, Bill and Bob,

captureMary loves all the members (John/ Bill/

(2a)

with

not

indices

butBob).	
 antecedent-movements. In addition, it is also possible
for the MTA to deal with (2c) in the same way. (2c)Collective Reading(ii) If we assume someone such as Mary,

includes an existential quantifier and gives rise to the

Nancy and Suzan and everyone such as

reading as described in (i).

John, Bill, Bob, Mary/ Nancy/ Suzan

Next, we check the internal structure of Doubling

loves John/ Bill/ Bob respectively.

Constituents in Kayne’s sense illustrated in (5).

Distributive Reading	  (5)	
  a.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  DP

b. Someone thinks that John loves
everyone.	
  [∃ > ∀]	  (unambiguous)

	
  	
  	
  	
  everyoneD′(6a) has two interpretations called collective anddistributive readings in the sense of May as described

	
  he
b.

Null NPin (i) and (ii), while we can interpret (6b) only as theDPcollective reading since scope interaction is generally
clause-bounded.

heeveryone

In (5a), everyone is base-generated in Spec, DP and

On the other hand, (7) includes BPs.
	  (7)	
  a. Everyone1 said that he1 loves more/ lesshe is in D. On the other hand, Cecchetto (2000)

than two girls.2	  [∀ > ∃]	  or	  [∃ > ∀]demonstrates another type of internal structure(ambiguous)	
  (Spencer Robinson, Wayles Browne (p.c.))represented in (5b). In (5b), everyone is located in not(i)

If we assume everyone such as John,

Spec, DP but the Complement position. However, toBill, and Bob and two girls such as

investigate the most valid internal structure ofMary, Nancy/ Suzan, Kate/ Jane,

Doubling Constituents is beyond the scope of thisCatherine, John/ Bill/ Bob said John/

paper. Furthermore, my analysis works well in both

Bill/ Bob loves more/ less than Mary,(5a) and (5b). For the reason, in this paper, I follow

Nancy/ Suzan, Kate/ Jane, Catherine

Kayne and assume (5) without any further

respectively.

discussion.

291

Distributive ReadingBill and Bob, two girls such as Mary

problem as in (9a-f) as long as adopting the MTA.
	  (9) a. Someone1 said that he1 loves everyone.4

and Nancy, all the members (John/ Bill/[∃ > ∀]	  (unambiguous)(ii) If we assume everyone such as John,

Bob) said that all the members (John/(Spencer Robinson, Wayles Browne (p.c.))a′. Someone1 talked to everyone about his1

Bill/ Bob) loves more/ less than Marymother.5	  [∃ > ∀]	  or	  [∀ > ∃]and Nancy.	
 Collective Readingb. Each boy1 said that he1 loves more/ less(ambiguous)b. A boy1 said that he1 loves every girl.

than two girls.	
  [∀ > ∃]	  or	  [∃ > ∀][∃ > ∀] 	  (unambiguous)(ambiguous)c. All boys1 said that they1 love more/ less(Wayles Browne (p.c.))b′. A boy1 talked to every girl about his1than two girls.	
  [∀ > ∃]	  or	  [∃ > ∀]mother.	
  [∃ > ∀]	  or	  [∀ > ∃](ambiguous)d. Most boys1 said that they1 love every(ambiguous)c. Two girls1 said that every boy loves

girl.	
  [∀ > ∃]	  or	  [∃ > ∀](ambiguous)
In (7), we predict that (7) is unambiguous because

them1.	
  [∃ > ∀]	  (unambiguous)

two quantifiers are not clause-mates. But the facts do(Spencer Robinson (p.c.))c′. Every boy talked to two girls1 about

not bear out the prediction. (7a) gives rise to two

their1 mother.	
  [∃ > ∀]	  or	  [∀ > ∃]readings as described in (i) and (ii).
In order to capture (7), Miyamoto (2008) offers(ambiguous)d. Many boys1 said that they1 love somethe analysis represented in (8).
	  (8) a. everyone said that [everyone, he] … two girls

girls.	
  [many NPs > some NPs]
(unambiguous)d′. Many boys1 talked to some girls about

Antecedent-Movementb.	
  [vP everyone [vP [everyone, he] … two girls]]]3
Q-F/Q-Ftheir1 mother.	
  [many NPs > some NPs]

Q-F

or	
  [some NPs > many NPs]	
  (ambiguous)

e. Several girls1 said that most boys love
them1.	
  [∃ > ∀]	  (unambiguous)

Q-F Absorption

e′. Most boys talked to several girls1 about(8a, b) are a part of the derivation of (7a). First of all,Miyamoto

assumesthe

MTA

their1 mother.	
  [∃ > ∀]	  or	  [∀ > ∃]andQ(uantificational)-F Absorption (Watanabe 2000).

(ambiguous)
f. A few boys1 said that they1 love two girls.

The Q-F Absorption is able to establish the inverse
scope reading (like the collective reading in (7)) byapplying the F-movement of the Q-F. In (8a), it is[a few NPs > two NPs]	
  (unambiguous)f′. A few boys1 talked to two girls about

possible for everyone and two girls to fulfill thetheir1 mother.	
  [a few NPs > two NPs]	
  orClause-Boundedness Restriction since they are[two NPs > a few NPs]	
  (ambiguous)clause-mates in the original position. In addition, in

If we assume the MTA, it incorrectly predicts that(8b), we can attach Q-F of two girls to that of(9a-f) are ambiguous since (9a-f) are able to meet the

everyone. From these reasons, Miyamoto claims that

Clause-Boundedness Restriction and apply the Q-F

the MTA and Q-F Absorption enables to explain (7).

Absorption illustrated in (10) because of existence ofBPs.

2.3.2.	
  PARADIGM
However, the analysis faces the potential empirical292

Wurmbrand (2014) designs the device called Merge	  (10) a. someone said that [someone, he] … everyone

Condition defined in (11d) which is based on Value(Chomsky 2000, 2001). 6

Antecedent-Movementb. [vP someone [vP [someone, he] … everyone]]]
Q-F/Q-F

With these assumptions in mind, I propose (12).
	  (12)	
  Specific-Fs are subject to (11d).

Q-F

In previous literatures, whether semantic Fs like
Specific-Fs are subject to (11d) is not obvious. Thus,

Q-F Absorption

in this paper, I would like to explore the possibility.

(10a, b) are a part of the derivation of (9a). It is
possible for (10a) to fulfill the Clause-Boundedness
Restriction because someone and everyone are

3.2.	
  ANALYSIS

clause-mates. In addition, in (10b), we can attach

Following my assumptions and proposal, in thisQ-F of someone to that of everyone. Thus, thesection, I analyze the target data of this paper as

MTA concludes that (9a-f) are ambiguous. However,illustrated in (13).

the facts do not bear out the conclusion. For this	  (13)	
  a.	
  	
  	
  	
 

DP

reason, (9a-f) are empirical problems of the MTA.
Universal Quantifier
3. ASSUMPTIONS, PROPOSAL AND[specific: val]	
 ANALYSIS

D′
BPs

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
 

3.1.	
  ASSUMPTIONS AND PROPOSAL	 Null NP[specific:]

To solve the problem, I assume four assumptions
summarized in (11).

b.

DP

	
  (11) a.	
  A difference between universal andexistential quantifiers is whether they
have Specific-Fs or not.

Existential Quantifier(Enç (1991))[specific:b.	
  Specific-Fs are active semantic Fs in the

D′

]
BPs

syntactic component.

[specific:

Null NP](Diesing and Jelinek (1995), Kim (2004))
c. A′-bound pronouns are semantic(13a) is the internal structure of the Doubling

variables. = BPs bound by A′-elements

Constituent in (7), while (13b) is in (9a-f). According(like quantifiers) have unvalued

to my assumptions, universal quantifiers have theSpecific-Fs.

valued Specific-F and BPs have the unvalued(Higginbotham (1983))

d. Merge Condition

Specific-F. This signifies that we can apply Reverse

Merge α and β if α can value a F of β.

Agree (downward valuation) (Wurmbrand 2014)(Wurmbrand (2014: 2))

between Specifier and Head in (13a). Then, it isFirst, as described in (11a), Enç (1991) attributes thepossible for BPs to receive the value of Specific-Fs

difference

existentialfrom universal quantifiers. Thus, the MTA based on

quantifiers to Specific-Fs. Second, Diesing andthe Doubling Constituent is applicable to (7) because

Jelinek (1995), Kim (2004) as in (11b) attempt to(13a) can satisfy (11d). For the reason, my analysis isdemonstrate that Specific-Fs are syntacticallyable to conclude that (7) are ambiguous.

betweenuniversal

andavailable semantic Fs. Third, Higginbotham (1983)

On the other hand, existential quantifiers do not

as represented in (11c) considers that BPs bound byhave the valued Specific-F. As a result, BPs cannot

quantifiers

receive the value from existential quantifiers by

have

unvaluedSpecific-Fs.

Last,

293

applying Reverse Agree between Specifier and Head.

so we cannot use them under the framework of the

Therefore, the MTA is not applicable to (9a-f) since

MP. To solve this problem, Reuland (2010) develops(13b) cannot meet (11d). This means that (9a-f) are

the modified analysis based on not λ-x and x but

unambiguous because it is not possible for (9a-f) to

φ-Fs illustrated in (15c).

fulfill the Clause-Boundedness Restriction and apply	  (15)	
  c. [every bankerφ [φ went … [after … φ’s assets]]]

Q-F Absorption. In sum, my analysis can

λ-Operator Variable

Variable

successfully deal with the contrast between (7) and(9a-f).

λ-Predicate

3.3.	
  A-BINDING

Sister

3.3.1.	
  MECHANISM(15c) is a part of the semantic representation of (15a).

However, at least one issue remains. I have toEvery banker quantifier-raises and it leaves the φ-F

capture the co-referential relation in (9a-f) without

as the Copy in the original position. The BP turns

utilizing the MTA. In order to realize it, I adopt the

into the φ-F in (15c). The φ-F of every banker

A-Binding (Reinhart 2006) defined in (14).

functions as the λ-Operator. Every banker is the sister	  (14)	
  A-Bindingof the λ-Predicate ([φ went bust [after the crash

α A-binds β iff α is the sister of a λ-predicate

destroyed φ’s assets]]) so every banker is able towhose operator binds β.

A-Bind his assets. Thus, Reuland’s modification(Reinhart (2006: 171))

enables to capture the co-referential reading in (15a)Following (14), Reinhart gives the analysis

without violating (3).

illustrated in (15).
	  (15) a.	
  Every banker1 went bust after the crash3.3.2.	
  ANALYSIS

destroyed his1 assets.
b.every banker (λxWith Reuland’s A-Binding in mind, I give theaccount for (9a-f) illustrated in (16).
	  (16) a. Someone1 said that he1 loves everyone.

(x went … [after … x’s assets]))

λ-Operator Variable

Variable(= 9a)
b. [someoneφ [φ said that φ loves everyone]]

λ-Predicate

λ-Operator Variable Variable
Sister(15b) illustrates a part of the semantic representation

λ-Predicateof (15a). To begin with, every banker moves byapplying Quantifier Raising (QR) in the sense of

SisterMay (1977). Every banker leaves the variable (x) as(16b) shows a part of the semantic representation of

the Copy in the original position. In (15b), the BP(16a). In (16b), someone raises and it leaves its φ-F.

(his) changes into x. Then, (λx (x went bust [after the

The BP (he) replaces the φ-F. Someone is the sistercrash destroyed x’s assets])) which includes theof the λ-Predicate ([φ said that φ loves everyone]) so

λ-Operator (λ-x) and two variables creates thesomeone can A-Bind he. Thus, the A-Binding

λ-Predicate. Lastly, every banker is the sister of themodified by Reuland can account for the

λ-Predicate so every banker can A-Bind his assets. In

co-referential relation in (16a) without violating (3).

this way, (14) can account for the co-referential

The same story can also be applied to (9b-f).

relation of (15a) with the λ-Operator and variable.
However, λ-x and x are not compatible with (3)

294

4.	
  CONCLUSION

everyone and not he but everyone’s copy in Spec, DP.

In this paper, I proposed that Specific-Fs are subjectThus, we may require at least another mechanism into (11d). In addition, I demonstrated that (11d) may

order to build up the identical relation between

limit the applicability of MTA. If these conclusions

everyone’s copy and he. This point is the remaining

are on the right track, I can summarize theissue for everybody which assumes Kayne’s MTA.

applicability of MTA and A-Binding as in (17, 18).
	  (17) a.	
  Everyone1 thinks that he1 is smart.(= 2a)2scope interaction between everyone and who as

b. Everyone1 said that he1 loves more/ lessshown in (i).
(i) 	  Who did everyone1 say that he1 met who?

than two girls.	
  (= 7a)c. Someone1 thinks that he1 is smart.(= 2b)[WH > ∀]	  or	  [∀ > WH] (Sloan 1991: 234)

d. Someone1 said that he1 loves everyone.

3(= 9a)
	
  (18) a.	
  (17a)	
 b. (17b)	
 Sloan (1991) points out the data based on the BP on

In (8b), [everyone, he] is located in Spec, vP edge soeveryone does not have to move to the vP adjoining→	  The MTA andposition. However, everyone cannot c-command two

A-Binding are

girls in (8b) if there is no movement to the vP

applicable.

adjoining position. If this is on the right track, in (8b),→	  We need the MTA.

we should not be able to apply the Q-F Absorption

Only the A-Binding isbecause it requires the c-command relation as the

not enough.

precondition. For the reason, this point is a remainingc. (17c, d)	
  → We cannot apply theissue.
4

MTA. We need theMiyamoto (2008: note 5) offers the data as in (9, ia).
(i) a. Who1 said that he1 loves everyone?

A-Binding.
A-Binding. Thus, children have to acquire two[WH > ∀]
a′. Who1 did everyone talk to who about his1

mechanisms for (17). However, this is undesired

mother?	
  [WH > ∀]	  or	  [∀ > WH]

Following (18), we need both the MTA andfrom the perspective of language acquisition so this(ia) is a counterexample against the MTA.

point is my remaining issue of this paper.

5

Ausín (2000) presents the generalization as shownin (i).
(i)	
  Someone/ Some NP1 … everyone/ every NP1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS* An earlier version of this paper was presented at… {anaphor1 / BP1}	
  [∃ > ∀]	  (unambiguous)

the ELSJ 7th International Spring Forum held at

Ausín notes that the sentence is not ambiguous if theDoshisha University on 20 April, 2014. I would likesentence has the schematic structure like (i).

to express my sincere gratitude to Hideharu Tanaka,

Following (i), we predict that (9a-f) and (9a′-f′) are

Masao Ochi, Shimamura Koji, Yasuyuki Kitao,

unambiguous. However, Spencer Robinson and

Yoichi Miyamoto, Yoko Yumoto and the audience

Wayles Browne (p.c.) points out that (9a′-f′) areat the meeting for their helpful comments. I am also

ambiguous and (9a-f) are unambiguous so in thisgrateful to Spencer Robinson and Wayles Browne,

paper, I obey their judgment.

who helped me with the English data. All remaining

6

errors and inadequacies are, of course, my own.

developed by Pesetsky and Torrego (2006) and it

There is another version of the Merge Condition

requires only Match (Chomsky 2000, 2001).
NOTES
1Strictly speaking, antecedent-movements should be

able to establish the co-referential relation between

295

REFERENCES
May, Robert (1977) The Grammar of Quantification,

Ausín, Adolfo (2000) “A-Traces and Semantic

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Interpretation,” Ms, University of Connecticut,

Miyamoto, Yoichi (2008) “A Derivational Approach

Storrs.

to Scope Interaction between WH-Phases andCecchetto, Carlo (2000) “Doubling Structures andQuantifiers,”

Reconstruction,” Probus 12, 93-126.

The

Canadian

Journalof

Linguistics 53, 219-236.

Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on Government
and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego (2006) “Probes,
Goals and Syntactic Categories,” Proceedings

Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program,of the 7th Annual Tokyo Conference on

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Psycholinguistics, Keio University, Japan.

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The
Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

Reinhart, Tanya (2006) “Interface Strategies:

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik,

Referenceed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan

Inquiry Monograph 45, MIT Press, Cambridge,

Uriagereka, 89-155, MIT Press, Cambridge,

MA.

MA.

Set

Computation,” Linguistic

Reuland, Eric (2010) “Binding, Locality andSources of Invariance,” Proceedings of theChomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”
Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael

Conference on Minimalist Approaches to

Kenstowicz, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Syntactic Locality, ed. by Balázs Surányi, 1-21,

Diesing,

Molly

and

EloiseJelinek

August 26-28, 2009, Budapest, Hungary.

(1995)

Sloan, Kelly (1991) “Quantifier-WH Interaction,”
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15: More“Distributing Arguments,” Natural Language
Semantics 3, 123-176.

Papers on WH-Movement, ed. by Lisa Cheng

Enç, Mürvet (1991) “The Semantics of Specificity,”and Hamida Demirdache, 219-237.

Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1-25.

Watanabe,

Higginbotham, James (1983) “Logical Form,

Akira(2000)“Absorption:

Binding and Nominals,” Linguistics Inquiry 14:

Interpretability and Feature Strength,” Grant-in

395-420.

Aid for COE Research Report 4: Researching
and Verifying an Advanced Theory of Human

Kayne, Richard (2002) “Pronouns and Their
Antecedents,” Derivation and Explanation in

Language, 253-296. Kanda University of

the Minimalist Program, ed. by Samuel DavidInternational Studies, Chiba, Japan.

Epstein and Daniel Seely, 133-166, Oxford,

Wurmbrand, Susi (2014) “The Merge Condition: A
Syntactic Approach to Selection,” Minimalism

Blackwell.

and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces, ed. byKayne, Richard (2005) Movement and Silence,Peter Kosta, Lilia Schürcks, Steven Franks andOxford University Press, Oxford.

Teodora Radev-Bork, 139-177, Amsterdam,

Kim, Min-joo (2004) “The Genitive of Negation in
Russian: Blocking of Case-Licensing byJohn Benjamins.

Negation,” Papers from the 38th Chicago
Linguistic Society Meeting: Main Session, ed.
by Mary Andronis, Erin Debenport, Anne
Pycha and Keiko Yoshimura, 345-360, CLS
Publications, Chicago, IL.

296

context-dependent manner by non-epistemic Aux.
It will then be demonstrated that voice mismatch
effects are attributed to the violation of theparallelism condition produced by A-movement.
VP-Deletion, Parallelism, and the Role of Aux:
A Phase-Theoretic Approach*

2. Background Assumptions
2.1. (Non-)epistemic Aux

Masako Maeda and Taichi Nakamura

Let us first review the clause structure adopted in

Kyushu Institute of Technology and University ofthis paper.

Fukui

(2)

CP
C

Keywords: VP-Deletion, pseudogapping, sluicing,

AuxepistemicP

Phase

Auxepistemic TP

focus, parallelism

T
Phase

Auxnon-epistemicP

Auxnon-epistemic vP
v

1. Introduction
As

first

considered

VP

As shown in (2), following Butler (2003) andby

Bresnan(1976),

Cinque (1999), among others, we assume that

VP-Deletion must be licensed by the auxiliary

epistemic Aux projects above TP, but that

(Aux) that immediately precedes the deletion site.

non-epistemic Aux layers below TP. Given that

McDowel (1987) further points out that Aux

TP is the lower limit of the CP phase, we further

should be restricted to non-epistemic usage, asassume that non-epistemic Aux participates in theshown in (1a). As the contrast in (1b, c) shows,verbal phase formation in lieu of v (contra

another interesting property of Aux is that it

Chomsky (2000, 2008)).1

allows the deletion site to be insensitive to thephase theory that we will review next, this further

identity of voice morphology if it is focused (seeimplies that only non-epistemic Aux affects a

Kertz (2010), Nakamura (2013a, b), among

VP-Deletion operation.

Combined with theothers).
(1) a.

John must wash his car every day,

2.2. Phase Theory

and Peter must too.

Following Chomsky (2008), we assume that(*epistemic/deontic)

phrases are computation units. Furthermore we(Authier (2012: 2))

assume that deletion also applies at the phaseb. *This problem was looked into bylevel to the phase complement (see Bošković(2014), among others).

JOHN, and (similarly) BOB did, too.

(3) …

(Tanaka (2011: 478))
c.

along

with

Transfer,

all

other

The janitor MUST remove the trash

operations will also apply at the phase

whenever it is apparent that it

level, as determined by the label/probe.

(Merchant (2008: 169))(Chomsky 2008: 143))

The aim of this paper is to account for the twoThus, VP-Deletion applies to the complement of

seemingly unrelated properties illustrated in (1)verbal phases, namely vP in (2). In addition, weby arguing that phases are constituted in a

adopt the Phase-Impenetrability Condition, stated

SHOULD be.

297

in (4).

(7) Intermediate landing sites are relevant for(4) Phase-Impenetrability Condition

parallelism.

In phase α with head H, the domain of H

(Fox and Lasnik (2003: 150 fn. 4))

is not accessible to operations outside α,

Furthermore, following Hartman (2011), weonly H and its edge are accessible to suchassumeoperations.

variable-binding configurations via a λ operator(Chomsky (2000: 108))

Thus, any items must move to the phase edge toenter a subsequent computation.

that

A-movement

also

creates

insertion such that it also affects parallelism.

Moreover,(8) A′-, A-, and head movement share adeletion is disallowed to apply to the complement

basicof the next lower phase.

movement

uniformity:
types

none
is

of

these

categorically

However, departing from Chomsky (2000,

excluded from the narrow syntax, and all2008), who specifies what head forms a phase,create variable-binding configurations at

we take a dynamic phase view instead, proposed

LF.

(Hartman (2011: 383))

recently by Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2005) and

Then, to satisfy Parallelism, A-movement should

Bošković (2014), among others. We especiallyskip over intermediate landing sites that the

adopt the following view point.

Phase-Impenetrability Condition requires it to(5) The status of XP as transfer domain isstop by in certain environments. It thus yields

determined by its selector.

ungrammatical results.

Given the clause structure we reviewed in thepreceding section, this assumption enables us to

3. A Proposal

state that vPs can be transferred regardless of their

The main proposal is presented in (9) andfeatural make-up, depending on the selector,

schematically illustrated in (10), where the boxed

namely the non-epistemic Aux.

phrases stand for phases and the shaded phrases,transferred domains to be deleted.2

2.3. Parallelism(9) Non-epistemic auxiliaries form phases in

Finally, let us review one of the general

the VP domain if and only if

conditions imposed on a deletion operation,a. they select transitive v, orparallelism. It is presented in (6), taken fromb. they are focused.

Fox (2000).

(10) a. [AuxP DPi Aux([Foc]) [vP ti vtrans [VP ]]](6) Parallelism (a consequence of)Inanellipsis/phonologicalb. [AuxP DPi Aux [Foc] [vP v [VP ]]]reduction

As shown in (10a), if non-epistemic Aux selects a

relationshiptransitive v (and also an unergative v), it forms aamong the elements in βA must bephase regardless of whether it is focused.

identical to the scopal relationship among

Alternatively, as (10b) shows, the Aux head withthe parallel elements in βE.

a focus feature forms a phase even if v is notconstruction

thescopal(Fox (2000: 32))transitive. Because the complement vP becomes

When calculating parallelism, we follow Fox anda transfer domain in these cases, DP in vP moves

Lasnik (2003) and Hartman (2011) and assume

to Spec-AuxP to escape transfer and enter athatsubsequent computation.

Our proposal alsoentails that non-epistemic Aux does not form298

phases otherwise.

Therefore, the non-focused,is also a non-epistemic Aux selecting transitive v,

non-epistemic Aux that selects passive v does not

it forms a phase in the verbal domain, and theform a phase.

Phase-Impenetrability Condition requires theAt this point, we have answered the question of

external argument to land at Spec-AuxP to reach

why or how only non-epistemic Aux licenses

Spec-TP.4 Here, a parallelism violation arises.

VP-Deletion: non-epistemic Aux participates in

To satisfy Parallelism, the A-movement in (11b)the verbal phase formation and thus has theshould skip over the intermediate landing site

potential to trigger VP-Deletion; epistemic Aux,

Spec-AuxP, which results in a violation of theresiding

Phase-Impenetrability

in

a

CP

phase,

cannottrigger

Condition.

In

other

VP-Deletion due to the Phase-Impenetrability

words, the so-called voice mismatch violations

Condition. The next section attempts to answer

are reduced to parallelism violations.

the second question: how auxiliary focus evens

With this analysis in mind, let us consider aout voice mismatch violations.

case where Aux focus evens out voice mismatch
violations. The example in (1c), repeated below,

4. An Analysis

has the following schematic structure:

Before giving an account of the second issue we(1c) The janitor MUST remove the trashraised in the preceding section, let us first discuss

whenever it is apparent that it SHOULD

how voice mismatch violations are formulated.

be.

Consider the example in (1b), where subject(12) a. [TP the janitori MUST[Foc]k [AuxP ti tk

focus is involved.
(1b) *This problem was looked into by[vP ti v[transitive] [VP V the trash]]]]JOHN, and (similarly) BOB did, too.

b. [TP iti SHOULD[Foc]k [AuxP ti tk

On the basis of our proposal and assumptions, theschematic analysis is given in (11) of the… [vP v [VP V ti ]]]]

antecedent and the elliptic sentence. Note thatthe agentive by phrase is base-generated within

The antecedent sentence is an active sentence3

passive vP (see Collins (2005) for a discussion).

whose main verb is transitive; thus, the Aux(11) a. [TP [this problem]i wask [AuxP tk [vPforms a phase. Moreover, the Aux in the elliptic
sentence is focused and contrasted with the Auxv[passive] [VP V ti ] by JOHN]]]in the antecedent sentence.5 As stated in (9b),the Aux in the elliptic sentence thus forms ab. [TP BOBi didk [AuxP ti tk [vP ti

phase though it selects passive v. Therefore, thev[transitive] [VP V this problem]]]]surface subjects undergo A-movement in such a

Aux is not focused in the antecedent passive

manner as to obey the parallelism condition, assentence.

shown in (12a, b).

According to the proposal (9), no

They stop by thephase is thus formed in the verbal domain; theintermediate landing site, namely Spec-AuxP, tointernal argument this problem moves directly toland at Spec-TP.

Spec-TP, as shown in (11a). On the other hand,formation

the elliptic sentence is an active sentence whose

intermediate landing site for A-movement, Auxmain verb is transitive. Given that the Aux, did,focus evens out voice mismatch violations.6

299

and

By triggering a phaseproviding

a

Spec

as

an

In this section, we have illustrated how our
proposalaccounts

phenomena.

for

a

voice

phase.

mismatchThus, as indicated by arrows, the two

subjects must take different routes on their way to

The next section discusses theSpec-TP;consequences of our proposal for other deletion

Spec-AuxP.

phenomena.

violation.

only

OTHERS

shouldstop

byThis leads to a parallelism

The example (13b) is schematically analyzed
5. Consequencesin (15).

5.1. Pseudogapping
One

of

the

(15) a. [TP [MY PROBLEM]i WILL[Foc]k [AuxP ti
controversies

concerning

pseudogapping is whether it is reduced to
VP-Deletion or not.7

tk [vP v[passive] [VP V into ti ] by Tom]]]

In this respect, it isinteresting to note that pseudogapping is, similarb. [TP hei WON’T[Foc]k [AuxP ti tk [vP ti

to VP-Deletion, sensitive to voice mismatches
when subject focus is involved, as shown in (13a),v[transitive] [VP V tm]] [into YOURS] m ]]and it becomes insensitive when Aux focus is

In this case, the Aux in the elliptic sentence (15b)involved, as shown in (13b).

selects a transitive vP. Thus, it forms a phase(13) a. *ROSES were brought by SOME, andthat requires the surface subject to stop at its Spec.
The Aux in the antecedent sentence (15a) is

OTHERS did LILIES.

(Merchant (2008: 170))

contrastively focused and also forms a phase.

b. ?MY PROBLEM WILL be looked into

Thus, both the surface subjects stop at Spec-AuxP
on the way to Spec-TP.

by Tom, but he WON’T into YOURS.

Therefore, theparallelism condition is obeyed.

(Tanaka (2011: 477))
This contrast is easily captured if we reduce

To summarize, our analysis of the voice

pseudogapping to VP-Deletion and extend our

mismatch phenomena in VP-Deletion extends toanalysis of the voice mismatch phenomena given

pseudogapping, and suggests that pseudogappingin the preceding section to pseudogapping.

should be reduced to VP-Deletion.

First, let us consider the unacceptable cases,
where subject focus is involved. The example

5.2. Sluicing

in (13a) is schematically analyzed, as shown in

In this section, we will consider the voice(14).

mismatch phenomena in sluicing, namely thedeletion of a unit larger than VP.

(14) a. [TP ROSESi werek [AuxP tk [vP v[passive] [VP

It will beshown that in this case also, A-movement

V ti ] by SOME]]]

indirectly or covertly affects the calculation ofparallelism.
As the examples in (16) show, sluicing exhibits

b. [TP OTHERSi willk [AuxP ti tk [vP ti

voice mismatch effects.
(16) a. *Joe was murdered (by someone),v[transitive] [VP V tm ]] LILIESm ]]but we don’t know who.

The non-focused Aux in (14a) selects passive v
and does not constitute a phase, whereas the Auxin (14b) selects transitive v and constitutes a

300

(17a), whereas it skips over Spec-AuxP andb. *Someone murdered Joe, but weproceeds directly in (17b).

don’t know by whom.

parallelism violation.

(Merchant (2013: 81))

Such a parallelism violation is again caused byHere, note that in sluicing, the C head, not the vhead, triggers deletion to elide TP.

This leads to athe subsequent A′-movement.

Since

To satisfy

sluicing necessarily deletes Aux, the voice

parallelism, the correlate to the sluiced remnant

mismatch violations cannot be undone in thewh-phase,same manner as in the case of VP-Deletion andA′-movement of some sort or other operations

pseudogapping. Thus, let us illustrate how the(see Chung et al. (1995), Fox and Lasnik (2003),

voice mismatch effects are produced in sluicing.

among others, for the latter approach).

someone,shouldalso

undergoAs

We attempt to reduce them to the parallelism

indicated by dotted arrows, the A′-movement inviolations produced by the interaction of invisible(17a) is launched from a different position thanA-movement

andconsiderexampletheA′-movement.
in(16b).

schematically analyzed as in (17).

Let

us

the one in (17b): from Spec-AuxP in theItisantecedent and from within vP in the sluiced
sentence.

Here, weIn this manner, the subsequent

follow Chomsky (2008) and assume that the

A′-movement

A-movement of the subject to Spec-TP and theviolation.

producesaparallelism

In summary, the parallelism violation that

A′-movement of the subject to Spec-CP areoperated in a parallel manner.

also

sluicing

First, let us

exhibits

isindirectlyorcovertlyobserve the A-movement paths, which are

attributed to the presence or absence ofindicated by solid arrows.

A-movement in the verbal domain, which, on thebasis of our proposal, is in turn attributable to the(17) a. [CP someonei C [TP someonei T [AuxP ti

phasehood of the verbal domain. Since sluicing
deletes Aux but no focused Aux can be deleted,

Aux [vP ti v[transitive] [VP killed John]]]]]

the Aux in sluicing cannot form a phase when it
selects passive v.

b. [CP [by whom]i [TP Johnk [AuxP was [vP

6. Conclusionv[passive] [VP killed tk ] ti ]]]]We have proposed that non-epistemic Aux, if
In the antecedent clause (17a), AuxP forms afocused,phase (and attracts the surface subject into its

subsequently presented a phase-based analysis ofSpec) because it selects transitive v.

the voice mismatch phenomena in VP-Deletion,

On theconstitutes

a

phase

head.

We

pseudogapping and sluicing.

other hand, AuxP does not form a phase in thesluiced clause (17b), because it does not assume afocus feature and selects passive v. If it had afocus feature, it could not be deleted due to the*We would like to express our sincere gratitude

recoverability condition (see Chomsky (1965)).

to Nobuaki Nishioka for valuable suggestions andIn both the derivations, the A-movement tocomments.

Spec-TP is launched from within vP; however,Dobashi, Masahiko Takahashi and Kensuke

the A-movement must stop by Spec-AuxP in

Takita301

for

We are also grateful to Yoshihito
insightfulcomments.

TaichiNakamura’s research was supported by JSPS(i) [AuxP SHOULD [AuxP be [vP … ]]]KAKENHI Grant Number 25770181. Needless

Because the AuxP headed by be is the phasal

to say, all remaining errors are our own.

complement to which VP-Deletion applies in (i),be would undergo head movement and adjoin to

Notes
1

should.
6

Non-Epistemic Aux subsumes root modals,

As Kensuke Takita points out, it is desirable that

perfect have, progressive be, and passive be.

we find an independent piece of evidence for the2

As pointed out by Yoshihito Dobashi (p.c.), ourphasehood of the verbal domain to avoid

proposal might be problematic because it iscircularity.

disjunctive in nature.

research.

We leave this issue for

We leave the matter for future

future research (see also Nakamura (2014) for an

7

alternative proposal).

see Agbayani and Zoerner (2004), Gengel (2013),

3

We simply assume here that Aux moves to T to

Jayaseelansatisfy a PF-interface condition.

Takahashi (2004), among others.

4

As for the detailed derivation of pseudogapping,(1990,

2001),

Lasnik(1995),

There exists an example similar to (i), where

both the antecedent clause and the deleted clause
SELECTED REFERENCES

are passive and the subjects are focused.

Agbayani, Brian and Ed Zoerner (2004) “Gapping,(i) TOM was arrested by the pigs, but FRED
wasn’t.

Pseudogapping and Sideward Movement,”(Jackendoff (1972: 269))

Studia Linguistica 58, 185-211.

As neither of the Aux in the antecedent clause northat of the deleted clause forms a phase, both theAuthier, Marc (2012) “Ellipsis as Movement andsubjects undergo the same movement path that

Silence: Evidence from French,” University ofconforms to parallelism.

Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics
18, 1-9.

However, note here that in such a case deletionshould not be operated in the verbal phase

Bobaljik, Jonathan D. and Susi Wurmbrandbecause our proposal (9) requires that a(2005) “The Domain of Agreement,” Natural

non-focused Aux that takes passive vP does not

Language and Linguistic Theory 23, 809-865.

form a phase and thus does not trigger

Bošković, Zeljko (2014) “Now I’m a Phase, now

VP-Deletion.

I’m Not a Phase: On the Variability of

Alternatively, we could assume

that CP phase triggers the deletion of the vP

Phasesdirectly or indirectly.

Linguistic Inquiry 45, 27-89.

In the latter case, awith

Extraction

andEllipsis,”

movement operation such as vP-Topicalization

Bresnan, Joan (1976) “On the Form andmight be involved a la Johnson (2001) to attract

Interpretation of Syntactic Transformations,”

the vP to a position close enough to the C head,

Linguistic Inquiry 7, 3-40.
Butler, Jonny (2003) “A Minimalist Treatment of

which then deletes it. We leave this for future

Modality,” Lingua 113, 967-996.

research.
5

Chomsky, Noam (1965) Aspects of the Theory of

For expository purposes, we ignore the second

Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

non-focused auxiliary be. It will form with theChomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

focused modal should the following layered

The Framework,” Step by Step, ed., by Roger

AuxP structure:302

San Diego.

Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka,

Lasnik,89-155, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,Noam(2008)“On

Howard(1995)

“A

Note

on

Pseudogapping,” MIT Working Papers inPhases,”

Linguistics 27, 143-163.

Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, ed.
by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, andMcDowell, Joyce (1987) Assertion and Modality,

Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta,133-166, MIT Press,

Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern

Cambridge, MA.

California, Los Angels.
Merchant, Jason (2008) “An Asymmetry in Voice

Chung, Sandra, William Ladusaw, and James
McCloskey (1995) “Sluicing and LogicalMismatches

Form,” Natural Language Semantics 3, 1-44.

Pseudogapping,”

Cinque,Guglielmo

Functional(1999)

Heads:A

Adverbs

Sloppy VP Ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 44,519-528.
Nakamura, Taichi (2013b) “Semantic Identity

Interpretation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lasnik39,

Nakamura, Taichi (2013a) “Voice Mismatches inFox, Danny (2000) Economy and Semantic
HowardInquiry

Linguistic Inquiry 44, 77-108.

the Passive in English,” Syntax 8, 81-120.

andLinguistic

andMerchant, Jason (2013) “Voice and Ellipsis,”

Cross-Linguistic

Collins, Chris (2005) “A Smuggling Approach to

Danny

VP-Ellipsis

169-179.

andPerspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Fox,

in

and

(2003)

Deletion,”“Successive Cyclic Movement and Island

643-658.

Repair: The Difference between Sluicing andNakamura,

TaichiEnglishLinguistics

30,(2014)“Syoryakuni

VP Ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 34, 143-154.

Kaserareru Doitsuseijyoken kara Kangaeru

Gengel, Kirsten (2013) Pseudogapping andTogo to Imi no Intafeisu (Exploring the
Syntax-Semantic

Ellipsis, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Interface

from

the

Semantic

Perspective of the Identity Condition on

Uniformity of Traces: Evidence from Ellipsis

Ellipsis),” paper presented at the symposium

Parallelism,” Linguistic Inquiry 42, 367-388.

“Syoryakugensyo kara Kangaeru Togoron toHartman,Jeremy(2011)“The

ImironJackendoff, Ray (1972) Semantic InterpretationinGenerative

Grammar,MITno

Intafeisu

Syntax-Semantic

Press,(Exploring

Interface

from

the
the

Perspective of Ellipsis Phenomena) in the 86th

Cambridge, MA.
Jayaseelan, K. A. (1990) “Incomplete VP Deletion

General Meeting of the English Literary

and Gapping,” Linguistic Analysis 20, 64-81.

Society of Japan.

Jayaseelan, K. A. (2001) “IP-Internal Topic and

Takahashi, Shoichi (2004) “Pseudogapping andFocus Phrases,” Studia Linguistica 55, 39-75.

Cyclic Linearization,” NELS 34, 571-585.

Johnson, Kyle (2001) “What VP-Ellipsis Can Do,

Tanaka, Hidekazu (2011) “Voice Mismatch andand What It Can’t, but not Why,” The

Syntactic Identity,” Linguistic Inquiry 42,

Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory,470-490.

ed. by Mark Baltin and Chris Collins,
439-479, Blackwell, Oxford.
Kertz, Laura (2010) Ellipsis Reconsidered,Doctoral dissertation, University of California,

303

I-Topuchi-eyounger brother-Dat
kaettteki-te-hoshii.

home-to return-TE-want‘I want my younger brother to returnhome.’

Puzzles with the Desirative Predicate Hoshiib.

‘Want’ in Japanese

Watashi-wa otooto-ga
I-Top
uchi-eHideki Maki and Satoru Yokoyama

younger brother-Nom
kaettteki-te-hoshii.

home-to return-TE-want

Gifu University and Chiba Institute of Science(Takezawa (1987, 78, slightly edited))
Takezawa

Keywords: complex predicate formation, hoshii(1987)

accounts

for

this

dative/nominative alternation by proposing the LF‘want,’ passive, potential, te-form

Optional CP Deletion Hypothesis (Takezawa (1987,167)). Under this hypothesis, the predicate hoshii
1. INTRODUCTION‘want’ takes a CP (S’) complement, and while theThis paper points out two puzzles with the desirative

dative subject appears when CP is not deleted, as inpredicate hoshii ‘want’ in Japanese, and argues for(2a), the nominative subject appears when the CP is(i) the hypothesis that the morpheme TE is a COMP

deleted, as in (2b).
(2) a.

for an infinitival clause, and (ii) the Optional
Complex Predicate Formation Hypothesis.

Watashi-wa [CP [IP otooto-ni
I-Top

The organization of this paper is as follows.

uchi-eyounger brother-Dat
kaettteki-te]]-hoshii.

Section 2 reviews previous studies on the properties

home-to return-TE-wantof the desirative predicate hoshii ‘want’ in Japanese‘I want my younger brother to returnas the background to the subsequent sections.

home.’

Section 3 provides the two puzzles with theb.

Watashi-wa [IP otooto-ga

predicate. Section 4 discusses what they mightI-Topsuggest for the theory of (Japanese) syntax. Finally,uchi-eSection 5 concludes this paper.

home-to return-TE-wantyounger brother-Nom
kaetttek-ite]-hoshii.

The nominative subject in (2b) is licensed by the
2. PREVIOUS STUDIES

matrix Tense under Takezawa’s (1987) hypothesis.

2.1. TAKEZAWA (1987)

Note here that Takezawa (1987) assumes that

Takezawa (1987) was the first researcher who

both (1a) and (1b) are grammatical in Japanese.

pointed out that the desirative predicate hoshii ‘want’
takes a complement clause whose subject can be

2.2. MAKI (2005)

marked either dative or nominative, as shown in (1a)Maki (2005) found a slight difference inand (1b), respectively. Note that the complement

grammaticality between (1a) and (1b), andclause of the predicate hoshii ‘want’ must be

conducted a questionnaire-based survey on it. Using

followed by the particle te ‘TE,’ the properties ofthe examples in (3), Maki (2005) asked thewhich we will return to later.

participant to indicate the degree to which s/he(1) a.

Watashi-wa otooto-ni

would judge each of the examples in (3) on the three304

subject is considered grammatical by morelevel scale shown in (4).
(3) a.

Watashi-wa asu
I-Top

b.

participants than that with a nominative subject.

Ichiroo-ni

tomorrow Ichiro-Dat

Shiatoru-ni ki-te-hoshii.

3. THE PUZZLES

Seattle-to come-TE-want

Having established the particular background, let us‘I want Ichiro to come to Seattle

now consider the puzzles that arise from thetomorrow.’desirative predicate hoshii ‘want’ in Japanese. The
Ichiroo-ga

first puzzle is that in (6), the dative phrase Ichiroo-ni

tomorrow Ichiro-Nom‘Ichiro-Dat’ sounds perfect, while the nominative

Watashi-wa asu
I-Top

Shiatoru-ni ki-te-hoshii.

subject is degraded to some native speakers of

Seattle-to come-TE-want

Japanese.
(6) a.

(4) The Scale

Watashi-wa Ichiroo-ni warat-te hoshii.

1

totally ungrammatical

I-Top

Ichiro-Dat smile-TE want2

not perfectly grammatical‘I want Ichiro to smile.’

3

perfectly grammaticalb.(*)Watashi-wa Ichiroo-ga warat-te

Maki (2005) conducted a t-Test: Paired Two Sample

I-Top

for Means (hereafter, t-Test) on the data that mark 3

hoshii.

(perfectly grammatical) on the scale. The level ofwant

Ichiro-Nom smile-TE

statistical significance was set at p < .05. The result

On the other hand, when the subject of theof the t-Test for (3a) and (3b) is shown in (5).

complement clause is inanimate such as ame ‘rain,’the sentence becomes ungrammatical with the dative(5) The Result of the t-Test ((3a) and (3b))(3a) (3)(3b) (3)subject, but is better with the nominative subject, as

Mean

.91

.47

shown in (7).1 This is extensively discussed in

Observations

1150

1150

Takezawa (1987).

t Stat23.96

P(T<=t) two-tail

.01

I-Top

t Critical two tail1.96

‘I want it to rain.’(7) a. * Watashi-wa ame-ni fut-te hoshii.

b.

(5) shows that there is a statistically significant

Watashi-wa ame-ga
I-Top

difference between those who judge (3a) perfectly

rain-Dat fall-TE want
fut-te hoshii.

rain-Nom fall-TE wantgrammatical and those who judge (3b) perfectly

The second puzzle arises from the fact that hoshii

grammatical. (Note that (3a) (3) and (3b) (3) indicate‘want’ must change to the 3rd person form

the data that mark 3 for examples (3a) and (3b).) As

hoshigatteiru ‘want.3,’ when the subject is a 3rd

the mean scores indicate, (3a) is considered

person, as shown in (8). Note here that the predicate

grammatical by more participants than (3b).

hoshii, which ends with the vowel i, behaves like an

To summarize, Takezawa (1987) assumes that theadjective, and takes a nominative object, as shown incomplement of hoshii ‘want’ with a dative subject is(8a), and the predicate hoshigatteiru, which ends

as good as that with a nominative subject, andwith the vowel u, behaves like a verb, and takes an

Maki’s (2005) analysis based on a t-Test indicatesaccusative object, as shown in (8b).
(8) a.

that the complement of hoshii ‘want’ with a dative

Watashi-wa mizu-ga
I-Top

305

water-Nom

us consider what the ungrammaticality of (7a) withhoshii/*hosigatteiru.
want/want.3b.

the dative inanimate subject suggests. It is‘I want water.’

Shinjoo-wa mizu-owell-known that Japanese shows subject-predicate

Shinjo-Top water-Acc

agreement in terms of animateness of the subject, as*hoshii/hoshigatteiru.

shown in (11).

want/want.3(11) a.

‘Shinjo wants water.’

Asoko-nineko-gaNow, let us consider the examples in (9), where theover there-at cat-Nom

dative subject is perfect, as shown in (9a), while theiru/*aru.

nominative subject is totally ungrammatical, as

exist[+animate]/exist[-animate]shown in (9b).

‘There is a cat over there.’(9) a.

b.

Shinjoo-wa Ichiroo-ni warat-te

Asoko-ni

pen-gaShinjo-Top Ichiro-Dat smile-TE

over there-at pen-Nom

hoshigatteiru.

*iru/aru.

want.3

exist[+animate]/exist[-animate]‘Shinjo wants Ichiro to smile.’‘There is a pen over there.’b. * Shinjoo-wa Ichiroo-ga warat-te
Shinjo-Top Ichiro-Nom smile-TE

It seems then that the animate restriction may be put

hoshigatteiru.

on the dative subject in the hoshii ‘want’

want.3

construction in Japanese. That is, the animate

Furthermore, when the subject of the embedded

restriction forces a dative subject to be animate, andclauseifisinanimate,thesentence

becomesitisinanimate,thesentence

becomesungrammatical, no matter what case marker theungrammatical. Therefore, unless the dative subject

subject bears, as shown by the examples in (10).

is personated, the sentence is ungrammatical in (7a).

(10) a. * Shinjoo-wa ame-ni fut-te

With this in mind, let us consider the contrast

Shinjo-Top rain-Dat fall-TE

between (7b) with the nominative subject and (10b)hoshigatteiru.

with the nominative subject, the second puzzle. (Wewant.3address the second puzzle first for ease of‘Shinjo wants it to rain.’b. * Shinjoo-wa ame-ga fut-te

exposition.) The ungrammaticality of (10b) seems to

Shinjo-Top rain-Nom fall-TE

be attributed to the fact that the nominative Case ishoshigatteiru.

somehow unavailable on the subject in thewant.3

embedded clause in (10b). We claim, essentially

Since both the predicate forms hoshii ‘want’ andfollowing Maki’s (2005) suggestion, that thehoshigatteiru ‘want.3.’ take the clause headed by TE,

element TE is a COMP for an infinitival clause,the structure of the TE-clause should be identical insimilar to for in English, so that there is a CP(7b) and (10b). Yet, only (10b), which has aboundary between the matrix predicate and thenominative subject in the clause, is completely

embedded predicate. Since the embedded predicate

ungrammatical.

is infinitival, it cannot license nominative Case on
the subject in the embedded clause, so that (10b) iscorrectly ruled out.

4. DISCUSSION
Let us consider what the above puzzles may suggest

If TE is the head of CP, then, this raises thefor the theory of (Japanese) grammar. First of all, letquestion of why the grammaticality judgment for

306

(6b) with the nominative subject in the embedded

warat-te hoshii ‘smile-TE want’ becomes a single

clause varies from grammatical to ungrammatical,

stative predicate, as shown in (13), and the matrix

and why (7b) sounds grammatical. This was the first

Tense licenses the nominative Case on the subject,puzzle. Remember that Takezawa (1987) assumes

just as in (14).

that (6b) is grammatical, and argues that the(13) Watashi-wa Ichiroo-ga [warat-te-hoshii].

complement clause of the predicate hoshii ‘want’ is a

I-Top

Ichiro-Nom smile-TE -want

CP, whose node optionally deletes. When the CP‘I want Ichiro to smile.’(14) Watashi-wa mizu-ga

node deletion takes place, the matrix Tense lowers to

I-Top

the embedded predicate, licensing the nominative

hoshii.

water-Nom want ‘I want water.’Case on the embedded subject. On the other hand,On the other hand, for those who disallow (6b), suchwhen the CP node deletion does not take place, thecomplex predicate formation does not take place,matrix Tense cannot lower to the embedded

and the nominative Case on the subject is notpredicate, so that only the dative subject is possible.

licensed due to the CP boundary by TE, as shown by

However, as Takezawa (1987) assumes that (6b) is

the structure of (6b) represented in (15).

grammatical, the question remains as to why (6b) is(15) * Watashi-wa [CP [IP Ichiroo-ga

judged ungrammatical by some native speakers of

I-Top

Japanese.

hoshii.

In the following discussion, we will slightly

warat]-te]

Ichiro-Nom smile-TEwant‘I want Ichiro to smile.’

revise Takezawa’s (1987) hypothesis, and tentatively

The proposed hypothesis, however, is faced withpropose the Optional Complex Predicate Formationa problem. This is because it will incorrectly predict

Hypothesis in (12).

the examples in (9b) and (16) to be grammatical.

(12) The Optional Complex Predicate Formation(16) * Shinjoo-wa Ichiroo-o warat-te

Hypothesis (Tentative)

Shinjo-Top Ichiro-Acc smile-TE

Complex predicate formation may takehoshigatteiru.

place among the matrix predicate, COMP,

want.3and the embedded predicate.

‘Shinjo wants Ichiro to smile.’

These examples suggest a revision of the hypothesis

The major difference between Takezawa’s (1987)

in (12), as in (17).

claim and our claim is that while Takezawa (1987)(17) The Optional Complex Predicate Formation

assumes that his hypothesis is uniformly assumed byHypothesis (Final)

nativeComplex predicate formation may takespeakersofJapanese,

so

that

the

grammaticality of (6b) is shared by them, we assume

place among the matrix predicate, COMP,

that while some native speakers of Japanese assume

and the embedded predicate when thethe hypothesis in (12), others do not.

matrix predicate is stative.

Let us now examine whether the hypothesis inNote that the predicate hoshii behaves like an(12) can provide an adequate account for the firstadjective, and takes a nominative object, as shown inpuzzle, namely, the fact that (6b) is grammatical to(8a), and the predicate hoshigatteiru behaves like asome native speakers of Japanese, and isverb, and takes an accusative object, as shown in

ungrammatical to the other native speakers of(8b). Therefore, the matrix predicates in (9b) andJapanese. For those who allow (6b), complex(16) are verbal. Thus, they cannot form complex

predicate formation takes place, and the sequence

predicates with the embedded predicates under the307revised hypothesis in (17). The relevant structures of(22) Ichiroo-wa [CP [IP PRO sono ringo-o(9b) and (16) are thus (18) and (19), respectively.

Ichiro-Top(18) * Shinjoo-wa [CP [IP Ichiroo-ga warat]-te]tabe]-te] ok-e-ta.

Shinjo-Top

eat-TE put-can-PAST

Ichiro-Nom smile-TE‘Ichiro was able to eat the apple in advance.’

hoshigatteiru.
want.3(23) Ichiroo-wa [CP [IP PRO sono ringo-o‘Shinjo wants Ichiro to smile.’(19) * Shinjoo-wa [CP [IP Ichiroo-o warat]-te]
Shinjo-Top

Ichiro-Top

the apple-Acctabe]-te] shima-e-ta.

Ichiro-Acc smile-TE

eat-TE finish-can-PAST

hoshigatteiru.
want.3the apple-Acc‘Ichiro was able to finish eating the apple.’‘Shinjo wants Ichiro to smile.’

In (18), the embedded subject is within the CP that

The matrix predicates are now changed to stative

does not have Tense, so that it cannot be marked

predicates, and the informants we consulted all judge

nominative. In (19), the embedded object is within

the examples in (22) and (23) to be grammatical.

the CP that contains an intransitive verb, which

Now, the Optional Complex Predicate Formation

cannot assign accusative Case, so that it cannot be

Hypothesis will predict that the embedded object canmarked accusative.

be marked nominative, when the embedded

The Optional Complex Predicate Formation

predicate, TE, and the matrix (complex) predicate

Hypothesis will also account for the fact that (7b) isconstitute a single complex predicate. To see this, letgrammatical to many informants, but is degraded tous consider the examples in (24) and (25), where thesome. (See footnote 1.) The complex predicate isembedded object is marked nominative, and theformed for those who accept (7b), and is not for

matrix subject is marked dative.

those who do not.

(24)(*)Ichiroo-ni-wa sono ringo-ga

tabe-teIchiro-Dat-Top the apple-Nom eat-TE

Let us then examine whether the predictions the
Optional Complex Predicate Formation Hypothesis

ok-e-ta.

‘Ichiro was able to eat

may make are actually borne out. Along with the

put-can-PAST

the apple in advance.’(25)(*)Ichiroo-ni-wa sono ringo-ga

examples with hoshii ‘want,’ Japanese has othertabe-teexamples that contain clauses followed by TE, as

Ichiro-Dat-Top the apple-Nom eat-TE

shown in (20) and (21).

shima-e-ta.

‘Ichiro was able to(20) Ichiroo-wa [CP [IP PRO sono ringo-ofinish-can-PASTfinish eating the apple.’

Ichiro-Top

the apple-Acc

Interestingly enough, some informants we consultedtabe]-te] oita.

‘Ichiro ate the apple

judge the examples in (24) and (25) to be

eat-TE put

in advance.’

grammatical, while the other informants judge them(21) Ichiroo-wa [CP [IP PRO sono ringo-oto be ungrammatical. This is exactly what the

Ichiro-Top

Optional Complex Predicate Formation Hypothesis

the apple-Acctabe]-te] shimatta.

‘Ichiro finishedwill predict. This is because for those who allow

eat-TE finishedeating the apple.’(24) and (25), complex predicate formation takes

The matrix predicates are all verbs, thus not stative,

place, and the sequence of the embedded predicate,but they can be made stative with an addition of theTE, and the matrix (complex) predicate becomes apotential predicate (rar)e ‘can’ to the matrix

single stative predicate, which licenses thepredicates, as shown in (22) and (23).

nominative Case on the embedded object, and for308

those who disallow those examples, such complex

possible with non-fixed complex predicates with TE.

predicate formation does not take place, and theConsider the examples in (28) and (29).

nominative Case on the embedded object is not(28) a.

licensed due to the CP boundary by TE.

Ichiroo-wa [CP [IP PRO sono kuruma-oIchiro-Top

The Optional Complex Predicate Formation

the car-Acc

naoshi]-te] oita.

Hypothesis will also predict that the embedded

fix-TE

object can be passivized and realized as a

‘Ichiro fixed the apple in advance.’

nominative subject, when the embedded predicate,putb. (*)Ichiroo-niyotte sono kuruma-ga

TE, and the matrix predicate (r)are ‘PASS’ constituteIchiro-bya single complex predicate. Before examining thenaoshi-te ok-are-ta.

core data, let us first consider the examples with

fix-TE

fixed complex predicates containing TE, as shown in‘The car was fixed by Ichiro in(26) and (27).

advance.’(26) a.

b.

Ichiroo-wa Shinjoo-o Shiatoru-nib.

put-PASS-PAST

Ichiroo-wa [CP [IP PRO sono ringo-oIchiro-Top Shinjo-Acc Seattle-to

Ichiro-Top

tsure-te-itta.

tabe]-te] shimatta.

accompany-TE-went

eat-TE finished‘Ichiro took Shinjo to Seattle.’‘Ichiro finished eating the apple.’

Ichiroo-niyotte Shinjoo-ga Shiatoru-ni
Ichiro-by(27) a.

(29) a.

the car-Nom

the apple-Accb. (*)Ichiroo-niyotte sono ringo-ga

Shinjo-Nom Seattle-to

Ichiro-by

the apple-Nom

tsure-te-ik-are-ta.

tabe-te shimaw-are-ta.

take-TE-go-PASS-PAST

eat-TE finish-PASS-PAST‘Shinjo was taken to Seattle by Ichiro.’‘The apple was eaten by Ichiro

Ichiroo-wa Shinjoo-o Shiatoru-ni

completely.’

Ichiro-Top Shinjo-Acc Seattle-to

Just as in the cases with the potential predicate (rar)etsure-te-kita.

‘can,’ some informants we consulted judge theaccompany-TE-cameexamples in the b-examples in (28) and (29) to be‘Ichiro brought Shinjo to Seattle.’

grammatical, while the other informants judge them

Ichiroo-niyotte Shinjoo-ga Shiatoru-ni

to be ungrammatical. This is exactly what the

Ichiro-by

Optional Complex Predicate Formation Hypothesis

Shinjo-Nom Seattle-totsure-te-ko-rare-ta.

will predict. This is because for those who allow theaccompany-TE-go-PASS-PASTb-examples in (28) and (29), complex predicate‘Shinjo was brought to Seattle byformation takes place, and the sequence of the

Ichiro.’embedded predicate, TE, and the matrix (complex)

The complex predicates with TE in the a-examples

predicate becomes a single stative predicate, whichin (26) and (27) are fixed expressions. Since they arelicenses the nominative Case on the embedded

characterized as transitive verbs, the object of theobject, and for those who disallow those examples,

embedded predicate can be passivized, as shown insuch complex predicate formation does not takethe b-examples in (26) and (27).

place, and the nominative Case on the embedded

Let us now examine whether passivization is

object is not licensed due to the CP boundary by TE.

309

Interestingly enough, it is not necessarily true thatWe then examined the predictions that the Optional

those who allow complex predicate formation with

Complex Predicate Formation Hypothesis would

the potential predicate (rar)e ‘can’ also allow

make for the other predicates (the potential predicatecomplex predicate formation with the passive(rar)e ‘can’ and the passive predicate (r)are ‘PASS’),predicate (r)are ‘PASS.’ This indicates that complex

and showed that the predictions were borne out. Of

predicate formation with TE is a very subtle

course, further investigation is required to uncovergrammatical process, and further investigation is

the nature of the complex predicate formation withrequired to uncover the nature of the complex

TE, as it is a very subtle grammatical process.

predicate formation with TE in Japanese.
The Optional Complex Predicate Formation

FOOTNOTE

Hypothesis will also predict that the embedded

1

object can be marked nominative in the complement

slightly degraded. It seems that (7b) sounds goodclause of hoshii ‘want,’ when the embedded

because it is understood as something like (i).

predicate, TE, and the matrix predicate hoshii ‘want’

To some native speakers of Japanese, (7b) is(i) [[Ame-ga furu] to]ii

no da ga.

constitute a single complex predicate. This israin-Nom fall COMP good NO be but

because there will be no CP boundary between the‘It is good if it would rain.’embedded clause and the matrix clause, so that the
Tense of the matrix clause can license the

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

nominative object. To see this, let us consider the

We are indebted to Jessica Dunton, Megumi Hasebe,

example in (30), where the predicate in the

Rintaro Imafuku, Takashi Kayashima, Hisatsugu

embedded clause is transitive.

Kitahara, Masako Maeda, Jongkyun Mok, Kento(30)(*)Watashi-wa Ichiroo-ni sono ringo-ga

Nagatsugu, Fumikazu Niinuma, Nobuaki Nishioka,

I-Top

Ichiro-Dat the apple-Nom

Yoshiki Ogawa, Osamu Sawada, Shigeki Taguchi,tabe-te hoshii.

Rumi Takaki, and Yusuke Yoda for valuable

eat-TE wantcomments on an earlier version of this paper. All‘I want Ichiro to eat the apple.’errors are our own.

As the Optional Complex Predicate Formation
Hypothesis predicts, (30) is grammatical to some

REFERENCES

native speakers of Japanese, but is not to the otherMaki, Hideki (2005) “A Statistical Analysis of thenative speakers of Japanese.

Nominative/Dative Alternation in Japanese,”
The World of Linguistic Research: A

5. CONCLUSION

Festschrift for Kinsuke Hasegawa on the

In this paper, we first pointed out two puzzles that

Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. byarise from the desirative predicate hoshii ‘want’ in

Noriko Imanishi et al, 150–165, Kaitakusha,

Japanese, and then argued for (i) the hypothesis thatTokyo.

the morpheme TE is a COMP for an infinitival

Takezawa,

Koichi(1987)A Configurationalclause, and (ii) the Optional Complex Predicate

Approach to Case-Marking in Japanese,

Formation Hypothesis, under which the predicates

Doctoralthat sandwich TE optionally constitute complex

Washington, Seattle.

predicates, when the matrix predicates are stative.

310

dissertation,

Universityofcreate sentences or words as complex and longas we like (Mukai 2013). (1) and (2) arerecursive compounds as they are complex andcreated by merging another noun (shiru or
shachoo) after a compound (nise+danuki or

Recursive &ompounds in Phase Theory

booeki+geisha) is formed.
Secondly, the paper criticizes Bauke's

Makiko Mukai(2009) theory of compound word formation. As

University of Kochi

word formation is also recursive like phrase
formation is, I will argue that word formation

Keywords: recursive, compound, Phase,takes place in the narrow syntax. Then I willpropose a better theory based on my criticisms
1. INTRODUCTION

of Bauke. The aim of this paper is not to criticize

Recursion is said to be a fundamental property

otherof human language that potentially differentiate

frameworks, but to show that word-formation

language both from other human cognitive

can be analyzed using the Phase Theory, as it isdomains and known communication systems inrecursive and productive as phrase formation is.

animals (Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch 2002). In

Knowing about recursion of compounds will

this paper I will argue that what Tokizaki (2011)

reveal some aspect of human language, different

calls recursive compounds are derived in theto those of other animals. Also, looking at

narrow syntax in the Phase Theory (Chomsky

compounds in unrelated languages, English,

2001,

Japanese and Mainland Scandinavian, will2008). The examplesof recursive

theories

compounds in Japanese are represented below

enableus

tofrom Tokizaki (2011).

compounding.

ofcompounding

understand

in

other

universalityofThis paper is organized as follows. In(1) [[nise danuki] shiru]
soup

Section 2, I will show some characteristics of'mock-badger soup'recursive compounds. This section is followed(2) [[booeki gaisha] shachoo]by a review of Bauke’s analysis of compounding

trading company president

and criticisms in Phase Theory (Chomsky 2001,'president of a traditing company'2008). Section 4 proposes a better analysis ofmock badger

The examples (1)-(2) are called recursive

compounding in Phase Theory. The conclusioncompounds

according to Tokizaki (2011),

of this paper will show that compounding can be

Bisetto (2010) and Mukai (2006, 2008, 2013).

derived in the narrow syntax using the Phase

Before starting the discussion let us define what

Theory and some implications for future

recursion is. Summarizing the definitions by aresearch.

number of linguists, such as Chomsky (1965),
Ralli (2013), Bisetto (2010), Corballis (2011),

2. RECURSIVE COMPOUNDS

and many others, recursion is defined as follows:

Recursive compounds are phrase-like in therecursion is a phenomenon of embedding

following sense. First, they are pronounced likestructures within structures in cyclic fashion to

two independent words and there is a slight311

pause in between the second and third

compounds: they are phonologically two words,

constituents. Also, they are very productive andso there is a short pause between the ‘second’internal structure is visible to syntax. However,and ‘third’ constituents. (7) and (8) are fromthey do show word-like characteristics in that

English, (9) and (10) are from Mainland

functional category is excluded and it is

Scandinavian, which includes Danish, Swedish

impossible to delete part of them.

and Norwegian.

Let us show the above arguments are true.

The (a) examples show that there is a short(3) [[nise danuki]| shiru]

pause between the second and third constituents(4) [[booeki gaisha]| shachoo]and (b) examples show the genitive case marker‘|’ stands for a short pause. However, it isin each language does not interfere.

impossible to have a functional category or(7) a. [waste disposal]| plan]

partial deletion.

b. [waste (*of) disposal] plan](5) a. [[nise (*no) danuki] shiru](8) a. [peanut butter]| sandwich]mock (*GEN) badger soupb.*Ibaragi de [[nise danuki]

b. [peanut (*of) butter] sandwich]shiru] o(9) a. [jule-mand]| kostume]

Ibaragi DAT[[mock badger] soup]ACC

Christmas-man kostumetabe-ta ga,‘Santa Claus man’Kochi de [[nise danuki]b.

eat-PAST but,Kochi
shiru] ob. [jule-(*s)-mand] costume](10) a. [bo-stand]-s-kvarter]tabe-naka-tta.

soup]ACC eat- NEG-PAST

live-place-LINK-area‘I ate mock badger soup in Ibaragi, but‘residential area’b. [bo-(*s)-stand]-s-kvarter]

didn’t eat in Kochi’.

In this section the author has argued(6) a. [[booeki (*no) gaisha] shachoo]trading (*GEN) company president

recursive compounds in English, Japanese andb. *Kobe de wa [[booeki gaisha] shachoo]

Mainland Scandinavian are word-like in that

Kobe DAT TOP trading company pres.

they obey Lexical Integrity, but they arenisyntactic in that they are productive anda-ttaga, Osaka dewa

DAT meet-PAST but, Osaka DAT TOP

pronounced as two words. The next section will[[booeki gaisha]shachoo] ni awa-na-

review Bauke’s analysis of compounding andtrading company pres. DAT meet-NEG

criticize the analysis in Phase Theory (Chomsky

katta.

2001, 2008).

PAST‘I met a trading company president in

3. BAUKE’S ANALYSIS

Kochi but I did not in Osaka’.

In this section, I will review and criticize

The functional category, genitive case marker

Bauke’s analysis of compounds.

cannot intrude the examples or it is impossible

Baukearguesthatcompoundword

formation can be derived using the Phase Theory

to delete its part.

(Choomsky

The following examples (7-10) are what2001,

2008),

Tokizaki (2011) calls recursive compounds, andfollowing examples in German.

they share the same characteristics of the above(11) a. Landkarte

312

analyzingthecountry+map(13) a.

‘map’Stem[genitive](11) b. Landsmann||country+GEN+man‘compatriot’ or ‘man who loves theLands
First, a stem is merged with a categorizing

countryside’ or ‘man who advocates for thenominal head (cf. Marantz 2007) that carries

conservation of the countryside’ etc.

inflectional features.

(11) c. Landeskircheb. 

country+GEN+church‘national church’ or ‘church that isstem

associated with the country’ or ‘church thatshows country’s typical architecture’ etc.

Landstem|(11) d. Lӓnderspiel|ACP
[genitive]|mann

country+PL+matchs‘match between two national teams’ orThis structure is inserted into the Abstract‘game that involves knowledge about certain

Clitic Position of the compound head (Keyser &countries’ or ‘game that is typically played in

Roeper 1992).

certain countries’ etc.
c.

As can be seen in the translations, theexample (a) is non-compositional while theforms in (b) - (d) allow for a compositionalStem [genitive]
|
|
Land
s

interpretation. So (a) is lexical compound while(b) – (d) are syntactic compounds.
(12)

Stem

Stem

|

|

Land

karte

instance of merge constitutes a phase, set-merge(Chomsky 2000) of a head and non-maximal
projection below the word-level is the same asmerge operation. (12) is the structure for lexical

above the word-level. Also, Bauke argues thatcompounds, such as the example (11a). Lexical

there is a phase at which the non-head (the firstcompounds are derived with merging two

inflected stem and lexical kind of functional

uninflected stems in the lexicon and as a result,category) is transferred to the interpretational

the meaning is fixed and potentially drifted.
us

ACP

t


The structure [Land+head] in the Abstract
Clitic Position is moved.
Following Boeckx (2008) that every second

In her analysis Bauke uses Chomsky’s

Let

stem
|
mann

know

show

how

component

syntactic

andisspelled-out.

Theinterpretational features [plural] or [lexicalcompounds are derived in her analysis.

genitive case] are computed. As a result, thecompositional

interpretation

compound is captured.

313

of

the

whole

Bauke does not have an analysis for

However, this theory has some serious

recursive compounds, but she assumes the

problems. First, the operation movement in the

Abstract Clitic Position, so follows Roeper,

Minimalist Program should be caused by feature

Snyder and Hiramatsu’s (2002) analysis.

checking requirements involving a functional
category. However, in this theory, there is no(14) a.

feature to be checked or a functional category
involved in the derivation of compounding. Nor

Stem ACP|

does the noun which originates in the Abstract|butterpeanut

Clitic Position have any semantic or syntactic b.

features which should be checked by anothernoun in the course of the derivation.

Stemi The second problem is related to the first| Stem ACP
peanut ||one. The moved noun is merged twice with thebuttersame head noun. For instance, in the derivationti(14), the noun, peanut is merged with sandwich.
In their analysis, we first create the compound

Although Roeper et al or Bauke do not discuss

peanut butter.

headedness the idea clearly is that sandwich isc.

the head of the whole compound. The N peanutbutter is merged again with the same head,
Stem

sandwich. As a result, their analysis certainly
does not adhere to the Minimalist theory ofACP|

phrase structure rules.

sandwich Stem|Stem peanutIn summary this section has reviewed and

ACP

|

|

criticized Bauke’s analysis of compounding in

buttertPhase Theory. Her analysis is applicable forrecursive compounds. However, it has been

Then the result is inserted into the ACP position

discussed that her analysis does not adhere toof the N sandwich, to obtain the meaning of

Minimalist theory of phrase structure rules.

'peanut butter sandwich', or ‘sandwich of the
4. NEW ANALYSIS OF COMPOUNDING

kind associated with peanut butter’.

As word formation is also recursive like phrased.


Stem

|Stem
Peanut|formation, in this paper, it is assumed that it
takes place in the narrow syntax. Following


Stem

ACP

Marantz (2007), lexical or syntactic compounds

ACP |sandwichare assumed to be formed in the narrow syntax.
In addition, following Marantz (2007), (at leasttsome) words also seem to be units ofbutterindependent sound and meaning, suggesting thatwords, too, may be phases (Marantz 2007).

Then the compound in the ACP is moved.

Phase is spelled out when all uninterpretable

314

The categorizing head is merged as infeatures on its head are checked.
Let us see how a compound is derived first.

recursive compounds, there is a slight pauseFirst, a category-less root is merged with abetween the second (e.g. butter) and third

categorizing head (Zhang 2007, Marantz 2007),

constituents (e.g. sandwich). Here, Tokizaki

thus turning the root in the category, n. The(2011) argues that there is a head. However, as itproposal that roots have no category is widely

is not possible to have two heads in a word, i.e.

accepted in Minimalist Program.

recursive compound, here, I will argue that a(15) a.

linking morpheme (LE), which is phonetically

Root
n

there in Mainland Scandinavian, but not in||

butterѫJapanese or English, is merged to check thecategorical feature on the n.
(15) c.

After a category-less root is merged with annominal head, another root is merged to form a
Root 
|Root
peanut |buttertwo-member compound word.
(15) b.

Root
|


Root

n

peanut||butterѫna category-less root with a syntactic head. Also,
assuming that there is no categorizing head
the fact that this constituent does not have any
word class feature and in many cases of

n



|

Root

|

| sandwich ѫ
n

s

|

|

butter

ѫ

The resulting structure can be merged withcompounds in general, it is not possible to haveanother (root +n), which is constructed ininflected forms or a D feature as the non-head ofparallel. The derivation, as a result, does obey

a compound.
toRoot|

Root
peanutmerged with the ‘first’ root (peanut) can capture

transferredLE
|alternative compositional interpretation, merging

isn


interpretation of the whole compound allows forresultLE
|
|n s|ѫ(15) d.

The roots are not merged immediately, as theTheminimalist phrase structure rules, as every new

theelement is merged with the top node of the treeinterpretational component and is spelled-out.

in the new analysis and no element is merged

The word is interpreted semantically andtwice with the same element, unlike in Bauke’s

phonologically. Here, the effect of the Lexical

analysis. As a result, the 'final' categorizing

Integrity condition is explained. It is notnominal head is the head of the wholenecessary to move any constituent, as movement

compound word.

is Last Resort.

315

5. CONCLUSION

It is necessary to discuss how syntactic
compounds in German, (11b) – (11d) are derived

The main aim of this paper has been to propose

in the new analysis.

unified structures for recursive compound words
in Japanese, English and Mainland Scandinavian

The structure (16) is for (11b) with genitive

within the Phase Theory.

case feature.

In Section 2 it was found that recursive(16)

compounds obey the Lexical Integrity, whilenthey are phrase-like in that they are productive

Root
n LE
[genitive]Root
|
| |
|
|
Land
ѫ ѫ
s
mann

and recursive and pronounced as two words.
Based

on

the

observationsofrecursive

compounds I analyzed recursive compoundsn|ѫusing Bauke’s analysis of compounding andcriticized that her analysis does not adhere tominimalist phrase structure rules.
In my theory I argued that there is no

As it is impossible to have two heads in one

movement in the structure, and that there is a

structure, a linking morpheme is merged andprojection of a linking morpheme between

checks the nominal feature and transferred tocompound words in the language which has

interpretational component and spelled out. The

recursivecategory spelled out as –s is a complex

morpheme is there, because otherwise themorpheme, a LINK with a genitive feature. If it

compound will have two heads, nominal featuredoes not have any unvalued feature, it will not

being unsaturated on both members of the whole

percolate, so the tree [Land+n] can merge withcompound.

compoundwords.

The

linking

the n-headed tree [mann+n]. Similarly, (11c) has

However, a question immediately arising is

the same structure and (11d), too, but with awhy not all languages seem to be subsumed

different feature [Plural], instead of [genitive].

under

Thus, my analysis can easily explain structures

compound word formation. For example, why

for two-member compounds. In all these casesarethe head of the whole compound is the ‘final’ n.

Germanic languages, Asian languages but not in

In this section, the author has proposed a new

Romance languages? This question might beanalysis of compounding in Phase Theory

answered using the proposed theory, but not in(Chomsky 2001, 2008) based on the criticisms

the syntax but in the PF (c.f. Tokizaki 2013). 㻌

the

same

recursive

principles

compoundsforrecursiveproductive

inof Bauke’s analysis of compounding discussed
in Section 3. In the new theory it is possible toReferences

follow the minimalist phrase structure rules,

Bauke, Leah (2009) Nominal Root Compounds,
Doctoral dissertation. ms., UMass Amherst.
Bisetto, Antonietta (2010) “Recursiveness and
Italian Compounds,” SKASE Journal of
Theoretical Linguistics 7, 14-35.
Boeckx, Cedric (2008) Bare Syntax, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.

especially no unnecessary movement, unlike in
Bauke’s analysis. Also, the issue of headedness
is solved by assuming that there is a functional
element, Linking Element. Linking Element isthere for Economy reason.

316

Chomsky, Noam (1965) Aspects of the Theory ofSyntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:
the Framework,” Step by Step. Essays on
Minimalist Syntax in Honour of HowardLasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David
Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 1- 59, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Beyond Explanatory
Adequacy,” MIT Occasional Papers in
Linguistics 20, 1-28, MITWPL, Cambridge,
MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,”
Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory.
Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,
ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos Peregrín
Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133166, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Corballis, Michael, C (2012) The Recursive
Mind: The Origins of Human Language,
Thought, and Civilization, Princeton
University Press, Princeton.
Hauser, Marc D. Chomsky, Noam andTecumsech Fitch (2002) “The Faculty of
Language: What is it, Who has it, and How
did it Evolve?” Science 98, 1569-1579.
Keyser, Samuel J. and Thomas Roeper (1992)“Re: The Abstract Clitic Hypothesis,”
Linguistic Inquiry 23, 89-125.
Mukai, Makiko (2006) A Comparative Study ofCompound Words in English, Japanese andMainlandScandinavian,Doctoral
Dissertation. ms., University of Newcastle.
Mukai, Makiko (2008) “Recursive Compounds,”
Word Structure 1 (2), 178- 198.
Mukai, Makiko (2013) “Recursive Compounds
and Linking Morpheme,” International
Journal of English Linguistics 3 (4), 36-49.
Ralli, Angela (2013) “Compounds and its Locus
of Realization: Evidence from Greek andTurkish,” Word Structure 6 (2), 181-200.
Roeper, Thomas, Snyder William and Kazuko
Hiramatsu (2002) “Learnability in a
Minimalist Framework: Root Compounds,
Merger, and the Syntax-Morphology
Interface,” The Process of Language
Acquisition, ed. by Ingeborg Lasser, 25- 37,
Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt.
Tokizaki, Hisao (2011) “The Nature of Linear
Information in the Morphosyntax-PF
Interface,” English Linguistics 28 (2), 227257.
Zhang, Niina N (2007) “Root Merger in ChineseCompounds,” Studia LinguisticD 61 (2),317

170- 184.

has the following two steps: the fragment
undergoes A’-movement to the left peripheryand the TP which contains the trace of the
Voice Alternation in Japanese Sentence

fragment is deleted. This derivational process

Fragments*

ensures that deletion in fragments is constituent
deletion. Since fragments are inherently foci,Kento Nagatsugu

the landing site of the fragment should be

Kyushu University

SpecFocP (Merchant (2004) and Nishigauchi(2006)).

Key words: deletion, sentence fragments, voice(3) [Foc [pizza]i [TP I ate ti for lunch]alternation, information structure
However, if we appeal to the intuition that1.

INTRODUCTION

fragments are simpler than sentences, theyIn this brief paper, we argue that voice

should not have invisible sentential structures

alternation is possible in sentence fragments or(Culicover and Jackendoff (2005) and Casielles

fragments, a kind of elliptical expression(2006)). Accordingly, the fragment (1B) is

exemplified in (1B) and (2B), contrary to what

represented just as an NP, as in (4).

Merchant (2013) claims, providing examples
from Japanese for support.
(1) A: What did you eat for lunch?
B: Pizza.
(2) A: Has Harriet been drinking scotch(4) [NP Pizza]
That is, fragments are directly generated as what
they are (Yanofky (1978), Culicover andJackendoff (2005) and Progovac (2006)). We
call this view as the Direct Generation Analysis.

again?
B: No, bourbon.

The goal of this paper is to support the Direct
Generation Analysis, showing that fragments(Culicover and Jackendoff (2005))

allow voice alternation. Merchant (2013), based

Fragments have full-sentential interpretations,on the Deletion Analysis, argues that voicedespite their non-sentential surface forms: inalternation in fragments is impossible and(1B), “I ate pizza for lunch.” and in (2B),

argues that this fact suggests that TP-deletion is“Harriet’s been drinking bourbon.”involved in fragments. Nevertheless I insist thatIn the standard view, fragments are derived

the restriction on voice alternation in fragmentsfrom full-fledged sentences ((Morgan (1973),

is due to violation of an information-structural

Merchant (2004) and Nishigauchi (2006)). For

condition originally proposed for VP-Ellipsis

example, (1B) is derived from “I ate pizza forby Kertz (2013), and demonstrate that voicelunch.”, by deleting the whole structure except

alternation is in fact allowed in Japanesethe NP “pizza.” We call this view as thefragments, when that condition is not violated.

Deletion Analysis here. The latest version of theDeletion Analysis is proposed by Merchant(2004), which is illustrated in (3). In thisanalysis, the derivational process of a fragment

318

2.

VOICE ALTERNATION IN ELLIPSISWhen an XP above VoiceP is deleted, a high

2.1

DELETION ANALYSIS

ellipsis occurs and a voice mismatch is

Merchant (2013) proposes a generalization on

disallowed. When a YP below VoiceP is deleted,the distribution of voice mismatch in ellipticalon the other hand, a low ellipsis occurs and aconstructions: “low” ellipsis, that is, VP-ellipsis,

voice mismatch is allowed. This is schematizedallows voice alternation, while “high” ellipses,in (10).

ellipticalconstructions

with

TP-deletion,(10)

namely sluicing, gapping and fragments, do not
allow

voice

alternation.

Excerpts

XP ⇒ φ: voice mismatch disallowedfromMerchant (2013) are shown in (5) to (8).
VP-Ellipsis

VoiceP(5) a. The janitor must remove the trashwhenever it is apparent that it should

Voicebe. <removed>b. The system can be used by anyone
who wants to. <use it>in (9) is illustrated in (11). The constituents
subject to the deletion identity are shaded.
(11) A: [CP Whoi [TP is [Voice Voice[Active](6) a. *Someone murdered Joe, but we[vP ti v [VP sending you to Iraq]]]]]?

don’t know who by.

B: [CP [PP By Bushi] [TP Ij am

b. *Joe was murdered, but we don’tknow who.
Gappingb.

⇒ φ: voice mismatch allowed

How this analysis is applied to the fragment

Sluicing(7) a.

YP[Voice Voice[Passive] [vP ti [VP sent tj]]]]]The deletion of the TP in (11B) is illegitimate,since different voice features are contained in*Some bring roses and lilies by

the deleted part and its counterpart in theothers.

antecedent sentence.

*Lilies are brought by some andothers roses.

2.2

Fragment(8) A: Who is sending you to Iraq?
B: *By Bush.

INFORMATION STRUCTURE
ANALYSIS

The uneven distribution of voice mismatches in
ellipses, which we have seen above, can be

In (5) to (7), the (a) examples involve active-to

explained in terms of information structure.

passive alternation, while the (b) examples

First of all, it should be noted that voice

involve passive-to-active alternation. In (8),alternation in VP-ellipsis is not always allowed.

only an example of active-to-passive alternation

See the examples in (12). The voice mismatchis shown. The reason for this is explained later.

in (12a) is unacceptable, while that in (12b) is

Assuming that VoiceP is projected above vP

well-formed.

as in (9), Merchant argues that high ellipses(12) a. *This problem was looked into byincludes Voice(P), while low ellipsis does not.

John, and Bob did too. [look into

(9)

[CP C [TP T [VoiceP Voice [vP v …]]]]

the problem]319

b. This problem was looked into by(14) Constraint

John, even though Bob already had

Relations:(*too). [looked into the problem]

A contrastive topic relation is well

(Kehler (2000))

formed if members of the topic set areThis fact cannot be predicted by MerchantonContrastiveTopic

sentence topics.

(2013).

(Kertz (2013))

In terms of discourse coherence, Kehler

With (14), the contrast in (12) can be accounted(2004) generalizes that voice alternation isfor. In the target clause of (12a), (14) is violated

disallowed when the target clause and its

because the focus falls on the subject, that is, theantecedent clause has a resemblance relation,

topic of this clause. In the target clause of (12b),

while it is allowed when other coherence

on the other hand, the auxiliary “had”, which

established.1

acannot be a topic, is the focus. Thus, noresemblance relation is established between thecontrastive topic relation is involved in this case.

first and second clauses, which causes the voice

This is illustrated in (15).

relationsareIn(12a),

mismatch to be disallowed. In (12b), on the
other

hand,

no resemblance(15) a. *[This problem]Top was looked into

relation is

by John, and [Bob]TF did too.

constructed and the voice mismatch is allowed.

b.

[This problem]Top was looked(12b) becomes unacceptable if an expression

into by John, even though Bob

signaling a resemblance relation, such as “too”,

already [had]F.

is added to it, as indicated in the example.

(Top = topic, F = focus, TF = topic focus)

Kehler’s analysis is empirically challenged,

The unacceptability of (13a) is also attributed to

however. See the pair of examples in (13).

(14). Although (13a) involves no resemblance

Although (13a) does not involve a resemblance

relation, an infelicitous contrastive topic

relation, it disallows voice alternation, just as inrelation is established here, just as in (13b). This(13b), which obviously involves a resemblanceis illustrated in (16).

relation(16) a. *[The problem]Top was looked into(13) a. *The problem was looked into by

by Kim even though [Lee]TF did.

Kim even though Lee did.

b. *[The problem]Top was looked intob. *The problem was looked into by

by Kim just like [Lee]TF did.

Kim just like Lee did.
For such problems, Kertz (2013) proposes an

To sum up, the patterns of voice alternation in
VP-ellipsis is predicted by (14).

alternative, reinterpreting resemblance relationas parallelism in information structure, that is,

2.3

EXTENSION TO OTHER ELLIPSES

contrastive topic relations. She introduces the

The information-structural analysis of Kertz

constraint in (14).

(2013) can be extended to other ellipticalconstructions. First, we consider gapping.
Kehler (2000) argues that gapping is felicitous
only in a resemblance relation. Accordingly, his
coherence analysis predicts gapping to disallow

320

voice mismatch. As in the case of VP-ellipsis,“who” should be the topic of the sluicing

the information-structural analysis of Kertz

sentence.2 This is illustrated in (19).

(2013) can take the place of Kehler’s. As shown(19) a. *[Someone]T murdered Joe, but

in (17), a contrastive topic relation is

we don’t know [who]TF by.

constructed between the subjects in a gappingb. *[Joe]T was murdered, but weclause and its target clause.
(17) a. *[Some]T

bring

don’t know [who]TF.
[roses]F

and[lilies]TF [by others]F.

Even if (18) is applied to (5) and (12a), in
which VP-ellipsis with voice alternation isb. *[Lilies]T are brought [by some]Fand [others]TF [roses]F.

allowed, the results do not change. In thesecases, auxiliaries are obligatorily focused and,Given that a subject is the topic of the sentence

therefore, should be regarded as remnants.

it belongs to, the first remnant in a gapping

Since auxiliaries cannot be topics, (18) is

structure is a topic focus, being subject to theirrelevant or has no effect in them.

information-structural constraint (14) above.

Nevertheless one may doubt that the

The present analysis is also extended toremnant WH-phrase in a sluicing clause is thesluicing. The sluicing examples in (6) are

topic of this clause, because it seems strange

repeated below.

that the topic appears without any comment. In(6) a. *Someone murdered Joe, but wedon’t know who by.

(19b), the sluicing clause only has a topic, whilenothing about the topic is presented. We canb. *Joe was murdered, but we don’tknow who.

assume,however,

that

topic-comment

structures need not to be fully expressed.

In (6b), the infelicity of the voice mismatch isCompare the second sentence of (6b) “we don’t

simply attributed to (14), because the remnant

know who” to its full-sentential counterpart

WH-phrase “who” is the subject of the“We don’t know who murdered him.” Since

embedded clause. In (6a), however, it appears

they are equivalent in meaning except thatthat the voice mismatch is not subject to (14),“murdered him” is presupposed in the former,

because the WH-phrase in the embedded clausethey must have the same topic-comment

is not a subject.

structure. Hence, the WH-phrase “who” should

A solution for this problem is to assume thatbe a topic even in the former. The absent

a fragment should be a topic if its correspondentcomment, “murdered him”, is recovered fromis a topic. We propose (18).

the discourse. The same explanation can be(18) Information-Structural

IdentityinEllipsis:made for (6a). Therefore, a remnant in an
ellipsis can be interpreted as a topic.

A remnant in an elliptical construction
and its correspondent should have the3.

same topic-comment structure.

VOICE ALTERNATION IN
FRAGMENTS

Since in (6a) the correspondent “someone” isReturning to fragments, Merchant (2013)

the subject of the antecedent clause, the remnant

assertsthatfragments

disallow

voice

mismatches, but he notes that English cannot

321

show the entire paradigm. As we have seen
above,

active-to-passivealternation

Now, the question is whether fragments stillinresist voice mismatch even if violation of thefragments is evidently impossible. Example (8),constraint in (14) is avoided. To examine this,

supporting this claims, is repeated below.

we should consider cases in which no(8) A: Who is sending you to Iraq?

contrastive focus relation is constructed. Short

B: *By Bush.

answers to WH-questions, such as (8), are not

Passive-to-active

alternationinappears

possible,

based

to

be

fragmentsontheacceptability of (20).

use of the other kind of fragment, which
Merchant (2004) calls “stripping”, such as (2),(20) A: Who were you sent by?
B: Marcus.

appropriate for this purpose. We have to makewhich is repeated below.

(Merchant 2013)(2) A: Has Harriet been drinking scotch

According to Merchant, however, we cannot

again?

exclude the possibility that the fragment answer

B: No, bourbon.

(20B) is derived from a passive structure, as

In a typical stripping case, the fragment

illustrated in (21), because of the poor casecorresponds to the focus of the antecedentmorphology and the availability of preposition

sentence (in (2), “scotch”). Hence, voicestranding in English.

mismatches in stripping-type fragments should(21) [Marcusi [I was sent by ti]]be infelicitous, as in (22).
(22) A: Obama sent you to Iraq.

Whether we assume the Deletion Analysis or

B: *No, by Bush.

not, the possibility that (20B) corresponds to a

What we need is cases where correspondents

passive sentence is not ignorable, because

are implicit in antecedent sentences. In suchpreposition dropping in fragments is generallycases, voice mismatches should not violate theaccepted in English (Merchant (2004)).

constraint in (14), since (18) does not apply

The infelicity of the voice mismatch in (8)when there is no correspondence relation.

can be accounted for in the present information-

Unfortunately, it is difficult to test thisstructural analysis, exactly as in (6a). (8)prediction in English, where implicit arguments

violates (14), the constraint on contrastive topic

are very restricted. The type of cases required

relations, if (18) is applied to it. The fragment

should be found in Japanese, where fragments“By Bush” in (8B) corresponds to “who” incan be felicitous even when there is no(8A), which is the subject of the antecedentcorrespondent in antecedent sentences, as insentence. Therefore, the fragment is regarded as(23) and (24).3

the topic of (8B), although it is not a subject.

(23) (Waiting for several persons to come)

Based on what we have discussed about topic-

A: Ki-ta?

comment structures in sluicing above, it is notcome-Pst

illegitimate for the fragment to be a topic, but‘Did someone come?’

the active-to-passive alternation here violates

B: Un, Taro-wa.

(14).

yes Taro-Top‘Yeah, just Taro.’

322

(24) A: Taro-wa hur-rare-ta-no?

(27) A: Omae, dareka-ni

Taro-Top dump-Pass-Pst-Compyou‘Was Taro dumped?’kansi-s-are-tei-ru-zo.

B: Un, Hanako-ni.

someone-Dat

watch-Do-Pass-Asp-Prs-Part

yes Hanako-Dat‘You are being watched by someone.’
B: ?(?)CIA-ga?

‘Yeah, by Hanako.’
Given (14), voice alternation should be allowed

CIA-Nomin such cases.

‘The CIA?’This prediction is born out, as demonstrated(28) A: Taro i-tte-ta-yo,by (25) and (26).

Taro say-Asp-Pst-Part,(25) A: Omae, kansi-s-are-tei-ru-zo.
youkimi-ni-wa

watch-Do-Pass-Asp-Prs-

you-Dat-Top often run-Pass-Prs-C

Part‘Taro said you often escape.’
B: ??Boku-ga?

‘You are being watched.’
B: (Masaka), CIA-ga?
Surelyyoku nige-rare-ru-tte.

I-Nom

CIA-Nom‘Me?’‘The CIA?’

Even in correspondent-absent fragments,(‘Is the CIA watching me?’)active-to-passive alternation is disallowed.

(26) (A talks to B about what he heard about

Examples (29) and (30) are completely

B from B’s friend, Taro.)

unacceptable.

A: Taro i-tte-ta-yo,(29) A: Omae-o kansi-si -tei-ru-zo.

Taro say-Asp-Pst-Part,

you-Acc watch-Do-Asp-Prs-Partyoku nige-rare-ru-tte.

B: *Masaka,CIA-ni?

often escape-Pas-Prs-Comp

Surely CIA-Dat‘Taro said you often escape.’‘The CIA?’

B: Boku-ga?

(30) A: Taroi-tte-ta-yo,

I-Nom

Taro

say-Asp-Pst-Part,

‘Me?’

yoku

nige -ru-tte.

(‘I often escape?’)often

escape-Prst-Comp

These fragments are not so good for some‘Taro said you often escape.’

speakers but, even if degraded, they are not

B: *Boku-ni?

sufficiently bad to be considered ungrammatical.

I-Dat

As expected, if the correspondents are explicit‘Me?’in (25) and (26), voice mismatches are

Therefore, only passive-to-active alternation in

infelicitous, as in (27) and (28).

fragments is possible both in English andJapanese. I conjecture that this is because
fragments have no voice marker even with apassive interpretation, unlike VP-ellipsis. Given
that active is the unmarked category of voice,323

fragments can be active without indication

Barton,(after all, there is no active marker in Japanese,

Amsterdam.

as in many other languages).

117-146,

John

Benjamins,

Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff (2005)
Simpler Syntax, Oxford University Press,

4.

Oxford.

CONCLUSION

We have seen that voice alternation in sentence

Merchant, Jason (2004) “Fragments andfragments are basically allowed, contrary to

Ellipsis,” Linguistics and Philosophy 27,

Merchant (2013). This fact disproves the661-738.

Deletion Analysis and supports the Direct

Merchant, Jason (2013) “Voice and Ellipsis,” LI

Generation Analysis.

44, 77-108.
Morgan, Jerry L. (1973) “Sentence Fragments

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

and the Notion ‘Sentence,’” Issues in* An earlier version of this paper was presented

Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry andat the ELSJ seventh International Spring Forum

Renée Kahane, ed.by Braj B. Kachru, Robertheld at Doshisha University on April 19, 2014.

B.

I would like to thank the audience at the forum

Pietrangeli and Sol Saporta Urbana, 719-751,

for useful comments. All errors are my own.

University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.

Lees,

Yakov

Malkiel,Angelina

Nishigauchi, Taisuke (2006) “Short Answers as
NOTES
1Kehler’s definition of resemblance coherenceis cited below.
“[C]ommonalities and contrasts amongcorresponding sets of parallel properties andentities [should] be recognized using
comparison and generalization operations.”(Kehler (2000: 542))
2 There is another possible explanation: it isillegitimate that the WH-phrase, “Who by”,
functions as the topic of the sluicing sentence
while it is not the subject of this clause.
3 The abbreviations used in this paper are

Focus,” TALKS 9, 73-94.
Progovac, Ljiljiana (2006) “The Syntax ofNonsententials: Small Clauses and Phrases at
the Root,” The Syntax of Nonsententials, ed.
by Ljiljana Progovac, Kate Paesani, Eugenia
Casielles and Ellen Barton, 33-72, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Yanofsky, Nancy M. (1978) “NP Utterances,”
CLS 14, 491-502.

as follows: acc = accusative; asp = aspect;comp = complementizer; dat = dative; nom= nominative; part = particle; pass =passive; prs = present; pst = past; top =topic.

REFERENCES
Casielles, Eugenia (2006) “Big Questions,
Small

Answers,”

The

SyntaxofNonsententials, ed. by Ljiljana Progovac,
Kate Paesani, Eugenia Casielles and Ellen324

grammatical patterns with the verb feel.
This paper proposes that the subject
ellipsis often occurs in the grammatical
patterns with the verb feel that are highly
The Relationship between Subjective

subjective (e.g. It feels + adjective or It feels

Ellipsis and Grammatical Patterns*

like…)

wheretheexperiencer

and

the

conceptualizer are assimilated with each otherKayoko Shibata(Langacker (1990)). With regard to the

Kyoto Prefectural University

definition of “subjectification”, Langacker(1991:

215)

suggestsasfollows;

Keywords: subject ellipsis, grammatical“subjectification (discussed more fully inpatterns, subjectification, the verb feel

Langacker 1990b) is a semantic shift or
extension in which an entity originallyconstrued objectively comes to receive a more
subjective construal”.

1. INTRODUCTION
English is generally regarded as a language
which needs the grammatical subject, however,

2. PREVIOUS STUDIES

the subject ellipsis sometimes occurs with

In previous studies, factors that cause theperception verbs in a certain context (Carteroccurrence of the subject ellipsis have been

and McCarthy (2006)) as in (1).

approached based on the pragmatic perspective.
For example, Carter and McCarthy (1995)
indicate the following factors that cause the(1) a. Feels good to have them on again.
b. Feels fifty thousand dead soul screaming.

subject ellipsis such as the immediate context,(COHA)

the situational context and speech style (e.g. aconversation with the family members or closefriends, an informal conversation).

The aim of this study is to demonstrate
the relationship between the subject ellipsis

Thomas (1979) quotes “law of leastand grammatical patterns focusing on the verb

effort” (Martinet (1964)) originally suggested

feel from the semantic point of view.

by Zipf (1949: 20), that is, “people make an

To be more precise, Case study 1

effort to minimize the labor consumption wheninvestigates the change of frequently occurring

they solve the immediate problems they face”.

patterns with the verb feel in early 1800s andMackenzie (1998) cites Grice’s “maxim of

2000s using COHA (Corpus of Historicalquantity” (1975: 45), that is to say, “do not

American English). ¹

By doing so, it ismake your contribution more informative thanpossible to observe the change of patterns withis required”. Moreover, it is also reported thatthe verb feel chronologically and to utilize its

the subject ellipsis occurs in the patterns

data when analyzing the subject ellipsis in Case

co-occurring with the subject “it” according tostudy 2.

the retrieval of omitted subjects (Nariyama

Case study 2 investigates the relationshipbetweenthesubject

ellipsisand(2004)).

the325

3. PROBLEMS

the early 1800s and 2000s by observing the

When we try to solve the problems only on thefrequently occurring patterns with the verb feelbasis of the pragmatic perspective, we cannot

using COHA. Besides, Case study 1 hassolve the following problems.

another role of a prior procedure for Case study

First, it is difficult to explain about the

2 (i.e. the relationship between the subject

where

occursellipsis and the grammatical patterns). As adepending on verbs. For example, it is said that

result of the investigation, the following“the subject ellipsis sometimes occurs with thegrammatical patterns of the verb feel aremental process verbs such as think, hope, guess

observed.

case

the

subject

ellipsisetc.” (Carter and McCarthy (2006: 183)).
Nevertheless, the reason why such a case

Table 1. Feel patterns

happens is rarely discussed, or an explanation

Feel Patterns

is not pervasive enough even if it is offered.

Examples1 A feels noun

He feels its hot impress.

2 A feels adj.

She feels good.

the subject ellipsis occurs in the patterns

3 A feels adj. phr.

She feels prepared toco-occurring with the subject “it” from any

4 A feels like…

She feels like a solemn

Second, researchers fail to explain why

perspectives even though it is suggested that

duty.

such cases are frequently observed (Nariyama(2004);

Carterand

McCarthy

5 A feels as if…

(2006)).

He feels as if he is aking.

Considering these facts, this paper proposes

6 It (that, etc.) It feels good.

that the semantic factors, as well as thefeels adj.

pragmatic factors, play an important role in the

7 It (that, etc.) It feels like an hour.

case of the subject ellipsis.

feels like…

Focusingonthesecondproblem

8 It feels as if…

mentioned above, this research investigates (1)It feels as if they are
dabbling.

whether the subject ellipsis has a relationship

9 It feels adj. towith the grammatical patterns, (2) whether theIt feels good to behome.

subject ellipsis tends to occur more in the

10 Others

patterns with the inanimate subject including

Prepositional phrases

A = animate, adj. = adjective, phr. = phrase“it” than in those with animate ones.
Furthermore, this research analyzes what

In Tables 1 and 2 concerning the grammaticalcognitive process occurs in the patterns where

patterns, animate entities are positioned in thethe subject ellipsis occurs. In other words, it

subject slot in the patterns from 1 to 5, while

examines whether the subject ellipsis tends toinanimate ones are from 6 to 9. Afteroccur in the highly subjective patterns.

investigating the change of patterns with theverb feel from 1820s to 1850s and 2000s, its

4. CASE STUDIES

data is shown in Table 2 and Figure 1

4.1. CASE STUDY 1 - DATA

respectively. In Table 2, the upper tier of the

The purpose of Case study 1 is to investigate

figures shows the frequency of the patterns in

how the patterns with the verb feel change in326

each era and the bracketed figures are35

converted and shown per million for a common

30

denominator. To put it simply, a frequency per

25

million means that how often a pattern appears

20

in a million words in each era. Figure 1 is

15

shown by the frequency per million. That way,10
frequency

it is possible to compare with figures from theother era even if the total number of frequency

5

occurred is different.

0

Table 2. A change of frequently occurring

Figure 1. A change of frequently occurring

patterns with feel through the era (COHA)

patterns with feel per million (COHA)

era
1820s 1830s 1840s 1850s 2000s

1820s

1830s

1840s

1850s

2000s

181

340

209

398

338

4.2. CASE STUDY 1 - DISCUSSION

noun(26.06)(24.48)(29.67)(23.88)(20.08)What is remarkable in 2000s is that the patterns

2 A feels adj.

12

42

31

69

165

are diversified as a whole. Comparing the(1.72)(3.02)(4.40)(4.14)(9.80)

patterns used in the early 1800s with those in

3 A feels adj.

19

27

14

36

33

2000s, we can observe a tendency that thephr.

(2.73)(1.94)(1.98)(2.16)(1.96)

frequency of SVC patterns (patterns No. 2 to 9

4 A feels like

2

1

4

9

48

in Table 2) has greatly increased compared(0.28)(0.07)(0.56)

0.54)(2.85)

with that of SVO patterns (a pattern No. 1 in

3

7

3

5

16

Table 2). In other words, in the verb feel

(0.42)(0.50)(0.42)(0.3)(0.95)

patterns, SVO pattern such as “A feels noun”

6

10

11

6

222

(e.g. He feels its hot impress.) is mainly usedetc.) feels adj.

(0.86)(0.72)(1.56)(0.36)(13.19)during 1820s and 1850s. In contrast, SVC

7

1

1

2

2

132

patterns (e.g. He feels good, It feels like…) areetc.) feels like

(0.14)(0.07)(0.26)(0.12)(7.84)

frequently used in 2000s. Furthermore, it is

8 It feels as if

2

1

0

2

16

also found that the patterns co-occurring with

(0.28)(0.07)(0)(0.12)(0.95)

the subject “it”, “that” or any inanimate

9 It feels adj.

0

0

1

1

20

entities are increasing, especially “It (that, etc.)

to

(0)

(0)

(0.14)(0.06)(1.18)

feels adj” or “It (that, etc.) feels like” patterns.

10 Others

0

3

3

4

10

(0)

(0.21)(0.42)(0.24)(.0.59)

226

432

278

532

1000

(32.53)(31.10)(39.4)(31.92)(59.39)

1

A

feels

5 A feels as if

6

It

It

TOTAL

(that,(that,In addition, the data shows that longer ormore complicated sentences such as “It feels asif…” or “It feels adjective to” are notremarkably increasing. It is assumed that
concise and shorter sentences tend to be used
lately. Considering the change of patterns as awhole, it is inferred that the verb feel patterns
seems to be subjectified in course of time.²

327

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

4.3. CASE STUDY 2 – DATA
Case study 2 investigates as to whether there isa correlation between the grammatical patterns
with the verb feel and the subject ellipsis. Thiscase study is based on the result of Case study
1. As for Table 3 and Figure 2, the frequency isfrequency

calculated and shown by using the same
method done in Case study 1. Concerning themethod of retrieving the omitted subject, it isera

1820s 1830s 1840s 1850s 2000s

conducted by judging from the immediate

Figure 2. A change of frequently occurring

context and the situational context.

patterns with feel and the subject ellipsis per
million (COHA)

Table 3. A change of frequently occurring
patterns with feel and the subject ellipsis

4.4. CASE STUDY 2 – DISCUSSION(COHA)The data suggests that the subject ellipsis

1 A feels noun

2 A feels adj.

1820s

1830s

1840s

1850s

2000s

mainly occurs in “A feels noun” pattern from

3

11

1

6

3

1820s to 1850s, while it occurs in “It (that,(0.42)(0.79)(0.14)(0.36)(0.17)etc.) feels adj.” and “It (that, etc.) feels like”

0

0

0

2

0

patterns in 2000s. There are two possible
reasons for explaining about the increase of the(0.12)
3 A feels adj.

0

0

phr.

1

0

last two patterns.

0First, it is assumed that it is simply(0.14)

4 A feels like

0

0

0

0

influenced by the higher occurrence of these0patterns. However, it is not always the case.
5 A feels as if

0

0

0

0

Looking at the data for “A feels adj.” (e.g. She

0feels good.) in 2000s in Table 3, there is no6

It(that,0000etc.) feels adj.
7

It(that,

00etc.) feels like
8 It feels as if

1

0(0.14)
0

0

0

0

7

ellipsis appeared even though it has a higher(0.37)

frequency of 9.80 per million described in the10

counterpart in Table 2. Judging from this

(0.59)

phenomenon, presumably we can say that the0

total number of the patterns occurred in Table 2
and the frequency of the subject ellipsis in

9 It feels adj.

0

0

0

0

Table 3 are not linked together.

0

Second, it might be said that the subject

to10 Others

0

0

0

0

ellipsis occurs in the highly subjective patterns.

0

To be more precise, as the date in Table 3
TOTAL

3

11

3

8

20

(0.42)(0.79)(0.42)(0.48)(1.13)

shows, the total of 17 subject ellipses (or 0.96
per million) occurs in the patterns of “It feels(that, etc.) adj.” and “It (that, etc.) feels like” in2000s.”

328

Lookingatthesepatterns,theperceptive objects are positioned in the subject(such as the time and place of speaking)”. In

slot and these patterns do not express the

Figure (3a), “the structure profiles an element

conceptualizer. Furthermore, nor do theyof the ground, thus making it the focal point

express it in the form of “to me” or “to us”. In

within the objective scene” (Langacker (1991:

that case, it is assumed that these patterns are94)). In this case, it is said that G indicatessubjective“expressions such as I, you and now”

according

to

the

idea

of

(Langacker (2002: 319)). G is objectified andsubjectification by Langakcer (1991).
The following are some of the examples

profiled on stage. Concerning the pattern withelicited from COHA. On the right side of thethe verb feel, the expression “I feel good” issentences in each example, the implicit subject

applied to Figure (3a).

is retrieved based on the immediate context andthe situational context. The conceptualizer who

(b)

(a)

(c)

is backgrounded can be retrieved not as a formof the subject but as that of “to me” or “to us”

Gbased on the context.

os

os

scope

scope

(2) Feels like I am eating for twelve. – (It)Gosscope G

feels like (to me) I am eating for twelve.

Figure 3. Increasing subjectivity of G

(3) Usually feels great while we’re doing it –(Langacker (1991: 94))

Usually (it) feels great (to us) while we are
In Figure (3b), “an expression like identified todoing it.
(4) Feels like sweat slipping beneath my breast

us or known to us and near me profiles the– (It) feels like sweat slipping beneath mygrounding relationship” (Langacker (2002:

breast (to me).

323)). Figure (b) illustrates that G is objectified(COHA)

as well as Figure (a). Hamada and Tsushima
In the examples (2) to (4) described on the left

(2012: 19) suggest that “G has a relationshipside, since the conceptualizer is not actuallywith the event and has become part of theexpressed linguistically as mentioned earlier, it

conception, which is concerned”. As for thecan be presumably said that the subjectification

example sentences in (2) to (4) on the right sideprocess occurs in those expressions. Judging

written on the left column, such as “(It) feelsfrom the fact that subject ellipsis occurs inlike (to me) I am eating for twelve”, these arethem, we might say that subject ellipsis occurs

applied to (3b) .

in the patterns which are highly subjective.

However, in fact, “to us” or “to me” areFigure 3 Increasing subjectivity of G

not expressed in the example sentences (2) to(Langacker (1991: 94)) shows the degree of(4) actually elicited from COHA. It means that

subjectification. First, let us briefly confirm

they are more highly subjectified since any

what each of the figures (a) (b) (c) illustrates.

conceptualizers are not expressed. Whether the

Langacker (2002: 318) uses the term G which

existence of the speaker is explicitly expressed

stands for “ground” “for the speech event, its

or not is one important feature as Fukada

participants, and its immediate circumstances(2001: 65) suggests. Fukada (2001: 65)329

mentions that “in order to judge the degree ofpoems should not be the subject of thissubjectification,

research. Because poems have a unique stylewhetherthespeakerisand the subject ellipsis often occurs there.

expressed or not is one yardstick for the

The same is true of “A feels noun”

subjectification”.

pattern, which is described in the subject

In Figure (3c), “both the ground and thisconstrued”

ellipsis in the other eras in Table 3. Similarly, it(Langacker (1991: 94)). G is implicit andis found that two out of three cases are poems

offstage. This type of subjectification isin 1820s and three out of six cases in 1850s

explained by the following examples.

respectively.

groundingaresubjectively

In light of these results, the following(5) The balloon rose slowly.

can be suggested. The subject ellipsis which(6) The hill gently rises from the bank of theoccurs in the duration of 1820s to 1850s, often

river.

(Langacker (1991: 218))

occurs in the poems. Even though it occurs, thefrequency is rather low.

In (5), “the trajectory” that is, the balloon“moves objectively through physical space”,

5. CONCLUSION

while in (6), the conceptualizer “moves

The Case study 1 shows that 1) the

subjectively through the scene, mentally

diversification of the patterns with the verb

tracing an upward path along the hill’s expanse”

feel is observed in recent years. 2) The patterns(Langacker (1991: 218)).

co-occurring with the subject it without

Judging from the explanations about (3b)indicating a conceptualizer, have increasedand (3c), it is presumed that “It feels good”

lately. From this perspective, it is assumed thatpattern can be categorized between (3b) andpatterns with the verb feel as a whole are(3c) process.

subjectified.

Lastly it is essential that we should focus

The Case study 2 suggests that theon the “A feels noun” pattern in 1820s to 1850s

subject ellipsis occurs in the specific patterns.

in Table 3. Among them, the frequency of theEspecially it tends to occur more in the ones

subject

remarkable

which are highly subjective such as “It (that,compared to that in the other eras. Here, it isetc.) feels adj.” or “It (that, etc.) feels like” innecessary to analyze why these phenomena

modern era.

ellipsis

in

1830s

is

occur.

This paper has analyzed the patterns with
Closely looking at the genre of the text

the verb feel based on the semantic point ofin 1830s, which is described in the subject

view. In conclusion, it is revealed that there is aellipsis

relationship between the subject ellipsis and

in

Table

3,

accordingtothecategorization in COHA, five are poems,

the grammatical patterns.

another five are novels and one is a magazineout of eleven cases. These figures show that

* I am grateful to Naoki Otani and Chie

poems dominate almost half of the total

Fukada for their helpful comments andfrequency of elven cases. Since this paper

suggestions. An earlier version of this paper

focuses on the “discourse in written English,”

was presented at the 7th International Spring330

Stanford.

Forum of the English Linguistic Society ofJapan, held at Doshisha University on April

Langacker, Ronald W. (2002) Concept, Image

19-20, 2014. All remaining errors are my own.

and Symbol, The Cognitive Basis ofGrammar, 2nd ed., Mouton de Gruyter,

NOTES

Berlin; New York.

¹ Although COHA is a historical data in

Mackenzie, John L. (1998) “The Basis of

America from 1810 to 2009, the number ofSyntax in the Holophrase,” In Michaeldata in 1810s is too small for the subject ofHannay and A. Machtelt Bolkesteininvestigation. Therefore, this research starts(eds.), Functional Grammar and Verbal

from 1820s.

Interaction.

²

The

patterns

relationshipandbetweengrammaticalsubjectification

process

Benjamins,

267-296,

Amsterdam.

isMartinet, André (1964 [trans.]) “Elements ofdiscussed later.

GeneralLinguistics,”

UniversityofChicago, (FM) 33-34, 169, Chicago.
REFERENCES

Nariyama, Shigeko (2004) “Subject Ellipsis in

Carter, Ronald and Michael McCarthy (1995)

English,” Journal of Pragmatics 36,“Grammar and the Spoken Language,”237-264.

Applied Linguistics 16 -2, 141-158.

Shibata, Kayoko (2014) “Hanashikotoba ni

Carter, Ronald and Michael McCarthy (2006)
Cambridge

Grammarof

Okeru Shouryakuhatsuwa no Saikou.

English,Shugoshouryaku to Chikakudoushi ni

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Tsuite,” KLS 34, 109-120.

Fukada, Chie (2001) “Subjectification” Towa

Thomas, Andrew L. (1979) “Ellipsis: The

Nanika : Gengo Hyogen no Imi no

Interplay of Sentence Structure andKongen o Saguru”, Gengokagakuronshu

Context,” Lingua 47, 43-68.

7, 61-89.

Zipf, G. K (1949) Human Behaviour and theGrice, Paul (1975) “Logic and Conversation,”

Principle

Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech
41-58, Academic Press, New York.
Hamada, Hideto and Yasuhiko Tsushima(2012) “Langacker no Shutaisei(Subjectification)”,to

Shutaika
CultureandW.

(1990)

Language 75, 1-49.
Langacker,

RonaldLeast

Effort,Addison-Wesley Press, Cambridge, MA.

Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan,(Subjectivity)of“Subjectification,” Cognitive Linguistics
1-1, 5-38.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1991) Foundations of
Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II, Descriptive
Application, Stanford University Press,

331(henceforth P&T) (2001, 2004).
2. The Literature and Issues
2.1 Phase Theory
As is introduced above, there are two modelsof Phase Theory. The first is the one suggested

Problems of Feature Inheritance*by Chomsky (2000, 2001), where all syntactic
Sho Shimokariya

objects have their own features from the

University of Occupational and Environmental

beginning, and the derivation proceeds in a strict

Health, Japanbottom-up fashion. For example, in (1a), themerger of T to the vP immediately brings theagreement relation of them, hence comes (1b).

Keywords: Phase Theory, Inheritance, agreement(1) a. TP
TvP[iT,uφ]1. Introduction

b.

vP

T
[iT,uφ][uCase,iφ]There have been questions of long-standingT’

DP[uCase,iφ]

v’

DP

probe

⇒

TP

v’

DP

interest to linguists, especially those who are

The other model is proposed by Chomsky

involved with Generative Grammar. The central(2007, 2008), where there exists no inherent

issues are to shed light on Universal Grammar

feature of functional heads other than that ofand to explicate Language Acquisition, and thephase heads. In this model, the phase heads are

current studies are pursuing an idea thatcounted as something like the commandant of

Universal Grammar is, in fact, rather simple.

syntactic operations, so that it is not until they

Therefore Syntacticians are to face a perplexing

have passed on their features to the relevant

problem, that is, how they elaborate the simpler

heads later in the derivation that the operations

grammatical operations and structures. This gave

start. This is what is called Feature Inheritance.

birth to Phase Theory.

For example, in (2a), the merger of T to the vP

Two models have been raised up to thedoes NOT establish any agreement relation,

present as to the way syntactic derivations

since T bears no feature at this point. Later inproceed within that theory, differentiated by(2b), the stage where C with Tense and φwhether or not they employ the mechanism offeatures are merged with TP, T inherits themFeature Inheritance. Although few studies havefrom C and agree with the subject DP as in (3a),concentrated on, it is important to verify which

resulting (3b).

one is adequate from the theoretical and(2) a. TP

empirical viewpoints. This paper is then aiming

vP

T

[---]

at reevaluating the early model of Phase Theory,

☓

b.
⇒

v’

DP

CP

vP

T

inherit[---][uCase,iφ]which is now being suppressed by the late modelTP

CP[iT,uφ]v’DPwith Feature Inheritance.

(3) a. CP

In so doing, it is demonstrated that the

CP

TP

[---]

discussion here will also capture idiosyncratic

b.

probe

we adopt the ideas by Pesetsky and TorregoDP[uCase,iφ]

332

TP

CP

[---]

DP

vP

T

[iT,uφ]behaviors of the English accusative gerund, if⇒

CP[uCase,iφ]v’T[iT,uφ]T’vPRichards (2007) has presented the rationale

has some trouble due to its rationale. Since its

for the mechanism grounded on the premise thatessential mechanism ‘Feature Inheritance’ isthe design of language is of optimal. Morefollowed from the premise that Value andconcretely, in order not to crash the derivation

Transfer must happen together, it is not allowed

due to the nature of uninterpretable features,to leave the checked uninterpretable features on

Value and Transfer must happen simultaneously,phase heads. Consequently, this approach would

and in order to keep successive computation,

be forced to claim that the form of C in question

phase-edges and their domains must also be

is not the inflection but just the reflection of T,

transferred separately. The only way to copeconsidering their relationship. It is apparently

with both of these is for syntax to employ

reasonable from the above examples, however,Feature Inheritance.

such a possibility is eliminated by the following(6) called ‘External Possessor Agreement,’ first

Looking back this section, there seems to beat least one theoretical problem with each phase

reported by Haegeman

model. With regard to the early one, Transfer of(henceforth H&K) (2012).

checked uninterpretable features to Semantics is

andvan Koppen(6) a. … omda-n/*omdat André en Valère

undesirable if Richards is on the right track.

because-PL/because André and Valère

Concerning with the late one, the counter-cyclic

toen juste underen computer kapot was.

operation of ‘Inheritance’ is odd in contrast withthen just their computer broken was

the bottom-up building of the structure.

b. … omdat/*omda-n André en Valère
because/because-PL André and Valère

2.2 Complementizer Agreement
Now that the controversial points on the twounderen computer kapot was.

models of Phase Theory have been unveiled, let

theircomputer broken was

us next consider which one is valid in terms of‘because A and V’s computer broke (just then).’empirical data.

<West Flemish>(H&K (2012: 449))

This contrast shows that if there is an

We shall first take the examples from West
Germanic languages, illustrated in (4) and (5).

intervening adverbial in the subject phrase in(4) Kvinden dan die boeken te diere zyn.

West Flemish, the agreement morphology on the

I-find that-PL the books too expensive arecomplementizer varies from that of the relevant‘I find those books too expensive.’

finite verb; here the former displays the plural<West Flemish> (Carstens (2003: 402))

agreement with ‘André and Valère,’ and the latter,
the singular agreement with ‘their computer’ in(5) …datso do soks net leauwe moast
that-2Sg you such not believe must-2Sg(6a). As for (6b), which does not contain an‘…that you must not believe such things’

intervening adverbial within the subject phrase,<Frisian>

C and T display the same singular agreement.

(Carstens (2003: 402))

The complementizers here exhibit the agreement

From the discussion above, the early model

morphology with their embedded subject, whichof Phase Theory seems to be stronger in that itlead us to think about how the two models cancan properly grasp the overall situation. We willaccommodate such phenomena. In the early one,further look into other cases of complementizer

there arises no problem because C is allowed toagreement from a different angle in order tohave its own features. The late model, however,reinforce the argument.

333

Then, it is worth mentioning here that what

the complementizer agreements displayed in theis called Edge-Feature adopted in the Feature

example (8) to (10), what on earth is the source?

Inheritance system is also quite problematic.

Is Edge-Feature actually responsible for these, or

According to Chomsky (2008: 148), one of theis there another responsible feature on C?

roles of that feature is to attract a wh-element toWhichever is true, the rationale for Feature

the edge of C, and this does not involve feature

Inheritance would not fare because it prohibits

matching and agreement (Chomsky (2008: 161,

uninterpretable features from remaining on C. In

footnote 49)). This will, therefore, lead us tocontrast, everything is going to be fine with thepredict that there would be no situation where

early model of Phase Theory.

the agreement between C and a wh-element

A very similar observation has been made inoccurs, which turns out to be false as follows.

Irish by McCloskey (1979).

Takahashi and Gračanin (henceforth T&G)

(11) a. Deir sé go dtuigeann sé an scéal.

(2008) observe that the declarative and the wh-says he that understands he the story

interrogative complementizers in Haitian Creole‘He says that he understands the story.’

surface in a different way, namely, the formerb. Dúirt sé gur bhuail túé.

surfaces as ‘ke,’ and the latter, ‘ki.’ The

said he C struck you him

declarative example in (7), for instance, has the‘He said you struck him.’complementizer ‘ke,’ while the wh-interrogative<Irish> (McCloskey (1979: 112))

examples in (8) to (10), exhibit ‘ki’ in the first(12)Cé

landing site of a wh-element in each case.

aL mheastú

aL chonaic tú?

who C thought you C

say

you

(7) Bouki konnen (ke) Boukinèt renmen l anpil.

‘Who did you think that you saw?’

Boukiknow(that)Boukinèt love 3.Sg much

<Irish> (McCloskey (1979: 118))‘Bouki knows (that) Boukinèt loves her a lot.’(13)Cén t-úrscéal aL mheas mé aL dúirt sé aL thuig sé?

<Haitian Creole> (DeGraff (2007: 109))

which novel C thought I C said he C understand he(8) Kilès *(ki) te
who‘Which novel did I think he said he understood?’wè Mari?

<Irish> (McCloskey (1979: 148))

KI anterior see Mari

‘Who saw Mari?’

As can be seen from the example in (11a) and<Haitian Creole> (T&G (2008: 223))(11b), the declarative complementizer in this(9) Jan ap mande kilès *(ki) renmen Mari.

language surfaces as ‘go’ or ‘gur,’ depending on

Jan aspect wonder who KI like Mari

Tense. On the other hand, in (12) and (13), the‘Jan is wondering who likes Mari.’

form of C in the wh-interrogatives is quite<Haitian Creole> (T&G (2008: 225))

another, which suggests that C has its own(10) Kilès (*ki) Michel panes (*ki) Mari kwè ki rich?

uninterpretable feature and thereby establishes

who KI Miclel think KI Mari believe KI richan agreement relation with a wh-element, or at‘Who does Michel think Mari believes is rich?’

least the definition of Edge-Feature should be<Haitian Creole> (T&G (2008: 227))

inappropriate. Considering the above, I conclude

T&G noted with these empirical evidence thatthat the early model of Phase Theory is adequate

the wh-interrogative form of C is a phonologicalenough, but the late one with Feature Inheritancereflex of the agreement with its opponent.

is not sufficient.

A question now confronts us. Admitting that334

like other clauses, however, as the contrast in

3. Consequences
Lastly, we will here explore the consequence(17) shows, the accusative gerund is not allowedof the present discussion. Chomsky (2001)

in Case-less positions unlike the others. The

suggests

question then arises as to what causes thisthat the agreement operation isestablished based on Matching, and thatstrange property.

Matching is feature identity. Pursuing this idea,(15)a. [Johnquickly(/*quick) leaving] surprised everybody.

P&T (2001, 2004) indicate that DP and C shouldb. [Mary probably being responsible for the

bear an uninterpretable Tense feature, [uT]. The

accident] was considered by the DA.

reason is that they are in the close relationship,
given

the

T-to-C

movement

and(Pires (2006: 17, 18))the(16)I wouldn’t count on [it raining tomorrow].

agree-relation between T and the subject DP. In(Reuland (1983: 109))

this framework, what is generally called(17)a. Mary talked about [him moving out].

“structural Case” is regarded as the realization ofb. *It was expected [Frank reading this novel].

[uT]. They also present in line with Chomsky(Pires (2006: 21))(2001) that uninterpretable features behave in

Although some studies argue that thethe same way as interpretable ones within the

difference is attributed to the maximal projection

relevant phase, after they have got checked. Theof them, examples below reveal that this is not

figure in (14) illustrates the derivation at thetrue. As demonstrated in (18a) and (18b), CP canstage of finite C being merged with the

be focalized in the pseudo-cleft sentence,completed TP. There are two possible strategies

whereas TP cannot. Notice here that (18c) is also

to check the [uT] on C in this configuration;

grammatical as well in (18a), hence thenamely, either the movement of T, which bears

accusative gerund is identified to be a kind of CP.

interpretable

theThis view is further supported in tandem withmovement of DP, which has already had its [uT]

the contrast shown in (19). More concretely, thechecked by T in spec-TP.

accusative gerund can be coordinated with CP as

Tense

feature,

[iT],

or

in (19b), while TP cannot, as in (19a).

(14) [CP C[uT,uφ] [TP [DP[uT,iφ]] [T[iT,uφ]] [vP…]]](18)a. What I’ll try and arrange is [CP for you to
see a specialist].

Shimokariya (2013) argues in conformity(Radford (2004: 107))b. *What we hadn’t intended was [TP you towith P&T’s approach that the idiosyncratic
behaviors of the English accusative gerund are

get hurt].

(Radford (2004: 107))c. What she prefers is [Ger him swimming instraightforwardly explained. In the analysis, thestructure of this construction is viewed as

this perilous river].

analogous to that of the finite clause, and the(19)a. *We didn’t intend [TP you to get hurt] or [CPsole difference lies in Tense. Let us here

for him to hurt you]. (Radford (2004: 107))b. (?)What I really expect is [CP for John to singoverview the point.
The accusative gerund has been reported to

Let It Be] and [Ger Paul composing new songs].

resemble clauses in that it can be modified by

Shimokariya (2013) then focuses on Tense.

VP or sentential adverbs but not by adjectives as

As is well known, tense suffix does not attach toin (15), and it can also exploit an expletivethe verbs in the accusative gerund, nor do modal

subject as in (16). These situations appear reallyauxiliaries occur. These properties, interestingly,

335

are shared with what is called ‘mad magazineof checking the uninterpretable Case feature ofsentences’ illustrated in (20).

the subject. In this light, the relevant Tense(20)a. What! Her call me up?! Never.

feature is supposed to be defective, so that theb. *Him gets a job?!

features of each category, in question, can bec. *Her might(/will) call me up?!

described as below.

(Akmajian (1984: 3))(22) Features of the relevant categories

Here in (20a), the subject of the sentenceC[uT,uφ], T(Fin)[iT,uφ], T(Ger)[def-iT,uφ], DP[uT,iφ]/[iφ]apparently surfaces bearing accusative Case.

As we have already seen in the figure (14),(20b) and (20c) respectively illustrate that verbs

repeated here in (23a), the finite clause is

may not be inflected and that modal auxiliaries‘self-sufficient’ with regard to [uT]s. By contrast,

are not allowed in this circumstance. According

as in (23b), the [uT] on C remains uncheckedto Akmajian (1984), these properties are due towithin the accusative gerund because of thethe absence of Tense within a given sentence,

defectiveness of T, and this is why that clause isand he maintains that the “accusative” subject

restricted to be in the Case positions (for morehere is, in fact, not the accusative one. In otherdetail, see also Shimokariya (2013a)).

words, the subject carries the “default Case,”(23) a. Finite CPb. Acc-gerund CPCPCP

which is widely adopted in studies of languages.
DP

This Case comes up in non-Case positions and

C’

DP

C

its form in English is assumed to coincide with

C’

[iφ]

[uT,iφ]TP

the structural accusative Case.

[uT,uφ]DP[uT,iφ]The present analysis proposes along the lineTPC

[uT,uφ]

…

DP

…

[iφ]

of Minimalism that nominals occurring with the

It is therefore concluded that all idiosyncratic

default Case have no uninterpretable Casebehaviors of the accusative gerund are attributedfeature to be checked; they only have anto the defectiveness of T, if we adopt the earlyinterpretable φ feature, and thus are allowed

model of Phase Theory and P&T’s approach.

only where there is no element capable of

4. Conclusion

assigning Case.

This paper has investigated the two models

Returning now to the accusative gerund, oneof Phase Theory, distinguished by whether or not

can safely state that the subject of thisthey employ the Feature Inheritance system.

construction is the default element, considering

Although both of these have some problems, theits similarity to the mad magazine sentences.

early model without Feature Inheritance is far

However, it must be noted that the construction

more suggestive from a cross-linguistic perspective.

definitely has the Tense head based on theThis captures ample evidence of complementizer

example in (15b) involving the sentential adverb,

agreements straightforwardly, and is offering a

and as well, the following (21) carrying anprospect for shedding light upon the English

independent temporal adverb.

gerunds. The approach is thus promising, but(21) Mary worried yesterday about Paul coming
to dinner tonight.

there still remains a possibility that the checked(Pires (2006: 25))

uninterpretable features could cause derivations

The accusative gerund is thus considered toto crash in the Semantics. This is a subject for

project up to CP, whose Tense head is incapable

future analysis.

336

The above phenomena, on the other hand,

Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Robert Freidin,

pose many difficult challenges on the late model

Carlos P. Otero and Maria L. Zubizarreta,of Phase Theory. Since Feature Inheritance and133-166, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

its rationale never allow uninterpretable features

DeGraff, Michel (2007) “Kreyòl Ayisyen or Haitian

to stay at the phase-edge, it has to elaborate

Creole,” Comparative Creole Syntax: Parallelsome other factitious assumptions in order toOutlines of 18 Creole Grammars, ed. by Holm

explain the facts, which will in turn flaw theJohn and Patrick Peter, 101-126, Battlebridge

system itself.

Publications, London.
Haegeman, Liliane, and Marjo van Koppen (2012)“Complementizer Agreement and the Relation* My deepest appreciation goes to Professor

between C0 and T0,” Linguistic Inquiry 43,

Nobuaki Nishioka (Kyushu University) whose

441-454.

comments and suggestions were of inestimable

McCloskey, James (1979) Transformational Syntax

value for my study. The responsibility of any

and Model-Theoretic Semantics: A Case Studyerrors is of course mine.

in Modern Irish, Dordrecht, Reidel.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego (2001) “T-to-C

References

movement: Causes and Consequences,” Ken

Akmajian, Adrian (1984) “Sentence Types and theHale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael

Form-Function Fit,” Natural Language and

Kenstowicz, 355-426. MIT Press, Cambridge,

Linguistic Theory 2, 1-23.

MA.

Carstens, Vicki (2003) “Rethinking Complementizer

Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego (2004) “Tense,

Agreement: Agree with a Case-Checked

Case, and the Nature of Syntactic Categories,”

Goal,” Linguistic Inquiry 34, 393-412.

The Syntax of Time, ed. by Jacqueline Gueron

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The

and Jaqueline Lecarme, 495-537, MIT Press,

Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

Cambridge, MA.

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik,

Pires, Acrisio (2006) The Minimalist Syntax ofed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, andDefective Domains: Gerunds and Infinitives,

JuanJohn Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Uriagereka,

98-155,

MIT

Press,

Cambridge, MA.

Progovac,

Ljiljana(2006)“The

SyntaxofChomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,” Ken

Nonsententials: Small Clauses and Phrases at

Hale: A Life in Language, ed. Michael

the Root,” The Syntax of Nonsententials, ed. byKenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Ljiljana Progovac, Kate Paesani, Eugenia

Chomsky, Noam (2007) “Approaching UG from

Casielles and Ellen Barton, 33-71, John

Below,” Interfaces + Recursion = Language?:

Benjamins, Philadelphia.

Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from

Radford, Andrew (2004) English Syntax: An

Syntax-Semantics, ed. by Uli Sauerland andIntroduction, Cambridge University Press,

Hans-Martin Gärtner, 1-29, Berlin, Mouton de

Cambridge.

Gruyter.

Richards, Mark (2007) “On Feature Inheritance: An

Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” Foundational

Argument from the Phase Impenetrability

Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of

Condition,” Linguistic Inquiry 38, 563-572.

337

Shimokariya, Sho (2013a) “Gerunds in Phase
Theory,” JELS 30, 201-207.
Shimokariya, Sho (2013b) “Tōgo Hasei to Sosei
Keishō (Syntactic Derivation and Feature
Inheritance),” Gengogaku karano Chōbō 2013
(Views from Linguistics 2013), ed. by Hiroshi
Ohashi, Hiroyoshi Tanaka, Nobuaki Nishioka,
and Keisuke Munemasa, 81-92, Kyushu
University Press, Fukuoka.
Takahashi, Shoichi, and Martina Gračanin-Yuksek(2008)“MorphosyntaxofMovement

Dependencies in Haitian Creole,” Syntax 11,
223-250.

338

	
  
	
  
when a head X agrees with its specifier,the null complement is licensed.
	  Abe (1996) points out that this analysis
cannotbestripping

Ellipsis Licensing underappliedbecausetogappingandthey

assumetheremnants adjoin to IP and there seems to

E-feature M ovem ent*

be no head, which has its specifier andtakes e as its complement, as shown in

Rumi Takaki
Kyushu University(3).
	  (3) a. John introduced a teacher to

Keywords: ellipsis licensing, E-feature

Mary, and Bill to Susan.

movement, Agree, focus featureb. …and [IP Bill, to Susan [IP e ]]Therefore, Lobeck (1995) and Abe (1996)
claims that gapping and stripping should

1. INTRODUCTION

be treated differently from other elliptical	  This	
   paper	
   presents	
   a	
   unified	
   analysis	
  constructions,

of	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  elliptical	
  constructions	
  such	  as	
   shown	
   in	   (1)	
   based	
   on	
   the	   remnant	
  movement	
   and	   PF	
   deletion	
   (Merchant	
  2001,	
  2008)	
  and	
  E-­‐feature	
  movement.	
  pseudogapping.

	  (1) a. John likes movies, and Bill __same mechanism as the other ellipticalconcerts. 	
  	
  	
 

	
 

such

as

VPE

and

	
  However, in this research, proposing Efeature movement, I show that gappingand stripping are both treated in theconstructions mentioned above.

	  (gapping)b. John gave chocolate to Mary, andFred __too.

2. PREVIOUS ANALYSES(stripping)

2.1 Phase-based Approachc. Ted questioned our motives, andRobin did, too.

	  Takahashi (2002) and Gengel (2007,(VP-ellipsis)2009), among others argue that thed. John will select Mary, and Billwill __Tom.

ellipsis site must be the complement of(pseudogapping)	  Lobeck (1995) and Saito and Murasugi

the phase head, namely, C, v* and D.

(1990) develop the mechanism of ellipsis

	  (4)  XP

constructions. Roughly, their analysis is    X’
X(Ph)
YP

shown in (2).
	  (2)  XP
 Spec
  

X

	
 

However,onequestionarisesconcerning the deletion domain.

X’	  (5) a. Many of them have turned in

YP

their assignment already,eSpecifically, Lobeck (1995) assumes that

but they haven’t yet (*all) (VPE)	
  	
 the ellipsis site is a null category e and

339

	
  
	
  
b. Many of them have turned inellipsis constructions, which does nottheir assignment already, butsuffer from this problem noted in thisthey haven’t yet(*all) their papers

section.

(*all)(Pseudogap)
3. PROPOSAL(Tanaka (2011: 473))
According to Tanaka (2011), since a

3.1 Transfer Domain

floating quantifier cannot be stranded in	 Spec, vP as shown in (5), what is elided

proposalshould not be the complement of v*P, but

domain, which he dubs E-feature driven

v*P itself. Hence I aasume what is deleted

Spell-Out (ESO).

is not always a complement of a phase.

	  (7) ESO (E-feature-driven Spell-Out)

Hoshi(2011)
ingives

relation

an

to

the

intriguingtransfer

preempts CSO (cyclic Spell-Out) iff
2.1 Agree-based Approach

ESO domain ⊇ CSO domain.

	  As an alternative to the phase-based
approach, Aelbrecht (2010) proposes that

The condition in (7) means cyclic Spell-

ellipsis is licensed by Agree relation

Out is canceled if the ESO domain

between a licensor and a head with an E-

subsumes the Spell-Out domain. The

feature and as a result of Agree, thederivation of VP-ellipsis is shown in thecomplement of the head is deleted. The

following.
	  (8) [CP …C 〈 [TP…T[E]｛ [vP …v 〈 [VPstructure is roughy illustrated in (6).

V…]〉 ]｝ ]〉 ]	  (6) LP
L’
L

It is assumed that once the phase vP is…

completed, its complement is spelled

XP

CAT[F]

out/transferred (cf. Chomsky 2001, 2008).

X’
X

YP

However, the CSO of VP is cancelled since[E[INFL[uF]]]

In (6), a licensor L[CAT[F]] agrees with athe head T carries an E-feature and it

head

drives the ESO in (8). Therefore, it follows

X[E[INFL[uF]]].

Consequently,

thecomplement of X is deleted. However, thisthatapproach also has a certain theoretical

redundancy of the caluculation of the

problem.

derivation is solved by the condition in (7).

The problem involves the caluculation of	  However, this approach also faces athe derivation: a portion, which has

theoretical problem: if a structure is built

already been transferred and marked as

in a bottom-up fashion, it is unclear

being

again

whether VP has to be transferred or not

unpronounced,

until a higher head with an E-feature iswhich is thought to be redundant andmerged. Therefore it can lead to a look-

uneconomical.

ahead problem.

pronounced,

overwritten

as

must

being

be

	
  In the next section, I will propose a newunified mechanism accounting for the

340

the

problemconcerning

the

	
  
	
  
	
 

Takingtheabove

problemfocus feature when it has focus but the

intoconsideration, I propose the following E-

subject does not.2

feature movement.

Additionally, I follow the assumption by	  (9) E-feature Movement Assumption

Richards (2007) in (10).

a. When the head v has an E-feature,	  (10) Value and Transfer of uFs must

the transfer of its complement will

happen together.

be canceled.

(Richards (2007: 566))

b. An E-feature which originates in a

Adopting Merchant (2001) and Richards

phase head v can move to a higher(2007), I assume the following licensing

hase head.

conditions on E-feature.

By assuming (9), the problems as for the	  (11) Licensing Condition on E-feature

overwriting

	
  	
  	
  a. An E-feature agrees with andandredundancy

of

the

calculation of the derivation are solved.

moves to the Foc head, which	  Moreover, I adopt the proposal by

has

Obata and Epstein (2009) and Obatafeature, and the Foc head with(2010) that in matrix clauses since CP, TP

theand the edge of vP are transferredelement(s) in its c-commanding

simultaneously, an interpretable featuredomaincan remain in C head. Further, in relation

element(s) in its specifier into the phasehood, I argue, following

gapping,

Chomsky (2013) and Maeda (2013), thatpseudogapping.

each category that projects constitutes auninterpretable
E-featureanditagreessituates

stripping

focus
with
the
and

b. An E-feature agrees with anphase in the CP domain.

auxiliary, such as T, Asp, Voice,	  In the next subsection, I consider thewhichproperty of the E-feature.

focus feature and move to thehas an interpretable

head in VP-ellipsis.
3.2 The Property of the E-featurec. An E-feature must be in a	  As initially assumed by Merchanttransfer domain after it agrees(2001),

with a head.

theE-featureisanfeature.

Further,

I

These assumptions explain why gapping

assume that the specification of the E-

and stripping can appear in matrix

featureclauses but not in subordinate clauses

uninterpretableisanuninterpretablefeature, [uFoc], for

the

focus

constructions

while

VPE

and

pseudogappingarementioned in this paper. Therefore, it

allowed in both of matix and suboridinate

needs to agree with a relevant head,clauses. I will demonstrate in detail in thewhich

next section.

has

an

uninterpretablefocus

feature.1 As for the VP-deletion, I assume	  I also adopt the following phonologicalthat the auxiliary has an interpretableproperty of the E-feature proposed by
Merchant (2001), cited from Hoshi (2011).

341

	
  
	
  
the

	
  (12) Phonological Property of E-feature.

E-featureisinsidetransfer(cf. Merchant (2001, 2004, 2008))

domain, the derivation is completed.

The	  Next, the derivation of stripping iscomplement

of

the

head

containing an E-feature is subject toillustrated in (14).

non-parsing for pronunciation in	  (14) a. John gave chocolate to Mary, andFred, too.

the phonological component.
Further,availabilityofTransferb.

E-feature

movement to a higher head entails that

FocP
Fred

what finally holds the E-feature is not

Foc’
Foc
TP

always a phase head. Therefore, thisdeletion

[E]

T’
T

assumption on E-feature captures the factvPv’

in VP-ellipsis as for deletion site.
	
 

the

v

In section 4, I will consider theTransfer-canceled
VP[E]

derivations of each construction in both

In (14), like the derivation in (13), the E-

matrix and subordinate clauses.

feature is generated in v*, therefore, the

	
  	
 

transfer of VP is canceled. Further it

4. ANALYSES

agrees with the Foc head and moves

4.1 Gapping and Stripping in Matrix

Moreover, the Foc head agrees with anelement

Clauses	 First,

thederivation

of

with

an

interpretablefocus

feature in its c-commanding domain andgapping

proceeds as follows:

situates it in its specifier. Since the	  (13) a. John likes movies, and Bill __transfer

Transfer

Foc

for

the

whole

transfer domain, the derivation converges.

FocP

Bill concerts

conducted

structure and the E-feature is in theconcerts.
b.

is

Foc’

deletion

4.2 Gapping and Stripping in

TP

[E]

T’
T

Subordinate Clauses

vP
v’
v

	
  (15) a. * Some had eaten mussels, andTransfer-canceled

she claims that others shrimp.

VP

[E]

(cf. Some had eaten mussels,

Since the lowest v* has an E-feature, theand she claims that others had
eaten shrimp.)

trasnfer of VP is canceled. Next, after the
	
  	
  b.

Foc head merges, the E-feature agrees
with the Foc head and moves there.

ForceP
Force’

Transfer

Force (that) FocP

Subsequently, the head Foc agrees withothers shrimp

Foc

both remnants, Bill and concerts. As a

Foc’Transfer +deletion
TP[E]

result, it moves from edge of vP to Spec,

T
T’

vP
v’

FocP. The transfer is conducted for thevwhole structure and TP is deleted. Since

[E]

342

Transfer-canceled
VP

	
  
	
  
(17) a. Ted questioned our motives, andIn (15), the E-feature which is located in

Robin did, too.

v* agrees with the Foc head and finallyb.

moves there. Further, the two remnants,

others and shrimp, agree with the Foc
head and move to Spec, FocP. However,when TP is transferred, this E-feature isoutside the transfer domain and thiscauses this derivation to crash because
this is a subordinate clause unlike (13).	
 	
  (16) a. *The critics praised your book,and someone told me that thepoem too.
(Busquets (2005: 10))ForcePb. Force (that) Force’Transfer
Force

[E]

vP

did [E]t questioned our motives[E]             

In (17), the E-feature, which generates in
the lowest phase head v*, agrees with the
T head and moves to T. Further, this Efeature is included in the trasnfer domain
and the trasfer is conducted for the whole
structure. Hence, the derivation converges.
	  (18) a. John will select Mary, and Billwill Tom.
b. 

vP
v

T’        deletion
T

Transfer +deletion

v’



TP
Robin

T
T’

  Transfer
 C’   

C

FocP

the poem Foc’
Foc
TP

CP

Transfer
TopP

Transfer-canceled
Bill1

VP

Top’
Top

[E]

TP
t1

As is the case with (15), the E-feature

T’
T(will)agrees with the Foc head and moves

FocP
Tom 2

Foc’
Foc

there. In addition, the remnant agrees

deletionvP[E]

with the Foc head and moves to Spec,

v’
v

VP

[E]

FocP. However, when the complement of

select t2

the Foc head is transferred, the E-feature

In (18), an E-feature agrees with the Foc

is not transferred together unlike (14). As

head above vP and moves to Foc. Thus,

a result, this derivation crashes.	
 the deletion is marked for vP. Moreover,since I assume that the subject Bill is a

4.3 VP-Ellipsis and Pseudogapping incontrastive topic, it moves to Spec, TopP

Matrix Clausesin the CP domain. This derivation also	  VP-ellipsis in a matrix clause is allowed

converges since the valued E-feature is

as predicted. The derivation of this case isincluded in the transfer domain.

shown in (17).
4.4 VP-Ellipsis and Pseudogapping in	 Subordinate Clauses	  As mentioned in section 1, the VPellipsis is allowed in a subordinate clause.
The specific derivation is illustrated in(19b).

343

5. CONCLUSION(19) a. John kissed Mary, and I’m pretty

In this research, I have demonstrated

sure (that) Bill did, too.
CPb.

 C’   Cthat gapping and stripping, which have  Transfer

not previously been treated as ellipsis,

TP
Bill

T’        deletionT

can also be accounted for in the same wayvP

did [E]as other elliptical constructions, such as

t kiss Mary             [E]

VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping, by the

The lowest phase v* has an E-feature andunified mechanism in terms of E-feature

it agrees with the T head and moves there.

movement. Futher, the approach proposed

Since I assume when the auxiliary has ahere

focus in VP-ellipsis the head T has an

constructions can occur in subordinate

interpretable focus feature, no further

clauses while others cannot.

clarified

why

some

elliptical

Agree and movement take place. Then,*

cyclic transfer is applied for TP after CPThis article is based on my poster

is completed. The E-feature is included inpresentation at English Linguistics

the transfer domain, thus the derivation

Society of Japan 7th International

converges.

Spring

Next,

let

us

considerpseudogapping in a subordinate clause.

held

University on April(20) a. Some had eaten mussels, and

b.

Forum

at

Doshisha

20th,

2014. I

would like to thank the audience forshe claims that others had

theirshrimp.

grateful to Nobuaki Nishioka for his

ForcePvaluable comments and suggestions.
Force’

Force (that)

Foc’
Foc

I

am

especially

Remaining inadequacies are of course

Transfer
FocP

otherscomments.

my own.

TransferTP
T’
T(had)Notes

FocP
shrimp

Foc’
Foc

1.

deletion

uninterpretable

vP

[E]

v’
v

One might wonder if Agree between

Concerning

VP

featuresthisispossible.

mechanism,

see

Haegeman and Lohndal (2010). They[E]

The E-features agrees with the Foc headpropose binary Agree as for negative

above vP and moves there. Further, theconcord and argue it occurs between

remnant shrimp agrees with the Foc headuninterpretable features.

and moves to Spec, FocP. Since the E-2.

features is in a transfer domain, thisfocus, those heads have an interpretable

derivation is also completed.

focus feature. On the other hand, whenI assume when the auxiliaries havesubjects have focus as illustrated in (i),the heads have an uninterpretable focus
feature.

344

(i) ABBY took GREEK, but I don’t

Merchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax ofknow what language BEN did.

Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and theTheory of Ellipsis, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Merchant, Jason (2004) “Fragments andEllipses,” Linguistics and Philosophy
27, 661-738.
Merchant, Jason (2008) “Variable Island
Repair under Ellipsis,” Topics in
Ellipsis, ed. by Kyle Johnson, 132-153,
Cambridge
University
Press,
Cambridge.
Obata, Miki (2010) Root, Successive-Cyclic
and Feature-Splitting Internal Merge:
Implications for Feature-Inheritanceand Transfer, Doctoral dissertation,
University of Michigan.
Obata, Miki and Samuel D. Epstein (2009)“Deducing Improper Movement from

Selected References
Abe,

Jun

(1996)“Ellipsis:

Deletion,

Copying or Both?,” Keio Studies in

Theoretical Linguistics I, 49-87, Keio
University.
Aelbrecht, Lobke (2010) The Syntactic
Licensing of Ellipsis, ed. by Werner
Abraham and Elly Gelderen, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by
Phase,” Ken Hale: A Life in Language,
ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,Noam(2008)“On

Phase,”

Foundation Issues in Linguistic
Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger
Vergnaud, ed. by Robert Freidin,
Varlos P. Otero and Mari Luisa
Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of
Projection,” Lingua 130, 33–49.
Gengel, Kirsten (2007) Focus and Ellipsis:
A
Generative
AnalysisofPseudogapping and Other Elliptical
Structures,Doctoraldissertation,
University of Stuttgart.
Gengel, Kirsten (2009) “Phase andEllipsis,” ms., University of Stuttgart.
Hoshi,
Koji(2011)“Wh-Extraction(A)Symmetries Between Sluicing and
VP-Ellipsis
Revisited,”
EnglishLinguistics 28 (1), 107-119.
Lobeck, Anne (1995) Ellipsis: Functional
Heads, Licensing, and Identification,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Phase Based C-to-T Phi Transfer:Feature-Splitting Internal Merge,”

Proceedings

of

27th

West

Coast

Conference on Formal Linguistics,
353- 360, Cascadilla Proceedings
Project, Somerville.
Richards,

Marc(2007)“On

FeatureInheritance: An Argument from the
Phase

Impenetrability

Condition,”

Linguistic Inquiry 38, 563-572.
Saito, Mamoru and Keiko Murasugi(1990) “N’-Deletion in Japanese: A
Preliminary Study,” Japanese/ Korean
Linguistics 1, 258–301.
Takahashi, Daiko (2002) “Phase no
Recycle,” Eigo Seinen 8, 270-273.
Tanaka,Hidekazu(2011)“VoiceMismatch and Syntactic Identity,”
Linguistic Inquiry 42, 470–490.

345

stress to the first constituent. NSR andCSR correctly describe the main stresslocation in phrases and compounds such as(1a) and (1b), where the stressed constituent
is underscored.
(1) a. [NP black bird]
b. [N blackbird]
The main stress is assigned to the second
constituent bird in a phrase (1a) and to thefirst constituent black in a compound noun
(1b).
Although NSR and CSR aredescriptively adequate, they do not give us
any principled explanation of why phrases
and compounds have different stresslocations.
Some attempts to generalize stressassignment rules for phrases and compounds
have been made in literature.
A
generalized rule, which I call Non-HeadStress, is that main stress falls on the
non-head rather than on the head in aconstituent (Nespor and Vogel 1986,
Duanmu 1990), as shown in (2).
(2) a. [N towel rack]

Stress and Restrictiveness in
Phrase and Compound
Hisao Tokizaki
Sapporo University
Keywords: adjectives, modifier, non-head,
NSR, CSR

1. INTRODUCTION
In this paper, I argue that the main stresslocation in phrases and compounds isdetermined by the restrictiveness of modifier
or complement: restrictive modifier/complement receives the main stress while
non-restrictive modifier/complement doesnot. In section 2, I briefly outline twoideas of generalizing stress rules for phrases
and compounds, Non-Head Stress (Nespor
and Vogel 1986, Duanmu 1990) and Bottom
Stress (Cinque 1993).
I point out aproblem of these analyses in the case ofnoun phrases. In section 3, I propose ananalysis in terms of restrictiveness ofmodifiers.
Section 4 concludes thediscussion.

b. [PP in Boston]c. [VP eat cake]
In compounds such as (2a), the second nounrack is the head of the compound noun
while the first noun towel is the non-head(modifier or specifier). In phrases such as(2b) and (2c), preposition in and verb eat areheads while their complements Boston andcake are non-heads. Thus, the idea thatstress falls on the non-head explains stresslocation in both phrases and compounds.
Another rule is proposed by Cinque(1993). He claims that stress is assigned tothe most deeply embedded element in a

2. GENERALIZING STRESS RULES
Chomsky and Halle (1968) propose
Nuclear Stress Rule (NSR) and Compound
Stress Rule (CSR) for phrases andcompounds.
Roughly speaking, NSR
assigns stress to the second constituent in a
two-membered constituent, and CSR assigns

346

structure, which is in complement, i.e.
non-head. I will call this rule Bottom
Stress. Note that Cinque’s theory is basedon the X-bar theory of phrase structure,
which allows non-branching structure.
Cinque assumes that the non-head word
(towel, Boston, cake in (2)) is projecting to
make a phrase, as shown in (3).
(3) a. [N [NP [N towel]] [N rack]]b. [PP [P in] [NP [N Boston]]]c. [VP [V eat] [NP [N cake]]]
However, this kind of non-branching
projection is not admitted in the minimalist
framework (Chomsky 1995).
It isnecessary to solve this problem, known asFirst Merge problem, in some way. I will
not discuss this problem in detail here. See
Guimarães (2000), Kayne (2009), Fortuny(2008), Zwart (2004, 2011) and Tokizaki(2014, 2015).
Non-Head Stress and Bottom Stress cangeneralize phrasal stress and compoundstress.
However, these rules have an
empirical problem in the case of a nounphrase consisting of a noun and its modifier,where the main stress falls on the head noun
rather than on the non-head, as shown in (4).
(4) [NP big cat]In the structure (5), the modifier big is not
the complement of the noun cat but the
specifier of the functional head F. The
most deeply embedded constituent in thewhole FP is the head noun cat, which
receives the main stress in the FP as Bottom
Stress predicts.
Cinque’s (1993) FP analysis of nounphrases successfully explains the stresslocation in phrases such as (4), which isdifferent from that in compounds such as(1b) and (2a). However, Cinque (1993)
does not discuss the nature of F in phrases.
It is not clear when F appears in what kindof constructions. In the next section, I willargue that F is in fact a Nominal head taking
non-restrictive modifier as its specifier tomake a Nominal Phrase, which corresponds
to FP in (5).
3. RESTRICTIVENESS OF MODIFIERS
I try to solve the problems of Bottom
Stress in terms of the restrictiveness ofmodifier and complement.
Prenominal
adjectives can be divided into two types,
non-restrictive adjectives and restrictive
adjectives, which have different stresspatterns, as shown in (6) (Givón 1993: 268,
cf. Jespersen 1924: Ch. 8, Chomsky 1965:
217, Bolinger 1967, Larson and Marušič
2004, Cinque 2010: 7).2

Here, the main stress falls on the head noun
cat and not on the non-head big. This is
the contrary to the prediction of Non-HeadStress.1 In order to solve this problem,
Cinque (1993: 255) assumes that a nounphrase consisting of a modifier and a noun isin fact a projection of a functional head F,
which takes NP as its complement, as shownin (5).
(5) [FP big [F’ F [NP cat]]](6) a. The industrious Chinese came to
California in the late 1800s.
b. The industrious Chinese made it,
the other Chinese didn’t.
The adjective industrious in (6a) is
non-restrictive and that in (6b) is restrictive:
the former modifies the whole set of347

Chinese people while the latter restricts theset to a specific subcategory of Chinese
people.
Then, these sentences can beparaphrased as (7a) and (7b) with a
non-restrictive and restrictive relative clause.
(7) a. The Chinese, who are industrious,
came to California in the late
1800s.
b. The Chinese who are industrious
made it, the other Chinese didn’t.
I assume that the subject and the relative
clause in (7) have the structure shown in(8).3(8) a. The [NP Chinese], [CP who areindustrious], came to California inthe late 1800s.
b. The [NP Chinese [CP who areb. The [NP industrious Chinese] madeit, the other Chinese didn’t.
The modifier industrious is in NP with
Chinese in restrictive (9b) but not in
non-restrictive (9a). The stress on Chinese
in non-restrictive (9a) corresponds to theunmarked stress location in noun phrases
such as big cat in (4). Then, Bottom Stresscorrectly assigns stress to the most deeply
embedded element Chinese in (9a). The
stress on industrious in restrictive (9b)corresponds to the stress in compounds suchas towel rack in (2a). In other words, a
modifier in a compound is restrictive by
nature.4 For example, the modifier towel
restricts the set of rack into a specific typeof racks in (2a). Similarly, black restricts
the set of birds into a species of birds in(1b).5industrious]] made it, the other
Chinese didn’t.
In (8a) non-restrictive relative clause is not
dominated by the NP containing Chinese.
In (8b) restrictive relative clause iscomplement (or adjunct) of Chinese, which
is N (or N’ in X-bar theoretic structure).
Assuming the parallelism between relative
clauses and prenominal modifiers, I argue
that the category of industrious Chinese with
non-restrictive meaning (6a) is a nominal
phrase (NomP) containing a modifier and an
NP, while that with restrictive meaning (6b)is an NP.
I assume that Nom is afunctional head taking modifier as its
specifier and NP as its complement. Then,the structures of non-restrictive (6a) and
restrictive (6b) are (9a) and (9b).
(9) a. The [NomP industrious Nom [NPChinese]] came to California inthe late 1800s.

The question to be answered is why
stress is assigned to restrictive modifier
rather than head noun, because restrictive
modifier and head noun seem to be at thesame depth in structures such as (1b), (2a)and (6b), repeated here as (10a), (10b) and(10c).
(10) a. [N blackbird]
b. [N towel rack]c. The [NP industrious Chinese] madeit, the other Chinese didn’t.
Here I argue that restrictive modifier
invokes alternative modifiers in hearers’
mind. For example, in (10c) industrious
invokes alternative modifiers, which isexpressed as other in the second clause.
Rooth (1985) proposes a theory of focus inwhich focus invokes alternatives. I assume
that a restrictive modifier has alternative348

modifiers as its complement.
(11) a. [N [black-(not humming, ...)]-bird]
b. [N [towel (not magazine, ...)] rack]c. The [NP [industrious (not lazy, ...)]
Chinese] made it, the other Chinese
didn’t.
In these structures, a restrictive modifier,which makes a constituent with alternative
modifiers, is more deeply embedded thanthe head noun. Thus, we can keep thegeneralized stress assignment rule, whichassigns stress to the most deeply embedded
element in a structure.
So far, I have argued that main stress
falls on restrictive modifier rather than headin noun phrases and compounds. This idea
can be called Restrictive Stress. Finally, I
would like to consider the possibility ofextending Restrictive Stress to the stressplacement in other constituents than NP andcompounds. For example, in a PP in
Boston (2b), the complement Boston
restricts the meaning of the preposition in:
the intended location is restricted to the city.
Similarly, in a VP eat cake in (2c), thecomplement cake restricts the action eat intoa specific type of eating. If this extensionof Restrictive Stress is on the right track, we
can derive Non-Head Stress and Bottom
Stress from Restrictive Stress. In the casesof non-restrictive modifier modifying headnoun, stress falls on head noun rather than
non-restrictive modifier because the headnoun itself restricts the set (e.g. my dear
little Ann (Jespersen 1924, Ch. 4)). Thus,
Restrictive
Stressshowsinterestingcorrelation between syntax, phonology andsemantics.

4. CONCLUSION
We have seen that NSR and CSR can begeneralized into Non-Head Stress or Bottom
Stress. I pointed out that Non-Head Stressand Bottom Stress have problems of headstress in adjective-noun pairs.
I haveargued that we can solve the problems ofgeneralized stress rules in terms ofrestrictiveness of modifiers. Stress falls on
the restrictive modifier, which is in the same
NP with the head and is branching becauseof implicit alternative modifiers. Stressdoes not fall on non-restrictive modifiers,
which are the specifier of Nominal Phrase(NomP) dominating the NP containing thehead noun at the bottom of the whole
structure. Then, we can keep generalized
stress rules that apply to all types of phrases
and compounds. Finally, I suggest thepossibility of deriving the generalized stress
rules from Restrictive Stress.
Restrictiveness may allow us to explain
problematic cases of stress location in somecompounds (cf. Giegerich 2004). I hopethat this study sheds light on the study ofinterface between syntax, phonology andsemantics of grammar.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank the audience of theforum, especially Kazuhiko Fukushima,
Mariko Sugahara and Eiji Yamada for theirvaluable comments and suggestions.
Needless to say, any remaining mistakes are
my own.
Also I would like to thank Sapporo
University for a sabbatical leave for a year349

2012-2013.
This research has been
supported by Kakenhi (B24320087;
C22520507).
NOTES
1The stress on the head noun in nounphrases consisting of a modifier and a noun
is a problem for Non-Head Stress. If weassume the structure in (5), one could argue
that cat is a non-head (i.e. complement of F).
However, cat is a head in NP.
The
problem still remains as to why the head in
NP can receive stress.
2
Postnominal modifiers are unambiguouslyinterpreted as restrictive in English (Cinque
2010: 7).
(i) Every word unsuitable was deleted.
Postnominal modifiers can be paraphrased
as restrictive relative clause.
(ii) Every word that was unsuitable wasdeleted.
The fact that postnominal modifiers receive
stress shows the restrictiveness of stressed
modifiers. Citing Giorgi and Longobardi(1991: 123), Cinque (2010: 7) points out that
Romance languages such as Italian have thecontrary
interpretations
to
English:prenominal adjectives in Italian areunambiguously
nonrestrictive
while
postnominal ones are ambiguous between a
restrictive and non-restrictive interpretation.
(iii) Le noiose lezioni di Ferri se le
the boring classes of Ferriricordano tutti. (unambiguous)
remember all‘Everybody remembers Ferri’s classes,
all
of
which
were
boring.’(non-restrictive)

350(iv) Le lezioni noiose di Ferri se le
the classes boring of Ferriricordano tutti. (ambiguous)
remember all‘Everybody remembers Ferri’s classes,
all of which were boring.’(non- restrictive)
or‘Everybody remembers just thoseclasses by Ferri that were boring.’(restrictive)
This typological contrast also shows theconnection between stress location andrestrictiveness: Romance languages haverighthand stress while Germanic languages
have lefthand stress in words andcompounds. However, I will not go into
detail here. See Tokizaki (2013) for thetypology of stress location.
3

The structure of noun and relative clausehas been controversial. Here, I will not
discuss whether the head noun makes aconstituent with a non-restrictive relative
clause or not. See Emonds (1979), Ushie(1980), McCawley (1988) and Kono (2012).
4
Givón (1993: 268) claims that“[n]on-restrictive modifiers in a sense enter
into a compound relation with their headnoun. That is, they create a unitary concept,
thus potentially a new lexical item.” I
think that the word “non-restrictive” ismisused for “restrictive” here.
5
Here I simply argue that modifiers canrestrict the set into a specific subset. For
example, a blackboard may refer to a large
board with a dark green surface, but themodifier black still restricts the set of boards
into the boards for specific purpose. I willnot discuss the matter of idiomatic meaningor the semantic non-compositionality ofcompounds.
See Partee (1995) forcompounds and compositionality.

Cambridge.
Givón, Talmy (1993) English Grammar: aFunction-based Introduction, vol. 1. John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Guimarães, Maximiliano (2000) “In Defenseof Vacuous Projections in Bare Phrase
Structure,” University of Maryland
Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 9, 90115.
Jespersen, Otto (1924) The Philosophy ofGrammar, George Allen & Unwin,
London.
Kayne, Richard S. (2009) “Antisymmetry
and the Lexicon,” Linguistic Variation
Yearbook 8, 1-31.

REFERENCES
Bolinger, Dwight (1967) “Adjectives inEnglish: Attribution and Predication,”
Lingua 18, 1-34.
Chomsky, Noam (1965) Aspects of The
Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle (1968)
The Sound Pattern of English, Harper &Row, New York.
Cinque, Guglielmo (1993) “A Null Theoryof Phrase and Compound Stress,”
Linguistic Inquiry 24, 239-298.
Cinque, Guglielmo (2010) The Syntax of
Adjectives, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Duanmu, San (1990) A Formal Study ofSyllable, Tone, Stress and Domain in
Chinese Languages, Doctoral dissertation,
MIT.
Emonds, Joseph (1979) “Appositive
Relatives Have No Properties,” Linguistic
Inquiry 10, 211-243.
Fortuny, Jordi (2008) The Emergence ofOrder in Syntax, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam.
Giegerich, Heinz J. (2004) “Compound or
Phrase?
EnglishNoun-plus-Noun
Constructions and the Stress Criterion,”
English Language and Linguistics 8, 124.
Giorgi,Alessandra
andGiuseppe
Longobardi (1991) The Syntax of NounPhrases, Cambridge University Press,

Kono, Tsuguyo (2012) Eigo-no Kankeisetsu(Relative Clauses in English), Kaitakusha,
Tokyo.
Larson, Richard K. and Franc Marušič(2004) “On Indefinite Pronoun Structureswith APs: Reply to Kishimoto,”
Linguistic Inquiry 35, 268-287.
McCawley, James D. (1988) The Syntactic
Phenomena of English, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel (1986)
Prosodic Phonology, Foris, Dordrecht.
Partee, Barbara H. (1995) “Lexical
semantics
andcompositionality,”
Language (An Invitation to Cognitive
Science, vol. 1) (2nd ed.), ed. by Lila R.
Gleitman and Mark Liberman, 311-360,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rooth, Mats (1985) Association with Focus,
Doctoral dissertation, University of
Massachusetts.
Tokizaki, Hisao (2013) “Deriving theCompounding
Parameter
from

351

Phonology,” Linguistic Analysis 38,
275-303.
Tokizaki, Hisao (2014) “Antisymmetry andObligatory Contour Principle,” paper
presented at GLOW Asia X, National
Tsin Hua University, Taiwan.
Tokizaki, Hisao (2015) “Hitsui-genri-to
Seisei-Tougoron (Obligatory Contour
Principle and Generative Syntax),” toappear in Kagaku Kenkyuhi Seika
Houkokusho, Hitusi-genri-no Shatei-to
Koryoku-ni kansuru Kenkyu, ed. by
Masao Okazaki, Ibaraki University.
Ushie, Kazuhiro (1980) “Remarks on
Nonrestrictive Relatives in English,”Studies in English Linguistics 8, 53-84,
Asahi Press, Tokyo.
Zwart, Jan-Wouter (2004) “Unary Merge,”
handout
forTilburg
University
Grammaticamodellen Staff Seminar.
<http://odur.let.rug.nl/~zwart/docs/
ho04tilb.pdf.>
Zwart, Jan-Wouter (2011) “Structure andOrder: Asymmetric Merge,” Oxford
Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, ed.
by Cedric Boeckx, 96-118, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.

352

Therefore, Japanese employs epenthetic vowels
to avoid consonant clusters and final consonants
as

shown

below.

Epenthetic

vowelsareunderlined.

Effects of Perception on Loanword
Adaptation from English to Japanese: The
Case of Schwa Vowels(1) a. “strike” //  ｽﾄﾗｲｸ //Kanako Tomaru

b. “press” //  ﾌﾟﾚｽ //Faculty of Science and Technology,
Sophia University

In addition, the quality of consonants andvowels in a source word are changed to fit the

Keywords: loanword adaptation, schwa, English,

phonemic system of the adapting language. In theJapanesecase of English words being adapted to Japanese,the following sound changes are observed. For
vowels, diphthong quality is often lost (2-a), andconsonants are realized as Japanese consonants

1.

INTRODUCTION

whose perceptual impression is not necessarily

It is common for languages to import, or borrow,similar to the original English. For example, twowords from each other. For example, Japanesedistinctive English liquids, i.e. // and //, are bothhas borrowed numerous English words. Whenrealized with Japanese flap, i.e. // (2-b). In otherword borrowing occurs, the language that imports

cases, a Japanese voiceless alveolar sibilant, i.e.

the words, i.e., Japanese in this case, is called the//, is assigned to an English voiceless interdental

adapting language, while the language the words

consonant, i.e. // (2-c).

are imported from, i.e., English in this case, iscalled the source language. The borrowed words
used in the adapting language are called(2) a. “label” //  ﾗﾍﾞﾙ //loanwords. The process of borrowing words fromb. “real” //  ﾘｱﾙ //thec. “thanks” //  ｻﾝｸｽ //sourcelanguageiscalledloanword

adaptation.
In loanword adaptation, the sound structure ofa source word conforms to the phonological

Furthermore,schwa

vowels,

which

are

requirements of the adapting language. For

phonologically nonexistent in Japanese, areinstance, Japanese does not allow closed syllables

realized as different Japanese vowels depending

except for final nasals, e.g. // “three,” andon the case, as shown below (3).

double consonants, e.g. // “just then,” ofwhich, are both moraic (see Vance (1987) andTsujimura (2013) for Japanese sound structure).

353

Figure 1. Response percentages for each Japanese vowel averaged over all conditions.
vowels exclusively when adapting English words
to Japanese.
(3) a. “Christmas” //2.

 “ｸﾘｽﾏｽ” //EXPERIMENT

2.1. Backgroundb. “minimum” // “ﾐﾆﾏﾑ” //Schwa vowels are centralized reduced vowels

c. “sensation” //that can occur in any unstressed positions inEnglish (Ladefoged and Johnson (2011)). The “ｾﾝｾｰｼｮﾝ” //quality of a schwa vowel is affected by thed. “atom” //  “ｱﾄﾑ” //position in which it occurs (Flemming andthatJohnson (2007); Flemming (2009)). As reviewed

phonological changes in consonants and vowels

in the previous section, schwa vowels are realized

during loanword adaptation are unable to be

as different Japanese vowels depending on the

explained by a single factor. Conversely, they arecontext.

influenced

including

perceived quality variation of schwa vowels,

perception and orthography (e.g. Kenstowicz

different vowels could be assigned to schwa(2005); Peperkamp et al. (2008); Kaneko andvowels in any words, including nonsense words.

Iverson (2009)). These investigations cover a

It is preferable to use nonsense words towide range of loanword adaptation in terms ofinvestigate the effects of perceived phonetic

languages and sound class, i.e. consonants or

quality. When real English words are employed,

vowels. However, less research has been done tothose who are adapting the word (adapters) may

clarify adaptation of the English schwa vowel,

have prior knowledge of the affiliated loanword,

especially into Japanese. The present study

which can influence their perception and lead toinvestigates the effects of perception on schwa

inaccurate results. For example, when a real word

Previous

investigationsbymultiplesuggestedfactors,

354

Therefore,

if

adaptationreflects

Figure 2. Response percentages for initial

Figure 3. Response percentages for medial

schwa positions

schwa positions

such as “Christmas” is used for the experiment,

Recording took place in a quiet room. The

adapters realize that the adapted form of the word

nonsense words were recorded on a SONY DAT

is “ｸﾘｽﾏｽ” /,/ and may assign /a/ forWalkman (Sony Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) at

the schwa following the form of the known

48 kHz. The recorded speech was re-digitizedloanword. In this case, whether schwa is adaptedusing Adobe Audition 1.5 (Adobe Systems

based solely on perception remains unclear.

Incorporated, CA, USA) with a sampling rate of

Therefore,

44.1 kHz and 16-bit resolution.

thecurrent

experimentusedhypothetical English words to test the effects of

2.3. Participants

perception on schwa adaptation.

Twenty native speakers of Japanese wererecruited for the experiment (3 males, 17 females).

2.2. Recording
One native speaker of American English wasParticipants ranged in age from 20 to 24 years.

recruited for recording. The source words to be

They were undergraduate or graduate students

recorded were nonsense words that contained

majoring in fields related to English-speaking

schwa vowels in initial, medial, or final open or

countries, e.g. English Literature or Americanclosed positions, e.g. [], [], andCulture, at the time of the experiment.

[] (Appendix). The syllable structures of the

2.4. Procedure

nonsense

words

conformed

toEnglishEach participant listened to the recorded

phonotactics. The speaker was informed that thenonsensewords for recording were nonsense words that

Participants were instructed to transcribe thewere supposed to sound like regular English

word they head in katakana, as if they werewords. However, because the speaker was

introducing English words to Japanese as new

unfamiliar with the recording words, the authorloanwords. Participants were also told that only

gave

by

accurate transcriptions were acceptable. For

demonstrating the stress patterns of the words,

example, it is technically possible to write “cat”

and then supervised the recording.

as ｷｨﾔｯｯﾄｩ, or ｷｬｯﾄｩ to mean ｷｬｯﾄ //,instructionsforpronunciation

words

through

headphones.

which is the accurate Japanese transcription.

355

Figure 4. Response percentages for open

Figure 5. Response percentages for final

final schwa positions

closed final schwa positions

However, in order to examine the process of(2007); Flemming (2009)). However, because theadequately adapting the words so that they could

stimuli used for this experiment were nonsensebe used in a real linguistic community, inaccurate

words, it is possible that all recorded schwa

transcriptions were excluded from analysis.

vowels were invariant and similar to the quality

2.5. Resultsof the Japanese /a/.

Figure 1 indicates the dispersion percentage of

Figure 6 shows a scatter plot of tokens ofvowel adaptation responses averaged over all

schwa vowels recorded for this experiment andconditions. A schwa vowel was typically adopted

all five Japanese vowels as spoken by a maleas the Japanese /a/ vowel. When a schwa wasnative speaker of Japanese. To approximate

presented in the initial, medial, open final andhuman hearing, the first (F1) and second (F2)closed final positions, it was transcribed as theformant frequencies, which are responsible forJapanese /a/ 99.2%, 100%, 98.8% and 86.7% of

acoustic variation of vowels, were plotted on thethe time, respectively (Fig. 2 to Fig. 5). Although

equivalent rectangular bandwidth (ERB) scale

the schwa vowel in the open and closed final(Moore and Glasberg, 1983). As shown, thepositions received a few responses as /u/ and /o/,acoustic properties of schwa vary widely, andand the percentage of /a/ responses in the closed

while some tokens overlap the Japanese /a/, most

final position somewhat decreased, the Japanese

are in the center of the Japanese vowels. Because/a/ response was still predominant.

the range of recorded schwa vowels did not

2.6. Acoustic analysis

thoroughly overlap that of Japanese /a/ vowels,

These results indicate that the schwa vowel isacoustic characteristics cannot be considered

predominantly adapted to the Japanese /a/ vowel.

solely responsible for schwa adaptation.

This may suggest that the schwa vowels used for3.

the experiment are acoustically similar to the

DISCUSSION

Japanese /a/ vowel. In real words, a previous

Results of the experiment suggest that the

study showed that the quality of a schwa vowel is

English schwa is perceptually closest to theaffected by its position (Flemming and Johnson

Japanese /a/; however, acoustic analysis suggests

356

Figure 6. Scatter plot of the schwa and all five Japanese vowels on the equivalent rectangular
bandwidth (ERB) scale.

that the acoustic properties of schwa are not.

spelling of the test words, even though the

Thereby, it raises the following two questions: (1)spelling information was covered during theWhy do Japanese participants assign a Japaneseexperiment. The effects of recall on spelling/a/ for schwa vowels despite the acoustic

shoulddissimilarity between the English schwa and theexperiments in future research.

beinvestigatedwithperceptual

Japanese /a/?; and (2) On what basis does

The effect of spelling may help to answer theJapanese grammar adapt schwa vowels duringsecond question. The following is a replica ofloanword adaptation.

words containing English schwa that wereadapted to Japanese as loanwords shown in (3).

In response to the first question, the spelling of
the nonsense words used in the present study may
be responsible for the constant assignment of theJapanese /a/ to the English schwa vowel by native(4) a. “Christmas” //Japanese speakers. In this experiment, the “ｸﾘｽﾏｽ” //recorded nonsense words used the letter ‘a’ forb. “minimum” //schwa (see Appendix). Based on the acoustic

 “ﾐﾆﾏﾑ” //analysis, it is unlikely that the native English

c. “sensation” //speaker’s pronunciation was affected by the “ｾﾝｾｰｼｮﾝ” //spelling. However, the spelling of the test words

d. “atom” //  “ｱﾄﾑ” //may have influenced the perception of Japaneselisteners. As noted in Section 2, the Japaneselisteners in this experiment were all familiar withAs seen in (4), schwa vowels are adapted

English language, and some of them are quite

according to the English spelling of the English

fluent. Therefore, the participants with advanced

source words. For example, in the word

English ability may have been able to recall the“Christmas”, the schwa vowel is realized as the357

Japanese /a/. This adaptation reflects the spelling

line Adaptation of English Final Consonants,”of the original word, i.e. “Christmas.”

Studies in Language Sciences 8: Papers from

Some cases also suggest discrepancy between

the Eighth Annual Conference of thethe spelling and adapted vowel. For instance, inJapanese Society for Language Science, ed.

the case of (4)-b, although the schwa vowel is

by Shunji Inagaki and Makiko Hirakawa,spelled with a letter ‘u’ in the source word, it is179-196, Kurosio Publications, Tokyo.

adapted as the Japanese /a/. Adaptation against

Kenstowicz, Michael (2005) “The Phonetics andthe spelling should generally be the result of

Phonology of Korean Loanword Adaptation,”

general phonological constraints such as thepaper presented at First European Conference

Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP). In Japanese,on Korean Linguistics.

a sequence of similar segments, or even pitch

Ladefoged, Peter and Keith Johnson (2011) A

patterns, is avoided. In the case of (4)-b, it is

Course in Phonetics Sixth Edition, Cengage

logically possible to assign the Japanese /u/ forLearning, Canada.

the English schwa spelled with the letter ‘u’.

Flemming, Edward (2009) “The Phonetics ofHowever, if the Japanese /u/ had been assigned to

Schwa Vowels,” Phonological Weakness inthe schwa, the loanword would have been ﾐﾆﾑﾑ

English From Old to Present-Day English, ed.

//, which includes recursion of thebysame syllables: //; this recursion violates

Macmillan, England.

the OCP. The relationship between generalphonologicalconstraints

and

Donka

Minkova,

78-95,

Palgrave

Flemming, Edward and Stephanie Johnson

loanword(2007) “Rosa’s Roses: Reduced Vowels inphonology, as well as effects of spelling warrants

Americanfuture investigation.

International Phonetic Association 37, 83-96.

English,”Journalofthe

In conclusion, the English schwa vowels are

Peperkamp, Sharon, Inga Vendelin and Kimihiro

perceptually adapted to the Japanese /a/ in most

Nakamura (2008) “On the Perceptual Origin ofcases by university students with relatively

Loanword

advanced English knowledge. The effects of

Evidence from Japanese” Phonology 25, 129-source164.

wordspellings

andphonological

Adaptations:

Experimental

restrictions on English schwa adaptation of

Tsujimura, Natsuko (2013) An Introduction toloanwords should be clarified in future research.

Japanese Linguistics Third Edition, Blackwell,
Massachusetts.

REFERENCES

Vance, Timothy J. (1987) An Introduction to

Moore, Brian C. J. and Brian R. Glasberg (1983)"Suggested

FormulaeforJapanese Phonology, State University of

Calculating

New York Press, New York.

Auditory-Filter Bandwidths and Excitation
Patterns," Journal of the Acoustical Society ofAmerica 74, 750-753.
Kaneko, Emiko and Gregory K. Iverspm (2009)“Phonetic and Other Factors in Japanese On-

358

APPENDIX
The nonsense words used for the experimentare as follows. Spelling presented to the speaker
are in quotations (“ ”), and pronunciations are inbrackets ([ ]).
1.

Initial schwa position“abive,” []; “adize,” []; “aguy,”[]; “azide,” []; “abeep,” [];“adeat,” []; “ageek,” []; “azea,”[]; “aboof,” []; “adoose,” [];“agooke,” []; “azuit,” [].

2.

Medial schwa position“tababite,” []; “tadadite,”[]; “tagagite,” [];“tazazite,” []; “teababeat,”[]; “teadadeat,” [];“teagageat,” []; “teazazeat,”[]; “cubabuke,” [];“cudaduke,” []; “cugaguke,”[]; “cuzazuke,” [].

3.

Open final schwa position“sabba,” []; “sadda,” []; “saga,”[]; “sazza,” []; “keyba,”[]; “keyda,” []; “keyga,” [];“keyza,” []; “pooba,” [];“pooda,” []; “pooga,” [];“pooza,” [].

4.

Closed final schwa position“cabub,” []; “cadud,” [];“cagug,” []; “cazuz,” [];“pebub,” []; “pedud,” [];“pegug,” []; “pezuz,” [];“boobub,” []; “boodud,” [];“boogug,” []; “boozuz,” [].

359

2010b, 2013) proposed two different syntactic
analyses on the event conditional clause:
Truncation Approach and Operator Movement
Approach. Briefly summarizing these two

Comparison of English and Japaneseapproaches (for more detail, see Yamada 2014),

Conditional Clauses

this paper supports her recent view, comparing
English conditionals with Japanese counterparts.

Akitaka Yamada
University of Tokyo

1.1 Event Conditionals and Epistemic
Conditionals

Keywords: cartography, syntax of conditional

Previous researchers on the syntax ofclauses, uncertainty feature, Truncation

conditionals have been aware of the need toApproach, Operator Movement (Intervention)

distinguish two different types of conditionals:

Approach

event conditionals, as in (1), and epistemic
conditionals, as in (2):(1) If his paper is accepted, John will go the

Abstract
This paper discusses the constraint on theconference and so will Mary. (ibid.: 325)

occurrence of interrogative elements within the(2) If his children aren’t in the garden, John
will already have left home and so will

event conditional clauses.
First,

Japanese

allowsMary.

interrogative(ibid.: 325)

element appear in the event conditional clause.

Rejecting the view that the differences ofSecond, English, on the other hand, does not.

the two conditionals “pertain, not to syntactic,

Third, even in Japanese, if the event conditional

but to semantic integration (Declerck and Reedclause includes conditional-related adverb mosi,

2001: 37-38),” Haegeman (2003) claimed that

one cannot put interrogative element in the event

they are indeed syntactically different. She, forconditional clause. Finally, not only mosi, but

example, points out that they behave differently

also such adverbs with the same meaning, as

in terms of the VP Anaphora: while the eventkari-ni, man-ga-iti, and man-iti, conflict with theconditionals are ambiguous with two different

existence of interrogative phrases.

interpretations available as described in (3)a/b,
the epistemic conditionals are not, lacking theAssuming the difference in distribution ofsloppy reading shown in (4)b.

[+Q], this paper suggests that the Operator
Movement Approach can properly account for(3) a.

the Main Clause Phenomena in English andJohn’s paper is accepted.

Japanese conditionals.
b.
1

Mary will go to the conference if

Introduction

Mary will go to the conference if her
paper is accepted.

Haegeman (2003, 2006, 2009, 2010a,

360

(4) a.

If John’s children aren’t in the2garden, Mary will already have left

Previous studies conducted by Haegeman
In order to account for these constraints,

home.

Haegeman proposed two different types ofb. * If her children aren’t in the garden,

approaches: Truncation Approach and Operator

Mary will already have left home.

Movement (Intervention) Approach. (In either

In addition to this VP Anaphora test, she gives aapproach, she bases herself on the cartographianset of criteria to tell them apart (Haegeman

view of syntax. For more detail of this2003). From these observations, she concluded

theoretical framework, see Rizzi 1997; Cinquethat “event conditionals are adjoined to a

1999; Cinque and Rizzi 2008).

projection of the matrix V” and are “part of thecomplex matrix predicate” while epistemic

2.1 Truncation Approachconditionals have “no local relation with V or

2.1.1 Explanation
Taking the split-CP/IP analysis forwith I,” and are speculated to be “adjoined to the

granted, Haegeman (2003, 2006) proposed

associated CP (ibid.: 326).”

Truncation Approach: she proposed that the lack
1.2 Main Clause Phenomenaof some functional projections in the event

The theme of this paper is about theconditional clause leads to the unavailability of

inner structure of the event conditional clause:

higher hosting places, which could otherwise

compared to the epistemic conditional, someaccommodate such elements as topic phrases

elements are not allowed to appear in the eventand speaker-oriented modal phrases, as inconditional clause. For instance, the event
conditionalclausecannotmatrix clauses. In this view, truncation is theaccommodate

trigger of the Main Clause Phenomena.

epistemic modalities, speech act adverbs, or

2.1.2 Problems

evidential adverbs, as in the examples below:

There are, at least, however, two(5) Fronting (argument)

phenomena* If these exams you don’t pass, you

which

this

framework

cannotexplain without problem. First, in contrast to the

won’t get the degree.

argument fronting, one can put topicalized(6) Epistemic modality

adjuncts* John will do it if he may/must have

in

the

event

conditionalclause(Haegeman 2003: 333; 2006: 1657). If there istime.

no place for topicalized/focalized element in(7) Speech act adverb

event conditionals, it is predicted that such a*If frankly he is unable to cope, we’ll

fronting element also triggers unacceptability.

have to replace him.

(9) Fronting (adjunct)(8) Evidential adverb

If with all these precautions you don’t*If they luckily arrived on time, we will

succeed, you will have to try again next

be saved.

week.

(Haegeman 2010a: 629-630)

361(Haegeman 2003: 333)

Second, in some languages, unlike the caseoriginally exists in FinP and then moves upward

shown in (5), one can place the fronted argument,

as shown in (11). Second, fronted phrases andas in (10), under the condition that there is aspeaker-oriented subjective phrases, but not theclitic left behind (Clitic Left Dislocation). If

topicalized adjuncts, also have the same feature

there is no place for the argument fronting, suchas well as the discourse related feature [+δ]. The

an observation would never be observed.

operator, therefore, cannot move over any(10) Si ce livre-là

topic/speaker-oriented expressions, because oftu

le trouves à

you it findtheintervention(theviolationofthis book-there

a

Fnac,

achète- le.

Relativized Minimality, Rizzi 2004). Hence,

the

FNAC

buy-itMain Clause Phenomena (Haegeman 2009,at2010a, 2010b, 2013).

‘If you find this book at the Fnac, buy it!’(11) *[CP OPi if [TopP this bookj [FinP OPi [IP you(Haegeman 2010a: 632)
Of course, Truncation Approach may give acertainexplanation

with

some

…[VP find this bookj]]]]]

additional(Haegeman2010a)

assumptions. Indeed, Haegeman (2003) tries to

2.2.2 Problems

make her theory coherent by assuming that

Although Haegeman herself shifted her

Adjunct Fronting and Clitic Left Dislocation aretheoretical

not the movement targeted to TopP or FocP, but

Truncation

not without problems (see Yamada (2014: 42)

evidence showing these fronting elements dofor more detail). First, there is no coherency inland in such a functional category, this is

the movement mechanism as to from where tonothing but an ad-hoc stipulation.

where the operator moves. In contrast to therepresentation

2.2 Operator Movement Approach

shown

in

(11),

Haegeman(2010b) assumes that the operator is moved from

2.2.1 Explanation
herself

abandoned

MoodPirrealis to MoodPSpeechAct as shown in (12).

this(12) * MoodPspeech act > MoodPevaluative >Truncation Approach and proposed anothertheoreticalpossibility:

Approach(Intervention

Operator

MoodPevidential > MoodPepistemic > TPpast >Movement

Approach).

TPFuture > MoodPirrealis

This(Haegeman 2010b)

explains Main Clause Phenomena in theSecond, there is no independent evidence

following way.

on the assumption that, unlike the fronted

First, as Bhatt and Puncheva (2002,

adjuncts, fronted argument and speaker-oriented

2006) suggests, conditional clauses are made bysubjective elements are equipped with theoperator movement --- a movement of anfeature [+Q].

operator with a [+Q] feature. Haegeman (2008,2010a)

fromlatest framework, as well as the previous one, isHowever, since there is no other independent

Haegemanframework

Approach to Operator Movement Approach, theto other functional categories (e.g., FinP).

2009,

effectif

assumesthattheoperator362

3

the place to which the speaker would have asked

Proposal(=(15)b), not the person which the speaker will

Consequently, it is fair to say that, withask (=(15)a). This suggests that this conditional

the data collected and discussed so far in theis under the influence of the past tense of theprevious studies, neither of these approaches

associated root clause, namely -ta. Since thishave no fatal disadvantage nor any crucial

morpheme should be in the head of TP, theadvantage. It is therefore required to findconditional clause is thus below the TP. It isanother data, with which one can clinch thetherefore reasonable to conclude that thisargument.

conditional clause is an adjunct to VP.
3.1 Mosi and Interrogatives: Yamada (2014)
3.1.1 Interrogative

Element

in

Event

Conditional
Yamada(14) Dare-ni

kik-e-ba,kotae-ga

who-Datask-Sub-if

answer-Nom

wakat-ta-no?
(2014)

pointsoutthatunderstand-PST-Q

investigation on Japanese conditionals gives us a(15) a.

‘Please tell me the person xi, and xi isgreat insight into the issue. In this language,

the person from whom I could haveinterrogative elements (e.g., dare-ni in (13)) can

got the answer if I ask himi.’

appear in the event conditional clauses.

b.

(13) Interrogative in the event conditional
Dare-ni*(kik-e-ba),kotae-ga

who-Datask-Sub-if

answer-Nom‘Please tell me the person xi, and xi isthe person from whom I could have
got the answer if I had asked himi.’

3.1.2 English Counterpart and an Adverb mosi

wakar-u-no?

We’ve seen that Japanese has an event

understand-Prs-Q

conditional which hosts interrogative elements‘Please tell me the person xi, and xi is theinside. This peculiarity will become apparent,

person from whom I can get the answer if

especially when compared to the following two

I ask himi.’

related sentences:Note, first, that this dare-ni appears(16) English counterpart

within an event conditional clause (ba clause),* If I ask whom, can I get the answer?

because one cannot omit ik-e-ba, which suggests(17) Mosi-added conditionalthat dare-ni is not associated with its root clause(i.e., nyuusyudekir -u -no), but with the verb kik‘ask.’ Second, this is an event conditional, that is,an adjunction to the VP, not the epistemic*Mosi

dare-nikik-e-ba,adv.

who-Datask-Sub-if

kotae-gawakar-u-no?

answer-Nom see-Prs-Q

conditional, because it falls within the scope of‘Please tell me the person xi, and xi is thethe tense in the associated root clause. For

person from whom I can get the answer if

example, if one replaces -u with -ta as shown inI ask himi.’ (intended)(14), the conditional clause, as well as theFirst, in English interrogative elements are notassociated root clause, is interpreted as asking363

allowed to exist within the (event) conditionals

The idea that the null operator Ø in English has(=(16)). That is, there is a clear difference[+Q] gives the same explanation offered by

between Japanese conditional and English

Haegeman’s previous studies. Because of thiscounterpart. Second, even in Japanese, one

feature, Main Clause Phenomena are observed.

cannot put an interrogative element within the

Recognition of two different types of operators

conditional if the conditional has an adverb,

for Japanese conditionals allows us to accountmosi (= (16)). This is an adverb used mostly infor the contrast between (13) and (17): [+Q] in

the conditional clauses (cf. section 4) but, as is

the interrogative phrase prevents the operator

in the case of (13) and (14), it is not a mandatory

mosi from moving upward but allows the nullelement for making the conditional: that is, one

operator Ø Japanese to move because there is no

can make conditionals with and without using[+Q] in it.

mosi, and this is why it is counted as an adverb.
3.2 Mosi

Although adverbs tend to be dealt with as

We’ve seen that Operator Movement

optional ornaments decorating the projections,

Approach, not Truncation Approach, has the

however, the example in (17) suggests that thepotential to explain the contrast in Japanese. But

existence of this adverb does clearly affect thethe assumption (=(18)a/b) introduced there

acceptability of the sentence.

should be independently verified.

3.1.3 Truncation vs. Operator Movement

First, the assumption that mosi isThis observation allows us to make anassociated with interrogative-related feature isadvanced discussion on the syntax of the event
conditionalclauses.

First,

thesupported by the fact that the expressions

Truncation

derived from mosi (i.e., the expressions in (19))

Approach seems difficult to handle these

all show the uncertainty flavor: the speakercontrasts properly. Whatever adjunction siteusing these phrases is not sure about the(TopP, or FocP) one may prepare for this adverb,
it would be difficult to account for the reason

proposition s/he utters.
(19) a. mosi-mowhy (17) is bad despite the acceptability of (13).

b. mosi-wa, mosi-ku-wa

Second, Operator Movement Approach,(un)acceptabilities.

mosi-ka-s-ite, mosi-ka-sur-u-to

Developing

mosi-ka-s-itara, mosi-ka-sur-e-ba

Haegeman’s proposal, Yamada (2014) suggests… ‘Perhaps’that the assumption on the distribution of [+Q]

Second, adverbs with similar meanings

as in (18) makes it possible to predict theshow the same unacceptability. It is, therefore,

contrasts shown from (13) to (17):preferable to conclude that the trigger of the(18) Conditional operators
a. mosib. Ø Japanese [+Q]

no [+Q]… ‘or’

c. mosi-ya, mosi-ka

on the other hand, has the potential to explainthese… intensified form of mosi

unacceptability is the feature, or meaning,c. Ø English

shared[+Q]

byuncertainty.

364

these

adverbial

expressions:(20) Adverb with the same meaning of mosi

4.3 Diachronic change: subjunctive mood
While the principal contribution of this*{Kari-ni/man-ga-iti/man-iti} dare-ni
Adv

who-Datpaper is aimed at the syntactic research

wakar-u-no?

especially in the cartography framework, thekik-e-ba,kotae-ga

ask-Sub-if

answer-Nom see-Prs-Q

study of mosi also brings us an interesting
implication on linguistics: language change.

‘Please tell me the person xi, and xi is the

As mentioned earlier, in contemporary

person from whom I can get the answer if

Japanese mosi can only be used inside theI ask(ed) himi.’

conditional clauses. The texts written in the4Issues for future study

ancient times, however, show that this adverb

There is, at least, one theoretical issue toused to appear within the root clause, as is

be considered and two descriptive facts worthshown in (21).

mentioning before closing the discussion.

(21) … mosi
Adv

4.1 Theoretical sophistication
With the reasonable assumption shownin (18), Operator Movement Approach can give

naki

ma-ni

absenttime-during

kotogokoro-mo-ya

ar-u-toseven-year itch-Prt-Prt

be-Prs-Computagah-ite, …

an explanation to the Japanese data. Since

doubt-and

Truncation Approach seems to have difficulty in‘… he doubted “perhaps she may have thehandling the data, if comparing these twoseven-year itch while I am absent” and …’

Haegeman’s ideas, the recent framework should(Kokinwakasyu Vol.18, 994)

be the more desirable. The main problems of thisThis mosi has a different status from theapproach have not been solved yet, however: (i)contemporary one: it is an adverb of epistemic

as to the mechanism of the movement (frommodality, translated as ‘perhaps,’ and used when

where to where) and (ii) the assumption on the

doubting something. This obsolete meaning is[+Q] in the fronted elements. Further elaboration

nowadays expressed by such words as mosi-ya,

should be required.

mosi-ka-sur-u-to, mosi-ka-s-itara, mosi-ka-sure-ba, and mosi-ka-s-ite, which are the compound

4.2 Synchronic difference: graded
acceptability

adverbs derived from mosi (cf. (19)c). As theSome informants find the degree of thetime goes, mosi abandoned its original status asunacceptability differs (i) among the adverbs

an epistemic modal adverb and has come to(mosi, kari-ni, man-ga-iti, and man-iti) and (ii)dedicate itself to a marker of uncertainty inaccording to the order between the interrogative

conditional clauses.

element and the adverbs (i.e., mosi dare-ni vs.
dare-ni mosi). Future studies are expected to
examinethegradiance

of

these

(un)acceptabilities.

365

Phenomena

References

and

the

DerivationofAdverbial Clauses,” Proceedings of the
18th

Bhatt, Rajesh and Roumyana Puncheva (2002)

International“Locality in Correlativization,” Natural

Theoretical

Language and Linguistic Theory 21,(ISTHAL), 1-18.

485-541.

andSymposium
Applied

Linguistics

Haegeman, Liliane (2010a) “The Internal Syntax

Bhatt, Rajesh and Roumyana Puncheva (2006)

of“Conditionals,” The Blackwell Companion

Adverbial

Clauses.”

LinguaHaegeman, Liliane (2010b) “The Movement

Henk van Riemsdijk, 638-687, Blackwell,

Derivation

Boston and Oxford.

Linguistic Inquiry 41, 595-621.

Guglielmo(1999)

Adverbs

120.

628-648.

to Syntax vol 1, ed. by Martin Everaert andCinque,onofConditional

Clauses,”andHaegeman, Liliane (2013) “The Syntax ofAdverbial Clauses,” paper presented at the

Functional

Heads:

Across-linguistic

Perspective,

OxfordUniversity Press,

International

Oxford.

CongressofLinguists,

Geneva.

Cinque, Guglielmo and Luigi Rizzi (2008) “The
Cartography

Structures,”

Left Periphery,” Elements of Grammar:

Studies in Linguistics: CISCL Working

Handbook of Generative Syntax, ed. by

Papers on Language and Cognition vol 2,

Lilianeed.

Amsterdam.

byof

Syntactic

Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of theVincenzo

Moscati,

43-59,

Università Degli Studi Di Siena, Siena.

Rizzi,

Luigi

Haegeman,(2004)

281-337,“Locality

KulwerandLeft

Declerck, Renaat and Susan Reed (2001)

Periphery,” Structures and Beyond: The

Conditionals: a Comprehensive Empirical

Cartography of Syntactic Structures, volAnalysis. Mouton de Gruyter, Amsterdam.

III, ed. by Adriana Belletti,

Haegeman, Liliane (2003) “Conditional Clauses:

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

External and Internal Syntax,” Mind and

Yamada, Akitaka (2014) “Zyookensetu no

Language 18, 317 -339.
Haegeman,

Liliane(2006)

223-251,

Toogobunseki:Nihongo

no

Zirei

ni

“Conditionals,

Motoduku Keturakusetu to Idoosetu no

Factives and the Left Periphery,” Lingua

Hikaku (Syntactic Analysis on Conditional

116, 1651-1669.

Clauses: Comparison between Truncation

Haegeman, Liliane (2008) “The Syntax ofApproach and Movement Approach on theAdverbial Clauses and the Licensing ofbasis

Main Clause Phenomena, Truncation or

Gengojohokagaku 12, 37-54.

Intervention?” paper presented at the 31st
GLOW Conference.
Haegeman,

Liliane(2009)“Main

Clause366

ofJapanese

Conditionals,”

Approach to UG (Universal Grammar)) to MP(Minimalist Program), the EPP was reformulated
as a NP-/D-feature (Chomsky (1995: 199, 232)5)
or a selectional feature (Chomsky (2000: 102)6).
Eliminating the EPP toward a Principled

A NP-/D-feature or selectional feature was

Explanation: Labeling in the ECM

assumed to be checked by Merge, a recursive

Construction

operation combining two already constructedsyntactic objects to create a new one, either

Toshiyuki Yamada

External Merge (e.g., “there-insertion”) or

The University of Tokyo

Internal Merge (e.g., Move from Spec-v* toSpec-T).7 The EPP is now treated as a formal

Keywords: Extended Projection Principle,feature, referring to the Extended Projection

Exceptional Case-Marking construction,

Principle in the sense that it determines thelabeling, English

syntactic positions not required by the Projection
Principle

(see

note

3).8

Since

the

first

formulation, supporting empirical evidence for1

1. INTRODUCTION

the EPP has been discussed (e.g., Lasnik & Saito

The goal of this paper is to investigate whether(1991); Lasnik (2001); Miyagawa (2001)).

the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) can be

However, the existence of the EPP has often

eliminated as a consequence of the Labelingbeen put into question (e.g., McCloskey (1996);

Algorithm (LA) (Chomsky (2013)). I examine

Grohmann, Drury, & Castillo (2000)).9(ECM)

In what follows, Section 2 sets theconstruction and propose that the “mysterious

background of the current paper: Chomsky

property” EPP (Chomsky (2008)) be abandoned(2008) for the EPP in the ECM construction andtoward a principled explanation for human

Chomsky (2013) for the LA. In Section 3, I

language in terms of the interface conditions andpropose that the EPP be eliminable in that thethe

Exceptional

the “third” factor.

Case-Marking

2

EPP effect can be analyzed as a reflection of the

Before setting the stage for my proposal, letthird-factor principle of Minimal Computation

me review a brief history of the EPP. The EPP

imposed on the LA. Section 4 discusses thewas first formulated by Chomsky (1982) asvalidity of the proposal, and Section 5 concludes

purely grammatical requirement: “clauses havethe paper.

subjects” (p.10).
generalization

3

This structural descriptive
causedwithin-and

2. BACKGROUND

between-linguistic exceptions, resulting in the

To examine labeling in the ECM construction

highly productive inquiry into expletives, raisingand propose the elimination of the EPP as aand control constructions, Control Theory, Nullconsequence of the LA, this section reviews

Subject Parameter, VSO languages, among

Chomsky (2008, 2013) as the background of the4many others. Responding to the theoretical shift

current paper.

from GB (Government and Binding Theory, also
known as P&P (Principles-and-Parameters)

367

raising are carried out within the same phase,

2.1. ECM Construction
following

v*P1 (notice that T is not the phase head, andinteresting observation on the so-called Subject

there is no CP phase in the embedded clause).

Chomsky(2008)

Condition:
(1)

a.
b.

presents

the10

Subsequently, within the CP phase, the EF of C
raises of which car in Spec-v*1 to its Spec. In*Of which car did the driver cause ascandal?
Of which car did they believe thedriver to have caused a scandal?
(cf. Chomsky (2008: 153))

the ECM construction as in (2b), the raising of
the embedded subject in Spec-v*2 to theembedded Spec-T is considered a residual of the“mysterious” property EPP (Chomsky (2008)).

The Subject Condition bans the extraction from

The question remains of why this raising exists.

the subject position as in (1a) (of which car is
extracted from the subject, the driver). However,

2.2. The Labeling Algorithm

it is apparently not in effect in the ECM

Chomsky

construction in (1b) despite the fact that of which(2013)

discusses

theLabeling

Algorithm (LA) by two cases. The LA is

car is extracted from the embedded subject, theassumed to be constrained by MC and search fordriver.11 Assuming derivation by phase (CP and

the closest head as label of the Syntactic Object

v*P) (Chomsky (2001)), Chomsky (2008)(SO) in question. One case is the SO like {H,accounts for the asymmetry of subject-islandXP} (H is a head and XP not a head). In thiseffect in (1a-b) as in (2a-b) (t stands for the
lower copies of the driver of which car).12

case, the LA reaches H as the closest head and(2){XP, YP}. In this case, the LA reaches equallya.
b.

determines it as label. The other is the SO like*[CP Of which car did the driver [v*P tcause a scandal]]?
[CP Of which car did they [v*P1 believe
the driver to [v*P2 t have caused ascandal]]]?
(cf. Chomsky (2008: 153))

close heads X and Y, resulting in {XP, YP}
unlabeled. One way to solve this computational
crash is to raise either of XP and YP because thelower copy of the raised SO becomes invisible

Within the CP phase in (2a), it is possible toto the LA.15 Consider the following basic

raise the driver of which car in Spec-v* totransitive configuration (EA stands for External

Spec-T by C-T feature inheritance, whereas it isArgument and IA for Internal Argument):

impossible to raise of which car in Spec-v* to(3)Spec-C by the Edge Feature (EF) of C because

T [α EA [v*P v* [VP V IA]]]the latter needs too deep search, violating

In (3), the LA cannot determine the label of {EA,

Minimal Computation (MC) as a third factor

v*P}, thus α. Chomsky (2013: 44) argues that

13,14

On the otherwhat we have called the EPP is forced as ahand, in (2b), after the raising of the driver ofconsequence of the LA. That is, if EA is raised

which car in the embedded Spec-v*2 to theto Spec-T, α is labeled v*P because the lower

embedded Spec-T within the v*P1 phase, it iscopy of EA becomes invisible to the LA. The

possible to raise the driver to the matrix Spec-V

question remains of whether this raising strategy

by v*1-V feature inheritance and raise of whichof the LA can be applied to the subject ofcar to the matrix Spec-v*1 by the EF of v*1

embedded, in particular infinitival, clauses.

principle (Chomsky (2005)).

simultaneously because the two operations of368

3. PROPOSAL

closest “specifier” (i.e., the matrix Spec-V1) by

In this paper, I propose that the raising strategy

v*1-V1 feature inheritance, resulting in β labeledof the LA holds not only in the basic transitive

TP2 (this raising is discussed by Chomsky

configuration as in (3) but also in the ECM(2013: 47)).17 Because simultaneous operations

configuration as in (2b). It follows that the EPP

are possible within a single phase, an alternative

can be eliminated as a consequence of the LA (cf.

is to raise him from the embedded Spec-v*2Moro (2009/2013)).

directly to the matrix Spec-V1 by v*1-V1

Let us examine how the proposal works out.

feature inheritance. However, the proposed

Consider the ECM construction in (4a) and its

analysis assumes that this option is avoided bysyntactic derivation in (4b) (φ stands for theMC.18 Second, look at the computation withinlabel of shared prominent φ-features (Chomsky

the CP phase. As for γ, the LA raises they to the16(2013))). We focus on α, β, and γ, which areclosest “specifier” (i.e., the matrix Spec-T1) byencircled in (4b). First, consider the computation

C-T1 feature inheritance, satisfying MC. This

within the matrix v*P1 phase. If him remains atmeans that γ is labeled v*P1 without appeal tothe embedded Spec-v*2, α is unlabeled, leading

the EPP.

to crash. Instead of appeal to the EPP or any

The proposed analysis applies to (2b) as well.

kind of feature spread (Chomsky (2008: 157)),

The driver of which car in the embedded

the proposed analysis solves this problem as aSpec-v*2 is raised to the embedded Spec-T,

consequence of the LA. That is, to avoid theleading the LA to determine the label by MC as

computational crash, him is raised to the closest

seen for α in (4b). Then, the driver is raised to“specifier” (i.e., the embedded Spec-T2). This

the matrix Spec-V by v*1-V feature inheritance,means that α’s label becomes v*P2 as a result ofand of which car to the matrix Spec-v*1 by theMC, which is not explicitly discussed by

EF of v*1 simultaneously. This yields theChomsky (2013). Notice that the outcome canconvergent derivation of (1b). Note that in the

resolve the subsequent computational problem

proposed analysis of the ECM construction, theof unlabeled β by MC in that him is raised to theembedded subject, originally base-generated at

(4)

a.
b.

They expect him to take syntax.
CP
φ

C

TP1

DP

They

CP phaseγ  v*P1

T1
DP

v*P1

v*P1 phaseφ-feature agreementφv*1
V1 v*1 DP
expecthim

VP1
β  TP2

V1
DP

TP2

φ-feature agreementα  v*P2

T2
toMC for labeling

DP

v*P2

V2 v*2DPtakesyntaxφ-feature agreement369

v*P2 phase
φ

v*2

VP2
V2

DP

the embedded Spec-v*, is raised to thestage of the derivation of (7) (v is the weakembedded Spec-T first, and then the subsequent

phase head (for unaccusative or passive V) not

operations are driven simultaneously. The

forcingthe(Chomsky (2001))):

examination of ordering is deferred in future
research.

(9)

To make a supporting argument for the proposedV

analysis, this section deals with the phenomenonbecalled Preference of Merge over Move. Considera.
b.

position

VPv

the following pair of sentences:argument

21

vP

4. DISCUSSION(5)

external

VP
V

DP

discovered

a proofSince v in (9) is not a strong phase, syntactic

I expected there to be a proof
discovered.
I expected a proof to be discovered.
(cf. Chomsky (2000: 104))

operations are not applied at this point. Consider
the following stage of derivation:(10)

In derivation of either sentence, the followingDPstage occurs (α stands for TP with the defectiveI

v*P phase

v*P
VP

v*
V

head T, for example, for infinitival-to):TP

expect(6) [Tα [be a proof discovered]](Chomsky (2000: 104))

T
to

vP
VP

v
V

Chomsky (2000) argues as follows: “The EPP

VP

berequires that something occupy [Spec, Tα]. Two

VDP

discovered

a proofoptions are available: merge there or move a

In (10), the strong phase head v* is merged, andproof. Preference of Merge over Move selects

thus syntactic operations are applied here as in

the former” (p. 104).

19

This means that in the(11) (we focus on the object DP, putting asidecase of (5a), merger of there is preferred overV-to-v head movement).

20

movement of a proof to satisfy the EPP.

(11)

Consider the derivation of (5b) as in (7) and alsoDP

the pair of sentences in (8a-b).

I

v*P phase

v*P
φ

v*
DP

(7) Ii T [ti expect [[a proof]j to be discovered tj]]
(Chomsky (2000: 115))(8) a. We expect there to be awarded severe
prizes.
b. We expect several prizes to beawarded.
(Chomsky (2001: 7))

a proof

VP

V
expectTPDP

φ-feature agreement

TP

T
to

vP
DP

vP
VP

v
MC for labelingVbeEF

If an expletive is not available in the Numeration

VP
V

DP

discovered(or lexical subarray) from the Lexicon as in (7)First, on the assumption that the weak phaseand (8b) compared to (8a), the object DP in thehead v has the EF (see note 14), the object DP, aembedded clause has to move for Case

proof, is raised to the embedded Spec-v, causing

valuation/realization. Look at the following

the familiar problem, {DP, vP} unlabeled. The

370

(14)

proposed analysis solves this computationalQDPcrash by raising the DP, a proof, to the closest

what“specifier” (i.e., the embedded Spec-T) as a

CP phase
CP

C

φ
DP

reflection of MC, leading {DP, vP} to be labeled

youvP. Finally, the DP, a proof, is raised to theTPTβ  v*PDP

matrix Spec-V by v*-V feature inheritance forα  v*P

DP

1. EF

v*P
v*

φ-feature agreement, resulting {DP, VP} labeled

2. MC for labeling…

φ. For the subsequent derivation of (11), let us(= (11))

By the raising of the subject and object DP’s, αconsider the following interrogative sentenceand β are both labeled v*P as in (14). Notice that

corresponding to (5b):the opposite order of the two syntactic(12) What did you expect to be discovered?

operations in (14) is not allowed; otherwise,

In (12), before the phase head C is merged, theprobe T for φ-feature agreement reaches the

EF of the matrix v* raises the object DP, what,more local goal, i.e., the object DP, what, raisingfrom the embedded Spec-T to the outer Spec-v*

it to its Spec, contrary to the fact. This suggests

in parallel with the raising of what to the matrix

that there may be proper ordering of syntactic

Spec-V for φ-feature agreement (as seen for a

operations within a single phase for derivation

proof in (11)) because simultaneous operations(see Chomsky (2014b) for discussions on theare possible within the same phase, the matrix

ordering).

v*P. After the phase head C is merged as in (13),Compare the operation arrows for MC for

the subsequent syntactic operations are appliedlabeling in (11) and (14). Since the finite T has(in (13), we focus on the subject and object DP’s,

the complete set of φ-features, the raising of theputting aside T-to-C head movement).

matrix subject DP, you, in (14) is considered areflection of φ-feature agreement by C-T feature

(13)
CP
C

inheritance as well, resulting in φ for the label ofCP phase
TP

T{DP, TP}. On the other hand, the embedded T in
β

DP
what

DP
you

EF

(11) is non-finite, i.e., defective, and thus doesα

not have the complete set of φ-features. Hence,v*P

the raising of the embedded object DP, a proof,v*…

to the embedded Spec-T cannot be considered a(= (11))

reflection of φ-feature agreement. The proposed
We face with two unlabeled SO’s, α and β,analysis makes this raising possible as awhich are encircled in (13). First, the EF of C

consequence of the LA constrained by MC,

raises the object DP, what, to its Spec, resulting

without appeal to the “mysterious” EPP.

in β to be labeled by the head of α (namely, DP

In this section, I have examined the ECM

or v*P). Second, the LA raises the subject DP,

construction in the context of Preference ofyou, to the closest “specifier” (i.e., Spec-T),

Merge over Move and discussed a possibility

satisfying MC. The consequent derivation is asthat the EPP and the EF are distinguishable,

follows (like φ, Q stands for the shared

reducing the former to a consequence of the LA

prominent Q-feature (Chomsky 2013)):constrained by the general principle of MC. (Cf.

371

Case-Marking; EF: Edge Feature; EPP: Extended
Projection Principle; IP: Inflectional Phrase; LA:Labeling Algorithm; LF: Logical Form; MC:
Minimal Computation; NP: Noun Phrase; φ:phi-features; PIC: Phase-Impenetrability Condition;
Q: Q-feature; SO: Syntactic Object; Spec: Specifier;
TP: Tense Phrase; VP: Verb Phrase; vP: (little) verb
Phrase; for notations, : the lower copy of X; v*/v:
strong/weak v phase head.
2. We assume the following three/four interacting
factors in language design:(i) I.
Genetic endowment: (a) domain-specific(= UG); (b) domain-general
II.
External data
III. Laws of Nature(cf. Chomsky (2005: 6); Berwick, Chomsky, &Piattelli-Palmarini (2013: 19-20))
3. This is the extension of the Projection Principle
defined as follows:(i) Projection Principle
Representations at each syntactic level (i.e., LF,
and D- and S-structure) are projected from thelexicon,
in
that
they
observethesubcategorization properties of lexical items.
(Chomsky (1981: 29))
4. See Chomsky (1981); Jaeggli and Safir (1989);
Biberauer, Holmberg, Roberts, and Sheehan (2010);
McCloskey (1996); Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou(1998), among many others.
5. “The Extended Projection Principle, which
requires that [Spec, IP] be realized …, reduces to amorphological property of T: strong or weak
NP-features” (Chomsky (1995: Chapter 3, 199)); “theExtended Projection Principle (EPP) plausibly
reduces to a strong D-feature of I …” (Chomsky(1995: Chapter 4, 232)).
6. “For T, the property of allowing an extra Spec isthe Extended Projection Principle (EPP). By analogy,
we can call the corresponding of C and v
EPP-features, determining positions not forced by the
Projection Principle” (Chomsky (2000: 102)).
7. In this paper, specifier or Spec is used just for the
expository purpose of indicating the second merge.
8. Cf. Rizzi’s (2006) reinterpretation of the EPP bywhat he calls the “Subject Criterion.”
9. See Svenonius (2002); Lasnik (2003) for moredetailed discussions on the EPP.
10. Cf. Chomsky (1973), where Chomsky himself
reflects the speaker-variability of acceptability as
seen in (ia-b) (I am indebted for this point to HidekiMaki).
Who do you expect to hear stories about(i) a.
b. *Who do you expect stories about to terrify
John(Chomsky (1973: 249, (93b)-(94b)))
Notice, however, that in unacceptable (ib), theextraction is from the complement of the
prepositional phrase, whereas in acceptable (1b), it is
the whole prepositional phrase that is extracted.
11. Note that the Subject Condition applies to theembedded subject of finite clauses as seen in (i).
(i) *Who do you think pictures of would pleaseJohn?
(Huang (1982: 497))
See Chaves (2013); Haegeman, Jiménez-Fernández,
and Radford (2013) for recent re-evaluation of the
Subject Condition.
12. In this paper, we assume two kinds of thefunctional category, v: the strong phase head v* andthe weak phase head v. We further assume that thePhase-Impenetrability Condition (PIC), which isdefined as follows, works only in the former.

Castillo, Drury, and Grohmann (2009) forsuggestive discussions on the relation between
Preference of Merge over Move and the EPP.)
The questions of why the EF exists in humanlanguage and of whether it can be derived fromother factors than UG should be investigatedfurther toward a principled explanation.22
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
I have argued that the EPP can be eliminated asa (natural) consequence of the LA.23 If the EPP
is motivated only by purely grammaticalrequirement, and if the LA is motivated by MC
as a third-factor principle and by “the generalprinciple that all SOs that reach the interfaces
must be labeled” (Chomsky 2013: 45) as aninterface condition, the elimination of themysterious EPP as a consequence of the LA
leads us to a principled explanation. Without
appeal to the EPP, could what we have called so
be reduced to the consequences of theunderlying computational mechanism of humanlanguage. Also, I have discussed a possibility
that the EPP and the EF are distinguishable,
leading to a further question of why the EF
exists in human language.
A principal future issue is what ramifications
for the study of human language are possible by
the grammar without the EPP. That is, we haveto examine whether or not the linguistic
phenomena that used to be analyzed exploiting
the EPP can be dealt with as consequences of theLA,third-factor

principleMC,interface24

conditions, or their interaction. If this direction
is on the right track, the proposed analysis
should be evaluated by more empirical data.25
NOTES
1. The abbreviations and notations that I use are:For abbreviations, CP: Complementizer Phrase; DP:
Determiner
Phrase;ECM:
Exceptional

372

(i)

Phase-Impenetrability Condition
In phase α with head H, the domain of H is notaccessible to operations outside α, only H and
its edge are accessible to such operations.
(Chomsky (2000: 108))
In (i), domain means the complement of H, and edge“a hierarchy of one or more Specs” (Chomsky (2000:108)).
13. In this paper, the verb, raise, is used not for theraising construction but for what we call Move orInternal Merge.
14. In this paper, we distinguish the EPP and the EF(cf. Sigurðsson (2010) for the distinction betweenthem). The former is a mysterious property of T,
whereas the latter is given as an inherent property of
C and v(*) (cf. note 6). Following Rothstein (2004)
and Saito (2011) in that phases are inherently
propositional (Chomsky (2000: 107)), we assume thatthe weak phase head v (for unaccusative or passiveV) can possess the EF (note that Saito (2011) calls
what we treat as the EF in this paper the EPP feature(cf. note 6)). We will discuss the distinction between
the EPP and the EF in Section 4 below.
15. Another way to solve the computational crash due
to unlabeled {XP, YP} is to assume the mechanism of
sharing the prominent features as suggested by
Chomsky (2013) (see (4b) below, for example).
16. Recall that we assume that the PIC works inderivation by phase (for the PIC, see note 12).
17. As a result of this raising, him is realized as theaccusative form (Case realization is assumed as areflex of φ-feature agreement (namely, Agree)).
18. We assume here that within a phase, longer
raising is less preferred over shorter one for the sakeof MC. For example, within the matrix v*P1 phase,the raising of him from the embedded Spec-v*2
directly to the matrix Spec-V1 is disallowed insteadof the gradual raising of him from the embedded
Spec-v*2 to the embedded Spec-T2 and then to thematrix Spec-V1. The question of what role the notionof distance plays in the framework of derivation byphase is put aside as a future issue.
19. Notice that Move is a complex operation
decomposable into three parts: Agree, pied-piping,and Merge (Watanabe (2006)). Since Move includes
Merge (i.e., Internal Merge), it is more complex thanMerge. Hence, for computational complexity, Merge
is preferred over Move where both available (cf.
Chomsky (2014a: 13)).
20. Chomsky (2000) notes as follows: “Either an
expletive is merged, yielding (10b) [= (5a), TY], orMove applies, yielding (12c) [= (5b), TY]. The
choice depends on whether or not an expletive isavailable in the initial lexical array …” (p. 104).
21. For simplicity, be is the V head here, which may
not be accurate in order to capture the position of a
proof in (5a) or (6). We put aside the assumption ofsome functional projections above vP like AspP
(Aspectual Phrase) and VoiceP (Voice Phrase).
22. For three/four interacting factors in language
design, see note 2.
23. See Chomsky (2014b); Epstein, Kitahara, andSeely (2014) for further implications of the LA forother linguistic phenomena (e.g., the unification of
the EPP and the Empty Category Principle (ECP), thesuccessive cyclicity of the so-called A-movement). (I
thank Shoichi Takahashi for his mention to the latter
reference.)
24. For reviews and discussions on major syntactic
phenomena, see Baltin and Collins (2001); Bošković
and Lasnik (2007); Den Dikken (2013); Kayne, Leu,
and Zanuttini (2014); Carnie, Siddiqi, and Sato(2014).

25. To obtain empirical coverage, see the data in
Postal (1974).

SELECTED REFERENCES
Castillo, Juan Carlos, John E. Drury, and Kleanthes K.
Grohmann (2009) Merge over move and theExtended Projection Principle: MOM and the
EPP revisited. An International Journal of
Theoretical Linguistics, 1(1), 53-114.
Chomsky, Noam (2000) Minimalist inquires: The
framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels,
and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays
on minimalist syntax in honor or Howard Lasnik,
pp. 89-155. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (2001) Derivation by phase. In
Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life inlanguage, pp. 1-52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Chomsky, Noam (2005) Three factors in language
design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1-22.
Chomsky, Noam (2008) On phases. In Robert Freidin,
Carlos Peregrín Otero, and Maria Luisa
Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues inlinguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger
Vergnaud, pp. 133-166. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (2013) Problems of projection.
Lingua, 130, 33-49.
Chomsky, Noam (2014a) Minimal recursion:
Exploring the prospects. In Tom Roeper andMargaret Speas (eds.), Recusion: Complexity incognition, pp. 1-15. Cham: Springer.
Chomsky, Noam (2014b) Problems of projection:
Extensions. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.
Epstein, Samuel David, Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T.
Daniel Seely (2014) Labeling by minimal search:
Implications for successive-cyclic A-movement
and the conception of the postulate “phase.”
Linguistic Inquiry, 45(3), 463-481.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K., John Drury, and Juan
Carlos Castillo (2000) No more EPP. In Roger
Billerey and Brook Danielle Lillehaugen (eds.),
WCCFL (West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics) 19 Proceedings, pp. 153-166.
Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
Lasnik, Howard (2001) A note on the EPP. Linguistic
Inquiry, 32(2), 356-362.
Lasnik, Howard (2003) On the Extended Projection
Principle. Studies in Modern Grammar, 31, 1-23.
[Downloadable draft retrieved on December 20th,2013].
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1991) On thesubject of infinitives. In Lise M. Dobrin, Lynn
Nichols, and Rosa M. Rodríguez (eds.), Papers
from the 27th regional meeting of the Chicago
Linguistic Society 1991, part one: The generalsession, pp. 324-343. Chicago: Chicago
Linguistic Society.
McCloskey, James (1996) Subjects and subject
positions in Irish. In Robert D. Borsley and Ian
Roberts (eds.), The syntax of the Celtic
languages: A comparative perspective, pp.
241-283. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (2001) The EPP, scrambling, andwh-in-situ. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken
Hale: A life in language, pp. 293-338. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Moro, Andrea (2009/2013) Rethinking symmetry: A
note on labeling and the EPP. In Andrea Moro,
The equilibrium of human syntax: Symmetries inthe brain, pp. 200-201. New York: Routledge.

373

Haspelmath (1993), Hale and Keyser (1993),
Levin and Rappaport (1995)). I will call thislong-standing constraint the agentivity constraint
hereafter.
(3) The agentivity constraint:

On the Availability of the Causative

The

Alternation: Evidence for Externally Caused
Eventuality*

availability

of

the

causative	 alternation is sensitive to the presence orabsence of an agentivity.
This is exemplified in (4).

Masaki Yasuhara(4) a.

University of TsukubaTheterrorist{

assassinated/murdered } the senator.
b.* TheKeywords: causative alternation, agentivity,

senator{assassinated/murdered }.

external cause, Voice-Bundling parameter

The events of the verbs assassinate and murder(hereafter, agentive verbs) require the intention
1. Introductionof killing, which indicates agentivity. Levin and

The transitive / intransitive verb alternation in

Rappaport Hovav attribute the unacceptability of(1) and (2) are called the causative alternation.

the anti-causatives in (4b) to the agentivity.

(1) a.
b.
(2) a.
b.

One of the diagnostics for determining

John broke the vase.
The vase broke.

whether agentivity is involved in the meaning ofJohn opened the door.

a verb is the selectional restriction on the subject

The door opened.

argument of a causative variant. It is predicted

Sentences (1a) and (2a) involve a transitive verb,

that a verb whose eventuality can be brought

and sentences (1b) and (2b) include an

about without the direct intervention of an agent

intransitive verb. In the causative alternation, theshould allow any type of subject argument.

object argument in the transitive variant appears

Observe examples (5) and (6).

in the subject argument position in the(5){ The vandals / The rocks / The
storm } broke the windows.

intransitive variant. In the pair in (1), for(Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995:103))

example, the object the vase of the transitive(6)

verb break occurs in the subject position of the

{

John

/

#The

knife

/

#The

earthquake } murdered Sandy.

intransitive alternant. Likewise, in (2), the object
the door of the transitive verb open appears as(Beavers and Koontz-Garboden (2012))

the subject in the intransitive variant. We will

The causative alternation verb break permits thehereafter call a transitive and an intransitive verb

natural force subject the storm, the instrumentasubject the rocks and the agent subject thecausative

andananti-causativeverb,

vandals. This fact indicates that the eventuality

respectively.

of breaking can be caused without the direct

It has been long observed that the causative
alternation is possible with verbs that denote

intervention

change of state that can be brought about

non-causative-alternation verb murder, on the

without the direct intervention of an agent (e.g.

other hand, neither allows a natural force nor an

374

of

an

agent.

The

instrument subject. This fact suggests that theeventuality requires the intervention of an agent

eventuality of murdering cannot be brought

but also ones whose eventuality must be brought

about without the direct intervention of an agent.

about by an external cause. I will call the latterIn this way, the agentivity constraint accountconstraint the external cause constraint hereafter.
(11) The external cause constraint:

appears to be on the right track. This account,however, faces a serious empirical problem withThe

availability

of

the

causative

regard to verbs such as destroy and demolishalternation is sensitive to the presence or(hereafter, destruction verbs). These verbs doabsence of an external cause.
In this way, two distinct constraints have been

not allow the causative alternation, as shown in(7) and (8).

assumed to account for the availability of the(7) a.

causative alternation. Two questions, however,John destroyed the vase.

remain. It is unknown (i) where such two

b.* The vase destroyed.
(8) a.

distinct constraints come from and (ii) why theJohn demolished the statue.

availability of the causative alternation isb.* The shed demolished.

sensitive to the notions of agentivity and((8b) is cited from Talmy (1985:84))

external cause.

According to the agentivity constraint account,these verbs should permit neither a natural force

The purpose of this paper is to provide a

nor an instrument subject. However, this is not

unified account of the causative alternation by

the case.

solving these two questions. I propose that the(9){ The fire / The bomb } destroyed thecausative alternation is possible with verbs

manuscript.

(Alexiadou,

whose eventuality does not require an external

Schäfercause, supporting the hypothesis in (11). An

Anagnostopoulou(10) a.
b.

and(2006))

external cause is necessary when the referent of

The fire demolished our storage area.

an internal argument cannot cause an eventuality(BNC)

denoted by a verb. The notion of an external

A bomb demolished the dwelling of acause subsumes agentivity because an agent also

municipal judge in Boston.

exerts force that is external to the referent of an(Robert K. Murray, Red Scare)internal argument. The point is that theThese sentences show that the verbs destroy andavailability of the causative alternation isdemolish allow a natural force and an instrument

determined by the presence or absence of an

subject. This fact indicates that the eventualities

external cause, regardless of whether it isdenoted by these verbs can be brought aboutanimate or inanimate, the former of which iswithout the intervention of an agent. Thus,

so-called an agent. Thus, there is no need todestruction verbs raise an empirical problem toposit the agentivity constraint independently.

the agentivity constraint account.

This is the answer to question (i).

In order to account for the unavailability ofI assume that an external cause involved in

the causative alternation of destruction verbs,

verbs such as destruction verbs is “external” toAlexiadou,

Schäferthe referent of an internal argument in the sense(2006) propose that the causative alternation isthat the referent of an internal argument cannot

impossible

bring about an eventuality denoted by the verb

Anagnostopoulou
not

only

with

and
verbs

whose

375

independently. Such an external cause is also

respectively. This cross-linguistic variation is

syntacticallycalled the Voice-Bundling parameter.

external

to

VP.

Following

Pylkkänen (2008), this paper assumes that the(12) Voice-Bundling languages

head introducing an external argument works in

a. Causativeb. Anti-causative

tandem with the one that is the locus of a causal

VP

meaning in English. Thus, the presence of anxexternal cause requires the presence of an[Voice, Cause]

external argument in English. This is the answer

VP(13) Non-Voice-Bundling languages

to question (ii).

a. Causative

The organization of this paper is as follows.
Section 2 will provide a theoretical account ofx

the causative alternation. I will show that the

Voiceexternal cause constraint naturally follows fromCause

a syntactic characteristic of English. Section 3

b. Anti-causative I

will present empirical evidence for the external

VP

c. Anti-causative II

Cause P

VP

cause constraint. Section 4 will provide further
evidence from the point of view of root

Cause

VP

nominalizations. Section 5 will suggest anInimplication for a linguistic typology. Section 6

combined with Voice, so the presence of Cause

will give concluding remarks.

requires the occurrence of an external argument.

Voice-Bundling

languages,

Cause

is

In non-Voice-Bundling languages, on the other
2. A Theoretical Account of the Causative

hand, Cause is independent of Voice, so theAlternation

presence of Cause does not require theIn this section, I will provide a theoreticaloccurrence of an external argument.

account of the causative alternation. We will

Since English belongs to Voice-Bundlingfirst observe where the external cause constraint

languages,

comes from. I will then show that theanti-causatives such as (1), repeated here as (14),(un-)availability of the causative alternationtakenaturally follows from a syntactic characteristic

respectively.

of English.

(14) a.

Pylkkänen (2008) argues that languages canEnglishtheb.

structures

causatives
in

(12a)

and

and
(12b),

John broke the vase.
The vase broke.

be divided into two types in terms of theNote that causative alternation verbs such as

bundling of functional heads in the verbal

break are assumed not to specify cause

domain. She assumes that Voice is the head that

(Alexiadou,

introduces an external argument and Cause is the(2006)). This means that the occurrence ofhead that provides a causing event. The two

Cause is optional for such verbs. When they areheads are grouped together in Voice-Bundlingcombined with Cause, the causative structure inlanguages, as in (12), whereas they are split in(12a) results. When they are not associated with

non-Voice-Bundling languages, as in (13). The

Cause, the anti-causative structure in (12b)former and latter include English and Japanese,

emerges.

376

Anagnostopoulou

andSchäfer

Looking at the structure in (12a), we noticeof the causative alternation. Therefore, it isthat Cause is external to VP. This syntactic

theoretically natural to abolish the agentivity

structure reflects the interpretation of causative

constraint. In fact, neither destruction nor

verbs. We assume that destruction verbs include

agentive verbs allow the causative alternation

an external cause in their meaning. Such a

despite the fact that they differ in agentivity.

meaning is external to VP, so it must be

This suggests that the notion of agentivity insaturated by Cause, which is the locus of causal

itself is not relevant to the (un-)availability of

meaning. In English, the presence of Causethe causative alternation. Rather, the notion ofrequires the occurrence of Voice, so destruction

external cause plays a crucial role in theverbs must take an external argument explicitly(un-)availability of the causative alternation. It isor implicitly, as in (15). The anti-causative

systematically associated with the syntactic headstructure is impossible with destruction verbs

Cause, which is the locus of causal meaning.

because it cannot be combined with Cause in

English is a Voice-Bundling language, in which

English, as in (16).

Cause is combined with Voice. Therefore, verbs(15) a.

The bomb destroyed the city.

whose eventuality requires an external cause

The city was destroyed.

obligatorily takes an external argument. In thisb.

(16) a.* The vase destroyed.
b.* The shed demolished.

(= (7b))way, the external cause constraint in English(= (8b))naturally follows from its Voice-Bundlingproperty.

In this way, the external cause constraint follows

So far, we have assumed that destruction

from the syntactic characteristic of English as averbs include an external cause in their meaning.

Voice-Bundling language.

At first glance, however, destruction verbs

As mentioned in the previous section, thesame explanation holds of agentive verbs. Since

appearthe notion of agentivity is subsumed in that ofcharacteristic to the causative alternation verb

external cause, it naturally follows that suchbreak, because both denote a change of state andverbs do not allow the causative alternation, as

allow any type of subject, including an agent, anin (4), repeated here as (17).

instrument and natural force. In the next section,(17) a.

The

terrorist{

assassinatedsenator{assassinated

have

a

similarmeaningandI will show that they are different in the presence/or absence of an external cause by presenting

murdered } the senator.
b.* Thetotwo pieces of evidence, supporting the external/cause constraint account of the causative

murdered }.

alternation.

The eventualities of assassinating and murderingcannot occur by itself, so they require a causethat is external to the referent of the internal

3. Evidence of an External Cause Meaningargument. English anti-causative structures doThis section will provide evidence for the

not allow the occurrence of Cause, so such an

external cause meaning of destruction verbs

external cause cannot be saturated by thethroughanti-causative structure.

alternation verbs. These two types of verbs

theircomparison

withcausative

This section has shown that the notion of

exhibit distinct behavior with respect to two

agentivity plays no role in our syntactic analysis

diagnostics that are both sensitive to the377suggest that the verb break and destruction verbs

presence or absence of an external cause.
Firstly, break allows its subject and object toare different in the presence or absence of an

be co-referential, whereas destruction verbs do

external cause meaning. Only the former allows

not.

the causative alternation. This fact empirically(18) a.

supports the external cause constraint account of

The vase broke itself.

the causative alternation.

b.* The car destroyed itself.
c.* The car demolished itself.
Since the eventuality of break does not require

4. Evidence from Root Nominalizations

the existence of an external cause, the referent of

So far, I have provided evidence for the external

the vase in itself can be the cause of its change

cause constraint account from the point of viewof state. The destruction verbs, on the other hand,of verbal meanings. In this section, I will show

require their eventuality to be externally caused,that this account can be supported by root

so the entity denoted by the car cannot be thenominalizations as well.
It has been observed that verbs that allow thecause of its change of state.

causative

Secondly, break is compatible with the PP

alternation

do

not

permittheonto the floor, but destruction verbs are not.

occurrence of a possessor NP that can be(19) (In the meaning that John shattered theconstrued as an agent (Pylkkänen (1999)).
(20) a.

vase/statue by dropping it onto the

The curtain dropped.

floor/ground.)b.

The boy dropped the curtain.

a.

c.

the drop of the curtain

John broke the vase onto the floor.

d.* the boy’s drop of the curtainb.?? John destroyed the statue onto the(21) a.

ground.
c.?? John demolished the statue onto theground.

His salary shrank.

b.

The manager shrank his salary.

c.

the shrinkage of his salary

The PP onto the floor/ground evokes a situation

d.* the manager’s shrinkage of his salaryin which an entity dropped onto the floor/ground.

As shown by the unacceptable examples in (20d)The vase/statue shattered because they droppedand (21d), the possessor NPs cannot be

onto

case, theinterpretedasvase/statue in themselves can be considered theexpressionsthatcause of their changes of state because they werealternation

verbs.

not directly damaged by John. The vase/statue

associated with destruction and agentive verbs,

hit the floor/ground, and this impact reflexively

on the other hand, allow the occurrence of suchdamaged them. In this way, these sentences do

an NP.

not include an external cause. Sentence (19a) is(22) a.

thefloor/ground.

In

this

an

agent
are

in

the

nominalrelatedtocausative

Nominalexpressions

Bill destroyed the city.

fine because the eventuality of break does not

b.* The city destroyed.

require an external cause. Sentence (19b) andc.

the destruction of the city(19c), on the other hand, is anomalous becaused.

Bill’s destruction of the city
(Pylkkänen (1999))

the destruction verbs require an external cause,(23) a.

which is absent in these sentences.

John assassinated Bill.

b.* Bill assassinated.

These two pieces of evidence explicitly

378

c.

the assassination of Bill

allows the anti-causative variant of katastrefo

d.

John’s assassination of Bill‘destroy’. Notice that the morphology indicatedIn the examples in (22d) and (23d), theby NACT in (24b) is ambiguous between an

possessor NPs can be interpreted as an agent.

anti-causative and a passive marker. They can,

Marantz (1997) observes that possessor NPs in

however, be distinguished by the occurrence ofroot nominalizations can be construed as ancauser PPs, which are only compatible withagent when the root implies an external cause oranti-causatives (Schäfer (2008)).

an agent.

Yasuhara (2014a) argues that the morphology

In this way, the availability of the causative

indicated by are in (25) is also ambiguousalternation is consistent with that of an agentive

between an anti-causative and a passive marker.

interpretation of the possessor NP in root

He shows that Japanese also allows thenominalizations. The root nominalization facts

anti-causative form of the causative verb

provide evidence for the existence of an external

hakaisuru ‘destroy’, as evidenced by thecause meaning in destruction and agentive verbs

following sentence in which the causer PP

from the point of view of root meanings.

zisinde ‘from an earthquake’ co-occurs.
(25)

5. Implications for Linguistic Typology
The

Voice-Bundlingparameter

Tatemono-ga zisinde hakais-are-ta.
building-NOM

groupsfrom-earthquake

destroy-are-PAST

languages into two types, Voice-Bundling‘The building was destroyed by anlanguages and non-Voice-Bundling languages.

earthquake’

The latter, Yasuhara (2014a) argues, include

In this way, the availability of the causative

Greek and Japanese.

alternation of destruction verbs in Greek andIn non-Voice-Bundling languages, Voice isJapaneseseparate from Cause. So we can predict thatisinaccordance

with

their

non-Voice-Bundling property.

verbs whose eventuality requires an external

It has been observed that anti-causativecause permit the causative alternation in suchformations are freer in some languages than inlanguages. Yasuhara (2014a) argues that this isothers. Such a cross-linguistic difference might

the case by providing evidence from Greek andbe attributed to the different settings of theJapanese. Let us first compare English andVoice-Bundling parameter. In fact, Yasuhara

Greek.

(2014b) argues that several Germanic languages(24) a.* The manuscript destroyed.

such as English and German are Voice-Bundlingb.

To hirografo katastrafike { apo /languages whereas several East Asian languagesme } tin pirkagia.

such as Chinese, Korean and Japanese belong to

the manuscript destroyed-Nact { by /non-Voice-Bundling languages by showing thatwith } the fire

the former put a more severe restriction on the‘The manuscript got destroyed by thecausative alternation than the latter.

fire’ (Greek)(Schäfer (2008))

6. Conclusion

As shown in (24), English does not allow theIt is assumed that languages can be divided into

anti-causative variant of destroy, whereas Greek

Voice-Bundling

379

and

non-Voice-Bundlinglanguages. I showed that the Voice-Bundling

Causatives and Transitivity, ed. by Bernard

parameter provides a straightforward account ofComrie and Maria Polinsky, 87-120, John

causative alternations. The (un-)availability ofBenjamins, Amsterdam.

the causative alternation in English has been

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (1995)

explained in the literature by positing two

Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics

distinct constraints, the agentivity constraint andInterface, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

the external cause constraint. I argued that the

Marantz, Alec (1997) “No Escape from Syntax,”

former is subsumed in the latter, which follows

Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(2),from the Voice-Bundling property. I suggested a

201-226.

linguistic typology of causative alternations

Pylkkänen, Liina (1999) “The Syntax of Internal andfrom the point of view of the Voice-Bundling

External Causation,” MIT Working Papers inparameter.

Linguistics 35, 161-183.
Pylkkänen, Liina (2008) Introducing Arguments,*

An earlier version of this paper was presented at

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

the 7th International Spring Forum conference

Schäfer,Florian(2008)

The

SyntaxofArguments

in(April 2014). I would like to express my thanks(Anti-)Causatives:to Soulef Batnini for kindly acting as a

Change of State Contexts, John Benjamins

contributor. Needless to say, any remaining

Publishing, Amsterdam / Philadelphia.

External

errors and shortcomings are mine. This work is

Talmy, Leonard (1985) “Lexicalization Patterns:

supported by JSPS Research Fellowship for

Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms,” Language

Young Scientists (JSPS Research Fellow PD)

Typology and Semantic Description Vol. 3, ed.

and by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows.

byTimothy

Shopen,36-149,Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.
Yasuhara, Masaki (2014a) “Anti-causatives Denoting

References / Corpus
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou andExternally Caused Eventuality: Evidence from

Florian Schäfer (2006) “The Properties ofJapanese Causative Alternations,” Paper presented

Anticausatives Crosslinguistically,” Phases ofat the 7th Formal Approaches to JapaneseInterpretation, ed. by Mara Frascarelli, 187-212,

Linguistics,

Mouton, Berlin.

Language and Linguistics / International ChristianNational

InstituteforJapanese

University.

Beavers, John and Andrew Koontz-Garboden (2013)“In Defense of the Reflexivization Analysis of

Yasuhara, Masaki (2014b) “A Unified Account of

Anti-causativization,” Lingua 131, 199-216.

Adversity Constructions in Japanese and German,”Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser (1993) “On

Proceedings of the 16th Seoul International

Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression

Conference on Generative Grammar, 433-452.

of Syntactic Relations,” The View from Building

British

20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain

National(http://info.ox.ac.uk/bnc).

Bromberger, ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel
Jay Keyser, 53-110, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Haspelmath, Martin (1993) “More on the Typology
of Inchoative / Causative Verb Alternations,”

380

Corpus.

[BNC]

based on the LEXICAL ASPECT of verbs. The historyof verbal classification goes back to Vendler (1967).
According to Vendler, verbs fall onto four classes;
namely states, activities, accomplishments, and*achievements. Their classfication is illustrated as in

Graduality and Type Four Verbs(1).
Yusuke Yoda

a,b

& Jongkyun Mokb

Kobe City University of Foreign Studies a & Kinki
Universityb

Keywords: verb classification, lexical aspect, grade,(1)

Vendler’s classification

StatesActivities

Accomplishment

Achievement

know

run

paint a picture

recognize

believewalkmake a chair

spot

Japanese
The classification above is based on the following
observation. First, all the classes except states appear
1.

INTRODUCTION

in the progressive form.

In this paper, we will explore the gradability of theverb and present a new look for the Japanese verb

(2)a. * John is loving Mary. (St.)

classification. The existing classification have beenb. John is running. (Ac.)

putting more emphasis on the telicity of the verbs.

c. John is painting a picture. (Acc.)

However, we claim that the graduability of the verbs

d. John is reaching the summit. (Ach.)is equally important to the telicity of the verb to yield
the precise version of verb classification.

Second, adverbials expressing the duration of time

The organization of this paper is as follows. In(cf. for an hour) can co-occur with activities but notsection 2, we provide general introduction for thewith accomplishments, while adverbials referring toverbal classification based on Vendler (1967), thena point in time can co-occur with accomplishments

in section 3, we will review the original verbal

but not with activities (cf. Tsujimura, 1996).

classification put forth by Kindaichi (1950), In
section 4, we will introduce the problematic type of(3)verb called DUAL FACE VERBs and GRADUAL VERBs.

a. John swam {for/*in} an hour. (Ac.)
b. John made a chair {*for/in} an hour. (Acc.)

Following that, we will introduce the assumption insection 5. Moreover, in section 6 we will provide a

Moreover, accomplishments can follow the verb

new look for the verbal classification, and in section

finish, whereas achievement cannot.

7 we further argue the relation between graduality
and so-called type four verbs. In the last section,(4)

section 8, the final remarks will be given.
2.

a. Bill finished making a chair. (Acc)b. * Bill finished finding his wallet. (Achi)

VERB CLASSIFICATION

3.

LEXICAL ASPECT OF JAPANESE VERBS
A similar observation is made by Kindaichi (1950).

In this section, we will review the verb classification381

According to Kindaichi, Japanese verbs fall onto

Finally, there is a group of verbs, which cannot befour classes as illustrated in (5).

classified onto all the above. This group of verbs iscalled TYPE FOUR VERBs, and must be used within(5)

the teiru-construction. In other words, this group of

Kindaichi’s classification

Stative

Continuative

InstantaneousType Fourverbs does not appear in the simple present or past

aru

yomu

sinu

sobieru “tower”

form as illustrated in (9).

“be”

“read”“die”

dekirukaku

sawaru “touch”

sugureru(9)“can do”“write”

Kono syoohin-wa arifure-{*ru/teiru}.
This products-T be.common-{pres/teiru}“be outstanding”“This type of product is common.”The states, continuative and instantaneous are mostly
equivalent to states, activities, and achievements,

According to Kindaichi (1950), “the type four verbs

respectively (= (1)). Kindaichi’s classification isexpress the state of something, but they do not

motivated by the interpretation yielded from each

express an event itself”. Moreover, he further claims

verb within the teiru-construction1. First, the stativethat that these verbs obligatory used in theverbs cannot be used in the teiru-construction as

teiru-construction indicates that the type four verbs

illustrated in (6).

express no aspectual property.

(6)

4.

Taro-wa sugaku-ga deki{-ru/*teiru}.

ISSUES ON ASPECTUAL CLASSIFICATIONIn this section, we will compare existing analyses for-T math-N can-do{-pres/teiru}

the lexical aspect of the verbs, which are departing“Taro is good at math.”from Kindaichi’s (1950) analysis. The issue
Second, the continuative verbs denote progressive

discussed among Okuda (1978), Kudo (1995) andjust like English be-ing, within the teiru-construction

their followers is how to deduce the two distinct

as illustrated in (7).

meanings from the single teiru-construction.
For instance, Okuda classifies the verbs used in the(7)teiru-construction into two classes; ACTIVITY verbs

Taro-wa mizu-o non-deiru.

and CHANGE verbs. Then, he claims that the activity-T water-A drink-teiru.

verbs expresses progressive reading, whereas the“Taro is drinking water”

change verbs express the result state in the
Third, the instantaneous verbs denote the result state;teiru-construction. Following Okuda, Kudo (1995)

i.e. the state which occurs after the event denoted byfurther divides the activity verbs into two subclasses;

the verb as illustrated in (8).

“subject’s activity verbs” and “subject’s activity andchange of object verbs”2. Okuda and his followers’(8)

Kaeru-ga sin-deiru.

classification is based on the meaning of verbs

Frog-N die-teiru.

expressed within the teiru-construction. Now, let us“A frog is dead.”interpret this with the distinction of telic/atelic pointof view. Basically, telic verbs inherently have382

endpoints of the events denoted by the verbs. For

They pointed out the problem and call this type of

instance, build a house inherently has an endpoint,

verb ‘DUAL FACES VERBs’3. In this article, we will

and therefore, it is telic. On the other hand, atelicexplore the nature of this dual faces verb and typeverbs do not inherently have endpoints of the events

four verbs from the perspective of gradability ofdenoted by the verbs. For instance, build houses

verbs.

does not have inherent endpoint. Based on thisThe similar cases are observed among the following

distinction, Okuda’s ‘activity verb’ and Kudo’s

type of verbs called ‘gradual verbs’ (Moriyama,‘subject activity verb’ fall onto the class of atelic

1988, Nitta, 2002, among others.) An instance of theverb, whereas Oukuda’s ‘change verbs’ and Kudo’s

gradual verb is agaru “rise” or fukuramu “expand”.

‘change of subject’ and ‘subject activity and change

Witness:of object’ fall onto the class of telic verb. Then, it ispossible to make a generalization that the atelic verbs(11) a. Kabuka -ga (100-yen) agat-teiru.

denote progressive, while the telic verbs denote

stock.price-N 100-yen rise-teiru

result within the teiru-construction.

“Stock price is rising by 100 yen.”

However, there are still problematic cases. That is,b. Fusen-ga (dondon) fukuran-deiru.

there are some group of verbs, such as kiru “wear”

balloon-N gradually expand-teiru

or “put on”, which within the teiru-construction“A balloon is expanding gradually.”

denotes both progressive and result interpretation
depending the context (cf. Okuda, 1978, Kudo, 1995,

The interesting property of the gradual verbs is thatMoriyama, 1988, Kinsui, 2000, among others.) For

they denote continuous events and the result of theinstance, in the case of (10a), the ki-(ru) “wear”

events (situation) simultaneously. The difference

within the teiru-construction expresses the result.

between the dual faces verbs and the gradual verbs is

That is the state that “Hanako is in a red dress.” On

that, on one hand, the dual faces verbs denotes thecontrary, in (10b), the formally equivalent verb

single event, but on the other hand, the gradual verbs

denotes the progressive. That is, the sentence

denotes single gradual changing event.

denotes the progressive event that is happing at the5.

utterance point.

ASSUMPTIONSIn this paper, we assume the following conventions.
(10) a. Hanako-ga akai doress-o ki-teiru.

Following Kusumoto (2013), we assume (12a,b).

N red dress-A wear-teiru

The (12a) reads like there is an individual x at the“Hanako is in a red dress.”

event e. The (12b) reads like there are sentence P

b.Hanako-ga kagami-no mae-de akaiand Q, P is temporary precedes Q, and there is no-N mirror -G before-at red

time interval between P and Q. The (12c) shows andoresu-o ki-teiru.
dress-A wear-teiru

entailment in the ‘transition’ (Pustejovsky, 1995;“Hanako is putting on a red dresstransition event eT, a new state indicated by e2S

LQIURQWRIWKHmirror.”occurs. The (12d) shows a presupposition that there

Nakatani, 2007, among others.) That is, after ais ¬P state before the transition event P.

383

“Taro is making a chair.”(12)

 NOT entails Taro made a chair.

a. [[i]] = λx , λe S .[exist(e S , x )]b. [[−te]] = λP , λQ, λe, λe 2 .[P (x )(e1 ) ∧ Q(x )(e 2 ) ∧ e1 <∝ e2 ]c. ∃e1T [P (e1T ) at t] ENTAILS ∃e2S [P (e2S ) at t + 1]
d. ∃e1T [P (e1T ) at t] PRESSPOSE ∃e2S [¬P (e2S ) at t − 1]6.

c. Fuusen-ga fukuran-deiru. Entails“Balloon is expanding”
 entails Balloon expanded

GRADUALITY AND DUAL FACES/GRADUABLE

Moreover, the aspectual property indicated by

VERBS

temporal adverbials (Q(-kan) “for Q”/ Q-de “in Q”)

In this section, we will focus on the change involved

shows the gradual verbs are, in fact, used as bothwithin the dual face verbs and gradual verbs, andtelic and atelic. As the examples in (16) indicate, theinvestigate the origin of similarity between them. As

atelic verb cannot co-occur with Q-de (=(16a)), but

the existing literatures point out, both involve

the telic verb can co-occur with Q(-kan), and thechange-of-state. It is evident by the following

gradual verb can co-occur with both Q-kan “for Q”

Kusumoto’s (2013) test. According to Kusumoto, if

and Q-de “in Q” as shown in (16c).

a verb involves change-of-state, the relevant verb
used in a relative clause expresses the ‘non-past TA’(16) a. Taro-ga {30-pun-kan/*30-pun-de} aruita.
  N 30 min-for/30 min-in walked 

interpretation. The gradual verbs pass the test as“Taro walked {for/*in} 30 minutes.

illustrated in (14b), while activity verbs (13) do not.

b. Taro-ga {30-pun-kan/30-pun-de} sono

Witness:

N 30 min-for /30 min-in
mise-ni itta.

(13) *[RC t Hashit-ta] michi

store-to went.

“road which somebody run”

“Taro went to the store {*for/in} 30 minutes.”“Fishi which is dead”

c. Kauka-ga {30-pun-kan/30-pun-de} agatta  stock.price-N 30 min-for/30 min-in went.up

b. [RC t fukuran-da] fuusen  “Stock price went up {for/in} 30 minutes.”(14) a. [RC t sin-da] sakana“Balloon which is expanded.”
The examples in (13)-(16) show that the gradual verbs

In addition to the ‘non-past TA’ test, the gradualare type of the change-of-state verb, and can be bothverbs in (15) form a natural class with othertelic and atelic.

change-of-state verbs with respect to so-called

Then, why this type of verb can be used in both

‘imperfect paradox’ (Comrie, 1976, Dowty, 1979,

way? The answer for this question can be derived byamong others.)

the fact that the gradual verb can have an arbitrary
endpoint, which is set by the phrases like sakki-yori(15) a. Taro-ga hashi-teiru.

or mata, “more than just now” or “again”,“Taro is running”

respectively. These phrases, which set the arbitrary

 entails Taro run.

endpoint, cannot co-occur with other verbs as

b. Taro-ga isu-o tsuku-tteiru.

illustrated (17).

384



in (20).
(17) a. *Hanako-ga sakki-yori gakko-ni itta.
(20) a. [RC machi-no chuusin-ni sobieta] biru

-N more than school-to went

“A building towering center of city.”“Hanako went to the school more”#

b. [RC komyunkeesyon-ni sugureta] hito

b. Hanako-ga mata isu-o tsukutta.
-N again chair-A made“A person who is good at communication.”

4“Hanako made a chair again .”Both sentences above express ‘non-past TA’, andContrary to the cases above, the gradual verb allows

therefore, both fall onto the group of change-of-state

the co-occurrence of phrases which set arbitrary

verbs. Moreover, the following examples provide

endpoints as illustrated in (18).

evidence that niru “resemble”, which is one of thetype four verbs, can co-occur with the phrases(18) a. Kabuka-ga sakkiyori agatta.

expressing grade as illustrated in (21). Moreover, thestock.price-N more than roseinterchangeability between ni-teiru and ni-tekita“Stock price went up more”“came to resemble” also exhibits the fact that niteiru

b. kabuka-ga mata agatta.

involves the gradual change.

stock.price-N again rose
“Stock price went up again.”(21) a. Taro-wa titi-ni niteita.
T father-to resembled

This contrast indicates that relevant verbs involves a“Taro resembled his father.”b. Taro-wa titi-ni mae-yorichange-of-state point (= a transition point) and they

T father-to more than before

denote following semantics.
ni(19)-{teita/tekita}.

“The degree of P in the state of en+1 at t isresemble-{teiru/came to}larger than the P in the en at t-1 (en < en+1).”“Taro came to resemble to his father.”a. *Kaeru-ga (dandan) sinda.
Frog-N gradually was.dead.

However, on the other hand, sobieru “tower”, which“A frog is gradually dead.”falls on the same class as niru, cannot be used in theT<1 time of (– A e A) event>same environment.

b. Fuusen-ga (dandan) fukuranda.
(22) a. Biru-ga sobie-teiru.
building-N towring-teiru

Balloon-N gradually expanded“A balloon gradually expanded.”<n times of (– A eT A) event>“A building is towering.”
b. *Biru-ga mae-yori sobie-teiru.

7.

   building-N more than towering-teiru.

GRADUALITY AND TYPE FOUR VERBS   “A building is more towering than before.”

Now, let us compare the change-of-state verbs andthe type four verbs. Both yields ‘non-past TA’

The asymmetry indicates that within the single typeinterpretation within the relative clause as illustrated

385

four verb group, there are two distinct types of verbs.

the verb sobieru “tower” cannot occur with the phras

Notes* This paper is based on our poster presentation
given at 2014 ELSJ Spring Forum held at Doshisya
University, Kyoto. We would like to thank all theaudience of ELSJ Spring Forum 2014. A part of thispaper was also presented at 132nd Kanto Nihongo
Danwakai (as Yoda 2014). We also thank theaudience of Kanto Nihongo Danwakai. Needless tosay, usual disclaimers apply.

that indicates an arbitrary endpoint such as Q-yori

1

These two groups should be classified by theproperty of verb, namely, if the verb involves gradeand does not involve grade.
This claim is also supported by the following factthat while the verb niru “resemble” can co-occur
with the phrases expressing an arbitrary endpoint,

Note that the teiru is etymologically derived by thethree distinct morphemes, -te “&”, i “be” and ru“present”. In this article, we will not discuss thedetail of morphology of teiru.
2
Translations by Authors.
3
Translations by Authors.
4
Note that, this sentence is grammatical under themultiple event reading, “Hanako made a chair before
and she made a different chair now.” However, theintended reading here is different from the one and it
is like this, “Hanako made a part of a chair, and after
while, she started to continue to make the chairagain.”“more than Q”.
(23) a. Taro-wa titi-ni {izenyori/
T father-to more than before
10-nen mae yori} ni-teiru.
10 years before than resemble-teiru“Taro more resembles to his father than{before/ 10 years ago}.”b. *Sono biru-wa {izenyori/
That building-T more than before
10-nen-mae-yori} sobie-teiru.
10 years before than tower-teiru“That building is more towring than

REFERENCES
Comrie,     {before/10 years ago}.

Bernard(1976)

AspectCambridge

University Press Cambridge.
Dowty, David (1970) Word Meaning and Montague

The data above indicate that to obtain the fine graded

Grammar vol. 7 Kluwer Academic Press

classification of verb types, it is important toDordrecht.

consider the inherent gradability of the verbs.

Kindaichi, Haruhiko (1950) “Kokugo Dooshi-no
Ichibunrui” Gengo-kenkyuu 15, 48-63.

8.

FINAL REMARKS

Kinsui, Satoshi. (2000) Toki-no Hyoogen TaisyukanIn this paper, we point out the importance ofTokyo.

thinking about the gradability of verb to make a

Kudo, Mayumi (1995) Asupekuto, Tensutailei-to

more fine graded verb classification. Moreover, we

Tekusuto: Gendai Nihongo-no
Hyoogen KuroshioTokyo.

further pointed out that the type four verbs can fall

Jikan-noonto two classes, namely the gradable verbs and theKusumoto, Kiyomi (2013) “On the Stativity of the

non-gradable ones, but both of them appear as

Four-class Verbs and their Cousins in Japanese”change-of-state verb.

Talk presented at Japanese/Korean Linguistics
23.
Moriyama, Takuro

386(1988)

NihongoDooshiJyojyutsubun-no Kenkyuu Meijisyoin Tokyo
Nakatani, Kentaro (2007) “Aspectual Presupposition,
Entailment and Composition in JapaneseV-teiru” Proceedings of NLP 2007, 847-850.
Nitta, Yoshio (2002) Fukushiteki Hyoogen-no
Syosoo Tokyo, Kuroshio.
Okuda, Yasuo (1978) “Aspect-no Kenkyuu-omegutte” Kyooiku Kokugo 53-54, 33-44,14-27.
Pustejovsky, James (1995) The Generative Lexicon
MIT Press Cambridge MA.
Tsujimura, Natsuko (1996) An Introduction to

Japanese Linguistics Blackwell Oxford.
Yusuke, Yoda (2014) “Reconsideration of Type 4
Verbs” Talk presented at 132nd Kanto Nihongo
Danwakai.
Vendler, Zeno (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy
Cornell University Press Ithaca, NY.

387

<Workshop Report>

event integration (whether a manner verb cancooccur with a path satellite), and manner salience (what kind of morphosyntactic realization
is preferred for a type of manner). Importantly,

Revisiting Talmy’s Framing Typology

the proposed generalizations are expected tohold across framing types. The present discus-

Kimi Akita (Osaka University)

sion thus stresses the significance of fi-

Tamayo Saito (Tohoku University)

ne-grained, encyclopedic semantics in a cogni-

Ryan Spring (Tohoku University)

tive typology.

Organizer: Naoyuki Ono (Tohoku University)
Commentator: Yo Matsumoto (Kobe University)

2. Semantic Focus in the Framing Typology
Tamayo Saito

Keywords: framing typology, manner, focus,

The premise of this presentation is that se-second language acquisition

mantic focus in sentence constructions affects
where languages fall in Talmy’s typology. I

Talmy’s (1991, 1996) proposal that languages

claim that satellite-framed expressions are re-across the world can be divided into two majorsult-focused and that verb-framed expressions

types: verb-framed and satellite-framed lan-are action-focused. This semantic focus is aguages, is one of the most intriguing proposals

by-product of the interaction of several factors

in cognitive approaches to linguistic typology.

such as: figure and ground, assertion and pre-This workshop aimed to discuss some of the

supposition, deletion principle of discourse

important issues that arise from recent research(Kuno 1982), profile determinant (Langacker

trends concerning the cross-linguistic typology2008), and information structure (Fukuchi 1985).

of event framing.

When the culmination of these principles is applied to Talmy’s typology, we can see that the

1. Manner and the Framing Typology

semantic focus tends to be placed on action in

Kimi Akita

verb-framed sentences and on result in satel-

The majority of studies in the framing typol-

lite-framed sentences. Speakers select framing

ogy has been concerned with how each language

patterns depending on whether they choose to

encodes framing information, such as path ofemphasize action or result, which explains why

motion, in a clause. The typology of manner ex-a single language has both framing patterns

pressions appears to be correlated with theavailable to it.

framing typology (Wienold 1995), but only tosome extent (Matsumoto 2003; Beavers et al.

3. Talmy’s Typology and Second Language2010). The present study focuses on prototypi-

Acquisition

cality of manner as another essential factor in

Ryan Springmanner typology (cf. Croft et al. 2010). The

Several studies on the acquisition of second

relevance of prototypicality will be discussed for

language motion event framing have been con-three facets of the typology of manner-of-motion

ducted (Cadierno 2004, Inagaki 2002, amongst

expressions: lexicalization patterns (whether aothers). Some studies have focused on language

type of manner can be encoded in the verb),

production (Cadierno 2004, Spring and Horie

388

2013, etc.) while others have focused on lan-

Verbs with Locational/Directional PPs,”

guage comprehension (Inagaki 2002). This talkSecond Language Research 18, 3-27.

will report on some of the major findings in the

Kuno, Susumu (1982) “Discourse Deletion:

field of second language framing acquisition andCase Studies from English, Japanese, andcompare and contrast the results to show theRussian,” Journal of Semantics 1, 61-93.

similarities and differences in the effects on

Langacker,

Ronald.

W.

(2008)

Cognitive

second language production and second lan-

Grammar: A Basic Introduction, Oxford

guage comprehension. It will also examine some

University Press, Oxford.

new research, conducted by the author, which

Matsumoto, Yo (2003) “Typologies of Lexical-

indicates similar results in the second language

ization Patterns and Event Integration:acquisition of change-of-state events. In exam-

Clarifications and Reformulations,” Empir-

ining these studies, I conclude that Talmy’s ty-

ical and Theoretical Investigations into

pology has an influence on the second language

Language: A Festschrift for Masaru Kajita,acquisition

ed. by Shuji Chiba, et al., 403-418,

of

both

motioneventsandchange-of-state events and that it affects both

Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

second language production and comprehension,

Spring, Ryan and Horie, Kaoru (2013) “Howalthough in slightly different ways.

Cognitive Linguistics Affects Second Language Acquisition: A Study of Japanese

References

and Chinese Learners of English,” Cogni-

Beavers, John, Beth Levin, and Shiao Wei Thamtive Linguistics, 24, 689-710.

(2010) “The Typology of Motion Expres-

Talmy, Leonard (1991) “Path to Realization: asions Revisited,” Journal of Linguistics 46,

Typology of Event Conflation,” Proceed-331-377.

ings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 17,

Cadierno, Teresa (2004) “Expressing Motion

480-591.

Events in a Second Language: A Cognitive

Talmy, Leonard (1996) “The Windowing of At-

Typological Perspective,” Cognitive Lin-tention in Language,” Grammatical Con-

guistics, Second Language Acquisition, andstructions: Their Form and Meaning, ed. byForeign Language Teaching, ed. by M.

Masayoshi

Achard and S. Niemeier, 13-49, Mounton

Thompson, 235-287, Oxford University

de Gruyter, Berlin.

Press, Oxford.

Croft,

William,JóhannaBarðdal,ShibataniandSandraA.

Willem

Wienold, Götz. (1995) “Lexical and Conceptual

Hollmann, Violeta Sotirova, and Chiaki

Structures in Expressions for Movement

Taoka (2010) “Revisiting Talmy’s Typo-and Space: With Reference to Japanese,

logical Classification of Complex Events,”

Korean, Thai, and Indonesian as Compared

Contrastive Construction Grammar, ed. bytoHans Boas, 201-235, John Benjamins, Am-

Knowledge in the Organisation of Lan-sterdam.

guage, ed. by Urs Egli, Peter E. Pause,

EnglishandGerman,”

Lexical

Fukuchi, Hajime (1985) Danwa no Kozo [TheChristoph Schwarze, Armin von Stechow,

Structure of Discourse], Taishukan, Tokyo.

and Götz Wienold, 301-340. John Benja-

Inagaki, Shunji (2002) “Japanese Learners’ Ac-

mins, Amsterdam.

quisition of English Manner-of-motion389

【JELS 原稿の作成上の注意】(1) 原稿枚数：
本文・注・文献を含めて A4 用紙に 7 枚以内（ワークショップ・リポートは 2 枚以内）とする（厳守）。和文原稿、英文原稿とも、2 段組とし、各段 40 行を目安として、文字と文字の間隔を詰めすぎないように注意すること。
(2) 書式：①

マージンは上（2.2 ㎝）、下（3.0 ㎝）、右（2.5 ㎝）、左（2.5 ㎝）に設定する。

② 第 1 頁の一段目は上部の余白を 4 ㎝とし、タイトル・氏名・所属・キーワード（語または短いフレーズ、5 項目まで）を中央寄せにして入れる。タイトルと氏名の間、及び所属とキーワードの間は各 1 行空白とし、キーワードの後 2 行あけて、本文を始める。
（英
語論文の場合は、Keywords: xxx, yyy, zzz, 日本語論文の場合は、キーワード：XXX, YYY,ZZZ という形式でキーワードを書く。）③

論文のタイトルは太字にする。

④

注は、本文の後ろ（文献表の前）にまとめる。

⑤

文字サイズは 11 ポイント以上にする。

⑥ 文献表を含め、その他の書式の細部については、English Linguistics の “Information forContributors” に従うが、abstract は不要。
(3) その他：① 原稿は PDF ファイルで提出する。PDF ファイル名には発表者の氏名をローマ字で記入すること（例：NihonEiko.pdf）。
② 言語は日本語、英語のどちらも使用可能であるが、英文原稿には英文タイトルを、和文
原稿には和文タイトルをつけること。和文原稿では、著者名と所属機関名の横にそれぞれの英語（または原語）表記を、また和文タイトルの下に英文タイトルを、それぞれ（）に入れて示す。英語の論文の場合には、必ず、母語話者のチェックを受ける。発表時のタイトルからの変更は一切認めないが（厳守）、日本語による口頭発表でも Conference

Handbook に記した英文タイトルを使用すれば、英文原稿を提出できる。なお、Spring
Forum での発表の場合は、英文原稿のみ受け付ける。
③ 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 10 日 24:00（必着）とする。当該大会の大会運営委員長と大会運営委員会担当書記宛に PDF ファイルを送付する。
⑦ 規定に違反している原稿は掲載できない。
（2014 年 6 月 7 日改定）391

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2015年2月25日発行
編集
日本英語学会大会運営委員会
代 表 者
大庭幸男
印 刷 所
株式会社あるむ
発 行 者
日本英語学会（〒113-0023）
東京都文京区向丘1-5-2
開拓社内
電話(03) 5842-8900Ⓒ日本英語学会 2015----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------