Papers from the Thirty-Ninth Conference
November 13-14, 2021
and from
the Fourteenth International Spring ForumMay 8-9, 2021
of
The English Linguistic Society of JapanJELS 39

日 本 英 語 学 会 第 39 回 大 会 （ オ ン ラ イ ン 開 催 ）第 14 回国際春季フォーラム（オンライン開催）
研究発表論文集

The English Linguistic Society of Japan
2022

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

JELS 39
Papers from the Thirty-Ninth Conference
November 13-14, 2021
and from
the Fourteenth International Spring ForumMay 8-9, 2021
of
The English Linguistic Society of Japan

Edited by
The Conference Organizing Committee
Saeko URUSHIBARA, The University of Kitakyushu (Chair)
Takeru HONMA, Tokyo Metropolitan University (Vice-Chair)

Katsuya FUJIKAWA, University of Toyama
Seishirou IBARAKI, Kwansei Gakuin University
Yusuke IMANISHI, Kwansei Gakuin University
Masako MAEDA, Seinan Gakuin University
Sumiyo NISHIGUCHI, Otaru University of Commerce
Atsuko NISHIYAMA, Wakayama University
Yohei OSEKI, The University of Tokyo
Naoki OTANI, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
Yuta SAKAMOTO, Meiji University
Takumi TAGAWA, Tsukuba University
Hiroko TAKANASHI, Japan Women’s University
Takeshi USUKI, Kyoto Sangyo University
Shuto YAMAMURA, Tsukuba University
日 本 英 語 学 会 第 39回 大 会 （ オ ン ラ イ ン 開 催 ）第14回国際春季フォーラム（オンライン開催）
研究発表論文集
The English Linguistic Society of Japan
2022

本書は、2021年5月8日、9日にオンラインにて開催された日本英語学会第14回
国際春季フォーラム、および同年11月13日、14日にオンラインにて開催された日
本英語学会第39回大会における研究発表論文、Symposium Reports、Workshop
ReportsおよびSpecial Lecture Reportsを収録しています（投稿辞退分は除く）。発
表採用決定日および投稿受理日は以下のとおりです。
＜発表採用決定日＞
日本英語学会第14回国際春季フォーラム：2021年1月17日
日本英語学会第39回大会：2021年6月6日＜論文投稿受理日＞
2022年1月11日
本論集は、執筆者から提出された原稿を、大会運営委員会で書式を確認の上、全体の統一を図るため最低限の修正を施して掲載しております。個々の修正箇所については、時間的な制約もあり執筆者への確認を省き大会運営委員会の責任で補正しました。ご了承ください。
なお、各論文の内容はすべて執筆者の責任に帰されるべきものです。
第39回大会運営委員長
漆原 朗子

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

CONTENTS
I. Papers from the Thirty-Ninth Conference
Acquisition of Degree Abstraction: Seeking Evidence from IPL
Ryosuke Hattori ························································································ 2
Location of Agreement and Case
Norimasa Hayashi ····················································································· 9
英語の道具主語構文と日本語の対応構文の共通点と相違点：言語使用の三層モデルの観点から
石川和佳（Kazuyoshi Ishikawa） ······························································· 16
WH 疑問文の容認性に対する構文文法アプローチ−前置詞 about を含む完全・縮約関係代名
詞構文の意味の違いから−
北原 匠（Takumi Kitahara） ··································································· 23
SAI 再考：ラベル付けの観点から
小池晃次（Koji Koike） ·········································································· 30
Tough 主語としての日本語の主格目的語
前澤大樹（Hiroki Maezawa）・横越 梓（Azusa Yokogoshi） ························· 37
対比焦点及び後焦点縮約の統語・音韻構造
松本大貴（Daiki Matsumoto）··································································· 44
disinclination を表す言語表現の使い分けの基準について
森貞（Sadashi Mori）··········································································· 51

助動詞 ought の文法化について
森敏郎（Toshiro Mori）········································································ 58

知覚動詞の受動態補文に出現する不定詞の通時的研究
村岡宗一郎（Muraoka Souichiro） ····························································· 64
Morphological Marking in Nominal Modification: A Comparative Study of Japanese and English
Based on Morphological Markedness Hypothesis and Competition Theory
Kazuya Nishimaki ··················································································· 71
Form and Meaning of the How about Let’s VP Construction: Through Comparison with What about
Kota Nishiwaki ······················································································· 78
Optional Movement and an Economy Condition
Shogo Saito ··························································································· 85
An Analysis of Partial Control from Label and Merge
Yuya Sakumoto ······················································································ 92
On a New Type of Out-Prefixed Verbs in English
Yuri Togano ·························································································· 99
Time Adverbs in Chinese: Evidence for the Chinese as an Underlyingly Head-Final Language
Hypothesis
Xiayin Yao・Hideki Maki ········································································ 106
to victory 構文の構成性について
吉川裕介（Yusuke Yoshikawa） ······························································· 113

<Special Lecture Report>
語彙部門から生じる言語間変異：英語獲得に基づく検討
杉崎鉱司（Koji Sugisaki） ······································································ 120<Symposium Reports>
今、英語教育を考える−英語にかかわる研究の視点から–
伊藤たかね（Takane Ito）
・長谷川信子（Nobuko Hasegawa）
井上逸兵（Ippei Inoue）
・阿部公彦（Masahiko Abe）
白畑知彦（Tomohiko Shirahata）・水口志乃扶（Shinobu Mizuguchi） ·············· 122
Issues on Heads and Labeling
Satoshi Oku・Mina Sugimura・Miki Obata・Sayuri Nakamura ·························· 126
タスク指向対話データが拓く発話理解と相互行為の言語研究
川端 良子 （Yoshiko Kawabata）・吉田 悦子（Etsuko Yoshida）
野村 佑子（Yuko Nomura）
・谷村 緑 （Midori Tanimura）
土屋 慶子（Keiko Tsuchiya） ·································································· 130<Workshop Reports>
Copy, its Related Mechanisms and the Empirical Consequences
Satoru Kanno・Tomonori Otsuka・Yuta Tanaka・Ryoichi Kondo ··························· 134
Strong Minimalist Thesis を満たす UG の説明理論：その輪郭と概念的根拠
小町 将之（Masayuki Komachi）・北原 久嗣（Hisatsugu Kitahara）
葛西 宏信（Hironobu Kasai）・瀧田 健介（Kensuke Takita）
大滝 宏一（Koichi Otaki）・内堀 朝子（Asako Uchibori） ···························· 136
Basic Research in Cognitive Grammar
Rana Sato・Keigo Ujiie・Daiki Hagisawa・Taichi Tanaka・Shinya Hirasawa ········ 138
Tense and Intention
Takako Nakaike・Karebu Ozawa・Lu Guo・Sumiyo Nishiguchi (chair) ················ 140

II. Papers from the Fourteenth International Spring Forum
A Corpus-Based Analysis of Independent Although and Though Clauses: Their Commonalities andDifferences
Yuko Mizuno ······················································································ 143
What Does Azeri Suggest for Refining Conditions on Genitive Subject Licensing?
Xiao-Shi Qiu・Hideki Maki ····································································· 150
A Movement Analysis for Split Control
Yuya Sakumoto ···················································································· 157
Not exactly: A Challenge for the QUD-based Approach to ImprecisionCharlie Siu ·························································································· 164

Why Does Contrast Allow Relational Adjectives to Be Used Predicatively? A Qualia Structurebased AccountTakashi Ishida・Ryohei Naya ··································································· 171
Ethical Dative in Forming the Get-Passive
Junichi Toyota ····················································································· 178<Special Lecture Report >Remarks on the Partial Pronominal Use of Proverbs in English and the “Simulation Effects” of Generic
Pronouns and Clausal Generic Expressions
Koichi Nishida ····················································································· 182
書式規定 ········································································································· 189

[I]Thirty-Ninth Conference
November 13-14, 2021

2. The DAP and Prediction in Acquisition
Heim (2001) claims, based on von Stechow’s(1984) seminal work on comparison, that the
English comparison construction semanticallyAcquisition of Degree Abstraction: Seeking

involves the comparison between degrees, where*

Evidence from IPL

matrix and than-clause provide sets of degrees
through abstraction over a degree variable. This

Ryosuke Hattori

operation,

Kobe Gakuin University

so-calleddegreeabstraction,isconsidered to be involved in the clausal
comparatives where degrees of the adjectives are

Keywords：Parameter, Degree Abstraction,compared (i.e., Degree Clausal Comparatives:

Comparatives, Measure Phrase, Intermodal

DCC), as shown below (example given under (a)Preferential Looking

and standard logical form under (b)).
(1) Degree Clausal Comparatives (DCC)

1. Introduction

a. This shelf is taller than that door is wide.

The parameter and principle theory inb. [[ [Degree Phrase -er than [<d,t> how1 this shelf

linguistics claims that the variation of eachis t1 tall]] [<d,t> 2 [that door is [AP t2

language is determined by binary setting of awide]]] ]]number of universal parameters. In the processof language acquisition, a child will set each of

Here the quantifier -er takes two degrees which

the parameters (just like turning on/off switches)

are taken from both the main clause and thebased on their language input.

than-clause through the degree abstraction.

This study looks at such a parameter

There are other quantifiers over degrees

involved in degree constructions, e.g. the degree

that differ from the comparative in terms of theirclausal comparative (DCC) and the measurespecific meaning, but are otherwise similar. For

phrase construction (MP). These constructions

example, the degree abstraction is involved inare considered to be closely related based on

the measure phrase (MP), as shown below.

theory of formal semantics, i.e., DCC and MP
both involve a semantic operation called degree(2) Measure Phrases (MP)abstraction (i.e., binding of a degree variable ina. John is exactly 1.70m tall.

the structure).

b. [ [Degree Phrase <<d,t>,t> exactly 1.70m] [<d,t>Using the Intermodal Preferential Looking

how1 [John is t1 tall]] ](IPL) task on English-learning children, this(Beck et al. (2009))

study seeks a support for language acquisition
process based on the “parametric” hypothesis,

Through an extensive cross-linguistic survey inwhere the positive setting of certain parameter isthe previous studies (Snyder (1995), Beck et al.

prerequisite

for

two

related(2004), (2009) among others), it was found that

constructions,byshowing

correlation

all languages allowing DCC also allow MP (seebetween DCC and MP in the acquisition process.

Table 1). Thus, it was claimed that there is a

or

more
the

2

degree abstraction parameter (DAP), i.e., ameasured children’s comprehension on bothlanguage allows a degree abstraction or not,DCC and MP based on the experiments using

whose positive setting [+DAP] is a necessary

Truth Value Judgement task (TVJT) on 15

condition (or prerequisite) for DCC and MP.

monolingualEnglish-learning

children(3;03-5;10), in which a child judges the truth(3) Degree Abstraction Parameter (DAP)

value (true or false) of the sentence given by aA language { does/does not } have binding

puppet (which is acted by an experimenter) afterof degree variabless/he listens to a story narrated by another(Beck et al. (2004), (2009))

experimenter.
The sample story and the test sentences
uttered by the puppet (Cookie Monster: CM),
are

shown

below.

Here,

insteadofanexperimenter acting out the stories with toys andprops, stories were presented as animation on atabletscreennarrated

by

one

of

the

experimenters. The picture shows the final
image/slide of the story that the child would be
looking at when CM utters the test sentences.
(4) Sample Story:
Girl - 5 bricks tall ˟ 3 bricks wide;
Boy - 2 bricks tall ˟ 4 bricks wide1
Table 1

Experimenter: “A girl and a boy made walls
out of bricks. Their walls are different. ThisIn terms of the language acquisition, then, theone is very ‘tall’, but that one is very ‘wide’”positive setting for the DAP is the prerequisite

Girl: "Look at my wall! I made it all by

for children to comprehend these constructions,

myself. It is ... (count to 5) this tall.

i.e., a child must turn on the parameter first in

Isn't it great!"order to understand both the DCC and MP. Thus,

Boy: "That's a really tall wall. My wall isn’t

the prediction we can make here is that therethat tall but it is a really wide wall,should be some correlation between children’ssee? It’s … (count to 4) this wide!"comprehension performance on DCC and thaton MP. E.g., A Child who is good atcomprehending DCC should also be good at MP
or a child who does not yet good at DCC is also
not good at MP.
3. Previous Studies
3.1. TVJTOne

previous

study(Hattori(2019))

3

(5) Test Sentences:

3.2. IPL

a. So, the boy's wall is wider than the girl's

There is one previous study looking atwall is tall? (DCC)

correlation between children’s understanding on

b. I know how tall the girl’s wall is. It’s 3

different linguistic constructions based on the

bricks tall. (MP)idea that there is an abstract parameter, setting of
which is a prerequisite for their acquisition.

In both cases, the correct answers correspond to

Snyder (1995-2014) has been arguing for thea negative answer. If the child has the adultexistence of “The Compounding Parameter”

grammar, we expect that they will answer with(±TCP). According to this proposal, the [+TCP]“no” to CM (and should be able to explain if

setting is one of the prerequisites for English

they are asked “what really happened?”). If they

verb‑particle constructions (e.g. pull the top off)

don’t have the grammar, we expect they willasdisregard the second clause in (5a), interpretcompounding (NNC: e.g. apple box lid).

them as a phrasal comparative as shown below,

well

as

for

“creative”

Noun‑NounA recent study (Naigles et al. (2013)) tested

and thus answer “yes.”

TCP with the Intermodal Preferential Looking(IPL) task, a comprehension task that is more

(6) The boy’s wall is wider than [DP the girl's

simple for young children (Hirsh-Pasek andwall] is tall.

Golinkoff (1991)). English‑learning 2‐year-olds
viewed two, side-by-side images, and heard a

Also, a previous study (Arii et al. (2017)) shows

directing audio that matched only one, as shownthat English/Japanese learning children tend toin the figure below.

interpret the measure phrases as differential
comparatives when they are young. If thechildren don’t have the grammar, then theywould interpret the MP sentence in (5b) as thefollowing differential comparative sentence andthus answer “yes.”(7) Look, the girl’s wall is 3 bricks taller thanboy’s wall.
The children’s performance was measured based

Figure 1

on percentages of correct answer to each item.
This

study,

however,failedtoshow

Stimulicorrelation between their performance on DCC

testedcomprehensionofparticles(“She’s kicking it up/down!”), and NNC (“Lookand that on MP (two-tailed p = .9843). Crucially,at the hand chair / hand on the chair!”) as well as

the result shows that overall performance ofa variety of control constructions.

children on all the test items (including the

As predicted by TCP, children who looked

control) were below average, indicating that thethe longest at the matching image for particles

task was simply too complicated for children.

4also looked significantly longer at the NNC

center, and/or away. The dependent variables

match. No such association existed between

were the percent of time looking to the match

either particles or NNC, on the one hand, andside (total looking time to the match) during the

any of the control measures. They take thiscontrol and test trials, and the latency of firstpattern to indicate that a subgroup of thelook to the match vs. nonmatch during the test

children had adopted the target value of TCP,

trials, starting at the offset of their last look toand consequently could quickly and confidently

the center/red dot before the trial began (i.e. how

identify the image matching either a particle or

quickly they look at the match). The correlation

an NNC audio. For other children, who had not

between children’s looking time/latency to theyet committed themselves to the [+TCP] setting,match on DCC and those on MP were analyzed

there was apparently nothing to link their(by Pearson’s linear correlation test). Those

preferred image (the match or non‑match) for ameasures were compared to the control ones, too,particle to their preferred image on NNC items.

in order to make sure that what we are looking at
is not just “some kids are smart and the other

4. Current Study

kids are not.” The prediction is that children who

The current study aims at (i) measuring

look longer/more quickly at the matching image

children’s comprehension on DCC and MP usingfor MP also look significantly longer/more

a comprehension task that is more simple andquickly at DCC match.

straightforward for young children to process
and (ii) by using the new methodology, aims at

4.2. Subject

understanding more of the correlation between

28 monolingual English learning children

DCC and MP, testing the hypothesis that these(age range: 4;01-7;06, average: 5;05) were tested.

are associated with the DAP. To achieve theseChildren were excluded if they exhibit angoals, this study uses the Intermodal Preferential

obvious response bias, e.g., looking to one side

Looking (IPL) task, a comprehension task that is

all the time.

considered to be more simple/straightforward for

To see the age effect, the children wereyoung children. The task has been previously

divided into two groups, i.e., 14 younger age

used and holds some promise for showing

children (4;01-5;00) and 14 older age children

correlation between comprehensions of two(5;01-7;06) groups.

different linguistic constructions.
4.3. Stimuli
4.1. Procedure

Here are some sample stimuli below for

The subject child sees two side-by-side

DCC in (8) and MP in (9). Here, the left image

video clips while hearing audio that matches

matches the audio2 (Match side was randomized

only one of the images. Children’s faces were

and the animation is used in the actual stimuli).

filmed as they were watching the videos, andThey were presented in a similar pattern: 6

then

coded

seconds trials, preceded by a 3 second

frame-by-frame using a custom coding program.

inter-trial-interval when only the red light was

Coders who were ‘blind’ to the match coded

visible. Two familiarization trials were presented,

when the children looked to the left, right, to thefollowed by one baseline trial and two test trials.

their

eye

movements

were5

(8) DCC

4.4. Result
As a result, there are no correlation found inlooking time/latency in younger group or
DCC/MP against the control items in both theage groups, but there was some correlation effect

Audio: “Look, Big Bird is building a taller tower(r2=0.2857, t(12)=2.19, two-tailed p=.049008*,

than ant.”

by Pearson’s Linear Correlation) between thelatency of DCC and that of MP in the older(9) MP

group, as shown in the following scatter plot
(Graph 1).

Audio: “Look, the girl’s wall is 3 bricks tall.”In the DCC item (8), the interpretation is basedonphonologicallyelidedclausesintheembedded sentences as shown in (10). Children
correctly looking at the matched images
indicates that they have access to that elided
comparative clause, and thus understand the
DCC correctly.
(10) Look, Big Bird is building a taller tower
than ant is building a x-tall tower

Graph 1For the MP items like (9), the non-matched

Regarding the correlation with the control items,

image is intended to show the situation which

there are no correlation found in latency of

can be described by a differential comparative as

DCC/MP against any of the control items, as

shown below.

shown in the following graphs.

(11) Look, the girl’s wall is 3 bricks taller thanboy’s wall
This is based on a previous study (Arii et al.
(2017)) which shows that English/Japaneselearning children tend to interpret the measurephrases as differential comparatives when they
are young, indicating that they cannot yet
understand MP. The control stimuli (e.g.,phrasal comparatives) were also included.

Graph 2: DCC vs. Controls

6positive

settingprerequisite

of

for

certaintwoorparametermoreisrelatedconstructions. In particular, the study focused on
Degree Abstraction Parameter for two related
constructions, both of which involves the degree
abstraction (i.e. binding of a degree variable) in
their derivations based on the theory of formal
semantics, i.e., Measure Phrase and Degree
ClausalComparatives.

The

resultof28monolingual English-learning children (ageGraph 3: MP vs. Controls

range: 4;01-7;06) shows that there was somecorrelation effect between the latency of MP and

4.5. Discussionthat of DCC in the older group. This suggests

The result shows that the older children whothat there is a DAP, and its setting (±DAP) may

looked more quickly at the matching image for

affect the acquisition of DCC and MP.

MP also looked significantly more quickly at
DCC match. Also, no such association existed* I would like to express my deepest gratitude to

between either DCC or MP and any of theLetitia Naigles for continuous help throughout

control measures, which indicate that thethe process of preparing/conducting the study.

correlation between children’s comprehension

My gratitude also goes to Karina Bertolino for

on DCC and that on MP is not because someassistance in running the experiments. I also

kids are smart and generally good at the task.

thank the audience at the 39th Conference of theThis suggests that there is an indication that

EnglishLinguisticSociety

of

Japan

for

the degree abstraction parameter (DAP) exists,

invaluable comments and discussion. I want toand its setting (±DAP) may affect the acquisition

further extend appreciation towards UConnof DCC and MP, where a child needs to set the

K.I.D.S and all the parents and children for

DAP to the positive value (+DAP) first in orderparticipating in this project. The responsibility of

to comprehend the DCC and MP.

any errors is of course my own. This work was

The younger children (under 5;00) did notsupported by the JSPS KAKENHI Grant

show this correlation effect presumably because

Number JP19K23059.

they couldn’t understand the stimuli in time,

NOTES
Avoiding an abstract measure like inch, thewhich were presented and needed to be1

processed in such a short period of time (i.e., 6

number of bricks is used here to show the height

seconds).

or width of the objects that are compared.
2

5. Conclusion

All audios were presented in American English

Child-Directed Speech.

This study used the Intermodal Preferential
Looking task on English-learning children, toseek a support for language acquisition process

REFERENCES
Arii, Tomoe, Kristen Syrett and Takuya Gorobased on the “parametric” hypothesis, where the(2017) “Investigating the Form-meaning

7

Mapping in the Acquisition of English andSnyder, William (1995) Language Acquisition

Japanese Measure Phrase Comparatives,”and Language Variation: the Role of

Natural Language Semantics 25(1), 53-90.

Morphology, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Beck, Sigrid, Toshiko Oda and Koji Sugisaki(2004)“Parametric

Variation

in

von

the

Semantics of Comparison: Japanese vs.
13, 289-344.
Beck, Sigrid, Daniel Fleischer, Remus Gergel,
Hofstetter,

Sveta

Krasikova,

Christiane Savelsberg, John Vanderelst andElisabeth Villalta (2009) “Cross-linguistic
Variation in Comparison Constructions,”
Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8, 1-66.
Hanink, Emily A. and William Snyder (2014)“Particles and Compounds in German:
Evidence for the Compounding Parameter,”
Language Acquisition 21(2), 199-211.
Hattori, Ryosuke (2019) “Acquisition of Clausal
Comparatives

byParameter

Setting,”

Language Acquisition and Development Proceedings of GALA2017, 325-346.
Heim, Irene (2001) “Degree Operators andScope,”

Audiatur

Vox

Sapientiae.

A

Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, ed. by
Caroline Féry and Wolfgang Sternefeld,214-239, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.
Hirsh-Pasek, Kathryn and Roberta M. Golinkoff(1991) “Language Comprehension: A New
Look at Some Old Themes,” Biological and
Behavioral Determinants of Language
Development, 301-320, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Naigles, Letitia, Katelyn Guerrera, Vanessa
Petroj, José Riqueros Morante, Diane
Lillo-Martin, and Willian Snyder (2013)“The

Compounding

Parameter:

Arnim(1984)“Comparing

Semantic

TheoriesofComparison,”

Journal of Semantics 3, 1-77.

English,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics

StefanStechow,

New

Evidence from IPL,” paper presented in the
Boston University Conference on Language
Development, 1 November 2013.

8

In (2b), two candidate DPs exist for the one[uphi] on T. In (2c), there are two case assigners
for one DP. These one-to-many relations violate
the syntactic minimality in (1b). Then, consider
Location of Agreement and Case*the following examples:1

Norimasa Hayashi(3) Er läßt

Kyushu University

ihn {einen guten Mann/he let-3SG him aein guter Mann}

Keywords：interface, agreement, case, Agree,agood man-ACC/
sein.

good man-NOM COP‘He lets him be a good man.’label(German; adapted from Schütze (1997: 87))(4) Juma a-li-kuwa 3a-me-pika
1. Introduction

J.

chakula.

3SG-PST-be 3SG-PERF-cook 7food‘Juma had cooked food.’This paper discusses the agreement and caseassignment. First, we will go through some cases(Swahili; Carstens (2001: 150))

that are not expected in the standard framework(5) ngunha watharri-ku

with Agree. We allow agreement and casethatassignment to be explained as the phenomena at

warrapa-la-ku

the interfaces based on the labels of the set.

grass-LOC-ACC

nyurna-yu

look=for-PRES snake-ACC‘He is looking for the snake in the grass.’

We summarize the basic properties of Agreeas the following:(Panyjima; Plank (1995: 35))

(1) a. Agree: [uF] acts as a probe, which

We can see that (3) and (4) instantiate (2b, c),searches the c-command domain for therespectively. In (3), the predicate nominal cangoal [F] to get its value.

either be accusative or default nominative. In theb. Agree respects syntactic minimality andformer case, the matrix V assigns accusative to

only the first-located goal can participate

two nominals. In (4), the verbal participle asin the relation.

well as T agree with the subject. Finally, in (5),warrapalaku ‘snake’ with inherent locative alsoThis follows from (1) that only (2a) is areceives accusative, which is the same case as

well-formed configuration, and the ones like (2b,the modified head. Although Hiraiwa’s (2005)c) are not expected.

Multiple

Agree

is

intendedtocaptureone-to-many relations like (3) and (4), the(2) a. T[uphi][nom] - DP[phi][ucase]proposal bears conceptual problem if Agree is anb. T[uphi][nom] - DP1[phi][ucase] & DP2

instance of Minimal Search (Chomsky (2015)),[phi][ucase]c. T[uphi][nom]since Multiple Agree, by definition, ignores&

V[uphi][acc]-minimality in that Search proceeds even after it

DP[phi][ucase]locates one goal (see also Zeijlstra (2012)). Thus,
we do not resort to this option and assume that9syntactic operation follows minimality.

the label. Thus, [uF] can be assigned theAnother problem of Agree is found in the whinterpretation through the label of the set thatinterrogatives like (6).

contains [uF]. In the interrogative clauses foundin (6), the moved wh operators provide the label(6) a. [Which[uQ] cat] do[Q] you like?

<Q, Q> with interrogative C, as a result of(adapted from Epstein, Kitahara, andwhich the set is interpreted as interrogative. [uQ]

Seely (EKS) (2017))

contained in the interrogative set can also be

b. Who[uQ] will[Q] be offended if weinterpreted as interrogative at the interfaces. Let
us now see the structures of (3) – (5).

invite which[uQ] philosopher?
(adapted from Reinhart (1998: 36))(8) {δ v* {γ him[phi] {β √let[uphi] {α beThe underlined wh operators with [uQ] do nothim[phi] a good man }}}}

c-command interrogative C. The question of(α=be, β=R, γ=<phi, phi>, δ=v*) (cf. (3))

how to determine the values must be explained.

(9) {δ Juma[phi] {γ T[uphi] {β Juma[phi] {αv*[uphi], food}}}}(α=β=v*, γ=T, δ=<phi, phi>) (cf. (4))

2. Proposal
Our analysis is based on the following(10) {γ look for {β snake {α grass[loc]}}}(α=grass, β=snake, γ=look for) (cf. (5))

assumptions:(7) a. [uF] and nominals without case are

The predicate nominal in (8) is contained in the

problematic at the interfaces because of

set with label γ=<phi, phi>, which assigns a

the legibility condition.

(EKS (2017))

nominal accusative at the SM interface. Labelb. Agree in syntax respects syntactic

δ=<phi, phi> in (9) explains the participle

minimality.

(Chomsky (2000, 2001))

agreement with the subject. In (10), assumingc. Agreement and case are determined atthat the verbal label assigns accusative in thisthe interfaces based on the labels of thelanguage because of the lack of phi agreement,

sets.

(EKS (2017), Hayashi (in press))grass is located where it can receive accusative.

d. The agreement labels with T/R assign

To allow suffixaufnahme (case stacking), we donominative/accusative cases.

not postulate [ucase]. Nominals receive any of
the cases they can receive, and the realization(7a) departs from the standard analysis, which

varies in accord to the externalization parameter.

requires [uF] to be assigned in syntax. [uF] is

Before discussing the externalization, we will go

problematic at the interfaces, not in syntax inthrough a previous analysis that attempts tothat the interfaces cannot interpret them. Thus,

capture one-to-many relations.

we assume that the illegibility problem is solved
if the interpretation of [uF] can be determined at

3. Previous Analysis of Concord in Syntax

the interfaces with an appropriate configuration.

Norris (2014) explains the case concord in

We assume in (7c) that it is the labels that carry

Estonian. His analysis is based on the bareout this job. Chomsky (2013: 43) argues that thephrase structure (Chomsky (1995)), by whichinterpretive information of the set is provided by

the label carries the same information as the10head. He argues that the label can inherit [case]case, and iv) Externalize any case. We do noton the head and that it is copied to otherdiscuss (12biii) here (see Pesetsky (2013)).

nominals. Consider the following examples:(12bi) is also known as the matchingcondition or case syncretism. Consider the(11) a. enamik inimesi

following examples.

majority people.PL.PAR
b. Enamiku-linimes-te-lpole(13) a. *Wendu liebst

ist

ein

majority-ADE person-PL-ADE NEG.be

who.ACC you love.2SG COP.3SG a.NOM

selle-ks raha.

Halunke.

this-TRL money.PAR

scoundrel‘A majority of people do not have

‘Who you love is a scoundrel.’money for this.’b. Was(Estonian; Norris (2014: 180))

du liebst

ist

what.NOM/ACC you love.2SG COP.3SG
Pasta.

The partitive case in (11b) is overwritten by the

pasta

adessive case assigned by the higher head.

‘What you loove is pasta.’

Norris’s analysis differs from ours in the(German; van Riemsdijk (2021: 133))

following ways i) in his framework, agreement(14) {<phi, phi> {FR (DP) wh[phi] {C {EA {T {v* {<phi,and case assignment must be carried out inphi>syntax so that the label shows the relevant{v*, ...}}}

information;

and

ii)

while

he

wh[phi] {R[uphi], ...}}}}}} {T[uphi]

assumes“overwriting” of features, we do not, which is

Both the free relatives in (13a, b) have the sameproblematic in terms of the no-tampering

structure as (14), where the wh operator shows

condition (Chomsky (2008)). The following

double agreement both in the embedded relative

section offers an analysis without it.

clause as well as in the matrix clause. In (13a)with wen ‘who’, nominative and accusative have

4. Some Parameters at the ExternalizationThis

sectiondiscusses

how

case

different forms, which is imcompatible withis(12bi). Since the nominative and accusative

externalized. As assumed in (7a), we assume that

forms of was ‘what’ are the same, (13b) iscase is required at the SM interface. Then, what

well-formed. However, there is a speakerhappens if a nominal receives more than one

variation. Vogel (2001: 343) observes that either

case? Some possibilities are as follows:

nominative or accusative yields a well-formed
sentence in examples like (13a). Such people opt(12) a. Externalize all cases.

for the option (12biv) rather than (12bi).

b. Externalize only one case.

We argue that the genitive of negation in
Russian is an instance of (12bii).

(5) is the manifestation of (12a). (12b) has
further subcategories: i) Externalize the same(15) a. Ivan vsegda est mjaso.

exponent of multiple cases, ii) Externalize the

I.NOM always eats meat.ACC

most marked case, iii) Externalize the outermost‘Ivan always eats meat.’11

b. Ivan nikogda ne est mjasa.
I.NOM never(Mary, t), leading to the derivation to crash.

NEG eats meat.GEN

However, (17a, b) also face the labeling problem.

‘Ivan never eats meat.’c. Bogatye

Since Mary and to have no agreement, the set

nikogda ne zavidujut

the.rich.NOM neverlacks the label. (18a, b) are also discussed in

NEG envy

terms of Case. The problem in (18b) is the

bednym/*bednyx.

movement from a Case position to another Casethe.poor.DAT/the.poor.GEN

position. However, we have already seen that a‘The rich never envy the poor.’

nominal with multiple cases is not problematic(Russian; Babby (1987: 95))

in principle. We argue that (18b) has the problem(16) {C {EA {T {NEG NEG {v* {...IA...}}}}}}of theta-theory, independent of Case. Following
Chomsky (2021), we just assume that a nominal

In (15a), accusative is assigned by the verb. (15b,cannot receive two theta-roles from onec) have the structure like (16). What is relevant

predicate. If we explain the ungrammaticality ofin (16) is the case of IA. It is located in the set

these examples in terms of labels and theta-roles,

labeled NEG, by which it receives genitive as

we can deduce the visibility condition without

well as another case assigned by the verb. In

Case, as EKS (2014) deduce the properties of(15b), the negation also assigns genitive, and theMerge-over-Move from labeling. However, wemore marked genitive is expressed. In (15c), theleave further discussion for future research.2

IA with the lexical dative cannot express
genitive. We argue that Estonian examples in

5. Further Extension(13) also fall under this option, and [case]This section will bring out the otherfeatures need not be assumed. In the GB era,consequences of our analysis. First, let us[case] is assumed for the visibility condition,

consider the following examples:

which states that a nominal can receive
theta-role only if it is assigned (structural) Case

(19) a. Nosotros com-emos las manzanas.

(Chomsky (1986: 94)). However, as McFadden

we.M.PL eat-1PL(2004: 18) argues, there is no a priori reason for‘We eat the apples.’the relation between Case and theta-relation.

the apples

b. Nosotras com-emos las manzanas.

Ideally, we want to discard the visibility

we.F.PL eat-1PL

condition and construct a simple theory based on‘We eat the apples.’the morphological case, not the syntactic Case.

c. Nosotros estamos list-o-s.

The condition works for the following examples:

the apples

we.M.PL COP.1PL ready-M-PL‘We are ready.’(17) a. *It seems Mary to be believed t likes

d. Nosotras estamos list-a-s.

John.

we.F.PL COP.1PL ready-F-PL‘We are ready.’b.*It seems Mary to be t here.
(18) a. Mary seems to hit John.

(Spanish; adapted from Baker (2008: 8))

b.*Mary seems to hit t.
The subjects show full agreement with T. In
In (17a, b), there is no Case position in the chain

contrast, post-copular adjectives in (19c, d) do

12not show person agreement. With this fact inreceive the interpretation in accordance with themind,label. In contrast, Y can be interpreted in

Baker(2008:

52)

proposesthegeneralization Structural Condition on Person

accordance

Agreement (SCOPA), according to which ainterpretations are also available since it does

person agreement requires a local relation.

not participate in the labeling of γ. The

However, Preminger (2011) presents the case ofgeneralization follows from (22) that local

long-distanceagreement must be the full agreement, while theperson agreement, modifying

SCOPA.

withthelabel,

while

other

long-distance agreement can fail.
The next consequence concerns Baker’s(20) Nialtxa-tze-n

probatu.

(2008) assumption that upward Agree is neededme(ABS) lift-NMZ-LOC attempted

for the person-class agreement in Bantu[na-Ø-u-te]aux

languages.

1.ABS-SG.ABS-√-3PL.ERG(Basque;

Preminger(2011:

920),cf.

(23) Aba-kali ni

Preminger (2009: 627))

2-women PRED 2-short‘The women are short.’(21) Relative Aptitude for Failed Agreement(RAFA)

ba-kuhi.

(Preminger 2011: 922)

(Kinande; Baker (2008: 171))

person at-a-distance≫number at-a-distance(≫any agreement at close range)

In contrast, Carstens (2005: 222) suggests thatthe Bantu agreement is always spec-head. Our

SCOPA and RAFA share the view that a local

framework reconciles these observations. Noteagreement never fails. Label-based agreement atthat, in (23), the subject shows the local

the interfaces can capture this aspect.

agreement. Then, the agreement label provided
there is also responsible for the agreement(22) Interpretation by Contain (Hayashi in press)

morpheme on the adjective. In this way, weGiven the structure

deduce Baker’s (2008) upward Agree from{γ {β Z[F], ...} {α X[uF] {...Y...}}}

spec-head agreement and the interpretation in(α=X, β=Z, γ=<F, F>)

terms of labels. This consequence covers thei) Y, contained in the set labeled <F, F>,other phenomena with upward Agree. Consider

may be given the relevant interpretation

the following example of Italian negative

according to the label at the interfaces.

concord.

ii) X, immediately contained in the setlabeled <F, F>, must be given the relevant(24) a. Gianni non ha detto niente ainterpretation according to the label at theG.

NEG has saidinterfaces.

nessuno.

n-thing to

n-body‘Gianni didn’t say anything to anybody.’

Hayashi (in press) argues that X and Y differ intheir positions in terms of their labels. X

b. [Gianni

provides (part of) the label γ, which is thenon[iNEG]-ha[dittoniente[uNEG] a nessuno[uNEG]]]interpretive instruction of the set. Then, X must

(Italian; Zeijlstra (2012: 519))

13

2

Zeijlstra argues that n-words with [uNEG] agree

A potential problem is the following example:

with the higher NEG head via upward Agree.
Our analysis also deduces this effect. Since the(i) a. *who does it seem [e to be intelligent]

NEG head provides the label, the n-words(Chomsky (1986: 95))

contained in the set can receive the interpretationb. {<Q, Q> who C...{<phi, phi> it {T T ... {to who

by using the label. This is more than a{to to ....}}}}}

directional difference. If we attempt to deduce
Agree from Minimal Search just like Chomsky

There is no labeling problem with who and to(2015: 6) and EKS (2017) did, Agree should besince the copy is invisible for labeling. Moreover,downward.

our analysis does not expect the problem of thecase of who. Since the copy of who is contained

6. Concluding Remarksin the set labeled <phi, phi>, it would receive

We propose a new way to deduce thenominative, and the derivation would converge,agreement and case assignment phenomena incontrary to fact. The complete discussion mustterms of the interpretation of the label at the

involve the licensing condition of expletives,interfaces. This is a natural consequence of

which may explain the ill-formedness.

Chomsky’s (2013) view that the label is theinterpretive

instruction

at

the

interfaces.

Relegating (part of) the agreement and case

REFERENCES
Babby, Leonard H. (1987) “Case, Prequantifiers,

assignment phenomena to the SM interface

and Discontinuous Agreement in Russian,”pushesNLLT 5, 91-138.

the

view

that

the

parameteratexternalization explains language variation.

Baker, Mark C. (2008) The Syntax of Agreement
and Concord, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

* I would like to express my gratitude for

Carstens,Vicki (2005) “Agree and EPP infruitful comments to the audiences of the 39th

Bantu,” NLLT 23, 219-279.

annual ELSJ conference for their comments,

Chomsky, Noam (1986) Barriers, MIT Press,

including Yusuke Imanishi, Asako Uchibori,Cambridge, MA.

Hiroki Maezawa, and Kento Nagatsugu. This

Chomsky,research was supported by JSPS KAKENHI

Noam(1995)The

Minimalist

Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Grant Number 21K19987.
NOTES
1
The following abbreviations are used in theChomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

glosses: 1, 2, 3...=person/noun class (Bantu),

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

ACC=accusative,

ADE=adessive,

COP=copular,

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David

DAT=dative,

F=feminine,

GEN=genitive,

Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155,

LOC=locative,

M=masculine,

NEG=negation,

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

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

NOM=nominative, PAR=partitive, PERF=perfect,
PL=plural,

PRED=predicative,

PRES=present,

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by

PST=past, SG=singular, TRL=translative

Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.

14

Chomsky,Noam(2008)“On

Phases,”619-666.
Preminger, Omer (2011) “Asymmetries between

Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory,
ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero andPersonMaria L. Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT Press,

Commentary on Baker’s SCOPA,” NLLT

Cambridge, MA.

29, 917-937.

Chomsky,Noam(2013)“ProblemsNoam(2015)

in

Syntax:a

Framework of the Minimalist Program,”“Problems

Extentions,”

Projection:

NumberReinhart, Tanya (1998) “Wh-in-Situ in theofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky,andof

NLS 6, 29-56.

Structures,vanRiemsdijk,

Henk

C.

(2021)“Case

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

Mismatches and Match Fixing Cases,”of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Domenico, Elisa,

Syntactic

Cornelia Hamann and Simon Matteini, 3-16,

Consequences

John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

András Bárány, Theresa Biberauer, Jamie

Chomsky,Noam(2021)“Genuine

Douglasexplanations,” talk at the 39th meeting of
WCCFL,

Available

Architecture

and

and

III: Inside
Sten

Its

Syntax, ed.

Vikner,125-144,

Language Science Press, Berlin.

at,Schütze, Carson T. (1997) INFL in Child andhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6SbP

Adult Language: Agreement, Case and

KmVNVQ.

Licensing, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Epstein, Samuel David, Hisatsugu Kitahara andHayashi, Norimasa (in press) Labels at theT. Daniel Seely (2014) “Labeling byInterfaces:

MinimalConsequences of Merge and Contain,

Search:ImplicationsforSuccessive-Cyclic A-Movement and the

on

the

NotionsandtheKyushu University Press, Fukuoka.

Conception of the Postulate “Phase”,” LI

Hiraiwa, Ken (2005) Dimensions of Symmetry in

45, 463-481.

Syntax:Epstein, Samuel David, Hisatsugu Kitahara andAgreement

andClausalArchitecture, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

T. Daniel Seely (2017) “Successive Cyclic

McFadden, Thomas (2004) The Position of

Wh-Movement without Successive Cyclic

Morphological Case in the Derivation: A

Crashing,” paper presented at ELSJ 10th

Study of the Syntax-Morphology Interface,

International Spring Forum, Meiji Gakuin

Doctoral dissertation, UPenn.

University, Tokyo.
Plank,

Frans(1995)

Norris, Mark (2014) A Theory of Nominal“(Re-)Introducing

Concord, Doctoral dissertation, UCSC.

Suffixaufnahme,” Double Case: Agreement

Vogel, Ralf (2001) “Case Conflict in German

by Suffixaufnahme, ed. by Frans Plank,

Free Relative Constructions: An Optimality

3-110, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Theoretic

Treatment,”

Competitionin

Pesetsky, David Michael (2013) Russian Case

Syntax, ed. by Gereon Müller and Wolfgang

Morphology and the Syntactic Categories,

Sternefeld, 341-375, Mouton de Gruyter,

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Berlin.

Preminger, Omer (2009) “Breaking Agreements:
Distinguishing

Agreement

andZeijlstra, Hedde (2012) “There Is Only One Way

Cliticto Agree,” TLR 29, 491-539.

Doubling by Their Features,” LI 40,

15

the vase!
(Mack (2010: 244))(2a)では、母親が「今日何があったか」とい
英語の道具主語構文と日本語の対応構文のう事象報告を尋ねる質問に対して、ベビーシ

共通点と相違点: 言語使用の三層モデルのッターは(2b)を使用できるが、(2c)は使用で観点から*きない。このことから、英語の道具主語構文(The Commonality and Difference between

は、有標的な表現として語用論的な分析が必English Instrument Subject Constructions and要であることがわかる。

Their Japanese Counterparts: From the

一方、日本語の場合を確認する。

Perspective of the Three-Tier Model of
Language Use)(3) * この鍵がそのドアを開けた。
(岸本・影山 (2011: 279))

石川 和佳（Kazuyoshi Ishikawa）(4)

この鍵がそのドアを開けたものだ。

筑波大学大学院（University of Tsukuba）(石川 (2020: 256))

キーワード: 言語使用の三層モデル, 道具主

従来、(1b)に対応する日本語表現は、容認さ

語構文, 文末名詞構文, 特徴づけ, 間接把握れない(3)とされた。しかし、石川 (2020)は文脈上容認される英語の道具主語構文に対応する日本語構文は、軽名詞を含む文末名詞表

1. はじめに現 (i.e.「ものだ」)を加えた(4)とみなしてい

英語では、(1a)のように with 句で生起させる。本稿では(4)を文末名詞構文と呼ぶ。

られる道具名詞句を、(1b)のように人の代わ

石川 (2020)は、(1b)と(4)の並行性から、日りに主語位置に生起させることができる。本

英語の各々の構文は、道具主語の指示対象を稿では(1b)の単純過去形で表されたものを特徴づけ、同定する機能を持つと主張する。

英語の道具主語構文と呼ぶ。
(1) a.
b.

以上を踏まえると、2 点の問いが生じる。

John opened the door with the key.

(5) a. (1b)と(4)の共通概念 (i.e. 特徴づけ、The key opened the door.

同定)は、どのように規定できるのか。

(Fillmore (1968: 25), 以下下線は執筆者)

b. 道具主語を特徴づける際に、英語の場合とは異なり、なぜ日本語の対応

従来の研究では、英語の道具主語構文は単構文には文末名詞表現を加える必要

文でも容認されると指摘されたが、最近の研があるのか。

究では、(2)で示すように通常の平叙文と同(5a)は日英語各々の構文に共通する概念上のじように扱うことができないとされる。

問い、(5b)はその共通概念に伴う文法形式上(2) a. Mother:b. Babysitter:

What happened today?

の違いについての問いである。

Henry broke the crystal vase

本稿は、(5a)について、「特徴づけ」というwith a baseball bat!

概念を、状況を把握する認知モードの一つとc. Babysitter: # A/The baseball bat broke

して規定することを試みる。また当概念が16

Hirose (2015)、廣瀬 (2017)で提案されている

b. そのドアを開けた鍵(石川 (2020: 254), 一部修正)「言語使用の三層モデル」に位置付けられることで、(5b)の問いにも適切な説明を与える(8)の日本語の道具主語構文は、英語の場合ことができるということを論じる。
本稿の構成は以下の通りである。第 2 節でと同様に容認されない一方、英語の it-分裂文

石川 (2020)を概観し、追加のデータを加え、に対応する(9b)や制限的関係節に対応する

日英語各々の構文における共通点と相違点(10b)のように、道具名詞句はそれぞれの構を明らかにする。第 3 節では、
「言語使用の文の意味上の主語として機能でき、その点に三層モデル」を導入し、第 4 節では、(5)の問おいて日英語では並行性が見られる。

いに対してどのように理論的に説明できるかを示す。第 5 節は結論である。

2.2. 文脈における構文の相違点
次に石川 (2020)は、文脈における英語の

2. 英語の道具主語構文と日本語の対応構文

道具主語構文と日本語の対応構文の振る舞石川 (2020)では、英語の道具主語構文をいを観察する。(11)の対話は、中世ヨーロッ分析した Mack (2010)の観察を援用しながら、 パ博物館に訪れた来観客が、展示ブースの前
日本語の場合と対照させている。

で立ち止まり、ガイドが当時どのようにコインが作成されたかを説明する場面である。

2.1. 特定構文における道具主語の並行性(11) GUIDE: In medieval Europe, a craftsman

まず、英語の場合を確認する。

pounded the metal and made these(6) a. # This bullet killed Joyce Alexander.
b.

coins.

…, and it was this bullet that killed Joyce

VISITOR: Many kinds of coins.

Alexander.

GUIDE: Yes. Look at the tools next to the(7) a. # The pen wrote love letters to my mother,

metal coins. This hammer poundedsigned all my report cards, ….
b.

the metal flat.

This is the pen that wrote love letters to(12) a. # このハンマーがその金属を叩いて

my mother, signed all my report cards, ….

平らにしました。

(Mack (2010: 247), 一部修正)b.

このハンマーがその金属を叩いて平らにしたものです。
(石川 (2020: 255), 一部修正)

英語の道具主語構文は、(6a)(7a)の単文では容認されない。しかしながら、主語位置に生起する道具名詞句は、(6b)の it-分裂文、(7b)(11)における下線部の道具主語構文は容認さの制限的関係節の意味上の主語として機能れる一方、同じ文脈内において日本語の(12a)できることを Mack (2010)は観察している。

では容認されず、(12b)の文末名詞構文にし次に、日本語の場合を確認する。

なければ容認されないことが観察される。石川 (2020)では、(12b)を同定文とみなし、
「金

(8) *

この鍵がそのドアを開けた。 (= (3))

属を叩いて平らにした」という過去に起きた(9) a. It was this key that opened the door.

出来事情報に基づいて、道具にどのような性

b. そのドアを開けたのはこの鍵だ。

質や特徴があるのかを叙述する属性文とみ(10) a. the key that opened the door

なす。そして当該使用文脈の並行性から、日17英語の各々の構文は、道具主語を特徴づける

つまり、英語の道具主語構文は(11)のような機能があると主張する。

文脈や Topic Question の際に、道具主語への特徴づけが行われることで容認されており、

2.3. Topic Question との親和性

解釈上は(16)のような意味内容を持つこと

2.2 を踏まえ、さらに観察を進めたい。

がわかる。一方、日本語の対応構文は、(12b)のように文末名詞表現を文法的に明示しな(13)John kissed Mary Queen of Scots.

ければ特徴づけが行われないのである。

(14) a. What happened today?

以上を踏まえると、1 節で確認した(5ab)のb. Who is John?
(15)

問いがより明確になるが、3 節以降では、そJohn is the one who kissed Mary Queen

れらの問いに答えるために、Hirose (2015)、

of Scots.

廣瀬 (2017)で提案されている「言語使用の(Ishikawa (to appear), 一部修正)

三層モデル」を概観する。

(13)は、(14ab)の疑問文への返答として使用

3. 言語使用の三層モデルできる。しかし、(14a)が過去に起きた出来事

3.1. 公的自己と私的自己を問い、事象文の返答を要請しているのに対「言語使用の三層モデル」は、文法と語用し、(14b)は「ジョンがどのような人物なのか」 論の関係に関わる現象を扱う理論である。当を問う Topic Question である。興味深いこと

該理論では、前提として「話し手」の概念を、に、(14b)に対して(13)を使用した場合、ジョ(18ab)の 2 タイプに分解する。

ンがどのような人物なのかを「メアリ女王にキスした」という過去の出来事情報に基づい(18) a. 公的自己: 伝達・報告の主体。聞き手て特徴づける解釈があり、(15)に言い換えるの存在を前提とし、伝達意図のあることができる。(15)は事象文ではなく、同定「公的表現行為」の担い手となる。
b. 私的自己: 思考・意識の主体。聞き手

文で表された属性文に該当する。
(13)-(15)の観察は、石川 (2020)が言う英語の存在を前提とせず、伝達意図がなの道具主語構文の特徴づける機能との共通い「私的表現行為」の担い手となる。

性が伺えることから、(11)の文脈に使用され(cf. Hirose (2015), 廣瀬 (2017))

る当該構文は、(15)のような言い換えが可能であると予測されるが、(16)のように可能で「公的自己・公的表現 (行為)」と「私的自己・ある。また、道具主語構文は(17)の Topic

私的表現 (行為)」との最も重要な違いは、Question の応答としても使用可能である。

「聞き手の存在を前提として伝達を目的とするかどうか」である。

(16) This hammer is the one that pounded themetal flat.

上記概念群を以下の例で確認したい。

(cf. Ishikawa (2019))(17) Topic test:(19) a. Today is Friday.

Q: Tell me about this pen. / What is special

b. Today is Friday, {madam/ma’am/Mrs.

about this pen?

Brown/Jane/darling/honey/etc.}.

A: This pen/It signed the Declaration of(20) a. 今日は金曜日だ.

Independence.

b. 今日は金曜日だ {よ/です/でござい(Fellbaum and Rappoport (2013: 48))

ます}.

18

(廣瀬 (2017: 13-14))

b. 状況報告層: 公的自己が状況把握で形成した思いを伝える。(伝達的側面)

英語は、(19a)を使用する場合、どのような聞c. 対人関係層: 公的自己が聞き手とのき手に対しても伝達・報告できる。つまり、人間関係に配慮する。 (社会的側面)(19a)は公的表現として機能すると想定され(cf. Hirose (2015), 廣瀬 (2017))

る ((19b)の説明は後ほど立ち戻る)。
一方、日本語では、聞き手に「今日は金曜」という情報を伝える場合、通常、(20a)では不自然さがあり、(20b)のように終助詞の「よ」、丁寧体の「です」などの、聞き手の存在をマークする「聞き手志向表現」を付加して表す

図 1: 公的自己中心の英語

図 2: 私的自己中心の日本語(廣瀬 (2017: 3), 修正))のが自然である。つまり、日本語では独り言のように自分の思考を表す場合は、(20a)を使用し、私的表現として機能させる一方、他者

図 1 の英語では、無標の直示的中心が太字に伝達する場合は(20b)のような表現を加え

下線部で示した状況報告層の公的自己に置て、公的表現として表すのが自然となる。

かれる。状況報告層は状況把握層と一体化し、このように英語は、聞き手の存在を前提とそこに対人関係層が付加する関係である。こして(19a)を使用できることから、伝達性を持の関係は(19ab)の振る舞いを説明できる。英つ公的表現が無標の表現レベルになり、聞き語は、日本語と違って、伝達する際に特定の手への志向性が強い「公的自己中心言語」と表現を必要とはせず、聞き手が誰であろうと

特徴づけられる。

(19a)のままで伝達可能である。なぜこのよう

一方、日本語は、聞き手を想定しない言語に振る舞うのかというと、状況把握層と状況

表現レベルが存在し、伝達・報告を行うため報告層が一体化しているため、と説明できる。

には、私的表現に聞き手志向表現をわざわざさらに、伝達時には特定の対人関係に依拠し付加する点から、無標の言語表現レベルが私ない情報伝達が可能であり、(19b)の呼称を的表現と考えられる。私的表現は、聞き手へ使用し、対人調節は随意的となる。なぜ随意の意識が介在しない個人的な思考を表す表的かというと、対人関係層が他二層から独立現なため、日本語は、自己への志向性が強く、しているためである。(英語の対人関係層で自己と他者の区別に敏感である「私的自己中は、特にイントネーションなどのパラ言語が心言語」と三層モデルでは特徴づけられる。

果たす役割が大きく、この点については廣瀬(2017: 20-22)を参照。)

以上の特徴づけから、三層モデルでは、日

一方、図 2 の私的自己中心言語である日本

英語の無標の三層関係が異なるとする。

語では、無標の直示的中心が状況把握層の私
3.2. 日英語の三層関係

的自己に置かれる。状況把握層は他二層から三層とは、(21)で示すように言語使用の中独立しており、対人関係層と状況報告層は一核となる機能を表したものであり、日英語で体化している。この関係は、先にも説明した

は、その関係が異なるとされる (i.e. 図 1、2)。

(20ab)の振る舞いを説明できる。日本語では、(20a)を独立した言語表現レベルとしてなぜ(21) a. 状況把握層: 私的自己が状況を把握使用するのかというと、状況把握層が、他二(認知的側面)層から独立しているためである。一方、(20b)

し思いを形成する。

19

(24) 直接把握モード

では、さらに重要な観察がある。聞き手志向
表現は、聞き手の存在を知らせると同時に、

a.

I EXPERIENCE p(roposition).

聞き手との特定の対人関係 (e.g. 後輩・同b.

I PERCEIVE (e.g. see) p.

期・先輩)や、話し手と聞き手の知識状態に関c.

I KNOW p.

する対人関係 (e.g. 命題情報を話し手だけ(25) 間接把握モード

が把握している場合など)を知らせるために

a.

I INFER that p.

も使用される。つまり、聞き手への伝達を行b.

I HEAR that p.

う際には対人関係情報も言語的に表示する必要があることを意味する。なぜそのように(25)の範疇には、推論・伝聞・想像・願望モ振る舞うのかというと、対人関係層と状況報ードなどがあり、英語とは異なり日本語では

告層が一体化しているため、と説明できる。

どのモードで情報を得たのかを、「のだ」「らしい」「だろう」等のマーカーで文法的に表

3.3. 直接的・間接的状況把握モード

示 す る 必 要 が あ る ( 廣 瀬 (2017: 12-13),
Kuroda (2019))。

本節ではさらに状況把握層についてより深く確認していく。(22)(23)を見てみる。

4. 提案と分析(22) a. [The speaker is looking out the window.]

4.1. 特徴づけモード

Oh, it’s raining.

本節では、3 節の内容を踏まえ、2 節で確b. It’s raining (, because they are walking

認した「特徴づけ」という概念が、どのよう

under their umbrellas).

な概念かを規定する。そのために、(26)(27)の(Shizawa (2015: 162))

心理表現を確認したい。

(23) a. [話し手が窓から外を見て](26) a. I am lonely.

あっ, 雨が降ってる.
b. (みんなが傘をさしているから)

b. He is lonely.

雨が{降ってるんだ/ #降ってる}.

(27) a. 私はさびしい.

(廣瀬 (2017: 13), cf. Shizawa (2015))

b.*彼はさびしい.
c. 彼は{さびしがっている/さびしいら(22a)(23a)は日英語ともに、話し手が直接窓

しい}.
(Hirose (2015: 132-3), 一部修正)の外を見て得た情報を表した表現であり、直接的に情報を把握する仕方を「直接把握モード」と呼ぶ。一方、(22b)(23b)のように、傘を英語は(26a)のように話し手だけでなく、他者さしている人を見て、推論プロセスを通しての心理状態も(26b)の形式で表現可能である。

「雨が降っている」情報を把握する場合を一方、日本語では、話し手の心理は(27a)で表「間接把握モード」と呼ぶ。両モードにおいせるが、他者の気持ちは、間接的にしか知りて、英語は(22ab) it’s raining と表現可能であ

得 な い 遠 い 情 報 に 当 た る た め (cf. 神 尾

る一方、日本語では、間接把握モードにおい(1990))、(27c)のような間接形で表す必要があて、(23b)「のだ」などの表現を使用し、間接る。もし(27b)で表すと、直接的に把握した近形を用いて言語的に区別する必要がある。

い情報として表現することになり、「彼」の廣瀬 (2017: 12-13)の説明に従って、状況把気持ちに寄り添ったり、自分のもののように握モードを定式化すると次のようになる。

扱う印象が生じ、不自然になる。

20

この観察を踏まえて、「特徴づけ」概念にて個体を指定すること。
(31) I CHARACTERIZE the X as the one that p.

付随する文末名詞表現を考察する。(28)の願望を表す「たい」も他者の心理を表す。

4.2. 分析(28) a.* 彼は教師になりたい。
b.

彼は教師になりたいのだ。

c.

彼は教師になりたい人だ。

4.1 の提案を踏まえ、(32)の分析に移る。
(32) a. (#) The key opened the door.
b.

(28a)は(27b)と同様に容認されない一方、推この鍵がそのドアを開けた *(ものだ)。

論を表す「のだ」、文末名詞表現「人だ」を加える(28bc)は容認される。つまり、文末名詞(32ab)は、特徴づけモードが関わる(11)の表現は、他の間接把握モードのマーカーと同ような文脈や(17Q)の Topic Question を発話

じように振る舞うことがわかる。

する文脈で使用可能である。単文で(32a)が容さらに、その並行性を以下で示したい。

認されない理由は、単純過去形で表された文
形式上、事象文の解釈が優先され、事象を引(29) a.?? この本は言語の新しい側面を明ら

き 起 こ す 担 い 手 (i.e. agent, cf. Schlesinger(執筆者以外の場合)(1989))として道具主語を解釈できないため

この本は言語の新しい側面を明らである。一方、文末名詞表現がなければ(32b)かにしたものだ。

が容認されない理由は、(32a)と並行的であり、

かにした。
b.

道具主語を動作主として認識できないため
先ほど間接把握マーカーがない(27b)においである。文末名詞表現が無ければ、単文でもて、「彼」の気持ちを自分の所有物のように文脈でも道具主語を特徴づけられない。つま扱う印象が生じると言及した。それを踏まえり、英語の道具主語構文は語用論的に、日本

ると、執筆者以外が(29a)を使用する場合、本語の対応構文は文法的に、特徴づけモードをの内容を近い情報として自分の所有物のよ保障することを通して、容認されることがわうに扱う印象が生じ、自然さが下がる。一方、かる。

評者や読者は、本の内容が執筆者に帰属し、遠い情報であることを表すために、(29b)を

4.3. 特徴づけモードに伴う文末名詞表現の使用する方が自然になることが観察される。

有無

以上から、文末名詞表現は、「特徴づけ」

最後に、「特徴づけ」概念が、間接把握モという認知プロセスが関わる間接把握モーードに位置付けられたことで、最後に残ったドのマーカーと捉え直すことができ、(30)の(5b)の問いに対して、三層モデルから次のよ「特徴づけモード」として規定できる。当該

うに説明を与えることができる。

モードを定式化すると、(31)のようになり、

公的自己中心言語である英語は、状況把握(25)に加える形となる ((5a)の問いへの説明)。 層と状況報告層が一体化している。無標の場
合には常に聞き手が想定され、聞き手との情(30) 特徴づけモード:

報共有、つまり命題情報の真理性の共有に重間接把握モードの一つであり、話し手が、きが置かれる。結果、どのように情報を得た

ある状況に関わる個体の、注目に値するか(直接的か間接的か)の区別は二次的とな特徴を客観的に把握し、その特徴でもっり、文末名詞表現を必要としない。

21

Tier Model of Language Use,” EL 32, 120-

私的自己中心言語である日本語は、状況把138.

握層と状況報告層が分離している。無標の場
合には聞き手が想定されず、自分と自分以外

廣瀬幸生 (2017)「自分の言語学」, 廣瀬幸生

(他者)の区別に敏感であることから、自分が他 (編)『三層モデルからみえてくる言語

直接得た情報とそうでないものを区別するの機能としくみ』2-24, 開拓社, 東京.

ことに重きが置かれる。結果、推論、伝聞モ

Ishikawa, Kazuyoshi (2019) “Two Types ofードで得た情報と同様に、特徴づけモードでInstrument

Subject

Constructions

in

得た情報は、文末名詞表現を必要とする。

Context: With Special Reference to Focus
and Members in a Set,” JELS 37, 45-51.

5. 結論

石川和佳 (2020)「英語における道具主語文

本稿では、英語の道具主語構文と日本語のの同定機能－日英対照の観点から－」日

文末名詞構文の容認性には、間接把握モード

本言語学会第 160 回大会口頭発表.

に位置付けられる特徴づけモードが関わる

Ishikawa, Kazuyoshi (2020) “Instrument Subjectという共通点を示した。加えて、当該モード

Sentences and Property Predication: Fromが関わる際に、英語の道具主語構文とは違っ

the Perspective of the Three-Tier Model ofて、なぜ日本語の対応構文は文末名詞表現をLanguage Use,” Tsukuba English Studies 39,

文法的に明示する必要があるのかについて

41-63.

は、「言語使用の三層モデル」で仮定される

Ishikawa, Kazuyoshi (to appear) “On the

日英語の三層関係の違いから説明を与えた。

Behavior of Peculiar Passives in English:
From the Perspective of the Characterization* 本稿は、Ishikawa (2020)を加筆、修正した

Mode,” Tsukuba English Studies 40.

ものである。発表の準備に当たっては、廣瀬神尾昭雄 (1990)『情報のなわ張り理論』大修

幸生先生、和田尚明先生、金谷優先生より貴館書店, 東京.

重なご意見をいただいた。また、口頭発表当岸本秀樹・影山太郎 (2011)「構文交替と項の日は、多くの先生方より貴重なご意見やご質具現化」, 影山太郎 (編)『日英対照 名詞

問をいただき、深く感謝申し上げる。本稿にの意味と構文』270-304, 大修館, 東京.

おける不備や誤りは全て筆者の責任である。

Kuroda, Kosuke (2019) A Contrastive Study ofCoherence Relation Marking in English andJapanese, Unpublished master’s thesis,

参考文献
Fellbaum, C. and T. Rapoport (2013) “An

University of Tsukuba.

Information-Structure

AccountofMack, J. E. (2010) Information Structure and theInstrument-Subject

Constructions,”

Licensing of English Subjects, Doctoral

Proceedings

of

the

6th

International

dissertation, Yale University.

Conference on Meaning-Text Theory Prague,

Schlesinger, I. M. (1989) “Instruments as Agents:

41-49.

On the Nature of Semantic Relations,”

Fillmore, C. J. (1968) “The Case for Case,”

Journal of Linguistics 25(1), 189-210.

Universals in Linguistic Theory, ed. by

Shizawa, Takashi (2015) “The Rhetorical EffectEmmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, 1-88,

of Locative Inversion Constructions from

Rinehart and Winston, New York.

the Perspective of the Three-Tier Model of

Hirose, Yukio (2015) “An Overview of the Three-

Language Use,” EL 32, 156-176.

22

に従い、以降「完全形」と略す「完全関係代
名詞構文」と呼び、後者を以降「縮約形」と略す「縮約関係代名詞構文」と呼ぶ。
そして注意すべきは(1a)が示すように完全WH 疑問文の容認性に対する構文文法アプ

形の疑問文は容認されないのに対し、(1b)のローチ−前置詞 about を含む完全・縮約関係

縮約形の疑問文は容認されるという、容認性*

代名詞構文の意味の違いから−の非対称性が存在するということである。こ（A Constructionist Approach to theの点に関しては、形式を重んずる生成文法のAcceptability of WH-Interrogatives: Analyzing

分野において数多くの貢献がなされてきた。

Differences in Meaning between Full and

一方で構文文法のような意味的アプローチ

Reduced Relative Clauses Containing theでは、後述のようにこのような現象に対して

Preposition about）

正しい予測を立てることができていない。よって本論文の目標は完全形と縮約形が異な

北原

匠（Takumi Kitahara）

る意味・語用論的側面を持つ構文であること

京都大学大学院（Kyoto University）を立証し、この容認性の非対称性が意味的ア
プローチより説明可能であることを主張すキーワード：構文文法, 完全・縮約関係代名ることである。

詞構文, WH 疑問文, 2 次的トピック, コーパ
2. 先行研究とその問題点

ス・アンケート調査

まず紙面の制約もあり、意味の観点から疑問文の容認性を予測しようとする先行研究
1. はじめにに絞って概観し、その問題点を指摘する。

本論文では複合名詞からの WH 取り出しに関してことなる容認性を示す 2 つの関係

2.1. Goldberg (2006)

代名詞構文を取り上げ、その容認性の違いにGoldberg (2006)は情報構造の観点から WH

対して構文文法の観点から分析を行い、コーの制約を説明する。まず文を次の 3 つの要素

パス調査およびアンケート調査によって論に分類する、1）トピック：既に話し手と聞証を行う。

き手との間で確立された関心事であるもの、
2）潜在的焦点ドメイン：文中で断定されて(1) a.*Who did she see a report that was about?

いる新情報である箇所、つまりは文否定によ[完全形]って否定されうる箇所、そして 3）背景化さ

b. Who did she see a report about? [縮約形]れた要素：上記 2 つのどちらにも属しない箇(Goldberg (2006: 148))

所。つまりは既に話し手と聞き手との間で前提となっている箇所であって、文否定のスコ(1a-1b)は、どちらの例文も「彼女は誰についープに入らない箇所である。そして Goldbergての報道を目にしたのか？」という同じ意味

は 3 要素のうち背景化された要素は島であを表すと一般的には考えられているが、形式ると予測する。

的には(1a)では that という関係代名詞が明示

これによって正しく予測できる例が完全的に含まれているのに対し、(1b)では含まれ形である(2)である。

ていない。本論文では前者を Goldberg (2006)23

(2) a. She[トピック] /didn’t see[焦点ドメイ

含む疑問文を取り上げ、なおかつ意味的な説

ン ]/ the report that was about

明を与えている時点で、本論文の試みに近い。

him.[背景化要素] .

具体的には以下のような動詞 buy と loseb. *Who did she see the report that wasのように形式的には同じで例文の間で、なぜ

about? (Goldberg (2006: 132))

容認される物とされない物が分けられるのだろうかと問い立てる。

というのも複合名詞の the report that was
about him は定冠詞 the が示唆するように、話(4) a. What did you buy a book on?

し手と聞き手にはその指示対象の存在が前

b. *What did lose a book on?

提とされており、文否定の didn’t の否定スコ(Kuno (1987: 19))

ープに入らない。つまりは背景化要素であり、「背景化された要素は島である」という予測

Kuno は(4a)の on の目的語はトピックになっにより、正しく(2b)の疑問文が容認できないているのに対し、(4b)ではなっていないことと予測できる。

を、まず以下のような平叙文に言い換えて示

一方で同じく完全形である(3)では、誤っした。

て(3b)が容認できると予測されてしまう。
(5) a. Yesterday, on my way home, I bought a(3) a. Phineas[トピック] /doesn’t know a girlbook on John Irving.

who is behind him.[焦点ドメイン]

b. Yesterday, on my way home, I lost a bookb.*Who does Phineas know a girl who isbehind?

on John Irving.

(Ross (1967: 124))(6) He is one of the contemporary authors that I
like, and I have all the novels that he hasというのも複合名詞の a girl who is behindpublished.

(Kuno (1987: 23))

him の不定冠詞 a が示唆するように、話し手と聞き手には複合名詞の指示対象の存在が(4a)は(5a)、(4b)は(5b)と対応しているとみて前提とされておらず、「Phineas が知っているほしい。(5a)の発話直後に(6)の発話の続けるのは a girl ではなく a boy だ」のように、複のは自然であると Kuno は言う。なぜなら(5a)

合名詞は文否定の doesn’t の否定スコープにで Irving が著した本を買うことは Irving を主入ってしまう。つまりは、焦点ドメインであ題とする。一方で(5b)のように Irving が著しり、Goldberg の予測によれば島ではないと予た本をなくすことは Irving を主題としない。

測されてしまうが、実際にはこの複合名詞か

ここから一つの法則を Kuno は見出す。

らの取り出しは容認されない。同様の理由でGoldberg は誤って本発表で問題としている(7) 取り出しのためのトピック性条件：文の完全形疑問文(1a)も容認されると予測してしトピックとしてふさわしい文要素のみ、まうことが問題である。

取り出しを許される。
(Kuno (1987: 23)訳は本論文執筆者による)

2.2. Kuno (1987)
もう 1 つの代表的な意味的アプローチにKuno は描写名詞の問題に対して形式的な

Kuno (1987)がある。Kuno は 1.3 節で本論文説明が圧倒的に存在する中で、意味的アプロが対象としている描写名詞 (picture noun)をーチの代表として問題に一石投じたのは大24

変価値のあることである。しかし、問題がな性質で修飾する]

いわけではない。その 1 つには今回問題とし
A と B では、中央の斜線を挟んで左側の大括ている縮約形と完全形がある。

弧には形式を、右側には意味および談話機能(8) a. Yesterday, on my way home, I bought a

を記載している。意味および談話機能に注目

book that was about John Irving. [完全]す る と 、 完 全 形 も 縮 約 形 も 例 え ば “ab. Yesterday, on my way home, I bought areport(NP1) that is about John(NP2)”のように

book about John Irving.

[縮約]「NP1 を NP2 の性質で修飾する」という共通(9) He is one of the contemporary authors that Iの意味をもっている。一方で、「NP1 を 2 次

like, and I have all the novels that he has

的トピック化する」という意味は、完全形に

published.

特有の意味であることが示されている。つまり、部分的に形式と意味を共有していること(8-9)は Kuno の Irving の例を再現した物であがみられる。2 つの構文は同一ではないにしる。完全形(8a)と縮約形(8b)のどちらに(9)をても無関係ではなく、部分関係リンクによっ

続けても容認性は変わらないため、Kuno にて関連付けられている。

よればどちらの about の目的語も等しくトピックとなり、「取り出しのためのトピック性

3.1. 完全形に特有な 2 次的トピック化とは条件」により誤って両方とも取り出すことがどういうものか可能であると予測してしまう。よって Kuno

完全形に特有な「NP1 を 2 次的トピック化

でも完全形(1a)と縮約形(1b)の違いを正しくする」ということはどういったことかをみて予測することができない。

いく。
2 次的トピックは Lambrecht (1994: 119)以上より、先行研究では縮約形と完全形ので述べられており、文のはじめにおいてはト

意味を区別できないことから、(1a-1b)の容認

ピックではなかったが、途中よりトピックと性の非対称性を説明できていないことが分して機能するものを指す。

かる。3 節以降で示すように、縮約形と完全(10) Q:What do Western artists and theorists do?

形がそれぞれ別個の意味をもった構文であA:ることを示していく。

They

glimpseanon-Modernist

abstraction (NP1=2 次的トピック)
3. 構文文法による分析：完全形と縮約形のthat is about addition and plentitude,

異なる機能

not reduction. ((10)A は COCA より)

本発表では構文の定義を Goldberg (2006)に倣い、「記憶された形式と意味または談話(10)では、質問文 Q に対する答えの A に完全機能の対である」とする。その上で、about形が使用されている。ここでは完全形の NP1を含む完全形と縮約形は、以下の形式と意味である a non-Modernist abstraction がどのよから成る構文であると主張する。１

うに 2 次的トピックとなっているかをみていく。質問の What do Western artists andA) 完全形：[[NP1 that is/was about NP2]/[NP1theorists do?に対する答えとして、まず主語を NP2 の性質で修飾する。また NP1 を 2

They は代名詞になっていることからも分か

次的トピック化する]]るように、話し手と聞き手との間に確立されB) 縮約形：[[NP1 about NP2]/ [NP1 を NP2 のたトピックであることが分かる。次にトピッ

25

ク直後からコンマの直前までの部分 glimpseが予測される。しかし、予測に反して(11b)a non-Modernist abstraction that is about

における後続文 I lived through it.では a book

addition and plentitude は質問に対する答えとに関する言及はなく、a book が 2 次的トピッ

なっており、この時点では NP1 を含む情報全

クとはなっていないためやはり容認されな体が、質問者の知らなかった新情報であるとい。対する(11a)では a book についての言及いうことができる。しかし、コンマ以降のが後続文でもなされているため、容認される。

not reduction の部分では、今度は NP1 である

一方で縮約形である(12a)と(12b)では、前

a non-Modernist abstraction をトピックとして述のような容認性の非対称性はなく、NP1 でそれに関して addition and plentitude であってある a book が 2 次的トピック化されていな

reduction ではない、という新情報の付加が行

いことが分かる。

われている。よってこの完全形の NP1 は文途

以上の事実観察に加え、次の 4 節で述べる

中よりトピックとして機能する、2 次的トピ

ように COCA においては完全形の 2 次的トックと呼ぶことができる。

ピック化の用例が多数見られるのに対し、縮4 節のコーパス調査でも述べるように、完約形では皆無であることをみていく。

全形では(10)のように「NP1 は A であって Bでない」のように NP1 を叙述する A と B と

4. コーパス調査

が not、instead のような語によって対比され完全形に NP1 を 2 次的トピック化する意味

るような形で現れることが多くある。よってが存在し、縮約形にはないという仮説をコー

本発表では対比の意味が存在することや not、 パスにより検証を行った。COCA を使用し、instead のようなマーカーがあることをもっ完全形に関しては that is about と that wasて、2 次的トピック化の指標とする。

about で検索し、それぞれ 1,000 例と 1,448
例がヒットした。そのうち 122 例が今回対象

3.2. 2 次的トピック化は完全形に特有な意味としている「NP1 を NP2 の性質で修飾する」といえるのかという意味と合致するものとして抽出した。

前述の 2 次的トピック化がなぜ完全形に

縮約形に関しては NOUN about で検索し、特有の意味であるといえるのかを考えてみ

337,272 件がヒットした。縮約形は全数調査

る。このことはまず(11)と(12)のような例文が不可能であるため、完全形と同数の 122 例

を比べてみることで判明する。

をランダムに抽出した。

(11) a. I didn’t read a book that is about the war.

4.1. 完全形

I read a book about the post-war period.

まずは完全形の結果からみていく。結論とb.*I didn’t read a book that is about the war.

しては NP1 の 2 次的トピック化が完全形で多I lived through it.

[完全形]

くみられる傾向にあった。完全形の that is(12) a. I didn’t read a book about the war. I readabout では 73 例中 41 例（56.2%）で、that wasa book about the post-war period.

about では 49 例中 20 例（40.8%）[完全形合b. I didn’t read a book about the war I lived
through it.

計 122 例中 61 例（50.0%）]で 2 次的トピッ[縮約形]

ク化が見られた。
以下には一例を表示している。(13)ではまず完全形では、NP1 である a book が 2 次的NP1 である a question に関しての叙述が対比トピックとして後続文でも言及されること

マーカーmore than を挟んで、Senate rules と26

Massachusetts law という構造がとられてい

2 つ目はこれまで平叙文で検証を行ってきる。(14)には対比マーカーの存在はしないがたことが疑問文にも当てはまるかを検証す

NP1 である「結婚という institution」が the

るものである。つまり、「通常、単文では容joining of man and woman であって、same-sex

認されないとされる完全形の疑問文であっmarriage ではないという叙述の対比がやはても、NP1 が 2 次的トピック化するコンテク

りみられる。

ストにおいては容認性の改善がみられる」こ
とを証明することである。これは本発表でMORE THAN(13) I have a question that is about Senate rules
more than Mass law.
意味的に対比あり(14) Well, I think marriage is an institution thatis about the joining of man and woman
together…I oppose and many Americans
oppose same-sex marriage.

「調査 2」と呼ぶものに対応する。それぞれ順を追ってみていく。
5.1. 調査 1：NP1 の 2 次的トピック化と完全形の相関関係
調査 1 の目的はあえて証明したい命題とは逆のことを述べる帰無仮説「NP1 の 2 次的4.2. 縮約形

トピック化のコンテクストにおいて完全形

縮約形では NP1 の 2 次的トピック化が全が縮約形よりも多く選ばれない」を棄却する

122 例中 3 例（2.5%）
でしか見られなかった。

ことにある。フィッシャー正確確率検定を用

一 例 で は 、 (15) の よ う に NP1 で あ る a

い、有意水準を 5%に設定した。手法として

statement つまり「主張」に対して「神」と「証は Amazon Mechanical Turk 上でアンケート

明しようのない科学的発見」という 2 つの叙調査を行った。(16)のような「NP1 の 2 次的述が about の並列で示されているようなもの

トピック化のコンテクスト内にある完全形」

がみつかった。しかし、こうした例は 3 例し（C あり）を判断するグループを that is about

か見られず完全形の用例数との差は圧倒的と that was about の 2 チームに分けてそれぞである。これは 2 次的トピック化が完全形にれ 100 名を募集した。また同様に(17)のよう特有の意味であるということの証拠の 1 つな「コンテクスト内にない完全形」（C なし）となっている。

も 2 チームに分けて同数名を募集した。2

ABOUT 並列(15) If someone makes a statement about ahigher power he is an irrational fool But
if someone make a statement about an
unproveable[sic] Scientific discovery heis “brilliant”.

【第６問】
NP1 の 2 次的トピック化のコンテクスト内にある完全形(16) I believe in a real spirituality that is about
how you live and not how you don’t live.
NP1 の 2 次的トピック化のコンテクスト内に

5. アンケート調査

ない完全形

次に 2 つの目的をもってアンケート調査(17) I am looking for a book that is about aを行った。1 つ目は、
「NP1 の 2 次的トピック

woman whose mother dies and her uncle

化のコンテクストにおいては完全形が縮約

takes her aboard the ship that he works on

形よりも多く選ばれるはずである」という仮

as a stow-a-way.

説の正しさを証明することである。これは本発表で「調査 1」と呼ぶものに対応する。

タスクは問題文が「1：完全に不自然である」

27

から「5：完全に自然である」の 5 段階評定

Who did Mary see a report that is/was about?をで回答するというものであった。被験者はア

単文で「1：完全に容認できない」から「5：メリカ在住で英語を第一言語とする者に限完全に容認できる」の 5 段階評定で回答させ定し、さらに調査の質を保証するために最初た後、第 7 問（=(18) or (19)）にて NP1 の 2の 5 問では容認性の高低が明確な 5 つの文を次的トピック化のコンテクストがあるもの

用意し、著しく容認性が乖離する回答は無効と、ないものを提示して第 6 問から容認性のとした。

スケールに改善が見られるか観察した。

第 6 問（=(16) or (17)）では COCA の実例
を使用し、「5：完全に自然である」以外の回【第７問】

答を選んだ者に対しては書き換えを行うよ

NP1 の 2 次的トピック化のコンテクスト内にうに促した。その際にもともと完全形であっある完全形たものを縮約形に書き換えるかを観察した。

(18) If Mary didn’t see a report about John or
Jake, who did Mary see a report that isabout?
NP1 の 2 次的トピック化のコンテクストにない完全形(19) Instead of watching movies, who did Maryread a book that is about?

結果は表 1 に示す通りであり、that is about
は p=0.0041、that was about は p=0.0497 が得られ、帰無仮説は棄却された。3 つまり、完全形が 2 次的トピック化のコンテクストで現れた際には縮約形への書き換えは有意に行われずそのまま完全形の構文が好まれたということになる。よって NP1 の 2 次的トピック化と完全形の相関関係は証明される。4

結果は表 2 に示す通りであり、that is about
は p=0.02、that was about は p=0.0066 が得ら

5.2. 調査 2：NP1 の 2 次的トピック化と完全れ、帰無仮説は棄却された。つまり、完全形

形疑問文の容認性との相関関係の疑問文は単文で提示された時よりも NP1

調査 2 の目的も帰無仮説「NP1 の 2 次的トの 2 次的トピック化のコンテクストで提示

ピック化のコンテクストにおいて完全形疑された時の方が、容認性が高くなる傾向があ

問文の容認性が改善されない」を棄却するこることが分かった。

とであった。調査方法、被験者選別条件、第5 問目までの質問は調査 1 と同様の物を使用

6. 完全・縮約形の間にみられる意味の違い

した。違いは第 6 問において完全形疑問文と WH 疑問文にみられる容認性の非対称性

28

との関係性

約形がそれぞれ 122 件と量的に満足に抽出

以上の調査により、完全形は NP1 を 2 次的できた about のみに絞って扱った。

トピック化する構文であることが示された。

2

その上で (1a)の完全形疑問文を再考すると、るのに、最終的に数十名しかないのは何故か

疑問文は about の目的語を次のトピックとすとご質問頂いた。これはアンケートを謝金付る一方、完全形の構文は NP1 を次のトピックきで行ったため、それ目的の質の低いデータとする。このように次のトピックとなるべきが集まり多数無効となったためである。

要素が一致しないことが、(1a)の容認性に影3

響を与えていると考えられる。このように、正した。謹んでお詫び申し上げる。that was

完全形の WH 疑問文が容認されないことは、

about の数値が左右逆転、上下反転していた。

情報構造に関して完全形の構文のもつ語用

4

論的意味から説明される。

の 19 という数値は、本発表の完全形の定義

アンケート調査において母数が数百名であ発表時の表に間違いが見つかったため、訂例えば表 1、that was about の段の「C あり」によれば 0 と出なければいけないのではな* 本論文の執筆に際して多くの方々のお世いかというご意見を頂いた。

話になった。特に研究でも研究以外の悩みで

執筆者はそのご意見に全く同意した上で、も私が迷ったときには優しく背中を押して本論文で提示した完全形の意味は完全形にくださった指導教官の谷口一美教授には心最も特徴的と思われるものであり、本論文はの底から御礼申し上げる。また学部時代に言完全形の全ての意味を網羅しようと意図し語学の面白さや奥深さをご教授くださったたものではないと申し上げる。よって本論文

大谷直輝准教授にも御礼申し上げる。

で扱っていない何らかの意味によって 19 とまた先輩方にも御礼申し上げたい。特に三いう数値が出ていることも考えられる。

野貴志氏、そして執筆者と同研究室の佐藤嘉晃氏には、本論文に対して何日もの貴重な時

参考文献
Goldberg, Adele (2006) Construction at Work:

間を割いてご助言頂いた。なんと感謝を申し

The Nature of Generalization in Language,

上げて良いかもわからない。
当然ながら本論文における論証の妥当性、

Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kuno, Susumu (1987) Functional Syntax:

データの正確性等全ての責任は私にある。

Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy, The

注
本学会発表を聞いて下さっていた先生より

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

（感謝お礼申し上げる）、本論文は about 以

Lambrecht, Knud (1994) Information Structure

外の前置詞も含み得るのに、なぜ about を特and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the

別な構文として扱うのかとご指摘頂いた。

Mental1

RepresentationsofDiscourse

Referents, Cambridge University Press,

私自身ご指摘通り様々な前置詞を含んでCambridge.

検証を行いたかった。しかし、前置詞ごとにRoss, John (1967) Constrains on Variables in

完全形と縮約形の量的比重に極端に偏りがあり統計上扱いにくい例が出てきた。例えば、

Syntax, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

前置詞 on では縮約形 story on は 4,559 件がヒ
コーパス

ットするところ、完全形 story that is on は 1

Corpus of Contemporary American English

件しかヒットしない。

(COCA)

よって今回に限っては量的に完全形と縮29

の枠組みの下で、具体的にはラベル付けの観点から再考することを目的とする。
2. 理論的背景
SAI 再考：ラベル付けの観点から*

2.1. ラベル付けアルゴリズム（Subject-Auxiliary Inversion Revisited in

Chomsky (2013, 2015)は、統語構造のラベ

Terms of Labeling）

ルはラベル付けアルゴリズムと呼ばれる体系によって 決定され ると提案 してい る。

小池 晃次（Koji Koike）

Chomsky 氏によると、ラベル付けには(2)の 3

愛知淑徳大学（Aichi Shukutoku University）

つのパターンがある。

キーワード：主語・助動詞倒置, ラベル付け,(2) a. [H H XP]

素性継承, 否定倒置文, Wh 疑問文

b. [ XP [Y tXP YP]]c. [<F, F> XP[F] YP[F]]1. 導入(2a)で H と XP が併合された場合、主要部で文頭へ否定要素が前置されると、主語・助ある H がラベルになる。(2b)で句同士が併合

動詞倒置（SAI）が起きる。この現象は否定されて XP が移動した場合、残った YP の主

倒置と呼ばれ、今も有望なアプローチの 1 つ

要部 Y がラベルになる。(2c)で句同士が併合に Haegeman (1995)の NEG-criterion が挙げらされ、それらの主要部が共通の素性 F を持つれる。NEG-criterion によると、(1)で nothing

場合、F がラベルになると主張している。

が CP 指定部へ前置されると、NEG 素性を持

Chomsky 氏はラベル付けのタイミングにつった T はそれと Spec-head 配列を成すため C

いて位相レベルや転送の一部などいくつかへ繰り上がり、この主要部移動の結果としての可能性を示唆しているが、本稿は Bošković

SAI が生じると分析されてきた。

(2016)と共に、H-XP 構造は併合時にラベル付けされる一方で、XP-YP 構造は転送時にラベル付けされると想定する。この点について(1) [CP nothing C [TP I [T can[NEG][VP do tnothing]]]](3)で掘り下げて考えてみよう。
しかし、なぜ否定要素と NEG 素性を持った(3) a. [ Y [α=H H XP]]

主要部はそもそも Spec-head 配列でなければいけないのだろうか。1990 年代と違って、

b. [ XP [Z Z [α=Y tXP YP]]]

現行の生成文法の枠組みでは素性照合はすでに破棄されているので、もはや素性照合に訴えることはできない。さらに決定的なこと(3a)で H と XP が併合されると、(2a)に則っに、criterion に代わる代案は 20 年以上ずっとて α のラベルはすぐに H と決定できる。次提案されず、SAI の仕組みは実質的に未解明に、H がすぐ上の Y へ主要部移動したと仮として手付かずの状態のまま残されてきた。

定しよう。α はすでに H としてラベル付けさ

このことを研究の背景として、本稿は英語にれたおかげで、H が移動しても元位置でラベおける SAI のメカニズムを、現行の生成文法

ル付けの失敗は生じない。このような主要部

30

移動の存在を考えると、H-XP 構造は移動が

φ-agreement に関する事実から経験的にも裏適用される前すなわち併合時にラベル付け

付けられると Ouali (2008)では議論されていされるべきである。対照的に、(3b)で XP とる。

YP が併合された場合、併合時にはまだ α の

次節では、こうして精緻化したラベル付け

ラベルは決定できない。次に、フェイズ主要と素性継承 を使って 否定倒置 文における部 Z が併合され、XP の移動後、Z の補部でSAI を分析する。

ある α が転送されたと仮定しよう。α 内のXP は今や低いコピーなので不可視と見なさ

3. 否定倒置文における SAI

れ、(2b)に則って残った Y が α のラベルとし

3.1. C 主要部が持つ NEG 素性て選ばれる。このように、低いコピーが不可

否定倒置文のラベル付けで重要となるの視になることを踏まえると、XP-YP 構造は移は NEG 素性だ。本稿は(5)のように否定文の動が終わってどれが低いコピーか同定でき派生において C は uNEG 素性を持ち、同じる段階すなわち転送時にラベル付けされる節内にある否定要素の XP が持つ iNEG 素性

べきである。こうした理論的な考察に加え、と Agree 関係を結ぶことでその節の極性がラベル付けのタイミングの違いは Bošković

否定として確立されると考える。1

氏によって付加部からの抜き出し禁止など(5) C[uNEG] … XP[iNEG]

幅広い英語の事実に基づいて経験的にも正しいことが立証されている。

Agree

2.2. 素性継承

節全体の特性を決定する C 主要部が否定のOuali (2008)は Chomsky 氏が考案した素性

極性素性を持つと仮定するのは妥当である。

継承の考えを発展させ、素性継承には(4)の 3

こうした概念的な根拠に加え、NEG 素性がつのパターンがあると提案している。

元々C にあることを示唆する経験的な証拠がある。興味深いことに、(6)のブルトン語(4) a. DONATE: C … T[F] (1st option)

では否定文の場合に補文標識の形が変わる。

b. KEEP: C[F] … T (2nd option)

肯定の補文標識は e という形だが、否定の補

c. SHARE: C[F] … T[F] (3rd option)

文標識はそれに n が引っ付いて ne という形で現れる。

(4a)の DONATE では C から T へ素性 F が譲渡される。(4b)の KEEP では C は素性 F を保(6) Gouzout a持する。(4c)の SHARE では C と T が素性 F

know

PRT do-1sg well NEG-that read-1sg

を分かち合う。Ouali 氏はこれら 3 つのオプ

ket allizher. (Breton)

ションには優先順位があると主張し、第一選

not the letter

択肢の DONATE で派生が収束しない場合に‘I know that I don’t read the letter’

第二選択肢の KEEP が利用可能になり、さらranwell nelennan(Hendrick (2000: 23))に KEEP でも派生が収束しない場合に第三選択肢の SHARE が利用可能になると主張しここで思い出されるのは Chomsky (2008)にている。紙面の都合上、詳細は割愛させていお け る 西 フ ラ マ ン 語 の complementizer

ただくが、この DONATE > KEEP > SHARE

agreement の議論である。Chomsky (2008)はというラン ク付けは ベルベル 語における

西フラマン語で φ 素性が補文標識に具現化

31

する事実を φ 素性が元は C にあった証拠と辞なので(8a)で Pesetsky (1991)における類の見なした。これと同じ筋で、本稿では NEG意味で接辞である空の補文標識はこの C に

素性は元々は C にあり、英語の場合にはそ挿入できるが、(8b)で if のような語は接辞でれが T へ継承されると主張する。

あるこの C に挿入できないと説明される。52

対照的に、T が基底位置に留まった場合の3.2. 否定倒置文のラベル付け

派生は(9)である。

C から T へ NEG 素性を DONATE すること
(9) [α=?? XP[NEG][C C [<φ, φ> Subj [T T[NEG][ … ]]]]]

で、否定倒置文は(7)のようにラベル付けされると提案する。

(NEG: DONATE)
決定的なことに、否定要素の XP と C の間に(7) [α=<NEG, NEG> XP[NEG][C <T[NEG], C> [<φ, φ> Subj
[T tT [ … ]]]]] (NEG: DONATE)

共通素性が存在しないので、α のラベルを決定できない。このラベル付けの失敗によって(7)では、主要部移動（もっと最近の呼び方*Never I have met him.のような SAI していな

では internal pair-merge）によって T が C へ

い文の非文法性が説明される。6

繰り上がる。この時、C のほうが接辞化し不可視になる。3 すると、ラベル付けアルゴリ

4. Wh 疑問文における SAI

ズムは前置された否定要素の XP と繰り上がSAI は否定倒置文だけでなく、Wh 疑問文ってきた T の間に共通素性として NEG を見でも観察される。Wh 疑問文の SAI に対するつけ、α のラベルが NEG に決まる。こうし分析の代表格に Rizzi (1996)の Wh-criterion がて、Never have I met him.のような SAI した文挙げられる。Wh-criterion によると、(10a)のが生成される。なお、2.1 節で論じたように、

母型非主語 Wh 疑問文では CP 指定部に前置

H-XP 構造は主要部移動に先立ってラベル付された who と Spec-head 配列を成すために、けされるので、T が繰り上がっても元位置で+WH 素性を持った T が C へ繰り上がること

ラベル付けの問題は生じないことに注意し

で SAI が生じる。(10b)の埋め込み Wh 疑問ていただきたい。4

文では母型節の述語によって選択された CC の接辞化を示唆する証拠として(8)が挙が+WH 素性を持ち、CP 指定部の who とそげられる。ベルファスト英語は埋め込み疑問のままで Spec-head 配列を成すので SAI は生節で SAI を許す言語だが、(8a)のように補文じない。(10c)の主語 Wh 疑問文では+WH 素

標識なしだと文法的である一方、(8b)のよう性を持った T と同一指標付けによって連鎖に if のような補文標識ありだと非文法的とを 形 成 し た C が CP 指 定 部 の who となる。

Spec-head 配列を成すので SAI は生じないと分析されてきた。

(8) a. John asked Mary [was she going to thelecture]. (Belfast English)(10) a. [CP who C [TP you [T will[+WH][VP invite

b. * John asked Mary [if was she going to thetwho]]]]

lecture]. (Belfast English)b. I wonder [CP who C[+WH][TP you will

(Henry (1995: 107))

invite twho]]c. [CP who Ci [TP twho [Ti will[+WH][VP

本分析では internal pair-merge された C は接come]]]32

しかし、結局のところなぜ Wh 句と+WH 素

4.1.2. 埋め込み非主語 Wh 疑問文

性を持った主要部はそもそも Spec-head 配列

埋め込み Wh 疑問文では、主節動詞と埋めでなければいけないのか。本稿では Wh 疑問

込み節の間に選択関係が存在する。Chomsky

文における SAI の分布もラベル付けと素性(1995: 382fn25)は選択関係を主要部とその補継承を使って説明することを試みる。

部の主要部の間の head-head relation としてその下準備として、本稿 では Chomsky

分析した。この考えが上記の(10b)で Rizzi 氏(2000)に基づき、(11)のように疑問文の派生が埋め込み節の C に+WH 素性を仮定した背において C は uQ 素性を持ち、Wh 句が持つ景にもなっている。+WH 素性をここでは Q

iQ 素性と Agree することでその節の発話の素性に置き換えながら、当該の選択制限は力が疑問として確立されると考える。

(14)として明示的に述べられる。

(11) C[uQ] … XP[iQ](14) A question-embedding predicate requires

Agreethe head of its complement clause to bear
Q-feature.

4.1. 非主語 Wh 疑問文のラベル付け
4.1.1. 母型非主語 Wh 疑問文

C から T へ Q 素性を DONATE した派生は(14)C から T へ Q 素性を DONATE することで、の選択制限に違反し破綻する。したがって、

母型非主語 Wh 疑問文は(12)のようにラベル

第二選択肢である KEEP が Q 素性に適用さ付けされる。

れる。C に Q 素性を KEEP することで、埋め込み非主語 Wh 疑問文は(15)のようにラベル付けされると主張する。

(12) [α=<Q, Q> XP[Q][C <T[Q], C> [<φ, φ> Subj [T tT[ … ]]]]] (Q: DONATE)(15) [α=<Q, Q> XP[Q][C C[Q][<φ, φ> Subj [T T
[ … ]]]]] (Q: KEEP)(12)では、internal pair-merge によって T が Cへ繰り上がった結果、C は接辞化し不可視になる。他方で T は可視的なままなので、ラベ(15)では、Wh 句の XP と C が持つ Q を共通

ル付けアルゴリズムは Wh 句の XP と繰り上素性として α のラベルが Q に決定される。

がってきた T の両者に共通素性として Q を

こうして、I wondered what Ted had eaten.のよ

見つけ、α のラベルが Q に決まる。
こうして、

うな SAI していない文が生成される。

What will you buy?のような SAI した文の文対照的に、(16)で T が C へ繰り上がった場

法性が説明される。

合の派生を考える。

対照的に、T が基底位置に留まった場合の派生は(13)であり、Wh 句の XP と C の間に(16) [α=?? XP[Q][C <T, C[Q]> [<φ, φ> Subj [T tT[ … ]]]]] (Q: KEEP)

共通素性が存在しないので、α のラベルが決定できない。これによって*What you willbuy?のような SAI していない文の非文法性

internal pair-merge によって T が C へ繰り上が説明される。

がると、C は接辞化した結果それが持つ Q
素性もラベル付けにとって不可視になる。こ(13) [α=?? XP[Q][C C [<φ, φ> Subj [T T[Q][ … ]]]]]のため、ラベル付けアルゴリズムは Wh 句のXP と C-T 融合体の間に共通素性を発見でき(Q: DONATE)

33

ず、α のラベルを決定できない。また、2.1

こうして、*Who does like Susan?/I ask who

節で論じたように、α は XP-YP 構造であり、

does like Susan.のような do が誤って挿入さ転送時にラベル付けされるので、T が繰り上れた文の非文法性が説明される。7

がってくる前に Wh 句と C の共通素性によって α がラベル付けされる可能性は排除され

5. 結語

る。こうして、α をラベル付けしつつ当該のNEG-criterion や Wh-criterion の下で生じた語順を生み出す合法的な派生は存在しない

なぜ Spec-head 配列なのかという疑問は、ので、*I wondered what had Ted eaten.のよう

NEG や Q を共通素性としたラベル付けのたな SAI した文は非文だと説明される。

めだと説明された。また、NEG-criterion や
Wh-criterion ではこれらの素性が T や C に付

4.2. 主語 Wh 疑問文のラベル付け

与されることは何らかの仕方で規定されてC から T へ Q 素性を DONATE することで、いたが、本稿では DONATE や KEEP という

主語 Wh 疑問文は(17)のようにラベル付けさ素性継承の有無から派生されると提案した。

れる。

こうして、ラベル付けと素性継承という現行の枠組みで利用できる道具立てを使って、今(17) [α=<Q, Q>&<φ, φ> Subj[Q][T <T[Q], C> [ … ]]]まで原理的説明に抗ってきた SAI の仕組みを解明することを試みた。

(Q: DONATE)(17)では、external pair-merge によって T と C* 本稿は第 39 回日本英語学会における口頭が併合され、C は接辞化し不可視になる。こ

発表原稿に修正を施したものである。かつての時 Obata (2018)に従って、T と C の externalの指導教官である大室剛志先生と田中智之

pair-merge と同時に素性継承が行われる。ラ

先生の教えが今も私の研究にとって大きなベル付けアルゴリズムは主語 Wh 句と T の間財産となっているため、ここに記して感謝のに共通素性として Q と φ を見つけ、α のラベ意を表する。また、発表前の審査時及び大会

ルが Q 且つ φ に決定される。こうして、Who

当日の発表時に質問やコメントを寄せてく

likes Susan?/I ask who likes Susan.のような母ださった査読者、先生、先輩、後輩の方々に型/埋め込み主語 Wh 疑問文が生成される。

も感謝申し上げる。本研究は日本学術振興会

ここで、主語 Wh 疑問文において do 挿入から資金的援助を受けている（課題番号:が禁止される点に言及しておかねばならな

JP18K12415）。なお、本稿における誤りは全い。本稿は Bošković (2016)と共に、do 挿入て筆者の責任による。

は最終手段であり、時制接辞と動詞が隣接し注ていない場合にだけ適用されると考える。

1(18)で C-T 融合体に具現化した時制接辞とは常に R に継承されると仮定すれば、R の指R-v から形成された動詞複合体は音声的に隣定部へ繰り上がることで転送を逃れた目的接している。したがって、Affix Hopping で語の高位のコピーは次の CP フェイズでも依事足りるので do 挿入は阻止される。

然としてアクセス可能なままである。これにChomsky (2015)に基づき、v*のフェイズ性

よって、John said nothing.のような否定文でも T へ継承された uNEG 素性と否定目的語(18) [<Q, Q>&<φ, φ> Subj[Q][T <T[Q], C> [vP [v <R, v>… ]]]]が持つ iNEG 素性は適切に Agree 関係を結ぶ

O -------------- O

ことができる。

34

なぜブルトン語では NEG 素性は C にきるかもしれず、H-XP 構造も XP-YP 構造もKEEP される一方で、英語では T に DONATE

一律に転送時にラベル付けされると仮定でされるのかという疑問が残る。ブルトン語はきるかもしれない。

NEG 素性を形態的に具現化する言語なので、

5

DONATE されて T に具現化した n-という接文が容認可能である。
(i) I asked if have you squeezed the Charmin.

2

辞 が 適 切 な ホ ス ト に 付 加 で き ず Stranded(i)のシンガポール英語では(8b)に相当する

Affix Filter の類に違反し派生が破綻する。し(Singapore English)

たがって、第二選択肢である KEEP が NEG

この貴重なデータを快く共有してくださっ

素性に適用される。対照的に、英語は NEG

た佐藤陽介氏に拝謝する。McCloskey (2006)

素性を形態的に具現化しない言語なので、そのアイルランド英語の分析をシンガポール

うした違反は生じず DONATE で派生が収束

英語にも適用すると、いくつかの英語方言でする。したがって、第一選択肢であるは埋め込み疑問節でも CP recursion が許され

DONATE が NEG 素性に適用される。

る。すると、if は高位の C に挿入され、SAI

R が v*へ繰り上がった場合、移動先のホスした have は低位の C に繰り上がることで(i)トである v*のほうが接辞化し不可視になるは生成可能であると説明付けられるかもしという主張のために Chomsky (2015)を参照。

れない。

本稿は v*P フェイズと CP フェイズの平行性6に基づいて、この考えを CP 領域にも適用すした派生が収束しているため、(9)で NEG 素る。加えて、Mizuguchi (2016)は、T と C が性を C に KEEP した派生は原則利用不可能

external pair-merge された場合、C のほうが接である。発表当日にこの点に関して質問して辞化し不可視になると主張し、このことを文くださった坂本祐太氏に感謝申し上げる。

主語や繰り上げ構文など SAI から独立した

DONATE した場合、その後 T が C へ繰り上

現 象 に よ っ て 正 当 化 し て い る 。 internal

がる必要があるが、これは派生が収束するた

pair-merge も external pair-merge も併合操作のめに不可欠なステップである。加えて、自由一例に過ぎないことを踏まえると、一方に当併合仮説(Chomsky (2013))の下では、T-to-Cてはまることが他方にも当てはまると仮定

移動を含めた併合操作自体は無償で利用でするのは妥当なように思われる。

きるためコストはかからないと考えられる。

3

4

T が C へ繰り上がった後、どうやって転送(7)で示されたように NEG 素性を DONATE

これらの考慮に基づくと、(9)で NEG 素性へ

時に TP は<φ, φ>とラベル付けされるのかとの KEEP の適用は阻止される。

いう問題が生じる。本稿は Epstein, Kitahara

7

and Seely (2016)に従い、ある要素がラベル付れた XP 要素が割って入って両者の隣接性をけにとって可視的かどうかは、それと妨げる場合、主語 Wh 疑問文であっても do

set-merge された姉妹要素によって定義され挿入が許容される。
(i) Who does for all intents and purposes serveると想定する。(7)では、T と set-merge された 姉 妹 要 素 は vP で あ り 、 vP の 全 て の(i)のように時制接辞と動詞の間に前置さas president?

(Brillman (2017: 146))

occurrence が TP 内に含まれるので元位置にこの例を紹介してくださった田中祐太氏に残された T のコピーはラベル付けにとってお礼申し上げる。対照的に、never のような

可視的となる。主要部移動した要素の元位置

副詞は vP に付加した断片（segment）
であり、のコピーは可視的だという議論が正しけれAffix Hopping を妨害しないという議論のたば、ラベル付けのタイミングの違いは破棄でめに Bobaljik (2002)を参照いただきたい。

35

参考文献
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. (2002) “A-chains at the

Negation, Cambridge University Press,

PF Interface: Copies and ‘Covert’ Move-

Hendrick, Randall (2000) “Celtic Initials,” Thement,” Natural Language and Linguistic

Syntax of Verb Initial Languages, ed. byTheory 20, 197-267.

Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle, 13-37,

Cambridge.

Bošković, Željko (2016) “On the Timing of

Oxford University Press, New York.

Labeling: Deducing Comp-Trace Effects,

Henry, Alison (1995) Belfast English andthe Subject Condition, the Adjunct Condi-

Standard English: Dialect Variation andtion, and Tucking in from Labeling,” The

Parameter Setting, Oxford University Press,

Linguistic Review 33, 17-66.

Oxford.

Brillman, Ruth (2017) Though Constructions in

McCloskey, James (2006) “Questions andthe Context of English Infinitives, Doctoral

Questioning in a Local English,” Crosslin-

dissertation, MIT.

guistic Research in Syntax and Semantics:

Chomsky,Noam(1995)The

Minimalist

Negation, Tense and Clausal Architecture,

Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

ed. by Raffaella Zanuttini, Hector Campos,

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

Elena Herburger and Paul H. Portner,

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

87-126,

Georgetown

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard

Washington, DC.

University Press,

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David

Mizuguchi, Manabu (2016) “De-activation of φMichaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155,

through Pair-Merge,” English Linguistics

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

33, 108-118.

Chomsky,Noam(2008)“On

Phases,”Obata, Miki (2018) “Eliminating C-Deletion inFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory:

the Syntax : Structure- Building by Merge,”

Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,

Koganei Journal of the Humanities 14,

ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and1-14.
Ouali, Hamid (2008) “On C-to-T φ-feature

Maria L. Zubizaretta, 133-166, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,

NoamTransfer: The Nature of Agreement and(2013)“ProblemsofAnti-agreement in Berber,” Agreement

Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky,Noam(2015)“Problems

Restrictions, ed. by Roberta D'Alessandro,of

SusannFischer

Projection: Extensions,” Structures, Strate-

Hrafnbjargarson,

gies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of

Gruyter, Berlin.

andGunnar159-180,

Hrafn

MoutondePesetsky, David (1991) “Zero Syntax: vol. 2:

Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico,Infinitives,” ms., MIT.

Cornelia Hamann and Simona Matteini,

Rizzi, Luigi (1996) “Residual Verb Second and1-16, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara andthe Wh-Criterion,” Parameters and Func-

Danial Seely (2016) “Phase Cancellation

tional Heads: Essays in Comparativeby External Pair-Merge of Heads,” The

Syntax, ed. by Adriana Belletti and Luigi

Linguistic Review 33, 87-102.

Rizzi, 63–90, Oxford University Press,

Haegeman, Liliane (1995) The Syntax of

Oxford.

36

(1) a. 太郎が右目だけをつむれる。
b. 太郎が右目だけがつむれる。
(2) a. (1a): ?*だけ> -rare/-rare >だけ(1b): だけ> -rare/*-rare >だけTough 主語としての日本語の主格目的語

b. (1a): ?だけ> -rare/-rare >だけ(Japanese Nominative Objects as Tough(1b): だけ> -rare/*-rare>だけ

Subjects)
本稿では、まず 2 節で先行分析に見られる
前澤

大樹 (Hiroki Maezawa)

3 つの接近法を概観し、3 節でその問題点を

藤田医科大学 (Fujita Health University)
横越

指摘した後、4 節で分析を提示する。5 節で梓 (Azusa Yokogoshi)

は、提案した分析がより複雑な例を適切に扱

名古屋工業大学 (Nagoya Institute of

い得ることを示す。6 節は結論である。

Technology)
2. 先行分析に見る 3 つの接近法
キーワード：可能構文, 主格目的語, tough 移

PC を扱う先行分析には、大きく分けて 3動, 作用域の曖昧性, かき混ぜ

つの異なる接近法が見られる。これらは何れも変種 A を説明の対象とするため、本節では変種 A の判断を前提に議論を行う。

1. はじめに第 1 の接近法は、NO と AO の-rare に対す

基体動詞に接辞-(rar)e を付加することでる相対作用域の違いを主格と対格の付与子派生される日本語の可能動詞は、その目的語

或いは照合子の違いに帰するもので、Tada

を対格と主格の何れで標示することも許す(1992)、Koizumi (1994)、Ura (1996)等がこのが、主格目的語構文(NOC)と対応する対格目立場を採る。例えば、Tada (1992)は、NO が的語構文(AOC)には目的語の作用域解釈の格照合のために、(3)のように-rare を主要部点で違いがある。本稿は、かかる問題に対すとする VP を補部に取った AgrOP[+stative]のる先行分析が孕む問題を指摘し、極小主義の指定部へと繰り上がるのに対し、AO は-rare

下でより妥当な分析を提示するものである。

の補部内に留まると主張する。1

最初に、可能構文(PC)の作用域については(3)

やや状況が込み入っている点を指摘しておきたい。焦点化接辞「-だけ」を伴う場合、-rare に対して(1a)の対格目的語(AO)は狭い、(1b)の主格目的語(NO)は広い作用域をそれ

AGROP
NPNOM

AGRO′

VP

ぞれ非曖昧にとるという、(2a)に示す Tada
(1992)の判断が広く受け入れられているが、(2b)のように AO に作用域の曖昧性を認める-rare-AGRO[+stative]t(rar)e-t ... NPACC

話者も一定数存在し、筆者ら自身の判断もこ

第 2 の接近法は、Bobaljik and Wurmbrand

れに準じる。本発表ではかかる話者間の差異(2007)が採るもので、この場合、(2a)に見るを取り込みつつ事実に説明を与えることと作用域の差異は焦点助詞「-だけ」が解釈さし、以下では(2a)と(2b)の判断を示す変種をれ得る位置と NOC と AOC の VP 構造の違い

それぞれ「変種 A」と「変種 B」と呼ぶ。

から導かれる。彼らは、対格付与を伴わない

37

NOC では-rare の補部が基体動詞 VP のみか用域に収めることになる。

らなるのに対し、対格を付与する AOC の基

以上 3 つの接近法は、全て(2a)に示す変種

体動詞は自身の vP を投射すると主張するが、 A の判断を正しく捉えるが、より広い範囲のもし「-だけ」が解釈のために(4)に示すよう事実を考慮に入れると、何れも困難に直面すに LF で最も近い vP を標的とした QR を義務ることが明らかとなる。

的に受けるなら、それが AOC でのみ-rare よ3. 先行分析の問題点

り低い作用域をとることが説明される。
(4) a.

vP

b.

NPNOM
vP

v′

PRO

v′

v
-rare

VP

Takahashi (2011)は、格照合に基づく接近法

vPに内在する問題を指摘している。即ち、それ
v′

NPNOM
VP

DP-dakeNOM Vv

ら第 1 の接近法の下では、(7)に見るように、格照合に関与しない PP も平行的な作用域の

v
-rare

違いを示すことが説明できない。
(7) a. 太郎が魚を胡椒だけで食べられる。

DP-dakeACC V(*だけ> -rare/-rare >だけ)

第 3 の接近法を採る Takahashi (2011)は、

b. 太郎が魚が胡椒だけで食べられる。

上述の 2 つの接近法を折衷して格と「-だけ」の QR の両方の関与を認める分析を試み、(5)(だけ> -rare/?-rare >だけ)
(cf. Takahashi (2011: 761))に述べるように「-だけ」が格付値領域を標的とした QR を受けると提案する。

(7)の「胡椒だけで」は付加詞 PP であり、
AGROP や TP に移動する動機を持たないた(5) QR dake ‘only’ is bound to domains ofめ、(a, b)で同じ作用域をとると予測されてしCase-valuation.
TP(6) a.

まう。一方、「-だけ」の作用域を QR によっ

SubjNOM
vP
tSubj

T′

SubjNOM

T
[NOM]
v′

vP
v′

PRO

(Takahashi (2011: 763))
TP
b.

VP
ObjACC-dake V

v
-rare
v
[ACC]

vP
tSubj

T′

詞も NO と等しく扱うことができるが、よく

T
[NOM]
v′

観察すると、3 つの接近法の全てにとって問

vP
(PRO)

て説明する第 2 および第 3 の接近法は、付加v′

VP
ObjNOM-dake V

v
-rare

題となる事実の存在が明らかとなる。
第 1 の問題は、3 つの接近法が何れも NOCが示す tough 構文に類似した振る舞いを捉えられない点である。つまり tough 構文と平行

v
[ACC]

的に、NOC は(8)のような長距離の依存関係
や、(9)のような PP に対応する NO を許す。

-rare が v の格素性を随意的に吸収するとす(8) a. (太郎{が/に})その仕事が i 花子が ei

れば、AOC では、(6a)に見るように dake の担当すると言{える/いやすい}。

QR の標的となる格付値領域は埋め込み vPb. (太郎{が/に})その仕事が i 次郎が花であり、-rare より低い作用域が得られるのに子が ei 担当するよう決めたと信じ

対し、NOC では(6b)のように対格の吸収の結{られる/やすい}。

果埋め込み vP は最早格付値領域ではなく、(9) a. 東京が新幹線で行{ける/きやすい}。

dake の QR は TP を標的とし、-rare をその作

b. このペンが細かい字を書{ける/きや

38

vP

(14) a.

すい}。

√P
CP

(8)の NOC では、NO は多重に埋め込まれており、-rare はそれを目的語にとる動詞には接辞化されていない。更に、(9)では後置詞目

太郎が i的語に相当する要素が主格で標示されている。3 つの接近法は、何れも何らかの形で-raretiTP√rareC

vP

T

v
[ACC]
右目を√つむ r-による対格の吸収を仮定しているため、(8)–(9)のような NOC は許されないと誤って

√P

vP

b.
v 太郎{が/に}i

右目が j CPv√-rareOpj TPC

PROi vP

T

ti

予測してしまう。
tj

第 2 の問題は、接辞-rare がとる補部の大き

√P

√P

v
[ACC]
√つむ r-さである。3 つの接近法は何れも可能動詞のまず、(14)の構造が変種 A の判断を正しく形成を比較的局所的な過程と考えており、導くことを見る。(14b)では、NO は埋め込み-rare は VP レベルの範疇を選択すると想定し節内に生成された空演算子と同定された後、ているが、-rare の補部はより大きな構造を含主格を付与されるために主節 T と Agree し、んでいると考えられる。(10)–(11)に見るよう

その指定部へと移動する。従って NO は必ずに、-rare の補部には頻度副詞や主語指向副詞、 -rare よりも高い位置を占める。一方、(14a)
ある種の文副詞さえも生起することができの AO は埋め込み節内で対格を付与されるるからである。また、Kosuge (2016)が言うよ

ため、-rare よりも低い位置に現れ得る。

うに、「-ている」が Asp 上位の機能主要部を

そして(1)のような例では、更に「-だけ」

占めるなら、(12)のような例も-rare の補部が句の QR という要因が関与する。
「-だけ」がVP より大きいという見解を支持する。

Rooth (1985)が only に与える(15)に等しい意
味表示を持つなら、それを付加された DP は(10) a. 太郎が酒が頻繁に飲める。

QP 同様、意味解釈のために命題的範疇を標

ok( -rare > 頻繁に)的とした QR を受けることになる。命題的範b. 花子がその本がときどき借りられる。

疇が位相だとすると、NO と AO は(16)のよok( -rare > ときどき)

うにそれぞれ主節と埋め込み節 vP への QR(11) a. 太郎が秘密が抜け目なく聞き出せる。

を受けるが、この QR は-rare との階層関係を(ok-rare > 抜け目なく)変えず、結果として(2a)の判断が得られる。

b. その医者がガンが必ず発見できる。
(15) ⟦only⟧ = λx.λP.∀y[P(y) → y = x]〈e,〈〈e,t〉,t〉〉(?-rare > 必ず)(12)?花子が本が読んでいられる。

(cf. Rooth (1985: 28))(16) a. [TP 太郎が i [[vP ti [[√P 右目だけが4. tough 移動分析[[CP ... √つむ r- ...] √-rare]] v]] T]]

本稿では、tough 構文との類似性に基づき、

b. [TP [vP [√P [CP [TP 太郎が i [[vP ti [[√P 右(13a)の NOC とそれに対応する AOC の(13b)

目だけを √つむ r-] v]] T]] C] √-rare] v] T]にそれぞれ(14a, b)の構造を提案する。
では、変種 B の判断はどのように説明さ(13) a. 太郎が右目がつむれる。

れるだろうか。
「-だけ」が-rare より広い作用

b. 太郎が右目をつむれる。

域をとり得ることは、前者が主節へと繰り上

39

がれることを意味する。本稿では、変種 B

作用域関係に何ら変化を与えないため、(20)の話者にとって tough 形容詞は繰り上げ TPの下で認可されないことになる。

を選択し得る語彙特性を有し、(1b)は(17)の(20) Scope Economy構造を持ち得ると主張する。

[Scope Shifting Operations] that are not

vP

(17)

√P
太郎が i TP
ti

vP

ti

√P

forced for type considerations must have avsemantic effect.

(Fox (2000: 23))

√rare-

次に、(7)のような付加詞が「-だけ」をとTる例の解釈が如何に説明されるかを、先ず変種 A の場合から検討する。(7a)の例は(1a)とv[ACC]
右目を √つむ r-

同様に説明可能である。
「胡椒だけで」が埋め込み vP への付加詞として基底生成される

TP は位相を構成しないため QR の着地点となら、「で」の目的語「胡椒だけ」は、(21)はならず、-rare が投射する vP についても同に示す通り意味タイプが整合するよう vP を2様である。 従って、(18)に示すように「右標的とした QR を受け、それ以上の移動は動

目だけを」の QR が次に標的とするのは主節機づけを持たない。従って、「胡椒だけ」はの CP であり、この移動は-rare を跨ぐため、-rare より低い作用域のみをとることになる。

両者の作用域関係は逆転することになる。
(21) ... [√P [CP *[TP 太郎が i [vP 魚を j(18) [CP [TP 太郎が i [[vP [√P ti [ [TP ti [[vP ti[[PP 胡椒だけ で] [ti [[√P tj √食べ-] v]]]][[√P 右目だけを √つむ r-] v]] T]]

T]] C] √-rare] ...

√-rare]] v] T] C]
では(7b)の曖昧性はどのようにして導かれ
では何故、変種 A の場合対応する QR が不るだろうか。NOC の場合も、「胡椒だけ」は可能なのだろう。即ち、(19)に示すような連(22)のように PP の目的語位置から先ず vP 周

続循環的な移動は何故排除されるのだろう。

端部へと義務的に QR を受けるが、Op が作用域を担うと見なされるなら、AOC と異な(19) [CP [TP [vP [√P [CP [TP 太郎が i [[vP ti

り次の段階の QR が意味効果を持つ。
従って、[[√P 右目だけを √つむ r-] v]] T]] C]「胡椒だけ」の CP への移動は認可され、更√-rare] v] T] C]に QR を適用されることで-rare との作用域が逆転する。結果として、NOC では「胡椒ここで、「-だけ」句の QR が、QP についてだけ」と-rare の相対作用域は曖昧となる。

Miyagawa (2006)が主張するのと同様に、(20)に示す Fox (2000)の作用域の経済性に従うと(22) [CP ... [√P 魚が i [[CP Opi [[TP PROj

仮定しよう。だとすると、(18)に見るように、[[vP [PP 胡椒だけ で] [tj [[√P ti √食べ-] v]]](17)では埋め込み vP から主節 CP への「-だT]] C]] √-rare]] ... C]け」句の QR は-rare との相対作用域を変化させ、従って許容される一方、(14b)の構造の一方、(23)に示すように、変種 B の話者に場合、(19)の埋め込み vP から CP への QR は

とっては、NOC だけでなく AOC でも「胡椒40(28) a. このテーブルが花瓶だけを置ける。

だけ」と-rare の相対作用域は曖昧である。

(だけ> -rare/-rare >だけ)(23) a. 太郎が魚を胡椒だけで食べられる。

b. このテーブルが花瓶だけが置ける。

(だけ> -rare/-rare >だけ)

(だけ> -rare/*-rare >だけ)b. 太郎が魚が胡椒だけで食べられる。
(だけ> -rare/?-rare >だけ)(27b)と(28b)で「-だけ」が狭い解釈を持たない事実は、それが主節に基底生成されている

AOC で「胡椒だけ」の広い解釈が得られる

ことを示唆する。本稿では、(25a)は(29)のよのは、(24)のように、それが埋め込み vP の

うに 2 つの空演算子の移動を伴う二重 tough

周端部に義務的 QR を受けた後、-rare の存在

構文の例だと主張する。

により主節 CP へと一挙に移動することで、-rare との階層関係が逆転し得るからである。

(29)

vP
このペンがi
Opi(24) [CP [TP 太郎が i [[vP [√P ti [[TP ti [[vP 魚を j[[PP 胡椒だけ で] [ti [[√P tj √食べ-] v]]]]

細かい字がjT]] √-rare]] v] T] C]

Opj

5. より複雑な事例

√P

v

CP

√rare-

ti
PROk

5.1. 二重 tough 構文(11)で見たように、可能構文及び tough 構ti

文では、本来対格で現れる目的語以外の要素

TP

C

vP

T

tk

が主格を担い得るが、(25)–(26)のように、加√Ptj

えて更に主格目的語が現れることもできる。

v
[ACC]
√書 k-

上位の主語が主節 vP の周端部に位置するこ(25) a. このペンが細かい字が{書ける/書きとは、(30)–(31)に見る事実から確認できる。

やすい}。
(26)

つまり、(13a)の主語が(14a)に示すように主b. このテーブルが花瓶{を/が}置ける。

節の vP 指定部にあるなら、それに最初の NO

このテーブルが花瓶{を/が}置きには先行、第 2 の NO は後続するはずだが、こくい。

(Tada (1992: 96))の予測は正しい。

(25)–(26)の最初の主格名詞句が tough 主語な(30) a. このペンが太郎{が/に}細かい字が{書ける/書きやすい}。

らば、2 つ目の主格名詞句はどのような位置付けを持つのだろう。注目すべき点の 1 つは、
第 2 の名詞句も「-だけ」を付したとき主格b.??太郎{が/に}このペンが細かい字が{書ける/書きやすい}。
(31) a. このテーブルが次郎{が/に}花瓶がか対格かで作用域解釈が異なる点である。

{置ける/置きにくい}。
(27) a. このペンが細かい字だけを書ける。

b. * 次郎{が/に}このテーブルが花瓶が(だけ> -rare/-rare >だけ){置ける/置きにくい}。

b. このペンが細かい字だけが書ける。
(だけ> -rare/*-rare >だけ)

しかし、(29)の構造が正しいなら、何故(32)41のような例は容認されないのだろうか。

り、埋め込み主語「花子が」に先行している点に注意したい。これは前者が長距離の空演(32) a.??細かい字がこのペンが{書ける/書き算子移動を伴うことの当然の帰結であり、NO が埋め込み主語に後続する(36a)は予測やすい}。
c. * 花瓶がこのテーブルが{置ける/起き通り排除される。一方、(35a)で AO はかき混

にくい}。

ぜ可能なので、(36b)の語順は許容される。

もし 2 つの演算子移動が共存し得るなら、2(36) a. * (太郎{が/に})花子がその仕事が担当

つの NO の語順は逆でもよいように思える。
このことは、(33)に示す Pesetsky (1982)の経するよう決められる。
b. (太郎{が/に})その仕事を花子が担当

路包含条件(PCC)の観点から理解できるようするよう決められる。

に思われる。Richards (2001)が観察するように、日本語では PCC の述べるところと丁度

次に作用域解釈について見る。筆者らが変逆に、2 つの経路は交差しなければならない。

種 B の話者のため、以下変種 B について検そして、VP レベルの付加詞が vP の周端部に証を行う。筆者らの判断では、(37a)の AOC

位置すると仮定すると、(34)に示すように、

では作用域を担う 3 つの要素のうち、「-だけ」

本来の対格名詞句が先行すれば、その移動経が最も低い解釈のみが許される。このことは

路は付加詞の経路に包含され、これが(32)の

次のように説明可能である。つまり(38)に見

不適格性の原因だと考えることができる。

るように、「その本だけ」は QR によって最も深い節の vP 周端部に繰り上がるが、更な(33) Path Containment Condition (PCC)る CP への移動は作用域関係に変化を与えな

If two paths overlap, one must contain the

いため、(20)の経済性条件によって排除され、

other.

「その本だけ」は上位の節に辿り着けない。

(Pesetsky (1982: 309))(34) [vP 細かい字が i [Opi [[√P このペンが j[[CP Opj ... [[vP tj [... [[√P ti√置 k-] v]]] T]] C]](37) a. 太郎が花子がその本だけを読んだと√-rare]] v]]

断言できる。 (*だけ> -rare >断言/*-rare >だけ>断言/ -rare >断言>だけ)5.2. 多重埋め込み補文

b. 太郎がその本だけが花子が読んだと(8)で見たように、可能構文は tough 構文と断言できる。 (だけ> -rare >断言/

同じく長距離依存関係、つまり空演算子の長*-rare >だけ>断言/*-rare >断言>だけ)(38) [√P [CP [TP PRO [vP [CP [TP 花子が* [[ その本だけを √読 m-] T]] C]

距離移動を許す。本節では、ここでの分析が(35)のような NOC と対応する AOC の振る舞vP

√断言 s-] T]] C] √-rare]

いを正しく予測することを見る。
(35) a. (太郎{が/に})花子がその仕事を担当

また、この説明は 1 つの予測をもたらす。即
ち、もし「その本だけ」が CP へと繰り上がするよう決められる。
b. (太郎{が/に})その仕事が i Opi 花子がることで何か作用域を担う要素を跨ぐなら、ti 担当するよう決められる。

それがより高い作用域をとることが可能となる筈である。(39a)と(40)に示す通り、この最初に、(35b)の NO は(35a)の AO と異な予測は正しく思われる。

42

(39) a. 太郎が誰かがその本だけを読んだと

注断言できる。 (?*だけ> -rare > 断言/

1?-rare >だけ>断言/ -rare >断言>だけ)*b. [√P [CP [TP PRO [vP [CP [TP 誰かが同様に、Ura (1996)は NO は LF での素性移動によって T と照合関係を結び、そこで作用[[vP その本だけを √読 m-] T]] C]

域解釈を受けるとする。
2
後者の見解は(7)の NOC で「-だけ」が否定√断言 s-] T]] C] √-rare]

より高い作用域をとること、及び変種 B の(40) 誰もが誰かがその本だけを読んだと断言できる。

話者にとっては(i)のように AOC でも同じ解(だけ> -rare >断言/釈が可能なことによって支持される。

-rare >だけ>断言/-rare >断言>だけ)(i)

太郎が右目だけをつむれない。

(39a)では、(39b)に見るように、最下位の vPだけ>ない> -rare/*ない>だけ> -rare/

周端部から CP への移動は QP「誰かが」をない> -rare >だけ)超えるために相対作用域が変化し、(20)の下で容認されることとなる。それにより、作用主要参考文献Bobaljik, Jonathan and Susi Wurmbrand (2007)

域を担う「断言」を跨ぐ次の vP への QR が更に可能となり、「その本だけが」が-rare と“Complex

Predicates,

Aspects,「断言」の間の作用域をとる読みが得られる。

Anti-Reconstruction,”

しかし、次の CP への移動は作用域関係を変Asian Linguistics 16, 27-42.

Journal

of

and
East

えないために許されず、「だけ」が最も高い

Fox, Danny (2000) Economy and Semantic

解釈は得られない。一方、(40)のように最上Interpretation, MIT Press, Cambridge,

位の主語も QP の場合は、予測通り「だけ」

Mass.
Pesetsky, David (1982) Paths and Categories,の最も高い読みも得られる。
これに対し、(37b)の NOC で NO が最も広Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Richards,

い作用域を持つ読みしか持たない事実は、Norvin(2001)

Movementin(41)に示すように、それが主節に基底生成さ

Language: Interactions and Architectures,れることから直ちに導かれる。

Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Rooth, Mats (1985) Association with Focus,(41) [CP ... [√P その本だけが [[CP Opi [[TP ...

Doctoral[√P [CP ti [[TP ... [√P ti √読 m-] ...] C]]dissertation,

UniversityofMassachusetts.

√断言 s-] ... T] C]] √-rare]] ...]

Tada, Hiroaki (1992) “Nominative Objects inJapanese,” Journal of Japanese Linguistics

6. 結論

14, 91-108.
Takahashi, Masahiko (2011) “Case-Valuation,

本稿では、日本語の主格目的語構文の中でも可能構文を扱い、そこに見られるPhasehood,andNominative/Accusative

NOC/AOC の交替現象と作用域解釈に関する

Conversion

inJapanese,”

事実に対し、NO が tough 主語であるとの主759-770.
Hiroyuki(1996)

判断を示す 2 つの変種を扱い、その違いが如Feature-Checking:A

何にして生じるのかを明らかにした。

Grammatical Function Splitting, Doctoral

Ura,

張の下で原理的説明を与えた。また、異なる

dissertation, MIT.

43

NELS

39,

Multiple
Theoryof

ップ」）の生じる範囲であると考えられており、ダウンステップは φ の左端境界ごとにリセットされる（特に、Selkirk and Tateishi 1988
を参照されたい）。Nagahara (1994)によると、
対比焦点及び後焦点縮約の統語・音韻構造*

CF はそれに後続する φ 境界を削除し、CF を（The Syntactic and Phonological Structures of

左端に含む単一の φ を形成する効果がある

Contrastive Foci and the Post-Focal Reduction）と論じている。以上の提案に従うと、(1b)における「ポールの新しいアルバムを買った」

松本 大貴（Daiki Matsumoto）

は、以下の音韻構造を持つ。

京都大学大学院（Kyoto University）
日本学術振興会（Japan Society for the(2) （φ ポールの新しいアルバムを買った）

Promotion of Science）(2)に示されているように、Nagahara の提案
キーワード：対比焦点, 後焦点縮約, 隣接理によると、PFR は CF による φ 境界削除に伴論, 日本語, 英語

うダウンステップによるものだと結論づけられる。
しかしながら、Ishihara (2003), Sugahara

1. 導入(2003), Kratzer and Selkirk (2020)他多数の研日本語や英語では、対比焦点要素

究では、ピッチリセットなどの経験的な証拠（Contrastive Focus: CF）のピッチアクセント

を元に、CF そのものが音韻句の（左端）境が強調され、後焦点要素が音声的に弱化を受界の削除を引き起こすわけではないことがける。特にこの後焦点要素の弱化を、後焦点示されている。これらの観察に基づくと、

縮 約 （ Post-Focal Reduction: PFR ） と 呼 ぶNagahara による「PFR の φ 境界削除分析」（Sugahara 2003, Ishihara 2003）。(1)を見られは経験的に支持されないことがわかる。
以上から、本稿では、「なぜ PFR という現たい（以降、対比焦点要素を太字で表し、後焦点要素を下付き文字で示す）。

象が生じるのか」という問いは依然として残っていると考え、この問題の原理的説明を試(1) 日英語における CF 及び PFR の例みる。特にこの問題を、統語・音韻における

a. John bought Paul’s new album, (notインターフェイスの観点から考察し、George’s).

Richards (2016)で提案されている「隣接理論」

b. ジョンは（ジョージのではなく）ポー（Contiguity Theory）の枠組みから説明を試

ルの新しいアルバムを買った。

みる。そのため、次節で隣接理論を概観する。

Nagahara (1994)は、このような CF による PFR

2. 隣接理論の効果は CF による後続する音韻句(φ)境界Richards (2016)は、Richards (2010)の提案をの削除によるものだと主張している（最適性

拡張した「隣接理論」を提案している。隣接理論（Optimality Theory）の枠組みにおける理 論 は 、 そ の 骨 組 み と し て Selkirk (2009,

同様の考察については、Büring (2016)を参

2011)の照合理論（Match Theory）を採用し、照）。具体的に、日本語では、φ が基礎周波

統語構造の構築と並行的に、音韻構造の基本数 f0 のピッチ圧縮（いわゆる「ダウンステ

44

(6) a.

構造も構築されると主張する。照合理論の中心命題を(3)に掲載する(Richards (2016: 115))。
(3) a. 全ての統語主要部は韻律語（prosodicb.

What did you buy?
あなたは何を買ったの？

まず、(6a)から見よう。(6a)は、did you buy whatword）ωに対応する。

を基底構造に持つ。照合理論に従うと、この

b. 全 て の 最 大 投 射 XP は 音 韻 句

基底構造は(7)の音韻構造を基底に持つ（議（phonological phrase）φに対応する。

論に関係する活性化された音韻句の端を、下

c. 全 て の 節 は イ ン ト ネ ー シ ョ ン 句

線で示す）
。

（intonational phrase）ιに対応する。
(7) (ιdidC (φyou) (φbuy (φwhat)))(3)に見られるような照合理論を基盤に、Richards (2016:115)は選択・一致などの文法Wh要素であるwhatは、Cとwh素性について一関係の構築に際して、(4), (5)に挙げる条件が、 致を起こす。(4)-(5)によると、φwhatの左端が、統語・音韻のインターフェイスにおいて課せ

ιC の左端について(4)を満たさなければならられると提案する。

ない。しかしながら、(7)ではこの条件は満たされていない。

(4) ある主要部H と（一致や選択などの）関英語ではwh要素がCP指定部に移動するこ係を結ぶ句XP は、一つの音韻句のみに支とで、この問題を回避できる。(8)に見られ配されねばならず、XPはその音韻句の中るように、wh移動が起こった場合、(4)の条で隣接的に卓越していなければならない。 件は問題なく満たされる。
(5) αが韻律的に活性化された音韻句の端に隣接する時、αは隣接的に卓越している。

(8) (ι(φwhat) didC (φyou) buy)

特に、「韻律的に活性化された音韻句の端」

よって、隣接理論では、英語が顕在的wh移について、Richards (2016)はRichards (2010)

動を要求する事実が、統語・音韻のインターを踏襲し、ある言語の音韻句の端で観察されフェイス条件から説明される。

る現象の有無から、当該の言語における韻律

続いて、(6b)にある日本語の例を見られた

的に活性化された音韻句の端が決まると主い。(6b)の基底音韻構造を(9)に示す。

張する。例えば、先に見たように日本語では(9) (ι(φあなたは) (φ何を) 買ったのC)

ダウンステップの効果が韻律句の左端でリセットされることが知られており、この効果
から日本語は活性化された音韻句の左端を(9)でも、(7)と同様に(4)-(5)は満たされていな持つと考えられる。さらにRichards (2018)は、

い。Richardsによると、日本語の場合、wh要

英語でも日本語と同様のダウンステップに素の移動以外に、郡化（Grouping）という操関する振る舞いやHLアクセントが観察され作を適用することで、正当な音韻構造を構築ることから、英語も同様に左端が活性な言語することができる。群化とは、H とXP を直であると提案している。

接支配するようなφを形成する操作である。

これらを念頭に、(4)-(5)がいかにして各言(9)において、HとXPはそれぞれCとwh要素

語の振る舞いを予測するのかを、(6)に挙げ「何を」に対応する。そのため、(9)に群化た具体例とともに見ていく。

45

を適用すると、φあなたはが音韻構造から切り離(13)を見れば明らかなように、この構造ではされ、以下の構造が構築される。

(4)-(5)が満たされる。Richardsによると、バスク語などの言語ではこのような隣接付加(10) (φあなたは) (ι(φ何を) 買ったのC)を用いることでwhの一致を認可する音韻構造が構築される。

さらに、切り離されたφあなたはがιに付加され以上が隣接理論の骨子である。特に隣接条ることで、(11)が出力される。

件(4)-(5)を満たす際に重要な役割を果たす操作を(14)にまとめた。

(11) (ι(φあなたは) (ι(φ何を)買ったのC))(14) a.

XP指定部への移動(10)-(11)において、φ何をの左端とιCの左端が隣

b. 群化接している。よって、日本語では、CP指定

c. 隣接付加部へのwh移動を伴わずともwhの一致を認可する音韻構造が群化によって形成される。

次節では、本節で概観した隣接理論を用いて、この分析のもとでは、日本語ではwh-in situ

CFがどのように認可されるのかを概観し、が認可される事実と、英語ではwh移動が義PFRという現象に対する原理的説明を試み

務的であることが統一的に説明される。

る。

さらに、隣接構造を構築するもう1つの手
3. 提案段を見る。(12)にある、右端活性かつ主要部
後置型言語の抽象的音韻構造を見られたい

本節では、前節で概観した隣接理論をCF（V-T-Cは動詞複合体を示す）。

にも拡張する。前節で見たwhの一致については、ιCレベルで(4, 5)が満たされねばならな(12) ((XPφ) (wh-phraseφ) V-T-Cι)

いことを見た。では、CFはどのレベルで隣接条件を満たさなければならないのだろう

この構造では、(4)-(5)は認可されない。なぜか。

ならば、V-T-Cが常にφwh-phraseの右に位置する

この問題に関して、本稿では、Reinhart(2006), Selkirk (2002), Szendrői (2017)などのためである。
このような場合、Richards (2016)によると、観察・主張をもとに、CFはιTPのレベルで認

隣接付加（Contiguity Adjunction）という操作可されると主張する。Selkirk (2002)は、日英によって正当な音韻構造を構築することが語を含む様々な言語において、CFのアクセできる。隣接付加とは、韻律階層において下ントはall new sentenceの主強勢の担うアクセ位に位置する要素を、それに隣接する韻律階

ントがより強調されたもので、この強調はι

層的に上位の要素の一部として扱うように、レベルでCF 要素が最も卓立していなけれ

前者を後者に文字通り「付加」する操作であばならないというインターフェイス条件にる。これに従うと、ωであるV-T-Cがφwh-phrase

よるものだと論じている。Reinhart (2006)は、に付加されることで、(13)を派生させること

このインターフェイス条件を強勢焦点一致ができる。

原理（Stress Focus Correspondence Principle）と呼ぶ。

(13) ((XPφ) (wh-phrase V-T-Cφ)ι)Szendrői (2017)はこれらの主張におけるι
がどのように定義されるのかを考察し、46

Hamlaoui and Szendrői (2015)に基づいて、統(17b)では、φJohn が介在しているため、CFで語構造とιレベルの照合についての柔軟なアあるφPaul’s がιTP の中で隣接条件(4)-(5)を満た

プローチを提案している。その提案によると、 していない。しかし、(14b)を適用すること
主節ιは定形の動詞の生起する位置によってで、介在しているφJohnを切り離し、(18)を形定義される。したがって、日英語のようにT成することができる。

が接尾辞である言語では、TPがιに写像される。そのため、(3)の照合理論も踏まえると、(18) (ιCP C (φJohn) (ιTP boughtV-v-T(φPaul’s (φnew album))))日英語は以下の基底音韻構造を持つ。
(15) (ιCP (ιTP … ) )しかし、(18)においてもCF隣接は形成されない。Tを含む動詞複合体ωが介在するためで以上をもとに、CFについての隣接条件とある。この場合、ちょうど(12)-(13)で見たよ
うに、(14c)を当該の複合体に適用することで、して、本稿では(16)を提案する。

(19)を形成する。
(16) CFはιTPで隣接条件を満たさねばならな(19) (ιCP C (φJohn) (ιTP (φ boughtV-v-T

い。

Paul’s (φnew album))))(16)は、CFの意味論からも支持される。Rooth(1985, 1992)以来、文レベルのCFは命題、す(19)の構造において、CFであるφPaul’sの活性化

なわちTPレベルで代替集合を意味計算に惹された左端はιTPに隣接しており、したがって起する“Alternative Semantics”が、焦点意味論

CFの隣接条件が認可される。

における主流のアプローチとなっている。このアプローチが正しいと考えると、CFは統3.2. 日本語のCF隣接語と音韻のインターフェイスにおいても、統日本語についても、英語同様左端が活性化さ語と意味のインターフェイスにおいても、れた言語である。このことに注意した上で、TPレベルで処理されることになる。

(1b)の統語および音韻構造(20)を見られたい。

この事実を、(16)を概念的に支持する根拠と考え、以下で実際に日英語のCF隣接がど(20) a. [CP [[DPジョンは] [DP ポールの [NP 新のようにして認可されるのかを確認する。

しいアルバムを] 買ったV-v-T] C]b. (ιCP (ιTP (φジョンは) (φポールの (φ新3.1. 英語のCF隣接しいアルバムを)) 買ったV-v-T) C)

Richards (2019)に従い、英語は一般に左端が活性化された言語であると想定すると、(20b)についても、(10)-(11)に見たように(14b)(1a)は以下の統語および音韻構造を持つ。

を適用することで、(21)の構造を構築できる。

(17) a. [CP C [TP [DP John] T [vP boughtv-V-T [DP(21) (ιCP(φジョンは) (ιTP(φポールの (φ新しいPaul’s [NP new album] ] ] ] ]アルバムを)) 買ったV-v-T) C)

b. (ιCP C (ιTP (φJohn) boughtV-v-T (φPaul’s(φnew album))))47

(21)において、CFであるφポールのはιTPの中で隣

なわち、作用域は音韻構造における隣接範囲

接的に卓越しているため、CF隣接条件が満に対応しており、したがってCF、wh要素のたされ、したがってCFも認可される。

双方において、それぞれιTPとιCPの外部の要素
はPFRを受けず、作用域に含まれない。

3.3. CF隣接とPFRの領域

以上、本稿では、隣接理論の枠組みのもと(19)においてCFの隣接条件が満たされてで、CFの認可とそれによるPFRの効果についいる範囲を示した(22)に注目されたい。

て、統語・音韻のインターフェイスの観点から原理的説明を与えた。本提案のもとでは、(22) (ιTP(φboughtV-v-T Paul’s (φnew album)))

PFRの範囲と意味論的作用域が対応する事
実もまた自然に導出される。

(22)からわかるように、隣接条件が満たされ次節では、本稿の枠組みを対比話題る範囲（隣接範囲）ιTPの内部に、CF及びPFR（Contrastive Topic: CT）にも拡張できる可能を受ける要素が包含されている。

性を探る。

日本語の例(21)についても、(23)に見るよ
うに、ιTPの内部にCFとPFRを受ける要素が含

4. 拡張

まれている。

代替集合を意味計算に導入する要素はCFだけではない。Tomioka (2010a, b)やConstant(23) (ιTP(φポールの (φ新しいアルバムを))(2014)などで詳しく論じられているように、

買ったV-v-T)(25)において太字で標示されているCTもまた、代替集合を導入する。

これらの事実から、PFRの範囲と隣接範囲(25) (ハービーとパットは？何をパーティにが一致することが導かれる。よって、(24)が導出される。

持ってきたの？)a. HarbieCT brought the pianoCF and PatCT(24) PFRの範囲は、隣接範囲に対応する。

brought the guitarCF.
b. ハービー CTはピアノCFを持ってきて、ここで、(24)の持つ概念的及び経験的利点

パットCTはギターCFを持ってきた。

について述べておく。まず、Ishihara (2003)
が詳細に論じるように、東京方言におけるCTもCF同様代替集合を生成するのであれ

wh要素は対比焦点同様PFRを引き起こす。

ば、隣接理論の観点からもCFと類似した形

Ishiharaによると、このようなwh要素によっで振舞うことが期待される。

て引き起こされるPFRもまた、wh要素とC主Richards (2016)は、自身の隣接理論をCTに要部を含む韻律句と定義される。本稿の枠組も拡張して、英語のCTの振る舞いを簡単にみのもとでは、この観察はそのまま(24)によ論じている。Richardsは、Constant (2014)によって説明される。すなわち、wh要素によるる詳細な分析をもとに、CTはC主要部と文法

PFRは、ιCPに対応する。

関係を結ぶため、これら2つの間で隣接条件

加えて、Ishihara (2003)他多数において、が満たされなければならないと提案していPFRの範囲は焦点/wh演算子の作用域に対応る。特に、Richardsによると、英語のCT とιCPすることが報告されている。この事実もまた、 はそれぞれL+H*とL-H%で実現され、例外的(24)によって原理的な説明を与えられる。すに韻律句の右側を活性化すると主張してい48

(29) (ιCP(ιTP(φハービーCTは) (φピアノCFを) 持る。そのため、英語のCTは韻律句の右側で隣接条件を満たさねばならない。(25a)の簡略ってきたV-v-T) C)…

化された基底音韻構造を(26)に示す。
第3節で見たように、CF隣接を満たすために、(26) (C (ιTP (HarbieCTφ) broughtV-v-T (φtheCTのφが群化によって切り離され、(30)は派

pianoCF)ιCP)…

生する。

(26)では、φHarbieが介在しているため、CF隣(30) (ιCP(φハービーCTは) (ιTP(φピアノCFを) 持ってきたV-v-T) C)…

接が形成されない。加えて、φHarbieもιCPの右端で隣接的に卓越していないため、CT隣接(30)からわかるように、CF隣接が認可されるも満たされない。
ここで、CTをCP指定部に移動させると、構造ではそのままCTの隣接条件も満たされ

CT、CF双方の隣接条件が満たされる音韻構る。したがって、本分析のもとでは、日本語造が生成可能になる。まず、CP指定部へとにおいてもCTに関して隣接理論の観点からCTが移動した結果生成される、(27)の構造を

特定の振る舞いが予測される。
特に、日本語について、CTの隣接範囲はιCP確認する。

であり、したがってこの隣接範囲の中でCT(27) ((HarbieCTφ) C (ιTP broughtV-v-T (φtheによる韻律効果が確認されることが予測さ

pianoCF)ιCP)…

れる。実際、Nakanishi (2001)によって、日本語のCTは、後続要素のPFRを引き起こすこと(27)から、broughtに隣接付加を適用し、加えが確認されている。

てCをCTに隣接付加すると、(28)が得られる。

本分析のもとでは、このようなCTによるPFRの効果についても、(24)の観点から説明(28) ((HarbieCTφ)CιCP)(ιTP(φbroughttheできる。すなわち、CTによるPFRは、CTのpianoCF) …

隣接範囲であるιCPによって規定される。

(28)では、CTがιCPの右側で(4)-(5)を満たし、CFがιTPの中で隣接的に卓越しているため、

5. 結論
本稿では、日英語におけるCF及びPFRといCT及びCF隣接が認可される。

う現象に対して、極小主義の観点から原理的

日本語の例(5b)についても、これまでと同説明を試みた。特に、Richards (2016)の隣接

じような説明が与えられる。まず、日本語の理論を採用し、両言語においてCFがιの中でCTは基本的にCFと同じH*+Lアクセントを最も卓立したアクセントを担わなければな

受けることに注意されたい。つまり、日本語

らないという観察をもとに、CFはιTPの内部のCTは、英語のそれとは異なり、通常通り

で隣接条件を満たさねばならないと提案し韻律句の左端を活性化させる。したがって、た。加えて、この提案のもとでは、PFRと作

日本語では、CT、CFの双方が韻律句の左端

用域の関係についても簡潔な説明を与えらで認可される。

れることを見た。さらに、同様の説明をCT

この点を踏まえた上で、(25b)の簡略化さにも与えられる可能性についても論じた。

れた基底音韻構造(29)を見られたい。
* 本 論 文 は 、 JSPS 科 研 費 （ 課 題 番 号

49

Interpretation,”

20J20039）の助成を受けている。

NaturalLanguage

Semantics 1, 75-116.
参考文献
Belle Büring, Daniel (2016) Intonation andSelkirk, Elisabeth (2002) “Contrastive FOCUS

Meaning. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Evidence from Right Node Raising inConstant, Noah (2014) Contrastive Topic:

English,” Speech Prosody 2002, 642-646.

Meanings

andRealizations,vs.

Presentational

Focus:

Prosodic

DoctoralAix-en-Provence: Universite de Provence.

dissertation, University of Massachusetts,

Selkirk, Elisabeth (2009) “On Clause andAmherst.

Intonational Phrase in Japanese: The

Hamlaoui, Fatima, and Kriszta Szendrői (2015)“A

Flexible

ApproachtoSyntactictheGroundingof

Prosodic

Constituent Structure,” Gengo Kenkyu 136,

Syntax-Phonology Mapping of Intonational

35-74.

Phrases,” Phonology 32, 79-110.

Selkirk,

Ishihara, Shinichiro (2003) Intonation andElisabeth

Syntax-Phonology(2011)“The

Interface,”

The

Interface Conditions, Doctoral dissertation,

Handbook of Phonological Theory, ed. by

MIT.

John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan Yu,

Kratzer, Angelika and Elisabeth Selkirk (2020)

435-484, Blackwell, Oxford.

“Deconstructing Information Structure,”

Selkirk, Elisabeth, and Koichi Tateishi (1988)

Glossa 5, 1-53.
Nagahara,

Hiroyuki“Constraints on Minor Phrase Formation in(1994)

PhonologicalJapanese,” CLS 24, 316-336.

Phrasing in Japanese, Doctoral dissertation,

Sugahara, Mariko (2003) Downtrends andUniversity of California, Los Angeles.
Nakanishi,

Kimiko(2001)“Prosody

Post-FOCUS
andDoctoral

Information Structure in Japanese: A Case
Study

of

Topic-Marker

Intonation

dissertation,

inJapanese,

UniversityofMassachusetts, Amherst.

-wa,”

Szendrői, Kriszta (2017) “The Syntax ofJapanese/Korean Linguistics 10, 234-247.

Information

Structure

Stanford: CLSI Publications.

Interface,” Glossa 2, 1-28.

and

the

PF

Reinhart, Tanya (2006) Interface Strategies:

Tomioka, Satoshi (2010a) “Contrastive Topics

Optimal and Costly Computations, MIT

Operate on Speech Acts,” Information

Press, Cambridge, MA.

structure: Theoretical, Typological, andRichards, Norvin (2010) Uttering Trees, MIT

Experimental Perspectives, ed. by Malte

Press, Cambridge, MA.

Zimmermann and Caroline Féry, 115-138.

Richards, Norvin (2016) Contiguity Theory,

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Richards,

Norvin(2019)

Tomioka, Satoshi (2010b) “A Scope Theory of“Detecting

Contrastive Topics,” Iberia 2,113-130.

Contiguity-Prominence,” ms., MIT.
Rooth, Mats E. (1985) Association with Focus.
Doctoraldissertation,

UniversityofMassachusetts, Amherst.
Rooth, Mats E. (1992) “A Theory of Focus

50(3) Sumnicht (2001) argues persuasively thatnegative raising is only found with theinclination stage, where the matter is still at
issue.

(Langacker (2009: 262))

disinclination を表す言語表現の使い分けの基準についてつまり、(2)の述語が主節述語（特に 1 人称

（On Factors Influencing the Choice of

単数現在）として使われた場合の共通点は、Expressions Pertaining to Disinclination）

従属節を p と表記した場合、本来の①【p に対する disinclination（緩和的な否認）】を表

森貞（Sadashi Mori）

すことに加えて、（多少の例外があるが）、②

福井工業高等専門学校（National Institute of【￢p に対する inclination（否定命題の緩和

Technology, Fukui College）

的な主張）】を表すことができる（否定辞繰り上げ解釈）ということである。

キーワード：disinclination, inclination,

NR 構文の統語論的証左としては、①従属

NEG-Raising, confidence, pragmatic strategy

節中の強 NPI（例えば、until）の認可、②特異な付加疑問形成、③主語・助動詞倒置(HornClause)をあげることできる。

1. はじめに
disinclination とは、subject（主節主語が I(4) NR constructions exhibit very peculiarの場合は conceptualizer [概念化者]）が命題 p

syntactic behaviors. Among the most famousを一時的に「偽」と判断している心的状態（対are the licensing of (strong /strict) negative命題態度）を表す言葉である。

polarity items occurring in the embedded
clause, the particular formation of tag(1) … an inclination stage (in the epistemic

questions, and subject-auxiliary inversion.

control cycle), where the subject inclines(Mori (2009: 10))

toward a positive or negative judgment (i.e.
同等の振る舞いをする言語表現として、I

inclination or disinclination) without yet

don’t know that を挙げることができる。

being able to definitely resolve the matter.
(Langacker (2009: 261)：括弧は筆者加筆)(5) a. I don't know that Santa comes arounddisinclination（以降、d 表記もある）を表

these parts until Christmas Eve.

す表現には、以下のようなものがある。

(Horn (2014: 191))
b. I don’t know that it’s very important, {is it/*do I}?

(2) Disinclination: doubt, don’t {believe / think /suppose / imagine /…}(Cattell (1973:623))

c. I don’t know that EVER before had all(Langacker (2009: 316))

three boys napped simultaneously.
(Horn (2014: 190))

disinclination 及び inclination（以降、i 表記
も あ る ） が 生 じ る inclination stage はさらに、(6)-(7)のような記述も見られる。

NEG-Raising 現象と密接に関わっている。

51

(6) Both I don't think that P and I'm not sure that

2.1. Langacker (2009)
Langacker (2009) で は 、 i / d （ お よ び

P conventionally convey, via SCI, a weakassertion of ￢ P. (Kay (2000: 16))

non-inclination）を(11)のように説明した上で、(7) I’m not certain that your dog is ill. [non-

図 1～3 を提案している。

factive; the dog may not be ill]
(Langacker (2009: 279))(11) One possible outcome is a positive inclination(5)-(7)より、disinclination に関わる述語と(whichI

will

simply call

inclination). As shown in diagram (b), thisresults when C1’s projection of RC1

して、(8)の述語を加えることができる。

(dashed-line ellipse) leads to P’s incorporation. The opposite outcome, labeled(8) Other Expressions Pertaining to d:
I don’t know that, I am not {sure / certain}

disinclination, is when the projection(that)

specifically does not include P. These two
possibilities, illustrated by believe andここで注意すべきは、(9)に示す関係であdoubt, are of course instances of capture

る。

and avoidance. There is however a third
outcome, where mental projection does not(9) I {don’t know that / am not {sure / certain}

result in either.（中略）I will call this(that)} p. ≠ I {know / am {sure / certain}

non-inclination. (Langacker (2009: 315))(that)} ￢ p.
inclination
したがって、I {doubt (that) / don’t {think /believe /suppose} (that) / I don’t know that} p.
の【原義】及び【拡張義】は下記のように示すことができる。

図 1 (Langacker (2009: 315))(10) I {doubt (that) / don’t {think / believe /disinclination

suppose} (that) / I don’t know that} p. の意味：【原義】disinclination toward p【拡張義】inclination toward ￢ p

図 2 (ibid.)

ここで問題となるのが、d / i を表す言語表

non-inclination

現がどのように使い分けられているかということである。したがって、本発表の目的は、
d / i を表す言語表現の使い分けの基準（選択要因）を明らかにすることである。

図 3 (ibid.)

2. NEG-Raising 現象に関する認知言語学的そして、主節否定が従属節否定の意味を有考察するようになる認知的メカニズムを(12)の52

ように説明している。

i.e. the subject’s inclination toward ￢ p
may/must block his inclination toward p.

(12) (21) a. I don’t {believe / think / suppose（中略）In addition, we have proposed that/…} she can trust him.

the shift from D-mode cognition to I-mode

b. I {believe / think / suppose /…}cognition, that-deletion and the Reducing

she can’t trust him.

Effect play crucial roles in the development…To account for the rough equivalence ofof I don’t {think/believe/suppose} to an(21)a–b, all we need say is that the negation

epistemicin (21)a affects the polarity of the

speaker’s positive judgment (inclination)

inclination, changing it from (positive)

toward ￢p.

inclination(capture)tomarkerthat

indicates(Mori (2009: 233))

disinclination(avoidance). That is, it affects the directionof C1’s mental projection of RC1, the result
being that it does not reach P (the case of
inclination)butinsteadreaches

図4

its

alternative (~P). On that interpretation(21)a is “logically” equivalent to (21)b,
which specifies a positive inclination↓

toward ~P. The expressions represent
alternate

ways

of

construing
the

↓

↓ ↓

(i.e.

conceiving andportraying)situation.

(Langacker (2009: 317))

same
図 5

2.2. Mori (2009)
Mori (2009)では、NEG-Raising 現象を(13)のように説明し、図 4～9 を提案している。
図6(13) In Chapter 6, we have proposed that the NR
phenomenon is cognitively motivated by ashift of focus (profile shift) from therecognition of the distance between themainsubject

(C1)

and

the

positive

proposition p to that of the distance
between C1 and its negative counterpart ￢図7

p on the scale of the psychological distance
between C1 and p /￢ p, and that the profile
shift is a cognitive basis leading to a
pragmatic inference like the following: thesubject’s disinclination toward p may/must
be caused by his inclination toward ￢ p,

図8

53

the

↓

おける概念化者（話者）の confidence の度合
いに応じて、使い分けがされていると推測することができる。
(16) confidence の度合い：
弱 ← I don’t suppose (that) － I don’t

図9think (that) － I don’t believe (that) → 強
図 4: Propositional Attitude and Psychological(16)は、心理的距離尺度(Mori 2009)上では、Distance (Mori (2009: 118)の改訂版)
図 5: Profile Shift on Psychological Distance

図 10～13 のように図示される。

Scale (Mori (2009: 119))
図 6: C1’s i toward p (Mori (2009: 119))d toward p [I don’t believe]

図 7: C1’s d toward p (Mori (2009: 119))
図 8: C1’s i toward ￢p [via profile shift]
図 10(Mori (2009: 120))
図 9: C0’s i toward ￢p [epistemic marker]

i toward ￢p (via profile shift)(Mori (2009: 132))
3. I don’t {believe / think / suppose} (that)の使い分けの基準

図 11

Wierzbicka (2006)では、I {believe / think /d toward p [I don’t suppose]

suppose} (inclination の表現)には、confidenceの違いがあることが指摘されている。

図 12(14) If we compare it with I suppose, I believesounds more confident. If we compare it

i toward ￢p (via profile shift)with I think, I believe also sounds more
confident, although the difference is not as
sharp as in the case of I suppose.

図 13(Wierzbicka (2006: 214))(15) The component “I don’t say I know”

4. I don’t know that と I doubt (that) のexplains why I believe sounds more
confident than I suppose: I suppose implied

使い分けの基準“I don’t know,” whereas I believe implies

毛利(1980)では、I know that p に関して、only “I don’t say I know.”(17)のように説明している。

(Wierzbicka (2006: 215))(17) I know that p は、命題 p と言語外世界のこ の こ と か ら 、 I don’t {believe / think /チェックをして、事実確認を経ている、

suppose…} (that) p は 、【（ p に 対 す る ）つまり、客観的裏づけがある。

disinclination /（￢p に対する）inclination】に(毛利 (1980: 202))54

上記の指摘が正しいとすると、I don’t know

I want to say what I think when I think about it]that p には、p に incline するだけの証拠・根に通じるものである。

拠がないということになる。この心的状態は、以上のことから、I don’t know that p は、

p に 対 す る disinclination （ ￢ p に 対 す る

話者が p に incline できるだけの根拠 (Basis)

inclination ） を 誘 発 す る （ 消 極 的 なを持っていないと認識している場合（図 14）

disinclination / inclination）。

に、他方、I doubt (that) p は、話者が p に対して decline する（￢p に incline する）だけ(18) T. POLING: …I don't know that she had aの根拠を持っていると認識している場合（図mitochondrial disorder prior to July 19th of15）に、用いられると予測できる。

2000. I had no evidence of it in any
I don’t know that p (−B = without Basis)biological tests.
(CNN LARRY KING LIVE, 2008/03/06)(19) WECHT: I doubt that they will release that

図 14

information at this time, because they may
want to wait for DNA, which is anotherthing we could talk about.

I doubt (that) p (＋B = with Basis)(CNN TALKBACK LIVE, 2002/05/22)(20)では、I don’t know that p と I doubt thatp が but で連結している。

図 15
5. I don’t think (that) と I doubt (that) の(20) Mark Henderson looked somewhat startled,
obviously unused to such bluntness. He

使い分けの基準

retained his smile, but it became a trifle

話者は、p に対して disinclination（あるいforced. “I don’t know that I can make you

は￢p への inclination）の対命題態度を取る

happy, Captain, but I doubt that you’ll be

場合、その判断材料（根拠）を有しているはbored. It concerned two of your men,

ずである（I don’t know that p に関しては、前Detective

節を参照のこと）。

StarskyandDetective

Huchinson.”

Aikhenvald (2004: 64)では、evidentiality に寄与する推量に、inference（知覚に基づく推(William Blinn, Starsky and Hutch)

量）と assumption（知識に基づく推量）の 2
I doubt (that) に関して、but による連結を勘種類があるとされている（一般的に、前者の案すると、直後の (Because) It concerned two

方が、confidence との親和性が高い）。

of your men, Detective Starsky and Detective
Huchinson を 根 拠 と し て 、 p に 対 す る(21) The domain of ‘inference’ is subdivided

disinclination（￢p に対する inclination）を表

differently in different systems. A major

明 し て い る （ 積 極 的 な disinclination /distinction appears to exist between an

inclination）と考えられる。この心的態度は、

inferred evidential covering inferences

I doubt p の semantic components (Wierzbicka

made on the basis of visible or tangible(2006: 260)) の一つである、[I say this because

results,

55

and

an

assumedevidential

involving

generalknowledge

and(25) I would recommend this class to anyone. It

assumption based on reasoning.

was straight forward, organized, and I（Aikhenvald (2004: 64)）

thought that the labs were actually very
interesting, rather than confusing. I had a

例えば、I don’t think / I doubt の場合、(22)bit of trouble remembering test due dates/ (23) のような実例がヒットする。

but I appreciated that homework was dueon an easy schedule. I don’t know that I(22) BUCHANAN: … and why is it, in yourhave any recommended changes for you

judgment, that the American people bybecause I think you have run your classalmost two to one believe NAFTA wasvery fairly.

failure?

(http://home.miracosta.edu/jturbeville/online

MATSUI: I don’t think that poll is%20student%20comments.htm)(Student Comments)

necessarily accurate because I’ve seen(26) CALLER: Hi, Anne Marie, I have aother polls that indicate the Americanquestion to you: what really attracted you?

public slightly favors the NAFTA.

His looks, his power, or his wealth? KING:(CNN CROSSFIRE, 1997/11/06)

I don’t know that he is wealthy that is – I(23) STUART TAYLOR: I doubt a grand jury

don’t think he is. ROBINSON: I don’t

member would do that, because grandbelieve he is, no.

jurors tend to do what the prosecutors ask(CNN LARRY KING LIVE, 2001/07/13)(27) Ms. IFILL: …How is that more orderly? Mr.

them to with very rare exceptions.
(CNN LARRY KING LIVE, 1998/07/01)

McLARTY: Well, Gwen, first, I don't knowthat I said -- and I don't believe I did -- that

以上の考察から、【（話者が認識する）判断

it was more orderly than the prior selection

材料（根拠）と判断の結びつきの強弱】－強process... Ms. IFILL: Oh, it wasn't?

弱の度合いは、同一話者、同一根拠であって(CBS FaceNation, 1994/05/15)

も、発話時における根拠（の強弱）の捉え方で変化する―が、選択基準に関与している可こうした反例に対して、(28)を提案する。

能性が高いと考えられる(28) Politeness Strategy (FTA の軽減) :(24) confidence の強弱との相関：
弱The use of expressions pertaining to weaker強↑↑assumption

inference{disinclination/inclination}⇒ The use of expressions pertaining tostronger {disinclination/inclination}○ I don’t think : inference, (assumption)○ I doubt : assumption『否認』はいわゆる FTA であり、その軽減として、まず「弱い否認の表現」を用い、6.

Counterexamples に対する語用論的説明

相手の反応（顔の表情等）次第で、（本意に(25)-(27)（(26)-(27)は『否認』のコンテク近い）「より強い否認の表現」の使用に移行

スト下での使用）はいわゆる反例である。

する方略を取るという見立てである。
上記の方略の妥当性を補強する実例とし

56

て(29)-(30)（いずれも『否認』のコンテクスとの親和性】の 3 つの選択要因を想定し、そト下での使用）を挙げる。

の想定に妥当性があることを例証した。
反例の存在に関しては、語用論の観点－(29) CALLER: …Maybe health-wise, I could do【confidence の強弱】を基軸とした FTA の軽some things that could prevent it.

減を意図した言語使用の観点－から説明可PHILLIPS: I don’t know whether it can－I

能であることを論じた。

don’t think at this point that it can be

文代名詞(so/it)との共起環境も含め、さらなる精緻化については、今後の課題としたい。

prevented.
(CNN LARRY KING LIVE, 2002/09/20)(30) NOVAK: … His campaign manager. Joe

参考文献
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2004) Evidentiality,

Trippi, predicts that the doctor will leave
the DNC before 2008 to run for president

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

again… What about what Joe Trippi says?

Cattle, Ray (1973) “Negative Transportation and

BEGALA: I don’t know whether Governor

Tag Questions,” Language 49, 612-639.

Dean is going to run. He says he’s not.

Horn, Laurence R. (2014) “The cloud of(CNN CROSSFIRE, 2005/02/09)

unknowing,” Black Book: a festschrift inhonor of Frans Zwarts, ed. by JackI don’t know whether の方が、I don’t know that

Hoeksema and Dicky Gilbers, 178-196,よりも、「より弱い否認の表現」であり、(28)University of Groningen, Groningen.

の方略の一環に位置付けることができる。

Kay, Paul (2002) “English subjectless tagged

以上の考察から、包括的には、下記のsentences,” Language 78-3, 453-481.

confidence の尺度における位置を基軸に、使Langacker, Ronald W. (2009) Investigations in

い分けが行われる方向に機能変化（語彙的意

Cognitive Grammar, Mouton de Gruyter,

味の漂白）していると予想することができる。

New York.
Mori,(31) confidence の度合い：
弱 ←I don’t know whether － I don’t

Sadashi(2009)

The

NEG-Raising

Phenomenon:

A

Cognitive

Linguistic

Approach. 博士論文，金沢大学．

know that － I doubt (that) － I don’t

毛利可信 (1980)『英語の語用論』大修館書suppose (that) － I don’t think (that) － I

店，東京．

don’t believe (that) → 強

Wierzbicka, Anna (2006) English: Meaning andCulture, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

7. おわりに
本発表の目的は、I doubt (that) p, I don’t（付記）実例(18)(19)(22)(23)(26)(29)(30)は、{think/believe/suppose} (that) p, I don’t know

インターネットの CNN.com – Transcripts のthat p 等の disinclination を表す言語表現の使サイト(https://transcripts.cnn.com/)から、掲載

い分けの基準を探ることであった。

transcripts をダウンロードして自主作成した

先 行 研 究 を 元 に 、 {p/ ￢ p} に 対 す る

CNN Transcripts Corpus (1996-2010)を KWIC

{disinclination/inclination}段階時における①

検索して得られたものである。実例(27)は、【confidence の強弱】、②【根拠の有無】、③

The Corpus of Contemporary American English【間接証拠性としての inference, assumption(COCA)の検索により得られたものである。

57

れている現象を指す。(2)では to 不定詞節内の目的語 hit が主節の領域に移動しており、
かつては ought が再構成を許していたことが分かる。Mori (2020)は、このような目的語移助動詞 ought の文法化について*動が消失した原因は(3)から(4)への構造変化（On the Grammaticalization of the English

であると提案している。

Auxiliary Ought）(3)[VP ought [PP to [vP Venne/en/e-v [VP tV …

森 敏郎（Toshiro Mori）
名古屋大学大学院（Nagoya University）

Obj …]]]](vP is not a phase)(Mori (2020: 76))

(4)

キーワード：ought, 文法化, 非人称構文, 人

Subj … [ModP ought [InfP to [vP tSubj V-v

称構文[VP tV … Obj …]]]](vP is a phase)(Mori (2020: 76))

1. はじめに(5)

The infinitival morpheme functions as an

義務を表す助動詞 ought は、(1)に例示さ

argument iff its Case feature is licensed

れる所有を表す古英語の本動詞 agan を起源(via Agree or inherent Case assignment).

に持つ。そして(2)に示されるように、義務(Tanaka (2007: 48))を表す ought の用法は古英語から観察される。
(3)-(4)において、ought はそれぞれ本動詞(V)(1)þa

Deniscan ahton wælstowe

the Danesof-battle-field

部 不 定 詞 節 と し て そ れ ぞ れ PP とgeweald

Inf(initival)P が選択されている。1 (3)についpowerて、不定詞節がかつて PP として位置づけら‘Danes had power (control) of the battle

れていたことは、to 不定詞節が前置詞句と等

place’

位接続可能であったこと、また、to が不定詞

(ChronE(2)

hadと法助動詞(Mod)として位置づけられる。補(Irvine)833.1(Plummerに格付与(古英語：与格-enne、中英語：目的

63.9-11) / Kaita (2015: 110))

格-en/e)していたことにより支持される。 2

nan man hit nahtoMori が依拠する Tanaka (2007)の提案(cf. (5))

not-ought toによれば、不定詞形態素は格の認可を受ける

no man it
geahnianne

ことで項として機能するが、(3)では前置詞

claim as one’s own

としての to による格付与の下で不定詞形態‘no man ought to claim possession of it’

素が外項として機能するため vP はフェイズ(colaw2cn,LawIICn:24.3.79 / YCOE)

ではない。
一方で、
(4)では文法化を経た ought
が機能範疇 Mod として自身の項構造をもは

現代英語では観察されない ought の特性とや持たず、表層の主語(Subj)が補部不定詞のして、再構成と非人称構文が挙げられる。再外項として導入されることになるため、vP構成とは、通常は節境界を越えて適用されなはフェイズである。ゆえに、再構成に関わる

い統語操作が、特に不定詞節を越えて適用さ目的語移動がフェイズの末端を経由しない

58

A 移動であるとすると(cf. Tanaka (2009))、フOno (1989)や田島 (2016)によれば、ought

ェイズ不可侵条件(cf. Chomsky (2000))によの非人称構文は中英語期に出現したが、調査り、(3)の構造においてのみ再構成が許され範囲が同時期までであるため消失時期が厳ることになる。したがって、(3)から(4)への密には明らかでない。そこで、この構文の歴

構造変化の完了に伴い再構成が消失すると史的発達を明らかにするために、Mori (2021)

説明される。

は斜格経験者を伴う ought について調査してMori によれば当該の構造変化は 14 世紀中いる。中英語では既に名詞の屈折が衰退してに完了したが、そのような分析にとって、15いることをふまえ、代名詞の斜格経験者を伴世紀を含む中英語の ought が(主格主語を伴う(7)-(10)のような例を収集した。斜格経験う人称構文に加え)(6)に示されるような非人者、ought、ought が従える不定詞節である主称構文にも現れることが問題となる。

題項は、それぞれ囲み線、太字、下線を用いて示されている。(7)-(9)に示されるように、(6)[…] any thyng for which hym oghte
anything

ought が従える節には、to 不定詞節に加え、

for which him ought

for-to 不定詞節や原形不定詞節も含まれる。

to pleyne.

また、(10)に示されるように、不定詞節が省

to lament

略されている例も存在する。最後に、通常の‘anything for which it behooves him to

非人称構文とは異なり、全例において虚辞

lament.’(h)it が現れない。このことは、主題項が節で(CMCTPARS,288.C2b.12 / PPCME2)

ある非人称構文において虚辞の生起が随意的であることと対照的である。

(6)において、斜格の代名詞 hym と to 不定詞
節はそれぞれ ought の経験者項(EXperiencer)

表 1: ought の非人称構文の歴史的発達と主題項(THeme)として解釈される。本論文

古英語では、非人称構文と人称構文における ought(-1150)

初期中英語(1150-1350)の主語をそれぞれ斜格経験者、主格経験者と00呼ぶ。このような非人称構文が 15 世紀にお

後期中英語

近代英語

いてもなお観察されることは、14 世紀中に

(1350-1500)(1500-1710)

ought の文法化が完了して項構造が失われた46とする Mori の分析とは対照的に、ought の項

1350-1420: 24

構造が完全には失われていない場合がある

1420-1500: 22

ことを示唆する。

0(Mori (2021: 49))

本論文では、歴史コーパス YCOE, PPCME2,(7)

me ought to preyse and loue it

PPCEME を用いた調査により、ought の非人

me ought to praise and love it

称構文が 15 世紀中に消失したことを示し、‘It behooves me to praise and love it’

その原因は同時期までに完了した ought の助(CMREYNAR,14.275 / PPCME2)

動詞化であると提案する。さらに、本発表の(8)‘Sir,’ he seyde, ‘I have nothyng done

提案に基づき、ought の歴史的発達の全体像

sir he saidを示す。

but that me ought for to do‘I have nothing done

but what me ought for to do
2. ought における非人称構文の消失‘“Sir,” he said, “I have done nothing but

59

what it behooves me to do”’
(9)

一方、格と一致素性を持たない空の虚辞(CMMALORY,198.3059 / PPCME2)

pro が vP 指定部に生起すると、[uφ]には一致

Wherfore us oghte […] have pacience

する候補が存在せず三人称単数の値がデフ

wherefore us ought

ォルトとして与えられる。どちらの場合も定

have patience‘for which reason it behooves us to have

形動詞は三人称単数の屈折を示す。

patience’

以上の分析に基づけば、虚辞 it を伴わない(CMCTMELI,218.C1.37 / PPCME2)(10)

非人称構文の消失は 16 世紀における pro のif man love Jhesu Crist lasse than

消失に還元される。一方、it を伴う構文は現

if man love Jesus Christ less than

代英語まで存続する。しかし、このシナリオ

hym oghte

は ought にはあてはまらない。
非人称の ought

him oughtは現代英語において it を伴う形式で存在し‘if a man loves Jesus Christ less than heていないだけでなく、観察される時期においought’ても虚辞を伴うことがない。さらに、消失時(CMCTPARS,298.C1.416 / PPCME2)期についても、16 世紀を待たず中英語の終わりまでに消失した。

表 1 に示す調査結果から、ought の非人称
4. 非人称の ought の歴史的発達

構文は後期中英語に観察され始め、同時期の終わりまでに消失したことが分かる。通常のought の非人称構文の構造として(12a)を提非人称構文は 16 世紀に消失したため(cf. 大案する。(3)-(4)とは異なり、文法化を経た

門 (1987))、非人称の ought は自身に固有のought が v の位置に基底生成され、不定詞節

語彙的要因により 1 世紀早く消失したと考を補部にとる。経験者項はその指定部に導入えられる。

され、ought から内在格として斜格を付与される。ゆえに、虚辞 it/pro が vP 指定部に生3. 通常の非人称構文の消失

起することはない。ought は Mod の位置へと非人称の ought の歴史的発達について論じ

移動して複合主要部(cf. (13))を形成する。後る前に、通常の非人称構文の派生、および期中英語において通常 ought は現在の義務を

16 世紀に消失した理由について議論する。

過去形で表していたため(cf. Ono (1989))法助

特に前者について、定形動詞が三人称単数の動詞的である一方、非人称の ought は自身で屈折を常に示す理由から議論する。

経験者項を導入する点で語彙動詞的でもあNawata (2011)によれば、「斜格 EX+非人称る。この中間的性質は複合主要部を仮定する

動詞+TH 節」型の非人称構文は(11)のようにことにより説明される。

派生される。まず、虚辞 it が vP 指定部に基底生成される場合、T が持つ値未付与の φ 素(12)a. [TP T[uφ] [ModP Mod [vP EX [v ought]
INH

性([uφ])が虚辞と一致して値付けられ、定形

THClausal]]] (impersonal ought)

動詞は三人称単数の屈折を示す。

b. [TP T[uφ] [ModP Mod [vP EX [v ought]
(11)

NOM

[TP T[uφ] [vP it/pro v [VP EX VImpersonal
NOM

THClausal]]]ACC

THClausal]]] (personal ought)(cf. Nawata (2011))

(13)

60

[Mod [v ought]+Mod]そして、非人称構文と共存する時期の人称構えられる。個々の動詞が他の動詞にどのよう文の構造として(12b)を提案する。(12b)におな影響を具体的に与えたかは今後の研究課

いても v に基底生成された ought が指定部に題とするが、たとえば Gregersen (2020)は表 3

経験者項を導入するとともに、Mod へと移動に示す類推による発達を提示している。3 古

して複合主要部を形成する。(12a)とは、T が

英 語 期 に 既 に 非 人 称 構 文 を と る

持つ[uφ]について派生が異なる。(12a)では(GE)BYRIAN との類推により BEHOVE が非[uφ]に三人称単数の値がデフォルトとして

人称用法を得た後、後期中英語期には義務や与えられるのに対し、(12b)では vP 指定部に必要性を表すさらに多くの動詞へと用法が導入された経験者項が[uφ]との一致の結果拡大している。この時期に OUGHT もまた非として主格を付与される。

人称用法が利用可能となった。

以上の議論が正しければ、非人称構文は
ought の文法化により構造が(3)から(12a)へ

表 3: 各動詞における非人称用法の獲得と変化したことにより出現した。また、ought

OEがさらなる文法化を経て項構造を完全に失(GE)BYRIAN

うと、経験者項を導入することができなくな(GE)DAFENIAN

り非人称構文は消失した(cf. (4))。この一連の…

12th c.

→↦14th c.

BIREN

→

BIREN

BEHOVE→BEHOVE(THARF?)

変化の動機として時制パラダイムの衰退が

…

OUGHT

↦

MOT

挙げられる。表 2 に示されるように、ought(NEED?)

はもともと古英語における agan の過去形で(Gregersen (2020: 161))あったが、12 世紀末から現在形としても利用可能になり、15 世紀までに ought が owe

5. ought の文法化を駆逐した。以上の観察に基づき、非人称の以上の議論に基づき、ought の歴史的発達

ought は助動詞化の過渡期である後期中英語の全体像を以下に示す。

に現れたが、15 世紀の終わりまでにさらなる文法化を経て(通常の非人称構文よりも 1

表 4: ought の発達の年代関係

世紀早く)消失したと主張する。

時制パラダイムの衰退
初期

表 2: owe/ought の時制パラダイム

中英語

中英語

人称 ought

現在

過去(V cf. (3))

owe, oughte

oughte

非人称 ought

初期近代英語
現在(v cf. (12a))

過去

人称 ought

ought(v cf. (12b))(cf. 宇賀治 (2000: 233))

弱変化
本動詞 owe

最後に、v に位置付けられる時期の ought

人称 ought

が非人称用法を持つ理由について、同時期に(Mod cf. (4))

非人称用法で用いられた動詞との類推が考

61

~1300

~1400

~1500

現 代
英語

人称構文は英語史を通して観察されるが、案した。さらに、(非)人称 ought の歴史的発

その位置付けは各時期で異なる。現在の義務達の全体像を、段階的な文法化という観点かを現在形で表す初期中英語までは本動詞とら提示した。

して位置付けられるが(cf. (3))、時制パラダイ
ムが衰退し始め後期中英語に入ると過去形* 本論文は日本英語学会第 39 回大会におけで表すようになり、法助動詞的位置付けを持る口頭発表原稿に修正を加えたものである。

つようになった(cf. (12b))。この段階において本研究を進めるに際し、大室剛志先生、田中も外項は ought により導入されるため、(3)智之先生、そして柳朋宏先生からは貴重な助の時期に引き続き再構成が許されていた。時言を頂いた。また、研究発表では、多くの諸制パラダイムの衰退自体は 15 世紀末まで続先生方より、大変有益なご指摘や助言を頂いいたが、本来の現在形 owe が 15 世紀に弱変た。この場を借りて感謝の意を表する。なお、化の新たな本動詞用法を発達させる際に、本論文における不備や誤りは全て筆者の責

ought は再分析を受け純粋な法助動詞として任による。

分化したため、再構成が許されなくなった(cf.

注

(4))。

1

本論文では詳細に議論しないが、(4)の統

一方、非人称構文(12a)は後期中英語に出現

語構造は Harwood (2014)により提案された

したが、これは v への文法化に際して類推の精緻化された動詞句領域を ought to の構造に影響を受けた結果である。その後、人称構文拡張したものである。Mod 主要部に導入され(12b)とは異なり、屈折の衰退が完了する 15

る ought が選択する補部不定詞節(InfP)の主

世紀末まで残存した。人称構文における発達

要部を不定詞標識 to が占めている。このよとは異なり、非人称の ought が 15 世紀の終

うな構造を提案する理由については、Mori

わりまで文法化を免れたことは、非人称構文(2020)を参照されたい。

の斜格経験者項が再分析の可能性と相容れ2ないからであると考えられる。2 節の調査で句を補部にとるが、このような構造を仮定す収集した 46 例のうち、補部不定詞節に非人る根拠については、Tanaka (2007)を参照され称用法をとる repente ‘repent’が生起する 1 例たい。

が 存 在 す る た め 、 こ れ は 透 明 性 (Warner3(1993))の例として繰り上げ構造への再分析

ぞれ‘changes into’と‘influences’を表す。

(3)では不定詞標識 to が前置詞として動詞

表 3 において、矢印と縦棒付き矢印はそれの余地があるが、その他の例については斜格
経験者項が ought によって導入されていることが明らかであり再分析の適用が妨げられ

参考文献
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

る。しかし、16 世紀までに ought が Mod と

The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on

して一本化され項構造を完全に失うと、経験

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard者項を導入することができなくなり、非人称

Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David

構文は消失したのである。

Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

6. 結語

Harwood,

William(2014)

“Rise

of

the

本論文では、ought の非人称構文が 15 世紀

Auxiliaries: A Case for Auxiliary Raising

中に消失したことを示し、その原因は同時期

vs. Affix Lowering,” The Linguistic Review

までに完了した ought の助動詞化であると提31, 295-362.

62

Gregersen, Sune (2020) Early English Modals:
Form,

Function,andAnalogy,

宇賀治正朋 (2000) 『英語史』 開拓社, 東京.

LOT,

Warner, Anthony (1993) English Auxiliaries:

Amsterdam.

Structure

Kaita, Kousuke (2015) Modal Auxiliaries fromandHistory,

Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Late Old to Early Middle English, Herbert
Utz Verlag, München.

コーパス

Mori, Toshiro (2020) “On the Historical

Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Lauren

Development of the English Auxiliary

Delfs (2004) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed

Ought:

CorpusWith

SpecialReference

to

of

Early

ModernEnglishRestructuring,” English Linguistics 37,(PPCEME), University of Pennsylvania,

67-79.

Philadelphia.

Mori, Toshiro (2021) “On the Historical

Kroch, Anthony and Ann Taylor (2000) The

Development of the English Auxiliary

Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle

Ought: With Special Reference to the Loss

English,of

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Its

Impersonal

Constructions,”

Linguistics and Philology 40, 47-58.
Revisiting

the

Loss

Edition(PPCME2),

Taylor, Ann, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk

Nawata, Hiroyuki (2011) “Gradual Parametric
Change?

Second

and

Frank

Beths

(2003)

Theof

York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of

Non-Nominative Experiencers of Like,”

Old English Prose (YCOE), University ofStudies in Modern English 27, 75-99.

York, York.

大門正幸 (1987) 「非人称構文の消失について」『近代英語研究』4, 45-67.
Ono, Shigeru (1989) On Early English Syntax
and Vocabulary, Nan’un-do, Tokyo.
Tanaka, Tomoyuki (2007) “The Rise of Lexical
Subjects in English Infinitives,” Journal ofComparative Germanic Linguistics 10,
25-67.
Tanaka, Tomoyuki (2009) “Scrambling from
Infinitival Clauses: A Case Study ofRestructuring in the History of English,”Ivy Never Sere: The Fiftieth Anniversary
Publication of The Society of English
LiteratureandLinguistics,

NagoyaUniversity, ed. by Mutsumu Takikawa,
Masae Kawatsu and Tomoyuki Tanaka,475-492, Otowa Shobo Tsurumi Shoten,
Tokyo.
田島松二 (2016) 『中英語の統語法と文体』
南雲堂, 東京.

63

田中（1990: 227）のインフォーマント調査では、このような受動態が好まれるのは行為者がわからないか、示したくない、あるいはその必要がない場合であり、能動態で表せる場
知覚動詞の受動態補文に出現する不定詞の合は能動態を用いるという。また鷹家・林通時的研究（2004: 53）のインフォーマント調査による（A Diachronic Study on Infinitives in theと、see や watch などで to 不定詞を伴う受Passive Complement of Perception Verbs）

動態はあまり使用しないという回答が多く、英語母語話者にとってこの受動態は不可能

村岡 宗一郎（Souichiro Muraoka）

でなくてもあまり自然ではなく、特に理由が日本大学大学院（Nihon University）

ない限りは能動態が用いられるという。さらに、柏野（2010: 410）は、to 不定詞を伴う知キーワード：知覚動詞, 受動態, 不定詞, ア

覚動詞の受動態の多くは客観性を表す内容

スペクト, 証拠性で、犯罪捜査に関する証言や新聞報道などに用いられるという。（2a）の容認可否について調査した村岡（2020）によれば、（3）に示

1. はじめにすように知覚動詞補文の準動詞はそのアス

現代英語における知覚動詞は、（1）に示すペクトを反映した証拠性を表すという。

ように、能動態補文に原形不定詞、現在分詞と to 不定詞を取る。このうち、原形不定詞(3) I saw him {walk / walking / to be

は知覚事象の完結性を、現在分詞は非完結性

walking} across the road. (直接知覚)を表す一方、to 不定詞は間接知覚や直接知覚【直接証拠性：強 / 中 / 弱】に基づく推量を表すという。
さらに、村岡（2020）は（4）に示すように
受動態補文に出現する準動詞もまたそのア(1) a. I saw him walk across the road.

スペクト特性を反映した証拠性を表すと述(Allen (1974: 186))

べ、知覚動詞の受動態は知覚情報の出所であb. I saw him walking across the road.
a(ibid.)る知覚者（主語）が省略され、間接知覚や推c. I saw the figure to be that of a woman.

量（弱い証拠性）を表すが、be seen Inf では.

原形不定詞が完結のアスペクトを反映した(Bolinger (1975: 399))

強い直接証拠性を表し、言語運用上の矛盾をその一方で、受動態補文では、（2）のように、きたすため、容認されないという。その一方、

to 不定詞と現在分詞が用いられるが、原形不現在分詞や to 不定詞は原形不定詞よりも弱定詞の出現は認められない。

い証拠性を表し、知覚動詞の受動態と意味的に矛盾することがなく、容認されるという。

(2) a. The dog was seen {*cross / to cross}the road.

(Gisborn (2010: 122))(4) He was seen {*walk / waking / to walk}b. Carl was seen reading Barriers.

across the road.

(間接知覚)【直接証拠性：強 / 中 / 弱】..(Miller (2002: 253))64しかし、小野・伊藤（2009: 141）によれば、

い。そのため、（7a）のような完了不定詞を（5）のように、村岡（2020）の反例となる

補文にとれないが、（7b）のように推量を表例が 17 世紀まで存在するという。

す to 不定詞補文においては、能動態の原形
不定詞補文と異なり、知覚事象と知覚行為が同時である必要がなく、容認される。

(5) through the gloom were seen Ten
thousand Banners rise into the Air.
(Milton, PL. 1, 544-5)(7) a. *John saw the lawn have been mown.
a(井上 (1984: 96))

本研究では、（5）の例が村岡（2020）の反例

b. The lawn was seen by John to haveになり得るのか、後期中英語から初期近代英been mown.

.

(ibid.)

語までのデータを収録したコーパスである
Early English Book Online（EEBO）を用いてさらに（8）に示すように BE + 現在分詞は調査を行い、17 世紀までの知覚動詞補文に能動態の原形不定詞補文に出現できないが、出現する準動詞は現代英語に見られるアス

to 不定詞補文ではそれが可能である。状態受

ペクト特性を表していないことを明らかに動を表す BE + 過去分詞もまた（9）に示す

し、（5）の原形不定詞もまた現代英語に見らように能動態補文の原形不定詞では非文法

れるようなアスペクトを持たず、そのアスペ的とみなされているが（cf.（6））、推量を表

クトを反映した証拠性を持たないため、文法

す to 不定詞補文では容認されている。

的であった可能性について議論していく。
(8) a. *We saw John be drawing a circle.
2. 受動態補文における to 不定詞の出現(Felser (1999: 26))

まず知覚動詞の受動態補文における tob. He was seen to be walking away.

不定詞の出現について、村岡（2020）は、こ(Palmer (1987: 189))の to 不定詞は推量や間接知覚を表すと主張(9) a. *I saw him be rejected.

する。その証拠として、（6）から（11）に示(Bolinger (1974: 69))

す言語事実が挙げられる。知覚動詞の能動態

b. The children were seen to be beaten.

補文における原形不定詞は直接知覚を表す(Palmer (1987: 199))

ために、（6a）に示すように知覚不可能な状態を表す動詞を補文に取ることができない。

（10a）のように直接知覚を表す能動態の原

しかし、（6b）のように推量を表す受動態補

形不定詞補文は通例、生じていない事柄を補文においては、そのような制限が課されず、文にとることができない。その一方で、受動状態動詞を用いた例も文法的とみなされる。

態の to 不定詞補文は推量を表すため、（10b）のように否定辞を伴う表現が後続できる。

(6) a. *I saw John know French.
(Hornstein et al. (2008: 200))(10) a. *We saw only John not run away.

b. John was seen to know French. a(ibid.)(井上 (1984: 96))b. Only John was seen not to run away.

また知覚動詞の能動態補文における原形不a (ibid.)

定詞は直接知覚を表すために、知覚対象は知覚行為と同時に存在していなければならな

また Bolinger（1974）や柏野（1989: 425）に65

よれば、to 不定詞を伴う知覚動詞の受動態補つ未来指示性により、弱い証拠性を表す。

文は、（11）のように、apparently とパラフレーズ可能であるという。これらの言語事実か(12) I saw him {walk / walking / to be

ら受動態補文の to 不定詞は能動態補文におwalking} across the road. (直接知覚)

ける原形不定詞と異なり、間接知覚あるいは【直接証拠性：強 / 中 / 弱】

直接知覚に基づく推量を表すと考えられる。
その証拠として、村岡（2020）は以下の例をあげている。原形不定詞補文は前述の通り、(11) John is seen to be their best hope.

それがもつ完結性の相を反映した強い直接= John is apparently their best hope.

証拠性を表すため、その知覚事象を打ち消す(Bolinger (1974: 80))

表現は後続できない。しかし、原形不定詞よ3．受動態補文における原形不定詞の非出現

りも弱い証拠性を表す現在分詞補文や to 不と村岡（2020）の分析

定詞補文においては、その知覚事象を打ち消前節において、受動態補文における to 不す表現が後続できる。

定詞は間接知覚や推量を表すことについて見てきたが、なぜ原形不定詞を用いた例は非(13) a. I saw John {*enter / entering} the

文法的とみなされるのだろうか。このことにroom, but I didn’t know whether he

ついて、村岡（2020）は、知覚動詞の補文にactually got inside.

出現する準動詞はアスペクトだけでなく証(柏野 (2010: 408))

拠性も表すと分析する。Aikhenvald（2015）b. Martha saw Fred to be driving too
fast, but he actually wasn’t.

によれば、証拠性の選択はアスペクトの選択に影響されるとし、Abraham（1998）は証拠

a...(Moulton (2009: 129))

性は完了相により生じる場合が多いと述べるが村岡（2020）は、非完了相もまた証拠性

この証拠性は受動態補文に出現する準動詞を表しうると分析する。前述の通り、知覚動にも当てはまる。受動態補文は知覚情報の出詞の能動態における原形不定詞補文は、完結所である知覚者および主語が省略され、間接性だけでなく、知覚事象の開始点と終結点、知覚や推量（弱い証拠性）を表すため、原形つまり全体を見聞きしたことを含意するた不定詞よりも弱い直接証拠性を表す現在分

め、（12）のように原形不定詞補文はそのア

詞や to 不定詞を補文にとることができる。

スペクトに応じた強い証拠性を表し、知覚者

しかし、be seen Inf では原形不定詞が完結のがその知覚事象に対して十分な証拠や確信

アスペクトを反映した強い直接証拠性を表度を持っていることを表す。その一方で、現し、受動態が表す推量や間接知覚（弱い証拠

在分詞補文は一時性を表すとともに知覚事性）の意味と言語運用上の矛盾をきたすため、象の一部のみを見聞きしたことを含意する

容認されない。

ため、そのアスペクトに応じて、原形不定詞
よりも弱い証拠性を表し、知覚者がその知覚(14) He was seen {*walk / waking / to walk}

事象に対して限られた証拠しか持っていな

across the road.

いことや原形不定詞よりも弱い確信度を表(間接知覚)【直接証拠性：強 / 中 / 弱】す。さらに、直接知覚に基づく推量や間接知覚を表す能動態の to 不定詞補文は、to のもBolinger（1974: 87）もまた（14）の原形不定

66

詞は知覚者がいないのに受けた印象が聞こ(17) a. I saw Bill {lean / leaning} against the

えない耳や見えない目に漂ってくるようなside of the house.

表現となり、容認できないという。しかし、(Kirsner and Thompson (1976: 220))（14）の原形不定詞は通時的にその存在が確

b. I saw the ladder {*lean / leaning}

認されており、小野・伊藤（2009: 141）はそ

against the side of the house. (ibid.)のような例は 17 世紀まで存在するという（cf.
（5））。このことについて、EEBO を用いて吉良（2006: 46）によれば、原形不定詞補文調査を行ったところ、表 1 のように同様の結は完結を表し、自発的移動や自発的変化が認果が得られた。

められるため、（17a）のように補文主語が有性の場合には、原形不定詞と現在分詞のどち

表１．EEBO における be {seen/heard} Infらも用いられるが、無生物主語の場合（＝

15c

16c

17c

TOTAL

17b）には自発性が認められず、原形不定詞

8

45

288

341

は容認されない。そのため、補文主語が無生
物主語の場合、静止している瞬間を捉える現

それらのうち、be seen Inf の原形不定詞には在分詞の選択が義務的になるという。さらに

往来発着を、be heard Inf には発話を表す動EEBO では（18）のように、人の手によって詞が用いられていた。このような例はなぜ通移動不可能な素性を持つ無生物主語と位置

時的に存在しえたのだろうか。次節以降、近動詞の原形不定詞が用いられている例も検代英語の知覚動詞補文に出現する準動詞は出された。これらの例もまた（19）のように、

現代英語に見られるアスペクトを表してお

現代英語では非文法的とみなされている。

らず、そのアスペクトを反映した証拠性をも表していなかったために、このような例が容(18) a. whensoeuer wee see the church stand

認されていたという可能性を論じていく。

in neede of our helpe, .(1583. EEBO)
b. you shall see a castle stand at the

4．知覚動詞補文に出現する準動詞のアスペ

foote of the hill then you come to the

クト特性の出現時期

Towne of santos,

前述の通り、知覚動詞補文に出現する準動a(.(1625. EEBO)(19) !We saw Rome stand on the Tiber.

詞として、原形不定詞は知覚事象の完結性を、(Gisborne (2010: 206))

現在分詞は知覚事象の非完結性を表すとされている。しかし、EEBO を用いて調査を行吉良（2006: 46）は、（19）の知覚動詞の原形

った結果、（16）に見られる例が検出された。

不定詞補文における状態動詞の出現についこれらの例は補文に人の手によって移動可て、状態的な出来事は終結点を持つ完了した能な素性を持つ無生物主語と位置動詞の原

事象とは捉えられず、容認できないとする。

形不定詞が用いられている例である。これら

また（18）のような例が現在分詞補文で用いの例は、（17b）のように、現代英語では非文られている例も検出された。

法的とみなされている。
(20) and then you shall see a church standing
vpon a hill which is called saint bent,(16) wee haue seene the axe lie at the rooteof our greatest cedars,(1625. EEBO).(1606. EEBO)

67

しかし、現代英語では（20）の現在分詞は（21）表 2 ． EEBO に お け る “see ＋ 無 生 物 主 語のように非文法的とみなされる。

（±movable）＋位置動詞の準動詞”（cf. 村岡
2021a）(21) a. *New Orleans is lying at the mouth of
the Mississippi River.
aa(Dowty (1991:174))b. *I saw the Statue of Liberty standing
on Bedloe’s Island.

stand±movable

lie

hang

+

-

+

-

+

-

Inf

35

31

66

29

45

2

-ing

25

23

78

13

37

55

a(村岡(2021c))
そして現代英語において非文法的とみなさ

柏野（1999: 128）によれば、この種の進行形

れる例を時代毎に表示したものが表 3 であは、主語が「いつまでもその位置にない」とる。一見すると、現代英語では容認されないいう「一時性」を表すため、主語になる名詞
は、人間のように自ら動けるものか、物品（物、帽子、新聞など）のように人間が手を加える

用例が 17 世紀に一気に増加したように見えるが、これは 15〜16 世紀までの収録語数が少ないことが起因していると考えられる。

ことによって動けるものでなければならないという。また（21a）のように、建物など

表 3．EEBO における現代英語で容認されな

通常、動かないものが主語にくると、姿勢を表す動詞が進行形では使えない理由として、主語が移動しないにもかかわらず、進行形の表す「一時性」により、主語がやがてその位い例（cf. 村岡 2021a）
15c

16c

17c

TOTAL

2

58

184

244

置を離れるという含みを持つからであるとさらに、（23）のような表現も検出された。

いう。さらに、（21b）の例を調査した村岡（2021c）によれば、（21b）の例が文法的に(23) …see all doores be shut,..(1611. EEBO)

なる場合も存在するが、自然災害や爆撃などにより一時性を含意する場合に限られるという。これらの言語事実から、近代英語の知これらの例は現代英語では容認されないが、覚動詞補文に出現する準動詞のアスペクト、

get + -en や（being +）-en は容認されている。

つまり（非）完結の意味の違いは曖昧であったと考えられる。また表 2 に見られるように、 (24) a. I saw him {*be / get} rejected.
(Bolinger (1974: 69))（16）、（18）や（20）といった例は現代英語
b. I saw the children (being) beaten by

において容認されている例（人の手によってtheir rivals.

移動可能な素性を持つ無生物の補文主語と(Palmer (1987: 199))

現在分詞補文）よりも多く検出されている。
なお、表 2 において黒塗りになっている箇所（24a）の容認可否性は動作受動か状態受動は現代英語では非文法的とみなされる例をかが問題になると考えられる。このような知示す。

覚動詞の原形不定詞補文における状態動詞の出現については、前述の通り、状態的な出来事は終結点を持つ完了した事象とは捉えられず、非文法 的とみなされ る（ cf.吉良（2006: 46））。このことについて、BNC や68

COCA を用いて調査を行った結果、表 4 の結5．まとめ果が得られ、英米ともに being + -en が一般的

村岡（2020）によれば、知覚動詞補文の準であるが、be + -en はかなり少数であった。

動詞はそのアスペクトを反映した証拠性を表す。原形不定詞は完結性を表し、出来事の表 4．BNC および COCA の知覚動詞補文に終着点を見聞きしたという意味になるため、おける受身表現（cf. 村岡（2021b））

直接証拠性が強い表現になる。一方、to 不BNC

定詞は元来、未来指示性を表し、間接知覚やCOCA

be + -en

4

1.1%

335

8.8%

推量などの弱い直接証拠性を表す。知覚動詞

being + -en

354

96.5%

2394

62.8%

の受動態は、情報源となる知覚者をぼかして、

get + -en

4

1.1%

879

23.0%

知覚された出来事を証拠性の弱いものとしgetting + -en

5

1.4%

207

5.4%

て表現している。そのため、知覚動詞の受動

Total

367

100%

3815

100%

態では、原形不定詞より直接証拠性の弱い現在分詞や to 不定詞が用いられる。その一方、同様の調査を EEBO を用いて行った結果、表be {seen/heard} Inf では、原形不定詞が知覚5 に示すように、表 4 と異なり、being + -en

された出来事の直接証拠性を強める為、知覚と be + -en の分布が逆転していた。

動詞の受動態が表す弱い証拠性と原形不定詞が表す強い直接証拠性とで意味的整合性

表 5．EEBO における see NP be -en と see NPが取れず、言語運用上の矛盾をきたすため、

being -en（cf. 村岡（2021b））

容認されないという。この分析の反例となる

15c

16c

17c

Total

例について、小野・伊藤（2009）は 17 世紀

see NP be -en

3

33

170

206

まで確認されるというが、EEBO を用いて知see NP being -en

0

9

32

41

覚動詞の補文に出現する準動詞のアスペクトについて通時的に分析を行った村岡

これらの言語事実から知覚動詞補文に出現（2021a）によれば、近代英語には現代英語

する準動詞のアスペクト特性は 17 世紀におでは容認されない例が多く、当時の原形不定

いては確立しておらず、（1a-b）で見たアス

詞と現在分詞は意味的に曖昧であった可能

ペクトの違いは曖昧であったと考えられる。

性を指摘している。また小野・伊藤（2009）

また現代英語では非文法的とみなされる beの例が散見される時期と知覚動詞補文に出seen Inf が存在していた時期と（1a-b）で見現する準動詞のアスペクトが曖昧であった
時期が重なることから、17 世紀までに見らたアスペクトの違いが曖昧であった時期がれる be {seen/heard} Inf の原形不定詞は、現重なることから、（5）や（15）で見た be seen

代英語に見られるようなアスペクトを持たInf のような表現における原形不定詞は現代英語に見られる完結性のアスペクト特性ず、その相を反映した証拠性を持たないため、を持っておらず、またそのアスペクト特性を現代英語とは異なり文法的であったと推測反映した強い直接証拠性を表していなかっされる。

たため、容認されていたと考えられる。
参考文献
Abraham, Werner (1998) “The Morphologicaland Semantic Classification of ‘Evidentials’
and

69

Modal

Verbs

in

German:theperfect(ive).”

Groninger

Arbeiten

吉良文孝 (2006)「知覚動詞補文のアスペク

zurト」『英語語法文法研究』,
第 13 号, 35-50.

germanistischen Linguistik 42, 192-206.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra (2015) “Evidentials:

Kirsner, Robert and Sandra Thompson (1976)

grammatical“The Role of Pragmatic Inference in

categories.” Linguistic Typology 19(2),Semantics: A Study of Sensory Verb

239-277.

Complements in English,” Glossa 10,

Their

links

with

other

Allen, William (1974) Living English Structure.

200-240.

Longman, London.

Moulton, Kier (2009) Natural Selection and the

Bolinger, Dwight (1974) “Concept and percept:

SyntaxofClausalComplementation,

Dissertation,

University

Two infinitive constructions and their

Doctoralvicissitude,” World Papers in Phonetics

Massachusetts Amherst.

Festschrift for Dr. Onishi’s Kiju, 65-91. The

ofMiller, Gary (2002) Nonfinite Structures in

Phonetic Society of Japan.

Theory and Change, Oxford University

Bolinger, Dwight (1975) Aspects of Language,

Press, Oxford.
村岡宗一郎 (2020)「知覚動詞の受動態補文

Harcorut Brace Jovanovich, New York.
Dowty, David (1991) “Thematic Proto-Roles

における不定詞の選択制限について」and Argument Selection,” Language 67,

英語語法文法学会第 28 回大会口頭発表.
村岡宗一郎 (2021a) 「知覚動詞と使役動詞補547-619.
Felser, Claudia (1999) Verbal complement

文に出現する準動詞がもつアスペクト

clauses: A minimalist study of direct

特性の発現時期について」近代英語協会

perception constructions, John Benjamins,

第 38 回大会口頭発表.
村岡宗一郎 (2021b)「知覚動詞補文に出現す

Amsterdam.

る受身表現の容認可否について」英語コ

Gisborne, Nikolas (2010) The Event Structure ofーパス学会第 47 回大会口頭発表.

Perception Verbs, Oxford University Press,

村岡宗一郎 (2021c)「進行形と知覚動詞の現Oxford.
Hornstein, Norbert, Ana Maria Martins and Jairo

在分詞補文に見られる話し手の心理要

Nunes (2008) “Perception and Causative

因について」英語語法文法学会第 29 回

Structures

大会口頭発表.

inEnglishandEuropean

Portuguese: φ-feature Agreement and the

小野捷・伊藤弘之 (2009)『近代英語の発達』
英潮社フェニックス, 東京.

Distribution of Bare and Prepositional
Infinitives,” Syntax 11, 198-222.

Palmer, Frank (1987) The English Verb.

井上和子 (1984)「原形不定詞の補文構造に

Longman, London.

ついて」,『広島大学総合科学部紀要. V,

鷹家秀史・林龍次郎. 2004.『詳説レクシスプラ

言語文化研究』9 巻, 89-102.

ネットボード』旺文社, 東京.

柏野健次 (1989) 「知覚動詞構文の受動態」『英語青年』第 135 巻第 9 号, 425.

田中茂範 (1990)『会話に生かす受験英語』アルク, 東京.

柏野健次 (1999)『テンスとアスペクトの語法』開拓社, 東京.
柏野健次 (2010) 『英語語法レファレンス』
三省堂, 東京.

70

known as relational adjectives (RAdjs) (e.g.
nuclear (electricity)). These adjectives relate
their base nouns to their head nouns to classify
the latter. In this sense, they are parallel toMorphological Marking in Nominal

relational nominals. In fact, RAdjs can be

Modification:

paraphrased into PPs (e.g. nuclear physics =A Comparative Study of Japanese andphysics of the nucleus). S & N analyze theEnglish Based on Morphological Markedness

nominal modification nuclear electricity as in

Hypothesis and Competition Theory*(2), where the covert ‫ ק‬hosts √KIND to denotethe kind relation between nuclear and electricity;

Kazuya Nishimaki

nuclear electricity is a kind of electricity.

Niigata Agro-Food University(2) [‫ ק‬nuclear [‫ ק‬electricity [‫√ ק‬KIND]]]
Keywords：relational adjectives, nominal
predicates, morphological marking,Interestingly, S & N point out that theMorphological Markedness Hypothesis,kind-denoting ‫ ק‬is covert in English but overt inCompetition Theory

Japanese. Observing that RAdjs correspond tonominal predicates (e.g. gensiryoku-gata ‘lit.
nuclear power-type = nuclear’) in Japanese, S &1.

Introduction:

The

Encodingof

N analyze their classifiers (e.g. -gata ‘type’) as

Relationality and Nominal Modification

overtly-realized forms of ‫ק‬. This analysis tells us

Adger (2013) analyzes the functional head ‫ק‬that nominal modification by nominal predicatesas relating two nouns to encode relationality inalso hosts √KIND in ‫ק‬. Thus, the nominal

nominal phrases. According to this analysis,modification gensiryoku-gata no denki ‘nuclear

edge of the table has the following structure:electricity’ can be represented as in (3).

(1) [‫ ק‬edge [‫ ק‬of the table [‫√ ק‬PART]]](3) [‫ ק‬gensiryoku [‫ ק‬denki [‫√ ק‬KIND (= -gata)]]]The relation-denoting head is covert and hosts a

This paper aims to explore why the covert ‫ק‬light root to name the relation between two

in English is overtly realized in Japanese. A key

nouns. In (1), it hosts √PART to denote that edge

to our exploration is Morphological Markedness

is in part-whole relationship with table. A

Hypothesis, which is proposed by Miyake (2011,

common assumption is that a set of nouns2015).

known as relational nominals (e.g. edge) takes

generalization of the contrast between English

PPs (e.g. of the table) as its arguments to encode

and Japanese. In terms of the hypothesis, we

relationality. Against this assumption, Adger

claim that the ‘covert-overt’ contrast in theargues that the relevant PPs are arguments of ‫ק‬.

realization of ‫ ק‬can be considered to reflect the

Shimada and Nagano (henceforth, S & N)

general contrast between the two languages.

(2018) apply Adger’s (2003) analysis to nominal

Another aim is to conduct a theoreticalmodification by a set of denominal adjectives

exploration for the descriptive generalization

71

This

hypothesis

isadescriptive

given by Morphological Markedness Hypothesis.

areAdopting Competition Theory (Ackema and(DMCs), to encode directed motion. In contrast,

Neeleman (2004)), we demonstrate that thein Japanese, the verbal head is overtly realized

general contrast in question can be best analyzed

as iku ‘to go,’ as shown in (4b).

as resulting from the competition between two

calleddirected-motion

constructions

Another example can be found at a discourse

grammatical modules: morphology and syntax.

level. The examples given in (5) show that

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2

speech act requires a special form in Japaneseobserves that English and Japanese contrast in

but not in English.

their realization of heads beyond nominal
modification.

In

terms

of

Morphological(5) a.

Markedness Hypothesis, Section 3 examines thisb.

Your home is very close to the campus.
Kimi-no ie-wa

daigaku-ni

observation to reveal that the ‘covert-overt’

yourcontrast can be captured as an instance of thezuibun tikai*(-ne).

general contrast between English and Japanese.

very

Relying on Competition Theory, Section 4 gives‘Your home is very close to thea theoretical explanation for the general factcampus.’described by the relevant hypothesis. Section 5

home-Top campus-to
close*((Miyake (2015: 248), with slight modifications)

makes concluding remarks.
(5a) can be interpreted as requiring the hearer to2.

CovertvsOvert:

BeyondNominalagree with the speaker. This interpretation needs

Modification

the sentence-final particle (SFP) -ne in (5b). A

Beyond nominal modification, we can see

cartographic assumption is that speech act isthat covert heads in English are overtly realized

licensed by its dedicated projection in the CP

in Japanese, as illustrated in (4).

domain. It is known that languages differ in theovertness of the head. For example, Tenny(4) a.
b.

He walked to the station.

(2006: 256) observes that the head is overt in

Kare-wa eki-ni

languages having morphemes like SFPs but

he-Topcovert in those having no such morphemes. This{* arui-ta

station-Goal/ aruite-it-ta}.

observation means that English has a covert{* walk-Past / walk-go-Past

head for licensing speech act because it does not‘He walked to the station.’

possess morphemes like SFPs; on the other hand,(Miyake (2011: 182), with slight modifications)the head is overt in Japanese, which has SFPs
such as -ne in their overtly-realized forms.

Manner-of-motion verbs, such as to walk and its
Japanese counterpart aruku, cannot encode3.

Analysis

Based

on

Morphologicalmotion events. However, in English, these verbs

Markedness Hypothesis

can occur with goal PPs to encode directed

3.1. Morphological Markedness Hypothesis

motion, as shown in (4a). Zubizarreta and Oh

Section 2 confirms that the ‘covert-overt’(2007: 135-141) analyze a covert motion verb ascontrast is attested in a wide range ofheading VPs in constructions like (4a), which

English-Japanese72

translation

pairs.

Miyake(2011, 2015) formulates this general fact as‘covert-overt’ contrasts ranging over different

Morphological Markedness Hypothesis:

construction pairs can be given a unified accountunder Morphological Markedness Hypothesis.

(6) Japaneseisstrongly

inclinedtobemorphologically marked, while English canlikelybemorphologically

3.3. Motivations for the Present Analysis

unmarked.

The(Miyake (2011: 180), my translation)

present

analysisisindependently

motivated because the covert existence of a headparallels and accounts for puzzles in different

This hypothesis captures the fact that a particularconstructions. S & N (2018) point out that themeaning needs a corresponding morpheme in

exceptional occurrence of RAdjs can be

Japanese but not in English. Miyake notices that

explained by the covert existence of ‫ק‬. If

quite a few construction pairs share this contrast,

different instances of a covert head in different

which is exemplified in motion expressions likeconstructions are parallel in reflecting the(4) and speech act like (5).

morphological unmarkedness of English, thenthe covert existence of heads may explain

3.2. ‘Covert-Overt’ Contrast in Nominal

exceptional

Modification: A View from Morphologicalmodification by RAdjs. In fact, an exceptional

Markedness Hypothesis

interpretation in DMCs can be accounted for by

The present analysis is true of nominal
modification.

Morphologicalphenomenabeyondnominalthe covert existence of a verbal head.

Markedness

Characteristically,

RAdjs

cannotbe

Hypothesis tells us that English can encode thepredicative, as shown in (7a). Nevertheless, ameaning

predicative RAdj seems to be allowed in (7b).

of‘kind’ withoutmorphologicalmarking, which allows ‫ ק‬to be covert; in contrast,
because of its morphological markedness,(7) a. * My relatives are all chemical.

Japanese requires the same meaning to be(Levi (1978: 256))

morphologically marked, which results in theb.

75% of French electricity is nuclear.

overt realization of ‫ ק‬as classifiers. S & N (2018)(S & N (2018: 63))

assume that the selection of either a covert or an
overt ‫ ק‬is a mere coincidence. However, theLevi (1978: 249-269) analyzes seemingly

hypothesis maintains that this selection ispredicative RAdjs as resulting from the deletion

inevitableof their head nouns, as shown in (8).

becauseitdependsonthemorphological markedness of English andJapanese.

(8) 75%The point is that the ‘covert-overt’ contrastofFrench electricity is

nuclearelectricity.

seen in nominal modification is an instance ofthegeneralcontrastinmorphological

Levi observes that the deletion is licensed inmarkedness between English and Japanese. In

contrastive contexts. For example, in (8), 75%

this sense, the contrast essentially parallels those

invokes a contrast in that it implies the contrast

seen in motion expressions like (4) and speech

between 75% of electricity and the remaining

act like (5). As parallel phenomena, the25%. S & N (2018) examine why the deletion73

needs such contextual support to be licensed.

S & N (2018: 65) observe that nominal

According to their examination, this is due to thepredicates’ classifiers license the deletion.

covert ‫ק‬, which needs contextual support to

Therefore, in (11a), the omitted -gata ‘type’

recover the deleted head noun because of its

inducescovert nature.

licenses the deletion of denki ‘electricity.’

ungrammaticality

becausenothing

Parallelism can be found in DMCs. In (9), to

However, (11b) shows that the addition of 75%

walk occurs with in to form a DMC. This meansto (11a) licenses the deletion without thethat in can be directional and is interchangeableclassifier. This fact leads S & N (2018: 86) to thewith into.

claim that contrast-invoking elements like 75%
are parallel in function to the relevant classifiers.

(9) He walked {in/ into} the room.

In Japanese, the interpretation of directed(Nikitina (2008: 178))

motion can also be licensed without motion
verbs. Thus, -ni ‘to’ is directional even without

Nikitina (2008) points out that the directional in-iku ‘to go’ in (12).

is licensed only if the directional meaning can becontextually inferred:(10) John walked in the room from the outside.

(12) Byoogatyuu-no

gokenin-wa

sick-Gen

servant-Top

dairi-no(Namiki et al. (2013: 197))

mono-oyakata-ni

substitute-Gen person-Acc

castle-Goalhasira-se-ta.
In (10), the directional meaning is inferable fromrun-make-Pastfrom the outside, which denotes a starting point.

‘The sick servant made the substitute run

Head nouns can be deleted in nominal

to the castle.’

modification by nominal predicates as well as by(Namiki et al. (2013: 197))

RAdjs, as exemplified in (11a).
Shibatani(11) a.

b.

(1976)

observesthatcausative

Fransu-no

denki-wa

sentences like (12) imply accomplished events.

France-Gen

electricity-Top

Based on this observation, Namiki et al. (2013)

gensiryoku-??(gata)-noclaim that the causative (sa)se- ‘to make’ implies

nuclear-type-Gen

an accomplished motion event to license thedenki-da.

directional -ni ‘to.’ In this case, we can assume

electricity-Cop

that the causative morpheme is functionally‘French electricity is nuclear.’parallel to a motion verb.

Fransu-no

denki-noFrance-Gen

electricity-Gen

4. Toward a Theoretical Explanation: A

75%-wa gensiryoku-(gata)-noCompetition-Theoretic Approach

75%-Top nuclear-type-Gen

Our consideration so far has confirmed thatdenki-da.

Morphological Markedness Hypothesis is valid

electricity-Cop

because it properly describes the general‘75% of French electricity is nuclear.’contrast74

betweenEnglishandJapanese.

Nevertheless, as Miyake (2011: 191, 2015: 268,

Shimadan. 9) himself admits, this hypothesis is merely apredicates are compounds most of which consist

descriptiveof bound classifiers, as illustrated in (15).

generalization,

which

seeks

a

(2004)

observes

that

nominaltheoretical explanation; the ultimate reason for
the generalization in question to be valid(15) * (gensiryoku)-gata ‘lit. (nuclear) type’

remains unexplained. This section explores a* (komugi)-see ‘lit. (wheat) made’

possible theory regarding why the kind-denoting* (sankaku)-kee ‘lit. (triangular) form’‫ ק‬is morphologically marked in Japanese but notin English.
Here,

A bound form is the smallest morphologicalwereturntoMorphologicalunit.

Markedness Hypothesis, which is given in (13),These facts suggest that the contrast inand consider the underlined part.

morphological markedness has something to dowith thedistinction between

syntaxand(13) Japanese is strongly inclined to bemorphology. If so, Competition Theory ismorphologically marked, while English

helpful for our exploration because it is a unified

can likely be morphologically unmarked.

approach to cross-linguistic variations and a(= (6), underline mine)
The

part

impliesthat

Englishcanmorphology-syntax distinction.

be4.2. Competition Theory

morphologically unmarked but does not have to

The core assumption of Competition Theory

be so. Thus, morphological marking, that is, anis that morphology and syntax compete forovert realization, is possible in English.

structural

realization,

cross-linguistic
4.1.

Covert

vs.

Overt

=

Syntaxvs.

assumption,

Morphology

whichvariations.

languages

syntax-preferring

and

are

results

in

Under

this

classified

intomorphology-preferring

The following paraphrase confirms that

languages. The former prefer to morphologicallyEnglish can overtly realize the kind-denoting ‫ק‬realize an abstract morphosyntactic structure.

as nouns like type:The latter prefer a syntactic realization of thesame structure.

(14) nuclear electricity = nuclear type ofelectricity

Nishimaki (2018) analyzes English as(S & N (2018: 82))

syntax-preferring,andJapaneseasmorphology-preferring, observing that phrases
Combinations like nuclear type in (14) areinnormallyphrases.

compounds in Japanese. Thus, the English

Therefore, if nouns like type are overtly-realized

nominal phrase old friend ‘long-standing friend’forms of ‫ק‬, it is plausible that this head forms

corresponds to the Japanese A-N compound

nominal phrases with RAdjs. Additionally, given

kyuu-yuu ‘old friend.’ Both share the structure ofthat the overtly-realized forms are free-standing

nominal modification by an adjective. In ournouns, we can take ‫ ק‬as a free form. It is thecompetition-theoretic

smallest syntactic unit. On the other hand,correspondence means that this shared structure

analyzedasnominal75

Englishconsistently

correspond

approach,

the

to

above

is syntactically realized as a nominal phrase insame head in Japanese comes from the fact that

English because it is syntax-preferring; on the

it must be compounded with nonheads forothermorphological

hand,

the

same

structureisrealization.

Compounding

morphologically realized as an A-N compound

requires overt lexical items. As a result, thein Japanese, which is morphology-preferring.

kind-denoting ‫ ק‬is overtly realized as classifiersin Japanese. Since many classifiers are bound

4.3.

How

Can

the

‘Unmarked-Marked’

forms (see Section 4.1.), they must combine

Contrast Follow from Competition Theory?
Given

Morphologicalwith other elements to form morphological units,

Markedness

such as compounds. Thus, bound classifiers

Hypothesis, Competition Theory points towards

necessarily trigger morphological realization. S

the possibility that the unmarkedness of English& N (2018: 84) state that “[t]he morphologicalresults from syntactic realization while theamalgamation

markedness of Japanese is due to morphologicalinversion” in nominal modification by nominal

realization. In what follows, focusing on

predicates.

nominal modification, we pursue this possibility

gensiryoku-gata no denki is derived as in (16).

co-occurs
This

with

statement

word-order
means

that

to demonstrate how the ‘unmarked-marked’
contrast can follow from Competition Theory.

(16) [‫ ק‬gensiryoku-gata-no [‫ ק‬denki [‫ק‬]]]Competition-theoretically, the selection ofeither an unmarked or a marked option must be
consistent with the realization pattern required inCompetition-theoretically, this derivation is aa particular language. If so, the selection of an

naturalunmarkedamorphology-preferring nature of Japanese. The

syntax-preferring language, means that thismorphological amalgamation naturally follows

selection is consistent with syntactic realization;

if we assume that a classifier as an overt ‫ק‬the selection of a marked option in Japanese,

involves compounding to meet the requirement

which is morphology-preferring, means that thisof morphological realization in Japanese.

optioninEnglish,

that

is,

consequence

of

the

selection fits in with morphological realization.
The unmarkedness of the kind-denoting ‫ ק‬inEnglishdoes

syntactic

Adopting Adger (2013), S & N (2018)

realization. This head and RAdjs are free forms.

postulate the kind-denoting head ‫ ק‬in nominal

As such, the former needs no morphologicalmodification by RAdjs. This head is covert insupport by the latter, and vice versa. In addition,

English but overt in Japanese. RAdjs correspond‫ ק‬has no lexical content because it is a functional

to nominal predicates in Japanese. S & N

head.

neitheranalyze their classifiers as overtly-realized forms

morphosyntactic nor semantic motivation to beof ‫ק‬. The ‘covert-overt’ contrast is widespread in

overt in English. As a covert free form, it

English-Japanese translation pairs. This fact isconstitutes nominal phrases with RAdjs toformulated

assatisfy the requirement of syntactic realization.

Hypothesis.

Under

Therefore, ‫ ק‬can be morphologically unmarked.

demonstrate that the ‘covert-overt’ contrast in

On the other hand, the markedness of thethe realization of ‫ ק‬can be captured as an

That

not

is,

conflict

the

head

with

5. Concluding Remarks

has

76

Morphological
thisMarkedness

hypothesis,

weinstance of the general contrast between English

Kobuntekiand Japanese. Furthermore, our exploration(Constructional ・ Discourse

points to the possibility that Morphological

LicensingMarkedness

from

Locatives in Japanese and English),”Competition Theory. This theory suggests that

Proceedings of the 7th Annual Meeting of

the descriptive generalization given by thethe Kansai Branch of the English Literary

hypothesis comes from a morphology-syntax

Society of Japan, 197-198.

Hypothesis

follows

competition, which results in the fundamental

Danwateki

・
the

Goal

Joken
Conditions

Interpretationof

Nikitina, Tatiana (2008) “Pragmatic Factors anddistinction between English and Japanese.

Variation in the Expression of Spatial
Goals,” Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P,* This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI

ed. by Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlačil, Berit

Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) Grant

Gehrke and Rick Nouwen, 175-196, John

Number 20K00688.

Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Nishimaki,

Patterns:

Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word
OxfordUniversity(2018)

A

Study

on

Cross-Linguistic Variations in Realization

REFERENCES
Ackema, Peter and Ad Neeleman (2004) Beyond
Formation,

KazuyaNew

Proposals

Based

on

Competition Theory, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.

Press,

Shibatani, Masayoshi (1976) “Causativization,”

Oxford.

SyntaxAdger, David (2013) A Syntax of Substance,andSemantics

5,239-294,

Academic Press, New York.

MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Shimada Masaharu (2004) Doshiteki Kyoji niLevi, Judith N. (1978) The Syntax and Semantics

Kansuru Shogensho: Fuhen Bunpo karanoof Complex Nominals, Academic Press,

Bunseki (Some Phenomena in Verbal

New York.

Expletives:

Miyake, Tomohiro (2011) Nihongo Kenkyu no
Intaafeisu(InterfacesinGrammar),Japanese

Tomohiro(2015)‘Hojodoshi’

to(‘Auxiliary

Verbs’“Nihongo

nono

Bunpoka

Japanese
to

(but

and

in

Japanese

Not

Qualitatively):Comparative-StructuralA

Approach,”

Lexique 23, 62-89.

Kobunka(Grammaticalization
Constructionization

dissertation,“Relational Adjectives Used Predicatively‘Grammaticalization’ ・ ’Constructions’),”Nichieigo

DoctoralUniversal

Shimada, Masaharu and Akio Nagano (2018)‘Bunpoka’ ・ ’Kobun’
in

from

University of Tsukuba.

Linguistics), Kurosio, Tokyo.
Miyake,Analysis

Tenny,

Carol

L.

(2006)“Evidentiality,

andExperiencers, and the Syntax of Sentienceandin Japanese,” Journal of East AsianEnglish), ed. by Minoji Akimoto, Hiroshi

Linguistics 15, 245-288.

Aoki and Mitsuru Maeda, 352-371, Hituzi

Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa and Eunjeong Oh

Syobo, Tokyo.

(2007) On the Syntactic Composition of

Namiki, Shotaro, Kazuya Nishimaki and Tetsuya

MannerKogusuri “Basho Hyogen no Chakuten

andCambridge, Mass.

Kaishaku o Kano ni Suru Nichieigo no

77

Motion,MIT

Press,

(Gretchen Rubin, Better Than Before)(4) a. How about a little shorter? [said by ahairstylist](Culicover and Jackendoff (2005: 236))
Form and Meaning of the How about Let’s VP

b. How about a little later?

Construction: Through Comparison with
What about(Sumiyoshi (2016: 81))*

As far as we are aware, the following type of
Kota Nishiwaki

sentence where let’s VP follows how about has

Aichi Bunkyo University

not been sufficiently evaluated.

Keywords：the how about let’s VP construction,(5) [...], how about let’s talk about something

information structure, politeness(iWeb) 1

else.

In this paper, we call this type of sentence the
1. Introduction

how about let’s VP construction and compare it

The typical element following how about iswith the what about let’s VP construction. The

NP, as shown in (1).

how about let’s VP construction includes
examples where a comma occurs after how(1) How about a break / going for a meal?

about (see Section 2).

(OALD (s.v. how)) (All underlines in thisThis paper is organized as follows: Section 2

paper are added.)

describes the lexico-grammatical characteristics,
frequency, and acceptability of the how about

Nontypical elements are also observed. For

let’s VP construction. In Section 3 we examine

example, in (2a, b), a sentence starting with wethe semantics of the construction and discuss theand you, respectively, follows how about. In (3a,function of how about in our target construction.

b),

Section 4 presents the conclusion.

awhen-clause

and

an

after-clause,

respectively, follows how about. In (4a, b), how
about

is

followed

by

AdjP andAdvP,

2. Lexico-Grammatical Characteristics: The

respectively.

Frequency and Acceptability of the How
about Let’s VP Construction(2) a. “How about we do a sampling nextThissectiondescribes

theweek?” (Michael Gates Gill, How

lexico-grammatical characteristics, frequency,

Starbucks Saved My Life)and acceptability of our target construction,b. How about you stay home for the rest of
this week, [...].

using data from iWeb and judgements by eight
informants.2(R. J. Palacio, Wonder)(3) a. How about when I’m 40 and you’re 80?

Unlessotherwise

noted,

thesentences and frequencies in the following(Sumiyoshi (2016: 81))sections all come from iWeb.

b. “How about after Eleanor goes to bed?”
he suggested.

2.1. Lexico-Grammatical Characteristics

78

First, we observe the punctuation mark at theinterrogative sentence, a question mark is

end of sentences in the construction. The regular

expected with how about. In our target

expression (?i)\bhow about let\b extracted 62

construction, however, there are fewer sentences

examples from iWeb. After removing irrelevantwith a question mark than with non-interrogative

3

examples, 48 examples remained, which werepunctuation marks (e.g., a period).

divided into five groups shown in (6a−e) based

Next, in (8), we show verbs that occur afteron the punctuation mark.

how about(,) let’s in a positive sentence without
not after how about(,) let’s. The numbers in [ ](6) a. period: 21 examples

represent the frequencies.

b. exclamation mark: 2 examples(8) go [5], try [4], make [3], stop [3], see [3] 4c. question mark: 16 examples
d. with no explicit mark: 7 examples (e.g.

(words whose frequency is more than two)

“Here, how about let’s play this thing
this way, and then [...],” he said.)

The verb go, which is the most frequent in (8),e. cannot be judged because of ciphers: 2

also occurs frequently in the normal let’s

examples (e.g. How about let’s put ourconstruction without how about before let’s inmoney in a hole in a ground and rest

both American and British English (Biber et al.

easy because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @(1999: 1118)). According to Biber et al., in the@.) [To read the parts replaced withnormal let’s construction, the most frequent“@,” texts were checked online, but two

verbs following let’s are have and see in British

examples could not be found.]and American English, respectively; however,in the how about let’s VP constructions collected,(?!)\bhow

there is only one sentence with have. As for see,about ?, ?let\b, examples with a commain Biber et al., usages like “Um, let’s see, ...” areimmediately after how about and followed by let

included, although this usage is not our target. In

were extracted. Two examples in (7), which are(9), the following words/phrases occur after how

both our target, were extracted.

about(,) let’s in negative sentences:(7) a. Okay, so how about, let’s get rid of it?

(9) not and say we did [1], not advertise [1],

With

the

regularexpressionb. How about, let’s go with the industry

not insult [1]standard (lumens) for the same reason
all auto shift lever positions on the

As (8) and (9) show, our target construction isplanet are the same; [...]!

likely to occur in a positive sentence, which isthe same tendency as in the normal let’sIn (7a), the punctuation mark is a question mark,construction (Biber et al. (1999: 1117)).

but in (7b), the how about let’s VP construction

Finally, we focus on elements that occur

has no explicit mark. Of the 50 examples withimmediately before the how about(,) let’s VP.

and without a comma after how about, 17 end

Biber et al. (1999: 1117−8) state, “The [normal]

with a question mark and 23 with a period or an

let’s construction occurs infrequently withexclamation mark. Since how about marks anquestion tags [...], or with other peripheral

79elements [...]. In one regard, the addition of

Swan (2016: §31, 492.4) shows the following

peripheral elements is much more frequent: thisexamples. All the emphases in the following

is in the occurrence of inserts and otherquotations from the literature are in the original.

utterance launchers before let’s. In AmE, themost common utterance launchers are: well,(13) a. What/How

okay, yeah in that order [...]. In BrE, theabouteatingout

thisevening?

utterance launchers come on and right have ab. What/How about the kids? Who’s

higher frequency than okay and yeah.” In (10),going to look after them?

we list the utterance launchers, coordinate
conjunctions, and adverbial phrases that occur

Based on (11)−(13), it could be said that how

immediately before how about(,) let’s VP:

about has basically the same functions as what
about. If so, we might expect the same rates of5(10) so [3] , but [2], here [1], yeah [1], well [1]occurrence of what about(,) let’s VP and how
about(,) let’s VP. With the regular expression

The other 42 examples do not have any elements(?i)\bwhat about let\b, seven examples without

such as utterance launchers before how about(,)

a comma after what about were extracted from

let’s VP, which means our target construction has

iWeb. Five examples were regarded as our target.

theHere are some examples.

sametendencyasthenormallet’s

construction.
(14) a. What about let’s call it prestige?
2.2. The Frequency and Acceptability

b. What about let’s talk about the state ofHere, we observe the rate of occurrence ofdams across the US in general.

the how about let’s VP construction in iWeb. The

c. But what about let’s say BestInsurance.

frequency of the sequence how about itself is154,806. The frequency of our target is 50.

Like how about let’s VP, the regular expression

Therefore,(?!)\bwhat about ?, ?let\b extracted fivethefrequencyofourtarget6

construction is approximately 0.032%.

examples with a comma immediately after what

Now let us compare how about with what

about and followed by let. After removing

about with the explanations below.

irrelevant

examples,three(15a−c)wereregarded as our target. (15d) is one of the(11) When suggestions are being made, both

irrelevant examples.

forms [what about and how about] seem
more or less equally available (How about a(15) a. What about, let’s talk about the family

walk before lunch?) [...].

issues.

(Carter and McCarthy (2006: 15))

b. And then what about, let’s touch on(12) Both What about ...? and How about ...? arecommunication [...].

used to make suggestions and to bring up

c. What about, let’s go back to what you

points that have been forgotten.

said earlier [...].

(Swan (2016: §31, 492.4))

d. And what about, let’s say, stabbings?

80

Now we observe the rate of occurrence of what

This section focuses on the differences

about(,) let’s VP in iWeb. The frequency of the

between how about and what about, based onsequence what about itself is 254,370. The

the difference in whether they can be followed

frequency of what about(,) let’s VP is eight.

by let’s VP. Huddleston and Pullum [henceforth

Therefore, the frequency of our target form is

H&P] (2002: 910) present (17)−(19).

approximately 0.003%, which is one digit off
from how about(,) let’s VP (0.032%). Thus, how(17) A: The car’s in fine shape now.

about and what about differ in frequency when

B: What about the tyres?

followed by let’s VP. We now consider the(18) A: I’ve invited Peter.

judgements of (16a, b) by our informants. (16b)

B: And what about Paul?

was made by the author based on (16a), which(19) What about a game of squash?

was found in iWeb.
As for (17) and (18), H&P state that “What(16) a.

How about let’s try it one more time.

about is often used to introduce a new but

b. ? What about let’s try it one more time.

relatedtopic,”

whichisclassified

as“INFERABLE” in Prince’s (1981) taxonomy. As
All eight informants judged (16a) as acceptable,for (19), H&P say “What about can also be usedalthough there were comments as follows: It is

to make suggestions.” H&P suggest that inused in spoken English; it is more natural(17)−(19), “how about could be substituted.”

without how about; and the acceptability

Thus, so far, how about and what about are

depends largely on the intonation, stress, tone,

interchangeable. However, one difference can be

etc. As for (16b), four informants judged it asobserved in (20).

acceptable while the other four regarded it asless acceptable than (16a). We conclude that how(20) A: You know that knife I found?

about and what about differ in acceptability

B: Yes, what about it?

(H&P (2002: 910))

when followed by let’s VP. This qualitative fact
is parallel with the quantitative facts.

H&P say that “In [20] the topic marked by about
is not new, but old information,” which is

3. Semantic Characteristics of the How aboutclassified as “EVOKED” in Prince (1981).

Let’s VP Construction

Importantly, H&P do not suggest that how about

Here, we describe semantic characteristics of

could be substituted in (20) even though they

the how about let’s VP construction to elucidate

mention the possibility of substitution in

the differences between how about and what(17)−(19). Although this evidence that how

about. We also discuss the meaning and function

about is not compatible with old/evokedof the normal let’s construction and the functions

information is indirect, it is reinforced by theof how about in our target construction.

following comments of one informant. Our
informants were asked about the differences

3.1. The Differences between How about andbetween (21a) and (21b) and (22a) and (22b)What(see (13a, b)). The statements after the arrows

about

from

the

ViewpointofInformation Structure

are the comments of one informant.

81

normal let’s construction. Based on H&P, the(21) a. How about eating out this evening?

meaning of the normal let’s construction can be→ I think this is the first time to suggest

divided into three groups: “a proposal for joint

something.

action” (23), “1st inclusive let-imperative” (24),b. What about eating out this evening?

and a special case “where the action is in fact to→Maybe a new option—the 2nd or 3rd

be carried out by just one (typically thesuggestion in a series of suggestions.

speaker)” (25). Look at the examples below.

(22) a. How about the kids? Who’s going to

H&P (2002: 936) say when let’s is used, “alook after them?

verbal response is normally expected, indicating→Again, maybe “How about ...” is usedagreement or refusal,” as illustrated (H&P

for the first suggestion.

(2002: 936)) in the conversation in (23).

b. What about the kids? Who’s going tolook after them?

(23) A: Let’s go for a walk.

→“What about ...” seems to be a new

B: Okay, just let me put some shoes on. /Not just now: I must finish this letter.7

suggestion or new option to me.
In (21a) and (22a), “the first” is what Prince

H&P (2002: 936) then suggest that “the force is(1981) classifies as “NEW,” while “a new” isthus of a proposal for joint action, which thewhat Prince classifies as “INFERABLE.” In sum,addressee can accept or reject.” In addition,

how about is likely compatible with new or

H&P (2002: 936) point out “one use where no

inferable information, while what about is likely

verbal response is expected: agreement is taken

compatiblefor granted.” The sentence in (24) is an example.

withinferableorold/evoked

information. This is a tendency, and some
informants do not admit any differences.

(24) Let’s consider now the effect of increasing

1

O-LEX (s.v. let ) says, “Let’s … is an

the velocity. [1st inclusive let-imperative]

expression used when the addresser’s opinion
will agree with the addressee’s opinion and is

Furthermore, H&P (2002: 936) state that “A

not used to make sure what has already been

special case is where the action is in fact to be

decided,” which means that the normal let’s

carried out by just one (typically the speaker).”

construction is compatible with new information

As one example, H&P show (25).

but not with old/evoked information. We could
say that how about and let’s VP are compatible
becausebotharecompatible

with(25) Let’s open the window [with the aim ofnew

securing your agreement to my opening it].

information while what about and let’s VP are
not because what about is not compatible with

3.3. The Meaning of the How about Let’s VP

new information.

Construction
The three types of meaning of the normal

3.2. The Meaning of the Normal Let’s

let’s construction are carried over to the meaning

Constructionof the how about let’s VP construction. Let us

Here, let us focus on the meaning of theexamine the examples in (26−28), extracted82

from iWeb.

say something to me.
b. [...] (29b) is a little more tentative, less

(26) How about let’s all go out to dinner?

insistent, than sentence (29a). That is,(27) How about let’s try it one more time. And(29b) makes it easier for the otherthis time try actually quoting the Court andpeople in the group to refuse or to makeproviding proper pin cites.

an alternative suggestion (e.g. “No, let’s(28) Well, how about let’s bring it back today!

phone and get some pizza delivered”).

Here is the latest- ePSXe emulator with all[...] Similar to sentence (29b), (30b) is

the newest plugins bundled altogether in amore polite in a specific sense of the[sic] 8 MB package.

word “polite”: it allows the other people
to express their preferences and to refuse

In (26), as the word all shows, the sentence

my suggestion more easily.

functions as “a proposal for joint action.” In (27),the addresser is telling the addressee what theyLDOCE (s.v. let’s) explains that “Let’s is used toshould do next time. As the second sentence issuggest in a fairly firm way that you andthe imperative, the how about let’s VP

someone else should do something together andconstruction functions as a “1st inclusive

is usually used when you think the other person

let-imperative.” In (28), the addresser is telling

will agree.” Taking the description of LDOCE

us about how technology has advanced. The

into consideration, politeness or being circuitousaddresser alone can decide the progression of theis an important aspect of the function of how

discussion, which means that in (28) the action

about in the construction, as stated in (31a, b).8

is to be carried out by the addresser.
4. Conclusion
3.4. The Function of How about in the How

In

about Let’s VP Construction

thispaper,

lexico-grammaticalandsemantic characteristics of the how about let’sNow, let us look at some informant

VP

construction
of

were

described

information

and

the

structureandcomments about the function of how about inimportanceour target construction. The informants werepoliteness in this construction were highlighted.

shown (29a, b) and (30a, b) and asked about the

In future research, we will focus on spoken

differences in each set. (29a) and (30a) wereand historical data of this construction. We

made by the author based on (26) and (27). (31a,would also like to reinforce the analysis of theb) are comments by two American informants.

theoretical meaning of how about in thisconstruction and discuss its raison d’être.

(29) a. Let’s all go out to dinner.
b. How about let’s all go out to dinner?

* I would like to thank all the people who(30) a. Let’s try it one more time.

commented on this research and all theb. How about let’s try it one more time.

informants who cooperated with me in judging(31) a. [...] Unsure in (29b, 30b) whether thethe acceptability of the sentences shown in thisHOW ABOUT is perfect English by the

paper. Of course, all remaining errors are mine.

textbook, but seems a circuitous way to

NOTES

83

1

iWeb is the Intelligent Web Corpus (“14 billion

English and Usage, Cambridge University

words / 22 million web pages / ~100,000

Press, Cambridge.

websites”). We use the full text data, where

Culicover, Peter William and Ray S. Jackendoff“[e]very 200 words, ten words are removed and(2005) Simpler Syntax, Oxford University

are replaced with “@,” making “the text rather

Press, New York.

useless for anyone who wanted to read it as a

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum

text.” For more information about iWeb, see(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of thehttps://www.corpusdata.org/limitations.asp.

English Language, Cambridge University

2

Press, Cambridge.

Seven are from the U.S. and the other one isfrom the U.K.

Prince, Ellen F. (1981) “Toward a Taxonomy of

Out of 62 examples, let’s VP does not follow

Given-New

how about in 14.

Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 223–256,

4

Academic Press, New York.

3

Of the three examples of see, one isInformation,”

RadicalSumiyoshi, Makoto (2016) Danwa no Kotoba 2

coordinated with wait: wait and see.
Of the three examples of so, one is used after

Kihan karano Kaiho (Words of Discourse 2

Okay (= (7a)).

Liberation from a Standard), Kenkyusha,

5

6

The

frequency

of

how

about

we

Tokyo.

isSwan, Michael (2016) Practical English Usage

approximately 2.813%. See (2a).
We need to be careful that the second response

Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press,cannot be a true refusal but rather refuses the

Oxford.

7

timing: Person B is going to join person A later.
8

CORPUS

Another informant said, “Depending on tone,

The Intelligent Web Corpus Full Text (iWeb)(30b) could be stronger or weaker than (30a).”
How about itself has the function of a directive(H&P (2002: 909)), and (30b) belongs to the

DICTIONARIES

type of “1st inclusive let-imperative.” HowLongman Dictionary of Contemporary English

about in our target construction might not

5th Edition (LDOCE), Pearson Education

always function as a marker of politeness. Our

Limited, London.
O-Lex English-Japanese Dictionary 2nd Edition

future research will further describe the function(O-LEX), Obunsha, Tokyo.

of how about in this construction.

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 10th
Edition (OALD), Oxford University Press,

REFERENCES
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech,

Oxford.

Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan (1999)
Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written
English,Pearson

Education

Limited,

Harlow.
Carter, Ronald and Michael McCarthy (2006)
Cambridge

Grammarof

English:A

Comprehensive Guide: Spoken and Written

84While RM allows pied-piping, it prohibits
P-stranding (DP-movement out of a PP phase),
as shown in (2a, b).

In contrast to RM, LM canstrand a preposition, as shown in (2c).
Optional Movement and an Economy
Condition

Next, RM cannot raise an argument out of a*

vP/CP phase that immediately contains the baseposition of the argument.

Shogo Saito
Hirosaki Gakuin University(3) a.

Sam [vP read ti yesterday [the bookabout English linguistics]i].

Keywords：optional movement, rightward

b. * Max [vP described ti for Bill] drunk, [amovement, economy condition, string-vacuity

popular Broadway musical]i.
(Sabbagh (2007: 350))c. * John claimed [CP that Sam loves ti]

1. Introduction

yesterday [the new headmaster]i.

This paper argues that a locality constraint(Bachrach and Katzir (2009: 286))

on rightward movement (RM) is explained by an
output economy condition.

d.

It is known that

[The book about English linguistics]i,John said that Sam read ti.

RM is restricted by the constraint in (1), which
is not imposed on leftward movement (LM).

RM to a vP-internal position is grammatical, as
shown in (3a).

(1) Right Roof Constraint (RRC)

In contrast, RM to a vP-external

position or to a CP-external position is

Rightward movement may move andungrammatical, as shown in (3b, c).

right-adjoin an element X to the cyclic nodeother hand, LM can cross vP phases and CP(vP/CP/PP phase) in which X is merged,

phases, as shown in (3d).

but no further.

(cf. Sabbagh (2007))On theDrummond, Hornstein and Lasnik (2010)(henceforth, DHL (2010)) attempt to explain theThis means that RM cannot extract any element

locality constraint, on the basis of Fox andout of a phase.

Pesetsky’s (2005) Cyclic Linearization.

below.

I demonstrate the constraint

First, DP cannot be extracted out of aThey

assume (i) that the linearization operation

PP phase.

applies to a whole phase domain phase-by-phase,(ii) that linearization statements must be(2) a.

John looked ti in the living room

consistent through the derivation, and (iii) that

yesterday [at the man who lived next

movement passes through the left edge specifierdoor]i.

of a phase.

(Drummond, Hornstein and Lasnik (2010: 689))

These assumptions give thesentence in (2b) the derivation in (4), with theb.* John looked at ti in the living room

assumption that PP/vP(/CP) is a phase.

yesterday [the man who lived nextdoor]i.

(ibid.)(4) a.

c. [The man]i, John looked at ti.

Syn(PP) : [PP DPi [P′ at ti]]
Lin(PP) : DP < at

85

b.

Syn(vP) : [vP John v look at ti in the< withoutP < DPliving room yesterday DPi]
Lin(vP) : John < look < at < in the

It incorrectly predicts that the sentence isliving room < yesterday <ungrammaticalbecausethelinearization

DPstatements in (6a, b) are inconsistent.

Thus,

DHL’s analysis is problematic.
The moved DP precedes the preposition at theThis paper proposes a new explanation of thestep of the PP-level linearization (since it moves

locality constraint on RM, from the perspective

via the left edge specifier of the PP phase), but itof an economy condition.

follows the preposition at the subsequentorganized as follows.

Section 2 shows my

vP-level linearization.

proposal and analysis.

Section 3 provides a

The former linearization

This paper isstatement is inconsistent with the latter, andconsequence of the proposal.

therefore the P-stranding RM is blocked.

concludes this paper.

also

explain

that

RM

with

DHL

Section 4

intermediate

movement to the left edge of a vP/CP phase is

2. Proposal and Analysis

prohibited in the same way.

In this section, I adopt some assumptions,

Although DHL’s explanation is insightful, it

and provide a new analysis.

The analysis

is not enough because it cannot capture some

focuses on the optionality of RM, which is

exceptional cases.

demonstrated by (7a, b).

Sentence (5a) shows that

RM with a parasitic gap (PG) allows P-stranding,and sentence (5b) shows that RM with a PG

(7) a.

crosses a CP.

linguistics yesterday.
b.

(5) a.

John read the book about English

I talked to ti yesterday without actually

John read ti yesterday [the book about
English linguistics]i.

meeting pgi [all the members who
voted against Hinkly]i.

The sentences are grammatical with or without(Postal (1994: 104))b.

RM.

I claimed [CP that I liked ti] in order toThis means that RM is not obligatory forconvergence.

get you to rent pgi [that movie with

It has been claimed that optional movement

Fred Astaire and Audrey Hepburn]i.

is constrained by some economy conditions.

(Overfelt (2015: 14))

Among them, I adopt an output economy in (8a)and Shortest Move in (8b), in order to explain

For example, DHL’s analysis gives the sentence

the constraint on RM.

in (5a) the derivation in (6).
(8) a.
(6) a.

Syn(PP) : [PP DPi [P′ to ti]]output.

Lin(PP) : DP < tob.

Optional operations must affect the(Chomsky (1995), Fox (2000), Reinhart (2006))

Syn(CP) : [CP Ij T tj v talk to tib.

yesterday withoutP DPi]

Movement must target the position
where a moved element is interpretable.

Lin(CP) : I < T < talk < to < yesterday(cf. Fox (2000))86

(8a) means that movement must affect PF output

Syn(PP) : [PP [P′ at DP1] DP2]or LF output.

Lin(PP) : at < DP1 < DP2(8b) requires the closest

movement step whose resulting representation iscompositionallyinterpretable,

which

forcesThe RM to the right edge of the PP phase is

movement to target the closest sentence-typestring-vacuous, and therefore it violates (10).

position.

Hence, the P-stranding RM is banned.

In addition, I adopt some assumptions about

In contrast, pied-piping movement proceeds

linearization in (9a-c).

as follows:(9) a.

(12) John looked ti in the living room yesterday

Linearization applies at every phase(CP/vP/PP).

[at the man who lived next door]i.
Syn(vP): [vP John v look PP1 in the living(cf. Fox and Pesetsky (2005), Sabbagh (2007))b.

room yesterday PP2]

Linearization targets a whole phase.

Lin(vP): John < look < PP1 < in the living(cf. Fox and Pesetsky (2005))c.

room < yesterday < PP2

LM proceeds via the left edge of aphrase, and RM proceeds via the rightedge of that.

The movement satisfies (10) because it changes
the preceding relation between the moved PP

The assumptions in (9a, b) are the same as

and the vP-internal adjuncts. Therefore, This

DHL’s.

sentence is grammatical.

In contrast, (9c), which comes frommany previous studies on RM, is different fromThe PP-level derivation of P-stranding LM iswhat DHL assume.

as follows:

On the basis of the above assumptions, I
argue that RM is regulated at each stage of(13) [The man]i, John looked at ti.
Syn(PP): [PP DP2 [P′ at DP1]]

cyclic Spell-Out by the following condition:

Lin(PP) : DP2 < at < DP1(10) Optional RM must change linear order(preceding relation).

The movement also satisfies (10) because itchanges the preceding relation between theThis condition means that RM is prohibited if it

moved DP and the preposition.

is a string-vacuous step.

distinction between RM and LM is explained

Then, let me turn to the analysis of theThus, the(I will show further derivation of LM in (16)).

locality constraint observed in Section 1. To

Next, let me turn to the analysis of the

begin with, I analyze the PP-level derivation of

movement to a vP-external position.

the P-stranding sentence, as schematized in (11).

moving on to the analysis, I provide a structural

In the following schemas, copies are numberedassumption about the verbal spine, on the basis

just for the expository purpose.

of Overfelt (2015).

(11) * John looked at ti in the living room(14) [YP [XP [vP Subj v V Obj Low Adjunct vP] XP]

yesterday [the man who lived next door]i.

High Adjunct YP]

87

BeforeI divide adjuncts adjoined on the verbal spine

derived as follows.

into two types: vP-internal low adjuncts andvP-external high adjuncts.

More specifically, I(16) [The book about English linguistics]i, John

assume that high adjuncts are adjoined to YP,

said that Sam read ti.

which is separated from vP by XP. (XP may

Syn(vP): [vP DP2 Sam v read DP1]

correspond to FocusP in Overfelt (2015).)Lin(vP): DP2 < Sam < read < DP1
Syn(CP): [CP DP5 that [TP DP4 Sam T … [XPWith this assumption, RM to a vP-external

DP3 Sam X [vP DP2 Sam v readposition proceeds as follows:

DP1]]…]]
Lin(CP): DP5 < that < DP4 < Sam < T < …

(15) Max [vP described ti for Bill] drunk, [apopular Broadway musical]i.

< DP3 < Sam < DP2 < Sam < readSyn(vP): [vP Max v describe DP1 for Bill

< DP1

DP2]
Lin(vP): Max < describe < DP1 < for Bill <Here, I assume that optional LM from DP1 to

DP2

DP4

Syn(CP): [CP C [TP Max T [YP … [XP … [vPwithsuccessive

A-movement of the subject.

Max v describe DP1 for Bill DP2]
3

proceeds

cyclicGiven this, these

movement operations apply as follows.

41

DP ] drunk DP ]]]2

movement from DP to DP applies.

Firstly,

Secondly,

Lin(CP): Max < T < … < Max < describe <the A-movement of the subject crosses DP2.

DP1 < for Bill < DP2 < DP3 <Next, movement from DP2 to DP3 crosses the

drunk < DP4

moved subject.

Then, the shortest move of the

topicalized DP applies so that it crosses the
In this case, movement in the vP phase satisfies

A-moved element. Since the steps satisfy (10),(10) because it crosses the low adjunctat least movement to DP4 is allowed.

(Note

4

In

5

that the movement to a vP edge is banned if theaddition, movement from DP to DP is also

low adjunct does not exist).

However,possible because it changes the preceding

movement from DP to DP (i.e. movement from

relation between the moved DP and that.1

the vP edge to the XP edge) violates (10).

Thus, LM can cross a vP/CP phase.

2

3

Notice that this step cannot be avoided becauseof the Shortest Move requirement.

Then, let me turn to the fact that RM withThat is, RM

PG is grammatical even if it violates RRC.

to a vP-external position is always prohibitedThis

because at least movement from a vP edge to an

obligatoriness of the movement.

XP edge violates (10).

In the same way,

the discussion in this section has shown thatmovement to a CP-external position is also

RRC is derived from the economy condition onprohibited since the derivation includes the same

“optional movement.” Remember from (7) thatstep.

the target of RRC is not obligatory for

Thus, the RRC is explained by thecurrent proposal(I omit the analysis ofisexplained

convergence.

byfocusing

onthe

Notice that

In contrast to the ordinary RM,

movement to a vP-internal position because I

RM with a PG is obligatory, as demonstrated

have already shown it in (12)).

below.

In contrast, LM crossing a vP/CP phase is88

(17) a.

I talked to ti yesterday without actuallyc. * Someone claims that John talked about

meeting pgi [all the members who

something but I don’t know [whovoted against Hinkly]i.

claims that John talked about what].

a′. * I talked to [all the members who votedd.

against Hinkly]i yesterday without

John talked about Bill and [Marytalked about Susan].

actually meeting pgi.
b.

(Abe and Hoshi (1997: 101))

I claimed [CP that I liked ti] in order to

e. ?*John talked about Bill and [Maryget you to rent pgi [that movie withtalked about Susan].

(ibid.: 102)

Fred Astaire and Audrey Hepburn]i.

f. * Mary claims that Jill likes apples andb′. * I claimed that I liked [that movie with

[Ann claims that Jill likes oranges].

Fred Astaire and Audrey Hepburn]i in(Grano and Lasnik (2018: 466))

order to get you to rent pgi.

g.

John likes apples and [Bill does likeoranges].

This means that movement with a PG is not thetarget of the constraint in (10).

(ibid.: 470)h. * You can’t count on a stranger, but you

Therefore, it iscan count on a friend.

natural that this kind of movement does not obey

(Fetters and White (2016: 206))

RRC.

i. * John claims that Mark likes apples andIn this section, I have proposed an economy[Bill does claim that Mark likes

condition and shown that it explains RRC.

oranges].(Grano and Lasnik (2018: 470))

Then, I will show a consequence of my proposal
in the next section.

Some authors try to explain these limitations byassuming RM of the second remnant, as

3. Consequenceschematized in (19).

It has been argued that some limitations ofmultiplesluicing/gapping/pseudogapping

related to constraints on RM.

That is, they attempt toreduce the limitations on the ellipses to those on

are

RM.

One of theHere, halftone dot meshing refers to adeletion site.

limitations is that a complement of a preposition
cannot appear as a remnant without pied-piping(19) Movement and Deletion Analysis

the preposition, as shown in (18b, e, h), andRemnant1 t1 … t2 Remnant2another is that a remnant cannot appear if it isbasegenerated within an embedded finite clause,(cf. Lasnik (2014), Jayaseelan (1990))

as shown in (18c, f, i).
According to this approach, a remnant cannot be(18) a. ? Someone talked about something, but I

extracted out of a PP or a finite clause because

can’t remember [who talked aboutwhat].

such RM is impossible.

(Lasnik (2014: 8))

Although some studies argue for thisb. ?*Some linguist spoke about some paper

approach, others argue against it because someon sluicing, but I don’t know [whichof the ellipses require RRC-violating RM. For

linguist spoke about which paper on

example, consider the case of multiple sluicing.

sluicing].

(ibid.: 9)89

(20) [CP whoi C [TP … [vP ti talked tj] … ] [about(22) a.

Syn(PP) : [PP [P′ about DP1] DP2]
Lin(PP) : about < DP1 < DP2what]j](cf. *John talked about the student, andThe derivation of (20) requires the second

Mary talked to the student.)

remnant to cross a vP phase so that it can beextracted out of the deletion site.

b.

Syn(CP) : [CP that [TP John T … [vPJohn v [VP talk PP1] PP2] …

Since thisPP3] PP4]

movement is impossible for ordinary RM, it isproblematic to reduce the limitations on the

Lin(CP) : that < John < T < … < John< talk < PP1 < PP2 … < PP3

ellipses to those on RM.

< PP4However, the current proposal can solve thisproblem.

I assume that linearization statements(cf. *John wonders whether Maryare deleted as a by-product of ellipsis (cf. Fox

passed the exam, but Bill claimed thatand Pesetsky (2005)), and that VP-ellipsis (cf.

Mary passed the exam.)

Sato (2013)) applies at a vP phase andTP-ellipsis (Lasnik (2014)) applies at a CP phase.

Thus, the limitations of the ellipses can beThen, the derivation of multiple sluicing

explained by the current proposal.

proceeds as follows:
4. Conclusion
112(21) Syn(vP) : [vP who v [VP talk PP ] PP ]This paper argues that RRC is explained by

Lin(vP) : who1 < talk < PP1 < PP2
3

an economy condition. Specifically, I propose

2

Syn(CP) : [CP who C [TP who T … [vP
1

1

that RM must affect its PF output (preceding2

who v [VP talk PP ] PP ] …

relation) and string-vacuous RM is banned.

PP3] PP4]

My proposal explains the ban on ordinary RM

3

2

1

Lin(CP) : who < C < who < T < … < who1

2

3< talk < PP < PP … < PP < PPcrossing a phase, and some exceptional cases

4with a PG.
current

In addition, I also show that the

proposalcanaccount

forsome

The RM of the second remnant at the vP-level islimitations of multiple sluicing/gapping/pseudo

string-vacuous.

-gapping.

However, the violation of (10)can be avoided because VP-ellipsis deletes thelower copy of it, and the resulting statement* An earlier version of this paper was presented

does not violate (10).

In the same way,at the 39th Meeting of the English Linguistic

movement to the CP edge is also allowed due toSociety of Japan, held online in November, 2021.

TP-ellipsis.

Thus, RM crossing a phase is

I am grateful to the audience at the meeting, andpossible in multiple sluicing (and gapping/

I would like to thank Yosuke Sato and Satoru

pseudogapping).

Kanno for invaluable comments and suggestions.

On the other hand, this kind of derivation is
impossible

in

the

ungrammatical

All remaining errors and inadequacies are mycases:

own. This work was partly supported by a

P-stranding movement and movement crossing a

Grant-in-Aid

finite clause.

KAKENHI Grant No. JP21K13026).

This is because a complement of

P or embedded finite C cannot be elided.

90

for

Young

Scientists

(JSPS

1

Drummond,

NOTE
This analysis cannot apply to the case without
4

Alex,

NorbertHornstein

andHoward Lasnik (2010) “A Puzzle about5

the overt C, because movement from DP to DP

P-Stranding and a Possible Solution,”is string-vacuous as exemplified below.

Linguistic Inquiry 41, 689-692.
Fetters, Michael and Aaron Steven White (2016)(i) [The book]i, John said Sam read ti.
5“Pseudogapping Does Not Involve Heavy

4

Syn(CP) : [CP DP C [TP DP Sam T …

Shift,” WCCFL 34, 205-213.

Lin(CP) : DP5 < DP4 < Sam < T < …

Fox, Danny (2000) Economy and Semantic
Interpretation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

One of the solutions is that the C is originallyFox, Danny and David Pesetsky (2005) “Cyclic

overt and deleted after evaluation (satisfaction)

Linearizationof (10).

Theoretical Linguistics 31, 1-45.

However, this raises a new problem

because I assume in Section 3 that deletion in
multiplesluicing/gapping

Syntactic

Structure,”

Grano, Thomas and Howard Lasnik (2018)/pseudogapping

applies before evaluation (violation) of (10).

of“How to Neutralize a Finite ClauseA

Boundary: Phase Theory and the Grammar

potential solution is that the two kinds of ellipsesof Bound Pronouns,” Linguistic Inquiry 49,

apply at different timing.

465-499.

In fact, some studies

propose ellipsis of syntactic constituents thatapplies

at

an

early

stage,

andthatGüneş, Güliz and Anikó Lipták (to appear) The

of

Derivational Timing of Ellipsis, Oxford

phonological constituents that applies at a latestage (see Güneş and Lipták (to appear)).

University Press.

I

Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil Achuthan (1990)

assume that deletion in multiple sluicing/“Incomplete VP Deletion and Gapping,”

gapping/pseudogapping, which targets syntactic

Linguistic Analysis 20, 64-81.

constituents(phrase),appliesearlierthan

Lasnik, Howard (2014) “Multiple Sluicing inevaluation of (10), and that deletion of C, which

English?,” Syntax 17, 1-20.

does not target the same kind of syntactic

Overfelt,

constituent, applies later than evaluation of (10).

Jason(2015)

Successive-Cyclic“Unbounded

Rightward

DP-

Movement,” Lingua 162, 1-31.
Postal,REFERENCES
Abe, Jun and Hiroto Hoshi (1997) “Gapping and
P-Stranding,”

Journal

of

East

Paul

M.

(1994)“Parasitic

andPseudoparasitic Gaps,” Linguistic Inquiry

Asian25, 63-117.

Linguistics 6, 101-136.

Reinhart, Tanya (2006) Interface Strategies:

Bachrach, Asaf and Roni Katzir (2009) “Right

Optimal and Costly Computations, MIT

Node Raising and Delayed Spell-Out,”InterPhases:

Press, Cambridge, MA.

Phase-Theoretic

Sabbagh,

Joseph(2007)“OrderingandInvestigations of Linguistic Interfaces, ed.

Linearizing RM,” Natural Language andby Kleanthes Grohmann, 283-316, Oxford

Linguistic Theory 25, 349-401.

University Press, New York.
Chomsky,Noam(1995)The

Sato,
Minimalist

Motoki(2013)

VP-Ellipsis,” English

Program, Cambridge, MA.

608-626.

91

“Two

Types

of

Linguistics 30,

As Hornstein argues, the attempt to derive
control constructions with A-movement istheoretically desirable because it does not
require a stipulated grammatical element: PRO.
An Analysis of Partial Control from Label

There remain, however, some unsolved issues to*and Merge

be explained in this approach. Though theanalysis itself is intriguing, MTC has been

Yuya Sakumoto

criticized in literature (e.g. Landau (2000, 2003,

Graduate School of Kyushu University2013)). This paper focuses on one of the most
famous counterarguments to MTC: i.e., PC.

Keywords：partial control, movement theory ofcontrol, label, free merge

3. Partial Control vs. Exhaustive Control
Landau (2000, 2003) presents the following
example as a strong counterexample to MTC:

1. Introduction
This paper attempts to explain partial control(2)

We thought that…

(henceforth, PC) based on Movement Theory of

The chair1 preferred [PRO1+ to gather at

Control (hereafter, MTC), as proposed by

6].

(Landau (2003: 493))

Hornstein (1999). Specifically, we argue that theexistence of the C label, which plays an

The representation PRO1+ in (2) indicates thatimportant role in discourse-related construal at

the antecedents of PRO in the embedded clausetheinterfaces,

the

PC

contain not only a DP subject in the main clause,

proposal,thebut also a contextually determined person. In

derivation of complement clauses with PC

other words, discourse information is necessary

involves topicalization, which eliminates thefor the interpretation of PC. Landau (2000,

stipulated assumption and further supports the2003) points out that MTC cannot account forvalidity of MTC.

PC because the trace left in the position of PROinterpretation.

isnecessary

Under

our

for

in (2) needs to be strictly identical to the main
2. Movement Theory of Control (MTC)

clause subject if the movement analysis is used.

Hornstein (1999) proposes to derive control

Then, let us consider exhaustive control

constructions with the movement analysis: under(henceforth, EC). Landau (2000) observes that

the Minimalist Framework, nothing prevents

PRO in EC does not take the 1+ interpretation

movement into theta positions (cf. Chomsky

unlike PC: in EC type, PRO must be strictly(1981)). Hence, just like raising, control

identical to the antecedent of the main clause:

constructions can be derived by A-movement:(3)(1) a.
b.

John tried to win.

We thought that . . .
*John1 managed [PRO1+ to gather at 6].
(Landau (2013: 157))

Johni tried [John to win].

Landau (2000) observes that [+tense] is required

92

for control complements to obtain the PC

other:

interpretation, and EC complements, which dosemantically plural. Thus, PC and SC have been

1

PRO

is

both

syntacticallyandnot allow 1+ interpretation, are [-tense]. Landau

considered to have different properties (Landau(2000, 2013) argues that the presence of tense is(2000, 2013)). This paper also attempts to derive

indicated by a temporal adverb, as in thethe difference between PC and SC from thedifference in grammaticality in (4) (see Landau

movement(2013: 158) for comprehensive lists):

interpretation of PRO can be either PC or SC,

analysis.

Interestingly,

thedepending on the context (Barrie and Pittman(4) a. *Yesterday, John managed to solve the(2004)):

problem tomorrow.
b.

Yesterday, John wondered how to(7)solve the problem tomorrow.

he should kiss his girlfriend. John

(Landau (2013: 158))

couldn’t decide whether to kiss in thelibrary

As (4) shows, the only the control complements,issemanticallyplural,theparlour.

Bill(Barrie and Pittman (2004: 77))

Furthermore, Landau (2000) points out thatPC

inlibrary.

tense independent of the main clauses.
inorpersuaded Johni ei+ to kiss in thewhich allow the PC interpretation, can have a

PROJohn was discussing with Bill wherebutsyntactically singular, based on the following

The verb persuade in (7) can take a SC

fact:

complement. However, Barrie and Pittman(2004) observe that under the context of (7), the(5)*John told Mary that he preferred tointerpretation of PC is more natural. Therefore,

meet each other at 6 today.

PRO in Bill persuaded John to kiss in the library(Landau (2000: 48))can be interpreted as either PC or SC.
Furthermore, Landau (2000) observes thatAs shown in (5), PRO in PC cannot license

PC cannot arise in raising constructions:the reciprocal pronoun each other. From thisfact, Landau (2000) concludes that PRO in PC is(8)semantically plural but syntactically singular.

*John is likely to meet tomorrow.
(Landau (2000: 30))This property is clearly different from the one ofsplit control (henceforth, SC):

4. Previous Analyses and their Problems
4.1 The Problems with PRO Analysis(6)

Johni proposed to Maryj PROi+j to

One empirical problem with the PRO

meet each other at 6.

analysis is that PC cannot appear in adjunct(Landau (2000: 53))

clauses (Hornstein (2003)). The presence of thetemporal adverb in the adjunct clause in (9)In (6), the antecedents of PRO are the two DPsshows that the adjunct clause is [+tense]:

in the main clause. Unlike the case in PC, PRO
in SC can license the reciprocal pronoun each

93

(9)

John saw Mary yesterday (in order) toovert bound pronoun. Second, as can be seen inleave early tomorrow.

(12), a bound pronoun can appear in an adjunct(Hornstein (2003: 43))

clause unlike PRO in PC:

However, as Hornstein (2003) points out, the(12)PRO analysis cannot explain why adjunctstudy syntax when theyi gather atclauses cannot have the PC interpretation (seenoon.

Landau (2007) for the objection):(10)

Third, if PRO in PC is syntactically singular, as*John saw Mary after/without PRO
meeting/gathering at 6.

Every committee headi would like toGrano (2015) argues, then it is necessary to(ibid.)

assume the different kind of PRO for SC, which
is syntactically plural, as indicated in (6). Based

Another problem is the specialty of PRO. As

on these, it is doubtful to consider PRO in PC as

Hornstein (2003: 39) argues, “PRO is uniquea bound pronoun.

among lexical items in having its number
specification contextually specified.” If PRO has

4.2 Null Element Analysis

the property of the pronoun, it is not clear why

Previous studies (from either the movement

only PRO can have the PC interpretation, unlike

analysis or PRO analysis) have assumed thenormal pronouns.

existence of null pro or the null Associative

To support the PRO analysis for PC, Grano

Morpheme (AM) for explaining the peculiar(2015) argues that PRO in PC is a boundbehavior of PC: null comitative (e.g. Hornsteinpronoun (see also Landau (2016b)). He observes(2003)), and the null associative morpheme (orthat the bound pronoun, they in (11a) expresses apro) (Rodrigues (2007), Madigan (2008), andmeaning similar to that of PRO in (11b).

Landau (2015, 2016b)). In this paper, we refer tothese analyses as “null element analyses.”(11) a. Every committee head1 hoped that they1+

Null

would gather at noon.

element

analysesappeartoaccommodate the peculiar properties of PC, but

b. Every committee head1 hoped PRO1+ to

as Landau (2007, 2013) and Grano (2017) argue,
they cannot explain the distribution of PC (seegather at noon.

also Grano (2017) and Landau (2013, 2016a, b)).

(Grano (2015: 41, partially modified))

For example, Landau (2013) points out that
Rodrigues’ (2007) approach cannot account for

PRO in PC is syntactically singular, while a

why raising complements do not show PC.2 Thisbound pronoun is syntactically plural, and Grano

paper attempts to explain its distribution by(2015) claims that this is the only difference

focusing on the role of the label in C.

between PRO and a bound pronoun.
However, the analysis, which considers PRO

5. An Alternative Analysis

in PC as a bound pronoun, raises some problems.

Before going on to our proposal, let us

First, it is not clear why there is a difference inintroduce some fundamental ideas for our

syntactic number between PRO in PC and an94

proposal from previous research.

In addition, previous studies have argued that
C(P) plays a crucial role in discourses, such as

5.1 Restructuring

topic and focus (see Chomsky (1995), and Rizzi

As mentioned in the preceding discussions,(1997), among others). For example, thethe complement that takes PC is [+tense], while

elements fronted to the CP position in (14a, b)

EC is [-tense] (Landau (2000)). This difference

are interpreted at the interface as topic and focus,

in the properties of C implies that EC

respectively:

complements lack C, unlike PC. In connection
with this difference of PC and EC, Wurmbrand(14) a.

(2001), Barrie and Pittman (2004), Grano (2015),b.

This book, I like. (Topicalization)
THIS BOOK, I like t. (Focalization)and Matsuda (2017), among others argue, basedon cross-linguistic evidence, that verbs classified

Moreover, the importance of the C label

as EC in Landau (2000) undergo restructuring,(especially Fin(P)) for the PC interpretation isindicating the lack of C in EC clauses.

also emphasized in Landau (2015) and Matsuda

Following Wurmbrand, the restructured structure(2017).3 Clearly, it is necessary to have a C label

looks like the following:for

discourse-related

interpretation

in

the

interfaces. Since PC construal is closely(13)

Johni [vP managed [vP to gather at 6]].

interrelated with discourse, as we discussed
above, the C label is indispensable for the PC

We consider that the argument concerninginterpretation.

restructuring is persuasive and adopt it for

As for topicalization, it is assumed in several

explaining the peculiar behavior of PC underprevious studies that a null operator moves to

MTC.

the CP spec position and gets a discourse (topic)
interpretation there (see Chomsky (1977), Rizzi

5.2 The Role of Labels and Topicalization(1997), Miyagawa (2017), among others):

Chomsky (2013, 2015) claims that allsyntactic objects must have a label at the(15)[TopP this book [CP OPi C [TP I like ti]]]interfaces for interpretation. For instance, the Q
feature of C becomes a label, so that the clause

Given that the antecedents in PC are determinedis interpreted as a Yes/No question. On the otherby discourse information, this paper extends thishand, the shared feature (<Q, Q>) with theidea of topicalization to the derivation of PC,

wh-phrase gives a relative, exclamative, or

which results in the elimination of PRO (andinterrogative interpretation at the interfacespro).

(Chomsky (2015: 13, ft. 16)). Hayashi (2021)
further pursues the role of the label argued in

5.3 Analysis: The Derivation of PC

Chomsky (2013, 2015), and proposes that theGiven the background in the proceeding

interpretation of a syntactic object is defined

subsection, we propose an alternative analysis

based on the identification label of the set

for the derivation of PC under MTC. As

containing it. This paper adapts the idea of the

discussed in Section 5.1 and 5.2, the presence oflabel along these works.

the

95

[+tense]featureobservedinPCcomplements suggests that there is a C label that

The raising complement (= (8)) also cannot

plays a discourse-related role at the interfaces.

have the PC interpretation simply because the C

Given this, we propose (16b) as a derivation oflabel is not present in raising constructions (seePC in (2), which is repeated as (16a) here:

Chomsky (2001) and Mizuguchi (2019), among
others for lack (or defectiveness) of C(P) in the(16) We thought that…

raising constructions):a.

The chair preferred to gather at 6].

In the proposed analysis, the singular DPb.

The chair preferred {α=<Top, Top> OP[uTop]

moves from the embedded clause to the matrix{C[Top] to {the chair, OP} gather at 6}}.

clause, and the empty operator has no value insyntax but gets semantic value at the interfaces

Based on the idea of Free Merge (Chomsky(cf. Rodrigues (2007)). Thus, if we follow(2013, 2015), topicalization, and extending

Landau’s (2000) argument that plural anaphors

Complex DP in Rodrigues (2007), we propose

are licensed by syntax, we can also explain whythat DP (the chair) and the null operator (OP)the plural anaphor cannot be licensed in PC:

4form a single set. In the derivation of theembedded clause in (16b), the operator moves to(18)*John told Mary that he preferred [tothe specifier position of C in the embedded
clause(topicalization),

and

by

meet each other at 6 today].

(= (5))

agreement/labeling, the label of α is determined andFinally, let us move onto the difference between

interpreted as Topic in the interfaces (seePC and SC. Based on Free Merge (Chomsky

Tanigawa (2018) for the Topic label). At the(2013, 2015), Sakumoto (2021) proposes a novel

stage of narrow syntax, an operator does notderivation for SC where two DPs form one set

have any value and will get its discourse (Topic)(see Landau (2000, 2013, 2015), Fujii (2006),

interpretation at the interfaces based on theand Sakumoto (2021) for the property of SC):

information from the Topic label, whichguarantees the PC interpretation.5 Without the C(19) a.

label, there is no [+tense], and the operator could

John asked Mary [whether to getthemselves a new car].

not be able to get the Topic interpretation, so the(Landau (2000: 53))

PC interpretation cannot be obtained. Thisb.

{β=<φ, φ> John T {v*P asked {α=<φ, φ> Mary

analysis does not appeal to the notion of PRO{whetherto(and pro) and can account for the relationshipget…}}}}}}}{{John,

Mary}

{v*P

(Sakumoto (2021))

between [+tense] and PC under MTC.
As we have seen in Section 4.1, EC does not

In (19b), John and Mary form one set, andhave a C label, so the operator cannot get anthen each moving to the matrix clause, theinterpretation as Topic at the interfaces:clause can get labeled properly. He argues thattwo DPs in the same edge of v*P can license the(17) a. *Johni managed [to gather at 6]. (= (3))
b.

plural anaphor (see Fujii (2006) and Rodrigues

Johni {vP managed {vP {John, OP} to(2007) for the plurality of two DPs). Let us thengather at 6}}.

illustrate the structures of PC (our proposal) andSC (Sakumoto (2021)) as the following:

96

2

(20)

More specifically, Rodrigues (2007) argues that

not a tense but a modal licenses PC, and(Partial Control)(Split Control)

ComplexDP(pro+DP)

inducesthePCinterpretation. See Landau (2013, 2016a) for
DP

OP

DP

DP

more problems of her analysis.
3
Specifically, Matsuda (2017) proposes that

Following (20), the difference between PC andcertain infinitival complements which take theSC can be reduced to Merge. In the case of PC,

PC interpretation are embedded imperative.

DP is merged with an operator to form a set, andThen, she claims that it is necessary to havein the case of SC, two DPs form a single set

PRO, FinP, and independent logophoric center(Sakumoto (2021)). This analysis allows us tofor the PC interpretation, and also argues thatreadily explain the fact that the structure of SC

EC complements may lack them given the idea

can also have the interpretation of PC (= (7)).

of restructuring (see Section 2.1). Her proposal

According to (20), PC is syntactically singular,

is very intriguing, but as she recognize, someand SC is syntactically plural: if the operators

infinitival complements which take PC are notare merged with DP, the PC interpretation isimperative (see Matsuda (2017: 371) andobtained based on the topic label (our proposal

reference therein), so further research is neededhere), but if two DPs form a single set, the SC

for validating her proposal. This paper purses theinterpretation is gained (Sakumoto (2021)).

different possibility to derive PC.
4

6. Conclusion

Several studies argue that PRO is an operator,

see Landau (2015) and references therein.
5This paper has proposed a novel derivation of
PC under MTC and accounted for its peculiar

See Landau (2015) and Matsuda (2017), who

focus on the role of Fin(P).

behavior by focusing on the role of the C label.
* I am greatly indebted to Nobuaki Nishioka for

REFERENCES
Barrie, Michael and Christine M. Pittman (2004)

his invaluable comments and suggestions. I am

“Partial Control and the Movement Towards

also truly thankful to Toshiaki Inada, Hisatsugu

Movement,” Toronto Working Papers in

Kitahara,

Linguistics 22, 75-92.

MasakoMaeda,

SatoruKanno,

Takashi Munakata, Yuta Sakamoto, and Kento

Chomsky, Noam (1977) “On wh-movement,”

Nagatsugu for their constructive comments. My

Formal Syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter,

special thanks also go to Jesse Weir for his

Thomas Wasow and Adrian Akmajian,suggestion and English judgement. I also thank71-132, Academic Press, New York.

Edmund Luna for stylistic improvements.

Chomsky,(1981)

Lectureson

Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

NOTES
1

Noam

Chomsky,

Landau (2015) restates the distinction between

Noam(1995)The

Minimalist

PC and EC in Landau (2000) from whether it

Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

expresses attitudes or non-attitudes. This paper

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

simply adopts Landau’s (2000) distinction

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by

between PC and EC.

Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,

97Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky,Noam

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
(2013)“ProblemsofLandau, Idan (2015) Two-tiered Theory ofProjection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky,

Noam

Projection:(2015)

Control, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

“Problems

Extensions,”ofLandau, Idan (2016a) “Against the Null

Structures,

Comitative Analysis of Partial Control,”

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

Linguistic Inquiry 47, 572-580.

of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di

Landau, Idan (2016b) “Agreement at PF: An

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and SimonaArgument from Partial Control,” Syntax 19,

Matteini,

79-109.

3-16,

John

Benjamins,

Amsterdam.

Madigan, Sean (2008) Control Constructions in

Fujii, Tomohiro (2006) Some Theoretical Issues

Korean, Doctoral dissertation, University ofin Japanese Control. Doctoral dissertation,

Delaware.

University of Maryland.
Grano,

ThomasMatsuda, Asako (2017) “Embedded Imperative(2015)

Controlandin

Restructuring, Oxford University Press,

Control,”

EnglishLinguistics

33,

340-376.

Oxford.

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2017) “Topicalization,”

Grano, Thomas (2017) “What Partial Control

Gengo Kenkyu 152, 1-29.

Might Not Tell Us about Agreement: A

Mizuguchi Manabu (2019) “Optional Raising in

Reply to Landau,” Syntax 20, 400-413.

ECM and Labeling of XP-YP,” Studies inHayashi, Norimasa (2021) Labels at theInterfaces:

On

the

Notions

andGenerative Grammar 29, 373-411.

theRizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of theConsequences of Merge and Contain,

Left Periphery,” Elements of Grammar:

Doctoral dissertation, Kyushu University.

Handbook of Generative Syntax, ed. by

Hornstein, Norbert (1999) “Movement andLilianeControl,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69-96.
Hornstein,

Norbert(2003)“On

Haegeman,

281–337,

Kluwer,Dordrecht.

Control,”

Rodrigues, Cilene (2007) “Agreement andMinimalist Syntax, ed. by Randall Hendrick,Floatation in Partial and Inverse Partial

6-81, Blackwell, Oxford.

Control Configurations,” New Horizons in

Landau, Idan (2000) Elements of Control:
StructureandMeaninginthe Analysis of Control and Raising, ed. by

Infinitival

William D. Davies and Stanley Dubinsky,

Constructions, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

213-229, Springer, Dordrecht.

Landau, Idan (2003) “Movement Out of

Sakumoto, Yuya (2021) “A Movement Analysis

Control,” Linguistic Inquiry 34, 471-498.
Landau,Idan(2007)

for Split Control,” A Paper Presented at the“Movement-Resistant

ELSJ 14th International Spring Forum.

Aspects of Control,” New Horizons in the

Tanigawa,

Shin-ichi(2018)“Agreement,

Analysis of Control and Raising, ed.

Labeling and Sentential Subjects,” English

William D. Davies and Stanley Dubinsky,

Linguistics 34, 302-330.

293–325, Springer, Dordrecht.

Wurmbrand,

Landau, Idan (2013) Control in Generative
Grammar:A

Research

Susi

Restructuring

Companion,(2001)
andClauseInfinitives:
Structure,

Mouton de Gruyter, New York, Berlin.

98Another issue concerning the prefix iswhether it determines the category of a complex
word or not. Out- is often treated as one of theprefixes violating the Righthand Head RuleOn a New Type of Out-Prefixed Verbs in(RHR) (Williams (1981: 248)), which states that*

Englishthe element in the rightmost position determines
the syntactic category of a morphologicallyYuri Togano

complex word. Let us observe the sentences

Graduate School of University of Tsukuba

below. Outtongue ‘to talk better than someone’in (2a) and outsmart in (2b) are apparently

Keywords：prefixation, the Righthand Head Rule,derived from a noun and an adjective.

word-formation, insertion, further specification(2) a.

John outtongued Peter.

b.

John outsmarted Peter.

1. Introduction
The status of prefix in English and the notion

However, it has been revealed that they are notof head have been controversial topics in the

counterexamples to the RHR. Based on thefield of morphology. This study focuses on the

Marchand’s (1969) and Kastovsky’s (1986)

formation of out-verbs with a comparative

views that such forms are also righthand headed,meaning. Previous studies (e.g. Bresnan (1982))

Nagano (2011) shows that they are formed byhave established that out- attaches to intransitive

the combination of Noun/Adjective-to-Verb

and transitive verbs and derives transitive verbs

conversion and Verb-to-Verb prefixation. As shewhich compare two elements in subject andpoints out, most denominal or deadjectival

object position in terms of action or state.

out-verbs have a converted counterpart and theConsider the following examples:base-converted verb precedes its out-form. For
instance, in The Oxford English Dictionary(1) a.

John outran Peter.

(OED), outfool is attested in 1638 whereas tob.

John outkilled Fred.

fool is found in 1593 (Nagano (2011: 72)). Thec.

John outlived his son.

out-verbs in (2) are thus based on denominal or
deadjectival converted verbs, not on a noun or

The sentences in (1) denote that John surpassed

an adjective. In fact, these verbs compare John’s

other people in running, killing, and longevity,

action with Peter’s action in the same way as therespectively. As shown in these examples,out-verbs in (1).

out-verbs can differ from the base verbs in

However, cases have been recently foundargument structure. This is an issue concerningwhere the conversion analysis cannot apply.

out-prefixation. The change is explained with a

Unlike outtongue and outsmart, the following

semantic operation called lexical subordination

out-verbs cited from Kotowski’s (2021) study(Levin and Rapoport (1988)). See Nagano

and The Oxford English Dictionary Online(2011: 75) and Yumoto (1997: 194) for details(OED online) lack their converted counterpart.

on analyses of the change in argument structure.

99

(3) out-technology,

out-human,

out-macho,

serious disadvantages in height […]outshowmanship, out-guttural, out-royal,(Kotowski (2021: 79), with slightout-modern, out-infinitive

modification)(Kotowski (2021), OED online)d.

Some Dutch ladies, out-gutturalingeven the Swiss themselves.

Referring to such kinds of out-verbs, Kotowskie.

A beggar on horseback, with the(2021: 81) claims that out- can attach to nouns

retinue of three kings behind him,

and adjectives and derive verbs relatively freely

outroyalling royalty.

and rejects Nagano’s (2011) account. If they are(OED online, underlining mine)not derived through conversion, how are they
formed? This study argues that they are formed

When focusing on the meaning, we find thaton the basis of existing out-verb and not by

unlike the out-verbs in (1) and (2), those in (4a)category-changing prefixation.

do not compare actions or states. For example,

This paper is organized as follows: Section 2

outbadge in (4a) compares old boy and Lil Kemp

points out that the out-verbs in (3) share ain terms of the number of badges they have, notcommon semantic property. Taking the position

their action of presenting a badge. It denotes thatthat they are not formed randomly, I propose ashe has more badges than him. In a similar vein,mechanism to form this type of out-verbs inout-technology and out-human in (4b) make a

Section 3. Specifically, out-verbs concerningcomparison in terms of the level of technology

measurement (e.g. outnumber, outrank) underlieand human intelligence. These examples indicate

the formation of this type of out-verbs. Section 4that all the out-verbs in (4) have a reading which

offers a conclusion.

compares in terms of quantity or degree.
The observation of the out-verbs above

2. A Semantic Property of a New Type ofshows that they semantically differ from other

Out-Verbs

common out-verbs (e.g. outrun, outtongue) and

To begin with, let us observe how out-verbs

form a natural class by themselves. Out-verbs toto which the conversion analysis cannot apply

which the conversion analysis can apply haveare used:

the action comparison reading while out-verbs
which(4) a.

b.

resisttheanalysis

have

the

There was an old boy with ‘a lifetime

quantity/degree comparison reading. Kotowski

of badges’ on his hat. Excuse me, but(2021)

we have those too. (Step forward Lil

deadjectival out-verbs make a comparison in

Kemp who could outbadge him any

terms of degree and quantity, too, but he misses

day.)their common characteristics and describes them

Global big

data

competitors

canpointsoutthatdenominaland

as if they are formed freely.

out-technology you, but they can’t
out-human you.
c.

3. Proposal[…] he outboxed, outpointed andIn this section, I propose a mechanism foroutshowmanshipped a long-reigningthemiddleweight

quantity/degree comparison reading. Specifically,

champion

despite100

formationofout-verbs

with

the

this study argues that they are formed on thecomplements. Similarly, numbers in (6b) andbasis of existing out-verbs which are based on

number in (6c) take the numerical value (eighty,

linking verbs (e.g. number, rank). This is a5%) and the information on what is counted

word-formation process that has not received(years, workforce). The same is observed in themuch attention.

case of other linking verbs, such as to rank. This
indicates that linking verbs need to take both the

3.1. Out-verbs Based on Linking Verbs

numerical value and specific information on the

Let us first consider the properties of verbs

object of measurement as their complements.

on which this type of out-verbs are based. Bauer

When out- attaches to linking verbs,

and Huddleston (2002) mention outnumber andderivatives take different elements as their object.

outrank as one of the representative types of

Let us consider the case of outnumber. In

out-verbs.

contrast to the converted counterparts in (6),outnumber in (7a) takes houses, the object being(5) a.
b.

X outnumber Y

compared with flats, as its object instead of the

X outrank Y

number of flats in this area. In the same way, it(Bauer and Huddleston (2002: 1679))

takes men in (7b) and not the number or the
proportion of women in nursing.

Outnumber in (5a) means ‘x surpasses y innumber’ and outrank in (5b) ‘x ranks higher than(7) a.

y’. The conversion analysis can apply to theseb.

out-verbs

because

they

have

converted

Flats outnumber houses in this area.
In nursing, women still outnumber
men by four to one.

(LDOCE)

counterparts (to number, to rank). What isremarkable about these out-verbs is that their

These examples show that the numerical values

converted counterparts have a use of linking

which input verbs take as their complement doverbs. To be more precise, the verbs in (5)not occur in their out-forms. Instead of thedenote that x surpasses y in the sense that x

specific numerical value, a thing that isreaches a certain number or degree. The

compared with the element in the subject

following sentences in (6) are examples of toposition occurs in the object position. This is thenumber as a linking verb. It has a SVC

result of the change in argument structure by

construction and requires its complements toout-prefixation (i.e. lexical subordination).

fulfil the meaning.

Note that the suppression of an element
occurs in other types of out-verbs as well. When(6) a.

The party numbers 15 men in all.

the base is a transitive verb, its object is(GENIUS)b.
c.

suppressed in the out-verb. For example, theHe numbers more than eighty years.

object of to kill is suppressed in outkill, as we(KNEJD)saw in (1b). Similarly, a complement is

The men on strike now number 5% ofsuppressed in outnumber in (7). When a base is a

the workforce.

linking verb, a numerical value (e.g. 15 in (6a))(LDOCE)is suppressed, not a measurement object. In the
In (6a), numbers takes 15 and men as its

next subsection, I claim that the new type of101

out-verbs are formed on the basis of these

their verb stem with a specifying element, as

linking verb-based out-verbs.

shown in (8c). In the case of outbadge, forinstance, the right-hand element of outnumber is

3.2. The Formation Process of a New Type of

replaced with badge and the form denotes that x

Out-Verbs

surpasses y in the number of badges.

I argue that out-verbs, which are not formed

This

study

also

assumesthatthethrough conversion are formed by the following

morphological process of forming the out-verbs

word-formation processes in (8). The pairs ofin (8c) from those in (8b) is a word-formation

representation illustrate the forms (F) andrule similar to the insertion strategy discussed bymeanings (M) of the three types of out-verb. The

Muysken (2000: Chapter 7). Observe the

Lexical Conceptual Structures (LCS) below arefollowing verbs in (9) from Dutch:

depicted based on the representation in Nagano(2011). The first and second embedded brackets(9) a.

in the LCSs are the LCSs introduced by out- andfiles)

base verbs, respectively.
(8) a.

ge-save-d ‘saved (pp)’ (of computerb.

interview-de ‘interviewed (past sg)’c.

crawl-t

F: [out-[kill]V]V‘2sg/3sg crawl’ (swimming)(Muysken (2000: 192))

M: [[x SURPASS y] IN [x/y KILL Ø]]b.

F: [out-[[number]N]V]V
M:

c.

[[x

SURPASS

These verbs include English-derived elements
y]

IN

[x/y

but have Dutch inflection. Muysken (2000)

NUMBER Ø IN SOMETHING]]

argues that the verbs borrowed from English (to↓ Substitution by a specifying element

save, to interview, to crawl) are inserted in the

F: [out-[[badge]]]verb stems.

M:

[[x

SURPASS

y]

IN

[x/y

We can find similarly formed words in

NUMBER Ø IN BADGE]]

English as well. It is well known that theadjective-forming suffix -able in English was

The pair in (8a) illustrates the form and meaning

originally borrowed through Old French fromof the most basic type of out-verb, which are

Latin. Thus, stems of most -able derivatives areformed without conversion. Due to the lexical

Latinate and the hybrid type of -able derivatives

subordination,is(a native base + -able) were not made at first.

“semantically subordinated” to the new LCS of

Regarding this suffix, Koma (2013: 64) observes

out- (Nagano (2011: 75)). Based on this type ofthat -able derivatives tend to “expand its

out-verbs, the conversion type of out-verbs is

territory depending on semantic network” at theformed, as in (8b). The LCS component of aphase of producing new derivatives in its

base-converted verb is subordinated in the same

historical development. Let us see some -ablemanner as the basic type of out-verb. These arederivatives found in the corpora of texts written

the word-formation processes of out-verbs

in Late Middle English and Early Modern

discussed by Nagano (2011). Out-verbs that thisEnglish. Those on the left are hybrids and thosestudy takes up are formed on the basis of thein the parenthesis are Latinate.

the

LCS

of

the

base

conversion type of out-verbs by substituting102

(10) a.

answerable(vs.

accomptable,

environments, by applying a process to existingaccountable, responsible, chargeable)b.
c.

forbearable(vs.

elements.

warrantable,

The insertion analysis thus predicts two

acceptable, allowable, tolerable)

types of denominal/deadjectival out-verbs: theunspeakable (vs. (un)expressible)

conversion type (formed through conversion)(Koma (2013: 64–65))

and the substitution type (formed throughconversion and substitution). In the next

For instance, all the -able derivatives in (10a)subsection, I will examine this prediction.

mean to ‘be responsible for something’. Whenthe hybrid answerable was formed, synonymous

3.3. Supporting Evidence

Latinate -able derivatives already existed. The

If this analysis is correct, an out-verb can beother hybrids in (10) also have Latinate

formed by two processes. Let us consider thederivatives that precede them. These examples

case of outbadge, observed in Section 2. Under

indicate that hybrid -able derivatives are formed

the present analysis, outbadge ‘to have more

based on existing synonymous Latinate -ablebadges’ in (4a) is formed (based on outnumber)derivatives.

by substitution. However, there should beThis study assumes that a morphologicalanother outbadge based on the converted verb

process similar to these processes is involved inbecause badge is used not only as a noun but

the formation of the new type of out-verbs.

also as a verb. This type of outbadge is, in fact,

Precisely, outbadge is formed on the basis ofobserved by Kotowski (2021). In contrast tooutnumber and out-technology and out-guttural

outbadge in (4a), out-badged in (12a) appears toare formed on the basis of outrank. Elements

be formed on the converted verb to badge (‘torealized on the right, such as badge andattach/present a badge’). It denotes that a person

technology, specify the information on whatwith more authority shows a badge.

number and what rank one surpasses in thesentences with outnumber and outrank. This is
why

this

type

quantity/degreeofout-verbs

havecomparison(12) a.

the

I went downtown to check out thecrime scene, but that douche from thereading.

FBI out-badged me!

Accordingly, their structure does not violate the(Kotowski (2021: 79), with slight

RHR since they are based on converted

modification)verb-based out-verbs, as shown in (11).

b.

… (Step forward Lil Kemp who could
outbadge him any day.)(= (4a))(11) out-technology: [out-technology]V
These examples indicate that an out-verb can
The relation between outnumber and outbadge,

have different meanings depending on whether it

and outrank and out-technology is similar to thatis formed only by conversion or not, which is

between a lexeme (e.g. LIKE) and its inflected

what is expected in this analysis. The insertion

words (e.g. likes and liked). Both the new types

analysis enables us to explain both of theof out-verbs and inflected forms occur in an

out-verbs in (12). One is the conversion type ofappropriate

out-verb in (8b) and the other is the substitution

word

form,

dependingon103

type of out-verb in (8c).

b.

The Delta variant of COVID-19 isThis holds true for other out-verbs with theirassumedconverted counterpart. Recall from Section 1

variants.

toout-contagion

otherthat outtongue is derived by prefixation to thedenominal converted verb to tongue. As the

Furthermore, we can find this semantic

analysis predicts, it can have quantity/degree

differencecomparison readings as well as the action

element has different word forms depending on

comparison reading. Observe the examples

if it is a verb and a noun. For instance,

below, where the notation

out-technologize in (16a) (conversion type) has

indicates that they

are made-up examples.

inout-verbs

whoseright-handthe reading that make a comparison between
actions of making something technological. In(13) a.
b.

Chameleons outtongue other animals.

contrast, out-technology in (16b) (substitution

Lemurs outtongue other animals.

type) makes a comparison in terms of thetechnology level. The meanings are similar but

Outtongue in (13a) and (13b) are formed by theslightly different.

insertion of a noun tongue into the verb stems.
When it is based on outrank, it means ‘x(16) a.

Amazon out-technologize you.

surpasses y in the length of a tongue’, as in (13a).

b.

Amazon out-technology you.

Conversely, when it is based on outnumber, itmeans ‘x surpasses y in the number of tongues’,

Thus, the semantic difference of these two types

as in (13b). The sentence describes lemurs, anof out-verbs is attributed to their distinct

animal with two tongues. Outtongue has theword-formation processes. The additional data

quantity/degree comparison reading in either

support the insertion analysis.

case.
Similar judgements are made regarding

4. Conclusion

out-verbs that lack converted counterparts like

This study showed that out-verbs to which

out-technology and out-guttural. For example,

the conversion analysis cannot apply form aout-natality in (14), in whose verb stem the noun

different type of out-verb. They are formed on

natality is inserted, is interpreted with thetheintended reading comparing birth rates. It occurs

out-verbs by inserting a noun or an adjectivein the past form due to the syntactic environment

into their verb stems. The right-hand elements ofinaccepted

this type of out-verbs further specify theout-contagious in (15a) and out-contagion in

information on the object of measurement the(15b) as well. Both out-verbs mean ‘x surpasses

base verbs originally take. This type of out-verbs

y in the rank of infectivity’.

always has a reading that makes a comparison in

addition.

My

informants

basis

of

existing

linkingverb-based

terms of quantity and degree. Since they are not(14)

The U.S. out-natalitied Japan in 2018.

formed by category-changing prefixation, they(15) a.

The Delta variant of COVID-19 is

do not violate the RHR.

assumedtoout-contagious

othervariants.

* I would like to thank Masaharu Shimada,

104

Akiko Nagano, and two anonymous reviewers of

Types

ELSJ

Formation:

for

their

valuablecomments

andofPresent-Day
A

EnglishSynchronic

Word

Diachronic

suggestions. I am also grateful to Scott James

Approach, 2nd Edition, C. H. Beck,

Allen, Benjamin Carpey, Joseph Rhodes, Robert

Munich.
Muysken, Pieter (2000) Bilingual Speech: A

Wilson, and Richard Wilson for their kindly
acting as informants. All errors in this paper are

TypologyofCode-Mixing,

my own.

University Press, Cambridge.

Cambridge

Nagano, Akiko (2011) “The Right-Headednessof

REFERENCES
Bauer, Laurie and Rodney Huddleston (2002)

Morphology

Development

of

and

the

StatusandCategory-Determining“Lexical Word-Formation,” The Cambridge

Prefixes in English,” English Language andGrammar of the English Language, ed. by

Linguistics 15(1), 61–83.

Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K.

Williams, Edwin (1981) “On the Notions

Pullum, 1621–1721, Cambridge University‘Lexically Related’ and ‘Head of a Word’,”

Press, Cambridge.

Linguistic Inquiry 12(2), 245–274.

Bresnan, Joan (1982) “The Passive in Lexical

Yumoto, Yoko (1997) “Verbal Prefixation on the

Theory,” The Mental Representation ofLevel

Grammatical

Semantics and Syntactic Structure, ed. byRelations,

ed.

by

Joan

of

Semantic

Bresnan, 3–86, MIT Press, Cambridge,

Taro

Kageyama,MA.

Publishers, Tokyo.

Structure,”
177–204,

Verb

Kurosio

Kastovsky, Dieter (1986) “Problems in theMorphological
LexicalAnalysisComplex

DICTIONARIES

Acta

Linguistica

Kenkyusha’s New English-Japanese Dictionary

Scientiarum

Hungaricae,

Items,”

Academiaeof(KNEJD), Kenkyusha, Tokyo.

Tomus 36, 93–107.

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

Koma, Osamu (2013) “Anglicization of -able(5th edition) (LDOCE), Pearson Education

and Its Idiosyncrasies,” Studies in Modern
English:The

PublicationofThirtieth
theIndia, Harlow.

Anniversary

ModernTaishukan’s

EnglishTaishukan, Tokyo.

Eihōsha, Tokyo.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) 2nd ed.

Kotowski, Sven (2021) “The Semantics ofon CD-ROM, Oxford University Press,

English out-prefixation: A Corpus-Based
EnglishLanguage

Oxford.

and

The Oxford English Dictionary Online (OED

Linguistics 25(1), 60–89.

online), Oxford University Press, Retrieved

Levin, Beth and Tova R. Rapoport (1988)

from https://www.oed.com/“Lexical Subordination,” Proceedings oftheChicagoGeniusEnglish-Japanese Dictionary (GENIUS),

Association, ed. by Ken Nakagawa, 53–68,

Investigation,”

Unabridged

Linguistics

Society24,

275–289.
Marchand, Hans (1969) The Categories and105

that it is SOV.
(3)

SVO
Mulder and Sybesma (1992), Shi (2004)

Time Adverbs in Chinese: Evidence for the(4)

Chinese as an Underlyingly Head-Final
Language Hypothesis

SOV
Tai (1973), Li and Thompson (1974,*1975), Li (1990), Shen (2007)

Xiayin Yao

Shi (2004) claims that Chinese has been an SVO

Gifu University

languagethroughout

its

history.

To

ourHideki Makiknowledge, Tai (1973) is the first researcher who

Gifu University

claims that Chinese is an SOV language. Li(1990) claims that Chinese is a head-final

Keywords: Chinese, head parameter, Shiji（史language, and only for the sake of Case記）, time adverb, word orderassignment, the language becomes head-initial.
To argue for either one of the two basic word
orders, researchers tend to use structures with S,

1. Introduction

O and V. However, little attention has been paid

Mulder and Sybesma (1992), based on

to the positions of time adverbs in Chinese. As

previous studies such as Mullie (1932), Chaoshown in Section 2, positions of time adverbs in(1968) and Li and Thompson (1975), among

SOV, SVO and VSO languages show particularothers, state that in Chinese, objects may appear

patterns. This paper then investigates where timeon either side of the verb at S-structure, and theadverbs appear in classical Chinese writings

postverbal object tends to be indefinite, while

such as Sima Qian’s（司馬遷）Shiji（史記）,the object in preverbal (topic) position tends towhich is considered to have been completed in

be definite, as shown in (1) and (2), respectively.

91BC. Based on the data obtained, we claim (5).

(1)

(5)

我

卖

猪 了。

Wo mai zhu le.

been SOV, and head-final throughout its

Ihistory.

sell

pig Asp‘I have sold pigs.’(2)

The underlying structure of Chinese has

我

猪

SVO
The organization of this paper is as follows.

卖 了。

Wo zhumai le.

Section 2 shows positions of time adverbs inIsell Asp

SOV, SVO and VSO languages as background topig‘I have sold the pigs.’

SOV

the subsequent sections. Section 3 investigates(Mulder and Sybesma (1992, 440))the positions of time adverbs in three pieces ofclassical Chinese writings from 91 BC to the

There are two views on the basic word order inearly 18th century. Finally, Section 4 discusses

Chinese. Some scholars claim that the basic

what the findings in Section 3 might suggest for

word order in Chinese is SVO, and others claim

the theory of (Chinese) syntax.

106

2. Background: Positions of Time Adverbs inthe sentence-initial position, as shown in

SOV, SVO and VSO Languages(10)–(13).

Let us start by examining SOV languages
such as Japanese.

English (Richard Albert (p.c.))(10) The fact that [Mary read this book

2.1 SOV: Japanese

yesterday] surprised me.

First, let us consider Japanese examples. In(11) *The fact that [Mary read yesterday this(6)–(8), the time adverb kinoo ‘yesterday’ isbook] surprised me.

placed at the non-sentence-final position. In (9),(12) *The fact that [Mary yesterday read thisthe same adverb is placed at the sentence-final
position.

While(6)–(8)arebook] surprised me.

perfectly(13) The fact that [yesterday Mary read thisgrammatical, (9) is totally ungrammatical.
(6)[kinooHanako-ga

kono hon-o[yesterday Hanako-Nom thisread]book] surprised me.
2.3 VSO: Irish

book-Acc

Finally, let us consider Irish, a VSO

fact

language. In Irish, an adverb cannot be placed atyonda] koto

the sentence-initial position, as shown in‘the fact that Hanako read this book(14)–(17).

yesterday’(7)[Hanako-ga

kinoo

kono hon-o[Hanako-Nom yesterday thisread]

Irish (Dónall P. Ó Baoill (p.c.))book-Acc(14) marfact

the.fact that [read Seán the bookyonda] koto
(8)

[Hanako-ga

inné]
kono hon-o[Hanako-Nom this
read]

kinoo

yesterday]

book-Acc yesterday‘the fact that Seán read the bookfact

yesterday’

yonda] koto(9) * [Hanako-ga(15) markono hon-o[Hanako-Nom thiskinoo],

gur [léigh Seán an leabher

yonda,

gur [léigh Seán inné

anthe.fact that [read Seán yesterday the

book-Acc readleabher]

koto

book]

yesterday] fact(16) *mar

gur [léigh inné

Seán anthe.fact that [read yesterday Seán the
These examples clearly indicate that the timeleabher]adverb kinoo ‘yesterday’ cannot be placed at thebook]sentence-final position.

(17) *mar

gur [inné

leigh Seán anthe.fact that [yesterday read Seán the
2.2 SVO: English

leabher]

Let us turn to SVO languages such as

book]

English. In English, the time adverb yesterday
can be placed at the sentence-final position or at

Where time adverbs may appear in SOV, SVO

107

and VSO languages are summarized in (18).

(19) 今年祖龙死。

jinnian zulong
(18)

si

this year emperor die‘The emperor will die this year.’

Sentence-

Sentence-

Sentence-

InitialMiddle

Final

SOV

✓

✓

*

In (20), a time adverb appears right after the

SVO

✓

*

✓

subject and before the predicate.

VSO

*

✓/*

✓

(20) 吾 今日 见 老子, 其 犹 龙
wu jinri jian Laozi qi you longThis fits Greenburg’s Universal 7 (1966: 80): inI

SOV or head-final languages, in principle,

yetoday saw Laozi he like dragon Exc‘I saw Laozi today, he is like a dragon!’adverbs precede the verbs. What is important is
the fact that SOV languages do not allow

However, no instance was found in which a timesentence-final time adverbs, while SVO or VSO

adverb appears at the sentence-final position inlanguages allow sentence-final time adverbs.

this piece.
Next, let us turn to a piece written in the 6th

3. Datacentury. In (21), a time adverb appears at the

Let us now examine possible positions insentence-initial position.

which time adverbs may appear in the history ofChinese. In this study, we use three texts: (i)Wei Shou (554) Weishu

Sima Qian’s（司馬遷）(91BC) Shiji（史記）, (ii)(21) 明年

Wei Shou’s（魏収）(554) Weishu（魏書）and (iii)

mingnianKong Shangren’s（孔尚任）(1708) Taohuashan（桃花扇）.

adverbs appear at the sentence-initial position or
examples for each type of structure. In this paper,
we provide one example with a sentence-initialtime adverb and one example with a pre-verbal

has a time adverb at the sentence-final position.
This piece was written in the 1st century B.C. In
at

后

废

为 尼。

hou

fei

wei ninun‘The emperor died the next year, and theempress was relegated to a nun.’(22) 吾Let us start by Sima Qian’s (91BC) Shiji.
appears

beng

subject and before the predicate.

However, we could not find any instance thatadverbshang

In (22), a time adverb appears right after thetime adverb for each of the three pieces.

time

崩，

empress relegate to

at a pre-verbal position. We found more than 30a上

the next year emperor die

The following examples are

representative examples that show that time

(19),

邪！

the

今年

已

衰暮。

wu jinnianyishuaimuI

already old

this year‘I am already old this year.’sentence-initial position.

However, again, no instance was found in which

Sima Qian（司馬遷） (91BC) Shiji（史記）a time adverb appears at the sentence-final108

position in this piece.

zuotianFinally, let us examine a piece written in the

Zhangsan duzhe ben shu

yesterday Zhangsan read this Cl

18th century. In (23), a time adverb appears at

的事

the sentence-initial position.

de

shi

book

DE fact
Kong Shangren (1708) Taohuashan‘the fact that Zhangsan read this book(23) 今日 小生

yesterday’重来。

jinri xiaosheng chong lai
today I

(26) 张三

again come昨天

Zhangsan zuotian‘Today I came here again.’事

In (24), a time adverb appears right after the

de

shi

subject and before the predicate.

DE fact(27) *张三

shan

这 本 书

du

zhe ben shu

Zhangsan yesterday read this Cl的(24) 山

读

读 昨天

book

这 本 书

河

今日 崩竭。

Zhangsan du zuotian zhe ben shu

hejinri bengjie

Zhangsan read yesterday this Cl

mountain river today collapse

的事‘Mountains and rivers collapse today.’

de

shi

book

DE fact
Again, no instance was found in which a time(28) *张三

读 这

本 书,

adverb appears at the sentence-final position in

Zhangsan du zhe ben shu

this piece.

Zhangsan read this Cl

4. Discussion
Let us now examine what the findings in the

的

事

de

shi

昨天,
zuotianbook yesterday

DE fact

above section might suggest for the theory of(Chinese) syntax.

In modern Chinese, a time adverb cannot appear
after the predicate. It seems then that old

4.1 Old Chinese Shows the SOV Pattern.

Chinese had an underlying SOV order in terms

First, the examples in the three pieces of oldof the positions of time adverbs, and modern

Chinese clearly indicate that time adverbs in

Chinese has an underlying SOV order in terms

principle do not appear at the sentence-finalof the positions of time adverbs. Therefore, theposition. This fact suggests that in spite of theobserved facts seem to suggest that thefact that it has an SVO order, old Chinese isunderlying structure of Chinese has been SOV.

characterized as an SOV language in terms oftime adverb placement, as shown in (18).

4.2 The Claim Matches Zhang et al’s (2019)

Furthermore, the same is true to modern

Claim That Sino-Tibetan Languages Must

Chinese as well, as shown in (25)–(28).

Have Emerged Around 5,900 Years Ago.
Second, the claim made above that the(25) 昨天张三读underlying structure of Chinese has been SOV

这 本 书

109

matches Zhang et al’s (2019) claim that(31) and (32).

Sino-Tibetan languages must have emerged
around 5,900 years ago.

(31) [Zhangsan de shu]

It has been a debate where and when the[Zhangsan DE book]Sino-Tibetan language family emerged. Zhang et‘Zhangsan’s book’(noun)al (2019) conducted a statistical analysis of(32) Zhe ben shu[henyouqu].

root-meanings for words in a lexicon of 109

this Cl

Sino-Tibetan languages, and conclude that

‘This book is very interesting.’

book [very interesting]Sino-Tibetan languages must have emerged(adjective)

around 5,900 years ago, and the languages thensplit into two groups: one group migrated west

Also, functional categories C and Asp areinto Tibet and south into Myanmar, and anotherhead-final, as shown in (33) and (34).

group moved east and southward, ultimately
becoming the Han Chinese.

(33) [Zhangsan xingqiliu mai-le

The fact that Tibetan has been a head-final

zhe ben[Zhangsan Saturday buy-Asp this Cl

language, as shown in (29) and (30), and the fact

shu

ma]?

that Tibetan and Chinese constitute a language

book C]

family seem to suggest (5).

‘Did Zhangsan buy this book on
Saturday.’(29) Bkashis-kyis [dpecha-de-ønyos].

(34) [Zhangsan mai zhe ben shu

Bkrashis-Erg [book-that-Abs bought][Zhangsan buy this Cl‘Bkashis bought that book.’‘Zhangsan bought this book.’(30) Bkrashis-ø(verb)

le].

book Asp][nyihong-la] budsong.

Bkrashis-Abs [Japan-to]

went

How about functional category D in Chinese?

‘Bkrashis went to Japan.’(postposition)

Simpson (2002) and Saito et al (2008) claim that
D is head-initial in Chinese. To be more specific,

Li (1990) claims that the underlying structure ofde ‘DE’ is D, and it takes CP as its complement

Chinese has been head-final throughout its

in examples such as (35).

history, and answers the question why V and P
are head-initial in Chinese by proposing that(35) [wo zuotian

kanjian ] de renCase assignment in Chinese is to the right,[Iyesterday see]

DE person

which puts V and P in the left of the objects.

‘the person I saw yesterday’(Saito et al (2008: 262))

4.3 Hypothesis (5) Poses the Interesting
Question Whether Functional Categories inSimpsonChinese Are Consistently Head-Final.

anti-symmetry analysis of relative clauses inThird, hypothesis (5) poses the interestingquestionwhetherfunctional

categories(2002)

originallyproposesan

Chinese based on Kayne (1994). Under thisinanalysis, (35) is derived, as shown in (36).

Chinese are consistently head-final. Lexical
categories N and A are head-final, as shown in(36) a.

110[IP I yesterday see person]b.

[CP person1 [IP I yesterday see t1]]

rain dayrain DE dayc.

[DP DE [CP person1 [IP I yesterday see‘rainy day’‘rainy day’

t1]]]
d.

[DP [IP I yesterday see t1]2 DE

In (38b), yu ‘rain’ is a nominal adjunct.

[CP person1] t2]

Therefore, it cannot move to the Spec of D,
which only takes an argument.

First, the head noun person moves to the Spec ofIf this analysis is correct, D in Chinese is

C. Second, D is merged to CP, and DE ishead-initial. However, given hypothesis (5) that

inserted under D. Finally, the relative clause

the underlying structure of Chinese has been

moves to the Spec of D.

head-final throughout its history, D must be

Making use of this analysis, Saito et al(2008)

provideanelegant

account

head-final as well. We are in trouble now.

for

Note here that XP in the Spec of D and deNˊ-deletion facts in Chinese and the fact thatare always adjacent, and the former is followed

some nominal elements are adjuncts, so that theyby the latter. Then, we may reinterpret (39) ascannot be merged to the Spec of D in Chinese.

(40) without losing the core effects of Saito et(37) shows that Nˊ-deletion is possible inal’s (2008) analysis of DE as a head. In (40), D

Chinese, eliding the identical noun nanhai ‘boy’

has no phonetic content, and XP in the Spec of

without deleting de ‘DE.’ For them, de is under

D is attached by the particle de ‘DE.’ Then, XP

D, and the entire relative clause is in the Spec ofin the Spec of D and the particle de are always

D. Therefore, the two elements are in Spec-Headadjacent, and the former is followed by the latter.

agreement, and the noun nanhai ‘boy’ can be

The particle de then seems to function as aelided. This indicates that the relative clause isnominalizer when it attaches to a relative clause.

an argument, which can be merged to the Spec
of D.

(39)

DP
XP

(37) [[Wo zuotian

kanjian] de[[I yesterday see]
bi

[[ni

zuotian(boy)]

D

DE boy]NP → can be elided

DEkanjian] dethan [[you yesterday see](nanhai)] gengnanhai ]

D’

(40)

DE

DP
XP-DE

youqian.

can be elided ←more rich

NP

D’
D
ø

‘The boy I saw yesterday is richer than theboy you saw yesterday.’

It is necessary to examine whether this proposal(Saito et al (2008: 263))

has the same effect on Nˊ-deletion facts as Satioet al’s (2008) analysis. If it does, hypothesis (5)At the same time, Saito et al (2008) provide athat the underlying structure of Chinese has beennatural account for the contrast in (38a) andhead-final throughout its history will be(38b).

defended.

(38) a.

yu tianb. * yude tian* We would like to thank Richard Albert,111

Masako Maeda, Sumiyo Nishiguchi, Dónall P. Ó

Jishoo Koozoo) paper presented at the

Baoill, Hisao Tokizaki and Saeko Urushibara for

9thvaluable comments on an earlier version of this

Linguistics

paper. All errors are our own.

https://kendb.doshisha.ac.jp/profile/ja.0fa

Chinese/Japanese

Theoretical

Study

Group,

0d16d091444a7.html,

RetrievedonMarch 17, 2021.

REFERENCES
Chao, Yuen-Ren (1968) A Grammar of Spoken

Shi, Yuzhi (2004) Linguistic Typology andChinese, University of California Press,

Chinese Language, Jiangxi Education

Berkeley.

Publishing House, Nanchang.

Kayne, Richard S. (1994) The Antisymmetry of

Si, Fuzhen/司富珍 (2002)「汉语的标句词“的”Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

及 相 关 的 句 法 问 題 」 (The Chinese

Kitagawa, Chisato and Claudia Ross (1982)

Complementizer “De” ( 的 ) and the“Prenominal Modification in Chinese andRelated Syntactic Problems), 语言教学与Japanese,” Linguistic Analysis 9, 19–53.

研究 (Language Education and Research)

Li, Y.-H. Audrey (1990) Order and Constituency

2002 年第 2 期, 35–40.

in Mandarin Chinese, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Simpson, Andrew (2002) “On the Status of

Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson (1974)

Modifying De and the Syntax of the“An Explanation of Word Order Change

Chinese DP,” On the Formal Way to

SVO → SOV,” Foundations of Language

Chinese Languages, ed. by Sze-Wing Tang

12, 201–214.

and Chen-Sheng Luther Liu, 74–101,

Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson (1975)CSLI Publications, Stanford.

“The Semantic Function of Word Order: A

Tai, James H.-Y. (1973) “Chinese as a SOV

Case Study in Mandarin,” Word Order andLanguage,” CLS 9, 659–671.

Word Order Change, ed. by Charles N. Li,

Zhang, Menghan, Shi Yan, Wuyun Pan and Li

165–195, University of Texas Press,

Jin (2019) “Phylogenetic Evidence forAustin.

Sino-Tibetan Origin in Northern China in

Mulder,René and

Rint

Sybesma (1992)

the Late Neolithic,” Nature 569, 112–115.

“Chinese is a VO Language,” Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 10,

PRIMARY TEXTS

439–476.

Kong Shangren（孔尚任）(1708) Taohuashan

Mullie, Jos (1932) The Structural Principles of（ 桃 花 扇 ） , 2016, Zhonghua Book

the Chinese Language, Vol. 1, The Bureau

Company（中華書局）, Beijing.

of Engraving and Printing, Peking.

Sima Qian（司馬遷）(91BC) Shiji（史記）, 2009,

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

Zhonghua Book Company（中華書局）,

Murasugi (2008) “Nˊ-Ellipsis and the

Beijing.

Structure of Noun Phrases in Chinese andJapanese,”

Journalof

East

Wei Shou（魏収）(554) Weishu（魏書）, Year

Asian

Unknown, Digital Library of China（中国Linguistics 17, 247–271.

数字図書館 ）, Online.

Shen, Li (2007) “Chinese Word Order and Event
Structures,” (Chuugokugo-no Gojun-to112

ある点を動詞の意味構造やコーパスデータ、
One’s Way 構文との比較の観点から論じ、本構文に観察される様々な経験的事実に説明を与える。
to victory 構文の構成性について*
2. 先行研究：岩田(2019)と Iwata (2020)
筆者の知る限り、これまでの結果構文研究（On the Compositionality of the to victory
Construction）の中で to victory 構文を取り上げた先行研究
吉川は岩田(2019)と Iwata (2020)のみである。
Iwata

裕介（Yusuke Yoshikawa）

京都外国語大学（Kyoto University of Foreign(2020)によると、(1a)は通常、to victory は主Studies）

語 He の結果状態を表しており、目的語の thehouse に は 動 詞 に よ る 力 の 伝 達 (force-

キーワード：to victory 構文, 非下位範疇化

transmission)が及ばない点を指摘している。

名詞句, 単一事象化, 着点句

また、この to victory が主語指向であるという根拠として、動詞 ride は(1b)のような自動詞文でも適格となり、to victory は主語の結果
状態のみを描写している点を挙げている。

1. はじめに
英語には(1)に示すように、一見すると toIwata は(2)で示す概念メタファーを想定す

victory が結果句のような役割を果たしていることで、本来は「ゴールへの到着」を表する文があり、本稿では to victory を文末に伴

to victory がメタファー拡張によって「ゴールう表現を to victory 構文と呼ぶ。Iwata (2020)の達成」を表すことができ、結果句としてのでは to victory は主語指向の結果述語である

解釈が立ち上がると指摘している。

ことから、このタイプの結果構文を直接目的(2) 概念メタファー：ACHIEVING A GOAL IS

語制約に従わない新しいタイプの結果構文

REACHING A GOAL (Iwata (2020: 392))

として分析している。

次に、Iwata (2020)では、to victory が非下位

(1) a. He rode the horse to victory.

範疇化名詞句と共起する例についても分析

b. Princess Anne rides to victoryを与えている。(3a)では、非下位範疇化名詞(Iwata (2020: 385, 387))

句の England は自動詞 bowl の force-recipientとなることから使役移動文の解釈となり、自本稿では、語彙意味論の立場から to victory

動詞結果構文と同様、to victory は目的語位置

構文を考察し、特に動詞を中心とした意味構の England の結果句として機能すると説明し造を観察することで、to victory は結果句ではている。1 一方、(3b)の目的語 the horse は行

なく着点句として機能している点を明らか

為の働きかけの対象とならないため単純移にする。具体的には、to victory の指向性を正動の解釈となり、主語の結果句として機能すしく予測できる点を事象構造の単一事象化る点で両構文は異なるとしている。

の観点を交えて示し、to victory は結果句ではなく着点句であり、経路と到達の意味を保持(3) a. He bowled England to victory.

している点、そして非下位範疇化名詞句を伴b. He rode the horse to victory. (=1a)

う to victory 構文は、動詞 lead が基底構造に(Iwata (2020: 394))

113

Iwata (2020)の議論が結果構文研究に新た

b. *The anti-incumbent vote was ridden to

な観点を提示した点は高く評価されるが、victory by the candidate.

force-recipient に基づく分析の問題点として以下の 2 点が挙げられる。まず、動詞 ride に辞書の定義によると、「馬やその他の乗り物

おいても to victory が目的語指向になる場合に跨り/乗り、それを操りながら移動する」

があり、使役移動文として目的語への動作の意と、「水や気流によって浮かぶ/支えられる」働きかけが観察される例が存在する点であ意が記載されている。この辞書の定義から二る。次に、非下位範疇化名詞句を伴うパタンつの事実が浮かび上がる。まず一つは、ride

では、(4a)が示すように to victory 構文は目的の目的語として HORSE タイプと WAVE タ

語位置に再帰代名詞の生起を容認せず、通常イプがある点。次に、両方の意味において自の自動詞結果構文とは異なる振る舞いをす

動詞用法と他動詞用法があることから、目的ることから、新たに説明が必要となる。

語が顕在化する場合としない場合がある点である。

(4) a. *?He {bowled/ swam} himself to victory.
b.

(7) ride:[T, I] to sit on a horse, etc. and control it

He {ate/ drank} himself to death.

as it moves[T, I] to float or be supported on water or

3. 考察

air

3.1. 二つのタイプの ride (NP) to victory(OALD9)

本節では、動詞を中心とする意味構造を明らかにすることで to victory の指向性が正し

HORSE タイプの場合では、騎手が馬をコンく予測でき、その指向性の違いを Rappaport

トロールして移動する/させることから、主

Hovav and Levin (2001)が提唱する事象構造

語と目的語のどちらが前景化するのかによと意味表示を用いて記述できる点を論じる。

って、単純移動と使役移動の違いが生じると

まず、動詞 ride を取り上げる。Iwata (2020)考える。実例からは、馬術競技では主語の競の主張とは異なり、to victory 構文は(5)のよ

技者が、競馬では目的語の競走馬が前景化しうに受動文として用いられる例があり、toやすい傾向が見て取れる。一方、WAVE タイ

victory は競走馬である Prince of Penzance を

プは波や気流に後押しされて進む移動を表叙述していることは明らかである。一方、(6a)すことから、目的語に対するコントロール性を受動化した(6b)は容認されないことから、は低く、意識的な行為が目的語に及んでいな

常に ride が受動化を容認するとは限らない。

い点で受動化を容認しないと説明づけることができる。
次に to victory の指向性の違いについて、(5) Weir trained the New Zealand thoroughbred
Prince of Penzance, which was ridden to
victory at the 2015 Melbourne Cup by the
first female jockey to win the race, Michelle
Payne.
(Google) 2

事象構造と意味表示を用いた記述を試みる(Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2001), 出 水(2018))。従来、(8a)のような裸 XP を取る結果構文は、複合事象で表記されてきたが、Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001)では(8b)のよ(6) a. Republicans successfully mobilized their

うな意味表示を与え、複合事象の単一事象化

own core voters and rode an anti-を提案している。この事象の同一認定が行わ

incumbent vote to victory.

れるための条件として Levin & Rappaport(COCA)

114

Hovav (1999)で規定したものが(9)である。

(11)では、下位事象 1 の x 項と下位事象 2 のy 項が同一指示物であり、to victory が時間的

(8) a. Kim ran into the room.

尺度となることから事象が結合して単一事

b. ∃ e [RUN-INTO (e) & AGENT-THEME象化する。
その際に下位事象 1 の y 項は ACT-

(Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001: 782))

現れるため、z 項に到着するのは動作主であ(9) 事象の同一認定が行われるための二つる x 項となる。これにより「x が馬に乗る」の条件：1) The subevents must have the

事象と「x が着点に到達する」事象を同一事

same location and must necessarily be

象として見なすことができ、図１に示す因果

temporally dependent. 2) One subevent must

連鎖を単純事象構造で記述できる。

(e, KIM) & GOAL] (e, room)]

AS-RIDE-<y>として動詞の意味関数の中に

have a property that serves to measure outthat subevent in time; this property is(11) He rode the horse to victory. (=1a)

predicated of and entity that is necessarily a[[x ACT<RIDE> ON y] CAUSE [BECOME [y <TO> z]]]ACT

participant in both subevent.
He(Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1999: 213))

to victory[x ACT-AS-RIDE-<y>-BECOME<TO> z]

図 1. 単純事象の因果連鎖と意味表示

出水(2018)では、Rappaport Hovav & Levin(2001)の主張を具体的な事例分析に落とし込み、複合事象の単一事象化を試みている。

一方、to victory が目的語指向になる場合は、出水によると、(10a)が示すように従来 walk

図 2 の因果連鎖が示すように、動詞 ride の行の主語は下位事象 1 では x 項、下位事象 2 で為が直接的に the horse に加えられる使役移は y 項でそれぞれ示されていたが、この x と動文の解釈となる。この場合、下位事象 1 のy が同一指示物であり、かつ to the park が時

x 項と下位事象 2 の y 項の参与者が一致せ間的尺度となっていることから、(10b)のよず、(9)の条件を満たさないため、図 2 のよう

うに下位事象が統合されて単純事象としてな複合事象で表示できる。

表示することが可能となる。
ACT ONHe(10) walk to the park の意味表示：

CHANGEthe horse

to victory[[x ACT<RIDE> ON y] CAUSE [BECOME [y <TO> z]]]a. [[x ACT<WALK>] CAUSE [BECOME [y<TO> z]]]]

図 2. 複合事象の因果連鎖と意味表示

b. [x-y ACT<WALK>-BECOME [<TO> z]](出水 (2018: 136, 145))以上から、事象構造の単一事象化を想定することで、to victory の指向性の違いを単純

本稿では、出水 (2018)で提案された意味表

事象と複合事象の意味表示を用いて適切に示に基づき、to victory 構文にも複合事象の単記述できると考える。

一事象化が適応すると考える。そこで、動詞
ら、目的語位置の the horse は行為が及ぶ対象

3.2. その他の動詞と共起する to victory
本節では、ride 以外に to victory と共起すではなく、手段(様態)を表す要素として動詞る動詞を観察することで、to victory が着点句の内部に組み込まれる意味表示を提案する。

としての意味機能を果たしている点を論じ

ride は the horse を意味に内包できることか115

る。WB を用いて生起頻度と動詞の分布を調(13)は共に受動文であるが、(13a)ではレース

査したところ、
自動詞では上位 10 語は cruiseに勝利したのは by 以下の Lewis Hamilton で(191), storm (131), romp (88), sweep (70), stroll

あるのに対し、(13b)では競走馬の Ballabriggs(41), roar (38), ease (37), ride (30), lead (29),が勝利した解釈となる。

power (28)であった。sweep と lead 以外は全
(13) a. Although Max Verstappen was beaten toて特定の様態を伴った移動を表す自動詞がvictory in the F1 season opener by Lewis

高頻度で生起している。
また、他動詞では lead (321), help (88), guide

Hamilton’s Mercedes, Red Bull thinks the(61), captain (56), inspire (53), ride (47), bowl

pace it showed throughout the Sakhir event(36), carry (34) , steer (32), propel (28)が上位 10

has put it in the frame for a title challenge.

語を占めており、その特徴として対象を勝利

b. Two horses died in last year 's race and theへと導く意の動詞が多く現れることが分か

exhausted Ballabriggs was beaten toる。特に lead は全体の 26%を占めており、

victory by his jockey Jason Maguire, who

他の動詞に比べて突出した生起数となってwas banned for five days for excessive use

いる。この点については次節で検討することof the whip .

(Google)とする。
これらの量的調査から to victory と動詞の辞書の定義を確認すると、動詞 beat は beat 1

共起傾向として、自動詞は cruise など移動のとして競技で「打ち負かす、打ち破る、勝る、意を表す動詞、他動詞は lead など対象を勝凌ぐ」と言う意味を持つことから、 (15)が示利へと導く意を表す動詞が典型的に現れてすように複合事象と単純事象のそれぞれのおり、これは to victory が着点句として機能

構造で表記できることが分かる。特に(15a)のしている可能性を示唆している。

複合事象に注目すると、「打ち負かす」意味

Iwata (2020) が 指 摘 し て い る よ う に 、 toでは、動詞 beat によって相手が「負かされvictory 構文は移動を伴わない動詞にも現れる」という結果状態を内包することから、結る。例えば、battle タイプの動詞は(12b)が示果項 z には BEATEN が入ることになる。しすように to victory と共起することで抽象的たがって、to victory は動詞から導き出されるな移動を表す解釈となるとしている。

結果述語ではないと判断できる。

(12) a. run to the store (=spatial motion)(14) beat の辞書的意味：

b. battle to victory (=metaphorical motion)

beat 1：COMPETITION/ELECTION [T] to(cf. Iwata (2020: 393))

defeat or do better thanbeat 2：HIT [T] to hit someone or something

以下では、同じ battle タイプである動詞 beatmany times with your hand, a stick etc

を取り上げ、移動を伴わない動詞においても(LDOCE6)

to victory と共起することで物理的な移動を(15) beat 1 の意味表示：

表出する実例を取り上げ、to victory が動詞に

a. [[x ACT ON y] CAUSE [BECOME [yよって導かれる結果句ではなく、着点句であ<BEATEN>]]]ることを明らかにする。

b. [x ACT<BEAT> ON y]

前節で論じた動詞 ride と同様、beat に関しても to victory の指向性に違いが見られる。

この辞書的意味を考慮しながら(13a)に立ち116

返ると、この記事が F1 レースに関すること

b. Schneider, Avila kick to victory at theから、Hamilton が Verstappen とのマッチアッ

USATF 1 Mile Road Championships

プを制して優勝したことが分かる。つまり、

presented by Toyota

経路を伴うレース競技の場合、競技者は経路

c. The 56th presidential cycling tour ofに渡って他の選手との競い合いを凌いでturkey Mark Cavendish kicked to victory(beat)勝利する(to victory)ことから、この経路

in general individual category(Google)(Google)を伴う解釈は to victory が結果項ではなく着点項として z 項に現れる根拠となる。この場
合、下位事象 1 の x 項と下位事象 2 の y 項が4. 非下位範疇化名詞句を伴う to victory 構文
本節では、to victory 構文が非下位範疇化名

同一指示物である Hamilton を指すことから

詞句と共起する要因に関して、動詞 lead が単一事象化が可能となり、Verstappen は y 項

基底構造にあり、その意味構造を保ったままとして動詞の動詞 beat の中に様態の一部と動作の様態として様々な競技に関する動詞

して表記される。これにより、例文(13a)の意

が＜LEAD＞の位置に代入するという立場

味表示として単純事象[x ACT-AS-BEAT-<y>を取る。以下ではその根拠を三つの観点から-BECOME <TO> z]と示すことができる。

示す。

一方、beat 2 は打撃接触動詞であることから(16)のような意味表示で記述できる。(13b)4.1. 通時的観点

は、x 項の騎手が y 項の馬を鞭で叩いて勝利

通時的観点から OED で動詞 lead を調べるに導いていることから使役移動文の解釈とと、「司令官が先頭に立って兵隊の動きを指なり、複合事象[[x ACT<BEAT> ON y] CAUSE揮する」という軍事的な意味で使われる lead

[BECOME [y <TO> z]]]によって示される。

が 900 年に初出している。このことから、
COMPETITION IS WAR という概念メタファ(16) beat 2 の意味表示：[x ACT<BEAT> ON y]ーが成立し、「人がチームを勝利へ導く」と言うフレームが立ち上がることで競技への同様の議論は他の動詞にも当てはまる。

転用が可能となったと考えられる。

(17)が示すように、kick 自体に移動の意味は内包しないが、to victory と共起することで(18) lead: Of a commander: To march at the head

「力強くバタ足をする、地面を蹴る、ペダルof and direct the movement of.

をこぐ」などのように、競技特有の様態を伴(OED)(19) COMPETITION IS WARってゴールまでの経路を移動する解釈とな(cf. Lakoff & Johnson (1999))

る。この解釈は動詞 kick が to victory と共起して初めて生まれるものであり、to victory が4.2. WB による量的分析と動詞 lead の意味

経路の着点を表す意味機能を果たすことで前節で示したように、WB を用いて to

本来的には kick に含まれない競技特有の様

victory 構文が他動詞と共起するパタンを調態が解釈の段階で付与されると考える。

べると lead は全体の約 26%を占めており、他の動詞と比べて高頻度で生起している。ま(17) a. So we’re really hoping :PERSON: kicks

た、1、2 例しか生起しない極めて頻度の低い

to victory today in the women’s 400m

動詞群が全体のおよそ半数を占める。この量

freestyle, defending the gold she won four的特徴は to victory が構文化している可能性

years ago.

を示唆している。すなわち、make を基底構

(WB)

117

造に取る One’s Way 構文と同様、プロトタイ[[x ACT<LEAD> ON y] CAUSE [BECOME [yプとなる動詞の意味構造が定着し、動詞の意<TO> victory]]](21) [NPi bowl NPj to victory]の意味表示：

味自体が希薄化することで様々な動詞が代入できるようになり、言語使用者が言葉遊び[[x ACT<BOWL> ON y] CAUSE [BECOME

やユーモアなどを交えて意識的に特徴的な[y <TO> victory]]]

動詞を使用することから、これらが構文化の指標として重要な意味を持つと考えられる。

4.3. One’s Way 構文との棲み分け

次に、動詞 lead の意味構造に注目してみWB で非下位範疇化名詞句と to victory がよう。Levin (1993)でも示されているように、共起するパタンを検索すると、目的語に one’

他動詞の lead は「x が y をある場所へ導く」

way を伴う例が多く検出される。また、動詞という意味から、2 つの参与者が構造項としに注目すると非下位範疇化名詞句を伴う toて設定されているため、主語と目的語はそれ

victory 構文と One’s Way 構文とでは、競技にぞれ NPi と NPj のように異なる語彙要素が必おける特定の動作を表す動詞の多くを共有要となる。この lead の意味構造から、原則的しており、両構文の親和性の高さが垣間見えに下位事象 1 の x 項と下位事象 2 の y 項とる。動詞 swim を例に挙げると、(22a)のようが同一指示物になることはないため、lead はに主語と目的語とが一致しない場合は to

常に y 項の着点として to victory が現れるこ

victory 構文が使用されるが、(23a)のように主とになる。これにより、非下位範疇化名詞句

語と目的語が一致する際には One’s Way 構文を伴う to victory は常に y 項の着点項となるが使用されるという棲み分けが見られる。すことから目的語指向の解釈のみ可能となる。

なわち、to victory が目的語位置に再帰形を取

動詞 lead の意味構造の妥当性はコーパス

る場合、再帰代名詞ではなく one’s way が使データからも裏付けられる。WB で[NPi lead用されることから to victory の着点句として

NPj to victory]の生起パタンを検索すると、全の意味機能を保持しているこは明らかであ部で 101 件検出された。興味深いことに、検り、これらの事実は以上で論じた本稿の主張出された全ての例で NPi には有生の動作主まを裏づけるものとなる。

たはチーム名が現れており、無生物を主語に取る例は検出されなかった。また NPj の位置(22) a. [NPi V non-subNPj to victory]に再帰代名詞が生起するパタンについても

b. Dube, Li swim Natick to victory(23) a. [NPi V non-subNPi to victory]

一例も見られない事実は注目に値する。

b. Headington Prep girls swim their way to

以上から、to victory 構文が非下位範疇化名

victory

詞句と共起するパタンでは(20)のように動(Google)

詞 lead の意味表示を基底構造とし、その動詞の位置に競技特有の動詞が代入することによって、(21)のような非下位範疇化名詞句

5. おわりに
本稿では語彙意味論や語法的な分析手法を伴う表現が可能になると考える。また、(4a)を基に、to victory 構文の構成性を明らかにし、で示した不適格性も説明づけることができ、

to victory の指向性は動詞の意味によって正to victory 構文が自動詞結果構文とは異なるしく計算できる点、その指向性の違いを意味

振る舞いをする根拠となる。

表示の違いで記述できる点、さらに非下位範疇化名詞句のパタンでは動詞 lead が基底構(20) [NPi lead NPj to victory]の意味表示：

造として存在し、競技特有の動作を表す動詞

118

が代入している点を明らかにした。

Iwata, Seizi (2020) English Resultatives: A

本稿で示したように、従来の語彙意味論のForce-Recipient Account, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam.

枠組みに語法的な意味分析を取り入れることにより、結果構文研究の進展とさらなる理Lakoff, George and Johnson Mark (1999)

論の精緻化に大きく貢献できると考える。

Philosophy in the flesh: The Embodied Mindand Its Challenge to Western Thought, Basic
Books, New York.

* 本稿は、日本英語学会第 39 回大会 (オンLevin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav

ライン開催)において口頭発表した内容に加筆、修正したものである。発表並びに本稿執(1995) Unaccusativity:

At

the

Syntax-筆に際して、岩田彩志先生、西原俊明先生、

Lexical Semantics Interface, MIT Press,

出水孝典先生、そして六甲英語学研究会の先Cambridge, MA.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (1999)

生方から多くの有益なご意見を頂いた。ここに感謝の意を表したい。なお、本稿における“Two

StructuresforCompositionally

不備や誤りはすべて筆者の責任である。

Derived Events,” Proceedings of Semantics

注1
Iwata (2020)では(a)のような自動詞結果構

and Linguistic Theory 9, 199-223.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav

文を(b)のようにパラフレーズしている。the(2005) Argument Realization, Cambridge

predator eat the lake が示すのは捕食動物が湖

University Press, Cambridge.

から生物を口に入れ、咀嚼し、飲み込む一連

Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin (2001)の行為を表し、「捕食動物が湖から生物を食“An Event Structure Account of English

べることで取り除く」という行為を the lake

Resultatives,” Language 77, 766-797.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin (2010)に与えることから、the lake は動詞 eat の force-“Reflections

recipient として解釈される。

Complementarity,”(i) a. The predator ate the lake clean.

Mannar/Result
LexicalSemantics,

Syntax, and Event Structure, ed. by Malka

b. The predator did an ‘EAT-AS-REMOVE

Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron and Ivy Sichel,

FROM’ action on the lake, and as a result21-38, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

the lake became clean.

コーパス(Iwata (2020: 142))
2

on

WordbanksOnline (WB)
Corpus of Contemporary American English

本稿で採用する Google の例は原則的にWB で検出されたものを使用している。WB(COCA)

は近年ノンフィクションの分野において個

辞書

人名や団体名を匿名化していることから、原Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

典の記事を Google より引用している。

(LDOCE), Pearson Education Limited,
Harlow.

参考文献

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (OALD),

出水孝典 (2018) 『動詞の意味を分解する―

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

様態・結果・状態の語彙意味論―』(開拓The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Oxford

社言語・文化選書 71), 開拓社, 東京.

University Press, Oxford.

岩田彩志 (2019) 「直接目的語制約に従わない結果構文」JELS 36, 31-37.

119<Special Lecture Report>てのみ観察され、B(e)言語にはみられない。
H 言語とは、英語の have に相当する所有を示す他動詞を持つ言語であり、B 言語とは、
英語の have に相当する他動詞を持たず、be

語彙部門から生じる言語間変異：

動詞に相当する語を用いて所有を表現する

英語獲得に基づく検討言語である。Harves & Kayne (2012)による言（Parametric Variation in the Lexicon:

語間変異に関する観察の一部を(1)に示した。

A View from Child English）(1)

have と need の言語間変異

杉崎 鉱司（Koji Sugisaki）

言語

所有

他動詞 need

関西学院大学（Kwansei Gakuin University）

英語

have

あり

スペイン語

have

あり

キーワード：パラメータ, 他動詞 need,

フランス語

have

なし

wh 不定詞節, 母語獲得

ロシア語

be

なし

ｱｲﾙﾗﾝﾄﾞ語

beなし

1. はじめに「need に相当する他動詞を持つ言語は H 言

生成文法におけるミニマリスト・プログラ

語の一部に限られる」という一般化を英語のムでは、ヒトの言語の起源・進化を解き明か獲得の観点から述べ直すと、他動詞 have にすことを目指し、母語獲得のための生得的な関する知識が他動詞 need に関する知識の真

仕組みである UG に固有の属性を最小化す部分集合(proper subset)を成していることにることに取り組んでいる。この取り組みの一なる。このことから、英語の獲得においては、環として、言語の可能な異なり方を生得的に①have を need よりも先に獲得する幼児と②規定する「パラメータ」に関して、その所在

have と need をほぼ同時に獲得する幼児は存を統語演算システムの内部に求めるのでは在しうるが、③need を have よりも先に獲得なく、外在化(externalization)のプロセスや語する幼児は存在しないことが予測される。

彙部門(lexicon)に限定する可能性が追求され

CHILDES デ ー タ ベ ー ス (MacWhinneyている(Borer (1984), Chomsky (1995, 2017))。

2000)に収められた英語を母語とする幼児 10

本講演では、語彙部門から生じる言語間変異

名分の自然発話コーパスを詳細に分析したに関する近年の提案として Harves & Kayne

結果、上記の①のタイプの幼児が 4 名、②の(2012)および Sabel (2020)による研究を取りタイプの幼児が 6 名観察され、③のタイプの上げ、英語を母語として獲得中の幼児の自然

幼児は観察されなかった。したがって、英語発話を詳細に分析することによってそれらの獲得過程から得られた事実は、Harves &の提案の妥当性を検討した。

Kayne (2012)の他動詞 need の言語間変異に関する提案を支持するものである。

2. 他動詞 need の言語間変異と獲得
Harves & Kayne (2012)によると、英語の3. Wh 不定詞節の言語間変異と獲得

need に相当する「他動詞」（主語が主格を担

Sabel (2020)によると、wh 句によって導かい、目的語が対格を担ってかつ前置詞を伴われる不定詞節が埋め込み文として現れるこずに現れる動詞）は H(ave)言語の一部におい120

とができるか否かは言語によって異なり、英に関する知識が wh 不定詞節に関する知識の語はこのような wh 不定詞節を許容するが、真部分集合を成していることになる。このこ

ドイツ語は許容しない。

とから、英語の獲得においては、①PC 構文
を wh 不定詞節よりも先に獲得する幼児、お

(2)

a. 英語

よび②PC 構文と wh 不定詞節をほぼ同時にLisa has decided [whom to visit t ].

獲得する幼児は存在しうるが、③wh 不定詞

b. ドイツ語

節を PC 構文よりも先に獲得する幼児は存在* Lisahat

entschieden

Lisa

has

decided

[ was

Tom

what

t

zu

Tom.DAT to

しないことが予測される。
CHILDES データベースに収められた英語

sagen ].

を母語とする幼児 20 名分の自然発話コーパ

sayスを詳細に分析した結果、コーパスの終わり‘Lisa has decided what to say to Tom.’

までに両方の性質を獲得した幼児は 9 名であった。そのうち、上記の①のタイプの幼児

Sabel (2020)は、wh 不定詞節を許容する言語

が 1 名、②のタイプの幼児が 8 名観察され、は 、 (3a) の よ う な 前 置 詞 的 補 文 標 識③のタイプの幼児は観察されなかった。した(prepositional complementizer; PC)によって導がって、英語の獲得過程から得られた事実は、かれた不定詞節(PC 構文)を持つ言語の一部

Sabel (2020)による wh 不定詞節の言語間変異に限られると提案した。Sabel (2020)による言に関する提案の予測と一致するものである。

語間変異に関する観察の一部を(4)に示した。
4. 結論
(3)

a. 英語

上記の 2 つの英語獲得に基づく事例研究

I want [CP (for) [TP John to win]].

は、言語間変異の源が語彙部門に存在する可b. ドイツ語

能性を高めるだけではなく、母語獲得過程が* … dass sie

versuchte

言語間変異に関する理論的提案の妥当性をtried

検討する際に重要な資料となりうることをthat she.NOM[CP um[TP das Buch zu lesen ]].

示すものである。

the book to read
‘ … that she tried to read the book.’
COMP

(4)

主要参考文献wh 不定詞節と PC 構文の言語間変異
言語wh 不定詞節

PC 構文

英語

あり

あり

スペイン語

あり

あり

中英語(ME)なし

あり

ｽｳｪｰﾃﾞﾝ語なし

なし

ﾃﾞﾝﾏｰｸ語なし

なし

Chomsky, Noam (2017) “Notes on Parameters,”
Linguistic Analysis 41, 475-479.
Harves, Stephanie and Richard Kayne (2012)“Having ‘Need’ and Needing ‘Have’,”
Linguistic Inquiry 43, 120–132.
MacWhinney, Brian (2000) The CHILDES
Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Sabel, Joachim (2020) “P and the Emergence of「wh 不定詞節を許容する言語は PC 構文を

the Infinitival Left Periphery,” Variation in

持つ言語の一部に限られる」という一般化をP, ed. by Jacopo Garzonio and Silvia Rossi,

英語の獲得の観点から述べ直すと、PC 構文

135-163, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

121<Symposium Report>

大の影響で１年延期してオンラインでの開催となった。
民間試験導入にまつわる騒動の根底にあったのは「４技能をバランスよく育成する」

公開特別シンポジウムという教育目標であった。民間試験導入は正今、英語教育を考える

式に見送ることが公表されたものの、「４技−英語にかかわる研究の視点から–能」のバランスが良いとは何を意味するのか、（What Can/Should We Do Now on「４技能」のすべての基本となる基礎力（文English Education?:

法力、語彙力）の養成が疎かになっていない

Proposals from English-Related Studies）

か、といった英語教育の根幹にかかわる議論は依然として尽くされていない。

伊藤たかね（Takane Ito）

新指導要領に従って教育を受けた学生を東京大学（The University of Tokyo）

大学に迎える準備が本格化する今こそ、改め長谷川信子（Nobuko Hasegawa）て英語教育の本質を問うことに意味がある。

神田外語大学名誉教授（Kanda University of

その思いが共有されたことが、高校生を含めInternational Studies, Emeritus）て約 280 名の非会員の参加登録、当日参加者

井上逸兵（Ippei Inoue）

約 400 名という本シンポジウムの「盛会」に

慶應義塾大学（Keio University）

つながったものと考えている。参加者の皆さ

阿部公彦（Masahiko Abe）

んに、この場を借りて感謝したい。

東京大学（The University of Tokyo）

本シンポジウムは、英語にかかわる様々な白畑知彦（Tomohiko Shirahata）

研究分野から英語教育を見るという趣旨で、静岡大学（Shizuoka University）

以下のような構成をとった。

水口志乃扶（Shinobu Mizuguchi）
神戸大学名誉教授（Kobe University,

講師１

Emeritus）

長谷川信子

文法研究の立場から
講師２

キーワード：文法, ポライトネス, 仲介, 翻井上逸兵

コミュニケーション研究の立場から

訳, プロソディ

講師３

阿部公彦

英文学研究の立場から
指定討論者１

1. はじめに

白畑知彦

第二言語習得研究の立場から

本シンポジウムは、大学入学共通テストへ

指定討論者２の民間試験導入にかかわる議論が錯綜して

水口志乃扶

L２音声習得研究の立場からいた中で、英語を対象とする研究者の集団であり、多くの会員が大学等で英語を教える立

以下に、各講師・指定討論者の発表の要点を場にある日本英語学会として、今の英語教育まとめる。

に対する発信が必要ではないかという意識のもとに企画され、日本英文学会との共催と

2. （講師 1）句構造と機能語、主語 vs.主題

いう形で実現したものである。当初、2020（長谷川）この発表では、英語教育の現状と問題点を年度の大会で実施の予定であったが、感染拡122俯瞰した上で、「文法への依存」のより大きへの依存」を横軸に、認知的な複雑さを縦軸

い指導にシフトすることによって、認知的にに取った場合に、①→②and/or③→④と進複雑な内容をも扱うことのできる英語の運

んでいく欧米のモデルではなく、文法知識を用力を養成することができると提案した。

しっかり身につけることを基盤として①か言語には、(i)感情や気持ちを表現する、(ii)

ら④に進み、必要に応じて②・③に進むプ

思考を形成し、伝達するという役割があるが、 ログラムが望ましい。
コミュニケーション重視の英語教育の中で(ii)が軽視されてきている。(i)は場面への依3. （講師 2）いわゆる「AI 時代」の英語教存が大きく、(ii)は文法（つまり、文の構造

育（井上）およびその構築に関わる前置詞や助動詞なAI による機械翻訳の質が飛躍的に向上しどの機能範疇の理解）への依存が大きい言語ていると言われる今、「英語は勉強しなくて使用であると言える。(i)を重視することによ

良いのではないか」という問いが生じている。

って、CEFR の A レベルでの「言語使用によ

本発表では、その問いにどう答えるべきか、

る成功体験」をもたせることに成功している「AI 時代」の英語教育は何を目指すべきかが、そこから「より高度な認知活動」に移っを、機械翻訳と、人間（翻訳者）による翻訳ていくことが難しい。大学レベルで、文法知との比較を行うケーススタディを通して検識が不十分であるために、内容語だけを並べ討した。ケーススタディの題材として TEDて総合的に理解している者が多い。

の講義を用い、文字テキストで表すことので文法体系としての階層構造を考えると、思きる情報に加え、イントネーション、ポーズ

考（命題）を表現する TP 領域、さらに発話等のプロソディも検討材料に含まれている。

行為的意味を表す CP 領域の理解が、(ii)の言

人の手による翻訳と比較すると、機械翻訳

語機能を身につけるためには必須である。

は、特に(i)対人的な配慮の理解や(ii)慣習化

教室外での英語使用の機会が限定的であされた副次的シグナルの理解を必要とする

り、授業時間数も多くない日本の英語教育に

翻訳において、質が低下することがわかる。

は、第二言語として英語に日常的に接する欧

たとえば、失礼に当たる直接的な表現を避け

米の英語教育モデルを、そのままの形で導入る言い回しが、機械翻訳では訳し落とされてすることは適切ではない。

いたり、文脈やイントネーションによって相手に同意しているのではないことが明白な“OK”を機械翻訳は「OK」と訳してしまう、といったことが観察された。社会言語学の基本であるポライトネスやコンテクスト化の合図（contextualization cues）が、機械翻訳は苦手だと言ってもよい。
一方、取扱説明書やマニュアルなどの説明的な文章については、機械翻訳はかなり質が高いことが知られている。機械翻訳には得手・不得手があるのである。

図１：日本型英語教育の提案

このように考えると、「AI 時代において英語学習は不要か」という問の答えは、「何を図 1 のように、「場面への依存」と「文法目的とするのか」によって異なってくること123

がわかる。簡単な道案内をできるようになる

える自由間接話法においては、直接話法と間ために、四苦八苦して英語を学ぶ必要はない

接話法を折衷することによって、「外の声」

かもしれないが、真に相互の意図を理解できと「内の声」という二つの異なるシステム間るようなコミュニケーションを目的とするの「翻訳」に光が当てられるのである。

なら、機械翻訳は（少なくとも、「まだ」）不このような「翻訳」に困難が伴い、しばし十分である。学ぶ側の必要に応じてカスタマ

ばズレが生じること、しかしそのズレこそがイズした英語教育の重要性が示唆される。

表現の可能性を生むことを文学研究は明らかにしてきた。日英語という異なる言語間の4. （講師 3）「４技能均等」の限界とその先翻訳も、翻訳の困難や翻訳によって生じるズ（阿部）レについて学んだり、他者に歩み寄ることで2020 年の大学入試の大混乱は教育行政が自己を相対化したりする機会を提供するは「入試いじり」などの制度改革にとらわれすずである。

ぎ、肝心の教育内容については「４技能をバ
ランス良く」といったキャッチフレーズを掲

5. （指定討論者1）第二言語習得研究からのげるばかりで十分な吟味を行わなかったこ

英語教育への示唆（白畑）とに大きな原因がある。

学習時間も教室外での英語の使用の機会

日常生活で英語を使う機会がほとんどなも限られている日本の英語教育の現状を踏い日本の多くの若者に対して、一律に「均等まえれば、海外、特に欧米の英語指導法をそな４技能」を求めることに意味はあるのか。

のまま導入することは賢明とは言えない。

中等教育においては技能を４つに分ける以

日本でかつて中心的であった文法・訳読式

前の「体幹」を鍛えることが大事ではないのの指導は、「英語を話せない」ことの要因とか。基礎力が身についていれば、将来、それして批判されてきたが、文法・訳読式の授業

ぞれの必要に応じてさまざまな技能を伸ばが話せないことの原因であるとは言えない。

していくことができるのではないか。

話す練習をすることは重要であるが、同時に、

この「体幹」とあわせて大事なのは、母語

抽象的な思考を支える複雑な文構造を理解と異なる言語を学ぶことによって身につくするために、母語（日本語）を介在させる指「母語を相対化する」力である。この力は、導も必要である。

ものの考え方、世界を把握するための枠組み

母語の助けを借りる指導法の一つに、「和の作り方などにおいて柔軟な切り換えを可訳先渡しの指導」がある。リーディングで扱能にし、異なる価値観への寛容さを育む。そう英文の和訳をあらかじめ配布しておくこの意味で、将来的に英語を実際に使う機会をとで概要の理解を助け、授業では英語そのももたないような学習者にとっても、極めて重のを読み、質問に答えたり、内容について自要な意義をもつ。

分の意見をまとめたりする活動を活発に行

このような切り換えの能力は、⼀つのシスうことができる。しかし、自分で考えること、

テムのコードを別のシステムのそれに変換

自分の力で日本語と英語という異なる言語する広い意味での「翻訳」あるいは「仲介」間の翻訳を試みること、といった外国語教育の作業を通して鍛えられる。本発表ではそうの根幹部分を損なう可能性があるという批した作業の典型例とみなせる文学作品中の判もある。賛否両論ではあるが、このような自由間接話法に着目した。作家が登場人物の指導法を検討していくことに意味があるの

内面に踏み込み、その「心の声」に表現を与ではないか。

124

7. まとめ

そして、冒頭に述べた日本の英語教育の環境を考えれば、文法を明示的に教えることが本シンポジウムでは、英語を対象とするさ

適切な指導法であると考える。ただし、一方

まざまな研究分野の視点から英語教育を捉通行で教えるのではなく、グループワークな

えようとした。異なる立場からの提案がなさ

どで学習者自身が例文から文法の規則を見れたが、以下のような共通項も浮かび上がっ出していくことができるような、興味を持たてきた。

せる工夫が必要である。

・教室外で英語を使う機会の少ない日本に、
欧米の英語教育モデルをそのまま導入する

6. （指定討論者2）脱「日本人の英語」に向ことの是非を問うべきけて（水口）

・学習者それぞれの目的、必要性に合致する「伝わる英語」を話すためには、正しいプ

ように力を伸ばしていくことができるシスロソディ（音調、音調句(以下IP（intonation

テムが重要で、そのためには根幹となる基礎

phrase)）、卓立）を身につけることが重要で力を学校教育で鍛えておくのが良い

あるが、現状ではプロソディ教育はほとんど・基礎力の要となるのは文法の力と、母語となされていない。

異なる言語との間で行うコードの変換（翻英語自然発話の知覚実験では、日本語を母訳）である語とする英語学習者は、英語母語話者と比較

・母語が確立した段階で英語学習を始める日

して、上位統語範疇（文/補文標識、接続詞）本にあっては、母語を介在させる指導法が効と非統語範疇（談話標識、言いよどみ）をIP

果的である

認識の手がかりとして用いる傾向が弱いこ

質疑応答では、チャット欄に書き込んでいとがわかっている。また、日本語母語話者のただいた質問・コメントをスプレッドシート

英語発話では、卓立を誤配置する傾向がある。 に転記して画面共有した。会員だけでなく、英語の卓立はデフォルトでIPの最後の内容

高校生、大学生や高校の先生方などからも語に置かれるので、IPを正しく認識しなけれ様々な反応をいただいた。日本の英語教育のば卓立を正しく置くことはできない。IP認識

環境が欧米とは異なるという認識の重要性にも、ヘッドの認識にも、文法力が必須であへの共感が多く表明され、また、発音指導やり、つまり自然発話を聞き取るためにも、発文法指導のあり方、どのような目標を設定し話において正しく卓立を置くためにも、文法て授業を行うべきか、といった点についての力が重要である。

質問やコメントなどが寄せられた。時間の制「日本人の英語」の特徴は、(1)正確な音

約で十分に議論できなかったことが残念で素産出ができない、(2)卓立の概念がなく、あるが、論点の共有はできたと考えている。

卓立を誤配置する、また卓立を置く母音の時

今、英語教育を考えるにあたって、本シン間長が短い、(3)ピッチレンジが狭い、など

ポジウムの議論が少しでも役に立てば幸いが顕著であるが、これらは、音声学を理解しである。

ている教員が適切に訓練することで改善する可能性が高い。たとえば、ピッチレンジは訓練によって広くなることが実験で確認されている。また、音素とプロソディの学習順
序には順序効果があることがわかっており、訓練の順序についても検討が必要である。

125

(1) What is the role of labels at the interfaces?
(2)

Is the label of the same syntactic object thesame across languages?

Issues on Heads and Labeling*(3)

Is the label of the same syntactic object thesame at the PF and the LF interfaces?

(4) What is the function of the head (or theSatoshi Oku (Hokkaido University),label) in [V + V] compounds?

Mina Sugimura (Ritsumeikan University),
Miki Obata (Hosei University),

2. Head of V-V Compounds in Japanese

Sayuri Nakamura (Hokkaido University

The syntactic functions of V1 and V2 in a

Graduate School)[V1+V2] compounds pose interesting questions
Keywords: head, labeling, V-V complex,

concerning the role of the “head.” In some casesinterfaceof “syntactic” verbal compounds (Kageyama(1993)), it is clear that V1 (e.g., tabe) assigns
both Case and θ-role to the object NP as in (5).

1. Introduction
Labels of phrases and compounds have been(5) [VP2 [VP1 [NP gohan-o][V1 tabe]] [V2 oeru]]

playing a central role in generative linguistics

rice-Acc

since its onset: PS-Rules and X-bar theory are

eatfinish‘finish eating rice’

category-dependent (C-selection, for instance),
and many phonological rules are sensitive toWith “lexical” verbal compounds in (6),categories (labels) of the input (Chomsky (1965),

however, the syntactic functions of V1 and V2

Chomsky and Halle (1968), etc). In theseem to be complicated in some cases as in (7).

traditional

sense,

the

head

of

the

phrase/compound is the element that determines(6) [VP NP [V V1 V2]

the label, and word order is directly reflected by(7) a. [VP [NP mozi-o][V [V1 kaki][V2 naguru]]]

the position of the head. Chomsky (2013, 2015)

letters-Acc

propose that labels are identified by minimal

write

punch

‘write letters roughly/carelessly’

search and are motivated by the interfaces.

b.

[VP [NP PC-o][V [V1 moti][V2 kaeru]]]

Notice, however, that part of the Chomsky’s new

PC-Accimplementation of labeling algorithm is not‘bring the PC home’bring

go.homecompatible with the traditional notion of heads.
English T0, for example, is a “head” in that it isIn (7a), θ-role is assigned by V1 kaki ‘write’, not

X but it is not the label of a sentence (Chomsky

by V2 nagur ‘punch’, to the NP mozi ‘letter’(2013). Likewise, there are cases, both in(which is clear from the semantic selection) but

Japanese and in English, where the role of the

ACC Case can be assigned by either V1 or V2“head” is not straightforward in V-V complexes.

(since both are ACC Case assigners lexically). In

In this symposium, we raised the following(7b), in contrast, both θ-role and ACC Case are0

issues to be explored about heads and labeling.

assigned to the NP by V1 moti ‘bring’ since V2

126

b.

kaeru ‘go.home’ is not an ACC Case assigner

hon-ga … [V1 yom-are][V2 kake] -ta

and does not select PC semantically. Nakamura,

book-Nom read-Passthen,‘The book was started to (be) read’

suggests

that

some

“lexical”

V-V

compounds such as those in (7) are to bereanalyzed

as“syntactic”(12) V1 or V2 passivization

compounds;a.

Seeto-ga…[V1home][V2 tuduke]-rare-ta

specifically, V1 selects and Case-assigns to theobject NP and the VP1 is then selected by V2.
Nakamura

next

observes

thestart-Pst

student-Nom praisekeep-Pass-Pst

b. Seeto-ga…[V1home-rare][V2 tuduke]-ta

1complexstudent-Nom praise-Passbehaviors of passivization of V-V compounds.

keep-Pst‘The student was keep (being) praised’

When we passivize lexical V-V compounds in(7a-b), the passive morpheme –(r)are is attached

Nakamura introduces the representative previous

to V2, not to V1, as shown in (8) and (9).

research on the passivization of V-V compounds(Case transfer (from V1 to V2) approach by(8) a. mozi-ga … [V1 kaki] [V2 nagu]-rare-ta
letters-Nom

Miyagawa (1989) and Nishigauchi (1993),
Argument Structure transfer approach by Rosen

write punch-Pass-Pst‘letters were written roughly’(1989), and θ-mark doubling approach byb. * mozi-ga … [V1 kak-are] [V2 nagut]-ta

Kageyama (1993)), and discusses that none ofletters-Nom

these alone may not be able to solve the issues

write-Pass punch-Pstof syntactic behaviors of V-V compounds.

(9) a. PC-ga … [V1 moti] [V2 kaer]-are-ta
PC-Nombring

Nakamura suggests that it is important togo.home-Pass-Pst

incorporate these insights and explore a new‘PC was brought home’solutionb. * PC-ga … [V1 mot-are] [V2 kaet]-ta
PC-Nom

based

on

the

current

labeling

perspective.

bring-Pass go.home-Pst

Note that V2 kaeru ‘go.home’ in (9) is not an

3. How Labels Affect Morpheme Realization:

ACC Case assigner. How is the passivization of

A Study of V-V Sequences
SugimuraV2 possible? Nakamura further points out that
2

and

Obata

take

up

the

there are three patterns of passivization observed

morphophonological realization of tense affixes

with “syntactic” V-V compounds as in (10-12).

in V-V compounds in English, specificallyfocusing on the “go buy” construction as in (13).

(10) V2 passivization
a.

(13)

gohan-ga … [V1 tabe][V2 oe]-rare-ta
rice-Nomeat finish-Pass-Pst
The‘the rice was finished eating’eat-Pass

construction

mustsatisfy

inflection

condition (V1 and V2 must be a bare form) andb. * gohan-ga … [V1 tabe-rare][V2 oe]-ta
rice-NomJohn will go buy a book.

finish-Pst

identity(11) V1 passivization

condition

(V1

and

V2

must

be

morphologically identical) (Pullum (1990)).

a. * hon-ga … [V1 yomi][V2 kake]-rare-ta
book-Nom readstart-Pass-Pst

127

(14)

* He has gone bought … /gone buy …

(15)* I go am /go be cheerful once a week …

(16)Jacob has come shut the door.
Do so replacement is possible targeting VP2 in(14) violates inflection condition and (15)(18), but VP-fronting is not allowed because if

violates identity condition. (16) is grammatical,

VP2 is fronted, the trace of V2 will not besatisfying both conditions (Bjorkman (2010)).

properly bound.

Bjorkman proposes the following structure to
4. Labeling for Interfaces

explain the “go buy” construction, assuming that
[Infinitive] feature of V1 spreads over V2.

Concerning questions (2) and (3) above, Oku
argues that the answer to (2) is positive and the(17)answer to (3) is “not necessarily.”[VP go [vP v [VP buy DP]]]Given

Uniformity

Principle(ChomskySugimura and Obata point out two problems of(2001)) that languages should be uniform

Bjorkman’s proposal; (i) two VPs in (17) behave

especially on the LF side, it would be ideal thatindependently with respect to do so replacement

the label of the same syntactic object is the samebut not with respect to VP-fronting; (ii) we needon the LF side across languages. Further, given

to postulate inflection condition and identitythat labels are motivated by interfaces (Chomsky

condition separately. To solve these problems,(2013, 2015)), labels necessary for PF and those

Sugimura and Obata propose that the V-V

for LF can (should) be different since properties

complex is derived from (18a) by V2 moving toof both interfaces are quite different.
To illustrate the latter point, Oku takes up theV1 through Set Merge as in (18b). The label ofcontrast between English and Japanese in terms

the complex is <V1, V2>.

of scrambling and QR. Scrambling is possible in(18) a. [T … [V1

V1[VP2 V2

Japanese as in (22), and Saito (2016) argues thatDP ] … ]the contrast is explained by labeling: Japaneseb. [T … [<V1, V2> <V1, V2> [VP2 V2 DP ] … ]suffixal particles are anti-labeling device andAssuming that T and V must be one-to-one

thus the scrambled QP in (22), for example, isrelation in order to realize tense affix features on

invisible from the labeling algorithm. The label

V, tense affix cannot be morphologicallyof α is uniquely identified as the label of therealized on verbs when the label is <V1, V2>.

other constituent TP.

The phonetic form of the verbs cannot be
determined and thus the structure is illegitimate(22) [α [QP dono ko-mo]i [TP onnanokoga hitori ti
every boy-MO

at SM-interface with the examples in (19). The
structure is grammatical only when tense featurekisusita]]

realization is phonetically null as in (20) or tense

kissedgirlone

remains on T as in (21).

(23) *[α [QP every boy]i [TP a girl kissed ti ]](19)*goes get/*go gets/*went get/*go got/

In English, in contrast, the label α is notgoes gets/*went got

identified: Scrambling is not available as in (23).

(20)

I go get … /You go get …

However, LF movement (i.e., QR) is possible in(21)

has come hit/did not go get

English: If the movement in (23) is covert, there

128

Linguistics Conference 25, 15-28.

is no problem of labeling of α. How can this be
the case? Oku claims that on LF side, theChomsky, Noam (1965) Aspects of the Theory of

universal quantifier every in (23) is semanticallySyntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

most salient (behaving a higher-order predicate

Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle (1968) The

taking TP as its complement) and is identified asSound Pattern of English, MIT Press,

the label α, although the label cannot be

Cambridge, MA.

identified on the PF side. This analysis, if on theChomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,”right track, shows that labels necessary for PF

Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by

and those necessary for LF can be different.

Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.

Lastly, Oku points out that the label of a

Chomsky,sentence is <φ, φ> in English (Chomsky (2013))

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

while it is TP in Japanese (Saito (2016)). That is,

Chomsky,

the same syntactic object (e.g., declarative

Noam(2015)“Problems

Extensions,”ofsentence) has different labels on the LF side

Projection:

between Japanese and English, which is not

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

desirable. Oku, extending Chomsky (2015),

of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa D.

claims that “weak” T in English becomes

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona“strong” by means of the feature sharing withMatteini,

the subject, and thus the label <φ, φ> of a

Amsterdam.

3-16,(Grammarpartlysupported

and

Word

Formation),

Miyagawa, Shigeru (1989) Structure and Casethe audience in the symposium. Sugimura andisBenjamins,

Hitusishobo, Tokyo.

* We thank for questions and comments from
work

John

Kageyama, Taro (1993) Bunpo to Gokeisei

sentence eventually becomes TP in English, too.

Obata’s

Structures,MarkingbyinJapanese(Syntax

and#JP19K13188 and #JP16KK0038, and Oku’s

Semantics 22), Academic Press, New York.

work is partly supported by JSPS KAKENHI

Nishigauchi, Taisuke (1993) “Long Distance

Grant #JP18K0051908.

Passive,” Japanese Syntax in Comparative

NOTES
1Nakamura assumes that V1 is actually a [RootGrammar, ed. by Nobuko Hasegawa,+ v1] complex and V2 is a [Root + v2] complex

Pullum, K. Geoffrey (1990) “Constrains on

79-114, Kuroshio Publishers, Tokyo.

but here we just omitted these V-internal

Intransitive

structures for the purpose of exposition.

Constructions

2

Quasi-Serial

Verb

ModernColloquial

in

English,” Ohio State Working Papers in

Note that (9a) does not necessarily have the

Linguistics 39, 218-239.

adversative meaning, and thus it exemplifies aregular (not adversative) passivization which

Rosen, Sara (1989) Argument Structure andrequires an ACC Case assigning transitive verb.

Complex Predicates, Doctoral dissertation,
Brandeis University.
Saito, Mamoru (2016) “(A) Case for Labeling in

REFERENCES
Bjorkman, M. Bronwyn (2010) “Go Get, Come
See,”

Proceedings

of

the

Languages without θ-feature Agreement,”
The Linguistic Review 33, 129-175.

Northwest129

（川端・吉田）、Mr. O コーパス（野村）、レ
ゴ課題による多人数・異文化会話（谷村）、
日英の救急医療場面のやりとり（土屋）を取り上げた。研究手法としては、ボトムアップ
で進行する発話のプロセスに注目した分析
タスク指向対話データが拓く発話理解とを行い、コーパスに共通する特徴である相互

相互行為の言語研究

性、共同構築、知識の非対称性などを明らか（Linguistic Research for Understandingにしつつ、発話理解と相互行為の言語研究にUtterances and Interactions Driven by

寄与することを目指した。

Task-Oriented Dialogue Data)
2. （発表 1）共有信念の更新と構築－課題達川端良子（Yoshiko Kawabata）

成プロセスに特化する言語表現－（川端・吉国立国語研究所（NINJAL）

田）悦子（Etsuko Yoshida）

本発表の目的は、地図課題対話において、三重大学（Mie University）

参与者間の共有信念が構築されるプロセス

佑子（Yuko Nomura）の一端を言語活動から明らかにすることで吉田
野村

順天堂大学 （Juntendo University）
谷村

ある。地図課題対話は、2 名の共同的課題遂

緑 （Midori Tanimura）

行活動に基づく対話コーパスであるが、課題

立命館大学（Ritsumeikan University）
土屋の遂行状況を参与者が視覚的に確認するこ慶子（Keiko Tsuchiya）とができないという制約がある。このため、横浜市立大学（Yokohama City University）

課題の進行に伴う物理的な状況の変化を両者で共有するためには、「共有信念の更新」

キーワード：タスク指向対話コーパス, 相互というプロセスが重要であり、視覚的情報を行為, 合意形成, マルチモーダル, 異文化理

補う多様な言語表現が課題遂行を促すため

解の基盤となっていることを主張した。従来モデルの予想 (Grosz and Sidner (1990)) は異なるプロセスも観察されており、実際のデータ

1. はじめに：趣旨説明（吉田）から証拠を提示しながら、課題達成プロセス

自然な発話データの収集やコーパス構築を検討した。

は言語研究で欠かせないものとなりつつあ

具体的には、英語コーパスからは、発話冒るが、コーパスを利用しても日常のやりとり

頭部で new entities として導入される名詞句を網羅的に分析することは容易ではない。自表現や、従属節の主節化として分析される条

然な発話データには、タスク指向型と非タス件節などの逸脱的な文法事例の解釈を紹介

ク指向型（雑談、自由会話など）がある。本し た (Miller and Weinert (2009) 、 Yoshida

シンポジウムでは、タスク指向型対話に焦点(2011))。日本語コーパスでは、地図課題対話

を当て、発表者らがこれまで取り組んできたにおけるタラ・ト・バ・ナラ条件節の使用を研究で利用したコーパスについて、構築の目

分析し、それぞれの条件節の使用傾向に明確

的やデザイン設計の多様性を概観し、その優な違いがあることを明らかにした。

位性と課題について検討した。

タスク内の条件節の形式を話者別に集計

それぞれの発表では、日英の地図課題対話した結果、ナラ節は頻度が少なく（分析から130

除外）、タラ・ト・バの 3 種類について条件
節の内容と主節の内容の分類を行なった。条件節の内容で見ると、タラ・ト・バ共に「経図1路説明」が多かった。一方、主節の内容を見ると、タラは「次の行為」、トは「行為実行Mr. O コーパスの絵カード例

Mister O より抜粋 ( Lewis Trondheim 著、講談社、2003 年)の結果」、バは「評価」のように異なる使用

日英語の談話を比較すると、英語談話では、傾向が見られた。

提案・受諾に引用がみられることが多く、引さらに、対話の参加者にとって非共有信念

用が相互理解の確認に寄与していた。一方、の対象を対話の中で参照する場合には、名詞

日本語談話では提案・受諾だけでなく、参与の後に「って」や「という」等の引用形式 （メ者間での合意形成完了のための納得を求めタ用法）が用いられるという従来の説 (田窪る特徴やオーバーラップするタイミングが(1989)) について、地図課題対話を用いた検観察された。そして、日英語いずれの談話に証を行なった (川端 (2021)) 。その結果、共おいても、必ず合意形成がなされ課題を達成

有信念になっているランドマークを 2 回以しており、これは日英語母語話者による積極上参照する場合は，引用形式を使用しない表的で協力的な参加の結果と言える。

現 （Non メタ用法）が使用されており、従しかしながら、そこで使用される引用を比来理論と整合的な結果が得られた。一方、ラ較すると、日英語で異なる合意形成プロセス

ンドマークが非共有信念である場合、KU（自の特徴が浮き彫りになった。日本語データで分は知っているが相手は知らない）の話者のは二者が類似した形で引用し、ともにキャラ方が、UK（自分は知らないが相手は知ってクターを演じるように語りながら課題を進いる）の話者よりもメタ用法を用いており、行させたが、英語データでは二者が引用を共

従来理論からの予想とは異なる結果となっ同構築し、ともに絵カードを実況中継するかた。

のように語りながら進行させた。このような違いは、それぞれの言語の話者が、課題とど

3. （発表 2）引用から見る課題達成談話におのように関わるのかの違いであると言える。

ける合意形成場面の相互行為－日英語母語

つまり、日本語話者は、課題対象である絵カ

話者の談話データからの一考察－（野村）

ード内の物語に視点を移しながら共鳴して

本発表では、課題達成時の日英語母語話者

課題を達成するのに対し、英語話者は課題対の相互行為を、引用の観点から分析し、その象とは対峙したまま課題を進行させるので特徴を明らかにした。引用は、ある者のあるある。このように日英同一の状況下で収集さ時点での発話を別の時点での発話に引いてれた課題達成談話を特定の言語使用に着目くる行為 (鎌田(2000)、山口(2009) 他)である。 して分析することにより、両言語話者の課題
本研究で利用する Mr. O コーパスは、
母語話への取り組みや協力の在り方の違いを見出

者 2 名（日本語/英語）が、絵カード（図 1

すことが可能となった。

参照）を並べ替えて物語を作る課題遂行型の談話データである。参与者は、作業の進め方、

4. （発表 3）目的指向の多人数・異文化会話

絵の解釈、物語の展開に関して、提案・合意・

コーパスにおけるスタンスの表明と調整－

確認を繰り返しながらタスクを進める。

人称代名詞 I, we, you の相互行為上の役割－（谷村）
本発表の目的は、現話者の発言が他の参与

131

者との関係においてどのような「スタンス」

行為への志向性が明らかになった。同時に課(Du Bois (2007))を提示し、時間の経過によっ題を行う過程で共有される知識をリソースて変化するかに焦点を当て、直示的な人称代として利用し、義務的スタンスを確立させて名詞である I, we, you の使い分けを分析し、いることも明らかになった。物語生成のなか

その相互行為上の役割を明らかにすることで出現する登場人物の義務的スタンスの例である。スタンスとは、話し手の確信度を示も、今後検討を要することがわかった。

す概念で、その表明と調整のやり方が、直接参与者らの関係や課題の達成度合いに影響

5. （発表 4）配信型・伝播型情報共有と再帰する。分析には、レゴ・ブロックを用いた目的共通基盤－日英救急医療シミュレーショ

的指向型の多人数・異文化会話コーパスデー

ンでのリーダーの発話・視線を含むマルチモ

タを使用した。参与者として、英語を母語とーダル分析－（土屋）しない学習者 4 人が 1 組になり、指定された救急医療では医療者チームが複数の医療

6 つの抽象的な概念について、英語でストー

行為を同時に協働で行い、現場でのチーム内

リーを作成し、レゴ・ブロックで表現する。

コミュニケーションは診療の安全に大きく関わる。本発表では、日英共同による救急医
療コミュニケーション研究プロジェクトの成果の一部を報告する(Tsuchiya, Coffey andNakamura (forthcoming))。 日英にて救急医療
シミュレーション訓練を撮影、視線解析メガ
ネでリーダーの視線情報を収録し、相互行為分析を進めている。本発表ではチーム内情報共有と共通基盤化に着目し、共同行為の過程

図 2 LEGO タスク作業場面(谷村他 (2019))

について考察した。

I, we, you と共起する義務的スタンスを示

まず UK データにみられる配信型の情報

す言語形式が、意思決定を伴う目的志向会話

共有（timed recap）では、リーダーが明示的においてどのような相互行為上の役割を果に診療のフェーズ（operation frame）を区切たしているかを量的分析と質的分析から検り、チーム全体に対する情報発信のフェーズ討した。この義務的スタンスは、発話の形式（recap frame）を創り出す。メンバーは情報

選択（例. must, can, will, have to, could, would,の受け手として割り当てられ、リーダーは情

had better, need to, want to など）によって主報共有の最後に、これまでの報告の中で見落張される義務的権利の相対的な強さを指すとされている懸念事項や医療行為があれば(Stevanovic (2011))。結果、we can X, we need

提示するようメンバーに求める。一方 JP デX, (you) X, we should X の使用頻度が高く、ータでは、主に患者の頭に立ち処置を行って特定の表現を固定的に使用する傾向が見らいる上級医（SD）が、対面の少し離れた場れた。このことは特定の表現が塊として記憶所で記録を行っている看護師（N2）に対しされていることを示唆している。一方で、て患者の状況や医療行為の状況を伝えると

ELF (English as a Lingua Franca)特有の形式は同時に、情報の直接的な受け手ではなく聞きデータに見られなかった。

手（hearer）として参与しているリーダーやまた時間の経過に関わらず we の使用が他のメンバーにも情報を共有している。また多くみられたことから、参与者による共同的

上級医が伝達する内容で重要な事項を、リー132

ダーが即時に繰り返すこと（repetitive chain）

Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hanks, William F., Sachiko Ide, YasuhikoKatagiri, Scott Saft, Yoko Fujii and Kishiko

で情報の伝達を確かなものとしている。
配信型・伝播型情報共有のそれぞれで、伝Ueno (2019) “Communicative Interactionin Terms of Ba Theory: Towards an

達される命題が共有された共通基盤（ CG-shared ） か ら 再 帰 的 な 共 通 基 盤（CG-reflexive）へ移行するが (Clark (1996))、
後者では直接的な情報の受け手ではない聞き手（hearers）への情報伝達行為（informative）
が多用されていることが観察された (Clark
and Carlson (1982))。日英データでの情報共有
実践の違いは、それぞれの文化的背景の違い、つまり自他を客観化し間主観性を求める西洋的哲学思想 (Duranti (2010))と、自他が区別

Innovative
ApproachtoLanguage
Practice,” Journal of Pragmatics 145,
63-71.
鎌田修 (2000) 『日本語の引用』ひつじ書房,
東京.
川端良子 (2021) 「日本語地図課題対話における名詞の引用」日本認知科学会第 38回大会, 432-433.
Miller, Jim and Regina Weinert (1998/2009)
Spontaneous Spoken Language. Syntax andなく埋没する場（primary ba）と自他が客観化された場（secondary ba）との双方を重視

Discourse (2nd ed.), Clarendon Press,
Oxford.
Stevanovic, Melisa (2011) “Participants’ Deontic
Rights and Action Formation: The Case of
Declarative
RequestsforAction,”Interaction and Linguistic Structures(InLiSt) 52, 1–37.
田窪行則 (1989) 「名詞句のモダリティ」『日本語のモダリティ』, 仁田義雄, 益岡隆志編, 211-233. くろしお出版, 東京.
谷村緑・竹内和広・吉田悦子・仲本康一郎(2019)「レゴを使った目的指向の多人する禅を中心とする東洋哲学思想 (Hanks etal. (2019)) に起因するものといえるかもしれない。共通基盤の概念を援用した医療チー
ム内情報共有実践に関するマルチモーダル
研 究 が 、 チ ー ム の 集 団 的 能 力 （ collective
competence）を解明する可能性を示した。
参考文献
Clark, Herbert, H. (1996) Using Language, CUP,
Cambridge.
Clark, Herbert, H.and Thomas B. Carlson (1982)“Hearers and Speech Acts,” Language,58, 332-373.
Du Bois, John W. (2007) “The Stance Triangle,”
Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity,
Evaluation, Interaction ed. by Robert
Englebretson, 139-182, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam.
Duranti, Alessandro (2010) “Husserl, Intersubjectivity
andAnthropology,”
Anthropological Theory 10, 16-35.
Grosz, Barbara J. and Candace L. Sidner (1990)“Plans for Discourse,” Intentions in
Communication, ed. by Philip Cohen, Jerry
Morgan and Martha Pollack, 417-444, MIT

数・異文化会話コーパスの構築」, 電子
情報通信学会信学技報 119, 37-42.
Tsuchiya, Keiko., Frank Coffey, and Kyota
Nakamura (forthcoming), Multimodal
Approaches to Healthcare Communication
Research: Visualising Interactions for
Resilient Healthcare in the UK and Japan,
Bloomsbury Publishing, London.
山口治彦 (2009) 『明晰な引用, しなやかな引用―話法の日英対照研究―』シリーズ
言語対照第 10 巻, くろしお出版, 東京.
Yoshida, Etsuko (2011) Referring Expressions inEnglish and Japanese: Patterns of Use in
Dialogue Processing, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam.

133

Movement
Kanno discussed extraction out of(non-)finite adjuncts (Huang (1982), Ross
(1967)).
He proposed a phase-based
approach, focusing on the phasehood of CP.
These transparent adjuncts do not havespecific features on CP.
As for theinfinitival adjuncts, they do not have [Tense]features. As for the finite adjuncts, heargued, following the insights of Haegeman(2003 and her subsequent work) that they do
not have [Force/Focus] features. Therefore,
even when the adjunct CP is adjoined to thematrix spine, a wh-phrase can move out of
the adjunct without violating the Phase
Impenetrability Condition.
Finally, heargued for a reprojection approach, showingthat the structural effects of pair-Merge
come from the combination of set-Merge
and head movement (Cecchetto and Donati(2015), Koeneman (2000), Surányi (2008)).

<Workshop Report>

Copy, its Related Mechanisms and theEmpirical Consequences*
Satoru Kanno
Tokyo University of Science
Tomonori Otsuka
Kyusyu University
Yuta Tanaka
Chubu University
Ryoichi Kondo
Hirosaki University
Keywords：copy formation, copy identification,
copy visibility, labeling algorithm,
Merge

1. Introduction

The purpose of this workshop named“Copy, its Related Mechanisms and theEmpirical Consequences” is to examine themechanisms that are significantly related to
the notion of copy from a theoretical pointof view (Chomsky (1993, 2004, 2013)).
We discussed (i) labeling, (ii) the roles ofcopies at the interfaces, and (iii) the
identification of copies.
With these
theoretical issues in (i)-(iii) in mind, we also
discussed specific constructions from bothsynchronic and diachronic perspectives.
The sections below show the content
of the presentations with the titles of thepresentations corresponding to those of thesections.

Copy Formation and Movement
Theory of Control/Binding
Otsuka attempted to reevaluate theMovement Theory of Control (MTC) and of
Binding (MTB) (see Hornstein (2001))
under Chomsky’s (2021) proposal of Copy
Formation (CF). Chomsky (2021) offers
an account of the Control Constructions
under CF. Based on Chomsky’s (2021)
discussion, Otsuka pursued a possibility of
unifying the MTC and the MTB under CF.
Departing from Chomsky (2021), Otsuka
assumed that a special pro plays a crucialrole in the relevant constructions andclaimed that “Obligatory PRO” turns out tobe pro in the CF relation with its antecedent
without its case feature being valued,
whereas “Non-Obligatory PRO” is pro
3.

2. Extraction out of Adjuncts and Head134

without CF nor case valuation. In terms of
the MTB, anaphors and bound pronouns are
pro with CF and case feature valuation,
realized in the different forms according to
the English-specific phonological rule.

until Early Middle English (Uchida (2021)).
It was assumed that English underwent atypological change in the transition from
Early to Late Middle English (Nawata(2016)), and it lost verb movement to T in
Early Modern English. Appealing to thetypological change and the loss of verb
movement, he provided a reprojection-based
account of the two historical changes andtheir difference: Subject zero relatives
became ungrammatical as the result of thetypological change whereas the loss of verb
movement to T made impossible subject
extraction from that-clauses.

4. On (In)Visibility of Copy

Tanaka discussed inverse scope in theframework of the Labeling Algorithm (LA)
(Chomsky (2013, 2015)). Inverse scope
has several prominent properties: Invisibilityof the higher copy at the syntax, thephonetic realization of the lower copy,
clause-boundedness, and its absence inJapanese. Tanaka proposed a condition to
the effect that copy visibility at the syntax
and the SM interface is determined on thebasis of unvalued features that get valued in
the derivations ([uF]s). More specifically,
it was argued that copies which possess[uF]s become invisible to the LA and thatthe copy which possesses the largest numberof [uF]s undergoes the phonetic realization
at the SM interface. He argued that the
proposedcondition
solvestheaforementioned properties of inverse scope,extending its empirical coverage to the(im)possibility of remnant movement inJapanese.

* This work is partly supported by JSPS
KAKENHI

Grant

Number

JP18K12356(Kondo), JP20K00669 (Kanno) and JP21K
13025 (Otsuka).
SELECTED REFERENCES

Chomsky, Noam (1993) “A Minimalist
Program for Linguistic Theory,” The
View from Building 20: Essays in
Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain
Bromberger, ed. by Kenneth Hale andSamuel J. Keyser, 1-52, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of
Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky, Noam (2015) “Problems of
Projection: Extensions,” Structures,
Strategies and Beyond: Studies in
Honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by
Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamannand Simona Matteini, 3-16, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Chomsky,Noam(2021)“Genuine
Explanation,” a talk given at WCCFL
39.

5. On the Historical Changes of the (Anti-)
That-Trace Effects in English

Kondo discussed the historicalchanges of the that-trace effect and theanti-that-trace effect in English in terms ofreprojection (Section 2) and copy
identification (Hayashi (2020)). Subject
extraction was possible from that-clauses
until Early Modern English (Nawata (2013))
while subject zero relatives were possible

135

<Workshop Report>

Minimalist Thesis (SMT; Chomsky (2000,
2004)) を掲げ、そこからの逸脱に分析の再考を要求し、理論を構成する仮説群の見直しが行われてきた。本ワークショップは、SMT

Strong Minimalist Thesis を満たす UG の説
明理論：その輪郭と概念的根拠を徹底することによって行きついた現状を*説明理論の全体像として、主として Chomsky（Explanatory Theory of UG to Satisfy Strong(2020) と Chomsky (2021) に拠って描き出す

Minimalist Thesis: Its Contours and Conceptualとともに、今後の研究課題を多面的に洗い出

Basis）

すことを目的として行われた。

小町 将之（Masayuki Komachi）

2. 基礎的仮説群とその適用

静岡大学（Shizuoka University）

基本特性としての構造依存性を説明する

北原 久嗣（Hisatsugu Kitahara）

ために、基本的操作として併合 (Merge) が慶應義塾大学（Keio University）

仮定されるが、これは作業領域 (workspace:葛西 宏信（Hironobu Kasai）WS) に適用して、それを更新するように定

北九州市立大学（The University of義された。移動操作によって従来捉えられてKitakyushu）

きた現象は Internal Merge (IM)として、併合

瀧田 健介（Kensuke Takita）

によって統一的に捉えられることになるが、同志社大学（Doshisha University）

結果として、構造上生じるコピー関係は、IM

大滝 宏一（Koichi Otaki）の場合だけに付随する操作等によって特徴

中京大学（Chukyo University）

づけることができない。このため、解釈シス

内堀 朝子（Asako Uchibori）

テムによるコピー形成 (Copy Formation: CF)東京大学（The University of Tokyo）

を仮定することで、コピー関係の認定を構造構築から切り離し、結果として IM によらないコピー、すなわち IM-gap の存在が導かれ

キーワード：極小主義, コピー形成, シーク

た。この効果として、(1) のコントロール構

エンス形成,

文では、John2 が External Merge (EM) によっ

主要部パラメータ, 日本手話て導入されるものの、CF によって John3 とコピー関係に認定される。
1. はじめに(1) John1 INFL [John2 tried [John3 to win]]

言語機能の生得的な基盤として仮定される普遍文法 (Universal Grammar: UG) が満たすべき条件は、(1)刺激の貧困を克服できる

ワークショップでは、同様の分析が、ATBだけ十分に豊かであること、(2)進化の過程

構文や寄生空所構文などにも自然な説明をで人類に発生したと考えられるだけ十分に与えられることを議論し、(2) のような日本単純であること、そして、(3)すべての可能

語 tough 構文の分析においては、いくつか検な言語にたどり着けるだけの普遍性を担保討すべき課題があることを論じた。

すること、に集約される。生成文法の極小主義的研究では、自然界に存在する UG がこれ(2) a. この山が[登るの]が困難だ。

らの条件を満たす最適解だとする Strongb. この机が[作業をするの]が難しい。

136

また、(3) に示すような、階層的でない連* 本発表は発表者全員による共同発表の形

鎖を特徴づけるためのシークエンス形成式をとったが、日本語の tough 構文に関する(Form Sequence) という概念を取り上げ、そ瀧田担当部分は中村太一氏、前田雅子氏とのの定義に関わる課題を洗い出した。

共同研究に、日本手話に関する内堀担当部分
は上田由紀子氏との共同研究に基づく。また、(3) John, Bill, Tom, … ran, danced, sang, …

それぞれの担当部分について、JSPS 科研費
19K00612（研究代表者：北原久嗣）、JSPS 科

3. 日本手話 (JSL) における構造構築

研費 20K00678（研究代表者：小町将之）、JSPS

ワークショップでは、従来階層的な埋め込

科研費 17K02815（研究代表者：葛西宏信）、

み構造を観察することが難しかった手話言

JSPS 科研費 18K00659（研究代表者：瀧田健

語を取り上げ、(3) に相当する JSL の (4) な介）、JSPS 科研費 17K02691（研究代表者：

どを検討して、順序情報を持たない解釈から、 内堀朝子）の助成を受けている。
このような構造がシークエンス形成の前提として必然的に要請される統語操作である

参考文献
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries:

セット形成 (Form Set) によって構築されてThe Framework,” Step by Step, ed. byいる可能性を指摘した。

Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan

TOP(4) YESTERDAY PARTY TANAKA SATO

Uriagereka. 89-155, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.

hn1

HAYASHI DANCE SING DRINK

Chomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatory‘At yesterday’s party, Tanaka, Sato, Hayashi,

Adequacy,” Structures and Beyond, ed. bydanced, sang, drunk.’ ≠‘(3)’Adriana

Belletti,

104-131,

OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.
また、JSL の等位接続構造をシークエンス形

Chomsky, Noam (2020) “Minimalism: Where

成によるものと論じ、それが主語となる場合

We are Now, and Where We are Going,”に英語と同様の述語との数素性一致が見ら

Lecture presented at the 161st meeting ofれる事実を提示して、自然言語におけるセッ

Linguistic Society of Japan, November

ト形成およびシークエンス形成による構造

2020. <https://youtu.be/X4F9NSVVVuw>
Chomsky,構築の可能性を論じた。

Noam

Explanations,”
4. 言語間の相違(2021)
Lecture“Genuine
presented

at

WCCFL 39, April 2021. <https://youtu.be/
F6SbPKmVNVQ>

言語の中核的な計算システムに普遍性が土橋善仁 (2021)「外在化と第 3 要因」上智確立されると、個別言語の多様性は、外在化の過程に説明が求めることになる。本ワーク

大学言語学講演会.

ショップでは、主要部パラメータを隣接性と

土橋善仁 (印刷中)「主要部パラメータ再考」,

いう概念で捉え直した土橋 (2021, 印刷中)

島越郎・富澤直人・小川芳樹・土橋善仁・の提案を紹介し、さらに、その提案を発展さ佐藤陽介・ルプシャ＝コルネリア (編)せる形で、外在化によって主要部移動に関す『ことばの様相：現在と未来をつなぐる言語間の違いを捉える可能性を示した。

金子義明先生退職記念論文集』, 開拓社,
東京.

137

<Workshop Report>

mentaleventssuchaspredictions

andgeneralizations, and (ⅱ) that we have knowledgeof entities that are waiting to be established as
generalized types, though they have not yet been
Basic Research in Cognitive Grammar*

conventionalized as linguistic expressions. By
way of illustration, she showed that the usage ofRana Satoan English idiom Don’t be that guy hinges on our

The University of Tokyo

encyclopedic knowledge of virtual entities in

Keigo Ujiie

familiar episodes and anecdotes.

The University of Tokyo
Daiki Hagisawa

3. A Dynamic View of Morphemes

Kobe City University of Foreign Studies

The second presentation, given by Keigo

Taichi Tanaka

Ujiie and Daiki Hagisawa, proposed defining

The University of Tokyo

morphemes as products of our constant mental

Shinya Hirasawa

activities where we find links, often creatively,

Keio University

between all sorts of entities (Hagisawa (2020)).
This definition represents an even more dynamic

Keywords：the usage-based model, ontology,

and encompassing view of lexical phenomena

philosophy of linguistics

than Langacker’s (2019). He rejects the classicalconception, which tacitly assumes that linguistic
signs are discrete, object-like entities (the1. Introduction“building-block metaphor”), in favor of a more

This workshop was organized to discuss the

dynamic view where they reside in patterns ofphilosophical foundations of Cognitive Grammar

cognitive activities. Though his model solves(CG) and render it more accessible to researchers

intractable problems such as morphologicalof other theoretical persuasions. The first four

residues, there still remains what U&H term thepresentations addressed these issues: What isproblem of “wild” variants of words. Thoselinguistic knowledge like and how is it shaped?

words find their natural place in the radically

What entities are involved in language anddynamic view put forward in their presentation.

linguistics? What is the subject matter of thediscipline of linguistics? The fifth presentation

4. A Philosophical Analysis of UBM

offered evidence for some of the philosophicalIn the third presentation, Daiki Hagisawa

claims made in the preceding presentations.

examined the usage-based model (UBM) from a
Kantian philosophical perspective and concluded

2. Fictional Entities and Don’t be That Guy

that linguists cannot enjoy the privilege ofIn the first presentation, Rana Sato, drawing

ignoring what have been called the frameon the CG notion of virtual instance (Langacker

problem and causal determinism. UBM is a(1999)), made two ontological claims: (ⅰ) that ourmodel of linguistic knowledge first introduced byperception of the “real” world relies heavily on

Langacker (1988), where exemplars, rules andfictional entities, which can only be found injudgement play crucial roles (called “usage

138

events,” “schemas” and “categorization” in CG

with U&H’s radically dynamic view, whereparlance). As it happens, these three concepts

semantic composition is a matter of the speaker

have been critically discussed in Critique of Pure(not) discerning potentially discernible links

Reason, which thus serves as a useful point of

between parts of the expression at hand and thereference to assess whether UBM is a well-mentally stored meanings of those parts.

grounded framework.
7. Conclusion
5. Towards a Philosophy of CG

We hope that we were successful in drawing

Linguistic or otherwise, a theory lacking

attention to the very notion of basic research inphilosophical underpinnings is not fully viable.

CG and giving shape to it through the individual

Thus if one is to ensure that CG is, one has to dopresentations, as well as in convincing thea philosophy of CG. This makes the question

audience that any linguistic theory can and should

posed in the fourth presentation worth asking: Is

be evaluated in light of its philosophicalit the brain or the person that the discipline offoundations. We also wish to emphasize that

linguistics is about? Or, equivalently, which ofphilosophical discussion of this depth was

the two is it that uses language? Taichi Tanaka

possible within the limited time frame because we

explored what CG has to offer regarding this issue

did not dwell on the by-now routinized

and concluded that it is not a matter of choosing

comparison of CG with generative grammar and

one to the exclusion of the other. This conclusion

each of us delved right into the core of the matteris in line with our strong intuition that we humanand reviewed CG in its own right.

agents are not mere “puppets” manipulated by ourown brains.

* This workshop was partially supported by JSPS
KAKENHI Grant Number 21J13661.

6. Dephilosophizing the Philosophies
In the fifth session, Shinya Hirasawa
presented several sets of data attested in English

REFERENCES
Hagisawa, Daiki (2020) “Gokeisei no Somosomo

to corroborate some of these philosophical claims.

wo Kangaeru (Rethinking the Fundamentals

Consider bulltrue and real shit, novel expressionsoffrom different movies. The meaning is along the

Linguistic Papers 42, 41-58.

lines of ‘I made the right assertion.’

Word-Formation),”Tokyo

University

Langacker, Ronald W. (1988) “A Usage-Based
Model,” Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed.

(1) X: [ASSERTION]

by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 127-161, John

Y: Bullshit.

Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia.

X: {Bulltrue / Real shit}.

Langacker, Ronald. W. (1999) “Virtual Reality,”
Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29, 77-103.

Since bull, shit and bullshit are all established asLangacker, Ronald W. (2019) “Morphology inwords meaning ‘nonsense,’ the building-block

Cognitive Grammar,” The Oxford Handbook

view of morphemes would lead us astray as toof Morphological Theory, ed. by Jennywhether X is saying that his original assertion

Audring and Francesca Masini, 346-364,

represents nonsense or the truth. This is not so

Oxford University Press, New York.

139

<Workshop Report>“spontaneous,”“possibility,”

and“result”.

Furthermore, she proposed a hypothesis that theusage of -saru has been constantly changing
from the past up to the present day (Shu (2019)).
Tense and Intention

From her research, it is found that the younger
generation often use -saru to mean “result” but

Takako Nakaike

rarely in the sense of “spontaneous.” This uniqueOtaru University of Commerceverb conjugation -saru, which is mainly used in

Karebu Ozawa

the past tense to convey unintended actions, has

Otaru University of Commerce

unalterable nuance that can convey (especially

Lu Guoblamable)

Otaru University of Commerce

precisely.

meanings

andintentions

more

Chair, Sumiyo Nishiguchi
Otaru University of Commerce

3. (Discussant 2) Analysis of deshita in
Hokkaido Dialect of Japanese (Ozawa)

Keywords：Dialect, Hokkaido, Chinese

In this section, Ozawa analyzed a Hokkaido
dialect deshita, which is a sentence-final
declarative

1. Introduction
Accurately

form

in

Japanesetoexpress

politeness as past tense. Even so, Hokkaido
communicating

intentions

people often use it while answering the phone.

requires using a variety of expressions. In

Ozawa proposed two hypotheses on this. One ofsentences, changes in verb tense are driven notthem is that temporal distance brings about

only by changes in time but also by changes in

psychological distance (Lyons (1977)), so theintention. Such subtle changes increase thepast tense is uttered to express the intention ofsophistication of our utterances. As with

politeness. The second hypothesis is to assume

languages, these expressions differ by location.

that things or situations already exist but without

These differences in expressions are found in thecertainty. During a phone conversation between

dialects of specific areas. In this workshop, we

two people, when they say moshi-moshi (theexamined Japanese and Chinese expressions

first greeting on the phone) to each other, theyfrom the point of view of tense and intention.

speak without knowing who the other person is.
For this reason, people say deshita to reveal the2. (Discussant 1) Usage of Hokkaido dialect

speaker, mentioning back to the past fact, which-saru (Nakaike)

was hidden at first. People in Hokkaido tend to

In this section, Nakaike analyzed the usage

be generous and are not suspicious of people. So,of the Hokkaido (Japan) dialect -saru, which isthey pick up the phone without any misgivings

principally used in the past tense to express

and do not keep note after the phone call. But in

unintended actions and is typically attached tofact, they are guessing who the caller is when

the inflectional forms of a verb. From previous

they receive a phone call. They are also aware

research, she found that -saru can be classified

that others wonder who the caller could be when

into three subclasses in meaning, namely,

they receive phone calls, so they say deshita to

140

show

appreciationforpickinguptheare also shiftable.

phone. Deshita gives an answer to the question“Who was she/he?” retroactively.

(3) 李 / 说 / 他 / 昨 天 / 在 / 这 / 种 的 / 花 / 开 了 。
Li/shuo/ta/zuotian/zai/zhe/zhongde/hua/kaile.

4. (Discussant 3) Shifty Indexicals in Chinese

Li/said/he/yesterday/here/planted/flower/bloome

(Guo)

d.

In

this

section,Guo

examined‘Li said the flower he planted here bloomed.’

context-change functions over indexicals in
Chinese.

Interpretationsofindexicals

in

In this sentence, 这’here’ can only mean thesentences depend on the context. In Chinese,place the speaker is standing now. If the speakerpronouns (I, you, me, he, his…) can be

is standing on his balcony now, the flower was

ambiguous and are determined by context.

not planted in Li’s balcony.

(1) 昨 天 / 李 / 说 / 我 / 前 天 / 种 的 / 花 / 开 了 。

5. Conclusion

Zuotian/Li/shuo/wo/quantian/zhongde/hua/kaile.
Yesterday/Li/said/I/theday

Based on the aforementioned three topics,

beforewe examined tense and intention in Chinese andyesterday/planted/the flower/bloomed.

Japanese languages. Changing tense can change‘Yesterday, Li said the flower I planted the day

intentions, leading to sophisticated expressions.

before yesterday bloomed.’

Tense can also be combined with specificmeaning and used in specific situations. We canIn this case, it could be translated to mean bothfind several variations in the usage of tense and“The flower was planted by Li” and “The flower

intention depending on specific areas.

was planted by me.” Related to this, tense
adverbs (yesterday, tomorrow…) are shiftable

REFERENCES
Lyons, John (1977) Semantics, Cambridge

when there is another tense adverb in thesentence.

University Press, United Kingdom.
Shu Maiko (2019) “Hokkaido Hougen ni okeru(2) 昨 天 / 李 / 说 / 我 / 前 天 / 种 的 / 花 / 开 了 。

Jihatu no Jyodoushi saru no Shiyoujittai:

Zuotian/Li/shuo/wo/qiantian/zhongde/hua/kaile.

Omoni

Yesterday/Li/said/I/the(Utilization of Spontaneous Auxiliary Verb

day

beforeSedaisa/Danjyosa

ni

tuite

yesterday/planted/the flower/bloomed.

Saru: Mainly about Difference among‘Yesterday, Li said the flower I planted the day

Generation and Gender),” Fuji Women’s

before yesterday bloomed.’

College Japanese Literature Journal 101,
1-13.

In Chinese, 前 天 (qiantian) ‘the day before
yesterday’ can only mean “two days ago fromnow” and not “two days ago from ‘yesterday.’”
The reference of 明天(mingtian) ‘tomorrow’ isalso influenced by the timing of the conversation.
Temporal adverbs and location (here, there…)

141

[II]
Fourteenth International Spring Forumappear to be formally subordinate clauses.”
It is generally assumed that although andthough are “alternants” or “synonymous” when
they are used as subordinators (cf. Biber et al.
(1999: 845), Huddleston and Pullum (2002:736)). According to Kӧnig (1994), both although
and though can express “standard concessive,”“rhetoricalconcessive,”and“rectifying
concessive” relations. One of the differences
between although and though pointed out in theliterature is that the latter is “slightly more
informal” (Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 736)).
However, almost no study has comparedalthough and though clauses with respect to thefollowing two points:(A) How frequently (al)though clauses occur
independently without their main clause.
(B) What kind of discourse functions
independent (al)though clauses have.
The goal of this paper is to examine the

A Corpus-Based Analysis of Independent
Although and Though Clauses:
Their Commonalities and Differences*
Yuko Mizuno
National Institute of Technology, Asahikawa
College
Keywords: concessive clause, insubordination,
discourse marker, grammaticalization

1. Introduction
This paper compares independent althoughcommonalities

and though clauses in terms of their discourseanddifferences

betweenindependent although and though clauses infunctions. Although and though clauses havespoken discourse with regard to (A) and (B)traditionally been considered as subordinate

above.

adverbial clauses. However, it has recently beenreported that they can occur independently

2. The Data

without their main clause (cf. Mizuno (2018,

The data were collected from the spoken2020)), as exemplified in (1) and (2) below:

sectionofthe

CorpusofContemporary

American English (COCA) compiled from 1990(…) And CBO, in fact,projected that, in the firsttwo years, premiums would
rise 10 to 20 percent.
DICKERSON: Although it did say thenthey would go down.
(COCA)(2) HANSON: Yeah, they're well aware ofthat
STOSSEL: Though some don't. (COCA)(1) CRUZ:

to 2019. The spoken section of the corpus
contains a total of 11,836 tokens of although and45,747 tokens of though. To obtain independent
although and though clauses, I first manually
extracted all the tokens of although and thoughwhich appeared in utterance-initial position. As aresult, I obtained 1,183 tokens of although and518 tokens of though. Then I classified theminto two types, i.e., independent clauses without

Such independent (al)though clauses can betheir main clause, as exemplified in (1) and (2)counted as “insubordination,” which is defined

above,by Evans (2007: 367) as “the conventionalizedaccompany their main clause, as illustrated inmain clause use of what, on prima facie grounds,(3) and (4) below:

143

and

subordinate

clauseswhich(3) Although I'm small, I'm powerful. (COCA)

speaker and those related to the prior utterance(4) Though adolescence is still years away, theseby the addressee, as shown in Tables 2 and 3

girls are already imagining the future.

below. The following subsections will observe(COCA)

the discourse functions of each type shown in
Table 3.

As a result, I obtained 481 independent althoughclauses and 103 independent though clauses. 1

Table 2. Independent (Al)though Clauses

Following Fraser (1999: 938), I will refer to the

AlthoughThough451 (93.76%)

54 (52.43%)

segment of discourse introduced by (al)though

Conversationas S2, and the prior segment of discourse as S1,Narration

29 (6.03%)

49 (47.57%)

and represent the use of independent although

Unclear

1 (0.21%)0 (0%)and though as ˂S1. Although S2˃ and ˂S1.

Total

481 (100%)103 (100%)

Though S2˃, respectively.
Table 3. Independent (Al)though Clauses in
3. Results

Conversation

3.1 Frequency

Although ThoughThis section compares independent although

Related to the prior utterance

and though clauses with respect to the frequency

by the same speakerof their usage in the data. As Table 1 shows,Related to the prior utterance

independent although clauses are far moreby the addressee

frequently used than independent though clauses.

Total

104

6

347

48

451

54

The difference in frequency cannot be predictedby simply analyzing although and though as

3.2.1 Independent Although Clauses

synonymous.

I found that independent although clauses
related to the same speaker’s prior utterance can

Table

1.

The

FrequencyofIndependent

fulfill at least three functions, i.e., standard(Al)though Clauses in the Data

concessive,

rectifying

concessive,andAlthough

481

82.4%

Though10317.6%

First, in standard concessive, the speaker

Total

584

100.0%

asserts S1 and S2 against the backgroundself-correction.

assumption that S1 and S2 “are instances of
3.2 Discourse Functions

situations that do not normally go together

This section compares independent although(Kӧnig (1994: 681)).” This assumption can be

and though clauses with respect to theirstated as follows: if S2, then normally not S1

discourse functions. My investigation of the data

(ibid. 679). An example of this type is given in

found that independent (al)though clauses are(5):

used either in conversation or in narration, andthat the (al)though clauses used in conversation(5) GIFFORD: So I-- both of my in-laws arecan be classified into two large groups, i.e.,

dead. So–

those related to the prior utterance by the same

144

KOTB:

Any who, all right, let's move

Thirdly,

self-correction,althoughintroduces a correction of the same speaker’s

on. She is hot in Cleveland.
GIFFORD: They've been dead for a long

former statement (cf.

time, it's not my fault, okay.
KOTB:

in

Günthner (2000)), as

exemplified in (7):Hot in Cleveland.
(7) MORALES: We're the only species that

GIFFORD: Although Frank says I did kill
his mother.

really French kisses, too. (…)(COCA)GEIST:In (5), we may assume that if Frank says his

I don't think so. What about–

MORALES: I don't think you see monkeys

wife killed his mother, the death of his mother is

French kissing and dogs–

his wife’s fault. However, this assumption is

HALL:

denied by Gifford’s utterances.

MORALES: Although my dog sometimes

Second,inrectifying

concessive,

Well, they don't speak French.

thetries to French kiss me, right.

although clause weakens the content of the(COCA)

speaker’s previous utterance (cf. Kӧnig (1994)),
as illustrated in (6): 2

In (7), in her first utterance, Morales asserts that
only humans can French kiss. However, the(6) KOTB:

(…)

how

Melissa

validity of this statement is corrected by her last

McCarthy for "Bridesmaids"?

utterance, which asserts that her dog sometimes

GIFFORD: Best

about

Supporting

Actresstries to French kiss her.

nomination. (…)
KOTB:

Next, independent although clauses related

I think that's Oscar-worthy. By

to the prior utterance by the addressee can fulfill

the way, she's very, very, veryat least three functions, i.e., standard concessive,

funny. (…)

rectifying concessive, and disagreement, as

GIFFORD: But it's hardly Meryl Streep

illustrated in (8), (9), and (10), respectively:

and "Iron Lady," right?
KOTB:

Yeah.

(8) CLAYSON:

house was secure?

GIFFORD: Although they're not in thesame category, so she may win.

E-SMART:(COCA)In (6), the although clause weakens the content
thespeaker’s

precedingutterance

We thought the house wassecure.

CLAYSON:of(…) And you thought the

Although the alarm was noton?

(COCA)

by(9) KRESSLEY: Halle Barry (sic) looks great,cancelling an evoked assumption. Gifford’s

just not as great as sometimes

second utterance it's hardly Meryl Streep andwe've seen her. I thought the"Iron Lady" evokes the assumption that it may

asymmetrical top looked abe difficult for Melissa McCarthy to win thelittle unbalanced.

award for Best Supporting Actress. However,

LAUER:

this assumption is cancelled by the following
although clause.

Although it does tend to draw
your eye.

(10) CRUZ:

145(COCA)(…) My biggest concern withtheIn (11), the content of Blitzer’s first utterance isHouse bill is, it doesn'tlower premiums. And CBO,

weakened by his second utterance.

in fact, projected that, in the

Meanwhile,

independent

thoughfirst two years, premiums

clauses are related to the preceding utterance bywould rise 10 to 20 percent.

the addressee, they can fulfill two functions, i.e.,
rectifying concessive and disagreement, as

DICKERSON: Although it did say then theywould go down.
CRUZ:

when

exemplified in (12) and (13), respectively:

It did. But I got to tell you,(…)

(COCA)(12) GROSS:

Yes. And that's why in your film
if Sadness touches one of the

In (8), there is a background assumption that if

memories, the memory turns

the alarm was not on, they did not think theblue and is forever changed byhouse was secure. In (9), Kressley’s utterance

the sadness it's been touchedevokes an assumption that Halle Berry’s fashionby...

was not so great. However, Lauer’s utterance

DOCTER: Yeah, well, now people...

restricts the validity of this assumption. In (10),GROSS:... Which gets to exactly what

although is used to indicate the speaker’s

you'redisagreement with the addressee’s preceding

memories change over time asutterance. Cruz asserts that according to CBO,

we recall them.

premiums will rise 10 to 20 percent. However,talking

DOCTER: Though

about,

that

that

actuallyisthis assertion is clearly denied by Dickerson’sscientifically accurate. If you

next utterance introduced by although.

were feeling sad right now andyou recall a sad memory - or avery happy memory from the

3.2.2 Independent Though Clauses
I found that independent though clauses

past, it will be tinged with more

related to the prior utterance by the samesadness based on your current

speaker have only one function, rectifying

feeling.

concessive, which is illustrated in (11):(13) KAINE:(COCA)

Bob Corker is my chair on
Foreign Relations. I know(11) BLITZER:

You know, Ari Fleischer, thehimconventional

patriotic, reasonable person,

wisdomout

He's

expressingaandterrific debater and George W.

concern that is shared by an

Bush may not be a traffic

awful lot of members of the(sic) debater

Senate,evenaRepublican

members.

Though he did -- he held his

CAMEROTA: Though they're not speaking

own during those primarydebates

he's

well.

there says that Al Gore is a

FLEISCHER: He is, Wolf. Al...
BLITZER:very

out about it. I mean...

(COCA)(COCA)

146

In (12), the utterance by Gross implies that what

This section argues that although and though

Docter said is just his opinion and not based on

which introduce an independent clause can bescience. However, this implication is denied byanalyzed as discourse markers. Fraser (1998:

the following though clause. In (13), Camerota302) notes that discourse markers “are separate

uses though to display her disagreement withfrom the propositional content of the sentenceKaine’s preceding utterance.

and function to signal the relationship between

Table 4 summarizes the results shown in thisthe segment of discourse they introduce, S2, andsection. When used in conversation, boththe prior segment of discourse, S1.” As

independent although and though clauses are

Günthener (2000: 457) points out, “althoughclassified into two main classes, i.e., thosedefinitions vary a great deal, there are a number

related to the prior utterance by the sameof characteristics which most studies on

speaker and those related to the prior utterance

discourse markers identify.” I will show thatby the addressee. The table also shows that

although and though have at least six out of nine

independent though clauses are more restrictedcharacteristics presented by Günthener (2000:

than although clauses in the kinds of usages: the457-458).

former fulfills only two discourse functions, i.e.,

First, they are a feature of oral discourse. All

rectifying concessive and disagreement, while

the data of (al)though in the present study werethe latter can fulfill four functions, i.e., standard

collected from spoken discourse. Second, they

concessive, rectifying concessive, self-correction,

are originally subordinate conjunctions. Third,

and disagreement.

they are short items. Fourth, they appear inutterance-initial position. Fifth, they are optional.

Table 4. Usages of Independent Although andFor example, the removal of although in (10)Though Clauses in Conversationand though in (12) above does not make thesentences

Although Though
Related toStandard

the priorConcessive

utterance

Rectifying

by theConcessive

same

Self-correction

speaker
Related toStandard

the priorConcessive

utterance

Rectifying

by theConcessive

addressee

Disagreement

orchangetheir

propositional content. In the sixth place, they✓✓

ungrammaticaloperate on both the local and global level. For
example, in (10) above, although links the✓previous utterance with a clause. However, in(12), though links the previous utterance with a✓larger discourse sequence. The scope of thoughgoes beyond the local clause level.

✓

These

✓

✓

✓

✓

observations

show

that

utterance-initial although and though, which
introduce an independent clause, can beanalyzed as discourse markers.
4.2 The Grammaticalization of Independent
Although and Though Clauses

4. Discussion

This section considers independent although

4.1 Although and Though as Discourse

and though clauses from the perspective ofMarkers147

grammaticalization. According to Hopper anddata in periods of 5 years, and counted their

Traugott (1993: xv), grammaticalization isfrequency in each period. The result is shown in

defined as “the process whereby lexical items

Table 5.

and constructions come in certain linguistic
contexts to serve grammatical functions, and

Table

5.

The

FrequencyofIndependent

once grammaticalized, continue to develop new

Although and Though Clauses in the Data

grammatical functions.” Hopper and Traugott

1990-

1995-

2000-

2005-

2010-

2015-

(1993) also point out that grammaticalization is

1994

1999

2004

2009

2014

2019

hypothesized

tobeprototypically

Total

a

Although

52

69

64

77

99

120

481

unidirectional phenomenon. The hypothesis ofThough

10

8

17

26

19

23

103

unidirectionality is summarized as follows:“there is a relationship between two stages A and

The table shows that independent (al)thoughB, such that A occurs before B, but not viceclauses gradually increase in frequency. Thisversa” (ibid.: 95).

observation shows that they are developing

In the present study, I take up one kind ofunidirectionality,

i.e.,

a

cline

towardofmoreparatactic

clause-combining

constructions. Thus, we can say that theclause-combining constructions: parataxis >developmental

hypotaxis > subordination (ibid.: 170). The cline(al)though clauses do not conform to thepredicts that the direction of change is fromunidirectional

cline

of

more

constructions.

Table

5

to

less

paratactic

clause-combining

processofindependent

clause-combining
also

shows

that

constructions. It is seen that although andindependent although clauses are far morethough are both used in independent clauses, as

frequent that independent though clauses in each

exemplified in (14), and in subordinate clauses

period of time, which suggests that independent

which accompany the main clause, as illustrated

although clauses are more grammaticalized thanin (15):independent though clauses.

(14) a. Although Frank says I did kill his

5. Conclusion

mother. (=5)

This paper has come up with the followingb. Though they're not speaking out about it.

new findings. First, independent although and(=13)

though clauses differ in frequency. The former is(15) a. Although I'm small, I'm powerful. (=3)

far more frequent than the latter. Second,b. Though adolescence is still years away,

independent although and though clauses arethese girls are already imagining thesimilar in that when they are used infuture. (=4)

conversation, each of them can be classified into
two large groups; they are related either to the

The hypothesis of unidirectionality would

prior utterance by the same speaker or to thepredict that the type of sentences in (15) are

prior

derived from those shown in (14). In order toindependent though clauses are more restrictedexamine the hypothesis, I grouped together

than independent although clauses in the kinds

independent although and though clauses in theof usages; independent though clauses in the148utterancebytheaddressee.

Third,

data fulfill only two discourse functions:

Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Fraser, Bruce (1999) “What are Discourse

rectifying concessive and disagreement, while
independentfunctions:althoughstandardclausesfulfillconcessive,

Markers?” Journal of Pragmatics 31,

four

rectifying

931-952.

concessive, self-correction, and disagreement.

Günthner, Susanne (2000) “Form Concessive

Finally, while both although and though which

Connector to Discourse Marker: The Use of

introduce an independent clause can be analyzed

Obwohl in Everyday German,” Cause,asCondition, Concession, Contrast: Cognitive

discourse

markers,

althoughismoregrammaticalized as a discourse marker thanandDiscourse

though.

Elizabeth

Perspectives,

ed.

by

Couper-Kuhlen and Bernd

Kortmann, 439-468, Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin/New York.

* This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI

Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C. Traugott (1993)

Grant Number JP19K00677.
NOTES
Examples of unfinished although clauses,

Grammaticalization, Cambridge University

illustrated in (i) below, were excluded from the

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum

1

Press, Cambridge.

present analysis.
(i) WINFREY:(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of theYes. Yeah, you record at

English Language, Cambridge University

night.

Press, Cambridge.
König, Ekkehard (1994) “Concessive Clauses,”

STREISAND: I'm a night person.
WINFREY:

Yeah.

The

Encyclopediaof

Language

and

STREISAND: Although I...

Linguistics, ed. by Ronald E. Asher,

WINFREY:

679-681, Oxford Pergamon Press, Oxford.

I heard the last time you sang,(…)(COCA)

Mizuno, Yuko (2018) “A Corpus-Based Analysis

Rectifying concessive is called “restrictive” byof Independent Although Clauses in Spoken

Günthner (2000).

English Discourse,” Proceedings of the 20th2

Conference of the Pragmatics Society ofJapan 13, 215-222.

REFERENCES
Biber, Douglas et al. (1999) Longman Grammar

Mizuno, Yuko (2020) “Eigo no Hanashikotoba

of Spoken and Written English, Person

ni okeru Though Setsu no Dokuritsu Yoho –Education, Harlow, Essex.

CorpusEvans, Nicholas (2007) “Insubordination and its
Uses,”
Empirical

Finiteness:

Theoretical

Foundations,

ed.

by

o

Mochiita

Bunseki(A

Corpus-Based Analysis of Independent

andThoughClausesinSpokenIrina

Discourse),” ProceedingsofEnglishthe

64th

Nikolaeva, 366-431, Oxford University

Conference of the English Literary Society

Press, Oxford.

of Japan, Hokkaido Branch.

Fraser, Bruce (1998) “Contrastive Discourse
Markers in English,” Discourse Markers

CORPUS

Descriptions and Theory, ed. by Andreas H.

Corpus of Contemporary American English

Jucker and Yael Ziv, 301-326, John

(COCA)

149

proposed need to be revised. In this sense,
Azerbaijani

examplesmakeacrucialcontribution to refining conditions on genitive
subject licensing in Altaic languages.
What Does Azeri Suggest for Refining
Conditions on Genitive Subject Licensing?*

2. Background
First, based on the distribution of genitive
subjects mainly in Mongolian and Japanese,

Xiao-Shi Qiu

Maki et al. (2016) propose (1).

Osaka University
Hideki Maki

(1)

Gifu University

Conditions on Genitive Subject Licensinga.

A genitive subject must be

Keywords: Azerbaijani, genitive subject,

c-commanded by a nominal element

Japanese, licensing conditions, Mongolian

in a local domain.
b.

A genitive subject must be in a local
relationship with the adnominal formof a predicate.

1. Introduction
This paper investigates the distribution ofgenitive subjects in Azerbaijani, one of the(1a) corresponds to Miyagawa’s (1993, 2011)

Turkic languages spoken in the Republic of

D-licensing approach, and (1b) to Watanabe’s

Azerbaijan and Iran, and examines what the(1996)/Hiraiwa’s

examples from Azerbaijani suggest for refining

form-licensing approach. Maki et al. (2016)

conditions on genitive subject licensing in Altaic

claim that genitive subjects in Altaic languages

languages. We owe all Azerbaijani examples

must satisfy both to be licensed, which isused in this paper to Khalida Alizada, Farid

evidenced by the examples in (2) and (3).

(2001)

adnominal

Khudiyev and Ilaha Mammadzade.
(2)

One of the distinctive properties of Altaic

Öčügedür Ulaɣan-ø/*-u

ene

languages including Azerbaijani is the fact that

yesterday Ulagan-Nom/-Gen thisthey exhibit the nominative/genitive alternation.

nom-i

In most cases, genitive subjects are allowed inbook-Acc buy-take-Past.Adn-Prt

relative clauses, which have an overt head

‘Ulagan bought this book yesterday.’(3)

nominal. In some cases, however, genitive

qudaldun-abu-ɣsan-siu.

Ene nom-iöčügedürsubjects are allowed in clauses with no overt

this book-Acc yesterdayhead nominal, such as a clause followed by theUlaɣan-ø/-uword that corresponds to until in English.

Ulagan-Nom/-Gen

Interestingly

enough,Altaicqudaldun-abu-ɣsan-siu.

languages,

Azerbaijani

genitivebuy-take-Past.Adn-Prt

unlikeotherdisallowst‘This book, Ulagan bought t yesterday.’subjects in ‘until’ clauses. Close examination ofthe ‘until’ structure in Azerbaijani reveals that(3) shows that the object is moved to theconditions on genitive subject licensing so far

150‘Eldar bought a book yesterday.’sentence-initial position by scrambling, and thesentence is grammatical with the genitive
subject. Note that in (3), the genitive subject is

In addition, it can be seen from (6) that the

c-commanded by the scrambled object and is in

nominative

a local relationship with the adnominal form ofphonetically covert, as represented by -ø. The

the predicate.

nominative case marker always has no sound,andaccusative

markersareand the accusative marker is also silent when theSecond, as Hiraiwa (2001) points out, aobject is non-specific.

genitive subject can appear without a nominal

When the object is specific, it may behead in Japanese, as shown below.

followed by the accusative marker -ı, as shown(4)

John-wa[ame-ga/-noin (7).

yam-u

John-Top [rain-Nom/-Gen stop-Pres(7)made] ofisu-ni i-ta.

(5)

Dünәn

Eldar-øokitab-ı

until] office-at be-Past

yesterday Eldar-Nom that book-Acc‘John was at his office until it stopped

al-dı.

raining.’buy-Past[Sengetsu‘Eldar bought that book yesterday.’ikkai John-ga/-no[last.month once John-Nom/-Gen
soko-ni it-ta

itteNames and other proper nouns are naturally

anybody go

specific nouns. Therefore, the overt accusative(k)kiri] daremo

there-to go-Past since]

marker appears on them, as shown in (8).

inai.
not.Pres(8)‘Nobody went there since John went once

Leyla-øNadir-ıtәriflә-di.

Leyla-Nom Nadir-Acc praise-Past

last month.’‘Leyla praised Nadir.’
3. Data
3.1.2.

Let us now examine Azerbaijani examples.

The

Genitive

Case

MarkerandPossessive Pronouns
Second, Azerbaijani has a genitive case

3.1. Basic Properties

marker represented by -im/-in/-ın, and also has

Let us start by examining basic syntactic

possessive pronouns, which appear after theproperties of Azerbaijani.

modified nominals, as shown below.
3.1.1. Word Order and Case Markers(9)First, the basic word order of Azerbaijani isMәn-im kitab-ım
I-Gen

SOV, as shown in (6).

book-PoP.1.SG‘my book’
(6)

Dünәn

Eldar-ø(10) Sәn-in

bir kitab-ø

kitab-ın

yesterday Eldar-Nom one book-Acc

you-Gen book-PoP.2.SG

al-dı.

‘your book’(11) Eldar-ın

buy-Past

151

kitab-ı‘the person who laughed yesterday’

Eldar-Gen book-PoP.3.SG‘Eldar’s book’

One

of

the

interesting

thingsabout

These examples show that a head noun must be

Azerbaijani is the fact that in contrast tofollowed by a possessive pronoun, which agrees

Mongolian and other languages, Azerbaijani haswith the possessor nominal in person andmore than one kind of adnominal forms, as

number.

shown below.

3.1.3. Relative Clauses(16) Nadir-itәriflә-yәn adam

Nadir-Acc praise-PS man

Third and finally, the distinction between the‘the person who praised Nadir’conclusive and the adnominal form of a(17) Nadir-øpredicate exists in Azerbaijani, as shown in (12)tәriflә-dığı adam

Nadir-Nom praise-PN manand (13).

‘the person who Nadir praised’(12) Dünәn

Eldar-ø

(PN=non-subject participle)

gül-dü.

yesterday Eldar-Nom laugh-Past
In (16) and (17), each head nominal adam ‘man’‘Yesterday Eldar laughed.’(13) gül-әn

has a different role in the original sentence. In

adamlaugh-PS man-Nom(16), it is the agent of the verb, while in (17), it‘the person who laughs’is the theme of the verb. This distinction is(PS=subject non-past participle)

reflected in the forms of the verb. The verb has
the PS form in (16), and the PN form in (17). In

In

(12),

the

sentence

ends

with

contrast to Azerbaijani, Mongolian, for example,

gül-dü

does not have this distinction, as shown below.

‘laugh-Past,’ which means that this form isequivalent to the conclusive form of a predicate(18) Baɣatur-iin Mongolian and other languages. (13) contains

maɣta-ɣsankümün

a relative clause that is derived from (12). In thisBagatur-Acc praise-Past.Adn person

sentence, the verb gül-әn is in the form called‘the person who praised Bagatur’(19) Ulaɣan-ø“subject non-past participle,” which corresponds

maɣta-ɣsankümün

to the adnominal form of a predicate inUlagan-Nom praise-Past.Adn person

Mongolian and other languages. In Mongolian,‘the person who Ulagan praised’for example, there is a clear distinction between
3.2. Sentences with a Genitive Subject

the conclusive form and the adnominal form of a

Let us now turn to sentences with a genitive

predicate, as shown below.

subject in Azerbaijani.
(14) Öčügedür Ulaɣan-ø

iniye-jei.
3.2.1. Relative Clauses

yesterday Ulagan-Nom laugh-Past.Con

First, Azerbaijani allows genitive subjects in‘Yesterday Ulagan laughed.’(15) öčügedür iniye-gsen

relative clauses, as shown below.

kümün

yesterday laugh-Past.Adn person

152

(20) Dünәn

Eldar-ø/-ınal-dığı
(24) John-wa [ame-ga/-noyesterday Eldar-Nom/-Gen buy-PN
kitab-ø

bu

yam-u

John-Top [rain-Nom/-Gen stop-Pres

kitab-dır.

book-Nom this book-be-Pres.3.SG

made] ofisu-ni i-ta.

‘The book which yesterday Eldar bought

until] office-at be-Past

is this book.’‘John was at his office until it stopped
raining.’(Hiraiwa (2001))

3.2.2. Gapless Sentential Modifiers to Nouns
Second, Azerbaijani allows genitive subjects

Let us now examine Azerbaijani counterpartsin complement clauses to nouns. Such clausesof (22)–(24). The example in (25) shows thatare typically headed by a noun that means ‘fact,’

genitive subjects are allowed in comparative

as shown below.

clauses.

(21) Eldar-ø/-ın(25) Eldar-ø

gül-düyü fakt-øLeylan-ø/-ınEldar-Nom/-Gen laugh-PN fact-Nom

Eldar-Nom Leyla-Nom/-Genbir problem-dir.

oxu-duğun-dan daha çox kitab-ø

one problem-be-Pres.3.SG

read-PN-Abl‘The fact that Eldar laughed is a problem.’

oxu-du.

more very book-Acc

read-Past.3.Sg‘Eldar read more book than Leyla did.’

3.2.3. Adjunct Clauses
Third, let us examine whether genitive

The example in (26) shows that genitive

subjects are allowed in adjunct clauses insubjects are allowed in since-clauses.

Azerbaijani. Watanabe (1996) and Hiraiwa(2001) point out that some genitive subjects may(26) Eldar-ø/-ın

appear without a nominal head. Such examples

keçәn ay

Eldar-Nom/-Gen last

are given below.

bir dәfә

month one time

get-diyin-dәn bәri heç kim ora(22) John-wa [Mary-ga/-noJohn-Top [Mary-Nom/-Gen readtakusan-no hon-ogo-PN-Ablyonda yori]

since no who there

get-mә-yib.

than]go-Neg-CVB

yonda.

many-Gen book-Acc read

‘Nobody went there since Eldar went

‘John read more books than Mary did.’there once last month.’(CVB=converb)(Watanabe (1996))
Interestingly enough, in Azerbaijani, genitive(23) Sengetsu ikkai John-ga/-nosubjects are not allowed in until-clauses, assoko-nishown below.

last.month once John-Nom/-Gen there-toit-ta(k)kiri] daremo

go-Past sinceitte inai.
(27) Leyla-øanybody go not.Pres[yağış-ø/*-ın

dayan-an-a‘Nobody went there since John went once

Leyla-Nom [rain-Nom/-Gen stop-PS-Dat

last month.’qәdәr] ofis-dә

(Hiraiwa (2001))

153

id-i.

until] office-Loc be-Past.3.SG

office-at

be-Past‘Leyla was at the office until it stopped‘Polat was at his office until the rain

raining.’

stopped.’(31) Uzbeka.

This fact is surprising because genitive subjects

Temur-ø

[yomg’ir-ø

are allowed in until-clauses in many Altaic

Temur-Nom [rain-Nom

languages, as shown below.

to’xta-gun-gacha]stop-Past.Adn-until]o’zi-ning ofisi-da edi.

(28) Mongolian
Batu-ø

self-office-at[boruɣan-ø /-u

was

Batu-Nom [rain-Nom/-Gen‘Temur was at his office until the rainjoɣsu-qustopped.’boltala] alban ger-tü

stop-Pres.Adn until]b.

office-at

Temur-ø

[yomg’ir-ning

bai-la.

Temur-Nom [rain-Gen

be-Past.Con

to’xta-gun-i-gacha]‘Batu was at his office until the rainstop-Past.Adn-PoP.3.Sg-until]

stopped.’o’zi-ning ofisi-da edi.
self-office-at(29) Manchu[Aga-ø/-i‘Temur was at his office until the rainwaqihiyame nakaha[rain-Nom/-Gen completely
de isitala], Jangsan’-østopped.’stop(32) Kazakh

albanbou-de

until]

Jangsan-Nom office-at

bihei

bi.

was

a.

Aydos-ø[jangber-øAydos-Nom [rain-Nom

continuously wastohta-han-ha‘Jangsan was at his office until the rainstop-Past.Adn-Alt until]

completely stopped.’

isbolmesin-de tur-di.
office-at(30) Uyghura.

Polat-ø

stopped.’Polat-Nom [rain-Nomb.

be-Past.Con‘Aydos was at his office until the rain[yamghur-ø

tahti-ghan-gha

deyin]b.

qeder]

Aydos[jangber-dingstop-Past.Adn-Alt until]

Aydos-Nom [rain-Gen

ishhansi-da tur-di.

tohta-u-i-na

office-at

stop-Past.Adn-PoP.3-Alt until]

be-Pastdeyin]‘Polat was at his office until the rain

isbolmesin-de tur-di.

stopped.’office-at

Polat-ø

‘Aydos was at his office until the rain[yamghur-ning

stopped.’Polat-Nom [rain-Gen
tohti-ghin-i-ghe

be-Past.Con

qeder]

stop-Past.Adn-PoP.3.Sg-Alt until]

The fact that (27) with a genitive subject isishhansi-da tur-di.

ungrammatical poses an interesting question.

154

predicate must be in the PS form in the qәdәr

Why is this so in Azerbaijani?

‘until’ clause, which does not contribute togenitive

4. Discussion

subject

licensing.

Therefore,

theungrammaticality of (27) suggests that the

Let us consider what the above facts suggest.

condition in (1b) should be refined as (33b).

Our research shows that the distribution ofgenitive subjects in Azerbaijani is fundamentally(33) Conditions on Genitive Subject Licensing

identical to that in Japanese, except the ‘until’a.

examples in (27). Note that the example in (26)

A genitive subject must be

shows that genitive subjects are allowed in otherc-commanded by a nominal element

adjunct clauses such as since-clauses. The

in a local domain.
b.

crucial difference between the grammatical

A genitive subject must be in a local

example in (26) and the ungrammatical example

with the non-subject adnominalin (27) is the fact that the adnominal form of theform of a predicate.

predicate in (26) is different from the adnominal
form of the predicate in (27). In (26), theNow, let us consider whether (33a, b) are

predicate is in the non-subject past participle

conditions on genitive subject licensing inform indicated as PN, and in (27), the predicate

Azerbaijani alone, or whether they are generalis in the subject participle form indicated as PS.

enough to apply to other Altaic languages such

If Harada (2002), who argues based on

as Mongolian, Kazakh, Uyghur, Uzbek, Manchu

Konoshima (1973), is correct in assuming thatand Japanese. In the following, we would like tomade ‘until’ and kiri ‘since’ have a nominal

suggest that (33a, b) apply to at least these

origin, and this is true to their Azerbaijani

languages. Out of these languages, Mongolian,counterparts as well, the example with a genitive

Kazakh, Uyghur and Uzbek have a distinction

subject in (26) is correctly predicted to be

between the conclusive form and the adnominal

grammatical, and the example with a genitive

form of a predicate, but they do not have asubject in (27) would also be incorrectly

distinction within the adnominal form, unlike

predicted to be grammatical, as the two

Azerbaijani. If Azerbaijani is special and has a

conditions in (1) are satisfied.

language

specific

property

in

which

the

predicate must be in the PS form in the qәdәr(1)

Conditions on Genitive Subject Licensing‘until’ clause, it may be possible to assume thata.

A genitive subject must be

in Mongolian, Kazakh, Uyghur and Uzbek, thec-commanded by a nominal element

predicates may have the PN form, that is, thein a local domain.

non-subject adnominal form in until-clauses as

A genitive subject must be in a local

well as in other adjunct clauses. If this is so, therelationship with the adnominal form

revision from (1b) to (33b) does not affectof a predicate.

genitive subject licensing in these languages.

b.

As for Manchu and Japanese, the revision
The fact that only (27) with a genitive subject isfrom (1b) to (33b) will not affect genitive

ungrammatical suggests then that Azerbaijani

subject licensing in these languages, either. This

has a language specific property in which the

is

155

becausetheselanguages

have

no

morphologically visible distinction between the

Turkish example with ‘until.’ We are also

conclusive form and the adnominal form of aindebted to Yusuke Imanishi, Yuta Sakamoto andpredicate, and it is not implausible to assume

Sakeko Urushibara for valuable comments. All

that in Manchu and Japanese, the predicates may

errors are our own.

have the non-subject adnominal form in
until-clauses as well as in other adjunct clauses.
Before closing, let us consider the Turkish

REFERENCES
Harada, Naomi (2002) Licensing PF-Visible

counterpart of (27), as Azerbaijani and Turkish

Formal Features: A Linear Algorithm andare very close to each other in their syntactic

Case-Related Phenomena in PF, Doctoral

properties.

dissertation,

UniversityofCalifornia,

Irvine.
(34) Leyla yağış-ø/*-ın

Hiraiwa, Ken (2001) “On Nominative-Genitive

dur-an-aLeyla rain-Nom/-Gen stop-NML-Dat

Conversion,” MIT Working Papers inkadar ofis-te

Linguistics 39: A Few from Building E39,

i-di.

until office-Loc be-Pst.3.SG

ed.

by

Elena

Guerzoni‘Leyla was at the office until it stopped

Matushansky, 66–125.

and

Ora

Konoshima, Masatoshi (1973) Kokugo Joshi noraining.’

Kenkyuu (A Study of Japanese Particles),Ohfuu Publishers, Tokyo.

Interestingly enough, (34) is ungrammatical witha genitive subject in the until-clause in Turkish

Maki, Hideki, Lina Bao, Wurigumula Bao andas well. Therefore, (27) and (34) indicate that at

Megumi Hasebe (2016) “Scrambling andleast Azerbaijani and Turkish disallow genitive

Genitive Subjects in Mongolian,” English

subjects in until-clauses in Altaic languages.

Linguistics 33, 1–35.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (1993) “Case-Checking andMinimal Link Condition,” MIT Working

5. Conclusion
This paper investigated the distribution ofPapers in Linguistics 19: Papers on Case

genitive subjects in Azerbaijani, and based on

and Agreement II, ed. by Colin Phillips,

the examples newly elicited, suggested that the

213–254.

condition on genitive subject licensing in (1b)Miyagawa, Shigeru (2011) “Genitive Subjects inshould be revised to that in (33b). It was

Altaic and Specification of Phase,” Lingua

suggested that this revision does not affect121, 1265–1282.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (2012) Case, Argument

genitive subject licensing in Mongolian, Kazakh,

Structure, and Word Order, Routledge,

Uyghur, Uzbek, Manchu and Japanese.

New York.
* We would like to thank Khalida Alizada, Farid

Watanabe, Akira (1996) “Nominative-Genitive

Khudiyev and Ilaha Mammadzade for theConversion and Agreement in Japanese: A

Azerbaijani examples used in this paper. We are

Cross-Linguistic Perspective,” Journal of

also grateful to Lina Bao for providing us with

East Asian Linguistics 5, 373–410.

Mongolian examples. We would also like toexpress our gratitude to İsa Kerem for the156

mentions, SC is a problem not only for MTC but
also any other theories of control.
This paper attempts to provide an adequate
movement analysis for SC from Chomsky’s
A Movement Analysis for Split Control*(2013, 2015) framework. In particular, theconcept of Free Merge is very important to ourYuya Sakumoto

proposal.

Graduate School of Kyushu University

Under

Chomsky(2013,

2015),

External/Internal Merge can be applied freely
insofar as all syntactic objects are properly

Keywords：split control, movement theory oflabeled. That is, the operation of movement

control, multiple spec, free merge(Internal Merge) itself does not require any costs.
Based on this concept, we argue that thederivation in which two external arguments are

1. Introduction

generated in the specifier position of one v*P isWith the influential proposal made bya theoretically possible option under Free Merge,

Hornstein (1999), obligatory control can be

and capture all the properties of SC. If what wederived through movement, assuming that

propose is on the right track, we can derive SC

movement into theta positions is allowed inwithout inducing any costs and contribute to theprinciple within the Minimalist Framework. This

control theory in its entirety.

approach has been called the Movement Theoryof Control (MTC), which is theoretically

2. Peculiar Properties of SC

intriguing in that it does not rely on a

In this section, let us introduce fourgrammatically invisible element called PRO,

properties of SC. First, as you can see in thewhose status has never been made explicit in theexamples in (1), SC does allow plural anaphor.

previous literature.

Hence, it is semantically and syntactically plural.

However, there is a strong counterexample to

The second property is that controllers in SC

MTC: Split Control (SC). Landau (2000)

must be local as in (2).

observes that split antecedents are in fact
allowed in limited obligatory control types, as(2)Maryi was glad that Johnj had proposed

shown in (1):to Billk [PROj+k/*i+j/*i+k to cooperatewith each other]. (Landau (2013: 173))(1)

Johni asked Maryj [whether PROi+j to
get themselves a new car].

Third, verbs allowing SC are very restricted:(Landau (2000: 53))
(3)

*Johni told Maryj PROi+j to wash

These examples are particularly problematic tothemselves/each other.

MTC. Since it assumes that PRO in obligatory(Hornstein (1999: 73))

control is a residue of A-movement, it is not(4) a.

clear how MTC accounts for the existence ofJohn offered/*ordered Mary to help
each other.

split antecedents. Moreover, as Landau (2000)

b.

157

(Landau (2013: 174))

John proposed/*committed/*seemed toMary to help each other.

influential previous analysis for SC, which is(Landau (2013: 174))

based on the movement analysis by Hornstein(1999).

Landau (2000) observes that SC is usually foundalong with verbs of proposal and communication,

3.1 Fujii (2006, 2010)

but that most of the object control verbs prohibit

As briefly mentioned in Section 1, MTC

it as in (3) and (4). The final property is that SC

faces the problems with SC: if obligatory control

is not allowed in adjunct clauses:1

is derived by movement, how can split
antecedents be derived? Fujii (2006, 2010)(5)*Johni said that Maryj left after PROi+j

points out that the PRO analysis for SC violates

washing themselves.

a minimality principle, namely the Principle of(Hornstein (2003: 31))

Minimal Distance (PMD) by Rosenbaum (1970).
It requires that PRO must be bound by a closerThisevidence

clearly

indicates

that

the

potential antecedent. Given this, consider theselectional requirement is necessary for theconfiguration of SC in (6):occurrence of SC.
So far, we have observed four properties of(6)

NPi NPj [CP PROi+j …]

SC. Clearly, SC differs strikingly from regularcontrol

constructions,which

defieseasy

In the configuration of (6), PRO is controlled

solutions for any theories of control. Hence, as

by NPi but not the closer antecedent, which isLandau (2013) notes, numerous studies deny thedeemed as a violation of PMD. Alternatively,

existence of SC (Williams (1980), Hornstein

Fujii (2006, 2010) proposes a novel movement(1999, 2003), among others). However, theanalysis for SC. Fujii shows that there is apresence of SC is observed and verified by

specific mood particle that triggers SC in

several researchers (e.g. Landau (2000)). Indeed,Japanese: “exhortative” mood, as shown in (7).

this phenomenon is very limited but does exist.
Hence, it is necessary to explain why it shows(7) Taro-wa

Hiroshi-ni[Δ otagai-othe properties that it has for the further

Taro-Top Hiroshi-Dat

e.o.-Acc

development of control theory.

tasuke-a-oo-to]teiansita

respect-Recip-YOO-C

proposed

3. Previous Analyses of SC‘Taro proposed to Hiroshi to help each

Since SC has very problematic properties,

other.’(Fujii (2006: 122))

not many analyses for SC have been proposed intheliterature.2

previous

Landau(2013)

One question here is that the minimal

extensively survey the previous studies on SC

distance principle seems to be violated in (7).

and point out their problems. Thus, Landau

Given this, Fujii suggests that SC is involved in(2013: 174) concludes “As of yet, there is nothe structure in (8) where two coordinated NPs

satisfactory theory for the syntax of split control

can arise in the same specifier of Mood in the3

constructions.”

case of SC, which guarantees the plurality:

In the following subsection, we outline one

158

(8)

MoodP

b. {XP … {α=Y XP, YP}}c. {α=<F, F> {X[F], WP}, {Y[uF], ZP}}

NP+NP

Mood’
In (10a), one head is merged with some phrase;
Mood

TP

in this case, Minimal Search (MS) detects thenearest head, X. In (10b, c) both elements are

The derivation proposed by Fujii (2006, 2010) is

phrases, and this situation is often called XP-YP

illustrated in (9).

configuration. There are two possible solutions
to resolve the XP-YP configuration: (i) one(9)[vP α [VP α+β V [CP C [MoodP α+β Mood …

phrase moves and thus becomes invisible to MS(= (10b)) (ii) the feature sharing between two

First, in (9), β undergoes movement to thephrases provides the unique label (= (10c)).

indirect object position in the matrix clause toWith this background in mind, let us

receive the theta-role, and pied-piping the otherintroduce Saito’s (2017a, b) argument, andconjunct α. Then, α moves to vP Spec position toargument doubling observed by Kuroda (1988).

check the external theta-role of the matrix v.

Saito argues that the Theta-Criterion in (11),Fujii argues that the derivation in (9) does notwhich is nothing but the stipulation, should beviolate the minimality because he assumes that α

dispensed with.

and β are equidistant: α does not block the
movement of β, nor does β block the movement(11)

Theta-criterion: each argument bears oneof α. However, it is not plausible to assume theand only one θ-role, and each θ-role isstructure of (9) for SC. As Landau (2013) points

assigned to one and only one argument.

out, the assumption that the coordinated(Chomsky (1981: 36))

structure is broken up in syntax is quite dubious.
If we can explain the peculiar behavior of SC

His argument is based on the fact that there is a

withoutahigh degree of overlap in the effects of thetheoretically desirable outcome can be obtained.

theta-criterion and the labeling requirement.

assuming

covertconjunction,(12a, b) are typical examples of violations of the
4. An Analysis of Saito (2017a, b)

theta-criterion.

In this section we introduce the argument in
Saito (2017a, b), which is crucial to our proposal.
Before going onto Saito’s analysis, let us
introduce

Labeling

Algorithm(LA)(12) a. *Mary hit the head Johnb. *Mary went to Germany (three times) tofromEurope(Saito (2017a: 29))

Chomsky (2013, 2015). He defines Merge as the
set-forming operation from two syntactic objects

He argues that independent of the theta-criterion,

and all sets need to be labeled by LA to allow for

the predicates in these examples fail to beproper interpretation at the interfaces. Consider

labeled as illustrated in (13). Hence, he

the following:

concludes

that

the

theta-criterion

is

not

necessary to account for the ungrammaticality of(10) a. {α=X X, YP}

these examples.

159

one verb can assign the same theta role to two
(13)

XP→?

XP→?

distinct DPs. This suggests that multiple
elements can be generated in one v*P Spec.

VP

DP

VP

PP
5. Proposal

V

DP

V

PP

Given that Move (Internal Merge) and Merge(cf. Saito (2017a: 26))

(External Merge) are taken as equivalent
operations, Chomsky (2013, 2015) claims that

Furthermore, he presents for additional evidenceInternal Merge and External Merge must be

the cases of argument doubling discussed byapplied freely as long as all syntactic objects are

Kuroda (1988). First, look at the example inlabeled successfully. The implication behind this(14).

concept is that under Free Merge, nothing
prevents the derivation in which two arguments(14) ??Masao-ga

Hanako-oare generated in the specifier position of one

Masao-Nom Hanako-Acc

head.

hoho-obutta

Under Free Merge, we propose an alternative

cheek-Acchitanalysis for the derivation of SC. Specifically,‘Masao hit Hanako on the cheek.’

we claim that two external arguments can be(cf. Kuroda (1988: 25))

generated in the specifier position of v*P. Let us
see the derivation for (16a):4

It is well known that the grammaticality of (14)is degraded because Japanese has a mysterious(16) a. John asked Mary [whether to getsurface constraint which prohibits multiple

themselves a new car].

occurrences of accusative case in a sentence.

b. {β=<φ, φ> John {v*P asked {α=<φ, φ> Mary

This effect can be circumvented by moving one{whetherof the accusative phrases, as shown in (15).

get…}}}}}}}(15)[CP Masao-ga

Hanako-o(= (1))

but-ta

to

{John

{Mary

{v*P

In (16b), two external arguments, John and

Masao-Nom Hanako-Acc hit-Past

Mary are generated in the same v*P Spec, andno]-wahoho-odaboth gain a theta-role from the verb get. Then,

Comp-Top

cheek-Acc

iseach external argument moves into the matrix‘It is on the cheek that Masao hit

clause separately and gets properly labeled there.

Hanako.’This derivation is theoretically possible within(cf. Kuroda (1988: 25))the current framework as far as the LA is
Saito argues that the problem cannot be

conducted successfully. Of great significance in

explained by the theta-criterion because (15) is

this derivation is that it requires only one

grammatical even though one verb provides

operation, namely (Internal) Merge, which is atheta-roles to two arguments. These pieces ofbasic operation in human language and can beevidence lead Saito to conclude that theapplied freely. In other words, the proposed

theta-criterion is no longer necessary. Notice thatanalysis can derive SC without any stipulated160

assumptions, reflecting the spirit of the Strong(19)

Minimalist Thesis.

John proposed to Mary to meet eachother at 6.

Then, we will address the question of why(20)(Landau (2000: 53))

John and Mary love each other.

SC is impossible in some cases. First, consider(17).

Second, we adopt movement analysis for thederivation of SC, just like Fujii, so that the(17) a. *John Mary played baseball.

locality of controllers in SC is easily captured byb. *{β=?? John {α=<φ, φ> Mary {John, {Maryour analysis too.

{v*P played baseball}}}}}Let us consider the third property. SC is
restricted to only some types of control

As we can see in (17b), β is not labeled, causing

constructions. Recall that the verb tell does not

the derivation to crash: each syntactic object

allow SC complements as in (21). This is also

needs to be labeled for the interpretation. Next,

true to the verbs order, seem, and commit as you

look at the sentence in (18a) and the possible

can see in (22).

derivation in (18b).
(21)(18) a. *John suggests to Mary that getsthemselves/each other.

themselves a new car.
{John,(= (3))(22) a. John offered/*ordered Mary to helpb. {β=<φ, φ> John T suggests to Marythat{α=??

*Johni told Maryj PROi+j to wash

{Mary

T

each other.

gets(= (4a))b. John proposed/*committed/*seemed tothemselves a new car}}.

Mary to help each other.

(= (4b))In Chomsky (2015), T is too weak to be labeled

It is reasonable to consider that these sentencesby itself, so prominent feature sharing is needed

are excluded by semantic factors. As Fujii

5for strengthening the label of T. However, insuggests, this issue arises not only in the MTC(18b), copies John and Mary left by movement

but also in the PRO analysis. Landau (2000) andare not visible by MS in principle (see Chomsky

Fujii (2006) argue that the acceptability of SC(2013, 2015)), so that T is not strengthened.

depends partially on the semantics of verbs.

Hence, the derivation of (18b) is correctlyBasedexcluded.

persuasively argues that only verbs whichonextensive

Japanese

data,

Fujii

support exhortative interpretations allow SC
5.1 Explaining the Properties of SC

complement.

Thissemantic

restrictionis

The proposed analysis can successfully

persuasive because it can easily explain why tellaccount for all the properties of SC. First,in (21) and order and commit in (22) cannot takeconcerning the anaphors which require plural

any SC complement. The similar proposal toantecedents, we argue that two DPs originated as

Fujii is also made by Madigan (2008) andin the same edge of v*P can authorize such

Matsuda (2017), and Landau (2015) adapts

anaphors as each other in (19) just like the

Madigan’s. Following them, we simply assume

coordinate structure in (20) (cf. Fujii (2006)):

that C with an exhortative feature needs to be
selected by verbs for SC. Thus, we can also161

explain, along with the same assumption, why

can arise in the same v*P Spec position under

SC is not allowed in adjunct clauses:

the notion of Free Merge and have provided theadequate explanation for SC.

(23)*Johni said that Maryj left after PROi+j
washing themselves.

(= (5))* I am greatly indebted to Nobuaki Nishioka for
his invaluable comments and suggestions. I am

Since C in adjunct clauses is not selected byalso truly thankful to Toshiaki Inada, Shomatrix verbs, the exhortative interpretation

Shimokariya, Tomonori Otsuka, Masako Maeda,

cannot be obtained: selection is necessary for SC

Norimasa Hayashi, and the audience of the 14th(see Hornstein (2003), Fujii (2006), Madigan

Conference of ELSJ International Spring Forum(2008), Landau (2015), and Matsuda (2017)).

for their fruitful comments. I also thank Edmund

6

Hence, adjunct clauses do not allow SC. Thus,

Luna for stylistic improvements.

the properties of SC are not a problem for the

NOTES

proposed analysis and captured successfully.

1

Under the movement analysis, obligatory

adjunct control is derived by Nunes’ (1995)
5.2 Possible Extension

sideward movement (Hornstein (1999, 2003)).

Finally, we explore a possible extension of

See also Sakumoto (to appear) for his alternative

our analysis. The previous section has argued

analysis.

that in the case of the derivation of SC, multiple

2

elements are generated in the same v*P.

overview of previous studies on SC and theirInterestingly, the split antecedent constructions

problems.

are also found in the relative clause, as observed

3by Ross and Perlmutter (1970):(2017) have provided the interesting approaches

The reader is referred to Landau (2013) for the

Madigan (2008), Landau (2015) and Matsuda

to SC with the PRO analysis. This paper does(24) a. A mani entered the room and a womanj

not scrutinize their validity, but instead focuses

went out who i, j were quite similar.
(Ross and Perlmutter (1970: 350))

on the satisfactory account of SC with MTC.
4
This paper proposes another possibility for theb. We always let those boysi play with

derivation of SC under Free Merge that two

those girlsj [whoi, j know one anotherexternal arguments form one set {DP1, DP2} infrom elementary school].

the v*P Spec, and each DP moves to the matrix(Hoeksema (1986: 64))

clause for labeling (see Rodrigues (2007) for his
approach of complex DP to partial control andThey look very similar to SC constrictions. If

its plurality). Potentially, this idea can accountmultiple spec constructions are allowed infor the behavior of SC without causing thesyntax, these examples can also be captured byproblem Fujii (2006) faces.

our proposal.

5

Following Mizuguchi (2017), we assume that

infinitival T can be labeled by itself.
6
This fact can also be captured by Landau’s

6. Conclusion
To summarize the discussion of this paper,(2013, 2015) observation that predication does

we have proposed that two external arguments

not allow split readings. This idea is also

162

compatible with the movement analysis.

Madigan, Sean (2008) “Obligatory Split Control
into Exhortative Complements in Korean,”

REFERENCES
Noam(1981)
Lectures

Chomsky,on

Linguistic Inquiry 39, 493-502.

Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky,Noam(2013)“Problems

Matsuda, Asako (2017) “Embedded Imperativeofin

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

Noam

Projection:(2015)

Control,”

EnglishLinguistics

33,

340-376.

“Problems

Extensions,”ofMizuguchi, Manabu (2017) “Labelability and

Structures,

Interpretability,” Studies in Generative

Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour

Grammar 27, 327-365.

of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di

Nunes, Jairo (1995) The Copy Theory of

Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona

Movement and Linearization of Chains in

Matteini,

the

3-16,

John

Benjamins,

Amsterdam and Philadelphia.

Minimalist

dissertation

Fujii, Tomohiro (2006) Some Theoretical Issues

Program,

UniversityofDoctoral
Maryland,College Park.

in Japanese Control, Doctoral dissertation,

Rodrigues, Cilene (2007) “Agreement andUniversity of Maryland.

Floatation in Partial and Inverse Partial

Fujii, Tomohiro (2010) “Split Control and theControl Configurations,” New Horizons in

Principle of Minimal Distance,” Movement

the Analysis of Control and Raising, ed. byTheory of Control, ed. by Norbert Hornstein

William D. Davies and Stanley Dubinsky,

and213-229, Springer, Dordrecht.

Maria

Polinsky,211-244,

John

Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia.

Rosenbaum,

Peter(1970)“A

Principle

Hoeksema, Jack (1986) “An Account of Relative

Governing Deletion in English Sentential

Clauses with Split Antecedents,” WCCFL 5,

Complementation,” Readings in English

68-86.

TransformationalHornstein, Norbert (1999) “Movement andNorbert(2003)

“On

ed.

by

Roderick Jacobs and Peter Rosenbaum,Control,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69-96.
Hornstein,

Grammar,220-229, Ginn-Blaisdell, Waltham, MA.

Control,”Ross, John Robert and David, Perlmutter (1970)

Minimalist Syntax, ed. by Randall Hendrick,“Relative clauses with split antecedents,”

6-81, Blackwell, Oxford.

Linguistic Inquiry 1, 350.

Kuroda, Shige-Yuki (1988) “Whether We Agree

Sakumoto, Yuya (to appear) “A Phase-Basedor Not,” Linguisticae Investigationes 12,

Analysis for Adjuncts,” Studies in English

1-47.

Linguistics and Literature 31.

Landau, Idan (2000) Elements of Control:
StructureandMeaning

in

Saito, Mamoru (2017a) “Notes on the Locality

Infinitivalof Anaphor Binding and A-Movement,”

Constructions, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

English Linguistics 34, 1-33.

Landau, Idan (2013) Control in Generative
Grammar:A

Research

Saito, Mamoru (2017b) “Labeling and Argument

Companion,

Doubling in Japanese,” Tsing Hua Journal

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

of Chinese Studies 47, 383-405.

Landau, Idan (2015) A Two-Tiered Theory ofWilliams,

Control, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Edwin(1980)“Predication,”

Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203-238.

163

(Lasersohn (1999)) provides an elegant
theory showing how sentences’ imprecise
contents are determined by both their literalcontents and what is relevant in a conversation:
Not-exactly: A Challenge for the QUDbased Approach to Imprecision

Every sentence not only has its literal content

Charlie Siu
Department of Philosophy (Zhuhai),
Sun Yat-Sen Univeristyof propositions that do not differ from that

but also has a pragmatic halo, which consists
sentence’s literal content in pragmatically
relevant ways. The imprecise content of asentence is true just in case that sentence’s

Keywords: imprecision, loose talk, question underdiscussion

pragmatic halo contains a true proposition.
While Lasersohn’s theory explains why

1. Introduction

sentences that are literally false can be accepted

According to a familiar view on loose talk,to be true, it cannot account for (i) the fact thatwhen we speak loosely, what we say is literally

the imprecise contents of negations are stronger

false, but since there is no relevant difference

than their literal contents and (ii) the fact that an

between what we say and what we mean, ourincrease in the standard of precision is generally

utterances can be accepted to be true. For

easier than a decrease:example, consider:(3) The high school principal didn’t travel 800(1)

A high school principal in Texas

miles in two weeks.

travelled 800 miles in two weeks to visit(4) a. Anna: Amanda arrives at 9 pm.

all of his 612 graduating seniors at home.
(2)b. Ben: No, she arrives at 9:00:02 pm.

Tampa is exactly 1000 miles away fromNew York city.

(5) a. Chan: Amanda arrives at 9:00:02 pm.

The numerical expressions in bold are usedb. David: #No, she arrives at 9 pm.

loosely: It is unlikely that the author of (1)The literal content of (3) is the very weakmeans that the school principal travelled exactly

proposition that the distance travelled by the

800.0 miles in two weeks and the speaker of (2)principal is not identical to 800.0 miles, whichmeans that Tampa is exactly 1000.0 miles away

is much weaker than what (3) intuitively meansfrom New York city. According to the familiar(Carter (2017); Hoek (2018)). While Ben inview, both (1) and (2) are literally false, but they

dialogue (4) can signal an increase in standard

can be accepted to be true because their literalof precision by uttering (4-b), David in dialogue

contents are not relevantly different from what(5) cannot signal a decrease in standard ofthey mean (i.e. The high school principle

precision by uttering (5-b) (Klecha (2018)).
Recently, there have been new versionsof the familiar view that are in part
motivated by the need to address issues (i)travelled roughly 800 miles in two weeks;Tampa is very close to exactly 1000 miles awayfrom New York City).

164

and (ii) above. While their motivations and2. The QUD-based approach to imprecision

implementations vary, a key common feature of

In the following, we will focus on the following

these accounts is that they make use of atwo sentences and their negations:contextually given relation over the common
ground — which some authors identify with the(P)

Paul is 6’0 tall.

Question under Discussion (QUD) (Roberts(EP)

Paul is exactly 6’0 tall.

(¬P)

Paul is not 6’0 tall.

(¬EP)

Paul is not exactly 6’0 tall.

(2012)) — to convert sentences’ literal contents
into their intuitive imprecise contents. In thispaper, we call these accounts QUD-based
accounts, and their approach to imprecision the

The QUD-based approach assumes that ‘6’0’

QUD-based approach.
The purpose of this paper is to present adenotes a point on the tallness scale. Sincechallenge to the QUD-based approach. The

Paul’s height is not identical to that precise

challenge can be brought out by the contrast

point of the scale, both (P) and (EP) are false,

between the sentences below:

and (¬P) and (¬EP) are both true but highly
uninformative.

(¬P)

Chris Paul is not 6’0 tall.

(¬EP)

Chris Paul in not exactly 6’0 tall.

According to the approach, relevance plays
a crucial role in transforming those sentences’

According to the approach, since ‘Chris Paul

literalcontents

into

is not 6’0 tall’ and ‘Chris Paul is exactly 6’0

communicatedtall’ say the same thing, so do (¬P) and (¬EP).

Discussion (QUD) are used to (a) make explicit

However, not only does (¬EP) have anwhat it is for a piece of information to be

intuitive imprecise content that is weaker than

relevant and (b) transform the literal contents ofthat of (¬P), it also has a feature that (¬P) doessuch sentences as (P), (EP), (¬P), and (¬EP) into

not have: It implies that Paul is close to exactly

their intuitive imprecise contents.

contents.

theirintuitive

Questionsunder

6’0 tall. I argue that it is difficult for the QUD-

Formally, a QUD is a partition over thebased approach to explain this contrast

context set. In the following, we assume that the

between (¬P) and (¬EP).

context set represents the state of ignorance, so

The rest of this paper is structured as follows.

that the context set is identical to the logical

We first discuss the QUD-based approach tospace. For example, if the information that is

imprecision (§2). After that, we present themutually accepted among the interlocutors ischallenge to the QUD-based approach, consider

represented by the set of worlds in the rectangle

a response, and show that it is unsatisfactory

below, the QUD Who won the 3-point contest(§3). We then provide a partial defense of an

this year? will divide that set of worlds into cells,

alternative to the familiar view, on which

each of which represents a complete answer tonumerical expressions denote intervals rather

the question. (Assumption: there are only 4than maximally finegrained degrees (§4). §5

players.)concludes.

165

(6)

Curry

Tatum

To account for the fact that the imprecise

LavineMitchellcontent of (¬P) is stronger than its literal content,
the QUD-based approach can define theIn the top left cell are worlds in which Curry

imprecise content of ¬φ to be the difference

won the contest. In the top right cell are worlds

between the logical space and the imprecise

in which Tatum won the contest, and so on.

content of φ. So the imprecise content of (¬P) is

Here is why QUD can be exploited tothe difference between the logical space and theaccount for the imprecise contents of sentences.

set of worlds represented by the bottom left cell

In everyday conversations, the differencein (7), which is identical to the proposition thatbetween 6’0 and 6’01 is almost never relevantPaul’s height, measured to the nearest inch, isto whether (P) counts as true. The QUD-based

not 6’0.

approach explains why (P) can be used toWhen it comes to the treatment of ‘exactly’,communicate a true imprecise content by

the QUD-based approach has two options. The

positing an unarticulated QUD such as What isfirst option is to have ‘exactly’ modify thePaul’s height measured to the nearest inch?.

QUD so that it becomes more finegrained. The

The thought is that if someone utters (P), and if

second option is to have ‘exactly’ modify thethe interlocutors do not object to their utterance,

QUD

then a QUD such as What is Paul’s height

that

it

becomes

maximally

finegrained. Since it is not clear how themeasured to the nearest inch? will be tacitly

modified QUD is to be selected on the first

accepted by the interlocutors, and that QUD will

option, we will only consider the second

transform the content of (P) into an answer tooption. Consider:

the QUD. For example, consider the following
representation of the QUD What is Paul’s(EP)height measured to the nearest inch?
(7)soPaul is exactly 6’0.

The intuitive content of (EP) is identified with

5’10

5’11

the intuitive content of ‘Paul is 6’0’ when the

6’0 x

6’1

QUD is What is Paul’s maximally precise
height?. So the intuitive content (EP) is

In the top left cell are worlds in which Paul’s

identical to the sentence’s literal content.

height, measured to the nearest inch, is 5’10. In
the bottom left cell are worlds in which Paul’s

Now that we have seen how the QUD-

height, measured to the nearest inch, is 6’0, andbased approach accounts for the intuitive
contents of (P) and (EP) and of their negations,

so on. The blue cross represents the worlds in

let’s turn to an argument against the approach.

which Paul’s height is exactly 6’0. Since thoseworlds are not relevantly different from theworlds in the bottom left cell, the literal content

3. An argument against the QUD-based
approachof (P) signals that the answer to the question is

Consider:the proposition represented by that cell, and the(¬P)

imprecise content of (P) is identified with that

Chris Paul is not 6’0 tall.

(¬EP) Chris Paul is not exactly 6’0 tall.

proposition.

166

Suppose we learn from the basketball player’s(9)This table is not exactly 80 inch longteam website that he is 6’0 tall. (¬P) sounds(since it is handmade).

false, but (¬EP) sound true or at least implies(10)

that Paul is close to exactly 6’0 tall. The contrast

I doubt that this table is not exactly 80
inch long (since it is machine-made).

between (¬P) and (¬EP) is stated as follows:
Although both (9) and (10) are more marked(H)(¬EP) implies that Paul is close to exactly

than their without-‘exactly’ counterparts (i.e.

6’0 tall, but (¬P) doesn’t carry such

‘This table is not 80 inch long’; ‘I doubt that this

implicature.

table is not 80 inch long’), while (9) implies that

Notice that, according to the QUD-based

the table is close to exactly 80 inch long —approach, (P) and (EP) have the same literal

which according to the explanation undercontent, which means that their negations (¬P)

consideration is an abnormal way of (9) being

and (¬EP) also have the same literal content.

true — (10), which is equivalent to ‘I am certain

The question we are interested in is whether thethat this table is exactly 80 inch long’, does not

QUD-based approach can account for theseem to imply that it is true in an abnormal way.

contrast between (¬P) and (¬EP) while holding

With that, we conclude that (¬EP)’s implicaturethat the sentences say the same thing.

that Paul is close to exactly 6’0 tall is unlikely
to be a M-implicature.

One may think that the approach can use theM-principle — which says that marked or more

One may attempt to explain the contrast

prolix expressions warn of an abnormal

between (¬P) and (¬EP) by appealing to whatsituation (Levinson (2000)) — to account forthey communicate, which respectively are:the contrast. Consider:
(11)
(8)

a. Peter caused the car to stop.

Unarticualted QUD: What is Paul’sheight measured to the nearest inch?

b. Peter stopped the car.

What (¬P) communicates: Paul’s height,

Although both (8-a) and (8-b) say the samemeasured to the nearest inch, is notthing, since (8-a) is more marked than (8-b), (8-6’0.

a) impiles that Peter stopped the car in an(12)

Unarticualted QUD: What is Paul’sabnormal way (e.g. by activating a barrier). It isheight measured to the nearest inch?

tempting to apply a similar reasoning to (¬EP)

What (¬EP) communicates: Paul’sand (¬P): Since (¬EP) is more marked than (¬P),

maximally(¬EP) implies that Paul is not exactly 6’0 tall in

identical to 6’0.

an abnormal way, and being close to exactly 6’0

However,

is arguably one such way of being not 6’0 tall.

itisprecisenotheight

clear

how

is

not

these

communicated contents are helpful here: While

While this explanation may seem to accountthe communicated content of (¬P) seems to rule

for the contrast between (¬P) and (¬EP), itout the possibility that Paul is close to exactly

cannot account for the contrast between the

6’0, the communicated content of (¬EP) does

following sentences:

not say that Paul’s height is close to exactly 6’0.

167

4. A partial defense of the interval approach

false. So the hearer reasons that Paul’s height

to numerical imprecision

falls into the interval denoted by ‘6’0’. Adding

In this section, we provide a partial defense ofthat information to the literal content of (¬EP),annumerical

the hearer learns that Paul’s height falls into theimprecision. According to this view, measureinterval denoted by ‘6’0’ but does not fall into

phrases such as ‘6’0’ denotes intervals on a

the interval denoted by ‘exactly 6’0’.

alternative

approachtoHere is a graphical representation of thescale, and ‘exactly’ serves to narrow the interval
denoted by the measure phrase it combines with.

explanation:(P) and (EP) are true just in case Paul’s precise(14)

The speaker knows that (¬P) is false.

height falls into the intervals denoted by ‘6’0’
and ‘exactly 6’0’.

6’On the implicature of ‘not exactly’

4.1

(15)

Putting (14) and (¬EP) together:

A consideration in favor of this approach is that6’

it can account for the contrast between (¬P) and(¬EP) using a Quantity-based reasoning.
Considerthefollowing

The gappy interval in (15) shows that Paulcounts as 6’0 tall but doesn’t count as exactly

graphical

6’0 tall. This content, I submit, captures therepresentations of their literal contents:
(¬P)

(¬EP)

Paul is not 6’0 tall.

implicature of (¬EP) that Paul is close to exactly

6’

Since our explanation is based on Quantity,

6’0 tall.
unlike the explanation based on the M-principle
considered above, it predicts the contrast

Paul is not exactly 6’0 tall.

between (9) and (10): Since (9) is weaker than
‘this table is not 80 inch long’, it implies that the6’
The black region in the first figure represents

table is close to exactly 80 inch long. But since

the interval denoted by ‘6’0’; and the black(10) is stronger than ‘I doubt that this table is notregion in the second figure represents the

80 inch long’ (hereafter (10*)), its additional

interval denoted by ‘exactly 6’0’. Since (¬EP)

information strength already explains why therules out a smaller interval than (¬P), it isspeaker does not utter the shorter but weakerweaker than (¬P). Notice as well that (¬EP) is(10*), and so it does not imply that (10*) is false,

not only weaker but also longer than (¬P). So if

i.e. the speaker is certain that the table is not 80

a speaker utters (¬EP), the hearer would ask

inch long.

why the speaker does not utter the simpler and

4.2

more informative (¬P) instead. A plausible

We can anticipate two worries about the present

explanation is as follows: Suppose the speaker

view: First, since a natural way to develop theis knowledgeable about Paul’s height. The

Towards an intervalist accountview is to allow every numerical expression toreason why they do not utter the simpler andhave different denotations in different contexts,

more informative (¬P) is that they know it to be

the view seems committed to the massive

168

ambiguity of numerical expressions. Second, if

zero interval is 1 inch, then the possible

the view holds that a numerical expression only

denotations of ‘6’0’ are [5’11.5, 6’05), (5’11.5,

denotes a single interval in a context, then it

6’05], [5’11.5, 6’05], (5’11.5, 6’05), all of

seems that the selection of that interval is boundwhich are centered on 6’0. (In the following, we

to be arbitrary.

shall ignore the last three intervals and call the

To address these worries, here is how we areinterval [5’11.5, 6’05) the denotation of ‘6’0’

going to implement the present view. In thewhen the granularity is 1 inch.) Suppose thefollowing, we will focus on measure phrases

zero interval constraint is absent. There is nosuch as ‘6’0’, which denotes intervals on theguarantee that the interval denoted by ‘6’0’ will

scale of heights. (If promising, our account canbe centered at the degree 6’0 like the fourbeintervals given above. Call functions that satisfy

easilyadaptedtoothernumerical

the constraints above granularity functions.

expressions.) We will assume that there is astock of functions that map points on a scale toWith granularity functions in place, we areintervals on the same scale, and that every

going to implement the present view using afunction, γ, satisfies the following constraints:

dynamic semantics analogous to (Barker’s(a)(2002)). Let a context be a set of world-

For every degree on the tallness scale, γgranularity function pairs (or world-granularity

maps it to a convex subset that contains it.

pairs in short). Taking (P) as an example, our(b) The intervals induced by γ are pairwise

proposal is as follows: The meaning of (P) is adisjoint.

function from context to context: It eliminates(c) The union of the intervals induced by γfrom a given input context the world-

returns the tallness scale.

granularity pairs that do not satisfy it.

(d) γ ensures that there is a zero interval —We shall illustrate how our proposal works

which is just like the region from 0 cm to 0.5

using the following two simple figures:

cm on a ruler — that represents the absence ofheight: The intervals induced by γ are equally(17)

Context before acceptance of (P):spaced after the zero interval. But the differencePaul’s height in w

γ(6’0)

between the minimal and maximal degrees of

6’0.1”[6’0, 6’0]

6’0.1”[5’11.5”,6’0.5”]

6’0.4”[5’11.9”,6’0.1’]

6’0.4”[5’11.5”,6’0.5”]

the zero interval, or the zero interval’s width, ishalf that of other intervals induced by γ.
The first three constraints are due to(Sauerland and Stateva (2011)). We introduce(18)

Context after acceptance of (P):the last constraint concerning the zero intervalPaul’s height in w

γ(6’0)

because we want to directly use the functions

6’0.1”[6’0, 6’0]

6’0.1”[5’11.5”,6’0.5”]

present view, the denotation of a numerical

6’0.4”[5’11.9”,6’0.1’]

expression is determined by the simple

6’0.4”[5’11.5”,6’0.5”]

satisfying the constraints above to assign
denotations to numerical expressions. On theprinciple [[n]] γ = γ(n). For example, if theWe can see that of the four world-

widths of the intervals induced by γ after the

granularity pairs under consideration, only the169second and the fourth pair survive after theaccount for the implicature of ‘not exactly’ andcontext is updated with (P).

its disappearance in downward entailing

It is not difficult to see why we choose tocontexts, because it can hold that ‘exactly n’

implement the present view this way. Everydenotes a narrower interval than ‘n’, and isnumerical expression only has a single meaning,

hence semantically stronger than ‘n’. We haveand that meaning contributes to the context

discussed how the interval view can block thechange potentials of the sentences the numericalambiguity and the arbitrariness worries byexpression is part of. It is the granularities underincorporating granularity functions into aconsideration which vary from context todynamic semantics.

context — rather than the numerical expression
having multiple meanings — that gives rise toReferences

the

of

Barker, Chris (2002) “The Dynamics of Vagueness,”
Linguistics and Philosophy 25(1), 1–36.

Since all the world-granularity pairs that fail

Carter, Sam (2017) “Loose Talk, Negation andCommutativity: A Hybrid Static-Dynamic
Theory,” Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21,
267–282.

possible

impreciseinterpretations

numerical expressions.
to satisfy the sentence will be eliminated, and all
the world-granularity pairs that satisfy thesentence will survive the acceptance of (P),

Carter, Sam (2021) “The dynamics of loose talk,”
Nous 55(1), 171–198.

there is no need to arbitrarily assign an intervaldenotation to every numerical expression.

Hoek, Daniel (2018) “Conversational Exculpature,”
Philosophical Review 127(2), 151–196.

5. Conclusion
Althoughthe

QUD-basedaccounts

Klecha, Peter (2018) “On unidirectionality inprecisification,” Linguistics and Philosophy 41(1),87–124.

ofimprecision improve on Lasersohn’s accountLasersohn, Peter (1999) “Pragmatic
Language 75(3), 522–551.

by either accounting for fact that the imprecise

Halos,”

contents of numerical sentences are stronger
Levinson, Stephen (2000) Presumptive
Meanings: The Theory of Generalized
Conversational Implicature. MIT Press.

than those sentences’ literal contents or byaccounting for the fact that an increase in thestandard of imprecision is in general easier

Roberts, Craige (2012) “Information structure:
Towards an integrated formal theory ofpragmatics,” Semantics and Pragmatics 5, 1–
69.

than a decrease, they share with Lasersohn’s
account the same problem: If ‘exactly n’ and‘n’ have the same content, it is very difficult to

Sauerland, Uli. and Penka Stateva (2011).
“Two Types of Vagueness,” Vagueness andLanguage Use, ed. by Paul Erge and Nathan
Klinedinst, 121–145. Springer.

account for the implicature of (¬EP) that Paulis close to exactly 6’0 tall, and for the fact that
we do not observe a similar implicature when

Solt, Stephanie (2014) “An alternative theoryof imprecision,” Semantics and Linguistic
Theory 24, 514–533.

‘not exactly’ occurs inside a downward
entailing context, such as ‘I doubt that’.
By contrast, the view on which numericalSolt, Stephanie (2015) “Vagueness andimprecision: Empirical foundations,” Annual
Review of Linguistics 1(1), 107–127.

expressions denote intervals rather thanmaximally finegrained points can easily

170policeman, denoting ‘a policeman who works ina rural area’. However, there are some cases
where RAs appear in a predicate position.
Levi (1978) notes that RAs can be used
Why Does Contrast Allow Relational

predicatively in certain contrastive environments.

Adjectives to Be Used Predicatively?

First, an explicit contrast with a not-phrase*

enables the predicative use of RAs. The RA

A Qualia Structure-Based Accountmechanical in (3b) is thus more acceptable than
Takashi Ishidathat in (3a).

Hiroshima Shudo University
Ryohei Naya(3) mechanical engineer

University of Tsukubaa.

Our firm’s engineers are all mechanical.

b.

Our firm’s engineers are all mechanical,

Keywords：Denominal Adjective, Predicability,

not chemical.

Noun-Deletion, Qualia Modification, Classifier(Levi (1978: 260))
Second, an implicit contrast made by adverbs

1.

Introduction

such as primarily, mainly, or mostly, increases

Relational Adjectives (RAs), also called

RAs’ predicability. The adverb primarily in (4b)classificatory

adjectives,

are

one

of

the

evokes alternative means of therapy other thandenominal adjectives and essentially differ frommusical, such as aromatic, hormonal, or herbal.

other canonical adjectives such as qualitative
adjectives (QAs) in the extent to which they(4) musical therapy

inherit the properties of their base nouns (Plaga. ? The therapy he does is musical.

(2003), Bisetto (2010)). A typical difference isb.

that RAs are modifiers that are only used

The therapy he does is primarily musical.
(Levi (1978: 260))

attributively; they lack predicability. The RAs
rural and chemical cannot be used predicatively,

Finally, numerical prefixes, such as mono-, di-,as indicated by (1b) and (2b).

or tri-, and other prefixes, such as anti- or pro-,are also considered to evoke contrast (Ishida(1) a.

a rural policeman(2020)). Thus, the prefixed RA monochromaticb. * a policeman who is rural(2) a.

in (5b) can appear in a predicate position.

a chemical engineer

b. * an engineer who is chemical(5) (mono-)chromatic drawings(Levi (1978: 15))a. * Those drawings are chromatic.
b.

While QAs ‘qualify’ the referent of nouns, RAs

Those drawings are monochromatic.

(Levi (1975: 323); see also Ishida (2020: 38))

serve to ‘classify’ the type of nouns. Thus, ruralin (1a) does not qualify the referent ofNote that monochromatic in (5b) retains its

policeman, but rather, it classifies a type ofclassificatory (or class-denoting) reading; it171means ‘drawings which have one colour’, but(7)not ‘drawings that are drab’.

RA-N

N-N

a.

atomic bomb≈

atom bombb.

maternal role≈mother role

disprove theirc.

industrial output≈

industry output

inherently attributive nature. Previous studiesd.

marine life≈

ocean life

such as Levi (1978), Nagano (2016, 2018), ande.

linguistic skills≈

language skills

Shimada and Nagano (2018) analyse RAs in af.

urban parks≈

city parks

predicate position as having resulted from

(Levi (1978: 38), see also Beard (1995: 188))

The predicability of such RAs, as observed
above, however, does notnominal ellipsis in their prenominal position, i.e.
[X be RA N]. RAs in a predicate position are,This study conforms to this view and applies atherefore, not true adjectival predicates such as

semantic analysis of nominal compounds to

QAs, but rather, they are stranded prenominal

RA-N expressions. Specifically, it is based on

modifiers whose modifying targets have been

Johnstondeleted. The predicative use of monochromatic

structure-based account of nominal compounds.

andBusa’s(1999)

qualiain (5b) can be illustrated as in (6).
2.1. Qualia Modification in N-N Compounds(6) Thosedrawings

aremonochromatic

The qualia structure is one of the lexical

drawings.

semantic representations of the Generative
Lexicon employed by Pustejovsky (1995). There

Such N(oun)-deletion is licensed in certain

are four aspects of the meaning of the lexical

environments where the deleted noun isitem, as represented in (8): CONSTITUTIVE,

1

recoverable. A typical environment is that of

FORMAL, TELIC, and AGENTIVE.

contrast. We should then ask why the deleted
modified head nouns are recoverable by contrast.

(8) a.

To answer this, this study focusses primarily on

CONSTITUTIVE: the relation between
an object and its constituent parts;

the classificatory function of RAs and the qualiab.

structure of head nouns. We specifically argue

FORMAL:that which distinguishes

it within a larger domain;that contrast contributes to identifying the role ofc.

TELIC:

its purpose and function;

the qualia structure of the head noun; the roled.

AGENTIVE:

factors involved in its

origin or “bringing it about”.

should be specified by the stranded RA, thus
offering crucial hints to recover the deleted head

(Pustejovsky (1995: 76))

noun.
First, the CONSTITUTIVE role in (8a) expresses
2.

The Semantics of Qualia Modification

the relation between an object and its constituent

As argued by Levi (1978) and other previous

parts. Second, the FORMAL role in (8b) denotes

studies, RA-N expressions are, essentially,

what distinguishes it within a larger domain.

wholly synonymous with nominal compounds as

These two roles describe the paradigmaticshown in (7). For example, the RA-N atomic

relationsbomb in (7a) is a synonym of the N-N atom

CONSTITUTIVE

bomb.

relation, and the FORMAL role involves a

172

among
role

lexicalitems;

encodesathepart-wholedrawing that consists of one colour’hyponym-hypernym relation. Third, the TELIC
role in (8c) expresses its purpose and function.

b.

FORMAL:

Lastly, the AGENTIVE role in (8d) underscores

triangular diagram: ‘a type of diagram

the factors involved in its origin or in bringing itthat has a triangle form’

about.

c.

TELIC:
insecticidal compound: ‘a type ofIn terms of English compounds, Johnston

compound that is used to kill insects’and Busa (1999: 177) claim that a modifying
noun can specify the semantic type of one of thed.

AGENTIVE:

arguments in the qualia of the head noun. For

nuclearelectricity:

‘a

type

of

example, the modifying noun glass of glass door

electricity

brought

about

by

the

relates to the CONSTITUTIVE role of the head

nucleus’noun, door. The preferred interpretation of thiscompound is, therefore, ‘a door made of glass’.

For example, the base noun monochrome of

Kageyama (1999) visually illustrates such a

monochromatic in (10a) specifies the semantic

qualia modification, as shown in (9).

type of one of the arguments, the CONSTITUTIVE
role, in the qualia of the head noun drawing, as(9) glassdoor

illustrated in (11).

CONSTITUTIVE ROLE = x(11) monochromatic drawing(Kageyama (1999: 56))

= monochrome CONSTITUTIVE ROLE = x

In this manner, the lexical semantics of an N-Ncompound is compositionally interpreted.

3.

Analysis
To answer the question raised in section 1,

2.2. Qualia Modification in RA-N Expressions

we argue that contrastive environments have two

Based on RAs’ classificatory function andsignificant roles to recover and identify thethe synonymous relation between RA-N anddeleted head noun. First, contrast ensures and

N-N, we claim that RAs classify the type ofhighlights that the stranded RA in the predicate

nouns in a way that their base nouns specify the

position has a classificatory function. Second,semantic type of one of the arguments in thecontrast contributes to identifying the qualia rolequalia of the head nouns (cf. Beard (1991));

to be modified and, further, to recovering thenamely, similar to the semantic composition ofdeleted head noun.

N-N compounds, that of RA-N expressions can
also

be

captured

based

on

the

qualia3.1. Two Roles of Contrast in Recovering

modification. In fact, we can easily find all types

Deleted Head Nounsof qualia modification in RA-N expressions, as

Let us look at the first role of contrastive

illustrated in (10).

environments. When an adjective appears in a
predicate(10) a.

position,

the

most

commonCONSTITUTIVE:

interpretation is that it is a QA. This is the casemonochromatic drawing: ‘a type ofeven when the adjectives have prefixes. For

173

example,while

monochromatic

can

be

RAs’ attributive modification. For example, theinterpreted as being an RA, it still has an

RA-N expression presidential company in (13)alternative QA interpretation, ‘drab’. Thisis open to certain kinds of interpretations.

ambiguity is resolved by a strong accent on theprefix,

as

in

Those

drawingsare(13) a. acompany

establishedfor

President’s sake

MONOchromatic (Togano et al. (2019: 17)),
where the adjective is interpreted only as beingb. a

an RA. This example highlights the first role ofcompanythe[TELIC]established(ex-)presidents

by[AGENTIVE]

contrast; the contrast ensures that the adjective is
not a QA but an RA. The strong accent on the

On one hand, when the RA presidential specifies

prefix here presupposes the other alternative

the TELIC role of the head noun company, thechromatic drawings, such as those mentioned in

RA-N expression means (13a). On the other(12).

hand, when presidential specifies the AGENTIVE
role of company, it means (13b). Therefore,(12) dichromatic, trichromatic, quadrochromatic,presidential company is ambiguous at least

multichromatic, achromatic, etc.

between (13a) and (13b). Then, how can theinterpretation

Such a supposed alternative set, naturally,ofpresidential

companybedisambiguated?

indicates that the adjective in question classifies

We argue that contrastive environmentsa certain type of noun (i.e. something related tosignificantly contribute to restricting the reading

chrome). This set further enables us to considerofthe second role of contrastive environments. The

presidential company is compared to financial

alternatives in (12), together, evoke an image ofcompany in (14), we can fairly say that its

something consisting of colours or somethingreading can be restricted only to the TELIC one

with colours, and this associative relation offers

as in (13a); in contrast, when compared toa crucial hint to identify an appropriate qualia

national company in (15), presidential company

role to be modified, that is, the CONSTITUTIVE

only lends itself to the AGENTIVE reading as inrole. This process further recovers the deleted(13b).

RA-N

expressions.

For

example,ifhead noun. That is, we can identify thatsomething (partly) CONSISTS OF (some) colours
with drawings.

(14) John belongs to a presidential company, but

2Mary belongs to a financial company.

In this manner, a certain alternative set(15) John belongs to a presidential company, butclarifies how the RA in question classifies the

Mary belongs to a national company.

type of its modifying noun.
Such disambiguation of reading can be carried
3.2. Disambiguation of Attributive Modifiers

out by the explicit contrast of a but-clause,by Contrast

which results in identifying the qualia role of

Our claim that contrast contributes tocompany to be modified; financial in (14)identifying the qualia role of the head noun to be

specifies its TELIC role, and national in (15)modified is further supported by considering

specifies its AGENTIVE role.

174

The same holds true for allergic illnesses inmodifiers do not need contrastive environments(16), where the reading is also ambiguouswhen they appear in a predicate position, as in

between (16a) and (16b).

(20). When classifiers such as -gata or -yurai in(20) are attached to the noun genshiryoku‘nuclear power’, the expanded modifier can(16) a. an illness that consists of allergy as one
symptomb. anillnesscaused[CONSTITUTIVE]

appear in a predicate position without recoursebyato contrastive environments (see also Nagano[AGENTIVE](2016: §4.2)). The lack of classifier thus leads tocomplication of allergy

allergy;

low acceptability.
Such a two-way reading can be disambiguatedby the RAs in the explicit contrast of a(20) Furansu

no

denki

wa

but-clause; diarrheal in (17) specifies theFranceGENelectricity

TOP

CONSTITUTIVE role of illness and viral in (18)genshiryoku-{gata/yurai}daspecifies its AGENTIVE role.

nuclear power-classifier

COP.NONPST‘French electricity is of the nuclear type.’(17) John studies allergic illnesses, but Marystudies diarrheal illnesses.

(TOP = topic, COP = copula, NONPST = nonpast)(cf. (16a))(Shimada and Nagano (2018: 65–66))(18) John studies allergic illnesses, but Marystudies viral illnesses.

(cf. (16b))

Our analysis explains why such a difference
exists between English and Japanese. Japanese

Accordingly, the above examples demonstrateclassifiers such as -gata and -yurai have thethat contrast contributes to clarifying how thespecific meanings, ‘type of’ and ‘derived from

RA classifies its modifying noun.

or originating in’, respectively. These classifiers
explicitly indicate that the relevant modifier

4.

Implication: Japanese Counterparts ofrelates to the AGENTIVE role of the head noun.

English RAs

Japanese classifiers thus contribute to achieving

Our analysis has interesting implications forappropriate qualia modification, which precisely

cross-linguistic variation. One form of therecovers the deleted head noun (cf. Shimada andJapanese counterpart of English RAs consists ofNagano (2018), Odagiri et al. (2019)). This also

[Noun + classifier + -no (genitive marker)].

holds true for the rest of the three qualia roles as

Nagano (2016) calls this form Expanded

shown from (21a) to (21c). Indeed, each

Modifier. For example, the underlined part inclassifier uniquely specifies the appropriate(19) is an expanded modifier.

qualia role.

(19) genshiryoku-gatanonuclear power-classifier GEN‘nuclear electricity’

denki(21) a.

electricity

CONSTITUTIVE:
komugi-sei-no(GEN = genitive)‘wheaten’wheat-made.of-GEN(Shimada and Nagano (2018: 83))b.

FORMAL:sankaku-kei-noCompared to English RAs, Japanese expanded‘triangular’

triangle-in.the.shape.of-GEN

175

c.

TELIC:of the ELSJ for their suggestions, and to the‘insecticidal’satchu-yo-no

informants who have kindly answered ourinsect.killing-for-GENquestions. We are solely responsible for thecontents of this paper. This work is supported bySince Japanese classifiers express specific

JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 19J10598,

qualia roles, expanded modifiers can establish

19K13218, and 21K20031.

certain qualia modification by themselves. For

NOTES

this reason, they can appear in a predicate

1

position even in the absence of contrastive

nominal ellipsis indicates “class membership”

environments. Japanese classifiers per se show

(Nagano (2018: §3.2)), such as, This is a goodtheir classificatory function. On the other hand,idea (Huddleston (2002a: 53)), which is

because English RA-forming suffixes such as -al,semantically of the same type as This is a weed-ic, or -ary do not add any specific meanings to‘This belongs to the class of weeds’ (Huddleston

their base nouns (Levi (1978: §4.2.4), Bauer et(2002b: 271)).

al. (2013: 314)), English RAs do need a certain

2

factortheir

predicate position alone can refer to the qualia ofcontrastive

the deleted head noun. We assume that theorenvironment

classificatory

tofunction,

highlight
i.e.

environments.

The type of copular sentence resulting from

One may wonder how the stranded RA in thestranded RA does not have direct access to thetarget qualia structure; instead, its relationship is

5.

Conclusionintermediated by an abstract qualia structure,

English RAs are known as modifiers that are

which applies to nouns in general. This abstract

only used attributively, but they can be used

qualia structure is schematically specified in thatpredicatively in certain contrastive environments.

it has four roles but their contents are not

We have revealed the relationship between

saturated. It is accessible once the relevant

contrast and N-deletion, and argued that

adjective turns out to be an RA, which, due to its

contrastive environments significantly contributeattributive nature and classificatory function,

to highlighting RAs’ classificatory function and,evokes the existence of a noun following thefurther, to identifying the qualia role of theadjective even on deletion. Such an abstract

deleted head noun to be specified by thequalia structure may be regarded as a nominal

adjective in question.

counterpart to the skeletal Lexical Conceptual

Pullum and Huddleston (2002: 538) point

Structure templates having certain unspecified

out that some nominals appear in a predicate

slots that Kageyama (2007) assumes in theposition (e.g. a cotton sheet; the sheet is cotton).

analysis of the suru of mimetic verbs (e.g.

In future research, we intend to address theburabura-suru (mimetic-do) ‘loaf around’).

question whether our analysis can explain such anominal predicability as well.

REFERENCES
Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber, and Ingo Plag

* We thank the audience at the ELSJ 14th

(2013) The Oxford Reference Guide toInternational Spring Forum 2021. We also

English Morphology, Oxford University

extend our thanks to two anonymous reviewers

Press, Oxford.

176

“Decompositional

Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.

Composition: The Semantics of Scope

Levi, Judith N. (1978) The Syntax and Semantics

Ambiguities and ‘Bracketing Paradoxes’,”of Complex Nominals, Academic Press,

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9(2),London.

Beard,

Robert(1991)

195–229.

Nagano,Beard, Robert (1995) Lexeme-Morpheme Base

Akiko

Adjectives(2016)

Possible“Are

Relational

Cross-Linguistically?

Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection

The Case of Japanese,” Word Structure 9(1),and Word Formation, State University of

42–71.
Nagano, Akiko (2018) “A Conversion Analysis

New York Press, Albany.
Bisetto,Antonietta(2010)“Relationalof So-Called Coercion from Relational to

Adjectives Crosslinguistically,” Lingue e

Qualitative Adjectives in English,” Word

Linguaggio 9(1), 65–85.

Structure 11(2), 185–210.
“Syntactic

Odagiri, Nana, Yuri Togano, Takashi Ishida, andOverview,” The Cambridge Grammar of the

Ryohei Naya (2019) “Nichi-eigo ni okeru

EnglishKankei-keiyoshi

Huddleston,RodneyLanguage,(2002a)ed.

byRodneyKeisei-shudan
Seiki-kanosei

toHuddleston and Geffrey K. Pullum, 43–69,

Jutsugo-ichi

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Formation of Relational Adjectives and Their

Huddleston, Rodney (2002b) “The Clause:

Predicability in English and Japanese),”Complements,” The Cambridge Grammar of

paper presented at Morphology & Lexicon

the English Language, ed. by Rodney

Forum 2019.

Huddleston and Geffrey K. Pullum, 213–321,

eno

no

(The

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

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ishida, Takashi (2020) “Prefixed Relational

Pullum, Geoffrey K. and Rodney Huddleston

Adjectives in English,” JELS 37, 38–44.

(2002) “Adjectives and Adverbs,” The

Johnston, Michael and Federica Busa (1999)

Cambridge

Grammarof

theEnglish“Qualia Structure and the Compositional

Language, ed. by Roney Huddleston andInterpretation of Compounds,” Breadth andGeffrey K. Pullum, 525–595, Cambridge

Depth of Semantic Lexicons, ed. by Evelyne

University Press, Cambridge.

Viegas, 167–187, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Pustejovsky, James (1995) The Generative

Kageyama, Taro (1999) Keitairon to Imi(Morphology

andSemantics),

Lexicon, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Kurosio,

Shimada, Masaharu and Akiko Nagano (2018)“Relational Adjectives Used Predicatively

Tokyo.
Kageyama, Taro (2007) “Explorations in the(But Not Qualitatively): A Comparative-

Conceptual Semantics of Mimetic Verbs,”

Structural Approach,” Lexique 23, 62–89.

Current Issues in the History and Structure ofTogano, Yuri, Nana Odagiri, and Takashi IshidaFrellesvig,(2019) “Prefixed Relational Adjectives andMasayoshi Shibatani, and John Charles

Their Predicativity in English,” Data Science

Smith, 27–82, Kurosio, Tokyo.

in Collaboration, Volume 3, ed. by Yuichi

Japanese,ed.

byBjarkeLevi, Judith N. (1975) The Syntax and Semantics

Onoof Nonpredicating Adjectives in English,

andMasaharu

Shimada,University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki.

177

11–21,

obscure. As pointed out in Toyota (2020), theetymological origin of get is a loan word from
Old Norse geta ‘obtain, reach’ (13th C). The
get-passive emerged around the 18th century, andEthical Dative in Forming the Get-Passive*

an earlier frequent archaic serial verb get rid of
was frequent in Late Modern English period,

Junichi Toyota

and rid is also originally from Old Norse (13th

Osaka City UniversityC) and Old Norse loan words were frequently
involved at the initial onset of this construction

Keywords：ethical dative, get-passive, Old Norse,(Toyota (2021)).
Furthermore, the use of ‘get’ as a passive

language contact

auxiliary is very rare cross-linguistically, only in
Norwegian (1) and Dutch (2), ‘get’ is found in
the passive structure.1 Note, however, that in

1. Introduction
This paper analyses the origin of theboth languages, only ditransitive verbs can bethepassivised with ‘get.’ It is also interesting thatreflexive-causative origin hypothesis (e.g. Givónthe ‘get’-passive is also found in Norwegian, aand Yang (1994), Toyota (2008)), but revises thedaughter language of Old Norse.

get-passive

and

lends

supporttoearlier research by considering the ethical dative
as a key element for the emergence of the(1) Norwegian (Askedol (1994: 246))

get-passive instead of the reflexive pronoun. In

Han

fikk

tilsendt

determining the origin of the get-passive, theheget.Pstsend.Pst.Prt

usual two lines of hypotheses may not bebokeneadequate. The causative reflexive source is abook.Pl.Def

better candidate for sure, but the onset of‘He was sent the books/The books weregrammaticalisation is triggered by the language

sent to him.’

contact with Old Norse (i.e. replication).
This paper is organized as follows: it starts(2) Dutch (De Schutter (1994: 471))with presenting typological oddities of theZekregenhet

uiteindelijk

get-passive. Then the ethical dative is introduced

theyget.Pstit

finallyusing Indo-European languages, and then its

tochpresence in the history of English is reviewed.

nevertheless

Following these, impact of language contacts‘In the end, they were sent it anyway.’with Old Norse on the formation of theget-passive is studied to see whether the ethical

3. Ethical Dative

dative can replace the reflexive pronoun.

Among the Indo-European languages, thebeneficiary or adversative reading is sometimes

2. Oddity about the Get-Passive

overtly expressed by adding an extra argument,

The get-passive is a common construction incommonly in the dative or instrumental case.

Present-Day English, but its origin has beenThis use of the dative is known as the ethical178dative. For instance, nam, the dative form of mi(4) Middle English‘we’ in (3b), is simply added to a neutral clause

Envye … bynymeth hym the love of alle(3a) and the pronoun in the dative case denotes agoodnesse.

recipient of adversity.

‘Envy takes away the love of all goodness
from him to his detriment. (c1386 Chaucer,(3) Serbian

C.T. I 676)

a. Beba

plače

noći

baby

cry.3Sg

at.night

4. Language contact and the origin of the‘The baby cries at night.’

get-passiveb. Beba

nam

plače

noći

As argued in Toyota (2020), the origin of thebaby

us.Datcry.3Plat night

get-passive is heavily influenced by contact with

‘The baby cries at night to our

Old Norse, and what has to be noticed is the fact

detriment.’

that Old Norse had the productive ethical dative,
as exemplified in (5). Since this structure was

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995: 291) claim

practically non-existent in earlier English,that the Indo-European languages have acontacts with Old Norse made speakers of older

beneficiary which is always co-referential to theEnglish notice the construction existed, and thesubject, and the object-oriented beneficiary

ethical dative could have been replicated. Data

never existed. Note that a self-beneficiary is afrom earlier English also suggests a beneficiarypart of numerous characteristics found in theor adversary was normally expressed by a dative,

middle voice, e.g. Vedic Sanskrit yájati (active)a reflexive pronoun or later a nominal proceeded‘s/he performs a sacrifice’ (said of a priest);

by to or for (s.v. OED get v. I 18a, 18b).

yájate (middle) ‘s/he performs a sacrifice’ (saidof a person for whose benefit the sacrifice is(5) Old Norse

made-), and the middle voice and ethical dative

Geirr fannafskynsemi sinni atdenote a similar meaning in Indo-European

Geir

of

reasonlanguages.

honum

eydduskskot-inhim.Daterodedshots.Nom-Def

felt

his

that

‘Geir sensed that his shots were being

3. Ethical Dative in the history of English

wasted (to his detriment).’ (EB 222)

The ethical dative may not be a common
topic in English linguistics because examples
have been rare throughout its history. Visser

A construction with a dative beneficiary(1963-73: 633-635) says that it can be still foundstarted to appear in English around 1300, as

in Middle English, as exemplified in (4), but its

shown in (6). Earlier instances of reflexive

occurrences were marginal and rare. However,pronouns are scarce, and the ethical dative

the paucity of this construction can be anseems to be a better candidate for the origin ofadvantage, and it proves to be extremely useful

the get-passive. In addition, get itself was not anin solving the mystery of the origin of theAnglo-Saxon verb, but a loan from Old Norse.

get-passive.

Influence

from

Old

Norse

cannotbeunderestimated, and it is argued here that the179ethical dative also made it possible to use get inThea ditransitive clause (i.e. (6)).

adversative

reading

can

also

be

detectable in some instances of the get-passive,
but not in the be-passive (cf. Toyota (2008:(6) Old English

164-172)). This is a clear sign that the

Ay

was

he

bone,

to

get-passive is not derived from the get cum

always

was

he

ready

to

adjectival complement clause as previously

gete [Cott. Fete]

his

fadir

often argued, and that the causative or other

get

his

father.Dat

sources are involved in the origin of thevenisonget-passive.

venisonHowever, Note, however, that the beneficiary‘He was always ready to get his father

is normally associated with the subject in thevenison.’ (a1300 Cursor M. 3502 (Cott.))

Indo-European languages, but the ethical dative
normally

5. Causative origin revised

denotes

adversity.

Since

the

get-passive can denote adversity, and not

The causative can be a source of the passive

beneficiary, it is more likely that the ethicalvoice typologically, but what is unique to thisdative can be a part of the original construction

origin is that the passive can denote adversity,

for the get-passive, instead of reflexive pronouns.

e.g. the Mongolic and Tungusic languages, as

Thus, contrary to arguments put forward in

exemplified in (7) from Evenki (Tungusic).

previous research, the causative cum ethicalWhat is unique is that the actor is expressed indative is a better candidate for the origin of thethe dative case, which is a residue of the earlier

get-passive. The ethical dative may take thecausative construction. The adversative passive

form of a reflexive when a subject referent and ashares the same morpheme -v- with the causative,

dative NP are co-referential, but what should be

and the case marking on the object is the only

noted here is that it is not a simple co-reference,

way to disambiguate the reading. See Toyota

but rather a sense of adversity/beneficiary(2011: 101-104) for details and refences cited

should be present at the initial onset of thethere.

development.

(7) Evenki (Tungusic, Nedjalkov (1993: 195))
a. mitwe-Nom

6. Conclusion

homoti-wa

In this paper, possibility of ethical dative as abear-Acc

source of the get-passive is examined. Contacts

eme-v-re-p

with Old Norse has been studied in the history ofcome-Caus-NonFut-1Pl

English, but its impact on the formation of the‘We brought the bear with us.’get-passiveb. mitwe-Nomhas

beenoverlooked.

Earlier

homoti-deinstances of the ethical dative in English can bebear-Data replication from Old Norse, suggesting thateme-v-re-p

influence from Old Norse is indeed deeply

come-Pass-NonFut-1Plrooted in the English language, even more so‘Wethan previously assumed.

were affected by the bear’s

coming.’180

Due to the paucity of actual examples, it is

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Oxford

rather hard to come to conclusion at this stage,

University Press, Oxford.

but both reflexive and ethical dative can be a

De Schutter, Georges (1994) “Dutch.” Thecandidate for the origin, but judging from theGermanic Languages, ed. by Ekkehard J.

characteristics of typological data, ethical dative

König and Johan van der Auwera, 439-477,

should be considered a candidate for the original

Routledge, London.

construction instead of the reflexive pronoun.

Toyota, Junichi (2008) Diachronic Change inthe English Passive, Palgrave, Basingstoke.

* This research was partially supported by the

Toyota, Junichi (2011) The Grammatical VoiceJapanese Society for the Promotion of Science,in Japanese: A Typological Perspective,

Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) [grantCambridge Scholars Press, Newcastle upon

number 20K00666].

Tyne.
Toyota, Junichi (2020) “The Origin of the

NOTES
1
Abbreviation used in this paper are: Acc =Get-Passive Revisited.” JELS: Papers from37th

accusative; Caus = causative; Dat = dative; Defthe= definite; Nom = nominative; NonFut = non

Linguistic Society of Japan 37, 134-138.

future; Pass = passive; Pl = plural; Prt =Toyota, Junichi (2021) “On Rid and the Origin

participle; Pst = past; Sg = singular.

Conference

of

the

Englishof the Get-passive,” Anali Filoloskog
Fakulteta 33, 215-230.
Visser, Fredericus Theodorus (1963-73) An

REFERENCES
Askedol, John Ole (1994) “Norwegian.” The

Historical Syntax of the English Language

Germanic Languages, ed. by Ekkehard J.

(4 vols.), E. J. Brill, Leiden.

König and Johan van der Auwera, 219-270,
Routledge, London.
Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. and Vjačeslav V.
Ivanov(1995)

Indo-European

andIndo-Europeans: A Reconstruction andHistorical Analysis of a Proto-Language
and Proto-Culture (part 1): Text. (English
version by Johanna Nichols), Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin.
Givón, Talmy and Lynne Yang (1994) “The Riseof the English Get-Passive,” Voice: Formand Function, ed. by Barbara Fox and PaulJ. Hopper, 119-149, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam.
Nedjalkov, Igor V. (1993) “Causative-Passive
PolysemyoftheManchu-Tungusic-bu/-v(u),” Linguistica Antverpiensa 27,
193-202.

181

matrix subject (where i stands for coreference):(1) Johni thinks that {hei/*the idioti/*thesenior office workeri} will win.
Remarks on the Partial Pronominal Useof Proverbs in English and the “Simulation

This is a logophoric complement in which the

Effects” of Generic Pronouns andthird-person pronoun represents the reported

Clausal Generic Expressions*speaker or thinker in the matrix subject, and is a
substitute for the subject’s first-person pronoun

Koichi Nishida(cf. Kuno (1972), Siewierska (2004)).

Yamaguchi Prefectural University

However, like pronouns, proverbs with nounphrase subjects may occur in such complements

Keywords：proverbs, logophoric complements,

and their subjects are taken to corefer with, or

indefiniteness, simulation, Authorless Utterances

more precisely, represent the same speaker orthinker as, the matrix subject, as in (2):

1. Introduction
This

article(2) For more than 20 years, John has woken
deals

with

proverbs

andup at 4:30 every morning and has started

indefinite singular noun phrases in English thatworking in his office from 7:00. Hei

are used partially like pronouns and explores

believes that the early birdi catches thewhy they may be used in this way.

worm.

This article is organized as follows: Section
2

shows

why

proverbs

inlogophoric

This shows that pronouns and proverbs of thiscomplements matter linguistically. Section 3

form overlap in distribution. To separate suchexamines the first-person orientation of generic“logophoric” proverbs and the like from theone and generic indefinite singulars. Section 4

coreferential pronouns, let us call the former

explores the relevance of Goffman’s (1981)“co-topical” readings, because, as in (2), suchproduction format of utterances to formulaic

proverbs are used to talk about the same topic as

expressions such as proverbs. Section 5 argues

another referring expression in the local context.

that proverbs are assigned indefiniteness by theThis study aims to answer the question of to

Authorless production format. Section 6 offers awhat type of pronouns proverbs are similar.

pragmatic account of marked discourse anaphora.

They are more similar to pronouns with

Section 7 concludes this study.

co-topical readings than coreferential pronouns.

2. Pronouns and Proverbs in Complements

3. Generic One and Generic Indefinite

As is commonly observed for complements

Singularsof verbs of saying and thinking like (1) (cf.

Proverbs like the one in (2) are similar to

Dubinsky and Hamilton (1998), Nishida (2019)),

generic indefinite pronouns like one, which is

pronouns, but not definite noun phrases likeoriented to the first-person. Moltmann (2006:

epithets or descriptions, can corefer with the267) observes that in (3), the complement with182

one is fine as a general statement if John alone

unnatural, too, but, in Moltmann’s words, itcan, but doesn’t have to, see the picture from theturns to be acceptable “in a context in which

entrance, but the complement with people

living in a big city is considered some sort ofrequires that people other than John also can see

general requirement, so that the sentence would

it from the entrance:

describe the fulfillment of that requirement.” Putdifferently, the sentences in (4), at least as they(3) John found out that {one/people} can see

stand, do not involve simulation in which thethe picture from the entrance.

speaker has to identify with others.
Moltmann (2006) also argues that the first-

According to Moltmann (2006:265), in (3),person orientation of generic one has anothergeneric one involves “inference from the firstversion of “inference to the first person,” asperson,” which “is licensed in a (simple)

exemplified in (5) with the comments cited fromsentence establishing a generalization based on a

Moltmann (2006:265):

first-person application of the predicate.” It isfine even if John is unable to see the picture, for(5) One can get cancer from too much sun

he can simulate anyone with normal vision.

(though I never did).

It is necessary to consider the following

Inference to the First Person: Generic one

quotation from Moltmann (2006:269) to clarify

is licensed in a … sentence stating an

the role of simulation in genericity:(already established) generalization thatis to allow for an immediate application

First-person-based genericity is genericity

to the first person in the reasoning

based on simulation, rather than theory

relevant in the context of discourse.

about others. More precisely, first-persongenericity is based on generic simulation: aIn what follows, I argue that the inferences

property is attributed to anyone in thefrom/to the first person are responsible for the

relevant class on the basis of the speaker’s

co-topical reading of generic indefinite singulars

attributing that property as if to himself,

and also that of proverbs.

while abstracting from the peculiarities of
his own situation.

4. Generic Indefinite Singulars, a(n) N
The “inference from the first-person” also

In this connection, Moltmann (2006) uses thecomes into play with generic indefinite singulars

following examples to show that generic one

like the one in (6), where a Christian is better

sentences tend to mean the sense of requirement:

thanChristians,

and

the

Christianisunacceptable in the reading in which the(4) a. ??One has a nose.

complement is a matter of Jack himself:b. ??One lives in a big city.
(6) Living in a small house himself, Jack
Sentence (4a) is unnatural because it talks about

Sandersa fact about the face that is hard to be a

Christians/*the Christian} should live a

requirement for anybody. Sentence (4b) is

humble life.

183

believes

that{aChristian/singulars

that

stand

as

subjects

ofThis parallelism indicates that generic indefinite

generalizations about class-membership. They

singulars (a(n) N) are used as the same way as

invite inferences from/to the first-person, which

generic one, and this is exactly the case.

then is satisfied by the local speaker who applies

Nunberg and Pan (1975) argue that indefinite

the generalizations to himself in simulation.

singulars can be used as subjects of genericThis argument is extended to apply tosentences only if the sentences have predicatesunspecified individuals described by proverbs

expressing the properties that the subject

with noun phrase subjects.

individual has through its class-membership.

Here, we focus on generic sentences with

To cite Nunberg and Pan’s (1975:416)

indefinite singulars, and do not deal with thoseargument and their examples, as a genericwith subjects in the forms of bare plurals andsentence, A programmer is smart is odd, but A

definite singulars. In English, generic sentences

good programmer is smart is fine, becauseof the latter forms are different from those withsmartness is required as a class characteristic ofindefinite singulars in generalizing over kinds or

good

express

superordinate classes rather than over class-class-

membership (cf. Krifka and Pelletier (1995)).

programmers.

requirements

of

an

Since

they

individual

formembership, generic sentences with indefinite

Like the one in (2), there are proverbs whose

singulars as subjects are good at conveying

subjects are definites, but they are on the wholeprescriptive meaning, as shown by the fact thatcloser to generic one and indefinite singulars

A programmer should be smart turns to be fine.

than to generic definites in expressing theThus, in (6), the individual in matrix subject,

first-person

simulation;

theirindefinitenessi.e. J. Sanders, can easily simulate the life of ancomes, not from their forms, but from the fact

individual described in the complement and takethat they lack what Goffman (1981) calls

it as a matter of himself when the latter is“Author” in their production format.

expressed as an individual having the sameclass-membership properties as him.

5. Indefiniteness Assigned by the Authorless

A similar observation is available from
Burton-Roberts(1977:187-188)

with

Production Format

theGoffman (1981:145) decomposes the notion

following example with a vocative name:of speaker into the following three roles:(7) Emile! A gentleman opens doors for(8) Production Format of Utterances:ladies.

Animator: the sounding box from whichutterances comeThis sentence with an indefinite singular subject

Author: the agent who puts together,invites Emile to open doors for ladies, because it

composes, or scripts the lines that are

implies that he is not being a gentleman now,utteredand more importantly, it invites him to make thePrincipal: the party to whose position,

inference to the first-person.

stand and belief the words attest

The co-topical reading is a characteristic ofindefinite pronouns like one and indefinite

Goffman (1981:229) argues that one or two of

184

the three roles can be omitted, which is reflectedindefinite interpretative convention qualifies

in the three production bases of speaking in (9):proverbs as clausal generic expressions.
The following excerpt, taken from Tharps(9) a. fresh talk: Animator, Author, Principal(2010:55), is an example of self-referential use

b. aloud reading: Animator, (Author),of The early bird catches the worm:

Principal
c. memorization: Animator(11) The clock read 7:59 A.M. when Kate
strode into work. As she passed by(9a) is a speech in which the speaker fulfills theDanyel Green’s empty office, she sighed

three roles all by himself; in (9b), he has only towith relief. “The early bird catches thefulfill Animator and Principal; in (9c), he is justworm,” she said to herself. For the lastan Animator who does not make any words by

few weeks, Kate had been forcing herself

himself, and has no responsibility for them.

to get to work by eight A.M.

The speakers of proverbs are cases of aloudreading without authorship, because they equally

In (11), the self-reference by the proverb results

have to say the same prefabricated expressions

from the inference from the first-person.

every time, but are responsible for their words.

Because the first-person simulation ofProverbs are formulaic clauses for advice. In

proverbs belongs to pragmatic inference rather

using proverbs positively for himself, thethan to grammar, it also works for proverbs

speaker makes himself an instance of the classpreceded by other determiners than the, as inof people who accept their advice. The speaker(12), taken from Howard (2007:280):

also makes their referent an instance of the class(12) ‘Returning to Hollywood six years laterof cases that justify their advice. Thus, proverbs

was ‘difficult’: I have not had the [film]

are qualified as marks of class-membership.
In these respects, proverbs are assignedrole to show my talent’, she said, ‘And I

indefiniteness by the Authorless production

may not be pretty enough… or someone

format, as represented by AN INSTANCE OF in

is just more marketable at that point than

the following interpretative convention:

I am… I don’t fight that because I believethat every dog has its day …’(10) [AN INSTANCE OF [The early bird
catches the worm]]Thanks to the convention in (10), the speaker in(12), i.e. Diane Venora, is an instance of theThepragmaticallyassigned

Authorless proverb “every dog has its day.”indefinitenessaccounts for why proverbs may be used like

Similarly, proverbs are used for discourse

generic one and generic indefinite singulars,

anaphora, as in (13), from O’Loughlin (2007):

especially for why proverbs may be used likepronouns in complements and in discourse.

(13) So

closely

were

these

two

lives

In (10), AN INSTANCE OF invites theintertwined, that it is impossible to thinkindefinite generic reading for the proverb, which

of Sartre without evoking thoughts of dethen invites the first-person simulation. The

Beauvoir, and vice versa. Birds of a185

feather flock together, and certainly, thesewith one, proverbs express what one should do

two philosophical writers of communistic

or simulate. As Zhou, Majka and Epley (2017)

leaning had much in common, so much,argue, people often use their own experience toin fact, that they seem intellectual twins.

simulate the experience of another person, which
underlies the co-topical reading of proverbs.

In (13), thanks to the inference from the

The discussions so far invite us to ask

first-person, Sartre sees de Beauvoir as he sees

whether co-topical readings carried by proverbs

himself, and vice versa, giving an anaphoric

and indefinite singulars are more primitive thanreading to Birds of a feather flock together.

pronominal anaphora. For this question, consider

These facts indicate that proverbs are clausal

the following excerpt, from Swift (2000):

counterparts of generic one, and that their usage
in context is governed by the indefinite singular(15) Frank Randall had three sons: Michael,[AN INSTANCE OF], as in (10).

Eddy and Mark. That was fine by him. A
farmerwhosebusinessisrearing

6. Toward a Pragmatic Account of Marked

livestock knows that the sums extend to

Discourse Anaphora

his own offspring. Sons are a goodinvestment. His wife couldn’t argue.

Proverbs in discourse receive pronominal or
co-topical readings irrespective of the formal
differences of their subject noun phrases. This is

The indefinite singular in the second sentence

because they are assigned indefiniteness via

has a co-topical reading about Frank Randall

their Authorless production format, rather than

without being embedded in a reporting clause.

via their forms. The co-topical reading has a

To make an analogy to Kuno’s (1972) Direct

pragmatic rather than grammatical origin.

Discourse

Analysis,co-topicalindefinite

The pronominal use of proverbs, i.e. thesingulars in reporting clauses, as in (6), areco-topical reading, builds on the simulation ofsimilar to logophoric pronouns like the one inindividuals in matrix subject; it disappears if(16a), but those without reporting clauses arethey do not simulate anyone, as in (14):similar to the logophoric pronoun in (16c):(14) For more than 20 years, John’s father(16) a. John expects that he will be elected.

woke up at 4:30 every morning andb. John expects, “I will be elected.”

started working in his office from 7:00.

c. John was thinking. Oh, would he be

However, he went into bankruptcy at theelected?

age of 55. So, today John doesn’t believethat the early bird catches the worm.

Kuno argues that the first-person pronoun is
shifted to the third person in the transformation

In (16), the embedded proverb under the negatedof direct discourse in (16b) into indirect

matrix clause remains a matter of anyone.

discourse in (16a). Yamaguchi (2009:70) notesTosummarize:The

indefinitenessofthat free indirect discourse like that in (16c)

proverbs comes from the fact that they are

represents the topic person’s words and thoughts

Authorless utterances. Like generic sentences

as included as part of the current speaker’s

186words and thoughts in their dialogue. Thisaccount applies when the represented person’s(18) And when people who are poverty
stricken, they don’t allow themselves towords and thoughts feature personal pronouns.
However, the free indirect discourse ofeven think of beyond that. … And I

indefinite singulars like the one in (15) does notbelieve that you cannot go any further

need transformation from direct to indirect

than you can think.

discourse, nor the current speaker’s inclusion
into his own discourse, because these formally

Generic you can be co-topical with the matrix

third-person expressions can be qualified as

subject, and in (18), with I, the speaker. This

first-person utterances via simulation.

indicates that sentences with generic you also

Without reporting clauses, or even without

follow [AN INSTANCE OF] in (10)any other represention of the words and thoughts

Our account makes sense of the fact thatof an individual, indefinite singulars are used forthere are many proverbs whose subjects are you,self-reference by themselves, as in book titles:

but first-person pronouns like I and we are notused in proverbs. They are not fit for indefinite(17) Memoirs of an Old Victorianist, George

generalizations about class-membership, nor do

Levine, Published online by Cambridge

they express what another individual can

University Press: 05 August 2020.

simulate. In English, you is the best choice forproverbs

thatexpress

norms

which

any

This means that the first-person speech is notindividual can and should simulate (cf. Bolinger

primitive, since self-reference may be performed(1979)). Like proverbs, sentences expressing

withnorms tend to be Authorless utterances.

indefinites;

instead,thefirst-person

pronoun is a generalized pro-form for indefinites
as well as proverbs whose topic is the speaker.

7. Conclusion

Various sorts of Authorless proverbs andProverbs conventionally express indefinite

nonspecific indefinite singulars may be used togeneralizations about class-membership via theirrefer, primitively by inference, to any person,

Authorless production format, although theirfirst, second and third, and then reference tosubject noun phrases are formally preceded byeach person is given a generalized pro-form invarious determiners. Their indefiniteness may

grammar, I, you and she, for example. As theinvite inferences from/to the first person, whichreferential, or co-topical, use of proverbs andis the source of their pronominal use.

nonspecific indefinites belongs to pragmatics, it

Proverbs are clausal generic expressions

may well be supported by a common inference,

qualified as indefinite singulars by the [ANand thus be found in any languages in the same

INSTANCE OF] convention, and require at least

way. By contrast, since rules of pronouns belong

two separate clauses for their co-topical readings,

to the grammar of a specific language, they may

which pragmatically explains why pronouns

well differ from language to language.

require two clauses for coreference, because

As Yukio Hirose pointed out, this accountthey are pro-forms for indefinite expressions that

can apply to the co-topical use of generic you, asare formally clauses. This may be a pragmaticin (18), a quote from Waddles (1991:83):

reduction of the Binding Condition B effects (cf.

187

Chomsky (1981), Levinson (2000)).

Natural Language Semantics 13, 257-281.
Nishida, Koichi (2019) “An Anaphora-Based

*This

study

is

MEXT/JSPS

financially

KAKENHIsupported

Grant

by

Review

NumbersoftheGrammar/Pragmatics

Division of Labor,” BLS 44, 213-227.

18K00542 and 18H00680. I am indebted to

Nunberg, Geoffrey and Chiahua Pan (1975)

Masako Maeda, Tatsuya Fujikawa, Yukio Hirose,“Inferring

Naoaki Wada, Saeko Urushibara and Kiyomi

Sentences,” CLS 11, 412-422.

Tokuyama for their comments and suggestions

QuantificationinGeneric

Siewierska, Anna (2004) Person, Cambridgefor my ZOOM presentation. I am solely

University Press, Cambridge.

responsible for the remaining inadequacies.

Yamaguchi, Haruhiko (2009) Meiseki-na In-yo,
Shinayaka-na In-yo: Waho no Nichi-Ei

REFERENCES
Bolinger, Dwight (1979) “To Catch a Metaphor:

Taisho Kenkyu (Clear Quotation, Flexible

You as Norm,” American Speech 54,

and Thought Representation in Japanese

194-209.

and English), Kurosio, Tokyo.
Noel“Generic

Zhou, Haotian, Elizabeth A. Majka and Nicholas

Sentences and Analyticity,” Studies in

Epley (2017) “Inferring Perspective Versus

Language 1, 155-196.

Getting Perspective: Underestimating the

Burton-Roberts,

Chomsky,Noam(1977)

Quotation: A Contrastive Study of Speech(1981)

Lectures

Value of Being in Another Person’s Shoes,”on

Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

Psychological Science 28, 482-493.

Dubinsky, Stanley and Robert Hamilton (1998)“Epithets as Antilogophoric Pronouns,”

SOURCES OF EXAMPLES

Linguistic Inquiry 29, 685-693.
Goffman,

ErvingUniversity(1981)ofForms

Pennsylvania

Howard, Tony (2007) Women as Hamlet:
of

Talk,

Performance and Interpretation in Theatre,

Press,

Film and Fiction, Cambridge University

Philadelphia.

Press, Cambridge.

Krifka, Manfred and Francis J. Pelletier (1995)

O’Loughlin, John (2007) Portraits: Power and“Genericity: An Introduction,” The Generic

Glory Vis-a-vis Form and Contentment,

Book, ed. by Gregory N. Carlson and

Lulu, Research Triangle.
Swift, Graham (2000) “Our Nicky’s Heart,”

Francis J. Pelletier, 1-124, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kuno,

Susumu(1972)

Granta 69, reprinted in Mano, Yasushi“Pronominalization,(2000) Eigo no Shikumi to Yakushikata

Reflexivization, and Direct Discourse,”(The Mechanism and Translation Method ofLinguistic Inquiry 3, 161-195.

English), 157-236, Kenkyusha, Tokyo.

Levinson, Stephen C. (2000) Presumptive

Tharps, Lori (2010) Substitute me, Atria Books,

Meanings: The Theory of Generalized

New York.
Waddles, Charleszetta (1991) “Interview with

Conversational Implicature, MIT Press,

Charleszetta Waddles,” The Black Women:

Cambridge, MA.
Moltmann, Friederike (2006) “Generic One,

Oral History Project, Vol. 10, ed. by Ruth

Arbitrary PRO, and the First Person,”

Edmonds Hill, 65-142, Meckler, London.

188

【JELS 原稿（和文原稿）の作成上の注意】＜英文原稿作成については、Guidelines for Submission of Manuscripts to JELS を参照すること＞
(1)

原稿枚数：

本文・注・文献を含めて A4 用紙に 7 枚以内（シンポジウム・リポートは4枚以内、特別講演リポート
およびワークショップ・リポートは 2 枚以内）とする。原稿は、2 段組とし、各段 40 行とすること。

(2)

書式：

必ず、添付ファイルで送られてきた、「JELS_サンプル（和文原稿）.doc」を使用し、ファイル名を変更した上で上書き保存して使用すること。また、ファイル形式は「 .doc」のまま使用し、「.docx」に変更
しないこと。（変更すると正しく表示されない場合がある。）① マージンは上（2.2 ㎝）、下（3.0 ㎝）、右（2.5 ㎝）、左（2.5 ㎝）に設定する。
② 字体は、本文、注、参考文献のいずれにおいても、和文をMS明朝、英文をTimes New Romanとし、文字サイズは 11 ポイント以上を使用する。
③ 第 1 頁の一段目は上部に 4 行の余白を取り、論文題名・氏名・所属・キーワード（語または短いフ
レーズ、5 項目まで）を中央寄せにして入れる。論文題名と氏名の間、及び所属とキーワードの間は各 1 行空白とし、キーワードの後 2 行あけて、本文を始める。
（キーワード：メタファー, 関連性理論, usage-based model のような形式でキーワードを書く。キーワードの間は半角カンマと半角ス
ペースで区切る。）④ 論文題名は太字にする。
⑤ 和文原稿の場合、読点・句点は、「、」と「。」を使用する。
⑥ 注は、本文（または謝辞）の後ろ（文献表の前）にまとめ、「注」とタイトルを付す。なお、MSWord の脚注機能を使用してはならない。脚注機能を使わずに注を書くこと。本文中の注番号（上付き数字）は、句点「。」の後ろにくるようにする。
⑦ 謝辞を書く場合は、アスタリスクを付け、注の上に書く。
⑧ 文 献 表 を 含 め 、 そ の 他 の 書 式 の 細 部 に つ い て は 、 English

Linguistics の “Information forContributors” に従うが、abstractは不要。参考文献に2語以上の学術誌・学会誌・Working Papers・
Proceedings等を挙げる際、比較的よく知られているものは略記を用いてもよい（別紙参照）。ただし、同一原稿の参考文献内では統一的に用いること。

1
189

(3) その他：① 和文原稿には和文題名をつけること。その下に英文題名を（ ）に入れて示すこと（英文題名の中の内容語はすべて語頭を大文字で記載すること。ハイフンでつながれた語の後半部分やコロンの後の語も同様）。また、著者名と所属機関名の横にそれぞれの英語（または原語）表記を（）に入れて記す。著者名の英語表記では、ファーストネーム・ファミリーネームの順番で、語頭のみ大文字で書くこと（例：「日本 英子（Eiko Nihon）」）。大学英語表記は公式ウェブサイトの表記とすること。特に、英語でUniversity of 〇〇という形式の場合、定冠詞Theの有無に注意すること。
大学院生の場合は日本語表記の後に大学名のみ英語（または原語）表記を（）に入れて記す（例：「〇〇大学大学院（〇〇 University/(The) University of 〇〇）」）。
② 発表時の論文題名からの変更は一切認めないが、日本語による口頭発表でも Conference Handbookに記した英文題名を使用すれば、英文原稿を提出できる。なお、Spring Forum での発表の場合は、英文原稿のみ受け付ける。
③ ページ番号は入力しないこと。
④ 作成原稿のフォントの埋め込みを必ず行ってから提出すること。学会のウェブサイトに掲載される電子版で、パソコン環境によってはフォントがうまく再現されず異なる記号などに変換されてしまう
危険性があるため、必ず確認の上、提出すること。
⑤ 論文内に図やイラストなどを使用する際には、著作権に十分留意すること。
⑥ 締め切りは、大会翌年の 1 月 11 日 午前11:59（日本時間）（必着）で、日本英語学会の JELS 原稿受付アドレス（conference-jels@kaitakusha.co.jp）に WORD ファイルと PDF ファイルを送付する。フ
ァイル名には発表者の氏名をローマ字で記入すること（ 例：NihonEiko.doc / NihonEiko.pdf）。 メールのタイトルは、秋の大会の発表か国際春季フォーラムの発表かに応じて、「大会: JELS 日本英子」もしくは「SF: JELS EikoNihon」と記すこと。なお、締切日時を過ぎていても JELS 原稿受付
アドレスの自動応答システムによって「受領した」旨のメールが返信される場合があるが、，大会運営委員会としては受領しない。
⑦ 規定に違反している原稿は掲載しない。
（2021年6月21日改定）

2190

日本英語学会大会運営委員会
日本英語学会事務局

JELS 日本語執筆の場合の注および参考文献の書式について（補足資料）

JELS を日本語で執筆する場合の注と和文参考文献の例を以下に示します。外国語で書かれた参考文献につい て は 、 JELS を 英 語 で 執 筆 す る 場 合 と 同 様 、 学 会 ウ ェ ブ サ イ ト (http://elsj.jp/english_linguisticseng/information-for-contributors/ ) に掲載されている English Linguistics の参考文献の書式を参照して下さい。
なお、学術誌・学会誌・Working Papers・Proceedingsのうち比較的よく知られているものについては、頭文字語による略記を用いてもかまいません（別紙参照）。ただし、同一原稿の参考文献内では統一的に用いてください。

注
1. 河上誓作（私信：XX 年YY 月ZZ 日）によると、以下の例は…………….
2. Oba (1997)にも指摘されているとおり、………………
3. 杉本 (1998:34)では、以下のような類例が紹介されている。
(i) I long for …………
(ii) I manage to ………………………
4. Takami (1996:51)には、以下のような………………

参考文献
小泉保 (1997)『ジョークとレトリックの語用論』大修館書店, 東京.
松本曜・田中茂範 (1997)『空間と移動の表現』研究社出版, 東京.
盛岡ハインツ・梶田優 (編) (1994)『海外言語学情報』（第7 号）大修館書店, 東京.

1191

和書の場合福岡言語学研究会 (編) (1993)『言語学からの眺望』（福岡言語学研究会20 周年記念論文集）九州大学出版会, 福岡.

論文集の場合吉村あき子(1996)『否定極性現象』博士論文, 大阪大学.

博士論文の場合

福井直樹 (1998)「極小モデルの展開」, 田窪行則他 (編) 『生成文法』（岩波講座言語の科学第六巻）, 161210, 岩波書店, 東京.

論文集収録論文の場合

大阪太郎 (未公刊)「Donkey 文の解釈について」, 未公刊論文, 日本英語大学.
未公刊論文の場合
藤田耕司 (1997)「最適派生理論の最適化に向けて」, 『英語青年』5 月号, 74-76, 研究社出版, 東京.
大津智彦 (1993)「現代イギリス英語における目的語節を導くthat の有無について」, 『論集』第 9 号, 41-50,
大阪外国語大学.

雑誌論文の場合

東京花子 (印刷中)「英語統語論について」, 『日本英語学研究』, 日本英語出版．
雑誌掲載が決定しているが未公刊の論文の場合
塚本聡 (2013)「大名力『言語研究のための正規表現によるコーパス検索』」書評, 『英文学研究』第90 巻，
155-160，日本英文学会.

書評の場合１

廣瀬幸生 (1996)「Adele E. Goldberg: Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure」
書評『英文学研究』73 巻1号, 170-174, 日本英文学会.
書評の場合２（洋書の書評を和文で執筆）
桐生和幸 (1997)「結果述語構文の言語類型論的研究」関西言語学会第 22 回大会口頭発表.
口頭発表の場合
川瀬義清 (1998)「認知的観点から見た進行形の意味」KLS 18, 155-165.
学会等のプロシーディングスの場合
Freud, Sigmund (1905) Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, Moffat Ward, New York. （フロイト, ジグム
ンド. 生松敬三訳『機知—その無意識との関係』人文書院, 東京, 1970）
翻訳の場合
Radcliff, Allan (1940) “On Joking Relationships,” Africa 13, 195-210. （ラドクリフ, アラン. 青柳まちこ訳『未開社会における構造と機能』「（第4 章）冗談関係について」新泉社, 東京, 1975）
論文の翻訳が本の一部として公刊されている場合

2
192

Guidelines for Submission of Manuscripts to JELS
<If you write in Japanese, refer to the Japanese guideline on the ELSJ website>
Last revised June 2021
(1) Length
The length of an oral presentation manuscript, including notes and references, must notexceed seven A4 pages; that of a symposium report must not exceed four A4 pages; that of a
special lecture or workshop report must not exceed two A4 pages. The manuscript must use
a two-column format with 40 lines per column. Care should be taken to avoid overcrowdingof characters or letters within the line.
(2) Format
Use the English sample file attached to the e-mail. Do not change the file extension (.doc)
when you save the file. Note that presenters at the Spring Forum are not allowed to submit aJapanese manuscript.
a. Leave margins of 2.2cm at the top, 3.0 cm at the bottom, and 2.5cm on both sides.
b. The font must be Times New Roman and the font size must be at least 11 point.
c. There must be 4 lines of space between the top of the page and the first paragraph on thefirst page. The title, the name and affiliation of all authors, and keywords (up to five words
or short phrases) must all be centered. One line of blank space must be left between
the title and the author name(s) as well as between the author affiliation(s) and the
keywords. Two lines of blank space must be left below the keywords, at which point themain text must begin. Keywords should be written in the following format: Keywords:
xxx, yyy, zzz (e.g. Keywords: syntax, Case assignment, Multiple Agree, light verb).
d. The title must be in bold type. Capitalize the first letter of every content word in the title,
including the words after the colon Also, capitalize the first letter of both parts of thehyphenated word (e.g. South-East).
e. Write the author’s name in the order “First name - Surname” and capitalize only the initialletters. (e.g. Jane Smith). Notation of affiliation must be identical to the one used in its
official website. Pay a close attention to the existence/absence of “The” in front of“University of XX.”
f. Write acknowledgements above notes, if any. Put an asterisk at the beginning of theacknowledgements.
g. Notes must follow the main text but precede the references, with the heading “NOTES.”DO NOT use MS-Word’s command for inserting automatic footnotes and endnotes.
Footnote numbers in the body of the text must be written as superscript numerals, andmust be placed after punctuation marks.
h. Other details (including the references) must be formatted in accordance with
Information for Contributors and the latest version of the EL style sheet(http://elsj.jp/english_linguistics-eng/information-for-contributors/). No abstract isnecessary. When listing journals, working papers and proceedings with two or more
words as references, abbreviations may be used (refer to the attached list). Be consistent
within references.
(3) Other instructions for submission
a . Manuscripts written in English should be checked by a native speaker of English.
Under no circumstances may the title of the manuscript be changed in any way from theone used at the time of submission. The English manuscript is accepted even when theoral presentation was made in Japanese provided the English title listed in the Conference
Handbook is used in the manuscript. Presenters at the International Spring Forum may
submit only English manuscripts.
b. Do not include page numbers.
c. Please embed all fonts when creating pdf files in order to ensure that the fonts used areavailable on readers’ computers. (JELS is published on the ELSJ website.)d. Make sure that any figures or illustrations in the paper are consistent with copyright
restrictions.
e. Manuscripts must be submitted by 11:59 am on January 11th (J ST) of the year
following the Spring Forum and the annual Conference. Manuscripts must be sent as
attachments in both pdf and doc format to <conference-elsj☆kaitakusha.co.jp>*. The
file name must include the author’s name in Roman letters (e.g.
NihonEiko.pdf/NihonEiko.doc). The title of e-mail must be “Annual Conference: name”

or “Spring Forum: name” (e.g. “Annual Conference: Jane Smith”). Please note that amanuscript that has reached after the above deadline will not be accepted by the
Conference Organizing Committee even if an automatic reply message confirms yoursubmission.
f. Please note that manuscripts not in strict compliance with the Rules for JELS and thepresent guidelines will not be accepted.
g. Graduate students must indicate their affiliation so that they can be identified as graduate
students (e.g. Graduate School of University of XX, XX University Graduate School.
*The “@” in the e-mail address has been replaced by “☆” for security reasons.

194---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2022年2月28日発行
編集
日本英語学会大会運営委員会
代 表 者
金子義明
発 行 者
日本英語学会（〒112-0013）
東京都文京区音羽1-22-16二見ビル5F 開拓社内
電話03-5395-7101

日本英語学会 2022----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------