慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10
集合、ラベル、包含関係に基づくインターフェイスでの解釈メカニズム
林 愼将 (norimasa.8843@gmail.com)
九州大学
研究の概要
・C-I/SM interface では、Merge が作る集合の包含関係に基づき解釈が行われると考える。
・集合間の関係を label が媒介する。
・集合に label を提供する要素は関連する feature 等の解釈についてその集合での解釈が義務的になる。
・interface に関して、実質的には dominance, m-command を用いた representational model を作る。

1. Minimalist Program と labeling theory
1.1. Minimalist Program と label(1)

We can regard an account of some linguistic phenomena as principled insofar as it derives them by efficientcomputation satisfying interface conditions. A very strong proposal, called “the strong minimalist thesis,” is thatall phenomena of language have a principled account in this sense, that language is a perfect solution to interface
conditions, the conditions it must satisfy to some extent if it is to be usable at all. If that thesis were true, language
would be something like a snowflake, taking the form it does by virtue of natural law, in which case UG [Universal
Grammar―NH] would be very limited.

(2)(Chomsky (2009: 26), emphasis added)[M]iminalism is nothing more than a willingness to seek scientific explanation, not just description. A researchgoal is to determine the exact nature of derivation, at a deep, explanatory level, and not to describe data usingwhatever stipulated technicalia seem to do the job, nor are convenient (non-explanatory) definitions overrepresentations allowed even if they seem to do the trick.

(3)(Epstein, Kitahara & Seely (EKS) (2011: 302))

Minimalist Program の提案は次のいずれかに基づくものでなければならない。
a. basic properties of language (structure-dependency, discrete infinity, ...)
b. the interface conditions (bare output conditions)c. the third-factor principles(4)

a. PF←syntax→LF
b. SM←syntax→C-I☺

解釈システム (或いは mapping system) としての interface の働きを考える。

(5)

Merge (X, Y) = {X, Y}(6)

For a syntactic object SO to be interpreted, some information is necessary about it: what kind of object is it?

(cf. (3a))

Labeling is the process of providing that information.
(7)(Chomsky (2013: 43)) (cf. (3b, c))a. {α X, YP}(α=X)

b. {α XP, YP}(α=X)

c. {γ {α X[uF], WP}, {β Y[F], ZP}}

(α=X, β=Y, γ=<F, F>)(8)

VP→V+NP☺

(1), (3), (5) より、Merge は集合を作り、interface は label を基に集合を解釈する。ただし、その解釈規則の大本の考えは phrase structure rule (8) から変わらない。

1

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10(9)label に関して phrase structure rule とは (決定的に) 違う点
a. labeling algorithmb. bare phrase structure☺

(Chomsky (1995a, b))

以前までの「構造の label=category」の直接的な関係は無くなり、lexical item 及び feature が label として機能するようになり、統語構造と解釈との関連がより直接的な方法で示されるようになった。

☺

Merge, label, Contain を interface における基本的な概念と考える。

(10)

参考: Chomsky (2008) における label
Each SO generated enters into further computations. Some information about the SO is relevant to thesecomputations. In the best case, a single designated element should contain all the relevant information: the label[...]. The label selects and is selected in EM [external Merge―NH], and is the probe that seeks a goal for
operations internal to the SO: Agree or IM [internal Merge―NH].
(Chomsky (2008: 141), emphasis in original, underline added)(11)

Chomsky’s (2008) LA(Chomsky (2008: 145))

a. In {H, α}, H an LI, H is the label.
b. If α is internally merged to β, forming {α, β} then the label of β is the label of {α, β}.
(12)We therefore have two syntactic relations: (A) set-membership, based on Merge, and (B) probe-goal. Assuming
composition of relations, (A) term-of and dominate. These seem to be the minimal assumptions about the available
relations. If we add “sister-of,” then composition will yield c-command and identity (the latter presumably
available independently). Whether c-command plays a role within the computation to the C-I interface is an open
question. I know of no clear evidence that it does, so will keep to the relations that seem unavoidable, setmembership and probe-goal.

(Chomsky (2008: 141), emphasis in original, underline added)

1.2. Chomsky (2015)(13)

The first-located lexical item by Minimal Search (henceforth, MS) serves as the label of the set.

☺

MS は何を以て minimal なのか?

(14)

Kitahara (2020)
a. {β X {α Y {Z, W}}}

(α=Y, β=X)b. 集合 β について: path (X) = β, path (Y) = (β, α)c. 集合 α について: path (Y) = α, path (Z, W) = (α, ...)☺

片方の path がもう片方の path の proper subset になっている場合にラベルが一義的に決まる。 (but see
also Krivochen (2021))(15) a. {α X, Y}
b. path (X) = path (Y) = α(16) a. {γ {β X, ...}{α Y, ...}}
b. path (X) = (γ, β), path (Y) = (γ, α)(17){γ {β X[uF], ...}{α Y[F], ...}}(α=Y, β=X, γ=<F, F>)(18) a. {ε {δ Z, ...} {γ {β X, ...} {α Y, ...}}}
b. path (X) = (ε, γ, β), path (Y) = (ε, γ, α), path (Z) = (ε, δ)2

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10(19) a. 文明国が男性が平均寿命が短い(Kuno (1973: 71))b. {δ DP[uCase] {γ DP[uCase] {β DP[uCase] {α T[Nom], ...}}}}(α=T, β=<Nom, Nom>, γ=<Nom, Nom>, δ=<Nom, Nom>)(20){{α Y, ...} ... {γ {β X, ...}{α Y, ...}}}(α=Y, β=γ=X)(21)

to take [an SO] α to be ‘in the domain D’ if and only if every occurrence of α is a term of D.
(Chomsky (2013: 44))

(22)

Chomsky (2015) の想定
a. Semantic root R in every language is too weak to serve as the label because of its indeterminacy of the category.
b. English T is too weak to serve as the label because of its deficiency of inflection of [phi] features.
c. Weak SOs are strengthened to serve as the label by the label <phi, phi> immediately above.

(23) a. n+√SEE→sightb. v+√SEE→see(24) a. John likes Mary.
b. {α R, Mary[phi]}c. {β Mary[phi] {α R, Mary[phi]}}d. {δ John[phi] {γ v*[uphi] {β Mary[phi] {α R, Mary[phi]}}}}
e. {δ John[phi] {γ v* {β Mary[phi] {α R[uphi], Mary[phi]}}}}(α=R, β=<phi, phi>)f. {δ John[phi] {γ R-v* {<phi, phi> Mary[phi] {R R[uphi], Mary[phi]}}}}
g. {η C[uphi] {ζ John[phi] {ε T {δ John[phi] {γ R-v* {<phi, phi> Mary[phi] {R R[uphi], Mary[phi]}}}}}}}
h. {η C {ζ John[phi] {ε T[uphi] {δ John[phi] {γ R-v* {<phi, phi> Mary[phi] {R R[uphi], Mary[phi]}}}}}}}(γ=δ=R-v*, ε=T, ζ=<phi, phi>)i. {η C {<phi, phi> John[phi] {T T[uphi] {R-v* John[phi] { R-v* R-v* {<phi, phi> Mary[phi] {R R[uphi], Mary[phi]}}}}}}}
j. {C C {<phi, phi> John[phi] {T T[uphi] {R-v* John[phi] { R-v* R-v* {<phi, phi> Mary[phi] {R R[uphi], Mary[phi]}}}}}}}(25)

Phase Level Operations
a. feature inheritanceb. MS for labelingc. R-to-v* internal pair-Merged. the application of the phase impenetrability condition (PIC)(26)

The Phase Impenetrability Condition(cf. Chomsky (2000, 2001, 2008))

Keep the phase domain intact except for its edge (the phase head and its spec).
(27)*Who do you think that likes Mary?
a. {δ that {γ who[phi][uQ] {β T[uphi] {α who[phi][uQ] likes Mary}}}}(α=R-v*, β=T, γ=<phi, phi>)b. {ε who[phi][uQ] {δ that {γ who[phi][uQ] {β T[uphi] {α who[phi][uQ] likes Mary}}}}}(28) a. Chi
who

credi

che

verra

a

visitarci?

think.2SG

thatcome.FUT

INF

visit

‘Who do you think that will come to visit?’(α=R-v*, β=γ=??)(Pesetsky (1982a: 299), glosses added)b. {ε who[phi][uQ] {δ that {γ who[phi][uQ] {β T[uphi] {α who[phi][uQ] likes Mary}}}}}

3(α=R-v*, β=γ=T)

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10(29)

Who do you think likes Mary?
a. {δ that[uphi] {γ who[phi][uQ] {β T {α who[phi][uQ] likes Mary}}}}b. {δ that {γ who[phi][uQ] {β T[uphi] {α who[phi][uQ] likes Mary}}}}(α=R-v*, β=T, γ=<phi, phi>)c. {δ {γ who[phi][uQ] {β T[uphi] {α who[phi][uQ] likes Mary}}}}(30)

Phase Level Operations
a. feature inheritanceb. MS for labelingc. deletion of Cd. the application of the PIC(31)

What is the general condition for the labelizability of heads, that is, their ability to serve as labels?
a. richness of agreement inflection for T
b. (in)determinacy of a category for R(32) a. John expects Bill to win.
b. {ε R-v* {δ Bill {γ R {β to {α Bill, win}}}}}(α=R-v*, β=??, γ=R, δ=<phi, phi>, ε=R-v*)(33)(僕は) りんごを食べた。

☺

infinitive T や日本語の T の labeling の問題 (cf. Saito (2016, et ceq.))。

2. 理論装置
2.1. c-command のとてもとても簡単な歴史(34)

Klima (1964), Ross (1967), Langacker (1969): in construction with, command(35)

Reinhart (1976, 1981), Aoun & Sportiche (1981), Chomsky (1981): (representational) c-command(36)

Epstein et al. (1998): (derivational) c-command(37)

Chomsky (2000, 2001): (compositional) c-command(38)

Merge ({X ...}, {Y ...}) = {K {X ...}, {Y ...}}(39) a. Sister: Sister (X, Y), Sister (Y, X)
b. Immediately Contain: IC (K, X), IC (K, Y), IC (K, K) (=reflexive)c. Immediately Contain は transitive: Relation R (a, b), R (b, c) → R (a, c)(40) a. Merge ({W ...}, {Z ...}) = {X {W ...}, {Z ...}}
b. {K {X {W ...}, {Z ...}}, {Y ...}}(cf. (38))(41) a. IC (K, X), IC (X, W) → (immediately) Contain (K, W)
b. Immediately Contain≒Contain(42)

the elementary operation of composition of relations
a. (Sister(Sister)) → Identityb. (Sister(Contain)) → c-command(43)

Epstein et al. (1998: 8, 24): representational c-command は non-explanatory。

(44)

Chomsky (2000: 146, note 67): derivational c-command に何故 “Contain” の概念が入ってくるのか。

☺

Minimalist Program では derivational c-command か compositional c-command のどちらかに従う。

4

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10
2.2. Agreement Effect2.2.1. Two Types of Agreement(45) a. probe-goal Agree: {...X[uF]...{...Y[F]...}...}
b. spec-head agreement: {...{YP {XP X[F], ZP} {Y´ Y[uF], ...}}(46){η C {ζ John[phi] {ε T[uphi] {δ John[phi] {γ R-v* {<phi, phi> Mary[phi] {R R[uphi], Mary[phi]}}}}}}}(γ=δ=R-v*, ε=T, ζ=<phi, phi>) (=(24h))☺

spec-head agreement は X´-schema を前提にしているため、Minimalist Program では probe-goal Agree が用いられるが、それでも weak head が強化されるのは agreement ではなく spec-head relation により与えられる label のためであり、spec-head relation は理論の中に残っている。

2.2.2. Problems with Agree(47)

EKS (2017, 2018)a. {δ C[uphi] {γ SUBJ[phi] {β T {α SUBJ[phi], v*P}}}}b. {δ C {γ SUBJ[phi] {β T[uphi] {α SUBJ[phi], v*P}}}}(α=R-v*, β=T, γ=<phi, phi>, δ=C)☺

feature inheritance の際には主語はもう copy になっている。

(48)

Chomsky (2019)a. {δ C[uphi] {γ SUBJ[phi] {β T {α SUBJ[phi], v*P}}}}b. {δ C[vphi] {γ SUBJ[phi] {β T {α SUBJ[phi], v*P}}}}c. {δ C {γ SUBJ[phi] {β T[vphi] {α SUBJ[phi], v*P}}}}☺

probe-goal Agree→feature inheritance(49)

二番目の問題(α=R-v*, β=T, γ=<phi, phi>, δ=C)

a. Which girl does John like?
b. {δ {γ which[uQ], girl} {β C[int] {α John T like which girl}}}☺

(α=<phi, phi>, β=C[int], γ=which, δ=<int, int>)

C[int]は wh[uQ]の c-command 領域には無い。

2.2.3. Agreement without Agree (EKS (2017, 2018))(50) a. The label <F, F> only has the information of the valued feature.
b. A natural place for feature-assignment (valuation) to [uF] is the morpho-phonological component.
c. MS replaces probe-goal Search.
(51){η C {ζ John[phi] {ε T[uphi] {δ John[phi] {γ R-v* {<phi, phi> Mary[phi] {R R[uphi], Mary[phi]}}}}}}}(γ=δ=R-v*, ε=T, ζ=<phi, phi>) (=(24h))(52) a. Which girl does John like?
b. {δ {γ which[uQ], girl} {β C[int] {α John T like which girl}}}(α=<phi, phi>, β=C[int], γ=which, δ=<int, int>)(=(49b))5

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10(53) a. Framework with (syntactic) Agreei) Valuation of [uF] via Agree and ii) MS in syntax for labeling → iii) Morphological assignment at the SMinterfaceb. EKS (2017, 2018)i) MS in syntax (labeling and agreement are executed simultaneously) → ii) Morphological assignment to [uF]
via the label <F, F>☺

Agree を採用しても morphological assignment は必要。

2.2.4. Interpretation by Contain(54) a. C-command is insufficient to capture the agreement phenomena.
b. The agreement effects should be relegated to the interfaces.
☺

interface では Merge が適用されないので、Merge に基づく (derivational/compositional) c-command 以外のものが用いられる可能性。

(55){β X {α Y, Z}}a. locating the member of the set βb. identifying the merge-mate set of X
c. identifying the intra-set member Y (Z)d. forming some relation between X and Y (Z)(56)

Interpretation by Contain
The interpretation of an SO X is defined by the identification label of the set containing X.

(57)

McCawley (1968a: 244, emphasis added)
A tree is a finite set of objects (called ‘nodes’) with three relationships ρ ‘directly dominates’, λ ‘is to the left of’,and α ‘bears the label,’ satisfying the following axioms: (1) there is a node x 0 such that for no node x does xρx0
(x0 is called the ‘root’ of the tree); (2) if x is a node distinct from x0, then x0ρ*x, where ρ* is the relationship whichholds between two nodes a and b if there is a chain of nodes a1,...,an such that aρa1, a, a1ρa2,..., anρb (ρ* can beread ‘dominates’; this axiom asserts that a tree is ‘connected’);...

☺

Aspects のモデルでは dominance, precedence, label の三つが tree の定義だった、それから precedence は
SM interface の問題になったため、残るのは dominance (ここでの Contain) と label。

(58){γ {β Z[F], ...} {α X[uF] {...Y[uF]...}}}(α=X, β=Z, γ=<F, F>)

a. X/Y の[uF]は集合 γ=<F, F>に含まれることにより interface で解釈が与えられる。
b. X-Z: local (spec-head) agreement, Y-Z: long-distance agreement(59)

Immediately Contain
A set A with label L immediately contains an SO X iff X provides (part of) L.

(60)

集合 γ は Z, X を immediately contain、Y を contain する。

(61)

Given the following structure and some operation that can assign [F´]{γ {β Z[F], ...} {α X[uF] {...Y[uF]...}}}(α=X, β=Z, γ=<F, F>)

then, the interpretation of [uF] on Y may be [F] or [F´], whereas [uF] on X has to receive the interpretation of [F].

6

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10(62) a. γ=<F, F>が与えられるのは Minimal Search で見つかる Z[F]と X[uF]の値が nondistinct であるため。従って、γ=<F, F>を与えつつ interface で X が[F]と distinct な[F´]の値を得ることはできない。
b. 要素は自身が identify している集合で関連する解釈を受けなければならない。
(63)

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

i. Y, contained in the set labeled <F, F>, may be given the relevant interpretation according to the label at theinterfaces.
ii. X, immediately contained in the set labeled <F, F>, must be given the relevant interpretation according to thelabel at the interfaces.

2.2.5. A-Over-A Principle(64)

The A-Over-A Principle[I]f a transformation applies to a structure of the form
[S ... [A ...]A ... ]S
for any category A, then it must be so interpreted as to apply to the maximal phrase of the type A.
(Chomsky (1968: 45), emphasis in original)(65) a. John kept the car in the garage.

(Chomsky (1968: 45))b. What (garage) did John keep the car in?

(Chomsky (1968: 45))(66) a. [DP [DP the car] in [DP what]]b. [VP [VP kept the car] in [DP what]]☺

A/A principle により (66b) の構造からのみ what の抜き出しが可能。

(67)

Ross (1967): A/A principle はある意味では強すぎていて、ある意味では弱すぎる制約。
→island の提案。

(68) a. Chomsky (1968: 49): the A-over-A principle has a certain naturalness
b. Fukui (1999: 110-111): the [A-over-A] principle, despite its naturalness and attractive generality, has been largely
ignored or even forgotten in the subsequent development of the theory of locality, such as subjacency, the Barriers
system, etc.
(69)

The Modified A-Over-A Principle with Labels
Under the following configuration, Y cannot refer to the inner label A.
{Y ... {A ... {A ...} ...}}☺

(69) は移動の制約ではなく解釈規則。

(70)

Chomsky (1973: 235):
a. Notice that the condition ([64]) does not establish an absolute prohibition against transformations that extract aphrase of type A from a more inclusive phrase of type A. Rather, it states that if a transformational rule isnonspecific with respect to the configuration defined, it will be interpreted in such a way as to satisfy the condition.
b. the A-over-A Condition to be an integral part of an evaluation measure

7

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10☺

これらすべての提案は interface condition であり、representation に従って構造を解釈する。
representational
c-command、X´-schema が棄却されたのはそれらの representational theory が why question に答えることが で き ず 、 (3) の 要 求 を 満 た す こ と が で き な い た め 。 た だ し 、 Chomsky (1995a: 223) はrepresentational/derivational model のどちらが正しいとも述べていない (cf. Ishii (1997: 42))。

2.3. Beyond C-Command(71) a. Condition A: An anaphor must be locally c-commanded by its coreferent nominal.
b. Condition B: A pronoun must not be locally c-commanded by its coreferent nominal.
c. Condition C: An R-expression must not be c-commanded by its coreferent nominal.
(72) a. Condition A: An anaphor must be locally contained in the set labeled <phi, phi>, whose value comes from its
coreferent nominal.
b. Condition B: A pronoun must not be locally contained in theset labeled <phi, phi>, whose value comes from its
coreferent nominal.
c. Condition C: An R-expression must not be contained in theset labeled <phi, phi>, whose value comes from its
coreferent nominal.
(73){α ...anaphor[uphi]...}(α=<phi, phi>)☺

condition A/B は domain の違い。問題は condition C (see also Ishii (1991))。

(74) a. John is so careless that the idiot will get killed in an accident one of these days.
b. Only JOHN likes John.
c. John only likes JOHN.
d. A linguist working on binding theory was so devoid of any moral sense that he forced a physicist working on
particles to hire the linguist’s girlfriend in his lab.
(全て Nediger (2017: 100), emphasis in original)(75)

Nediger: R-expression は anaphor や pronoun と入れ替えて同じ意味を出す場合には使えない (cf.
Schlenker (2005), Reinhart (2006))。

(76) a. Someone in every cityk loves itsk (*theirk, *hisk) weather.
b. Every boyi’s mother dislikes hisi friends.
☺

(Baker (2008: 122))(Norris (2014: 35))

bound variable は c-command が無くても可能。

3. Labeling without Weak Heads(77) a. John likes Mary.

(=(24a))b. {δ C {γ John[phi] {β T[uphi] {α John {R-v* likes Mary}}}}}(α=R-v*, β=T, γ=<phi, phi>, δ=C)☺

[uphi] は interface まで unvalued、SM interface で解釈が与えられる。→C-I interface では?

(78)

The Full Interpretation(Chomsky (1995a: 27))[T]here can be no superfluous symbols in representations.
(79)

C-I interface での[uphi]を解決する方法
a. [±CI] feature を仮定する。

(EKS (2010, 2017, 2018))

b. Full Interpretation を改定する。

8

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10(80) a. Sportiche (2016: 1): [The Full Interpretation] applies to syntactic objects rather than their occurrences (forexample to a chain – a set of movement copies – rather than to each individual copy), an assumption that is in fact
already routinely made, albeit often implicitly.
b. C-I interface での label <phi, phi>(81)

The Full Interpretation (revised)(cf. Hazout (2004: 403))

Every symbol in the structure must have any contribution to the C-I or SM interface.
(82)

All LIs, including English T and R in every language, are strong and are qualified as labels.

(83) a. *Who do you think that likes Mary?
b. {ε who {δ that {γ who {β T {α who likes Mary}}}}}(84)(α=R-v*, β=γ=T)

that-trace effect は、label <phi, phi>が無いと、a. T の[uphi]が SM interface で解釈が決定されないため。

(EKS (2017, 2018))

b. (Agree があったとしても) who の Case には label <phi, phi>が必要なため。
(85)(section 6)

Italian: [phi]を v* (V) が持つ。

(Goto (2017))

love: am-o (1.SG), am-i (2.SG), am-a (3.SG), am-iamo (1.PL), am-ate (2.PL), am-ano (3.PL)(86)

Italian v* bears the information of [phi] features in itself, by which [uphi] on Italian T is always assigned theappropriate interpretation.

(87) a. R-v*[phi]b. R-v*[phi]-T[uphi](88) a. John expects to win.

(=(32a))b. {R-v* {δ John[phi] {γ R[uphi] {β to {α John[phi] win}}}}}(α=win, β=to, γ=R, δ=<phi, phi>)(89) a. (僕は)りんごを食べた。

(=(33))

b. {γ pro {β C {α T {...}}}}☺

(α=T, β=C, γ=<Top, Top>)

日本語の pro は null topic (Huang (1984))。

4. Head-Internal Relative Clause (HIRC)
4.1. HIRCs and Their Kin(90)

太郎は[花子がりんごを机に置いたの]を食べた。

(91)「の」の categorya. Kitagawa & Ross (1982), 長谷川 (2002): pronominal modifierb. Murasugi (1994), 吉村 (2001): C
c. 黒田 (1999), Shimoyama (1999), Hiraiwa (2005, 2008): nominalizer(92)

太郎は[花子が机に置いた]りんごを食べた。

☺

「食べ」の theta-role はどのように与えられるのか。

(93) a. Kuroda (1999), 長谷川 (2002): (疑似) 長距離付与
b. 三原 (1994), Hoshi (1995), Murasugi (1999), Shimoyama (1999), Nishigauchi (2004), Kitagawa (2005, 2018),
Kubota & Smith (2007), and Grosu & Hoshi (2016): pro(94)

午前中は雨が降っていたのが午後になると日がカンカン照り出した(黒田 (1999: 36))(95)

学生たちが先生が二人ドアの後ろに隠れているのにその先生たちに挨拶した(黒田 (1999: 68))9

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10(96){VP ... {CP ...の}が/に pro V}☺

副詞節にも「の」が使われる。

(97)

太郎は花子がりんごをデザートにとっておいたのを{pro/それを}こっそり食べてしまった。

(98)

Mary が[[John が自分の学生が重要な仮説を提案したと]自慢していたの]の欠陥を指摘した。
(Watanabe (1992: 259))☺

「のの」節は副詞節としては無いため、(98) は HIRC。許容するか否かは個人差があり (Grosu & Hoshi(2016))、容認しない人は HIRC のようなものは全て副詞節として解釈している (三原 (1994), Murasugi(1999))。

(99)

Change RC
a. John は Mary がサンマを焦がしてしまったのをいやいや食べた。

(Hoshi (1995: 14))b. John は Mary がサンマを焦がしてしまった{やつ/もの}をいやいや食べた。

(Hoshi (1995: 13))☺

「の」が置き換え可能。

(100)*太郎は花子がりんごを机に置いた{やつ/もの}を食べた。

☺

純粋な HIRC では不可能 (Hoshi (1995: 16))。

(101)

John は Mary がサンマを焼いている匂いに気づいた。

☺

change RC は gapless RC の一種。

(Hoshi (1995: 14))
(Hoshi (1995))

4.2. 黒田 (1999)(102)

太郎は[花子がりんごを机に置いたの]を食べた。

(=(90))(103)*[John が[[素晴らしい論文を書いた]人]を褒めていたの]が出版された。

(104)

Mary が[[John が自分の学生が重要な仮説を提案したと]自慢していたの]の欠陥を指摘した。 (=(98))(105)[[Mary がいつ論文を仕上げるか] John が Tom に尋ねていたの]が出版された。

(Watanabe (1992: 261))(黒田 (1999: 74), cf. Watanabe (1992: 261))☺

長距離選択は A-over-A condition 以外には引っかからない。

4.3. 長谷川 (2002)(106) a. 太郎が[花子が本を買ってきたの]を取り上げた。
b. *太郎が[花子が本を買ってきたと]取り上げた。
c. *太郎が[花子が本を買ってきたこと]を取り上げた。
d. 太郎が[みんなが[花子が本を買ってきたと]信じているの]を取り上げた。
e. ?太郎が[みんなが[[花子が本を買ってきたという]こと]を信じているの]を取り上げた。
(全て長谷川 (2002: 9-10))(107)?*[John が[[Mary が素晴らしい論文を買いたという]噂]を聞いたの]が出版された。
(Watanabe (1992: 261))(108)[太郎が[[花子が素晴らしい論文を書いたという]こと]を聞いていたの]が出版された。
(Kuroda (1999: 73))☺

(106e) も文法的。

☺

長谷川 (2002): 黒田の分析では (106c, e) の違いが説明されない。

10

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10(109)[K]oto is used for nominalizing a proposition and forming an abstract concept out of the proposition, while no isused for representing a concrete event.

(Kuno (1973: 221))(110) a. 私は John が来る{のを/*ことを}待った。

(Kuno (1973: 221))b. 私は世界に平和が訪れる{のを/ことを}待っています。
(111)

The Relevancy Condition(Kuno (1973: 221))(Kuroda (1976-7), (Kuroda 1992: 147))

For a p.i. [pivot-internal=head-internal—NH] relative clause to be acceptable, it is necessary that it be interpreted
pragmatically in such a way as to be directly relevant to the pragmatic content of its matrix clause.
(112)

太郎は[花子がりんごを皿の上に置いたの]を取って...

(Kuroda (1992: 148))(113)#太郎は[花子がりんごを昨日皿の上に置いたの]を取って...

(Kuroda (1992: 148))(114)

太郎は[花子がりんごを昨日皿の上に置いておいたの]を取って...

(Kuroda (1992: 149))(115)

Kuroda (1992: 154): 主節が表す event と HIRC が表す event が superordinate event の要素として解釈されなければならない。

☺

sequentiality/continuity/purposive connotation が superordinate event を作る。

☺

(106c):「こと」では event が表せないため relevancy condition 違反。
(106e):「こと」は意味が薄い形式名詞のため A/A principle 違反を引き起こさない。

(116)

長谷川の分析
a. [VP [DP [IP ...IH...] D] V]b. *[VP [DP [IP [NP ...IH...complex N] ...] D] V]☺

V が D を local に選択、その後 D が internal head (IH) に対し probe-goal Agree を行い、long-distanceselection に見える関係を作る。

(117)

警官が[ヤクザがコソ泥を追いかけているの]を捕まえた。
a. 「ヤクザ」が IH
b. 「コソ泥」が IH
c. 黒田:「ヤクザ+コソ泥」が IH (split antecedent)→Kigtagawa (2005: 1258): その読みは「二人とも」があって初めて可能。

☺

Agree では ambiguity が捉えられない。

4.4. Proposal(118)

For an SO X and a predicate P, X receives a theta-role from P iff X is contained in the set labeled P.

(119)

The Modified A-Over-A Principle with Labels(cf. (56))(=(69))

Under the following configuration, Y cannot refer to the inner label A.
{Y ... {A ... {A ...} ...}}(120) a. 太郎は[花子がりんごを机に置いたの]を食べた。

(=(90))

b. {γ {β {α ...IH...} の} V}(α=T, β=の, γ=食べた)(121) a. *[John が[[素晴らしい論文を書いた]人]を褒めていたの]が出版された。
b. {δ {γ {β {α ... IH ...} 人} ... の} V}(122)(=(103))(α=T/C, β=人, γ=の, δ=出版された)??スミス先生は生徒の作品が入選したのをご褒美に映画に連れて行ってやったそうだ。
(Hoshi (1995: 98))11

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10(123) a. 警官が[ヤクザがコソ泥を追いかけているの]を捕まえた。
b. {ε {δ {γ ヤクザ {β {α コソ泥...V} T}} の} V}(124)(=(117))(α=V, β=T, γ=<nom, nom>, δ=の, ε=捕まえた)

Tanaka (2010: 10): external argument の方が IH になりやすい。
[母親がベッドで娘に本を読んでやっていたの]がいつの間にか眠りに落ちていた。 (Tanaka (2010: 9))
a. HIRC1:「母親」が IH。
b. HIRC2:「娘」が IH。
c. HIRC3:「母親+娘」が IH。
d. 副詞節: 逆接とすると pro が「母親」を指す読み。

(125)

context: 夏子は九州八県一周旅行を計画している。彼女はいくつかの県は目的地が決まったが他は決まっていない。俊作が、夏子が目的地が決まっていない県の観光名所を教えてあげている。
a. 俊作は[[夏子が九州のうち 3 県だけ目的地が決まらないと]困っていたの]{の/を}観光名所を教えてあげた。
b. 俊作は[[夏子が九州のうち 5 県しか目的地が決まらないと]困っていたの]{*の/を}観光名所を教えて
あげた。

(126)

<δ {γ ...の}を {β {α [e]-gen 観光名所}を 教えて}>(α=観光名所, β=V, γ=adverbial C, δ=教えて)4.5. Explaining Properties
4.5.1. Relevancy Condition とその発展
4.5.1.1. Relevancy Condition(127)

The Relevancy Condition(Kuroda (1976-7), (Kuroda 1992: 147))(=(111))

For a p.i. [pivot-internal=head-internal—NH] relative clause to be acceptable, it is necessary that it be interpreted
pragmatically in such a way as to be directly relevant to the pragmatic content of its matrix clause.
(128)

太郎は[花子がりんごを皿の上に置いたの]を取って...

(=(112))(129)#太郎は[花子がりんごを昨日皿の上に置いたの]を取って...

(=(113))(130)

太郎は[花子がりんごを昨日皿の上に置いておいたの]を取って...

(=(114))(131)[E]ither a verb phrase in which all theta-roles are assigned or a full clause including tense and force. Call theseobjects propositional.

(132)

A phase (v(*)P or CP) must represent one event to construct a consistent proposition.

(133) a. {<RC, head> V}
b. {{{...IH...} no} V}☺

(Chomsky (2000: 106), emphasis in original)(head-external relative clauses (HERCs))(HIRCs)HERC は pair-Merge によって matrix event に埋め込まれ、全体が一つの event を表せるが、HIRC はその操作が不可能なので C-I interface での適切な解釈を保証するために relevancy condition を満たす形で二つの event が繋がれなければならない。

(134) a. 太郎は[花子がりんごを机に置いたの]を食べた。
b. 太郎は[花子がりんごを机に置いたの]を見た。

12(=(90))

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10
4.5.1.2. Coordinate Structure Constraint と Adjunct Condition(135) a. *Here’s the whisky which I went to the store and Mike bought the whisky.

(Ross (1967: 168))b. Here’s the whisky which I went to the store and bought the whisky.

(Ross (1967: 168))(136) a. {C I went to the store} and {C Mike bought the whisky}b. {C {I {went to the store} and {bought the whisky}}}(137) a. Here’s <the whisky {C I go to the store} and {C Mike buy t}}>b. Here’s <the whisky {C I {VP went to the store} and {VP bought t}}}>☺

(136a): 二つの並列された CP event が合成されて解釈される。
(137a): 一つの RC が二つの irrelevant independent events を含んでおり解釈がうまくいかない。
(137b): linear coordination (Postal (1998: 53)) により、二つの VP を含む CP が一つの event を形成する。

(138) a. *What did John drive Mary crazy [fixing what]?

(Truswell (2007a: 1358))

b. What did John drive Mary crazy [trying to fix what?](Truswell (2007a: 1358))(139)

John drove Mary crazy [fixing the plumbing].

(Truswell (2007a: 1358))☺

(139): matrix event と adjunct event は (136a) のように coordination によって解釈される。
(Truswell (2007a, b), Bošković (2020))(138a): wh 移動により単に coordination をするだけでは解釈できない。 wh operator が matrix whinterrogative clause の構成要素となっているため、matrix event と adjunct event が独立の event を表している場合、その wh clause は supraevental なものとなってしまい解釈不可能。従って、二つの event がsuperordinate event を作るような adjunct の場合でなければ抜き出しができない。

4.5.2. その他の特性
4.5.2.1. 形容詞(140) a. ケンは[リサがテーブルの上においしそうなりんごを置いておいたの]を取って食べた。
b. *ケンは[おいしそうな[リサがテーブルの上にりんごを置いておいたの]]を取って食べた。
(Hoshi (1995: 23))c. *ケンは[リサがテーブルの上にりんごを置いておいた[おいしそうなの]]を取って食べた。
(Hoshi (1995: 23))
(141)

Adjuncts pair-merge to their heads so that they are contained in the set labeled by the heads.

(142) a. a smart student of syntax
b. {δ a <γ smart {β student {α of syntax}}>}☺

(α=of, β=student, γ=student)

smart が student を修飾できるのは
a. smart が student を label とする集合 β に pair-Merge しているため。
b. smart が student を label とする集合 β に Contain されているため。

(143){<の adj {の …IH…の}>}4.5.2.2. Maximality Effect(144)

John は[Mary が三個のりんごをむいてくれたの]を[e]食べた。

(Hoshi (1995: 131))(145)

John は[三個の[Mary がむいてくれた]りんごを食べた。

(Hoshi (1995: 131))13

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10(146)

そして Bill はその残りのりんごを食べた。

(147) a. どの学生も[{そいつが/pro}今学期ペーパーを三本書いたの]を今朝提出した。
b. [[...IH...の]を [e]] V☺

Shimoyama (1999): [e]位置に E-type pronoun を仮定。
Kubota & Smith (2007): [e]位置に通常の null pronoun を仮定。

(148)

(147a) には二つの event: the writing-three-papers event と the turning-in-three-papers event があり、その両者を superordinate event の下で解釈するためには covarying の解釈が強制される。

4.5.2.3. Split Antecedent
4.5.2.3.1. データ(149)

警官が[ヤクザがコソ泥を追いかけているの]を (二人とも) 捕まえた。

(cf. (117))☺

何故「二人とも」がある場合に split antecedent が可能なのか。Kitagawa (2005: 1258) はこの読みがpronoun 分析の証拠とする。

☺

「のを」を用いる (149) は副詞節の可能性があるため、「のの」の文を考える。

(150)

太郎は[飼い猫が野良猫を追いかけているの]の身体を二匹とも洗ってやった。

(151)*John が太郎を花子を殴った。

4.5.2.3.2. 一つ目の仮説☺

黒田の long-distance selection はここでは用いない (argument proliferation の問題)。

(152){V {? {N {HIRC...飼い猫...野良猫...のの} 身体} 二匹} 洗って}☺

「洗って」は「二匹」を argument として select する。→「身体」が何の theta-role も与えられず Full
Interpretation の問題。

(153)

{V {N {? {HIRC...飼い猫...野良猫...のの} 二匹} 身体} 洗って}(154) a. 二匹の猫がいる。
b. 猫が二匹いる。
☺

「二匹」が (153) から移動する可能性。その場合、(150) は CP 節+prenominal modifier 「の」
。

(155)

飲めや歌え*(の) 大騒ぎ☺

(150) は HIRC の例ではない。

(Kitagawa & Ross (1982: 28))

4.5.2.3.3. 二つ目の仮説☺

二つの argument を一つの V が select する。

(156)

John と Bill と Mary (と) が笑い、思い、話した。

(157)

John と Bill と Mary (と) がそれぞれ笑い、思い、話した。

☺

Fukui (2015), Tanaka et al. (2019): group reading と cross-serial reading の二つ。
「それぞれ」が無い場合
group reading の方が優勢。cross-serial reading のためには order を指定する必要があるが Merge 自体にはその働きが無いため。同様に、(150) も「二匹とも」が無い場合一つのみ argument を取ることが自然だが、「二匹とも」がある場合、「それぞれ」と同様に通常は許されない読みが可能となる。

(158)

岳人は肉を魚を見境なく次から次に食べていた。

14

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10☺

facilitating expression がある場合には argument proliferation の問題が解決する。

(159) a. 田中が[男の学生が坂を降りてきたの]を三人途中で見かけた。

(160)(黒田 (1999: 44))b. *花子が[太郎が本を買ったと]三冊思った。

(長谷川 (2002: 11))c. *太郎は[子供が泣きわめくの]を三人聞いた。

(長谷川 (2002: 11))長谷川 (2002): V-D の local な selection と D-IH の Agree があることで HIRC の場合は長距離の Q-Nrelation が認可される。

(161)[VP [DP [IP ...IH...] D] V](=(116a))☺

V が「学生」と「三人」の両方を select することによって relation が認可される。(159b, c) では二つのselection が無いため認可されない。

4.5.3. 英語への contribution
4.5.3.1. EPP(162)

For an SO X and a predicate P, X receives a theta-role from P iff X is contained in the set labeled P.

(163) a. John likes Mary.

(=(24a))b. {δ C {γ John[phi] {β T[uphi] {α John {R-v* likes Mary}}}}}(164)(=(118))(α=R-v*, β=T, γ=<phi, phi>, δ=C) (=(77b))

subject raising は、
a. α の labeling のため。
b. β の labeling のため。

(Chomsky (2015))

c. T が持つ[uphi]のため。
d. John の Case のため。

(section 6)e. theta-role のため。
(165)

Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1998): V-to-T 移動によって EPP を満たすことが可能。

(166){ε R-v*-T {δ EA {γ R-v* {β IA {α R, IA}}}}}☺

subject raising が無くても theta-role が与えられる。

(α=R, β=<phi, phi>, γ=δ=??, ε=R-v*-T)

4.5.3.2. S-Selection(167)*I ate that John made a pizza.

☺

非文法性は、
a. semantic type mismatch のため。
b. ate の持つ[uphi]には label<phi, phi>が必要だが、that 節は[phi]を持たないため。

☺

s-selection は (独立のものとしては) 無い。 (cf. McCawley (1968b), Pesetsky (1982b), Chomsky (1995a))☺

HIRC が許されるのは nominalizer がある言語 (Hiraiwa (2005, 2008))。nominalizer のために英語で見られた問題が解決される。

5. Interrogatives
5.1. Introduction(168)

wh operator が[uQ]: unvalued quantificational feature を持つ。
(cf. Nishigauchi (1999), Chomsky (2015), Saito (2017))

15

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10(169) a. Who likes Mary?
b. {ζ who[phi][uQ] {ε T[uphi][int] {δ who[phi][uQ] {γ R-v* {β Mary[phi] {α R[uphi], Mary[phi]}}}}}}(α=R, β=<phi, phi>, γ=δ=R-v*, ε=T, ζ=<phi, phi>/<int, int>)(170) a. Whom does John like?
b. {θ whom[phi][uQ] {η C[int] {ζ John[phi] {ε T[uphi] {δ John[phi] {γ R-v* {β whom[phi][uQ] {α R[uphi],
whom[phi][uQ]}}}}}}}}(α=R, β=<phi, phi>, γ=δ=R-v*, ε=T, ζ=<phi, phi>, η=C, θ=<int, int>)(171) a. *Which dog do you wonder John likes?
b. {γ which dog[uQ] do[int] you wonder {β which dog[uQ] {α C[int] John likes which dog[uQ]}}}(α=β=C[int], γ=<int, int>)(172)

The label <int, int> is interpreted as a wh interrogative and the label of C[int] is interpreted as a yes/nointerrogative.

☺

(cf. Chomsky (2015: 8))(171b) では β が yes/no 疑問として解釈されるため gibberish。

5.2. Multiple Wh Interrogative(173)

Scope Determination Rule of Wh Operators (First version)
Wh operators take the scope of the set labeled <int, int> containing them.

(174)
☺

Who wonders where we bought what?
a. どのように what の[uQ]に解釈が与えられるのか。
b. どのように what の scope が決定されるのか。
c. 何故 what の scope のみが自由なのか。

(175)Interpretation by Contain(=(63))

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

i. Y, contained in the set labeled <F, F>, may be given the relevant interpretation according to the label at theinterfaces.
ii. X, immediately contained in the set labeled <F, F>, must be given the relevant interpretation according to thelabel at the interfaces.
(176) a. Who wonders where we bought what?

(=(174))b. {δ who[uQ] {γ T[int] ... {β where[uQ] {α C[int]...what[uQ]}}(177)(α=C, β=<int, int>, γ=T, δ=<int, int>)

Scope Determination Rule of Wh Operators (Second version)a. Wh operators may take the scope of the set labeled <int, int> containing them.
b. Wh operators immediately contained in the set labeled <int, int> must take the scope of the label.

(178) a. In order to foil this plot, we must find out which agent has bats that are trained to kill which senator.
(Hankamer (1974: 67))b. {<int, int> wh[uQ]...{C[rel] that...wh[uQ]}}(179)#Who wants to meet a girl who studies what subject?

☺

long-distance feature assignment の boundedness に関して speaker variation 有り?

16(Karttunen (1977: 33), judgement in original)

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10(180)

Who wonders where we bought what?

(=(174)) (cf. Baker (1970), Hankamer (1974))

a. Q1: for which <x, y>, x knows where we bought y
A1: John knows where we bought pizza, Tom knows where we bought books...
b. Q2: for which x, x knows where we bought what
A2: John and Tom (knows where we bought what).
(181)

Who will be offended if we invite which philosopher?

(Reinhart (1998: 36))

(182)

Wrong interpretation(Reinhart (1998: 36))

a. for which <x, y>, if we invite y and y is a philosopher, then x will be offended
b. {P|(∃<x, y>) & P=ˆ((we invite y and y is a philosopher)→(x will be offended)) & true(P)}c. Lucie will be offended if we invite Donald Duck.

(183) a. Who will be offended if we invite which philosopher?

(=(181))b. for which <x, f> if we invite f(philosopher), x will be offended(Reinhart (1998: 41))c. {P|((∃<x, f>) (CH(f) & P =ˆ((we invite f(philosopher))→(x will be offended)) & true(P))}(Reinhart (1998: 41))
(184)

Scope Determination Rule of Wh Operators (Third and Final version)a. Wh operators may take the scope of the set labeled <int, int> containing them.
b. Wh operators immediately contained in the set labeled <int, int> must take the scope of the label.
c. The Choice Function yields a pair-list interpretation by assigning in-situ wh operators with the scope of a higher
wh operator.

(185) a. Who wonders where we bought what?

(=(174))b. {δ who[uQ] {γ T[int] ... {β where[uQ] {α C[int]...what[uQ]}}}}☺

(α=C, β=<int, int>, γ=T, δ=<int, int>)

pair-list 解釈のためには what を who/where のいずれかと pair にすることが必要。who と pair にする際には where を越えることになるが、interface では label をもとにした locality を考えると、where 自体はlabel になっていないためそれを越えることは問題ない。

5.3. Wh Island
5.3.1. Illegible Case
(186) a. *What did you ask where she ate?
b. {ε what[uQ] {δ did[int] you ask {γ what[uQ] {β where[uQ] {α C[int] she ate what[uQ]}}}(α=C, β=γ=<int, int>, δ=C[int], ε=<int, int>)☺

主張: what は集合 γ と集合 ε のどちらにも immediately contain されており、矛盾した scope が要求されるため非文。

(187) a. {γ what[uQ] {β where[uQ] {α C[int], ...}}(β=γ=<int,int>)

b. {γ what[uQ] {β where[uQ] {α C[int], ...}}(β=γ=<int,int>)☺

derivational history に access できない interface は、multiple spec の (186a) と、copy の不可視性から labelが決まる (186b) の区別がつかず、両方を immediately contain されていると扱う。

17

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10(188) a. What do you wonder who saw?
b. {γ what[phi][uQ] do[int] you wonder {β what[phi][uQ] {α who[phi][uQ] T[uphi][int] saw what[phi][uQ]}}(α=β=<phi, phi>/<int, int>, γ=<int, int>)☺

label <phi, phi>により what は集合 β に immediately contain されていないと見なされる。

(189)

Kitahara (2020)a. labelable multiple spec construction: two [uF] and one [F]{γ ZP[uF] {β YP[uF] {α X[F], ...}}}(α=X, β=γ=<F, F>)

b. unlabelable multiple spec construction: one [uF] and two [F](190){γ ZP[F] {β YP[F] {α X[uF], ...}}}(α=X, β=<F, F>, γ=??){...DP2[phi] ...{γ DP2[phi] {β DP1[phi] {α T[uphi], ...}}}}(α=T, β=γ=<phi, phi>)

5.3.2. Legible Case
(191)

Neglect (Sportiche (2016)) は (186) には適用できない (determinacy の問題)。

(192) a. Which person do you wonder what present to give to?

(Kiss (1993: 86))b. {ε which person[uQ][Foc] {δ did[int][uFoc] you wonder {γ which person[uQ][Foc] {β what present[uQ] {α C[Q]to give to which person [uQ][Foc]}}}(193)(α=C, β=γ=<int, int>, δ=C, ε=<int, int>/<Foc, Foc>)

余分な feature があれば同種の要素が作る island を越えられる (cf. Haegeman (2012))。

5.4. Japanese(194)

君は何を食べたの?

(195)

In-situ languages have wh-particles. Languages with wh-particles are in-situ languages.
(Cheng (1997: 18), but see also Bruening (2007))(196)

The label of wh particles suffices to mark the clause as an interrogative one in in-situ languages.

(197)

Required Labels for Interrogative Clausesa. English: the label <int, int>
b. Japanese: the label <int, int> or the label of wh particles(198)[[誰が書いた]本]も面白い。

(Saito (2017: 2))(199)[[どの論文を書いた]人]が一番有名ですか?

☺

wh が一つなので Choice Function は使えない。しかし、operator 移動もできない。

(200)

Scope Determination rule of Wh Operators(Nishigauchi (1990: 11))

(Japanese)a. Wh operators may take the scope of the set with the label of the wh particle containing them.
b. Wh operators immediately contained in the set labeled <int, int> must take the scope of the label.
c. The Choice Function yields a pair-list interpretation by assigning in-situ wh operators with the scope of a higher
wh operator.
(201) a. 君は何を食べたの?

(=(194))b. 君はりんごを食べたの?

18

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10(202) a. だれが良くお昼にラーメンを取るの↑
b. EPD consists of, first, an emphatic accent on the Wh-focus, which consists of sharp rise of F0 (indicated by BOLD
CAPITALS) followed by its fall, and second, post-focal reduction, which virtually (though not entirely)
suppresses all lexical accents up to the end of some clause by compressing their pitch and amplitude ranges(indicated by shading).

(Kitagawa (2005: 304-305), emphasis in original)☺

Ishihara (2002, 2003): post-focal reduction が wh operator を bind する wh-particle まで続く。

(203)

John は[Mary が何を食べたか]知りたがっているの?

(Takahashi (1993: 657))(204)

何を John は[Mary が何を食べたか]知りたがっているの?

(Takahashi (1993: 657))☺

Takahashi: 元位置では「何」は matrix/embedded scope 可、scrambling をすると matrix scope のみ可。

(205) a. ?なにをナオヤは[マリが飲み屋でなにを飲んだか]ユミにもらしたの↑(Ishihara (2002: 191))

b. なにをナオヤは[マリが飲み屋でなにを飲んだか]ユミにもらしたの↑(Ishihara (2002: 191))☺

Ishihara: 適切な prosody を与えれば解釈可能。

(206) a. マサオが[花子がどの本を図書館から借りだしたか]知り違っていること
b. ?どの本をマサオが[花子がどの本を図書館から借りだしたか]]知りたがっていること☺

Saito: long-distance scrambling は LF で undone→「どの本」の copy が「か」を label とする集合に contain
されているため、(200) により embedded scope が与えられる。

(207)(205) の二つの構造
a. {γ wh...{β wh {α ...wh...Cwh}}...Cy/n}b. {γ wh...{β wh {α ... wh...Cy/n}}...Cwh}☺

(206a) において、wh が集合 γ に immediately contain されてはならない。

(208) a. <γ wh...<β wh {α ...wh...Cwh}>...Cy/n>(α=β=Cwh, γ=Cy/n)b. <γ wh...<β wh {α ...wh...Cy/n}>...Cwh>(α=β=Cy/n, γ=Cwh)

(209)

☺

Additional Wh Effecta. ??John は[Mary が何を買ったかどうか]Tom に尋ねたの?

(Watanabe (1992: 263))

b. John は[Mary が何を買ったかどうか]誰に尋ねたの?

(Watanabe (1992: 263))

a. Kitagawa (2005: 318): 適切な prosody により additional wh 無しで容認可能。→(209a) は (203) と同じ。
b. Watanabe と同じ判断→(209a):「何」が label「かどうか」を越えて matrix label C[int]と解釈されることが禁止される。
(209b): Choice Function が使えるため「何」は「誰」と pair になる解釈。ここで必要なのは wh operator
を pair にすることであり、label は無関係なので label「かどうか」の intervention は起こらない。

5.5. Criterial Freezing(210)

Assumptions in English Interrogative Clauses(EKS (2015: 229))

a. There is only one CQ in the (English) lexicon, appearing in both yes/no- and wh-interrogatives (Chomsky (1995a)).
b. Every syntactic object must be labeled at C-I (Chomsky (2013)).
c. A CP with the label CQ, unaccompanied by a wh-specifier, is interpreted as a yes/no-question at C-I.
d. A CP with the label Q, when Q is shared by the two heads CQ and WHQ (the latter being the head-feature of a whphrase in “Spec, CP”), is interpreted as a wh-question at C-I (Chomsky (2013)).

19

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10(211) a. *Which dog do you wonder John likes?

(=(171a))b. {γ which dog[uQ] do[int] you wonder {β which dog[uQ] {α C[int] John likes which dog[uQ]}}}(α=β=C[int], γ=<int, int>) (=(171b))(212)

Required Labels for Interrogative Clauses(=(197))a. English: the label <int, int>
b. Japanese: the label <int, int> or the label of wh particles☺

Jayaseelan (2012): yes/no interrogative は disjunctive operator を持ち、それが節を open sentence にする。

(213)

The set with the label <int, int> is interpreted as an interrogative in English;i) if the set immediately contains the disjunctive operator, the set serves as yes/no interrogative clause, andii) if the set immediately contains a wh operator, the set serves as a wh interrogative clause.

(214) a. *Which dog do you wonder John likes?

(=(171a))b. {δ which dog[uQ] do[int] you wonder {γ which dog[uQ] {β op[uQ] {α C[int] John likes which dog}}}}(α=C[int], β=<int, int>, γ=<int, int>, δ=<int, int>)
c. {γ which dog[uQ] do[int] you wonder {β which dog[uQ] {α C[int] John likes which dog}}}(α=β=C[int], γ=<int, int>)☺

a. (214b): which dog は集合 γ に immediately contain され、contradicting scope が与えられる。
b. (214c): 集合 β が英語の interrogative に必要な label を持たないため非文。

6. SM
6.1. Case(215)

Case Determination Rules(cf. EKS (2012))

a. The set labeled <phi, phi> by a nominal and T assigns nominative Case to a nominal contained.
b. The set labeled <phi, phi> by a nominal and R assigns accusative Case to a nominal contained.
(216) a. John likes Mary.

(=(24a))b. {η C {ζ John[phi] {ε T[uphi] {δ John[phi] {γ R-v* {β Mary[phi] {α R[uphi], Mary[phi]}}}}}}}(α=R, β=<phi, phi>, γ=δ=R-v*, ε=T, ζ=<phi, phi>, η=C)☺

John, Mary はそれぞれ label <phi, phi>を持つ集合に immediately contain されており、義務的な Case を得る。

(217) a. It was I whom public opinion eventually condemned.

(Smits (1989: 300))

b. It is me who(m) John is after.

(Akmajian (1970: 152))(218) a. ?There am I.

(Schütze (1997: 136))b. There’s me.

(Schütze (1997: 136))(219) a. {δ C {γ it[phi] {β T[uphi] {α PRN[phi], ...}}}(α=C (RRC),β=T, γ=<phi, phi>, δ=C)b. {δ C {γ there[person] {β T[uphi] {α there[person], SUBJ[phi]}}}}(α=SUBJ[phi], β=T, γ=<person, person>, δ=C)☺

immediately contain されていない nominal の Case は Contain している集合の label のものか、
default Case
かのどちらか。

20

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10
(220)

Er

läßt

ihn

{einenguten

Mann/einhelet-3SG

him

{a

good

man-ACC/-NOM

guter

Mann

‘He lets him be a good man.’(221)(German; Schütze (1997: 87))

Ég

taldi

{hana/*hún}vera{kennara/*kennari}.

I

believed{her-ACC/*she-NOM

to.beteacher-ACC/-*NOM‘I believed her to be a teacher.’
☺

sein.

(Icelandic; Maling & Sprouse (1995: 170))

言語間の variation 有り。Baker (2015) は (220) の accusative Case を dependent Case (Marantz (1991)) とする。しかし、Marantz に従うと default Case は last resort であるため、default nominative Case とのoptionality が疑問として残る。

☺

a. Agree による Case assignment: (216) の義務的な Case と (217), (218), (220) の optional Case の説明ができない。
b. [uCase]による Agree (Bošković (2007)): (217), (218) の nominative Case の説明ができない。

6.2. Agreement
6.2.1. One-to-Many Agreement(222)

Activity Condition (Chomsky (2001))
For an SO to enter into an Agree relation, it must have some [uF].

(223) a. T[uphi][Nom]-DP[phi][uCase]

(224)

(✓)

b. T[uphi][Nom]&V[uphi][Acc]- DP[phi][uCase](*)

c. T[uphi][Nom]-DP1[phi][uCase]& DP2[phi][uCase]

(*)

Juma

a-li-kuwa

a-me-pikachakula.

J.

3SG-PST-be

3SG-PERF-cook

7food‘Juma had cooked food.’(225)(Swahili; Carstens (2001: 150))

Er

läßt

ihn

{einenguten

Mann/einhelet-3SG

him

{a

good

man-ACC/-NOM

guter

Mann

sein.

‘He lets him be a good man.’(=(220))6.2.2. Norris (2014)(226)

Feature Copying(Norris (2014: 126))

The features of the closest c-commanding K0 to any particular Agr node are copied onto it.
(227)“closest” is determined on the basis of domination (or more properly, inclusion) rather than c-command.
(Norris (2014: 132))(228)

Case Concord(Norris (2014: 150))

a. Let X and Y be two nodes in a single extended projection, Y immediately dominating X.
b. If Y has a valued case feature [CASE: α] (but X does not), then copy Y’s case feature to X.

21

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10(229) a. *Emamotherpraga-s[kõikikooke

söö-va-d]

poisi

läbi.

scold-PST.3SG[all.PL.PAR

cake.PL.PAR

eat-PRS.PCPL.-PL.ACC

boy.ACC

through‘Intended: Mother scolded the boy eating all the cakes.’b. Emamother(Estonian; Norris (2014: 119))praga-s[kõikikooke

söö-va]

poisi

läbi.

scold-PST.3SG[all.PL.PAR

cake.PL.PAR

eat-PRS.PCPL.-(SG).ACC

boy.ACC

through

Speaker volunteered alternative to ([(229a)])(230)(Estonian; Norris (2014: 119))

Case stacking (suffixaufnahme)
ngunhawatharri-ku

nyurna-yu

warrapa-la-ku

that

look=for-PRES

snake-ACC

grass-LOC-ACC‘He is looking for the snake in the grass’(231)(Panyjima; Plank (1995: 35))

Compound Tense
Masungámá-kilí m-á-yik-u-á.

6yam

6SA-be.still

6SA-A-cook-PASS-FV‘The yams are still being cooked.’(Kilega; Carstens (2005: 230))(232)

Carstens (2005): uφ-features have EPP features in Bantu.

(233)

Baker (2008): Bantu は downward Agree をしない。upward Agree のみ。

☺

Norris (とここでの提案) では Bantu の generalization を捉えられる。また、Carstens (2011) は genderagreement が現れることで concord が可能だと主張するが、Norris (2014: 246) で述べるように、genderが agreement に現れない言語でも concord があることがあるため、その提案は正しくない。

(234) a. Norris: {X {X X[vphi]/[vCase], {...}} {...Y[uphi]/[uCase]...}}
b. ここでの提案: {<phi, phi> {X X[uphi], {...}} {Z Z[phi], ...Y[uphi]...}☺

nominal concord については Norris と同じ。verbal concord について、Norris は syntax の中で agreementが起こることが必要 (label となる head が[vF]を持つ必要があるため)。ここでの提案では必ずしもそう
ではない。

(235)

agreement は SM interface での問題。

☺

upward Agree (Bjorkman & Zeijlstra (2019)) がやりたいことを説明できる?

6.3. Further Issues
6.3.1. Cyclic Agree(236) a. g-waabm-in
2-see-1.INV

1→2=2 (Inverse Context)‘I see you.’(Nishnaabemwin; Béjar & Rezac (2009: 49))b. g-waabm-i
2-see-DFLT.1

2→1=2 (Direct Context)‘You see me.’(Nishnaabemwin; Béjar & Rezac (2009: 49))22

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10(237)

Derivation of a Transitive vP (Béjar & Rezac (2009: 48))
Step 0: VP constructed as {V, {V, IA}}; v becomes locus
Step 1: Merge(v, VP) ⇒ {vI, {v, {V, {V, IA}}}}
Step 2: Agree(vI, IA)
Step 3: Merge(vP, EA) ⇒ {vII, {EA, {vI, {v, {V, {V, IA}}}}}}
Step 4: Agree(vII, EA), if there is still a probe on vII(238)

Person Specification in Nishnaabemwin: 3-1-2 (cf. Béjar & Rezac (2009: 43))
a. 3rd: [person]b. 1st: [person], [participant]c. 2nd: [person], [participant], [addressee](239) a. Seely (2006: 190) suggests that “the syntax can’t ‘use’ the label at all, the label is not a ‘functioning element.’”b. Labels are determined at the end of the phase, before which Agree occurs in the labeling theory (cf. EKS (2017,2018), Chomsky (2019)).
(240)

Deducing Cyclic Agreea. {δ EA[phi] {γ v*[uphi] {β IA[phi] {α V , IA[phi]}}}}
b. {δ EA[phi] {γ v* {β IA[phi] {α V[uphi] , IA[phi]}}}}(α=V, β=<phi, phi>)c. {δ EA[phi] {γ v* {<phi, phi> IA[phi] {V V[uphi] , IA[phi]}}}}(α=V, β=<phi, phi>)d. {δ EA[phi] {γ V-v*[uphi] {<phi, phi> IA[phi] {V V[uphi] , IA[phi]}}}}(241)(γ=V-v*, δ=<phi, phi>)

A particular functional head F can search the phase for something to agree with:i. zero times, orii. one time, oriii. two (or more?) times☺

(Baker (2008: 100))

Agree をすると syntax で[uphi]の値が決まるのでそれ以上の agreement は不可。label に基づく interface
での agreement の場合は二度以上の agreement が可能となる。操作の違い?

6.3.2. The Structural Condition on Person Agreement (SCOPA)
(242)

SCOPA

(Baker (2008: 52))

A functional category F can bear the features +1 or +2 if and only if a projection of F merges with an NP that hasthat feature, and F is taken as the label for the resulting phrase.
(243) a. Nosotros

com-emoslasmanzanas.

we.M.PL

eat-1pS

theapplesb. Nosotras

com-emoslasmanzanas.

we.F.PL

eat-1pS

theapplesc. Nosotros

estamoslist-o-s.

we.M.PL

are.1pS

ready-M-PL

d. Nosotras

estamos

manzanas.

we.F.PLare-1pS

ready-F-PL(Spanish; 全て Baker (2008: 8))23

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10
(244)

Ni

altxa-tze-n

probatu[na-Ø-u-te]aux.

me(ABS)

lift-NMZ-LOC

attempted[1.ABS-sg.ABS-√-3pl.ERG‘They attempted to lift me.’(Preminger (2011: 920))☺

long-distance person agreement の例。

(245)

Relative Aptitude for Failed Agreement (RAFA)(Preminger (2011: 922))

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

SCOPA 及び RAFA は immediately contain の反映。

6.3.3. More Cases of Case
(246) a. Externalize all Cases.
b. Externalize only one Case.
(247)(by some economy condition)

Matching Effecta. Wer
who-NOM

nicht

stark

ist,

muss

klug

sein.

not

strongismustcleverbe‘Who isn’t strong must be clever.’b. *Wen/*wer
who-ACC/NOM(German; Groos & Riemsdijk (1981: 177))

Got

schwachgeschaffen

hat,

muss

klug

sein.

God

weak

createdhasmustcleverbe‘Who isn’t strong must be clever.’c. Waswhat-NOM/ACC(German; Groos & Riemsdijk (1981: 177))

du

mir

gegeben

hast,

ist

prächtig.

you

me

given

have

is

wonderful‘What you have given to me is wonderful.’☺

(German; Groos & Riemsdijk (1981: 212)

matching effect は、C-I interface で矛盾した情報が許されない (186) 同様に矛盾した SM information が許されないことによって生じる。

☺

SM interface での矛盾した情報は C-I interface と異なりただちに illegibility を引き起こすわけではない。
→Case stacking (Suffixaufnahme)の例 (230)。

(248)

Inverse Case Attraction
Urb-emqu-am

statu-oest.

city-ACC.SG

which-ACC.F.SG

found-PRS.ACT.1SG

be.PRS.3SG‘The city which I found is yours.’(249)(Latin; Kholodilova (2013: 97){ε city[phi] {δ which[uQ] C[rel] I[phi] T[uphi] {γ v* {β city[phi] {α √find[uphi] {which, city[phi]}}}}}}(α=R, β=<phi, phi>, γ=v*, δ=<rel, rel>, ε=city)(250)

Externalize the marked Case.
(Bergsma (2019), cf. (238)), see also Pullum & Zwicky (1986), Babby (1986, 1987), Young (1988))(251)

Externalization の parametera. Externalize all Cases.
i. Cases can be different.

(cf. (230))

ii. All Cases must have the same exponent.

(cf. (247))

b. Externalize one prominent Case.

(Case syncretism, (250) , cf. (238))

24

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10
6.3.4. Case in Syntax(252)

Visibility Condition (Chomsky (1986))
A Chain must include a Case position to assign the theta-role to the nominal.

(253) a. *It seems Mary to be believed t likes John.
b. *It seems Mary to be t here.
(254)

EKS (2014): Merge-over-Move from Labelinga. *There is likely a man to be t in the room.
b. {... {β a man {α to be a man in the room}}}(255)(α=to, β=??)Visibility Condition from Labeling{... {β Mary {α to be believed Mary likes John}}}(256)(α=to, β=??)Remaining Problem
a. *who does it seem [e to be intelligent](Chomsky (1986: 95))

b. {ε who C...{δ it {γ T ... {β who {α to ....}}}}}(α=β=to, γ=T, δ=<phi, phi>, ε=<Q, Q>)

References
Alexiadou, A & E. Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 16: 491-539.
Akmajian, A. 1970. On deriving sentences from pseudo-cleft sentences,” Linguistic Inquiry 1:149-168.
Aoun, J. & D. Sportiche. 1981. On the formal theory of government. The Linguistic Review 2: 211-236.
Babby, L. H. 1986. The locus of case assignment and the direction of percolation: case theory and Russian. In Case in
Slavic, ed. R. D. Brecht & J. S. Levine, 179-219. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.
Babby, L. H. 1987. Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
5: 91-138.
Béjar, S. & M. Rezac. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 35-73.
Baker, C.L. 1970. Notes on the description of English questions: the role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundationsof Language 6: 197-219.
Baker, M. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, M. 2015. Case: its principles and its parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bergsma, F. 2019. Mismatches in free relatives―grafting nanosyntactic trees. Glossa 4: 119: 1-37.
Bjorkman, B. M. & H. Zeijlstra. 2019. Checking up on (ϕ-) Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 50: 527-569.
Bošković, Ž. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: an even more minimal theory,” Linguistic Inquiry
38: 589-644.
Bošković, Ž. 2020. On the coordinate structure constraint and the adjunct condition. In Syntactic architecture and its
consequenses II: Between syntax and morphology, ed. A. Bárány, T. Biberauer, J. Douglas & S. Vikner, 227-258.
Berlin: Language Science Press.
Bruening, B. 2007. Wh-in-situ does not correlate with wh-indefinites or question particles. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 139-166.
Carstens,V. 2005. Agree and EPP in Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23:219–79.
Carstens,V. 2011. Hyperactivity and hyperagreement in Bantu. Lingua 121: 721-741.

25

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10
Cheng, L. L.-S. 1997. On the typology of wh-questions. New York: Garland Publishing.
Chomsky, N. 1968. Language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky,
232-286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Chomsky, N. 1995a. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1995b. Bare phrase structure. In Government and binding theory and the minimalist program: principles andparameters in syntactic theory, ed. G. Webelhuth, 383-439. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework, In Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of HowardLasnik, ed. R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: a life in language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2008. On Phases, In Foundational issues in linguistic theory, ed. R. Freidin, C. P. Otero & M. L. Zubizarreta,
133-166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2009. Opening remarks. In Of minds and language: a dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque country,
ed. by M. Piattelli-Palmarini, J. Uriagereka & P. Salaburu, 13-43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33-49.
Chomsky, N. 2015. Problems of projection: extensions. In Structures, strategies, and beyond: studies in honour of Adriana
Belletti, ed. E. Domenico, C. Hamann & S. Matteini, 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chomsky, N. 2019. Puzzles about phases. In Linguistic variation: structure and interpretation, ed. L. Franco and P. Lorusso,163-168. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N. 2021. Genuine explanations. Talk at the 39th meeting of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics,
April 8th. Available at, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6SbPKmVNVQ.
Epstein, S. D, E. M. Groat, R. Kawashima, & H. Kitahara. 1998. A derivational approach to syntactic relations. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Epstein, S. D, H. Kitahara, & T. D. Seely. 2010. Uninterpretable features: what are they and what do they do? In Exploringcrash proof grammars, ed. M. Putnam, 125-142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Epstein, S. D, H. Kitahara, & T. D. Seely. 2011. Derivation(S), In The oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, ed. by C.
Boeckx, 291-310, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Epstein, S. D, H. Kitahara, & T. D. Seely. 2012. Structure building that can’t be! In Ways of structure building, ed. M.
Uribe-Etxebarria & V. Valmala, 253-270. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Epstein, S. D, H. Kitahara, & T. D. Seely. 2014. Labeling by minimal search: implications for successive-cyclic Amovement and the conception of the postulate “phase”. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 463-481.
Epstein, S. D, H. Kitahara, & T. D. Seely. 2015. What Do We Wonder Is Not Syntactic? In Explorations in maximizing
syntactic minimization, ed. by C. P. Otero, 222-239. New York: Taylor & Francis Inc.
Epstein, S. D, H. Kitahara & T. D. Seely. 2017. Successive cyclic wh-movement without successive cyclic crashing. Paper
presented at ELSJ 10th International Spring Forum, Meiji Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan, April 23.
Epstein, S. D, H. Kitahara & T. D. Seely. 2018. A Simpler Solution to Two Problems Revealed about the Composite-26

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10
Operation Agree, Paper presented at The Japanese Society for Language Sciences 20th Annual International
Conference, Bunkyo Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan, August 2.
Fukui, N. 1999. An A-over-A perspective on locality. In Linguistics: in search of the human mind-a festschrift for Kazuko
Inoue, ed. by M. Muraki & E. Iwamoto, 109-129. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Fukui, N. 2015. A note on weak vs. strong generation in human language. In 50 years later: reflections on Chomsky’s
aspects, ed. Á. J. Gallego & Dennis Ott, 125-131. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Goto, N. 2017. Eliminating the strong/weak parameter on T. In Proceedings of GLOW in Asia XI, Volume 2, ed. M. Y.
Erlewine, 56-71. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Groos, A. & H. C. van Riemsdijk 1981. Matching effects in free relatives: a parameter of core grammar. In Theory ofmarkedness in generative grammar, ed. A. Belleti, L. Brandi & L. Rizzi, 171-216, Pisa: Scuola Nomale Superiore.
Grosu, A. & K. Hoshi. 2016. Japanese internally headed relatives: their distinctness from potentially homophonous
constructions. Glossa 1, 32.
Haegeman, L. 2012. Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena, and the composition of the left periphery. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hankamer, J. 1974. On wh-indexing. In NELS V: Papers from the fifth meeting of the Northeastern Linguistic Society,Department of Linguistics, 61-76. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University,.
長谷川信子. 2002. 「主要部内在型関係節: DP 分析」『神田外語大学言語科学研究センター紀要』1, 1-33.
Hazout, I. 2004. The syntax of existential constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 393-430.
Hiraiwa, K. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: agreement and clausal architecture. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Hiraiwa, K. 2008. The head-internal relativization parameter in Gur: D and EPP. The Proceedings of the NELS 38, 297310.
Hoshi, K. 1995. Structural and interpretive aspects of head-internal and head-external relative clauses. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Rochester.
Huang, C.-T. J. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531-574.
Ishihara, S. 2002. Invisible but audible wh-scope marking: wh-constructions and deaccenting in Japanese. In WCCFL 21
Proceedings, ed. L. Mikkelsen & C. Potts, 180-193. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Ishihara, S. 2003. Intonation and interface conditions. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Ishii, T. 1997. An asymmetry in the composition of phrase structure and its consequences. Doctoral dissertation, Universityof California.
Ishii, Y. 1991. Operators and empty categories in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut.
Jayaseelan, K. A. 2012. Question particles and disjunction. Linguistic Analysis 38: 35-51.
Karttunen, L. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistic and Philosophy 1: 3-44.
Kholodilova, M. 2013. Inverse attraction in Ingrian Finnish relative clauses. Linguistica Uralica XLIX: 96-116.
Kiss, K. É. 1993. Wh-movement and specificity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 85-120.
Kitagawa, C. 2005. Typological variations of head-internal relatives in Japanese. Lingua 115: 1243-1276.
Kitagawa, C. 2018. The pro-head analysis of the Japanese internally-headed relative clause. Glossa 4, 62: 1-31.
Kitagawa, Y. 2005. Prosody, syntax and pragmatics of wh-questions in Japanese. English Linguistics 22: 302-346.
Kitagawa, C. & C. N. G. Ross. 1982. Prenominal modification in Chinese and Japanese. Linguistic Analysis 9: 19-53.

27

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10
Kitahara, H. 2020. “Multiple-specifier” constructions revisited. Reports of the Keio Institute for Cultural and Linguistic
Studies 51, 207-216.
Klima, E. 1964. Negation in English. In The structure of language, ed. J. A. Fodor & J. J. Katz, 246-323. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Krivochen, D. 2021. The search for minimal search. Lingbuzz. Available at: https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/005817
Kubota, Y. & E. A. Smith. 2007. The Japanese internally headed relative clause is not an E-type pronoun. Formal
Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 4, 149-160.
Kuno, S. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuroda, S-Y. 1976-7. Pivot-independent relative clauses in Japanese. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 5: 157-179.
(Reprinted in Kuroda (1992))
Kuroda, S-Y. 1992. Japanese syntax and semantics: collected papers. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
黒田成幸. 1999. 「主部内在関係節」『ことばの核と周縁』27-103. くろしお出版.
Langacker, R. 1969. On pronominalization and the chain of command. In Modern studies in English: readings intransformational grammar, ed. D. A. Reibel & S. A. Schane, 160-186. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Maling, J. & R. A. Sprouse. 1995. Structural case, specifier-head relations, and the case of predicate NPs. In Studies incomparative Germanic syntax, ed. H. Haider & S. Vikner, 167-186. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Marantz, A. 1991. Case and licensing. In ESCOL ‘91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics,
ed. G.F. Westphal, B. Ao, & H.-R. Chae, 234-253. Columbus: ESCOL Publications Committee.
McCawley, J. 1968a. Concerning the base component of a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language 4: 243269.
McCawley, J. 1968b. The role of semantics in a grammar. In Universals in linguistic theory, ed. E. Bach & R. T. Harms,
124-169. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
三原健一. 1994. 『日本語の統語構造 －生成文法理論とその応用－』松柏社.
Murasugi, K. 1994. Head-internal relative clauses as adjunct pure complex NPs. In Synchronic and diachronic approaches
to language: a festschrift for Toshio Naka on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, ed. by S.Chiba & T. Nakao, 42543. Tokyo: Liber Press.
Nediger, W. 2017. Overcoming empirical challenges for an extended approach to condition C. Linguistic Inquiry 48: 99127.
Nishigauchi, T. 1990. Quantification in the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Nishigauchi, T. 2004. Head-internal relative clauses in Japanese and the interpretation of indefinite NPs. Theoretical andApplied Linguistics at Kobe Shoin 7: 113-130.
Norris, M. 2014. A theory of nominal concord. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Pesetsky, D. M. 1982a. Complementizer-trace phenomena and the nominative island condition,” The Linguistic Review 1:
297-343.
Pesetsky, D. M. 1982b. Paths and categories. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Plank, F. 1995. (Re-)introducing suffixaufnahme. In Double case: agreement by suffixaufnahme, ed. F. Plank, 3-109, New
York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Postal, P. 1998. Three investigations of extraction. Cambridge: MIT Press.

28

慶應言語学コロキアム 2021/7/10
Preminger, O. 2011. Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: a commentary on Baker’s SCOPA. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 917-937.
Pullum, G. K. & M. Zwicky 1986. Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict. Language 62: 751-773.
Reinhart, T. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Reinhart, T. 1981. Definite NP anaphora and c-command domains. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 605-635.
Reinhart, T. 1998. Wh-in-situ in the framework of the minimalist program. Natural Language and Semantics 6: 29-56.
Reinhart, T. 2006. Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Saito, M. 2016. (A) case for labeling: labeling in languages without φ-feature agreement. The Linguistic Review 33 (Special
Issue on Labeling): 129-175.
Saito, M. 2017. Japanese wh-phrases as operators with unspecified quantificational Force. Language and Linguistics 18:
1-25.
Schütze, C. T. 1997. INFL in child and adult language: agreement, case and licensing. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Schlenker, P. 2005. Minimize restrictors! (Notes on definite descriptions, Condition C and epithets). In Proceedings of
SuB9,

ed.

E.

Maier,

C.

Bary,

&

J.

Huitink,

385–416.

Availableat

http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zY3ZDk2N/sub9proc.pdf.
Seely, T. D. 2006. Merge, derivational c-command, and subcategorization in a label-free syntax. In Minimalist essays, ed.
C. Boeckx, 182-217. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shimoyama, J. 1999. Internally headed relative clauses in Japanese and E-type anaphora. Journal of East Asian Linguistics
8: 147-182.
Sportiche, D. 2016. Neglect. ms., UCLA.
Smits, R. 1989. Eurogrammar: the relative and cleft constructions of the Germanic and Romance languages. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Takahashi, D. 1993. Movement of wh-phrases in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 655-678.
Tanaka, K., I. Nakamura, S. Ohta, N. Fukui, M. Zushi, H. Narita, & K. L. Sakai. 2019. Merge-generability as the key
concept of human language: evidence from neuroscience. Frontiers in Psychology 10, 2673.
Tanaka, M. 2010. Head-internal relative clauses in Japanese: movement vs. Agree. MA Thesis, Utrecht University.
Truswell, R. 2007a. Extraction from adjuncts and the structure of events. Lingua 117: 1355-1377.
Truswell, R. 2007b. Locality of wh-movement and the individuation of events. Doctoral dissertation, University College
London.
Young, K. M. 1988. Multiple case assignments. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
吉村紀子. 2001. 「主要部内在型関係節の構造―方言研究からの一考察」『ことばと文化』5: 133-146.
Watanabe, A. 1992. Subjacency and S-structure movement of WH-in-Situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 255-291.

29