平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群

平成 29 年度実施
東北大学大学院情報科学研究科
博士課程前期入学試験問題(2017 年 8 月 30 日)

専門試験科目 第５群（外国人留学生）
言語・メディア群注意○ 以下には、専門科目 8 問題が印刷されている。
○ 受験者は、そのなかから２問題を選んで、答案用紙に解答すること。
○ 言語系を志望する学生は，問題 6～問題 8 のなかから，２問題を選択すること。
○ メディア系を志望する学生は，問題２～問題 4 のなかから，１問題以上を選択すること。
○ 問題１を選択した場合には、指定の答案用紙を使用すること。
○ 問題５―１あるいは問題５－２を選択した場合には、辞書を使用しても構わない。ただし、辞書は出題者が用意したものを使用するので、必要な場合には試験監督に申し出ること。
○ 試験終了後、答案用紙に加えて、この問題冊子も回収する。

1

平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群

東北大学大学院情報科学研究科 平成 29 年度実施上期（8 月）入学試験
専門試験科目第５群 言語・メディア群問題 １「人工知能」、「人間」、「教育」の３語をキーワードとして、各自考えるところを６００字以上
８００字以内の日本語でまとめなさい。その際、キーワードは３語とも用い、題名をつけて、首尾一貫した論理で記述しなさい。
※この問題を選択した場合には、指定された答案用紙に解答を記入すること。

2

平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群

問題 ２
以下の図は、教育・学習にゲームを取り入れる研究に関する歴史的変遷を表したものである。
この図をもとに、以下の問いに答えなさい。(1)(2)合わせて答案用紙 1 枚程度とし、日本語で解答しなさい。

(1) 教育・学習にゲームが取り入れられることによって期待される主な効果について述べなさい。
(2) 以下の図について、コンピュータの機能の発達と学習研究の動向を踏まえて説明しなさい。

［図］ゲーム教育・学習の歴史的変遷※出典：日本教育工学会（監修），藤本徹・森田裕介（編著）『ゲームと教育・学習』, ミネルヴァ書房, 2017，p4 より引用

3

平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群

問題 ３
震災時におけるメディア（テレビ、ラジオ、新聞、ソーシャルメディア等）の役割・課題・
問題点について、複数のメディアを取り上げ、かつ具体的事例をあげて、合わせて答案用紙１枚程度で論じなさい。その際、それぞれのメディアの特性も踏まえた上で、比較しながら論じること。

4

平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群

問題 ４
以下の文章をふまえ、あなたが専門とする学問領域、もしくはあなたの取り組んでいる研究
テーマにおいて、「パースペクティヴ」を意識することはどのような重要性をもつと考えるか、
答案用紙 1 枚程度にまとめなさい（日本語で解答すること）。

人の見る立場によって ―― それには個人としての立場、グループの一員としての立場、人間としての立場などがあるが ―― 興味と問題意識だけでなく、真実のありかた自体が変わる。
このことは、プラトンの「洞窟の比喩」以来、疑う余地のない常識である。しかし人間は、このような自分の立場に限った真実に甘んずることなく、みずからの立場を積極的に変えたり、
新しい見方を開拓したり、また自分の立場の限界を意識することなどにより、より普遍的な真実をめざすのである。そのために想像力の援助も借りて、見えないものまで見ようとすることもあろう。ペルスペクティーヴァ（パースペクティヴ）という単語は、中世 12 世紀の新造語であり、もともと見ることについての学問を指した。その後、さまざまな意味で主観と客観の関係を表し、さらにはその関係を土台として観察者を騙す方法を、そして、人間の立場そのものを、ついには、その立場の限界を超えた展望を指すようになった。
※出典：ヘルマン・ゴチェフスキ編『知の遠近法』講談社、2007 年。
［一部改変］

5平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群

問題 ５
以下の問題５－１（ドイツ語）、問題５－２（フランス語）のうちから 一つ を選択して解答しなさい。なお、この問題を選択した場合には、辞書を使用しても構わない。ただし、辞書は出題者が用意したものを使用するので、必要な場合には試験監督に申し出ること。
＊この問題を選択した場合には、答案用紙左上にある「問題番号」の欄に「５－１」あるいは「５－２」と記入すること。

6平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群

問題 ５－１
以下のドイツ語の文章を日本語に訳しなさい。
In der Kommunikationswissenschaft gibt es eine alte, fundamentale Einteilung: Es gibt
private Kommunikation und öffentliche Kommunikation. Ersteres machen der
traditionellen Sichtweise zufolge wir alle miteinander, letzteres Medien, Politiker, PRAbteilungen und so weiter. Diese Unterscheidung stimmt in der digitalen Gegenwart kaum
noch. Wer 15 Instagram-Follower hat, kommuniziert vielleicht noch privat und nur
potenziell öffentlich. Wer 15.000 Follower hat, publiziert. Haftbar für ihre potenziell globalen
Publikationen sind aber beide.
Schon und gerade Schüler müssen deshalb etwa lernen, was "Recht am eigenen Bild"bedeutet. Es ist zum Beispiel aus guten Gründen verboten, jemanden einem potenziell
globalen Publikum gegen seinen Willen als volltrunkenen Volldeppen vorzuführen. Das
muss man Schülern beibringen, auch wenn es bislang Medienrecht und damit ein Thema
für Spezialisten war.
Das Gleiche gilt für strafbewehrte Äußerungen - man erinnere sich an die Geschichte vom
Porsche-Lehrling und den Flammenwerfern. Bei Facebook wird derzeit so viel Justiziables
publiziert, dass unsere Strafverfolgungsbehörden längst nicht mehr nachkommen.
Das liegt auch daran, dass viele Volksverhetzer, Gewaltandroher und Holocaust-Leugner
offenbar noch nicht verstanden haben, dass ein Facebook-Post nicht das Gleiche ist wie eineÄußerung am Stammtisch, und damit viel gefährlicher. Hätten diesen Unterschied alle inder Schule gelernt, wäre das Hatespeech-Problem vermutlich kleiner.
※出典：
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/digitalisierung-3-dinge-die-schueler-lernen-muessen-kolumne-a-1123115.html

7

平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群

問題 ５－２以下のフランス語の文章を日本語に訳しなさい。

Au cours des dernières décennies, les foyers de production culturelle se sont multipliéset les produits et les œuvres culturels ont circulé de manière croissante. La dissemination
du manga ou du karaoké japonais, des séries télévisées égyptiennes et turques, du raï(1)algérien, de la pop et du cinéma coréens, des romans noirs scandinaves, du cinéma
bollywoodien et nollywoodien, respectivement indien et nigérian, en sont autant
d’exemples. Sans parler du domaine des grandes œuvres : les panthéons de la littérature,des arts plastiques et de la musique classique se sont ouverts aux artistes de divers horizons
géographiques et de diverses traditions culturelles à mesure que le périmètre desproductions connues s’élargissait. Certains artistes sont en outre largement médiatisés deleur vivant comme post mortem(2) et leurs œuvres sont réutilisées dans les productions
contemporaines, ce qui contribue à nourrir des imaginations artistiques transnationaux.
注 1)

ライ（アルジェリアのポピュラー音楽）

注 2)［ラテン語］死後（の）※出典：Vincenzo Cicchelli, Sylvie Octobre, L’amateur cosmopolite. Goûts et imaginaires culturels juvéniles à l’ère de laglobalisation, Paris, Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication, 2017. ［一部改変］

8平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群

問題 6
使役動詞 have の用法の多義性について書かれた次の英文を読み、以下の問いに答えなさい。

The action of the causer marks the beginning point of an event. For example, in a sentence such as (1), theevent begins when the subject argument John performs some motion that will be defined as a hitting,sending, or breaking. Thus, it is John's action that defines the beginning of the event.
(1) a. John hit the ball with the bat/sent a letter to Harry/broke the window.
b. John = causer
An argument that is interpreted as an experiencer can extend the event beyond the termination of action
denoted by the predicate (i.e., beyond the core event). For example, the sentence in (2) is appropriate if Bill
was involved in a car accident that had the result of breaking Bill's arm.
(2) a. Bill broke his arm in a car accident/lost his job in the recession.
b. Bill = experiencer
Bill is affected by the fact that his arm is broken, or he is unemployed, regardless of whether he played an
active role in either event. For example, for break, the sentence is appropriate even if he was a passenger, ora pedestrian. Since Bill's arm remains broken for a period of time beyond the actual breaking action, one
might say that Bill experiences the breaking even after the fact. In other words, the experience has the effectof extending the duration of the event, beyond the point where the action denoted by the predicate iscompleted.
Thus, we define two aspectual arguments based on the part they play in the event denoted by thepredicate: A causer determines the beginning of an event, and an experiencer forces the event to be openended. Each alters a boundary of the event.
A unified analysis of all uses of have follows straightforwardly from the conjecture that this verb isthematically unspecified. In exploring the representation of have and the mechanism of assigning it aninterpretation, we focus on its causative and experiencer uses. Examples of these two uses appear in (3) and
(4).
(3)
(4)

Causative havea. David had Sam wash behind his ears.
b. Brenda has Katie put on her helmet whenever she rides her bike.
Experiencer havea. Have you ever had someone pick your pocket?
b. I had a total stranger kiss my hand this morning.

Due to its lack of semantic specification, have cannot project into the syntax as an independent verb because
it lacks the capacity to assign a thematic interpretation to its argument(s). Projection of an unspecified verb
would result in a violation of the Principle of Full Interpretation (Chomsky 1986) because its arguments
could not be interpreted at LF. The argument structure operation which combines the argument array of
have with that of an independent predicate salvages the structure by providing a mechanism for interpretingthe argument(s) of have.

9平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群

The output of this operation is a (A)complex predicate. Complex-predicate formation plays a crucialrole in the interpretation of the argument contributed by have. Have adds an extra participant to the event orstate denoted by its complement. For example, the sentence in (5a) contains all the arguments directly
involved in the event of walking out. When this clause is embedded under have, as in (5b), it likewisecontains all the arguments directly involved in the event of walking out, but have adds one argument, John.
Thus, there is a core event denoted by walk out, and an extended event denoted by have and walk out.
(5) a. Half the students walked out of John's lecture.
b. John had half the students walk out of his lecture.
(B)In (5b), John can be interpreted as either the causer or the experiencer of the students' walking event.

Both interpretations arise because adding have (and its argument) has the consequence of (C)extending theduration of the event denoted by the predicate. There are two ways in which an event can be extended toinclude a new participant outside the core event — the beginning point can be pushed back, or the endpoint
can be opened up by including a non-delimited state. The causer interpretation is assigned when the event
is extended back. The experiencer interpretation is assigned when the event is extended forward to include
a consequent state.
(6) John had half the students walk out of his lecture.
walk out|..... Walk out of class..... |have & walk out|--Cause--|..... Walk out of class..... ||..... Walk out of class..... |--Exp.→In principle, the argument of have may be assigned either the causer or the experiencer role. This meansthat all instantiations of this construction should permit either assignment. Any ambiguity can be resolved
through context and knowledge of the world. The pairs in (7) and (8) demonstrate that minimal changes caninfluence the availability of the causer or the experiencer interpretation.
(7) a. John had his daughter accepted at Dawson College.
b. John paid $50 to have his daughter accepted at Dawson College.
(8) a. Sherry had George water her plants.
b. Sherry had George overwater her plants.
There are data indicating that the causative interpretation of have is not as free as one might expect. The
examples in (9) show that unaccusative verbs are acceptable when embedded under the causative verb make(although, as the examples also show, some are slightly degraded).
(9) a. ?Ralph made Sheila die of laughter.
b. Ralph made Sheila fall down.
c. The warm sunshine made the plants grow.
d. Ralph made his students go crazy.
The examples in (10) represent typical unaccusative verbs embedded under have. (D)The causative readingof true unaccusative verbs is simply not available.
(10) causative reading
a.*Ralph had Sheila die.
b.*Ralph had Sheila fall down.
c.*The warm sunshine had the plants grow.
d.*Ralph had the walls crack.
10

平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群(11) experiencer readinga. Ralph had Sheila/his goldfish die on him.
b. Ralph had his daughter fall and break her leg.
c. Ralph had the ivy grow all the way up the side of the house.
d. Ralph had the walls crack in the recent earthquake.
A causative reading is available for these examples when the argument in the embedded clause is able totake volitional control of the action. For example, in (10a), the causative reading is possible in a context inwhich Ralph is directing a film, and he orders Sheila, an actress, to die at a certain point. In this case, because
Sheila is only feigning death, she has volitional control over her dying. When the embedded subject cannot
have volitional control, as in (10c,d), a causative reading of have is totally ungrammatical. A causativeinterpretation of (10a,b) is possible when the embedded verb is used as an agentive verb rather than as anunaccusative one. We refer to this as the 'director' reading of the verb.
The differences between have and make in (9) and (10) are exactly what one expects given theassumption that only have is thematically unspecified. A lexically specified causative verb (for example,make) has a causative interpretation regardless of its complement, whereas a syntactically derived causativeinterpretation is dependent upon the nature of the embedded predicate. The evidence shows that theparticipant contributed by have cannot be interpreted as causing, or indirectly controlling, the event unlessthe predicate it attaches to involves an agent of the action; the core predicate must include a CAUSE functionof its own.
Recall that the causative interpretation in the have examples comes from extending the duration of theevent denoted by the embedded predicate backward. The extra argument contributed by have is interpreted
as an indirect participant in this event, i.e., as a remote causer. This approach to the assignment of a causativeinterpretation provides us with a way to understand the restrictions on it. If a verb is unaccusative, and has
no argument whose role is to control the action, then the starting point of this unaccusative event isunspecified by the grammar. If the event has no specific starting point, then it cannot be extended backwards
from its starting point. In this situation, the causative reading is impossible.

※出典：Ritter, Elizabeth and Sara Thomas Rosen (1993) “Deriving Causation” (Natural Language andLinguistics Theory 11)より一部改変．

11

平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群

問１ 下線部(A)はどういうことか、本文に即して説明するとともに、あなたが(A)について知っている別の実例を１つ挙げなさい。

問２ 下線部(B)について、(5b)が causative reading をもつときと experiencer reading をもつときの意味の違いが分かるように日本語に訳しなさい。

問３ 下線部(C)はどういうことか、本文に即して説明しなさい。

問４ 下線部(D)で、なぜ、have の causative reading にはこのような制限が課されるのかについて、本文で与えられている説明を過不足なくまとめなさい。

12平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群

問題 7
情報構造に関する次の文章を読んで後の問いに答えなさい。
The basic notions of Information Structure (IS), such as Focus, Topic and Givenness, are notsimple observational terms. As scientific notions, they are rooted in theory, in this case, in theories of how
communication works. Hence, this paper necessarily will make certain theoretical assumptions, without
going into great details. I will motivate the selection of IS notions in the tradition of Chafe (1976), whotalked about IS as a phenomenon of information packaging that responds to the immediate communicativeneeds of interlocutors. I do this within the model of communication as continuous change of the common
ground (CG), where it will be crucial to distinguish between CG content and what I will call CG
management. IS is a vast topic of research that has been pursued within different theoretical frameworks,
and has produced numerous empirical insights. This short paper cannot conclusively argue for its choices
in detail, vis-á-vis other theoretical options, or attempt to motivate them by considering phenomena in a
wider range of languages. In spite of this, I hope that a coherent and attractive theoretical landscapeemerges for IS research.
In his seminal 1976 paper on notions of IS, Chafe introduced the notion of packaging of theinformation conveyed in an utterance that, to my mind, still provides useful guidance for our
understanding of IS. (A)Chafe wisely restricted his notion of IS to those aspects that respond to thetemporary state of the addressee’s mind, thus excluding several other aspects of messages, like reference
to long-term background knowledge, choice of language or level of politeness that otherwise could beunderstood as packaging as well.
One problem with Chafe’s approach is that there are aspects of optimization of the message that,on the one hand, respond to the temporary state of the addressee’s mind, but on the other also affect themessage itself, and hence cannot be treated as pure packaging. For example, Focus, as expressed bysentence accent in English, can be used for information packaging, as in answers to questions, cf. (1), but
can also lead to truth-conditional differences, as when associated with focus-sensitive particles like only,
cf. (2).
(1) a. A: What did John show Mary?
B: John showed Mary [the PICtures]F.
b. A: Who did John show the pictures?
B: John showed [MAry]F the pictures.
(2) a. John only showed Mary [the PICtures]F.
b. John only showed [MAry]F the pictures.
(B)The truth conditions of B’s answers in (1) arguably are the same, whereas the truth conditions of (2)differ. One and the same linguistic device, sentence accent, can be used for packaging as well as forconstructing the content.
There are two possible ways of dealing with this multiple use of features such as accent: One isto assume that the two uses of the same feature are essentially unrelated, just as the uses of accent inEnglish to express focus and to distinguish words such as REcord and reCORD. The other is to assume
that the feature is to be interpreted in a particular way that makes sense for the purposes of information
packaging and of building information content. For methodological reasons the second alternative appears
to be more attractive: If it can be shown that one and the same interpretation of a feature has multiple uses,
then this option should be favored over the assumption of multiple interpretations. We will see that focus
indeed can be interpreted in this way.
13

平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群

If we are to talk about communication as transfer of information and its optimization relative tothe temporary needs of interlocutors, it is useful to adopt a model of information exchange that makes useof the notion of Common Ground. The original notion of CG (cf. Stalnaker 1974, Karttunen 1974, Lewis
1979) saw it as a way to model the information that is mutually known to be shared and continuously
modified in communication. This allowed for a promising way of modeling the distinction between
presuppositions, as requirements for the input CG, and assertions, as the proposed changes in the output
CG. This distinction is relevant for information packaging, as the CG changes continuously, andinformation has to be packaged in correspondence with the CG at the point at which it is uttered. For
example, it can be explained (C)why (3a) is fine but (3b) is odd: In (3a), the first clause introduces theinformation that the speaker has a cat, to which the presupposition of the second clause appeals. This
contrasts with (3b), as the second sentence introduces the information that the speaker has a cat which isalready present in the input CG at this point (cf. van der Sandt 1988).
(3)

a. I have a cat, and I had to bring my cat to the vet(注).
b. #I had to bring my cat to the vet, and I have a cat.

Already when the notion of CG was introduced, it was pointed out that speakers could change CG by(D)accommodation of presupposition. That is, uncontroversial facts could be added implicitly to the CG
by requiring the input CG to be of a certain kind. This is why (4a) is good but (4b) is bad:(4)

a. I had to bring my cat to the vet because it was sick.
b. #I had to bring my gorilla to the vet because it was sick.

The notion of CG had first been applied to factual information, but it soon got extended to discourse
referents (in particular, by Kamp 1981 and Heim 1982). That is, CG does not only consist of a set of
propositions that is presumed to be mutually accepted (or the conjunction of this set, one proposition), butalso of a set of entities that have been introduced into the CG before. Such entities can be explicitly
introduced, e.g. by an indefinite NP, or they can be accommodated, as in (4a). They can be taken up by
pronouns, as in the second clause of (4a), or by definite NPs, which express requirements to the input CG.
The choice of anaphoric expression depends on the recency of the antecedent, again a notion that falls
squarely within Chafe’s notion of packaging.
※出典：Manfred Krifka 2007. ”Basic Notions of Informational Structure,” Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6からの抜粋。一部改変

注 vet：獣医14

平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群

問 1 下線部(A)を日本語に訳しなさい。

問 2 下線部(B)について、どのようなことを述べているのか、例文(1)と(2)に即して説明しなさい。

問 3 下線部(C)について、(3a)と(3b)の違いが出る理由を Common Ground の概念を用いて説明しなさい。

問 4 下線部(D)について、accommodation of presupposition とはどのようなことを言うのか、
例文(4)に即して説明しなさい。

15平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群

問題 8
副詞の語順に関する次の英文を読み、下の問いに答えなさい。
The Cartography of syntactic structures, widely known since Cinque’s study of adverbs and functional
categories in 1999, is a line of research that aims at mapping the syntactic configurations as precise andcomplete. In Cartography, each morphosyntactic feature is assigned to a syntactic head that is located at aunique position in the clause structure. (A)Thus, in their view, the clause structure consists of a series of finegrained functional heads that exists in all languages.
In his cross-linguistic study, Cinque (1999) investigates the word order of adverbs in Romance
languages, Hebrew, Chinese, Albanian, Bosnian/Serbo-Croatian, Norwegian, etc. He observes that adverbs
exhibit the same rigid word order cross-linguistically. For example, a speech act Mood adverb like ‘frankly’or ‘honestly’ must precede an evaluative Mood adverb like ‘unfortunately’, which in turn must precede anevidential Mood adverb like ‘evidently’. (B)Examples from Norwegian (1), Bosnian/Serbo-Croatian (2) andChinese (3) follow.
(1)

Norwegiana. Per forlater ærlig
talt
heldigvis
nå selskapet.
Peter leaves honestly spoken fortunately now party.the‘Peter is honestly fortunately now leaving the party’.
b. *Per forlater heldigvis ærlig
talt
nå selskapet.
Peter leaves fortunately honestly spoken now party.the‘Peter is fortunately honestly now leaving the party’.

(2)

Bosnian/Serbo-Croatiana. Iskreno, ja nazžalostimam jako loš mišljenje o vama.
frankly, I unfortunately have very bad opinion of you‘Frankly, I unfortunately have a very bad opinion of you’.
b. *Nazžalost,ja iskreno imam jako loš mišljenje o vama.
unfortunately, I frankly have very bad opinion of you‘Unfortunately, I frankly have a very bad opinion of you’.

(3)

Chinesea. Laoshi-shuo wo buxing
dui tamen you pian-jian.
Honestly
I unfortunately to them
have prejudice‘Honestly I unfortunately have prejudice against them’.
b. *Buxing
wo laoshi-shuo dui tamen you pian-jian.
Unfortunately I
honestly
to them have prejudice‘Unfortunately I honestly have prejudice against them’.

Note that the translations show that the second order is ungrammatical in English as well, suggesting that
English exhibits the same word order restriction. The examples above thus strongly suggest that theseadverbs appear in the following hierarchical fashion: MoodSpeechAct > MoodEvaluative > MoodEvidential. Fromthese rich cross-linguistic data, Cinque draws the conclusion that there is a unique canonical order of adverbs
for all languages.
Furthermore, Cinque conducts a cross-linguistic study of affix ordering and observes that languages16

平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群

with suffixes also exhibit a rigid order among certain morphemes. For example, in Korean, an evaluative
morpheme must appear to the left of a speech act morpheme (and hence closer to the verb root), while anevidential morpheme must appear to the left of the evaluative morpheme. Given the Mirror Principle (Baker
1985), Cinque uses (C)the order of suffixes to motivate a particular ordering of functional heads (Pollock
1989; Belletti 1990) and accordingly, argues that this morpheme order provides evidence for the order offunctional heads MoodEvaluative > MoodEvidential. By careful study of the agglutinative affixes in various
unrelated languages including Korean, Turkish, Una, Tauya and Chinese, Cinque arrives at the conclusionthat the different orders of functional heads motivated for each language is in harmony with the others.
By comparing the independently established hierarchy of adverbs with the hierarchy of affixes,
Cinque discovers that there are some striking correspondences between the two hierarchies. The
correspondences, in many cases, can be translated into a transparent specifier-head relationship between acertain class of adverbs and an affix class in a systematic one-to-one fashion. Based on the correspondences,
Cinque (1999, 2006) proposes that there is a single order of modifiers for all languages.
In Cinque’s proposal free functional morphemes appear in the specifier position of unique functional
projections, whereas bound morphemes appear in the head position of unique functional projections. Thus,
each adverb class appears in a designated specifier position of a functional head, entering into a spec-headrelation with the head. For example, a Mood adverb appears in the specifier position of a MoodP, entering
into a spec-head relation with the Mood head. On the other hand, a Mood suffix appears in the head positionof a MoodP, entering into a spec-head relation with its specifier.
(D)This “Adverb-in-Spec” approach is superior to a traditional adjunction approach since it provides
answers to the following questions: (i) how is the rigid order of adverbs explained, (ii) how is the rigid orderof affixes explained, and (iii) what is the relationship between the two orders? Under the traditional
adjunction theory, which often claims adjunction to be a free operation, the rigid order among the adverbs
could not be accounted for without additional stipulations.
(E)Cinque’s approach, on the other hand, gives straightforward answers to the above three questions.
Adverbs are manifestations of functional projections which are base-generated in a hierarchical fashion,
hence their order is strictly restricted. Affixes, on the other hand, are manifestations of the functional heads,
and accordingly, also appear in a rigid order. Under his theory, two previously unrelated sequences offunctional elements, the universal ordering of adverbs and that of inflectional morphemes, are successfully
explained via a single paradigm. All this is done by postulating one underlying syntactic hierarchy in which
adverbs and affixes enter into a spec-head relation. In his theory, any deviation from the predicted order fromthe universal hierarchy of functional heads is the result of movement.
※出典: Kaori Takamine. 2017. Putting Adpositions in Place: Sortal Domains and Modifier PPs in Japanese. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. (一部改変)

17平成 29 年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試

第５群

問1

下線部 (A) を日本語に訳しなさい。

問2

下線部 (B) について、(1), (2), (3) の最小対からどのようなことがいえるか、本文に即して説明しなさい。

問3

下線部 (C) について、本文中に挙げられた具体例を説明しなさい。

問4

下線部 (D) は具体的にどのようなアプローチを指すか。本文に即して説明しなさい。

問5

下線部 (E) について、3 つ目の疑問に対して Cinque の分析はどのような説明を与えることができるか。 3 つ目の疑問の内容を明確にした上で、本文に即して説明しなさい。

18