平成３０年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試 第５群

平成３０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(2018 年 8 月 29 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２問題が印刷されている。
○ 受験者は、この 2 問題に解答すること。
○ 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３０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 30 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
次の文章を読んで、以下の問いに答えなさい。
People may say Kim is taller or Kim’s taller, with is reduced. One can think of this as an operation is →’s. Children
hear both the full and reduced forms and can learn the operation on exposure to external data. However, the povertyof-stimulus problem is that the operation sometimes may not apply: in (1) the underlined is never reduces.
(1) Kim’s taller than Jim is.
The stimulus that children have does not convey this kind of information, usually referred to as negative evidence.
Children hear things but they are not instructed in what does not occur, and therefore they do not learn the limitation.
Helicopter parents may try to correct the occasional goed or taked, but they do not tell children that a reduced is does
not occur in (1). That is partly because they do not know and partly because children do not misuse the reduced forms,
so there is no need for correction – a lot of ingenious experimental work has shown how rich children’s language
capacities are.
This is no longer mysterious. Children are exposed to simple speech, what linguists call ‘primary linguistic data’.
That is part of external language (E-language), language out there, and acts as a triggering experience. The initial
genetic inheritance (UG) blossoms into a specific internalized grammar (I-language), depending on whether thechildren are raised in Tromsø or Tokyo. Linguists try to tease apart internal and external factors, contributions of genetic
inheritance and contributions of environmental factors. In this article, we argue that both internal, genetic factors, andexternal, environmental, elements shape a child’s internal language system, and that (A)some of what children come toknow is intrinsic, not learned.
This is not an uncontroversial issue in linguistics. Within the constructivist framework (see, for example, Tomasello2003), it is argued that children generally learn language from input only, and that their early production is not rule
governed and simply consists of strings of elements that they have encountered frequently in the input. When children
produce non-target-consistent strings, this is argued to be due to a low frequency of the target forms in the primary
linguistic data. However, it has been shown in various studies that also (B)children’s non-target behavior is rule governedand always accords with universal principles; see, for example, Crain and Thornton (1998) on English-speaking
children’s production of multiple wh-elements or Westergaard and Bentzen (2007) on Norwegian children’s non-target
word order in embedded clauses.
Let us move on to another poverty-of-stimulus problem. English embedded clauses may start with a sentence
introducer (a complementizer), a word like that, as illustrated in (2). Those words may be omitted and there may be an
operation that→φ Again, this is learnable: children hear the full forms (2) and the reduced forms without that. Frenchand Dutch children hear no equivalent reduced forms and learn no comparable operation.
(2) a. Peter said (that) Kay left.
b. The book (that) Kay wrote arrived.
c. It was obvious (that) Kay left.
Here is the poverty-of-stimulus problem: the operation deleting that does not apply to (3) and English speakers
would not say the equivalent forms without that.
(3) a. Ray said yesterday in Chicago [*(that) Kay had left].
b. The book arrived yesterday [*(that) Kay wrote].
c. Fay believes, but Kay doesn’t, [*(that) Ray is smart].
d. [*(that) Kay left] was obvious to all of us.

2

平成３０年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試 第５群

Again, children have no direct evidence for this limitation in the input. They sometimes hear forms with that,sometimes without that, but they are not explicitly told that the forms of (3) without that do not exist. Somehow they
deduce that limitation, using both learned and intrinsic knowledge of language. Deletion is subject to various
constraints, and the phenomena illustrated in (2) and (3) can be said to be due to a simple principle, which may beformulated as (4).
(4) Something can be deleted if it is (in) the complement of an adjacent, overt word.
In the simple forms of (2), the clause introduced by that completes the meaning of said, book, and was obvious,
i.e., it is the complement. That is also adjacent to those words and may therefore be deleted. However, the bracketedclauses of (3) do not complete the meaning of the adjacent Chicago, yesterday or doesn’t. And, in (3d), there is nothing
preceding it. Therefore, in these cases that may not be deleted. That simple principle of our language capacity solves(C)this poverty-of-stimulus problem and accounts for a lot of other things, as we will see below.
Now consider another learned operation, whereby the second of two identical verbs may be deleted: Gap V. Theremay be an understood, empty verb in the second clause. So alongside (5a), we find (5b), perfectly normal,
comprehensible speech, which has a representation with an empty verb (5c).
(5) a. Jay introduced Kay to Ray and Jim introduced Kim to Tim.
b. Jay introduced Kay to Ray and Jim Kim to Tim.
c. Jay introduced Kay to Ray and Jim [e]V Kim to Tim
Example (6a) is another example of gapping. But we do not gap a verb and delete the sentence introducer that (6b),which would have the representation (6c). Again our principle has the explanation: that may not delete at the front of
its clause (hence boldface), if it is not (in) the complement of an adjacent, overt verb. Here the verb is not overt.
(6) a. Fay said Ray left and Tim that Jim stayed.
b.*Fay said Ray left and Tim Jim stayed.
c. Fay said Ray left and Tim [e]V [that Jim stayed]
English speakers form questions by displacing the interrogative word to the front of its clause, deleting the original
element in the position where it is understood; there is an operation Copy wh-. The simple expression Who did Jay
see? has a representation in which who is copied to the front of the clause and the original who is deleted: Who did Jay
see who? It is the complement of see and the deletion conforms to our principle. (D)However, we do not find sentences
like (7a), which would have the structure (7b), where the boldface who may not delete, because there is no adjacent
overt verb.
(7) a. *Who did Jay introduce to Ray and who (did) Jim to Tim?
b. Who did Jay introduce who to Ray and who (did) Jim [e]V who to Tim
We now return to our first example and see that the same deletion principle accounts for the distinctions noted. A
reduced is is absorbed into the preceding word and becomes an integral part of it (a clitic). It is pronounced differently,
depending on the last segment of the word it attaches to, as a voiceless ‘s’ in Pat’s, as a voiced ‘z’ in Doug’s and as an
extra syllable in Alice’s (8).
(8) Pat’s happy, Doug’s happy, and Alice’s here.
Now we can see why we do not reduce is in certain contexts. Example (9a) has a representation (9b), where tall isdeleted, adjacent to the verb is, of which it is the complement. However, (9c) does not exist, because tall has no adjacentverb. The representation would be (9d), where the reduced is has been absorbed into Tim and therefore is no longer aseparate word that may license the deletion of tall.
(9) a. Kim is taller than Tim is.
b. Kim is taller [than Tim is tall]
c.*Kim is taller than Tim’s.
d. Kim is taller [than Tim’s tall]3平成３０年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試 第５群

Similarly one finds (10a), which has the representation (10b), where what deletes, licensed by the adjacent verb
whose meaning it completes. On the other hand, we do not have (10c), which would have the representation (10d),where the reduced is has been absorbed into that and cannot license the deletion of what.
(10) a. I wonder what that is up there.
b. I wonder [what that is what up there]
c.*I wonder what that’s up there.
d. I wonder [what that’s what up there]
Things are getting complex, but nothing complex is learned by children in this regard. One’s language is a complex
system but the complexity can be understood in terms of an interaction between some simple principles at the genetic
level and simple generalizations that are triggered in children on exposure to the speech around them.
In short, we have sketched four operations, each learnable by children on exposure to the relevant sentence type:that →φ ： Peter said Kay leftcopy wh- ：Who did Jay see?
gap V ： Jay saw Ray and Jim Kim
is →’s ：Kim’s happy
And we have one simple principle of the human language capacity, governing how elements are deleted. That
principle (4) is the source of many distinctions. The interaction between intrinsic and learned elements captures theimmense complexity of a person’s language capacity, revealing distinctions that most people are not aware of.
出典 Lightfoot and Westergaard (2007) “Language Acquisition and Language Change: Inter-relationships”より一部改変）

問 1 下線部(A)について、本文中で具体的に提案されているのはどのような原理であるか。
日本語で述べなさい。

問 2 下線部(B)はどういうことか。その内容を日本語で説明しなさい。

問 3 下線部(C)はどういう問題のことであると述べられているか。例文(3)に関係づけて、日本語で説明しなさい。

問 4 下線部(D)について、本文中ではこの事実はどのように説明されているか、日本語で説明
しなさい。

4

平成３０年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試 第５群

問題 ２
次の英文は、Fukushima, K. (2005) “Lexical V-V compounds in Japanese: Lexicon vs.
syntax” という論文からとったものである。これを読み、以下の問いに答えなさい。

Some lexical V1-V2 compounds in Japanese are illustrated below. (General types of V-V compounds
are indicated in parentheses.) Two intransitive verbs, nak ‘cry’ and sakeb ‘scream’, are compounded
in 1a and the resulting form signifies that the subject Taroo-ga is both ‘crier’ and ‘screamer’. In thiscase, both V1 and V2 contribute to the semantics of the whole compound equally. A different semantic
relationship is observed in 1b, where again two intransitive verbs, odor ‘dance’ and tukare ‘getexhausted’, are combined. This time the V1 acts as an element supplying the ‘cause’ for the state
indicated by the V2. Example 1c is an instance where intransitive verbs, tob ‘jump’ and oki ‘get up’,are compounded and the V1 indicates the ‘manner’ according to which the action indicated by the V2
is carried out. Lexical V-V compounds are also possible with verbs that are transitive (or ditransitive
for that matter). For example, tatak ‘hit’ and war ‘break’ are put together in 1d where the subject
Masako-ga is both ‘hitter’ and ‘destroyer’ and the object sara-o ‘plate’ is ‘hit’ and ‘destroyed’. The V1
represents a manner here as well. This last example can also be of the cause compound type, if hittingby Masako is construed as the cause for the plate’s destruction.
(1) a. Taroo-ga naki-saken-da.
(dvandva (coordinate) compound)‘Taroo cried and screamed.’b. Hanako-ga odori-tukare-ta.
(cause compound)‘Hanako got tired from dancing.’
c. Ziroo-ga tobi-oki-ta.
(manner compound)‘Ziroo got up in a jumping motion.’d. Masako-ga sara-o tataki-wat-ta.
(manner/cause compound)‘Masako broke the plate by hitting it.’In these examples, synthesis of the argument structures for the compound verbs is quite
straightforward: simply merge two argument structures (ARG-STs) of V1 and V2 (i.e. ARG-ST<NPga> or ARG-ST <NPga, NPo>) and retain the case-marking requirements for the arguments ofrespective verbs as is. ( ア)If argument-taking properties of all lexical V-V compounds were to be
explained as straightforwardly as the examples in 1 are, matters would be simple and there would
not be disagreements and controversies about the nature of lexical V-V compounds in Japanese.
HEAD/NON-HEAD-DRIVEN ARGUMENT SYNTHESIS. It is often said that it is the rightmost morphemethat decides the central properties of a complex word, namely, the ‘righthand head rule’ (Williams
1980, Kageyama 1993). Given the head-finality of Japanese, the transparent cases of argument
synthesis seen in 1 above are considered to be the results of taking the argument structures of thehead V2s and ‘superimposing’ those of V1s on them. Arguments from the nonhead members arereflected in the argument structure for the whole compound INDIRECTLY through some mechanism
establishing ‘coreference’ between the arguments.
From this point of view, a direct and independent contribution of the nonhead member toargument synthesis is not expected to happen. As 2 shows, however, a nonhead member indeed
makes a direct contribution to the argument structures of lexical V-V compounds. The object kodomoo ‘child’ is the argument of ture ‘take’ (V1) but not of sar ‘leave’ (V2) in 2a. The accusative-marked object
sake-o ‘sake’ in 2b is also the argument of nom ‘drink’ which is not the (right) head. It is noted that, in2b’, b’’, the two accusative-marked ‘objects’ sake-o ‘sake’ and mati-o ‘town’ cannot be simultaneously

5平成３０年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試 第５群
inherited from nom ‘drink’ and aruk ‘walk’ respectively, due to the ‘double-o constraint’ (Harada 1973):
But, if the accusative case-marker of mati-o ‘town’ is changed to -de ‘in’ as in 2b, then the twoarguments from the two verbs can be retained.
(2) a. Taroo-ga kodomo-o ture-sat-ta.
‘Taroo left taking the child with him.’b. Taroo-ga mati-de sake-o nomi-arui-ta.
‘Taroo wandered around the town drinking sake.’b’. *Taroo-ga mati-o sake-o nomi-arui-ta.
b’’. *Taroo-ga sake-o mati-o nomi-arui-ta.
For an account based on the righthand head rule, a way out of such a situation might be possible
by appealing to Lieber’s (1980) idea about ‘feature percolation’ from a nonhead member. According to
Lieber, information (expressed via features) from a nonhead member is transmitted to a higher level
only if the information is absent from the head member. For such an idea to work then, there has tobe a clear criterion determining which arguments (represented as a feature) of a nonhead member
counts as a distinct (hence ‘absent’) argument vis-à-vis the arguments of the head. Since suchpercolation from a nonhead member is not allowable in all cases, we also need additional case-by-caseconstraints to rule out impossible cases.
FLEXIBLE ARGUMENT SYNTHESIS. Yet in some other cases, argument synthesis in lexical V-V
compounding displays flexibility in terms of argument inheritance. The compound verb katari-akas‘talk-spend the night’ appears with the accusative object omoide-o ‘the memories’ in 3a and with adistinct accusative object itiya-o ‘one night’ in 3b. Omoide-o is the original argument of katar ‘talk’ (V1)and itiya-o is that of akas ‘spend the night’ (V2). The former suggests that argument synthesis for
lexical V-V compounds can ‘override’ an argument of a head verb in competition with a given
argument of the nonhead verb. This situation is somewhat similar to 2b above where two direct
objects get inherited separately, but distinct from it in such a way that a prevailing argument (interms of the case-marking properties) can be from either V1 or V2.
(3) a. Karera-ga sono yoru-ni omoide-o katari-akasi-ta.
‘They talked about the memories that night.’
b. Karera-ga omoidebanasi-de itiya-o katari-akasi-ta.
‘They spend one night telling reminiscent stories.’
c. *Karera-ga omoide-o itiya-o katari-akasi-ta.
Example 3c tells us that 3a, b also fall under the coverage of the double-o constraint like 2bdoes―independently inheriting different arguments simultaneously from head and nonhead verbs ispermissible but ONLY one of them can retain the accusative case-marker -o.
MIRROR IMAGE ARGUMENT SYNTHESIS. Let us witness an instance of dynamism in argument
synthesis in lexical V-V compound formation. In some limited but systematic cases, argument
synthesis can ‘match up’ two argument structures from different verbs in the reverse order of eachother (hence ‘mirror image’). Given two verbs A and B with the following argument structures: verb
A with ARG-ST <NP1, NP2, NP3> and verb B with ARG-ST <NPa, NPb, NPc>, mirror image
argument synthesis identifies (i) NP1 with NPc, (ii) NP2 with NPb, and (iii) NP3 with NPa.
Actual examples are given in 4. The verb yuzur ‘yield’ (V1) in 4a takes three arguments, namely,
NPga, NPo, and NPni corresponding to the ‘yielder’, ‘yielded’, and ‘yieldee’ roles, respectively. Uke‘receive’ (V2), by contrast, needs three arguments, namely, NPga, NPo, and NPkara corresponding tothe ‘receiver’, ‘received’, and ‘sender’ roles. What is interesting is that the ‘yielder’ and ‘sender’ roles,
the ‘yielded’ and ‘received’ roles, and the ‘yieldee’ and ‘receiver’ roles of the two verbs are identified in
mirror image. In addition, the resulting argument structure for the whole compound reflects thecase/postposition properties (ga, o, and kara) of the head V2. Exactly the same pattern of argument
synthesis is observed in 4b as well.

6平成３０年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試 第５群(4) a. Taroo-ga hon-o Hanako-kara yuzuri-uke-ta.
‘Taroo received a book from Hanako who yielded it to him.’b. Hanako-ga tyuumon-o kyaku-kara moosi-uke-ta.
‘Hanako received the order from the guest who directed it to her.’Though the actual examples are indeed limited, this mirror image pattern (in terms of token
examples) per se is more widespread than one might imagine. A short internet search locatedexamples like 5a used in online documents of various sorts, ranging from the customer service
agreement of Kagoshima Xerox to the official transcripts of a session of the Social-Labor Committeeof the Diet in Japan. Nor is the pattern limited to combinations involving uke ‘receive’ as V2. In 5b,
note that the verb kik ‘hear’ is used to form tutae-kik ‘transmit-hear’ where the transmitter and thereceiver of information have to be distinct persons.
(5) a. Kaisya-ga daikin-o kokyaku-kara harai-uke-ta.
‘The company received the fees from the customer who paid them to it.’b. Masako-ga uwasa-o Ziroo-kara tutae-kii-ta.
‘Masako heard the rumor from Ziroo who transmitted it to her.’
LEXICAL ACCOUNTS. Kageyama (1993) suggests that argument synthesis for lexical V-V compounds
is a morphological process in the lexicon that forms new syntactic argument structures. Among theassumptions of Kageyama are the ‘righhand head rule’ (Williams 1980) and ‘feature percolation’(Lieber 1980) in morphology. According to him, with two argument structures like 6a, for example,
there are only three types of argument synthesis (6b-d) for V1-V2 compounds in Japanese. In thedescriptions below the equal sign indicates ‘θ-identification’ which is accomplished by Kageyama’s
TRANSITIVITY HARMONY PRINCIPLE. This principle limits lexical V-V compounds to being one of two
types: (i) those showing a combination of verbs taking external arguments (i.e. a mix of unergative
and transitive verbs), and (ii) those involving two verbs that do not have external arguments (i.e.
unaccusative verbs). It is assumed that the argument structure of the (righthand) head is ‘passed’ (àla Lieber 1980) to the top level.
(6) a. V1: (x1, <y1>) and V2: (x2, <y2>) (N.B.: The internal arguments are in ‘<…>’.)b. x1 = x2 and y1 = y2 gives (x2, <y2>)(e.g. tataki-war in 1d)c. x1 = x2 and y1 = ‘possessor’ for y2 gives (x2, <[y1’s y2]>)(e.g. sime-koros ‘kill by choking’)d. x1 = x2 and, if y1 ≠ y2, then y1 and y2 are retained to give (x2, <y1, y2>)(e.g. nomi-aruk in 2b and katari-akas in 3a, b)
The transitivity harmony principle and the right-headedness assumption alone are not sufficientto adequately account for possible patterns of the compounding under discussion. For example, 6d ismade possible thanks to Lieber (1980) who suggests that, when morphological information regarding
an argument structure is missing from the head morpheme in a multi-morpheme structure, themissing information can be passed to a higher-level structure. Example 6d subsumes cases like 2aabove (repeated in 7a) where the two ‘agent’ arguments of V1 and V2 (Ziroo-ga) are θ-identified andthe remaining ‘theme’ argument (kodomo-o) of V1 with no corresponding argument of the head V2 isretained and passed to the resulting argument structure: (x2agent, <y1theme>). That is fine. But, as
pointed out by Nishiyama (1998), Kageyama would also predict that 7b is possible,(7) a. Ziroo-ga kodomo-o ture-sat-ta.
‘Ziroo left taking a child with him.’b. *John-ga sebiro-o ki-kuzure-ta.
‘(Int.) The suit jacket lost its original shape due to John’s wearing it.’This is because, just as in 7a, after identifying the ‘theme’ arguments (sebiro-ga) of the head andnonhead, the remaining ‘agent’ argument of the nonhead V1 should be inherited into the argument
structure of the whole compound. There seems to be no principled remedy for this problem in7

平成３０年度実施情報科学上期（8 月）入試 第５群
Kageyama’s system.
(イ)Kageyama’s account not only OVERgenerates as pointed out above but also UNDERgenerates
with respect to, for example, mirror image compounds involving ditransitive verbs. The reason forthis is that he employs traditional θ-roles. It is well known that the traditional θ-roles are unable toperform an explanatory role in linguistics. See convincing demonstrations to this effect by Ladusaw
and Dowty (1988), Dowty (1991), and Davis (2001), inter alia. All that is allowed in his system with
‘θ-identification’, then, is simple matching of primitive θ-role labels, leaving no room for flexibly
accommodating examples like 4 and 5 involving verbs with alternative lexicalizations (Dowty 1991)
where a reverse argument matching is called for.
出典: Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 2005. “Lexical V-V compounds in Japanese: Lexicon vs. syntax,” Language 81 (3), 568-612.
[一部改変]

問 1 複合動詞「泣き叫ぶ」は (1a) で dvandva (coordinate) compound と分類されている。どうしてこのように分類されているのか、本文に沿って日本語で説明しなさい。また、「踊り疲れる」
、
「飛
び起きる」
、
「叩き割る」のそれぞれについても、どうして (1b)、(1c)、(1d) のように分類されるのか、本文に沿って日本語で説明しなさい。

問 2 下線部 (ア) について、(2)、(3)、(4) の事例のそれぞれ何が問題なのか。互いの異同を明確にしながら、本文に沿って日本語で説明しなさい。

問 3 下線部 (イ) を日本語に訳しなさい。

問 4 あなたが興味をもっている日本語複合動詞について、Kageyama (1993) の Lexical Account を土台にして、10 行以上の英文で説明しなさい。

8