✉ cheho@hi.h.kyoto-u.ac.jp 1. Y v x construction 1 2 v 2. 1. construction 11 3 44 5 x Y 6 11 5 2. 3. 11 (1) (2) 1 3 (1) 1 ′ . 2'. 3'. 3'      1        3 1’ 3 3 11 2 5 - 22 1′ 35′ Y v 11 3 x Y V "" "" n "" (2) 2001 (    ) 2001: 17 4.a. b-a re ru
b-u 5.a. ra re ru b. * ru g-a re ru 6.a. b. * g-u 44 6 b a 3 11 4.a  5.a  6.a 3 11 11 3 1996, 2001 1971 1990 1971 1997 3. 3.1 7.a. b. 1964:46 8.a. 1980:132 b. 88 / 3 11 X   Y    V 88 1965 1977  : 1980   : 7 88 7 / 7 b a a a 1997 9.a. b. 1997:270 1997 3.2 1997 1977 1980 (3) (4) 9 b a (3) 3 X  Y  V Y V X V (4) "" "" 11 3 1) 2) 4. 4.1. 7.a X 10. 11. 10 11 12 Taniguchi   1994 2000 Y 11 Y X c b 11 10
c 10
12 13 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.  13 18 x Z Y (5) (6) 5 X  Y  V 4.2. (7) (8) (9) 6 7 88 9 7 88 13 18 13'. 14'. 15'. !! 16'. 17'. 18'. 95 31 10 15′ 13' 13' 18 18' 13 5. X  Y  V 13' 18' 11 3 Z x v 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 19 24 CAMPANY 2 MVR: mover AG : agent . 18 23 (     ) N1 transport N2 to N3 by N4 N2 N3  / N1 N4 ) N2(533 ) N3(388 [N1(3 2610    ) N4(986 )] . 23 18 (     ) N1 put N2 to N3 N1 N3  / N2 [N1(3          760 ) N2(533            ) N3(2          2610     )]       . 23 2610  )] N1      N2        N3 [N1(3        ) N2(746           838         ) N3(533               2610     ) N4(533 . 18 N1 pull N2 to N3 N1    N2    N3  /  / [N1(3         535          760 ) N2(2610      4       533               ) N3(388 23 • (     ) N1     N2     N3 N1 insert N2 in/into N3 [N1(4      962         ) N2(533               ) N3(533 2569  )] NTT 2610 )] 33
19 24 5.2 1997, (10) (11) (10) 39 19 24 (11) (10) 25.a. b. 26.a. b. 27.a. b. 28.a. b. 28 25 a 1982 1995 1996 ) 25.b x v Z  Y Y Z 26.b 28.b 27.b 25.b 26.b X Y Z Z X Z Y Y ( 6. Fillmore
ICM  Idealized Cognitive Model symbolic view Fillmore et al.   1988 Goldberg   1995, 1997,1999 grammatical construction
Meaning construction 4. 6.1. Goldberg  1995 199 (construction) 4 Croft(1999) Langacker(1987,1991) construction Conventional Symbolic Unit [1] constructions are independent grammatical entities. [2] constructions exist to varying degrees of schematicity. [3] constructions are symbolic unit. they are complexes of form and function. [4] constructions are organized into a network of grammatical knowledge in the mind. Croft(1999:64) C is a CONSTRUCTION iffdef C is a form-meaning pair <F;, S;> such that some aspect of F i or some aspect of S i is not strictly predictable form C's component parts Goldberg 1995: 4 of from other previously established constructions. 2 5 lexicon Langacker 1987 syntax phonological pole semantic pole 2 11
Goldberg   1999:199 11 .1 5
bill the letter Subj V Obj Obj2 44 Pat faxed X causes Y to receive Z 11 Intransitive  motion 11 construction 6.2. Intransitive motion construction 1995 Goldberg Subject Verb Oblique X moves to Y
Y 5
1987 Langacker symbolic  space Usage Event Subj V Obl X moves to Sanctioning Structure Target Structure Double object construction 29.a. Sally baked Harry a cake. b. *Joe angered Bob the pink slip. Caused-motion construction 30.a. He sneezed the napkin off the table. b. *Pat shot Sam across the room. Intransitive motion construction 31.a. The boat sailed into the cave. b. *The boat burned into the cave. 3 4. 44 Y 44 6.3 b a a b Goldberg   1995
Goldberg   1995
Let e c be the event type designated by the construction, and e , the event type designated by the verb. e, must be related to e, in one of the following ways: A.  ev may be a subtype of ec B. e, may designate the means of ec C.  ev may designate the result of ec D.  ev may designate a precondition of ec Goldberg   1995:65 A
32. She gave him the ball. 33. Pat faxed Bill the letter. 34. The music lent the party a festive air. 35. Joe permitted Chris an apple. 32 35 X causes Y to receive Z 32 give
33 fax 35 permit Goldberg   1995 36.a. The boat sailed into the cave. b. *The boat burned into the cave. Croft 1991:160 36 b a Croft 1991 b Goldberg(1995) a e, may b Goldberg 1995:86 7. 7.1. 37.
37 40 sail designate the means of ec x Y ( ( ( 3 ) ) ) x Y v 37 40 37 40 x Y v 41.a.
" " " " b 41 a b 7.2. X     Y V 43     44 43. 44. 43 44 45. (SONY ） 46. 45 46 44 45 46 44 X Y v 45 43 Y X 43 46 43'. * 44'. * 45'. * 46'. * 46' 43 46 43 46 43' 43′ 46' 43 43' 45 45′ 44 44' 46' 46 Goldberg   1995 45 46 43' 46' 43 44 43' 44' 4 45 46 46' 45′ 1. 2. 43 : : 3. : 1 3 2 X  Y  V 8. 47
c. d. 47 a d X  Y x X V Y V X  Y  Z V 4 47 c b d http://www5a.biglobe.ne.jp/~sakatam/book/author.html http://www.ceres.dti.ne.jp/~dune/kikuchilove/youjin.htm sophia  http://aozora.gr.jp/main.html http://aozora.gr.jp/main.html http://www.jali.or.jp/tti/jiten/all/all73.html http://aozora.gr.jp/main.html http://aozora.gr.jp/main.html http://aozora.gr.jp/main.html http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~pv9a-ysok/haina/ http://isweb29.infoseek.co.jp/novel/novelman/writer/ http://www1.dti.ad.jp/userdir/s_25.html http://www.avis.ne.jp/~takaike/saki/disco.htm l http://aozora.gr.jp/main.html http://member.nifty.ne.jp/hagu3/sneaker1.htm : http://www.bf.wakwak.com/~operator_7g/main.htm : http://www.remus.dti.ne.jp/~miz/plusa/dessert.html : http://www.tanuki.gr.jp/zo/talk/39.html : http://www.sonycinematic.co.jp/produce : SONY Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic categories and Grammartical relation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Croft, W. 2000.    "Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar" Unpublished Paper. Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. "Syntactic Intrusions and the Notion of Grammatical Construction". BLS 11. pp.73-86. Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul & O'Connor, Mary Catherine 1988 "Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone", Language 64, pp. 501-538. Goldberg, Adele. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Goldberg, Adele. E. 1997. "The Relationships between Verbs and Constructions". in Eve Sweetser&Kee dong Lee(eds.) Lexical and Syntactical constructions and the Construction meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. pp.383-397. Goldberg, Adele. E. 1999. "The Emergence of the Semantics of Argument Structure Constructions." in Brain MacWhinney (ed.) The Emergence of Language. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp.197-212. 1988. 19, pp.26-42. Johnson, Christopher. 1999.    "Constructional Grounding". in Alan Cienki, Barbara J. Luka. and Michael B. Smith. (eds.) Conceptual and discourse factors in linguistic structure. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications, pp.123-136. 1979. 1997. pp.268-272. 1971. , pp.121-173. Lakoff, George 1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I, Theoretical Prerequisites, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1990 Concept, Image, and Symbol. The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, «Cognitive Linguistics Research, 1», Berlin - New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. 1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II, Descriptive Application, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Levin, Beth & Tova R. Rapoport. 1992.    "The Lexical semantics of verbs of motion: The perspective from unaccusativity.", in Iggy M. Roca(ed.) Thematic structure: Its role in grammar, Dordrecht: Foris. pp.247-269. Levin, Beth & Tova R. Rapoport. 1995.    Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1923-1924. 29-12 30-1,2 ( ) (   ) 2001. 1996. ( 1997. (   ) 1996. , pp.13-40) · pp.125-229. ( ). 1990. 102, pp.331-341. 1991. 1964. , pp.45-60. NTT 1977. pp.50-72. 1971.
， pp.122-136. 1985 + 62-5, , pp.105-116. Taniguchi, Kazumi. 1994. "A Cognitive approach to the English Middle Construction,"  English Linguistics, Vol.11. English Linguistic Society Japan. pp.173-196. Talmy, Leonard 2000 Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol.   . Cambridge: MIT Press. 1982. 2001. ( ). , pp. 40-68.
,
2001. pp.1-85. CD-ROM , pp.112-141.