This plan

第５講記号的文法観２：構文研究
野村益寛
1. 構文
(1) Cognitive Grammar (CG) diverges from
standard assumptions in two fundamental
respects: (i) its claim that grammar is
symbolic in nature; and (ii) its focus on
constructions (rather than “rules”) as the
primary objects of description […].
(Langacker 2009:1)
認知文法における構文の定義
(2) In CG, grammatical patterns are
represented by means of schemas. A
construction is defined as either an expression
(of any size), or else a schema abstracted from
expressions (of any size), or else a schema
abstracted from expressions to capture their
commonality (at any level of specificity).
Expressions and the patterns they instantiate
are thus the same in their basic nature,
differing only in degree of specificity.
(Langacker 2009: 2)
構文文法における構文の定義
(3) C is a CONSTRUCTION iffdef C is a formmeaning pair <Fi, Si> such that some
aspect of Fi or some aspect of Si is not
strictly predictable from C’s component
parts or from other previously established
constructions. (Goldberg 1995:4)
還元主義的(reductive)
認知文法と構文文法の構文の定義の
相違
(4) In Construction Grammar, a construction is
recognized only if some aspect of it is
unpredictable from its component parts or other,
independently established constructions […].
There is no such requirement in Cognitive
Grammar, where an assembly is accepted as
part of “the grammar” to the extent that it is
psychologically entrenched and conventional in
the speech community. (Langacker 2005: 140)
構文文法における構文の定義の修正
(5) All levels of grammatical analysis involve
constructions: learned pairings of form with
semantic or discourse function, including
morphemes or words, idioms, partially lexically
filled and fully general phrasal patterns. […] Any
linguistic pattern is recognized as a construction as
long as some aspect of its form or function is not
strictly predictable from its component parts or
from other constructions recognized to exist. In
addition, patterns are stored as constructions even
if they are fully predictable as long as they occur
with sufficient frequency […]. (Goldberg 2006: 5)
(6) the network of constructions captures
our grammatical knowledge of language in
toto, i.e. it’s constructions all the way
down. (Goldberg 2006: 18)
(7) 認知文法と構文文法の本質的違い
A basic claim of Cognitive Grammar is that notions like noun,
verb, noun phrase, subject, and object are semantically
definable and inherent in symbolic assemblies. Neither
Construction Grammar nor Radical Construction Grammar
commits itself to any such position. […] there is no definite
claim that such constructs are fully definable conceptually, nor
even any inclination to consider this a possibility worth
exploring. To the extent that these constructs are not reduced
to anything more fundamental, they represent a vestige in
these frameworks of strong autonomy, in the form of a special
set of irreducible grammatical primitives. (Langacker 2005:
106-7)
＝記号的文法観の徹底度の違い
2. 繰り上げ構文
a. 主語から目的語への繰り上げ
I expect [David criticize this plan]
==> I expect David [to criticize this plan]
b. 主語から主語への繰り上げ
[David criticize this plan] is likely
==> David is likely [to criticize this plan]
c. 目的語から主語への繰り上げ
[David criticize this plan] is easy
==> This plan is easy [for David to criticize]
繰り上げ構文を記述するのにどのような認知的
道具立てが必要か？
(i) a particular construct is shown
necessary for the adequate semantic
description of multiple phenomena in
various languages; (Langacker 2003:242)
(8) active-zone/profile discrepancy
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
The spacecraft is now approaching Uranus.
Your dog bit my cat.
Roger blinked.
The kettle is boiling.
I’m in the phone book.
(9) active zone: those facets of an entity
which participate most directly and
crucially in a relationship (Langacker
1995:25)
(8)の意味を記述するのにactive zoneと
いう道具立てが必要
(ii) this construct is related to an independently
observable cognitive ability;
(10) they [=active-zone/profile discrepancies]
manifest some very basic conceptual and
linguistic phenomena and serve an important
cognitive and communicative function.
Specifically, they represent a special case of
METONYMY, which in turn instantiates our basic
cognitive ability to invoke one entity as a
conceptual reference point for purposes of
establishing mental contact with another.
(Langacker 1995: 27)
(11) reference point ability
the boy’s watch vs. *the watch’s boy
the dog’s tail vs. *the tail’s dog
the cat’s fleas vs. *the fleas’ cat
Lincoln’s assassination vs. *the assassination’s
Lincoln
(Langacker 1993:8)
参照点構造
T
D
R
C
(iii) this same construct proves critical for
the explicit characterization of varied
grammatical phenomena.
(12) raising constructions are simply a
special case of active-zone/profile
discrepancy. (Langacker 1995:29)
(13a) I expect that Don will leave.
(13b) I expect Don to leave.
Cf. I persuaded Don to leave.
(EXPECT1)
(EXPECT2)
(14a) Wombats are easy (to wash).
(14b) Q: Who is coming to your party?
A: Well, Tom is likely, and Sally is certain.
Q: Who is coming to your party?
A: I expect Tom and Sally.
(Langacker 1995:39-40)
3. 主要部内在型関係節
(16)
a. 主要部内在型関係節
[りんごが皿の上にある]のをくすねた。
b. 主要部外在型関係節
[皿の上にある]りんごをくすねた。
(25) 主要部内在型関係節構文は、全体／部
分のメトニミーに基づく参照点構文である。すな
わち、認知主体はまず従属節事態（＝全体）を
＜参照点＞としてもちだし、その＜支配域＞
（すなわち従属節事態に何らかの意味で関連
する要素の集合）の中の要素（＝部分）を＜目
標＞として選び、それと心的に接触を果たす。
この＜目標＞が主節動詞と最も直接的に関係
する「主要部」として同定される。（Nomura 2000,
野村 2001）
(28) 繰り上げ構文 vs. 主要部内在型関係節構文
az
az
日本語主要部内在型関係節
全体＞部分
英語繰り上げ構文
具体＞抽象
主要部のない主要部内在型関係節
(27)
a. [やかんが沸騰した]のを湯呑みに注いだ。
b. [土を２メートルほど掘った]のを上から覗き込
んだ。
c. [宴会で足が出た]のを幹事が立て替えた。
(26)
a. [警官が犯人を連行していた]のをスナイパー
が撃ち殺した。
b. [犯人が警官に連行されていた]のをスナイ
パーが撃ち殺した。
c. [警官に犯人が連行されていた]のをスナイ
パーが撃ち殺した。
d. [犯人を警官が連行していた]のをスナイパー
が撃ち殺した。
(31) 参照点構文の類型
1
2
3
4
参照点
モノ
モノ
コト
コト
目標
モノ
コト
モノ
コト
例
ノ、-’s
ハ、繰り上げ構文
主要部内在型関係節
？
(18) 関係節の類型論
NRel
Head-initial  （英語）
languages
(MiD, MaOP)
Head-final  （ペルシャ
languages
語）
(*MiD, MaOP)
RelN
*（例外：中国語）
(*MiD, *MaOP)
 （日本語）
(MiD, *MaOP)
主要部内在型関係節についての
Hawkins のコメント
(18) a. OV languages are not optimal with
either NRel or RelN, and the head-internal
strategy provides another means of solving the
problem. (Hawkins 1990: 256)
b. Head-internal relatives provide a compromise
that affords advantages of both domain
minimization and un-/misassignment avoidance,
without having to choose exclusively in favor of
one or the other. (Hawkins 2014: 152).
主要部内在型関係節は処理しやすいか？
S1[…VP1[NP1[S’[the
giraffe deer pushed that]] patted]]
1
2
 IC-to-word: 2/2 = 100%, *MaOP
S1[…VP1[NP1[S’[the
giraffe deer pushed that]] patted]]
1
2
3
4
IC-to-word: 2/4 = 50%, *MaOP
a. ［警察が犯人を追いかける］のを先導した。
b. ［警察が犯人を追いかける］のをかくまった。
主節動詞を聞くまで主要部が決定できない
c. ［警察が犯人を追いかける］のを撃ち殺した。
主節動詞を聞いても主要部が決定できない
=>文処理の観点からは主要部内在型関係節は最
適な構文とは言えない。
なぜ主要部内在型関係節はあるのか？
談話的基盤
(21) the add-on strategy（継ぎ足し戦略）: the
process of constructing conversational turns
from a linear sequence of short finite clause-like
segments (Biber, Conrad and Leech 2002: 455)
cf. “Grammars code best what speakers do
most.” (Du Bois 1985: 363)
(22) The trouble is  if you’re the only one in
the house  he follows you  and you’re looking
for him  so you can’t find him.  I thought  I
wonder  where the hell he’s gone  I mean 
he was immediately behind me. (ibid., p.438)
統語的融合
syntactic blend: “a sentence or clause which
finishes up in a way that is syntactically
inconsistent with the way it began. […] This is
another type of performance error which
appears to be caused by working memory
limitations.” (Biber et al. 1999: 1064-5)
a. Although a hundred, two hundred years ago we
had ninety-five percent of people – i – in this
country were employed in farming.
b. In fact that’s one of the things that there is a
shortage of in this play, is people who actually
care er, em – about what happens to erm each、
each other. (ibid., p.1065)
c. There was a farmer had a dog and Bingo was his
name.
d. Well, I have a friend of mine called me. (Prince
1981, quoted by Lambrecht 1988: 319)
仮説：主要部内在型関係節構文は、継ぎ足し
戦略が慣習化してできた統語的融合構文であ
る。
a. りんごが皿の上にあった。
b. りんごが皿の上にあったのをくすねた。
c. りんごが皿の上にあったのをくすねたのを
隠しておいた。
d. りんごが皿の上にあったのをくすねたのを
隠しておいたのがなくなっていた。
(23) 吉川はご存じのように，関ヶ原合戦の際，
毛利軍がだーっと出てきたのを当時の武将・吉
川広家が「徳川軍を攻めるな」といって徳川軍
の真上に陣を構えて毛利軍を止め，その存続
に尽力したという歴史があります．（半藤一利
『幕末史』，新潮文庫，p.197）
(24) 慶喜が「戦わない，恭順する」と言い張る
のを，小栗さんが「戦えば勝てるのだから」と盛
んに抗議し，「もういい，聞く必要はない」と慶喜
が立ち上がったところで袖をとらえ，「殿！な
にとぞ私の言うことを」と食い下がった（以下略）．
（同上，p.312）
断定/前提
a. ［君が探していたペンが机の下に落ちてい
た］のを拾っておいてあげたよ。
b.？［机の下に落ちていた］君が探していたペ
ンを拾っておいてあげたよ。
関連性条件
a. ［子どもがはさみで遊んでいた］のを取り上げた。
b. ？［子どもがはさみで遊んでいた］のを分解した。
主要部解釈
a. ［やかんが沸騰した］のを湯のみに注いだ。
b. ［警官が犯人を連行していた］のをスナイ
パーが撃ち殺した。
参照点構造と継ぎ足し戦略の関係
とりあえず話し始めたclause-like segmentが参
照点となり、後続するclause-like segmentとの関
係で事後的に目標（＝主要部）が決まってくる。

Download Report