日英語の結果構文におけるスケール構造と事象構造の同型性

∗
1
( 1996, Washio 1997, )
boundedness
constraint
( 2006,
2009, )Kennedy and Levin (2008),
Beavers (2010)
Talmy (2000) path conflation
2 /
(i)
(ii)
Wechsler (2005)
Washio (1997)
2.1
Krifka (1992, 1998) (1)
incremental theme
homomorphism
(1) a. John ate an apple {in/??for} an hour. (telic)
b. John ate apples {*in/for} an hour. (atelic)
incremental theme
telic
incremental theme
atelic
Wechsler (2005)
*1
∗ wuegaki@gmail.com
*1 (i)
fake
maximal endpoint
telic
Wechsler
*2
boundedness
constraint (2)
hammer
flat, straight
long, wide, thin, beautiful
(3a)
(3b) completely
perfectly
cf. e.g., Kennedy and McNally 2005
(2) He hammered the metal {flat/straight/*long/*wide/
*thin/*beautiful} (cf. Green 1972)
(3) a. flatter/straighter/longer/wider/thinner/
more beautiful
b. completely/perfectly {flat/straight/
#long/#wide/#thin/#beautiful}
Wechsler Boas (2000)
* 3
(
2006, Tanaka 2008, 2009, 2009)
(4a, 5a)
(4b, 5b)
(4) a.
(i)
reflexive
a. The runners ran the pavement thin.
b. Ann shouted herself hoarse.
*2 Vanden Wyngaerd (2001)
*3 Wechsler
telic
(2007b)
4

. *John stretched the rubber long.
(5) a.
b. *John brought up his son tough.
(6) a. # { / }
b. # completely {long/tough}
telic
(7)
(8)
imperfective paradox;
Dowty 1979
(7) a. { /?? }
b. { /?? }
(8) a.
b.
telic
Krifka-Wechsler
Washio (1997)
2.2
Washio (1997)
weak resultativesstrong resultatives
(9)
theme
(10)
(9) (weak resultatives)
a. Mary froze it solid.
b.
c. Mary wiped the table clean.
d. { /
/ }
(10) (strong resultatives)
a. The horse dragged the logs smooth.
b. * { / }
c. She kicked her son black and white.
d. *
e. The jockeys raced the horses sweaty.
f. *
g. They beat the man bloody.
h. *
Washio (9)
(10)
/
(10)
Washio
disposition to change
telic
(9d) /
(4a)
(11)
(12)
telic
(13) cool widen
degree achievements; Dowty 1979
(11) a. { / }
/
b. {?/ }
(12) a. { / }
⇒ { / }
b.
⇒
(13) a. John cooled the soup {in/for} ten minutes.
b. John was cooling the soup ⇒ John has cooled
the soup.
2
4
2.1
2.2

3
(1996) LCS
(1996)
(15) [BEat
z]
(14)
(CAUSE) [BECOME . . . ]
(14) [x ACT-ON y]
(15) [x ACT-ON y] CAUSE [y BECOME [BE-AT z]]
BECOME telic
(2009) BECOME
BE-AT
atelic
telic
BE-AT
BECOME
BE-AT
BECOME LCS telic
(2009)
(15)
LCS
* 4
(2007b)
Tanaka (2008) CAUSE
telic
PATH
PATH
*4
(cf. Tanaka 2008) (4a)
(ii)
(i)
(i)
(ii)
a.
b.
a.
b. *
telic
CAUSE
telic
telic
telic
(10)
telic
-Tanaka
4
Kennedy and Levin (2008) Beavers
(2010)
Wechsler
(10)
hammer
the metal flat flat
hammer
(9)

4.1
event predicateθ
Krifka (1998) strict
incrementalitySINC
(16) strict incrementality:
SINC D (θ) ≔ MAP-UD(θ) ∧ MAP-UE(θ)
(17) (sub-degree) :
MAP-UD(θ) iff ∀x, d, e, e ′ [θ(x)(d)(e) ∧ e ′ < e →
∃!d ′ [θ(x)(d ′ )(e ′ ) ∧ d ′ < d]]
(18) (sub-event) :
MAP-UE(θ) iff ∀x, d, d ′ , e[θ(x)(d)(e) ∧ d ′ < d →
∃!e ′ [θ(x)(d ′ )(e ′ ) ∧ e ′ < e]]
(16) (19)
flat
(19) [[flat]] = λxλdλe. flat(x)(d)(e)
a. flat(x)(d)(e) = 1 iff x is flat to the degree d in
the final part of e * 5
b. SINC D (flat)
(20) hammer
Type shifter
RESL (21) (19)
hammer the metal flat (22)
(20) [[hammer]] = λxλe. hammer(x)(e)
(21) :
RESL E = λ f λxλgλe. f (x)(e) ∧ ∃d[g(x)(d)(e)]
*5 λxλdλe. flat(x)(d)(e) e
x flatness degree d e x flatness
degree d ′ (26a)
stretched
(22) [[hammer the metal flat]]
= RESL E ( [[hammer]])( [[the metal]])( [[flat]])
= λe. hammer(the metal)(e)∧∃d[flat(the metal)(d)(e)]
(22) (23)
(23)
telic
(23) VP
non-homogenous event:
∀ f, x, g, e[RESL( f )(x)(g)(e) →
∀e ′ [e ′ > e → ¬HOM(e ′ , λe.RESL( f )(x)(g)(e))]]
HOM(e, θ) ≔ ∀e ′ , e ′′ ≤ e[θ(e ′ ) ∧ θ(e ′′ )]
e
e ′ e ′
non-homogenous
event
long
(23)
(24) VP
e
e ′ (24)
(24) λe. hammer(the metal)(e) ∧
∃d[long(the metal)(d)(e)]
e ′ (17)
(24)
(24)
(23)
(22)
flatness
e e ′
e ′ e
(22) e ′
e ′ flatness
(22)
(23)

telic
telicity
(23)
Wechsler (2005) telic
(2007b) British National
Corpus
(2007b) (2009) telic
(25) a. I froze the ice cream (very) hard.
b. She opened the door very wide.
4.2
(16)
(23)
(26)
degree argument
strict incrementality
(26) [[]] = λxλdλe. stretched(y)(d)(e)
a. stretched(x)(d)(e) = 1 iff x is stretched to the
degree d in the final part of e
b. SINC D (stretched)
(27) positive morpheme
pos (Kennedy and McNally 2005, Kennedy 2007)
x e
(28)
stnd
(27) [[]] = λxλdλe. long(x)(d)(e)
(28) pos( [[]]) = λxλe. long(x)(stnd(long))(e)
(29)
(21)
(29)
(29) RESL J = λ f λgλxλe. ∃d[g(x)(d)(e)] ∧ f (x)(e)
VP
(30) [[]]
= RESL J ( [[]])(pos( [[]]))
= λe. ∃d[stretched(rubber)(d)(e)] ∧
long(rubber)(stnd(long))(e)
(30)
*6 (31)
(31) #
(23)
(23)
dimension
2.2
(10)
4.3 Incremental theme
/
(32-33)
(32) John painted the wall red.
(33)
incremental theme
(32)
(33)
(33)
*6 stnd
(Kennedy 2007)

INCR
ext
(34) INCR = λ f λxλdλe.∃x ′ [ f (x ′ )(e) ∧
ext(x ′ )/ext(x) = d∧∀x ′′ [ f (x ′′ )(e) → x ′ ≮ x ′′ ]]
*7 RESL
INCR
(35) INCR([[]]) = λxλdλe.∃x ′ [painted(x ′ )(e) ∧
ext(x ′ )/ext(x) = d ∧ ∀x ′′ [painted(x ′′ )(e) → x ′ ≮ x ′′ ]]
5
Washio (1997)
Talmy (2000)
satellite
Talmy
Beavers, J. (2010). “Aspectual Classes and Scales of
Change”. Ms, University of Texas at Austin. [available
online].
*7
e.g, pos INCR
Boas, H. C. (2000). Resultative Constructions in English
and German. PhD thesis, University of North Carolina.
Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar:
The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative
Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Reidel.
Green, G. (1972). “Some Observations on the Syntax and
Semantics of Instrumental Verbs”. In CLS 8, 83–97.
(1996). –.
.
Kennedy, C. (2007). “Vagueness and grammar: the semantics
of relative and absolute gradable adjectives”. Linguistics
and Philosophy, 30(1):1–45.
Kennedy, C. and B. Levin (2008). “Measure of Change:
The Adjectival core of degree achievements”. In L. Mc-
Nally and C. Kennedy, (eds), Adjectives and Adverbs:
Syntax, Semantics and Discourse. OUP, 156–182.
Kennedy, C. and L. McNally (2005). “Scale structure and
the semantic typology of gradable predicates”. Language,
81(2):345–381.
(2009).
. In () (2009), 315–364.
Krifka, M. (1992). “Thematic relations as links between
nominal reference and temporal constitution”. In I. Sag
and A. Szabolcsi, (eds), Lexical Matters. CSLI, 29–53.
Krifka, M. (1998). “The Origins of Telicity”. In S. Rothstein,
(ed), Events and Grammar. Kluwer, 197–235.
(2006). –
. .
(2009). . In
() (2009), 141–170.
() (2007a). .
.
(2007b).
. In () (2007a), 67–101.
() (2009). .
.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 2:
Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. The MIT
Press.
Tanaka, E. (2008). “The notion of path in aspectual composition:
Evidence from Japanese”. In J. Dölling and
T. Heyde-Zybatow, (eds), Event Structures in Linguistic
Form and Interpretation. Mouton, 199–222.
Washio, R. (1997). “Resultatives, Compositionality and
Language Variation”. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,
6:1–49.
Wechsler, S. (2005). “Resultatives under the ‘Eventargument
homomorphism’ model of telicity”. In
N. Erteschik-Shir and T. Rapoport, (eds), The Syntax of
Aspect. OUP, 255–273.
Vanden Wyngaerd, G. (2001). “Measuring Events”. Language,
77(1):61–90.