@article{oai:jrccn.repo.nii.ac.jp:00000026,
 author = {川﨑, 修一},
 journal = {日本赤十字看護大学紀要, Bulletin of the Japanese Red Cross College of Nursing},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {application/pdf, 本研究では，英語の擬似受身構文（pseudo-passive / prepositional passive construction）について考察する．擬似受身構文とは，自動詞及び前置詞を伴う受身文のことである（e. g. This bed shouldn't be slept in by anyone unauthorized.）．Perlmutter and Postal (1984)，Levin and Lappaport Hovav (1995)等の統語的分析では，異なった枠組みからの分析ではあるものの，両者の主張は概略「英語の擬似受身文には，非能格自動詞（unergative verb）のみ現われ，非対格自動詞（unaccusative verb）は現われない」というものである．また機能論的分析としては，高見（1995），高見・久野（2002），久野・高見（2005）等が挙げられ，擬似受け身文は，話し手が主語を特徴（性格）づけるか，主語が動詞の表わす行為や状態にインヴォルヴするときに用いられるという機能的制約が提案されている．そしてこの機能的制約は，統語的分析では捉えきれない言語事実を説明できる有力な分析であると考えられる．しかし，実際の用例を精査すると，機能論的特徴づけ制約では説明し切れない例も確認される．そこで本研究では，擬似受け身文の意味的特徴に注目し，代替案として擬似受身文に課される意味論的制約を提案する．, This article discusses the pseudo-passive construction (PPC) in English with particular reference to its semantic constraints. PPC is a grammatical construction such as This bed shouldn't be slept in by anyone, where the subject of the passivized intransitive verb corresponds to an object of an adjunct prepositional phrase in its active counterpart. The tenet of leading syntactic analyses (Perlmutter and Postal (1984)，Levin and Lappaport Hovav (1995)), albeit from different frameworks, can be summed up as follows: PPC is only compatible with unergative verbs (The Unergative Restriction). However, this restriction has been shown untenable with a number of counterexamples by functional analyses (Takami (1995), Takami & Kuno (2002), and Kuno & Takami (2005)). They insist instead that PPC is acceptable to the extent that it can be interpreted as a sentence that characterizes the subject or that the subject referent is involved in the action or state (The Characterization and Involvement Requirement). Although this functional constraint can account for the acceptability of a wide range of examples of PPC, including crucial counterexamples to the Unergative Restriction, it leaves several problems unanswered. In this paper I will present an alternative semantic requirement imposed for PPC to be acceptably used: PPC is acceptable if and only if it represents [1] modality (i.e. propositional attitude) to the propositional content of the sentence or [2] characteristics that the speaker believes to be recognizable enough to the hearer (The Modality Requirement).},
 pages = {1--10},
 title = {擬似受身構文とモダリティ},
 volume = {25},
 year = {2011}
}