空論上の砂、楼閣上の机。

The Castle of Indolence

Heavy NP Shift

2019年9月6日の高校2年生のときに同級生向けに作ったプリントを発掘したのでアーカイブとして原文ママで公開します. 間違っている点や微妙な点もそれなりに存在しており, しかも全体として (まだ若かったので) かなりイキっていて申し訳ありませんが, 今から手を加えようとすると膨大な労力がかかる上に全体のバランスを損なってしまう虞があり, かといって公開する価値がないわけでもないので記事として誰かのお役に立てれば良いかなと存じます. 強い言葉が嫌いな方はブラウザバックをおすすめいたします.

概要

文末重心の原理文末焦点の原理などによって名詞句 (NP, Noun Phrase) が後置されることをHeavy NP Shift (重名詞句転移) といいます.

日本の学習参考書 ([1] など) ではSVOCや前置詞句の倒置として個別的に捉えられることが多いですが, その程度の認識だと誤読しやすい文構造である上に, 実際に入試でもよく出題されています.

本稿では, まず [2] などの現代的な言語学に基づく整理された形で概論を述べ, 次に実際の英文からの用例を列挙しました. 英語の構文とは, 短期間で意識的に同じ構造の文を大量にトレーニングすることによって初めて身につくものです. みなさんの英語学習に役立てば幸いです.

はじめに

みなさんはエドガー・アラン・ポーという作家の名前を聞いたことがありますか? 代表作に『黒猫』や『モルグ街の殺人事件』, 『大鴉』などがあります. そこで『黒猫』の一節を抜き出してみましょう.

My immediate purpose is to place before the world, plainly, succinctly, and without comment, a series of mere household events.

適当に読んでいると「何を place するの?」と疑問に思う*1でしょう. こういったタイプの文を [1] の192ページでは

She believes unfair any decision that doesn’t favor her.
(彼女は自分に不利な判定は何でも不公平だと思いこんでいる).
→この文は目的語が長いので後ろに回り, 補語が先行している.

と説明しています. すなわち, a series of mere household events という目的語が長いので後ろに回り, 前置詞句 before the world, plainly, succinctly, and without comment が先行している, ということになります.

もちろんこの説明は適切でしょう. しかし, この種の文構造というのは別にSVOやSVOCに限った話でもない上に, いくつかの制約が存在しています. たとえば次の文はすべて非文法的か不自然です:

*I met yesterday a woman.
*I sent to you it.
*I consider unsolvable the problem.
*They gave a special prize anyone who scored over 90%.
*I bought it for yesterday every friend of mine in Ray Town.
*John gave a book about roses the girl from Spain.
(頭についた*は「非文法的」という記号です.)

こういったタイプの文は (おそらく) Ross (1967) によって初めて考察され, Chomsky (1975) などの大御所も研究を行っています. そこで, [2] のような現代的に洗練された体系を援用して, どんどんと謎を解き明かし, トレーニングしていくことを目指していきましょう.

Weight

英語は主語と述語のバランスが悪いのを嫌うので, 特別な理由がない限りは文の調子を整えてあげるのが普通です. たとえば

Many people who believe that the recent warming of the climate is due to the greenhouse effect exist.

というのはあまりに頭でっかちです. そこで

There are many people who believe that the recent warming of the climate is due to the greenhouse effect.

と直してやると, 前に比べて格段に読みやすくなっています. このように, heavy*2な構成素を文末に回すことを文末重心の原理 (principle of end-weight) といいます.

外置

文末重心の原理を達成するために外置 (extraposition) という操作を行うことがほとんどです. 外置にもさまざまな種類があります.

it-extraposition

(1) It is a pity that we missed the show.
(2) It surprised me to hear him say that.
(3) I make it a rule to get up at seven.
(4) I owe it to you that the jury acquitted me.
(5) Something put it into his head that she was a spy.

受験英語では「形式主語構文」や「仮主語構文」などと呼ばれていますが, (3)-(5) は「目的語」になっています. なので特に強調して it-extraposition ともいいます*3.

Extraposition from NP

これだけではなく, 名詞句からの外置 (extraposition from NP) というのもあります. 名詞句の中から同格節・関係節・前置詞句を文末に移動する規則なのですが, 入試問題でもちょこちょこ出てくるのに割とテキトーな説明で済まされがちなので頭に叩き込んでおいてください.

(1)-(6) は主語からの外置, (7), (8) は目的語からの外置, (9) は主語補語からの外置です.

(1) [A review] appeared of my latest novel.
(2) It’s just that [something]’s happened that worried me.*4
(3) [A rumor] circulated widely that John was engaged to a foreign princess.
(4) [The legend] grew that he was a vampire.*5
(5) It is [the only chance there is] of stopping them.*6
(6) The longer he is in view, the greater [the chance] the Secret Service helicopters will have of spotting him.*7
(7) John read [a book] over the summer by Chomsky.
(8) I met [several people] yesterday who we had known for a long time.
(9) [What business] is it of yours?

注. では次のような文はどうなるのでしょうか? “They are good hounds who run silent.” もちろん who を単純に good hounds を先行詞とする関係代名詞と取っても構いません. その場合は「彼らは黙って走るよい猟犬だ」という意味になります. しかし, 実は「吠えずに走るのがよい猟犬なんだ」という意味で They who run silent are good hounds. としたものの, Those who ほどには They who は自然ではないので, wh 節を外置したのだ, と取ることもできます. この場合はどちらでも構いません.
一方, “Those are my feet you’re treading on.” のような文は「それらは, あなたが踏んづけている私の足である」とはなりません. そもそも文脈的におかしいということ, そして my feet を先行詞とした制限用法を使うのは変だということを考えれば, これも Those (that you’re treading on) are my feet.「そりゃ私の足だよ, おまえさんが踏んづけてんのは」を外置してきたものだと考えるのがよいでしょう. そう, これは「強調構文」の変種です. 次節で詳しく扱いましょう.

Familiarity status

先ほど文末焦点の原理を紹介しましたが, 次のような例はどうでしょうか?

But, we must never forget, most of the appropriate heroes and their legends were created overnight, to answer immediate needs.... Most of the legends that are created to fan the fires of patriotism are essentially propagandistic and are not folk legends at all ... Naturally, such scholarly facts are of little concern to the man trying to make money or fan patriotism by means of folklore. That much of what he calls folklore is the result of beliefs carefully sown among the people with the conscious aim of producing a desired mass emotional reaction to a particular situation or set of situations is irrelevant.

いくつか英文解釈上の注意点を述べておきましょう.

  • We must never forget that SV の that を comma で代用した例.
  • answer immediate needs「当面の要求を満たす」
  • fan a fire [blaze, flame]「火 [炎] を燃え立たせる」
  • are of little concern は「of 抽象名詞」
  • sown は sow「種を蒔く」の過去分詞

ここで主語である That much of what he calls folklore is the result of beliefs carefully sown among the people with the conscious aim of producing a desired mass emotional reaction to a particular situation or set of situations は, 前文の内容を総括している一方, それが irrelevant*8 であるということは全く話に出てきていません. このように「もう知ってること」から始めて「まだ知らないこと」へと続けるのが familiarity status に誘導された情報構造の典型的な特徴です.

たとえば The Beatles の有名な曲に Here Comes The Sun がありますが, これも here はもう知ってることだけど the sun はまだ知らないことだから倒置が起こっているというわけです.

Speaker vs. addressee

実際「新情報と旧情報でしょ? そのぐらい知ってるよ?」という人も多いと思います. ところが, 残念ながら生徒だけではなく英語教師でさえ, 情報構造に対する理解があまりに甘い人が多すぎます. その代表例が「there is 構文では固有名詞や所有格, 定冠詞を使ってはいけない」という大ウソです. 大ウソです. 騙されないでください. 大ウソです. まともに英語を読んでいる人間は死んでもこんなことを言いません. いくつか用例を集めてみましょう.

(1) There’s the possibility that his train has been delayed.
(2) Then there was the president’s boast, which was incorrect, that the troops would be getting their first raise in more than a decade thanks to his leadership. (New York Times)
(3) There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. (Mill, On Liberty)
(4) “How many can we get for out group?” “Well, there’s John, and Mary, and Bill.”
(5) Suddenly there ran out of the woods the man we had seen at the picnic. (Aissen 1975)
(6) I literally just opened the door to the room, and there was the President and Chief Justice John Roberts. (TIME)
(7) Harris, who is under probation specifically over bacteria, may remain under scrutiny. A New York City tabloid called him a “mad scientist.” And, if all this had been a movie, Harris might well have been sent by central casting. The 46-year-old has a full beard and a spastic eye. Then there is his home in Lancaster, Ohio. The first thing you notice when you enter Harris’ world is the smell, the stench of numerous cats and dogs in a cramped bungalow. This is laced with the subtler scent of a basement filled with dried foods, ... (TIME)
(8) In the other places, which he alledgeth out of the old Testament, there is not so much as any shew, or colour of proofe. He brings in every text wherein there is the word Anger, or Fire, or Burning, or Purging, or Clensing, in case any of the Fathers have but in a Sermon rhetorically applied it to the Doctrine of Purgatory, already beleeved. (Hobbes, Leviathan)
And first we find, that Adam was created in such a condition of life, as had he not broken the commandement of God, he had enjoyed it in the Paradise of Eden Everlastingly. For there was the Tree of Life; whereof he was so long allowed to eat, as he should forbear to eat of the tree of Knowledge of Good an Evill; which was not allowed him. (Hobbes, Leviathan)
(9) For the question is not of promises mutuall, where there is no security of performance on either side; as when there is no Civill Power erected over the parties promising; for such promises are no Covenants: But either where one of the parties has performed already; or where there is a Power to make him performe; there is the question whether it be against reason, that is, against the benefit of the other to performe, or not. (Hobbes, Leviathan)
(10) ... and for the most part, if the publique interest chance to crosse the private, he preferrs the private: for the Passions of men, are commonly more potent than their Reason. From whence it follows, that where the publique and private interest are most closely united, there is the publique most advanced. (Hobbes, Leviathan)

(1)-(3) は同格節があるから「後ろを参照する」(cataphoric) タイプの the だと考えられます. たとえば制限用法の関係詞節の先行詞に見られることがあります (これは受験レベルでもよく教えられていることです). 一方, (4) 以降はどうでしょうか? Hobbes はたしかに古い (上にめちゃめちゃ難しい) 英文を書くのですが, それにしてもTIMEとかからも用例が出ています. Google を用いればもっと出てきます. どう説明すればいいのでしょうか?

それは話し手 (discourse) と聞き手 (addressee) を区別することです. 新情報と旧情報の定義を曖昧にしている人が陥る罠がここにあるからです.

Discourse-familiarity status

Two letters have arrived for Jill; she’ll be calling round to pick them up. という文では, すでに shethem も前文で述べられている discourse-old な NP です. これは素朴な観察で分かります.

もちろん NP だけではなく, 命題さえも情報構造の範疇に入れることができます. たとえば

A: What did Max tell Jill?
B: He told her I’d been delayed at the office.

という文では He told her $x$. という命題関数が discourse-old になっているというわけです. この考え方は非常に大切なので理解しておいてください.

なお, 自然な類推ができるものも discourse-old になります. たとえば次のように:

I don’t in general care for puzzles, but crossword puzzles are fun.
I tried to get into the library after hours, but the door was locked.
That book is awful; the author doesn’t have any writing ability at all.

パズルつったらクロスワードパズルも類推できるし, 図書館に入るつったんだからドアが必要だし, 本のこと話してるなら著者がいます, そりゃそうです. だから, 飛躍がありすぎると意味がわからんってなります. たとえば:

I walked into the kitchen. [On a stool was a large book.]
I walked into the kitchen. [On an overcoat was a large book.]

stool とは背もたれのない椅子のことです. 類推できますね. 一方で突然出てきた「オーバーコート」は意味がわかりません. もしこれが A large book was on an overcoat. だったのならよいのですが, 倒置というのは前文との繋がりがある語に対してしか適用することができません. なので2番目の文は非常に不自然 (ほぼ非文法的) な文になります.

Addressee-familiarity status

基本的には discourse familiarity だけでカタがつく, というのは正しい認識です. ですが, 話し手は聞き手にある程度の「常識」を求めることができます. たとえば The President といえば (今なら) トランプか〜とわかるような感じです.これを addressee-old な情報といいます. Suddenly there ran out of the woods the man we had seen at the picnic. はまさに代表例です.

Focus

Focus は日本語で「焦点」と約されますが, その定義とは, 文中で最も強く発音される構成素です. 残りの枠組みを focus-frame といいます. たとえば Mary bought rice yesterday. と (普通の状況で) 言ったとき, rice が最も強く発音され, focus-frame は “Mary bought $x$.” という命題関数です. ここで「普通の状況で」と但し書きをしたのは, focus が状況に応じて変わりうるからです.

f:id:all_for_nothing:20201013081917p:plain

となります. さらにいえば, 一つの文に複数個の focus (foci) が存在することも可能です.

A: What did they BUY?
B: MARY bought a bag of RICE, JOHN of BREAD, ...

以上の例では「あくまでもネイティブはこう発音する」という事実だけを (知らないふりをして) 議論していましたが, どう考えても focus は addressee-new に, focus-frame は addressee-old に関係していると見てよいでしょう. その主たる原因は「強く発音するってことはそれだけ伝えたいメッセージである」ということでしょう. そう, 「焦点は新情報になることが多く, 旧情報から新情報へと流れを作るのが自然なので, 焦点は文末に行きがちである」ということが成り立ち, これを文末焦点の原理といいます.

End-focus vs. end-weight

でもたとえば It’s unfortunate that he gave the key to Kim. のような文では, どう考えても that 節は旧情報で, 主節が新情報です. 矛盾しているということでしょうか? 僕も高1のころはこの点が全く腑に落ちませんでした. そこで [3] を見ながら [2] を読んでようやく解決したというわけです. すなわち次のような理屈です:

まず, 文末重心の原理は weight に起因する現象です. 構成素が関係詞節を伴っていたり長い修飾語句を引っさげていたりする場合に, そうでない語句に比べて heavy だと称しているだけのことです. もちろん厳密な定義は困難ですが, あくまでも統語論的なレベルでしか議論をしていませんし, むしろもっと言えば, 統語論的なお話だけで済ませなければいけないことは確かです.

一方, 文末焦点の原理は familiarity status に起因する現象です. familiarity status はたしかに discourse-old の場合には統語論的アプローチにほぼ自明な (自明でなければ old でないので!) 常識を加えることで判定できました. しかし addressee-old は (その定義からして!) 完全にコンテクスト (文脈, 常識) の問題です.

この二者はまず適用される世界が違うということ. どちらが優先されるかは話者の判断に依存していて, 絶対的な基準はないということ. そして両者が両立する場合がある (It seems that the bank was robbed last night.) ということ. これらが説明されて初めて両者が理解できるようになります.

注. よく focus-frame と presupposition とを混同する人がいますが, 先ほど挙げた It’s unfortunate that he gave the key to Kim. を考えてみましょう. focus は明らかに Kim です (音読すれば分かります). focus-frame は “It’s unfortunate that he gave the key to $x$” です. では, presupposition は何でしょうか? そう, “he gave the key to $x$” です. どうでもいいですが, 少し大事なことです.

分裂文

さて, 強調構文......とは受験英語だけの方言です. いわゆる It is $x$ that という形を取る構文のことですが, 強調することのできる文構造はこれ以外にもたくさんあるので不適切な名称です. 現代的には分裂文 (cleft sentence) といいます.

分裂文の例として前に Those are my feet that you’re treading on. を出しました. これは恐らく Those (that you’re treading on) are my feet. という限定節が義務的に外置されて出来たと考察できるのでした.

ちなみに従属節内の空所が目的格の場合は that を省略することができます.

It’s never me they’ll get the privilege to know. (Eminem, That’s All She Wrote)

ただし, それ以外の場合は容認度が下がり, いわゆる Apo Koinou 構文 になります. [1] では, Apo Koinou の結果として出てくる産物である主格の関係代名詞省略の例として紹介されています.

It isn’t every boy gets a chance like that.
(どの子もそんな機会に恵まれるわけではない)
I suppose it is only our imagination makes us feel that way.
(そう感じるのは気のせいにすぎないと思います)

ちなみに, この最大級の例として, Kazuo Ishiguro (2015): The Buried Giant の次の文があります.

It’s the she-dragon lives over us here made our parents forget us.

これは it’s the she-dragon ( (that) lives over us here) (that) made our parents forget us. という, 単純な主格の関係代名詞省略と, 分裂文の Apo Koinou に誘導された主格の関係代名詞が混在しています. Kazuo Ishiguro は独特な世界観を出すためにこういった文構造を作ったのでした.

分裂文に限らなければ, 他にも次のような文例があります. こういったものを There 接触節 (接触節はJespersenの用語ですが) とも呼びます.

There was a farmer had a dog. (Mother Goose)
There was no breeze came through the door. (Hemingway)
There was a door led into the kitchen. (Hemingway)

なお, 分裂文の it is $x$ that は $x$ が focus になります. しかしながら, 形だけでは分裂文と決め打ちできないことが多いのです. もちろん it-extraposition と it-cleft を区別するのは当たり前なのですが, もう一つの可能性として「it は本当にただの代名詞で, that は $x$ にかかる関係代名詞」という素朴な選択肢があります. 次の例を見てください.

A1: Who’s that?
A2: Who cleans the house—the man or the woman?
B: It’s the woman that[who] cleans the house.

A1 に対する B はどう考えても it = that で, the woman that[who] cleans the house が主格補語になっています. 一方で A2 に対する B はただの分裂文です. この点を留意して, かつコンテクストとじっくり相談しないといけません. 僕も一回読み間違えたことがあるので, お恥ずかしながら, 冒頭の一段落を紹介させていただきます.

問1. I confess that when first I made acquaintance with Charles Strickland I never for a moment discerned that there was in him anything out of the ordinary. Yet now few will be found to deny his greatness. I do not speak of that greatness which is achieved by the fortunate politician or the successful soldier; that is a quality which belongs to the place he occupies rather than to the man; and a change of circumstances reduces it to very discreet proportions. The Prime Minister out of office is seen, too often, to have been but a pompous rhetorician, and the General without an army is but the tame hero of a market town. The greatness of Charles Strickland was authentic. It may be that you do not like his art, but at all events you can hardly refuse it the tribute of your interest. He disturbs and arrests. The time has passed when he was an object of ridicule, and it is no longer a mark of eccentricity to defend or of perversity to extol him. His faults are accepted as the necessary complement to his merits. It is still possible to discuss his place in art, and the adulation of his admirers is perhaps no less capricious than the disparagement of his detractors; but one thing can never be doubtful, and that is that he had genius. To my mind the most interesting thing in art is the personality of the artist; and if that is singular, I am willing to excuse a thousand faults. I suppose Velasquez was a better painter than El Greco, but custom stales one’s admiration for him: the Cretan, sensual and tragic, proffers the mystery of his soul like a standing sacrifice. The artist, painter, poet, or musician, by his decoration, sublime or beautiful, satisfies the aesthetic sense; but that is akin to the sexual instinct, and shares its barbarity: he lays before you also the greater gift of himself. To pursue his secret has something of the fascination of a detective story. It is a riddle which shares with the universe the merit of having no answer. The most insignificant of Strickland’s works suggests a personality which is strange, tormented, and complex; and it is this surely which prevents even those who do not like his pictures from being indifferent to them; it is this which has excited so curious an interest in his life and character.
W. Sommerset Maugham (1919): The Moon and Sixpence

be動詞

be動詞には大きく分けて3つの意味があります. まず, 存在動詞としての自動詞用法. これはもう今ではほぼ死んでいます.

次は copula としてですが, 同一性文や同定文などのより厳密な話は抜きにしても, 措定文指定文の違いぐらいは必ず押さえてください. これは言語学とかじゃなくて, 語学を勉強する上で絶対に必要な区別だからです. 措定文とは具体的個体に属性を帰す文, 指定文とは命題関数となる名詞句の変項の値を指定する文のことです.

たとえば, Taro is a student. は措定文ですが, The leader is Taro. は命題関数 The leader is $x$. に $x=\text{Taro}$ を代入していると考えることができますね. 本質は「指定文の be の後に置ける文法的形式には非常に制約が少ない」ということです.

分裂文の場合, be の後に名詞句, 副詞句, 前置詞句, 副詞節などを持ってこれることは高校英文法レベルでもよく知られている事実です.

問2. (東京帝國大學法學部 大正十年) It is to the diffusion of knowledge and to that alone that we owe the comparative cessation of what is unquestionably the greatest evil men have ever inflicted on their own species.
ヒント. owe A to B / BA「AについてはBのおかげである」「AをBに借りている」「Aという気持ちをBに抱いている」
owe it to A to do「Aのために...する義務がある」も頻出.
(1) Professionals owe it to the public to set a good example.
(2) You owe it to yourself to try this pizza!

これは「分裂文の be は一般的に指定の be だから」です. もちろん措定の be もあって, ことわざ的な雰囲気を醸し出します.

(1) It is a long trail that never finds an end.
(終わりが決してないのは, 長い道である→どんな長い道でも終わりは必ずある)
(2) It is a long road that has no turn.
(曲がり角がないのは, 長い道である→どんな長い道でも曲がり角はある)
It is a bad wind that blows nobody good.
(誰にも利益を与えないのは, 悪い風である→どんな風でも誰かの得になる)

しかし, これらを見てもわかるように, すべて NP になっています. 措定文は指定文に比べてハードルが高いのです. そのかわり指定文はほぼなんでもOKです (これを否定するなら分裂文ではなぜ認められているのかが説明できなくなるはず).

さて, この区別をすることで一つ大きな疑問が氷解します. それは「because 節って副詞節にしかなれないはずなのになんで This is because ... とか言えるんですか, SVC の C って名詞と形容詞だけちゃうんですか」問題です. 人生で一度は悩む疑問だと思うんですが, それはひとえに英語教師の copula に対する理解度の低さと Onions (1909) の5文型をいつまでも引きずる旧態依然とした態度に起因しています. そう, This is because ... は, because 節はちゃんと副詞節で, この場合は指定文なのでOKという論理です.

注. (Just because X doesn’t mean that ... 構文)
(1) Just because an expression is often used is not a sufficient reason to regard it as grammatically acceptable.
(2) Just because I think, doesn’t mean I am!
(3) Just because a passage contains no difficult word doesn’t mean it’s easy to digest.
(4) “Clearly his tweets are a window into policy decisions or his state of mind,” Mr. Purdy said in an interview. “Just because he tweets it doesn’t make it news. But just because he tweets it doesn’t make it frivolous either.” (New York Times)
(5) Do you normally talk about who you have heterosexual sex with? Why should having sex with people of the same sex be any different? I’m proud to be bi, but I don’t feel the need to wear my identity on my sleeve. Just because I have sex with men doesn’t mean it’s anybody’s business, any more than the fact I have sex with a woman. That said, the biggest prompt would be if I were actually dating someone in a serious relationship of the same sex.

いずれも「Xだからといって...とは限らない」構文です.
because 節を名詞節とみなす流儀もありますし, 実際, Just because X is [no reason / no guarantee / no justification for] ... や, Just because X doesn’t [make / make it right to / guarantee / justify / ensure] のように just because を名詞的なものとして reanalysis を (いわゆる民間語源のように) 受けたと考えられるものもあります. そして just because ... it doesn’t ... と the fact that ... doesn’t ... を just because = the fact that の融合構文だと捉える立場もあります. 僕としては, “Just because X” という引用符つきのメタ的な NP が主語になっていると思っています.
ちなみにドイツ語だと Nur weil X, folgt daraus nicht, dass ... という構造になります.

(1) Nur weil ich dich nicht mag, heißt das nicht, dass ich dich hasse. (Just because I do not like you, does not mean, that I hate you.) (2) Nur weil wir uns daran gewöhnt haben, folgt daraus nicht, dass es in Ordnung ist. (Just because we got used to it, does not follow from it, that it is okay.)
注. 2番目の daraus の da は weil 節に呼応しています.
なお, フランス語では様子が異なります. 対応するのは pas parce que 構文. いわば分裂文モドキです. 特にハーバード大の S. Katz Bourns が Lambrecht と同様によく研究しているようです.
C’est pas parce qu’on pédale sans permis que tout est permis. という文があります. これを英語に直してみると It is not because people ride without permissions that everything is permitted. となりますが, これは英語だと Everything is permitted, but not because people ride without permissons. となってしまい, どう考えてもおかしいです. フィーリングとしても, やはり Just because people ride without permissions doesn’t mean that everything is permitted. と解するのが明らかに正しいでしょう*9.
実はこの pas parce que 構文に由来した英文が存在します. フランス経験が長かった John Stuart Mill です.

It would be tiresome to repeat the commonplaces about the unfitness of men in general for power, which, after the political discussions of centuries, every one knows by heart, were it not that hardly any one thinks of applying these maxims to the case in which above all others they are applicable, that of power, not placed in the hands of a man here and there, but offered to every adult male, down to the basest and most ferocious. It is not because a man is not known to have broken any of the Ten Commandments, or because he maintains a respectable character in his dealings with those whom he cannot compel to have intercourse with him, or because he does not fly out into violent bursts of ill-temper against those who are not obliged to bear with him, that it is possible to surmise of what sort his conduct will be in the unrestraint of home. Even the commonest men reserve the violent, the sulky, the undisguisedly selfish side of their character for those who have no power to withstand it.

今回の場合で分裂文とみると「家庭で何をやっているか分かるのは, 十戒を守ってたりヤれない相手に優しくしたり反抗し返されうる相手にブチギレなかったりするから, というわけではない」となります. では何によって分かるのか? と続くはずなのですが, The relation of superiors to dependents is the nursery of these vices of character, which, wherever else they exist, are an overflowing from that source. と続いています. というわけで, 分裂文ではなく pas parce que 構文だと考えるほかないというわけです.

なお, He is in Tokyo. や The party is on Wednesday. のような文もありますが, 指定文ではなく措定文です. これを「存在動詞としての自動詞 be に修飾語句がついたもの」と解説する人がたまにいますが, 申し訳ないですが大間違いです. 100年以上も5文型という紋切り型の公式主義にとらわれると, 英語本来ではなく穿った見方しかできなくなります. こういったタイプには Quirk らが提唱するように SVA の措定文と見るのが適切です. A とは adjunct の略で, 義務的な副詞語句を指していると思ってください. He lives in Tokyo. は He lives. とは違うので SVM ではない*10です. in Tokyo はまさに A です.

問3. No one’s idea of excellence in conduct is that people should do absolutely nothing but copy one another.
John Stuart Mill (1859): On Liberty
措定文のCVSです.
問4. 東大 (1999) 5-文中 What would turn the disaster into a catasrophe would be if the heavy metals in the waste were to penetrate the aquifer under the park.
証明. [4] は次のように指摘しています.

(1) Did you read where the governor is expected to be indicted for taking bribes?
(2) It seems as if we’ve met before.
(3) I feel as though nothing could stop me.
(4) It would be a good idea if you hired a bodyguard.
(5)% I hate when people keep me waiting.
(6) I hate it when people keep me waiting.
The complement here has the appearance of an adverbial clause but functions as a complement rather than as a modifier, since it is restricted to the position of a complement (i.e., it cannot be moved into an unambiguously adverbial position

たとえば, The only thing that could make the situation worse would be if he came to the party. は「これ以上事態が悪くなるとしたら、それは彼がパーティーにくることくらいだ」という意味です.

さて, 本題に戻りましょう. 僕は当初措定読みで「この宇宙で答えがないことに意味があるのはナゾナゾだけだ」と解釈していたのですが, それだと前後のつながりが弱いと指摘されて, 自分が誤読していたことに気付きました. かなり難しいと思うので, この問題はここで解説を書いておきます.

まず To pursue his secret has something of the fascination of a detective story. と書かれているので, 彼の謎を追うこと自体に価値を置いていることになります. ですから答えがある必要はなく, その答えを追い求める過程に楽しさがあるというわけです......ということを it = his secret は「宇宙と共有している」と書いています. すなわち, これは「宇宙の謎」と言ってもよいでしょう. 宇宙に果てはあるのか, 宇宙はどう始まったのか, だとか, 考える過程に意味がある問いということです.

行方昭夫先生はこう訳しています:「芸術家の内奥を探り出す喜びは、推理小説を読む快感にどこか似ている。いくら探り出そうとしても永遠の答えが得られぬ点で、宇宙の謎を追求するのに似ているのだ。」

疑似分裂文

That was a car which John bought. という分裂文を考えましょう. 外置を元に戻すと That which John bought was a car. です......あれ? that which = what でしたから, What John bought was a car. としても良さそうですね. 実はこの形を basic pseudo-cleft といい, 逆転させた A car was what John bought. を reversed pseudo-cleft といい, 両者をまとめて疑似分裂文 (pseudo-cleft) といいます.

分裂文と疑似分裂文に関する事柄は山のようにあります. 本当に難しいですし, これだけで本が一冊書けて, しかも山のようにすでに存在しています. ここでは残りの話題は [2] に投げ, ある程度概観したということにします. もしかしたらいつか分裂文についても解説を書くかもしれません.

What-is-it-about cleft

What is it about the movie that attracts you so much? という文で, that が the movie を先行詞とする関係代名詞だと読む人がいます. 論外です. ここまでついてこれた方ならもうわかるはず. どう考えても先行詞は it しかありません. このタイプは少し慣れればすぐわかります. すなわち, what is it about X that ... で「Xの一体何が...なのか」ということです.

注. しかしながら, What is it about him that he is so popular? のように that 節内に空所がないパターンは破格構文です. まだ過渡期と言える表現でしょう.

(1) What is it about the it-cleft that makes it so popular?
(2) What is it about the book that makes it so special?
(3) What is it about the idea of a god that gives it its stability and penetrance in the cultural environment?
(4) What is it about the ancients that they couldn’t leave us an interesting corpse without resorting to foul play?
(5) What is it about your job that is so important that you think it is more important than your romantic relationships?
(6) About a representation, we can intelligibly ask, what is it about it in virtue of which it represents what it represents?

演習問題

問5. (1) What is it that you know?
(2) Please tell me why it was that he accepted the offer.
(3) I am not whatever it is you think I am. (Logan (2017)).
(4) What is it that the story has it that?
問6. 東大 (2019) 5C カッコ内の語句を並び替えよ.
... Question No. 5 asks of a particular photograph, “ (about / is / it / layer/ of / pleasing / so / that’s / this / what) stratocumulus?” The answer Pretor-Pinnery supplies is, “It is pleasing for whatever reason you find it to be”.
問7. 東大 (1996) 4B What are rights? If you ask ordinary people what exactly a right is, they’ll probably be at a loss, and won’t be able to give a clear answer. They may know what it is to violate someone’s rights. They may also know what it is to have their own right to this or that denied or ignored by others. But what exactly is it that is being violated or wrongly denied? Is it something you acquire or something you inherit at birth?
問8. 京大後期 (1991) The action of baseball, then, can be conceived of as a series of travels by individuals who attempt to leave home and make a circuit through a social field marked with obstacles. It is not getting through the field itself that scores, however, but returning safely home.
問9. 京大後期 (2000) What makes writing so terrifying is the writer’s perpetual exposure to criticism. It’s not the writing as such that provokes our fear so much as other people’s reactions to our writing. Every word we put on paper to be seen by others is subject to scrutiny not just of anonymous readers but of colleagues, reviewers, friends, classmates, parents and children.
問10. 京大後期 (1996) We will not stop reading fictional stories, because it is in them that we seek a formula to give meaning to our existence. Throughout our lives, we look for a story of our origins, to tell us why we were born and why we have lived.
問11. If bad manners are infectious, so also are good manners. If we encounter incivility most of us are apt to become uncivil, but it is an unusually strange person who can be disagreeable with sunny people.
問12. (Cedric Hardwicke) Good actors are good because of the things they can tell us without talking. When they are talking, they are the servants of the dramatist. It is what they can show us when they are not talking that reveals the fine actor.
問13. Endurance is the very essence of courage. Anyone can be brave for a little while, but it is going on being brave when most others would have given up that marks a truly brave man.
問14. Being poor is a mere trifle. It is being known to be poor that is the sting. It is not cold that makes a man without a greatcoat hurry along so quickly. It is not at all shame of telling lies—which he knows will not be believed—that makes him turn so red when he informs you that he considers greatcoats unhealthy, and never carries an umbrella on principle.
問15. For as much as government can do, and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child that finally decides our fate.
Obama’s First Inaugural Address (2009)
問16. It would be one thing if only Black philosophers and intellectuals were calling attention to the crisis of racially driven mass incarceration. But it wasn’t just Angela Davis, Sylvia Wynter, and others within ivy-covered walls calling attention to the drastic and worsening situation facing poor Black Americans.
Jason Stanley (2015): How Propaganda Works
問17. Now, if you are one of those who insist on limiting application of the word culture to us humans, call it protoculture, because there is no question that what we humans share, and what sets us apart from all other species, goes far beyond that which chimpanzees share. However, it is precisely in the claims as to just what it is that we share that the differences between the various social-science approaches to culture lie.
Henry Plotkin (2002): The Imagined World Made Real
問18. What should it be that he respects in her, But I can make respectiue in my selfe? If this fond Loue, were not a blinded god.
William Shakespeare (1589-93): The Two Gentlemen of Verona
証明. but には関係代名詞の用法があります (高1の授業でやった!).

Heavy NP Shift

文末重心の原理文末焦点の原理などによって名詞句が後置されることをHeavy NP Shift (重名詞句転移) といいます. なお, 前置詞の目的語や間接目的語を文末に回すことはできません.

問19. Jenkins walked back into the office and glanced out of the window. Turning around, he saw on the desk a gun.
なぜ a gun が heavy NP shift されているのか説明せよ.

今までの知識を使えば自明です. これが考察できなかったら, もう一度 discourse-new あたりの説明を読み直してください.

さて, 簡単な例文をもう一度みて勘を磨きましょう. いくつか読んでいくうちに勘が養われるので, その正しいフィーリングを大事にしてください. フィーリングは, 正しく養成され適用されたならば, 文法よりも遥かに有用なものです.

(1) My immediate purpose is to place before the world, plainly, succinctly, and without comment, a series of mere household events.
(2) She believes unfair any decision that doesn’t favor her.
(3) You should take seriously the matter of teaching English.
(4) We should take into consideration the opinions of all those who regularly use this service.
(5) I found rather more promising the proposals that his sister had made.
(6) I have read very carefully / several times all the articles she has written.
(7) I met yesterday a woman in white.
(8) He seemed at that time very much more sympathetic to the idea than he is now.
(9) There was in her manner a certain aloofness that I found quite disconcerting.
(10) Chris put on the table a large blue bucket full of ice-cubes.
(11) You’ll find on your desk the report that the company has prepared in response to the secretary’s latest allegations.
(12) Let me introduce to you Hercule Poirot, the famous detective from Belgium.
(13) John put in his car all the boxes of his books.
(14) Give back to Ireland her nationality, her individual existence.
(15) They pronounced guilty every one of the accused.
(16) He had called an idiot the man on whose judgment he now had to rely.
(17) Even if these descriptions are valid they still leave open a number of questions.
(18) I reported to be drunk the new employee who arrived at 9:01.
(19) But as we rode along I saw coming toward us the doctor in his dogcart.
(20) Now I see seated in front of me men and women.
(21) I gave to Mary the book that I bought last week.
(22) I met on the street my rich uncle from Detroit.
(23) I sent to you the recipes from the paper that I was talking about.
(24) Robert didn’t make known the fact that he had cancer.

問20. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness; for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
Quentin Tarantino (1994): Pulp Fiction
注. 原文はこれとは少し異なっています*11が, あくまでもタランティーノの映画の世界ではこのような聖書になっているということでしょう.
問21. 京大後期 (1995) The refusal of an attempt by a friend to initiate conversation is likely to lead to charges of moodiness or some other personal failings. That is, the injured party will regard your behaviour as antisocial in that you have apparently deliberately rejected an attempt to keep open the channel of communication that exists between you.
問22. ... and here the physical oversight is precisely analogous with the moral inapprehension by which the intellect suffers to pass unnoticed those considerations which are too obtrusively and too palpably self-evident.
Edgar Allan Poe (1845): The Purloined Letter

suffer O to V = allow O to V (古) が heavy NP shift を起こした例. pass (go) un-p.p.「〜されないまま通り過ぎる」は重要語句. p.p.には「気づく, 認知する」などにかかわる動詞が来るのが通例.

問23. 慶応・文 (2004) Tears often resist interpretation, and an explanation that is obvious to the crier may be lost on the person whose shoulder is getting wet. Conversely, what an observer might find patently obvious often passes unrecognized by the blurred eyes of the crier.
問24. The cooperation of these two huge companies made possible the remarkable results that we saw in 2015.
Although you must rely on the librarian’s assistance, you should not trust him blindly. Listen to his advice, but then search deeply and independently. The librarian is not an expert on every subject, and he is also unaware of the particular perspective you wish to adopt for your research. He may deem fundamental a particular book that you end up barely consulting, and may disregard another that you find very useful.
Umberto Eco (2015): How to Write a Thesis
問25. Grammar Translation was the dominant way of teaching modern languages in European secondary schools at the end of the 19th century—and continued to be so, despite the attacks, long into the 20th century. It had inherited from the teaching of Latin and Ancient Greek, with which the modern languages vied for repectability, an emphasis on writing, on grammar, on accuracy, and on the ultimate aim of enabling its students to read the literary classics of the languages they were learning.
Guy Cook (2010): Translation in Language Teaching
問26. It is common among Darwin’s more enthusiastic scientific followers in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, who attribute to their idol powers of prescience and wisdom he clearly did not possess and would never have dreamed of claiming, to insist that Darwin had nothing to do with any kind of social Darwinism, let alone eugenics.
Paul Johnson (2012): Darwin
問27. Ultimately, the purpose of all education is to save us time and spare us errors. It is a mechanism whereby society—whether secular or religious—attempts reliably to inculcate in its members, within a set span of years, what it took the very brightest and most determined of their ancestors centuries of painful and sporadic efforts to work out.
Alain de Botton (2012): Religion for Atheists
問28. An university exists for the purpose of laying open to each succeeding generation, as far as the conditions of the case admit, the accumulated treasure of the thoughts of mankind. As an indispensable part of this, it has to make known to them what mankind at large, their own country, and the best and wisest individual men, have thought on the great subjects of morals and religion.
John Stuart Mill (1867): Inaugural address delivered to the University of St. Andrews

参考文献

[1] 江川泰一郎. (1953) 1991. 『英文法解説 (改訂三版)』東京: 金子書房.
[2] Huddleston, Rodney D., and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3] 安藤貞雄. 2005. 『現代英文法講義』東京: 開拓社.
[4] James D. McCawley. 1998. The Syntactic Phenomena of English. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[5] 北村一真. 2019.『英文解体新書 構造と論理を読み解く英文解釈』東京: 研究社
[6] Kazuma KITAMURA. 2015. On a Special Type of What-is-it-about cleft. Tokyo: Kyorin University. 27, 205-232.
[7] 佐々木高政. 1980.『新訂 英文解釈考』東京: 金子書房

*1:本当に英語が読めない人は, そもそもそういう疑問さえ持てないんですが......

*2:何を以って heavy とするかは自明なことではありません. ここでは深く立ち入らず詳細な議論は[2]などに回します.

*3:僕はその流儀ですが, [2]は単に extraposition としています.

*4:Archer, As the Crow Flies

*5:Sheldon, Windmills of the Gods

*6:Sheldon, Doomsday Conspiracy

*7:Archer, Shall We Tell the President?

*8:この場合は「無関係」ではなく「筋違いの」と訳します.

*9:ちなみに, その一方で C’est pas parce qu’il est riche qu’elle l’aime. [It is not because he is rich that she loves him.] という文は曖昧です. もちろん pas parce que 構文とみて「彼がお金持ちだからといって、彼女が彼を愛しているとは限らない」としてもいいですが, この場合は分裂文とみて「彼女が彼を愛しているのは、彼がお金持ちであるからではない」としてもよい. このような場合は focus がどこにあるかで判断しなければいけません.

*10:中学生のときからずっと疑問だったのですが, [3] を読んでようやく納得しました.

*11:And I wil execute great vengeance vpon them with furious rebukes, and they shall knowe that I am the Lord, when I shall lay my vengeance vpon them.