不定名詞句や数量詞を含む名詞句が代名詞を束縛する時, その代名詞はその名詞句の作用域内にあるという条件 (作用域条件) と, その名詞句によって構成素統御されていなければならないという条件 (構成素統御条件) の二つを満足しなければならない。ところが, この一般理論に対する反例が二種類ある。一つはdonkey文 (Every man who own a donkey beats it) で, この文ではeveryが仲介役となってa donkeyがitを束縛することを可能にしている。もう一つはEnglishman文 (The woman who every Englishman admires most is hismother) で, この文ではeveryがwomanの値 (つまり指示) を決定し, それが仲介役となってevery Englishmanとhisの間の束縛関係が成立していると考えられる。これはdonkeyの文の場合とまったく逆の関係にあるので, 後者を逆間接的束縛と呼ぶ。
The purpose for this paper is to propose other point of view than the traditional one as regards to the standard Danish accent. The standard Danish accent has been thought of as stress accent like English accent, but I assume that the Danish one is a complex of tone and stress accent, moreover assuming there are two types in Danish. Supposing that the “stod” which has been the point at issue in Danish linguistics, is a feature of the one type of accent, then “stod”(glottal stop or glottal narrowing, the one or the other depends on its distributive conditions.) can be excluded from the phoneme inventory. Concequently, I came to the conclusion that the two accent types need to be set up.
It has been remarked now and then that Monboddo and others had recognized the relationship of the Indo-European languages earlier than Jones (e. g. v. E. L. Cloyd, American Anthropologist, 71 (1969), 1134). In such a remark, however, usually it has been overlooked that their idea on the relationship of the European languages or of the European languages and Sanskrit was confused. Jones' idea or hypothesis that Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and others were derived “from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists” was excellent and probably original. Although partially his idea has been keenly criticized for the expression “perhaps”(e. g. v. H. Pedersen. The Discovery of Language, 1931, p.18), as for the point, Arlotto's interpretation (Introduction to Historical Linguistics, 1972, p.40) is considered correct. Now, can we say that Iones' hypothesis “was not, like Halhed' s theory, the result of a process of linguistic reconstruction”(v. R. Rocher, Recherches de Linguistique, 1980, p.178) No.We merely do not know how the detailed process was. And the all-over framework of the process appears simple and common but is to the point and masterly. It was succeeded to and developed later by F. Schlegel and others. Jones seems to maintain an ambiguous attitude toward Slavic. He seems to want to except it from the Indo-European family. And later Celtic appears to have been excepted, and Egyptian to have been included. If it is true, just these ideas were “not the result of a process of linguistic reconstruction.”
Paragraphs are found in nearly all writing systems, and are a standard subject in teaching writing. Nevertheless, there is no half-adequate account of what they are, though they are clearly related to (1) coherence and cohesion, (2) topics and/or topic sentences, and (3) the structure of the argument or discourse. We observe here that pronounusage is significant. Whereas pronouns (in European languages) are generally obligatory if a unique antecedent is available, a paragraph boundary is a general barrier to anaphora. In particular, a pronoun cannot find an antecedent embedded in a previous paragraph. Apparent counterexamples can be characterized, and appear to take the topics of preceeding paragraphs as antecedents. This work needs further generalizing to non-Indo-European languages, as well as to the other sorts of anaphora. In explaining why anaphora is blocked, we can arrive at a notion of what a paragraph is, and the role it plays in speaking and understanding. This account then explains in turn a number of informal but indisputable facts about paragraphing, such as the effects of paragraphs that are too long or too short, why they support but do not match the logical structure of a discourse, and what the mechanism behind the perception of cohesion is. This account of paragraphing also provides an upper limit on integrative semantic theories, theories in which the meaning of a sentence (and the words in it) are a function of the context that preceeds it. Also noted is the impossibility of ever observing this or other similar facts within a framework of syntax or semantics that is limited to sentences. In short, we will observe some simple facts about pronouns that have escaped notice, and propose a general principle: paragraph boundaries are barriers to anaphora, with certain characterizable leaks. An explanation that accounts for this also accounts for a number of other observations about paragraphing. It also has interesting theoretical consequences.