@article{oai:nagoya.repo.nii.ac.jp:00027927,
 author = {三浦, 郁夫 and Miura, Ikuo},
 journal = {IVY},
 month = {Oct},
 note = {One aim of this paper is to investigate the argument structure of resultative constructions such as The gardener watered the tulips flat. Some linguists like Kayne (1984) and Hoekstra (1988) argue that the accusative Case-marked NPs of resultative constructions (henceforth, AccNPs) are the subjects of the small clauses which are headed by the resultative predicates. In this paper, I argue that this assumption is not valid, and that AccNPs are the arguments of the main verbs. As for transitive resultative constructions (henceforth, TRCs), this conclusion is supported by the fact that the middle formation from TRCs is possible. According to Carrier and Randall (1992), however, the middle formation from intransitive resultative constructions (henceforth, IRCs) is impossible. Carrier and Randall argue from this observation that the AccNPs of IRCs are not the arguments of the matrix clauses. But the impossibility of the middle formation from IRCs is explained by the fact that the meaning of middle constructions often contradicts that of IRCs. And under the appropriate contexts, middle verbs are formed from IRCs. This fact seems to indicate that the AccNPs of IRCs are also the arguments of the matrix clauses, as well as those of TRCs. In this paper, I also investigate two syntactic differences between TRCs and IRCs. One difference is the position of adverbs modifying the matrix verbs : while the adverbs modifying the matrix verbs in TRCs can intervene between the AccNPs and the resultative predicates, those in IRCs cannot. The other difference discussed in this paper is the extractability from AccNPs : the extraction from the AccNPs of TRCs is possible, but that from the AccNPs of IRCs is not. I argue that these differences between TRCs and IRCs are reduced to the assumption that the element assigning the thematic roles to AccNPs is different in TRCs and IRCs : the AccNPs of TRCs are theta-marked only by the matrix verbs, but those of IRCs are theta-marked by the complex of the matrix verbs and the resultative predicates. This assumption is needed in explaining the licensing of the AccNPs of IRCs.},
 pages = {171--184},
 title = {結果構文の項構造とその統語的振舞いについて},
 volume = {29},
 year = {1996}
}