@article{oai:nagoya.repo.nii.ac.jp:00028082,
 author = {登田, 龍彦 and Toda, Tatsuhiko},
 journal = {IVY},
 month = {Nov},
 note = {This paper is chiefly concerned with an examination of Rappaport Hovav and Levin's (1998) projectionist approach to argument realization, paying much more attention to the appearance of adjuncts as well as arguments in several kinds of constructions with restricted classes of verbs such as draw, put, steal, sweep, and wave. It is shown in this paper that several kinds of constraints involving lexical, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, or discourse factors govern the occurrence of the arguments and adjuncts. Thus, the prepositional phrase from her purse in She drew a handkerchief from her purse cannot be omitted, while the prepositional phrase from the case in He drew a pistol from the case can be omitted. The omissibility of the prepositional phrase in this case concerns the common knowledge as to the spatial relationship between the thing to be drawn like a handkerchief or a pistol and the source like her purse or the case. It is argued that Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1998) cannot give a satisfactory explanation of multiple argument or adjunct realization and omission. Their analysis is not adequate descriptively, in that it permits the occurrences of ungrammatical sentences such as *Phil swept the floor the crumbs into the dustpan and *John waved his hand good-bye to granddad, which are derived from the full projection of the relevant subevent structures. It is also claimed that the ungrammatical sentences can be correctly ruled out within the framework of the constructional approach proposed by Goldberg (1995, 2006) and Goldberg and Jackendoff (2004) since neither of the relevant sentences can satisfy the constructional requirement that a construction with a verb followed by two noun phrases and a prepositional phrase means only transactions or wagers. The analysis is not theoretically adequate either in that it cannot distinguish between the two kinds of absence proposed by Thomas (1979): nonrealization and ellipsis, illustrated by the absence of an object after the verb sweep in I have been sweeping and after the verb watch in I have been watching. It is concluded that if the complicated phenomena concerning the appearance of arguments and adjuncts are to be fully accounted for, we have to adopt not only the projectionist approach but also the constructional approach in a description of the realization and the absence of arguments and adjuncts.},
 pages = {19--43},
 title = {項と付加詞の出没 : 投射主義アプローチの検証},
 volume = {40},
 year = {2007}
}