昨日の記事「#5892. 制限的付加詞 (restrictive adjunct) と非制限的付加詞 (non-restrictive adjunct)」 ([2025-06-14-1]) で，Jespersen による説明を見たが，制限的付加詞 (restrictive adjunct) を解説したくだりの直後に，次の段落が続いている．典型的な制限的付加詞となる形容詞は，それ自体の意味としては制限的・特殊的というよりも，むしろ一般的であるという趣旨だ．一見して矛盾しているようにも思えるが，よく考えると理屈が通っている．
Now it may be remembered that these identical examples were given above as illustrations of the thesis that substantives are more special than adjectives, and it may be asked: is not there a contradiction between what was said there and what has just been asserted here? But on closer inspection it will be seen that it is really most natural that a less special term is used in order further to specialize what is already to some extent special: the method of attaining a high degree of specialization is analogous if one ladder will not do, you first take the tallest ladder you have and tie the second tallest to the top of it, and if that is not enough, you tie on the next in length, etc. In the same way, if widow is not special enough, you add poor, which is less special than widow, and yet, if it is added, enables you to reach farther in specialization; if that does not suffice, you add the subjunct very, which in itself is much more general than poor. Widow is special, poor widow more special, and very poor widow still more special, but very is less special than poor, and that again than widow.
名詞句を構成する付加詞の意味の特殊性・一般性と，結果としての名詞句の指示対象の範囲の狭さ・広さが，反比例のような関係になっているという指摘だ．気にしたことがなかった意味論的観点で，新鮮である．梯子の比喩もユニークだ．
・ Jespersen, O. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin, 1924.
「ゆる言語学ラジオ」の最新回「不毛な対立を避けるために，英文法を学べ！」で関係詞の制限用法と非制限用法が話題とされている．こちらを受けて，先日 heldio でも「#1474. ゆる言語学ラジオの「カタルシス英文法」で関係詞の制限用法と非制限用法が話題になっています」と題してお話しした．
関係詞に限らず，単純な形容詞を含め，名詞を修飾する付加詞 (adjunct) には，機能的に大きく分けて2つの種類がある．制限的付加詞 (restrictive adjunct) と非制限的付加詞 (non-restrictive adjunct) だ．Jespersen (108) より，まず前者についての説明を読んでみよう．
It will be our task now to inquire into the function of adjuncts: for what purpose or purposes are adjuncts added to primary words?
Various classes of adjuncts may here be distinguished.
The most important of these undoubtedly is the one composed of what may be called restrictive or qualifying adjuncts: their function is to restrict the primary, to limit the number of objects to which it may be applied; in other words, to specialize or define it. Thus red in a red rose restricts the applicability of the word rose to one particular sub-class of the whole class of roses, it specializes and defines the rose of which I am speaking by excluding white and yellow roses; and so in most other instances: Napoleon the third | a new book | Icelandic peasants | a poor widow, etc.
続けて，後者について (111--12) ．
Next we come to non-restrictive adjuncts as in my dear little Ann! As the adjuncts here are used not to tell which among several Anns I am speaking of (or to), but simply to characterize her, they may be termed ornamental ("epitheta ornantia") or from another point of view parenthetical adjuncts. Their use is generally of an emotional or even sentimental, though not always complimentary, character, while restrictive adjuncts are purely intellectual. They are very often added to proper names: Rare Ben Johnson | Beautiful Evelyn Hope is dead (Browning) | poor, hearty, honest, little Miss La Creevy (Dickens) | dear, dirty Dublin | le bon Diew. In this extremely sagacious little man, this alone defines, the other adjuncts merely describe parenthetically, but in he is an extremely sagacious man the adjunct is restrictive.
ただし，付加詞の機能として2種類が区別されるとはいっても，それが形式的に区別されているかといえば，必ずしもそうではないことに注意が必要である．
・ Jespersen, O. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin, 1924.
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow
