subsurned unde？ a sub j e￠t and the aetion whi eh indi−
eates an e￡fect is exprqssed as a verb in an inani−
mate subj，ect sentence； 1
For exarnple， in the sentenee ithe rain brovtght disaster to the farmers t， rke can understand the subject the raintt is a eau＄e and the predicate tbrought di＄aster to the farmers is a resuit．
Egawa eiassieied its eausaiity into six types．
Tabie 3． Egawais eZassifieation of the eausal re1ationships 言ε面諭藍七9×99geS and the P「ed ca七e n na廊ate
（1）
2）
5）
4）
5）
6）
causa七ive曾馨。一一m醜e， keep，8七〇P， etc．
His speech was so i．ndistinet that we were unable to understand him．
鱒enf◎rcement，璽 and permission留書劇囎 for◎e， CO】離pe：L， ob：Lige，
allow， permit， ete．
Circumstanees fo？eed us to hoid over the meeting．
韓P：【sevention撃響噛繭嶋 prevent， keep， stOP， etc．
These financial一 everses wiil prevent his standing．
rnovementi and ，keeping a state of thingS ．一一一 take， bring，
lead． meve， put， ＄et， get． keep， leave， ete．
An hourt s bus ride took us to the remains ef the
eastie．
i the ether general causality t 一一一一 give， show， suggest，
reveal，． betray， saves cost， remind， ete．
Half an hour wiU give you time to drive horne．
tifeelingtt e−b一 suprise， alarm， puzzie， diseourage， etc．
The noise of the shot alarmed hundreds of birds．
望hese are 七he ◎la8sifica．七ion of inan：tmate subject轟s臨血血鐙：nces from 七he． poinセ。：e view of 七he 雪目subjec七サ曾葡 讐曾predic熱：雛ve攣璽：reiati◎n
by Egawa． Thus， we ean conciude that the characteristies of inanimate subject sentenees are the simplieity of the sentence
1 Terada， ibid．， p． 14．
2 Taiiehiro Egawa， 1｝1tEgulgno Eigo no goho ：
pp； 116−125． Hyegenhen， M，
1zg．ptgei11nkan（pmt P h e S t ，），
Tokye ： Taishukan， S 968），
一 56 ．．
stpueture and the eausal relationship between the subject and the predicate．
〈b） A ciassifieation of inanin：ate svtbjeet sentences
エnthis part， we examine inanimate subjects and classify
by c◎捻七rasting 七he鵬with もhei：r Japanese 黛（蓋uivalents． M：rst，
let us examine Hequivaleneett between two languages， so that we
ean
earry out eontrastive analysis eerreetly．The first step， deseription， is one whieh has been diseussed te some extent by schoiars of the field．
Presumaably all contrastive linguists will agree that the two descriptions must be of the same fommal type；
i七 is difficuit 七◎ i瀟agine what ：resu1七s 漁igh七be obtained， fer example， from a eontrast of linguistie forms one ef whieh is described transformationaliy and the othep tagmemieaUy． NeveytheXess the problems invelved with the notion of equivaient de＄cTiptions must be considered， especially when applied to di f−
ferent linguistie stocks．
At present， however， XAIhi tman says that there i s no rnethod to
prove
an equivaienee between item oS， language A and an item of a language B， and no rneans to analyze more than two langu一・ages effectiveiy， so that w e must rely on translation．
Uitimateiy， it is assumed that equivslenee， and therefore selection，． depends on translation， the judgement of an informant fully eompetent in beth Zanguages． Anything short of thi s i eaves the assunp−
tion of equivaienee in somg doubt， in which ease the contra 唐煤@loses foree． 2
一 狽垂煤h SR： ：S： r F
≠獅р≠堰@L． whitman， Contrastive Pro e e dures， ltkggg11ggg−g1g｛L ， Vo l．
2 whitman，・ibid．， pp． 193−f94
Analysis ： Problems and
20， No． 2， （1970） p． 192．
K
： 37 一 ・ 一
For this reasoR， we have to use translation t te deseribe two langUage8 adeqUa七ely fOr the COn七raS七iVe anaエySi8． We ShOUユd do so wi七h 七he nex七point in撚ind・
［［here are many Japanese expressions which eorre−
spend to a given Engiish expression． But we shouid ehoose the most oydinary Japanese expression as an ob j ect of the eompari son among them． Then， what is the most ordinary Japanese expression i？ It ean be regulated as the rnost linguistically simple expres一 ＄ien whieh is easy to understand， or the expression whieh is thq same or very elose to daily speken languages． 3
1bSe sheuid not translate， ￡or exampZe， from Engiish to Japanese by ro te， but should do it ￡rom the me s t generai English to the rnost general Japanese． Kunihi．ro used the niethed mentioned above in order to eontrast English inanimate subjeets with their Jap−
anese equivalents and eiassified them as・foUoWs．
Tab e 40熟藩 鵠き瓢u驚山畠。 器n盤lisgb ge。ts
English inanimate
（1） 鱒Place壁讐
subjeets
The house on the hiii looks down the woods of the park．
（2） 鯉「lime盟
The Thursday brought us another letter frem eur ciient．
Their Japanese equivalents
it．．kara．．ga．．sareru is
o surukotogadekiru Oka no ueniaru sono ie kara koe no mori ga mioroseru
，t．．gasugiru， gatatsu， ganagarerut gasuruto， ninaru， gaowaru， gak一一
uru， gaha jimaru， gasugirutt
Mokuyebi ni wareware no irainin kara mata ittsu no tegami ga tod◎i七a
1
2
S七ud
Tevada， OP． ci七．， P．移・
Tetsuya Kunihi ro， S：tpt：yg！zszgSruetural
glfe−liptgljE l ge，slLa−nLgd一11epa4｛｝s｛｝J anese，
Seman七ics 3 A Con七ras七ive Tokyo ： San＄eido， 1967），
pp． 147−167．
一 38 一
（5） 腫Voice騨 雛S◎und鱒
A splash ahnounced the kidts
e捻七：py inも。 the lake．
（4） ｛ Actiont Movementtt
A few s teps brought them to a smaller restaurant．
（5） 讐響Abst：ract nounstl
are n◎t indicated in
Pain stung he：【・inも。
り
conSCユ，ousneSS．
Which
O）一（4）．
（6） 髄P＝Luralizertt 警駐Un．res ヒrict囎
ed nominalit
Hard work killed him．
警㌧．gasuru．@ 騨
gakikoeru
Zabun to oto ga shite sono ko ga mi zuuni e tobikonda
ftThese are expressed as a verb．tt Suuho aruku to ￡utari wa mo t to
ehii＄aha resuboran ni tsuita 聾雪N◎㎜＋（notameni， niyo七七eg
g ，／anoueni t nokekkae ete ．． ） tt
Kilikili te sashikomu itamini
kano jyo wa i shiki o kaifuku shit
鷲●●de亨蓼
Kare wa karo de shinda
（7）．，璽P：Lu．ra：Lizer 駐 ttUnres七rict一 四●●o鱒 ed no搬ina：L曹響
Ihe South Amerieah rnaiX Ashi ta minami afurika muke no
goe＄ out temorrow．・ ubin o hasso surunoyo
〈11his category is not an inanimate subjeet sentence beeause the verb i s an intransitive one．）
（8） Pivralizer ilunrestriete． ．．ni tt ed nominal it
The BibZe （lrtter， new＄一 Seisho （tegami， shinbuh） ni．．
paper） says．．．． ．． to kaitearu
（9） Noun （which express tt Japanese has ne fixed equiva−
a sta七e of things》 ＋ se七〇 ユent昌警撃 tle鴨
Great eare and worry set一 Danny no ie wa hi jyo na shin
tied on Danny， s heuse． pai nitsuPsunarete ita
O） Subject sre not ehanged getween English and Japanese．
But ．a ．transitive verb in English and an intransitive verb in Japanese are used．ft
The date on her writting一 Kakimone zukue no ue no karen−
table ealendar eaught her da no hizuke ga me ni utsutta
eye．
The detailed elassifieation by Kunihiro shews us that there are various kinds of inanimate svtbjeets． But we ean see that most of Ehglish inanirnate subjeets correspond to the elements
一 39 一
whieh are not subjeets in Japanese． So we ean conelude that the eoneeption ef Engiish inanirnate sub3 ects and that of Japa−
nese equivalents are different．
（e＞ The centrastive anaiysis between English inanimate subjeet senten．ces and their」apanese equiva↓ents．and its加ph◎ati。n English inanimate sUbject sentences and their Japane se equivalents are eontrasted， at the level of eonceptien in this part， a nd the eontrast is dene en the base of Kunihiro t s eias，一 sifieation． By 唐?@doing， we eak avoid an oversight of the
structural differenee between English・and Japanese． the objeetives of the eontrast is te find eut conceptural similarities between the two languages． Research items are as follows， （1） on whieh conc6pturai type does each elassification faXi？ （2） on which hierarehy e￡ eQneeption does eaeh elassi￡ieation，faU？ （3） whieh element in a Japanese sentenee eorresponds to an English
inanimate subject？ （4） what kinds ，of verb does each Japane 唐 and Eng sh sentenee takes？ （5） whieh element in a Japanese sentenee eorresponds to the pa？t which expresses ，tpersontt in an Ehglish inanimate subjeet s entenee？
（1）
The types of eoneeption of eaeh sentenee in Kuni hirots elassifieation are shown in tabie 5． ［ehe e are no eemmen types found between English inanimate subjeet sentences and theip Japanese equivaients． As we considered in seetien 2， in spite of the fact that the beeome−type is alse found in English con一
一 40 一
eeptien and the
reSUユts もhaも
senteneesll 1・／／ ．is
do−type in Japanese eonception， we get sueh teU us that the．condeption of inanimate sub jeet inherent in Eng yish．
．甲able 5
〈English）
／／a） do−type
〈2） de・一typ e
〈5） do−typ e
（4） do一一typ e
〈5 ） do−type
（6） de−type
（7） do一・typ e
（8） do−type
〈9） do−type
〈10） do−typ e
〈」apanese）
become−type become−type becerae−type
beeorae一・type
beco狙e−type become−type become−type beco滋e騨type become−type become−type
〈2）
Next， Kunihire t g classi￡ication wiU be exarnihed through the hierarchy of cenception presented in seetion 2． We analyze both ］inglish and Japanese ＄entenee s truetures by using the terms in table 2， Namely feUowiRg temos are used， agent（A）it 縛transi七ive veyb（V七） o：r in七ransi七ive verb（Vi）闘 鷲objec七（0＞聾 ttpreposi−stonai phrase（ R．P．） ：（the one whieh is considered as the objeet of an aetion in an 奄獅狽窒≠獅唐奄狽奄魔?@verb sentenee and th e，・：・，t＝・one whieh expresses a state o￡ things as a result of an
aetion in a transitive verb sentenee， 盾狽??秩@prepositionaX
phrases are no b in，c：Luded in this resea：Pch●） The resuユt o：f this research is shown in the next table． On Phe basis of this resuZt，
1 earry． out a contrastive analysis according to the new ・marked−
ness di￡fprential hypothesis． We ean see there are four types of eorrespondenee between Engiish eoneeptien and Japanese
一一 41 一
Table 6
（1）
Kunihiro t s Cユ。as8ifica口
tion
nu孤ber（a）
〈2）
（3）
〈4）
（5）
〈6）
（7）
〈8）
（9）
〈10）
（Atypicaユ．
equivaients．）
（2）
English sentence structure
A−Vt−O
A−V七囎◎囎O A白V七輌O
AoVt齢0鱒PP A麟VtoO騨PP
A−Vt一◎
A−Vi
A。V七曲O A口V七。0
8en七ence
A−V七鱒O
（5）
（2）曾s
of
もypeeone ep tion
335445135
4
Japanese
sen七encestructure
（A）鱒Vt嶋◎
A崩vi輌◎
A−Vi鱒PP A−vi伽PP A鱒vi A−Vi
（A）一Vt噌O
A−Vi
S B︶︶
54f
︵︵Otype
coneeption
31221131
strueture is not ￡ound in Japanese
5 AeVi 1
eonception， （A） transitiveness of English i s higher than that of Japanese， ・一一一2，5，4，5，6，8，10， （B） transitiveness of Engiish is the same as that of 」apanese， 一G， 〈C） transitiveness of Japane se i s higher than that ot English，一一一一7， （D） the eorres−
pondence is not fixed，一・一・一9． We realize that it is natural that transitiveness of Eboglish should be higher than that of Jspa−
nese， beeause the results shown in （1） tells us that an inani−
mate subjeet sentenee takes a typieal do−tyPe eonception and its Japanese equivalent takes a typicai beeome−type eoneeption．
There￡ere the eases of 〈B）， （C）， and （D） are worth exarnining，
whieh do not fit the general trait mentioned above． Researeh
（3＞， （4）， and （5） are carried out by foeuss・ing onii．tth＄． s point．
（3）
Mhe roZe of the equivalence of an inanimate subjeet in Japanese sentenee is exarained by utilizing Kunihipo t s classiq一