@article{oai:tiu-tijc.repo.nii.ac.jp:00000089,
 author = {中村, 典生 and Nakamura, Norio},
 journal = {研究紀要, Bulletin of Tsukuba International University},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {Stroik (1996) tries to explain optional binding phenomena in sentences involving EO verbs by classifying EO verbs into two sub-classes, that is, stative and non-stative. The main purpose of this paper is to examine his analysis. This paper is organized as follows: First of all, a brief review of previous studies is given in order to make the crucial problem clear. Secondly, I show Stroik's argument is unsound. More specifically, the following flaws are pointed out; (1) EO verbs are always stative and cannot be used as non-stative. (2) The sentences he cited in the article are not qualified as the examples including Binding phenomena. Lastly, I show some problems unsettled and propose a plausible solution to them., 9, KJ00004011017, P},
 pages = {49--63},
 title = {EO動詞の下位分類について},
 volume = {5},
 year = {1999},
 yomi = {ナカムラ, ノリオ}
}