今週はThe Economist (March 30, 2019)からCulture vultures と題された記事を読みました。すぐにお気づきのとおり、脚韻を踏んだフレーズです。熟した成句で、Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaryには、

本記事は美術館が近年抱える２つの悩みについて書いたものです。１つは、これまで西洋の数々の美術館に多額の寄付をしてきたSackler家が不祥事を起こしたため、今後Sackler家からの献金を受け取らないよう一般市民の活動家から圧力がかかっていることです。Sackler家は製薬会社Purdue Pharmaを所有する富豪ですが、そのPurdue Pharmaが作ったOxycontinというオピオイド（合成麻酔薬）に中毒性があることがわかりました。活動家に言わせますと、そのためすでに40万人が死亡し、今も毎日200人が亡くなっています。「そんな穢れたカネを受け取ってはならない」。もう１つの悩みは、植民地時代に植民地から奪ってきた美術品は、元植民地に返還すべきだという圧力が強まっていることです。

Attracting young visitors is a priority for all museums. Most have a director of “public engagement” whose job it is to bring them in.

「若者に足を運ばせることが、あらゆる美術館にとっての優先課題だ。たいていの美術館にはdirector of public engagementなる役職があって、若者を引き入れることをその職務としている」

受講生から、なぜ、“whose job is to bring them in” ではなくて “whose job it is to bring them in” なのか、itは不要（redundant）ではないかという質問が来ました。確かにそうですよねー。itがなくてもまったく問題ない、というよりitは邪魔のようにさえ思えます。

もう30年近く前のことですけれど、私がこの仕事に入って間もないころ、次のような文に出くわして悩んだことがあります。

To the foreigner Japan appears as a Disneyland-like nation in which everyone has a well-defined role to play, including the foreigner, whose job it is to be foreign. (The Economist)

どうしてitが必要なのか疑問を感じて、その頃勤めていた翻訳学校の同僚ネイティブスピーカーに質問したことがあります。「itはなくてもいいけれど、慣習的に使う」という答えでした。その後、この講座で使った課題記事の中で、何度か同じパターンのセンテンスと遭遇しました。

The Treaty of Rome committed its signatories to an "ever closer union," and for more than 30 years, most of those whose job it was to make the E.U. work hoped and believed that, one day, Europe would take its place in the world as a mighty, democratic, federal state. (TIME)

First in line is Mumtaz Ahmed, whose responsibility it is to pick out high-grade, thickly moulded plastic. (The Economist)

ですから、このパターンは冗長だけれど誤りではなく、慣用的と言えるでしょう。一般に受け入れられている、redundant なitなのだと思います。

It is the job of a director of “public engagement” to bring them (=young visitors) in. 「若者たちを呼び込むのが私の仕事です」と、

The job of a director of “public engagement” is to bring them (=young visitors) in.

ちなみにネットを使って調べてみますと、ネイティブスピーカーでもこのitに違和感を覚えて質問している人がおり、それに対する返答もさまざまです。中にはこんな問答もあります。

(Question)

I've been hearing the phrase "whose job it is to" quite often lately. Consider these two sentences:

1.We have a guy whose job is to clean windows.

2.We have a guy whose job it is to clean windows.

I would prefer the first one because of the less redundancy, though both sentences seem to be grammatically correct (are they?). What do you think about the grammar of these sentences? Is there any (subtle) difference in meaning (accentuation)?

(Answer)

"..whose job is to..." indicates that you're talking about a primary purpose of the person's job, whereas "...whose job it is to..." doesn't necessarily mean it's the primary purpose of their job (though it can be) but just that performing that particular task is that person's responsibility.

For example, in the case of the window-washers, if their full-time job is window washing, it's quite fine to say "A person whose job is to clean windows."

But, let's say you have a secretary at a company who, when clients come in for a meeting, is the person who is supposed to bring in coffee. You generally wouldn't say that "we have a woman whose job is to bring coffee to client meetings," because it makes it sound like she's a full-time coffee-bringer.

However, you could say that "we have a woman whose job it is to bring coffee to client meetings," because when that task has to be done, she's the one whose responsibility it is.

要するに、ある仕事がその人の主要業務ならばwhose job is to ...またはwhose job it is to...を使い、いくつかある職責の一つとしてある仕事をするならwhose job it is to ... のみを使うというのです。

するとやはり、主要業務の場合のitはなくてもいい（=redundant）ということになります。今週のThe Economistの例では、a director of “public engagement” の仕事はまさに「若者を取り込むこと」、それが本業のように読めます。また、TIMEの記事にある “most of those whose job it was to make the E.U. work” だって、EUを機能させることが仕事そのもののように読めます。

(Question)

I heard the expression "whose job it is."

As in: The chauffeur is the person whose job it is to drive the car.

I understand it means the person whose job is to drive the car. But I don't understand why IT is there. Seems redundant.

(Answer)

The sentence makes sense with or without "it" being there. It is much less awkward without the "it". I don't know the exact purpose of putting the word "it" in a situation like that but some people do. But since it is so awkward sounding and awkward to say, most people would leave it out.

(Question)

Which is grammatically correct between the following two usages:

1) I know a guy whose job is to teach English.

2) I know a guy whose job it is to teach English.

(Answer)

Both are fine.

まったくの偶然ですが、筆者が今週NHK「世界に発信！ニュースで英語術」で担当した原稿の中にもこのたぐいのitが出てきます。英保守党の党首を辞任すると発表したTheresa May氏のスピーチの中です。

“I will shortly leave the job that it has been the honor of my life to hold — the second female prime minister but certainly not the last.”

こうしてみると、itの使用は、いくつかある職責の一つとしてやっているのか、専業なのかということとは関係なく、単に慣用的なredundancyなんだと思います。