A Semantic Approach to Teaching English in Japanese High School
Satoshi SHIGI＊

1. Introduction: The Problem of Japanese English Education and What English
Teachers Should Do
This paper aims to show how semantics contributes to Japanese high school English
education. As a case study, we shall pick up infinitive and propose one way to teach infinitive. Also
we shall take into account some English teaching situations in high school and think about theeffective teaching.
To master a foreign language, we need to memorize many things including vocabulary,idioms, grammar, pronunciations, intonations, and so on. Memorizing is inevitable for the second
language acquisition. Naturally, in Japanese English education, junior high and high school
students need to memorize many things. One of the problems in school education is that thestudents tend to learn by rote. Ikegami(2006) states that rote learning is one of the problems inJapanese English education. Ikegami(2006) notes that when students practice rephrasing asentence into another sentence, they have a tendency to think of two sentences as having thesame meaning. Here are the examples;(1a) John struck Bill.
(1b) Bill was struck by John.

(ibid.: 68)(2a) John taught Mary English.
(2b) John taught English to Mary.

(ibid.: 80)＊ 東京都市大学塩尻高校英語教諭

─ 103 ─

If we follow the theory of iconicity, i.e., “different forms, different meaning.” as Ikegami(2006)
mentions(ibid.:70), (1a) should not have the same meaning with (1b), neither do (2a) and (2b). If
we know the differences of each sentence, we can choose the appropriate sentence depending on
the suitable situation. From his study, the rote learning is not enough to lead to practical use.
From a view point of second language acquisition study, Shirai(2004) points out thelimitations of grammar explanations. It may be difficult or impossible for teachers to describe all
grammatical items in words. Even if some teachers can, it may be impossible for the students tounderstand all of what the teachers say.(cf. Shirai 2004) Then Shirai(2004) proposes that teachers
should simplify grammatical explanations and introduce many examples to increase students’‘input’. His proposal suggests that ‘input’ encourages the understanding of grammar.
To sum up, Ikegami(2006) suggests that rote learning is not enough since it does not
apply to practical use. Shirai(2004) tells us the importance of simplification of grammar teaching
and increase learner’s input.
Through reviewing these studies, we see what teachers should do in teaching English.
First of all, teachers should have the ability to simplify each grammatical item. Then, of course,
they should have the ability to explain each item to their students clearly and understandably. As
Kuroda (2008) mentions, in this age of the Internet, students can get almost as much informationas teachers if they want to. Teachers should teach simplified items clearly to their students all the
more.
Also teachers should avoid the method that forces students only to memorize language.
When students get the point of a grammatical item through simplified teachings, students can
avoid memorization-only study. Teachers should lead their students to understand grammaticalitems. Even if it is impossible for students to understand grammatical items fully at the earlier
point of teaching, teachers should guide their students to understand them sufficiently at somepoint, as the students’ advances in their studies. In order to do so, teachers should give them
many examples to increase their input.
In summary, memorization (or ‘input’) encourages the understanding of the grammar.
The understanding of grammar can help the memorization of many examples. Teachers attempt
to connect memorization with the understanding of grammar of their students. To achieve theteacher’s goal, there are main two things that teachers should do. First, they are to have the─ 104 ─ability to simplify each grammatical item. Semantics can help to simplify each grammatical item
and then students can avoid learning it by rote. Secondly, teachers should give many examples, i.e.
‘input’, to their students.
This study will pick up infinitive as a case study to focus on the deep understanding of agrammatical item, which understanding is needed for the effective teaching. Also we need tosimplify infinitive for the effective teaching. To simplify that, we need to know the fundamental
function of infinitive.
In the following chapter 2, we shall review some previous studies of infinitive. In chapter
3, we shall point out some problems of previous studies. Then in chapter 4, we shall propose thealternative idea of previous studies and in chapter 5 we shall consider how to simplify thegrammatical item, infinitive, and we shall propose one of the ways to teach infinitive effectively.
At the same time, we shall take account of some English teaching situations in high school. Then
we shall think about what the effective English teaching is and we shall conclude this paper inchapter 6.

2. Previous Studies
In this chapter, we will review previous studies of infinitives. From the view point of
iconicity, i.e. the meaning and sign must be related to each other (cf. Tsubomoto 2009), themeaning of preposition to and to in to-infinitive must be related to each other. Many studies about
infinitives are based on the idea of iconicity. In the following sections, we shall review somestudies of infinitives based on the idea of iconicity. In 2.1, we shall review Shigi(2007).

2.1. End Point
In this section, we shall review Shigi(2007) which states that the meaning of preposition

to is end point. Also the meaning of to in to-infinitive is end point from the view point of iconicity.

2.1.1. Shigi (2007)

─ 105 ─

Shigi(2007) concludes that the meaning of preposition to is end point. The definition ofend point is stated as follows.

(3) To does not have the meaning of any motion or direction.
To shows just a point, and this point is end point(Shigi 2007: 3)

Shigi(2007) argues that when we think about the meaning of preposition to, we should not mix up
the meaning of preposition to with the meaning of sentences or verbs. The example of I went to

the park can be diagramed as follows.

(4). I went to the park.
The park(ibid.: 2)

THE FIGURE 1: THE MEANING OF I WENT TO THE PARK.

According to Shigi(2007), the sentence (4) means ‘I reached the park’. Went (go) means ‘to move toanother place’. This ‘dotted arrow’ is the meaning of went, and meaning of to is an end point, it isshown by ‘the circle’. Thanks to preposition to, the park can be interpreted as the ‘arrival point’.
(cf. ibid.: 2)
Shigi(2007) attempts to apply the meaning of preposition to into all usages of the word to in terms of
the idea of iconicity, which includes the usages of to-infinitive. We shall see the one example from that study.

(5) I got up early to get the bus.

(ibid.: 11)

Since to means end point, ‘to phrases’ can be interpreted as ‘some kind of arrival points’corresponding to the preceding sentences. That is, to get the bus is interpreted as ‘a kind of
arrival point’ corresponding to I got up early. This is because to is an ‘end point’, and theinterpretation of sentences depends on the context like ‘the purpose’ for (5) (cf. ibid. : 12).

2.1.2. The Problem of Shigi (2007)

─ 106 ─

Shigi(2007) considers the meaning of to and the meaning of sentences or verbs or ‘tophrases’ separately. That approach is meaningful to analyze the meaning of words since manystudies have mixed up the meaning of preposition to and the meaning of sentences as Shigi(2007)
points out (cf. Lindstromberg 1997, Tyler & Evans 2003, 2005. ) However, it does not explain all
phenomena. The problem of Shigi(2007) is that the argument does not take into account themeaning of constructions. We not only consider the meaning of each word and the meaning ofsentence separately, but we need to take account of the meaning of constructions. The following
examples shall show the validity of that.

(6)Mary taught Bill French.
(7)Mary taught French to Bill.

(Goldberg 1995: 33)

The difference of each sentence is that “[6] implies that Bill actually learned some French, that
metaphorical transfer was successful”(ibid.). On the other hand, (7) does not have such
implication(cf. ibid.). Goldberg(1995) states that “the central sense of the ditransitive construction
can be argued to be the sense involving successful transfer of an object to a recipient, with thereferent of subject agentively causing this transfer”(ibid. 33). Also she states that the central
sense of transitive construction like (7) is that a volitional actor affects an inanimate patient(cf.
ibid.: 118).
The approach taken Shigi(2007) cannot explain the differences between (6) and (7). In
the approach, he only focuses on the meaning of words; to has the meaning of end point. In thatcase, the sentence (7) has to have the implication that Bill actually learned some French since tohas the meaning of end point. However, the sentence (6) has the implication that Bill actuallylearned some French as Goldberg(1995) states, though the sentence (6) does not have the word to,i.e. end point as Shigi(2007) says. Thus we see that Shigi(2007) fails to consider the meaning of
constructions.
When we think about the meaning of to-infinitive, we should take into account themeaning of to plus infinitive itself, i.e. the bare forms of verbs. Shigi(2007) fails to consider themeaning of infinitive itself.

─ 107 ─

2.2. Direction Towards
In this section, we shall review Duffley(1992,2006) and Hashimoto(2006), which statethat the meaning of preposition to is ‘direction towards’.

2.2.1. Duffley (1992, 2006)
Duffley(1992, 2006) studies on the English infinitive comprehensively. He takes amonosemy approach, that is, he supposes that “the basic meaning of to is the movement leading toa terminus” (Duffley 2006: 43), and he tries to apply to the meaning of to-infinitive in terms of
temporal subsequence. Duffley(2006) states as follows.

Since the basic meaning of preposition to is that of movement leading to a terminus, in
its use of the infinitive this preposition evokes the event expressed by the latter as theend-point of a movement. This accounts for the feeling of a constant temporal relation ofsubsequence between the infinitive and the matrix, which has led some analysts to go so
far as to posit a future tense operator in the infinitive. Since the infinitive’s event, whichto presents as the term of the movement, is a temporal entity, the notion of movement
denoted by to is normally construed here in terms of time. (ibid. : 43)

Then, he gives two examples and shows the diagrams.

(8) I wanted to talk to Mary about it.

BEFOREPOSITION

AFTER-to

POSITION

wantedtalk(ibid.: 44 )

─ 108 ─FIGURE 2: INFINITIVE EVENT EVOKED AS NON-REALIZED(The dotted line indicates that the movement from the “before” to the “after” is understood
as non-realized.)(9) I managed to talk to Mary about it.

BEFOREPOSITION

AFTER-to

POSITION

managedtalk(ibid.: 44)

FIGURE 3: INFINITIVE EVENT EVOKED ACTUALLY REALIZED(The solid line indicates actual realization of the movement leading to the realization of theinfinitive’s event. )He explains the diagrams as follows.

The event expressed by the matrix verb is understood to constitute a before-position intime with respect to that of the infinitive, which is therefore conceived as anafter-position with respect to the matrix verb’s event.(ibid.: 43)

The difference shown by Figure 2 and Figure 3 is the difference whether the each event expressedby the matrix verb evokes as non-realized or realized. The both of the sentences have in common
with the temporal subsequence, and it was denoted by to. In other words, the event expressed by
the matrix clause precedes that of the infinitive.
In the following section, we shall review the infinitive of reaction such as I am glad to seeyou, which seems the opposite sequence of event that Duffley (1992, 2006) proposes.

─ 109 ─

2.2.1.2. The Infinitive of Reaction
In this section, we are concerned with the infinitive of reaction. The following examples
are from Jespersen(1940: 259).

(10) I am glad (happy, delighted, pleased, proud, sorry, angry, ashamed, disappointed,
surprised, astonished) to see you here.

Duffley(1992) observes that, in these examples, the clause that follows to infinitive event, ‘theseeing’ already realizes, and that is what brought about ‘the gladness’. Duffley(1992) states thatat first sight the sentences seem “the opposite sequence of event . . . which our hypothesis shouldhave led us to expect”(Duffley 1992: 123) and considers the sentences comparing them with thesentences with that clause.

(11a) I am glad to know that he is safe.
(11b) I am glad that I know that he is safe.

(ibid.:123)

He explains the differences between them as follows “[11a] presupposes the person referred to by

I has been waiting for the news about someone whom he thought to be in danger, [11b] does not,and might be said rather by someone who is comparing himself with other people who do notknow this fact”(Duffley 1992: 124). Similar examples are also stated.

(12a) I was glad to see the police car come around the corner.
(12b) I was glad that I saw the police car come around the corner. (ibid.: 124)

He explains (12a) and (12b) as follows.

─ 110 ─

While in [12b] the speaker is not represented as having any kind of expectations at all,in [12a] . . . the sentence with the infinitive means that speaker was hoping for someone
to come to his assistance even before happened (ibid.).
The reason why to is used with the infinitive of reaction is summarized as follows.

What is significant for understanding why to is used with the infinitive of reaction is thatthe notion of ‘evaluation’ implies a judgment as to whether the event was opportune ornot, and the judgment involves an implicit reference to the situation as it existed before
the infinitive event occurred (Duffley 1992: 125).

To sum up Duffley (1992), at first sight, the sentences of the infinitive of reaction seem to be
exceptional since the events expressed in to-infinitive precede the events expressed in the matrix
clause. However they are not the exceptional usages when we take into consideration the notionof evaluation, i.e. the judgment to make an evaluation precedes the occurrence of the infinitive
event. Therefore we can assume the before-after relationship in the infinitive of reaction as wellas other usages of infinitives stated in 2.2.1.
However, there still remains a question. In 2.2.1. in the to-infinitive, the event expressedby the matrix clause precedes that of the infinitive like (8)I wanted to talk to Mary about it. In thesentence (8), the two events are regarded as actual things. On the other hand, in 2.2.1.2, in thesentence like (10) I am glad to see you here., the two events are regarded as notional things. The
question is that why these differences occur. He does not explain why these are happening. In
2.2.1, he supposes to reflects the time subsequence of two events. Then in this 2.2.2, he proposesthat to reflects the before-after positions if we regard the two events as notional things. Unless weregard the two things as notional things, the subsequence of two events is opposite as Duffley
expects. This reason has to be explained, or the supposition that to reflects the time sequence may
be wrong.

2.2.2. Hashimoto(2006)
In this section, we shall review Hashimoto(2006). He considers how to teach to-infinitive─ 111 ─effectively. Hashimoto(2006) also describes the meaning of preposition to as “direction”, and hestates that the meaning can apply to the expressions of to-infinitive. He displays the image
schemas of preposition to and to-infinitive as follows.

(13) ⇒

Place(ibid.: 59)

4 :THE IMAGE OF PREPOSITION TO(14) ⇒

Action

and

the

like

(ibid.: 59)

FIGURE 5 : THE IMAGE OF TO-INFINITIVE

Using these image schemas, he explains several grammatical items such as the differences
between the meaning of will and be going to, and must and have to, and the meaning of <beto-infinitive> and so on. We shall see the examples of <be to-infinitive>.

(15) a. The President is to visit London next week.

(Plan)

b. You are to do your homework before watching TV.

(Duty)

c. The key was not to be found anywhere.

(Possible)

d. If you are to succeed, you must work harder.

(Intention)e. They were never to meet again.

(Destiny)(ibid.: 64)

Hashimoto(2006) says that many study guides explain <be to-infinitive> as having the above fivemeanings, that is, <be to-infinitive> has many meanings such as ‘plan’, ‘duty’, ‘possible’,‘intention’, ‘destiny’ as stated above. According to Hashimoto(2006), the problem is that manyteachers in high school just tell the students the lists of the meaning of <be to-infinitive>, andstudents just memorize them. Then he argues that teachers should teach <be to-infinitive> as theitem related to the meaning of preposition to like “The Subject (be) [in the direction of] the clause─ 112 ─that follows to-infinitive.”(ibid.: 64) We can interpret the <be to-infinitive>as follows.

(16) The president is ⇒ [to visit London next week].
(17) You are ⇒ [to do your homework before watching TV].

(ibid.:64)

In (16), The president is [ in the direction of ] visiting London next week, and in (17), You are [ inthe direction of ] doing your homework before watching TV. He argues that this explanation caneasily show why <be to-infinitive> has various meanings, and he continues to argue that what
seems as the meanings of <be to-infinitive> is not the meaning, but rather they are justinterpretations of the meaning of the sentences with <be to-infinitive>(cf.: Hashimoto 2006).
The proposal of Hashimoto(2006) seems useful to teach English at one point. However
his teaching methods with to-infinitive do not seem to apply to the part of the usages of

to-infinitives such as the infini1tive of reaction (see 2.2.1.2). In his approach, the infinitive ofreaction should be treated as the exceptional usage of infinitive.

2.3. The Infinitive in Causative Constructions
In this section we shall review some studies of the infinitive in causative constructions.

2.3.1. Tsubomoto (2009)
Tsubomoto(2009) argues about the causative verbs from the view point of ‘iconicity’.
Some causative verbs take bare infinitive such as make, have, let, and other verbs taketo-infinitive such as get, force, allow and so on. Tsubomoto(2009) follows Duffley(1992)’s idea thatthe notion of movement denoted by to is construed in the to-infinitive in terms of time. Therefore,

to-infinitive reflects the temporal subsequence of two events that is expressed in the matrix
clause and the clause that follows to-infinitive, whereas the bare infinitive reflects the closenessof time, or coincidence since there is no to. Tsubomoto(2009) mentions that the existence of to
makes a difference of the meaning of the bare-infinitive and to-infinitive. Then he takes thefollowing examples.

─ 113 ─(18) He made us laugh.
(19) He got us to laugh.

(Tsubomoto 2009: 10)

According to Tsubomoto(2009), (19) implies that he made some efforts to achieve theresult before we laughed. The existence of to reflects the causer’s action, i.e. he got us, precedes
the 1causee’s action, i.e. we laugh. On the other hand, (18) implies that the causative event andthe result that was caused by the causer realized simultaneously. Therefore, we need not to put toin front of the infinitive to show the precedent of time. In the causative constructions, to reflects
the subsequence of two events.

2.3.2. Nakao and Koma (1990), Dixon (2005)
In this section, we shall consider the difference between the bare infinitive andto-infinitive from the view point of transitivity or directness. Nakao and Koma (1990) study itfrom the view point of transitivity. The term “transitivity” can be defined as ‘the degree ofaffectedness of the object.’(cf. Hopper, & Thompson. 1980)
Nakao and Koma(1990) summarize the historical transition of the causative verb makewith the forms of the complements as follows.

(20) OE

make that clause

ME
⇒

PE

make O that-clausemake O to-Inf⇒

make O Ø-Inf(ibid: 103)

They state this transition reflects that the transitivity of make is getting higher through thehistory. They argue that the complement of verbs can be decided according to the degree oftransitivity, that is, if the transitivity of verbs gets higher, those verbs have difficulty to takethat-clause and tend to occur with infinitive. In other words, they argue that infinitive is used
when the transitivity is high.
1

The word “causee” is used by Duffley (1992), Hirose (1995), Hollmann (2005) as the meaning of the target which
the causer’s action intends.

─ 114 ─Dixon (2005) argues that ‘directness’ plays its role in the use of infinitive, and when
directness is high, bare infinitive is used, and when directness is low, to-infinitive is used. The‘directness’ of the verbs in the matrix clauses relates to the choices of the forms of bare-infinitive
or to-infinitive in the complement clauses. Before seeing his examples of causative verbs, we shallsee the examples of help.

(21a) John helped me to write the letter.
(21b) John helped me write the letter.

He mentions “sentence[21b]－without to―is likely to imply that John gave direct help” (ibid; 252)such as “writing alternate paragraphs.(ibid.: 251)” On the other hand, “[21a] is more likely to be
used if he gave indirect assistance” (ibid; 252.) such as providing pen and ink or suggesting someappropriate phrases and so on.(cf. ibid. 251) Then he says “semantic principle explains, at least inpart, the inclusion or omission of to with MAKING verbs.”(ibid.: 252) He states that the causative
verbs make and let can be explained through this idea comparing with cause and allow
respectively. The examples are as follows.

(22a) You made me burn the toast by distracting my attention.
(22b) He caused Mary to crash by almost cutting through the brake cable andthen sending her down the mountain road.
(23a) Mary let John mow the lawn.
(23b) Mary allowed John to mow the lawn.

(22a) implies the direct causative action from the causer you to the causee me. On the other hand,(22b) does not imply the direct causative action. As for (23), he states “let focuses on the mainclause subject, and the effect it has on the subject of the complement clause.”(ibid.: 252) Then, he
supposes let have the meaning of ‘directness’, and that is why let does not take to in front of theinfinitive.
However, there still remain some questions as he states the following;─ 115 ─This does not, however, explain why force, within often relates to coercion, takes to; andwhy the causative sense of have, which may involve some indirect means, omits to.(ibid.)

The problem of Dixon (2005) seems that the definition of ‘directness’ is not clear.
Although it seems similar to transitivity, we do not know what the ‘directness’ is definitely.

2.3.3. Relationships between Causer and Causee
Tsubomoto(2009) suggests that we should consider not only the ‘transitivity’ or‘directness’, but also the relationships between the causer and the causee. Have does not have any
meaning of transitivity or directness when it is used in the causative constructions . Nevertheless,this verb takes the form of bare-infinitives like the following sentence.

(24) I’ll have him clear up this mess.

(ibid.: 8)

Tsubomoto(2009) analyses this is because the causee’s attitudes are cooperative to the causers
when the verb have is used in the causative constructions. Unless such attitudes are implied, thesentences with causative verb have are unacceptable as follows.

(25)*I had the squirrel leave its tree.

(ibid.: 11)

According to Tsubomoto (2009), in the sentence (24), the achievement of the causer’s action is
implied simultaneously when the causer’s action occurs, for the causee’s attitudes are cooperative
to the causer. Therefore the verb have can take the bare infinitive, though the ‘transitivity’ or‘directness’ of the causer’s action is not high.

2.4. The Summary of The Previous Studies
In this chapter 2, we have reviewed some previous studies. In 2.1, the study of
Shigi(2007) suggests that we should take account of the meaning of infinitive itself when we think
about the meaning of to-infinitive. In 2.2, from the study of Duffley(1992, 2006), we suspect the─ 116 ─validity of his supposition that to in to-infinitive reflects the temporal subsequence. In 2.3, fromthe studies of causative verbs, we have seen the difference between to-infinitive and bareinfinitive. From the view point of iconicity, to reflects the temporal subsequence, and bare forms
reflect the closeness of time, or coincidence (cf. Tsubomoto 2009). Also we should take into
consideration of the notion of transitivity or directness (cf. Nakao and Koma 1990, Dixon 2005).

3. The Problems of Previous Studies
In this chapter, we shall analyze the previous studies and point out the problems ofprevious studies.

3.1. The Meaning of Infinitive
In 2.1., we notice that to-infinitive is made up of to plus infinitive. First of all, we shallconsider the meaning of infinitive.
Wada(1992) points out the infinitive itself has the meaning of ‘unreality’, the things
which are not actual. That is why we use the infinitive in the imperative form or subjunctive or
the position after the auxiliary verbs (cf. ibid.: 74).
Tomoshige(2002) observes that it is generally said that to-infinitive has the meaning of‘future oriented’ such as hypothetical, possibility, especially comparing it with gerund, which issaid that it has the meaning of facts, actual accomplishments like the followings.

(26) She hoped to learn French.(possibility)(27) She enjoyed learning French.(actual accomplishment)( ibid.: 133)

(26) implies the possibility of leaning French. (27) implies she actually learned French.
However, he states there are the examples that do not follow the each meaning.

(28) I’m interested in working in Switzerland. Do you know anybody who could
help me?

─ 117 ─(29) I was interested to read in the paper that scientists have found out how theuniverse began.
(ibid.: 144)

The gerund in (28), i.e. working expresses the thing which has not been realized yet. Also theto-infinitive clause in (29), i.e. to read expresses the thing which happened before I got interested.
He concludes that the meaning of ‘future-oriented’ seen in the to-infinitive is only just a generaltendency. Of course he admits that there is the tendency; to-infinitive tends to express ‘future
events’, however it cannot express the whole thing. We may suppose that his conclusion isreasonable. Or we can say that it is a natural result, for we suppose the meaning of the infinitive
itself is ‘unreality’ as Wada(1992) points out. The notion of ‘unreality’ can easily be connected withthe future events, on the other hand, it cannot express the past events since the past events werealready realized, and they cannot match the notion of ‘unreality’.

3.2. The Problems of Duffley (1992, 2006)
Duffley(2006) supposes that “the basic meaning of to is the movement leading to aterminus”(Duffley 2006 : 43), and he tries to apply to the meaning of to-infinitive in terms of time
sequence. Tomoshige (2002) mentions that the meaning of ‘future oriented’ in the to-infinitive isjust a general tendency, the temporal subsequence, which the event of the matrix clauseprecedes the events of to-infinitive clause, should also be just a tendency. Duffley tries to apply
the meaning of the basic meaning of to to the infinitive of reaction such as the sentence, I am

glad to see you here, it cannot be acceptable since the actual sequence of events are opposite. He
fails to take into consideration of the meaning of infinitive itself fully, though he noticed thatto-infinitive was made up of to plus bare-infinitive.

3.3. The Causative Verbs Used with Infinitives
Tsubomoto(2009)’s approach is not accurate. He thinks the difference between the bareinfinitive and the to-infinitive is the difference between the coincidence and the precedent of─ 118 ─time based on Duffley(1992)’s approach. The fundamental problem of previous studies we haveseen in 2.3 are that they treat the event of the matrix clause and the notional thing expressed by
the infinitive / to-infinitive clause as the equal rank, using the actual event’s temporalsubsequence. However, the event expressed in the matrix clause and the notion expressed in theinfinitive / to-infinitive clause cannot be compared as the temporal subsequence of actual(realized) events. Since the infinitive itself is not actual, it cannot be compared with the twoclauses theoretically.

3.4. Analysis of Previous Studies
The previous studies such as Shigi(2007), Duffley(1992, 2006), Tsubomoto(2009) fails to
consider the meaning of infinitive itself. Duffley(1992, 2006) and Tsubomoto (2009) assume thatthe to in front of the infinitive reflects the temporal subsequence derived from the meaning of
preposition to “the movement leading to a terminus”(Duffley 2006: 43). The meaning of temporalsubsequence is applied to the causative constructions used with infinitive, that is, the existence ofto reflects the precedent of the event of the matrix clause and the absence of to reflects
non-subsequence of time in the sentences. (cf. Duffley 1992, Tsubomoto 2009)
The matter is not quite as simple as those previous studies suggest. When we think
about causative events, we suppose the causer and the causee. Then apparently the causer’s
action precedes the causee’s action. The sentence like (18) He made us laugh. applies to it as well,that is, causer’s action he made us precedes the causee’s action laugh. The difference between the
bare-infinitive and to-infinitive is not only the matter of temporal subsequence, but the degree ofachievement in the event expressed by the verbs of the matrix clause.
Also if there is the meaning of temporal subsequence in to-infinitive, it is hard to
imagine that the subsequence can be opposite as in the reaction of infinitive, even if we can
suppose the before-after sequence when we regard the events as notional things. This fact leads
us to throw a doubt on the assumption of the meaning of the to-infinitive; temporal subsequence.
It should be concluded that the previous studies are wrong in their assumptions thatto-infinitive shows the subsequence of time. As Duffley himself points out at one point, “studying
the to infinitive all by itself neglects the obvious fact that it is made up of to plus bare

─ 119 ─

infinitive”(Duffley 1992: 2). However, his approach is based on the temporal subsequence of theevent of the matrix clause and the to-infinitive clause as the before position and after position.
The fundamental problem is that he fails to take account of the meaning of infinitive itself,
though he notices that to-infinitive is made up of to plus infinitive.

4. Consideration
From the argument of 3.4, we have a doubt that to does not mean the temporalsubsequence of its own. Now our concerns are to consider what the to functions or how it
contributes to the meanings of the sentences with to-infinitive. In the following 4.1, in order toconsider the functions of to, we shall compare ‘the verbs used with infinitive’ with ‘the verbs usedwith to-infinitive’ in the causative constructions.

4.1. Infinitives in Causative Constructions
The causative verbs with bare-infinitive, such as make, have, let, focus on theachievement or the effect of causer’s action. At the same time, the constructions are implied thatthe causee’s actions are also accomplished. On the other hand, the causative verbs with

to-infinitive, such as force, allow, get, focus on how the causative actions occur, in other words, thecausative manner is focused. Let us take some examples.

4.1.1. Causative Verbs: force vs. makeLet us compare force with make. Force takes a to-infinitive and make takes a bareinfinitive. The following examples are from Duffley (1992).

(30) He forced me to laugh.
(31) He made me laugh.

(Duffley 1992: 67)“In [30] one gets the impression of a person laughing against his own will, because ofsome external coercion” (Duffely 1992: 67).

─ 120 ─In [31] the first reading is “he provoked my laughter” without any independentintervention of ‘me’.…The second reading, a note of coercion, or rather moral suasion, canbe felt, but even here one gets the impression that ‘he’ reduced any opposition so that thecause was…a mere instrument acting under coercion. (ibid: 67)

Hollmann(2005) mentions that if we put adverbs which imply gradualness, the acceptability ofthe sentence with the causative verb make gets lower.

(32) ??The police finally made him confess to the crime.

(Hollmann. 2005: 12)

In short we can summarize the difference between force and make as follows.

(33) Force (to-infinitive) focuses on how the causative action occurs; thecausative manner.

Make (bare infinitive) focuses on the achievement of the causative events.

(33) shows that the meaning of force and make has a different focus. It does not show to reflects
the temporal subsequence.

4.1.2. Causative Verbs: allow vs. let
Allow and let have the meaning of permission, but allow must be followed by to, let takes
only the bare infinitive (Duffley 1992: 83). The differences between them can be shown in thefollowing examples.

(34a) I allowed him to do it, but he didn’t do it.
(34b) *I let him do it, but he didn’t do it.
(35a) I don/ didn’t allow him to do it, but he does/ did it.
(35b) *I don’t/ didn’t let him do it, but he does/ did it.

─ 121 ─(ibid.: 85)

These examples suggest when the causer let causee do, the realization of the action permitted is
implied at the same time, on the other hand, allow does not have such an implication of therealization (cf. ibid: 85). Similarly, Dixon points out “let focuses on the main clause subject, andthe effect it has on the subject of the complement clause”(Dixon 2005: 252)

In short we can summarize the difference between allow and let as follows.

(36) Allow (to-infinitive) focuses on the causative manner.

Let (bare-infinitive) focuses on the achievement of the causative events.

The same as 4.1.1, to does not reflect the temporal subsequence, rather it reflects the difference offocuses.

4.1.3. The Meaning; Bare Infinitive vs. to-Infinitive
As we have observed the previous sections in 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, the causative constructions
with bare-infinitive, i.e., make and let focus on the achievement or the effect of causer’s action,that is, they are implied that the causee’s actions are also accomplished. On the other hand, thecausative constructions with to-infinitive, i.e., force, allow focus on how the causative actions
occur, that is, the causative manner is focused.
Now let us consider what is the difference between the bare infinitive and to-infinitive isin meaning in the causative constructions. As we have seen in chapter 3.4, it is not appropriate tosay that the bare infinitive sentences reflect the coincidence of two events. If to does not reflect
the temporal sequence, we need to propose the alternative idea of to.

4.2. Alternative Idea of to
We would propose here that the bare infinitive sentences are interpreted as one unit,
while to-infinitive sentences are interpreted as two units. The number of units represents our
cognitions. First, let us take the example of bare infinitive using the sentence (31)He made me─ 122 ─laugh. as (37). It can be diagramed as Figure 6.
(37) He made me laugh.

Cognition

actual event

notional event

He made me

I laugh

FIGIRE 6: CAUSATIVE VERB WITH BARE INFINITIVE

Figure 6 shows the interpretation of sentence (37). The components of the unit are an actual event
and a notional event. The left solid circle shows the actual event expressed by the matrix clause;

he made me, and the right dotted circle shows the notional event expressed by the infinitive;
laugh. The rectangle enclosing the two circles shows our cognitions. It shows our cognition as one
unit.
Next, let us take the example of to-infinitive using the sentence (30)He forced me tolaugh. as (38). It can be diagramed as Figure 7.

(38) He forced me to laugh.
Cognition

actual event

CognitiontoHe forced me

notional event

I laugh

FIGURE 7: CAUSATIVE VERB WITH TO-INFINITIVE

─ 123 ─

Figure 7 shows the interpretation of sentence (38). The left solid circle shows the actual event; heforced me, and the right dotted circle shows the notional event; laugh. The line between themshows the marker of separating the actual thing from the notional thing; to. The two solid
rectangles enclosing each circle show our cognitions. They show our cognitions as two units.
Thanks to the existence of to, we can cognate each thing distinctively, and then we can focus on
the causative manner and the notional event respectively.
The point is that to itself does not mean the temporal subsequence, i.e. the event
expressed by the matrix clause precedes that of to-infinitive as Duffley (1992) and Tsubomoto(2009) propose. The original meaning of to; ‘direction towards’ (cf. OED) evokes the distance
between the two components in our interpretations.
Figure 7 shows that to itself does not mean the temporal subsequence. The to functions
as the marker of separating the actual thing from the notional thing. Figure 6 and Figure 7
illustrate that our cognitions can produce the temporal sequence as our interpretations, but not
the meaning of to. The significance of these figures is that we can take account of the meaning of
infinitive itself, i.e. unreality (Wada 1992). In other words, infinitives show the notional things.
This argument leads us to consider our perceptions, which has never considered through theprevious studies.
In short, to functions as the marker of separating the actual thing from the notional
thing. To does not mean the temporal subsequence of its own. A good point for showing thesefigures is that we can explain why the infinitive of reaction can occur in to-infinitive construction.

4.2.1. The Infinitive of Reaction
As we have seen in 2.2.1.2, at first sight, the reaction of infinitive seems to show the
opposite event sequence that Duffley (1992) expects. If to reflects the temporal subsequence, wecannot explain ‘the infinitive of reaction’ such as I am glad to see you; seeing you precedes I am

glad in temporal subsequence. This sentence also can be illustrated by the same figure as
Figure7.

─ 124 ─(39) I am glad to see you.
Cognition

Cognition

actual eventtoI am glad

notional eventsee you

FIGURE 8: THE INFINITIVE OF REACTION

Figure 8 shows the interpretation of (39). The left solid circle shows the actual state; I am glad.
The right dotted circle shows the notional event; see you. The line between them shows themarker of separating the actual thing from the notional thing; to. The two solid rectangles
enclosing each circle show our cognitions. The two rectangles show our cognitions as two units.
Thanks to the existence of to, we can cognate each thing distinctively. The matrix clause, I am

glad shows the present state, which indicates the state after changing from the different state. It
cannot be connected with the future notion. Then we can interpret the infinitive clause as thecause. Again, to functions as the marker of separating the actual thing from the notional thing. To
does not mean the temporal subsequence.
When we mention that to does not mean the temporal subsequence in to- infinitives, itdoes not mean that we deny the tendency of interpretation of ‘futurity’. In fact, many examples
are interpreted as future events in to-infinitives. This is because the meaning of infinitive is‘unreality’ (cf. Wada 1992), and the notion is easily connected to future events.

5. How to Utilize This Study for Teaching English
Now let us think about how to utilize this study for English teaching. In chapter 1, we
have seen two things which English teachers should do; one is to simplify each grammatical item

─ 125 ─and the other is to give many examples, input.
In this study, we propose that to in to-infinitive does not mean the temporal subsequence.
The original meaning of to; ‘direction towards’ (cf. OED) evokes the distance between the twocomponents in our interpretations. Also to in to-infinitive is originally from preposition to (cf.
OED). Therefore, the meaning or function of preposition to and to in to-infinitive have in common,and that is ‘the distance’. This illustrates the simplification of grammatical items.
We propose that we teach the meaning of preposition to and to in to-infinitive as just ‘the
distance’. We take the examples (4), (5), (10), as (40), (41), (42).

(40) I went to the park.

(Shigi. 2007: 2)(41) I got up early to get the bus.

(ibid. :11)(42) I am glad to see you here.

( Jespersen. 1940: 259)

We interpret the meaning of to as (40) ‘arrival’, (41) ‘purpose’, and (42) ‘cause’, respectively. We
need to memorize the interpretation for each sentence. However each meaning of to in thesentence (40), (41), (42) can be regarded as the same. That is ‘the distance.’ As for (40), it isbetween I and the park, (41), between the situation of I got up early and getting the bus, and (42),between the state of I am glad and seeing you here.
When we just teach that to represents‘some kinds of distance’, the students do nothave to memorize each interpretation respectively. Therefore, this teaching can lead to a
reduction of students’ burden. Also when students do not understand the meanings of sentences
included to, they can guess the meanings.
Students can increase their input included to no matter whether the usages are infinitiveor preposition. They just need to keep in mind that to shows ‘the distance’.
In the following section, in order to support this teaching method, we shall see twostudies. One is Tomasello(2003), the other is Otsuka(2008).

5.1. Tomasello(2003)
Tomasello(2003) offers a useful hint to us how to utilize this study for Japanese English

─ 126 ─education. He studies how to acquire our first language. His approach is based on a usage-based
linguistics; “language structure emerges from language use.”(Tomasello. 2003: 5) Also he statesthat “usage-based theories hold that the essence of language is its symbolic dimension, withgrammar being derivative” (ibid.). One of the reasons he argues the theory is in his observation of
how small children acquire irregular verbs in English for their first language. According toTomasello (2003) children start to use the past form of verbs in about 2 years old. They use thepast form of verbs correctly at this stage. Then, in about 4 years old, they sometimes make a
mistake in using the past form of verbs, such as *comed or *singed. This is because they
overgeneralize the rule for regular verbs; to add -ed for making the past form of verbs, into
irregular verbs.
By about the time they enter elementary school, they learn to use past tense of the verbs
properly having their mistakes correct by adults around them (cf. Tomasello 2003 : chapter 6). To
sum up, children acquire their first language through a process of usage-based theory. The orderof process is summarized as (43).

(43) Input→imitation→overgeneralization→correction→acquisition (cf. ibid.)

Tomasello(2003) indicates that enough ‘input’ is essential for our language acquisition.
Of course, the second language acquisition and the first language acquisition are quite different
things. However, we know that, in order to acquire the language, much ‘input’ is essential.

5.2. Otsuka(2008)
Otsuka(2008) studies the way of effective English teaching for the second language
learners. According to Otsuka(2008), there are two processes for our language acquisition. One is‘Rule-based processing’, which is mainly used for the second language acquisition, and the other is‘Exemplar-based processing’, which is normally used for the first language acquisition (cf. Otsuka
2008. 11-12).
‘Rule-based processing’ is the process of using our grammatical and lexical knowledge.
Therefore, we can produce many sentences using this process, but it can be a burden for our─ 127 ─brains and it takes time to response. On the other hand, ‘Exemplar-based processing’ is theprocess of drawing the whole sentence (or phrase) from one’s own memory. It is suitable for quick
responses, but it is inapplicable for producing other sentences. Therefore, the situations of being
able to use this process are limited (cf. ibid.).
Otsuka(2008) points out that teachers tend to focus on Rule-based teaching comparing to
Exemplar-based teaching. According to him, the two processes supplement each other and need to
be well-balanced. He argues that increasing Exemplar-based teaching is the key to effective
teaching (cf. Otsuka. 2008: 21).

5.3. How to Increase Students’ Input in High School Education
Through the studies of Tomasello(2003) and Otsuka(2008), our concerns are to consider
the way how to increase students’ ‘input’. However there are some difficult situations to do that insome high schools. In order to increase students’ input, not only our effective teaching, but
students’ own motivation for learning is indispensable.
There are not a few high school students who have little desire to learn English. Many ofthem fail to follow their classes early in their junior high school days and give up keeping up with
their classes. There should be various causes that they fail to follow their classes. They might betheir own laziness or teacher’s careless words to the students. Whatever the causes are, thedifficulty for teaching in high school is that they have little desire to learn English. Studies for thesecond language acquisition show the limitations of grammar explanations as we have seen inchapter 1(cf. Shirai 2004). Also through the studies of Tomasello(2003) and Otsuka(2008), we
know that it is important to increase students’ input. Therefore teachers encourage their students
to increase their ‘input’, but it is useless for the students who have little motivation for learning to
do so, because they cannot endure seeing many examples in their feelings of lack ofunderstanding.
In such a situation, first of all, teachers should try to get back the students’ motivation.
Though it is not easy and might take time, we will introduce some approaches of reading classes
for the students who do not like English.

─ 128 ─

5.4. 1. Some Approaches to Raise The Students’ Motivation
First of all, teachers should try to reduce the burden of students, and then give them anexperience of success. In the classes, teachers hand out the printed sheets such as Data 1 or 2. As
for the Data 1, the sentences are divided into each chunk, and each Japanese translation is listedwith some blanks next to each chunk. This method is based on Yasugi(2010). Before working on
this sheet, we practice blank words using flash cards. As for the Data 2, the sentences are divided
into each chunk and each Japanese translation is listed next to it. Japanese translations are
partially marked, teachers ask their students to find out the words or phrases in English. Then,
we practice the words using flash cards.
The point is to reduce students’ burden. Many of them do not understand theconstructions of sentences. Therefore it is too hard for them to interpret each sentence. The
purpose for these activities is to let them try to see English sentences. We focus on theinterpretations of only some sentences for the mid-term or final examinations.
We also give them pre-test before the examinations such as Data 3 and practicememorizing some sentences in the classes. Teachers let them know that the three sentences in the
Data 3 shown by ㋐ ,㋑, ㋒ should be on the coming examination, but the order of phrases
should be changed. Then many students try to memorize the sentences for the examination.
After the examination, the students think back to their efforts using the sheet of Data 4
for self-reflection. Most students can write down something positive for the question 3: what did
you learn through your effort? Some write down the words they memorize, others do thesentences. The purpose of this activity is to let them direct their attentions to what they could do.
Many students who do not like English at the time of entering high school tend to give up trying
easily when they feel they do not understand. The problem is that they cannot think of what theylearn or they can do. Through these activities, most students could turn their attentions to what
they learned.

5.4.2. What is The Effective Teaching?
We should try to find out how to teach each grammatical item efficiently. However it is─ 129 ─not all what teachers should think about. Many students who do not like English at the time ofentering high school are thought to have an experience as failing to understand at the point ofRule-based teachings. Therefore they tend to think that they cannot understand any rules forEnglish grammar because they think they do not understand very basic English grammaticalitems. In such a situation, teachers should reduce the burden for students first and try to givesmall experience of success and let them think of what they learn.
There is a possibility that inefficiency could help for effective teaching. When teachers
simplify some grammatical items and teach them to their students, the students have to havemotivation for learning. Unless they desire to learn, the good teaching can be bad. Some good
approaches can be bad approaches for some students. Through this chapter, we know that theeffective English teaching can be varied depending on the students. Therefore teachers shouldhave the ability to use Rule-based processing and Exemplar-based processing properly, according
to the students levels and attitudes.
In the beginning of this chapter, we propose one approach of teaching infinitive; we teachstudents that to represents just ‘the distance’, and increase students’ input. This approach
illustrates the simplification of the grammatical item and focuses on increasing students’ input.
As Otsuka(2008) points out, teachers tend to focus on Rule-based teaching. Our approach can be
useful for some students.

6. Conclusion
One of the problems in Japanese English education is that the students tend to memorize
many grammatical items mechanically without understanding them. To begin with this paper, weare concerned about what teachers should do in English teaching. Teachers should attempt toconnect the memorization with the understanding of grammar of their students. Teachers shouldhave the ability to simplify the complex grammatical items and increase students’ input. At thesame time, teachers have to understand each grammatical item deeply to match the variety ofstudents’ needs, and not to lead their students to do a memorization-only study. To achieve thegoal, we have taken up the infinitive as the case study.
Many studies attempt to explain that to in front of the infinitive reflects the temporalsubsequence derived from the meaning of preposition to “the movement leading to a terminus”

─ 130 ─(Duffley 2006: 43). However, this cannot explain the whole phenomenon such as I am glad to seeyou. The expected temporal sequence is opposite direction in the sentence. The failure of theprevious studies is that they do not concern with the meaning of the infinitive itself, i.e. unreality.

To-infinitive is made up of to plus infinitive, therefore we should consider the meaning of
infinitive, too. We regard the meaning of infinitive as ‘unreality’, and we can conclude that to does
not reflect the temporal sequence in the infinitive sentences. To functions as the marker of
separating the actual thing from the notional thing. Finally we can see the temporal sequence isproduced not by to, but our cognitions shown in Figure 6,7, and 8.
In the chapter 5, we consider how to utilize our study for teaching English. When we
simplify the infinitive, we propose that we teach it as representing just ‘the distance’ as well as
the meaning of preposition to. This way of teaching can reduce the students’ burden because
students do not need to memorize the all usages of infinitive.
Then we take into account of the situations in high school English teaching, we see theproblem of the students who do not like English. The fundamental problem is that they have little
desire to learn English. Then we introduce some approaches to try to get back the students’motivation. Through thinking of the effective teaching and some English teaching situations inhigh school, we notice that the effective teaching can be ineffective. Therefore, we try to find out
the effective teaching depending on each situation. It might be good for some students to list theusages of infinitive first, and memorize the sentences. The infinitive teaching we propose in thisstudy can be useful for some situations. The important thing is that teachers have various choices
for the suitable teaching, according to their students.

─ 131 ─【Reference Cited】
Dixon, R.M.W. (2005) A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duffley J, Patrick (1992) The English Infinitive. London and New York: Longman.
---. (2006) The English Gerund-Participle: A Comparison with The Infinitive. New York: Peter
Lang Pub Inc.
Goldberg, Adele. (1995) Constructions: Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
Hashimoto, Masafumi (2006) “To Futeishi ga Imisurumono”[The Thing Which To Infinitive
Means] in Kyoto Kyouiku Daigaku Kenkyuu Kiyou[The Collected Papers of Kyoto University of
Education ] 79. pp. 58-67.
Hollmann, Willwm. (2005) “The Iconicity of Complementation in Present-day English Causatives”
In: Maeder, Constantino and Fischer , Olga and Herlofsky , William J., (eds.) Outside-in inside-out : Iconicity in language and literature 4. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 287-306.
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. (1980) “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse” inLanguage 56: 251-299.
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. (2006) Eigo no Kankaku, Nihongo no Kankaku [The Native Instinct ofEnglish and Japanese]. Tokyo: Nihon Housou Shuppan Kyoukai.
Jespersen, Otto. (1940) A Modern English Grannar. (Part V) London: George Allen and Unwin.
Kuroda, Ryunosuke. (2008) Gogaku ha Yarinaoseru.[You can Start Over Again in Your Language
Learning] Tokyo: Kadokawashoten.
Lindstromberg, Seth. (1997) ENGLISH PREPOSITION EXPLAINED. Amsterdam The Netherlands:John
Benjamins Publishing Co.
Nakao, Toshio. & Koma, Osamu. (1990) Rekishiteki ni Saguru Gendai no Eibunpou [TheHistorical Analysis of Present English Grammar]. Tokyo: Taishuukanshoten.
Otsuka, Kenji. (2008) Seikousuru Eigo Jyugyou! 50 no Katsudou&Otasuke Purinto [Successful
English Classes! 50 Activities & Helpful Worksheet] Tokyo: Meiji Tosho
Shigi, Satoshi. (2007) “The Semantics of Preposition To” Graduation Thesis. Shinshu University
Shirai, Yasuhiro. (2004) Gaikokugo Gakushu ni Seikou suru Hito, Shinai Hito [The People Who
Succeed in Learning Foreign Languages and The People Who Do Not]. Tokyo: Iwanami.
Sugiyama, Chuuichi. (1998) Eibunpou Shoukai [A Comprehensive English Grammar]. Tokyo:

─ 132 ─

Gakkenkenkyuusha
Tomasello, Michael. (2003) Kotoba wo Tsukuru [Constructing a Language]. Translated by Tsuji
Yukio & Nomura Masuhiro & Idehara Ken’ichi & Sugai Kazumi & Nabeshima Kojiro. Tokyo:
Keiougijyuku Daigaku Shuppannkai
Tomoshige, Yoshinori. (2002) “Doumeishi to Futeishi no Imiron” [Semantic Aspects of Gerunds
And Infinitives] in Himeji Kougyou Daigaku Kankyouningengakubu Kenkyuuhoukoku [TheCollected Papers of Himeji Institute of Technology, School of Humanities for Environmental
Policy and Technology] 4. pp. 133-147.
Tsubomoto, Atsurou (2009) “Chikaku to Shieki no Katachi to Imi―― <Hadaka Futeishi> to <To
Futeishi>” [Causation and Perception: Iconicity and Infinitive marker―― <Bare Infinitive>
And <To Infinitive>] in Kotoba to Bunka[Language and Culture] 12. pp. 1-15. Shizuoka:
Shizuoka Kenritu Daigaku
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003) Eigo Zenchishi no Imiron [The semantics of English Prepositions].
Translated by Kunihiro Tetsuya & Motomura Tetsuya. Tokyo: Kenkyusha---. (2005) “Rethinking English "Prepositions of Movement": The Case of To and Through” in H.
Cuyckens, W. de Mulder & T. Mortelmans (Eds.), Adpositions of Movement (Belgian Journal of
Linguistics, 17). pp. 240-270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wada, Shiro. (1992) “To Futeishi ni okeru Houkousei” [Direction of To Infinitive] in Kobe Gaidai
Ronsou [The Collected Papers in Kobe University of Foreign Studies]. 43 No.4 pp. 65-87
Yasugi, Shinichi. (2010) Eigoryoku ga Gungun Minitsuku! Kyoui no Ondokushidouhou54 [YourEnglish skills will be improved dramatically. 54 Amazing Teaching Methods for Reading Aloud ]Tokyo: Meiji Tosho

Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd. ed. on CD-ROM. Oxford University Press

─ 133 ─

Data1
Lesson 1 Run, Yumeroman!

Class______No______Name______________________Part 1 意味のまとまりにごとに分けられた次の文章の（）を埋めなさい．
（教科書 p.6）①Shizunai Agricultural High School is a school①静内()高校は学校である②where students can learn②生徒が()ことができる③how to raise and take care of horses.

③馬を(④Students come here

④生徒は(⑤from all over Japan.

⑤(⑥“We all love horses⑥「僕たちはみな馬が好きで，⑦and would like to have a horse-related job⑦馬に(⑧in the future,”⑧(⑨says one of the students⑨と(⑩in the riding club.

⑩(

)の//

⑪The students in the club

⑪(

)の生徒は

⑫have a very busy school life.

⑫とても(⑬They wake up at five,⑬彼らは()に目を覚まし⑭clean the stables,⑭()を清掃して⑮feed the horses⑮馬に(⑯and then let them out into the fields.

⑯それから馬をフィールドに(⑰After school⑰(⑱they practice riding the horses,

⑱彼らは(

)練習をし

⑲groom them,

⑲馬に(

)、

⑳and feed them again.

⑳()えさを与える。//

21 In order to lead this kind of life,
○

21 (
○

)生活を送るために

22 some of them live in a dormitory.
○

22 彼らのなかには(○

23 Their lives are centered○

23 彼らの生活は(○

24 around the horses.
○

24 馬を//○

25 In 2002,○

25 2002 年○

26 a beautiful thoroughbred was born here.
○

26 ここで美しい(○

27 He was named “Yumeroman,”○

27 彼は「ユメロマン」と(○

28 horse of dreams and hopes.
○

28 夢と(○)したり世話をしたりする方法を//
)へ来ます
)//

)仕事に就きたいと思う)」)の 1 人は言う)を送っている//

)を与え
)。//

)

)に住むものもいる//)としている)が誕生した//))の馬を意味する///25

問 1.①②③を 1 文の自然な日本語に訳せ。
23 ○
24 を1文の自然な日本語に訳せ。
問2.○

─ 134 ─

Data1
Lesson 1 Run, Yumeroman!

Class______No______Name______________________）を埋めなさい．
（教科書 p.8）

Part 2 意味のまとまりにごとに分けられた次の文章の（①It is never easy

①決して(

②to raise thoroughbreds.

②サラブレッドを(③Sakuraoji,③サクラオウジは④the first thoroughbred born at the school,④学校で最初に(⑤hurt one of his legs⑤(

⑥and could not race after that.

⑥その後は(⑦The second thoroughbred,⑦(⑧a female,⑧メスである(が)、⑨had to be put down⑨(

⑩after one of her legs

⑩脚の１本を(～したあと)⑪was accidentally injured by her mother.

⑪(⑫It was very painful for everybody.

⑫それはだれにとってもとても(⑬The students learned⑬生徒たちは(⑭that raising thoroughbreds for racing and⑭レース用のサラブレッドを(

keeping pets

)なことではない)ことは)サラブレッドだが)の１本を負傷し)。
)のサラブレッドは))母馬にけがをさせられた(あと)
)。

)

ペットを(

)ことと

)ことは

⑮are quite different things.

⑮()だということを⑯Because of these tragic accidents,⑯このような()な事故のために⑰Yumeroman,⑰ユメロマンは⑱the third thoroughbred,⑱(⑲was raised very carefully⑲とても(

20 and even spoiled a little.
○⑳(

21 As a result,
○

21 (
○

22 he became a naughty horse.
○

22 彼は(○

23 He often acted wildly○

23 彼は(○

24 and tried to bite the students,○

24 生徒を(○

25 but they all loved him.
○

25 しかし，みな彼が大好きだった。
○

26 A year passed by○

26 1 年が(○27 and Yumeroman had to leave the school.
○

27 ユメロマンは学校を(○

28 He was handed over○

28 彼は(○)

29 to a new owner.
○

29 新しい(○)に30 Seeing his empty stable,
○

30 (
○

31 the students felt very sad.
○

31 生徒たちはとても悲しく(○─ 135 ─)目のサラブレッドであるが)育てられ)甘やかされさえもした。
))馬になった。
)野生的にふるまったり
)した

)、
)

)の厩舎を見て)。

Data2
Lesson 2Your Style, Your Futureclass______No______Name_________________★日本語の (1)～(35) の単語、熟語を左の英文から抜き出しなさい。
part 1
Jenny:

ジェニー：①I wonder①私は(1)疑問に思う②what calligraphers actually do.

②(2)書道家は(3)実際に何をするのか

Ms. Narita:

成田さん：③We spend a lot of time

③私たちはたくさんの時間を(4)費やす④preparing works for exhibitions.

④(5)展覧会のために(6)作品を(7)準備することに⑤Also⑤(8)また⑥most of us teach calligraphy⑥私たちのうち(9)ほとんどは(10)書道を教えている⑦to make a living.

⑦(11)生計を立てるために⑧In my case,⑧(12)私の場合は⑨I sell my works⑨自分の作品を(13)売っている⑩on the Internet.

⑩インターネット上で⑪While writing,⑪(14)書いている間は⑫I usually listen to R&B and hip-hop.

⑫私は(15)たいてい R&B やヒップホップを聴いている

Jenny:

ジェニー：⑬That’s surprising!

⑬(16)それは驚きだ⑭Does Japanese traditional culture⑭日本の(17)伝統的な文化が⑮go with the Internet and hip-hop?

⑮インターネットやヒップホップと(18)合うのだ
ろうか

(1)
(3)
(5)
(7)
(9)
(11)
(13)
(15)
(17)

(2)
(4)
(6)
(8)
(10)
(12)
(14)
(16)
(18)

─ 136 ─

Data2
Ms. Narita:

成田さん：

⑯Yes!

⑯はい

⑰Calligraphy has a long history⑰書道は長い(19)歴史をもっているが⑱but it isn’t old-fashioned.

⑱(20)古くさいものではない⑲In fact,⑲(21)実際⑳you can see a lot of calligraphy⑳たくさんの書道を見ることができる

21 in your everyday life.
○(22)
21 (あなたの)○
日常生活の中で22 For example,
○

(23)
22
○
例えば

23 on restaurant menus,
○

(24)
23
○
レストランのメニューに

24 bottle labels,○(25)
24 びんの○ラベル

25 and advertising displays.
○(26)
25 そして○
広告表示

Jenny:

ジェニー：

26 Really?
○

26 本当？
○

27 That sounds interesting!
○

(27)
27
○
それはおもしろそうだ

28 What do you want to express○(28)
28 あなたは何を○表現したいか29 through your works?
○(29)
29 あなたの作品○
を通して

Ms. Narita:

成田さん：

30 I want to express○

30 私は表現したい○

31 how I am feeling.
○

31 自分がどのように感じているかを○

32 Many people use art and music○(30)
32 多くの人は○
美術や音楽を使う

33 to express themselves.
○(31)
33 自分自身を○表現するのに34 As for me,
○

(32)
34
○
私の場合は

35 It is calligraphy that expresses what I am.
○

(33)
35 私が
○
どういう人間であるかを表すのは書道である
36 I’d like to improve my skills○(34)
36 私は技術を○向上させたい37 and hold an exhibition abroad some day.
○

(35)
37 そしていつか○
海外で展覧会を開きたい

(19)
(21)
(23)
(25)
(27)
(29)
(31)
(33)
(35)

(20)
(22)
(24)
(26)
(28)
(30)
(32)
(34)

─ 137 ─

Data3
1 学期中間テスト対策 英Ⅱ

クラス＿＿＿＿番号＿＿＿＿名前＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

Part3
Several months later, Shizunai Agricultural High School received wonderful news: ㋐【make his /debut / in a race / Yumeroman / to / was going /.】When the students ①(hear) this, they ②(become) very
excited. But they could not expect too much from their first “graduate.” ㋑They【that / cross / would / he / justprayed / the finish line / safely /.】On the day of his debut, the students watched the race together on TV. “Go, Yumeroman! Go!” they
shouted. Then a very unexpected thing ③(happen). Yumeroman ④(win)! “He did it! He did it!” They jumped
up and ⑤(hug) each other for joy.
The former captain of the riding club ⑥ (think) back to the time when they had ⑦ (raise)
Yumeroman.
“㋒Now 【if / that / dreams come true / we do / we can / really understand / our best】,” he ⑧(say).

Brian 先生の発音を聞いて書きなさい。
☆①～⑧の動詞を正しい形に変えなさい。
①

②

③

④

⑤

⑥

⑦

⑧

☆㋐を「ユメロマンはレースにデビューすることになった」という意味になるように並び替えなさい。
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿☆㋑を「彼らは彼が無事にゴールすることをただ祈っていた」という意味になるように並び替えなさい。
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿____☆㋒を「今なら私たちは最善を尽くせば、夢はかなうということを本当に理解することができる」という意味になるように並び替えなさい。
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
暗唱できた人は先生の前で見ずに全文読むこと。1 文ずつでよい。

㋐

㋑

チェック者

─ 138 ─㋒

Data4
Class_________ No.__________ Name_______________________________________()テストを振り返る。

①テスト前の取り組みについて。
1. 十分できた

2. やれる範囲で頑張った

3. いまいち

4. 不十分だった②テストの結果について
1. よくできた 2. できた3.普通 4. あまりできなかった 5.ショック③今回のテスト範囲で学んだこと。(単語、文法、文章、内容、その他)(具体的に：この文章を覚えた。○○という単語を覚えた、等)④次回のテストに向けて改善する点。(具体的に：今回○○だったので、次回○○にする、等)()テストを振り返る。

①テスト前の取り組みについて。
1. 十分できた

2. やれる範囲で頑張った

3. いまいち

4. 不十分だった②テストの結果について
1. よくできた 2. できた3.普通 4. あまりできなかった 5.ショック③今回のテスト範囲で学んだこと。(単語、文法、文章、内容、その他)(具体的に：この文章を覚えた。○○という単語を覚えた、等)④次回のテストに向けて改善する点。(具体的に：今回○○だったので次回○○にする、等)─ 139 ─【論文要旨】
本論では意味論が高校の英語教育にどのように生かせるのか考察する。言語習得において暗記は不可欠であるが、暗記のみで理解が伴わないと、実際の場面で使えない(cf. 池上 2006)。文法
理解は、暗記が理解を促進し、また理解が暗記を促進するという両面がある。白井(2004)は初期の段階では基本的な文法を理解し、インプットを増やすなかで理解につなげていくというのが一
般的な道筋である、とする。教師は複雑な文法事項を単純化して教え、学習者のインプットを増やすことに注意を向ける必要がある。本論では不定詞を取り上げ考察し、その教え方を提案する。
さらに実際の高校現場の問題も考慮に入れ、効果的な英語教育をするための取り組みを紹介する。
先行研究では to 不定詞の to は、前置詞 to の終点、方向の意味派生であり、主節の事態が先行し、to 不定詞以下の事態が後にくることを表す、とする。また、使役動詞 make, have, let は toのない不定詞をとり、force, get, allow などは to をとる。この事実に関しても、to の表す方向性の意味派生から、事態の順序が to によって表されるとする。しかし単純な時間の順序では考えられない例が存在する。I am glad to see you.などである。この文は想定される事態の順序と、実際の解釈において一致しない。to 以下で表される事態が先にあって I am glad になる。この事実は単純に to が時間の順序を表すと考えることに大きな疑問を抱かせる。
本論では to が時間の順序を表す意味はない、とする。to 不定詞は「to プラス不定詞」であり、先行研究は不定詞自体の意味を無視していると指摘する。不定詞、つまり動詞の原形自体が、「観念、非現実」を表し、to 不定詞の to は現実と非現実を分けるマーカーとして機能していると結論付ける。使役動詞に関しては、to の有無が時間の順序を決めるのでなく、その事態の順序を決めるのは人間の認識である、とする。to がある場合は「主節で表される現実の事態」と「不定詞が表す観念的事態」を別々に認識することができるといえる。その結果、解釈として使役の様態(強制、許可等)にも注意がむき、被使役者の行為の結果との間に時間の差を認識しやすくなる。

to なし不定詞の使役文では現実と観念がひとまとまりに認識され、結果が含意されるといえる。
この研究を教育に生かす方法として、to 不定詞の「目的」や「原因」などの用法の意味を覚えさせるのではなく、単に to 不定詞の to は「距離」を表している、ということを教えることを提案する。さらに to 不定詞の to は前置詞 to からの派生であることから前置詞も不定詞も含め、toという語は単に「距離」を表していると教える。それにより多くの用法を覚える負担が減り、新たな用法が出てきた時に意味を推測する手助けにもなる。この提案のサポートとしてTomasello(2003)、大塚(2008)を挙げる。Tomasello(2003)は言語習得におけるインプットの重要性を指摘している。大塚(2008)は日本の英語教育は Rule-based teaching に偏りがちであると述─ 140 ─

べている。本論の不定詞を教えるアプローチは Rule-based teaching を可能な限り単純化し、インプットを増やすことを重視したものといえる。
高校現場においては高校入学時点で英語嫌いになっている生徒も少なくない。文法事項を単純化し、インプットを増やすことが重要であるといっても、英語嫌いの生徒にとってはインプットを増やすモチベーションを取り戻すことがまず必要になる。効果的な英語教育を考えるとき、決定的に良いアプローチだと決めることは難しく、生徒の状況に応じてどのようなアプローチがとれるか考えることが重要である。そのための様々なアプローチ法を持つことが教師には必要となる。本論で提案した不定詞の教え方もひとつのアプローチになると考える。

─ 141 ─