ISSN 1881−445X

日本語用 論 学 会■

第 18 回

大会発表論文集
第 11 号

Proceedings of the 18th
Conference of the Pragmatics Societyof Japan

2015年12月5日（土）
・6日
（日）
■

於 名古屋大学

PSJ
The Pragmatics Society of Japan

日本語用論学会

2015日本語用論学会（The Pragmatics Society of Japan）
略称：PSJ

日本語用論学会役員
（執
行
部）
会
長 ：
副
会
長 ：
事 務 局 長 ：事 務 局 幹 事 ：（編集部）
編 集 委 員 長 ：編 集 委 員 ：

加藤重広
山本英一
小山哲春
長友俊一郎
滝浦真人
小野寺典子、首藤佐智子、田中廣明、名嶋義直、Mark Campana、松井智子、森 雄一（大 会 運 営 部）
大会運営委員長 ：大会運営副委員長（企画） ：大会運営委員（企画） ：大会運営副委員長（発表） ：大会運営委員（発表） ：大会運営副委員長（実行） ：大会運営委員（実行） ：大会運営副委員長（プロシーディング） ：大会運営委員（プロシーディング） ：鍋島弘治朗
北野浩章、堀江 薫
井出里咲子、滝浦真人、吉村あき子
岡本雅史、金丸敏幸、野澤 元
有光奈美、尾谷昌則、名嶋義直
井上逸兵
鈴木光代、高木佐知子、堀田秀吾
首藤佐智子
井出里咲子、森山卓郎、森山由紀子（国際・事業部）
国際・事業委員長 ：国際・事業副委員長 ：国際・事業委員 ：

西田光一
小野寺典子
鍋島弘治朗、野澤（広報部）
広 報 委 員 長 ：広報副委員長 ：
広

報

委

員 ：

元、松井智子、吉村あき子

山岡政紀
尾谷昌則 (Website)、堀田秀吾（Newsletter）、
鈴木光代 (Newsletter)
金丸敏幸、Mark Campana（2016年4月1日現在）

学会連絡先
日本語用論学会 事務局（The Pragmatics Society of Japan）〒606-0847
京都府京都市左京区下鴨南野々神町１
京都ノートルダム女子大学 人間文化学部

小山哲春 研究室内

E-mail：psj.secretary＠gmail.com
学会ホームページ：http://pragmatics.gr.jp/
郵便振替口座 00900-3-130378 口座名：日本語用論学会
年会費 （一般会員：5,000円、学生会員：4,000円、団体会員：6,000円）

PSJ

目 次
研究発表（日本語発表）
韓国語受身表現の受恵表現としての変化―接尾辞「patta」と「tanghata」を対象にした他動性条件からの分析― ‥‥ 安
「んだよね」の手続き意味の考察―「ね」の音調と発話解釈との対応に基づいて― ‥‥‥‥‥ 市村

蕙蓮

1

昭

9

英語Stillの語用論的機能の発達 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 岩井恵利奈

17

構文交替における語用論的要因の影響に関する考察―時間経過を表す「Xが近づく/Xに近づく」の格交替について― ‥‥‥‥‥ 大神雄一郎

25

日本人とアメリカ人の合意形成におけるインタラクション比較 ‥‥‥‥‥ 大貫宏子

33

CDSの射程〜談話標識I meanの新しい例からの検証〜 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 小林隆

41

名詞派生形容詞メタファーの意味的特徴およびテクストタイプとの関係 ‥ 田丸歩実

49

「NPデハ（ジャ）アルマイシ」と百科事典的記載事項に関する考察‥‥‥ ダフィー美佐

57

副詞類義表現における使い分けに関する一研究：
知覚由来の確信度を表す副詞を中心にして ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 中村

文紀

65「除外」の意味を表す周縁的前置詞の用法の棲み分けに関して ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 林智昭

73

関連性理論に基づいた呼びかけ表現の分析 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 平田一郎

81

中間言語のポライトネス・ストラテジー
英語による母語話者との断わり表現の比較対照研究 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 福鎌博忠

91

NR述語とNR現象 ―主節否定は従属節否定を圧倒するか？ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 森貞

99

話し言葉コーパスを用いた談話辞の分析 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 山本

五郎

107

謝罪で使われる使役表現の機能 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 王

慧雋

113

葉子・宇都木PSJ

研究発表（英語発表）
The Color of Tone ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Mark CAMPANA

121

Repetition and Prosody of Japanese-Speaking Learners of Chinese in Intercultural Classrooms‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ CHEN, Chun-Mei

129

The Kaleidoscope of the Divine Images:
The Conceptual Metaphors Concerning God in Gospel Songs‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥HUANG, Wen-Yi, CHIANG, Wen-yu

137

Conceptualising Backchannel Behaviour in Japanese English and Australian English‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ IKE, Saya, MULDER, Jean147

A Diachronic Pragmatics Account of Chayidianʻs Ambiguity and Development‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ KUO, Yueh Hsin

155

Pragmatic factors determining the references of indexicals
I, here, and now in recorded and written messages ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ MIZUTA, Yoko

163

Shaping Interactional Space for Student-initiated Sequencesin Small Group English Lessons ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ NODA, Chieri

171

PSJ

ポスターセッション（日本語発表）
友里

179

他者なき対話？：マンガにおける内的なことばに見られる文末表現の一考察 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ウンサーシュッツ ジャンカーラ

183

発話態度という観点から見た間投助詞―間投助詞の出現位置と発話連鎖に着目して― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 大江

元貴

187

全体-部分の談話構造と観察者―「目が青い」か「青い目をしている」か― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 大西

美穂

193

ロシア人日本語学習者の目上の相手に対する「ほめ」の現状 ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 小川

恭平

197

日本統治時代の台湾で描かれた新聞漫画におけるメタファーの分析 ‥‥‥ 齋藤

隼人

201

モダリティとポライトネスとの接点を探って―その論理的可能性について― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 隋

暁静

205

新聞見出しの日中対照研究―見出しの構成と省略について― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 単

艾てい

211

合意形成型討論における中国語母語話者の意見交換の特徴―親しい友人間の会話データを基にして― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 趙

東玲

215

「断り談話」の日本語とスンダ語対照研究―ポライトネス理論の枠組みを利用して― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ノフィア ハヤティ

219

英語母語話者と日本語母語話者の初対面会話にみられる助言について ‥‥ 山本綾

223

中日両言語における分裂構文選択の差異―談話機能の観点から― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 楊

薫

227

厚子

231

コンテクストの中で見る集合名詞とその周辺の名詞クラス ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 今井

竹楠・堀江

現在進行中の意味拡張に関する実証的研究―「普通（に）/大丈夫/痛い/やばい」の意味理解と自然性判定に着目して―‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 四谷

PSJ

ポスターセッション（英語発表）
Nice and Adj construction in Imperative construction ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ FUJINAGA, Kiyono

235

From Epistemic Modal to Concessive Marker:
A Constructional Analysis of the Chinese Modal Marker kěnéng‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ ZHU, Bing

239

PSJ

ワークショップ
Breaking the Ice: 日本人と留学生の初対面会話における打ち解けの手続き
企画・司会：井出里咲子

243

明子

247

打ち解けの連鎖構造：
第1言語と第2言語としての日本語話者間の初対面会話を見て ‥ ケード・ブッシュネル

251

初対面会話での対立を避けるための会話の進行方法 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 関崎

博紀

255

Melting the Ice ？ : 初対面対話における聞き手行動としての日本人の笑い ‥ 井出里咲子

259

初対面の会話における話題の選定と会話の進行方法 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 許リスナーシップとアイデンティティ ―異文化とジェンダーの視点―
企画：難波 彩子

司会：村田

和代

男女の会話からみたリスナーシップの役割 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 難波

彩子

263

リスナーシップから見た自他認識 ―日・米語会話の比較― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 植野貴志子

267

コンテクスト化の合図からみたリスナーシップ―異文化間対話でのゴシップにおけるリアクティブ・トークンの分析― ‥ 山口

271

征孝

付録
入会案内 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 275
日本語用論学会規約 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 277『大会発表論文集』（Proceedings）執筆規定 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 280

PSJ

Table of Contents
Lecture Sessions: Presentation in Japanese
Hyeryeon AN: The alteration of the Korean passive expression to the benefactive expression– Analyzing Korean suffixes through the transitivity condition –‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 1
Yoko ICHIMURA and Akira UTSUGI: The procedural meaning of Japanese ndayone:
An analysis of correspondence between the utterance interpretation and the tones of ne ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 9
Erina IWAI: The Development of the Pragmatic Functions of the English Still ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 17
Yuichiro OGAMI: Effect of Pragmatic Factors upon the Alternation of Case
– A Study of the Temporal “X ga chikazuku/X ni chikazuku” Alternation in Japanese – ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 25
Hiroko ONUKI: Difference of Interactions for Consensus-building between Japanese and American ‥‥‥‥ 33
Takashi KOBAYASHI: The Scope of CDS: A Study from the New Usages of the Discourse Marker I mean ‥ 41
Misa DUFFY: A study about NP de-wa-arumaishi and itʼs encyclopaedic information ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 49
Ayumi TAMARU: The Use of Denominai Adjective Metaphors in Texts and its Motivation ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 57
Fuminori NAKAMURA: On Differences between Synonymous Adverbs:
A Case Study of Modal Adverbs of Perception ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 65
Tomoaki HAYASHI: Distributional Differences in the Use of Marginal Prepositions Meaning Exception ‥‥ 73
Ichiro HIRATA: An Analysis of Vocative Expressions in Relevance Theory ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 81
Hirotada Fukukama: A study of interlanguage politeness strategy-Comparative study of refusal messages expressed in English
by native speakers and interlanguage speakers- ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 91
Sadashi MORI: NEG-Raising predicates and the NR phenomenon ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 99
Goro YAMAMOTO: A Corpus-Based Investigation of the Discourse Particle Indeed ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 107
Huijun WANG: The Function of Japanese Causative Expressions Used in Apology， ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 113

PSJ

Lecture Sessions: Presentation in English
Mark CAMPANA: The Color of Tone ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 121
Chun-Mei CHEN: Repetition and Prosody of Japanese-Speaking Learners ofChinese in Intercultural Classrooms ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 129
Wen-Yi HUANG and Wen-yu CHIANG: The Kaleidoscope of the Divine Images:
The Conceptual Metaphors Concerning God in Gospel Songs ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 137
Saya IKE and Jean MULDER: Conceptualising Backchannel Behaviour
in Japanese English and Australian English ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 147
Yueh Hsin KUO: A Diachronic Pragmatics Account of Chayidianʻs Ambiguity and Development ‥‥‥‥‥ 155
Yoko MIZUTA: Pragmatic factors determining the references of indexicals
I, here, and now in recorded and written messages ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 163
Chieri NODA: Shaping Interactional Space for Student-initiated Sequences in Small Group English Lessons‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 171

PSJ

Poster Sessions: Presentation in JapaneseYuri IMAI: The Study of Collective Nouns and Plural Noun Counterparts through the Comparison of Context‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 179
Giancarla UNSER-SCHUTZ: Interaction without others?:
An examination of sentence final expressions in inner speech in manga ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 183
Motoki OE: Japanese Interjectory Particles from the Perspective of the Speakerʼs Speech Attitude:
Their Position in Sentences and Sentence Sequence in Discourse ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 187
Miho ONISHI: Part-whole Discourse Structure and a Hidden Observer‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 193
Kyohei OGAWA: Russian Japanese learnersʼ complimentary behavior towards their superiors ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 197
Hayato SAITO: Analysis of multimodal metaphors used in political cartoons in Taiwan under Japanese rule.
‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 201
Xiaojing SUI: A study on the interface of Modality and Politeness: Focusing on its logical possibility ‥‥‥ 205
Aiting SHAN: Composition and abbreviation of Japanese and Chinese headlines: a comparative study ‥‥‥ 211
Dongling ZHAO: The characteristic of opinion exchange used by Chinese native speakers
within a consensus building conversation:Based on the data of close Chinese friends ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 215
Novia HAYATI: A Contrastive Study of Refusal Discourse among
Japanese Native Speakers And Sundanese Native Speakers ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 219
Aya YAMAMOTO: Advice-Giving in Interactions between English Speakers and Japanese Speakers ‥‥‥‥ 223
Zhunan YANG and Kaoru HORIE: The Differences of Preference between
Chinese and Japanese Cleft Constructions: Focusing on Discourse Function ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 227
Atsuko YOTSUYA: Semantic Change of Some Japanese Words Currently
in Progress among Young People: the report of the factual survey ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 231

PSJ

Poster Sessions: Presentation in English
Kiyono FUJINAGA: Nice and Adj construction in Imperative construction ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 235
Bing ZHU: From Epistemic Modal to Concessive Marker:
A Constructional Analysis of the Chinese Modal Marker kěnéng ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 239

PSJ

Workshop Sessions
Session 1: Procedure of informal in the first encounter conversation between
Japanese and Japanese Learner
Myeongja HEO: Topic choice and conversation development in first meetings ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 247
Cade BUSHNELL: On the sequential organization of getting to know one another ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 251
Hironori SEKIZAKI: A study on avoiding conflict in conversations in first meetings ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 255
Risako IDE: Japanese laughter as listener response in first-time meetings ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 259

Session 2: Listenership and Identity: The Perspectives fromIntercultural Communication and Gender
Ayako NAMBA: The Role of Listenership in Japanese Male and Female Interaction ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 263
Kishiko UENO: Listenership and Self-Other Recognition:
A Cross-Cultural Perspective of Japanese and American English ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 267
Masataka YAMAGUCHI: Listenership Seen from a Contextualization Cue Perspective:
Analyzing Gossip in an Intercultural Encounter ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 271

PSJ

研究発表
Lecture Sessions

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

㡑ᅜㄒཷ㌟⾲⌧䛾ཷᜨ⾲⌧䛸䛧䛶䛾ኚ໬䠉᥋ᑿ㎡䛂SDWWD䛃䛸䛂WDQJKDWD䛃䜢ᑐ㇟䛻䛧䛯௚ືᛶ᮲௳䛛䜙䛾ศᯒ䠉Ᏻⷍⶈᯇᒣ኱Ꮫྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔
<Abstract>
This study focuses on the differences between “patta and “tanghata”, the domains of the suffixes used
to make passive expressions in Korean. The search tool for the corpus of written Korean, Naver News
Library, has identified a subtle dissimilarity between the two as “patta” holds not only a passive
meaning but also a benefactive meaning in modern Korean. Furthermore, the actual usage of “tanghata”
and “patta” has been found to differ as both possess different and distinct verified conventionalized
combinations with Sino-Korean verbal noun stems. This has been reflected through the analysis of theproperties that determine the possibility of these combinations on the basis of the transitivity conditionof Hopper䠃Thompson(1980).
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ᥋ᑿ㎡ SDWWDࠊ᥋ᑿ㎡ WDQJKDWDࠊཷ㌟⾲⌧ࠊཷᜨ⾲⌧ࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘㸯㸬 ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ୍⯡ㄯヰ(Discourse)ࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࡶཷ㌟ᩥࡀάⓎ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ẚ࡭ࠊ㡑ᅜㄒࡣࡑࡢ㢖ᗘࡀᑡ࡞࠸࡜▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢཷ㌟ᩥࡣືモࡢᮍ↛ᙧࡢㄒᖿ࡟ຓືモࠕ࣭ࣞࣝࣛࣞࣝࠖࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺୍ᐃ໬ࡉࢀࡓά⏝ᙧᘧࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡀࠊ㡑ᅜㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ᥋㎡ࠕi/ hi / ri / kiࠖ࡜᥋ᑿ㎡ࠕtoita / tanghata / pattaࠖࡽࢆᚋ⥆ࡉࡏࡿ᪉ἲࠊ⿵ຓືモࠕcitaࠖࢆά⏝ࡉࡏࡿ᪉ἲࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ẚ࡭࡚ࡑࡢά⏝ἲࡀᙧᘧⓗ࡟୍ᐃ໬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ᪥ᮏே㡑ᅜㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ㡑ᅜㄒࡢཷ㌟ᩥࢆ⩦ᚓࡍࡿ㝿ࠊΰ஘ࡍࡿሙྜࡀከ࠸ࠋ ୰࡛ࡶࠊ᥋ᑿ㎡ࠕtoita / tanghata / pattaࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᮏືモ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᙧࡀࡑࡢࡲ
ࡲ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᥋ᑿ㎡࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ㝿࡟ࡶᮏ᮶ࡢᮏືモࡢព࿡ࡀ኱ࡁࡃṧࡉࢀࠊᩥࡀᵓᡂࡉࢀࡓ㝿ࠊព࿡ࡢ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ከ኱࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉࡟ࠊࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ࠕpattaࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᮏືモ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓ㝿ࡢព࿡࠿ࡽẚ࡭࡚ࡳ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࡢ౑⏝ἲࡣከ࠸࡟␗࡞
ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋᨾ࡟ࠊ⿕ᐖࢆ⾲ࡍཷ㌟ᩥ࡟ከࡃ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ᥋ᑿ㎡ࠕtanghataࠖ࡟ẚ࡭ࠊࠕpattaࠖࡣ᥋ᑿ㎡࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ౑⏝ࡀᑡ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ஦ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ⌧௦㡑ᅜㄒࡢ୰࡛ࠊ⿕ᐖࢆ┤᥋ⓗ࡟⾲ࡍࠕtanghataࠖ࡟஺᭰ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕpattaࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡀᚎࠎ࡟ቑ࠼ࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠࡟ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑࢀࢆᶵ࡟ࠊࡲࡔ㡑ᅜㄒ࡛ࡣ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ୍ᐃࡢㄒ࡟㝈ࡾࠊཷᜨ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚−1−

韓国語受身表現の受恵表現としての変化―接尾辞「patta」と「tanghata」を対象にした他動性条件からの分析―ࡢᩥᙧᡂࢆᡂࡍ㝿ࠊࠕpattaࠖࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ⪥࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࠗ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫᮾすゝㄒᩥ໬ࡢ㢮ᆺㄽíࠕ䞮┺ࠖ࡜ࠕ♮┺ࠖࡢゝㄒᏛ࠘(2001)࡟཰
㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕhataࠖືモ 3,926 ㄒࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊ୺࡟ࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ࠕpattaࠖ࡟๓㏙ࡍࡿㄒᙡࢆ
ㄪ࡭ࠊ᪥ᮏே㡑ᅜㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ㡑ᅜㄒཷ㌟⾲⌧ࡢ⩦ᚓ࡟㝿ࡋࠊ⌧௦㡑ᅜㄒࡢ୰࡛ࡢࠕtanghata /pattaࠖ୧᪉ࡢ᥋ᑿ㎡ࡢ౑⏝⌧≧࡜ࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ࠕpattaࠖࡀ⾲ࡍព࿡ྜ࠸ࢆ෌☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࢹ࣮
ࢱࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢ⤖ᯝࡣࠊ⌧௦㡑ᅜㄒࡢ୰࡛᥋ᑿ㎡ࠕpattaࠖࡀཷࡅᣢࡘ㡿ᇦࡢ᳨ド࡟ࡶ⧅ࡀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏே㡑ᅜㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ㡑ᅜㄒࡢཷ㌟ᩥࢆ⩦ᚓࡍࡿ㝿ࠊ኱ࡁࡃ୕ࡘᏑᅾࡍࡿཷ㌟ᩥ
ࢆసᡂࡍࡿ᪉ἲࡢ୰ࡢ୍ࡘࡢ᪉ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ᥋ᑿ㎡ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺᪉ἲࢆᏛࡪ୰࡛ࠊព࿡ⓗ࡞༊ู࠿ࡽࡑࡢ౑⏝ἲࢆぢศࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ά⏝࡛ࡁࡿࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡑࡢព⩏ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㸰㸬 ⿕ືモࢆࡘࡃࡿ᥋ᑿ㎡
 ๓㏙ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㡑ᅜㄒ࡟ࡣཷ㌟ᩥࢆసࡿ᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚᥋㎡ࡸ᥋ᑿ㎡ࠊ⿵ຓືモࢆᚋ⥆ࡉࡏࡿ᪉ἲࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࠕtoita / tanghata / pattaࠖࡣࠊ㡑ᅜㄒࡢ୰࡟ᮏືモ࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮡᅾࡍࡿㄒ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
᥋㎡࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ㝿࡟ࡶᮏ᮶ࡢㄒᙡⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡀᙉࡃᙳ㡪ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋཧ⪃ࡲ࡛࡟ࠊྛㄒᙡࡢᮏືモ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㎡᭩ⓗព࿡㸯ࢆぢࡽࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ

㸦㸯㸧

toita : ࠙㸰ࠚ௚ࡢࡶࡢ࡟௦ࢃࡿ࣭ኚ໬ࡍࡿ

㸦㸰㸧tanghata :࠙㸲ࠚ௚ே࠿ࡽ୙ᙜ࡞ࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣᮃࡲ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆࡉࢀࡿ

㸦㸱㸧

patta : ࠙㸱ࠚ௚ேࡶࡋࡃࡣᑐ㇟ࡀຍ࠼ࡿ⾜ືࠊᚰ⌮ⓗస⏝࡞࡝ࢆ⿕ࡿ ௨ୖ୕ࡘࡢㄒᙡࡀ᥋㎡࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࠊཷ㌟ᩥࢆᡂࡍ㝿࡟ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ౑⏝ୖࡢไ⣙ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ㸦Choi 1970, Woo1994㸧ࠋ≉࡟ࠊChoi㸦1971㸧࡛ࡣࠊࠕtanghataࠖࡣࠊ୺ㄒࡀ⿕ᐖࢆ⿕ࡿ㝿࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ᥋ᑿ㎡ࠊࠕpattaࠖࡣࡑࡢస⏝ࡀ᭷┈࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡶࠊ⿕ᐖ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸᫬࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ᥋ᑿ㎡ࡔ࡜グࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸱㸬 ඛ⾜◊✲ ⿕ືモࢆసࡿ᥋ᑿ㎡ࠕtoita / tanghata / pattaࠖࡣࠊඹ㉳ࡉࢀࡿࠕhata ືモ㸦᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢧኚືモ࡟┦ᙜ㸧ࠖࡢព࿡࡟ࡼࡗ࡚౑࠸ศࡅࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊLee㸦1992, 2001㸧࡟ᣐࡿ࡜ࠊࠕtoitaࠖࡣ⬟ືᛶࡀ᤼㝖ࡉࢀࡓໟᣓⓗ࣭ᢳ㇟ⓗస⏝ࠊୟࡘ୍ᐃࡋࡓ≧ែࡢ᏶ᡂࢆ⾲ࡋࠊࠕtanghataࠖࡣ୺ㄒ࡟
ᙜࡓࡿᏑᅾࡀࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡀᮃࡲ࡞࠸≧ἣ࡟┤㠃ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿ㝿౑⏝ࡉࢀࠊࠕpattaࠖࡣ

−2−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

እ㒊࠿ࡽࡢᙳ㡪ࡀ㸦୺ㄒ࡟㸧ཬࢇ࡛᮶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ྜ࠸ࢆᣢࡘሙྜ࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽ୕ࡘ
ࡢ᥋㎡ࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿྛࠕhata ືモࠖࡣࠊࠕtoita / tanghata / pattaࠖࡢ୰࡛ᚲࡎࡋࡶ୍ࡘࡢࡳ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿヂ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ஧ࡘ௨ୖࡢᙧᘧࡀ㔜」ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ๓㏙ࡉࢀࡿࠕhataືモࠖࡢព࿡⠊ᅖࡸྛㄒᙡࡀᣢࡘከ⩏ᛶ࡟㉳ᅉࡍࡿ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᥋ᑿ㎡ࠕtoita / tanghata / pattaࠖࡣࠊᮏືモࡢព࿡࠿ࡽࡑࡢᛶ㉁ࡀ኱ࡁࡃࡇ࡜࡞
ࡾࠊ᥋ᑿ㎡࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᙺ๭ࡶព࿡࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡑࢀࡒࢀཷࡅᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊྛࠎࡢ౑
⏝ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ◊✲ࡣࠊ࠶ࡲࡾ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
 ࠕtanghataࠖࡢព࿡ྜ࠸࡟㔜Ⅼࢆ⨨ࡁࠊࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ࠕtoitaࠖࡢ᥋㎡࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ౑⏝ࢆㄪ࡭ࡓ◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ Yu㸦2007㸧ࡢ◊✲ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫࡣࠊ௒࡛ࡣ୍⯡࡟ධᡭ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡶ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࠕpattaࠖࡲ࡛ࢆྵࡵ࡚ࠕtoita / tanghata / pattaࠖ࡟๓㏙ࡉࢀࡿㄒᙡࡢ㔜」ᛶࢆ
ㄪ࡭ࡓ◊✲ࡣ⟶ぢࡢ㝈ࡾぢᙜࡓࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࠕtoita / tanghata / pattaࠖࡢ୰࡛ࠊព࿡ⓗไ⣙ࢆᣢࡘࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ࠕpattaࠖࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊ౑⏝ᐇែࢆᢕᥱࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ᶆ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ㸲㸬 ᥋㎡ࠕtanghataࠖࡢ౑⏝ᐇែ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࠗ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫᮾすゝㄒᩥ໬ࡢ㢮ᆺㄽíࠕ䞮┺ࠖ࡜ࠕ♮┺ࠖࡢゝㄒᏛ࠘(2001)࡟཰
㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕhataࠖືモ3,926ㄒࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊ୺࡟ࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ࠕpattaࠖ࡟๓㏙ࡍࡿㄒᙡࢆㄪ࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᮏ◊✲࡛ㄪᰝࡢᑐ㇟࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊືモࡢㄒᖿ࡟┤᥋ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ࠕpattaࠖࡣࠊcoi(1971)࠿ࡽ⿕ືモࢆసࡿ᥋㎡࡜ࡋ࡚ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊ᥋ᑿ㎡ࡢ
ࠕtanghataࠖࡀ᪤࡟ㄒᖿ࡟┤᥋ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᙧ࡛ඹ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᙧࡀ㸷㸴ㄒᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ㸯㸧࡜㸰㸧ࡣࠊ㢖ᗘ㡰࡟୪࡭ࡽࢀࡓෆࠊୖ఩࡟఩⨨ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

㸯㸧kangyo-tanghata (ᙉせࡉࢀࡿ)㸰㸧kecel-tanghata (ᣄ⤯ࡉࢀࡿ㸹᩿ࡽࢀࡿ) ࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊ᪤࡟ㄒᙡ໬ࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠾ࡾࠊ㡑ᅜㄒࡢ୰࡛ࡣ୍ࡘࡢ༢ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࠊ௨ୗࡢ㸱㸧࡜㸲㸧ࡣࠊࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿᙧ࡛ࡋ࠿Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟
ཎᆺ࡛࠶ࡿࠕhataࠖࡢᙧࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ㄒࡣ9ಶ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
㸱㸧sooi-tanghata㸦䠝⮥ሸቯቮ᧷ↁ栢ሮቬ⮥ሸቯቮ㸧㸲㸧thoihak-tanghata㸦㏥Ꮫࡉࢀࡿ㸧−3−韓国語受身表現の受恵表現としての変化―接尾辞「patta」と「tanghata」を対象にした他動性条件からの分析― ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ᯝࡣࠊ㡑ᅜㄒࡢ୰୍࡛ᐃࡢㄒࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓཷ㌟ᩥࡀ㔞⏘ࡉࢀࡿ㢖ᗘࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫ࡟グ㍕ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿㄒ௨እ࡟ࡶࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ඹ㉳ྍ⬟࡞ㄒࢆ᥈ࡍࡓࡵࠊNAVER News Library ࡜࠸࠺᪂⪺ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸰ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ᪤࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ㸷㸴ㄒ௨እ࡟ࡶࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ඹ㉳ྍ⬟࡞ືモࢆ㸷㸴㸲ㄒⓎぢࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ㸳㸬 ᥋㎡ࠕpattaࠖࡢ౑⏝ᐇែ ࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ྠࡌᡭἲ࡛ࠊ
ࠗ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫᮾすゝㄒᩥ໬ࡢ㢮ᆺㄽíࠕ䞮┺ࠖ࡜ࠕ♮┺ࠖࡢゝㄒᏛ࠘
(2001)࡟཰㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕhataࠖືモ 3,926 ㄒࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊNAVER News Library ࡜࠸࠺᪂⪺ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ฼⏝ࡋࠊ᥋㎡ࠕpattaࠖࡀࠕhataࠖືモࡢㄒᖿ࡟┤᥋ᚋ⥆ࡋࠊඹ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ᩥࢆ᥈ࡋࠊ
ࡑࡢᩘࢆᩘ࠼ࡓࠋ㸦ィ㸯,㸯㸯㸳ㄒ㸧 ࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ᥋㎡ࠕpattaࠖࡀࠕhataࠖືモࡢㄒᖿ࡟┤᥋ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿሙྜࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞㸱ࡘࡢព࿡࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

㸦Ϩ㸧ᮏືモࡢࠕpattaࠖࡢព࿡㸹ࠕࠥࢆཷࡅࡿࠖࡢព࿡
㸦ϩ㸧ཷ㌟ࡢព࿡㸹ࠕtanghataࠖࡸࠕtoitaࠖࡢ௦ࢃࡾ࡟౑⏝㸦Ϫ㸧ཷᜨࡢព࿡㸹᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕࠥࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡟㏆࠸ព࿡ ࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟ヱᙜࡍࡿ౛ࡣࠊḟࡢ㸳㸧ࠥ㸵㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸳㸧ceikong-patta㸦ᥦ౪ࢆཷࡅࡿ㸧      㸦ൕ㸧㸴㸧kepwu-patta㸦ᣄྰࡉࢀࡿ㸹ᣄࡲࢀࡿ㸧   㸦ൖ㸧㸵㸧wuilo-patta㸦៘ປࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺㸹៘ࡵ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺㸧 㸦ൗ㸧     ࡇࢀࡽ౛ᩥ࠿ࡽศ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᥋㎡ࠕpattaࠖࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠊࡑࡢព࿡ࡀ㸦Ϩ㸧ẁ㝵࡜㸦ϩ㸧ẁ㝵ࠊ㸦ϩ㸧ẁ㝵࠿ࡽ㸦Ϫ㸧ẁ㝵࡬࡜ኚ໬ࡀ㉳ࡇࡾࡘࡘ࠶ࡾࠊ᫂☜࡞ቃ⏺⥺ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠸ษࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ㸦Ϩ㸧ẁ㝵࡜㸦Ϫ㸧ẁ㝵ࡢព࿡ࡀ㔜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿㄒࡶᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
㸦Ϫ㸧ẁ㝵ࡀ㸦Ϩ㸧ẁ㝵ࡢࠕࠥࢆཷࡅࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࠿ࡽ┠ⓗ᱁ࡢࠕࢆࠖ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࠕGVGࠖࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀࡓᙧ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺㆟ㄽࡶᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞࠸ࠋ
 ᥋ᑿ㎡ࡢࠕtanghataࠖࡀ᪤࡟ㄒᖿ࡟┤᥋ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᙧ࡛ඹ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᙧࡀࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫࡢ୰࡟
Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ㸷㸴ㄒࡢ୰࡛᥋㎡ࠕpattaࠖࡀ᥋㎡ࠕtanghataࠖ࡟஺᭰ྍ⬟࡞ㄒࡢᩘࡣࠊ㸰㸲ㄒ࡛

−4−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

࠶ࡗࡓࠋ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊḟࡢ㸱’㸧࡜㸶㸧ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ 
㸱’㸧sooi-tanghata㸦䠝⮥ሸቯቮ᧷ↁ栢ሮቬ⮥ሸቯቮ㸧э sooi-patta㸦ྍ⬟㸧㸶㸧panghai-tanghata㸦ጉᐖࡉࢀࡿ㸹㑧㨱ࡉࢀࡿ㸧э panghai-patta㸦ྍ⬟㸧 ᪤࡟ㄒᙡ໬ࡋ࡚Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ㸷㸴ಶࡢࠕtanghataࠖࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿㄒ௨እ࡟ࠊࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ඹ㉳ྍ⬟࡞ືモ㸷㸴㸲ㄒࢆᑐ㇟࡟ㄪ࡭ࡓ᥋㎡ࠕpattaࠖ࡜ࡢ஺᭰ྍ⬟࡞ㄒࡣࠊ㸲㸴㸰ㄒ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ୰
࡟ࡣࠊ㸦Ϩ㸧ࠕࠥࢆཷࡅࡿࠖࡢព࿡࡛ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿㄒࡶྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊࡑࡢᩘࡣ᝿ീࡋ࡚࠸
ࡓ௨ୖ࡟ከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ㸴㸬 ௚ືᛶ᮲௳࠿ࡽࡢศᯒ ௨ୖࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡓࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢧኚືモ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ㡑ᅜㄒࡢࠕhata ືモࠖ࡟ࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ࠕpattaࠖࡀᚋ⥆ࡉࢀ࡚ཷ㌟⾲⌧ࢆᡂࡍືモࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕtanghataࠖࡀᚋ⥆ࡉࢀࡿㄒ࡜ࠕpattaࠖࡀᚋ⥆ࡉࢀࡿㄒࠊ୧᪉࡜ඹ㉳ྍ⬟࡞ㄒࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀㄪ࡭ࡓୖ࡛ࠊHopper㸤Thompson(1980)ࡢ௚ືᛶࡢ᮲௳࠿ࡽࠕtanghataࠖࡀᚋ⥆ࡉࢀࡿㄒ࡜ࠕpattaࠖࡀᚋ⥆ࡉࢀࡿㄒࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᛶ㉁ࢆศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ ௨ୗࡢ࠶ࡿࠕtanghataࠖࡢࡳඹ㉳ྍ⬟࡞ㄒࠊࠕpattaࠖࡢࡳඹ㉳ྍ⬟࡞ㄒࠊ
ࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ࠕpattaࠖ୧᪉࡟ඹ㉳ྍ⬟࡞ㄒࡢࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ౛ࢆぢࡽࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ

(1) ࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ࡢࡳඹ㉳ྍ⬟࡞ㄒ 㸸ceci-hata㸦㜼Ṇࡍࡿ㸧ࠊkopal-hata㸦࿌Ⓨࡍࡿ㸧ࠊ              chwuiso-hata㸦ྲྀᾘࡍ㸧ࠊpaisin-hata㸦⿬ษࡿ㸧➼(2) a. ࠕpattaࠖ࡜ࡢࡳඹ㉳ྍ⬟࡞ㄒ཰ 㸸youngse-hata㸦チࡍ㸧ࠊwuilo-hata㸦៘ࡵࡿ㸧➼b. ࠕpattaࠖ࡜ࡢࡳඹ㉳ྍ⬟࡞ㄒཱ 㸸ihai-hata㸦⌮ゎࡍࡿ㸧ࠊinceng-hata㸦ㄆࡵࡿ㸧➼(3) ୧᪉࡟ඹ㉳ྍ⬟࡞ㄒ㸸chwuikup-hata㸦ྲྀᢅ࠺㸧ࠊpyengka-hata㸦ホ౯ࡍࡿ㸧ࠊ
piphan-hata㸦ᢈุࡍࡿ㸧ࠊselchi-hata㸦タ⨨ࡍࡿ㸧➼ (1)ࠥ(3)࡟ᒓࡍࡿㄒࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ㐪࠺≉ᛶࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡜᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋ๓㏙ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊHopper㸤Thompson(1980)ࡢ௚ືᛶࡢ᮲௳ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ≉ᛶࢆศᯒࡋࡓࠋ
Hopper㸤Thompson(1980)ࡢ௚ືᛶࢆ≉ᚩ௜ࡅࡿ᮲௳ࡣࠊ௨ୗ㸯㸮㡯┠ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ−5−韓国語受身表現の受恵表現としての変化―接尾辞「patta」と「tanghata」を対象にした他動性条件からの分析―

㸺Hopper㸤Thompson(1980)ࡢ௚ືᛶ᮲௳㸼཰⾜Ⅽ࡟⤊ࢃࡾࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ hGཱ⾜Ⅽࡀ▐㛫ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ Punctualityིྰᐃࡼࡾ࠿ࡣ⫯ᐃ࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ Affirmationཱི┠ⓗㄒࡀ≉ᐃⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ Individuation of Oུཧຍ⪅ࡀ㸰ே௨ୖ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜㸦ືస୺࡜ᑐ㇟㸧࣭࣭࣭࣭ Participantsཱུ⾜Ⅽࡀពᅗⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ Volitionality
ྲྀ⾜Ⅽ࡟ືࡁࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ Kinesisཷືస࡟⌧ᐇᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ Modeླྀືస୺ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ Agencyཹືసࡀ඲య࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭ Affectedness of O

 ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ௨ୖࡢ㸯㸮㡯┠ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ཰࠿ࡽཱིࡲ࡛ࡢ㡯┠࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ(1)ࠥ
(3)ࡢㄒࡣࠊḟࡢ㸲ࡘࡢ≉ᚩពእࡢࡶࡢࡣඹ㏻ࡋ࡚ᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ<཰⾜Ⅽ࡟⤊ࢃࡾࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜>ࠊ
<ཱ⾜Ⅽࡀ▐㛫ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜>ࠊ<ིྰᐃࡼࡾ࠿ࡣ⫯ᐃ>ࠊ<ཱི┠ⓗㄒࡀ≉ᐃⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜> ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ཰ཱིࠥࡢ≉ᚩࡣࠊ⾲ࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡑ࠺࡛࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡀᏑᅾࡋࡓࠋ
 (1)ࡢሙྜࠊࠕ࣭ࣖࣛࣞࣝࢧࣞࣝࠖࡢᮏືモࡢព࿡ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊྰᐃⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡢཷ㌟⾲⌧࡟୺࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊིࡢ≉ᚩࡣᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢ௦ࢃࡾࠊ཰ࠊཱࠊཱིࡢ᮲௳ࡣᥞ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
 (2a)ࠊ(2b)ࡢሙྜࠊྠࡌࡃᮏືモࡢព࿡ࠕ࣭ࣔࣛ࢘࢘ࢣࣝࠖ࠿ࡽࡢ㌿⛣ࡔ࡜ண᝿ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ
ིࡢ≉ᚩࡣᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ⌧௦㡑ᅜㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚(1b)ࡢࠕpattaࠖࡀᚋ⥆ࡉࢀࡿ⾲⌧ࡀ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࠖ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿཷᜨ⾲⌧࡬ࡢኚ໬ࢆṌࡴཎᅉ࡟⧅ࡀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡑࢀᨾࠊ(2a)ࠊ
(2b)ࡢㄒࡣࠊྛㄒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚཰ࠊཱࠊིࡢ᮲௳ࡀ‶ࡓࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(2b)ࡢື
సࡣࠊືస୺ࡢពᚿ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡟⤊Ṇ➢ࢆᡴࡘ࠿ᡴࡓ࡞࠸࠿㑅ᢥࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡓࡵࠊ௚ື
ᛶ᮲௳཰ࡣᖖ࡟ࡣ‶ࡓࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ௚ືᛶ᮲௳ཱ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ▐㛫ⓗືసࡔ࡜ゝ࠺ࡼࡾ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢࢫࣃ࣮ࣥࢆᣢࡗ࡚┦ᡭ࡟᥋ࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊཱࡢ≉ᚩࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸
࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊཱིࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ(2b)ࡢㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ୙≉ᐃࡢேࡀ┠ⓗㄒ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ືモ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ(2a)ࡢㄒࡢሙྜࡶࠊሙྜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ┠ⓗㄒࡀ≉ᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
 (3)ࡢሙྜࠊࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ࠕpattaࠖࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀඹ㉳ࡉࡏࡓ㝿ࠊ⿕ᐖࡢព࿡࡜ཷᜨࡢព࿡࡛ࡑ
ࡢゎ㔘ࡀูࢀࡿㄒࡀከ࠸ࠋࡑࢀࡣࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ࠕpattaࠖࡢࡑࢀࡒࢀࡀࡶࡘ≉ᚩ࠿ࡽࡢᯞศ࠿
ࢀࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

−6−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

㸵㸬 ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ᥋㎡ࠕpattaࠖࡀ᥋㎡ࠕtanghataࠖ࡟஺᭰ྍ⬟࡞ㄒࡣࠊࠕpattaࠖࡀཷ㌟ᩥࢆసࡿ᥋㎡࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ᫬࠿ࡽᏑᅾࡋࡓ࡟㐪࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࡢ๭ྜࡣ⌧௦㡑ᅜㄒ࡟⮳ࡗ࡚ࠊ㐶࠿࡟ቑ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ⿕ᐖࡢព࿡ࢆྵࡴㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡲ࡛᥋㎡ࠕtanghataࠖࡢ௦ࢃࡾ࡟ࠕpattaࠖࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡿ㢖ᗘࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿㄒࡶᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌧㇟ࡣࠊ≉࡟࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢ୰࡛ࡼࡃ⌧ࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢཎᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⿕ᐖࡢព࿡㸦ྰᐃⓗព࿡㸧ࡀ㧗࠸᥋㎡
ࢆ㑊ࡅࠊྠࡌ⾲⌧ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ᥋㎡ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ୍␒㌾ࡽ࠿࠸᥋㎡ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿഴྥ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
࠸࠺᝿ᐃࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ⿕ᐖࡢព࿡ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ཷ㌟ᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㐣ཤ࡟ẚ࡭ࠕSDWWDࠖ
ࢆዲࢇ࡛౑࠺ࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡾࠊཷᜨࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕࠥࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢព࿡࡟㏆࠸⾲⌧ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚᮶࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ᥋ᑿ㎡ࠕSDWWDࠖࡀᚋ⥆ྍ⬟࡞ࠕKDWD ືモࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊཷᜨࡢព࿡ࢆ
⾲ࡍ༢ㄒࡀቑ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ᥋ᑿ㎡ࠕSDWWDࠖࡣࠊ᥋ᑿ㎡ࠕWDQJKDWDࠖࡢ㡿ᇦࢆ࢝ࣂ࣮ࡍࡿࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊືస୺ࡀⓎヰ⪅࡟࠾࠸࡚Ⰻ࠸ព࿡ࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆ᪋ࡍ࡜࠸࠺᪂ࡋ࠸ព
࿡㡿ᇦࡲ࡛⾲ࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࠕWDQJKDWDࠖ࡜ࠕSDWWDࠖࡢ౑⏝㡿ᇦࡢ㐪࠸ࢆㄪ࡭ࡿࡓࡵࠊ
Hopper㸤Thompson(1980)ࡢ௚ືᛶࢆ≉ᚩ௜ࡅࡿ᮲௳ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊྛ᥋ᑿ㎡࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࠕhata ືモࠖㄒᖿࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ࠿ࢆศᯒࡋࡓࠋ ࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ㸦㸯㸧ࠕtanghataࠖ࡜ࡢࡳඹ㉳ྍ⬟࡞ㄒࡣࠊ<ིྰᐃࡼࡾ࠿ࡣ⫯ᐃ>࡜࠸࠺᮲௳ࢆ
‶ࡓࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ㸦㸰㸧ࠕpattaࠖ࡜ࡢࡳඹ㉳ྍ⬟࡞ㄒࡣࠊ<཰⾜Ⅽ࡟⤊ࢃࡾࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜>࡜࠸࠺᮲௳࡜<ཱ⾜Ⅽࡀ▐㛫ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜>࡜࠸࠺᮲௳ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ‶ࡓࡉࢀ࡞࠸ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘ஧
ࡘࡢㄒ⩌ࡀ࠶ࡽࢃࢀࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊࠕpattaࠖࡀ᥋ᑿ㎡࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍ୰࡛ࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸ព࿡
ࢆ௜୚ࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࢽ࣮ࣗࢺࣛࣝ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆࡶࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ௒ࡲ࡛㡑ᅜㄒ࡟ࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠕཷᜨ
⾲⌧㸦benefactive expression㸧ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍᶵ⬟ࡸࡑࢀ௨እࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟ࡶཬࢇ࡛࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ௒ᅇࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊㄒ⩌ࢆศࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡲ࡛࡟ࡋ࠿⮳ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊྛㄒ⩌࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡢࡉࡽ࡞ࡿ⪃ᐹࡀᚲせࡔ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕmiuwum-pattaࠖ㸦᎘ࢃࢀࡿ㸧ࠕnollim-pattaࠖ㸦᥾ᥟࢃࢀࡿ㸧ࡢᘏ㛗⥺࡟⨨ࡅࡿࠕyeyppum-pattaࠖ,ࠕkwuiyewum-pattaࠖ(ྍឡࡀࡽࢀࡿ㸽ྍឡࡀࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺㸽) ࡜࠸࠺ᙧࡢࠊྡモ໬㎡ࠕm / wumࠖࡢḟ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡉࢀࡿࠕpattaࠖࡢၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽ
ࡣࠊࠕtowum-pattaࠖࡸࠕtacim-pattaࠖ࡜ࡣࠊࡲࡓᑡࡋᛶ㉁ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺ᚲせࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ᥋㎡࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕpattaࠖࡢព࿡ᙺ๭ࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ព࿡ࢆศᯒࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

−7−韓国語受身表現の受恵表現としての変化―接尾辞「patta」と「tanghata」を対象にした他動性条件からの分析―࠙㽷ࠚ䠍.㻌 㡑ᅜᅜ❧ᅜㄒ㝔ᶆ‽ᅜㄒ኱㎡඾䛛䜙ᘬ⏝䚹䛆 䛇䛾୰䛾␒ྕ䛿䚸⾲グ䛥䜜䛶䛔䛯㡰␒䜢⾲䛩䚹
2.㻌 Tonga-Ilpo(1920/4/1~),

Kyenghyang-Sinmwun(1946/10/6~),

Maiil-Kyengcei(1966/3/24~),

Hankyerei (1988/5/15~ࡢ 1999 ᖺ 12 ᭶ 31 ᪥ࡲ࡛ࡢ㡑ᅜࡢ 20 ୡ⣖᪂⪺ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࠋ

࠙ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ࠚ
ዟὠᩗ୍㑻(1979)䛂᪥ᮏㄒ䛾ᤵཷືモᵓᩥ䠉ⱥㄒ䞉ᮅ㩭ㄒ䛸ẚ㍑䛧䛶䠉䛃,䛄ேᩥᏛሗ䠄ᮾி㒔❧኱㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 Ꮫ䠅䛅,132, 1-27.
⃝⏣἞⨾(2011)ࠗ୺ほᛶ࡜୺యᛶ㸸ࡦࡘࡌព࿡ㄽㅮᗙ➨㸳ᕳ࠘,ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ. ᮾிᒣ⏣ᩄᘯ(2004)䛄᪥ᮏㄒ䛾䝧䝛䝣䜯䜽䝔䜱䝤䠉䛂䛶䜔䜛䛃䛂䛶䛟䜜䜛䛃䛂䛶䜒䜙䛖䛃䛾ᩥἲ䠉䛅,᫂἞᭩㝔䠊ᮾி䠊ᒣ⏣ᩄᘯ(2011)ࠕ㢮ᆺㄽⓗ࡟ぢࡓ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕࡸࡾࡶࡽ࠸ࠖ⾲⌧ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘30(11), pp.4-15
Song, Jae-Jung. 1997. “On the Development of MANNER from GIVE. In: Newman, John. 1998 (ed.)
    The Linguistics of Giving (Typological Studies in Language 36), 327-348뜑 뾹ꗥ(1971) 끥ꍡꎅꚭ (髙꘽뎭 隕렝볅) . 뇊넁ꩡ.
끥 넭뿑(1994) 䡞霢꽩넍 뻱鶎Ꙋ隱 뻱鶎 븑뾹넍 꾥霡䡟 , 뼑꽆鲵뼎霅 ꗊꩡ뼎낹 鬱ꓭ.
넩 뇊몒(1992) 䡞끞꽭 “鷍鲙”꿵 “뻱鶎Ꙋ”䡟 , 뼑鞵 218. 뼑鞵뼎쁁.
넩 뇊몒(2001) 䡞뻱鶎ꫦ 븑뾹꾅 隵뼑 꾥霡ʊ‘鷍鲙, ꗐ鲙, 鲮뼍鲙’ꌱ 鲵ꩶ냱ꈑʊ䡟 , 뼑鞵
251.    뼑鞵뼎쁁.

냕 녡낅(2007) 䡞’-鲮뼍鲙’ 뻱鶎鶎ꩡ꾅 鲵뼑 넍ꖭꜹꌍ䡟 , 뼑鞵 278. 뼑鞵뼎쁁.

−8−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ࠕࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖࡢᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡ࡢ⪃ᐹ㸫 ࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜Ⓨヰゎ㔘࡜ࡢᑐᛂ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚
ᕷᮧⴥᏊ㸦ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸧Ᏹ㒔ᮌ᫛㸦ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ㸧㸺abstract㸼 This presentation analyzed and considered the meaning of ndayone in Japanese in a procedural meaningfrom the speakers’ tones of ne and the listeners’ responses by their interpretation of the utterance. From theresults of an interview survey to native speakers, it was found out that ndayone is added to a speaker’s
absolutely confident proposition in two situations regarding requests for a confirmation and transmittanceof information. Furthermore, it was revealed that it is a form of ndayo + ne, which conveys the intention oftrying to continue on the concerned subject of the conversation.
࠙Keywordsࠚ ࢇࡔࡼࡡ 㡢ㄪ ᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡ Ⓨヰពᅗ㸯㸬 ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ㄝ᫂ࡢ࣒࣮ࢻᙧᘧ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࣀࢲ࡜⤊ຓモࠕࡼࡡࠖࡀඹ㉳ࡋࡓࠕࣀࢲࡼࡡࠖࡣ⮬↛఍ヰ࡛㢖⏝ࡉࢀࡿᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᕷᮧ࣭ᇼỤ㸦2014㸧࡛ࡣ᪤Ꮡࡢヰࡋゝⴥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࣀࢲᙧᘧࢆㄪᰝࡋ㸪ᙜヱᙧᘧࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࣞ࣋ࣝ㸪ᛶู࡟㛵ࢃࡽࡎ㢖⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᙜヱᙧᘧࡣᑐ↷ⓗ࡞Ⓨヰពᅗࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿ⯆࿡῝࠸ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋඛ⾜◊✲࡟ࡼࡿ࡜㸪
㸦1㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟Ḟࡅࡓ᪉ἲࢆヰࡋᡭࡀఏ㐩ࡍࡿࠖ㸦ⶈ἟ 1992㸸65㸧⏝ἲ㸪ࡑࡋ࡚㸦2㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ☜ㄆせồࠖ㸦㔝
⏣ 2002㸸287㸧ࡢ⏝ἲࡀグ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ 1ࠋ
㸦1㸧
㸦F046 ࡜ F086 ࡢ఍ヰࠋF086 ࡢᜊே࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃㸧
625 F046㸸┦ᡭࡣ࡝ࡇࡢฟ㌟ࡢே㸪࡝ࡇࡢ㸪⊂ࡾᬽࡽࡋ㸽
626ĺF086㸸࠺࠺ࢇ㸪㐪࠺ࠋඖ࠿ࡽᮾிࡢே࡛㸪࡞ࢇ࠿㸪ඵ⋤Ꮚ࡞ࢇࡔࡼࡡ࣮ࠋ
626 F046㸸࠶㸪⤖ᵓ㐲࠸ࢇࡔࡡࠋ                       㸦data072㸧
㸦2㸧
㸦F119 ࡜ F160 ࡢ఍ヰࠋF160 ࡀ⤖፧ࢆ᥍࠼࡚࠾ࡾ㸪᪂ᒃ࡟ᐙලࢆ㈙ࢃ࡞࠸࡜࠸ࡅ࡞࠸࡜
ゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃㸧
495 F160㸸㟁໬〇ရࡔࡅࡣ࠸࠸ࡢ㈙࠺㸦࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇ㸧ࡘࡶࡾࡔࡅ࡝ࠋ
496
࠺ࢇ㸪࠶࡜ࡣࡡ࣮ࠋ
497ĺF119㸸࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ㈙ࢃ࡞ࡁࡷ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࢇࡔࡼࡡࠋ
498 F160㸸࠺ࢇࠋ⤖ᵓ≀ධࡾࡔࡼ㸪࡯ࢇ࡜࡟ࠋ                㸦data068㸧ࡓࡔࡋ㸪➹⪅ࡽࡢෆ┬࡛ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢⓎヰពᅗࢆ♧ࡍሙྜ㸪ࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪࡀ␗࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪ᮏ✏ࡣࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰゎ㔘࡜ࡢᑐᛂ࠿ࡽ㸪ࣀࢲࡼࡡࡢල⌧໬ᙧᘧࠕࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖ࡟ὀ┠ࡋ㸪ࡑࡢᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡ࢆ᥈ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ㸰㸬 ඛ⾜◊✲࡜ᮏ◊✲ࡢ❧ሙ
2.1 ᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡−9−「んだよね」の手続き意味の考察―「ね」の音調と発話解釈との対応に基づいて

 Sperber & Wilson㸦1993㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ㄒࡸᙧᘧࡢព࿡ࢆࠕᴫᛕⓗព࿡ࠖ࡜ࠕᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡ࠖ࡟༊ศࡍࡿࠋ
ࠕᴫᛕⓗព࿡ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣㄒࡢព࿡࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ᬑ㏻ྡモࡸືモ࡞࡝ࡀヱᙜࡍࡿࠋ୍᪉㸪ࠕᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡ࠖ
࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰゎ㔘࡟㛵ࢃࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᥎ㄽ㐣⛬ࢆไ⣙ࡍࡿព࿡࡛࠶ࡾ㸪௦⾲ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡟௦ྡモ㸪ㄯヰ㐃⤖モ࡞࡝ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࡀ㸪ࣀࢲࡸ⤊ຓモ㸪ࡉࡽ࡟㡢ㄪࡶᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡ࢆไ⣙ࡍࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ㸦Itani1996㸪Imai1998㸪ྡᔱ 2007 ࡞࡝㸧ࠋᚑࡗ࡚㸪ᮏ✏࡛ࡶᩥᮎࡢࠕࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖ
ࡣᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡ࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺❧ሙࢆྲྀࡿࠋ

ࠕࡼࠖࡀ♧ࡍព࿡
2.2 ࠕࣀࢲࠖ ࠕࣀࢲࠖࡀ♧ࡍព࿡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ྡᔱ㸦2007㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕᥦ♧ࡍࡿ࿨㢟ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢᩥ⬦ຠᯝ㸦ᮏ✏ࡢࠕㄆ▱ຠᯝࠖ࡟┦ᙜ㸧ࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰゎ㔘ࡢ᪉ἲࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࠋࡲ
ࡓ㸪ࠕࡼࠖࡢព࿡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ⓑᕝ㸦1992㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕࡑࡢᩥࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࡇ࡜ࡉࡽ⾲᫂ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢㄽࢆ୍㒊᥼⏝ࡍࡿ࡜㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࠿ࡽࡑࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚᭱
ࡶ㛵㐃ᛶࡀ㧗࠸࡜ゎ㔘ࡋࡓࠕ㸦࿨㢟㸧ࢇࡔࠖ࡟ࠕࡼࠖࢆ௜ຍࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ࠕ㸦࿨㢟㸧ࣀࢲࠖࢆ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ▱ࡿ࡭ࡁ᝟ሗ࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸪࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸪࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
2.3 ࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜Ⓨヰពᅗࡢᑐᛂ
 ㎘ᮌ㸦2008㸧ࡣẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⫈ྲྀᐇ㦂ཬࡧෆ┬ࢆᇶ࡟ࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜Ⓨヰពᅗࡢᑐᛂࢆ௨ୗࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦⾲ 1 ࡣ➹⪅ࡀ㎘ᮌ㸦2008㸧ࢆᇶ࡟సᡂ㸧ࠋ
⾲ 1 ࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜ព࿡࣭⏝ἲ
ᢿෆ㡢ㄪ
␲ၥୖ᪼

ᮏ◊✲ࡢᐃ⩏
␲ၥᩥᮎᑿࡢࡼ࠺࡞ୖ࡛᪼㸪㡢ࢆ㛗ࡃఙࡤࡏࡤ㸪ᴫࡡࡑࡢศࡔࡅ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿ
࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺࡢప࠸ᢿ࠿ࡽ㧗࠸ᢿ࡬࡜⛣⾜ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁࡢࡼ

㺏㺖㺜㺻㺢ୖ᪼
ᖹᆠ
ୖ᪼ୗ㝆
ୗ㝆

ព࿡࣭⏝ἲ
☜ㄆせồ
㸦⪺ࡁᡭࡀྠពࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺

࠺࡞ୖ࡛᪼࠶ࡾ㸪␲ၥୖ᪼࡟ẚ࡭㸪ୖ᪼ࡢ㛤ጞⅬࡀ᪩ࡃ㸪 ๓ᥦ࡛㸧ヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿ᥦ♧࣭⾜඲యࡢ㛗ࡉࡶ▷࠸ືᐉゝ⫈ぬⓗ࡟ୖ᪼ࡶୗ㝆ࡶࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ

࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼࡜ྠ⩏࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼ࡢ┤ᚋ࡟㢧ⴭ࡞ୗ㝆ࡀ⥆ࡃャჃ㸪㦫ࡁࡢ⾲᫂㸪ྠពせồ㸦↓᰾ࡢㄒ࡟ࡘࡃሙྜ㸧ୖ᪼ୗᮎᑿ㡢⠇ෆ࡛ᛴ࡞ୗ㝆ࢆࡍࡿ㝆࡜ྠ⩏ࡇࡢㄽࢆ᥼⏝ࡍࡿ࡜㸪ࠕࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖࡣ᭷᰾࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ㸪ᙜヱᙧᘧࡀྲྀࡾ࠺ࡿࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪࡣୗ㝆ㄪࢆ㝖
ࡃ 4 ࡘ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᕷᮧ㸦2015㸧࡛ࡣ㸪㎘ᮌ㸦2008㸧ࡢศ㢮ࢆ᥼⏝ࡋ㸪ẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ᑐࡍࡿㄞࡳୖࡆᐇ㦂࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ࠕࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜Ⓨヰពᅗ࡜ࡢᑐᛂࢆㄪᰝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪㸯㸧ୖ᪼ୗ㝆ࡢࠕࡡࠖࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ྠពࢆᘬࡁฟࡍሙ㠃࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸪㸰㸧࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㸪ᖹᆠࡢࠕࡡࠖࡣヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿ᥦ
♧࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪≉࡟᝟ሗఏ㐩ሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠕࡡ࣮ࠖ࡜㛗࿧ࡍࡿ㸪㸱㸧ୗ㝆ࡢࠕࡡࠖࡣ⏘ฟࡉࢀࡎ㸪␲ၥୖ᪼ࡢࠕࡡࠖࡣ࡯ࡰ⏘ฟࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡞࡝ࢆሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2.4 ௬ㄝ ௨ୖࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᇶ࡟㸪ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ௨ୗ஧ࡘࡢ௬ㄝࢆ❧࡚ࡓࠋ௬ㄝ㸯㸬ࠕ㸦࿨㢟㸧ࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖࡣࠕ
㸦࿨㢟㸧ࢇࡔࡼࠖ㸩ࠕࡡ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ

−10−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࠿ࡽ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚᭱ࡶ㛵㐃ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ヰࡋᡭࡀゎ㔘ࡋࡓࠕ㸦࿨㢟㸧ࣀࢲࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ࡑࢀࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ▱ࡿ࡭ࡁ᝟ሗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆヰࡋᡭࡀ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿ㸪࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఏ㐩ࡍࡿࠕࡼࠖࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀࡓࠕࢇࡔࡼࠖ࡟㸪ࠕࡡࠖࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀࡓᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
௬ㄝ㸰㸬ᙜヱᙧᘧࡣࠕࢇࡔࡼࠖࡢᛶ㉁ୖ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀ┿࡜☜ಙࡍࡿ࿨㢟࡟ᚋ᥋ࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸪ࠕ␲ၥୖ᪼ࠖࡢ
ࠕࡡࠖࡣ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ㸱㸬 ㄪᰝ ㄪᰝᴫせࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ㄪᰝ┠ⓗ㸸௬ㄝ᳨ドࡢࡓࡵ㸪ࠕࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖࡢࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰゎ㔘ࡢᑐᛂࢆ᥈ࡿ ⿕ㄪᰝ⪅㸸18㹼30 ṓࡢ༡㛵ᮾฟ㌟ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ 20 ྡ㸦⏨ዪྛ 10 ྡ㸧 ㄪᰝᮦᩱ㸸௨ୗ 3 ✀㢮ࡢⓎヰᩥࢆ⏨ዪ 2 ேࡀࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ 6 ✀ 2㸦ୖ᪼ୗ㝆㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㸪␲ၥୖ᪼㸪ᖹᆠ㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㛗࿧㸪ᖹᆠ㛗࿧㸧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚సᡂࡋࡓ 36 ่⃭ᩥ     ࠕᙼ࡟఍ࡗࡓࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖ
ࠕ࠶ࡢᗑ⨾࿡ࡋ࠸ࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖ
ࠕࡑࢀࡣ᎘࡞ࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖ
ㄪᰝ᪉ἲ㸸㉁ၥ⣬ཬࡧ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ࡟ࡼࡿㄪᰝ ㄪᰝᡭ㡰㸸Ϩ㸬ྛ่⃭㡢ࢆ⪺ࡁ㸪఍ヰ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓሙྜࡢ⮬↛ᗘࠕ࡜࡚ࡶ⮬↛ࠖ
ࠕ⮬↛ࠖ
ࠕチᐜ࡛ࡁ
ࡿࠖ
ࠕ୙⮬↛ࠖ
ࠕ㠀ᖖ࡟୙⮬↛ࠖࢆุᐃࡍࡿࠋ      ϩ㸬ᡭ㡰Ϩ࡛ࠕ࡜࡚ࡶ⮬↛ࠖࠕ⮬↛ࠖࠕチᐜ࡛ࡁࡿࠖ࡜ุ᩿ࡋࡓ㡢ㄪ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪㐃᝿ࡍࡿⓎヰពᅗࢆᅇ⟅ࡍࡿࠋ㸲㸬 ⤖ᯝ
4.1 ⮬↛ᗘุᐃ ᡭ㡰Ϩࡢᅇ⟅ࢆ㸯㹼㸳ࡲ࡛ᩘ್໬ࡋ㸪➢ྕ᳨ᐃࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝ㸪18 ᩥ୰㸪ヰ⪅㛫࡛Ⓨヰࡢホ౯࡟ 5%Ỉ‽࡛᭷ពᕪࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࡢࡣࠕࡑࢀࡣ᎘࡞ࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖࡢ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼ཬࡧᖹᆠࡢ 2 ᩥ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࡑࢀ௨እࡢᩥ࡟ࡣ᭷ពᕪࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵ㸪ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡚ホ౯ࡢࡤࡽࡘࡁࢆࡳࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓࠋ௨ୗ㸪ྛ㡢ㄪࡢุ᩿⤖ᯝࢆᅗ 1㹼6 ࡟♧ࡍࠋ
30

30

఍ࡗࡓ

20

⨾࿡ࡋ࠸

10

᎘

20
10

0

0

ᅗ 1 ୖ᪼ୗ㝆                  ᅗ 2 ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼
30

20

20

10

10

0

0

ᅗ 3 ␲ၥୖ᪼

ᅗ 4 ᖹᆠ

−11−

「んだよね」の手続き意味の考察―「ね」の音調と発話解釈との対応に基づいて

30

20

20

15

10

10

0

5
0

ᅗ 5 ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㛗࿧              ᅗ 6 ᖹᆠ㛗࿧⮬↛ᗘุᐃࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪1㸧ヰ⪅㛫࡛Ⓨヰᩥ࡟ホ౯ࡢᕪࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜㸪2㸧ୖ᪼ୗ㝆㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㛗࿧㸪ࡣࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᩥ࡛┦ᑐⓗ࡟ホ౯ࡀ㧗࠸ࡀ㸪␲ၥୖ᪼ࡣホ౯࡟ࡤࡽࡘࡁࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡇ࡜㸪
3㸧ᖹᆠ㸪ᖹᆠ㛗࿧ࡣ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ホ౯ࡀప࠿ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡢ㸪ࠕ᎘ࠖࡢᖹᆠ㸪ᖹᆠ㛗࿧ࡣࠕ࡜࡚ࡶ⮬↛ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ุ᩿ࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜㸪࡞࡝ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

4.2 ࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜㐃᝿ࡍࡿⓎヰពᅗ ḟ࡟㸪ᡭ㡰ϩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕチᐜ࡛ࡁࡿࠖ࡜ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡓ่⃭ᩥ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜㐃᝿ࡍ
ࡿⓎヰពᅗࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓࠋࡲࡎ㸪Ⓨヰពᅗࢆᅇ⟅ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺๓࡟㸪⿕ㄪᰝ⪅࡟ࡣ㐃᝿ࡋࡓⓎヰពᅗࡣ඲࡚ᅇ⟅ࡍࡿࡇ࡜㸪ࡑࡋ࡚㸪ᙜヱ่⃭ᩥࡔࡅ࡛ࡣពᅗࡀ㐃᝿࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ሙྜࡣ↓⌮࡟ᅇ⟅ࡏࡎ㸪ࠕࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᣦ♧ࡋࡓࠋㄪᰝᚋ㸪ඛ⾜◊✲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ㸪⿕ㄪᰝ⪅ࡢᅇ⟅ࢆ୺࡟ࠕ᝟ሗఏ㐩ࠖࠕྠព࣭☜ㄆせồࠖࡑࡋ࡚ࠕࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖࡢ 3 ࡘ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣ⣬ᖜࡢ㛵ಀୖ㸪┦ᑐⓗ࡟チᐜᗘࡢ㧗࠿ࡗࡓୖ᪼ୗ㝆㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㛗࿧㸪࠾ࡼࡧホ౯࡟ࡤࡽࡘࡁࡢぢࡽࢀࡓ␲ၥୖ
᪼࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ♧ࡍ㸦⾲ 2㹼4㸧ࠋ
  Ⓨヰゎ㔘ࡢᅇ⟅ࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ㸪௨ୗࡢⅬࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ1㸧ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ୖ᪼ୗ㝆
ࡣ୍㈏ࡋ࡚ࠕྠព࣭☜ㄆせồࠖ㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㛗࿧ࡣ࡯ࡰࠕ᝟ሗఏ㐩ࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡓ㸪2㸧࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㸪␲ၥୖ᪼ࡣࡸࡸゎ㔘࡟ᕪࡣぢࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢࡢ㸪࠸ࡎࢀࡢᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶゎ㔘࡟㢧ⴭ࡞೫ࡾࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ㸪3㸧␲ၥୖ᪼ࡣチᐜ࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢࡢ㸪Ⓨヰពᅗࡀศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸㸪࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡀ」ᩘぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ⾲ 2 ྛ㡢ㄪ࡜Ⓨヰពᅗࡢᑐᛂ㸦ᙼ࡟఍ࡗࡓࢇࡔࡼࡡ㸧᝟ሗఏ㐩ྠព࣭☜ㄆせồ

ࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸

ྜィ

ୖ᪼ୗ㝆

0

40

0

40

࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㛗࿧

37

5

1

43

࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼

25

18

2

45

␲ၥୖ᪼

11

8

4

23

⾲ 3 ྛ㡢ㄪ࡜Ⓨヰពᅗࡢᑐᛂ㸦࠶ࡢᗑ⨾࿡ࡋ࠸ࢇࡔࡼࡡ㸧᝟ሗఏ㐩ྠព࣭☜ㄆせồ

ࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸

ྜィ

ୖ᪼ୗ㝆

0

40

0

40

࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㛗࿧

35

4

1

40

࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼

25

13

2

40

␲ၥୖ᪼

9

15

3

27

−12−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

⾲ 4 ྛ㡢ㄪ࡜Ⓨヰពᅗࡢᑐᛂ㸦ࡑࢀࡣ᎘࡞ࢇࡔࡼࡡ㸧᝟ሗఏ㐩ྠព࣭☜ㄆせồ

ྠព

ࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸

ྜィ

ୖ᪼ୗ㝆

0

40

0

0

40

࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㛗࿧

35

6

1

0

42

࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼

20

17

1

1

39

␲ၥୖ᪼

12

15

2

4

33

ࡑࡢ௚㸪ྛ㡢ㄪ࡛ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡓពぢ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ୖ᪼ୗ㝆ࡣࠕ஦๓࡟⪺࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࠖࠕ☜ಙࢆᣢࡗ࡚☜ㄆࡍࡿࠖ㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㛗࿧ࡣࠕ⊂ヰⓗࠖࠕࡉࡾࡆ࡞ࡃఏ࠼ࡿࠖ
㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼ࡣࠕ⟅࠼ࡀศ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿୖ࡛ࡢྠពồࡵࠖ
ࠕ㍍ࡃఏ࠼ࡿࠖ
㸪␲ၥୖ᪼ࡣࠕࡑࡢⓎヰࢆ఍ヰࡢษࡾཱྀ࡟ࡋ࡚ヰ㢟ࢆࡩࡿࠖࠕ␲ၥࠖ࡞࡝ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ㸳㸬 ⪃ᐹ
5.1 ࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜⮬↛ࡉ ⮬↛ᗘุᐃ࠿ࡽ㸪ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ୖ᪼ୗ㝆㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㛗࿧ࡢࠕࡡࠖࡣ࡯ࡰチᐜ࡛ࡁࡿ௨ୖࡢホ౯ࢆᚓࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪ࡇࡢ 3 ࡘࡢ㡢ㄪࡣࠕࢇࡔࡼࡡ࡛ࠖ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓሙྜ
࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰゎ㔘ࢆไ⣙ࡋ࠺ࡿ㡢ㄪ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ୍᪉㸪ྠࡌୖ࡛᪼࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ㸪␲ၥୖ᪼ࡣホ౯࡟ࡤࡽࡘࡁࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸪ࠕࢇࡔࡼࠖ࡟ࠕ☜ㄆせồࠖࢆពᅗࡍࡿ␲ၥୖ᪼ࡢࠕࡡࠖࡀ㐺ࡉ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡛ࡣ
࡞࠸࠿࡜᥎ᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋᖹᆠ㸪ᖹᆠ㛗࿧ࡣ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ホ౯ࡀప࠿ࡗࡓࡀ㸪ࡇࢀࡣᩥ⬦࡜ษࡾ㞳ࡋࡓࡓࡵ࡜
⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚㸪ᙜヱᙧᘧࡢሙྜ㸪㠀ୖ᪼ࡢࠕࡡࠖࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟Ⓨヰゎ㔘ࡢᡭࡀ࠿ࡾࢆ୚࠼ࡿ㡢ㄪ࡜ࡣゝ࠼ࡎ㸪ᩥ⬦౫Ꮡᆺࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
5.2 ࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜Ⓨヰゎ㔘 ⾲ 5 ࡣ㸪ホ౯ࡀ㧗࠿ࡗࡓ 3 ࡘࡢࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ඛ⾜◊✲ࡢグ㏙ࡍࡿⓎヰពᅗ࡜ᮏㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⾲ 5 ࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜Ⓨヰពᅗࡢᑐᛂ
ୖ᪼ୗ㝆࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼
࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㛗࿧ඛ⾜◊✲㸦㎘ᮌ 2008㸪ᕷᮧ 2015㸧

ᮏㄪᰝ

ྠពせồ

ྠព࣭☜ㄆせồ㸦⪺ࡁᡭࡀྠពࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺

ྠព࣭☜ㄆせồ๓ᥦ࡛ࡢ㸧ヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿ᥦ♧

᝟ሗఏ㐩

᝟ሗఏ㐩

᝟ሗఏ㐩

⾲ 5 ࠿ࡽ㸪ୖ᪼ୗ㝆ཬࡧ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㛗࿧ࡣඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᴫࡡᨭᣢࡍࡿ⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࡀ㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀྠពࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺๓ᥦ࡛ࡢุ᩿ᥦ♧࠿ࡽ㸪ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞๓ᥦࡢ࡞࠸᝟ሗఏ㐩࡜ࡶゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡓࠋᚑࡗ࡚㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼ࡋࡓᚋࡢ㛗ࡉ㸪㧗ࡉࡀⓎヰពᅗ࡟㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜᥎ᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ ḟ࡟㸪ࠕࡡࠖࡢ⏘ฟ㡢ㄪ࡜Ⓨヰពᅗࡢᑐᛂࢆᇶ࡟㸪ࠕࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖࡢᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ᐇ౛ࢆ㋃
ࡲ࠼࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎ㸪ࠕྠព࣭☜ㄆせồࠖ࡜ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡓୖ᪼ୗ㝆㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀࠕ஦๓
࡟⪺࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࠖࠕ⟅࠼ࡀศ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿୖ࡛ࡢྠពồࡵࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ពぢࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢⅬࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜㸪ࡇࡢሙྜࡢࠕࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖࡣࠕ
㸦࿨㢟㸧ࢇࡔࡼࠖ࡟ࠕ
㸦⪺ࡁᡭࡢྠពࡀ๓ᥦࡢྠពせồࡢ㸧ࡡࠖࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀࡓᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣఱࡽ࠿ࡢ┠ⓗ࡛఍ヰࢆ⥅⥆ࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪┿࡜☜ಙࡍࡿ᝟ሗࢆ࿊♧ࡋ㸪┦ᡭ࠿ࡽ⫯ᐃⓗ㏉⟅ࢆᘬࡁฟࡍሙ㠃࡛ᙜヱᙧᘧࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㸦3㸧ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ

−13−

「んだよね」の手続き意味の考察―「ね」の音調と発話解釈との対応に基づいて

㸦3㸧
㸦ᮾிぢ≀࡟⾜ࡗࡓヰࢆ⪺࠸࡚㸪௨๓ࡶྠࡌヰࢆ⪺࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸪࡜ᛮ࠸ฟࡋࡓ F093 ࡢⓎヰ࠿ࡽ㸧
1375 F093㸸࠶ࢀ࡞ࢇࡔࡗࡓࡗࡅ㸽࡞ࢇ࠿࠸ࡁ࡞ࡾ
1376
࡞ࢇ࠿࠸ࡁ࡞ࡾࡣ࡜ࣂࢫࢶ࢔࣮࡜࠿஌ࡗ࡚࡞࠿ࡗࡓ㸽
1377 F101㸸஌ࡗࡓࠊ஌ࡗࡓࠋ
1378 F093㸸㸯ே࡛⾜ࡗ࡚ࡓࡼࡡࠊ࠶ࢀ࣮ࠋ
1379 F101㸸ࡑ࠺ࡔࡡࠋ
1380
࠶ࢀࡶࡡࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡢࠊὸⲡᑎ࡜࠿⾜ࡗ࡚ࡡ࣮ࠊ㝮⏣ᕝୗࡾ࡜࠿ࡋ࡚ࡡ࣮ࠊ㸨㸨㸨ࠋ
1381ĺF093㸸㸯ே࡛⾜ࡗࡓࢇࡔࡼࡡࠋ
1382 F101㸸࠺ࢇࠊࡑ࠺ࠋ
1383 F093㸸㸯ே࡛⾜ࡗ࡚ᴦࡋ࠸࠿࡞ࠊᮾிࡗ࡚ࠋ
1384 F101㸸ࡲࠊ࡛ࡶࡡࠊ⚾⤖ᵓዲࡁࡔࡼࡑ࠺࠸࠺ࡢࠋ
1385 F093㸸࡯ࢇ࡜࣮ࠋ
1386 F101㸸࠺ࢇࠋ
1387 F093㸸⚾୍ே᪑᎘࠸ࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࡅ࡝ࡑ࠺࠸࠺㒔఍࡟㸯ே࡛࡞ࢇ࠿࠸ࡿࡢ࠶ࢇࡲࡾዲࡁࡌࡷ࡞
1388
࠸ࠊ⚾ࡣࠋ
1389 F101㸸࠶࣮ࠊࡑࡗ࠿࣮ࠋ 
㸦data080㸧
F093 ࡣ 1378 ࡛ࠕᮾி࡬୍ே࡛⾜ࡗ࡚ࡓࡼࡡࠖ࡜୍ᗘ☜ㄆࡋ㸪ࠕࡑ࠺ࡔࡡࠖ࡜⫯ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟ࡶᣊࡽ
ࡎ㸪෌ᗘ 1381 ࡛ࠕ୍ே࡛⾜ࡗࡓࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖ࡜☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸪1383㸪1387 ࡛཯ㄽࡍࡿ⎔ቃࢆᩚ࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪┦ᡭ࡜ඹ㏻ㄆ㆑ࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡓࡵ࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ୍᪉㸪ḟࡢ㸦4㸧࡛ࡣ㸪␗࡞ࡿពᅗ࡛఍ヰ⥅⥆ࡢពᛮࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
㸦4㸧
㸦F004 ࡀࠕ཭ே࡜ṇ᭶࡟᪑⾜ࡢィ⏬ࢆ❧࡚࡚࠸ࡓࡀ㸪཭ேࡀೝ⣙ᐙࡢࡓࡵ᪑⾜ඛࢆ᥈ࡍࡢ࡟ⱞປ
ࡋࡓࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃㸧
1466 F004㸸࡛ࠊࡋ࠿ࡶࡉࠊ᭱ึ࡟࣓࣮࡛ࣝ᭩࠸࡚ࡁࡓࡢࡀࠊ
㸦࠺ࢇ㸧࡞ࢇࡔࡗࡅࠊ㸱㸮୓ࡔࡗࡓ
1467
࠿࡞࣮ࠊ
㸦࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇ㸧
1468
㸱㸮୓௨ෆ࡛㸦࠺ࢇ㸧ᢚ࠼ࡓ࠸ࡗ࡚࠸࠺ࡢ࡛࣮ࠋ
1469
࡛⤖ᵓࢩ࣮ࢬࣥࡶ࣮ࠊ
㸦࠺ࢇࠊ࠺ࢇ㸧࡞ࢇ࡚ゝ࠺ࡢࠊ࠶ࡢ࣮ࠋ
1470ĺF090㸸࠾ṇ᭶࡜࠿ࡔ࠿ࡽ㧗࠸ࢇࡔࡼࡡࠋ
1471 F004㸸ࡑ࠺ࠊࡑ࠺ࠊࡑ࠺ࠋ
1472⤖ᵓ㧗࠸ࢩ࣮ࢬ࡛ࣥࠋ
1473 F090㸸࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇࠋ                             㸦data022㸧
ࡇࡢሙྜ㸪F090 ࡢ 1470 ࡢⓎヰࡀ F004 ࡢḟࡢⓎヰࢆᘬࡁฟࡍᙺ┠ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᩜ⾝ࡍࡿ࡜㸪1469 ࡛
F004 ࡀࠕ࡞ࢇ࡚ゝ࠺ࡢ㸪࠶ࡢ࣮ࠖ࡜ゝⴥࡀฟ࡚ࡇ࡞࠸ࡢࢆ⪺ࡁ㸪ゝ࠸ࡓ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆᐹࡋ㸪1470 ࡛┿࡜☜ಙࡍࡿ࿨㢟ࢆ࿊♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪┦ᡭࡀヰࡋࡸࡍ࠸⎔ቃࢆసࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜᥎ᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ
㸦3㸧㸪
㸦4㸧ࡢࡼ࠺
࡟㸪ᙧࡣྠព㸪☜ㄆせồ࡛࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣ┿࡜☜ಙࡍࡿ࿨㢟࡟ᙜヱᙧᘧࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࡣ㸪ୖ᪼ୗ㝆㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼ࡢࠕࡡࠖࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸࡜᥎ᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ ḟ࡟㸪᝟ሗఏ㐩࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡓ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㛗࿧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎ㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼ࡣඛ㏙ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪ࠕྠព࣭☜ㄆせồࠖࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ࡜ࡶゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸪ࠕ㸦⪺ࡁᡭࡢྠពࡀ๓ᥦࡢ㸧ุ᩿ᥦ♧࡛ࠖ࠶ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡀ㸪ࠕࢇࡔࡼࠖ࡟ᚋ᥋ࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸪ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢྠពࢆ୙せ࡜ࡍࡿุ᩿ᥦ♧ࠖࡲ࡛౑⏝ࡀᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࡣࠕࡼ࡛ࠖゝ࠸ษࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜

−14−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

࡛㸪
ࠕࡡࠖࢆ௜ຍࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ㸪఍ヰ⥅⥆ࡢពᅗࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
㸦5㸧
㸦F151 ࡀࠕᖐ┬ࡍࡿ࠿ࡽ㧥ࢆ㯮ࡃᰁࡵ࡞࠸࡜࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ヰࡋࡓᚋࡢሙ㠃㸧
809 F072㸸࠼ࡗࠊ࡛ࡶࡉ࣮ࠊF151 ࢇࡕࡣ኱୔ኵ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࠊⲔ㧥࡜࠿ࠋ
810 F151㸸࠺ࢇࠊࡓࡪࢇ኱୔ኵ࡞ࢇࡔࡅ࡝ࠋ
811 F072㸸࠺ࢇࠋ
812
ࡌࡷࠊၥ㢟࡞࠸ࡗ࡚ࠋ
813ĺF151㸸኱୔ኵ࡞୰࡛ࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿ᅽຊࢆ࠿ࡅ࡚ࡃࡿࢇࡔࡼࡡࠋ
814㸺➗࠸ࠋ
815 F072㸸࠶ࠊࡑ࠺࡞ࢇࡔࠊࡑ࠺࡞ࢇࡔࠋ
816 F151㸸࠾ࡤ࠶ࡕࡷࢇ࡜࠿୍⥴࡟ఫࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ
817
ఫࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡗ࡚࠸࠺࠿ࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿ࠊᗞ࡟㸦࠶࣮㸧ᐙࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚㸦௨ୗ␎㸧

㸦data073㸧

812 ࡛ F151 ࡀࠕᐇᐙ࡟ᖐࡿࡢ࡟Ⲕ㧥ࡢࡲࡲ࡛ၥ㢟࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ゝࡗࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪813 ࡛ࠕ࡞ࢇ࠿ᅽຊࢆ࠿
ࡅ࡚ࡃࡿࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖ࡜┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡋྰᐃⓗ࡞Ⓨヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋࡶⓎヰࡀ⥆࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ࡇࢀࡣ┦
ᡭࡢⓎヰࢆྰᐃࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪┦ᡭࢆ⣡ᚓࡉࡏࡿ⌮⏤ࢆヰࡍࡓࡵ࡟㸪ࠕࡡࠖࢆ௜ຍࡋ㸪ࡑࡢᚋࡶ఍ヰࢆ⥅⥆ࡉࡏࡿពᅗࢆ┦ᡭ࡟ఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㛗࿧ࡣ࡯ࡰࠕ᝟ሗఏ㐩ࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡓࠋ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼㛗࿧ࡣ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼࡜ᇶ
ᮏⓗ࡟ᶵ⬟ࡣྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ࡉࡽ࡟ࠕࡡ࣮ࠖ࡜ᘬࡁᘏࡤࡋ㸪⊂ヰⓗ㸪ࡘࡲࡾ⮬㌟ࡢ୰࡛ᙜヱ࿨㢟ࢆฎ⌮୰࡜࠸࠺ែᗘࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡛㸪ᙜヱヰ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ఍ヰࢆ⥅⥆ࡉࡏࡿⓎヰពᅗࡀ᫂☜࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪ᙜヱ㡢ㄪࡣୖ᪼ୗ㝆㸪␲ၥୖ᪼࡜ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟Ⓨᒎⓗ࡟⏕ࡲࢀࡓ㡢ㄪ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
㸦6㸧
㸦F004 ࡜ F005 ࡢ఍ヰࠋF005 ࡀࠕ⮬ศࡣ඗ᘵ࡜௰ࡀ࠸࠸ࠖ࡜ゝࡗࡓᚋࡢሙ㠃㸧
633 F004㸸࠺ࢇࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿ࡉࠊ㹋㸯ࡢࡉࠊ㹄ࡉࢇࡗ࡚▱ࡗ࡚ࡿ㸽
634 F005㸸㹄ࡉࢇࠋ
635 F004㸸࠺ࢇࠋ
636
㹄ࡉࢇࡣࠊࡍࡈ࠸௰࠸࠸ࢇࡔࡗ࡚ࠊ
㸦࠺ࢇ㸧඗ᘵࠋ
637
࡚࠸࠺࠿ࠊᐙ᪘௰࠸࠸ࢇࡔࡗ࡚ࠊ
㸦࠺ࢇ㸧ࡴࡕࡷࡃࡕࡷࠋ
638
㸦࠺ࢇ㸧ࡑ࠺࠸࠺ேࡶ࠸ࡿࢇࡔ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚ࠋ
639ĺ
࠺ࡕࡣ඲↛࡞ࢇࡔࡼࡡ࣮ࠋ
640
㸦ࡑࡗ࠿㸧࠺ࢇࠊ࠾ጜࡕࡷࢇ࡜ࡣࠊࡲ࠶ࡲ࠶ࠊᬑ㏻࡟௰࠸࠸ࡅ࡝ࠊ
㸦࠺ࢇ㸧࠺ࢇࠋ
641
࡛ࡶࠊࡑ࠺ࡔࡡࠊᘵ࡜ࡣࠊ඲↛ࡔࡡ࣮ࠋ㸦data052㸧
639 ࡛㸪F004 ࡣ⮬ศࡓࡕࡢ඗ᘵࡢ௰࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠕ࠺ࡕࡣ඲↛࡞ࢇࡔࡼࡡ࣮ࠖ࡜㛗࿧ࡋ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᅇ᝿୰
ࡢែᗘࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪ࡑࡇ࡛఍ヰࢆ⤊஢ࡍࡿពᅗࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ᭱ᚋ࡟㸪ホ౯࡟ࡤࡽࡘࡁࡀぢࡽࢀࡓ␲ၥୖ᪼࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⚾ぢࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠋᙜヱ㡢ㄪࡢࠕࡡࠖࡣࠕ⮬↛ࠖ࡜ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ࡇࢀࡣᕷᮧ㸦2015㸧ࡢㄞࡳୖࡆᐇ㦂࡛ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ほᐹࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸
࠺Ⅼࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜㸪⪺ࡁྲྀࡾࡢሙྜࡣᐜㄆᗘࡢ㧗࠿ࡗࡓࠕ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼ࠖࡢኚ✀࡜ㄆ㆑ࡋࡓྍ⬟ᛶࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬࡣᣦ᦬࡟࡜࡝ࡵ㸪୧㡢ㄪࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣู✏࡟ㆡࡿࠋ୍᪉࡛㸪ࠕチᐜ࡛ࡁࡿࠖ
௨ୖ࡜ࡋࡓᅇ⟅ࡢ୰࡟㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿᅇ⟅࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ఍ヰࡢษࡾཱྀ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ពぢࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣ␲ၥୖ᪼ࡢ㡢ㄪࡀࠕ㸦࿨㢟㸧ࢇࡔࡼࠖ࡜ࡣඹ㉳ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡓࡵ㸪Ⓨヰᶒ⥔ᣢࡢࡓࡵࡢ཯ᛂせồ࡜࠸࠺ูࡢⓎヰពᅗࢆ♧ࡍ㡢ㄪ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡀᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

−15−

「んだよね」の手続き意味の考察―「ね」の音調と発話解釈との対応に基づいて㸴㸬 ⤖ㄒ
 2 ⠇࡛ᥦ♧ࡋࡓㄢ㢟ࡢゎ⟅ࢆ㏙࡭㸪ᮏ✏ࡢࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ௬ㄝ㸯㸬ࠕ㸦࿨㢟㸧ࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖࡣࠕ
㸦࿨㢟㸧ࢇࡔࡼࠖ㸩ࠕࡡ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ  ࠕࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖࡣࠕࢇࡔࡼ࡛ࠖඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࠿ࡽ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚᭱ࡶ㛵㐃ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ヰࡋᡭࡀゎ㔘ࡋࡓ࿨㢟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠕࢇࡔ࡛ࠖ㏙࡭㸪ࠕࡼࠖ࡟ࡼࡾࡑࢀࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ཷࡅධࢀࡉࡏࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿពᅗࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఏ㐩ࡍࡿࠋ࠿ࡘ㸪ࠕࡡࠖ࡟ࡼࡾᙜヱヰ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚఍ヰࢆ⥅⥆ࡍࡿពᅗࢆఏ࠼ࡿᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
఍ヰ⥅⥆ࡢ᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪౛࠼ࡤୖ᪼ୗ㝆ࡢࠕࢇࡔࡼࡡ࡛ࠖ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽྠពࢆᘬࡁฟࡍ㸪࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ
᪼㛗࿧ࡢࠕࢇࡔࡼࡡ࣮ࠖ࡟ࡼࡾヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟࡛ᙜヱ࿨㢟ࢆฎ⌮୰࡜࠸࠺ែᗘࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࠋ௬ㄝ㸰㸬ᙜヱᙧᘧ࡟ࠕ␲ၥୖ᪼ࠖࡢࠕࡡࠖࡣ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ  ⪺ࡁྲྀࡾㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪␲ၥୖ᪼ࡣホ౯࡟ࡤࡽࡘࡁࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋヰࡋᡭࡣ┿࡜☜ಙࡍࡿ࿨㢟࡟ࠕࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸪ࠕ☜ㄆせồࠖࡢ␲ၥୖ᪼ࡣඹ㉳ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀ㸪ูࡢⓎヰពᅗࢆ♧ࡍ㡢ㄪ࡜ࡋ࡚௒ᚋ౑⏝ࡀቑ࠼ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋ ࠕࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖࡣ⮬↛఍ヰ࡛㢖⏝ࡉࢀࡿᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ࡑࢀࡣࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡟ࡼࡾከᵝ࡞Ⓨヰពᅗࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࠺ࡿ᭷⏝࡞ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡣ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼ࡢࠕࡡࠖ࡜ࡢ㐪࠸ࡶྵࡵ㸪␲ၥୖ᪼ࡢࠕࡡࠖࡀఏ㐩ࡍࡿⓎヰពᅗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒ࣭⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ
ㅰ㎡㸸Ⓨ⾲ࡢ㝿࡟㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓㅖඛ⏕᪉࡟ᚰࡼࡾឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ࡞࠾㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡣ
JSPS ⛉◊㈝ 15K16736 ࡢຓᡂࢆ୍㒊ཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ὀ
1. ᮏ✏ࡢ⏝౛ࡣࡍ࡭࡚ྡ኱఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠿ࡽࡢᘬ⏝࡛࠶ࡿࠋF ࡣዪᛶ㸪Ⓨヰ୰࡟⌧ࢀࡿ㸦  㸧ࡣ┦ᡭࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆ♧ࡍࠋ⣬ᖜࡢ㛵ಀୖ㸪ᮏ㆟ㄽ࡟㛵ಀࡢ࡞࠸ゝ࠸ᾷࡳ㸪ゝ࠸㛫㐪࠸࡞࡝ࡣ๐㝖ࡋࡓࠋ
2. ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼ཬࡧᖹᆠࡢ㠀㛗࿧㸪㛗࿧ࡣ㸪஦๓࡟༡㛵ᮾฟ㌟ࡢẕㄒヰ⪅ 3 ྡ࡟ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ่⃭ᩥࢆ⪺࠿ࡏ㸪ࠕࡡࠖࢆࠕࡡࠖ
ࠕࡡ࠼ࠖࠕࡡ࣮ࠖࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࡜ุ᩿࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ࢆ౫㢗ࡋࡓࠋㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪㠀㛗࿧ࡣࡍ࡭࡚ࠕࡡࠖ㸪㛗࿧ࡣࠕࡡࠖ௨እ࡜ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡓࠋᚑࡗ࡚㸪ᮏ่⃭ᩥࡢ㛗࿧㸪㠀㛗࿧ࡣᐈほⓗ࡟༊ู࡛ࡁࡿ࡜
ุ᩿ࡋࡓࠋ㸺ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㸼
ⶈ἟᫛Ꮚ. 1992. ࠕ⤊ຓモࡢ」ྜᙧࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ᶵ⬟ࠖ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫࡘࡃࡤゝㄒᩥ໬ࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛ㸦⦅㸧  ࠗᑐ↷◊✲ ➨஧ྕ Ⓨヰ࣐࣮࣮࢝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࠘63-77.
ᕷᮧⴥᏊ. 2015. ࠕࠕࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖࡢⓎヰពᅗࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡜ࡣ㸽㸫Ⓨヰពᅗ࡜㡢ㄪ࡜ࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀ࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ㸭᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱◊✲࠘6, ࢥࢥฟ∧, 149-164.
ᕷᮧⴥᏊ࣭ᇼỤ⸅. 2014.ࠕ
ࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢఏ㐩᪉␎㸫ヰࡋゝⴥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢศᯒ࡟ᇶ࡙
࠸࡚ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 16 ᅇ኱఍Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍, 1-8.
Imai, K. 1998. Intonation and relevance. In:Carston, R, Uchida, S. (Eds) Relevansce Theory:Applications and
Implications. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 69-86.

Itani, R 1996 Semantics and Pragmatics of Hedges in English and Japanese, Hitsuzi Syobo, Tokyo.
ྡᔱ⩏┤. 2007. ࠗࣀࢲࡢព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟ 㸫㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸫㸦᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲ྀ᭩ 19㸧࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ⓑᕝ༤அ.1992.ࠕ⤊ຓモࠕࡼࠖࡢᶵ⬟ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘77,᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍, 36-48.
㎘ᮌ㟹Ꮚ. 2008. ࠕᮾிㄒࡢ⤊ຓモࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜ᶵ⬟ࡢᑐᛂ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸫ෆ┬࡟ࡼࡿ⪃ᐹ㸫ࠖࠗ㡢ኌゝㄒϭ࠘㏆␥㡢ኌゝㄒ◊✲఍, 5-28.
Wilson,D & Sperber,D. 1993. Linguistic Form and Relevance, Lingua 90, 1-25.
ྡ኱఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝ᇶ┙◊✲㸦B)㸦2)ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦㎡᭩⦅⧩࡟ྥࡅࡓ㟁Ꮚ໬ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ฼⏝࡟ࡼࡿࢥࣟࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ◊✲ࠖ㸦ᖹᡂ 13 ᖺᗘ~15 ᖺᗘࠊ◊✲௦⾲⪅㸸኱᭯⨾ᜨᏊ㸧ࡢ୍⎔࡜ࡋ࡚సᡂ

−16−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

ⱥㄒ Still ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࡢⓎ㐩ᒾ஭ ᜨ฼ዉ
㟷ᒣᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸭᪥ᮏᏛ⾡᣺⯆఍≉ู◊✲ဨerinaiwai72823@gmail.com< Abstract >This paper studies the development of the pragmatic (especially illocutionary1) functions of the English adverbial still,
adopting the approach of Diachronic Pragmatics (Diachronic Form-to-Function Mapping) (Jacobs and Jucker 1995). It
has been found that still has undergone the semantic-pragmatic change “Clause-internal Adverbial ‘quietly’ >Clause-internal Adverbial ‘till now/then’ > (Quasi-) Conjunction ‘nevertheless’ > Pragmatic Marker ‘nevertheless’ >Response Particle ‘even so’.”2 This paper suggests that in the course of this development, still has acquired particular
illocutionary forces (disagreement, refutation, etc.) and come to carry more illocutionary weight. Yet, as a response
particle, illocutionary “smoothing” occurs, which is also discussed in relation to “discursization” (Arnovick 1999).
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸ⱥㄒ๪モ stillࠊⓎㄒෆⓗᶵ⬟ࡢⓎ㐩ࠊㄯヰ໬ࠊព࿡ኚ㑄ࠊ㏻᫬ⓗㄒ⏝ㄽࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊṔྐㄒ⏝ㄽ㸦Historical Pragmatics㸧◊✲࡛࠶ࡿࠋṔྐㄒ⏝ㄽࡣࠊࡇࡇ⣙ 20 ᖺࡢ㛫࡟ゝㄒᏛࡢୗ఩ศ㔝࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀᡂ❧ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ◊✲㡿ᇦ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡣ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡿࠋ(1) Ṕྐㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳศ㢮 3 ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗࣇ࢕ࣟࣟࢪ࣮
Ṕྐㄒ⏝ㄽ(Pragmaphilology)(Historical Pragmatics)㏻᫬ⓗㄒ⏝ㄽ

ᙧᘧ̿ᶵ⬟ࡢᑐᛂ࡙ࡅ
(Diachronic Form-to-Function Mapping)(Diachronic Pragmatics)ᶵ⬟̿ᙧᘧࡢᑐᛂ࡙ࡅ
(Diachronic Function-to-Form Mapping)ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ㏻᫬ⓗㄒ⏝ㄽࡢࠕᙧᘧ̿ᶵ⬟ࡢᑐᛂ࡙ࡅࠖࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ◊✲࡛࠶ࡿࠋ≉ᐃࡢゝㄒᙧᘧ࡟ࡲࡎ╔┠ࡋࠊࡑࡢព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟ࡢ㏻᫬ⓗ࡞Ⓨ㐩ࢆㄪ࡭ࡿ 4ࠋ ᮏ✏ࡣࠊⱥㄒ๪モ still ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࠊ≉࡟Ⓨㄒෆⓗᶵ⬟㸦illocutionary function㸧ࡢⓎ㐩ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ◊✲࠿ࡽࠊstill ࡣ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨ㐩㐣⛬ࢆ⤒࡚ࡁࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
(2) ⱥㄒ๪モ still ࡢព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟ࡢⓎ㐩 ⠇ෆ๪モ 㸼 ⠇ෆ๪モ㸼 㸦␲ఝ㸧᥋⥆モ 㸼 ㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ 㸼 ᛂ⟅モ‘quietly’   ‘till now/then’   ‘nevertheless’ ‘nevertheless’  ‘even so’ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ≉࡟ࠊㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑㸦pragmatic marker㸧࡜ᛂ⟅モ㸦response particle㸧ࡢ 2 ࡘࡢẁ㝵ࡢ still ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศ
ᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ still ࡀࠊ
ࠕ୙㈶ྠ㸦disagreement㸧ࠖࡸࠕ཯ㄽ㸦refutation㸧ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠊᙜึ
ࡢ still㸦⠇ෆ๪モ͂quietly̓㸧ࡀᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓⓎㄒෆࡢຊࢆ⋓ᚓࡋࠊࡑࡢⓎㄒෆⓗᶵ⬟ࢆᙉࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᛂ⟅モ still ࡛ࡣࠊⓎㄒෆࡢຊࡀࠕᙅ໬㸦smoothing㸧ࠖࡋࡓ౑⏝ࡶほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࡢ⌧㇟࡜ Arnovick㸦1999㸧ࡀᥦၐࡍࡿࠕㄯヰ໬㸦discursization㸧ࠖ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ⪃ᐹࡍ
ࡿࠋ

1
−17−

英語Stillの語用論的機能の発達

ඛ⾜◊✲ ⱥㄒ๪モ still ࢆ㏻᫬ⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࡋࡓඛ⾜◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊKönig and Trangott㸦1982㸧ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ
(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ still ࡢព࿡Ⓨ㐩ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(3) Still ࡢព࿡ኚ㑄㸦König and Trangott 1982: 173㸹᪥ᮏㄒࡣ➹⪅ຍ➹㸧
OE 5
450-1100
stille“quietly”

ENE
1500-1700

ME
1100-1500

temporal durativeࠕ㟼࠿࡟ࠖ᫬㛫ⓗ⥅⥆ࠕࡲࡔࠖ

NE
1700-

concessiveㆡṌࠕࡔࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠖ

Ᏺᒇ㸦2007: 5-6㸧6 ࡶྠᵝࡢⓎ㐩ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᫬㛫ⓗ⥅⥆࠿ࡽㆡṌ 7 ࡬ࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࡣࠊᩥἲ໬ࡢ≉ᚩ࡜
ࡉࢀࡿ୺ほ໬㸦subjectification㸧㸦Traugott 1988㸹Traugott and Dasher 2005㸧࡟ྜ⮴ࡍࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ 8ࠋ ඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣ᫂♧ⓗ࡟㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡇࡢ still ࡢព࿡Ⓨ㐩ࡣࠊTraugott㸦1982, 1989: 31㸧ࡀ͆functionalsemantic model of language͇࡜⛠ࡋᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠊ(4)ࡢゝㄒࡢព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟ࡢⓎ㐩ࡢ୍᪉ྥᛶ࡟୍⮴ࡍࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ(4) propositional㹙࿨㢟ᶵ⬟(ព࿡)㹛 㸼 ( ( textual㹙㐃⤖ᶵ⬟(ព࿡)㹛) 㸼 (expressive㹙⾲ฟᶵ⬟(ព࿡)㹛) )ୖグ 3 ࡘࡢᶵ⬟ࡣࠊゝㄒࡢᇶᮏⓗ 3 ᶵ⬟㸦cf. Halliday and Hasan 1976㸹Silverstein1976㸧࡜࿧ࡤࢀࠊTraugott
㸦ibid.㸧ࡣࡑࢀࡽࡢ㛫࡟(4)ࡢⓎ㐩ࡢ᪉ྥᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋStill ࡣࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜͂quietly̓ࡸ᫬㛫ⓗ⥅⥆࡜࠸ࡗࡓᐈほⓗ࡞஦ᐇࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿ࿨㢟ᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊㆡṌࡢព࿡ࢆ⋓ᚓࡍࡿ࡜ࠊඛ⾜࿨㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡢ୺ほⓗែᗘࡸホ౯ࢆ⾲ࡍࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡾࠊ㐃⤖ᶵ⬟࡜⾲ฟᶵ⬟㸦㸻ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟㸹cf. Brinton 1996;
Onodera 2004; Traugott, 1989㸧ࢆᣢࡘࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣ still ࡢព࿡ኚ㑄ศᯒࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊstill ࡢⓎㄒෆⓗᶵ⬟ཬࡧࡑࡢⓎ㐩࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⟶ぢࡢ㝈ࡾ◊✲ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊጞࡵ࡟ Traugott (1982, 1989)ࡢࣔࢹࣝ࡟ࡶ࡜࡙
ࡁ still ࡢព࿡ศᯒࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࡑࡢᚋࠊⓎㄒෆⓗᶵ⬟࡜ࡑࡢⓎ㐩࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜࠺㸦4.㸧
ࠋࢹ࣮ࢱ ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊOxford English Dictionary online (OED online)ࠊCorpus of Historical American English (COHA)ࠊ
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA)ࠊBritish National Corpus (BNC)ࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢࢻ࣐ࣛ FRIENDS9࠿ࡽࡢ஦౛ศᯒ࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⣬ᖜࡢ㛵ಀୖࠊ4.࡛ࡣ COHA ࡜ FRIENDS ࠿ࡽࡢ஦౛ࢆྲྀࡾᣲࡆࡿࠋ
ᥦ᱌࡜ศᯒ
 (5)ࡢⅬ⥺ࡼࡾୖࡣࠊ(3)ࡢ König and Traugott㸦1982㸧࡟ࡼࡿศᯒ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࠿ࡽࠊstill ࡣࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ
Ⅼ⥺ୗ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨ㐩㐣⛬ࢆ⤒࡚ࡁࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
(5) Still ࡢព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟ࡢⓎ㐩
OE
450-1100
stille“quietly”

ME
1100-1500

NE
1700-

ENE
1500-1700
temporal durative
concessive⠇ෆ๪モ
㸼‘quietly’   ⠇ෆ๪モ  㸼 㸦␲ఝ㸧᥋⥆モ 㸼 ㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ 㸼 ᛂ⟅モ ‘till now/then’  ‘nevertheless’   ‘nevertheless’  ‘even so’  

2

−18−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

௨㝆ࠊㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑㸦pragmatic marker㸧still㸦4.1.㸧࡜ᛂ⟅モ㸦response particle㸧still㸦4.2.㸧ࡢศᯒࢆ⾜࠸ࠊstillࡢⓎㄒෆⓗᶵ⬟ࡢⓎ㐩ഴྥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚௨ୗࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ
࠙ᥦ᱌ࠚࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜‘quietly’ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿືモࢆಟ㣭ࡍࡿ⠇ෆ๪モ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ still ࡀࠊㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ࡸᛂ⟅モ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊᙜึᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓⓎㄒෆࡢຊ㸦illocutionary force㸧㸦ࠕ୙㈶ྠ㸦disagreement㸧ࠖࡸࠕ཯ㄽ㸦refutation㸧ࠖ࡞࡝㸧ࢆ⋓ᚓࡋࠊࡑࡢⓎㄒෆࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᙉࡵࡿࠋ
Ⓨㄒෆࡢᶵ⬟ࢆࠕᙉࡵࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡀࡸࡸᢳ㇟ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ(6)࡟♧ࡍࠊㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ still ࡢⓎㄒෆࡢᶵ⬟࠿ࡽᛂ⟅モ still ࡢⓎㄒෆࡢᶵ⬟࡬ࡢኚ໬ࢆᣦࡍ㸦ᛂ⟅モ still ࡜ࡣࠊᛂ⟅ࡢⓎヰ࡛༢⊂࡛⏕㉳ࡍ
ࡿ still ࡛࠶ࡿࠋヲࡋࡃࡣ 4.2.㸧
ࠋ(6) ㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ still ࠿ࡽᛂ⟅モ still ࡬ࡢⓎㄒෆࡢᶵ⬟ࡢࠕᙉࡲࡾࠖ
㸺ㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ ‘nevertheless’㸼㸺ᛂ⟅モ ‘even so’㸼

“Still ... she died of monoxide gas”

“Still.”㸦ࡑࢀ࡛ࡶ…ᙼዪࡣ୍㓟໬Ⅳ⣲࢞ࢫ࡛Ṛࢇࡔࡢ࡛ࡍ㸧㸦ࡑࢀ࡛ࡶࡼ㸧(1937 Ill Met By Moonlight [COHA])ऒोऊैକऒॊষನ॑
੒ં SURMHFW घॊ(2000 FRIENDS SEASON VII Episode 6)

more
Illocutionary
weightষನ॑ຄষ SHUIRUP घॊㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ still ࡣࠊⓎヰࡢෑ㢌࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊࡇࢀ࠿ࡽヰ⪅ࡀ⾜࠺⾜Ⅽࢆࠕண♧㸦project㸧ࠖࡍࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊᛂ
⟅モ still ࡣࠊᛂ⟅ࡢⓎヰ࡛༢⊂࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊࡑࢀ⮬యࡀ⾜Ⅽࢆࠕ㐙⾜㸦perform㸧ࠖࡍࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ still ࡜ᛂ⟅モ still ࡜࡛ࡣࠊᛂ⟅モ still ࡢ᪉ࡀ illocutionary weight ࡀቑࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࡇࡢኚ໬ࢆࠊ
ࠕⓎㄒෆࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᙉࡵࡿࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡍࡿࠋㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ Still ㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑㸦pragmatic marker㸧ࡣࠊඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ᐃ⩏ࡸ≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸦e.g. Brinton
1996㸹Fraser 1996㸹Traugott 1995㸧
ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ1.ࠕⓎヰ㢌࡟⌧ࢀࠊᚋ⥆㒊ศ࠿ࡽ㞳᥋ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ࠊ2.ࠕ≉ᚩⓗ࡞ࣉࣟࢯࢹ࢕࣮㸦≉࡟ rising-falling intonation㸧ࢆᣢࡘࠖ㸦㡢ኌࢹ࣮ࢱࡀ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢࡳ㸧ࡢ 2 ࡘࡢ≉ᚩࢆᣢࡘ still ࢆㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ still ࡜ᐃࡵࡿࠋ(7)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᅗᘧ໬࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

(7) ㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ still
Still , following partⓎヰ

 (8)࡛ࡣࠊLatham ࡜࠸࠺ዪᛶ㸦ᐇ⥺ࡢᘬ࠿ࢀࡓⓎヰ㸧࡜⏨ᛶ he㸦Ⅼ⥺ࡢᘬ࠿ࢀࡓⓎヰ㸧ࡀࠊSandra Gold࡜࠸࠺ዪᛶࡢṚᅉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

3

−19−

英語Stillの語用論的機能の発達(8)㸦1937 Leslie Ford, Ill Met By Moonlight [COHA]㸧
01 “I wanted to make sure that Sandra Gould died of carbon monoxide poisoning.”
02   He looked at me steadily. I waited.
03 “And she did. There’s no doubt of that.”04   I breathed deeply, almost without knowing that I’d been holding my breath while I waited.
05 “But that's not all, Mrs. Latham," he said quietly. "There's a bruise on the back of her head.
06   Only a slight abrasion, but the bruise is fairly extensive.”07 “Still ... she died of monoxide gas,” I said quickly.
08 “Her legs are scratched too,” he said, disregarding my interruption
01 ⾜┠࡛⏨ᛶࡣࠊSandra Gold ࡜࠸࠺ዪᛶࡢṚᅉࡀ୍㓟໬Ⅳ⣲୰ẘ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ Latham ࡟☜ㄆࢆồࡵࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ Latham ࡣࠊࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿ࡜☜ㄆࢆ୚࠼ࡿ㸦03 ⾜┠㸧ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ⏨ᛶࡣࠊSandra Gold ࡢ㢌ࡢ⿬࡟⑪ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୍㓟໬Ⅳ⣲୰ẘ௨እࡶṚᅉ࡟࡞ࡗࡓྍ⬟ᛶࢆッ࠼ࡿ㸦05-06 ⾜┠㸧ࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ Latham ࡣࠊ“Still ... she died of monoxide gas”㸦ࡑࢀ࡛ࡶࠊᙼዪࡣ୍㓟໬Ⅳ⣲࢞ࢫ࡛Ṛࢇࡔࡢ࡛ࡍ㸧㸦07 ⾜┠㸧࡜ᛂ࠼ࡿࠋ
 07 ⾜┠ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ still ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡲࡎࡣ functional-semantic model㸦Traugott 1982, 1989㸧࡟ࡶ࡜࡙ࡁศ
ᯒࡍࡿࠋStill ࡣ┤๓ࡢ⏨ᛶࡢⓎヰ㸦05-06 ⾜┠㸧ࢆㆡṌ㸦concede㸧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⏨ᛶࡢⓎヰࢆㆡṌඛ࡜ࡋ࡚ᣦ♧㸦refer㸧࣭๓᪉↷ᛂ㸦anophor㸧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ⤖᮰ᛶᙧᡂ࡟ᐤ୚ࡍࡿ㐃⤖ᶵ⬟
㸦textual function㸧ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊㆡṌࡢព࿡ࡣࠊLatham ࡢ⏨ᛶࡢⓎヰ࿨㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୺ほⓗែᗘࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡼ
ࡗ࡚⾲ฟᶵ⬟㸦expressive function㸧ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢ still ࡣࡉࡽ࡟ࠊヰ⪅ࡀࡇࢀ࠿ࡽ⾜࠺⾜Ⅽ㸦act, action㸧ࢆࠕண♧㸦project㸧ࠖࡍࡿⓎㄒෆⓗᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘࠋ
Latham ࡢ͆Still ... she died of monoxide gas,͇࡜࠸࠺ⓎヰࡣࠊSandra Gold ࡢṚᅉࡀࠊ㸦ᚋ㢌㒊࡟⑪ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋ
ࡓ㸧ᡴ᧞࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ࠶ࡃࡲ୍࡛㓟໬Ⅳ⣲࢞ࢫ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ⏨ᛶࡢⓎヰ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ཯ㄽ
㸦refutation㸧ࠖࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋStill ࡣⓎヰࡢෑ㢌࡛⏘ฟࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡇࢀ࠿ࡽ Latham ࡀࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞཯ㄽࢆ
⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆண♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢ㆟ㄽࡣࠊ(9)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᅗᘧ໬࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(9) ㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ still ࡢⓎㄒෆⓗᶵ⬟㸸⾜Ⅽண♧05-06 “But that's not all, Mrs. Latham, ͐ fairly extensive.”ඒన ੐ં‫؞‬৐্සૢ ٙ৴੥‫਀؞‬লਃચ      07 “Still ... she died of monoxide gas,”َખ૛ UHIXWDWLRQ ُ    ண♧

ᑠ㔝ᑎ
㸦2012: 33-40㸹2014: 18-20㸧
ࡀᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠊ
Ⓨヰ㢌࡟⌧ࢀࡿㄯヰᶆ㆑
㸦discourse
ࡇࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆண♧ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࡣࠊ
marker㸧ࡢᶵ⬟࡟୍⮴ࡍࡿ 10ࠋᑠ㔝ᑎ㸦2014: ibid.㸧ࡣࠊ౛ࢆⱥ᪥⊂࠿ࡽᣲࡆࠊⓎヰ㢌࡟ฟ⌧ࡍࡿㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡀࠕࡇࢀ࠿ࡽ㉳ࡇࡿヰࡋᡭࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆ▱ࡽࡏࡿࠖᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋLatham ࡢ still ࡣࠊㆡṌࡢព࿡ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿ࡜ඹ࡟ࠊ⾜Ⅽࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀࡇࢀ࠿ࡽ⾜࠺ࠕ཯ㄽࠖࢆ▱ࡽࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ 11ࠋᛂ⟅モ Still ⥆࠸࡚ࠊᛂ⟅モ㸦response particle㸧still ࢆぢࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᛂ⟅モ still ࢆࠊ1.ࠕᛂ⟅ࡢⓎヰ࡛༢⊂࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿࠖ࡜ࠊ2.ࠕ๓ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࠿ࡽࠊstill ࡢᚋ࡟┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㒊ศࡀ᥎ ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ 2 ࡘࡢ≉ᚩࢆᣢࡘࡶࡢ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᅗᘧ໬ࡍࡿ࡜(10)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

4

−20−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号(10) ᛂ⟅モ still
01
02
03 A: Utterance
04 B: Still ɌɌ㸦੄റऔोञ৏ਢ
৖ী㸧ٙ৐भ॥থॸ
ॡ५ॺऊै௓೾૭ચ

Ⓨヰ (11)࡛ࡣࠊ3 ேࡢዪᛶ Monica, Phoebe, Rachel ࡀ఍ヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㏆ࠎ⾜ࢃࢀࡿ Monica ࡢ⤖፧ᘧ࡛ࠊⰼ᎑
ࡢ௜ࡁῧ࠸ே㸦maid of honor㸧ࢆ Phoebe ࡜ Rachel ࡢ࡝ࡕࡽࡀࡸࡿ࠿ヰࡋྜࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(11)㸦1999 FRIENDS SEASON VII Episode 6㸧
01
02
03
04
05
06
07

Monica:Phoebe:Rachel:Phoebe:Monica:Well, um, I was thinking that we could come up with a system
where we trade off being maid of honor for each other.
Like, hypothetically, if Phoebe were mine==Yes! Oh.
Hypothetically.
Still.
If Phoebe were my made of honor, …

01-03 ⾜┠࡛ Monica ࡣࠊ⮬ศࡓࡕࡢ௜ࡁῧ࠸ேࢆ࠾஫࠸࡟ࢺ࣮ࣞࢻࡍࡿࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆࡘࡃࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿ
12
ࠋ03 ⾜┠ࡢ͆Like, hypothetically, if Phoebe were mine͇㸦௬࡟ࡶࡋ Phoebe ࡀ⚾ࡢ௜ࡁῧ࠸ேࡔࡗࡓࡽ㸧࡜࠸ࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ Rachel࠺ Monica ࡢⓎゝࢆ⪺ࡁࠊPhoebe ࡣࡍ࠿ࡉࡎ͆Yes! Oh.͇㸦ࡸࡗࡓ࣮㸟㸧࡜႐ࡪ㸦04 ⾜┠ 13㸧ࡣࠊ͆Hypothetically.͇㸦௬࡟ࡢヰࡼ㸧
㸦05 ⾜┠㸧࡜ Phoebe ࡟ὀពࡋࠊPhoebe ࡣ͆Still͇㸦ࡑࢀ࡛ࡶࡼ㸧㸦06 ⾜┠㸧࡜ᛂ⟅ࡍࡿࠋ
 06 ⾜┠ࡢ still ࡀᛂ⟅モ still ࡛࠶ࡿࠋStill ࡣࠊ┤๓ࡢ Rachel ࡢⓎヰࢆㆡṌࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡼࡗ࡚ඛฟࡢⓎヰ࿨㢟ࢆᣦ♧࣭๓᪉↷ᛂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ4.1.࡛ぢࡓㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ still ࡜ྠᵝࠊ㐃⤖ᶵ⬟࡜⾲ฟᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡋ
࠿ࡋࠊⓎㄒෆⓗᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ኱ࡁ࡞㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ still ࡣࠊࡇࢀ࠿ࡽヰ⪅ࡀ⾜࠺⾜Ⅽࢆண♧ࡋࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᛂ⟅モ still ࡣࠊࡑࢀ⮬యࡀ⾜Ⅽࢆࠕ㐙⾜㸦perform㸧
ࠖࡍࡿࠋPhoebe ࡣᛂ⟅モ still ࢆⓎヰࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ๓ࡢ⮬ศࡢ୺ᙇ㸦႐ࡧ㸧
㸦04 ⾜┠㸧ࢆࠕ㸦෌ᗘ㸧୺ᙇࡍࡿ࣭ゝ࠸ᙇࡿ㸦insist㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࡢࡣࠊstill ࢆ⪺ࡁࠊࡑࡢᚋ࡟┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᚋ⥆㒊ศࡀࠊ๓ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࠿ࡽ㸦04
⾜┠࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㸧᥎ ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡾࠊPhoebe ࡢ still ࡣࠊࡑࢀ༢⊂࡛ࠕ㸦෌ᗘ㸧୺ᙇࡍࡿ࣭
ゝ࠸ᙇࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜ࡋᚓࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢ㆟ㄽࡣࠊ(12)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾲ࡏࡿࠋ(12) ᛂ⟅モ still ࡢⓎㄒෆⓗᶵ⬟㸸⾜Ⅽ㐙⾜
04 Phoebe: =Yes! Oh.
05 Rachel: Hypothetically.
ඒన  06 Phoebe: Still Ɍ.
َ ગ২  ਌୑घॊ‫੉ؚ‬ः୑ॊ LQVLVW ُ 㐙⾜    

ࡇࡢ Still ࡢ⾜Ⅽ㐙⾜ࡣࡲࡓࠊstill ࡀⓎヰࡉࢀࡓᚋ࡟ Monica ࡀḟࡢⓎヰࢆ㛤ጞࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦07 ⾜┠㸧ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊPhoebe ࡢ still ࢆࠕ⾜Ⅽࡀ㐙⾜ࡉࢀࡓ༢఩ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࠊḟࡢⓎヰ㸦⾜Ⅽ㐙⾜㸧࡟⛣ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡶ࠺୍౛ぢࡿࠋ(13)࡛ࡣࠊDelia ࡜࠸࠺ዪᛶ㸦ᐇ⥺ࡢⓎヰ㸧࡜ࠊDelia ࢆ┠ⓗᆅࡲ࡛㌴࡛㏦ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⏨ᛶ he㸦Ⅼ⥺ࡢⓎヰ㸧ࡀ఍ヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

5−21−

英語Stillの語用論的機能の発達(13)㸦1993 David Eddings, The Shining Ones [COHA]㸧
01 “I believe I’ll get out here,” Delia said.
02 “What?” he said. Ile slowed.
03 “Here is where I think I'll get out.” He brought the van to a stop and looked at the church.
04   Two ladies in straw hats were weeding a patch of geraniums at the foot of the05   announcement board.
06 “But I thought you were going to Ashford,” he said. “This is not Ashford.”07 “Well, still,” she said, looping the handles of her tote bag over her shoulder. She opened08   the passenger door and said, “Thanks for the ride.”
01 ⾜┠࡛ࠊDelia ࡀ⏨ᛶ࡟͆I believe I’ll get out here͇㸦⚾ࡇࡇ࡛㝆ࡾࡲࡍ㸧࡜ゝ࠸ࠊ⏨ᛶࡀ͆What?͇
㸦࠼㸽㸧
㸦02 ⾜┠㸧࡜㏉ࡍࠋDelia ࡣ෌ࡧ͆Here is where I think I'll get out.͇
㸦ࡇࡇ࡛㝆ࡾࡼ࠺࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ㸧㸦03 ⾜┠㸧࡜୺ᙇࡋࠊ⏨ᛶࡣ Delia ࡀ Ashford ࡟⾜ࡃணᐃ࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࠿ࠊࡇࡇࡣ Ashford ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠊ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿ㸦06⾜┠㸧ࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ Delia ࡣࠊ͆Well, still͇㸦࠼࠼ࠊࡑࢀ࡛ࡶ࡛ࡍ㸧㸦07 ⾜┠㸧࡜ᛂ࠼ࡿࠋ
 Delia ࡢ still㸦07 ⾜┠㸧ࡣࠊࡑࢀࢆ⪺ࡁࠊࡑࡢᚋ࡟┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㒊ศࡀ Delia ࡢ๓ࡢⓎヰෆᐜ㸦03 ⾜┠͆Here is where I think I'll get out.͇
㸧࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡾ⏨ᛶࡣࠊDelia ࡀ⮬ศ࡟ᑐࡋࠕ
㸦෌ᗘ㸧୺ᙇࡍࡿࠊゝ࠸ᙇࡿ㸦insist㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡇࡢ still ࡢ⾜Ⅽ㐙⾜ࡣࡲࡓࠊstill ࡀⓎヰࡉࢀࡓᚋ࡟ Delia ࡀࢺ࣮ࢺࣂࢵࢢࢆ⫪࡟࠿ࡅ㌴ࡢࢻ࢔ࢆ㛤ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ㛫ࠊ⏨ᛶࡀ Still what?࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㉁ၥ
ࢆ⾜ࢃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡸࠊ
Delia ࡀࡑࡢᚋ
͆Thanks for the ride.͇㸦08 ⾜┠㸧࡜Ⓨヰࡋࠊࠕឤㅰࡍࡿ࣭࠾♩ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ
㸦thank㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ูࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡟⛣ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ⏨ᛶ࡜ Delia ࡢ୧⪅ࡀࠊstill ࢆࠕࡑࢀ⮬య࡛᏶⤖ࡋࡓᛂ⟅㸦⾜Ⅽ㸧
ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᛂ⟅モ Still ࡢⓎㄒෆࡢຊࡢᙅ໬ ௨ୖぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᛂ⟅モ still ࡣࡑࢀ⮬యࡀ⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜ࡋࠊ⾜Ⅽࢆண♧ࡍࡿㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ still ࡜ẚ࡭ࠊⓎㄒෆࡢᶵ⬟ࡀᙉࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᛂ⟅モ still ࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊⓎㄒෆࡢຊࡀࠕᙅ໬㸦smoothing㸧ࠖࡋࡓ౑⏝ࡶほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ(14)㸦2001 FRIENDS SEASON VIII Episode 14㸧
01 Ross: So, thanks so much for, for bringing her to the hospital.
02 Joey: Oh hey, don’t worry about it man. Don’t worry about it, no big deal.
03 Ross: Yeah but still, I mean it should’ve been me. I’m the dad.
 (14)ࡣࠊRoss ࡢᏊࢆዷፎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿዪᛶ㸦01 ⾜┠ࡢ her㸧ࢆ⑓㝔࡟㐃ࢀ࡚⾜ࡗࡓ Joey ࡜ࠊࡑࡇ࡬㥑ࡅࡘࡅࡓ
Ross ࡢ఍ヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋRoss ࡣ Joey ࡟࠾♩ࢆ㏙࡭㸦01 ⾜┠㸧ࠊJoey ࡣࠕẼ࡟ࡋ࡞࠸࡛ࠊ኱ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࠖ
㸦02 ⾜┠㸧࡜ᛂ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ Ross ࡣࠊ͆Yeah but still, I mean it should’ve been me. I’m the dad.͇
㸦࠶࠶ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡋ࡚ࡶࡔࡼࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊ൅ࡀࡍࡿ࡭ࡁࡔࡗࡓࡢ࡟ࠋ∗ぶ࡞ࢇࡔ࠿ࡽ㸧࡜㏉ࡍ㸦03 ⾜┠㸧ࠋ 03 ⾜┠ࡢ Ross ࡢᛂ⟅モ still ࡣࠊඛ࡟ぢࡓ(11)(13)ࡢᛂ⟅モ still ࡜኱ࡁࡃ 2 ࡘࡢⅬ࡛␗࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ(11)(13)
ࡢ still ࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࡢ࿨㢟㸦proposition㸧ࢆㆡṌඛ࡜ࡋ࡚ᣦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊRoss ࡢ still ࡣࠊJoey ࡀ
02 ⾜┠ࡢⓎヰࢆࠕゝࡗ࡚ࡃࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࠖ
ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠕゝ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ㸦speech act㸧14 ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
15ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊvan Dijk㸦1979, 1981㸧ࡢ࠸࠺㐃⤖モࡢࠕㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ౑⏝㸦pragmatic use㸧ࠖ㸦Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ㛫ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ16⾲ࡍ⏝ἲ㸧࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ㸦cf. Sweetser 1990㸹⁪⿬ 2015㸧 ࠋḟ࡟ࠊࡇࡢ still ࡣࠊᚋ⥆㒊ศࡢ┬␎ࡀၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋཝᐦ࡟ゝ࠼ࡤࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ Joey ࡣ still ࢆ⪺ࡁࠊࡑࡢᚋ࡟┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿෆᐜࡀఱ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࠊࡑࡢ᥎ㄽ
ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ still ࡣࡴࡋࢁࠊᬻᐃⓗ㸦provisional㸧࣭ᚋ᪉↷ᛂⓗ㸦cataphoric㸧࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆ
ᣢࡕࠊࡑࢀࡀⓎヰࡉࢀࡓ᫬ࠊヰ⪅ࡀࡑࢀࢆゝ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ලయⓗ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࡢ

6

−22−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

᫂☜໬㸦clarification㸧ࡀ⥆ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆணᮇࡉࡏࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ͆I mean it should’ve been me. I’m the dad͇ࡢ㒊ศࡀࡑࢀ࡟ᙜࡓࡿࠋStill ࡢᚋ࡟ヰ㡰ࡀ⥆ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆண♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊヰ㡰⥔ᣢ㸦turn-holding㸧ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸
࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊRoss ࡢ still ࡣࠊ(11)(13)ࡢ still ࡜ࡣᶵ⬟ⓗ࡟㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ๓ࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆᣦ♧㸦ㆡṌ㸧ࡍࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࢸࢡࢫࢺ㸦᫂☜໬㸧ࢆண♧ࡋࠊ㐃⤖ᶵ⬟ࡀᙉࡲࡗࡓ౑⏝࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡢ㠀༠ㄪⓗែᗘࡸࠊ㑇᠍ࡢឤ᝟ࢆᙉࡃ⾲ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⾲ฟᶵ⬟ࡶᙉࡲࡗࡓ౑⏝࡛࠶ࡿ 17ࠋ ࡔࡀࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࡀᙉ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊstill ࡢⓎㄒෆⓗᶵ⬟㸦⾜Ⅽ㐙⾜ࡢຊ㸧ࡣ㏫࡟ᙅࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋRoss ࡢ still ࡣࠊࡑࢀ⮬య࡛ࡣලయⓗ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ุ᩿ࡍࡿࡢࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠋࡇࢀ
ࡣࠊArnovick㸦1999㸧ࡢ࠸࠺ࠕㄯヰ໬㸦discursization㸧ࠖ࡟㢮ࡍࡿ⌧㇟࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋArnovick ࡣㄯヰ໬ࢆࠕⓎㄒෆࡢຊ㸦illocutionary force㸧ࡀᙅࡲࡾࠊ
㸦࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡸ఍ヰࡢ⤊஢࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㸧ㄯヰෆ࡛ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࡀᙉࡲࡿ㸦ࣁ࢖ࣛ࢖ࢺࡉࢀࡿ㸧ࣉࣟࢭࢫࠖ
㸦ibid.: 117㸧࡜ᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(14)ࡢ still ࡣࠊⓎㄒෆࡢຊࡀᙅ໬ࡋࠊ
ヰ⪅ࡢែᗘ⾲᫂ࡸヰ㡰⥔ᣢ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ௚ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࡀᙉ໬࣭ࣁ࢖ࣛ࢖ࢺࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊඛ㏙ࡢࡼ
࠺࡟ࠊࡇࡢ still ࡣ Joey ࡢࠕゝ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡑࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࢆࠕཷᐜࡋ࡞
࠸ࠖⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ(11)(13)ࡢ still ࡜ẚ࡭ࠊࡇࡢ still ࡢ⾜Ⅽ㐙⾜ຊ㸦ࡑࢀࡔࡅ࡛⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜ࡍࡿຊ㸧ࡣᙅࡲࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊㄯヰ໬ࡀ㉳ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ㄝ᫂ࡣ㐺ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ
࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒ๪モ still ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࠊ≉࡟Ⓨㄒෆⓗᶵ⬟ࡢⓎ㐩࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑
still ࡜ᛂ⟅モ still ࡣࠊᙜึືモࢆಟ㣭ࡍࡿ⠇ෆ๪モ still ࡀᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓⓎㄒෆࡢຊ㸦
ࠕ཯ㄽࠖ
࣭
ࠕ୙㈶ྠࠖ
࣭
ࠕ
㸦෌ᗘࡢ㸧୺ᙇ࣭ゝ࠸ᙇࡿࠖ㸧ࢆ⋓ᚓࡋࠊࡑࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᙉࡵࡿ㸦ㄒ⏝ㄽᶆ㆑ still ࡢ⾜Ⅽண♧Ѝᛂ⟅モ still ࡢ⾜Ⅽ㐙⾜㸧ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᛂ⟅モ still ࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊⓎㄒෆࡢຊࡀᙅ໬ࡋࠊែᗘ⾲᫂ࡸヰ㡰఩᫬࡜࠸ࡗࡓ
௚ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࡀࣁ࢖ࣛ࢖ࢺࡉࢀࡓ౑⏝ࡶほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ⤖ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊstill ࡢⓎㄒෆⓗᶵ⬟ࡢⓎ㐩ࢆ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᥦ᱌࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
 Ⓨㄒෆࡢຊࡢ⋓ᚓ 㸼 Ⓨㄒෆࡢᶵ⬟ࡢᙉ໬ 㸦㸼㸧 Ⓨㄒෆࡢຊࡢᙅ໬㸭௚ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࡢᙉ໬௒ᚋࡉࡽ࡞ࡿ஦౛ศᯒ࡜⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࡇࡢⓎ㐩ഴྥ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ドࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃணᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
 1.࡛㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㏻᫬ⓗㄒ⏝ㄽࡢᙧᘧ̿ᶵ⬟ࡢᑐᛂ࡙ࡅࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡣࠊゝㄒᙧᘧࡢព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟ࡢⓎ㐩ࢆぢࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᮏ✏ࡀ⾜ࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨㄒෆⓗᶵ⬟ࡢⓎ㐩ࢆศᯒࡋࡓ◊✲ࡣᑡ࡞࠸ࠋ≉ᐃࡢゝㄒᙧᘧࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨㄒෆⓗᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡕࠊࡑࢀࡀ᫬࡜࡜ࡶ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ኚ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡢゎ᫂࡟ࡶࡲࡓࡇࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡣ᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ

ὀ
1

Illocution㸦Ⓨㄒෆ⾜Ⅽ㸧ࡣࠊᮏ᮶ࠊⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ㸦speech act㸧㸦Austin 1962㸧ࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ 1 ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿
ࡋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕゝࢃࢀࡓࡇ࡜㸦what is said㸧ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡿ⾜Ⅽࠖࢆゝཬࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊ౽ᐅୖࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡤࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ
ࡣࠊⓎヰ⾜ⅭࡢⓎㄒෆ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡶࠊ࢚ࢫࣀ࣓ࢯࢻࣟࢪ࣮ࡸ఍ヰศᯒࡢゝ࠺⾜Ⅽ㸦action㸧࡜ࡶゝ࠼ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺
࡞⾜Ⅽ࡟㛵ࢃࡿᶵ⬟ࢆࠕⓎㄒෆⓗᶵ⬟㸦illocutionary function㸧ࠖ࡜ゝཬࡍࡿࠋ
2 ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ୍㈏ࡋ࡚ࠊ‘ ’ ࡣゝㄒᙧᘧࡢព࿡ࢆࠊ> ࡣᕥ࠿ࡽྑ࡬ኚ㑄ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ
3 ศ㢮ࡣ Jacobs and Jucker㸦1995㸧ࠊᅗࡢసᡂࡣ㧗⏣࣭᳝ྡ࣭ᑠ㔝ᑎ㸦2011: 21㸧࡟ࡼࡿࠋ
4 ࡇࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚௦⾲ⓗ࡞ࡢࡀࠊព࿡ኚ㑄◊✲ࡸࠊᩥἲ໬࣭୺ほ໬࣭㛫୺ほ໬ࡢ◊✲࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
5 OE: Old English㸦ྂⱥㄒ㸧ࠊME: Middle English㸦୰ⱥㄒ㸧
ࠊENE: Early New or Modern English㸦ึᮇ㏆௦ⱥㄒ㸧ࠊNE: New orModern English㸦㏆௦ⱥㄒ㸧ࠋ
6 Ᏺᒇ㸦2007㸧ࡣࠊᇼỤ⸅ඛ⏕ࡼࡾࡈ⤂௓࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓࠋᚚ♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ
7 Ᏺᒇ㸦2007㸧࡛ࡣࠕ㏫᥋ࠖ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
8 ௚ࠊMichaelis㸦1993: 227-231㸧࡛ࡣࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᙉ໬㸦pragmatic strengthening㸧㸦Traugott 1988㸧࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸ࡓ still ࡢ㏻᫬ⓗศᯒࡢព⩏ࡀゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
9 Friends ࡣࠊ1994 ᖺ࠿ࡽ 2004 ᖺ࡟࠿ࡅ࡚࢔࣓࡛ࣜ࢝ᨺ㏦ࡉࢀࡓࠊᙜ᫬⤯኱࡞ேẼࢆ༤ࡋࡓࢥ࣓ࢹ࢕࣮ࢻ࣐࡛ࣛ࠶ࡿࠋ
10 ๪モ still ࡣࠊㄯヰᶆ㆑࡜ࡶゝ࠼ࡿ㸦cf. Fraser 2010: 1㸹Levinson 1983: 87㸹ᯇᑿ࣭ᘅ℩࣭すᕝ㹙⦅㹛 2015: 47-52㸧ࠋ
11 ࡇࡢⅬࡣࠊFraser㸦1988, 1990, 1996㸧
ࠊLevinson㸦1983: 88㸧ࠊOnodera㸦2004: 17㸧
ࠊSchiffrin㸦1987㸧➼ࡶཧ↷ࠋ

7

−23−

英語Stillの語用論的機能の発達

12 Phoebe ࡜ Rachel ࡀ࡝ࡕࡽࡶ Monica ࡢ௜ࡁῧ࠸ேࢆࡸࡾࡓࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊMonica ࡣ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿ࢆ㑅࡭ࡎࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᥦ
᱌ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
13 03, 04 ⾜┠ࡢ = ࡣࠊⓎヰࡀ㛫㧥ධࢀࡎ࡟⥆࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ
14 ཝᐦ࡟ࡣࠊⓎㄒෆ⾜Ⅽ㸦illocutionary act㸧ࠋ
15 ୍ぢࠊ04 ⾜┠ࡢ͆no big deal͇ࢆᣦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡶぢ࠼ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊJoey ࡀዪᛶࢆ⑓㝔࡟㐃ࢀ࡚⾜ࡗ࡚ࡃࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ኱ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆRoss ࡀㄆࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊ
ࡇࡇ࡛ࡢRoss ࡢimplication ࡜ࡣྜ⮴ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ
16 van Dijk ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ౑⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍኱఍࡛ࡢⓎ⾲ᚋࠊ⁪⿬┿ேඛ⏕ࡼࡾࡈᣦ᦬࣭ࡈᩍ♧࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓࠋ㈗㔜࡞ࡈᣦ᦬࣭ࡈᩍ♧࡟ឤㅰࢆ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ
17 ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࡢ still ࡢ rising-falling ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡣࠊ(11)(13)ࡢ still ࡟ẚ࡭ࡼࡾᛴ࡞ୖࡀࡾୗࡀࡾ࡛Ⓨ㡢ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇ
ࡢⅬࡶ⾲ฟᶵ⬟ࡢᙉࡲࡾࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋㅰ㎡ ᮏ✏ࡢෆᐜࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 18 ᅇ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿ◊✲Ⓨ⾲࡟ࠊຍ➹࣭ಟṇࢆ᪋ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྖ఍ࢆᢸᙜࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡗ
ࡓ㕥ᮌග௦ඛ⏕ࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊ㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓ⏣୰ᘅ᫂ඛ⏕ࠊ∦᱒ᜤᘯඛ⏕ࠊ⁪ᾆ┿ேඛ⏕ࠊᇼỤ⸅ඛ⏕ࠊ኱ᇼኖኵ
ඛ⏕࡟ࠊࡇࡢሙࢆ೉ࡾ࡚ཌࡃᚚ♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ◊✲Ⓨ⾲‽ഛࡢẁ㝵࠿ࡽᮏ✏ᇳ➹࡟⮳ࡿࡲ࡛ࡢᑠ㔝ᑎ඾Ꮚඛ⏕ࡢ◊✲ࡈᣦᑟ࡞ࡋ࡟ࡣࠊᮏ◊✲ࡣᡂ❧ࡋᚓ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋᚰࡼࡾឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿḟ➨࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙜ↛ࡢࡇ࡜࡞ࡀࡽࠊᮏ✏࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୙ഛࡣ
ࡍ࡭࡚➹⪅࡟ᖐࡍࡿࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Claredon Press.
Arnovick, Leslie K. 1999. Diachronic Pragmatics: Seven Case Studies in English Illocutionary Development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fraser, Bruce. 1988. “Types of English Discourse Markers.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38, 19-33.
Fraser, Bruce. 1990. “An Approach to Discourse Markers.” Journal f pragmatics 14, 383-95.
Fraser, Bruce. 1996. “Pragmatic Markers.” Paper to appear in Pragmatics 6:2, 1996.
Fraser, Bruce. 2010. “The Sequencing of Contrastive Discourser Markers in English.” Paper to appear in the Baltic Jurnal of Language,
Literature, and Culture, 2010.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: London Group.
Jacobs, Andreas and Andreas H. Jucker. 1995. “The Historical Perspective in Pragmatics.” In Andreas H. Jucker (ed.) Historical Pragmatics.
Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 3-33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
König, Ekkehard and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1982. “Divergence and Apparent Convergence in the Development of Yet and Still.” In M.
McCaulay et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the English Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 170-179. Berkeley Linguistics
Society, Berkeley, CA.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ᯇᑿ ᩥᏊ࣭ᘅ℩ 㐀୕࣭すᕝ ┾⏤⨾ (⦅). 2015.ࠗⱥㄒㄯヰᶆ㆑⏝ἲ㎡඾࠘ᮾி㸸◊✲♫.
Michaelis, Laura A. 1993. “‘Continuity’ across Three Scalar Domains: The Polysemy of Adverbial Still.” Journal of Semantics 10, 193-237.
Ᏺᒇ ဴ἞. 2007.ࠕ⥅⥆┦ࢆ⾲ࡍ๪モࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡢ◊✲㸸ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ࣭ゝㄒ㢮ᆺㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠖࠊࠗ㔠ἑ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱Ꮫ㒊⣖せ㸦ேᩥ࣭♫఍⛉Ꮫ⦅㸧࠘ࠊ➨ 56 ྕࠊ1-12.
Onodera, Noriko O. 2004. Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic and Diachronic Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
ᑠ㔝ᑎ ඾Ꮚ. 2012.ࠕ
ࠗᕥ࡜ྑࡢ࿘㎶㒊㸦Left and Right Peripheries㸧࠘࡜ࠗ୺ほᛶ࣭㛫୺ほᛶ࠘࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࡣ㸽̾̾Ṕྐㄒ⏝ㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
⪃ᐹࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍ ➨ 15 ᅇ኱఍Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘ࠊ➨ 8 ྕࠊ33-40.
ᑠ㔝ᑎ ඾Ꮚ. 2014.ࠕㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡢᩥἲ໬ࢆࡵࡄࡿ㆟ㄽ࡜ࠗ࿘㎶㒊࠘࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉ࠖࠊ㔠Ỉ ᩄ࣭㧗⏣ ༤⾜࣭᳝ྡ ⨾ᬛ (⦅)ࠗṔྐㄒ⏝ㄽࡢୡ⏺࠘
ࠊ3-27ࠊᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. “Schifters, Linguistic Categories and Cultural Description.” In Basso K. M and H. A. Selby (eds.) Meaning in
Anthropology, 11-55. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
㧗⏣ ༤⾜࣭᳝ྡ ⨾ᬛ࣭ᑠ㔝ᑎ ඾Ꮚ (⦅). 2011.ࠗṔྐㄒ⏝ㄽධ㛛࠘ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
⁪ᾆ ┿ே. 2015.ࠕㄒ⏝ㄽࡀ࠿࠿ࢃࡿḟඖ࡜᪥ᮏㄒ̿ึࡵ࡟㛫୺ほᛶࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠊ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࠿㸽ࠖࠊຍ⸨ 㔜ᗈ (⦅)ࠗ᪥
ᮏㄒㄒ⏝ㄽࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛ࠘
ࠊ1-25ࠊᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. “From Propositional to Textual and Expressive Meanings: Same Semantic-Pragmatic Aspects ofGrammaticalization.” In Lehman Winfred P and Yakov Malkiel (eds.) Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, 245-271. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1988. “Pragmatic Strengthening and Grammaticalization.” In A. Jaisser et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourteenth
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 406-416. Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. “On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change.”
Language 65, 31-55.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. “The Role of Discourse Markers in a Theory of Grammaticalization.” Paper presented at the 12th International
Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, August 1995.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Richard B. Dasher. 2005. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Dijk, Teun A. 1979. “Pragmatic Connectives.” Journal of Pragmatics 3, 447-456.
van Dijk, Yeun A. 1981. Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton.
஦౛ฟ඾
Corpus of Historical American English㸦http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/㸧Bright, Kevin S. (producer), Marta Kauffman (producer), David Crane (producer), et al. 1999, 2001. FRIENDS [Drama]. United States: Warner
Bros.

8

−24−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ᵓᩥ஺᭰࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗせᅉࡢᙳ㡪࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⪃ᐹ̿᫬㛫⤒㐣ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ; ࡀ㏆࡙ࡃ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖࡢ᱁஺᭰࡟ࡘ࠸࡚̿ ኱⚄ 㞝୍㑻          ᪥ᮏᏛ⾡᣺⯆఍≉ู◊✲ဨ኱㜰኱Ꮫ㸺$EVWUDFW㸼This paper examines the conditions of alternation between the Japanese “X ga chikazuku” construction and “X
ni chikazuku” construction. It is sometimes said that the “X ni chikazuku” construction in Japanese is incorrectwhen it is used to refer to time passing. The author demonstrates, using examples of real discourse, that thetemporal “X ni chikazuku” construction can be valid and gives consideration to the construction’s semantic
features. The paper concludes by claiming that the “X ni chikazuku” construction becomes valid when it isused to focus attention on the state or actions of the speaker.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮᫬㛫⤒㐣ࠕ; ࡀ㏆࡙ࡃ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᵓᩥᵓᩥ஺᭰ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗせᅉࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡣࠊᏐ⩏ⓗ࡟ࡣ⛣ື࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠕ; ࡀ㏆࡙ࡃࠖ
࣭ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧ
ᘧ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗ࡟᫬㛫⤒㐣ࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ DE ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ
  D௙஦࡟㏣ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠺ࡕ࡟ࠊᏛ఍Ⓨ⾲ࡢ᪥ࡀ㏆࡙࠸࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
E╔ᐇ࡟‽ഛࢆᩚ࠼࡞ࡀࡽࠊᏛ఍Ⓨ⾲ࡢ᪥࡟㏆࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
ୖࡢྛ౛࡛ࡣࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠕᏛ఍Ⓨ⾲ࡢ᪥ࠖ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࡢ᫬㛫⤒㐣ࡢព࿡ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ ࠋᮏ✏ࡣࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࢆࠕ༢࡞ࡿ⾲⌧ᢏἲࡢၥ㢟࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃㄆ▱ⓗ࡞Ⴀࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ࡍࡿㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽⓗ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ほ࡟❧⬮ࡋࠊ D ࡸ E ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡣ✵㛫࡟㛵ࡍࡿᴫᛕࡀ᫬㛫࡟㛵ࡍࡿᴫᛕ࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ
࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᡂ❧ࡍࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜ぢࡿ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ  ㏻ࡾࡢ⾲⌧ࢆᵓᩥ஺᭰ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࠊ୧⪅࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢞᱁࣭ࢽ᱁ࡢ஺᭰᮲௳࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆヨࡳࡿࠋඛ⾜◊✲ࡢᴫほ࡜ၥ㢟ᥦ㉳ ၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿゝㄒ⌧㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᒣ᲍  ࡞࡝ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋᒣ᲍
 ࡣࠊࡇࡇ࡛ၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿ᫬㛫࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ྠ✀࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ D ࠾ࡼࡧ E ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥࡢᑐ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ㄽࡌࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊ E ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡢ⾲⌧࡟୙㐺ษᛶࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 Dࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫࡀࡔࢇࡔࢇ㏆࡙࠸࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
E"ࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫ࡟ࡔࢇࡔࢇ㏆࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
㸦ᒣ᲍㸧ᒣ᲍  ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࠕ᫬㛫ࢆ⛣ືࡍࡿᏑᅾ࡜ࡋ࡚๓ᬒ໬ࠖࡍࡿ D ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⾲⌧ࡣࠕ㐺

−25−

構文交替における語用論的要因の影響に関する考察―時間経過を表す「Xが近づく/Xに近づく」の格交替について―ษࠖ࡞ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ࠕ୺యࢆ⛣ືࡍࡿᏑᅾ࡜ࡋ࡚๓ᬒ໬ࠖࡍࡿ E ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⾲⌧ࡣࠕ㐺ษ࡞⾲⌧࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ
࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⌮⏤࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢሙྜࡣࠕᇶᮏⓗ࡟ヰ⪅㸦࡞࠸ࡋࡣㄆ▱୺య㸧ࡀၥ㢟ࡢ஦ែࡢ࡞࠿࡟⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢどⅬࢆᢞධࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ஦ែࡢෆഃ࠿ࡽ୺ほⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿどⅬᵓᡂࢆ࡜ࡿࠖࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕ୺య⮬㌟ࡀ⛣ືࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ஦ែࡣᐈほⓗ࡟ࡣᤊ࠼㞴࠸ࠖࡓࡵࠊ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᒣ᲍ཧ↷㸧ࠋ ☜࠿࡟ࠊ D ࡜ E ࡢྛᩥࢆ୪࡭࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ๓⪅ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀࡼࡾ⮬↛࡞⾲⌧࡟ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ➹⪅ࡢ┤ほ࡛ࡣࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡢ᫬㛫⾲⌧࡟ࡶ㐺ษ࡞౛ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࠊࡲࡓࠊᐇ㝿࡟ :(%ୖ࡛ࡣࠊ౛࡜ࡋ࡚  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡢᩥࡀᩓぢࡉࢀࡿࠋ
  Dࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫࡗ࡚ᙜ᪥ࡔࡅࡀᴦࡋ࠸ࢇࡌࡷ࡞ࡃࡗ࡚ࠊࡇ࠺ࡸࡗ࡚ࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࡎࡘࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫ
࡟㏆࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡃẖ᪥ࢆᴦࡋࡴࡶࡢ࡞ࢇࡔࠋ
㸦KWWSFLQTWRN\RMSFDWHJRU\HYHQWSDJH㸧E‽ഛࢆࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫ࡟㏆࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ࢻ࢟ࢻ࢟ࡋࡓឤࡌࡶఏࢃࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ
ࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫ๓࡟Ꮚ౪࡟ᑡࡋࡎࡘㄞࢇ࡛࠶ࡆࡿࡢࡶ࠾ࡍࡍࡵࠋ
㸦KWWSDOODERXWFRMSJPJF㸧ࡶࡗ࡜ࡶࠊ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡢ᫬㛫⾲⌧ࡣࠕ; ࡀ㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡢ⾲⌧࡟ẚ࡭ࡿ࡜ぢࡘ࠿ࡾ࡟ࡃࡃࠊ┦ᑐⓗ࡟㢖ᗘࡀప࠸⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ஦ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊୖグࡢ౛ࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊᒣ᲍  ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖࡢ୙㐺ษᛶࡣࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶጇᙜ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ྍ⬟ᛶࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
 ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᒣ᲍  ࡢ͆᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ୺య⮬㌟ࡀ⛣ືࡍࡿ஦ែࢆᐈほⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸ࡓࡵࠕ;࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖࡀ୙㐺ษ࡟࡞ࡿ͇࡜࠸࠺ㄝ᫂࡟ࡶ␲ၥࡀឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢぢ᪉ࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿ࡞ࡽࠊ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛࡟ㄝ᫂ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⛣ື⾲⌧ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚☜ㄆࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
  Dࡣࡌࡵ࡚ᩜᆅࢆぢ࡟࠸ࡃ࡜ࡁࠊࡑࡢሙᡤ࡟㏆࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡃ࡟ࡘࢀ࡚ࠊ࡝ࡁ࡝ࡁࡍࡿࠋ      KWWSZZZVHWVXNRVDNDNLEDUDFRP Eࡇࡇࡲ࡛Ṍ࠸࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊ఍ሙ࡟㏆࡙ࡃ࡟ࡘࢀ࡚Ẽᣢࡕࡀධࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ⥭ᙇࡋࡍࡂ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺
࡟㡹ᙇࡾࡓ࠸ࠋ KWWSPDLQLFKLMSDUWLFOHVGGONF 
 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୺యࡣ⛣ືࡍࡿ⮬㌟ࡢጼࢆࠕᐈほⓗࠖ࡞どⅬ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࡿ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࡀࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢ⾲⌧ࡣၥ㢟࡞ࡃゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡢ⾲⌧ࡢ୙㐺ษᛶࢆࠕどⅬᵓᡂࠖࡢၥ㢟࡟ᖐࡍࡿ⪃࠼᪉࡟ࡶၥ㢟ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᒣ᲍  ࡟ࡣࠊゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢ㐺ษᛶุ᩿࠾ࡼࡧゝㄒࡢᡂ❧ᇶ┙࡟㛵ࡍࡿぢ᪉࡟෌⪃ࡢవᆅࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ௨ୗ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡲࡎࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡢ᫬㛫⾲⌧ࡢᐇ౛ࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢ⾲⌧ࡶ᮲௳ḟ➨࡛ࡣ㐺ษ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡑࡢ࠺࠼࡛ࠊḟ࡟ࠊ࠸࠿࡞ࡿሙྜ࡟ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡢ᫬㛫⾲⌧ࡀ㐺ษ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊࠕ; ࡀ㏆࡙ࡃࠖ࡜ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖࡢ஺᭰᮲௳࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡢ᫬㛫⾲⌧ࡢᐇ౛࡜≉ᚩ

−26−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

ᙜ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧ࡛᫬㛫⤒㐣࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᐇ౛ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ౛ᩥࡢ
཰㞟᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡲࡎࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡢᩥ඲⯡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ *RRJOH ᳨⣴ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࡑࡢ࠺ࡕ᫬㛫⤒㐣࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ౛ࡢᏑᅾࢆᴫほⓗ࡟☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࢆ㏻ࡌࠊ; ࡢ㡯࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ㄒᙡ㡯┠ࢆᢳฟࡋࠊḟ࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆ ; ࡢ㡯࡟⨨ࡃᩥࢆ෌᳨⣴ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡇࡢᙧᘧ࡟ࡼࡿ᫬㛫⤒㐣ࡢព࿡ࡢᩥࡢᐇ౛ࢆ
཰㞟ࡋࡓࠋ௨ୗ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ; ࡢ㡯࡟⨨࠿ࢀࡿ஦᯶ࢆ኱ࡲ࠿࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡘࡘࠊ஦౛ࢆᩚ⌮ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎ㸯ࡘࡵࡢ஦౛࡟ᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࡢࡀࠊ>;@ࡢ㡯࡟ࠕ⤖፧ᘧࠖ࡜࠸࠺せ⣲ࢆ⨨ࡃ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
 D⤖፧ᘧ࡟㏆࡙ࡃ࡟ࡘࢀ࡚⫙ࡀ᫂ࡿࡃ࡞ࡾᬑẁࡢ໬⢝ࡢࡾࡶ㐪࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ
 㸦KWWSZZZHOHPRUHMSRNLQDZDEULGDO㸧Eࣈࣛ࢖ࢲ࢚ࣝࢫࢸ࡟㏻ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᬑẁࡢ࢚ࢫࢸ࡜ࡣ㐪࠸ࠊẖᅇ⤊ࢃࡿࡈ࡜࡟⤖፧ᘧ࡟㏆࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᐇឤࡶ⏕ࡲࢀ่⃭࡟ࡶ࡞ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋ
㸦KWWSVZZZHEULGDOHVWKHFRPLQIRPHVVDJHKWPO㸧F⤖፧ᘧ࡟㏆࡙ࡃ࡟ࡘࢀቑ࠼࡚ࡁࡓࢤࢫࢺ࡜ࡢ㣧ࡳ఍ࠋ཭ேࡸྠ൉࡞ࡽࡲࡔࡋࡶࡲࡉ࠿ୖྖ
࡜ࢧࢩ࡛㣧ࡴࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࡣᛮࢃࡎࠋ
㸦KWWSVWZLWWHUFRPDNRKHBVWDWXV㸧 ࡛ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊ⤖፧ᘧ࡟ྥࡅ࡚⾲⌧୺యࡀ⤒㦂ࡍࡿ᫬㛫⤒㐣ࡢព࿡ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ  ࡘࡵࡢ஦౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕฟ⏘࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧ࡟ࡼࡿ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡶࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢ᫬㛫⾲⌧ࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
 Dዷፎࡋ࡚ฟ⏘࡟㏆࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡃ࡟ࡘࢀ࡚ฟ⏘ࡢࡓࡵ࡟⏘㐨࿘㎶ࢆᰂࡽ࠿ࡃࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ࣍ࣝࣔ
ࣥࡀศἪࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡲࡍࠋ 㸦KWWSRVKLHWHJRRQHMSTDKWPO㸧
Eࡔࢇࡔࢇ࡜ฟ⏘࡟㏆࡙࠸࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮ࠺࡜ࠊ࣡ࢡ࣡ࢡឤ࡜③ࡳ࡬ࡢᜍᛧࡀࡇࡳୖࡆ࡚ࡁ
ࡲࡍࠋ㸦KWWSVFRRNSDGEDE\MSWDONWRSLFGHWDLO㸧
Fฟ⏘࡟㏆࡙ࡃ࡟ࡘࢀࠊ୙Ᏻࡸᛧࡉࡀฟ࡚ࡁࡲࡍࡼࡡࠋ
㸦KWWSDPHEORMSORNDKLKHDOLQJHQWU\KWPO㸧 ࡢྛ౛ᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ>;@ࡢ㡯࡟⨨࠿ࢀࡓฟ⏘࡜࠸࠺஦᯶࡟ྥࡅ࡚୺యࡀ᫬㛫ࢆ㐣ࡈࡍᵝᏊࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ  ࡘࡵ࡟ࠊ>;@ࡢ㡯࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ⾜஦࡞࡝ࢆ⾲ࡍせ⣲ࢆ⨨ࡃ஦౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ   D࠸ࡼ࠸ࡼయ⫱⚍࡟㏆࡙࠸࡚ࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋ⚾ࡢࢡࣛࢫࡣ௒ࡢ࡜ࡇࢁ᭱㧗グ㘓ࢆฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛
Ἔ᩿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡽࡋࡃ⦎⩦ࡀ࠺ࡲࡃ࠸ࡗ࡚࡞࠸࡛ࡍࠋ
 㸦KWWS\DSORJMSSRPSRPSRZDQDUFKLYH㸧
Eࡦ࡜ࡾࡦ࡜ࡾࡢṌࡳ࡛ࡳࢇ࡞࡛ᩥ໬⚍࡟㏆࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡁࡲࡋࡻ࠺ࠋ⤊ࢃࡗࡓ࡜ࡁࠊᑡࡋᡂ㛗ࡋࡓ⾲᝟࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡳࢇ࡞࡟఍࠼ࡿࡢࡀᴦࡋࡳ࡛ࡍࠋ
  㸦KWWSZZZQDJDQRFHGMSZDND\RXVHLWRQRNDWXGRXKWPO㸧−27−

構文交替における語用論的要因の影響に関する考察―時間経過を表す「Xが近づく/Xに近づく」の格交替について―F㑅ᡭ୍ேࡦ࡜ࡾࡀࠊヨྜ࡟㏆࡙ࡃ࡟ࡘࢀ࡚ඃ຾ࡋࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺⇕࠸ᛮ࠸࡛⦎⩦ฟ᮶࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
ᛮ࠺ࡢ࡛ࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡶࡇࡢ⇕࠸Ẽᣢࡕ࡛ᖖ࡟⦎⩦ࡋ࡚ࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋ
㸦KWWSZZZWRNDLVHDJXOOVFRP,QWHUYLHZBKWPO㸧 ࡢྛ౛࡛ࡣࠊయ⫱⚍࣭ᩥ໬⚍࣭ヨྜ࡞࡝ࢆ┠ࡀࡅ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿ≉ᐃࡢಶேࡸ㞟ᅋࡀ᫬㛫ࢆ㐣ࡈࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ ࡉࡽ࡟  ࡘࡵࡢ஦౛࡟ࠊヨ㦂࡞࡝ࡢ᪥࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࡢ᫬㛫⤒㐣ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ   D࡝ࢇ࡝ࢇཷ㦂᪥࡟㏆࡙࠸࡚↔ࡿẼᣢࡕࡀ࡛͐ࡶࡇࡇࡲ࡛᮶ࡓࡽ↔ࡗ࡚࡚ࡶࡋࡻ࠺ࡀ࡞࠸ࡼࡡࠋ 㸦KWWSWRIRPHWDJ(%$(&$&(((%&(㸧E⚾❧ධヨ࡟㏆࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡃ࡯࡝ࠊ⮬ศ࡛ࡶࣆࣜࣆࣜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆࡍࡈࡃឤࡌࡲࡋࡓࠋ
 㸦KWWSDPHEORMS\RXNREHWVXHQWU\KWPO㸧F᪂ᖺᗘ࡟ࡣࠕࡲࡔ  ᖺ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ᝆ㛗࡟ᵓ࠼࡚࠸ࡓཷ㦂⏕ࡶࠊ᪥୍᪥࡜ヨ㦂᪥࡟㏆࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡃ࡟ࡘࢀࠊ࠶ࡏࡾࡀᙉࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
㸦KWWSDOODERXWFRMSJPJF㸧ࡇࢀࡽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊཷ㦂᪥࣭ධヨ࣭ヨ㦂᪥ࢆព㆑ࡋ࡚ࡢ᫬㛫⤒㐣ࡢព࿡ࡀゝ࠸⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ ࡘࡵࡢ஦౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢᘧ඾࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᫬㛫⤒㐣࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡶࠊၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿ᫬㛫⾲⌧ࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ   D๓ࡲ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ୰Ꮫ࡞ࢇ࡚ᛧࡀࡗ࡚ࡓࡽ㧗ᰯࡶ఍♫࡟ࡶ⾜ࡅ࡞࠸ࡌࡷࢇ"ࡤ࠿ࡳࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜࠿࠸
ࡗ࡚ពᆅᙇࡗ࡚ࡓࢇ࡛ࡍࡀࠊධᏛᘧ࡟㏆࡙࠸࡚ࡃࡿ࡜ࡸࡗࡥᛧ࠸͐ࠋ
 㸦KWWSGHWDLOFKLHEXNXUR\DKRRFRMSTDTXHVWLRQBGHWDLOT㸧
E㧗ᰯ୕ᖺ㛫ࡣࢡࣛࢫࡢ཭ே࡟ᮏᙜ࡟ᜨࡲࢀࡓࠋዪᏊࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ⏨Ꮚࡶྵࡵ࡚ࠋࡔ࠿ࡽࠊ
ࡇࡑࠊ༞ᴗᘧ࡟㏆࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡃᗘ࡟Ἵࡁࡑ࠺ࡔࡗࡓࠋ 㸦KWWSVWRU\VMSVWRU\㸧F ᭶  ᪥ Ỉ ࡟  ᖺᗘ᪂༞⪅㸲ྡࢆ㏄࠼࡚ධ♫ᘧࢆ⾜࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋጞࡲࡿ๓ࡣ࿴Ẽ࠶࠸࠶࠸࡜ࡋࡓ㞺ᅖẼ࡛ࡋࡓࡀࠊ㛤ᘧ࡟㏆࡙ࡃ࡟ࡘࢀ⥭ᙇឤࡀ㧗ࡲࡾࠊ┿๢࡞㠃ᣢࡕ࡛ᘧࢆ㏄࠼ࡲࡋࡓࠋ 㸦KWWSZZZRULHQWDOIRRGVMSWRSLFLQGH[SKS"F 㸧 ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀධᏛᘧ࣭༞ᴗᘧ࣭ධ♫ᘧࡢ㛤ᘧ࡟ྥࡅ࡚᫬㛫ࡀ㐣ࡂࡿ≧ἣࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ:(% ୖ࡛ࡣࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖࡢᙧᘧ࡛᫬㛫⤒㐣ࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ⾲⌧ࡀᵝࠎ࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡢ୙㐺ษᛶࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡍࡿᒣ᲍ ࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ࡣぢ┤ࡋࡀᚲせ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋ➨  ⠇࡛ࡶ㏙࡭ࡓ㏻ࡾࠊ  ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡢ᫬㛫⾲⌧ࡣࠊࠕ; ࡀ㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧ࡟ẚ࡭ࡿ࡜ᑡᩘὴ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ
ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧ
ᘧࡢ᫬㛫⾲⌧ࡣࠊ᮲௳ḟ➨࡛ࡣ㐺ษ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ᙉ࠸ไ⣙ࢆక࠺⾲⌧࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛
ࡁࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢ⾲⌧ࡀ㐺ษ࡜࡞ࡿ᮲௳࡜ࡣ࠸࠿࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ ୖグࡢၥ㢟ࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡢ≉ᚩⓗ࡞ഴྥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡁ
ࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡎࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢ⾲⌧࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢ౑⏝ᇦ࡟≉ᚩᛶࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛ࡣ 7ZLWWHUࠊ

−28−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号)DFHERRNࠊࣈࣟࢢࠊ㉁ၥࢧ࢖ࢺ࡛ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡞࡝ࠊẚ㍑ⓗ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐࡛ࣝࠊ⚾ⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࡀᙉࡃࠊཱྀㄒ
ⓗ࡞⾲⌧ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ፹య࡛ࡢ౑⏝ࡀከ࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢ⾲⌧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⤖፧ࡸฟ⏘࡞࡝ࡢಶேⓗᛶ㉁ࡢᙉ࠸ၥ㢟ࡸࠊᏛᰯ⾜஦ࠊヨ㦂ࠊᘧ඾࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠊ≉ᐃⓗ࡞ಶே࠾ࡼࡧ㞟ᅋ࡟ࡲࡘࢃࡿ஦᯶࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ஦ែࢆ⤒㦂ࡍࡿ୺యࡀ᫬㛫ࡢ⤒㐣࡟కࡗ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ែ࡟࠶ࡿ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆゝ࠸⾲ࡍࡶࡢࡀ඾ᆺⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋ௨ୖࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖ
ࡢᙧᘧ࡟ࡼࡿ᫬㛫⾲⌧ࡣࠊ⚾ⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࡢᙉ࠸ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ≉ᐃⓗ࡞ಶே࠾ࡼࡧ㞟ᅋࡢ≧ែ࡟
ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿࡼ࠺࡞㝿࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍࡃࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚㐺ษ࡟⏝࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞
࠸࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺௬ᐃࡀ❧࡚ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢぢ᪉ࢆ๓ᥦ࡟ࠊḟ⠇࡛ࡣࡑࡢጇᙜᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚  ࡘࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ᳨ウࡋࠊࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡢ᫬㛫⾲⌧ࡢ㐺ษᛶ᮲௳࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᥦ᱌ࢆヨࡳࡿࠋࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧ࡟ࡼࡿ᫬㛫⾲⌧ࡢ㐺ษᛶ᮲௳ࡢ᳨ウⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ 0RYLQJ7LPH ࡜ 0RYLQJ(JR ࡢ㐪࠸࡟㛵ࡍࡿゝཬ࠿ࡽ ᮏ✏ࡀၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿࠕ; ࡀ㏆࡙ࡃࠖ࠾ࡼࡧࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖࡢᙧᘧ࡟ࡼࡿ᫬㛫⾲⌧ࡣࠊᙧᘧⓗ࡟ࡣⱥㄒ࡟࠾
ࡅࡿ 0RYLQJ7LPH ࠾ࡼࡧ 0RYLQJ(JR ࡢ  ㏻ࡾࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ ࠋࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖ
ᙧᘧࡀ㐺ษ࡜࡞ࡿ᮲௳ࡢ᳨ウ࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊࡲࡎࡣࡑࡢព࿡ⓗ≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ぢ㏻ࡋࢆᚓࡿࡓࡵࠊ5DGGHQ
 ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒࡢ 0RYLQJ7LPH ࡜ 0RYLQJ(JR ࡢព࿡ⓗᑐẚ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ཧ↷ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
 5DGGHQ  ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ͆:HKDYHHQWHUHGWKH1HZ<HDU͇㸦0RYLQJ(JR ࡢ౛㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
᫬㛫࢖࣋ࣥࢺ࡟క࠺࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗព࿡ࢆ͆7KH1HZ<HDUKDVDUULYHG͇
㸦0RYLQJ7LPH ࡢ౛㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ
ࡢࡑࢀ࡜ᑐᛂࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋࡓ࠺࠼࡛ࠊୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡞  ㏻ࡾࡢᩥࡣࠕ୧⪅࡜ࡶ⌧ᅾ᫬࡟࠾ࡅࡿ฿㐩ࡢព࿡
ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠖࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕ0RYLQJ(JR ࡢ᪉࡛ࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡞᫬㛫ࡢ฿㐩ࡀಶேⓗ࡞ព࿡࡛ࡢ฿㐩࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ぢ᪉ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛࠸࠺ 0RYLQJ(JR ࡜ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖࡢᙧᘧ࡜ࠊ
ࡲࡓ 0RYLQJ7LPH ࡜ࡣࠕ; ࡀ㏆࡙ࡃࠖࡢᙧᘧ࡜ᑐᛂࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ 5DGGHQ  ࡢぢ᪉ࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧ࡟ࡣ⚾ⓗ⤒㦂ࡢᥥ෗࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ᫬㛫⤒㐣ࡢព࿡ࡀᢸࢃࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ5DGGHQ  ࡢゝཬࡣࠊ➨  ⠇࡟♧ࡋࡓ௬ㄝⓗぢ᪉ࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ⌮ㄽⓗ࡟ᨭᣢࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧ࡟ࡼࡿ᫬㛫⾲⌧ࡢᩥ⬦ⓗ≉ᚩ࠿ࡽ ḟ࡟ࠊ᫬㛫⤒㐣ࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡢᩥ⬦࡟┠ࢆྥࡅࠊࡇࡇ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺⠇࡜ࢼ࢞ࣛ⠇࡜ࡢᑐᛂᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚☜ㄆࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊࡇࡇ࡛ཧ↷ࡋࡓ࠸ࡢࡀ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
 D‽ഛࢆࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫ࡟㏆࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ࢻ࢟ࢻ࢟ࡋࡓឤࡌࡶఏࢃࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ
ࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫ๓࡟Ꮚ౪࡟ᑡࡋࡎࡘㄞࢇ࡛࠶ࡆࡿࡢࡶ࠾ࡍࡍࡵࠋ㸦෌ᥖ D 㸧E⾤ࢆ㩭ࡸ࠿࡟ᙬࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫࡀ㏆࡙࠸࡚ࡃࡿࠋ
F ‽ഛࢆࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫࡀ㏆࡙࠸࡚ࡃࡿࠋ
D ࡛ࡣࠊ஦ែࡢ⤒㦂୺యࡀࠕ‽ഛࠖࢆࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࡢ᫬㛫ࢆ㐣ࡈࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚

−29−

構文交替における語用論的要因の影響に関する考察―時間経過を表す「Xが近づく/Xに近づく」の格交替について―࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ E ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ͆ࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫࡢ᥋㏆͇ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᫬㛫⤒㐣ࡢព࿡ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫࡢ᫬㛫ⓗ᥋㏆ࡀ⾤ࡢᵝᏊࡢኚ໬ࡢዎᶵ࡜ࡋ࡚ാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ㐺ษ࡞ᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ F ࡢᩥ࡟ࡣ୙⮬↛ࡉࡀឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ⌮⏤࡜࡞ࡿࡢࡀࠊ F ࡛ࡣ୺⠇ࡢືస୺య࡜ࢼ࢞ࣛ⠇ࡢືస୺య࡟୙୍⮴ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕ; ࡀ㏆࡙ࡃࠖ࡜ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖࡣඹ࡟ࢼ࢞ࣛ⠇ࡢඹ㉳ࢆチᐜࡍࡿࡀࠊࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧ࡟ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࢼ࢞ࣛ⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୺⠇࡟㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿ஦ែࡢ⤒㦂୺యࡢάືࡸ
≧ែ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ஦᯶ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࡶࡗ࡜ࡶࠊୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒⓗࡩࡿࡲ࠸⮬యࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁࡜ࡋ࡚⮬᫂ࡢࡇ࡜࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡀࠊ
ࡇࡢ≉ᚩ࠿ࡽࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡀ஦ែࡢ⤒㦂୺య࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚࡚⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
ࡉࡽ࡟⿬௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡢព࿡ⓗᛶ㉁࡟㛵ࡍࡿᮏ✏ࡢ௬ᐃ࡟ጇᙜᛶࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᒣ᲍  ࡀ㐺ษ࡞⾲⌧࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡍࡿ E ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡢ୙⮬↛ࡉࡶࠊࡇࡢ౛ࡀ≉ᐃⓗ࡞୺యࡢάື࣭≧ែ࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿᩥ⬦ࢆకࢃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࠕ㏆࡙ࡃࠖ௨እࡢືモ࡟ࡼࡿ⾲⌧ ࡇࡇࡲ࡛ࡣࠕ㏆࡙ࡃࠖ࡜࠸࠺ືモ࡟ࡼࡿᩥࡢࡳࢆᑐ㇟࡟᳨ウࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊࡇࢀ࡟ຍ࠼ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠕ
㸦;࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚㸧Ṍࡴ㉮ࡿ㐍ࡴࠖࡢᙧᘧࢆ࡜ࡿ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ  D⚾ࡣ࠾ࡩࡓࡾ࡜ࡈ୧ᐙࡢ୍␒㏆ࡃ࡛ ୍⥴࡟‽ഛ࠿ࡽ㛗࠸᫬㛫Ṍࢇ࡛࠸ࡁࡲࡍ ↔ࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࡩࡓࡾࡢ࣮࣌ࢫ࡛ ୍⥴࡟ᖾࡏ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚Ṍࢇ࡛࠸ࡁࡲࡋࡻ࠺    㸦KWWSZZZFUHYHWWHQDJR\DQHWVWDIIVWDIIBQDJDQDZDKWPO㸧
E࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ࣏࢖ࣥࢺࢆࡋࡗ࠿ࡾ࡜ᢕᥱࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⤖፧࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚Ṍࢇ࡛࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᮏᙜ࡟࠾
஫࠸࡟ᖾࡏ࡞⤖፧ࡀ࡛ࡁࡲࡍ 㸦KWWSIRUWXQDWHORYHQHWNHNNRQ㸧 D⚾ࡶ᥎⸀࡛኱Ꮫ࡟ධࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࠊ㸲ᖺ๓ࡢ௒ࡈࢁࡣࢻ࢟ࢻ࢟ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽධヨ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ࡦࡓ㉮ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ 㸦KWWS\XELJRKRQQH[EORJMS㸧   Eࡇࡇࡲ࡛᮶ࡓࡽ࠶࡜ࡣᮏ␒࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚✺ࡗ㉮ࡿࡢࡳ㸟ᮏ␒ࡲ࡛ࡘ࠸࡟࠶࡜୍㐌㛫࡛ࡍࡀࠊ᜼
࠸ࡢṧࡽ࡞࠸୍㐌㛫ࡀ㐣ࡈࡏࢀࡤ࠸࠸࡛ࡍࡡ ࣭Ѧ࣭  㸦KWWSVZZZIDFHERRNFRPQLVKLNLIHVJRXNRQSRVWV"VWUHDPBUHI 㸧  Dụ⃝ኟᶞࡣ࠸ࡕ᪩ࡃࠊ
ࠕⰋࡁ㈋ࡋࡁᅜࡢ෌⏕ࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠗ᫇ࡣཎⓎ࡜࠸࠺༴࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡗ
࡚͐͐࠘࡜ゝ࠼ࡿ᪥࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚㐍ࡶ࠺ࠖ㸦㐌หᮅ᪥ቑหࠗᮅ᪥ࢪ࣮ࣕࢼࣝ ཎⓎ࡜ே㛫୍୍࠘ᖺභ᭶஬᪥ྕ㸧࡜᭩࠸ࡓࠋ 
㸦KWWSZZZPLQV\XEXQJDNXRUJNDLWRKDWDLNDLKRXNRNXKWP㸧   E኱ேࡶᏊ౪ࡶᡃ៏ࡢẖ᪥࡛ࡍࠋỿࡳࡀࡕ࡞Ẽᣢࡕࢆ↓⌮࡟➗ࡗ࡚᫂ࡿࡃ᫂᪥࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚㐍ࡶ࠺࡜⢭࠸ࡗࡥ࠸ࡢ➗㢦ࢆ᣺ࡾࡲ࠸࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
 㸦KWWSZZZOFEMSFPVZSFRQWHQWXSORDGVSGI㸧

−30−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ࡇࢀࡽࡢᩥࡣࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠕṌࡴࠖࠊࠕ㉮ࡿࠖࠊࠕ㐍ࡴࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓືモࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ≉ᐃⓗ࡞ಶே࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㞟ᅋࡀࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢ஦᯶ࡸ≧ែ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊᮏ✏ࡀၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿ͆᫬㛫⤒㐣͇ࡢព࿡࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶࠊ
͆‽ഛࡸᨭᗘࢆᩚ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜͇࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ
͆ఱࡽ࠿ࡢලయⓗ࡞⾜ືࢆ࡜ࡿࡇ࡜͇࡜࠸ࡗࡓព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛
ὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁࡣࠊୖグࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊືస୺యࡢືࡁࡢᥥ෗ࢆ㏻ࡌࠊ୺యࡀ͆࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟┠ⓗ࡟ྥ࠿࠺࠿͇࡜࠸࠺ጼໃࡸᚰ⌮ࠊάື≧ែࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡣࠊ
͆୺యࡢືࡁ͇ࢆ⾲ࡍᙧᘧࡢ⾲⌧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ୺యࡢ≧ែࡀ↔Ⅼ໬ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᛮ
ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡶࡲࡓࠊᮏ✏ࡢ௬ᐃࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡢ᫬㛫⾲⌧ࡢ㐺ษᛶ᮲௳ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᙜ⠇࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ 0RYLQJ7LPH ࡜ 0RYLQJ(JR ࡢ㐪࠸࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⌮ㄽⓗ⪃ᐹࠊࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖ
ᙧᘧࡢព࿡࡟㛵ࡍࡿᩥ⬦ⓗ≉ᚩࠊࠕ㏆࡙ࡃࠖ௨እࡢືモࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠕ; ࡟ 9 ࡍࡿࠖᙧᘧࡢ⾲⌧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ஦ែ
ࡢ⤒㦂୺యࡢ↔Ⅼ໬ࠊ࡜࠸࠺  ࡘࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ᳨ウෆᐜࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖ
ᙧᘧࡢ᫬㛫⾲⌧ࡣࠊ⚾ⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࡢᙉ࠸ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚≉ᐃⓗ࡞ಶே࠾ࡼࡧ㞟ᅋࡢ≧ែ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙
࡭ࡿࡼ࠺࡞㝿࡟ࡣ㐺ษ࡟⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ぢ᪉࡟ጇᙜᛶࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࠕ; ࡀ㏆࡙ࡃࠖ࡜ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖࡢ஺᭰࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗせᅉࡢᙳ㡪࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ ࡇࡇࡲ࡛ࡢ᳨ウࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࠊ
ࠕ; ࡀ㏆࡙ࡃࠖ࡜ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖࡢᵓᩥ஺᭰࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿᛶ㉁࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡲ࡜
ࡵ࡚࠾ࡃࠋࡲࡎࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠕ; ࡀ㏆࡙ࡃࠖ࠾ࡼࡧࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡢᙧᘧ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ᫬
㛫⤒㐣࡟㛵ࡍࡿព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠕ; ࡀ㏆࡙ࡃࠖࡢᙧᘧ࡟ᙉ࠸඾ᆺᛶࡀ
ㄆࡵࡽࢀࠊ୧⪅ࡢศᕸࡣᑐ⛠ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼࡞࠸ࡀࠊ஦ែࢆ⤒㦂ࡍࡿ୺యࡢ≧ែࡸ᫬㛫ࡢ㐣ࡈࡋ᪉ࢆ↔Ⅼ໬ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡣࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖࡢᙧᘧࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ௨ୖࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋࡘࡘࠊᮏ✏ࡀၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿᵓᩥ஺᭰⌧㇟࡟ᑐࡋ࡚୺ᙇࡍࡿࠕㄒ⏝ㄽⓗせᅉࠖࡢព࿡ྜ࠸
࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᑠἨ  ࢆཧ↷ࡋ࡚♧ࡍࠋࡲࡎࠊᑠἨ  ࡛ࡣࠕㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ㔜せ࡞௙஦ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊⓎヰ࡟క࠺ࠕពᅗࠖࡸࠕពྥࠖࡢ᥎ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⪃࠼᪉ࢆ๓ᥦ࡟ࠊ᫬㛫⤒㐣ࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖࡢᙧᘧࡣࠊࡑࡢᡂ❧せ௳࡟͆୺యࡢ≧ែࡢ↔Ⅼ໬͇࡜࠸࠺ពᅗ࣭ពྥࢆక࠺
ࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠼ࠊࡇࡢⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᑠἨ  ࡢ࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ௙஦࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿせᅉ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓぢ᪉࠿ࡽᮏ✏ࡣࠊࠕ; ࡀ㏆࡙ࡃࠖ࡜ࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖࡢᵓᩥ஺᭰࡟ࡣࠊ
࠸ࡃࡪࢇᗈ࠸ព࿡࡛ࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࡣ࡞ࡿࡀࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞せᅉࡀᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ㸴㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᮏ✏ࡣࠕ; ࡀ㏆࡙ࡃࠖ࠾ࡼࡧࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖࡢᙧᘧ࡟ࡼࡿ᫬㛫⾲⌧ࡢ஺᭰⌧㇟࡟ࠊᗈ⩏࡛ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗせᅉࡀᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ぢ᪉ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠋၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿ⌧㇟ࢆᕠࡗ࡚ࡣࠊᒣ᲍ 
 ࡞࡝ࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢศ㔝࡛ࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿ⾲⌧ࡢᐇែࡢᥦ♧ࡀ༑ศ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢᡂ❧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ጇᙜ࡞ㄝ᫂ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇ࠺ࡋ

−31−

構文交替における語用論的要因の影響に関する考察―時間経過を表す「Xが近づく/Xに近づく」の格交替について―ࡓㄢ㢟ࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࠊᮏ✏ࡣၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢ⪃ᐹ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᚑ᮶ࡣὀ┠ᗘࡀప࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢ᳨ウࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ၥ㢟ࡢゎᾘࢆヨࡳࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡢྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࢆ㏻ࡌࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗほⅬࡢࡳ࠿ࡽࡢ⪃ᐹࡢ㝈⏺ࢆඞ᭹ࡋࠊ᪂ࡓ࡞ぢ㏻ࡋࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ ࠋᮏ✏ࡣࠊ➨  ᅇ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍ᖺḟ኱఍࡛ࡢཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲ࡢෆᐜ࡟ຍ➹ಟṇࢆຍ࠼࡚ᇳ➹ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎ⾲ᶵ఍ࢆࡃࡔ

ࡉࡗࡓ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍ࠊᙜ᪥ࡢྖ఍ࢆࡈᢸᙜࡃࡔࡉࡾ᭷┈࡞ࡈពぢࢆ࠾⪺࠿ࡏࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓ኱す⨾✑ඛ⏕ࠊ఍ሙ࡟࠾㐠ࡧࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓⓙᵝࠊᘓタⓗ࡞ࡈពぢࡸព⩏῝࠸ࡈᣦ᦬ࢆࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓከࡃࡢ᪉ࠎ࡟ᚰࡼࡾ࠾♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊⓎ⾲ᛂເ᫬࡟ࡣᰝㄞ⪅ࡢⓙᵝ࠿ࡽࠊ◊✲ࡢⓎᒎࡸㄢ㢟ࡢ෌᳨ウ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿᩘࠎࡢព⩏῝࠸ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㈷ࡗࡓࠋ ྡࡢᰝㄞ⪅ࡢ᪉ࠎ࡟ࡣࠊࡇࡢሙࢆ࠾೉ࡾࡋ࡚῝ㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊᮏ✏ࡢ୙ഛ࡜ㄢ㢟ࡣࡍ࡭࡚➹⪅ಶே࡟ᖐࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
࡞࠾ࠊᮏ✏࡟ಀࡿ◊✲ࡣ -636 ⛉◊㈝㸦ㄢ㢟␒ྕ㸸-㸧ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ



ὀ


ᐑ⃝Ὀᙪඛ⏕࡜⁪ᾆ┿ேඛ⏕࠿ࡽࡣࠊࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧࡢ⾲⌧ࡣࠊ௬࡟ᐇ౛ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ࡟ࡋ࡚ࡶࡸࡣࡾ㐺ษ࡞⾲⌧࡜ࡣᤊ࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠺᪨ࡢࡈᣦ᦬ࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋ☜࠿࡟ࠊつ⠊ᩥἲⓗ࡞ぢ᪉࠿ࡽࡣࡇࡢ✀ࡢ⾲⌧ࡣ୙⮬↛ࡉࢆక࠺ࡶࡢ࡜ࡶ࠸
࠼ࡼ࠺ࡀࠊᮏ✏ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡀ≉Ṧ࡞⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ୍ᐃࡢ⠊ᅖ࡛ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ⌮⏤ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ព⩏ࡀ࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚⁪ᾆඛ⏕࠿ࡽࡣࠊ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆ㏻ࡌ᳨࡚ウࢆ῝ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࡛
ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺࢔ࢻࣂ࢖ࢫࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋ࠶ࡾࡀࡓ࠸ࡈᥦゝ࡜ཷࡅṆࡵࠊ⌧ᅾࠊྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࡢ➨୍Ṍࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᑠᕝ
༤ோඛ⏕ࠊ㘠ᓥᘯ἞ᮁඛ⏕ࠊ㔝⃝ඖඛ⏕࠿ࡽࡣࠊࠕ; ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠖᙧᘧ࡟ᅛ᭷ࡢព࿡ⓗ≉ᚩ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡈᣦ᦬ࡸࠊࡇࢀ࡟క࠺ᩥ
⬦ⓗ≉ᚩࢆࡉࡽ࡟✺ࡁワࡵ᳨࡚ウࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ព⩏ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡈពぢࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢࡼࡾヲ⣽࡞グ㏙ࡣ㔜せ࡞ㄢ㢟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡈពぢࢆࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓⓙࡉࡲ࡟ࠊ࠾♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋ
ࡇࡢ㆟ㄽࡣ /DNRIIDQG-RKQVRQ  /DNRII  ࢆฟⓎⅬ࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ5DGGHQ ࡢ࠸࠺ 0RYLQJ(JR ࡜ࡣ /DNRII ࡽࡢ࠸࠺ 0RYLQJ2EVHUYHU ࡟࠶ࡓࡿࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠼ࠊᮏከ  ࡣࡇࢀࢆ 0RYLQJ([SHULHQFHU ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ௒ᚋࡢ◊✲ࡢ㐍ᒎ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡈពぢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᐑᾆᅜỤඛ⏕࠿ࡽࡣ⪃ᐹᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿᵓᩥࡢ㏙㒊㸦㹼ࢸࢡࣝ㹼ࢸ࢖ࢡ㸧ᙧᘧࡢ㑅ዲᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᒸᮏ㞞ྐඛ⏕࠿ࡽࡣຓモ㸦㹼ࢽ㹼࢞㸧ࡢാࡁࡸ౑࠸ศࡅࠊࡲࡓࡑࡢ౑⏝ᐇែ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ᰝㄞ⪅ࡢ࠾୍᪉࠿ࡽࡣ✵㛫⛣ື࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿ⾲⌧࡜ࡢ␗ྠ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ࡜࠸ࡗࡓほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊࡉࡽ࡟㆟ㄽࢆ᥀ࡾୗࡆࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡸᚲせᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ௒ᚋࡢ㔜せ࡞ㄢ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡈពぢࢆࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓⓙᵝ࡟ឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋ



ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
ᮏከၨࠕ᫬✵㛫࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢ⤒㦂ⓗᇶ┙ࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࠖ
ࠊࠗ⚄ᡞእ኱ㄽྀ࠘ࠊ ᕳ  ྕࠊ⚄ᡞᕷእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ◊✲఍ࠊ
ᑠἨಖࠕㄒ⏝ㄽࡢᛂ⏝ࠖࠊᑠἨಖ ⦅ ࠗධ㛛ㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲࠘ࠊࠊᮾி◊✲♫/DNRII*HRUJHDQG0DUN-RKQVRQ0HWDSKRUV:H/LYHE\8QLYHUVLW\RI&KLFDJR3UHVV/DNRII*HRUJH͆7KH&RQWHPSRUDU\7KHRU\RI0HWDSKRU͇,Q$QGUHZ2UWRQ\ HG 0HWDSKRUDQG7KRXJKW QG(G &DPEULGJH&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV/DNRII*HRUJHDQG0DUN-RKQVRQ3KLORVRSK\LQWKH)OHVK7KH(PERGLHG0LQGDQGLWV&KDOOHQJHWR:HVWHUQ7KRXJKW1HZ<RUN%DVLF%RRNV
5DGGHQ*¾QWHU͆6SDWLDOWLPHLQWKH:HVWDQG(DVW͇,Q0DULR%UGDU0DULMD2PD]LF9LVQMD3DYLFLF7DNDF
7DQMD*UDGHFDN(UGHOMLFDQG*DEULMHOD%XOMDQ HGV 6SDFHDQG7LPHLQ/DQJXDJH)UDQNIXUWHWDO3HWHU/DQJ
ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂ࠗࡇ࡜ࡤࡢㄆ▱✵㛫࠘ᮾி㛤ᣅ♫ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂ࠗㄆ▱ᵓᩥㄽ̿ᩥἲࡢࢤࢩࣗࢱࣝࢺᛶ࠘ᮾி኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑᒣ᲍ṇ᫂ࠕㄆ▱ࡢࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢬ࣒࡜ᵓᩥ⌧㇟̿ㄆ▱ⓗព࿡ࡢ཯ᫎ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᵓᩥ̿ࠖ
ࠊ⃝⏣἞⨾ ⦅ ࠗࡦࡘࡌព࿡ㄽㅮᗙ ࠘ࠊࠊᮾிࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ

−32−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

᪥ᮏே࡜࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡢྜពᙧᡂ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥẚ㍑
኱㈏ᏹᏊ
ᨺ㏦኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ಟኈㄢ⛬<Abstract>
This study explores differences of cultural practice and interactions between Japanese andAmerican, specifically focusing on the communication process of proposing ideas anddetermine a party plan. The results reveal first of all, both the Japanese and the American
participants follow to their own communication process. Secondly, the communication process
for agreement is different. Thirdly, Japanese is trying to avoid admitting their difference
ideas especially when it comes to disagree. Fourthly, the meaning of an agreement is different.
Lastly their sense of value for wedding shower is different. Japanese is more focusing on theirrelationship, but American is focusing on solving issues.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚྜពᙧᡂࠊ␗ᩥ໬ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠊ఍ヰศᯒࠊࣉࣟࢭࢫࠊ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥ 
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
␗ᩥ໬㛫࡛ࡢࠕ஺΅ࠖࡸࠕྜពᙧᡂࠖࡣࣅࢪࢿࢫࡢ⌧ሙࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ᪥ᖖ⏕άࡢࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ሙ㠃࡟ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ␗ᩥ໬࡜ࡢ෇⁥࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ࡜ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣእᅜㄒࡢ⩦ᚓࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ
⩦័ࡸᩥ໬࡞࡝ࢆྵࡵ࡚⌮ゎࡍࡿ஦ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽሙ㠃࡛ࡢᑐฎἲࡸⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥ໬ࡢᕪ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ༑ศ࡟᳨ウࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠸㞴࠸(ࢸ࢕ࣔࢩ࣮ 2004)ࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏே࡜࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ே࡜ࡢ㛫࡟࠾ࡅࡿྜពᙧᡂࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓⓎヰ⾜Ⅽሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ᑐฎἲ࠾ࡼࡧⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡛ࡢᩥ໬ࡢᕪࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆヨࡳࡿࠋ
2. ඛ⾜◊✲
 ␗ᩥ໬࡟࠾ࡅࡿ┦஫⾜ⅭࡣࠊⓎヰᩥࡢᵓ㐀ⓗ࡞㠃࠿ࡽࡢศᯒࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊFujii(2012)ࡣࠊㄢ㢟㐩ᡂㄯヰࢱࢫࢡ࡟ࡼࡿゝㄒⓗ≉ᚩࡢẚ㍑ࢆ㺀ᥦ᱌㺁ࡸࠕពぢࠖࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿⓎヰ࡜ࠊ≀ㄒࡢ➽ࢆᵓ⠏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⓎヰࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡋࠊ᪥ᮏேࡣ୍ேࡢⓎヰ⪅࡛ᡂ❧ࡍࡿⓎヰࢆඹྠ࡛ᵓ
⠏ࡋࠊྠࡌⓎ᝿࡛≀஦ࢆ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡣ 1 ᑐ 1 ࡢᑐヰᆺࡢⓎヰᙧែ࡛⊂❧ࡋ࡚≀஦ࢆ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ᪥ᮏே࡜࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡢࠕሙࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⪃࠼᪉ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀࠊ┦
஫⾜Ⅽ࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ㡪ࢆศᯒࡋࠊ┦஫⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠺ୖ࡛ࠕሙࠖ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉ࡢ㔜せᛶࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ኱὾
ࡣ(2000)ࡣࠊྜពᙧᡂ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࠕ┦஫஢ᢎࠖࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿゝⴥࠕࡌࡷࠖ࡟╔┠ࡋࠊ᪥ᮏேᏛ⏕࡜እᅜே␃Ꮫ⏕ࡣࠕࡌࡷࠖࡢ౑⏝࡟ᑐࡍࡿㄆ㆑ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓࠋ Fujii ࡢࠕሙࠖࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡸ኱὾ࡢࠕࡌࡷࠖ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢠࣕࢵࣉࡣࠊゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡢ୰ࡢ࠶ࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ᒓࡍࡿⓎヰᩥࢆᵓ㐀ⓗ࡞㠃࠿ࡽศᯒࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

−33−

日本人とアメリカ人の合意形成におけるインタラクション比較ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᩥࢆᵓ㐀ⓗ࡞㠃࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠊⓎヰ⪅ࡢⓎヰ࡟ᑐࡍࡿពᅗࡸ⪃࠼࡞࡝ࠊᩥ
⬦ࢆྵࡵ࡚⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣྜពᙧᡂ㐣⛬࡟࠾ࡅࡿෆᐜ㠃࡟╔┠
ࡋࠊⓎヰࡢ୰㌟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢศᯒࢆᐇ᪋ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᵓ㐀㠃࠿ࡽࡢศᯒ࡟␃ࡲࡽ࡞࠸ഃ㠃ࡶࡳࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
3. ㄪᰝᑐ㇟ཬࡧ᪉ἲ
3.1 ◊✲ㄢ㢟ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊḟࡢ 4 ࡘࡢ◊✲ㄢ㢟ࡢ⟅࠼ࢆ᥈ࢁ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ձ࠶ࡿゝㄒᩥ໬࡟ᒓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿேࡣྜពᙧᡂ࡟࠾࠸࡚ྠᵝࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ᚑ࠺ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿㸽ղྜពᙧᡂ࡟⮳ࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ᪥ᮏㄒ㸭࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒࡢ୧ゝㄒᩥ໬㛫࡛┦㐪ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿㸽ճࢥࣥࣇࣜࢡࢺࡀⓎ⏕ࡋࡓሙྜࡢᑐฎࡢ௙᪉ࡀ᪥ᮏㄒ㸭࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒࡢ୧ゝㄒᩥ໬㛫࡛┦㐪ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿㸽մࠕྜពࠖ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉ࡀ᪥ᮏㄒ㸭࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒࡢ୧ゝㄒᩥ໬㛫࡛┦㐪ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿㸽ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊձࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡣⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡢ┠ⓗ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ᙧᘧⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡓࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡛࠶ࡾࠊղࡢࣉࣟࢭ
ࢫࡣヰࡋࡢ㐍ࡵ᪉࡟╔┠ࡋࡓෆᐜ㠃࠿ࡽࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆᣦࡍࠋ
ୖグձ㹼մࡢㄢ㢟ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢゝㄒᩥ໬࡜࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒࡢゝㄒᩥ໬ࡀ๓ᥦ࡜ࡍࡿᩥ
໬ⓗࠊ♫఍ⓗつ⠊ࡸ౯್ほࢆࡼࡾ᫂☜࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ3.2 ㄪᰝ᪉ἲ
ศᯒࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࠊ2013ᖺ12᭶࠿ࡽ2014ᖺ7᭶ࡲ࡛ࠊ⚄ዉᕝ┴ᗙ㛫ᕷ⡿㌷ᇶᆅ࠾ࡼࡧᗙ㛫ᕷࢥ࣑ࣘࢽࢸ࢕ࢭࣥࢱ࣮࡛཰㞟ࡋࡓࠋᐇ㦂༠ຊ⪅ࡣࠊ40 㹼50௦ࡢ᪥ᮏே࡜࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேዪᛶྛ10ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ᪥ᮏேࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ே࡜ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ே࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆࠕ᪥ᮏேࠖ
ࠕ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࠖࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㐺ᐅࠕ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࠖࠕ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࠖࠊ࡜࠸࠺ゝⴥ࡛⾲ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
᪥ᮏேࡣ᪥ᮏᅜෆ࡛ึ➼࣭୰➼࣭㧗➼ᩍ⫱ࢆཷࡅࠊẕㄒࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡣ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝
ྜ⾗ᅜෆ࡛ึ➼࣭୰➼࣭㧗➼ᩍ⫱ࢆཷࡅࠊẕㄒࡀⱥㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏேࡣ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝࡞࡝ࡢᾏእᅾఫ
⤒㦂ࡀ࡞ࡃࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡣ⡿㌷㛵ಀᶵ㛵➼࡟ᡤᒓࡋࠊ᪥ᮏ࡟ᅾఫࡍࡿࡶࡢࡢ⏕άࡣ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢࡲ
ࡲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᭱ึ࡟ணഛᐇ㦂࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᮏᐇ㦂࡜ྠᵝࡢᡭ㡰࡛࣮ࣟࣝࣉࣞ࢖ࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࠊඛ⾜◊✲࡟ࡼࡾタᐃࡋ
ࡓ4ࡘࡢࣜࢧ࣮ࢳࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥࡢ⟅࠼ࢆᑟࡁࡔࡍࡓࡵࡢㄪᰝ᪉ἲࡢጇᙜᛶࠊ᭷ຠᛶࢆุ᩿ࡋࡓࠋ
࣮ࣟࣝࣉࣞ࢖࡟ࡼࡿᨃఝࢱࢫࢡࡣ᪥ᮏேࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ2ྡ㸯⤌࡛ࠊ඲6✀㢮ࡢ⤖፧ࣃ࣮ࢸ࢕ࣉࣛࣥ࠿ࡽ᮲௳࡟ぢྜ࠺᭱㐺࡞ࣉࣛࣥࢆ㸯ࡘ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚ࠊྜពࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᭱㐺࡞ࣉࣛࣥࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ᮲௳ࡣࠊ㈝⏝ࡀᏳ࠸஦ࠊປຊࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊⰼ᎑ࡢႴዲࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶
ࡿࠋ࣮ࣟࣝࣉࣞ࢖ࡢෆᐜࡣ㘓㡢ཬࡧࠊ㘓⏬ࡉࢀࠊࢱࢫࢡ⤊஢ᚋ࡟ࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢆ
ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ

4.⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹ−34−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ᑐ㇟ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ㔞ⓗほⅬࠊ㉁ⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࡋࡓࠋ㔞ⓗほⅬࡣ඲Ⓨㄒᩘࠊࢱ࣮ࣥᩘࠊ఍ヰ᫬㛫ࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕᅇᩘࠊ1 ࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⓎㄒ㔞㸦ᩘ㸧ࢆẚ㍑ศᯒࡋࡓࠋ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡣࢱ࣮ࣥࡀከ࠸ࡀࠊ1
ࢱ࣮ࣥࡢⓎㄒᩘࡣᑡ࡞ࡃࠊ᝟ሗࢆ⣽ษࢀ࡟ࡋ࡚☜ㄆࢆ࡜ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽ஺΅ࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࢔࣓
ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡣࢱ࣮ࣥࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ1 ࢱ࣮࡛ࣥࡢⓎㄒ㔞ࡀከࡃ᝟ሗࢆࡲ࡜ࡵ࡚ఏ࠼ࠊ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ☜ㄆࡶᑡ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ㉁ⓗほⅬࡣࠊྜពᙧᡂࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ୰࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡢ୰ࡢ࠶ࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ᒓࡍࡿⓎヰ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊⓎヰᩥࢆᵓ㐀ⓗ࡞㠃࡜ෆᐜⓗ࡞㠃࠿ࡽศᯒࡋࠊࡑ
ࢀࡒࢀࡢ㠃࡛㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ
4.1 ࣃ࣮ࢸ࢕ࣉࣛࣥࡢ⤖ᯝ
඲ 6 ✀㢮ࡢࣃ࣮ࢸ࢕ࣉࣛࣥࡢ୰࡛ࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡣ 5 ⤌ࡢ࠺ࡕ 3 ⤌ࡀ࿴㣗ࣞࢫࢺࣛࣥࢆ㑅ᢥࡋࠊ᪥ᮏேࡣ 5 ⤌ࡢ࠺ࡕ 4 ⤌ࡀ࢖ࢱࣜ࢔ࣥࣞࢫࢺࣛࣥࢆ㑅ᢥࡋࡓࠋ࢖ࢱࣜ࢔ࣥࣞࢫࢺࣛࣥࡣࣃ࣮ࢸ࢕
ࣉࣛࣥࡢ୰࡛᭱ࡶ㧗್࡛ࠊ㈝⏝ࡣᏳࡃ࡜࠸࠺᮲௳ࢆ‶ࡓࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ࿴㣗ࣞࢫࢺࣛࣥࡣ࢖
ࢱࣜ࢔ࣥࣞࢫࢺࣛࣥ࡟ẚ࡭ࡿ࡜Ᏻ౯࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ㟼࠿࡛ࠊ࣡࢖࣡࢖㦁ࡄࡢࡀዲࡁ࡜࠸࠺ⰼ᎑ࡢዲࡳ
ࢆ‶ࡓࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ே࣌࢔ࡣປຊࡸ㈝⏝࡜࠸࠺ᮏ㉁ⓗ࡞ၥ㢟ࢆ㔜どࡋࠊ᪥ᮏேࡣⰼ᎑ࡢ
Ⴔዲ࡜࠸࠺ⰼ᎑࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶࢆ㔜どࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
4.2 ゝㄒ㠃ࡢ⤖ᯝ
4.2.1 㔞ⓗᴫほ᪥ᮏே࣌࢔ࡣᖹᆒࢱ࣮ࣥᩘࡀ 58ࠊᖹᆒ఍ヰ᫬㛫ࡣ 12 ศ࡛ 1 ศ࠶ࡓࡾࡢࢱ࣮ࣥᩘࡣ 9.4 ࢱ࣮ࣥࠊ1 ࢱ࣮ࣥ࠶ࡓࡾࡢᖹᆒⓎㄒ㔞ࡣ 17 ㄒࡔࡗࡓࠋᖹᆒ࠶࠸࡙ࡕᅇᩘࡣ 40.3 ᅇ࡛඲Ⓨㄒ㔞࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࠶࠸
࡙ࡕㄒࡢ๭ྜࡣ 12%ࡔࡗࡓࠋ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ே࣌࢔ࡣᖹᆒࢱ࣮ࣥᩘࡀ 28ࠊᖹᆒ఍ヰ᫬㛫ࡣ 9 ศ࡛ࠊ1 ศ࠶ࡓࡾࡢࢱ࣮ࣥᩘࡣ 6.3 ࢱ࣮ࣥࠋ1 ࢱ࣮ࣥ࠶ࡓࡾࡢᖹᆒⓎㄒ㔞ࡣ 23 ㄒࡔࡗࡓࠋ ᖹᆒ࠶࠸࡙ࡕᅇᩘ
ࡣ 15 ᅇ࡛ࠊ඲Ⓨㄒ㔞࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࠶࠸࡙ࡕㄒࡢ๭ྜࡣ 2%ࡔࡗࡓࠋ඲Ⓨㄒ㔞࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࠶࠸࡙ࡕㄒ㔞ࡢ๭ྜࡣ᪥ᮏேࡀ 12㸣࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡣ 3㸣ࡔࡗࡓࠋ᪥ᮏேࡣ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ே࡟ẚ࡭࡚ࠊ㢖⦾࡟ࢱ࣮ࣥࢆ࡜ࡿࡀࠊ1 ࢱ࣮ࣥࡢᖹᆒⓎㄒ㔞ࡣ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡼࡾࡶᑡ࡞ࡃࠊ▷࠸఍ヰࢆ㢖⦾࡟⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡣ 1 ࢱ࣮࡛ࣥࡢⓎㄒ㔞ࡀከࡃࠊࢱ࣮ࣥࡶᑡ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡟ 1 ࢱ࣮࡛ࣥࡢ᝟ሗ㔞ࡀከ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
4.2.2 ㉁ⓗᴫほձ ヰࡋᡭࡢ㑅ᢥࡋࡓࣉࣛࣥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ཯ᛂせồ‫ྠە‬ពࠊ☜ㄆせồ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡣࠊ1ࢱ࣮ࣥࡢ୰࡛▷࠸࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆ㢖⦾࡟Ⓨヰࡋࠊヰࡋᡭ࡟ࠕ⪺࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢩ
ࢢࢼࣝࢆ㏦ࡿࠋᩥᮎ࡟ࠕࡡࠖࠕࡼࡡࠖࢆ௜ࡅࡓࡾࠊᩥࡢㄒᑿࢆ࠶ࡆ࡚ࠊྜព࡟࠸ࡓࡿࡲ࡛㢖⦾࡟⪺ࡁᡭ࡟☜ㄆࢆせồࡍࡿࠋ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡟ẚ࡭࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡸ☜ㄆࢆせồࡍࡿㄒࡢ౑⏝ࡣᑡ࡞ࡃࠊ☜ㄆࢆせồࡍࡿⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

[౛01]

−35−

日本人とアメリカ人の合意形成におけるインタラクション比較

MI024: ୍⥴࡛ࡍࡡࠋࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࡼࡡࠋ≉࡟‽ഛࡗ࡚ࠋປຊ
NM030: ࡑ࠺ࡔࡼࡡࠋ㸦࠺ࢇ㸧࡞ࢇ࠿ࡑ࠺ࡔࡡ࣮㸦࠺ࢇ㸧ࡸࡗࡥࡾࣞࢫࢺࣛࣥࡢ᪉ࡀ࠾࠸ࡋ࠸
ࡼࡡࠋ
RN022: you have to sit down with them and give you a couple of menus (huh) right?
JK025: I just made around 40, you knowճ ヰࡋᡭࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᛂ⟅ࢥࣥࣇࣜࢡࢺࡀⓎ⏕ࡋࡓሙྜࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡣ᭕᫕࡞㏉⟅ࡸㄒᑿࢆ⃮ࡋ࡚ࠊ┦㐪ࡍࡿⅬࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡍࡿ஦ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡞⾜Ⅽࡀࡋࡤࡋࡤࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡣࢥࣥࣇࣜࢡࢺࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ
ࡓୖ࡛ࠊᑐฎ࡟ྥࡅࡓ࢔࢖ࢹ࢕࢔ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊពぢࡢ┦㐪࡟࠾ࡅࡿᑐᛂ࡛㐪࠸ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋ
࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡣ౛02ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㣭ࡾ௜ࡅ㈝⏝ࡣྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆࢫࢺ࣮ࣞࢺ࡟㏉⟅ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᅇ⟅ࡀ୙᫂࡞ሙྜࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡀ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࣒࢜࢘㏉ࡋ࡟㏉⟅ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ࢔࣓
ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡣ”I don’t know”࡜ࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ

[౛02]
MI022: ࡑ࠺ࡋࡓࡽࡇࡗࡕ࠿ࡇࡗࡕ࠿ࡢ࡝ࡗࡕ࡟ࡋࡲࡍ࠿㸽
AA022: ࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࡡࠋ࠶ࡗࡑࢀ࡛ࠊࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࡡࠋࡑ࠺࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊ㸦࠺ࢇ㸧ࡓࡔࠊ㔠㢠ⓗ࡟ࡣ㸦ࡡ㸧ࡸࡗࡥࡾࡕࡻࡗ࡜㨩ຊⓗ࡛ࡍࡼࡡ㸽
AT006: ఱேධࡿࡢ࠿࡞㸽ࡑࡢ㒊ᒇ
NM007: ఱேධࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࡡ
JK008:

But then you still how much cost for set up? And how much is it for decoration?

PJ008:

No, decoration cost is included.

RN040: but it does not fit an organized meal (right) that would be, so do you think that is anacceptation?.
JS041:

I don’t know.

մ ஺΅ࡢ᪉ἲ
‫ە‬㑅ᢥࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮㸸ẚ㍑࡜ຠᯝ
࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡣ஫࠸ࡢࣉࣛࣥࢆẚ㍑ࡋ࡚஺΅ࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡣẚ㍑ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞
ࡃࠊ⮬ศࡢ㑅ࢇࡔࣉࣛࣥࢆ㑅ᢥࡋࡓሙྜࡢຠᯝࡸຠ⏝ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿഴྥࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋ౛03࡛PJ007ࠊ
AP010ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ஫࠸ࡢ㈝⏝ࢆẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬ศࡢ㑅ࢇࡔࣉࣛࣥࡢ㈝⏝ࡢ᪉ࡀᏳ౯࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᙉ
ㄪࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊTE006ࡣᏳ౯࡞ࣉࣛࣥࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ࣓ࣜࢵࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᕪ㢠࡛ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢺࢆ㉎ධ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ࠶ࡆ࡚࠸ࡓࠋAA072ࡣࢲࣥࢫࡀ㋀ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆຠᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ᙉㄪࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ

[౛03]
PJ007:

Ok, by look you cost is $80 (hah), if we get a room, the meal is $40 the room rental is $30 so
it's $70.

−36−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

AP010: Yeah, see I got $45 per a person and these are meal, yours are just desert, and we're talking andhaving a good time, we will not want a band we can substitute and get photos where she cantake back with her.
TE006: ࡡ࣮Ᏻࡃᢚ࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࡽࡉ㸦࠺ࢇ㸧ࡑࡢศࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿࠾⚃࠸ࡋ࡚࠶ࡆࡽࢀࡿࡌࡷ࡞࠸
AA072: ⚾ࡣ㏫࡟࡞ࢇ࠿ࡇࡢࣂࣥࢻࡢ₇ዌ↓ᩱࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡀ࠶ࡿࢇࡔࡗࡓࡽࠊ㸦࠺ࢇ㸧ᚚ୺ே࡜
ࡕࡻࡗ࡜㋀ࡽࡏࡕࡷ࠾࠺࠿࡞ࡳࡓ࠸࡞
‫ە‬ゎỴ᱌ࡢỴᐃࡢᡭ㡰ᮏᐇ㦂ࡢㄢ㢟ࡣ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ᮲௳ࢆ‶ࡓࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊ᭱㐺࡞ࣉࣛࣥࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
඲࡚ࡢ᮲௳ࢆ‶ࡓࡍ᭱㧗ࡢࣉࣛࣥࡣ୍ࡘࡶ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ᭱㐺࡞ࣉࣛࣥࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊࠕᥦ᱌ࠖ
ࠕ㉁ၥࠖࠕㄝ᫂ࠖ➼ࡢゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡢ㐃㙐࡟ࡼࡿྜពᙧᡂࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ⤒࡚ࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡞ྜព࡟⮳ࡿࠋ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢྜពᙧᡂࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋᅗ1 ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢྜពᙧᡂࣉࣟࢭࢫ
ᅗ1ࡣࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢྜពᙧᡂࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡣࠕㄝ᫂ࠖࠕ㉁ၥࠖࠕᥦ᱌ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒ⾜ືࡢ┤ᚋ࡟ࠕ☜ㄆࠖࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀධࡿࡀࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒ
ヰ⪅࡟ࡣࠕ☜ㄆࠖࣉࣟࢭࢫࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
‫ە‬ゎỴ᱌ࡢᥦ᱌
ࠕᥦ᱌ࠖࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡀ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡜࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅࡛ࡣ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡣࠕ⮬ศࡢ㑅ᢥࡋࡓࣉࣛࣥࡢゎỴ᱌ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡣ⮬ศࡢ㑅ᢥࡋࡓࣉࣛࣥࡢゎỴ᱌ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ┦ᡭࡢ㑅ᢥࡋࡓࣉࣛࣥࡢゎỴ᱌ࡶᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊゎỴ᱌ࡢࣉࣛࣥࡢᥦ♧࡛㐪࠸ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋࡲࡔྜព࡟⮳ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸┦ᡭࡢࣉࣛࣥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ᥦ᱌ࢆࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࡣ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸᣺ࡿ⯙࠸࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ࠸౛04㹼౛09࡟ࡑࡢ
౛ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ

[౛04]
DP008: Here only thing is, is that the cost 45$ a person (oh) which is kind of high but I’m thinking tosave some people some money maybe we can pay a part of the cost (ok) that of the you knowwhat we normally spend on decoration and the kind of things, plates etc, etc. Maybe we can−37−日本人とアメリカ人の合意形成におけるインタラクション比較

chip in some money.
OP014: Yeah, but just like I say, we will have a meal, can include some Italian dishes. Would that help?

[౛05]
SY046: 12✀ࢆࠊࡶ࠺ࡕࡻࡗ࡜ᑡ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ࠸࠸࠿ࡽ࡜㸦࠺ࢇ㸧࡞ࢇ࠿஺΅࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡛ࡍ࠿ࡡࠋ
ࡇࢀࠋ
YI046:

࠶࠶ࠊ࡛ࡁࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࡼࡡࠋ5000෇ࡃࡽ࠸

SY047: 㔠㢠ື࠿ࡏ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊ௚ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ࡝࠺࡟࠿
YI047:

5000෇ࡃࡽ࠸࡟ୗࡆ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚

[౛06]
TE025: 㞵㝆ࡗࡓࡽ࡝࠺ࡍࡿ㸽
SA026: 㞵㝆ࡗࡓࡽࡡ࣮ࠋ࡛ࡶࠊ࠺ࢇࠊ㞵㝆ࡗࡓࡽࠋTE026:

ച㸽[౛07]
AT028: ࢧࣉࣛ࢖ࢬࣉࣞࢮࣥࢺࠊู࡟ࡇࡇ࡛ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࡅࢀ࡝ࡡࠋ࠺ࢇࠋࡡ࣮ࠋࡇࡗࡕࡶࣉࣟࢪ
࢙ࢡࢱ࣮࡜࠿೉ࡾࡽࢀࡑ࠺ࡔࡶࢇࡡࠋ
NM029: ࠺ࢇࠋ⤯ᑐ࡞ࢇ࠿࠶ࡾࡑ࠺ࡔࡼࡡ࣮㈚ࡋ࣮࣒ࣝࡔࡋࡡ

[౛08]
MN026: ⤖፧ᘧࡔࡶࢇࡡ㸦࠺ࢇ㸧࣡ࣥࢻࣜࣥࢡ࠿ࠋ୍୓෇ࠋ
MH028: ࡓࡔࠊࡲ࠶ࠊ2ḟ఍ࠋ⏝ࡣ⤖፧ᘧࡢ2ḟ఍ࡳࡓ࠸࡞ࡶࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠊࡑ࠺⪃࠼ࢀࡤ1୓෇࡛ࡶ࠸࠸ࡢ࠿࡞ࠋ࡛ࡶࡇࡢ᮲௳ࢆ㸦࠺ࢇ㸧[౛09]AA055: ࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࡼࡡࠋ࡛ࡶࠊ࡛ࡶࡸࡗࡥࡾ㈝⏝ࡀࠋMI056: ࢖ࢱࣜ࢔ࡀዲࡁ࡞ࡼ࠺࡞ឤࡌࡀࡋࡲࡍࡡࠋ࢖ࢱࣜ࢔3ᅇ࡛࡚ࡃࡿ࠿ࡽࠋ
AA060: ᮏᙜࠊࡇࢀࡔࡅࡢ㣗஦࡛࡚ࡡࠋ4500෇ࡣ㸦࠺ࢇ㸧ࡕࡻࡗ࡜㨩ຊⓗ࡛ࡍࡡ㸦ࡡ㸧ࠊグᛕ෗┿ࡢ᧜ᙳࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ࠿ࠋ
MI061: ࡕࡻࡗ࡜㧗⣭ឤࡶ࠶ࡿࡋࡡࠋ㸦࠺ࢇ㸧ࡇ࠺࠸࠺࡜ࡇࢁࡔ࡜ࠋյ ྠព࡟ᑐࡍࡿጼໃ
ࠕྜពࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⪃࠼᪉࡜⾲᫂ࡢ௙᪉ࡢ୧㠃࡛㐪࠸ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒ
ヰ⪅ࡣ⮬ศࡀ┦ᡭ࡟ྜពࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂☜࡟ゝⴥ࡛⾲ࡍࠋ┦ᡭࡢ⪃࠼᪉࡟ྠពࡍࢀࡤࠊ⮬ศࡢࣉࣛࣥࢆᤞ࡚ࠊ┦ᡭࡢ⪃࠼᪉࡟ᚑࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡣ⮬ศࡢࣉࣛࣥࡣಖᣢࡋࡓࡲࡲࠊ┦ᡭࡢ㑅ࢇࡔࣉࣛࣥࢆཷࡅධࢀࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ౛10࡛ࡣࠕࢣ࣮ࢱࣜࣥࢢࡶ࠸࠸ࠖࠊࠕࡇࡗࡕ
ࡶᛮ࠸ฟ࡟࡞ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࢆࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡶྠᵝ࡟Ⰻ࠸࡜࠸࠺஦ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝

−38−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡣࠊ౛11࡛DP022ࡣ┦ᡭࡀᥦ᱌ࡋࡓᢨ㟢ᐗ఍ሙࡢࡼ࠺࡞㇦⳹࡞ሙᡤ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᢨ㟢ᐗࢆィ⏬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸஦ࢆ᫂ゝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋJS038ࡣ♫஺ⓗ࡞ሙᡤ࡛ࠊ⡆༢࡟࿘ᅖࡢே࡜஺ࢃࡾ
ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࢆࠊࡶ࠺୍᪉ࡢࣉࣛࣥ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚㏙࡭࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡶࠕ㹼ࡼࡾ㹼ࡀ࠸࠸ࠖ࠶
ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕ㹼ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㑅ᢥࡋࡓࣉࣛࣥࡔࡅࡀ࠸࠸࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ

[౛10]
TE038㸸࠺ࢇࠊ᱁Ᏻࠋ࠶࡜ࠊࡁࡻࢇࡁࡻࢇࡢᩱ⌮ࡀ㣗࡭ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡡ࠼ࠋ࠺ࢇࠋࢣ࣮ࢱࣜࣥࢢࡶ
ࡍࡈ࠸࠸࠸ࡅ࡝ࡉࠊࡡ࠼ࠊࡸࡗࡥࡾࡁࡻࢇࡁࡻࢇࡢ
SA039: ࡁࡻࢇࡁࡻࢇࡢᩱ⌮ࡀ㣗࡭ࡽࢀࡿ

MI088㸸ࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࡼࡡࠋࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࡼࡡ㸦࠺ࢇ㸧ࡲ࠶ࠊࡇࡗࡕࡢ᪉ࡀ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁࡇ࠺࠸࠺ᛮ࠸࡛స
ࡾࡀᗈࡀࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸࡛ࡍࡼࡡࠋ
AA088: ࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࡡࠋ
MI089: ࡇࡗࡕࡶᛮ࠸ฟ࡟࡞ࡿࡅࢀ࡝㸦࠺ࢇ㸧ࡡࠊࡇࡢ↓ᩱࣂࣥࢻࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡀ࠸࠸ࡌࡷ࡞࠸࡛
ࡍ࠿[౛11]
DP022: But we’re not planning that one.
JS038: this would be a social place I think, it’s easier to get around and talk to a͐ն ࣉࣛࣥࡢỴᐃࡢせᅉ ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡣࣉࣛࣥࢆỴᐃࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊⰼ᎑ࡢႴዲࡸⰼ᎑ࡢ⏕ࡲࢀ⫱ࡗࡓ⎔ቃࢆඃඛⓗ࡟⪃࠼࡚ࣞࢫࢺࣛࣥࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡣ㣗஦ࡢ㔞ࡸ㉁ࠊ್ẁࡸປຊ࡜࠸
ࡗࡓᐇ㉁㠃ࢆඃඛࡋࠊⰼ᎑ࡢႴዲ࡞࡝ࡣࡑࡢḟ࡟⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡾࠊࣉࣛࣥࢆỴᐃࡍࡿ㝿࡟㔜どࡍࡿせ⣲࡟㐪࠸ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋ ௨ୖࠊᮏ◊✲࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ4ࡘࡢࣜࢧ࣮ࢳࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥ࡬ࡢゎࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋ
᪥ᮏேࡢࡳ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ☜ㄆ࡜࠸࠺ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢㄢ㢟㐩ᡂᇶ‽ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡢࣉࣛࣥỴᐃࡢせᅉࡣࣃ࣮ࢸ࢕࡟せࡍࡿປຊࡸ౯᱁࡞࡝ࡢᐇ㉁ⓗ࡞ഃ㠃࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡣⰼ᎑ࡢႴዲࡸᛶ᱁࡞࡝ࠊ
ⰼ᎑࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡣ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶ⥔ᣢࢆ㔜どࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ☜ㄆ࡜࠸࠺ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀྲྀࡾ㎸ࡲࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮࡛ࣗ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢSYࡣࠊ
᭱㐺࡞ࣉࣛࣥࢆỴᐃࡍࡿ㝿࡟Ẽ࡟ࡋࡓⅬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢࡍࡾྜࢃࡏࢆ࠶ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢ㛵ಀᛶ⥔ᣢࢆ㔜どࡍࡿⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡸ☜ㄆせồࡢ㢖ᗘ࠿ࡽࡶᢕᥱ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣྜពᙧᡂ㐣⛬࡟࠾ࡅࡿෆᐜ㠃࡟╔┠ࡋࠊⓎヰࡢ୰㌟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢศᯒࢆᐇ᪋ࡍࡿࡇ࡜
࡛ࠊᵓ㐀㠃࠿ࡽࡢศᯒ࡟␃ࡲࡽ࡞࠸ഃ㠃ࡶࡳࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡓࠋྜពᙧᡂࢆࣉࣟࢭࢫ
࡛㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ୰㌟࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࡓ⤖ᯝࠊពぢࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᥦ᱌᪉ἲ࡛㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡾࡑ
࠺࡞஦ࡀᢕᥱࡉࢀࡓࠋ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡀ⮬ศࡢᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࣉࣛࣥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿゎỴ᱌ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ┦ᡭࡢᥦ−39−

日本人とアメリカ人の合意形成におけるインタラクション比較᱌ࡋࡓࣉࣛࣥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿゎỴ᱌ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡣ⮬ศࡢᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࣉࣛࣥ
࡟ᑐࡍࡿゎỴ᱌ࡢࡳࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊྜព࡟㐩ࡍࡿࡲ࡛ࡣ┦ᡭࡢᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࣉࣛࣥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ゎỴ᱌ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞⾜Ⅽࡣࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢゎỴ᱌࡟ྥࡅࡓ⾜Ⅽࡣࠊ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶ⥔ᣢ࡟ྥࡅࡓ㓄៖ࠊẼ㓄ࡾ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ ࣉࣛࣥỴᐃせᅉࡢ㐪࠸ࡣࢥࣥࣇࣜࢡࢺ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᑐฎࡸྜព࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉࡛ࡶࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋࢥࣥࣇ
ࣜࢡࢺࡢᑐᛂ࡛ࡣࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡣ✚ᴟⓗ࡟┦ᡭ࡜ヰࡋྜ࠸ࠊຠ⋡ⓗ࡟ヰࡋྜ࠸ࢆ㐍ࡵࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡣࠊ┤᥋ᛂ⟅ࡍࡿࡢࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡞⾜Ⅽࡸ┦ᡭ࡜┦࠸ࢀ࡞࠸ពぢࢆ᥍࠼ࡿ⾜Ⅽࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡣຠ⋡ᛶࠊ᪥ᮏே࡟ࡣ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶ⥔ᣢࢆ㔜どࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋྜព࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡀ┦ᡭࡢࣉࣛࣥ࡟ྠពࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ⮬ศࡢ㑅ᢥࡋࡓࣉࣛࣥࢆᤞ࡚࡚ࠊࡦ࡜ࡘࡢࣉࣛࣥ࡟⤠ࡾ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡣࡦ࡜ࡘࡢࣉࣛࣥ࡟Ỵᐃࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ពᚿࢆゝື࡟ࡣ᫂☜࡟⾲ࢃࡉ࡞࠸ࠋྠពࡍࡿഃࡣ┦ᡭࡢࣉࣛࣥ࡟ྠពࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊࠕ㹼ࡶ࠸࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࡢゝⴥ࡛ࠊ┦ᡭࡢᥦ᱌ࢆཷࡅධࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ
࡜ࢆ࡯ࡢࡵ࠿ࡍࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨゝࢆࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊྜពࡣ┦ᡭࡢពぢࡢチᐜ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
௒ᚋࠊ஦౛◊✲ࢆ㔜ࡡ࡚ࠊᐇ㊶ⓗ࡞ሙ㠃࡛ࡢ␗ᩥ໬࡜Ⰻዲ࡞㛵ಀᛶࢆ⥔ᣢࡋࠊ෇⁥࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽ
ࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆጉࡆࡿせᅉࡸࡑࡢ⫼ᬒ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⌧ᐇࢆࡉࡽ࡟᥈⣴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Fujii, 2012. “Differences of situating Self in the place/ba of interaction between the Japanese and
American English speakers”. Journal of Pragmatics 44, 636–662.
ࢸ࢕ࣔࢩ࣮࣭D࣭࣮࣮࢟ࣜ.2004. “A Framework for Cross-Cultural Business Negotiations ␗ᩥ໬஺΅࡟㛵ࡍࡿᯟ⤌ࡳ” ࠗ⤒ႠᏛㄽ㞟࠘ࠊ ➨ 15 ᕳࠊ➨ 2 ྕࠊ1-14
኱὾ࡿ࠸Ꮚ.2000.”᪥ᮏேᏛ⏕࡜እᅜே␃Ꮫ⏕࡟࠾ࡅࡿྜពᙧᡂ㐣⛬ࡢẚ㍑” ࠗᗈᓥ኱Ꮫ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ⛉⣖せ࠘
ࠊ No.10ࠊ65-71−40−

第18回大会発表論文集



第11号

5B  JG:K  7/$9F yÇų ŦšÚdmdmť
tkobayashi1234@gmail.com

PAbstractQ
This study demonstrates the (non-)linguistic phenomena that the Current Discourse Space, a cognitive modelof discourse in Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1991, 1996, 2001, 2008), can account for by observing two
new usages of the discourse marker I mean: Expectation for a Specific Answer and Preface. Descriptions ofdynamic cognitive processes in the use of I mean will provide an example of a gradation and relationshipbetween the usages of I mean.
(.-.*1. ŀĀ³Ýų 2. current discourse space (CDS)ų 3. ŅĿÐŇų 4. ţĵų 5. ǓǶǴ¾

 "ų ŀĀķŁmƠŁîņƥ@µƥĵãƽPƱŀĀŁîņƥÉĚưƉ¬ÊƐƺƞ ƑƄƉǷ~Ë 2001ǸžèoƥķŁëňƽŀĀŁîņƣ_ƝƄƞ,ÆƑƘĂčƦzƢƄſÄĂčƟƦŅĿÐŇ I meanžèƣ%ĭ
Ăčƣķ?ƥƢƄ 2 ƜƥîÝƽCƸƍǷƁŋVǍǜǰǅķ?îÝƂƠƁ%ŃưîÝƂǸžƖƥQƽŀĀ³ÝƣƇƌƹ current discourse spaceǷ CDSǸƽîƄƞĺŒƓƹƎƠƽûùƠƓƹſCDS ƠƦ Ronald W.
Langacker ƥ¬UƓƹŀĀ³ÝƣƇƌƹŅĿƥǫǙǱƥƎƠƟžƎƺƯƟQņƟƼƺƞƊƘrùÍ)tƥǲǣǱƣ4Ɔƞž«ņžǦǯǂǚǝǏžǓǶǴ ¾ƢơžƣŁîņƟƼƺƞƊƘÍƳPƱǷLangacker 2008; 466-467, 2001; ~Ë 2001, 2004; ï 2010ǸſÄĂčƟƦžI mean ƥîÝƣŤƓƹǔǂ
ǜǨǖǈƢŀĀǢǳǑǏƥĺŒƽŕƑƞžCDS ƟĺŒGĩƢƎƠƠYũƢƎƠƽºƷƈƣƑžƐƷƣ I mean ƥîÝţƥŤƇƶƩŗĝƽ©Ɔƹſ
 0DAC3N= ÷ó½û'ć4iíÕØ#)I mean '¼&õÌøÏ¾æ 4$¥ª5" 4Ēcf.
Schiffrin 1987; ÍXUÔ 1994; Fox Tree and Schrock 2002; ďs 2002; Imo 2006; Brinton 2008; µZ
2009ēiíÕØ'4 I mean (nĎ)%(1&(g¿ $ ïÅ'~! " 
SchiffrinĒ1987ē) I mean (~³Ï&¾æ$"zčk (g¿ $Ēó¡(ē}(g¿7¦"3ó¡'(ýÅ$&4$2ó¡wĒspeaker-orientedē(MV<V# 4$" 4ÍXUÔĒ1994ē)zčk (ñ ©# 4ñ Ñ (^'ñ 1%. 0p3þ. &%BVT[²'ć4ÌÂ'ñt" 4-ďsĒ2002ĕ32ē#)u/3 å¡(Ã7{ý4q· 4$7¥ª" 4
 SchiffrinĒ1987ē I mean $ó¡$(ćc'ÃÐ('"Fox Tree and SchrockĒ2002ē
) I mean $å¡$(ćc'ÃÐinterpersonal 0 monitoring &%(~³Ïy7¦" 4(1)

InterpersonalĒ((ö¬Ò¡(K;:?e¤ē

Turn ManagementĒBVTÉUà¤ē

RepairĒĊċÏUÞõÏñ ©ēMonitoringĒå¡(ÊðD;E=ē

OrganizationalĒHJE=(¨bē  ĒFox Tree and Schrock 2002; £k(®³õ)Ìäē−41−

CDSの射程〜談話標識 I mean の新しい例からの検証〜 (^Y&iíÕØ$") ImoĒ2006ē0 BrintonĒ2008ē&%¦254iíÕØ#)¾ænĎX#I mean --&õÌøÏ¾æ7¤ $7¯2'" 4ÌÂĆ(o0ćc'4ñt)&³ÕØ#)ôÓ­Â(ïÅ2CDS 7Ì " I mean (ùÌÂ'4ôÓLSA?7òÿ4$#ÌÂĆ(ćc1+Āß7§4

  7  /O L3)+,'E2@;  0I!@; ų %ĭĂčƟķ?ƥƢƄ I mean ƥ 2 ƜƥƠƦžƥǷ2ǸƵǷ3ǸƣĆƓƶƅƣžĿƑƉīōƥ%ĭøĿƥ)tƣķ?ƑƢƄîÝƥƎƠƟƃƹſ2 Ƿ2Ǹƥ T ƦòžL ƦgƟžĿƥ>4ħƦĹ 4 LƟƃƹſ
ĿƦ T ƉǥǏǚǴśbƥ+ōƙƠķƄžT Ơ L bƥ 1 ƉƁT ƦƄƜƟƳqsƣƹƎƠƉƟƊƹƂƠƄƅ qƽĄŀƑƘƠƎƻƈƷiƯƹſ
(2) T: Yeah, it’s like 40-minute drive. So, I can visit home often to keep my mom some company.
ǷƁƖƅžŎƟ 40 ,ƋƷƄſƙƈƷŮģƣƛƞÖĴƠ¼ţƽŘƏƕƹƾƙſƂǸ
L: Do you have a car?ų ǷƁŎƦ¤ƛƞƹƥǿƂǸ
T: I mean like my family has two cars.ų ǷƁƅǶƾžƟƳžqsƣƦŎƉ 2 HƃƹƾƙſƂǸ
L: Okay but not here.ų ǷƁƪǶƾſƟƳƎƎƣƦƢƄƥƤſƂ
T: I mean, sophomores aren’t even allowed to have cars here, are they?ų ǷƁƟƳ 2íƦǇǬǴǞǏƟ

Ŏƽ¤ƜƎƠƉļGƐƺƞƢƄƾƒƴƢƈƛƘƛƌǿƂǸ
L: I think they just sent an email about that and you are allowed to have like a little decal thing, yeah.
ǷƁĄƈ¿ŐƖƥƎƠƟdmƈƷǪǶǱƉƃƛƞžǏǘǖǆǶưƘƄƥƉƳƷƆƘƠƅƌơſƂǸų ƥƉ´ƑƄƥƦžĿƑ T Ɖ I mean ƣƶƛƞĨƊ L ƥŋVƣķ?ƑƞƄƹƎƠƟƃƹſSchiffrin
Ƿ1987ǸƥķƅƶƅƢžSů)tƵZƥÔƥîÝƟƦƢƄƎƠƦžĿƑ T ƥü1ƥøĿƠ I mean ƥøĿƉķƄ­ƆƥŤƣƢƄžƜƯƸƁqsƣŎƉ 2 HƃƹƎƠƦqsƟÖĴƣƅƎƠƥķƄ­ƆƟƦƢƄƂƠƄƅ

qƈƷºƷƈƟƃƹſƯƘ T ƥøĿƉ I mean ƟŢiƐƺƞƄƹƎƠƈƷžǓǶǴêƥîÝƉ÷ƼƺƹƉžü1ƥøĿƉvĿħƥŋVƟƃƸžǓǶǴ2ƸƞƥÝƥĵãƈƷķƅƠƁ1ƥøĿħƉÓ

ƥøĿħƽ¥oƑƞƄƹƂƎƠƣƢƹƘƲǷcf. Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974ǸžǷ2Ǹƥ I mean ƦǓǶǴƣŤƓƹîÝƟƦƢƄƠķƆƹſƖƑƞ1ħƥ`ƉĨƊƥǠǄǂǏƽ¤ƓƹƶƅƢøĿƣƢƛƞƇ
ƷƔžI mean ƣƶƛƞøĿƬƥǋǨǖǚǪǴǚƽƲƶƅƠƓƹĿƑƥZƉƢƄƎƠƈƷžFox Tree andSchrockǷ2002ǸƥķƅƶƅƢ interpersonal ƥîÝƟƳƢƄſĿƑƉĨƊƥŋVƣķ?ƑƞƄƹƎƠƈƷž
ÄîÝƽƁŋVǍǜǰǅķ?îÝƂƠRƫƎƠƣƓƹſų ƣ¦ƍƹǷ3ǸƦǷ2ǸƠƦöƢƸžĿƑƉ I mean ƣƶƛƞķ?ƓƹƥƦ%ĭøĿƥ)tƟƦƢƄſ
(3) A: My residents had problems with leaving their things out in the common room last year. They would
always like leave out their laptops and some of them didn’t have passwords and then they would likego into a room and play super smash brothers. And so if I saw that, I would, I mean, I probably
wasn’t supposed to but I would just like open their laptop like if they had Facebook open, I’d be like,ǷƁKƒǠǳǀƥ

ƘƚƦ=ž(îŜ|ƣĉçƽĤƊƛƨƢƑƣƓƹƄƋƕƉƃƛƘƥſƷƦƄƜƳǞǒǋǴƽĤƊƛƨƢƑƣƑƞžóŪǳǖǈƽƑƢƄƥƳƄƞžī,ƥŜ|ƟǏǶǞǶǏǧǖ
ǖǍǭǡǯǌǶǐƈƢƾƈƽƑƞƹƾƙƶƤſƖƺƽıƹƠžƷƥǞǒǋǴƽŴžƳƚƻƾžƓƭƊ
ƒƴƢƄƈƳƑƺƢƄƌơžǞǒǋǴƽŢƌƞžǠǄǂǏǡǖǈƉŢƄƞƄƘƷĉƦŴſƂǸ
J: Facebook break ...ų ǷƁǠǄǂǏǡǖǈǡǲǂǈƤſƂǸ

−42−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

ų I mean ƥ1ƟøĿƉŔ-ƺƹƥƦžƁķƄüƑƂƁķƄƶơưƂƁEƏƳƸƂƢơƥîÝƣcƄƉžƎƎƟƦ I
probably wasn’t supposed to but ƽ§ƾƟ I would ƥøĿƽĝƌƞƄƹƘƲž9ƢƹƁķƄüƑƂƵƁĸ
ÔƂƥîÝƠƦķƆƢƄſƖƑƞ I mean ƥøĿƦ%ĭøĿƶƸƳĝøĿƠƥŤŗƉŲƄƘƲžƁŤŗ
`ƥœ4ƂǷïǵā 1994ǸƽZƑƘîÝƟƦƢƄſƑƘƉƛƞžƎƥ I mean Ʀ%ĭøĿƥķƄ­ƆƟƦƢƋžI probably... ƥøĿƽ1ĤƊùƣx&ƓƹƘƲƣîƄƷƺƞƄƹƠķƆƹſĿƑƉĨƊƥĦƆƽŃư1ĤƊùƣx&ƑƞƄƹƎƠƈƷžÄČƟƦĺƥîÝƽƁ%ŃưîÝƂƠRƫƎƠƣƓƹſ
ų %ĭĂčƟƦ I mean 1ƥøĿƥ×ŏƣ_ƝƄƞÑĩ,ŰƽƑƞƄƹƘƲž,ÆħƦ I mean ƥ1ƣ
ĿƑƥ%ĭøĿƉƢƈƛƘƸž1ƥøĿƥŤŗƉƈƛƘƸƓƹƠžǓǶǴƣŤƓƹÑĩƵǠǁǯǶ
ƢơƠƑƞ,ŰƑƉƚƟƃƹſƑƈƑŀĀùĵãƈƷķƅƠžŀĀƟƃƹĿƑƦžǓǶǴƥêƵĞ¤ƽûùƠƑƞ I mean ƽîƄƹƠƄƅƶƸž%ĭøĿƣƶƛƞĨƊƉÞƽMƌƹvňƉĿƑƥƖƺƠƦöƢƹƘƲƣ I mean ƽîƄƹƠƄƅłºƥƮƅƉžëňƥƶƸÔĄƢĺŒƠƢƹƶƅƣƼƺƹſ3ų  5B  4
CDS ƠƦŀĀ³ÝƣƇƌƹŅĿƥǫǙǱƥƎƠƟžƁƃƹĿƥþţƣžƖƥĿƽìĶƓƹƘƲƣĿƑƠĨƊƠƥţƟ(ÁƐƺƹƓƭƞƽPƱƂÍǷǪǴǓǱǏǤǶǏǸƠƑƞoĥƐƺƹǷLangacker 1991:
97, 1996: 334, 2001: 144, 2008: 281ǸſƯƘ CDS ƣƦĿƑƠĨƊƉëĭƥŅĿƽơƥƶƅƣìĶƑƞƄ
ƹƈƠƄƅƎƠƳPƯƺƞƄƹǷLangacker 1991: 145ǸſCDS ƦZǺƥƶƅƣĆƐƺž%ĭøĿžëĭøĿž
ĝøĿƠƄƅ 3 Ɯƥî Ƿusage eventǸƣƶƛƞÎƐƺƹſZǺǹCDSų îǷLangacker 2008: 466ǸZ 2ǹ,ŠǷchannelsǸ ǷLangacker 2001: 146ǸƠƦqŧƥøĿƥƎƠƟžfƣƃƹrĵùéÜǷobjective contentǸƦŀĀƣƶƛƞrùƣ©ƆƷƺƘvňƟƃƹſŀĀùƣèƣŧďƚƉŲƄŜ,ƦǢǳǠƿǂǱǷprofileǸƠRƧƺžekƣƶ
ƛƞĆƐƺƹſZƥfŜƣƃƹǉǯǃǴǛǷgroundǸƦqŧƥĿƑǷSǸƠĨƊǷHǸƽĮƑžS Ơ H ƥţƥµMăĠÿ:ƦžĿƑƠĨƊƥţƥǂǴǓǯǈǍǮǴǷinteractionǸƽĮƓſS Ơ H ƈƷǢǳǠƿǂǱ
ŜƬƠƩƹăĠÿ:ƦžĿƑƠĨƊƉKƥvňƣÞƽMƌƞƄƹƎƠǷ(KÞǸƽĮƑƞƄƹſ
øĿƽƓƹƠƄƅƎƠƦžĿƑƉĨƊƣƃƹvňƬÞƽMƌƹƶƅ#ƊƈƌƹƎƠƠKĥƟƃƸžCDS
ƣƶƛƞžĿƥßƺƣÛƛƞ}ŢƓƹķŁĮëƥQǷÍ8ǸƽĺŒƓƹƎƠƉGĩƠƢƹſų î ƦøĿƥ_ąƠƢƹūŬÌƠQÌƟÎƐƺžZ 2 ƣĆƐƺƹƶƅƣ 2 ƜƥÌƦƖƺƗƺ 3ƜƥöƢƹ,ŠǷchannelǸƣ,ƈƺƞƄƹſŀĀ³ÝƣƇƌƹQƠƦÍ8ƟƃƸžķŁĮëƥQƣ
ƦŀĀƥvňƥ©ƆµƉA»ƐƺƞƄƹſbôƽıƹŧƣWŌƓƹǠǲǶǩǷviewing frameǸƦrĵ
ùéÜǷobjective contentǸƠKĒƥÍƟžŀĀƉbôƽıƹŧƥĎÉƥƶƅƢƳƥƟžƉƣÞƽMƌƞƄƹƈžơƥĳãƈƷvňƽıƞƄƹƈƠƄƅƎƠƽĮƓſ`ÎŖǷinformation structureǸƦ
´¹`žǏǟǶǕĔìǷspeech managementǸƦǓǶǴ

−43−¾ƥÍƽPƱǷLangacker 2001: 145-146Ǹſ

CDSの射程〜談話標識 I mean の新しい例からの検証〜 &@H8%
LangackerǷ2001ǸƟƦžCDS Ơ,ŠǷchannelǸƥÍƣƶƛƞžrùƣ©ƆƷƺƘ )tƣ4ƆžǓ
ǶǴ ¾ƵǦǯǂǚǝǏƣŤƓƹķŁĮëƥĺŒƉGĩƟƃƹƎƠƽĆTƑƞƄƹſƯƘ>æãĩ3ƣ_ƝƄƞž«ņƥǢǳǑǏƽ CDS ƣƶƛƞłºƓƹƎƠƉƟƊƹǷcf. ~Ë 2000ǸſǓǶǴĞ¤ƽûùƠƑƘ uh ƠƄƅĮëƦžƥZ 3 ƥƶƅƣĆƓƎƠƉƟƊƹſǏǟǶǕĔì,ŠƣƇƄƞƖƥQƉĺŒƐƺƞƄƹſƯƘǏǤǂǴŁƥ
ĊLľ tu Ʀ usted Ơƥv×ƣƇƄƞžĨƊƣvƑƞĴuƐƽƆƹĮëƟƃƸžƖƥÍ8ƦZ 4 ƥƶƅƣĆƐƺƹſ

Z 3ǹǠǁǯǶƥ uhųų ų ų ǷLangacker 2001: 148Ǹų ų Z 4ǹǏǤǂǴŁ

ĊLľ tuų ų ǷIbid.: 148ǸĨƊƬƥĴuƐžƜƯƸǦǯǂǚǝǏƥĵãƦžĿƑƠĨƊƥţƥǂǴǓǯǈǍǮǴƣƶƛƞĆƐƺƹſ
ƯƘžŀĀķŁmƥĵãƈƷĿƥPƣƇƌƹøĿĶŞƥǢǳǑǏƽłºƑƘƳƥƣž~ËǷ2000Ǹƥ
Ɓ>æãŌ6ƥ«ņǫǙǱƂƉƃƹſƠƑƞžǷ4aǸƈƷǷ4bǸƥĶŞƽƹƠƊžĶŞħ I ƦøĿ U ƽ>æ
ãƠƑƞžkĥŕƸƥQ Mi ƬǀǈǑǏƑžMi ƽ>æãƠƑƞǷ4bǸƥǪǓǠƿǶùQ Mj ƣ0řƓƹſ
(4) a. NƦƉĈƥpçƙſ
b. ǽNƦƉĈƣƠƛƞŉşƢl\ƙǾǷǪǓǠƿǶǸų
IǻĶŞħ
UǻøĿ
Dcǻoƥ³ĪƣƇƄƞVůƥų
øĿƉâ\ùƣĲoƓƹĶŞƥ
ǓǶǊǖǚƥ!įƥǛǪǂǴ
MiǻÓùǷQņùǸQMjǻ ÓùǷŁîņùǸQ

Ƿ~Ë 2004: 94Ǹ
Previous
Usage Event

Current
Usage Event

Anticipated
Usage Event

Objective
Content

Objective
Content

Objective
Content

P1




S

P2



H
GroundZ 5ǹ>æãŌ6ƥ«ņǫǙǱų ų Ƿ~Ë 2001: 186Ǹų ų ų Z 6ǹSů)tƣķ?Ɠƹ I mean ƥîÝų ƎƺƯƟ LangackerǷ2001, 2008ǸƠ~ËǷ2000, 2001ǸƣƇƌƹìņùÉĚưƠƖƺƣ_ƝƋĺŒƽCƸƍƘſƟƦ I mean ƥîÝƣƇƌƹŀĀǢǳǑǏƽ CDS ƽîƄƞĺŒƓƹſų ¿.ƣƁĸÔƂƵƁìðƝƌƂƢơžĿƑƉ I mean ƽîƄƞ%ĭøĿƥSů)tƣķ?ƓƹîÝƽCƸ
ƍƹſƥǷ5ǸƟĿƑƦ I mean ƽîƄƞƁǠǳǰǔƣĭƛƘƎƠƉƢƄƂƈƷƁĭƛƘƎƠƉƃƹƂƠƄ
ƅøĿƣķƄ­ƆƞƄƹſI mean Ʀrùƣ©ƆƷƺƘ 2 ƜƥƽƁA ƟƦƢƋ BƂƠƄƅƟŤƝƌƞƄƹƘƲžZ 6 ƟĆƓŕƸžrĵùéÜƥƢƈƥSůǷPǸƥŤƉǢǳǠƿǂǱƐƺžǂǴǓǯǈǍǮǴƣ
ƶƛƞĿƑƦĨƊƣvƑƞĝøĿƥSů)tƣÞƽMƌƐƕƶƅƠƑƞƄƹſ
(5) I haven’t been to Florida. I mean, I have.
ų Ƿ6ǸƥƶƅƢĿƑƥoƠĨƊƥoƽń²ƓƹƶƅƢ«ņǲǣǱƥîÝƦž>æãŌ6ƥ«ņǫǙǱƽ®îƑƞžZ 7 ƥƶƅƣĆƓƎƠƉƟƊƹſ

−44−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号(6) “I wish you could come with me!”ǷƁ$ƠğƣÅƞƮƑƄƂǸ
“I couldn’t go away with you.”ǷƁƃƢƘƠğƣƖƾƢƠƎƬĭƌƢƄƼƂǸ
“I mean, let’s get married.”ǷƁƜƯƸžĜjƑƶƅƛƞƎƠƢƾƙƂǸų ų ųPrevious
Usage Event

U1

Anticipated
Usage Event

Current
Usage Event

Objective
Content

Objective
ContentDMių ǷSchiffrin 1987: 297Ǽ°Ǹ

Mj

S



U2



H
GroundZ 7ǹ«ņǲǣǱƥ I mean ƥîÝǷ6ǸƦòƥǢǳǦǶǐƽgƉXƓƹaŪƟžîŜƥưƽ¢ƊCƛƘƳƥƟƃƹſòƦ¿.ƥøĿƟǢǳǦǶǐƽZƑƞƄƘƥƙƉžgƦkĥŕƸƥQƟĶŞƑƘƘƲžòƦ I mean ƟZƽºĆƑƞƄƹſI mean ƥøĿƥ1ƣžĿƑƠĨƊƦKĮëƟĆƐƺƘöƢƹvňƣÞƽMƌƞƄƹƎƠƣƢƹƉžƎƥƎƠƦZ 7 ƟĿƑƈƷƩƹăĠÿ:Ɖ>æã Mi ƽěðƑƞ Mj ƣ0řƑžĨƊƈƷƥÿ:Ɖ Mi ƣƃƹƎƠƣƶƛƞĆƓƎƠƉƟƊƹſų ĘƥŝJžI mean ƥǓǶǴƣŤƓƹîÝƠýƥǠǄǂǏƽ¤ƓƹîÝƣƇƌƹŀĀǢǳǑǏƽ
ĆƓƎƠƦƟƊƢƄƉž1ħƦǏǟǶǕĔìƥ,ŠžħƦǉǯǃǴǛ)ƥĿƑƠĨƊƥţƥǂǴǓǯ
ǈǍǮǴƉƖƺƗƺƥÍ8ƣdƊƋŤƼƛƞƄƹǷyÇ 2014: 209Ǹſ
ų CDS ƣƶƛƞžSů)tžZžǓǶǴƣŤƓƹîÝƦžŀĀǢǳǑǏƥŚƄƠƑƞłºƓƹƎƠƉGĩ
ƟƃƹſĿƑƉ I mean ƽîƄƹƥƦžĨƊƉī,ƠƦöƢƹvňƣÞƽMƌƞƄƹƘƲƟƃƸžĿƑ
Ʀ I mean ƠøĿƓƹƎƠƣƶƸžĨƊƣī,ƠKƒvňƬÞƽMƌƹƶƅƣ#ƊƈƌƞƇƸžƖƥQ
Ɵ I mean Ʀ(KÞƥřƽûùƠƑƘƁţĵùń²ƂƽĮƓǧǶǆǶƟƃƹƠķƆƹſCDS ƣƶƛƞłºGĩƢîÝƽ²ìƓƹƠžƥǷ7ǸƥƶƅƣƢƹſ
(7) ŵSů)tǷrùƣ©ƆƷƺƘǸƥŤų ŴŴŴŴ Ŷ«ņƥǲǣǱ

ŷǓǶǴĞ¤ų ŴŴŴŴŴ ŸǓǶǴêų ŴŴŴŴŴŴ ŹǠǄǂǏ¤ų ŅĿÐŇ I mean ƠƥŤŗƟ CDS ƉwċƣBƲƹƥƦžrùƣ©ƆƷƺƘ 2 Ɯƥ)tƥŤƵĿƑƠĨƊƥoƥýŚžǓǶǴƵǦǯǂǚǝǏƥǲǣǱƙƌƟƦƢƄſCDS ƣƶƹŀĀǢǳǑǏƥĺ
ŒƦžîÝƠîÝƥţƥŗĝƥ¡©ƽGĩƣƓƹſîÝţƽ×ŏƓƹƘƲƥ_áƽ%ĭøĿƣƇƋƠž
ĿƑƦ I mean ƣƶƛƞīōƥ%ĭøĿƥ)tƵǷŵǸžīōƥ%ĭøĿƣƶƛƞƼƹZƣķ?Ƒƞ
ƄƹǷŶǸſƑƈƑǓǶǴƥĞ¤ƵĨƊƥǠǄǂǏ¤ƥîÝƟƦž%ĭøĿƥl\Ƶ)tƶƸƳĝøĿƬƥÃƉşİƠƢƹǷcf. Imo 2006: 16ǸſƖƑƞǓǶǴêƥîÝƠƢƹƠĿƑƥ%ĭøĿƦn'ƣİƠƢƹſ%ĭøĿƬƥķ?ƈƷž%ĭøĿƥÒhžƐƷƣĝøĿƬƥÃƯƟƥŗĝƦžǷ2ǸƠ
Ƿ3ǸƠƑƞ¦ƍƘ´ƑƄ I mean ƥƣƶƛƞĆƓƎƠƉƟƊƹſ
(8) L: Do you have a car?

T: I mean like my family has two cars.ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų Ƿ2 ƶƸ¢ĖǸǷ8ǸƽıƹƠžĿƑ I mean ƟĨƊƥŋVƣvƑƞüªùƣƦXēƑƞƄƢƄſŋVƬƥţªùƢXēƦžƁƃƢƘƦĉƉŎƽ¤ƛƞƄƹƈOƈƽØƣƑƞƄƹƉžƖƺƦĉƉd-ƙƠƅƎƠƦöƢƹƂ
ƎƠƽƆƞƄƹſqsƈƷsƉŐƄ T ƣƠƛƞşİƢƥƦžŎƥÁħƟƃƹƈơƅƈƟƦƢƋžŎƽīð
ƣƆƹƈơƅƈƢƥƟƃƹſƃƹĭäƣ(ŕƑƞ+ëƓƹ+Å−45−ƥßƺƽƁǍǜǰǅƂƠRƫƉžŋVǍǜCDSの射程〜談話標識 I mean の新しい例からの検証〜

ǰǅ Ʀ ƁĿƑƥ ĀƸƘƄ `ƽĨƊƉ ƆƞƋƺ ƹƂƠƄ ƅÃƵ İÙƽPƱǷ Langacker 2008:
474-475ǸſƎƎƟžýƥŋVƥƢƈƥƁőēƬƥÃƵİÙƂƽ I mean ƥ%ĭøĿƠƓƹƠžƥîÝƠKÏƣžI mean ƦĿƑƠĨƊƉöƢƹvňƣÞƽMƌƞƄƹƎƠƽĮƓƎƠƣƢƹſŋVǍǜǰǅķ
?îÝƥ I mean ƣƇƌƹŀĀǢǳǑǏƦžƥZ 8 ƥƶƅƣĆƓƎƠƉƟƊƹſ     
e

C


S

H
G

I mean,Z 8ǹŋVǍǜǰǅķ?îÝǷcf. Langacker 2008: 474ǸƥZƉŋVǍǜǰǅƽĮƑžĿƑƦŋVƣƶƛƞĨƊƥSůƣvƓƹƉƟƃƹƈƽ±ƆƹƶƅƣİÙƓƹſŽƣÿ:Ʀ6ľƉĮƓǢǳǑǏžƜƯƸ you have a car ƽĮƑžƖƥSůƽDƌ&ƺƹƈ£OC ǸƉǉǯǃǴǛ)ƥĨƊƠKƟƃƹƎƠƉžãĠƣƶƛƞĆƐƺƞƄƹſƯƘžy³kƟƓƹÍ8ħǷże Ơ½ƈƺƘüĠƦĨƊƥSůƬƥžǉǯǃǴǛ)ƥ

şÿ:ƦőēƬƥİÙžƖƑƞfƠIƥî ƦƖƺƗƺĨƊƥőēƠĿƑƠĨƊƥ(ÁƽĆƑƞƄƹſƯƘfƥZƟƦ I mean ƣƶƛƞžĿƑƠĨƊƉöƢƹvňžƜƯƸĿƑƦ6ľƥǢǳǑǏžĨƊƦĿƑƥSůƣÞƽMƌƞƄƹƎƠƽĆƑƞƄƹſǉǯǃǴǛƥ

şÿ:Ʀ(KÞƽƓ3ƽĮƑžIƥZƦĝøĿƟĿƑƠĨƊƉ¿ęùƣKvňƣÞƽMƌƹƎƠƽĮƓſų ŋVǍǜǰǅķ?îÝƟƦĨƊƥŋVž<uƣķƆƧƁĨƊƥőēƬƥÃƂƽ I mean ƥ%ĭøĿƠƑƘƉžƥ%ŃưîÝƟƦĿƑƥ%ĭøĿƦl\ƑƢƄſ(9) ... I would, I mean, I probably wasn’t supposed to but I would just like open their laptop like if they had
Facebook open, I’d be like ...ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų Ƿ3 ƶƸ¢ĖǸų ĿƑƦ I would ƟøĿƽiƲƘƉžŔƟ I mean, I probably wasn’t supposed to but ƽ¨&ƑžƖƥƃƠ
Ɵ¿.ƥøĿƽ*ŢƑƞƄƹſI mean ƥøĿƥ¨&ƣƶƛƞĿƑƦƁƃƢƘƦƈƷĉƉķƅƶƅƣ
ƅƈƳƑƺƢƄƉžĉƉķƇƅƠƑƞƄƹƎƠƦöƢƹƂƎƠƽĮƑƞƄƹſƁƥǞǒǋǴǷFacebookǸƽ

7ƣƄƒƹƂƠƄƅĭäƦĨƊƣǦǎǘǁǡƢ:ňƽƳƘƷƐƢƄƎƠƽĿƑƦĀƑƞƄƹƉžĿƑƉķƄƘƄƥƦžġƯƸƥƢƄK{Ƙƚƣ]ƉƑƘƋƢƹƠƄƅƎƠƟƃƹſ%ŃưîÝƣŤƓƹ

ŀĀǢǳǑǏƦZ 9 ƥƶƅƣĆƐƺƹſ
e

C


S

H
G

I probably wasn’t supposed toZ 9ǹ%ŃưîÝ

−46−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ÄîÝƣƦ I mean ƣƶƛƞķ?Ɛƺƹ%ĭøĿƦl\ƑƢƄƉžƁĿƑƠĨƊƉöƢƹvňƣÞƽMƌƹƂƠƄƅ I mean ƣ(ŕƓƹŀĀùƢǣǶǏƦÕƛƞƄƹſƖƑƞŅĿƥ}ŢƣƛƞžƖƥǏǇǶǧ
ƉėĢ8ƐƺƹſI mean ƥøĿƦĨƊƉĿƑƥSůƣÞƽMƌƞƄƘƎƠƽĮƑǷZ 9 fIǸžķƄüƑƥ*ŢŜ,ƦĿƑƥÞƥvňƽĮƓƎƠƣƢƸž¿ęùƣĨƊƉĿƑƠKƥvňƣÞƽMƌƹƎƠƣƢƹſų ĺƥ´ƑƄ 2 îÝƠƥîÝƠƥŤƠŗĝƽƥǷ10ǸƣƯƠƲƹſ
(10) ŵSů)tǷrùƣ©ƆƷƺƘǸƥŤų ŴŴ Ŷ«ņƥǲǣǱ ŴŴŴźŋVǍǜǰǅķ?îÝų ŴŴų Ż%ŃưîÝ ŴŴ ŸǓǶǴê ŴŴŴŴŷǓǶǴĞ¤
ŹǠǄǂǏƥ¤ &@#H84Mų ĿƑƦ I mean ƽîƄƹƎƠƟžĨƊƉī,ƠöƢƹvňƣÞƽMƌǷƶƅƠƑǸƞƄƹƎƠƽĮƑžK
vňƣÞƽMƌƹƶƅƣƑƞƄƹſƎƥƎƠƦƓƭƞƥîÝƣ(ŕƑƞƄƹƘƲžĿƑƠĨƊƠƥţĵùń²Ɖ I mean ƥǏǇǶǧùQƟƃƹƠķƛƞƶƄſƑƈƑ CDS ƦƖƳƖƳĿƑƠĨƊƉKvňƣÞƽMƌƹƎƠƽ1¬ƠƑƞƇƸǷcf. Langacker 1996: 335ǸžŅĿƥßƺƥƢƈƟĿƑƠĨƊƉöƢƹvňƣÞƽMƌƹŧƥŀĀǢǳǑǏƣƜƄƞƦķ?ƉƢƄſƙƉ LangackerǷ1996: 334-337,
2009: 169-171 Ǹ Ɵ ¥ Ć ľ Ƣ ơ ƣ Ť Ƽ ƹ ŀ Ā Ǣ ǳ Ǒ Ǐ ƥ ĺ Œ ƽ û ù Ơ Ƒ ƞ ž Ŀ Ƒ  Ơ Ĩ Ɗ  ƥ Ā ŇǷknowledgeǸǵŀŇǷawarenessǸƥŭ^ƽ/ ƣĻoƑƞƇƸž·ƣZ 8-9 ƟĆƑƘŕƸžĿƑƠĨƊƥÞƥMƊƽ/ƀƣĺŒƓƹƎƠƦVůƉƢƄƶƅƣƼƺƹſų ƎƎƟVůƠƢƹƥƉžĿƑƠĨƊƥoƥöƟƃƹſŅĿÐŇ I mean ƣŤƓƹŀĀǢǳǑǏƣƇ
ƄƞžƁĨƊƉ/ƥvňƣÞƽMƌƞƄƹƎƠƽĿƑƉŀŇƓƹƂƎƠƠKƒƋƷƄƁĨƊƦĿƑƳKƒvňƣÞƽMƌƞƄƹƠĿƑƉŀŇƓƹƂƎƠƉşİƟƃƹſ1ħƠħƥǢǳǑǏƦƖƺƗƺƥǷ11bǸƠǷ11cǸƥĀŇƥǲǣǱƣvƓƹſ(11) a. A knows – 1 X
b. A knows – 2 that B knows – 1 X
c. A knows – 3 that B knows – 2 that A knows – 1 X ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ǷItkonen 2008: 288ǸĿƑƦ I mean ƣƶƛƞƁƃƢƘƦĉƉƃƢƘƠKƒƶƅƣƛƞƄƹƈƳƑƺƢƄƉžĉƉƅƎƠƦƤƂ
ƠƄƅƶƅƣĨƊƣ#ƊƈƌƹſI mean ƣŤƓƹţĵùƢń²ƥǢǳǑǏƦƥZ 10ǷaǸƥƶƅƣĆ
ƓƎƠƉƟƊƹſĨƊƈƷĿƑƽěðƑƞvňƣƩƹăĠÿ:ƦƁĨƊƉöƢƹvňƣÞƽMƌƞƄƹƂƎƠƽĿƑƉŀŇƓƹǢǳǑǏƽĮƑžĿƑƈƷĨƊƽěðƑƞvňƣĬƹăĠÿ:ƦƁĨƊƉĿƑƳƖƥöƢƹvňƣÞƽMƌƞƄƹƠƛƞƄƹƂƎƠƽĿƑƉŀŇƓƹǢǳǑǏƽĮƑƞ
ƄƹſǷ8ǸƟ I mean ƽîƄƹƎƠƉƟƊƹƥƦžĨƊƉĿƑƳƁŎƽ¤ƛƞƄƹƥƈơƅƈƂƣÞƽMƌƞƋƺƹƎƠƽÃƑƞƇƸžĿƑƉƖƺƽŀŇƑžƖƺƠƠƳƣĿƑƉÞƽMƌƹvňƦ/ƣƃƹƘƲƟƃƹǷZ 10bǸſǷ9ǸƟƦĿƑƦĨƊƥÞƽMƌƹvňƽ%ŃưƑžƖƺƽ I mean Ɵ¬ĆƓƹƠK¼ƣžƖƥƃƠƥøĿƟĨƊƣÞƽMƌƞƮƑƄvňƽ¬ĆƑƞƄƹǷZ 10cǸſ     
e

C

S

H
G

ų Z 10ǹI mean ƥţĵùń²ǷaǸų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų (b)ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų ų (c)−47−

CDSの射程〜談話標識 I mean の新しい例からの検証〜"ų ÄĂčƟƦŅĿÐŇ I mean ƽƣžCDS ƽîƄƞłºGĩƢãƠłºYũƢãƽĆƑƘſŅĿÐŇ I
mean ƣƦSůƣķ?ƓƹîÝƈƷž%ĭøĿƥƢƄǠǁǯǶƠƑƞƥîÝžƖƑƞýƥǠǄǂǏƥ¤ƽûùƠƑƘîÝƯƟƄîÝƉƃƹƉž%ĭĂčƦĺŒùƟÑĩ,ŰƣõƯƛƞƄƘſCDS ƽîƄƞ I mean ƣŤƓƹŀĀǢǳǑǏƽĺŒƓƹƎƠƣƶƸžîÝţƥŤƦŀĀƉƣÞƽMƌƞƄƹ
ƈƥöƠƑƞłºƓƹƎƠƉƟƊžƐƷƣƁŋVǍǜǰǅķ?îÝƂƠƁ%ŃưîÝƂƽǓǶǴƣŤŗƓƹî
ÝƥţƣĤƝƌƹƎƠƟžîÝţƥŗĝƉ©ƆƷƺƹƎƠƽºƷƈƣƑƘſ
<
1. ÄČƦ¸ÄŁîņmĐ 18 XdǷ2015 12 À 5 ¸ž¶ǻLF|dmǸƣƇƌƹøĮ)tƣž4đǵÔƽ4ƆƘƳƥƟƃƹſøĮ¸ƦcƋƥ%íµƵťíƥúÏƶƸŉşƢǋǪǴǚǵƏ¥¯ƽƄƘƙƄƘſƎƥ
aƽ"Ƹƞ;ƋćñƑƍƘƄſ
2. Ƿ2, 3, 5ǸƦžøĮħƉšÚdmƁ³8ŊàmǠǁǶǱǛǵǧǝǶǎǬǶűǢǳǉǯǩƂƥ5ƽDƌžǓǠ
ǗdmǷĕ[ǸƣƞdmíƽvňƣBŨƑƘīåøĿǙǶǓƶƸîƑƘƳƥƟƃƹǷcf. yÇ 2013Ǹſ
3. î6ÑƥĵãƈƷķƆƧžĿƑƉ I mean ƽîƄƹƥƦžĨƊƈƷī,ƣMƈƅÃƵİÂƣƅƯƋƆƷƺƢƈƛƘƸžĨƊƉöƢƹvňƣÞƽMƌƶƅƠƑƘƸƓƹƘƲƟƃƸžƁķƄƶơưƂƵƁ%ŃưƂƠ
ƄƛƘĭäǵǢǳǑǏƦžĺƥƶƅƢĿƑƠĨƊƥţƥţĵùƢń²ƥĜÈƠƑƞëƺƹſƯƘÄČ
ƟîƄƹƁţĵùǷintersubjectiveǸƂƠƄƅîŁƦ VerhargenǷ2007Ǹƥoĥƣ_ƝƋſ
4. ÄČƟîƄƘŀĀ³ÝƥîŁƥ¸ÄŁĽƦžïǵÄǷ2010Ǹƽ>ĦƣƑƘſ

1>6?
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox Tree, Jean E. and Josef C Schrock. 2002. “Basic
meaning of you know and I mean,” Journal of
Pragmatics 34, 727-747.
Imo, Woldgang. 2006. “A Construction Grammar Approachto the Phrase I mean in Spoken English,” GIDI
(Grammatik in der Interaktion) Arbeitspapier Nr. 4.
Itkonen Esa. 2008. “The Central Role of Normativity in
Language and Linguistics,” In Jordan Zlatev et al. (eds.),
The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity,
307-331, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
¶ĈĔ2013Ĕ8PR<]Ë(÷ó½ûaÌhwBKF
(Ë,(ö¸2  ăÀ­rüÄÕØ 2013 (12)
158-164.
¶ĈĔ2014Ĕ÷ó½û I mean '4ôÓõÌøÏLSA? Ú 86 |` ProceedingsĒ_ 2013 «Ă` Proceedingsē®³ê­`208-209Ĕ

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive
Grammar vol. 2, Descriptive Application, Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1996. “Conceptual Grouping andPronominal Anaphora,” In Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in
Anaphora, 333-378, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2001. “Discourse in Cognitive
Grammar,” Cognitive Linguistics 12 (2), 143-188.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A BasicIntroduction, New York: Oxford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald. W. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive
Grammar, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
µZfâĔ2009Ĕ
I mean (¾æÏÈ'ć4Wã  éĐ»ďÛĄ¹ÝîĒ44ē53-61Ĕ

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G. 1974. “A
Simplest Systematics for the Organization ofTurn-taking for Conversation,” Language, 50 (4),696-735.
đÍ°Ĕ2010ĔôÓ$÷óU º¿¯ĒáēúôÓñõ(KSTG98 4ñõāÌ(C:IN@OôÓõÌø(8LSVD 1-12´\ĕÕØ×Ĕ
Í°U³ĉvĔ2010Ĕº¿¯ĒáēúôÓñõ(
KSTG98 4ñõāÌ(C:IN@OôÓõÌø(8L
SVD ´\ĕÕØ×Ĕ

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
ďsçĔ2002Ĕ÷ó½û ďsçU¶ÎU¶ÖĒáē LQ>MG9E=?(ą 29-33´\ĕČì± ĔÍXëÜUÔdĔ1994Ĕ
®ñõ'4y(ËĕYou know
$I mean(p lÊ`ÕØxèÆñõlÊĒNLē
1994 (28)9-16Ĕ

Verhagen, Arie. 2007. “Construal and Perspectualization,”
In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (ed.), The
Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 48-81,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
º¿¯Ĕ2000Ĕ ôÓñõsÊ ´\ĕ6mÇĔº¿¯Ĕ2001Ĕ
ôÓõÌø ÁeĒáē jĄõÌøÕØÊø$Ì 179-194´\ĕÕØ×Ĕº¿¯Ĕ2004Ĕ $*(ôÓÙĆ ´\ĕą¢×Ĕ

−48−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢព࿡ⓗ≉ᚩ࠾ࡼࡧࢸࢡࢫࢺࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ⏣୸Ṍᐇி㒔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸺Abstract㸼
The aim of this study is to show that the difference in the grammatical forms of metaphoric expressions may
motivate the use of them in a certain text. I observed grammatical characteristics of metaphoric expressions
found in three types of texts, differing in primary communicative functions: representational, expressive, andconative. The frequent use of Denominal adjective metaphors, for example, is seen exclusively in a catalogue ofplants, a conative text. By the comparison between nominal metaphor and denominal adjective metaphor, it isconcluded that a specific type of expressions is preferred because the semantic and constructional characteristicsof the expression fit the communicative purpose of the text.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸ྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺෆࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࠊ⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡢ㑅ᢥ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࡣ A is B ࡜࠸࠺ࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥࡢᙧࢆࡋࡓࡶࡢࡀࡑࡢ඾ᆺ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࠊศᯒࡢ୰
ᚰ࡜ࡋ࡚ఏ⤫ⓗ࡟ᢅࢃࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊ୺࡟ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛศ㔝ࡢ◊✲ࡢ㐍ᒎ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡀ
᪥ᖖゝㄒ࡟㐢ࡃᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ᐇ㝿ࡣࢥࣆࣗࣛᩥ࡟㝈ࡽࡎ࠶ࡽࡺࡿゝㄒᙧᘧ࡛ᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀᗈࡃ▱ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ㸦Lakoff 1980, ᒣ᲍ 1988 ௚㸧ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡑࡢ୰ᚰⓗㄢ㢟ࡣࠊ㊃ព࡜፹య࡜
ࡋ࡚㑅ࡤࢀࡿᴫᛕ㛫ࡢ㛵ಀ࡞࡝ᴫᛕⓗ࡞ഃ㠃࡟࠶ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ⌮ゎ࣭⏘ฟࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࡣ౫↛࡜ࡋ࡚⟅࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺ᢈุࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ㏆ᖺ࡛ࡣࠊㄯヰࡢ୰࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧ
࡛ࠊࡲࡓ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙺ๭࡛⌧ࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸ࡗࡓ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢලయⓗ౑⏝࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓ◊✲ࡶቑ࠼࡚ࡁ࡚
࠸ࡿ㸦Deignan 2005, Cameron 2008 ௚㸧ࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ලయⓗ࡞౑⏝ࠊ≉࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧ࡛ᐇ
⌧ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࢆ↔Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࡢ⏘ฟ࡟ࡣࠊఏ㐩ୖࡢពᅗ࡟㐺ࡋࡓゝㄒᙧᘧࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢ୍౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊⱥㄒࡢྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮㸦e.g.
rosy, fluffy㸧ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊࡇࡢᙧᘧࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ሙ㠃࡜ࡑࡢ᰿ᣐࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡇࡢᙧᘧ
ࡀࡶࡘព࿡ⓗ≉ᚩࡀ≉ᐃࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛ࡢ౑⏝ࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ
ᵓᡂࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎ 2 ⠇࡛ࠊྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᴫほࡋࠊࡑࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ3 ⠇࡛␗࡞ࡿࢱ࢖ࣉࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆ 3 ࡘྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ㝿࡟ྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࢸࢡࢫࢺࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ4 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢ

−49−

名詞派生形容詞メタファーの意味的特徴およびテクストタイプとの関係

ࢸࢡࢫࢺࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࡢぶ࿴ᛶࡀ㧗࠸࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࡟ᑐࡋࠊࡇࡢゝㄒᙧᘧࡀᣢࡘ≉ᚩ࠿ࡽㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡿࠋ

2. ඛ⾜◊✲
࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࡀᐇ㝿࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧ࡛ᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࡣࠊ୺࡟ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ㔞ⓗ◊✲ࡸⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽྲྀࡾ⤌ࡲࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ◊✲ࡢከࡃ࡛ࠊ࠶ࡿㄒྃࡀ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮
ⓗព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿሙྜࠊᏐ⩏ⓗព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿሙྜ࡜ࡣᙧែⓗ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᵓᩥⓗ࡟༊ูࡉࢀࡿഴྥ
ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Low 1988, Hunston 2002, Deignan 2005㸧1ࠋⱥㄒࡢྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモࡶࡑࡢࡦ࡜ࡘ࡛ࠊඖࡢྡモࡣᏐ⩏ⓗព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᅽಽⓗ࡞ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᙧᐜモ໬ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛࣓ࢱ
ࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡ࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺㸦e.g. a catty nickname (Deignan 2005)㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ᥋㎡ࡢ᭷↓࡜࠸ࡗࡓᙧᘧⓗ࡞㐪࠸ࡣࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟᫂♧ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸ࢃ
ࢀࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࡢุ᩿࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥ⬦ࡢᚲせᛶࡢ⛬ᗘ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ⏣୸㸦2015b㸧࡛ࡣࠊᙧᐜモ໬࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⏕ࡌࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡ࡣඖࡢྡモ࡟័⏝໬ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ᪂ࡓ࡟ࡶࡓࡽࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣᙧᘧࡢ㐪࠸ࡀࠊ༢࡟࣓ࢱ
ࣇ࢓࣮ࡢᣦᶆ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿ࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモࡀᩥ⬦ࡢ୰࡛ᐇ㝿࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ほᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊྡモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ࡢ౑࠸ศࡅ
ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࡽࡑࢀࡣ࡞ࡐ࠿᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ

3. ࢸࢡࢫࢺෆࡢྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮
࠶ࡽࡺࡿࢸࢡࢫࢺࡣࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢఏ㐩ពᅗࡢࡶ࡜᭩࠿ࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜᝿ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࠋఏ㐩ୖࡢ┠ⓗ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢ౑⏝ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ␗࡞ࡿఏ㐩ពᅗࡢࡶ࡜࡛᭩࠿ࢀࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࢸࢡࢫࢺ
ࢆᩘⅬྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟࠾࠸࡚࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡛ᐇ⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆほᐹࡍࡿࠋࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢศ㢮ࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᵝࠎ࡞ᇶ‽࡛࡞ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟ࠊࡘࡲࡾ࡝ࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡞ఏ㐩┠ⓗ࡛᭩࠿ࢀࡓ࠿࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽศ㢮ࡋࡓࠊࣅ࣮࣮ࣗࣛࡢఏ⤫ⓗ㸱ศ㢮ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡍࡿ㸦⾲ 1㸧ࠋ

⾲ 1 ࣅ࣮࣮ࣗࣛ㸦1934[1983]㸧࡟ࡼࡿࢸࢡࢫࢺศ㢮
ᶵ⬟

┠ⓗ

౛

ླྀ㏙

ෆᐜࡢఏ㐩

⛉Ꮫⓗླྀ㏙

⾲ฟ

ⱁ⾡ⓗ࡟ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡓ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢఏ㐩

ླྀ᝟リ

࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ

┦ᡭ࡟ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡞ఏ㐩ླྀ஦リࠊ₇๻

3.1. ศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࡜᪉ἲ
ศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ௨ୗࡢ 3 ࡘࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ᳜≀ࡸ㢼ᬒࡢᥥ෗ࡀ୰
ᚰ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࢸࢡࢫࢺࡔࡀࠊఏ㐩┠ⓗ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋඛ࡟ᣲࡆࡓࣅ࣮࣮ࣗࣛࡢศ㢮࡟ᚑ࠺࡜ࠊ(A)−50−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

ࡀླྀ㏙ⓗࠊ(B)ࡀ⾲ฟⓗࠊ(C)ࡀ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

 (A) Sir Joseph Banks. 1768-1771. The Endeavour Journal of Sir Joseph Banks.
(B) Rachel Carson. 1956[1998]. The Sense of Wonder.
 (C) Theodosia. B Shepherd Company. 1908. Catalogue of Seeds, Plants, Rare Flowers.

௨ୗࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㡰࡟ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎ(A)ࡣࠊࢪ࢙࣮࣒ࢬ࣭ࢡࢵࢡࡢ➨୍ᅇ⯟ᾏ㸦1768
ᖺࠥ1771 ᖺ㸧࡟ྠ⾜ࡋࡓ᳜≀Ꮫ⪅ࠊࢪࣙࢭࣇ࣭ࣂࣥࢡࢫ࡟ࡼࡿᡭグ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⯟ᾏࡢ㏵୰࡛❧ࡕᐤࡗࡓࠊ
ࢱࣄࢳࠊࢽ࣮ࣗࢪ࣮ࣛࣥࢻࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔࡞࡝࡛Ⓨぢࡉࢀࡓ᳜≀ࡸཎఫẸࡢ⏕άࡀヲ⣽࡟グ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⯟ᾏࡢᡂᯝࡣᮏᅜ࡟ᣢࡕᖐࡗ࡚ሗ࿌ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊࡘ࡜ࡵ࡚ᐈほⓗ࣭⛉Ꮫⓗ࡞ែᗘ࡛グ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࡢఏ㐩┠ⓗࡣෆᐜࡢఏ㐩࡟࠶ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋḟ࡟(B)ࡣࠊ⏕≀Ꮫ⪅ࣞ࢖ࢳ࢙࣭࣮ࣝ࢝ࢯࣥ࡟ࡼࡿ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖࡛ࠊ࣓࣮ࣥᕞࡢᾏᓊ࡜᳃ࡢ㢼ᬒࡀᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢసရࡣࠊᙼዪࡀ⏚࡜ඹ࡟᥈⣴ࡍࡿ୰࡛ぢฟࡋࡓ⮬↛ࡢ⨾ࡋࡉ࡟ᑐࡍࡿឤືࡀ⥛ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊⱁ⾡ⓗ࡟ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡓ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢఏ㐩ࡀ୺࡞┠ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟(C)ࡣࠊ20 ୡ⣖ึ㢌࡟ฟ∧ࡉࢀࡓ✀ⱑ࢝ࢱࣟࢢ࡛ࠊㄞ⪅ࡣࡇࡢ࢝ࢱࣟࢢࢆぢ࡚✀ⱑࢆὀᩥࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋⓑ㯮෗┿ࡶᥖ㍕ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣᩥᏐ࡛᳜≀ࡢᥥ෗ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢఏ㐩ࡢ┠ⓗࢆᐃࡵࡿࡢࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸ࡀࠊࣅ࣮࣮ࣗࣛࡢศ㢮࡛ࡣࠕ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅⓗࠖࠊࡘࡲࡾ┦ᡭ࡟ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡞ఏ㐩ࡀ᭱ࡶ㏆࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊ✀ⱑ఍♫ࡣࡇࡢ࢝ࢱࣟࢢ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊㄞ⪅࡟᳜≀ࡢ㨩ຊࢆఏ࠼ࠊ㉎㈙ḧࢆ࠿ࡁࡓ࡚࡞
ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࠿ࡽࡔࠋ ࡇࢀࡽ 3 ࡘࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺ࠿ࡽࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡ࢆᢸ࠺⾲⌧ࢆᣠ࠸ୖࡆࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿ࠿ศᯒࡋࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡ࢆᗈࡃྲྀࡾࠊఱ࠿࡜ࡢ㢮ఝⅬࢆグ㏙ࡢᇶ┙࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ุ࡛᩿ࡋࡓࠋࡼࡾලయⓗ࡟㏙࡭ࡿ࡜ࠊ᳜≀ࡸ㢼ᬒ࡞࡝ᥥ෗ࡋࡓ࠸ᑐ㇟࡟ᑐࡋࠊ㢮ఝࡋࡓูࡢࡶࡢ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽᥥ෗ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࠊࡇࢀࢆ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗ⾲⌧࡜ࡳ࡞ࡋࡓࠋ

3.2. ศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ ศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ㝿࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ(A)ࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢ(1)࡟ᣲࡆࡓ౛࡟඾ᆺⓗ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
alike, resemble, exceed ࡞࡝ࡢㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊẚ㍑ᑐ㇟㛫ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ᫂♧ⓗ࡟㏙࡭ࡿ⾲⌧ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ
ࡀ≉ᚩⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊin {shape / color / size}࡜࠸ࡗࡓ⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⅼ࡛㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ᫂♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(1) a. Jambu Ayer. Of these are two sorts, alike in shape, resembling a bell, but differing, one red and theother white; in size they a little exceed a large cherry.

−51−名詞派生形容詞メタファーの意味的特徴およびテクストタイプとの関係

b. Durion in shape resembles something a small Melon, but has a skin coverd over with sharp conicalspines, … this fruit when ripe divides itself longitudinaly into 7 or 8 compartments, each of whichcontains 6 or 7 Nuts, not quite so large as chestnuts, coated over with a substance both in colour andconsistence resembling much very thick cream.

(1)ࡣ࡝ࡕࡽࡶࠊ1770 ᖺ 12 ᭶ 31 ᪥௜ࡅࡢᡭグ࠿ࡽྲྀࡗࡓࠊࣂࢱࣦ࢕࢔㸦⌧ᅾࡢࢪࣕ࣡ᓥ㸧ࡢᯝᐇࡢᥥ
෗࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(1a)࡛ࡣࠊJambu Ayer ࡜࠸࠺ᯝᐇࡢ≉ᚩࡀࠊᙧ≧࣭Ⰽ࣭኱ࡁࡉࡢ㡰࡟ᥥ෗ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠᵝ
࡟(1b)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊDurion ࡜࠸࠺ᯝᐇࡀࠊᙧ≧࠿ࡽ⾲㠃ࡢᵝᏊ࣭⇍ࡋࡓ࡜ࡁࡢ≧ែ࣭✀Ꮚࡢ኱ࡁࡉ࣭✀Ꮚࢆໟࡴ≀㉁ࡢⰍ࡜⢓ᗘ࡟⮳ࡿࡲ࡛஦⣽࠿࡟グ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ୍᪉(B)ࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊಟ㎡ᛶࡀ㧗ࡃリⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡢከ࠸ࠊྡモࡢ㞃႘⾲⌧ࡀ≉ᚩⓗ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ௨ୗࡢ(2)ࡀࡑࡢ୍౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(2) a. Then all the needles on the evergreens wear a sheath of silver.

(p. 30)b. We’ll … go out into the garden to hunt for the insects that play little fiddles in the grass … The soundof the insect orchestra swells and throbs night after night … The game is to listen, not so much to thefull orchestra as to the separate instruments, and to try to locate the players.
(p.90)(2a)࡛ࡣ㞵ࡢ᪥ࡢᩓṌࡢ᝟ᬒࡀᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᖖ⥳ᶞࡢⴥࡀ needleࠕ㔪ࠖ࡟ࠊ㝆ࡾࡋࡁࡿ㞵ࡀⴥ࡟ᙜࡓ
ࡗ࡚ගࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᵝᏊࡀ a sheath of silverࠕ㖟ࡢ㠧ࠖ࡟႘࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (2c)࡛ࡣ⹸ࡢኌࡀ୍㐃ࡢ࣮࢜ࢣࢫࢺࣛࡢẚ႘㸦play little fiddles, insect orchestra, the full orchestra, the separate instruments, the players㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᥥ෗ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛ࡣ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡟ᐩࢇࡔᥥ෗࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊྡモ༢యࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ
ಟ㣭㒊ࢆకࡗࡓྡモྃࡢ㞃႘⾲⌧ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀぢ࡚ྲྀࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ᮏ◊✲ࡢᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモࡀ᭱ࡶከࡃほᐹࡉࢀࡓࡢࡣࠊ(C)ࡢ✀ⱑ࢝ࢱࣟࢢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᳜≀ࡢྡ๓࡜ඹ࡟ࠊࡑࡢⰼࡸⴥ࡞࡝ࡢᙧែⓗ≉ᚩࡀグ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢグ㏙࡟-y, -like, -shaped ࡞࡝ࡢ᥋㎡ࡀࡘ࠸ࡓ⾲⌧ࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟ከࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(3) a. ASPARAGUS Deflexus Scandens.
The stems are wiry with dainty ... from which grow the pretty, light green filmy leaves.   (p. 45)
b. DIOSMA OR “BREATH OF HEAVEN.”
The branches are heath like, feathery and are covered … with innumerable small star-like white    (p. 34)

flowers.
c. LATHYRUS Spelendens. “Pride of California.”−52−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号… large pea-shaped blossoms of a deep, rich, velvety crimson in clusters of ten or more.  (p. 14)(3a, b)࡛ࡣⱼࡸⴥࠊᯞ᣺ࡾࠊⰼࡢᙧ≧ࡀࠊwiryࠕ㔪㔠ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠖࠊfilmyࠕⷧ⭷≧ࡢࠖࠊheath likeࠕࣄ࣮ࢫࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠖࠊfeatheryࠕ⩚᰿ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠖ
ࠊstar-likeࠕᫍࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ࡛ᙧᐜࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ (3c)࡛ࡣࠊⰼࡢᙧ≧ࡀ pea-shapedࠕ㇋ࡢᙧࡢࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ࡛ᙧᐜࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢⰍࡘࡸࡢᥥ෗
࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ velvetyࠕ࣋ࣝ࣋ࢵࢺࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢ⤖ᯝࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࡢࡀࠊ⾲ 2 ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ㝿࡟㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ᙧᘧࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ≉࡟ࠊྡモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡣ(B)ࡢリⓗ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖࡛ከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡣ(C)ࡢ✀ⱑ࢝ࢱࣟࢢ࡟࠾࠸࡚ከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿ
࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛኱ࡁࡃ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡀ࡞ࡐࡇࡢ✀ࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚㢖⦾࡟ほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࡢ᰿ᣐࢆࡇࡢᙧᘧࡀᣢࡘព࿡ⓗ࣭ᵓᩥⓗ≉ᚩ࡟ồࡵ࡚ㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ⾲ 2 ࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡜࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡ࡢ⾲⌧ᙧᘧ(A) ᳜≀Ꮫ⪅࡟ࡼࡿᡭグᶵ⬟≉ᚩⓗ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿᙧᘧླྀ㏙A in X(shape, color, etc.) resemble B,
alike, exceed, A not so adj. as B(B) リⓗ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖⾲ฟྡモࡢ㞃႘⾲⌧(C) ✀ⱑ࢝ࢱࣟࢢ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ (-y, -like, -shaped)

4. ྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࡀᣢࡘಟ㎡ⓗຠᯝ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ3 ⠇࡛ぢࡽࢀࡓ⤖ᯝ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ≉ᐃࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛ࡢ౑⏝ࡀࠊྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒᙧᘧࡀᣢࡘ≉ᚩ࡟ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡓ࠸ࠋࡇࡢᙧᘧ࡟≉᭷ࡢ≉ᚩࡣࠊྡモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ࡢẚ㍑࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡿࠋ⏣୸㸦2015a㸧࡛ࡣࠊfluff ࡜ fluffy ࢆ౛࡟ࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ⏝࠸࡚ྡモ
ὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢព࿡ⓗ≉ᚩࢆᐇドⓗ࡟⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊྡモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡣᢳ㇟ⓗ㢮ఝᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡣ▱ぬⓗ㢮ఝᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃഴྥࡀᙉ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀᐇドࡉࢀࡓࠋព࿡ⓗ≉ᚩ࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊᙧᐜモ࡜࠸࠺ရモࡢᛶ㉁ୖࠊྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡣ
㊃ព㸦႘࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ㸧࡜፹య㸦႘࠼ࡿࡶࡢ㸧ࡀᚲࡎゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᵓᩥⓗ≉ᚩࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽ
ࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࠊྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢಟ㎡ⓗຠᯝ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヲࡋࡃぢ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

4.1. ព࿡ⓗ≉ᚩ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ ⏣୸㸦2015a㸧࡛ࡣࠊfluffࠕ⥥ẟࠊࡅࡤࠖ࡜ fluffyࠕ⥥ẟ࡛そࢃࢀࡓࠊࡩࢃࡩࢃࡋࡓࠖࡢ 2 ㄒࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊ኱つᶍࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ Corpus of Contemporary American English ࠿ࡽ⏝౛ࢆᢳฟࡋࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧࡜ぢ࡞ࡉ

−53−名詞派生形容詞メタファーの意味的特徴およびテクストタイプとの関係

ࢀࡿ⏝౛࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㢮ఝᛶࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ศ㢮ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㢮ఝᛶࡣࠊࠕ▱ぬྍ⬟࡞㢮ఝᛶࠖ㸦Ⰽࠊᙧ≧ࠊᡭࡊࢃࡾ࡞࡝㸧࡜ࠕᢳ㇟ⓗ㢮ఝᛶࠖ㸦ᵓ㐀ⓗ࡞ᑐᛂ㛵ಀ࡞࡝㸧࡟኱ࡁࡃ஧ศࡉࢀࡿ㸦Gentner 1983ࠊHolyoak and Thagard 1995ࠊ㘠ᓥ 2011㸧ࠋࡉࡽ࡟๓⪅ࡣࠊ༢୍ࡢ▱ぬࠊ」ྜ
ⓗ▱ぬࠊඹឤぬࡢ 3 ࡘ࡟ࢱ࢖ࣉศࡅࡉࢀࡿࠋ⏣୸㸦2015a㸧᫬Ⅼࡼࡾ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢᐃ⩏ࢆཝᐦ࡟ࡋࠊ෌
ᗘศ㢮ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࢆ௨ୗࡢᅗ 1 ࡟♧ࡍ 2ࠋ

ᅗ 1 ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗ⏝ἲࡢ㢮ఝᛶࡢෆヂศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊྡモ fluff ࡣᢳ㇟ⓗ㢮ఝᛶࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡍࡿࡢࡀ኱༙ࢆ༨ࡵࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᙧᐜモ fluffy ࡣ▱ぬྍ⬟࡞㢮ఝᛶࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡍࡿഴྥࡀࡁࢃࡵ࡚ᙉ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋ(4)࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ඾ᆺⓗ࡞౛ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ(4) a. It’s nothing. It’s fluff. Nothing you’d be interested in.
b. She smashed face first into the fluffy snow.   㸦⏣୸ 2015a: 35-36㸧

(4a)࡛ࡣ fluff ࡣࠊࠕࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ౯್ࡢ࡞ࡉࢆ⥥ẟࡢ㍍ࡉ࡟႘࠼ࡓ
ᢳ㇟ⓗ㢮ఝᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ(4b)࡛ࡣ fluffy ࡣ㞷ࡢᰂࡽ࠿ࡉࢆ႘࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
▱ぬⓗ㢮ఝᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢព࿡ⓗഴྥ࠿ࡽࠊྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡣࠊᑐ㇟ࡢᙧែⓗ≉ᚩࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿࡢ࡟㐺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ
࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋᙧែࡢᥥ෗࡟ࡣࠊⰍࠊᙧ≧ࠊᡭࡊࢃࡾ࡞࡝஬ឤ࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡿ᝟ሗࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ3 ⠇࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ✀ⱑ࢝ࢱࣟࢢࡣࠊㄞ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ぢࡓࡇ࡜ࡢ࡞࠸᳜≀ࡢᙧែࢆࠊㄞ⪅࡟ࡶศ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟஦⣽࠿࡟ᥥ෗ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ࡜ࡁࠊ▱ぬⓗᛶ㉁ࢆ↔Ⅼ໬ࡍࡿࡢ࡟≉໬ࡋࡓྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࡀࠊ᭷ຠ࡟ࡣࡓࡽࡃࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

−54−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

4.2. ᵓᩥⓗ≉ᚩ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ ௨ୖࠊྡモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡀࠊ␗࡞ࡿ㢮ఝᛶࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡍࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺
Ⅼ࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚㆟ㄽࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ୧⪅ࡀྠ୍ࡢᴫᛕෆᐜࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊ୧⪅࡟㐪࠸ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ

(5) a. The pots she’d left on her patio were covered with five inches of icy white fluff.
b. She smashed face first into the fluffy snow.

㸦⏣୸ 2015a: 35㸧

౛࠼ࡤୖࡢ(5)ࡣࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡶ㞷ࡢᰂࡽ࠿ࡉࢆ႘࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊᴫᛕෆᐜࡣྠ୍࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ
࡜ࡁ୧⪅࡟࠾࠸࡚Ỵᐃⓗ࡟㐪࠺ࡢࡣࠊ㊃ព࡜፹యࡢ᫂♧ᛶ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྡモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢሙྜࠊᩥ
⬦࠿ࡽᡭࡀ࠿ࡾࢆぢࡘࡅࡿࡋ࠿࡞࠸ࡀࠊྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢሙྜࠊ⿕ಟ㣭㒊࡟࠾࠸࡚႘࠼ࡽࢀ
ࡿᑐ㇟ࡀᚲࡎゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᩥ⬦࠿ࡽࡢ᥎ㄽࡢᚲせᛶࡀపࡃࠊࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡞⌮ゎࡀಁࡉࢀࡿ
࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᙧᐜモ࡜࠸࠺ရモࡀᣢࡘࡇࡢࡩࡿࡲ࠸ୖࡢ≉ᚩࡀࠊㄞ⪅࡟ศ࠿ࡾࡸࡍࡃㄝ᫂ࡋࡓ࠸࡜࠸
࠺✀ⱑ࢝ࢱࣟࢢࡢ┠ⓗ࡟ྜ⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ ࡇࢀࡽࡢ⪃ᐹ࠿ࡽࠊྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡀ✀ⱑ࢝ࢱࣟࢢ࡜࠸࠺ࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛㢧ⴭ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢఏ㐩ୖࡢ┠ⓗ࡟᭱ࡶ㐺ࡋࡓ≉ᚩࢆࡇࡢ⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡀഛ࠼࡚࠸ࡓ࠿ࡽ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜
⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ

5. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ఏ㐩ពᅗࡢࡶ࡜᭩࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ㝿࡟㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ≉࡟ྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡣࠊ✀ⱑ࢝ࢱࣟࢢ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛ከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢୖ࡛ࠊ
ࡇࡢ⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡟ഛࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ≉ᚩࡀ≉ᐃࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛ࡢ౑⏝ࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ㄽࡌࡓࠋ
㏆ᖺ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢㄯヰⓗഃ㠃ࡢ◊✲ࡀ┒ࢇ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢศᯒ࡟⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡀࡶࡘᩥἲⓗ࣭ព࿡ⓗ≉ᚩ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢ౑⏝ᐇែࢆࡼࡾ᫂☜࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺ྍ
⬟ᛶࢆ♧၀ࡋࡓࠋᮍゎỴ࡞ၥ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⛉Ꮫⓗླྀ㏙ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞㢮ఝ㛵ಀࢆ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ゝㄒ໬ࡍࡿሙྜ࡜ࠊྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿሙྜࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࡢၥ㢟ࡀṧࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୧⪅࡜ࡶᙧែⓗ≉ᚩࡢᥥ෗࡟㐺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢຠᯝࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡃࠋ

ὀ
1.

౛࠼ࡤࠊ࠶ࡿືモࡣ୙ኚ໬モࢆక࠺࡜࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡࡟࡞ࡿ㸦e.g. Her anger died down after we had
apologized. (Low 1988: 136)㸧ࠋ−55−

名詞派生形容詞メタファーの意味的特徴およびテクストタイプとの関係

2.

⏣୸㸦2015a㸧࡛ࡣࠊfluff ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢᛶ㉁ࡀ↔Ⅼ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࢀࡤ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
ぢ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ௒ᅇࡣࠊfluff ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ fluffy ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ែ࡟ࠊ
ࠕᰂࡽ࠿࡛ᑠࡉ࡞ẟࠖ࡜࠸࠺ලయⓗᏑᅾ≀ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜࡢࡳࠊᙜヱ⾲⌧ࡣ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗព࿡ࢆᢸ࠺࡜ぢ࡞ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗ࠿ྰ࠿ࡀ᭕᫕࡞⾲⌧ࡀ㝖እࡉࢀࡿࠋ

(i) a. His cheeks were pink, and his fluffy pale hair airy as dandelion down.
b. Would you like some soft, fluffy towels?

ẟࡸᕸ〇ရࢆಟ㣭ࡍࡿሙྜࡣࠊᑐ㇟ࡢᰂࡽ࠿ࡉࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡜㢮ఝࡋࡓ⥥ẟࡢᰂࡽ࠿ࡉ࡟႘࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡣࣔࣀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࣔࣀࡀᣢࡘᛶ㉁ࢆ⾲ࡍ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ௒ᅇࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞᭕᫕࡞౛ࢆ㝖እࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ⣧⢋࡟㢮ఝᛶࡔࡅࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡍࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࡢࡳࢆᢅ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺ศᯒࡋ┤ࡋࡓࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Bühler, K. 1934. Sprachtheorie. 㸦ࣅ࣮࣮ࣗࣛ, K. 1983. ⬥ᆏ㇏㺃᳜ᮌ㏔Ꮚ㺃᳜⏣ᗣᡂ࣭኱὾ࡿ࠸Ꮚヂ.ࠗゝㄒ⌮ㄽ ゝㄒࡢླྀ㏙ᶵ⬟㸦ୖ㸧࠘ᮾி: ࢡࣟࣀࢫ.㸧
Cameron, L. 2008. “Metaphor and Talk.” In R. Gibbs (ed.) Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor, 197-211.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deignan, A. 2005. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gentner, D. 1983. “Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy.” Cognitive Science 7, 155-170.
Goatly, A. 1997. The Language of Metaphors. London and New York: Routledge.
Holyoak, K J., and P. Thagard. 1995. Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. Cambridge andMassachusetts: MIT Press.
Hunston, S. 2002. Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Low, G. D. 1988. “On Teaching Metaphor.” Applied Linguistics 9:2, 125-147.
㘠ᓥᘯ἞ᮁ. 2011. ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࠘ᮾி: ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
⏣୸Ṍᐇ. 2015a. ࠕᙧᐜモ໬࡜࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄆ▱ⓗ◊✲ ̾ⱥㄒࡢྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモࢆ౛࡟̾ࠖி
㒔኱Ꮫ㝔ே㛫࣭⎔ቃᏛ◊✲⛉. ಟኈㄽᩥ.
⏣୸Ṍᐇ. 2015b. ࠕⱥㄒࡢྡモὴ⏕ᙧᐜモ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿẚ႘ⓗព࿡ࡢ๓ᬒ໬ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍኱఍Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘, 10, pp.89-96.
ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂. 1988. ࠗẚ႘࡜⌮ゎ࠘ᮾி: ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧఍.

−56−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

NP ࢹࣁ㸯㸦ࢪࣕ㸧࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩ࡜ⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦㡯࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⪃ᐹࢲࣇ࢕࣮⨾బ
ዉⰋዪᏊ኱Ꮫ 㠀ᖖ໅ㅮᖌ
Abstract Japanese idiomatic phrase de-wa-arumaishi is analyzed as it facilitates the resultative andadversative reasons. In this paper, I will clarify that NP de-wa-arumaishi provides the hearer anencyclopaedic information of NP to lead him to conclude that it is some negative situation in which
someone or something has a NP’s characteristic in relevance theoretic framework. Furthermore, I
will point out the different interpretation of de-wa-arumaishi are caused by how people see thesituation described with de-wa-arumaishi. One who sees the situation subjectively, she/he wouldinterpret it as resultative and one who sees it objectively would interpret it as adversative.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࠊⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦㡯ࠊ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࠊ୺ほⓗุ᩿ࠊᐈほⓗほᐹ1.ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
᪥ᮏㄒࡢ័⏝⾲⌧࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡣࠊ
ࠕᡴᾘࡋࡢ᮲௳ࢆకࡗࡓ⌮⏤(㹼࡞࠸ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽ㸰)ࠊ㏫᥋᮲௳㸦㹼࡞࠸ࠕ࡞࠸ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠖ
ࠊࠕ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠖࡢ୧
ࡢ࡟㸱㸧ࢆ⾲ࡍࠖ࡜ゝࢃࢀࡿ㸲ࠋ☜࠿࡟(1)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡣࠊ
㸳᪉ࡢゎ㔘ࡀྍ⬟ ࡛࠶ࡾࠊព࿡ⓗ࡟ࡶ▩┪ࡋ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ 2 ࡘࡢゎ㔘ࡣࠊ(2)࡟ࡶ㐺⏝࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡀ⌧ࢀࡿከࡃࡢ౛࡛ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(1) [ẅ⏕ࡋࡓ᪑ேࡢ࠿ࢇࡊࡋࢆ┐ࡗ࡚᮶࡞࠿ࡗࡓኵࢆ㈐ࡵࡿጔࡢⓎヰࠋኵ፬ࡣ࡜ࡶ࡟ἾᲬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ]ࠕ࠾๓ࡉࢇ㸟ࡲࡉ࠿ࠊྲྀࡿࡢࢆᛀࢀࡓࡢࡌࡷ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡡࠋ⋺⍍(ࡓ࠸ࡲ࠸)ࡔ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊ୐୧ࡸඵ୧ࡣ
☜࠿ࡔࡼࠋ㥑ࡅฟࡋࡢἾᲬࡌࡷ࣭࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋ(࡞࠸ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽ/࡞࠸ࡢ࡟)ࠊ࡞ࢇࡢࡓࡵ࡟ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿࡢࡔ
ࡼࠋ..ࠖ                        (⳥ụᐶࠗᜠㆶࡢᙼ᪉࡟࠘/㟷✵ᩥᗜ)
(2)[ࣃࢯࢥࣥࡀቯࢀࡓࡇ࡜࡟⭡ࢆ❧࡚࡚࠸ࡿ≧ἣࢆ⥛ࡿࣈࣟࢢグ஦]㈙ࡗ࡚ࡲࡔ 10 ᖺࡶ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡗ࡚࠸࠺ࡢ࡟ࠊࡇࢇ࡞㧗࠸ࡶࢇࠊࡑࢇ࡞࡟ࡦࢇࡥࢇ࡟㈙࠸᭰࠼ࡽࢀࡿヂࡡ࠼ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࣅ࣭ࣝࢤ࢖ࢶࡌࡷ࣭࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋ(࡞࠸ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽ/࡞࠸ࡢ࡟)ࠋ
(http://www.capital-village.co.jp/nagai/from-ryuun/?p=RE2UZ94O) ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡣࠊᙜヱᩥ⬦࡛୺㢟࡛࠶ࡿே≀ࡲࡓࡣ≀㸦௨ᚋࠊ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒ࡜
࿧ࡪ㸧ࡀࠊNP ࡢⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦㡯࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࠊ࡜࠸࠺᝿ᐃ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠊヰ⪅ࡢྰᐃⓗែᗘࢆ⾲ࡋࠊⓎヰࡢព࿡ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ㛵㐃ᛶࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࠕ࡞࠸ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠖ
ࠊࠕ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠖࡢࡼ
(Sperber and Wilson 1986/19952)ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡟࠾࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
࠺࡞㡰᥋/㏫᥋㛵ಀࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀ⾲ࡍྰᐃⓗែᗘࢆࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐣⛬࡛ᚰⓗ࡟⾲♧ࡍࡿ࠿࡟ࡼࡾᚓ
ࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ
 2 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊඛ⾜◊✲࡜ࡑࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊ3 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡣࠊᡭ⥆ⓗ᝟ሗࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ໬
ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࡢᡭ⥆ⓗไ⣙࡟ࡼࡾࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㛵㐃ᛶࡀ㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศ
ᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ4 ⠇࡛ࡣࡇࢀࡽࢆඖ࡟ࠊ
ࠕ࡞࠸ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠖ
ࠊࠕ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟࡛ࠖ⾲ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ㡰᥋ⓗࠊ㏫ㄝⓗゎ㔘ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿ㐣⛬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ5 ⠇࡛ᮏㄽ࡛⾜ࡗࡓศᯒࢆ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡿࠋ
2. ඛ⾜◊✲
᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲᏛ఍(2008:265)ࡣࠕX ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠖࡣࠊ
ࠕX ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠊ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࠊX࡛࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࡲࡿ࡛ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡿே࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ㠀㞴ࡍࡿẼᣢࡕࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢศᯒ࡟
1−57−

「NPデハ（ジャ）アルマイシ」と百科事典的記載事項に関する考察ࡣࠊ㡰᥋/㏫᥋㛵ಀࡀྵࡲࢀࡿࠋ㡰᥋/㏫᥋⤖ᯝࢆᣍࡃࡇ࡜࡟཯ㄽࡣࡋ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞グ㏙࡛ࡣ(2)ࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡀㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
(2)࡟ࡇࡢグ㏙ࢆ㐺⏝ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࠕࣅ࣭ࣝࢤ࢖ࢶ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠊ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࠊࣅ࣭ࣝࢤ࢖ࢶ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸
ࡢ࡟ࠊࡲࡿ࡛ࣅ࣭ࣝࢤ࢖ࢶࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡿே࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ㠀㞴ࡍࡿẼᣢࡕࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ
ࡀࠊ(2)࡟ࡣࠊ
ࠕࣅ࣭ࣝࢤ࢖ࢶࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡿேࠖࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㠀㞴ࡍࡿẼᣢࡕࠖࡣఱ࡟ᑐ
ࡋ࡚㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
ㅰ(2010)ࡣࠊ୺࡟஧⪅㛫ࡢⓎヰࡢ౛ࢆศᯒࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᙼࡢศᯒ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡣࠊ
ࠕX ࡣ A1(㠀஦ᐇ࿨㢟)ࡌࡷ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋ A2(஦ᐇ࿨㢟)ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋA1 ࡜ A2 ࡣ୍ࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ࡛ࠊa.) ࠕᚓࡓ᝟ሗ࠿ࡽ᝿ᐃࡋࡓ㠀஦ᐇ࿨㢟ࠖࡢྰᐃࡸࠊb.) ࠕᑟࡁฟࡉࢀࡓ⠇ࠖࡢ᰿ᣐ࡜࡞ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ
(3)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕኴᖹὒࡢࡲࢇ୰ࡌࡷ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠊࡓ࠿ࡀࡇࡢ†ࡢ୰ࡔࠖࡣࠊa.)(3A)ࡢ◚⥺㒊࠿ࡽヰ⪅ࡀ᝿ᐃࡍࡿࠕኴᖹὒࡢࡲࢇ୰࡛ྲྀࡿ࡭ࡁ⾜ືࠖࡢྰᐃࡸࠊb.)(3B)ࡢᚋ⥆⠇ࠕ஬᪥ࡸ༑᪥࡛ᡴࡕษࡿࡼ࠺࡛
㒊ୗࡀ⋡࠸࡚⾜ࡅࡿ࠿ࠖࡢ᰿ᣐ࡜࡞ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ(3)࡛᫂♧໬ࡉࢀࡿࠕࡓ࠿ࡀ†ࡢ୰ࡔࠖ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ஦ᐇ࿨㢟(A2)ࡣࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚┬␎ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ㄆ㆑ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ
ࠕ㠀㞴ࡢࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࠖࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ
(3) ᐮࡉࡣᐮࡋࠊ…ࡑࢁࡑࢁ(A)ࡇࡢ㎶࡛ᤚ⣴ᡴࡕษࡾ࡟ࡋ࡚ࡣ࡝࠺࡛ࡋࡻ࠺࡜⏦ࡋฟ࡚ࡳࡓࡀࠊᒣᮏࡣࠊ
ఱ࢝᭶࠿࠿ࡗ࡚ࡶࡸࡿ࡜࠸ࡗ࡚ᢎ▱ࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ(B)ࠕኴᖹὒࡢࡲࢇ୰ࡌࡷ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠊࡓ࠿ࡀࡇࡢ†ࡢ୰ࡔࠋ஬᪥ࡸ༑᪥࡛ᡴࡕษࡿࡼ࠺࡛㒊ୗࡀ⋡࠸࡚⾜ࡅࡿ࠿ࠋࠖ(㜿ᕝᘯஅࠗᒣᮏ஬༑භ࠘,ㅰ(2010)ࡼࡾᘬ⏝)ࡇࡢศᯒ࡟ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ౛࠼ࡤ(2)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕࣅ࣭ࣝࢤ࢖ࢶ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠖࡢᚋ࡟ࠕ⚾ࡣ୍⯡ேࡔࠖࡢࡼ࠺
࡞࿨㢟ࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࡢ࿨㢟ࢆ᝿㉳ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ㠀㞴ࡢࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞
ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊㄡ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࠊㄡࢆ㠀㞴ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢࡶࡢ࡞ࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ
࠺࡞ྰᐃⓗឤ᝟ࡣࠊ
ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦(2)࡛ࡣヰ⪅⮬㌟ࠊࡲࡓࡣࣈࣟࢢࡢㄞ⪅㸧ࠖࡸ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒ ((2)࡛ࡣࠊ
ヰ⪅⮬㌟)ࠖ࡟ᑐࡋྥࡅࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒࡀࠊᙜヱᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ
ᙜࡓࡾ๓࡛࠶ࡿࠊNP ࡢᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࠖ࡜࠸࠺᝿ᐃ࡟ᑐࡋࠊྥࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ
3. ศᯒ
 2.࡛ࡣࠊྰᐃⓗឤ᝟ࡸែᗘࡣࠊ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒࡀࠕNP ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⌧≧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ఏ㐩ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡲࡓࠊ࠶ࡿࠕ஦ᐇ࿨㢟ࠖࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ㄆ㆑ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡀⓎヰゎ㔘ࡢ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ഃ㠃࡟㈉⊩ࡋࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ෆᐜ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡍࡢ࠿ࠊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ
3.1.ᡭ⥆ⓗ᝟ሗ 㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊゝㄒⓗ࡟ࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓ᝟ሗࡣࠊ᥎ㄽⓗ⌮ゎ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ᧯సࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࡢ⾲♧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ᝟ሗࠊࡘࡲࡾᴫᛕⓗ᝟ሗ࡜ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᧯సࡍࡿ࠿ࡢ᝟ሗࠊࡘࡲࡾᡭ⥆ⓗ᝟ሗࡢ஧✀㢮࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
௬ᐃࡍࡿ(Wilson and Sperber 1993)ࠋ
(1)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕ㥑ࡅฟࡋࡢἾᲬࡌࡷ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠖࢆక࠺(4a)࡜ࠊకࢃ࡞࠸(4b)ࢆẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ(4a)ࡢࠊጔࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋࠊձࡢࡼ࠺࡞ኵࡢ㏉⟅ࡀᐜㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࡢࡣࠊጔࡀࡓࡔྏ㈐ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢྏ㈐ࡢ⌮⏤ࢆኵࡀ⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋղࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⣧⢋࡟ẅ⏕ࡢ⌮⏤ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡼ࠺࡞㏉⟅ࡣᐜㄆᗘࡀపࡃ࡞ࡿࠋ㏫࡟ࠊ(4b)࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㏉⟅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊձࡢࡼ࠺࡞㏉⟅ࡣチࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊղࡢᐜㄆᗘࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ
ࠕ㥑ࡅฟࡋࡢἾᲬࡌࡷ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠖࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢࠕ࡞ࢇࡢࡓࡵ࡟ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿࡢࡔࡼࠋ
ࠖ࡜࠸࠺␲ၥᩥࡢಟ㎡ⓗព࿡ࢆࠊࡼࡾ᫂♧ⓗ࡟♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
2−58−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号(4) a.ࠕ㥑ࡅฟࡋࡢἾᲬࡌࡷ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠊ࡞ࢇࡢࡓࡵ࡟ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿࡢࡔࡼࠋ
ࠖձࠕ୍ே๓ࡔࡗ࡚ࠊࡓࡲ࡟ࡣኻᩋࡍࡿࢇࡔࡼࠋ
ࠖ/ ղ?ࠕ≀ࢆ┐ࡿࡓࡵࡔࡼࠋ
ࠖb.ࠕ…⋺⍍(ࡓ࠸ࡲ࠸)ࡔ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊ୐୧ࡸඵ୧ࡣ☜࠿ࡔࡼࠋ࡞ࢇࡢࡓࡵ࡟ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿࡢࡔࡼࠋ
ࠖ
ձ?ࠕ୍ே๓ࡔࡗ࡚ࠊࡓࡲ࡟ࡣኻᩋࡍࡿࢇࡔࡼࠋ
ࠖ/ ղࠕ≀ࢆ┐ࡿࡓࡵࡔࡼࠋ
ࠖ௚ࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡣྠᵝࡢാࡁࢆࡍࡿࠋ(2)ࡢࠕࣅ࣭ࣝࢤ࢖ࢶ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠖ
ࡣࠊඛ⾜ࡍࡿྠ୍ヰ⪅ࡢࠕࣃࢯࢥࣥࢆ㢖⦾࡟㈙࠸᭰࠼ࡽࢀࡿヂࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰࡀ⾲ࡍࠊ୙ྍ⬟ᛶࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࠋ(3)ࡢࠕኴᖹὒࡢࡲࢇ୰ࡌࡷ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠖࡣࠊඛ⾜Ⓨヰ࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡿࠕᤚ⣴ࢆᡴࡕษࡾ࡟ࡍࡿࠖ
࡜࠸࠺᝿ᐃ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠊヰ⪅ࡢ␗㆟ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢྰᐃ
ⓗែᗘࡣ᭕᫕࡞ࡶࡢ࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡣࠊඹ㉳ࡍࡿⓎヰࡢ࿨㢟ࡢ┿ഇ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡍࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢⓎヰࡢࠊヰ⪅ࡢព࿡ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࢆ㐩ᡂࡏࡼࠊ࡜࠸࠺ᡭ⥆ⓗ᝟ሗࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋḟ㡯࡛ࡣࠊࡲࡎࠊᡭ⥆ⓗ᝟ሗࡀไ⣙ࢆㄢࡍᴫᛕⓗ᝟ሗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᫂
ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࠊࡇࡢ⾲⌧ࡀࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࡢつᐃࢆヨࡳࡿࠋ
3.2. NP ࡢⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦㡯 ⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦㡯㸴࡜ࡣࠊಶேࡢグ᠈࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿᴫᛕࡢධຊ࡟ࡼࡾ࿧ࡧฟࡉࢀࡿࠊከ✀ከᵝ࡞▱㆑ࠊ࠶ࡾࡩࢀࡓ᝿ᐃࡸ⛉Ꮫⓗ᝟ሗࠊᩥ໬࡟≉᭷࡞ಙᛕࠊಶேⓗ࠿ࡘ⊂⮬ࡢほᐹࡸ⤒㦂࡞࡝ࢆᣦࡋࠊ
᪂ࡓ࡟≧ἣࢆᕥྑࡍࡿ᝟ሗࡣࠊࡑࡢ஦㡯ෆࡢ≉ᐃୗ఩㒊㛛ࡢ࿧ࡧฟࡋྍ⬟ᛶࡢኚ໬࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ(Carston 2002:321)࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
3.1.࡛ࡶゐࢀࡓࡀࠊNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡁࠊヰ⪅ࡀఏ㐩ࡋࡓ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺
ㄒࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࡿ≧ἣ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢ≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡢឤ᝟ࡸែᗘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ༶ࡕࠊ(1)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕヰ⪅ࡢኵࡀ
㸦ẅ⏕ࢆࡋࡓ࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊ≀ࢆ┐ࡽ࡞࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠺㸧ព࿡ࡢ࡞࠸ẅ⏕ࢆࡋࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࢆఏ㐩ࡋࡓ࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢ஦ᐇ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡢែᗘࠊ(2)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕヰ⪅ࡀࣃࢯࢥࣥࢆ㢖⦾࡟㈙࠸᭰࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ
࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢ≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡢែᗘࠊ(3)࡛ࡣࠕ†ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ஬᪥ࡸ༑᪥࡛ᤚ⣴ࡀᡴࡕษࡽࢀࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ≧ἣ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢ≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡢែᗘ࡞࡝࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢឤ᝟ࡸែᗘࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊヰ⪅ࡣࠊ(1)ࠕព࿡ࡢ࡞࠸ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿࠖ
ࠊ(2)ࠕࣃࢯࢥࣥࢆ㢖⦾
࡟㈙࠸᭰࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠖ
ࠊ(3)ࠕ஬᪥ࡸ༑᪥࡛ᤚ⣴ࡀᡴࡕษࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞᝟ሗࡀࠊ඾
ᆺⓗ࡞ⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦㡯㸦௬࡟ X ࡜ࡋࡼ࠺㸧࡜ࡋ࡚࿧ࡧฟࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿ NP ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋヰ⪅ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ NP ࡢⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗ஦㡯 X ࢆ⏝࠸ࠊ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒࡢ≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠊྰᐃⓗែᗘࡢ๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡿ(5)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᝿ᐃࢆࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟♧ࡍࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(5) a.(=(1))ࠕNPࠕ㥑ࡅฟࡋࡢἾᲬ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞࠸ኵࡀࠊ
ࠕNPࠕ㥑ࡅฟࡋࡢἾᲬࠖࡢ X㸦ព࿡ࡢ࡞࠸ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸧ࠖࢆᣢࡘࡣࡎࡀ࡞࠸
b.(=(2))ࠕNPࠕࣅ࣭ࣝࢤ࢖ࢶ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞࠸ࣈࣟࢢࡢ➹⪅ࡀࠊ
ࠕNPࠕࣅ࣭ࣝࢤ࢖ࢶࠖࡢ X㸦ࣃࢯࢥࣥࢆ㢖
⦾࡟㈙࠸᭰࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ㸧ࠖࢆᣢࡘࡣࡎࡀ࡞࠸
c.(=(3))ࠕNPࠕኴᖹὒࡢࡲࢇ୰࡛ࠖࡣ࡞࠸†ࡀࠊ
ࠕNPࠕኴᖹὒࡢࡲࢇ୰ࠖࡢ X(஬᪥ࡸ༑᪥࡛ᤚ⣴ࢆᡴࡕษࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ)ࠖࢆᣢࡘࡣࡎࡀ࡞࠸ ࡘࡲࡾࠊNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡀ⌧ࢀࡿᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ(6a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒࡣࠊࠕNP ࡢ඾ᆺⓗⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦㡯࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ヰ⪅ࡢ๓ᥦ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
(6b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ
ࠕࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘ/ᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣࡀุ᩿ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ NP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡣࠊ(7)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᡭ⥆ⓗ᝟ሗࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

3−59−

「NPデハ（ジャ）アルマイシ」と百科事典的記載事項に関する考察(6) a. NP ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒࡣࠊNP ࡢ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦㡯ࢆᣢࡘࡣࡎࡀ࡞࠸ࠋ
b. NP ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒࡀࠊNP ࡢ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦㡯ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ/ᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
(7) NP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡀࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡍࡿ᝟ሗ㸸ᙜヱᩥ⬦࡛ヰ㢟࡜࡞ࡿே(≀)ࡀࠊNP ࡢ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦㡯ࢆᣢࡘࡣࡎࡀ࡞࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ᩥ⬦ࢆせồࡋࠊࡑࡢே(≀㸧ࡀ NP ࡢ඾ᆺⓗⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦
㡯࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘ/ᣢࡓ࡞࠸≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡢྰᐃⓗែᗘࢆᑟࡅ
(7)ࢆ᳨ドࡋ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(1)ࡢࠕヰ⪅ࡢኵࡀ X㸦ព࿡ࡢ࡞࠸ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿ㸧ࢆᣢࡘࠖ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡀࠊ
ヰ⪅ࡢ㠀㞴ࡢែᗘࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿࡢࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀࡇࡢ஦ᐇࢆ(5a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞๓ᥦ࡟࠾࠸࡚⌮ゎࡍࡿ࠿ࡽࡔࠊ࡜
࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢ࡜ࡁࠊヰ⪅ࡢࠕព࿡ࡢ࡞࠸ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿࡣࡎࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠕ࣐࢖ࢼࢫホ౯ࢆཷࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡞஦ᐇ㸦ព࿡ࡢ࡞࠸ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿ㸧ࢆྲྀࡾᾘࡍ㸦ࡣࡎࡀ࡞࠸㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺๓ᥦ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ࡑࢀ࡟཯ࡍࡿ஦ᐇࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊヰ⪅ࡢྰᐃⓗឤ᝟ࠊែᗘࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ὀពࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ
(2)ࡢࠕヰ⪅ࡀ X(ࣃࢯࢥࣥࢆ㢖⦾࡟㈙࠸᭰࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ)ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺≧ែࡀࠊヰ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚
ࠕࡑࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀ(5b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞๓ᥦ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡇࡢ≧ែࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛
࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ࡜ࡁࠊ(1)࡜ࡣ㏫࡟ࠊヰ⪅ࡣࠕ㢖⦾࡟㈙࠸᭰࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡣࡎࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠕ࣐࢖ࢼࢫホ౯ࢆཷࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡞஦ᐇ㸦㈙࠸᭰࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸㸧ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿ㸦ࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿ㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺๓ᥦࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊヰ⪅ࡣࠊࡑࢀࢆ⿬௜ࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡟࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡸࡣࡾヰ⪅ࡢྰᐃⓗឤ᝟ࠊែᗘࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(3)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ†ࡢ୰࡛ X㸦஬᪥ࡸ༑᪥࡛ᤚ⣴ࡀᡴࡕษࡽࢀࡿ㸧ࡀ㉳ࡇࡾࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣࡀࠊヰ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ྰᐃⓗែᗘࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿࡢࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀࡇࡢ≧ἣࢆ(5c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞๓ᥦ࡟࠾࠸࡚⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢሙྜࡶ(1)ྠᵝࠊ
ࠕᤚ⣴ࡀᡴࡕษࡽࢀࡿࡣࡎࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠕ࣐࢖ࢼࢫホ౯ࢆཷࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡞஦ᐇ㸦ᤚ⣴ࡀᡴࡕษࡽࢀࡿ㸧ࢆྲྀࡾᾘࡍ㸦ࡣࡎࡀ࡞࠸㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺๓ᥦ࡟཯ࡍࡿ஦ᐇࡀ㉳ࡇࡾ࠿ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊヰ⪅ࡢྰᐃⓗែᗘࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3.3. ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ 3.2.࡛ࡣࠊNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡀࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࡢつᐃࢆヨࡳࡓࠋᮏ㡯࡛ࡣࠊ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢព࿡ࡀල
యⓗ࡟ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ඹ㉳ࡍࡿⓎヰࡸᛮ⪃࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿࠋ(1)࡛ࡣࠊNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡀ
ඹ㉳ࡍࡿⓎヰࡣࠊ␲ၥᩥࡢᙧᘧࢆ࡜ࡾࠊ(2)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㈙࠼࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺≧ែࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࠕ~ヂࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸
࠺㧗ḟࡢ⾲♧࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ(3)ࡣࠊ
ࠕኴᖹὒࡢࡲࢇ୰࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠖࡢᚋ࡟ࠊ
ࠕࡑࢀࡣ㛫㐪ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸
࠺ᛮ⪃ࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊࠕࡑࢀࠖ࡟ࠕᡃࠎࡀᤚ⣴ࢆᡴࡕษࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺᝿ᐃࡀᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ࠶ࡿ⾲♧࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡢᛮ⪃ࡸⓎヰࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿ⾲♧ࡣࠊ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿ
ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡜ࡣࠊࠕపḟࡢ⾲♧ࢆᇙࡵࡇࢇࡔ㧗ḟࡢ⾲♧࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㧗ḟࡢ⾲♧ࡣࠊᬑ㏻ࠊ
ᛮ⪃࠿Ⓨヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋపḟࡢ⾲♧ࡢࠊ୺せ࡞ 3 ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡣࠊබⓗ⾲♧㸦Ⓨヰ㸧ࠊᚰⓗ⾲♧㸦ᛮ⪃㸧ࠊᢳ㇟⾲♧㸦ᩥࠊ࿨㢟࡞࡝㸧ࠖ㸦Wilson 2000: 126,130㸧࡜ࡍࡿࠋ༶ࡕࠊNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡀඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊ(8)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᢳ㇟⾲♧(1), ᚰⓗ⾲♧(2),බⓗ⾲♧(3)࡜࠸࠺పḟࡢ⾲♧ࡀࠊⓎヰ(1), (2)ࠊᛮ⪃(3)࡜࠸࠺㧗ḟࡢ⾲♧࡟ᇙࡵࡇࡲࢀࡓ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢపḟࡢ⾲♧ࡣࠊ(6b)ࡢ NP
࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ே(≀)ࡀࠊNP ࡢⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦㡯࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘ/ᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣࢆ⾲ࡍ᝿ᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ὀពࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ(8)ࡢࠊゅᣓᘼ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ㒊ศࡣ㧗ḟࡢ⾲♧ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊ୸ᣓᘼ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ㒊ศࡣࠊపḟࡢ⾲♧ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(8) a. (=(1))NPࠕ㥑ࡅฟࡋࡢἾᲬࠖࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࠊ[ヰ⪅ࡣ P㸦ヰ⪅ࡢኵࡀព࿡ࡢ࡞࠸ẅ⏕ࢆࡋࡓ㸧⌮⏤ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟᝿㉳ࡉࡏࡿ㸵] b. (=(2)) [ヰ⪅ࡣ P㸦ヰ⪅ࡀࣃࢯࢥࣥࢆ㢖⦾࡟㈙࠸᭰࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜㸧ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿ] NPࠕࣅ࣭ࣝࢤ࢖ࢶࠖࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࠋ
4−60−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

 c. (=3)) NPࠕኴᖹὒࡢࡲࢇ୰ࠖࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࠊ[ヰ⪅ࡣ P㸦஬᪥ࡸ༑᪥࡛ᤚ⣴ࢆᡴࡕษࡽࢀࡿ㸧ࡇ࡜ࡣ㛫㐪ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ]
ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡣࠊ(6b)࡟ᑐࡍࡿྰᐃⓗែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ(8a~c)ࡢ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࡢ᰿ᣐࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ(1)ࡢⓎヰࢆࠊ(9a) NP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡀఏ㐩ࡍࡿ㒊ศ࡜ࠊ(9b)࣓ࢱ
⾲♧࡛࠶ࡿ␲ၥᩥࡢ㒊ศ࡟ศࡅ࡚⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ(9a)ࡣࠊPࠕヰ⪅ࡢኵࡀព࿡ࡢ࡞࠸ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠖ࡟ᑐࡍ
ࡿྰᐃⓗែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊP ࢆపḟࡢ⾲♧࡜ࡍࡿ(9b)ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠕఱࡢࡓࡵ࡟ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿࡢࡔࡼࠖ࡜࠸
࠺␲ၥᩥࢆⓎࡍࡿ᰿ᣐࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(8b)࡛ࡣࠊ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࡀඛ࡟⌧ࢀࠊPࠕࣃࢯࢥࣥࢆ㢖⦾࡟㈙࠸᭰࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠖࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ḟ࡟ࠕNPࠕࣅ࣭ࣝࢤ࢖ࢶࠖࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ࡟ࡼࡾࠊఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࠊヰ⪅ࡢࠊ
ࠕPࠕࣃࢯࢥࣥࢆ㢖⦾࡟㈙࠸᭰࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠖࡣᙜࡓࡾ๓࡛࠶ࡿࠖ
ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ែᗘ࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡇࡢ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(9) a. NP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩ㒊ศࠕ㥑ࡅฟࡋࡢἾᲬࡌࡷ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠖࡀఏ㐩ࡍࡿ᝟ሗP(㥑ࡅฟࡋࡢἾᲬ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ኵࡀࠊព࿡ࡢ࡞࠸ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜)ࡣࠊ㠀㞴ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜
࠸࠺ヰ⪅ࡢྰᐃⓗែᗘb. ࣓ࢱ⾲♧㒊ศࠕఱࡢࡓࡵ࡟ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿࡢࡔࡼࠖࡀఏ㐩ࡍࡿ᝟ሗ
  P(㥑ࡅฟࡋࡢἾᲬ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ኵࡀࠊព࿡ࡢ࡞࠸ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜)ࡢ⌮⏤ࢆ᝿㉳ࡏࡼࠊ࡜࠸࠺ពᅗ
ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ(3)ࡢࠊㅰ㸦2010㸧ࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ࠺୍ᗘ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋࡇࡢᩥࡣᑠㄝ࠿ࡽࡢᘬ⏝࡛࠶
ࡿࡀࠊⓎヰ㒊ศࡔࡅࢆᢤࡁฟࡍ࡜ࠊ(10)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊᒣᮏ஬༑භ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ㒊ୗࡢ఍ヰ࡜ࡋ࡚ᵓᡂࡍࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ3.2.࡛㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᒣᮏࡢࠕኴᖹὒࡢࡲࢇ୰ࡌࡷ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ࡟ࡼࡾࠊྰ
ᐃⓗែᗘࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ
ࠕNPࠕኴᖹὒࡢࡲࢇ୰ࠖࡢⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦㡯࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ
ࠕ஬᪥ࡸ༑᪥࡛ᤚ⣴ࡀᡴࡕษࡽࢀࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒࠊ༶ࡕࠊ†ࡢ୰࡛⾜ࢃࢀࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡇࡢ≧ἣࡀᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠊᥦ᱌ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊᒣᮏࡢ㒊ୗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡘࡲࡾࠊᒣᮏࡣࠊ
ࠕኴᖹὒࡢࡲࢇ୰࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠖ࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ㒊ୗ࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࢆᇙࡵ㎸ࡴࠊ
⮬㌟ࡢྰᐃⓗែᗘࢆ⾲ࡋࠊࠕ஬᪥ࡸ༑᪥࡛ࠊ..⋡࠸࡚⾜ࡅࡿ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ㒊ศ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡑࢀࢆ᰿ᣐ࡟ࠊ
㒊ୗࡢᥦ᱌࡟ᑐࡍࡿ␗㆟ࢆ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࠖࠕࡑࢁࡑࢁࡇࡢ㎶࡛ᤚ⣴ᡴࡕษࡾ࡟ࡋ࡚ࡣ࡝࠺࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࠋ
(10)(=(3))㒊ୗ㸸    ᒣᮏ㸸ࠕఱ࢝᭶࠿࠿ࡗ࡚ࡶࡸࡿࠋ
ࠖࠕኴᖹὒࡢࡲࢇ୰ࡌࡷ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠊࡓ࠿ࡀࡇࡢ†ࡢ୰ࡔࠋ஬
᪥ࡸ༑᪥࡛ᡴࡕษࡿࡼ࠺࡛㒊ୗࡀ⋡࠸࡚⾜ࡅࡿ࠿ࠋࠖࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࠕࡇࡇࡣ†ࡢ୰ࡔࠖࡣࠊㅰ(2010)ࡀゝ࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕኴᖹὒࡢࡲࢇ୰ࡌࡷ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠖ࡜୪ิⓗ࡟ᚋ⥆⠇ࡢ᰿ᣐ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊヰ⪅ࡀ(11)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㒊ୗࡢᥦ᱌࡟ᑐࡋࠊ┤᥋ⓗ࡟␗㆟ࢆၐ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᤄධⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(11) ኴᖹὒࡢࡲࢇ୰ࡌࡷ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠊ஬᪥ࡸ༑᪥࡛ᡴࡕษࡿࡼ࠺࡛㒊ୗࡀ⋡࠸࡚⾜ࡅࡿ࠿ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ┦ᡭヰ⪅ࡢⓎヰࡸᛮ⪃࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ྰᐃⓗែᗘࢆ♧ࡍሙྜࠊࡑࢀࢆ᰿ᣐ࡜ࡍࡿ(9b)ࡢ࣓ࢱ⾲♧㒊ศࡣ┬␎ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋ(12)ࡣࠊࢫࢺ࣮࣮࢝ࡢ๓඙ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㟁ヰࡸⰼ᮰࡟୙Ᏻࢆぬ࠼ࡿⱝ࠸ࣆ࢔ࢽࢫࢺࡳࡍࡎ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ࣐ࢿ࣮ࢪ࣮࡛ࣕ࠶ࡿᘺỤࡀࠊฮ஦࡟஦᝟ࢆㄝ᫂
ࡍࡿሙ㠃ࡢ఍ヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡳࡍࡎࡣࠊࡘ࠸᭱㏆ࡶኪ࡟ࢪࣙࢠࣥࢢࢆࡋ࡚࠸࡚㌴࡟ࡦ࠿ࢀࡑ࠺࡟࡞ࡾࠊᚰ㓄ࡋࡓᘺỤࡀࠊࢪࣙࢠࣥࢢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⾜ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࡀࠊ࡜ฮ஦࡟ヰࡍ࡜ࠊࡳࡍࡎࡀࠊᶓࡸࡾ
5−61−

「NPデハ（ジャ）アルマイシ」と百科事典的記載事項に関する考察ࢆධࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(12)ᘺỤ㸸ࠕ༴࡞࠸ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࠖ࡜ᘺỤࡀ┱ࢆࡦࡑࡵ࡚ࠊ
ࠕࡸࡿ࡜ࡁࡣ⚾ࡀࡘ࠸࡚⾜ࡃ࠿ࡽࠊࡗ࡚ゝ࠺ࢇ࡛
ࡍࡅ࡝ࠋ
ࠖ
ࡳࡍࡎ㸸
ࠕᏊ౪ࡌࡷ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠋࠖ               㸦ࠗ࠾࡜࡞ࡾࡶྡ᥈ഄ࠘㉥ᕝḟ㑻㸧(12)ࡶ(10)ྠᵝࠊࡳࡍࡎࡢࠕᏊ౪ࡌࡷ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ࡟ࡼࡾࠊྰᐃⓗែᗘࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ
ࠕNPࠕᏊ౪ࠖࡢ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦㡯ࠕኪฟ࠿ࡅࡿ࡜ࡁࡣࠊㄡ࠿࡟௜ࡁῧࢃࢀࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆ࢔
࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࡳࡍࡎࡀᣢࡘࠖ≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣࡢᐇ⌧ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊᘺ
Ụ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡳࡍࡎࡣᘺỤ࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞᝿ᐃࢆ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࡢపḟࡢ⾲♧࡜ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡾ㎸ࡳࠊ(13)ࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡟Ⓨゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕࡘ࠸࡚ࡃࡿ࡞ࢇ࡚ࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰࡢ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࡣࠊ[㸦ኪฟ࠿ࡅࡿ࡜ࡁ
ࡣࠊㄡ࠿࡟௜ࡁῧࢃࢀࡿ㸧ࡇ࡜ࡣ㤿㮵ࡽࡋ࠸]ࡢゅᣓᘼ㒊ศ࡛⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
(13) Ꮚ౪ࡌࡷ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠊࡘ࠸࡚ࡃࡿ࡞ࢇ࡚ࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᐇ㝿ࡣ(12)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊNP ࢪࣕ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰࡢࡳࢆ⏝࠸ࠊ(9b)࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ࣓ࢱ⾲♧㒊ศࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀࡿ᝿ᐃࡀࠊㄡ࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿࡶࡢ࠿ࡀ㢧ᅾ໬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊヰ⪅ࡀ
NP ࢪࣕ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ(9a)ࡢែᗘࢆ♧ࡍࡔࡅ࡛ࠊ༑ศ㛵㐃ᛶࡀ㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜᥎ ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
௨ୖࠊNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡣࠊ(6b)ࡀ⫯ᐃⓗෆᐜࢆ⾲ࡍ᝿ᐃ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡁࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢྰᐃⓗែᗘࢆ♧ࡋࠊྰᐃⓗෆᐜࢆ⾲ࡍ᝿ᐃ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡁࡣࠊ⫯ᐃⓗែᗘࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊඹ㉳ࡍࡿⓎヰࡢ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࡢពᅗࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ(6b)ࡣࠊྠ୍ヰ⪅ࡀᢪࡃ᝿ᐃࡸࠊⓎヰࡢ≧ἣࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ௚⪅࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࡸࠊ⵹↛ⓗ࡞஦ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊᮏ⠇ࡢศᯒ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊ࡞ࡐ㡰᥋ࠊ
㏫᥋㛵ಀࡢゎ㔘ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ
4. 㡰᥋ࠊ㏫᥋㛵ಀ ᮏ㡯࡛ࡣࠊ(9a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿ㒊ศࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᚰⓗ࡟⾲♧ࡍࡿ࠿࡟ࡼࡾࠊෑ㢌࡛♧ࡋࡓࠊࠕ࡞࠸ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠖ
ࠊࠕ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠖࡢゎ㔘ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ(9a)ࡢࡼ
࠺࡞ࠊ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒࡀࠊNP ࡢⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦㡯࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࠊࡲࡓࡣᣢࡓ࡞࠸≧ἣࡸ᝿ᐃ࡟ᑐࡍࡿែᗘࢆࠊヰ⪅ࡢどⅬ࡟❧ࡗ࡚⾲ࡍ࡜(14)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
(14) a.(= (1)) ኵࡀព࿡ࡢ࡞࠸ẅ⏕ࢆࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ㤿㮵࡞ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ
(it is idiotic that he killed the lady for no reason)b.(=(2)) ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣮ࢆ㢖⦾࡟㈙࠸᭰࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ୙ྍ⬟ࡔ(it is impossible for me to buy new computers so often )c. (=(3)) ྠ൉ࡢᤚ⣴ࢆ஬᪥ࡸ༑᪥࡛ᡴࡕษࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ㛫㐪ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿ(it is wrong for us to quit searching for lost soldiers in only five days or ten.)d.(=(12)) ኪฟ࠿ࡅࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟኱ே࡟௜ࡁῧࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ᜝ࡎ࠿ࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ
(it is embarrassing that I am attended by an adult when she goes out at night)(15a~d)ࡢࠊBecause ࡜ࠊࠕࡢࡔ࠿ࡽ࡛ࠖ♧ࡋࡓࠕ࠶ࡿேࡸ≀ࡀ NP ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࡜ࠊ(14a~d)ࠕNP ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸
ࡢែᗘࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ㡰᥋ⓗ࡟᥋⥆ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ༶ࡕࠊNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡀࠊ
ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡁࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢどⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒࡣ NP ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ
6−62−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ࡔ࠿ࡽࠊ᝿ᐃ/≧ἣ(6b)࡟ᑐࡋྰᐃⓗែᗘࡸឤ᝟ࢆᢪ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(15) a. ኵࡣ㥑ࡅฟࡋࡢἾᲬ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽ/ࡢ࡟㸧(Because/Although my husband is not an amateur,b. ࣈࣟࢢࡢ➹⪅ࡣࣅ࣭ࣝࢤ࢖ࢶ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽ/ࡢ࡟㸧(Because/Although I am not Bill Gates, )c. ࡑࡇࡀኴᖹὒࡢࡲࢇ୰࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽ/ࡢ࡟㸧(Because/Although it is not the middle of Pacific Ocean,d. ヰ⪅ࡣᏊ౪࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽ/ࡢ࡟㸧(Because/Although I am not a child,) ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ(15a~d)ࡢࠕࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠖࢆࠕࡢ࡟ࠖ࡟ࠊࡲࡓࠊBecause ࢆ Although ࡟᭰࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ(14a~d)࡜
ጇᙜ࡟᥋⥆࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋ(14)࡛ࠊNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩ࡟ࡼࡾࠊྰᐃⓗែᗘࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊ࢔ࣝ
࣐࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒࡀ NP ࡢᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࠕ᝿ᐃ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ(15)ࡢࠊ
ࠕࡢ࡟ࠖࡲࡓࡣ Although ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᑟ࠿ࢀࡿ࿨㢟ࡣ(16)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊⓎヰࡢሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩ
ࡢ୺ㄒ࡟㉳ࡁࡓࡇ࡜ࠊ㉳ࡁࡑ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ(16)ࡀࠕࡢ࡟ࠖ
ࠊalthough ࡞࡝ࡢ㏫ㄝⓗ⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡾࠊ㡰ᙜ࡟ᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊヰ⪅ࡣ(16)ࡢ࿨㢟࡟ᑐࡋࠊண ࢆ⿬ษࡽࢀࡓࠊࡲࡓࡣ୙‶ࠊṧᛕ࡞࡝ࡢྰᐃⓗឤ᝟ࢆᢪ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(16) a.(= (1)) ᙼࡣព࿡ࡢ࡞࠸ẅ⏕ࢆࡋࡓࠋ(he killed the lady for no reason.)b.(=(3)) ࣃࢯࢥࣥࢆ㈙࠸᭰࠼࡞ࡃ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
(I am in a situation where I have to buy a new computer. )c. (=(4)) ྠ൉ࡢᤚ⣴ࢆ†࡛ᡴࡕษࡽࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
(I might have to give up searching for the lost soldiers in only five days or ten.)d.(=(12)) ኪฟ࠿ࡅࡿ࡜ࡁࡣ኱ே࡟௜ࡁῧࢃࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
㸦࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
㸧(I might have to be attended by and an adult when she goes out at night. )ࡘࡲࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ NP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࢆࠕ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀࠕ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒࡀ NP ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖࡇ࡜ࢆ㏫᥋ࡢ᮲௳࡜ࡋࠊⓎヰࡢሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿ஦ᐇࠊࡲࡓࡣ⵹↛ⓗ஦ᐇࢆᐈほⓗ࡟グ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀྰᐃⓗែᗘࡸឤ᝟ࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿࠊ࡜ゎ㔘ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
NP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡀࠊヰ⪅ࡢᛮ⪃ࡸⓎヰࡢ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ3.3.࡛ゐࢀࡓࠋࠕ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘࡟ᑟ࠿ࢀࡿ(14)ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠕ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘࡟ᑟ࠿ࢀࡿ(16)ࡣࠊ
࡜ࡶ࡟ࡇࢀࡽࡢ࣓ࢱ⾲♧((8)ࡢゅᣓᘼ㒊ศ)ࡢ᰿ᣐ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (1)ࢆ౛࡟ලయⓗ࡟ㄝ᫂ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ(17a)ࡣᐇ㝿ࡢⓎヰࠊ(17b)ࡣࠊ
ࠕ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡁࠊ(17c)ࡣࠊ
ࠕ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ㎺ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿゎ㔘㐣⛬࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(17b)࡛ࡣࠊ(6b)ࡢࠊ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒࡀ NP
ࡢⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦㡯ࢆᣢࡘࠊ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠊヰ⪅ࡢྰᐃⓗែᗘࡀࠊ୺ほⓗุ᩿ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ᑟ
࠿ࢀࠊ(17c)࡛ࡣࠊྠࡌ≧ἣࡀᐈほⓗ஦ᐇ࡜ࡋ࡚ᥥ෗ࡉࢀࡓ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
(17)a. 㥑ࡅฟࡋࡢἾᲬ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠊఱࡢࡓࡵ࡟ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿࡢࡔࡼࠋ  b. NPࠕ㥑ࡅฟࡋࡢἾᲬ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞࠸ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽ㸸࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒࡣ NPࠕ㥑ࡅฟࡋࡢἾᲬ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࡽࠊヰ⪅ࡣࠊࠕ୺ㄒࠖࡀ NP ࡢᛶ㉁㸦ព࿡ࡢ࡞࠸ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿ㸧ࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࡣ㤿㮵࡞ࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡇࢀࢆ᰿ᣐ࡟ࠊ
ࠕఱࡢ
7
−63−

「NPデハ（ジャ）アルマイシ」と百科事典的記載事項に関する考察ࡓࡵ࡟ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿࡢࡔࡼࠖ࡜ゝࡗࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ  c. NPࠕ㥑ࡅฟࡋࡢἾᲬ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟㸸    ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒࡣ NPࠕ㥑ࡅฟࡋࡢἾᲬ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠊᐇ㝿ࡣ NP ࡢᛶ㉁㸦ព࿡ࡢ࡞࠸ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿ㸧ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡇࢀࢆ᰿ᣐ࡟ࠊ
ࠕఱࡢࡓࡵ࡟ẅ⏕ࢆࡍࡿࡢࡔࡼࠖ࡜ゝࡗࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡣࠊ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒࡀ NP ࡢⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦㡯࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿᛶ㉁ࢆᣢ
ࡘࠊ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡋࠊヰ⪅ࡢ୺ほⓗุ᩿ࠊᐈほⓗグ㏙࡜࠸࠺஧ࡘࡢ␗࡞ࡿ᪉ἲ࠿ࡽࠊྰᐃⓗែᗘࢆᑟࡃࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࡢ࡝ࡕࡽࡶࡀࠊඹ㉳ࡍࡿ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
5. ⤖ㄒ ௨ୖࠊNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡀࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡍࡿ᝟ሗ࡜ࠊࡇࡢ⾲⌧࠿ࡽࠊࠕ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠖ
ࠊࠕ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ
࡟ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᚓࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡟࠾࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡓࠋNP ࢹࣁ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡣࠊ
ࠕ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒࡣࠊNP ࡢ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗグ㍕஦㡯ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡣࡎࡔࠖ
ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ᩥ⬦ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟᝿㉳ࡉࡏࠊ࢔࣐ࣝ࢖ࢩࡢ୺ㄒࡀࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡋࠊヰ⪅ࡢྰᐃⓗែᗘࢆᑟࡃࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡇࡢ≧ែࢆ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࠊヰ⪅ࡢ୺ほⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽᚰⓗ࡟⾲♧ࡍࡿሙྜࡣࠕ࡞࠸ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠖ
࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀᚓࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊヰ⪅ࡢᐈほⓗグ㏙࡜ࡋ࡚ᚰⓗ࡟⾲♧ࡍࡿሙྜࡣࠊ
ࠕ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀᚓࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࡇࢀࡽࡢゎ㔘ࡣ୧᪉ࠊඹ㉳ࡍࡿ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿ᰿ᣐ࡜࡞ࡾࠊⓎヰࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ࡛࠙ࡣࠚ᩿ᐃࡢຓືモࡢ㐃⏝ᙧࠕ࡛ࠖ࡟ࠊಀຓモࠕࡣࠖࡢࡘ࠸ࡓࡶࡢࠋ㹼࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊࡌࡷ㸦࠶㸧ࠋ㸦⢭㑅∧᪥ᮏᅜㄒ㎡඾㸧ᡴᾘࡋࡢ᮲௳ࢆకࡗࡓ⌮⏤ࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜ(~࡞࠸ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽ)ࡢ౛ᩥ:ࠕ඗࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋពぢࡣ࠸ࡽࡠࡶࡢࠖḷ⯙ఄ࣭ഴᇛỤᡞ
ᱜ(1698) ୰㸦⢭㑅∧᪥ᮏᅜㄒ㎡඾㸧㸱 ᡴᾘࡋࡢពࢆకࡗࡓ㏫᥋᮲௳ࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜ(~࡞࠸ࡢ࡟)ࡢ౛ᩥ:ࠕ௚ேࡖࡷ࢔ࠕ࠾ᅾࢇ࡞ࡉࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠊ
㸦␎㸧࠾ሀ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡤ࠿
ࡾ௮⿕ࡲࡍࢿ࡬ࠖ
㸦ே᝟ᮏ࣭Ύㄯⱝ⚘㸦19㹡୰㸧㸦⢭㑅∧᪥ᮏᅜㄒ㎡඾㸧㸲 ⢭㑅∧᪥ᮏᅜㄒ㎡඾ࡼࡾ㸳 ᪥ᮏேẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ㛫࡛ࡶุ᩿ࡀศ࠿ࢀࡿࠋ
40 ௦㹼50 ௦ࡢゝㄒᏛࠊゝㄒᩍ⫱࡟㛵ࢃࡾࡢ࡞࠸ዪᛶ 10 ྡ࡟㉁ၥࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ
4 ྡࡀࠕ࡞࠸ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠖ
ࠊ6 ྡࡀࠕ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠖࡢゎ㔘ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋ㸴ࠕ࠶ࡿㄒ㸦࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿゝㄒ༢఩㸧࠿ࡽ᝿㉳ࡉࢀࡿ㸦ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ㸧▱㆑ࡢ⥲యࠖ(⢄ᒣࠕⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗព࿡ほࠖࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ
ㄽ⪃ No.9࠘2010:5)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕㄒࠖ༢఩ࡢධຊ࡟ࡼࡾ࿧ࡧฟࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ศᯒࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ㸵 㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊಟ㎡␲ၥᩥࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࡣࠊࡑࡢ⟅࠼ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟᝿㉳ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿࠊ࡜⪃࠼ࠊࡑࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡢࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡣࠊ(8a)ࡢゅᣓᘼ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ(Sperber and Wilson 19952: 252-3)
㸯
㸰

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances :The pragmatics of explicit communication, Blackwell,
Oxford.
ㅰ⚟ྎ. 2010.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡲ࠸ࡋࠖ࡜୰ᅜㄒࡢ”ཪ୙᫝”ࡢᑐ↷◊✲-㠀஦ᐇ࿨㢟ࡢྰᐃࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࠖ
ࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ࣭᪥ᮏᩥ໬◊✲ 19࠘
ࠊ59-72. ኱㜰: ኱㜰኱Ꮫ᪥ᮏㄒ᪥ᮏᩥ໬ᩍ⫱ࢭࣥࢱ࣮.
᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍㸦⦅㸧2008. ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ 6-➨ 11 㒊 」ᩥ-࠘. ᮾி:ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
Sperber, D. and Wilson D. 1986/19952. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Blackwell, Oxford. (ෆ⏣⪷஧࣭୰㐐ಇ࣭᫂Ᏽ༡ඛ࣭⏣୰ᆂᏊ(ヂ)(1993,19992).ࠗ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ-ㄆ▱࡜ఏ㐩࠘ᮾி: ◊✲♫.)
Wilson,D.2000. “Metarepresentation in linguistic communication.” Metarepresentations: A
Multidisciplinary Perspective. D. Sperber (ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Prss. 411-448.
Wilson, D.and Sperber, D. 1993.͆Linguistic from and relevance.” Lingua 90:1-25.
⏝౛ฟ඾࣭㎡᭩⢭㑅᪥ᮏᅜㄒ㎡඾ (2006). ᑠᏛ㤋. ᮾி㉥ᕝḟ㑻. 2000. ࠗ࠾࡜࡞ࡾࡶྡ᥈ഄ࠘.ゅᕝ᭩ᗑ.ᮾி.
ཧ⪃ URL http://www.aozora.gr.jp/cards/000083/files/496_19866.html

8−64−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号¢ƣǗƂƓœ+=
+ǈ=iťŭǠŤƙŖĬ,ŦïAƓ¢ƣAnû+&nĪ ěŴ
ªǂØÛ<abstract>
This study aims to show the differences in usage between a set of adverbs used to show
the degree of commitment by the speaker to some proposition. The adverbs examined
here are apparently, seemingly, evidently, visibly and perceptively. In the previous
studies, apparently and seemingly have been considered as near-synonyms of each other.
However, from a corpus survey of BYU-BNC, this study shows that they are useddifferently. Apparently and evidently is more likely to used as a sentential adverbs thanthe others. Seemingly is collocated with adjectives with negative suffixes such as
impossible. Visibly and perceptively implies the change of state. The results of the survey
suggest that each of the adverbs develop its own use different from the others, following
the path of grammaticalization. Since this study is synchronic, further research about
diachronic developments is necessary.
Keywords ¢ƣǗƂƓœKhVPŤƙěŀ©

1. -7+ ƎƧ+-ŦïAƓ¢ƣłƓœ,iƁÚÎ=,: *Ɠœ-~& =ùÙ+>>, ŕŘ*#&<ƎƧ,Ɠœ¤AƮ+& = ,: *Ɠœ-ƟƵ=(+ËǎA} ,éŘ-..ăƬ+j;4
Ġ;*8,+8*;*  ĩťŭ'-KhVPAŕ
Ǆŝ*Ĉŀ+:#&ǗƂƓœ,éŘA:<ĹŦ+Ƒ(AŞŝ(=Ǆŝ*ĈŀAŕ =,-,: *¢ƣ-àƦ¶ƈgl¶ƈ,æï
'-Ɠœ'*7' =.ĩƫ'ĉ apparently ( seemingly ,Ó¹¡
ƅ-ěǘAseemingly -3(B)ư;* (ƚá>& =zk,+: +Ü+ seemingly ěǘ¢
ƣ(&Ŕư* (Ɲ @'-* (1) Seemingly, no-one is safe from theirremorseless attacks: right-on 11
year-old skatefreaks (' Rad Dude'),Ray Reardon (' Spooky Perv
Happenings In The Snooker Hall'),Ozzy Osbourne (' Betty Ford's Clinic').
(W_pop_lore, HWX) ,:*Ü+àƦĀ+:#&Ü+« =(Ëǎ!(qĂ>=Ó¹Ǖï(ê+:#&¢ƣĽ,8#(8Ðŝ*ŕŀAĠ;+& Ğŀĥ§'= ĩƫ,Ĵć-zk,Ʒ<' =Ű 1 Ų-ä' =Ű 2 Ų'-ŦïAƓ¢ƣAÝƂoƕ*ƑťŭAźwköĩƫ,ÇǖƠÝAĖŧ=Ű 3 Ų-Ʃį,Ò
¿' =Ű 4 Ų-ěŀ©,ƚň;ƭƫAƑ Ű 6 Ų-4(7(ãĬ,ťŭ,çĦAƵ2=
2. Ŧ  ï A Ɠ  ¢ ƣ (  Ƒ ť ŭ
2.1. Ŧ  ï A Ɠ  ¢ ƣ ƎƧ+-ƤĈ,ŦïAƓ 7,ƝƧŝ*ĈĻƮ+ÚÎ=.×,ťŭ*>& =ŀ¦¨ƣ (e.g. can,should, may)+:#&ƤĈ),ŪïƓ
œ>& =Ãǖ+$ &ŦAĎ#&=,AƓ('=
(2) a. It is raining outside.
b. It must be raining outside.
c. It may be raining outside.
ŀ¦¨ƣ*,ě'-,Ãǖ-rÞ(&Ėŧ>=>+â&must Aŕě'-ÃǖrÞ) -ŗ>

−65−

副詞類義表現における使い分けに関する一研究：知覚由来の確信度を表す副詞を中心にしてƤƅ,Ãǖš' =(AŦ&=(|ƺ>=ƶ+ may AŕƓœ'-Ƥƅ,,Ãǖ+â=Ŧï 8,(&ƆĈ+|;>= ºĵ+ōÝ,ūǗ,¨ƣ9Ĵě+:#&8 º ĵ , ķ ƈ  Þ œ '  =    .  It
seems that 9 I + ƦƬ¨ƣƁ-,Ð'=(3) a. It seems to be raining outside.
b. I believe that it is raining outside.
jƟ,s$,'-) : +Ö'Ǐ
ǉ#& =) (ÃǖrÞ(&Ėŧ=,'-*Ƥƅ,Ƅ(&ƆĈ+Ėŧ>= ĩŬ'ĉ ,-,: *ƵƧ',Ĉ
Ļ'-*Ƥƅ,ŦïAƓ¢ƣ' =
'->;,ƓœAŀ¢ƣ(Â0ŝ+- apparently ( seemingly Ao*ťŭâƯ(& =>;,¢ƣAěǔ+ƀ('ŀ¦¨ƣ9¨ƣA(*+
rÞ'-*Ƥƅ,ŦïAń¥ õ'ÃǖAĖŧ=('=
(4) a. It is raining outside.
b. Apparently, it is raining outside.
j,ěrÞ(&Ėŧ>& =,+â&k,ě->Ƥƅ,ĝ' =
(ŧ>& =
2.2.  Ƒ ť ŭ ¢ƣ-ǆ> FSLbh' =('= 7ŦïAƓ¢ƣ,n+8ĵ*ŦïAƓ¢ƣ×ÚÎ=,n'8Ƒťŭ'ǌ!#&ƴ (>& =,apparently ( seemingly ' =
,Ų,Şŝ-ƑťŭA¯Ō*;apparently ( seemingly ƴ (AŦ
7;+,x,¢ƣ+8Ɯ>=('= -7+Oxford Thesaurus of English'-apparently ( seemingly ->>,ǓŞ+ &8#(8ƴ ǗƂƓœ(&ď;>& = Oxford English Dictionary (zk OED)'-apparently ( seemingly ->>t AÝƂ= 7,Ƨô(&śÓ& =zk apparently ,ÝƂ' =
ǚzk,,kſǀ-Ɛƅ,8,' =Ǜ(5) To external appearance; seemingly(Distinguished from but notnecessarily opposed to really)(6) So far as it appears from theevidence; so far as one can judge;
seemingly”
zk->+âý= seemingly ,ÝƂ'=(7) To external appearance, apparently(Distinguished from but notnecessarily opposed to really)(8) In combinations (usually hyphened)with adjectives in the sense of‘apparently-‘,(; apparently ( seemingly -ǀŝ+-Št+uė¶ƈ*ÝƂA*>&=(= Quirk et al. (1985) -  apparently (seemingly -+ content disjunct (&
Ǘ>&<mĞ(8šÞ; degreeof truth AƓ8,(>& = Biber et al.(1999)'-apparently -”thesource of the information reported in theassociated proposition”(p.855) A Ɠ  ( & =4 '-evidently (,ǈĀƵ2;>& = Huddleston and Pullum (2002) ' - 
apparently 8 seemingly 8ĵą¢ƣ modal
adverbs (&Ǘ>& =(9) Apparently, seemingly, andpresumably in [6ii] indicate that I
don’t know, cannot be certain, thatthe proposition is true: I’m merely
judging by appearances or making apresumption.” (p. 769) ;+ Wordnet 3.1.'-apparently (seemingly mĞƴ ǗƂƓœ(&ď;>& =

−66−

第18回大会発表論文集

 zj+Ɩ;>=: +Ƒťŭ'-
apparently ( seemingly -º: +Ƅ;>& =4 ,x,¢ƣ(8Štŝ+ÝƂ>& = Ƒťŭ-ăÁAnû+ apparently (seemingly Aƴ ǗƂƧ(& =,(-ǗƂĀ-ăÁ,Çǖ' =(Ƅ=(' = +ăÁǗ~& =(-ǗƂĀAćŮ= 7,üƕī{' =,!>!ć<Ů & =@'-*  ƝƧ-õð(ăÁ,s$,ƕŸż/$& =,'ăÁ!'-*,õðŝê+:#&8ōúy;>=,ƄĞ-Ĵěěŀ(º' =Ĵěěŀ-ƝƧ,ĭ¬+õð(ăÁ,â' =Ĵ
ě!Aŕ =(Goldberg 1995, 2006)
, Ƙ ň - º ĵ +  Langacker (2008);
Traugott and Trousdale (2013),Ƶ2=:+ƦŤƝƧÛ,¡Ė+8*#& =ĩƫ'-,: *Ɵ¸ƚAēŕ=,Ƅ,ëż- =ƝƧǓŞAƟƵ= 7+-şĄŝ*ăÁ!'-*õðǑ+8ŢA¼=üƕ =((' ='Ɲ õð-ƝƧǓŞ,8,' =ǒÔā
Ò9ħāÒ;>Ŕư=õąŽƧ
āÒ4'AƝ  õð(ăÁ,ǈ-¬i,ǈ+ƿ'* Traugott and Trousdale (2013)
Ƶ2=: +õð(ăÁ,Õ©- ,¨
ķ+:#&ŏŮ&ư=ºĢ+ăÁ,Õ©-õð,Õ©AƷ&Ġ;+*<4 õð,Õ©-ăÁÕ©,żĮ+:#&¨ķ%;>& =Ó¹8 =ĩťŭ'ŕ =¡Ė-õðăÁ,ƻ A±ġ& =(¡Ė' =$4<8*+
õðŝ*ê,ƻ  =*;.>-;,ăÁ,ƻ A±ġ& =(Ƅ=(Ɲ (' = ăÁ+$ &-ŐƂ,ăÁ;ƪƤ,*' =ōÝ,ƝƏĎ$ķƈ4'íî¾64 iƍŝ+Ƨŕƫŝ!( @>&=8,(ăÁƫŝ*ƕŸ,é87;-#<(« * ƝƧ),: +Õ©& AƩ2=ĺ·ƝƧÛǚō+ěŀ©Ǜ+ǈ=ťŭĠ;+& : +ƹ®ƪƤ'ĕƫ+:#&Ŕ iƹĀ,第11号

ķƈ8,ĕƫōÝ,ƝƧǓŞ, ŕĢì+ư=: +*#&=(,ǓŞ,Ď$ăÁƕŸ!(ĸŰ+Î©>=,(-Ƨŕƫŝó©g = -ǚƧŕƫŝ
ĕƫ,ǛăÁ©(Â.>= =Þ', =ƝƧƓœ,ăÁƕŸƧŕƫŝ*,ăÁƫŝ*,,<-ĳ7&ŝ*İ{' <ō+nǇĻǋ'-Ģ+Ƨŕƫ,ųř*,ăÁƫ,ųř*,« =(Ëǎ' =
3. Ʃį
3.1. T h Q ( Ğ ŀ ƫ
3.1.1. T h Q ĩťŭ,ThQ-BYU-BNC ;³;>& =BYU-BNC -iƧdZcÏƒK
hVP' = British National Corpus A
XbG[^fIØÛ, Mark Davies ęĒ
EfaDf+Ũı 8,'ƨ'8ŊĜ'
('= BYU-BNC ,Ĵć-ǟ£ģƝƏǝ£ƤƝƏ' <ģƝƏ,ƝƏƼ ľƱŝó±ġ>=((*=Þǌ+-ģƝƏ(ƤƝƏ(sŀ-ƝƧ ŕ,ÞąA¬ŵ©= 7:<Ź
*Va\hQ,ƠÝAƄĆ=üƕ=vÉ-ƠÝAƑ#& * ÷#&
vÉ-BYU-BNC ,¼AĊĘ=
(AŞŝ(= BYU-BNC -ĵ*O]fc;ƎƧAē³ ÏƒKhVP' =:#&ōÝ,O]fcgdOPQh+Ŕư=: *ƝƏ-Šļ>ŠâǕï*= ƶ+),O]fc+8Ñĩŝ+œ>=:*iƍŝ*œƯAĭ=,+¼ &=>+:#&apparently ( seemingly,ƎƧ+=iƍŝ¼AŤ=('=ōÝ,O]fc+Íĥ+Ɩ;>=: *ƝƧ ŕAĭ=(-,ƠƞÿĂAƄ=(ƽ'-* ĩťŭ-
apparently ( seemingly ƎƧ,*'),: +ŕ ;>& =,) AƩ2
=VDeRUPQTC' = #&
BYU-BNC +Ñ%ťŭ-qƩį(&ĥ§' =(Ƅ;>=
3.1.2. Ʃ į â Ư ( Ʃ į Ğ ŀ−67−

副詞類義表現における使い分けに関する一研究：知覚由来の確信度を表す副詞を中心にして ĩťŭ'ĉ ¢ƣ-zk, 5 $' =
>;-Oxford Thesaurus of English A
ÑŇ+&;+ƑťŭA¯Ƅ+*
;ƾB!

apparentlyěǔseeminglyěnevidentlyěĨ(10) apparently, seemingly, evidently,
visibly, perceptively

visiblyđµ
perceptibly0%

>;->>Ƥƅ,ŦïAƓ¢ƣ(&ķƈ& =ƩįĞŀ!4
BYU-BNC  ;  >  > , ¢ ƣ , Þ  A
100 $Ŋŉ+²Ǎ=Ŋŉ+²Ǎ
=Ğŀ-BYU-BNC ,MDU+ =ķƈAŕ ĸ+>>,Þ+â&Ǘ,āÒ
(*=QIAĈĲ'$& # QI,
-zk,Ʒ<' =

ě
ǔ
ě
n
ě
Ĩ
đ

µ
¹
ƞ

60%

80%

100%

¢ƣĽ+*<Ř*=ê+*# (ƋÁŃ apparently ( evidently -ľƱŝěǔěĨđµ(ě,ÀƳǀ+Ŕư=('=ƶ+x, seemingly evidently  perceptively -ěŀ+Ŕư%; (Ġ;+*#  ĸ+ƔǘƕŸ+$ &4(7 8,
zk,Ʒ<+*=
apparently

3 .2. ż Į
3.2.1. Ǆ ŝ  ĭ 4Ŕưƀ;Ɩ& Ŕưƀ+$ &-zk,Ɠ,Ʒ<+*# 
perceptively -88 100 +ņ *# ,',ň-Łă=üƕ =7ŜŒAƟ& =

40%

Ì 1 ¢ ƣ , Ŕ ư  ƀ(11) ŔưƀǘâƯ½ÝoƧű
QIyŻpö>;AǍƞ&Ʃį
AƑ# *2&,QIĭ+ĥ§!# @'-*>;-Ŷí,ǈjzǉ,ĭ'-ŕ & * 20%seemingly

evidently

visibly

perceptibly

 or

28

4

16

5

2



18

65

10

22

12



5

3

2

0

1



5

0

11

1

0







37

20

53

68

41

7

8

8

4

0

100

100

100

100

56

Ɠ 2 ¢ ƣ ,  ǘ ƕ Ÿapparentlyseemingly

evidently

visibly

perceptibly

19

2

11

1

0

seemingly

72

96

84

95

51 (91%)evidently

1

0

1

1

3 (3.5%)visibly

apparently

ěorƪ
Ƥ
õàƣ
¢ƣ
»ƣ

8

2

4

3

¨ƣǈ
Ƹ
perceptibly

2 (5.3%)

0%

100

100

100

100

56

,x

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ì 2 ¢ ƣ ,  ǘ ƕ Ÿ

Ɠ 1 ¢ ƣ , Ŕ ư  ƀ

>- =ŪïŔưƀ(ǈƸ& =:<ƥŹ*ƻ
Ġ;+*#
apparently ( evidently -ƪƤ9ě(# ŚƝàAǘ=£¹x,−68−

第18回大会発表論文集¢ƣ+ľ2&× x,¢ƣ seemingly
visiblyperceptively -,£¹-å*ěnƕŸǚėƝ>.ě,iǀǛAǘ=(× ,(-Ʒ& =>>,¢ƣǘ=Åƣ+-éŘ=seemingly -õàƣAǘ=(× >+â&visibly 9 perceptively-¨ƣAǘ=(× ,(-º: *ŦïAƓ& =Ó¹'8:<
ƥŹ+>>,¢ƣAŎĿ+:#&& =(AŧÆ& =
3 .2.2. ¢ ƣ Ľ ,  ¼
3.2.2.1. apparently
 apparently -x,¢ƣ+ľ2ěǔěĨäµ(&, ŕŞŮ#& =ǚ28/100 Ǜ(12) a. Apparently he's had to have plastic
surgery on his arm. (SP:PS19R)
b. This was not her usual choice of
milliner, but it possessed the only
dark-coloured hat in Broadstairs
apparently. (W_fict_prose, H8A)

第11号

(W_non_ac_polit_law_edu, HL7)
Ŧï+ǈ&-(Ġ;+) ) 9;
(š+â&ƇÝŝ*ąï,8,
× 

3.2.2.2. seemingly
 apparently +â&ěǔgěĨǘå*(4/100 )ěn,ƕŸǘ=
(× ¨ƣǘ-x,¢ƣ+ľ2&å* ǚ20/100 cf. apparently 37 
evidently 53 visibly 68 ǛõàƣAǘ=(× ōúŝ*,-½ÝĔƲ
õàƣ(ǜ»ƣ)AƔǘƕŸ(=('=(65/100 )
(14) a. The manifestation of the Kingdom
often starts with smalland seemingly insignificant
beginnings. (W_religion, CCL)
b. Unfortunately their dreams faded
and died soon after under a cloudof seemingly endless gig violence ....
(W_pop_lore, HWX)

 (14a)-insignificantǃƕ'* (Ġ;*,'-*iƖǃƕ'-*((ăÁ' <Þǌ+Ɲ(+ǃƕ'=
(¾ă>&=(13) a. He apparently slipped and has(14b)+$ &-iƖ=(Ż@<*
fallen between the floors.
ǚŪǅǛ(ăÁ' <'-ǅ(W_fict_prose, JXY)
b. William joined Pavier in an((A­Ưŝ+Ƶ2= 7+ŕ
attempt to publish plays by and;>& =
attributed to ½ÝĔƲ(,ư-BYU-BNC ,sƧ,Shakespeare, apparently intending to
KeJhN`fAľƱ=ķƈAŕ &8sell them in sets of nine volumes.
Ġ;(*=Ɠ 3 + =: +(W_biography, GT9)
apparently ( seemingly ,ưƧAľƱc. The proposal, described in the
Ó¹seemingly +Ĥ8ōúŝ*Ɠœǚ$report as " unprecedented ",4<apparently +-Ŕư seemingly
was apparently intended to signal the+-ǙǕï'Ŕư=ƓœǛ½ÝƲA¾6
Hinduja's long-term confidence in the
õàƣ' =(Ġ;(*=Indian economy.
ěn,Ó¹+-¨ƣAǘ=(×ǚ37/100 Ǜ

−69−

副詞類義表現における使い分けに関する一研究：知覚由来の確信度を表す副詞を中心にしてƓ 3 BYU-BNC +   = apparently ( seemingly , K e J h N ` f ľ Ʊ 4
(11/100 )rą(&Ġ;*,'-*
seemingly -Ŧï->3)ǙoƧƅ' =,Ġ;' =,* iƖ=(,: *ľÈŝ*ŕŀ((AÇǖ+& =8,8 =× seemingly '×Ɩ;>=ŕŀ,i$+õàƣĩĬŝ+Ď$ĳů*ŕŀAÄ(16) a. Paradoxically, what;=ŕŀƖ;>=ğĩƧ+ƃơ=*is evidently a fringe issue for;.ǚoƚŝ*ĄƙǛiƖǢ(ÿ=:the Scottish Law Society is*ǚÞǌ+-Ř*=Ǜ(ăÁ' =
becoming quite fraught
.seemingly impossible (Ɠœ-within the profession ....
Þǌ+l¶ƈ' =((-¾ă*(W_newsp_other_report,l¶ƈ'-* +&8ǐì+Ëǎ
K5D)
' =(
¾ăAĎ$,: *ŕŀb. … but-ĩťŭ'ĉ# x,ŕŀ'- 4<Ɩ;the offer was evidently every>* 8,' =
body's secret at Athens ….
(W_ac_humanities_arts,
3.2.2.3. evidently
FBB)
 Evidently -apparently +žěǘ×(16/100 )4 ¨ƣ1,ǘ×  (16a)-what is evidently a fringe issueĠ(53/100 );+ÀƳŝ*Çǖ' <»ƣŝ*ƕŸ(ǈƸ& =(15) a. Another evidently believed that Ãǖ+â&-Ƥƅ- =ŪïŦïA
The Merchant of Venice was set inĎ#&<,ăÁ'Ġ;+Ǣ' =
greater Los Angeles.
( # š+â&ƇÝŝ*ăÁ¹(W_fict_prose, H0M)ó (Ġ;(*# 
b. If causes are required oralternatively required for their effects,
3.2.2.4. visibly
they evidently are not the only things
 visibly -ěǘ-å*ǚ5/100 Ǜthat are such.
)";((ěn,ƕŸAǘ=
(W_ac_humanities_arts, EVX)
(× ŝ*ƕŸ(&-¨ƣ9
ƣ(Ɲ# ¨ƣćAǘ9ō+z,(; apparently (Ǘ~ ķƈAk,+ŧƷ<Õ©AƓƕŸAǘ
Ď#& =apparently (ƻ#&=(copula + evidently) ´Ƶ»ƣ1,ǘ×−70−

第18回大会発表論文集(17) a. He was visibly affected and soon
began to speak in tongues a stream ofpraise to God. (W_religion, C8L)
b. We can see the horse's
tension visibly increase. (W_misc,EF2)
c. … to have led to a major expansionof the industry in recent years,
with visibly greater prosperity insericultureal areas.
(W_non_ac_soc_science, HJ2)
jƟ,+Ʒ=(-Ş+Ɩ&*)ƘƙāÒ+$ &Ɲ°=>ľÈŝ+ċƯ©> 8,+ǊÝ>=

3.2.2.5. perceptively
 perceptively -88ŔưĚå* iƧdZc,KhVP' = BYU-BNC
' 56 ŔưÚÎ* ,n'8ěǘ=(å* (2/56 )
ǘâƯ(&-õàƣ9¢ƣAǘ=(×(+ľƱŷ*)Õ©AƓŕŀ× (18) a. It was perceptibly colder, and thewind smelt of rain. (W_fict_prose,
CKF)
b. …, therefore, it was clearly
becoming the language of diplomacy
in general, though perceptibly more
slowly in eastern Europe than in thewest. (W_ac_humanities_arts, HY5)(18a)'-colder (ľƱŷAǘ=
('ŅïŎ,(18b)'- becoming …
more slowly +:#&Õ©Ġ;' =
(AƓ& =$4<Ġ;' =8,Ƥƅ;Ɩ Õ©' =(ŧÆ>=
4. ě ŀ ©  ; , ƭ ƫ ¡Ų4'-,¢ƣAĐ=ƌ AƖ& ĩŲ-,(Aěŀ©,ƚň;Ɩ& (+= ě ŀ © , Ñ Ň - × è + @ = (Traugottand Heine, 1995)ĩƫ'-ō+ Traugott
and Dasher (2002),
Brinton (2008),

第11号

Hopper and Traugott (2003)'źw>
zk,Ǟ$,ÑŇAŕ =(19) PKhY,čòǠěnǘ > ÃǖǘǚPKhYǛ> ƪƤǘǚPKhYǛ
(20) oƚ©ǠÖǀ,ŎĿ > SHPU > þgĄā(21) Ƨŕƫŝó© pragmaticstrengthening(27)-8(8(ěn,ƕŸ!APKhY+(#&ƓœĸŰ+ƪƤ,PK
hYA³=: +čò& r' =
(28)-oƚ©(Â.>=8,'8(8(ßƚŝ*ŎĿAƓ&ƓœĸŰ+Ƥƅ,ûŝ*oƚŝ*ǀAƓƓœ1(Õ©
& (' =(29)- =ƓœAŕ(+,Ó,Ƨŕƫŝ*ĕƫ,żĮ!# ƕŸĸŰ+,Ɠœ,Îŝ*ăÁ1(Õ©& (' =ăÁ©(8
Â.>=Õ©' = zk,Ƹž-o =ǀ' = PK
hY+ǈ&- apparently 9 evidently-ƪƤAǘ=ķƈAŚƺ&=,x,¢ƣ->3)Śƺ&* ěn = -Ãǖ,ƕŸAǘ& =(22) visibly, perceptively > seemingly >apparently, evidently
4 oƚ©+ǈ&-)>8Ƥƅ,ŦïAƓ& =visibly 9 perceptively -ŤƙâƯ,Õ©9ŎąAǘ=
apparently 9 seemingly +ľ2=(oƚĀñ (Ƅ;>=
(23) ŤƙǚŋňǛǡŤƙǚƢČǛ(ąïǚżƫǛǡ(i) ąï(ii) ƢČ,5ǚżƫ,½ÝǛ
 Ƨŕƫŝó©+ǈ&-ăÁ,ć(*# Ƥƅ,ąï>>Ř*=,ƋÁŃ ),¢ƣ8Ąƙŝ+ø āÒ;−71−

副詞類義表現における使い分けに関する一研究：知覚由来の確信度を表す副詞を中心にして

evidential  ;  ,  ĝ A (epistemic modal A¾ă& =ƢČ+Ñ%Ŧï,óŘ*=i$-ƢČ =,!;Ġ;'=(ó Ŧ' =(24) Evidence ,Ėŧ+:= pragmatics
evidently (, apparentlyǚũǛ) Ġ;'=ǚ!;rÞ' =(ÿ ǛƢČ =żƫ+Ɖ =Ř*=ƛǁ-(25),: +ĝƝƢČAĖŧ=(
(-Ŧï->3)'-* (ƛǁ' =
(25) seemingly, apparently ) 9;ǚrÞ(-ŦÝ'* ǛƢČ-żƫ,ó,óñAƓ* +&8(Ɲ : *ăÁAĎ$(Ġ;(*#  ,x,¢ƣ+ǈ&8Ġ;' =
(Ƥƅ,ŦïAƓǑ-Ʒ&=Ġ;*,(ǀ+
ǈ&ƻ Ɩ;> evidently -KW_a(ư&ƅ' =+ǈ&Ġ;AƵ2visibly -Ş+Ɩ&Õ©
& =(¾ă =
 vÉ-s$,rAƑ#& * i$-
ØƗĶ*ThQAĉ#& *7dOPQhÕŘ*),ƕÊAĉ#& * ('=s$Ş+ƷĢŝ*ƚňAƄĆ&* 8(8(ěŀ©-ƷĢŝ*œƯAƄá
=8,*,'ĸ,ťŭ'->;,¢ƣ>>,ƷĢŝ*ŚƺƹŪA5=üƕ
 =
¯Ōěő

Ĥö+ƢČšÞ(-iƊ* (ƛǁ=(' =$4<ƢČ;- ' =Þǌ+- '-* (ƛǁ'=(26) seemingly iƖ=(ÖƖj-ǚ!
Þǌ-Ř*=ǚ8>* ǛǛƢ
Č!' =(cf. ‘a contrast withreality’ (Quirk et al. (1985: 621))
,: +ºŤƙƢČąï+ &ƻ Ŕ& =(Ġ;+*# 
5. 4(7 ĩƫ'-Ƥƅ,ŦïAƓ¢ƣ,
+$ &BYU-BNC KhVPAŕ &Ʃį ō+ apparently ( seemingly -Ƒťŭ'-*<ƴ ǗƂƓœ' =(>& Þǌ+Ʃį&5=(,ê+é=(Ʀ7;>

apparently -ěǘ(&,ķƈAŚƺ
;+Ƥƅ+(#&Ġ;+ !?
(Ƥƅ,ŦAƓŕŀÐŝ'=>+âseemingly -ěǘ(
&'-*ěnƕŸ,ǘAo =ķƈ
(& =;+ǘƕŸAƖ&5=(½ÝĔƲ,ţ
ĳů+½Ýŝ*ăÁAĎ$õàƣ(,ư× iƖǚõàƣǛ
+Ɩ=: *Þǌ+-ǚõàƣǛ'-Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S.,
and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman
grammar of spoken and written English.
London: Longman.
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A
Construction Grammar Approach to
Argument Structure. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at Work:the Nature of Gerenalization in
Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Huddleston, R., and Pullum, G. K. 2002. The
Cambridge grammar of the English
language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A
Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Princeton University. 2010. "About WordNet."
WordNet. Princeton University.
<http://wordnet.princeton.edu>
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., andSvartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language.
London: Longman.
Traugott, E. C., and Trousdale, G. 2013.
Constructionalization and constructionalchanges. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
ŕƲģ
Oxford English Dictionary
Oxford Thesaurus of English−72−第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ࠕ㝖እࠖࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ࿘⦕ⓗ๓⨨モࡢ⏝ἲࡢ᳇ࡳศࡅ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ᯘ ᬛ᫛ி㒔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸭᪥ᮏᏛ⾡᣺⯆఍

<Abstract>
This study examines marginal prepositions meaning exception—excluding, saving, and barring—termed deverbal
prepositions, which have undergone grammaticalization. This study employs Hayashi’s (2015b) methods of examining
the prepositional and conjunctional uses of considering related to register. The procedure of analysis is as follows: (i)collect sentences from the British National Corpus, (ii) classify their categorical behavior and abstract their prepositional
uses, and (iii) analyze them in relation to the tagged information of register in the Corpus. The result supports Hayashi’s(2015b) observation: (i) excluding, saving, and barring tend to be used in written languages, and (ii) they each have a
different degree of grammaticalization.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸ືモὴ⏕๓⨨モࠊᩥἲ໬ࠊ⬺⠊␪໬ࠊࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࠕ㝖እࠖࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ๓⨨モ࡜ࡋ࡚ but, except ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࡼࡾ㢖ᗘࡀప࠸࿘⦕ⓗ࡞๓⨨モ 1 ࡟ excepting, save,saving, bar, barring, excluding ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦cf. ඣ㤿 2001: 75-76㸧
ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣືモ࡟⏤᮶ࡋࠊHopper and Traugott(2003) ࡢ୺ᙇࡍࡿ⬺⠊␪໬ࡢ cline ࡟ἢࡗࡓ㐣⛬ࢆ♧ࡍ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ㏻᫬ⓗ࡟ࡳࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢ㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿ: (i)ㄒ※࡜࡞ࡿືモࡢព࿡ (saveӆexclude)㸦ඣ㤿 2001㸧
ࠊ(ii) ฟ⌧ࡋࡓ᫬ᮇ㸦ibid.: 91; ᯘ 2013, 2016㸧ࠋ୍᪉ࠊඹ᫬ⓗ࡟ࡣࠊᩥἲ໬ࡢࠕ㔜ᒙ໬ࠖࢆ㚷ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ࡣ᳇ࡳศࡅࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ண᝿ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡛ࡣࠊ
࡞ࡐྠ⩏࡜ࡉࢀࡿㄒࡀ」ᩘᏑᅾࡍࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞␲ၥࢆฟⓎⅬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ
excluding, saving,barring ࡢ⏝ἲࡢ᳇ࡳศࡅ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊᩥἲ໬࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࡶ⪃៖ࡋࡘࡘࠊ(i) ရモⓗ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࠊ(ii) ࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࣞ
ࢪࢫࢱ࣮ࠊࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽඹ᫬ⓗศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ

2. ඛ⾜◊✲ ᮏ✏ࡣࠊconsidering ࡢ๓⨨モ࣭᥋⥆モ⏝ἲࢆࠊࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࡋࡓᯘ (2015b) ࡢ⥆⦅࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊconsidering, excluding, saving, barring ࡞࡝ࡢ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕືモὴ⏕๓⨨モ㸦deverbal prepositions㸧ࠖ㸦cf. ⛅ඖ 2002; ඣ㤿 2001㸧ࡢ⤫୍ⓗグ㏙ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿヨࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊᮏ✏ࡢศᯒ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ⫼ᬒ
ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡀࠊ≉࡟ 2.1 ⠇࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊᯘ (2015b) ࠾ࡼࡧ➹⪅ࡢࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ◊✲㸦ᯘ 2013, 2014, 2015a, 2016;
Hayashi 2015㸧࡜㒊ศⓗ࡟㔜」ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿⅬ࡟ὀពࡉࢀࡓ࠸ 2ࠋ

2.1 ⌮ㄽⓗᇶ┙ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺ excluding, saving, barring ࡢᩥἲ໬࡟㛵ࢃࡿㄽⅬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⬺⠊␪໬ (decategorialization)ࠊ
㔜ᒙ໬ (layering)ࠊព࿡ࡢ⁻ⓑ໬ (semantic bleaching) ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋ ࡲࡎ⬺⠊␪໬࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊHopper and Traugott (2003) ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿᙧᘧࡀㄒᙡⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࠿ࡽᩥἲⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡬࡜ᩥ
ἲ໬ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁࠊྡモ࣭ືモ࡞࡝ࡢ୺せ࡞ᩥἲ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢᡂဨ࡜ྠᐃࡋ࠺ࡿᙧែⓗ࣭⤫ㄒⓗ≉ᛶࢆኻ࠺ഴ
ྥࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ኚ໬ࡣ cline of categoriality ࡜ࡋ࡚ୗグࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐃᘧ໬ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

−73−

「除外」の意味を表す周縁的前置詞の用法の棲み分けに関して(1) major category ( > intermediate category) > minor category(ibid.: 107)

ྡモ࣭ືモࡣ major category ࡟ࠊ๓⨨モࠊ᥋⥆モࠊຓືモࠊ௦ྡモࠊᣦ♧௦ྡモࡣ minor category ࡟ࠊᙧᐜモ࣭๪モࡣ intermediate category ࡟ᒓࡍࡿࠋᩥἲ໬ࡢ㐍⾜࡟క࠸ࠊ᫬ไ࣭┦࣭ἲ࣭ே⛠࣭ᩘࡢ୍⮴࡜࠸࠺ືモⓗᶵ⬟ࡀᦆኻࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡃྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡶ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦௨ୖࠊHopper and Traugot 2003㸧
ࠋࡲࡓࠊHopper(1991) ࡣࠊ⬺⠊␪໬ࡢ୍౛࡜ࡋ࡚௨ୗࡢ considering ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(2) Considering its narrow beam, the boat is remarkably sea-worthy.

(ibid.: 31ࠊᩳ⥺㒊ࡣ➹⪅)(2) ࡛ࡣࠊ୺⠇࣭ᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ୺ㄒࡀ୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ considering ࡣ๓⨨モ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࡶ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊㆡṌࡢ᥋⥆モ࡜㢮ఝࡋࡓᶵ⬟ࢆࡶࡘࡀࠊືモ consider ࡢ≉㉁ࢆࡶࡓ࡞࠸࡜㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (ibid.)ࠋ
ࡓࡔࡋࠊືモ consider ࠿ࡽࠊ๓⨨モ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ considering ࡬ࡢኚ໬ࡣ㐃⥆ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ㐣⛬࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣᵓ㐀ୖࡢ᭕᫕ᛶࡀ⏕ࡌࠊືモⓗᶵ⬟࣭๓⨨モⓗᶵ⬟ࡀ୪Ꮡࡍࡿ஦౛ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿ㸦⛅ඖ 2002: 185-190㸧
ࠋࡇࢀࡣ Hopper (1991) ࡢ㔜ᒙ໬ࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡶ࠸ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦⛅ඖ 2002: 190㸧ࠋ ḟ࡟ࠊ㔜ᒙ໬࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊHopper (1991) ࡣࠊᩥἲ໬࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⏕ࡲࢀࡓᒙ (layer) ࡀ⤯࠼ࡎฟ⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ
ྂ࠸ᒙࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶᾘ⁛ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ᪂ࡓ࡞ᒙ࡜ඹᏑࠊ┦஫స⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡿࠋ୍౛
࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊⱥㄒࡢࢸࣥࢫ࣭࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㐣ཤ᫬ไ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊdrive/drove, take/took ࡞࡝ࡢᙉኚ໬ືモ࡟࠾ࡅࡿẕ㡢஺᭰࡜࠸࠺ྂ࠸ᩥయࡢᒙ࡟ࡼࡾ༊ูࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢኚᙧࡣࠊࡼࡾ㏆ᖺࡢᒙ࡛࠶ࡿࠊຓືモ࡜ྠㄒ※ࡢⱥㄒ do ࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿ⯉ඛ㡢ࡢ᥋ᑿ㎡ [t] ࡲࡓࡣ [d] ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓኚᙧ㸦notice/noticed ࡞࡝㸧࡜ඹᏑࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦௨ୖࠊHopper 1991: 22̾23㸧
ࠋFukaya (1997: 288) ࡣࠊ㔜ᒙ໬ࡢドᣐ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊCOUBUILD
ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ except ࡀ 404 ౛᳨ฟࡉࢀࡓ୍᪉࡛ࠊbarring ࡣഹ࠿ 10 ౛࡟␃ࡲࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊHopper and Traugott (2003: 125) ࡛ࡣࠊ㔜ᒙ໬ࡣ㐃⥆ⓗ࡞ᩥἲ໬ࡢඹ᫬ⓗ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋඹᏑࡢ࠸࠿࡞ࡿ㐣⛬࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞┦㐪ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿᩥ⬦ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ㸦ibid.: 124
̾126; ⛅ඖ 2002: 8㸧
ࠋ ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊព࿡ࡢ⁻ⓑ໬࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊHopper and Traugott (2003: 94̾98) ࡣࠊᩥἲ໬ࡢᚋᮇࡢẁ㝵࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ព࿡ෆᐜࡢ႙ኻࡀ㉳ࡁࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᮍ᮶ࢆ⾲ࡍ go ࡢⓎ㐩࡞࡝ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ 3ࠋ

2.2 ືモὴ⏕๓⨨モࡢ⏕㉳ࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮
 ᯘ (2015b) ࡣࠊBritish National Corpus (BNC) ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ࡼࡾࠊconsidering ࡢ๓⨨モ⏝ἲ࣭᥋⥆モ⏝ἲࡢศᯒࢆࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⾜ࡗࡓࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊᩥ㢌࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ considering 173 ౛ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ㛫ᢞモࠊᤄධྃⓗ⏝ἲࠊ㠀ᩥࢆ㝖࠸ࡓ 168 ౛ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊ๓⨨モ⏝ἲ㸦NP ࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࡶࡢ㸧ࠊ᥋⥆モ⏝ἲ㸦⠇ࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࡶࡢ㸧࡜࠸࠺ရモⓗ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸࡟ࡼࡾศ㢮ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊBNC ࡟ࢱࢢ࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࣞࢪࢫࢱ
࣮ࡢ᝟ሗ࡜㛵㐃࡙ࡅ⪃ᐹࡋࡓ (ibid.: 106̾108)ࠋศᯒ࡟ࡼࡾࠊᯘ (2015b: 108) ࡣࠊconsidering ࡢ๓⨨モ⏝ἲ࣭᥋⥆モ⏝ἲࡣࠊ᭩ࡁゝⴥ㸦≉࡟Ꮫ⾡ㄽᩥ㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࡣࠊprovided/providing
that, including ࢆㄽࡌࡓඛ⾜◊✲㸦ᕝ➃ 2001ࠊෆ⏣ 2003㸧࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊືモὴ⏕๓⨨モ࣭᥋⥆モࡀ᭩ࡁゝⴥ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᯘ 2015b: 108㸧ࠋࡲࡓࠊᩥ㢌࡟⏕㉳ࡋࡓ considering ࡢ㐣༙ᩘࡀ๓⨨モ⏝ἲ࣭᥋⥆モ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ほᐹ࠿ࡽࠊconsidering ࡣᩥἲ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ᭱୰࡟࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (ibid.)ࠋ
2.3 ᩥἲ໬ࠊ⁻ⓑ໬ࡢ⛬ᗘᛶ ඛ⾜◊✲ࡢグ㏙࠿ࡽࠊexcluding, saving, barring ࡢᩥἲ໬ࠊ⁻ⓑ໬ࡢ⛬ᗘࡣ␗࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
 Hayashi (2015) ࡣࠊືモὴ⏕๓⨨モ 37 ஦౛࡟㛵ࡋࠊ(i) ศ⿣ᩥࠊ(ii) ᙉពࡢ๪モ right ࡜ࡢඹ㉳ྍ⬟ᛶࠊ࡜

−74−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

࠸࠺ 2 ࡘࡢุูࢸࢫࢺ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ
ࠕ๓⨨モᛶ (prepositionality)ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽᩥἲ໬ࡢ⛬ᗘࢆホ౯ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ヨࡳ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྛࢸࢫࢺ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓᐜㄆᗘㄪᰝ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊ0 ࠿ࡽ 5 ࡢ 5 ẁ㝵࡟ࡼࡾ๓⨨モᛶࡢホ౯ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋ(i) (ii) ࡢ⤖ᯝࢆྜ⟬ࡋࠊ๓⨨モᛶ㸦10 ẁ㝵㸧ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᅗ 1㸧ࠋ

ᅗ 1 ືモὴ⏕๓⨨モࡢ๓⨨モᛶ㸦ibid.: 141㸧Hayashi (2015) ࡣࠊࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊືモὴ⏕๓⨨モࡣࠊᴫࡋ࡚ࠊ๓⨨モࡢ୰࡛ࡶ࿘⦕ⓗ࡞஦౛࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋᅗ 1 ࢆࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ37 ஦౛ࡢ୰࡛ࡶࠊexcluding, saving, barring ࡣࠊ๓⨨モᛶࡀ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ࠕప࠸ࠖࡶ
ࡢ࡜఩⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ඲࡚ࡢ஦౛ࡀྠ୍ࡢ๓⨨モᛶࢆࡶࡘࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢศᕸࡣ⌧㇟࡟ࡼࡾ␗࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊಶࠎࡢ஦౛ࡈ࡜࡟ᩥἲ໬ࡢ⛬ᗘࡣ␗࡞ࡿ࡜᥎ ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (ibid.: 141)4ࠋ ࡲࡓࠊ⁻ⓑ໬࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ஦౛࡟ࡼࡾ␗࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋඣ㤿 (2001: 85) ࡣࠊsaving ࡀ๓⨨モ໬ࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺࡟ࡣࠊ༢୍ࡢ NP ⿵㒊ࢆྲྀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ຍ࠼ࠊࡑࡢ⿵㒊ࡢព࿡࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚ືモ save ࡢᮏ᮶ࡢព࿡ࡀ
⁻ⓑ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡏࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ 5ࠋࡲࡓࠊᯘ (2014) ࡣࠊືモㄒᖿࡀඹ㉳㛵ಀࢆࡶࡘ๪モ࡜ࡢಟ㣭㛵ಀࡀࠊືモὴ⏕๓⨨モ࡬ࡢᩥἲ໬࡟క࠸࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ኚ໬ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫⱥㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿヰ⪅ 1 ྡࡢෆ┬࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊbarring, saving ࡣᩥἲ໬࡟క࠸⁻ⓑ໬ࡀ㉳ࡁࡿ஦౛ࠊexcluding ࡣ⁻ⓑ໬ࡀ㉳ࡁ࡞࠸஦౛࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ (ibid.: 209)ࠋ

3. ஦౛ศᯒ
 2.1 ⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚ᴫほࡋࡓ㔜ᒙ໬ࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ㚷ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊࠕ㝖እࠖࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍືモὴ⏕๓⨨モ excluding, saving,barring ࡟ࡣㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᕪ␗ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿ࡜ண᝿ࡉࢀࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ഃ㠃ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࣞࢪࢫ
ࢱ࣮࡟╔┠ࡋࠊᩥἲ໬ࡢᛶ㉁ࡶ⪃៖ࡋࡘࡘࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ⏝ἲࡢ᳇ࡳศࡅࢆศᯒࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋศᯒࡢ᪉ἲࠊᡭ㡰−75−

「除外」の意味を表す周縁的前置詞の用法の棲み分けに関して࡞࡝ࡣࠊᯘ (2015b) ࢆ᥼⏝ࡍࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ⠇࡟࠾ࡅࡿ౛ᩥࡢฟ඾ࡣ඲࡚ BNC ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ3.1 ศᯒ᪉ἲ࡜ศ㢮 ➨୍࡟ࠊᩥ㢌࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ excluding 46 ౛ࠊsaving 34 ౛ࠊbarring 18 ౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊゎ㔘୙ྍ⬟ࠊᩥᵓ㐀ࡀ୙᫂░࡞஦౛࡞࡝ࢆ㝖࠸ࡓࡶࡢࢆရモⓗ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸࡟ࡼࡾศ㢮ࡋࠊືモὴ⏕๓⨨モ࡬࡜ᩥἲ໬ࡋࡘࡘ࠶ࡿ஦౛
ࢆᢳฟࡋࡓࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ୺ㄒࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ஦౛ࢆ᤼㝖ࡋࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕศモᵓᩥࠖⓗ࡞஦౛㸦࡛࠶ࡾࠊ୺⠇࣭ᚑᒓ⠇ࡢព࿡ୖࡢ୺ㄒࡀ୍⮴ࡋࠊព࿡ୖࡢ୺ㄒࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ㸧࡜ࠊࡼࡾᩥἲ
໬ࡀ㐍ࢇࡔ㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ๓⨨モ໬ࡀ㐍ࢇࡔ㸧஦౛ࡢࡳ࡟ศᯒࡢᑐ㇟ࢆ⤠ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿ㸦ᯘ 2015b: 108㸧ࠋ௨ୖࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊᮏ✏ࡀศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊୗグ (3) ࡢ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿ 6ࠋ(3) a. ศモⓗ⏝ἲ: [-ing + NP] ࡢᙧᘧࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ୺⠇࣭ᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ㸦ព࿡ୖࡢ㸧୺ㄒࡀ୍⮴ࡍࡿࡶࡢb. ๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲ: [-ing + NP] ࡢᙧᘧࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ୺⠇࣭ᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ㸦ព࿡ୖࡢ㸧୺ㄒࡀ୍⮴ࡋ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ
(3a) ࡣࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿศモᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡾࠊືモⓗᶵ⬟ࡀṧᏑࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(3b) ࡣࠊࠕᠱᆶศモ (dangling participle)ࠖ
㸦cf.
᪩℩࣭Ώ㑔 2015㸧࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ(1) ࡢ cline ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ(3a) ࡼࡾࡉࡽ࡟ᩥἲ໬ࡀ㐍ࡳࠊ๓⨨モⓗ≉㉁ࢆࡶࡘࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ (2) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦౛࡛࠶ࡿ㸦cf. ᯘ 2015a: 245; ᯘ 2015b: 107; Hayashi 2015: 131; ᯘ
2016: 10̾11㸧ࠋ(3a, b) ࡣ㐃⥆ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊቃ⏺౛࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿ㸦cf. 㔜ᒙ໬㸧ࠋ௨ୗࠊexcluding, saving,barring ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ(3a, b) ࡢ⏝౛ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ(4) a. Excluding this exceptional case, we examined 16 patients showing clinical signs of intestinal
pseudo-obstruction.
b. Excluding Roman towns, the earliest planned towns of England can be identified in late Saxon times.
(5) a. Saving energy by using a clean energy source, the' Heatfest solution' has even wider local and global
environmental implications.
b. Saving the best fruit until last, our most enthusiastic comments have been reserved for this yacht's performance
under sail.
(6) b. Barring accidents, we should win another Grand Slam.
(4a) (5a) ࡣ (3a) ࡢศモⓗ⏝ἲࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡾࠊ(4b) (5b) (6b) ࡣ (3b) ࡢ๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊbarring࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᮏศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿ BNC ࡢ⏝౛୰࡟ࡣ (3a) ࡢศモⓗ⏝ἲࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊᮏ᮶ (6a)࡜࡞ࡿ࡭ࡁ஦౛ࡣ๭ឡࡋࡓ 7ࠋࡲࡓࠊ(5a) ࡢ saving ࡣࠕ⠇⣙ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ(5b) ࡢsaving ࡣព࿡ࡢ⁻ⓑ໬ࡀ㉳ࡁ࡚ࠕ㝖እࠖࡢព࿡࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ 8ࠋ ➨஧࡟ࠊBNC ࡢྛ౛ᩥ࡟௜୚ࡉࢀࡓࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗ࡜↷ྜࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᕪ␗ࢆࡳ
ࡓࠋ࡞࠾ࠊศモⓗ⏝ἲ࣭๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲࡣ㐃⥆ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾቃ⏺ⓗ࡞஦౛ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ୧⪅ࢆศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ᯘ (2015b) ࡜ྠᵝࡢᡭ㡰ࢆྲྀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊconsidering ࡢ๓⨨モ⏝ἲ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡢẚ㍑࣭ᑐ↷ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ ௨ୗࠊ3.2 ⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚ရモⓗ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࠊ3.3 ⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚ࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⾜ࡗࡓ⪃ᐹ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ලయⓗ࡟㏙࡭ࡿࠋ

3.2 ရモⓗ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ (3) ࡢᇶ‽࡟ࡼࡾࠊexcluding, saving, barring ࡢྛ⏝౛ࡢศ㢮ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࡀ⾲ 1 ࡛࠶ࡿ 9ࠋ

−76−

第18回大会発表論文集㻔㼕㻕㻌㼑㼤㼏㼘㼡㼐㼕㼚㼓
୍ḟศ㢮
஧ḟศ㢮
㻔㻑㻕
ศモ㻌㻔㻟㻕㻢㻚㻡ศモ䞉๓⨨モ㻌㻔㻠㻞㻕๓⨨モ㻌㻔㻟㻥㻕 㻤㻠㻚㻤䛭䛾௚㻌㻔㻟㻕ືྡモ㻌㻔㻟㻕 㻢㻚㻡୙᫂㻌㻔㻝㻕
㻞㻚㻞
ィ
㻝㻜㻜

第11号

⾲㻝䚷ືモὴ⏕๓⨨モ䛾ศ㢮㻔㼕㼕㻕㻌㼟㼍㼢㼕㼚㼓
୍ḟศ㢮
஧ḟศ㢮
㻔㻑㻕
ศモ㻌㻔㻡㻕㻝㻠㻚㻣ศモ䞉๓⨨モ㻌㻔㻣㻕๓⨨モ㻌㻔㻞㻕 㻡㻚㻥䛭䛾௚㻌㻔㻝㻣㻕ືྡモ㻌㻔㻝㻣㻕 㻡㻜㻚㻜୙᫂㻌㻔㻝㻜㻕㻞㻥㻚㻠ィ㻝㻜㻜㻔㼕㼕㼕㻕㻌㼎㼍㼞㼞㼕㼚㼓
୍ḟศ㢮
஧ḟศ㢮
㻔㻑㻕
ศモ䞉๓⨨モ㻌㻔㻝㻢㻕 ๓⨨モ㻌㻔㻝㻢㻕 㻤㻤㻚㻥䛭䛾௚㻌㻔㻞㻕ືྡモ㻌㻔㻞㻕 㻝㻝㻚㻝ィ㻝㻜㻜௨ୗࠊ⾲ 1 ࡟♧ࡋࡓရモⓗ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡢほᐹࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡓ௬ㄝࢆ 3 ࡘ㏙࡭ࡿࠋ
[A] ྠࡌࡃࠕ㝖እࠖࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ๓⨨モ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ஦౛࡟ࡼࡾရモⓗ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡢศᕸࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋ
 ⾲ 1 (i) ࡼࡾࠊexcluding ࡢ⏝ἲࡣࠊ᳨ฟᩘ 46 ࡢ࠺ࡕ 42 ౛ࡀศモⓗ࣭๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ࠺ࡕ๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲࡀ኱ከᩘࢆ༨ࡵࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⾲ 1 (iii) ࡼࡾࠊbarring ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲࡀ᭱ࡶከࡃほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ⾲ 1 (ii) ࢆࡳࡿ࡜ࠊsaving ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊbarring, excluding ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲࡢ๭ྜࡀᑡ࡞ࡃࠊ
ᩥࡢ୺ㄒ࡜࡞ࡿືྡモⓗ⏝ἲ࡞࡝ࠊ௚ࡢရモⓗ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡀከࡃほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡢࡀ≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⏕㉳ᩘࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ୰࡛ࡣ excluding ࡀ᭱ࡶᗈࡃ୍⯡ⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ண᝿
ࡉࢀࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊྠ୍ࡢព࿡ࢆࡶࡘ࿘⦕ⓗ๓⨨モ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࡢရモⓗ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡣ඲ࡃ␗࡞ࡿศᕸࢆ♧ࡍࠋ[B] ᩥ㢌࡟⏕㉳ࡋࡓ excluding, barring ࡢ኱㒊ศࡣࠊືモ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶ๓⨨モ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 ⾲ 1 (ii) (iii) ࠿ࡽࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᩥ㢌࡟⏕㉳ࡋࡓ excluding, barring ࡢ⣙ 9 ๭ࡀࠊศモⓗ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ๓⨨モ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊexcluding ࡢ⣙ 85%ࠊbarring ࡢ⣙ 89%ࡀ๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲࡢ஦౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋsaving ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ஦౛ࡣࠊ࡯ࡰ๓⨨モ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
[C] ᩥ㢌࡟⏕㉳ࡋࡓ excluding, saving, barring ࡢ๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲࡣࠊᩥἲ໬ࡢ㏵ୖ࡟࠶ࡿࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣᩥἲ໬ࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊࡑࡢ⛬ᗘ࡟ࡣẁ㝵ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
 ⾲ 1 (ii) ࡼࡾࠊsaving ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊືྡモⓗ⏝ἲࡸࠊᙧᐜモⓗ⏝ἲ࡜ࡶゎ㔘ࡋ࠺ࡿ⏝ἲࡀほᐹࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᵝࠎ࡞ရモⓗ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
࡞࠾ࠊ
excluding, saving, barring ࠸ࡎࢀࡢ஦౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ
๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲࡀほᐹࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋexcluding, barring ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣศモⓗ⏝ἲࡀ༨ࡵࡿ๭ྜࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟ᑡ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜
࠿ࡽࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶᩥ㢌࡟⏕㉳ࡋࡓ஦౛ࡣࠊᩥἲ໬ࡢ㏵ୖ࡟࠶ࡿࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣᩥἲ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜᥎ᐃࡉࢀࡿ 10ࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ2.3 ⠇࡛ࡳࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᩥἲ໬ࡢ⛬ᗘ࡟ࡣẁ㝵ᛶࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿⅬ࡟ὀពࡏࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢドᣐ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⾲ 1 (iii) ࡼࡾࠊbarring ࡣ (3a) ࡢศモⓗ⏝ἲࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕືモⓗᶵ⬟ࢆಖᣢࡋࡓ౛ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡎࠊᚑࡗ
࡚๓⨨モ࡜ࡋ࡚☜❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ண᝿ࡉࢀࡿⅬࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋexcluding, saving ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ(4) ࡜ (5) ࡢ౛ࢆࡳ࡚ࡶࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᩥἲ໬ࡢ␗࡞ࡿᒙࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ(3a) ࡢศモⓗ⏝ἲ࡜ (3b) ࡢ๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲࡀඹᏑࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿẁ㝵࡟࠶ࡿ࡜᥎ ࡉࢀࡿ 11ࠋ

3.3 ࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮
 3.2 ⠇࡛ᢳฟࡋࡓศモⓗ⏝ἲ࣭๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊBNC ࡢྛ౛ᩥ࡟௜୚ࡉࢀࡓࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮
࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗ࡜↷ྜࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢศᕸࢆࡳࡓ⤖ᯝࡀ⾲ 2 ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦⏝౛ᩘࡀ 0 ౛࡛࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡣ㝖እࡋࡓ㸧
ࠋ

−77−

「除外」の意味を表す周縁的前置詞の用法の棲み分けに関して⾲㻞䚷ືモὴ⏕๓⨨モ䛾䝆䝱䞁䝹䞉䝺䝆䝇䝍䞊䛻䛚䛡䜛ศᕸ㻔㼕㻕㻌㼑㼤㼏㼘㼡㼐㼕㼚㼓㻔㼕㼕㻕㻌㼟㼍㼢㼕㼚㼓♫఍⛉Ꮫ㻌㻔㻝㻕
䜰䜹䝕䝭䝑䜽㻌㻔㻝㻕 ♫఍⛉Ꮫ㻌㻔㻝㻕䜰䜹䝕䝭䝑䜽㻌㻔㻣㻕 ⮬↛⛉Ꮫ㻌㻔㻝㻕㞧ㄅ㻌㻔㻝㻕
་Ꮫ㻌㻔㻡㻕
᪂⪺㻌㻔㻝㻕
♫఍㻌㻔㻝㻕
᭩䛝ゝⴥ㻌㻔㻣㻕
䝣䜱䜽䝅䝵䞁䠄ᩓᩥ䠅㻌㻔㻞㻕♫఍⛉Ꮫ㻌㻔㻞㻕
ఏグ≀䞉㝶➹㻌㻔㻝㻕⮬↛⛉Ꮫ㻌㻔㻝㻕
ㄝ᫂ᩥ㻌㻔㻝㻕
㠀Ꮫ⾡㻌㻔㻤㻕
ヰ䛧ゝⴥ㻌㻔㻜㻕
ேᩥᏛ㻌㻔㻞㻕
ᕤᏛ㻌㻔㻝㻕
ᨻ἞Ꮫ䞉ἲᏛ䞉ᩍ⫱㻌㻔㻞㻕᭩䛝ゝⴥ㻌㻔㻠㻞㻕 㞧ㄅ㻌㻔㻟㻕㻌䝤䝻䞊䝗䝅䞊䝖㻌㻔㻢㻕௚䠄ሗ㐨䠅㻌㻔㻞㻕௚䠄ၟᴗ䠅㻔㻞㻕
䝣䜱䜽䝅䝵䞁䠄ᩓᩥ䠅㻔㻝㻕⏕ά䞉㞧ከ䞉ᬽ䜙䛧㻌㻔㻢㻕᐀ᩍ㻌㻔㻞㻕
ၟᴗ㻌㻔㻟㻕
㆟஦㘓㻌㻔㻝㻕
ἲ௧ᩥ᭩㻌㻔㻝㻕
఍ヰ㻌㻔㻜㻕
᪂⪺㻌㻔㻝㻜㻕

ヰ䛧ゝⴥ㻌㻔㻜㻕

㻔㼕㼕㼕㻕㻌㼎㼍㼞㼞㼕㼚㼓䝙䝳䞊䝇䠄䜸䞊䝖䜻䝳䞊䠅㻌㻔㻝㻕㞧ㄅ㻌㻔㻢㻕
䝤䝻䞊䝗䝅䞊䝖㻌㻔㻞㻕᪂⪺㻌㻔㻠㻕௚㻌㻔㻞㻕᭩䛝ゝⴥ㻌㻔㻝㻢㻕䝣䜱䜽䝅䝵䞁䠄ᩓᩥ䠅㻌㻔㻝㻕⏕ά䞉㞧ከ䞉ᬽ䜙䛧㻌㻔㻟㻕බᘧ䞉ᨻᗓᩥ᭩㻌㻔㻝㻕ヰ䛧ゝⴥ㻌㻔㻜㻕

ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ⾲ 2 ࡢศᕸࡼࡾᚓࡽࢀࡓ௬ㄝࢆ♧ࡍࠋ[D] ྠࡌࡃࠕ㝖እࠖࡢព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ๓⨨モ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ␗࡞ࡿศᕸࢆ♧ࡍࠋ ⾲ 2 (i) ࡼࡾࠊexcluding ࡣ࡝ࡢࢪࣕࣥࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡀࠊ⾲ 2 (ii) (iii) ࢆࡳࡿ࡜ࠊsaving, barring ࡣᏛ⾡ⓗ࡞ᩥ❶࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ⏕㉳ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸࡜ࢃ࠿ࡿ 12ࠋඣ㤿 (2001: 90̾91) ࡣࠊbar/barring ࡣ save/saving ࠿ࡽࡢ㢮᥎࡟ࡼࡾ๓⨨モ࡜ࡋ࡚Ⓨ㐩ࡋࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ୧⪅ࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࢪࣕࣥࣝ࡟
ࡶࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞㢮ఝᛶࡀඹ᫬ⓗ࡟ほᐹࡉࢀࡿⅬࡣ⯆࿡῝࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊᯘ (2015b: 110) ࡢ⾲ 4 ࢆࡳࡿ࡜ࠊconsideringࡢ๓⨨モ⏝ἲࡣࠕ᪂⪺ࠖࡢࢫ࣏࣮ࢶ࣭ሗ㐨࡟ࡣ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡢࢱࣈࣟ࢖ࢻ࣭ࣈ࣮ࣟࢻࢩ࣮ࢺ࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋᮏ✏ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ẚ࡭ࡿ࡜ࠊྠࡌ᪂⪺࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶືモὴ⏕๓⨨モ࡟ࡼࡾዲࡲࢀࡿࢪࣕࣥࣝࡀ␗࡞ࡿ࡜ࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
[E]ࠕ㝖እࠖࡢព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ࿘⦕ⓗ๓⨨モ excluding, saving, barring ࡣ᭩ࡁゝⴥ࡟࠾࠸࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋ ᩥ㢌࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ excluding, saving, barring ࡢศモⓗ࣭๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲࡣࠊヰࡋゝⴥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
ᮏ✏ࡀศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ඲࡚ࡢ஦౛ࡀ᭩ࡁゝⴥ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡣࠊ
࿘⦕ⓗ๓⨨モexcluding, saving, barringࡀࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡟᭩ࡁゝⴥ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ഴྥࢆᙉࡃ♧၀ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢഴྥࡣᯘ (2015b: 107̾108) ࡢ consideringࡢ๓⨨モ⏝ἲࡢほᐹ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࡳࡽࢀࠊືモὴ⏕๓⨨モ࡟ඹ㏻ࡍࡿ≉ᚩ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

4. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊရモⓗ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࠊࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮࡟㛵ࡋࠊࠕ㝖እࠖࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ࿘⦕ⓗ๓⨨モ excluding,saving, barring ࡢほᐹࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ඹ᫬ⓗ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿᕪ␗ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊᩥ㢌࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ࿘⦕ⓗ๓⨨モ
excluding, saving barring ࡣࠊ(i) ᩥἲ໬ࡢ⛬ᗘࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ (cf. [C])ࠊ(ii) considering ࡢ๓⨨モ⏝ἲ࡜ྠࡌࡃ᭩
ࡁゝⴥ࡟࠾࠸࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ (cf. [E])ࠊࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ(iii) bar/barring, save/saving ࡣࠊⓎ㐩ⓗ࡟ࡶ㸦ඣ㤿 2001: 90̾91㸧ඹ᫬ⓗ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿࢪࣕࣥࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ㢮ఝᛶࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ (cf. [D])ࠊ࡞࡝ࢆ㏙࡭ࡓࠋ ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ(i) ᩥ㢌௨እࡢ఩⨨࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿexcluding, saving, barring ࢆྵࡵࡓ㢖ᗘୖࡢศᕸ
㸦cf. ᯘ

−78−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

2016: 14, 15㸧
ࠊ(ii)ࠕ㝖እࠖࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ๓⨨モ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡼࡾ㢖ᗘࡢ㧗࠸ but, except, excepting, without ࡞࡝ࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ࡢ᳇ࡳศࡅ㸦cf. ᯘ 2013: 147; ᯘ 2016: 15㸧
ࠊ(iii) concerning, regarding ࡞࡝௚ࡢືモὴ⏕๓⨨モ (cf.
Hayashi 2015) ࡜ࡢᕪ␗ࠊ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ヲ⣽࡞᳨ウࢆ⾜࠺ᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ 13ࠋ௜グ ᮏ✏ࡢෆᐜࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 18 ᅇ኱఍㸦2015 ᖺ 12 ᭶ 5̾6 ᪥ࠊྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ◊✲Ⓨ⾲ࡢෆᐜ࡟ຍ➹࣭ಟṇࢆ᪋ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆୗࡉࡗࡓⓙᵝ࡟ᚚ♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࠋᙜ↛ࡢࡇ࡜࡞ࡀ
ࡽࠊᮏ✏࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୙ഛࡣ඲࡚➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ⛉◊㈝㸦≉ู◊✲ဨዡບ㈝ࠊ◊✲ㄢ㢟␒ྕ:
15J00373㸧ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ὀ
1. ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠕ࿘⦕ⓗ๓⨨モࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࢆ୍㈏ࡋ࡚⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊⓎ⾲ᛂເ᫬ࠊ➹⪅ࡣࡇࡢㄒࢆඣ㤿(2001) ࡟‽ࡎࡿࡶࡢ࡜ពᅗࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊṇࡋࡃࡣࠊඣ㤿 (2001) ࡟࠾࠸࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿㄒࡣ
ࠕ࿘㎶ⓗ (marginal) ๓⨨モ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ
ࠕ࿘⦕ⓗ๓⨨モࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡣ➹⪅ࡢㄗࡾ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᮏ᮶
࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠕ࿘㎶ⓗ๓⨨モࠖ࡜ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋゞṇࡋ࡚࠾ルࡧ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࠋ
2. ᮏ✏࡜㐣ཤࡢ➹⪅⮬㌟ࡢ◊✲ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᘬ⏝࠾ࡼࡧ⬮ὀࢆཧ↷ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ3.

ᯘ (2016) ࡣࠊඛ⾜◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⌮ㄽⓗ⫼ᬒ࡟㛵ࢃࡿグ㍕࡟࠾࠸࡚ Hopper and Traugott (2003: 94̾98) ࡬ࡢゝཬࢆ⾜࠺࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊbarring ࡣ⁻ⓑ໬ࡋࡓ஦౛࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿᯘ (2014) ࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ࡟ࡶゐࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⌮ㄽⓗ⫼ᬒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⁻ⓑ໬ࡣᮏ✏ࡢ㆟ㄽ㸦ヲ⣽ࡣ 2.3 ⠇ࢆཧ↷㸧࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇࡇ࡛ゝཬࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ

4.

Kortmann and König (1992: 684) ࡣࠕ෌ศᯒࡢ⛬ᗘࠖ㸦ࡇࡢヂㄒࡣ⛅ඖ 2002: 181 ࡟ᚑ࠺㸧࡟ࡼࡿືモὴ⏕๓⨨モࡢホ౯ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᩥἲ໬ࡢ⛬ᗘᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿホ౯ࡣࠊ╔┠ࡍࡿほⅬ࡟ࡼࡾ␗࡞ࡿศᕸࢆ♧ࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢヲ⣽࠾ࡼࡧ௚ࡢ◊✲࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㆟ㄽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Hayashi (2015: 132̾134, 136̾137) ࢆཧ↷ࠋ5.

ᮏẁⴠ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㆟ㄽ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᯘ (2013: 131̾132) ࡶཧ↷ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋᯘ (2013: 132) ࡣࠊᮏẁⴠ࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓඣ㤿 (2001: 85) ࡟ゝཬࡋࡘࡘࠊsaving ࡜␗࡞ࡾ excluding ࡣᩥἲ໬ࢆ⤒࡚๓⨨モ໬ࡋ࡚ࡶ⁻ⓑ໬ࡋ࡞࠸㸦ືモ exclude ࡢព࿡ࡀኻࢃࢀ࡞࠸㸧࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢᯘ (2013)ࠊඣ㤿 (2001) ࡟࠾ࡅࡿグ㏙ࡣࠊᯘ (2014: 209) ࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ࡜▩┪ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ6.

(3) ࡢศ㢮ࡣࠊᯘ (2013, 2015a, 2015b, 2016) ࢆ᥼⏝ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕศモⓗ⏝ἲࠖ
ࠕ๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྡ⛠࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊⓎ⾲᫬ࡢ㉁␲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡈᣦ᦬㡬࠸ࡓⅬࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ಟṇࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᮏศ㢮ࡢᇶ‽࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᯘ (2013: 137̾140; 2015b: 107; 2016: 12) ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㆟ㄽࡶཧ↷ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ7.

ࡓࡔࡋࠊඹ᫬ⓗ࡟ࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊ㏻᫬ⓗ࡟ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ(i) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㐣ཤ࡟ࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
(i) Locking and barring the door, the head clerk hurried back to Guly's side, and lifted him gently in his arms.
(1857, FIC; COHA)ࡇࡢ⏝ἲ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᯘ (2016) ࡢ intermediate category㸦adjective/୺ㄒ୍⮴㸧࡜࠸࠺ศ㢮ࢆཧ↷ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ8.

ࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊⓎ⾲᫬ࡢ㉁␲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡈᣦ᦬㡬࠸ࡓࠋsaving ࡢ౛ (5b) ࡣ๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲ࡜ࡋࡓࡀࠊศモⓗ⏝ἲ࡜ࡶゎ㔘ࡋ࠺ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶࠊsaving ࡣᩥἲ໬ࡋࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊexcluding, barring ࡜ẚ࡭࡚ᩥἲ໬ࡀ㐍⾜ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᩥἲ໬ࡢ⛬ᗘ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡢ㆟ㄽࡣ 3.2 ⠇ [C] ࢆཧ↷ࠋ9.

⾲ 1 ࡢศ㢮ࡣ (3) ࡜ྠᵝࠊᯘ (2013, 2015a, 2015b, 2016) ࡟‽ࡌࡿ㸦ὀ 6 ཧ↷㸧ࠋࠕᙧᐜモⓗ⏝ἲࠖ࡜ࡣ [the-ing NP] ࡲࡓࡣ [more -ing] ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡶࡢࠋ
ࠕືྡモⓗ⏝ἲࠖࡣࠊ๓⨨モࡢ┠ⓗㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚⏕㉳ࡍࡿ࡞࡝ࡢᇶ‽࡟ࡼࡾุᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋsaving ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊsaving throws ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡀ 6 ౛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ୰࡟ࡣ
ࠕᙧᐜモⓗ⏝ἲࠖ࡜ࡶゎ㔘ࡋ࠺ࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊືモⓗᶵ⬟ࢆಖᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࠿ࡽ⾲ 1 ࡛ࡣࠕືྡモⓗ⏝ἲࠖ࡟ྵࡵࡓࠋ
ࠕᙧᐜモⓗࠖࠕືྡモࠖ࡜࠸࠺⏝ἲࡢ༊ูࡣࠊ3.2 ⠇࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㆟ㄽࡸࠊ3.3 ⠇࡟࠾

−79−

「除外」の意味を表す周縁的前置詞の用法の棲み分けに関してࡅࡿศモⓗ࣭๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㆟ㄽ࡟ࡣ┤᥋ࡢᙳ㡪ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣၥ㢟࡜ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊࡇࡢጇᙜᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ␲ᛕࡀṧࡿࡓࡵࠊ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
10. saving ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊὀ 8 ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
11. ᩥἲ໬ࡋ⤊࠼ࡓࡢ࠿ࠊ௒ᚋ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ኚ໬ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࠿࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽࡣᣦ᦬࡛ࡁ
࡞࠸ࠋ
㏻᫬ⓗ࣭ඹ᫬ⓗศᯒࡀᑗ᮶ࡢゝㄒኚ໬ࡢ㐨➽ࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᯘ (2015a: 246) ࢆཧ↷ࠋ12. ࡞࠾ࠊᏛ⾡ⓗ࡞ᩥ❶㸦⾲ 2 (ii) ࡢࠕ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡࠖ
㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚⏕㉳ࡍࡿ 1 ౛ࡣศモⓗ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲ
ࡾࠊbarring, saving ࡢ๓⨨モⓗ⏝ἲ࡟㝈ࡗ࡚࠸࠼ࡤࠊᏛ⾡ⓗ࡞ᩥ❶࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ⏕㉳ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
13. Ⓨ⾲ᚋࠊᮏ✏ࡢ㛵㐃⌧㇟ࢆᢅࡗࡓ◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚᪩℩࣭Ώ㑔 (2015) ࢆ⤂௓㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞㢮ᆺㄽⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢ᳨ウࢆࠊ⌧᫬Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚➹⪅ࡣ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᑗ᮶ࡢ◊✲࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩⛅ඖᐇ἞. 2002.ࠗᩥἲ໬࡜࢖ࢹ࢕࣒࢜໬࠘ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
Fukaya, T. 1997. “The Emergence of -ing Prepositions in English: A Corpus-Based Study.” In M. Ukaji, T. Nakao, M.
Kajita and S. Chiba (eds.), Studies in English Linguistics: A Festschrift for Akira Ota on the Occasion of his
Eightieth Birthday, 285̾300, Tokyo: Taishukan.
᪩℩ᑦᏊ࣭Ώ㑔῟ஓ. 2015.ࠕⱥㄒࡢᠱᆶศモ࡜ࣇࣛࣥࢫㄒࡢ୺ㄒ୙୍⮴ࢪ࢙ࣟࣥࢹ࢕ࣇࡢᑐ↷◊✲ࠖࠊ࿴⏣ᑦ࣭᫂Ώ㑔῟ஓ⦅㸦⦅㸧ࠗ᫬ไ࡞ࡽࡧ࡟ࡑࡢ㛵㐃㡿ᇦ࡜ㄆ▱ࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࠘
ࠊ97̾179ࠊࡘࡃࡤ㸸TAME◊✲఍.
ᯘᬛ᫛. 2013.ࠕexcluding ࡢ⏝ἲࡢṔྐⓗኚ໬̾̾ᩥἲ໬ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̾̾ࠖ
ࠊࠗゝㄒ⛉Ꮫㄽ㞟࠘ࠊ➨ 19 ྕࠊ127̾150.
ᯘᬛ᫛. 2014.ࠕᩥἲ໬ࡋࡓⱥㄒືモὴ⏕๓⨨モࡢ๪モⓗඹ㉳㛵ಀ㸸స౛ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠗKLS 34࠘
ࠊ205̾216.
ᯘᬛ᫛. 2015a.ࠕpreceding/following ࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶ̾̾ᩥἲ໬ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̾̾ࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏⱥᩥᏛ఍➨ 87 ᅇ኱఍Proceedings࠘
ࠊ245̾246.
ᯘᬛ᫛. 2015b.ࠕconsidering ࡢ๓⨨モ࣭᥋⥆モ⏝ἲࡢඹ᫬ⓗ◊✲̾̾ࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̾̾ࠖ
ࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽ
Ꮫ఍➨ 17 ᅇ኱఍Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘ࠊ➨ 10 ྕࠊ105̾112.
Hayashi, T. 2015. “Prepositionalities of Deverbal Prepositions: Differences in Degree of Grammaticalization.” Papers in
Linguistic Science 21, 129̾151.
ᯘᬛ᫛. 2016.ࠕືモὴ⏕๓⨨モ barring ࡢ㏻᫬ⓗⓎ㐩ࠖࠊࠗJELS 33࠘ࠊ10̾16.
Hopper, P. J. 1991. “On Some Principles of Grammaticization.” In E. C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds.), Approaches toGrammaticalization 1, 17̾35. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hopper, P. J. and E. C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ᕝ➃᭸ᗈ. 2001.ࠕⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿືモὴ⏕᥋⥆モࡢⓎ㐩࡜ᩥἲ໬㸸provided/providing ࡢ᥋⥆モ⏝ἲࠖ
ࠊ⛅ඖᐇ
἞㸦⦅㸧
ࠗᩥἲ໬̾̾◊✲࡜ㄢ㢟̾̾࠘
ࠊ97̾119ࠊᮾி: ⱥ₻♫.
ඣ㤿ಟ. 2001.ࠕ࿘㎶ⓗ๓⨨モ㸦᥋⥆モ㸧save, saving ࡢᩥἲ໬ࠖ
ࠊ⛅ඖᐇ἞㸦⦅㸧ࠗᩥἲ໬̾̾◊✲࡜ㄢ㢟̾̾࠘ࠊ
73̾95ࠊᮾி㸸ⱥ₻♫.
Kortmann, B. and E. König. 1992. “Categorial Reanalysis: the Case of Deverbal Prepositions.” Linguistics 30, 671̾697.
ෆ⏣඘⨾. 2003.ࠕBrown, LOB, FROWN, FLOB ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢ-ing ᆺ๓⨨モ㸸including ࡢ⏝ἲࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠖ
ࠊࠗዪᏊ኱ᩥᏛ ⱥㄒᏛⱥ⡿ᩥᏛ⠍࠘ࠊ➨ 4 ྕࠊ101̾122.
㎡᭩࣭ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡞࡝
British National Corpus㸦http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/ ࡼࡾ฼⏝㸧
Corpus of Historical American English㸦http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/ ࡼࡾ฼⏝㸧

−80−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢศᯒᖹ⏣୍㑻*
ᑓಟ኱Ꮫ<Abstract>
English has a wide variety of vocative expressions (e.g. proper names, occupational titles, family relations,and the like). The objective of the present paper is to elucidate the meanings and functions of English
vocatives in the Relevance Theory framework. I will demonstrate that vocative expressions, though rather
fragmental, have cognitive effects just like usual full-fledged sentential utterances. Tropes like metaphors,metonymies, and irony also show up in vocative phrases. This observation leads me to propose a theory inwhich a vocative expression is enriched and developed into a proposition (as a higher-level explicature),
which is responsible for its relevant cognitive effects.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧㸪ㄆ▱ຠᯝ㸪࿨㢟㸪Ⓨᒎ㸪㧗ḟ⾲ព㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ⱥㄒ࡟ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵࡢ⾲⌧ࡀࡓࡃࡉࢇ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ(1a)࡛ࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢྡ๓࡛࠶ࡿ Dean ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ヰࡋᡭࡣ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(1b)࡛ࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵ಀࢆ⾲ࡍ Mom ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ㸪(1c)ࡢ Doc ࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⫋ᴗྡࡀ࿧⛠࡜ࡋ࡚౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(1)

a.
b.
c.

Dean, do you want to come?
I’m telling you, Mom.
My back is aching, Doc.

௨㝆㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡢ⾲⌧ࢆࠕ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡࡜ᶵ⬟ࢆ Sperber and Wilson (1986/1995)ࡢᥦၐࡍࡿ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛㆟ㄽࡍࡿࠋ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡣ㸪ぢ࠿ࡅୖ࡯ࢇࡢ᩿∦ⓗ࡞ゝㄒ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪㏻ᖖࡢⓎヰ࡜ྠᵝࡢㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆᣢࡘࠋ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣ㸪Ⓨヰࡢᣢࡘㄆ▱ຠᯝࡀ㸪Ⓨヰࡢ࿨㢟࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶࡓࡽࡉࢀࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚࿨㢟࡟ࡲ࡛Ⓨᒎࡉࢀ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ᪉⟇࡟ࡼࡾ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀᣢࡘᵝࠎ࡞ព࿡ࡸᶵ⬟ࡀ㸪ಶࠎࡢ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧࡟ಶูࡢព࿡ࡸ
ᶵ⬟ࢆタᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃ㸪ᩥ⬦᝿ᐃ࡜ࡢ᥎ㄽ㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⮬ືⓗ࡟ᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ 㸰࡛ࡣ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡ࡸᶵ⬟ࢆ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡜㛵ಀ࡙ࡅ࡞ࡀࡽᴫほࡍࡿࠋ࿧ࡧ࠿
ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࢆ㸱࡛ぢࡓ࠶࡜㸪㸲࡛㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢศᯒࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ
㸳࡛ㄽᩥࡢ㊃᪨ࢆࡲ࡜ࡵ㸪⤖ㄽ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
㸰㸬࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢ≉ᛶ ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࢆ౑࠺ሙྜ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࢆចࡇ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ゝ࠺ࠕពᅗ᫂♧ⓗఏ㐩⾜Ⅽࠖ
㸦ఏ࠼ࡓ࠸ෆᐜࢆ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఏ࠼ࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ព
ᚿࢆ♧ࡋ࡚ఏ࠼ࡿ⾜Ⅽ㸧࡟ᙜࡓࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ␗ㄽࡢవᆅࡀ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ࡛ࡣ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧࡟ᬑ㏻ࡢ
Ⓨヰ࡜ྠᵝࡢㄆ▱ຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞఍ヰࢆぢࡿ࡜㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧࡟ㄆ▱ຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ

−81−

関連性理論に基づいた呼びかけ表現の分析(2)

Dee: Hey, girlfriend!
Waitress: Oh, my God, you scared me!
Dee: Did I? My bad.
Waitress: Why did you jump out from behind a car? Were you stalking me?
Dee: Girlfriend, you're crazy.
Waitress: Stop calling me “girlfriend.”
02:00-, “Who Pooped the Bed,” It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, Season 4.

ࡇࢀࡣ㏻ᖖ௰ࡢᝏ࠸ዪᛶ㸦Dee ࡜ Waitress㸧ྠኈࡢ఍ヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋDee ࡣ Waitress ࡟㢗ࡳ஦ࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚㸪᪥㡭ࡣ௰ࡢᝏ࠸Waitress ࢆ㸰ᗘgirlfriend࡜࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㏫࡟఍ヰࡢ᭱ᚋ࡟Waitressࡣ㸪girlfriend࡜࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡢࢆ᎘ࡗ࡚㸪ࡑࢀࢆ㐽ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋgirlfriend ࡜࠸࠺࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀලయⓗ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿㸪ࡇࡢ఍ヰࡔࡅ࠿ࡽṇ☜࡟≉ᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡑࢀ࡛ࡶࡇࡢ఍ヰ࠿ࡽ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧⮬యࡀㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑ࠺࡛࡞ࡅࢀ
ࡤ㸪」ᩘᅇྠࡌሙ㠃࡛ྠࡌ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࢆྠࡌ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚౑࠺ࡣࡎࡀ࡞࠸㸦༢࡞ࡿὀពႏ㉳࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸧ࠋࡲࡓ㸪Waitress ࡣࠕ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡿ࡞ࠖ࡜୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࣜࢡ࢚ࢫࢺࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪girlfriend࡜࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡿ࡞㸪࡜ࣜࢡ࢚ࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡟ࡶὀពࡋࡓ࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡢ⾜Ⅽ⮬య࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢෆᐜࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ఱࡽ࠿ࡢㄆ▱ຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ㸲࡛ヲࡋࡃぢࡿࡼ࠺࡟㸪ㄆ▱ຠᯝࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄆ▱⎔ቃࡢኚ᭦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ㄆ▱⎔ቃࡢኚ᭦ࡣ㸪᪤Ꮡࡢ᝿ᐃ㸦assumptions㸧࡜ࡢ᥎ㄽ㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉ
ࡽ࡟᥎ㄽ㛵ಀ࡟ධࡿ࡟ࡣ㸪Ⓨヰࡀ࿨㢟ࡢᙧ࡟ࡲ࡛Ⓨᒎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ๓ᥦ᮲௳࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽ
ࢆ຺᱌ࡍࡿ࡜㸪࡯ࢇࡢ▷࠸(2)ࡢ఍ヰ࠿ࡽࡶ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜㸪ࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡣ
ྠ᫬࡟࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀ࿨㢟ࡢᙧ࡟Ⓨᒎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ ࡶࡋ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀ㏻ᖖࡢⓎヰ࡜ྠᵝࡢ㸦࿨㢟࡟ࡲ࡛Ⓨᒎࡉࢀࡓ㸧ゎ㔘ࢆཷࡅࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽ㸪㏻ᖖࡢⓎヰ࡜ྠᵝࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࡀ㉳ࡇࡿ࡜ண ࡉࢀࡿࠋ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢព࿡ᣑᙇ࡟ࡣ loose talk㸪metaphor㸪metonymy ࡞࡝ࡀྵࡲࢀࡿ㸦ྛ⾲⌧ἲ࡟ࡣཝᐦ࡞༊ูࡀ࡞࠸࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࠋᐇ㝿ண
㏻ࡾ㸪ᐇ࡟ᵝࠎ࡞ព࿡ᣑᙇࡀ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧࡟ほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ ࡣࡌࡵࡣ loose talk ࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋẕ㸦Lorelai㸧ࡣፉ㸦Rory㸧࡜႖ვࡋ࡚ࡋࡤࡽࡃཱྀࢆࡁ࠿࡞࠿ࡗ
ࡓࠋࡇࡢẼࡲࡎ࠸㛵ಀࢆ⦆࿴ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ヰࡋ࠿ࡅࡿሙ㠃ࡀ(3)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(3)

Lorelai: Hey, stranger.
Rory: Hey.
39:00-, “Kill Me Now,” Gilmore Girls, Season 1.

Rory ࡣ Lorelai ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠕぢ▱ࡽࡠே㸦stranger㸧࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡣࡎࡀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢሙྜ stranger ࡣ㸪ࠕࡋࡤࡽࡃẼࡲࡎ࠿ࡗࡓࡡࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪stranger ࡀᮏ᮶ᣢࡘࠕ㉥ࡢ௚ேࠖࡢព࿡ࡀᑡࡋ⦆࿴ࡉࢀ࡚㸦loose
talk ࡜ࡋ࡚㸧౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡲࡓࡇࡢ loose talk ࡀㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶
ࡿ࠿ࡽ㸪෌ࡧ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀ࿨㢟࡟ࡲ࡛Ⓨᒎࡉࢀ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿドᣐ࡟ࡶ࡞ࡿࠋloose talk ࡢሙྜ㸪࿨㢟໬࡟ඛ❧ࡗ࡚㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀ ad-hoc ᴫᛕ࡬࡜ᣑᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ゝ࠸᪉ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ࡲࡓ㸪ⱥㄒ࡛᪥㡭㢖⦾࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡢከࡃࡀ㸪metaphor/metonymy ࡟㢮࠸ࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡛࠶
ࡿࠋ
(4)

a.
b.

I love you, honey/pumpkin/kitten.
You are so busted, stupid/big mouth/smarty pants.

−82−第18回大会発表論文集第11号

౛࠼ࡤ㸪(4a)ࡢ honey ࡛࠶ࢀࡤ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀ⻏⻤࡛࠶ࡿࡣࡎࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛㸪ࡇࢀࡣ㏻ᖖ metaphor ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓ(4b)ࡢ stupid ࡛࠶ࢀࡤ㸪ࡇࢀࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜࠸࠺㸯ேࡢே㛫ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢᛶ᱁ࡸ⏕ࡁ᪉ࢆホ౯ࡋࡓ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛㸪࠶ࡿ✀ࡢ metonymy ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡢ⾲⌧ࡶ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣ ad-hoc ᴫᛕ࡜ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡶࡶࡕ
ࢁࢇ࿨㢟࡟ࡲ࡛Ⓨᒎࡉࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤㄆ▱ຠᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣ㸪ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ౛࡜ྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧࡟ࡣ㸪⓶⫗㸦㧗ḟ⾲ព㸧ࡶ⌧ࢀࡿࠋ(5)

Sheriff: Look who’s here. Ah, it isn’t my predecessor and mentor. How’s the dirtypicture biz, boss?
Keith: It looks like it’s better than being sheriff, actually.
09:55-, “Credit Where Credit’s Due,” Veronica Mars, Season 1.

(5)ࡣ㸪௙஦ࡢኻᩋ࡛ sheriff ࡢᆅ఩ࢆኻࡗࡓ Keith ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪ඖࡢ㒊ୗ࡛࠶ࡾ⌧ᅾࡢ sheriff ࡛࠶ࡿே≀ࡀ㸪Keith ࡟ヰࡋ࠿ࡅࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋsheriff ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ Keith ࡣࡶࡣࡸ boss ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦boss ࡜࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࡩࡉࢃࡋࡃ࡞࠸㸧ࠋࡑࢀ࡟ຍ࠼㸪sheriff ࡢែᗘ࠿ࡽ㸪sheriff ⮬㌟ࡶ boss ࡜࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ
ࡿ஦ࡀ⓶⫗࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣ㸪⓶⫗ࡀ⾲ฟ࿨㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡢ஋㞳ⓗ࡞ែᗘ࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧࡟⓶⫗ࡀ⾲ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶࡸࡣࡾ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀ
㏻ᖖࡢⓎヰྠᵝ࡟㸦࿨㢟࡜ࡋ࡚㸧ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ㸪ㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼
ࡿࠋ ᭱ᚋ࡟࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀ᥎ពࢆᣢࡕ࠺ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆぢࡿ㸦⓶⫗ࡶࡍ࡛࡟ࡑࡢ㸯౛࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࠋ(6)ࡣ෌ࡧẕ㸦Lorelai㸧࡜ፉ㸦Rory㸧ࡢ఍ヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋሙ㠃࡛ࡣẕࡀఱ࠿㣗࡭ࡽࢀࡿ≀ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜෭ⶶ
ᗜࢆ⁺ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋፉࡣࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞㸦ಙ㢗ࡢ⨨ࡅ࡞࠸㣗࡭≀ࢆᖹẼ࡛㣗࡭ࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ㸧ẕ࡟ᑐࡋᢈุⓗ࡞ែᗘࢆྲྀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(6)

Lorelai: Oh, hey, this is the pizza from mystery Tuesday. That one's completely fine.
Rory: Don't.
Lorelai: It's in the box!
Rory: Oscar! 㸦Oscar ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ở࠸ࡇ࡜ࡍࡿ࡞㸧
Lorelai: Felix! 㸦Felix ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⣽࠿࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆゝ࠺࡞㸧
Rory: Forget it!
Lorelai: Fine.
26:43-, “Paris Is Burning,” Gilmore Girls, Season 1.

ፉࡣẕࢆ Oscar ࡜࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ㸪ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋẕࡣፉࢆ Felix ࡜࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ㏉ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ࡶࡕࢁࢇ࠾஫࠸ࡣ
Oscar ࡛ࡶ Felix ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸㸧ࠋࡇࡢ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡣ The Odd Couple ࡜࠸࠺ 1960 ᖺ࠿ࡽ 1970 ᖺ࡟࠿
ࡅ࡚ୖ₇࣭ᨺ㏦ࡉࢀࡓ₇๻࣭ࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌࡟⤖ࡧࡘ࠸ࡓ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋThe Odd Couple ࡣ㸪࣮࣒࣓ࣝ࢖ࢺ࡛࠶ࡿ Oscar ࡜ Felix ࡢ⏕ά࡟㛵ࡍࡿヰ࡛㸪Oscar ࡣ኱ࡊࡗࡥ࡛ᴦኳⓗ࡞ே≀࡜ࡋ࡚㸪Felix ࡣ⣽࠿ࡃཱྀ࡚࠺ࡿࡉ࠸ே≀࡜ࡋ࡚タᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋẕࢆ Oscar ࡜࿧ࡪፉࡣ㸪ᴫࡡࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࡢࡸࢁ࠺
࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ Oscar ࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ㏫࡟ፉࢆ Felix ࡜࿧ࡪẕࡣ㸪ࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࡢែᗘࡣ Felix ࡜ྠࡌࡔࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲ពࢆఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡒࢀ࠿ࡽ
ࠕOscar ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ở࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆࡍࡿ࡞ࠖ࡜ࠕFelix ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⣽࠿࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆゝ࠺࡞ࠖ࡜࠸࠺᥎ពࡀఏ࠼
ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ࡇࡢ౛ࡣ㸪ୖ࡛ぢࡓ౛ࡼࡾࡶࡸࡸ」㞧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀ᥎ពࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ

−83−

関連性理論に基づいた呼びかけ表現の分析࡜࠸࠺ศᯒࡀṇࡋ࠸࡜ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ୍⯡࡟᥎ពࡣ㸦㧗ḟ㸧⾲ព࡜๓ᥦ᥎ព㸦ᩥ⬦᝿ᐃ㸧࡜ࡢ᥎ㄽ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀ᥎ពࢆᣢࡕ࠺ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀ㸪㸦ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ぢࡓ౛࡜ྠᵝ࡟㸧࿨㢟࡟ࡲ࡛Ⓨᒎࡉࢀ㸪ࡋ࠿ࡿᚋ࡟๓ᥦ᥎ព࡜ࡢ᥎ㄽ㛵ಀ࡟ධࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡣぢ࠿ࡅୖࡣ࡯ࢇࡢ᩿∦ⓗ࡞ゝㄒ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ᬑ㏻ࡢⓎヰ࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆᣢࡕ㸪ad-hoc ᴫᛕࡀ⌧ࢀ㸪㧗ḟ⾲ពࢆᣢࡘࠋࡉࡽ࡟๓ᥦ᥎ព࡜ࡢ᥎ㄽ㛵ಀ࡟ධࡗ࡚㸦ᖐ⤖㸧᥎ពࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࡍ࡭࡚㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀ୍⯡ⓗ࡞Ⓨヰྠᵝ࡟࿨㢟࡟ࡲ
࡛Ⓨᒎࡉࢀ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
㸱㸬ඛ⾜◊✲ ࡛ࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศᯒࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᐇ㝿࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡣ㸪⾲⌧⮬యࡀ༢⣧࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ࠿㸦࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡀ༢⊂ࡢྡモྃ࡜ゝࡗ࡚࠸࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺㸧ࡑࢀ࡯࡝ከࡃࡢඛ
⾜◊✲ࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᴫほࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜㸪ᴫࡡ㸰ࡘࡢᶵ⬟ࡀ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

It is a CALL, (A)drawing the attention of the person or persons addressed, singling themout from others in hearing...or an ADDRESS, (B)expressing the speaker’s relationshipor attitude to the person or persons addressed...
 (Quirk et al. 1985:
773)
Vocatives can be used to call someone (Kim, dinner’s ready’), (A)to attract theirattention, to single out one person among a group as the addressee, and so on...vocative
terms generally (B)convey a considerable amount about the speaker’s emotive attitude
toward the addressee...
(Huddleston
andPullum 2002: 523)
The manipulation of vocatives, especially through their location in the clause, reflects
the speaker’s intention (B)to influence the interlocutor’s epistemic vigilance. (Hill
2014: 2)
A vocative (or term of address) refers to the addressee(s) of an utterance, and has atleast three pragmatic functions:a.
(A)to appeal for attention, i.e., making it clear to H that he/she is being
addressedb.
to single out the addressee, i.e., making it clear that H, and not some otherperson within earshot, is being addressedc.
(B)to establish and/or maintain a social relationship with H(Leech2014:172)(7)-(10)ࡢ࠺ࡕ(A)࡛ୗ⥺ࢆ᪋ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡣᴫࡡࠕ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡀヰ⪅ࡢὀពࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺୺᪨࡛㸪(B)ࡣࠕ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡀヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ♫఍ⓗ㛵ಀࢆ☜❧࣭⥔ᣢ࣭ホ౯ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺୺᪨࡛࠶ࡿ㸦ୗ⥺ࡣ➹᭩࡟ࡼࡿ㸧ࠋ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧࡟ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㛫㐪࠸࡞࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪࡜ࡾࢃࡅ(B)࡟㛵ࡋ࡚㸪࡞ࡐྡモྃࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᴟࡵ࡚᩿∦ⓗ࡞ゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡀヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ♫఍㛵ಀࡢ☜❧࡜࠸ࡗࡓ」㞧࡞ᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡍࡢ࠿㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡢグ㏙ࡣㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋୖ࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧⮬యࡣከᵝ࡞ព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡕ࠺ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆᢳ㇟ⓗ࡟୍⯡໬ࡍࢀࡤ(B)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡀ㸪ࡇࢀࡣᐇࡣ

−84−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢᶵ⬟ࡀᣢࡘ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚௙⤌ࡳ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋồࡵࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣ㸪ከᵝ࡞࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡ࡸᶵ⬟ࢆ㸪ಶูࡢ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧࡟≉ᐃࡉࢀ࡞࠸ᙧ࡛ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ௙⤌ࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑ࠺࡛࡞ࡅࢀ
ࡤ㸪ᐇ㝿࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢᩘࡔࡅ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡢព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾ࠿ࡡ࡞࠸ࠋ㸲࡛ࡣ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢࠕ㧗ḟ⾲ពࠖࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚㸪ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞௙⤌ࡳࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ
㸲㸬ᥦ᱌㸲㸬㸯㸬ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ♫఍ⓗ㛵ಀࢆ☜❧࣭⥔ᣢ࣭ホ౯ࡍࡿ 㸱࡛ࡣ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢᶵ⬟ࡀ୺࡟ࠕὀពႏ㉳ࠖ࡜ࠕ♫఍ⓗ㛵ಀࡢ☜❧ࠖ࡟㢮ู࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
ぢࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࡲࡎ㸪ࠕ♫఍ⓗ㛵ಀࡢ☜❧ࠖࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢ௙⤌ࡳࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ 㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡣⓎヰ࠿ࡽᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿㄆ▱ຠᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿࡲ࡛ⓎヰࢆⓎᒎࡉࡏ㸪ㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆᚓࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋㄆ▱ຠᯝࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀᣢࡘ᪤Ꮡࡢ᝿ᐃ࡜㸪Ⓨヰ㸦ࡢㄽ⌮ᙧᘧ㸧ࢆⓎᒎࡉࡏࡓ࿨㢟࡜ࡢ᥎ㄽ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽᘬࡁฟࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௨ୗࡣ Sperber and Wilson (1986/1995)࠿ࡽ㛵㐃ࡍࡿ㒊ศࢆᢤ⢋ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(11)

(12)

(13)

It is virtue of its logical form that a conceptual representation is involved in logicalprocesses and enters into relations such as contradiction or implication with otherconceptual representations.
(Sperber and Wilson 1986/1995:
72)...only fully propositional forms represent definite states of affairs. It is these that
constitute the individual’s encyclopedic knowledge, his overall representation of theworld.
(Sperber and Wilson 1986/1995:
73)
In other words, semantic representation must be selected, completed and enriched invarious ways to yield the propositional form expressed by the utterance.
(Sperber and Wilson 1986/1995:
179)

ࡇࢀࡀṇࡋ࠸࡜ࡍࡿ࡜㸪ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ♫఍ⓗ㛵ಀࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆᣢࡕ࠺ࡿ࡟ࡣ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀ࿨㢟ࡢᙧࡲ࡛Ⓨᒎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ㏻ᖖ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ㸪Ⓨヰࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡀᣢࡘㄽ⌮ᙧᘧࢆ┿ഇࡀၥ࠼ࡿ࿨㢟ࡢᙧ㸦⾲ព㸧࡟ࡲ࡛Ⓨᒎࡉࡏ࡚㐺ษ࡞ゎ㔘ࢆᚓࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧⮬㌟ࡣ㸪ከࡃࡢሙྜ༢⊂ࡢྡモ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚㸪࿨㢟࡟ࡲ࡛Ⓨᒎࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿㄽ⌮ᙧᘧࢆഛ࠼࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࠋ ࡑࡇ࡛ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕ㧗ḟ⾲ពࠖࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࢆ࿨㢟໬ࡍࡿ᪉⟇ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ㧗ḟ⾲ព࡜ࡣ(14)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⌮ゎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(14)㧗ḟ⾲ពࡣ㸪ᇶ♏⾲ពࢆࡶ࡜࡟Ⓨᒎࡉࡏࡓ᫂ពࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ㸬౛࠼ࡤ㸪promise
to...㸦...࡜⣙᮰ࡋࡲࡍ㸧㸪bet that...㸦...࡟㉃ࡅࡲࡍ㸧࡜࠸ࡗࡓⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡸ㸪hope that...
㸦...ࢆᮃࡳࡲࡍ㸧㸪regret that...㸦...ࢆᚋ᜼ࡋࡲࡍ㸧࡜࠸ࡗࡓ࿨㢟ែᗘ㸦propositional
attitude㸧࡟㸪ᇶ♏⾲ពࢆᇙࡵ㎸ࢇࡔࡶࡢࡀ㧗ḟ⾲ព࡜࡞ࡿ㸬㸦Allot 2010/௒஭┘ヂ 2014:134㸧

Carston (2002)࠿ࡽ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡢලయ౛ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿࠋ−85−

関連性理論に基づいた呼びかけ表現の分析

(15)

a.
b.
c.

It’s a lovely day.
The speaker has said that it’s a lovely day.
The speaker thinks it is ridiculous to believe/assert that it’s a lovely day.
(Carston 2002: 159)

እࡀ኱㞵࡞ࡢ࡟㸪⓶⫗࡜ࡋ࡚(15a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟Ⓨヰࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ(15b)࡛ࡣ㸪Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ㸦the speakerhas said...㸧ࡀ(15a)㸦ࡢ࿨㢟㸧ࢆᚑᒓ⠇࡜ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡿᙧࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ព࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(15c)࡛ࡣ㸪(15a)ࡀ㸪࿨㢟ែᗘ㸦the speaker thinks it is ridiculous to believe/assert...㸧࡟ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀࡿᙧ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ
࡚ࡇࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ព࡜ᩥ⬦᝿ᐃ࠿ࡽ㸪౛࠼ࡤ(16)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᥎ពࡀᑟ࠿ࢀࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
(16)

a.
b.

It’s a ghastly day.
We can’t possibly go for a picnic today.

(Carston 2002: 160)
 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ศᯒࢆᛕ㢌࡟࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢゎ㔘ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ゝㄒ⾲⌧ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ὀពࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽ࡞ࡢ࡛㸪ࡇࢀࡣ୍✀ࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ X ࡜࠸࠺࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧(17a)ࡀ㸪(17b)ࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ព࡬࡜Ⓨᒎࡉࢀࡿ࡜ᥦ
᱌ࡍࡿࠋ
(17)

㧗ḟ⾲ព㸦㛵ಀᛶ㸧
a.
“X”.
b.
The speaker is making it verbally and contextually salient that s/he thinks it

isappropriate to refer to the hearer as “X”.  (17b)ࡣ㸪X ࡜࠸࠺㡢ኌࢆ౑ࡗ࡚⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ヰࡋ࠿ࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ㸦refer to the hearer as “X”㸧ࡀ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠕXࠖࢆᇙࡵ㎸ࡳ㸪ࡉࡽ࡟ࡑࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ඲య࡟ᑐࡍࡿែᗘ㸦s/he thinks it isappropriate㸧ࡀⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࢆᇙࡵ㎸ࡴᙧࡢධࢀᏊᆺࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ព࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ែᗘࡣ㸪ᚋ࡯࡝⓶⫗ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟࠶ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡋ࡚࠾ࡃ㸧ࠋ(17b)࡟㸦〔ࡵࡿ㸪ᢈุࡍࡿ㸪࡞ࡔࡵࡿ㸪࿴ゎࡍࡿ➼ࡢ㸧ព࿡ᶵ⬟ࡀධࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ≉࡟ὀពࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ(17b)ࡣࡓࡔࠕヰࡋᡭࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࢆX ࡜࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ㐺ษᛶࢆᩥ⬦ୖ᫂♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
࡜ᣦᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㧗ḟ⾲ព㸦㛵ಀᛶ㸧(17b)ࡀ㸪㸰࡛ぢࡓ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ࠿ぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋࡲࡎ
(2)ࡢ girlfriend ࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎヰࡣࡓࡔ girlfriend ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ࡇࢀࡀࠕgirlfriend ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜ࡀࡩࡉ
ࢃࡋ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㧗ḟ⾲ព࡬࡜Ⓨᒎࡉࢀࡿࠋ
㸦⣬ᖜࡢ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽ⡆␎໬ࡋࡓ⾲グ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ௨ୗྠᵝࠋ㸧(18)Ⓨヰ Dee: Hey, girlfriend!
㧗ḟ⾲ព girlfriend ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜ࡀࡩࡉࢃࡋ࠸
๓ᥦ᥎ព girlfriend ࡜࿧ࡧྜ࠺┦ᡭ࡜ࡣ௰ࡀࡼ࠸
ᖐ⤖᥎ព Dee ࡜ Waitress ࡣ௰ࡀⰋ࠸
Waitress ࡢㄆ▱⎔ቃ ⮬ศࡣ Dee ࡀ᎘࠸࡛࠶ࡿ㸦㱈㱒㸧 ࡇࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡀᚓࡽࢀࢀࡤ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡣ᪤Ꮡࡢᩥ⬦᝿ᐃ㸦๓ᥦ᥎ព㸧ࠕgirlfriend ࡜࿧ࡧྜ࠺┦ᡭ࡜ࡣ௰ࡀⰋ࠸ࠖࢆ࿧ࡧฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㧗ḟ⾲ព࡜ࡇࡢ๓ᥦ᥎ពࢆࡶ࡜࡟ᖐ⤖᥎ព㸦ㄆ▱ຠᯝ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠕDee ࡜ Waitress ࡣ௰ࡀⰋ࠸ࠖࢆᘬࡁฟࡍࠋࡇࡢᖐ⤖᥎ពࡣ Waitress ࡢㄆ▱⎔ቃ࡟࠶−86−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ࡿࠕ⮬ศࡣ Dee ࡀ᎘࠸࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺᝿ᐃ࡜㱈㱒ࢆ᮶ࡍࡓࡵ࡟㸪Waitress ࡣ girlfriend ࡜࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ
ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᎘ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
 (5)ࡢ boss ࡢ㸦⓶⫗ࡢ㸧౛࡛ࡣ㸪ⓎヰែᗘࡀⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚஋㞳ࡢ❧ሙ࡬࡜㏫㌿ࡍࡿࡢ࡛㸪(17b)ࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡣ(19b)࡬࡜᭩ࡁ᥮࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(19)㧗ḟ⾲ព㸦㛵ಀᛶ㸧
㸦⓶⫗㸧
a.
“X͇.
b.
The speaker is making it verbally and contextually salient that s/he thinks it

isridiculous to refer to the hearer as “X”.
(19b)࡛ࡣ㸪Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽࢆᇙࡵ㎸ࡴែᗘࡀ appropriate ࠿ࡽ ridiculous ࡬࡜ධࢀ᥮࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ
ࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿ࡜(5)ࡢ boss ࡢゎ㔘ࡣ(20)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨᒎ࡜᥎ㄽࡀാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ศᯒ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(20)Ⓨヰ Sheriff: Boss.
㧗ḟ⾲ព boss ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜ࡣ㤿㮵ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿ๓ᥦ᥎ព ஋㞳ⓗែᗘࡢ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ㸦boss㸧ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡑࡢ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧࡟್ࡋ࡞࠸ே≀࡛࠶ࡿ᪨ࢆఏ࠼ࡿ1ᖐ⤖᥎ព sheriff ࡣ Keith ࢆᑛᩗࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸

࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡀ஋㞳ⓗ࡞ boss ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛㸪㧗ḟ⾲ពࡣࠕboss ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜ࡣ㤿㮵ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇ
ࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ព࡜ࡋ࠿ࡿ࡭ࡁᩥ⬦᝿ᐃ㸦๓ᥦ᥎ព㸧࠿ࡽ㸪sheriff ࡀ Keith ࢆᑛᩗࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸪࡜࠸ࡗ
ࡓ㊃᪨ࡢᖐ⤖᥎ព㸦ㄆ▱ຠᯝ㸧ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ࡇࡇ࡛ࡶ boss ࡜࠸࠺࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢᶵ⬟ࡸព࿡ࢆᣢࡓࡏ࡚ࡶព࿡ࡀ
࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎ㸪boss ⮬యࡀᖖ࡟⓶⫗࡜ࡋ࡚౑ࢃࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ boss ௨እ࡛ࡶ㸪࠶ࡿ✀ࡢୖୗ㛵ಀࢆ⾲ࡍ sir/ma’am㸪dad/mom㸪Mr./Mrs./Ms.࡞࡝ࡣ㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀࢃࡎ࠿ࡎࡘ
㐪ࡗࡓㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆᣢࡘ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡋ㸪ࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࡢ඲࡚ࡀࡉࡽ࡟⓶⫗࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡛
࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡࡜ᶵ⬟ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟ゝཬࡋ࡞࠸㸦⣧⢋࡟௙⤌ࡳࡔࡅࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ㸧⌮ㄽࡀᚲせ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ᭱ᚋ࡟ Oscar ࡜ Felix ࡢ౛ࢆぢࡿࠋࡇࡢ౛ࡣ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧࡟ ad-hoc ᴫᛕࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡀ≉ᚩⓗ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢゎ㔘ࡣ(21)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
(21)Ⓨヰ Rory: Oscar! 㸦Oscar ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ở࠸ࡇ࡜ࡍࡿ࡞㸧ᣑᙇ Oscar* Oscar ࡢࡼ࠺࡟኱ࡊࡗࡥ࡛ởࡽࡋ࠸ே㧗ḟ⾲ព Oscar*࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜ࡀ㐺ษ࡛࠶ࡿ๓ᥦ᥎ព ㄡ࠿ࢆ X(*)࡜࿧ࡪሙྜ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ X(*)ࡀඹ᭷ࡍࡿ X(*)ࡢ㈇ࡢ㈨㉁ࢆ
ヰࡋᡭࡀ࿶ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿ
ᖐ⤖᥎ព Oscar ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ở࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆࡍࡿ࡞

㧗ḟ⾲ព࡬ࡢⓎᒎ࡟ඛ❧ࡗ࡚ Oscar ࡀᣑᙇࡉࢀ Oscar*㸦Oscar ࡢࡼ࠺࡟኱ࡊࡗࡥ࡛ởࡽࡋ࠸ே㸧࡜࡞ࡿࠋᚋࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛㏻ࡾ Oscar*ࡀ㧗ḟ⾲ពࠕOscar*࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜ࡀ㐺ษ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡬࡜Ⓨᒎࡉࢀ㸪ࡋ࠿ࡿ࡭ࡁ๓ᥦ᥎ព࡜ࡢࡍࡾྜࢃࡏ࠿ࡽᖐ⤖᥎ពࠕOscar ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ở࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆࡍࡿ࡞ࠖࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿࠋ
Felix ࡢ౛ࡶࡇࢀ࡜ྠᵝࡢᙧ࡛ၥ㢟࡞ࡃㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡢ౛࡛ࡣ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢゎ㔘࡟

−87−

関連性理論に基づいた呼びかけ表現の分析࠸࠿࡟῝ࡃ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧⮬㌟ࡢⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗ▱㆑ࡀ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡀࡼࡃ⾲ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡ࡸᶵ⬟ࡣ㸪㏻ᖖࡢⓎヰ࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ᐇ㝿࡟㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡓ༢ㄒ࡟౫Ꮡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࿧
ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧࡟ࡣ㸪㏻ᖖࡢⓎヰ࡜ྠࡌゎ㔘ࡢᡭ㡰ࡀಖドࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
㸲㸬㸰㸬࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀヰ⪅ࡢὀពࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿ ࡛ࡣ⥆࠸࡚(7)-(10)ࡢ(A)㸪ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡀヰ⪅ࡢὀពࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿሙྜࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ពࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ㛵ಀᛶ࡟࡞ࡽࡗ࡚㸪ࡇࡢሙྜࡶ X ࡜࠸࠺࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࢆ౑ࡗࡓⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ(22)㧗ḟ⾲ព㸦ὀពႏ㉳㸧
a.
“X”.
b.
The speaker is drawing the attention from the hearer by saying “X”.

(22b)࡛ࡣ㸪X ࡜㡢ኌ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࢆႏ㉳ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㧗ḟ⾲ព࡜ࡋ࡚♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(1)ࡢ㸪Dean㸪Mom㸪Doc ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕᬑ㏻ࡢࠖ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡣ㸪ୖ࡛ぢࡓ≉ู࡞౛࡜ࡣ㐪࠸㸪㸦⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㝖࠸࡚㸧᫂☜࡞ㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࡇࡢሙྜ㸪(22b)ࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ព࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕὀពႏ㉳ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄆ▱ຠᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ᐇ㝿ࡢ࡜ࡇࢁ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀᣢࡘ㧗ḟ⾲ព㸦㛵ಀᛶ㸧(17b)࡜㸦ὀពႏ㉳㸧(22b)ࡣ㸪᤼௚ⓗ࡞㑅ᢥ㛵ಀ࡟ࡣ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤㄡ࠿ࢆ Dean ࡜࿧ࢇ࡛ὀពࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡶ㸪ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡀ first name ࡛࿧ࡧྜ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀᬑ㏻ࡢ㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡿ㸦ࡑ࠺࡛࡞ࡅࢀ
ࡤ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡀ୙㐺ษ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡿ㸧
ࠋ㏫࡟(5)ࡢ boss ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜ࡛ࡶ㸪┦ᡭࢆ⓶⫗ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ຍ
࠼࡚ὀពࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࡀ᏶඲࡟ኻࢃࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀᖖ࡟㛵ಀᛶ࡜ὀពႏ㉳ࡢ୧᪉ࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ព࡟ࡲ࡛Ⓨᒎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⤖ㄽࡍࡿࠋ㸳㸬⤊ࢃࡾ࡟ ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ゝ࠺㸪ពᅗ᫂♧ⓗఏ㐩⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜㸪ࡑࡋ࡚ㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧࡟ࡣ㸪ᵝࠎ࡞ loose talk ࡀ⾲ࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡣ㸪᥎ពࢆᣢࡕ⓶⫗࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀ㸪㠀ᖖ࡟᩿∦ⓗ࡞ゝㄒ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ㸪ᬑ㏻ࡢⓎヰྠᵝ࡟࿨㢟ࡢᙧࡲ࡛Ⓨᒎࡉࢀ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋᬑ㏻Ⓨヰࡣ㸪Ⓨヰࡢᣢࡘㄽ⌮ᙧᘧࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࿨㢟࡟ࡲ࡛Ⓨᒎࡉࢀࡿࠋ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡣ㸪
ᬑ㏻ࡢⓎヰ⾲⌧࡜ࡣ㐪࠸㸪ࡑࢀ⮬㌟ࡀㄽ⌮ᙧᘧࢆᣢࡘ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࢆ୍✀ࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼㸪Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓ㧗ḟ⾲ព㸦࿨㢟㸧࡬࡜࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀ
Ⓨᒎࡉࢀࡿ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠋ
࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ព࡟ࡣ㸪㛵ಀᛶ(17a)࡜ὀពႏ㉳(22b)ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ X ࡣ㸪ᖖ࡟㛵ಀᛶ࡜ὀពႏ㉳ࡢ୧᪉ࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ព࡬࡜ⓎᒎࡉࢀࡿࠋX ࡣ㸪㧗ḟ⾲ពࡢᙧࡢ࿨㢟࡬࡜Ⓨᒎࡉࢀࡿࡇ
࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀᣢࡘ᪤Ꮡࡢ᝿ᐃ࡜ࡢ᥎ㄽ㛵ಀ࡟ධࡾ㸪ㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆᣢࡘࠋ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧࡟≉ู࡞࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡀ↓࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮ࠼ࡿሙྜࡣ㸪㛵ಀᛶࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ព㆑ࡉࢀ࡞࠸
ሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢሙྜ࡛ࡶ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ X ࡀࡑࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛㐺ษ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㛵ಀᛶࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡀಖドࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪X ࡀ⓶⫗ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ㸪ᙉ࠸࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆᣢࡘሙྜ࡛ࡶ㸪᏶඲࡟ὀពႏ㉳㸦ࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ព㸧ࡢᶵ⬟ࡀᾘ࠼࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤ㸪࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀᖖ࡟㛵ಀᛶ࡜ὀពႏ㉳ࡢ୧᪉ࡢ㧗ḟ⾲⾲ពࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪ࡇࡢ㸰ࡘࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡢᵝࠎ࡞ᙉࡉࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡛࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡿ㸦࡛࠶ࢁ࠺㸧ࡇ࡜ࡀ⮬↛࡟ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ὀ*ᮏㄽᩥࡣ㸪᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 18 ᅇᖺḟ኱఍㸦2015 ᖺ 12 ᭶ 5 ᪥㸧ࡢཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲࡟ຍ➹ゞṇࢆຍ࠼

−88−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙜ᪥㸪Ⓨ⾲ࡢ㉁␲ᛂ⟅ࡢ㝿ࡸⓎ⾲ࡢᚋ࡟௨ୗࡢ᪉ࠎ࠿ࡽ㈗㔜࡞ࡈពぢ࣭ࡈຓゝࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡛῝ࡃឤㅰࡢពࢆ♧ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ᪂஭ᜤᏊඛ⏕㸦ᮾὒ኱㸧㸪∦᱒ᜤᏹඛ⏕㸦ภ㤋ᮍ᮶኱㸧㸪⁪ᾆ┿ேඛ⏕㸦ᨺ㏦኱㸧㸪୰஭ᘏ⨾ඛ⏕㸦᫂ᾏ኱㸧すᒣ♸ྖඛ⏕㸦៞ᛂ኱㸧㸪ྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁᏊඛ⏕㸦ዉⰋዪᏊ኱㸧1㸦㧗ḟ㸧⾲ព࡜๓ᥦ᥎ព࠿ࡽᖐ⤖᥎ពࢆᚓࡿࡲ࡛ࡢ㐣⛬ࡣ㸪ࡉࡽ࡟ៅ㔜࡞㆟ㄽࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࡑࡢၥ㢟࡟❧ࡕධࡽ࡞࠸࡛࠾ࡃࠋ(21)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶྠᵝࡢࡇ࡜ࡀ࠸࠼ࡿࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩௒஭㑥ᙪ㸦┘ヂ㸧. 2014.ࠗㄒ⏝ㄽ࣮࢟ࢱ࣮࣒஦඾࠘ᮾி㸸㛤ᣅ♫㸬(Allot, Nicholas. 2010. Key Terms
in
Pragmatics. London: The Continuum International Publishing Group.)
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hill, Virgina. 2014. Vocatives: How Syntax Meets with Pragmatics. Leiden: Brill.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leech, Geoffrey. 2014. The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammarofthe English Language. Essex: Longman.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.

−89−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

୰㛫ゝㄒࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮
ؐⱥㄒ࡟ࡼࡿ᩿ࢃࡾ⾲⌧ࡢẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢẚ㍑ᑐ↷◊✲ؐ
ᨺ㏦኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔⚟㙊༤ᛅ

(Abstract)
This study attempts to clarify a difference of transmission characteristics from refusal messages made

by Japanese interlanguage speakers and those by American English speakers for a specific personal
request, spotlighting a “politeness” point of view based on quantitative and qualitative approaches.
The messages are respectively sorted by semantic formula, analyzed, and considered with a focus on a
strategic way of “politeness” of each speaker. The results show that Japanese interlanguage-speakers
tend not to spell out their intention concerning about personal requests with social expectations,business-oriented matters which is different from American English speakers who may offer a better
replaceable idea.



NH\ZRUGV ព࿡බᘧ㸦VHPDQWLFIRUPXOD㸧๓⨨ࡁ㸬◊✲ࡢ⫼ᬒ ◊✲┠ⓗ࡜◊✲ㄢ㢟ᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢẕㄒヰ⪅ࡽࡋ࠸ఏ࠼᪉ࢆ࡜ࡽ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࡢ
ᡭẁ࡜ࡋ࡚ⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜୰㛫ゝㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚᪥ᖖᴗົ࡛ⱥㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝⱥㄒ
ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊఏ࠼᪉ࡢ┦㐪Ⅼࢆ㔞ⓗࠊ㉁ⓗ࡟⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ
⪃ᐹ࡟ࡣ )7$ ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ฟࡸࡍ࠸ࠕ᩿ࢃࡾࠖࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆ㑅ࢇࡔࠋఏ㐩ᛶࡀ㔜どࡉࢀࡿ➃ⓗ࡞⾲⌧࡟཰ࡲࡽࡎ౫㢗࡬ࡢཷࡅ⟅࠼࡜ࡋ࡚౫㢗⪅ࡢ )7$ ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ᝿ീࡋࡘࡘ⾜࠺ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ࡜࡜ࡽ࠼ࡓ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ୰㛫ゝㄒ౑⏝⪅࡜ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢពᛮ⾲♧ᙧᘧࡢ㝸ࡓࡾࡢὝᐹࢆᚓࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࠊḟࡢ  Ⅼࢆ◊✲ㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
ㄢ㢟㸯㸸᩿ࢃࡾㄯヰࡢ㔞ⓗࠊ㉁ⓗ≉ᚩࡢ┦㐪ࡢ᭷↓ࢆศᯒ࣭⪃ᐹࡍࡿㄢ㢟㸰㸸୰㛫ゝㄒ౑⏝⪅࡟≉ᚩⓗ࡞࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢᏑ
ᅾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋࠊẕㄒヰ⪅࡜୰㛫ゝㄒ౑⏝⪅ࡢఏ㐩ᛶࡢᕪ࡟ㄝ᫂ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ
᩿ࢃࡾࡢ◊✲ࡢ⫼ᬒ୰㛫ゝㄒヰ⪅ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢሙྜࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊẕㄒ࡟ࡼࡿ᩿ࢃࡾ⾲⌧ࡀධࡾẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢᕪ␗ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ୰㛫ゝㄒヰ⪅ࡢᩥ⬦ࡣᩥ❶⾲⌧ࡢṇ☜ࡉ࡜ⓗ☜ࡉࡀᢸ

1−91−

中間言語のポライトネス・ストラテジー―英語による母語話者との断わり表現の比較対照研究―

ಖࡉࢀࢀࡤẕㄒ࡟ࡼࡿ⾲⌧࡜ྠࡌᐦᗘ࡛ఏ㐩࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸࠿ࠋ
♫఍ேࡀ⫋ົ࡟࠾࠸࡚᪥ᖖᴗົ࡛౑ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ୰㛫ゝㄒࡣ୍ᵝ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋྲྀᘬ࡟ᦠࢃࡿ
♫఍ேࡣ⮬ᅜࡢᩥ໬ⓗ⫼ᬒࡸ␗ᩥ໬࡜ࡢពᛮ⾲♧ࡢ㓄៖ࡢᕪ␗ࡀࡶࡓࡽࡍ⤖ᯝࢆ▱ࡽࡎ࡟୰㛫ゝㄒࢆ㥑౑ࡋ࡚ᴗົࡸಶே㛫ࡢពᛮࡢ␯㏻࡟ὀຊࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⫼ᬒࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ  
㸰㸬ඛ⾜◊✲  ㄯヰ᏶ᡂἲ '&7 ࡟ࡶ࡜࡙ࡃ◊✲   /HVOLH0%HHEH  ࡢㄯヰ᏶ᡂἲ㸦'&7㸧࡟ࡼࡿ◊✲ࡣヰࡋゝⴥ࡟ࡼࡿㄯヰ࡬ࡢᛂ⟅ࢆ㞟⣙ࡋഴྥࡸ≉ᚩࡢ◊✲ࡀ୺ὶ࡛࠶ࡾࠊཷࡅ⟅࠼ࡢタᐃࡣ༢⣧࡛ᐇ⏕ά࡛ࡢ♫఍ⓗ⤒㦂ࡢ⵳✚ࡢ⤖ᯝ⏕ࡌࡿ౫㢗࡬ࡢ᩿ࡾᅇ⟅ࡢ◊✲࡟ࡣ୙༑ศ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࠋ⮬⏤ᗘࡣ㧗࠸ࡀຊ㛵ಀ㸦3㸧ࠊ♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳㸦'㸧ࠊ┦ᡭ࡟᥃ࡅࡿ㈇ᢸࡢᗘྜ࠸㸦5㸧ࢆ⿕㦂⪅࡟᮲௳௜ࡅࡋ
ࡓ᩿ࢃࡾᅇ⟅࡟ࡼࡿㄪᰝ࠿ࡽධࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ  ㄪᰝᑐ㇟ࡀᏛ⩦⪅୰ᚰ࡛࠶ࡿ◊✲ ㄪᰝᑐ㇟ࡀ኱Ꮫ⏕➼ࡢᏛ⩦⪅࡛࠶ࡾࠊᐇ㝿࡟ᴗົ࡛୰㛫ゝㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⫋ᴗே࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ♫఍⤒㦂ࡢᑡ࡞࠸Ꮫ⩦⪅࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከࡃ⌧ᐇⓗ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ᅇ⟅ࡀ㞟ࡲࡿࠋ㸱㸬◊✲᪉ἲ   ◊✲᪉ἲࡢ㊃᪨᩿ࢃࡾࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢ◊✲ࡣㄯヰ᏶ᡂἲࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠊ୍ᩥ୍ᩥ࡛ࡣ⾲⌧ࡋࡁࢀ࡞࠸ෆᐜࢆ
ㄯヰ඲య࡜ࡋ࡚ఏ࠼ࡿࠊ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠊ᩿ࢃࡾㄯヰ࡞ࡽ࡛ࡣࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆᤊ
࠼ࡁࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ࠸ࡃࡘࡶࡢⓎヰࡢࢩ࣮ࢡ࢚ࣥࢫ࠿ࡽ᩿ࢃࡾㄯヰ඲యࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜࡛ึࡵ
࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿᛶ㉁ࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀ࡚ࠊ኱ᯟࡢ᮲௳ࢆタᐃࡋ࡚ᅇ⟅ᩥࢆ཰㞟ࡋࡓࠋタᐃࡋࡓ᮲௳ࡣ͆༑ศ࡞㛗ࡉࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜͇͆㓄៖ࡍ࡭ࡁ㸭࡛ࡁࡿ⫼ᬒⓗ஦᝟ࡀ༑ศ࡟⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜͇͆ᅇ⟅⪅⮬㌟ࡀ౫㢗࡜᩿ࢃࡾࡢ♫఍⤒㦂ࢆ༑ศ࡟ࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜͇࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ
࡚ࠊ౫㢗࡜᩿ࢃࡾᅇ⟅ࡣ♫఍ேྠኈ㸦ࣅࢪࢿࢫ࣭ࣃ࣮ࢺࢼ࣮࡛࠶ࡾྠ᫬࡟཭ே࡜࠸࠺⌧ᐇⓗ࡞タᐃ㸧ࡢ㛫࡛⊂❧࡟㝿ࡋ࡚ࡢಶேⓗ࡞౫㢗࣓࣮ࣝ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᩿ࢃࡾ࣓࣮ࣝࢆฟࡍࠊ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣタᐃࡢࡳࢆ♧ࡋ࡚ࡢ᪉ἲࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࡓࠋ ព࿡ᙧᘧࡢタᐃ཰㞟ࡋࡓᅇ⟅ᩥࢆ %HHEHHWDO㸦㸧࡟ೌ࠸ゝㄒ⾜ືࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ᭱ᑠࡢᶵ⬟ⓗព࿡༢఩࡛࠶ࡿព࿡ᙧᘧ㸦VHPDQWLFIRUPXOD㸧ࢆ  ✀㢮ࠊタᐃࡋ࡚࠶࡚ࡣࡵࡓࠋ
ඖ᮶ࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࡢ࿧⛠࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣඛ⾜◊✲ࡢྡ⛠࡛࠶ࡾࠕබᘧࠖࡣᩘᏛࡢᐃ⌮࡟ㄗゎࡉࢀࡿ࠾ࡑࢀࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ⾲ ࠕព࿡ᙧᘧࠖ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ᐃ⩏࡙ࡅࡋศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋヱᙜࡍࡿព࿡ᙧᘧࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟ࡣࠕࡑࡢ௚ࠖ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋ            −92−2

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

     
ព࿡ᙧᘧ ⾲             
㸡

ព࿡ᙧᘧ

ᐃ   ⩏ 㐃⤡࡬ࡢឤㅰ

౫㢗࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪ㏦௜࡬ࡢឤㅰࠊ౫㢗⪅ࡢㅰព⾲᫂ࡢཷᐜ ⚃⚟

౫㢗⪅ࡢ 0%$ ྲྀᚓࡢດຊ࡬ࡢ⛠㈶ࠊ⚃⚟ 㛵㐃ゝཬ౫㢗ෆᐜ࠾ࡼࡧ౫㢗⪅ࡢ⾜ື࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿゝཬ ᩿ࢃࡾ

౫㢗⪅࡬ࡢ౫㢗ෆᐜࡢ᩿ࢃࡾࡢ᩿ゝ ⫼ᬒ⌮⏤≧ἣࠊ⎔ቃ࡟㉳ᅉࡍࡿ᩿ࢃࡾࡢ⌮⏤ㄝ᫂ ពᛮ⌮⏤ ⮬ศࡢពᚿ࡟ࡼࡿ᩿ࡾࡢ⌮⏤ㄝ᫂ ༠ຊពᛮ⾲᫂౫㢗࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୍⯡ⓗࠊᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞༠ຊࡢពᛮ⾲♧ ௦᱌ᥦ♧౫㢗࡟ᑐࡍࡿලయⓗ࡞௦᱌ࡢᥦ♧ ே㛫㛵ಀ᩿ࢃࡾ⪅࡜౫㢗⪅࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢே㛫㛵ಀ࡬ࡢゝཬ ᐙ᪘㛵ಀ᩿ࢃࡾ⪅࡟ࡼࡿᐙ᪘➼ࢆྵࡴ౫㢗⪅࡜ࡢே㛫㛵ಀࡢゝཬ ⤖ㄒ

ᩗලࠊⲡࠎࠊ୙୍ࠊ࡟ヱᙜࡍࡿ⤖ㄒ ࡑࡢ௚

ୖࡢ㡯┠࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞࠸ព࿡ᙧᘧ 㸲㸬ㄪᰝ ㄪᰝᑐ㇟࡜ㄪᰝ᪉ἲタᐃࡋࡓ౫㢗ࡢ⫼ᬒ࡜ෆᐜࡣࠕ᩿ࢃࡿഃࡣ౫㢗⪅ࡢ㛗ᖺࡢ௙஦ࡢࣃ࣮ࢺࢼ࣮࡛࠶ࡾಶேⓗ࡞཭ே࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ࠕ஫࠸࡟᥼ຓࡋ࠶ࡗࡓ௰ࠖ࡜ࡋࠊ౫㢗ෆᐜࡣࠕ0%$ ࡢྲྀᚓࢆᶵ࡟㏥⫋ࠊ⊂❧ࡍࡿ౫㢗⪅ࡀၟရ௙ධඛࡢೃ⿵⤂௓ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸᪨ࡢ౫㢗ࠖ࡜ࡋࡓࠋᅇ⟅⪅ࡀ᩿ࢃࡾᩥ࡟࣏
ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆ┒ࡾ㎸ࡴ⮬Ⓨᛶࢆไ㝈ࡋ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ᮲௳ࡢࡳࢆ♧ࡋࠊ⮬⏤࡟᩿ࢃࡾᅇ
⟅ᩥࡢసᡂࢆ౫㢗ࡋ཰㞟ࡋࡓࠋ ౫㢗ࡣⱥㄒ࡟ࡼࡾ࡞ࡉࢀࡓ࡜᝿ᐃࡋࠊ⿕㦂⪅࡛࠶ࡿⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࠾ࡼࡧ୰㛫ゝㄒヰ⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡒࢀಶู࡟⾜ࡗࡓࠋⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡣ᪥ᮏே࡟ࡼࡿ᪥ᮏ࠿ࡽࡢ౫㢗࡜ࡋࠊ୰㛫ゝㄒヰ⪅ࡣ᪥ᮏே࡟㝈ᐃࡋⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝࠿ࡽࡢ౫㢗࡜ࡋࡓࠋ౫㢗࡬ࡢᅇ⟅࡟ࡣⱥㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚ᚲࡎ᩿ࢃࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋ᩿ࢃࡾᅇ⟅ᩥࢆ཰㞟ࡋࡓⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡀ᩿ࢃࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࢆ
SDLUࠊ୰㛫ゝㄒヰ⪅ࡀ᩿ࢃࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࢆ SDLU ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ㸦⾲ 㸧       ᩿ࢃࡾᅇ⟅ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ  ⾲                 ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ✀㢮ྡ

ẕㄒ

౑⏝ゝㄒ

SDLU

ⱥㄒⱥㄒ

SDLU

᪥ᮏㄒ

ⱥㄒ


 ㄪᰝ㞟ィ         ព࿡ᙧᘧࡢ㞟ィ

3−93−

中間言語のポライトネス・ストラテジー―英語による母語話者との断わり表現の比較対照研究―

SDLUࠊ ௳ࠊSDLUࠊ ௳ࡢᅇ⟅ࢆ㞟ࡵࡓࠋព࿡ᙧᘧࡢ୍ᅇ⟅࡛ࡢᖹᆒ౑⏝ᩘࡣࠊ
SDLUẕㄒヰ⪅࡛  ಶࠊSDLUࠊ୰㛫ゝㄒ౑⏝⪅࡛ࡣ  ಶ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
 ㄒᙡᩘࡢ㞟ィ ẕㄒヰ⪅࡜୰㛫ゝㄒヰ⪅࡛ᖹᆒ౑⏝ㄒᙡᩘࢆẚ㍑ࡋࡓࠋSDLUẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢᖹᆒᩘࡣ  ㄒࠊSDLU୰㛫ゝㄒ౑⏝⪅࡛ࡣ  ㄒ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
㸳㸬ㄪᰝ㞟ィ⤖ᯝࡢศᯒ 㔞ⓗศᯒ  ព࿡ᙧᘧᩘ࡜ㄒᙡᩘࡢ W ᳨ᐃ࡜࢝࢖㸰஌᳨ᐃㄒᙡᩘ࡜ព࿡ᙧᘧᩘࡢᖹᆒ್࠿ࡽࡢ᭷ពᕪࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࢆぢࡿࡓࡵ࡟ฟ⌧㢖ᗘࠊ౑⏝㸭୙౑⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ W ᳨ᐃࢆ᥃ࡅࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡶ Ỉ‽࡛᭷ព࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊព࿡ᙧᘧࡢ␗࡞ࡾಶᩘ࡛ࡶ W ᳨ᐃࢆ᥃ࡅࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊྠᵝ࡟᭷ពᕪࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀ
ࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊSDLU ࡛ࡣࠊ⥲ㄒᙡᩘࡀࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣈࡼࡾࡣࡗࡁࡾᑡ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊ౑
⏝ࡍࡿព࿡⣔ᙧᘧࡀࡣࡗࡁࡾᑡ࡞࠸ࠊࡢ  Ⅼࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ౑⏝ࡍࡿព࿡ᙧᘧ
ࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ⤯ᑐᩘࡢᑡ࡞ࡉࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ౑⏝ࡍࡿ✀㢮ࡀᑡ࡞࠸࡜ࡶ࠸࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ
࠿ࡗࡓࠋḟ࡟ࠊ⾲㸱ࠕព࿡ᙧᘧࡢ౑⏝୙౑⏝ᩘࠖ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ౑⏝㸭୙౑⏝࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ࢝࢖㸰஌᳨ᐃࢆ⾜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡾ᭷ពᕪࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࠊࢡࣛࢫࢱ࣮ศᯒ࡟᥃ࡅព࿡ᙧᘧࡢ
ศᕸࢆᢕᥱࡋࡓࠋ           ព࿡ᙧᘧࡢ౑⏝୙౑⏝ᩘ⾲㸱ព࿡ᙧᘧ

SDLU



SDLU

౑⏝ࡢ᭷↓

᭷

↓

᭷

↓











㐃⤡࡬ࡢឤㅰ









⚃⚟









㛵㐃ゝཬ









᩿ࢃࡾ









⫼ᬒ⌮⏤









ពᛮ⌮⏤ 









༠ຊពᛮ⾲᫂









௦᱌ᥦ♧









ே㛫㛵ಀ









ᐙ᪘㛵ಀ









⤖ㄒ










ࢡࣛࢫࢱ࣮ศᯒ࡜ࠕ㧗౑⏝⩌࣭ࠖࠕప౑⏝⩌ࠖ−94−
4

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ព࿡ᙧᘧࡢ㝵ᒙⓗࢡࣛࢫࢱ࣮ศᯒࢆ⾜࡞࠺࡜  ⩌࡟ศ࠿ࢀࡓࠋࢡࣛࢫࢱ࣮୧ヰ⪅࡛౑⏝⋡ࡢ㧗࠿ࡗࡓព࿡ᙧᘧࢆࠕ㧗౑⏝⩌ࠖࠊప࠿ࡗࡓ᪉ࢆࠕప౑⏝⩌ࠖ࡜ࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศ࠿ࢀࡓࠋ
ࠕ㧗౑⏝⩌ࠖ㸸㛵㐃ゝཬࠊ᩿ࢃࡾࠊ⚃⚟ࠊ⤖ㄒࠊ㐃⤡࡬ࡢឤㅰࠊ༠ຊពᛮ⾲᫂ࠕప౑⏝⩌ࠖ㸸ே㛫㛵ಀࠊᐙ᪘㛵ಀࠊ௦᱌ᥦ♧ࠊពᛮ⌮⏤ࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࢹࣥࢻࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟♧ࡍࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ㧗౑⏝⩌ࠖࡢព࿡ᙧᘧࡣ SDLUSDLU ඹ࡟౑⏝ࡀኚࢃࡽࡎฟ⌧ࡶከ࠸ࡀࠊࠕప౑⏝⩌࡛ࠖࡣ SDLU ࡛ࡶฟ⌧ࡀᑡ࡞ࡃࠊSDLU ࡛ࡣࡉࡽ࡟ᑡ࡞ࡃฟ⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࠕ㧗౑⏝⩌࡛ࠖࡣ㉁ⓗᕪ␗ࡣᑠࡉ࠸ࡀࠕప౑⏝⩌࡛ࠖࡣ G\DG ࡛ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀపࡃ SDLU ࡛ࡣࡉࡽ࡟ప࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ௦᱌ᥦ♧ࠖࠊࠕᐙ᪘㛵ಀࠖࡀ᭱ࡶ SDLU ࡟᭷ពᕪࢆࡶࡗ࡚ฟ⌧ࡍࡿព࿡ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
㉁ⓗศᯒ㔞ⓗศᯒ࡛ᚓࡓప౑⏝⩌ࡢព࿡ᙧᘧ࡜᩿ࢃࡾࡢ๓⨨ࡁ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿព࿡ᙧᘧ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
㉁ⓗ࡞ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࠕ௦᱌ᥦ♧ࠖࠊࠕᐙ᪘㛵ಀ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
   ࠕ௦᱌ᥦ♧ࠖࡢ㉁ⓗศᯒࠕ༠ຊࡢពᛮࠖࢆලయⓗ࡞ู᱌ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚ព࿡ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ SDLU ࡟ࡣฟ⌧ࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࠋ౫㢗ࢆࡑࡢࡲࡲཷࡅධࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ௦᱌࡛࡞ࡽ༠ຊ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜᫂☜࡟㏙࡭ࡿ௦᱌ᥦ♧࡜ࠊ௚⪅ࡢ༠ຊࡢඃ఩ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᙉࡃ࡯ࡢࡵ࠿ࡋ່࡚ࡵࡿᛅ࿌࡟㏆࠸௦᱌ᥦ♧ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ


−95−

5

中間言語のポライトネス・ストラテジー―英語による母語話者との断わり表現の比較対照研究― ࠕᐙ᪘㛵ಀࠖࡢ㉁ⓗศᯒ౫㢗⪅࡜ᅇ⟅⪅ࡢ㛵ಀࡀ  ᖺࡢ㛗ᮇ࡟ரࡿࡓࡵᙜ↛ࠊᐙ᪘ࢆྵࢇ࡛ࡢ௜ࡁྜ࠸࡟Ⓨᒎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᅇ⟅ᩥ࡟ᐙ᪘ࢆヰ㢟࡟ᣲࡆ࡚ゝཬࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢぶ␯ᛶ࡟ゐࢀ࡚ᐙ᪘ࢆ஺࠼࡚ࡢ㏆ࡋ࠸㛫᯶ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿ㓄៖ࡀ SDLUSDLU ඹ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊSDLU ࡟ࡣ౫㢗⪅ࡢᐙ᪘ࡢ⌮ゎ༠ຊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢホ౯ࠊ㈹㈶ࢆ㎸ࡵ࡚ゝཬࡍࡿ౛ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋSDLU ࡛ࡣࠊ൤♩ⓗ࡜ぢࡽࢀࡿᩥ౛ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

᩿ࢃࡾ๓⨨ࡁᶵ⬟    ࠕ᩿ࢃࡾࠖ࡬࡜ᑟ࠿ࢀࡿᩥ⬦ࢆぢࡿ࡜๓⨨ࡁ㸦SUHUHIXVDO㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ㛵㐃ゝཬࠖࡀ㢧ⴭ࡟ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ     SDLU ࡛ࡣ㐃⥆ࡋ࡚⌧ࢀࠕ᩿ࢃࡾࠖ࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣศ㔞ࡀከࡃࠕ᩿ࢃࡾࠖࡢᙺ๭ࢆ
ᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ౫㢗⪅ࡢゝཬࢆ☜࠿ࡵࡓࡾࠊ⛠㈶ࡋࡓ࠺࠼࡛     ᅔ㞴ࡉࡸບࡲࡋࢆ㏙࡭ࡓୖ࡛⤖ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚཯ᑐࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ࡚᩿ࢃࡿࢫࢱ࢖࡛ࣝ࠶ࡿࠋ㸴㸬⪃ᐹ ᩿ࢃࡾㄯヰࡢ㔞ⓗ㸭㉁ⓗ≉ᚩࡢᕪ␗࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡢప㢖ᗘࡢព࿡ᙧᘧࡀ୰㛫ゝㄒヰ⪅࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿ㢖ᗘࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿
࡟୰㛫ゝㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡣ㥆ᰁࡲ࡞࠸᩿ࢃࡾࡢᩥ⬦࡟ྵࡵ࡞࠸ព࿡ᙧᘧࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ
࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀᑡ࡞࠸ព࿡ᙧᘧࡢ≉ᚩࡢ㉁ⓗ࡞ഃ㠃ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡀ᫂☜࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
 ୰㛫ゝㄒ౑⏝⪅ࡢ≉ᚩⓗ࡞࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
᩿ࢃࡾ࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿ๓⨨ࡁࡢ㛵㐃ゝཬࢆ኱ࡁࡃࡍࡿ≉ᚩࡣࠊ୰㛫ゝㄒ࡟ᬑ㐢ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢᙳ㡪࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ࠕẕㄒᖸ΅ࠖ࡜ࡣ᩿ᐃ
࡛ࡁ࡞࠸⌧㇟࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠋᮏ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ⱥㄒヰ⪅ᅛ᭷ࡢព࿡ᙧᘧࡣᢕᥱ࡛ࡁࡓࡀࠊ᪥
ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ᅛ᭷࡜᩿ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿព࿡ᙧᘧࡣฟ⌧ࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊẚ㍑ᑐ↷ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ୰㛫ゝㄒࠖ࡜఩⨨࡙ࡅࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡣᅗ  ࡟♧ࡍ㏻ࡾṧࡗࡓࠋ             ⱥㄒヰ⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡀ౑⏝ࡍࡿព࿡ᙧᘧᅗ ⱥㄒヰ⪅ᅛ᭷ࡢព࿡ᙧᘧ
᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ᅛ᭷ࡢព࿡ᙧᘧⱥㄒヰ⪅࣭᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ඹ㏻ࡢព࿡ᙧᘧ


6
−96−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号



 ẕㄒヰ⪅࡜୰㛫ゝㄒ౑⏝⪅ࡢఏ㐩ᛶࡢᕪ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
༠ຊ࡬ࡢពᛮ⾲♧ࠊ౫㢗࡬ࡢㅰព⾲᫂➼ࡢே㛫㛵ಀ࡟ッ࠼ࡿⅬ࡛ࡣ୧ヰ⪅ඹ㏻࡟⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡀࠊ౫㢗ࢆཷㅙࡍࡿࣜࢫࢡࡢᅇ㑊ࡢ⾲♧ࡸ௦᱌ࡢᥦ♧ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡣே㛫㛵ಀ࡟ッ࠼ࡿ෕ㄯࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ౫㢗⪅࡟ࡼࡿᅇ⟅⪅࡜ࡢᐙ᪘ࢆྵࡵࡓே㛫㛵ಀ㸦ࠕᐙ᪘㛵ಀࠖࡢព࿡ᙧᘧ㸧ࡢゝཬࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋᴫࡋ࡚ࠊಶே࣮࣋ࢫ࡛౫㢗࡟ᐙ᪘ࢆྵࡵࡓ≧ἣࢆࡶ㚷ࡳ࡚ྲྀࡾ㎸ࡶ࠺࡜㓄៖ࡍࡿ๓ᥦࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠋࡇࢀࡀ༠ຊពᛮࡢලయⓗ⾲᫂࡜ࡋ࡚௦᱌ࡢ
ᥦ᱌࡛⾲᫂ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ୧⪅㛫ࡢ㊥㞳 ' ࡀ▷࠸㛵ಀ࡛ࡢ᩿ࢃࡾࡢࢫࢱ࢖
࡛ࣝ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ
୰㛫ゝㄒヰ⪅࡛ࡣ౫㢗ෆᐜࢆ☜࠿ࡵࡘࡘ⌮ゎ࡜ྠពࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡀࠊ౫㢗ࡢ㊃᪨ࡀཷㅙ࡛ࡁ
ࡿཎ๎ࡸつ๎࡟᢬ゐࡍࡿ஦ᐇࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿᩥ⬦ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ௦᱌ࡣࡇࡢつ๎࡟᢬ゐࡋ࡞࠸᪉ἲ
ࢆู㏵♧၀ࡍࡿ⛬ᗘࡢᥦ♧࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣಶே࣮࣋ࢫࡢྲྀࡾ㎸ࡳ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶ஫࠸ࡢ♫఍ⓗ࡞❧ሙࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀ࡚ࡢุ᩿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᐙ᪘㛵ಀࡢゝཬࡀ᩿ࢃࡾ࡟ධࡾ㎸ࡴవᆅࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᣵᣜࠊ♫஺㎡௧࡟␃ࡲࡿឤࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ౫㢗⪅ࡢពẼ㎸ࡳࡸỴᚰ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚౫㢗⪅ࡢᐙ᪘ࡢ༠ຊࡸ⌮ゎࢆ៖ࡿࢫࢱࣥࢫࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ≉ᚩࡣࠊ୰㛫ゝㄒ࡟ᬑ㐢ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜࠸
࠺ࡼࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢᙳ㡪࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ  ୰㛫ゝㄒヰ⪅ࡣᅇ⟅ᩥ඲య࡟クࡍᩥព࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ౫㢗ࡢ⫼ᬒ࡜࡞ࡿດຊࡸỴ᩿ࢆ㈹㈶ࡋ༠ຊ
ࡢពᛮࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡢ౫㢗࡟ࡣᐈほⓗࠊྠ⩏ⓗࠊほᛕⓗ࡞⌮⏤ࢆ㏙࡭࡚᩿ࢃࡾ⌮ゎࢆồࡵࠊᮏேྠኈࡢே㛫㛵ಀࡢᝏ໬࡟ᙳ㡪ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ☜࠿ࡵᐙ᪘࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ぶࡋࡃㄒࡾ㛗ᖺࡢ௜ࡁྜ
࠸࡜኱ษ࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ᒎ㛤࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡣࠊດຊࡸỴ᩿ࢆ㈹㈶ᚋࠊಶே࡜ࡋ࡚౫㢗ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࡳࠊ᩿ࢃࡿỴ᩿ࢆ࡯ࡢࡵ࠿ࡋ
௦᱌࡜ඹ࡟㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿᅇ⟅ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓⅬࡀ୰㛫ゝㄒヰ⪅࡜␗࡞ࡿࠋ
୰㛫ゝㄒヰ⪅ࡣࠊ౫㢗⮬య࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᰿ᮏⓗ࡞⪃࠼ࡸᑐฎࡢࢫࢱࣥࢫࢆ┿ᦸ࡟㏙࡭࡚ࠊ᩿ࢃ
ࡽ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸஦᝟࡜ᅇ⟅⪅ࡢ❧ሙࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࢫࢱࣥࢫ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࡼ࠺ࠋࡇࢀࡣࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕
ࣈ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢ⌧ࢀ࡜ゝ࠼࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ㸵㸬⤖ㄽ ఏ㐩ࡢṇ☜ᛶࢆ㔜どࡍࢀࡤ➃ⓗ࡞▷࠸⾲⌧࡟཰ࡲࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ᩿ࢃࡾࡣ
౫㢗࡬ࡢཷࡅ⟅࠼࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ౫㢗⪅ࡢ౫㢗᫬ࡢ)7$࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ᝿ᐃࠊ᝿ീࡋࡘࡘ⾜࠺ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࡼࡾ)7$ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚㏉⟅ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࢁ࠺ࠋ ౫㢗⪅࡜ࡢே㛫㛵ಀࢆุ᩿ࡋࡓᚋࠊࡑࡢ㛵ಀᛶࢆࡑࡢᚋࡶ⥔ᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࡟ᚲせ࡞㓄៖࡟༶ࡋࡓゝㄒ⾲⌧ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ㐣⛬࡛⏕ࡌࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡢᚰ⌮≧ែࡀゝㄒ࡟⾲ฟࡉࢀࡓ⤖ᯝ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋᑐヰ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊゝ࠸ࡼ࡝ࢇࡔࡾࠊࡈࡲ࠿ࡋࡓࡾࠊࡓࡵࡽࡗࡓࡾࠊ࡜஺ࢃࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛
ࡁࡿࡀࠊᩥ❶࡜࡞ࡿ࡜ᑐヰࢆᩥᏐ࡟ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦ᵓᡂࡣᅇ⟅࡜ࡋ࡚ཷࡅධࢀࡽࢀࡎࠊ౫㢗⪅࡬᭱኱㝈㓄៖ࡋࡓࡲ࡜ࡲࡗࡓᅇ⟅࡜ࡋ࡚ཷࡅධࢀࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᅇ⟅⪅ࡢពᛮ⾲♧ࡣ┦ᡭࢆཌࡃ㐝ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟๓⨨ࡁࢆ௜ࡅࡓࡾྠࡌෆᐜࡢ㐪࠺ࡇ࡜ࡤ࡟ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡓࡾࡍࡿࠋᅇ⟅⪅ࡢఏ㐩ෆᐜࡣ᰾ᚰⓗ࡞ෆᐜࡼࡾࠊ౫㢗⪅࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿ

7−97−

中間言語のポライトネス・ストラテジー―英語による母語話者との断わり表現の比較対照研究―ࢫ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ୰㛫ゝㄒヰ⪅ࡢ♫఍ேࡀⱥㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋ୍࡚ಶேࡢ౫㢗ࢆ᩿ࢃࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊಶேࡢ❧ࡕ఩⨨࡟ⴠ࡜ࡋ㎸ࢇࡔᐙ᪘࡬ࡢゝཬࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊᅇ⟅⪅⮬㌟ࢆྵࡵᅇ⟅⪅ࢆྲྀࡾᕳࡃ᩿ࢃࡿഃࢆ♫఍ⓗ࡟ᕳࡁ㎸ࡴ⾜ືࡣៅࡴ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚ㅍࡍ❧ሙ࡛ఏ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢ๓ᥦ࡛༠ຊࡢពᛮࢆఏ࠼ே
㛫㛵ಀࢆ☜࠿ࡵࡘࡘࠊ᩿ࢃࡾࡢពᛮ⾲♧ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕㅍࡍࠖࡢᚋࡢ✚ᴟⓗࠊලయⓗ࡞ᅇ⟅⪅ࠊ᩿ࢃࡾ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ౫㢗⪅࡟ᡂࡾ௦ࢃࡿ࡯࡝ࡢᥦ᱌ࡣࡋ࡞࠸ࢫࢱࣥࢫ࡛ఏ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮
࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠊ࡜⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅࡓࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㸦㸧7RPRNR7DNDKDVKLDQG/HVOLH0%HHEH  7KH'HYHORSPHQWRI3UDJPDWLF&RPSHWHQFH
E\-DSDQHVH/HDUQHUVRI(QJOLVK-$/7-RXUQDOYROXPHQRSS㸦  㸧 *DVV DQG +RXFN ,QWHUODQJXDJH 5HIXVDOV $ &URVVFXOWXUDO 6WXG\ RI

-DSDQHVH(QJOLVK0RXWRQGH*UX\WHU㸦㸧*.DVSHU.5RVH 3UDJPDWLF'HYHORSPHQWLQD6HFRQG/DQJXDJH %ODFNZHOO3XEOLVKLQJ㸦㸧5RG(OOLV7KH6WXG\RI6HFRQG/DQJXDJH$FTXLVLWLRQ2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV㸦㸧໭ᒣ⎔ ࣅࢪࢿࢫሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢ⪃ᐹ ኱㜰ᩍ⫱ᅗ᭩



−98−
8

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

NR ㏙ㄒ࡜ NR ⌧㇟㸫୺⠇ྰᐃࡣᚑᒓ⠇ྰᐃࢆᅽಽࡍࡿ࠿㸽᳃   ㈆⚟஭ᕤᴗ㧗➼ᑓ㛛Ꮫᰯ

ࠑAbstractࠒIt is well known that in English the sentence like I {think/believe/suppose} Joe is drunk may be negated either as I

don’t {think/believe/suppose} Joe is drunk (main clause negation, henceforth MCN) or as I {think/believe/suppose} Joe
isn’t drunk (subordinate clause negation, henceforth SCN) with no difference of cognitive meaning. Many linguists argue
that MCN is strongly preferred to SCN. The computer-aided analysis of a large scale corpus, however, shows that theabove argument is invalid in the case where such verbs as suppose and suspect are used as the main clause predicate. It
is claimed that the difference in the frequency of appearance mentioned above originates from the differences in the
degrees of confidence conveyed by think, believe, suppose, and suspect. It is also argued that the functions of I

{think/believe} [㻀p] are significantly different from those of I {suppose/suspect/guess} [㻀p]; the former conveys the
speaker’s strong inclination toward [㻀p] while the latter conveys the speaker’s weak inclination toward [㻀p], which isalso conveyed by I don’t {think/believe} [p].
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ: 1. ྰᐃ㎡⧞ࡾୖࡆ 2. ୺⠇ྰᐃ 3. ᚑᒓ⠇ྰᐃ 4. ᚰⓗഴᩳ (inclination) 5. ⮬ಙ(confidence)ࡢᗘྜ࠸

㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ⱥㄒ࡟ࡣ௨ୗ࡟♧ࡍྰᐃ㎡⧞ࡾୖࡆ⌧㇟㸦NEG-Raising phenomenon㸧
㸦௨㝆ࠊNR ⌧㇟㸧ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ
(1) The pragmatics of contrary negation is clearest perhaps in the phenomenon of neg(ative)-raising, as in (11), where amatrix negation is interpreted as applying to an embedded constituent.
(11) a. I don’t think you should do that. (= ‘I think you should not ...’)
b. I don’t suppose you’d like to dance. (= ‘I suppose you wouldn’t...’)
As many have noted (Lakoff 1969; Prince 1976), neg-raised sentences are typically felt as weaker and moretentative than their otherwise synonymous counterparts with lower-clause negation, and the phenomenon appears
to be motivated in large part by the need to hedge or mitigate the expression of a negative judgment. In this sense,
although the grammar of neg-raising may seem lawlessly illogical, it is animated by the best pragmatic intentions.
                                           (Israel 2004:709)

NR ⌧㇟ࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢືモ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㏙ㄒ㸦௨㝆㸪㏙ㄒ࡟⤫୍㸧ࡀ୺⠇㏙ㄒ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓሙྜ࡟ࡢࡳぢࡽࢀࡿ⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡞⌧㇟ࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡍ㏙ㄒࡣ NR ㏙ㄒ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࠊHorn(1978)࡛ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࣜࢫࢺ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦㸣௜ࡁࡢ㏙ㄒࡣࡑ
ࡢ㏙ㄒࢆ NR ㏙ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆࡵࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡢุ᩿ࡀே࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᦂࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࠋⲨᮌ࣭Ᏻ஭(1992)࡛ࡣ suspect,contemplate ࡀࠊLangacker(2004)࡛ࡶ suspect ࡀ㸦2a㸧ࡢ⠊␪࡟ຍ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(2) NR predicates:
a. opinion: think, believe, suppose, imagine, expect, reckon, %anticipate, %guessa’. perception: seem, appear, look like, sound like, feel likeb. probability: be probable, be likely, figure to.
c. intention/volition: want, intend, choose, planc’. judgment/(weak) obligation: be supposed to, ought,
should, be desirable, advise, suggest             

−99−



 (Horn 1978:187)

NR述語とNR現象 ―主節否定は従属節否定を圧倒するか？

Horn ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊNR ㏙ㄒࡣࠊmid-scalar ≉ᛶࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊmid-scalar ≉ᛶࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㏙ㄒࡣྰᐃࡉࢀ࡚ࡶࠊmid-scalar≉ᛶࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢᛶ㉁ࡀྰᐃ㎡⧞ࡾୖࡆゎ㔘ࢆチࡍ᰿ᣐ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
NR ⌧㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ」ᩥᵓ㐀࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᚑᒓ⠇ෆᐜ㸦ᚑᒓ⠇㏙ㄒ㸧ࢆྰᐃࡍࡿࡢࡀㄽ⌮ⓗ(logical)࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ
୺⠇ࡀ୍ࠝே⛠༢ᩘ (I)㸩NR ㏙ㄒࡢ༢⣧⌧ᅾᙧ࡛ࠞᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࠊ⏕㉳㢖ᗘ㸦๭ྜ㸧ࡢⅬ࡛୺⠇ྰᐃ(main clausenegation㸸௨㝆 MCN)ࡀᚑᒓ⠇ྰᐃ(subordinate clause negation㸸௨㝆 SCN)ࢆᅽಽࡍࡿ࡜ㄽࡌࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦➨㸰⠇㸧ࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊ⮬୺సᡂࡢ኱つᶍࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ᳨⣴ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊNR ㏙ㄒࡢ✀㢮ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ MCN ࡜ SCN ࡢ⏕㉳㢖ᗘ㸦๭ྜ㸧࡟㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ㸦➨㸱⠇㸧ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐪࠸ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿཎᅉࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿ㸦➨㸲⠇㸧࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ㡢ኌࢹ࣮ࢱࡢศᯒ㸦➨㸳⠇㸧ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊྠࡌ SCN ࡢ⾲⌧࡛ࡶࠊI {think/believe} (that) [㻀p]࡜ I {suppose/suspect/guess} (that) [㻀p]࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢᶵ
⬟ࡀ኱ࡁࡃ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄽࡌࡿ㸦➨㸴⠇㸧ࠋ㸰㸬ඛ⾜◊✲
 MCN ࡜ SCN ࡢ⏕㉳ศᕸ㸦๭ྜ㸧࡟ゝཬࡋࡓඛ⾜◊✲ࢆ௨ୗ࡟♧ࡍ㸦ୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅࡟ࡼࡿ㸧ࠋ(3)There is a large number of complex utterances with transferred negation and the predicates think, suppose, imagine,

believe (and a few others), to wit, 208 instances with first person personal pronoun and present tense, as opposed to 23
non-transferred instances. (This amounts to a ratio of roughly nine to one).

(Bubliz 1992:553)(4) The 66 conversation texts collected by Svartvik and Quirk (1980) showed that the ratio of using transferred negation
and “not” is nearly ten to one. Xiong (1988) collected 74 sentences written by native English speakers, and he foundthat the verbs used in the main clauses were think, suppose and imagine and that most of the sentences usedtransferred negation. Chen (2005) also did a survey about the problem by analyzing 60 electronic documents which
included 30 online chatting documents, 30 oral interview documents with native speakers and 30 articles. The ratio ofusing negative structure in the main clause or the subordinate clause was calculated and the similar conclusion was
obtained as the above studies.

(Liu & Song 2015: 56)(3)࡛ࡣࠊMCN㸸SCN Ҹ 9㸸1ࠊ(4)࡛ࡣࠊMCN㸸SCN Ҹ 10㸸1 ࡜ᅽಽⓗ࡟ MCN ࡢ⏕㉳㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠸࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࡀሗ࿌ࡉ
ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㸱㸬NR ㏙ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿ MCN ࡜ SCN ࡢ⏕㉳ศᕸࡢᐇែ
3.1 ฼⏝ࡋࡓ኱つᶍࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ
ᮏ◊✲ࡢ㐙⾜࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࡣࠊCNN Transcripts ([http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/]) ࢆࣃ࣮ࢯࢼࣝࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ
࡟ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛⮬୺సᡂࡋࡓࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢹ࣮ࢱ㸦the CNN Transcripts Corpus㸧ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓࠋCNN Transcripts ࡜ࡣࠊCNN (Cable
News Network. Inc.)࡛ᨺᫎࡉࢀࡓ␒⤌࡟࠾ࡅࡿฟ₇⪅ࡢⓎゝࢆᩥᏐ㉳ࡇࡋ(transcribe)ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ௒ᅇࡢศᯒᑐ㇟ࡣࠊ
1998 ᖺ 1 ᭶࠿ࡽ 2010 ᖺ 12 ᭶࡟࠿ࡅ࡚ᨺ㏦ࡉࢀࡓ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮࣭ࣗウㄽ␒⤌࡟࠾ࡅࡿฟ₇⪅ࡢⓎゝ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦(5)ࡣࠊᮏࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢᵓᡂ㸧ࠋ(5) The CNN Transcripts Corpus[Interview and Debate](616MB):(a) Burden of Proof (BP)(b) CNN & Company (CC)(c) Crossfire (CF)(d) Larry King Live (LKL)(e) Talkback Live (TL)(f) others㸫(i) Both Sides with Jesse Jackson (BS), (ii) Evans & Novak (EN), etc.

−100−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

3.2 ศᯒ⤖ᯝᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ NR ㏙ㄒ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ thinkࠊbelieveࠊsupposeࠊsuspect ࡜㠀඾ᆺⓗ࡞ NR ㏙ㄒࡢ guess ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋThe CNN Transcripts Corpus ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ MCN ࡜ SCN ࡢ⏕㉳ศᕸ㸦๭ྜ㸧ࡣ௨ୗࡢ࡜࠾ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⾲ 1: The CNN Transcripts Corpus ᳨⣴࡟ࡼࡿ I don’t[p].(MCN)࡜ I[㻀p]. (SCN)ࡢฟ⌧≧ἣ

MCN

SCN

Total

think

32034(96%)

1279(4%)33313(100%)

believe

2525 (97%)

79 (3%)

2604 (100%)

suppose20 (42%)28 (58%)48 (100%)

suspect

10 (11%)82 (89%)92 (100%)guess

8 (2%)

351(98%)359 (100%)

⾲ 2: The CNN Transcripts Corpus ᳨⣴࡟ࡼࡿ I don’tso.࡜ I

not.ࡢฟ⌧≧ἣI don’t so

I

not

Total

think

2816 (94%)

164 (6%)2980 (100%)

believe

145 (99%)2 (1%)

147 (100%)

suppose0 (0%)

4 (100%)4 (100%)suspect

0 (0%)

11(100%)11(100%)guess

0 (0%)

23(100%)23 (100%)ὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁࡣࠊ୺⠇㏙ㄒࡀ think, believe ࡢሙྜ࡜ suppose, suspect, guess ࡢሙྜ࡜࡛ࡣࠊMCN ࡜ SCN ࡢ⏕㉳ศᕸ≧ἣࡀ኱ࡁࡃ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟⯆࿡῝࠸ࡢࡣࠊḟࡢⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(6) I don’t {think/believe} (that) [p]࡛ࡣࠊࠗ[p]ࢆ⦆࿴ⓗ࡟ྰㄆࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࠘㸦ྰᐃ㎡⧞ࡾୖࡆゎ㔘୙㐺⏝㸧࡜ࠗ[㻀p]ࢆ⦆࿴ⓗ࡟୺ᙇࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࠘
㸦ྰᐃ㎡⧞ࡾୖࡆゎ㔘㐺⏝㸧ࡢ㸰ࡘࡢ⏝ἲࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊI don’t {suppose/suspect/guess} (that) [p]࡛ࡣࠊࠗ[㻀p]ࢆ⦆࿴ⓗ࡟୺ᙇࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࠘ࡔࡅࡀほᐹࡉࢀࠊࠗ[p]ࢆ⦆࿴ⓗ࡟ྰㄆࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࠘ࡣほᐹࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
I don’t {think/believe}ࡀ┦ᡭࡢⓎゝࢆ⦆࿴ⓗ࡟ྰㄆࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᐇ౛ࢆ௨ୗ࡟ิᣲࡍࡿࠋ
(7) PERRY: Well, I think it's interesting, because, in part we don't know the mental health of this 10-year-old boy.
Apparently, the one who did the shooting was actually very involved in sports and was supposed to be a good kid.
But, obviously, the kid did not know between right and wrong. ...
ELLICOTT: I think the one thing I would disagree on is that I don't think this kid didn't know the difference
between right and wrong. He didn't know the difference between wrong and very wrong.

(TL, 2002/08/09)(8) BLITZER: All right, Senator Feinstein, you heard the accusation made by Senator Inhofe that this is misguided rightnow, how do you respond?
FEINSTEIN: I disagree. I do not believe it is misguided.

 (LE, 1999/04/18)(9) NOVAK: Congressman Ackerman, there's been a lot of reports that Senator Kerry is not doing well and a shakeup in
his staff is needed. Do you believe a shakeup in his staff is necessary?
ACKERMAN: I don't believe he's not doing well. I think he's doing absolutely spectacular. It's interesting. When
there's a two-point difference in Kerry's favor, the Republicans keep saying, oh, it's within the margin of error.
 (CF, 2004/08/31)

           −101−

NR述語とNR現象 ―主節否定は従属節否定を圧倒するか？

㸲㸬 ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗ⪃ᐹᐃᆺ⠇ࢆ⿵ᩥ࡟࡜ࡿ」ᩥᵓ㐀࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୍⯡࡟ࠊ୺⠇㏙ㄒࡣ⿵ᩥ࿨㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿㄆ㆑ⓗ࡞ࢫࢱࣥࢫࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Langacker (2002, 2004) ࡛ࡣࡇࡢㄆ㆑ⓗ࡞ࢫࢱࣥࢫࡣ epistemic control cycle㸦௨ୗ ECC㸧࡜࠸࠺ㄆ▱ࣔࢹࣝ࡟ࡼࡾ᫂☜࡟グ㏙࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ㄽࡌࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋECC ࡣ Baseline, Potential, Action, Result ࡢ 4 ࡘࡢᒁ㠃ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊPotential ࡣࡉࡽ࡟ࠊformulation, Assessment, Inclination ࡢ 3 ẁ㝵࡟ศࡅࡽࢀࠊNR ⌧㇟ࡣ୺⠇㏙ㄒࡀ ECC ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ inclination ẁ㝵ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡟ࡢࡳ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜ㄽࡌࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Mori (2009)࡛ࡣࠊI don’t {think/believe} (that) [p]ࡣࠊඖࠎࠕ⦆࿴ⓗ࡞ྰㄆ (mitigated denial)ࠖ㸫Langacker ὶ࡟ゝ࠼ࡤࠊ[p]࡟ᑐࡍࡿ disinclination㸫ࡢᶵ⬟ࡢࡳࢆ᭷ࡍࡿᏑᅾ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊୗグ࡟♧ࡍ Profile Shift ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ⦆࿴ⓗ࡞㸦ྰᐃ࿨㢟ࡢ㸧୺ᙇ (mitigated assertion)ࠖ㸫Langacker ὶ࡟ゝ࠼ࡤࠊ[㻀p]࡬ࡢ inclination㸫ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆ⋓ᚓࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣࠊ㢖ᗘຠᯝ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ[㻀p]࡬ࡢ inclination ࢆ⾲ࡍ epistemic marker ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᆅ఩ࢆ㸦ࡶ㸧⋓ᚓࡋࡓ࡜୺ᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ᅗ 1㸸Propositional Attitude and Psychological Distance(Mori 2009:118)ЎЎЎᅗ 2㸸Profile Shift on Psychological Distance Scale(Mori 2009:120)
ୖグࡢ୺ᙇࡀṇࡋ࠸࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ(6)ࡢほᐹ⤖ᯝ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟௬ᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(10) I don’t {think/believe} (that) [p]ࡢࠗ[㻀p]ࢆ⦆࿴ⓗ࡟୺ᙇࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࠘([㻀p]࡬ࡢ inclination)ࡣࠊ
ࠗ[p]ࢆ⦆࿴ⓗ࡟ྰㄆࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࠘
㸦[p]࡟ᑐࡍࡿ disinclination㸧㸫ඖ᮶ࡢ⏝ἲ㸫࠿ࡽࡢᣑᙇ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊI don’t {suppose/suspect} (that) [p]㸦ཬࡧ I don’t guess (that) [p]㸸guess ࡣ࿘㎶ⓗ࡞ NR ㏙ㄒ㸧ࡢࠗ[㻀p]ࢆ⦆࿴ⓗ࡟୺ᙇࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࠘ࡣୖグࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ⤒࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊNR ㏙ㄒ㛫ࡢ࢔ࢼࣟࢪ࣮㸫think/believe/suppose/suspect/guess ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ inclination ẁ㝵ࢆグ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸫࡟ࡼࡾᚓࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡛ࡣࠊఱᨾࠊI don’t {suppose/suspect/guess} (that) [p]࡟ࠗ[p]ࢆ⦆࿴ⓗ࡟ྰㄆࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࠘ࡀ☜❧ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
Wierzbicka(2006)࡛ࡣࠊI {think/believe} ࡣࠊNSM (natural semantic meta-language)ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢព࿡ࢥ࣏࣮ࣥࢿࣥࢺ
ࡢ୍㒊ࡀ [I don’t say I know] ࡜⾲グࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊI {suppose/suspect/guess}ࡣ[I don’t know]࡜⾲グࡉࢀࠊ๓⪅ࡢ᪉ࡀᚑᒓ⠇ෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ confidence ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀ㧗࠸࡜ㄽࡌࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(11) I think [p] 㸻  a. I say: I think like this: [p]b. I don’t say I know               −102−

 (Wierzbicka 2006: 208 ୍㒊ኚ᭦࠶ࡾ)第18回大会発表論文集

第11号(12) I believe [p] 㸻a. I say: I think now that it is like this: [p]b. I don’t say I knowc. I can say why I think like thisd. I know that someone else can think not like this         

 (ibid.: 215 ୍㒊ኚ᭦࠶ࡾ)(13) I suppose [p] 㸻  a. I say: I think like this now: [p]b. I don’t know
c. I’m thinking about it now                   

 (ibid.: 208 ୍㒊ኚ᭦࠶ࡾ)(14) I suspect [p] 㸻a. I say: I think now that it can be like this: [p]b. I don’t knowc. I think that someone can know if this someone does some things
d. I think about it like this: if it is true it is not something good

(ibid.: 239 ୍㒊ኚ᭦࠶ࡾ)(15) I guess [p] 㸻  a. I say: I think like this now: [p]b. I don’t knowc. if I have to say something about it now I want to say this(ibid.: 209 ୍㒊ኚ᭦࠶ࡾ)(16) If we compare it with I suppose, I believe sounds more confident. If we compare it with I think, I believe also sounds
more confident, although the difference is not as sharp as in the case of I suppose.

(ibid.: 214)(17) The component “I don’t say I know” explains why I believe sounds more confident than I suppose: I suppose implies“I don’t know”, whereas I believe implies only “I don’t say I know.”                 (ibid.:215)

ࡓ࡜࠼ࠊ⦆࿴ⓗ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎゝෆᐜࢆ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ྰㄆࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ┦ᛂࡢ confidence ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋsuppose,suspect, guess ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡣࡑࡇࡲ࡛ࡢ confidence ࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡓࡵ㸦ࡇࡢ୰࡛ࡶ guess ࡢ confidence ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡣ௚
ࡢ㸰ࡘ࡟ẚ࡭࡚ࡶ┦ᙜప࠸㸧࡟ࠊ୍⯡࡟ࠊࡑࡢྰᐃᙧࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ᫂♧ⓗ࡞ྰㄆ㸦⾜Ⅽ㸧ࡣ⾜ࢃ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡜᥎ᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ
(18)

weaker[confidence]stronger

ł-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ń
guess

supposethink

believeOKOK

suspect
MCN࠙(mitigated) denial ࠚ㸨??

௨ୖࡢ⪃ᐹ࠿ࡽࠊI don’t {think/believe} (that) [p]࡟ࡣࠗ[p]ࢆ⦆࿴ⓗ࡟ྰㄆࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࠘࡜ࠗ[㻀p]ࢆ⦆࿴ⓗ࡟୺ᙇࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࠘ࡀ☜❧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊI {think/believe} (that) [㻀p]࡟ẚ࡭࡚⏕㉳㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊI don’t {suppose/suspect} (that)[p]ཬࡧ I don’t guess (that) [p]ࡣࠗ[㻀p]ࢆ⦆࿴ⓗ࡟୺ᙇࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࠘ࡀ☜❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊ࢔ࢼࣟࢪ࣮࡟ࡼࡾ౑⏝ྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡴࡋࢁࠊI {suppose/suspect/guess} (that) [㻀p]ࡢ⏕㉳㢖ᗘࡢ᪉ࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊsuppose ࡜ suspect ࡢศᯒ⤖ᯝ㸦⾲㸯㸧ࢆẚ࡭ࡓሙྜࠊᚋ⪅࡟࠾ࡅࡿ MCN ࡢ⏕㉳㢖ᗘࡀప࠸⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊsuspect࡟ࡣ I think about it like this: if it is true it is not something good(㸻14d)࡜࠸࠺ evaluative component ࡀ௜୚ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ
࡜࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ component ࡢᏑᅾࡀࠊLangacker (2004)ࡢ “it (=NR) occurs when the matter is still in doubt, the−103−NR述語とNR現象 ―主節否定は従属節否定を圧倒するか？

existence of inclination is presupposed, and the absence of other salient content causes the force of negation to be focusedon the polarity of the inclination.(p.542 ୗ⥺➹⪅)” ࡟᢬ゐࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆୖࡆࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ㸦ࡘࡲࡾࠊ(13d)ࡀ࢔ࢼࣟࢪ࣮
ࡢ㜼Ṇせᅉ࡟࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ㸧ࠋ㸳㸬 㡢ኌࢹ࣮ࢱࡢศᯒ
㡢ኌࢹ࣮ࢱ㸦ࢸࣞࣅウㄽ␒⤌㸫Larry King Live㸦2008 ᖺ 4 ᭶㹼2010 ᖺ 12 ᭶ᨺ㏦ศ㸧㸫ࢆ㘓⏬ࡋࠊDVD ᙧᘧ࡛ಖᏑࡋࡓ
ࡶࡢ㸧ࢆศᯒࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊI {think/believe} (that) [㻀p]࡛ࡣࠊI ࡲࡓࡣ 㹹think/believe㹻ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ୧᪉ཬࡧᚑᒓ⠇ෆࡢྰᐃ㎡ ࡟ ᙉ ໃ ࡀ ⨨ ࠿ ࢀ ࡚ Ⓨ 㡢 ࡉ ࢀ ࡿ ഴ ྥ ࡀ ᙉ ࠸ ࡢ ࡟ ᑐ ࡋ ࡚ ࠊ I {suppose/suspect/guess} (that) [ 㻀 p] ࡛ ࡣ ࠊ I ࡜{suppose/suspect/guess}ࡢ࡝ࡕࡽ࡟ࡶᙉໃࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࡎࠊࡲࡓࣆࢵࢳࢆ௚ࡢ⟠ᡤࡼࡾࡶపࡃࡋ࡚Ⓨ㡢ࡉࢀࠊᚑᒓ⠇ෆࡢྰᐃ㎡ࡣ
ᙅᙧ࡛Ⓨ㡢ࡉࢀࡿഴྥࡀᙉ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
⾲ 3: Larry King Live (2008.2㸫2010.10)㡢ኌࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒ࡟ࡼࡿ I[㻀p]୰ࡢ୺⠇ཬࡧྰᐃ㎡ࡢⓎ㡢ศᕸ

Stressed

Unstressed/Reduced

Total

think

42 (76%)13 (24%)55 (100%)

believe

3 (75%)

1 (25%)

4 (100%)suppose0 (0%)

3 (100%)3 (100%)suspect

1 ((17%)5 (83%)

6 (100%)guess

1 (5.3%)18 (94.7%)

19 (100%) ᐇ౛ࢆ௨ୗ࡟ิᣲࡍࡿ㸦኱ᩥᏐࡣᙉໃⓎ㡢ࢆࠊࢧ࢖ࢬ⦰ᑠ⾲グࡣ↓ᙉໃ࣭పࣆࢵࢳⓎ㡢ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࠋ(19) SIMPSON: She would be criticized if she were to drop out -- she's a quitter -- she's a -- she's damned if she does.
Damned if she doesn't. And I THINK we are NOT paying attention to how much the gender card is being played
against Hillary Clinton.

(LKL, 2008/03/28)(20) SIMMONS: We have a chance to nominate someone who really will be a change agent, and I THINK Barack Obama
has NOT been in Washington. He does have the credibility with the American people.

(LKL, 2008/04/21)(21) OBAMA: If we’re willing to believe in what’s possible again, then I BELIEVE we WON’T just win this primaryelection, we WON’T win just here in Indiana, we WON’T just win this election in November, we will change thiscountry. We will change the world.

(LKL, 2008/04/22)(22) FARROW: ... So it’s great that you’re interviewing me, and I suppose you wouldn’t have had I not gone on a hunger
strike.

         (LKL, 2009/04/27)

(23) KING: Would he have died, Dr. Oz, without pain? OZ: I suspect he didn’t have much pain because as soon as you
develop fibrillation, within seconds you pass out.

(LKL, 2008/06/16)(24) OBAMA: To her, you know -- when she was a little girl growing up on the south side of Chicago, I suspect she didn't
think that was ever going to happen.                         (25) KING: How many songs? I guess you don’t even know. Have you written?

−104−

 (LKL, 2010/06/03)
(LKL, 2010/04/16)

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

㸴㸬 I {think/believe} (that) [㻀p] ࡢᶵ⬟࡜ I {suppose/suspect/guess} (that) [㻀p]ࡢᶵ⬟Mori (2009)࡛ࡣࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗ⪃ᐹࢆᇶ࡟ࠊI {think/believe} (that) [㻀p] ࡢព࿡ᵓ㐀ࢆᅗ 3 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᅗ♧ࡋࡓࠋᅗ 3㸸I {think/believe} (that) [㻀p] ࡢព࿡ᵓ㐀ᅗ
(Mori 2009:136 )ᅗ 3 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊC0 (= C1) ࡣ Conceptualizer㸦ᴫᛕ໬⪅(ヰ⪅ I)㸧ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊP0ࠊP1 ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊI {think/believe} (that) [㻀p]ࠊ
[㻀p] ࡢ Proposition㸦࿨㢟㸧ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋF1 ࡣ Field㸦ㄆ▱ࡢሙ㸧ࢆࠊD1 ࡣ Dominion㸦ヰ⪅ࡢ⌧ᐇㄆ㆑㸧ࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ஧㔜◚⥺▮༳ࡣ C1 ࡢ P0 ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ inclination㸦ᚰⓗഴᩳ㸧ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀ࡜◚⥺࡛⤖ࡤࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࣎ࢵࢡࢫࡣࠊ
C1 ࡀ[㻀p]࡟ᑐࡋ୍࡚᫬ⓗ࡞⫯ᐃⓗุ᩿(positive judgment)ࢆୗࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᅗ඲య࡛ࡣࠊC0 ࡀㄆ▱ࡢሙࡢእ࡟఩⨨ࡋࠊC1ࠊP1 ࡟ࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊtrajector㸦➨㸯࡟ὀ┠ࡉࢀࡿཧ୚య㸧࡜ landmark㸦➨ 2 ࡟ὀ┠ࡉࢀࡿཧ୚య㸧ࡢᙺ๭ࡀ௜୚
ࡉࢀࡿᙧ࡛ࠊC0 (= C1) ࡀࠗ⮬ศ⮬㌟(C1) ࡢ P1 ( [㻀p] ) ࡬ࡢ inclination࠘ࢆእഃ࠿ࡽ㸦ᐈほⓗ࡟㸧═ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ἣࡀᥥ࠿ࢀ
ࠗ௚⪅ࡢุ᩿࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⚾ࡣࡇ࠺ุ᩿ࡍࡿ ࠘࡜࠸࠺ព㆑㸦௚⪅ࢆព㆑ࡋࡓ⮬࡚࠸ࡿࠋC1 ࡟ trajector ࡢᆅ఩ࡀ௜୚ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ
ᕫ୺ᙇ㸧ࡀാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢព㆑ࡢᏑᅾࡀࠊI {think/believe}ࡢᙉໃⓎ㡢ഴྥ㸦➨㸳⠇ཧ↷ࡢࡇ࡜㸧࡟཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ㸦௚⪅࡜⮬ศ࡜ࡢᑐ❧Ⅼࡀᙜヱ࿨㢟ࡢ⫯ᐃ࣭ྰᐃ࡟࠶ࡿሙྜࡣᚑᒓ⠇ෆࡢྰᐃ㎡ࡀᙉໃⓎ㡢ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ㸧ࠋ௨ୖࡢ⪃ᐹ࠿ࡽࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊI {think/believe} (that) Joe is not drunk. ࡣ(26)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᭩ࡁ᥮࠼ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊI {think/believe} (that)[㻀p] ࡣࠊ
ࠗ[㻀p]࡟ᑐࡍࡿ strong inclination㸦ᙉ࠸ᚰⓗഴᩳ㸦ពྥ㸧㸧ࢆ⾲ࡍ࠘࡜୍⯡໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(26) I {think/believe} (that) Joe is not drunk.
㸻 In my opinion, Joe must not be drunk.
 ௚᪉ࠊI {suppose/suspect/guess} (that) [㻀p] ࡢព࿡ᵓ㐀ࡣᅗ 4 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᅗ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋᅗ 4㸸I {suppose/suspect/guess} (that) [㻀p] ࡢព࿡ᵓ㐀ᅗ
ᅗ 3 ࡜ࡢ㐪࠸ࡣࠊㄆ▱ࡢሙࡢእ࡟࠸ࡓ C0 ࡀㄆ▱㡿ᇦෆ࡟ධࡾ㎸ࡳࠊC1 ࡜⤫ྜࡋ࡚ C1 ࡀ⬺↔Ⅼ໬(defocused) ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ

−105−

NR述語とNR現象 ―主節否定は従属節否定を圧倒するか？

C1 ࡟௜୚ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ trajector ࡢᆅ఩ࡀᾘኻࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊI {suppose/suspect/guess}ࡣࡇࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ࡛ࠊ
epistemic marker ࡟ᶵ⬟ኚ໬ࡋࠊ
maybe, perhaps ➼ࡢ epistemic adverb ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ാࡁࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
I {suppose/suspect/guess}ࡀ↓ᙉໃ࣭పࣆࢵࢳ࡛Ⓨ㡢ࡉࢀࡿഴྥࡣࠊࡇࡢᶵ⬟ኚ໬ࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢ⪃ᐹ࠿ࡽࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊI {suppose/suspect/guess} (that) Joe isn’t drunk. ࡣ(27)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᭩ࡁ᥮࠼ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊI{suppose/suspect/guess} (that) [㻀p] ࡣࠗ[㻀p]࡟ᑐࡍࡿ weak inclination㸦ᙅ࠸ᚰⓗഴᩳ㸦ពྥ㸧㸧ࢆ⾲ࡍ࠘㸦I don’t{think/believe} [p]࡟ࡶྠᵝࡢᶵ⬟ࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧࡜୍⯡໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(27) I {suppose/suspect/guess} (that) Joe isn’t drunk.
㸻 {Maybe/Perhaps} Joe isn’t drunk. ( = Joe may not be drunk.)㸵㸬 ࡲ࡜ࡵ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ୺⠇㏙ㄒ࡟㸦ே⛠୺ㄒࢆྲྀࡾ࿨㢟ែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍ㸧NR ㏙ㄒࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚ሙྜࡢ MCN ࡜ SCN ࡢ⏕㉳㢖ᗘ㸦๭ྜ㸧ࡀ
NR ㏙ㄒࡢ✀㢮࡟ࡼࡗ࡚␗࡞ࡿ⌮⏤࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋthink/believe ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡜ suppose /suspect/guess ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛
ࡣᙜヱ⾲⌧࡟௜୚ࡉࢀࡿ confidence ್ࡀ␗࡞ࡿ㸫๓⪅ࡀ㧗ࡃࠊᚋ⪅ࡀప࠸㸫ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊྰㄆࢆ⾲ࡍ MCN ࡣ๓⪅࡟ࡋ࠿㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡎࠊᚋ⪅ࡢ㸦⦆࿴ⓗ࡞ྰᐃ࿨㢟ࡢ୺ᙇࢆ⾲ࡍ㸧MCN㸦⾲⌧㸧ࡣ࢔ࢼࣟࢪ࣮࡟ࡼࡾ⏕ࡳฟࡉࢀࡓྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗ࡃࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜
ࡀ⏕㉳㢖ᗘ㸦๭ྜ㸧࡟㐪࠸ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ㡢ኌࢹ࣮ࢱࡢศᯒࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࠊ๓⪅ࡢ SCN
࡜ᚋ⪅ࡢ SCN ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟࡟㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋ
㸺୺せཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ࠝᘬ⏝ᩥ⊩ࢆྵࡴࠞ㸼Ⲩᮌ୍㞝࣭Ᏻ஭ ⛱(⦅) (1992)ࠗ⌧௦ⱥᩥἲ㎡඾࠘◊✲♫㸬
Bublitz, Wolfram (1992) "Transferred Negation and Modality," Journal of Pragmatics 18, 551-578.
Horn, Laurence R. (1978) “Remarks on Neg-raising,” In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New
York: Academic Press, 129-220.
Israel, Michael (2004) “The Pragmatics of Polarity,” In Horn and Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 701-723.
Langacker, Ronald W. (2002) “The Control Cycle: Why Grammar is a Matter of Life and Death,” JCLA 2㸦᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ఍ㄽᩥ㞟㸧193-220.
Langacker, Ronald W. (2004) “Aspects of the Grammar of Finite Clauses,” In Michael Achard and Suzanne Kemmer(eds.), Language, Culture, and Mind. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 535-577.
Liu Fuli1 and Song Shuang (2015) “A Survey of Acquisition of Transferred Negation of English Syntax㸫With Reference
to Senior High School TEFL in Mainland China,” English Language Teaching; Vol. 8, No. 2, Canadian Center of
Science and Education, 55-69.
Mori, Sadashi (2009) The NEG-Raising Phenomenon: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach. ᮍබห༤ኈㄽᩥ㸦㔠ἑ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ே㛫♫఍⎔ቃ◊✲⛉㸧㸬᳃  ㈆ (2011)ࠕ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠗྰᐃ㎡⧞ࡾୖࡆ࠘⌧㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ
ࠗព࿡࡜ᙧᘧࡢࡣࡊࡲ࠘
㸦㜰኱ⱥᩥᏛ఍ྀ᭩ 6㸧ᮾி㸸ⱥᐆ♫,
178-192.
᳃  ㈆㸦2012㸧
ࠕI suppose 㻀 p ࡢṇయ㸫I {think/believe} 㻀 p , I guess 㻀 p ࡜ࡢẚ㍑㸫ࠖKanazawa English Studies 28㸦㔠ἑ኱ᏛⱥᩥᏛ఍㸧, 227-244.
᳃  ㈆ (2016)ࠕྰᐃ㎡⧞ࡾୖࡆ㏙ㄒ࡜ྰᐃ㎡ not ࡢ఩⨨ࠖࠗ⚟஭ᕤᴗ㧗➼ᑓ㛛Ꮫᰯ◊✲⣖せ࠘➨ 49 ྕ, 241-251.
Nuyts, Jan (1990) “Negative-Raising Reconsidered: Arguments for a Cognitive-Pragmatic Approach,” Journal ofPragmatics 14, 559-588.
Sheintuch, Gloria and Kathleen Wise (1976) “On the Pragmatic Unity of the Rules of Neg-Raising and
Neg-Attraction,” Chicago Linguistic Society 12, 548-557.
Wierzbicka, Anna (2006) English: Meaning and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

−106−第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ヰࡋゝⴥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ⏝࠸ࡓㄯヰ㎡ࡢศᯒ
㸫Cool ࡢㄯヰᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸫
ᒣᮏ஬㑻
ᗈᓥ኱Ꮫ
㸺Abstract㸼The objective of this proceedings paper is to investigate the meaning and usage of the
discourse particle Cool using corpora; WordbanksOnline and English movie database.
Firstly, citations from some English̽English and English̽Japanese EFL/ESL
dictionaries are provided to illustrate the limited description of the target expression
Cool in its use as a backchannel. Secondary, a corpus-based investigation of Cool isconducted for better descriptions of its discourse functions.
  ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸪ㄯヰ㎡㸪┦ᵔ⾲⌧㸯ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ヰࡋゝⴥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᑐヰ⪅ࡢⓎヰࢆཷࡅࡓ㝿࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿⱥㄒࡢㄯヰ㎡ࡢ◊✲࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪
Fries㸦1952㸧ࡀ Single Free Utterance ࡜࠸࠺࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢࡶ࡜࡟⊂❧ࡋࡓ᭱ᑠ༢఩ࡢⓎヰ
⾜Ⅽࡢ 1 ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓࡢࢆࡣࡌࡵ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ከࡃࡢᩥ⊩࡛ᵝࠎ࡞⾲⌧ࡀྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀ
࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ⾲⌧ࡶከᵝ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ඛ⾜◊✲࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡶᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞࠸ࠋ୰࡛ࡶ㸪ㄯヰ㎡࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ Cool ࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚ࡓ◊✲ࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛඘ศ࡟⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎ㸪௦⾲ⓗ࡞
ESL/EFL ⏝ࡢ㎡᭩࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶグ㏙ෆᐜ࡟ࡣᖜࡀ࠶ࡾඹ㏻ࡋࡓㄒ⩏ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ
ゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ୺ࡔࡗࡓ㎡᭩࡛ࡢㄯヰ㎡ Cool ࡢグ㏙ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓୖ࡛ࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ
⏝࠸࡚ࡑࡢព࿡࡜ᶵ⬟ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㸰 ESL/EFL ⏝ࡢ㎡᭩ࡢグ㏙ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ㸪ㄯヰ㎡࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ Cool ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚⏝ἲࡢㄝ᫂ࡸ⏝౛ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ୺
ࡔࡗࡓ ESL/EFL ⏝ࡢ㎡᭩ࡢグ㏙ࢆ௨ୗࡢ㸦1㸧̽㸦8㸧࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆ 1)㸪ࡑࡢㄒ⩏ෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ
(1) CALD4 [s.v. cool]
Adj, exclamation informal excellent: very good:‘Do you want to come with us?’ ‘Yeah, cool!’(2) MWALED [s.v. cool]
Often used to show approval in a genral way(3) MED 2 [s.v. cool]
Spoken used for agreeing to something or saying that something would be convenient:‘We could go to see a film.’ ‘Cool.’(4) OALD9 [s.v. cool]
APPROVING (informal) used to show that you admire or approve of sth because it is
fashionable, attractive and often different:−107−話し言葉コーパスを用いた談話辞の分析―Coolの談話機能について―(informal)people say Cool! Or That’s cool to show that they approve of sth or agree to asuggestion:‘We’re meeting Jake for lunch and we can go on the yacht in the afternoon.’ ‘Cool!’ 㸦1㸧ࡢ⏝౛ࡣ່ㄏ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㏉⟅࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡃࡔࡅࡓ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿᙧᐜモࡢㄒ⩏ excellentvery good ࡀ㐺ษ࡟ᑐᛂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋ㸦2㸧࡛ࡣᢎㅙ㸪㈶ྠࢆ⾲ࡍ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⏝ἲࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ࡑࡢ⏝౛ࡣᐈほⓗ࡞஦ᐇࡢሗ࿌࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㏉⟅࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᑐヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡿᥦ᱌ࡸ່ㄏ࡞࡝࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㏉⟅࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ
࡞ࡃ㸪ࠕᢎㅙ㸪㈶ྠ㸦approval㸧ࠖࡢព࿡ࡀᙉ࠸࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋ㸦3㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋゝⴥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ྠពࡸ㒔ྜࡢࡼࡉࢆ♧ࡍ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⏝౛࡛ࡣࡸࡸ㐲ᅇࡋ࡞່ㄏ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⫯ᐃⓗ࡞㏉⟅࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ Cool ࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ㄒ⩏࡜⏝౛ࡢᩚྜᛶࡣ㧗࠸ࠋ㸦4㸧࡛ࡣᢎㅙࡸ㈶ྠ㸪ࡲࡓᥦ᱌࡟ᑐࡍࡿྠព࡜࠸࠺ㄒ⩏ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠾
ࡾ㸪㏆࠸ᮍ᮶ࡢணᐃ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㏉⟅ࢆ⏝౛࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ㄯヰ㎡ Cool ࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡼࡾヲ⣽࡞グ㏙ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ESL/EFL ⏝ࡢ㎡᭩࡜ࡋ࡚௨ୗ
࡟㸦5㸧࡜㸦6㸧ࢆᣲࡆࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

(5) LAAD 2[s.v. cool]
APPROVAL INFORMAL said to show approval, especially of someone or somethingthat is fashionable, interesting, attractive, or relaxed:“At the end they opened the cages and let all the doves fly out.” “Cool.”
AGREEMENT SPOKEN said to show that you agree with something, that you
understand it, or that it does not annoy you:
“Okay, all done” “Cool.”(6) LDOCE6 [s.v. cool]
APPROVAL informal very attractive, fashionable, interesting etc in a way that people
admire ̽ used in order to show approval: ‘I’m thinking of studying abroad.’ ‘Really?
Cool.’AGREEMENT spoken used to say that you agree with something, that you understand it,or that it does not annoy you: ‘I’m finished.’ ‘Cool.’ 㸦5㸧࡜㸦6㸧࡛ࡣ㸪࠸ࡎࢀࡶㄒ⩏ᶆ㆑࡜ࡋ࡚ approval ࡜ agreement ࡜࠸࠺ 2 ࡘࡢព࿡ࢆ
ㄆࡵࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟⏝౛ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ㄒ⩏ᶆ㆑࡜ࡋ࡚♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
approval ࡣ㸪ࡑࡢព࿡࡟ᖜࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵ㸪ࡑࢀࡔࡅ࡛ⓗ☜࡟ Cool ࡢព࿡ࢆᢕᥱ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡣ
ゝ࠸㞴࠸ࠋ⏝౛࡛ࡣ㐣ཤࡢฟ᮶஦࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢሗ࿌࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㏉⟅࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
Cool ࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾࠸ࡿࠋㄒ⩏ᶆ㆑ࡢ approval ࡢព࿡ࢆᙜ࡚ࡣࡵࡿ࡞ࡽࡤ㸪ࡇࡢ⏝౛࡛ࡣඛ⾜ࡍࡿⓎヰෆᐜࡀᥦ᱌ࡸ່ㄏ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ㸪ࠕᢎㅙࠖࡸࠕ㈶ྠ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ࠕዲពࠖࡸ
ࠕ⛠㈶ࠖࡢព࿡ࡀࡼࡾ㏆࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ㸦6㸧࡛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿㄒ⩏ᶆ㆑ࡢ approval ࡶ㸦5㸧࡜ྠᵝ࡟㸪ࠕᢎㅙࠖࡸࠕ㈶ྠࠖࡼࡾࡣࠕዲព࣭⛠㈶ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡀᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿ⏝౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⏝౛࡛ࡣ㸪ᑐヰ⪅⮬㌟ࡢ㏆࠸ᮍ᮶ࡢィ⏬ࢆఏ࠼ࡽࢀࡓ㝿࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ Cool ࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪Ⓨヰෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿឤᚰࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸦5㸧࡜㸦6㸧࡛㸪ㄒ⩏ᶆ㆑࡜ࡋ࡚ agreement ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓ⏝౛ࢆぢࡿ࡜㸪ᑐヰ⪅⮬㌟ࡢ≧ἣࡲࡓࡣ≧ែ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢሗ
࿌࡜࠸ࡗࡓෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㏉⟅࡛ࠕྠពࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡣぢ࡚ྲྀࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡴࡋࢁ㸪
㸦6㸧࡛ࡢㄒ⩏࡟グ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕᑐヰ⪅ࡢⓎヰෆᐜࢆ⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸪ࡲࡓࡣࡑࡢෆᐜ࡟

−108−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ࢃࡎࡽࢃࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡀࡼࡾ㐺ษ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
㸦7㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ࡃࡔࡅࡓ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ዲពⓗ࡞཯ᛂࢆ♧ࡍ㝿࡟ Cool ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ cool ࡀࠕ࠿ࡗࡇ࠸࠸㸪ࡍࡈ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓព࿡ࢆᣢࡘᙧᐜモ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᗈࡃㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢព࿡ࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿㄯヰ㎡ Cool ࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ඛ⾜ࡍࡿᑐヰ⪅ࡢⓎヰࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸Ⅽ㸪ᥦ᱌ࡸ່ㄏ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㏉⟅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ᫂ࡽ
࠿࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
(7) ࠗ࢘࢕ࢬࢲ࣒ⱥ࿴ 3࠘[s.v. cool]((ࡃࡔࡅ࡚)) ࠑே࣭≀ࡀࠒ࠿ࡗࡇ࠸࠸, ࠸ࡁ࡞, ࡍࡈ࠸; (Ẽศࡀ)᭱㧗ࡢ(great); ((಑))ඖẼ࡞
Wow! Cool! ࡬࠻࣮, ࡍࡈ࠸࡞[࠸࠸ࡡ࠼]((ヰ))ၥ㢟࡞࠸, ኱୔ኵ࡞, ⤖ᵓ࡞⏝౛ࡣᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢㄯヰ㎡ Cool ࡢព࿡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヲ⣽࡞グ㏙ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࡢ
ࡀ௨ୗࡢ㸦8㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸦8㸧࡛ࡣ㸪㛫ᢞモ࡜ࡋ࡚⊂❧ࡋࡓ㡯┠ࢆタࡅࡓୖ࡛ㄯヰ㎡ࡢ Cool࡟ㄒ⩏ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋཱྀㄒㄪࡢヂㄒࢆ」ᩘᥦ♧ࡍࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟㢮⩏⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡃࡔࡅࡓ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿᙧᐜモࡢព࿡ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࡣ㸦7㸧࡜ྠᵝࡢグ㏙࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ(8) ࠗࢪ࣮ࢽ࢔ࢫⱥ࿴ 5࠘[s.v. cool](␎ᘧ)࠿ࡗࡇ࠸࠸, ࢖ࢣ࡚ࡿ, ⢋࡞, ࡍࡈ࠸, 㢪ࡗ࡚ࡶ࡞࠸, ၥ㢟࡞࠸ It’s [That’s] cool.
ࡑࢀ࡛ OK ࡔࠑ༢࡟ Cool!ࡔࡅ࡛ࡍࡲࡍࡇ࡜ࡶከ࠸㸹ㅰ⨥࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕẼ࡟ࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚࠸
࠸࡛ࡍࡼࠖࡢព࿡࡟ࡶ⏝࠸ࡿࠒ࠿ࡗࡇ࠸࠸㸟, ࢫࢸ࢟㸟, ࡋࡪ࠸㸟, ࠸࠸ࡡࠑ‶㊊࣭㈶ᡂ࣭ྠព࡞࡝ࢆ⾲ࡍ㸸That’s OK.
ࡢ௦ࢃࡾ࡟ࡶ⏝࠸ࡿࠒ.
ᮏ⠇࡛ᘬ⏝ࡋࡓ㸦1㸧̽㸦8㸧㎡᭩࡟࠾ࡅࡿグ㏙ࢆぢࡿ࡜㸪ㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿព࿡ࡸ⏝ἲ࡟ࡤࡽࡘࡁࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪ࡲࡓㄒ⩏࡜ࡋ࡚୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓព࿡࡜ᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⏝౛ࡀᚲࡎࡋࡶ୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊㄯヰ㎡࡜ࡋ࡚ヰࡋゝⴥ࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿ Cool ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠿ࡽ᳨ฟࡉࢀࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ㎡᭩ࡢグ㏙࡜↷ࡽࡋྜࢃࡏ࡚ࡑࡢព࿡࡜⏝ἲࢆᩚ⌮ࡍࡿࠋ㸱ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢹ࣮ࢱ
ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣㄯヰ㎡࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ Cool ࡢព࿡࡜⏝ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ⏝࠸࡚౑⏝౛ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ᳨ฟࡋศᯒࡍࡿࠋࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟ࡣ㸪WordbanksOnline ཬࡧᫎ⏬ⱥㄒࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋ

➨ 2 ⠇࡛♧ࡋࡓ EFL/ESL ㎡᭩࡛ࡣ㸪౫㢗ࡸ່ㄏ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᢎㅙࡸ㈶ྠ㸪Ⓨヰෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⌮ゎࢆ♧ࡍྜᅗ㸪ࠕ࠿ࡗࡇ࠸࠸㸪ࡍࡈ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆᣢࡗࡓឤჃࢆ⾲ࡍ⾲⌧ࡢ⏝౛ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡀ㸪WordbanksOnline ࡛ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ
(9) WordbanksOnline ࠿ࡽ᳨ฟࡋࡓㄯヰ㎡ Cool ࡢ୍౛−109−話し言葉コーパスを用いた談話辞の分析―Coolの談話機能について―“Are we going to roll in hot and strafe?” Messer asked hopefully. “Only if they need us,
and there's nothing else to do up here.” “Cool,” Messer said, trying to cover the dryness
in his mouth with enthusiasm.             —usbooks, BU-aM982636
㸦9㸧࡛ࡣ୺ほⓗ࡞ពぢ࡟ᑐࡍࡿྠㄪࡸᨭᣢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព࿡ࡀᙉࡃ㸪ࡇࢀࡣ┦ᵔ⾲⌧ࡢᶵ⬟ࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ Cutrone(2010)࡛ᥦၐࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ ‘Support and empathy toward the speaker’s
judgment’ ࡟ἢ࠺ࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼㸪ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣ┦ᵔ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚⏝ ࠸ ࡽ ࢀࡿ Cool ࡟ ࡣ ௨ ୗ ࡟ ♧ࡍ 4 ࡘ ࡢᶵ ⬟ ࢆ ᣢ ࡕᚓ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࢆᥦ ᱌ ࡍ ࡿ ࠋ㸦10㸧 ࡣ
WordbanksOnline ࡢ᳨⣴⤖ᯝࢆ 4 ࡘࡢᶵ⬟࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(10) ㄯヰ㎡ Cool ࡢᶵ⬟ศ㢮࡜ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ᳨ฟᩘ 2)
᳨ฟᩘ 2)

ᶵ⬟ࡢศ㢮
3)

a.
㸦㉁ၥࡸ່ㄏ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㸧⫯ᐃⓗ࡞㏉⟅
6㸦12.5%㸧4)b.
Ⓨヰෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⌮ゎࢆ♧ࡍྜᅗ11㸦22.9%㸧
c.
ឤ᝟ⓗ࡞཯ᛂ 5)
26㸦54.2%㸧
d.
ヰ⪅ࡢពぢุ࣭᩿࡬ࡢྠㄪ࣭ᨭᣢ࣭ඹឤ
5㸦10.4%㸧
㸦11㸧࡟ᫎ⏬ⱥㄒࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠿ࡽᢳฟࡋࡓࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ Cool ࡢ౛ࢆ♧ࡍ 6)ࠋ
(10) ᫎ⏬ⱥㄒࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠿ࡽ᳨ฟࡋࡓ౛
a.㸦㉁ၥࡸ່ㄏ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㸧⫯ᐃⓗ࡞㏉⟅
Listen, I got one idea, one way I might buy myself a little room to breathe, but I need a
big favor from you.
Cool.
̿25th Hour, 2002
b. Ⓨヰෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⌮ゎࢆ♧ࡍྜᅗ
One other thing. If it does manifest, don’t even look into the girls eyes. Whatever you
do, do not address it. Don’t speak to it. It’s the devil. Leave that to me. Do you
understand?
Cool.
Do you understand?
Yeah, I get it.
Well, just say so.
̿The Rite, 2011c. ឤ᝟ⓗ࡞཯ᛂKudrow wants to see me.
Cool! Maybe you'll get your own section.
No. I, uh, I screwed up.
̿Mercury Rising, 1998d. ヰ⪅ࡢពぢุ࣭᩿࡬ࡢྠㄪ࣭ᨭᣢ࣭ඹឤ
How 'bout this grey one?
It's smaller.
I think the orange works.
Cool.
Uh, do I have time to make a call
̿Terminal Velocity, 1994−110−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

㸲 ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜⤖ㄒ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ┦ᵔ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ Cool ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚㸪ESL/EFL ⏝ࡢ㎡᭩ࡢグ㏙
ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓୖ࡛ࡑࡢᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⏝࠸᳨࡚ドࡋࡓࠋᶵ⬟ศ㢮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ┦ᵔ⾲⌧ࢆᢅࡗࡓඛ⾜◊✲ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋࡓࡀᚲࡎࡋࡶ᤼௚ⓗ࡞㡯┠࡟ࡣ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡞
࠸ࡓࡵࡼࡾጇᙜᛶࡢ㧗࠸ศ㢮㡯┠ࡢ᳨ウࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ௒ᅇࡣ Cool ࡟ࡢࡳ↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓࡀ㸪㢮⩏ࡢ┦ᵔ⾲⌧࡜ࡢẚ㍑ࡣ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋὀ1) ㎡᭩࡟࠾ࡅࡿぢฟࡋㄒ cool ࡢㄒ⩏グ㏙࡟ࡣ㸪ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓㄯヰ㎡ࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ࡣ㛵㐃ࡀ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡶከ࠸ࡓࡵ㐺ᐅᢤ⢋ࡋࡓࡶࡢࢆᘬ⏝ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ♧ࡋࡓࠋྛ㎡᭩ࡢ⏝౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ༢ㄒࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ┦ᵔ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢࡳࢆᘬ⏝ࡋࡓࠋ2) ᳨⣴ᘧ࡟ࡼࡗ᳨࡚ฟࡉࢀࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ 87 ౛࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊ఍ヰ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡣྵ
ࡵࡎศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋ
CQL ᳨ ⣴ ᘧ(Yeah ࡟ 㢮 ࡍ ࡿ ⾲ ⌧ ᙧ ᘧ ࡟ ࡘ ࠸ ࡚ ࡣ Ward (2006)ࢆ ཧ ⪃ ࡟ ࡋ ࡓ ࠋ):[word="\'|\""][word="Cool"][word="\.|\,|\!"]ཬ

ࡧ[word="Yeah|Okay"][word="\,"] [word="cool"]3) ┦ᵔ⾲⌧ࡢࠕ(㉁ၥࡸ່ㄏ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ)⫯ᐃⓗ࡞㏉⟅ࠖࡢᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Blundell et al.
(1982), Uematsu (2000)ཧ↷ࠋ4) ┦ᵔ⾲⌧ࡢࠕⓎヰෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⌮ゎࢆ♧ࡍྜᅗࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Gardner(1998), Ito (2007)ཧ↷ࠋ
5) ┦ᵔ⾲⌧ࡢࠕឤ᝟ⓗ࡞཯ᛂࠖࢆ⾲ࡍᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Goodwin(1986), Cutrone( 2010)ཧ↷ࠋ
6) ┦ᵔ⾲⌧࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ᗈࡃᘬ⏝ࡉࢀࡿ Yngve(1970)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶᫎീࢆ⏝࠸ࡓほᐹ࣭ศᯒࡢ฼Ⅼࡣᙉㄪࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉࡟༢ㄒ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ
ࢥࣥࢥ࣮ࢲࣥࢧ࣮ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᑟࡁฟࡉࢀࡿࢥࣟࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ➼ࡢ⤫ィ್ࢆά⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
㞴ࡋ࠸ࡓࡵಶูࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⢭ᰝࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࢹ࣮ࢱඖࡢᫎീ࣭㡢ኌࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿᫎ⏬ⱥㄒࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡣ┦ᵔ⾲⌧ࡢ◊✲࡟ࡣ᭷⏝࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋ௒ᅇࡢⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ౛♧࡟࡜࡝ࡵ㸪ᶵ⬟ศ㢮ࡢศᕸ☜ㄆ࡟ࡣ Wordbanksonline ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ
ࡳࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩Blundell, J., Higgens, J., and Middlemiss, N. 1982. Function in English. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Cutrone, P. 2010. “The Backchannel Norms of Native English Speakers: A Target for Japanese L2
English Learners.” University of Reading Language Studies Working Papers Vol.2, pp.28–37.
Deuter, M., J. Bradbery and J. Trunbull (eds.) 2015. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary ofCurrent English. Ninth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [OALD9]Fries, C. 1952. The Structure of English. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Gardner, R. 1998. “Between speaking and listening: the vocalisation of understandings.” Applied−111−話し言葉コーパスを用いた談話辞の分析―Coolの談話機能について―

Linguistics 19, pp. 204–224.
Goodwin, C. 1986. “Between and within: alternative sequential treatment of continuers andassessments.” Human Studies 9, pp. 295–27.
஭ୖỌᖾ࣭㉥㔝୍㑻㸦⦅㸧2003.ࠗ࢘࢕ࢬࢲ࣒ⱥ࿴㎡඾࠘➨ 3 ∧㸬୕┬ᇽ㸬[࢘࢕ࢬࢲ࣒ⱥ
࿴ 3]
Ito, A. 2007. Functions of Backchannels in Japanese Casual Conversations: Comparing Single
Back Channels and repeated Back Channels. Kobe: Kobe College Graduate Division ofEnglish.
Mayor, M. (ed.) 2014. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Sixth Edition. Harlow:
Pearson Education Limiited. [LDOCE6]
༡ฟᗣୡ㸦⦅㸧2003.ࠗࢪ࣮ࢽ࢔ࢫⱥ࿴㎡඾࠘➨ 5 ∧㸬኱ಟ㤋㸬[ࢪ࣮ࢽ࢔ࢫⱥ࿴ 5]
Perrault, S.J. (ed.) 2008. Merriam-Webster’s Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary. Spring field,
MA: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. [MWALED]
Rundell, M. (ed.) 2007. Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Second Edition.
Oxford: Macmillan Education. [MED2]
Summers, D. (ed.) 2007. Longman Advanced American Dictionary. Harlow: Pearson Education
Limited. [LAAD2]
Uematsu, S. 2000. “The use of back channels between native and non-native speakers in English
and Japanese.” Intercultural Communication Studies 10, pp. 85–98.
Ward, N. 2006. “Non-lexical conversational sounds in American English.” Pragmatics andCognition 14-1, pp.129-182.
Walter, E. (ed.) 2013. Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Fourth Edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. [CALD4]
Yngve, V. 1970. On getting a word in edgewise. Chicago Linguistic Society 6, 567-578.

ᘬ⏝సရ㸸ᫎ⏬Lee, S. (Director) and Beniof, D. (Screenplay). 2002. 25th Hour [Motion picture]. United States:
25th Hour Productions.
Hafstrom, M. (Director) and Petroni, M. (Writer). 2011. The Rite [Motion picture]. United States:
New Line Cinema.
Becker, H. (Director) and Konner, L. (Screenplay). 1998. Mercury Rising [Motion picture]. UnitedStates: Universal Pictures.
Sarafian, D. (Director) and Twohy, D. (Writer). 1994. Terminal Velocity [Motion picture]. UnitedStates: Hollywood Pictures.

ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ
ATEM 㛵す ᫎ⏬ⱥㄒᏐᖥࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫ㸦ATEM Kansai Movie English Caption Database㸧㸦Ver.3.0㸧ATEM ࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫጤဨ఍.
WordbanksOnline. (553,171,489 tokens). Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers.

−112−第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ㅰ⨥࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᶵ⬟⋤្㞣㸦᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸧㸺Abstract㸼
The purpose of this paper is to examine the functions of Japanese Causative Expressions“-(a)seru” . 638 examples of “-(a)seru” have been collected from TV dramas and this paper will
present the findings based on the analysis about 43 examples used in the expressions of apology.
The following are the main points. 1) 27 examples of “-(a)seru” are used in combination with
fixed expressions such as “sumimasen” and “gomennasai” and 24 examples are combined withhonorific expressions such as “o-suru”. 2) Combined with fixed expressions, “-(a)seru” explains
what apology for and expresses the speaker’s regret in the combined form.

࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚㅰ⨥㸪౑ᙺ⾲⌧㸪ᶵ⬟㸪㏞ᝨ㸪㈐௵

㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ຓືモࠕࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡿࠖࡀྵࡲࢀࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ 1 ࡣ㸪᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡛ࡣึ⣭ࡢẁ㝵࠿ࡽྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿᏛ⩦㡯┠࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧࡟㛵ࡍࡿᣦᑟࡣ㸪ᙧᘧ࡜ព࿡ࡢᣦᑟ࡟࡜࡝ࡲ
ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡀࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᯝࡓࡍᶵ⬟࡟㛵ࡍࡿᣦᑟࡣࡲࡔ༑ศ࡟࡞ࡉࢀ࡚
࠸࡞࠸ࠋ౑ᙺ⾲⌧࡟㛵ࡍࡿᚑ᮶ࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡿࠖ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿᩥἲᙧᘧ࡜㸪౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡀ⾲ࡍព࿡࡟㔜Ⅼࡀ⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡀࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡍࡢ
࠿࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㆟ㄽࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᣦᑟࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡾ㸪ཧ⪃࡜࡞ࡿ㈨ᩱࡀ୙㊊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⌧≧ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣ㸪౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᶵ⬟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⪃ᐹࢆヨࡳࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ㸪ࢸࣞࣅࢻ࣐ࣛࡢࢩࢼࣜ࢜࠿ࡽ
཰㞟ࡋࡓ⏝౛ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪⌧ᅾࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸪ㅰ⨥࡟࠾ࡅࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢ౑⏝౛ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ㅰ⨥࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศ
ᯒ࡜⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ㸬ㅰ⨥࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢㅰ⨥ࡣ㸪ࠕヰࡋᡭࡀཎᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚㛵୚ࡋ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡟≛≅ࢆᙉ࠸ࡓ⾜ື࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㐪཯࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⿵ൾ⾜Ⅽࠖ㸦Holmes 1990㸧ࡸ㸪ࠕヰࡋᡭࡀ㈐௵ࢆ㈇࠺㐪཯⾜Ⅽࢆ⿵ൾࡋ㸪ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛫ࡢᆒ⾮ࢆᅇ᚟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪⿕ᐖࢆཷࡅࡓ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢᚲせᛶ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࠖ㸦Bergman & Kasper 1993㸧࡞࡝࡜ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ 2ࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡢㅰ⨥࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ㸪౛࠼ࡤ㸪ࠕ⮬ศࡀ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⾜ࡗࡓ୚ᐖ⾜Ⅽ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪⮬ࡽྰᐃⓗホ౯ࢆ୚࠼㸪ࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ͆೉

−113−

謝罪で使われる使役表現の機能ࡾ≧ែ͇ࢆᑡࡋ࡛ࡶ㍍ῶࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿⓎヰᶵ⬟ࠖ㸦ᒣᒸ 2010㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᐃ⩏ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ⏝ㄒࡣ␗࡞ࡿ
ࡀ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ୙฼┈ࢆ୚࠼ࡓ࡜࠸࠺ㅰ⨥ࡢ๓ᥦ࡜㸪୙฼┈ࡢⓎ⏕࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⿵ൾࢆ
⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀㅰ⨥ࡢ┠ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺࡜ࡇࢁࡀඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀཎᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚㛵୚ࡋ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡟୙฼┈ࢆ୚࠼ࡓࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪⿵ൾࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆㅰ⨥࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࠋㅰ⨥ࡢ๓ᥦ࡛࠶
ࡿ୙฼┈ࡢ῝้ᗘ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪ㅰ⨥ࡢ⾲⌧ࡶኚࢃࡾ㸪ࠕࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖ
ࠕࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⿵ൾࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡟୚࠼ࡓ୙
฼┈࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ⿵ൾࢆ⾜࠺⾲⌧࡛࠶ࢀࡤ㸪ㅰ⨥࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺ࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪ࠕ࠙࠾ᚅࡓࡏࡋࡲࡋࡓࠚ
ࠖࠕ࠙࠾㦁ࡀࡏࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡀࠚ
㸪ఱࡢၥ㢟ࡶ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇ࡛ࡋࡓࠋ
ࠖࡢ࠙ ࠚෆࡢࡶࡢ࡟ᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡀకࢃ࡞࠸ࡀ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀཎᅉࢆసࡾ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀࠕᚅࡘࠖ
ࠕ㦁ࡄࠖࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ㄆ㆑ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⿵ൾࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼㸪ㅰ⨥ࡢ⏝౛࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺ࠋ
➨ 4 ⠇࡛౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆศᯒࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡾ㸪௨ୗࡢ Olshtain 㸤 Cohen㸦1983㸧࡟ࡼࡿㅰ⨥ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢศ㢮ࢆ᥼⏝ࡍࡿࠋヂࡣΎỈ㸦2009㸧࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
1㸬ㅰ⨥ࡢ⾲᫂a㸬ᚋ᜼ࡢ⾲᫂ ͆I’m sorry.͇
b㸬ㅰ⨥ࡢ⏦ࡋฟ ͆I apologize.͇
c㸬チࡋࡢ౫㢗 ͆Excuse me.͇2㸬⌮⏤࣭≧ἣࡢㄝ᫂ ͆The bus was delayed.͇
3㸬㈐௵ࡢᢎㄆ
a㸬㈐௵ࡢཷࡅධࢀ ͆It’s my fault.͇
b㸬⮬ᕫࡢḞ㝗ࡢ⾲᫂ ͆I was confused.͇
c㸬┦ᡭࡀㅰ⨥ࢆཷࡅࡿ࡟್ࡍࡿ᪨ࡢᢎㄆ ͆You are right! ͇d㸬ᨾព࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ᪨ࡢ⾲᫂  ͆I didn’t mean to.͇4㸬⿵ൾࡢ⏦ࡋฟ ͆I’ll pay for the broken vase.͇
5㸬⮬ไࡢ⣙᮰ ͆It won’t happen again.͇㸦Olshtain 㸤 Cohen 1983㸸22-23㸧㸬⏝౛཰㞟࡜ศᯒᑐ㇟ ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᙧᘧ࡜ᶵ⬟ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡾ㸪2000 ᖺ࠿ࡽ 2009 ᖺࡲ࡛ࡢ㛫࡟ᨺ㏦ࡉࢀࡓ 10 ᮏࡢࢸࣞࣅࢻ࣐ࣛࡢࢩࢼࣜ࢜࠿ࡽ⏝౛ࢆ཰㞟ࡋ࡚㸪ィ 638 ࡢ⏝౛ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋ౑ᙺ⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᥥ࠿ࢀࡿືモ࣭స⏝ࡢⓎ⏕࡟㛵ࢃࡿ౑ᙺ⪅࡜⿕౑ᙺ⪅ࢆ㸪ࣄࢺ࡞ࡢ࠿㸪ࡑࢀ࡜ࡶࣔࣀ࣭ࢥࢺ࡞ࡢ࠿࡟ࡼࡗ
࡚ศ㢮ࡍࡿ࡜㸪౑ᙺ⪅࡜⿕౑ᙺ⪅ࡀ୧᪉࡜ࡶࣄࢺࡢ⏝౛ࡀ 564 ౛࠶ࡾ㸪᭱ࡶከ࠸ࠋ564 ౛࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪ࡉࡽ࡟౑ᙺ⪅࡜⿕౑ᙺ⪅ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ㸪ヰࡋᡭ࡞ࡢ࠿㸪ࡑࢀ࡜ࡶ⪺ࡁᡭ࡞ࡢ࠿㸪ࡲࡓࡣ➨୕⪅࡞ࡢ࠿࡛ศࡅ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜㸪౑ᙺ⪅ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡛㸪⿕౑ᙺ⪅ࡀヰࡋᡭࡢ㸪ࠕࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡅࡲࡏࢇ࠿ࠖࡸࠕࠥ
㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡓ࠸ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞౫㢗࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡀከ࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ヰࡋᡭࡀ౑ᙺࡢຓືモ࡜ᤵཷ⾲⌧ࡀ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࡗࡓᙧᘧࢆ౑⏝ࡋ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡟౫㢗ࢆ⾜࠺౑࠸᪉࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡛ࡶᣦᑟࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪㛵㐃ࡢ◊✲ࡶᩘከࡃ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ࡑࢀ௨እࡢ౑ᙺ⾲⌧㸪౛࠼ࡤ㸪

−114−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

౑ᙺ⪅ࡀヰࡋᡭ㸪⿕౑ᙺ⪅ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡀࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚
࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡟╔┠ࡋࡓ◊✲ࡣぢᙜࡓࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ౑ᙺࡢຓືモࡣ㸪౑ᙺ⪅ࡀ⿕౑ᙺ⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪࠶ࡿ⾜ືࢆࡋࡓࡾ㸪࠶ࡿ✀ࡢኚ໬ࡀ㉳ࡇࡗࡓࡾࡼ࠺࡟ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵ㸪ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜㸪౑ᙺ⪅࡜⿕౑ᙺ⪅ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢሙྜ㸪ே㛫㛵ಀ࡞࡝ࢆ㓄៖ࡋ㸪౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢ౑⏝ࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡛ࡣ㸪࠶࠼࡚౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡢࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣࡸሙ㠃࡛㸪౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᶵ⬟ࢆᢸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿ࠺࠼࡛㸪ࠕࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡅࡲࡏࢇ࠿ࠖࡸࠕࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡓ࠸ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞㸪౑ᙺ⪅ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡛㸪⿕౑ᙺ⪅ࡀヰࡋᡭࡢࡶࡢࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ࡑࢀ௨እࡢ౑ᙺ
⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪཰㞟ࡉࢀࡓ 638 ࡢ⏝౛ࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ㸪౑ᙺ⪅ࡀヰࡋᡭ࡛㸪⿕౑ᙺ⪅ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ 66 ౛ࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
㸬⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹ 66 ࡢ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢ౑⏝౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ㸪ࡑࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ 43 ౛ࡀㅰ⨥࡛౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ
࠿ࡗࡓࠋṧࡾࡢ 23 ౛ࡣ㸪㢪ᮃࡢ⾲᫂ࡸ㸪ᐉゝ㸪ᡭ᯶ࡢ࢔ࣆ࣮ࣝ࡞࡝࡛౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪43 ౛ࡢㅰ⨥࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ ㅰ⨥࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿ๓࡟㸪ࡲࡎ㸪ㅰ⨥࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆᩚ⌮ࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ4.1 ࡛ᙧᘧࡢ㠃࠿ࡽ⏝౛ࢆศ㢮ࡋ㸪4.2 ࡜ 4.3 ࡛ࡑࢀࡒࢀᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡜ᩗㄒᙧᘧ࡜ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡢ౑⏝ࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽᩚ⌮ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠿ࡽ㸪4.4 ࡛౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ ㅰ⨥࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᙧᘧ ㅰ⨥࡛౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ 43 ౛ࡢ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᙧᘧࡣ㸪ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࣝ㸪ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸ㸪ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭ㸪ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸࢩ࣐࢘㸭ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢳࣕ࢘ࡢ 4 ✀㢮࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᙧᘧ࡜⏝౛ᩘࡢヲ⣽ࡣ㸪ḟࡢ࣮࣌ࢪࡢ⾲ 1 ࡢ࡜࠾ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࣝࡢ⏝౛ࡣ 18 ౛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪
㸦1㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡓࠖࡢ⏝౛ࡼࡾࡶ㸪㸦2㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡓࠖ࡟ᩗㄒᙧᘧࡢࠕ࠾ࠥࡍࡿࠖࡲࡓࡣࠕ࠾ࠥ࠸ࡓࡍࠖࡀ௜ࡅຍ࠼ࢃࡗࡓࠕ࠾
ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋࡲࡋࡓ㸭࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡋࡓࠖࡢ⏝౛ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀከ࠸ࠋࡲࡓ㸪᪤࡟Ⓨ⏕ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㅰࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪㸦3㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㸪Ⓨヰ᫬Ⅼ࡛㉳ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㅰࡿ㝿࡟౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡿ⏝౛ࡶほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ
㸦1㸧൅ࡣࡳ࡞ࡉࢇࢆኻᮃࡉࡏࡓ࡜㸪ᮏᙜ࡟③ឤࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ⏦ࡋヂ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇ࡛ࡋࡓࠋ
㸦2㸧ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇ㸪࠾ᚅࡓࡏࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ
㸦3㸧ࡇࢇࡤࢇࡣ㸟ᮅ಴ၨኴ࡛ࡍࠋࡍ࠸ࡲࡏࢇ㸪࠾㦁ࡀࡏࡋ࡚ࡲࡍࠋ ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸࡀ༢⊂࡛౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⏝౛࡜㸪ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸ࡜ࠥࢸࢩ࣐࢘㸭ࢳࣕ࢘ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡛
࠶ࡿࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸࢩ࣐࢘㸭ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢳࣕ࢘ࡢ⏝౛ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ 10 ౛࡜ 13 ౛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ྜࢃࡏࡿ࡜
23 ౛࡜࡞ࡾ㸪43 ౛ࡢ༙ศ௨ୖࢆ༨ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ 2 ✀㢮ࢆẚ࡭ࡿ࡜㸪༢⊂ࡢࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸࡼࡾ㸪−115−

謝罪で使われる使役表現の機能⾲  ㅰ⨥࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᙧᘧ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᙧᘧ

⏝౛ᩘ࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋࡲࡋࡓ㸭 ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࣝ࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡋࡓ
ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡓ

2㸦4.7%㸧࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍ

1㸦2.3%㸧ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࡚ࡋࡲࡗ࡚㸭ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡕࡷࡗ࡚
ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓ㸭 ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸࢩ࣐࢘㸭ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡕࡷࡗࡓ ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢳࣕ࢘

࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚㸭࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋࡕࡷࡗ࡚ ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸ ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭ15㸦34.9%㸧

6㸦14.0%㸧
3㸦7.0%㸧
13㸦30.2%㸧
2㸦4.7%㸧ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺

1㸦2.3%㸧࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋࡓ

1㸦2.3%㸧ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࡚

7㸦16.3%㸧

࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋ࡚

3㸦7.0%㸧࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ

2㸦4.7%㸧                         ྜ ィ

18㸦41.9%㸧

10㸦23.3%㸧
2㸦4.7%㸧

43㸦100%㸧ࠥࢸࢩ࣐࢘㸭ࢳࣕ࢘࡜ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡢ⏝౛ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀࡸࡸከ࠸ࠋ
༢⊂ࡢࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸࡣ㸪
㸦4㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࡚ࠖࡢ 7 ౛௨እ㸪㸦5㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ࠾ࠥࡍࡿࠖ
ࡀ௜ࡅຍ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋ࡚ࠖࡶ 3 ౛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦4㸧ࡈࡵࢇࡡ㸪㞵ࢇ୰௜ࡁྜࢃࡏ࡚ࠋ
㸦5㸧࠾ᚅࡓࡏࡋ࡚⏦ࡋヂ࡞࠸ࠋࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸࢩ࣐࢘㸭ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢳࣕ࢘ࡢ⏝౛ࡣ㸪㸦6㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࡚ࡋࡲࡗ࡚㸭ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࠖ࡜㸪
㸦7㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓ㸭ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡕࡷࡗࡓࠖ࡜㸪
㸦8㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞
ࠕࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠖࡶࡢࡀྜࢃࡏ࡚ 10 ౛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸࢩ࣐࢘㸭ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢳࣕ࢘ࡢሙྜࡶ㸪
ࠕ࠾ࠥࡍࡿࠖࡀ௜ࡅຍࢃࡗࡓ㸦9㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㸪ࠕ࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚㸭࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࠖ࡜㸪
㸦10㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠖࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ
㸦6㸧࠾᫬㛫ྲྀࡽࡏࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠋ
㸦7㸧ࡲࡓ㦫࠿ࡏࡕࡷࡗࡓࢃࡡࠋࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠋ
㸦8㸧ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠋ࠸ࡸ㸪࡝࠺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡘࡶ㸪࠶࡞ࡓࢆᛣࡽࡏ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡢ࠿㸪࡜ᛮࡗ࡚ࠋ
㸦9㸧ࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸㸪ࡍࡗ࠿ࡾ࠾ᚅࡓࡏࡋࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࠋ

−116−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

㸦10㸧࠾㦁ࡀࡏࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡀ㸪ఱࡢၥ㢟ࡶ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇ࡛ࡋࡓࠋ
୰Ṇᙧࡢࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࡢ⏝౛ࡣ 2 ౛࠶ࡾ㸪࠸ࡎࢀࡶḟࡢ㸦11㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ࠾ࠥࡍࡿࠖࡀ௜ࡅຍࢃࡗ
࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦11㸧ࡸ࠶㸟࠾ᚅࡓࡏ㸟 ᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡜ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡢ౑⏝
 43 ౛ࡢㅰ⨥࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪
㸦1㸧ࠥ㸦9㸧࡛ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞㸪ࠕࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖࠕࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖࠕ⏦ࡋヂ࡞࠸ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡜࡜ࡶ࡟౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⏝౛ࡀከࡃほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ
ᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡛౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ 27 ࡢ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢヲ⣽ࡣ⾲ 2 ࡢ࡜࠾ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⾲  ᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡜ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢෆヂ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᙧᘧ

⏝౛ᩘ࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋࡲࡋࡓ㸭 ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࣝ4ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡓ

21࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍ

1

1

6

6

3

2

2

2

ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺

11࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋࡓ

10ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࡚

77

࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋ࡚

33࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ

2

0

43

27

ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡕࡷࡗ࡚
ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓ㸭 ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸࢩ࣐࢘㸭ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡕࡷࡗࡓ ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢳࣕ࢘

࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚㸭࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋࡕࡷࡗ࡚ ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭ࠶ࡿ⏝౛ᩘ

15࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡋࡓ

ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࡚ࡋࡲࡗ࡚㸭 ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡀ

ྜ ィ

⾲ 2 ࡛ศ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟㸪༢⊂ࡢࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸࡢ 10 ౛ࡣ㸪࠸ࡎࢀࡶ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡀᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡜࡜ࡶ࡟౑
ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸࢩ࣐࢘㸭ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢳࣕ࢘ࡢ 13 ౛ࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪ࠕ࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧
ࡏࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠖࡢ 1 ౛࡜ࠕࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓ㸭ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡕࡷࡗࡓࠖࡢ 1 ౛ࢆ㝖࠸࡚㸪࡯࠿ࡢࡶࡢࡣࡍ࡭࡚ᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡀక࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ༢⊂ࡢࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸ࡜ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸࢩ࣐࢘㸭ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧−117−

謝罪で使われる使役表現の機能ࢭࢳࣕ࢘ࡢ⏝౛ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡚౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪᭱ࡶ⏝౛ᩘࡀከ࠸ࠥ
㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࣝࡣ㸪ᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡀక࠺ࡶࡢࡀྜࢃࡏ࡚ 6 ౛࡛㸪୕ศࡢ୍࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡀకࢃ࡞࠸⏝౛ࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪㸦12㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋࡲࡋࡓ㸭࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡋࡓࠖࡢᙧᘧࡢࡶࡢࡀከ࠸ࠋ
 㸦12㸧ࡇࡢࡓࡧࡣ࠾㦁ࡀࡏࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ
 ᩗㄒᙧᘧ࡜ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡢ౑⏝
 43 ౛ࡢㅰ⨥࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪ࠕ࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋࡲࡋࡓ㸭࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏ࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡋࡓࠖ
ࠕ࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠖ
ࠕ࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋ࡚ࠖࠕ࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚㸭࠾ࠥ㸦ࡉ㸧ࡏࡋࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞㸪ᩗㄒᙧᘧࡢࠕ࠾ࠥࡍࡿࠖ
ࠕ࠾ࠥ࠸ࡓࡍࠖࡀ௜ࡅຍ࠼ࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢࡀྜࢃࡏ࡚
24 ౛ほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢ 24 ౛࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓືモࡣࠕᚅࡘࠖ࡜ࠕ㦁ࡄࠖࡢ 2 ✀㢮ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
 24 ౛ࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪౛࠼ࡤ㸦13㸧
㸦14㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㸪ㅰ⨥ࡢពᅗࢆឤࡌࡉࡏࡎ㸪ḟࡢ⾜ື࡬ᒎ㛤ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ๓⨨ࡁࡢ⾲⌧ࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ⏝౛㸪≉࡟ᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡜࡜ࡶ࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸⏝౛࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪័⏝ⓗ࡞⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᙧᘧⓗ࡞ㅰ⨥ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
㸦13㸧㸦㟁ヰࢆษࡗ࡚㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢ఍ヰࢆ⥆ࡅࡿ㸧   ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇ㸪࠾ᚅࡓࡏࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ࠼࠼࡜㸪࡞ࢇ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺࠿ࠋ
㸦14㸧㸦ᗑဨࡀ࠾ᐈࡉࢇࡢὀᩥࡋࡓᩱ⌮ࢆ㐠ࢇ࡛ࡁࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ㸧   ࠾ᚅࡓࡏࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋࣁࣥࣂ࣮ࢢ A ࢭࢵࢺ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ᩗㄒᙧᘧࡀక࠺ 24 ౛௨እࡢ 19 ౛࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪
㸦7㸧࡜㸦15㸧࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࠕ㦫ࡃࠖࠕࡘࡽ࠸ᛮ࠸ࢆ
ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ↓ពᚿືモ࡛ឤ᝟ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࢀࡤ㸪㸦4㸧࡜㸦16㸧࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࠕ௜ࡁྜ࠺ࠖ
ࠕࡸࡿࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓពᚿືモࡶ࠶ࡿࠋពᚿືモ࡜↓ពᚿືモࡢ୧᪉ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀ⮬ࡽࡢពᚿࢆࡶࡗ࡚⾜ືࡋࡓࡢ࠿㸪ࡑࢀ࡜ࡶពᚿࢆᣢࡓࡎ㸪ឤ᝟ⓗ࡞ኚ໬ࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡉࢀࡓࡢ࠿࡜ࡣ㛵ಀ࡞ࡃ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀㅰࡿ࡭ࡁࡔ࡜ุ᩿ࡋ࡚࠸ࢀࡤ㸪౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
㸦15㸧ࡘࡽ࠸ᛮ࠸ࢆࡉࡏ࡚ᝏ࠿ࡗࡓࢃࡡࠋ
㸦16㸧⏦ࡋヂ࡞࠸ࡡ㸪㆙㒊Ẋࡲ࡛ࡇࢇ࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆࡸࡽࡏࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࡡࠋ
 ㅰ⨥࡟࠾ࡅࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᶵ⬟
 4.2 ࡛ᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧࡜ࡑ࠺࡛࡞࠸౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᩚ⌮ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡀ㸪ㅰ⨥࡟࠾ࡅࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿ㝿ࡶ㸪ᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡢ᭷↓࡛ศࡅ࡚⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡎ㸪43 ࡢㅰ⨥࡛౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ 27 ౛ࡣ㸪౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡀᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡜࡜ࡶ࡟౑ࢃࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋOlshtain & Cohen㸦1983㸧࡟ࡼࡿㅰ⨥ࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢᴫᛕࢆ᥼⏝ࡍࡿ࡜㸪
ࡇࡢ 27 ࡢㅰ⨥ࡢ⏝౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪౑ᙺ⾲⌧࡜ᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡀ୍ࡘࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕᚋ᜼ࡢ⾲᫂ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㅰ⨥ࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪
㸦4㸧
㸦5㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ᐃᆺ−118−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

⾲⌧ࡢࠕࡈࡵࢇࡡࠖ࡜ࠕ⏦ࡋヂ࡞࠸ࠖࡀヰࡋᡭࡢࠕᚋ᜼ࠖࡢឤ᝟ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢࠕ௜ࡁྜࢃࡏ࡚ࠖ࡜ࠕ࠾ᚅࡓࡏࡋ࡚ࠖࡢ㒊ศࡣ㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢㅰ⨥ࡢ๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡿ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀࠕ௜
ࡁྜ࠺ࠖࠕᚅࡘࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾜ືࢆᙉ࠸ࡽࢀ㸪୙฼┈ࢆ⿕ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ㄆ㆑࡜㸪ࡑࡢ୙฼┈ࡀ⏕ࡌࡓཎᅉࡣ
ヰࡋᡭ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺㈐௵ࡢㄆ㆑ࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡜౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢ୧⪅ࡀ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ㸪ᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢࠕᚋ᜼ࠖࡢẼᣢࡕࢆఏ࠼ࡿാࡁࢆᢸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀఱ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㅰࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿㸪ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ㸪ㅰ⨥ࡢᑐ㇟ࢆ᫂☜໬ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ⱥㄒࡢㅰ⨥ࢆẚ㍑ࡋศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ኱㇂㸦2004㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ⱥㄒࡢㅰ⨥࡛ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢࠕ㈐௵ࠖ
ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪᪥ᮏㄒࡢㅰ⨥࡛ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕ㏞ᝨࠖࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸࡜ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕ㏞ᝨࠖ࡜ࠕ㈐௵ࠖࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ୙฼┈ࡢⓎ⏕࡟㛵ࢃࡿ୧ഃ㠃࡛࠶ࡾ㸪౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿሙྜ㸪ࠕ㏞ᝨࠖ࡜ࠕ㈐௵ࠖࡢ୧᪉ࡢ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿୍᪉࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪୧᪉ࡢഃ㠃࠿ࡽ୙฼┈ࡢⓎ⏕࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄆ㆑ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪
㸦6㸧
㸦7㸧ࡢሙྜ㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀࠕ㦫࠿ࡏࡓࠖ࡜ࠕ᫬
㛫ࢆྲྀࡽࡏࡓࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀࠕ㦫࠸ࡓࠖࠕ᫬㛫ࢆྲྀࡗࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠕ㏞ᝨࠖࢆ⿕ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪ࡑࢀ࡜ྠ᫬࡟㸪ࠕ㦫࠿ࡏࡓࠖ
ࠕ᫬㛫ࢆྲྀࡽࡏࡓࠖࡢࡣヰࡋᡭ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ヰࡋᡭ࡟ࠕ㈐௵ࠖࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡶࡕࢁࢇ㸪ㅰ⨥ࡢᑐ㇟ࡀྠࡌ࡛ࡶ㸪ᵝࠎ࡞⾲⌧ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶ౑ࢃࢀࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࡀ㸪ㅰ⨥ࡢᑐ㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀ⿕ࡗࡓࠕ㏞ᝨࠖ࡜ヰࡋᡭࡢࠕ㈐௵ࠖࡢ୧ഃ㠃࠿ࡽ㏙࡭ࡿ㝿࡟㸪౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ௒ᅇ཰㞟ࡉࢀࡓ 16 ࡢᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡀకࢃ࡞࠸౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡣ㸪㸦10㸧ࠥ㸦12㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧⓗ࡞ㅰ⨥ࡢࡶࡢࡀ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡛࠶ࡿࠋ≉࡟ࠕ࠾ࠥࡍࠖ
ࠕ࠾ࠥ࠸ࡓࡍࠖ࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ⏝౛ࡀከ࠸ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⏝౛࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶ㸪ᗈ࠸⠊ᅖ࡛ࡢㅰ⨥ࡢ⏝౛࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡢ⏝౛ࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶヰࡋᡭࡢㅰ⨥ࡢពᅗࢆࡶ࡜࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋヰࡋᡭࡀㅰࡿពᅗࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸
ሙྜ㸪౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ᙧᘧୖ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀ୙฼┈ࢆ⿕ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ヰࡋᡭࡀ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ㄆ㆑ࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣᙜ↛ᛶࡢ㧗࠸⾜ືࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡲࡓࡣᮏᙜ࡟ࠕ㈐௵ࠖࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ឤࡌ࡚࠾ࡽࡎ㸪ᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࢆ౑⏝ࡏࡎ㸪ᙧᘧⓗ࡞ㅰ⨥࡟࡜࡝ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㸳㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ࡇࢀࡲ࡛㆟ㄽࡀᑡ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ศᯒ࣭⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣ㸪⌧ᅾࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢ౑࠸᪉ࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿ㸪ㅰ⨥࡟࠾ࡅࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪⏝౛ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋㅰ⨥࡟࠾ࡅࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢᶵ⬟࡜ࡋ࡚㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀ୙฼┈ࢆ⿕ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄆ㆑࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀཷࡅࡿࠕ㏞ᝨࠖ࡜ヰࡋᡭࡢࠕ㈐௵ࠖ
ࡢ୧ഃ㠃࠿ࡽ㏙࡭㸪ᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡚౑⏝ࡍࡿሙྜ㸪୧⪅ࡀ୍ࡘࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚ㅰ⨥ࡢᑐ㇟ࢆ᫂☜࡟ఏ࠼㸪ࠕᚋ᜼ࡢ⾲᫂ࠖࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚㸪୺࡟௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡎ㸪ྠࡌㅰ⨥ࡢሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸࡞࠸⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿㸪౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿᙧᘧ࡜࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㐪࠺ࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓ㸪௒ᅇศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ 66 ࡢ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪43 ౛ࡀㅰ⨥࡛౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪࡯࠿࡟ࡣ౛࠼ࡤ㸪
㸦17㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㢪ᮃࡢ⾲᫂ࡸ㸪
㸦18㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᐉゝ࡞࡝ࡢ⏝౛ࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ௒ᚋࡣ㸪ࡇࢀ−119−

謝罪で使われる使役表現の機能ࡽࡢ౑࠸᪉ࡢ౑ᙺ⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ㸪ࡼࡾከࡃࡢ⏝౛ࢆ཰㞟ࡋ㸪ศᯒࢆ⾜࠸ࡓ࠸ࠋ㸦17㸧ನࡔࡗ࡚㸦୰␎㸧Ṍ࠿ࡏ࡚ࡸࡾ࡚࣮ࡋ㸪㉮ࡽࡏ࡚ࡸࡾ࡚࣮ࡼࠋ
㸦18㸧ನࡀ㸦୰␎㸧࣓ࢫࡔࡅ࡟㞟୰ࡉࡏ࡚ࡸࡿࠋ ᭱ᚋ࡟㸪௒ᅇศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓㅰ⨥࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࢆ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡛ᣦᑟࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ྰ࠿㸪࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࡽ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣦᑟࡀྍ⬟࡞ࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵ㸪௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
⏝౛ฟ඾ࠗࣅ࣮ࣗࢸ࢕ࣇࣝࣛ࢖ࣇ࠘ࠗHERO࠘ࠗ┦Წ࠘ࠗⓑ࠸ᕧሪ࠘
ࠗ㞳፧ᘚㆤኈ࠘
ࠗanego࠘ࠗ་㱟࠘ࠗ࢞ࣜࣞ࢜࠘

ࠗCHANGE࠘ࠗBOSS࠘                                        ὀ1㸬 ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࣝ㸪ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢱࡢࡼ࠺࡞౑ᙺᙧࡀ༢⊂࡛౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜㸪ࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࢸ࢖ࢱࢲ࣐࢟ࢫࡸࠥ㸦ࢧ㸧ࢭࣛࣞࣝࡢࡼ࠺࡞౑ᙺᙧ࡜࡯࠿ࡢᙧᘧ࡜ࡢ」ྜᙧᘧ࡛౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࡶࡢࢆ⥲⛠ࡋ࡚㸪ࠕ౑ᙺ⾲⌧ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࠋ
2㸬 ᪥ᮏㄒヂࡣΎỈ㸦2009㸧࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢࢆ᥼⏝ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩኱㇂㯞⨾.2004.ࠕㅰ⨥࡜ឤㅰࡢ᪥࣭ⱥᑐ↷◊✲̿ヰࡋᡭࡢᚰ⌮࠿ࡽࡢ⪃ᐹ̿ࠖ࠾ⲔࡢỈዪᏊ኱  Ꮫே㛫ᩥ໬◊✲⛉༤ኈᏛ఩ㄽᩥ㸬ΎỈᓫᩥ.2009.ࠗ୰㛫ゝㄒㄒ⏝ㄽᴫㄽ ➨஧ゝㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⬟ຊࡢ౑⏝࣭⩦ᚓ࣭ᩍ⫱࠘ࢫ  ࣮࢚࣮ࣜࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡ.
ᒣᒸᨻ⣖࣭∾ཎຌ࣭ᑠ㔝ṇᶞ.2010.ࠗࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡜㓄៖⾲⌧ ᪥ᮏㄒㄒ⏝ㄽධ㛛࠘᫂  ἞᭩㝔㸬
Bergman, M. L., & Kasper, G.1993.Perception and performance in native an nonnative
apology. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.). Interlanguage Pragmatics㸪New York:
Oxford University Press㸪pp.82-107.
Holmes, J..1990.Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19㸦2㸧, pp.155-199.
Olshitain, E., & Cohen, A. D..1983.Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd㸦Eds.㸧,  Sociolinguistics and language acquisition㸦p.18-35㸧.Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

−120−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

The Color of Tone
Mark Campana, Kobe Gaidai*
Abstract
This paper explores the harmonic effects of utterances in stance-taking. Those with a minimum of three
tones are considered, perceived as simultaneous in rapid speech. Tone triads with affective meaning qualify themental state of the speaker, the stance object, or relationship between speaker and audience. Stances are prime
occasions for the display of affect and/or states of knowledge. Words are first replaced by nonsense syllables,
preserving their prosody. The longest interval establishes a scale on which a third tone stands out. ‘Color’ refers
to an analysis of tones that emphasizes both their qualities and quantities pace other tones.
Keywords: stance, harmony, tone-of-voice, iterant speech

1. Introduction
In this paper, we address the issue of prosody, particularly as it is heard in stance utterances—
expressions of (mostly) affect that characterize the speaker’s stance as a whole. ‘Prosody’ is taken here
to mean paralinguistic, or ungrammaticized speech sounds that can be broken down into tones, rhythms
melodies, and voice qualities. The focus here is on tones (or pitches), and the kind of meaning they canconvey in animated settings, i.e. stances.
This paper is somewhat speculative. It does not report on experimental results, but rather
proposes a course of investigation with testable hypotheses. As such, it should be considered as aprolegomena to a theory of tone-of-voice. The fact of the matter is, every time someone speaks thelistener hears this TOV, and in myriad subtle ways it affects the thinking process—especially how theword meaning is understood in the stream of discourse. For better or worse, there simply is no way ofgetting away from it. For this and other reasons, examples of attested speech are almost worthless. It isbetter to study TOV in real, rather than disconnected time.
2.0 Background, theory
In mainstream research (Crystal 1975; Wells 2006; Wichmann 2000), intonation is mostly about
the three concepts, tonality, tonicity and tone. They have been studied intensively for many years, butless attention has been paid to the relationship of tones within and across intonation phrase boundaries(cf. Szczepek-Reed 2006 for a notable exception). It is one thing to identify three levels of High, Mid
and Low tones, for instance, but quite another to assess the size of intervals between e.g. High and Mid,
and/or to ascribe some kind of meaning (affective or epistemic) to three-tone combinations. Yet that iswhat this paper is about.
2.1 The Stance Triangle
In its core meaning, a stance is a physical event whereby the stance-taker assumes a bodily
position that signals a clear intention to the audience. One can imagine how something like ‘defiance’
can be acted out by assuming a defensive posture, etc. In speech situations, a stance may incorporate
verbal meaning, but non-verbal channels like tone-of-voice are still relevant. In current sociolinguistics,
stance has been extended to talk-in-interaction. Most research on stance refers to the Stance Triangle of
DuBois (2007), who identifies the three corner as a) the subject (speaker); b) the object (that which is
being evaluated), and c) the intersubjective, that which pertains to the social relationship between the
speaker and audience. In this paper we focus on stance utterances, and how affect is articulated via
prominent tones. Before proceeding to an analysis, however, it is first necessary to articulate therelevant assumptions which underlie it.

−121−

The Color of Tone

2.2 Natural Semantics Metalanguage
The general approach to tone-of-voice phenomena taken here is based on Natural Semantics
Metalanguage (Wierzbicka 1999). There, emotion words (later, emotions) are decomposed into
‘cognitive scenarios’, or short scripts made up of a limited number of terms. Some of the latter are
called mental predicates, e.g. want, know, feel and think. To these may be added not, good and bad. The
cognitive scenario of the emotion word sad includes the propositions “I know that something badhas happened”, “I don’t want things like this to happen”, “I can’t think now that I will do something
because of this”, “I know that I can’t do anything” and “Because of this, this person feels somethingbad” (mental predicates in bold).
Wierzbicka goes on to suggest that a syntax of facial expressions uses the same basic concepts as
those found the metalanguage. In her theory then, not just emotion words, but emotions themselves (asarticulated through muscles of the face) are defined in terms of these mental predicates. It is just a shortconceptual leap for us to assume that vocal features can also reflect the mental states of wanting or not
wanting, knowing/not knowing, feeling good/bad, or thinking. This sets the stage for how tone triads areseen as carriers of pragmatic (affective) information.
We propose that the mental predicates identified above—key components of the metalanguage—
correspond to real mental states as they occur in the minds of speakers and hearers during speech, andthat the sounds of speech represent a medium for transferring awareness of such states between them.
Surely the sounds themselves are not specific, given constantly changing nature of the speech context.
Rather, they must be categories, or types that point to specific states, pace some object in the world. To
illustrate, let pitches or pitch combinations indicate states of feeling good or feeling bad. Pitch range, or
voice quality in general is a good conveyor of wanting or not wanting. Short tunes or melodies are mostoften associated with knowing or not knowing. Synchronized rhythms (including tempos and metricalorganization) represent higher-level processing, or thinking (NB: there is no mental state of notthinking). This, then, is the theory that underlies the analysis of pitch combination to follow.
3.0 Data
Why do stance utterances make such good objects for study? For one thing, they appear to bevery common: by my own rough estimate, as much as one-third, or 33% of utterances made in casualconversation. Second, although stance utterances combine with other utterances in a discourse to
produce higher-order meaning, they represent a minimal unit in terms information, intonation, andorganization. They are the type of entity that “moves a conversation along.” Finally, despite being key
elements of talk-in-interaction, stance utterances are often devoid of significant lexical content—that is,there is little beyond sound that refers to the mental state of the speaker. The stance object is alreadyknown, and (dis)affiliation with the speaker doesn’t require much in the form of lexical content anyway.
In short, stance utterances can be reduced to prosody fairly easily.
3.1 Stance utterances
Consider a typical stance utterance “No, that’s not going to work either” spoken after several
other alternative solutions to some ‘problem’ were rejected. There are two intonation phrases (divided
by the comma in written form), but the single tone of the first one (“No”) establishes a reference point
for the tones in the second IP to follow. The final word either was also pronounced with a decidedly
lower tone than all of the preceding ones. Contrary to conventional thinking, this unaccented tone plays
an important role in creating a harmonic effect, juxtaposed against the higher ones.
The following stance utterances were compiled by the author. Every one is different, and ofcourse no stance utterance could ever be the same again, owing to the uniqueness of the situation inwhich it was produced. Some attempt is given here of background and/or mental state of the speaker;
specifics regarding sound is given elsewhere.

−122−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号(1) Stance utterances (English)a. “I’m sorry, but that’s not exactly what I had in mind”
b. “... and he was like, but I’m the teacher you know?”c. “No-no-no-no. Only force can be applied here”
d. “There’s a reason why we do this”
e. “What’s wrong with those people”
f. “I don’t even know if that’s enough”
g. “Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t”
h. “A little freedom can be a dangerous thing”
i. “It’s getting dark”(1-a) was spoken as a cryptic assessment of a facile attempt to resolve an issue. (1-b) is an instance ofreported speech/gossip in which the quoted segment was given an exaggerated tone of authority. (1-c)
was spoken as a rebuke to the other’s (perceived) incorrect line of thought. (1-d) was spoken as arejoinder to the other, that obvious, under-appreciated factors would account for the aberrant behaviorof the named participants. (1-e) was spoken rhetorically, i.e. presupposing that there is something
wrong (the deictic those indicates psychological distance). (1-f) was spoken as an admission of having
no clear idea about the amount. (1-g) was spoken ‘philosophically’ with parallel IP structures. (1-h) was
spoken as cautious advice, and (1-i) as awareness of impending uncertainty. Stance utterances in otherlanguages can be seen below:(2) Stance utterances in other languages
a. “J’en ai assez” (“I’ve had enough” [French])b. “So ist daß Leben” (“That’s life” [German])c. “Weh-nyaham-nyu(n)-nun” (“the reason is because” [Korean]d. “Wakaranai desukedomo” (“I don’t know but”) [Japanese]e. “Do:shite sono-koto-suru-no?” (“Why are you doing that?)f. “Sometimes I feel like a motherless child” [Ritchie Havens]
We may further note that song lyrics are often stance-like, e.g. as sung by Ritchie Havens (2f).
3.2 Iterant speech
When analyzing stance utterances, it’s best to recall how they sounded in their original setting.
One can always record a stance utterance and analyze its features acoustically. The problem is that the
purpose or intention of the act will be lost or forgotten unless great care is taken to provide the context
of prior talk, the relationship between speakers, and so on. Even then, the casual non-observer is too far
removed from the speech situation to understand it completely. Stance utterances were not recorded inthis study. Instead, bystanders (including linguists) were called on to reproduce the sounds iterantly,that is, by substituting nonsense syllables for words in order to focus exclusively on their prosodic
features.
Consider the stance utterance “There’s a reason why we do this” (1-e) where “we” had beentalking about the National Security Agency, the questionable activities of which were exposed bywhistleblower Edward Snowden in 2014. Since then, various terrorist attacks occurred in the world,
some in the West, where the speaker happened to be from. He was having a conversation with anothermale of similar age and background; over several years, they had established an amicable record of
sharing viewpoints. Behind the speaker’s stance lay the belief that the NSA, if allowed to function
properly, might have discovered a terrorist plot before it was carried out, thus avoiding many needlessdeaths. In effect, the speaker is defending the activities of the NSA. “We” refers to his in-group,
possibly perceived as “well-intentioned Americans.” With this as background, the reader is invited to−123−The Color of Tone

imagine how the stance utterance might be expressed. The following demonstrates an accurate
rendition in iterant form:(3) Iterant speech (||=intonation boundary)a. There’s a reáson why we do thisb. There’s a reáson why we do thisc. dada DAda || da da Da da[word stress only][sentence intonation][lexical replacement]

As seen here, the utterance is divided into two intonation phrases, the ‘peak’ falling on the last stressedsyllable of first IP. Boldface indicates ‘prominence’, a concept defined below (capital letters reflect thedegree of prominence), and the grouping of syllables represents metrical/rhythm structure. (3c), then, is
what an iterant form looks like.
4.0 Synthesis
What does it mean for a tone to be ‘prominent’? Obviously more intensity on the syllable, or
longer duration of the syllabic nucleus, etc. Unexpected deviations in pitch can also make a syllable
seem prominent, especially when compared to preceding elements. It is also sometimes necessary toconsider the initial and/or final tone of an utterance ‘prominent’, in order to produce a tritone (cf.
below). Thus, even though they are difficult to define, prominent tones are easy to recognize andreproduce, especially by means of iterant speech.
In what follows, utterances with a minimum of three prominent tones are examined. By definition,
fewer than three cannot carry affective-pragmatic meaning (Cook 2003). Utterances with more than
three tones are also common, but the relations between the tones become more complex, and cannot be
evaluated as easily as tone triads.
4.1 On harmonization
Consider once again the stance utterance “There’s a reason why we do this” (1-d) with its
intonation peak and iterant form. What exactly are the three tones which the speaker imposes to qualify
his/her stance utterance? The following is an expansion of (3), with additional prominent tones marked
in bold:(3’) Iterant speech (||=intonation boundary)a. There’s a reason why we do thisb. There’s a reason why we do thisc. dada DAda || da da Da da[word stress only][sentence intonation][one P-tone per phrase]d. dada DAda da da Da dae. dada DAda da da Da da
f. dada DAda da da Da da[three P-tones, including final][three P-tones, including initial][3+ P-tones, final OR initial]

Note that it also sometimes happens that the first and last tones of a stance utterance are the same.
Now, according to Cook (2003), three-tone combinations have acoustic properties beyond “thesum of their parts” —in this case intervals (= distance measured in Hertz). It is not necessary to delve
into the issues studied by Cook regarding harmony; suffice to say that it entails higher-order effects ofconsonance, dissonance, chordal tension and resolution. Three is also a critical number: two tones
produce just one interval, but three tones result in three intervals, each of a different size (usually).
In (3d), the final tone is assigned prominent status by virtue of being last, i.e. it could function asa third tone if necessary. Similarly in (3e), the first tone could enter into a three-tone combination by
virtue of its unique position. Although either initial or final tone could become part of a triad, usually−124−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

both would not, unless the utterance only had three tones to begin with (3f). Once constituted, a triad isin position to generate harmonic effects, which can in turn be used to indicate pragmatic information.
4.2 From melody to harmony (Levitin 2007)
From the beginning of an utterance to the end, tones are selected by the speaker and laid down insequence. But is this how they are perceived? Levitin (2007) reports from studies on music that when
tones are produced in rapid succession, they are perceived as being simultaneous. Should this happen ina stance utterance, the prominent tones would coalesce into a harmonic triad with the potential toconvey pragmatic effects. We assume the speaker actually intends for this to happen, and that one
corner of the Stance Triangle is singled out for qualification. The ‘chord’ thus produced may either
implicate the speaker’s mental state, the stance object, or his/her (dis)affiliation with the listener. (In theoral presentation of this paper, a musical chord with similar structure to that of the stance utterance wasplayed on a keyboard. Music invokes many other dimensions of sound, such as ‘major’, ‘minor’, and(un)resolved chords, the properties of which bear heavily on the specific interpretation of affect in any
given situation.)
What leads to the pairing of sound and meaning here? By producing a tone triad with harmonic
properties, the speaker establishes a ‘scalar context’ from the lowest tone to the highest, along which
his/her evaluation rests—i.e. with the middle tone. (‘Inversions’ may also be possible, whereby the‘context’ runs along a smaller interval against which the third tone is juxtaposed. This is more likely tohappen when the tones are perceived in sequence, i.e. as melody.) It is important to remember that thisevaluation is expressed via pitch combinations, which in our modified version of Wierzbicka’s theory
naturally indicate the mental states of feeling good or feeling bad, exhibiting the well-known propertyof valency associated with emotions. The tone that falls within the largest interval thus acquires
positive or negative valency with respect to its position along a tonal scale. This “point on a scale” canthe be paired with e.g. the mental state of the speaker (one corner of the Stance Triangle).
To demonstrate, when e.g. the speaker of (1-i) intones “It’s getting dark” with prominence on
the initial (lowest), second (highest) and final syllable (somewhere in between), the proximity of the
mid-tone to the highest one may reflect that of the speaker’s fear to the negative consequences that canbefall a wayward traveler at night. (The italics in this sentence emphasize the parallel structures ofsound and meaning. Note too that the order of tones presented in (3+) does not match that of theirarticulation in the stance utterance. This is possible given the effect noted by Levitin’s above.)(4) Matching scalar contexts: “It’s getting dark” (da DAda Da)
a. Sound:L(da)--------M(Da)---H(DA)b. Meaning: Safe--------Level of concern---Dangerous[=0--------*---0][=0--------*---0]

Other scales related to the Stance Triangle can be indicated by a harmonic triad, such as thedevelopment of conclusions on a topic, or even “What (how much) I think you know about me
already”, etc. The not-so-radical claim being advanced here is that harmonic triads represent one way(among many) that speakers use to qualify their words, inviting the audience to consider theirintentions.
5.0 Summary and conclusion
Various consequences follow from the approach outlined above, some of which are addressed
here. First, the analysis of prominent tones and their harmonic effects has clear links to music. Whatother musical properties might be found in everyday speech or stance utterances in particular? In music,
three-tone combinations can resolve as major/minor chords, invoking a sense of familiarity. Major
chords are typically associated with positive valency, minor ones with negative. A similar effect occurs
in normal speech, when for instance the speaker produces a harmonious combination of tones to−125−

The Color of Tone

reference valency, familiar to both self and other. Unharmonious triads are also known in music, andchordal properties of ‘tension’ and ‘unresolvedness’ can be observed in speech as well, particularly
when the speaker wishes to convey a sense of non-familiarity. (The concept of musical ‘key’ is alsopresent in speech, made possible by minor changes in articulatory setting—cf. Laver 1980).
Second, if tone-triads represent just one of several means by which speakers qualify their words,
what others might there be? Facial expressions and gestures are obvious candidates, but stances can betaken without any visual context at all (e.g. on the telephone). The theory we are assuming predicts thatvoice quality and timing mechanisms (tempo, meter, rhythm) also play a role, as well as melody—thesequential arrangement of tones. Taken together, the wealth of coloring increases exponentially, eachcombination factors bound to a speech context, which of course includes the words themselves.
5.1 About the data
In theory, no two discordant or harmonic tone triads can be exactly the same; subtle differences inpitch, timbre, and phrasing make every redition of a stance utterance unique—to say nothing of thelexical and situational meaning of the words with which they are co-articulated. Thus, a specificpragmatic meaning arises through recognition of what is being indicated, and how the interpretation of
the sound should proceed, especially in relation to previous sounds.
One might ask how the pairing of harmonic sound and pragmatic meaning can be correlated. So
far, we have only suggested that it can, but offered no convincing evidence of a special case. This ispartly due to research design. By their very nature, stance utterances are performed by a single speaker.
Listeners are always present, however, and their understanding of the effects we claim exist must be
confirmed. This is not an easy task: asking them for information that is processed subconsciously will
not work; repetition of the stance (as in a video-recording) entails a different set of circumstances
altogether, with no sense of immediate goals. The only way that may lead to confirmation is through adetailed analysis of next speaker uptake. How does the audience behave after hearing the first speaker’s
stance utterance?
A stance utterance doesn’t last for a long time—it only takes about 1.5 seconds to say “There’s areason why we do this.” Moreover, just as one mental state is displayed, another can follow in shortorder. It is also normal for several stance utterances to occur over consecutive turns; this one could be
easily followed by an answer to what was meant as a rhetorical question “It’s because we …”. Strictly
speaking, however, it is beyond the scope of this study to consider more than one stance utterance at atime. For better or worse, that means analyzing it in isolation.
5.2 On originality
Next I will clarify what is original in this (rather speculative) paper and what has been researched
before—possibly even common knowledge in certain circles. This is important, since several different
lines of research have been incorporated from various fields (acoustic phonetics, music, neuroscience,
psychology, semantics and sociolinguistics, to be precise).
Natural Semantics Metalanguage (NSM) offers a concise theory of emotion-word semantics. The
mental predicates that underlie cognitive scenarios played a special role in Wierzbicka (1999). I havealtered them somewhat, and proposed that each dichotomy in the system has an audible signature too:the states of feeling good or feeling bad both rely mainly on pitches, and pitch combinations for theirexpression. Since pitch equals tone, it is not hard to see that their patterns deployment can produce
some special effects, e.g. harmonic ones. Wierzbicka did not pursue this line of thinking.
The theory of stance comes from an oft-cited paper by DuBois (2007). The Stance Triangle iseasy to understand and fits well with most other approaches. The marked emphasis on stance utterancesis mine. Iterant speech was discussed in Nooteboom (2000). Teachers of language commonly use it inword- and sentence intonation practice, so it is in the public sector. As a form of aural authenticity,
iterant speech must be performed, then discussed. In the future, videos of conversationalists—and−126−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

linguists— talking and performing in iterant speech should be made and studied. (This word does notroll off the tongue easily, and requires constant spell-checks—its inventor was not a native speaker ofEnglish. A better word would be ‘intonated’ from the verb ‘to intonate’ —neither of which, to myknowledge, have existed until now.)
Levitin provided the vital link between melody and harmony. There are important differences
between them, but stance utterances are spoken quickly enough (hence quantifiable) to qualify for
simultaneity in the brain. What I have done, is graft constructs of music theory found in Cook (2003) tothe utterance itself, or rather to the three most prominent tones that constitute it (words aside, and that
can’t be totally ignored either). These include such things as intervals and chords. Finer features of
consonance/dissonance, tension/resolution are also manifest in daily speech, and deserve further study.
The idea that tone triads can carry emotional meaning comes from music theory via Cook, who
immediately saw the potential for application to speech. The application to special, ‘performed’ typesof speech, i.e. stance utterances is original to this author. I have also concluded (mistakenly, perhaps)that at some deeply subconscious level, speakers intentionally apply affective meaning to strings of
spoken text, and that they do so pragmatically, matching beliefs of their world with sound.
5.3 Last words
Tones refer to prominent centers of prosody, always expressed on vowels. Prominence isproduced and perceived in accordance with the intentions and mutual (perceived) understanding of the
speaker and the listener. Prominent tones do not exist in isolation; their meaning derives in part fromother tones. Although prominent tones are produced sequentially in stance utterances, they may beperceived (and understood) as having occurred simultaneously.
We are aware of the Japanese term kowa-iro (‘color of voice’), but here color is used
metaphorically to visualize sounds in combination. Coloring arises from the harmonic effect of tone
triads. In music, at least three tones are required to impart emotional meaning, as in a chord. The three
tones of a stance utterance can be applied (as a harmonic whole) to any corner of the Stance Triangle,
i.e. the subjective, the objective, or the intersubjective. (Although it would be theoretically satisfying tothink that each part of a three-tone triad could align with one corner of the Stance Triangle, this is not
the case.)
Where does all this lead? The core claim of this paper has been that harmonies develop over thecourse of stancetaking, and stance utterances in particular. In a public way, speakers use the sounds ofspeech in order to communicate how they feel about something which they consider to be important.
Most stances unfold within a single turn, but they can also be co-constructed. Harmonic effects may
thus also be observed over multiple turns and speakers. This seems like a promising direction for future
research.
*Many thanks to the participants of the 18th Meeting of the Pragmatics Society of Japan, held at
Nagoya University, December 6-7, 2015. Two anonymous reviewers were instrumental in sharpening
the presentation of ideas. Further comments and/or questions from readers are welcome at either of thefollowing addresses: campana@inst.kobe-cufs.ac.jp OR bugsofjapan@hotmail.com.
References
Campbell, N. & D. Erickson (2004). ‘What do people hear? A study of the perception of non-verbal
affective information in conversation speech.’ In Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan 8.1.
Cook, Norman (2003). Tone of Voice and Mind. John Benjamins Publishing Co., Amsterdam.
Crystal, David (1975). The English Tone of Voice. Edward Arnold, London.
DuBois, John (2007). ‘The stance triangle’. In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation,
Interaction; Robert Englebretson (ed.), John Benjamins Publishing Co., Amsterdam.
Jaffe, Alexandra (2009). Stance. Oxford University Press.

−127−

The Color of Tone

Laver, John (1980). The Phonetic Description of Voice Quality. Cambridge University Press.
Levitin, Dan (2007). This is Your brain on Music. Plume (Penguin Group). New York.
Nooteboom (Sieb) (2000). ‘The prosody of speech: Melody and Rhythm’. MS, Research Institute for
Language and Speech, Utrecht.
Szczepek-Reed, C. (2006). Prosodic Orientation in English Conversation. Palgrave MacMillan, NYC.
Wells, J.C. (2006). English Intonation: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Wichmann, Ann (2000). ‘The attitudinal effects of prosody and how they relate to emotion’.
In Proceedings, ISCA Work shop on Speech and Emotion; Cowie, R., E. Douglas-Cowie,& N. Schroder (eds.)
Wierzbicka, Anna (1999). Emotion Across Languages and Cultures. Cambridge University Press.
**********************************************************************************−128−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

Repetition and Prosody of Japanese-Speaking Learners of Chinese
in Intercultural Classrooms
Chun-Mei Chen
National Chung Hsing University
୘Abstract୚
This study investigates the forms and the prosody of repetition of Japanese-speaking learners of Chinese inintercultural classrooms. The method of analysis in the present study relies on observable orientations of theparticipants in classroom conversations. The results of this study indicate that repetitions were made as imitation,
vocalized fillers, self-repairs, and indirectness. It was found that first-year language learners often repeat a large
number of utterances addressed to them, and they often repeat their own utterances. The longitudinal study
reports the construction of other-repetition and self-repetition sequence of novice L2 learners and provides
implications for communicative tasks in intercultural classrooms.
ૺKeywordsૻୖrepetition, prosody, intercultural classrooms, L2 learners

1. Introduction
This study investigates forms and the prosody of repetition of Japanese-speaking learners ofChinese in intercultural classrooms. The longitudinal study reports the construction of otherrepetition and self-repetition sequence of novice L2 learners. Sperber and Wilson’s (1986)
claim that the effects of repetition on utterance interpretation are by no means constant,repetition plays a role in discourse analysis and pragmatics. Rieger (2003) argues that
repetition as a self-repair strategy is an orderly phenomenon in English and German
conversations. Repair, according to Rieger (2003), consists of three components, the repaired
segment containing the repairable, repair initiation, and the repairing segment. Repair
organization is seen as one of the fundamental organizations of human interaction (Schegloff
et al., 1977; Sidnell, 2011; Hayashi et al., 2013). In second language interactions, repetitions
can be used simply as a means to take part in interaction as other linguistic resources are stilllacking (Suni, 2009). Partial repetitions may be used to accomplish various actions in their
particular contexts (Lilja, 2014). Repetitions can be used as candidate-hearings to check
whether the repeated element was the one used in the trouble source turn (Koshik, 2005).
Repetition can be used to indicate troubles in understanding or to show disagreements andaccomplish other actions closely related to initiating repair (Schegloff, 1997). Repair isorganized according to certain principles, initiated by the current speaker (self), or by the coparticipant (other) (Schegloff et al., 1977; Schegloff, 1992; Sidnell, 2006, 2011).
Previous studies have reported contradictory results concerning the role of imitation inlanguage growth. Imitation may play a more important role in the development ofcommunicative competence than it does in the development of linguistic competence.
Repetition can be exact, reduced, modified, or expanded (Huang, 2010). Some researchers
made a distinction between imitation and repetition and suggested that children’s repetition
may serve different communicative purposes, with imitation as one of them (Ochs Keenan,
1977; Greenfield and Savage-Rumbaugh, 1993). The phenomenon of other-repetition has
been treated as a communicative strategy.
On the other hand, work in psycholinguistics has concentrated on the intelligibility of
repeated words. Repetitions generally undergo phonological reduction processes which
account for their lower intelligibility ratings (Curl, Local & Walker, 2006). Repetitions
produced in naturally occurring talk-in-interaction did not adhere to the published findings
regarding the phonetic structure of redone (Curl, 2004, 2005). Repetitions do exhibit similar
relationships in stress pattern and loudness to that shown for the doubles, and there does
appear to be a difference in articulatory patterns employed on the first and second sayings−129−

Repetition and Prosody of Japanese-Speaking Learners of Chinese in Intercultural Classrooms(Curl, Local & Walker, 2006). Not all repetitions are deployed or treated as functionallyequivalent by participants in interaction (Curl, 2005). Analytic work is required to show that
instances of some proposed practice are deployed and treated in the same way by interacting
participants (Curl, Local & Walker, 2006). It is unknown, yet, whether other-repetition or selfrepairs of second language learners in intercultural classrooms are communication-motivated.
Schegloff et al. (1977) defined correction as one of several possible types of repair.
Correction serves to replace an error by the correct linguistic form, whereas repair is not
limited to the replacement of an error in spontaneous speech. The notions of correction andrepair are crucial in second language discourse, as learners are developing their language
skills and communicative strategies. Earlier work on other-repetition from discoursepragmatic perspective drew data from child speech, as discourse of children at the early stagesof language acquisition is repetitive in nature. Tager-Flusberg and Calkins (1990) studied therole of imitation in the acquisition of grammar by examining speech data of children. It was
found that the children used different forms of repetition to perform a variety ofcommunicative functions. Other-repetition often reflects the children’s competence (cf. Ochs
Keenan, 1977). Repetition in second language discourse has been less studied, not to mention
the role of prosody in second language classrooms.
The method of analysis in the present study relies on observable orientations of theparticipants in classroom conversations. Interlanguage pragmatics deals with how people use
language within a social context. Development of linguistic competence in the second
language is often embedded in the changes in accomplishment of social activities, notnecessarily in the linguistic forms. This study presents data from Mandarin Chineseclassrooms. Learners need to express a concept or an idea in Mandarin Chinese but sometimes
find themselves without the linguistic resources to do so when assigned tasks in language
classrooms. Conversational turn-taking is an interactional system, in which participants orientto the achievement of one speaker at a time with the minimization of gaps and overlaps. At
the end of each possible turn constructional unit a transition-relevance place becomes
available, which triggers the application of a set of rules in language classrooms. In reality,
learners may repeat what the instructor says as the response, and the instructor may repeat
again what the learners say as the feedback. Although the options of learner self-selecting or
autonomy of next speakers in language classrooms are rather restricted, repetition carries
various communication tasks in classroom activities. The present study focuses on the forms
and functions of repetition which can be a resource for both other-repetition and self-repair.
The study investigated the following research questions:
1. What are the repetition forms and functions of first-year Japanese-speaking learners of
Mandarin employed in intercultural classrooms?
2. How does the prosodic feature reflect Japanese-speaking learners’ linguistic developmentin L2 classrooms?
3. What is the role of repetition at the initial stage of language learning in interculturalclassroom communication?
Different languages and different cultures may demonstrate different timing and strategies
in the production of self-repairs. In the study of Fox et al. (1996), English speakers use
repetitions to delay the production of a noun, whereas Japanese speakers do not use the same
strategy. Their study indicates that the structure of a particular language shapes the repair
strategies of language users. Repetitions have been used as self-repair strategies and codeswitching conversation in language classrooms. Aside from the linguistic segments, it is also
true that different social situations require different prosodic strategies. In Yaeger-Dror’s−130−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号(2002) study, language, culture, and social situation as three different loci of prosodic
variation have shown that each of the three variables influences prosodic realization. In thepresent study, data were drawn from second language classrooms, in which the factors of thetarget language, the familiarity with the speakers, and the assignment of the tasks were
controlled. Thus far, few studies are available for the understanding of discourse-pragmaticand prosodic aspects of second language learners’ other-repetition and self-repair in Mandarin
language classrooms. In order to capture a whole picture of the role of repetition in second
language discourse and intercultural classrooms, this study aims to investigate forms,
functions, and the prosody of repetition in second language discourse from a prosodypragmatic perspective.
2. Methodology
2.1. Subjects and data collection
In the present study, 36 hours of video-taping data were collected from three language
classrooms of Elementary Chinese I (First-Year Chinese). Subjects include 11 Japanesespeaking learners of Chinese (Subject 1-11, aged 18-26) with classmates from different
countries, such as Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, United States and Germany. G
All the subjects had no background of the Chinese language before they enrolled in thelanguage course, and they were either exchange or international students in Taiwan. The target
language in the classrooms is Mandarin, whereas the languages for communication included
English and Mandarin. The repetition tokens were collected from intercultural classrooms.
The data included classroom discourse, from the very first week till the 18th week, thecompletion of the language course. The recorded data covered different tasks in the language
classrooms, such as daily drills, role playing, oral presentations, interpersonal communication,skit shows, and discussion. The development of the learners’ communicative strategies wasrecorded and analyzed, and the language forms and functions of repetition were examined.
Prosodic features were captured to facilitate the understanding of the repetition tokens insecond language discourse.
The repetition tokens and contexts of repetition were compiled, transcribed, andqualitatively analyzed. The prosody of the repetition forms was analyzed in terms of theirpitch, duration, and gaps/pauses. The recorded tokens were sampled at 20,000Hz using thePCquirer and Pitch Work analysis system.
GGG
2.2. Data analysis
In the present study, other-repetition was defined as reproduction of a preceding utterance
produced by another speaker (cf. Bloom et al., 1974; Corrigan, 1980; Tager-Flusberg andCalkins, 1990; Pérez-Pereira, 1994). Repetition as self-repair involves the replacement of one
lexical item by another. The categories of other-repetition in the present study include exact
repetition, reduced repetition, expanded repetition, and modified repetition. Exact repetition
forms refer to the reproduction of all the words in the same order without any changes.
Reduced repetition forms refer to the reproduction of omission of morphemes or content
words from the utterance. Expanded repetition forms refer to the imitation of part theutterance that created by the speakers without target part of the utterance. Modified
repetition forms use part or all of an utterance. Example (1) shows the forms of the exact
repetition and reduced repetition.

−131−

Repetition and Prosody of Japanese-Speaking Learners of Chinese in Intercultural ClassroomsG(1) The example of repetitions
S6: Nilei
bulei?
you tired NEG tired‘Are you tired?’
S3: Haihao.
Okay‘I’m okay.’
S6: Haihao…Duibuqi, qing zuo qing zuo.
Okay Excuse me please sit please sit
Ni yao he kafei……kafei haishi lücha? Å
you want drink coffee…coffee or green tea‘Okay. Excuse me. Please have a seat. Do you like to drink coffee or green tea?’
S3: Wo yao kafei.
I want coffee‘I’d like coffee.’
S6: En…kafei Å
En…coffee‘En…coffee.’

As shown in Example (1), Subject 6 (S6) repeated exactly the response of Subject 3 (S3)in Line 3, which shows the forms of exact repetition. When S3 gave the answer for his
preference of drinks, S6 repeated the name of the drink only in Line, which shows the reduced
repetition.
Example (2) shows the repetitions as error correction and confirmation between thesubjects, demonstrating communicative strategies. When the two learners were assigned in agroup for skit shows, S1 repeated the error made by his partner and gave the correct forms.
(2) The example of communicative strategies
S1: Ni shenme shihou lai Taiwan?
you
what
time
come Taiwan‘When did you come to Taiwan?’
S8: Zuotian
zaofan…
yesterday breakfast‘Yesterday breakfast.’
S1: Zuotian zaofan……zao…zao…… zaoshang zaoshang Åyesterday breakfast early early morning morning‘Yesterday breakfast. Do you mean morning (yesterday morning)?’
S8: Dui, dui, dui. Åright, right, right.
‘Right! Right! Right!’
The prosodic features of the repeated tokens ‘right’ were also analyzed. The
measurements of the pitch and duration of the tokens ‘right’ is illustrated in Figure 1.
G

−132−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

Figure 1: Measurements of prosodic features of the tokens ‘right’
When S8 confirmed the utterance for the first time, the token ‘right’ has shown thehighest pitch with the longest duration among the three repetition forms. As far as the tonal
pitch contour is concerned, the first token has demonstrated the highest level of accuracy, andthe last token the least. The measurements of the prosodic features confirmed the forms of therepetition tokens. Repetitions as confirmation have shown the first token with the highestlevel of accuracy, and the last token the least. Durations of the self-repair tokens haverevealed that the shorter the tokens, the better the fluency; self-repair tokens of repetition did
not show the correlation with the pitch values.
3. Results and discussion
Table 1: Repetitions in the first and last week of the language course
Subject
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
Average

Repetition tokens
1st week Æ
18th week
238 Æ 154
289 Æ 132302 Æ 187
267 Æ 148
203 Æ 178
218 Æ 102315 Æ 129243 Æ 117
224 Æ 168329 Æ 207
254 Æ 198
262 Æ 156

Imitation
1st week Æ 18th week

Self-repairs
1st week Æ 18th week

169 (71%) Æ 31 (20%)
187 (65%) Æ 25 (19%)
197 (65%) Æ 36 (19%)
184 (70%) Æ 30 (20%)
153 (75%) Æ 42 (24%)
169 (78%) Æ 32 (31%)
163 (52%) Æ 45 (35%)
172 (71%) Æ 33 (28%)
176 (79%) Æ 62 (37%)
201 (61%) Æ 37 (18%)
189 (74%) Æ 23 (12%)
178 (68%) Æ 36 (23%)

19 (8%) Æ 86 (56%)
24 (8%) Æ 81 (61%)
36 (12%) Æ 96 (51%)
21 (8%) Æ 68 (46%)
48 (24%) Æ 72 (40%)
32 (15%) Æ 79 (77%)
44 (14%) Æ 96 (74%)
31 (13%) Æ 70 (60%)
42 (19%) Æ 88 (52%)
53 (16%) Æ 101 (49%)
24 (9%) Æ 93 (47%)
34 (13%) Æ 85 (54%)−133−

Repetition and Prosody of Japanese-Speaking Learners of Chinese in Intercultural Classrooms

Table 1 shows the numbers and functions of the repetition tokens of each subject in thefirst week and the last week of the language course respectively. The numbers of repetition of
the eleven subjects ranged between 329 and 203 in the first week of the language course, andthe numbers were reduced to 207-102 with the average of 156 in the last week (the 18th week)of the course. The general patterns have shown that every Japanese-speaking learner of
Mandarin Chinese used less repetition tokens at the end of the course.
Measurements of the prosodic features of the repetition tokens have shown that thesubsequent tokens bore better accurate pitch values and tonal contour than their preceding
tokens in the category of imitation, whereas self-repair tokens of repetition did not show thecorrelation with the pitch values. Yet, durations of the self-repair tokens have revealed that the
shorter the tokens, the better the fluency. The level of tonal accuracy is significant related toimitation, whereas the level of speech fluency is related to the communicative strategies.
On the other hand, Japanese-speaking learners’ repetition as indirect strategy is correlatedwith longer pause and duration, narrower pitch range of the overall skeleton, and weakerintensity. Repetition tokens as negative responses from Japanese-speaking learners of Chinese
were the least among the interlanguage corpora of the novice learners. Silence and repetitions
as repairs are important cues for refusal and disagreements. The findings confirm
communicative strategies of Japanese speakers in previous studies. Japanese speakers tend tominimize imposition, and use indirectness and honorifics (Brown and Levinson, 1987), andJapanese speakers use politeness in relation to group norms (Matsumoto, 1989) and their‘discernment’ (wakimae) of the situation. Expressions of disagreement may involve actively
defending one’s opinion, attacking another’s position, or withholding approval. Silence can beused to avoid the imposition, confrontation or embarrassment which may not be avoided
when one uses verbal expression (Jaworski, 1993; Jaworski and Stephens, 1998; Sifianou,1997). Silence can be used to perform most of the politeness strategies (Sifianou, 1997). In
the present study, subjects were first-year Japanese-speaking learners of Chinese. They mightsearch for a word, correct errors, use hesitation pauses or pause fillers in interactional
discourse. We need to base our analysis on the participants’ behavior and perceptions inrelation to the local context of interaction, the specific institutional context, and the wider
cultural context. Communication problems are likely to occur among participants fromdifferent socio-cultural backgrounds. It was found that the Japanese-speaking learners ofChinese in the present study were acquiring communicative strategies through repetitions andinteractions in the intercultural classrooms.
4. Concluding remarks
This study has investigated the forms and prosodic features of repetition in the classroom
discourse of Chinese as a second language. The study made attempts to capture the role andfunctions of repetition of first-year Japanese-speaking learners of Mandarin employed inintercultural classrooms. The analysis in the present study relies on 36 hours of video-taping
data from three Level-1 language classrooms. Participants include 11 Japanese-speaking
learners of Chinese with classmates from different countries. Results have sown that repair
initiation consisted of a cut-off, or vocalized filler, or a combination of both in L2 classroom
discourse. Prosody of the repetition tokens has revealed that the level of tonal accuracy issignificant related to imitation, whereas the level of speech fluency is significant related to thecommunicative strategies. First-year language learners often repeat a large number ofutterances addressed to them, and they often repeat their own utterances (self-repetition). In
the present study, Japanese-speaking learners of Chinese have been reported more indirect inclassroom inquiry and error correction. Avoidance of disagreements can be a typical strategy−134−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

to prevent face-threatening and save the hearer’s face in language classrooms. Tokens ofother-repetition attested among the Japanese-speaking learners of Chinese in the classrooms
can serve as an indirect strategy to avoid expressions of disagreement in interculturalcommunication. Repetitions as indirect disagreement delivered by Japanese-speaking learnersof Chinese were further verified by the quantitative number of repetition tokens in responses
to the instructors and the shorter durations of the partial repetition tokens.
Repetitions were produced as imitation, vocalized fillers, self-repairs, and indirectness
among the novice Japanese-speaking learners of Chinese in intercultural classrooms.
Repetitions as imitation were gradually reduced from the first week of the language course to
the end of the course. On the contrary, the percentage of the repetition tokens as self-repairs
was increased from the beginning of the course to the end of the course. Prosodic features of
the repetition tokens have shown that the level of tonal accuracy is significant related toimitation, whereas the level of speech fluency is significant related to the communicative
strategies. All the Japanese-speaking learners of Mandarin Chinese demonstrated theircommunicative competence through the use of other-repetition. Yet, repetition tokens as
imitation played an evitable part in the classroom communication among the L2 learners,
especially at the initial stage of L2 learning. It is suggested that first-year learners of
Mandarin Chinese acquire more sophisticated usage of other-repetition in their target
language communication. L2 learners’ use of silence, instead of verbally responding to the
instructor’s elicitations, could be treated as communicative strategies in second language
classrooms. When L2 learners had better Chinese proficiency, more polite forms were often
attested in their statements.
The present longitudinal study reports the construction of other-repetition and selfrepetition sequence of first-year L2 learners and provides implications for communicative
tasks in intercultural classrooms. It was found in the present study that first-year learners ofChinese demonstrated their communicative competence through the use of other-repetition.
Prosodic features can serve as hints for language instructors to evaluate the progress anddevelopment of L2 learners. Repetitions in intercultural classrooms were made as different
functions, and they varied through different stages of L2 learning. Some instances ofrepetitions as communicative strategies were deployed by interacting participants in theintercultural classrooms. Other-repetition or self-repairs of second language learners inintercultural classrooms could be communication-motivated. The findings reported in thisstudy have significant implications for the teaching and learning of Chinese as a second
language with specific reference to L2 learners’ oral communicative competence anddevelopment.
References
Bloom, L., Hood, L., Lightbown, P. 1974. Imitation in language development: if, when, andwhy. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 380–420.
Brown, P., Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Corrigan, R. 1980. Use of repetition to facilitate spontaneous language acquisition. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 9(3), 231–241.
Curl, Traci S. 2004. ‘Repetition repairs’: the relationship of phonetic structure and sequenceorganisation. In Couper-Kuhlen, E., Ford, C. E. (Eds), Sound Patterns in Interaction, 273–
299. Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Curl, T. S., 2005. Practices in other-initiated repair resolution: the phonetic differentiation of−135−

Repetition and Prosody of Japanese-Speaking Learners of Chinese in Intercultural Classrooms

repetitions. Discourse Processes, 39, 1–44.
Curl, T. S., Local, J., Walker, G. 2006. Repetition and the prosody-pragmatics
interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 38 (10). 1721 - 1751.
Fox, B.A., Hayashi, M., Jasperson, R. 1996. Resources and repair: a cross-linguistic study ofsyntax and repair. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E.A., Thompson, S.A. (Eds), Interaction andGrammar, 185–237. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Greenfield, P. M., Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S. 1993. Comparing communicative competence inchild and chimp: the pragmatics of repetition. Journal of Child Language, 20, 1–26.
Hayashi, R., Raymond, G., Sidnell, J., 2013. Conversational Repair and Human
Understanding. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Huang, C.-C. 2010. Other-repetition in Mandarin child language: a discourse-pragmatic
perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 825-839.
Jaworski, A. 1993. The power of silence: Social and pragmatic perspectives. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Jaworski, A., Stephens, D. 1998. Self-reports on silence as a face-saving strategy by people
with hearing impairment. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8 (1), 61-80.
Koshik, I. 2005. Alternative questions used in conversational repair. Discourse Studies, 7 (2),
193–211.
Lilja, N. 2014. Partial repetitions as other-initiations of repair in second language talk: Reestablishing understanding and doing learning. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 98-116.
Matsumoto, D. 1989. Cultural influences on the perception of emotion. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 20, 92-105.
Ochs Keenan, E. 1977. Making it last: repetition in children’s discourse. In Ervin-Tripp, S.,
Mitchell-Kernan, C. (Eds), Child Discourse, 26–39. Academic, New York.
Pérez-Pereira, M. 1994. Imitations, repetitions, routines, and the child’s analysis of language:
insights from the blind. Journal of Child Language, 21, 317–337.
Rieger, C. L. 2003. Repetitions as self-repair strategies in English and German conversations.
Journal of Pragmatics, 35:47–69.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., Sachs, H., 1977. The preference for self-correction in theorganization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.
Schegloff, E. A., 1992. Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defense ofintersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1295–1345.
Schegloff, E. A., 1997. Practices and actions: boundary cases of other-imitated repair.
Discourse Processes, 23, 499–545.
Sidnell, J. 2006. Repair. In हstman, Jan-Ola, Verschuren, Jef. (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics.
John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1–38.
Sidnell, Jack, 2011. Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex.
Sifianou, M. 1997. Silence and politeness. In Jaworski, A. (Ed.), Silence: Interdisciplinary
perspectives, 63-84. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sperber, D., Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell, Oxford.
Suni, M. 2009. Sharing linguistic resources through repetition in second language interaction.
Nordand, 2 (4), 65–90.
Tager-Flusberg, H., Calkins, S. 1990. Does imitation facilitate the acquisition of grammar?
Evidence from a study of autistic, Down’s syndrome and normal children. Journal ofChild Language, 17, 591–606.
Yaeger-Dror, M. 2002. Register and Prosodic variation, a cross language comparison. Journalof Pragmatics, 34, 1495-1536.

−136−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

The Kaleidoscope of the Divine Images: The Conceptual Metaphors
Concerning God in Gospel Songs
Wen-Yi Huang and Wen-yu Chiang
National Taiwan University
Abstract
This study analyzes the metaphorical manifestations of divine images in the top 10 gospel songs
on Billboard and iTunes as of June, 2015 via the Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson,
1980, 2003; Lakoff, 1987, 1993). Our finding illustrates that whilst the numerous metaphor types
focus on God’s distinctive images, they all systematically follow the unidirectional, top-downhierarchy of the Great Chain of Being (Lakoff & Turner, 1989). Furthermore, the concepts manifested
as the “chosen ones” to stand for God may be derived from the Bible, and the dimishing of thenegative elements of the source domain for each metaphor are linked to the eternally perfect image
held by God. In brief, this study sheds light on our overall understanding of the concepts of God inWestern culture and contributes to the development of interdisciplinary studies.

Keywords: conceptual metaphor theory, the Great Chain of Being, the Bible, God, gospel songs
1. Introduction
This study focuses on the metaphorical manifestations apropos of the divine images reflected ingospel songs with the aim of identifying the distinguishing features of the relevant cognitive
mechanism. As metaphors regarding God in the Biblical literature have been broadly investigated(McFague, 1975; Walker, 1998; Charteris-Black, 2004; McVay, 2006; Moore, 2009; Eberhart, 2011;
Kövecses, 2011; Ou, 2012), little attention has been paid to metaphors in Christian music, such as
gospel songs, which is a time-honored music genre characterized by dominant vocals, call andresponse, as well as syncopated rhythms. Moreover, the interaction between the quintessence of thereligion and its

peculiar metaphorical structures displayed by its related metaphors, let alone thecultural discrepancies exhibited by the metaphors with reference to God in Christianity and otherreligions, are rarely acknowledged. Therefore, based on an understanding the significance of
metaphors in Christian culture and the uniqueness of gospel songs, this study employs the Conceptual
Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 2003; Lakoff, 1987, 1993) to analyze the metaphorsgathered from the top 10 gospel songs of June, 2015 on Billboard and iTunes respectively. According
to CMT, metaphors result from the mapping between the abstract source domain and comparatively
concrete target domain. Generally speaking, three kinds of conceptual metaphors can be identified
according to the cognitive functions that they perform: (1) Structural metaphors, (2) ontologicalmetaphors, and (3) orientational metaphors. Based on the framework of the theory, our intention was−137−

The Kaleidoscope of the Divine Images: The Conceptual Metaphors Concerning God in Gospel Songs

to analyze the abstract figure of God with respect to its metaphorically cognizing process, its culturally
distinctive mapping order in the Great Chain of Being (Lakoff & Turner, 1989; Kövecses, 2010), andits connection with the scriptures in the Bible. Our findings illustrate that the structural metaphoricalrepresentation of the divine image may focus on the Deity’s almighty aspects (e.g., GOD IS A
CONQUEROR), merciful aspects (e.g., GOD IS A SAVIOR), and other novel aspects (e.g., GOD IS A
LOVER). The ontological metaphors grant the Deity’s elusive quality a visible outline (e.g., GOD IS
AN OBJECT), whereas the orientational metaphors highlight the Deity’s supremacy. The cognitive

mechanism responsible for the copious images, then, reflects the unique structural-metaphor-dominantphenomenon, the unidirectional top-down hierarchy in the Great Chain of Being, the Biblicalinheritance phenomenon, and the everlasting perfection of the divine essence. Further elaboration of
the significant points of the study is presented below.

2. Methodology
The 20 gospel songs studied in the paper were collected from Billboard and iTunes, the two
American music charts currently considered to have a level of authority and popularity. Selecting the
top 10 songs from each chart respectively, we believe that these songs represent a certain degree ofcredibility and reflect the current tendencies in people’s music preferences.1 Adopting the Metaphor
Identification Procedure (Pragglejaz Group, 2007: 3), we first scan the complete text-discourse tobroad understand the song’s semantics, and then segment the whole text-discourse into lexical units.
Next, after determining the contextual meaning of each lexical unit, we contemplate whether thelexical unit has a more fundamental meaning in other contexts, and decide whether the contextual
meaning differs from the fundamental meaning. If the contextual meaning varies from the fundamental
meaning and can be understood through mutual comparison, we then mark the lexical unit asmetaphorical. In addition, with regard to the definition of God, we adopt the perspective of the Holy
Trinity, and thus focus on lyrics mentioning God in the name of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.

3. Results
The results of the study demonstrate that the structural metaphors may shed light on God’s
almighty, merciful, or other unique and novel aspects. The ontological metaphors are characterized by
granting the elusive divine essence a visible contour, whilst the orientational metaphors take effect tomake salient the sublime status of the Deity.

1

The top 10 gospel songs on Billboard are: (1) “Fill Me Up,” (2) “For Your Glory,” (3) “This Place,” (4) “I Am,”
(5) “I Will Trust,” (6) “War,” (7) “Yes You Can,” (8) “Amazing,” (9) “Worth Fighting For,” and (10) “HowAwesome Is Our God.” The top 10 gospel songs on iTunes are: (1) “Touch the Sky,” (2) “Holy Spirit,” (3)“Soul on Fire” (feat. All Sons and Daughters), (4) “Flawless,” (5) “How Can It Be,” (6) “Oceans (Where Feet
May Fail),” (7) “Drops in the Ocean,” (8) “Shoulders,” (9) “Through All of It,” and (10) “Because He Lives(Amen).”−138−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

Table 1:The Incidence of Different Metaphors Concerning God in the Gospel Songs

Billboard

iTunesTotal Basedon Kind(/Percentage)

---

---

---

---

---

---

GOD IS A MAGICIAN

5

4

9

GOD IS A KING

2

2

4

GOD IS A CONQUEROR

2

2

4

Number

SourceKind Structural Metaphorsʊfocusing on God’s almightiness

1

0

1

---

---

---

GOD IS A SAVIOR

3

8

11

GOD IS A FATHER

6

5

11

GOD IS A SHELTER

2

2

4

GOD IS A HEALER

1

2

3

GOD IS A CREATOR

ʊfocusing on God’s mercy

---

---

---

GOD IS A LOVER

3

5

8

GOD IS FIRE

2

3

5

GOD IS A MERCHANT

0

2

2

27 (77.1%)

35 (83.3%)

62 (80.5%)

 Ontological Metaphors

---

---

---

GOD IS A CONTAINER

5

5

10

GOD IS LIQUID

2

0

2

GOD IS AN OBJECT

1

1

2

8 (22.9%)

6 (14.3%)

14 (18.2%)

---

---

---

0

1

1

0 (0%)

1 (2.4%)

1 (1.3%)

ʊfocusing on God’s other unique aspects

Subtotal Based on Source (/Percentage)

Subtotal Based on Source (/Percentage)
 Orientational Metaphors
GOD IS HIGH
Subtotal Based on Source (/Percentage)
Total Basedon Source(/Percentage for each source)(/Percentage overall )35(100%)(45.5%)

42(100%)(54.5%)

77--(100%)Due to the limit of space, in the following section we provide one example for each major type andsubtype.

3.1 Structural Metaphors
Offering a rich knowledge structure for the target domain of God, the structural metaphors,−139−

The Kaleidoscope of the Divine Images: The Conceptual Metaphors Concerning God in Gospel Songs

under the force of metaphorical entailments, provides people a set of systematic mapping between
plentiful correspondent elements of the concepts in the two conceptual domains, making conspicuous
the diversity of interrelationship between the Lord and mankind. For example, (1)~(3) display the caseof GOD IS A KING, which highlights the omnipotence of God.
(1) For Your glory / I will do anything / Just to see You / To behold You as my King. (Asha Cobbs,“For Your Glory”)(2) No, this world, / It’s worth it. / is not my home. / So worth it. / But Your kingdom / here is worth
fighting for. (Brian Courtney Wilson, “Worth Fighting For”)(3) Your grace abounds in deepest waters / Your sovereign hand / Will be my guide. (Hillsong United,“Oceans (Where Feet May Fail)”)
Scrutinizing the structure of the mapping activated by this metaphor, we observe that the concept of
the kingdom of a worldly king in the source domain overlaps with that of the kingdom of God in thetarget domain, namely, Heaven. Therefore, since a king is the dominator of his kingdom, it follows
that God is the ruler of His country.
Target: GOD

Source: KING莕 God

莕 The king

莕 Heaven

莕 Kingdom

莕 Angels, human beings, etc.

莕 People莕 Ten Commandments

莕 Law

莕 Reverence for God

莕 Reverence for king

莕 Satan and demons莕 Enemies

Figure 1: The Mapping of GOD IS A KING

Moreover, whilst a king reigns over his people and demands their submission, God governs the angels,
human beings, and other creatures living in His heavenly and earthly lands and asks for theirobedience. The law that maintains the morality and public order of a country, then, is related to the
Ten Commandments that God bestows upon Moses who later spreads to the whole world. Finally,
while a kingdom may frequently suffer attacks from its enemies, God’s country holds an eternal
conflict against Satan and his minions.
The case of GOD IS A FATHER, then, can be observed from (4)~(6). Focusing on God’stenderness, the metaphor shortens the distance between God and human beings via reflecting thenurturing and protecting aspects of God.
(4) You held my hand and encourage me to stand / When they said I couldn’t do it / I heard you say
yes you can. (Marvin Sapp, “Yes You Can”)−140−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号(5) You met me deep in my despair to show me / You would never leave me there. You claimed /because I was made for so much more. / I am Your child and I’m worth fighting for. (Brian
Courtney Wilson, “Worth Fighting For”)(6) You’re straightening out my past and opening / every door. I am Your child / and I’m worth
fighting for. (Brian Courtney Wilson, “Worth Fighting For”)
Anatomizing the operation of the mapping of the metaphor, we realize that under the main framework
based on the analogy between FATHER and GOD, human beings are compared to children and thefaults or crimes committed by human beings are comprehended as the mistakes made by children.
Target: GOD

Source: FATHER

莕 God

莕 Father莕 Human beings

莕 Children

莕 Human beings commit crimes

莕 Children commit faults

莕 God forgives human beings

莕 Father tolerates children

莕 God’s love toward human beings

莕 Father’s love toward children

莕 God’s bosom

莕 HomeFigure 2: The Mapping of GOD IS A FATHERThe truth that God accepts every appearance of human beings resonates with the fact that a father
accepts every characteristic of his children. Equally, God’s love toward human beings is equal to afather’s love toward his children, whereas the bosom of God is a mirror of the home where a father is
waiting for his beloved children.
The metaphor of GOD IS A LOVER provides us a unique perspective with which to access theimage of God. Via making reference to the relationship between a pair of lovers, the metaphor
emphasizes the intimate and affectionate sentiment displayed by God toward human beings.
(7) … nothing can separate me from / Your love when there’s so much / More still worth fighting for.
(Brian Courtney Wilson Worth, “Fighting For”)(8) You love me (You love me) / And no boundary / Can come between us / You have me (You haveme) / And no power / Can separate us. (Israel & New Breed, “How Awesome Is Our God”)(9) If you wanna know / How far my love can go / Just how deep, just how wide / If you wanna see /How much you mean to me / Look at my hands, look at my side. (Hawk Nelson, “Drops in the
Ocean”)In terms of the mapping of the metaphor, it is detected that GOD in the target domain is compared to
LOVER in the source domain who exhibits sincere love toward his beloved one, human beings.

Moreover, the rival in love who steals the heart of the lover’s beloved one draws parallel to Satan who−141−

The Kaleidoscope of the Divine Images: The Conceptual Metaphors Concerning God in Gospel Songs

attempts to seduce human beings.

Source: LOVER

Target: GOD
莕 God

莕 The lover莕 Human beings

莕 The lover’s beloved one

莕 Satan莕 The rival in love莕 The pure love between God and human莕 The committed love between the lovers
莕 The obstacles (possibly caused by the

beingsrival in love) that threat the relationship莕 The secular seduction (possibly caused

between the pair of lovers

by Satan) that breaks the relationshipbetween God and human beings

Figure 3: The Mapping of GOD IS A LOVER

The committed love between the lover and his beloved is associated with the pure love between God
and human beings. Finally, the obstacles (possibly caused by a rival in love) that threatens therelationship between the pair of lovers resonates with the secular seduction (possibly caused by Satan)that breaks the relationship between God and human beings.

3.2 Ontological Metaphors
In referrence to the innate ability of human beings to identify experiences as entities orsubstances, ontological metaphors endow the divine quality a tangible outline which is easy to beconceptually categorized, grouped, quantified, and analyzed. For instance, in (10) we see God is acontainer (i.e., GOD IS A CONTAINER) inside which there is “a secret place” that can provide humanbeings protection that they are eager for, that makes them feel safe and free.
(10) There’s a place in God where we can all be free / A place where God can get the best out of me/ There’s a secret place in God where He covers me. (Tamela Mann, “This Place”)(11) Holy Spirit, You are welcome here / Come flood this place and fill the atmosphere. (Francesca
Battistelli, “Holy Spirit”)(12) Solo: And I’ll keep my mind / Choir: It’s worth it. Solo: Stayed on You Jesus. (Brian Courtney
Wilson Worth, “Fighting For”)
More precisely, this metaphor showcases a “container-inside-container” phenomenon, indicating that
God is a container that holds the place, which turns out to be another container that holds humanbeings. (11) evinces that the Holy Spirit, a part of the Trinity, manifests Himself through a fluid state(i.e., GOD IS LIQUID), being able to be “pour[ed] out” from the triune figure and being able to “flood”−142−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

and “fill” the space in which human beings live. Last, (12) depicts God as a flat solid thing (i.e., GOD
IS AN OBJECT) upon which lies the human mind.

3.3 Orientational Metaphors
Processing the concept of God through basic human spatial orientation, orientational metaphorsconvey the unchallengeable lofty position of God.
(13) I am guilty / Ashamed of what I’ve done, what I’ve become / These hands are dirty / I dare notlift them up to the Holy one. (Lauren Daigle, “How Can It Be”)
The example demonstrates the metaphor of GOD IS HIGH, which clearly points out that human beings
are in a place lower than the Deity; therefore, being afraid that they may not be pure enough, they feelhesitant to approach God, “the Holy one.”

4. Further Discussion
After analyzing the numerous types of metaphors employed to conceptualize the divine images
in gospel songs, we discover three major findings in respect to the cognitive mechanism that yields themetaphorical manifestations. To begin with, we learn that no matter which aspect of GOD that themetaphors focus on, they all obey the hierarchy indicated by the traditional metaphorical system of theGreat Chain of Being (Lakoff & Turner, 1989).2 That is, from these gospel songs, we can only
witness how GOD is represented by the concepts in the lower classes of the Chain, and cannot see
entities in the lower classes of the Chain are represented by the concept of GOD.3 Nonetheless, thephenomenon seems to be exclusive to Christianity (and its related religions), due to the fact that a
broad comparison with Buddhism, which stresses the equality between all living beings and Taiwan
aboriginal animism which bestows deities, non-human natural beings, and bygone spirits similarsacredness, showcases that the member(s) in the top hierarchy of the Great Chains of Being ofdifferent religions vary greatly. Second, we detect that the Biblical context is the pivotal ingredientthat keeps infusing energy into the source domains of the metaphors, precipitating certain concepts tobecome the “chosen ones” to represent God. For instance, GOD IS A CREATOR may refer to the storyof Genesis, whereas GOD IS A HEALER echoes the miracle of God’s curing serious human sickness(e.g., John 9, Mark 5:41-43, and Acts 19:11-12). Through this cross-spatial bond, the metaphor’s
sharing of this conspicuously related and connatural thread of a conceptual basis could be easily
passed down to the later generations, frequently responding to their antique homologues. Finally, theeternal perfection of God is also unveiled by the metaphors. More specifically, no matter what kind ofconcept is applied to understand the target domain, we see that all the human flaws lurking in the
2

The Great Chain of Being “accounts for how objects, or things, in the world are conceptualized metaphorically”(Kövecses, 2010: 151). The traditional Christian version tends to exhibit the hierarchy of GOD‫ڮ‬HUMANS‫ڮ‬ANIMALS‫ڮ‬PLANTS‫ڮ‬COMPLEX OBJECTS‫ڮ‬NATURAL PHYSICAL THINGS.
3
While investigating how God is conceptualized metaphorically, we have also explored the possibility of
non-divine beings being understood through God. However, there turns out to be no corresponding result.

−143−

The Kaleidoscope of the Divine Images: The Conceptual Metaphors Concerning God in Gospel Songs

source domains are sifted out, with the positive elements to sketch the divine image remaining.

5. Conclusion
In conclusion, through the assay of the 20 gospel songs from Billboard and iTunes by means of
CMT, this study reveals that the metaphorical presentations of God are based on a distinctive cognitive
mechanism. That is, the diversity of structural metaphors, ontological metaphors, and orientational
metaphors are highlighted, and different dimensions of the Deity display an irreversible top-down
cognitive process in the traditional Great Chain of Being. Furthermore, whilst the major dynamics ofthe metaphorical expressions seem to derive from the Bible, the negative elements carried by thesource domains are eradicated so as to preserve the perfection of God. For future research, we would
like to explore the figurative divine images from an intensive cross-religious standpoint, with the aimof further expanding the possibility of interdisciplinary studies with regard to human language andconceptual thinking.

6. References
Charteris-Black, J. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Cusic, D. 1990. The Sound of Light: A History of Gospel Music. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State
University Popular Press.
Eberhart, C. A. (Ed.). 2011. Ritual and Metaphor: Sacrifice in the Bible. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical
Literature.
Kövecses, Z. 2010. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. 2010. “The Biblical Story Retold: A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective.” In M. Brdar, S. Th. Gries,
and M. Ž. Fuchs (Eds) Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion, 325-354. Amsterdam, theNetherlands: Jon Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kövecses, Z. 2015. Where Metaphors Come From: Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Lakoff, G. 1993. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In A. Ortony (Ed.) Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.),202-251. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 2003. Metaphors We Live By (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Marvasti, A. B. 2004. Qualitative Research in Sociology. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
McFague, S. 1975. Speaking in Parables: A Study in Metaphor and Theology. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.
McVay, J. K. 2006. “Biblical Metaphors for the Church and Adventist Ecclesiology.” Andrew University
Seminary Studies 44: 2, 285-315.
Moore, A. 2009. Moving beyond Symbol and Myth: Understanding the Kingship of God of the Hebrew Bible
through Metaphor. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Ou, H. H. 2012. Reading Biblical Metaphors from the Perspective of Cognitive SemanticsʊBased on the
Recovery Version and Its Footnotes (Doctoral Dissertation). Kaohsiung, Taiwan: National Sun Yat-Sen
University.
Pragglejaz Group. 2007. MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse. Metaphor−144−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

and Symbol 22: 1, 1-39
Richards, J. W. 2003. The Untamed God: A Philosophical Exploration of Divine Perfection, Simplicity, and
Immutability. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press (IVP).

−145−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

Conceptualising Backchannel Behaviour in Japanese English and Australian English
IKE, Saya
Sugiyama Jogakuen University (saya@sugiyama-u.ac.jp)
MULDER, Jean
University of Melbourne (jmulder@unimelb.edu.au)<Abstract>
In this paper we propose a framework for understanding backchannel (BC) behaviour which views
BCs as a collaborative interactional management strategy that can be elicited by the speaker or
initiated by the listener, and illustrate the ranges of BC behaviour produced by Japanese speakers ofEnglish-as-an-additional-language (JE) and by Australian speakers of English-as-a-first-language(AusE).

Based on a multimodal analysis of video-recorded dyadic conversations, BC behaviour in

JE-JE and AusE-AusE interactions are shown to differ in sequential location, preferred BC type,
frequency, BC initiation strategies, and use of extended sequences of BCs. Specifically, lengthy BC
sequences in JE are shown to provide an opportunity for conversation participants to negotiate the next
speaker and/or a topic change, while establishing strong rapport.
ɿ Keywords ʀ : backchannel, collaborative interactional management, backchannel sequence,
backchannel cue, turn negotiation

1.

Introduction

Our ongoing study of backchannel (BC) behaviour across a range of English speakers from differing
language and cultural backgrounds has identified differences in frequency, preferred BC types,
sequential location, functions and initiation strategies. In this paper we propose a framework forunderstanding BC behaviour which views BCs as a collaborative interactional management strategy
between conversational participants, and characterises both the ranges of BC behaviour produced by
Japanese speakers of English-as-an-additional-language (JE) and by Australian speakers ofEnglish-as-a-first-language (AusE) as well as the striking differences that distinguish these two groupsof speakers.
In particular, it is proposed that BC behaviour of JE speakers can be typified not only by theoccurrence of BCs which are in response to the primary speaker's initiation (BC cues) but also by botha high frequency of BCs which are offered without the speaker's invitation, and extended BC
sequences (cf. Iwasaki, 1997). In JE-JE conversations such sequences of BCs are analysed as having
multiple functions including showing understanding, sharing mutual emotional status (rapport
building), and negotiating turns. Specifically, lengthy BC sequences are shown to provide an
opportunity for interlocutors to negotiate the next speaker and/or a topic change, while not threatening
each other's face, and establishing a strong rapport. The distinctive BC behaviour displayed by JE−147−

Conceptualising Backchannel Behaviour in Japanese English and Australian English

speakers is hypothesised to have originated from the unique BC behaviour in Japanese called aizuchi(Mizutani, 1985), as well as other discourse differences such as topic development strategies inJapanese (Otani, 2015).
In contrast, it is proposed that the BC behaviour of AusE speakers can be characterised by theoccurrence of BCs which are in response to the primary speaker’s BC cues and which are occasionallyfollowed by an acknowledgement to form a minimal BC sequence. Unlike JE, only intermittently are
BCs offered without the speaker’s invitation. Given these differences in BC behaviour, speakers fromdifferent language and cultural backgrounds may have different expectations of their interlocutor’s BC
behaviour, as evidenced for instance, in BC initiation strategies.
We begin this paper with a discussion of our data and then layout our proposed framework foranalysing BC behaviour, which is based on this data. Drawing on one-minute segments of JE-JE
conversation and AusE-AusE conversation from our data, we then illustrate our framework foranalysing BC behaviour. Finally, we summarise our findings and findings from the literature tocharacterise the both range of BC behaviour produced by JE speakers and AusE speakers and thedifferences between them.
2.

Data

Our data consist of a total of approximately six hours of video-recorded dyadic conversations: between
two JE speakers (four female pairs and one male pair), between two AusE speakers (six female pairs
and one male pair), and between a JE speaker and an AusE speaker (seven female pairs and two malepairs). All Japanese participants are either a holder of score 6.0 or above on IELTS, or working
professionally using English (e.g., as a translator). Australian participants are all holders of a tertiary
qualification. As our aim was to have conversations with stretches of single speaker narration during
which to observe BC behaviour, participants were provided a topic of comedy films, TV programs,
comics, or children’s books and asked to tell each other about some of their favourites. Other thanproviding a topic, the conversations were free flowing and ranged from approximately 15 to 25
minutes. From each conversation, approximately two and a half minutes of data per speaker was
selected consisting of stretches of single speaker narration of 25 seconds or more. The data was thentranscribedforspeech,nodding,

eye

gaze,

and

head/body

movement

using

ELAN

(https://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan/).
3.

A framework for analysing BC behaviour

In this section we present our proposed framework for conceptualising and analysing BC behaviour.
To begin, since Yngve (1970) first introduced the term ‘back-channel’, a variety of approaches havebeen taken to identify and analyse BC behaviour (for more discussion, see Ike, 2016). In general, a BC
is defined as a short vocal and/or non-vocal utterance by a conversational participant to the content ofanother participant’s speech (cf. Bavelas & Gerwing, 2011; Cutrone, 2005; Maynard, 1997). In
particular, we define a BC as composed of one or more vocal (lexical such as yeah, yep, right, okay or
non-lexical such as uh-huh, mhm, laughter) and/or non-vocal (head movement such as a nod or tilt or−148−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

facial expression such as a smile) elements, which does not constitute a floor change, and does not
require acknowledgement from the other participant. Furthermore, while the function of a BC has
traditionally been seen as that of a continuer (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson, 1974) and a listener’s
response strategy in conversation (e.g., Gardner, 2001), we argue that backchannelling is not a
one-sided activity produced by the listener. Instead we propose that it should be viewed as acollaborative interactional management strategy that can be elicited by the speaker or initiated by thelistener, developing Kita and Ide’s (2007) claim that it is a social interaction strategy of rapport
building between conversational participants.
More specifically, we define a BC instance as consisting of an optional BC Cue plus one or moreBCs, where a BC Cue is composed of one or more elements overtly produced by the speaker with anaim of eliciting a BC response from the recipient. While Ward and Tsukahara (2000) claim a low pitch
range to be the primary cue for a BC, we identify a range of prosodic and non-vocal elements such asa head movement (e.g., nod), eye gaze shift on, an appeal intonation, a sizable pause (e.g., > 180
milliseconds), an inviting hand gesture, and/or a facial expression (e.g., emotive expression) as
providing a BC Cue. A BC produced in response to a BC Cue is termed a ‘Speaker-elicited BC’ here,
and the sequence of BC-Cue + BC(s) is termed a ‘Speaker-elicited BC instance’ (S-BC). In such cases,
the listener orients to the speaker’s BC-Cue in producing a BC.
Listeners may also orient to particular discourse locations to produce a BC. In such cases, our data
show that the listener orients to the end of an intonation unit (IU), which may be signalled by prosodic
cues such as a short pause (e.g., micro-pause/hold), a boundary intonation (e.g., continuing, final or
truncation), tempo slowing, prosodic (non-lexical) lengthening of the final syllable, or an audible
exhalation of breath (Du Bois, Chafe, Meyer, and Thompson, 2000), and offers a BC without an overt
BC-Cue by the speaker. Such a BC is termed a ‘Listener-initiated BC’, and a series of one or moresuch BCs a ‘Listener-initiated BC instance’ (L-BC).
In terms of functions of BCs, there are various taxonomies that have been proposed. For example,
as previously noted, Sacks et al. (1974) consider ‘continuer’ to be the primary function of BCs. In
contrast, Maynard (1997) identifies five functions: display of understanding of content, support toward
the speaker’s judgement, agreement, strong emotional response, and minor addition, correction, or
request for information. Meanwhile, Gardner (2001) claims that response tokens (i.e., BCs) function as
discourse markers, dispreference markers, hesitation markers, assessment tokens, acknowledgement
tokens, continuers, or newsmarkers. While Gardner’s analysis does include the continuer function
proposed by Sacks et al. (1974), Gardner only looks at BC behaviour as being a ‘listener action’, thus
overlooking the interactional aspects of backchannelling. The four broad functions which we identify
in our analysis are: (1) continuer, in which the listener signals permission and expectation to the
speaker to continue, (2) reaction, in which the listener expresses understanding/lack of understanding,agreement/disagreement, or an emotional reaction to the speech content, (3) encouragement, in which
the listener positively encourages the speaker to talk more, and is often accompanied by a smile
expression, and (4) BC acknowledgement, in which the speaker acknowledges the listener’s BC,
opening an exchange of BCs between the speaker and the listener.

−149−Conceptualising Backchannel Behaviour in Japanese English and Australian English

In such exchanges of BCs, which we term a ‘BC sequence’ (BC-Seq), the speaker orients to thelistener’s initial BC as also being a BC Cue, and produces another BC (functioning as a BC
acknowledgement), forming what we term a ‘minimal BC-Seq’ (i.e., one exchange of a listener’s BC
and a speaker’s BC). Although the exchange may stop here, the listener and speaker may continue asimultaneous or sequential exchange of BCs producing an ‘extended BC-Seq’. Extended BC-Seqs are
frequently observed in Japanese conversation, and Iwasaki (1997) describes them as “a turn-taking
pattern consisting of a consecutive backchannel and back-backchannel expressions” (Iwasaki
1997:673). In our data, in addition to the functions of individual BCs, we have found that the BC- Seq,
as a whole, may display distinct phases with different functions, which we have categorised as
acknowledgement, rapport establishment (building on Kita and Ide, 2007), encouragement, and turnnegotiation.
Overall, our proposed framework of identified types and functions of BCs and findings from ourdata are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1. Types and Functions of BCs
S-BC

L-BC

BC-SEQ

LOCATION

Response to Speaker’s
BC CueIU boundary oriented

Tendency to start with an S-BC

BCS

More even balance of• lexical & non-lexical• vocal & non-vocal
Greater display• deeper nod• higher volumeTendency for• non-lexical• non-vocal
Minimal display• smaller nod• lower volume

Minimal• tendency for Speaker’s BC to
be nodding
Extended• a range of BCs that always
includes nodding

FUNCTIONS

Reaction
Encouragement

Continuer

Acknowledgement
Establish rapport
Encouragement
Negotiate turnAs shown in Table 1, BCs in S-BCs tend to have a larger range of display than BCs in L-BCs,
which are generally smaller both in volume and in movement. Our data also show that in a minimal
BC-Seq there is a sole phase which functions as acknowledgement of the listener’s BC, while in an
extended BC-Seq there are one or more additional phases which function to establish rapport, provide
encouragement, or negotiate the next speaker/turn.
4.

BC Behaviour in Australian English and Japanese English

In this section we present three examples drawn from one-minute segments of JE-JE conversation and
AusE-AusE conversation to provide a flavour of our data and to illustrate our conceptualisation of BC
behaviour which we laid out in the previous section.
The first example, given in Figure 1, is drawn from a conversation between two AE participants in−150−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

which Nadia is telling Sophie how the characters in the movie Ice Age epitomize different types ofpeople.
Figure 1. Example of S-BC in AE-AE dyad: Nadia (speaker) + Sophie (listener)
BC CueBC Cue

S-BC

S-BC

BC

BC

The last character Nadia mentions is the sabre-toothed tiger, which is at the start of the segment oftranscript in Figure 1. As she finishes stating the saber-toothed tiger is sort of, she turns her head andeye gaze back to Sophie, both of which act as a BC Cue. Sophie responds to the cue with a reaction
BC of seven downward nods. Nadia then describes the sabre-toothed tiger as vicious and me me me,kind of. As she begins her assessment that they [the characters] represent those kinds of people she
gives another BC Cue by turning her head and eye gaze back to Sophie. Sophie responds with areaction BC of three downward nods. In each case the BC instance is an S-BC as the BC is provided in
response to a clearly identifiable BC Cue.
The second and third examples are drawn from an extract of a conversation between two JE
participants. In this extract Yumi is telling Ruiko about a movie in which a man who is a murdersuspect claims he was travelling at the time of the murder, but the only witness who can verify this is aghost. In the segment of the transcript given in Figure 2 there is an example of an S-BC followed byan L-BC.
Figure 2. Example of S-BC and L-BC in JE-JE dyad: Yumi (speaker) + Ruiko (listener)

L-BC

S-BC

BC Cue

BC

BC

−151−

Conceptualising Backchannel Behaviour in Japanese English and Australian English

As Yumi nears the end of her remark that the man was uh suspect that he murdered his wife sheturns, nods downward and shifts her eye gaze back to Ruiko, finishing with an appeal intonation. In
response to this BC Cue Ruiko gives a reaction BC consisting of an upward nod and a vocal mhm.
Like the examples in Figure 1, this is an S-BC. Yumi then goes on to say but he- he said, he insist that
he was travelling, with Ruiko giving a single downward nod at the end of the IU containing said.
Unlike the previous examples in Figures 1 and 2, there is no BC Cue here and instead the continuer
BC is initiated by the listener, Ruiko. It is this type of BC instance that we are describing as an L-BC.
Lastly, Figure 3 provides an example of a BC Sequence. In this segment of the transcript Yumi
begins to wrap up her narrative of the movie with the assessment so the story is really fa- fantasy. And
funny?
Figure 3. Example of BC Sequence in JE-JE dyad: Yumi (speaker) + Ruiko (listener)

BCs

Negotiate turn

Establish rapport

BCs

Acknowledgement

BC CueBC

BCs

As Yumi utters fantasy with a final boundary intonation contour, she turns her head, gives adownward nod and focuses her eye gaze back on Ruiko, producing a clearly recognisable BC Cue.
Ruiko responds to the cue with four upward nods, which Yumi acknowledges with a further downward
nod. This is followed by a period of simultaneous exchange of BCs, consisting of two separate
downward nods and a vocal yeah by Yumi and a vocal mm and a series of six upward nods by Ruiko,which appear to function as establishing rapport between the two (cf. Kita and Ide, 2007). In the final
phase of the BC-Seq, a negotiation for the next turn can be seen to take place during which Yumi nods
twice downward and produces three beats of laughter. As Ruiko responds with laughter and leaning
her body forward and up rather than by taking the floor, Yumi continues speaking.
While examples such as these are only illustrative, our overall results combined with previous
research indicate that JE speakers and AusE speakers have quite different styles of BC behaviour, assummarised in Table 2.

−152−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

Table 2. Summary of Differences in BC Behaviour
BC Instances

Primary type
BC-SeqJE speakers

AusE speakers• 1 min: S-BC (5), L-BC (5), BC-Seq (7)• 1 min: S-BC (7), L-BC (0), BC-Seq (1)• S-BC and L-BC

• predominantly S-BC

• 2-3 times more frequent• less frequent• Cue – head movement (nods)• Cue – eye gaze shift on• BC – vocal + head movement (nods)• BC – head movement (nods) or vocal• Minimal and extended BC sequences• Typically, only minimal BC sequences• Functions – acknowledgment, establish• Functions – typically, only

rapport, encouragement & negotiate turnacknowledgment

First, in the one-minute segment by the JE speakers there are five instances each of S-BCs and
L-BCs, and seven BC-Seqs, totalling 17 BC instances. Meanwhile in the segment by the AusE
speakers, there are seven instances of S-BC and one BC-Seq, totalling eight BC instances. Thesefrequency differences support the findings in previous studies that JE speakers tend to produce two to
three times more BCs than the speakers of varieties of English such as American English and AusE
(Ike, 2010; White, 1989). Second, the BC behaviour of JE speakers is characterised by L-BC instances
as well as S-BC instances whereas that of the AusE speakers is restricted to predominantly S-BC
instances. Furthermore, previous studies have shown that for JE speakers head movement is theprimary BC Cue and the primary type of BC is vocal + nodding (Ike, 2010; Maynard, 1987). In
contrast our results suggest that for AusE speakers, the primary BC Cue is eye gaze shift on and theprimary type of BC is nodding or vocal.
5.

Conclusion

In this paper, we have proposed a framework for understanding BC behaviour that conceptualises it
not as solely a listener response, but instead as a collaborative interactional management strategy thatcan be elicited by the speaker (S-BC) or initiated by the listener (L-BC). Furthermore, the proposed
framework not only captures the range of different BC behaviours including BC Cues, BC elements,
BC functions and BC-Seqs found in our conversational data produced by JE speakers and AusE
speakers, but it also allows the similarities and differences in the BC behaviours produced by these
two sets of participants to become visible.
Through our in-depth analysis of BC behaviour and the framework that we propose, this paper
provides further insight into our understanding of BC behaviour in intra-cultural (e.g., JE and AusE)
settings, while also providing a foundation for analysing BC behaviour in inter-cultural (e.g.,
JE-AusE) communication settings, including how JE and AusE speakers negotiate differences in BC
expectations and handle possible communication breakdowns and repairs. As well this paper provides
a framework that can be used as a foundation for understanding the BC behaviour of participants fromother language and cultural backgrounds. It is through research such as this that we add to ourunderstanding of pragmatic practices in social interaction.

−153−

Conceptualising Backchannel Behaviour in Japanese English and Australian English

References
Bavelas, J. B., & Gerwing, J. (2011). The Listener as Addressee in Face-to-Face Dialogue.
International Journal of Listening, 25(3), 178-198. doi:10.1080/10904018.2010.508675
Cutrone, P. (2005). A Case Study Examining Backchannels in Conversations between Japanese-British
Dyads. Multilingua, 24(3), 237-274.
Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. L., Meyer, C., & Thompson, S. A. (2000). Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken
AmericanEnglish.

Retrieved

2011/06/10,

from

Linguistic

Data

Consortium

http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/research/sbcorpus_obtaining.html
Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing.
Ike, S. (2010). Backchannel: a feature of Japanese English. JALT 2009 Conference Proceedings,
205-215.
Ike, S. (2016). The Interactional Basis of Backchannel Behaviour in Japanese English. Journal of
Sugiyama Jogakuen University: Humanities(47), 129-138.
Iwasaki, S. (1997). The Northridge earthquake conversations: The floor structure and the 'loop'
sequence in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(6), 661-693.
Kita, S., & Ide, S. (2007). Nodding, aizuchi, and final particles in Japanese conversation: Howconversation reflects the ideology of communication and social relationships. Journal of
Pragmatics, 39(7), 1242-1254.
Maynard, S. K. (1987). Interactional functions of a nonverbal sign Head movement in Japanese dyadic
casual conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(5), 589-606.
Maynard, S. K. (1997). Analyzing Interactional Management in Native/Non-Native English
Conversation: A Case of Listener Response. International Review of Applied Linguistics inLanguage Teaching, 35(1), 37-60.
Mizutani, N. (1985). Hanashi kotoba no bunpo: Nichi-Ei hikaku. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.
Otani, M. (2015). Wadai tenkai style no Nichi-Ei taisho bunseki: Kaiwa sankasha wa donoyouni wadai
no tenkai ni kouken surunoka [Comparative analysis of topic development styles in Japaneseand English: How conversation participants contribute to the topic development]. In S. Tsuda,
Y. Murata, M. Otani, Y. Iwata, Y. Shigemitsu, & Y. Otsuka (Eds.), A Contrastive Study ofJapanese and English Spoken Discourse Styles:Towards Effective English Communication
Education (pp. 193-230). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization ofturn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Ward, N., & Tsukahara, W. (2000). Prosodic features which cue back-channel responses in English andJapanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(8), 1177-1207.
White, S. (1989). Backchannels across Cultures: A Study of Americans and Japanese. Language in
Society, 18(1), 59-76.
Yngve, V. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise Papers from the sixth regional meeting of the
Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 567-578). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.

−154−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

A Diachronic Pragmatic Account of Chayidian’s Ambiguity and Development
Yueh-Hsin Kuo
University of Edinburgh<Abstract>
This paper provides an account of how chayidian ‘almost’ in Chinese developed ambiguity
when preceding a negator, mei, from a usage-based, diachronic pragmatic perspective (e.g.
Bybee 2007, 2010, among others). The development is characterized by factors such as
chunking that resulted from frequent appearances of chayidian in a particular construction
involving mei, and hyperbolic usage that eroded the adversity specification previously
conditioning the interpretation of the sequence chayidian mei. This diachronic pragmatic
approach adopted herein suggests that explanations for idiosyncrasies can be found inhistorically productive patterns and in discourse contexts.
[Keywords]: chayidian, expletive negation, diachronic pragmatics, usage-based linguistics

0. Introduction: The Ambiguity of Chayidian
Chayidian means ‘almost’ in Chinese. Curiously, it has ambiguity when it is followed bya negator mei, which can be interpreted as an expletive negator. For example1,(1) wo chayidianI

almost

mei

shu

NEG

lose

‘I almost not lost (i.e. I almost won)’(2) wo chayidianI

almost

mei

shu

NEG

lose

‘I almost lost’
Both (1) and (2) have exactly the same surface structure, but their interpretations differ. Whilemei (1) negates shu ‘to lose’, it does not have the same function in (2); it is expletive.
This ambiguity has been generating interest since Zhu (1959). Both Zhu (1959) and Li(1976) propose a similar account of ‘undesirability’ from the perspective of the speaker toexplain the ambiguity: the expletive negation applies when the predicate expresses an−155−

A Diachronic Pragmatics Account of Chayidianʻs Ambiguity and Development

undesirable situation. It can be found in (2) because it is typically undesirable for anyone tolose. However, this account is challenged by Biq (1989), who believes the ‘anomaly’ of thesituation captures the use of expletive negation better. Examples (3) and (4) illustrateinstances where anomaly is preferred over undesirability as the explicating factor:(3) tagaoxingde

3SG happy

chayidian meibata

almostba

3SG mother

NEG

muqin

bao qilai
hug up‘He was so happy that he almost lifted his mother up’(4) chayidian mei
almost

gen

ta

wo

NEG with 3SG shake

shou
hand

‘(I) almost shook hands with her (Princess Diana)’

abridged from Biq (1989: 79)

It would seem rather odd that ‘lifting one’s mother up’ in (3) is something undesirable.
Moreover, it is stated explicitly in (3) that the man almost lifted up his mother because theman was happy. In (4), it is also unnatural to say the speaker considers shaking hands with
Princess Diana as something undesirable. However, both (3) and (4) have the expletive
negator. Thus Biq proposes it is ‘the contextual anomaly of [the] event seen from the
speaker’s point of view’ (1989:80) that sheds light on the use of the expletive negator: it isgenerally odd or unexpected to lift one’s mother up or to shake hands with Princess Diana.
More recently, Shu and Chang (2015) present a syntactic account in which two
chayidian are distinguished, each with a different underlying syntactic structure. Similarly,
Kaufmann and Xu (2013) give a polysemous account of chayidian, whereby in positive
sentences chayidian is lexically a positive polarity item in positive sentences, but a negative
one in negative sentences. They couch their analysis of the expletive negation pattern in termsof undesirability, too: it happens when negative polarity chayidian occurs with a semantically
undesirable predicate. While both semantic and syntactic accounts may be well motivatedtheory-internally, no explanation is given as to how those two structures developed and where
they originated at all in the first place. Additionally, past approaches have been predominantly
synchronic. It is therefore this study’s objective to explain why there is ambiguity with thestring chayidian + mei from a diachronic pragmatic perspective.
1. Framework and Data
The usage-based framework assumes that language structure is shaped by language use−156−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

and explanation for synchronic linguistic structure can also rest in diachronic processes (e.g.
Bybee 2007, 2010). Crucial to the framework is the idea that users experience and store
tokens of expressions, from their discourse contexts to their morphosyntax. Users also
generalize across tokens to form a network of constructions, defined as form and meaning
pairings that occur with sufficient frequency (Goldberg 2006).
This idea of a network requires us to contextualize chayidian’s development by
examining its synonyms, because chayidian, and even the expletive negation pattern, did notappear out of thin air or exist in a vacuum; they must have been part of a network of
expressions. As observed by Kauffman and Xu (2013) and Zhang (2007), xianxie andzhengxie function similarly to chayidian, meaning ‘almost’ and allowing expletive negation.
Therefore, to make sense of the origin of chayidian’s ambiguity, instances of chayidian andits synonyms were retrieved from the Premodern Chinese section of the Center for Chinese
Linguistics Corpus2 and then analyzed, described below.
1.1. Xianxie
Xianxie is the oldest expression of the three. Xian originally means ‘danger; dangerous’,
whereas xie means ‘slightly’. Its earliest attestation with the meaning of ‘almost’ is in acomment on a 5th century text by an annotator from the 7th century:(5) wei, xian
wei almost

ye.

you

PTCL butjinrenyen

now.person say

xian

bu

almost

NEG kill‘Wei means almost. But nowadays people say almost not kill’

sha

er
PTCL
from Han Shu

In (5), xian is used to explain the meaning of wei ‘almost’ in the context of wei sha ‘almost
killed’. Wei’s original meaning is also ‘danger; dangerous’. Most intriguingly, the annotator
further adds that in his contemporary language xian bu is an equivalent in this context as well,even though bu is a negator. (5) thus demonstrates that the expletive negation pattern emerged
as early as the 7th century, albeit manifested by a different negator, and the origin of threeproximative expressions can be traced back at least as far as wei in the 5th century.
Other than xian, xianxie has more than one variant. However, the variation is beyond thescope of the paper; it will suffice here to point out that the variation of xianxie is based on a
fixed xian with an optional degree modifier xie ‘slightly’, which itself contains a fixed xie andother optional elements such as the numeral yi- ‘one’ and diminutives -er, and -zi. Xianxie in−157−

A Diachronic Pragmatics Account of Chayidianʻs Ambiguity and Development

the 14th century and onward had been the preferred variant, until Modern Chinese, where xianalone is again utilized in news headlines, presumably for the economy of its short form.
Xianxie only modify events that are undesirable, for example:(6) xianxie
almostluo mafall horse‘Almost fell off the horse’from Romance of the Three Kingdoms

1.2. Zhengxie
The original sense of zheng is ‘to vie for’. Later on it developed the meaning of ‘almost’when in conjunction with xie, via the sense of ‘to differ’. Zheng by itself never means‘almost’, but similar to xianxie, the variation of zhengxie is based on an invariable zheng andthe degree modifier xie and various other optional items realized around it, such as zheng +xie + er, an example of which is (7), from a text written during the 13th and 14th centuries:(7) zhengxieralmost

bu

sha

le

yi

ge

ren

NEG kill ASP one CL person‘(I) almost killed someone.’from Bu Dai He Shang Ren Zi Ji

Similar to (5), (7) has an expletive negator. Despite the negator, (7) does not mean ‘I almost
not killed someone’, but ‘I almost killed someone’. Zhengxie only modify undesirable events.
1.3. Chayidian
Chayidian resembles xianxie and zhengxie even though its phonological form mightsuggest otherwise. Cha originally means ‘to miss; differ’, similar to zheng in its extended
sense; yidian is a degree modifier, literally ‘one bit’. Chayidian’s variation also mirrors thoseof xianxie and zhengxie: a constant cha is combined with a degree modifier dian, realizedwith an optional yi-, -er, or -zi. Xie was also a possible degree modifier in chayidian’s
formation, but chayidian is preferred in Modern Chinese. In line with Kaufmann and Xu(2013)’s observation, our data show that chayidian in Premodern Chinese modify exclusively
undesirable events. An example with an expletive negator is (8), from the 17th century:(8) chayidian mei

sang

le

ming

−158−

第18回大会発表論文集

almost

第11号

NEG lose ASP life‘(I) almost lost my life’from Xingshi Yinyuen Zhuan

2. Analyses and Discussion
Building on data collected from the corpus, this section presents analyses of chayidian’s
history and explanations for chayidian + mei’s ambiguity.
2.1. The Adverse Proximative Construction SchemaThis paper proposes that there is a construction schema, called the adverse proximative
schema. Historically it has at least wei, xianxie, zhengxie and chayidian as its members, eventhough wei and zhengxie have become obsolete. It modifies an adverse, undesirable event andcontains an optional expletive negator. Its form and meaning are characterized as: form:[proximative (negator) VP] meaning: [nearly suffered from doing VP]. This is motivatedby the fact that its members, except for wei, in Premodern Chinese allow an expletive negatorand unfailingly modify adverse events, unlike the more general proximative, such as jihu,
which has no adversity specification and can freely modify any type of event. Because in theschema the interpretation is always constrained by adversity, (1) could not be well-formed
historically: mei shu ‘not lose’ is not an adverse event from the perspective of the speaker.
The following is a particularly illuminating example that showcases the important role
played by the speaker’s perspective in the usage of the adverse proximative:(9) wo weiIde zhialmost getit‘I almost got it (an important position assisting the emperor)’from Han Shu

Typically people would find any position close to the emperor desirable. However, in (9) it isestablished in the discourse that the speaker actually considers the position too laborious,
therefore undesirable. The adverse proximative thus can be sanctioned in this context. Notethat wei (9) is the same as found in (5).
2.2. The Source of Ambiguity: from Adverse Proximative to Proximative
It is clear now that the undesirability account has its historical basis. However, how do
we make sense of (1), (3) and (4), where the event is not undesirable, but mei can be found?

−159−

A Diachronic Pragmatics Account of Chayidianʻs Ambiguity and Development

Explanations lie in two changes we can postulate on the basis of our data and understandingof the adverse proximative. First, chayidian and mei have been chunked and stored as a unit;
second, chayidianmei and chayidian both have undergone generalization, shedding its
adversity meaning component and resembling more like jihu, the most general proximative in
Chinese. That is to say, chayidianmei and chayidian are functionally similar to jihu or almost,because they can describe any kind of event as almost realized, without necessarily conveyingthat the event is adverse. (1), (3) and (4) therefore receive a natural explanation. In (1),chayidian can modify mei shu ‘not lose’ because there is no adversity constraint. In (3) and(4), not only is there no adversity constraint, but chayidianmei also functions as a stored unit.
In short, ambiguity results from the loss of the adversity meaning, further complicated by
the fusion of mei with chayidian. Previously the interpretation relied on the speaker’s
perspective on the event as adverse or not, but now more contextual information has to betaken into account. For example, in order to correctly obtain the intended reading, given asurface structure like that of (1) and (2), a hearer might need to know more about the context,
not just whether the speaker finds the event as unfavorable or not.
The two structures posited by researchers such as Kaufmann and Xu (2013) and Shyu
and Chuang (2015), can be seen to have their origins in the fused chayidian(mei) and theoriginal chayidian. However, they all treat the expletive negator as a feature of the item
chayidian, which, from a diachronic point of view, misses the important generalization thatthe expletive negation pattern has been a historically productive pattern.
2.3. More on the Fusion and Generalization of Chayidian(mei)While it is not difficult to establish what changes have happened to chayidian(mei),
given the history of chayidian(mei) as described above, the exact factors leading to thechanges need further consideration: why did the fusion and generalization happen? A
diachronic pragmatics approach offers an answer: chayidian’s use. Even though the expletive
negation pattern has always been the feature in the schema, compared to xianxie, chayidian ismore frequently associated with mei in Premodern Chinese: over 51% of its total instances
co-occur with mei (17/33), whereas barely 7% of xianxie have mei (48/702). As stated by
Bybee, ‘items that are used together fuse together’ (2007:316), chayidian and mei tend to be
used together, thus they have been chunked as a unit (compare going to > gonna in English).
Although it is also true that frequent co-occurrences of two items do not necessarily guarantee
their fusion, given our data, it does not seem possible for chayidian + mei to have generalized−160−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

without them being stored together first.
Careful examination of the types of event chayidian modify in Premodern Chinese also
reveals the reason why generalization happened: chayidian typically denotes a hyperbolic
event involving ‘near death’ or ‘physical harm’. Over 63% of the tokens describe such
scenarios (16 of ‘near death’ and 5 of ‘physical harm’, out of a total of 33 tokens), such as (8).
Frequent exaggeration of ‘near death’ or ‘harm’ bleached chayidian(mei) of its notion ofadversity, as users could take the tongue-in-cheek nature of the context with a grain of salt
and gradually become ‘habituated’, in the sense of Haiman (1994), to the meaning ofadversity or suffering. That is, the adversity meaning component failed to register in users’
mind because the severity of the situation was no longer a stimulus that they responded to.
Adversity, then, was not essential to chayidian, as it had been. The role hyperbole plays inbleaching the stronger force of an expression is well attested, such as dreadfully becoming‘extremely’ from ‘to be dreaded’ (Geeraerts 1997:100).
The two changes would not have been possible if tokens of chayidian had not been
stored. Its association with mei had to be remembered for them to be fused; so did the historyof its hyperbolic pragmatics, without which the generalization could not have happened. To
think in terms of a network, hierarchical organization of language also helps us make sense of
the change from adverse proximative to proximative. Adverse proximaitves, by definition, area subcategory of proximatives, with the more specific meaning of adversity. Thus thegeneralization into a proximative is well motivated within this hierarchical structure. 
3. Conclusion
This study shows that the ambiguity of chayidian + mei arose from chayidian’s fusion
with mei and the generalization of chayidian(mei)’s adversity meaning. Previously chayidian
participated in the adverse proximative schema, which unfailingly modified adverse events.
Even though the schema contained an optional negator, it did not lead to ambiguity: knowing
whether the speaker viewed the event as favorable or not provided cues to disambiguation. If
the negated event was adverse, then the negator was a true one; if not, then it is an expletive
negator. However, chayidian(mei) has been generalized into a proximative, similar to almost
in English, of which adversity is not an essential meaning component. Ambiguity thus resultsfrom the lack of a clear, principled way of disambiguation. Mei can be analyzed as part ofchayidian, or negating the following VP, but either analysis requires a lot more contextual
knowledge than just whether the event coded is adverse or not for the speaker. This study also

−161−

A Diachronic Pragmatics Account of Chayidianʻs Ambiguity and Development

shows that a usage-based and diachronic approach that focuses on pragmatics can provide
explanations for synchronic idiosyncrasies. The use of chayidian + mei led to its changes(fusion and generalization). The changes are also domain-general cognitive processes that are
not limited to language, such as chunking (Bybee 2007) and habituation (Haiman 1994).
Notes
1. This paper uses the following abbreviations: 3SG= 3rd person singular; ASP=
Aspectual marker; CL= Classifier; NEG= Negator; PTCL = Particle.
2. CCL Corpus: http://ccl.pku.edu.cn:8080/ccl_corpus/index.jsp?dir=gudai
References
Biq, Y. O. 1989. “Metalinguistic Negation in Mandarin.” Journal of Chinese Linguistics 17:1,
75-95.
Bybee, J. 2007. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bybee, J. 2010. Language, Usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geeraerts, D. 1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haiman, J. “Ritualization and the Development of Language.” In W. Pagliuca (ed.),Perspectives on Grammaticalization, 3-28. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kaufmann, M. and T. Xu. 2013. “Almost or Almost Not? The Interaction Between Chayidian‘Almost’ and Negation in Mandarin Chinese.” CLS 49 Proceedings.
Li, C. N. 1976.“A Functional Explanation for an Unexpected Case of Ambiguity (S or –S).”
In A. Juilland (ed.) Linguistic Studies Offered to Joseph Greenberg on the Occasion of
His Sixtieth Birthday, 527-535. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.
Shyu, S. and Y. Chuang. 2015. “Approximating to the Event Boundary, (Counter)Factuality
and Approximative Cha(yidian).” In M. Tseng (ed.) Language as Material, 97-119.
Kaohsiung: The Center for the Humanities at National Sun Yat-Sen University.
University Press.
Zhang, L. 2007. “Tracing to the source of the adverb chadianer.”Journal of Huzhou Teachers
College 29:5, 50-53.
Zhu, Dexi. 1959. “A Study on ‘Chayidian’.” Studies of the Chinese Language 87, 435.

−162−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

Pragmatic Factors Determining the References of Indexicals I, Here, and Now
in Recorded and Written Messages
Yoko Mizuta
International Christian University

Abstract
David Kaplan proposed a semantic theory of indexicals which claims that I, here, and now
refer respectively to the agent, the location, and the time of the context of utterance. Kaplan
assumes real-time, face-to-face utterances. However, we have various occasions to use
recorded and written messages, in which indexicals may be used in nontrivial ways. Familiar
examples include a voice message left on an answering machine and a post-it note attached tosomeone’s office door (e.g. ‘I am not here now’). This paper introduces major views
conducted from philosophical perspectives and demonstrates how various pragmatic factors
together play an important role in determining the references of indexicals used in recorded
and written messages.
࠙Keywordsࠚ: 1. Indexicals, 2. Reference, 3. Recorded and written messages, 4. Pragmatic
factors

1. Introduction
Kaplan (1989) proposed a semantic theory of indexicals which claims that I, here, and now
refer respectively to the agent, the location, and the time of the context of utterance. To be
noted, Kaplan assumes real-time, face-to-face utterances. However, we have occasions to use
recorded and written messages, in which indexicals may be used in nontrivial ways.
Familiar examples include a voice message left on an answering machine and a post-it note
attached to an office door. We need a theoretical framework which covers such cases as well.
The literature in the area of philosophy presents a crucial involvement of pragmatics.
Previous work has been proposed in such a way that a new view aims to replace the others.
This paper reconsider the relation between different views and demonstrates how various
pragmatic factors, mentioned by different views, together play an important role indetermining the references of indexicals used in recorded and written messages.
2. Example 1
2.1. Empirical analysis
We will see five examples. The first example concerns a recorded message. Suppose that John
1
−163−

Pragmatic factors determining the references of indexicals I, Here, and Now in recorded and written messages

records the message (1) on his answering machine to be used in his office during his travel.
(1) Hello. I am not here now. Please leave a message.
The basic structure of the voice message is as follows. In the recording, John speaks themessage as though he were talking to a future caller. To be noted, ‘I am not here now’ isintended to describe his future situation. In the playback, the message comes into effect ateach phone call. ‘I am not here now’ means that John is not in his office at the time of thephone call. Here are some examples. If John records a message at 2 p.m. on October 10th, andthere is a phone call in his office at 3 p.m. on October 12th, then I refers to John, here refers
to his office, and now refers to 3 p.m. on October 12th. Next, if there is another phone call at 4p.m. on October 13th, then now refers to 4 p.m. on October 13th. Next, if John changed his
office using the same phone number and used the voice message (1) during another travel,
then the reference of here is his new office.
The literature introduces the notion of the deferred utterance intuition. Intuitively, thecontext of interpretation, where the references of indexicals (i.e. I, here, and now) aredetermined, is the context of playback. In Sidelle’s (1991) term, the message becomes a‘genuine utterance’ in the playback. Sidelle analyzes the case of a recorded message as‘arranging to make an utterance at a later time, or, if one likes, deferring an utterance’ (p.535).
This intuition is called the ‘deferred utterance intuition’ (henceforth, DUI). In a sense, Sidelleextends the notion of an utterance so that it covers not only a real-time, face-to-face utterance
but also an occurrence of linguistic expressions for communicative purposes. For Sidelle, then,the context of playback is both the context of interpretation and the context of utterance.
2.2. Major views and their relations
Let us see major views proposed in the literature and their relations.
2.2.1. The context of tokening view
Cohen (2013) proposes the ‘context of tokening view’. According to Cohen, the references ofhere and now shift to the playback context, but the reference of I remains in the recording
context. This analysis is based on DUI and works well for here and now. But the reference of
I is controversial.
Here are the problems. First, ‘I am not here’ in (1) means ‘John is not in his office(because he is traveling)’, not ‘because he is recording’. We shouldn’t reduce the truth of (1)to the discrepancy between the recording and the playback contexts, as Cohen does. Second,
the analysis does not work when one uses a message recorded by somebody else. For example,
if Mike records a message on behalf of John, the reference of I will be mistakenly predicted to2−164−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

be Mike, according to Cohen, although it should be John. It seems that the reference of I
should be the one who authorizes the content of the message, not the one who just speaks themessage.
2.2.2. The intentionalist view
Predelli (1998) proposes the ‘intentionalist view’. According to Predelli, ‘written andrecorded messages are to be evaluated with respect to the intended context of interpretation’(p.115). In the case of an answering machine, the intended context of interpretation is thecontext of playback, in light of DUI.
This view seems to work well even when somebody else recorded the message. For
example, if Mike records a message on behalf of John, the reference of I is evaluated withrespect to the intended context of interpretation (i.e. the context of playback). It is John, who
authorizes the content of the message in that context. This view also distinguishes an actual
playback from a test playback. In the case of a test playback, which is made in an unintended
context of interpretation, the indexicals are not evaluated and therefore have no reference.
2.2.3. The coventionalist view
Corazza, Fish and Gorvett (2002) proposes the ‘conventionalist view’. According to Corazzaet al., a crucial role is played by the conventional/ social setting in which the utterance takes
place, rather than the intention of the speaker.
…… it is a matter of the setting or broad context whether a given word, for instance,
is used with such or such a conventional meaning. …… we can argue that our social
practice with regard to the way we use answering machine and post-it notes isconventionally ruled in such a way that it allows someone to use a token of the first
person pronoun produced by someone else to refer to herself (p.12, with original
italics).
In this view, even though Mike records the message, the reference of I is conventionallydetermined to be John (‘the conventional agent’, in their term).
It seems that what this view indicates is that the users of an answering machine (John, in
our example, and the callers) should share, as background knowledge, the conventions
concerning the machine. Otherwise, the message can be misunderstood. For example, if John
inappropriately intends that now refers to the recording time, rather than the playback time,that will result in miscommunication between John and the caller.
The conventional/ social setting seems to introduce pragmatic presuppositions to beshared by the participants in recorded and written messages. This view thus does not replace
3−165−

Pragmatic factors determining the references of indexicals I, Here, and Now in recorded and written messages

the intentionalist view: The two views focus on different aspects of communication.
2.2.4. The recognized context view
Romdenh-Romluc (2006) proposes the ‘recognized context view’. According toRomdenh-Romluc, the use of indexicals is constrained by what a linguistically competent andattentive audience (Ac) can understand, rather than the intention of the speaker and theconventional/ social setting.
He criticizes the intentionalist view, as follows:… The sort of language with which we are dealing here is public language, theuttered sentences of which have public meanings. …— i.e. the utterance can inprinciple be understood — by more people than just the utterer (p.265).
He also criticizes the conventionalist view, as follows:
The problem with this view (Note. the conventionalist view) is that it cannot
adequately explain how reference is fixed in cases where the utterer uses anindexical expression in an unconventional – but intuitively acceptable – way(p.268).
A convention is an established way of doing things; to do something in a certain
way on only one or two occasions does not constitute a convention (p.269, withoriginal italics).
In fact, if an answering machine is used when it is not conventionalized yet, it is still
likely that Ac would understand the message correctly. So, why is it possible? In this case,analogy seems to come into play on the hearer’s part. This view thus indicates the role ofadditional factors besides intention and convention (e.g. analogy).
We have the following assumption. For a successful communication, it is necessary thatthe speaker and the hearer are cooperative. The speaker needs to express his/her intention in
an appropriate way so that the hearer can understand it, while the hearer is expected tocorrectly interpret the intention of the speaker as well as the conventional/ social setting.
Given this, it seems that the recognized context view does not replace the intentionalist
and conventionalist views but highlights the role of the hearer in a successful communication.
2.2.5. Shifty characters view
Michaelson (2014) proposes the semantics of indexicals according to three context types
4−166−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号(face-to-face, answering machine, and postcard). For the answering machine context, thecharacter (i.e. the function from indexicals to their references) is posited as follows:
Answering Machine‘I’ refers to the owner of the line
‘here’ refers to the location of playback‘now’ refers to the time of playback (p.528, part of his (8))
The semantics for here and now is based on DUI, as in the context of tokening view,
among others. The semantics for I empirically makes sense but I consider that it is motivatedby the convention of an answering machine, indicating that the view is actually compatible
with the conventionalist view.
3. Example 2
Next example concerns a written message. Suppose that a post-it note ‘I am not here now’ isattached to the door of Joe’s office. According to DUI, the context of interpretation is that inwhich one reads the attached message.
Let us focus on two views, the conventionalist view and the recognized context view,which were introduced in the previous section.
3.1. The coventionalist view
Corazza et al. (2002) provides an example that Ben writes and attaches the post-it note to
Joe’s office door to mean ‘Joe is not in his office now’.
They argue that if the note is attached to Fred’s office, it will mean ‘Fred is not in his
office now’, even though Ben intends to mean the same message about Joe. Based on this,Corazza et al. argue against the intentionalist view, saying that a crucial role is played not by
the intention of the speaker but by the conventional/ social setting in which the utterance takes
place (i.e. the note is read).
To be noted, however, Ben would choose a setting which reflects his intention. For
example, he will not intentionally attach the note to Fred’s office door. He may mistakenly do
so. In this case, the note will be interpreted in a context unintended by him. Given that
Predelli argues that the indexicals are to be interpreted in an intended context, the indexicals
will have no references in this case. The interpretation in the ‘conventional setting’ in the caseof a mistake (e.g. the note is attached to Fred’s office) will result in miscommunication.
As in the case of a recorded message, the conventional/ social setting shared by the
speaker and the hearer seems to introduce pragmatic presuppositions rather than being a
crucial determinant of the indexicals. Thus, it is fair to say that the conventionalist view does
not defeat the intentionalist view.

5
−167−

Pragmatic factors determining the references of indexicals I, Here, and Now in recorded and written messages

3.2.The recognized context view
Let us consider three cases.
First, suppose that a post-it note ‘I am not here now.’ is attached to an office door and thatthe office is used only by John. In this case, linguistically competent and attentive audience(Ac) would understand that I refers to John, here refers to the inside of the office and now
refers to the time when the note is read. There seems to be no problem. Second, in the same
post-it setting, suppose that the office is shared by John and Mike. In this case, it is not clear
who I refers to: It may refer to John or Mike.
Third, suppose that there are name plates of John and Mike beside the office door andpost-it notes are attached as in Figure 1 (a) and (b). In (a), the note means: John is not in theoffice now. The speaker and the hearer share as background knowledge the convention (i.e.
the locational relation between the note and the name plate, and between the name plate andthe office). In (b), if it is an intended context, I may refer to both John and Mike. In contrast,
suppose that John wanted to attach the note as in (a) but, in a haste, he attached it as in (b). In
this case, the reference of I will not be interpreted correctly.
Thus, we see the following. In order for the audience (Ac) to interpret the message
correctly, it is necessary that s/he understands/ infers the relevant person’s intention, among
other things, with the help of the conventional and other pragmatic settings. The message
should be interpreted in the intended context of interpretation.

4. Example 3
Next example also concerns a written message. Suppose the following (Predelli 1998):

6
−168−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

Jones expects his wife to come home at six, and writes ‘I am not here now’ at four,with the intention of informing his wife that he is away from home at six. However,Jones’s wife only reads the message at ten (p.110, with my modifications).
For Cohen (i.e. the context of tokening view), now refers to ten, when the interpretation
actually takes place. For Predelli (i.e. the intentionalist view), now refers to the intended timeof interpretation (i.e. six). Furthermore, Jones’s wife may consider that she was late andinterpret that ‘now’ refers to the time she was supposed to come back (i.e. six). Thus, theintentioinalist view, the conventionalist view, and the recognized context view work together
for the identification of the reference of now.
What if the message was ‘I will be back two hours from now.’ In this case, Jones’ wife
has no idea about when the message was written, and Jones assumes that. Thus, now
presumably refers to the intended time of interpretation (i.e. six).
5. Example 4
Next example concerns a postcard. Shifty characters view by Michaelson (2014) posits thecharacter for the postcard context as follows (p.528, part of his (8)):
Postcard‘I’ refers to the author‘here’ refers to the location of production‘now’ refers to the time of production
His proposal works well for example like ‘It’s beautiful here now’ (Michaelson 2014, p.525).
However, there are counterexamples, such as (2) written in the postcard.
(2) {Is it sunny now? / It may be raining now.}
In (2), now refers to the time of interpretation in both cases. Here, linguistic factors (aninterrogative and a modal context) have an effect on the reference of now. Now apparently
refers to the expected time of interpretation. Note that now and here are asymmetrical: here
apparently does not refer to the location of interpretation, as illustrated in the infelicity of thefollowing: {# Is it sunny here? / # It may be raining here.}
6. Example 5
Lastly, suppose that John has a trouble with his throat and cannot speak. So, he gives a lectureusing computer-synthesized sounds he prepared. The sounds start with (3).
(3) [Computer-synthesized sounds] Hello. Thank you for coming here. I have a problem with
7
−169−

Pragmatic factors determining the references of indexicals I, Here, and Now in recorded and written messages

my throat now, so I will give a lecture using computer-synthesized sounds.
The audience will understand that I refers to John, even though it is produced by thecomputer, here refers to the room, now refers to the time of the lecture. Here, John’s intention,
pragmatic setting/ convention, and competence of the audience together play a role indetermining the references of the indexicals. Specifically, John uses the computer in such a
way that the audience will understand the message and identify the indexicals correctly.
7. Conclusion
Table 1 illustrates the relation between the proposed views and the pragmatic factors in focus.
Table 1. Pragmatic factors indicated by different views
Proposed view

Pragmatic factor(s) in focus

Intentionalist view

Speaker’s arrangements/expectation on the context

Recognized context view

Hearer’s understanding of the context in general andthe speaker’s intention

Conventionalist view

Conventional setting (linguistic and extra-linguistic)

Other

linguistic context, analogy, extra-linguistic elements

Different views focus on different pragmatic factors. There is no single factor whichalone plays a crucial role in determining the references of indexicals. The intentionalist view,the conventionalist view, and the recognized context view are compatible with each other andcome into play together. The references of indexicals are determined with a collaboration of
the participants (i.e. the ‘speaker’ and the ‘hearer’), on the basis of the conventional/ social
setting, linguistic context, and other pragmatic factors.
References
Cohen, J. 2013. “Indexicality and the Puzzle of the Answering Machine.” Journal of
Philosophy 110:1, 5-32.
Corazza, E. Fish, W. & Gorvett, J. 2002. “Who is I?” Philosophical Studies 107:1, 1 - 21.
Kaplan, D. 1989[1977]. Demonstratives. In J. Almog (ed.) Themes from Kaplan, 481-563.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Michaelson, E. 2014. “Shifty Characters.” Philosophical Studies 167:3, 519-540.
Predelli, S. 1998. “I am not Here Now.” Analysis 58:2, 107–115.
Romdenh-Romluc, K. 2006. “I.” Philosophical Studies 128:2, 257-283.
Sidelle, N. 1991. “The Answering Machine Paradox.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 21,525-539.
8−170−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

Shaping Interactional Space for Student-Initiated Sequencesin Small Group English Lessons

Chieri Noda
Birkbeck, University of London

Abstract
This paper examines the ways in which teachers and students at an eikaiwa (English
conversation) school collaboratively create interactional space. Conversation analytic
examination of video-recorded interaction in a small group lesson revealed that while
participants largely oriented to conventional classroom roles, at times students madespontaneous contributions. What emerged from the observations is that in this setting, whereimportance is placed on holding a conversation, participants shifted roles to interact as peers not
only in the fluency-focused warm-ups, but also in the form-focused textbook-based sessions.
The collaborative effort created opportunities for varied participation.
Keywords: classroom interaction, conversation analysis, interactional competence, participation

1.

Introduction
English conversation schools are ubiquitous in Japan. Commonly referred to as eikaiwa

gakko/kyoshitsu (ⱥ఍ヰᏛᰯ/ᩍᐊ), these schools advertise that they offer their clients lessons
that are designed to enhance their conversation skills by providing students opportunities toengage in conversation with teachers, most of whom are native speakers. People of all ages andbackground are attracted to the prospect of developing their interactional competence, acompetence that is seen to be lacking among many Japanese, despite the compulsory English
language education at junior and senior high schools (and now at elementary school). For manyof the students, these conversation schools are the only places where they can try out andimprove their English conversation skills.
Despite the amount of time and money some people spend on these lessons, little is
known of what actually takes place within the walls of these classrooms. Many of the existing
research on eikaiwa schools have taken a discourse analytic perspective. Appleby (2013)
examines the construction of professional identities of 11 white male Australian teachers who
have worked in various language educational settings in Japan including eikaiwa schools.
Through an analysis of their narratives, she observes that the teachers struggle to maintain a−171−

Shaping Interactional Space for Student-initiated Sequences in Small Group English Lessons

balance between professional/pedagogical aspirations and the commodified ‘extroverted anderoticised white Western ideal for male teachers.’ In another study on advertisements of large
franchise eikaiwa schools, Bailey (2007) concludes that these schools are ‘eikaiwa wonderlands’
where the akogare, or romantic yearning, of the predominantly female clientele are fulfilled.
Kubota (2011) questions whether conversation schools have anything to do with learning or
education. She combines the results obtained from interviews of the various stakeholders andobservations of community eikaiwa schools. Commenting on how the exchanges in the eikaiwa
lessons sometimes ended up as social talk in Japanese, she concludes ‘learning eikaiwa forleisure seems to be more related to the notion of consumption than investment.’ She suggests,
however, that the lessons she observed were community-based lessons and may be different
from those at larger franchised eikaiwa schools.
To shed some light on the interaction which actually takes place in an eikaiwa lesson, thisstudy examines a video-recorded lesson at a thriving commercial eikaiwa school. A
conversation analytic approach is taken to investigate the interactional practices in theclassroom. One focus will be whether or not the interactions studied are in any way similar to
those of more formal language classroom interaction. Another area of interest is whether or notopportunities for language learning are created.
2.

Literature Review
Due to a lack of studies that examine the interaction at conversation schools, studies onother more formal language education settings are referred to as a starting point.
There has been increased interest in language use both in and out of the classroom since
the late 1990s. Firth and Wagner’s article (1997) which called for a closer look at language usefrom an emic perspective is often cited as a turning point in second language acquisition
research. Underlying many studies which place interaction at the centre of its focus is the belief
that language learning and teaching should be seen as ‘a social process rather than a social
product’ (Zhu, Li, Seedhouse, & Cook, 2007). In other words, the interest is in looking at how
mutual understanding is achieved and maintained, and how resources, both linguistic andembodied, are used. This requires a sensitivity to the social context (Block, 2003) and how thelearners themselves as social beings engage in the learning process (Mori & Hasegawa, 2009).
While the teacher-initiated three-part sequence, initiation-response-feedback (Sinclair &Coulthard, 1975), is considered characteristic of classroom discourse even in morecommunicative-oriented classrooms, recent studies which work within the framework of
conversation analysis have provided a more context-sensitive account of how participants inlanguage classrooms use linguistic and embodied resources to achieve intersubjectivity and how
language learning opportunities are co-constructed (Kasper, 2009; Seedhouse & Walsh, 2010).
Many studies have focused on the teachers’ actions. Koshik (2002), for example, identifies how
teachers leave phrases incomplete for the students to finish off, or what she calls Designedly−172−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

Incomplete Utterances. Other studies include teachers’ reliance on students’ visible conduct forassessing knowledge status (Sert, 2013), teacher’s use of gestures and gaze in turn allocation
and repair (Kääntä, 2012), and repair initiation using gestures (Seo & Koshik, 2010), to namejust a few. Learner-initiated sequences (Jacknick, 2011; Waring, 2009) have also been examined.
In her microanalysis of classroom interaction, Garton (2012) examines how learners engage insophisticated interactional work to create learning opportunities for themselves. Sert and Walsh(2013) focus on how students show they have insufficient knowledge and how interaction is
co-constructed with teachers. Understanding classroom interaction as a multi-party event inwhich participants who are not the ratified speakers play a part has also been discussed (Schwab,2011).
A useful concept for this paper is interactional competence. Focusing on interactional
competence in the classroom, Walsh (2011) defines it as the ‘teachers’ and learners’ ability touse interaction as a tool for mediating and assisting learning’ (p. 158). He stresses that it is notenough for a learner to speak grammatically correct sentences and argues that being
interactionally competent requires being aware of the local context, showing understanding,asking for clarification and being able to repair interactional trouble (Walsh, 2011, 2012). He
also argues that opportunities for varied participation and, by extension, learning, are created
when teachers and learners make interactional space which is appropriate for the specificpedagogical goal of the ongoing interaction (Walsh & Li, 2013).
3.

Data collection
The extracts examined in this paper come from a video recordings of a 40-minute eikaiwa

lesson (3 adult Japanese learners and a native English speaker teacher). The lessons wererecorded using two camcorders (JVC) for capturing wide-angled views of multiple participants
and a four-lensed 360-degree meeting recorder (King Jim Meeting Recorder) for capturing
frontal images of all four participants. Prior written consent was obtained from all participants.
4.
4.1.

Analysis
Physical setting

It is apparent from the physical arrangement of the classroom that the school places importanceon informality and a symmetrical student-teacher power relationship. The teacher (Ed, all names
are pseudonyms) and the intermediate-level students (Ami, Mari, Nana) sat facing each otheraround a kidney-bean shaped table on stylish swivel chairs (see Fig. 1 for seating arrangement).
There were no whiteboards, lecterns or designated seats for the teacher, i.e. nothing to suggest
conventional teacher-student hierarchy. Instead of a blackboard, the teacher used a designatedA4-sized sheet to jot down notes to share with the students across the table. After the lesson, thesheet is photocopied or photographed by students who want a copy.

−173−

Shaping Interactional Space for Student-initiated Sequences in Small Group English Lessons

Fig. 1. Seating arrangement
4.2.

Assuming conventional classroom roles
Despite this symmetrical relationship suggested by the physical setting, it quickly became

apparent that the participants oriented to conventional classroom roles most of the time with theteacher bearing the responsibility of classroom management. The teacher posed questions tostudents in turns by naming students or using embodied actions such as body orientation, gazeand gesture to indicate who speaks next. They were also in charge of topic management. At
times the teachers addressed their questions to all students, but participants tended to respect a
one-teacher-to-one-student-at-a-time pattern once a student-teacher interaction was established.
4.3.

Awareness of pedagogical aims
Although the interaction was on the whole led by the teacher, closer observation of theinteraction showed that the participants engaged in maximising each other’s interactional space.
This reflected their awareness of the pedagogical goals of each part of the lesson. For example,
in the warm-up sessions, their awareness that this part of the lesson was devoted to fluency
practice was apparent from the fact that the teachers tended not to correct linguistic error and allparticipants used continuers to show engagement and keep the conversation flowing. In this partof the lesson, all participants held their turn for a long time by using sound stretches, intonationand gestures. Student self-repair was common, both self-initiated and other-initiated. By
contrast, the textbook-based activities sessions which followed the warm-ups, was marked byprolonged silence and fixation of gaze on the textbook, allowing students to focus on linguistic
correctness.
4.4.

Warm-up—fluency practice
In Extract 1, several minutes into the warm-up, a student-initiated repair leads to a brief

exchange between two students and then between the teacher and the initiator of the repair. Mari
has been talking about how she went to the bank in the morning to make a payment into her
friend’s account for the earrings her friend had made for her. So far the exchange has been
taking place between the teacher, Ed, and Mari. Ami and Nana are bystanders, occasionallynodding. The extract starts with Nana’s unelicited repair initiation.

−174−第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

Extract 1: Cute
1 Nana:make. she- she makes? (.) [this earring.
2 Mari:[yes. ((nod))
3 Nana:.hh ((Nana turns to Ed))
4 Ed:((to Nana)) nhn. sh- she’s very talented. aha.
5 Nana:au::n
6 Mari.
ve- ver- very: (.) cheap.
7 Ed:
ah okay so good price yeah. hn hn.
8 Nana:cute.
9 Mari:((turning to Nana)) ahuh thank you. huhuhuh
10 Ed:
yeah they look very good. °(very talented)°11
all right. ((Ed and Mari exchange glances))

Nana checks whether her understanding that Mari’s earrings were made by her friend iscorrect (line 1). She turns to Mari and asks, ‘she makes?’ (line 1). Mari turns to Nana, Ed also
turns to Nana almost at the same time. Mari confirms this with a ‘yes’ (line 2) and a nod. Nana’s
in-breath (line 3) seems to indicate her mild astonishment. After this she turns around to look at
Ed who responds with ‘nhn’ (line 4) and adds an indirect compliment, ‘she’s very talented’ (line4), smiling and nodding with his gaze on Nana. This indicates Ed interprets Nana’s in-breath asa sign that she is impressed with Mari’s friend’s skills at jewellery making. This interpretationthat Nana’s question may not have been just a straightforward confirmation-seeking question isunderstandable, because Mari had mentioned quite clearly and repeatedly that her earrings weremade by her friend and there was uptake from Nana (e.g. nodding, uhu). From the soundcontour, Nana’s ‘au::n’ (line 5), although neither English or Japanese, seems to be expressing
agreement with Ed’s compliment—Nana and Ed collaboratively produce an assessment. Both
Ed and Nana now face Mari. In this extract, a student-initiated repair leads to a short
student-student interaction, but more interestingly, Nana’s question and in-breath (line 3) istaken by the teacher to be a display of her astonishment at Mari’s friend jewellery-making skills.
This opens up an opportunity for him to agree with Nana and later to introduce a new topic, i.e.
about how talented Mari’s friend is.
In the continuation of the conversation, we see how Mari downgrades Ed’s compliment(Pomerantz, 1978) by saying that the earrings were not expensive (line 6). Ed’s rephrasing ofMari’s remark (line 7) can be taken to be an embedded repair. The word cheap could beunderstood as either low in quality or price, so by rephrasing it to ‘good price’, Ed provides anembedded alternative/clarification. After Ed’s rephrasing, Nana finds space to insert her own
evaluation, “cute” (line 8). Mari responds to this with a ‘thank you’ (line 9) turning to Nana. Ed
responds to this with another compliment, ‘yeah they look very good’ (line 10) facing Mari.
In the extract above, what appeared to be a simple clarification turned out to do more
complex things and elicited both student-student talk and student-teacher talk. The teacher andstudents collaboratively constructed interaction by expressing compliments, agreement, anddowngrading a compliment through verbal and embodied resources.

−175−

Shaping Interactional Space for Student-initiated Sequences in Small Group English Lessons

4.5

Textbook-based session—form-focused activity
Extract 2 below illustrates how at times a teacher of a small group lesson at an eikaiwa

school takes on the role of a peer rather than a teacher and occasionally reverses the knowledge
asymmetry even during the form-focused part of the lesson. The three students are taking turns
asking each other about prices of things in different countries. The extract starts when it isMari’s turn to ask Ami.
Extract 2: Singapore uses (.) dollars?
1 Mari: a- oka:y. how much is a: cheap meal2in (2) Singapore.
3 Ami: Singapore? oh. a- okay cheap cheap
4
I think tom yam kung is cheaper (.5)
5cheap in Singapore, maybe: (.)
6(baht/but), I don’t know baht(s).
7[huhuhu huhuh]
8 Mari: [huhuhuhuh]
9 Ed:[huhuhuh]
10 Ed:
a- in Singapore?
11 Ami: nn.
12 Ed:
Singapore uses (.) dollars?
13(2)
14 Mari: maybe. ((looking down and reaching out
15
for textbook))
16 Ami: a17 Ed:n[hn.
18 Ami:[a-] dollar. Singapore dollars?=
19 Mari: =dollars,=
20 Ami: =ah dollars. ((nods))
21 Mari: n. °Si[ngapore use°]
22 Ami:[Singapore °dollars°]

Mari asks Ami ‘how much is a cheap meal in Singapore?’ (line 1) Upon hearing‘Singapore’, Ami puts her hands on her head playfully indicating that this is a challenging task(line 3). She starts by suggesting tom yam kung is cheap, but abandons her attempt to come up
with a price (lines 4-5). After ‘(baht/but)’ she lightly slaps her pen down on her notebook as if to
say I give up (line 6). Everyone laughs (lines 7-9). Ami’s playful display of her lack ofknowledge is however, based on her misunderstanding that Singapore’s currency is the baht.
Noticing this, Ed initiates repair by asking, ‘in Singapore?’ (line 10). Ami confirms this with a‘nn’ (line 11) as she returns Ed’s gaze. Seeing that a repair is not forthcoming, Ed shifts his gazeto Mari, extends his left hand palm up with a thinking face and asks ‘Singapore uses (.) dollars?’(line 12), making Mari’s response conditionally relevant (Markee, 2000, p. 68). The class hadstudied a world currency list earlier at the beginning of the session, so Ed may have inserted the
2-second pause before ‘dollars’ to elicit Mari to complete the phrase. In other words, Ed may beusing a Designedly Incomplete Utterance (Koshik, 2002). Mari produces a rather tentative−176−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

response ‘maybe’, looking down and reaching out for her textbook (line 14-15). This hand
gesture can be taken as indication that she recalls the currency list in the textbook. AlthoughMari’s response (line 14) is inconclusive, Ed’s response is a brief ‘nhn’ (line 17) and does notinsist on getting a clear answer to his question. He seems content for the two students to sort thisout amongst themselves. Ami now turns to Mari to ask, ‘Singapore dollars?’ (line 18). A brief
confirmation check between Ami and Mari ensues (line 19-22). After this, the students return to
the textbook activity they were engaged in before the laughter.
In summary, Extract 2 shows how a student’s playful talk triggered laughter all around.
When the teacher realised the joke was based on a misunderstanding, he treated another student
as more knowledgeable than him, making the student responsible for coming up with acorrection through the use of a range of interactional resources (e.g. gaze, gesture, prosody).
‘Singapore uses (.) dollars’ ensured progressivity of the talk, but more importantly, his questionin conjunction with gaze, facial expression and hand gestures prompted Ami to self-select to ask
Mari for confirmation. In other words, both Ami and Mari oriented to Ed’s stance that Mari isthe more knowledgeable. In this way Ed successfully elicited a student-student exchange not by
explicit instructions directing students to talk amongst themselves, but by engaging in the talk asa peer, at least on the surface. Regardless of whether Ed’s question was a display question or not,the students found an opportunity to resolve the issue on their own. Admittedly, the ensuing
student-student exchange was brief and fragmentary, but it did add variety to the way in which
students used English in the classroom.
5.

Conclusion
What emerges from the two extracts above is that opportunities for varied participation

and, by extension, learning, were embedded in the interaction. All participants displayed anunderstanding that the students were encouraged to initiate talk: the teacher encouraged this andthe students exercised their agency to bring their knowledge, opinion, and humour into theclassroom. The teacher and students also showed awareness of the pedagogical aims of thewarm-up and the textbook-based session, but they occasionally stepped out of conventionalclassroom roles to engage in talk as peers. Even in the more tightly-controlled textbook-based
session, the participants in this small group lesson exhibited sensitivity to the talk and embodied
actions of their fellow interactants and managed to vary their participation in the classroom.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all the students, teachers and members of staff at the English
language school for allowing me to record and observe their classes.

−177−

Shaping Interactional Space for Student-initiated Sequences in Small Group English Lessons

References
Appleby, R. 2013. “Desire in Translation: White Masculinity and TESOL.” TESOL Quarterly, 47:1,
122-147.
Bailey, K. 2007. “Akogare, Ideology, and ‘Charisma Man’ Mythology: Reflections on ethnographic
research in English language schools in Japan.” Gender, Place & Culture 14:5, 585-608.
Block, D. 2003. The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Firth, A, & Wagner, J. 1997. “On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA
Research”. The Modern Language Journal 81:3, 285-300.
Garton, S. 2012. “Speaking out of turn? Taking the initiative in teacher-fronted classroom interaction.”
Classroom Discourse 3:1, 29-45.
Jacknick, C. M. 2011. “Breaking in is hard to do: how students negotiate classroom activity shifts.”
Classroom Discourse 2:1, 20-38.
Kääntä, L. 2012. “Teachers’ embodied allocations in instructional interaction.” Classroom Discourse 3:2,
166-186.
Kasper, G. 2009. “Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside the skull or in
public view?” IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 47:1, 11-36.
Koshik, I. 2002. “Designedly Incomplete Utterances: A Pedagogical Practice for Eliciting Knowledge
Displays in Error Correction Sequences.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 35:3, 277-309.
Kubota, R. 2011. “Learning a foreign language as leisure and consumption: enjoyment, desire, and thebusiness of eikaiwa.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 14:4, 473-488.
Markee, N. 2000. Conversation Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Mori, J., & Hasegawa, A. 2009. “Doing being a foreign language learner in a classroom: Embodiment ofcognitive states as social events.” IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching 47:1, 65-94.
Pomerantz, A. 1978. “Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints.” In J.
Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic Press.
Schwab, G. 2011. “From dialogue to multilogue: a different view on participation in the English
foreign—language classroom.” Classroom Discourse 2:1, 3-19.
Seedhouse, P., & Walsh, S. 2010. “Learning a second language through classroom interaction.” In P.
Seedhouse, S. Walsh & C. Jenks (eds.), Conceptualising 'Learning' in Applied Linguistics, 127-146.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Seo, M. & Koshik, I. 2010. “A conversation analytic study of gestures that engender repair in ESL
conversational tutoring.” Journal of Pragmatics 42:8, 2219-2239.
Sert, O. 2013. “‘Epistemic status check’ as an interactional phenomenon in instructed learning settings.”
Journal of Pragmatics 45:1, 13-28.
Sert, O, & Walsh, S. 2013. “The interactional management of claims of insufficient knowledge in English
language classrooms.” Language and Education 27:6, 542-565.
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachersand pupils. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Walsh, S. 2011. Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Abingdon: Routledge.
Walsh, S. 2012. “Conceptualising classroom interactional competence.” Novitas-ROYAL (Research on
Youth and Language) 6:1, 1-14.
Walsh, S, & Li, L. 2013. “Conversations as space for learning.” International Journal of Applied
Linguistics 23:2, 247-266.
Waring, H. Z. 2009. “Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): A Single Case Analysis.”
Language Learning 59:4, 796-824.
Zhu, H., Li, W., Seedhouse, P, & Cook, V. 2007. “An Introduction.” In Z. H, L. Wei, P. Seedhouse & V.
Cook (eds.), Language Learning and Teaching as Social Inter-action, 1-5. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.

−178−ポスターセッション
Poster Sessions

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ୰࡛ぢࡿ㞟ྜྡモ࡜ࡑࡢ࿘㎶ࡢྡモࢡࣛࢫ௒஭ ཭⌮ឡ▱┴❧኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔

<Abstract>
Collective nouns (e.g. furniture) are categorized as a part of mass nouns according to theirgrammatical behaviors and conceptualization. However, the elements of referents of collective nouns arebounded individual like those of count nouns (e.g. furniture includes chairs, tables, etc.). According to Wiese(2012), collective nouns can be regarded as the intersection of count nouns and mass nouns. This research
focuses on the foregrounding and backgrounding of the cognition of aggregates (Yamanashi: 2000), and I will
clarify the characteristics of collective nouns through the comparison of collocations of collective nouns andplural noun counterparts (e.g. foliage vs. leaves).
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㞟ྜྡモࠊ」ᩘྍ⟬ྡモࠊ␗㉁ᛶྠ㉁ᛶࠊᶵ⬟ⓗ⤫୍ᛶࠊ」ᩘᛶ


1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ 㞟ྜྡモ(e.g. furniture) ࡣࠊᩥἲⓗ࡞ࡩࡿࡲ࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㉁㔞ྡモࡢ୍㒊࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊLangacker (2008: 141)ࡣࠊfurniture ࡸ silverware ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྡモࡣඹ㏻ⓗ࡞ᶵ⬟࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡿ㢮ఝᛶ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ᆒ㉁ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠊ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㞟ྜྡモࡣྍ⟬ྡモࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᵓᡂせ⣲ࡀಶูⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡣ↓ど࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊWiese (2012)ࡣࠊ㞟ྜྡモࡣྍ⟬ྡモ࡜㉁㔞ྡモࡢ୧᪉ࡢ≉ᚩࢆᣢࡗࡓࠊ2 ࡘࡢྡモࢡࣛࢫࡢ୰㛫࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿྡモ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ㞟ྜయㄆ▱࡟࠾ࡅࡿ๓ᬒ໬⫼ᬒ໬ ᒣ᲍ 2000 ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ㞟ྜྡモࡢ༢」⏝ἲࡢ༊ูࢆほᐹࡋࡓᚋࠊఝࡓព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ㞟ྜྡモ࡜」ᩘྍ⟬ྡモࡢᕪ␗ࢆࠊᙧᐜモ࡜ࡢඹ㉳࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

2. ⤫ྜⓗࢫ࣮࣐࢟࡜㞳ᩓⓗࢫ࣮࣐࢟ ᒣ᲍(2000) ࡣ㞟ྜయㄆ▱࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ๓ᬒ໬⫼ᬒ໬ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚ 2 ㏻ࡾࡢㄆ▱ⓗゎ㔘ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋ(1)ࡣ㞟ྜྡモ audience ࡢືモ࿧ᛂࡀ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(1) a. There was a large audience in the theater.
b. The audience were deeply impressed.
<⤫ྜⓗࢫ࣮࣐࢟>ᒣ᲍ 2000: 77-78ࠊୗ⥺ࡣ➹<㞳ᩓⓗࢫ࣮࣐࢟>⪅ ᒣ᲍ࡣࡇࡢ 2 ㏻ࡾࡢゎ㔘ࢆ⤫ྜⓗ࡞ゎ㔘࡜㞳ᩓⓗ࡞ゎ㔘࡜ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࢆᅗ♧ᅗ1: ⤫ྜⓗࢫ࣮࣐࢟࡜㞳ᩓⓗࢫ࣮࣐࢟ (ᒣ᲍:2000)−179−

コンテクストの中で見る集合名詞とその周辺の名詞クラス

ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ(ᅗ 1)ࠋ⤫ྜⓗㄆ▱ࡢゎ㔘࡛ࡣࠊࢭࢵࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊືモࡣ༢ᩘ࿧ᛂ࡜࡞ࡿ
(=(1a))ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ㞳ᩓⓗㄆ▱ࡢゎ㔘࡛ࡣࠊཧ୚⪅ࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊືモࡣ」ᩘ࿧ᛂ࡜࡞ࡿ(=(1b))ࠋࡇࡢㄆ▱ࡢ๓ᬒ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊLee (2001: 144)ࡶゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋLee ࡣఝࡓព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ㞟ྜྡモ࡜」ᩘྍ⟬ྡモࢆㄆ▱ࡢ๓ᬒ໬࡛༊ูྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㞟ྜྡモ(e.g. equipment) ࡣᩥἲⓗ≉ᚩ࡟ࡼࡾࠊᶵ⬟ⓗ⤫୍ᛶࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ」ᩘྍ⟬ྡモ(e.g. tools) ࡣᮏ㉁ⓗ࡞」ᩘᛶࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Wierzbicka (1988)ࡣࠊ㞟ྜྡモ࡜」ᩘྍ⟬ྡモࡢ༊ูࡣᵓᡂせ⣲ࡢඹ㏻ࡢ≉ᚩᛶ(denominator) ࡛༊ูྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(2)ࡢሙྜࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡿࠋ
(2) a. Mary drew some trees.
b. Mary drew some furniture.

(Wierzbicka 1988: 513)

  

  
(2a)ࡢሙྜࠊ࣮࢜ࢡࡢᮌࡢࡳࢆ Mary ࡀᥥ࠸࡚ࡶṇࡋ࠸ᩥ࡜࡞ࡿࡀࠊ(2b)ࡢሙྜࠊ᳔Ꮚࡢࡳࢆᥥࡃ࡜
ወጁ࡞ᩥ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ Wierzbicka ࡣࠊྍ⟬ྡモࡣ‘a kind of X’(=supercategories)࡜⾲ࢃࡍࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ㞟ྜྡモࡢᵓᡂせ⣲ࡣ a kind of thing ࡜⾲ࢃࡍࠊ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
౛࠼ࡤࠊ
ྍ⟬ྡモoak ࡣ‘a kind of tree’࡜⾲ࢃࡋࠊ㞟ྜྡモࡢᵓᡂせ⣲chair ࡣ‘a kind of thing,made by people, for one person to sit on’࡜⾲ࢃࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊWierzbicka ࡣྠ㉁࡞せ⣲ࢆᣢࡘ㞟ྜྡモ࡜␗㉁࡞せ⣲ࢆᣢࡘ」ᩘྍ⟬ྡモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᵓᡂせ⣲ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊ㞟ྜྡモ࡜」ᩘྍ⟬ྡモࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢫ࣮࣐࢟
ࢆ♧ࡍ(ᅗ 2)ࠋ

ྡモ
ᵓᡂせ⣲

㞟ྜྡモ
Ϩ㢮 foliage」ᩘྍ⟬ྡモϩ㢮cattle

Ϫ㢮leavesϫ㢮cowsྠ㉁ⓗϬ㢮machineryϭ㢮machines≀㉁ⓗᆒ㉁ᛶ


␗㉁ⓗ  ᶵ⬟ⓗ⤫୍ᛶᅗ 2:㞟ྜྡモ࡜」ᩘྍ⟬ྡモࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢫ࣮࣐࢟

ᅗ 2 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ≀㉁ⓗᆒ㉁ᛶࡣ⮬↛ࡢࡶࡢ࡛࡛ࡁࡓ㞟ྜయ e.g.ⴥࡸᮌ ࡛ࠊᶵ⬟ⓗ⤫୍ᛶࡣேⅭⓗ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡓ㞟ྜయࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛ࠊᵓᡂせ⣲ࡀ␗㉁ⓗ࠿ྠ㉁ⓗ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊୟࡘ㞟ྜయ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ
ࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ࡜ᵓᡂせ⣲ࡢ࡝ࡕࡽࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㞟ྜྡモ࡜」ᩘ㉁㔞ྡモ࡟ศࡅࡽ−180−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

ࢀࡿࠋ
3. ࢥࣟࢣ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥぢࡿᕪ␗ ࡇࡢ❶࡛ࡣఝࡓព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ㞟ྜྡモ࡜」ᩘྍ⟬ྡモࡢ࣌࢔࡛ࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟ඹ㉳ࡍࡿᙧᐜモ࠿ࡽࠊᶵ⬟ⓗ⤫୍ᛶࡸ」ᩘᛶࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ

A. foliage vs. leaves ࡲࡎࠊ≀㉁ⓗᆒ㉁ᛶࡢ≉ᚩࢆᣢࡘ࣌࢔ࢆぢࡿࠋ(5)ࡣ foliage ࡜ࠊ(6)ࡣ leaves ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿᙧᐜモࡢ௦⾲౛ࢆྵࡴᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(5) a. The narrow road wound down closer to the water and ended at a gravel parking lot surroundedby dense foliage. [density]b. Hugh was moving forward into what looked to Mattie like a wall of thick foliage. [density](6) a. The maple tree had large leaves and the boy was falling down through the limbs and was thus
totally obscured by the foliage. [size]b. To many gardeners, the reliably profuse and highly fragrant panicles emerging from among adense clutter of heart-shaped leaves have proved irresistible. [shape](COCA)(5)࠿ࡽࠊfoliage ࡣ dense ࡸ thick ࡜࠸ࡗࡓⴥࡢᐦ㞟ᛶࢆ⾲ࢃࡍᙧᐜモ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋ࡚㞟ྜయ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࡲ
࡜ࡲࡾࢆᙉㄪࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ(6)࠿ࡽࠊleaves ࡣ large ࡸ heart-shaped ࡞࡝ࠊ1 ᯛ  ᯛࡢⴥࡢᙧ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿᙧᐜモ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋࠊಶయࡢ㝿❧ࡕࡀ」ᩘᛶࢆᙉㄪࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡇࡢഴྥ
ࡣ shrubbery vs. shrubs ࡢ࣌࢔࡛ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ

B. cattle vs. cows ḟ࡟ࠊᶵ⬟ⓗ⤫୍ᛶ࡛㞟ྜయࢆᡂࡋࠊ࠿ࡘྠ㉁ⓗ࡞ᵓᡂせ⣲ࢆᣢࡘ࣌࢔ࢆぢࡿࠋ(7)ࡣ cattleࠊ(8)ࡣ cows ࡢ౛ᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(7) a. Now that Mexican rancher gets on the Internet and looks at Colorado cattle, but also looks at
Canadian cattle, and looks at cattle coming from South America. [production area]b. Cowboys at the largest working cattle ranch in Canada still drive herds up to the high country
in spring and back down again in fall. [function]c. Bol’s father, Madut Bol, was only 6-feet-8, but had seven wives and a large cattle herd-a sign ofgreat wealth… [size](8) a. One dairyman has composted all the manure produced from approximately 220 milking cows
and… [property]b. Eicher is also finding that acquainting young, pregnant cows with milking parlors and milking
before their first births reduces stress… [property]             (COCA)
(7)࠿ࡽࠊcattle ࡣ Canadian ࡞࡝ࡢ⏘ᆅࠊworking ࡞࡝ࡢ⏝㏵ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍᙧᐜモ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋ࡚㞟ྜయࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ(8)࡛ࡣࠊcows ࡀ㞤∵࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊmilking ࡸ pregnant ࡞࡝ࠊ㞤∵ࡢ≉ᚩ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿᙧᐜモ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋ࡚ࠊಶయࡢ≉ᚩࢆᙉㄪࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞࣌࢔ࡣ௚࡟ࠊpoultry
vs. chickens ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(7c)ࡢ large ࡣ∵ 1 㢌ࡢ኱ࡁࡉ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
⩌ࢀࡢ኱ࡁࡉࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᵓᡂせ⣲ࡢᩘࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀ࡚」ᩘᛶࡀቑࡋࠊcattle ࡢືモ࿧ᛂࡀ」ᩘ࿧ᛂ࡛࠶ࡿ⌮⏤ࡶࡇࡇ࠿ࡽ᥎

−181−

コンテクストの中で見る集合名詞とその周辺の名詞クラス

ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
C. machinery vs. machines ᭱ᚋ࡟ᵓᡂせ⣲ࡀ␗㉁ⓗ࡛ᶵ⬟ⓗ⤫୍ᛶ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㞟ྜయࢆᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࣌࢔ࢆぢࡿࠋ(9)ࡣ
machineryࠊ(10)ࡣ machines ࡢ౛ᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(9) a. His job on base involves operating and maintaining heavy machinery… [function]
b. …Japan was a main supplier of vital commodities such as industrial machinery, iron and steel,as well as automobiles to Iraq… [function]c. And then he was shipped back to the States, where he found work repairing agricultural
machinery. [function](10) a. He wanted good drivers, so he made sure to hire only those with commercial licenses tooperate the big machines. [size]b. As we look at materials, we see that very small machines are going to be possible. [size]c. Nanomaterials will likely have a major impact in the design of computers, cellphones, andmany tiny machines that can be used to improve our daily life. [size](COCA)
(9)ࡼࡾࠊmachinery ࡣࠕ㔜ᕤᴗ⏝ࠖࠊࠕ㎰ᴗ⏝ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ⏝㏵ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍᙧᐜモ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋࠊ(10)࠿ࡽࠊbig
ࡸ tiny ࡞࡝ࡢᶵᲔ  ࡘ  ࡘࡢ኱ࡁࡉࢆ⾲ࢃࡍᙧᐜモ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡶࠊ⏝㏵ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㞟ྜయ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡾࢆࠊ኱ࡁࡉࢆ⾲ࢃࡍᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ಶయࢆ㝿❧ࡓࡏ࡚」ᩘᙧࢆ๓ᬒ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡇࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡣ equipment vs. tools ࡢ࣌࢔࡟ࡶゝ࠼ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ
࠺ࠋ
4.ࡲ࡜ࡵ 㞟ྜྡモ࡜」ᩘྍ⟬ྡモ࡛ࡣᵓᡂせ⣲ࡢ␗㉁ᛶ࡜ྠ㉁ᛶࡢ୧᪉ࢆほᐹ࡛ࡁࠊ㞟ྜྡモ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡑࡢᩥἲⓗ࡞ࡩࡿࡲ࠸ࡸࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ᪉ࡢせᅉ ≀㉁ⓗᆒ㉁ᛶ࡜ᶵ⬟ⓗ⤫୍ᛶ ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ከᵝ࡞ࢧࣈࢡࣛࢫࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃ᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊᙧᐜモ࡜ࡢඹ㉳ࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊ㞟ྜྡモ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿᣦ♧≀ࡣࠊせ⣲ࡀྠ㉁ࡢሙྜࠊࠕᐦ㞟ᛶࠖࡸࠕ⏘ᆅࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚  ࡘࡢ㞟ྜయ࡜ࡋ࡚ᙉㄪࡉࢀࠊせ⣲ࡀ␗㉁ࡢሙྜࠊࠕ⏝㏵࡛ࠖࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࡇ
࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᶵ⬟ⓗ⤫୍ᛶࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ」ᩘྍ⟬ྡモ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿᣦ♧≀ࡣࡑࡢ኱ࡁࡉࡸᙧ࡛
ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࠊ」ᩘᛶࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃ᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ
࠙ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ࠚ
Langacker, R, W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ࠑᒣ᲍ṇ᫂. 2011.
ࠗㄆ▱ᩥἲㄽᗎㄝ࠘. ᮾி:◊✲♫.ࠒ
Lee, D. 2001. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ࠑᐑᾆᅜỤ. 2006. ࠗᐇ౛࡛Ꮫࡪ
ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ࠘. ᮾி:኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.ࠒ
ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂. 2000. ࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛཎ⌮࠘. ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
Wierzbicka, A. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamines.
Wiese, H. ‘Collectives in the intersection of mass and count nouns: A cross-linguistic account’. In Massam, Diane ed. 2012.
Count and Mass Across Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
࠙ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࠚ
The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/


−182−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

௚⪅࡞ࡁᑐヰ㸽㸸࣐ࣥ࢞࡟࠾ࡅࡿෆⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿᩥᮎ⾲⌧ࡢ୍⪃ᐹ࢘ࣥࢧ࣮ࢩࣗࢵࢶ࣭ࢪ࣮ࣕࣥ࢝ࣛ
❧ṇ኱Ꮫ
giancarlaunserschutz@ris.ac.jp<Abstract>
Using a corpus of popular manga, I analyze how sentence final expressions used in inner speech
representing characters’ thoughts differ from conversational lines. While all language is often
considered to be dialogic, there are many instances where speech is aimed at the speakers themselves,and such self-directed speech appears to have important psychological functions (Kross et. al 2014).
While thoughts in manga have similarities with Hasegawa’s (2010) soliloquies, their use of sentence
final expressions differs in important ways from both soliloquies and conversational lines, suggestingthat they may further our understanding of interaction, dialogue and language.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸⊂ヰࠊෆⓗࡇ࡜ࡤࠊᑐヰࠊ⤊ຓモ㸯㸬ᗎㄽᮏ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࣐ࣥ࢞࡟࠾ࡅࡿᛮ⪃ࢆ⾲ࡍෆⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤࡀ఍ヰࢆ⾲ࡍྎモ࡜࡝࠺␗࡞
ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆᩥᮎ⾲⌧ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ศᯒࡍࡿࠋゝㄒࡀࡍ࡭࡚ᑐヰⓗࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀከࡃࡢゝㄒⓗ◊✲ࡢ኱๓ᥦࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿ䠄䛭䛾ゝㄝ䛾ヲ⣽䛻䛴䛔䛶 Hasegawa 2010a 䜢ཧ↷䠅ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ⾜ิ࡛ᚅࡕ࡞ࡀࡽࡘ࠸ࡇࡰࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ⱔ❧ࡕࡢ⊂ࡾゝࡸ⮬ศࡢ⏕άࢆグ㘓ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡓࡵ࡟᭩ࡁ㎸ࡴ᪥グࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࣭ㄞࡳᡭࡀ๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟࡟ࡢࡳྥࡅࡓゝㄒάືࡀᐇ
࡟ከ࠸ࠋᒣཱྀ䠄2009䠅ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓ⮬㌟࡬ྥࡅࡓࡇ࡜ࡤ࡟ྲྀࡾᕳࡃᩥ⬦ࢆ༢⣧໬ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ⊂ヰࡢゝㄒⓗ≉ᚩࡀࡲࡔ඘ศ࡟᳨ウࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡔࡀࠊ20ୡ⣖ࡢෑ㢌࡟ࡍ࡛࡟ෆⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤࡀ㔜せ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ Vygotsky䠄2012䠅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚୺ᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋVygotsky ࡢゝㄒⓎ㐩ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊゝㄒྲྀᚓࡣࡲࡎእࡢ่⃭࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ಁ㐍ࡉࢀࠊ௚⪅࡜ࡢ୰࡛Ⓨᒎࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋእⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤࠊࡘࡲࡾ௚⪅࡜ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡛౑࠺ゝㄒάືࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓᏊ࡝ࡶࡣḟ➨࡟⮬ศ࡬ྥࡅࡓྍ⫈࡞ࣔࣀ࣮ࣟࢢࢆࠊ௚⪅࡜ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡢࡼ࠺࡟┿ఝ࡚࠸ࡁࠊࡇࡢάືࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࡇ࡜ࡤࢆෆ㠃໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡇࡢ㐣⛬ࢆ㏻ࡌࠊෆ
ⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤࡀኚ໬ࡋࠊ኱ேࡢᛮ⪃࡟⏝࠸ࡿ┬␎ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡺࡃࠋ
ࡇ࠺ࡋ࡚ Vygotsky ࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ♫఍ⓗ࡞ࡸࡾྲྀࡾࡢ୰࠿ࡽ⏕ࡲࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊෆⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤ࡟ࡶᑐヰⓗ࡞ഃ㠃ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋᐇ㝿࡟ࠊ㏆ᖺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ⮬㌟࡬ྥࡅࡓࡇ࡜ࡤࡢ㔜せᛶࢆッ࠼ࡿ◊✲ࡀ⥆ࠎ࡜Ⓨ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋMcCarthy and Fernyhaugh䠄2011䠅ࡀᐇ᪋ࡋࡓㄪᰝ࡟
ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ⣙ 72%ࡢ⿕㦂⪅ࡀ⮬ศࡢෆⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤࡀᑐヰ࡜࠸࠺ᙧࢆᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠸ࠊVygotskyࡢ୺ᙇࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿ⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⮬㌟࡬ྥࡅࡓࡇ࡜ࡤࡀ self-regulation㸦⮬ᕫつไ㸧࡟ࡶ᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ◊✲ࡶฟ࡚ࡁ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⢭⚄ⓗ࡟㔜せ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ䠄Ⓨ䛥䜜䜛 private speech䠄⊂ヰ䠅䛸Ⓨ䛥䜜䛺䛔 inner speech䠄ෆⓗ䛺䛣䛸䜀䠅䛸⮬ᕫつไ䛾㛵ಀ䛻䛴䛔䛶䛭䜜䛮䜜 Kross et al., 2014䚸Morin, Uttl, and Hamper, 2011 䜢ཧ↷䠅ࠋ⯆࿡῝࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࠊMcCarthy and Fernyhaugh䠄2011䠅ࡢ⿕㦂⪅ࡀሗ࿌ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⮬㌟࡬ྥࡅ
ࡓࡇ࡜ࡤ࡟ࡶᑐヰᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋHasegawa䠄2005䠅࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊsoliloquy㸦⊂ヰ㸧࡛ࡶࠊ⏝ἲ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఏ㐩ពᅗࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ┤᥋࡟ྥࡅ࡚ヰࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸
࡜ࡣ࠸࠼ࠊࠕ⪺࠿ࢀࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ά⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ⮬㌟࡬ྥࡅ
ࡓࡇ࡜ࡤ࡟ࡣᑐヰⓗ࡞ഃ㠃ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ௚⪅࡟ྥࡅࡓࡇ࡜ࡤ࡜ࡣࡲࡗࡓࡃྠᵝ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤ㐵࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺ࡔࠋHasegawa䠄2010b䠅ࡣࠊ࿘ᅖ࡟௚⪅ࡀ࠸ࡿࡇ࡜
࡟ࡼࡿᙳ㡪ࢆᢚไࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢẕㄒヰ⪅࡟୍ே࡛㒊ᒇ࡟ධࡾࠊ࠶࠼࡚ኌࢆฟࡋ࡚⮬ศࡢ⪃࠼ࢆ⮬⏤࡟ヰࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊヰ⪅ࡢ⪃࠼஦ࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ᑐヰⓗ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿせ⣲㸦⤊ຓモࡸឤჃ⾲⌧㸧ࡶ㢖⦾࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊ఍
ヰ࡜ࡲࡗࡓࡃྠࡌศᕸࢆ♧ࡋࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇ࡜࡟⤊ຓモࡢࠕࡡࠖࠕࡼࠖࡢ⏝ἲࡀ⯆࿡῝ࡃࠊ఍ヰ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ
ࠕࡼࠖࡣከࡃぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ࠕࡡࠖࡀ㢖⦾࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡑࡢ
⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕࡡࠖࡀヰ⪅ࡢឤ᝟࣭ᛮ⪃ࢆᩚ⌮ࡍࡿࡢ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕࡼࠖࡀ┦ᡭ
࡟ఱ࠿ࢆᐹࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ⊂ヰ࡛⏝࠸ࡿᚲせࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ศᯒࡀⓎᒎࡉࢀࡓࠋ

−183−

他者なき対話？：マンガにおける内的なことばに見られる文末表現の一考察ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⮬㌟࡬ྥࡅࡓෆⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤࡀゝㄒ࡜ᑐヰᛶࡢ㛵ಀ࡬ࡢ⌮ゎࢆ῝ࡵࡿࡢ࡟ᙺ❧࡚ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺ࡔࡀࠊAlderson-day and Fernyhough䠄2015䠅ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㏻ᖖࡣ௚⪅࡟ྥࡅ
࡚Ⓨࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊᐇドⓗ࡞◊✲ࡀ↓⌮࡛࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ⮳ࡗ࡚ᅔ㞴࡜ࡳࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ࣐ࣥ࢞ࡀ㔜ᐆࡍ࡭ࡁ㈨※ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࣐ࣥ࢞࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࡍ࡭࡚ࡢࡇ࡜ࡤࡀᩥᏐࢆ
௓ࡋ࡚⤮ࡢ୰࡟ᇙࡵ㎸ࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡤࡀⓏሙே≀ࡢⓎࡋࡓྎモ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ
࠸ࡣ࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢᵝᏊࢆ⾲ࡍ࢜ࣀ࣐ࢺ࣌࡞ࡢ࠿ࡀࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࡤࡀ࡝ࡢᙧ࡛ᇙࡵ㎸ࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿ࠿㸦྿ฟࡋࡢ᭷↓ࠊάᏐ࠿ᡭ᭩ࡁ࠿ࠊ➼ࠎ㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡢࡳ༊ู࡛ࡁࡿ㸦ᅗ 1㸧ࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜
ࡋ࡚ࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢྎモ࣭ෆⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᘬ⏝ຓモࡸㄆ▱ືモ࡛♧ࡉࢀࡎࠊㄒࡾᡭ
ࢆ௓ࡍࡿᚲせࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᑠㄝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶྎモ࡜ෆⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊྎモࡀᘬ⏝➢ࡢ฼⏝࡛ㄒࡾᡭࢆ㏻ࡉࡎ࡟ࡶ⾲ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢᛮ⪃ࡢ⾲⌧ἲࡀྎモ࡯࡝⩦័໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊㄆ▱ືモ➼ࢆక࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋࡑࡢព࿡࡛ࡣࠊ࣐ࣥ࢞
࡟࠾ࡅࡿෆⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤࡀ Short and Leech䠄2007䠅ࡢᇶ‽࡛࠸࠺ẚ㍑ⓗ⌋ࡋ࠸ free direct thoughts㸦⮬⏤┤᥋ᛮ⪃㸧ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ䠄䛺䛚䚸direct/indirect 䛸䛔䛖༊ศ䛷᪥ᮏㄒ䛾ᘬ⏝ἲ䛜඘ศ䛻ㄝ᫂䛷䛝䛺䛔Ⅼ䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿 Maier 2009 䜔ᒣཱྀ 2009 䜢ཧ↷䛧䛯䛔䚹䠅ᅗ 1䠄ᕥ䠅䠖㻌 䝬䞁䜺䛻䛚䛡䜛ྎモ䛸⪃䛘஦䛾౛䠄➹⪅䛻䜘䜛⤮䠅䚹྿ฟ䛧䛾ᥥ䛝᪉䛾ᕪ䛷䚸⪃䛘஦䠄䛂䝕䞊䝖䛺䛾䛻ṧᴗ䛛䜘䞊䛃䠅䛸ྎモ䠄䛂᫂᪥䛿䈈䛃䚸䛂᫂᪥䛾䈈䛃䠅䛜༊㒊ู䛷䛝䜛䚹⾲ 1㸸ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟ධࡗ࡚࠸ࡿసရ
ᑡዪ䝬䞁䜺

ᑡᖺ䝬䞁䜺

స⪅

㢟ྡ

ᥖ㍕ᮇ㛫

స⪅

㢟ྡ

ᥖ㍕ᮇ㛫

ᑠ⏿཭⣖

൅➼䛜䛔䛯

㻞㻜㻜㻞㻛㻝㻜䡚㻞㻜㻝㻞㻛㻞㟷ᒣ㇦ᫀ䛂ྡ᥈ഄ䝁䝘䞁䛃

㻝㻥㻥㻠㻛㻝䡚⌧ᅾ㻞㻜㻜㻡㻛㻥䡚⌧ᅾ

ᑿ⏣ᰤ୍㑻

᳝ྡ㍍✑

ྩ䛻ᒆ䛡

୰ཎ䜰䝲

䝷䝤䙧䝁䞁

஧䝜ᐑ▱Ꮚ

䛾䛰䜑䜹䞁䝍䞊䝡䝺㻞㻜㻜㻝㻛㻣䡚㻞㻜㻜㻥㻛㻝㻜

▮ἑ䛒䛔

㻺㼍㼚㼍

㻝㻥㻥㻥䡚⌧ᅾ䛂㻻㼚㼑㻌㻼㼕㼑㼏㼑㻌䛃㻝㻥㻥㻣㻛㻤䡚⌧ᅾ䛂㻰㼑㼍㼠㼔㻌㻺㼛㼠㼑䛃㻞㻜㻜㻟㻛㻝㻞䡚㻞㻜㻜㻢㻛㻡䚸

ᓊᮏᩧྐ

䛂䝘䝹䝖䛃

㻝㻥㻥㻥㻛㻝㻝䡚㻞㻜㻝㻠㻛㻝㻝

✵▱ⱥ⛅

䛂㖟㨦䛃

㻞㻜㻜㻟㻛㻝㻞䡚⌧ᅾ㻞㻜㻜㻝㻛㻥䡚㻞㻜㻜㻢㻛㻝㻞 ኱ሙ䛴䛠䜏䛸ᑠ⏿೺㸰㸬᪉ἲୖグࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊෆⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢᑐヰᛶࡢ᭷↓ࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡟ࠊ➹⪅ࡀసᡂࡋࡓ
ேẼ࣐ࣥ࢞ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸦10 సရ࣭➨ 1㹼3 ᕳ㸸⾲ 1㸧ࢆ⏝࠸ࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢྎモ࡜ෆⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢẚ㍑ࢆࠊᩥᮎ⾲⌧ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ヨࡳࡓࠋࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢᵓ⠏࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊᩥᏐ᝟ሗࡀฟ⌧ࡋࡓどぬⓗ⎔ቃࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋ࡚ 8 ࡘࡢศ㢮ᯟࢆタᐃࡋࡓ䠄䜴䞁䝃䞊䝅䝳䝑䝒, 2012䠅ࠋ⌧ᅾ࡛ࡣࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡀ
688,341 Ꮠ࠿ࡽᡂࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣⓏሙே≀ࡢⓎヰࢆ♧ࡍ୕ゅᙧࡢ㡬Ⅼࡀ௜࠸࡚࠸ࡿ྿
ฟࡋ࡟⌧ࢀࡿࠕྎモࠖ
㸦499,968 Ꮠ㸧࠾ࡼࡧࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢෆⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤࢆ♧ࡍᑠࡉ࡞ᴃ෇ࡢ㐃⥆ࡀ௜࠸࡚࠸ࡿ྿ฟࡋ➼࡟⌧ࢀࡿࠕ⪃࠼஦ࠖ㸦92,480 Ꮠ㸧ࡢࡳࢆᑐ㇟࡟ศᯒࡋࡓࠋ
⾲ 2㸸ྎモ࡜⪃࠼஦࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ⤊ຓモࡢ㢖ᗘࠋࠕᘬ⏝ධࡾࠖ࡜ࡣࠊᑐ㇟࠿ࡽ㝖እࡋࡓᘬ⏝➼ࢆධࢀࡓࡶࡢࠋࠕᑐ㇟ࡢࡳࠖ࡜ࡣࠊࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓᘬ⏝ࢆ㝖እࡋࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࠋࠕ඲ㄒᩘ୰%ࠖ࡜ࡣࠊᑐ
㇟ࡢࡳ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ๭ྜࠋ
ရモ

ྎモ

⪃䛘஦

ᘬ⏝ධ䜚 ᑐ㇟䛾䜏 ඲ㄒᩘ୰䠂 ᘬ⏝ධ䜚 ᑐ㇟䛾䜏 ඲ㄒᩘ୰䠂⤊ຓモ㻝㻟㻘㻠㻜㻥

㻝㻟㻘㻞㻟㻝

㻡㻚㻝㻝㻑

㻝㻘㻥㻟㻣

㻝㻘㻤㻜㻜

㻠㻚㻝㻠㻑

䛭䛾௚

㻞㻠㻣㻘㻠㻥㻡

㻞㻠㻡㻘㻢㻥㻡

㻥㻠㻚㻤㻥㻑

㻠㻠㻘㻡㻣㻠

㻠㻝㻘㻢㻥㻠

㻥㻡㻚㻤㻢㻑

ྜィ㻞㻢㻜㻘㻥㻜㻠

㻞㻡㻤㻘㻥㻞㻢

㻠㻢㻘㻡㻝㻝

㻠㻟㻘㻠㻥㻠


−184−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

ChaMame ࡛ MeCab ࡜ UniDic ࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ᙧែ⣲ゎᯒࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊࠕྎモࠖ࡜ࠕ⪃࠼஦ࠖࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ 260,904 ㄒࠊ46,511 ㄒࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋHasegawa ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ẚ㍑࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ୺࡟⤊ຓモ࡟╔┠ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࠊᢳฟࢆࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ㐃⥆ࡍࡿ⤊ຓモࢆ୍ࡘࡢ⤊ຓモ࡜ࡋ࡚ฎ⌮ࡋศ㢮ࡋ࡚ࠊᚲせ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚࢝࢖஧஌᳨࡛ᐃࡋࡓࠋ㏻ᖖࡣ┦ᡭ࡟ྥࡅ࡚⏝࠸ࡿᩥᮎ⾲⌧࡛ࠊ⤊ຓモ࡜㢖⦾࡟⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡽࢀࡿ⌮⏤ࡼࡾࠊືモࡢ࿨௧ᙧࡶᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ௚⪅ࡢࡇ࡜ࡤࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᘬ⏝➢ࡢ୰ࡢⓎゝ➼ࢆศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࠿ࡽ㝖እࡋࡓࠋ㸱㸬⤖ᯝ࣭⪃ᐹHasegawa ࡢ⊂ヰ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ⤊ຓモࡣỴࡋ࡚ᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ⾲ 2 ࡣࠊ㐃⥆ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡶಶ
ู࡟ィ⟬ࡋࡓ⤊ຓモࡢಶᩘࢆ♧ࡍ㸦࿨௧ᙧࢆ㝖ࡁ㸧ࠋ඲యⓗ࡟ࠊࠕྎモࠖࡢ 13,231 ㄒ㸦඲༢ㄒ
ᩘࡢ 5.11%㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ⪃࠼஦࡛ࠖࡣ⤊ຓモࡀ 1,800 ㄒ㸦4.14%㸧ぢࡽࢀࠊ᭷ព࡟ᑡ࡞࠿ࡗ
ࡓࡢࡔࡀࠊ኱ᕪ࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ㸦Ȥ2㸦1, N = 302,420㸧 = 74.2, p < .0001, ȭ = -.0157㸧ࠋࡲࡓࠊ㡰␒ࡇࡑྠࡌ࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊୖ఩ 3 ఩࡟ධࡗࡓ෌㢖⦾ࡢ⤊ຓモࡣࠊࠕࡼࠖࠕ࠿ࠖࠕ࡞࡛ࠖࠕྎモࠖ࡜ࠕ⪃࠼஦ࠖ࡜࡛ࡣኚࢃࡽ࡞࠸㸦⾲ 3㸧ࠋࠕ࠿ࠖ࡜ࠕ࡞ࠖࡣ࡝ࡕࡽࡶ⮬㌟࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㉁ၥࠊ
ෆᐜࡸឤ᝟ࡢ☜ㄆ࣭⣡ᚓࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊ఍ヰࡢ୰࡛ࡶࠊⓎヰ⪅⮬㌟࡟ྥࡅࡓ⏝ἲࡶ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊྠㄽ⌮࡛ࠕ⪃࠼஦ࠖ࡟ࡶከ࠸ࡢࡀ⮬↛ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡜ࡃ࡟ࠕ࡞ࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ᭩
ࡁࡇ࡜ࡤ࡛࠶ࡿ௨ୖࠊ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢᕪࡀ᫂☜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊヰ⪅⮬㌟ࡢឤ᝟ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࠕ⪃࠼஦ࠖ࡟ࡣ㐺ษࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊHasegawa ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ࣐ࣥ࢞ࡢࠕ⪃࠼஦ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠕࡡࠖ
㸦඲ᑐ㇟ࡢ 3.40%࣭
7 ఩㸧ࡼࡾࡶࠕࡼࠖ㸦11.01%࣭3 ఩㸧ࡢ᪉ࡀ㢖⦾࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓࠋୖ㏙ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊHasegawa ࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣࠕࡼࠖࡀẚ㍑ⓗᑡ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊࠕࡼࠖࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡿᩥ⬦ࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢᏑᅾࡀẚ㍑ⓗ㔜せࡔ࠿ࡽ࡜࠸࠺ㄝ᫂ࡀヨࡳࡽࢀࡿࡢࡔࡀࠊ௚⪅࡟ࡣ⪺࠿ࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࠊ┦ᡭࡀ㔜どࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡣࡎ
ࡢࠕ⪃࠼஦ࠖ࡟ࠕࡼࠖࡀ㢖⦾࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ୍ぢࡍࡿ࡜㠀ᖖ࡟⭊࡟ⴠࡕ࡞࠸⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡔࡀࠊࠕ⪃࠼஦ࠖࡢ≀ㄒෆࡢᙺ๭࡛ࡇࡢᕪࡀㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡢࣄࣥࢺࡣࠊShort and Leech㸦2007㸧࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡿࠋShort and Leech ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊࣇ࢕ࢡ
ࢩࣙࣥࡢ୰ࡢෆⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤࡣࠊ࠶ࡿព࿡࡛ࡣ suspended interaction㸦୍᫬ⓗ೵Ṇ୰ᑐヰ㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ┦ᡭ࡟࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡓ࠸ࡀࠊᐇ㝿࡟ኌࢆⓎࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡤࡔ
࡜࠸࠺ࠋ୍᫬ⓗ೵Ṇ୰ᑐヰࡢຠᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢእⓗែᗘ࣭⾜ື࡜ࠊෆⓗឤ᝟ࡢࢠࣕࢵ
ࣉࡀ᫂░࡟࡞ࡾࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢከ㠃ᛶࡀ㧗ࡲࡿࠋ࣐ࣥ࢞࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ⪃࠼஦࡛ࠖࠕࡼࠖࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊᮏ᮶࡞ࡽࡤ┦ᡭ࡟ᐹࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸ࡀࠊ࠸࠼࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ⤊ຓモࡢ௚࡟ࡶࠊືモࡢ࿨௧ᙧ࠾ࡼࡧྰᐃ࿨௧ࡢࠕ࡞ࠖࡶࡑࢀࡒࢀ 83 ᅇࠊ
23 ᅇぢࡽࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡇࡢ⏝ἲࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᮏᙜࡣ┦ᡭ࡟ồࡵࡓ࠸ࡀࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢ⌮⏤࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࠸࠼࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ㢌ࡢ୰࡛ࡢࡳồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕྎモࠖࡢࠕࡡࠖ
ࠕࡼࠖࡢศᕸࡶࠊࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓぢ᪉ࢆᨭᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
ࠕྎモࠖ࡟
࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕࡡࠖ࡜ࠕࡼࠖࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ඲ᑐ㇟ࡢ 9.25%ࠊ21.35%ࢆ༨ࡵࠊ᭷ព࡟㧗࠿ࡗࡓ㸦ࠕࡡࠖ㸸Ȥ2㸦1, N = 14,129㸧 = 57.34, p < .0001ࠊࠕࡼࠖ㸸Ȥ2㸦1, N = 14,129㸧 = 88.05, p < .0001㸧ࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࠕ⪃࠼஦ࠖࡣࠕྎモࠖ࡜ࠕ⊂ヰࠖࡢ୰㛫࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ศᕸࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲ
ࡾࠊ᏶඲࡟Ⓨヰ⪅࡟ࡋ࠿⪺ࡇ࠼࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺๓ᥦࡔ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼ࠊᛶ㉁ୖࠊ⊂ヰ௨ୖ࡟┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍ
ࡿⓎヰࡀࡼࡾከ࠸ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
࠸࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢෆⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤࡣᮏ◊✲ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ྠᵝ࡞⏝ἲ࣭ศᕸࢆ♧ࡍࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ᢅࡗࡓ࣐ࣥ࢞ࡣ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶࣇ࢕ࢡࢩ࡛ࣙࣥ࠶ࡾࠊࠕ⪃࠼஦ࠖࡶࠊ≀ㄒࡢⓎᒎ࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿ࠿ࡽࡇࡑ฼⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ᑐ㇟እ࡜ࡉࢀࡓᘬ⏝ⓗ࡞ࠕ⪃࠼஦ࠖࡣࠊ௚⪅ࡢࡇ࡜ࡤࢆ೉ࡾࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢᛮ࠸ฟࡢሙ㠃࡟⛣ࡍࡁࡗ࠿ࡅࢆస
ࡿᅇ᝿ⓗ࡞ᙺ๭ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢෆ㠃ᛶࡼࡾࡶࠊ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜≀ㄒࡢ᫬✵㛫ࢆసࡾฟࡍࡢ࡟᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡔࡀࠊ≀ㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ≉Ṧ࡞ᙺ๭ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼ࠊࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓ⏝ἲࡀࠕ୙⮬↛ࠖࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋෑ㢌࡛㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟࡟ㄒࡾ࠿ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ⮬ᕫつไ࡜ࡘ࡞ࡀࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡴࡋࢁ⮬↛࡞ࡇ࡜ࡔ࠿ࡽࡇࡑࠊ࣐ࣥ࢞࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ⪃࠼஦ࠖ࡟ぢࡽࢀ࡚ࡶ㐪࿴ឤࡣࡋ࡞࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࣐ࣥ࢞࡟࠾ࡅࡿෆⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤ࡛ࡶᑐヰᛶࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓ཯㠃ࠊHasegawa ࡜㐪࠺⤖ᯝ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀࠊෆⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤࡀࡍ࡭࡚
ྠࡌᢅ࠸࡛ศᯒ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡍࡿ␲ၥࢆᙉ໬ࡋࠊ⊂ヰࢆࡉࡽ࡟᳨ウࡍࡿ౯್ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−185−

他者なき対話？：マンガにおける内的なことばに見られる文末表現の一考察᭷ព䛺ᕪ䛜ぢ䜙䜜䛯⾲ 3㸸ศᕸ࡟᭷ពᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡓ⤊ຓモࠋࠕKࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ㛵す᪉ゝࡢ⤊ຓモࠋࠕ㹏ࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ㉁ၥ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ⤊ຓモࠋࠕЌࠖࠊࠕЎࠖࡣࡑࢀࡒ
ࢀୖࡀࡾ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠊୗࡀ
ࡾ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ♧ࡍ㸦ᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗุ࡚᩿㸧ࠋࠕࡑࡢ௚ࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ
᳨ᐃࡍࡿࡢ࡟ಶᩘࡀ୙༑ศ࡞ࡶ
ࡢࠋ᭷ព䛺ᕪ䛜ぢ䜙䜜䛺䛛䛳䛯

ᩥᮎ⾲⌧

ྎモ

⪃䛘஦

ᩥᮎ⾲⌧

ྎモ

⪃䛘஦

䜘

㻞㻘㻢㻥㻢㻖

㻝㻢㻡࿨௧ᙧ䠄ྰᐃ䠅

㻞㻤㻤

㻞㻟

䛛

㻝㻘㻣㻠㻥

㻟㻡㻠㻖

䛮

㻠㻡㻢

㻠㻝

䛽

㻝㻘㻝㻢㻤㻖

㻡㻝

䜒䛾

㻝㻢㻜

㻝㻝

䛺

㻝㻘㻜㻤㻝

㻞㻟㻡㻖

䜟䚷㻷

㻥㻣

㻝㻤

࿨௧ᙧ

㻥㻣㻜㻖

㻤㻟

䜟䊺

㻝㻝㻠

㻝㻥

䛾㻌㻽

㻡㻟㻟㻖

㻝㻥

䛾

㻟㻡㻡

㻟㻡

䛥

㻟㻡㻟㻖

㻝㻜

䛶䠄౫㢗䠅

㻝㻟㻡

㻝㻥
㻝㻤

䛺䚷㻷

㻞㻢㻣㻖

㻡㻞

䜘䛽

㻝㻢㻜

䛨䜓䜣

㻞㻠㻟㻖

㻝㻠

䜔䜣䚷㻷

㻡㻞

㻣

䛬

㻞㻞㻥㻖

㻝㻡

䛭䛾௚

㻡㻟㻞

㻞㻞

䛽䜣䚷㻷

㻞㻝㻣

㻟㻣㻖

䛛䛺

㻞㻜㻜

㻝㻝㻟㻖

䛾䛻

㻝㻡㻜㻖

㻡㻜㻖

䛷䚷㻷

㻝㻟㻠㻖

㻢
㻝㻥㻖

䜘䛺

㻣㻡

䛛䜘

㻢㻤

㻝㻣㻖

䜔

㻡㻣

㻝㻤㻖

䛳䛡

㻡㻟

㻝㻟㻖

䛳䛶䜀

㻟㻤

㻝㻡㻖

䛭䛾௚䠖䜰䝹䠄䛛䞉䜘䠅䞉䛜䛽䞉䛾䛖䞉䜉䞉䜙䛒䞉䜟䊼䞉䠄䛰䞉䛛䞉䜟䠅䛔䞉䠄䜔䜣䠅䛡䚷㻷䞉䛛䛧䜙䞉䛛䛽䞉䛰䛳䛶䞉䜟䊺䛽䞉䜟䊺䜘䞉䜟䊺䜘䛽

඲ ᑐ㇟ᩘ

ྎモ

⪃䛘஦

㻝㻞㻘㻢㻟㻜

㻝㻘㻠㻥㻥ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Alderson-Day, B., and Fernyhough, C. 2015.” Inner Speech: Development, Cognitive Functions,Phenomenology, and Neurobiology.” Psychological Bulletin 141:5, 931–965.
Hasegawa, Y. 2005. “A study of soliloquy in Japanese.” Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society, 31, np.
Hasegawa, Y. 2010a. Soliloquy in Japanese and English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hasegawa, Y. 2010b. “The sentence final particles ne and yo in soliloquial Japanese.”
Pragmatics 20:1, 71–89.
Kross, E., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., Park, J., Burson, A., Dougherty, A., Shablack, H., Bremner, R.,
Moser, J. and Ayduk, O. 2014. “Self-talk as a regulatory mechanism: how you do itmatters.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 106:2, 304–324.
Maier, E. 2009. “Japanese reported speech: Against a direct–indirect distinction.” In H. Hattori,
T. Kawamura, T. Idé, M. Yokoo, and Y. Murakami 䠄eds.䠅, New Frontiers in Artificial
Intelligence: JSAI 2008 Conference and Workshops, Asahikawa, Japan, June 11-13,
2008, Revised Selected Papers, 133–145. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
McCarthy-Jones, S., and Fernyhough, C. 2011. “The varieties of inner speech: Links between
quality of inner speech and psychopathological variables in a sample of young adults.”
Consciousness and Cognition 20:4, 1586–1593.
Morin, A., Uttl, B., and Hamper, B. 2011. “Self-reported frequency, content, and functions of
inner speech.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30, 1714–1718.
Short, M. H., and Leech, G. N. 2007. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English
Fictional Prose. New York: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. 2012. Thought and Language. Trans. A. Kozulin. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT
Press.
ᒣཱྀ἞ᙪ䠊2009䠊䛄᫂ᬓ䛺ᘬ⏝䚸䛧䛺䜔䛛䛺ᘬ⏝䛅ᮾி䠖䛟䜝䛧䛚ฟ∧䠊䜴䞁䝃䞊䝅䝳䝑䝒䞉䝆䝱䞁䜹䞊䝷䠊2012䠊䛂䝬䞁䜺䛻䛚䛡䜛ᩥᏐ᝟ሗ䛾ศ㢮䛸䝬䞁䜺䛾ㄞ䜏᪉ʊᡭ᭩䛝䛾ྎモ䞉⪃䛘஦䞉䝁䝯䞁䝖䛻ὀ┠䛧䛶䛃䚸䛄䝬䞁䜺◊✲䛅䚸18䚸8–24.

−186−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号Ⓨヰែᗘ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽぢࡓ㛫ᢞຓモ̿㛫ᢞຓモࡢฟ⌧఩⨨࡜Ⓨヰ㐃㙐࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚̿኱Ụඖ㈗
㔠ἑ኱Ꮫ
㸺Abstract㸼
This paper reports two linguistic facts on interjectory particles (kanto-joshi) in the Japanese
language. First, there is a weak restriction regarding where the interjectory particles appear
in a sentence, and this restriction is greatly affected by prosody, prominence, and the
speaker’s speech planning. Second, in discourse, interjectory particles occur with noda
sentences and the sentences which claims the speaker’s opinion at a high rate. These facts
suggest the importance of introducing the perspective of the speaker’s speech attitude inanalyses of interjectory particles.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸㛫ᢞຓモࠊ⤊ຓモࠊ㡩ᚊࠊࠕࡢࡔࠖࠊⓎヰែᗘࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ(1)ࠥ(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㠀ᩥᮎ఩⨨࡟ࠕࡡࠖࠕࡉࠖࠕࡼࠖࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࡇࢀࡽࡣ㛫ᢞຓモ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ⤊ຓモࡢ㛫ᢞ⏝ἲ㸧࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠋ  (1) ࠺ࡕࡡࠊኳ஭ࡀప࠸࠿ࡽ㟁ẼⅬࡅࡿࡔࡅ࡛㒊ᒇࡀ⇕࠸ࢇ࡛ࡍ㸟㸟㸦BCCWJ Yahoo!ࣈࣟࢢ㸧  (2) ᪥ᮏேࡣࡉࠊࡈࡣࢇ࡟◁⢾ࢆ࠿ࡅ࡚㣗࡭ࡿࢇࡔࢁࠋ
㸦BCCWJ஭⏣┿ᮌᏊࠗᑠⶈࡢᜊே࠘㸧  (3) ࠾๓ࡗ࡚ࡼࠊᮏᙜ࡟࣒࢝ࢶࢡࢇࡔࡼ࡞࠶ࠋ㸦BCCWJ బ⸨㘊ࠗ࠸ࡌࡵ࡬ࡢ㏫く࠘㸧㛫ᢞຓモࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘ࡟㛵ࢃࡿᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ㄽࡢ୰࡛⤊ຓモ࡟‽ࡌࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚௜ຍⓗ࡟ㄽࡌࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓ㸦┈ᒸ ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍㸧ࠋᮏㄽᩥࡣࠊᩥࢆᇶᮏ༢఩࡜ࡍࡿࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ㄽࡢ୰࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࠺ࡿ⤊ຓモ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ
㛫ᢞຓモࡀࠕᩥࠖࡼࡾࡶࡴࡋࢁࠕⓎヰࠖࡢែᗘ㸦ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢ⏘ฟ⾜ື࡟࠿࠿ࡿヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘ㸧ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉࡟┤᥋ⓗ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ  ࡘࡢゝㄒ஦ᐇࡢほᐹ࠿ࡽ♧ࡍࠋほᐹ
㛫ᢞຓモࡢฟ⌧఩⨨࡜Ⓨヰࡢࠕ⮬↛ࡉࠖ 㛫ᢞຓモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ኱ᮌ(1988)ࡀࡑࡢฟ⌧఩⨨࡟㛵ࡍࡿไ⣙ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ  (4) ኴ㑻ࡀࡡḟ㑻࡟ᮏࢆㄞࡲࡏࡓࢇࡔࡼࠋ㸦኱ᮌ 1988:35 ୍㒊ᨵኚ㸧  (5) ኴ㑻ࡀḟ㑻࡟ᮏࢆࡡㄞࡲࡏࡓࢇࡔࡼࠋ㸦኱ᮌ 1988:35 ୍㒊ᨵኚ㸧

1

−187−

発話態度という観点から見た間投助詞―間投助詞の出現位置と発話連鎖に着目して―኱ᮌ(1988)ࡣࠊ(4)ࡣ⮬↛ࠊ(5)ࡣ୙⮬↛࡜࠸࠺ุ᩿ࢆ♧ࡋࠊ㛫ᢞຓモࡣᩥ୰ࡢ࡝ࡇ࡛ࡶ⮬⏤࡟௓ධ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡍࡿᚑ᮶ࡢぢ᪉ࡣㄗࡾ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᵓᩥㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ㝞㏙ࠖࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࢆ෌⪃ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠕࡡࠖࡢ౛ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࠕࡉࠖࠕࡼࠖ࡟ࡶྠᵝࡢ⌧㇟ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ㛫ᢞຓモࡢฟ⌧఩⨨࡟୍ᐃࡢไ⣙ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᣦ᦬ࡣ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡀࠊᮏㄽᩥࡀၥ㢟࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࡢࡣࠊ(4)࡜(5)ࡢࠕ⮬↛ࡉࠖࡢᕪࡀ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᵓᩥㄽୖࡢၥ㢟ࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᩥ඲యࢆ↓ᶵ㉁࡟୍ᜥ࡟ႅࡿⓎヰࢆ᝿ᐃࡍࡿ࡜☜࠿࡟(5)ࡣ୙⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ྛᩥ⠇ᮎࢆୖ᪼ୗ㝆ㄪࡢ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥႅࡿࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕᮏࠖ࡟༟❧ࢆ⨨࠸࡚ႅࡿࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰࢆ᝿ᐃࡍࢀࡤఱࡽ୙⮬↛࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ(5)ࡢ㸦୙㸧⮬↛ࡉࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㡩ᚊ࡛ႅࡿ
࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉࡟኱ࡁࡃ౫Ꮡࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㛫ᢞຓモࡀⓎヰࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉࡜㛵ࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᐃᘏ(2015)࡛ࡶᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᐃᘏ(2015)ࡣࠊ㛫ᢞຓモࡣᩥ⠇ࢆ༢఩࡟Ⓨヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ᫬࡟⌧ࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ඲యࢆぢᤣ࠼ࡓసᴗࡀᚲせ࡟࡞ࡿ㸦ࡘࡲࡾᩥࢆ༢఩࡟Ⓨヰࡍࡿ᫬࡟⌧ࢀࡿ㸧ಽ⨨⌧㇟ࡣ㉳ࡇࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࠋ  (6) ッ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡼࠊᚋ࡛ࡉ࣮ࠋ㸦ᐃᘏ 2015:30㸧㔜せ࡞ࡢࡣࠊ(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄒิࡀ⤫ㄒⓗ࡞つ๎࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ไ㝈ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛
࠶ࡿࠋࠕᚋ࡛ࡉ࣮ࠖࡀゝ࠸ᛀࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࡢ௜ࡅ㊊ࡋⓎヰ࡛࠶ࢀࡤ(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰࡶ࠶ࡾ࠺ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊⓎヰែᗘ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ㡩ᚊࡸⓎヰィ⏬࡞࡝ࡢලయⓗ࡞᝟ሗࡀᐃࡲࡽ࡞࠸࡜㛫ᢞຓモࡢࠕ⮬↛ࡉࠖࡣุ᩿ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
㛫ᢞຓモ࡟⥆ࡃⓎヰ㐃㙐ࡢ㐃㙐࡜Ⓨヰࡢࠕ⮬↛ࡉࠖ ⥆࠸࡚ࠊ㛫ᢞຓモ࡟⥆ࡃⓎヰࡢ㐃㙐࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿࠋ㛫ᢞຓモࡢᩥᮎᙧᘧࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢᐇ
౛㸦(1)ࠥ(3)㸧࡛ࡶඛ⾜◊✲ࡢ౛ᩥ㸦(7)ࠊ(8)㸧࡛ࡶࠊࠕࡢࡔࠖࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ౛ࡀ┠❧ࡘࠋ  (7) ൅ࡡࠊ᫖᪥ࡡࠊࢹ࢕ࢬࢽ࣮ࣛࣥࢻ࡟⾜ࡗࡓࢇࡔࠋ ᱵཎ 1989:324   (8) ᫖᪥ࡉࠊ⏣୰࡟ࡤࡗࡓࡾ఍ࡗࡓࢇࡔࡅ࡝ࡉࠊ࡝࠺ࡶ࠸ࡘࡶࡢඖẼࡀ࡞࠸ࢇࡔࡼࠋ㸦᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ఍ 㸧ࠕ൅ࡡࠊ᫖᪥ࡡࠊࢹ࢕ࢬࢽ࣮ࣛࣥࢻ࡟⾜ࡗࡓ㸦ࡼ㸧ࠖࠕ᫖᪥ࡉࠊ⏣୰࡟ࡤࡗࡓࡾ఍ࡗࡓࢇࡔࡅ࡝
ࡉࠊ࡝࠺ࡶ࠸ࡘࡶࡢඖẼࡀ࡞࠸㸦ࡼ㸧ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞㠀ࠕࡢࡔࠖᩥࡔ࡜ᗙࡾࡀᝏࡃ࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ㛫ᢞຓモࡀࠕࡢࡔࠖࡢฟ⌧ࢆせồࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡉࡽ࡟⯆࿡῝࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ⏝౛࡛ࡣ㛫ᢞຓモࡀ⌧ࢀࡿᩥࡢḟࡢᩥ࡛ࠕࡢࡔࠖࡸࠕࡢࡔࠖ࡜
㢮⩏ࡢࠕࢃࡅࡔࠖࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ౛ࡶከࡃほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(9)ࠊ(10)ࡢ➨ 1 ᩥࡔࡅࢆྲྀࡾฟࡍ࡜
ᗙࡾࡀᝏ࠸ࡀࠊ➨ 2 ᩥ࡜ྜࢃࡏ࡚ㄯヰࡢ୍㒊࡜ࡋ࡚ぢࡿ࡜୙⮬↛ࡉࡣឤࡌࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ  (9) ࡇࢀࡣࡡࠊㄡࡢࡓࡵ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࠋ࠾๓ࡢࡓࡵ࡞ࢇࡔࡼࠋ BCCWJ ྜྷỌࡳࡕᏊࠗẕ࠘ 

2
−188−

第18回大会発表論文集  (10)

第11号

ࡲࠊᮾிࡢேࡣࡉࠊࡍࡄ࡟ࢩࣙࢵࣉ࢝ࢫࢱ࣒࡛㈙࠾࠺࠿ࡗ࡚ᛮ࠺ࡅ࡝ࠊᆅ᪉ࡢேࡓࡕ
࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣშ࡛⪺ࡃࡋ࠿࡞࠸ࠋ⤯ᑐ౪⤥㔞ࡶᑡ࡞࠸ࢃࡅࡔࡋࠋ㸦BCCWJࠗARMS
MAGAGINE࠘㸧
BCCWJ ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊ㛫ᢞຓモࡀࠕࡢࡔࠖ㢮㸦ࠕࡢ㸦ࡔ㸧ࠖࠕࢃࡅ㸦ࡔ㸧ࠖ㸧࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ๭ྜࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࡀ⾲  ࡛࠶ࡿࠋศẕࡢᩘࡣࠊὀ 3 ࡢᡭ㡰᳨࡛⣴ࡋࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟㛫ᢞຓモࡢ౛࡜ࡣㄆ
ࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸౛ࢆ㝖࠸ࡓ⤖ᯝᚓࡽࢀࡓ⏝౛ᩘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋศᏊࡢᩘࡣࡑࡢ࠺ࡕ㛫ᢞຓモ࡜ྠ୍ᩥෆ࠿ࡑ
ࡢḟࡢᩥ࡛ࠕࡢࡔࠖ㢮ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ⏝౛ᩘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
࠙⾲ 1 㛫ᢞຓモࡀࠕࡢࡔࠖ㢮࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ๭ྜࠚ
㛫ᢞຓモࡢ✀㢮ࠕࡡࠖࠕࡢࡔࠖ㢮࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ๭ྜ 65.9%(1394/2114)

ࠕࡉࠖ

ࠕࡼࠖ

53.8%(217/403)

56.2%(27/48)

ẚ㍑ᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ྠ୍ㄒᙧࡢ⤊ຓモࡀࠕࡢࡔࠖ㢮࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ๭ྜࢆ⾲ 2 ࡟♧ࡍࠋ⤊ຓモࡣ⏝౛ᩘࡀ⭾኱࡟࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊࣛࣥࢲ࣒࡟ 500 ౛ࢆᢳฟࡋࠊ㛫ᢞຓモ࡜ྠᵝࡢᡭ㡰࡛ㄪᰝࡋࡓࠋ
࠙⾲ 2 ⤊ຓモࡀࠕࡢࡔࠖ㢮࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ๭ྜࠚ⤊ຓモࡢ✀㢮ࠕࡡࠖࠕࡢࡔࠖ㢮࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ๭ྜ 26.2% (131/500)

ࠕࡉࠖ

ࠕࡼࠖ

34.8% (174/500)

36.0%(180/500)

࠸ࡎࢀࡶྠ୍ㄒᙧࡢ⤊ຓモࡼࡾࡶ㧗࠸Ỉ‽࡛ࠕࡢࡔࠖ㢮࡜ඹ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ
ࠕࡢࡔࠖ㢮࡜ࡢඹ㉳⌧㇟ࡣࠊࠕࡡࠖࡸࠕࡉࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓಶࠎࡢᙧᘧ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㛫ᢞຓモ࡜࠸࠺࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡛ᤊ࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࠕࡢࡔࠖ㢮࡜ࡢඹ㉳ࡢ࡯࠿ࠊ㛫ᢞຓモ࡟ࡣ(11)ࡸ(12)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྠពせồࡸ཯ㄒⓗ␲ၥࡢᚋ࡟⮬ࡽࡢぢゎࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡼ࠺࡞㐃㙐ࡶከࡃほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ(11)ࠊ(12)࠿ࡽࡣࠊ➨ 1 ᩥࢆ⏘ฟࡍࡿẁ㝵࡛➨ 2
ᩥࡢⓎヰࢆࡍ࡛࡟⏝ពࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰィ⏬ࡀㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿࠋ
  (11) ἑ⏣ࡗ࡚ࡉࠊᡃ៏ࡏࡎ࡟Ἵ࠸ࡓࡾ➗ࡗࡓࡾ࡛ࡁࡿࡌࡷࢇ㸽ನࡣ࠸࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࡼࠊࡑ࠺࠸
࠺࡜ࡇࠋ㸦BCCWJ ᒸ⏣ዉᏊࠗࣇ࢛ࣝࢸ࢕ࢵࢩࣔ࠘㸧  (12) ⮬ศࡀࡼࠊ୍⟠᭶࡛㈨⏘ࡀಸ࡟࡞ࡿ᪉ἲ▱ࡗ࡚ࡓࡽㄡ࠿࡟ᩍ࠼ࡿ࠿㸽ನࡣᩍ࠼ࡡ࢙࡞ࠋ
㸦BCCWJ ிᴟኟᙪࠗሬ௖ࡢᐗ࠘㸧 (7)ࠊ(8)ࡢ౛ࡔࡅࢆぢࡿ࡜㛫ᢞຓモࡢࠕࡢࡔࠖ㢮ࡢせồࡣ୍ぢᩥࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ࿧ᛂ⌧㇟࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡀࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠕࡢࡔࠖ㢮࡜ࡢඹ㉳ࡣࠕᩥࠖ࡜࠸࠺༢఩࡟ࡣ཰ࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ(11)ࠊ(12)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐃㙐ࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡶేࡏ࡚⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ㛫ᢞຓモࡢ≉ᚩࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊㄯヰࢆ⤌ࡳ❧࡚ࡿ㐣⛬ࡢࠕⓎヰࠖࡢែᗘࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
㛫ᢞຓモ࡜࠸࠺࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅ ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᢅ࠺◊✲࡛ࡣ㛫ᢞຓモ࡟ࠕὀពႏ㉳ࠖ㸦Ᏹబ⨾ 1997㸧ࠊࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢఏ㐩ែᗘࡢ

3
−189−

発話態度という観点から見た間投助詞―間投助詞の出現位置と発話連鎖に着目して―ᶆ♧ࠖ㸦⏕ኳ┠ 2006㸧ࠊࠕ┦஫⾜Ⅽୖࡢ༊ษࢆ♧ࡍࠖ㸦᳃⏣ 2007㸧࡞࡝ࡢᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺㔜せ࡞ᣦ᦬ࡀࡍ࡛࡟࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊಶࠎࡢᙧᘧࡀᣢࡘᶵ⬟ࡢゎ᫂ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࡇࢀࡽࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࡴࡋࢁ㛫ᢞຓモ࡜⤊ຓモࡢ㔜࡞ࡾ࡟㔜Ⅼࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᮏㄽᩥࡣࠊ㛫ᢞຓモࡀࡑࡶࡑࡶࠕᩥࠖ࡜࠸࠺༢఩࡟཰ࡲࡽࡎࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㡩ᚊࡸⓎヰィ⏬࡛Ⓨヰࢆࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡢࠕⓎヰែᗘࠖ࡜ᐦ᥋࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊᩥࢆᇶᮏ༢఩࡜ࡍࡿࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ㄽ࡟఩
⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࠺ࡿ⤊ຓモ࡜ࡢ㉁ⓗ࡞㐪࠸ࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࠋ⤊ຓモࡀᩥ㸦࿨㢟㸧ࡢព࿡ෆᐜ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚⩏ົⓗ࡟࡞ࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦㞄ࢆṌࡃ཭ே࡟ࠕ࠸࠸ኳẼࡔࡡࠖ࡜ゝ࠺ሙྜࠊࠕࡡࠖࡣ┬␎࡛ࡁࡎ௚ࡢ⤊ຓモ࡟⨨᥮࡛ࡁ࡞࠸㸧ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ㛫ᢞຓモࡣᩥࡢෆᐜ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚⩏ົⓗ࡟࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸
ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶࠊ㛫ᢞຓモࡀᩥࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉࡟㛵ࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀぢ࡚ྲྀࢀࡿࠋ㛫ᢞຓモࡢලయⓗ࡞఩⨨࡙ࡅ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊⓎヰែᗘࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽ௒ᗘࡉࡽ࡟᳨ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ
1

኱ᮌ(1988)ࡢඖࡢ౛ᩥ࡛ࡣᩥᮎࡀ඲࡚ࠕㄞࡲࡏࡓࡡࠋࠖ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ➹⪅ࡢෆ┬࡛ࡣࡑࡢࡲ
ࡲ࡛ࡣ㛫ᢞຓモࡢฟ⌧఩⨨࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ୙⮬↛࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊᩥᮎࢆᨵኚࡋࡓࠋ
2 㢮ఝࡢほᐹ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ෠ᶔ(2000:83)ࡀ㠀ᩥᮎࠕ࡛ࡍࡡࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠕ୍ᩥෆࡢഴྥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㏙ㄒ࡟
㏆ࡅࢀࡤ㏆࠸࡯࡝࡛ࠗࡍࡡ࠘ྃ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㐪࿴ឤ࣭୙⮬↛ࡉࡀᙉࡃ࡞ࡿࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3 BCCWJ ࡢ᳨⣴࡟ࡣࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ᳨⣴⏝࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠕ୰⣡ゝࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋࠕ࣮࢟ࠖࢆࠕရモ㸸⤊ຓモ㸭ㄒᙡ⣲㸸ࠗࡡ࠘ࠗࡉ࠘ࠗࡼ࠘
ࠖࠊࠕᚋ᪉ඹ㉳㸦࣮࢟࠿ࡽ 1 ㄒ㸧ࠖࢆࠕㄒᙡ⣲㸸ࠗࠊ࠘ࠖ࡜ࡋࠊ㛫ᢞຓモࡢ๓᥋せ⣲ࡀࠕ㸦௦㸧ྡモࠖࠕ㸦௦㸧ྡモ㸩ຓモ㸦᱁ຓモࠊ๪ຓモࠊಀຓモ㸧ࠖࠕྡモ㸩᥋ᑿ㎡ࠖ
ࡢࣃࢱࣥ࡟࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟๓᪉ඹ㉳ࡢ᮲௳ࢆኚ࠼᳨࡚⣴ࡋࡓࠋ
4 (i)ࡀ⤊ຓモ࡜ྠ୍ᩥෆ࡟ࠕࡢࡔࠖ㢮ࡀ⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࠊ(ii)ࡀ⤊ຓモࡢḟࡢᩥ࡟ࠕࡢࡔࠖ㢮ࡀ⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
  (i) ኴ㝧ࡣỈ⣲࡜࠸࠺≀ࢆ⇞ᩱ࡟ࡋ࡚⇞࠼࡚ࡿࡢࡉࠋ㸦BCCWJ Yahoo!▱ᜨ⿄㸧  (ii) ➗ࢃࡏࡕࡷ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࡼࠋࡇࡢୡ࡛⚾ࡃࡽ࠸ᖾࡏ࡛೺ᗣ࡞ே㛫ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࢇࡔࡼࠋ
㸦BCCWJ Ọභ㍜ࠗ஧ᗘ┠ࡢ኱ ⏕࠘㸧ཧ↷ᩥ⊩┈ᒸ 㝯ᚿ. 1991.ࠗࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡢᩥἲ࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
᳃⏣ ➗. 2007.ࠕ⤊ຓモ࣭㛫ᢞຓモࡢ༊ูࡣᚲせ࠿㸫ࠕࡡࠖࡸࠕࡉࠖࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᶵ⬟ࠖࠊࠗゝ
ㄒ࠘ࠊ36:3ࠊ44-52.
⏕ኳ┠ ▱⨾. 2006. ࠕ㛫ᢞ⏝ἲࠕࡡࠖࡀᶆ♧ࡍࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢఏ㐩ែᗘࠖࠊࠗ⟃Ἴᛂ⏝ゝㄒᏛ◊✲࠘ࠊ
13ࠊ57-70.
᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍. 2003.ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ 4 ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
኱ᮌ ṇ⩏. 1988. ࠕ㛫ᢞຓモ࠿ࡽぢࡓᵓᩥୖࡢ୍ၥ㢟ࠖࠊࠗᅜㄒᏛ࠘ࠊ152ࠊ35-37.
ᐃᘏ ฼அ. 2015. ࠕᩥ⠇࡛ࡋࡷ࡭ࡿࠖࠊᐃᘏ฼அ㸦⦅㸧ࠗ⚾ࡓࡕࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲Ɇၥ㢟ࡢ࠶ࡾ࠿࡜
◊✲ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉Ɇ࠘ࠊ30-33ࠊᮾி㸸ᮅ಴᭩ᗑ.
෠ᶔ ⣧୍. 2000. ࠕ㠀ᩥᮎࠕ࡛ࡍࡡࠖࡢㄯヰㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟㸫ᚰෆࡢ᝟ሗฎ⌮ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸫ࠖࠊࠗ⟃Ἴ᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲࠘ࠊ5ࠊ70-91.
ᱵཎ ᜤ๎. 1989. ࠕຓモࡢᵓᩥⓗᶵ⬟ࠖࠊ໭ཎಖ㞝㸦⦅㸧ࠗㅮᗙ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱➨ 4 ᕳ ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥἲ࣭ᩥయ(ୖ)࠘ࠊ302-326ࠊᮾி㸸᫂἞᭩㝔.
Ᏹబ⨾ ࡲࡺࡳ. 1997. ࠕࠕࡡࠖࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥᶵ⬟࡜ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠖࠊ⌧

4

−190−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

௦᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲఍㸦⦅㸧ࠗዪᛶࡢࡇ࡜ࡤ࣭⫋ሙ⦅࠘ࠊ241-268ࠊᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.

5
−191−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

඲ య-㒊ศࡢㄯヰᵓ㐀࡜ほᐹ⪅ʊʊࠕ┠ࡀ㟷࠸ࠖ࠿ࠕ㟷࠸┠ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࠿ʊʊ኱す⨾✑䠄ྡྂᒇ▷ᮇ኱Ꮫ䠅
䠘Abstract䠚
The Kanojo wa aoi me o shi-te-iru "She has blue eyes" type sentence is a transitive sentence while it
describes an intransitive situation. The subject noun is in fact marked with a topic marker "wa", andthe comment part of the sentence can be replaced by an adjective complement as "kanojo wa me gaaoi (She, the eyes are blue)". The paper proposes an explanation for this idiosyncrasy of the structure
in terms of a perspective of the speaker and the order of the nouns in the sentence.
䜻䞊䝽䞊䝗䠖ᒓᛶᡤ᭷䚸⮬௚䛾㐃⥆ᛶ䚸䡚䝔䜲䝹䛸ほᐹ⪅䚸┦஫స⏝

1.

䛿䛨䜑䛻
(1)䛿䛂㟷䛔┠䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䛃ᆺᵓᩥ䠄ᙳᒣ 2004䚸2009 ௚䚸బ⸨ 2005䠅䚸䛂䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䛃ᵓᩥ䠄⃝⏣ 2012䠅䛺䛹䛸࿧䜀䜜䜛䚹
(1) ᙼዪ䛿㟷䛔┠䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䠄ᙳᒣ 2004䠅ព࿡䛿௚ືᛶ䛻ஈ䛧䛟ືస䜢⾲䛥䛺䛔䜀䛛䜚䛛≧ែኚ໬䛩䜙⾲䛥䛺䛔䛜䚸䛂ᙼዪ䛿┠䛜㟷䛔䛃䜔䛂ᙼዪ䛾┠䛿㟷䛔䛃䛾䜘䛖䛺ᙧᐜモᩥ䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸䞀᱁ྡモ䜢క䛖௚ືモᩥ䛷䛒䜛䛾䛿䛺䛬䛛䚹ᮏ✏䛿(1)䛾ᩥᵓ㐀䛾㐠⏝㠃䜢ほᐹ䛧䚸䛣䛾ᵓ㐀䛜㑅ᢥ䛥䜜䜛せᅉ䜢䚸(i)௚ືモᩥ䛸䛧䛶䛾ᛶ㉁䚸(ii)䛂䛧䛶
䛔䜛䛃䛜୺ㄒ䛾⾜Ⅽ䛷䛿䛺䛔䛣䛸䚸(iii)᝟ሗᵓ㐀䛸䛧䛶䛹䛾䜘䛖䛻ᶵ⬟䛩䜛䛛䛾䠏Ⅼ䛛䜙⪃ᐹ䛩䜛䚹2.

ඛ⾜◊✲䛸ᮏ✏䛾ㄢ㢟ᵝ䚻䛺ほⅬ䛛䜙䛾◊✲䛜䛒䜚䚸㌟య㒊఩䜔ᡤ᭷䛾Ⅼ䠄ᙳᒣ 1990 ௚䚸ゅ⏣ 1991 ௚䚸⃝⏣ 2003䚸బ⸨ 2005 䛺䛹䠅䚸ླྀ㏙䛾㢮ᆺ䠄஦㇟ླྀ㏙䠋ᒓᛶླྀ㏙䠅䠄ᙳᒣ 2009䚸2012 ௚䚸⃝⏣ 2012䠅䚸ᶵ⬟ືモ䠄㍍
ືモ䠅䛂䛩䜛䛃䠄ᙳᒣ 2003䚸2004䠅䚸▱ぬ䛾≉ᚩ䠄┈ᒸ䞉⏣❑ 1992䚸⃝⏣ 2012䠅䛺䛹䛾Ⅼ䛛䜙⪃ᐹ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛜䚸≧ែ䜢௚ືモᩥ䛷⾲⌧䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖␲ၥ䛻䛴䛔䛶䛾༑ศ䛺ㄝ᫂䛿䛺䛔䚹ㄢ㢟䛾䜂䛸䛴䛸䛧䛶䚸どぬ᝟ሗ䚸䛂እ䛛䜙ほᐹ䛥䜜䜛≉ᚩ䛃䠄┈ᒸ䞉⏣❑ 1992䠅䛚䜘䜃䛭䛣䛛䜙ᑟ䛛䜜䜛᥎ㄽ䠄⃝⏣ 2003䠅䛺䛹䛾◊✲䛷♧၀䛥䜜䜛䚸୺ㄒ䛾⾜Ⅽ䛛䜙ほᐹ⪅䛾ほᐹάື䜈䛾ព࿡ᣑᙇ䛾ゎ᫂䛜䛒䜛䚹(2)䜔(3)䛿䚸
(4)䛾䜘䛖䛻୺ㄒ䛾ே≀䛾⾜Ⅽ䜢⾲䛥䛺䛔䚹୺ㄒ䛾ே≀䛷䛿䛺䛟ヰ⪅䛾どⅬ䛻䜘䜛⾲⌧䛷䛒䜛䚹(2) ᙼ䛿㟷䛔┠䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䠄≧ែ䠄ᒓᛶ䠅䜢ᥥ෗䛩䜛ほᐹ⪅䛻䜘䜛୍ḟ᝟ሗ䠅(3) 䛔䛔⫪䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䠄ᢞ⌫䜢ぢ䛶䠅䠄⃝⏣ 2003䠅(4) ᙼ䛜䝛䜽䝍䜲䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䠄⌧ᅾ㐍⾜୰䛾୺ㄒ䛾⾜Ⅽ䠅㻌 ၥ㢟Ⅼ䛸䛧䛶䚸どぬ᝟ሗ䛷䛿䛺䛟⫈ぬ᝟ሗ䛾䛂ኌ䛃䜒౑䜟䜜䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛜䛒䜛䚹୍᪉ྠ䛨⫈ぬ᝟ሗ䛷
1−193−

全体-部分の談話構造と観察者――「目が青い」か「青い目をしている」か――䜒䛂㡢䛃䛿䛣䛾ᵓ㐀䛷䛿౑䜟䜜䛺䛔䠄䛔䛔ኌ䠋*㡢䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䠅䚹䛣䜜䛿䚸䛂ኌ䛃䛜䝖䝢䝑䜽ྡモ䜢≉ᐃ䛩䜛ᒓᛶ䛷䛒䜛䛯䜑䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹䛂䛧䛶䛔䜛䛃䛜ほᐹ⪅ഃ䛾▱ぬ䛰䛡䜢⾲䜟䛩䜟䛡䛷䛿䛺䛔䛣䛸䜒ศ䛛䜛䚹3.

෌ ᖐⓗ䛺௚ືモᩥ䛸᭷㢟ᩥ䛾」ྜᵓ㐀㻌 (1)䛿䛂䜺-䞀䛃ᆺ䛾௚ືモᵓ㐀䛻ぢ䛘䜛䛜䚸䛂䝝䛃䛷ᶆ♧䛥䜜䜛䝖䝢䝑䜽ྡモ䜢ྵ䜐᭷㢟ᩥ䛷䚸䛂䜺䛃䛷䛿᭷ᶆ䛸䛺䜛䚹䛣䛾ྡモ䠄(1)䛷䛿䛂ᙼዪ䛃䠅䛸䚸䞀᱁ྡモ䠄䛂㟷䛔┠䛃䠅䛿ྠ୍ಶయ䛾෌ᖐ䛷䛒䜛䚹᪥ᮏㄒ䛻䛚䛔䛶෌ᖐⓗ䛺௚ືモᩥ䛿䚸ពᚿⓗ⮬ືモᩥ䛻㏆䛔ฟ᮶஦䜢⾲䛩ᩥ䛛䜙䚸⮬ᚊⓗ䛺≧ែኚ໬䜢⾲䛩ᩥ䜎䛷䛒䜚䚸௚ືᛶ䛸⮬ືᛶ䛾୰㛫䛻ศᕸ䛧䛶䛔䜛䠄Kemmer 1993䚸䝲䝁䝤䝉䞁 1989 [=1995]䠅䚹
(5)(6)䛷䛿䚸㏙ㄒ䛿௚ືモ䛛↓ᑐ⮬ືモ䛾౑ᙺᙧ䛷䛒䜛䛯䜑䚸⮬ືモᩥ䛸䛾ᑐᛂ䛜♧၀䛥䜜䜛䚹୺ㄒ䛿ពᅗⓗ䛺⾜Ⅽ䛾୺య䛷䛒䜛䚹䛯䛰䛧(6)䛿䚸③䜏䛾䛯䜑䛂཯䛳䛶䛧䜎䛖䛃䛸ゎ㔘䜒䛷䛝䚸ពᅗᛶ䛾Ⅼ
䛷(7)䛻㏆䛵䛟䚹ືస୺య䛂൅䛃䛻䜘䜛䞀᱁ྡモ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛䝁䞁䝖䝻䞊䝹䛿ప䛔䛜䚸᭷⏕䛾୺య䛻䜘䜛ືస
䛸䛔䛖Ⅼ䛷䛔䛟䜆䜣䛛䛾௚ືᛶ䛜ㄆ䜑䜙䜜䜛䚹(8)䛿䛂ពᅗ䛃䛿䛺䛔䛜䚸≧ែኚ໬䛜⮬ᚊⓗ䛷䛒䜛䛯䜑෌ᖐ䛾௚ືモᩥ䛜㑅ᢥ䛥䜜䜛䚹ព࿡䛿䛂ⰼ䛜ဏ䛟䛃䛸䛔䛖⮬ືモᩥ䛻㝈䜚䛺䛟㏆䛔䚹(5) Ꮚ䛹䜒䛜య䜢㉳䛣䛧䛯䚹䠄䠙㉳䛝ୖ䛜䛳䛯䠅(6) 䛯䛱䜎䛱⏨䛿┱䜢㢸䜑䚸㤳䜢཯䜙䛫䜛䛜ྫྷᏊ䛿ᐜ㉧䛧䛺䛔䚹䠄ⰼᇙ䜏䠅(7) ൅䛿ᐮ䛥䛻㌟䜢㟈䜟䛫䛺䛜䜙䚸䛨䛳䛸ᚅ䛱䛴䛵䛡䛯䚹䠄ୡ⏺䛾…䠅
(8) ᗞ䛾䜖䜚䛜ⓑ䛔ⰼ䜢ဏ䛛䛫䛯䚹(1)䛻ᡠ䜚䚸䠄㟷䛔┠䜢䠅䛂䛧䠄䛶䛔䜛䠅䛃䛜௚ືモ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛿䚸䛂ᙼዪ䛿〈䜢䜂䜙䜂䜙䛥䛫䛶Ṍ䛔䛯䛃䛾䜘䛖䛺ᩥ䛸䛾ẚ㍑䛷ศ䛛䜛䚹䛂䠄〈䛜䠅䜂䜙䜂䜙䛩䜛䛃䛿඲య䛷䛿⮬ືモ䛸䛺䜛䛯䜑෌ᖐⓗ䛺ᵓ㐀䛾୰䛷䛿౑ᙺᙧ䛻䛺䜛䚹୍᪉䚸(1)䛿䛂䛥䛫䜛䛃䜢チ䛥䛺䛔䚹(1)䛿䚸඲య-㒊ศ㛵ಀ䜢෌ᖐⓗ䛻฼⏝䛧䛯⮬ືモᩥⓗ䛺௚ືモᩥ䛸䛔䛖Ⅼ䛷䛿䚸௨ୖ䛷ぢ䛶䛝䛯෌ᖐᛶ䜢ᣢ䛴௚ືモᩥ䛾㐃⥆య䛾୰䛻఩⨨䛵䛡䜙䜜䜛䛜䚸䛹䛾ᩥ⬦䛷䜒᭷㢟ᩥ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䜔䚸≧ែ䜢⾲䛩Ⅼ䛷≉Ṧ䛷䛒䜛䚹

4.

᝟ሗᵓ㐀䛸ㄯヰ䛾㝵ᒙ(1)䛿ືస䜒ኚ໬䜒䛺䛔≧ែ䜢⾲䛩᭷㢟ᩥ䛷䛒䜛Ⅼ䛷ືモᩥ䛸䛧䛶䛿≉Ṧ䛷䛒䜛䚹≧ែ䛷䛒䜜䜀䚸䛺䛬䛂┠䛜㟷䛔䛃䛸䛧䛺䛔䛾䛛䛜ၥ㢟䛸䛺䜛䚹䛭䛣䛷䚸(1)䛾ᵓ㐀䛿䚸(9)䜘䛖䛺᝟ሗᵓ㐀䜢స䜛䛯䜑䛾ㄒ㡰☜ಖ䛯䜑䛾௚ືモᵓ㐀䛸䛔䛖ഃ㠃䛜䛒䜛䛾䛷䛿䛺䛔䛛䛸⪃䛘᳨ウ䛩䜛䚹(9) ኱䛝䛺㟷⥳Ⰽ䛾㰯䛜䛒䛳䛶䚸䛸䛜䛳䛯ⓑ䛔∳䜢ᣢ䛱䚸䛚䜎䛡䛻㯤Ⰽ䛟ග䜛┠䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䚸䛭䛔䛴䛿୍యㄡ䛰? 䠄䝰䞁䝇䝍䞊䠅(9)䛷䛿䚸䜎䛪Ꮡᅾືモ䛂䛒䜛䛃䛾ᡤ᭷ᩥ䚸⥆䛔䛶䛂ᣢ䛴䛃䛾ᡤ᭷ᩥ䠄䛸䜒䛻◚⥺㒊䠅䚸᭱ᚋ䛻䛂┠䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䛃䠄ᐇ⥺䠅䛜౑䜟䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹㌟య㒊఩ྡモ䛿⠇䛾ጞⅬ䛻䛿⨨䛛䜜䛪䠄䛂㰯䛜኱䛝䛟䛃䛂∳䛜…䛃䛺
䛹䠅䚸䛹䛾⠇䛷䜒᪂᝟ሗ䛾఩⨨䛻㓄⨨䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹ᐇ㝿䚸ⱥㄒ䛾ᡤ᭷ᩥ䛾┠ⓗㄒྡモ䛿ᐃᛶຠᯝ
䠄Milsark 1979䠅䛻䜘䛳䛶୙ᐃ䛾ྡモ䛜⏕䛨䜛䛸䛥䜜䚸䛣䛾᝟ሗᵓ㐀䛸㥆ᰁ䜐䚹
2−194−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

䛣䜜䜙䞀᱁䛾㒊ศྡモ䛾ព࿡ⓗ䛺ไ㝈䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿ෑ㢌䛷ゐ䜜䛯ᙳᒣ䚸ゅ⏣䚸బ⸨䛾ᡤ᭷ഴᩳ䛾◊✲䛜䛒䜚䚸㒊ศ䛜඲య䜢≉ᚩ௜䛡䜛ሙྜ䛾䜏(1)䛾ᵓ㐀䛜ྍ⬟䛻䛺䜛䛣䛸䛜♧䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛧䛛䛧䛂ᙧ䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䛃䛂Ⰽ䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䛃䛺䛹䚸㒊఩䛷䛿䛺䛟ᢳ㇟ⓗ䛺ᒓᛶ䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䛹䛖䛛䚹(10) ఫ⫋䛿ᑠ⫧䜚䛧䛶䛔䛶䚸䜒䛱䜝䜣⓾䜒䛒䛳䛯䛜䚸୍䛴୍䛴䛾⓾䛾୰䜎䛷䛜䚸䛝䜜䛔䛻Ὑ䛔㎸䜎䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹୸㢦䛷䚸㰯䛰䛡䛜㛗䛟䛶䚸ὶ䜜䛶䛝䛯ᶞ⬡䛜ᅛ䜎䛳䛯䜘䛖䛺ᙧ䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹㢦䛜䛭䛖䛔䛖㢼䛺䛾䛻䚸๋䜚ୖ䛢䛯㢌䛾ᙧ䛿䛔䛛䛴䛟䚸…௨ୗ␎䠄㔠㛶ᑎ䠅(10)䛾䠏䛴䛾ᩥ䛿䚸䝖䝢䝑䜽䛂ఫ⫋䛃䜢ඹ᭷䛧⤖᮰ᛶ䜢ಖ䛱䛺䛜䜙䚸඲య-㒊ศ䛾㐃㙐䜢฼⏝䛧䛯ᥥ෗䛻䛺䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹≉䛻 2 ᩥ┠䛿䛂୸㢦䛃䛂㰯䛃䛛䜙䛂ᙧ䛃䜈䛾㐃㙐䜢♧䛩䚹䛂ᙧ䛃䛸䛔䛖ᴫᛕ䛿䛂㰯䛃䛾䜘䛖䛺㌟య㒊఩䜘䜚ᢳ㇟ⓗ䛷䚸䛂ᇶᮏ㡿ᇦ䛃䛾䠄Langacker 2008䠅ᴫᛕ䛷䛒䜚䚸ㄯヰ䛾㝵ᒙ䜒῝䛟䛺䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸䛣䛾౛䛷䛿䚸㠀ᇶᮏ㡿ᇦ䛾㌟య㒊఩䛛䜙䚸ᙧ䜔Ⰽ䛺䛹ᇶᮏ㡿ᇦ䛾ᴫᛕ䜈䛾ヰ䛾ὶ䜜䛜䛒䜛䚹ᙧᐜモ㏙ㄒᩥ䛷䛿䚸䛭䛾ᗘ䛻䝖䝢䝑䜽䜢❧䛶䜛䛣䛸䛻䛺䜚䚸୍㈏ᛶ䛜ᦆ䛺䜟䜜䚸ゎ㔘䛻䛚䛡䜛ㄆ▱ⓗ䛺㈇ᢸ䜒㧗䛟䛺䜛䚹୍᪉䛾(11)䛿ᙧᐜモᩥ䛜㑅䜀䜜䜛౛䛷䚸䛂ᔒ䛃䛾Ḉ஭⩧Ặ䛜䝀䞊䝮ᶵ䛷䛂┠䛃䛂ཱྀ䛃䛂㧥ᆺ䛃䛺䛹䝯䞁䝞䞊5 ே䛾ఝ㢦⤮䜢ᥥ䛟௵ኳᇽ䛾䝔䝺䝡 CM 䛷䛒䜛䚹㒊఩䛤䛸䛻ᥥ䛟䛯䜑䚸ྛ㒊఩䛜ୗ఩䝖䝢䝑䜽䛸䛺䜚ᙧᐜモᩥ䛜㑅䜀䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹(11) Wii䠄௵ኳᇽ䠅䛾ఝ㢦⤮䝋䝣䝖䛾 CM䈜௨ୗ䜹䝑䝁ෆ䛿ᫎീ᝟ሗ┦ⴥ䛟䜣䛛䜙䛻䛧䜘䛳䛛䛺䛒䠄䝀䞊䝮୰䛾Ḉ஭䠅┦ⴥ䛟䜣䛾┠䛿䞊 㯮┠䛜㻌 ኱䛝䜑䛾䠄䝀䞊䝮⏬㠃䠅

䛣䜣䛺䛛䛺䛒

䠄䝀䞊䝮୰䛾Ḉ஭䠅䜟䞊䚸┦ⴥ䛟䜣䛾㧥ᆺ䠄௨ୗ␎䠅䠄෌䜃䝀䞊䝮⏬㠃䠅௚䛾 3 ே䛻䛴䛔䛶䜒䛂㢡ᑠ䛥䜑䛃䛂⫙䛿㯮䜑䛃䛂┱ẟ䛿ᑡ䛧ᆶ䜜Ẽ࿡䠋ኴ䜑䛃䛂㧥ᆺ▷䜑䛃䛂┠䜒䛧䛳䛛䜚䛧䛶䛔䜛䛃䛺䛹䚸ྠᵝ䛻ᙧᐜモᩥ䛜㑅䜀䜜⥆䛡䜛䛜䚸CM ඲య䜢㏻䛧䛶၏୍䛂㟷䛔┠䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䛃ᆺ䛜౑䜟䜜䜛⟠ᡤ䛿䚸సᴗ⪅ᮏே䠄Ḉ஭䠅䛜୍᪦䝀䞊䝮⏬㠃䜢㞳䜜❧䛱ୖ䛜䜚䚸㙾䛷⮬䜙䛾㢦䜢ぢ䛯┤ᚋ䛾(12)䛾Ⓨゝ䛷䛒䜛䚹㢦඲య䜈䛾䝁䝯䞁䝖䛷䛒䜛䛯䜑䚸䛣䛾ᩥᵓ㐀䛜㑅䜀䜜䛯䛸ゝ䛘䜛䚹(12) 䛺䜣䛛䚸䛷䜒䛣䜣䛺㢦䛧䛶䜣䛺䚸⮬ศ䚹

5.

䛂䛧䛶䛔䜛䛃䛸ほᐹ⪅(13)䛷䛿ᥥ෗䛾ᑐ㇟䛂㞼䛃䛾⛣䜝䛔䜖䛟䛂ᙧ䛃䜢ほᐹ᫬Ⅼ䛷䛾≧ែ䛸䛧䛶ླྀ㏙䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹(14)䛷䛿䛂୍㑻䛃䛜䜹䞁䜺䝹䞊䛾┠䛾༳㇟䜢ᥥ෗䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹(13) ௒䚸䛣䜜䜢᭩䛔䛶䛔䜛㒊ᒇ䛾❆䛛䜙䚸᫂䛡᪉䛾✵䛻䚸㉥䛟ᰁ䛳䛯ᑠ䛥䛺㞼䛾䛝䜜䛞䜜䛜䚸ື䛔䛶䛔䜛䛾䛜ぢ䛘䜛䚹䜎䜛䛷䚸䛾ᵝ䛺ᙧ䜢䛧䛶
3−195−

全体-部分の談話構造と観察者――「目が青い」か「青い目をしている」か――䛔䜛䚸䛸䜅䛸ᛮ䛳䛯䚹䠄䝰䜸䝒䜯䝹䝖䠅(14) ୍㑻䛸䜹䞁䜺䝹䞊䛸ど⥺䛜ྜ䛖䚹䜹䞁䜺䝹䞊䛾║䛿䚸䛛䜟䛔䜙䛧䛔ᙧ䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䠄◁䠅䛂㟷䛔┠䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䛃ᆺ䛾ᩥ䛿䚸ᑐ㇟䛾䛂ᜏᖖⓗ䛺䛃ᒓᛶ䜢⾲䛩䛸ゝ䜟䜜䛶䛝䛯䛜䚸䛣䜜䜙䛾౛䛷䛿䚸䛂䛧䛶䛔䜛䛃䛿ほᐹ⪅ഃ䛾どぬ᝟ሗ䛸䛭䛾ᑐ㇟䛾䛒䜚᪉䛸䛾୧᪉䜢⾲䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹3 ⠇䛷㏙䜉䛯䛸䛚䜚䚸䛣䜜䛜୺ㄒ䛾⾜Ⅽ䛷䛒䜜䜀䛂㞼䛜䚸䜎䜛䛷䠄䘊䠅䛾ᵝ䛺ᙧ䜢䛥䛫䛯䛃䛂䜹䞁䜺䝹䞊䛾┠䛜䛛䜟䛔䜙䛧䛔ᙧ䜢䛥䛫䛯䛃䛾䜘䛖䛺෌ᖐⓗ௚ືモᩥ䛻䛺䜛䛿䛪䛷䛒䜛䚹䛧䛛䛧䚸↓⏕≀䠄䛂㞼䛃䚸䛂┠䛃䠅䛜ពᅗⓗ䛺⾜Ⅽ䛿䛧䛺䛔䛣䛸䛿᫂䜙䛛䛷䛒䜛䚹䛭䛣䛷䚸ᒓᛶ䛾䛂䛧䛶䛔䜛䛃䛿ほᐹ⪅䛜ど⥺䜢ື䛛䛧䛯䜚䚸᥋ゐ䛧䛯䜚䛧䛶⮬䜙☜ㄆ䛧䛯୍ḟ᝟ሗ䜢ఏ䛘䜛⾲⌧䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢ᣦ᦬䛧䛯䛔䚹౛䛘䜀(14)䛷䛿䚸 䛂ど⥺䛜ྜ䛖䛃௨㝆䛾䛂୍㑻䛃䛻䜘䜛᥈⣴άື䠄Gibson 1979)䛾⤖ᯝ䛾▱ぬ᝟ሗ䛜 2 ᩥ┠䛷䛒䜛䚹䛂䛧䛶䛔䜛䛃䛿䚸ᑐ㇟䛾ᙧ䛜䛂䛛䜟䛔䜙䛧䛔䛃䛣䛸䜢㏙䜉䜛䛰䛡䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸䛭䜜䜢ほᐹ⪅䛜▱ぬ䛧䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䜒᫂♧䛩䜛⾲⌧䛷䛒䜛
䛸ゝ䛘䜛䚹

6.

࠾ ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊほᐹ⪅ࡀ┤᥋᝟ሗࢆఏ࠼ࡿ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ㟷࠸┠ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖᆺࡢᵓ㐀ࢆ⪃࠼ࡓࠋࡲࡓ᝟ሗᵓ㐀ࡢⅬ࠿ࡽࠊᙧᐜモᩥ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ᪂᝟ሗࢆᚋ᪉࡟㓄⨨࡛ࡁࡿᵓ㐀࡛ࠊㄆ▱㡿ᇦࡢ㠀ᇶᮏ㡿ᇦ࠿ࡽᇶᮏ㡿ᇦ࡬ࡢὶࢀ࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋᘬ⏝ᩥ⊩
Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious
Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gibson, James J.㻌 2014(=1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Psychology Press.
ᙳᒣኴ㑻㻌 2003.䛂㌟యᒓᛶ䜢⾲䛩㍍ືモᵓᩥ䛸ព࿡⦅ධ䛃䛄ேᩥㄽ✲䛅53(1)ᙳᒣኴ㑻㻌 2004.䛂㍍ືモᵓᩥ䛸䛧䛶䛾䛂㟷䛔┠䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䛃ᵓᩥ䛃䚸䛄᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ䛅䛟䜝䛧䛚ฟ∧.
ᙳᒣኴ㑻㻌 2009.䛂ゝㄒ䛾ᵓ㐀ไ⣙䛸ླྀ㏙ᶵ⬟䛃䛄ゝㄒ◊✲䛅136 ྕᙳᒣኴ㑻 2012.䛂ᒓᛶླྀ㏙䛾ᩥἲⓗព⩏䛃䚸ᙳᒣኴ㑻䠄⦅䠅䛄ᒓᛶླྀ㏙䛾ୡ⏺䛅䛟䜝䛧䛚ฟ∧.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 2003. Human cognition and the elaboration of events: Some universal conceptual
categories. In The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 2. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: OUP.
Milsark, Gary L. 1979[=1974]. Existential Sentences in English. Garland Publishers.
┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ䞉⏣❑⾜๎㻌 1992.䛄ᇶ♏᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ䠄ᨵゞ∧䠅䛅䛟䜝䛧䛚ฟ∧.
᳃ᒣ༟㑻䞉ᱵཎ኱㍜䞉෠Ọⱥኵ㻌 2015.䛂䛂ᒓᛶ䝅䝔䜲䝹ᵓᩥ䛃䛾ᵓᩥᩥἲㄽⓗ⪃ᐹ䛃䛄ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ◊✲䛅1బ⸨⌶୕㻌 2005.䛄⮬ືモᩥ䛸௚ືモᩥ䛾ព࿡ㄽ䛅➟㛫᭩㝔.
⃝⏣ᾈᏊ㻌 2003.䛂ᡤ᭷≀䛾ᒓᛶㄆ㆑䛃䚸᭶ห䛄ゝㄒ䛅32(11)኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ⃝⏣ᾈᏊ㻌 2012.䛂࿡ぬ䞉Ⴅぬ䞉⫈ぬ䛻㛵䛩䜛஦㇟䛸ᒓᛶ䛃䛄ᒓᛶླྀ㏙䛾ୡ⏺䛅䛟䜝䛧䛚ฟ∧.
ゅ⏣ኴస㻌 1991.䛄ୡ⏺䛾ゝㄒ䛸᪥ᮏㄒ䛅䛟䜝䛧䛚ฟ∧.
ゅ⏣ኴస㻌 2009.䛄ୡ⏺䛾ゝㄒ䛸᪥ᮏㄒ ᨵゞ∧ʊゝㄒ㢮ᆺㄽ䛛䜙ぢ䛯᪥ᮏㄒ䛅䛟䜝䛧䛚ฟ∧.
Jacobsen, Wesley. 2001(=1989) .䛂௚ືᛶ䛸䝥䝻䝖䝍䜲䝥ㄽ䛃䚸㡲㈡୍ዲ௚⦅䛄ືモ䛾⮬௚䛅䜂䛴䛨᭩ᡣ⏝౛ฟ඾䛂MARC䛃䠄Emberley, Ed䚸䛝䛯䜐䜙䜎䛥䛚(ヂ)䛄䛝䛘䛱䜓䛘䛷䛳䛛䛔䜏䛹䜚䛾䝰䞁䝇䝍䞊! 䛅኱᪥ᮏ⤮⏬䠅䛄᪂₻ᩥᗜ䛾 100 ෉ CD䛅᪂₻♫䠄ᑠᯘ⚽㞝䛄䝰䜸䝒䜯䝹䝖䛅䚸୕ᓥ⏤⣖ኵ䛄㔠㛶ᑎ䛅䚸ᮧୖ᫓ᶞ䛄ୡ⏺䛾⤊䜟䜚䛸䝝䞊䝗䝪䜲䝹䝗䝽䞁䝎䞊䝷䞁䝗䛅䚸Ώ㎶῟୍䛄ⰼᇙ䜏䛅䚸ྜྷ⾜῟அ௓䛄◁䛾ୖ䛾᳜≀⩌䛅䠅
Wii Party䠄௵ኳᇽ䠅䛾ఝ㢦⤮䝋䝣䝖䛾䝔䝺䝡䝁䝬䞊䝅䝱䝹䠄2010 ᖺ 6 ᭶䠅

4
−196−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ࣟࢩ࢔ே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ┠ୖࡢ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࡢ⌧≧ᑠᕝᜤᖹ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ogawa.kyohei.japanese@gmail.com

㸺Abstract㸼 The purpose of this study is to disclose Russian Japanese learners’ complimentary behavior
towards their superiors. This study examined what Russian Japanese learners and Japanesenative speakers mention to their Japanese teachers and what kind of expressions they use. The
research was done by administering a questionnaire. The results show that Russian Japaneselearners compliment their teachers on their teaching skills and theses, while avoiding mentioning
their private things. Contrasting this, Japanese native speakers tend to avoid assessing theirteachers’ skills, asking questions about the classes and their research. In addition, Japanesenative speakers try to build a personal relationship with their teachers, by mentioning theteachers’ personal things.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸࡯ࡵࠊ࡯ࡵࡢᑐ㇟ࠊࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜࠊ᪥㟢ᑐ↷㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ➹⪅ࡣࣟࢩ࢔࡛ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ⤒㦂ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࣟࢩ࢔ே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᩍᖌ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕඛ⏕ࡢᤵᴗࡀ࡜࡚ࡶẼ࡟ධࡾࡲࡋࡓࠖ࡞࡝ࡢⓎヰࢆࡍࡿሙ㠃ࢆ㢖⦾࡟┠࡟ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࡣᇶᮏ
ⓗ࡟ࡣ♫఍ⓗ₶⁥Ἔ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ୍᪉࡛ FTA ࡜࡞ࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡾࠊ≉࡟ᕝཱྀ࡯࠿㸦1996㸧
ࡣ┠ୖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࡢ୙㐺ษᛶ࡟ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࡣ⫯ᐃⓗホ౯ࢆఏ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿゝㄒ⾜ື࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰࡢ㢖ᗘࡶ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀண᝿ࡉࢀࠊ᪩ᛴ࡞ᑐᛂࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࣟࢩ࢔ே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ┠ୖࡢ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࡢ⌧≧ࢆ▱ࡿࡓࡵࠊ௨ୗࡢ 2 Ⅼࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋձࣟࢩ࢔ே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ┠ୖࡢ┦ᡭ㸦ᩍᖌ㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᑐ㇟࡟ゝཬࡍࡿ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠋ
ղゝཬࡍࡿሙྜࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠋ
㸰㸬ඛ⾜◊✲
2.1 ࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࡢᐃ⩏ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊHolmes㸦1988㸧ࡢᐃ⩏࡟ಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࠊᐙ᪘࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࡯ࡵࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀࡓᑠ⋢㸦1996㸧ࡢࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࡢᐃ⩏ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠋᑠ⋢ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࢆᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ  ヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭᡈ࠸ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᐙ᪘ࡸࡑࢀ࡟㢮ࡍࡿ⪅࡟㛵ࡋ࡚͆ࡼ࠸͇࡜ㄆࡵࡿᵝࠎ࡞ࡶࡢᡈ࠸ࡣࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࢆᚰᆅࡼࡃࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ๓ᥦ࡟ࠊ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ᡈ࠸ࡣᬯ♧ⓗ࡟ࠊ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ホ౯ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸦ᑠ⋢ 1996㸸61㸧
2.2 ྛゝㄒ࣭ᩥ໬࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ࡯ࡵࠖ ඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜እᅜㄒ࡛ࡢࠕ࡯ࡵࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿゝཬࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࣈࣛࢪ࡛ࣝࡣᩍᖌࢆ࡯ࡵ
ࡿሙྜ࡛ࡶホ౯ⓗࠊ㝈ᐃⓗࠊ㧗ጼໃⓗ࡞࡯ࡵ᪉ࢆࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ᪥ྥ㸦1996㸧
ࠊ᪥㡑ࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢ఍ヰࢆㄪᰝࡋࠊ᪥㡑࡛ࡣ࡯ࡵࡢᑐ㇟ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓ㔠㸦2005㸧
ࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡣホ౯ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࣉࣛ
ࢫࡢព㆑ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ࢔࣓࡛ࣜ࢝ࡣᏛ⏕ࡀᩍᖌࢆ࡯ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡣၥ㢟࡞࠸࡜ࡍࡿỈ㇂㸦2015㸧࡞࡝ࡢ◊✲ࡀ−197−

ロシア人日本語学習者の目上の相手に対する「ほめ」の現状

࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⟶ぢࡢ㝈ࡾ᪥㟢ࡢࠕ࡯ࡵࠖ࡟ゝཬࡋࡓ◊✲ࡣぢᙜࡓࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ◊✲ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ྛゝㄒᩥ໬࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࡢつ⠊ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊࣟࢩ࢔ேࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࢆㄪᰝࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
2.3 ࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ࡜ࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࡢᑐ㇟
 チ㸦2011㸧ࡣࠊࠕேࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᅛ᭷ࡢࠕಶே㡿ᇦࠖࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍᴫᛕ㸦チ 2011㸸4㸧ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜࠖࡢᏑᅾࢆ♧ࡋࠊᅗ 1 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟୰ᚰ㒊࠿ࡽ࿘㎶㒊࡬࡜ẁ㝵ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢୖ࡛ࠊ୎ᑀయ࡛ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟୰ᚰ㒊࡟ࡣゝཬࡀ㑊ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ࡟㋃ࡳ㎸ࡴ㝿࡟ࡣఱࡽ࠿ࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࢆඖ࡟ࠊチ㸦2015㸧ࡣ᪥㡑୰ࡢᑐඛ⏕ࡢࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜࢆㄪᰝࡋࠊᅜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡑࢀࡒࢀ
ẁ㝵ᛶࡀ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ௨ୖࡼࡾࠊ
ࠕࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜࠖࡣࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࡢᑐ㇟࡟㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀண᝿ࡉࢀࠊࡲࡓ᪥㟢㛫࡛ࡶࡑࡢẁ㝵ᛶࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀண᝿ࡉࢀࡿࠋϨ ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕࡟㛵ࢃࡿෆᐜ㸸㻌 1㸧ಶே᝟ሗ㸸ᖺ㱋ࠊ⤖፧⤒㦂ࡢ᭷↓ࠊᐙ᪘ᵓᡂࠊᏛṔࠊ⫋Ṕࠊ⫋఩࡞࡝ 2㸧ᒓᛶ㸸ᛮ⪃ࠊ㢪ᮃࠊḧồࠊᛶ᱁࡞࡝㻌 3㸧ホ౯㸸⬟ຊࠊ཰ධ࡞࡝㻌ϩ ㌟య㒊ศ㸸㌟యⓗ࡞≉ᚩࠊయ᱁ࠊ೺ᗣ≧ែࠊ⾲᝟ࠊእぢ࡞࡝㻌Ϫ ᡤ᭷≀㸸ᣢࡕ≀ࠊⴭ᭩ࠊసရ࡞࡝㻌 ᅗ 1 ࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜࡢẁ㝵ᛶ㸦チ 2011㸧㸱㸬ㄪᰝ᪉ἲ ௨ୖࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࣟࢩ࢔ே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᩍᖌ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ఱ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ࠊࡲࡓゝཬࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄪᰝࢆᐇ᪋
ࡋࡓࠋ⾲ 1 ㄪᰝࡢᴫせᑐ㇟ࣟࢩ࢔ࡢ኱Ꮫ࡛Ꮫࡪ୰ୖ⣭᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅㸦௨ୗ R㸧11 ྡ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕㸦௨ୗ J㸧10 ྡㄪᰝἲ

Google ࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓࠊ㑅ᢥᘧ࣭グ㏙ᘧࡢే⏝ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ

᪥ᮏேᩍᖌ࡜኱Ꮫ࡛ヰࡍሙ㠃ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋࠊチ㸦2011㸧ࡢࠕࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜࠖ࡟㻌 㻌 㻌㻌 㛵ࢃࡿෆᐜࡢ࠺ࡕࠊࠕ࡯ࡵࠖ࡟⧅ࡀࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ
ㄪᰝ㡯┠ձᤵᴗࠊእぢ㸦ղ㧥ᆺࠊճ᭹⿦ࠊմయᆺࠊյ㢦ࡘࡁ㸧ࠊ նே㛫㛵ಀࠊᣢࡕ≀㸦շ㠜ࠊո᫬ィࠊչ㌴ࠊպᦠᖏ㟁ヰࠊջⴭస࣭ㄽᩥ㸧 ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ឤ᝿ࢆゝ࠺࠿ᅇ⟅᪉ἲឤ᝿ࢆゝ࠺࠿ྰ࠿ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋࠊゝ࠺ሙྜࡣࡑࡢෆᐜ㸦᪥ᮏㄒ㸧࡜ពᅗࢆࠊ
ゝࢃ࡞࠸ሙྜࡣ⌮⏤ࢆ⮬⏤グ㏙࡛ᅇ⟅ࡍࡿ㸲㸬⤖ᯝࡢศᯒ࡜⪃ᐹ ゝཬࡍࡿᑐ㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⤖ᯝࢆࠊ௨ୗࡢᅗ 2 ࡟♧ࡍࠋ኱Ꮫ࡛ࡢᩍᖌ࡜ࡢ఍ヰࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚ᅇ⟅ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊRࠊJ ࡜ࡶ࡟ձᤵᴗࡸջⴭస࣭ㄽᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢゝཬࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ୧⪅ࡢ┦㐪Ⅼ
࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊR ࡣᩍᖌࡢእぢ࣭ே㛫㛵ಀ࡬ࡢゝཬࢆ㑊ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊJ ࡣᩘྡࡢゝཬࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋᩍᖌࡢእぢࡸே㛫㛵ಀࠊᡤ᭷≀࡟ゝཬࡋ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓ R ࡣࠊ⌮⏤࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠕᩍᖌࡢಶேⓗ࡞≀஦࡟ゝཬࡍࡿࡢࡣኻ♩ࡔ࠿ࡽࠖ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶ R ࡣ J ࡟ẚ࡭࡚እぢ࣭ே㛫㛵ಀ࣭ᡤ᭷≀࡬ࡢゝཬࢆ㑊ࡅࡿែᗘࡀᚭᗏࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋᣢࡕ≀㸦շ㹼պ㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣ R ࡢゝཬࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ1 ྡࡢ R
ࡀ඲࡚࡟ゝཬࡍࡿ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢ R ࡀ≉Ṧ࡞౛࡛࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

−198−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

 ୍᪉ࠊղ㧥ᆺ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡍࡿ࡜ࡋࡓ J ࡣࠕඛ⏕ࠊ㧥ษࡾࡲࡋࡓ㸽ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓෆᐜࢆᅇ⟅ࡋࠊពᅗ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕヰࡢࡁࡗ࠿ࡅ࡙ࡃࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠖ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋྠᵝ࡟նே㛫㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠕ࠾Ꮚࡉࢇࡢሙ
ྜࡣఱṓ࡛ࡍ࠿㸽࡜⪺ࡃࠖ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋࠊពᅗ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕୡ㛫ヰࡀᴦࡋ࠸ࠖ࡜ࡢᅇ⟅ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊᡤ᭷
≀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡋ࡞࠸⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠕ⯆࿡ࡀ࡞࠸࠿ࡽࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ
J ࡣ R ࡟ẚ࡭࡚ᩍᖌࡢእぢࡸே㛫㛵ಀࠊᡤ᭷≀࡟ゝཬ⮬యࡣࡋࡸࡍ࠸࡜⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓゝཬࡍࡿࡇ࡜
ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ᩍᖌ࡜ࡢே㛫㛵ಀࢆᵓ⠏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡇ࠺࡜ࡍࡿពᅗࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
㸦ே㸧

8
6
4
2
0

R
J

ᅗ 2 ゝཬࡍࡿᑐ㇟ 㻌 ḟ࡟ࠊゝཬࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓձᤵᴗ࡜ջⴭస࣭ㄽᩥࡢゝཬෆᐜ࠾ࡼࡧពᅗࡢ࠺ࡕࠊR ࡢᅇ⟅ࢆ௨ୗࡢ⾲ 2࡟♧ࡍࠋ㻌
⾲ 2 R ࡢゝཬෆᐜ࠾ࡼࡧゝཬࡢពᅗ
ゝཬ

ձᤵᴗ

ゝཬ

ջⴭస࣭ㄽᩥ࠙ホ౯ⓗෆᐜࠚ࠙ホ౯ⓗෆᐜࠚ

࣭ࡇࡢᤵᴗࡣ㠃ⓑ࠸㸭㠃ⓑࡃ࡞࠸࣭ࡇࡢᮏ࣭࣏࣮ࣞࢺࡣព⩏῝࠸࡛ࡍ࣭༳㇟ࡀ࠸࠸㸭ࡼࡃ࡞࠸࣭ࡑࡢࢸ࣮࣐࡟⯆࿡῝࠸࡛ࡍ࣭㹼ࡀ࠸࠸ᕤኵ࡛ࡍࡡ

࣭ຮᙉ࡟࡞ࡾࡲࡍ

࣭࡜࡚ࡶࢃ࠿ࡾࡸࡍࡃᩍ࠼࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࡲࡍ

࣭኱ኚᙺ࡟❧ࡘࡶࡢࡔ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ

ゝཬࡢពᅗ㸸

ゝཬࡢពᅗ㸸

࣭ඛ⏕ࡀ႐ࡪ࠿ࡽ

࣭ඛ⏕ࢆ࡯ࡵࡿࡓࡵ

ࡍࡿ࣭♩൤࡜ࡋ࡚

ࡍࡿ࣭ඛ⏕࡟႐ࢇ࡛࡯ࡋ࠸

4ྡ࣭Ꮫ⏕ࡢ༠ຊ࡛ࡉࡽ࡟඘ᐇࡋࡓᤵᴗࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ

6ྡ࣭ᚐປ࡛࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵࡼ࠺࡟࣭ඛ⏕ࡀࡼࡃࡸࡗࡓ࡜ఏ࠼ࡿࡓࡵ
࣭⯆࿡ࡢ࠶ࡿෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡋࡓ࠸࠙ຓゝⓗෆᐜࠚ

࣭ඛ⏕ࢆᡭఏ࠺ࡓࡵ

࣭ࡇࡢᤵᴗࡣࡶࡗ࡜㠃ⓑࡃ࡞ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ఱࢆࡍࢀ
ࡤ࠸࠸࡜࠿ゝཬࡢពᅗ㸸
࣭ᤵᴗࢆࡼࡾࡼࡃࡍࡿࡓࡵ
ࡋ࡞࠸7ྡ࣭ᝏ࠿ࡗࡓࡽኻ♩࣭ヰࡍ᫬㛫ࡀ࡞࠸
࣭ឤ᝿ࡼࡾ㉁ၥ

ࡋ࡞࠸5ྡ࣭ㄞࢇࡔࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞࠸
࣭᝿ᐃࡋࡓ┦ᡭࡢⴭసࡀ࡞࠸
࣭࡯ࡵࡿ௨እࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸

 ⾲ 2 ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊR ࡢᅇ⟅࡟ࡣホ౯ⓗ࣭ຓゝⓗෆᐜࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡢࡀ≉ᚩⓗ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋձᤵᴗ࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࡣ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ホ౯ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃྰᐃⓗ࡞ホ౯ࡶぢࡽࢀࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣᤵᴗࢆࡼࡾࡼࡃࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢຓゝࡢࡼ−199−

ロシア人日本語学習者の目上の相手に対する「ほめ」の現状࠺࡞ᅇ⟅ࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊJ ࡢᅇ⟅ࡣࠕ௚࡟ࡶㄞࢇ࡛࠾ࡃ࡜࠸࠸ᩥ⊩࠶ࡾࡲࡍ࠿㸽ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ㉁ၥࡀ୰ᚰ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ࠕᤵᴗࡢヰࢆࡍࡿ㝿ࡣࠊឤ᝿࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶ␲ၥⅬࢆ⪺ࡁ࡟⾜ࡃࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡶࡳࡽࢀࠊ
ᩍᖌࡢᑓ㛛ᛶ㸦⬟ຊ㸧࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢࢆホ౯ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ᅇ⟅ࡣ 1 ౛ࡶ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
 R ࡣホ౯ⓗෆᐜࡢゝཬࡢពᅗ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕඛ⏕ࡀ႐ࡪ࠿ࡽࠖ
ࠕ♩൤࡜ࡋ࡚ࠖ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓゝཬࡋ࡞࠸⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕᝏ࠿ࡗࡓࡽኻ♩ࠖࠕヰࡍ᫬㛫ࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊJ ࡟ẚ࡭࡚ᩍᖌࡢᤵᴗࢆ⫯ᐃⓗホ౯ࡢᑐ㇟࡟࡞ࡾࡸࡍ࠸ࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕᤵᴗࢆࡼࡾࡼࡃ
ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠖ࡜࠸࠺ពᅗࡶ࠶ࡾࠊR ࡣᤵᴗࢆᩍᖌࡢ⬟ຊ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᩍᖌ࡜Ꮫ⏕࡜ࡀ཮᪉ྥ
ⓗ࡟సࡾୖࡆ࡚⾜ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋ ḟ࡟ջⴭస࣭ㄽᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊR ࡢᅇ⟅࡟ࡣࡸࡣࡾホ౯ⓗ࡞ෆᐜࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋゝཬࡢពᅗ࡜
ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࠕඛ⏕ࢆ࡯ࡵࡿࡓࡵࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡢ௚࡟ࠊ
ࠕඛ⏕ࢆᡭఏ࠺ࡓࡵࠖ
ࠕᚐປ࡛࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵࠖ࡞࡝ࡢᅇ⟅ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᩍᖌࡢ◊✲άືࢆᛂ᥼ࡍࡿࠕບࡲࡋࠖࡢࡼ
࠺࡞ᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊゝཬࡋ࡞࠸ R ࡢ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ࡯ࡵࡿ௨እࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ
࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊձᤵᴗ࡜ྠᵝࠊ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ホ౯ࢆࡋࡸࡍ࠸ᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡿࠋ ୍᪉ࠊJ ࡢᅇ⟅ࡣձᤵᴗ࡜ྠᵝࡢഴྥࢆ♧ࡋࠊゝཬࡍࡿሙྜ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ㉁ၥࡋ࡚⯆࿡ࡢ࠶ࡿෆᐜ࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ヰࡋࡓࡾࠊ
ࠕ㠃ⓑ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ឤ᝿⛬ᗘ࡟࡜࡝ࡵࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᩍᖌࡢ⬟ຊࢆホ౯ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᅇ㑊ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ ௨ୖࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊR ࡣබ⚾ࢆ᫂☜࡟༊ูࡋࠊබⓗ࡞ෆᐜ㸦ᩍᖌࡢ௙஦࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢ㸧࡛࠶ࢀࡤゝཬ࡛ࡁࠊࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࡶ⾜࠼ࡿ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋ୍᪉ J ࡣࠊᩍᖌࡢ⬟ຊࢆホ౯ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㑊ࡅࠊ㉁ၥࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ヰࢆ㐍ࡵࡓࡾࠊᩍᖌࡢಶேⓗ࡞ෆᐜ࡟ゐࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ᩍᖌ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࢆᵓ⠏ࡋࡓࡾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⪃࠼᪉ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀ⫼ᬒ࡟࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀゝཬࡍࡿሙྜࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧࡟ࡶ⾲ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊR ࡢᅇ⟅ࡣᙧᘧⓗ࡟ࡣࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡀࠊពᅗ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠕບࡲࡋࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᶵ⬟ࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ♧၀ࡉࢀࠊࣟ
ࢩ࢔ேࡢࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࢆᤊ࠼┤ࡍᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ ࡑࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ௒ᚋࡣࡉࡽ࡟ㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅ࢆቑࡸࡋࠊࣟࢩ࢔ேࡢࠕ࡯ࡵࠖ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ពᅗࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ
ࡲࡓࣟࢩ࢔ேྠኈࡢࠊࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ࡛ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࢆㄪ
ᰝࡋࠊࣟࢩ࢔ேࡢࠕ࡯ࡵࠖ࡟㏕ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ


ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
チ᫂Ꮚ. 2011.ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ࡟㛵ࢃࡿㄯヰศᯒ̿᪥ᮏே࣭㡑ᅜே࣭୰ᅜேẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢㄪᰝࢆ㏻
 ࡋ࡚̿ࠖ
ࠊࠗ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ␃Ꮫ⏕ࢭࣥࢱ࣮᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱ㄽ㞟࠘ࠊ26ࠊ1-17.
チ᫂Ꮚ. 2015.ࠕࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿⓎヰ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪥㡑୰ᑐ↷◊✲̿ゝཬࡢ᭷↓࡟㛵ࡍࡿศᯒࢆ㏻ࡋ ࡚̿ࠖ
ࠊᖹᡂ 23 ᖺᗘ㹼ᖹᡂ 26 ᖺᗘ ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠ᇶ┙◊✲㸦C㸧◊✲ᡂᯝሗ࿌᭩ࠗࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺࣜ ࣮࡜࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪥㡑୰ᑐ↷◊✲࠘
ࠊ1-15.
᪥ྥࣀ࢚࣑࢔. 1996. ࠕ࡯ࡵࡇ࡜ࡤࡢ᪥఑ẚ㍑̿ឤㅰ࡜࡯ࡵࡇ࡜ࡤ̿ࠖ
ࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘
ࠊ15: 5ࠊ50-58.
Holmes, J. 1988. “Paying Compliments: a Se-preferential Politeness Strategy.” Journal of

Pragmatics 12, 445-465.

ᕝཱྀ⩏୍࣭ⵦ㇂ᏹ࣭ᆏᮏᜨ. 1996.ࠕᚅ㐝⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࡯ࡵࠖ
ࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘
ࠊ15: 5ࠊ13-22.
㔠ᗒⰷ. 2005.ࠕ఍ヰ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࡢᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪥㡑ᑐ↷◊✲ࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘
ࠊ124ࠊ13-22.
ᑠ⋢Ᏻᜨ. 1996.ࠕᑐㄯ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࡯ࡵࡢᶵ⬟㸦1㸧̿఍ヰ⪅ࡢᙺ๭࡜࡯ࡵࡢㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ఩⨨࡜࠸࠺ほ Ⅼ࠿ࡽ̿ࠖ
ࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘
ࠊ15 : 5ࠊ59-67.
Ỉ㇂ಙᏊ. 2015.ࠗឤࡌࡢࡼ࠸ⱥㄒ࣭ឤࡌࡢࡼ࠸᪥ᮏㄒ̿᪥ⱥẚ㍑ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢᩥἲ̿࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ
 ∧

௜グ
ࠕࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ
ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊᖹᡂ 26 ᖺᗘ㹼28 ᖺᗘ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠㸦ᇶ┙◊✲ C㸸ㄢ㢟␒ྕ 23520610ࠊ
ࠊ◊✲௦⾲⪅㸸チ᫂Ꮚ㸧ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋࡢㄆ㆑࡜Ⓨヰࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪥⡿㡑୰ࡢᑐ↷◊✲ࠖ

−200−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

᪥ᮏ⤫἞᫬௦ࡢྎ‴࡛ᥥ࠿ࢀࡓ᪂⪺ₔ⏬࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢศᯒ㰻⸨㞙ேி㒔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ே㛫࣭⎔ቃᏛ◊✲⛉<Abstract>
The purpose of this study is to show the effectiveness of multimodal metaphor theory by applying thetheory in an analysis of political cartoons published in Taiwan during the era of Japanese rule (1895-1945).
This study collected 302 political cartoons from Taiwan nichinichi shinpo (Taiwan daily newspaper) whichwere mainly drawn by the artist, Suiba Kunishima. In this article, the metaphors such as to represent

Japan as an adult/parent and Taiwan as a child/progeny which are found in these cartoons are
discussed from the perspective of colonization.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ: 1 ᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ 2 ࣐ࣝࢳ࣮ࣔࢲ࣭࣓ࣝࢱࣇ࢓࣮ 3 ᪂⪺ₔ⏬ 4 ᳜Ẹᆅ⤫἞

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
1.1. ᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜࣐ࣝࢳ࣮ࣔࢲ࣭࣓ࣝࢱࣇ࢓࣮
Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 3)ࡣࠊ“Metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but inthought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, isfundamentally metaphorical in nature.”࡜㏙࡭ࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢ◊✲ࢆࠊゝㄒࡢၥ㢟࠿ࡽே㛫ࡢᛮ⪃ࡸᴫᛕ࡟㛵ࢃࡿၥ㢟࡬࡜Ⓨᒎࡉࡏࡓࠋ ࡘࡲࡾࠊᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮◊✲ࡢ┠ᶆࡣ࠶ࡽࡺࡿே㛫ࡢᛮ⪃ࡸ⾜ືࢆྖࡿᴫᛕࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢゎ᫂࡟࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᴫᛕࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡣࠊㄒ⏝ㄽࡀ◊✲ᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ
ᐇ㝿ࡢ౑⏝ሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡜ᐦ᥋࡟㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 ㏆ᖺ࡛ࡣࠊᴫᛕࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢໟᣓⓗ࡞ゎ᫂࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠊゝㄒ࡜௚ࡢ▱ぬ⌧㇟࡟୪⾜ⓗ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮஦㇟ࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ࣐ࣝࢳ࣮ࣔࢲ࣭࣓ࣝࢱࣇ࢓࣮◊✲ࡀ┒ࢇ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ(Forceville,2009)ࠊࡑࡢ◊✲ືྥࢆࡶ࡜࡟ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ᪂⪺ₔ⏬ࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
1.2. ᪥ᮏ⤫἞᫬௦ࡢྎ‴࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ ᮏ◊✲ࡀᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࡢࡣ᪥ᮏ⤫἞᫬௦ࡢྎ‴࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣᇳ➹⪅ࡀྎ‴࡟⁫ᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿࠋ1895 ᖺ࠿ࡽ 1945 ᖺࠊ50 ᖺ㛫࡟ཬࡪ᪥ᮏ࡟ࡼࡿ⤫἞ࡣࠊᑡ࡞࠿ࡽࡠᙳ㡪ࢆᮍࡔṧࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊྎ‴ࢆ▱ࡿ࠺࠼࡛Ḟ࠿ࡏ࡞࠸ฟ᮶஦࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢ᫬௦ࡢ⌮ゎࡣ᪥ᮏࡢᮾ
࢔ࢪ࢔࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᫖௒ࡢᅜ㝿㛵ಀࡢᢕᥱ࡟ࡶ୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃṔྐ◊✲ࡣࠊಶேࡢព㆑࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ᪂ࡋ࠸Ṕྐീࢆᾋ࠿ࡧୖࡀࡽࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿࠋ
2. ◊✲ࢹ࣮ࢱ࣭ศᯒ ᪥ᮏ⤫἞᫬௦ࡢྎ‴࡟࠾࠸࡚᭱኱ࡢⓎ⾜㒊ᩘࢆ㄂ࡿ᪂⪺ࠗ⮹⅂᪥᪥᪂ሗ࠘
㸦᭱┒ᮇࡢⓎ⾜㒊ᩘࡣ
5 ୓㒊ࢆグ㘓㸧࡟ࠊ1921 ᖺ࠿ࡽ 1939 ᖺࡢ㛫ࠊ࠾࠾ࡼࡑ㐌࡟୍ᗘࡢ࣮࣌ࢫ࡛ࠕ⮹᪥ₔ⏬ࠖࡀᥖ㍕ࡉ

−201−

日本統治時代の台湾で描かれた新聞漫画におけるメタファーの分析ࢀࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡇࡢₔ⏬ࡣࠊ1921 ᖺ࠿ࡽ 1934 ᖺࡢ㛫ࠊ࠾ࡶ࡟ᅜᓥỈ㤿㸯࡜࠸࠺୍ேࡢ⏬ᐙ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
ᡭ᥃ࡅࡽࢀࡓࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢศᯒᑐ㇟ࡣࠊࡇࡢᅜᓥỈ㤿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᥥ࠿ࢀࡓసရ 302 Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2.1. ࠗྎ‴ࡣ㨩ຊⓗ࡞ዪᛶ࡛࠶ࡿ(TAIWAN : AN ATTRACTIVE WOMAN)࠘
సရ୰࡛ࡣࠊ㨩ຊⓗ࡞ዪᛶ㸦ྎ‴㸧ࢆዲወ࡟‶ࡕࡓࡲ࡞ࡊࡋ࡛═ࡵࡿᖺ㓄ࡢ⏨ᛶࡓࡕ㸦᪥ᮏே㸧࡜࠸࠺࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࡀ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ

ᅗ 1, 2 (ࠗ⮹⅂᪥᪥᪂ሗ࠘1928 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 18 ᪥ࠊ1929 ᖺ 10 ᭶ 7 ᪥)
ᅗ 1 ࡛ࡣࠊ㣧ࡳ≀ࢆ㐠ࡪዪᛶࡢὒ᭹࡟ࠕྎ‴ࠖ࡜࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢዪᛶࢆ᪥ᮏྛᆅࡢᆅྡࡀグࡉࢀࡓ❧࡚ᮐ࡜ඹ࡟ᗙࡿ⏨ᛶࡓࡕࡀᅖࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋᡭ๓ࡢ⏨ᛶࡢ᳔Ꮚࡢᚋࢁ࡟ࠕ༤ぴࠖ࡜࠶ࡾࠊ⏬ࡢ㝮࡟ࡣࠕᙼ᪉࠿ࡽࡶṈ᪉࠿ࡽࡶ࡜㇦࠸ேẼࡖࡷࠖ࡜࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊྎ‴ࢆࢸ࣮࣐࡟ࡋࡓ༤ぴ఍ࡢㄏ⮴ࡢヰ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋᅗ 2 ࡛ࡣࠊ㧥ࡢୖ࡟ࠕᮾྎ‴ࠖ࡜グࡉࢀࡓዪᛶࡢ᙮้ീࢆ࿴᭹ࢆ╔ࡓࡓࡃࡉࢇࡢ⏨ᛶࡀ═ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕ⾲ഃࢆぢ࡚❧ὴ࡞ࡢ࡟㦫ࡁ⿬࡬ᘔࡗ࡚ࡣ᭦࡟ࢸࣥࢹ࡞ࡗ࡚࡞࠸࡟វࡃࠖ࡜ࡢㄝ᫂
ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᮾྎ‴ࡢ㛤Ⓨ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢヰ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⏨ᛶ࡜ࡑࡢḧᮃࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢዪᛶ࡜࠸࠺࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡣࠊ᳜Ẹᆅ◊✲ࡢ௦⾲ⓗⴭస࡛࠶ࡿ࢚ࢻ
࣮࣡ࢻ࣭ࢧ࢖࣮ࢻࡢ࢚ࠗ࢜ࣜࣥࢱࣜࢬ࣒࠘ࡢ୰࡟ࡶ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࢧ࢖࣮ࢻࡣࠕ࢜ࣜ
࢚ࣥࢺ࡜ᛶ࡜ࢆ⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿ㐃᝿ࡣ㦫ࡃ࡯࡝୍㈏ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୰ᮾࡣฎዪࡢࡼ࠺࡟᢬ᢠࡍࡿࡀࠊ
⏨ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿᏛ⪅ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀࠗ㈇ᢸࡢ኱ࡁ࠸௙஦࡛࠘࠶ࡿ࡜▱ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊࡇࢀࢆࡇࡌ࠶ࡅࠊࢦࣝ
ࢹ࢕࢔ࢫࡢ⤖ࡧ┠ࢆ㈏㏻ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡑࡢ⋓≀ࢆ⋓ᚓࡍࡿࠋࠗㄪ࿴࠘࡜ࡣࠊஎዪࡽࡋ࠸ࡣ࡟࠿
ࡳࢆᚁ᭹ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ⏕ࡲࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡟࡯࠿࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ(1993: 245)࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2.2. ࠗྎ‴ࡣ᪥ᮏࡢፉ࡛࠶ࡿ(TAIWAN : A DAUGHTER OF JAPAN)࠘ࠊࠗྎ‴ࡣ᪥ᮏࡢᜥᏊ࡛࠶ࡿ(TAIWAN : A SON OF JAPAN)࠘
᪥ᮏࢆ∗ぶࠊྎ‴ࢆࡑࡢᏊ࡝ࡶ࡜ࡋ࡚ᥥࡃ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࡀᩘከࡃほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋፉ࡜ࡋ࡚ᥥ࠿
ࢀࡓྎ‴ࠊᜥᏊ࡜ࡋ࡚ᥥ࠿ࢀࡓྎ‴࡝ࡕࡽࡢሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊዪᛶࡀᥥ࠿ࢀࡿሙྜࡣࣔࣀ㸦ྎ‴඲యࠊ⮬↛≀ࠊᩥ໬ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ➼㸧ࢆᣦࡋࠊ⏨ᛶࡀᥥ࠿ࢀࡿሙྜࡣࣄࢺ㸦ྎ‴࡟ఫࢇ࡛࠸ࡿఫẸ㸧ࢆ

−202−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ᣦࡍ࡜࠸࠺ഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ๓⠇ 2.1.ࡢሙྜࡶྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᅗ 3, 4 (ࠗ⮹⅂᪥᪥᪂ሗ࠘1923 ᖺ 2 ᭶ 11 ᪥ࠊ1931 ᖺ 2 ᭶ 9 ᪥)
ᅗ 3 ࡛ࡣࠊࠕྎ໭ᕞࠖ࡜グࡉࢀࡓ⿙ࢆࡣ࠸ࡓ∗ぶࡀࠊࠕⲡᒣࠖ࡜᭩࠿ࢀࡓ᫹ࢆᕳ࠸ࡓፉ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟
ᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ⭡ࢆ③ࡵࡓṈፉ⨾㓶㈼ហࡢᢈุࡣ௚ேࡢൢ┠ぶࡢ៣║ࡖࡷఱࢇࡢࡑࡢ୕ᅧ୍ࡢⰼ
፵࡞ࡽ࡛ࡣ࡜࢚ࣥࣖࣔࢵࢧ࡜㔠࡟⤬┠ࢆ࠿ࡅࡎࡢ໬⢝᣺ࡾ㸦௨ୗ␎㸧ࠖ࡜࠶ࡾࠊྎ໭㑹እ࡟࠶ࡿⲡ
ᒣ㸦⌧ᅾࡢ㝧᫂ᒣ㸧ࢆᩚഛࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᅗ 4 ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ࠾๓㐩ࡣ㈼ࡋࡇ࠸ඣࡖࡷ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚☜࠿ࡾຮᙉࡍࡿࢇࡔࡼ…ࠖ࡜࠶ࡾࠊᣦ࡟ࠕឡࠖࠊ
ࠕᚨࠖࠊࠕಙ⩏ࠖࠊࠕᬛぢࠖࠊࠕཝṇࠖ࡜᭩࠿ࢀࡓ኱ࡁ࡞
ᡭࡀᏊ࡝ࡶࡢ࠶ࡓࡲ࡟ゐࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞බඹ஦ᴗࡸᩍ⫱ไᗘ࡞࡝ࡣࠊ♫఍ࡢ♏ࢆ⠏࠸ࡓࡶࡢࡋ࡚ホ౯ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡀࠊ௒᪥ࡢྎ‴࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ㄆ㆑࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2.3.ࠗཎఫẸ 2 ࡣ㔝⏕ࡢ⊦࡛࠶ࡿ(ABORIGINE : A WILD BOAR)࠘
 ྎ‴࡟ࡣࠊ኱ከᩘࡢ኱㝣࠿ࡽࡢ⛣Ẹ࡛࠶ࡿ₎Ẹ᪘ࡢ௚࡟ࠊᑡᩘࡢ༡᪉⏤᮶ࡢཎఫẸ᪘ࡀᬽࡽࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋᙼࡽࡢከࡃࡣࠊྂࡃ࠿ࡽྎ‴ᓥࡢ୰ኸ㒊࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿᒣᓅᆅᖏࢆ⏕άᣐⅬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ᪥
ᮏᨻᗓࡣࠕ⌮ⶽᨻ⟇ 2ࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿᨻ⟇ࢆཎఫẸ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⾜ࡗࡓࡀࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ⾪✺ࡀཎఫẸ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟⏕ࡌࡓࠋ≉࡟ 1930 ᖺ࡟㉳ࡇࡗࡓࠕ㟝♫஦௳ࠖࡣࠊከࡃࡢṚയ⪅ࢆฟࡋࡓ஦௳࡜ࡋ࡚ࡼࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ஦௳ࡢ㝿࡟ᥥ࠿ࢀࡓᩘᯛࡢ⏬࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏ㌷ࡀ㔝⏕ࡢ⊦࡜ࡋ࡚ᥥ࠿ࢀࡓཎఫẸࢆウఆࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−203−

日本統治時代の台湾で描かれた新聞漫画におけるメタファーの分析

ᅗ 5, 6 (ࠗ⮹⅂᪥᪥᪂ሗ࠘1930 ᖺ 11 ᭶ 30 ᪥) ࠕேᑐື≀ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᵓᅗࡀࡇࡇ࡛౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢᇶ┙࡜࡞ࡿ౯್య⣔࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ⪃ᐹࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࡇࡢ⾲⌧ࡀ≀஦ࢆ㄂ᙇࡋ࡚ᥥࡃ࡜࠸࠺ₔ⏬ࡢᛶ㉁࡟ᇶ
࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊ௚ࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧࡟ࡶ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ࠿᭦࡞ࡿㄪᰝࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ᅗ 6 ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ྎ‴ࡢ᪉ࠎ࡜㆟ㄽࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ㝿࡟ࠊᇳ➹⪅ࡣ୍ษẼࡀࡘ࠿࡞ࡀࡗࡓࡀྎ‴ࡢ᪉ࠎࡣࡍࡄ࡟Ẽࡀࡘࡃ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ⊦ࡀྎ‴ᓥࢆ㏫ࡉ࡟ࡋࡓᙧࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜
࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ⊦ࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜㸦ཎఫẸ⤫἞㸧ࡣྎ‴඲యࡢᨭ㓄ࢆ㇟ᚩࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3. ࡲ࡜ࡵ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏ⤫἞᫬௦ࡢྎ‴࡛Ⓨ⾜ࡉࢀࡓ᪂⪺ₔ⏬ࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࢆศᯒࡋࡓࠋࡑࢀࡽ
ࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࡣࠊ♫఍࣭ᩥ໬ⓗࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊᙜ᫬ࡢ㢼⩦ࢆⰍ⃰ࡃ཯ᫎࡋࡓᵝᏊ࡛ᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ほᐹࡉࢀࡓ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࡢࣔࢺ㡿ᇦࠕ⏨ᛶ㸭ዪᛶࠖࠊࠕぶ㸭Ꮚࠖࠊࠕே㸭ື≀ࠖࡣࠊ࡝ࢀ
ࡶே㢮ࡢ⏕ά࡟࠾ࡅࡿᇶ♏ⓗ࡞ᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊₔ⏬࡜࠸࠺どぬ᝟ሗࡀ㇏࠿࡞⣲ᮦࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡑࡢᴫᛕࡢࡼࡾヲ⣽࡞ㄆ㆑ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊゝㄒグྕ࡜どぬグྕ࡜ࡢ」ྜⓗ࡞ᴫᛕㄆ㆑࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ࣐ࣝࢳ࣮ࣔࢲ࣭࣓ࣝࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢṔྐ◊✲࡬ࡢᛂ⏝ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋὀ
1 ࠕᅜᓥࡣࡑࡢฟ⮬ࠊ᮶ྎ๓ࡢ⤒Ṕ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㈨ᩱ➼ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠊ࠸ࢃࡤㅦࡢ⏬ᐙ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦୰␎㸧ᅜᓥࡣᙜึࠊ
ࠗỈ㤿⏕࠘ࠗỈ㤿࠘ࡢ࣌ࣥࢿ࣮࣒࡛㢼ᬒ⏬ࡸఝ㢦⤮ࠊ㢼่⏬௜ࡁࡢ⣖⾜ࠊグ஦ࢆ᭩࠸ࡓࠋࡑࢀ࠿ࡽ⣙஧ࠐᖺ㛫ࠊྎ‴᭱኱ࡢ᪂⪺࡛၏ࡦ࡜ࡾࡢ᪂⪺㢼่ₔ⏬ᐙ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᨻ἞ࠊ⤒῭ࠊ㢼಑ࠊୡ┦ࠊෆእࡢ஦௳ࢆ㢼่ࡋࡓഔసₔ⏬ࢆ㐃㍕ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࠖ(ᆏ㔝, 2012: 14)2ࠕཎఫẸࠖ࡜࠸࠺࿧⛠ࡣྎ‴ࡢඛఫẸ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ྎ‴࡛⌧ᅾ୍⯡ⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⏝ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕ⌮ⶽᨻ⟇ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒࡣࠊ᪥ᮏ⤫἞᫬௦࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓṔྐⓗ⏝ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩:Forceville, C. & Urios-Aparisi, E. (Eds.). 2009. Multimodal metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
ࢧ࢖࣮ࢻ, ࢚ࢻ࣮࣡ࢻ. 1993.࢚ࠗ࢜ࣜࣥࢱࣜࢬ࣒ࠑୗࠒ࠘. ᮾி: ᖹซ♫.
ᆏ㔝ᚨ㝯. 2012.ࠗ᪥ᮏ⤫἞ୗࡢྎ‴ʊ㢼่ₔ⏬࡛ㄞࡳゎࡃ࠘. ᮾி: ᖹซ♫.
⮹⅂᪥᪥᪂ሗ♫. ࠗ⮹⅂᪥᪥᪂ሗ࠘. ᮾி: ࡺࡲ࡟᭩ᡣ.

−204−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

䝰䝎䝸䝔䜱䛸䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䛸䛾᥋Ⅼ䜢᥈䛳䛶㻌䇷䛭䛾ㄽ⌮ⓗྍ⬟ᛶ䛻䛴䛔䛶䇷㻌㝳 ᬡ㟼㸦໭ᾏ㐨኱Ꮫ㸧
<Abstract>
This paper aims to focus on the interface of modality and politeness. Firstly, the paper satisfies its logical possibility though thedefinition of modality, the feature of epistemic modality expressions, and the possibility of cancellation. Secondly, uncertain
expressions by using epistemic modality were discussed from the view of the hearer's and the speaker's positive/ negative face,respectively. In summary, the epistemic modality expressions show different functions for the hearer and the speaker, more
specifically, a consideration function for the hearer, and a defense function for the speaker.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕㸪࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ㸪ㄽ⌮ⓗྍ⬟ᛶ㸪ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ㸪ே㛫㛵ಀࡸሙ㠃࡞࡝ࡢせ⣲࡟㓄៖ࡋ㸪᩿ᐃⓗ࡞ゝ࠸᪉ࢆ᥍࠼㸪ពᅗⓗ࡟㠀᩿ᐃⓗ࡞⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿሙྜࡀከ࠸ࠋᮏⓎ⾲ࡣࠕࣚ࢘ࢲࠖࠕ㸦ࢩ㸧ࢯ࢘ࢲࠖࠕ࣑ࢱ࢖㸦ࢲ㸧ࠖࠕ࢝ࣔࢩࣞࢼ࢖ࠖ࡞
࡝ࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕⾲⌧ࢆ୺࡞◊✲ᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚㸪࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜࠸࠺どⅬ࠿ࡽࡑࢀࡽࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕⾲⌧ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿㄽ⌮ⓗྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㆟ㄽࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ
㻌

ᮏⓎ⾲ࡢ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳཬࡧ◊✲ᑐ㇟
 %URZQ /HYLQVRQ㸦㸧ࡣࢹࣗࣝࢣ࣮࣒ࡢࠕ൤♩ࠖ࡜ࢦࣇ࣐ࣥࡢࠕࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࠖࡢᴫᛕࢆཷࡅ⥅ࡂ㸪࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࢆ☜❧ࡋࡓࠋᙼࡽ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࡲࡎே㛫࡟ࡣࠕࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ IDFH ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᇶᮏⓗ࡞ḧồࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪ලయⓗ࡟ࡣ㸪ே㛫ࡀ⮬ศࡢࡓࡵ࡟せồࡋࡓ࠸࡜㢪࠺බⓗ࡞⮬ᕫ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡛㸪⮬ࡽࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆጉࡆࡽࢀࡓࡃ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ḧồ ࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ ࡜㸪 ఱࡽ࠿ࡢⅬ࡛ ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ḧồ ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡣ㸪ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ⬣࠿ࡍྍ⬟ᛶࡢ
࠶ࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆࠕࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ౵ᐖ⾜Ⅽ㸦Face Threatening Acts [FTA]㸧ࠖ࡜࿧ࡧ㸪ࡇࡢ )7$ ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⿵ൾⓗ⾜Ⅽ㸪ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ㸪ࡇࡢᇶᮏⓗḧồ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ஧ࡘࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ⬣࠿ࡉ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟㓄៖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㸪ࠕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ┈ᒸ㸦㸧ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥࡀᇶᮏⓗ࡟ᐈほⓗ࡟ᢕᥱࡉࢀࡿ஦᯶ࢆ⾲ࡍせ⣲࡜⾲⌧⪅ࡢ୺ほⓗ࡞ุ᩿࣭⾲⌧ែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍせ⣲ࡢ஧኱せ⣲࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ぢ᪉࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡢ஧኱ᵓᡂせ⣲ࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀ
ࠕ࿨㢟ࠖ࡜ࠕࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࠖࢆ⛠ࡍࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡣࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡜࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡢ᥋Ⅼࢆ᥈ࡿ┠ⓗ࡛ࠊࠕ࢝ࣔࢩࣞࢼ࢖ࠖࠕࣚ࢘ࢲࠖࠕ㸦ࢩ㸧ࢯ࢘ࢲࠖࠕ࣑ࢱ࢖㸦ࡔ㸧ࠖ࡞࡝ุ᩿⣔ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕せ⣲ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿ
ࢫᶵ⬟ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓୖ࡛㸪ࡑࢀࡽࡢᑐேⓗᶵ⬟ࡶ࠶ࡾ࠺ࡿ࡜㆟ㄽࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ
ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡜࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡢ᥋Ⅼࢆ᥈ࡿㄽ⌮ⓗྍ⬟ᛶᮏⓎ⾲ࡣ୺࡟㸪ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡢᐃ⩏ࡸ㸪ุ᩿⣔ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕⾲⌧ࡢ≉ᚩཬࡧࡑࡢྲྀࡾᾘࡋྍ⬟ᛶ࡜࠸ࡗ
ࡓ୕ࡘࡢⅬ࠿ࡽࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡜࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡢ᥋Ⅼࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿㄽ⌮ⓗྍ⬟ᛶࢆ㆟ㄽࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋලయⓗ࡟࠸࠺࡜ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ձࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡜ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢᚰⓗែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍせ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ㸪ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕⾲⌧ࡣ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢ୺ほⓗ࡞⪃࠼ࡸุ᩿㸪ㄆ㆑ࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ㸪ヰࡋᡭ௨እࡢูࡢ␗࡞ࡗࡓㄆ㆑ࡸุ᩿㸪⪃࠼ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢࡶチࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛㸪࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ղุ᩿⣔ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡣ᩿ᐃࡋ࡞࠸ゝ࠸᪉࡛㸪ࡓࡔヰࡋᡭ⮬ศࡢ᥎㔞ࡸุ᩿㸪ㄆ㆑ࢆ⾲ࡋ㸪୙☜࠿࡛

−205−

モダリティとポライトネスとの接点を探って―その論理的可能性について―࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ゝ࠸᪉࡛ᙉࡃ୺ᙇ࣭᩿ᐃࡋ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛㸪࿴ࡽࡆࡿຠᯝࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋճ᩿ᐃࡋ࡞࠸࡛ゝ࠺㠀᩿ᐃ⾲⌧ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚࠾ࡅࡤ㸪᩿ᐃᙧ࡛ゝ࠺ࡼࡾᚋ࡛ゝࡗࡓෆᐜࢆྲྀࡾᾘࡋࡓࡾ㸪ゞṇࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶࡑࢀ࡯࡝ປຊࡀ࠿࠿ࡽࡎᐜ᫆࡟࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࠿ࡽࡳࢀࡤ㸪ุ᩿⣔ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࢆ౑࠺⾲⌧ࡣ᩿ゝࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᚋ࡛ྲྀࡾᾘࡏࡿࡢ࡛㸪࠶ࡿព࿡࡛ᰂ㌾ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿ఍ヰࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࢀࡶ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜㛵ࢃࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡼ࠺ࠋ
௨ୖ࠿ࡽࡳࢀࡤ㸪ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡜࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡢ᥋Ⅼࢆ᥈ࡿㄽ⌮ⓗྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ
⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ヰࡋᡭ࡜ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࠿ࡽࡢ⪃ᐹ ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ
 ᮏⓎ⾲࡛⪃ᐹࡋࡓ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆᏲࡿ౛ࡣ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿせồࡸຓゝ࡞࡝ࡢാࡁ࠿
ࡅࡢሙྜ࡜㸪࿨㢟ෆᐜࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸㸪௚ே࡟㛵ࢃࡽࡏࡓࡃ࡞࠸ሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦㸧࠙┦ᡭࡢ࢖ࣖ࣍ࣥࡢ㡢ࡀ኱ࡁ࠸࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸࡚㸪ᨵၿせồࢆ⾜࠺ࠚ  ࡈࡵࢇࠋྩࡢ࢖ࣖ࣍ࣥࡢ㡢㸪኱ࡁ࠸࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ    㸦ᒣᒸ࣭∾ཎ࣭ᑠ㔝 㸪S㸧㸦㸧࠙⬻⭘⒆ࡀᝏᛶ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡟㛵ࡍࡿ෌᳨ᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚Ⓨ⾲ࡍࡿ་ᖌࡢⓎヰࠚ ་ᖌ㸸ࠕṧᛕ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ᝏᛶ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛㸪㛫㐪࠸࡞ࡉࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࠋࠗ⤖፧ᘧࡢ๓᪥࡟࠘➨  ヰ 㸦㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ࡲࡎࠕ࢖ࣖ࣍ࣥࡢ㡢ࡀ኱ࡁࡍࡂࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ୙㐺ษ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚㸪࿘ࡾࡢே࡟㏞ᝨ࡟࡞ࡿࠖ
࡜࠸࠺ୡ⏺▱㆑࠿ࡽ㸪ࡑࡢ୙㐺ษࡉࢆㄆ㆑ࡉࡏࡿせồ࡜࢖ࣖ࣍ࣥࡢ㡢ࢆᑠࡉࡃࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸࡜࠸࠺ᨵၿ
せồ࡜࠸࠺஧✀㢮ࡢせồࡀ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ஧✀㢮ࡢせồࡢ࡝ࡕࡽࡶ┦ᡭࡢࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ
౵ᐖࡍࡿࣜࢫࢡࡀ኱ࡁ࠸ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠕ࢝ࣔࢩࣞࢼ࢖ࠖࢆࡘࡅ࡚࠸࠺ሙྜ㸪ࡑࢀࡣ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶ⚾ಶேࡢ୺ほⓗุ᩿࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ㸪࡯࠿ࡢே࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣᬑ㏻࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࡶඹᏑࡍࡿࡇ࡜
ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡛㸪┦ᡭࡢࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡀᏲࡽࢀࡿࠋ 㸦㸧ࡣ་ᖌࡀᝈ⪅࡟ᑐࡍࡿⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⑓Ẽࡢ᳨ᰝ⤖ᯝࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿࡢࡣ་ᖌࡢᑓ㛛㡿ᇦ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚㸪᳨ᰝࡢᶵᲔ࡟ၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸪࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ་ᖌࡢᑓ㛛▱㆑ࡀ㊊ࡾ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡉ࠼࡞ࡅࢀࡤ㸪ᬑ㏻᩿ᐃᙧ࡛ゝ࠸ษࡿࡢࡀ⮬↛࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ࠶࠼࡚㠀᩿ᐃᙧᘧࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀ
ࡣ㸪Ⓨヰෆᐜࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚࣐࢖ࢼࢫⓗ࡞ព࿡࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡢ࡛㸪᩿ᐃᙧࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠼ࡤ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸᝟ሗࢆࡑࡢࡲࡲఏ࠼ࡓࡢࡣ෭ῐ࡟⪺ࡇ࠼ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋᝈ⪅ࡢ❧ሙࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜㸪᳨ᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࡣ▱ࡾࡓࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢ㸪ࡸࡣࡾᝏᛶ࡛࡞࠸࡯࠺ࡀࡼ࠸㸪ࠕᝏᛶࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡢ
ࢆࡉࡅࡓ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ་ᖌࡀࡇࡇ࡛࠶ࡲࡾ┤᥋㛵ࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟࠸࠺ࠕࡲࡕࡀ࠸࡞ࡉࡑ࠺ࡔࠖࡶ
⪺ࡁᡭࡢࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘ㓄៖ࡋࡓ࡜ࡣゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ
 ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ
⪺ࡁᡭࡢ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ㓄៖ࡍࡿࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡜ࡋ࡚౑ࢃࢀࡿุ᩿ࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᣦ᦬ࡸᢈุࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࡸ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᮇᚅ࡟ᛂ࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡀ࠶
ࡿࠋ


−206−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

  㸦㸧ࡇࡇࡢィ⟬㸪㛫㐪ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛ࡍࡡࠋ  㸦㸧$㸸᫂᪥㸪୍⥴࡟⾜࠿࡞࠸㸽 %㸸ࡔࡵ࠿ࡶ㸭⾜ࡁࡓࡃ࡞࠸࠿ࡶࠋ  㸦㏆⸨࣭ጲ㔝 㸧
ᬑ㏻㸪┦ᡭࡢኻᩋࡸ㛫㐪࠸ࢆ┤᥋࡟ᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ┦ᡭࡢ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ౵ᐖ࡟࡞
ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋࡑࡢ౵ᐖࡢᗘྜ࠸ࢆ㍍ῶࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪  ࡛ࡣࠕࣚ࢘ࢲࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪┦ᡭࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿
࡟㛫㐪ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᩿ゝࡍࡿࡢࢆ㑊ࡅ㸪┦ᡭࡢ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡀᏲࡽࢀ㸪┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࡶ♧ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟㸪㸦㸧࡛ࡣ┦ᡭࡢㄏ࠸࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪ࠕࡔࡵࠖࠕ⾜ࡁࡓࡃ࡞࠸ࠖ࡞࡝┤᥋᩿ࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃ㸪ࠕ࢝ࣔࢩࣞࢼ࢖ࠖࢆ౑ࡗ࡚㸪୙☜ᐇ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ࿴ࡽࡆ࡚ࠖゝࡗ࡚㸪┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡋ㸪┦ᡭࡢ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡀᏲࡽࢀࡿࠋ
 ヰࡋᡭࡢࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ
ࡇࡢ⠇࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢࠕ㈐௵ࢆ࡜ࡾࡓࡃ࡞࠸ࠖࠕ῝ࡃ㛵ࢃࡾࡓࡃ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖
ࢫࢆᏲࡿࡢ࡟౑࠺ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕⾲⌧ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋⓎヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪᩿ᐃⓗ࡞ゝ᫂ࢆ⾜࠺᫬࡟Ⓨヰ⪅ࡢ㈐௵
ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋ࠶ࡿⓎヰࢆ᩿ᐃⓗ࡟ゝࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ሙྜ㸪ᬑ㏻㸪ࡲࡎ࡞ࡐࡑ࠺᩿ゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿࡜
࠸࠺ㄝ᫂㈐௵ࡀక࠺࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪ࡑࢀ࡜ྠ᫬࡟㸪᩿ᐃᙧࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚ゝ࠺ሙྜ㸪ᚋ࡛ྲྀࡾᾘࡋ࡟
ࡃࡃ࡞ࡿࡢ࡛㸪ࡶࡋࡑࡢゝ࠸ษࡗࡓෆᐜࡀ஦ᐇ࡜ࡋ࡚㛫㐪ࡗࡓ࡜ࡋࡓࡽ㸪ᚋ࡛ゞṇࡋࡓࡾ㸪ྲྀࡾᾘࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡢ࡟ヰࡋᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣ࠿࡞ࡾㄝ᫂ປຊࡀ࠿࠿ࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪ಙ㢗ᛶࢆኻࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࣜࢫࢡࡶ
㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚㸪Ⓨヰ⪅ࡢ㈐௵ࡸ⩏ົࡀቑ኱ࡋ㸪ࡑࡢࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡀᅽ㏕ࡉࢀࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚㸪㠀᩿ᐃⓗ⾲⌧ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚࠾ࡅࡤ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣ࡜ࡃ࡟㈐௵ࢆ࡜ࡽ࡞ࡃ࡚࠸࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆᏲࡿࡓࡵࡢ୍✀ࡢ㜵ᚚ⟇࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ
㸦㸧࠙┦ᡭࡢ㛫㐪࠸ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚ࠚ    D㸸ࡇࡇࡢィ⟬㸪㛫㐪ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࡼࠋ    E㸸ࡇࡇࡢィ⟬㸪㛫㐪ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀࡲࡏࢇࡼࠋ
 ヰࡋᡭࡢ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ
ᬑ㏻㸪┦ᡭ࡟౫㢗ࡋࡓࡾ㸪せồࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿ࡜ࡁ㸪┦ᡭࡢࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ౵ᐖ࡟࡞ࡗ
࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡢ࡛㸪┦ᡭࡀ༠ຊࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡸࡍࡃࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡶ㸪㸦㸧࡛ࡣࠕ࢝ࣔࠖࢆ౑ࡗ࡚⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉㸪ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ࡶ㸪┦ᡭࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶᢎㅙࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ㸪᫬࡟┦ᡭ࡟ᣄྰࡉࢀࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛㸪ヰࡋᡭഃ࠿ࡽぢࢀࡤ㸪ࡓ࡜࠼⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᣄྰࡉࢀࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ㸪ࠕ࢝ࣔࠖࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ヰࡋᡭ⮬ศࡢ࣓ࣥࢶ࡬ࡢ౵ᐖࣜࢫࢡࡶᑠࡉࡃ࡞ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡢⅬ࠿ࡽぢࢀࡤ㸪ࡑࢀࡶ஦๓ண㜵ࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡜ࡶゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ㸦㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕ⚾ࡣዲࡁ࠿ࡶࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚࠾࠸࡚㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㏉஦࡟ᛂࡌ࡚㸪ᑐ❧ࡀᅇ㑊ࡉࢀࡓࡾ㸪ඹឤᙧᡂࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࡾࡋ࡚㸪┦ᡭ࡟㐪࠺ពぢࡸ⪃࠼ࢆᣢࡘవᆅࢆṧࡍ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛㸪┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢㄆ㆑࡟࠾ࡅࡿᑐ❧ࡀ࠶ࡿព࿡࡛ᅇ㑊ࡉࢀࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡼ࠺ࠋ㸦㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ࠾࡞࠿ࡍ࠸ࡓ࠿ࡶࠖ࡜࠸࠺ $ ࡢⓎヰࡢ㏉஦࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ࠕࡌࡷ࠶㸪ఱ࠿㣗࡭࡟⾜ࡃ㸽ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ % ࡢⓎヰ࠿ࡽぢࢀࡤ㸪ඹឤᙧᡂࡀ࡛ࡁ࡚఍
ヰࡀࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡟࡛ࡁࡓ࡜࠸ࡗ࡚ࡼ࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡢⅬ࠿ࡽぢࢀࡤ㸪ࠕ࢝ࣔࠖࡢ౑⏝࡛㸪ᑐ❧ᅇ㑊ࡀ࡛ࡁ㸪ඹឤᙧᡂࡶࡋࡸࡍࡃ࡞ࡾ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡶヰࡋᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡶዲࡲࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡛㸪࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫୖࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡟ࡶ࡞ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ


−207−

モダリティとポライトネスとの接点を探って―その論理的可能性について―  㸦㸧ࢻ࢔㛤ࡅ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸࠿ࡶࠋ  㸦㸧࠙᪂Ⓨ኎ࡢࢣ࣮࢟ࢆ㣗࡭࡞ࡀࡽࠚ   $㸸ࡇࢀࡗ࡚⚾㸪ዲࡁ࠿ࡶࠋ  %㸸࠼㸽⚾ࡣ᎘࠸࠿ࡶࠋࡕࡻࡗ࡜⏑ࡍࡂ࡚ࠋ  㸦㸧$㸸࠾࡞࠿ࡍ࠸ࡓ࠿ࡶࠋ    %㸸ࡌࡷ࠶㸪ఱ࠿㣗࡭࡟⾜ࡃ㸽   㸦ᅜ⃝ 㸧 ࡲ࡜ࡵ
௨ୖ㸪⪺ࡁᡭཬࡧヰࡋᡭࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࠿ࡽุ᩿⣔ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫᶵ⬟ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠊุ᩿⣔ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫཬࡧヰࡋᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ㓄៖ࠖᶵ⬟ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ὀពࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ㓄៖ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣ᩿ᐃᅇ
㑊ࡋࡓࡾ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿせồᗘࢆᙅࡵࡓࡾࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸪ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿሙྜࡀከ࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋ
࡚㸪ヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ㓄៖ࠖ࡜ࡣ୺࡟㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀ㈐௵ࢆᅇ㑊ࡋࡓࡾ㸪఍ヰࡢḟࡢẁ㝵࡛ヰࡋᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡬ࡢ౵ᐖࣜࢫࢡࢆᢚไ࣭㍍ῶࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸪ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࢆࡘࡅ࡚ゝࡗ࡚࠾ࡃ࡜
࠸࠺ືⓗ࡞⪃࠼᪉࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢࡀ኱ࡁ࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ㓄៖ᶵ⬟ࠖ࡜ヰࡋᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ㜵ᚚᶵ⬟ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࠋࡑࢀࡀࡲࡉ࡟⁪ᾆ㸦㸧ࡀᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠕ㓄៖࡜⮬ᑛᚰࡣ⾲⿬୍యࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࡢ୍ࡘࡢᐇド࡜࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡼ࠺ࠋ
ࢢࣛ࢖ࢫࡢࠕ༠ㄪࡢཎ⌮ࠖ࠿ࡽࡢศᯒ
㠀᩿ᐃⓗ⾲⌧ࡣ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫୖ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㓄៖ࡣ♧ࡋࡓࡀ㸪ศᯒ࠿ࡽࡶศ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟㸪࿨㢟ෆᐜࡀヰࡋᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟㸪ࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ゝ࠸᪉ࢆពᅗⓗ࡟࡜ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪ࠕ㉁ࡢ᱁⋡ࠖ࡟㐪཯ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪ࢢࣛ࢖ࢫࡢࠕ༠ㄪࡢཎ⌮࡛ࠖ࠸࠺ࠕ㉁ࡢ᱁⋡ࠖ࡟ᚑ࠺ࡇ࡜࡜㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡟㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀྠ᫬࡟ᐇ⌧࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࡶศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
 ᮏⓎ⾲ࡣࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡜࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡢ᥋Ⅼࢆ᥈ࡿ┠ⓗ࡛㸪ࡑࡢㄽ⌮ⓗྍ⬟ᛶࢆ㆟ㄽࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࢆ⾜࠸㸪ุ᩿⣔ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕せ⣲ࢆ౑࠺㠀᩿ᐃⓗ⾲⌧࡟ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ㓄៖ᶵ⬟ࠖ࡜ヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ㜵ᚚᶵ⬟ࠖࢆ࡜ࡶ࡟᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡋ
࡚㸪ࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜࿨㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿุ᩿࣭ㄆ㆑ࢆ⾲ࡍࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕せ⣲ࡀᑐேⓗᶵ⬟ࡶᖏࡧ࡚ࡁࡓ࡜ࡶゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ຍ⸨㔜ᗈ.2004.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒㄒ⏝ㄽࡢࡋࡃࡳ࠘ᮾி:◊✲♫.
ᅧ⃝㔛⨾.2013.ࠕㄒ⏝ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽぢࡓㄆ㆑ࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ᙧᘧࠕ࢝ࣔࢩࣞࢼ࢖ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖࠗゝⴥ࡜ᩥ
໬࠘14,1-17 ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᅜ㝿ゝㄒᩥ໬◊✲⛉᪥ᮏゝㄒᩥ໬ᑓᨷ.
㯤㕫ᾰ.2003.ࠕ㠀᩿ᐃⓗ⾲⌧ࠕࡑ࠺ࡔࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࠖࠗྎ⅂᪥ᮏㄒᩥᏥሗ࠘➨ 34 ྕ,253-278,ྎ⅂᪥ᮏㄒᩥᏥ᭳.
㏆⸨Ᏻ᭶Ꮚ࣭ጲ㔝కᏊ.2012.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲࡢㄽⅬ 43—ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡽࡋࡉࠖࡢࢼࢰࡀịゎࡍࡿ—࠘ᮾி:◊✲♫.
⁪ᾆ┿ே.2011.ࠕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘30(14),115-122, ᫂἞᭩㝔 .
ோ⏣⩏㞝.1991.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡜ே⛠࠘ᮾி:ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ
┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ.1991.ࠗࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡢᩥἲ࠘ᮾி:ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ.2007.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕᥈✲࠘ᮾி:ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.

−208−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

Brown, P. & S. C. Levinson.1987.Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.㸦⏣୰඾Ꮚ ┘ヂ㸪ᩧ⸨᪩ᬛᏊ࣭ὠ␃ᓮẎ࣭㭯⏣ᗤᏊ࣭᪥㔝ኖ᠇࣭ᒣୗ᪩௦Ꮚ ヂ.2011.࣏ࠗࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ—ゝㄒ౑⏝࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࠶ࡿᬑ㐢⌧㇟࠘◊✲♫.㸧
Goffman, Erving.1967.Interaction ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
㸦ࢦࢵࣇ࣐࣭ࣥ࢔࣮ࣦ࢖ࣥࢢ ⴭ ὸ㔝ᩄኵ ヂ.2012.ࠗ൤♩࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽʊᑐ㠃⾜ືࡢ♫఍Ꮫ࠘<᪂ヂ∧>㸦ྀ᭩࣭࢘ࢽ࣋ࣝࢩࢱࢫ 198㸧ἲᨻ኱Ꮫฟ∧ᒁ.㸧

−209−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

᪂⪺ぢฟࡋࡢ᪥୰ᑐ↷◊✲ʊぢฟࡋࡢᵓᡂ࡜┬␎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚༢ Ⱅ࡚࠸
஑ᕞ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔tan624715@gmail.com

㸺 Abstract㸼
This paper is a comparative study of the composition and abbreviation of headlines inJapanese and Chinese newspaper editorials. I classified the headlines into two broad
categories: “Full sentence” and “Incomplete sentence.” I then analyzed the composition ofeach subdivision. The results show that for both Japanese and Chinese editorials, full sentence
headlines account for more than half of the total number. As for the incomplete sentences,some Japanese headlines omit the predicate and finish with a particle or a noun. On the other
hand, Chinese newspaper headlines tend to omit function words, such as "particles,
prepositions, and conjunctions".
࠙ ࢟ ࣮ ࣡ ࣮ ࢻ ࠚ㸸 ᪂ ⪺ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ࠊ ᵓ ᡂ ࠊ ┬ ␎ ࠊ ♫ ㄝ ࠊ ᪥ ୰ ᑐ ↷1. ࡣ ࡌ ࡵ ࡟ᮏ✏ࡣ᪥୰ᑐ↷◊✲ࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࠊ᪂⪺♫ㄝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿぢฟࡋࡢᵓᡂ࡜┬␎ࢆ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศ
ᯒࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪂⪺ࡢぢฟࡋࡣࠕグ஦ࡢ᭱ࡶⓗ☜࡛⡆₩࡞せ⣙࡛ࠊㄞ⪅࡟ᮏᩥࢆ⌮ゎ ࡋ ࡚ ࡶ ࡽ ࠺ ࠕ 㘽 ࠖ ࡜ ࡞ ࡿ ࡭ ࡁ ࡶ ࡢ ࠖ㸦 㤿 ሙ ࣭ ᳜ ᮲ 1988:70㸧 ࡛ ࠶ ࡾ ࠊࠕ ᝟ ሗ ఏ 㐩 ᛶ ࡜ ⤒῭ ᛶ ࠖ ࡜ ࠸ ࠺ 2 ࡘ ࡢ ≉ ᚩ ࡀ ࠶ ࡿ ࠖ (Soler2007)ࠋ ࡘ ࡲ ࡾ ᪂ ⪺ ࡢ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ࡣ ࠊ ㄞ ⪅ ࢆ ᮏ ᩥ ࡬ ᘬࡁࡘࡅࠊㄞࡳ㐍ࡵࡸࡍࡃࡍࡿᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋࡲࡓ᪂⪺⣬㠃ࡢไ㝈ࡢࡓࡵࠊぢฟࡋࡣ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅ▷ࡃࠊ⡆₩࡞⾲⌧࡟せ⣙ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ࡉࢀ࡚
࠸ࡿࡀࠊゝㄒ♫఍࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ぢฟࡋࡢ⾲⌧ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉࡟㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀண᝿ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ
࡛ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜୰ᅜㄒࡢ᪂⪺ぢฟࡋࡢᵓᡂ࡜┬␎࡟╔┠ࡋࠊࡑࡢ┦㐪ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟
ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ඛ ⾜ ◊ ✲ ཬ ࡧ ᮏ ◊ ✲ ࡢ ❧ ሙࡇࢀࡲ࡛᪥ᮏㄒࡢ᪂⪺ぢฟࡋ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡣࠊ୺࡟࣓ࢹ࢕࢔◊✲ࡸᩥ❶ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽᩘ ከ ࡃ ࡞ ࡉ ࢀ ࡚ ࡁ ࡓ ࠋ ࣓ ࢹ ࢕ ࢔ ◊ ✲ ࡢ ほ Ⅼ ࠿ ࡽ ࡣ ࠊ ᑠ ᯘ ௚ (2003)ࠊ ᮌ ᮧ ௚ (2005)ࠊ ᮌ ᮧ(2006)࡞ ࡝ ࡀ ᣲ ࡆ ࡽ ࢀ ࡿ ࠋᩥ ❶ ㄽ ࡢ ほ Ⅼ ࠿ ࡽ ࡢ ◊ ✲ ࡣ ࠊ᪥ ẚ 㔝 (1992)ࠊᐑ ᓮ (1998)ࠊỈ ෆ(2002)࡞ ࡝ ࡀ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋࡉ ࡽ ࡟ ᩥ ἲ ㄽ࣭᝟ ሗ ᅽ ⦰ ࡢ ほ Ⅼ ࠿ ࡽ ᳃ ᒣ (2009)ࠊ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ᩍ ⫱ ࡢ ❧ ሙ ࠿ࡽ Ỉ ෆ (2000)ࠊ 㔝 ཱྀ (2002)࡞ ࡝ ࠊ ࡲ ࡓ ᪂ ⪺ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ࡜ ᩥ ❶ ᵓ 㐀 ࡜ ࡢ 㛵 㐃 ᛶ ࢆ ⪃ ᐹ ࡋ ࡓ す ཎ(1997)ࠊ ᚋ ⸨ (1998)ࠊ ᮤ (2008)࡞ ࡝ ࡀ ぢ ࡽ ࢀ ࡿ ࠋ ࡇ ࡢ ࠺ ࡕ ࠊ 㔝 ཱྀ (2002)ࡣ ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ࡢ ぢ ฟ ࡋ

1
−211−

新聞見出しの日中対照研究―見出しの構成と省略についてࡢ≉ᚩࡣࠊྡモṆࡵࠊຓモṆࡵ࡟ࡼࡿ㏙㒊┬␎ࡢከࡉ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ぢฟࡋࡢ┬␎᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊձ⾲⌧ࡢᕤኵ࡟ࡼࡿ┬␎㸦ຓモࡢ┬␎ࠊྡモṆࡵࠊຓモṆࡵࠊ␎ㄒ࣭␎⛠ 㸧࡜ ࠊղ グ ྕ ࡟ ࡼ ࡿ ┬ ␎ ࢆ ᣦ ᦬ ࡋ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠋ୍ ᪉ ࠊ୰ ᅜ ㄒ ࡢ ᪂ ⪺ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ࡟ 㛵 ࡍ ࡿ ◊ ✲ ࡣ ࠊ
ᑺ (2001)ࠊ㒌 (2007)ࠊ㡑 (2014)࡞ ࡝ ࡀ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ୺ ࡟ ゝ ⴥ ࠊᩥ ἲ ࡜ ࣞ ࢺ ࣜ ࢵ ࢡ ⏝ ἲ ࠿ ࡽ ࡢ ◊ ✲ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜୰ᅜㄒࡢ᪂⪺ぢฟࡋ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᑐ↷◊✲ࡣ⟶ぢࡢ㝈ࡾṤ࡝⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ᪂⪺グ஦ࡢ✀㢮ࢆ༊ูࡏࡎ࡟ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓඛ⾜◊✲ࡀከ࠸ࠋࡑ
ࡇ࡛ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ♫ㄝࢆศᯒࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟㝈ᐃࡋࠊ᪥୰୧ゝㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪂⪺ぢฟࡋࡢᵓᡂ࡜┬␎ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ
3. ࢹ ࣮ ࢱ ࡜ ศ ᯒ ᡭ ἲᮏ ✏ ࡛ ศ ᯒ ࡍ ࡿ ࡢ ࡣ ࠊ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ࡢࠗ ᮅ ᪥ ᪂ ⪺ ࠘ࠗㄞ኎᪂⪺࠘ࠗ す ᪥ ᮏ ᪂ ⪺ ࠘࡜ ୰ ᅜ ㄒ ࡢࠗ ග᫂ ᪥ ሗ ࠘ࠗ ᪂ ி ሗ ࠘ࠗ ༡ ᪉ 㒔 ᕷ ሗ ࠘ ࡢ ♫ ㄝ ࡢ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ♫ ㄝ ࡣ 1 ᪥ ࡟ 2 ⠍ ࠊ ୰ᅜ ㄒ ♫ ㄝ ࡣ 1 ᪥ 1 ⠍ ࡢ ሙ ྜ ࡀ ከ ࠸ ࡓ ࡵ ࠊ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ࡢ ࢹ ࣮ ࢱ ࢆ 2015.4.1-4.30 ࡢ 1 ࢣ ᭶ ࠊ୰ ᅜㄒ ࡢ ࢹ ࣮ ࢱ ࢆ 2015.4.1-5.31 ࡢ 2 ࢣ ᭶ ࡜ ࡋ ࡓ ࠋศ ᯒ ᡭ ἲ ࡜ ࡋ ࡚ ࠊ᪂ ⪺ ࡢ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ࢆ ኱ ࡁ ࡃࠕ ᏶඲ ᩥ ࠖ ࡜ ࠕ ୙ ᏶ ඲ ᩥ ࠖ ࡟ ኱ ู ࡋ 㸦 す ཎ 1997ࠊ ᚋ ⸨ 1998ࠊ 㔝 ཱྀ 2002ࠊ ᮤ 2008 ࢆ ཧ ↷ 㸧ࠊࡑࡢ๭ྜࢆㄪᰝࡋࠊ୙᏶඲ᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡝ࡇࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆศᯒࡋࡓࠋ
4. ศ ᯒ ⤖ ᯝ ࡜ ᩥ ౛ศᯒ⤖ᯝࡣ௨ୗࡢ⾲࡟♧ࡍ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪥୰ࡢ᪂⪺♫ㄝࡢぢฟࡋࡣࠊ࡜ࡶ࡟ 6 ๭࠿ࡽ
8 ๭ࡲ࡛⛬ᗘࡢ᏶඲ᩥ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
᪥୰ࡢ᪂⪺♫ㄝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ᏶඲ᩥࠖࡢ๭ྜ

᪥ᮏㄒ

୰ᅜㄒ

᏶඲ᩥ%

୙᏶඲ᩥ%

ᮅ᪥᪂⪺

62.1

37.9

ㄞ኎᪂⪺

80.7

19.3

す᪥ᮏ᪂⪺

62.8

37.2

ග᫂᪥ሗ

73.7

26.3

᪂ிሗ

80.3

19.7

༡᪉㒔ᕷሗ

78.9

21.1

4.1 ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ࡢ ♫ ㄝ ࡢ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ౛(1)ᨻ ᗓ ࡜ Ἀ ⦖  ᤞ ࡚ ▼ ࡟ ࡋ ࡚ ࡣ ࡞ ࡽ ࡠ 㸦 ᮅ ᪥ 2015/4/1-1 [1] 㸧(2)ᅜ ᪝ ᅜ ḷ  ኱ Ꮫ ࡬ ࡢ ୙ ᙜ ࡞ ௓ ධ ࡔ 㸦 ᮅ ᪥ 2015/4/11-1㸧
(3)ᬮ ໬ ᑐ ⟇  ᆅ ⌫ ┈ ࡟ ⫼ ࢆ ྥ ࡅ ࡿ ࡞ 㸦 ᮅ ᪥ 2015/4/12-1㸧

(4)ᆅ ᪉ ๰ ⏕ ஺ ௜ 㔠  ᣢ ⥆ ⓗ ࡞ ά ᛶ ໬ ࢆ ┠ ᣦ ࡋ ࡓ ࠸ 㸦 ㄞ ኎ 2015/4/5-2㸧
(5)␗ ḟ ඖ ⦆ ࿴ 2 ᖺ  ࠸ ࡘ ࡲ ࡛ ⥆ ࡅ ࢀ ࡤ ࠸ ࠸ ࠿ 㸦 す ᪥ ᮏ 2015/4/7㸧
(1)~(5)ࡣ ᏶ ඲ ᩥ ࡢ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ౛ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ 㝞 ㏙ ࠊ ࿨ ௧ ࠊ ␲ ၥ ࡞ ࡝ ࡢ ⤊ Ṇ ᙧ ࡀ ౑ ࢃ ࢀ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠋ

−212−
2

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号(6)ཎ ⇿ ࢻ ࣮ ࣒  100 ᖺ ࡟ ⪃ ࠼ ࡿ ᙺ ๭ 㸦 ᮅ ᪥ 2015/4/5-2㸧
(7)⡿ ࢟ ࣗ ࣮ ࣂ ఍ ㄯ  ┦ 㐪 Ⅼ ࢆ ᢪ ࠼ ࡓ ୧ 㤳 ⬻ ࡢ ᥱ ᡭ (ㄞ ኎ 2015/04/14-1)(8)㟁 ຊ ᗈ ᇦ ᶵ 㛵  ⮬ ⏤ ໬ ಁ ࡍ ᙺ ๭ ࢆ (ᮅ ᪥ 2015/04/02-2)(9)௓ ㆤ ಖ 㝤 ᩱ  ண 㜵 ⟇ ᙉ ໬ ࡋ ㈇ ᢸ ㍍ ῶ ࢆ 㸦 す ᪥ ᮏ 2015/4/19㸧
(10)་ ⒪ ஦ ᨾ ㄪ ᰝ  ᩍ カ ࢆ ⌧ ሙ ࡛ ⏕ ࠿ ࡏ ࡿ ไ ᗘ ࡟ 㸦 ㄞ ኎ 2015/4/13-1㸧
(11)ࣂ ࢫ ࢣ ⤫ ྜ  ฟ ┤ ࡋ ࢆ ࢳ ࣕ ࣥ ࢫ ࡟ (ᮅ ᪥ 2015/04/17-1)(6)~(11)ࡣ ୙ ᏶ ඲ ᩥ ࡢ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ౛ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ ୙ ᏶ ඲ ᩥ ࡢ ࠺ ࡕ ࠊ (6)(7)ࡢ ࡼ ࠺ ࡞ ࠕ ྡ モ Ṇ ࡵ ࠖࠊ
(8)(9)ࡢ ࡼ ࠺ ࡞ࠕ ຓ モ ࣤ Ṇ ࡵ ࠖࡸ (9)(10)ࡢ ࡼ ࠺ ࡞ࠕ ຓ モ ஧ Ṇ ࡵ ࠖ࡟ ࡼ ࡿ ┬ ␎ ࡀ ከ ࡃ ぢ ࡽ ࢀࡓ ࠋࠕ ࣤ Ṇ ࡵ ࠖࠕ ஧ Ṇ ࡵ ࠖ ࡟ ࡘ ࠸ ࡚ ࡣ ࠊ ່ ㄏ ࣭ ッ ࠼ ࠕ 㹼 ࡼ ࠺ ࠖࠊ せ ᮃ ࠕ 㹼 ࡚ ࡯ ࡋ ࠸ ࠖࠊ ᕼ ᮃࠕ 㹼 ࡓ ࠸ ࠖࠊᙜ ↛࣭㐺 ᙜࠕ 㹼 ࡭ ࡁ ࡔ ࠖ࡞ ࡝ ࡢ ௜ ࠸ ࡓ ᙧ ࡀ ┬ ࠿ ࢀ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࡜ ⪃ ࠼ ࡽ ࢀ ࡼ ࠺ ࠋㄽቭ ࡸ ♫ ㄝ ࡢ ḍ ࡢ ⾲ 㢟 ࡟ ከ ࠸ 㸦 㔝 ཱྀ 2002:102㸧ࠋ
4.2 ୰ ᅜ ㄒ ࡢ ♫ ㄝ ࡢ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ౛(12)Ā ⭏ ⍫ ᯩ ᔿ 㔯 㢢 ॆ ā 享 Ӫ Ӫ ৲ о 㸦 ග ᫂ ᪥ ሗ 2015/4/1㸧
(12)’ࠕ ⏕ ά ᪉ ᘧ ࡢ ⥳ ໬ ࠖ ࡣ ඲ ဨ ࡀ ཧ ຍ ࡋ ࡞ ࡅ ࢀ ࡤ ࡞ ࡽ ࡞ ࠸ 㸦 ᣋ ヂ [2] 㸧(13)‫ ࣑ ޜ‬ઈ ᴹ ⿫ 㙼 ˈ ն ⋑ ᴹ ⿫ 㙼 ▞ 㸦 ༡ ᪉ 㒔 ᕷ ሗ 2015/4/12㸧
(13)’බ ົ ဨ ࡢ ㏥ ⫋ ࡣ ࠶ ࡿ ࡀ ࠊ ㏥ ⫋ ࡢ ࣛ ࢵ ࢩ ࣗ ࡣ ࡞ ࠸(14)䘋 Ӝ བྷ 䍗 䖖 䘉 њ Ā 䵮 ࠦ ā 䈕 ⋫ ⋫ Ҷ (᪂ ி ሗ 2015/04/02)(14)’໭ ி ⾜ ࡁ ࡢ ኱ ᆺ ࢺ ࣛ ࢵ ࢡ ࡜ ࠸ ࠺ ࠕ ࢫ ࣔ ࢵ ࢢ ≢ ே ࠖ ࢆ ㏥ ἞ ࡏ ࡼ(15)ࠪ 』 䖖 ᐲ ൪ ॆ ᭩ 䶙 ᴹ Ӱ Ѹ 䳮 Ⲵ (᪂ ி ሗ 2015/05/14)(15)’ࢱ ࢡ ࢩ ࣮ ࡢ ᕷ ሙ ໬ ࡢ ᨵ 㠉 ࡟ ఱ ࠿ ᅔ 㞴 ࠿(16)↻ ⯮ Ӫ к བྷ ᆖ н ‫ ݹ‬㾱 ⹤ 䲔 㘳 䈅 䳌 ⺽ 㸦 ᪂ ி ሗ 2015/5/16㸧(16)’㌟ య 㞀 ☀ ⪅ ࡀ ኱ Ꮫ ࡟ ㏻ ࠼ ࡿ ࡓ ࡵ ࡟ ࠊ ࢸ ࢫ ࢺ ࡢ 㞀 ᐖ ࢆ ᡴ ◚ ࡍ ࡿ ࡔ ࡅ ࡛ ࡣ ࡞ ࠸(12)~(16)ࡣ ᏶ ඲ ᩥ ࡢ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ౛ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ᏶ ඲ ᩥ ࡢ ≉ ᚩ ࡜ ࡋ ࡚ ࠊࠕ ୺ ㏙ ᩥ [3] ࠖࡀ ከ ࠸ ࡇ ࡜ ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠕ୺㏙ᩥࠖࡣ஦ᐇࡸពぢࢆ᭱ࡶ⾲⌧࣭ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸
࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(17)˄ Ӿ ˅ ᖻ ᐸ ѝ 䘹 ԫ ⌅ ᇈ Ự ሏ ᇈ ᱟ ਨ ⌅ ᭩ 䶙 Ⲵ 䟽 㾱 䙄 ᖴ 㸦 ග ᫂ ᪥ ሗ 2015/4/7㸧
(17)’ᘚ ㆤ ኈ ࡢ ୰ 㸦 ࠿ ࡽ 㸧 ྖ ἲ ᐁ ࡸ ᳨ ᐹ ᐁ ࢆ 㑅 ᢤ ࡋ ௵ ⏝ ࡍ ࡿ ࡢ ࡣ ྖ ἲ ᨵ 㠉 ࡢ 㔜 せ ࡞ 㐨 ࡔ(18)Ā н ਸ ⨶ վ ԧ ā ᱟ ᯵ ⑨ ъ ҡ 䊑 ˄ Ⲵ ˅ ṩ Ⓚ 㸦 ᪂ ி ሗ 2015/5/16㸧(18)’ࠕ ୙ ྜ ⌮ ࡞ ప ᱁ ࠖ ࡣ ほ ග ᴗ ࢆ ΰ ஘ ࡉ ࡏ ࡿ ᰿ ※ ࡔ(19)ӂ 㚄 㖁 ‫ ޜ‬ਨ ˈ˄ ྲ ᷌ ˅ ⋑ ᴹ ᮠ ᦞ ᆹ ‫ ޘ‬䈸 օ ୶ ъ ⁑ ᔿ ˛ (༡ 㒔 ሗ 2015/05/29)(19)’࢖ ࣥ ࢱ ࣮ ࢿ ࢵ ࢺ ௻ ᴗ ࡣ ࠊ㸦 ࡶ ࡋ 㸧 ࢹ ࣮ ࢱ ࡢ ࢭ ࢟ ࣗ ࣜ ࢸ ࢕ ࡀ ࡞ ࡃ ࡋ ࡚ ၟ ᴗ ࣔ ࢹ ࣝ ࡜ ゝ࠼ࡿ࠿㸽(17)~(19)ࡣ ୙ ᏶ ඲ ᩥ ࡢ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ౛ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ୙ ᏶ ඲ ᩥ ࡢ ࠺ ࡕ ࠊ(17)ࡢ ࡼ ࠺ ࡞ࠕ ๓ ⨨ モ ࠖࠊ(18)ࡢ ࡼ ࠺ ࡞ ࠕ ຓ モ ࠖ ࡸ (19)ࡢ ࡼ ࠺ ࡞ ࠕ ᥋ ⥆ モ ࠖ ࡢ ┬ ␎ ࡀ ぢ ࡽ ࢀ ࡓ ࠋ ୰ ᅜ ㄒ ࡛ ࡣ ࡇ ࡢ ࡼ ࠺ ࡞ࠕ ຓ モ ࠖࠕ ๓ ⨨ モ ࠖ࡜ࠕ ᥋ ⥆ モ ࠖ࡞ ࡝ ࡢࠕ ⹫ モ ࠖ(function words)ࡀ ┬ ␎ ࡉ ࢀ ࡚ ࡶ ࠊព ࿡ ࡢ

3
−213−

新聞見出しの日中対照研究―見出しの構成と省略について⌮ゎ࡟ᙳ㡪ࡀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊぢฟࡋࡢ୰࡛┬␎⌧㇟ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
5. ࡲ ࡜ ࡵ ࡜ ௒ ᚋ ࡢ ㄢ 㢟᪥ᮏㄒ࡜୰ᅜㄒࡢ᪂⪺♫ㄝࡢぢฟࡋࡣࠊ࡜ࡶ࡟ 6 ๭࠿ࡽ 8 ๭ࡲ࡛⛬ᗘࡢ᏶඲ᩥ࡛࠶ࡗ
ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ୙᏶඲ᩥ࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢሙྜࠊྡモṆࡵࡸຓモṆࡵ࡟ࡼࡿ㏙ㄒࡢ┬␎ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓ ࡢ ࡟ ᑐ ࡋ ࡚ ࠊ୰ ᅜ ㄒ ࡛ ࡣࠕ ຓ モ ࠖࠕ ๓ ⨨ モ ࠖ࡜ࠕ ᥋ ⥆ モ ࠖ࡞ ࡝ ࡢࠕ ⹫ モ ࠖ(function words)ࡢ┬␎ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋྠࡌ᪂⪺࡜࠸࠺ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊゝㄒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ぢฟࡋࡢᩥἲⓗ࣭ಟ㎡ⓗ࡞≉ᚩࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࢀࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆヨࡳࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ௒ᚋ
ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆቑࡸࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟᳨ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓぢฟࡋࡢࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ࡜ᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ
⪃ᐹࡍࡿணᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋὀ[1]

ᮅ ᪥ 2015/4/1-1㸸ࠗ ᮅ ᪥ ᪂ ⪺ ࠘ ࡢ 2015 ᖺ 4 ᭶ 1 ᪥ ࡢ ୍ ࡘ ┠ ࡢ ♫ ㄝ ࢆ ᣦ ࡍ ࠋ[2]ᮏ ✏ ࡢ ୰ ᅜ ㄒ ࡢ ♫ ㄝ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ࡢ ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ヂ ࡣ ඲ ࡚ ᣋ ヂ ࡟ ࡞ ࡿ ࠋ⩻ ヂ ࡍ ࡿ 㝿 ࠊ࡛ ࡁ ࡿ ࡔ ࡅ ┤[3]

୺ ㏙ ᩥ ࡜ ࡣ ࠊ୺ ㏙ ㏙ ㄒ ᩥ ࡛ ࠊ୍ ࡘ ࡢ ᩥ㸦 ୺ ㄒ 㸩 ㏙ ㄒ 㸻 ୺ ㏙ 㸧ࡀ ୺ ㄒ ࡢ ᚋ ࢁ ࡟ ⨨ ࠿ ࢀ ࡚ヂࢆ௜ࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᚰࡀࡅࡓࠋ
㏙ㄒ࡜࡞ࡿᩥࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㸦୍㒊㸧ᮤ ㈆ ᪴ . 2008ࠗ 㡑 ᪥ ᪂ ⪺ ♫ ㄝ ࡟ ࠾ ࡅ ࡿ ࠕ ୺ ᙇ ࡢ ࢫ ࢺ ࣛ ࢸ ࢪ ࣮ ࠖ ࡢ ᑐ ↷ ◊ ✲ ࠘ ࡦ ࡘ ࡌ ᭩ ᡣᚋ ⸨ ฼ ᯞ . 1998ࠕ ㄽ ㄝ ᩥ ࡢ ᩥ ❶ ᵓ 㐀 ࡜ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ࡢ ཯ ᚟ ࠖࠗ ᪥ ᮏ ዪ Ꮚ ኱ Ꮫ ኱ Ꮫ 㝔 ᩥ Ꮫ ◊ ✲ ⛉ ⣖せ ࠘ 5. pp.37-48.
す ཎ 㕥 Ꮚ . 1997ࠕ ᪥ ⱥ ㄒ ᪂ ⪺ ♫ ㄝ ࡟ ࠾ ࡅ ࡿ ㄯ ヰ ᵓ 㐀 ࠖ⦅ 㞟 ጤ ဨ ఍ ⦅ࠗ ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ᩍ ⫱ ㄽ ᩥ 㞟 ʊᑠ ฟ モ Ꮚ ඛ ⏕ ㏥ ⫋ グ ᛕ ʊ࠘ ซ ே ♫ pp.537-548.
㔝 ཱྀ ᓫ Ꮚ . 2002. ࠕ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ࡢ ᩥ ἲ ʊ ゎ ㄞ ࡬ ࡢ ᡭ ᘬ ࡁ ࡜ ㅖ ၥ 㢟 ࠖࠗ ㅮ ᗙ ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ᩍ ⫱ ࠘ 38.
pp.94-124.
㤿 ሙ ༤ ἞ ࣭ ᳜ ᮲ ๎ ኵ . 1988ࠗ ࣐ ࢫ ࢥ ࣑ ᩥ ❶ స ἲ ࠘ ๰ ඖ ♫᪥ ẚ 㔝 ⱱ ኵ . 1992ࠕ ᪂ ⪺ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ࡢ ᩥ ❶ ࠖࠗ ឡ ▱ ዪ Ꮚ ▷ ᮇ ኱ Ꮫ ◊ ✲ ⣖ せ㸦 ே ᩥ ⦅ 㸧࠘25. pp.31-38.
Ỉ ෆ ⣧ Ύ . 2000ࠕ ᪂ ⪺ ࡢ ࠕ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ࠖ ࡟ ࡼ ࡿ ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ᩍ ⫱ ࠖࠗ ᮾ ࢔ ࢪ ࢔ ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ᩍ ⫱ ࣭ ᪥ ᮏ ᩥ ໬◊ ✲ ࠘ 2. pp.393-399.
ᐑ ᓮ ᙲ ⏨ . 1998ࠕ ᪥ ห ሗ 㐨 ㄅ ࡜ 㐌 ห ሗ 㐨 ㄅ ࡟ ࠾ ࡅ ࡿ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ࡢ ᵓ 㐀 ࡞ ࡽ ࡧ ࡟ ࡑ ࡢ ᫂ ☜ ࡉ ࡜⡆ ₩ ࡉ ࠖࠗ ୕ 㔜 ኱ Ꮫ ᩍ ⫱ Ꮫ 㒊 ◊ ✲ ⣖ せ ࠘ 49. pp.121-135.
᳃ ᒣ ༟ 㑻 . 2009ࠕ ᪂ ⪺ ぢ ฟ ࡋ ࡢ ᩥ ἲ ࣭ ᗎ ㄽ ࠖࠗ ᪥ ୰ ゝ ㄒ ◊ ✲ ࡜ ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ᩍ ⫱ ࠘ 2. pp.13-20.
ቩ ц 䎵 . 2001 ǉ ḷ 仈 䈝 ⌅ Ǌ ୶ ࣑ ঠ Җ 侶䜝 ⚯ . 2007 ǉ 䇪 ᯠ 䰫 ḷ 仈 ѝ Ⲵ 䈝 ⌅ ⴱ ⮕ Ǌ ⒈ ▝ བྷ ᆖ ⺅ ༛ 䇪 ᮷
丙 Җ ᓊ . 2014 ǉ ᯠ 䰫 ḷ 仈 䈝 䀰 ⹄ ウ Ǌ ⸕ 䇶 ӗ ᵳ ࠪ ⡸ ⽮
Soler, Viviana 2007 “Writing titles in science: An exploratory study” English for SpecificPurposes, 26(I), pp.90-102.

4
−214−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ྜពᙧᡂᆺㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୰ᅜㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢពぢ஺᥮ࡢ≉ᚩ̿̿ぶࡋ࠸཭ே㛫ࡢ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᇶ࡟ࡋ࡚̿̿                     ㉿ᮾ⋹                         㔠ἑ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔 㸺Abstract㸼
This research investigates if there are any language patterns that close Chinese friends use when looking
to form an agreement with each other and how those patterns, if any, are employed. The results indicate that
there are three broad conversation steps (confirmation of topic, opinion exchange and consensus) thatspeakers use in coming to an agreement. Furthermore, someone taking on the role of topic management
and/or striving to reach a consensus between disagreeing parties can also affect if a mutual agreement canbe reached. In addition, two opinion exchange patterns were identified.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸ྜពᙧᡂࠊ఍ヰࠊᒎ㛤ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࠊ୰ᅜㄒࠊᙺ๭ศᢸ
㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᚑ᮶ࡢྜពᙧᡂᆺㄯヰ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡣ୰ᅜㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢⓎヰ≉ᚩ ౛࠼ࡤࠊ๭ࡾ㎸ࡳⓎヰࠊពぢ୰ᚰⓎヰ ࡟↔Ⅼࡀᙜ࡚ࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ>㈩  㸹ᙇ  ࡞࡝@ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊྜពᙧᡂ࡟⮳ࡿࡲ࡛ࠊ఍ヰࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᒎ㛤ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ྠኈࡣ௚⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ാࡁ࠿ࡅ
࡟ࡼࡾྜពᙧᡂࢆ┠ᣦࡍࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡢవᆅࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ㝞  ࡣࠊྜព࡟⮳ࡿࡲ࡛ࡢ఍ヰࡢὶࢀ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊᵝࠎ࡞ᥦ᱌ࡢ୰࡟ఱᅇࡶ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡓᥦ᱌ࡀㄝᚓᡭẁ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ྜព࡟⮳ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢྜពᙧᡂࡢ㐣⛬࡛ࠕㄝᚓࠖ௨እ࡟ࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ྠኈࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆ༑ศ࡟ศᯒࡋ
࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
ྜពᙧᡂ࡟⮳ࡿ࡟ࡣࠊಶࠎࡢཧຍ⪅ࡀពぢࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ⧳ࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࠋཧຍ⪅ࡢㄡ࠿ࡀ㆟ㄽࢆᩚ⌮ࡋࠊಁࡋࠊࡲ࡜ࡵࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡔ
ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊࡑࡢ㐣⛬ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚௨ୗࡢ㸰Ⅼࢆタᐃࡍࡿࠋ㸧୰ᅜㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㛫ࡢྜពᙧᡂᆺウㄽ࡟
඾ᆺⓗ࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿᒎ㛤ᆺ ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ㸧㆟ㄽࢆ᪉ྥ௜ࡅࡋࠊ཰᮰࡟ྥ࠿ࢃࡏࡿ
㝿࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ≉ᚩⓗ࡞ാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
㸰㸬◊✲᪉ἲ ྜព࡟㐩ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ఍ヰ࡛ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊྜព
ᙧᡂࡢ఍ヰࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ཰㞟ࡋࡓࠋㄪᰝࡣ୰ᅜᮾ໭ᖌ⠊኱Ꮫࡢぶࡋࡃྠᖺ㓄ྠᛶྠኈࢆ  ྡ  ⤌࡜ࡋࠊィ  ⤌>㝔⏕  ⤌ 㸫 ṓ ࠊᏛ㒊⏕  ⤌ 㸫 ṓ @ࠊ ྡ࡟ఱ࠿ࢆỴࡵࡿウㄽ఍ヰࢆ⾜࡞ࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࠊࡑࢀࢆ㘓㡢ࡋࠊᩥᏐ໬ࡋࡓࠋ⿕㦂⪅࡟ぶࡋࡃྠᖺ㓄ྠᛶྠኈࢆ㑅ᢥࡋࡓࡢࡣࠊᖺ
㱋ᕪࠊᛶᕪࡸᆅ఩ࡢᕪ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠊ௚ࡢ♫఍ⓗ࡞せᅉࡢᙳ㡪ࢆ࡞ࡿ࡭ࡃ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⮬↛࡞఍ヰࡢᒎ㛤ࢆほᐹࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊㄪᰝ⪅ࡣࠊヰ㢟࡞࡝ᣦᐃࡏࡎ࡟⮬↛࡟ヰࢆࡍࡿࡼ࠺ᣦ♧ࢆ୚࠼ࠊ㏥ᐊࡋࡓࠋ㸱㸬⤖ᯝࡲࡎࠊ఍ヰࡢ㐍ᒎࡣࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡟ヰ㢟☜ㄆẁ㝵࣭ពぢ஺᥮ẁ㝵࣭ྜពᙧᡂẁ㝵࡜࠸࠺  ࡘࡢẁ㝵࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢὶࢀࡣࠊ ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࢆ㝖࠸࡚ࠊ⏨ᛶࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡜ዪᛶࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛㢧ⴭ࡞ᕪࡣㄆࡵࡽ

1

−215−

合意形成型討論における中国語母語話者の意見交換の特徴――親しい友人間の会話データを基にして――ࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡓࡕࡣࠊ఍ヰࡢ㛤ጞẁ㝵 ヰ㢟☜ㄆẁ㝵 ࡛ヰ㢟ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓᚋࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⪃࠼ࢆⓎヰࡋࠊ┤ࡕ࡟ពぢᥦฟẁ㝵࡟ධࡿࠋពぢᥦฟẁ㝵࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࠊ
D ウㄽࡢヰ㢟ࢆ⪃៖ࡏࡎ࡟ಶࠎ࡟ពぢࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࡇ࡜㸹 E ௚⪅ࡢᥦ᱌ࢆ⪃៖ࡏࡎ࡟ಶࠎ࡟ពぢࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋ୧ࢱ࢖ࣉࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊཧຍ⪅ྛ⮬ࡢពぢ⾲᫂ᚋࠊྜពᙧᡂẁ㝵࡛఍ヰࢆ཰᮰ࡉࡏࡿᙺ๭ࢆᢸ࠺ཧຍ⪅ࠕྜព᱌ᥦ♧⪅ࠖࡀฟ⌧ࡍࡿࠋ୧ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ㐪࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࢱ
࢖ࣉ D ࡛ࡣࠊヰ㢟ࡀᣑᩓࡋ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ㄪᩚࡍࡿᙺ๭ࢆ₇ࡌࡿཧຍ⪅ࠕヰ㢟࣐ࢿ࣮ࢪ࣓ࣥࢺࠖࡀฟ
⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ఍ヰ┠ⓗ☜ㄆ        ̿̿̿̿̿Ѝヰ㢟☜ㄆẁ㝵        Ўಶࠎࡢ⪃࠼ࡢᥦ♧ࢱ࢖ࣉ D            ࢱ࢖ࣉ E     Ў            _㹺           ពぢ஺᥮ẁ㝵ヰ㢟࣐ࢿ࣮ࢪ࣓ࣥࢺⓏሙ   ௚⪅ࡢពぢࢆ཯ᑐࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ
࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ពぢ஺᥮ࡍࡿ    ពぢ஺᥮ࡍࡿ                                         ྜព᱌ᥦ♧⪅Ⓩሙ        Ў                   ྜពᙧᡂẁ㝵ྜព☜ㄆ ⤊⤖⾜ື  ᅗ  ྜពᙧᡂ఍ヰࡢᒎ㛤ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ
ྛࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ఍ヰ౛ࢆ㸯ࡘࡎࡘᣲࡆࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ≉ᚩࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ
ࠕ஧㔜ୗ⥺ࠖ࡜ࠕᅄゅᯟࠖࡢグྕࢆࡘࡅࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀࠕヰ㢟࣐ࢿ࣮ࢪ࣓ࣥࢺࠖ࡜ࠕྜព᱌ᥦ♧⪅ࠖᙺ๭ࡢⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࢱ࢖ࣉ D $ૡԜ䛓њ䇑ࡂˈӺཙ᢮њᰦ䰤୶䟿алǄ           ࠶ࡢィ⏬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ௒᪥ࡣே࡛┦ㄯࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋఱ᫬ࡀ࠸࠸㸽%㸸ᡁаՊ‫ݯ‬৫⊳ቄ⧋Ǆ ࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࡍࡄࢫ࣮ࣃ࣮࡟⾜ࡃࠋ&㸸ᡁᜣ൘ᮉᇔᆖҐǄࡠᲊкǄ ᩍᐊ࡛ኪࡲ࡛ຮᙉࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
%㸸аՊ‫ݯ‬䘈ᗇ৫ਆᘛ䙂ˈ֐н⸕䚃ᘛ䙂ઈᴹཊ⾎㓿䍘ĂĂ ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺ࡛㈙ࡗࡓⲴ≀ࡀᒆ࠸ࡓࠋ࠶ࡢ㓄㐩ဨࡣ࡝ࢇ࡞࡟ኚࢃࡗ࡚ࡿ࠿▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
&㸸ᡁ㾱ⴻҖˈഐѪӺཙⲴԫ࣑䘈⋑ᴹᆼᡀǄ ᮏࢆㄞࡴࠋ௒᪥ࡢ┠ᶆ࡟ࡲࡔ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࠿ࡽࠋ
$㸸ԫ࣑൘䘉‫ݯ‬઒ʽᡁԜᗇࠁњ㜭а䎧Ⲵᰦ䰤ੰʽ ࢱࢫࢡࡼࠊ
ࠋ࠶ࡢㄢ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚┦ㄯࡍࡿ᫬㛫ࢆసࢁ࠺ࠋ
͐͐&䛓ᡁԜ  ⛩ࠪ৫ਲ਼依ˈ‫ݸ‬ᢺ䘉ԦһᩎᇊǄࡌࡷࠊ ᫬࡟ࡈ㣤ࢆ㣗࡭࡟⾜ࡇ࠺ࠋ࡜ࡾ࠶࠼ࡎࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ῭ࡲࡏࡿࠋ
͐͐ ࢱ࢖ࣉ D ࡛ࡣࠊ఍ヰࡢ㏵୰࡟ពぢࡀ⧳ࡲࡽ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅୍ே $ ࡀࠊ఍ヰࡢࠕヰ㢟

2

−216−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

࣐ࢿ࣮ࢪ࣓ࣥࢺࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙺ๭ࢆ₇ࡌࠊ┦ᡭ࡟఍ヰࡢ┠ⓗࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿⓎヰ $ ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ఍ヰࢆ㐍⾜ࡉࡏࡿഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢᥦ♧࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊ⮬ศࡢពぢ࡟㞟୰ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡣ࠾஫࠸࡟ពぢࡢ୍⮴࡜࠸࠺᪉ྥ࡬࡜఍ヰࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦&ࠊ%ࠊ$㸧ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕྜព᱌ᥦ♧⪅࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿཧຍ⪅&ࡢⓎヰ & ࡣ࡟ࡼࡾࠊྜព࡟⮳ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
ࢱ࢖ࣉ E $㸸བྷ伎ˈᲊк৫ଚ‫ݯ‬ਲ਼୺˛  㣕ࡕࡷࢇ % ࠊᬌᚚ㣤ࡣఱ࡟ࡋࡼ࠺࠿ࠋ
%㸸ᡁҏн⸕䚃ਲ਼க୺ʽࠪ৫ਲ਼ˈ䘈ᱟਛཆআ୺˛  ఱ࡟ࡋࡼ࠺࠿൅ࡶࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ࠾ᗑ࡟⾜ࡃ࠿ࠋฟ๓࠿ࠋ
&㸸ਲ਼⚛䬵੗Ǆ  ㎞࠸㘠࡟⾜ࡇ࠺ࠋ$㸸ኴ✝஢ࠋ ⇕࠸ࠋ͐͐%㸸ኟኳྚⅆ䬵ஓኴ㎥ࠋᾏ勌⮬ຓዴఱࠋ  ኟ࡟࠶ࡢ㘠ࢆ㣗࡭ࡿ࡜㎞ࡉࡀࡶࡗ࡜ᙉࡃឤࡌࡿࠋ࠶ࡢࠊᾏ㩭㣗࡭ᨺ㢟ࡣ࡝࠺ࠋ
$㸸нᜣਲ਼⎧勌Ǆ  ᾏ㩭ࡣ㣗࡭ࡓࡃ࡞࠸ࠋ
͐͐$㸸䛓ቡьे㨌੗˛ьे㨌੗˛  ࡑ࠺ࡋࡓࡽࠊᮾ໭ᩱ⌮ࡣ࡝࠺ࠋᮾ໭ᩱ⌮⾜ࡇ࠺ࠋ%㸸ਲ਼≤侪৫˛  Ỉ㣯Ꮚࡀ㣗࡭ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
&㸸ҏнᱟਚᴹ≤侪୺ˈᆌ❦⢋㚹ʽỈ㣯Ꮚࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ∵⫗ࡶࠋ &㸸䎠੗Ǆ   ࡌࡷࠊ⾜ࡇ࠺࠿ࠋ
͐͐ࢱ࢖ࣉ E ࡛ࡣࠊ௚⪅ࡢᥦ᱌࡟ᑐࡋࠊ཯ᑐࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⮬ᕫࡢពぢࢆᥦฟࡍࡿഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ $ࠊ$ࠊ$㸧ࠋ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ $ ࡢⓎヰࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ & ࡢࠕ㎞࠸㘠ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᥦ᱌ࠊ%
ࡢࠕᾏ㩭㣗࡭ᨺ㢟ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᥦ᱌ࠊ࠸ࡎࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡶ཯ᑐࡢែᗘࢆ᫂☜࡟⾲᫂ࡋࠊ⮬ศ࠿ࡽࠕᮾ໭
ᩱ⌮ࠖ $ ࡜࠸࠺ᥦ᱌ࢆࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ% ࡢⓎヰࡶ & ࡢࠕ㎞࠸㘠ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᥦ᱌ࡢྰᐃᥦ᱌ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⮬ᕫࡢᥦ᱌ࡣ┦ᡭ࡟ཷࡅධࢀࡽࢀࡿࡲ࡛཯ᑐែᗘࡸ௦᱌ࢆ㞃ࡉࡎ࡟᫂☜࡟⾲᫂ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ࠕྜព᱌ᥦ♧⪅ࠖࡣࡇ࠺࠸࠺⮬ᕫពḧࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜࠊ
఍ヰࡣ఍ヰࢆ཰᮰ࡉࡏࡿᙺ๭࡛࠶ࡿࠕྜព᱌ᥦ♧⪅ࠖࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࡼࡾࠊ௚ࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺
࡞ࠕྜព᱌ᥦ♧⪅ࠖ࡬ࡢ㓄៖࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ྜពࡀᙧᡂࡉࢀࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ㸲㸬⪃ᐹࠕヰ㢟࣐ࢿ࣮ࢪ࣓ࣥࢺࠖࡢᙺ๭ᅗ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୰ᅜேࡢぶࡋ࠸཭ே㛫ࡢఱ࠿ࢆỴࡵࡿ఍ヰ࡟ࡣ㸰ࡘࡢᒎ㛤ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡑࢀࡣࠕヰ㢟࣐ࢿ࣮ࢪ࣓ࣥࢺࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙺ๭ࡢ᭷↓࡟ࡼࡗ࡚༊ูࡉࢀࡿࠋ௒ᅇㄪᰝࡋࡓ  ⤌ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ఍ヰࡢ㛤ጞࡢ௙᪉ࡀඹ㏻࡛ࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ྠኈࡀヰ㢟☜ㄆࡋࡓᚋ࡛ࠕヰ㢟ᑟධࠖ

3

−217−

合意形成型討論における中国語母語話者の意見交換の特徴――親しい友人間の会話データを基にして――Ⓨヰ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㛤ጞࡋࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊヰ㢟ࡀᑟධࡉࢀ࡚ࡍࡄ࡟ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⪃࠼ࢆᥦฟࡋ࡚ព
ぢ஺᥮ẁ㝵࡟ධࡗࡓࠋពぢ஺᥮ẁ㝵࡛ཎ๎ⓗ࡟ヰ㢟☜ㄆẁ㝵࡛☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓヰ㢟ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟఍ヰࢆᒎ㛤ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇ࠺࠸࠺ヰ㢟ࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚┦ㄯࡍࡿ㏵୰࡟ูࡢヰ㢟ࡢᤄධ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ヰ㢟ࡀᣑᩓࡉࢀࡓሙ㠃ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙ㠃ࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡢㄡ࠿ࡀヰ㢟ࡀᣑᩓࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࢆព㆑ࡋࠊヰ㢟ࡀඖࡢヰ㢟࡟ᅇᖐࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟௚⪅࡟ാࡁ࠿ࡅࠊ
ࠕヰ㢟࣐ࢿ࣮ࢪ࣓ࣥࢺࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑ࠺
࠸࠺ᙺ๭ࡢฟ⌧≧ἣࡣ  ᅇࡀ  ⤌ࠊ ᅇ࡜  ᅇࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ  ⤌࡛࠶ࡾࠊฟ⌧ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸఍ヰࡣ ⤌࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊฟ⌧ࡉࢀࡓ  ⤌ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ ⤌ࡣ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡀ㝔⏕ࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋぶࡋ࠸୰ᅜㄒ
ẕㄒヰ⪅཭ேྠኈࡢ㛫࡛ࠊᏛ㒊⏕ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛࠶ࡿᖺୗ⤌ࡼࡾ㝔⏕ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛࠶ࡿᖺୖ⤌ࡀヰ㢟ᣑᩓࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡀከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ࠕྜព᱌ᥦ♧⪅ࠖࡢᙺ๭
ࠕྜព᱌ᥦ♧⪅ࠖࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟Ỵᐃࡋࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺ാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ఍ヰࢆྜពᙧᡂẁ㝵࡟ᑟࡃᙺ๭࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࡣ௒ᅇㄪᰝࡋࡓ  ⤌ࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡣ  ✀㢮ࡀ༊ูࡉࢀࡓࠋ
ձ௒ࡲ࡛ࡢ఍ヰෆᐜࢆ⥲ྜⓗ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࠊ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅ఍ヰཧຍ⪅඲ဨࡀ‶㊊࡛ࡁࡿⅬࢆ᥈ࡋࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ྜពࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠿ࡽ఍ヰࢆ཰᮰ࡉࡏࡿࡶࡢ㸹ղ཯ᑐࡉࢀࡓᥦ᱌࡜㐪ࡗࡓ᪂ࡓ࡞ពぢࢆᥦฟࡋࠊ
⮬ᕫᙉㄪࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ಶேࡢពḧࡀ‶㊊ࡉࢀࡿࡲ࡛┦ᡭ࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢฟ
⌧≧ἣࡣ༙ศࡎࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕྜព᱌ᥦ♧⪅ࠖࡣ࠸ࡘࡶձࡢࡼ࠺࡞ヰ㢟⟶⌮ ఍ヰࢆ཰᮰ࡉࡏࡿ ࡜࠸࠺ᙺ๭࡜ࡋ࡚ാ࠸࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋղࡢሙྜࠊࠕྜព᱌ᥦ♧⪅ࠖࡣ⮬ศࡢᙉㄪࡋࡓᥦ᱌ࢆ௚ࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮࡟ཷࡅධࢀࡽࢀࡓാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊDࠕྜព᱌ᥦ♧⪅ࠖࡢᥦ᱌ࡢㄝᚓຊ㸹Eࠕྜព᱌ᥦ♧⪅ࠖࡢᥦ᱌ࡢ᮲௳ጇ༠ࠊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㸳㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ぶࡋ࠸୰ᅜㄒẕㄒヰ⪅཭ேྠኈࡢྜពᙧᡂᆺㄯヰࡣࠊヰ㢟☜ㄆẁ㝵࣭ពぢ஺᥮ẁ㝵࣭ྜពᙧᡂ
ẁ㝵࡜࠸࠺㸱ࡘࡢ㒊ศ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕヰ㢟࣐ࢿ࣮ࢪ࣓ࣥࢺࠖ࡜
ࠕྜព᱌ᥦ♧⪅ࠖࡣ⤖ㄽᙧᡂ࡟㔜せ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᢸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡇࡢ  ࡘࡢᙺ๭ࡣࠊ
఍ヰࡢྜពᙧᡂ࡟୙ྍḞ࡞せ⣲࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࡣࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡜ࡋ୍࡚⯡໬࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࠊࡲࡓࠊほᐹࡉࢀࡓពぢ஺᥮ࡢ  ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡣ୰ᅜㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡔࡅ࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ≉᭷ࡢࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣ୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࠊ᳨ドࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ᭦࡟ࠊ఍ヰ⪅ࡢே㛫㛵ಀ࡜఍ヰࡢὶࢀ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃࡜࠸࠺どⅬ࡛ୖୗ࣭ぶ␯㛵ಀࡢ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࡶྵࡵ࡚ศᯒࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩኱ሯ῟Ꮚࠕ᪥ᮏ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉウㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⤖ㄽ⏕ᡂ࡜㐍⾜ᙺࡢᙺ๭ࠖ኱㜰኱Ꮫࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ࣭᪥ᮏᩥ໬࠘㸬㈩⌼ࠕᑠ㞟ᅋウㄽሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰ㢟஺᭰ࡢ᪥୰ᑐ↷◊✲ࠖࠗୡ⏺ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘
ᙇ㯇ࠕヰ⪅஺᭰࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ୰ᅜே࡜᪥ᮏேࡢࠕ⮬ᕫ୺ᙇࠖࡢࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ̿̿ᑠ㞟ᅋࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝
ࢵࢩࣙࣥࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚̿̿ࠖ❧ᩍ኱Ꮫࠗ␗ᩥ໬ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥㄽ㞟࠘㸪
㝞ᮾ㺀᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜୰ᅜㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢពぢࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ఍ヰࡢᑐ↷ศᯒ̿̿ྜព࡟⮳ࡿࡲ࡛ࡢ఍ヰࢆ୰ᚰ࡟̿̿㺁㔠ἑ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ே㛫♫఍⎔ቃ◊✲⛉ಟኈㄽᩥ
㔝ཎ⨾࿴Ꮚ࣭⸨ỤᕼᏊ࣭ᐑ㇂ᩔ⨾ࠕᥦ᱌࠿ࡽྠព࡟⮳ࡿ఍ヰࡢศᯒ̿̿᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒ㠀ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢㄢ㢟ゎỴࢆ┠ᣦࡍ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᇶ࡟̿̿ࠖࠗᒱ㜧኱Ꮫ␃Ꮫ⏕ࢭࣥࢱ࣮⣖せ࠘㸪 ᳿⹿ࠕㄢ㢟㐩ᡂᆺウㄽ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿཧຍ⪅㛫ࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࠖࠗே㛫ᩥ໬ㄽྀ࠘࠾ⲔࡢỈዪᏊ኱Ꮫ⣖せ

4

−218−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖㄯヰࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ࢫࣥࢲㄒᑐ↷◊✲᩿̿̿ࡿഃ࡜ࡑࡢ཯ᛂ࡟㛵ࡍࡿศᯒ̿̿
ࣀࣇ࢕࢔ ࣁࣖࢸ࢕
㔠ἑ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔(hayanovia_0611@yahoo.co.jp)ࠑAbstractࠒ
This study investigated refusal strategies used in discourse by Japanese native speakers and Sundanese native
speakers. The analysis focused on revealing the similarities and differences among the speakers in their refusal
discourse patterns, which includes follow-up responses to refusals. The results showed that up until the refusals
were completed, both speakers used similar strategies of refusal discourse patterns. Unlike Japanese native
speakers, once refusals were completed further refusal discourse patterns were rarely used by Sundanese native
speakers. This indicates a style difference in refusal discourse patterns among speakers. Furthermore, the mostwidely used responses to refusals were utterances used to alleviate burden during the negotiation process until
refusals were completed.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖㄯヰࠊ᩿ࡿഃࠊ᩿ࡽࢀࡿഃࠊᒎ㛤ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ
㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᚑ᮶ࡢࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾜Ⅽ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᑐ↷◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡶࡗࡥࡽࠕ᩿ࡿࠖഃࡢⓎヰ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊࠕ᩿ࢃࡽࢀࡿࠖഃ
ࡢᑐᛂࡣ༑ศ࡟ศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ㸦ࣀࣇ࢕࢔㸪㸹௵㸪 ࡞࡝㸧ࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞఍ヰ࡛ࡶヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᡂࡾ❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡜ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࠊ
ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾜Ⅽࡣࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡀཷ
ࡅධࢀࡽࢀ࡚ึࡵ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ⾜ືࡀ᏶஢ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ
ࠕ᩿ࡿࠖഃࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕ᩿ࡽࢀࡿࠖഃࡶྵࡵࠊࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾜Ⅽࢆ୍㐃ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣ࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ேࢫࣥࢲㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ᩿ࡾࠖㄯヰࡢ◊✲ࡀᮍࡔ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࢫࣥࢲㄒࡢࠕ᩿ࡾࠖㄯヰࢆ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢥ࣑
ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⾜ືࡢ≉ᚩࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࠊ࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ே࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡜࠸࠺ᛂ⏝ゝㄒࡢศ㔝࡬ࡢ㈉⊩ࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ࢫࣥࢲㄒࡢࠕ᩿ࡾࠖㄯヰࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡢ୰࡛ࠊ
ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾜Ⅽࡢᒎ㛤ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡿࠋ
㸬ㄪᰝ᪉ἲ ⿕㦂⪅ࡣ  ௦᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ -16 ࡜ࢫࣥࢲㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ 616 ࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕࡛ࠊ ྡ㸦 ⤌㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄪ
ᰝ᪉ἲࡣ࣮࣭ࣟࣝࣉࣞ࢖ἲࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࠊࠕ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆグධࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺౫㢗࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᩿ࡾሙ㠃ࢆタᐃࡋࡓࠋ ࡢㄯヰࡢࢹ࣮ࢱศࢆ᪋㸦㸧ࡢศᯒ᪉ἲ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ᪋㸦㸸㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠕ
ࠕ᩿ࡿഃ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ࡲ࡛ࡢẁ㝵ࠖ࡜ࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ᚋࡢẁ㝵ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ␗࡞ࡿㄢ㢟ࡀㄢࡉ

1
−219−

「断り談話」の日本語とスンダ語対照研究――断る側とその反応に関する分析――ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ
ࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ẁ㝵ࡲ࡛ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ᩿ࡾࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ពᛮࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ఏ࠼ࡿ࠿ࡀ࣏࢖
ࣥࢺ࡟࡞ࡾࠊ୍᪉ࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ᚋࡢẁ㝵࡛ࠖࡣே㛫㛵ಀࢆ⥔ᣢࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᑐே㓄៖⾜ືࢆྲྀࡿ࠿ࡀ㔜せ࡞ㄢ㢟࡟࡞ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࠕ᩿ࡾࠖㄯヰࢆ  ẁ㝵࡟ศࡅ࡚ࠊ⪃ᐹࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࠋ㸬⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹ ୧ẕㄒヰ⪅࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ౫㢗ࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾࠖㄯヰࢆ  ẁ㝵࡟ศࡅࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ
஦᝟ㄝ᫂

14

88
6

5

5

4

ᑗ᮶ᢎ▱䛾⣙᮰

᝟ሗせồ

4

44
22

ྰᐃⓗ䛺ぢゎ䛾⾲᫂
SN
S

JN
S

௦᱌ᥦ♧
8

┤᥋ⓗ䛺᩿䜚

7

2 2
0

0

ル䜃

௦᱌ᥦ♧

0

ᅗࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ࡲ࡛ࡢẁ㝵ࠖ

1

2
000

᝟ሗせồ
䛭䛾௚

SN
S

8

12

ᅇ㑊

11
10

12

JN
S

15

ᅗ㻞䛂᩿䜚ᡂ❧ᚋ䛾ẁ㝵䛃 ᅗ  ࡟♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ-16 ࡣ୺࡟  ࡘ᩿ࡾᒎ㛤ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟㞟୰ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ༢⊂ⓗ࡞ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ
ࡀከࡃࠕ஦᝟ㄝ᫂ࠖ ௳࡛ࠊḟ࡟ࠕᅇ㑊ࠖࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾࠖࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡶࡑࢀࡒࢀ  ௳࡜  ௳࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡢ௚ࠊᅗ࡟ࡣ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡀ」㞧࡛࠶ࡿ」ྜⓗ࡞ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀ  ௳࡛ࠊ≉ูࡢ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿
ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟㞟୰ࡏࡎࡤࡽࡤࡽ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢẁ㝵࡟࠾࠸࡚඲㒊࡛  ✀㢮ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊ616 ࡣ -16 ࡟ẚ࡭ࠊࡼࡾከࡃࡢࣂ࢚࣮ࣜࢩࣙࣥࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ༢⊂ⓗ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀࠕ஦᝟ㄝ᫂ࠖ㸦 ௳㸧
ࠊḟ࡟ࠕᅇ㑊ࠖࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾࠖࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ  ௳࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕ᝟ሗせồࠖ
௳ࠊࠕྰᐃⓗ࡞ぢゎࡢ⾲᫂ࠖ࡜ࠕ௦᱌ᥦ♧ࠖࡑࢀࡒࢀ  ௳࡜  ௳ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡑࡢ௚ࠊᅗ࡟ࡣ
⾲ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡀ」㞧࡛࠶ࡿ」ྜⓗ࡞ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀ  ௳࡛ࠊ඲㒊࡛  ✀㢮ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀ౑
⏝ࡉࢀࡓࠋ  ୍᪉ࠊࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ᚋࡢẁ㝵ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ-16 ࡣࠕルࡧࠖࡀ㢧ⴭ࡛࠶ࡾ㸦 ௳㸧ࠊࠕ௦᱌ᥦ♧ࠖࠕᑗ᮶ᢎ▱ࡢ⣙᮰ࠖࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ  ௳࡛ࠊࡑࡢ௚  ௳࡛࠶ࡾࠊ඲㒊࡛  ✀㢮ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
616 ࡣࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀ  ௳࡟㐣ࡂ࡞࠸ࠋ ୧ẕㄒヰ⪅ࢆẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ࡲ࡛ࡢẁ㝵࡛ࠖࡣࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾜Ⅽࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀྠᵝ࡟ከࡃ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀྠᵝ࡞࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ᚋࡢẁ㝵࡛ࠖࡣࠊ616
ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ఱࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡶ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ616 ࡣࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ࡲ࡛ࡢẁ㝵ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
౫㢗ഃ࠿ࡽࡢࠕ᩿ࡾ࡬ࡢ஢ゎࢆ♧ࡍࠖⓎヰࡀⓎࡏࡽࢀࡿࡲ࡛࡟ᵝࠎ࡞ᒎ㛤ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆⓎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ᩿ࡾ࡬ࡢ஢ゎࢆ♧ࡍࠖⓎヰ࡜ࡣ┦ᡭࡢ᩿ࡾࡓ࠸ពᛮࢆཷࡅධࢀࠊࡶ࠺ࡇࢀ௨ୖ⢓ࡗࡓࡾࠊ㈐ࡵࡓࡾࡋ࡞
࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼ࡿⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦᪋㸪㸧ࠋࡑࢀࡣࠕศ࠿ࡗࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ࡛♧ࡍࡢࡀከ࠸ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾜Ⅽࡢᒎ㛤ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀ -16 ࡟ẚ࡭࡚ 616 ࡣⱝᖸከࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦-16 ࡣ  ✀㢮ࡔࡀࠊ616 ࡣ ✀㢮㸧
ࠋࡇࡢẁ㝵࡟ࠊࠕ᩿ࡿࠖഃࡣࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢពᅗࢆ┦ᡭ࡟ఏ࠼ࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊே㛫㛵ಀࢆ⥔ᣢࡍࡿࡓ
ࡵࡢⓎヰࡶⓎࡏࡽࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ
ࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ᚋࡢẁ㝵ࠖ࡟ࡣ≉࡟ఱࡶࠕ᩿
ࡾࠖ⾜Ⅽࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀぢࡽࢀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊ-16 ࡜ 616 ࡣ㐪ࡗࡓᙧ࡛ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖㄯヰࢆసࡾୖࡆ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ ࡲࡓࠊ୧ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡣࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾜Ⅽࡢᒎ㛤ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡜ࡋ࡚୺࡟ࠕ஦᝟ㄝ᫂ࠖࠕᅇ㑊ࠖࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾࠖ

2
−220−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆྠᵝ࡟౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ୧ẕㄒヰ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡑࢀࡽࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࠕ᩿ࡾࡓ࠸ពᛮࢆ
ఏ࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟㔜኱࡛ຠᯝⓗ࡞ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ616 ࡣࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ࡲ࡛ࡢẁ㝵ࠖ࡟ࠕྰᐃⓗ࡞ぢゎࡢ⾲᫂ࠖࠊ-16 ࡣࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ᚋࡢẁ㝵ࠖ࡟ࠕルࡧࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⾜Ⅽⓗ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚⾲ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸬᩿ࡾ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ౫㢗ഃࡢ཯ᛂ
 Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽࡀᡂຌࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿ༠ㄪ⾜ືࡀ୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ஦ᐇࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝඲࡚ࡢ఍ヰࡣඹྠⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ 7KRPDV  ࡀᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠕ᩿ࡽࢀࡿࠖ
ഃ࡟ࡼࡿཷࡅධࢀࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ0XQLURK  ࡣࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ཯ᛂࡣ఍ヰࡢὶࢀࢆ⥔ᣢࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟Ⓨࡏࡽࢀࠊ෇⁥࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ヰࡋᡭࡢດຊ࡜ษࡾ㞳ࡏ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ
࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖㄯヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕ᩿ࡽࢀࡿࠖഃࡶศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ཯ᛂࡢศᯒ㡯┠࡜ࡋ࡚௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋⓎヰᶵ⬟ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡣᙇ㸦㸧ࡢศ㢮ࢆཧ↷ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࠋ⾲ ࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ࡲ࡛ࡢẁ㝵ࠖ࡜ࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ᚋࡢẁ㝵ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ཯ᛂ
Ⓨヰᶵ⬟ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮

᩿ࡾᡂ❧ࡲ࡛ࡢẁ㝵᩿ࡾᡂ❧ᚋࡢẁ㝵

-16

616

-16

616

┦ᵔ 









௚ே࡟౫㢗ࡍࡿ









ឤㅰ









ルࡧ









᝟ሗ࣭☜ㄆせồࠊ᝟ሗᥦ౪









㈇ᢸឤࡢ㍍ῶ









㓄៖Ⓨヰ









ᙉせ









ḟᅇࡢ࠾㢪࠸









ࡑࡢ௚









ྜィ









 ࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊ୧ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡣࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ࡲ࡛ࡢẁ㝵ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕ᩿ࡽࢀࡿࠖഃࡣࠕ㈇ᢸឤࡢ㍍
ῶࠖࠕ᝟ሗ࣭☜ㄆせồࠊ᝟ሗᥦ౪ࠖࠕᙉせࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀከ࠸ࠋ
ࠕ㈇ᢸឤࡢ㍍ῶࠖ࡜ࡣ᩿ࡿഃࡢឤࡌ
ࡿ㈇ᢸឤࢆᑡࡋ࡛ࡶῶࡽࡑ࠺࡜ࡍࡿⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕ᝟ሗ࣭☜ㄆせồࠊ᝟ሗᥦ౪ࠖ࡜ࡣ⮬ศࡢ≧ἣࠊᵝࠎ࡞᝟ሗࢆゝࡗࡓࡾࠊ⿕౫㢗⪅࡟᝟ሗࡸ☜ㄆࢆồࡵࡓࡾࡍࡿⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕᙉせࠖ࡜ࡣ౫㢗ࢆཷㅙࡍࡿ
ࡼ࠺࡟ᢲࡋ௜ࡅࡿⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୧ẕㄒヰ⪅࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕ᩿ࡽࢀࡿࠖഃࡣඹ࡟ࡇࡢ  ࡘࡢᒎ㛤ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆ
෌౫㢗࣭஺΅ࡢ㝿࡟㢖⦾࡟౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀࠕ᩿ࡽࢀࡿࠖഃࡀࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ
࡟ᑐࡍࡿ཯ᛂ࡜ࡋ࡚㔜せ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕ᩿ࡽࢀࡿࠖഃ࡟
ࡼࡿࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ࡲ࡛ࡢẁ㝵ࠖ࡟⌧ࢀࡓࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾜Ⅽࡢᒎ㛤ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡣ᭱ึࡢ౫㢗ࡀ᩿ࡽࢀࠊࡶ࠺୍ᗘ
෌౫㢗ࡢヨࡳࢆࡋࠊ஺΅ࡍࡿᶵ⬟࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ౫㢗ഃࡣ᩿ࡽࢀࡓሙྜࠊࡑࡢࡲࡲཷࡅ

3
−221−

「断り談話」の日本語とスンダ語対照研究――断る側とその反応に関する分析――ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ஺΅ࠊ෌౫㢗ᒎ㛤ࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊࠕ᩿ࡾࠖㄯヰࡣࠕ᩿ࡿࠖഃ࡜ࠕ᩿
ࡽࢀࡿࠖ࡜ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡢ୰࡛ᡂࡾ❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊ-16 ࡣࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ᚋࡢẁ㝵ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕḟᅇࡢ࠾㢪࠸ࠖࠕ௚ே࡟౫㢗ࡍࡿࠖࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ  ௳࡜  ௳࡛ࠊ௚࡟ࡶᩘᑡ࡞࠿ࡽࡎᵝࠎࡢⓎヰࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ┦ᡭࢆ᩿ࡽࡏࡓࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ
ࠕ᩿ࡽࢀࡿഃࠖࡶẼࡲࡎࡉࡸ୙ទᛌࢆ㉳ࡇࡋࡓ㈐௵ࢆឤࡌ
࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ⦆࿴ࢆࡍࡿ཯ᛂࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ཯ᛂࡣㄯヰࡢὶࢀࢆ⥔ᣢࡍࡿ௨እ࡟ࠕ᩿ࡿࠖഃ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㓄៖࡟ࡶ࡞ࡾᚓࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ616 ࡣ౫↛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ࡲ࡛ࡢẁ㝵࡛ࠖࡶ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝
ఱࡢⓎヰࡶ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࠕ᩿ࡽࢀࡿࠖഃࡶᙜ↛ྠᵝࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾜Ⅽࡢᒎ㛤ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆ  ẁ㝵࡟ศࡅ࡚ศᯒࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ࡲ࡛ࡢẁ㝵࡛ࠖࡣ୧ẕㄒヰ⪅࡟࠾࠸࡚ྠᵝ࡟ከᵝ࡞ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾜Ⅽࡢᒎ㛤ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ616 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ᚋࡢẁ㝵ࠖ࡟ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾜Ⅽࡢᒎ㛤ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀ≉࡟ぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ࢫࣥࢲㄒࡢࠕ᩿
ࡾࠖ⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢ㐪࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ぢ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ616 ࡣࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ࡲ࡛ࡢẁ㝵ࠖ࡟ࠕྰᐃⓗ࡞ぢゎࡢ⾲᫂ࠖࢆ≉ᚩⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ-16 ࡣࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ᚋࡢẁ㝵ࠖ࡟ࠕルࡧࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡀ㢧ⴭ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ୧ẕㄒヰ⪅࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕ᩿ࡽࢀࡿࠖ཯ᛂ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
⮬ศࡢ౫㢗ࢆ┦ᡭ࡟ཷㅙࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ᩿ࡾᡂ❧ࡲ࡛ࡢẁ㝵࡛ࠖ౫㢗ഃࡣ෌౫㢗ࢆࡋࡓࡾࠊཷㅙྍ⬟࡞⡆༢࡞᮲௳ࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿ࡞࡝࡛஺΅ࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾࠕ᩿ࡾࠖㄯヰࡣ୧ヰ⪅୍ᗘࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ
࡛⤊ࢃࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ┦ᡭࡢ཯ᛂ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ୰࡛ᡂࡾ❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௒
ᅇࡣணഛㄪᰝ࡛ࠊ♫఍ⓗ࡞᮲௳࣭ᒓᛶࡀ⪃៖ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ఍ヰሙ㠃ࡢከᵝᛶཬࡧ⿕㦂⪅ࡢᩘࡀ༑ศ
࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀࡣ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡍࡿࠋᩥ⊩ᙇ㞷ᱵࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ᘏ㎶ᮅ㩭ㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ౫㢗ㄯヰࡢᒎ㛤࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸸ㄯヰᵓ㐀࡜ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ୰ᚰ࡟࠘ ᗈᓥ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᅜ㝿༠ຊ◊✲⛉༤ኈㄽᩥ㸦ᮍබห㸧
Muniroh, Dian. 2013. Follow-up Responses to Refusals by Indonesian Learners of EFL. Indonesian Journal ofApplied Linguistics. 2-2. 281-293.
ࣀࣇ࢕࢔ ࣁࣖࢸ࢕ࠕ࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟࠾ࡅࡿᚅ㐝⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ᩿ࡾ⾲⌧ࠖ㸫᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢẚ㍑ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠖ㸫㔠ἑ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩍ⫱Ꮫ◊✲⛉ಟኈㄽᩥ㸦ᮍබห㸧
௵Ⅱᶞࠕ᪥㡑᩿ࡾㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୙ྍ⾲⌧࣐࣮࣮࢝㸫ᑐே㛵ಀㄪ⠇ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸫ࠖࠗᖇሯᒣᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ◊✲ㄽ㞟࠘ 㞟 ᖇሯᒣᏛ㝔኱Ꮫࣜࣂࣛࣝ࢔࣮ࢶᏛ㒊 SS㸬᪋ಙవࠗࠕᚅ㐝ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ౫㢗ࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢ◊✲㸸᪥ྎࡢゝㄒ⾜ືࡢẚ㍑ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟࠘᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱◊✲⛉༤ኈㄽᩥ㸦ᮍබห㸧㸬
Thomas, Jenny.1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.







4
−222−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ஶୁಟୁਵ঻ध঩মୁಟୁਵ঻भੂৌએভਵपाैोॊஃ੉पणःथ৛ম ဢ
ೣਮ੓৕প৾

<Abstract>
This study examines the practice of advice-giving observed in interactions between native and non-native
English speakers. The results show that native speakers are more apt to offer advice to their counterparts,
whose native language is Japanese. The native speakers’ advice typically deals with issues such as how to
be successful in learning English and surviving in college or English-speaking countries. It is alsosuggested that, using a variety of sentence constructions and formulaic expressions, native speakers show
both positive and negative politeness and enact their advice in the sequential organization of conversation.
ْय़‫ش‬ড‫ ٓॻش‬ஶୁ‫ؚ‬ஃ੉‫ؚ‬மඡৃએ‫ؚ‬୥ਵ

1.

ଢ଼஢भూବध৯৓ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜㠀ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ㛫ࡢ఍ヰ࡟⌧ࢀࡿຓゝ࡜࠸࠺ࡩࡿࡲ࠸࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒ
ࡍࡿࠋຓゝ࡜ࡣࠊ㏦ࡾᡭࡀཷࡅᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᮃࡲࡋ࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ⾜ືࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊཷࡅᡭࡣࡑࡢ⾜ືࢆ࡜ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ฼┈ࡸᜠᜨࢆᚓࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦Searle, 1969, p. 67㸹➹⪅ヂ㸧ࠋPoliteness⌮ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛ࡣࠊຓゝࡣཷࡅᡭࡢ negative face ࢆ⬣࠿ࡍ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㏦ࡾᡭഃ࡟ᵝࠎ࡞㓄៖ࡸㄪᩚࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ㸦Brown & Levinson, 1987㸧ࠋ ຓゝࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟ᵝࠎ࡞ゝㄒࡢヰ⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ㄽⓗ࣭ᐇドⓗ◊✲ࡀ⵳✚ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡓࡔࡋࡑࡢከࡃࡣࠊᑠㄝࡸ web ᥖ♧ᯈࠊㄯヰ᏶ᡂࢸࢫࢺ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ᭩ࡁゝⴥࡢᛶ㉁ࢆᖏࡧ
ࡓ㈨ᩱࡸࠊ㹒㹔ࡸࣛࢪ࢜ࡢ┦ㄯ␒⤌ࠊ࣮ࣟࣝࣉࣞ࢖ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ຓゝࡢ㏦ࡾᡭ࡜ཷࡅᡭࡢᙺ๭ࡸヰ㢟࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵᅛᐃࡉࢀࡓࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࢆ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋゝㄒ⾜ືࡢᐇែࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟
ࡣࠊࡼࡾ⮬↛࡞఍ヰࢆ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡋࠊࡑࡢ୰࡛⮬Ⓨⓗ࡟ᒎ㛤ࡉࢀࡓຓゝࡢ஦౛ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊẕㄒࡸᩥ໬ⓗ⫼ᬒࡀ␗࡞ࡿ⪅ࡀ᥋ゐࡍࡿሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕㄡࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ຓゝࢆࡍࡿ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ␗ᩥ໬㛫ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢどⅬ࡟❧ࡗࡓ᳨ドࡶ௒ᚋࡉࡽ࡟㔜せ࡞ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ
࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿヰ⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡀⱥㄒ࡛⾜ࡗࡓ㞧ㄯࢆ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡋࠊ௨ୗࡢ◊✲ㄢ㢟࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴࠋ(1) ຓゝࡢ㏦ࡾᡭ㸸 ⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡣࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡶྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ຓゝࢆ㏦ࡾ࠶࠺ࡢ࠿
(2) ຓゝࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿヰ㢟㸸 ຓゝࡣఱ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡞ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿
(3) ຓゝࡢゝㄒᙧᘧ㸸 ຓゝ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿᵓᩥࠊ⾲⌧࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿
(4) ຓゝࡢ఩⨨㸸 ఍ヰࡢὶࢀࡢ୰࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙ㠃࡛ຓゝࡀᒎ㛤ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿

2.

ৱમध্১ ஫࠸࡟㠃㆑ࡢ࡞࠸ࠊⱥㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ♫఍ே㸦௨ୗࠕESࠖ㸧࡜᪥ᮏㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ኱Ꮫ⏕㸦௨ୗ

−223−

英語母語話者と日本語母語話者の初対面会話にみられる助言についてࠕJSࠖ㸧ࡀࠊ㸰ே㸯⤌࡜࡞ࡗ࡚⾜ࡗࡓ㞧ㄯࢆ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡿ㸦ࡢ࡭ 54 ⤌ࠊ⣙ 18 ᫬㛫ศ㸧ࠋ཮᪉࡟ࡣࠊⱥㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࢆࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟౫㢗ࡋࡓࡀࠊヰ㢟ࡸᙺ๭࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᣦᐃࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ਀ ৹ਪৌ଴঻भരਙ


ᛶู
ᖺ௦
⫋ᴗ
⿵グ

ⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅(ES) n㸻5⏨ᛶ30-40 ṓ௦ᩍဨ㸦ᑠ࣭୰Ꮫᰯ㸧᪥ᮏ⁫ᅾṔ 2-15 ᖺ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅(JS) n=27ዪᛶ
10-20 ṓ௦኱Ꮫ⏕
TOEIC® 520㹼855

 Ⓨヰࢆ඲࡚㘓㡢ࠊᩥᏐ໬ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊSearle (1969) ࡟ࡼࡿຓゝࡢᐃ⩏࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ஦౛ࢆᢳฟࡋࡓࠋ
ḟ࡟୍ᐃࡢᮇ㛫ࢆ✵ࡅ࡚෌ᗘ᳨ウࡋࠊ␲ၥࡀṧࡿ஦౛ࡸゎ㔘ࡀᦂࡽ࠸ࡔ஦౛ࢆ㝖እࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢࡼ
࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡓ 71 ஦౛ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࠊᐃ㔞ⓗ࡞ㄪᰝ࠾ࡼࡧ఍ヰศᯒࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࢆ᥼⏝ࡋࡓ㉁ⓗ࡞᳨ウࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ

3. ੥ટ
3.1 ஃ੉भଛॉু
 71 ஦౛ࡢ࠺ࡕ 68 ஦౛ࡀࠊES ࠿ࡽ JS ࡟ྥࡅ࡚㏦ࡽࢀࡓຓゝ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋES ࠿ࡽࡢຓゝࡀᅽಽⓗ࡟ከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࠊ௨ୗࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣ ES ࡟ࡼࡿຓゝ࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚ࡿࠋ

3.2 ஃ੉भৌ଴धऩॊਵ਻
 ES ࡀ JS ࡟ྥࡅ࡚㏦ࡗࡓຓゝࡣࠊ῝้࡞ᝎࡳࡸᕪࡋ㏕ࡗࡓၥ㢟ࢆゎᾘࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿᛶ㉁ࡢࡶࡢ
࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊJS ࡢ₍↛࡜ࡋࡓ㢪ᮃࡸᑗ᮶ࡢィ⏬࡞࡝࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋヰ㢟ࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢᏛ⩦ἲࠊⱥㄒᅪࡢ⏕ά⩦័ࠊᏛᴗࠊ༞ᴗᚋࡢ㐍㊰ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋহ୻‫ ڭ‬ஶୁभ৾ಆ১‫؟‬ड़‫ش‬५ॺছজ॔ஶୁपຯोॊपम

Chuck:
ࣘ࢟:
Chuck:
ࣘ࢟:
Chuck:
ࣘ࢟:
Chuck:

So yeah. I think you know, with Australian, Australian? Australian accent is very,
Mm.
Very tough accent [maybe. Right?][Uh: uh: uh:]
So I think maybe you should watch Australian movies [to practice.][Mm uh: Australian movies.]
Or TV shows or something like that.

হ୻‫ ڮ‬ஶୁ෠भেણಆຯ‫؟‬ड़‫ش‬५ॺছজ॔भ୫౫‫؞‬ঋ४ঐॖॺभ஖௡खः୫स্

ࣜ࢝:Brian:
ࣜ࢝:
Brian:
ࣜ࢝:
Brian:
ࣜ࢝:
Brian:

I didn’t uh::: I didn’t like vegemite.
䐂Did you try it with cheese?
Uh no no no no.
You gotta try it with cheese.
Just butter and,
Butter.
Vegemite.
Yeah. Butter, little bit of [vegemite.]−224−第18回大会発表論文集

ࣜ࢝:Brian:

第11号[Mm hm]And cheese on top and melt it on a toast. That’s nice, so. It’s nice.

হ୻‫৾ گ‬঵‫؟‬௧వध௪௡ঢ়ੱऋ়ॎऩःৃ়भৌ૪১

࣑࣡:
Chuck:
࣑࣡:
Chuck:
࣑࣡:
Chuck:
Chuck:
࣑࣡:
Chuck:
࣑࣡:
Chuck:
࣑࣡:
Chuck:

I want to be a translator.
Mhm.
But now uhm I study uh Physics. Not English? Uhm Mathematics.
Yeah yeah yeah.
So I’m confused.
That’s a problem, right?
ՔSo like, so next year, can you change your major? Maybe to English or something? Or
Mmmmmmmm. Mm I don’t know ((laugh))Don’t know.
Yeah.
Okay, you should check that, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, and talk to somebody about that.

 ES ࡣࠊⱥㄒᅪฟ㌟⪅࣭ẕㄒヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ኱Ꮫ㸦㝔㸧ࢆ⤊࠼ࡓ♫఍ே࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺⮬㌟ࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࡸ⤒㦂ⓗ▱㆑ࢆᅵྎ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ᭷┈࡞᝟ሗࢆᥦ౪ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓ࡜ぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ

3.3 ஃ੉भ஄ૄ
 ES ࡟ࡼࡿຓゝⓎヰ࡛᭱ࡶ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿᙧᘧࡣࠊYou + ຓືモ㹼. ࡜࠸࠺ᩥᵓ㐀㸦30 ஦౛㸧ࠊḟ࡟࿨௧ᩥ㸦22 ஦౛㸧࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋຓືモ࡛᭱ࡶከ⏝ࡉࢀࡓࡢࡣࠊshould ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦10/30
஦౛㸧ࠋ ࡇࢀࡽࡢᵓᩥ௨እ࡟ࡶࠊES ࡢຓゝⓎヰ࡛ࡣᵝࠎ࡞ㄒࠊㄯヰᶆ㆑ࠊᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡞࡝ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸
ࡓࠋ≉࡟ࠊa. maybeࠊb. I thinkࠊc. if ⠇ࠊd. ୙ᐃ࣭⥲⛠ⓗ୺ㄒࠊe. (You’re) right butࠊf. you knowࠊ
g. Okay?ࠊh. Right?ࠊi. ࢞ࣥࣂࢵࢸ㸦ࢡࢲࢧ࢖㸧ࡣ」ᩘࡢ஦౛࡛⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋa-e ࡣ JS ࡢ⾜ືࡸ㑅ᢥࢆᑛ㔜ࡍࡿ⾲⌧ࠊf-i ࡣ JS ࡜ ES ࡢぶ␯ࡢ㊥㞳ࢆ㏆࡙ࡅࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋPolitenessࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽぢࢀࡤࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ negative faceࠊpositive face ࡟㓄៖ࡋࡓ᪉␎࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ

3.4 ஃ੉ऋਠोॊਜ਼઼ ఍ヰࡢ୰࡛ ES ࡀຓゝࢆࡍࡿ఩⨨࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊa. JS ࡟ࡼࡿຓゝせồࡢ┤ᚋࠊb. JS ࡟ࡼࡿᝎࡳࡸၥ
㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ㝞㏙ࡢ┤ᚋࠊc. ఍ヰࡢ⤊⤖㒊ࠊ࡜࠸࠺㸱ࡘࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢ࠺ࡕ b ࡟࠶ࡓࡿ஦౛ࡀ
኱ከᩘࢆ༨ࡵࡓ㸦57 ஦౛㸧ࠋ b, c ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᫂♧ⓗ࡞ຓゝせồࡀ࡞࠸఩⨨࡛ࡢ஦౛ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜ࠊES ࡀ₯ᅾⓗ࡞ᶵ఍ࢆᤊ࠼࡚
ຓゝࢆヨࡳࡿᵝᏊࡀᾋ࠿ࡧୖࡀࡗࡓࠋ≉࡟ࠊc ࡢ఩⨨࡛ࡢຓゝ஦౛ࡣ඲࡚࿨௧ᩥࡢᙧࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚࠾
ࡾࠊඛ⾜ࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸୍࡚ᗘヰ㢟࡜࡞ࡗࡓ஦᯶ࢆࡸࡸ၈✺࡟෌ࡧྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋহ୻‫ ڰ‬ভਵभી੥৖पउऐॊஃ੉भ೷ॉନख‫ن‬হ୻‫گ‬भਢऌ‫৾ق‬঵पঢ়घॊฎा‫ك‬‫ه‬

Chuck:

Sorry we have to go.

−225−英語母語話者と日本語母語話者の初対面会話にみられる助言について࣑࣡:
Chuck:
࣑࣡:
Chuck:
࣑࣡:
Chuck:
࣑࣡:
Chuck:

Uhh.
Good to meeting you though.
Thank you.
Good luck. Check, check about your major.
Mm
Change your major.
Uh okay ((laugh))If you can. Sorry we have to go.

 ES ࡢࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ຓゝ⾜ືࡣࠊูࢀ㝿࡟ࠕ୍㐃ࡢ఍ヰࡢෆᐜࢆ⮬ศࡀࡋࡗ࠿ࡾグ᠈࡟࡜࡝ࡵ࡚࠸
ࡿࠖ࡜ྜᅗࡍࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ⮬ศࡢຓゝࢆ JS ࡀᛀࢀ࡚ࡋࡲࢃ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ᛕᢲࡋࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࠋ㐃ᖏឤࢆ⠏ࡁ┦ᡭࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟㋃ࡳ㎸ࢇ࡛࠸ࡃ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࠊ఍ヰࡢ⥾ࡵࡃࡃࡾ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚
positive face ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆᡴࡕฟࡑ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ ES ࡢᚿྥᛶࡀ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡿࠋ

4.

ऽधी

 ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊึᑐ㠃ࡢⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ࣌࢔࡟ࡼࡿ㞧ㄯࢆ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊㄡࡀఱ
࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧ࣭ሙ㠃࡛ຓゝࢆࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᥈ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ(1) ୺࡟ⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡀ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ(2) ⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜࠸࠺࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࡸ⤒㦂ⓗ▱㆑࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊ
(3) ከᵝ࡞ᵓᩥ࣭⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ຓゝࢆ㏦ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ(4) ⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡣຓゝࢆ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙ㠃࡛ࡶຓゝࢆヨࡳࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ഴྥࡀᾋࡁ᙮ࡾ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡉ
ࡽ࡟ࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢຓゝ⾜ື࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ politeness ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ♧၀ࢆᚓࡓࠋ ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅ࡢᒓᛶࡢ⤫ไࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅඲ဨࡀ⏨ᛶ࠿ࡘ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡼࡾࡶᖺ㛗࡛࠶ࡾࠊᩍ⫋࡟ᑵ࠸࡚࠸ࡓࠋ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡣᙼࡽࢆ┠ୖ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡋࠊୖୗ㛵ಀࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚ຓゝࢆ᥍࠼ࡓྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡼࡾᑐ⛠ⓗ࡞ⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㸫᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࣌࢔࡟ࡼࡿㄯヰ㈨ᩱࢆ཰㞟ࡋࠊⱥ᪥᥋ゐሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿຓゝ⾜ື࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࢆ㔜ࡡࡓ࠸ࠋဟ੶ᮏ◊✲ࡣ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠࡟ࡼࡿຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡓ㸦᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡜ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ▱㆑ࡢඹ᭷㸸ࡑࡢ㐣⛬࡜௙⤌ࡳ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ26770191ࠊⱝᡭ◊✲(B)ࠊ◊✲௦⾲⪅㸸ᒣᮏ⥤㸧ࠋভਵभધஊ৲प৷ःञ੶ಀ
, Ⓨヰࡢ▷࠸㏵ษࢀ

. ୗ㝆ㄪ

?ୖ᪼ㄪ

[ ]Ⓨヰࡢ㔜࡞ࡾ

(( ))㠀ゝㄒⓗ࡞⾜ືࡢ⿵㊊:┤๓ࡢ㡢ࡢᘬࡁᘏࡤࡋ
Քࢱ࣮ࣥࡢ┬␎૞અધ൴
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, Mass.:
Cambridge University Press.
Decapua, A., & Dunham, J. F. 2007. “The Pragmatics of Advice Giving: Cross-cultural Perspectives.”
Intercultural Pragmatics 4:3, 319-342.
Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

−226−第18回大会発表論文集









第11号





ûĦüźÄµ¼µ¼ŭŻg¯ăĽźÄµ¼Ż<Abstract>
This study aims to reveal the differences of discourse function between Chinese cleft construction“…de shi…” and Japanese cleft construction “…nowa…da”. Based on the investigation of theChinese-Japanese Bilingual Corpus, I argue that the frequency and the focused elements are different
even when they are used to express the same proposition. Furthermore, this study also argued that thedifferences are due to the topic deployment function and intersubjectivity of the two cleft constructions.
MhehYŁýéœōÿĸpŵÅũŪpŅØ

1. 6 % > 4é5ď½5ÝJČċ&FŁýéO (cleft construction) 6ĻŐ5O It-cleft 1 Wh-cleft(1a,b) J6%>ŝŇŐĚ4ńDGF}7ëóŐ4/6

56*(2) n«Ő4/6C9(3) Łýé4ÁÖ&FÿĸJø)$/FO (1) a. It was Mr. Lee that came yesterday.
b. Who came yesterday is Mr. Lee.
 (2) íëõ)56ô#K*O
 (3) 8(;C9,: O íë õF 5 P\ab ô#KO$$(2)1(3)5C4n«Ő1ëóŐ6ýŞjÁÖ&F4?ID'n«Ő5
C9ýé4ÁÖ&FëóŐ5ýé06

56*063
ZUé5±?FOO
 (3’) íëô#Kõ)5*
O
óğĤ6œōÿĸ5ŅċDn«Ő5C9Łýé1ëóŐ5

56

*

ŁýéJĴ¿$mŇŐ5ýéţ¸4ū&FĜšċJìD4&F"1JěĚ1&FxĚ46ÎŎýémŇŐ1?ĸ3±pŵÅũÿĸ1ŪpŅØ1r-5ÿĸ5Ĝš4C,/ýéţà4ŴÉ5Çē%F"1JpÌ&FOO
2.  Ŀ ğ ĤĻŐ5C4Łýéłè»¬&F±42Gţà#GF4ū$/6œōÿĸ5Ņ

−227−

中日両言語における分裂構文選択の差異―談話機能の観点から―ċD´5ğĤ0Ŕ%DG/Fłè5Łýé5+'Gţ7GFJĄ>FŃª
1$/6pŵ5şĮØO (topic continuity) âæ#G/FźDeclerck1988, ľ 1997Żþ
4n«Ő5C9AëóŐ5U56U*?Łýé4ďÓĚ3pŵÅũ1œōÿĸJá-"1ĝDG/Fźµ¯gŢľ 2012,  2010ŻO
(+Cu[
3rvL

uv

l\,%to`pW> (2010) vW[UuvUl\,%v<d!u6Fu

se&kt

g{kBNW/}dfpB}Khp`er`a-=}"np`zrGwp`zX'WCu?,%to`pWE (2013) vC9r9Ctbfz

DB4-=u5H}#$hkXis|mWC9,%u10Iv&q_yW.u%uB
N}Kiz-=}"np`zXj{thpW9C,%u10Iv)q_yW

u%uBN}:;iz-=}"np`zX
%±ų4ŁýémŇŐ1?|F±œōÿĸ5ų425C3ĜšF4/6=*úŉ5z­F1ĴDGFuk06Ph[S5WhT÷4®.n«Ő5ĚîýéJnÔ4ëóŐ5

56*ýé1Áč$3Dmýé5ĜšóğĤ6nëÁŋPh[S 1JĔ56*1C915ÁÖū~JŒ;JĴ¿&FOO
3. P h [ S Œ ù)ëóŐPh[S4

F 7 {£D

56*5ŋéJŒ;F1UĚîUT4ÁÖ

$3é 89.1%5+n«Ő5C9ýé6Čċ#GFŃīŬ#G/F)>éĆjÝĥ$3±()  71.1%J>/Fźûg¯ă 2015Ż"5C4


56

*

6Čċ#GFŃī5Ŭn«ŐCEı)>n«Ő5é5C9JëóŐ4
ŋ&±6U56U*ýéÁÖ&FāđŸ1qĉ#GF$$n«ŐPh[S 11 {£DC9ýéJŒ;)Ĭø¾Ů46C94U56U*Á
Ö$3± 47.1%ńDG)"G6U56U*ýéJn«Ő4ŋ$)Ĕ}5Ś
5āđJ>/FO
O
ŀ 1

56

*1C915ÁÖū~Oé1ĳŋ5ÁÖū~O

ëóŐé

éO

n«ŐÁŋéO

56n«ŐéëóŐÁŋé

*

C9

èŨO

339 (100%)O

225(100%)PVQÁÖ&F±OÁ ÁÖ$P QÎŎýé|Ĕ03±Oŋ 3±P QÎ Ŏ ý é 6 | Ĕ  ĸ 0  F
é O O5ÏË4ŋ#GF±O

37 (10.9%)O

119(52.9Ź)

241(71.1%)

3$O

61 (18.0%)

106(47.1Ź )O

302(89.1%)OO
ŀ 1 5C4mŇŐ1?Łýé6|Ĕĸ0F5ÏË4ŋ#GF±P

−228−

Q&

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

3I+U56U*ýé5Áŋé4C9ýé|IG/3±(18.0%)1
C9ýé5Áŋé4U56U*ýé|IG/3±(47.1Ź)5Ū4µ3ŴÉÇńDGF"G4C,/iê5ŇŐ0ŁýéJĔ/Čċ#G/F?5tê5ŇŐ06ŲŁýé4ÁÖ$/F±EČċêĆ4ū&FŇŐŪ5ÇĘ?»¬&F1ĴDGFuk"5Çē%Fœōÿĸ5ŃªJúŉ&FOO
4.  Ł ý é 4 Fţ¸Ø5Ĝš

mŇŐ1?ÎŎýé|Ĕĸ0FÁŋé4/é1Ę3,)ÏË4ŋ#GF±
ńDGF='mŇŐ5Łýé5ČċŤ4ēŗ&FŃīĘ3,/FOŀ 2 mŇŐ5Łýé4FČċŃī5ĜšOŋé6tŌé5±O

U56U*O

C9

pŐ5ČċO

49 (80.3%)

22 (20.7%)

ěĚŐ5ČċO

12 (19.7%)

84 (79.2%)

ňO

61 (100%)

106 (100%)ŀ 2 5C4ëóŐé06U56U*5ČċŤ46pŐēŗ&F±´n«Őŋ06Łýé063tŌéĔDGFO (4a)iên«Őé06C9
5ČċŤ46ěĚŐ´ĒGFëóŐŋ06tŌéĔDGF(5a)

(4) a.    á+çÈ5õŊ6Û×5ŶĺJ)$$çÈ5õŊJ¢Ã4
 

b.







Û× F äÒ 9



!3I
D

4B3             Pů5À RQ

6J-C6.;MńF çF Ĺ 5 çÈ õŊ

$O

Û× 5 Ŷĺ & ³IF VfS

G.;MC#H4%.@       $$ çÈ õŊ 5 "1 Ō rŧ½ °

32CIKTÈ           P źukėŻQO(5) a. 

LA7F*ő |Ð 3) | 56
b. 

o ĩ

5'  E Ō | ¨ņ ĩ? řF ŐĂŌ D*>35CŽ¨ņĩ*,)D+@K1ř,)K*

2OO

C91U56U*4ĭé6ČċŤ4-/ŐEĮGF1pŵÅũÿ
ĸJá,/FČċpŐěĚŐ4C,/pŵÅũ5EêšĞÆO (2005) 6
pŵÅũ6ČċŤ5pŵØ4ū~EpŐ6ěĚŐCEpŵØ5SOhcŸ1ś;/Fŀ 2 DC9ýé6ěĚŐ5Čċ4´|IGF"1DpŵÅũ5)>4ĔDGF"1ĜÁĚ4Â3ýé1F(GBpŵÅũ$/3 (5a) JëóŐ4ŋ&Ů4pŵÅũ5ÿĸJŷļ4ñ&FU56U*ýéţà#GFÕŃ63−229−

中日両言語における分裂構文選択の差異―談話機能の観点から―

O (5b) ?51ŇFO=)Ph[S06C9ýé6(6) 5C4ëóŐ5ZUé4ÁÖ&F±?ńDGFOO(6) a. SRQC9  =# Ñ F 56

<CBi- Ā 5 lĖ) 

0L/& ?"$1 Ñ·)+ ix Ō &F yŐĂŌb. Ā5lĖ:Ŝ"K*5*H·)+6,)yJvK0F5*O
ëóŐ6ZU5C3éòŀĒęŠ$/EĶß4Á&FÚćÙ¦ŗ324
IFŪpŅĚÙ¡JPhY$/Fź¯ăg[cWQ 2009Ż(6a) 6ÍŒ$)ŤJ
Čċ1$/Eĥ/Fō$ß5pŅØ*03Ķß4Á&F¤gġ¹325?ŀ$/F"5±SR32¤AÚ§5Ō1ŗ&FéJëóŐ4ŋ&Ů46ĶßJťÜ&FŪpŅØJá-ZUé(6b) ţ¸#GFF

5. Ĭ Ŕ
óğĤ6nëmŇŐŁýé5ţ¸5Ĵ¿Jŝ%/ÎŎýémŇŐ1?ĸ3±
|ĔŴÉC9Čċ5Ńī4ū$/Ĝšē%F"1JĠŏ$)#D4U56U*ýé6C9ýéCEpŵÅũÿĸęŠ$/EŪpŅØńDGFýé4/Łýé5<ZU4C,/Čċ&F"1?ĸ0F"1Jåġ$)O
OćżO
1](A~^(+7892 CD-ROMv(+C%~rC
uA%WC%~r(+CuA%cx{W@ 2013.78 u~q_zX+78urhpWJMt(+Cu* 7 rCu* 11 }np`zX
Ĕ} 5{£uk3óğĤ4ã!DGFĔ}n 6Ph[S5é 6ŋékį1NdS6Ĩĵ4CF?50FčéĐ
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on Copula Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-Clefts. Leuven: Leuven
University Press.
¯ă Ľg]bQ`fX [cWQ. 2009.ŇŐ5TL^dRhösżğĤĢ.
ľ Ű¥. 1997.œō4 F Wh Łé5ÿĸjŘçķµ¼ğĤĪŃ17-1: 255-268.
 Ĉ. 2010.n«ŐC9ýé5|Ĕ4ū&FiĴ¿:ëóŐ5A 56 B *Łé1Áč$3Dn«Ő¼257: 108-126.
µ¯ ²¶gŢľ ïº. 2012.ýéĚÙ¡16yĊĕ ąĲźİŻ8-%Ù¡ŔŕÊ 2
ýé1Ù¡31-48ösż8-%ðÞ.
ĞÆ ñŦº. 2005.éĆ1œō5äċëóŐ5œō4 FpŵÅũÿĸ5ğĤösż
H$Ď.
Ŗ
. 2013.<“9+NP+VP CTSVP ĚîNP”NO!H=P>WY>O+Z 2:56-64.
û Ħüg¯ă Ľ. 2015.ýé5SMh_Ø4ū&FÁčŇŐ¼ĚğĤn«Ő1ëóŐ5
Łýé5ÁāJŝ%/ëóŏĝŇŐ¼wħ 16 ©µwqģű150-154.

−230−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号⌧ᅾ㐍⾜୰ࡢព࿡ᣑᙇ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᐇドⓗ◊✲̿ࠕᬑ㏻(࡟)㸭኱୔ኵ㸭③࠸㸭ࡸࡤ࠸ࠖࡢព࿡ᣑᙇ࡜⮬↛ᛶุᐃ࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚̿ᅄ㇂ཌᏊ
ᨺ㏦኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕(Ⓨ⾲᫬)<Abstract>
This study aims to unravel how processes of semantic expansion proceed by focusing on four words which arethought to be in the course of expanding their meanings right now. They are futsuu-ni, daijoobu, itai, and yabai,
the original meanings of which are 'in a normal way', 'no problem', 'painful', and 'hairy', respectively, and they
seem to be developing new patterns of collocation, or even reversing their meanings. After delineating their newusages, I carried out a questionnaire survey to find out the extent to which people of distant generations share
new meanings of the four words and feel that new usages are 'natural'. I argue that the results are indices of thestates of expansion and the words can be plotted two-dimensionally according to them.

࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸
ࠕᬑ㏻(࡟)/኱୔ኵ/③࠸/ࡸࡤ࠸ࠖࡢ᪂⏝ἲࠊព࿡ᣑᙇࠊព࿡ㄽⓗ⪃ᐹࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥㄽⓗㄪᰝ

1㸬 ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
᭱㏆⪥࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡤࡢᚑ᮶ࡢព࿡࡛ࡣ࡞࠸౑ࢃࢀ᪉ࡣࠊ᩾᪂࡛᪂ወ࡞ㄒࢆ๰㐀ࡍࡿⱝ⪅ゝⴥࡢࡼ࠺࡞
⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⏝ἲࡢᣑ኱ࡣࡇ࡜ࡤࡢព࿡ᣑᙇ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊⱝ⪅ゝⴥⓗ࡟ὴ⏕ࡍࡿ᪤Ꮡㄒࡢ᪂⏝ἲࢆព࿡ᣑᙇ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࠊࡑࡢព࿡ኚ໬ࢆᚑ᮶ࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ࡢ㐃⥆ᛶ㸭㠀㐃⥆ᛶࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽᩚ⌮᳨࣭ウࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ᪂⏝ἲࡀ⌧ᐇࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸
࡚࡝ࢀࡃࡽ࠸Ᏻᐃࡋᐃ╔ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟╔┠ࡍࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⌧ᅾ㐍⾜୰ࡢព࿡ኚ໬ࢆព࿡ᣑᙇ㐣⛬ࡢ୰࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊព࿡ᣑᙇ㐣⛬ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟ᑐࡍࡿὝᐹࢆࡶᚓࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ⌧ᅾᚑ᮶ࡢព࿡࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋࡓ⏝ἲࡀチᐜࡉࢀࡓ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౑ࢃࢀ᪉ࢆࡍࡿࠕᬑ㏻(࡟)ࠖ
ࠕ኱୔
ኵࠖ
ࠕ③࠸ࠖ
ࠕࡸࡤ࠸ࠖࡣࠊ㎡᭩ࡢグ㏙ࡀヱᙜࡋ࡞࠸౑ࢃࢀ᪉ࡸࠊ᭱㏆ࡢ∧࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ຍ࠼ࡽࢀࡓグ㏙࡛ࡢ౑ࢃࢀ᪉ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊព࿡ᣑᙇࡀ⌧ᅾ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡇࢀࡽ 4 ㄒࢆᑐ㇟࡟௨ୗࡢ஧ࡘ
ࡢ◊✲ㄢ㢟ࢆタᐃࡋ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
◊✲ㄢ㢟 1㸸 ᐇ㝿ࡢ⏝౛࠿ࡽ᪂⏝ἲࡢព࿡࡜ᙧ(ࢥࣟࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ)ࢆ⏬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ(ព࿡ㄽⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ)ㄒࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࢆ㢮ᆺู࡟ᩚ⌮ࡋࠊࡑࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡿࡀࠊ⌧ᅾห⾜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᅜㄒ㎡඾ࡢព࿡グ㏙ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ཰㞟ࡋࡓ⏝౛࡛㎡᭩ࡢグ㏙ࡀヱᙜࡋ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡸ᭱㏆ࡢ∧࡟࡞ࡗ࡚グ㏙ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆᢳฟࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛᪂⏝ἲࢆ⏬ᐃࡋࠊព࿡ࢆㄆᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ
࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ

−231−

現在進行中の意味拡張に関する実証的研究―「普通（に）/大丈夫/痛い/やばい」の意味理解と自然性判定に着目して―◊✲ㄢ㢟 2㸸 ࡑࢀࡽࡢ᪂⏝ἲࡀࠊ⌧ᅾࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘᏳᐃⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊࡲ
ࡓᐃ╔ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥㄽⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ㸧᪂ࡋ࠸ព࿡ࡢ⏝ἲࡀࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ఏ㐩ࡢṇ☜ᛶࡀಖࡓࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡇ࡜ࡤࡢ౑⏝࡟㐪࿴ឤࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ᪂⏝ἲࡢ⏝౛࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓ㉁ၥ⣬ࢆసᡂࡋࠊᖺ௦ࡢ㞳ࢀࡓ 2 ⩌ࡢᅇ⟅⪅࡟ࠊㄒࡢព࿡⌮ゎ࡜⏝౛ࡢ⮬↛ᛶࡢุᐃࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊព࿡⌮ゎࡢᏳᐃᗘ࡜ཷᐜࡢᐃ╔ᗘࡢ⌧
ᅾࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡢ≧ែࢆ᥎ࡋ㔞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ ព࿡ᣑᙇ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᐇドⓗ◊✲ࡣᑡ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᒣୗ(2013)࡛ࡣࠕ኱୔ኵࠖࡢ౑⏝ព㆑ㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓὝ⃝࣭ᒾ⏣(2009)ࡣࠕࡸࡤ࠸ࠖࡢⓎヰ࡜ព㆑ㄪᰝࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡝ࡕࡽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡿ࡭ࡁ᪂
⏝ἲࡢ౑⏝ᐇែࡀ᫂☜࡛࡞ࡃࠊࡲࡓᚰ⌮ⓗ࡞⪃ᐹࡢ᰿ᣐ࡜ࡍ࡭ࡁ౑⏝࡟㝿ࡋ࡚ࡢ㐪࿴ឤࡢ᭷↓ࡸゎ㔘ࡢࡎࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᙼࡽࡢ◊✲࠿ࡽᾋ࠿ࡧୖࡀࡗࡓㄢ㢟࡟㋃ࡳ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ⌧ᅾ㐍⾜୰ࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
2㸬 ព࿡ㄽⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ ◊✲ㄢ㢟 1 ࢆ㐙⾜ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ
ࠕᬑ㏻(࡟)ࠖ
ࠕ኱୔ኵࠖ
ࠕ③࠸ࠖࠕࡸࡤ࠸ࠖࡢ⏝౛ࢆ཰㞟ࡋࠊ᪂⏝ἲࢆศ㢮ࡋ࡚ព࿡ࢆㄆᐃࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊㄒࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࢆ㢮ᆺู࡟ᩚ⌮ࡋ࡚ࡑࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ ཱྀㄒⓗ࡞せ⣲ࡀᙉࡃ᪂ወ࡞⏝౛ࡀぢ㎸ࡲࢀࡿ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺࡢ஺ὶ⣔ SNS ࡛ࡢ୙≉ᐃከᩘࡢⓎಙ࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡤࢆࠊ2014 ᖺኟ࠿ࡽ⛅࡟ࣛࣥࢲ࣒࡟཰㞟ࡋࡓ⏝౛ࢆ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࢆ⌧⾜ࡢᅜㄒ㎡඾ࡢព࿡グ㏙ࢆཧ↷ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽẚ㍑ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᚑ᮶ࡢព࿡ࢆᅛᐃࡋࡓୖ࡛᪂⏝ἲࢆ⏬ᐃࡋࠊ௨ୗࡢ
⾲ 1 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ព࿡ࢆㄆᐃࡋࡓࠋ
⾲1

3㸬 ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥㄽⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ ◊✲ㄢ㢟 2 ࢆ㐙⾜ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊㄒࡢព࿡⌮ゎ࡜⏝౛ࡢ⮬↛ᛶุᐃࢆၥ࠺ㄪᰝࢆࡋ࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒ
ࢀࡢ᪂⏝ἲ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚సᡂࡋࡓᩥ 2 ၥࡎࡘࢆࣛࣥࢲ࣒࡟㓄⨨ࡋᅇ⟅ࢆồࡵࡿ㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝ࡜ࡋࡓࠋㄪᰝᩥ
ࡢᢤ⢋ࢆ⾲ 2 ࡟グࡍࠋ−232−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

                                                ⾲ 2  
ㄒ

ศ㢮

ᬑ㏻㻔䛻㻕

㻝㼍

㻝㼎 ᪥᭙᪥䛻᪂ᐟ⾜䛳䛯䜙䚸䜅䛴䛖䛻཭䛰䛱䛻఍䛳䛶㈙䛔≀䛸䛛䛩䜛䚹
㻞㼍

኱୔ኵ

ㄪᰝᩥ
䛥䛳䛝䛛䜙䛛䜏䛺䜚䛜㬆䛳䛶䜛䚹㡢䛜䛷䛛䛟䛶䜅䛴䛖䛻ᛧ䛔䚹㻔䝺䝇䝖䝷䞁䛷䠅ᗑဨ䛂䛚─䜢䛚ୗ䛢䛧䛶䜒኱୔ኵ䛷䛩䛛䠛䛃㻞㼎 㻔䝞䜲䝖䛾ᗑဨ䛜䠅䛂䛖䛧䜝㏻䜚䜎䛩䛃䚷ᗑ㛗䛂኱୔ኵ䛃㻞㼏 㻔䝁䞁䝡䝙䛷ᘚᙜ㈙䛳䛯䜙䠅ᗑဨ䛂䜑䜎䛩䛛䠛䛃䚷ᐈ䛂኱୔ኵ䛃㻞㼐 㻔ᐙ᪘䛾཭ே䛜ᐙ䛻᮶䛯䛾䜢㏄䛘䛶䠅䛂䛹䛖䛮䛤䜖䛳䛟䜚䛃䚷ᐙ᪘䛾཭ே䛂䛒䚸኱୔ኵ䛷䛩䛃㻟㼍

③䛔䛂䛒䛾ே䚸⮬ಙ㐣๫䛨䜓䛺䛔䠛䛃䛂⮬ศ䛷⨾ே䛰䛸ᛮ䛳䛶䛔䜛䜣䛰䜘䚹䛔䛯䛔ዪ䛰䛺䛃㻟㼎 䛺䜣䛛䛥䚸䛜䜣䜀䜚䛩䛞䛾໬⢝䛳䛶䛔䛯䛔䜘䛽䚹

䜔䜀䛔

㻠㼍

㻔ேẼ䜾䝹䞊䝥䛾䝁䞁䝃䞊䝖䛻⾜䛳䛶䠅䛣䛾᭤䜔䜀䛔䜘䚸㫽⫙䛜❧䛳䛯䚹㻠㼎 㻔㞷䛾୰䜢ฟ䛛䛡䛶䠅௒ᖺ䛾㞷䛾㔞䜔䜀䛔䚹▷㊊䛰䛛䜙ᇙ䜒䜜䛯䚹᪂⏝ἲࡢព࿡⌮ゎࡣ 4 ᢥ࡟ࡼࡿᢥ୍ᘧ࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡢ⮬↛ᛶุᐃࡣ 4 ẁ㝵࡛ၥ࠺ព㆑ㄪᰝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ2015 ᖺ
5 ᭶࡟᪋⾜ࡋࡓࠋㄪᰝ༠ຊ⪅ࡣᇸ⋢┴༡㒊࡟ᅾఫ࠿㏻໅㏻Ꮫࡍࡿⱝᖺᒙ(18㹼24 ṓ)ࠊᖺ㓄ᒙ(50 ṓ௨ୖ)290 ே࡟ࡼࡿࠋ
ㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽୡ௦㛫ࡢព㆑ࡢᕪࢆࠊ⤫ィศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡛⤖ᯝࢆᐈほⓗ࡟ุ᩿ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓࠋ࢝࢖
2 ஌᳨ᐃࢆ⾜࠸ࠊୡ௦㛫࡟᭷ពᕪࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓሙྜࡣ࡝ࡢせ⣲ࡢຠᯝ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ṧᕪศᯒࢆేࡏ࡚⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓ୙ᆒ⾮࡞࿘㎶ศᕸࢆᣢࡘᶆᮏ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ௦᭰᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࣇ࢕ࢵࢩ࣮ࣕࡢṇ☜☜⋡᳨ᐃࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࢆ⾲ 3 ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ
⾲3
ㄪᰝ
䛂ᬑ㏻䛃
㻝㼍

㻝㼎

㻞㼍
㻌㻞㼎

ୡ௦㛫䛻᭷ពᕪ䚹ព࿡ゎ㔘䛾ᅇ⟅䛻䛛䛛䜟䜙䛪䚸㼇ୗ㼉䛷䛂⮬↛䛃䛜᭷ព䛻ከ䛟䚸㼇ୖ㼉䛷䛂୙⮬↛䛃䛜᭷ព䛻ከ䛔䚹䚷㼇ୗ㼉䛷䛿䚸䝁䝻䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁ḟ➨䛷䛂䜎䛒䜎䛒䛃⩌䛾䛂⮬↛䛃䛾ᅇ⟅⋡䛜㧗䛔䚹ୡ௦㛫䛻᭷ពᕪ䚹㼇ୗ㼉䛷䛂ᙜ↛䛾䜘䛖䛻䛃䛜᭷ព䛻ከ䛟䚸㼇ୖ㼉䛷䝁䝻䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁ḟ➨䛷ୡ௦㛫䛻᭷ពᕪ䚹ᕪ䛾䛒䜛䛸䛝䛿䚸㼇ୗ㼉䛾
ᬑ㏻㻔䛻㻕䚷㻔ពእᛶ㻕 䛂㏻ᖖ㏻䜚䛃䛜᭷ព䛻ከ䛔䚹䛂⮬↛䛃䛸㼇ୖ㼉䛾䛂୙⮬↛䛃䛾㛤䛝䛜኱䛝䛔䚹ᕪ䛾䛺䛔䛸䛝䛿䚸㼇ୗ㼉䛷䜒䛂୙⮬↛䛃⋡䛜༙ศ㏆䛔䚹ᖺ㓄ᒙ䛿୙⮬↛䛰䛸䛩䜛ഴྥ䛜䛒䜛䛜䚸୧ୡ௦䛻䜟䛯䜚᪂⏝ἲ䛾ゎ㔘䛿䚸チྍ䛾ồ䜑䚸チྍ䛾୚䛘䚸୙せ䚸䛚ᵓ䛔䛺䛟䚸䛸ព࿡䛜䛂኱୔ኵ䛃ከᒱ䛻䜟䛯䜛䛻䜒䛛䛛䜟䜙䛪䚸୧ୡ௦䛸䜒䜋䜌୍ᐃ䛩䜉䛶䚸ୡ௦㛫䛻᭷ពᕪ䛺䛧䚹䛒䜎䜚ᕪ䛿䛺䛔䛜䚸䝁䝻䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁ḟ➨䛷䛿ୡ௦㛫䛻᭷ពᕪ䚹䝁኱୔ኵ䠄ఛ䛔ᙧ䠅䝻䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁ḟ➨䛷㼇ୖ㼉䛿䛂⮬↛䛃䛂୙⮬↛䛃䛜஧ศ䚹䛒䜎䜚ᕪ䛿䛺䛔䛜䚸䝁䝻䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁ḟ➨䛷䛿ୡ௦㛫䛻᭷ពᕪ䚹㻌኱୔ኵ䠄チྍ⣔䠅 䛩䜉䛶䚸ୡ௦㛫䛻᭷ពᕪ䛺䛧䚹

䛂③䛔䛃
③䛔䠄ぢⱞ䛧䛔䠅
③䛔䠄③䜎䛧䛔䠅
䛂䜔䜀䛔䛃
㻠㼍
㻠㼎

⮬↛䛥䛾ุᐃ

ୡ௦㛫䛻᭷ពᕪ䚹㼇ୗ㼉䛷䛿䛂䛛䛺䜚䛃䛜᭷ព䛻ከ䛟䚸㼇ୖ㼉䛷䛿䛂䜎
ᬑ㏻㻔䛻䠅䠄⛬ᗘᛶ䠅 䛒䜎䛒䛃䛜᭷ព䛻ከ䛔䚹㻞㼏㻌㻌㻞㼐 ኱୔ኵ䠄୙せ⣔䠅㻟㼍㻌㻌㻟㼎

ព࿡ゎ㔘䝁䝻䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁䛻䜘䜚᪂⏝ἲ䛾ゎ㔘䛿୧ୡ௦䛸䜒୍ᐃ䛷䛺䛟䚸⮬↛䛥䛾ุᐃ䛻䜒䝁䝻䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁䛾㐪䛔䛻䜘䛳䛶ᕪ䛜䛒䜛䚹㻌䜔䜀䛔䠄᭱㧗䠅䛩䜉䛶䚸ୡ௦㛫䛻᭷ពᕪ䛺䛧䚹ୡ௦㛫䛻᭷ពᕪ䚹䛂୙せ䛃䛾ព࿡䛿䚸㼇ୗ㼉䛻䛚䛔䛶㧗⋡䛷䛂⮬↛䛃䛾ഴྥ䛰䛜䚸䛂ୖ䛃䛷䛿䛂⮬↛䛃䛂୙⮬↛䛃䛜஧ศ䚹ᖺ㓄ᒙ䛿୙⮬↛䛸䛩䜛ഴྥ䛜ᙉ䛟䝁䝻䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁ḟ➨䛷᪂⏝ἲ䛾ゎ㔘䛜୍ᐃ䛧䛺䛔䛜䚸ⱝᖺᒙ䛿⮬↛䛸䛩䜛ഴྥ䛜䛒䜚ゎ㔘䜒䜋䜌୍ᐃ䚹䛸䜒䛻䝁䝻䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁ḟ➨䛷ୡ௦㛫䛻᭷ពᕪ䚹ᕪ䛾䛒䜛䛸䛝䛿䚸 䛸䜒䛻ୡ௦㛫䛻᭷ពᕪ䚹㼇ୗ㼉䛷䛂⮬↛䛃䛜᭷ព䛻ከ䛟䚸㼇ୖ㼉䛷䛂୙⮬㼇ୗ㼉䛷䛂ぢⱞ䛧䛔䠋③䜎䛧䛔䛃䛜ከᩘ䜢༨䜑䚸㼇ୖ㼉䛷䛿䛂⌋䛧䛔䛃 ↛䛃䛜᭷ព䛻ከ䛔䚹㼇ୖ㼉䛸㼇ୗ㼉䛾㛤䛝䛜኱䛝䛔䚹䛂㠃ⓑ䛔䛃䛜᭷ព䛻ከ䛔䚹䝁䝻䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁䛻䜘䜚᪂⏝ἲ䛾ゎ㔘䛿୧ୡ௦䛸䜒Ᏻᐃ䛫䛪䚸ᖺ㓄ᒙ䛿୙⮬↛䛸䛩䜛ഴྥ䛜䛒䜛䛜䚸ⱝᖺᒙ䛻䛚䛔䛶䛿⮬↛䛸䛩䜛ഴྥ䛜䛒䜛䚹ୡ௦㛫䛻᭷ពᕪ䚹㼇ୗ㼉䛿䜋䜌඲ဨ䛜䛂᭱㧗䛰䛃䛰䛜䚸㼇ୖ㼉䛷䛿ゎ ୡ௦㛫䛻᭷ពᕪ䚹㼇ୗ㼉䛻䛚䛔䛶㧗⋡䛷䛂⮬↛䛃䛾ุ᩿䚹㔘䛻䜖䜜䛜䛒䜛䚹

䝁䝻䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁ḟ➨䛷ୡ௦㛫䛻᭷ពᕪ䚹㼇ୗ㼉䛷䛿䛂⏒䛰䛧䛔䛃䛜㻌䜔䜀䛔䠄⏒䛰䛧䛔䠅 ᭷ព䛻ከ䛟䚸㼇ୖ㼉䛷䛿䝁䝻䜿䇷䝅䝵䞁ḟ➨䛷ゎ㔘䛻ᕪ䛜䛒䜛䚹ୡ௦㛫䛻᭷ពᕪ䚹㼇ୖ㼉䛾䛂୙⮬↛䛃⋡䛜㧗䛔䚹㼇ୗ㼉䛿ⱝᖺᒙ䚸㼇ୖ㼉䛿ᖺ㓄ᒙ䛾␎4㸬 ⪃ᐹ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕᬑ㏻(࡟)㸭኱୔ኵ㸭③࠸㸭ࡸࡤ࠸ࠖࡢ᪂⏝ἲࢆᗈỗ࠿ࡘయ⣔ⓗ࡟ㄆᐃࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢཷᐜ
ࡢᐃ╔ᗘࢆព࿡⌮ゎ࡜⮬↛ᛶุᐃࡢព㆑ㄪᰝ࠿ࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡣ⌧ᅾࡢཷᐜࡢᵝែࡶ᫂ࡽ−233−

現在進行中の意味拡張に関する実証的研究―「普通（に）/大丈夫/痛い/やばい」の意味理解と自然性判定に着目して―࠿࡟ࡋࠊ⌧ᅾࠕ኱୔ኵࠖࡀ᭱ࡶᐃ╔ࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡜ุ᩿࡛ࡁࡿ⤖ᯝࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣ♫఍ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟ヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢゎ㔘ࡢࡎࢀࡸࠊヰࡋᡭࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡬ࡢᮇᚅ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୙☜ᐃᛶࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡛ࡁࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡿࠋ
 ࠕᬑ㏻(࡟)ࠖ
ࠕ኱୔ኵࠖ
ࠕ③࠸ࠖ
ࠕࡸࡤ࠸ࠖࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢព࿡ゎ㔘࡟࠾࠸࡚᝿ᐃゎࡢゎ㔘ࢆࡋࡓᅇ⟅⪅ࡢ๭ྜ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ⮬↛ᛶุᐃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕ⮬↛ࠖ࡜ࡋࡓᅇ⟅⪅ࡢ๭ྜࢆࠊᅗ 1 ࡟ࣉࣟࢵࢺࡍࡿࠋព࿡⌮ゎ࡜⮬↛ᛶุᐃࡢ್ࡀ㧗ࡃࠊࡉࡽ࡟ⱝᖺᒙ࡜ᖺ㓄ᒙࡢ㛤ࡁࡀᑠࡉࡃ࡞ࡿ࡟ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊཷᐜࡢ㐍⾜ࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡜ุ᩿࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊព࿡⌮ゎ࡜⮬↛ᛶุᐃࡢ್ࡀ㧗ࡃⱝᖺᒙ࡜ᖺ㓄ᒙࡢ㛤ࡁࡀ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠸≧ែ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ࡁࠊព࿡ᣑᙇ㐣⛬ࡀ᏶ᡂࡋࡓ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ᅗ1௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊព࿡⌮ゎ࡛ࡣព࿡ㄽⓗ᳨ウ࡟ࡼࡾㄆᐃࡉࢀࡓព࿡グ㏙࡜ࡢ୍⮴ࢆࡳࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊ⮬↛ᛶุᐃ࡛ࡣཷᐜࡢព㆑ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࢆࡳࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࢆ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡛ព࿡ᣑᙇࡢ㐍⾜ᗘࡢᕪࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊࡉࡽ࡟ព࿡ᣑᙇࡢ㐍⾜㐣⛬ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊព࿡⌮ゎ࡜⮬↛ᛶࡢព㆑࡜
࠸࠺஧ࡘࡢほⅬࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ໬ࡋ࡚࡜ࡽ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
⌧ᅾ㐍⾜୰ࡢព࿡ኚ໬ࡢ⌧㇟ࡣࠊேࡢ㌟యⓗ࡞ᐇឤࡢ୰࡟࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ┤ឤⓗ࡟ศ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ឤ
ぬࢆᢪࡁࡸࡍ࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡑࢀࢆ◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡓ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡓ᫬࡟ࠊࡲࡎ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⌧㇟ࢆఱ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
ྠᐃࡍࡿ࡭ࡁ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓ㟼Ṇⓗ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃືែ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡑࢀࡽࡢ⌧㇟ࢆࠊ࠶ࡿ᫬Ⅼ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ≧ែ࡜ࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟グ㏙ࡍࢀࡤࡼ࠸࠿࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ᪉ἲㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚☜❧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣᇶ♏
◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ࡲࡎࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪉ἲㄽࢆᥦ♧ࡋᐇ㊶ࡋࡓࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩Ὕ⃝ఙ࣭ᒾ⏣ዉὠ⣖. 2009.ࠕⱝ⪅ࡓࡕࡢ㛫࡛ᗈࡀࡿࠕࡸࡤ࠸ࠖࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸⏝ἲࠖࠊࠗᒱ㜧኱Ꮫᆅᇦ⛉Ꮫ㒊◊✲ሗ࿌࠘ࠊno.25ࠊ
pp.39-58ࠊᒱ㜧኱Ꮫᆅᇦ⛉Ꮫ㒊.
ᒣୗ᪩௦Ꮚ. 2013.ࠕ௒࡝ࡁࡢࠕ኱୔ኵ࡛ࡍࠖ̿ࡑࡢ౑⏝ᐇែ(2013)㹼ࠕ኱୔ኵ࡛ࡍࠖࡣⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤ࠿㸽㹼ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠗ᫂ᾏ᪥
ᮏㄒ࠘
ࠊ➨ 18 ྕࠊpp.285-312ࠊ᫂ᾏ኱Ꮫ.

−234−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

Nice and Adj construction in Imperative construction
Kiyono, FUJINAGA (The University of Tokyo)

Abstract
Previous research conducted by Oanther & Thornburg (2009) was the first to investigate the nice and Adj paring
such as nice and easy/ warm/ comfortable from construction approach. However they only looked up the cases
where the nice and Adj paring appears in noun phrases as attributive function, and in verb phrases as predicative
function. Analyzing the tokens elicited from British National Corpus, the present study aims to put forth theirstudy by examining the cases where the nice and Adj construction appears adverbial as in “warp it very nice andneatly”, specifically occurring in Imperative construction. Comparing the tokes of adverbial nice and Adj
construction in imperative and that of adjectival in descriptive sentence, I argue the nice and Adj construction
can be interpreted to fit the meaning that imperative construction requires such as ‘interpersonal meaning’ in thesense of (Halliday, 1985).
Keywords: Construction, Imperative, BNC, interpersonal

1.

BackgroundOur language knowledge does not consist of merely an inventory of vocabularies and syntax. Idioms, once

treated as appendix to our language knowledge, have increasingly provided many linguistics insights (Fillmore,
Kay & O’connor, 1985; Goldberg, 1995; 2006; Hilbert 2014). Importantly, Idioms do not necessarily refer tojust fixed expressions, but also include constructions with open slots that show great productivity on their own.
This study aims to demonstrate one such case of the study of constructions, taking up the English nice andadj/adv construction, specifically occurring in imperative constructions or similar context such as “ Just do it
nice and gently”.

2.

Previous Research
Panther & Thornburg’s study (2009) was the first to investigate the nice and adj pairing such as nice andeasy/warm/comfortable from a construction approach. They claimed the nice and adj phrase is now pervasivein English and that it is on its way to become a full-fledged construction (Goldberg, 1995) because it meets thetwo criteria of constructionhood: its formal non-predictability and a drift towards semantic-pragmatic
non-predictability (Panther & Thornburg, 2009: 69). However they only investigated cases where the nice andadj pairing appears in noun phrases as attributive function or in verb phrases as predicative function, and did notconsider cases when the nice and adj pairing appears adverbially or when the word nice is combined with an−235−

Nice and Adj construction in Imperative construction

adverb to form nice and adv pairing. The present study investigates the nice and adj/adv pairings appearing inan adverbial position in imperative sentences or in an imperative context and how they contribute to theutterances as a whole.

3.

Methodology
I have used the British National Corpus and conducted the following three searches;(1) “nice and [j*]|[r*]” nice and all kinds of adjective or adverbs pairings(2) “nice and [j*]”: nice and all kinds of adjective pairings(3) “nice and [r*]”: nice and all kinds of adverbs pairings

For the result of “nice and [j*]|[r*]” research, I further categorised the tokes as either predicative,
quasi-predicative, attributive, VOC adverbial, or bare;Predicative: You’re nice and warm?
Quasi-predicative: I do like that cuz it looks nice and warm
Attributive: it gives something nice and easy to tell you about
VOC: a little update to keep the whole issue nice and hot
Adverbial: If you talk nice and polite, people listen to you
Bare: It’s hard there, nice and hard

For the result of “nice and [r*]” search, I further categorised the tokens as either descriptive or imperative.
I then categorized imperatives either as primary or secondary. The Primary ones are defined as those discussed
in Halliday & Matthiessen (2014). I defined those that do not meet the conditions of Primary, yet fulfill themeaning of imperative as suggested in (4) by Stefanowitsch (2003) as Imperative Secondary;(4)a.

S refers to an event that can potentially be brought about by H.

b.

S takes an (affirmative) stance towards the actualization of this potentialc.

S presents this stance as relevant to H’s decisions about H’s future(Stefanowitsh, 2003:5)

4.

Data Analysis & Discussions−236−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

The first finding is that although there are a significant number of nice and adj, serving as predicative, there
are few tokens of nice and adj pairing serving attributive to nouns. This might be correlated to the nature ofEnglish adjectives, that academic contexts prefer the attributive use of adjective whereas casual conversations
prefer the predicative function (Thompson,1988; Bieber et al., 1999) and clearly our data demonstrated nice andadj/adv pairings are used the most in conversation genre or in a dialog in fictions on BNC.
Second, Stefanowitsch & Gries (2003) conducted corpus-based research on the imperative constructions andfound that typical action verbs are avoided in imperative constructions because they might sound too imposing.
The typical verbs which co-occurred in the imperative constructions in their study include those attention
directing verbs such as see, look, listen.

Taking up these corpus-driven evidences, Stefanowitsch & Gries

argues that “one major function of the imperative seems to be the organization of spoken or written discourse”(ibid.: 234) Indeed, the data in my study also confirms the typical verbs used in Imperative
construction/context are “advice” or “instruction” in Stefanowitsch (2003)’s terms and the adj/adv pairings
appeared when speakers are giving instructions. I argue nice and adj/adv pairings assure such functions ofimperative constructions (Imperative Primary) or in imperative speech mode (Imperative Secondary) serving at
the interpersonal level of discourse (Schiffrin, 1987; Halliday & Hussan, 2013). For example:(5) Imperative PrimaryYeah. Just do it nice and gently and that’ll come back to normal.

(6) Imperative Secondary
Right, erm let’s have another boy, Stuart, nice and louder and clear.

In example (5), the speaker is advising the addressee and here nice and gently indicates the interpersonalevaluation shared by both the speaker and the hearer. In example (6), the utterance was made in a classroom
setting, so nice and louder (and clear) here indicates nice not only to the teacher, and the addressed pupil, butalso possibly to the other pupils watching the interaction. Although I am not arguing the adj/adv pairings
themselves represent interpersonal meaning per se but rather they reinforce the meaning/function of Imperative
construction.
Finally, how does the nice and adj/adv pairings come to serve interpersonal functions rather than simply
modifying the noun or the manner of actions? I view two functions of the adj/adv pairings, namely ideational
and interpersonal functions, as closely related (Schiffrin, 1987; Fujii, 2000; Halliday & Hussan, 2015).
For example, Fujii (2000) demonstrated one such clear case with the Japanese grammaticalized form MONO,
which developed from the propositional meaning ‘thing’, to the speaker’s propositional attitude, and then to the−237−

Nice and Adj construction in Imperative construction

modal obligation to the hearer, and finally to the discourse particle appeared utterance-finally. She views all themeanings and functions of the MONO constructions as a whole in a synchronic layering. In analogous to Fujii(2000), we may treat nice and adj/adv pairings as a whole construction, and that most situated interpretationarises from a specific construction the pairing is embedded in or a more broad discourse in which the pairing
occurs-in this study Imperative primary and Imperative secondary respectively.

To demonstrate my point,

observe the token below;(7)
lubricant that’ll loosen it and let it work its way through nice and gently(7) allows for dual interpretations. At the ideational level, we can interpret the utterance with nice and gently
modifying the manner of the action work. We can also interpret the utterance with nice and gently serving a
propositional attitude at interpersonal level-it presents the speaker’s consideration to the hearer in the manner of“It’s okay. It’s not gonna hurt you”.

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank to Prof. Toshio Ohori, who allowed me to present this topic and gave me many critical comments in his seminar at U-Tokyo. I would also
like to thank to my course mates, Yusuke Kaimori, or Mr Construction and Kei Sakaguchi, or Mr. Adjective. And of course, my deepest gratitude goes out tomy beloved supervisor Prof. Seiko Fujii, who is always my inspiration. No matter what linguistic topics I pursue, there is always Fujii paper ahead of me.

References
Biber, D. et al.1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman, New York: Longman.
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O'connor, M. C.1988. “Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone”.
Language, 501-538.
Fujii, S.2000. “Incipient decategorization of MONO and grammaticalization of speaker attitude in Japanese discourse”. In Andersen, G &Fretheim, T. (eds.), Pragmatics Markers and Propositional Attitude. 85-118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Halliday, M. & Matthiessen, C. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Hilpert, M.2014. Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.
Stefanowitsch, A.2003. The English imperative: A construction-based approach. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript, Universität Bremen [URL:
www. stefanowitsch.de/anatol/files/ms-stefanowitsch2003. pdf].
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T.2003. “Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions”. International journal of
corpus linguistics, 8(2), 209-243.
Thompson, S.1988. “A Discourse Approach to the Cross-linguistic Category ‘Adjective’”. In Hawkins, J. (ed.), Explaining Language
Universals. 167–185. Oxford: New York: Blackwell.

−238−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

From Epistemic Modal to Concessive Marker:
A Constructional Analysis of the Chinese Modal Marker k néng
ZHU Bing (Graduate School of Nagoya University)

Abstract
Cross-linguistically, modal markers can obtain post-modal functions, such as conditional and concessive,at the late stage of grammaticalization (van der Auwera and Plungian 1998). This paper provides aconstructional analysis of the secondary grammaticalization of the Chinese epistemic modal k néng (#K)
‘may’. Under the framework of constructionalization and constructional changes presented by Traugott andTrousdale (2013), I argue that k néng may have been gradually losing its epistemic meaning and obtaining
the function as a concessive marker, which can be considered a new succession of constructional changes
to a new constructionalization.
[Keywords] post-modal function, secondary grammaticalization, constructional change, k néng,concessive marker
1. Introduction
As a case of secondary grammaticalization, epistemic modal marker can obtain the post-modal function(van der Auwera and Plungian 1998) as a concessive marker, which is attested cross-linguistically (e.g.
English may (Palmer 2001, Narrog 2012); German mögen (Hammer 1983); Greek boro (Tsangalidis 2009);
Sweden må (Berijering 2011) etc.). Chinese epistemic marker k néng seems to be undergoing a similarchange (Yang 2012). For example, (1) is the typical epistemic modal use, while (2) can be considered as theconcessive use.
(1) Zhè fú huà knéng shì zh nde, y knéng shì jìde. (According to author)R.@#K6EB #K6B
this CL painting may
be genuine also maybefake‘This painting may be genuine, or may be fake.’(2) Rént f sh o knéng shì huànbìng de y zhng zh ngzhào, dàn rént f sh o =#K64ABF2 =
body have a fever may befall ill GEN one kind
portent
but body have a fever
tèbiéshì
y ngérf sh o bìngf i dushì huàishì. (Yang 2012:39)
>6* =0TS6( especially baby have a fever notall
bad things‘Having a fever may be a portent of having fallen ill, but having a fever is not always a bad thing,especially for babies.’
However, a detailed analysis of how epistemic modals obtained this post-modal function is absent.
Although the discourse-pragmatic feature of the epistemic modals like for ‘politeness’ or softening
speaker’s assertion has been emphasized as an important motivation in the literatures (e.g. Ono et al. (2009)
for Japanese kamoshirenai ( ), Yang (2012) for Chinese k néng etc.), I argue that it is just one
aspect of this change, and the syntactic, semantic and some other discourse-pragmatic features need equal
attention. In this paper, I will provide a constructional account for the change from an epistemic modal to aconcessive marker in Chinese k néng mainly under the framework of constructionalization andconstructional changes presented by Traugott and Trousdale (2013).
2. A constructional approach
In the (cognitive) construction grammar frameworks (e.g. Goldberg 1995, Croft 2001), a construction isusually defined as a form-meaning pair which includes features of morphonology, syntax, semantics and−239−

From Epistemic Modal to Concessive Marker: A Constructional Analysis of the Chinese Modal Marker kěnéng

pragmatics. Constructional changes (CCs) refer to the changes that affect the features of an existing
construction, and constructionalization (Cxzn) is the creation of a formnew-meaningnew pairing, i.e. theemergence of a new construction (Traugott and Trousdale 2013). Constructional changes may or may notlead to a constructionalization and after the constructionalization there may be some more constructionalchanges which could lead to a new constructionalization. Constructional changes and constructionalization
form a succession as below.
(3)

PreCxzn CCs



Cxzn



PostCxzn CCs

(Cxznnew)Why a constructional analysis is preferable? Traditional grammaticalization research usually highlights
the unidirectionality of reduction in the morphsyntactic and semantic changes (e.g. Lehmann 1995).
However, some accompanying features of secondary grammaticalization, e.g. extension of syntactic scope(e.g. modify a single clauserelate two clauses), extension of pragmatic function, seem to violate thisunidirectionality. On the other hand, Traugott and Trousdale (2013) show a prudent attitude towards theholistic unidirectionality and pay more attention to the directionality of partial properties related toconstructionalization such as schematicity, productivity and compositionality. Furthermore, as has been
widely recognized in grammaticalization research, grammatical changes are usually context-sensitive andconstruction grammar is compatible with the analysis of the context triggering a change. Therefore, insteadof focusing on a word or a morpheme in isolation, it will help us discern how an expression interrelateswith the context and changes gradually to investigate it in a construction (cf. Bergs and Diewald 2008). As
for Chinese epistemic modal k néng, we can present the following construction schema. Like English may
and other modal auxiliaries, k néng usually appears between the subject and the main verb, and expresses
the speaker’s presumption of the truth of an uncertain proposition.
(4)[SYN: k néng Puncertain][SEM: Puncertain is possible to be true (or not true)]In the following section, I will exhibit several constructional changes of the k néng construction
especially the host-class extensions and explain how these changes are paving the way for k néng to act asa concessive marker.
3. Constructional changes in knéng construction
Chinese epistemic modal k néng is said to arise from the combination of interrogative k andmonosyllabic modal néng ‘can’ which means ‘whether you can...’ at the end of Qing Dynasty (1612-1916)(Zhu(Guanming) 2008). In my recent work (Zhu(Bing) in progress), I investigated the constructionalizationof k néng construction diachronically. The constructional changes attested here could be considered as the
PostCxzn CCs (as in (3)) of k néng construction which are still in progress. As the constructionalization ofk néng construction is relative late, which is right at the transition towards Modern Chinese, and theconcessive use is observed quite recently, I investigate this phenomenon synchronically and our data aremainly from the Modern Chinese part of CCL (Center for Chinese Linguistics, Peking University) corpus.
Nevertheless, I hypothesize that language is changing constantly and these synchronically attested changes
could provide us some hints to explain how k néng lost its epistemic meaning and turned to act as aconcessive marker gradually.
Host-class extension, i.e. ‘a grammaticalizing form will increase its range of cooccurrence with membersof the relevant part of speech’ (Himmelmann 2004: 32), is often observed in the syntactic constructionalchanges. There are mainly three types of host-class extension attested in k néng construction.
a) Collocate with a certainty adverb.
K néng is typically used to express speaker’s uncertainty and can collocate with some uncertainty
adverbs like y x ‘maybe, perhaps’, but sometimes certainty adverb like jiùshì ‘exactly’ can also collocatewith k néng as in (5).

−240−

第18回大会発表論文集(5)…zài gngyúanqián 497nián,
'

497 /
in
BC
year of 497

第11号

zhméngrén
wéi Jìnguóliùq ng
zhng Hánshì,
C
7&

U:
leader of alliance be mandarins of Jin GEN Mr. Han

knéng jiùshì
Hán Jinz. (CCL)#KUG+
mayexactly
NAME‘…in BC 497, the leader of the alliance was one of the mandarins of Jin called Mr. Han, who in allprobability is actually Han Jianzi.’
Speaker’s presumption is usually cancellable as in (1), but it’s uncancellable when the certainty adverbjiùshì occurred as in (5’)(5’) * ... knéng jiùshì Hán Jinz, yknéng shì
biérén.
#K,6UG+ #K6
may
exactlyNAME
also may
be somebody else
* ‘... (that) in all probability is Han Jianzi, or may be somebody else.’
In (5), it is difficult to recognize k néng as a modal expressing epistemic possibility, but just like a hedge
that softens the speaker’s assertion.
b) Collocate with a proposition which the speaker believes true, and it can be corroborated fromthe discourse context.
K néng can also collocate with a proposition that is true for the speaker and it can be corroborated fromthe discourse context.
(6) Zài yliú zhng, yuxi y n def ynknéng biànruò… Zhèzhng'O<8 VB V#K!1RF
in the flow of speech some sound GEN pronunciation may
weakenthis kind of
xiànxiàng
jiàozuò
ruòhuà,
lìrú
Hàny
de
q ngy n… (CCL)?P"1;OBQV
phenomenon named weakening for example Chinese GEN light syllable‘In the flow of speech, the pronunciation of some sounds may weaken…this kind of phenomenon iscalled weakening, such as the light syllable of Chinese…’
In (6), the speaker believes that ‘the pronunciation of some sounds weaken’ is true, which can be
confirmed by the given example in the following context.
c) Collocate with a proposition expressing apparent truth.
As in (2), it is commonsensically true that having a fever is a portent of having fallen ill. It is not basedon the collocation with a constituent of high certainty (Type a) or speaker’s high degree of conviction (Typeb), but a commonsensical truth. I argue that it’s an important step for k néng to change to a concessive
marker because the epistemic meaning has been almost bleached. Besides, it seems that the so-calledsoftening function should not be considered primarily either, as the speaker does not make any assertion
besides talking about a fact. I agree Narrog (2012)’s assertion about English may that the clause linkage(textual) function, i.e. as a concessive marker creating the sentence, should be recognized here first. (7) isanother example in which k néng acts as a concessive marker.
(7) …zònggu ngèhánggèyèdechénggngzh, t mende xìnggé
knéngbújìnHN$M$B5JB39#K-
throughout all walks of life GEN successful people theirpersonality may not entirely−241−

From Epistemic Modal to Concessive Marker: A Constructional Analysis of the Chinese Modal Marker kěnéng

xi ngtóng, dànshì chénggng de j ngyàn
què dàzhì xi ngtóng. (CCL)D%65BIW)LD%
same
but
success
GEN experience yet almost
same‘Throughout the successful people in all walks of life, their personalities may be different, but theirexperiences of success are almost all the same.’
Accompanying with the host-class extensions in k néng construction, we can observe some new
syntactic, semantic and discourse-pragmatic features arising in k néng. First, the syntactic scope of k néngextended from modifying a proposition in a single sentence to correlating a pair of concessive-adversative
clauses. Second, as pointed above, the epistemic meaning of k néng has been bleached accompanying withthe host-class extensions. Third, the discourse-pragmatic functions, i.e. clause-linkage function andsoftening one’s assertion (politeness), are enriched.
4. Conclusion
Although we can attest a series of constructional changes as above, the concessive use of k néng seems
to be still marginal. When the k néng construction with a high-certainty proposition is followed by aadversative clause, the concessive use can be easily invoked. However, such examples are not yet
frequently attested and a typical concessive marker may still occur which makes it confused to recognize
k néng as a concessive marker. In other words, a new constructionalization, i.e. a new link connecting the
epistemic modal k néng construction with the concessive construction, hasn’t completely realized yet.
Nevertheless, what is no doubt is that k néng is extending its post-modal function instead of being
restricted to the typical modal function of epistemic possibility.
References
Beijering, K. 2011. “Semantic change and grammaticalization: The development of modal and postmodal
meanings in Mainland Scandinavian må, måtte and måste.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 34, 105-132.
Bergs, A. and Diewald, G. 2008. “Introduction: Constructions and language change.” In Bergs, A. andDiewald, G. (eds.) Constructions and language change, 1-22. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Croft, W. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Hammer, A. E. 1983. German grammar and usage. London: Edward Arnold
Himmelmann, N. P. 2004. “Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal.” In Bisang, W.,
Himmelmann, N. P. and Wiemer, B. (eds.). What makes grammaticalization?: a look from its fringes
and its components, 21-42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Lehmann, C. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: LINCOM EUROPA
Narrog, H. 2012. “Beyond intersubjectification: textual uses of modality and mood in subordinate clauses
as part of speech-act orientation.” English Text Construction 5:1, 29-52.
Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and modality (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Tsangalidis, A. 2009. “5. Modals in Greek.” In Hansen, B. and De Haan, F. (eds.) Modals in the languagesof Europe: A reference work, 139-163. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Van der Auwera, J. and Plungian, V. A. 1998. “Modality’s semantic map.” Linguistic Typology 2:1, 79-124
Yang, L. 2012. “Rènshiqíngtàicí xiàng ràngbùbi oshí de f zhn” (The development from epistemic modal
to concessive marker). Hàny Xúebào (Chinese Linguistics) 4, 16-23
Zhu, B. in progress. “A Constructional analysis of the formation of Chinese epistemic modal k néng.”Manuscript.
Zhu, G. 2008.  Mógés ngzh l  Qíngtàidòngcí Yánji (Research on the Modal Verbs ofMahasangha-vinaya). Beijing: China Theatre Press−242−

ワークショップ
Workshop Sessions

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

㸺࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ㸼
%UHDNLQJWKH,FH㸽㸸᪥ᮏே࡜␃Ꮫ⏕ࡢึᑐ㠃఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᡴࡕゎࡅࡢᡭ⥆ࡁ㸺Ⓨ⾲⪅㸼チ ᫂Ꮚ  㛵ᓮ ༤⣖  ࣈࢵࢩࣗࢿ࣭ࣝࢣ࣮ࢻ  ஭ฟ 㔛ဏᏊᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡢ㊃᪨ྖ఍㸸チ ᫂Ꮚ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ
heo.myeongja.gf@u.tsukuba.ac.jp㸯㸬ᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡢ┠ⓗ ᪥ᮏᅜෆ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏே࡜␃Ꮫ⏕ࡀึᑐ㠃ࡢሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡉࡽ࡟᪥ᮏㄒࢆࢶ࣮ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚఍ヰࢆ஺ࢃࡋࠊࡑࡢᚋࠊே㛫㛵ಀࢆᵓ⠏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࢣ࣮ࢫࡣከࡃᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ᪥ᮏᅜෆࡢ኱Ꮫ
࡟ᅾᏛࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ᪥ᮏேᏛ⏕࡜␃Ꮫ⏕ࡀ᪥ᮏㄒࢆࢶ࣮ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚༠ാᏛ⩦ࢆ⾜࠺ሙ㠃ࡣࠊ㏆ᖺࡣ≉ู࡞ሙ㠃࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ᪥ᖖⓗ࡟⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏேᏛ⏕࡜␃Ꮫ⏕࡜ࡢึᑐ㠃ࡢሙྜࠊ୧⪅ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽ
ࢣ࣮ࢩ࣭ࣙࣥࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡸẕㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡞࡝ࡀ୧⪅ࡢ┦஫⌮ゎࡸே㛫㛵ಀࡢᵓ⠏࡟ఱ➼࠿ࡢᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ࡛ࡣึᑐ㠃ࡢ᪥ᮏே࡜␃Ꮫ⏕ࡀ᪥ᮏㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡚ពぢ஺᥮ࢆ⾜࠺ሙ㠃࡛ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ヰ㢟ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋࠊ⮬ศࡢពぢࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓ୧⪅ࡢ఍ヰ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ ᪥㡑ࠊ᪥୰ࠊ㡑୰ࡢึᑐ㠃ྠኈࡀ᪥ᮏㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡚ពぢ஺᥮ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ  ᮏࡢ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
␗࡞ࡿ㸲ࡘࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࡑࡢᡂᯝࢆⓎ⾲ࡋࡓࠋ᭱ึࡢⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊึᑐ㠃ヰ⪅㛫ࡢ఍ヰࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡࡢ㑅ᐃࠊ఍ヰࡢᒎ㛤ࡢ௙᪉࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏே࡜㡑ᅜேࡢ㛫࡟ࡣᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ศᯒࡋⓎ⾲ࡋࡓࠋ㸰ࡘ┠ࡢⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊ➨㸱⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓࢱࢫࢡࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿึᑐ㠃ヰ⪅㛫ࡀࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ⤒࡚ᡴࡕゎࡅ࡟ᡂຌࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࢩ࣮ࢡ࢚ࣥࢫ࡜࣏ࢫࢺࢩ
࣮ࢡ࢚ࣥࢫࡢศᯒ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚Ⓨ⾲ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ㸱ࡘ┠ࡢⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊึᑐ㠃ヰ⪅㛫࡛㉳ࡇࡾᚓࡿពぢࡢ┦㐪ࡸᑐ❧ࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ୧⪅ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄪᩚࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚Ⓨ⾲ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ᭱ᚋ
ࡢ㸲ࡘ┠ࡢⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ➗࠸ࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄯヰ㐠Ⴀࡢୖࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙺ๭ࢆ
ᯝࡓࡋࡓࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚Ⓨ⾲ࡋࡓࠋ㸰㸬఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࡢᴫせ ᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ࡛ࡣࠊึᑐ㠃ࡢ᪥ᮏே࡜␃Ꮫ⏕ࡀ㸰ே㸯⤌࡛ពぢ஺᥮ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ  ᮏࡢ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊ㸲ேࡢⓎ⾲⪅ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ␗࡞ࡿどⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ఍ヰㄪᰝࡢᴫせࡣ௨ୗ
ࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸧ᑐ㇟㸸7 ኱Ꮫ࡟ᅾᏛ୰ࡢ᪥ᮏேࠊ㡑ᅜேࠊ୰ᅜேᏛ⏕ྛ  ྡࠋ᪥ᮏேᏛ⏕ࡢᑓ㛛ศ㔝ࡣᩥ⣔ࠊ␃Ꮫ⏕ࡣᩥ⣔ࠊ⌮⣔ࡀΰࡊࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸧␃Ꮫ⏕ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒຊ㸸7 ኱Ꮫ␃Ꮫ⏕ࢭࣥࢱ࣮࡛୰ୖ⣭ࣞ࣋ࣝࠊୖ⣭ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ⿵ㅮࢥ࣮ࢫࢆ

−243−

Breaking the Ice ？ : 日本人と留学生の初対面会話における打ち解けの手続きཷㅮࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࢆ፹௓ゝㄒ࡜ࡋࡓࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡣၥ㢟࡞࠸ࠋ㸧ㄪᰝ᪉ἲ㸸᪥㡑ࠊ᪥୰ࠊ㡑୰ࡢ࣌࢔࡛ࠊ┦ᡭࢆኚ࠼࡚㸰ᅇࡎࡘࠊ᪥ᮏ஦᝟࡜㛵ಀࡢ࠶ࡿ᪥㡑୰ࡢ᫬஦ၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ពぢ஺᥮ࢆ⾜࠺࡜࠸࠺ࢱࢫࢡࢆ㐙⾜ࡍࡿࠋ఍ヰ᫬㛫ࡣ  ศࢆタᐃࡋࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ఍ヰࡣࣅࢹ࣓࡛࢜࢝ࣛ㘓⏬ࡋࡓࠋ఍ヰㄪᰝ⤊஢ᚋࠊ஧ே
ࡀูࠎࡢሙᡤ࡛ࠊࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢩ࣮ࢺࠊ఍ヰࡢホ౯ཬࡧ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ༳㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ⏝⣬࡟グධࡍࡿࠋ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡣ  ẁ㝵ࡢ㑅ᢥᘧཬࡧ⮬⏤グ㏙ᘧࡢ㸰✀㢮࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸧ពぢ஺᥮ࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡ ࢺࣆࢵࢡࡣࠊ᪥ᮏࠊ㡑ᅜࠊ୰ᅜࡢⱝ࠸ୡ௦ࡀពぢ஺᥮ࡀ⾜࠼ࡿ㸵ࡘࡢ᫬஦ၥ㢟ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓࠋ
ࢺࣆࢵࢡࡢ㑅ࡧ᪉ࡣࣜࢫࢺࡶࡋࡃࡣࡃࡌࡢ᪉ἲࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ㑅ᢥࡢ௙᪉ࡶ୧⪅ࡀヰࡋྜ࠸࡛Ỵࡵࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡋࡓࠋ㸵ࡘࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ձ᪥ᮏ࡛ࡣ  ṓ࠿ࡽᡂேࡔ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋᡂேࡢᖺ㱋ࢆୖࡆࡿ࡭ࡁ࠿ࠊ࠸ࡲࡢࡲࡲ࡛࠸࠸
ࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊヰࡋྜࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
ղ᪥ᮏ࡛ࡣ  ṓ࡟ᑠᏛᰯ࡟ධᏛࡋࡲࡍࠋᑵᏛࡢᖺ㱋ࢆ  ṓ࡟ࡍࡿ࡭ࡁ࠿ࠊ௒ࡢࡲࡲ࡛࠸࠸ࡢ࠿
࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊヰࡋྜࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
ճ᮶ᖺᅄ᭶࠿ࡽᾘ㈝⛯ࡀ 㸣࡟್ୖࡆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀỴࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ෌᮶ᖺ  ᭶࠿ࡽ 㸣࡟್ୖࡆࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺᱌ࡶ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋᾘ㈝⛯ࢆୖࡆࡿ࡭ࡁ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊୗࡆࡿ࡭ࡁ࡞ࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
ヰࡋྜࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
մᅜ㝿஺ὶࡀ┒ࢇ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ᪥ᮏࡶ௚ࡢᅜ࡛ࡶࠊ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢ␃Ꮫ⏕ࢆᚲಟ⛉┠࡟ࡍࡿ࡭ࡁࡔ࡜࠸࠺ពぢࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡝࠺ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࠋヰࡋྜࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
յேࡣ㸦≉࡟ዪᛶࡣ㸧ࠊእぢࡀ኱஦ࡔ࡜࠸࠺ពぢࡶ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡝࠺ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࠋヰࡋྜࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
ն᭱㏆ࠊ⨾ࡋࡃ࡞ࡿࡓࡵ࡟⨾ᐜᩚᙧࢆࡍࡿேࡀቑ࠼࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡝࠺ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࠋ
ヰࡋྜࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
շ᪥ᮏ࡟ࡣරᙺࡢ⩏ົࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࡀࠊ㡑ᅜ࡛ࡣᡂே⏨ᛶ࡟රᙺࡢ⩏ົࡀㄢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
௦๓༙࡟㸰㸰࠿᭶㛫㌷㝲࡟⾜࠿࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡝࠺ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࠋヰࡋྜࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
㸧఍ヰ༠ຊ⪅ࡢ᥋ゐሙ㠃ࡢ⤒㦂࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
࣭᪥ᮏேẕㄒヰ⪅㸴ྡ୰ࠊ㸲ྡࡣ᥋ゐሙ㠃ࡢ⤒㦂ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ ྡࡣ㢖⦾࡟᥋ゐࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
࣭᪥ᮏே  ྡࡣࠊ௒ᅇࡢㄪᰝ࡛እᅜே࡜ヰࡍࡢࡀึࡵ࡚ࡢ⤒㦂ࠋ㸦఍ヰᚋࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡟ࡣ⮬ศࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࡀࡂࡇࡕ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜グ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧࣭␃Ꮫ⏕㸦㡑ᅜேࠊ୰ᅜே㸧ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏே࡜᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡼࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ⤒㦂ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ࠺
ࡕࠊ㡑ᅜ  ྡࠊ୰ᅜ  ྡࡣ᪥ᮏேࡢ཭ேࡣ࠸࡞࠸࡜ᅇ⟅ࠋ࣭␃Ꮫ⏕ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦Ṕࡣ᭱▷  ࠿᭶ࠊ᭱㛗  ᖺࠋ ᖺ௨ୖࡢᏛ⩦ṔࡢᏛ⏕ࡀ  ྡࠋ᪥ᮏ⁫ᅾᮇ㛫ࡣ᭱▷࡛  ࠿᭶ࠊ᭱㛗࡛  ᖺ  ࠿᭶ࠊ ᖺᮍ‶  ྡࠋ㸱㸬఍ヰᐇ᪋ᚋࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ ⤌ࡢ఍ヰᚋࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࢆศᯒࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࠾࠾ࡴࡡዲឤࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ

−244−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

࠿ࡗࡓࠋ␃Ꮫ⏕ࡢሙྜࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡼࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ᑡࡋ୙Ᏻࢆឤࡌࡓ࣌࢔ࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊ
඲యⓗ࡟ࡣ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ዲ༳㇟ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ఍ヰࡢ㐍⾜ࡶࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࡢ୰࡛఍ヰࡢෆᐜࡸ┦ᡭ࡟ࡓ࠸ࡍࡿ㉁ၥ㡯┠࡜ᅇ⟅ࡢ⤖ᯝࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ4఍ヰࡢ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ༳㇟ࡣ࡝࠺ࡔࡗࡓ࠿㸦յ㠀ᖖ࡟ヰࡋࡸࡍ࠸ே մ࠿࡞ࡾヰࡋࡸࡍ࠸ே
ճᬑ㏻࡟ヰࡏࡿே ղ࠶ࡲࡾヰࡋࡸࡍࡃ࡞࠸ே ձヰࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ே㸧ࠓᅇ⟅ࠔյ  մ   ճ  ղ  ձ 㸦ྡ㸧
4 ┦ᡭ࡜୍⥴࡟࠸࡚࡝࠺ࡔࡗࡓ࠿ࠋ㸦յ㠀ᖖ࡟ᴦࡋ࠸ մ࠿࡞ࡾᴦࡋ࠸ ճᴦࡋ࠸ ղ࠶ࡲࡾࡓࡢࡋࡃ࡞࠸ ձࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸㸧ࠓᅇ⟅ࠔյ    մ  ճ  ղ  ձ
4 ┦ᡭ࡜௰Ⰻࡃࡋࡓ࠸Ẽᣢࡕࡣ࡝࠺࠿ࠋᙉ࠸ մ࠿࡞ࡾᙉ࠸ ճே୪ࡳ  ղ࠶ࡲࡾ࡞࠸
ձ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠸㸧ࠓᅇ⟅ࠔյ    մ  ճ  ղ  ձ
4 ┦ᡭࡢゝື࡟ࡴ࠿ࡘࡃࡇ࡜ࡣ࠶ࡗࡓ࠿ࠋ
㸦ձࡲࡗࡓࡃ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ ղ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠿ࡗࡓ ճ࠶ࡲࡾ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ մᑡࡋ࠶ࡗࡓ յ࡜࡚ࡶከ࠿ࡗࡓ㸧ࠓᅇ⟅ࠔձ   ղ   ճ  մ  յ
4 ⮬ศࡢヰࡋ᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡝࠺ឤࡌࡓ࠿㸦ձ⮬↛࡟ヰࡏࡓ ղ࠿࡞ࡾ⮬↛ ճ≉࡟୙⮬↛࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ մ࠶ࡲࡾ⮬↛࡟ヰࡏ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ յ࡜࡚ࡶ୙⮬↛࡞ヰࡋ᪉࡟࡞ࡗࡓ㸧  ࠓᅇ⟅ࠔձ    ղ   ճ  մ  յ㸲㸬࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࡢฎ⌮ ᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡢ㸲ᮏࡢ◊✲Ⓨ⾲ࡣ᪥㡑ࠊ᪥୰ࠊ㡑୰ࡢ  ᮏࡢ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊྛⓎ⾲ࡢศᯒほⅬࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊ఍ヰࡢᩥᏐ໬ࡸ఍ヰ౛ࡢ♧ࡋ᪉ࡶྛⓎ⾲ࡢෆᐜ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ኚ᭦ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠ୍ࡢ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ␗࡞ࡿᩥᏐ໬㈨ᩱࡸ఍ヰ౛ࡢ♧ࡋ᪉ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡈᢎ▱࠾ࡁ㢪࠸ࡓ࠸ࠋ௜グᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡣࠊᖹᡂ  ᖺᗘ㹼 ᖺᗘ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠 ᇶ┙◊✲㹁ㄢ㢟␒ ࠊ
ࠕࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜࡢㄆ㆑࡜Ⓨヰࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪥⡿㡑୰ࡢᑐ↷◊✲ࠖࠊ◊✲௦⾲⪅㸸チ᫂Ꮚ㸧ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ







−245−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ึᑐ㠃ࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰ㢟ࡢ㑅ᢥ࡜఍ヰࡢ㐍⾜᪉ἲ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ チ ᫂Ꮚ
heo.myeongja.gf@u.tsukuba.ac.jpせ ᪨᪥ᮏே࡜㡑ᅜேࡢึᑐ㠃ࡢ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰ㢟ࡢ㑅ᢥࡸࠊ఍ヰࡢᒎ㛤ࡢ௙᪉࡟㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂
ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ㡑ᅜேࡣ┦ᡭࡢእぢ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࠊ཭ே㛵ಀࠊ⏕ά࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ㉁ၥࡀከࡃࠊ
⚾ⓗ㡿ᇦ࡟㋃ࡳ㎸ࡴࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊ᪥ᮏேࡣ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓࢱࢫࢡࢆ㐙⾜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚఍ヰࢆᒎ㛤ࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࠊヰ㢟ࢆ㌿᥮ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ࡟㋃ࡳ㎸ࡴⓎヰࢆࡍࡿഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ
Abstract㸸
Between Japanese and Korean participants, it was found that there were differences in choice of topic andin the manner of developing the conversation. The Korean participants were observed to produce manyutterances entering into the personal territory of their partner, such as comments on outward appearancesand friendship relations, and questions about private life. On the other hand, Japanese participants
attempted to develop the conversation through the use of the given task, and to have a tendency to produce
utterances entering into the personal territory of their partner when changing topic.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜࠊึᑐ㠃ࠊⓎヰෆᐜࠊ఍ヰᒎ㛤㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ୎ᑀయ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࡣࠊᩗㄒࡢᩥἲⓗ࡞ไ⣙ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊゝཬࡍࡿෆᐜࡸㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ไ⣙ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ୎ᑀయࢆ౑࠺࡭ࡁ┦ᡭࡢ㢪ᮃࡸ⬟ຊ➼࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ┤᥋ⓗ࡞ゝཬࢆ㑊ࡅࡿ࡭ࡁ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ⓗ࡞ไ⣙ࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊࠕ㸦ඛ⏕ࡣ㸧㹼ࡓ࠸࡛ࡍ࠿ࠖ➼ࡣ㠀ᩥἲⓗ࡞⾲⌧࡟࡞ࡿ㸦┈ᒸ 1997㸧ࠋࡲࡓࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⚾ⓗ㡿ᇦ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣゝཬࢆ㑊ࡅࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛ࠊ┤᥋ゝཬࡍࡿ࡜୎ᑀࡉࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡣ୙⮬↛࡞⾲⌧࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦㕥ᮌ 1997㸧ࠋチ㸦2011㸧࡛ࡣࠊಶேࡀᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᅛ᭷ࡢ㡿ᇦࢆࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡋࠊ෇⁥࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάືࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵ࡟ࡣゝཬࡍࡿෆᐜࡶ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊチ㸦2015㸧࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏࠊ㡑ᅜࠊ୰ᅜࡢࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜࡢẁ㝵ᛶ࡟ࡣ㐪࠸ࡀᏑᅾࡋࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ㛫࡛ࡶࠊࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄆ㆑ࡸ⾲⌧᪉ἲ࡟࠾࠸࡚㐪࠸ࡀᏑᅾࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊᑐྠᖺ௦ึᑐ㠃ࡢ᪥ᮏே኱Ꮫ⏕࡜᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀពぢ஺᥮ࢆ⾜࠺᥋ゐሙ㠃࡛ࠊ┦ᡭࡢࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜࡢෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゝཬࡍࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ᪥ᮏ
ே኱Ꮫ⏕ࡀእᅜே␃Ꮫ⏕࡜෇⁥࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ᪥ᮏே࡜ࡢពぢ஺᥮ࢆ⾜࠺ሙ㠃࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞఍ヰᒎ㛤ࢆ♧ࡍࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ−247−

初対面の会話における話題の選定と会話の進行方法

㸰㸬ᮏⓎ⾲ࡢ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱ ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡣ᪥ᮏᅜෆࡢ኱Ꮫ࡟ᅾᏛ୰ࡢᏛ⏕࡜␃Ꮫ⏕࡛࠶ࡿࠋཧຍ⪅ࡢᇶᮏࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⾲㸯 ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡢ⫼ᬒ༠ຊ⪅ᛶู㌟ศ㸦ᖺ㱋㸧

␃Ꮫ⏕㸦᪥ᮏ

᥋ゐሙ㠃ࡢ⤒㦂

ே㸧ࡢ཭ே
᪥ᮏ㸦J㸧

ዪ

኱Ꮫ㸲ᖺ⏕㸦23 ṓ㸧

↓

㡑ᅜ㸦K㸧

ዪ

᪥ᮏㄒ◊ಟ⏕㸦18 ṓ㸧 ↓

୰ᅜ㸦C㸧

⏨

◊✲⏕㸦23 ṓ㸧᭷࡞ࡋᗂඣᮇ࡟᪥ᮏ⁫ᅾ⤒㦂࠶ࡾ㐌࡟㸰ᗘࡄࡽ࠸఍ヰ ࡞࠾ࠊ␃Ꮫ⏕ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦Ṕཬࡧ᪥ᮏㄒຊࡣ௨ୗࡢ⾲㸰ࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⾲㸰 ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦Ṕ༠ຊ⪅᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦Ṕ

Ώ᪥ᚋࡢ᪥ᮏ⁫ᅾᮇ㛫᪥ᮏㄒࣞ࣋ࣝ

㡑ᅜ㸦K㸧

7 ᖺ 10 ࠿᭶

0 ᖺ 6 ࠿᭶

ୖ⣭

୰ᅜ㸦C㸧

5 ᖺ 2 ࠿᭶0 ᖺ 2 ࠿᭶ୖ⣭ ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒຊࡣᅾᏛ୰ࡢ኱Ꮫ࡛㛤ㅮࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᪥ᮏㄒࢥ࣮ࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ୖ⣭ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᤵᴗࢆᒚಟࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡼࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡣ༑ศ࡟ഛࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
㸱㸬ࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ఍ヰ౛ J ࡟ẚ࡭࡚ K ࡜ C ࡟ࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿゝཬࡀぢࡽࢀࠊJ ࡣᛂ⟅ࢆᅇ㑊ࡋࡓࡾࠊ➗࠸࡛ᛂ⟅ࡍࡿ౛ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ
3.1 ᖺ㱋࣭እぢ ୧⪅ࡢ⮬ᕫ⤂௓ࡢሙ㠃࡛ᖺ㱋࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡍࡿ౛ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ఍ヰ౛ 1 ࡢ J ࡜ C ࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡣ 26
࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ J ࡀᖺ㱋ࡢ㛤♧ࢆᅇ㑊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
౛ 1 J ࡀᖺ㱋ࡢ㛤♧ࢆᅇ㑊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ఍ヰࡢ౛

Ѝ

22

J

ࡔ࠿ࡽࠊ࠼࣮㸦࠶ࡔྡ㸧ࡗ࡚࿧ࢇ࡛ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ

23

C

ࡣ࠸ࠋ

24

J

࠼ࡗ࡜ࠊ㸦኱Ꮫྡ㸧ࡢ㸦Ꮫ㒊ྡ㸧ࡢᅄᖺ⏕࡛ࡍࠋ

25

C࠶ࠊ࡞ࡿ࡯࡝ࠋ

26

Jࡣ࠸ࠋ࡛ࠊ࡟ࡌࡹ࠺…࡯࡟ࡷࡽࡽ㸦➗࠸㸧

27

C

㸦➗࠸㸧

28

J

20 ࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࡇ࠼ࡓࡄࡽ࠸࡛ࡍࠋ

29

C࠺࣮ࢇࠊࡣ࠸ࠋ

−248−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊูࡢ఍ヰ౛ 2 ࡛ࡣࠊK ࡀ J ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᖺ㱋ཬࡧእぢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚┤᥋ゝཬࡋࠊࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡋ࡚࠾
ࡾࠊJ ࡣ➗࠸࡛ᛂ⟅ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
౛ 2 K ࡀᖺ㱋࣭እぢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ఍ヰࡢ౛

Ѝ

11

K

௒ࠊ኱Ꮫ⏕࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍ࠿ࠋ

12

Jࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࠋ㸦኱Ꮫྡ㸧ࠊࡢ㸦Ꮫ㒊ྡ㸧ࡢ㸲ᖺ⏕࡛ࡍࠋ

13K࠶࣮㸲ᖺ⏕࡛ࡍ࠿ࠋ

14

J

ࡣ࠸ࠋ

15

K

࡛ࡶࠊ

16

J

ࢇ㸽

17

K

ࡎ࠸ࡪࢇⱝࡃぢ࠼࡚

18J࠸ࡸ࣮㸦➗࠸㸧

19

K

⚾࡜ྠࡌ

20

J

࠸ࡸ࣮㸦ྰᐃࡢࢪ࢙ࢫࢳ࣮ࣕ㸧

21

Kࡄࡽ࠸࠿࡞ࡗ࡚ᛮ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ

J ࡣ఍ヰ౛ 1 ࡛ࡣ⮬ศࡢᖺ㱋ࡢ㛤♧ࢆᅇ㑊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊ఍ヰ౛ 2 ࡛ࡣ 17 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᖺ㱋࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡉࢀࠊ➗࠸࡛ᛂ⟅ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢᚋࡣ୧⪅࡜ࡶ࡟እぢ࡬ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡬࡜఍ヰࡀⓎᒎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ⱝ࠸ୡ௦ࡢྠᖺ௦ࡢሙྜࠊᖺ㱋࡞࡝ࡢࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ࡟㛵ࢃࡿෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶሙྜ࡟ࡼ
ࡗ࡚ࡣ఍ヰࡢෆᐜࢆᒎ㛤ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃୖ࡛ࠊゝཬࡀ᭷ຠ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3.2 እᅜㄒ⬟ຊ እᅜㄒ⬟ຊࡣಶேࡢ⬟ຊࡸホ౯ࡀࡘ࡞ࡀࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜࡢ୰ᚰ㒊࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ఍ヰ౛ 3 ࡢ 331 ࡛ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ C ࡀ J ࡢゝㄒ⬟ຊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚┤᥋㉁ၥ
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋJ ࡣ 332 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⮬ศࡢゝㄒ⬟ຊࢆྰᐃࡋࠊ➗࠸࡛ᛂ⟅ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
౛ 3 C ࡀゝㄒ⬟ຊࢆ┤᥋㉁ၥࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ఍ヰࡢ౛
Ѝ

331 C

௒ࠊఱㄒࡀ࡛ࡁࡲࡍ࠿ࠋ

332 Jఱㄒࡀࠊఱㄒࡶ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸㸦➗࠸㸧

333 C

㸦➗࠸㸧

334 J

࠶࡜ࠊ࡞ࢇ࡚࠸࠺࠿ࠊࡲ࠵ⱥㄒࡣࠊ

335 C

ࡣ࠸

336 J

⩦ࡗࡓࡢ࡜࣮ࠊ

337 C

ࡣ࠸

338 J

࠶࡜ࡣ࣮ࠊ኱Ꮫ࡟ධࡗ࡚࠿ࡽࡣࡕࡻࡗ࡜୰ᅜㄒࢆ

−249−

初対面の会話における話題の選定と会話の進行方法

339 C

࠼

340 J

ࡸࡗ࡚ࡓࠊ㸯ᖺࡔࡅࠊ㸯ᖺࡢ࡜ࡁࡔࡅࡸࡗ࡚࡚ࠊࡔ࠿ࡽ㸦➗࠸㸧

341 C࠼ࠊࡑ࠺࡛ࡍ࠿㸦➗࠸㸧 J ࡣ⮬ศࡢゝㄒ⬟ຊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ྰᐃⓗ࡞ホ౯ࡢᛂ⟅ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢᚋࡢ఍ヰ࡛ C ࡣ୰ᅜㄒࡸ
௚ࡢእᅜㄒࡢ⬟ຊ࡟㛵ࡍࡿゝཬࡀࡉࡽ࡟⥆࠸࡚࠾ࡾࠊC ࡣ J ࡢࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜࡢ୰ᚰ㒊࡟࠶ࡿෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿㄆ㆑ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋJ ࡣゝㄒ⬟ຊ࡟㛵ࡍࡿゝཬࢆ㑊ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊC ࡣᵝࠎ࡞ゝㄒ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୧⪅ࡢ⬟ຊࢆヰ㢟࡟㑅ࡰ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶
ࡿࠋࡇࡢ఍ヰ౛࠿ࡽ୧⪅ࡢࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜࡢෆᐜ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄆ㆑࡟ࡣࢬࣞࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄆ㆑ࡢࢬࣞࡣࠊே㛫㛵ಀࡀᵓ⠏ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ึ
ᑐ㠃ࡢሙྜࡣ┦ᡭࢆ୙ទᛌ࡟ࡉࡏࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ୎ᑀయࢆ౑࠺┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ゝཬࡍࡿ㝿ࡣὀពࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸲㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣึᑐ㠃ྠኈࡢ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢពぢ஺᥮ࡢ఍ヰࡢ୰࡛ࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝ
ࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ࡟㛵ࢃࡿෆᐜࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ẚ࡭Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ᪉ࡀࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ࡟㛵ࢃࡿゝཬࡢ㢖ᗘࡀ㧗ࡃࠊヰ㢟ࡢෆᐜ࡜ࡋ࡚㑅ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢሙྜࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢゝཬ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚➗࠸࡛ᛂ⟅ࢆᅇ㑊ࡋࡓࡾࠊ⮬ศࡢ⬟ຊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ྰᐃⓗ࡞ホ౯ࢆ⾲ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿ఍ヰ౛ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞
ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ࡟㛵ࢃࡿෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡍࡿ᫬ࡣ┦ᡭ࡟୙ᛌឤࢆ୚࠼ࡿྍ
⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄆ㆑ࡋࠊヰ㢟ࢆ㑅ࡪ᫬ࡣὀពࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
௵ᴿဴ㸦2006㸧
ࠕ㡑ᅜே࡜ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠖ
ࠗ㡑ᅜே࡟ࡼࡿ᪥ᮏ♫఍ゝㄒᏛ◊✲࠘ࠊpp7-27ࠊ࠾࠺ࡩ࠺㕥ᮌ╬㸦1997㸧
ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୎ᑀయୡ⏺࡜ᬑ㏻యୡ⏺ࠖࠊ⏣❑⾜๎㸦⦅㸧ࠗどⅬ࡜ゝㄒ⾜ື࠘ࠊpp45-76ࠊᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧チ᫂Ꮚ㸦2011㸧
ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ࡟㛵ࢃࡿㄯヰศᯒ࣮᪥ᮏே࣭㡑ᅜே࣭୰ᅜேẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢㄪᰝࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚Ŧࠖࠗ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ␃Ꮫ⏕ࢭࣥࢱ࣮᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱ㄽ㞟࠘26㸸pp1-17
チ᫂Ꮚ㸦2015㸧
ࠕࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿⓎヰ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪥㡑୰ᑐ↷◊✲Ŧゝཬࡢ᭷↓࡟㛵ࡍࡿศᯒࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠖ
ࠗᖹᡂ 23㹼26 ᖺᗘ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠ᇶ┙◊✲㸦㹁㸧◊✲ᡂᯝሗ࿌᭩࠘㸦ㄢ㢟␒ྕ 23520610ࠊ◊✲௦⾲⪅㸸チ᫂Ꮚ㸧⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ㸦1997㸧ࠕ⾲⌧ࡢ୺ほᛶࠖ⏣❑⾜๎㸦⦅㸧ࠗどⅬ࡜ゝㄒ⾜ື࠘ࠊpp1-11ࠊᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾
ฟ∧




−250−

     

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ᡴࡕゎࡅࡢ㐃㙐ᵓ㐀ࣈࢵࢩࣗࢿ࣭ࣝࢣ࣮ࢻ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ఍ヰศᯒࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊึᑐ㠃ࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚◊✲⪅࡟୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓࢸ࣮࣐࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࢱࢫࢡ࠿ࡽእࢀ࡚ࠊཧຍ⪅ࡀಶே࡟㛵ࢃࡿ᝟ሗࢆ஫࠸࡟⪺ࡁฟࡋヰ㢟໬ࡍࡿ㐃㙐࡟╔┠ࡍࡿࠋึᑐ㠃ࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡲࡔఱࡶ▱ࡽ࡞࠸┦ᡭ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࢆ㞟ࡵࠊ஫࠸࡟⯆࿡ࡀᣢ࡚ࡿඹ㏻ࡢヰ㢟࡞࡝ࢆぢࡘࡅฟࡍసᴗࡀᙜ஦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ୍࡚ࡘࡢ㔜せ࡞ㄢ㢟࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊཧຍ⪅ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᡭ⥆ࡁ࡛஫࠸࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢺࣆ࢝ࣝࢺ࣮ࢡࢆᒎ㛤ࡋࠕ஫࠸࡟ᡴࡕゎࡅࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺άືࢆᵓ⠏ࡍ
ࡿ࠿ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࠋ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㸰ࡘࡢ㐃㙐ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ୍ࡘ┠ࡣࠊ๓㐃㙐ࢆ⤊஢ࡉࡏ࡚࠿
ࡽࠊ┦ᡭࡢ᝟ሗࢆ⪺ࡁฟࡍ᪂ࡓ࡞⊂❧㐃㙐ࢆ㛤ጞࡍࡿࣃࢱ࣮࡛ࣥ࠶ࡿࠋ஧ࡘ┠ࡣࠊ࣮࣋ࢫ㐃㙐ࡢ➨ 2࣌࢔ࣃ࣮ࢺࡢᚋ࡟ᚋ⥆㐃㙐࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ࡜ࡢ࣮࣋ࢫ㐃㙐ࢆᣑᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࣃࢱ࣮࡛ࣥ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢࣃࢱ࣮
ࣥࡣཧຍ⪅ࡢே㛫㛵ಀᵓ⠏ୖ࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᶵ⬟ࡋᚓࡿ࠿ࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ึᑐ㠃ࡢ఍ヰࠊNS/NNS 㛫ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࠊࢺࣆ࢝ࣝࢺ࣮ࢡࠊᚋ⥆㐃㙐ࠊ఍ヰศᯒOn the sequential organization of getting to know one another
Cade BUSHNELL
University of Tsukuba
In this research, I use conversation analysis to examine sequences-at-talk in initial interactions
where the participants meeting for the first time are able to slip out of the constraints of a task
given by the researcher, which required them to converse about certain themes, and engage in fact
finding and subsequent topical talk about each other. In conversation between participants
meeting for the first time, one problem treated by the participants as being of importance is thatof finding out information about the hitherto unknown other and developing topical talk onthemes of mutual interest. In the analysis, I describe the procedures by which the participants“get to know one another” through developing topical talk about each other. As a result, 2sequential patterns were found in the data. The first is a pattern where the participants open an
independent sequence asking about personal information after closing the previous sequence. In
the second pattern, the participants open a post-sequential expansion following the second-pairpart of the base sequence. Some of the implications of these sequence types for the relationshipbeing co-constructed by the participants is considered.
Keywords: Initial interaction, Interaction between NS/NNS, Topical talk, Post-sequence
expansion, Conversation analysis
㸯㸬◊✲ࡢ⫼ᬒ ゝ࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࡀࠊึᑐ㠃ࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡣཧຍ⪅ࡣ஫࠸ࡢ᝟ሗࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾ࡛
┦ᡭ࡜࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ᛌ㐺࡟఍ヰࢆᒎ㛤ࡋ࡚⾜ࡅࡿ࠿ࠊᡭ᥈ࡾ≧ែࡢࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⮬⏤࡞ึᑐ㠃఍ヰ1࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᵝࠎ࡞᝟ሗࢆ⪺ࡁฟࡋࠊ஫࠸ࡀ⯆࿡ࢆᣢࡕᚓࡿヰ㢟ࢆぢฟࡋ࡚⾜ࡃࠋ఍ヰ࡬ࡢཧຍ⪅ࡢࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᩥ໬ⓗ⫼ᬒࡀ␗࡞ࡿሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊඹ㏻┦㐪Ⅼࢆぢࡘࡅฟࡋヰ㢟໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ
1ࡘࡲࡾࠊ◊✲⪅ࡸ➨ 3 ⪅ࠊ⤌⧊࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄢ㢟ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸≧ែ࡛ࡢ఍ヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ−251−

打ち解けの連鎖構造࡚఍ヰࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚⾜ࡃࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀほᐹࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Mori, 2003㸧ࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊ஫࠸ࡢ␗࡞ࡿᩥ໬ⓗ⫼ᬒࢆࣜࢯ࣮ࢫ࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ≉࡟ึᑐ㠃఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚⥭せ࡞ㄢ㢟࡛࠶ࡿヰ㢟㑅ࡧࢆᯝࡓࡋࠊࢺࣆ࢝ࣝࢺ࣮
ࢡࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛఍ヰࢆࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡟ᒎ㛤ࡋ࡚⾜ࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡟ດຊࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᩥ໬ⓗ⫼ᬒࡢ࠸࠿ࢇࢆၥࢃࡎࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞సᴗࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࡢ஫࠸ࡢே㛫㛵ಀࢆᵓ⠏ࡋጞࡵࡿࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊ஫࠸࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢺࣆ࢝ࣝࢺ࣮ࢡ࡟ཧຍࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡇࡑࠊ㛵ಀࢆ⠏ࡁୖࡆࡿᇶ♏సࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊᇶ♏ࢆᤣ࠼࡚࠿ࡽࡶࠊே㛫㛵ಀࢆ⥔ᣢࡋ஫࠸࡟࡜ࡗ࡚஫࠸ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࢆᣢ
ࡕࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࢆྍど໬ࡍࡿୖ࡛ࡶࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡓࢃ࠸ࡶ࡞࠸ࢺࣆ࢝ࣝࢺ࣮ࢡ࡜࠸࠺
ࡢࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟኱஦࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ㸦Nishizaka, 2012㸧ࠋ ୍᪉ࠊఱ࠿ࡢၥ㢟ࢆゎỴࡋࡓࡾࠊࢱࢫࢡࡸㄢ㢟ࢆᯝࡓࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡣࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࡑࢀࡀึ
ᑐ㠃ࡢ఍ヰ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ⮬⏤࡞ࢺࣆ࢝ࣝࢺ࣮ࢡࡀᅔ㞴࡞ሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ་⒪ሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡸࡾྲྀ
ࡾ࡛ࡣࠊᝈ⪅ࡢၥ㢟ࢆ≉ᐃࡋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㐺ษ࡞་⒪ࢣ࢔ࢆᐃࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊே㛫㛵ಀసࡾࡼࡾㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ඃඛࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢඃඛᛶࡣ఍ヰࡢᵓ㐀ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊྛ㐃㙐ࡀ┠ୗࡢㄢ㢟࡟≉໬ࡉࢀ඘࡚ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࢀ௨እࡢࡇ࡜ࢆࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐃㙐ᵓ㐀ࡢ୰࡛ᢅ࠺ࡓࡵ࡟
㝿❧ࡗࡓດຊࡀᚲせࡔ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦Nishizaka, 2010㸧ࠋ↓ㄽࠊ་⒪⌧ሙ࡛ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡜ࡣ኱ࡁࡃ␗࡞
ࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛ࡶࠊ◊✲⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⏝ពࡉࢀࡓࢸ࣮࣐࡟ࡘ࠸࡚఍ヰࡋ࡚⾜ࡃ࡜࠸࠺஦๓࡟୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓࢱࢫࢡࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡣࠊୖグྠᵝࠊᙜ஦⪅ࡀࡑࡢࢱࢫࢡ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓ㐃㙐ᵓ㐀࠿ࡽእࢀ࡚஫࠸࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢺࣆ࢝ࣝࢺ࣮ࢡࢆᒎ㛤ࡋ࡚⾜ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀࠊࡑࡢ㐃㙐ᵓ㐀࡟ࡼࡿᣊ᮰ࢆእࡍ
ാࡁ࡞ࡋ࡟ࡣ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸఍ヰࡢὶࢀࡔ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ㏫࡟ゝ࠼ࡤࠊࢱࢫࢡࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ௨ୖࠊࡑࢀࢆ
఍ヰࢆᢲࡋ㐍ࡵࡿࡓࡵࡢࣜࢯ࣮ࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚฼⏝ࡋ࡚⾜ࡅࡤ࠸࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢࣜࢯ࣮ࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࢱࢫࢡ
࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀ࠶ࡿព࿡࡛ཧຍ⪅ࡓࡕ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢࠕᏳሚࠖ࡟࡞ࡾᚓࡿᏑᅾ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡶゝ࠼ࡿࠋᑡ࡞࠿ࡽࡎࠊ
ᙜ஦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚஫࠸ࡢ᝟ሗࢆ▱ࡿࡓࡵࡢసᴗ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣᵝࠎ࡞༴㝤ᛶࢆᖏࡧ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ┦ᡭࡢ㋃ࡳධࡽ
ࢀࡓࡃ࡞࠸㡿ᇦࢆ౵ᐖࡋ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟㓄៖ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡋࠊఱࡋࢁఱࡶ▱ࡽ࡞࠸┦ᡭࡢࡓࡵࠊ඲ࡃぢ࠼࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓᆅ㞾ࢆ㋃ࡳවࡡ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓࢱࢫࢡࢆ౑ࡗ࡚఍ヰ࡟ཧຍࡋ࡚ࡉ࠼࠸ࢀࡤࠊ஫࠸ࡢ᝟ሗࢆ▱ࡾྜ࠺࡜࠸࠺༴㝤࡞సᴗࢆࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶఱ࡜࠿┠ࡢ๓ࡢ≧ἣࢆ↓஦࡟஌ࡾษࢀࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࢹ࣮ࢱࢆぢࡿ࡜⌧࡟ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿཧຍ⪅ࡶ࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊࡑ࠺ࡌࡷ࡞࠸ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡇࡑᮏ◊✲ࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ஫࠸࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢺࣆ࢝
ࣝࢺ࣮ࢡࢆᒎ㛤ࡋ࡚⾜ࡃࡓࡵ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㐃㙐ᵓ㐀ࢆ᧯ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
㸰㸬᪉ἲࠊ࠾ࡼࡧ◊✲ㄢ㢟 ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ࢚ࢫࣀ࣓ࢯࢻࣟࢪ࣮ⓗ఍ヰศᯒࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࠋ఍ヰศᯒࡣ㸪౛࠼ࡤࠕㄯ
ヰศᯒࠖ㸦discourse analysis㸧࡞࡝࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾ㸪ゝㄒⓗᵝ┦ࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎ㸪ゝㄒ౑⏝࡟ేⓎࡍࡿ௙ⲡࡸ
ど⥺㸪㌟యືస࡞࡝ࢆྵࡵࡿࠕ┦஫⾜Ⅽࠖࢆศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ㸦Wooffitt, 2005㸧ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊཧຍ
⪅ࡢⓎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡤࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊྠ୍✵㛫࡟ᒃྜࢃࡏ࡚࠸ࡿ㸰ேࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ࡑࡢど⥺ࡸ㌟యⓗ⾲⌧ࢆ┦஫ⓗ࡟⤌⧊໬ࡍࡿ࠿ࢆ⥥ᐦ࡟ぢ࡚࠸ࡃࡓࡵࠊศᯒࡀᡭἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ᭱㐺࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ఍ヰศᯒࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡣཧຍ⪅ࡢᐇ㝿ࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࢆ㘓⏬㸦ࡲࡓࡣ㘓㡢㸧ࡋࡓ㈨ᩱ࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚཰㞟ࡋࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⥥ᐦ࡟ᩥᏐ໬ࡋ࡚ཧຍ⪅ࡢࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆ㠀ᖖ࡟⣽࠿࠸࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝศᯒࡋ࡚⾜ࡃࠋᩥᏐ໬㈨ᩱࢆసᡂࡍࡿ࡟ᙜࡓࡗ࡚ࠊ఍ヰศᯒࡢ័౛㸦Jefferson, 2004 ཧ↷㸧࡟ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ṇ☜࠿ࡘཝᐦ࡟ࢹ
࣮ࢱࢆ᭩ࡁ㉳ࡇࡋࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ศᯒࡢ㐍ࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ࢚ࢫࣀ࣓ࢯࢻࣟࢪ࣮ⓗ࡞ほⅬ㸦Garfinkel, 1967 ࡞࡝ཧ↷㸧࡛ࠊ௬ㄝࡸᛮ࠸㎸ࡳࢆ࠶ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵᣢࡘࡇ࡜࡞ࡋ࡟ࠊ↓ᚰ࡟ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆぢࡘࡵ࡞ࡀࡽẼ࡟࡞ࡿ⌧㇟ࢆ≉ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡗࡓࠋࡑࢀ࠿ࡽࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⌧㇟ࡀྵࡲࢀࡿ⾜Ⅽ㐃㙐ࢆ≉ᐃࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ㐃㙐ࡢᵓ㐀ࡸࡑࡢᵓ⠏࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡓᡭ⥆ࡁࠊཧຍ⪅ࡀ୍้้බ↛໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓᚿྥᛶ࡞࡝ࢆグ㏙ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊྛ
஦౛㛫࡟ඹ㏻Ⅼ࣭┦㐪Ⅼ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡗࡓ㸦Ten Have, 2007 ࡞࡝ཧ↷㸧ࠋ ◊✲ㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊཧຍ⪅ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚஫࠸ࡢ᝟ሗࢆ▱ࡾྜ࠺㸦௨ୗࠕᡴࡕゎࡅࠖ࡜ࡍࡿ㸧㐃㙐ࢆᵓ⠏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ࠿ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ௨ୗࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸㸸
1.
2.
3.

ᡴࡕゎࡅ㐃㙐ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧ࡛㛤ጞࡉࢀࡿ࠿
ᡴࡕゎࡅ㐃㙐࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩ࣭✀㢮ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿ࠿
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᡴࡕゎࡅ㐃㙐ࡣཧຍ⪅ࡢே㛫㛵ಀᵓ⠏ୖ࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋᚓࡿ࠿㸱㸬ศᯒ ᮏ◊✲ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟࠶ࡿᡴࡕゎࡅ㐃㙐࡟ࡣ኱ࡁࡃศࡅ࡚㸰✀㢮࠶ࡗࡓࠋ୍ࡘ┠ࡣࠊ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓࢸ࣮࣐
ࢆᢅ࠺㐃㙐ࢆ⤊஢ࡉࡏ࡚࠿ࡽࠊ┦ᡭࡢ᝟ሗࢆ⪺ࡁฟࡍ᪂ࡓ࡞⊂❧㐃㙐ࢆ㛤ጞࡍࡿࣃࢱ࣮࡛ࣥ࠶ࡿࠋ஧

−252−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ࡘ┠ࡣࠊ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓࢸ࣮࣐࡞࡝ࢆᢅ࠺࣮࣋ࢫ㐃㙐ࡢ➨ 2 ࣌࢔ࣃ࣮ࢺࡢᚋ࡟ᚋ⥆㐃㙐࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ࡜ࡢ࣮࣋
ࢫ㐃㙐ࢆᣑᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࣃࢱ࣮࡛ࣥ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ௨ୗࡢ᩿∦㸯࡜᩿∦㸰࡛౛♧ࡍࡿࠋ ᩿∦㸯ࡢ๓ࡲ࡛ࠊཧຍ⪅ P㸦㡑ᅜㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㸧࡜ K㸦᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㸧ࡣ⨾ᐜᩚᙧࡢ᫝㠀࡜࠸࠺୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓࢸ࣮࣐࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢺࣆ࢝ࣝࢺ࣮ࢡࢆᒎ㛤ࡋ࡚ࠊヰ㢟ࢆẁ㝵ⓗ࡟⛣⾜ࡋ㸦“stepwise topic
transition”; Jefferson, 1984㸧ࠊ⏨ᛶ࡟ࡼࡿዪᛶࡢᢅ࠸᪉࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪥㡑㛫ࡢ┦㐪Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࢹ࣮ࢺࡢ㝿࡟࡝ࡕࡽ㸦⏨ᛶ࠿ዪᛶ࠿㸧ࡀᡶ࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍࡿ࡜ࠊK ࡀࡇࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆᇶⅬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ㝿࡟⮬ศࡢጜࡢᙼẶࡀ࠸ࡘࡶ඲㢠ࢆ㈇ᢸࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠺ࠋࡇࡢ஦ᐇ
ࢆ P ࡀࠕࡍࡈ࠸ࠖ࡜ホ౯ࡋ࡚࠿ࡽࠊK ࡶࠕࡍࡈ࠸ࠖ࡜ P ࡢホ౯࡟ྠㄪࡋࠊ㸰ேࡀ➗࠺ࡇ࡜࡛㐃㙐ࢆ⤊஢࡟ྥ࠿ࢃࡏࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ᩿∦㸯ࡢ㸯⾜┠࡛ P ࡀ᪂ࡋ࠸㐃㙐ࢆ㛤ጞࡋࠊK ࡢጜࡢ፧ጻ≧ែ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᑜ
ࡡࡿࠋ㸰⾜┠࡛ K ࡀ㐃㙐ࡢ➨ 2 ࣌࢔ࣃ࣮ࢺࢆ⏘ฟࡋ࡚࠿ࡽ P ࡀ㸱⾜┠࡛ࠕࡣ::ࠖ࡜ゝ࠺࡜ྠ᫬࡟ K ࡀ㸲⾜┠࡛ࠕ࠺ࢇࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࠊ㐃㙐⤊஢ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ஫࠸࡟♧ࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚ 0.9 ⛊ࡢ㛫ྜ࠸ࡢᚋࠊ㸴⾜┠࡜㸵⾜┠࡛ᐇ㉁ⓗ࡞Ⓨヰࢆࡋ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ㸰ே࡛㐃㙐⤊஢ࢆࡉࡽ࡟㐍ࡵࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ㸶⾜┠࡛ P
ࡀ K ࢆᡭ࡛ᣦࡋࠊK ⮬㌟࡟㛵ࡍࡿಶே᝟ሗࢆᑜࡡࡿ᪂ࡓ࡞⊂❧㐃㙐ࢆ㛤ጞࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸷⾜┠࡛ P ࡢⓎヰࡢ⤊ࢃࡾ࡟㔜࡞ࡿᙧ࡛ K ࡀⓎヰࢆ㛤ጞࡋࠊP ࡢ㉁ၥ࡟⟅࠼ࡿ➨ 2 ࣌࢔ࣃ࣮ࢺࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋࡍࡿ࡜
㸯㸮⾜┠࠿ࡽ㸯㸳⾜┠ࡲ࡛ P ࡜ K ࡀ㸰ே࡛ࡲࡓホ౯ࢆ♧ࡋ㐃㙐ࢆ⤊஢࡬ࡢᣢࡕ㐠ࡪࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ㸯㸴⾜┠࡛ࡣ P ࡀࡲࡓ᪂ࡓ࡞⊂❧㐃㙐ࢆ㛤ጞࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟᩿∦㸯࡛ࡣࠊP ࡜ K ࡀ K ⮬㌟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࡢᥦ♧ࢆ㐺ษ࡟ࡍࡿ⊂❧㐃㙐ࡢࡘࡽ࡞ࡾࢆ
⏘ฟࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ K ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢺࣆ࢝ࣝࢺ࣮ࢡࢆᒎ㛤ࡋ࡚⾜ࡃࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᩿∦㸰࡛ࡣࠊ࣮࣋ࢫ㐃㙐ࢆ⤊஢ࡉࡏ࡞࠸࡛➨ 2 ࣌࢔ࣃ࣮ࢺᥦฟᚋ࡟ᚋ⥆㐃㙐࡜ࡋ࡚࣮࣋ࢫ㐃㙐ࢆᣑᙇࡋ࡚
⾜ࡃࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ᩿∦㸰ࡢ๓࡛ࡣࠊK㸦᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࠊ᩿∦㸯ࡢ K ࡜ྠ୍ே≀㸧࡜ D㸦୰ᅜㄒヰ⪅㸧ࡀ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␃Ꮫࡢᚲಟ໬ࡢ᫝㠀࡜࠸࠺୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓࢸ࣮࣐࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࢺࣆ࢝ࣝࢺ࣮ࢡ
ࢆᒎ㛤ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍࡿ࡜᩿∦㸰ࡢ㸯⾜┠࡛ D ࡣ␃Ꮫ⤒㦂ࡀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ K ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᾏእ࡟⾜ࡃ㢪ᮃ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᑜࡡࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊK ࡀ㸲⾜┠࡜㸴⾜┠࡛ D ࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ⟅࠼ࢆ⏘ฟࡍࡿࠋࡇࡇࡲ࡛ࡀ᩿∦㸯࡛ほᐹࡉࢀࡓࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓࢱࢫࢡ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿࢺࣆ࢝ࣝࢺ࣮
ࢡ࠿ࡽእࢀ࡚ࡑࡇ࡟ᒃྜࢃࡏ࡚࠸ࡿཧຍ⪅ࡢ୍ே࡟㛵ࡍࡿಶே᝟ሗࢆ⪺ࡁฟࡍ᪂ࡓ࡞㐃㙐ࢆ༠ྠᵓ⠏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ᩿∦㸯࡛ࡣࡇࡢ㐃㙐ࢆ⤊஢ࡉࡏ࡚ࠊ⊂❧ࡋࡓᙧ࡛ࡲࡓ᪂ࡋ࠸㐃㙐ࢆ㛤ጞࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ
ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ᩿∦㸰࡛ࡣ㸴⾜┠ࡢ K ࡟ࡼࡿ➨ 2 ࣌࢔ࣃ࣮ࢺࡢᚋ࡟ D ࡀ㐃㙐⤊஢ࢆ㐺ษ࡟ࡍࡿⓎヰ㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊ᩿∦㸯ࡢ㸱⾜┠ࡸ㸴⾜┠࡛ぢࡽࢀࡿࠕࡣ::ࠖ
ࠕ࡬:::ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰ㸧ࢆࡏࡎࠊࡴࡋࢁ㸵⾜┠࡛ࠕほග࡛㸪ࠖ࡜ K ࡢඛ⾜Ⓨヰࡢ୍㒊ࢆࠊ⥆ࡁࢆせồࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ᚤୖ᪼࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ௜ຍࡋ࡚⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍࠋࡇ࠺ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊK ࡢᥦ♧῭ࡳࡢ➨ 2 ࣌࢔ࣃ࣮ࢺ࡛⌧㐃㙐ࢆ⤊஢ࡉࡏ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ K ࡣ㸶⾜┠࡛ࠕほග࡛㸬ࠖ࡜ୗ㝆࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥゝࡗ࡚㐃㙐ࢆ⥆⾜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋ࡚≉࡟ྠㄪࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸷⾜┠࡛ D ࡀࠕࢇ:::ࠖࢆ⏘ฟࡍࡿࡀࠊ㡢㡩ⓗ࡞≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚㡢ࢆఙࡤࡋࡘࡘ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆୖ᪼ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢⓎヰ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ K ࢆ┤どࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ K ࠿ࡽࡢヰࡢ⥆ࡁࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Stivers &−253−

打ち解けの連鎖構造

Rossano, 2010; ୗࡢᅗ㸯ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ K ࡀ㸯㸮⾜┠࡛⮬ศࡢ᝟ሗࢆ㛤♧ࡍࡿㄒࡾࢆ㛤ጞࡋࠊ㸯㸯⾜┠࠿ࡽ㸯㸶⾜┠ࡲ࡛ K ࡜ D ࡀ༠ྠⓗ࡟ K ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢺࣆ࢝ࣝࢺ࣮ࢡࢆᐇ⌧ࡉࡏ࡚⾜ࡃࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᩿∦㸰࡛ࡣཧຍ⪅ࡢ୍ே࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢺࣆ࢝ࣝࢺ࣮ࢡࢆᒎ㛤ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᚋ⥆㐃㙐࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⌧㐃㙐ࢆ⤊஢࡟ᣢࡕ㎸ࡲࡎ࡟ᚋࢁࡢ᪉࡛ᣑᙇࡋ࡚⾜ࡃࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ௨ୖ㸰✀㢮ࡢ㐃㙐ᵓ㐀ࢆᅗᘧ໬ࡋࡓࡶࡢࢆ௨ୗࡢᅗ㸰࡟࡛♧ࡍࠋDKᅗ㸯 D ࢇ:::㸦᩿∦㸰➨㸷⾜┠㸧 ᅗ㸰 㸰✀㢮ࡢ㐃㙐ᵓ㐀㸲㸬⪃ᐹ ᮏ◊✲ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛ほᐹࡉࢀࡓ㸰ࡘࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡣࠊཧຍ⪅ࡀ࡝ࡕࡽࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ࡶ஫࠸ࡢ᝟ሗࢆ▱ࡾྜ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟ࡔ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊྛࡸࡾྲྀࡾࡢᚋ࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ
ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟ே㛫㛵ಀᵓ⠏ୖࡢ㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾ࡟ࡶཧຍࡋ
ࡓ K ࡢᅇ⟅ࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊP ࡜ࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࡢ᫬࡟ࠕ㉁ၥࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࠖ࡜ࡢឤ᝿ࡀグ㍕ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ୍᪉ࠊD
࡜ࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࡢᚋ࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡓ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡛ࡣࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞グ㏙ࡀ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀከ࠿
ࡗࡓ࠿ࡢᙳ㡪ࡢࡳ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢࡔ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼ࡀࡓ࠸ࡀࠊD ࡜ࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࡢᚋ࡟ K ࡜ D ࡣ஫࠸ࡢ㐃⤡᝟ሗࢆ஺᥮ࡋྜࡗࡓࡾࠊࡑࡢᚋࡶఱࡽ࠿ࡢᙧ࡛ⱆ⏕࠼ጞࡵ࡚࠸ࡓே㛫㛵ಀࢆ⥆ࡅࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺ពᛮ⾲♧ࡶࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦ᐇࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊᚋ⥆㐃㙐ࡢ฼⏝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ࣮࣋ࢫ㐃㙐ࡢ୰࡛㸰ே࡛ඹ᭷࡛ࡁࡿࢫ࣮࣌ࢫࢆᵓᡂࡋྜ࠸ࡑࡇ࡛┦ᡭࡢ⟅࠼࡟⯆࿡ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡛≉࡟ࠕ㉁ၥᨷࡵࠖ࡟㐼ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞㐪࿴ឤ࡞ࡃ஫࠸ࡢ᝟ሗࢆ▱ࡾྜ࠼࡚ࠊ
ࠕᡴࡕゎࡅࠖࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᘬ⏝ᩥ⊩
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey.
Have, Paul ten. 2007. Doing Conversation Analysis (2nd ed.). Boston: Sage.
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis:
Studies from the first generation. Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 13–31.
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J.M.
Atkinson and J.C. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of social action: Studies of conversation analysis . Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–222.
Mori, Junko. 2003. The Construction of Interculturality: A Study of Initial Encounters between Japanese and American
Students. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(2), 143–184.
Nishizaka, Aug. 2010. Self-Initiated Problem Presentation in Prenatal Checkups: Its Placement and Construction.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(3), 283–313.
————— 2012. Doing “being friends” in Japanese telephone conversations. In Interaction and Everyday Life:
Phenomenological and Ethnomethodological Essays in Honor of George Psathas. Lanham, MD: Lexinton, pp.
297–315.
Stivers, Tanya & Rossano, Federico. 2010. Mobilizing Response. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.
Wooffitt, Robin. 2005. Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative and Critical Introduction. Boston:
Sage.

−254−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ึᑐ㠃఍ヰ࡛ࡢᑐ❧ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵࡢ఍ヰࡢ㐍⾜᪉ἲ
㛵ᓮ༤⣖
⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ
せ᪨
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᏛ㒊ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᏛ⏕࡟ࡼࡿ᥋ゐሙ㠃ࡢึᑐ㠃఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ≉ᐃࡢヰ㢟࡛ពぢࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿࡲ࡛ࡢゝㄒ⾜ືࢆศᯒࡍࡿࠋศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊヰ㢟㑅ᢥ᫬࡟ࠊ㐍⾜ࡢྍྰࡸ᪉ἲࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ពぢᥦ♧๓࡟ࡣ஦ᐇࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡀᛴ㏿࡞ࠊࡲࡓࡣணᮇࡋ࡞࠸㟢㦵࡞ᑐ❧ࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿ㓄៖࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠋ
Abstract: In this article, I examine data taken from initial contact conversations between undergradutestudents. I analyze the linguistic behaviors of the participants prior to exchanging their opinions.
The findings indicate that many of the participants confirmed with each other whether they could
go forward with a certain topic, and how they should chose the topic. This co-confirmation behavior
was also observed before they exchanged opinions. In the discussion, these linguistic behaviors are
considered as strategic moves for avoiding prompt or unexpected bald confrontation.
㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏே኱Ꮫ⏕࡜୰ୖ⣭᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀཧຍࡍࡿ᥋ゐሙ㠃ࡢ఍ヰ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍㐃ࡢ◊✲ࡢ୍㒊࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ≉ᐃࡢヰ㢟࡛ពぢࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿࡲ࡛ࡢゝㄒ⾜ືࢆศᯒࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ⾜ືࡀᑐ❧ࡸ⥭ᙇࡢᅇ㑊࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿ௙⤌ࡳࢆㄽࡌࡿࠋ

㸰㸬ᮏ✏ࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅ ୍㐃ࡢ◊✲࡛ศᯒࡋࡓ఍ヰࡣࠊཧຍ⪅࡟௨ୗࡢ 7 ࡘࡢヰ㢟ࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊࡑࡢヰ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡍࡼ࠺࡟ᣦ♧ࡋࡓᐇ㦂ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

‫ە‬ᡂேࡢᖺ㱋ࢆୖࡆࡿ࡭ࡁ࠿㸽     ‫ە‬ᑵᏛࡢᖺ㱋ࢆ㸳ṓ࡟ࡍ࡭ࡁ࠿㸽‫ە‬ᾘ㈝⛯ࢆୖࡆࡿ㸭ୗࡆࡿ࡭ࡁ࠿㸽   ‫ە‬ᾏእ࡬ࡢ␃Ꮫࢆᚲಟ⛉┠࡟ࡍ࡭ࡁ࠿㸽‫ە‬እぢࡀ኱஦࡜࠸࠺ពぢ࡟࡝࠺ᛮ࠺࠿㸽  ‫⨾ە‬ᐜᩚᙧ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡝࠺ᛮ࠺࠿㸽‫ە‬ᚩරไ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡝࠺ᛮ࠺࠿㸽 ヰ㢟ࡣࠊ㸯ᯛࡢ⣬࡟୍ぴ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀษࡾ㞳ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࠊ㸰㏻ࡾࢆ⏝ពࡋࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊヰ㢟ࡢỴᐃࡣࠊ୍ぴࢆぢ࡚┦ㄯࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡃࡌࡧࡁ࡛ࡶࡼ࠸࡜ᣦ♧ࡋࡓࠋ ึᑐ㠃఍ヰ࡛ࡣࠊ♫఍ไᗘࠊᨻ἞ࡸ㌟య࡟㛵㐃ࡋࡓヰ㢟ࡣ㑊ࡅࡽࢀࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ୕∾(1999)ࡣࠊ
᪥ᮏே኱Ꮫ⏕ྠኈࡢึᑐ㠃఍ヰࢆ 38 ⤌㘓㡢ࠊศᯒࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊヰ⪅ࡢᒓᛶࡸ఍ヰࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡟࠿࠿ࢃ
ࡽࡎࠊ኱Ꮫ⏕άࡸᡤᒓࡢࡇ࡜࡞࡝ࡀඹ㏻࡟ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊ࣮࣎࢖㸭࣮࢞ࣝࣇࣞࣥࢻࡢ᭷↓ࡸᡂ⦼ࠊぶࡢ⫋ᴗ࡞࡝ࡢ㠀ᖖ࡟⚾ⓗ࡞ヰ㢟ࡣᅇ㑊ࡉࢀࠊᨻ἞ࡸ᐀ᩍ࡞࡝❧ሙࡸពぢࡢ୙୍⮴ࢆࡣࡽࢇࡔ

−255−

初対面会話での対立を避けるための会話の進行方法༴㝤࡞ヰ㢟ࡣ඲ࡃぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⇃㇂࣭▼஭(2005)ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏே࡜㡑ᅜேࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊฟ㌟ᆅࡸᖺ㱋࡞࡝ 19 㡯┠࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘヰ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ࠸࠿ࢆ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊయࡢࢧ࢖ࢬࠊ᐀ᩍࠊ཰ධ࡞࡝ࡣᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ヰ㢟࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡞࡝ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿
࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊヰ㢟࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊពぢࢆ஺ࢃࡍࡇ࡜⮬యࠊ❧ሙࡸពぢࡢ୙୍⮴ࢆ㟢࿊ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊពぢ࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀࡿࡑࡢࡢࠕᛮ⪃ࠖࡣࠊⓎヰ⪅ࡢࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ㸦チ 2011㸧࡟ᒓࡍࡿ஦᯶࡛ࠊពぢࢆ஺ࢃࡍ࡜ࠊࡑࡢேࡢពぢ࡟ゝཬࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࢀࢆึᑐ㠃఍ヰ࡛⾜࠺࡜ࠊ┦ᡭࡢࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜࢆ౵ᐖࡍࡿᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ࡛ࡣࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᑐ❧ࠊ⥭ᙇࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡍྍ⬟ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㐙⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ

㸱㸬ࢹ࣮ࢱࡢศᯒ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊពぢ⾲᫂࡟⮳ࡿࡲ࡛ࡢゝㄒ⾜ືࢆࠊㄯヰศᯒࡢᡭἲ࡛ศᯒࡍࡿࠋ఍ヰࡢᩥᏐ໬࡟ࡣࠊBTSJ(Basic Transcription System for Japanese:Ᏹబ⨾ 2011)ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓࠋ࡞࠾ࠊⓎヰ⪅ࡣࠊࣉࣛ࢖ࣂ
ࢩ࣮ಖㆤࡢࡓࡵࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࢆ J ࡛ࠊ㠀ẕㄒヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡿ␃Ꮫ⏕ࢆ F ࡛⾲ࡍࠋࡲࡓࠊ⏨ᛶࢆ Mࠊዪ
ᛶࢆ F ࡛⾲ࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡟⥆ࡃ௵ពࡢᩘᏐ࡛ಶேࢆ㆑ูࡍࡿࠋᩥᏐ໬࡟⏝࠸ࡓグྕࡢซ౛ࡣࠊᮏ✏ᮎᑿࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
3.1 ヰ㢟㑅ᢥ᫬࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿᑐ❧ᅇ㑊࡬ࡢ㓄៖ ఍ヰࡢヰ㢟ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ㝿ࠊᛴ㏿࡞ࠊࡲࡓࡣணᮇࡋ࡞࠸ᑐ❧ࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿ㓄៖ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋࡲࡎࠊヰ㢟ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿࢱࢫࢡ࡟ྲྀࡾ࠿࠿ࡗ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸࠿࡝࠺࠿ពྥࢆᑜࡡࡓࡾࠊヰ㢟ࢆࡃࡌ࡛㑅ࡪ࠿ࣜࢫࢺ࠿ࡽ
㑅ࡪ࠿ࠊ㑅ࡪࡢࡣཧຍ⪅ࡢ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿୍᪉࡞ࡢ࠿ඹྠ࡞ࡢ࠿ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ≉ᐃࡢヰ㢟ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡶࠊ┦ᡭࡢពྥࢆᑜࡡࡓࡾࠊྠពࢆྲྀࡾ௜ࡅࡓࡾࡍࡿ⾜ືࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇ
ࢀࡽࡢゝㄒ⾜ືࡣࠊᨻ἞ࠊ♫఍ⓗ࡞ヰ㢟ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࡾࠊึᑐ㠃఍ヰ࡛ពぢࢆ㏙࡭ࡓࡾࡋ࡚ࠊ
ᑐ❧ࡸ⥭ᙇࡀணᮇࡏࡎࡋ࡚⏕ࡲࢀࡿ஦ែࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦ែࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡋࡓ㈐௵ࢆ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿୍᪉
ࡀ㈇࠺࡜࠸࠺⥭ᙇࢆ㑊ࡅࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ㓄៖ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡑࡢ୍౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ౛ 1 ࡟ࠊࢱࢫࢡࡀධᛕ࡞ពྥ☜ㄆࢆ⤒࡚㐍⾜ࡋࡃࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ54 ⾜┠ࡢࠕ㑅ࡧࡲࡍࠊ࠿ࡡ㸽ࠊࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ࡛ࡣࠊ▷࠸㛫ࡀᣳࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ࠊៅ㔜ࡉࡀㄞࡳྲྀࢀࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊࠕ࠿ࡡࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒᙧᘧ࠿ࡽࡣࠊⓎヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡿ JF1 ࡀ㐍⾜ࡋ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸࡜ࡣ⪃࠼ࡘࡘࠊFF1 ࡶྠᵝ࡟⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࠿୙☜ᐇࡉࡀṧࡿࡓࡵ࡟☜࠿ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ55 ⾜┠࡛ FF1 ࡀ㐍⾜ࢆㄆࡵࡓᚋࠊ
JF1 ࡣࠊヰ㢟ࡢ㑅ᢥ᪉ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ FF1 ࡢពྥࢆᑜࡡ࡚࠸ࡿ(56ࠊ58 ⾜┠)ࠋ౛ 1 ࢱࢫࢡ࡬ࡢ㐍⾜ࡢྍྰࡸ᪉ἲࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿ఍ヰࡢ౛
㻡㻠㻌

㻶㻲㻝㻌

㻲㻲㻝 䛥䜣䚸㑅䜃䜎䛩䚸䛛䛽䠛䚸䝖䝢䝑䜽䜢䚹㻌㻨㐍⾜ྍྰ䛾☜ㄆ㻪

㻡㻡㻌

㻲㻲㻝㻌

䛒䛒䚸䛿䛔䚹㼇⣬䜢ྲྀ䜝䛖䛸䛩䜛㼉㻌

㻌㻌

㻡㻢㻌

㻶㻲㻝㻌

䛹䛳䛱䛜䛔䛔䛷䛩䛛䠛䚸䝸䝇䝖䛸䚹㻌㻨㐍⾜᪉ἲ䛾☜ㄆ㻪

㻡㻣㻌

㻲㻲㻝㻌

䛒䚸䛣䛾䡡䡡䡡䚹㻌

㻌㻌

−256−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

㻡㻤㻌

㻶㻲㻝㻌

䛖䜣䚸䛟䛨䛛䚹㻌

㻨㐍⾜᪉ἲ䛾☜ㄆ㻪

㻡㻥㻌

㻲㻲㻝㻌

䛨䜓䛒䚸䛣䛳䛱䛾䡡䡡䡡䚹㻌

㻌㻌

㻢㻜㻌

㻶㻲㻝㻌

䛣䛳䛱䛻䛧䜎䛧䜗䛖䛛䚹㻌㻌㻌

 3.2 ពぢ஺᥮᫬ࡢᑐ❧ᅇ㑊࡬ࡢ㓄៖ ≉ᐃࡢヰ㢟ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࠊពぢࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊ஦ᐇࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿⓎヰࡀ఍ヰࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࢆၥ
ࢃࡎ㢖⦾࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ஦ᐇࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿⓎヰࡣࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ࠊ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽホ౯ⓗ࡞Ⓨヰࢆᘬࡁฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡑࡢホ౯ࡢෆᐜ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡅࡤࠊࡇࢀࡀၿ࠸ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᝏ࠸ࠊࡲࡓࡣࡇ࠺ࡍ࡭ࡁࡔ࡜࠸࠺ពぢࡣࠊ᫂♧ⓗ࡟㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡎ࡜ࡶࠊ᥎ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊពぢࡀ⾲᫂ࡉࢀࡓᚋ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚㟢㦵࡟ᑐ❧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ែࡀ
ᅇ㑊࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
 ౛ 2 ࡣࠊ஦ᐇࡢ☜ㄆࡀࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ホ౯ⓗⓎヰࢆᘬࡁฟࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ౛ 2 ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏே࡛࠶ࡿ JM3
࡜㡑ᅜே࡛࠶ࡿ FM3 ࡀࠊ⨾ᐜᩚᙧ࡟㛵ࡍࡿヰ㢟࡛ヰࡋጞࡵࡿ㒊ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⨾ᐜᩚᙧࡣࠊ᪥ᮏே࡟࡜ࡗ
࡚ࡣࠊ㡑ᅜே࡟ᑐࡍࡿᝏ࠸࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢ୰࡛➨ 3 ఩࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ௬࡟ FM3 ࡀ⫯ᐃⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࠊពぢࡀᑐ❧ࡍࡿ༴㝤ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ୍᪉࡛ࠊ㡑ᅜᅜෆ࡛ྰᐃⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊFM3
࡟ẕᅜࡢ஦᝟࡟ᑐࡍࡿྰᐃⓗពぢࡀ㏙࡭ࡉࡏ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ヰ㢟࡛఍ヰࢆ㐍⾜ࡍࡿ㝿ࠊJM3 ࡣࠊFM3 ࿘㎶࡛ࡢ஦ᐇࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ82 ⾜┠࡛ࡣࠊ㌟㏆࡞࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ᩚᙧࡋࡓேࡀ࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆᑜࡡࡿࠋ83 ⾜┠࡛ FM3 ࡀᏑᅾࢆㄆࡵࡓᚋࡶࠊ84 ⾜┠࡛෌ᗘ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ85 ⾜┠࡛ࠊ㧗ᰯ༞ᴗ᫬࡟⨾ᐜᩚᙧࢆࡍࡿዪᛶࡀ⌋ࡋࡃࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺᝟
ሗࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࢀ࡟ࠊホ౯ⓗ࡞Ⓨヰࡀ⥆ࡃࠋࡲࡎ 88 ⾜┠࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡽ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ㄪᏊࡢ➗࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࠊ⨾ᐜᩚᙧ࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢⅬ࡛࠾࠿ࡋࡳࢆឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ⨾ᐜᩚᙧࢆࠊ୍
⯡ⓗ࡛ᙜ↛ࡢࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢⅬ࡛㐓⬺ⓗ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ 90 ⾜┠࡛ࡣࠕูࡢே࡟࡞ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ホ౯ࢆຍ࠼ࡓⓎヰࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡢホ౯ࡀྰᐃⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ
⫯ᐃⓗ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ⥆ࡃ 92 ⾜┠ࡢࠕ࠶ࢇࡓㄡࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠊᢈุࡶࡋࡃࡣ࠿ࡽ࠿࠸ⓗ࡞Ⓨヰࡀࠊ➗࠸
࡞ࡀࡽ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊFN3 ࡀᣦ᦬ࡋࡓ୍㐃ࡢ㐓⬺ࡣࠊⓎヰࡢཷࡅᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ JM3 ࡀ➗ࡗ࡚཯ᛂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊJM3 ࡟ఏࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
౛ 2 ពぢᥦ♧๓࡟஦ᐇࡢ☜ㄆࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ఍ヰࡢ౛
㻤㻝㻌

㻲㻹㻟㻌

䜎䛑䚸䛺䜣䚸䛱䜗䛳䚸ఱ䛛Ẽ䛻䛺䜛䛣䛸䛿䛒䜚䜎䛩䛛䠛䚹㻌

㻤㻞㻌

㻶㻹㻟㻌

㻤㻟㻌

㻲㻹㻟㻌

䛖䞊䜣䚸䛿䛔䚹㻌

㻌㻌

㻤㻠㻌

㻶㻹㻟㻌

ᬑ㏻䛻䛔䜎䛩䠛䚸䜔䛳䜁䜚䚹㻌㻨஦ᐇ䛾☜ㄆ㻪㻌౛䛘䜀ఱ䛛䚸཭㐩䛸䛛䠄䛿䛔䠅㌟㏆䛺ே䛷䠄䛿䛔䠅䚸ᩚᙧ䛧䛯䛳䛶ே䛳䛶䛔䜎䛩䠛䚹㻌㻌㻌㻨஦ᐇ䛾☜ㄆ㻪㻌ከศ䚸䛰䛔䛯䛔䡡䡡䡡ዪᛶ䛜䡡䡡䡡䜔䛳䜁䜚䠄䛿䛔䠅䚸䛯䛟䛥䜣䛧䛶䠄䛿
㻤㻡㻌

㻲㻹㻟㻌

䛔䠅䚸㧗ᰯ䛾༞ᴗ䠄䛿䛔䛿䛔䠅䚸䛭䛾䚸䛺䜣䛛䚸ヨ㦂䛸䠄䛿䛔䠅䚸ᚋ䛷኱Ꮫ䛾㐍Ꮫ䛩䜛䛭䛾䚸㛫䛻䚸㛫䚸䠄䛖䜣䜅䜣䜅䜣䚸䛒䛒㻕䚸⣙ 㻟㻌㻌䛛᭶䛠䜙䛔䛜䛒䜚䜎䛩䚸⣙䚹㻌
㻤㻢㻌

㻶㻹㻟㻌

䛿䛔䛿䛔䚹㻌

㻌㻌

−257−

初対面会話での対立を避けるための会話の進行方法

㻤㻤㻌

㻲㻹㻟㻌

㻨➗䛔㻪䚹㼇䛣䜙䛘䜛䜘䛖䛺ឤ䛨㼉㻌㻨ホ౯ⓗ⾜ື㻪㻌

㻤㻥㻌

㻶㻹㻟㻌

㻨➗䛔㻪䚹㻌

㻌㻌

㻥㻜㻌

㻲㻹㻟㻌

䛣䛾᫬䞉䞉䞉䛭䛾᫬䛻䚸䛺䜣䛛䞉䞉䞉ู䛾ே䛻㻔㻨኱䛝䛺➗䛔㻪㻕䛺䜛䚹㻌㻨ホ౯ⓗⓎヰ㻪㻌

㻥㻝㻌

㻶㻹㻟㻌

䛺䜣䛛䛱䜗䛳䛸䚹㻌

㻌㻌

㻥㻞㻌

㻲㻹㻟㻌

䛒䜣䛯ㄡ㻨➗䛔㻪㻌㻔㻨➗䛔㻪㻕䛳䛶䚹㻌㻨ホ౯ⓗⓎヰ㻪㻌௨ୖࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊヰ㢟㑅ᢥ᫬࡜ࠊពぢᥦ♧๓࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿゝㄒ⾜ືࡢศᯒ⤖ᯝࡢ୍㒊ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ㸲㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢヰ㢟࡛ࡢពぢ⾲᫂࡟⮳ࡿࡲ࡛ࡢゝㄒ⾜ືࢆศᯒࡋࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀࠊᑐ❧ࢆ㑊ࡅ࡞ࡀࡽ఍ヰࢆ㐍⾜ࡉࡏࡿ㓄៖࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄽࡌࡓࠋ⣬ᖜࡢ㒔ྜ࡛๭ឡࡋࡓࡀࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞
ᡭ⥆ࡁࢆ㋃ࡲࡎ࡟ពぢࡀ⾲᫂ࡉࢀࡓ఍ヰ࡛ࡣࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ༳㇟ホᐃࡀⱝᖸపࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢ౛
ࡶ஺࠼࡚ࠊ఍ヰࡢ㐍⾜᪉ἲ࡜༳㇟࡜ࡢ㛵㐃࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊูࡢᶵ఍࡟ヲࡋࡃ⪃ᐹࡋࡓ࠸ࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㸸Ᏹబ⨾ࡲࡺࡳ㸦2011㸧
ࠕᇶᮏⓗ࡞ᩥᏐ໬ࡢཎ๎㸦Basic Transcription System for Japanese: BTSJ㸧2011ᖺ∧ࠖࠊhttp://www.tufs.ac.jp/ts/personal/usamiken/btsj.htmࠊ2016 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 11 ᪥☜ㄆ⇃㇂ᬛᏊ࣭▼஭ᜨ⌮Ꮚ㸦2005㸧ࠕ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰ㢟ࡢ㑅ᢥ̿ⱝᖺ ᒙࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡍࡿ᪥ᮏே࡜㡑ᅜே࡬ࡢㄪᰝ࠿ࡽ̿ࠖ
ࠗ♫఍ゝㄒ⛉Ꮫ࠘➨ 8 ᕳ➨ 1 ྕࠊ93-105
チ᫂Ꮚ(2011)ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣃ࣮ࢯࢼ࣭ࣝࢸࣜࢺ࣮ࣜ࡟㛵ࢃࡿㄯヰศᯒ㸫᪥ᮏே࣭㡑ᅜே࣭୰ᅜேẕㄒヰ⪅
ࡢㄪᰝࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚㸫ࠖࠗ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ␃Ꮫ⏕ࢭࣥࢱ࣮᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱ㄽ㞟࠘➨ 26 ྕࠊ1-17୕∾㝧Ꮚ㸦1999㸧
ࠕึᑐ㠃఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰ㢟㑅ᢥࢫ࣮࣐࢟࡜ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࠖ
ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘103 ྕࠊ49-58㈨ᩱ㸸ࠋ㸸Ⓨヰᩥࡢ⤊ࢃࡾ࡟ࡘࡅࡿ㸬,,㸸Ⓨヰᩥࡢ㏵୰࡟┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࡀධࡗࡓሙྜ㸪๓ࡢⓎヰᩥࡀ⤊ࢃࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ࣐࣮ࢡࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡘࡅࡿ㸬ࠊ㸸ձ1 Ⓨヰᩥ࠾ࡼࡧ 1 ࣛ࢖ࣥ୰࡛㸪᪥ᮏㄒ⾲グࡢ័౛ࡢ㏻ࡾ࡟
ㄞⅬࢆࡘࡅࡿ㸬ղⓎヰ࡜Ⓨヰࡢ࠶࠸ࡔ࡟▷࠸㛫ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ㸬?㸸␲ၥᩥ㸬㹙 㹛㸸ᩥ⬦ⓗ᝟ሗ㸬㸦 㸧㸸▷
ࡃ㸪≉ู࡞ព࿡ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖ
㸬(< >)㸸Ⓨヰࡢ㏵୰࡟㔜࡞ࡗ࡚ධࡗࡓ➗࠸㸬< >㸸➗࠸࡞ࡀ
ࡽⓎヰࡋࡓࡶࡢࡸ➗࠸➼㸬㺃㺃㺃㸸ゝ࠸ࡼ࡝ࡳ第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

Melting the ice?㸸ึᑐ㠃ᑐヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ື࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ᪥ᮏேࡢ➗࠸⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ  ஭ฟ 㔛ဏᏊ 
ide.risako.gm@u.tsukuba.ac.jp
㸺Abstract㸼
This study looks into the functions of laughter as part of listenership behaviors in face-to-face, first encounterconversation. Looking at six cross-cultural (Japanese-Korean, Japanese-Chinese) pairs engaged in task-oriented
conversations, the study reports that there were more “synchronized” laughter among the Japanese-Korean pairs,
wherein both the speaker and the listener laughed together. Meanwhile, the Japanese-Chinese conversations
yielded more “independent” laughter where only the listener or the speaker laughed. The paper also discusses thefunctions of non-funny laughter as signs of bodily co-presence, which could also lead to the emergence of“synchronic” laughter among the interlocutors.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚึᑐ㠃ᑐヰࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ືࠊ➗࠸ࠊ㌟యᛶ㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟L᪥ᮏேࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ືࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ࠊ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ཯ᛂモࡸ㢔ࡁࡢ㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶
ࡿࡀࠊᮏ◊✲ࡣึᑐ㠃ᑐヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ື࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ➗࠸ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆㄪᰝࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ➗࠸ࡣ఍ヰศᯒࡸㄯヰศᯒࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽㄽࡌࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡀ㸦Glenn 2003, Coates 2007, Norrick
2009 ➼)ࠊ␗ᩥ໬㛫ࡢึᑐ㠃ᑐヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ➗࠸ࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓ◊✲ࡣከࡃ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛᪥⡿୰ࡢึᑐ㠃఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ➗࠸ࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓ Murata and Hori (2007)ࡣࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟⏕ࡌࡓ➗࠸ࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟ࢆ>㸯@෕ㄯࠊࡋࡷࢀࠊ஦ᐇ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࠾࠿ࡋࡉࠊㄆ㆑ࡢࢬࣞ࡞࡝࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡿ࠾࠿ࡋࡳ࣭ᴦࡋࡳࠊ>㸰@࿨௧ࠊ౫㢗ࠊᥦ᱌ࠊᢈุ࡞࡝ࡢ⦆࿴ࠊ>㸱@ỿ㯲ᅇ㑊ࠊ↷ࢀࠊ⥭ᙇ⦆࿴࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࣇ࢕࣮ࣛࠊ>㸲@㈶ྠࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠊ>㸳@⪺࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࢩࢢࢼࣝࠊ>㸴@≉࡟㠃ⓑࡳࡢ࡞࠸Ⓨヰ࡬ࡢ཯ᛂࠊࡢභ✀㢮࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ࠺ࡕ>㸯@௨እࡣࠊࡍ࡭࡚࿨㢟ෆᐜࡢྍ➗ࡋࡉ࡟㉳ᅉࡋ࡞࠸➗࠸࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ᪥⡿ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ẚ࡭᪥୰ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛
ࡣࠊ>㸯@ࡢ➗࠸ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ๭ྜࡀᑡ࡞ࡃࠊ௦ࢃࡾ࡟>㸲@࡜>㸳@ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕⓗ➗࠸࡜>㸴@ࡢ➗࠸ࡀከ࠸ࡇ
࡜ࡀሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ➗࠸ࡢ᪥ⱥㄒẚ㍑࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ẚ࡭᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡀྠ᫬࡟➗࠺ࠊࡲࡓࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽጞࡲࡿ➗࠸ࡀከ࠸࡜ࡶᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦㞴Ἴ 2013)ࠋ
㸰㸬ㄪᰝᑐ㇟࡜ࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒ
ᮏ◊✲ࡢ࣌࢔ᑐヰࡣࢱࢫࢡࡢ࠶ࡿ┠ⓗ㐙⾜ሙ㠃ࡢึᑐ㠃ᑐヰ࡛࠶ࡾࠊㄪᰝ༠ຊ⪅ࡣ┦ᡭ࡜ᮘࢆ㝸୍࡚࡚ᐃ᫬㛫ᑐᗙࡍࡿᑐᓖᗘࡀ㧗࠸≧ἣ࡟࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࢱࢫࢡࡀ⏝ពࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊ఍ヰᒎ㛤ࡣணࡋ࡟ࡃࡃẚ㍑ⓗ༶⯆ᛶࡢ㧗࠸ᩥ⬦࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋㄪᰝ࡛ࡣࠊ㞧ㄯ࡟∦ᐤࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࢱࢫࢡ఍ヰࢆ㐙⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࣌࢔  ⤌㸦᪥ᮏே࣭㡑ᅜே࣌࢔㸱ࠊ᪥ᮏே࣭୰ᅜே࣌࢔㸱㸧ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊィ  ศࡢ㘓⏬఍ヰ࠿ࡽࠊ఍ヰ୰➗࠸ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓ⟠ᡤ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㡢ኌ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ➗࠸ኌ㸦haha, huh ➼ ࡜➗࠸࡞ࡀ
ࡽࡢⓎヰ @ࡑ࠺@➼ ⟠ᡤࢆᢤࡁฟࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓ➗࠸ࡢ✀㢮࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡶࡋࡃࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ༢⊂࡛➗࠺ࠕ༢⊂ࡢ➗࠸ࠖ࡜ࠊᑐヰ⪅஧ேࡀྠ᫬࡟ࠊࡲࡓࡣ㐃ືࡋ࡚➗࠺ࠕඹ᣺ࡢ➗࠸ࠖ࡜ࡢ஧✀㢮ࢆ༊ูࡋ࡚
ࡑࡢ㢖ᗘࢆㄪ࡭ࡓࠋ ⤌ࡢ࣌࢔఍ヰ࠿ࡽᢳฟࡉࢀࡓ➗࠸ࢆࡑࡢ✀㢮ู࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࡶࡢࡀ⾲㸯࡛࠶ࡿLLࠋ

−259−

Melting the ice? : 初対面対話における聞き手行動としての日本人の笑い⾲ࡢୖẁ  ẁࡣ᪥ᮏே࡜㡑ᅜே࣌࢔ࠊୗẁ  ẁࡣ᪥ᮏே࡜୰ᅜே࣌࢔ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ➗࠸ࡢ⥲ᩘࡣ᪥㡑࣌࢔࡟ẚ࡭ࠊ᪥୰࣌࢔ࡢࡑࢀࡀከࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ᪥㡑࣌࢔఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㡑ᅜேࡢ༢⊂ࡢ➗࠸ᩘࡀ᪥ᮏேࡢ  ಸ࡜ⱝᖸୖᅇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ᪥୰࣌࢔఍ヰ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேࡢ༢⊂ࡢ➗࠸ࡀ୰ᅜேࡢ  ಸ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿiiiࠋ୍᪉ඹ᣺ࡢ➗࠸࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ᪥㡑࣌࢔࡜᪥୰࣌࢔࡛኱ᕪࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ඲య
ⓗ࡟༢⊂➗࠸ࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸࡟࠾࠸࡚᪥ᮏே࡜㡑ᅜேࡀఝࡓഴྥࢆ♧ࡍࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ᪥ᮏே࡜୰ᅜேࡢᑐヰ࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏேࡢ༢⊂➗࠸ࡀᴫࡡከࡃ⏘ฟࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀぢ࡚ྲྀࢀࡿࠋ
⾲㸯㸬࣌࢔ࡈ࡜ࡢ➗࠸ࡢ✀㢮ู㢖ᗘ࣌࢔⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ

఍ヰ᫬㛫

␒ྕ

ձ༢⊂➗࠸

ղ༢⊂➗࠸

ճඹ᣺ࡢձ㸩ղ㸩ճ

㸦᪥ᮏே㸧

㸦㡑 RU ୰㸧

➗࠸

⥲ᩘ

㸯

㹈㹄㸫㹉㹄

 ศ

















㸰

㹈㹋㸫㹉㹋

 ศ

















㸱

㹈㹋㸫㹉㹋

 ศ



㸲

㹈㹋㸫㹁㹄

 ศ

















㸳

㹈㹄㸫㹁㹄

 ศ

















㸴

㹈㹄㸫㹁㹋

 ศ









 ศ

ィ 

ィ 

ィ 

ィ 







㸱㸬༢⊂➗࠸࠿ࡽඹ᣺ࡢ➗࠸࡬ ḟ࡟ࠊึᑐ㠃ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡢ୰࡟➗࠸ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ࣌࢔␒ྕ㸱ࡢᑐヰࡢෑ㢌㒊ศࢆ౛࡟ぢ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ivࠋࡇࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡛ࡣࠊࢱࢫࢡࡢ๓࡟⮬Ⓨⓗ࡟⮬ᕫ⤂௓ࡀ㸱ศ࡯࡝⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ
ඛ࡟ K ࡀ⮬ᕫ⤂௓ࢆࡍࡿ㛫ࠊJ ࡣᚤ➗ࢇ࡛ࡣ࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢ≉࡟➗࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࢱ࣮ࣥࡀ⛣ࡾJ ࡢ⮬ᕫ⤂௓࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊᡤᒓ࡜ྡ๓ࢆゝࡗࡓᚋࠊ
ࠕ௒(.)ᑵ⫋άືࢆ @ࡋ࡚@ ࠸ࡲࡍࠖࠊ
ࠕᑓᨷࡣ(.)
࠼ࡗ࡜ゝㄒᏛ࡛(.)࠶࡞ࡢ࡛(.)ࡇࡢ(.)ᐇ㦂࡟@༠ຊࡋ࡚ࡃࢀ࡜@ ࿧ࡤࢀࡲࡋࡓࡡࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊⓎヰ୰࡟ᙅ࠸࡞ࡀࡽࡶ➗࠸ኌࢆᏎࢇࡔ⟠ᡤࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚ࡃࡿvࠋ⥆ࡃ 14 ⾜┠࡛ J ࡣ㊃࿡ࢆ㛤♧ࡍࡿࡀࠊ15⾜┠࡛ K ࡣ J ࡢⓎヰᙧᘧࢆࡑࡢࡲࡲࡃࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚ࠊෆᐜࡢ☜ㄆࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ J ࡀᛂ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ
17 ⾜┠࡛ K ࡣ෌ᗘྠࡌ☜ㄆࢆࠊ௒ᗘࡣ༢⊂ࡢ➗࠸࡜࡜ࡶ࡟⏘ฟࡍࡿࠋ
14 J: Û࠼ࡗ:࡜Û (.)ዲࡁ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣ(.)ࣇࢵࢺࢧࣝ࡜(.)㌴ࡢ㐠㌿࡛ࡍ
15 K: ࢇࢇ:Ĺ(.)㌴ࡢ㐠㌿࡛ࡍ࠿=
16 J: =ࡣ࠸17 K: ࠶:(.)ࡃࡿࡲ:ࡢ huhuhuh=ඹ᣺ࡢ➗࠸㻌

18 J: =@ࡣ࠸@
19 K: 㐠㌿ࡀ hh ㊃࿡࡛ࡍ࠿=  ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊJ ࡶ➗࠸࡞ࡀࡽ㏉⟅㸦18 ⾜┠㸧ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ᐇ㊶ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠕ㌴ࡢ㐠㌿ࡀ㊃࿡ࠖ࡜࠸࠺࿨㢟ࡢ☜ㄆせồ࡜ࡑࡢᛂ⟅࡟㐣ࡂࡎࠊ≉࡟ࡑࡇ࡟ྍ➗ࡋࡳࡣぢฟࡏ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ K ࡢⓎ

−260−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ヰࡢ➗࠸࡟ᘬࡁ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ J ࡢᛂ⟅࡟ࡣ➗࠸ࡀྵࡲࢀࠊࡉࡽ࡟Ⓨヰ஺௦ࡶ㛫ࢆ࠾࠿ࡎ࡟ࢸ࣏ࣥ
ࡼࡃ㐍ࡳጞࡵࡿࠋ⥆ࡃ 20 ⾜┠࡛ࠊJ ࡣㄒẼࢆᙉࡵ࡚(㌴ࡢ㐠㌿ࡀ)ࠕ㊃࿡࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜ᐉゝࡋࠊK ࡣ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆᡴࡕࡘࡘ㍍ࡃ➗࠺ࠋࡇࢀࢆཷࡅ࡚ 24 ⾜┠࡛ J ࡣࡑࡢ㊃࿡ࡢゎㄝࢆጞࡵࡿࡀࠊ26 ⾜┠࡛K ࡀࠕࡑࢀࡌࡷ࠶ࣂ࢖ࢡࡀࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠖ࡜☜ㄆࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ༶᫬࡟ࠕ࠸ࡸࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࣂ࢖ࢡࡣᛧ࠸࡛ࡍࠖ
࡜㏉ࡋࡘࡘ➗ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦27 ⾜┠㸧ࠋ

20 J: =㊃࿡࡛ࡍňࡡ= Ŋ࠶:: huhu=

21 K:༢⊂ࡢ➗࠸㻌

22 J: =㊃࿡࡛ࡍ(.)
23 K: ࠶::hhuhu:༢⊂ࡢ➗࠸㻌

24 J: ࡇ::㧗㏿㐨㊰ࢆ(.)ࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࡇ࠺(.)ࢫࣆ࣮ࢻࢆňࡇ࠺(.) ࡤ::ࡗ࡚ฟࡋ࡚
25 K:

Ŋ࠶:::

26 K: ࡑࢀࡌࡷ࠶(.)ࣂ࢖ࢡࡀ(.)ňÛࡕࡻࡗ࡜Û27 J:

Ŋ࠸ࡸ::ࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࣂ࢖ࢡࡣ:(.)ᛧ࠸࡛ࡍ hhh=ඹ᣺ࡢ➗࠸㻌
28 K: =࠶:ᛧ࠸ň࡛ࡍ࠿ hhh        㸦㸦ཱྀඖ࡟ᡭࢆᙜ࡚ࡿ௙ⲡ㸧㸧                Ŋᛧ࠸࡛ࡍ hhh(1.0)ࡑࢇ࡞ឤࡌ࡛ࡍ࠿ࡡ: 

29 J:
30 

(2.0) ((ࢱࢫࢡࡢࡸࡾ᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ┦ㄯ࡬))

27 ⾜┠ࡢ J ࡢ➗࠸ࡣ㛫㧥ධࢀࡎ K ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ື࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ཯ᛂࢆᘬࡁฟࡍࡀࠊ28 ⾜┠ࡢ K ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ືࡣ J ࡢࠕᛧ࠸࡛ࡍࠖࢆᘬࡁྲྀࡗࡓࡃࡾ㏉ࡋࡢᙧᘧࢆྲྀࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡑࢀ࡟㔜」ࡋ࡚ J ࡀࠕᛧ
࠸࡛ࡍࠖ(29 ⾜┠)࡜ゝ࠺ࠋ27-29 ⾜┠࡟ࡣඹ᣺ࡢ➗࠸ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢඹ᣺ࡢ➗࠸ࡣࠊ㌴࡛ࢫ
ࣆ࣮ࢻࢆฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ㊃࿡࡛࠶ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࣂ࢖ࢡࡣᛧ࠸࡜࠸࠺ㄆ㆑ⓗࢠࣕࢵࣉࡢ㠃ⓑࡳ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡓྍ➗ࡋࡳࡢ࠶ࡿ➗࠸ࡔ࡜ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡼ࠺ࠋᑐヰ⪅ྠኈࡢ୰࡟ඹ᣺ࡢ➗࠸ࢆ㏻ࡋࡓྠㄪࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡿᵝᏊࡣࠊ
27ࠊ28 ⾜┠࡟࠾ࡅࡿ஧ேࡢࢪ࢙ࢫࢳ࣮ࣕࡢྠᮇ࠿ࡽࡶ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ29 ⾜┠࡛ࡣඹ᣺ࡢ➗࠸ࡀ๰ฟࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࢆࡁࡗ࠿ࡅ࡟ࠊ⮬ᕫ⤂௓ࡢࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡀ㛢ࡌࡽࢀࠊᑐヰࡣࢱࢫࢡࡢᐇ㊶࡬࡜ᚿྥࡋฟࡍࠋ

㸲. ᡴࡕゎࡅࡢᡭ⥆ࡁ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ➗࠸࡜ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ㌟యᛶึᑐ㠃ࡢ┦ᡭ࡜ヰࡍ㝿࡞࡝ࡢ⥭ᙇࢆゎࡃࡓࡵࠊ෕ㄯ࡞࡝ࢆゝࡗ࡚┦ᡭࢆ➗ࢃࡏࠊሙࢆ࿴ࡲࡏࡿࡇ
࡜ࢆ break the ice ࡜ゝ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡞ึᑐ㠃ᑐヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ༢⊂ࡢ➗࠸࡜ඹ᣺ࡢ➗࠸ࡢ⏘ฟࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఱ࠿㠃ⓑ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆゝ࠾࠺࡜ࡍࡿពᅗࢆࡶ࡜࡟⏘ฟࡉࢀࡓ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ
ࡴࡋࢁ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢሙ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ≉࡟ྍ➗ࡋࡳࡀ࡞࠸⟠ᡤ࡛㍍࠸➗࠸ࡀඹ᭷ࡉࢀࡿ㐣⛬ࢆ㏻ࡋࠊ
ሙࡀࡵࡽࢀࠊࠕịࢆ⁐࠿ࡍࠖ(melt the ice)ᡭἲ࡛ࡢᡴࡕゎࡅࡢᡭ⥆ࡁࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡔ

ࢁ࠺ࠋ➗࠸ࡸ➗࠸ࢆྵࢇࡔⓎヰࡣࠊ㢔ࡁࠊど⥺ࠊ㌟యࡢྥࡁ➼࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ㌟యᛶࡢ㧗࠸せ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚┦ᡭ࡜ሙࢆඹ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⾜ືࡢ୍ࡘ࠶ࡿࠋ➗࠸ࡢࡶࡘྠ᫬ⓗࠊඹ᫬ⓗ࡞
ᛶ㉁ࡣࠊྜၐࡸྠ᫬Ⓨヰࠊᣵᣜ➼࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭࡸ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ⮬௚ࡢኌࡢ༊ูࢆ㉸࠼ࡓ
ඹ㏻⤒㦂࡬ࡢᚿྥ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚ஂࡋ࠸㸦⃝⏣ 1996ࠊⳢཎ 1996ࠊᮌᮧ 2003ࠊ஭ฟ 2013㸧ࠋⳢ
ཎࡣࠊ㌟యᛶ࡟᰿ᕪࡋࡓࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢᮏ㉁ⓗ࡞ຊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊே࡜ே࡜ࡢ㛫࡟࠶ࡿ✀ࡢ୍య

−261−

Melting the ice? : 初対面対話における聞き手行動としての日本人の笑いឤࡀඹ᭷ࡉࢀࡿ▐㛫ࡢ୰࡟❧ࡕ⌧ࢀࡿ࡜ࡋࠊࡑࡢ୰࡛㌟᣺ࡾࡀ⮬㌟ࡢࡇ࡜ࡤ࡜ྠ᫬ᛶࢆࡶࡘࡢ࡛ࡣ
࡞ࡃࠊ௚⪅ࡢࡇ࡜ࡤ࡜ྠ᫬ᛶࢆࡶࡘࡇ࡜ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿ(Ⳣཎ 1996: 251-252)ࠋึᑐ㠃ࡢ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢᑐヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ≉࡟ྍ➗ࡋࡳࡢ࡞࠸➗࠸ࡣࠊ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢሙ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡢ୰࡟ࣜࢬ࣒ࡸྠㄪࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡍ⣲ᆅ࡜࡞ࡾࠊึᑐ㠃ᑐヰࢆ஌ࡾษࡿᡭἲ࡜ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Coates, Jeniffer (2007) Talk in a play frame: More on laughter and intimacy. Journal of

Pragmatics 39: 29-49.
Glenn, Phillip (2003) Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
஭ฟ㔛ဏᏊ (2013)ࠕࢼࣛࢸ࢕ࣈ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᙺ๭࡜ࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫᛶࠖబ⸨ᙲ࣭⛙࠿࠾ࡾ⦅ࠗࢼ
ࣛࢸ࢕ࣈ◊✲ࡢ᭱๓⥺࠘pp.43-63. ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
ᮌᮧ኱἞(2003)ࠗඹᅾឤぬ㸫࢔ࣇࣜ࢝ࡢ஧ࡘࡢ♫఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒⓗ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࠿ࡽ࠘ி㒔኱ᏛᏛ⾡ฟ∧఍
Murata, Kazuyo and Motoko Hori (2007) Functions of laughter in intercultural communication:
An analysis of laughter as a communicative strategy. ࠗᅜ㝿♫఍ᩥ໬◊✲ᡤ⣖せ࠘㸷ྕ:115-124.
㞴ἼᙬᏊ (2013) ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉ㸫➗࠸ࡢ㈉⊩㸫ࠖ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ➨3㸯ᅇ⌧௦ㄒ࣭⌧௦ᩥ໬ࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛㅮ₇ࠊ2013 ᖺ 2 ᭶ 19 ᪥ࠊ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ
Norrick, P. Neal and Delia Chiaro (2009) Humor in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing.
⃝⏣ᫀே (1996)ࠕ㡢ኌࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡀࡘࡃࡿ஧ࡘࡢୡ⏺ࠖⳢཎ࿴Ꮥ࣭㔝ᮧ㞞୍⦅ࠗࢥ࣑ࣗࢽ
ࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㌟య࠘pp.222-245. ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
Ⳣཎ࿴Ꮥ (1996)ࠕࡦ࡜ࡘࡢኌ࡛ㄒࡿࡇ࡜Ɇ㌟య࡜ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢࠕྠ᫬ᛶࠖࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࠖⳢཎ࿴Ꮥ࣭㔝ᮧ㞞୍⦅ࠗࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㌟య࠘pp.246-287. ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑiᮏ◊✲ࡣ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝ᇶ┙◊✲㸦C㸧
㸦10322611ࠊ◊✲௦⾲⪅㸸⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ チ᫂Ꮚࠊᖹᡂ 26-28 ᖺᗘ㸧ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚ᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ii⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏෆࡢ J ࡣ᪥ᮏேࠊK ࡣ㡑ᅜேࠊC ࡣ୰ᅜேࠊF ࡣዪᛶࠊM ࡣ⏨ᛶࢆ♧ࡍࠋ
iii
࣌࢔㸴ࡢ୰ᅜேࡢ༢⊂➗࠸ᩘࡣ㸮࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡇࡢ୰ᅜே⏨ᛶࡣጞ⤊➗㢦ࢆぢࡏ࡞ࡀࡽヰࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓᑐ
ヰࡢ୺ᑟᶒࢆ࡯ࡰᥱࡗ࡚ࢱ࣮ࣥࢆྲྀࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ࣌࢔ࡢ᪥ᮏேዪᛶࡣࠊ୺࡟⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᅇࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ࡜ࡋ
࡚ࡢ➗࠸ࢆከࡃ⏘ฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
iv
఍ヰࡢᩥᏐ໬࡟ᙜࡓࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢグྕࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(.)ࡣⓎヰࡢ㛫ࡢ୍▐ࡢ㛫 ࠊ(1.0)ࡣ ỿ㯲ࡢ⛊ᩘࠊ㸸ࡣ㡢ࡢఙࡧࠊň Ŋࡣ఍ヰࡀ㔜」ࡍࡿ⟠ᡤࠊ㸻ࡣḟࡢ㸻࡜ࡢ㛫ࡀ㏵ษࢀ࡞࠸ᵝᏊࢆ♧ࡍࠋࣁ࢖ࣇࣥࡣࡇ࡜ࡤࡢ㏵
ษࢀࠊୗ⥺㒊ࡣ๓ᚋࡢⓎヰࡼࡾᙉໃࡢ࠶ࡿ⟠ᡤࠊኴᩥᏐࡣኌࡀ኱ࡁࡃ࡞ࡿ⟠ᡤࠊĹࡣ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡀୖ᪼
ࡍࡿㄒࠊ㸼㸺࡛ᅖࡲࢀࡓ⟠ᡤࡣࠊ๓ᚋࡢⓎヰࡼࡾ㏿ࡃヰࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⟠ᡤࠊÛ࠺ࢇÛࡣኌࡀᑠࡉࡃࢯࣇࢺ࡟࡞ࡿ⟠ᡤࠊhha ➼ࡣ➗࠸ኌࠊ㸾࡛ᅖࡲࢀࡓ⟠ᡤࡣ➗࠸࡞ࡀࡽࡢⓎヰࢆᣦࡍࠋv
ࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ➗࠸ࢆྵࢇࡔⓎヰࡣ୺࡟↷ࢀ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ➗࠸࡜ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡼ࠺ࠋ

−262−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号⏨ዪࡢ఍ヰ࠿ࡽࡳࡓࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉࡢᙺ๭㞴Ἴ ᙬᏊ                                 ᒸᒣ኱Ꮫ
<Abstract>
This paper aims to explore the relationship between gender and ‘listenership,’ which refers to afundamental contribution by the listening side that brings about a joint production of
conversation in mutual engagement. It identifies how the roles of the participants are flexible
and negotiated with the ongoing conversational context. It also examines the relationshipbetween listenership behaviors and identity displays of males and females, by focusing on the
moments in which all the listeners show understanding or an empathetic reaction following the
speaker’s utterance.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉࠊࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮ࠊ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰ1 ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠕࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮ࠖ࡜࠸࠺♫఍せ⣲ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏேࡢ⏨ዪࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ື࡟╔┠ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⏨ዪ㛫࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᙺ๭࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ఍ヰࡢὶࢀ࡜ඹ࡟ὶືࡍࡿ఍ヰཧ୚⪅ࡢᙺ๭ࡢᰂ㌾ᛶࡸኚ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚≉ᐃࡋࠊ఍ヰࡢ୰࡛⪺ࡁᡭ඲ဨ࠿ࡽඹឤࡸ཯ᛂࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿሙ㠃࡛ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡟↔Ⅼࢆ⨨ࡃࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉ⾜ື࡜⏨ዪࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶࢆ᥈ࡿࠋ

2 ඛ⾜◊✲ ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᙺ๭ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿୖ࡛ࠊ఍ヰࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢඹྠ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚࡜ࡽ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢඹྠ⾜Ⅽ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊNamba㸦2011㸧࡛ࡣࠊ┦஫ⓗ࡞㛵ࢃࡾࡢ୰࡛఍ヰཧ୚⪅ྠኈࡢඹྠ⾜Ⅽࡀࡶࡓࡽࡍ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᇶ♏ⓗ࡞㈉⊩࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕࣜࢫ
ࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉ㸦listenership㸧ࠖࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ఍ヰ࡬ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ✚ᴟⓗ࡞ཧ୚ࡣࠊ࠶࠸࡙
ࡕࠊ⤊ຓモࡸ࠺࡞ࡎࡁࡢ౑⏝㸦Kita and Ide, 2007㸧ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿၥ࠸࠿ࡅ㸦᳜㔝㸪2014㸧
ࡸ➗࠸㸦Namba, 2011㸧ࠊඹヰ㸦Ỉ㇂, 1993㸧࡞࡝ࡢ◊✲࠿ࡽࠊ᪥ᮏㄒㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⾜ືࡀከᵝ࡟㚀ࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀఛࢃࢀࡿࠋ⏨ዪࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ
Tannen㸦1984㸧ࡣ⏨ዪࡢ఍ヰࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟╔┠ࡋࠊዪᛶࡢ఍ヰࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ࣏࣮ࣛࣝࢺ࣮ࢡ
࡛᝟⥴ࡸඹឤࢆ㔜どࡍࡿࡀࠊ⏨ᛶࡢ఍ヰࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ࣏࣮ࣞࢺࢺ࣮ࢡ࡛᝟ሗࡢⓎಙࢆ㔜どࡍࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

3 ࢹ࣮ࢱ ཰㘓ࡋࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࠊ
㸦1㸧⏨ᛶ 2 ྡ࡜ዪᛶ 2 ྡࡢ఍ヰ 2 ࢭࢵࢺ㸦2 ᫬㛫 10 ศ㸧ࠊ㸦2㸧⏨ᛶ㸲ྡྠኈࡢ఍ヰ 2 ࢭࢵࢺ㸦2 ᫬㛫㸧ࠊࡢ 2 ✀㢮࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿࠋ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡣ኱Ꮫ⏕ 18 ṓ࠿ࡽ 21 ṓ࡛ࠊ࠾஫࠸࡟ྠࡌࢡࣛࢫ࣓࣮ࢺࡸྠࡌࢡࣛࣈࡢ௰㛫࡞࡝࢘ࢳࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࠋ⌮ㄽⓗ࡞ᯟ⤌ࡳࡣࠊ఍ヰࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ໬ࡢྜᅗ㸦Gumperz, 1982㸧ࡸ࠶ࡑࡧࡢࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ
㸦Bateson, 1972㸧ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

4 ศᯒ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊዪᛶྠኈࡢ఍ヰ౛࡜⏨ᛶྠኈࡢ఍ヰ౛ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡞ࡀࡽࠊཧ୚⪅ࡀぶ╬ࡸඹឤࢆ῝ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃሙ㠃ࡸࠊࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡢ┒ࡾୖࡀࡾࡀࡳࡽࢀጞࡵࡿሙ㠃࡟╔┠ࡍࡿࠋḟࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ A ࡀฟ㌟㧗ᰯࡢಟᏛ᪑⾜ඛࢆヰࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ BࠊCࠊD ࡣ A ࡟཯ᛂࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−263−

男女の会話からみたリスナーシップの役割

㸦1㸧Step 1
9A: ࢖ࢠࣜࢫ⾜ࡃࡓࡵ࡟࠸ࡃ((ᥱࡾࡇࡪࡋ))ࠊࡳࡓ࠸࡞
  [࠿(h)ࢇࡌ
10B: [ࡑࢀࡣࡶ࠺▱ࡗ[࡜ࡗࡓࢇࡸ:((A 㢔ࡃ))
11A:        [ࡳࢇ࡞▱ࡗ࡜ࡿࠊ[ⓑ㝠⾜ࡗࡓࡽ࢖ࢠࣜࢫ[࠸ࡅࡿ࠿ࡽ:12D: [࠼ࡗ xxx[࠼ࡗ
13D: [XXX ࡦࡽࡢࡕࡷࢇ▱ࡗ࡜ࡿ㸽
14C: [xxxxx
15A: ▱ࡗ࡜ࡿ
16D: ࠼ࡗ ࡝ࡇ⾜ࡗࡓࢇヰࡋᡭ A ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿ୰ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ D ࡀヰࡋᡭ A ࡟ඹ㏻ࡢ཭ே࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚㉁ၥࢆᢞࡆ࠿ࡅ㸦13ࠊ16 ⾜┠㸧ࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࡀࡁࡗ࠿ࡅ࡛ A ࡜ D ࡢ㛫࡛ඹ㏻ࡢ▱ேᩘே࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡀ⥆ࡃࠋࡇࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽࡢၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡀヰࡋᡭ࡬ࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡜࡞
ࡗ࡚ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ໬ࡢྜᅗ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋࠊ཮᪉ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡢάᛶ໬࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࠋ
㸦2㸧Step 2 ((A ࡜ D ࡢඹ㏻ࡢ▱ேᩘேࡢヰࡀ⥆࠸ࡓᚋ))32C: ࠼ࡗ M ศ࠿ࡿ㸽 ((A ࢆࡳࡿ))33A: ศ(h)࠿ࡿ(.)ࡶ(h)࡜(h)ᙼ
[huhuhuhhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhu
34C: [ࢃ࣮ HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ((ࣃࣥࣃࣥ))HAHAHA
35B: [࠼࣮HAHAHAHAHAHAHA((ࣃࣥ))ࡲࡌ࡛: ((D: ➗㢦))
36B: ࡍࡈ࠸
37D: ࠺࣮ࢇ huh

A ࡜ D ࡢඹ㏻ࡢ▱ேᩘே࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡀ⥆࠸ࡓᚋࠊࡑࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ୍ேࡀ A ࡢඖᙼẶ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡾ㸦33 ⾜┠㸧ࠊࡇࡢࢱ࢖࣑ࣥࢢ࡛ヰࡋᡭ࡜」ᩘࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿྠ᫬➗࠸ࡸᡭ྇ࡁࡀ㉳ࡇࡾ㸦33ࠥ37 ⾜┠㸧ࠊ఍ヰࡢ┒ࡾୖࡀࡿ≧ἣࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ
㸦3㸧Step 3
45B: ࡣࠥ
46A: ࡧࡗࡃࡾ(h)ࡍࡿࢃ࣮hhh
47C: ࡍࡆ࣮
48B: ࡵࡗࡕࡷࡍࡆ࣮ hahaha ((A ࢆᣦࡍ))49D: [huhuhuhuhuhuhu
50C: [hahahahahahahaha
51B: ࡸࡤ
52C: ࡍࡈ
53A: ୡ㛫ࡗ࡚ࡏࡲ࠸࡞࣮ [huhuhuhu((D 㢔ࡁ㸱ᅇ))54C:[hahahahahaha((B 㢔ࡁ))
55A: ࡧࡗࡃࡾࡋࡓࢃ࣮
56B: ࡑࢀ࡞
57A: ࡧࡗࡃࡾࡋࡓ࣮
58B: ࡍࡈ
59C: ࢃ࣮
60A: ࡧࡗࡃࡾࡋࡓ࣮
61C: ࡧࡗ(h)ࡃࡾࡋࡓ(h) ࡇࡗࡕࡶࡸ࣮huhahahaha
62D: [huhuhuhuhu
63A: [xxxxxxxxxxxx
64B: ࠸ࡘࡘࡁ࠶ࡗࡓࢇࡍ࠿㸽఍ヰཧ୚⪅ࡓࡕࡢ㦫ࡁࡸ཯ᛂ⾲⌧㸦46ࠥ61 ⾜┠㸧ࠊࡑࡋ࡚཯ᛂ⾲⌧㸦ࠕࡧࡗࡃࡾࡋࡓࠖ㸧ࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࠊ㢖⦾࡞࠺࡞ࡎࡁ㸦53ࠥ4 ⾜┠㸧ࠊྠ᫬➗࠸㸦49ࠥ50 ⾜┠ࠊ53ࠥ54 ⾜┠ࠊ61
ࠥ62 ⾜┠㸧ࡸኌࡢᙉㄪ㸦45 ⾜┠㸧࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡟఍ヰࡢ┒ࡾୖࡀࡿ≧ἣࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࠊཧ୚⪅㛫ࡢඹឤࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽཧ୚⪅ྠኈࡢ✚ᴟⓗ࡞ࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡀࢥࣥࢸࢡ

−264−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ࢫࢺ໬ࡢྜᅗ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋࠊࡶࡣࡸヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ༊ูࡀ㞴ࡋࡃ࡞ࡿ࡯࡝ࠊཧ୚⪅ྠኈࡢ୍యឤࡀ⏕ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ḟ࡟ࠊ⏨ᛶྠኈࡢ఍ヰࢆࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ௨ୗࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ A ࡀᆅඖ㤶ᕝࡢ࠺࡝ࢇ
ࡀ⨾࿡ࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆㄒࡾࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⪺ࡁᡭ BࠊC, D ࡀᵝࠎ࡞཯ᛂࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦4㸧Step 1 ((A ࡀᆅඖ㤶ᕝࡢ࠺࡝ࢇࡀ⨾࿡ࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ))1A: ࡛ࡶ ࡯ࢇࡲ࡛ࡶ࠺ࡲ࠸ࡡࢇ࡚ࠊ
2B: ࠼ࠊࡑࢇ࡞㤶ᕝࡗ࡚[࠺࡝ࢇ࠺ࡲ࠸ࢇ
3C:
[ࡕࡻࡗ࡜
4C: ࠸ࡸࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜┒ࡗ࡜ࡿ[ࢇࡕࡷ࠺ࢇ
5B:
  [┒ࡗ࡜ࡿヰࡋᡭ A ࡀ㤶ᕝࡢ࠺࡝ࢇࡢ⨾࿡ࡋࡉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ຊㄝࡍࡿ୰ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ B ࡜ C ࡣ✺ࡗ㎸ࡳࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ⏝࠸࡞ࡀࡽࠊA ࢆ࠿ࡽ࠿࠸ጞࡵࡿ㸦2ࠥ5 ⾜┠㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂ࡟ᑐࡋ
࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭ A ࡢࡉࡽ࡞ࡿ཯ᛂ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࠋ✺ࡗ㎸ࡳࡸ࠿ࡽ࠿࠸ࡀᚎࠎ࡟ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ
໬ࡢྜᅗ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋࠊ཮᪉ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡣάᛶ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
㸦5㸧Step 2
32A: ࡑ࠺ࡸ ࡕࡷ: ฟỒ࡜: ࠶ࡢࠊ⫋ேࡉࢇࡀࢥࢿࢥࢿࡍࡿࠊࡑࡢࠊࢥࢩ㸽((D: 㢔ࡁ))
33B: ᅛࡉࡢၥ㢟ࡸࢁ
34A: 㐪࠺㐪࠺ᅛࡉࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࡡࢇ
35C: [ఱࡸࡡࢇ36D: [xxxxxx
37A: ࡸࢃࡽࠊᰂࡽ࠿࠸ࡅ࡝ࠊࢥࢩࡀ((ࣃࣥ))࠶ࢇࡢࡼ
38B: ࢥࢩࡗ࡚ఱ(h)ࡸࡡࢇ((D: ➗㢦࡛㤳ࢆ࠿ࡋࡆࡿ))39A: [ࢥ(h)ࢩࡣ[ࡶ࠺ hh
40C: [ࢥࢩࡗ࡚᭕᫕ࡸ
41D:[࡯ࢇࡲ hahaha
42B: ࢥࢩࡗ࡚ఱࡸ ࡑࡢ᭕᫕࡞⾲⌧
43A: ᐃ⩏ࡣ࡞࠸
44C: huhahaha[hahaha
45D:    [xxxxxx ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࡸࢁ

ヰࡋᡭ A ࡣࡉࡽ࡟࠺࡝ࢇࡢ⨾࿡ࡋࡉࢆᙉㄪࡋࠊ
ࠕࢥࢩࠖ࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩࢆఱᗘࡶ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽຊㄝࢆ⥆ࡅࡿࠋࡇࡢࠕࢥࢩࠖ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ A ࡸ B ࡣኌࡢㄪᏊࢆᙉࡵ㸦34ࠥ35⾜┠㸧ࠊ➗࠸ࢆྵࡵ࡞ࡀࡽࠕࢥࢩࠖ࡜࠸࠺࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࠊA ࡟✺ࡗ㎸ࡳࢆධࢀ࡚࠿ࡽ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦38, 40ࠥ41 ⾜┠㸧ࠋヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ཮᪉࡟ࡼࡿ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡸࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿ➗࠸࡞ࡀࡽࡢ✺ࡗ㎸ࡳ཯ᛂࡣࡉࡽ࡞ࡿࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ໬ࡢྜᅗ࡜ࡋ࡚
ᶵ⬟ࡋࠊཧ୚⪅ྠኈࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡣࡉࡽ࡟Ⓨᒎࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
㸦6㸧Step 3
46A: ఱ࠿┴Ẹࢩ࣮࡛ࣙࡳࡓࡢ࡛ࡣࠊࢥࢩࡣࠊఱ࠿ࠊ࠶ࠊ㤶ᕝࡢேࡣ࢚ࢵࢪࡗ࡚ゝ࠺ࡽࡋ࠸ࡅ࡝
  [hahahahahahahahahahahahahhah
47C: [hehehe ࡵࡗࡕࡷ࠿ࡗࡇ࠼࣮((ࣃࣥࣃࣥ)) AHAHAHAHAHA
48D: [hahahahah
49B: [hahahahaha ඲↛(h)㐪࠺ࡸࢇ ࢚ࢵࢪࡀࡁ࠸࡚ࡿࡑࢇ࡞ hhhhhahahahah
50A: [࢚ࢵࢪࡀࡁ࠸࡚ࡿࡗ࡚࠸࠺ࡽࡋ࠸ hahahahaahahaha
51C: [AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ఱࡑࢀ ahahahah
52D: [hahahahahahahahahaha ࢚ࢵࢪࡀࡁ࠸࡚ࡿ haha
53B: ࡑࢇ࡞࠶ࡽ㸦h㸧࡚ࡢ xxxxxxxxx ࡀ
54A: ࡯ࢇࡲ࡟ hh ࢚ࢵࢪࡀࡁ࠸࡚ࡿࡗ࡚ゝ࠺ࡽࡋ࠸ࢃ[hahaha
55D:   [ahahaha
56B: ࡇࡢ[࠺࡝ࢇ࢚ࢵࢪࡁ࠸࡚ࡿࢃ࣮ hahahahah
57A:[hahahahhahahahahahahah−265−男女の会話からみたリスナーシップの役割

58D:[hahahahahah
59C:[hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
60B: ゝ(h)ࢃࢇࡸࢁ࣮[⤯ᑐヰࡋᡭ A ࡣࠕ࢚ࢵࢪࠖ࡜࠸࠺᪂ࡓ࡞࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻࡶᑟධࡋ㸦46 ⾜┠㸧ࠊࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡇࡢ᪂ࡓ࡞࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭ A ࡸ⪺ࡁᡭ BࠥD ࡢ඲ဨࡀྠ᫬➗࠸࡛཯ᛂࡋ㸦46ࠥ52 ⾜┠㸧ࠊ఍ヰࡢ┒ࡾୖࡀࡾࡣ᭱㧗₻࡟㐩ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢ఍ヰࡢ┒ࡾୖࡀࡾ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ࢚ࢵࢪࠖ࡜࠸࠺࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻࡀఱᗘࡶヰࡋᡭࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ⪺ࡁᡭ B ࡸ D ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸦49ࠥ56 ⾜┠㸧ࠊཧ୚⪅ྠኈࡢ୍యឤࡸࡘ࡞ࡀࡾࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻࢆୖᡭࡃ⏝࠸࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣヰࡋᡭࢆ࠿ࡽ࠿࠸⥆ࡅࠊヰࡋᡭࡶࡲࡓࡇࡢ࠿ࡽ࠿࠸࡟➗࠸࡞ࡀࡽᛂࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ┦஫ᛂ⟅཯ᛂࢆ
㏻ࡌ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ཮᪉ࡀ୍㐃ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࢆࠕ࠶ࡑࡧࠖ㸦Bateson, 1972㸧࡜఩⨨࡙ࡅ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ఍ヰཧ୚⪅ྠኈࡢ㛵ಀᛶࡶᵓ⠏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

5 ࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉ⾜ື࡜࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ ዪᛶྠኈࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡳࡽࢀࡓ㢖⦾࡞࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡸ㢔ࡁࠊྠ᫬➗࠸ࠊ㇏ᐩ࡞཯ᛂ⾲⌧ࡢ౑⏝ࡣࠊཧ୚⪅ྠኈࡢඹឤࡸ༠ㄪࠊ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ⌮ゎ࡜⯆࿡ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
⏨ᛶྠኈࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡳࡽࢀࡓ✺ࡗ㎸ࡳࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡸ࠿ࡽ࠿࠸ࡣዪᛶ఍ヰ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾほᐹࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ⏨ᛶ఍ヰ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡓ≉㉁࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ⏨ᛶ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕ࠶ࡑࡧࠖ
㸦Bateson, 1972㸧ࡢせ⣲ࡀྵࡲࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࠿࠸ࡣࠊ఍ヰཧ୚⪅ྠኈࡢ௰㛫ព㆑ࢆ㧗ࡵ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ஫࠸ࡢ⤖᮰ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡶࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࠋ୍ぢᩛពࡀྵࡲ
ࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡞ࣇ࣮ࣞࢬ࡟ࠕ࠶ࡑࡧࠖࡢࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡀ࣓ࢱ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪ࡜ࡋ࡚ྵࡲࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ
ཧ୚⪅ྠኈࡢ㐃ᖏឤࡸ⤖᮰ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ࠿ࡽ࠿࠸࡟௜㝶ࡋ࡚ࠊ㢖⦾࡟ྠ᫬➗࠸ࡀほᐹࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ࠿ࡽ࠿࠸ࡀヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ཮᪉࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕ࠶ࡑࡧ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡇ
࡜ࡀㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࠊ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡢᒎ㛤࡟ࡶࡘ࡞ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௜グᮏ✏ࡣ᪥ᮏᏛ⾡᣺⯆఍⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠㸦ⱝᡭ◊✲ Bࠊ◊✲ㄢ㢟ྡࠕ⌧௦᪥ᮏ♫఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉࡢᙺ๭㸸ୡ௦࣭ࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮࣭␗ᩥ໬ࡢ஺ᕪࠖࠊ௦⾲ 㞴ἼᙬᏊࠊ
26770142ࠊ2014 ᖺࠥ2017 ᖺ㸧ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩Bateson, Grefgory. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.
Clancy, Pataricia, Thompson, Sandra A., Suzuki, Ryoko & Tao, Hongyin. 1996. The  conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese and Mandarin. Journal of
Pragmatics 26, 355-387.
Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kita, Sotaro and Ide, Sachiko. 2007. Nodding, aizuchi, and final particles in Japanese   conversation: How conversation reflects the ideology of communication and social
relationships. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 1242-1254.
Ỉ㇂ಙᏊ㸬1993㸬ࠕࠕඹヰࠖ࠿ࡽࠕᑐヰࠖ࡬ࠖ㸬ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘4ࠊ4-10.
Namba, Ayako. 2011. Listenership in Japanese interaction: The contributions of laughter.   Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Linguistics and English Language, The University of  Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Tannen, Deborah. 1984. Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, New
Jersey: Ablex.
᳜㔝㈗ᚿᏊ㸬2014. ࠕၥ࠸࠿ࡅⓎヰ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ᪥ᮏே࡜Ꮫ⏕ࡢ♫఍ⓗ㛵ಀʊ᪥ⱥㄒࡢᑐ
↷ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠖ
㸬஭ฟ⚈Ꮚ࣭⸨஭ὒᏊ㸦⦅㸧ࠗゎᨺⓗㄒ⏝ㄽࡢᣮᡓʊᩥ໬࣭࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔
ࢡࢩ࣭ࣙࣥゝㄒ࠘ࠊ91-121. ᮾி: ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬

−266−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉ࠿ࡽぢࡓ⮬௚ㄆ㆑̿᪥࣭⡿ㄒ఍ヰࡢẚ㍑̿
᳜㔝㈗ᚿᏊ
ᮾி㒔ᕷ኱Ꮫ
<Abstract>
The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to analyze the characteristics of story recipients’listening practices in Japanese and American dyadic conversations between female friends,and (2) to explicate the results of the analysis in terms of self-other recognition. My analysis
showed that Japanese story recipients demonstrate practices such as repetition and making
additions to the storytellers’ prior utterances through which they try to take the storytellers’
perspective and, eventually, utterances from both sides converge into a single stream.
American story recipients garner information and provide comments, most of which represent
their unique inner attributes toward the story being told. I argue that the manners oflistenership in Japanese and American conversation indicate an inclination of self-othermerging and maintenance of self-other independence, respectively.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉࠊ⮬௚ㄆ㆑ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࠊㄒࡾᡭࠊ᪥⡿ẚ㍑

㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
⪺ࡁᡭࡣ┦ᡭࡢヰࢆཷືⓗ࡟⪺ࡃࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᵝࠎ࡞ࡸࡾ᪉࡛┦ᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࠊ఍
ヰ⪅㛫ࡢඹྠ⾜Ⅽࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋࠊ✚ᴟⓗ࡟఍ヰᵓ⠏࡟ཧຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㈉⊩ࢆࠕࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉࠖ࡜࿧ࡪ㸦Namba 2011㸧ࠋ໭ᒣ㸦1994㸧࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒ౑⏝ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀᒓࡍࡿᩥ໬࡛ඹ᭷ࡉࢀࡓ⮬௚ㄆ㆑ࡀ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵ
ࣉࡢᵝែࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢゝㄒᩥ໬࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⮬௚ㄆ㆑ࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ⤒㦂ࢆㄒࡿㄒࡾᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⌮ゎࡸඹឤࢆ⾲ࡍⓎヰ⾜ືࢆ㏻ࡌࡓ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ఍ヰᵓ⠏࡬ࡢ㈉⊩ࢆࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉ࡜ᤊ࠼ࠊዪᛶ཭ேྠኈ࡟ࡼࡿ᪥࣭⡿ㄒ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
㸦㸯㸧ㄒࡾࢆཷࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣜࢫ
ࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰ⾜ື࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᐇ㊶ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆศᯒࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ
㸦㸰㸧᪥ᮏேࠊ࢔
࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡢࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⮬௚ㄆ㆑ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㸰㸬᪥ᮏே࡜࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡢ⮬௚ㄆ㆑࡜ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ
᪥ᮏேࡢ⮬ᕫㄆ㆑࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕ㛫ே୺⩏ࠖ㸦὾ཱྀ 1982㸧ࠊすḢㄒࡢࠕ⤯ᑐⓗ⮬ᕫつᐃࠖ࡟ᑐࡍ
ࡿ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕ┦ᑐⓗ⮬ᕫつᐃࠖ㸦㕥ᮌ 1973㸧➼ࡀㄽࡌࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡟ඹ㏻ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ௚⪅࡜ࡢぶ࿴ࡸಶேࡢ⮬❧ࡢపࡉ➼ࠊ௚⪅࠿ࡽࡢ⿕つᐃᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ໭ᒣ㸦1994㸧ࡣࡇࢀࡽ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊ᪥
ᮏேࡣࠊ஫࠸࡟⤖ࡧࡘ࠸ࡓே㛫㛵ಀࡢ୍㒊࡜ࡋ࡚⮬ᕫࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࠕ┦஫༠ㄪⓗ⮬ᕫほࠖࢆࡶࡕࠊ࢔

−267−

リスナーシップから見た自他認識 ―日・米語会話の比較―࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡣࠊ⮬ᕫࢆ௚⪅࠿ࡽศ㞳ࡋࡓ⊂⮬࡞ᐇయ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࠕ┦஫⊂❧ⓗ⮬ᕫほࠖࢆࡶࡘ࡜㏙࡭ࡓࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⮬ᕫほࡣࠊ⮬௚ㄆ㆑ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᩥ໬࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⩦័ࡸ఍ヰࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ➼ࢆつᐃࡋࠊ᪥ᖖࡢ♫఍ⓗ⌧ᐇࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
♫఍ゝㄒᏛࡸㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ◊✲࠿ࡽࡣࠊୖ㏙ࡢ⮬ᕫほ࡜➢ྜࡍࡿ᪥ᮏேࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ
࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ≉ᚩࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Ỉ㇂ 1993 ௚㸧ࠋỈ㇂㸦1993㸧࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ᪥ᮏேࡢ఍ヰࡣࠊ୍
ࡘࡢⓎヰࢆヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ஧ே࡛సࡿࠕඹヰࠖࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡢ఍ヰࡣࠊྛࠎࡢヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ศࡢⓎヰࢆ᏶ᡂࡉࡏ࡚࠿ࡽ┦ᡭࡢヰࢆ⪺ࡃࠕᑐヰࠖࡢᛶ᱁ࢆࡶࡘࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡢඹヰⓗᛶ᱁࡟㛵ࢃࡿ⌧㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊⱥㄒࡢ 2.9 ಸ࡜࠸࠺࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡢ㧗ࡉ㸦࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ 1993㸧ࠊඛྲྀࡾ㸦ᇼཱྀ 1997㸧ࠊࡃࡾ࠿࠼ࡋ㸦⇃㇂࣭ᮌ㇂ 2010㸧ࡢከ⏝ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸱㸬ࢹ࣮ࢱ࣭᪉ἲ
࣑ࢫࢱ࣮࣭࣮࣭࢜ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸦஭ฟ࣭⸨஭ 2014 ཧ↷㸧࡟཰㘓ࡉࢀࡓࠕࡧࡗࡃࡾࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚⮬⏤࡟ヰࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᣦ♧ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒࡢዪᛶẕㄒヰ⪅஧⪅㛫
ࡢ 5 ศ㛫ࡢ఍ヰྛ 11 ⤌ࢆࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ఍ヰࡢཧຍ⪅ࡣࠊぶࡋ࠸㛫᯶ࡢᏛ⏕ྠኈ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ஧⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡧࡗࡃࡾࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆヰࡍࡼ࠺ᣦ♧ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୍᪉ࡀ⤒㦂ࢆヰࡋࠊ௚᪉ࡀࡑࢀࢆཷࡅࡿᙺ๭ࢆᢸ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ⤒㦂ࢆヰࡍ⪅ࢆࠕㄒࡾᡭࠖࠊㄒࡾࢆཷࡅࡿ⪅ࢆࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࠖ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡋࠊㄒࡾᡭࡀ୍㏻ࡾࡢヰࢆ⤊࠼ࠊㄒࡾᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢάⓎ࡞ࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡀ㉳ࡁࡿ㐣⛬ࢆࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰ⾜ື㸦࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠊᐇ㉁ⓗⓎヰࢆྵࡴ㸧࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚ほᐹࡋࡓࠋ㸲㸬ㄒࡾ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉ
4.1. ᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰ ᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊㄒࡾᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰࡀ⼥ྜⓗ࡟஺ࢃࡾࠊࡦ࡜ࡘࡢヰࡢὶࢀࢆ๰ࡾฟ
ࡍሙ㠃ࡀ㢖⦾࡟ほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛㉳ࡁࡿⓎヰ⾜ື࡟ࡣࠊ㸦㸯㸧┦ᡭࡢ┤๓ࡢⓎヰ㸦ࡢ୍㒊㸧ࢆ⧞
ࡾ㏉ࡍࠕࡃࡾ࠿࠼ࡋࠖࠊ
㸦㸰㸧┦ᡭࡀゝ࠸ࡑ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆඛྲྀࡾࡋ࡚ゝ࠺ࠕඛྲྀࡾࠖ
ࠊ㸦㸱㸧┦ᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟ᙉࡃ㛵㐃ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┦ᡭ࡜ྠࡌどⅬ࠿ࡽ㏣ຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠕ௜ࡅຍ࠼ࠖࠊ㸦㸲㸧┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࡢ୍㒊࡟⮬ศࡢⓎヰࢆ㔜ࡡ࡚ゝ࠺ࠕゝ࠸㔜࡞ࡾࠖࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊ஫࠸ࢆࡦࡁࡇࡳྜ࠸ࠊྠㄪࡢ㧗ࡲࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚⌧ࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ⥲⛠ࡋ࡚ࠕ┦஫ࡦࡁࡇࡳⓎヰࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋ┦஫
ࡦࡁࡇࡳⓎヰࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ㄒࡾᡭࡢ཮᪉࠿ࡽ㉳ࡇࡾࠊ஫࠸ࡢⓎヰࡀ⤡ࡳྜ࠺ࠋ
ࠕ⼥ྜᆺࠖࡢࣜࢫࢼ࣮
ࢩࢵࣉ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ௨ୗ࡟౛ࢆᣲࡆࡿࠋ
㸦౛㸯㸧ㄒࡾᡭ㸦T㸸teller㸧ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦L㸸listener㸧ࠊ㸦ඛ⾜㒊ศ࡛ࠊ࣍ࢸࣝࡢ࢝ࣇ࢙࡛࢔ࣝࣂ࢖
ࢺࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿㄒࡾᡭࡀࠊ」ᩘࡢࢻࣞࢫጼࡢⰼ᎑ࡀ࢝ࣇ࢙࡟ᗙࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᵝᏊࢆぢ࡚㦫࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸧
47 T:ࢇࠊ࡛ࡶࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿ࡡ࠼ࠊ [࡞ࢇ࠿48 L:       [㹹➗࠸㹻ࡧࡗࡃࡾࡍࡿࡼ [ࡡ  

49 T:                   −268−[㹹➗࠸㹻ࡧࡗࡃࡾࡍࡿࡼ

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

50 L:㹹➗࠸㹻࢝ࣇ࢙࡟࠸࡞࠸ࡶ [ࢇࡡࠊࡩࡘ࠺  
51 T:         [㹹➗࠸㹻࢝ࣇ࢙                          

52 T:㹹➗࠸㹻ࡋ࠿ [ࡶࠊ࠶ࠊ࢔࢖ࢫࢥ࣮ࣄ࣮࡛ࠊ࡜࠿㹹➗࠸㹻 =53 L:  [࡞ࢇ࠿㹹➗࠸㹻

54 L:                 =㹹➗࠸㹻ࡑ࠺ࡔࡼࡡࠊࡣ

ࡤࠊᖜ࡜ࡿࡼࡡࠊࡔࡗ [࡚ࡍࡈ࠸
55 T:        [ࡑ࠺ࠊࡍࡗࡈ࠸ࡢࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿ࡡࠊከศࡡࠊࡇࡢࡄࡽ࠸ࡔࡼࠊࡦ

࡜ࡾ࡛ࠊࡇࡇࡀ࠶ࡓࡋࡓࡕࡢ௒ [ࡇࡢࡄࡽ࠸
56 L:             [࡬࠼࣮ࠊࡋ࠿ࡶởࡏ࡞࠸ࡼࡡ ⪺ࡁᡭࡣㄒࡾᡭࡀᥥࡃ≧ἣࢆ᝿ീࡋࠊ࠶ࡓ࠿ࡶ⮬ศࡶྠࡌ⤒㦂ࢆࡋࡓ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊㄒࡾᡭ࡬ࡢ
ඹឤࠊ⌮ゎࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ㄒࡾᡭࡢ㛫࡛ࡃࡾ࠿࠼ࡋࡀ㐃⥆ࡋ࡚㉳ࡇࡾ㸦49ࠊ51ࠊ55 ⾜㸧ࠊ஫࠸ࡢⓎヰࡀᐦ᥋࡟⧅ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉࡟ 55 ⾜ࡢㄒࡾᡭ࡟ࡼࡿࡃࡾ࠿࠼ࡋࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰ㸦54
⾜㸧࡟ゝ࠸㔜࡞ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ࡯ࡰྠ᫬࡟㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ52 ⾜ࡢㄒࡾᡭ࡟ࡼࡿ௜ࡅຍ࠼ࠊ࠾ࡼ
ࡧࠊ56 ⾜ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿ௜ࡅຍ࠼࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࠕ࢝ࣇ࢙࡟࠸࡞࠸ࡶࢇࡡࠊࡩࡘ࠺㸭ࡋ࠿ࡶࠊ࠶ࠊ࢔
࢖ࢫࢥ࣮ࣄ࣮࡛ࠊ࡜࠿ࠖ
ࠊࠕࡇࡇࡀ࠶ࡓࡋࡓࡕࡢ௒ࡇࡢࡄࡽ࠸㸭ࡋ࠿ࡶࠊởࡏ࡞࠸ࡼࡡࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟
஧ேࡢⓎヰࡀ⼥ྜⓗ࡟⧅ࡀࡾࠊࡦ࡜ࡘࡢヰࡢὶࢀࢆ๰ࡾฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
4.2. ⱥㄒ఍ヰⱥㄒ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ㉁ၥࢆࡋࡓࡾ㸦31ࠊ44 ⾜㸧ࠊ㦫ࡁࢆ⾲ࡋࡓࡾ㸦29ࠊ46 ⾜㸧ࠊឤ᝿ࢆ⾲ࡋࡓࡾࠊ┤᥋ヰἲ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄒࡾᡭࡢẼᣢࡕࢆ᝿ീࡋ࡚㏙࡭ࡓࡾࡍࡿ㸦48 ⾜㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ࡯࡜
ࢇ࡝ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ⊂⮬ࡢពᛮࢆ⾲ฟࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕ⮬ᕫⓎಙࠖᆺࡢࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ㄒࡾᡭࡢ㛵୚ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀ㧗࠸఍ヰ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢഃࡀࠊㄒࡾᡭࡢ
ㄒࡾࡢᒎ㛤ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟ཧධࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡣṤ࡝࡞࠸ࠋ㸦౛㸰㸧ㄒࡾᡭ㸦T㸸teller㸧ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦L㸸listener㸧ࠊ㸦ඛ⾜㒊ศ࡛ࠊ‶ဨ㟁㌴࡛஌ᐈࡀูࡢ஌ᐈ
࡟ᢸࡀࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ≧ἣࡀㄒࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸧
28 T: But... yeah... that was... [I was... yeah, and that's the only time that it's ever happened.
29 L:[Oh really!

30 T: And... but...
31 L: Like was it just like one guy, or was there like twelve guys sitting on top of the [train?
32 T:[Therewas probably three…three.

㸦୰␎㸧
44 L: So what did you do?
45 T: And so... I helped hold them, so it wouldn't like break your neck. {laugh}−269−

リスナーシップから見た自他認識 ―日・米語会話の比較―

46 L: No kiddi[ng!
47 T:[Yeah. {laugh}

48 L: You're just standing there like‘Oh my go[d!'
49 T:



[Yeah.

㸳㸬ࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉ࡜⮬௚ㄆ㆑ ᪥ᮏேࡢ⮬ᕫᵓ㐀ࡣࠊࠕ࢘ࢳ࣭ࢯࢺ࣭ࣚࢯࠖࡢ୕㔜ᵓ㐀ࢆࡶࡘ㸦ᅗ 1 ᕥ㸧ࠋ୍␒୰ᚰࡢ⮬ᕫࡢẆࡣ⬤࠸ࡀࠊ࢘ࢳ࡜ࢯࢺࠊࢯࢺ࡜ࣚࢯࢆ㝸࡚ࡿ㡿ᇦࡢቃ⏺ࡢቨࡣཌ࠸ࠋ
ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢぶࡋ࠸཭ேྠኈ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ࢘ࢳࡢ
㛵ಀ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⮬ᕫࡣࠊ┦஫⼥ྜⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
ព࿡ࡍࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡀㄒࡾᡭࡢᥥ෗ࡍࡿୡ⏺࡟⛣ධࡋࠊ஧ே࡛ࡦ࡜ࡘࡢヰࡢὶࢀࢆ๰ࡾฟࡍࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉࡣࠊ
ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞┦஫⼥ྜⓗ࡞⮬௚ㄆ㆑࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡢ⮬ᕫᵓ㐀㸦ᅗ 1ྑ㸧ࡣࠊ⮬ᕫࡢ࿘ࡾࡢẆࡔࡅࡀཌ࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡸ≧ἣࡀኚࢃࡗ࡚ࡶ☜ᅛࡓࡿ⮬ᕫࡢ୰ᚰࡣᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅ࡟ࡃࡃࠊ⮬௚ࡀ⊂❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢ⡿ㄒ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⮬ᕫⓎಙⓗ࡟ពᛮࢆఏ࠼ࡿࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉࡣࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ┦஫⊂❧ⓗ࡞⮬௚ㄆ㆑ࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
௜グ ᮏ◊✲ࡣᖹᡂ 25㹼27 ᖺᗘ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠㸦ᇶ┙◊✲㸦C㸧ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡜ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡢ㉁ၥ⾜Ⅽࡢᑐ↷◊✲ࠖNo. 25370733ࠊ◊✲௦⾲⪅ ᳜㔝㈗ᚿᏊ㸧ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩὾ཱྀᜨಇ㸬1982㸬ࠗ㛫ே୺⩏ࡢ♫఍᪥ᮏ࠘ᮾி㸸ᮾὒ⤒῭᪂ሗ♫㸬ᇼཱྀ⣧Ꮚ㸬1997㸬ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡜఍ヰศᯒ࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬஭ฟ⚈Ꮚ㸬1995㸬ࠕᅜ㝿໬♫఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒ࡜ᩥ໬࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕࣮ࠖࠊᩥ໬ᗇ㸦⦅㸧ࠗ᪂ࠕࡇ࡜ࡤࠖ
ࢩ࣮ࣜࢬࠕᅜ㝿໬࡜᪥ᮏㄒࠖ࠘
ࠊ42㸫62㸬஭ฟ⚈Ꮚ࣭⸨஭ὒᏊ㸬㸦⦅㸧2014㸬ࠗゎᨺⓗㄒ⏝ㄽ࡬ࡢᣮᡓ㸸ᩥ໬࣭࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩ࣭ࣙࣥゝㄒ࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬໭ᒣ ᚸ㸬1994㸬ࠕᩥ໬ⓗ⮬ᕫほ࡜ᚰ⌮ⓗࣉࣟࢭࢫࠖ
ࠊࠗ♫఍ᚰ⌮Ꮫ◊✲࠘10㸸3ࠊ153㸫167㸬
⇃㇂ᬛᏊ࣭ᮌ㇂┤அ㸬2010㸬ࠗ୕⪅㠃᥋ㄪᰝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ̿┦஫⾜Ⅽࢆཧຍࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ̿࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ࣭K࣭ἨᏊ㸬1993㸬ࠗ఍ヰศᯒ࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬Ỉ㇂ಙᏊ㸬1993㸬ࠕࠕඹヰࠖ࠿ࡽࠕᑐヰࠖ࡬ࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘12ࠊ4㸫10㸬
Namba, A. 2011. Listenership in Japanese Interaction: The Contributions of Laughter. An
Unpublished Thesis of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh.
㕥ᮌᏕኵ㸬1973㸬ࠗࡇ࡜ࡤ࡜ᩥ໬࠘ᮾி㸸ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸬−270−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ໬ࡢྜᅗ࠿ࡽࡳࡓࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉ
̿␗ᩥ໬㛫ᑐヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢦࢩࢵࣉࡢศᯒ࠿ࡽࡢ⪃ᐹ̿ᒣཱྀᚁᏕ⚄ᡞᕷእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ

$EVWUDFW!
7KHDLPLVWRH[SORUHDUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQVRFLDOLGHQWLW\DQGOLVWHQHUVKLSLQWKH
FRQWHPSRUDU\ZRUOG7KLVSDSHULVVSHFLILFDOO\LQWHQGHGWREHDQHPSLULFDOVWXG\RI
OLVWHQHUVKLSEHKDYLRULQLQWHUFXOWXUDOHQFRXQWHUVLQZKLFKFRQWH[WXDOO\VLWXDWHGDQG
PDFURVRFLDOLGHQWLWLHVDUHLQWHUWZLQHGIURPDOLQJXLVWLFDQWKURSRORJLFDOSHUVSHFWLYH
7KHGDWDDUHWDNHQIURPDQLQWHUDFWLRQEHWZHHQ$XVWUDOLDQDQG-DSDQHVHVSHDNHUVZKRHQJDJHLQJRVVLSPDLQO\LQ-DSDQHVH7KURXJKDQDO\VLV,VXJJHVWWKDWWKHQRWLRQRI͆FRQWH[WXDOL]DWLRQFXH͇ *XPSHU] FDQFRQFHSWXDOL]HYDULRXVNLQGVRIVHPLRWLFFXHV
E\OLVWHQHUVDQGWKXVLVXVHIXOLQFRQVWUXFWLQJDPRUHHQFRPSDVVLQJRU͆XQLYHUVDO͇IUDPHZRUNDSSOLFDEOHWRDZLGHUDQJHRIOLVWHQHUVKLSEHKDYLRU,PSOLFDWLRQVDUHGLVFXVVHG
IRUPRGHOLQJOLVWHQHUVKLSEHKDYLRUDVDSDUWLFLSDWLRQIUDPHZRUN࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ືࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ໬ࡢྜᅗࠊࢦࢩࢵࣉࠊ␗ᩥ໬㛫ᑐヰ㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ✏ࡣ⌧௦ேࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࡢከ㠃ᛶ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉࡜ࡢᐦ᥋࡞㛵ಀࢆ᥈ࡿࠋ≉࡟ࠊ␗ᩥ໬㛫ᑐヰ࡜࠸࠺♫఍ⓗせ⣲ࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿሙ㠃࡛ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ື ࣜࢫࢼ࣮ࢩࢵࣉ ࡟ゝㄒே㢮Ꮫⓗ࡞ぢᆅ࠿ࡽ᥋㏆ࡍࡿᐇド◊✲ࡢ➨୍Ṍ࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗࡍࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ㇦ᕞே࡜᪥ᮏே
ࡢ㛫࡛୺࡟᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡼࡾ⾜ࢃࢀࡓᑐヰ࡛㉳ࡇࡗࡓࢦࢩࢵࣉࡢ୰࡛ࠊ➗࠸ࠊ┦ᵔࠊཬࡧࡑࡢ௚ࡢ
ࠕࣜ࢔ࢡࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࢺ࣮ࢡࣥࠖ *DUGQHU1DPED ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ື࡜ࡋ࡚ヲࡋࡃࡳࡿࠋศᯒ
࡟㝿ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࢦࢩࢵࣉ࡜࠸࠺ࠕάືࢱ࢖ࣉࠖ /HYLQVRQ ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ㉁ၥ࣭ᛂ⟅㐃㙐ࢆྠᐃࡋࠊᛂ⟅㒊ศࢆࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ືࠖ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡍࡿ ᒣཱྀ  ཧ↷ ࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛≉࡟ࠕㄪᰝ⪅࡜㠀ㄪᰝ⪅ࠖཬࡧࠕ㇦ᕞே࡜᪥ᮏேࠖ࡜࠸࠺࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࡢ㛵ಀᛶࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ㔜せ࡞ᴫᛕࡣࠕࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ໬ࡢྜᅗࠖ *XPSHU] ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠕᩥ໬ⓗ࡟ඹ᭷ࡉࢀࡓࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ
໬ࡢࡓࡵࡢ័⩦໬ࡉࢀࡓグྕㄽⓗࢩࢢࢼ࡛ࣝࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᴫᛕࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ♧ࡍᛂ⟅ࢆ┦஫஺΅ࡢ୰࡛๰ࡽࢀࡿ≧ἣ౫Ꮡⓗព࿡ WRNHQOHYHOPHDQLQJ ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࢢ࣮ࣝ
ࣉࡢᡂဨ࡟࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘඹ᭷ࡉࢀࡓ័⩦ⓗព࿡ W\SHOHYHOPHDQLQJ ࡀ㢧ᅾ໬ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ⤖ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ➗࠸ࠖࡶྵࡵࡓ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆࢥࣥࢸࢫࢺ໬ࡢྜᅗ࡜ᴫᛕ໬ࡍࡿ
ࡇ࡜࡛ࡼࡾỗ⏝ᛶࡢ㧗࠸⌮ㄽ໬࡬࡜㐍ࡴࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࡢ୍ࡘ࡟ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢཧ୚
⪅ᯟ⤌ࡳࠖ *RRGZLQDQG*RRGZLQ ࡢ෌⪃࡟ࡼࡿࣔࢹࣝ໬ࢆᣲࡆࡿࠋ
௨ୗࠊࡲࡎඛ⾜◊✲࡛≉࡟㛵㐃࠶ࡿࡶࡢࢆ  Ⅼ㑅ᢥࡋࠊၥ㢟ᥦ㉳ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡲࡎࠊࠕ࡞ࡐࠊ࡝ࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡟⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ືࢆ◊✲ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊ࡞ࡐࠕ␗ᩥ໬㛫ࠖᑐヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ືࢆ◊✲ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳࡢ␎㏙ཬࡧ᪉ἲㄽⓗ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒࢆ♧ࡍࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒ࠿ࡽࡢ⪃ᐹ࡜௒ᚋࡢ᪉ྥᛶཬࡧㄢ㢟ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠋ㸰㸬ᮏ✏ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡜࡞ࡗࡓඛ⾜◊✲

−271−

コンテクスト化の合図からみたリスナーシップ―異文化間対話でのゴシップの分析からの考察―ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ1DPED  ཬࡧ᳜㔝  ࡟ࡼࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ື◊✲࡟ゐⓎࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ 'HQJ㸹0F&DUWK\ ࡶཧ↷ ࠋ1DPED  ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ➗࠸ࡢᶵ⬟ࠖࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ື࡜ࡋ࡚◊✲ࡋࠊඹឤࡢ⾲᫂ࠊၥ㢟ࡢゎỴ࡞࡝ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆⓎぢࡋࡓࠋୖグᶵ⬟ࢆ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢥ࣑
ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡜㛵㐃࡙ࡅࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ື࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ㠀ゝㄒⓗࠕ➗࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⌧㇟ࢆࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ୰࡛ᯝࡓࡍᙺ๭ࠊᶵ⬟࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ◊✲ࡢ᭷┈ᛶࡢ୍ࡘࡣࠊ⊃࠸ព࿡࡛ࡢࠕゝㄒⓗࠖ⾜ືࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࠕグྕㄽⓗ VHPLRWLF ࠖ⌧㇟ࡢศᯒࡢᚲせᛶࢆ᫂♧ࡋࡓ
Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊ᳜㔝  ࡣࠕ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸୍࡚᪉ࡀ⤒㦂ㄯࢆㄒࡿ᫬ࠊࡑࡢㄒࡾࢆཷࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕⓗ཯ᛂࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ㉁ၥࢆࡋࡓࡾឤ᝿ࢆ㏙࡭ࡓࡾ࡜࠸ࡗࡓᐇ㉁ⓗ࡞Ⓨヰࢆࡍࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰࡣࠊㄒࡾᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⌮ゎࡸඹឤࢆ⾲ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ఍ヰࢆ㐍ᒎࡉࡏࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶
ࡾࠊ⪺ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⾜Ⅽࡢ㔜せ࡞㒊ศࢆ࡞ࡍࠖ࡜ㄝ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ◊✲ࡀ♧၀ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ࣑ࢽ࣐ࣝ࡞ᛂ⟅ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕᐇ㉁ⓗ࡞Ⓨヰࠖ࡬࡜⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ືࡢᑕ⛬ࢆᣑ኱ࡋࡓⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸱㸬ඛ⾜◊✲࠿ࡽࡢ⌮ㄽⓗ࣭᪉ἲㄽⓗ⪃ᐹୖグඛ⾜◊✲࠿ࡽࠊ᭦࡟኱ࡁ࡞ၥ࠸ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ᮏ✏ࡢពᅗࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡎ➨୍࡟ࠕ࡞ࡐ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ືࢆ◊✲ࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋᙜ↛ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ఍ヰࡣඹྠᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ
࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⾜ືࡣ㔜せ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊヰࡋᡭ⾜ື࡟ẚ࡭ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᙺ๭ࡢ⌮ㄽ໬ࡸᐇド◊✲ࡣᡭ࡛ⷧ࠶ࡿ *RRGZLQDQG*RRGZLQ ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ᮏ✏ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ືࡢᐇドⓗ◊✲ࡢ୍౛࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗࡍࡿࠋ➨஧ࡢၥ࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ࡞ࡐ␗ᩥ
໬㛫ᑐヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ືࢆ◊✲ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠖࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࠊⱥㄒࠊ୰
ᅜㄒ࡞࡝ࡢྛゝㄒࡈ࡜ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ືࡣ◊✲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ⱥㄒࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿேࠎ࡟ࡼࡿ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␗ᩥ໬㛫࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢ◊✲ࡣᕼ࡛ⷧ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ✏ࡣࡇࡢព࿡࡛ࡶẚ㍑ⓗ᪂ࡋ࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ၥ㢟ព㆑࠿ࡽࠊᮏ✏ࡢ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳ࡜᪉ἲㄽࢆ⣲ᥥࡍࡿࠋ఍ヰศᯒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ㞄᥋࣌࢔ࠖཬࡧࠕ㐃㙐ࠖ 6DFNVHWDO ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟᥋㏆ࡍࡿࠋ᭦࡟ࠊ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢ♫఍ゝㄒᏛ࠿ࡽࠕࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ໬ࡢྜᅗࠖ
*XPSHU] ཬࡧࠕᣦᶆᛶࠖ ᑠᒣ  ࡟ࡼࡾࠊࠕࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࠖࡣᡤ୚࡛࠶ࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ
┦஫స⏝࡟ࡼࡾືⓗ࡟๰㐀ࡉࢀࡿഃ㠃ࡶᤊ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊㄒ⏝ㄽࡢศ㔝ࡢᴫᛕࢆ౑࠸ࠊࢦࢩࢵࣉ
ࢆࠕάືࢱ࢖ࣉࠖ /HYLQVRQ ࡢ୍✀࡜ࡋ࡚ᴫᛕ໬ࡋࠊ㉁ၥ࣭ᛂ⟅㐃㙐ࡢࠕ㉁ၥࠖ㒊ศࢆࠕᣦ♧ⓗࠖⓎヰ GLUHFWLYHV 6HDUOH ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊゎᨺⓗㄒ⏝ㄽ +DQNVHWDO
 ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡲࢀࡓୖ㏙ࡢ᳜㔝  ࡢᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠕၥ࠸࠿ࡅⓎヰࠖࡶཧ↷ࡍࡿࠋ᪉ἲㄽⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ືࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟◊✲ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࡀၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ୍᪉࡛ࠊᐇ㦂ᚰ⌮Ꮫⓗ࡟ࢩࢫࢸ࣐ࢸ࢕ࢵࢡ࡛ࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝࡉࢀࡓࢹ࣮ࢱ཰㞟ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢱࢫࢡࢆ
୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓᑐヰࢆ㞟ࡵࡓ࣑ࢫࢱ࣮࣭࣮࣭࢜ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢศᯒ 1DPED᳜㔝  ࡀ௦⾲ⓗ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ௚᪉ࡢᴟ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊே㢮Ꮫࠊ♫఍Ꮫ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿẸ᪘ㄅⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ᪉ἲ
ㄽࡣࠊࣇ࢕࣮ࣝࢻ࣮࣡ࢡ࡟ࡼࡿཧ୚ほᐹ࡜⌧ሙࡢࣅࢹ࢜࡟ࡼࡿ㘓⏬࣭㘓⏬ࢆ୺せ࡞ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡍ
ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ㡢ኌ࣭⏬ീࡢヲ⣽࡞ࢺࣛࣥࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࢆసᡂࡋศᯒࡍࡿⅬ࡛ࡣྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᪉ἲ
ㄽⓗ࡟ࡣ┦஫⿵᏶ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡣࣇ࢕࣮ࣝࢻ࣮࣡ࢡ࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡓࠕ⏕ែⓗጇᙜᛶHFRORJLFDOYDOLGLW\ ࠖ &LFRXUHO ࡢ㧗࠸ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ㇦ᕞࣈࣜࢫ࣋ࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊⱥㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ᪥ⱥࣂ࢖ࣜࣥ࢞ࣝࡢ㇦ᕞே  ྡࡀ᪥ᮏㄒ⬟ຊࡢ⥔ᣢ࣭ྥୖࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ㐌࡟୍ᗘࠊ᪥ᮏㄒຮᙉ఍ࢆࡍࡿ㞟ࡲࡾࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ➹⪅ࡣࠊ ᖺ  ᭶௨㝆 ᖺࡢ  ᭶ࡲ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ఍ࡢ⌧ᆅㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓྠᖺ  ᭶௨㝆ࣅࢹ࢜㘓⏬ࢆ⾜࠺チྍࡀཧຍ⪅࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࠊ ᖺ  ᭶⌧ᅾ࡛⣙  ศ㛫ࡢࣅࢹ࢜㘓⏬ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࡑࡢ఍࡛ほᐹ࣭㘓⏬ࡉࢀࡓ⮬⏤఍ヰࡢ୰࠿ࡽ  ྡࡢ㇦ᕞே࡜➹⪅ࡢィ  ேࡀཧຍ⪅࡜࡞ࡗࡓ᪥ᮏேዪᛶ࡟

−272−

第18回大会発表論文集第11号

㛵ࡍࡿࢦࢩࢵࣉࢆศᯒࡍࡿࠋ⣬㠃ࡢ㛵ಀ୍࡛㒊ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡢࡳࢆ௨ୗ࡟グࡍ ヲ⣽ࡣᒣཱྀ  ཧ↷ ࠋ㸲㸬ࢹ࣮ࢱ
-RKQ6R ࣐࢟ࡉࢇࡣඖẼࠋ
6XH࠺ࢇඖẼ࡛ࡍࠋ
-RKQ࠺ࢇࠊ࡞ࡿ࡯࡝ࠋ
0DVDఱࡉࢇ㸽
-RKQ࣐࢟ඛ⏕ࠋÅ
0DVD࣐࢟ඛ⏕ࠋ
-RKQ<HDKᙼዪࡣ࠸ࡘ࠿࡞ࠋÅ
0DVDዪࡢே࡞ࢇࡔࠋ
-RKQዪࡢேࠋᙼዪࡣࠊ࠼ࡗ࡜ࠊ࡜ࠊ௒ᖺ୍᭶ࡲ࡛࡟ẖ㐌᮶ࡲࡋࡓࠋÅ
0DVDࡇࡇ࡟
-RKQ࠼࠼Å
0DVD࠶ࡗࠊࡑ࠺
-RKQ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠊ࠼࠼ࡗ࡜ࠊ࠼࠼ࠊKRZFDQ,VD\"Åࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸᪥ᮏㄒࢆᩍ࠼࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ'RHVWKDWPDNHVHQVH"Å6XH<HS<HS*RRGÅ-RKQࡑ࠺ࠊࡑ࠺ࠊࡑ࠺ࠋ
0DVDࡇࡇ࡛ࠊࡇࡢ఍࡟㸽-RKQࡣ࠸ࠊ࠺㹼ࢇࠋÅ0DVDࡶ࠺᮶࡞࠸ࢇ࡛ࡍ࠿ࠋ
-RKQ࠺㹼ࢇࠊࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࡡࠋÅ
0DVD࡞ࢇ࡛ࠋ  ➗࠸ Å୰␎ 
0LNHࡕࡻࡗ࡜ᛶ᱁ࡀྜࢃ࡞࠸ே࡜࡞ࢇ࠿Å0DVD࠶࠶ࠊ࠸ࡊࡇࡊࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ ࠸ࡊࡇࡊ
0LNH࠸ࡊࡃࡊ㸽
0DVD࠸ࡊࡇࡊÅ
6XH࠸ࡊࡇࡊ
0DVD࠸ࡊࡇࡊ
6XH࠶࠶ࠊ⪺࠸ࡓࡇ࡜࡞࠸ࠋ
0DVD࠸ࡊࡇࡊࠋ/LNHHUWURXEOH ࠸ࡊࡇࡊࠋÅ-RKQ࠸ࡊࡇࡊࠋ
6XH ࠶ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋÅ㸳㸬ศᯒ㸸஧ࡘࡢάືࢱ࢖ࣉࡢㄆᐃ
ୖࡢ఍ヰࢆࠕఱࡽ࠿ࡢ┠ⓗࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ♫఍ⓗ࡟ᵓᡂࡉࢀࠊጞࡵ࡜⤊ࢃࡾࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ໬ⓗ࡟ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡓάືࠖ /HYLQVRQ ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚ࡳࡿࠋࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ᪥ᮏேዪᛶࠕ࣐࢟ඛ⏕ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢺࣆࢵࢡࡢᑟධ࡜ᙼዪࡢၥ㢟⾜ືࡢⓎᒎࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛άືࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕࢦࢩࢵࣉࠖ࡜ㄆ
㆑࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ௚ࡢάື࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᏛ⩦ ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ㄒᙡࡢព࿡ࠊⓎ㡢ࡢ☜ㄆ࡜⦎⩦㸧ࠖࡘࡲࡾࠊࠕ࠸ࡊࡇࡊࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒᙡࡢព࿡☜ㄆ࡜Ⓨ㡢⦎⩦ 㸫 ⾜┠ ࡀࢦࢩࢵࣉ࡜࠸࠺άືࢱ
࢖ࣉ࡟ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ᭦࡟ࠊ㉁ၥ࣭ᛂ⟅㐃㙐 㞄᥋࣌࢔ ࢆࡳࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢศᯒࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ  ࢦࢩࢵࣉ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᙺ๭࡜ࡋ࡚㇦ᕞேࡀㄪᰝ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ
᪥ᮏேࡢ㉁ၥ࡟㠀ㄪᰝ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚⟅࠼࡚࠸ࡿ ࠊࠊࠊࠊ㸫 ⾜┠ ࠋ  ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᙺ๭࡟㛵ࡋࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㇦ᕞேࡢ㉁ၥ࡟᪥ᮏㄒᩍᖌ࡜ࡋ࡚᪥ᮏேࡀ⟅−273−

コンテクスト化の合図からみたリスナーシップ―異文化間対話でのゴシップの分析からの考察―࠼࡚࠸ࡿ  ཬࡧ  ⾜┠ࠊࡋ࠿ࡋࠊୖ⣭᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢ 6XH ࡀ୰⣭᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢ -RKQ ࡢၥ࠸࡟⟅࠼ࠊ⫯ᐃⓗホ౯ࡶ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿ ̺ ⾜┠ 㒊ศࡶཧ↷ ࠋ㸴㸬⪃ᐹࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊάືࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕᣦ௧ⓗⓎヰࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᛂ⟅ࢆぢࡓࠋࡑࡢ࣏࢖
ࣥࢺࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࡣάືࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ୰࡛┦ᑐⓗ࡟ᾋ࠿ࡧୖࡀࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛
࠶ࡿࠋ➹⪅ 0DVD ࡀヰ㢟ࡢࠕ࣐࢟ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㉁ၥࡍࡿ᫬ࡣࠊࠕㄪᰝ⪅࡜㠀ㄪᰝ⪅ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㛵ಀᛶࡀ๓㠃࡟ฟ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࠕ࠸ࡊࡇࡊࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝⴥࡢព࿡࡜Ⓨ㡢ࡢ⦎⩦ࢆࡍࡿ㝿ࡣࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࢆ➨஧ゝㄒ࡜ࡍࡿⱥㄒヰ⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡀ➨୍ゝㄒࡢ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㛵ಀᛶࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
᭦࡟ᢈุⓗ࡟㋃ࡳ㎸ࡴ࡜ࠊࠕ᪥ᮏேᑐ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔ேࠖ࡞࡝ࡢᅜᐙⓗ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࡶࠊ
᫂♧ⓗ࡛࠶ࢀ㠀᫂♧ⓗ࡛࠶ࢀࠊ㛵୚ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ ᒣཱྀ  ཧ↷ ࠋᡤ୚ࡢࠕάືࢱ࢖
ࣉࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡜ⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡢつ⠊ࡣᏑᅾࡍࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ୍᪉≧ἣ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶືⓗ࡟ព࿡ࡀసࡾฟࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࠕࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ໬ࡢྜᅗࠖ *XPSHU] ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡼࡾỗ⏝ᛶࡢ㧗࠸⌮ㄽ໬࡟ྥ࠿࠼ࡿⅬࢆ୺ᙇࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ࠶ࡽࡺࡿゝㄒᙧᘧࡀྵࡲࢀࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ໬ࡢ
๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡿグྕㄽⓗ⌧㇟ ౛㸸ࢥ࣮ࢻࢫ࢖ࢵࢳࣥࢢࠊ㡩ᚊࠊㄒᙡ࣭ࢥࣟࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡞࡝ࡢ㑅ᢥࠊ఍ヰࡢጞࡲࡾࡸ⤊ࢃࡾࢆࠕᣦᶆࠖࡍࡿグྕㄽⓗ⌧㇟ ࠿ࡽ⪺ࡁᡭᙺ๭ࢆㄯヰࡢ୰࡛ぢ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜
ࡀ㛗ᮇⓗ࡞◊✲࡟࡜ࡗ࡚᭷ຠ࡞ᡭẁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ┦஫స⏝࡟࠾࠸࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࡀ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆศᯒࡍࡿ㝿ࠊࠕཧ୚ᯟ⤌ࡳࠖࢆ⪺ࡁᡭࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽཝᐦ࡟ࣔࢹࣝ໬ࡍࡿ *RRGZLQDQG*RRGZLQ ࡇ࡜ࡀ᭷┈࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Cicourel, A. V. 1982. “Interviews, Surveys, and the Problem of Ecological Validity”. The American
Sociologist 17(1): 11-20
Deng, X. 2009. “Listener Response”. In S. D’hondt et al. (eds.), The Pragmatics of Interaction,
104-124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gardner, R. 2001. When Listeners Talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. 2004. “Participation”. In A. Duranti (ed.), A Companion to
Linguistic Anthropology, 222-244. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gumperz, J.J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hanks, W. F., Ide, S. and Katagiri, Y. 2009. “Towards an Emancipatory Pragmatics”. Journal of
Pragmatics 41(1): 1-9.
Levinson, S. C. 1992. “Activity Types and Language”. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (Eds.) Talk at
Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, 66-100. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
McCarthy, M. 2003. “Talking Back: ‘Small’ Interactional Response Tokens in Everyday
Conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction: 36(1): 33-63.
Namba, A. 2011. Listenership in Japanese Interaction: The Contributions of Laughter.
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis at the University of Edinburgh.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization ofTurn-Taking for Conversation”. Language 50(4): 696-735.
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University.
᳜㔝㈗ᚿᏊ. 2014. ࠕၥ࠸࠿ࡅⓎヰ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ᪥ᮏேࡢඛ⏕࡜Ꮫ⏕ࡢ♫఍ⓗ㛵ಀࠖࠊ஭ฟ⚈Ꮚࠊ⸨஭ὒᏊ㸦⦅ⴭ㸧ࠗゎᨺⓗㄒ⏝ㄽ࡬ࡢᣮᡓ࠘ࠊ91-121ࠊࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ᑠᒣர. 2008.ࠗグྕࡢ⣔㆕࠘ࠊ୕ඖ♫.
ᒣཱྀᚁᏕ. 2016. ࠕ␗ᩥ໬㛫ᑐヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㞧ㄯࡢ⨾Ꮫ㸫rapport( ᑐேᵓ⠏ⓗ)̺report㸦᝟ሗఏ㐩ⓗ㸧ᶵ⬟㐃⥆ᛶ௬ㄝࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽ࣮ࠖࠊᮧ⏣࿴௦ࠊ஭ฟ㔛ဏᏊ㸦⦅ⴭ㸧ࠗ㞧ㄯࡢ⨾Ꮫ̿ゝㄒ◊✲࠿ࡽࡢ෌⪃࣮࠘ࠊ239㸫260ࠊࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.

−274−

付

録

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

入 会 案 内
［入会手続きについて］
以下の手続き（１）と（２）をお済ませください。
●手続き（１）
電子メールにて以下の「記入の項目」をご記入の上、psj.treasurer -at- gmail.com（関西外国語大学英語国際学部・長友俊一郎宛）（スパムメール防止のためにこのような表記となっております。）
へお送り下さい。なお、その際、「会費を払い込んだ」かどうかを付け加えていただけ
れば幸いです。メールをいただければ、事務局よりreplyをいたします。なお、今後の会員の住所・所属変更は、必ず事務局宛にメールでご連絡下さい。
・記入の項目○名前（ふりがな）○

所属○

教員か学生か団体かの別（教員、大学院生、学部生、非常勤講師、一般、団体など）○

郵便番号及び住所○

電話番号／ Fax番号○

E-mail address●手続き（２）
年会費（一般会員：5,000円、学生会員：4,000円、団体会員：6,000円［平成18年３月21日運営委員会決定］）を郵便局に備え付けの郵便振り込み用紙で、以下の口座にお振り込み下さい。また、通信欄には、何年度の年会費かのみを明記ください。
00900-3-130378

口座名：日本語用論学会（＊こちらに届く郵便振り込み用紙が、字がかすれて読めない場合がありますので、郵便振り込み用紙のみでの新入会員申し込みではなく、必ず上記手続き（１）と（２）をお済ませくださるようお願い申し上げます。）−275−

会費振り込みについて、振り込み用紙を使用されない場合は、以下のゆうちょ銀行の口座へお振り込みください。各銀行のご自分の口座から振り込みが できます。なお、
その際、こちらへはお名前しか届きませんので、psj.treasurer -at- gmail.com（学会会計担当）へ、会員番号、振り込み年度と、住所変更などありましたら必ずメールにてお知らせください。
会費納入先：ゆうちょ銀行
支店名：099店
口座種類：当座
口座番号：130378
口座名義：日本語用論学会−276−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

日本語用論学会規約
第１章

総則

第１条

本会は「日本語用論学会」（The Pragmatics Society of Japan）と称する。

第２条

本会は語用論ならびに関連諸分野の研究に寄与することを目的とする。

第３条

本会は次の事業を行う。
１．大会その他の研究集会。
２．機関誌の発行。
３．その他必要な事業。

第４条

本会は諸事業を推進するため運営委員会および事務局を置く。

第５条

運営委員会の承認を経て、支部を各地区に置くことができる。

第２章

会員

第６条

本会の会員は一般会員、学生会員、団体会員の３種類とする。

第７条

会員は、本会の趣旨に賛同し所定の手続きを経て本会に登録された個人及び団
体とする。

第８条

会員は諸種の会合及び事業の通知を受け、事業に参加することができる。また、所定の手続きを経て、研究集会で研究発表し、機関誌に投稿することができる。

第３章
第９条

役員

本会に次の役員を置く。任期は２年とし、再選を妨げない。
会

長

１名

長

１名

事 務 局 長１名

運 営 委 員

若干名

会計監査委員

１名

副会

また、顧問を置くことがある。
第10条

運営委員会は、会長、副会長、事務局長および運営委員から構成される。

第11条

会長、副会長、および事務局長は運営委員会で選出され、運営委員は会員より選出される。

第12条

運営委員会は次の任務を遂行する。
１．機関誌および会報誌等の編集・刊行にかかわる事項の決定。
２．大会および研究集会等にかかわる事項の決定。
３．予算案および収支決算案の作成。

−277−

４．その他運営委員会が必要と認めた事項。
第13条

運営委員会の中に次の委員会を置く。委員は運営委員会の議を経て会長が委嘱し、兼任することができる。各委員会は会務を遂行するために、運営委員会の承認を得て有給の事務助手を置くことができる。
１．編集委員会
２．大会運営委員会
３．事業委員会
４．広報委員会

第14条

各委員会の業務を調整するために代表連絡会議を開く。代表連絡会議は、会長、副会長、事務局長、編集委員長、大会運営委員長、事業委員長、広報委員長から構成される。

第15条

本会の会則は、会員総会で承認を得るものとする。

第16条

会員の中から会計監査委員を１名選出する。任期は２年とし、１期に限る。

第４章
第17条

会議

定例会員総会は、年１回会長がこれを招集する。また、必要な場合、臨時会員
総会を招集することができる。

第18条

定例運営委員会は、必要に応じて、年１回以上招集される。

第５章

会計

第19条

本会の運営経費は、会費、寄付金等を以てこれに当てる。

第20条

事務局は、予算案および収支決算書を作成し、運営委員会の議を経て、会員総会で承認を得るものとする。ただし、収支決算書は会計監査委員の監査を受けなければならない。）

第21条

本会の会計年度は、毎年４月１日に始まり、翌年３月31日に終わる。

第６章
第22条

事務局

事務局を事務局長もしくは運営委委員の所属する大学に置く。

第７章

事務局および委員会に関する細則

１．事務局は、事務局長、事務局長補佐、会計、会計補佐から構成され、対外折衝、運営委員会・総会の企画・運営、会員名簿の管理、会費の徴収、会計、機関誌・大会予稿集等の販売、会員への連絡など、学会の運営にかかわる諸々の業務を担当する。事
務局は、業務を遂行するために、運営委員会の承認を得て有給の事務助手を置くこと
ができる。

−278−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

２．編集委員会は、委員長、副委員長、委員から構成され、機関誌『語用論研究』の編集と刊行に関わる業務を担当する。
３．大会運営委員会は、委員長、副委員長、委員から構成され、大会企画と大会実行の二つの業務を担当する。大会企画担当の委員は、ワークショップ、研究発表、シンポ
ジウム、講演等、大会全般を企画・提案し、大会予稿集 Program and Abstractsを編集・刊行する。大会実行担当の委員は、会長から委嘱された大会開催校委員と協力して、大会の実行にあたる。
４．事業委員会は、委員長、副委員長、委員から構成され、講演会、セミナー等の企画、運営、実行にあたる。
５．広報委員会は、委員長、副委員長、委員から構成され、会報誌・Newsletter、ホームページ等の編集と発行に関わる業務を担当する。

第８章

会長選出に関する細則

１．この細則は、会則第９条と第11条のうち、会長の選出方法と任期について定める。
２．会長は、会員の中から、就任時に65歳以下のものを運営委員の投票によって選出する。投票は郵送による無記名とする。
３．投票の結果、過半数の得票を得た者を会長とする。過半数を得た者がない場合、得票上位者２名についての決選投票を行う。尚、得票数が同数の場合は、最年長者を会長とする。
４．前条によって決定された会長は、改選の前年度の定例総会において承認を得るものとする。
５．会長の任期は２年とし、２期までとする。
６．会長選挙管理委員は、現会長が運営委員会の中から必要数を選出する。
附則：この細則は、平成17年10月５日から実施する。
平成10年12月５日（制定）平成15年12月６日（改正）平成17年10月５日（改正）−279−『大会発表論文集』（Proceedings）執筆規定（日本語での発表をされた方用）
日本語用論学会では、2005年度より、毎年の大会で発表された論文をとりまとめ、大会後に、『大会発表論文集』を発行しています。つきましては、大会の「研究発表」、「ワークショップ発表」、「ポスター発表」で、発表されました皆様には、以下の要領で原稿を提出していただくことになりますので、予め、お知らせいたします。
１．執筆規定１．用紙・枚数：A4用紙、横書き。
「研究発表」は８ページ以内、「ワークショップ
発表」、「ポスター発表」は４ページ以内（注：要旨、参考文献を含む）
。字数は
自由。
２．書式：
ａ．余白は上下30mm、左右25mmとする。１行文字数、行数、段組などは自由（ただし、文字のサイズは極端に小さくしないこと）。
ｂ．原稿の１ページ目には、タイトル、氏名、所属（E-mailアドレスは任意）を記し、そのあと２行開けて要旨、本文を続ける。
ｃ．「はじめに」または「序論」の節は０．からではなく、１．から始めること。
ｄ．例文の前後は１行、各節の前は１行開ける。
ｅ．注を付ける場合は、巻末とし、本文と参考文献の間にまとめて入れる。
ｆ．参考文献のフォーマットは『語用論研究』の執筆要領に従うこと（本学会のホームページhttp://www.pragmatics.gr.jp/publications. html

参照）。

３．要旨：
ａ．要旨は（日本語での論文も含め）全て英語によるものとし、約100語で書く。
ｂ．要旨は＜Abstract＞とページの左上に記し、原稿の１ページ目には、タイトル・
氏名・所属と要旨を記すこと。
４．キーワード
ａ．要旨の下に【キーワード】：或いは【Keywords】：と明記して、日本語の論文は日本語で、英語の論文は英語で、５個以内を添えること。
ｂ．キーワードと本文との間は２行アケとすること−280−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

原稿のイメージ（１ページ目）

タイトル○○○
氏名○○所属○○＜Abstract＞
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・【キーワード】：１、 ２、 ３、

本文

２．その他の注意事項
ａ．内容は、大会発表に沿ったものとする（但し、必要な修正を施すこと）。
ｂ．使用言語は原則として日本語とする（発表言語に合わせる）。
ｃ．『プロシーディングズ』に掲載した内容は、さらに発展させて、『語用論研究』に投稿することができる。その場合は、必ず十分な加筆・修正を施すこと。
ｄ．「個人情報ファイル」として、別の用紙（A4）に次の事項を記入したファイル
提出すること：・「研究発表」、「ワークショップ発表」、「ポスター発表」のいずれであるか。
・発表論文タイトルと発表者名（日本語） 氏名（ふりがな）
・発表論文タイトルの英語訳と発表者名のローマ字表記。ワークショップ発表の代
表者はワークショップの全体タイトルの英訳も記入のこと。
・連絡先：E-mailアドレス

３．原稿提出の締め切り：2017年3月31日
４．原稿の提出方法：「原稿ファイル」及び「個人情報ファイル」を下記宛てに送付する。送付は、ファイル−281−

を添付した電子メールとする。

【電子メールの送付先】
日本語用論学会

大会運営部

プロシーディングズ

首藤佐智子

proceedings@pragmatics.gr.jp（原稿送付の際は、確実に受信できるように、出来るだけ無料メールアドレスのご使用をお控えください。）
注意：送信後、2週間経っても、原稿を受理した旨の確認返信メールが無い時には、
shudo@waseda.jpまで連絡してください。

−282−

第18回大会発表論文集

第11号

Request of submitting the manuscripts for the Proceedingsof the 19th Annual Conference of the Pragmatics Society ofJapan（ PSJ）（Vol. 12）[For participants who presented papers in English]
Since 2005, the Pragmatics Society of Japan has been publishing presentations
given at its Annual Conference for publication in a volume of proceedings. The
following are instructions for use in preparation of manuscripts by those whohave presented their work at the Conference as lecture presentations, in the
symposium, workshops, or poster sessions.
Instructions for Preparing Manuscripts
1. Writing requirements
1. Paper and length:
All manuscripts should be submitted on A4 size. Manuscripts should be no more than
8 pages in length. Please note that these length restrictions include the abstract and thereference list. There is no restriction on the number of words or characters per page.
2. Format:
a. Margins: top and bottom, 3 cm; right and left, 2.5 cm.
Number of lines per page, number of characters per line, and line spacing are not
restricted（however, extremely small characters should not be used）.
b. The first page of the manuscript should begin with the title, the authorʼs name, and theauthorʼs affiliation（e-mail address optional）, followed, after two blank lines, by theabstract and the main text.
c. The introductory section or prefatory remarks should be numbered from 1, not 0.
d. Examples should be preceded and followed by one blank line. Each new section should
be preceded by one blank line.
e. If notes are included, they should be placed at the end, between the main text and thereference list.
（ Studies in Pragmatics）（see
f. References should follow the style sheet of Goyoron Kenkyu
the homepage of PSJ http://www.pragmatics.gr.jp/publications. html）
3. Abstracts:
a. All abstracts should be written in English and should be about 100 words in length.
b. b.
The abstract should appear on the first page of the manuscript, after the title,
authorʼs name, and authorʼs affiliation. The abstract should begin with the word ʻAbstractʼ

−283−

in the upper left corner. A maximum of 5 keywords should be given below the abstract,【Keywords】. [Refer to the figure below.] Main text should be preceded bypreceded by【Keywords】
two blank lines.

Title
Authorʼs nameAuthorʼs affiliation＜Abstract＞
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・【Keywords】：1, 2, 3,
Main Text

2. Other important points
a. Aside from necessary corrections, manuscript contents should be faithful to the content of
the presentation actually given at the Annual Meeting.
b. As a general rule, manuscripts should be written in English.

3. Deadline of the manuscripts
The manuscripts must be received by March 31, 2017.

4. Method of submission
Send your manuscript to:
Sachiko Shudo
proceedings@pragmatics.gr.jp＊If you donʼt receive an acknowledgement of confirmation within 2 weeks, please contact
Sachiko Shudo（mail address: shudo@waseda.jp）.

−284−Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan

編集後記『日本語用論学会

第18回大会発表論文集』第11号をお届けいたします。日本語用論学会

では、2005年度より年次大会でのご発表内容を論文集としてとりまとめ、大会後に発行しております。今号では、研究発表22件（日本語発表15件、英語発表7件）、ワークショップ発表
7件、ポスターセッション15件（日本語発表13件、英語発表2件）、合計44件のご寄稿をいた
だきました。なお本論文集は創刊号からすべて国立国会図書館（東西）に保存されております。第19回大会後は『日本語用論学会

第19回大会発表論文集』第12号を発行する予定でございますので、どうぞご期待ください。

（『大会発表論文集』編集担当：首藤佐智子

日本語用論学会

第18回大会発表論文集

井出里咲子

森山卓郎

第11号（2015）（Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan）
発行日

2016年12月10日

代

表

者

加藤重広

編集・発行

日本語用論学会

事務局（The Pragmatics Society of Japan）〒606-0847 京都府京都市左京区下鴨南野々神町１
京都ノートルダム女子大学 人間文化学部 山小山 哲春 研究室内

E-mail: psj.secretary@gmail.com
印

刷 （株）田中プリント〒600-8047 京都市下京区松原通麸屋町東入ル石不動之町677-2

TEL：075-343-0006

FAX：075-341-4476

森山由紀子）

PSJⓒ日本語用論学会