ISSN 1881−445X

日本語用 論 学 会■

第 17 回

大会発表論文集
第 10 号

Proceedings of the 17th
Conference of the Pragmatics Societyof Japan

2014年11月29・30日（土・日）■

於 京都ノートルダム女子大学

PSJ
The Pragmatics Society of Japan

日本語用論学会

2014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）
1. 会
長 ：
2. 副
会
長 ：
3. 事 務 局 長 ：事 務 局 幹 事 ：（編集部）
4. 編 集 委 員 長 ：編 集 委 員 ：

林 宅男
東森 勲
山本英一
長友俊一郎（会計担当）、加藤重弘
加藤重弘
井上逸兵、小野寺典子、滝浦真人、名嶋義直、鍋島弘治朗、
東森 勲（大 会 運 営 部）
5. 大会運営委員長 ：大会運営副委員長（企画） ：同 上（発 表）：同 上（実 行）：同上（プロシーディング） ：大会運営委員（企画） ：大会委員（発表）：
大会委員（実行）：
大会委員（プロシーディング） ：森山卓郎
東森 勲、堀江 薫
岡本雅史
小山哲春
高木佐知子
小野寺典子、滝浦真人、林 礼子
有光奈美、金丸敏幸、西田光一、山岡政紀
井上逸平、尾谷昌則、北野浩章
首藤佐智子、森山卓郎、森山由紀子（国際・事業部）
6. 国際・事業委員長 ：国際・事業副委員長 ：国際・事業委員 ：

鍋島弘治朗
山岡政紀
小野寺典子、野澤（広
報部）
7. 広 報 委 員 長 ：広報副委員長 ：広 報 委 員 ：田中廣明
金丸敏幸（Homepage）、鈴木光代（Newsletter）
尾谷昌則（Homepage）、北野浩章・堀田秀吾（Newsletter）

元（2015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）〒564-8680
大阪府吹田市山手町3-3-35
関西大学 外国語学部 山本英一 研究室内

Tel 075-724-7014（代表）E-mail：psj.secretary＠gmail.com
学会ホームページ：http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/psj4/
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）■■

断り発話における程度副詞について―配慮表現としての機能を中心に― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ リナ・アリ「ノ（ダ）ね」の語用論的機能―具現化形式と音調の観点から― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 市村

1■「ほめごろし」の言語学 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 大久保朝憲

9
17

■

多読用教材としての英語母語話者向け絵本における結束性と直示性：
文部科学省検定教科書との比較 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 大槻きょう子

25

第二言語話者である子どもへのstory-retelling interview testの会話分析：
第二言語会話における「記憶」‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 岡田悠祐

33

普通体／丁寧体世界の規範が授受補助動詞テクレル／テモラウの選択に与える影響‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 京野 千穂

41

文章理解のメカニズムの解明にむけて―括弧の曖昧性はどのように解消されるか― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 黒田

一平

49

■

日本語の直示述語「Ｖ−てくる」の歴史―「行為の方向づけ」を表す用法の発達― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 澤田

淳

57

■

聞き手が知らない人物の名前披露―日本語会話における有標な指示― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 須賀あゆみ

65

メタファーと発話の連鎖―「枠組み」設定としてのメタファー表現― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 杉本

73

■

■

■

■

葉子

巧・鍋島弘治朗

日本人大学生同士の会話にみる重複発話：
異ジャンル間比較を通した機能分析と協調性 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 竹田らら■

英語の名詞派生形容詞に見られる比喩的意味の前景化 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 田丸

歩実

81
89

■

三者間の共同作業における言語行動―親疎関係による課題達成指向および対人関係指向の相互行為― ‥‥ エカテリーナ・ツォイ

97■

consideringの前置詞・接続詞用法の共時的研究―レジスターの観点から― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 林

智昭■

習慣を表す英語進行形の事態解釈を動機づけている推論プロセスについて ‥‥ 原田依子■

談話における項の形式とその方略 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 久好

孝子

105
113
119

■

諷喩とは何か―談話分析的レトリック研究の試み― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 平川

裕己

127

チョムスキーと福島親子との会談―相談者と助言者によるカテゴリー分析― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 藤本

大樹

135

中国人日本語学習者の「不同意」行為―ヘッジ使用における母語転移の可能性― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 堀田

智子

143

現代日本語におけるメタファー表現としての「風」の考察―なぜ「先輩風」は吹くのか？― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 松浦光

151

語用論的観点に基づく高等学校英語教科書の分析―「英語表現Ⅰ」の事例を中心に― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 水島梨紗

付加的非従属化のマーカー「みたいな」の統語語用論的分析 ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 劉

暁苹

159
167

■

■

■

■

■

■

PSJ

研究発表（英語発表）“Designed Silences”:
A Study of Silences in Talk in Interaction ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥Baikuntha BHATTA

175

But Iʼm Not a Foreigner:
On the Interactive Construction and Contestation of Being a Foreigner in Japan‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Cade BUSHNELL

183

When Not Talking is ʻTalkingʼ:
The Functions of Silence ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Jon HUI

191

Masculinity and politeness in intercultural communication:
Do men really use a masculine style? ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Hiroko ITAKURA

199■

Analyzing the force of pragmatic particles in actual use ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Judit KROO

207■

On the negative use of the Japanese intensifier totemo ʻveryʼ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥Osamu SAWADA

215■

Demonstratives and Deictic Shift in Narrative ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Sayaka SUGIYAMA

223■

Reconsidering the validity of examining constituent order in terms of
information status of constituents ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Yoko YAMADA

231

■

■

■

■

PSJ

ポスターセッション（日本語発表）
ASD児の自尊感情を育む通級指導学級での支援の実践事例―語用論的コミュニケーション障害に着目して ― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 石坂

光敏

239

日本人英語学習者による意見文の論理展開―言語形式とその機能に着目して― ‥‥‥‥‥ 奥切

和子

243

Get受動文と再帰代名詞を含むGet使役文の関係―聞き手の解釈に着目して ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 久井田直之

247

日タイ両言語における「申し出」「依頼」に対する「断り」表現の研究―日本人およびタイ人の社会人を調査対象として― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 福原

美怜

251

商標の普通名称化の評価をめぐる言語学的分析‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 堀田

孝一・藤田

政博

255

■

疑問文を引用して主節で答える表現の手続き的意味 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 山泉

実

259

■

言外の「文脈的含意」に対して発せられるケドの機能 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 横田

敦子

263

■

異なる談話環境を繋ぐ言語行動―遠隔会話における対面性構築を中心に― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 吉田

睦

267

■

■

■

■

■

恵・伊集院郁子・小森

秀吾・日置

PSJ

ポスターセッション（英語発表）■

Semantic-pragmatic Analysis of Japanese Case Markers ʻWoʼ and ʻDeʼ ‥‥ Lee CHEE SIONG

271■

A Gender Analysis of Compliments and Compliment Responses in Japanese Conversation‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Kayo FUJIMURA-WILSON

279

PSJ

ワークショップ
中断節の語用論と類型論：自然発話・インターネット・メディアでの使用例を対象に企画・司会：堀江

薫

287

■

相互行為の資源としての「けど」中断節構文 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 横森

大輔

289

■

韓国語の中断節構文 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 金

廷珉

295

■

中断節をめぐるワークショップの論文についてのコメント ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 大堀

壽夫

299

合コンの談話分析：ポライトネスとジェンダーにまつわる規範と実際

司会：谷

智子

■

合コンにおける協働的フレーム構築 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 谷

智子

303

■

合コンにみられるジェンダーパフォーマンスとフェイスワーク ‥‥‥‥‥ 大塚

生子

307

慣習化をめぐる日本語配慮表現について

司会：小野

正樹

■

慣習化された日本語配慮表現の発想 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 小野

正樹

311

■

慣習化されたポライトネスとしての配慮表現の定義 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 山岡

政紀

315

■

配慮表現としての注釈表現に関する一考察 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 牧原

功

319

PSJ

シンポジウム
Clinical Discourse■■■

Exploring the Nature and Process of Medical Discourse in the Light of Pragmatics‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Teruko UEDA

323

When do children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder comprehend figurative
language literally? ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Manabu OI

331

What does linguistics contribute to the research in clinical psychology and/or psychiatry?
‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Sumi KATO

339

付録
■

入会案内 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 347■

日本語用論学会規約 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 349■『大会発表論文集』（Proceedings）執筆規定 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 352■＜第18回大会で発表された方へのお知らせ＞ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 357

PSJ

Table of Contents
Lecture Sessions: Presentation in Japanese■

Lina ALI: The degree adverbs in refusal speech act– focusing on the function of express consideration – ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 1■

Yoko ICHIMURA: The pragmatic function of Japanese no (da) ne:
An analysis from the perspective of realized form and intonation ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 9■Tomonori OKUBO: A linguistic investigation on homegorosi ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 17■

Kyoko OTSUKI: Cohesion and Deixis in English Picture Books as Extensive Reading Material:
Comparison to Government-Approved Textbooks ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 25■

Yusuke OKADA: A conversation analytic study of a story retelling interview test for an L2 speaking child:
Recollection skills in L2 interaction ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 33■

Chiho KYONO: Casual or polite speech and the choice of the benefactive auxiliary verbs,
Tekureru and Temorau ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 41■

Ippei KURODA: How Do We Understand the Meaning of a Representation with a Parenthesis in Japanese? ‥ 49■

Jun SAWADA: Historical Development of V-te-kuru in Japanese. ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 57■

Ayumi SUGA: Name Announcements:
A Practice of Marked Reference in Japanese ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 65■

Takumi SUGIMOTO, Kojiro NABESHIMA: Mataphors in turn sequences:
The frame-setting fnction of metaphorical expressions ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 73■

Takeda Lala: Overlaps in Japanese university students:
Their functions and collaboration from a cross-genre study ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 81■

Ayumi TAMARU: English denominal adjectives and the foregrounding of metaphoric meanings ‥‥‥‥‥ 89■

Ekaterina TSOY: Linguistic behavior in cooperative work between three persons:difference in task solving-oriented and relationship-oriented interaction by the degree of intimacy of
co-workers. ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 97■

Tomoaki HAYASHI: A Synchronic Study of Prepositional and Conjunctional Uses of Considering:from the Viewpoint of Register ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 105■

Yoriko HARADA: On the Interpretational Process of the situation in Habitual Usageof the English Progressive ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 113■

Takako HISAYOSHI: Argument encoding and its strategies in discourse ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 119■

Yuki HIRAKAWA: What is the allegory?:
An attempt of a rhetorical study from a discourse analytic point of view‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 127■

Daiki FUJIMOTO: On Talks between Chomsky and Fukushimaʼs people:
A Categorical Analysis of Consultor and Adviser ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 135■

Tomoko HOTTA: Disagreement expressions used by Chinese Learners of Japanese.
– the possibility of pragmatic transfer in the usage of hedges – ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 143■

Hikaru MATSUURA: An Analysis of “Kaze” of Metaphorical Expressions in Contemporary Japanese:Why does “Senpaikaze” blow? ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 151■

Lisa MIZUSHIMA: A Pragmatic Analysis of Japanese High School English Textbooks ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 159■

Liu XIAOPING: An Analysis of Syntactic Pragmatics of Marker ʻmitainaʼas Additional Insubordination ‥‥‥ 167
PSJ

Lecture Sessions: Presentation in English■

Baikuntha BHATTA: “Designed Silences”:
A Study of Silences in Talk in Interaction ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 175■

Cade BUSHNELL: But Iʼm Not a Foreigner:
On the Interactive Construction and Contestation of Being a Foreigner in Japan ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 183■

Jon HUI: When Not Talking is ʻTalkingʼ:
The Functions of Silence ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 191■

Hiroko ITAKURA: Masculinity and politeness in intercultural communication:
Do men really use a masculine style? ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 199■

Judit KROO: Analyzing the force of pragmatic particles in actual use ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 207■

Osamu SAWADA: On the negative use of the Japanese intensifier totemo ʻveryʼ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 215■

Sayaka SUGIYAMA: Demonstratives and Deictic Shift in Narrative ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 223■

Yoko YAMADA: Reconsidering the validity of examining constituent order in terms of
information status of constituents ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 231

PSJ

Poster Sessions: Presentation in Japanese■

Mitsutoshi ISHIZAKA: The practice of supports that raise the self-esteemof ASD children in a special education class– Focusing on a pragmatic communication disorder – ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 239■

Megumi OKUGIRI, Ikuko IJUIN, Kazuko KOMORI: A case study of the rhetorical patterns
in argumentative writings by Japanese learners of English ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 243■

Naoyuki KUIDA: The relationship between Get-passive and Get-causative– A focus on hearerʼs interpretation ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 247■

Misato FUKUHARA: A pragmatic Investigation into Refusal Expressions in Response to Proposals and Requests
in Japanese and Thai Languages– A Survey administered through a Discourse Completion Task – ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 251■Syûgo HOTTA, Koichi HIOKI, Masahiro FUJITA: A Linguistic Look at Assessment ofTrademark Genericization ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 255■

Minoru YAMAIZUMI: Procedural meaning of the Japanese conditional construction where a quoted
wh-question in the protasis is answered in the apodosis ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 259■

Atsuko YOKOTA: Rethinking function of contextual implication in the sentencethat finishes in KEDO clause‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 263■

Mitsumi YOSHIDA: Connecting Different Discourse Environments:
Linguistic Analysis of Face to Face Communication via Videoconference ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 267

PSJ

Poster Sessions: Presentation in English■

Lee CHEE SIONG: Semantic-pragmatic Analysis of Japanese Case Markers ʻWoʼ and ʻDeʼ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 271■

Kayo FUJIMURA-WILSON: A Gender Analysis of Compliments and Compliment Responses
in Japanese Conversation ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 279

PSJ

Workshop Sessions■

The pragmatics and typology of suspended clauses:
With particular attention to their use in spontaneous conversation, the internet, and the media
Organizer/Chair: Kaoru HORIE
287
Daisuke YOKOMORI: Kedo suspended clause as an interactional resource ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 289
Joungmin KIM: Suspended clauses in Korean ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 295
Toshio OHORI: Commentary on the suspended clause workshop papers ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 299■

Discourse Analysis in Gokon Parties: Im/politeness in Actual Gokon Compared with Its Social Norms
Chair: Tomoko TANI
Tomoko TANI: Cooperativeness in the Process of Gokon Frame Construction‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 303

Seiko OTSUKA: Gender Performance and Facework at Gokon Parties. ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 307■

Concept analysis of conventional Japanese considerate expressions.

Chair: Masaki ONO

Masaki ONO: Concept analysis of conventional Japanese considerate expressions ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 311
Masaki YAMAOKA: The Definition of Considerate Expressions as the Conventionalized Politeness ‥‥ 315
Tsutomu MAKIHARA: Research of the Preface Expressions as Considerate Expressions ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 319

PSJ

Symposium■

Clinical Discourse
Teruko UEDA: Exploring the Nature and Process of Medical Discourse in the Light of Pragmatics ‥‥ 323
Manabu OI: When do children with high-functioning autism spectrum
disorder comprehend figurative language literally? ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 331
Sumi KATO: What does linguistics contribute to the research in clinical psychology and/or psychiatry? ‥‥ 339

PSJ

研究発表
Lecture Sessions

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

᩿ࡾⓎヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⛬ᗘ๪モ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚̿㓄៖⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟̿                            ࣜࢼ ࢔ࣜ                              ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔

Abstract This study based on a questionnaire for Arabic and Japanese native speakers focusing on
degrees adverbs express consideration in refusal speech act. The questionnaire containedrefusal situations with different degrees adverbs. The participants were asked to choose themost likely convincing choices. While a follow-up interviews were made later with the Arabic
speakers .The result showed that, about 70% of Arabic speakers use the expressions of the highdegree adverbs as a consideration expressions - as it was understood from the follow upinterviews. On the other hand, most of Japanese speakers prefer to not use degrees adverbs inrefusing as they think it causes a negative effect.

࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ᩿ࡾⓎヰࠊ㓄៖⾲⌧ࠊ⛬ᗘ๪モࠊᑐே㛵ಀ

1. ◊✲⫼ᬒ࡜┠ⓗ࡝ࡢゝㄒ࡛ࡶ┦ᡭ࡟୙฼┈ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜ࢃࡊࡿࢆ࠼࡞࠸࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣࠊᑐே㛵ಀࢆⰋዲ࡟ಖࡘࡓࡵࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡍᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ≉࡟ࠊ᩿ࡾࡢゝㄒ⾜ືࡣࠊ࣮ࣜࢳ
㸦1983㸧ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢཎ⌮ࡢ୰࡛ࠊࠕ௚⪅ࡢ฼┈ࢆ᭱኱㝈࡟ࡏࡼࠖࡢཎ๎࡟㐪཯ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢ౑⏝ࡀ୙ྍḞ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ㓄៖⾲⌧࡟ࡣᵝࠎ࡞⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࡑ
ࡢ୰࡛ࡶ⛬ᗘ๪モ࡟╔┠ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊࣜࢼ㸦2013㸧࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒ㸯ࡢ᩿ࡾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᑐ↷◊✲ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ୧ゝㄒࡢ᩿ࡾ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㓄៖⾲⌧࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ⛬ᗘ๪モࡢከ⏝ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣప࠸⛬ᗘࢆ⾲ࡍࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠖࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒ࡛ࡣ⛬ᗘᛶࡢప࠸๪モࡼࡾ⛬ᗘᛶࡢ㧗࠸๪モⓗᙺ๭ࢆᣢࡘᙧᐜモ
㸦gdan,khales,awy㸧ࡢ᪉ࡀዲࡲࢀࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ௨ୗࡢ౛(1)~(3)ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࠊ(4)ࠊ
(5)ࡣ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(1) ぶࡋ࠸┦ᡭ㸸ࡈࡵࢇࠋࡕࡻࡗ࡜⏝஦ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ⾜ࡅ࡞࠸ࢇࡔࠋ 㸦㣗஦ࡢㄏ࠸㸧(2)▱ࡾྜ࠸㸸ࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠋ௒ࡕࡻࡗ࡜ᡭࡀ㞳ࡏ࡞ࡃ࡚…㸦㣧≀ࡢ㉎ධ౫㢗㸧
1−1−

断り発話における程度副詞について―配慮表現としての機能を中心に― ඛ⏕㸸᮶㐌ࡢỈ᭙᪥࡛ࡍ࠿ࠋࡕࡻࡗ࡜᫬㛫ࡀྲྀࢀ࡞࠸࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࢇ࡛ࡍࡀࠋ ᩍᮦࡢࢥࣆ࣮౫㢗 (4) ぶࡋ࠸┦ᡭ㸸\RPHOJRPDDQG\KDJDWNWHUJGDQIDPVKKDGDU㸦ㄌ⏕᪥ࡢㄏ࠸㸧㔠᭙᪥ࡣ࡜࡚ࡶࡓࡃࡉࢇࡢ⏝஦ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ࡛ࡁࡲࡏࢇࠋ  ➹⪅ヂ(5) ▱ࡾྜ࠸㸸\RPHOJRPDDQG\PDDGPRKPJGDQIDPVKKDGDU㸦ㄌ⏕᪥ࡢㄏ࠸㸧㔠᭙᪥ࡣࠊ࡜࡚ࡶ኱஦࡞⏝஦ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ࡛ࡁࡲࡏࢇࠋ    ୖグ࠿ࡽศ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡣ⮬ศࡢ஦᝟ࢆᑠࡉࡃ㏙࡭ࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ప࠸⛬ᗘ๪モࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒヰ⪅ࡣ஦᝟ࢆ኱ࡁࡃ㏙࡭ࡿ≉ᚩࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿
࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠕana mashghul shwyaࠖ(⚾ࡣᑡࡋᛁࡋ࠸)࡞࡝ప࠸
⛬ᗘࢆ⾲ࡍᙧᐜモࠕshwyaࠖࡀ౑⏝ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊ㧗࠸⛬ᗘࢆ⾲ࡍᙧᐜモࡢ᪉ࡀዲࡲࢀ
ࡿཎᅉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄪᰝࡋࡓඛ⾜◊✲ࡣ⟶ぢࡢ㝈ࡾ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜࢔ࣛࣅ
࢔ㄒࡢ᩿ࡾⓎヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ⌮⏤ࠖ࡟╔┠ࡋࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜㓄៖ࡢཎ⌮ࡀ஧ゝㄒ࡛࡝ࡢࡼ
࠺࡟␗࡞ࡗࡓാࡁࢆࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ㻝㻚㻝㻚㻌 ௬ㄝᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㧗⛬ᗘ๪モ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒࡢᙧᐜモࡀᮏ᮶ᣢࡘᶵ⬟࡟ຍ࠼ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࡍὴ⏕ⓗᶵ⬟ࡶ᭷ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟╔┠ࡋࠊ௨ୗࡢ௬ㄝࢆ❧࡚ࡿࠋᒣᒸ࣭∾ཎ࣭ᑠ㔝㸦2010㸧ࡀ Leech㸦1983㸧ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢཎ⌮ࢆᇶ࡟ᥦ♧ࡋࡓ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢཎ๎࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ⮬ᕫࡢ㈇ᢸࡀᑠࡉ࠸࡜㏙࡭ࡼ࠺ࠖࡢཎ๎ࡀാࡃ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓ
ࡀࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒࡢ᩿ࡾⓎヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕ⮬ᕫࡢ㈇ᢸࡀ኱ࡁ࠸࡜㏙࡭ࡼ࠺ࠖࡢ⊂⮬ࡢཎ๎ࡀാࡃࡇ࡜ࢆ௬ㄝ࡜ࡋ࡚タᐃࡍࡿࠋ௬ㄝࢆᐈほⓗ࡟᳨ドࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ᩿ࡾᡭ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
᩿ࡽࢀࡿഃ㸦⪺ࡁᡭ㸧ࡢ༳㇟ࢆᩘ್໬ࡍࡿ᪉ἲࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠋ

2. ᩿ࡾࡢᐃ⩏ ᩿ࡾ࡜ࡣࠊࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᥦ᱌ࡉࢀࡓ⾜ⅭࢆᣄྰࡍࡿⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊࠕ඾ᆺⓗ࡞
FTA ࡢ㸯ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ
㸦ᒣᒸ௚ࠊ2010:164㸧࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊBrown㸤Levinson㸦1987㸧ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽ࠿ࡽぢࡿ࡜ࠊ᩿ࡾࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ⬣࠿ࡍ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟㸦᩿ࡾᡭ㸧ࡢࠕ┦ᡭ࡟ዲ࠿ࢀࡓ࠸ࠊホ౯ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺࣏ࢪࢸ࢖
ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡶ⬣࠿ࡉࢀࡿゝㄒ⾜ື࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ᩿ࡾⓎヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚᩿ࡾᡭ࡟⾜ືࡢỴᐃᶒࡀ࠶ࡿࡀ⾜ືࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣄྰࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚౫㢗⪅ࡲࡓࡣ່ㄏ⪅ࡀᮇᚅࡋ࡚
2−2−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

࠸ࡓ฼┈ࢆዣ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ᩿ࡾᡭࡣ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢே㛫㛵ಀࢆ⥔ᣢࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ⮬ศࡢ᩿ࡾࢆṇᙜ໬ࡍࡿࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

3. ඛ⾜◊✲࡜ᮏ◊✲ࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅ
3.1. ᩿ࡾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ ࢚ࢪࣉࢺ᪉ゝ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒ㸦௨ୗࠊ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒ㸧ࡢ᩿ࡾⓎヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⛬ᗘ๪モ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒ
⏝ㄽⓗศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ◊✲ࡣ⟶ぢࡢ㝈ࡾ࡞࠸ࠋ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒࡢ᩿ࡾ࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ᩘࡣᑡ࡞࠸ࡀࠊNelson,ElBakary&Al Batal㸦2002㸧ࠊNelson,Carson,ElBakary&Al Batal
㸦2002㸧࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ Nelson,ElBakary&Al Batal㸦2002㸧ࠊNelson,Carson,ElBakary&Al
Batal㸦2002㸧ࡣ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒ࡜ⱥㄒࡢᑐ↷◊✲࡛᩿ࡾࡢㄯヰᵓ㐀࡟╔┠ࡋࠊព࿡බᘧࡢศ㢮༢఩ 2 ࡟ࡼࡾ㔞ⓗศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ◊✲ࡔࡀ᩿ࡾⓎヰࡢ FTA ࢆ㍍ῶࡍࡿാࡁࢆᣢࡘ㓄៖⾲⌧࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⪃ᐹࡣ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊNelson,Carson,ElBakary&Al Batal㸦2002:182㸧࡛
ࡣ 3ࠊࠕ࢚ࢪࣉࢺேࡣ᩿ࡾ࡟ࡃ࠸ሙ㠃࡛ࡣࡼࡾከࡃࡢࠕ⌮⏤ㄝ᫂ࠖࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ⮬ศࡢ᩿ࡾࢆṇᙜ໬ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ(➹⪅ヂ)ࠖ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࡀᐇ㝿࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡛ṇᙜ໬ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌮⏤࡛ࡶ⮬ศࡢ᩿ࡾࢆṇᙜ໬࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⪃ᐹࡀ୙༑ศ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ᩿ࡾⓎヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚᩿ࡾᡭࡀ⮬ศࡢ᩿ࡾࢆṇᙜ໬ࡍࡿࡢ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࣓࢝ࢽࢬ
࣒ࡢ୰࡛⪺ࡁᡭࢆㄝᚓࡉࡏࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ព⩏ࡸᚲせᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ᩿ࡾ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᑐ↷◊✲ࡣᩘከࡃ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡀ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒࡢ᩿ࡾ
Ⓨヰ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᑐ↷◊✲ࡣ⟶ぢࡢ㝈ࡾ࡞࠸ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ᩿ࡾⓎヰࡢ୰≉࡟⌮⏤࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚୧ゝㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ⛬ᗘ๪モࡲࡓࡣࠊ⛬ᗘ๪モࡢാࡁࢆᣢࡘ⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡢᑐே
ⓗᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋࠊ୧ゝㄒࡢ␗࡞ࡾࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

3.2. ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢཎ๎࡜㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢཎ⌮
Leech㸦1983㸧ࡣࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢཎ⌮࡜ࡋ࡚ 6 ࡘࡢබ⌮ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢබ⌮ࡣ⮬ศ࡟↔Ⅼࢆ⨨ࡃ࠿ࠊ┦ᡭ࡟↔Ⅼࢆ⨨ࡃ࠿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ 2 ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛≉࡟ᮏ◊✲࡜ᙉࡃ㛵㐃ࡍࡿཎ๎࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕẼ㓄ࡾࡢཎ๎ࠖ࡜ࠕᐶ኱ᛶࡢཎ๎ࠖࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ
㸰ࡘࡢཎ๎ࡣࠊ฼┈࡜㈇ᢸࡢᴫᛕࢆᇶ࡟ᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᒣᒸ࣭∾ཎ࣭ᑠ
㔝㸦2010:140㸧ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢཎ๎࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢཎ⌮ࠖࢆ௨ୗࡢ⾲ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࠊ
ࠕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢཎ⌮࡜ࡣ཯ẚ౛ⓗ࡞ཎ๎࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

Ӑ⾲㸯㸬㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢཎ⌮ӑձ㸦Ϩ㸧࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢཎ⌮(a) ௚⪅ࡢ㈇ᢸࢆ᭱ᑠ㝈࡟ࡏࡼ

3
−3−

ղ

㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢཎ⌮(a) ௚⪅ࡢ㈇ᢸࡀ኱ࡁ࠸࡜㏙࡭ࡼ

断り発話における程度副詞について―配慮表現としての機能を中心に―Ẽ㓄ࡾࡢཎ๎(b) ௚⪅ࡢ฼┈ࢆ᭱኱㝈࡟ࡏࡼ(b) ௚⪅ࡢ฼┈ࡀᑠࡉ࠸࡜㏙࡭ࡼ㸦ϩ㸧(a) ⮬ᕫࡢ฼┈ࢆ᭱ᑠ㝈࡟ࡏࡼ(a) ⮬ᕫࡢ฼┈ࡀ኱ࡁ࠸࡜㏙࡭ࡼ

ᐶ኱ᛶࡢཎ๎(b) ⮬ᕫࡢ㈇ᢸࢆ᭱኱㝈࡟ࡏࡼ(b) ⮬ᕫࡢ㈇ᢸࡀᑠࡉ࠸࡜㏙࡭ࡼୖグࡢ౛ 4࣭5 ࠿ࡽ Leech㸦1983㸧ࡢཎ๎ࡸᒣᒸ࣭∾ཎ࣭ᑠ㔝㸦2010㸧ࡢཎ⌮࡛ࠊ࢔ࣛࣅ
࢔ㄒࡢ᩿ࡾⓎヰࢆㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿ⌧㇟ࡶ࠶ࢀࡤࠊ
ࠕ⮬ᕫࡢ㈇ᢸࡀ኱ࡁ࠸࡜㏙࡭ࡼ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ཎ⌮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡋࡁࢀ࡞࠸⌧㇟ࡶ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡉࡽ࡞ࡿ⪃ᐹࡀᚲせࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᚑࡗ
࡚ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ Leech㸦1983㸧࡜ᒣᒸ࣭∾ཎ࣭ᑠ㔝㸦2010㸧ࡢ㓄៖ࡢཎ⌮ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒᅛ᭷ࡢ㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢཎ๎ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ

3.3. ๪モࡢᐃ⩏࡜ศ㢮᳃ᒣ࣭ோ⏣࣭ᕤ⸨㸦2000㸧࡛ࡣࠊ๪モࡣᩥἲⓗ࡞ᙧែኚ໬ࢆᇶᮏⓗ࡟ᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶
ࡾࠊᩥ୰࡛ࡢാࡁࡣ㐃⏝ಟ㣭࡜࠸࠺ 1 ࡘࡢᶵ⬟࡟࡯ࡰᅛᐃࡋࡓㄒ࡛࠶ࡾࠊձ᝟ែ๪モࠊղ⛬ᗘ๪モࠊճ㝞㏙๪モࡢ 3 ࡘࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ୗ఩ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊղ⛬ᗘ๪モࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋோ⏣㸦2002㸸145㸧࡛ࡣࠊࠕ⛬ᗘ๪モࡢാࡁࡢᇶᮏ࣭୰ᚰࡣࠊᒓᛶ㸦㉁㸧
ࡸ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍᡂศ࡟ಀࡗ࡚ࡑࡢ⛬ᗘᛶࢆಟ㣭࣭㝈ᐃࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠖࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ⛬ᗘ๪モࡣ⛬ᗘ㔞ࡢ๪モ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࠊձ⛬ᗘࡢ๪モ࡜ղ㔞ࡢ๪モ 4 ࡟ศࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛ࠊ⛬ᗘࡢ๪モࢆࡉࡽ࡟ձ༢⣧⛬ᗘࡢ๪モ 5 ࡜ղ㔞⛬ᗘࡢ๪モ 6 ࡢ 2 ࡘࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ୗ఩ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ᢅ࠺࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒࡢࠕ gdanࠖ㸦࡜࡚ࡶ㸧,ࠕkterࠖ㸦ࡓࡃࡉࢇ㸧,ࠕshwyaࠖ㸦ᑡࡋ㸧ࡣ๪モⓗᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍᙧᐜモ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋோ୍㸦2009㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒࡢ๪モࡣ᪥ᮏ
ㄒ࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜ㄒࡣᑡ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡑࡢ⌮⏤ࡣྡモࡸᙧᐜモࡀ๪モⓗᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣᙧᐜモࡸືモࢆಟ㣭ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢᵝែࢆಟ㣭ࡋࡓࡾ⛬ᗘࢆ㝈ᐃࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿാࡁ
ࢆᣢࡘㄒྃࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ⛬ᗘ๪モ࡜࿧ࡪࠋ⛬ᗘ๪モࡢ౛࡜ᶵ⬟ࡣࠊோ⏣㸦2002㸧ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࠊ௨ୗࡢ⾲࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ
Ӑ⾲ 2㸬⛬ᗘ㔞ࡢ๪モࡢศ㢮ཬࡧࠊᶵ⬟ศᢸӑ⛬ᗘ㔞ࡢ๪モ ༢⣧⛬ᗘࡢ๪モ㔞⛬ᗘࡢ๪モ౛౛࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒ

᪥ᮏㄒ

⛬ᗘ㝈ᐃ

$Z\NKDOHV㠀ᖖ࡟ࠊ࡜࡚ࡶࠊ኱ኚ࡟ࠊᴟ

ࡵ࡚㸬㸬࡞࡝

‫ۑ‬

JGDQ
6KZ\D

ᶵ⬟ᑡࡋࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠊ⤖ᵓࠊࡎ࠸ࡪࢇ㸬㸬࡞࡝ࠋ

4
−4−

ᩘ㔞㝈ᐃ




‫ۑ‬


‫ۑ‬

第17回大会発表論文集㔞ࡢ๪モ

第10号.WHHU ࡓࡃࡉࢇࠊ࠸ࡗࡥ࠸ࠊࡓࡗ࡫



‫ۑ‬

ࡾ࡞࡝ࠋ
⾲୰ࡢ 1㸬⛬ᗘᛶࡢ㧗పᗘ࡟ᒓࡍࡿࡶࡢ 2㸬┦ᙜ⛬ᗘ࠿ࡽప⛬ᗘ࡟ᒓࡍࡿࡶࡢ㸦୰࣭ᑠ㡿ᇦ㸧3㸬ከ㡿ᇦ࡟ᒓࡍࡿࡶࡢ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ⛬ᗘᛶࡢ㧗࠸๪モࡲࡓࡣᙧᐜモࡀ᩿ࡾⓎヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟ᯝࡓࡍᶵ⬟ࡸࡇࢀࡽࡀዲࡲࢀࡿせᅉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ព㆑ㄪᰝࡸࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ

4. ㄪᰝᴫせ4.1. ㄪᰝ᪉ἲཬࡧ ㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅࢝࢖ࣟ኱Ꮫ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ᩥᏛ㒊ࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ 121ྡ㸦ዪᛶ 102 ྡࠊ⏨ᛶ 18 ྡ㸧ࢆᑐ㇟࡟࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒ࡛࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ 39 ྡࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊྠᵝࡢ᪥ᮏㄒㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ4.1.1. ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝෆᐜ ⿕ㄪᰝ⪅࡟ぶࡋ࠸཭㐩ࢆㄏ࠺ሙ㠃࡜ఱ࠿౫㢗ࡍࡿሙ㠃ࡑࢀࡒࢀྛ 2 ሙ㠃ࢆタᐃࡋࠊぶࡋ࠸཭㐩࡟᩿ࡽࢀࡓ㝿ࠊ3 㑅ᢥ⫥ࡢ୰࠿ࡽ᭱ࡶ⣡ᚓࡋࡸࡍ࠸ᅇ⟅ࢆ㑅ࢇ࡛ࡶࡽ࠸ࠊࡑࡋ࡚⣡ᚓࡍࡿ⌮⏤ࢆ᭩ࡃࡼ࠺ᣦ♧ࡋࡓࠋ㑅ᢥ⫥ࡣࠊࠕgdanࠖ(࡜࡚ࡶ)ࡀྵࡲࢀࡿㄯヰ࡜ࠊࠕshwyaࠖ(ᑡࡋ)ࡀྵࡲࢀࡿㄯヰ࡜⛬ᗘ๪モࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ㄯヰࠕ๪モ࡞ࡋ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ஦๓࡟
⿕ㄪᰝ⪅࡟㑅ᢥ⫥ࡢ୰࡛⣡ᚓ࡛ࡁࡿᅇ⟅ࡀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊ㑅ᢥࡏࡎ࡟⣡ᚓ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸⌮⏤ࢆ᭩ࡃࡼ࠺ᣦ♧ࡋࡓࠋ

㻠㻚㻝㻚㻞㻚㻌 㻌 ࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗㄪᰝ ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ୰࠿ࡽࠊ8 ྡࢆᑐ㇟࡟࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋㄪᰝ࡛ࡣࠊ࡞ࡐ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟㑅ᢥࡋࡓ࠿ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࠊ㑅ᢥࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡣ࡞ࡐ⣡ᚓ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⟅࠼࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋ

5. ㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹ
5.1 ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ ௨ୗࡢᅗ࡛ࡣࠊሙ㠃ෆᐜࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟␗࡞ࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
୧ゝㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡀྛሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚⏝࠸ࡓࠕ࡜࡚ࡶࠖ
ࠊࠕᑡࡋࠖࠊࠕ๪モ࡞ࡋࠖࡢ 3 ࡘࡢ㑅ᢥ⋡ࢆ♧ࡍࠋᅗෆࡢ Totemo ࡣࠕ࡜࡚ࡶࠖSukoshi ࡣ㺀ᑡࡋ㺁ࠊfukusi nasi ࡣࠕ๪モ࡞ࡋࠖ࡜ࡍ
ࡿࠋ

5
−5−

断り発話における程度副詞について―配慮表現としての機能を中心に―࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ

100%
80%

77%

79%

70%

60%

40%
20%

Totemo

47%
22.5%

 27%
26%

12%
11%

7.5%

9%12%

q1

q2

q3

Sukoshifukusi nasi

0%q4

ᅗ㸯.࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⛬ᗘ๪モࡢ㑅ᢥ᪥ᮏㄒࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ
100%
80%
60%
40%

74%

68.4%
46%

28%
26%

20%

26.3%

Totemo

5.3%

21%
5%

q2

q3

38% 38%24%

fukusi nasi0%
q1

Sukoshiq4

ᅗ 2. ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⛬ᗘ๪モࡢ㑅ᢥ⤖ᯝᅗ֙֙࠿ࡽศ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒ࡛ࡣ㸲ሙ㠃࡟ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ᩿ࡽࢀࡓࡽ᭱ࡶ⣡ᚓ࡛ࡁࡿᅇ⟅࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⛬ᗘᛶࡢ㧗࠸ࠕgdanࠖ(࡜࡚ࡶ)⾲⌧ࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿㄯヰ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊ᭱ࡶ
⣡ᚓࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ᅇ⟅࡜ࡋ࡚⛬ᗘᛶࡢప࠸ࠕVKZX\Dࠖ㸦ᑡࡋ㸧ࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿㄯヰ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ
᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊప࠸⛬ᗘ๪モࠕVKZX\Dࠖ㸦ᑡࡋ㸧ࡢ౑⏝ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟୙ᛌ
࡞ᛮ࠸ࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊၥ 4 ࡛ࡣࠊ1ࠥ3 ࡘࡢ㉁ၥ࡜ẚ㍑ⓗ
ࠕgdanࠖ(࡜࡚ࡶ)ࡢ౑⏝⋡ࡀୗࡀࡾࠊࠕVKZX\Dࠖ㸦ᑡࡋ㸧࡜ࠕ๪モ࡞ࡋࠖࡢ౑⏝⋡ࡀୖࡀࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡗ
ࡓࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊሙ㠃ෆᐜ࡟ࡼࡿ⤖ᯝࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ⌮⏤ࡣࠊၥ㸲࡛ࡣ㑅ᢥ⫥ࡢ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ḟࡢᅇ⟅ࢆᚓࡓࠋࠕሙ㠃ෆᐜ࡜ࡋ࡚┦ᡭ࡟㓄៖ࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡲࡾ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ
ࠕ࡜࡚ࡶࠖࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡞࠸ࠖࠊ
ࠕࠕ㣧ࡳ≀ࢆ㉎ධࡋ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺せồࡔ࡜ࠊ᩿ࡽࢀ࡚ࡶ⮬ศ࡛ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿ
ࡢ࡛ࠊᅔࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡞࡝࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊሙ㠃ෆᐜࡣ㑅ᢥ⫥ࡢุ᩿せᅉࡢ㸯ࡘ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
౫㢗ሙ㠃ࡢ࡜ࡁࠊ᩿ࡽࢀࡓࡽᅔࡿ࠿ᅔࡽ࡞࠸࠿࡟ࡼࡾࠊᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿ㓄៖ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀ␗࡞ࡿ
࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࠊၥ 1㹼ၥ 3 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ᩿ࡽࢀࡓࡽ᭱ࡶ⣡ᚓ࡛ࡁࡿᅇ⟅࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⛬ᗘ๪モࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ㄯヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕ๪モ࡞ࡋࠖࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔከࡃࡢ⿕ㄪᰝ⪅ࡣࠊࡑࡢ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕࠕ࡜࡚ࡶࠖࡣࠕࢃࡊ࡜ࡽࡋࡃࠖ
ࠕ⨥ᝏឤࢆぬ࠼ࡿࠖࠕბࡗࡱࡃ⪺ࡇ࠼6−6−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

ࡿࠖࡸࠊ
ࠕᑡࡋࠖࡣࠕࡑࢇ࡞࡟኱ኚࡑ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊᛂ࠼࡚ࡃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᮇᚅࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠖ
࡞࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⟅࠼࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࠕ๪モ࡞ࡋࠖࡢㄯヰࡣࠕࢩࣥࣉ࡛ࣝࠊ⣡ᚓࡋࡸࡍࡃࠊ
⛬ᗘࡸ㢖ᗘࡣ㔜せ࡞᝟ሗ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⟅࠼ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

5.2. ࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ᩿ࡾᡭࡣᙉࡃ஦᝟ࢆ⾲ࡉ࡞࠸࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ㄗゎࡉࢀࡿᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡾࠊே㛫㛵ಀࡀᦆ࡞ࢃࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࡓࡵࠊ⛬ᗘ๪モࡢാࡁࢆᣢࡘᙧᐜモࡢ୰࡛ࠕgdanࠖࡀ᭱ࡶ㓄៖ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀ㧗࠸࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ᩿ࡾᡭࡀ஦
᝟ࢆ኱ࡁࡃࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊᐇ㝿┦ᡭࡢせồ࡟ᛂ࠼ࡓ࠸Ẽᣢࡕࡀᙉ࠸ࡀࡸࡴࢆᚓࡎ஦᝟ࡀ
࠶ࡾࠊ᩿ࡽࡊࡿࢆᚓ࡞࠸≧ἣ࡟⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᥎ ࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠕshwyaࠖ(ᑡࡋ) ࡀ⣡ᚓࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ពぢࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ࠕࠕᑡࡋᛁࡋ࠸ࠖ࡜ゝࢃࢀࡿ࡜ࠊ᩿ࡾᡭࡀせồ࡟ᛂ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊ౫㢗⪅ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ኱஦࡟ࡋ࡚࠸࡞
࠸ࡓࡵࠊࢃࡊࢃࡊཷࡅධࢀ࡚ࡃࢀ࡞࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠖ
ࠋࡲࡓࠊࠕ኱ኚ࡞஦᝟ࡀ࡞ࡉࡑ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ⟅࠼ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ௨ୖ࠿ࡽࠊ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒࡢ
ࠕshwyaࠖࡣࠊᮏ᮶ࡢ⏝ἲ㸦⛬ᗘࢆಟ㣭࣭㝈ᐃ㸧௨እ࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡍᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ᩿ࡾࢆṇᙜ໬ࡍࡿ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ⮬ᕫࡢ㈇ᢸࡀᑠࡉ࠸࡜
㏙࡭ࡼ࠺ࠖࡢཎ⌮ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࡜ࠊ࠿࠼ࡗ࡚⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄗゎࢆᣍࡃ࡜⪃࠼ࡓ࠸ࠋ

6㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ᩿ࡾⓎヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⛬ᗘ๪モ࡜࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒࡢ⛬ᗘ๪モࡢാࡁࢆᣢࡘᙧ
ᐜモࡢ⏝ἲ࡟╔┠ࡋࠊㄒ⏝ㄽࡸ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊᮏ◊✲࡛❧࡚ࡓ௬ㄝࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒ࡛ࡣぶࡋ࠸┦ᡭࡢせồࢆ᩿ࡿᦶ᧿ࢆ⦆࿴ࡍࡿᡭẁࡢ 1 ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⛬ᗘᛶࡢ㧗࠸๪モⓗᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍᙧᐜモࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊࠕ⮬ᕫࡢ㈇ᢸࡀ኱ࡁ࠸࡜㏙࡭ࡼ࠺ࠖࡢཎ๎ࡀ᭷ຠ࡟ാࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ࢔
ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒࡢ⛬ᗘᛶࡢ㧗࠸๪モࡢാࡁࢆᣢࡘᙧᐜモࠕJGDQࠖࠕNWHHUࠖࡣ⛬ᗘࢆ㝈ᐃ࣭ಟ㣭ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᮏ᮶ࡢ⏝ἲ࠿ࡽὴ⏕ࡋ࡚ࠊ㓄៖⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ▷ࡃࠊࢩࣥࣉࣝ࡞᩿ࡾⓎヰࡢ᪉ࡀዲࡲࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ࢚ࢪࣉࢺேࡀ⏝࠸ࡿࢫࢺࣛࢸ
ࢪ࣮ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏே࡟࡜ࡗ࡚࠿࠼ࡗ࡚ࠊბ࡟⪺ࡇ࠼ࡓࡾࠊ୙ᛌឤࢆ୚࠼࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀண᝿࡛
ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒࡢ᩿ࡾ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⛬ᗘᛶࡢ㧗࠸๪モⓗᙺ๭ࢆᣢࡘᙧᐜモࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫຠᯝࡀࡼࡾⓎ᥹ࡉࢀࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ⛬ᗘᛶࡢప࠸ࠕVKZ\Dࠖ㸦ᑡࡋ㸧ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᮏ᮶ᣢࡘᶵ⬟௨እ࡟ࠊ᩿ࡾࡢ FTA ࢆ㍍ῶࡍࡿ஧ḟⓗ⏝ἲࢆഛ࠼࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒ࡛ࡣ᩿ࡾࡢ⌮⏤࡛࠶ࡿヰ⪅ࡢ஦᝟࡛ᦶ᧿ࡸㄗゎࡀ⏕ࡌࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࡓࡵࠊヰࡋᡭࡀㄝᚓຊࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⫈⪅࡟ㄗゎࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺ࠊ஦᝟ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ㈐௵ࡣ኱ࡁ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ࢚ࢪ
7−7−

断り発話における程度副詞について―配慮表現としての機能を中心に―ࣉࢺேࡣࠕ⌮⏤ㄝ᫂ࠖࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆዲࡴࡢࡣࠊㄗゎᅇ㑊ࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ  ࡘ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ヰ⪅ࡣ௚⪅࡟ㄗゎࡉࢀࡓࡃ࡞࠸ࠊ⮬ศࡀᝏࡃᛮࢃࢀࡓࡃ࡞࠸ࠊ௚⪅࡟ዲ࠿ࢀࡓ࠸࡞࡝ࡢᵝ࡟࣏ࢪࢸ࢖ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡿࠕ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࠖ࡟ᙜ
ࡓࡿࡶࡢࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊぶࡋ࠸㛵ಀ࡟╔┠ࡋࡓࡀ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊぶࡋ࠸㛵ಀ࡟㝈ᐃࡏࡎࠊከ⏝࡞ே㛫㛵ಀ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᩿ࡾࡢ≉ᚩࢆ⪃ᐹᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ࢔
ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒ࡛ࡣࠕ⮬ᕫࡢ㈇ᢸࡀ኱ࡁ࠸࡜㏙࡭ࡼ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㓄៖ࡢཎ๎ࡀ␗࡞ࡿே㛫㛵ಀ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ᭷ຠ࡟ാࡃ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ⪃ᐹࢆ⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ࠙ὀࠚ1)ᮏ◊✲࡛ᢅ࠺࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒࡣࠊ࢚ࢪࣉࢺ᪉ゝ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࢚ࢪࣉࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚᪥ᖖ⏕ά࡛౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿཱྀㄒࡢ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒ࡛ࠊ࢔࣓ࣥࣖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2㸧ព࿡බᘧࡣࠊ᩿ࡾⓎヰࢆᶵ⬟ู࡟⣽࠿ࡃศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿ༢఩࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3)ࠕEgyptian may have used the strategy of giving reasons in situations that they founddifficult to refuse as away of trying to fully justify their refusals.ࠖ
4)㔞ࡢ๪モ㸸ᇶᮏⓗ࡟୺యࡸᑐ㇟ࡢಶయࡢᩘ㔞㝈ᐃࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡋࠊ⛬ᗘ㝈ᐃ࡜࠸࠺࠶ࡾ᪉࡛ᙧᐜモࢆಟ㣭ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡛⛬ᗘ๪モ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋ
5)༢⣧⛬ᗘࡢ๪モ㸸ᒓᛶࡸ≧ែ࡞࡝ࡢ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⛬ᗘᛶࢆᣦᐃࡋ㝈ᐃࡍࡿࠋ6)㔞⛬ᗘࡢ๪モ㸸ᇶᮏⓗ࡟⛬ᗘࡢ๪モ࡟ᒓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊ㔞ࡢ๪モࡀᯝࡓࡍാࡁࢆࡶᢸࡗ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋ࠙ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ࠚ
Brown,P and S.Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Cambridge:Cambridge University
Leech, G. 1983. :Principles of Pragmatics ,Longman.
᳃ᒣ༟㑻࣭ோ⏣⩏㞝࣭ᕤ⸨ᾈ. 2000.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥἲ 3 ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢖࠘ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ
Nelson, G., Al Batal,M., and El Bakary,W. 2002. ͆Directness vs. Indirectness: Egyptian Arabic and USEnglish Communication Style͇. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26: 39-57.
Nelson,G.,Carson,J.,AlBatal,M.,and ElBakary,W. 2002. ͆ Cross-CulturePragmatics:Strategy Use in
Egyptian Arabic and American English Refusals͇.Applied Linguistics 23/2:163-189.
ோ⏣⩏㞝 . 2002.ࠗ᪂᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ㑅᭩ 3 ๪モⓗ⾲⌧ࡢㅖ┦࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧ࣜࢼ ࢔ࣜ. 2013. ࠕ࢚ࢪࣉࢺே኱Ꮫ⏕࡜᪥ᮏே኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢࠕ౫㢗ࠖࠊࠕ່ㄏࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ   ࡢᑐ↷◊✲࣏̿ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ព࿡බᘧࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿ࠖ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫேᩥ♫఍⛉Ꮫᅜ㝿ᆅᇦ◊✲ᑓᨷಟኈㄽᩥ
᪂ጔோ୍. 2009.ࠗ࢔ࣛࣅ࢔ㄒᩥἲࣁࣥࢻࣈࢵࢡ࠘ⓑỈ♫ᒣᒸᨻ⣖࣭∾ཎຌ࣭ᑠ㔝ṇᶞ. 2010.ࠗࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡜㓄៖⾲⌧᪥ᮏㄒㄒ⏝ㄽධ㛛࠘᫂   
἞᭩㝔

8
−8−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟㸫ල⌧໬ᙧᘧ࡜㡢ㄪࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸫ᕷᮧⴥᏊ㸦ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸧㸺abstract㸼 In this research, we discuss the pragmatic function of the Japanese construction no (da) ne, which
consists of the explanatory modality, indicated by the construction no da, with the sentence-final particle neattached; our focus is on the realized form and intonation of the construction. Analysis using a corpus of
natural female conversation (with other women and with men) revealed that the realized forms no ne
and n da ne take over the pragmatic function of no (‫ )׎‬and n da (‫)׎‬, that ne demonstrates the desire tocontinue the conversation, and that the intonation of ne is used to indicate the attitude in which the utterance
is being offered to the interlocutor. For example, a rising intonation indicates that the speakerrequires a reaction from the hearer, while a flat intonation indicates a cognitive change within the
speaker.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚࡢࡔࡡ ࡢࡡ ල⌧໬ᙧᘧ 㡢ㄪ ⮬↛఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ㄝ᫂ࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡜఩⨨௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠕࣀࢲࠖ࡟⤊ຓモࠕࡡࠖࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀࡓᙧᘧࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡣ㸪⮬↛఍ヰ࡛ࡣ௨ୗ࡟♧ࡍ࡜࠾ࡾ㸪┦ᡭ࡟᝟ሗᥦ♧ࡋ㸪Ⓨヰࢆ⥅⥆ࡍࡿሙ㠃㸦౛㸦1㸧㸧ཬࡧ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽ
᝟ሗࢆཷᐜࡋ㸪ㄆ㆑ࡢኚ໬ࢆఏ࠼ࡿሙ㠃㸦౛㸦2㸧㸧࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪┦཯ࡍࡿሙ㠃࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿල⌧໬ᙧᘧ࡟╔┠ࡍࡿ࡜㸪
㸦2㸧ࡣࠕࡢࡡࠖ࡟ධࢀ᭰࠼ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪㸦1㸧ࡣࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࡀ౑࠸࡟ࡃ࠸࡜࠸ࡗࡓ౑⏝ୖࡢไ⣙ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧
㸦F131 ࡜ F051 ࡢ఍ヰࠋ஧ேࡣ኱Ꮫ㝔ࡢྠ⣭⏕ࠋF131 ࡀ኱Ꮫ࡛㠀ᖖ໅ㅮᖌࢆࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢᏛᰯࡢᏛ⏕࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃㸧  F131㸸ࡑ࠺ࠋ࡛㸪඲↛㸦࠺ࢇ㸧ࡲࡔ 1 ᅇࡋ࠿᮶࡚࡞࠸࡜࠿ࡡ㸪㸦࠶࣮㸧࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ㸪ࡶ࠺㸪㸦࡞ࢇ࡛࠿ࡡ࣮㸧ࡶ࠺ᡂ⦼࠶ࡆ࡞࠸ࡼ࡜࠿ᛮ࠺ࢇࡔࡅ࡝ࠋ
  F051㸸ࡩ࣮ࢇࠋ᮶ᖺ㸪ࡲࡓ࠿࡞ࠋ
㸦࠼ࡗ㸪ᮏᙜ㸧࡛ࡶ⚾ࡢ᪉࡟ࡣ඲↛᮶࡞࠸ࡢࠋ
 ЍF131㸸࡛ࡶ B ࡉࢇࡢ᪉࡟ࡣฟ࡚ࡿࡢࡡ㹹?ࢇࡔࡡ㹻1ࠋ
 F051㸸࠼࣮ࡗ㸪ఱ࠿࡯࠿ࡢᤵᴗධࢀ࡚ࡿࢇࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࡢ࡜࠿㸪ᛮࡗࡕࡷ࠺ࡼࡡࠋ
㸦data1172 ዪᛶ 20 ௦ 3㸧
㸦2㸧
㸦F120 ࡜ F049 ࡢ఍ヰࠋ஧ேࡣᏛ⏕᫬௦ࡢࢧ࣮ࢡࣝ௰㛫ࠋF049 ࡀ௨๓㏻ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓᆅᇦࡢⱥㄒᩍᐊ
࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃㸧
F120㸸ఱேࡄࡽ࠸ࡔࡗࡓ㸽
F049㸸15 ேࡄࡽ࠸࠿࡞࣮ࠋ
ĺF120㸸࠶ࠊ⤖ᵓ࠸ࡓࢇࡔࡡ࣮㹹ࡢࡡ㹻ࠋ
F049㸸࠺ࢇࠊ⤖ᵓ࠸ࡓࠋ
F120㸸࡛ࠊඛ⏕ࡣ㸽−9−

「ノ（ダ）ね」の語用論的機能―具現化形式と音調の観点から―

F049㸸ࡣ 1 ேࠋ                          㸦data113 ዪᛶ 30 ௦㸧  ࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞౑⏝ୖࡢไ⣙࡟㛵ࡍࡿグ㏙ࡣ㸪ඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣ⟶ぢࡢ㝈ࡾぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛
ᮏ✏ࡣ⮬↛఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ⏝࠸࡚㸪ዪᛶࡀ౑⏝ࡍࡿࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡢᖖయࡢල⌧໬ᙧᘧࠕࡢࡡࠖ
ࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟㸦ᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㸰㸬ඛ⾜◊✲ཬࡧ◊✲ㄢ㢟
2.1. ࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡢ⏝ἲ  ᙜヱᙧᘧ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚グ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿඛ⾜◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚㸪᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍㸦2003㸧ཬࡧྡᔱ㸦2007㸧ࢆᣲࡆࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍㸦2003㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜㸪ࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖ࡟ࡣ஧ࡘࡢ⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪୍ࡘ┠ࡣࠕヰࡋᡭࡀⓎヰࢆ⥆ࡅࡿ㝿࡟㸪⪺ࡁᡭࢆព㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠖ㸦p.259㸧⏝ἲ࡛㸪ࡇࡢሙྜࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪࡣࠕୖ᪼࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡜࡞ࡾ㸪ࠕࡡ࠼ࠖ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࡓࡕ࡟ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ
㸦p.259㸧ࠋ㸦3㸧᫖᪥㸪ࢹࣃ࣮ࢺ࡟㈙࠸≀࡟⾜ࡗࡓࢇ࡛ࡍࡡࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓࡽ㸪୰Ꮫᰯ᫬௦ࡢඛ⏕࡜ࡤࡗࡓࡾ఍ࡗ࡚㸪ᑡࡋ❧ࡕヰࢆࡋࡓࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࠋ              㸦᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍ 2007:260㸧  ஧ࡘ┠ࡢ⏝ἲࡣ㸦4㸧ࡢ౛ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ☜ㄆࢆ⾲ࡍࠖࡶࡢ࡛㸪ࠕࠕࣀࢲࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪┦ᡭࡢ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿෆᐜࢆඛྲྀࡾࡋࡓࡾ㸪┦ᡭࡢⓎゝ࠿ࡽ᥎ㄽࡋࡓෆᐜࢆ⾲ࢃࡍᩥ࡟ࠕࡡࠖࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀ
ࡿ࡜㸪ࡑࡢෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ☜ㄆࢆồࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠖ
㸦p.259㸧࡜࠶ࡿࠋ㸦4㸧A: 㕥ᮌࡣ⑓㝔࡬⾜ࡃࡗ࡚ゝࡗ࡚ᖐࡾࡲࡋࡓࡼࠋ
B: ࡌࡷ࠶㸪ࡑࢇ࡞࡟ࡦ࡝࠸ࡅࡀࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࢇ࡛ࡍࡡࠋ
A: ࠼࠼㸪࠸ࡗࡋࡻ࡟⾜ࡇ࠺࠿࡜ゝࡗࡓࡽ㸪኱୔ኵࡔ࡜ゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡋࡓ࠿ࡽࠋ    㸦p.259㸧
  ḟ࡟㸪㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠕࣀࢲࠖࡢព࿡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚グ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྡᔱ㸦2007㸧ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ
ࡿࠋྡᔱ㸦2007㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜㸪ࠕࣀࢲࠖࡣࠕᥦ♧ࡍࡿ࿨㢟ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ᐈయ໬ࡉࢀࡓヰࡋᡭྵࡴ㸧࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢᩥ⬦ຠᯝࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰゎ㔘ࡢ᪉ྥࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࠋࡇࡇ࡛࠸࠺
ᩥ⬦㸦ㄆ▱㸧ຠᯝ 4 ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠕⓎヰࡸࡑࡢ௚ࡢ่⃭ࢆฎ⌮ࡍࡿㄆ▱ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡛⏕ࡌࡿṇࡢຠᯝࡢࡇ࡜ࠖ㸦Allot2014:44-45㸧࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ㄆ▱ຠᯝࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢ㢧♧ⓗ่⃭࡟ࡼࡾ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄆ▱⎔ቃࡀಟṇࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚㸪┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ㢧♧ⓗ่⃭࡟ࡼࡾࣀࢲᩥࡀⓎヰࡉࢀࡓሙྜ㸪⮬㌟࡟ㄆ▱ຠᯝࡀ⏕ࡌࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ  ࡑࡋ࡚㸪ྡᔱ㸦2007㸧ࡣࠕᚅ㐝ⓗ⪃៖ࢆࡍ࡭ࡁ⪺ࡁᡭࢆ᝿ᐃࡋࡓሙྜ㸪ᥦ♧᝟ሗ࡟ᑐࡍࡿྠពせồ㸪☜ㄆࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ⤊ຓモࠕࡡࠖࡀᚲ㡲࡜࡞ࡿࠖ㸦p.134㸧ࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦5㸧a. 㸦⊂ヰࠋ▱ேࡀⓎ⾲ࡍࡿࡢࢆ⪺࠸࡚㸧⛅ࡢᏛ఍࡛Ⓨ⾲ࡍࡿࢇࡔࠋ
b. 㸦Ⓨ⾲ࡢ‽ഛ࡟ᛁࡋ࠸ྠ⣭⏕ࢆぢ࡚㸧⛅ࡢᏛ఍࡛Ⓨ⾲ࡍࡿࢇࡔࠋ
c. 㸦Ⓨ⾲ࡢ‽ഛ࡛ᛁࡋ࠸▱ேࢆぢ࡚㸧#5 ⛅ࡢᏛ఍࡛Ⓨ⾲ࡍࡿࢇ࡛ࡍࠋd. 㸦▱ேࡀⓎ⾲ࡍࡿࡢࢆ▱ࡗ࡚ᮏே࡟㸧⛅ࡢᏛ఍࡛Ⓨ⾲ࡍࡿࢇ࡛ࡍࡡࠋ 㸦ྡᔱ 2007㸸112㸦24㸧㸦5㸧ࡢ㸦c㸧㸦d㸧࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿ࡜㸪Ⓨ⾲ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ▱ே࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡶゝ࠸ษࡾࡢࠕࢇ࡛ࡍࠖ
ࡣ౑࠼ࡎ㸪ࠕࡡࠖࡀᚲ㡲࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢྡᔱ㸦2007㸧ࡢグ㏙ࡣ㸪☜ಙᗘ࡜ࡣูࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡢ౑⏝ࢆᤊ࠼ࡓ㔜せ࡞ᣦ᦬࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪㸦b㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪Ꮫ఍࡛Ⓨ⾲ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⮬࡛᫂࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡞
ሙ㠃࡛ࡶ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࢆព㆑ࡋ࡚Ⓨヰࡍࡿሙྜ㸪ࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓ᪉ࡀ㐺ษ࡞ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀ

−10−第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ࡿࠋࡑࡢሙྜ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఱࢆゎ㔘ࡉࡏࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
2.2. ࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡢ౑⏝ሙ㠃ཬࡧ◊✲ㄢ㢟 ௨ୖࡢⅬࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼㸪ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࢆ௨ୗࡢ 2 ࡘ࡟㢮ᆺ໬ࡋࡓࠋ
᝟ሗᥦ♧㸸ᙜヱ࿨㢟ࢆఏ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄆ▱⎔ቃࢆಟṇࡋ㸪Ⓨヰࢆ⥅⥆ࡍࡿࠋ᝟ሗཷᐜ㸸⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜ື࡟ࡼࡾ᪂ࡓ࡟ㄆ㆑ࡋࡓ࿨㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿ㸪ࡲࡓࡣ☜ㄆࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡩࡿࡲ࠺ࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚㸪ࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪௨ୗ஧ࡘࡢ◊✲ㄢ㢟ࢆタᐃࡋࡓࠋ ㄢ㢟㸯㸬
ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖሙ㠃࡜ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖሙ㠃࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖ࡟ࡣ㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧཬ
ࡧ㡢ㄪୖࡢᕪ␗ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ ㄢ㢟 2㸬ࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟㸦ᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡㸧ࢆᢸ࠺ࡢ࠿ࠋ ࡞࠾㸪ᮏ✏ࡣ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢ▱ぢࢆ᥼⏝ࡋ㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࢆࠕពᅗࢆ᫂♧ࡋࡓ᝟ሗఏ㐩࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㸪⪺
ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰゎ㔘ࢆ᪉ྥ௜ࡅࡿᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡ࠖ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
2.3. ㄪᰝ ◊✲ㄢ㢟ࢆゎỴࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸪ᮏ✏ࡣ௨ୗ࡟♧ࡍ஧ࡘࡢㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ ㄪᰝϨ㸬
ࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡢල⌧໬ᙧᘧ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄪᰝ    㸦ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ
ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖሙ㠃࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡢල⌧໬ᙧᘧࡢㄪᰝ㸧 ㄪᰝϩ㸬
ࠕࡢࡡࠖࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄪᰝ    㸦ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ
ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜ࡛ࠖ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪࡢㄪᰝ㸧㸱㸬ㄪᰝϨ㸦ල⌧໬ᙧᘧ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄪᰝ㸧ཬࡧ⤖ᯝ
3.1. ㄪᰝᴫせ ㄪᰝᴫせࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾࠋ ㄪᰝ┠ⓗ㸸ዪᛶࡀྛሙ㠃࡛౑⏝ࡍࡿࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡢල⌧໬ᙧᘧࢆㄪᰝࡍࡿࠋ
 ㄪᰝ㈨ᩱ㸸ྡ኱఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸦୺࡟ぶࡋ࠸㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ 2 ྡ࠿ࡽ 4 ྡࡢ㞧ㄯ⣙ 100 ᫬㛫㸧 ㄪᰝᡭ㡰㸸㸯㸬㈨ᩱ࠿ࡽࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡢල⌧໬ᙧᘧࢆᢳฟࡍࡿࠋ      㸰㸬ඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᇶ࡟㸪ල⌧໬ᙧᘧࢆࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖ࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿࠋᮏㄪᰝ࡛౑⏝ࡋࡓ㈨ᩱࡣ⌧ᅾබ㛤ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⮬↛఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢ୰࡛ࡣẚ㍑ⓗ኱ࡁ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡀዪᛶ࡟೫ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡉࡽ࡟ 20 ௦ࡀ 5 ๭ࢆ༨ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ㸪ᮏㄪᰝࡣዪᛶࡀ౑⏝ࡍࡿࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖ࡟㝈ᐃࡋ㸪ศᯒཬࡧ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ3.2. ㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ ࡲࡎ㸪ࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡢල⌧໬ᙧᘧࢆᢳฟࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ㸪ᖖయࡢᙧᘧࡣ 1187 ౛ほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢ୰࡛㸪ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖࡢศ㢮ࡀᅔ㞴࡞ࡶࡢࡣᑐ㇟እ࡜ࡋࡓࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣ㸪ᩥᏐ໬ࡀ୙᏶඲࡞ࡶࡢ㸪ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ
ࠋ
Ⓨヰពᅗࡀ୙᫂░࡞ࡶࡢ࡞࡝࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⤖ᯝ㸪1121 ౛ࡀㄪᰝᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡗࡓ㸦⾲ 1㸧

−11−

「ノ（ダ）ね」の語用論的機能―具現化形式と音調の観点から―⾲ ල⌧໬ᙧᘧࡢ౑⏝ᩘཬࡧᑐ㇟ᩘ
ࡢࡡࢇࡔࡡィࢇ࡛ࡍࡡ 6
1049
138
1187
168
1002(95.5%) 119(86.2%) 1121(94.4%) 152

౑⏝ᩘ
ᑐ㇟ᩘ

 ḟ࡟㸪౑⏝ሙ㠃࡜ල⌧໬ᙧᘧࡢ㛵ಀࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓࠋ⤖ᯝࢆ⾲ 2 ࡟♧ࡍࠋ

᝟ሗᥦ♧
᝟ሗཷᐜ
ィ

⾲  ౑⏝ሙ㠃࡜ල⌧໬ᙧᘧࡢ㛵ಀ
ࡢࡡ
ࢇࡔࡡ
ィ
ࢇ࡛ࡍࡡ
912
21
933
99
90
98
188
53
1002
119
1121
152

ㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪ศᯒᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠕࡢࡡࠖࡣࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࡢ 8.4 ಸ౑⏝ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ౑⏝ሙ㠃࡜ල⌧໬ࠕࡢࡡࠖࡣࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ࡟㸪ࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࡣࠕ᝟
ᙧᘧࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ Ȯ2 ᳨ᐃࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚ㄪ࡭ࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ㸪ࠋሗཷᐜࠖ࡟᭷ព࡟ከ࠸࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝ࡟࡞ࡗࡓ㸦Ȯ2(1)=404.991,p<.01㸧
 ḟ࡟㸪
ࠕࡢࡡࠖ
ࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࡢᖺ௦ู࡟ࡼࡿෆヂࢆ♧ࡍ㸦⾲ 3㸧ࠋཧຍ⪅ேᩘࢆ㚷ࡳࡿ࡜㸪ࠕࡢࡡࠖࡣࠕ᝟
ሗᥦ♧ࠖሙ㠃࡛ࡑࢀ࡯࡝ᕪࡀ࡞ࡃ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉㸪ࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࡣ୺࡟ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖ
ሙ㠃࡛ 40 ௦௨ୗࡢẕㄒヰ⪅࡟౑⏝ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ             ⾲  ࠕࡢࡡࠖࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࡢᖺ௦ู౑⏝   ෆࡣཧຍ⪅ேᩘࢆ♧ࡍ10㸦12㸧 20㸦71㸧 30㸦26㸧 40㸦16㸧 50㸦18㸧 60㸦11㸧 70㸦2㸧

80㸦1㸧

90㸦3㸧

ィ
㸦1607㸧

ࡢࡡᥦ♧

23

407

163

46

41

178

21

4

29

912

ࡢࡡཷᐜ

2

26

23

7

4

28

0

0

0

90

ࢇࡔࡡᥦ♧

1

6

4

3

1

4

0

1

1

21

ࢇࡔࡡཷᐜ

11

48

21

9

1

5

3

0

0

98

௨ୖࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪ල⌧໬ᙧᘧ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ 2 ࡘࡢ௬ㄝࢆᥦฟࡋࡓࠋ
௬ㄝ㸯㸬40 ௦௨ୗࡢዪᛶ࡟ࡣࠕࡢࡡࠖࡣࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ㸪ࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࡣࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࠋ
௬ㄝ 2㸬50 ௦௨ୖࡢዪᛶ࡟ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡢሙྜ࡟ࡶࠕࡢࡡࠖࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࠋ
ㄪᰝϨ࡛ල⌧໬ᙧᘧ࡜౑⏝ሙ㠃ࡢᑐᛂࡀഴྥ࡜ࡋ࡚♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋḟ࡟㸪ྛ౑⏝ሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿල⌧໬ᙧᘧ࡜㡢ㄪ࡜ࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀ㸪ࡲࡓ㸪ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖࡢ☜ㄆ㸪㠀☜ㄆሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿල⌧໬ᙧᘧཬࡧ⏘ฟ㡢ㄪࡢᕪ␗ࢆㄪᰝࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸪఍ヰᩥࢆ⏝࠸࡚ྛ౑⏝ሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿල⌧໬ᙧᘧ࡜ࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࢆㄪᰝࡍ
ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
㸲㸬ㄪᰝϩ㸦
ࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄪᰝ㸧ཬࡧ⤖ᯝ
4.1.ㄪᰝᴫせ ㄪᰝϩࡢㄪᰝᴫせࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾࠋ ㄪᰝ┠ⓗ㸸ྛ౑⏝ሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖ࡜㡢ㄪ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ᥈ࡿࠋ
 ㄪᰝ㈨ᩱ㸸ྡ኱఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆᇶ࡟సᡂࡋࡓ 3 ✀㢮ࡢ఍ヰᩥ

−12−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

     ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࡣࠕࡢࡡࠖ
㸪᝟ሗཷᐜࡣ 40 ௦௨ୗࡣࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖ
㸪50 ௦௨ୖࡣࠕࡢࡡࠖࢆ౑⏝ ⿕ㄪᰝ⪅㸸ᮾி࣭⚄ዉᕝ࣭㟼ᒸ࣭ឡ▱ฟ㌟ࡢዪᛶ㸦20 ௦㹼70 ௦㸧15 ྡ ㄪᰝ᪉ἲ㸸㸯㸬ྡ኱఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢ⏝౛ࢆᇶ࡟సᡂࡋࡓ఍ヰᩥࢆ୍ࡘࡎࡘᥦ♧ࡋ㸪≧ἣ☜ㄆ      㸰㸬㐪࿴ឤࡢ࠶ࡿ⾲⌧ࡣ㐺ᐅኚ᭦ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᣦ♧ࡋ㸪➹⪅࡜ㄞࡳୖࡆ      㸱㸬ㄞࡳୖࡆᚋ㸪ྛ౑⏝ሙ㠃࡛ࠕࡢࡡࠖ
ࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࡢ࡝ࡕࡽࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ࠿ㄪᰝ       ͤ ࠕ఍ヰᩥ࡜␗࡞ࡿᙧᘧࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࠖ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋࡓሙྜ㸪ᙧᘧࢆኚ࠼෌ᗘㄞࡳୖࡆ ḟ࡟㸪ㄪᰝ࡟౑⏝ࡋࡓ఍ヰᩥࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿ㸦⣬ᖜࡢ㛵ಀ୍࡛㒊┬␎㸧ࠋ‫ ە‬᝟ሗᥦ♧㸦6㸧㸦A ࡀ኱Ꮫࡢ࠶ࡿඛ⏕࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࠕࡑࡢඛ⏕ࡣ࠾ⳫᏊ࡟┠ࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ヰࢆࡋࡓᚋ㸪ࡑࢀࢆ⿬௜ࡅࡿయ㦂ㄯࢆヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃㸧  A: ࡞ࢇ࠿ࡡ㸪ࡇࡢ㛫ඛ⏕ࡢ࠾࠺ࡕ࡛㘠ㅮ⩦఍ࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚㸦࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇ㸧㸪⾜ࡗࡓࡢࡡࠋ࠾ᅵ⏘ࢆࡡ㸪ᣢࡗ࡚⾜࠿࡞ࡁࡷ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࡡࡗ࡚ゝࡗ࡚㸪ඛ⏕ࡢᐙ᪘ 4 ேᐙ᪘ࡔ࠿ࡽ㸦࠺ࢇ㸧㸪ࡑࢀ࡟⮬ศࡓ
ࡕࡢศࡶ㈙ࡗ࡚⾜ࡗࡓࡢࠋ㸦࠺ࢇ㸪࠺ࢇ㸪࠺ࢇ㸪࠺ࢇ㸧㸦௨ୗ┬␎㸧‫ ە‬᝟ሗཷᐜ㸦☜ㄆ㸧㸦7㸧 㸦A ࡀ B ࡟࠾ⳫᏊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࠸ࡓࢡ࢖ࢬ㸦ึࡵ࡚᭶࡟㝆ࡾࡓᏱᐂ⯪ࡢྡ๓㸧ࢆฟ㢟ࡋࡓᚋࡢ఍ヰ㸧  A: ࣄࣥࢺࡣࡡ㸪࠾ⳫᏊࠋ  B: ࢢࣜࢥ㸺➗࠸㸼ࠋ࠺࣮㸪ࡶ࠺ࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࣄࣥࢺࡕࡻ࠺ࡔ࠸ࠋ
  A: ࠺ࢇ㸪3 ᩥᏐࡔࡡࠋ
  B: ࣏ࢵ㸪࢟㸺➗࠸㸼ࠋ  A: ࠾࣮㸪ࡧࡗࡃࡾࡋࡓࠋ
  B: ࣏ࡀ௜ࡃࢇࡔࡡ㸭௜ࡃࡢࡡࠋ
  A: ࣏ࡣ௜ࡃࡡࠋ‫ ە‬᝟ሗཷᐜ㸦㠀☜ㄆ㸧㸦8㸧 㸦஧ேࡀ௒㣗஦ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠾ᗑࡢ㛢ᗑ᫬㛫࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃㸧  A: ࡇࡢᗑ㸪ఱ᫬ࡲ࡛ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
  B: ࡲࡔ᪩࠸ࡼࡡࠋ
  A: 8 ᫬ࡲ࡛࠿࡞ࠋ
  B: 8 ᫬ࡲ࡛㸽  A: ከศ 8 ᫬ࡔࡗࡓ࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋ
  B: ࠶ࡗ㸪⤖ᵓ᪩ࡃ㛢ࡲࡿࢇࡔࡡ㸭㛢ࡲࡿࡢࡡࠋ
  A: 9 ᫬࠿࡞ࠋ⪺࠸࡚ࡳࡿ㸽 ࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪࡢศ㢮ࡣ㸪㒆㸦2003㸧ཬࡧ㎘ᮌ㸦2008㸧ࢆ᥼⏝ࡋࡓࠋ㒆㸦2003㸧ཬࡧ㎘ᮌ㸦2008㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜㸪ᩥᮎモࡢ㡢ㄪࡣ๓᥋ࡢㄒࡢ᭱⤊ᢿ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᥋⥆ࡢ௙᪉㸦㡰᥋ࡲࡓࡣప᥋㸧࡜⤊ຓモࡢᢿෆ㡢ㄪࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡟ࡼࡾグ㏙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋ㸪๓᥋ࡢㄒࡀ㉳అᆺࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣ㸪㡰᥋࡜ప᥋ࡢᑐ❧ࡀ୰࿴ࡉࢀࡿ㸦㒆 2003㸧ࠋᙜヱᙧᘧࡣ㉳అᆺ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ㸪ࡇࡢㄽ࡟ᚑ࠸ࠕࡡࠖࡢᢿෆ㡢ㄪ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓࠋ௨ୗ㸪⾲ 4 ࡟ࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜ព࿡ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ−13−

「ノ（ダ）ね」の語用論的機能―具現化形式と音調の観点から―⾲ ࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜ព࿡࣭⏝ἲࡢᑐᛂ
ᢿෆ㡢ㄪ

ᮏ✏ࡢᐃ⩏

␲ၥୖ᪼

㉁ၥᩥᮎᑿࡢࡼ࠺࡞ୖ᪼

☜ㄆせồ㺏㺖㺜㺻㺢ୖ᪼

࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺࡢప࠸ᢿ࠿ࡽ㧗࠸ᢿ࡬࡜⛣㸦⪺ࡁᡭࡀྠពࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺๓ᥦ࡛㸧ヰࡋᡭࡢุព࿡⏝ἲ⾜ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁࡢࡼ࠺࡞ୖ᪼

᩿ࢆᥦ♧࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ⾜ືࢆᐉゝࡍࡿᖹᆠ⫈ぬⓗ࡟ୖ᪼ࡶୗ㝆ࡶࡋ࡞࠸㸦↓᰾ࡢㄒ࡟ࡘࡃሙྜ㸧࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼࡜ྠ⩏ୖ᪼ୗ㝆࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ᪼ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ୖ᪼㸩ୗ㝆ャჃ࣭㦫ࡁࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢྠពࢆồࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ

ୗ㝆㸦㢧ⴭ࡞㸧ୗ㝆࠶ࡿ㸦↓᰾ࡢㄒ࡟ࡘࡃሙྜ㸧ୖ᪼ୗ㝆࡜ྠ⩏
㒆㸦2003㸧ཬࡧ㎘ᮌ㸦2008㸧ࢆཧ⪃࡟➹⪅సᡂ

4.2. ㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ ㄞࡳୖࡆᐇ㦂࡛⏘ฟࡉࢀࡓࠕࡡࠖࡢྛ㡢ㄪ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㡢ኌᏛᑓ㛛ᐙ࡜☜ㄆࡋࡓᚋ㸪➹⪅ࡀ⾲ 4 ࡢ㡢ㄪࡢᐃ⩏࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁศ㢮ࡋࡓ㸦⾲ 5㸧ࠋࠕ౑⏝࡞ࡋࠖࡣ㸪ࠕࡢࡡࠖࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓᩘࢆ♧ࡍࠋㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖཬࡧࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜ㸦☜ㄆ㸧ࠖ࡟ࡣ␲ၥୖ᪼ࡀ㸪ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜ㸦㠀☜ㄆ㸧ࠖ࡟ࡣ࢔ࢡࢭ
ࣥࢺୖ᪼ཬࡧᖹᆠࡀ㑅ዲࡉࢀࡓࠋୗ㝆ࡣほᐹࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ⾲ ྛ౑⏝ሙ㠃࡛⏘ฟࡉࢀࡓ㡢ㄪ␲ၥୖ᪼㺏㺖㺜㺻㺢ୖ᪼

ᖹᆠ

ୖ᪼ୗ㝆

ୗ㝆

౑⏝࡞ࡋ

᝟ሗᥦ♧

11

3

0

0

0

1

᝟ሗཷᐜ㸦☜ㄆ㸧

12

2

1

0

0

0

᝟ሗཷᐜ㸦㠀☜ㄆ㸧

1

6

5

2

0

1

௨ୗࡢᅗ 1 ࠿ࡽᅗ 4 ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟㸪ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ࡜ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜ㸦☜ㄆ㸧ࠖࡢ⏘ฟ㡢ㄪࡣୖ᪼ㄪࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡟㢮ఝࡋࡓഴྥࡀほᐹࡉࢀ㸪ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜ㸦㠀☜ㄆ㸧ࠖࡣࠕࡡࠖࡢୖ᪼ᗘࡀప࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ
ศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋᅗ 1ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧㸦⾜1ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧㸦⾜ࡗࡓࡢࡡ㸧ࡓࡢࡡ㸧㸦␲ၥୖ᪼
ࠖ㸦␲ၥୖ᪼ 40
4 ௦㸧   ᅗ 2ࠕ☜ㄆ㸦࣏ࡀ௜ࡃࢇࡔࡡ㸧ࠕ☜ㄆ㸦࣏ࡀ௜ࡃࢇࡔࡡ㸧㸦␲ၥୖ᪼ࠖ㸦␲ၥୖ᪼ 60 ௦㸧ᅗ 3ࠕ㠀☜ㄆ㸦᪩ࡃ㛢ࡲࡿࢇࡔࡡ㸧㸦㺏㺖㺜㺻㺢ୖ
3ࠕ㠀☜ㄆ㸦᪩ࡃ㛢ࡲࡿࢇࡔࡡ㸧ࠖ㸦㺏㺖㺜㺻㺢ୖ᪼ 50 ௦㸧    ᅗ 4 ࠕ㠀☜ㄆࠖ㸦ᖹᆠ 20 ௦㸧ㄪᰝ⤊஢ᚋ㸪⿕ㄪᰝ⪅඲ဨ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪ྛ౑⏝ሙ㠃࡛ࠕ⮬ศࡔࡗࡓࡽࠕࡢࡡࠖ
ࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࡢ࡝ࡕࡽࢆ౑
⏝ࡍࡿ࠿ࠖࢆ⪺࠸ࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ㸪ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖሙ㠃࡛ࡣ఍ヰᩥ࡛౑⏝ࡋࡓ 14 ྡ 8 ඲ဨࡀࠕࠕࡢࡡࠖࢆ౑⏝ࡍ

−14−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ࡿࠖ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋࡓࠋ
ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ྛሙ㠃࡛ᅇ⟅ࡀศ࠿ࢀࡓࠋ⤖ᯝࢆ௨ୗ࡟♧ࡍࠋ⾲ ࠕ㠀☜ㄆࠖ࡟౑⏝ࡍࡿᙧᘧ⾲ ࠕ☜ㄆࠖ࡟౑⏝ࡍࡿᙧᘧ
40 ௦௨ୗ

50 ௦௨ୖ

ィ

ࡢࡡ

3

3

6

ࢇࡔࡡ

7

2

9
15

ィ

10

5

40 ௦௨ୗ

50 ௦௨ୖ

ィ

ࡢࡡ

0

0

0

ࢇࡔࡡ

9

5

14

ィ

9

5

14

⾲ 6 ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟㸪ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜ㸦☜ㄆ㸧
ࠖࡣ 40 ௦௨ୗࡣࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪50 ௦௨㝆ࡣ࡯ࡰྠᩘ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉㸪ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜ㸦㠀☜ㄆ㸧ࠖࡣㄞࡳୖࡆᐇ㦂࡛౑⏝ࡋࡓ඲ဨࡀࠕࢇࡔ
ࡡࠖࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋࡓ 9ࠋ㸳㸬⪃ᐹ
5.1.ල⌧໬ᙧᘧ࡜౑⏝ሙ㠃 ㄪᰝϨࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪ࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡣ୺࡟ࠕࡢࡡࠖ
ࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡀ㸪ሙ㠃࡟ࡼࡿ౑⏝ศᕸࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣ㸪ࠕࡢࡡࠖࡣࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ㸪ཬࡧ 50 ௦௨ୖࡢẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖሙ㠃࡛㸪ࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࡣ 40 ௦௨ୗࡢẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖሙ㠃࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋᕷᮧ࣭ᇼỤ㸦2014㸧࡛ࡣ㸪⮬↛఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪〄ࡢᙧᘧࠕࡢ㸦ѫ㸧ࠖࡣࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖཬࡧࠕ㉁ၥࠖሙ㠃࡛㸪ࠕࢇࡔ㸦ѫ㸧
ࠖࡣࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖሙ㠃࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸ࡗࡓᶵ⬟ศᢸࡢഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ࡇࡢᣦ᦬࡜ᮏㄪ
ᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜㸪40 ௦௨ୗࡢዪᛶࡀ౑⏝ࡍࡿࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡣ〄ࡢᙧᘧࠕࡢ㸦ѫ㸧ࠖࠕࢇࡔ㸦ѫ㸧
ࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࢆᘬࡁ⥅࠸ࡔᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋ
5.2 ල⌧໬ᙧᘧ࡜㡢ㄪ ᮏㄪᰝϩࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪ࠕࡢࡡࠖࡣ␲ၥୖ᪼ࡢ㡢ㄪࢆక࠸㸪ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ
ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜ㸦☜ㄆ㸧ࠖࡍࡿሙ㠃࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ㸪ࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࡣྠᵝ࡟␲ၥୖ᪼ࢆకࡗ࡚ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜ㸦☜ㄆ㸧ࠖࡍࡿሙ㠃㸪ཬࡧ⦆ࡸ࠿࡞࢔ࢡࢭࣥ
ࢺୖ᪼㸪ᖹᆠ㡢ㄪࢆక࠸㸪ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜ㸦㠀☜ㄆ㸧ࠖࡍࡿሙ㠃࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪ㄞࡳୖࡆᐇ㦂࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ
ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜ㸦☜ㄆ㸧ࠖ࡜ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜ㸦㠀☜ㄆ㸧ࠖࡢ㛫࡛⫈ぬⓗᕪ␗ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋᮡ⸨㸦2001㸧࡛ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆồࡵ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟ࡶୖ᪼ㄪࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡋ㸪ࠕࠕࡡࠖࡢୖ᪼ࡢ⛬ᗘࢆపࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆồࡵࡿሙྜࡢࠕࡡࠖ࠿ࡽ⮬ᕫ☜ㄆࡢࠕࡡࠖ
࡬࡜ព࿡ࡀ⛣⾜ࡍࡿࠖ㸦p.15㸧࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣᙜヱᙧᘧࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ㝿㸪ࠕࡢࠖࠕࢇࡔࠖࡢⓎヰពᅗࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡝࠺ᕪࡋฟࡍ࠿ࢆࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡟ࡼࡾ᫂♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪஧ࡘࡢㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪ࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࢆ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅࡓࠋ
Ϩ㸬ࡢࡡ㸦␲ၥୖ᪼㸧ձ㸸⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆồࡵ࡞ࡀࡽࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆᘬࡁฟࡍࡇ࡜࡛Ⓨヰᶒࢆಖᣢࡋ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢᙺ๭ࢆ㐙⾜ࡍࡿពᅗࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿࠋϩ㸬ࡢࡡ㸦␲ၥୖ᪼㸧ղ㸪ࢇࡔࡡ㸦␲ၥୖ᪼㸧㸸┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ᝟ሗᥦ౪࡟ࡼࡾ㸪⮬㌟࡟ㄆ▱ຠᯝࡀ⏕ࡌࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂♧ࡋ㸪ࡑࡢኚ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࠋϪ㸬ࢇࡔࡡ㸦ୖ᪼ࡢ⦆࠸࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺୖ࣭᪼ᖹᆠ㸧㸸ㄆ㆑ࡢኚ໬ࡀ⏕ࡌࡓࡇ࡜㸪ࡑࡢෆᐜࢆ⮬㌟࡛☜ㄆ୰࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᙺ๭ࢆ㐙⾜ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿពᅗࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪ࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡣࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࢆᢸ࠺ࡀ㸪ᙜヱᙧᘧࡢࠕࡡࠖࡣ┦ᡭ࡜఍ヰࢆ⥅⥆ࡉࡏࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿᙧᘧ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ


−15−

「ノ（ダ）ね」の語用論的機能―具現化形式と音調の観点から―

㸴㸬⤖ㄽ ᮏㄪᰝࡣ㸪⮬↛఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫཬࡧẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ᑐࡍࡿ఍ヰࡢㄞࡳୖࡆᐇ㦂࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ዪᛶࡢ౑⏝ࡍࡿࠕࣀ㸦ࢲ㸧ࡡࠖࡢᖖయࡢල⌧໬ᙧᘧࠕࡢࡡࠖ
ࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࢆศᯒ㸪⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࢥ࣮ࣃࢫㄪᰝཬࡧ఍ヰࡢㄞࡳୖࡆᐇ㦂࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ᙜヱᙧᘧࡣࠕࡢ㸦ѫ㸧ࠖࠕࢇࡔ㸦ѫ㸧
ࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࢆᘬࡁ⥅࠸ࡔᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࠕࡡࠖࡣ఍ヰࢆ⥅⥆ࡉࡏࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿែᗘࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟㸪ࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ㄪ࡟ࡼࡾ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢᙜヱⓎヰࡢᕪࡋฟࡋ᪉ࢆ᫂♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࠕࡢࡡࠖࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖ୧ᙧᘧ࡜ࡶ⏘ฟ㡢ㄪ࡟ࡼࡾ஧ࡘࡢ␗࡞
ࡿⓎヰពᅗࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ௒ᚋࡣ⏨ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶྠᵝࡢ⤖ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿ࠿ㄪᰝࡋ㸪⤖ᯝࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ᳨ドࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋὀ
1 㹹  㹻㒊ศཬࡧୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅࡟ࡼࡿຍ➹࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ
2 ྡ኱఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ␒ྕࢆ♧ࡍࠋ
3 ヱᙜࡍࡿⓎヰࡢヰࡋᡭࡢᛶู㸪ୡ௦ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ
4 㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠕᩥ⬦ຠᯝ㸦contextual effect㸧ࠖ࡜ࠕㄆ▱ຠᯝ㸦cognitive effect㸧ࠖࡣྠ⩏࡜ࡉࢀ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣ Sperber & Wilson㸦2004㸧ࡢグ㏙࡟ᚑ࠸㸪ࠕㄆ▱ຠᯝࠖ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠋ
5 ᙜヱⓎヰࡀ୙㐺ษ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ ♧ࡍࠋ
6 ௒ᅇศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀ㸪ཧ⪃ࡲ࡛࡟ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍࡡࠖࡢศᯒ⤖ᯝࡶຍ࠼ࡓࠋྡ኱఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡣ
ぶࡋ࠸⪅ྠኈࡢ㞧ㄯࡀ୺࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ㸪౑⏝ࡢከᐻ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᖖయࡢᙧᘧ࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡀ㸪௒ᅇࡢㄪᰝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍࡡࠖࡣࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖࡢ౑⏝౛ࡀࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖࡢ⣙ 2 ಸほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋᚑ
ࡗ࡚㸪ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍࡡࠖࡣࠕࢇࡔࡡࠖࡼࡾࠕࡢࡡࠖ࡟౑⏝ഴྥࡀ㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ᚑࡗ࡚㸪ࠕࠕࢇ࡛ࡍࠖࡣ
ࠕࢇࡔࠖࡢᩗయ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ࡣ༢⣧࡟ゝ࠼࡞࠸࡜᥎ᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍࡡࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
7 ᖺ㱋୙ヲࡀ 1 ྡ࠸ࡿࡀ㸪௒ᅇࡣศᯒࡢᑐ㇟እ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
8 ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖཬࡧࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜ㸦㠀☜ㄆ㸧ࠖࡢྜィࡀ 14 ࡛࠶ࡿࡢࡣ㸪఍ヰᩥ࡛ᙜヱᙧᘧࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ⿕ㄪᰝ⪅࡟ࡣ㉁ၥࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
9 ࡓࡔࡋ㸪
ࠕ┦ᡭࡸሙ㠃࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸦␗ᛶࡸ࠶ࡲࡾぶࡋࡃ࡞࠸┦ᡭ㸪ࡸࡸᨵࡲࡗࡓᖍ࡛ヰࡍሙྜ㸧ࠕࡢࡡࠖࢆ౑࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮ࠺ࠖ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋࡓ⿕ㄪᰝ⪅㸦50 ௦㸪60 ௦ྛ 1 ྡ㸧ࡀ࠸ࡓࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩࣭ㄪᰝ㈨ᩱ
ᕷᮧⴥᏊ࣭ᇼỤ⸅. 2014. ࠕࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢఏ㐩᪉␎㸫ヰࡋゝⴥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢศᯒ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚㸫ࠖࠗ➨ 16 ᅇ኱఍Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘9, 1-8. ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍.
㒆ྐ㑻.2003.ࠕ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠖୖ㔝ၿ㐨㸦⦅㸧ࠗᮅ಴᪥ᮏㄒㅮᗙ 3 㡢ኌ࣭㡢㡩࠘109-131. ᮅ಴᭩ᗑ.
ྡᔱ⩏┤. 2007. ࠗFrontier series ᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲ྀ᭩ 19 ࣀࢲࡢព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟㸫㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸫࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
Nicholas Allott. 2014. ௒஭㑥ᙪ㸦┘㸧ᒸ⏣⪽ᏹ࣭஭㛛ு࣭ᯇᓮ⏤㈗࣭ྂ∾ஂ඾㸦ヂ㸧ࠗㄒ⏝ㄽ࣮࢟ࢱ࣮࣒஦඾࠘
㛤ᣅ♫.
᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍㸦⦅㸧. 2003. ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ 4 ➨ 8 㒊 ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ᮡ⸨⨾௦Ꮚ. 2001. ࠕ⤊ຓモࠕࡡࠖࡢព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟࡜࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠖ
ࠗᩥἲ࡜㡢ኌϪ࠘3-16,ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
㎘ᮌ㟹Ꮚ. 2008. ࠕᮾிㄒࡢ⤊ຓモࡢ㡢ㄪ࡜ᶵ⬟ࡢᑐᛂ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸫ෆ┬࡟ࡼࡿ⪃ᐹ㸫ࠖࠗ㡢ኌゝㄒϭ࠘5-28. ㏆␥㡢ኌゝㄒ◊✲఍.
Wilson,D. and Sperber,D. 2004. “Relevance Theory”. In Laurence R. Horn and Greory L. Wrad, eds. The Handbook ofPragmatics,607-632.Oxford:Blackwell.
ྡ኱఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝ᇶ┙◊✲㸦B)㸦2)ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦㎡᭩⦅⧩࡟ྥࡅࡓ㟁Ꮚ໬ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ฼⏝࡟ࡼࡿࢥࣟࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ◊✲ࠖ㸦ᖹᡂ 13 ᖺᗘ~15 ᖺᗘ㸪◊✲௦⾲⪅㸸኱᭯⨾ᜨᏊ㸧ࡢ୍⎔࡜ࡋ࡚సᡂ.

−16−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号「ほめごろし」の言語学 1大久保朝憲（おおくぼ・とものり）
関西大学<Abstract>
This paper tries to analyse homegorosi, a type of discourse strategy consisting of (an) ironical utterance(s),containing repetitive ironical applause with strong accusative effects. Our analysis is based on thestandpoint of the Argumentative Polyphony Theory (APT) as well as the Semantic Blocks Theory (SBT),
both founded by Carel (2011a), and our homegorosi data are taken from political campaign slogans andpopular songs’ lyrics. It is made clear that homegorosi discourses always contain (an) ironical utterance(s)satisfying our theoretical criterion, and that what is characteristic in homegorosi is that the speaker has
more freedom to develop his/her ironical discourse, by denying its argumentative absurdity.
【キーワード】ほめごろし

!

アイロニー

ポリフォニー

論証「ほめごろし」とは
本稿では、「ほめごろし」とよばれるディスコース方略について、Marion Carel（主として Carel (2011a)）

による「論証的ポリフォニー理論」および「意味ブロック理論」にもとづいた分析をこころみる。
「ほめごろし」の語には複数の意味があるが、本稿では、「いやみになるほどほめ立てること。必要以上にほめちぎることで、かえって相手をひやかしたりけなしたりすること」（『デジタル大辞泉』）という意味で使用する。この意味での使用は、1987 年に自民党の次期総裁えらびの過程で、ある極右団体が「竹下さんは日本一、金儲けがうまい政治家。竹下さんを総理大臣にしよう！」という街宣活動をおこなう
ことで竹下登を攻撃したこと（岩瀬 2002: 211）にはじまるといわれており、政治的ディスコースで利用されることがおおい。本稿では、このような 1. 政治団体の街宣キャンペーンと、2. ポピュラー・ソングの歌詞をデータとする分析・観察をおこなう。
また、「ほめごろし」とは、ある種のアイロニー的発話によって、もしくはそれを中心に構築されるディスコースの 1 タイプであるととらえられる。そこで、「ほめごろし」効果をうみだすアイロニー発話が、通常のアイロニーとくらべてどのような特異性をもつかということについても考察したい。
"「ほめごろし」の実例
まずは典型的な「ほめごろし」の実例を、上記の 2 つのカテゴリーから 1 例ずつ紹介する。

(1)

命や健康よりも大切なものがある！ 私たち原発推進派は自民党を支持します。


これは、反政府政治運動家の外山恒一が、2013 年の参議院選挙の際に街宣車にかかげた看板に掲示したスローガンだが 2、これをみれば即座に、この発話の話者が原発推進派でも自民党支持者でもなく、実際には強烈な自民党非難をおこなっているのだということがみてとれる。
つぎに、歌詞の実例として、フォーク歌手高田渡の「自衛隊に入ろう」をみてみよう。
(2)「自衛隊に入ろう」（作詞：高田渡／作曲：マルビナ・レイノルズ／1968 年）

1

−17−

「ほめごろし」の言語学

みなさん方の中にとにかく 体が資本です

アメリカさんにも手伝ってもらい（**くりかえし）

悪い ソ連や中国をやっつけましょう

鉄砲や戦車や ひこうきに（**くりかえし）

自衛隊に入りたい人はいませんか
ひとはたあげたい人はいませんか
目衛隊じゃ 人材もとめてます*自衛隊に入ろう 入ろう 入ろう

興味をもっている方は自衛隊に入れば この世は天国

いつでも自衛隊におこし下さい

自衛隊じゃ 人材もとめてます

男の中の男はみんな

手とり 足とり おしえます

年齢 学歴はといません
祖国のためなら どこまでも自衛隊に入って 花と散る*（**くりかえし）

素直な人をもとめます

いつでも 目衛隊におこし下さい

日本の平和を守るためにゃ（**くりかえし）

槍でも鉄砲でも 何でもありますよ

鉄砲やロケットがいりますよスポーツをやりたい人いたらこのうたは、自衛隊批判のうたであることがしられ、現に 1968 年の発表後しばらくして「放送禁止歌」となった（森 2003: 44-53）。歌詞の内容そのものは自衛隊入隊を勧誘するものとなっているが、これが「ほめごろし」となるのは、楽曲や歌唱のスタイルにくわえて、言語的には、反復されるサビの部分がかぎになる。
#

理論的わくぐみ：論証的ポリフォニー理論と意味ブロック理論
こうした事例を分析するために、本稿では、Carel (ibid.)の言語理論である「論証的ポリフォニー理論

Théorie argumentative de la polyphonie: TAP」と、この理論と対をなすものとして提案された「意味ブロック理論 Théorie des blocs sémantiques: TBS」を援用する。理論的には後者が前提となって前者が規定されるので、まずは意味ブロック理論の概要を提示する。
#!

意味ブロック理論：

Carel の言語理論では、「論証 argumentation」という概念が中心におかれている。言語を論拠だての観点から記述しようというアプローチのなかでも、Carel の理論は、言語そのものが論拠だてのシステムとして構築されているという、もっともラディカルなたちばにたつ。
たとえば「晴天である」というみじかい言語表現の意味として、この理論では、それが「太陽がでており、くもがない／すくない」という状況を表象しているとはかんがえず、「晴天であるだから外出しよう。」というつながりのなかで、いわば「外出をうながすものとしての晴天」という論証的な意味をあたえられるとかんがえる。したがって、「晴天である」というおなじ形式でも「晴天であるだから

ひやけどめをぬろう。」というつながりのなかでは、「健康への脅威としての晴天」というちがう意味をもつということになる。
以上のように、すべての発話は、「P だから Q」もしくは「P であるのに NEG-Q」（NEG：否定もしくはそれに準じる言語要素）などといった論証的連鎖 enchaînement argumentatif のなかでディスコース
内での意味を獲得するというのが意味ブロック理論の基本的なかんがえかたで、「ブロック」というのは、P と Q の関係が、上記以外に、「NEG-P だから NEG-Q」「NEG-P であるのに Q」という 4 つのおなじ意
味的方向性をもった形式（4 つのあいだでは、P, Q の意味は共有されている）のセットになっていることに注目したものである。また、具体的な論証的連鎖をひとつにまとめ、抽象的な形式としてあらわしたものを「論証局面 aspect argumentatif」とよび、たとえば、「はれてるね、ピクニックにでもいくか」2−18−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号「このお天気なら、きょうの海水浴場はこむだろうね」「あした天気がよかったら、職場まであるいてい
こうかな」といった論証的連鎖は、すべて [晴天 だから

外出] と標記できるような論証局面の具体化の事例として記述される。
以上が、TBS の基本的なアイデアであり、これを理論的前提として、以下にのべる論証的ポリフォニー理論が提案されている。
#"

論証的ポリフォニー理論：

論証的ポリフォニー理論: TAP は、TBS で記述された意味内容が、ディスコース上にどのように配置され、それによってなにをつたえるかということを、ひとつの発話には複数の内容が同時にふくみこまれているのだという独自の観点から記述しようとするものである。これをわかりやすくしめすものとして、
以下のような例をみてみよう。

(3)

沖縄は米国の軍事植民地ではない。

TAP では、この発話には 2 つの「内容＝声」が実現しているとかんがえる。1 つは [沖縄は米国の軍事植民地である] というもの、そしてもうひとつが [沖縄は米国の軍事植民地ではない] というものである。わざわざ否定文でいわなくても「沖縄は日本の領土である」といえばよいことをわざわざこのようにいうのは、否定されるべき内容（声） [沖縄は米国の軍事植民地である] が文脈内で活性化していることによる。このことは、否定文には、肯定の内容を主張する声と否定のそれを主張する声がともにふくまれていることをしめしている。TAP は、発話のこのような声の複数性に注目し、そのしくみをあきらかにしようとする理論である。
以上の観点から、TAP では「トーン」と「発話モード」という 2 つの主要概念によって、ある意味内容をディスコース上に位置づけ、発話として機能させるとかんがえる。
「意味内容」とは、文単位のまとまった意味をもつ言語表現のそれという意味で、意味論の「命題」におおむね相当するものとひとまずかんがえられたい。
#"! トーン
「トーン」とは、ある意味内容が、だれの声によって発話されているものかということをしめすもの
で、「話者トーン」、「世界トーン」、「他者トーン」の 3 つのトーンに区別される。

話者トーン：その内容が話者自身によって着想されたものであることをのべるときに発話がもつトーンのこと。話者トーンの発話には、おおむね「〜とおもう」を後続させることができる。
世界トーン：世界のありさまについて「事実」と話者がみとめる内容をのべるとき、発話には「世界トーン」が付与されるとする。典型的には、事実についての報道文などがそれにあたる。
他者トーン：ほかのだれかがいっていることを報告的にのべるとき、「他者トーン」が付与されるとする。
典型的には、「ということだ」「らしい」などのマーカーによって明示される。

このように、ある発話の物理的主体は話者自身であるが、その内容によって実際には複数のトーンが関与しているというのが TAP の基本的なかんがえかたである。

3−19−

「ほめごろし」の言語学#""

発話モード

3

発話される内容は、上記のようにさまざまなトーンをとりうるが、その内容を、どのような「態度」をもって発話するかということは、これとは独立したものとしてかんがえる。これが発話モードで、いまのところ TAP では 3 つの発話モードが提案されている。
受諾モード      ：いかなるトーンによるものであれ、話者がその内容をディスコースの前面4に位置づけ、その内容がディスコース内でもちうる論証的方向性にしたがってディスコースが展開できるとき、その内容は受諾モードで発話されているという。
排除モード  ：さきの例でみたように、否定文では、肯定・否定の 2 つの内容がしめされ、ディスコースは、否定の内容にもとづいて展開し、肯定のほうをひきついで展開することは禁じられる。そのことを TAP では「排除」という。
承認モード

 ：これは、意味論の「前提」にちかい発話モードである。その内容を話者はみとめる

が、ディスコース上では背景化し、そこからディスコースが展開することはない。

注意すべき点として、トーンと発話モードはたがいに独立しているということがある。したがって、
たとえば他者トーンの内容が受諾モードで発話されるケースもある。
「無批判なディスコース」とでもよべるようなもので、ヘイトスピーチなどの温床になっているディスコース展開であるといえるだろう。
・  によるアイロニーの記述
・

$

上記に概略をのべた TBS/TAP にもとづいて、ほめごろしのベースとなる「アイロニー」がどのように記述されるかを簡単に提示する。
$!

 によるアイロニーの記述

これについては、Ducrot (2010) という論考があり、そこではアイロニーと否定の発話が比較されている。説明を単純化するために、晴天を期待した日に豪雨になったという状況での「いい天気だね」という、古典的なアイロニーの例を使用する。

(4)

天気よくないね。〔通常の（アイロニーではない）否定発話〕
天気がよい天気がよくない(5)（排除モード）
（受諾モード）

絶好の天気だね。〔アイロニー発話〕
天気がよい（排除モード）
（受諾モードの内容が不在）

すでにみたとおり、文法的な否定文には、(4)のように通常肯定と否定の 2 つの内容がふくみこまれ、肯定の内容は排除され、否定の内容が受諾される。Ducrot (ibid.) によると、アイロニーの発話 (5) においては、肯定の内容が排除されるという点では否定発話と同様であるが、通常の否定の発話とちがって、受諾モードでディスコースにのせられる意味内容がない（ø で表示）ことが特徴とされる。この際、その内容には話者トーンが付与され、話者は、自分の着想でものをいっているのであるが、それを受諾し、それにしたがって、「天気がよいだからピクニック」のようなディスコースの展開をみとめていない4−20−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

ことを同時に積極的につたえることになる。排除モードの、つまりひきうける気のない内容だけを話者
トーンで発話するというこの記述は、アイロニーについてしばしばひきあいにだされる「ふり pretence」という特徴を積極的かつ理論的に記述したものであるということもできよう。
$" によるアイロニーの記述

Carel (2011b) は、TBS 内部でアイロニーやパラドックスについて記述しようとした論考で、アイロニ
ー発話がかもしだすユーモアの起源をしめそうとしているところが特徴的である。これによると、アイ
ロニーとは、ある論証局面の不合理な具体化であると規定される。以下の英語の例をみてみよう。

(6)

a.

I loved this restaurant: the steak was tender and juicy.

b.

I loved this restaurant: the steak was as tender as a leather boot. 〔アイロニー〕〔通常の発話〕(6a) の例は通常の発話、(6b) はアイロニーとみなすことができる。両者はともに、[good food
THEREFORE to love the restaurant] と表示できる論証局面の具体化による論証的連鎖の例といえる。
(6a) では、この具体化は正常になされているが、(6b)では、tender as a leather boot という比較表現から、この具体化があきらかに不合理であることが判断できる。TBS では、このようなギャップの成立がアイロニー成立の条件であり、これがまた、アイロニー特有のユーモアをもたらすものでもあるとしている。
ところで、先の「天気がいい」の例には、ここでの leather boot のような、アイロニー解釈をうながす
言語的なてがかりはなく、おなじことを実際の天気という状況がサポートすることになるとかんがえられる。このことについて、本稿では、「天気がいいね」のような古典的といわれるアイロニーの事例は、
実は典型的な「言語的アイロニー verbal irony」の事例ではなく、「状況」に依拠することではじめてなりたつという点で、「状況のアイロニー situational irony」 とのあいだの中間的な事例であることによるとかんがえる。好天を確信していたその日からちょうどあめになった、というのはそれだけで（状況の）アイロニーとして成立する。
%「ほめごろし」のディスコース
「ほめごろし」のディスコースには、TBS 的に記述できる「論証局面の不合理な具体化」が言語的に確認できる事例と、それがみられない（「状況のアイロニー」的な）事例がある。これらについて、以下順に考察してゆこう。
%!

政治団体の街宣キャンペーン

街宣車によるメッセージは、受信者に「状況」をくわしく理解させる余裕はないので、すぐにきいて「ほめごろし」とわかるようなしくみを発話そのものがそなえている必要がある。
(7)

竹下さんは日本一、金儲けがうまい政治家。竹下さんを総理大臣にしよう！
論証的連鎖：[竹下は日本一金儲けがうまい だから↑具体化
論証局面：[適格な人物 だから 選出する]

竹下を総理大臣にしよう]（排除モード）

ここでは、「（総理大臣として）適格」であることが「日本一金儲けがうまい」という特徴によって具

5−21−

「ほめごろし」の言語学体化され、その「不合理さ」が自明のものとして「ほめごろし」をみちびくアイロニーが成立する。また、この発話は、「キャンペーン」である以上話者トーンでありつつも、受諾モード内容をかいた、排除モードの内容の提示であるということができる。
外山恒一の事例について、その「ほめごろし」性を了解するためには、メインの 2 行目だけで十分であり、これを以下のように記述する。

(8)

命や健康よりも大切なものがある！ 私たち原発推進派は自民党を支持します !

(=(1))

論証的連鎖：[原発推進派である] だから [自民党を支持する] （排除モード）↑具体化
論証局面：[よいものである] だから [支持する]
発話の内容が、受諾モードの内容をかいた排除モードのみでなりたっていることは、ここでも説明を要さないだろう。また、論証局面の具体化としては、「よいものである」が「原発推進」によって具体化されていることが「不合理な具体化」をうらづけるものとなっている。
外山が街宣中に実際に発話した類例 5 とその意味記述をもう一例、下記のとおりしめしておく。

(9)

泊原発の再稼働で、スリルある北海道を取り戻しましょう。
論証的連鎖：[原発を再稼働する]だから[スリルをたのしむ] （排除モード）↑具体化
論証局面：[軽微な危険をおかす]だから[スリルをたのしむ]%"

排除モードの不徹底

以上の「ほめごろし」の例は典型的なアイロニーの特徴をしめしているが、「ほめごろし」に特徴的な点をあげるとすれば、「排除モードの不徹底」ということがいえるのではないだろうか。(7) の例について、かりにそこで「そんなアイロニカルな演説をするな」という反論がおきたとして、話者はさらに「金儲けがうまいというのは大事なことで、これはアイロニーなどではない」とうそぶく可能性がある。自身を「テロリスト」「独裁主義者」といってはばからない外山恒一の一連の発話についても同様ではないだろうか。外山のこうした一連の発言について、このうそぶきに完全にだまされた、以下のようなウェ
ブ上のかきこみがみられた。

(10) 売国左翼になるよりも自民と原発を抱いて滅ぶ方がいいという選択肢ができつつある。いやな国になったよ日本は 6。

こうした一種の「アイロニー不全」は、通常のアイロニーではおこりにくいことである。「ほめごろし」の話者が「排除モード」をかりに否定したとしても、それは本当に「受諾モード」であるのではなく、「これは皮肉ではない」という、その否定自体がまたアイロニカルな、つまり排除モードのディスコース展開を生じさせ、話者はこのようにうそぶきながらアイロニーをかさねてゆく、そしてそのうそぶきに気づかないききてもいる、ということになる。これを実際に確信犯的に展開しているのが、つぎにみるポ
ピュラー・ソングの例である。
%#

反戦フォーク（のはず）の「自衛隊に入ろう」

6−22−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

このうたの歌詞の「ほめごろし」的性格のポイントは、サビの最後の部分にある。
(11)

男の中の男はみんな 自衛隊に入って 花と散る
論証的連鎖：[おとこらしい兵士である だから しぬ] （排除モード）↑具体化
論証局面：[おとこらしい兵士である だから おとこらしいおこないをする]

この歌詞は、そのほかのすべての部分で、自衛隊をてばなしで賞賛したものになっている（(2)参照）。
そんななかで、この部分については、「花と散る」というかたちで「おとこらしいおこない」が「死」によって具体化されている。このことは、軍国主義のディスコースが称揚されていた時代では何の疑問もいだかせないものだったことが推測されるが、戦後の民主社会では想定できないことで、この不合理さによるアイロニーの成立によって、そこにいたるまでの歌詞全体の「ほめごろし」性が露呈し、すべてが実は「排除モード」であることが了解されるしくみになっている。ところが、このうたが発表されてまもないころ、自衛隊関係者から、このうたを広報に使用したいという依頼が高田自身にあったというエピソードがある（森 2003: 46-49）。その自衛隊関係者は、サビの部分の排除モードに気づけないまま、軍国主義の論証局面をそのまま受諾していたのだと判断するしかない。
%$

ほめごろしになりえない        (12)“In The Navy” (Village People/Jacques Morali, Henri Belolo, Victor Willis/1979

Where can you find pleasure
Search the world for treasure
Learn science technology
Where can you begin
to make your dreams all cometrue
On the land or on the sea
Where can you learn to fly
Play in sports and skin dive
Study oceanography
Sign up for the big bandOr sit in the grandstandWhen your team and others meet
*In the navy
Yes, you can sail the seven seas
In the navy
Yes, you can put your mind atease
In the navy
Come on now, people, make astand
In the navy, in the navy
Can't you see we need a hand

In the navy
Come on, protect the motherland
In the navy
Come on and join your fellow man
In the navy
Come on people, and make astand
In the navy, in the navy, in the
navy
They want you, they want you
They want you as a new recruit*
If you like adventure
Don't you wait to enter
The recruiting office fast
Don't you hesitate
There is no need to wait
They're signing up new seamen
fastMaybe you are too young
To join up today
But don't you worry 'bout a thing
For I'm sure there will be
Always a good navy

Protecting the land and sea**くりかえしWho me?
They want you, they want you
They want you as a new recruit
But, but but I'm afraid of water.
Hey, hey look
Man, I get seasick even watchin' it
on TV!
They want you, they want you in
the navy
Oh my goodness.
What am I gonna do in asubmarine?
They want you, they want you in
the navy

このうたの内容は、「自衛隊に入ろう」と酷似しており、アメリカ海軍への入隊をしきりにすすめる内容だが、あきらかな相違点は、このうたには、「論証局面の不合理な具体化」つまり、このうたを「ほめごろし」であると断定する言語的根拠が皆無であるということである 7。他方、このグループは、いま以上に偏見のおおかった 70
年代に、奇抜な衣装でゲイ・カルチャーを前面にだした全員男性のグループである。軍隊にとっては、ゲイ・カ

7−23−

「ほめごろし」の言語学

ルチャーは警戒すべきものであるはずで、このグループはむしろそこをかいくぐり、人気グループであることを利用してこれをうたってしまったというよりないだろう。そして、そこに「論証局面の不合理な具体化」を一切ふくませることなく、状況のアイロニーによる「ほめごろし」に成功しているのではないだろうか。

&

結論にかえて以上論じてきたことを、以下のように要約する。まず、「ほめごろし」とは、ある種のアイロニーを中心に構築されるディスコースで、しばしば反復的な賛辞によって、逆にその対象を痛烈に非難するために展開されるものである。TAP/TBS 的観点によれば、「ほめごろし」は、アイロニー一般と同様に、話者トーンの内容に排除モードが付与されてディスコースにのせられ、受諾モードの別の内容が提示されることのない断絶的ディスコースを構築するものである。排除モードは、その内容のベースとなっている論証局面の不合理な具体化によってそうであることがうらづけられる。
「ほめごろし」は単文レベルの発話によっても可能で、そこではアイロニー発話が単独で「ほめごろし」のディスコースを構築する。いっぽうで、「ほめごろし」が一定のながさのディスコースにわたって展開されるケースを、ポピュラー・ソングの歌詞でみたが、言語学的な分析をゆるすものには、そのディスコース内のどこかに、「論証局面の不合理な具体化」をみつけることができる。そうでないものは、いわゆる「状況のアイロニー」に言語的資源が利用されている例と判断することができる。最後に、「ほめごろし」におけるアイロニーと通常のアイロニーとのちがいは、「ほめごろし」では、アイロニー的発話が提示され、その内容が排除された段階でも、話者は受諾モードをよそおってアイロニー発話をさらに展開しつつ、そのアイロニー性を否定しつづけることができることである。

注
本論文の 3 章および 4 章の内容は、拙論大久保 (2015)と内容が重複する。両稿が分析するデータは異なるが、それらの理論的基盤については共通の事項であり、重複を是として執筆したものであると理解されたい。また、該当部分については、紙幅の関係上、大久保 (2015)の記述がより詳細にわたるものとなっているので、適宜参照されたい。
2 朝日新聞（2013 年 7 月 27 日）「オピニオン 2013 参院選 勝ったのはだれだ」など参照。
3 Carel (2011a)で fonction textuelle とよばれる概念を、本稿では「発話モード」とする。
「直訳」では「テクスト機能」となり、
大久保 (2014) では「発話機能」としていたが、本稿独自の解釈をふくみこませ、それに適切な用語として「発話モード」を採用する。
4 大久保 (2014) で「ひきうけ」としていたが本稿では「受諾」と修正する。
5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqvHCzzvy9w
6 http://www.asyura2.com/13/senkyo151/msg/232.html
7 現に、このうたについても、海軍入隊勧誘のための宣伝歌としての使用許可依頼があったといわれている(http://www.theguardian.com/music/2006/nov/12/popandrock8)。また、後半に、いいわけをかさねて入隊をこばむような歌
詞があるが、ビデオクリップでその部分をみるかぎり、入隊をおそれる「臆病な」メンバーのセリフとして演出されている。
1

参照文献
Carel, M. 2011a. L’Entrelacement argumentatif. Lexique, discours et blocs sémantiques. Paris: Éditions HonoréChampion.
Carel, M. 2011b. “Ironie, paradoxe et humour”, In M.-D. V. Garcia (ed.) Humour et crises sociales. Regard
croisés France-Espagne, 57-75. Paris: L’Harmattan,.
Ducrot, O. 2010. “Ironie et négation.” In V. Atayan & U. Wienen (ed.) Ironie et un peu plus – Hommage àOswald Ducrot pour son 80ème anniversaire –, 169-179. Berne: Peter Lang.
岩瀬達哉. 2002. 『われ万死に値すドキュメント竹下登』東京：新潮社
森達也. 2003. 『放送禁止歌』東京：光文社
大久保朝憲. 2014. 「論証的ポリフォニー理論による緩叙法・婉曲語法の分析」、『日本語用論学会第 16 回大会発表論文集』、17-24.
大久保朝憲. 2015. 「アイロニー・からかい・緩叙法・婉曲表現についての試論」、『関西大学 文学論集』、64-4、81-106.

−24−
8

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ከㄞ⏝ᩍᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ྥࡅ⤮ᮏ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⤖᮰ᛶ࡜┤♧ᛶ㸸ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩࡜ࡢẚ㍑኱ᵳࡁࡻ࠺Ꮚ
ᗈᓥಟ㐨኱Ꮫ

ࠑAbstractࠒ
For the last decade, extensive reading has been gaining popularity across Japan. Repeaters inuniversities increased their English proficiency by reading numerous English picture books(Takase and Otsuki 2012). The purpose of this paper is to provide a description ofgrammatical features in L1 picture books, comparing with those in government-approved
textbooks used at secondary schools. The analysis shows that the frequent use of
extralinguistic referents and deictic expressions in L1 picture books encourage more learnercommitment to the story, while in the government-approved textbooks, learners are confined
to being observers of what characters are doing in the text.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ⤖᮰ᛶࠊ┤♧ᛶࠊከㄞࠊL1 ⱥㄒ⤮ᮏࠊᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
᪥ᮏ࡛ࡣᩘ༑ᖺ࡟ࢃࡓࡗ࡚౑࠼ࡿⱥㄒࡢ⩦ᚓࡀ┠ᣦࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊṧᛕ࡞ࡀࡽᡂຌࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ
ゝ࠸㞴࠸≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡣᖖ࡟ᢈุࡢ▮㠃࡟᫹ࡉࢀࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࣓ࢯࢵࢻࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚ࡶ඲㠃ⓗ࡟࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞ホ౯ࢆᚓࡽࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ≧ἣࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚ࠊຠᯝⓗ࡞ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵࡢᵝࠎ࡞ヨࡳࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋⱥㄒᩍᮦࢆㄯヰศᯒࡋࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࢆⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟ᙺ❧࡚ࡼ࠺࡜࠸
࠺ືࡁࡶࡲࡓࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚⮬↛࡞ⱥㄒࢆᩍ࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࠿ࡽᩘᖺ᮶ὀ
┠ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Littlejohn 1998; McGrath 2002; ᰿ᓊ 1990; ᮡᾆ 1998㸧ࠋⱥㄒᩍᮦ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࢸ
࢟ࢫࢺࡢศᯒࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࡣࡑࢀࡲ࡛ⱥㄒᩍ⛉᭩࡟ࡳࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓከᑡ୙⮬↛ࡉࡢ࠶ࡿⱥㄒ
ࢆᨵࡵࠊࡼࡾ⮬↛࡞ゝㄒ⎔ቃ࡛ࡑࡢሙ࡟ྜࡗࡓⱥㄒࢆᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ౑࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺᪉ྥ࡬ྥ
࠿ࢃࡏ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡬ࡢᢈุࡢ୍᪉࡛ࠊ୰Ꮫ࣭㧗ᰯ᫬௦࡟୺࡟ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩㸦௨ୗࠊ᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩㸧ࢆ౑ࡗࡓⱥㄒᤵᴗࢆཷࡅࡓࡶࡢࡢࠊⱥㄒ࡟㥆ᰁࡵࡎࠊࡲࡓࡣⱥㄒ᎘࠸࡜࡞ࡾⱥㄒຊࡀ༑ศ࡟࡞࠸
ࡲࡲ኱Ꮫ㐍Ꮫࢆᯝࡓࡋࡓ⪅ࡶᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞࠸ࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢⱥㄒຊࡢపୗࢆ཯ᫎࡋࠊ኱Ꮫ⏕⏝ⱥㄒᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ࢝ࢱࣟࢢ࡟ࡶ࣓ࣜࢹ࢕࢔ࣝᏛ⩦ࡢྡࡢࡶ࡜࡟ࠊᖹ᫆࡞ᩥἲࠊ༢⣧࡞ⱥ఍ヰ࡞࡝ࢆᢅࡗ
ࡓᩍ⛉᭩ࡀከᩘࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊࡇࡢືࡁࡢ୰࡛ࠊ࣓ࣜࢹ࢕࢔ࣝᩍ⫱࡬ࡢ୍ࡘࡢᥦ᱌࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊከ
ㄞᏛ⩦ࡢຠᯝࡀሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Takase 2009a; Takase and Otsuki 2012㸧ࠋ୰Ꮫࠊ㧗ᰯ᫬௦࡟ⱥ
ㄒ࡟㥆ᰁࡵࡎ኱Ꮫ࡛෌ᒚಟࢡࣛࢫࢆཷㅮࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡀࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ྥࡅ⤮ᮏ㸦௨ୗࠊL1 ඣ❺⏝⤮ᮏ㸧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓከㄞᏛ⩦ࢆ⾜࠺࡜ࠊ3 ࣧ᭶ࡢᐇ᪋ᮇ㛫୰࡟ 100 ෉௨ୖࡢᮏࢆㄞࡳࠊ
஦๓࣭஦ᚋࢸࢫࢺࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟᭷ពᕪࡢ࠶ࡿఙࡧࡀぢࡽࢀࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ᩥἲຊࢆྵࡴⱥㄒຊࡢྥୖࡀㄆ

−25−

多読用教材としての英語母語話者向け絵本における結束性と直示性：文部科学省検定教科書との比較ࡵࡽࢀࡓ㸦Takase and Otsuki 2012㸧ࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ከㄞࡢຠᯝࢆཷࡅࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ࡞ࡐ෌ᒚಟ⏕ࡓࡕࡣ᫆ࡋ࠸⤮ᮏ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼▷ᮇ㛫࡟኱㔞ࡢⱥㄒࢆㄞࡴࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊࡑࡋ࡚ⱥㄒຊࢆྥୖࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࡢ⌮⏤ࢆ᥈ࡿ࡭ࡃࠊ
᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩࡜ L1 ඣ❺⏝⤮ᮏࡢⱥㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣ୧⪅ࡢⱥㄒࢆẚ㍑ࡋࠊ௦ྡモ➼ࡢᇶᮏⓗᩥἲ㡯┠ࡢᑟධ᪉ἲࡢ㐪࠸ࢆࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢᯝࡓࡍᙺ๭࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚࡚ศᯒ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ≉࡟ࠊ⤖᮰ᛶ࡜┤♧࡜࠸࠺ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢᛶ᱁ࢆỴᐃ࡙ࡅࡿᇶᮏⓗせ⣲࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⢭ᰝࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ⤖᮰ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᣦ♧モࡀ୕ே⛠௦ྡモ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ᣦ♧ࡢ㐃㙐ࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆ
୧ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡛ẚ㍑ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ┤♧ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ୰ࡢⓏሙே≀࡜ㄞ⪅ࡢ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽศᯒ
ࡋࠊே⛠௦ྡモࡢᑟධ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ୧ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢ㐪࠸ࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ
㸰㸬ከㄞࡢຠ⬟࡜ L1 ඣ❺⏝⤮ᮏከㄞ࡜ࡣࠊࠕᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ⮬ศ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡸࡉࡋ࠸ⱥㄒࡢᮏࢆᴦࡋࡃㄞࢇ࡛ࠊㄞ᭩㏿ᗘࢆୖࡆࠊㄞ᭩ࢆὶ
ᬸ࡟࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠖ
㸦ᅜ㝿ከㄞᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍ 2011: 1㸧࡜ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚㸦㸯㸧ゝㄒ⩦ᚓࢆ┠ᣦࡍ㸦ࢸࢫࢺᑐ⟇࣭ධヨᑐ⟇࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸧ࠊ㸦㸰㸧ゝㄒᏛ⩦࡬ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆࡍࡿࠊ
㸦㸱㸧ゝㄒࡢᇶ♏ຊࢆᅛࡵࡿ㸦4 ᢏ⬟ࡢカ⦎㸧ࠊ㸦㸲㸧ゝㄒࡢ㐠⏝⬟ຊࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ㸦4 ᢏ⬟ࡢྥୖ㸧ࠊ㸦㸳㸧ㄞ᭩࡟ぶࡋࡲࡏࡿࠊ㸦㸴㸧ど㔝ࢆᗈࡵࡿࠊ࡞࡝ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ᪥ᮏ࡟࠾࠸࡚ከㄞࡣࡇࡇ 10 ᖺ࡛ᛴ㏿࡞ᗈࡀࡾࢆぢࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ⌧ሙ࡛࠶ࡿᩍᐊ࡛௒ࡲ࡛ࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡜ࡣ඲ࡃ㐪ࡗࡓูࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢᚲせᛶࢆᣦᑟ⪅ࡀᙉࡃឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࠕᬯグ࡟㢗ࡽࡎࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀཷືⓗ࡟࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ⬟ືⓗ࡟Ꮫ⩦ࡋࠊゝㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢⱥㄒࡀ㌟࡟╔ࡃ᪉ἲࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ከㄞࡀὀ┠ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸
ࡿ㸦㧘℩ 2010: 7㸧ࠋ ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓከㄞࡢຠᯝࢆ᭱኱㝈࡟ᚓࡿࡓࡵ࡟୙ྍḞ࡞᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ SSS (Start with Simple
Stories)ࡀᥦၐࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦㧘℩ 2010㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡣከㄞึᮇ࡟ࡣ࡞ࡿ࡭ࡃᖹ᫆࡞ᮏࢆࡓࡃࡉࢇㄞࡴ
࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࡢ SSS ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡣⱥㄒࡢᮏࢆㄞࡴࡇ࡜࡬ࡢ⮬ಙࢆࡘࡅࠊࡲࡓࠊ࿴ヂࢆࡋ࡚ⱥᩥࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺⩦័ࢆ⬺ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢẁ㝵࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿᩍᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚
ࡣⱥㄒᅪࡢᏊ౪ࡓࡕࡢࡓࡵ࡟᭩࠿ࢀࡓ⤮ᮏࢆ౑࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋ᫆ࡋ࠸ᮏࢆ኱㔞࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࠊ㞴᫆ᗘࡢప࠸ㄒᙡࡸᩥᵓ㐀ࡢ࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࢆ㧗࠸㢖ᗘ࡛ᚓࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ゝㄒฎ⌮ࡢ⮬ື໬ࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࠊTakase (2008)ࡣࠊከㄞึᮇ࡟኱㔞ࡢᖹ᫆࡞ⱥㄒ࡛᭩࠿ࢀࡓ
ᮏࠊࡲࡓࡣ⤮ᮏࢆㄞࡴࡇ࡜࡛Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ஦๓࣭஦ᚋࢸࢫࢺࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟᭷ពᕪࡢ࠶ࡿఙࡧࢆሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᐇ㝿ࡢⱥㄒຊࡢఙ㛗ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊᩘ࠿᭶ࡢ SSS ࢆᇶᮏ࡟ࡋࡓከㄞᏛ⩦ࡢᚋࠊ෌ᒚಟ⏕ࡢࡼ࠺࡞୰Ꮫ࣭㧗ᰯ࡛ࡢⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗࡢ⤒㦂࠿ࡽⱥㄒ࡟௒୍ࡘ⮬ಙࡀᣢ࡚࡞࠸ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣⱥㄒ࡟ᑐ
ࡋ࡚ࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞ែᗘࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡶࠊⱥㄒࢆㄞࡴࡇ࡜ࢆᴦࡋࡳࠊ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞Ẽᣢࡕ࡛ⱥㄒ࡟᥋ࡏࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ሗ࿌ࡶ࠶ࡿ(Takase 2008㸧ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊSSS ࢆ㍈࡟ᗈࡀࡾࢆぢࡏ࡚࠸ࡿ௒᪥ࡢከㄞᣦᑟ࡟࠾࠸࡚ேẼࢆ㞟ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ L1 ඣ❺⏝ⱥㄒ⤮ᮏ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ୰
࡛ࡶ Oxford Reading Tree(௨ୗ ORT)ࢩ࣮ࣜࢬࡣࠊ
ከㄞึᮇࡢ᫆ࡋ࠸ⱥㄒࢆ኱㔞࡟࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࡋࠊ
ⱥㄒࢆ᪥ᮏㄒヂࡏࡎ࡟ㄞࡴ⩦័ࢆࡘࡅࡿࡓࡵࡢࠊ༶ࡕⱥㄒࡢᇶ♏యຊࢆࡘࡅࡿࡓࡵࡢᩍᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚
⤯኱࡞ேẼࢆ㄂ࡿከㄞᩍᮦ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ORT ࡣ࢖ࢠࣜࢫࡢ⣙ 80%ࡢᑠᏛᰯ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᅜㄒࡢ๪ᩍᮦ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏࢆࡣࡌࡵྛᅜ࡛

−26−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ከㄞึᮇࡢᩍᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚㠀ᖖ࡟㔜ᐆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ྥࡅ⤮ᮏ࡛࠶ࡿࠋูࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ Stage 1
࠿ࡽ Stage 9 ࡲ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ stage ࡟ࡣ」ᩘ෉ࡢࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࢆྜィࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ⥲෉ᩘࡣ 238 ෉࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓏሙே≀ࡣ඲ stage ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ᅛᐃࡉࢀࠊࡲࡓ stage ࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚౑ࢃࢀ࡚
࠸ࡿ༢ㄒࡸᩥᵓ㐀ࠊࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࡢ」㞧ࡉࡣࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋTakase㸦2009b㸧ࡣᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ L1 ඣ❺⏝⤮ᮏࢆዲࡴ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ༢⣧࡛⌮ゎࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࠊ㇏ᐩ࡞ࢺࣜࢵࢡ௜ᤄ⤮ࠊ᫆ࡋ࠸ⱥㄒࡢ౑⏝ࠊヰ඲యࡢ⌮ゎࡢᐜ᫆ࡉࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩࡜ ORT ࡛ࡣࠊసᡂពᅗࡶయ⿢ࡶ㐪࠺ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᚋ⪅ࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᩍᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ≉ᚩ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᩒ
࠼࡚ẚ㍑ࢆヨࡳࡿࠋ㸱㸬⤖᮰ᛶࡲࡎࠊᩥ⛉┬᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩࡜ ORT ࡢⱥㄒ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ⤖᮰ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ドࡍࡿࠋCohesion ࡢᐇ⌧ࡢ௙᪉࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊHalliday and Hasan (1976)ࡣ୺࡟ reference, ellipsis, substitution, conjunction ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ≉࡟௦ྡモࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ cohesion ࢆᐇ⌧ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࠋ
ୗࡢ㸦㸯㸧ࡣ᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊᣦ♧モ㸦this, that㸧࡜ࡑࢀࢆཷࡅࡿ୕ே⛠௦ྡモ㸦it㸧ࡢᑟධ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࡢሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋMs Brown ࡜࠸࠺ᩍဨࡀ⏕ᚐࡢ Ken ࡜ᩍᐊ࡟㣭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ෗┿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౽ᐅୖࠊᣦ♧モ࡟஧㔜ୗ⥺ࠊ୕ே⛠௦ྡモ࡟୍㔜ୗ⥺ࢆ᪋ࡍࠋ(1) Ms Brown:

This is a nice picture.           
Is it a hawk?

Ken:No, it is not. It is an owl.

Ms Brown:

It is beautiful. Is that a fox?

Ken:Yes, it is. It is from Hokkaido.            (New Crown 1, p.25)

ᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ⣬㠃࡛ࡣࡇࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡢ┿ୗ࡟ࣇࢡࣟ࢘㸦owl㸧ࡸࠊ≴㸦fox㸧ࡢ෗┿࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊMs Brown
࡜ Ken ࢆᥥ࠸ࡓᤄ⤮ࡀᥖ㍕ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋḟࡢ㸦㸰㸧ࡣྠᵝ࡟஧ேࡢ఍ヰࡢ⥆ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡶ
ࡲࡓࠊ1 ࣮࣌ࢪ࡟఍ヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᵝᏊࡢ஧ேࡀࠕ➗ࠖ࡜࠸࠺₎Ꮠࢆᣳࢇ࡛ᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(2) Ms Brown:

What is this?

Kumi:

It’s a word.

Ms Brown:

Oh. It isn’t a picture.

Kumi:

Right. It’s a kanji. Warau.
It’s an English word too. It’s ‘smile.’

Ms Brown:      (New Crown 1, p.27)

Lovely.

ୖࡢ஧ࡘࡢ౛࠿ࡽࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᣦ♧モࢆ୕ே⛠௦ྡモ࡛ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࡇࡇ࡛ࡢᏛ⩦㡯┠࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ୍ᗘᑟධࡉࢀࡓᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀ୕ே⛠௦ྡモ࡛ఱᗘࡶゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉࡟㸦㸰㸧࡛ࡣ᭱ึࡢ this ࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀࡑࢀ௨㝆❧࡚⥆ࡅ࡟ 4 ᗘࡶ it ࡛ゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊORT ࡛ࡢ−27−

多読用教材としての英語母語話者向け絵本における結束性と直示性：文部科学省検定教科書との比較ᣦ♧モࠊ୕ே⛠௦ྡモࡢゝ࠸᥮࠼ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ㸦㸱㸧ࡣ ORT stage 1+ࡢ୍෉࡛࠶ࡿ

Presents for Dad ࡢ඲ᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋධ㝔ࡋࡓ∗࡟ࠊぢ⯙࠸ࡢရࢆᣢࡗࡓᐙ᪘ࡓࡕࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀヰࡋ࠿ࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࢫࢺ࣮࣮࡛ࣜ࠶ࡿࠋ඲㸶࣮࣌ࢪ࡛ࠊ⣬㠃ࡢୖ࠿ࡽ࡯ࡰ㸳ศࡢ㸲ࡀᤄ⤮࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢୗ
ࡢṧࡾ 3 ศࡢ 1 ࡀⱥᩥࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
㸦㸱㸧ࡢࠊ୍⾜ࡀ㸯࣮࣌ࢪศࡢⱥᩥ㔞࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࠋ(3) This is for Dad.
This is for you, Dad.
It is a bunch of flowers.
This is for you, Dad.
It is a box of chocolates.
This is for you, Dad.
It is a bunch of grapes.
(ORT 1+, Presents for Dad)

This is for the best Dad of all.

᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩ࡶ ORT ࡶྠᵝ࡟ࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺእࡢᤄ⤮࡟࠶ࡿᑐ㇟≀ࢆᣦ♧モ࡜௦ྡモ࡛ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ
ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡬ࡢゝཬࡢ௙᪉࡟኱ࡁ࡞㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡎ㸦㸯㸧㸦㸰㸧࡜㸦㸱㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ஧✀㢮ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡢศᕸ࠿ࡽࡶࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᣦ♧モ࡜ࡑࡢᣦ♧ෆᐜࢆཷࡅࡿ௦ྡモࡢࢧ࢖ࢡࣝࡢ㛗▷࡟㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋඛ࡟㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩࡛ࡣ୍ᗘᣦ♧モ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡓࢸ࢟ࢫࢺእ࡟࠶ࡿ୍ࡘࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟㸦ື≀ࡢ෗┿ࠊࠕ➗ࠖࡢ₎Ꮠ㸧ࡀࡑࡢᚋఱᗘࡶ୕ே⛠௦ྡモ࡛♧ࡉࢀ⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ORT ࡛ࡣᣦ♧ᑐ㇟㸦Dad ࡬ࡢぢ⯙࠸ࡢရࠎ㸧࡜ࡑࡢᚋࡢ୕ே⛠௦ྡモࡢࢧ࢖ࢡࣝࡀ▷࠸ࠋぢ⯙࠸ࡢရ࡛࠶ࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢゝཬࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢึฟ࡜ࡑࢀࢆཷࡅࡿ௦ྡモ࡜࠸࠺ࣘࢽࢵࢺࡀᵓᡂࡉࢀࠊࡇࡢࢧ࢖ࢡࣝࡀ 3 ᗘ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦㸯㸧ࡸ㸦㸰㸧࡛ࡣࠊthis, that ࡀ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟≀ࢆࡑࢀ࡟⥆ࡃ it ࡀఱᗘࡶゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡣࡓࡔ୍ᗘࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺእ
ࡢࣇࢡࣟ࢘ࡸ≴ࡢ⤮ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࢀࡤࡼ࠸ࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
㸦㸱㸧࡛ࡣ this Ѝ it ࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡢࡓࡧ࡟ᤄ⤮ࢆぢ࡚ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟㸦ⰼ᮰ࡸࢳࣙࢥ࣮ࣞࢺࡢ⟽ࡸࡪ࡝࠺࡞࡝ࡢぢ⯙࠸ࡢရ㸧ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ༶ࡕࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺእࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟ᖖ࡟Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢὀពࡀ㢖⦾࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊḟ㡯࡛ࡣࢸ࢟ࢫࢺእࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚┤♧㸦deixis㸧ࡢᴫᛕࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ㄽࡎࡿࠋ
㸲㸬┤♧ᛶࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ person deixis ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࠋࡲࡎ᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ person deixis ࡢᢅ࠸ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋୗグࡢ㸦㸲㸧ࡣࠊKumi ࡜ Paul ࡀึࡵ࡚ฟ఍࠸ࠊ⮬ᕫ⤂௓ࢆࡋ࠶࠺ሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౽ᐅୖࠊperson deixisࡢ⾲⌧࡟ୗ⥺ࢆ᪋ࡍࠋ(4) Kumi:

Hello, I am Tanaka Kumi.

Paul:

Excuse me?

Kumi:

Kumi, K-U-M-I.

Paul:

Kumi. I am Paul. Paul Green.

−28−第17回大会発表論文集

Kumi:

Nice to meet you, Paul.

Paul:

Nice to meet you too, Kumi.

第10号(New Crown 1, p. 15)

ྛ⾜ࡢᕥ➃࡟࠶ࡿྡ๓࡜ᤄ⤮࠿ࡽࠊI, me, you ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀㄡࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆᏛ⩦⪅ࡣㄆ㆑ࡍ
ࡿࠋKumi ࡜ Paul ࡢ஧ேࡢ఍ヰ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ௦ྡモࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡣ᫂ⓑ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸦㸳㸧ࡣ ORT ࡢ stage 1+࡟࠶ࡿ Hide and Seek ࡜࠸࠺ࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࡢ඲ᩥ࡛࠶ࡾࠊⓏሙே≀࡛࠶ࡿᏊ౪ࡓࡕࡀ࠿ࡃࢀࢇࡰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᵝᏊࡀᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦㸱㸧࡜ྠᵝࠊᤄ⤮࡜ⱥᩥࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢ
⣬㠃ୖࡢ๭ྜࡣ 4 ᑐ 1 ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㸦㸳㸧ࡢ 1 ⾜ࡀ 1 ࣮࣌ࢪศࡢⱥᩥࡢ㔞࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࠋ⣬㠃ୖ࡛ࡢⓏ
ሙே≀ࡣ Biff, Chip, Kipper, Wilf ࡜࠸࠺Ꮚ౪ࡓࡕࠊDad ࡑࡋ࡚ሟ࠿ࡽな࠸࡚࠸ࡿ㞄ᐙࡢ⏨ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᭱ึࡢ࣮࣌ࢪ࡛ࡣ඲ဨࡀ㞃ࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊChip, Biff, Kipper ࡀ୍ேࡎࡘ࠾஫࠸ࢆぢࡘࡅฟࡋ࡚࠸
ࡃࠋ᭱ᚋࡣᮌࡢୖ࡟ࡎࡗ࡜㞃ࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ Dad ࡀᮌ࠿ࡽⴠࡕ࡚ࡁ࡚ぢࡘࡅࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࢜ࢳࡢヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(5) Can you see us?
Can you see me?
Yes, I can see you.
Can you see me?
Yes, we can see you.
Can you see me?
Yes, we can see you.
 (ORT 1+, Hide and Seek)

We can all see Dad. 㸦㸳㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿே⛠௦ྡモࡢ✀㢮ࡣ I, me, we, us, you㸦୺᱁࡜┠ⓗ᱁㸧࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸦㸲㸧࡜ࡣ㐪࠸ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿࡢࡀㄡ࡞ࡢ࠿୍ᑐ୍ࡢᣦ♧㛵ಀࡀぢฟࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤ 2 ⾜┠࡛ Can
you see me?࡜ၥ࠸࠿ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡁࠊ஬ேࡢே≀ࡀᤄ⤮୰࡛㞃ࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊḟࡢ⾜ࡢ Yes, I can see
you.࡛ぢࡘࡅࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࡑࡢ୰ࡢ୍ே࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡇࡢ஬ேࡢே≀ࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊഐほ⪅࠿ᙜ஦⪅࠿ุ᩿ࡋࡀࡓ࠸ࠊሟ㉺ࡋ࡟な࠸࡚࠸ࡿ㞄ᐙࡢ⏨ᛶࡶྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋゝ࠺࡞ࢀࡤࠊⓏሙே≀඲ဨࡀ࠾஫࠸࡟ Can you see me?࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊୖࡢ 2 ✀㢮ࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ௦ྡモ࡜ࡑࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ⾲㸯ࠊ㸰ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
⾲ 1 ᩥ⛉┬᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥᩥࡢ௦ྡモ࡜ࡑࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ㄒࡾᡭⱥᩥࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ௦ྡモ࡜ࡑࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟

Kumi

Hello, I am Tanaka Kumi.

I: KumiPaul

Excuse me?

me: PaulPaul

Kumi. I am Paul. Paul Green.

I: Paul

Kumi

Nice to meet you, Paul.

you: PaulPaul

Nice to meet you too, Kumi.

you: Kumi−29−

多読用教材としての英語母語話者向け絵本における結束性と直示性：文部科学省検定教科書との比較

⾲㸰ORT ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥᩥࡢ௦ྡモ࡜ࡑࡢྍྍ⬟࡞ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟

ㄒࡾᡭ
Biff, Chip, Kipper,ⱥᩥࢸ࢟ࢫࢺCan you see us?

௦ྡモ࡜ࡑࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟
you: ㄞ⪅ࠊሟ࠿ࡽな࠸࡚࠸ࡿ⏨ᛶ

Wilf, Dad, ሟ࠿ࡽな

us: Biff, Chip, Kipper, Wilf, Dad, ሟ࠿ࡽな࠸࡚࠸ࡿ⏨ᛶ

࠸࡚࠸ࡿ⏨ᛶ

Biff, Chip, Kipper,

Can you see me?

Dadyou: ㄞ⪅ࠊBiff, Chip, Wilf, ර࠿ࡽな࠸࡚࠸ࡿ⏨ᛶme: Kipper, Chip, Biff, Dadㄞ⪅ࠊWilf, ሟ࠿ࡽな

Yes, I can see you.

you: Chip࠸࡚࠸ࡿ⏨ᛶ
Kipper, Biff, Dad

I: ㄞ⪅ࠊWilf, ሟ࠿ࡽな࠸࡚࠸ࡿ⏨ᛶCan you see me?

you: ㄞ⪅ࠊChip, Wilf
me: Kipper, Biff, Dadㄞ ⪅ ࠊ Wilma, Chip Yes, we can see you.

we: ㄞ⪅ࠊWilma, Chip
you: Biff

Kipper, Dad

Can you see me?

you: ㄞ⪅ࠊBiff, Chip, Wilf 
me: Kipper, Dadㄞ⪅ࠊBiff, Chip, Wilf

Yes, we can see you.

we: ㄞ⪅ࠊBiff, Chip, Wilf
you: Kipperㄞ ⪅ ࠊ Biff, Chip,

We can all see Dad.

We: ㄞ⪅ࠊBiff, Chip, Kipper, Wilf

Kipper, Wilf
⾲ 1 ࡜⾲ 2 ࡢ኱ࡁ࡞㐪࠸ࡣࠊHide and Seek ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ୺ㄒࡢ఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿ௦ྡモࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟ࡣᖖ࡟ㄞ⪅ࢆྵࡳᚓࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊㄞ⪅ࡣ㞃ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⓏሙே≀࠿ࡽᖖ࡟ၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡽࢀ㸦Can you see me/us?㸧ࠊ࠿ࡘぢࡘࡅࡿ❧ሙ㸦Yes, I/we can see you.㸧࡜ࡋ࡚⮬ศࡢ❧ሙࢆㄆ㆑࡛
ࡁࡿࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊ᭱ึࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡣ 1 ே⛠」ᩘ us ࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡣ⣬㠃ୖࡢⓏሙே≀㸦Ꮚ౪ࡓࡕ࡜
Dad㸧࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࡀ㐍ࡴ࡟ࡘࢀࠊ࠿ࡃࢀࢇࡰ࡛ぢࡘ࠿ࡿᏊ౪ࡓࡕࡀቑ࠼࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜
࡟ࡼࡾࠊㄞ⪅ࢧ࢖ࢻࡢᏊ౪ࡓࡕࡀቑ࠼ࠊ᭱ᚋ࡟ࡣ We can all see Dad ࡜࠸࠺ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡀ⌧ࢀࠊㄞ⪅ࡶྵࡵࡓᏊ౪ࡓࡕࡀ Dad ࢆぢࡘࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
㸳㸬ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢᶵ⬟ඛࡢ 2 ⠇࡛ࠊ᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩࡜ ORT ࡢⱥᩥࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⤖᮰ᛶ࡜┤♧ᛶࡢ㐪࠸ࢆࡳࡓࡀࠊORT࡛ࡣ᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩࡟ẚ࡭࡚ࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺእࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟ὀពࢆྥࡅࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡎࠊ⤖᮰ᛶ࡛ࡣࠊఱᗘࡶᤄ⤮୰ࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟┠ࢆࡸࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿᕤኵࡀࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟ࡉࢀ
࡚࠾ࡾࠊ㢖⦾࡞ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺእᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡬ࡢὀព࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊㄞ⪅ࡣ⮬ศࡣⓏሙே≀࡜ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆ
ඹ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄆ㆑࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊୖグࡢ㸦㸳㸧࡛ぢࡽࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊORT ࡛ࡣ deictic⾲⌧ࡢ♧ࡍᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢᖜࡀᗈࡃࠊㄞ⪅ࢆࡶྵࡴࡇ࡜ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊၥ࠸࠿ࡅ࡜᭕᫕

−30−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

࡞ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢຠᯝ࡛ࠊ
᭱ᚋ࡟ࡣㄞ⪅ࡶ⣬㠃ୖࡢᏊ౪ࡓࡕ࡜୍⥴࡟ Dad ࢆぢࡘࡅࡓࡼ࠺࡞Ẽ࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ┤♧㸦deixis㸧ࡢᛶ㉁ࢆࡶ࠺୍ᗘ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ…in order to understand the referents in the utterance, the speaker and the hearer have toshare the same context or situation in which the referents are used. Deixis concerns the ways
in which language express features of the context of utterance or speech event in different way.
(Kreidler 1998: 144)
ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢ deixis ࡢከ⏝ࡣࠊከ㔞ࡢ᝟ሗࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍ኱ࡁ࡞ᤄ⤮࡜┦ࡲࡗ࡚ࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺෆ
ࡢⓏሙே≀࡜ㄞ⪅ࡀࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆඹ᭷ࡋࠊㄞ⪅ࡀⓏሙே≀࡜ゝㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ࡜ࡿࡇ
࡜ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡋ࠿ࡶࠊORT ࡢࡇࡢ stage ࡛ࡣࡑࡢⱥᩥࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ
ࡀⓏሙே≀୰ࡢㄡ࠿ࡢྎモ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࢥ࣮ࢸ࣮ࢩ࣐࣮ࣙࣥࢡࡀ࡞࠸ࠋ࠸࠺࡞ࢀࡤࠊ
ㄞ⪅ࡣⓏሙே≀࡟ྠ໬ࡋࠊᡈ࠸ࡣࡶ࠺୍ேࡢⓏሙே≀࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࡢ୰࡛Ⓩሙே≀ࡓࡕ࡜ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊORT ࡢᙉࡳࡣࠊ┤♧㸦deixis㸧ࡢከ⏝࠿ࡽ᮶ࡿ“now” “here” “with”ࡢឤぬ࡛ࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࢆ㏣࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜࠸࠼ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩࡛ࡣࠊⓏሙே≀ྠኈ࡛⧞ࡾ
ᗈࡆࡽࢀࡿⱥㄒ࡛ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡣഐほ⪅ⓗ❧ሙࢆྲྀࡿࠊᡈ࠸ࡣྲྀࡽࡊ
ࡿࢆᚓ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊORT ࡛ࡣㄞ⪅ࢆ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࡢ୰࡟ᕳࡁ㎸ࢇ࡛࠸ࡃᕤኵࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋORT ࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢୡ⏺ࢆࡲࡿࡈ࡜య㦂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦⏣୰ 2011㸧ࡀࠊㄞࢇ࡛࠸࡚㠃ⓑ࠸࡜࠸࠺ឤ᝿ࢆ෌ᒚಟ⏕ࡀᣢࡘࡢࡶࠊ⮬ศࡀⓏሙே≀ࡢ୍ே࡜ࡋ࡚ࢫࢺ࣮ࣜ
࣮ࡢ୰࡛Ⓩሙே≀࡜ྠࡌ⤒㦂ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ㸴㸬⤖ࡧศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩࡜ ORT ࡛ࡣㄒࡾᡭ㸦Ⓩሙே≀㸧࡜ㄞࡳᡭ㸦Ꮫ⩦⪅㸧ࡢ㛫ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ
ࡢඹ᭷ࡢⅬ࠿ࡽ኱ࡁ࡞㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ↓ㄽࠊ᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩࡜ ORT ࡛ࡣඖ᮶ࡢ〇స┠ⓗࡣ㐪࠺ࠋ᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩ࡣ᪥ᮏࡢࡼ࠺࡞ EFL ⎔ቃ࡛ࡢゝㄒᏛ⩦ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ᭱ࡶຠ⋡ࡼࡃⱥㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡍࡿពᅗࢆࡶࡗ࡚సࡽࢀࡓ୍᪉ࠊORT ࡣ➨୍ゝㄒ⩦ᚓࢆࡑࡶࡑࡶࡢ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࡓᩍᮦ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ෌ᒚಟ⏕ࡀ ORT ࡢⱥㄒࡣᴦࡋࡵࡓ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡶࠊ୰Ꮫ࣭㧗ᰯ⏕࡜኱Ꮫ⏕࡛ࡣᛮ⪃ࡢⓎ㐩ࡢẁ㝵ࡀ㐪࠺ࡢ࡛ࠊ௨๓ࡣ⌮ゎࡋ࡙ࡽ࠿ࡗࡓᩥἲ஦㡯ࡶࠊ኱Ꮫ⏕࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࡍࢇ࡞ࡾ࡜ཷࡅධࢀ
ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢඹ᭷ࡀࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ᰿
ᗏ࡟࠶ࡿ௨ୖࠊORT ⓗ࡞ㄞ⪅ࢆࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࠊㄞ⪅ࡢ commitment ࢆ࠸ࡊ࡞࠺ᕤኵࡶⱥㄒᩍᮦࡢ࡞࠿࡛┳㐣ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࡞࠸せ⣲࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ ௒ᚋࡣࠊL1 ඣ❺⏝⤮ᮏࡢ≉ᚩࢆከゅⓗ࡟࡜ࡽ࠼ࡿ࡭ࡃࠊmultimodal ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⤮ᮏࡢศᯒࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ ORT ࢆࡇࡢศᯒ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡶヨࡳࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊከㄞ࡟ࡼࡿ
ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ▱㆑ࢆྵࡴࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡢ⫱ᡂࡀྍ⬟㸦୰ᮧ 2012㸧࡜ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊㄆ
▱ゝㄒᏛࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࠊORT ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ L1 ඣ❺⏝ⱥㄒ⤮ᮏࢆࡓࡃࡉࢇㄞࡴࡇ࡜࡛ⱥㄒ⩦ᚓ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ
࠺࡞ᙳ㡪ࡀฟࡿࡢ࠿᳨ドࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡶᚲせ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ

−31−

多読用教材としての英語母語話者向け絵本における結束性と直示性：文部科学省検定教科書との比較ཧ↷ᩥ⊩Halliday, M.A.K., and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
ᅜ㝿ከㄞᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍. 2011.ࠗከㄞᣦᑟ࢞࢖ࢻ࠘
Kreidler, C.W. 1998. Introducing English Semantics. London: Routledge.
Littlejohn, A. 1998. “The Analysis of Language Teaching Materials: Inside the Trojan Horse.”
In B. Tomlinson (ed.) Materials Development in Language Teaching, 190-216. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McGrath, I. 2002. Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
୰ᮧ႐ᏹ. 2012. ࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡢ⫱ᡂ࡜ࠕከㄞࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖࠊ
ࠗబ㈡኱Ꮫᩥ໬ᩍ⫱Ꮫ㒊◊✲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘
ࠊ16㸸2ࠊ11㸫23㸬᰿ᓊ㞞ྐ. 1990. ࠕⱥㄒᩍ⛉᭩ࡢㄯヰศᯒࠖࠊࠗᮾிእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫㄽ㞟࠘
ࠊ40ࠊ43-54.
ᮡᾆṇዲ. 1998. ࠕᐇ౛࡟ぢࡿㄯヰศᯒ㸸ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡬ࡢᛂ⏝ࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚ࠖࠊ
ࠗእᅜㄒ◊✲࠘ࠊ34ࠊ1-19.
Takase, A. 2008. “The Two Most Critical Tips for a Successful Extensive Reading Program.”
Kinki University English Journal, 1, 119–136.
Takase, A.2009a. “The effects of SSS and SSR on any level of university students.” Paper
presented at JERA (Japan Extensive Reading Association) annual conference. August 23rd,
Toyota National College of Technology, Japan.
Takase, A. 2009b. “The effects of different types of extensive reading materials on reading
amount, attitude and motivation”. In A. Cirocki (ed.) Extensive Reading in English
Language Teaching, 451-466. Munich: Lincorn.
㧘℩ᩔᏊ. 2010.ࠗⱥㄒከㄞ࣭ከ⫈ᣦᑟ࣐ࢽࣗ࢔ࣝ࠘ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋.
Takase, A., and Otsuki, K. 2012. “New challenges to motivate remedial EFL students to readextensively.” Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies 6: 2, 75–94. University of
Jyväskylä, Finland.
⏣୰ⱱ⠊. 2011.ࠕ㸰㸴ࡢᇶᮏㄒ࡛㌟࡟ࡘࡅࡿࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣈឤぬࠖࠗከㄞከ⫈࣐࢞ࢪࣥ࠘, 27㸦8 ᭶ྕ㸧, 78-101.
ᘬ⏝సရ
New Crown 1. (2012). Tokyo: Sanseido.
Oxford Reading Tree. (2008) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

−32−第17回大会発表論文集第10号➨஧ゝㄒヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡿᏊ࡝ࡶ࡬ࡢ story-retelling interview test ࡢ఍ヰศᯒ㸸➨஧ゝㄒ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕグ᠈ࠖᒸ⏣ ᝆభ
኱㜰኱Ꮫokada@lang.osaka-u.ac.jp<Abstract>
This study aims to explicate the relationship between the L2 linguistic competence and thecognitive abilities of a L2 speaking child from a discursive perspective. Microanalysis of astory-retelling interview test administered to assess a five-year old child's English ability andrecollection skills for the entrance of an international school indicates that recollection skills
in interaction is a part of interactional competence: it is constituted by the child's
understanding of projections and the advance task instruction for the interview test. The
findings suggest that we need to understand what the participants are performing throughusing language when we evaluate the participant's cognitive and linguistic competencies. We
should not only examine the sequential context of interaction but also investigate what andhow the advance task instruction for the interaction has been conducted so that we canproperly understand the test-taker's behaviors in the task.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸㸯グ᠈ຊࠊ㸰┦஫⾜Ⅽ⬟ຊࠊ㸱➨஧ゝㄒࠊ㸲Ꮚ࡝ࡶࠊ㸳఍ヰศᯒ㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
఍ヰศᯒࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠊẕㄒヰ⪅ྠኈࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ཧຍ⪅ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ࡲࡓ࡝
ࡢࡼ࠺࡞┠ⓗ࡛࠾஫࠸ࡢㄆ▱άືࢆ㛵㐃௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ(Bilmes,
1986; Potter. 2013; Potter and Edwards, 2012; Schegloff, 1991)ࠋ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡣᖖ࡟௚ࡢཧ
ຍ⪅ࡢ᣺⯙࠸ࢆぢ⪺ࡁࡋࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾜Ⅽࡀᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆゎ㔘ࡋࠊࡑࡢ⌮ゎࡢୖ࡛⮬ศࡢ᣺⯙࠸ࢆ⏘ฟࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⤯࠼ࡎ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ఍ヰ࡜࠸࠺♫఍⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ཧຍ⪅㐩ࡣ࠾஫࠸ࡢㄆ▱ࢆほᐹ࠿ࡘㄝ᫂ྍ⬟࡞ᙧ࡛㐩ᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕᛮ
࠺ࠖࠊࠕ⌮ゎࡍࡿࠖࠊ
ࠕグ᠈࡟࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓㄆ▱ࢆ⾲ࡍᚰⓗ㏙ㄒࡶಶேࡢ⬻ෆࡢ஦ᐇࢆ
┤᥋⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊྰᐃⓗ⾜Ⅽࢆ࿴ࡽࡆࡿࡓࡵࡸ೔⌮ⓗཬࡧ♫఍ⓗ㈐௵ࢆ㏨ࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚≉ᐃࡢព࿡ࢆᡂࡍࡓࡵ࡟ಟ㎡ⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ(Edwards, 1997; Edwards and Potter, 2005; す㜰ࠊ2001ࠊ2008 ཧ↷)ࠋㄆ▱࡜ࡣཧຍ⪅ࡀ఍ヰࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵࡢ㈨※࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊཧຍ⪅ࡀ఍ヰࡢ୰࡛㛵㐃௜ࡅࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡛࠶
ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ఍ヰཧຍࡢᇶ♏ⓗ᮲௳࡜࡞ࡿゝⴥ(Garfinkel and Sacks, 1970)ࢆᮍࡔᏛ⩦୰࡛࠶ࡿ➨஧ゝㄒヰ⪅ࡣࡑࡢ➨஧ゝㄒࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ࡑࡋ࡚࡝
ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄆ▱άືࢆ㐩ᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾάⓎ࡞◊✲ࡣ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸࡞
࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤ➨஧ゝㄒ⬟ຊࡢᕪ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶࡋ࠶ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊㄆ▱άືࡢ➨஧ゝㄒ఍ヰ࡬ࡢ㛵㐃௜ࡅ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ไ⣙ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ➨஧ゝㄒ⩦ᚓㄽ࡛ࡣ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥ௬ㄝ

−33−

第二言語話者である子どもへのstory-retelling interview testの会話分析：第二言語会話における「記憶」(Long, 1996)࡞࡝➨஧ゝㄒ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄆ▱άືࢆಶேࡢ⬻ෆࡢ஦ᐇ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿㄆ
▱୺⩏ࡀ୺ὶࢆ༨ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ఍ヰศᯒ࡟ࡼࡾ➨஧ゝㄒ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ♫఍ⓗ࡟ศᩓࡉࢀࡓㄆ▱ࢆࠕグ㏙ࠖࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛➨஧ゝㄒࡢᏛ⩦ࡸホ౯࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᪂ࡓ࡞どⅬࢆぢ࠸ࡔࡏࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢼࢩࣙࢼࣝࢫࢡ࣮ࣝ࡬ࡢධᏛヨ㦂࡜ࡋ࡚ⱥㄒ⬟ຊ࡜グ᠈ຊࢆ ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࡓ㸳ṓඣ࡬ࡢ story-retelling interview test ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄆ▱άືࢆ఍ヰศᯒ࡟ࡼࡾヲ⣽࡟ぢࡿࡇ࡜࡛➨஧ゝㄒ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ➨஧ゝㄒ࡛ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽ⬟ຊ࡜グ᠈ຊࡢ㛵ಀࠊᏊ࡝ࡶࡢㄆ▱⬟ຊࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࠊ➨஧ゝㄒ఍ヰཬࡧ➨஧ゝㄒヰ⪅࡬ࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸▱ぢࢆ⏘ࡳฟࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ㸰㸬ࢹ࣮ࢱࢸࢫࢺࢆཷࡅࡿᏊ࡝ࡶ Rena ࡣ᪥ᮏேࡢ୧ぶ࡜ඹ࡟࢔࣓ࣜ࢝࡟ᬽࡽࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࡢ
ࢸࢫࢺཷ㦂᫬࡟ࡣ࢔࣓࡛ࣜ࢝ࡢ⁫ᅾṔࡀ㸰ᖺ༙࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⌧ᆅࡢᗂ⛶ᅬ࡟ᅾ⡠ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋᐙᗞෆ࡛ࡢゝㄒࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࢸࢫࢺࡣ∗ぶ Hiro ࡀࢫࢡ࣮ࣝ࠿ࡽ୚࠼
ࡽࢀࡓᣦ♧࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ⱥㄒ࡛࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢆ⾜࠸ࡑࡢᵝᏊࢆ᧜ᙳࡋࡓࡶࡢࢆࢫࢡ࣮ࣝ
࡟㏦ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛ࠊ」ᩘࡢࢱࢫࢡ࡟ࡼࡾᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ᮶࡛ࡣࡇࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅࣗ
࣮ࢸࢫࢺࡣࢫࢡ࣮ࣝഃࡢᩍဨࡀ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥࣅࢹ࢜ࢳࣕࢵࢺࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆ⏝࠸࡚⾜࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ᫬ᕪࡢ㛵ಀ࡛ࡑࢀࡀฟ᮶࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ≉ู࡟∗ぶࡀ⾜ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡢࣅࢹ࡛࢜
Ⰻ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࡑࡢ∗ぶ Hiro ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚┤๓࡟ㄞࡲࢀࡓ⤮ᮏ(TheLittle Red Hen)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ Rena ࡢࠕグ᠈ຊࠖࢆ ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ┠ⓗ࡜ࡉࢀࡓ㒊ศࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
ᑦࠊ⤮ᮏࡢ࠶ࡽࡍࡌࢆ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛グࡍ࡜ḟࡢ㏻ࡾ࡜࡞ࡿࠋᑠࡉ࡞㉥࠸ࡵࢇ࡝ࡾࡀᑠ㯏ࡢ✀ࢆぢࡘࡅࠊࡑࢀࢆ᳜࠼ࡿࡇ࡜➼ࢆᡭఏࡗ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸࡜௚ࡢື≀࡟㢗ࡴࡀࠊࡑࡢᗘ࡟
඲ဨ࡟᩿ࡽࢀࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࡑࡢ✀࠿ࡽฟ᮶ࡓᑠ㯏࠿ࡽࣃࣥࢆ↝ࡁࠊࡵࢇ࡝ࡾࡀ௚ࡢື≀࡟ࠕ㣗࡭ࡿࡢࢆᡭఏࡗ࡚ࡃࢀࡿ㸽ࠖ࡜⪺ࡃ࡜඲ဨࡀࠕ࠺ࢇࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡿࠋ࡛ࡶࡵࢇ࡝ࡾ
ࡣࠕࡔࡵࠊ⚾ࡀ⮬ศ࡛㣗࡭ࡿࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚⮬ศ୍ே࡛ࣃࣥࢆ㣗࡭ࡿࠋ
Hiro ࡣࡇࡢ⤮ᮏࢆㄞࡳ⪺࠿ࡏࡓᚋ࡛ࡍࡄ࡟⤮ᮏࡢෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㉁ၥࢆ⾜࠸ࠊRena࡟ࡑࡢෆᐜࢆㄒࡽࡏࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࡣ㸴ศᙅ⥆ࡁࠊࡑࡢ୰࡛ 25 ᅇࡢ Hiro࠿ࡽ Rena ࡬ࡢ㉁ၥࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸱㸬ศᯒཬࡧ⪃ᐹศᯒ࡛ࡣඛࡎࠊ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡀ ࢁ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿグ᠈ຊ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ㸰ࡘࡢ Rena ࡢⓎࡋࡓᚰⓗ㏙ㄒࠊ"I forgot the name"࡜"I don't know"ࡀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀఱࢆ
ᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋḟࡢᢤ⢋㸯࡜ᢤ⢋㸰ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᢤ⢋ 1
520
521
522
523
524
525

H:
R:
H:
R:

what- what did the- (.4) the: (.7) red hen do,(.5).hh hh hh the nhen? (.3)
mm hm,==first (.4) found a (.6) .tchk º<little tiny>º.hh hh (.3) ((frowns and looks upward)) uhm (.6)−34−

第17回大会発表論文集

526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542

H:
R:
H:
R:
H:
H:
R:
H:
R:

第10号

.hhh (.5) (it) <meaned> (.3) seed?
(.2)
seed?=ok. you- she- he nshe found a seed?
(.3)
q(ye-ah)q
what kind of seed is tha:t?
(.)
I forgot the name. ((looks at F's face))(.2)
ok:ay.
(.8)
it’s a <seed of wheat.>(.6)
oh, wheat.
(.3)
uh huh.hhh <then> (.7) <next> .hh h the little red nhen, (.5)ᢤ⢋㸯࡛ࡣ 531 ࡛ࡢ Hiro ࡢ"what kind of seed is tha:t"࡟ᑐࡍࡿ Rena ࡢᛂ⟅࡜ࡋ࡚ 533
࡛"I forgot the name"ࡀⓎࡏࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᢤ⢋㸰
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736

H:
R:
H:
R:
H:
H:
H:
R:

and uh::: nwho ate the bread?
(1.8)
the red hen.
(.8)
red hen, why?
(3)
I don’t nknow ((shrugs))(.5)
qokayq
(1.4)
okay.
(.5)
did she (.6) ask anybody if- (.3) anybody if they: (.5)
wanted to eat?
(.9)
yep.

ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ 725 ࡢ"red hen, why (did the red hen ate the bread by herself)?"࡜࠸࠺ Hiro ࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ Rena ࡢᛂ⟅࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ"I don't nknow"࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ࡜⫪ࢆࡍࡃࡵࡿືసࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᢤ⢋㸯ཬࡧ㸰࡛ࡢ㉁ၥෆᐜ࡟㛵㐃௜ࡅࡽࢀࡓᅇ⟅ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊලయⓗ࡞✀ࡢྡ⛠࡜࡞ࡐ red hen ࡀ⮬ศ࡛ࣃࣥࢆ㣗࡭ࡓࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺⌮⏤࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ᚋ⪅ࡢᛂ⟅࡜ࡋ࡚"I don't know"࡜࠸࠺ᚰⓗ㏙ㄒࢆ౑ࡗࡓ Rena ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ㸳ᡯඣ࡛࠶ࡾᚰࡢ⌮ㄽࡀࡲࡔⓎ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡓࡵ⤮ᮏࡢෆᐜ࠿ࡽྵពࢆᘬฟࡋࠊ"because no one helped the red hen
make the bread”➼ࡢᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿᅇ⟅ࢆ⾜࠼࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣⱥㄒຊࡢ୙㊊࠿ࡽࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓᅇ⟅ࡀฟ᮶࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࠊᙼዪࡢ㈨㉁࣭⬟ຊ࡟ཎᅉࢆᖐࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡣၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣḟࡢၥ㢟ࡢ⤮ᮏࡢㄞࡳ⪺࠿ࡏ᫬ࡢᢤ⢋࡛ࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾ࠿ࡽ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜

−35−

第二言語話者である子どもへのstory-retelling interview testの会話分析：第二言語会話における「記憶」

࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᢤ⢋㸱
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397

H: £she asked the ca:t, will you£ help
me plant [this grain of wheat?
R:[huhuh(.7)
H: not I: [said the cat.
R:[nyaa nyaa say ( (h) (h) ) huhuh [.hhH:[now listen.
listen to carefully you need to <retell> the story
as detailed i- as possible.
(.)
R: yeah.

392 ࡛ Rena ࡀ⤮ᮏࡢෆᐜ࠿ࡽఱ࠿ࡋࡽᙼዪ࡟ྲྀࡗ࡚㠃ⓑࡃᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ391 ࡛ࡢ Hiro ࡢㄞࡳ⪺࠿ࡏ࡟⿕ࡏ࡚ゝ࠺ࡀࠊHiro ࡣ༶ᗙ࡟ 393 ࡛ࠊ"now listen."࡜࿨௧ᙧ࡛
ὀពࢆ୚࠼ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟⥆ࡅ࡚ࠊࠗὀព῝ࡃ⪺ࡃࡼ࠺࡟ࠊRena ࡟ࡣฟ᮶ࡿ㝈ࡾヲ⣽ࡲ࡛ࡇࡢヰࢆㄒࡾ┤ࡍᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࠘࡜⪺࠸ࡓୖ࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾜Ⅽࡀᚋ࠿ࡽồࡵࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿
ࢆఏ࠼ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ Rena ࡣ 397 ࡛"yeah."࡜஢ゎࢆ♧ࡍࠋ⤮ᮏࡢㄞࡳ⪺࠿ࡏ࡟⥆ࡃ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡛ࡣヲ⣽࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿࡇ࡜ࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠊࡑࡢࡓࡵ࡟ὀព῝ࡃ⪺࠿࡞࠸࡜࠸ࡅ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ Rena ࡢ஢ゎࢆ᩵㓃ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊඛࡢᢤ⢋㸯࡜㸰࡛ࡢ㉁ၥ࡬ࡢࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ
ᚰⓗ㏙ㄒࡢ౑⏝ࡀᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᢤ⢋㸰ࡢ 727 ࡛ࡢ"I don'tknow"ࡣ㉁ၥ⮬యࡀᙼዪࡀ஢ゎࡋࡓ஦๓ࡢㄢ㢟ᣦ♧࡛࠶ࡿ⤮ᮏࡢヲ⣽ෆᐜ࠿ࡽእࢀࡓ
ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᙼዪࡢ㈐௵ࡢཬࡪ⠊ᅖእࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ (஦๓ࡢ஢ゎ࡜┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢᒎ㛤ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Wootton, 2006 ࢆཧ↷)ࠋࡇࡢ Rena ࡢ"I don'tknow"࡜࠸࠺ᚰⓗ㏙ㄒࡣࠕ฼ᐖ㛵ಀண㜵ࠖ (Potter, 1996) ࡢࡓࡵ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ཯㠃ࠊᢤ⢋㸯࡛ࡢ"I forgot the name"ࡣࠊ㉁ၥෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡋ୍࡚ᗘࡣぬ࠼ࡓࡀᛀࢀ࡚ࡋ
ࡲࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊHiro ࡢㄞࡳ⪺࠿ࡏࢆₔ↛࡜࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃὀព῝ࡃ⪺ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ồࡵࡽࢀࡓᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࡀㄝ᫂ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ537 ࡛ Hiro ࡀ"it's a seed of wheat"࡜ṇゎࢆఏ࠼ࡓᚋࠊRena ࡣ"oh, wheat."࡜ㄆ㆑ኚ᭦ᶆ㆑"oh" (Heritage, 1984)ࢆࢱ࣮ࣥࡢෑ
㢌࡟௜ࡅ࡚ࠊṇゎ࡛࠶ࡿ"wheat"ࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᛀࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ≧ែ࠿ࡽᛮ࠸ฟ
ࡋࡓ≧ែ࡬⛣ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ୖグࡢ㏻ࡾࠊRena ࡣᙼዪ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣ➨஧ゝㄒ࡛࠶ࡾ⌧ᅾཧຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࢖ࣥࢱࣅࣗ
࣮ࢸࢫࢺࡢホ౯ᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿⱥㄒࡢᚰⓗ㏙ㄒࡢ౑࠸᪉ࢆ▱ࡗࡓୖ࡛ࠊཧຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ┦஫
⾜Ⅽࡀ࡝࠺࠸ࡗࡓㄢ㢟ࢆᡂࡍ࡭ࡁࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊ≉ᐃࡢព࿡ࢆ஺΅ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ⱥㄒ࡛ࡢᚰⓗ㏙ㄒࢆ౑࠸ศࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ"I forgot the name"ࡣ㉁ၥෆᐜ࡟
ᑐࡋ࡚ Hiro ࡢㄞࡳ⪺࠿ࡏࢆₔ↛࡜࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃὀព῝ࡃ⪺ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ồࡵࡽࢀࡓᙺ๭ࢆᯝ
ࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙺ๭࡜࠸࠺࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊ୍᪉"I don't know"ࡣ㉁ၥෆᐜࡀㄢ㢟࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⮬ศࡢᙺ๭ࡸ㈐௵ࡢཬࡪ⠊ᅖእ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟⮬ศࢆ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᅇ⟅⬟ຊࡢ࡞࠸⪅࡜ࡋ࡚࡛ࡣ࡞
ࡃᅇ⟅ࡍࡿᚲせࡢ࡞࠸⪅࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋRena ࡢ story-retelling interview test ࡟࠾ࡅࡿグ᠈࡟㛵ࡍࡿᚰⓗ㏙ㄒࡢ౑⏝ἲࡀ♧၀

−36−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆࡍ࡭ࡁ࠿࡜࠸࠺ㄢ㢟(ᣦ♧)࡟ᑐࡍࡿཧຍ⪅ࡢゎ㔘࡟ᛂࡌ࡚┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ୰࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿࡑࡢཧຍ⪅ࡢグ᠈ຊࡣኚ໬ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ
ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊㄢ㢟ᣦ♧ࡢᅾࡾ᪉ࡢၥ㢟࡜➨஧ゝㄒ࡛ࡢᚰⓗ㏙ㄒࡢ౑⏝ἲࢆ㢮ఝㄒ࡜ࡢ༊
ูࢆྵࡵ࡚ᩍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ㔜せᛶࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ḟ࡟ศᯒࡍࡿࡢࡣୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᚰⓗ㏙ㄒࡢ౑⏝࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡗࡓ᪉ἲ࡛ Rena ࡀᙼዪࡢグ᠈ຊࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣ Hiro ࡢ㉁ၥࡀᢞᑕࡍࡿෆᐜࢆ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ
ෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ஦๓ࡢ஢ゎࢆඖ࡟ゎ㔘ࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚⾜Ⅽࢆࡘ࡞࠸࡛࠸ࡃ࡜࠸࠺᪉
ἲ࡟ࡼࡿグ᠈ຊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠕᢞᑕࡉࢀࡓ⾜Ⅽ㐃㙐ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⥔ᣢࡉࢀࡓグ᠈ࠖ(Kasper,2009)࡛࠶ࡾࠊHiro ࡜ Rena ࡢㄯヰ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࡢ஺΅࡟ࡼࡾඹᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡓグ᠈ຊ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
ᢤ⢋㸲
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553

H:
R:
H:
R:

H:
R:
H:
R:
H:
H:
R:
H:
R:
H:
R:
H:
R:
R:
H:

what- what did the- (.4) the: (.7) red hen do,(.5).hh hh hh the nhen? (.3)
mm hm,==first (.4) found a (.6) .tchk º<little tiny>º.hh hh (.3) ((frowns and looks upward)) uhm (.6).hhh (.5) (it) <meaned> (.3) seed?
(.2)
seed?=ok. you- she- he nshe found a seed?
(.3)
q(ye-ah)q
what kind of seed is tha:t?
(.)
I forgot the name. ((looks at F's face))(.2)
ok:ay.
(.8)
it’s a <seed of wheat.>(.6)
oh, wheat.
(.3)
uh huh.hhh <then> (.7) <next> .hh h the little red nhen, (.5).tch .hhh (.6) .tchk uhm (.4)<aksed> (.7)
a:sked(.4)
e:veryone if .hhh hh (.2) shh=somebody can help (.8)
her (.9) plant?
uh huh,(.8)
pla:nt.
(.7)
nthat's it
uh huh,ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ520 ࡛ࡢ Hiro ࡢ㉁ၥ"what did the red hen do"ࡀᢞᑕࡍࡿᅇ⟅࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡑࡢᅇ⟅ࡢෆᐜࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࡇࡢㄢ㢟ࡣ࡝࠺࠸࠺ㄢ㢟࡛࠶ࡿ࡭ࡁ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡲ࡛ゎ㔘ࡋ
ࡓୖ࡛ Rena ࡣᅇ⟅ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ522 ࡛㉁ၥ࡬ࡢ☜ㄆࢆ⾜࠸ࡑࢀ࡬ࡢ஢ᢎࢆཷࡅࡓ

−37−

第二言語話者である子どもへのstory-retelling interview testの会話分析：第二言語会話における「記憶」

ᚋ(523)ࠊᙼዪࡣ 524–526 ࡛ᅇ⟅ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡑࡢᚋᢤ⢋㸯࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ✀ࡢྡ⛠࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㉁ၥ࡟ጞࡲࡿࡸࡾྲྀࡾ(528–541)ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁࡇ࡜࡜ࡋ࡚ࡑࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࡢ┤ᚋ࡟ᙼዪࡣ"then next"(542)࡜࠸࠺ㄯヰᶆ㆑ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ542–543ࠊ546–547ࠊ550ࠊࡑࡋ࡚
551 ࡛⮬ࡽ"that's it"࡜⤊஢ࢆᐉゝࡍࡿࡲ࡛ࠊ520 ࡛ࡢ Hiro ࡢ㉁ၥ࡬ࡢᅇ⟅ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊRena ࡣ㏵୰ࡢ✀ࡢྡ⛠࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ㉁ၥ࡜ᛂ⟅ࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࢆᤄධ㐃㙐࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼࡚࠾ࡾࠊ୺ࡢ⾜Ⅽ㐃㙐ࡣ 520 ࡢ㉁ၥ࡬ࡢᅇ⟅࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ㉁ၥ࡜ࡑࢀࡀᢞᑕ
ࡍࡿᅇ⟅ෆᐜࢆ୰᩿ࢆᣳࢇ࡛ࡶグ᠈ࢆ⥔ᣢࡋ࡚᭱ᚋࡲ࡛ࡑࢀࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࠕᢞᑕࡉࢀࡓ⾜Ⅽ㐃㙐ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⥔ᣢࡉࢀࡓグ᠈ࠖ(Kasper, 2009)ࡣࠊRena ࡀᅇ⟅ࢆ⥆ࡅࡿࠕᅇ⟅⪅ࠖࠊࡑࡋ࡚ Hiro ࡀࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࠖ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺࡜஧ேࡢㄯヰ࢔࢖ࢹࣥ
ࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕(Zimmerman, 1998)ࡢ㐩ᡂ࡟ࡼࡾඹᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡓグ᠈ຊ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ୖࡢศᯒࡀ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ㉁ၥࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᅇ⟅ࢆᢞᑕࡍࡿ࠿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᅇ⟅⪅ࡢグ᠈ຊࡣኚ໬ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ 520 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞」ᩘࡢࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟ࡲࡓࡀࡿࡼ࠺࡞
ᖜࡢᗈ࠸ᅇ⟅ෆᐜࢆᢞᑕࡍࡿ㉁ၥࢆ⾜ࡗࡓሙྜࠊ㉁ၥ⪅ࡣᅇ⟅⪅ࡢᅇ⟅ࢆጉࡆ࡞࠸ࡼ
࠺࡟⪺ࡁᡭᙺ࡟ᅇࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋᢤ⢋㸰࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊㄢ㢟ᣦ♧࠿ࡽ㞳ࢀࡓᗈࡍࡂࡿ㉁ၥ࡛ࡣᅇ⟅⪅ࡢグ᠈ຊࡣ࠺ࡲࡃᘬࡁฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡣฟ᮶࡞࠸ࠋᚑ
ࡗ࡚ࠊㄢ㢟ᣦ♧ࡢ஢ゎࡢ⠊ᅖෆ࡛ᅇ⟅ࡀ཰ࡲࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࡢ୰࡛࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘࡢグ
᠈ຊࢆせồࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ᗘྜ࠸࡬ࡢ⪃៖ࡶྵࡵ࡚㉁ၥࡢࢹࢨ࢖ࣥࢆ⪃࠼ᐇ㊶ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ୰࡛グ᠈ຊࢆᘬฟࡋホ౯ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ㸲㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
5 ṓඣࡢ➨஧ゝㄒⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡢ story-retelling interview test ࡢ఍ヰศᯒ࠿ࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞
ࡗࡓࡢࡣࠊ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿグ᠈ຊ࡜ࡣࠊఱࢆㄒࡿ࡭ࡁ࠿࡜࠸࠺࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ๓ࡢྲྀ
ࡾỴࡵ࡜࠸࠺๓ᥦ᮲௳ࢆཧ↷ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ㉁ၥࡀᢞᑕࡍࡿෆᐜࢆゎ㔘ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࡢᛂ⟅࡜
ࡋ࡚ࡢⓎヰ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚஺΅ࡉࢀᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽⓗάື࡛࠶ࡾ┦஫⾜Ⅽ⬟ຊ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ☜࠿࡟ⱥㄒຊ࡜グ᠈ຊࢆࢸࢫࢺࡉࢀࡿഃ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ Rena ࡢⓎヰ࡟ࡣࠊ"meant"ࢆ"meaned"(ᢤ⢋㸯ཬࡧ㸲: 526)ࠊ"ask"ࢆ"aks"ࠊ(ᢤ⢋㸲: 543)࡜࠸ࡗࡓㄗ⏝ࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊ஦๓ࡢㄢ㢟ᣦ♧࡜ㄢ㢟ෆ࡛ࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿゎ㔘࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊఱࢆㄒࡾ┤ࡍ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭᙺࢆົࡵࡓ Hiro ࡜஺΅ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽㄢ㢟ࢆ㐩ᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ㔜せ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣ➨஧ゝㄒヰ⪅ࡸᏊ࡝ࡶ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆཎᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ồࡵࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢᒁᡤ࡟࠾࠸࡚ゝⴥࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ఱࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ཧຍ⪅࡬ࡢ⌮ゎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⌮ゎࢆ༑඲࡟ᚓࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊⓎヰࡢ⨨࠿ࢀࡓ㐃㙐ᵓ㐀࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᩥ⬦ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࠊ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ஦๓⌮ゎࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᡂࡉࢀࡓ࠿ࢆཧ↷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせࡔ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ➨஧ゝㄒᩍ⫱࡬ࡢᛂ⏝࡜ࡋ࡚ゝ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ୍ࡘ࡟ࡣ➨஧ゝㄒヰ⪅ࡀ➨஧ゝㄒ࡛ࡢᚰⓗ㏙ㄒࡢ౑⏝ἲࢆ▱ࡗ࡚࠾ࡃࡇ࡜ࡢព⩏࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࠿
ࡡ࡞࠸"I forgot X"࡜"I don't know"࡛ࡶࡑࢀࡽࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿྵព࠿ࡽ౑⏝ἲࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᚰⓗ≧ἣࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ࡉࢀࡿㄒྃࢆ౑࠸ศࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ┦஫⾜Ⅽෆཬࡧࡑࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕࣭࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟㛵㐃௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿ
࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ⪃࠼࡚኱ኚ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡀࡓࡵ࡟ᝏࡃぢࡽࢀࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺➨஧ゝㄒヰ⪅࡟࠶ࡾࡀࡕ࡞ㄗゎࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᚰⓗ㏙ㄒࡢ౑⏝ἲࢆᙼࡽ࡟ᩍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜
࡟ࡣ኱ࡁ࡞ᩍ⫱ⓗ౯್ࡀ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ

−38−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ࡶ࠺୍ࡘ࡟ࡣࠊ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ࡜࠸࠺┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡼࡿ➨஧ゝㄒཬࡧグ᠈ຊࡢホ౯࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ஦๓ࡢㄢ㢟ᣦ♧࡜㉁ၥࡢࢹࢨ࢖ࣥࠊࡑࡋ࡚㉁ၥࡀኻᩋࡋࡓ᫬ࡢಟ᚟᪉ἲࡢ‽ഛࡢ㔜せᛶࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢸࢫࢺࡢ୰࡛ࡢカ⦎ࢆཷࡅࡓ㠃᥋ဨࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㉁ၥࢆ⾜࠺ࡢ࠿ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗෆ࡛ࡢཷ㦂⪅ࡢㄗゎ࡟ࡼࡾ⏕ࡌࡓၥ㢟ࢆಟ᚟ࡍࡿ࠿࡜࠸ࡗࡓලయⓗ࡞┦஫⾜Ⅽ᪉ἲࢆ▱ࡗ࡚࠾ࡃࡇ࡜ࡣ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ఍ヰศᯒ࡟ࡼࡿ఍ヰ⬟ຊ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢸࢫࢺࡢ◊✲ᡂᯝ(౛ࠊKasper, 2013; Kasper and Ross, 2007; Okada and Greer, 2013)ࡀࠊࢸࢫࢺసᡂ⪅࡜ᐇ᪋⪅࡟ཧ↷ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮃࡲࢀࡿࠋ௒ᚋ story-retelling interview test ࢆᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࡿ㝿࡟ཧ↷ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢᛂ⏝఍ヰศᯒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព⩏ࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Bilmes, J. 1986. Discourse and Behavior. New York: Polity Press.
Bilmes, J. 2014. Preference and the Conversation Analytic Endeavor. Journal of Pragmatics
64:1, 52-71.
Edwards, D. 1997. Discourse and Cognition. London, UK: Sage.
Edwards, D. and Potter, J. 2005. "Discursive Psychology, Mental States, and Descriptions." Inte Molder, H and Potter, J (eds.) Conversation and Cognition, 241-259. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Garfinkel, H. and Sacks, H. 1970. "On Formal Structures of Practical Action." In J.C.
McKinney and E. A. Tiryakian (eds.) Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives andDevelopments, 338-366. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
Heritage, J. 1984. "A Change of State Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement." In J. M.
Atkinson and J. Heritage, (eds.) Structures of Social Action, 299-345. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G. 2008. Discourse and Socially shared cognition. In J Cenoz and N H. Homberger(eds.) Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2nd ed), vol 6: Knowledge about
Language, 59-77. Berlin: Springer.
Kasper, G. 2009. "Locating Cognition in Second Language Interaction and Learning: Inside
the Skull or in Public View?" International Review of Applied Linguistics 47:1, 11–36.
Kasper, G. and Ross, S. J. 2007. Multiple Questions in Oral Proficiency Interviews. Journalof Pragmatics 39:11, 2045-2070
Kasper, G. 2013. Managing Task Uptake in Oral Proficiency Interviews. In S. Ross and G.
Kasper (eds.) Assessing Second Language Pragmatics, 258-287. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Long, M. H. 1996. "The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition." In
W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bahtia (eds.) Handbook of second language
acquisition, 413-468. New York: Academic Pressす㜰 ௮. 2001. ࠗᚰ࡜⾜Ⅽ㸸࢚ࢫࣀ࣓ࢯࢻࣟࢪ࣮ࡢどⅬ࠘ ᮾி㸸ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ.
す㜰 ௮. 2008. ࠕᚰࡢ♫఍ㄽ⌮㸸࢚ࢫࣀ࣓ࢯࢻࣟࢪ࣮ⓗ┦஫⾜Ⅽศᯒࠖࠊ⏣ᓥ ಙඖ (⦅)−39−

第二言語話者である子どもへのstory-retelling interview testの会話分析：第二言語会話における「記憶」

ࠗᩥ໬ᚰ⌮Ꮫ࠘ (ᮅ಴ᚰ⌮Ꮫㅮᗙ)ࠊ➨ 11 ᕳࠊ186-200ࠊᮾி㸸ᮅ಴᭩ᗑ.
Okada, Y. and Greer, T. 2013. "Pursuing a Relevant Response in OPI Role-plays." In S. Rossand G. Kasper (eds.) Assessing second language pragmatics, 294-316. Basingstoke:
Palgrave-Macmillan.
Potter, J. 1996. Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric, and Social Construction. London:
Sage
Potter, J. 2013. "Conversation Analysis and Emotion and Cognition in Interaction." In C. A.
Chapelle (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, 985-991. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Potter, J. and Edwards, D. 2012. "Conversation Analysis and Psychology." In J. Sidnell and T.
Stivers (eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 701-725. Oxford: Blackwell.
Potter, J. and Hepburn, A. 2005. "Qualitative Interviews in Psychology: Problems andPossibilities." Qualitative Research in Psychology 2:1, 38-55.
Schegloff, E. A. 1991. "Conversation Analysis and Socially Shared Cognition." In L. B.
Resnick, J. M. Levine and S. D. Teasley (eds.) Perspectives on Socially Shared
Cognition, 150-171. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Wootton, J. 2006. "Children's Practices and their Connections with 'Mind'." Discourse Studies
8:1, 191-198.
Zimmerman, D. H. 1998. "Identity, Context and Interaction." In C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe(eds.) Identities in talk, 87-106. London: Sage.

−40−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

ᬑ㏻య㸭୎ᑀయୡ⏺ࡢつ⠊ࡀᤵཷ⿵ຓືモࢸࢡࣞࣝ㸭ࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ㡪ி㔝༓✑ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔
㸺$EVWUDFW㸼

7KHVWXG\UHSRUWHGKHUHLQYHVWLJDWHGKRZ-DSDQHVHVSHDNHUVXVHWKHEHQHIDFWLYH
DX[LOLDU\YHUEV WHNXUHUX DQG WHPRUDX ZKHQWKDQNLQJDEHQHIDFWRU 7HNXUHUX DSSHDUHGLQFDVXDOVSHHFKH[SUHVVLQJJUDWLWXGHWRLQWLPDWHVVXFKDVIDPLO\DQG IULHQGV ,Q FRQWUDVW WHPRUDX DSSHDUHG LQ SROLWH VSHHFK H[SUHVVLQJJUDWLWXGH WRVHQLRUV DQG VXSHULRUV )XUWKHUPRUH WHPRUDX ZDVXVHGZKHQDVSHDNHUDWWHQGHGWRRUH[SUHVVHGFRQFHUQDERXWWKHOLVWHQHU̓VEXUGHQ:H
FRQFOXGHWKDWWKHXVHRIWHPRUDX ZLWKVHQLRUVDQGVXSHULRUVLQWKLVVWXG\ZDV

GXHWRDKHVLWDQFHWRWURXEOHQRQLQWLPDWHV
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚࢸࢡࣞࣝࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࠊឤㅰᩥࠊᬑ㏻యࠊ୎ᑀయ
㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᤵཷ⿵ຓືモࡢࢸࣔࣛ࢘࡜ࢸࢡࣞࣝࡣඹ࡟ᜠᜨࢆཷࡅࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡀࠊࡑࡢ␗࡞ࡾࡣ༑
ศ࡟ゎ᫂࡟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ㧗ぢ࣭ஂ㔝  ࡣࠊ㸦㸧ࢆ♧ࡋࠊࢸࢡࣞࣝࡣࠕ㢗ࡳࡶࡋ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠖ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡣඹ㉳ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࢸࢡࣞࣝࡣ୚࠼ᡭ࡬౫
㢗➼ࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࡀకࢃ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘࡟ࡣక࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦㸯㸧㢗ࡳࡶࡋ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠊ㹹Dኴ㑻ࡀ᮶࡚ࡃࢀࡓ㸭E ኴ㑻࡟᮶࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓ㹻ࠋࡇࡢ஧ࡘࡢゝㄒᙧᘧࡣࠊ㸦㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୚࠼ᡭ࡟౫㢗ࢆ⾜࠺ሙྜ࡟ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
㸦㸰㸧᫂᪥ᐙ࡟^D᮶࡚ࡃࢀࡲࡏࢇ࠿㸽㸭E᮶࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡲࡏࢇ࠿㸽` ౫㢗⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓሙྜࠊࡑࡢᕪ␗ࡣ୎ᑀᗘ࡜࡞ࡾࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀ୎ᑀ࡛࠶
ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ㸦஭ฟ࡯࠿㸧ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ
㸦㸧ࡢླྀ㏙ᩥ࡜㸦㸧ࡢᑐ⪅ሙ㠃࡜࡛ࡣࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘

−41−

普通体／丁寧体世界の規範が授受補助動詞テクレル／テモラウの選択に与える影響࡜ࢸࢡࣞࣝࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࡢᇶ‽ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࠕ ຓࡅ࡚ࡃࢀ࡚㸭ࡶࡽࡗ࡚ࠊ
᭷㞴࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୚࠼ᡭ࡟ឤㅰࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠕᑐ⪅ሙ㠃ࠖ࡟╔┠ࡋࠊẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ㸰㸬ඛ⾜◊✲ ാࡁ࠿ࡅᛶ ᗡ࡯࠿  ࡣࠊ㸦㸧࡜㸦㸧ࢆ♧ࡋࠊࢸࢡࣞࣝࡣ࢔ࣜ࢞ࢺ࢘࡜ࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡣࢫ
࣑࣐ࢭࣥ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡣ౑ᙺᛶࢆ♧ࡍ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊാࡁ࠿ࡅࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ⏦ࡋヂ࡞ࡉࡀక࠸ࠊࢫ࣑࣐ࢭࣥ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋ
㸦㸱㸧ࡇࡢᮏࢆ㈙ࡗ࡚㹹‫࡚ࢀࡃۑ‬㸭ࡶࡽࡗ࡚㹻࡝࠺ࡶ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࠋ 㸦ᗡ࡯࠿㸧㸦㸲㸧ᐙࡲ࡛ࢃࡊࢃࡊ㏦ࡗ࡚㹹ࡃࢀ࡚㸭‫࡚ࡗࡽࡶۑ‬㹻ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠋ ᗡ࡯࠿ ୍᪉ࠊ㧗ぢ࣭ஂ㔝  ࡣࠊࢸࢡࣞࣝࡣཷࡅᡭ࠿ࡽࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆకࢃ࡞࠸Ⅽࠊཷࡅᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ዲ㒔ྜ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢࡳࢆ♧ࡍ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊబஂ㛫(1983)࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ࢔
ࣜ࢞ࢺ࢘ࢦࢨ࢖࣐ࢫࡣ⮬ᕫࡢࠕ႐ࡧࠖࡢ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࢸࢡࣞࣝ࡜࢔ࣜ࢞ࢺ࢘ࢦࢨ
࢖࣐ࢫࡣ⮬ᕫࡢ႐ࡧࢆ♧ࡍⅬ࡛ඹ㏻ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋୖグ࠿ࡽࠊឤㅰᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ౑࠸ศࡅ
࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊാࡁ࠿ࡅࡢ᭷↓ࡀ㛵ࢃࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
 ୚࠼ᡭࡢ㈇ᢸ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ ᒣ⏣㸦㸸㸧ࡣࠊࠕࢃࡊࢃࡊ᮶࡚㹹D"ࡃࢀ࡚㸭Eࡶࡽࡗ࡚㹻ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖࡢࡼ࠺
࡟ࠊᚋ௳࡟ࢫ࣑࣐ࢭࣥࡀ᮶ࡿሙྜࠊᚅ㐝ⓗ㓄៖࡟ࡼࡾࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋᒣ⏣  ࡣࠊࠕࡓ࡜࠼ࠕ᮶ࡿࠖࡢືస୺ࡀ⮬ࡽࡢពᚿ࡛᮶ࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊヰ⪅ࡀࡑࡢࡼ
࠺࡞⾜Ⅽࢆᙉ࠸ࡓ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚౑ᙺࡢព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ᪉ࡀࠊᚅ㐝ⓗ࡟ࠕࡍࡳࡲ
ࡏࢇࠖࡢព࿡࡟ྜ⮴ࡍࡿࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀ౫㢗ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸࡞ࡃ
࡚ࡶࠊ࠶ࡓ࠿ࡶཷࡅᡭࡀാࡁ࠿ࡅ㈇ᢸࢆᙉ࠸ࡓࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ୚࠼ᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡟⧅ࡀࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ௚⪅ᣦྥⓗ࡞ࢫ࣑࣐ࢭࣥ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
&RXOPDV  ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡀㅰ⨥⾲⌧ࢆ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡿ⌧㇟ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ㉗ࡾ≀ࡸᜠᜨࢆཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓ᫬ࠊ⮬ᕫࡢ႐ࡧࡼࡾࡶࠊ୚࠼ᡭ࡟࠿ࡅࡓ㏞ᝨࡸ㈇ᢸ࡟ὀどࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᐇ㝿࡟ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡓ࠿ࡼࡾࠊ
୚࠼ᡭࡢ㈇ᢸࢆㄆ㆑ࡋ㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡍ࠿ྰ࠿ࡀࠊ౑࠸ศࡅ࡟㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ


−42−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

 ୚࠼ᡭ࡜ࡢ㊥㞳  ⁪ᾆ  ࡣࠊ  ࢆ♧ࡋࠊࢸࢡࣞࣝ࡜ᬑ㏻యࡢ࢔ࣜ࢞ࢺ࢘࡜ࡢ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡣၥ㢟ࡀ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘࡜ࡢ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡣࠕⴠ╔ࡁࡀᝏ࠸ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦㸳㸧 ㄏࡗ࡚㹹Dࡃࢀ࡚㸭Eࡶࡽࡗ࡚㹻࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࠋ        㸦⁪ᾆ㸧⁪ᾆ  ࡣࠊࢸࢡࣞࣝࡣ୚࠼ᡭࢆ୺ㄒ࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୚࠼ᡭࡢ⾜ື࡟ゝཬࡋゐࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᤊ࠼ࠊᬑ㏻యࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ㛫᯶࡛ࡣࠊࠕ┦ᡭࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚㏙࡭ࡿ̿┦ᡭࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟㸦ࡁࡕࢇ࡜㸧ゐࢀࡿ̿᪉ࡀ㸦ࢥ࣮ࢻ࡜ࡲ࡛ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ㸧ඹឤⓗࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ㸦㕥ᮌ㸪㸧ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ୚࠼ᡭ࡜ࡢ㊥㞳㸦ᬑ㏻యࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ㛫᯶࠿ࠊ୎ᑀయࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ㛫᯶࠿㸧ࡀࠊឤㅰᩥࡢࢸࣔࣛ࢘࡜ࢸࢡࣞࣝࡢ౑࠸ศࡅ࡟㛵୚ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
㸱㸬◊✲ㄢ㢟  ❶࠿ࡽࠊᤵཷ⿵ຓືモࡢࢸࢡࣞࣝ࡜ࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡢ౑࠸ศࡅ࡟㛵ࡋࠊୗグࡢ୕ࡘࡢㄢ㢟ࢆタᐃࡋ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋㄢ㢟㸯㸸ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡢ᭷↓ࡀ౑࠸ศࡅࡢᇶᮏ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ㄢ㢟㸰㸸୚࠼ᡭ࡬ࡢ㈇ᢸࡢㄆ㆑ࡢ᭷↓ࡀ౑࠸ศࡅࡢᇶᮏ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ㄢ㢟㸱㸸୚࠼ᡭ࡜ࡢ㊥㞳㸦ᬑ㏻య౑⏝㸭୎ᑀయ౑⏝㸧ࡀ౑࠸ศࡅࡢᇶᮏ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸲㸬 ㄪᰝ  ࠾♩࣓࣮ࣝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ౑࠸ศࡅ
 ཧຍ⪅ཬࡧㄪᰝ᪉ἲ 㛵す࡜୰㒊ᆅ᪉ࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ཬࡧ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕  ྡ㸦⏨ᛶ  ྡࠊዪᛶ  ྡࠊ୙᫂  ྡࠊᖹᆒᖺ㱋  ṓ㸧࠿ࡽᅇ⟅ࢆᚓࡓࠋㄪᰝ  ࡛ࡣࠊ᭱㏆᥼ຓࢆཷࡅࡓࠊձࡈࡃぶࡋ࠸ேࠊղ┠ୖࡢே ඛ⏕࡞࡝ ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊճࡑࡢ௚ࡢேࢆᛮ࠸ฟࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟࠾♩ࡢ࣓࣮ࣝࢆ᭩࠸࡚
ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊ⮬ศ࠿ࡽ౫㢗ࡋࡓ࠿ࠊ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ⮬Ⓨⓗ࡞᥼ຓࡔࡗࡓ࠿ࢆᑜࡡࠊ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࠕ ᐙ᪘㸭ぶ཭㸭௨๓࠿ࡽࡼࡃ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᖺୖ㸭௨๓࠿ࡽࡼࡃ
▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿྠᖺ㍮㸭௨๓࠿ࡽࡼࡃ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᖺୗ㸭᭱㏆▱ࡾྜࡗࡓࡤ࠿ࡾࡢᖺୖ㸭᭱㏆▱ࡾྜࡗࡓࡤ࠿ࡾࡢྠᖺ㍮㸭᭱㏆▱ࡾྜࡗࡓࡤ࠿ࡾࡢᖺୗ㸭ぢ▱ࡽࡠேࠖࡢ୰࠿
ࡽ୍ࡘࢆ㑅ࢇ࡛ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋ
 ⤖ᯝ ཬࡧ  ࡣẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢグ㏙࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࠖᡈ࠸ࡣࠕ࡚ࡃࢀࠖࡢࡼ࠺

−43−

普通体／丁寧体世界の規範が授受補助動詞テクレル／テモラウの選択に与える影響࡟㐃⏝ᙧࡶྵࡴࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢸ࡛ࣔࣛ࢘ឤㅰࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡓሙྜࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘  ௳ࠊ ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢸࢡ࡛ࣞࣝឤㅰࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡓሙྜࠊࢸࢡࣞࣝ  ௳࡜ࡋࡓ㸦⾲ 㸧ࠋࡲࡓࠊ࣓࣮
ࣝࡢ୰࡟ࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘࡜ࢸࢡࣞࣝࡢ཮᪉ࡀฟ⌧ࡋࡓሙྜࡣࠕΰྜࠖ ௳࡜ศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋ㸦㸴㸧 ᫖᪥ࡣࠊ㒊άືࡢ㝿ࢻࣜࣥࢡࢆ࠾ࡈࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࠊ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ
㸦㸵㸧 ࡇࡢ๓ࡣࠊᤵᴗ୰࡟ᩍᐊࢆࡲ࡜ࡵ࡚ࡃࢀ࡚࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ⾲  ࡟ࡣᩗㄒᙧࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᩗㄒᙧࡣㄒ※ཬࡧ⏝ἲඹ࡟␗࡞ࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡋࠊ
ᩗㄒᙧࡣศᯒ࡟ྵࡵ࡞࠸ࠋ⾲  ឤㅰᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᤵཷ⿵ຓືモࡢศᕸ

௳ᩘ

ࢸ ࣔࣛ࢘

ࢸ ࢡࣞࣝ

ࢸ࢖ࢱࢲࢡ

ࢸࢡࢲࢧࣝ

ΰྜ

࡞ࡋ

ྜィ

12
࠿࠿ࢇࡋࡷ

95

82

44

3

26

262

⾲  ࡟ࠊ⮬ศ࠿ࡽ౫㢗ࡋࡓ࠿ࠊ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ⮬Ⓨⓗ᥼ຓࡔࡗࡓ࠿ࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ♧ࡍࠋ୧ゝㄒᙧᘧࡣඹ࡟ࠊ⮬ศ࠿ࡽ౫㢗ࡋࡓሙྜࡶࠊ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ⮬Ⓨⓗ᥼ຓࡔࡗࡓሙྜࡶ⣙  ๭࡜࡞ࡾࠊ
࠿೫ࡾࡀぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊㄢ㢟  ࡢᐇ㝿ࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࡢ᭷↓ࡣࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘࡜ࢸࢡࣞࣝࡢ౑
࠿ࢇࡋࡷ࠸ศࡅࡢᇶᮏ࡜ࡣ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ⾲㸰 ౫㢗ࡢ᭷↓࡟ࡼࡿ༊ู ⮬ศ࠿ࡽ౫㢗

┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ⮬Ⓨⓗ᥼ຓ

ྜィ

ࢸࣔࣛ࢘

5(42%)

7(58%)

12(100%)ࢸࢡࣞࣝ50(54%)

43(46%)

93(100%) 1

 ḟ࡟ࠊᚋ௳ࡀᬑ㏻య࠿୎ᑀయ࠿࡟ࡼࡾศ㢮ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ㸦⾲ 㸧ࠋࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡢᚋ௳ࡣ⣙  ๭ࡀ୎ᑀయࠊࢸࢡࣞࣝࡣ⣙  ๭ࡀᬑ㏻య࡛グ㏙ࡉࢀࡓࠋ⾲  ࠿ࡽࠊឤㅰᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢸࢡࣞࣝ࡜
ࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡣࠊ୚࠼ᡭ࡜ࡢ㊥㞳㸦ᬑ㏻య࠿୎ᑀయ࠿㸧࡟ࡼࡾ౑࠸ศࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ
࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ⾲㸱 ᬑ㏻య࡜୎ᑀయ࡟ࡼࡿศ㢮 
ᬑ㏻య

୎ᑀయ

ྜィ

ࢸࣔࣛ࢘

2(17%)

10(83%)

12(100%)ࢸࢡࣞࣝ

85(89%)

10(11%)

95(100%)ḟ࡟ࠊ୚࠼ᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶࢆ⾲  ࡟♧ࡍࠋ⾲  ࡟ᑐࡋࣇ࢕ࢵࢩ࣮ࣕࡢṇ☜☜❧᳨ᐃࢆ⾜࠺࡜ 㸣Ỉ‽࡛᭷ព࡜࡞ࡾࠊṧᕪศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࢸ࡛ࣔࣛ࢘ࡣࠊ௨๓࠿ࡽ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᖺୖ࡜᭱
㏆▱ࡾྜࡗࡓᖺୖ࡬ࡢ౑⏝ࡀከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡢศᕸࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊ⣙ ๭ࡣᐙ᪘࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ┠ୖࡢே≀ࡔࡅ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋ⾲㸲 ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶ
㸯
ᐙ᪘

㸰
ぶ཭

㸱
᪤▱
ᖺୖ

㸲
᪤▱
ྠᖺ

㸳
᪤▱ᖺ
ୗ

−44−

㸴
㏆▱
ᖺୖ

㸵
㏆▱ྠ
ᖺ

㸶
㏆▱ᖺ
ୗ

㸷
௚ே

ྜィ

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

ࢸࣔࣛ࢘

5(45)

0

2(18)

0

0

2(18)

0

1(9)

1(9)

11 2

ࢸࢡࣞࣝ

38(40)

20(21)

3(3)

14(15)

8(8)

1(1)

5(5)

5(5)

1(1)

95

ᣓᘼෆࡣୗࡢ  ࠿ࡽ  ࡣࠊᐙ᪘࡟ᑐࡋࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࢆ⏝࠸ឤㅰࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡓ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸦㸧ࡢグ㏙࠿ࡽࠊ୧ぶ࡟┦ᙜࡢ⤒῭ⓗ㈇ᢸࢆ࠿ࡅࡓࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᐙ᪘࡟ᙜ࡚ࡽࢀࡓ
ࢸࣔࣛ࢘ឤㅰᩥࡢෆࠊ ௳୰  ௳ࡀࠊ␃ᏛࡸᏛ㈝➼ࡢ⤒῭ⓗ㈇ᢸ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
㸶㸧࠺ࡕࡣࡑࢇ࡞࡟࠾㔠࡟వ⿱ࡶ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠊᾉேࡢ㝿࡟ணഛᰯࡢ㈝⏝ࢆฟࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࠊ
⤖ᯝ୍ேᬽࡽࡋࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊᏛ㈝ࡲ࡛ฟࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࠋ ṧࡾࡢ  ௳ࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄪᰝ  ࡛ࡣࡑࡢ᫬ࡢ≧ἣࡶグ㏙ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋ
㸦㸧ࡢሙྜࠊᐇᐙ࡟⮬ศࡢ㒊ᒇࡀ࡞ࡃࠊᐟἩ࡟ᑐࡋẼ㐵࠸ࡀకࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ุ᩿ࡋࡓࠋ㸷  ௒᪥ࡣࢃࡊࢃࡊி㒔ࡲ࡛᮶࡚Ⰽࠎ࡜ຓࡅ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀ
࠿ࡽࡶ୍ேࡄࡽࡋࡀࢇࡤࡿࡢ࡛࡝࠺ࡒࡼࢁࡋࡃ࠾ࡡࡀ࠸ࡋࡲࡍ࣮ࠋ  ᫖᪥ࡣ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࠋἩࡵ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼࡚ࠊ㏦ࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼࡚ຓ࠿ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓ௒ᗘࡣࡺ
ࡗࡃࡾ㐟ࡧ࡟ᖐࡿࡡࠋ
ୖグ࠿ࡽࠊࡈࡃぶࡋ࠸㛫᯶࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ㐣ᗘ࡞㈇ᢸࢆᙉ࠸ࡓ࡜ࡢㄆ㆑ࡸẼ㐵࠸ࡀక࠺ሙ
ྜࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ⾲  ࡛┠ୖࡢே≀࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿഴྥࡀ
ぢࡽࢀࡓࡢࡶ☜࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡢㅰ⨥⾲⌧ࡢ◊✲ࢆࡋࡓ /RQJ  ࡣࠊୖୗࡸぶ␯㛵ಀ࡟㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊᜠᜨ⾜Ⅽࡀ୚࠼ᡭࡢᙺ๭࠿ࡽᮇᚅ࡛ࡁࡿ⠊ᅖࢆ㉸࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊཷࡅᡭ
ࡀ⏦ࡋヂ࡞ࡉࢆㄆ㆑ࡍࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᮇᚅ࡛ࡁࡿᜠᜨࡢ⠊ᅖࡣࠊぶ཭ࡼࡾࠊ┠ୖࡢே≀ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀ⊃࠸ࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ㊥㞳ࡢ࠶ࡿே≀࠿ࡽࡢᜠᜨࡣࠊᑡࡋࡢປຊ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ
ཷࡅᡭࡀ⏦ࡋヂ࡞ࡉࢆឤࡌࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘࡟ࡶ㐺ᛂ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ┠ୖࡢே≀➼ࠊ㊥㞳ࡢ࠶ࡿே࠿ࡽࡢᜠᜨࡣࠊᑡࡋࡢᜠᜨ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ୚࠼ᡭࡢ㈇ᢸ࡬ࡢㄆ㆑ࡸẼ㐵࠸ࡀ⏕ࡌࡸࡍ࠸ࠋࡑࡢⅭࠊ┠ୖࡢே≀࡟ࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡢ౑⏝ࡀከࡃ࡞ࡗࡓ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㏫࡟ࠊᐙ᪘➼ࠊࡈࡃぶࡋ࠸ே≀࡟ࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊୖグ౛ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㐣ᗘࡢ㈇ᢸࢆᙉ࠸ࡓ
࡜ࡢㄆ㆑ࡀక࠺࡜ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊㄢ㢟  ࡢ୚࠼ᡭ࡜ࡢ㊥㞳࡜ඹ࡟ࠊㄢ㢟  ࡢ୚࠼ᡭࡢ㈇ᢸ࡟ᑐࡍࡿㄆ㆑ࡀࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
㸳㸬ㄪᰝ  ୚࠼ᡭ࡬ࡢ㈇ᢸࡢㄆ㆑࡜㊥㞳ཧຍ⪅ཬࡧㄪᰝෆᐜ

−45−

普通体／丁寧体世界の規範が授受補助動詞テクレル／テモラウの選択に与える影響㛵す࡜୰㒊ᆅ᪉ࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕࡜኱Ꮫ㝔⏕ 76 ྡ㸦⏨ᛶ 30 ྡࠊዪᛶ 43 ྡࠊ୙᫂ 3 ྡࠊᖹᆒᖺ㱋
20.71 ṓ㸧࠿ࡽᅇ⟅ࢆᚓࡓࠋㄪᰝ 2 ࡛ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢ୕ࡘࡢ᮲௳ࢆタᐃࡋࡓࠋ㸦࢔㸧ࡣ୚࠼ᡭ࡟㈇ᢸࢆᙉ࠸ࡓ᮲௳ࠊ ࢖ ࡣぶࡋࡉࡔࡅࢆ᮲௳࡜ࡋࡓሙྜࠊ ࢘ ࡣ㊥㞳࡜Ẽ㐵࠸ࡀక࠺᮲௳
࡛࠶ࡿࠋཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸦࢔㸧㸦࢖㸧㸦࢘㸧ࢆㄞࢇࡔᚋࠊୗࡢ  ࢆㄞࡳࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘࡜ࢸࢡࣞࣝࡢ
࡝ࡕࡽ࠿ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋୗ⥺㒊࡟㐺ษ࡞⾲⌧ࢆグ㏙ࡋࡓࠋ㸦࢔㸧ᅔࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ㸿࡟ຓࡅࡽࢀࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ㸿࡟↓⌮ࢆࡉࡏ࡚ࡋࡲࡗ
ࡓ࡜࠸࠺㈇࠸┠ࢆឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
㸦࢖㸧ᅔࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ㹀࡟ຓࡅࡽࢀࡲࡋࡓࠋ㹀࡜ࡣࡈࡃぶࡋ࠸㛫᯶࡛ࡍࠋ
㸦࢘㸧ᅔࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ& ࡟ຓࡅࡽࢀࡲࡋࡓࠋ& ࡜ࡣฟ఍ࡗࡓࡤ࠿ࡾ࡛ࠊࡲࡔẼࢆ౑࠸ࡲࡍࠋ㸦㸧ࡇࡢ㛫ࡣࠊຓࡅ࡚㹹ࡃࢀ࡚㸭ࡶࡽࡗ࡚㹻ࠊ㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝ࠋ ⤖ᯝ ⾲  ࡟⤖ᯝࢆ♧ࡍࠋ⾲  ࡢ㸦࢖㸧࡛ࡣࠊ඲࡚ࡢཧຍ⪅ࡀࢸࢡࣞࣝࢆ㑅ᢥࡋࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ
ࢸࢡࣞࣝ࡜ぶࡋࡉ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟ᙉ࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⾲  ࡟ᑐࡋȮ஧஌᳨ᐃࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ㸯㸣Ỉ‽࡛ᕪࡀ⏕ࡌ(Ȥ2(2)= 80.948 , p<.01)ࠊṧᕪศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ㸦 ࢔㸧ࡢ㈇ᢸ᮲௳࡜㸦࢘㸧ࡢ㊥㞳࡜Ẽ㐵࠸᮲௳࡛ࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡀከ࠸࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ୚࠼ᡭࡢ㈇ᢸ࡬ࡢㄆ
㆑࡜Ẽ㐵࠸ࡀక࠺ሙྜ࡟ࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡢ㑅ᢥ⋡ࡀ㧗ࡲࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ⾲㸳 ㈇ᢸ㸭ぶࡋࡉ㸭Ẽ㐵࠸࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ 㸦࢔㸧 ㈇ᢸ(࢖)ぶࡋ࠸(࢘)㊥㞳࣭Ẽ㐵࠸ࢸࢡࣞࣝ㑅ᢥ ࢸࣔࣛ࢘㑅ᢥ ྜィ 32(42.1%)
44(57.9%)76(100%)76(100%)0(0%)
76(100%)26(34.2%)50(65.8%)
76(100%)᭦࡟ࠊୖグ  ࡟࡚ࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘ᡈ࠸ࡣࢸࢡࣞࣝࡢ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓᚋࠊᚋ௳ࡢ
✵ḍ࡟㐺ษ࡞⾲⌧ࢆ᭩ࡁධࢀ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋ⾲  ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࢆ♧ࡍࠋ⾲㸴 ᚋ௳ࡢឤㅰ࣭ㅰ⨥⾲⌧ࡢศᕸ (࢔)㈇࠸┠(࢖)ࡈࡃぶࡋ࠸(࢘)Ẽ㐵࠸

ྜィ

ࢸࢡࣞࣝ

ࢸࣔࣛ࢘

ࢸࢡࣞࣝ

ࢸࣔࣛ࢘

ࢸࢡࣞࣝ

ࢸࣔࣛ࢘

ࢸ ࢡࣞࣝ

ࢸ ࣔࣛ࢘

ᬑ㏻యឤㅰ
୎ᑀయឤㅰ
ᬑ㏻యㅰ⨥
୎ᑀయㅰ⨥
ࡑࡢ௚ 3      

15
15
0
1
1

3
24
5
10
2

74
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
0
0

8
18
0
0
0

5
39
0
4
2

97
33
0
1
3

8
63
5
14
4

ྜィ

32

44

76

0

26

50

134

94

⾲  ࡢࠕྜィࠖ࡟ᑐࡋȮ஧஌᳨ᐃࢆ࠾ࡇ࡞ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠊࢸࢡࣞࣝ࡜ࢸ࡛ࣔࣛ࢘ࡣᚋ⥆⾲⌧ࡢศᕸ࡟㸯㸣Ỉ‽࡛᭷ព࡞ᕪࡀ࠶ࡾ(Ȥ2(4)=97.197, p<.01)ࠊṧᕪศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࢸࢡࣞࣝࡣᬑ

−46−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号㏻యࡢឤㅰ⾲⌧ ࢔ࣜ࢞ࢺ࢘➼ ࡀከࡃࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡣ୎ᑀయࡢឤㅰ⾲⌧㸦࢔ࣜ࢞ࢺ࢘ࢦࢨ࢖
࣐ࢫ➼㸧ཬࡧᬑ㏻య㸭୎ᑀయࡢㅰ⨥⾲⌧ ࢦ࣓ࣥ㸭ࢫ࣑࣐ࢭࣥ➼ ࡀከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞
ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊࢸࢡࣞࣝࡣ㸦࢔㸧ࡢ㈇ᢸ᮲௳࡟࡚  ௳ࡢࡳㅰ⨥⾲⌧ࡀグ㏙ࡉࢀࡓ㸦ࠕຓࡅ࡚ࡃ
ࢀ࡚ࠊࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖ㸧ࠋࡇࡢ౛ᩥࡣࠊ୙⮬↛ࡉࡀྰࡵ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࢸࢡࣞࣝ࡜ㅰ⨥ឤ᝟ࡣ⤖ࡧࡘ࠿࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
㸴㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵཬࡧ⪃ᐹ ㄢ㢟  ࡢᐇ㝿ࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࡢ᭷↓ࡣࠊឤㅰᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢸࣔࣛ࢘࡜ࢸࢡࣞࣝࡢ౑࠸ศࡅ࡟㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊㄢ㢟  ࡢ୚࠼ᡭࡢ㈇ᢸࡢㄆ㆑࡜Ẽ㐵࠸ࡀࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋㄢ㢟  ࡢ୚࠼ᡭ࡜ࡢ㊥㞳ࡣࠊࢸࢡࣞࣝࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟㛵ࢃࡾࠊぶࡋࡉ࡜ࢸࢡࣞࣝࡢ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟ᙉ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ㊥㞳ࡣ㈇ᢸࡢㄆ㆑࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡿࠋ㊥㞳ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࠊ୚࠼ᡭࡢ㈇ᢸࢆㄆ
㆑ࡋࡸࡍࡃࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟⧅ࡀࡾࡸࡍ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ㊥㞳ࡀ㏆ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊ㈇ᢸࡢㄆ㆑ࢆ♧ࡍ
Ⅽ࡟ࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ㛵ಀࡣࠊ%URZQ /HYLQVRQ  ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ౵ᐖᗘࢆぢ✚ࡶࡿᘧ :[ ' 6+ 3 +6 5[ ࠿ࡽࡶㄝ᫂ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୚࠼ᡭ࡜ࡢ
㊥㞳 ' ࡜ୖୗ㛵ಀ 3 ࡢ್ࡀ㧗࠸࡜ࠊ୚࠼ᡭ࡬ࡢ㈇ᢸ 5 ࡢㄆ㆑ࡶ㧗ࡲࡾࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ㊥㞳࡜ୖୗ㛵ಀࡢ್ࡀᑠࡉࡃ࡚ࡶࠊ㈇ᢸࡢㄆ㆑ࡀ㧗ࡅࢀࡤࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟⧅ࡀࡿࠋࢸࢡࣞࣝࡣࡇࢀࡽ୕ࡘࡢ್ࡀᑠࡉ࠸ሙྜ࡟㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
㸵㸬ㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲࡬ࡢ♧၀ཬࡧ௒ᚋࡢᒎᮃ
ࢸࢡࣞࣝࡣ୚࠼ᡭ࡜ࡢぶࡋࡉࢆࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡣ୚࠼ᡭ࡬ࡢ㈇ᢸࡢㄆ㆑ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡇࢀࡣླྀ㏙
ᩥ࡛ࡢព࿡࡜ྠࡌ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ⧅ࡀࡾࡣ࠶ࡿࠋࢸࢡࣞࣝࡣࠊ㧗ぢ࣭ஂ㔝 ࡟ࡼࡾࠊാࡁ࠿ࡅࡀకࢃ࡞࠸Ⅽࠊཷࡅᡭ࡟ዲ㒔ྜ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ⮬ᕫࡢ႐ࡧࢆ↔Ⅼ໬ࡋࡓ࢔ࣜ࢞ࢺ࢘࡜ࡢඹ㉳㛵ಀࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ᭦࡟ࠊ⮬ᕫࡢ႐ࡧࢆ⣲┤࡟⾲ࡏࡿ┦ᡭ࡜ࡣࠊࡈࡃぶࡋ࠸ே≀࡜࠸࠺⧅ࡀࡾࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊࢸࣔࣛ࢘ࡣᮏ᮶ാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆ
♧ࡍࠋឤㅰᩥ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢࠕാࡁ࠿ࡅᛶࢆ฼⏝ࠖࡋࠊ࠶ࡓ࠿ࡶཷࡅᡭ࠿ࡽ౫㢗ࡋ㈇ᢸࢆᙉ࠸
ࡓ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭ࡿ⏝ἲ࡟ኚ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢືᶵ௜ࡅࡣࠊ୚࠼ᡭࡢ㈇ᢸࢆㄆ㆑ࡋࠊẼ㐵࠸ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᥮႘ⓗ࡞᥎ㄽࡢ㐃⥆࡟ࡼࡾࠊླྀ㏙ᩥࡢព࿡࡜ࡢ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡀࠊླྀ㏙ᩥࡢព࿡࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊླྀ㏙ᩥ
ࡢព࿡࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞⏝ἲ㸭ព࿡ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋព࿡ኚ໬ࡢ㐣⛬࡟ࡣࠊᩥ⬦࠿ࡽࡢࠕㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞᥎ㄽࠖࡀ㛵୚ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ7UDXJRWW 'DVKHU  ௚࡟ࡼࡾ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋឤㅰᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢸࢡࣞࣝ࡜ࢸࣔࣛ࢘࡟ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᥎ㄽ㐣⛬ࡀక

−47−

普通体／丁寧体世界の規範が授受補助動詞テクレル／テモラウの選択に与える影響࠺࠿ࡣࠊ௒ᚋࠊヲ⣽࡟᳨ウࡋࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ%URZQ /HYLQVRQ  ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⏝ἲ࡬ࡢኚ໬࡟ࡣࠊ♫఍ⓗᅽຊࡀᙉ࠸ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋឤㅰᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢸࢡࣞ
ࣝ࡜ࢸࣔࣛ࢘࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ&RXOPDV  ࡢὝᐹࡸࠊ㕥ᮌ  ࡢᬑ㏻యୡ⏺࡜୎ᑀయୡ⏺ࡢつ⠊ࡀཧ⪃࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋὀ ࢸࢡࣞࣝឤㅰᩥ  ௳ࡢෆࠊ ௳ࡣ୙࡛᫂࠶ࡾࠊྜィᩘࡀ  ௳ῶᑡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࢸࣔࣛ࢘ឤㅰᩥࡢ  ௳ࡢෆࠊ ௳ࡣグධࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

ࠕᮏᙜ࡟࠺ࢀࡋ࠿ࡗࡓ࡛ࡍࠖࠊ
ࠕ࠾ୡヰ࡟࡞ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠖࠊ
ࠕຓ࠿ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠖࠊ
ࠕຓ࠿ࡗࡓࡼࠖࠊ
ࠕᎰࡋ࠿ࡗࡓ࡛ࡍࠖࠕࡈ㏞ᝨࢆ࠾࠿ࡅࡋࡲࡋࡓࠖ➼ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. 1987. Politeness Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Coulmas, F. 1981. ““Poison to Your Soul” Thanks and Apologies Contrastively Viewed.” In F.
Coulmas (ed.) Conversational Routine Exploration in Standardized Communication Situations
and Prepatterned Speech, 69-91. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton Publishers.
஭ฟ⚈Ꮚ࣭Ⲷ㔝⥘⏨࣭ᕝᓮᬗᏊ࣭⏕⏣ᑡᏊ. 1986.ࠗ᪥ᮏே࡜࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡢᩗㄒ⾜ື࠘ ᮾி㸸༡㞼ᇽ.
ᗡຌ㞝࣭㧗᲍ಙ஀࣭୰すஂ⨾Ꮚ࣭ᒣ⏣ᩄᘯ. 2001.ࠗ୰ୖ⣭ࢆᩍ࠼ࡿேࡢࡓࡵࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ
ࣁࣥࢻࣈࢵࢡ࠘ ᮾி㸸ࢫ࣮࢚࣮ࣜࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡ㸬Long, C. 2010. “Apology in Japanese Gratitude Situations: The negotiation of InterlocutorRole-situations.” Journal of Pragmatics 42, 1060-1075.
బஂ㛫຾ᙪ. 1983. ࠕឤㅰ࡜ルࡧࠖࠊỈ㇂ಟ㸦⦅㸧ࠗ ヰࡋࡇ࡜ࡤࡢ⾲⌧ ㅮᗙ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⾲⌧㸱࠘ࠊ
54-66ࠊᮾி㸸⟃ᦶ᭩ᡣ㸬㕥ᮌ╬㸬1997㸬
ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୎ᑀయୡ⏺࡜ᬑ㏻యୡ⏺ࠖࠊ⏣❑⾜๎㸦⦅㸧ࠗどⅬ࡜ゝㄒ⾜ື࠘ࠊ45-76ࠊᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬㧗ぢ೺୍࣭ஂ㔝ᬿ㸬2002㸬ࠗ᪥ⱥㄒࡢ⮬ືモᵓᩥ࠘ᮾி㸸◊✲♫㸬⁪ᾆ┿ே㸬2008㸬ࠕ㸺㊥㞳㸼࡜㸺㡿ᇦ㸼ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽ㸫᪥㡑ᑐ↷࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫㄽࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠖࠊ ᳃㞝୍࣭すᮧ⩏ᶞ࣭ᒣ⏣㐍࣭⡿ᒣ୕᫂㸦⦅㸧ࠗࡇ࡜ࡤࡢࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢬ࣒࠘ࠊ 31-49ࠊᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧ 㸬ᒣ⏣ᩄᘯ. 2004.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ࣋ࢿࣇ࢓ࢡࢸ࢕ࣈ㸫ࠕ࡚ࡸࡿࠖ
ࠕ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖ
ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢᩥἲ࠘
ᮾி㸸᫂἞᭩㝔㸬−48−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ᩥ❶⌮ゎࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡢゎ᫂࡟ࡴࡅ࡚
̿ᣓᘼࡢ᭕᫕ᛶࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゎᾘࡉࢀࡿ࠿̿
㯮⏣୍ᖹி㒔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔<Abstract>
This study investigates pragmatic functions of parentheses in Japanese, which have rarely beentreated in linguistic studies so far. Although parentheses expressions are often used in texts,
interpreting their intended meanings is not always straightforward for readers because the outerand inner parts actually bear various semantic/pragmatic relationships in implicit ways. This
paper focuses especially on the following three usages: attributive, complementary and attendantcircumstantial, and shows that understanding or misunderstanding these kinds of parentheses
expressions can be explained in terms of fundamental cognitive mechanisms such as
categorization, domain matrix and mental spaces.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸ᩥ❶⌮ゎࠊᣓᘼࠊ࣓ࣥࢱ࣭ࣝࢫ࣮࣌ࢫࠊㄆ▱㡿ᇦ(cognitive domain)

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊX㸦Y㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣓᘼ⾲⌧࡟࠾ࡅࡿእഃせ⣲ X ࡜ෆഃせ⣲ Y ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞
ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆㄪ࡭ࠊ
ࡑࢀࡽࡀᐇ㝿࡟ㄞࡲࢀࡿ㝿࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᣓᘼ࡟ࡣ୸㸦㸧
ࠊ㖋ࠕࠖࠊ஧㔜㖋ࠗ࠘
ࠊゅ㹙㹛
ࠊἼ㹹㹻
ࠊட⏥ࠝࠞ
ࠊᒣ㸺㸼ࠊ㝮௜ࡁ࠙ࠚ࡞࡝ࠊᵝࠎ࡞ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚᭱ࡶࡼࡃ౑ࢃࢀࠊ࠿ࡘ⏝ἲࡶከᵝ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠕ୸ᣓᘼࠖ
ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋ୸ᣓᘼࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ⾲⌧࡟ࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠕᮾி኱Ꮫ㸦ᮾ኱㸧ࠖࡸࠕ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㸦࣐ࣜࢼ࣮ࢬ㸧ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ⾲⌧ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ୍ぢࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᐜ᫆࡟⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᣓᘼࡢእഃせ⣲࡜ෆഃせ⣲ࡢ㛵ಀࡣࠊࠕᮾி኱Ꮫ㸦ᮾ኱㸧ࠖࡢሙྜࡣṇᘧྡ⛠࡜␎⛠ࠊࠕ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㸦࣐ࣜࢼ࣮ࢬ㸧ࠖࡢሙྜࡣ㑅ᡭ࡜ᡤᒓᅋయ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ㛵ಀࡣ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊẕㄒヰ⪅ࡣࡑࡢ㛵ಀࢆᐜ᫆࡟⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡟ࡣ࠶ࡿ✀ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᥎ㄽࡀാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊᣓᘼෆእࡢせ⣲㛫ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀ࠶
ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡽࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࢆタᐃࡋࠊࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊせ⣲㛫ࡢ㛵ಀࡣࠊྛせ⣲ࡀㄞࡳᡭࡢ▱㆑ᵓ㐀ࡢ୰࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿ࠿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺୺ᙇࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ

2. 㛵㐃◊✲
ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊᣓᘼ⾲⌧࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ◊✲ࢆᴫほࡍࡿࠋᣓᘼ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡣࠊ㏆ᖺ࡛ࡣ⌮ㄽゝㄒᏛⓗ࡞࢔−49−

文章理解のメカニズムの解明にむけて―括弧の曖昧性はどのように解消されるか―ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊఏ⤫ⓗ࡟ࡣ⮬↛ゝㄒฎ⌮ࡢศ㔝࡛୰ᚰⓗ࡟⾜ࢃࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ⌮ㄽゝㄒᏛ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᣓᘼ◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᮌᮧ (2011) ࡸᒣ᳃ (2008,2014) ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋᮌᮧ (2011) ࡣࠊ㖋ᣓᘼࡢᙉㄪ⏝ἲࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠊㄒ⏝ㄽ࣭⾜ⅭㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᒣ᳃ (2008,2014) ࡛ࡣࠊ㖋ᣓᘼࡢᙉㄪ⏝ἲࢆࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡽࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ㖋ᣓᘼࡢᙉㄪ
⏝ἲࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ᢅࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ୸ᣓᘼ࡟㛵ࡍࡿゝㄒᏛⓗ◊✲ࡣᮍࡔ༑ศ࡜ࡣゝ࠸㞴࠸ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ⮬↛ゝㄒฎ⌮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୰ᒣ࣭᳃⏣࣭ἰ⏣࣭㟷Ụ (2010) ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞⏝ἲࡢศ㢮ࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊྛศ㢮࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᶵᲔⓗ࡞ุู᪉ἲࡀᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⾲ 1 㖋ᣓᘼࡢ⏝ἲ࡜౛ᩥ㻌 㻔୰ᒣࡽ 2010: 380㻕㻌㻌⾲ 2 ୸ᣓᘼࡢ⏝ἲ࡜౛ᩥ㻌 㻔୰ᒣࡽ 2010: 380㻕㻌㻌ࡑࡢ௚ࠊ⮬↛ゝㄒฎ⌮࡟࠾ࡅࡿᣓᘼ◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣⓑ஭ࡽ (1996)ࠊஂගࡽ (1997)ࠊ 㯞㔝㛫ࡽ (2002)ࠊ
ᒸᓮࡽ (2007) ࡞࡝ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽ࡛ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓศ㢮ࡸฎ⌮ᡭἲ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ⌮ㄽゝㄒᏛࠊ≉࡟ព࿡ㄽࡸㄒ⏝ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼┤ࡍవᆅࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
௨ୖ࠿ࡽࠊᣓᘼ⾲⌧ࢆ⌮ㄽゝㄒᏛࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⤫୍ⓗ࣭య⣔ⓗ࡟ᩚ⌮ࡋ࡞࠾ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᩥ❶⌮ゎࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡢゎ᫂࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⌮ㄽⓗ㈉⊩ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ⮬↛ゝㄒฎ⌮࡞࡝ࡢ㞄᥋ከศ㔝࡟ࡶᐤ୚ࡋ࠺ࡿࠊ㔜せ࡞◊✲࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ

3. ⌮ㄽⓗ⫼ᬒලయⓗ࡞ศᯒ࡟⛣ࡿ๓࡟ࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠾ࡃࠋᩥ❶⌮ゎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⌮ㄽゝㄒᏛⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡟ࡣࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡜ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ
ࡢ୸ᣓᘼࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ᢅࡗࡓࡶࡢࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ୍㒊ࡢ⏝ἲࡣ᭩ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿ⾲ពࡢ᫂♧࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒྍ⬟࠿࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ୸ᣓᘼࡢศᯒ࡟ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ၥ㢟Ⅼࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

−50−

第17回大会発表論文集(1) a.

第10号

᚟ྕ໬ࡢࡓࡵࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ㸦つ๎㸧ࡀᐃࡲࡽ࡞࠸b.

つ๎࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ᥎ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ᪂つ࡞஦౛ࢆฎ⌮࡛ࡁ࡞࠸c.

ฎ⌮ࡢ㒔ᗘࠊ┿ഇࡢุ᩿ࡀྍ⬟࡞࿨㢟ᙧᘧ࡟᚟ྕ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ಖ㞀ࡣ࡞࠸d.

ࠕ௜ᖏ≧ἣࠖ⏝ἲ㸦ᚋ㏙㸧࡞࡝ࡣࠊ⾲ពࡢ᫂♧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣศᯒ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸

ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ࡛ࡣࠊព࿡ㄽ࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ㛫࡟᫂☜࡞ቃ⏺ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸦ӆ༊ูࡀ࡞࠸㸧ࠊ୧⪅ࡣẁ㝵ᛶࢆ࡞ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ (cf. Langacker 2008: 36-43) ࠊࡲࡓࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕつ๎ࠖࡣࠊẚ㍑ⓗᏳᐃࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿゝㄒ஦ᐇࡢ୍㒊ࢆつᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸ (cf. ᒣ᲍ 2000: 217) ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒほ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊୖグ (2) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㅖၥ㢟ࡣ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊLangacker ࡽࡢㄆ▱ᩥἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬ 1 ࡸࠊࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࠾ࡼࡧᴫᛕ࣐ࢺࣜࢵࢡࢫ 2 ࡑࡋ࡚ Fauconnier ࡽࡢ࣓ࣥࢱ࣭ࣝࢫ
࣮࣌ࢫ⌮ㄽ 3 ࢆ」ྜⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ୸ᣓᘼࡢ⏝ἲࡢ⌮ゎ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠊࡼࡾ୍㈏ⓗ࡛య⣔ⓗ࡞
グ㏙࣭ศᯒࢆ┠ᣦࡍ 4ࠋ௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊ୸ᣓᘼࡢ⏝ἲࡢ୍㒊ࠊ≉࡟ࠕᒓᛶࠖ⏝ἲࠊࠕ⿵᏶ࠖ⏝ἲࠊ
ࠕ௜ᖏ≧ἣࠖ⏝ἲ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊලయ౛ࢆᣲࡆࡘࡘࠊࡑࡢ⌮ゎ㐣⛬ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ

4. ୸ᣓᘼࡢ⌮ゎ㐣⛬ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ୰ᒣࡽ (2010) ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡓ⾲ 2 ࡢྛ⏝ἲࢆࠊ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿ⌮ゎ㐣⛬࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠕᒓᛶࠖ⏝ἲࠊ
ࠕ⿵᏶ࠖ⏝ἲࠊ
ࠕ௜ᖏ≧ἣࠖ⏝ἲ࡞࡝࡟෌ศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋᮏ⠇࡛ᣲࡆࡿලయ஦౛ࡣඛ⾜◊✲࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺ࠿ࡽ཰㞟ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
4.1 ࠕᒓᛶࠖ⏝ἲࡲࡎࠊࠕᒓᛶࠖ⏝ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣࠊ⾲ 2 ࡢࠕㄞࡳࠖ
ࠕሙᡤࠖ
ࠕᡤᒓࠖ
ࠕᖺ㱋ࠖ
ࠕ⫋ᴗࠖ
ࠕᖺ᭶ࠖ
ࠕⓎゝ⪅ࠖ
ࠕⴭ⪅ࠖࡢྛ⏝ἲ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࠋ(2) a. ࠕㄞࡳࠖ㸸⩝㸦࠾ࡁ࡞㸧ࠊẎ↛㸦ࡁࡐࢇ㸧
ࠊO㸦࣮࢜㸧157b. ࠕሙᡤࠖ
㸸࣐࣮࢜ࣥᡓ㸦ᇸ⋢㸧ࠊࡘࡃࡤᏛᅬ㒔ᕷ㸦Ⲉᇛ┴ࡘࡃࡤᕷ㸧c. ࠕᡤᒓࠖ
㸸࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㸦࣐ࣜࢼ࣮ࢬ㸧ࠊ࣑ࣄ࢚࣭ࣕࣝࢩ࣮࣐ࣗࢵࣁ࣮㸦⊂㸧d. ࠕᖺ㱋ࠖ㸸࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ (30)ࠊ㛗⏨ (8)e. ࠕ⫋ᴗࠖ
㸸ࣈࢵࢩࣗ㸦⡿኱⤫㡿㸧
f. ࠕᖺ᭶ࠖ
㸸➨ 45 ᅇⱁ⾡㈹㸦03 ᖺᗘ㸧ࠊゝㄒ⛉Ꮫㄽ㞟➨ 20 ྕ㸦2014㸧
g. ࠕⓎゝ⪅ࠖ㸸ࠕ࣓ࢪ࣮ࣕධࡾࢆ┠ᣦࡍࠖ㸦㜵⾨ᗇᖿ㒊㸧
h. ࠕⴭ⪅ࠖ㸸࢝ࣥࢺἐᚋ 20 ᖺ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦ᑓ㛛⦅㞟ጤဨ㸧ࡇࢀࡽࢆࠕᒓᛶࠖ⏝ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡚ศ㢮ࡍࡿ᰿ᣐࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡀㄆ▱ᩥἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿෆᅾⓗ㛵ಀ(intrinsic relation)࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋෆᅾⓗ㛵ಀ࡜ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿᏑᅾ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᅛ᭷ࡢ
㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡾࠊⱥㄒࡢ of ࡢᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ព࿡࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ 5 (Langacker 2008: 343-345)ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊflock ofgeese㸦࢞ࢳࣙ࢘ࡢ⩌ࢀ㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ geese ࡜ flock ࡢ㛵ಀࡀࠊෆᅾⓗ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡓࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࠕᒓᛶࠖ
⏝ἲ࡜ࡋࡓ஦౛ࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࠕX (Y)ࠖ࠿ࡽࠕY ࡢ Xࠖ࡬ゝ࠸᥮࠼ྍ⬟࡞ࡓࡵࠊࡇࢀࡽࡣෆᅾⓗ㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

−51−

文章理解のメカニズムの解明にむけて―括弧の曖昧性はどのように解消されるか―ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࠕᒓᛶࠖ⏝ἲࡢ⌮ゎ㐣⛬࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊእഃせ⣲ࡀႏ㉳ࡋ࠺ࡿᴫᛕ࣐ࢺࣜࢵࢡࢫࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ୍ࡘ
ࡢࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡟ࠊෆഃせ⣲ࡀෆᅾⓗ㛵ಀ࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛࡞ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ண᝿ࡉࢀࡿࠋලయⓗ࡞⌮ゎ㐣⛬࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡲࡎࠊእഃせ⣲࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄞࡳᡭࡢព࿡ㄽⓗࠊⓒ⛉஦඾ⓗ▱㆑࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊእഃせ⣲ࡀࠕே≀ࠖࠊࠕ࢖࣋ࣥࢺࠖࠊࠕ᪋タࠖࠊࠕⓎゝࠖ࡞࡝࡟࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬ࡉࢀࠊ
ࡑࢀ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ≉ᐃࡢࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ㸦ࠕே≀ࠖࡢሙྜࠕሙᡤ㸦ฟ㌟➼㸧
ࠖ
ࠕᡤᒓࠖ
ࠕᖺ㱋ࠖ
ࠕ⫋ᴗࠖ
ࠕᖺ᭶㸦⏕࣭
ἐ㸧ࠖ࡞࡝㸧ࡀႏ㉳ࡉࢀࡿࠋ⥆࠸࡚ࠊෆഃせ⣲ࡀࡑࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡢࢻ࣓࢖ࣥෆ࡟࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬ࡉ
ࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ୧⪅ࡢ㛵ಀࡀ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆᅗ♧ࡍࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ab

ᅗ 1 ୸ᣓᘼࡢࠕᒓᛶࠖ⏝ἲࡢ⌮ゎ࡟࠾࠸࡚᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿ▱㆑≧ែᅗ୰ࡢ஧㔜⥺ࡣෆᅾⓗ㛵ಀࠊᐇ⥺ࡣ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬㸦஦౛໬㸧࡞࠸ࡋせ⣲㛫ࡢ෗ീ㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᅗ 1a ࡣࠊ
ࠕ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㸦࣐ࣜࢼ࣮ࢬ㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᣓᘼ⾲⌧ࡢ⌮ゎࡢ㝿࡟᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿ▱㆑≧ែࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᅗ࡛ࡣࠊࡲࡎእഃせ⣲ࡢࠕ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟࠖࡀࠕே≀ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬ࡉࢀࡓࡢࡕࠊෆഃせ⣲ࡢࠕ࣐ࣜࢼ࣮ࢬࠖࡀࠕே≀ࠖࡢ㸺ᡤᒓ㸼ࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡟ෆᅾⓗ㛵ಀ࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ
ࠕ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㸦࣐ࣜࢼ࣮ࢬ㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧඲యࡢ⌮ゎࡀ㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕே≀ࠖࢆᅖࡴ௚ࡢᴃ෇ࡣࠊ
ࠕே≀ࠖ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡀႏ㉳ࡍࡿ௚ࡢࢻ࣓࢖ࣥࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊᅗ 1b ࡣࠊࠕ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㸦30㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᣓᘼ⾲⌧ࡢ⌮ゎࡢ㝿ࡢࢫ࣮࣌ࢫᵓᡂࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊෆഃせ⣲ࠕ30ࠖࡣࠊࠕே≀ࠖ࢝ࢸ
ࢦ࣮ࣜࡀႏ㉳ࡍࡿูࡢࢻ࣓࢖࡛ࣥ࠶ࡿࠊ㸺ᖺ㱋㸼ࡢࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡟఩⨨௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ
࠺࡟ࠊࠕᒓᛶࠖ⏝ἲࡣࠊᣓᘼෆእࡢせ⣲ࡀᴫᛕ࣐ࢺࣜࢵࢡࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ෆᅾⓗ㛵ಀࢆ⤖ࡪࡼ࠺࡟఩⨨௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
4.2 ࠕ⿵᏶ࠖ⏝ἲ⥆࠸࡚ࠊ୸ᣓᘼࡢࠕ⿵᏶ࠖ⏝ἲࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠋࠕ⿵᏶ࠖ⏝ἲࡣࠊ
ࠕ㸦⤒Ⴀດຊ࡛㸧Ᏻࡃ࡛ࡁࡿవᆅࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡓࡽࠖࡸࠕ┿ᦸ࡟㸦ᢈุࢆ㸧ཷࡅṆࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ౛ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊእഃせ⣲ࡀ㡯ࡸ௜ຍモࠊ㏙ㄒ࡞࡝ࢆḞ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ㝿࡟ࠊෆഃせ⣲ࡀࡑࢀࢆ⿵ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿ⏝ἲ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣࠊࢸࣞࣅࡸ᪂⪺࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢ᭩ࡁ㉳ࡇࡋࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㡢ኌゝㄒࢆᩥᏐ໬ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡼࡃࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ(3) ࡣࢸࣞࣅ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢࢸࣟࢵࣉ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−52−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号(3) ࠺ࡑࡣ࠺ࡑ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ぢᢤࡅࡿே࡛࡞࠸࡜㸦ᥖ♧ᯈࢆ౑࠺ࡢࡣ㸧㞴ࡋ࠸࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢ㝿࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿⓎヰࡣࠕ࠺ࡑࡣ࠺ࡑ࡜ぢᢤࡅࡿࡦ࡜࡛࡞࠸࡜㞴ࡋ࠸࡛ࠖ࠶
ࡾࠊᣓᘼෆࡢࠕᥖ♧ᯈࢆ౑࠺ࡢࡣࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡣࠊ⦅㞟⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㏙ㄒࡢ୺㢟ࡀ⿵ࢃࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ᅗ 2 ୸ᣓᘼࡢࠕᒓᛶࠖ⏝ἲࡢ⌮ゎ࡟࠾࠸࡚᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿ▱㆑≧ែ
ᅗ 2 ࡣࠊࡇࡢ౛࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⌮ゎ㐣⛬ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋእഃせ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࠕ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠖࡀᐇ㝿࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡓ࡛࠶ࢁ
࠺㸺࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ㸼࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㸺Ⓨヰ㸼ࢫ࣮࣌ࢫ࡟఩⨨௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ࠕᥖ♧ᯈࢆ౑࠺ࡢࡣࠖ࡜
࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡣ㸺⦅㞟⪅ࡢಙᛕ㸼ࢫ࣮࣌ࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ௬᝿ⓗ࡞㸺Ⓨヰ㸼࡟఩⨨௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋᅗୗ㒊ࡢ㸺ࢫࢣ࣮ࣝ㸼ࡢࢫ࣮࣌ࢫ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ㸧ࡣࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ㸺࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ㸼࡟࠾ࡅࡿⓎヰࡶࠊ㸺⦅㞟⪅ࡢಙᛕ㸼࡟࠾ࡅࡿⓎヰࡶࠊࠕ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕ㞴᫆ᗘࡢࢫࢣ࣮ࣝࠖࡀႏ㉳ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊ㸺⦅㞟⪅ࡢಙᛕ㸼࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡢࡳࠊࡑࡢ୺㢟ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊྠࡌ⾲⌧࡛୸ᣓᘼࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊࡑࡢ⾲⌧ࡣ㸺࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ㸼࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㸺Ⓨヰ㸼࡜ࡋ࡚ࡋ࠿⌮ゎࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᣓᘼࡢ᭷↓࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⏕ࡌࡿゎ㔘ࡢ㐪࠸ࡣࠊㄞࡳᡭࡀ᝿ᐃࡍࡿ㸺Ⓨヰ㸼ࢫ࣮࣌ࢫࡢ
఩⨨௜ࡅ᪉ࡢ㐪࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
4.3 ࠕ௜ᖏ≧ἣࠖ⏝ἲḟ࡟ࠊ୸ᣓᘼࡢࠕ௜ᖏ≧ἣࠖ⏝ἲࡔࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣ⾲ 2 ࡢࠕࡑࡢ௚ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㸦➗㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊⓎヰሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿ≧ἣࡢᥥ෗࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⏝ἲࡣࠊྂࡃࡣᡓ๓ࡢ㆟஦㘓ࡸ⬮ᮏ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
ࢺ᭩ࡁ࡞࡝࡟ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ(4) ⋤ዪ:㸦➗࠸ฟࡍ㸧ࡑࢀࡣࡑࡢࡣࡎ࡛ࡍࢃࠋࡑࢇ࡞ྂ࠸࣐ࣥࢺࣝࢆ╔࡚࠸ࡽࡗࡋࡷࢀࡤୗ⏨࠿ఱ࠿࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡲࡍࡶࡢࠋ
⋤:㸦ლ➗࠺㸧⏕ពẼ࡞㸟ࢃࡓࡋࡢ࣐ࣥࢺࣝࡢຊࢆぢࡿࡀዲ࠸ࠋ
㸦ⰰᕝ㱟அ௓ࠗ୕ࡘࡢᐆ࠘6㸧

−53−

文章理解のメカニズムの解明にむけて―括弧の曖昧性はどのように解消されるか―ࢺ᭩ࡁ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ୸ᣓᘼ⾲⌧ࡢࠕ௜ᖏ≧ἣࠖ⏝ἲࡢ⌮ゎࡢ㝿࡟ࡣࠊᣓᘼࡢእഃせ⣲ࡢෆ࡛࠶ࡿࠕ⋤ዪࠖࡸࠕ⋤ࠖࡣ㸺๻㸼ࢫ࣮࣌ࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕᙺ๭ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬ࡉࢀࠊ
ࠕࡑࢀࡣࡑࡢࡣࡎ㹼ࠖࠕ⏕ពẼ࡞㹼ࠖࡢ㒊ศࡣࡑࡢࠕᙺ๭ࠖࡢ㸺Ⓨヰ㸼࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊෆഃせ⣲ࡢࠕ➗
࠸ฟࡍࠖࠕლ➗࠺ࠖࡣࠊࡑࡢⓎヰ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ₇⪅ࡢ㸺ែᗘ㸼ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕືసࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠼
ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ㏆ᖺ࡛ࡣࠊࢿࢵࢺୖࡢ୍㒊࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ᪂つ⾲⌧࡟ࡶࠊ(5), (6) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣑᙇⓗ࡞⏝ἲࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ(5) a.
b.
(6) a.
b.

࠾๓ࡢࡇ࡜ࡀዲࡁࡔࡗࡓࢇࡔࡼ!㸦㏕┿㸧࠼͐࡞࡟ࡑࢀࡣ͐(ࢻࣥᘬࡁ)ࡀࢇࡤࡾࡲࡋࡓ㸦ᑠᏛ⏕୪ࡢឤ᝿㸧࣋ࢫࢺࢆᑾࡃࡏࡤ⤖ᯝࡣฟࡏࡿ㸦᱁ゝ㸧(5) ࡢྛ౛ࡣ㆟஦㘓ࡸࢺ᭩ࡁ࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ཧ୚⪅ࡸሙ㠃ࡢ≧ἣ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ (6) ࡢྛ౛ࡣࡉ
ࡽ࡟ᣑᙇࡋ࡚Ⓨヰෆᐜ⮬య࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᭩ࡁᡭࡢ࣓ࢱⓗゝㄒ࡞ホ౯ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ(6) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣑᙇⓗ࡞⏝ἲ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌮ゎ㐣⛬ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊእഃせ⣲㸦(6a) ࡢሙྜࡣࠕࡀࢇ
ࡤࡾࡲࡋࡓࠖ
㸧ࡀࠊᘬ⏝࡛࠶ࢀࡤ➨୕⪅ࡢⓎヰ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑ࠺࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ᭩ࡁᡭ⮬㌟ࡢⓎヰ࡜ࡋ࡚㸺Ⓨヰ㸼ࢫ࣮࣌ࢫ࡟఩⨨௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡀࡉࡽ࡟ෆഃせ⣲ࡀ⾲ࡍࠕᑠᏛ⏕୪ࡳࡢឤ᝿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ホ౯㍈ࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕ௜ᖏ≧ἣࠖࢆⓎヰ஦ែ (speech event) ࡟࠾ࡅࡿሙ
㠃ࡸཧ୚⪅ࡢᒓᛶ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡏࡤࠊࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣࠕᒓᛶࠖ⏝ἲ࠿ࡽࡢᣑᙇ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ௨ୖ࡛ࡳ
ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᣓᘼ⾲⌧ࡣከᵝ࡞ゎ㔘ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ⛎ࡵ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡺ࠼࡟ࢿࢵࢺୖ࡛ࡳࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞๰㐀ⓗ࡞౑⏝ࡶྍ⬟࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᣓᘼ⾲⌧ࡢ⌮ゎࡀᖖ࡟㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ⌮ゎࡀኻᩋࡍࡿሙྜࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ

5. ⌮ゎࡢኻᩋ
࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡣࠊᣓᘼ⾲⌧ࡢ⌮ゎࡀኻᩋࡍࡿཎᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ௨ୗࡢ 3 ࡘࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍ࡘ┠ࡣࠊᚲせ࡞⫼ᬒ▱㆑ࡢ୙㊊࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬⮬యࡀ⾜࠼࡞࠸ࠕ▱㆑୙㊊ࠖ࡟ࡼࡿሙྜ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ஧ࡘ┠ࡣࠊ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬ࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࠕㄽ⌮ⓗ▩┪ࠖࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୕ࡘ┠ࡣᣓᘼ⾲⌧ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬ࡣ⾜࠼ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊࡑࢀࡀヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗ࡜஋㞳ࡍࡿࠕㄗゎࠖࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࡇࡢሙྜࠊㄗゎ࡜ࢃ࠿ࡿࡲ࡛ࡣࠕ⌮ゎࡢኻᩋࠖ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ⪃ᐹ࠿ࡽࡣᑐ㇟እ࡜ࡍ
ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊࠕ▱㆑୙㊊ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣓᘼ⾲⌧ࡢ⌮ゎࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ሙྜࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ(7) ࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㉁ၥ⪅ࡀ㸦Წ㸧࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࢆ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧᅇ⟅⪅ࡀࠊࡇࡢᣓᘼ⾲⌧ࡢ⌮ゎ࡟ࡣෆഃせ⣲ࡀࠕᲬㄞࡳࠖࡢ┬␎࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺▱㆑ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ౛࡟࠾
࠸࡚ࠊᅇ⟅⪅ࡣ㸦Წ㸧ࡣࠕᲬㄞࡳࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࢆ௓ࡋ࡚㸺Ⓨヰ㸼࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㸺㡢㡩㸼ࢻ࣓࢖ࣥࡢࠕᢚᥭࠖ
ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨௜ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊ㉁ၥ⪅ࡣᲬ࡜Წㄞࡳࢆ⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿ⫼ᬒ▱㆑ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸
ࡓࡵࠊ㸦Წ㸧࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

−54−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号(7) ㉁ၥ⪅㸸ࢿࢵࢺୖ࡛ࡢ᭩ࡁ㎸ࡳ࡛ࠕࠐࠐࠐ㸦Წ㸧ࠖ࡜ゝ࠺ࡼ࠺࡞᭩ࡁ㎸ࡳࢆぢ࠿ࡅࡲࡍࡀࠊ
ࡇࡢ㸦Წ㸧࡜ࡣ࡝࠺ࡺ࠺ព࿡ఱ࡛ࡍ࠿㸽㸽㸽ᅇ⟅⪅㸸ࠕᲬㄞࡳࠖࡢ␎ࠊࡘࡲࡾឤ᝟ࡀ㎸ࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ᵝࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
౛ࠕ኱ኚ࡛ࡍࡡ㹼(Წ)ࠖń ࠕ඲↛኱ኚࡔ࡜ࡣᛮࡗ࡚࡞࠸ࡅ࡝ࠊᙧࡔࡅゝࡗ࡚ࡳࡲࡋࡓࡼࠖ࡜࠸࠺ឤࡌ
㸦ࣖࣇ࣮▱ᜨ⿄ 7㸧⥆࠸࡚ࠊㄽ⌮ⓗ▩┪ࡢࡓࡵ࡟⌮ゎࡀ㐩ᡂࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࢆࡳࡿࠋ(8) ࡢ౛ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ㟁Ꮚᥖ♧ᯈ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎӑ1㸦➨ 1 Ⓨゝ⪅㸧ࡀࠊ(‘㹨’ ) ࡜࠸࠺㢦ᩥᏐࡀ⾲ࡍ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡢྡ๓ࢆᑜࡡ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ྛⓎゝ⪅࠿ࡽࠕඛఫẸࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡀ㏉ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊӑ14 㸦➨ 14 Ⓨゝ⪅㸧ࡀࠕඛఫẸ㸦ඛఫẸ࡜ࡣゝࡗ࡚࡞࠸㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺▩┪ࡋࡓࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ӑ16 ࡀ⌮ゎࡢᮍ㐩ᡂࢆ᫂♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(8) 14 㸸㢼྿ࡅࡤྡ↓ࡋ 2013/11/10(᪥) 21:14:57.75 ID:YuQHXMxv
ඛఫẸ㸦ඛఫẸ࡜ࡣゝࡗ࡚࡞࠸㸧
16 㸸㢼྿ࡅࡤྡ↓ࡋ 2013/11/10(᪥) 21:15:43.11 ID:MtUOrPNc>>14ࡇࢀࡶ࠺ࢃ࠿ࢇࡡ࠻࡞
㸦ࡲ࡜ࡵࣈࣟࢢ 8㸧ࡇࡢሙྜࠊӑ14 ࡟࠾ࡅࡿእഃせ⣲ࠕඛఫẸࠖ࡜ෆഃせ⣲ࠕඛఫẸ࡜ࡣゝࡗ࡚࡞࠸ࠖࡀࠊྠ୍ே≀ࡢ㸺
Ⓨヰ㸼ࢫ࣮࣌ࢫෆ࡟఩⨨௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ㄽ⌮ⓗ▩┪ࢆࡁࡓࡍࡶࡢࡢࠊ௚࡟㐺ษ࡞࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬ࡀ
⾜࠼࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡟⌮ゎࡢ㐩ᡂࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ௨ୖ࠿ࡽࠊ⌮ゎࡀ㐩ᡂࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡶࠊ㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿሙྜ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣせ⣲㛫ࡢ෗ീࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⤫୍ⓗ࡟グ㏙࣭ㄝ᫂ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ

6. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ୸ᣓᘼࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ⾲⌧ࡢศ㢮ࡸ⌮ゎࡀ㐩ᡂࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࢆࡳࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊከᵝ࡞⏝ἲ࡛ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿᣓᘼࡢ᭕᫕ᛶࡣࠊᣓᘼෆእࡢせ⣲ࡀ㐺ษ࡟࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠊᩥ
❶⌮ゎࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡢ୍➃ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
௒ᚋࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟ከࡃࡢᣓᘼ⾲⌧ࢆࡳࡿࡇ࡜࡛ศᯒࡢ⢭ᗘࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡸࠊ௚ࡢゝㄒ⌧㇟࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ࢆ᥈ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࢪࣕࣥࣝࡸࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡀᣓᘼ⌮ゎ࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ㡪ࡢゎ᫂ࠊከゝㄒ࡜ࡢẚ㍑࡞࡝ࡀㄢ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࡀࠊ
ᣓᘼ⾲⌧ࡣ㡢㡩࣭ᙧែ⣲ࣞ࣋ࣝ࠿ࡽ⠇࣭ᩥࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠸ࡓࡿࡲ࡛ࠊゝㄒࡢᵝࠎ࡞㝵ᒙ࡟ࡲࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࡳࡽ
ࢀࡿ⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡾࠊᙜヱศ㔝ࡢ◊✲ࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊព࿡ㄽ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽ࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡽࡎࠊゝㄒᏛ඲య࡬ࡢ㈉⊩ࡀᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿࠋ

−55−

文章理解のメカニズムの解明にむけて―括弧の曖昧性はどのように解消されるか―ὀ
1ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ㸦≉࡟ Langacker ࡢㄆ▱ᩥἲ㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢ⌮ゎࡣ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬ࡢၥ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࢃࢀࡿ (ᒣ᲍ 2000, Langacker 2008)ࠋ

2.

ㄆ▱ᩥἲ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡㸦ᴫᛕෆᐜ㸧ࡣ」ᩘࡢࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿᴫᛕ࣐ࢺࣜࢵࢡࢫ
ᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࢢࣛࢫ (glass) ࡣࠊ
ࠕᙧ≧ࠖ
ࠕᮦ㉁ࠖ
ࠕ኱ࡁࡉࠖ
ࠕᶵ⬟ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢࢻ࣓
࢖ࣥࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿ (Langacker 2008: 56-65)ࠋ

3.

࣓ࣥࢱ࣭ࣝࢫ࣮࣌ࢫ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢ⌮ゎࡣ࣓ࣥࢱ࣭ࣝࢫ࣮࣌ࢫ࡜ࢫ࣮࣌ࢫෆࡢせ⣲ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧせ⣲㛫ࡢ෗ീ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿࢫ࣮࣌ࢫᵓᡂ (configuration) ࡜ࡋ࡚⾲ࡉࢀࡿ (Fauconnier 1997)ࠋ

4.

Langacker (2008: 65-70) ࡛ࡣࠊࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡜࣓ࣥࢱ࣭ࣝࢫ࣮࣌ࢫࡀྠ୍ࡢࡶࡢࢆูࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽグ㏙ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

5.

ෆᅾⓗ㛵ಀ࡟ࡣࠊ㒊ศ࣭඲య㛵ಀ (the tip of my finger)ࠊᮦ㉁ (a ring of fire)ࠊ஦౛ (the monthof August)ࠊぶ᪘ (a descendant of Abraham Lincoln) ࡞࡝ࡢ㛵ಀࡀྵࡲࢀࡿ(Langacker 2008:

6.
7.

343-345)ࠋ
http://www.aozora.gr.jp/cards/000879/files/1126_14251.html (November 22, 2014)
http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q13117420523;_ylt=A7YWPRVM
GkhUpHwAGwoG_fN7?pos=3&ccode=ofv (November 22, 2014)8.

http://all-a.org/articles/31928.html (November 22, 2014)ཧ↷ᩥ⊩㯞㔝㛫┤ᶞ࣭ᯇᑿ⩏༤. 2002.ࠕᣓᘼ⩻ヂࡢᶵᲔ⩻ヂࠖࠊࠗゝㄒฎ⌮Ꮫ఍ᖺḟ኱఍Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘8: 311-314.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mapping in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
ஂගᚭ࣭୹⩚ⰾᶞ. 1997.ࠕ⤫ィ㔞࡜࣮ࣝࣝࢆ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡚᭷⏝࡞ᣓᘼ⾲⌧ࢆᢳฟࡍࡿᡭἲࠖࠊࠗ⮬↛ゝㄒฎ⌮Ꮫ఍◊✲ሗ࿌࠘NL-122-17: 113-118.
ᮌᮧ኱἞. 2011.ࠗᣓᘼࡢព࿡ㄽ࠘ ᮾி㸸NTT ฟ∧.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
୰ᒣᝅ࣭᳃⏣࿴ᏹ࣭ἰ⏣ṇ㞝࣭㟷Ụ㡰୍. 2010. ࠕᣓᘼ⾲⌧ࡢศ㢮࣭ᢳฟ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࠖࠊ ࠗゝㄒฎ
⌮Ꮫ఍ᖺḟ኱఍Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘ 16: 379-382.
ᒸᓮ┤ほ࣭▼ሯ‶. 2007. ࠕゝ࠸᥮࠼ྍ⬟࡞ᣓᘼ⾲⌧ࡢᢳฟἲࠖ
ࠊࠗゝㄒฎ⌮Ꮫ఍ᖺḟ኱఍Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘
13: 911-913.
ⓑ஭ ㅍ࣭▮㒊Ꮥᖾ࣭ᯇᑿ୕ὠᜨ࣭すᇉ୓டᏊ࣭኱ᒣⰾྐ.ࠕ᪂⪺グ஦ᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᣓᘼ᭩ࡁ⾲⌧ࡢศᯒ࡜ࡑࡢฎ⌮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ
ࠊࠗ᝟ሗฎ⌮Ꮫ఍඲ᅜ኱఍බᅬㄽᩥ㞟࠘53 (2): 31-32.
ᒣ᳃Ⰻᯞ. 2008.ࠕᘬ⏝࡜ logophoricityɆ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᣓᘼࡢᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ
ࠊࠗ➨ 25 ᅇ᪥ᮏㄆ▱⛉Ꮫ఍኱఍Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘370-375.
ᒣ᳃Ⰻᯞ. 2014.ࠕࠗㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᣓᘼ࠘࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖࠊ
ࠗ➨ 8 ᅇ᪥ᮏㄒᐇ⏝ゝㄒᅜ㝿఍㆟ CONFERENCE
HANDBOOK࠘116-119.
ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂. 2000.ࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛཎ⌮࠘ ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.

−56−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

᪥ᮏㄒࡢ┤♧㏙ㄒࠕ㹔࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡢṔྐ̿ࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ἲࡢⓎ㐩̿                                ⃝⏣῟                                  㟷ᒣᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ<Abstract>
This paper argues the historical development of the Japanese auxiliary verb V-te-kuru (V-CON-come)which indicates the direction of action as in Ken-ga boku-ni hon-o oku-tte-ki-ta. ‘Ken sent me a book’.

The te-kuru in this use does not describe the spatial movement of the subject referent. It shows that theaction is directed toward the speaker, or that it exerts a psychological influence on him/her. This paper
shows that the non-spatial “come” that indicates the direction of an action first appeared in the Early
Modern period (Mori 2010) and the encoding of speaker’s viewpoint has become stronger in theJapanese historical development.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸ࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࠊࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖࠊཷᙳ࣐࣮࣮࢝ࠊṔྐࠊヰ⪅どⅬࡢ᫂♧໬㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡢ⏝ἲࡢ㸯ࡘ࡟ࠊヰ⪅࡬ࡢࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡿ 1ࠋࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖࡢࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡣࠊ୺ㄒࡢ⛣ືࡣ⾲ࡉࡎࠊヰ⪅ࡀ୺ㄒࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆ⮬ᕫ㡿ᇦ࡟௙ྥࡅ㸦௙᥃ࡅ㸧ࡽ
ࢀࡓ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ᚰ⌮ⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣḟࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ୗ఩༊ศࡉࢀࡿ㸦ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ⃝⏣㸦2009㸧࡛ᥦ♧ࡋࡓศ㢮ࢆᇶ࡟ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊA ᆺࢆ A1 ᆺ࡜ A2 ᆺ࡜࡟ୗ఩༊ศࡍࡿ㸧ࠋ
㸦1㸧a. ࢣࣥࡀ⚾࡟ᮏࢆ㏦ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ

㸦A1 ᆺ㸸≀ࡢ⛣㏦㸧b.

ࢣࣥࡀ⚾࡟ᮏࢆΏࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ

㸦A2 ᆺ㸸≀ࡢᤵ୚㸧c.

ࣖࢡࢨࡀ⚾ࢆ⬣ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ

㸦B ᆺ㸸⾜Ⅽࡢ┤᥋ⓗཷᙳ㸧఍♫ࡀ⤥ᩱࢆῶࡽࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ

㸦C ᆺ㸸⾜Ⅽࡢ㛫᥋ⓗཷᙳ㸧    d.

᳃㸦2010㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ㏆ୡᮇ௨㝆ࠊA1 ᆺ࠿ࡽḟ➨࡟⏝ἲࡀᣑࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡗࡓⅬࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ
ࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖᶆ♧ࡢ⩏ົᛶ࡟╔┠ࡋࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡀヰ⪅どⅬࡢ᫂♧໬ࢆᙉࡵ࡚ࡁࡓྍ⬟ᛶࢆኟ┠ₙ▼ࠗᆓࡗࡕࡷࢇ࠘ࡢཎᩥ∧࡜⌧௦ㄒヂ∧࡜ࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺẚ㍑➼࠿ࡽᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ
㸰㸬
ࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖࡢࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡢࢱ࢖ࣉศࡅA ᆺࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖ࡟ࡣࠊᑐ㇟⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍືモࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࠋA ᆺ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿືモࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ
ࠕ㏦ࡿࠖࠕ㟁ヰࢆ࠿ࡅࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞஧⪅㛫ࡢ㊥㞳ࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡍࡿࠕ⛣㏦ࠖ⣔ࡢືモ㸦A1 ᆺ㸧࡜ࠊࠕΏࡍࠖࠕ㡸ࡅࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕᤵ୚ࠖ⣔ࡢືモ㸦A2 ᆺ㸧࡜࡟ୗ఩༊ศ࡛ࡁࡿࠋA ᆺ㸦୺࡜ࡋ࡚ A1 ᆺ㸧ࡢࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡣࠊࠕ࡚ࡼࡇࡍࠖ࡟⨨᥮ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋB ᆺࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡣࠊヰ⪅㸦ࡲࡓࡣࠊ≀⌮ⓗ࣭ᚰ⌮ⓗ࡟ヰ⪅㡿ᇦ࡟ᒓࡍࡿ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ⪅㸧࡬ࡢ┤᥋ⓗ࡞⾜Ⅽࡢ⿕ᙳ㡪ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊC ᆺࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡣ୺ㄒࡢ
⾜Ⅽ࠿ࡽヰ⪅ࡀ㛫᥋ⓗᙳ㡪ࢆ⿕ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠕ࡚ࡼࡇࡍࠖ࡟⨨᥮࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ௨ୗࡢ
౛ࡀ♧၀ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊヰ⪅ࡀ୺ㄒࡢ⾜Ⅽ࠿ࡽᙳ㡪ࢆ⿕ࡿࠕཷᙳ࣐࣮࣮࢝ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚Ⓨ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ࡉ

−57−

日本語の直示述語「Ｖ−てくる」の歴史―「行為の方向づけ」を表す用法の発達―ࡽ࡟ࠊ┈ᒸ㸦1992: 6㸧ࠊᒣ⏣㸦2005: 74㸧ࠊྂ㈡㸦2008: 252㸧ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋ
㸦1㸧➃࠿ࡽ஧␒┠࡟ᗙࡗ࡚ࡓࡽࠊࡣࡌࡗࡇ࡟ࢹࢵ࢝࠸ዪࡀᗙࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ࠾ᑼࡀࡄ࠸ࡄ࠸ᐤࡗ
࡚ࡁ࡚ࠊ࡞ࢇࡔ࠿᭱ึ࠿ࡽ୙ᶵ᎘ࡑ࠺࡛ࡣࡌࡗࡇ࡟ᐤࡾ࠿࠿ࡗ࡚ᐷጞࡵࡓࡅ࡝ࠊఱ㥐࠿㐣ࡂ࡚࠿ࡽࠊᩳࡵ࡟㊊ࢆఙࡤࡋ࡚ࡁ࡚ࠊ⚾ࡢ㊊ࢆ㋃ࢇ࡙ࡅ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
㸦http://mixi.jp/view_bbs.pl?comm_id=2295644&id=42198614㸧
㸦2㸧ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢࢭ࣮ࣝࢫ࣐ࣥࠊఱࢆᛮࡗࡓࡢ࠿ࠊなࡁ✰࠿ࡽᐙࡢ୰ࢆな࠸࡚ࡁࡓ㸟㸦http://ameblo.jp/wikiwikiskip/entry-11348302607.html㸧 㸦3㸧ㄝ᫂୰࡟෗┿ࢆ᧜ࢁ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠕ࠶࡜࡛⮬⏤᫬㛫࠶ࡆࡲࡍ࠿ࡽ㸟ࠖ࡜ࡵࡗࡕࡷ࡚࢟ࣞࡃࡿࠋ                       㸦Yahoo!ࣈࣟࢢࠊBCCWJ㸧 

㸦4㸧ࠑࠕ᎘ࡔ࡞ࠖ࡜ᛮࡗࡓࢱࢡࢩ࣮࢚ࣆࢯ࣮ࢻࠒ
࣭┠ⓗᆅࡲ࡛㏆࠸᫬࡟⯉ᡴࡕࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ㸦29 ṓ㸭⏨ᛶ㸧㸦http://news.ameba.jp/20140316-137/㸧㸦5㸧࣡࢖ࢩࣕࢶࢆ 5 ᯛฟࡋࡓࡢ࡟ࠕ࣡࢖ࢩࣕࢶᅄᯛ࡛ࡍࡡࠖ࡜ゝࢃࢀࡓࡢ࡛ࠕ஬ᯛ࡛ࡍࡼ㹼ࠖ࡜ఏ࠼ࡓࡽㅰࡾࡶࡏࡎࠕࡣ࠵࣮ࠖ࡜⪺ࡇ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡓࡵᜥࢆࡘ࠸࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
㸦␎㸧࠶ࢇ࡞
ኻ♩࡞᥋ᐈࡣึࡵ࡚ࠋ

㸦http://loco.yahoo.co.jp/place/g-RR9g95g3c_E/review/931736/?㸧 ⾜Ⅽࡢᙳ㡪ࡀヰ⪅࡬࡜┤᥋ⓗ࡟ཬࡪ B ᆺࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡣ┤᥋ཷ㌟ᩥࠊ㛫᥋ⓗ࡟ཬࡪ C ᆺࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖ
ࡣ㛫᥋ཷ㌟ᩥ࡜ᶵ⬟ⓗ㢮ఝᛶࢆ᭷ࡍࡿ㸦⃝⏣ 2009㸧ࠋ  㸦6㸧⚾ࡣࣖࢡࢨ࡟⬣ࡉࢀࡓࠋ  㸦┤᥋ཷ㌟ᩥ㸧㸦cf. 1c㸧㸦7㸧⚾ࡣ఍♫࡟⤥ᩱࢆῶࡽࡉࢀࡓࠋ㸦㛫᥋ཷ㌟ᩥ㸧㸦cf. 1d㸧
B ᆺࠊC ᆺࡣヰ⪅࡟ᝏᙳ㡪㸦㏞ᝨ㸧ࢆཬࡰࡍ౛ࡀከ࠸ࡀ㸦ఫ⏣ 2006ࠊྂ㈡ 2008 ཧ↷㸧ࠊࡇࢀࡣࠊ
B ᆺࠊC ᆺࠕ࡚ࡃࡿ࡛ࠖࡣ୺ㄒ࡜ヰ⪅࡜ࡢᑐ❧ⓗ㸦ᑐᢠⓗࠊᩛᑐⓗ㸧࡞㛵ಀࢆྵពࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡜࠸
࠼ࡿ㸦⃝⏣ 2009㸧ࠋᑐ❧㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ௚⪅࡟ࡼࡿ⾜Ⅽࡣࠊヰ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㏞ᝨ࡞⾜Ⅽ࡜࡞ࡿሙྜࡀከ
࠸ࡀࠊ≧ἣ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊヰ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ዲᙳ㡪㸦ᜠᜨ㸧ࢆཬࡰࡍ⾜Ⅽ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦8㸧ࠕ࣮࣌ࢫࢆⴠ࡜ࡋࡓࡽࠊ┦ᡭࡀ↔ࡗ࡚↓⌮ࡸࡾᨷࡵ࡚ࡁ࡚ࡃࢀࡓࠖࠋࣇ࢛࢔ࣁࣥࢻ࡛ᦂࡉ
ࡪࡾࠊ6ʊ2ࠊ6ʊ1 ࡛ᅽಽࡋࡓࠋ 㸦ࢸࢽࢫࠗᮅ᪥᪂⪺࠘2014 ᖺ 8 ᭶ 9 ᪥ࠊᮅห㸧B ᆺࠊC ᆺࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ୺ㄒ࡜ヰ⪅࡜ࡢᑐ❧ᛶࡣࠊ୺ㄒ࠿ࡽヰ⪅࡬ࡢ⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡍ௚⪅⛣ືࡢࠕ᮶ࡿࠖࡢព࿡࠿ࡽⓎᒎࡋࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖ⏝ἲ࡛㔜せ࡞Ⅼࡣࠊ୺ㄒࡢ࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥ㸦ᨷᧁࡸ௙᥃ࡅ㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
ヰ⪅ࡀఱࡽ࠿ࡢࣜ࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࢆ㉳ࡇࡍ㸦཯ᧁࡋࡓࡾࠊᑐᢠ⟇ࢆㅮࡌࡓࡾࡍࡿ㸧వᆅࡀṧࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊ୙㐺᱁࡜࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦⃝⏣ 2009㸧ࠋḟࡢ b ᩥࡣヨྜࡀࡑࡇ࡛ࢤ࣮࣒ࢭࢵࢺ࡜
࡞ࡿࡓࡵ୙㐺᱁࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
㸦9㸧a.㸦๢㐨୕ᮏ຾㈇㸧┦ᡭࡀඛ࡟୍ᮏࢆྲྀࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
b.㸦๢㐨୍ᮏ຾㈇㸧*┦ᡭࡀ୍ᮏࢆྲྀࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ

−58−

㸦⃝⏣ 2009: 8-9㸧

第17回大会発表論文集第10号⤊⤖ឤࡢ࠶ࡿ࢖࣋ࣥࢺ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊၥ㢟ࡢࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡀ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗ࡟ጞື┦ࢆ⾲ࡍ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ 2ࠋࡇࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺⓗ≉ᚩࡣࠊྠࡌࡃ㠀⛣ືᆺࡢࠕኚ໬ᆺ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࠖࠕ㠀ពᅗⓗ஦㇟ࡢฟ⌧ࠖ࡜ࡶඹ᭷ࡍࡿࠋ
㸱㸬ࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖࡢࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡢṔྐࠕ9 ࡚᮶ࠖࡢṔྐ
ࠕV㸦࡚㸧᮶ࠖࡢṔྐⓗᒎ㛤ࡢヲ⣽ࡣู✏࡟ㆡࡾࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࡈࡃ⡆༢࡟ࠊࢸᙧ᥋⥆ࠕV ࡚᮶ࠖࡢṔྐ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ㐃⏝ᙧ᥋⥆ࠕV ᮶ࠖ࡜ࡢẚ㍑࠿ࡽ㏙࡭ࡿࠋ
ྂ௦ㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕV ᮶ࠖࡢࠕ᮶ࠖ࡟ẚ࡭ࠊࠕV ࡚᮶ࠖࡢࠕ᮶ࠖࡣᩥἲ໬ࡀ༑ศ࡟㐍ࢇ࡛࠸࡞࠸㸦ᮤ
2012ࠊ⃝⏣ 2013 ཧ↷㸧ࠋୖ௦ࡢᩥ⊩㸦ⴙⴥ㞟㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࠕ㹔᮶࡛ࠖࡣࠊ᪤࡟ࠕྠ᫬⛣ືࠖ㸦౛㸸
ᾆᘔࡼࡾ₈ࡂ᮶ࡋ㸦チⱁチஅ㸧⯪ࢆ㸦3646㸧㸧ࠊࠕ⥅㉳⛣ືࠖ㸦౛㸸ᡃࡀ₯ࡁ᮶ࡋ㸦₯᮶அ㸧Ἀࡘⓑ⋢㸦1203㸧㸧ࠊࠕ⛣ືࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖ
㸦౛㸸ጒࡀධࡾ᮶࡚㸦ጒஅධ᮶⪋㸧
㸦3117㸧㸧ࠊࠕ⥅⥆ᆺ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࠖ
㸦౛㸸ᖺࡢ⥴㛗ࡃ௙࠼᮶ࡋ㸦௙᮶㸧
㸦3324㸧㸧ࠊࠕኚ໬ᆺ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࠖ
㸦౛㸸╔ࡏࡋ⾰ᡭᮏࡢࡃࡔࡾࡲ
ࡼࡦ᮶࡟ࡅࡾ㸦㯞ḧẚఄᑣᐙ฼㸧
㸦3453㸧㸧ࠊࠕ㠀ពᅗⓗ஦㇟ࡢฟ⌧ࠖ㸦౛㸸㞷ࡒ㝆ࡾ᮶ࡿ㸦㞷᭯ⴠஂ
㢮㸧㸦1647㸧㸧ࠊࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖ㸦౛㸸ᡃ࡟࿌ࡆ᮶ࡴ㸦ᡃ࿌᮶㸧ேࡶ᮶ࡠ࠿ࡶ㸦2384㸧㸧ࡢྛ⏝ἲࡀฟᥞࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᩘᏐࡣḷ␒ྕ㸧3ࠋ୍᪉ࠊࠕ㹔࡚᮶ࠖࡣࠊࠕྠ᫬⛣ືࠖ㸦౛㸸㟷㤿ࡢ㠃㧗ኵ㥏࡟஌ࡾ࡚᮶࡭ࡋࡸ㸦஌⪋ᛂࣞ᮶ဢ㸧
㸦3098㸧㸧
ࠊࠕ⥅㉳⛣ືࠖ
㸦౛㸸ᜥ࡙ࡃጒࢆ⨨ࡁ࡚᮶ࡠ࠿ࡶ㸧㸦᪊ఄᘭఄດྍẕ㸧㸦3527㸧㸧ࠊࠕ⛣ືࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖ㸦౛㸸ᡃࡀฟ࡛࡚᮶ࢀࡤ㸦ฟ⪋᮶⪅㸧㸦754㸧㸧ࠊࠕ⥅⥆ᆺ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࠖ㸦౛㸸⚄௦ࡼࡾゝࡦఏ࡚᮶ࡽࡃ㸦பఏஂⰋஂ㸧㸦894㸧㸧࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠕ⛣ືᆺࠖࡢ⏝ἲ࡟⏝౛ࡀ㝈ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࡢ≧ἣࡣ୰࡛ྂࡶ࠶ࡲࡾኚࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࠋⴙⴥ㞟࡟⌧ࢀࡿࠕV ࡚᮶ࠖࠕV ᮶ࠖࡢ
⏝ἲูࡢ⏝౛ᩘࡢෆヂࡣḟࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦ヲ⣽ࡣ⃝⏣㸦2013㸧ཧ↷㸧ࠋ
V࡚᮶
⏝ἲ

V᮶

␗࡞ࡾㄒᩘ

ᘏ࡭ㄒᩘ

␗࡞ࡾㄒᩘ

ᘏ࡭ㄒᩘ

ྠ᫬⛣ື

13

21

21

96

⥅㉳⛣ື

7

18

12

27

⛣ືࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅ

1

9

12

83

⥅⥆ᆺ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ

3

3

15

21

ኚ໬ᆺ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ

0

0

6

25

㠀ពᅗⓗ஦㇟ࡢฟ⌧

0

0

8

44

⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅ

0

0

㸦1㸧

㸦2㸧

⾲㸯

ⴙⴥ㞟࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ9࡚᮶ࠖ࡜ࠕ9᮶ࠖ4Ṕྐⓗ࡟ࠊࠕV ᮶ࠖࡣḟ➨࡟ㄒᙡ໬ࡉࢀࠊ⏕⏘ᛶࢆኻࡗ࡚࠸ࡃ௦ࢃࡾ࡟ࠊ
ࠕV ࡚᮶ࠖࡢࠕ᮶ࠖࡀ
ᩥἲ໬ࢆࠕ෌ฟⓎࠖ5 ࡉࡏࠊ⏝ἲࢆᗈࡆ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
᳃㸦㸧ࡢ▱ぢ㸸ࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖࡢࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡢⓎ㐩⃝⏣㸦2009㸧࡛ࡣࠊ⌧௦ㄒࡢ A ᆺࠊB ᆺࠊC ᆺࡢࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡀ୍㐃ࡢᣑᙇࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆ࡞ࡍ࡜᝿

−59−

日本語の直示述語「Ｖ−てくる」の歴史―「行為の方向づけ」を表す用法の発達―ᐃࡋࡓࠋ᳃㸦2010㸧ࡣࠊࡇࢀࢆṔྐⓗ࡟⿬࡙ࡅࡿㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᳃㸦2010㸧࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ
ࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖ
㸦᳃㸦2010㸧࡛ࡣࠊࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢཷ㡿ࠖ㸧ࡢࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡣࠊ㏆ୡᮇ࠿ࡽぢࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ
๓ᮇୖ᪉ㄒࠊᚋᮇỤᡞㄒࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚⏝౛ࡣᑡ࡞ࡃࠊ๓㡯ືモࡶ࡯ࡰఏ㐩ືモࠕゝ࠺ࠖ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ᫂἞ᮇ࡟ධࡿ࡜ࠊ⏝౛ᩘࠊ␗࡞ࡾㄒᩘඹ࡟ቑຍࡋࠊA ᆺࠊB ᆺࡢ⏝౛ࡀࡲ࡜ࡲࡗ࡚ぢࡽࢀࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࡀࠊC ᆺࡢ⏝౛ࡣࡲࡔぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㏆ୡ๓ᮇ

㏆ୡᚋᮇ

㸦ୖ᪉㸧

㸦Ụᡞ㸧

546,000

1,834,000

755,000

1,200,000

ࠕ-࡚ࡃࡿࠖ඲⏝౛ᩘ

145

186

400

1447

⾜Ⅽࡢཷ㡿

0

2

3

27

㸦0㸧

㸦1㸧

㸦2㸧

㸦17㸧

ᖺ௦㸦ᆅᇦ㸧

୰ୡᮎᮇࢸ࢟ࢫࢺᏐᩘ㸦ᴫᩘ㸧㸦๓㡯ືモࡢ␗࡞ࡾㄒᩘ㸧

⾲㸰

᫂἞ᮇ

ࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖࡢࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡢ⏝౛ᩘ㸦᳃ 㸧6௨ୗ࡟ࠊ᳃㸦2010㸧࡛ᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⏝౛ࡢ୍㒊ࢆᣲࡆࡿ㸦୍㒊ࠊ⏝౛ࢆ㏣ຍࡋࡓ㸧ࠋ㸦10㸧ࡢࠕゝࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡣ A1 ᆺࠊ㸦11㸧ࡢࠕゝࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡣ A2 ᆺ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
㏆ୡ๓ᮇ㸸
㸦10㸧㧗ᵳࡢ఑∗᳃ྑ⾨㛛ᵝ࠿ࡽ㸬ࡓࡘࡓ௒㣕⬮ࡢ≧࡟㸬ࡶࡘࡅ࡞஦ࡀゝ࠺࡚᮶ࡲࡋࡓࠋぢࡉࡘࡋࡸࢀ㸬
࠙㧗ᵳࡢ఑∗᳃ྑ⾨㛛ᵝ࠿ࡽࠊࡓࡗࡓ௒ࠊ㣕⬮࡟クࡋࡓᡭ⣬࡟ࠊᛮ࠸ࡶᐤ
ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ᭩࠸࡚ࡁࡲࡋࡓࠚ
㸦㏆ᯇ㛛ᕥ⾨㛛㞟࣭ዪἜ⤮ᆅ⊹㸧㸦᳃ 2010: 14㸧
㸦A1 ᆺ㸧
㏆ୡᚋᮇ㸸ࠝዪ㑻ĺ᪂㐀ࠞ㸦11㸧ࠝ᪂㐀ĺዪ㑻ࠞࠕࣔࢩ࢖ࠊᚚ↓ᚰ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ࠿࡚࡬⣬ࢆ୍ࡲ࠸࠾ࡃࢇ࡞ࢇࡋ࡞ࠋ
ࠖࠕ࠸࠸ࡁࡐࢇ࡞ࠋⰍࠎ࡞஦ࢆ࠸ࡘ࡚ࡃࡿࠋ 㸦ὗⴠᮏ࣭ഴᇛ㈙ᅄ༑ඵᡭ㸧㸦᳃ 2010: 7㸧
㸦A2 ᆺ㸧
᫂἞ᮇ㸸㸦12㸧Ꮫ⏕ࡀከࡃ㏻ࡿࠋ᧿ࢀ㐪ࡩ᫬࡟ᒧᗘ஧ேࢆぢࡿࠋ୰࡟ࡣ㐲ࡃ࠿ࡽ║ࢆ௜ࡅ࡚᮶ࡿࡶࡢ
ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ


㸦ኟ┠ₙ▼ࠗ୕ᅄ㑻࠘ࠗₙ▼඲㞟➨஬ᕳ࠘497 㡫㸧㸦B ᆺ㸧ヰ⪅どⅬࡢ᫂♧໬㸸ኟ┠ₙ▼ࠗᆓࡗࡕࡷࢇ࠘ࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺẚ㍑࠿ࡽ

᫂἞ᮇࡣࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖ⏝ἲࡀᗈࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡗࡓ᫬ᮇ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸦᳃ 2010㸧ࠊࡇࡢ᫬௦ࠊ
ࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖࡢࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡢᶆ♧࡟ࡼࡿヰ⪅どⅬࡢ᫂♧໬ࡣከศ࡟㝶ពⓗ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ḟࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ヰ⪅どⅬࡀ᫂♧໬ࡉࢀࡓᩥ࡜ࡑ࠺࡛࡞࠸ᩥࡢ୧᪉ࡀ⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦13㸧⇃㇂ࡢᑠᓥࡣ୍㧗ࡢධᏛヨ㦂ࢆཷࡅ࡟ᮾி࡟ฟᠱࡅࡓࡀࠊ᫬ࠎ⤮ⴥ᭩࡛≧ἣࢆሗࡌࡓࠋ
ⱥㄒࡀ㞴࠿ࡋ࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡞࡝ࢆࡶ▱ࡽࡏ࡚᮶ࡓࠋ㸦⏣ᒣⰼ⿄ࠗ⏣⯋ᩍᖌ࠘㸧㸦᳃ 2010: 8㸧
㸦A1 ᆺ㸧
㸦14㸧඼࠺ࡕ୍࡛␒⚾ࢆ୙ទᛌ࡟ࡋࡓࡢࡣ᧛ᕞࡢᆏ㉺࡟ࢄࡿᒾᓮ࡜࠸ࡩே࡛࠶ࡘࡓࠋṈேࡣᩘᖺ๓ࡼࡃ➃᭩࡛⚾࡟ತྃࢆ᭩࠸࡚ࡃࢀ࡜㢗ࢇ࡛᮶ࡓ࠿ࡽࠊ඼㒔ᗘྥࡩࡢ࠸ࡩ㏻ࡾ᭩
࠸࡚㏦ࡘࡓグ᠈ࡢ࠶ࡿ⏨࡛࠶ࡿࠋ඼ᚋࡢ஦࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᙼࡣཪᅄゅ࡞ⷧ࠸ᑠໟࢆ⚾࡟㏦ࡘࡓࠋ       㸦ኟ┠ₙ▼ࠕ◪Ꮚᡞࡢ୰ࠖ
ࠗₙ▼඲㞟➨༑஧ᕳ࠘544 㡫㸧
㸦A1 ᆺ㸧

−60−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号⌧௦ㄒ࡛ࡣࠊヰ⪅࡟≀ࡀ⛣ືࡍࡿ A1 ᆺࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖ➼ࡢồᚰⓗ┤♧ᙧᘧࡢᶆ♧ࡀ⩏ົⓗ࡜࡞ࡿࡢ࡜ᑐ↷ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸦15㸧ኴ㑻ࡣ൅࡟ᑠໟࢆ㹹*㏦ࡗࡓ㸭㏦ࡗ࡚᮶ࡓ㹻ࠋ㸦ஂ㔝 1978: 208㸧

ࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡢ⿵ᙉ࡟ࡼࡿヰ⪅どⅬࡢ᫂♧໬ࡣࠊṔྐⓗ࡟ᙉࡲࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ࡜᥎ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ᒣ⏣㸦2006: 129㸧ࡣࠊᮧୖ᫓ᶞࡢᩥ❶ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌧௦ࡢᩥ❶࡟ẚ࡭ࠊኟ┠ₙ▼ࡢᩥ❶࡛ࡣࠊồᚰⓗືస࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᴟࡵ࡚♧၀࡟ᐩࡴᣦ᦬ࢆ
⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࠗᆓࡗࡕࡷࢇ࠘ࡢཎᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㸦ᒣᔒࡀ㸧ࠕ㛗ࠎࡋ࠸ㅰ⨥ࢆࡋࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺⟠ᡤ
ࡀ 2004 ᖺⓎ⾜ࡢࢲ࢖ࢯ࣮ᩥᏛࢩ࣮ࣜࢬࡢ࠶ࡽࡍࡌ࡛ࡣࠕୗᐟࡢ௳࡛ᒣᔒࡀㅰࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠖ࡜ࠕ࡚ࡃ
ࡿࠖᙧ࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡟ࡶゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊࡇࡢᒣ⏣㸦2006㸧ࡢᣦ᦬࠿ࡽ♧၀ࢆཷࡅࡿᙧ࡛ࠊኟ┠ₙ▼ࠗᆓࡗࡕࡷࢇ࠘㸦1906 ᖺ㸦᫂἞ 39 ᖺ㸧ห㸧ࡢཎᩥ∧㸦ࠗₙ▼඲㞟➨஧ᕳ࠘㸦ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸧ࢆ౑⏝㸧࡜ࡑࡢ⌧௦ㄒヂ∧㸦ࠗ⌧௦ㄒ࡛ㄞࡴᆓࡗࡕࡷࢇ࠘⌮ㄽ♫㸧࡜ࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺẚ㍑ㄪᰝࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࡑࡢ␗ྠࢆㄪ࡭ࡓࠋ
ࠕヰ⪅࡟ྥ࠿࠺
ồᚰⓗ⾜Ⅽࠖࡢᥥ෗࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊཎᩥ∧࡛ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢཷᙳᛶࢆ⾲ࡍཷ㌟ᩥࡸࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡶ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸
ࡓࡀ 7ࠊཎᩥ∧࡛ࡼࡾඃໃ࡞ࡢࡣࠊ↓ᶆࡢືモ༢⊂ᙧ࡟ࡼࡿᶆ♧࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋୗࡢ⾲ࡣࠊཎᩥ∧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕヰ⪅࡟ྥ࠿࠺ồᚰⓗ⾜Ⅽࠖࡀືモ༢⊂ᙧ࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⟠ᡤࡀࠊ⌧௦ㄒヂ∧࡛ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡞ᑐᛂᙧᘧ࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ⏝౛ᩘ࡜ඹ࡟♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ཎᩥ∧ࢸࢡࢫࢺ

⌧௦ㄒヂ∧ࢸࢡࢫࢺືモࡢ༢⊂ᙧ㸸72 ౛ࠕ㹔࡚ࡃࡿࠖᙧ㸸12 ౛ືモ༢⊂ᙧ㸸50 ౛ࠕ㹔࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖᙧ㸸1 ౛
ཷ㌟ᩥ㸸9 ౛⾲㸱ࠗᆓࡗࡕࡷࢇ࠘࡟࠾ࡅࡿཎᩥ∧࡜⌧௦ㄒヂ∧ࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺẚ㍑

ືモ༢⊂ᙧĺືモ༢⊂ᙧ㸸㸦16㸧a.

఍㆟ࡢ᫬࡟㔠ና║ࢆࡄࡾࡘ࠿ࡏ࡚ࠊ࠾ࢀࢆ╮ࡵࡓ᫬ࡣ៮࠸ያࡔ࡜ᛮࡘࡓࡀࠊ㸦␎㸧ࠋ         b.

㸦ཎᩥ∧࣭340 㡫㸧఍㆟࡛ࠊⴠࡕࡃࡰࢇࡔ┠ࢆࡄࡾࡄࡾࡉࡏ࡚࠾ࢀࢆ࡟ࡽࢇࡔ᫬ࡣ៮࠸ያࡔ࡜ᛮࡗࡓ
ࡀࠊ㸦␎㸧ࠋ                    㸦⌧௦ㄒヂ∧࣭121 㡫㸧ືモ༢⊂ᙧĺࠕV ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖᙧ㸸㸦17㸧a.

ᖐࡾ࡟ᒣᔒࡣ㏻⏫࡛ịỈࢆ୍ᮼዝࡘࡓࠋ         㸦ཎᩥ∧࣭270 㡫㸧   b. ᖐࡾ࡟ᒣᔒࡣ㏻⏫࡛ịỈࢆ୍ᮼ࠾ࡈࡗ࡚ࡃࢀࡓࠋ     㸦⌧௦ㄒヂ∧࣭35 㡫㸧ືモ༢⊂ᙧĺཷ㌟ᩥ㸸
㸦18㸧a.
   ࡝࠺࠿⨨࠸࡚ୗࡉ࠸࡜ఱ㐢ࡶ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚㢗ࢇࡔࠋ      㸦ཎᩥ∧࣭255 㡫㸧b. ࠕ࡝࠺࠿⨨࠸࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜ఱᗘࡶࡃࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚㢗ࡲࢀࡓࠋ 㸦⌧௦ㄒヂ∧࣭16 㡫㸧ືモ༢⊂ᙧĺࠕV ࡚ࡃࡿࠖᙧ㸸㸦19㸧a. ᛕࡢධࡘࡓࡢࡣᕪࡋฟࡋࡓ㎡௧ࢆཷࡅྲྀࡘ୍࡚ᛂᣏぢࢆࡋ࡚ኵࢆᜤࡋࡃ㏉༷ࡋࡓࠋ    −61−

日本語の直示述語「Ｖ−てくる」の歴史―「行為の方向づけ」を表す用法の発達―㸦ཎᩥ∧࣭266 㡫㸧b.

ᛕධࡾ࡞⪅ࡣ࠾ࢀࡀᕪࡋฟࡋࡓ㎡௧ࢆཷࡅྲྀࡗ୍࡚ᛂ┠ࢆ㏻ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆᜤࡋࡃ㏉ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ㸦20㸧a.

㸦⌧௦ㄒヂ∧࣭30 㡫㸧ཪ୍ᡤ࡟㟢すளᩥᏛࢆ㔮ࡾ࡟⾜࠿࠺ࡖࡸ࡞࠸࠿ࡢ࡜Ⰽࠎ࡞஦ࢆヰࡋ࠿ࡅࡓࠋ      㸦ཎᩥ∧࣭341 㡫㸧b.

ࠕࡲࡓ࠸ࡗࡋࡻ࡟ࣟࢩ࢔ᩥᏛࢆ㔮ࡾ࡟⾜ࡇ࠺ࡌࡷ࡞࠸࠿ࠖࡔࡢ࡜࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ࡞ࡇ࡜
ࢆヰࡋ࠿ࡅ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ

㸦21㸧a.
b.
㸦22㸧a.

㸦⌧௦ㄒヂ∧࣭122 㡫㸧ࡇ࢏࡬᮶ࡓ᫬➨୍␒࡟ịỈࢆዝࡘࡓࡢࡣᒣᔒࡔࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡬᮶ࡓ᫬ࠊ᭱ึ࡟ịỈࢆ࠾ࡈࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࡢࡣᒣᔒࡔࠋ

㸦ཎᩥ∧࣭306 㡫㸧㸦⌧௦ㄒヂ∧࣭79 㡫㸧㸦␎㸧㏦ู఍ࡢ᫬࡟᧞ࡗࡓ㏉ሗ࡜ᚰᚓࡓࡢ࠿ࠊ࠸ࡸ࡟෭ࡸ࠿ࡋࡓ࠿ࡽࠊ㸦␎㸧ࠋ    㸦ཎᩥ∧࣭383 㡫㸧b.

㸦␎㸧㏦ู఍ࡢ᫬࡟࡞ࡄࡗࡓ࠾㏉ࡋ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࠿ࠊࡸࡅ࡟෭ࡸ࠿ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ࠿ࡽࠊ㸦␎㸧ࠋ                㸦⌧௦ㄒヂ∧࣭173 㡫㸧⌧௦ㄒヂ∧࡛ࡣࠊ᪂ࡓ࡟㸦A ᆺࠊB ᆺࡢ㸧ࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡢ⿵ᙉࡸ୍ே⛠どⅬࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓཷ㌟ᩥ࡬ࡢ
ែࡢ㌿᥮ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋཎᩥ∧࡛ࠕヰ⪅࡟ྥ࠿࠺ồᚰⓗ⾜Ⅽࠖࢆືモ༢⊂ᙧ࡛♧ࡍ஦౛ࡀከ࠸⫼ᬒ࡟ࡣࠊₙ▼ಶேࡢᩥయⓗ࡞Ⓑࡸᑠㄝ࡜࠸࠺ࢪࣕࣥࣝࡢᙳ㡪࡞࡝ࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀ㸦ᒣ⏣㸦2006: 129㸧ཧ↷㸧ࠊࠗᆓࡗࡕࡷࢇ࠘ࡀ᫂἞ᮇࡢ᫬௦ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࢆ௦⾲ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࡣ௚ࡢసရࡶྵࡵࡓࡼࡾヲ⣽࡞ㄪᰝࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡢᶆ♧࡟ࡼࡿヰ⪅どⅬࡢ᫂♧໬ࡣࠊ⌧௦ㄒ࡛ࡣ㢧ⴭ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡣゝ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
㸲㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
Kuno and Kaburaki㸦1977: 634㸧ࡣࠊࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊヰࡋゝⴥࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢࡲࢃࡾ࡛
㉳ࡇࡿ⾜Ⅽࡀࠊヰ⪅࡟ྥ࠿࠺ࠊࡲࡓࡣࠊヰ⪅࠿ࡽ㞳ࢀࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊヰ⪅࡟ᜠᜨࠊࡲ
ࡓࡣ⿕ᐖࡢᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡓ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚グ㏙ࡉࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ሙྜࡀከ࠸Ⅼ࡛ࠊヰ⪅୰ᚰⓗゝㄒ㸦speaker-centered language㸧࡜≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ8ࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊヰ⪅୰ᚰᛶࢆ཯ᫎ
ࡍࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠕ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖࡸࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖࡢࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡣࠊྂ௦ㄒ࡜㏆௦ㄒ࡜஧ศࡋࡓሙ
ྜࡢᚋ⪅ࡢ᫬௦ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛Ⓨ㐩ࡋࡓᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡾ㸦ࠕ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖࡣ୰ୡ㙊಴ᮇ࠿ࡽⓎ㐩㸧ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ
ࠕヰ⪅୰ᚰⓗゝㄒࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ≉ᚩࡣࠊ㏆௦ㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡼࡾ㢧ⴭ࡞≉ᚩ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡢヰ⪅୰ᚰᛶ㸦୺ほᛶ㸧ࡢၥ㢟࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ㢮ᆺㄽⓗほⅬ࡟ຍ࠼ࠊ௒ᚋࠊṔྐⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢ㆟ㄽࡀᮃࡲࢀࡿࠋ௜グᮏ✏ࡣࠊ2014ᖺᗘ ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨17ᅇᖺḟ኱఍࡛ࡢⓎ⾲ෆᐜ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ⣬ᖜࡢ㛵ಀ࡛Ⓨ⾲ෆᐜࡢ඲࡚ࢆྵࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊ⃝⏣㸦㏆ห㸧࡛ࡣࠊᑐ↷ゝㄒᏛⓗ⪃ᐹࢆྵࡴࡼࡾヲ⣽࡞㆟ㄽࢆ࠾ࡇ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊྜࡏ࡚ࡈཧ↷㡬ࡅࢀࡤᖾ࠸࡛࠶ࡿࠋὀ㸯㸬ࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖࡢࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࢆ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕ㏫⾜ែࠖ㸦inverse voice㸧࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍศᯒࡶ࠶
ࡿࡀ㸦Shibatani 2003ࠊఫ⏣2006ࠊྂ㈡2008ࠊΎỈ2010➼㸧ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡣ␗ㄽࡶ࠶ࡿ㸦⃝⏣2009㸧ࠋ  ㏫⾜ែࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞≉ᚩ㸦㸦ϸ㸧௚ືⓗ⾜Ⅽ㸦ືస୺ĺ⿕ືస୺㸧ࠊ㸦Ϲ㸧ே⛠㝵ᒙ㸦ୗ఩ĺୖ఩㸧ࠊ

−62−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

㸦Ϻ㸧ᶆ♧ࡢ⩏ົᛶ㸧࡜ࡢᩚྜᛶ࡟࠾࠸࡚ཝᐦ࡞᳨ウࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸰㸬 ཷ㌟ᩥ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊၥ㢟ࡢࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖᵓᩥࡀࠕ஦㇟ࡢ㉳ືࡢᒁ㠃࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࡓࡵࠊ㉳ື࣭㛤ጞ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡢⰍྜ࠸ࢆᙉࡃᣢࡘࠖ࡜ࡍࡿྂ㈡㸦2008: 248㸧ࡢᣦ᦬ࢆཧ↷ࠋ㸱㸬 ࡓࡔࡋࠊ
ࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖࡢ⏝౛࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ☜౛࡜ࡲ࡛ࡣゝ࠸ษࢀ࡞࠸ࠋⴙⴥ㞟࡛ࡣࠊࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖ࡜࠾ࡰࡋࡁࠕV᮶ࠖࡢ⏝౛ࡀ2౛ぢࡽࢀࡿࡀ㸦ඹ࡟ࠕ࿌ࡆ᮶ࠖ583␒ࠊ2384␒㸧ࠊ୺ㄒࡢ✵㛫⛣ືࢆྵࡴ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡶྰᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸㸦cf. ᮤ2012㸧ࠋ୰ྂࡢᩥ⊩࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖࡢࠕV᮶ࠖ
㸦Aᆺ㸧࡜ࡳ࡞ࡋᚓࡿ⏝౛ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡓࡔ
ࡋࠊ⏝౛ᩘࠊ๓㡯ືモࡢ␗࡞ࡾㄒᩘ㸦ࠕ࿌ࡆ᮶ࠖࠕゝࡦ᮶ࠖࠕ᭩ࡁ᮶ࠖࡢࡳ㸧ඹ࡟ᑡ࡞࠸㸦ࠗᖹᏳ᫬௦」ྜືモ⣴ᘬ࠘ཧ↷㸧ࠋྂ௦ㄒ࡛ࡣࠊヰ⪅㡿ᇦ࡬ࡢᑐ㇟⛣ືࡣࠕV࠾ࡇࡍࠖࡢ࡯࠺ࡀ୍
⯡ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦㸦ϸ㸧ࠊ㸦Ϲ㸧ࡢ⏝౛ࡣ᪂⦅᪥ᮏྂ඾ᩥᏛ඲㞟࡟ࡼࡿ㸧ࠋ㸦ϸ㸧୰ᐑࡼࡾࡒࠊࠕᚚ⾰࡟ῧ࡬࡚ࠖ࡜᭩ࡁ᮶ࡋࠊ   㸦ᰤⰼ≀ㄒ࣭ᕳ➨༑஧࣭48㡫㸧㸦Ϲ㸧࠶ࡣࢀ࡞ࡿᩥ࡝ࡶࢆ᭩ࡁ࠾ࡇࡏࡅࡿࢆࠊ   㸦኱࿴≀ㄒ࣭୐༑࣭300㡫㸧

ࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖࡢࠕV᮶ࠖࡣࠊAᆺࡢ⠊ᅖࢆฟࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊࢸᙧࠕV࡚᮶ࠖ࡟ྲྀࡗ࡚௦ࢃ
ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
㸲㸬

ࠕV᮶ࠖࡢࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖࡢ⏝౛ࡣ☜౛࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊᩘ್ࡣᣓᘼ࡟ࡋ࡚࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ๓㡯ືモࡢㄒ⩏୙ヲ࡟ࡼࡾศ㢮࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ㸦⾲3࡟࢝࢘ࣥࢺࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸧ࡶࡢ࡟ࠊࠕࡋࡇࡾ᮶ࠖ
㸦2870␒㸧ࠊࠕࡓ࠿᮶ࠖ㸦4387␒㸧ࠊࠕࡲࡁ᮶ࠖ㸦4413␒㸧ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ㸳㸬㟷ᮌ㸦2013㸧ࢆཧ↷ࠋ㸦ϸ㸧ࢸᙧ⿵ຓືモࡢⓎ㐩࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣู✏ࢆ⏝ពࡋࡓ࠸ࡀࠊࠕ࡚ࡸࡿ㸭ࡃࢀࡿ㸭ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᤵཷ┈࡜࠸ࡗࡓព࿡ᴫᛕࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀ᪂ࡋࡃ⏕ࡲࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࠊࠕ࡚࠸ࡃ㸭࠸ࡿ㸭࠾ࡃࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⥅⥆࣭㐍⾜࣭ពᅗ࡞࡝ព࿡ᴫᛕࡣ௨๓࠿ࡽ࠶ࡾࠊᩥἲ໬ࢆ
ࠕ෌ฟⓎࠖ㸦㔠Ỉ2006㸧ࡉࡏࡓࡶࡢࡢ2✀ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ๓⪅ࡣࡲࡉ࡟᪂ࡋ࠸
ᴫᛕ࡟᪂ࡋ࠸ᙧᘧࢆ౑ࡗࡓࡶࡢࠊᚋ⪅ࡣ㐃⏝ᙧࡢ⾶㏥࡟ࡼࡾࠊࠕ」ྜືモࠖࡢᙧ࡛ࡣᩥἲ໬ࢆᯝࡓࡏ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ      㸴㸬㸦㟷ᮌ2013: 239㸧᳃㸦2010㸧ࡢ⾲2࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄪᰝ㈨ᩱࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾࠋ୰ୡᮎᮇ㸸ࠗኳⲡ∧ᖹᐙ≀ㄒ࠘㸦ຮㄔ♫㸧ࠊ
࢚ࠗࢯ࣏ࡢࣇ࢓ࣈࣛࢫ࠘
㸦⢭ᩥᇽฟ∧㸧ࠊࠗ኱ⶶ⹡᫂ᮏ≬ゝ࠘㸦⾲⌧♫ࠊୖ࣭୰ᕳࡢࡳ㸧㸭㏆ୡ๓ᮇ㸦ୖ᪉ㄒ㸧㸸㏆ᯇୡヰ≀ί⍠⍵㸦ࠗ᪥ᮏྂ඾ᩥᏛ኱⣔࠘49ࠊᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸧ࠊᄋᮏ㸦ࠗᄋᮏయ⣔࠘1㹼6ࠊᮾிᇽฟ∧㸧㸭㏆ୡᚋᮇ㸦Ụᡞㄒ㸧㸸ࠕᮾᾏ㐨୰⭸ᰩẟࠖ㸦ࠗ᪂⦅᪥ᮏྂ඾ᩥᏛ඲㞟࠘ࠊᑠᏛ㤋㸧ࠊࠕᾋୡ㢼࿅ࠖ
㸦ࠗ᪂᪥ᮏྂ඾
ᩥᏛ኱⣔࠘ࠊᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸧ࠊࠕ᫓Ⰽᱵඣ㄃⨾ࠖࠊ㯤⾲⣬࣭ὗⴠᮏసရ㸦௨ୖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏྂ඾ᩥᏛ኱
⣔࠘ࠊᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸧㸭᫂἞ᮇ㸸
ࠗCD-ROM∧ ᫂἞ࡢᩥ㇦࠘
㸦ྛస⪅㸯సရ࡟⤠ࡿ㸸᳃㮆እࠕ㟷ᖺࠖࠊఀ⸨ᕥ༓ኵࠕ㔝⳥ࡢ቎ࠖࠊᑿᓮ⣚ⴥࠕ㔠ࠊ஧ⴥீᅄ㏞ࠕ඼㠃ᙳࠖࠊኟ┠ₙ▼ࠕᆙኵࠖⰍኪཫࠖࠊ⏣ᒣⰼ⿄ࠕ⏣⯋ᩍᖌࠖࠊἨ㙾ⰼࠕ፬⣔ᅗࠖࠊ㛗ሯ⠇ࠕᅵࠖࠊ᪂₻♫㸧ࠋ㸵㸬ࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖࡢࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡢ౛ࡣࠊཎᩥ∧࡛ࡣḟࡢ2౛ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ㸦ϸ㸧ᡤࡀࡇࡘࡕ࠿ࡽ㏉ሗࢆࡍࡿ᫬ศ࡟ᑜᖖࡢᡭẁ࡛⾜ࡃ࡜ࠊྥ࠿ࡽ㏫ࡡࡌࢆ㣗ࡽࢃࡋ࡚᮶ࡿࠋ               㸦Bᆺ㸧㸦ཎᩥ∧࣭370㡫㸧  㸦Ϲ㸧࠾ࢀࡣ୍ᑍᅔࡘࡓࠋᩥᏛኈ࡞ࢇ࡚ࡶࡢࡣ▮ࡘᙇࡾ࠼ࡽ࠸ࡶࢇࡔࠋጁ࡞ᡤ࡬ࡇࡔࢃࡘ
࡚ࠊࡡࡕ㸭㹚ᢲࡋᐤࡏ࡚ࡃࡿࠋ

㸦Bᆺ㸧㸦ཎᩥ∧࣭351㡫㸧  ⌧௦ㄒヂ∧࡛ࡣࠊ㸦ϸ㸧ࡢ⟠ᡤࡣཷ㌟ᩥ㸦ࠕྥࡇ࠺࠿ࡽ㏫くࡉࢀࡿࠖ157㡫㸧ࠊ㸦Ϲ㸧ࡢ⟠ᡤࡣ
ࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖᩥ㸦ࠕࡡࡕࡡࡕᢲࡋ࡚ࡃࡿࠖ133㡫㸧࡛⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦࠸ࡎࢀࡶ᭷ᶆᙧ㸧ࠋ

−63−

日本語の直示述語「Ｖ−てくる」の歴史―「行為の方向づけ」を表す用法の発達―

㸶㸬Pardeshi, Li, and Horie㸦2007㸧ࡣࠊKuno and Kaburaki㸦1977㸧ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࡢヰ⪅୰ᚰᛶࡢ㆟ㄽ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚㢮ᆺㄽⓗ࡞෌ゎ㔘ࢆ࠾ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋヲࡋࡃࡣࠊPardeshi, Li, and Horie㸦2007: 157ff㸧
ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩

㟷ᮌ༤ྐ. 2013.ࠕ」ྜືモࡢṔྐⓗኚ໬ࠖᙳᒣኴ㑻㸦⦅㸧ࠗ」ྜືモࡢ᭱ඛ➃࠘215-241. ᮾி: ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
㔠Ỉᩄ. 2006.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏑᅾ⾲⌧ࡢṔྐ࠘ᮾி: ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
ྂ㈡⿱❶. 2008.ࠕࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡢࣦ࢛࢖ࢫ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࠖ᳃㞝୍࣭すᮧ⩏ᶞ࣭ᒣ⏣㐍࣭⡿ᒣ୕᫂㸦⦅㸧ࠗࡇ࡜ࡤࡢࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢬ࣒࠘241-257. ᮾி: ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ஂ㔝ᬿ. 1978.ࠗㄯヰࡢᩥἲ࠘ᮾி: ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ㸬
Kuno, Susumu and Kaburaki Etsuko. 1977. Empathy and Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry. 8 (4): 627-672.
ᮤ㛗Ἴ. 2012.ࠕୖ௦ㄒࡢࠕ㹼᮶ࠖ࡜ࠕ㹼⾜ࡃࠖࡢ᥋㎡໬࡜ࡑࡢ࿘㎶ʊ஦ែ࡜஦ែࡢᐇ⌧ࡢ௙᪉ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ʊࠖᙳᒣኴ㑻࣭ỿຊ㸦⦅㸧ࠗ᪥୰⌮ㄽゝㄒᏛࡢ᪂ᒎᮃ㸱 ㄒᙡ࡜ရモ࠘169-203. ᮾி: ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ. 1992.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⿵ຓືモᵓᩥʊᵓᩥࡢព࿡ࡢ◊✲࡟ྥࡅ࡚ʊࠖᩥ໬ゝㄒᏛ⦅㞟ဨ఍㸦⦅㸧ࠗᩥ໬ゝㄒᏛ࠘532-546. ᮾி: ୕┬ᇽ㸬᳃ຬኴ. 2010.ࠕ⛣ືࢆ⾲ࡉ࡞࠸ࠕ-࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡢᡂ❧ʊཷ┈⾲⌧ࠕ-࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃࠿ࡽʊࠖࠗᚅවᒣㄽྀ ᩥᏛ⠍࠘44: 1-16.
Pardeshi, Prashant, Qing-Mei Lee, and Kaoru Horie. 2007. Being on the Receiving End: A Tour into
Linguistic Variation. In: Matsumoto, Yoshiko, David Y. Oshima, Orrin W. Robinson, and Peter Sells(eds.) Diversity in Language: Perspectives and Implications. 131-166. Stanford: CSLI.
⃝⏣῟. 2009.ࠕ⛣ືືモࠕ᮶ࡿࠖࡢᩥἲ໬࡜᪉ྥ࡙ࡅᶵ⬟ʊࠕሙᡤࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫࠖ࠿ࡽࠕᚰ⌮ⓗࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫࠖ࡬ʊࠖࠗㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲࠘11: 1-20.
ࠗᖹᡂ⃝⏣῟. 2013.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫࡢṔྐⓗᒎ㛤ʊࠕ㹔࡚᮶ࡿࠖࡢᣑᙇࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ʊࠖ
25 ᖺᗘ ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝࡟ࡼࡿᅜ㝿ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉⓎ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘4: 141-180.
⃝⏣῟. ㏆ห. ࠕ⾜Ⅽࡢ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖࡢࠕ࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡢᑐ↷ゝㄒᏛⓗ࣭Ṕྐⓗ◊✲ʊ⛣ືືモ࠿ࡽཷᙳ࣐࣮࣮࢝࡬ʊࠖᑠ㔝ṇᶞ࣭బࠎᮌ໏ே࣭ᮤወᴋ㸦⦅㸧ࠗㄆ▱࡜࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢ᥋Ⅼ㸦௬㸧࠘ᮾி: ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2003. Directional Verbs in Japanese. In: Shay, Erin and Uwe Seibert (eds.) Motion,
Direction, and Location in Language: In Honor of Zygmunt Frajzyngier. 259-285. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
ΎỈၨᏊ. 2010.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࠕືモ㸩࡚ࡃࡿࠖᵓᩥࡢ㏫⾜ែ⏝ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ
ࠗ⇃ᮏ┴❧኱ᏛᩥᏛ㒊⣖せ࠘
16: 47-75.
ఫ⏣ဴ㑻. 2006.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕ㹼࡚ࡃࡿࠖࡢ㏫⾜ែ⏝ἲࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏥ◊✲࠘17: 73-86.
ᒣ⏣ᩄᘯ. 2005.ࠕ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲʊ᪉ྥᛶ⾲⌧ࢆ౛࡟⿵ຓືモࢆ⪃࠼ࡿʊࠖࠗᅜᩥᏛ ゎ㔘࡜ᩍᮦࡢ◊✲࠘50 (5): 70-77.
ᒣ⏣ᩄᘯ. 2006.ࠕᩥἲ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ᪉ྥᛶࠖ࡜ࡑࡢㄯヰᶵ⬟ࠖ┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ࣭㔝⏣ᑦྐ࣭᳃ᒣ༟㑻㸦⦅㸧
ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲࡢ᪂ᆅᖹ㸱࠘119-135. ᮾி: ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.

−64−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号⪺ࡁᡭࡀ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ே≀ࡢྡ๓ᢨ㟢̿᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᭷ᶆ࡞ᣦ♧̿   㡲㈡ ࠶ࡺࡳ
ዉⰋዪᏊ኱Ꮫ

㸺Abstract㸼
This paper focuses on a practice of person reference called a͆name announcement,͇throughwhich the speaker subsequently mentions the name of a person unknown to the recipient.
Examining referring expressions in Japanese conversational storytelling, I argue that nameannouncements not only help the recipients to understand that a referent is a member of thecategory described by the initial referring expression but also help highlight the existence of theindividual referred to by that announced name. This analysis demonstrates that marked
phenomena of reference do more than simply refer to the referents (Schegloff 1996) and thusthat the selection of referring expressions is interactionally motivated.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ1㸬ᣦ♧ 2㸬┦஫⾜Ⅽ 3㸬ྡ๓ 4. ≀ㄒࡾ 5. ఍ヰศᯒ1㸬 ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ே≀ࢆ఍ヰ࡟ᑟධࡋࡓᚋࠊྠࡌᑐ㇟ࢆ෌ᗘᣦ♧ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊࡑࡢே≀ࡢྡ๓࡟ゝཬࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᣦ♧ࡢࣉࣛࢡࢸ࢕ࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ࠶ࡿヰࡋᡭࡀࠊ࢔
ࣝࣂ࢖ࢺඛࡢඛ㍮ᚑᴗဨࡢࡇ࡜ࢆࠕ࠺ࡕࡢୖ࡛ࡶ࠺ࡦ࡜ࡾ࡛ࡁࡿேࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᥥ෗(description)(Sacks
and Shegloff (1979))ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᣦ♧ࡋࠊᚋࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡑࡢே≀ࡀࠕᯇ஭ࡉࢇࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྡ๓࡛࿧ࡤࢀࡿே
≀࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ᑐ㇟ࡢྡ๓ࢆᚋ⥆ᣦ♧఩⨨࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆࠕྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࠖ(Name Announcement) (Suga 2015)࡜࿧ࡪࠋ
ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡣࠊ࡞ࡐ⪺ࡁᡭࡀྠᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜᝿ᐃࡍࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢྡ๓࡟ゝཬࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡞ࡐᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆᑟධࡍࡿ࡜ࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᚋ⥆ࡢ఍ヰ࡛ྡ๓ࢆᢨ㟢ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࢆᥦ㉳ࡍࡿࠋඛࡢ౛࡟
ࡘ࠸࡚ゝ࠼ࡤࠊᑟධ᫬࡟ࠕᯇ஭ࡉࢇࡗ࡚࠸࠺ேࠖ࡜ྡ๓࡟ゝཬࡋࠊࠕࡑࡢேࠖ࡜࠸࠺↷ᛂᙧࢆ⏝࠸࡚෌ᣦ♧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺᪉ἲ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡢࡣ࡞ࡐࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࢆࠊSchegloff (1996)ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠕ᭷ᶆ࡞ᣦ♧ࠖ(marked reference)ࠊ༢࡟ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆ↷ᛂࡍࡿࡇ࡜௨ୖࡢᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡳ࡞ࡍࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᣦ♧⾲⌧ࡢ㑅ᢥࡣ఍ヰࡢࡑࡢሙࡑࡢሙࡢ≧ἣ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ఍ヰศᯒࡢどᗙ࠿ࡽࠊ᪥ᖖ఍ヰ࡟⏕ࡌࡿㄒࡾ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡀᯝࡓࡍᙺ๭ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢ㝿ࠊྡ๓ࡀᢨ㟢ࡉࢀࡿே≀ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᑟධࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࡢே≀ࡀㄒࡾ࡟࠾࠸࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᢸ
ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟╔┠ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢศᯒ࡟ࡼࡾࠊྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡣࠊᣦ♧⾲⌧ࡀ┦஫⾜Ⅽୖࡢせㄳ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ౛ドࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏ࡢศᯒࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡿᑐ㠃఍ヰ (኱Ꮫ⏕ዪᏊ 2 ேࡲࡓࡣ 3 ே࡟ࡼࡿ 15 ศ㹼60
ศࡢ఍ヰ 10 ⤌ࠊィ 7 ᫬㛫ศ)࡜ࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝࡟⁫ᅾ୰ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡑࡢᐙ᪘ࠊぶ᪘ࠊ཭ே࡜ࡢ
㟁ヰࢆ཰㘓ࡋࡓ఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ CallHome Japanese (Linguistic Data Consortium సᡂࠊ100 ⤌ࠊィ
25 ᫬㛫ศ)ࡢほᐹ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ1*᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 17 ᅇ኱఍㸦2014 ᖺ 11 ᭶ 29 ᪥ࠊி㒔ࣀ࣮ࢺࣝࢲ࣒ዪᏊ኱Ꮫ㸧 ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᮏ◊✲Ⓨ⾲࡟㝿ࡋ࡚ࠊ⫈⾗ࡢ᪉ࠎࡼࡾ㈗㔜࡞ࡈពぢࢆ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ◊✲ࡢ㐣⛬࡛ࠊ㛵す఍ヰศᯒ◊✲఍ࠊࢹ࣮ࢱࢥࣞࢡࢩ᳨ࣙࣥウ఍ࠊዉⰋዪᏊ኱ᏛⱥㄒᏛ࣭ゝㄒᏛ◊✲఍ࠊዉⰋዪᏊ኱Ꮫࢹ࣮ࢱࢭࢵࢩࣙࣥࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ㅖẶࡼࡾ᭷┈࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ࠸
ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓࠋᚰࡼࡾឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࠋ
1 ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢධᡭࠊࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ཰㞟࡜ᩚ⌮ࡣࠊḟࡢ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡓࠋᖹᡂ 13࣭14 ᖺᗘⱝᡭ−65−

聞き手が知らない人物の名前披露―日本語会話における有標な指示―

2. ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡢ≉ᚩྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽୖࡢᙺ๭࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡿ๓࡟ࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡓྡ๓ᢨ㟢࡜࠸
࠺⾜Ⅽࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿࠋ
2.1. ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡢࢹࢨ࢖ࣥ
ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡣࠊ [ྡ๓㸩ᘬ⏝ᶆ㆑ࠕ࡚ࠖ㸩ఏ㐩ືモࠕゝ࠺ࠖ㸩⤊ຓモࠕࡢࠖ] ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࢆᇶᮏ࡜
ࡋ࡚ࢹࢨ࢖ࣥࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕྡ๓ࠖࡣࠊጣ࣭ྡࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡸᩗ⛠࡞࡝ࡢ᥋㎡ࢆྵࡵࡓ࿧⛠ࡢᙧᘧࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(1)ࡢヰࡋᡭࡣࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀࠕࡇࡢࡳࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᩗ⛠࡞ࡋࡢࣇ࢓࣮ࢫࢺ࣭
ࢿ࣮࣒࡛࿧ࡤࢀࡿே≀࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼ࠊ(2)ࡢヰࡋᡭࡣࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀᩗ⛠ࢆࡘࡅࡓࠕ௒㔝ࡉࢇࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿே≀࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼ࡿࠋ
(1) Ўࡇ
ࡇࡢࡳࡗ࡚࠸࠺ࡡࢇ (2) ࡑࡢ::u ࡑࡢ: ௒㔝ࡉࢇࡗ࡚࠸࠺ࢇࡔࡅ࡝ࡡ?
ヰࡋᡭࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ▱ࡽ࡞࠸࡜᝿ᐃࡍࡿே≀ࡢྡ๓࡟ゝཬࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟≉ᐃࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆྠᐃࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋྡ๓ᢨ㟢࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࡣࠊᢨ㟢ࡉࢀࡿྡ๓࡛࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠊ၏୍ⓗ࡟ྠᐃࡉࢀ࠺
ࡿᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋᅛ᭷ྡ࡟௜ຍࡉࢀࡿࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡸᩗ⛠࡞࡝ࡢ᥋㎡ࡣࠊྡ๓ࢆ࿧ࡪே
࡜ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡜ࡢᑐே㛵ಀࢆᣦᶆࡍࡿᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ (Suga 2015㸧ࠋ
2.2. ๪ḟⓗάື࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢྡ๓ᢨ㟢఍ヰศᯒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᣦ♧ࡣࠊ఍ヰࡢ୺άືࢆᨭ࠼ࡿ๪ḟⓗάື࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ2 ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀㄆ㆑࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜᝿ᐃࡍࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢྡ๓ࢆᢨ㟢ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟≉໬ࡋࡓ๪ḟⓗάື࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡢ┤๓࡟ࡣࠊࣆࢵࢳࡸ㏿ᗘࡢኚ໬ࠊゝ࠸ᾷࡳࡀ⏕ࡌࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞㡢ኌⓗ≉ᚩ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ఍ヰࡢ୺άື࡜ࡢቃ⏺ࡀྜᅗࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡓᚋ࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ཯ᛂࢆ♧ࡍᶵ఍ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ≉࡟(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕ͐ࡡ㸽ࠖ࡜ୖ᪼ㄪࡢ㡩ᚊ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࡀಁࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡣࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀྡ๓
ᢨ㟢ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓᚋ࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆᚅࡓࡎ࡟ࠊ୺άື࡬⛣⾜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(㸯-㸰)ࡢࡼ࠺
࡟ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡀࡦ࡜ࡘࡢࢱ࣮ࣥᵓᡂせ⣲࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ఍ヰࡢ୺άື
࡜ࡋ࡚Ⓨヰࡉࢀࡓྡモྃෆ࡟ᤄධࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
(3) ࠺ࡕ࡜: ࡑࡢ(.)>ᯇ஭ࡉࢇ<ࡗ࡚࠸࠺ே࡛:<㛤ࡅࡿ>࡜࠿ࡗ࡚ゝࡗ࡚ࡉ:,ࠕᯇ஭ࡉࢇࡗ࡚࠸࠺ࢇࡔࡅ࡝ࡡ㸽ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ሙྜ࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ྡモྃ࡟ᤄධࡍࡿሙྜࡣࠊ
఍ヰࡢ୺άືࡢ㐍⾜ᛶࢆ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅᦆ࡞ࢃ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿ᪉ἲ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
3. ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡢศᯒ
3.1. ศᯒࡢほⅬᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿ㐃㙐⎔ቃࢆど㔝࡟ධࢀࡘࡘࠊḟࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡢᙺ๭࡟ࡘ◊✲(B)ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧⾲⌧࡟㛵ࡍࡿ఍ヰศᯒⓗ◊✲ࠖ㸦௦⾲ 㡲㈡࠶ࡺࡳ㸧ࠊᖹᡂ 21-23 ᖺᗘᇶ┙◊✲ (C)ࠕ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᣦ♧ࡢ◊✲ࠖ㸦௦⾲ 㡲㈡࠶ࡺࡳ㸧ࠋᑐ㠃఍ヰࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࠊ◊✲ࡢ㊃᪨ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋࠊ༠ຊ⪅ࡢ஢ゎࢆᚓࡓ࠺࠼࡛ࠊ
఍ヰ⪅ࡀࣜࣛࢵࢡࢫ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡞ሙᡤ࡛ࠊࣅࢹ࣓࢜࢝ࣛ࡟ࡼࡿ᧜ᙳࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࢺࣛࣥࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࡣࠊ఍ヰศᯒ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⪃᱌ࡉࢀࡓグྕࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(ᩥᮎࡢ㝃㘓グ㍕ࡢグྕ୍ぴࢆཧ↷)ࠋேᶒಖㆤࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊேྡࡣ༏ྡ໬ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋ㟁ヰ఍ヰࡢࢺࣛࣥࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟᪤Ꮡࡢࢺࣛࣥࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺ(Wheatley, Barbara, Nasayo
Kaneko & Megumi Kobayashi, CallHome Japanese transcript, 1996-1997, Linguistic Data Consortium,
Philadelphia)ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࠊ෌㌿グࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2 Sacks & Schegloff (1979), Hayashi (1995), Heritage(2007), ୵⏣(2008)࡞࡝࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ఍ヰ⪅㛫࡛ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢㄆ㆑ࢆࡵࡄࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㆟ㄽࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−66−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

࠸࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ1) ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡉࢀࡿே≀ࡣࠊ఍ヰ࡟ᑟධࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡁ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧࡛ᣦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ࠿ࠋ
2) ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡉࢀࡿே≀ࡣࠊㄒࡾࡢ࡞࠿࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍே≀࠿ࠋ
3.2. ≀ㄒࡾࡢࢡࣛ࢖࣐ࢵࢡࢫ࡛ࡢྡ๓ᢨ㟢 ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀయ㦂ࢆㄒࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ࠊ≀ㄒࡢⓏሙே≀ࡢⓎヰࢆᐇ₇ࡍࡓࡵ࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡿሙྜࡀ
ከ࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(4)ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ⏕ዪᏊ 3 ே࡟ࡼࡿ᪥ᖖ఍ヰࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࠋ3 ேࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ㐪࠺㧗ᰯ࠿ࡽ኱Ꮫ࡟ධᏛࡋ࡚ࡶ࠺ࡍࡄ㸯ᖺࡀ⤒࡜࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ఍ヰࡢ࡞࠿࡛ྛ⮬ࡢ㧗ᰯ᫬௦ࡢヰ㢟࡟࡞ࡾࠊ࠶
࠿ࡡࡣ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔ࡢጜጒᰯ࠿ࡽ⮬ศࡓࡕࡢࢡࣛࢫ࡟᮶ࡓ஺᥮␃Ꮫ⏕࡜௰Ⰻࡃࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆヰࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡁ␃Ꮫ⏕ࢆ஺࠼࡚ࢡࣛࢫ࣓࣮ࢺ࡜୍⥴࡟ヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡽࠊࡑࡢ␃Ꮫ⏕ࡀࠊ࣍ࢫࢺ࣭ࢩࢫࢱ࣮ࡀ┦ᡭࢆࡋ࡚ࡃࢀ࡞࠸࡜ࠊ୙‶ࢆࡶࡽࡋ࡚Ἵࡁࡔࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆㄒࡿࠋ࠶࠿ࡡࡣࠊ
ࡇࡢ␃Ꮫ⏕ࡢୡヰᙺ࡛࠶ࡿே≀ࢆ 2 ⾜┠࡛ࠕ࣍ࢫࢺ࣭ࢩࢫࢱ࣮ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᥥ෗ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᑟධࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊㄒࡾࡢ⤊┙ࡢ 15 ⾜┠࡛ࠊࠕЎࡇࡇࡢࡳࡗ࡚࠸࠺㸦ࡡࢇ㸧ࠖ࡜ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ16 ⾜┠࡛ࠊࠕ<WhyKonomi:>ࠖ࡜␃Ꮫ⏕ࡢⓎヰࢆᐇ₇ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ࠊࡑࡢྡ๓ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᣦ♧ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(4) [Dem3]01
࠶࠿ࡡ: [࡛ ࡑࡢ]࠺ࡕࡽࡢࢡࣛࢫ࡟᮶࡚: (.))࣍ࢫࢺ(.)ࢩࢫࢱ࣮(.)
02 Ѝ    ࡛ ࡑࡢ(
03  ࡕ࡯: ࠺ࢇ
04  ࠶࠿ࡡ: ᐙ᪘ࡀ
05  ࡕ࡯: ࠺ࢇ
06  ࠶࠿ࡡ: ྿ዌᴦ㒊࡛࠶ࢇࡲ┦ᡭࡋࡓ࠶ࡆࡽࢀ࡬ࢇ࠿ࡽ:07  ࡕ࡯: ࠺ࢇ
08  ࠶࠿ࡡ: ࠺ࡕࡽࡀ୍⥴ࡋࡷ࡭ࡗ࡜ࡗ࡚ࢇࡸࢇ࠿:09  ࡕ࡯: ࠺ࢇ
10   ࠶࠿ࡡ: ࡯ࢇࡔࡽ࡞: ࡑࡢᏊࡀ࠸ࡁ࡞ࡾ࡞:,11
ࡕ࡯: ࠺ࢇ
12࠶࠿ࡡ: ࡞ࢇ࠿ ࡇ࠺ >ࡳࢇ࡞࡛< ࡋࡷ࡭ࡗ࡜ࡗࡓࡽ࡞:13
ࡕ࡯: ࠺ࢇ
14
࠶࠿ࡡ: >࡞ࢇ࠿< (1.0((㰯࠸ࡌࡾ))) ࡞ࢇ࡛: ࠺ࡕࡢ: (0.4)
15 э 
Ўࡇࡇࡢࡳࡗ࡚࠸࠺㸦ࡡࢇ㸧
16
Ќ<Why Konomi:> Ў࡜࠿ゝࡗ࡚[࡞:],17࠸ࡎࡳ:[huhuhu]
18
ࡕ࡯:
[࠺ࢇ]
19
࠶࠿ࡡ: ࡞ࢇ࡛ࡇ
ࡇࡢࡳࡣ⚾ࢆ(0.2)┦ᡭࡋ࡚ࡃࢀ࡬ࢇࡡࢇࡸࢁ࠺
20 ࡜࠿ゝࡗ[࡚㸸21
࠸ࡎࡳ:[>nhuhu<hu:[huhu]]
22
ࡕ࡯:
[un]
23
࠶࠿ࡡ:
         [ࢇ࡛]࣏࣏࣏࣏ࣟࣟࣟࣟἽࡃࡡࡸࢇ࠿:[haha]24
ࡕ࡯:          [hahaha]25
࠸ࡎࡳ:                  [࣐ࢪ࡛]=
26  
=ྍឡ࠸࡞[:
27ࡕ࡯:[࠿ࢃ࠸ࡑ࠺:ࡇࡢ᩿∦࡛ࠊヰ㢟ࡢ୰ᚰ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿⓏሙே≀ࡣ␃Ꮫ⏕࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ␃Ꮫ⏕ࡢྡ๓ࡣゝཬࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ␃Ꮫ⏕ࡀᐇ㝿࡟Ⓨヰࡋࡓ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࠶࠿ࡡࡀᐇ₇ࡋࡓⓎヰෆ࡛ࠊྡ๓࡟ࡼࡿᣦ♧ࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࡑࡢ┤๓࡛ྡ๓ࡀᢨ㟢ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−67−

 

聞き手が知らない人物の名前披露―日本語会話における有標な指示―

Suga(2015)࡛ࡣࠊSchegloff (2000)࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᥦ᱌ࡉࢀࡓ⢏ᗘ㸦granurality㸧࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕ࡜
Holt(2000)࡟ࡼࡗ࡚♧ࡉࢀࡓ┤᥋ヰἲࡢศᯒ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡀ┦஫⾜Ⅽୖࡢせㄳ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆグ㏙ࡋࡓࠋ≀ㄒࡾࡢࢡࣛ࢖࣐ࢵࢡࢫ࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀฟ᮶஦ࢆヲ⣽࡞⢏ᗘ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝㄒ
ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤⓏሙே≀ࡢⓎヰࡀᐇ₇ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢᐇ₇ࡢ࡞࠿࡛Ⓩሙே≀ࡢྡ๓࡟ゝཬࡍࡿᚲせ࡟㏕ࡽࢀࠊ஦๓࡟ࠕྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࠖࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ྡ๓ࡀᢨ㟢ࡉࢀࡓே≀ࢆᑟධࡍࡿ᫬࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓࠕ࣍ࢫࢺ࣭ࢩࢫࢱ࣮ࠖ࡜࠸࠺࢝ࢸࢦ࣮࣭ࣜࢱ࣮
࣒ࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᮏ᮶␃Ꮫ⏕ࡢୡヰࢆࡍ࡭ࡁே≀࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺᝟ሗࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࠊㄒࡾࡢ⤖ᮎࡢ⌮ゎ࡟ᐤ୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࡢே≀ࡢྡ๓ࢆᢨ㟢ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࢡࣛࢫ࣓࣮ࢺ࠿ࡽࡑࡢྡ๓࡛࿧ࡤࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ၏୍ⓗᏑᅾ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀఏ࠼ࡽࢀࠊ␃Ꮫ⏕ࡀ୙‶ࢆᢪࡃᑐ㇟
ࡢᏑᅾࡀᾋࡁ᙮ࡾ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡣㄒࡾࡢ⤖ᮎࡢ⌮ゎ࡟㈉⊩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
3.3. ㄒࡾࡢ⤖ᮎ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃
3.2 ⠇࡛ࡳࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ᐇ₇ࡢ୰࡛ྡ๓ࢆゝཬࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟కࡗ࡚ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡀ㉳ࡇࡿ஦౛ࡀẚ㍑ⓗከ࠸ࡀࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞⎔ቃ࡟㉳ࡇࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ(5) ࡣࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝࡟ኵ፬࡛ఫࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ᪥ᮏே
ዪᛶ㸿ࡀࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ཭ே B ࡟࠿ࡅࡓ㟁ヰࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࠋA ࡣࠊᣢ⑓ࡢ἞⒪ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᖐᅜࡋ࡚ᡭ⾡ࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ࿌ࡆࠊ࡞ࡐデᐹࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࢔࣓࡛ࣜ࢝ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ᪥ᮏ࡛ᡭ⾡ࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ
࡜࡟ࡋࡓࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࠊA ࡣⱥㄒ࡛ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟୙Ᏻࡀ࠶ࡿ
ࡓࡵࠊ࠶ࡿ᪥ᮏேࡢ་ᖌ࡟ࠊ୺἞་࡜ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࢆ㏻ヂࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆヰࡍࠋࡇࡢ᪥ᮏே་ᖌ࡜▱ࡾྜ࠺⤒⦋࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊA ࡣࡇࡢ᩿∦ࡢ๓ࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ▱ࡽ࡞࠸㸲ேࡢே≀ࢆᑟධࡋ࡚ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢෆᐜࢆ⡆₩࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ$ ࡀ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝࡟᮶ࡓ
ᙜึࠊᩱ⌮ࢆ⩦ࡗࡓࠕ᪥ᮏேࡢேࠖࡀ࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕࡑࡢேࡢ᪦㑣ࡉࢇࠖࡣ᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ⑓㝔࠿ࡽ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝࡟
◊✲࡟᮶࡚࠸ࡓே࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢኵ፬ࡣࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ⑓㝔࡛཮Ꮚࢆฟ⏘ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜▱ࡾࠊࡑࡢ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡢ⏘፬ே⛉་ࢆ⤂௓ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࡢࡀ $ ࡢ௒ࡢ୺἞་࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢᚋࡢ఍ヰࡣ  ࡟♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢᩱ⌮ࡢඛ⏕࡜་ᖌࡢኵ፬ࡣࠊࡲࡶ࡞ࡃᖐᅜࡋࡓࡀࠊ$ ࡣࡑࡢࠕᚋ௵ࡢேࠖࢆ
⤂௓ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚ࠊᩱ⌮ࢆ⩦ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕࡑࡢ᪦㑣ࡉࢇࠖࡀ་ᖌ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ୺἞་࡜ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࢆ㏻ヂ
ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࠊ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ࡜┦ㄯࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(5) [CallHome Japanese 1999]01
A: ࡛ ࡶ࠺ࡑࡢேࡣᖐࡗࡕࡷࡗࡓࢇࡔࡅ࡝ ᚋ௵ࡢேࢆ(.)᪥ᮏே࡛ࡡ?
02
B: [࠺ࢇ]          
03
A: [ ⤂ ]௓ࡋ࡚:ࡶࡽࡗ࡚ࡿࢇ࡛ ࡑࡢ04
B: ࠺㸸ࢇ
05 Ѝ A: ࡑࡢ>᪦㑣ࡉࢇ<(.)ࡀ࠾་⪅ࡉࢇࡔ࠿ࡽ:,06
B: ࠺㸸ࢇ
07
A: ┤᥋:ࡲ࠶ศ㔝ࡣ㐪࠺࡟ࡋࢁ.hh
08
B: ࠺ࢇ
09
A: ࡑࡢ:୺἞་:࡜࠶ࡓࡋ඲↛ⱥㄒࡀࡉ:
10
B: ࠺ࢇ
11
A: ⌮ゎ඲↛ฟ᮶࡚࡞࠸࠿ࡽࡉ:,12
B: ࠶::::
13 э A: ࡔ࠿ࡽࡑࡢ::u ࡑࡢ:௒㔝ࡉࢇࡗ࡚࠸࠺ࢇࡔࡅ࡝ࡡ?
14
B: ࠺ࢇ
15
A: ௒㔝ඛ⏕࡟:,
16
B: [࠺ࢇ]17
A: [ࡢ]ࡈࡋࡹ- ࡲ࠶ᚚ୺ேࡡ?
18
B: [࠺ࢇ]19
A: [ ௒ ]㔝ඛ⏕࡟ࢺࣛࣥࢫࣞ࢖ࢺࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ(.)࡚[ : ]ࡿࡢࡼ㸬−68−

第17回大会発表論文集

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

第10号

B:
[࠺ࢇ]   ࠺:::ࢇ
A: ࡛ࡲ࠶ ≧ἣࡇ࠺- ࡇ࠺࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍ ࠶࠶࡞ࢇ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺࠿ࡇ࠺࡞ࢇ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺࠿ ࡗ࡚Ⰽࠎ┦<ㄯࢆࡋ࡚[ ࡿ]>(.)Ќ࡜:㸪
B:       [>ࢎ࠺ࢇ<ࢎ]   ࠺ࢇ
A: ࡸࡗࡥࡾ:ࡲ࠶୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࡣࡡ࠼? ࡲ:࠶ࡢ:ࡇࡗࡕࡢ᪉ࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛ࡿ࡜ࡣࡺ࠺
ࡶࡢࡢ:
B: ࠺ࢇ
A: >ࡸࡗࡥ<Ќゝⴥࡢ㠃ࡗ࡚࠸࠺ࡢࡣ୍␒:<㞴ࡋ࠸>࠿ࡽ,((ᶵᲔ㡢))
B: ࠺::ࢇ.
((࢟ࣕࢵࢳ࣍ࣥࡢ㡢))ྡ๓ࡀᢨ㟢ࡉࢀࡓ᪥ᮏே་ᖌ㸦ࠕ௒㔝ඛ⏕ࠖ
㸧ࡣࠊ㸳⾜┠࡛ࠊࠕࡑࡢ᪦㑣ࡉࢇࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᑟධࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᣦ♧⾲⌧ࡣࠊA ࡀඛ࡟▱ࡾྜࡗࡓ㸦ඛ࡟ゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ኵே࡜㛵㐃௜ࡅ࡚ࢹࢨ࢖ࣥࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸵⾜┠௨㝆ࠊࡇࡢே≀ࡀ A ࡜࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㛵ࢃࡾࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ㄒࡽࢀࡼ࠺
࡜ࡍࡿࡀࠊ9࣭11 ⾜┠࡛㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡓ⌮⏤࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⤖ᯝࡢླྀ㏙ࡀಖ␃ࡉࢀࡓ≧ែ࡛ࠊ13 ⾜┠࡛ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ࡜ࡁࠊ
ࠕ௒㔝ࡉࢇࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊኵ፬༢఩࡛ྡ๓ࡀᢨ㟢ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊ15 ⾜┠࡛ࡣࠊ་ᖌ࡛࠶ࡿኵࢆᣦ♧ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ௒㔝ඛ⏕࡟㸸ࠖ࡜ゝࡗࡓࡶࡢࡢࠊࡑ
ࢀ࡛ࡣࠊኵேࡶᩱ⌮ࡢඛ⏕࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊᣦ♧ࡢ࠶࠸ࡲ࠸ࡉࡀṧࡿࡇ࡜࡟Ẽ࡙ࡁࠊࡍࡄ࡟ࠕࡢࡈࡋࡹ-ࠖ࡜ゝ࠸࠿ࡅ࡚ࠕࡈ୺ேࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡀࡲࡉ࡟㐺ษ࠿࡝࠺࠿㌋㌉ࡋࡘࡘࡶࠊ
ࠕࡲ࠶ࡈ୺ேࡡ㸽ࠖ࡜ゝ࠸ࠊ་ᖌ࡛࠶ࡿኵࡢ᪉ࢆᣦ♧ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡋࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⌮ゎࢆᚓ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 A ࡢㄒࡾࡢ୺║ࡣࠊ་Ꮫⓗ࡟ࡣ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ᪉ࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡢࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ⑓㝔࡛ᡭ⾡ࢆཷࡅࡿ᪉ࡀࡼ࠸࡜࠸࠺⤖ㄽ࡟⮳ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ᭱⤊Ỵ᩿ࢆୗࡋࡓ⌮⏤ࢆࠊ27 ⾜┠࡛ࠕゝⴥࡢ㠃ࡗ࡚࠸࠺ࡢࡣ୍␒㸸<㞴ࡋ࠸>࠿ࡽࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ௒㔝ඛ⏕ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ே≀ࡣࠊᩱ⌮ࡢඛ⏕ࡢ᪦㑣ࡉࢇ࡜ࡋ࡚࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪་ᖌ࡜࠸࠺ᑓ㛛ⓗ࡞❧ሙ࠿ࡽࡶ᪥ᮏㄒࢆ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ A ࡢỴ᩿ࡢṇᙜᛶࢆᨭᣢ࡛ࡁࡿ㔜せே≀࡜ࡋ࡚ླྀ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࠕ௒㔝ඛ⏕ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྡ
๓࡟ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢே≀ࡀ་ᖌ࡜࠸࠺࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ᒓࡍࡿᡂဨ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼ࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞
ࡃࠊಶே࡜ࡋ࡚㔜せ࡞Ꮡᅾ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࠊᑟධ᫬ࡢᥥ෗ࢆ⿵ᙉࡍࡿᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣ㸪ࡇࡢ఍ヰ࡟Ⓩሙࡋࡓ」ᩘࡢே≀ࡢ࡞࠿࡛ࠊA ࡢỴ᩿࡟㔜せ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋࡓࡇࡢ
ே≀ࡢྡ๓ࡔࡅࡀᢨ㟢ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶ⿬࡙ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
3.4. ྡ๓ᢨ㟢࡜㐍⾜ᛶ
2.2 ⠇࡛ゐࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊㄒࡾࡢ୺άືࡢ㐍⾜ᛶࢆ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅጉࡆ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡀ୺άືࡢⓎヰ࡟⏕ࡌࡿྡモྃෆ࡟ᤄධࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ(6)࡛ࡣࠊࡕ࡯ࡀࠊ࢔ࣝࣂ࢖ࢺࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᒃ㓇ᒇ࡛ࠊㄪ⌮ࢆࡉࡏ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆヰ㢟࡟ࡍࡿࠋูࡢᒃ㓇ᒇ࡛࢔ࣝࣂ࢖ࢺࢆࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿ࠸ࡎࡳࡀ⯆࿡ࢆ♧ࡋࠊ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ࡜㉁ၥࢆࡍࡿࠋ
ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡉࢀࡿே≀ࡣࠊࡕ࡯ࡀ୍⥴࡟ㄪ⌮ࢆᢸᙜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿඛ㍮ࡢᚑᴗဨ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ27 ⾜┠࡛ࠕ<࠺࠺ࡕࡢЌୖ:> (.) ࡛: > ࡶ࠺୍ே<࡛ࡁࡿே:ࡀ࠸࡜ࡗ࡚ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ⮬ศ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃௜ࡅ(cf. Stivers et al.
2007)ࠊ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᡂဨ⿦⨨ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᥥ෗㸦cf. Schegloff 2007)ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ᑐ㇟ࢆᑟ
ධࡍࡿࣉࣛࢡࢸ࢕ࢫࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࡇࡢே≀ࢆᑟධࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ (㡲㈡ 2008)ࠋ34 ⾜┠࡛෌ࡧྠࡌே≀ࢆᣦ♧ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ࠊ
ࠕࡑ
ࡑࡢ(.) >ᯇ஭ࡉࢇ<ࡗ࡚࠸࠺ேࠖ࡜ࠊࡑࡢே≀ࡢྡ๓࡟ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

01
02
03
04

(6) [Dem17]ࡕ࡯:௒࡞: ࡵࡗࡕࡷ࡞: (.) ࡈ㣤ࢆసࡾฟࡋ࡚ࢇࡡࡸࢇ(.)
ࣂ࢖ࢺඛ [࡛]
[࠶ࡓࡋࡀ]
࠸ࡎࡳ: [࠺ ࠺ࢇ] [࢟ࢵࢳࣥ >°ࡣ࠸ࡗ࡚ࢇࡡ°<]ࡕ࡯: ࡑ࠺ ࡑ࠺ ࡑ =࠶ ࢟ࢵࢳ࡚ࣥ >ࡘ࡞ࡀࡗ࡚ࢇࡡࢇࡅ࡝<࡞−69−聞き手が知らない人物の名前披露―日本語会話における有標な指示―

05(0.2)
06
࠸ࡎࡳ: ((➗ࡳ))
07
ࡕ࡯: ((uhu[huhuhu))08
࠸ࡎࡳ:[(( ➗ࡳ hu[hu))09࠶࠿ࡡ:      ((➗[ࡳ))10
ࡕ࡯:          [ࡑ࠺ࡑࢀ࡛࡞: ࡵࡗࡕࡷᩱ⌮ぬ࠼࡚ࡁ࡚࡞:11࠺ࢀࡋ࠸ࡡࢇ.
12(0.6)
13
࠸ࡎࡳ: ࠶ =ࡕࡷࢇ࡜: (.) >ࡕࡷࢇ࡜ࡋࡓ<(.) ᩱ⌮ࢆ>సࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ<࡞ࢇ?
14
ࡕ࡯:  ࠺:ࢇ(.) ᬑ㏻- (.) ࡢᒃ㓇ᒇ:ࡸ࡛?
15
࠸ࡎࡳ: Ќࡑ࠺࡞ࢇࡸ. ࠺ࡕ ࡞ࢇ࠿ (0.4) ࡶ࠺(.) ࡶ࡜ࡣసࡗ࡚࡚:16
ࡕ࡯:  ࠶ సࡗ- (0.2)࡚ࡿࡢࡶ࠶ࡿ:17
࠸ࡎࡳ: ࠶ ࡑ࠺=18ࡕ࡯:=సࡗ࡚࡞࠸< ࡢࡶ࠶ࡿ>.
19
(.)
20
ࡕ࡯: [࡛:::: ]21
࠸ࡎࡳ: [ࢧࣛࢲ࡜࠿]సࡿ.
22ࡕ࡯:࠶ ࠺ࢇ ษࡗࡓ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ::23
࠸ࡎࡳ: °ࡩ࠺::::[:ࢇ °((ᑠ้ࡳ࡟࠺࡞࡙࠸࡚))24
ࡕ࡯:[ᮅ (.) >ᗑ㛗ࡀษࡗ࡚ࡃࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ: ࡑࢀࢆ< ࡀ::::ࡗ࡚>┒ࡗ࡚
25
࠸ࡃࡡࢇ<ࡅ࡝:26
࠸ࡎࡳ: ((࠺࡞࡙ࡁ))࠺ࡕࡢĹୖ:>(.)࡛:>ࡶ࠺୍ே<࡛ࡁࡿே:ࡀ27 Ѝࡕ࡯:  ࡞ࢇ࠿࡞:(.)<࠺
28[࠸࡜ࡗ࡚:::]
29
࠸ࡎࡳ: [((2 ᅇ࠺࡞࡙ࡁ))]30ࡕ࡯:࡛ ࡑࡢே࡜࠶ࡓࡋ஧ே࡛: (0.8) ࡳࡏ ࢆ㛤ࡅࡿ࡜࠿ࡗ࡚:=31
࠸ࡎࡳ: [°࠺ࡑ::°]32ࡕ࡯:=[ ᗑ 㛗 ] >࠸ࡗࡘࡶ௒᭶᭙᪥ఇࡳࡸࡡࢇࡸࢇ,33ᐃఇ᪥ࡸࡡࢇࡅ࡝: ࡑࡢ< ᐃఇ᪥ࢆ: (0.4)
34 э࠺ࡕ࡜: ࡑࡢ(.)>ᯇ஭ࡉࢇ<ࡗ࡚࠸࠺ே࡛:<㛤ࡅࡿ>࡜࠿ࡗ࡚ゝࡗ࡚ࡉ:,35࡝࠺ࡋࡼ࠺ >࡜࠿ᛮࡗ[࡚࡝ࡁ࡝ࡁࡋ࡚ࢇ][ࡡࢇ<ࡶ࠺]:::36࠸ࡎࡳ:[uheheheh][((➗ࡳ))]37ࡕ࡯:ࡍࡈ࠸ >࠺ࡕ< ❧ὴࡌࡷ࡞::[:࠸?]
38
࠶࠿ࡡ:   [( )]࡞ࢇ࠿:: ahh .hhhh
39
ࡕ࡯:
40
࠸ࡎࡳ: ࡍࡈ࠸࡞:41
ࡕ࡯: [ ❧ ὴ ] ࡸࢇ࡞::=
42
࠶࠿ࡡ: [°ฟୡ::°]43ࡕ࡯:=ฟୡࡍࡿࡼ࡞: [(ࡕࡻࡗ࡜)]ࣂ࢖ࢺඛࡢᒃ㓇ᒇ࡛᭱㏆ᩱ⌮ࢆࡉࡏ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡤ࠿ࡾࡢࡕ࡯࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㸪ࠕᯇ஭ࡉࢇࠖ
࡜࠸࠺ᚑᴗဨ࡜஧ேࡔࡅ࡛ᗑࢆ㛤ࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪୍኱ࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ࡛࠶ࡿ㸬13 ⾜┠࡛⾜ࢃࢀࡓ࠸ࡎ
ࡳࡢ㉁ၥ࡟⟅࠼ࡓᚋࠊ20 ⾜┠࡛ࠊࡕ࡯ࡣࠕ࡛㸸㸸㸸ࠖ࡜኱ࡁ࡞ኌ࡛ゝ࠸ࠊࡇࡢࢽ࣮ࣗࢫࢆㄒࢁ࠺࡜
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ21 ⾜┠࡛࠸ࡎࡳࡀ㔜」ࡋ࡚㉁ၥࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐฎࡍࡿ࡜
࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ22࣭24 ⾜┠࡛࠸ࡎࡳࡢ㉁ၥ࡟⟅࠼ࡿ࡜ 25 ⾜┠࡛ࠕ͐ࡅ࡝ࠖ࡜ゝ࠸ࢱ࣮ࣥࢆ⥔ᣢࡋࡓࡲࡲࠊ20 ⾜┠࡛ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊࢽ࣮ࣗࢫࢆㄒࡿ࡜
࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ㛤ጞࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࢱ࢖࣑ࣥࢢ࡛ࠊ
ࠕ<࠺ࡕࡢŃୖ:> (.) ࡛: >ࡶ࠺୍ே<࡛ࡁࡿே:ࠖ࡜ࠊே≀ࡀ

−70−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ᑟධࡉࢀࠊ30 ⾜┠ࡢࠕ࡛ ࡑࡢே࡜࠶ࡓࡋ஧ே࡛: (0.8)ࡳࡏ ࢆ㛤ࡅࡿ࡜࠿ࡗ࡚:ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ླྀ㏙࡟ࡼࡗ
࡚ㄒࡾࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࡩࡓࡾࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ
B ࠿ࡽࡢࠊ
ᑠኌ࡛ࡢࠕr࠺ࡑ:: rࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙅ࠸཯ᛂࡋ࠿ᚓࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࡕ࡯ࡣ 34 ⾜┠࡛ࡶ࠺୍ᗘฟ᮶஦ࡢླྀ㏙ࢆࡸࡾ┤ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛ࠊࡕ࡯ࡣࠊ
ࠕ࠺ࡕ࡜㸸ࠖ
࡜ࠊࣉࣛ࢖࣮࣋ࢺ࡞ሙ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ୍ே⛠┤♧⾲⌧ࢆඛ࡟ゝཬࡋࠊࠕᯇ஭ࡉࢇࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᗑෆ࡛ᚑᴗဨ
ࡀࡑ࠺࿧ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿྡ๓ࢆྡモྃ࡟ᇙࡵ㎸ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕࡑࡢࠖࡢᚋ࡟࣐࢖ࢡ࣏࣮ࣟࢬࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ
࡜ࡸࠊྡ๓ࡢࠕᯇ஭ࡉࢇࠖࡀ᪩ཱྀ࡛Ⓨኌࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡇࡢ⾲⌧ࡣጞࡵ࠿ࡽ୍⥆ࡁࡢྡモྃ࡜ࡋ࡚ࢹࢨ࢖ࣥࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢሙ࡛ࠕᯇ஭ࡉࢇࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྡ๓ࢆᤄධࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࡇ
࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ3 ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࠕ㸺㛤ࡅࡿ㸼ࠖࢆࡺࡗࡃࡾ࡜Ⓨኌࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᗑ㛗ࡀࠊࡕ࡯࡜ࠕᯇ஭
ࡉࢇࠖࡢ஧ே࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᗑࢆ௵ࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᐉゝࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺ฟ᮶஦ࢆࡼࡾヲ⣽࡟⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕጣ㸩ࡉࢇࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྡ๓ࡢࢹࢨ࢖ࣥ࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡇࡢே≀ࡀᗑࡢᚑᴗဨࡀᩗពࡸぶࡋࡳࢆ㎸ࡵ࡚᥋ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᏑᅾ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦᶆࡍࡿࠋ
ࠕ<࠺ࡕࡢŃୖ:> (. ) ࡛: >ࡶ࠺୍ே<࡛ࡁࡿே:ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᑟධ᫬ࡢᥥ
෗ࡶࠊᗑ㛗୙ᅾ᫬࡟ࡩࡓࡾࡔࡅ࡛ᗑࢆ㛤ࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺୍኱஦ࢆ࿨ࡌࡽࢀࡓ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡾࡢ⤖ᮎࡢ⌮ゎ࡟ᐤ୚ࡍࡿࡀࠊ ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡣࡑࢀࢆ⿵ᙉࡍࡿᙺ๭ࢆᢸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㄒࡾࡢ⤖ᮎࢆࡸࡾ┤ࡍ࡜࠸࠺άື࡟࠾
࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢᙺ๭ࢆຠᯝⓗ࡟ά⏝ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
3.5. ศᯒࡢࡲ࡜ࡵ
௨ୖࡳ࡚ࡁࡓ㸱ࡘࡢ஦౛࡟ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟グ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
࣭ྡ๓ᢨ㟢࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀ༢࡟ᑟධ᫬࡟ᥥ෗ࡉࢀࡓ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ୍
ᡂဨ࡛࠶ࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕಶேࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄒࡾࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ಁࡍࠋ
࣭⪺ࡁᡭࡀ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ே≀ࢆᑟධࡍࡿ࡜ࡁࡢᥥ෗࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᥦ౪ࡉࢀࡿ᝟ሗࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄒࡾࡢ⤖ᮎࡢ⌮ゎ࡟ᐤ୚ࡍࡿࡀࠊྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡣࡑࢀࢆ⿵ᙉࡍࡿᙺ๭ࢆᢸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
4. ⤖ㄽ➨㸯⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡣ㸰ࡘࡢၥ㢟ࢆᥦ㉳ࡍࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡓࠋࡑࡢၥ㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿᮏ✏࡛ࡢ⤖ㄽࢆࡲ࡜ࡵ࡚࠾ࡇ࠺ࠋࡲࡎࠊ࡞ࡐ⪺ࡁᡭࡀྠᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ே≀ࡢྡ๓ࡀᢨ㟢ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᑟධ᫬ࡢࠕᥥ෗ࠖ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋྡ๓ᢨ㟢࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢ࿧⛠ࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡣࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀࡑࡢྡ๓࡛࿧ࡤࢀ࡚࠸ࡿಶே࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶
ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᾋࡁ᙮ࡾ࡟ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡣࠊᑟධ᫬ࡢᥥ෗࡟ࡼࡿࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄒࡾࡢ⤖ᮎࡢ⌮ゎࢆຓࡅࡿᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊ࡞ࡐᚋ⥆ࡢᣦ♧఩⨨࡛ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸
࠺ၥ㢟࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ
ㄒࡾࡢ⤖ᮎ࡟㏆࠸఩⨨࡛ࠊྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡢᙺ๭ࡀά⏝ࡉࢀࡿ⌧㇟ࢆほᐹࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊ
ࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆᑟධࡍࡿ᫬࡟ྡ๓࡟ゝཬࡍࡿ஦౛࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲ
ࡓࠊSacks (1987)ࡢᥦ᱌ࡍࡿ contiguity ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ௒ᚋ᳨ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ
ྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡣࠊSchegloff (1996)࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡓࠊ༢࡟ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆ↷ᛂࡍࡿ௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᡂࡋ㐙ࡆࡿ᭷ᶆ࡞ᣦ♧⌧㇟ࡢࡦ࡜ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨࡙ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᣦ♧࡜࠸࠺άືࡀࠊ༢
࡟ᑐ㇟ࢆᣦ♧ࡍࡿ௨ୖࡢ㈉⊩ࢆࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀㄆ㆑ྍ⬟࡜᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟
ࢆᣦ♧ࡍࡿ஦౛ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟㆟ㄽࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ὀ┠ࡋࡓྡ๓ᢨ㟢ࡣࠊࡇࡢᴫᛕࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ᑐ㇟ࢆᣦ♧ࡍࡿ⌧㇟࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ㐺⏝ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Fox, B. A. 1987. Discourse Structure and Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C. 1984. “Notes on Story Structure and the Organization of Participation,” In J. M.
Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversational Analysis,
3 ࠕࡑࡢࠖࡀᣦ♧モ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࠿ࠊࣇ࢕࣮ࣛ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࠿ࠊ㡢ኌࢆ⪺ࡃ㝈ࡾ࡛ࡣุ᩿ࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠋ

−71−

聞き手が知らない人物の名前披露―日本語会話における有標な指示―225-246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayashi, M. 2005. ͆Referential Problems and Turn Construction㸸An Exploration of an Intersection
between Grammar and Interaction,͇ Text 25:4, 437-468.
Heritage, J. 2007. “Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in Person (and Place) Reference,” In Enfield,
Nick. J. and Tanya Stivers (eds.) Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural andSocial Perspectives, 255-280. Cambridge University Press, Campridge.
Jefferson, G. 1978. “Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation,” In J. Schenkein (ed.)
Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, 219-248. New York: Academic Press.
୵⏣⚽ஓ. 2008.ࠕᣦ♧⪅ࡀ㛤ጞࡍࡿㄆ㆑᥈⣴Ɇㄆ㆑࡜㐍⾜ᛶࡢࡸࡾࡃࡾɆࠖ
ࠗ♫఍ゝㄒ⛉Ꮫ࠘10:2, 96-108.
Sacks, H. 1987. “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.”
In G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (eds.), Talk and Social Organizations, 54-69. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters .
Sacks, H. and E. A. Schegloff. 1979. “Two Preferences in the Organization of References to Persons
in Conversation and their Interaction,” In G. Psathas, (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in
Ethnomethodology, 15-21, New York: Irvington Publishers.
Schegloff, E. A. 1996. “Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial
Sketch of a Systematics,” In B. A. Fox㸦ed㸬㸧Studies in Anaphora, 437-485. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schegloff, E. A. 2000. “On Granularity,” Annual Review of Sociology 26, 715-720.
Schegloff, E. A. 2007. “Categories in Action: Person-Reference and Membership Categorization,”
Discourse Studies 9: 433-461.
Stivers, T. 2007. “Alternative Recognitionals in Person Reference.” In Enfield, N. J. and T. Stivers(eds.) Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, 73-96.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
㡲㈡࠶ࡺࡳ. 2008.ࠕ▱㆑᝿ᐃ࡜ᣦ♧☜❧ࡢࣉࣛࢡࢸ࢕ࢫࠖ
ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 10 ᅇ኱఍Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘
89-96.
Suga, A. 2015. “Announcing Names and Reporting Talk in Japanese Storytelling”. ࠗḢ⡿ゝㄒᩥ໬◊✲࠘(ዉⰋዪᏊ኱ᏛᩥᏛ㒊Ḣ⡿ゝㄒᩥ໬Ꮫ఍) 2: 1-17.

ࢺࣛࣥࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺグྕ୍ぴ
[ 
]



㔜」ࡢጞࡲࡾ

ᩥᏐ࿘㎶࡜ẚ࡭࡚኱ࡁ࠸㡢㔞㸪㧗࠸㡢㔜」ࡢ⤊ࢃࡾ

ÛᩥᏐÛ࿘㎶࡜ẚ࡭࡚ᑠࡉ࠸㡢㔞, ప࠸㡢

hh 

࿧Ẽ㡢

(0.7)  㛫㝽㸦⛊㸧
(.)

0.1 ⛊๓ᚋࡢ㛫㝽

.hh

྾Ẽ㡢

㸸

㡢ኌࡢᘬࡁᘏࡤࡋ

<ᩥᏐ>࿘㎶࡜ẚ࡭࡚㏿ᗘࡀ㐜࠸㸫  

㡢ኌࡢ୰᩿

>ᩥᏐ<

࿘㎶࡜ẚ࡭࡚㏿ᗘࡀ㏿࠸㸻㸰ࡘࡢⓎヰࡀ㏵ษࢀ࡞ࡃᐦ╔(())

㌿グ⪅࡟ࡼࡿὀ㔘㸦 㸧

㸬/ ?/ 㸪ୗ㝆ㄪ࣭ୖ᪼ㄪ࣭⥅⥆ࢆ♧ࡍᢚᥭ
Ĺ/Ļ   ┤ᚋࡢࣆࢵࢳࡢୖ࣭᪼ୗ㝆

Ѝ э

−72−

⪺ࡁྲྀࡾࡀ୙ྍ⬟ศᯒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ὀ┠ࡍࡿ⾜第17回大会発表論文集第10号

䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛸Ⓨヰ䛾㐃㙐㻌䇷䛂ᯟ⤌䜏䛃タᐃ䛸䛧䛶䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䇷㻌ᮡᮏ㻌 ᕦ䠄ᗈᓥᅜ㝿኱Ꮫ䠅㘠ᓥ ᘯ἞ᮁ䠄㛵す኱Ꮫ䠅
$EVWUDFW!
㻌 㻌 7KLVVWXG\H[DPLQHVWKHIUDPHVHWWLQJIXQFWLRQRIPHWDSKRULFDOH[SUHVVLRQVDWWKHEHJLQQLQJRIDWHOOLQJLQFRQYHUVDWLRQIURPWKHSHUVSHFWLYHRIFRJQLWLYHPHWDSKRUWKHRU\7KHGDWDDUHH[WUDFWHGIURPWHOHYLVLRQLQWHUYLHZSURJUDPV7KHVWXG\DQDO\]HVWKHLQWHUDFWLYHIHDWXUHVRIPHWDSKRULFDO
H[SUHVVLRQVXVLQJWKHPHWKRGVRIFRQYHUVDWLRQDODQDO\VLV7KHIHDWXUHVFRQVLGHUHGLQFOXGHIRUPVRIXWWHUDQFHVWKDWLQYROYHPHWDSKRULFDOH[SUHVVLRQVWKHVHTXHQWLDOHQYLURQPHQWVRIWKRVHXWWHUDQFHVUHFLSLHQWV¶UHVSRQVHVXVLQJ³JRDKHDG´WRNHQVDQGFKDLQVRIPHWDSKRULFDOH[SUHVVLRQVDIWHUWKH
IUDPHLVVHW7KURXJKDGHWDLOHGH[DPLQDWLRQRIWKHGDWDWKLVVWXG\VKRZVWKDWSDUWLFLSDQWVVHWPHWDSKRULFDOIUDPHVIRUWKRXJKWVDQGH[SUHVVLRQVLQWHUDFWLYHO\DWWKHEHJLQQLQJRIDWHOOLQJKHOSLQJWKHPWDONDERXWDWRSLFLQDFRQVLVWHQWZD\XVLQJWKHPHWDSKRUDQGGHYHORSDVKDUHGXQGHUVWDQGLQJDERXWWKHWRSLF䛆䜻䞊䝽䞊䝗䛇䠖䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䚸ᯟ⤌䜏䚸ㄆ▱䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⌮ㄽ䚸఍ヰศᯒ䚸๰㐀ᛶ㻝㻚㻌 ᮏ◊✲䛾┠ⓗ㻌㻌 ᮏ◊✲䛷䛿䚸ㄆ▱䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⌮ㄽ䠄/DNRII  -RKQVRQ*UDG\.|YHFVHV䚸㘠ᓥ 䠅䛸䚸఍ヰศᯒ䠄 6DFNV 6FKHJORII  -HIIHUVRQ  6FKHJORII-HIIHUVRQ 6DFNV䠅䜢⤫ྜ䛧䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛜䛒䜛䝖䝢䝑䜽䛻㛵䛩䜛ㄒ䜚䛾㛤ጞ఩⨨䛻䛚䛔䛶ᛮ⪃䜔⾲⌧䛾䛂ᯟ⤌䜏䛃タᐃᶵ⬟䜢ᢸ䛖䛣䛸䜢୺ᙇ䛩䜛䚹䜎䛯䚸ᑐヰ䛻䛚䛡䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ヲ⣽໬䛚䜘䜃๰㐀ᛶ䛻䛴䛔䛶㆟ㄽ䛩䜛䚹䝕䞊䝍䛸䛧䛶䛿䚸ྛ⏺䛾ⴭྡே  ྡ䛻䜘䜛┦஫䛾䜲䞁䝍䝡䝳䞊䛷䛒䜛 1+. ᨺ㏦䛄6:,7&+ 䜲䞁䝍䝡䝳䞊㐩ே㐩䛅䠄 ᫬㛫␒⤌䠅䜢  ᅇศ䠄ィ  ศ䠅䜢⏝䛔䛯䚹䛷ඛ⾜◊✲䛾᳨ウ䚸䛷䝕䞊䝍䛾ᥦ♧䛸ศᯒ䚸䛷䜎䛸䜑䜢⾜䛖䚹㻞㻚㻌 ඛ⾜◊✲㻌㻞㻚㻝㻌 ㄆ▱䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⌮ㄽ㻌㻌 ㄆ▱䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⌮ㄽ䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛿䛂䛒䜛஦᯶䜢௚䛾஦᯶䜢㏻䛧䛶⌮ゎ䛧䚸⤒㦂䛩䜛䛣䛸䛃䠄/DNRII -RKQVRQ 㑥ヂ S䠅䛷䛒䜛䚹㘠ᓥ䠄䠅䛻䜘䜜䜀䚸䜘䜚ヲ⣽䛻䛿䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䠄౛䠘ே⏕䛿᪑䛰䠚䠅䛸䛿䚸䜘䜚ලయⓗ䛺䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䠄䠘᪑䠚䠅䛸䚸䜘䜚ᢳ㇟ⓗ䛺䝃䜻㡿ᇦ䠄䠘ே⏕䠚䠅㛫䛾෗ീ䠄ᵓ㐀ⓗᑐᛂ㛵ಀ䠅䜢ᣦ䛩䚹䛂㡿ᇦ䛃䛸䛿䚸䛒䜛஦᯶䛻㛵䛩䜛ᵓ㐀໬䛥䜜䛯▱㆑䛾⥲య䛷䛒䜛䚹䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛻䛿䚸㡿ᇦ䛾せ⣲䛸㡿ᇦෆ䛾せ⣲㛫䛾㛵ಀ䠄䛂᥎ㄽ䛃䠅䛾෗ീ䜒ྵ䜎䜜䜛䚹䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䜢཯ᫎ䛧䛯ゝㄒ⾲⌧䛜䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䠄౛䛂⚾䛾ே⏕䛿㝤䛧䛔㐨䛾䜚䛰䛳䛯䛃䠅䛷䛒䜛䚹䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛿䚸䛂Ẽศ䛿ୖ䚻䛃䛂ᬒẼ䛿ୖྥ䛝䛃䛺
䛹䚸㏻ᖖ䛂䛯䛸䛘䛃䛸ព㆑䛥䜜䛺䛔⾲⌧䜒ྵ䜐䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧  䛾య⣔ⓗ䛺ศᯒ䜢㏻䛧䛶ᢳฟ䛥䜜䜛䚹䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊㛫䛻䛿䝛䝑䝖䝽䞊䜽ⓗ┦஫㛵㐃ᛶ䛜᝿ᐃ䛥䜜䜛䠄ヲ⣽䛿㘠ᓥ ཧ↷䠅䚹౛䛘䜀䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊㛫䛻䜹䝔䝂䝸䞊㛵ಀ䛜Ꮡᅾ䛧䚸ୗ఩䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛜ୖ఩䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾෗ീ䜢ᘬ䛝⥅䛠䛣䛸䠄䛂⥅ᢎ䛃䠅䚸䛒䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛜䚸䜘䜚ලయⓗ䛷ヲ⣽䛺䝰䝜䝂䝖䛸䛧䛶⾲⌧䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䠄䛂ヲ⣽໬䛃䠄㘠ᓥ 䛷䛿䛂ල⌧໬䛃䠅䠅䚸」ᩘ䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛜㛵୚䛧䛶䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛜ᙧᡂ䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䠄䛂ྜᡂ䛃䠅䛜䛒䜛䚹㻌 ㄆ▱䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⌮ㄽ䛿䚸య⣔ⓗ䛺䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛾ศᯒ
䜢㏻䛧䛶䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛸䛔䛖ㄆ▱ᶵᵓ䜢᫂䜙䛛䛻䛩䜛䛣䛸䜢୺║䛸䛧䛶䛔䜛䛯䜑䚸ᑐヰ䛾䜘䛖䛻䛂䛭䛾ሙ䛃䛻኱䛝䛟౫Ꮡ䛩䜛ゝㄒ౑⏝䜢ᢅ䛖䛣䛸䛿ᑡ䛺䛛䛳䛯䚹䛭䛾䛯䜑䚸䛂⾲⌧䛜䛭䛾┠ⓗ䛸䛧䛶ᣢ䛴䚸䝁䝭䝳䝙䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁ⓗഃ㠃䛜⫼ᬒ໬䛥䜜䛶䛧䜎䛳䛯䛃䠄㔝⃝䞉῰㇂ S䠅䛸䛔䛳䛯ᣦ᦬䜒⧞䜚㏉䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹ே㛫䛾ㄆ▱ཬ䜃᪥ᖖⓗ䛺άື䛻䛚䛡䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ാ䛝䛿䚸ᑐヰ➼ᐇ㝿䛾άືሙ㠃䛻䛚䛡䜛ゝㄒ౑⏝䜢ྵ䜐ཧ୚⪅䠄㛫䠅䛾ゝື䛻䜒཯ᫎ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹௒ᚋ䛾⌮ㄽⓗⓎᒎ䛻ྥ䛡䛶䚸ᑐヰ䛻䛚䛡䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛾⌧䜜᪉䜔ᛮ⪃䛾ᵝᘧ䛸䛧䛶䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾㛵୚䜢ᐇ㝿䛾ᑐヰ䝕䞊䝍䛻ᇶ䛵䛝᫂䜙䛛䛻䛧䛶䛔䛟䛣䛸䛿኱䛝䛺ព⩏䜢ᣢ䛴䛰䜝䛖䚹㻞㻚㻞㻌 ᑐヰ䜢䝕䞊䝍䛸䛩䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊◊✲㻌
㻌 &DPHURQ DEDE 䛿䚸ᑠᏛᰯ䛾ᩍᐊㄯヰ䚸ྠ୍䛾஧⪅㛫䛾㛗ᮇ䛻䜟䛯䜛࿴ゎ
䠄UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ䠅䛾ᑐヰ䛻⌧䜜䛯䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䜢ほᐹ䛧䛯䚹䛭䛾䛺䛛䛷䚸ពᅗⓗ䛺䠄GHOLEHUDWH䠅䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛿
MXVW䚸OLNH䚸VRUWRI 䛸䛔䛳䛯䛂䝏䝳䞊䝙䞁䜾䞉䝕䝞䜲䝇䠄WXQLQJ
GHYLFH䠅䛃䜢క䛖ഴྥ䛜䛒䜛䛣䛸䠄௚䛻 &DPHURQ 'HLJQDQ䠅䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛜༢⊂䛷⌧䜜䜛䛣䛸䛿ᑡ䛺䛟䚸ྠ䛨ᑐ㇟䛻㛵䛩䜛య⣔ⓗ䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛜᫬䛻䛿ኚᙧ䛧䛺䛜䜙㞟ྜⓗ䛻⌧䜜䜛䛣䛸䚸୍᪉䛜䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䜢౑䛖䛸┦ᡭ䜒䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛷཯ᛂ䛩䜛ഴྥ䛜䛒䜛䛣䛸➼䜢ᣦ᦬䛧䛯䚹䛣䜜䜙䛾◊✲䛿䚸ᑐヰ䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛾ᙧែⓗ≉ᚩ䚸ศᕸ≉ᛶ䚸య⣔ᛶ➼䛻ὀ┠䛧䛶䛚䜚䚸๓ᚋ䛾Ⓨヰ䛸䛾䛴䛺䛜䜚䜔䚸ཧ୚⪅㛫䛾䜔䜚䛸䜚䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿༑ศ䛻᳨ウ䛧䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹㻌 /LEHUWR  䛿䚸䛒䜛ᑐ㇟䛻㛵䛩䜛⛉Ꮫ⪅ྠኈ䛾㆟ㄽ䚸⛉Ꮫ䛻㛵䛩䜛䝷䝆䜸␒⤌䛻䛚䛡䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䞉䝰䝕䝹䛾−73−

メタファーと発話の連鎖―「枠組み」設定としてのメタファー表現―๰ฟ䝥䝻䝉䝇䛻ὀ┠䛧䚸ᑐヰ⪅㛫䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䜢ᕠ䜛ᇶᮏⓗ䛺ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᧯స䛸䚸ᇶᮏⓗ䛺ព࿡ㄽⓗ᧯స䛾䝰䝕䝹䜢♧䛧䛯䛜䚸ᗈ䛟㐺⏝䛷䛝䜛䝰䝕䝹䛸䛿䛺䛳䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹ᮡᮏ䠄䠅䛿ᑐㄯ㞟䛾ᑐヰ䜢ศᯒ䛧䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛜ᑐヰ⪅㛫䛷㐃⥆ⓗ䛻౑⏝䛥䜜䜛㝿䛾䝟䝍䞊䞁䜢ᢳฟ䛧䛯䛜䚸ᩥᏐ໬䛥䜜⦅㞟䛥䜜䛯ᑐヰ䛷䛒䜚䚸ᐇ㝿䛾䜔䜚䛸䜚䛾ヲ⣽䜢ぢ䜛䛻䛿⮳䛳䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹㻌 ᮏ◊✲䛷䛿䚸఍ヰศᯒ䛾ᡭἲ䛸䛣䜜䜎䛷䛾◊✲ᡂᯝ䜢ᑟධ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸ᑐヰ䛷䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䜢⏝䛔䛯䜔䜚䛸䜚䛾⢭⦓䛺ศᯒ䜢ヨ䜏䜛䚹㻞㻚㻌㻟㻌 ఍ヰศᯒ㻌㻌 ఍ヰศᯒ䛿䚸6DFNVHWDO  䚸6FKHJORIIHWDO  䛛䜙ጞ䜎䜛䚸┦஫⾜Ⅽ䛸䛧䛶䛾఍ヰ䛾୰䛾ゝㄒⓗ䜔䜚䛸䜚䛻䛚䛡䜛⛛ᗎ䜢䚸⢭ᐦ䛺㉁ⓗศᯒ䜢㏻䛧䛶᫂䜙䛛䛻䛩䜛᪉ἲ䛷䛒䜛䚹㏆ᖺ䛷䛿䚸䛂ㄯヰᶵ⬟ゝㄒᏛ䛃䜔䛂┦஫⾜ⅭゝㄒᏛ䛃䛸࿧䜀䜜䜛ศ㔝䛷䚸఍ヰศᯒ䛾ᡭἲ䛻䜘䜛ゝㄒ⌧㇟䛾◊✲䛜άⓎ䛻⾜䜟䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹)R[7KRPSVRQ)RUG &RXSHU.XKOHQ  䛿䚸఍ヰศᯒ䛾ゝㄒᏛ䜈䛾㈉⊩䛸䛧䛶䛂ゝㄒⓗᐇ㊶䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸Ⓨヰ㐃㙐䛻䛚䛡䜛⾜Ⅽ䛸䛧䛶ព࿡䛵䛡䛃䠄S ᘬ⏝⪅ヂ䠅䛜ྍ⬟䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢ᣲ䛢䛶䛔䜛䚹఍ヰศᯒ䛾❧ሙ䛷䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䜢ᢅ䛳䛯◊✲䛿ᑡ䛺䛔䛜䚸'UHZ +ROW  䛜ⱥᅜᐙᗞ䛾㟁ヰ఍ヰ䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸䜲䝕䜱䜸䝮⾲⌧䛜䝖䝢䝑䜽⛣⾜䛾㐃㙐䛷⌧䜜䚸䝖䝢䝑䜽䛾⤊⤖䜢ᑟ䛟䛸䛔䛖┦஫⾜Ⅽୖ䛾ᶵ⬟䜢᫂䜙䛛䛻䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹㻌 ఍ヰศᯒ䛷䛿䚸఍ヰ䛾ほᐹཬ䜃ศᯒ䛻㝿䛧䚸䛂ே䚻䛜ゝㄒⓗ䜔䜚䛸䜚䛾୰䛷⾜䛖䛣䛸䛿䚸䛭䛾䛸䛝䛹䛝䛾≧ἣ䛾୰䛷䛂┦ᡭ䛾ฟ᪉䛻ᛂ䛨䛶䚸䛒䜛⾜Ⅽ䜢㐙⾜䛩䜉䛟䛃䝕䝄䜲䞁䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛃䠄୵⏣ S䠅䛣䛸䜢๓ᥦ䛸䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ᮏ◊✲䛷䛿䚸≉䛻䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䜢ྵ䜐Ⓨヰ䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸䛭䛾┦஫⾜Ⅽୖ䛾ព࿡䛵䛡䛸䛔䛖ほⅬ䛛䜙䚸ඹ㉳䛩䜛ゝㄒⓗ䞉㠀ゝㄒⓗせ⣲䚸Ⓨヰ䛸䛾㐃㙐䚸⫈䛝ᡭ䛾཯ᛂ䛻ὀ┠䛧䛶ศᯒ䜢⾜䛖䚹㻌㻞㻚㻌㻠㻌 䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛾ฟ⌧ഴྥ㻌㻌 䜎䛪䚸ⱥㄒ䛻䛚䛡䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛾ゝㄒⓗᶆ㆑䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸ᑐヰ䝁䞊䝟䝇䜢ᢅ䛳䛯 &DPHURQ 'HLJQDQ 䛿䝏䝳䞊䝙䞁䜾䞉䝕䝞䜲䝇䚸ᩥᏛసရ䜢ᢅ䛳䛯 *RDWO\  䛿䛂䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ᶆ㆑䠄PHWDSKRULFDOPDUNHUV䠅䛃䛸䛧䛶䚸䛭䜜䛮䜜ヱᙜ䛩䜛ᙧᘧ䜢ิᣲ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹๓⪅䛿䚸䝏䝳䞊䝙䞁䜾䞉䝕䝞䜲䝇䛻䚸┦ᡭ䛻ணᮇእ䛾⾲⌧䛾ฟ⌧䜢▱䜙䛫䜛䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛸䛧䛶䛾ゎ㔘䜈䛸ㄏᑟ䛩䜛䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛾ᙉ䛥䜢ㄪᩚ䛩䜛䛸䛔䛳䛯ാ䛝䛜䛒䜛䛸㏙䜉䜛䚹᪥ᮏㄒ䛻䛚䛡䜛ゝㄒⓗᶆ㆑䛻䛿䚸䛂䡚䜏䛯䛔䠋䡚䛾䜘䛖䛃䛂䡚䛸䛔䛖ឤ䛨䛃䛂䡚䛻䛯䛸䛘䜜䜀䛃䛂䡚䛷䛔䛳䛯䜙䛃䛂䛔䛳䛶䜏䜜䜀䡚䛃䛸䛔䛳䛯䜒䛾䛜䛒䜛䚹䛭䛾䜋䛛䛻䛂ᮏᙜ䛻䡚䛃䛂䜎䛥䛻䡚䛃䛂୍✀䛃䛂䛒䜛✀䛃➼䜒䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛻䛧䜀䛧䜀ඛ⾜䛩䜛䚹䛣䜜䜙䛜క䛖䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛿䛂┤႘䛃䛻䛒䛯䜛䚹᪥ᮏㄒ䛾┤႘䛾ᙧᘧ䛿䚸ᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤ䠄䠅
䛻ヲ䛧䛔䚹ᮏ✏䛷䛿䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ฟ⌧䜢᫂♧䛩䜛䛣䜜䜙䛾⾲⌧䜢䛂䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊᫂♧⾲⌧䛃䛸࿧䜆䛣䛸䛻䛩䜛䚹ᒣ᲍䠄䠅䛿䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊᫂♧⾲⌧䛜ከᒱ䛻䜟䛯䜛䛣䛸䜢䛔䛱᪩䛟ᣦ᦬䛧䚸ୖグ䛾௚䛻䛂䛺䜣䛶䛃㻌 䛂ዴ䛟䛃㻌 䛂䛥䛧䛪䜑䛃㻌䛂䛸䛔䛖䛃㻌 䛂䜎䜛䛷䛃㻌 䛂䛒䛯䛛䜒䛃㻌 䛂«䛸ྠ䛨䛃㻌 䛂«䜒ྠ↛䛃㻌䛂䜋䛸䜣䛹«䛰䛃㻌 䛂«䛭䛾䜒䛾䛰䛃㻌 䛂«䛨䜓䛒䜛䜎䛔䛧䛃㻌䛂«䛸ኚ䜟䜚䛿䛧䛺䛔䛃㻌 䛂«䛸㐪䛔䛿䛧䛺䛔䛃䛸ከᩘ䛾⾲⌧䜢ᣲ䛢䛶䛔䜛䚹ᑐヰ䛾┦஫⾜Ⅽⓗ䛺ほⅬ䛛䜙ゝ䛘䜀䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊᫂♧⾲⌧䛜ඹ㉳䛩䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛿䚸⾜Ⅽ䛸䛧䛶䛂䛯䛸䛘䛃䜢ពᅗ䛧䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛜᫂♧䛥䜜䜛䚹ྠ᫬䛻⫈䛝ᡭ䛿䚸┦஫⾜Ⅽୖ䛂䛯䛸䛘䛃䛸䛧䛶⌮ゎ䛩䜛䛣䛸䜢せồ䛥䜜䜛䛸ゝ䛘䜛䚹㻌 ᑐヰ୰䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛻䛿䚸䝆䜵䝇䝏䝱䞊䛜క䛖䛣䛸䜒䛧䜀䛧䜀ᣦ᦬䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䜲䞁䝍䝡䝳䞊䛻䛚䛡䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛻క䛖䝆䜵䝇䝏䝱䞊䜢ほᐹ䛧䛯 0OOHU  䛿䚸䝆䜵䝇䝏䝱䞊䛻䜘䛳䛶䚸䛂䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊ᛶ䠄PHWDSKRULFLW\䠅䛃䛜䛂෌άᛶ໬ UHYLWOL]DWLRQ 䛃䛥䜜䜛䛸୺ᙇ䛧䛶䛔䜛 䚹㻌 䛭䛾䜋䛛䚸ᑐヰ䛻䛚䛔䛶䛿䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛻䛔䜟䜖䜛䛂䝣䜱䝷䞊䛃䜔䛂䝫䞊䝈䠄↓㡢䠅䛃䛸䛔䛳䛯┦஫⾜Ⅽୖ䛾ᶵ⬟䜢ᢸ䛖ᶆ㆑䛜క䛖ሙྜ䛜䛒䜛䚹㻌 ᒣ᰿䠄䠅䛿䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛸⪺䛝ᡭ䛾䜔䜚䛸䜚䛻䜘䛳䛶⏕䛨䜛䝣䜱䝷䞊䛾ᙺ๭䜢䛂Ⓨヰᶒಖᣢ䚸ὀពႏ㉳䚸᫬㛫✌䛞䚸
ⓎヰᶒㆡΏ䛾ᡭຓ䛡䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛾ᚰⓗែᗘ⾲᫂䛃䛸䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ᑠฟ䠄䠅䛿䚸┦஫⾜Ⅽⓗ䛺ศᯒ䛛䜙䛷䛿䛺䛔䛜䚸䠄ゝ䛔䜘䛹䜏䛿䠅䛂ఏ㐩䛾᰾ᚰ㒊ศ䛾๓䚸୍␒ゝ䛔䛯䛔䛣䛸䚸୍␒ఏ䛘䛺䛡䜜䜀䛺䜙䛺䛔䛣䛸䛾๓䛻䚸䛒䜛䛔䛿䛭䛾㒊ศ䛷䚸᭱䜒⌧䜜䜔䛩䛔䛃 䠄S䠅䛸㏙䜉䛶䛔䜛䚹㻌 ᮏ◊✲䛾䝕䞊䝍䛷䛿䚸䝣䜱䝷䞊䛾䛺䛛䛷䜒≉䛻䛂䛣䛖䛃䛸䛔䛖ᙧᘧ䛜䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛻ඛ⾜䛧䛶㢖⦾䛻ぢ䜙䜜䛯䚹ᚋ䛻ᣲ䛢䜛ᢤ⢋  䛾 䡚 ⾜┠䛂ᆺ䛸䛔䛖䜒䛾䜢  !䛣䛖䜅䜣䛹䛧䛻䠄䛯䛸䛘䜛䛸䠅䛃䛾䜘䛖䛻ฟ⌧䛩䜛䚹䛂䛣䛖䛃䛾┦஫⾜Ⅽୖ䛾ᶵ⬟䛿༑ศ䛻᫂䜙䛛䛻䛺䛳䛶䛔䛺䛔䛜䚸ᒣ᰿䠄䠅䛿䛂⪺䛝ᡭ䜢ヰ䛧ᡭഃ䛻ᘬ䛝㎸䜐ᙺ๭䛃䛜䛒䜛䛸ᣦ᦬䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛂䛣䛖䛩䜜䜀䛃䛂䛣䛖䛧䛶䛃䛾䜘䛖䛻ືస䜢⏝䛔䛯ㄝ᫂䛷䛂䛣䛖䛃䛜⌧䜜䜔䛩䛔䛣䛸䜒⪃䛘䜛䛸䚸䛂䛣䛖䛃䛻䛿ᑐヰ䛾୰䛷ᥦ♧䛥䜜䜛ヰ䛧ᡭഃ䛾Ⓨヰ䜔ືస➼䛻⫈䛝ᡭ䛾ὀព䜢ᘬ䛝䛴䛡䜛ᶵ⬟䛜䛒䜚䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛻ඛ❧䛴ሙྜ䜒䛭䛾䜘䛖䛺ാ䛝䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䛸ᛮ䜟䜜䜛䚹㻌 Ⓨヰ୰䛾䝫䞊䝈䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸┦ᡭ䛾ὀど䠄JD]H䠅䛾☜ಖ䛸䛔䛖┦஫⾜Ⅽⓗ䛺ᶵ⬟䜒ᣦ᦬䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䠄*RRGZLQ䠅䚹㻌 䛣䜜䜙䛾ᶆ㆑䛻䜘䛳䛶䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䜢ྵ䜐Ⓨヰ䛜䚸䜔䜚䛸䜚䛾୰䛷⫈䛝ᡭ䛾ὀព䜢ႏ㉳䛧䛖䜛Ⓨヰ䛸䛧䛶๓ᬒ໬䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䛻䛺䜛䛸ᛮ䜟䜜䜛䚹䛯䛰䛧䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䜢ྵ䜐Ⓨヰ䝕䝄䜲䞁䛸┦஫⾜Ⅽⓗព࿡䛸䛾㛵㐃䛵䛡䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸ᐇ㝿䛾䜔䜚䛸䜚䛾ศᯒ䜢㏻䛧䛶䚸௒ᚋ䜘䜚ヲ⣽䛻᳨ウ䛧䛺䛡䜜䜀䛺䜙䛺䛔䚹


−74−

第17回大会発表論文集㻟㻚㻌 ศᯒ㻌㻟㻚㻝㻌 ᮏ◊✲䛾䝕䞊䝍㻌㻌 䝕䞊䝍䛿䚸1+. ᨺ㏦䛄6:,7&+ 䜲䞁䝍䝡䝳䞊㐩ே㐩䛅䠄 ᫬㛫␒⤌䠅䜢  ᅇศ䠄⣙  ศ䠅㘓⏬䛧䚸㒊ศⓗ䛻ᩥᏐ໬䛧䛯㈨ᩱ䛷䛒䜛䚹ᑐヰෆᐜ䛿䚸ྛ⏺䛾ⴭྡே  ྡ䛻䜘䜛┦஫䛾䜲䞁䝍䝡䝳䞊䛷䛒䜛䚹ⴭྡே䛜ྛ⮬䛾ᑓ㛛ศ㔝䠄ఏ⤫ⱁ⬟䚸₇ዌ➼䠅䛻䛴䛔䛶ㄒ䜛㝿䛻䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛜ከ䛟ฟ⌧䛩䜛䛯䜑䚸䝕䞊䝍䛸䛧䛶᥇⏝䛧䛯䚹䛯䛰䛧䚸䜲䞁䝍䝡䝳䜰䞊䛸䜲䞁䝍䝡䝳䜲䞊䛸䛔䛖ᙺ๭䛜Ỵ䜎䛳䛶䛔䜛Ⅼ䚸ᨺᫎ⏝䛻⦅㞟䛥䜜䛶䛚䜚䚸ど⫈⪅䜈䛾ព㆑䜔ፗᴦᛶ䜈䛾ᚿྥ䛜䜔䜚䛸䜚䛻ᙳ㡪䛧䛶䛔䜛Ⅼ➼䚸᪥ᖖ఍ヰ䛸䛿␗䛺䜛ᛶ㉁䛾ᑐヰ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛿␃ព䛧䛶䛚䛟ᚲせ䛜䛒䜛䚹㻌 ᮏ◊✲䛾䝕䞊䝍䛷䛿䚸ᑐヰ䛻䜒័⏝ᛶ䛾⛬ᗘ䛜␗䛺䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛜㐢ᅾ䛧䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䚸䛭䛾䛺䛛䛷䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊᫂♧⾲⌧➼䛷䛂䛯䛸䛘䛃䛾ពᅗ䜢᫂♧䛧䛶䛔䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛾⌧䜜䜛఩⨨䛻ഴྥᛶ䛜䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢ぢฟ䛧䛯䚹௨ୗ䛷䛿䚸䛭䛾䛺䛛䛷䜒≉䛻䝖䝢䝑䜽䛻㛵䛩䜛ㄒ䜚䛾㛤ጞ఩⨨䛻⌧䜜䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛻ὀ┠䛧ศᯒ䜢⾜䛖䚹㻟㻚㻞㻚㻌 䝖䝢䝑䜽㛤ጞ఩⨨䛷䛾䛂ᯟ⤌䜏䛃タᐃ㻌㻌 䜎䛪䚸ᫎീ䝕䞊䝍䜢ᩥᏐ໬䛧䛯㈨ᩱ䛾ᢤ⢋䜢♧䛩䚹ᩥᏐ໬䛻౑⏝䛧䛯グྕ䛿௨ୗ䛾㏻䜚䛷䛒䜛䚹㡢ኌ䛾ᘬ䛝ᘏ䜀䛧䛂䛃䠋Ⓨヰ䛾㔜䛺䜚㛤ጞ䛂>䛃㡢ኌ䛾ᙉㄪ䛂㻌 㻌 䛃䠋㡢ኌ䛾୰᩿䛂䛃ୗ㝆ㄪ䛂䛃䠋ୖ᪼ㄪ䛂"䛃䠋⥅⥆䜢♧䛩䛂䛃↓㡢䛂  䛃䛤䛟▷䛔↓㡢䛂  䛃䛂 ⛊ᩘ 䛃䠖 ⛊௨ୖ䛾↓㡢ษ䜜┠䛜䛺䛔䛂 䛃䠋࿧Ẽ䞉➗䛔䛂K䛃䠋྾Ẽ䛂K䛃
㏿䛟Ⓨヰ䛂!ᩥᏐ䛃䠋䜖䛳䛟䜚Ⓨヰ䛂ᩥᏐ!䛃⪺䛝ྲྀ䜚୙⬟䛂䠄㻌 㻌 䠅䛃䠋ὀ㔘䛂䡗䡙䛃㻌 ᢤ⢋  䛿䚸ఏ⤫䛾⥅ᢎ䛻䛴䛔䛶ヰ䛧䛶䛔䜛ሙ㠃䛷䛒䜛䚹䜲䞁䝍䝡䝳䜲䞊1 䛿䚸䡚 ⾜┠䛷䝖䝢䝑䜽䛸䛧䛶䛂ᆺ䛃䜢ᑟධ䛧䚸䛭䛾䛂ᆺ䛃䜢 䡚 ⾜┠䛷䛂  ᆺ䛸䛔䛖䜒䛾䜢  !
䛣䛖䜅䜣䛹䛧䛻䛭䜜䛣䛭䛯䛸䛘䜛䛸䛃䛸䚸䛂䠄䛻䠅䛯䛸䛘䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊᫂♧⾲⌧䛻䜘䛳䛶䚸䛂䜅䜣䛹䛧䛃䛻䛯䛸䛘䜛䛣䛸䜢᫂♧䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ᢤ⢋ 㸸1㸦≬ゝᖌ㸧࡟ ,㸦ḷ⯙ఄತඃ㸧ࡀ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ

第10号



  ࡑࢀࡇࡑࡓ࡜࠼ࡿ࡜, ^➗࠸࡞ࡀࡽ࠺࡞ࡎࡁ`

1 ࡩࢇ࡝ࡋࢆࡎࡗ࡜࠸ࢁࢇ࡞ேࡀࡣ࠸࡚ࡁࡓ  >!ࡍࡿ࡜࠸ࢁࢇ࡞యᆺࡢேࡀ࠸ࡓࡔࢁ࠺࡜

,>ࡣࡣ࠸



1 !ࡑ࠺ࡍࡿ࡜࠿࡞ࡾ࡛࠿࠸>ࢃࡅ࡛ࡍࡼ

,>KKKK



 



1 Kࡰࡃࡽࡢឤぬ࡛ゝ࠺࡜  ࡜࡟࠿ࡃࡑࢀ࡟  ࡑࡗࡕ࡟࠶ࢃࡏ  ࡚ኴࡽ࡞ࡁࡷ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸", ࢇ



 



1 ඛ㍮࠿ࡽㆡࡾཷࡅࡓࡩࢇ࡝ࡋ࡟⮬ศࡢ࠿  ࡽࡔࡢ࡯࠺ࢆ>࠶ࢃࡏ࡚࠸ࡃ

,   >ࢇ

1 ࡘࡲࡾ⮬ศࡢྍ⬟ᛶ࡜ࡺ࠺࠿⮬ศࡢ  K  ࡲࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ࡚  ඛே㐩ࡀ⠏࠸࡚ࡁࡓࡸࡗࡥࡾࡑࡢ  ᖺ࡜࠿ᖺ࡜࠿ࡢⱥ▱࡟⮬ศࡢ࡯࠺ࢆ   ྜࢃࡏ࡚ࡃࡗ࡚࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛  K  ఱ࠿  ⮬ศࡢ    ྍ⬟ᛶࡗ࡚ࡺ࠺ࡶࡢࢆ኱ࡁࡃࡍࡿ, ࢇ1 !ࡸࡗࡥࡾಶேࡦ࡜ࡾ࡛⪃࠼ࡓࡽ  ࡇࢀࡗࡱࡗࡕࡢࡶࡢࡶࡸࡗࡥࡾ  ࡑࡢᩘⓒᖺࡢఏ⤫࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚࠸ࡅࡤ  ኴࡿࡇ࡜࡛  K  ࡑࢀࡀ࡞ࢇ࠿ࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࡢᮍ᮶࡛ࡓࡓ  ࠿࠼ࡿ୍ࡘࡢ  !᪉⟇࡟࡞ࡿࢇࡌࡷ࡞࠸  ࠿࡞ࡳࡓ࠸࡞㻌 ᢤ⢋  䛿䚸䜲䞁䝍䝡䝳䜲䞊8 䛜኱≀䝆䝱䝈䞉䝢䜰䝙䝇䝖䛸
ඹ₇䛧䛯䛸䛝䛾䜶䝢䝋䞊䝗䛻ᇶ䛵䛝䚸༶⯆₇ዌ䛻䛴䛔䛶ヰ䛧䛶䛔䜛ሙ㠃䛷䛒䜛䚹䛂䛝䛟䛱䛛䜙䛃䛻䛴䛔䛶䛾 , 䛾㉁ၥ
䛻⟅䛘䜘䛖䛸ㄒ䜚ጞ䜑䜛䛺䛛䛷䚸8 䛿䛂୍⥴䛻₇ዌ䛩䜛䛃䛣䛸䠄䛂༶⯆₇ዌ䛃䠅䜢䚸 ⾜┠䛷䛂8䠖ヰ䜢䛩䜛䛾䛸䛩>䛤䛟ఝ䛶䜛䛾䛷䛃䛸䚸䛂䠄䛸䠅ఝ䛶䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊᫂♧⾲⌧䛻䜘䛳䛶䛂ヰ䜢䛩䜛䛃䛣䛸䠄䛂఍ヰ䛃䠅䛻䛯䛸䛘䛶䛔䜛䚹   㸦 ᖺ  ᭶  ᪥ᨺ㏦ศ㸧ᢤ⢋ 㸸8㸦ࢪࣕࢬ࣭ࣆ࢔ࢽࢫࢺ㸧࡟ ,㸦ₔ⏬ᐙ㸧ࡀ࢖ࣥ

1 ௒ࡲ࡛⥆࠸࡚ࡁࡓࡶࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࡑࢇ࡞࡟⡆༢  ࡟ࡶ࠺ᔂࢀ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛  ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡞  ࡗ࡚Ẽࡀࡍࡿ!ࢇࡍࡼࡡ   ࡁࡃࡕ࠿ࡽࡶ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡛ࡍࡶࢇ, ^࠺࡞ࡎࡁ`  ࠶ࡗ࡜࠾ࡶࡗ࡚  >ࡶ࡞ࢇ࠿

1 Kࡑࡢ  ࡏࢇࡥ࠸࠿ࡽ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ⩦࠺  ࡜,          >ࡁࡃࡕ࠿ࡽࡗ࡚

 ᆺࡀ࠶ࡿࡗ࡚࠸ࡗࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡡ"  ࡝ࡺ࠸࡝࠺ࡺ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡍ࠿ࡑࡢ



 



8 ࡸࡗࡥࡾ୍⥴࡟₇ዌࡍࡿࡗ࡚ࡺ࠺ࡢࡣ

1 ᆺ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࢆ  !ࡇ࠺ࡩࢇ࡝ࡋ࡟, ࢇ−75−

ࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ㸦 ᖺ  ᭶  ᪥ᨺ㏦ศ㸧8 㸯㸵ࡢ࡜ࡁ࡞ࢇ࡚㹹8ࡣඹ₇᫬ṓ㹻メタファーと発話の連鎖―「枠組み」設定としてのメタファー表現―

8 ࡁࡃࡕ࠿ࡽࡗ࡚ࡢࡀࡍࡈࡃ㔜せ࡛$  >ࡶ࠺⥲ྜⱁ⾡"ࡶ࠺ࡳࢇ࡞ࡀ࠸࡚, ࡣ࠸  ┘╩ࡀ࠸࡚



 



  ࡇࡢ  ࠶ࡿព࿡࡛ࡢ!ࡇ࠺

8 ヰࢆࡍࡿࡢ࡜ࡍ>ࡈࡃఝ࡚ࡿࡢ࡛  ࣆ࣑ࣛࢵࢻไᗘࡗ࡚ࡺ࠺࠿,㸸       >ࢇࢇࢇࢇ7 ࢇ8 ┦ᡭࡢேࡀ࠸ࡲ࡝࠺ࡺ࠺ࡘࡶࡾ࡛ࡇࡢ



 



  ゝⴥࢆᢞࡆ࠿ࡅ࡚ࡁ࡚ࡿࡢ࠿࡞$ ࡇ࠺┘╩ࡀ࠸࡚௚ࡢࢫࢱࢵࣇࡀ࠸ࡿࡳࡓ, ࡣ࠸  ࠸࡞



 



 



8 ࡞ࢇ࡛ࡇࡢ㉁ၥࢆࡋࡓࡢ࠿࡞$ ࡶ࠺࡞ࢇ࠿ྂ࠸ࡋࡁࡓࡾKࡢK࠺࠼࡛, ࡣ࠸  ࠸ࡲࡔ࡟సࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⌧ሙࡀ࠶ࡿࡗ࡚

8 ࡛ࡑࡢゝⴥࡢ㑅ࡧ᪉ࡗ࡚ࡺ࠺ࡢ࡟ࡶࡑࡢே  ࡺ࠺ࡢ▱ࡗ࡚K࡛  ࠶ࡇࡢ  ௙஦  ᯶ࡀ࡛ࡿࡋ   ࢆ  ࡋࡓ࠸ࡗ࡚ࡺ࠺ࡼࡾ࠿ࡣ, ࡣ࠸  ࡇࢇ࡞࡟ࡇࢃ࠸≀సࡾ࡟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡞࠸

8 ࡑࡇ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⮬ศࡀ࡝࠺ࡺ࠺    ࡜ᛮࡗࡓࡢ  ⟅࠼ࢆ㏉ࡋࡓ࠸࠿

7 ࢇ>, ࡣ࠸$ >࡛ࡇࡢᜍᛧ"  ࡝࠺ࡋࡓࡽ  8 ࡛ࡑࡇ࡟K  ࡢᘬࡁฟࡋࡀከࡅࢀࡤ  ࡇ࠺ᡂ௖ࡍࡿ࡜ࡺ࠺࠿ᡂᑵ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿  ከ࠸࡯࡝  ࡇࡢᛮ࠸ࡀ୧ᛮ࠸࡟࡞ࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺, ࡣ࠸  >ࡗ࡚ࡺ࠺࡜ࡇࢁ࠿ࡽධࡗ࡚

8 ࠸ࢁࢇ࡞⟅࠼ࡀ㏉ࡏࡿ7 >ࢇ, ࢇ>$ ࡔ࠿ࡽࡶ࠺㏨ࡆࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࢇ࡛ࡍࡡ

8   >ࡗ࡚ࡺ࠺ࡢࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡡ  >ࡁࡗ࡜  ༶⯆₇ዌࡢ఍ヰࡗ࡚ࡺ࠺ࡢࡣ



7 >ࢇ, ࡶ࠺!࡯ࢇ࡜఍ヰ࡛ࡍࡡࡑࢀࡣࡡ$ ࡑࢇ࡞>࠾ࡶ࠸࠿ࡽ

8 ࡑ࠺



7   >ࡶ࠺ዲࡁ࡛ዲࡁ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࡀ㻌 ᢤ⢋  䛿䚸䜲䞁䝍䝡䝳䜲䞊$ 䛜ᫎ⏬ᴗ⏺䛻ධ䜛䛝䛳䛛䛡䛸䛺䛳䛯䜶䝢䝋䞊䝗䜢ㄒ䜚ጞ䜑䜛ሙ㠃䛷䛒䜛䚹 ⾜┠䛷ᫎ⏬䛾⌧ሙ䛸䛾ฟ఍䛔䜢䚸䛂ᜊ䛻ⴠ䛱䜛  䛾䛸䛩䛤䛟ఝ䛶䛔䛶䛃䛸䛂ᜊ䛻ⴠ䛱䜛䛃䛣䛸䠄䛂ᜊឡ䛃䠅䛻䛯䛸䛘䜛䛣䛸䜢䛂䠄䛸䠅ఝ䛶䛔䛶䛃䛸䛔䛖䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊᫂♧⾲⌧䛻䜘䜚᫂♧䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹  ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢ>ࡡ$     >ࡣ࠸࡯ࢀࡓ>ࡳࡓ࠸࡞

7            >KKK  ┘╩࡟࡞ࢀࡿࢃࡅࡌࡷ>ࡡ㸦  㸧ᢤ⢋ $㸦ᫎ⏬┘╩㸧࡟7㸦ࢫ࣮࢟㑅ᡭ㸧ࡀ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ$          >ࡑ࠺࡞ࢀࡿࢃࡅ   㸦 ᖺ  ᭶  ᪥ᨺ㏦ศ㸧  ࡌࡷ࡞࠸࠿ࡽࡑࡗ࠿ࡽࡀ $ ࡯ࢇ࡜ࡃࡉ࠸  ࠸࠸᪉࡛ࡍࡅ࡝  !ࡔ࠿ࡽ࡝࠺ࡋࡓࡽᫎ⏬ࡢୡ⏺࡟  ᜊ࡟ⴠࡕࡿ  ࡢ࡜ࡍࡈࡃఝ࡚࠸࡚  ୍Ṍ࡛ࡶ>㏆࡙ࡅࡿ࠿࡜ᛮࡗ࡚

7 㹹࠺࡞ࡎࡁ㹻

7     >ࢇ$㸸 Kᫎ⏬ࡢ⌧ሙ࡜ࡺ࠺ࡶࡢ࡟  ࡛࠶ࡗࡕࡷࡗࡓ

7 ࢇ>$ >࡛࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡽ   ࡝ࢇ࡜㞾࡟ᡴࡓࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟  ࡇࢇ࡞኱ேࡀࡡ኱ࡢ኱ேࡀ࿨ࡀࡅ࡛

7 ࢇ>$  >࡯ࢇ࡜࡟Ṛ࡟ࡶࡢࡄࡿ࠸࡛ࡦ࡜ࡘࡢࡶࡢ

  Zࢆࡘࡃࡗ࡚ࡿࡗ࡚ࡺ࠺ࡇࡢ⎔ቃ࡛   Kࡇ࠺⤮ࡣ⮬ศ୍ே࡛࠿ࡅࡿࡅ࡝

7 ࢇ>$ ࡛࡞ࢇ࠿  ࡝ࢇ࡝ࡁࡗ>࡚

7              >࡛ࡶ  ዲࡁ࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࠿ࡽࡗ࡚ࡺࡗ࡚ 㻌 䛭䛾ᚋ䛾ㄒ䜚䛿䚸䛭䜜䛮䜜䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛾⾲⌧䜢⏝䛔䛶㐍⾜䛧䛶䛔䜛䠄ᢤ⢋  䛷䛿  ⾜┠௨㝆᧜ᙳ⌧ሙ䛾ᥥ෗䛻䛔䛳䛯䜣⛣⾜䠅䚹䛒䜛䝰䝜䝂䝖䛾䛸䜙䛘᪉ཬ䜃⾲⌧䛾௙᪉䛻㛵䛩䜛ᵓ㐀ⓗ▱㆑䜢䛂ᯟ⤌䜏䛃䛸࿧䜆䛸䛩䜛䛸䚸䛣䜜䜙䛾ሙ㠃䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸ㄒ䜚䛻ඛ❧䛴䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛻䜘䜚䚸䝃䜻㡿ᇦ䛸䛺䜛䝖䝢䝑䜽䛻䛴䛔䛶䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛾▱㆑䛻䜘䛳䛶䛸䜙䛘䛶⾲⌧䛩䜛䚸䛴䜎䜚䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛾⾲⌧䛿䝃䜻㡿ᇦ䚸䛩䛺䜟䛱䝖䝢䝑䜽䛻ゝཬ䛩䜛䜒䛾䛸⌮ゎ䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ᯟ⤌䜏䛜タᐃ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛸ゝ䛘䜛䚹䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃ䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸6FK|Q  䚸.|YHFVHV

−76−

第17回大会発表論文集 䚸6HPLQR  䚸&DPHURQ E 䚸5LWFKLH ➼䛻䜒ᣦ᦬䛜䛒䜛䛜䚸ᑐヰ䛻䛚䛡䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛻䜘䜛ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃ䛾ᡭ⥆䛝䜔䛭䛾ᚋ䛾ᒎ㛤➼䜢ヲ⣽䛻ぢ䛯◊✲䛿䛺䛔 䚹௨ୗ䛷䛿䚸ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃ䛻క䛖Ⓨヰ㐃㙐䜔ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃᚋ䛾ᒎ㛤䜢ヲ⣽䛻ぢ䛶䛔䛟䚹㻟㻚㻠㻌 ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃ䛾ᡭ⥆䛝㻌㻌 ඛ䛻ྲྀ䜚ୖ䛢䛯䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䜢ྵ䜐Ⓨヰ䛿䚸䛂䡚䛻䛯䛸䛘䜛䛃䛂䡚䛸ఝ䛶䠄䛔䠅䜛䛃䛸䛔䛳䛯䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊᫂♧⾲⌧䛻䜘䛳䛶⾜Ⅽ䛸䛧䛶䛾䛂䛯䛸䛘䛃䛜᫂♧䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹㻌 䛭䜜䜙䛾Ⓨヰ䛾㐃㙐ୖ䛾఩⨨䛵䛡䛿䚸䛔䛪䜜䜒䝖䝢䝑䜽䛻㛵䛩䜛ලయⓗ䛺ㄒ䜚䜢ጞ䜑䜛┤๓䛷䛒䜛䚹ᢤ⢋  䛷䛿䡚⾜┠䛷1䛜䝖䝢䝑䜽䛸䛧䛶䛂ᆺ䛃䜢ᑟධ䛧䛶䛔䜛䛜䚸ᆺ䛻䛴䛔䛶ヲ䛧䛟ㄒ䜚ጞ䜑䜛๓䛻䚸䛂ᆺ䛸䛔䛖䜒䛾䜢  !
䛣䛖䜅䜣䛹䛧䛻䛭䜜䛣䛭䛯䛸䛘䜛䛸䛃䛸䚸䜅䜣䛹䛧䛻䛯䛸䛘䜛䛣䛸䜢᫂♧䛩䜛䚹ᢤ⢋  䛷䛿䚸䜲䞁䝍䝡䝳䜰䞊, 䛾䛂䛝䛟䛱䛛䜙䛳䛶䛹䛖䜖䛖䛣䛸䛷䛩䛛䛃䛸䛔䛖㉁ၥ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛 8 䛾ᅇ⟅䛜㐃㙐ୖᚲせ䛺⎔ቃ䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸䛂䜔䛳䜁䜚୍⥴䛻₇ዌ䛩䜛䛳䛶䜖䛖䛾䛿䚸䛝䛟䛱䛛䜙䛳䛶䛾䛜䛩䛤䛟㔜せ䛷䛃䛸ㄒ䜚ጞ䜑䚸䛂ヰ䜢䛩䜛䛾䛸䛩䛤䛟ఝ䛶䜛䛾䛷䛃䛸༶⯆₇ዌ䜢఍ヰ䛻䛯䛸䛘䜛䛣䛸䜢᫂♧䛩䜛䚹䛹䛱䜙䛾ሙྜ䜒䚸䝖䝢䝑䜽䛻䛴䛔䛶䛾ㄒ䜚䛜ண 䛥䜜䜛㐃㙐⎔ቃ䛷䚸ලయⓗ䛺ㄒ䜚䛾๓䛻䚸௚䛾䝰䝜䝂䝖䛻䛯䛸䛘䜛䛣䛸䜢᫂♧䛧䛶䛔䜛 䚹㻌 䜎䛯䚸䛯䛸䛘䜢᫂♧䛩䜛Ⓨヰ䛿䚸⤫ㄒⓗ䛻Ⓨヰ䛾⥅⥆䜢♧䛩᥋⥆ຓモ䛂䡚䛶䛃䛂䡚䛾䛷䛃䛂䡚䛸䛃 䛜䚸⥅⥆䜢♧䛩㡢ㄪ䛸䛸䜒䛻ᚋ⥆䛧䛶䛚䜚䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛾䝍䞊䞁⥅⥆䛾ពᛮ䜢♧䛩Ⓨヰ䝕䝄䜲䞁䛸䛺䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹௨ୖ䛾㐃㙐⎔ቃཬ䜃Ⓨヰ䝕䝄䜲䞁䛻䜘䜚䚸䝖䝢䝑䜽䜢䛭䜜䛮䜜䛾䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛻䛯䛸䛘䛯ㄒ䜚䛜⥆䛟䛣䛸䛜ண♧䛥䜜䜛 䚹㻌 䛭䜜䛻ᑐ䛧䛶⫈䛝ᡭ䛿䚸䛖䛺䛪䛝䜔䛂䜣 䜣 䜣 䜣䛃䛸䛔䛖ᙧᘧ䛻䜘䜚཯ᛂ䜢♧䛩䚹䛣䜜䜙䛿䚸䛂⥅⥆ᨭᣢᶆ㆑䛃䠄୵⏣ 䠅䛻䛒䛯䜛䚹䛂⥅⥆ᨭᣢ䛃䛸䛿䚸䛂ㄒ䜚䛜䛄䜎䛰⥆䛟䛅䛸ぢ䛺䛧䛖䜛䛸䛝 䚸䛄⥆䛝䜢⪺䛟⏝ព䛜䛷䛝䛶䛔䜛䛅䛣䛸䜢♧䛩䞉୺ᙇ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛻䜘䛳䛶䚸ㄒ䜚ᡭ䛜⥅⥆䛩䜛䛣䛸䜢ᨭᣢ䛩䜛䛃䠄ྠୖ S䠅䛣䛸䛷䛒䜛䚹䛂⥅⥆ᨭᣢᶆ㆑䛃䛿⫈䛝ᡭ䛻䜘䜛ㄒ䜚䛾㐍⾜ಁ㐍᪉ἲ䛾୰䛷᭱䜒ᇶᮏⓗ䛺䜒䛾䛷䚸䛖䛺䛪䛝䜔䛂䛖䜣䠄䜣䠅䠋䛿䛔䠄䛿䛔䠅䠋䛘䛘䛃䛺䛹䛜ᙜ䛶䛿䜎䜛䚹䛣䜜䛻䜘䜚䚸䛂⫈䛝ᡭ䛿䛂⥆䛝䜢⪺䛟⏝ព䛜䛷䛝䛶䛔䜛䛃䛣䛸䜢୺ᙇ䛧䚸ㄒ䜚ᡭ䛜ḟ䛾ᡂศ䜢⏘ฟ䛩䜛䛾䜢ᨭᣢ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䛃䠄ྠୖ S䠅䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸䛣䛣䛷⫈䛝ᡭ䛿䚸䛯䛸䛘䛻䜘䜛ㄒ䜚䛾⥅⥆ᨭᣢ⾲᫂䜢⾜䛳䛶䛔䜛䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹䛭䜜䛿ྠ᫬䛻䚸䛯䛸䛘䛻䜘䜛ㄒ䜚䛻⫈䛝ᡭ䛸䛧䛶ཧຍ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛾⾲᫂䛷䜒䛒䜛 䚹㻌 ⫈䛝ᡭ䛜⥅⥆ᨭᣢ䜢♧䛧䛯ᚋ䛿䚸䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛾⾲⌧䜢⏝䛔䛯ㄒ䜚䛜ᐇ⾜䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛩䛺䜟䛱䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛜䝖䝢䝑䜽䜢䛒䜛䝰䝜䝂䝖䛻䛯䛸䛘䜛䛣䛸䜢᫂♧䛩䜛䛸ྠ᫬䛻䚸䛥䜙䛻ㄒ䜚䜢⥅⥆䛩䜛ពᚿ䜢⾲᫂䛧䚸䛭䜜䛻⫈䛝ᡭ䛜⥅⥆ᨭᣢ䜢୚䛘䜛䛸䛔䛖⾜Ⅽ䛾㐃㙐䛻䜘䛳䛶䚸䝖䝢䝑䜽䛾ᑐ㇟䜢䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛻䛯䛸䛘䜛䛸䛔䛖ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃ䛾┦஫⾜Ⅽⓗ䛺ᡭ⥆䛝第10号

䛜⾜䜟䜜䛯䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹䛒䜛䛔䛿䚸⫈䛝ᡭ䛾⥅⥆ᨭᣢ䜢ᚓ䛯䛣䛸䛷䚸䛯䛸䛘䜢᫂♧䛧䛯Ⓨヰ䛻䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃ䛸䛔䛖┦஫⾜Ⅽୖ䛾ព࿡䛵䛡䛜⾜䜟䜜䛯䛸䜒ゝ䛘䜛䚹㻟㻚㻡㻌 ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃᚋ䛾ᒎ㛤䛻㛵䛩䜛஦౛◊✲㻌㻌 ௨ୗ䛷䛿䚸ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃᚋ䛾ᒎ㛤䛻䛴䛔䛶㏙䜉䜛䛜䚸ಶ䚻䛾஦౛䛤䛸䛻ከᵝ䛺ᒎ㛤䛜ぢ䜙䜜䜛䛯䜑䚸ᮏ✏䛷䛿஦౛◊✲䛻䛸䛹䜎䜛䚹㻟㻚㻡㻚㻝㻌 ᯟ⤌䜏䛾⥔ᣢ㻌㻌 ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃ䛜䛺䛥䜜䛯ᚋ䛿䚸ྠ䛨ᯟ⤌䜏䛷䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛿䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊᫂♧⾲⌧䜢క䜟䛺䛔ഴྥ䛜䛒䜛䚹౛䛘䜀䚸ᢤ⢋ 䛂䜅䜣䛹䛧䜢䛪䛳䛸䛔䜝䜣䛺ே䛜䛿䛔䛶䛝䛯䛃䚸ᢤ⢋ 䛾  ⾜┠䛂䛺䜣䛷䛣䛾㉁ၥ䜢䛧䛯䛾䛛䛺䛃䛾䜘䛖䛻䚸䛂䜏䛯䛔䛺䛃➼䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊᫂♧⾲⌧䛜䛺䛔ᙧᘧ䚸䛴䜎䜚㞃႘ᙧᘧ䛷䛾ฟ⌧䛜ከ䛟䛺䜛ഴྥ䛜䛒䜛 䚹䛣䜜䛿䚸ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃ䛻䜘䜚䚸䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛾⾲⌧䛿䝃䜻㡿ᇦ䚸䛩䛺䜟䛱䝖䝢䝑䜽䛻ゝཬ䛩䜛⾲⌧䛸䛧䛶ᢅ䛖䛣䛸䛜ཧ୚⪅㛫䛾ඹ㏻⌮ゎ䛸䛺䛳䛶䛔䜛䛯䜑䛷䛒䜝䛖 䚹㻌 䜎䛯䚸タᐃ䛥䜜䛯䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ᯟ⤌䜏䛿䚸ᇶᮏⓗ䛻ᑐヰෆ䛷⥔ᣢ䛧ཧ↷䛥䜜䜛䜉䛝䜒䛾䛸ཧ୚⪅䛻ㄆ㆑䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䜘䛖䛷䛒䜛䚹ᮏ◊✲䛾䝕䞊䝍䛿䝔䝺䝡␒⤌䛸䛧䛶⦅㞟䛥䜜䛶䛚䜚䚸⤒㐣䛧䛯ᐇ᫬㛫䛿୙᫂䛷䛒䜛䛜䚸ᢤ⢋  䛷䛿䚸䠘ᫎ⏬䛸䛾ฟ఍䛔䛿ᜊឡ䛷䛒䜛䠚䛸䛔䛖ᯟ⤌䜏䜢タᐃ䛧䚸䛂㞾䛻ᡴ䛯䜜䛯䛃➼䛸㏙䜉䛯ᚋ䚸᧜ᙳ⌧ሙ䛾ᥥ෗䛻⛣䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䛭䛾⌧ሙ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛䛂ᛮ䛔䛃䛜䛂ᡂ௖䛩䜛䛃䛸䛔䛳䛯䜣ゝ䛳䛯ᚋ䚸䛂䛸䛔䛖䛛䛃䜢ᣳ䜏䚸䛂ᡂᑵ䛩䜛䛃䛸⨨䛝᥮䛘䛶䛔䜛䚹䛣䜜䛿䚸ඛ⾜Ⓨヰ䠄䛂ᜍᛧ"䠄䠅䛹䛖䛧䛯䜙  䛣䛖ᡂ௖䛩䜛䛃䠅䛜ఱ䜙䛛䛾⌮⏤䛷ㄒ䜚䛾㐍⾜ୖ䛾䛂䝖䝷䝤䝹※䛃䛸䛺䜛䛯䜑䚸䛂⮬ᕫಟ᚟䛃䛜䛺䛥䜜䛯䠄6FKHJORIIHWDO䠅䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹䛂ᜍᛧ䛃䛜䛂ᡂ௖䛩䜛䛃䛷䜒ゎ㔘䛻↓⌮䛿⏕䛨䛺䛔Ⅼ䜢⪃៖䛩䜛䛸䚸䛣䛾ሙྜ䠘ᫎ⏬䛸䛾ฟ఍䛔䛿ᜊឡ䠚䛸䛔䛖ᯟ⤌䜏䜢ཧ↷䛧䚸䛂ᡂ௖䛩䜛䛃䛷䛿୍㈏ᛶ䛜䛺䛟㐺ษ䛥䛻Ḟ䛡䜛䛸ุ᩿䛧䛯䛾䛷䛿䛺䛔䛛䚹䛭䛾ᚋ䛿䚸䛂୧ᛮ䛔䛃➼䚸䠘ᜊឡ䠚㡿ᇦ䛾⾲⌧䛷ᑐヰ䛜⥆䛟䚹䛣䜜䜒ᯟ⤌䜏⥔ᣢ䛾ᚿྥᛶ䛜⌧䜜䛶䛔䜛஦౛䛷䛒䜛䚹㻌 䛭䛧䛶䚸タᐃ䛥䜜䛯ᯟ⤌䜏䛿䚸ᑐヰ┦ᡭ䛻䜘䛳䛶䜒ཧ↷䚸฼⏝䛥䜜䜛䚹ᢤ⢋  䛷䛿䚸䜲䞁䝍䝡䝳䜰䞊, 䛾䛂䜒䛖!䜋
䜣䛸఍ヰ䛷䛩䛽䛭䜜䛿䛽䛃䚸ᢤ⢋  䛷䛿䚸䜲䞁䝍䝡䝳䜰䞊7 䛾䛂䜒䛖ዲ䛝䛷ዲ䛝䛷䛧䜗䛖䛜䛺䛛䛳䛯䛾䛽䛃䛸䛔䛖䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛾⾲⌧䛻䜘䜛Ⓨヰ䛜ぢ䜙䜜䜛䚹㻌 䛣䛾䜘䛖䛻䚸タᐃ䛥䜜䛯䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ᯟ⤌䜏䛿䚸ཧ୚⪅㛫䛷⥔ᣢ䛥䜜䚸䝖䝢䝑䜽䛻ゝཬ䛩䜛㝿䛻䛿ཧ↷䛩䜉䛝ᯟ⤌䜏䛸䛧䛶ᶵ⬟䛩䜛䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹㻟㻚㻌㻡㻚㻌㻞㻌 䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛻䜘䜛⌮ゎ䛾ᵓ⠏㻌㻌 ୖ䛷㏙䜉䛯ㄒ䜚䛾㛤ጞ఩⨨䛷䛾ᡭ⥆䛝䛻䜘䜚䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ᯟ⤌䜏䛿タᐃ䛥䜜䛯䛜䚸せ⣲䜔᥎ㄽ䛾㡿ᇦ㛫䛾ᑐᛂ㛵ಀ䚸䛩䛺䜟䛱෗ീ䛿䚸䜔䜚䛸䜚䛾䛺䛛䛷ᵓ⠏䛥䜜䛺䛡−77−

メタファーと発話の連鎖―「枠組み」設定としてのメタファー表現―䜜䜀䛺䜙䛺䛔䚹䛭䛣䛷䛿䚸᪤Ꮡ䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䚸䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛾▱㆑䚸䛭䜜䜙䜢฼⏝䛧䛯᥎ㄽ➼䛜ືⓗ䛻ά⏝䛥䜜䜛䚹㻌 ᢤ⢋ 䛾䝃䜻㡿ᇦ䛸䛺䛳䛶䛔䜛䛂ᆺ䛃䛿䚸≬ゝ䛻㝈䜙䛪䚸䛂ᆺ䛻䛿䜎䛳䛯⾜ື䛃䛂ᆺ䛹䛚䜚䛾⾜ື䛃䛂ᆺ◚䜚䛾⾜ື䛃䛾䜘䛖䛻䚸䠘᪤ᐃ䛾⾜ື䝟䝍䞊䞁䠚䜢⌮ゎ䛩䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛷䜒䛒䜛䚹䠘᪤ᐃ䛾⾜ື䝟䝍䞊䞁䠚䛷䛒䜛䛂ᆺ䛃䛾୰㌟䛿ᐇ㝿䛾⾜ື䛻ᑐᛂ䛧䚸䛂㗪ᆺ䛃䜔䛂䜿䞊䜻䛾ᆺ䛃䛸ྠᵝ䚸ᆺ䛜䛭䛾୰㌟䛾ᙧ䚸䛩䛺䜟䛱⾜ື䛾௙᪉䜢Ỵ䜑䜛䚹ᆺ⮬య䛿ኚ໬䛫䛪䚸୰㌟䛷䛒䜛ᐇ㝿䛾⾜ື䜢ᅛᐃ໬䛩䜛䜒䛾䛸⌮ゎ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹⾜ື䛾ᅛᐃ໬䚸䛩䛺䜟䛱↓ኚ໬䛿䝬䜲䝘䝇䛾ホ౯ᛶ䜢క䛖䛯䜑䚸䛂ᆺ䛻䛿䜎䛳䛯⾜ື䛃䛂ᆺ䛹䛚䜚䛾⾜ື䛃䛸䛔䛳䛯⾲⌧䛿䚸䝬䜲䝘䝇䛾ホ౯ᛶ䜢క䛖 䚹
㻌 1 䛿䛭䛾䜘䛖䛺䛂ᆺ䛃䜢䛂䜅䜣䛹䛧䛃䛻䛯䛸䛘䜛ᯟ⤌䜏䜢タᐃ䛧䚸ㄒ䜚䜢㛤ጞ䛩䜛䚹᪥ᮏㄒ䛻䛿䚸ே䛾⾜ື䝟䝍䞊䞁䜔≉ᛶ䜢䚸䠘╔⾰䠚䛸䛧䛶⌮ゎ䛩䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛜䛒䜛䠄䛂䛚௙╔䛫䛃䛂䝬䝘䞊䜢㌟䛻╔䛡䜛䛃䛂⿕ᐖ⪅䜢⿦䛖䛃䠅䚹䠘╔⾰䠚䛷䛒䜛䛯䜑䚸⬺╔䛜ྍ⬟䛷䛒䜛䛸䛔䛖᥎ㄽ䜢క䛖䚹䛣䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䜢䠘ே䛾⾜ື䝟䝍䞊䞁䜔≉ᛶ䛿╔⾰䠚䛸䛩䜛䛸䚸䛣䛣䛷䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛿䚸䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛾䠘╔⾰䠚䛜䚸䜘䜚䜲䝯䞊䝆ᛶ䛜㧗䛔䛂䜅䜣䛹䛧䛃䛻ヲ⣽໬䛥䜜䛯䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛸ゝ䛘䜛 䚹㻌 ௨㝆䛷䛿䚸䛣䜜䜙䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䜢ᅵྎ䛧䚸䛂䜅䜣䛹䛧䛃䛻ヲ⣽໬䛧䛯䠘╔⾰䠚㡿ᇦ䛾▱㆑䜢ືⓗ䛻⏝䛔䛶䚸1 䛜ㄒ䜚䜢ᒎ㛤䛩䜛䚹1 䛿䚸䜎䛪䛂䜅䜣䛹䛧䜢䛔䜝䛔䜝䛺ே䛜䛿䛔䛶䛝䛯䛃䛸㏙䜉䜛䚹䛂䜅䜣䛹䛧䛃䜢䛂䛿䛟䛃䛣䛸䛿䚸䠘ே䛾⾜ື䝟䝍䞊䞁䜔≉ᛶ䛿╔⾰䠚䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾䛂⥅ᢎ䛃䛻䜘䜚䚸ᆺ䜢⩦ᚓ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛻ᑐᛂ䛵䛡䜙䜜䜛䚹䛂䛩䜛䛸䛃䜢ᣳ䜏䚸䠘䠄᭹䜢╔䜛䠅䛔䜝䛔䜝䛺ே䛿䚸䛔䜝䛔䜝䛺యᆺ䛰䠚䛸䛔䛖䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛾᥎ㄽ䛻䜘䜚䚸䛂䛔䜝䜣䛺యᆺ䛾ே䛜䛔䛯䛰䜝䛖䛃䛸⥆䛡䜛䚹䛣䛣䛷䚸䛂యᆺ䛃䛸䛔䛖䠘ே䛾⾜ື䝟䝍䞊䞁䜔≉ᛶ䛿╔⾰䠚䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾෗ീ㛵ಀ䛻ධ䛳䛶䛔䛺䛔䛸ᛮ䜟䜜䜛せ⣲䛜ᑟධ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛣䜜䛿䚸/DNRII 7XUQHU 䛜ᣲ䛢䜛᪤Ꮡ䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾๰㐀ⓗ౑⏝䛾䛖䛱䚸㏻
ᖖ෗ീ䛥䜜䛺䛔せ⣲䜢䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛻㏣ຍ䛩䜛䛂ᣑᙇ䛃䛻䛒䛯䜛䚹䛣䛾䛂యᆺ䛃䛸䛔䛖せ⣲䛿䚸䠘䛔䜝䛔䜝䛺యᆺ䛾ே䛜䛿䛡䜛䛺䜙䚸䛭䛾䜅䜣䛹䛧䛿䛷䛛䛔䠚䛸䛔䛖᥎ㄽ䛻䜘䜚䚸䛂䛛䛺䜚䛷䛛䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖䜅䜣䛹䛧䛾ᒓᛶ䛾ᑟධ䛻䛴䛺䛜䜛䚹䛂䛷䛛䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖ᒓᛶ䛿䚸ᆺ䛾ᑐᛂ⠊ᅖ䛾䛂኱䛝䛥䛃䛸ᑐᛂ䛩䜛䚹᭱ᚋ䛻䚸䠘䛷䛛䛔䜅䜣䛹䛧䜢䛿䛟䛻䛿䚸ኴ䜛䠄య䜢ྜ䜟䛫䜛䠅ᚲせ䛜䛒䜛䠚䛸䛔䛖䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛾᥎ㄽ䛻䜘䜚䚸䛂䠄䜅䜣䛹䛧䛻䠅䛒䜟䛫䛶ኴ䜙䛺䛝䜓䛔䛡䛺䛔䛃䛂䜅䜣䛹䛧䛻⮬ศ䛾䛛䜙䛰䛾䜋䛖䜢䛒䜟䛫䛶䛔䛟䛃䛸㏙䜉䜛䚹䛣䛾䛂ኴ䜛䛣䛸䛃䛿᭱⤊ⓗ䛻䛂ྍ⬟ᛶ䜢኱䛝䛟䛩䜛䛣䛸䛃䛻ᑐᛂ䛵䛡䜙䜜䜛䚹㻌 ௨ୖ䛾䜘䛖䛻䚸ᆺ䜢䜅䜣䛹䛧䛻䛯䛸䛘䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛻䜘䜚䚸䜅䜣䛹䛧䛾౑⏝⪅䛾యᆺ䛸䛔䛳䛯せ⣲䜔䜅䜣䛹䛧䛾ᒓᛶ䜢ᑟධ䛧䚸せ⣲㛫䛾᥎ㄽ䜢䛒䛶䛿䜑䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸ᅛᐃᛶ䛻䜘䜛䝬䜲䝘䝇ホ౯䜢క䛖䛂ᆺ䛃䜢⫯ᐃⓗ䛻䛸䜙䛘䛺䛚䛭䛖䛸䛔䛖 1 䛾ពᅗ䛜ㄝᚓⓗ䛻♧䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹㻌 ᢤ⢋  䛷䛿䚸᪤Ꮡ䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾෗ീ䜢ᅵྎ䛸䛧䛺䛜䜙䚸䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛛䜙᪂䛯䛺せ⣲䜢ᑟධ䛧䚸䛭䜜䜙䜢せ⣲䛸䛧䛯᥎ㄽ䜢ᒎ㛤䛧䚸ㄒ䜚䜢ᒎ㛤䛧䛶䛔䜛ᵝ䛜ぢ䜙䜜䛯䚹䛭䜜䛿䚸㡿ᇦ㛫䛾෗ീ䚸䛩䛺䜟䛱䝖䝢䝑䜽䜢䝃䜻㡿ᇦ䛸䛩䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䜢ᵓ⠏䛧䛶䛔䛟㐣⛬䛷䜒䛒䜛䚹䛣䛾㐣⛬䛚䛔䛶䚸⫈䛝ᡭ , 䛿䚸䠘ᆺ䛿䜅䜣䛹䛧䠚䛸䛔䛖ᯟ⤌䜏䜢䛂㑂Ᏺ䛃䛧䚸䜅䜣䛹䛧䛻㛵䛩䜛⾲⌧䛿䚸䛩䜉䛶ᆺ䛻㛵䛧䛶ゝཬ䛩䜛⾲⌧䛸⌮ゎ䛩䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸⥅⥆ᨭᣢᶆ㆑䛻䜘䜚⥅⥆ᨭᣢ䜢♧䛧䚸ㄒ䜚䛾㐍⾜䜈㛵୚䛩䜛䚹䛭䜜䛿䝖䝢䝑䜽䜢⌮ゎ䛩䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䜢ᵓ⠏䛧䛶䛔䛟㐣⛬䛻㛵୚䛩䜛䛣䛸䛷䜒䛒䜛䚹ᢤ⢋ 䛻⌧䜜䛶䛔䜛䛾䛿䚸ᑐヰ䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸䝖䝢䝑䜽䛻㛵䛩䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ᯟ⤌䜏䜢┦஫⾜Ⅽⓗ䛻タᐃ䛧䚸㡿ᇦ㛫䛾෗ീ䜢ཧ୚⪅㛫䛷ᵓ⠏䛩䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸䝖䝢䝑䜽䛾⌮ゎ䜢ᵓ⠏䛧䛶䛔䛟ືⓗ䛺䝥䝻䝉䝇䛸ゝ䛘䜛䚹㻟㻚㻌㻡㻚㻌㻟㻌 䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ヲ⣽໬㻌㻌 ඛ䛻㏙䜉䛯䜘䛖䛻䚸ᢤ⢋  䛷䛿䠘༶⯆₇ዌ䛿఍ヰ䠚䛸䛔䛖䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ᯟ⤌䜏䛜タᐃ䛥䜜䜛䚹䝆䝱䝈䛾༶⯆₇ዌ
䛷䛿䚸₇ዌ⪅䛜┦஫䛻ከᵝ䛺䝣䝺䞊䝈䜢₇ዌ䛩䜛䛜䚸䛭䛾ᵝ䛿䛂఍ヰ䛃䛻䛧䜀䛧䜀䛯䛸䛘䜙䜜䜛 䚹䛭䛾Ⅼ䛷䛿䚸䠘༶⯆₇ዌ䛿఍ヰ䠚䛿䚸䝆䝱䝈䛻༑ศぶ䛧䜏䛜䛒䜛 8 䛸,䠄䝆䝱䝈䜢㢟ᮦ䛸䛧䛯ₔ⏬䜢ᥥ䛔䛶䛔䜛䠅䛻䛸䛳䛶᪤Ꮡ䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛷䛒䜛䛜䚸ᢤ⢋  䛷ὀ┠䛧䛯䛔䛾䛿䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛻䛚䛡䜛䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛾䛂ᐇ₇䠄ヲ⣽໬䠅䛃䛻䜘䜛ຠᯝ䛷䛒䜛䚹㻌 䛒䜛άື䛻䛴䛔䛶ㄒ䜛ሙྜ䚸ㄒ䜚ᡭ䛾どⅬ䛾఩⨨䛸䛧䛶䚸䛭䛾άື䛾እഃ䠄ഐほ⪅䠅䛸䚸䛭䛾άື䛾ෆഃ䠄ཧຍ⪅䠅䛸䛜䛒䜚䛖䜛䚹ᢤ⢋  䛷 8 䛿䚸䛂䠄₇ዌ䛜䠅ヰ䜢䛩䜛䛾䛸䛩䛤䛟ఝ䛶䜛䛾䛷䛃䛸ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃ䜢䛧䛯ᚋ䚸䛂䛹䛖䜖䛖䛴䜒䜚䛷ゝⴥ䜢ᢞ䛢䛛䛡䛶䛝䛶䜛䛾䛛䛺䛃䛂䛺䜣䛷䛣䛾㉁ၥ
䜢䛧䛯䛾䛛䛺䛃䛸⥆䛡䜛䚹Ⓨヰᙧᘧ䛛䜙䚸8 䛿⮬㌟䜢௬᝿ⓗ䛺఍ヰ䛾ཧຍ⪅䛾୍᪉䠄⫈䛝ᡭ䠅䚸䛴䜎䜚ෆഃ䛻఩⨨䛵䛡䚸䛭䛾❧ሙ䛛䜙Ⓨヰ䛧䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛜䜟䛛䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸䛣䛣䛷ㄒ䜚ᡭ 8 䛿䚸௬᝿ⓗ䛺┦ᡭ䛸䛾఍ヰ䜢䛂ᐇ₇䛃䛧䛶䛔䜛䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹䛭䜜䛿䚸䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛾䠘఍ヰ䠚䜢䚸ලయⓗ䛺ゝື䜢ຍ䛘䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸ヲ⣽໬䛧䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛻䛺䜛䚹䜎䛯䚸䛣䜜䜙䛾 8 䛾Ⓨヰ䛻䛿䚸8 䛜ṇ㠃䛻ฟ䛧䛯ྑᡭ䜢䚸
8䛻ྥ䛛䛳䛶ᘬ䛝ᐤ䛫䜛䛸䛔䛖䝆䜵䝇䝏䝱䞊䛜క䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹䛣䛣䛻䛿䚸ゝㄒ䝁䝭䝳䝙䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁䜢ᛮ⪃䛸䛔䛖䠘䝰䝜䠚䛾ධ䛳䛯䚸䛣䛸䜀䛸䛔䛖䠘ᐜჾ䠚䛾ᤵཷ䛸䛧䛶⌮ゎ䛩䜛䛂ᑟ⟶䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䠄FRQGXLWPHWDSKRU䠅䛃䠄5HGG\/DNRII-RKQVRQ䠅䛜཯ᫎ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹㻌 䛭䛧䛶  ⾜┠௨㝆䛿䚸8 䛜䛂⟅䛘䛃䜛❧ሙ䛷䛾ᐇ₇䛻䛺䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹䛂⟅䛘䜢㏉䛧䛯䛔䛛䛃䛸䛔䛖䛸䛝䛿䚸୧ᡭ䛷ఱ䛛䜢ᣢ䛳䛶䚸䛭䜜䜢┦ᡭ䛻Ώ䛭䛖䛸ᕪ䛧ฟ䛩䜘䛖䛺䝆䜵䝇䝏䝱䞊䜢క䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䛂ᘬ䛝ฟ䛧䛜ከ䛡䜜䜀ከ䛔䜋䛹䚸䛔䜝䜣䛺⟅䛘䛜㏉䛫䜛䛃䛸⥆䛡䜛䚹䛣䛾䛂ᘬ䛝ฟ䛧䛃䛸䛔䛖䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛿䚸䠘ᚰ䠄グ᠈䠅䛿ᐜჾ䠚䠄5HGG\/DNRII -RKQVRQ䠅䛸䛔䛖䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾䠘ᐜჾ䠚

−78−

第17回大会発表論文集䛜䚸䛂ᘬ䛝ฟ䛧䛃䛻ヲ⣽໬䛧䛯䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹䛣䛣䛷䛂ᘬ䛝ฟ䛧䛃䛾ᙧ䛿ᡭ䛷♧䛥䜜䚸䛭䛣䛛䜙ఱ䛛䜢ྲྀ䜚ฟ䛧䚸┦ᡭ䛻ᕪ䛧ฟ䛩ືస䛜క䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹䛂⟅䛘䛃䜢㏉䛩䛯䜑䛾䠘ෆᐜ≀䠚䚸䛩䛺䜟䛱䛣䛸䜀䜢ྲྀ䜚ฟ䛩ᵝᏊ䛜ᐇ₇䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹㻌 䛣䛾䜘䛖䛻ᢤ⢋  䛷䛿䚸8 䛾ㄒ䜚䛻䛚䛡䜛ᐇ₇䛻䜘䜚䚸䠘఍ヰ䠚䛜䜘䜚ヲ⣽䛻䚸ලయⓗ䛻䜲䝯䞊䝆䛥䜜䜛䚹䜒䛧䠘༶⯆₇ዌ䛿఍ヰ䠚䛸䛔䛖ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃ䛜䛺䛥䜜䛶䛔䛺䛡䜜䜀䚸䜎䛥䛻఍ヰ䛾ᐇ₇䛷䛒䜛䚹䛭䛾䜘䛖䛺ᐇ₇䛜䚸ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃ䛻䜘䜚༶⯆₇ዌ䛾䜔䜚䛸䜚䛾⾲⌧䛸䛧䛶⌮ゎ䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸༶⯆₇ዌ䛸఍ヰ䛾ලయⓗ䛺⣽㒊䛻⮳䜛䜎䛷䛾䛂ྠ୍ᛶ䛃䚸䛩䛺䜟䛱༶⯆₇ዌ䜢⌮ゎ䛩䜛䠘༶⯆₇ዌ䛿఍ヰ䠚䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾᭷ຠᛶ䛜䜘䜚㧗䜎䜛䛣䛸䛻䛺䜛䛾䛷䛿䛺䛔䛛䚹䛭䛾ຠᯝ䛿䚸 ⾜┠䛾 , 䛻䜘䜛䛂䜒䛖!䜋䜣䛸఍ヰ䛷䛩䛽䛭䜜䛿䛽䛃䛸䛔䛖ホ౯ⓗ䛺Ⓨヰ䛻⌧䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹㻟㻚㻌㻡㻚㻌㻠㻌 ᑐヰ䛻䛚䛡䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛸๰㐀ᛶ㻌㻌 䛂䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾๰㐀ᛶ䛃䛸䛔䛖䛸䛝䚸ᚑ᮶䛿ᩥᏛసရ➼䛻ぢ䜙䜜䜛䜘䛖䛺␗㉁䛺ᑐ㇟㛫䛾ᛮ䛔䜒ᐤ䜙䛺䛔⤖䜃䛴䛝䜢ᣦ䛧䛶䛔䛯䚹䛧䛛䛧䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾๰㐀ᛶ䛻㛵䛧䛶䚸
6HPLQR  䛿䚸ྠ䛨䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛜␗䛺䜛ゝㄒⓗ⌧䜜䜢䛩䜛ሙྜ䜔䚸᪤Ꮡ䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛸ᩚྜ䛩䜛᪂䛧䛟㧗ᗘ䛻䜸䝸䝆䝘䝹䛺䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛾ฟ⌧䛻䜒↔Ⅼ䜢䛒䛶䜛䜉䛝䛷䛒䜛䛸ᣦ᦬䛩䜛䚹ᮏ◊✲䛷♧䛧䛯䜘䛖䛺䚸᪤Ꮡ䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䜢ᅵྎ䛸䛧䛯᪂䛯䛺せ⣲䜔ᒓᛶ䚸᥎ㄽ䛾ᑟධ䚸᪤Ꮡ䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛾ᐇ₇䛻䜘䜛ヲ⣽໬䛻䜘䛳䛶䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾᭷ຠᛶ䜢㧗䜑䛯䜚䛩䜛஦౛䛻䛿䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾๰㐀ⓗ䛺ά⏝䛾௙᪉䛜⌧䜜䛶䛔䜛䛸ゝ䛘䜛䚹㻠㻚㻌 䜎䛸䜑䛸ᮏ◊✲䛾ព⩏㻌㻌 ᮏ◊✲䛷䛿䚸ㄆ▱䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⌮ㄽ䛻ᇶ䛵䛝䚸఍ヰศᯒ䛾ᡭἲ䜢ᑟධ䛧䚸䝖䝢䝑䜽䛻㛵䛩䜛ㄒ䜚䛾㛤ጞ఩⨨䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䜢ྵ䜐Ⓨヰ䛜䚸䝖䝢䝑䜽䛻㛵䛩䜛ᛮ⪃ཬ䜃⾲⌧䛾ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃᶵ⬟䜢ᢸ䛳䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䜢♧䛧䛯䚹䛭䛾ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃ䛿䚸ㄒ䜚ᡭ䛜୍᪉ⓗ䛻⾜䛖䛾䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸ཧ୚⪅䛾⥅⥆ᨭᣢ䜢ᚓ䛶┦஫⾜Ⅽⓗ䛻䛺䛥䜜䜛䚹䛭䛾ᯟ⤌䜏䛻ἢ䛳䛯୍㈏ᛶ䛾䛒䜛⾲⌧䜢⏝䛔䛶୺ほⓗ䚸ᢳ㇟ⓗ䛺ෆᐜ䛻䛴䛔䛶ㄒ䜚䛜ᒎ㛤䛧䚸⌮ゎ䛾ඹ᭷䛜ᅗ䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹㻌 䜎䛯䚸タᐃ䛥䜜䛯ᯟ⤌䜏䛿䚸ྠ୍䛾ᑐヰෆ䛾ྠ୍䛾䝖䝢䝑䜽䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸ཧ୚⪅཮᪉䛷⥔ᣢ䛥䜜䜛ഴྥ䛜䛒䜛䛸ゝ䛘䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃᚋ䛻ฟ⌧䛩䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛿䚸㞃႘ᙧᘧ䛸䛺䜛ഴྥ䛜䛒䜛䚹䛣䜜䛿䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛾ᙧᘧ䛻㛵䛩䜛ඛ⾜◊✲䛾୺ᙇ䜢䜘䜚ヲ⣽໬䛩䜛䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹㻌 䛥䜙䛻䚸ᑐヰ䛷䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ືⓗ䛷๰㐀ⓗ䛺ά⏝᪉ἲ䛸䛧䛶䚸᪤Ꮡ䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䜈䛾᪂䛯䛺せ⣲ཬ䜃᥎ㄽ䛾ᑟධ䜔䚸䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛾ᐇ₇䛸䛔䛖ヲ⣽໬䛻䜘䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾᭷ຠᛶ䛾ྥୖ䛜ぢ䜙䜜䛯䚹䛣䜜䜙䛿䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛿ᑐヰ䛻䛚䛡䜛┠ⓗ㐩ᡂ䛾䛯䜑䛾㈨※䛸䛧䛶ືⓗ䛻ά⏝䛥䜜

第10号

䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛜⌧䜜䛶䛔䜛஦౛䛷䛒䜛䚹㻌 ௒ᚋ䛿䚸䜘䜚⮬↛䛺≧ែ䛷䛾ᑐヰ䜢䝕䞊䝍䛸䛩䜛䛣䛸䚸≉䛻ᯟ⤌䜏タᐃᚋ䛾ᒎ㛤䛻䛚䛡䜛䜔䜚䛸䜚䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸䛥䜙䛻஦౛䜢཰㞟䛧䚸⢭ᐦ䛺ศᯒ䛸୍⯡໬䜢ヨ䜏䜛䛣䛸䚸௚䛾఩⨨䛻ฟ⌧䛩䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䜒ᑐ㇟䛸䛩䜛䛣䛸➼䛜ㄢ㢟䛷䛒䜛䚹
ὀ㻌 'DQF\JLHU 6ZHHWVHU  䛿䚸䛒䜛⾲⌧䛾័⏝ᛶ䛾⛬ᗘ䛿䚸ẚ႘ⓗ䠄ILJXUDWLYH䠅䛺ᛮ⪃䜔ゝㄒ䛾ᮏ㉁䛛䜙䛿⊂❧䛧䛯䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䛸ᣦ᦬䛩䜛䠄S䠅䚹
0OOHU  䛿䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊ᛶ䛿ヰ⪅䛾ពᅗ䛻䜘䛳䛶ኚ໬䛩䜛ືⓗ䛺ᛶ㉁䛷䛒䜛䛸䜒୺ᙇ䛩䜛䚹䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊ᛶ䛿䚸䝃䜻㡿ᇦ䜢⌮ゎ䛩䜛㝿䛻䝰䝖㡿ᇦ䛜ႏ㉳䛥䜜䜛䜋䛹㧗䜎䜛䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹  .ROOHU  䛿䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛜㞧ㄅグ஦䛾ᑟධ㒊䛻䛚䛔䛶䛂ㄆ▱ⓗ䝅䝘䝸䜸䛃䜢ᑟධ䛧䛶䛔䜛ሙྜ䜢ྲྀ䜚ୖ䛢䛶䛔䜛䚹 ᢤ⢋  䛿 975 ┤ᚋ䛻  ⾜┠䛾Ⓨヰ䛷ጞ䜎䜚䚸䛭䛾๓䛻䛹䛾䜘䛖䛺䜔䜚䛸䜚䛜䛒䛳䛯䛾䛛୙᫂䛷䛒䜛䚹 ௚䛾䝕䞊䝍䛷䛿䚸䛂䛡䛹䛃䛂䜀䛃䛸䛔䛳䛯ᙧᘧ䜒ぢ䜙䜜䛯䚹 䛂ㄒ䜚䛜䜎䛰⥆䛟䛸ぢ䛺䛧䛖䜛఩⨨䛃䛾ヲ⣽䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸୵⏣䠄S䠅ཧ↷䚹䛣䛾ሙྜ䚸Ⓨヰ䛾⥅⥆䜢♧䛩᥋⥆ຓモ䜔⥅⥆䜢♧䛩㡢ㄪ䛜䛂䜎䛰⥆䛟䛣䛸䜢♧䛩ᒁᡤⓗᕤኵ䛃䛻䛒䛯䜛䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹 ᑐヰ䛾䜔䜚䛸䜚䛾䛺䛛䛷ㄒ䜚䜢㛤ጞ䛩䜛㝿䛾ᇶᮏⓗ䛺ᡭ⥆䛝䛿䚸6DFNV  䚸-HIIHUVRQ  ➼ཧ↷䚹㻌
6HPLQR  䛾ဴᏛ⪅䛾ㄽ㏙䛻㛵䛩䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊⾲⌧䛾ศᯒ䛷䜒䚸┤႘ᙧᘧ䛻䜘䜛ᑟධ䛛䜙㞃႘ᙧᘧ䜈䛾ኚ໬䛜ᣦ᦬䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛣䛾䜘䛖䛺┤႘ᙧᘧ䛛䜙㞃႘ᙧᘧ䜈䛾ኚ໬䛿䚸ᓮ⏣䞉ᒸᮏ䠄䠅䛾䛂䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䠄㞃႘ᙧᘧ䠅䛿ඹ᭷▱㆑䜔ඹ㏻䛧䛯ᴫᛕ໬䛻ᇶ䛵䛔䛯䠘ព࿡ㄽⓗ୺ほᛶ䠚䜢཯ᫎ䛧䛯䜒䛾䛃䠄S䠖䠄䠅ෆ䛿ᘬ⏝⪅⿵㊊䠅䛸䛔䛖୺ᙇ䛸䜒୍㈏ᛶ䛜䛒䜛䚹 䛥䜙䛻䛂ᆺ䛃䛾⌮ゎ䛻䛿ෆ䛸እ䛻༊ษ䜙䜜䛯㡿ᇦ䛛䜙䛺䜛䛂ᐜჾ䛾䝇䜻䞊䝬䛃䠄-RKQVRQ䠅䛜㛵䜟䛳䛶䛔䜛䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹 ⫼ᚋ䛻䛿䚸ኚ໬䜢⛣ື䛸䛧䛶⌮ゎ䛩䜛䛂஦㇟ᵓ㐀䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛃
䠄/DNRII 㘠ᓥ 䠅䛜䛒䜛䚹㻌 ඛ⾜ሙ㠃䛷䛾䛂⮬ศ䛾ᅵಥ䛻ᘬ䛝ᐤ䛫䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖Ⓨヰ䛷┦᧞䛾▱㆑䛜ႏ㉳䛥䜜䛶䛔䛯䛣䛸䜔䚸䛂ே䛾䜅䜣䛹䛧䛷┦᧞䜢䛸䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖ㅗ䜒䚸䛂䜅䜣䛹䛧䛃ᑟධ䛾ㄏᅉ䛸䛺䛳䛯䛸ᛮ䜟䜜䜛䚹.HQQ\%DUURQ 'DYH+ROODQG 䛾䛂$UWRI&RQYHUVDWLRQ䛃䛾䜘䛖䛻సရྡ䛻䛂FRQYHUVDWLRQ䛃䛜౑䜟䜜䛯䜚䚸ᖖዓⓗ䛺䝣䝺䞊䝈䜢䛂䜲䝕䜱䜸䝮䛃䛸ゝ䛔⾲䛧䛯䜚䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜䜘䛟䛒䜛䠄䛂◳ὴ䛷῰䛔䝞䝑䝥䞉䜲䝕䜱䜸䝮ᢏ䛸䚸«䝣䜯䞁䜻䞊⠇䚸䛾䝭䝑䜽䝇ᩥయ䛃䠖
KWWSZZZFDWILVKUHFRUGVMSSURGXFW䠄 㜀ぴ䠅䚹 ≀ㄒ䜢ㄒ䜛㝿䛾どⅬ䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸౛䛘䜀 0F1HLOO  䛿≀ㄒෆ䛾Ⓩሙே≀䛾どⅬ䠄&KDUDFWHUYLHZSRLQW䠅䛸≀ㄒ䛾እ䛛䜙䛾
どⅬ䠄2EVHUYHUYLHZSRLQW䠅䜢༊ู䛩䜛䚹ᢤ⢋  䛷䛾 8 䛾どⅬ䛿๓⪅䛻䛒䛯䜚䚸Ⓩሙே≀䛾ゝື䜢₇䛨䛶䛔䜛䛸ᛮ䜟䜜䜛䚹
 


ㅰ㎡
㻌 ᮏ◊✲䜢㐍䜑䜛䛻䛒䛯䜚䚸䜲䜹䝻◊✲఍䚸఍ヰศᯒ◊✲఍䚸ヰ䛧䛣䛸䜀䛾ゝㄒᏛ䝽䞊䜽䝅䝵䝑䝥䛻䛶ከ䛟䛾᭷┈䛺ຓゝ䜢䛔䛯䛰䛔䛯䚹グ䛧䛶ឤㅰ䛾ព䜢⾲䛧䛯䛔䚹



−79−

メタファーと発話の連鎖―「枠組み」設定としてのメタファー表現―ཧ↷ᩥ⊩㻌)R[%$6$7KRPSVRQ&()RUGDQG(&RXSHU.XKOHQ
³&RQYHUVDWLRQ$QDO\VLVDQG/LQJXLVWLFV´,Q-6LGQHOODQG7
6WLYHUV HGV The Handbook of Conversation Analysis,&KLFKHVWHU8.:LOH\%ODFNZHOO&DPHURQ/Metaphor in Educational Discourse.Advances inApplied Linguistics/RQGRQ8.&RQWLQXXP&DPHURQ/³3DWWHUQVRI0HWDSKRU8VHLQ5HFRQFLOLDWLRQ7DON´Discourse & Society± &DPHURQ/D³0HWDSKRUDQG7DON´,Q5:*LEEV HG The
Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought±1HZ
<RUN&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV &DPHURQ/E³0HWDSKRU6KLIWLQJLQWKH'\QDPLFVRI7DON´,Q0 6 =DQRWWR / &DPHURQ DQG 0 & &DYDOFDQWL HGVConfronting Metaphor in Use±$PVWHUGDP3KLODGHOSKLD
-RKQ%HQMDPLQV3XE&DPHURQ / DMetaphor and Reconciliation: The Discourse
Dynamics of Empathy in Post-Conflict Conversations1HZ<RUN
5RXWOHGJH
&DPHURQ/E³0HWDSKRULQ6SRNHQ'LVFRXUVH´,Q-3*HHDQG
0 +DQGIRUG HGV  The Routledge Handbook of Discourse
Analysis±1HZ<RUN5RXWOHGJH
&DPHURQ/DQG$'HLJQDQ³&RPELQLQJ/DUJHDQG6PDOO&RUSRUD WR ,QYHVWLJDWH 7XQLQJ 'HYLFHV $URXQG 0HWDSKRU LQ
6SRNHQ'LVFRXUVH´Metaphor and Symbol±
'DQF\JLHU%DQG(6ZHHWVHUFigurative Language1HZ
<RUN&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV'UHZ 3 DQG ( +ROW  ³)LJXUHV RI 6SHHFK )LJXUDWLYH
([SUHVVLRQV DQG WKH 0DQDJHPHQW RI 7RSLF 7UDQVLWLRQ LQ
&RQYHUVDWLRQ´Language in Society
*RDWO\$The Language of Metaphors1HZ<RUN5RXWOHGJH
*RRGZLQ &  Conversational Organization: Interaction
Between Speakers and Hearers.1HZ<RUN$FDGHPLF3UHVV*UDG\ -  Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors andPrimary Scenes3K'GLVVHUWDWLRQ%HUNHOH\8QLYHUVLW\RI&DOLIRUQLD-HIIHUVRQ *  ³6HTXHQWLDO $VSHFWV RI 6WRU\WHOOLQJ LQ
&RQYHUVDWLRQ´,Q-6FKHQNHLQ HG Studies in the Organization ofConversational Interaction±1HZ<RUN$FDGHPLF3UHVV-RKQVRQ0The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning,
Imagination, and Reason&KLFDJR&KLFDJR8QLYHUVLW\3UHVVᑠฟ ៞୍ 䛂ゝ䛔䜘䛹䜏䛃䚸Ỉ㇂ ಟ䠄⦅䠅䛄ㅮᗙ᪥ᮏㄒ䛾⾲⌧ 㻌 ヰ䛧䛣䛸䜀䛾⾲⌧䛅䚸䚸ᮾி䠖⟃ᦶ᭩ᡣ
ᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤ 䛄ẚ႘⾲⌧䛾⌮ㄽ䛸ศ㢮䛅ᮾி䠖⚽ⱥฟ∧
.ROOHU9³0HWDSKRU&OXVWHUV0HWDSKRU&KDLQV$QDO\]LQJWKH
0XOWLIXQFWLRQDOLW\RI0HWDSKRULQ7H[W´metaphorik.de 
.|YHFVHV=Language, Mind, and Culture2[IRUGDQG1HZ
<RUN2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV.|YHFVHV=Metaphor. A Practical Introduction.2[IRUGDQG
1HZ<RUN2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV.|YHFVHV=³$QHZORRNDWPHWDSKRULFDOFUHDWLYLW\LQ
FRJQLWLYHOLQJXLVWLFV´Cognitive Linguistics, ୵⏣⚽ஓ 䛂఍ヰศᯒ䛾᪉ἲ䛸ㄽ⌮䠖ㄯヰ䝕䞊䝍䛾䛂㉁ⓗ䛃ศᯒ䛻䛚䛡䜛ጇᙜᛶ䛸ಙ㢗ᛶ䛃䚸ఏᗣᬕ䞉⏣୰䜖䛛䜚䠄⦅䠅䛄ㅮᗙ♫఍ゝㄒ⛉Ꮫ䠒㻌 ᪉ἲ䛅䚸䚸ᮾி䠖䜂䛴䛨᭩ᡣ୵⏣⚽ஓ 䛂⫈䛝ᡭ䛻䜘䜛ㄒ䜚䛾㐍⾜ಁ㐍 䠉⥅⥆ᨭᣢ䞉⥅⥆ദಁ䞉⥅⥆ヨ⾜䠉䛃䚸䛄ㄆ▱⛉Ꮫ䛅䚸 䠖䚸
/DNRII*³&RQWHPSRUDU\7KHRU\RI0HWDSKRU,Q$2UWRQ\
HG Metaphor and Thought 2nd Edition1HZ<RUN&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV/DNRII*DQG0-RKQVRQMetaphors We Live by&KLFDJR
8QLYHUVLW\RI&KLFDJR3UHVV 䠄㑥ヂ䠖Ώ㒊୍᪼䞉ᴋ℩῟୕䞉ୗ㇂࿴ᖾヂ 䛄䝺䝖䝸䝑䜽䛸ே⏕䛅ᮾி䠖኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ䠅
/DNRII * DQG 0 -RKQVRQ  Philosophy in the Flesh: theEmbodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought 1HZ<RUN%DVLF%RRNV/DNRII*DQG07XUQHUMore than Cool Reason&KLFDJR
8QLYHUVLW\RI&KLFDJR3UHVV/LEHUWR:$³6WRS0DNLQJ6HQVH0HWDSKRUDQG3HUVSHFWLYH
LQ&UHDWLYH7KLQNLQJ6HVVLRQVRI6FLHQWLVWVDQG6FLHQWLILF5DGLR
%URDGFDVWV´,Q:$/LHEHUW*5HGHNHUDQG/5:DXJKHGV Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics±
$PVWHUGDP3KLODGHOSKLD-RKQ%HQMDPLQV3XE
0F1HLOO'Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About
Thought&KLFDJR8QLYHUVLW\RI&KLFDJR3UHVV
0OOHU&³:KDWJHVWXUHVUHYHDODERXWWKHQDWXUHRIPHWDSKRU´
,Q$-&LHQNLDQG&0OOHU HGV Metaphor and Gestures±$PVWHUGDP3KLODGHOSKLD-RKQ%HQMDPLQV㘠ᓥᘯ἞ᮁ 䛄᪥ᮏㄒ䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛅ᮾி䠖䛟䜝䛧䛚ฟ∧㔝⃝ඖ䞉῰㇂Ⰻ᪉ 䛂䝁䝭䝳䝙䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁䛛䜙ぢ䛯䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊㻌䛭䛾ᇶ┙䛸ືᶵ䛃䚸ᴋぢᏕ䠄⦅䠅䛄䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊◊✲䛾᭱๓⥺䛅䚸 ᮾி䠖䜂䛴䛨᭩ᡣᓮ⏣ᬛᏊ䞉ᒸᮏ㞞ྐ 䛄ゝㄒ㐠⏝䛾䝎䜲䝘䝭䝈䝮䠉ㄆ▱ㄒ⏝ㄽ䛾䜰䝥䝻䞊䝏䛅ᮾி ◊✲♫ฟ∧
5HGG\0³7KH&RQGXLW0HWDSKRU$FDVHRI)UDPH&RQIOLFWLQRXU/DQJXDJHDERXW/DQJXDJH´,Q$2UWRQ\ HG Metaphor
and Thought1HZ<RUN&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV5LFKDUGV,$The Philosophy of Rhetoric1HZ<RUN/RQGRQ
2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV5LWFKLH'Metaphor1HZ<RUN&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
6DFNV+Lectures on Conversation vol. 28.&DPEULGJH
86$%ODFNZHOO
6DFNV + ( $ 6FKHJORII DQG * -HIIHUVRQ  ³$ 6LPSOHVW
6\VWHP IRU 2UJDQL]DWLRQ RI 7XUQ7DNLQJ LQ &RQYHUVDWLRQ´
Language
6FKHJORII($*-HIIHUVRQDQG+6DFNV³7KH3UHIHUHQFHIRU
6HOI &RUUHFWLRQ LQ WKH 2UJDQL]DWLRQ RI 5HSDLU LQ &RQYHUVDWLRQ´
Language
6FK|Q'$³*HQHUDWLYH0HWDSKRUD3HUVSHFWLYHRQ3UREOHP
6HWWLQJ LQ 6RFLDO 3ROLF\´ ,Q ,Q $ 2UWRQ\ HG  Metaphor andThought±1HZ<RUN&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
6HPLQR(Metaphor in Discourse1HZ<RUN&DPEULGJH
8QLYHUVLW\3UHVVᮡᮏᕦ 䛂ᑐヰ䛻䛚䛡䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾㐃㙐䝟䝍䞊䞁ʊᑐヰ┦ᡭ䛾཯ᛂ䛻⌧䜜䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛻ὀ┠䛧䛶ʊ䛃䚸䛄᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽ
Ꮫ఍኱఍Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟䛅䚸䚸
ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂ 䛄ẚ႘䛸⌮ゎ䛅ᮾி䠖ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧఍ᒣ᰿ᬛᜨ 䛄᪥ᮏㄒ䛾ㄯヰ䛻䛚䛡䜛䝣䜱䝷䞊䛅ᮾி䠖䛟䜝䛧
䛚ฟ∧




−80−

第17回大会発表論文集23();$'

I

第10号

SH?IY>U7PQ6D

4"KŧŌ AAĢǐīÍÓ

<Abstract>
This paper focuses on Japanese overlaps in interactions in multiple genres by the same intimate female
university students. I extracted eleven sets of two genres (conversations and tasks) from the “Mr. O Corpus.”
The results showed that overlaps with the same expression and those without a backchannel are observed
more frequently in the task than in conversation. The overlaps in conversation help progress the talk by
keeping the story on track. Concerning the feature of overlaps in the task, on the other hand, commonality inthe content of overlaps was remarkable with many overlaps of the same expression or views.

       ǅƏŒƝŐTkrpǉıƷīƂ¤ģ°ƥõjYRhl`QtSmr

1.

(1) (J-12_Cnv: Ɲǖčſ/ R)1
042 L: #?$)+,. [ǤŨ
043 R:

ǥ][F  H +ǥ]"A2$B#= [$']

ǤŨ

044 L:[ǤŨǥ] 2$BC (1) /R aK^(2$B!ęGƝƝ(
ŰFA+

#,Ũ

G$'FH+)ŒƝGǅ-'CR /043 ( L ƝCĥ!'.ǘ.

ǅƏŒƝ/*.Tkrp(<¼Ī.bYtr(ƑADC<."ED)<Tkrp,ò'ńðŕ+ǁ

C."E

ĠŜť(/¼uĕĠ²xſ,@CƏĐTkrp.Ɲ(.ǅƏŒƝ,ŚŗC
2. FAB Ɲ¤ģǟCAǠ(/ĺ¸Ƃõ>ţƋǂ¥ūþǟTRPǠ).ǊAǅƏŒƝ.É
þ,8%FC¤ģƋFD'!ǟSacks et al., 1974; Ford and Thompson, 1996; Tanaka, 1999;
Schegloff, 2002Ǡ(/űźŕ+Ytrĩû,Ç&ƏŒƝ*(ŉ*.@,¢ň')!ƝƾƋG¸Ƃ,Cv(ǅĽ/Ɩ³D'CŒƝşŕRr\PU^.z(*.@,ƕǄDCGƢĖCjYRhl`QtSmrǟBateson, 1972Ǡ.ƒĽ/¾8D'+ uĔ(ƈơ).ıƷ¤ģGƽ'şŕRr\PU^).ǊAĕĠơ.ř
Ƌľ>ƖơŋGƢĖCƋŜť<Ú+AƑADCǟUchida, 2002; Ueno, 2010; Fujii,
2012; Machi, 2012Ǡ.#ǅƏŒƝ.ĕƈơıƷGĀ$! Uchida (2002), Fujii (2012) /ĕĠơƝſ/ƭû>»øGŞė,ǅƏŒƝ.ǕäǛ´ï>ƎƱGƽ'²xſ−81−日本人大学生同士の会話にみる重複発話：異ジャンル間比較を通した機能分析と協調性¼Êǜ»$'CƈơƝſ/Ɨĭ>´ÙGŞė,@BǕŹ,ŒƝGǅƏ´ï>ƎƱ<+²xſ¼Ê(Ɲ\rfŐ+C)GĖA,!
3. %W/O ŬƑ.ǋBƋŜť(/¼uƖơ.¼u²xſ,@CƏĐTkrp(.ǅƏŒƝ,
/ŀĽ

'AD'

+

Ī+řƋľ>ƖơŋGĀ$!ƋŜť+A2,

.Ŝť(îAD!ûĥ5.āƛ,Ƌľ>Ɩơŋ,Ĺëǒ''²xſǡƓőǡƁę5.śƨǆ+*º.řC)ćďDCz(.ƔĽ/ǅƏŒƝ,şŕÖƳ)'řƋľ.ĩŭ,ƪņCG¤ģCv(ǅƐ+<.)žADC (ĠŜť(/¼uƖơ.¼u²xſ,@CƏĐTkrp.Ɲǉ(ǅƏŒƝ.Ǖä>īƂ/¼,+C.)4. 

ĽGÁǖ)'čƯC

418 ¤ģ,ŋ!]tY/Îõ¼Ê.ÙƝGÖǚŕ+ƙÕ.w(µǇ!hUYts
MtsRtbU 2@BƓĕĠÎÐÍÓŉeI 11 ű,@CƃōƝ)ƤǖǀûƦ
 2$
C. 2 %.Tkrp 3 .#ƃōƝ(/Ɲ.ǇŎ).ĜƯƬĒ(

B!)G\tg, 5 ¤(ƝG'<A)

ƤǖǀûƦƝ(/ MISTER O

ųĠ.zA 15 Ĥ.ųGą$'û!Nt_Gy6ĝėǉ©ǋGƙ,1)Ŵ.ŃơGű9Ŧ''<A$!ƌ 1 /éƞ]tY.ƝėǉǡYtrŵĐǡǅƏ
ŒƝŵĐG8);!<.(

C
G 1.

4+M

5=ƃōƝƤǖǀûƦƝ

Ɲėǉǟ¤Ǡ

70.15

91.63

YtrŵĐ

2341

2649

ǅƏŒƝŵĐ

856

799

 ¤ģĔĵ/ĜƯƬĒAŒƝǅƏ'CūþGą£ǅƏCũ 2 Ɲſ,@CŒƝ.êçŕǑ,Ç&'w,GŞ(a)

ƏŒƝǡ
(b)

ǅƏŒƝǡ
(c) ¼uƌŇ,@CǅƏŒƝ. 3 %,¤&#GF+

ǘ!
(a)

&#ǟŨ

ǠGǅƏŒƝ

(2) (J-04_Cnv)
108 L: ƾƲ+ [H]Óǃ§ [.ƾƲŅĴ]9!
 109 R:[ H ]

+.Ƒ'[ H  H  H  H ]H

−82−

&#ǟŨ

ǠGǅ

第17回大会発表論文集(b)&#GF+第10号

ǅƏŒƝ(3) (J-06_Tsk)
057 L: ( [
 058 R:

$#,]ġ!.[ $ #  ]í=+(c) ¼uƌŇ,@CǅƏŒƝ
(4) (J-08_Tsk)
139 R: [Ğ¦,] 140 L: [Ğ ¦ , ]v,.~$#=
5.

4

5.1 T@

4 ¤ģ.ŲĥYtr!B.ǅƏŒƝ.ŵĐ/ƃōƝ.ĔƤǖǀûƦƝ@B<ƇáÌ$!ǟƃōƝ 0.37 ÂƤǖǀûƦƝ 0.3 ÂǠªǓ(ƻ6!¤ǘ,Ç&ƏŒƝ.Ǖä(/ƃōƝ)ƤǖǀûƦƝ,%&1.

4+M

!ǅ'Å 1 ,Ş@+ńðƑAD!

SH?I

X!V,

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

&#ǟŨ ǠGǅƏŒƝ

&#ǟŨ ǠG ¼uǟǘǠƌŇ,@F+ ǅƏŒƝCǅƏŒƝ

ƃōƝ

472

384

6

ƤǖǀûƦƝ

114

685

126

 +F#ƃōƝ(/&#ǟŨǠGǅƏŒƝǟƃōƝ 472 ÂƤǖǀ

-5

ûƦƝ 114 Âp=3.3610 Ǡ@BÌ$!uĔ(ƤǖǀûƦƝ(/
ǠGF+

&#ǟŨ
-5

ǅƏŒƝǟƤǖǀûƦƝ 685 ÂƃōƝ 384 Âp=3.94610 Ǡ>¼uǟǘǠƌŇ,@CǅƏŒƝǟƤǖǀûƦƝ 126 ÂƃōƝ 6 Âp=3.610-6Ǡ.Ǖä
Ǜ$!
 (/.@+Ǖä.ǁ
ǖǀûƦƝD
5.2 N@/GŃơ$'

C."EĬǓ,'ƃōƝ)Ƥ

D.GĈ+AǅƏŒƝ.īƂGĦƚ'4

5.2.1 E<I

−83−



日本人大学生同士の会話にみる重複発話：異ジャンル間比較を通した機能分析と協調性 ƃōƝ(ƑAD!ǅƏŒƝ/řÿ.ƝGƶƿ,~',ƾ8Cÿ«,+$'C<.Ì$! (5) /Ɲǖčſ,@C2$B!).LcXt_.
zƼ(ƀÿA£!

&#ǟŨǠGǅƏŒƝ(C

(5) (J-22_Cnv: Ɲǖčſ/ L)
007 L: ŗŔ.ƽB

C=H=008 R:=H [HHH]

009 L:

[Ęƽ,Į

']!.=

010 R:=H

011 L: !ANnU.ǜË!.012 L: "A

C. [+])ô$'

+H"ENnU

 013 R:[ H  H ]014 L: #?$)@'9!.!AĘƽNnUv,
015 L: !Aw,

 .(Ɲǖčſ. L /ƽBGĮ
Bƺ$'
'

'

!ėƲv,NnUļį.Ņú(1$C.ėƝ( L Ɲ!.GƑ'2$B!LcXt_GƝ'CĞz,ƀÿ. R  013 (HH)uǃ,ǅ-'C)ô=H'NnU(1$Bƺ$''C.



&#G#012 .ŒƝ.

&#G·'<L ƖĸH"BŘª.ƖƉGŻ

Bƺ!B'ƝGzēC)/+.88ƶƿ,~$'ƝGÜǈ'
 Ĭ,

&#ǟŨ

ǠGF+

C

ǅƏŒƝ.GŞD/Ɲǖčſ&#+*ƀÿA.´òG$,¯0ƍC@+ê(\rfƅƝGƾƋ
'

C<.(

C

(6) (J-10_Cnv: Ɲǖčſ/ R)
174 L: ÞêěKjtT

CH" [*] 175 R:[ H ]$ě

H"*+Hě. [+]
176 L:
 177 R:

[

] [

]

[+ H ' Ɩ  H " E ]ǏÄĲ [ǁ]+HRrPot^, [-]178 L:[ǁH"][]

179 R: +HRrPot^.łŒ'C+H"E.ě(  (6) ,'Ɲǖčſ. R /£ƵÆ.Þê)ÍÓě,2$B'CĢ)Gı6Ģ.

C(ƀÿ. L /ä,F!$'F+

ŒƝ( L ,ǅƏ'

T

C)

&#ǟŨ

ǠG

C.#175 /Řª. L ,@CÞê,/ěKjt

Rjr^,¼ƥ!<.(ƃ¤/8ƖƉ,(+B177 /D)+ƖFH)'Ù' 175 .×G@BƟČ¡@)!<.(



)

´ò(

C)FC)! L ,C .½/|,ùC×(ƑAD!D/ƀÿ.ƖƉ,ķ£C¼ƥõ

−84−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

Góǔ,D,ƍC),@$'Ɲÿƃ¤.ƝǖG,ƾ8Cÿİ)'ǅƏŒƝĶŋD'C).ŇD(C

5.2.2 JWR.LI uĔƤǖǀûƦƝ(/

&#ǟŨ

ǠGF+

ǅƏŒƝ.#Ytr,ǅƏ1 %.Ɲǖ,Ù'²xſǉ( 2 %.ƑĔGÒC<.ƏĐƑAD!
(7) (J-26_Tsk)
112 L:

ǁD

113 R: H

'C7H)"=

114 L:=D

'CA$')/D)D [W[^"]

115 R:[

]"-=

116 L:=

+H"
117 L: [DĞí.7"-] 118 R: ['  ) /   ( / +  ].=+119 L: " vƘ./ųČD!Nt_Gy6Cħ(2 %.OknPYt.£Ǚ2ưCĔĵ(ŁƜ8$!ėL .ž(,ƾ;C@,+$!ÉǑ(>ßGCR /

D8(£$!/. 2 %.OknPYtƼz(èǎDC)÷Õ'!

L .ŒƝG·' 118 (ŒƝGǅƏ.§ǎǁūþ,Ƌ<D+).ø

C.ėR /L ).ǅƏŒƝ( 1 %.Ɲǖ,Ù' 2 %.ƑĔGƑG¿Ş'

ÒC)(Nt_.z( 1 Ĥ"œÉCǞ,ƹ&'

OknPYt.¬,%

'ŲƧ

4

C 

 A,ŒƖ×.ƽõǗƊ(B¼uƌŇ>Ƒƕ,ǊCǅƏŒƝÚ+AƑAD!D/ÙƝ.z( 1 %.ŃơG,$'.Nt_Gŋ

)ÉǑ.ńð>ƽ!řƋľAġCöÈğõ.Ǜ,ƯÃC)žADC

(8) (J-10_Tsk)
084 R: (ƴ8D'=
085 L:=ƴ8D'

086 L: [ǙH(ŚÆ] 087 R: [Ǚ H (  Ś Æ ]'088 R: D(ƃ¤<089 L: ƃ¤<>B!

[+]

090 R:[>]B!

091 L:[)ô$']['ô$']  (8) .²xſ/Mr. O .ƝGű9Ŧ'Cz( 2 Ĥ.Nt_.y6ĔGž'

−85−

C

日本人大学生同士の会話にみる重複発話：異ジャンル間比較を通した機能分析と協調性

R /.#. 1 Ĥ,%'Ş!ǃ¤@B<ª(%4'Ǚ2!

BDG38'Ńơ,*źBƸ:GřƦ')Ɩ$'Cv.ŅĴ(084 .ƴ

8D'G$,086 A 087 ( L ) R ǙH(ŚÆ)ŒƝGǅƏ!
 A,ŃơÔû%%Cė

C/Ôû!ŃơG8);Řė,×.

ğõGŝƠ»Ĕŏ)' (9) ,ĈC@+ơÛGċ!ǅƏŒƝǕŹ,Ƒ
AD!
(9) (J-18_Tsk)
097 L: +HƝGD0

H"@-

098 R: ~$$'<Ŀň( [!]Ɲ»$' []ä/w, [+B8!]
099 L:[Ŀň](!

100 L:[']

 101 L:[+ B 8  ! ]Ǚ68!
 D/ƤǖǀûƦƝ.z(<097 ( L +HƝGD0'

H"@-)Ɩ$C@,Nt_.y6ĝŰF$!í,Ɲ.ĨƐGÖǚăéſ5CñƐC!;ƆƝ!)G8);'Ńơ.Ôû,ƹ&'CÉǑ(C(/

098 . R ,»FC@,101 ( L +B8!)ơÛGċC)(×.
ƽõGŝƠ'C

6. C*
 v.¤ģŲĥAǅƏŒƝGƽ'²xſ/řÿ.Ɲ>ƃA.ƝG\rfƅƾƋ!BƏĐ.ƑĔGÒ!v(ŲƧ,ƹ&!B1 %.Ɲǖ,Ù'.
ƽõGŝƠ!BC+*°ƥõGøƨ!ƝBGƋ$'C)GĖA,!AƝ(.°ƥõ,ŗG½'º.Tkrp(.õƮGžØ!)EƃōƝ(.°ƥõ/²xſǉ.ǊõGǛ;'ƝGĻ,ƾ;CõƮGĆ%ƤǖǀûƦƝ(.°ƥõ/ÀǖGBvCõƮGĆ%)ŞD!Öǌ¤ģ!Ƥ
ǖǀûƦƝ]tY,

'²xſ*#AA)<+ůǃ,ƄC8(øƑG%

F+AƝGƾ;'CĪÐ!

 vƘ.õƮ/+F#ǏÄĲGǅƒ!ƃōƝ(.ǅƏŒƝ/ŒƝGǅ-»F
'oViƅƝGÜǈADC@,CǑGĆ%×Gǅƒ!

ƤǖǀûƦƝ(.ǅƏŒƝ/oViB),Ƥǖ.Ūĳ;AD'@B×.¼uõ>ùõFC@Cūþ(ŒƝGǅƏ'»øêû.ÿŦ',CǑGĆ%)Ɩ@
7.  ĠŜťGƽD8(Őđ®sŐƖơǉıƷ.IdqtZAƑ'!°ƥõ.õ
Ʈŕřǁ/¼uƖơ.¼u²xſ,@CƏĐTkrp.ƝǉıƷ.IdqtZGĎŋ
C)(<Ɲ.ŗŕ>öÈğǆ.ğĿ,9CřǁGķ2vA!'−86−第17回大会発表論文集

,¼ùGŞǅƏŒƝ(第10号

Dǁ°ƥõGŊ9£]JURtUGC¸ƂõGćď!.śƑ/Őđ®sŐƖơǉRhl`QtSmrG¤ģCǌ,<òŋ(C<.(B.),@$'Őđ®sŐƖơǉ(Rhl`QtSmrG@B

ƾ;CÿBG<čƯ'C@,+C)žADC í/Ɲřÿ8!/ƣ,½!ǅƏŒƝ,ǊCǁ
Ɲ,9C°ƥõ.ǁ

,%@B­Ąŕ,ƩƧGƋ

!

Ļ,

,<ŀĽG

'ǅƏŒ

'¼uƖơǉ+A2,Őđ®sŐƖơǉıƷGƽ'9
1. đÑ®±Ť.Ƙ¹ ({ŌsÕæs, 2005)
 [XXǢǅƏŒƝ.ǈÏżXX]ǢǅƏŒƝ.ŰżǣǢ¥Dŗ+

ĊŴ

2. hUYtsMtsRtbU/ITI.đ®sKrYtIPSmrsƖơ.ř
Ǌ,ǊCÖƚŕsňƧŕŜťǟ âû 15Ŝťƌſ

£ŠÐǠ,

17 ãäŢÓŜťƫÇŖŜť BNo. 15320054,'µǇD!<.(C

3. ĠŜť(/Ő+Cŗŕ.w(µǍD!ƝGTkrp)ÕŽC.!;
2$B!).@,Ɲǖčſ.Ƶƹ,C£ġ,%'.ƃōƝ)

15 Ĥ.Nt_Gy6ĝ'1)Ŵ.ŃơGű9Ŧ'CƤǖǀûƦƝ/Ő+CTkrp,ÝC<.)žC
4.  (7) ,%'ĂŮ!ǃ¤.Ŵ/w.ƽB(C

120 L: DĞí. [7+H"]
121 R:[HHH]

122 L: $')/DtǝƆ
123 R: #?$)íÂ, ['t]124 L:["-]

125 L: DǞ"@126 R:

D((uÂüC$'127 L:

""./

128 L: ü$'t=
129 R:   =H=

130 L:     =ǉGĉ,Ƌ$!H"ì/=

131 R:                    = []132 L:[!]A$#=$!H"
133 R: H
134 L: $)
135 R: #?$)DuÂ* [D"@-]ŷ.z"A

136 L:[HǞ]H$#/* [']137 R:

[

H]

−87−

日本人大学生同士の会話にみる重複発話：異ジャンル間比較を通した機能分析と協調性

138 L: ǞH,$#=$'
139 R: H
140 L: =ǞH)*@$t$'Ɲ,+$'141 R: (,142 L: "=$?,>E@$'),+ [$'t]

143 R:[tH]

144 L: (ǞHGǙ0)!H"
145 R: H
146 L: (D+H"
147 R: (uŶ,ǙH=$!H=+.>B¶BGƽ'R ) L /1 Ĥ"œÉCǞ.ǉGĉ,Ƌ$!ǌ,Ŕ

OknPYtǟŔǠ)£Ŷ,ßGǙ2ư@)!Ŕ<uŶ,ǙH(OknPYtǟǞǠ/ƃ¤ŔǞGǙ0)(u$'8$!)

ŲƧG£'C
#C0:
Bateson, G. 1972. “A Theory of Play and Fantasy.” In G. Bateson (ed.) Steps to an Ecology of
Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution and Epistemology, 177-193.
New Jersey: Jason Aronson.
Fujii, Y. 2012. “Differences of Situating Self in the Place/Ba of Interaction between the Japaneseand American English Speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics 44:5, 636-662.
Ford, C. E. and Thompson, S. A. 1996. “Interactional Units in Conversation: Syntactic,
Intonational, and Pragmatic Resources for the Management of Turns.” In E. Ochs, E. A.
Schegloff, and S. A. Thompson (eds.) Interaction and Grammar, 134-184. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
{Ō šsÕæ ¨}s åĚǟŸǠ 2005.

SotVđ)ŒƝ ũ 1 à Ķ¬)'.

đ)ŒƝ Ģ: 1%Ĝý.
Machi, S. 2012. “How Repetition Works in Japanese and English Conversation: Introducing
Different Cultural Orientations towards Conversation.” JELS 29, 260-266.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., and Jefferson, G. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organizationof Turn-taking for Conversation.” Language 50:4, 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A. 2002. “Accounts of Conduct in Interaction: Interruption, Overlap and Turn-taking.”
In J. H. Turner (ed.) Handbook of Sociological Theory, 287-322. New York: Plenum.
Tanaka, H. 1999. Turn-taking in Japanese Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Uchida L. 2002. How is Projectability Relevant to the Grammar of Interaction?: The Case ofOverlapping Talks in English and Japanese conversations. Preliminary Research Paper for the
Ph.D. Thesis, Japan Women’s University.
Ueno, K. 2010. “Questions and Common Ground Building: Cross-cultural Perspectives of Japaneseand American English.” Studies in English and American Literature 45, 93-112.

−88−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Ɖ ƥ0¼ƠŅŜößƠ.Ɩ?BAĿÇţĆÀ0ªĥ¯şļÝƽÒÙÒÙǈǬAbstractǮ
The aim of this study is to describe pragmatic functions of suffixation in English denominal adjectives witha suffix –y (e.g. foxy, sugary), and to point out that the literal-metaphorical interpretation of words isdetermined not only by context but by their grammatical forms. I provide a descriptive analysis of the datacollected from COCA and OED, which reveals that denominal adjectives with a suffix -y are more likely to
be interpreted as having metaphorical meanings than the stem nouns themselves. This suggests thatsuffixation functions as foregrounding conventional metaphorical meanings which the stem noun has, andas providing creative meanings of the stem noun which emerges contextually.
Mvsva ǫ¼ƠŅŜößƠjZfGvţĎòƥŞƧţĹƃ0Rva¯

1. 1:.
 úĭ×žţĆÀ+ĿÇţĆÀ0°©1Rt^OW`.Ø)ƚƾBA+ƀ?B)#jZfGvƒř0öðţ-ǎ.ńŦ#ūŮ.>&)ĆÀ0é1ĝŃţ-öð0ƹ.´ģBA+Ģ?.B)#(Goatly 1997, Deignan 2005 -,)ĬūŮ*1-y ĕƳE¯

Ɖƥ0¼ƠŅŜößƠǢe.g. foxy, sugaryǣ.ńŦ-y ĕƳ+ƚƾ0ĦĤăEưŇA+

ƥŞƧţĹƃ

öð.1ĿÇţĆÀEªĥA+EƧAĬūŮ0Űw0Ŧţ

1Corpus of Contemporary American EnglishǢyCOCAǣ>4 Oxford English DictionaryǢyOEDǣ?Ĕ¶#Ý0¦İEƶĿÇţĆÀªĥ¯BA+E*A$Þƙă
0Aò+)ėŬA+*AŰ0Ŧţ1ößƠ¯.>&);#?BAĿÇţĆÀEƣŵ.ƞƵ¼ƠƥìåAĆÀOnW.>&)jZfGvţĎò.wÜ0½Ɩ?
BAEĶƟA+*AQvWWZ_I+)Ǭ®ŐǮǬǘ6ŐǮǬŀǮ+Ǩ'0ĆÀOnWE¶@xA

2. ƑūŮ ƴëjZfGvƒř0öð.ńŦ#ūŮ.

) AƥĿÇţĆÀ*Şöðţ-őý<ĝŃřƪ+0ǆƷĢ?.B))−89−?BAÏº0A#+2 Goatly (1997)*1ŅŜ+英語の名詞派生形容詞に見られる比喩的意味の前景化ĝŃřƪjZfGvţĆÀĎò0yÌ.-@language, greenish colour +
-

A0*1-

&#ƒř.Ɩ?BA>;0*;ǗăEƷą+Ƨ?B)Aa musical.ŅŜB#ƥ1Ĭƫţ.jZfGvţ*A+*A+Ƶ6?B)

AĿÇţĆÀ+öð0Ũǆ.'

A(Low 1988, Hunston 2002)Deignan (2005))1RvdWūŮ0ĉı.>&);Ɠ?B)

1RvdWx0Ş0ƙáEƶ)Ñ0jZfGvâĀA×žŞŃ+1š-AÂƠE¶A+EƖ¥#®ŐjZfGvE.¶A+¼ƠEŞ
*

A®Ơ

A

1ößƠ*ƒBAĠǔïǜ

#Remnĝ0öð>@;ŅŜö+ŬB)A B?0ūŮ0ǆþ0ţ1Ɯƥöð0ƹ0ƞƵ.

-ĆÀ0éš1

#&)ä-+;Ļ0ǧŋĢ?.6

8@ńĆċDB)-&##:0jZfGvƒř0üÕÅǕ+)ľ&)AŰw.ößƠ¯.>&)ŜAĿÇţĆÀ10¼Ơ.ĈŞ¯

B#;0.-0!B+;ŅŜgrYW.>&);#?B#;0-0EĶƝAÿƕAŰ.ĿÇţĎòƖ?BAǋ,0>-ǗăEÎť+)ìď'ĆÀ.>&)ŘûAĿÇţĆÀ.½1Ɩ?BA0+*CĬūŮ*1>@ƣŵ-ĆÀƞƵEƑ

A8#¼Ơƥ

&#ÅǕ;Ģ?.6

+*x0ǧŋEĶƝŅŜĕƳ;'ƥŞƧţĹƃEƧA

3. ¦İ0âƪĬūŮ*1-y ĕƳE

¼ƠŅŜößƠ.ńŦA

(1) a. a flowery fieldƈ*&3b. a flowery odourD

0ǀ²
ǚ@

c. a flowery styleŽƳǟ¸EƷ/#ĝ(Aarts and Calbert 1979: 65)(1a)1¼Ơ¸.>&)ĖBAć.Ýǋ.ƈØË)@×žţƒř+ƜAwĠǢ1bǣ(1c)1ǚ@<Ƌ<+ĿÇţ,&#ƈď'ăƫ.ōŋô)?B#jZfGvƒř*A×žţ

0¨ğ1¼ƠŅŜößƠ+!BǙA¼Ơ¸+0ǆ*ƀA'8@

¼Ơƥì.>&)ƒBAâƪ¼Ơ¸.>&)ĖBAć.Ýǋ.ØË)×žţ+Ɩ-!0âƪ1ŐŚţ.1ØË)BAâƪ!B+Ǘ#ăƫ

A

-

AÏº

ǙBA¼Ơ¸.>&)ƒ

1!B?ÆƬBAJjvVEĩ)AÏºĿÇ

ţ+Ɩ- -y ĕƳ1Ñĸ-¼Ơƥì.ĕź*A+Ū?B)
ńŦA+ő.Ŝŝţ.ŅŜƬ)ŅŜǖƍ.Ƭ)AĆÀOnW0AĆÀOnW

A0¼ƠåAĆÀOnW.
A+ƙáBAĬūŮ*1

%QvWWZ_I+)Ǭ®ŐǮǬǘ6ŐǮǬŀ−90−

第17回大会発表論文集

Ǯ+

第10号

Ǩ'0ĆÀOnWE¶@xAǨOnW+;ƢôAǒŦ0ĜÑŜŝţ.ößƠ¯Ɩ?BAößƠ¯BAǋ.ōŋ¯BAăƫ+A#:*AǬ®ŐǮ+B)#>

A+ąBĆÀOnW1®ŐjZfGv.ǆAwƷ0ūŮ.>&)ĐĘ

.®Ő.ǅ0ăĳ<5A8AwĠǬǘ6ŐǮ+ǬŀǮ+ĥ¯BA½

ŋ*1âŎţ*A0*1-

EƖ)¶Aę¯1#?<+ƀ?BĆÀOnW1!B"BÀƘţ-ăƫƛƘţ-ăƫª+ąBA !B"B0ĆÀOnW.åAƥõ1y0ƶ@*A 1ƒǦǫ¦İâƪ+Aƥõ
batty, bitchy, catty, chubby, cocky, fishy, foxy, horsey, lousy, mousy, piggy,

Ǭ®ŐǮ

16 ƥ

rabbity, ratty, snaky, spidery, wormy
Ǭǘ6ŐǮ

chocholaty, crusty, dishy, fudgy, garlicky, gingery, jammy, lemony, milky,

19 ƥorangey, peachy, peppery, salty, spicy, sugary, syrupy, treacle, vinegary
bristly, downy, feathery, fleecy, flossy, fluffy, furry, fuzzy, hairy, plumy,

ǬŀǮ

14 ƥ

shaggy, tufty, wispy, wooly

4. ĿÇţĆÀ0ªĥ¯ Ĭű*1ößƠ¯A+*ĿÇţĆÀªĥ¯BA+EƧAŅŜ.>A0­ıE¼Ơƥìď'ĿÇţĆÀ0ǖË¯+ößƠ¯.>AĿÇţĆÀ0«¥+

ǧ'0ǎ

?ĒA0+1B8*0ūŮ*;wƼǢő.ªƁǣĐĘB)#ĬūŮ*1}ǎEĶƟA#:¼Ơƥì.ĿÇţĆÀÜũ)COCA EŞ)*A$Þƙă0 ¡ţ-âƪƥ1y0Ǫƥ*

Aƥ+!

*-

ƥ0}ƁE¦İâƪ+Aò+)ėŬA

A

Ǭ®ŐǮǫbatty (RKko)foxy (M]b)rabbity (KTN)spidery (ƐƏ)ǬŀǮǫfeathery (ſ)furry (ŀŤ)Ǭ®ŐǮ0ĆÀOnW?1¼Ơƥìƅ.ĿÇţ-ĆÀÜũ)foxyǣ!

*-A;0EǧƥǢbatty,

;0EǧƥǢrabbity, spideryǣƻ¥#ǬŀǮ0ĆÀOnW.åAƥõ1

ĿÇţĆÀĈŞ¯B)

A;07+F,Ɩ?B-!*ĿƱţwƆţ+ĂDBA

feathery, furry 0ǧƥEƒ+)¶@x# ¦İ0ĠŃ18COCAEŞ

)!B"B0ǒŦ.â)nt[iTtgotP*100Eč¥##$rabbity1COCA£*0ŞĜ100.ŉ#-&##:6)µǌ#!0ù×žţŞŃuĿÇţŞŃu¼ªǢ0¼×-,ǣu!0.¦Ǘ!0ĜEĿƱ#−91−英語の名詞派生形容詞に見られる比喩的意味の前景化 ¦İ0ŷıE8+:#;0Eƒǧ.Ŭƒ0Ĝ×1!0¦Ǘ.ƢôAŞ0ĜEƒ
0ƒEƖA+furryEǉ×žţĆÀ.â)ĿÇţĆÀ*ŞÑ?BA+0ĠÊţ.

+¦Aƒǧǫ×žţǥĿÇţŞŃ0ĿƱTtgpĜǢŞĜǣ

×žţ

ĿÇţ

¼ª

!0uzĢ

batty

100

(196)

2

50

48

0

foxy

100

(363)

1

48

49

2

rabbity

16

(16)

0

14

0

2

spidery

100

(231)

4

95

0

1

feathery

100

(547)

12

86

0

2

furry

100

(1021)

78

16

1

5

*1¡ţ-ŞE9)Ş#?BA+0ĠŻ)Ñ

ĈŞ¯B)

®ŐjZfGv0Ïº×žţĆÀ.Ŀ6)ĿÇţĆÀ*0ƥõ.ŦE½A+¼Ơƥì.ĿÇţĆÀA¾.>&),0>

ĿÇţĆÀÜũ)ǅ0ăĳ<5A8-ĿÇţĆÀEď'1š-&)A¼Ơƥì.

AÏºbattyǢêƯEƸ#ǣfoxyǢœŖ-YOUv-ǣ0>
E#+A+.Ş

?BA½.

.

A(2) a tireless perfectionism that sometimes drives his colleagues batty.
Ǣ22»?0ǓE

AŸA+-Ûśžǣ(3) a. I love Ginger, she’s a foxy girl, ain’t she?
Ǣ1VtVlvÔ$øÓ&)YOUv-Ó0Ö$>/ǯǣb. to envisage the Devil as a sleek, dark-complexioned male figure, ... with a foxy glint in his eyeǢŦ.œŖ-ƲE;&#·08ƇǠ0Š+)ĄǝEĂ

ĖǣwĠößƠ¯.>&)ĿÇţĆÀŜA+ƀ?BArabbity<spidery10ăĳ>@;
ŐŚţ-öŒǗ)A+Eƒ+.ǔż.Ş

ƮƼEößA+.Ş

?BA(4) a. His eyes were red and rabbity
b. rabbity front teeth
c. a rabbity pink nose

−92−

?BAB?0ƥõ1ő.ǅ0第17回大会発表論文集

第10号(5) a. Spidery legs sprouted from his swollen bodyb. two large hands with spidery fingers grasped his wristsc. “You did say you couldn’t read her spidery handwriting.”(4)*1rabbity1!B"BŦªĽǡEöß)@!B?KTN0ŦªĽǡ+öŒ)A+EĆÀAspidery0Ïº;

&#ö+Ǘ)Aâƪ0öŒƐƏ0ƭ0ŵ)Ǆ

ħ

A+Eƒ(5a)<(5b)1ǅ0Ċƭ(5c)1ĊĨ0ĝ×!0>-öŒţőýE;'+EĆÀA ĿÇţĆÀªĥ¯A½
0¼ƠǬŀǮ+A01®ŐjZfGv.Ǉ?-ĆÀOnW.åAfeathery+ĿÇţŞŃ186+Êţ*

ƥ.

ƒǧ.ŬBA>);×žţŞŃ12.â

Afurry0Ïº1×žţŞŃ0Ġǔïǜ

Ŀ6B2ĿÇţĆÀªĥ¯B).0¼Ơ.

A+ƀ?BA8ößƠ¯BAªù*ĿÇţŞŃ0Ĝ.éƖ?BAEĶƟ#COCAEŞ

)fur(s)0¼ƠŞŃ6374?nt[iTtgotP*100č¥»ĸ.¦İ#ŷıy0ŷıEû?B#
furry ×žţǫĿÇţǫ!0ǭ 78ǫ16ǫ6
fur×žţǫĿÇţǫ!0ǭ 84ǫ5ǫ11

ĿÇţŞŃ0ĜEƖA+¼Ơfur0ǩ.âößƠ¯B#furry116+ößƠ¯A+
ĿÇţĆÀ*Ş?BA+Ð¬A+¦A ?.ößƠ¯.>&)ĿÇţĆÀªĥ¯BA+>&);Ģ?.-AĿÇţ.Ş

Ý1ĿÇţĆÀĎò0ŭï.

?BAǋ¼ƠŅŜößƠ0furry1ĸ-âƪEößA

+*A¼Ơ0fur1;&3?ǅ0ŀ0ŊEƒřA#:.Ş

?BA(6) a. a furry tent worm
b. furry white peachesc. blunted hills furry with pines(7) the ginger fur on the backs of his big hands(6).Ɩ?BA>.furry1ƒǎ.ŀ0>0īƊ&#|.â);Ş
ǅ0ŀ+-őýEď';0*B2Ǝ<ŢĴ?.į

A+*AB.âfur1(7).¢Íţ.ŬBA>

0¼ƠƒâƪǢŗ0ŀǣ+0ǗăD:)ǜ

.;0.â)Ş

?BAx?ǁţ.;ƫţ.;¼ƠŅŜößƠ0ĠĿÇţĆÀEóÆƬA+ŬÃBA*

C

−93−

英語の名詞派生形容詞に見られる比喩的意味の前景化

5. ĆÀOnW+0½
 Ļ.Ǭ®ŐǮǬǘ6ŐǮǬŀǮ+ĆÀOnWE.0¼ƠåAĆÀOnW

.>&)ößƠ¯.>&)ªĥ¯BAjZfGvţĆÀ.½Ɩ?BA,AjZfGvţĆÀEƣŵ.ƞƵA#:.,0>-ǗăEÎť+)Eƀá
A.>&)

Ǘă0ZJg1B8*ĸ-¦Ǘơ9?B)#(Gentner 1983,ĆÀ¦ǗEƑ

Holyoak and Thagard 1995, Winner 1979, çş 1994, ǂè 2011-,)ĬūŮ*1jZfGv.
AƮăEƿƗkcqhp+ǆqhpE°©AªƁ1ǅŧĕŪƘ¹ƃăƫ.AǗăùƁ1>@ǜï-čƪ¯1#?

#ǆţ-Ǘă.ũŦ#;0+ÜžAkcqhp1?.y¦ǗƇöŒƖ#ŦǏĊD@Àǚ@ƿǥư®Ɣºţ+10¦ǗEů)A!0x*x.đ#Ǩ'0ĆÀOnW.å

Aƥõ0ŞECOCA+OEDEŞ

)µǌ!B?EǗă0ZJg.>&)¦ǗA!

0ŷıŲţ-jZfGvĎò.1Lakoff and Johnson (1980)*ėÄB#ķājZfGv0
ØËĺ

-

+ŬÃB#y*!B"B0ĆÀOnW0őýEƖ)



Ǭ®ŐǮ
 ®Őƥõ1ǅ0ăĳ<5A8

E#+A+.Ş

?BA+

őý

A0>

-jZfGvţĎò1OED0ƞƵEƖA+ƒǦ*đ#âƪƥõ16ƥ~012ƥǢbatty, bitchy,
catty, cocky, foxy, lousy, mousy, piggy, rabbity, ratty, snaky, wormyǣ*îƖ?BA0Ųă.1
HUMAN IS ANIMAL+ķājZfGv0ØËà{)snaky red line<foxy-red tints-,0ƒř.Ɩ?BA>

A+ƀ?BAB.âa-öŒ<Ƈ-,0ŪƘ¹ƃ-ăƫ.Î(jZfGvţĎò1wƼ0ƥõ.ǇÜB)

A

Ǭǘ6ŐǮ
 ǘ6Ő.ǆAƥõjZfGvƒř+)Ş
<

?BA+ÀƘţ-ăƫ.ōŋô)?B+ąB#+C¦İ0ŷıkcqhp*1ǘ6Őƥõ.ǖƍ-őý1ƙáB0ăƫ.Ŀ6)ÀƘţăƫ0ĠjZfGvţĎò0Ŝŝăǜ

+1Ɯ-

+



+Ģ?.-&##+2peachy lip colors, the crusty snow, a vinegary stink+jZfGv

ƒř*1!B"BƗƘŶǛƛƘŶǛÈƘŶǛ?û?BAăƫEÎť+)A!B"B0ƥõ*Ŕů)Ďò)

A+ƀ?BAwĠǆqhp0Ǘă.Î(Ïºw

Ƽ0ƥõ*Ųţ-jZfGvĎòƙáB#(8)0.Ɩ?BA>
0Ñ+2<Ăƀ-,EößA+.Ş
ARE FOODS+ķājZfGv.Ě?B)?B)

A0jZfGvţĎò1IDEAS

A+ĂDBA−94−.ƦÀĞEƒƥõ第17回大会発表論文集

第10号(8) a. the soldiers ... were singing merry songs and indulging in peppery jokes.
b. But the earnestness contained within that sugary metaphor
c. During the oil downturn, Midlanders didn’t lose their salty sense of humor.

ǬŀǮ ǬŀǮOnW10ǧ'0ĆÀOnW+š-@ǆqhp*1Ųţ-jZfGvĎòƙáB-&#kcqhp*1ƙáB#ǬŀǮ.åAƥõ1Ĭĭ®Ő<Ǟ-,0ŀEĆÀAĵŐ0öćţőýEößA#:.îŞ

ACOCAEŞ

?B))ǬŀǮ.åAƥõ14ƥ.â)nt[iTtgotPEƺŞ100'µǌ#+C11ƥĵŐEößA+.Ş

?BA+¦&#y.!0EđA

(9) a. bristly weeds
b. wooly daisy
c. fuzzy gray leavesd. hairy roots from cotton(9)*1ƌ<Ĳƈ4?-,0ƒǎ.ŀŒ0őý
vƒř1Ƈ<öŒ+);®Ĺ(?B)

A+EĖ¤)AB?0jZfG&#ƗƘţǗă09-?<D?-,0ƛƘţ-Ǘă.>&A0Ųă0ƕÉ+)PLANTS ARE ANIMALS+

ķājZfGv

2

đ?BA  xÎť+AǗă0ZJg.>&)¦ǗA+*ƣŵ-ĆÀ¦İEƑ&#ŷıĆÀOnW.

ƶAjZfGvţĎò1ķājZfGv.Ɠ?B)ô§ąB#>-ĆÀOnW.

A+Ģ?.-&#ƶ)ōŋ¯BAkcqhp*0ăƫ1Ɩ?B-&#0+?Ƈ<öŒ)D@-,0kcď'ŪƘţăƫ10kc.â)!
B"BƤƨB)@L^Sov.

ƶAåă+)1ƤƨB.

+

+Ŭ

ÃBA

6. 8+:
 ĬūŮ0ĉı1y0ǧŋ.8+:?BA8-y ĕƳ1ä-+;őÜ0ĆÀOnW.
)1ĿÇţĆÀEªĥ¯AƥŞƧţĹƃA+EÝƟ#0+ªĥ¯BA

ĆÀ1¼Ơƥì.Üũ#;0.Ǉ?ĝƄ.Ø#;0;¿8BAĻ.0¼ƠåAĆÀOnW.>&)jZfGvţĎò.½

−95−

AƀáA+*ößƠ¯.>&)ªĥ英語の名詞派生形容詞に見られる比喩的意味の前景化¯BAĆÀň¹ƃ,
fGv0ØËƿƕ*
ĆÀ0ň.1
ĿÇţĆÀ*ŞEĶƝ#!0ŷıjZfGvţĎò0Ųă.1ķājZ@¼Ơƥì,0>8@÷ǐE{?B)A+-ĆÀOnW.åA+

ÅǕ1ŅŜƥ0

+Ģ?.-&#0+?-y ĕƳ1Aƥ+EĝŃţ.Rva¯A!0¡ţ-ƚƾEŁÜ

A$01-!B1Ýǋ0Ş.=$/?BA0*1-

+ŷƧ(?BAń
1. âƪ+Aƥõ0µǌ1y0ƶ@.Ƒ&#8KIX[iƉÁƳ¢ŰǨŏEŞ)-y ĕƳE ŅŜößƠ0ǒŦE6)oW`H\g#!0ùoW`¯B#ǒŦ0~?OED EŞ)ƥì®Ơ;1ößƠ*

2. *1ņƩƧ-A+ƞƵB)š-AŜŐ0âĀ(.1Lakoff and TurnerĵŐ+®Ő+(1989:166–173) .>&)ãB#ØË0ÒƷǃ+ķāņǆD&)BAB1ǅEǑŋ.®ŐĵŐƔǍŌŜŐ±ŴŌŜŐ+k_p0+*

A;0Eēǉ#

A+ƀ?

ǊæE-ĝ¯@!B"B0Ǌæ0őƫ1Ǌæǅ*ŹČBA+òB)

A

³Ŏĝŕ

Aarts, J. M. G., and J. P. Calbert. 1979. Metaphor and Non-Metaphor: The Semantics ofAdjective-Noun Combinations. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
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. MIT Press.
Hunston, S. 2002. Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
çş Ŵw. 1994. í0jZfGv

ƽěƂÒÚųƕ85: 29-41.

Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., and M. Turner. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago,
London: The University of Chicago Press.
Low, G. D. 1988. “On Teaching Metaphor.” Applied Linguistics 9(2) 125-147.
ǂè ñłĪ. 2011. ġĬƥ0jZfGvĮǫC¥ŏǤ

Winner, E. 1979. “New Names for Old Thing.” Journal of child language 6 469-491.Goatly−96−第17回大会発表論文集第10号

୕⪅㛫ࡢඹྠసᴗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒ⾜ື̿ぶ␯㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡿㄢ㢟㐩ᡂᣦྥ࠾ࡼࡧᑐே㛵ಀᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ̿
ࢶ࢛࢖࣭࢚࢝ࢸ࣮ࣜࢼ
ᮾிእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔༤ኈᚋᮇㄢ⛬tsoy@tufs.ac.jp

㸺Abstract㸼
This study explores two types of interaction in cooperative work between three participants withdifferent degree of intimacy. The first one is task solving-oriented interaction, occurred between
three participants not depending on their relationship. The second one is relationship-oriented
interaction. Here difference in linguistic behavior between co-workers in close relations andunfamiliar co-worker was found. There is a tendency for friends to maintain solidarity making
comments or discussing questions about the task. This type of relationship-oriented interaction
occurs mainly between participants in close relations. For this reason unfamiliar co-worker tries tokeep the interaction in task-solving orientation stimulating task solving with new proposals andideas.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚඹྠసᴗࠊ┦஫⾜Ⅽࠊㄯヰศᯒࠊ୕⪅㛫఍ヰࠊぶ␯㛵ಀ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ஫࠸ࡢ༠ຊ࡟ࡼࡗ୍࡚ࡘࡢ┠ⓗࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ」ᩘࡢཧຍ⪅ࡀඹྠ࡛సᴗࢆ⾜࠺ሙྜࡣࠊཧຍ
⪅㛫ࡢᑐே㛵ಀࢆ㓄៖ࡋࡓࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡸ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿࠋඹྠసᴗࡢሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒ⾜ືࡣࠊ௨๓࠿ࡽ♫఍ᚰ⌮Ꮫࡸᩍ⫱ᚰ⌮Ꮫ࡛ὀ┠ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊゝㄒ౑⏝ࢆᢅ࠺ㄯヰศᯒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣඹྠసᴗࢆᢅ࠺◊✲ࡣᑡ࡞࠸ࠋ ➹⪅ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢゝㄒ⾜ືࡀ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡢᑐே㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚つᐃࡉࢀࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊヰ⪅ࡢゝㄒ⾜ື࡟ࡼࡗ࡚఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡢ㛵ಀࡀኚືࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡑࢀᨾࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊඹྠసᴗ⪅ࡢᑐே㛵ಀࡢ㐪࠸࡟╔┠ࡋࠊศᯒࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕぶࠖࡢ㛵ಀ࡜ࠕ␯ࠖࡢ㛵ಀࡀྠ᫬࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ୕⪅㛫఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋศᯒ᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣㄯヰศᯒࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࠊඹྠసᴗ⪅ࡢぶ␯㛵ಀࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢᣦྥᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ㄢ㢟㐩ᡂ࡜ᑐே㛵ಀࢆ୰ᚰ࡟᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
2. ◊✲⫼ᬒཬࡧ┠ⓗ ඛ⾜◊✲࡟ࡣࠊඹྠసᴗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿලయⓗ࡞ゝㄒ౑⏝ࢆᢅ࠺ Fujii(2005,2012)ࡸࠊヰ⪅ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟↔
Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓ⇃㇂࣭ᮌ㇂(2010)ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
Fujii(2005,2012)ࡣ᪥ⱥࡢᑐ↷ศᯒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢゝㄒ⾜ືࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍࠊ␲ၥᩥࡸ⦆࿴⾲⌧ࡢከ⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡢሙྜࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀ୍᪉ⓗ࡟ヰࡍࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊヰࡋ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽᖖ࡟཯ᛂࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ┦஫⾜Ⅽ୰ᚰࠖ(interaction-centered)ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗ
ࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⇃㇂࣭ᮌ㇂(2010)ࡣࠊ୕⪅㠃᥋ㄪᰝࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⏝࠸ࠊ2 ேࡢᅇ⟅⪅ࡢぶ␯㛵ಀ࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ཭ேྠኈࡢᅇ⟅⪅ࡢሙྜࡣࠊ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡣάື┠ⓗࡢ㐩ᡂࢆᣦྥࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊึᑐ㠃ᅇ⟅⪅㛫ࡢሙྜࡣࠊ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡣ஫࠸ࡢ㛵ಀᵓ⠏ࢆᣦྥࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜
♧၀ࡀࡉࢀࡓࠋ
Fujii(2012)ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢゝㄒ⾜ືࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ┦஫⾜Ⅽ୰ᚰࠖࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ
ぢฟࡋࡓࡀࠊศᯒࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ஧⪅㛫఍ヰ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡣዪᛶࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⇃㇂࣭ᮌ㇂(2010)−97−

三者間の共同作業における言語行動―親疎関係による課題達成指向および対人関係指向の相互行為―

࡛♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡢぶ␯㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡀ␗࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
⇃㇂࣭ᮌ㇂(2010)࡛ࡣࠊྠࡌ఍ヰ࡟ཧຍࡋࡓᅇ⟅⪅ࡢ㛵ಀࡣࠕぶࠖ࠿ࠕ␯ࠖ
ࠊ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ➹⪅ࡣࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅࡟ぶ␯࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ2 ✀㢮ࡢ㛵ಀࡀྠ᫬࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿሙྜࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟╔┠ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡢேᩘࡣ᭱ప㝈 3 ே࡜ࡋࠊࡲࡓ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡢᙺ๭ࢆ⤫୍ࡉࡏࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ⇃㇂࣭ᮌ㇂(2010)ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ஧⪅㛫఍ヰ࡛ࡣヰࡋ┦ᡭࡀᚲ↛ⓗ࡟Ỵࡲࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
୕⪅㛫఍ヰ࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋ┦ᡭࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࡀቑ࠼ࠊ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡶከᵝ࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊぶ␯㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡿ㐪࠸ࡀࡼࡾ㢧ⴭ࡟⾲ࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊඹྠసᴗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୕⪅㛫ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥཬࡧࠊసᴗ⪅ࡢぶ␯㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊศᯒࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢ 2 Ⅼ࡟㓄៖ࡍࡿࠋ࣭୕⪅㛫఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࣭఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡢᙺ๭ࢆࠕඹྠసᴗ⪅࡛ࠖ⤫୍ࡉࡏࡿ3. ศᯒࢹ࣮ࢱ ศᯒࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࠊ2013 ᖺ 6 ᭶~2014 ᖺ 8 ᭶࡟ᮾிእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ࡟࡚཰㞟ࡋࡓࠋ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺࡣࠊ20௦ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࠊ⏨ዪྛ 15 ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡣྠᛶྠኈ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ3 ேࡢ࠺ࡕ 2 ேࡣࠊᏛᰯࡢ
ྠ⣭⏕ࠊࡲࡓࡣඖྠ⣭⏕ࠊ㒊άࡢ௰㛫➼ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ぶࡋ࠸㛵ಀࡢ཭ேྠኈࠊ3 ே┠ࡢヰ⪅ࡣ 2 ே࡜ࡣ඲ࡃ㠃㆑ࡢ࡞࠸ึᑐ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ඹྠసᴗࡢෆᐜࡣࠊ15 ศ࡛ 12 ᯛࡢ⤮࣮࢝ࢻࢆ୪࡭᭰࠼ࠊࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࢆసࡾୖࡆࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋస
ᴗࡢᵝᏊࡣ㘓㡢ཬࡧ㘓⏬ࡉࢀࠊ཰㞟ࡉࢀࡓ఍ヰᩘࡣ 10 ఍ヰ(⏨ዪྛ 5 ఍ヰ)࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢹ࣮ࢱ㔞ࡣ 104͛
16͜(M=10͛26͜)ࠊ2847 Ⓨヰᩥ(M=285.7)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

4. ศᯒ⤖ᯝཬࡧ⪃ᐹ ᮏࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟࠾ࡅࡿඹྠసᴗࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡣࠕㄢ㢟㐩ᡂࠖཬࡧࠕᑐே㛵ಀࠖ࡜࠸࠺ 2 ✀㢮ࡢᣦྥᛶࡀ
ぢࡽࢀࡓࠋసᴗࡀጞࡲࡿ๓࡟ཧຍ⪅࡟᫂☜࡞ㄢ㢟ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓࡢ࡛ࠊㄢ㢟㐩ᡂࡣసᴗࡢ┠ⓗ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊసᴗ⪅ࡢ୕⪅㛫࡛ࡣ┤᥋ㄢ㢟ゎỴ࡟⧅ࡀࡿㄢ㢟㐩ᡂᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡀ୺せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿
ࡋࠊࡑࡢ௚࡟ㄢ㢟ゎỴ࡟┤᥋⧅ࡀࡽ࡞࠸ࠊཧຍ⪅㛫ࡢ㛵ಀࢆᵓ⠏࣭⥔ᣢ࣭ㄪᩚࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢᑐே㛵ಀᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ
4.1 ㄢ㢟㐩ᡂᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ ㄢ㢟㐩ᡂᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡣࠊ┤᥋ㄢ㢟㐩ᡂ࡟⧅ࡀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜసᡂ᪉ἲࡸࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜ
సᡂࠊࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜ☜ᐃ➼࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡸࡾྲྀࡾࢆྵࡴࠋ సᴗࡢ୰ᚰ࡜࡞ࡿࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜసᡂ࡛ࡣ୺࡟ㄢ㢟㐩ᡂᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋඹྠ࡛ࢫࢺ࣮
࣮ࣜࢆసࡾୖࡆࡿ㝿ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡣࠊసᴗ⪅ࡀᢸ࠺ᙺ๭࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕᘬࡁ⥅ࡂసᡂࠖࠊࠕ༢⊂ⓗసᡂࠖࠊ
ࠕ⿵ຓⓗసᡂࠖ࡜࠸࠺ 3 ࡘࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟༊ู࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ௨ୗࡢ(1)ࡣࠕᘬࡁ⥅ࡂసᡂࠖࠊ(2)ࡣࠕ༢⊂ⓗసᡂࠖࠊ(3)ࡣࠕ⿵ຓⓗసᡂࠖࡢㄯヰ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕᘬࡁ⥅ࡂసᡂ࡛ࠖࡣࠊඹྠసᴗ⪅ 3 ே࡜ࡶࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࡢὶࢀ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᥦ᱌ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋヰ⪅ࡀᘬࡁ⥅ࡂ࡛᪂ࡋ࠸ᥦ᱌ࢆᣲࡆࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࢆⓎᒎࡉࡏࡿ(ㄯヰ౛࡛ࡣᥦ᱌ࡢⓎヰࢆࠕЍ࡛ࠖ♧ࡍ)ࠋ
(1) [⏨ᛶ఍ヰ 02]
Ѝ209 ཭ே B02
210
Ѝ211

ึᑐ㠃 02
཭ே A02

Ѝ212

཭ே A02ࡇࢀࠊࡾࢇࡈ࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࡗ࡚ࡿࢇࡌࡷ࡞࠸࡛ࡍ࠿ࠊࡸࡗࡥࡾࠋ

ᥦ᱌ձ<࡞ࡿ࡯࡝>{<}[Ń]ࠋ
<ࡇࢀ>{>}ࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿࣮ࠊࡇࢀࠊࡇ࠸,ࡇࢀࡀࡇࡗࡕ࡟ධࡿࡼ࠺࡞Ẽࡀࡍࡿࢇࡔࡼࡡࠊࡇࡢ㛫࡟??=ࠋ
=࡛ࠊࡇ࠸ࡘ࡜ࡇ࠸ࡘ࣮ࠊࠓỿ㯲 1.51 ⛊ࠔ㛵ಀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿<࡞࣮>{<}ࠋ

ᥦ᱌ղ

−98−

ᥦ᱌ճ

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Ѝ213
214
Ѝ215
216
Ѝ217

ึᑐ㠃 02
཭ே B02ึᑐ㠃 02
཭ே B02ึᑐ㠃 02<࠶ࡗ>{>}ࠊࡌࡷࡇࡇ࡛↓⌮ࡔࡗࡓ࠿ࡽ࣮ࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿ࠊࡇ࠺࣮,,࠶ࠊ㝤ᝏ࡞=ࠋ=࡞ࡗ࡚࣮,,
࡞ࡗ࡚ࠋ“ࡋࡻ࠺ࡀࡡ࣮࡞”࡜Ⓩሙࡍࡿ࡜࠿ࠋ

218

཭ே B02࡞ࡿ࡯࡝ࠋᥦ᱌մㄯヰ౛(1)࡛ࡣࠊ཭ே B02 ࡀ᭱ึࡢᥦ᱌ࢆᣲࡆ(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 209)ࠊࡑࡋ࡚཭ே A02 ࡣᘬࡁ⥆ࡁ࡛ 2 ࡘࡢᥦ
᱌ࢆ㏣ຍࡍࡿࠋึᑐ㠃 02 ࡣ཭ே A02 ࡢⓎヰ⤊஢ࢆぢィࡽ࠸ࠊⓎヰࢆ㔜ࡡࡘࡘ᪂ࡋ࠸ᥦ᱌ࢆ㏣ຍࡍࡿ(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 213,215,217)ࠋ
 ࠕ༢⊂ⓗసᡂ࡛ࠖࡣࠊඹྠసᴗ⪅ࡢ 1 ேࡣ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢᥦ᱌ࢆᣲࡆ⥆ࡅࠊ௚ࡢసᴗ⪅ࡢ 2 ேࡣᥦ᱌ࢆ
ࡏࡎࠊ┦ᵔࡸ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡑࢀ࡟ྠㄪࢆ♧ࡍࠋ(2) [ዪᛶ఍ヰ 07]
Ѝ 184 ཭ே B12
185
Ѝ 186
187
Ѝ 188
189
190
Ѝ 191
192
Ѝ 193
194
Ѝ 195

ึᑐ㠃 12
཭ே B12
ึᑐ㠃 12
཭ே B12
ึᑐ㠃 12
཭ே A12
཭ே B12
ึᑐ㠃 12
཭ே B12
཭ே A12
཭ே B12

196
197
Ѝ 198
199
200
Ѝ 201

཭ே A12
ึᑐ㠃 12
཭ே B12
཭ே A12
ึᑐ㠃 12
཭ே B12࡝࠺ࡋࡗࠊ࠶ࡗࠊࡌࡷ࣮ࠊࡇࢀ࣮཯ᑐ࡟ࡋ࡚࣮ࠊྲྀࢀࡡ࣮࡞ࡗ࡚࡚ࠊ▼ࠊື࠿࡞࠸࡞࣮ࠊ࡝࠺ࡋࡼ࠺࠿࡞ࡗ࡚ࠊࡶ࠺୍ᅇᡠࡗ࡚<ࡳࡓࡽࠊⴠࡕ࡚>{<},,<࠶࣮>{>},,
࡚࣮<㍍ࡃ➗࠸>ࠋ࡞ࡿ࡯࡝ࠋ࡛ࠊࢃ࣮࠸ࡗ࡚㣗࡭࡚࣮ࠊ࡛
࡛ࠊ2 ேࡶ⾜ࡗ࡚ࡳ<࡚࣮>{<},,<ࡳ࡚࣮>{>}ࠋ
<⾜ࡗ࡚>{>}ࡳ࡚࣮ࠋ
࡛ࡶࠊྲྀࢀ࡞<ࡃࡗ࡚࣮>{<},,<ྲྀࢀ࡞ࡃ>{>}<࡚࣮>{<}ࠋ
<ᒾ>{>}࡟⾜ࡃࢇࡔࡅ࡝࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࣮ࠊ࡛
࡛ࠊᒾࡢ<࡜ࡇ࡟ࡇࡢ࡛ࡗ࠿࠸ࡢࡀ>{<},,<ࡇࢀࠊື࠿࡞࠸ࡼࡗ࡚>{>}ࠋ
ࡶ࠺୍ᅇ᮶࡚࣮ࠊ
ࠓỿ㯲 1.11 ⛊ࠔ“ࡌࡷ୍⥴࡟ࡸࡗ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࡼ”ࡳࡓ࠸࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࠊ࡞
ࢇ࠿ࠊ㢦ࡣ᎘ࡑ࠺<➗࠸࡞ࡀࡽ>࡞ࢇࡔࡅ࡝࣮ࠋ
<➗࠸>
<➗࠸>
࡛࣮ࠊྲྀࡾ࡟⾜ࡗࡓࡽ࣮ࠊྲྀࢀࡓ࣮,,
ྲྀࢀࡓࠋ
࠶࣮ࠋ
ࡗ࡚࡞ࡿࠋ

 ㄯヰ౛(2)࡛ࡣࠊ཭ே B12 ࡣࠕ࡛ࠖࡢࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣭࣐࣮࣮࢝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࢱ࣮ࣥࢆ⥔ᣢࡋࡘࡘࠊ㐃⥆࡛」ᩘࡢᥦ᱌ࢆᣲࡆࡿࠋ཭ே A12 ࡜ึᑐ㠃 12 ࡣࠊᥦ᱌ࢆࡋ࡞࠸ࡀࠊୗ⥺࡛グࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ┦ᵔࡸ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚཭ே B12 ࡟ྠㄪࢆ♧ࡋࠊ཭ே B12 ࡢⓎヰࢆಁࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࠕ⿵ຓⓗసᡂ࡛ࠖࡣࠊඹྠసᴗ⪅ࡢ 1 ேࡣ୺㍈࡜࡞ࡿᥦ᱌ࢆᣲࡆࡿࡀࠊ௚ࡢసᴗ⪅ࡣ⿵ຓⓗ࡞᝟ሗࢆ௜ࡅຍ࠼ࠊඹྠ୍࡛ࡘࡢᥦ᱌ࢆ᏶ᡂࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(3) [⏨ᛶ఍ヰ 03]
Ѝ 128 ึᑐ㠃 03

ᒾࢆࠊ<࡞ࢇ࠿ᣢࡕୖࡆࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ>{<},,

129

཭ே B03<࠶ࡗࠊࡑࡢࡲࡲᒆ࠿࡞࠸,࠿ࡽ>{>}ࠋ

Ѝ 130

ึᑐ㠃 03ࡅ࡝ࠊࡔࡵ࡛࣮=ࠋ

131

཭ே A03=“ఱࡸࡗ࡚ࢇࡔ”<࡜࠿>{<}ࠋ

132

ึᑐ㠃 03<࠺ࢇ>{>}ࠋ

−99−

⿵ຓ
⿵ຓ

三者間の共同作業における言語行動―親疎関係による課題達成指向および対人関係指向の相互行為―

 ㄯヰ౛(3)࡛ࡣࠊึᑐ㠃 03 ࡣ୍ࡘࡢᥦ᱌ࢆᣲࡆࡿࠋࡑࡢ㏵୰࡛཭ே B03 ࡣⓎヰࢆ㔜ࡡࡘࡘࠊ⿵ຓⓗ᝟ሗ࡜ࡋ࡚࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡢ⾜ືࡢ⌮⏤ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ཭ே A03 ࡣ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮࡟ࢭࣜࣇࢆ୚࠼
ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ึᑐ㠃 03 ࡢᥦ᱌ࢆ⭾ࡽࡲࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ㄯヰ౛(1)~(3)࠿ࡽศ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ཭ேྠኈࡢヰ⪅ࡶึᑐ㠃ࡢヰ⪅ࡶ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ㄢ㢟㐩ᡂᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟ཧຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋㄢ㢟㐩ᡂᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡛ࡣࠊ3 ே࡜ࡶࠕඹྠసᴗ⪅ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྠ➼ࡢ❧ሙ࡛సᴗ࡟
ྲྀࡾ⤌ࢇ࡛࠾ࡾࠊぶ␯㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡿ㐪࠸ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
4.2 ᑐே㛵ಀᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ ᑐே㛵ಀᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡣཧຍ⪅㛫ࡢ㛵ಀᵓ⠏࣭⥔ᣢ࣭ㄪᩚࡢ㝿࡟⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏࢹ
࣮ࢱ࡛ࡣึᑐ㠃ࡢヰ⪅ࢆྵࡴ୕⪅㛫ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽཬࡧࠊึᑐ㠃ࡢヰ⪅ࢆྵࡲ࡞࠸཭ேྠኈࡢヰ⪅㛫ࡢࡳ࡛⾜ࢃࢀࡿᑐே㛵ಀᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ ࡲࡎࡣࠊึᑐ㠃ࡢヰ⪅ࢆྵࡴ୕⪅㛫ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢㄯヰ౛ࢆᣲࡆࡿࠋ(4)ࡣసᴗࡀ㛤ጞࡋࡓࡤ࠿ࡾࡢ㒊ศ࡛࠶ࡾࠊⅬ⥺ᯟෆࡢㄯヰ࡛ࡣసᴗ⪅ 3 ேࡀㄢ㢟ࡢෆᐜࢆ☜ㄆࡋྜࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(4) [⏨ᛶ఍ヰ 01]1
཭ே B012
ึᑐ㠃 01
3
཭ே A01
4
཭ே B01
5
཭ே A01
6
཭ே B01
7
཭ே A018
཭ே B01
9
཭ே A0110ึᑐ㠃 0111
཭ே B01
12
཭ே A01ࡌࡷࠊ࡝࠺ࡋࡼ࠺ࠊ<➗࠸࡞ࡀࡽ>࠿ࡅࡲࡍ࠿ࠋ
ࡣ࠸[ᑠࡉ࠸ኌ࡛]ࠋ
࠼ࡗࠋ
12 ᯛࠋ
12 ᯛࡢ<⤮ࢆ>{<},,<࠼ࡗ>{>}ࠋ
15 ศ௨ෆ࡟ࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࡀ<୪ࡪ>{<},,<ࡣ࣮>{>}ࠋ
ࡼ࠺࡟??,<ࡋ࡚࡜࠸࠺>{<}ࠋ
<୪ࡧ>{>}᭰࠼࡞ࡗࡉ࠸ࡗ࡚࠸࠺ㄢ㢟࡛ࡍࡡࠋࡣ࠸ࠋ࠺ࢇࠋ ㄢ㢟ෆᐜࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡋ࡚ඹྠసᴗ⪅㛫࡛ඹ᭷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣㄢ㢟ゎỴ࡟ࡶ⧅ࡀࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࡣከᑡࡢㄢ

㢟㐩ᡂᣦྥᛶࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊసᴗࡀጞࡲࡿ๓࡟సᴗ⪅ 3 ே࡜ࡶྠࡌᩥ❶࡛ㄢ㢟ෆᐜࢆ▱ࡽࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ┠ⓗࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᚲࡎࡋࡶㄢ㢟☜ㄆࡀᚲせ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋᐇ㝿࡟ㄢ㢟☜ㄆࢆࡏࡎ┤ࡕ࡟ゎỴ᪉ἲࡢヰࡋྜ࠸ࡸࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜసᡂ࡟ධࡿࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀ࠿ࡽඹྠ࡛సᴗ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࢆㄆ㆑ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡣࠊㄢ㢟☜ㄆࡣᑐே㛵ಀࢆᣦྥࡍࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡸࡾྲྀ
ࡾ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡣࠊ↓㞴࡟ึᑐ㠃ࡢヰ⪅࡜᥋ゐࡋࠊඹྠసᴗ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㛵ಀࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿࠋ ୍᪉ࠊ཭ேྠኈ࡛஫࠸ࡢぶࡋ࠸㛵ಀࢆㄆ㆑࣭⥔ᣢࡍࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊసᴗ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠕࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࠖ
ࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋㄯヰ౛(5)ࡣ཭ேྠኈࡀ⤮࣮࢝ࢻ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㏙࡭ྜ࠺ࢩ࣮࡛ࣥ࠶ࡿࠋ
(5) [⏨ᛶ఍ヰ 04]
4
཭ே B04
5
཭ே A046
ึᑐ㠃 04
7
཭ே B0489
཭ே B0410
11
཭ே B04ࡅࡗࡇ࠺㞴ࡋ࠸<ࡒ>{<}ࠋ
<ࡅࡗ>{>}ࡇ࠺ࡴࡎ࠸࡞࣮<➗࠸>ࠋ<➗࠸>ఱࡔࢁ࠺ࠊࣟࢩ࢔ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࢆឤࡌࡿ<➗࠸>ࠋࠓỿ㯲 5.37 ⛊ࠔ<㰯➗࠸>ࠓỿ㯲 2.32 ⛊ࠔ[ᑠࡉ࠸ኌ࡛]1ࠊ2ࠊࢇ࣮ࠋ

−100−

第17回大会発表論文集

12
13
14
15


཭ே B04
཭ே A04
཭ே B04第10号

ࠓỿ㯲 4.57 ⛊ࠔࡸࡗࡥࠊ12 ᯛከ࠸ࡼࡡࠋ
ࡅࡗࡇ࠺ࡴࡎ࠸࡞ࠋ
࠺ࢇࠋ ཭ேྠኈࡣࠊ○ࡅࡓゝⴥ㐵࠸࡛⤮࣮࢝ࢻ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㏙࡭ྜ࠸ࠊ஫࠸࡟ඹឤࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡇࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡛ࡣ 2 ேࡢぶࡋ࠸㛵ಀࡀ㢧ⴭ࡟⾲ࢀࠊึᑐ㠃ࡢヰ⪅ࡣࡸࡾྲྀࡾ࡟ཧຍࡏࡎࠊഐほ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚➗࠸࡛཯ᛂ♧ࡍࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࡣ཭ேྠኈ࡛⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࡀࠊึᑐ㠃ࡢヰ⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡶ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢሙྜࡣࠊึᑐ㠃ࡢヰ⪅࡜ࡢ㊥㞳ࡀ⦰ࡵࡽࢀࠊసᴗሙࡣ཭ዲⓗ࡞㞺ᅖẼ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ(6) [ዪᛶ఍ヰ 06]
327 ཭ே A11
328 ึᑐ㠃 11
329 ཭ே A11
330 ึᑐ㠃 11
331 ึᑐ㠃 11࡬࣮ࠊ㞴ࡋ࣮࠸<➗࠸>ࠋ
㞴ࡋ࠸<࡛ࡍࡡ>{<}ࠋ
<ࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ>{>}ࡀࡘ࠿࡞࠸<➗࠸>ࠋᮏᙜࡡ࣮ࠋ࡬࣮ࠊ࡝࠺<࡞ࡿࢇࡔࢁ࠺>{<}ࠋ

 ヰ⪅ࡣࠊពぢࡀᑐ❧ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿࠕᥦ᱌ࠖ➼ࢆ㑊ࡅࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ඹឤࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࠊάື࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ

ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚సᴗ⪅㛫࡛ㄪ࿴ࢆಖࡘࠋ ࡶ࠺୍ࡘࠊ཭ேྠኈ࡟≉ᚩⓗ࡛࠶ࡿᑐே㛵ಀᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡣ⤮࣮࢝ࢻࡸࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࡢࠕ᳨ウ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ(ㄯヰ౛(7))ࠋ
(7) [ዪᛶ఍ヰ 07]
42 ཭ே B1243 ཭ே A1244 ཭ே B1245 ཭ே A12
46 ཭ே B1247 ཭ே A1248 ཭ே B1249 ཭ே B12ࢇࠊࡇࢀࡗ,<➗࠸࡞ࡀࡽ>ศ࠿ࢇ࡞࠸ࠊఱࡢ<➗࠸࡞ࡀࡽ><ࢩ࣮ࣥ?>{<}ࠋ
<࡞ࢇ࠿>{>}ࠊࡇࢀࡣ,,࠺ࢇࠋ࡞ࢇ࠿ࠊᒾࢆ<㏥ࡅ࡚ࡿ>{<}ࠋ
<ື࠿ࡍ>{>}ࡔࢁ࠺ࡡࠋ
ࢇࠊ<ࡇࢀ 2 ࡘࠊࡇࡗࡕࡋ࠿>{<}࠙࠙ࠋ
ࠚ
ࠚ<ࡇࢀ…࠿ࡽࡢ>{>}ᒾࠋ
࡛ࡶࠊ୧᪉ᒾ[Ń]…ࠋ ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࡸ࣮࢝ࢻ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚୙᫂࡞Ⅼࢆ᳨ウࡋྜ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚཭ேྠኈࡀ㐃ᖏឤࢆ㧗ࡵࡘࡘࠊసᴗ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ཭ேྠኈࡢ㛵ಀࢆ⥔ᣢࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦྥࡍࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡣึᑐ㠃ࡢヰ⪅ࡣཧຍࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ␲ၥࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚┦ᡭ࡟୙ྠពࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊึᑐ㠃ࡢヰ⪅ࡼࡾࠊぶࡋ࠸㛵ಀࡢ཭ேྠኈ㛫ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀࠕ᳨ウࠖࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࡀ⏕ࡌࡸࡍ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
5. ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢᣦྥᛶࡢㄪᩚ
 4 ࡛ぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ཭ேྠኈࡢヰ⪅㛫ࡢࡳ࡛⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᑐே㛵ಀᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡣึᑐ㠃ࡢヰ⪅ࡀཧຍࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ୍᪉ࠊㄢ㢟㐩ᡂᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡣึᑐ㠃ࡢヰ⪅ࡶࠕඹྠసᴗ⪅ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ྠ➼࡞❧ሙ࡛ࡸࡾྲྀࡾ࡟ཧຍ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊึᑐ㠃ࡢヰ⪅ࡣ᪂ࡋ࠸ࠕᥦ᱌ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢᣦྥᛶࢆᑐே㛵ಀ࠿ࡽㄢ㢟㐩ᡂ࡬࡜ㄪᩚࡋ⥔ᣢࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࠋ(8)ࠊ(9)ࡣึᑐ㠃ࡢヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ┦஫సᴗࡢᣦྥ
ᛶࡢㄪᩚࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−101−

三者間の共同作業における言語行動―親疎関係による課題達成指向および対人関係指向の相互行為―

(8) [⏨ᛶ఍ヰ 02]273

཭ே A02

274
275
276
277
278
279
280
Ѝ 281
282
Ѝ 283

཭ே B02
཭ே A02ึᑐ㠃 02
཭ே A02
཭ே B02
཭ே A02ึᑐ㠃 02
཭ே B02ึᑐ㠃 02[㧗࠸ኌ࡛]ࡇࡢࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿ࠊ୙ᶵ᎘࡞⾲᝟ࡣ᳨ウఱ࡞ࢇࠊࡳࡓ࠸࡞ࠋ
ࡇࠊࡑࢀࡀ୍␒ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
<➗࠸࡞ࡀࡽ>ࡑࢀࡀ▱ࡽ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ,,࠺࣮ࢇࠋ<➗࠸࡞ࡀࡽ>ࡇࡢ࣮࢝ࢻࡢ఩⨨ࡣศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࢇࡔࡼࡡࠋ
ศ࠿ࢇ࡞࠸<➗࠸>ࠋࠓỿ㯲 7.03 ⛊ࠔ࠺࣮ࢇࠋ᥈ࡋ࡚ࡿࢇࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࡍ࠿ࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿ࠊ஌ࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞▼ࢆࠋᥦ᱌࠶࣮ࠋ“ࡕࡗࡕࡷ࠸ࡢࡋ࠿࡞࠸ࠊࡕࡗࡕࡷ࠸ࡢࡋ࠿࡞࠸”ࠓỿ㯲 0.78 ⛊ࠔࠊ ᥦ᱌࡛࠾࠾ࡗࡁ࠸ࡢ࠶ࡗࡓࡅ࡝=ࠋ ㄯヰ౛(8)ࡢⅬ⥺ᯟෆࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࡣ཭ேྠኈࡢヰ⪅ࡀ⾜࠺ࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࡢࠕ᳨ウ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋᑐே㛵ಀࢆᣦྥࡍࡿࠕ᳨ウࠖࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾ࡛ࡣ཭ேྠኈࡢ㐃ᖏឤࡀ㧗ࡲࡿࡀࠊࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜసࡾࡢసᴗࡀ⾜ࡁワࡲࡾ 7⛊࡯࡝ࡢỿ㯲ࡀⓎ⏕ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ึᑐ㠃 02 ࡣ᪂ࡋ࠸ᥦ᱌ࢆᣲࡆࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡑࡢᚋࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࡣㄢ㢟㐩ᡂᣦྥࡢࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜసᡂ࡟ᡠࡿࠋ ㄯヰ౛(9)࡛ࡣࠊึᑐ㠃ࡢヰ⪅ࡀసᴗ㛤ጞࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࠕᥦ᱌ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚┦஫⾜Ⅽࢆㄢ㢟㐩ᡂ࡬௙ྥࡅࡿ
ࡀࠊ཭ேྠኈࠕ᳨ウࠖ࡟ࡼࡿᑐேᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 7~14)࡟ධࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ
(9) [ዪᛶ఍ヰ 13]
Ѝ 3
ึᑐ㠃 134

5
཭ே A136
ึᑐ㠃 137
཭ே B138
9
཭ே A1310
཭ே B1311
཭ே A1312
཭ே B1313

14
཭ே A13
Ѝ 15
ึᑐ㠃 1316
཭ே A13
Ѝ 17
ึᑐ㠃 13ࡲࡎࠊ୍␒᭱ึࡢࢆỴࡵ࡞࠸࡜࠸ࡅ࡞࠸࡛ࡍࡡࠋ
ࠓỿ㯲 0.91 ⛊ࠔ[࠺࡞ࡎࡃ]࠺ࢇࠋ
ࡩࢇࠋࡩ࣮ࢇࠊࡇࢀࡣࠓỿ㯲 0.81 ⛊ࠔఱࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࠓỿ㯲 2.52 ⛊ࠔ࡝࠺࠸࠺ヰ࠿඲↛ศ࠿ࡽࢇ࡞࠸ࡅ࡝ࠋ
࡬࣮ࠋ<➗࠸><➗࠸>ࢇ࣮ࠋ
ࠓỿ㯲 1.62 ⛊ࠔ<ࡾࡗ,⏕ࡗ࡚ࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿>{<}࠙
࠙ࠋࠚ
ࠚ<࡜ࡾ࠶࠼ࡎ>{>}ࡇࡢ㎶ࡣࡾࢇࡈ㛵<ಀ࡛ࡍ>{<}ࠋ
<ࡾࢇࡈ>{>}<㛵ಀ࡛>{<},,<ࡲ࡜ࡵࡲࡋࡻࡗ>{>}<࠿>{<}ࠋ

ᥦ᱌

᳨ウ

ᥦ᱌
ᥦ᱌

 ࣛ࢖ࣥ 15 ࡛ࡣࠊึᑐ㠃 13 ࡣ཭ே A13 ࡢⓎヰࢆࡉ࠼ࡂࡾࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸ࠕᥦ᱌ࠖࢆᣲࡆࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ

཭ேྠኈࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾ࡟๭ࡾ㎸ࡳࠊ෌ࡧ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢᣦྥᛶࢆㄢ㢟㐩ᡂ࡟ྥࡅࡿࠋ௨㝆ࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾ࡛ࡣࠊ
཭ேྠኈࡢཧຍ⪅ࡣึᑐ㠃 13 ࡢᥦ᱌࡟ἢࡗ࡚సᴗࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࠋ ୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡟ඹྠసᴗࡢሙ㠃࡛ࡣㄢ㢟㐩ᡂࢆᣦྥࡍࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊヰ⪅㛫ࡢ㛵ಀࢆᣦྥࡍ
ࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡶ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ2 ࡘࡢᣦྥᛶࡀ➇ྜࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ ㄯヰ౛(10)ࡣࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜసᡂࡢ㏵୰࡛┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢᣦྥᛶࡀ➇ྜࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−102−

第17回大会発表論文集(10) [⏨ᛶ఍ヰ 01]
107 ཭ே A01
108 ཭ே B01
109 ึᑐ㠃 01
110 ཭ே A01
111 ึᑐ㠃 01
112 ཭ே A01
113 
114 ཭ே A01
ń

Ѝ

ń

115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126

཭ே B01
཭ே B01
཭ே A01
཭ே A01
཭ே B01
཭ே A01
཭ே A01
཭ே B01
཭ே B01ึᑐ㠃 01
཭ே A01ึᑐ㠃 01

第10号

࡛ࡶࠊ࡞ࢇࠊࡇࢀ࡜ࡇࢀࠊே≀ࡀ㐪࠺ࡼ࠺࡞Ẽࡀࡍࡿࠋ<➗࠸࡞ࡀࡽ>ࡲ
ࡲࠊࡲ<➗࠸>ࠋ<➗࠸>᛹ࡋ࠸ࠋ࠶ࢀࡌࡷ࣮ࠊ୍⥴ࡌࡷ࡞࠸࡛ࡍ࠿ࠋ୍⥴ࠋࠓỿ㯲 1.19 ⛊ࠔࡇࢀࡣࠊࡇࢀ࡜࣮ࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿ࠊࡇ࣮ࠊࡇࢀ࡜ࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿ࠊ
<➗࠸>
><ே
ே≀>
>{<}࠙
࠙ࠋ
ࠚࠚ<
<ࡇࢀ࡜>
>{>}ࡇࢀࠊ࡝ࡗ,ࠓỿ㯲 1.02 ⛊ࠔࢇࠊࡇ,ࡇࢀ?ࠋ
“ᒆ࠿࡞࠸”ࡘࡗ࡚࣮ࠊ࡛“ຓࡅࡲࡍࡼ”ࡘࡗ<࡚>{<},,<࡚>{>}ࠋ
ࡇࢀࠊࡇࢀࠊ<ࡢ,ࡢ>{<},,<࡜,ྲྀࡿ>{>}ࠋ
ఙࡧࡓࡗ࡚ࡇ࡜?<➗࠸>ࠋ
<➗࠸࡞ࡀࡽ>ࡍࡆ࣮ࠊ<㍍ࡃ➗࠸>᛹ࡋ࠸ࠋ
࡜ࠊࡇࢀࠊ࡝ࡗࡕࡀ࡝ࡗࡕ࡞ࡢ??ࠋ
࠶ࡗࠊ<ࡇ࠺>{<}?ࠋ
<ࡕࡗ>{>}ࡕࡷ࠸ࡢࡀ,,࠸ࡲࡍࡼࡡࠊ<࡛ࡗ࠿࠸ࡢ࡜>{<}ࠋ
<2 ࡘ>{>}࡜ࠊ࡛ࡗ࠿࠸ࡢࡀ 1 ࡘ࠸ࡿࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࠋ

᳨ウ

ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ


᳨ウ
ᥦ᱌

ᥦ᱌
᳨ウ
ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ
ᥦ᱌

 ୗ⥺ࡢⓎヰ࡛ࡣࠊ཭ே A01 ࡣࠕ᳨ウࠖࡸࠕࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࠖ࡟ࡼࡾᑐே㛵ಀᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࢆヨࡳࡿࡀࠊ཭ே B01 ࡣ཭ே A01 ࡢ␲ၥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㏉⟅ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿ(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 108)ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊึᑐ㠃 01 ࡶ཭ே A01 ࡢ␲ၥࢆ༷ୗࡍࡿ(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 111)ࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ཭ே A01 ࡣ㛫ࢆ࠾࠸࡚࠿ࡽ෌ࡧ␲ၥࢆᣲࡆࡿࡀࠊ཭ே B01
ࡣ཭ே A01 ࡢⓎヰࢆࡉ࠼ࡂࡾࠊࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿ(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 115)ࠋࣛ࢖ࣥ 118ࠊ120 ࡛ࡣ཭ேA01 ࡣࡶ࠺୍ᗘࠕ᳨ウࠖࡸࠕࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࠖࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡀࠊ཭ே B01 ࡣࡑࢀ࡟㏉⟅ࡏࡎࠊึᑐ㠃 01 ࡜ࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜసᡂ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴࠋ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ཭ே B01 ࡣᑐே㛵ಀᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࢆ࠶ࡁࡽࡵࠊㄢ㢟㐩ᡂᣦྥࡢࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜసᡂ࡟ཧຍࡍࡿ(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 125)ࠋ
6. ⤊ࢃࡾ࡟ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ୕⪅㛫ඹྠసᴗࡢ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⏝࠸࡚ヰ⪅ࡢぶ␯㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ㐪࠸ࢆศᯒࡋࡓࠋぶࡋ࠸㛵ಀࡢヰ⪅ࡣࠊࠕࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࠖࡸࠕ᳨ウࠖࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾ࡛ࡣ࡜ࡶ࡟␲ၥࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ
࡚ࠊ཭ேྠኈ㛫࡛㐃ᖏឤࢆ㧗ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡣࠊ┤᥋ㄢ㢟ゎỴ࡟ࡣ⧅ࡀࡽ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ཭ேྠኈ
ࡢヰ⪅ࡢぶࡋ࠸㛵ಀࢆ⥔ᣢࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊึᑐ㠃ࡢヰ⪅ࡣࠊ୍ࡘࡢ┠ⓗ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ㄢ㢟ゎỴ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ␯ࠖࡢ㛵ಀࡢ┦ᡭ࡜ඹྠసᴗ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㛵ಀᵓ⠏ࢆヨࡳࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ
࡟ࠊึᑐ㠃ࡢヰ⪅ࡣ᪂ࡋ࠸ࠕᥦ᱌ࠖࢆᣲࡆࠊ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢᣦྥᛶࢆㄢ㢟㐩ᡂ࡛⥔ᣢࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊసᴗ⪅ࡢぶ␯㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢᣦྥᛶࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊඹྠసᴗ୰࡟┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢᣦྥᛶࡀㄪᩚࡉࢀࡓࡾࠊ➇ྜࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ㛵ಀࡀぶࡋ࠸཭ேྠኈࡣసᴗࡀ㐍ࡳࡸࡍ࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࡜࠸࠺ண᝿࡟཯ࡋ࡚ࠊ཭ேྠኈࡢᑐ
ேᣦྥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡛ࡣసᴗࡀ⁫ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ᵝᏊࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࠖࡸࠕ᳨ウࠖࡀከࡃ⾜ࢃࢀࡓࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛ࡣࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࡀ᫬㛫ෆ࡟ฟ᮶ୖࡀࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ ⇃㇂࣭ᮌ㇂(2010)࡛ࡣࠊ཭ேྠኈࡢヰ⪅ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡣάື┠ⓗࡢ㐩ᡂࢆᣦྥࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊึᑐ㠃ᅇ⟅⪅ࡢヰ⪅ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡣ㛵ಀࡢᵓ⠏ࢆᣦྥࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅㛫࡟ࡣぶ␯࡜ࡶ࡟ 2 ✀㢮ࡢ㛵ಀࡀྠ᫬࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿሙྜࡣࠊࠕぶࠖࡢヰ⪅㛫ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡣᑐே㛵ಀᣦྥࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከࡃࠊ
ࠕ␯ࠖࡢ㛵ಀࡢヰ⪅ࡀཧຍࡍࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡣㄢ㢟㐩ᡂࢆᣦྥࡍࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋ  −103−

三者間の共同作業における言語行動―親疎関係による課題達成指向および対人関係指向の相互行為―

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Fujii, Y.2005. “How Japanese and American pairs co-construct stories: An overview of two different
types of collaboration”.᪥ᮏዪᏊ኱Ꮫⱥ⡿ᩥᏛ◊✲, 40, ᪥ᮏዪᏊ኱ᏛⱥㄒⱥᩥᏛ఍, 69-84.
Fujii, Y.2012. “Differences of situating Self in the place/ba of interaction between the Japanese andAmerican English speakers”. Journal of Pragmatics 44, 636–662.
Ᏹబ⨾ࡲࡺࡳ.2007.ࠕᨵゞ∧㸸ᇶᮏⓗ࡞ᩥᏐ໬ࡢཎ๎㸦Basic Transcription System for Japanese: BTSJ㸧
2007 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 31 ᪥ᨵゞ∧ࠖࠗㄯヰ◊✲࡜᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ᭷ᶵⓗ⤫ྜࡢࡓࡵࡢᇶ♏ⓗ◊✲࡜࣐ࣝࢳ࣓ࢹ
࢕࢔ᩍᮦࡢヨస࠘ᖹᡂ 15-18 ᖺᗘ ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠 ᇶ┙◊✲ B(2㸧㸦◊✲௦⾲⪅ Ᏹబ⨾ࡲࡺࡳ㸧◊✲ᡂᯝሗ࿌᭩㸬⇃㇂ ᬛᏊ,ᮌ㇂ ┤அ.2010.ࠗ୕⪅㠃᥋ㄪᰝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ̿┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡜ཧຍࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ̿࠘㸪ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
୰ᒣ຺ḟ㑻.1984.ࠕඣ❺ࡢ♫఍ᚿྥᛶ࣭ㄢ㢟ᚿྥᛶ࡜ඹྠㄢ㢟ゎỴ஦ែ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⾜ື࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖࠊࠗᩍ⫱ᚰ⌮Ꮫ◊✲࠘, 32:4,276-285.
ᯘᏯ⏨.2008.ࠗㄯヰศᯒࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ ⌮ㄽ࡜ᐇ㊶࠘ᮾி:◊✲⪅.
㝃㘓ᩥᏐ໬グྕࡢซ౛㸸ࠋ
Ⓨヰᩥࡀ⤊஢
,,Ⓨヰᩥࡢ㏵୰࡟┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࡀධࡗࡓሙྜ
,
▷࠸㛫
“ ”
ヰ⪅ཬࡧヰ⪅௨እࡢ⪅ࡢⓎヰ࣭ᛮ⪃ุ࣭᩿࣭▱ぬ࡞࡝ࡢෆᐜࡢᘬ⏝
?
␲ၥ
??
༙␲ၥ
[Ń][ń][Ņ]ୖ᪼ࠊᖹᯈࠊୗ㝆ࡢ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ
= =
ࣛࢵࢳࣥࢢ
…
ゝ࠸ࡼ࡝ࡳ
< >{<}
ඛ⾜Ⓨヰࡢ㔜࡞ࡾࡢ㒊ศ< >{>}
ᚋ⾜Ⓨヰࡢ㔜࡞ࡾࡢ㒊ศ࠙࠙      㐽ࡾࡢඛ⾜Ⓨヰࠚࠚ㐽ࡾࡢᚋ⾜Ⓨヰ
[ ]
ᩥ⬦᝟ሗ

−104−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

consideringࡢࡢ๓⨨モ࣭᥋⥆モ⏝ἲࡢඹ᫬ⓗ◊✲̿ࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿ᯘ ᬛ᫛ி㒔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔hayashi@hi.h.kyoto-u.ac.jp<Abstract>
This paper deals with prepositional and conjunctional uses of considering, which are regarded as grammaticalized formsof dangling participles of the verb consider, and provides a unified synchronic description of these two uses in terms ofregister. For this analysis, 173 examples where considering occurs in the front of the sentence are collected in the British
National Corpus (BNC) and analyzed with respect to the tagged register of each sentence. The results show that
prepositional and conjunctional uses of considering tend to be used in written texts, especially the conjunctional use in
spoken texts and newspapers. The fact that more than half of the collected examples are prepositional rather than verbal
suggests that considering is currently in the process of grammaticalization.
࠙Keywordsࠚ㸸ືモὴ⏕๓⨨モ࣭᥋⥆モࠊᩥἲ໬ࠊ⬺⠊␪໬ࠊࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᩥἲ໬ (grammaticalization) ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊconsidering ࡢ๓⨨モ࣭᥋⥆モ⏝ἲࡣࠊ㏻᫬ⓗ࡟ືモ࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿࠕືモὴ⏕๓⨨モ (deverbal prepositions)ࠖ(cf. Ᏻ⸨ 2005)ࠊ
ࠕືモὴ⏕᥋⥆モ (deverbal conjunctions)ࠖ
㸦cf. ᕝ
➃ 2001㸧ࡢ୍౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ㏻᫬ⓗ࡞Ⓨ㐩ࡀ᳨ウࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ (Kortmann and König 1992; Fukaya 1997; ⛅ඖ2002)ࠋ
considering ࡢ⏝ἲ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊศモ࣭๓⨨モ࣭᥋⥆モࡢ⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ
㸦Quirk et al. 1985㸧ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ௒ࡲ࡛༑ศ࡟㆟ㄽࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠊࢪࣕࣥࣝࠊࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡾࠊconsidering ࡢྛ⏝ἲࢆඹ᫬ⓗ࡟グ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢᵓᡂࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ2 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊᩥἲ໬ࡢ⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ
considering ࡢ⬺⠊␪໬ࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ
3 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ
considering ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ཰㞟ࡢ᪉ἲ࡜⤖ᯝࢆ♧ࡋࡓ࠶࡜࡛ࠊ
ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ୍⯡໬ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ4 ⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ௨ୖࡢ⠇ࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣᢅ࠼࡞࠿ࡗࡓၥ㢟ࠊ௒ᚋ࡟ṧࡉࢀࡓㄢ㢟࡞࡝ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠋ

2. ඛ⾜◊✲
2.1 considering ࡢ⬺⠊␪໬ࡢ⫼ᬒ Hopper and Traugott (1993, 2003) ࡛ࡣࠊconsidering ࡀ๓⨨モ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࠊྡモ࣭ືモ࡞࡝ࡢ୺せ࡞ᩥἲ⠊␪࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿᙧែㄽⓗ࣭⤫ㄒㄽⓗ≉ᛶࢆኻ࠸ࠊ๓⨨モ࣭᥋⥆モ࡞࡝ࡢ≉ᛶࢆࡶࡘࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠕ⬺⠊␪໬ (decategorialization)ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᩥἲ໬ࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡀ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢኚ໬ࡣࠕ⠊␪ᛶࡢ₞ḟኚᐜࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿ 1ࠋ
(1) ⠊␪ᛶࡢ₞ḟኚᐜ (cline of categoriality)
major category ( > intermediate category) > minor category(Hopper and Traugott 2003: 107)

 “major category” ࡣࠊྡモ࣭ືモࠊ“minor category” ࡣ๓⨨モ࣭᥋⥆モ࣭ຓືモ࣭௦ྡモ࣭ᣦ♧௦ྡモ࡞࡝

−105−

consideringの前置詞・接続詞用法の共時的研究―レジスターの観点から―ࡀᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠋᙧᐜモ࣭๪モࡣ୧⪅ࡢ୰㛫 “intermediate category” ࡟఩⨨ࡋࠊᙧᐜモࡣ㸦ศモⓗ㸧ືモ࠿ࡽࠊ๪モࡣሙᡤ (locative)࣭ᵝែ (manner) ࡞࡝ࢆ⾲ࡍྡモ࠿ࡽ㏻ゝㄒⓗ࡟ὴ⏕ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ࠶ࡽࡺ
ࡿ “minor category” ࡣࠊ㏻᫬ⓗ࡟ “major category” ࡀඖ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠕ୍᪉ྥᛶ⌮ㄽ㸦୍᪉ྥᛶࡢ௬
ㄝ㸧ࠖࡀ୺ᙇࡉࢀࡿ (ibid.)ࠋ
 ࡲࡓࠊHopper (1991) ࡛ࡣࠊ(2) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟୺⠇࣭ᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ୺ㄒࡀ୍⮴ࡋ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ๓⨨モ࡬ࡢ⬺⠊␪໬ࢆ♧ࡍドᣐ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(2) ࡢ considering ࡣ๓⨨モ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࠊືモ ‘to consider’ࡢ≉㉁ࡀࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
(2) Considering its narrow beam, the boat is remarkably sea-worthy.

(ibid.: 31) ࡛ࡣࠊconsidering ࡢศモ⏝ἲ࡜ࠊ(2) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞๓⨨モ⏝ἲࡢ㛵ಀࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
⛅ඖ (2002) ࡣࠊOED CD-ROM ࠿ࡽࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ᥇ྲྀࡋࠊconsidering ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ṔྐⓗⓎ㐩࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠸ࠊᮏ᮶ືモᛶࡢ㧗࠸⌧ᅾศモ࠿ࡽࠊ୺ㄒᨭ㓄ࢆཷࡅ࡞࠸ࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿᠱᆶศモ (dangling participle) ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࠿ࡽࠊ୺⠇࡜ࡣ↓㛵ಀ࡞๪モⓗ⮬⏤௜ຍモ࡬࡜ኚ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ๓⨨モⓗ≉ᚩࢆࡶࡘ࡟⮳ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⬺⠊␪໬ࡀ㉳ࡁࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ (ibid.: 190)ࠋ⬺⠊␪໬ࡢ㐣⛬࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣᵓ㐀ୖࡢ᭕᫕ᛶ
ࡀ⏕ࡌࠊࡑࡢ㐣⛬࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊືモⓗᶵ⬟࡜๓⨨モⓗᶵ⬟ࡀ୪Ꮡࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ⛅ඖ (2002: 185Ѹ190) ࡣࠊconsidering ࡣ኱㒊ศ୺ㄒ࡟ேࢆྲྀࡿࡓࡵࠊ⌧ᅾศモ࡟ࡶྲྀࢀࡿ᭕᫕࡞౛ࡀ࠶ࡿ
࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞᭕᫕ᛶࡣࠊ᫬௦ࡀ⤒ࡘ࡟ࡘࢀ࡚࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡶ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢ୪
Ꮡ㛵ಀࡣࠊ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡟ࡲ࡛ᘬࡁ⥅ࡀࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡿࠋ
2.2 ࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ ືモὴ⏕๓⨨モ㸭᥋⥆モࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊಶู஦౛ࡢグ㏙ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ஦
౛࡟≉ᚩⓗ࡞ࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢゝཬࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊෆ⏣ (2003) ࡣࠊࣉࣞࢫ࡜Ꮫ⾡ㄽᩥࡢ᝟ሗᩓᩥࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ including ࡢศᯒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕ୍⯡ⓗ࡞஦ᐇ࡜ࡼࡾලయⓗ࡞஦ᐇࢆ㠀ᖖ࡟⡆₩࡞ᙧ࡛ิᣲࡋࠊࡑࡇ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿព࿡㛵ಀࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁࡿ including ࡢศ㞳ᚋ⨨⏝ἲࡀࠊᏛ⾡ㄽᩥࡸࣉࣞࢫ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ᝟ሗᩓᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚㧗㢖ᗘࢆ♧ࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᙜ↛ࡢᖐ⤖࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ (ibid.: 118)ࠋࡲࡓࠊᕝ➃ (2001) ࡣࠊprovided / ing ࡢ᥋⥆モ⏝ἲࡣἲᚊᩥ᭩࡛ࡢࡳ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓྜ᥋モⓗ࡞⏝ἲ࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ(ibid.: 117)ࠋ௨ୖࡢ◊✲⫼ᬒࢆཷࡅࠊᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊconsidering ࡢඹ᫬ⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿྛ⏝ἲ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊࢪࣕࣥࣝࠊࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽࠊ⪃ᐹࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

3. ஦౛◊✲ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊලయⓗ࡞ศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡲࡎࠊ3.1 ⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊศᯒࡢ᪉ἲ࡜ᡭ㡰ࢆ㏙࡭ࠊ3.2 ⠇࡛⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹࢆ♧ࡍࠋ
3.1 ศᯒࡢ᪉ἲ࡜ᡭ㡰 ௨ୗ࡛ࠊconsidering ࡢ๓⨨モ࣭᥋⥆モ⏝ἲࢆࠊࢪࣕࣥࣝࠊࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ௒ᅇࡣࠊ
British National Corpus (BNC) ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ⏕㉳఩⨨ࡀᩥ㢌࡛࠶ࡿ considering ࡟⤠ࡗ࡚ศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ 2ࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊᩥ㢌⏕㉳ࡢ considering ࡣ 173 ౛ࡳࡘࡅࡽࢀࡓࠋࡑࢀࡽࡢ౛࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊࡲࡎࠊ㛫ᢞモࠊᤄධྃⓗ⏝ἲࠊ㠀ᩥࢆ㝖ࡁࠊṧࡾ 168 ౛ࢆศᯒࡋࡓࠋࡑࢀࡽ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ๓⨨モ⏝ἲ㸦NP ࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࡶࡢ㸧(3) ࡜᥋⥆モ⏝ἲ㸦⠇ࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࡶࡢ㸧(4) ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࠊ࠿ࡘࠊ๓⪅࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᩥ⬦࡞࡝ࢆཧ↷ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ୺ㄒࡀ୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊ୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࠿ࢆุᐃࡍࡿࠋᚋ⪅࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ⠇ࡀ that ⠇⿵㒊ࢆ࡜ࡿࡶࡢࠊthat ࡀ┬␎−106−第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࠊhow ࢆ࡜ࡿࡶࡢ࡟ศ㢮ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ(3) a. ๓⨨モ⏝ἲ㸦୺ㄒ୍⮴㸧: [considering + NP] ࡢᙧᘧ࡜࡞ࡿࡶࡢࡢ࠺ࡕ୺⠇࣭ᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ㸦ព࿡ୖࡢ㸧୺ㄒࡀ୍⮴ࡍࡿࡶࡢࠋ
b. ๓⨨モ⏝ἲ㸦୺ㄒ୙୍⮴㸧: (5) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ[considering + NP] ࡢᙧᘧ࡜࡞ࡿࡶࡢࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ୺⠇࣭ᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ㸦ព࿡ୖࡢ㸧୺ㄒࡀ୍⮴ࡋ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࠋ
(4) ᥋⥆モ⏝ἲ: [considering + S+V…] ࡢᙧᘧࢆ࡜ࡿࡶࡢࠋconsidering that, considering㸦that ┬␎㸧ࠊconsidering
how + S + V…ࡶྵࡴࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(5) (6) ࡣࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡓ஦౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(5) a. Considering the confines of their budget, I thought it was a good one.
b. Considering techniques of smelting, fuel and raw materials, workers and their families, why were each of theserecent decisions made?
(6) a. Considering that this was written at a time when Pound's reputation was eclipsed as Eliot's rose towards thezenith, the generosity of this essay, its lack of rancour, is admirable.
b. Considering there was no one to look after her at Lomond View, I decided that the best place for her was withme.
c. Considering how closely the band had worked with Charman over the past three years, their method of
dismissing him seems to have been unduly formal in the circumstances.
(BNC)              (5a) ࡣ୺⠇࣭ᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ୺ㄒࡀ୍⮴ࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿ 3ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕศモᵓᩥࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶
ࡾࠊືモⓗᶵ⬟ࡀṧᏑࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(5b) ࡣࠊ(5a) ࠿ࡽᩥἲ໬ࠊ⬺⠊␪໬ࡀࡼࡾ㐍ࢇࡔࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
considering ࡀ๓⨨モ࡜ࡋ࡚౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(5b) ࡢ౛ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ୺⠇ࡢ୺ㄒࡣ each of these recent decisions࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ୺ㄒࡣࠊⓎヰ⪅㸦ヰࡋᡭ㸧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୺⠇࣭ᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ୺ㄒࡀ୍⮴ࡋ࡞࠸ศモࡣࠕᠱᆶศモ (dangling participle)ࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࠊつ⠊ᩥἲ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㑊ࡅࡿ࡭ࡁ࡜ࡉࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿ㸦cf. Ᏻ⸨ 2005: 247; ᪩℩ 2007, 2009㸧ࠋࡲࡓࠊ᥋⥆モ⏝ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ(6a) ࡣࠊconsidering that+ S + V…,(6b) ࡣࠊ
considering + S + V…, (6c) ࡣࠊconsidering how + S + V…ࡢ஦౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋQuirk et al. (1985: 1002) ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽືモὴ⏕᥋⥆モࡣࠊࠕ࿘⦕ⓗᚑ఩᥋⥆モ (marginal subordinators) ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
considering ࡢ┤ᚋ࡟ that, how ࡞࡝ࡢ᥋⥆モ࡜ᚋ⥆ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢᩥἲⓗ࡞ศ㢮࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊBNC ࡛ࢱࢢ࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮ࡢศ㢮࡜㛵㐃࡙ࡅࡿ 4ࠋ
3.2 ⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹ ௨ୖࡢศᯒࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࡶࡢࡀㄽᩥᮎ Appendix ࡢ⾲ 1 ࠿ࡽ 9 ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢ
⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ᥎ᐹ࡛ࡁࡿ௬ㄝࢆ 4 ࡘᥦ♧ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ[A] considering ࡢ๓⨨モ࣭᥋⥆モ⏝ἲࡣࠊ᭩ࡁゝⴥ㸦≉࡟࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡࡢศ㔝㸧࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋ
⾲ 10 ࡢ BNC ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ඲యࡢࢪࣕࣥࣝ࡜ࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮࡟࠾ࡅࡿศᕸࢆぢࡿ㝈ࡾ㸦ヰࡋゝⴥࡀ඲యࡢ๭ 1 ๭ࢆ༨ࡵࡿ㸧ࠊ⾲ 2 ࡢ᭩ࡁゝⴥࡢᩘ㸦168 ౛㸧ࡣࠊヰࡋゝⴥ㸦5 ౛㸧࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ከ࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⾲ 4 ࡼࡾࠊ−107−

consideringの前置詞・接続詞用法の共時的研究―レジスターの観点から―

considering ࡢ๓⨨モ⏝ἲࡀࠊ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡ࡟࠾࠸࡚ 34 ౛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ≉࡟ࠊ୺ㄒ୙୍⮴ࡀ 27 ౛࡜኱༙ࢆ༨ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡼࡾᩥἲ໬ࡀ㐍⾜ࡋ࡚๓⨨モ࡟㏆࡙࠸ࡓ⏝ἲࡢ᪉ࡀᏛ⾡ⓗ࡟ዲࡲࢀࡿ࡜ண ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
[B] considering ࡀᩥ㢌࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁࠊ࠾ࡼࡑ༙ศ௨ୖࡀ๓⨨モ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ୰࡛୺ㄒ୙୍⮴ࡀ࠿࡞ࡾከࡃࢆ༨ࡵࡿࠋ
⾲㸯࡛ࡳࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᩥ㢌 considering ࡢ඲యࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ 6 ๭ᙅࡀ๓⨨モ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ୰ࡢ 7 ๭ᙉࡀ୺ㄒ୙୍⮴࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟๓⨨モ࡜ࡋ࡚౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡀ඲యⓗ࡟ከ࠸ࠋ[C] ᩥ㢌࡟⏕㉳ࡋࡓ considering ࡣືモ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࠊ๓⨨モࡸ᥋⥆モ࡜ࡋ࡚౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⾲ 1 ࡼࡾࠊ๓⨨モ⏝ἲ㸦୺ㄒ୙୍⮴㸧ࠊ᥋⥆モ⏝ἲ㸦that ┬␎㸧ࡀࠊ඲⏝౛୰ࡢ 53.8%࡜࠸࠺㐣༙ᩘࢆ༨ࡵ
ࡿ࡜ࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊconsidering ࡀᩥἲ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦᭱୰㸧࡜࠸࠺᫂ⓑ࡞஦ᐇࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࠋ[D] that ┬␎ࡢ᥋⥆モ⏝ἲࡣࠊヰࡋゝⴥࡸ㸦ᩥᏐᩘࢆῶࡽࡋࡓ࠸㸧᪂⪺࡟࠾࠸࡚㢧ⴭ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ
๓⨨モ⏝ἲࠊ᥋⥆モ⏝ἲ඲࡚࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊヰࡋゝⴥ࡛ぢࡘ࠿ࡗࡓࡢࡣ 3 ౛࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡣࡍ࡭࡚᥋⥆モ⏝ἲ㸦that ┬␎㸧࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ⾲ 7 ࡛᥋⥆モ⏝ἲ㸦that ┬␎㸧࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ᪂⪺࡛ࡼࡃ౑ࢃࢀࡿࡢࡀ
ࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ⣬㠃ࡀ㝈ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾᏐᩘࡢไ㝈ࢆࡶࡘ᪂⪺࡜࠸࠺፹యࡢᛶ㉁ࠊ఍ヰ࡞࡝࡛┬␎ࡀዲࡲࢀࡿ
࡜࠸࠺ഴྥࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

4. ⤖ㄒ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊconsidering ࡢᩥ㢌⏕㉳஦౛ࢆ BNC ࡟࡚ᢳฟࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊ๓⨨モ࣭᥋⥆モ⏝ἲࡢศ㢮ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࢪࣕࣥࣝࠊࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋconsidering ࡢ๓⨨モ⏝ἲࡣᏛ⾡ㄽᩥࡢ⏝ἲࡀከ࠸࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࡣࠊprovided / providing that ࡀᩥᏛసရࡸබⓗᩥ᭩࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸࡜࠸࠺ᕝ➃ (2001)ࠊincludingࡢศ㞳ᚋ⨨⏝ἲࡀᏛ⾡ㄽᩥࡸࣉࣞࢫ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ᝟ሗᩓᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚㧗㢖ᗘࢆ♧ࡍ࡜࠸࠺ෆ⏣ (2003) ࡢᣦ᦬࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊືモὴ⏕๓⨨モ࣭᥋⥆モࡣࠕ᭩ࡁゝⴥࠖࢆ୰ᚰ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ഴྥࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࠋ ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ(i) ᩥ୰ࡸᩥᮎ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ considering ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ศᕸࢆ♧ࡍࡢ࠿ࠊ(ii) ௚ࡢືモὴ⏕๓⨨モ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ᮏ✏࡜ྠᵝࡢㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࡜ࡁࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩘ್ࡢᕪ␗ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ(iii) ୺⠇ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㡯࣭ἲ࣭᫬ไ࣭↷ᛂࢆ࡜ࡿ࠿࡞࡝ࠊ௚࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࣃ࣓࣮ࣛࢱ࣮ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ(iv) considering ࡢ๪モ⏝ἲ (cf. Kawabata 2003) ࡜ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ(v) ௚ࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ᐇドᛶࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࠊ࡞࡝ࡉࡽ࡞ࡿ᳨ウࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ

ὀ
1. cline of categoriality ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ⠊␪ᛶࡢ₞ḟኚᐜࠖ࡜࠸࠺ヂㄒࡣࠊ᪥㔝 (2003) ࡟ࡼࡿࠋ2. ᳨⣴ᑐ㇟ࢆᩥ㢌࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ considering ࡢࡳ࡟⤠ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ୺ㄒࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ᠱᆶศモⓗ࡞஦౛࡬࡜ศᯒᑐ㇟ࢆ⤠ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ୺⠇࣭ᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ୺ㄒࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ஦౛ࢆ㝖ࡃసᴗࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡾࠊࡑࡢࡓࡵ࡟ (3ab) ࡢศ㢮ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊࡇࡢᡭἲ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
ࡣࠕ୺⠇ࡢ୺ㄒࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᠱᆶⓗศモⓗ࡞஦౛ࠖࡀ᳨ฟࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ௒ᚋࡢ
ㄢ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࠊᮏ✏ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ẚ㍑ᑐ↷ࡋࠊศᕸୖࡢᕪ␗ࢆ᳨ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ−108−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

3. (5a) ࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ࡣࠊ୺⠇୺ㄒࡀ௦ྡモ࡛࠶ࡿ஦౛ࡀྵࡲࢀࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ୺⠇୺ㄒࡀ௦ྡモ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡔࡅ
࡛ࡣࠊ(5a) ࢱ࢖ࣉ࠿ (5b) ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆỴᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟ὀពࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ୺⠇୺ㄒࡀ௦ྡモ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ(i) (ii) ࡞࡝ࡢ౛ࡣ (5b) ࡜ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡿࠋ(i) Considering the other sensory systems of cetaceans, they appear to have no sense of smell, for they lack any
obvious olfactory organ, olfactory nerve or olfactory cerebral centre.
(ii) Considering the additional confusion caused by much industrial nomenclature, with many trivial and trade
names, it is not surprising that many formulators prefer to stick with what they know and trust.
(BNC)
4. ᮏ✏ࡢศᯒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ๓⨨モ⏝ἲ࣭᥋⥆モ⏝ἲࡢศ㢮࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ(3) (4) ࡢᇶ‽࡟ࡼࡾⴭ⪅ࡀ⊂⮬࡟⾜ࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊࢪ࣭ࣕࣥࣝࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊBNC ࡢྛ౛ᩥ࡟ࢱࢢ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡓศ㢮࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࠋ
Ⓨ⾲ᚋࠊࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢ౛ᩥ࡟ࢱࢢ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡓ᝟ሗࡀࠊゝㄒᏛⓗศ㢮ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜୙㐺ษ࡛࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆࡈᣦ᦬㡬࠸ࡓࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠕ᭩ࡁゝⴥ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠕヰࡋゝⴥࠖⓗ࡞⾲⌧ࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࡿࣈࣟࢢࠊࠕヰࡋゝⴥ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠕ᭩ࡁゝⴥࠖⓗ࡞⾲⌧ࡀከࡃࡳࡽࢀࡿ኱⤫㡿ࡢ₇ㄝ࡞࡝ࡢ஦౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࡣࠊBiber et al. (1999) ࡢࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽࠊヲ⣽࡟᳨ウࢆ⾜࠺ᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋㅰ㎡
 ᮏ✏ࡢෆᐜࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 17 ᅇ኱఍㸦2014 ᖺ 11 ᭶ 29-30 ᪥ࠊி㒔ࣀ࣮ࢺࣝࢲ࣒ዪᏊ኱Ꮫ㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ◊✲Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊຍ➹࣭ಟṇࢆ᪋ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྖ఍ࢆᢸᙜࡋ࡚ୗࡉࡗࡓ⏣୰ᘅ᫂ඛ⏕ࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊ㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆୗࡉࡗࡓᐑ⃝Ὀᙪඛ⏕ࠊ㧘ᶫⱥගඛ⏕࡟ࠊࡇࡢሙࢆ೉ࡾ࡚ཌࡃᚚ♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ⲡ✏ࡢẁ㝵࡛㇂୍ཱྀ⨾ඛ⏕ࠊᮌᮏᖾ᠇Ặ࡟㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋ㯮⏣୍ᖹẶ࡟ࡣᮏ✏ࡢࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ຓゝࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ◊✲Ⓨ⾲ࡢᛂເ࠿ࡽࠊࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒࡢᡭἲࠊ◊✲Ⓨ⾲ࡢ‽ഛ࡟⮳ࡿࡲ࡛ࠊᩘከ
ࡃࡢ᭷┈࡞ຓゝࢆ㡬࠸ࡓⳢ㇂཭ுẶࡢຊῧ࠼࡞ࡋ࡟ࡣࠊᮏ◊✲ࡣᡂ❧ࡋᚓ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋⓙᵝ࡟ᚰࡼࡾឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿḟ➨࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙜ↛ࡢࡇ࡜࡞ࡀࡽࠊᮏ✏࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୙ഛࡣ඲࡚➹⪅࡟ᖐࡍࡿࠋ
Appendix−109−

consideringの前置詞・接続詞用法の共時的研究―レジスターの観点から―−110−第17回大会発表論文集

−111−

第10号

consideringの前置詞・接続詞用法の共時的研究―レジスターの観点から―

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩⛅ඖᐇ἞. 2002. ࠗᩥἲ໬࡜࢖ࢹ࢕࣒࢜໬࠘ᮾி: ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
Ᏻ⸨㈆㞝. 2005. ࠗ⌧௦ⱥᩥἲㅮ⩏࠘ᮾி: 㛤ᣅ♫.
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English.
Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Fukaya, Teruhiko. 1997. “The Emergence of -ing Prepositions in English: A Corpus-Based Study.” In Masatomo Ukaji,
Toshio Nakao, Masaru Kajita and Shuji Chiba (eds.) Studies in English Linguistics: A Festschrift for Akira Ota on
the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, 285-300. Tokyo: Taishukan.
᪩℩ᑦᏊ. 2007. ࠕⱥㄒᠱᆶศモ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠗ୺ほⓗ࠘どⅬࠖࠊἙୖㄋస࣭㇂୍ཱྀ⨾㸦⦅㸧ࠗࡇ࡜ࡤ࡜どⅬ࠘
77-90. ᮾி: ⱥᐆ♫.
᪩℩ᑦᏊ. 2009. ࠕᠱᆶศモᵓᩥࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿࠗෆ࠘ࡢどⅬࠖࠊᆤᮏ⠜ᮁ࣭᪩℩ᑦᏊ࣭࿴⏣ᑦ᫂㸦⦅㸧ࠗࠕෆࠖ࡜ࠕእࠖࡢゝㄒᏛ࠘55-97. ᮾி: 㛤ᣅ♫.
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. “On Some Principles of Grammaticization.” In Elizabeth Traugott Closs and Bernd Heine (eds.)
Approaches to Grammaticalization 1: 17-35. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C. Traugott 1993. Grammaticalization (1st edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.㸦᪥㔝㈨ᡂ㸦ヂ㸧ࠗᩥἲ໬࠘஑ᕞ኱Ꮫฟ∧఍ࠊ2003㸧
Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C. Traugott 2003. Grammaticalization (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
ᕝ➃᭸ᗈ. 2001. ࠕⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿືモὴ⏕᥋⥆モࡢⓎ㐩࡜ᩥἲ໬: provided / providing ࡢ᥋⥆モ⏝ἲࠖ
ࠊ⛅ඖᐇ
἞㸦⦅㸧
ࠗᩥἲ໬——◊✲࡜ㄢ㢟——࠘97-119. ᮾி: ⱥ₻♫.
Kawabata, Tomohiro. 2003. “On the development of considering: The prepositional, conjunctive and adverbial usages.”
In Studies in Modern English (The Twentieth Anniversary Publication of the Modern English Association),139-152. Tokyo: Eichosha.
Kortmann, Bernd and Ekkehard König. 1992. “Categorial Reanalysis: the Case of Deverbal Prepositions.” Linguistics
30: 671-697.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvick. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.
London: Longman.
ෆ⏣඘⨾. 2003.ࠕBrown, LOB, FROWN, FLOB ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢ-ing ᆺ๓⨨モ: including ࡢ⏝ἲࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠖࠊࠗዪᏊ኱ᩥᏛ ⱥㄒᏛⱥ⡿ᩥᏛ⠍࠘4: 101-122.

㎡᭩࣭ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡞࡝
British National Corpus㸦https://the.sketchengine.co.uk ࡼࡾ฼⏝㸧

−112−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号⩦័ࢆ⾲ࡍⱥㄒ㐍⾜ᙧࡢ஦ែゎ㔘ࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ᥎ㄽࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ཎ⏣౫Ꮚᮾி㟁ᶵ኱Ꮫ

<Abstract> This paper investigates the interpretational difference of progressive form in English, especially thedifference between the basic meaning of the progressive form, that is indicating a situation in progress) andthe habitual or repetitive meaning. The main question concerned with is how these interpretations of the
progressive form are motivated and which semantic “clue” is determine the habitual or repetitive
interpretation. The answer to this question is that there are two types of habitual interpretation in the
progressive form and the type of situation distinguishes them. When the situation represented in a
proposition includes the result of the event, it interprets the habitual or repetitive meaning of one particularaction and when it doesn’t, it interprets the habitual or repetitive meaning of a kind of action. When aproposition represents only action, it interprets the action in progress.

࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ1㸬࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ 2㸬㐍⾜ᙧ 3㸬஦ែゎ㔘 4㸬どⅬ 5㸬ࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ୍᫬ⓗ࡞⩦័ⓗ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾲ࡍ㐍⾜ᙧࡢ⏝ἲ࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚ࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡞ព࿡࡛࠶ࡿ㐍⾜୰ࡢືసࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ἲ࡜ࡢព࿡ⓗ㛵ಀࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࡑࡢゎ㔘ࢆືᶵ௜ࡅࡿせᅉࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ ⱥㄒࡢ㐍⾜ᙧࡀ always ࢆకࡗࡓሙྜࠊࠕ࠸ࡘࡶࠥࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࡇࡢ⏝౛ࡣࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡢ୰࡛ࡶ≉Ṧ࡞౛࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࡀࠊ㐍⾜ᙧ࡜࠸࠺ྠࡌᙧᘧ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ࡟ࡣࠊᇶᮏⓗព࿡࡛࠶ࡿࠊືసࡀ
㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍᶵ⬟࡜ࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢព࿡ⓗゎ㔘ⓗඹ㏻Ⅼࢆᣢࡘࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ᮶ࠊືసࡀ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍ㐍⾜ᙧࡀࠊ࡞ࡐࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡢ࠿ࠊࡇࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ἲࡀࠊ㐍⾜୰ࡢືసࢆ⾲ࡍᇶᮏⓗ࡞ព࿡࡜ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ඹ㏻ࡍࡿせ⣲ࢆᣢࡕࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞せᅉ࡟ࡼࡾࠊゎ㔘ࡣ༊ูࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡀ஦ែࡢ࡝ࡢ㒊ศࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿㸦Blakemore 1987㸧ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ1㸬ᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺⌧㇟ ᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺㐍⾜ᙧࡣࠊ஦ែࡀ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࠋ(1)a. He paints a picture.
b. He is painting a picture.
c. He is always painting a picture.

(1a)ࡣࠊᙼࡀ⩦័ⓗ࡟⤮ࢆ᭩࠸࡚࠸ࡿ≧ែࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ(1b)ࡣ⌧ᅾᙼࡀ⤮ࢆᥥ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ᭱୰࡛࠶ࡿ஦ࢆ
⾲ࢃࡍࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊྠࡌ㐍⾜ᙧ࡛࠶ࡿ(1c)ࡶࠊalways ࢆక࠸ᙼࡀ࠸ࡘࡶ⤮ࢆᥥ࠸࡚ࡤ࠿ࡾ࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࠋࡇࡢ
ሙྜࠊᙼࡀᖖ࡟⤮ࢆᥥࡃ஦ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ⥅⥆ⓗ࡟⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ⤮ࢆᥥ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࠋ Leech(2002)ࡣࠊⓎヰࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺゎ㔘ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡢᇶᮏⓗព࿡ࢆࠕ஦ែࡀ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࠿ࡽձ஦ែࡀ୍᫬ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊղ஦ែࡀᮍ᏶஢࡛࠶ࡿ
஦ࠊࢆྵពࡍࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢୖ࡛ࠊ(1c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⏝౛ࢆࠊ⩦័ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ⌧ᅾ᫬ไ࡟ࠊ㐍⾜┦ࡀᣢࡘ୍᫬ⓗ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡀຍࢃࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ(1b)ࡀ஦ែࢆෆഃ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼࡚ࠊࡑࡢ㐣⛬ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
(1c)ࡀ஦ែࢆ୍ࡘࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼࡚ࠊࡑࡢ஦ែࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍⅬ࡛ࠊ஦ែࡢᤊ࠼᪉࡟㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ㐪࠸ࡣࠊ㐍⾜┦࡜࠸࠺࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ୰࡛ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ㐪࠸ࡀࠊ஦ែゎ㔘࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᥎ㄽࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ㐪࠸࡛࠶ࡿ஦ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ(1b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡣࠊゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀࡓ᝟ሗࢆࡶ
࡜࡟஦ែゎ㔘ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ(1c)ࡢሙྜࡣࠊゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀࡓ᝟ሗࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎᩥ⬦ⓗ࡞᝟ሗࡶࠊ஦ែゎ㔘࡟ຍࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ−113−

習慣を表す英語進行形の事態解釈を動機づけている推論プロセスについて

2. ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡢᐃ⩏࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡣࠊ஦ែࢆෆⓗ࡞どⅬ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࠊ஦ែࡢ᫬㛫ⓗᵓᡂࢆ⾲ࡍ㸦Comrie,1976㸧ࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊ᫬㛫ⓗᴫᛕࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡶࡢ࡟᫬ไࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ᫬ไࡀฟ᮶஦ࡸ≧ែ࡞࡝ࡢ஦ែࢆእⓗ࡞どⅬ࠿ࡽ୍ࡘࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࠊ᫬㛫㍈ୖ࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡣ஦ែࢆෆⓗ࡞どⅬ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࠊ஦ែࡢ᫬㛫ⓗᵓᡂࢆ⾲ࡍࠋChung andTimberlake㸦1985㸧࡛ࡣࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࠊ஦ែࡢෆⓗ᫬㛫ᵓᡂࠊ஦ែࡢ᫬㛫ⓗᒎ㛤ࡢ୍㒊ࢆ⾲ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 Characterizes the internal temporal structure of the event.(Chung and Timberlake, 1985,P.202)
஦ែࡢෆⓗ࡞᫬㛫ᵓᡂ࡜ࡣࠊ஦㇟ࡢᒎ㛤ࢆ㛤ጞ,┿୰,⤊⤖ࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡞࡝࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࡝ࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡟
ࡼࡾࠊ㉳ື┦ࠊ⥅⥆┦ࠊ᏶⤖┦࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡾ༊ูࡉࢀࠊ཯᚟ࡸ⩦័࡞࡝⾜Ⅽࡢ཯᚟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡶࠊࡑࡢ୰
࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊComrie(1976)࡛ࡣࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࢆḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 Different ways if viewing the internal temporal constituency of a situation.(Comrie, 1976, P3)
 Comrie ࡢᐃ⩏࡛ࡣࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡣ஦ែࡢෆⓗ࡞᫬㛫ᵓᡂࢆᵝࠎ࡞ぢ᪉࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟஦ែࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕ໬ࡢせ⣲ࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ㸦㔠⏣୍,2014㸧ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ஦ែࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ஦ែࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᤊ࠼ࠊゝㄒ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡀࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ
࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ᩥἲᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡀࡶࡘព࿡࡜ࡣู࡟ࠊືモ࡟ෆᅾࡍࡿ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ㸰ࡘࡣࠊಶู࡟ᢅ
ࢃࢀࡿ஦ࡀከ࠸ࡀ㸦Charleston, 1995㸧ࠊព࿡ⓗ࡟㛵㐃ᛶࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᐇ㝿࡟ືモࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡣࠊᩥ୰࡛ࡢ࢔
ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺゎ㔘࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤືసືモࡣ㐍⾜ᙧ࡟࡞ࡾࡸࡍ࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚≧ែືモࡣ࡞ࡾ㞴࠸ࠊࡲࡓࠊ㐩ᡂ ື モ (accomplishment) ࡀ 㐍 ⾜ ᙧ ࡟ ࡞ ࡿ ࡢ ࡟ ᑐ ࡋ ࡚ ࠊ ฿ 㐩 ື モ (achievement) ࡣ 㐍 ⾜ ᙧ ࡟ ࡞ ࡾ ࡟ ࡃ ࠸(Vendler,1967)Ⅼ࡞࡝ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊືసືモࡀ㐍⾜ᙧ࡟࡞ࡗࡓሙྜࠊࡑࡢືモࡀ⾲ࢃࡍືసࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᭱୰࡛࠶ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡀࠊ㐩ᡂືモࡀ㐍⾜ᙧ࡟࡞ࡗࡓሙྜࠊືసࡀ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶ࠶ࡿ≧ἣ࡟⛣⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㏵୰࡛࠶ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࠋ(2) a. He is studying English.
b. He is learning English.
 (2a)ࡀ⥅⥆ⓗ࡟ຮᙉࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᭱୰࡛࠶ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ(2b)ࡣⱥㄒࢆ⩦ᚓࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ㏵୰࡟࠸ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࠋࡇࡢ㐪࠸ࡣ study ࡀືసືモ࡛ࠊືసࡀᆒ୍ⓗ࡟⥅⥆ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡓࡵࠊ㐍⾜ᙧ࡛⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡑࡢືసࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᭱୰࡛࠶ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊlearn ࡣ㐩ᡂືモ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ฿㐩Ⅼࢆືモࡢព࿡ࡢ୰࡟ྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ㐍⾜ᙧ࡛⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡿ஦࡟ࡼࡾࠊ฿㐩Ⅼ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚
࠸ࡿ㏵୰࡛࠶ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡣ㐍⾜୰ࡢ஦ែࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ
ゎ㔘ࡣㄒᙡⓗ࡞ព࿡࡜ࡶ㛵㐃ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࡇࢀࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ஦ែࡢぢ᪉ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࡑࡢゝㄒ໬ࡢ௙᪉ࡢ㐪࠸࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡶゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
2.1 㐍⾜ᙧࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞ព࿡ ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ືモࡢ㐪࠸ࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࡓୖ࡛ࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ Timberlake(2007)࡛ࡣࠊ㐍⾜┦ࢆḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Process ongoing at contextual occasion (commonly the here-and-now of speech) that is projected to continue
in the immediate future, but could easily change or cease; natural with process predicates (not states); often
un-conduct with (or even interrupted by) other situations.
Timberlake(2007)ࡢᐃ⩏࡛ࡣࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡣࠊⓎヰ᫬࡟࠾࠸࡚㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡾࠊᮍ᮶࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ⥅⥆ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃ
ࢀࡿືసࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋⓎヰ᫬࡟࠾࠸࡚஦ែࡀ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࡣࠊᚑ᮶ࡢ㐍⾜ᙧࡢᐃ⩏ࢆ㋃くࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢືసࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆྵࡴ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⾜Ⅽࡀ୍᫬ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ
ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊLeech(2002)ࡢࠊືసࡀ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ஦ࡀࠊືసࡀ᏶⤖ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸஦୍࣭᫬ⓗ࡞஦࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆྵពࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ᤊ࠼᪉࡜㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ౛࠼ࡤࠊstudy ࡀືసືモ࡛ࠊືモࡀᆒ୍࡞ືసࡀ⥅⥆ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡓࡵࠊ㐍⾜ᙧ࡛⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡓሙྜࠊࡑ

−114−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ࡢືసࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᭱୰࡛࠶ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊlearn ࡣ㐩ᡂືモ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ฿㐩Ⅼࢆືモࡢព࿡ࡢ୰࡟ྵ
ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ㐍⾜ᙧ࡛⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡿ஦࡟ࡼࡾࠊ฿㐩Ⅼ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㏵୰࡛࠶ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࠋࡲࡓ㐩ᡂືモࡀ㐍⾜ᙧ࡟࡞ࡗࡓሙྜࡣࠊࡑࡢືసࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿ┤๓࡛࠶ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ㸦The bus is arriving㸧ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊTimberlakeࡢᐃ⩏㸦ࠕⓎヰ᫬࡟࠾࠸࡚㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡾࠊᮍ᮶࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ⥅⥆ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿືసࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࠋࠖ㸧ࡣࠊືసືモࢆ౑ࡗࡓ㐍⾜ᙧࡢព࿡࡛࠶ࢀࡤㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ฿㐩ືモࠊ㐩ᡂືモࢆ౑ࡗࡓ㐍⾜ᙧࠊࡲࡓᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺⩦័
ࡸ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ㐍⾜ᙧࡢព࿡ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡢ஦ែゎ㔘ࢆࡉࡽ࡟᳨ウࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮ
ࢃࢀࡿࠋ
2.2 ஦ែࡢᤊ࠼᪉࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࢆ⾲ࡍ㐍⾜ᙧࡢ≉ᚩ࡛ࡣࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝౛ࡣࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡞㐍⾜ᙧࡢ஦ែᢕᥱ࡜࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⅼ࡛ඹ㏻ࡋࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⅼࡀ┦㐪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
ࡲࡎࠊືసࡀ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜ࡜ࡢ᭱ࡶ኱ࡁ࡞㐪࠸ࡣࠊࡑࡢ஦ែࡢᤊ࠼᪉࡟࠶ࡿࠋ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡢᐃ
⩏࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ஦ែࢆෆⓗどⅬ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ୍ᅇࡢฟ᮶஦ࡢ୰ࡢ᫬㛫ⓗ⤒⦋ࡢ୍㒊ࢆྲྀࡾฟࡍࡣ
ࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡢሙྜࠊືసࡣእഃࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽ୍ࡘࡢ᏶⤖ࡋࡓ஦ែ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࠊࡑࡢ୍ࡘ୍ࡘࡢືస
ࡀࠊ࠶ࡿ୍᫬ⓗᮇ㛫ࡢ㛫࡟⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡀ⾲ࡍࠕ࡝ࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶྠ㉁ⓗ࡛ࠊ㐣⛬ࡸ㐍ᒎ࡞࡝࡜࠸ࡗࡓኚ໬࣭ືࡁࡀࠊ᫬㛫ࡢ⤒㐣࡟కࡗ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡞࠸≧ἣࠖ
㸦Declerk, 1994㸧
࡜ࡶ␗࡞ࡿࠋ
ືモࡢ✀㢮࡟ࡼࡾ㐍⾜ᙧࡢゎ㔘࡟㐪࠸ࡀฟࡿ஦࠿ࡽࡶࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡢ஦ែࡢᤊ࠼᪉࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᗄࡘ࠿ࡢ✀㢮ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ኱ࡁࡃ㸰ࡘ࡟ศࡅࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊືモࡀ⾲ࡍືసࢆᤊ࠼࡚ࠊࡑࡢືసࡀ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜ࡜ࠊືモࢆྵࡴ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟ព࿡ⓗ࡟㐺⏝ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢ࿨㢟ࡀ⾲ࡍ஦ែࡀᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦௒ᚋᡂ❧ࡋ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶྵࡳ࡞ࡀࡽ㸧ࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࠊ㐍⾜ᙧ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡓ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿືసࡣࠊືモࡀ♧ࡍືసࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟ಀࡾࠊ࿨㢟ෆᐜࡀ⾲ࡍ≧ἣࡀ୍᫬ⓗ࡟㸦ࡶࡋࡃࡣࠊ
ࠕ࡜ࡾ࠶࠼ࡎࠖⓎヰ᫬࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸧ᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊືస
ࡀ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᮏ᮶ࡢព࿡ࡀࠊᑐ㇟ࢆෆⓗどⅬ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⩦័ࢆ⾲ࡍ㐍⾜┦ࡣࠊᑐ㇟ࢆእⓗ
どⅬ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࠊືసࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿ஦࡟ࡼࡾࠊ࿨㢟ࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ≧ἣࡀ୍᫬ⓗࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣ⥅⥆ⓗ࡟ᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜
࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
3㸬ᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺ၥ㢟 ືసࡀ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࿨㢟ࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ஦ែࢆᡂ❧ࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟≧ἣࡀ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࡣࠊືモࡀࡶࡘព࿡
࠿ࡽᑟࡁฟࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ⩦័ࡸ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ㐍⾜ᙧࡣఱ࡟ࡼࡾ㸦ࡶࡋࡃࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ⓗᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡟ࡼࡾ㸧ᑟࡁฟࡉࢀࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢹ࣮ࢱࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢゎ㔘ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟஦ែࢆグ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࠊ௨ୗศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ4㸬ศᯒ࡟౑⏝ࡋࡓࢹ࣮ࢱ
ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ(CORPUS OF CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN ENGLISH:COCA)ࡢ spoken ࢹ࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽ㐍⾜ᙧ㸦beືモ㸩Ving㸧ࡢᩥࢆᢳฟࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ2010-2012 ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓ⏝౛࡟⤠ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ3.486,263 ௳ࡀᢳฟࡉࢀࡓࠋ
ࡇࡢ୰࠿ࡽࠊalways ࢆక࠺㐍⾜ᙧࠊ࡜࠸࠺᮲௳᳨࡛⣴ࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ1590 ౛࡟࡞ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ⏝౛࠿ࡽࠊ≉࡟౑⏝㢖ᗘࡢ㧗࠸ືモୖ఩ 10 ㄒ㸦try, go, look, say, talk, come, get, tell, make, think㸧ࢆᢤࡁฟࡋࡓ 502 ࡢⱥᩥࢆࡶ
࡜࡟⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ ᢳฟࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࡉࡽ࡟ゎ㔘ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡾ࡟㸰ࡘࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡓࠋ୍ࡘࡣࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿືసࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢࠊࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡣࠊᖖ࡟࠶ࡿ⾜Ⅽࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ែ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿືస࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ
኱ࡁࡃศࡅ࡚஧㏻ࡾࡢ␗࡞ࡿゎ㔘࡟ศࡅࡿ஦ࡀฟ᮶ࡓࠋ୍ࡘࡣ≉ᐃࡢྠࡌືసࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡶ࠺୍ࡘ
ࡣࠊྠࡌືసࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ྠࡌືస࡜ࡋุ࡚᩿ࡉࢀࡿືసࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋϨ ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿືసࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ
A㸬≉ᐃࡢືసࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ ┠ⓗࢆྵࡴືస඲య
1. He's always going down to the lake, to fish, to swim, to drown.
2.I was always trying to make little jokes
3. " I hate him... always looking at me that way.”
4.I was always trying to imitate her walk
5.I felt like I was always coming and going from home and the hospital.
6.Grandpa was always saying that only stupid people were happy all the time.

−115−

習慣を表す英語進行形の事態解釈を動機づけている推論プロセスについて

7.He's always saying,' You can do it.'
8.They were always talking about things I couldn't understand.
3.Parents are always trying to give their kids presents and gifts.
10.People were always telling me how beautiful she was when she was young…
 ࡇࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡣࠊ࠶ࡿືసࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡀࠊࡑࡢ୰࡛ࡶ≉࡟ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞ືసࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࠋ౛࠼ࡤ A1 ࡛ࡣࠊ†࡬⾜ࡁࠊ㨶ࢆࡘࡾࠊὋࡄࠊ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࢃࡋࠊA2࡛ࡣࠊࢪ࣮ࣙࢡࢆゝ࠾࠺࡜ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠊᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࠋ㐍⾜ᙧࡀಀࡿෆᐜࡶࠊ
ືモࡀ♧ࡍືస⮬య࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊືモࢆྵࡴ࿨㢟ෆᐜࡀࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࢃࡋࠊ⮬యࡑࡢࡶࡢ
࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ perfective ࡞஦ែ࡜ࡋ࡚⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡑࢀࡀ⥅⥆ⓗ࡟⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊ୍᫬ⓗ࡟ࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣ࠶ࡿ≉ᐃࡢ᫬ᮇࡢ୰࡛⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ502 ᩥࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ୰ࠊA ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᩥࡣ 168 ᩥࡔࡗࡓࠋ
B㸬୍ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢືసࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ ┠ⓗ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࢆᚓࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿືస඲య
 ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿືసࢆ⾲ࢃࡍᩥࡢ୰࡛ࡶࠊྠࡌ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡿືసࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿᩥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ
ᩘࡣ 183 ᩥࡔࡗࡓࠋ
1.I'm always trying to teach my kids to be nice.
2. Our team is always looking for a better way to deliver our program.
4.It made me look like a bear riding a circus bike, I was just always trying to do my job.
5.He's always not saying the most important things to me.
6.I'm always trying to get people's attention with my music
7.I guess we're always trying to be good role models for everyone.
8.I was always trying to offer her shield
9. " You're always looking for something."
10.She was always trying to figure out a way to use that connection,
9.We shoot with three cameras, so they're always getting different - they're always getting different angles ືసࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ୰࡛ࡶ B ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ᒓࡍࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊA ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞ືసࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛
ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ࡍࡿࠊ␗࡞ࡿືసࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ౛࠼ࡤ B1 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࠸ࡘࡶྠ
ࡌࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆᏊ౪ࡓࡕ࡟ᩍ࠼࡚࠸ࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚”to be nice”࡜࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᵝࠎ࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼࡚
࠸ࡓ࡜᝿ീ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊB2 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶᖖ࡟ྠࡌࡇ࡜ࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃᨵၿࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᵝࠎ࡞ᙧ࡛᪉ἲࢆᶍ⣴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡࡛ࠊA ࡢሙྜ࡜ࡣ࿨㢟࡟ࡼࡾ⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡓ஦ែࡀࡼࡾᢳ㇟ᗘ
ࡀ㧗࠸࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋϩ ᖖ࡟ࠥࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ែ࡛࠶ࡿ(㐍⾜୰ࡢ஦ែࡀ⥅⥆ⓗ࡟⥆࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜) 㐍⾜୰ࡢືస㸦ࡢ㐣⛬㸧ࠊ≧ែࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ
1.His eyes are always looking at us,
2.They're always looking great.
3. Jackie was a woman who was always looking to the future
4.Cassidy was always multitasking, always looking for a shortcut, always in a hurry…
5.She was always looking for someone to watch the kids for an hour or two…
6." New students were always coming in, "7.I was always stressed and getting headaches.
8.I'm always thinking about making a movie in English, not exactly in Hollywood but in the…
9.He's always thinking about what the audience needs.
10.Tom Sawyer's love of adventure is always getting him into trouble.
 ḟ࡟ࠊືసࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿ㸦ᡂ❧ࡍࡿ㸧≧ἣࡀ⥆࠸࡚࠸ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍᩥࡣ 151 ᩥࡔࡗࡓࠋϨࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ
࿨㢟ࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ஦ែࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀㄆ㆑࡛ࡁࡿ⠊ᅖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᖖ࡟㐍⾜ᙧࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ≧ែࡀᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࢃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤϩï㸯ࡣࠊᙼࡀぢ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ἣࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊ࠸ࡘࡶᙼ
ࡢ┠⥺ࢆឤࡌࡿ≧ἣ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸬ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡀ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟ಀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣືモ࡟ಀࡾࠊືモࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ⾜Ⅽࡀᖖ࡟ᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡀᣢࡘ㸱ࡘࡢព࿡せ⣲ࡢ୰࡛ࡣࠊືモࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ≧ἣࡀ⥅⥆ⓗ࡟⥆࠸࡚ࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࢃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࠊ㐍⾜୰㸦ࡶࡋࡃࡣ⥅⥆୰㸧ࡢព࿡࡛ゎ㔘ࡀࡉࢀ
ࡿࠋ

−116−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

 ࡇࡇ࠿ࡽࠊalways ࡀక࠼ࡤࠊᖖ࡟⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࢆ⾲ࡍࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ࿨㢟ࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠊືモࡀ⾲ࡍືసࢆᖖ࡟⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋゎ㔘ࢆศࡅࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡀືモ࡟࠿࠿ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟࠿࠿ࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡼࡾỴࡲࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢゎ㔘ࡶᩥ⬦ࡢどⅬ࡟ࡼࡾỴᐃࡍࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࠊࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ୰࡟ࡣศ㢮ࡢ㝿࡟ࠊุ᩿࡟㏞࠺ࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࠋศ㢮࡟㏞ࡗࡓ⌮⏤ࡣࠊ」ᩘࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ࡲࡓࡀ
ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡓ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
Ϫ
1. ? he's always trying to tie things together.
2. ?The media is always looking for heroes and sometimes villains in a case like this.
3. ?People like you are always looking for a fight.
4. ?Writers are always looking for trouble.
 ౛࠼ࡤϪï㸯ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿᩥ⬦࡛ࡣ⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺ලయⓗ࡞⾜Ⅽࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࠊࡲࡓูࡢᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠊᙼࡀ≀஦ࢆࡦ࡜ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡀඃඛࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࡣᩥ⬦ࡀ↓࠸ሙྜࠊุ᩿ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊϪï㸰࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡣࣄ࣮࣮ࣟ࡜ᝏேࢆồࡵࡓࡀࡿࡶࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ලయⓗ࡞⾜ືࡤ࠿ࡾ࡜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ἲࡣࠊ஦ែࡢᤊ࠼᪉࡟࠾࠸࡚௚ࡢ㐍⾜ᙧࡢព࿡࡜␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊࡑࡢ୰࡛ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊືモࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡜ࠊ࿨㢟ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢࡢ㸰ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢ஧ࡘࡢព࿡ࡢゎ㔘ࡣఱ࡟ࡼࡾ༊ูࡉ
ࢀࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
5㸬⪃ᐹ ࢹ࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࢆ⾲ࢃࡍሙྜ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࡉࡽ࡟ゎ㔘ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡾ㸰ࡘࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛
ࡁࡓࠋ୍ࡘࡣࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿືసࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡣࠊᖖ࡟࠶ࡿ⾜Ⅽࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ែ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜
ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿືస࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ୍ࡘࡣ≉ᐃࡢྠࡌືసࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡶ࠺୍ࡘ
ࡣࠊྠࡌືసࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ྠࡌືస࡜ࡋุ࡚᩿ࡉࢀࡿືసࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࠿ࡽࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡢព࿡ࢆ෌᳨ウࡋࠊゎ㔘ࢆศࡅࡿ᰿ᣐ࡜࡞ࡿせᅉࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋձ஦ែゎ㔘࠿ࡽぢࡓ㐍⾜ᙧࡢព࿡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ ᩥ୰࡟࠾࠸࡚ືモࡢ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊ1A ࡢࢢࣝïࣉࡣࠊ฿㐩Ⅼ㸦┠ⓗࡸ฿㐩Ⅼࠊ⤖ᯝ࡞࡝㸧ࢆ࿨㢟ࡢ୰࡟ྵࢇ࡛࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢ஦ែࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ1B ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡣࠊ฿㐩Ⅼࡢࡳࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢ฿㐩Ⅼ࡟㐩ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢືస㸦ྠࡌືస࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ᫬ࡸ≧ἣ࡟ࡼࡾᵝࠎ࡞ືసࡀ᝿ᐃࡉ
ࢀࡿ㸧ࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊϩࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡣࠊືモࡀ⾲ࢃࡍືసࡢࡳࢆ⾲ࢃࡋࠊࡑࡢ≧ែࡸ≧ἣࡀ⥅⥆ⓗ࡟ᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡣࠊືసࡀ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊ஦ែࡀ⥅⥆ⓗ࡟ᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ฿㐩ືモࡢ㐍⾜ᙧࡢሙྜࡶࠊ࠶ࡿ฿㐩Ⅼ࡟㏆࡙ࡁࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛
ᤊ࠼ࡀࡕ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊືモࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀ᫬㛫ⓗ࡟ไ㝈ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ஦࠿ࡽࠊࡑࡢ᫬㛫ⓗ᭷⏺ᛶࢆ฿㐩Ⅼࢆࡶࡘ஦ែ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦ែࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ஦ែࡀࠊ⥅⥆ⓗ࡟ᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ஦ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋ
 Leech(2002) ࡣࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡢព࿡ࢆࠕ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜(in progress)ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢព࿡࡟࠿ࡽࠕᮍ᏶஢(incomplete)ࠖ
ࠕ୍᫬ⓗ(temporary)ࠖࡢព࿡ࡀྵពࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊືసࡀ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿ஦ࡀࠊᮍ᏶஢࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺
஦ࡣྵព࡛ࡁ࡚ࡶࠊືసࡀ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿ஦ࡀࠊ୍᫬ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡇ࡜ࢆྵពࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ ࡲࡓ୍᫬ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ≀஦ࡀࡑࡢሙ㝈ࡾࡢ஦ែ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ஦࡛࠶ࡾࠊ౛࠼ࡤ He is living
here until he find the new house. ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥࡶࠊ㒊ᒇࡀぢࡘ࠿ࡿࡲ୍࡛᫬ⓗ࡟ఫࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊ㒊ᒇࡀぢࡘ࠿ࡿࡲ࡛ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ែࡀ⥆࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࠊ୍᫬ⓗ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡣࠊ㐍⾜ᙧ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ until ௨ୗࡢ⠇࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡓ᪉ࡀ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋղ᥎ㄽࡢ᰿ᣐ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࡑࡢୖ࡛ࠊ1A ࡜ϩࡀ࿨㢟ࡸືモ࡟ࡼࡾ⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡓ஦ែࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊϨB ࡀ㢮ఝࡍࡿ஦ែࡀ⧞ࡾ
㏉ࡉࢀࡿ⌮⏤ࡣࠊ஦ែࡢゝㄒ࠿ࡢ௙᪉࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ࡝ࡢゎ㔘ࡀඃඛࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゎ㔘ࡀࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࡣࠊ࿨㢟㒊ศࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦ែࢆ⾲ࢃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟ࡼࡿࠋ
1A ࡸϩࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛ࡶࠊ࿨㢟ࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ≉ᐃࡢ஦ែࡀᖖ࡟ᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍሙྜ࡜ࠊϨb ࡢࡼ࠺࡟┠ⓗ㒊ศࡔࡅࡀゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀ୍⯡ⓗ࡟㸦ࡶࡋࡃࡣᩥ⬦ⓗ࡟⪃࠼࡚㸧ࡑࢀ࡟㢮ࡍࡿ஦ែ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿ஦ែࡀᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍሙྜ࡜࡛ࡣࠊゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀࡓ࿨㢟ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠊゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ព࿡ⓗせ−117−

習慣を表す英語進行形の事態解釈を動機づけている推論プロセスについて⣲ࡶ㚷ࡳ࡚஦ែࢆ᝿ᐃࡋࠊゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚␗࡞ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊุ᩿࡟㏞ࡗࡓ⏝౛ࡣࠊ࿨㢟඲యࢆᤊ࠼ࡿどⅬ࡜ࠊ᥈ࡋồࡵࡿ࡝࠸࠺ືస⮬యࢆᤊ࠼ࡿどⅬࡢࠊ㸰ࡘࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽゎ㔘ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
?The media is always looking for heroes and sometimes villains in a case like this.
 (࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡣࣄ࣮࣮ࣟ࡜ᝏேࢆồࡵࡓࡀࡿࡶࡢࡔ/ ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾜ືࡤ࠿ࡾ᥇ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ)6㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜ᒎᮃ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᚑ᮶ࡢ㐍⾜ᙧࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ஦ែゎ㔘ࢆࡼࡾᗈࡃᤊ࠼┤ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛౛እⓗ࡜ࡉࢀࡓ୍᫬ⓗ࡞⩦័ࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝౛࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡎࠊ㐍⾜ᙧࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆࠊ஦ែࡀ⥅⥆ⓗ࡟ᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡓୖ࡛ࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ஦ែࢆศᯒࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊࡑࡢ㐪࠸ࡣ஦ែࡢゝㄒ࠿ࡢ௙᪉࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ஦ࡀฟ᮶ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ࡝ࡢゎ㔘ࡀඃඛࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゎ㔘ࡀࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࡣࠊ࿨㢟㒊ศࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦ែࢆ⾲ࢃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟ࡼࡾࠊ࿨㢟ࡀ⾲ࢃࡍ≉ᐃࡢ஦ែࡀᖖ࡟ᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍሙྜࡣࠊࡑࡢ஦ែࡀ⥅⥆ⓗ࡟⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿ஦ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡢ࡟ᑐ
ࡋ࡚ࠊ┠ⓗ㒊ศࡔࡅࡀゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀࡓሙྜࡣࠊࡑࡢ┠ⓗࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ⾜ືࡀࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞▱㆑ࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣᩥ⬦࠿ࡽ᥎ ࡉࢀࡿၥ࠸㞵Ⅼ࡛஦࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ㢮ఝࡍࡿ஦ែࡣ⌧ᅾ᫬ไ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ⾲ࢃࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕ⥅⥆ⓗ࡟஦ែࡀᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⌧ᅾ᫬ไ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ ௒ᚋࡣࠊࡇࢀࡀゎ㔘ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࡢ୰࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿ࠿ࢆࠊ᳨ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡃணᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Chung, S and Timberlake, A. 1985. Tense, Aspect and Mood. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), 241-258. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
ࠗ⌧௦ⱥ
Declerck.R.1991. A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.(Ᏻ஭⛱㸦ヂ㸧ᩥἲ⥲ぴ࠘ᮾி㸸㛤ᣅ♫. 1994)
Langacker, W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volumeϩ. Stanford: Stanford   University Press.
Leech, G.N. 1971. Meaning and the English Verb. London: Longman.
———.2002. A Communicative Grammar of English. 3rd Essex:Pearson
Leech.G & Jan Svartvik.975.A Communicative Grammar of English.London: Longman
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press———. 1980. “Deixis and Modality” Sophia Linguistica 12:77-117
Levinson,S.C.1983. Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press..
Palmer,F.R. 1986. Modality and the English modals.London & New York: Longman.
———. 2001.Mood and modality 2nd, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swan. 2005.Practical English Usage. Oxford University Press
Timberlake, A.2007.“Linguistic Layering in the Laurentian Chronicle (The Imperfect Consonantal Augment),”
American Contributions to the Twelfth International Congress of Slavists, Cracow, August–September 1998.
Literature. Linguistics. Poetics. Ed. Robert A. Maguire and Alan Timberlake, 501–14. Columbus, Oh.:
Slavica.
Taylor, R. 1989. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Vendler, Z㸬1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Cornell University Press,ᵽཱྀ୓㔛Ꮚ.2004. ࠕ➨㸱❶ ┦࣭᫬ไ࣭┦ࠖࠗㄆ▱ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥㄽ࠘ࢩ࣮ࣜࢬㄆ▱ゝㄒධ㛛➨㸴ᕳࠊ኱ಟ
㤋᭩ᗑ

−118−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ㄯヰ䛻䛚䛡䜛㡯䛾ᙧᘧ䛸䛭䛾᪉␎㻌Ặྡ㸸ஂዲᏕᏊ
ᡤᒓ㸸ᅜ㝿་⒪⚟♴኱Ꮫ<Abstract>
This paper focuses on the distribution of argument information in successive clauses in
written Japanese as discourse strategies in order to review argument ellipsis. This paper
examines how the arguments are realized in terms of forms, grammatical relations andsemantic roles. As being based upon an original corpus with varied annotations, this paper
provides a comprehensive analysis of argument information. As a statistically andquantitatively significant result, the following finding is presented: the availability of the“One Lexical Argument Constraint” even in written texts, which has been applicable only to
spoken texts, and this constraint plays a crucial role in argument ellipsis in the transitive
constructions.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㡯┬␎ࠊ༢୍ㄒᙡ㡯ࡢไ⣙ࠊᩥἲ㛵ಀࠊ㡯ࡢព࿡ࠊ௚ືモᵓᩥ1.

ࡣࡌࡵ࡟㡯┬␎࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡢ⵳✚ࡣከࡃࠊㄯヰࡢ୺㢟 (ஂ㔝 1983 ➼)ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ୺㢟ࡢᒎ㛤࡟╔┠ࡍࡿ◊✲ (◁ᕝ 2005)࡛ࡣࠊㄯヰ࡜ᩥἲࡢ┦஫స⏝ࡢせᛶࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢㄯ
ヰ࡜ᩥἲࡢ┦஫స⏝ࡢ㔜せᛶ࡟╔┠ࡋࡘࡘࠊ㡯┬␎࡜୺㢟࡜࠸࠺୍㠃ⓗ࡞ᤊ࠼᪉࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊㄯヰෆ࡛⌧ࢀࡿ㡯ࡢᙧᘧ࡜ᩥἲ㛵ಀ࣭ព࿡ᒓᛶ࡞࡝ࡢ」ᩘࡢ᮲௳ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸
࠺ከ㠃ⓗ࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࠿ࡽ㡯┬␎ࢆ෌⪃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡲࡓࠊㄯヰ࡜㡯┬␎࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᴫほࡍࡿ࡜ࠊFry (2003) ࡸ Nariyama (2003) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㔞ⓗศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡗࡓศ㔞ࡢㄯヰࢆ⣽࠿ࡃศᯒࡋࡓ◊✲ࡣᑡ࡞࠸ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ᭩ࡁゝⴥࡢㄯヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
㡯ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⎔ቃୗ࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚ฟ⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ⣽࠿ࡃᩚ⌮ࡋࡓ◊✲ࡣࠊ⟶ぢࡢ㝈ࡾぢᙜࡓࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ᭩ࡁゝⴥࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆᑐ㇟࡟⣽࠿ࡃ࢔ࣀࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ௜୚ࡋࡓ⊂⮬ࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆసᡂࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆᇶ࡟ࠊ㡯ࡢᙧᘧ࡜ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ᮲௳ࢆ㉁ⓗ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㔞ⓗ࡟ศᯒࡍࡿࠋ
ࡑࡢ㝿ࠊ㢮ᆺㄽࡢศ㔝࡛ᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ༢୍ㄒᙡ㡯ࡢไ⣙ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ࠊㄯヰෆࡢ㡯ᙧᘧ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ᪉␎ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡣࠊ┬␎㡯ࢆྵࡵࡓ㡯ࡢᙧᘧ඲యࢆど㔝࡟ධࢀࠊ㡯┬␎࡜࠸࠺⌧㇟ࢆ㢮ᆺㄽⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡛ໟᣓⓗ࡟෌⪃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
ࡲࡎࠊḟ⠇࡛ࠊᮏ✏ࡀ౑⏝ࡋࡓࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋḟ࡟ࠊ➨ 3 ⠇࡛ Du Bois (1987)ࡀ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠕ༢୍ㄒᙡ㡯ࡢไ⣙ࠖࢆᴫほࡍࡿࠋ➨ 4 ⠇࠿ࡽ➨ 6 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ⊂⮬ࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡛ᚓࡓ᝟
ሗࢆᇶ࡟ศᯒࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࢆ♧ࡋࠊ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜௒ᚋࡢᒎᮃࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠋ

1
−119−

談話における項の形式とその方略

2.

ᮏ✏ࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
㔞ⓗศᯒࢆ㔜どࡍࡿᮏ◊✲࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊศᯒᑐ㇟ࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺ㔞ࡢ㑅ᐃ࡟㓄៖ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࠕ௦⾲ᛶ (representativeness)ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࢆ᥼⏝ࡋ(Kennedy 1998)ࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺ㔞ࡢ೫ࡾ࡟ᑐᛂ
ࡍࡿࠋ㸯ࡘࡢసရ࡛ 2,000 ㄒ࠿ࡽ 5,000 ㄒ⛬ᗘࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡗࡓศ㔞ࢆᢅ࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡑࡢసရࡢ௦⾲ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ 6 సရ࠿ࡽ 4,000 Ꮠ⛬ᗘྲྀࡾฟࡋࠊ1,837 ⠇ࡢ㡯࡟࢔ࣀࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ⾜࠸ศᯒࡍࡿ㸦⾲ 1㸧ࠋ
⾲ 1 ᑐ㇟ࢸࢡࢫࢺ
Noసရࢱ࢖ࢺࣝᩥᏐᩘ⠇ᩘ

1ࠗ⏑࠼ࡢᵓ㐀࠘

4673

285

2

ࠗ᪥ᮏࢆ๰ࡗࡓ 12 ே࠘

4229

266

3

ࠗ㯮࠸㞵࠘

4495

350

4

ࠗ㟼࠿࡞⏕ά࠘

4356

279

5

ࠗⅆ㌴࠘

4667

335

6

ࠗᑐᓊࡢᙼዪ࠘

4433

322

ḟ࡟ࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢࢱࢢ௜ࡅࢆලయⓗ࡟♧ࡍࠋࡲࡎࠊ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ 4 ᩥࡢㄯヰࡢሙྜࠊ10 ⠇ࡢ⠇㐃⥆࡜ࡳ࡞ࡋࠊ⾲ 2 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿࠋ(1)⚗↮㌴୧ࡢ⮬⏤ᖍ࡟✵ࡁࢆぢࡘࡅ࡚⭜ࢆ࠾ࢁࡋࠊ㈨ᩱࡢධࡗࡓ࢝ࣂࣥࢆ㊊ඖ࡟⨨࠸ࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟㟁㌴ࡀືࡁࡔࡍࡢࢆឤࡌࡓࠋᐃ้࡝࠾ࡾࡔࡗࡓࠋ㌴ෆ࡟ࡣᮏ㛫࡜ྠᖺ㍮
ࡢ⫼ᗈጼࡢ⏨ᛶࡀ┠❧ࡘࠋၟ⏝࡛ฟ࠿ࡅ࡚⾜ࡃࢧ࣮࣐ࣛࣜࣥࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ

㸦ⅆ㌴㸧

⾲ 2㻌 䜰䝜䝔䞊䝅䝵䞁䛾ලయ౛⠇➨  㡯㻌➨  㡯㻌

㏙ㄒ㻌

1R

㻌

ᙧᘧ㻌

㻳㻾㻌

ព࿡㻌

㻌

ᙧᘧ㻌

㻳㻾㻌

ព࿡㻌

㻌

1

ȭ

┬␎㻌

㻭㻌

᭷⏕㻌

✵ࡁ

ㄒᙡ㻌

㻻㻌

↓⏕㻌

ぢ䛴䛡䛶㻌

2

ȭ

┬␎㻌

㻭㻌

᭷⏕㻌

⭜

ㄒᙡ㻌

㻻㻌

↓⏕㻌

䛚䜝䛧㻌

3

㈨ᩱ

ㄒᙡ㻌

㻿㻌

↓⏕㻌



㻌

㻌

㻌

ධ䛳䛯㻌

4

ȭ

┬␎㻌

㻭㻌

᭷⏕㻌

࢝ࣂࣥ

ㄒᙡ㻌

㻻㻌

↓⏕㻌

⨨䛔䛯㻌

5

㟁㌴

ㄒᙡ㻌

㻿㻌

↓⏕㻌



㻌

㻌

㻌

ື䛝ฟ䛩㻌

6

ȭ

┬␎㻌

㻭㻌

᭷⏕㻌

⠇ࡢ

ྡモ໬㎡㻌

㻻㻌

↓⏕㻌

ឤ䛨䜛㻌

7

ȭ

┬␎㻌

㻿㻌

↓⏕㻌



㻌

㻌

㻌

㻺㻔ᐃ้䛹䛚䜚㻕䛰㻌

8

⏨ᛶ

ㄒᙡ㻌

㻿㻌

᭷⏕㻌



㻌

㻌

㻌

┠❧䛴㻌

9

ȭ

┬␎㻌

㻿㻌

᭷⏕㻌



㻌

㻌

㻌

ฟ䛛䛡䛶⾜䛟㻌

10

ȭ

┬␎

㻿

᭷⏕



N 㻔䝃䝷䝸䞊䝬䞁㻕䛰䜝䛖㻌

2
−120−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

㡯ࡢᙧᘧࡣࠕ┬␎ (ȭ)ࠖࠕㄒᙡ㸦ྡモ㸧(Lex)ࠖࠕ௦ྡモ (Pro)ࠖࠕࡑࡢ௚㸦ᣦ♧モࠊྡモ໬㎡➼㸧ࠖ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࠊᩥἲ㛵ಀ (GR) ࡣࠕS㸦⮬ືモࡢ୺ㄒ㸧ࠖࠕA㸦௚ືモࡢ୺ㄒ㸧ࠖࠕO㸦┠ⓗㄒ㸧ࠖࠕdS㸦ཷືែࡢ୺ㄒ㸧ࠖ࡟ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊព࿡ᒓᛶࡣࠕ᭷⏕ (Ani)ࠖ࡜ࠕ↓⏕ (InA)ࠖ࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡞ࢱࢢ௜ࡅ࡟ຍ࠼ࠊ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⠇ࡢ✀㢮࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕCONJ㸦᥋⥆モ㸧ࠖࠕREL㸦ྡモಟ㣭⠇㸧ࠖࠕmain-CL㸦୺⠇㸧ࠖࡢࢱࢢࢆ௜ࡅࠊศ㢮ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ(2)[ ȭi(=3 )⚗↮㌴୧ࡢ⮬⏤ᖍ࡟✵ࢆぢࡘࡅ-࡚]

  find-te-CONJ[ ȭi  [ ㈨ᩱ-ࡢ ȭj ධࡗࡓ]  ࢝ࣂࣥ j -ࢆ㊊ඖ࡟ ⨨࠸ࡓ-࡜ࡁ࡟] ] REL

put-PAST-CONJ[ ȭi [㟁㌴-ࡀ ືࡁฟࡍ] ̽ࡢ-ࢆឤࡌࡓ]

REL-NMZ-ACC

main-CL(ⅆ㌴)

᥋⥆モ࡟ࡣࠕࢼ࢞ࣛᙧࠖࠕࢸᙧࠖࠕࡑࢀ௨እࡢ᥋⥆モࠖࠊྡモಟ㣭⠇࡟ࡣࠕෆࡢ㛵ಀࠖࠕእࡢ㛵ಀࠖࡢୗ఩ศ㢮ࡶ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢱࢢ௜ࡅࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆᇶ࡟ࠊ㡯ࡢᙧᘧ࡜ᩥἲ㛵ಀ࣭ព࿡ᒓᛶࡢ᝟ሗ࡟㛵ࡍࡿฟ⌧㢖ᗘࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊ┦஫ࡢ㛵ಀࢆほᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ ࠕ༢୍ㄒᙡ㡯ࡢไ⣙ (One Lexical Argument Constraint)ࠖ
༢୍ㄒᙡ㡯ࡢไ⣙࡜ࡣࠊࢧ࢝ࣉࣝࢸࢵࢡ࣐ࣖㄒ (Sacapultec Maya) ࡢヰࡋゝⴥࡢㄯヰࢆィ㔞ศᯒࡋࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊᑟࡁฟࡉࢀࡓไ⣙࡛࠶ࡿ (Du Bois 1987)ࠋDu Bois (1987) ࡛ࡣࠊㄯヰࡢ࡞࠿࡛⮬ືモࡢ୺ㄒ (S)ࠊ௚ືモࡢ୺ㄒ (A)ࠊ┠ⓗ (O) ࡢ఩⨨࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧࡢྡモྃࡀ⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆィ㔞ศᯒࡋࠊ㸯ࡘࡢ⠇ෆ࡛ㄒᙡⓗྡモྃ࡜ࡋ࡚⌧ࢀࡿ㡯ࡢᩘࡣࢮࣟ࠿ 1 ࡀᇶᮏ࡛ࠊ⠇㸯ࡘ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ㄒᙡ㡯ࡀ㸰ࡘ௨ୖฟ⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᅇ㑊ࡉࢀࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊㄒ
ᙡ໬ࡉࢀࡓ㡯ࡣ᪂᝟ሗࢆᢸ࠺ഴྥࡀ㧗࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ᩥἲⓗഃ㠃࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗഃ㠃ࡢ┦஫㛵ಀࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿
࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊDu Bois (1987) ࡣࠊㄯヰࡣ⬟᱁ᛶ (ergativity) ࢆᇶ┙࡟ࡶࡕࠊඃඛⓗ࡞㡯ᵓ㐀(Preferred Argument Structure: PAS) ࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ฟ᮶஦ࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁࡢ୰ᚰⓗ࡞㡯ᵓ㐀ࡀ⬟᱁ᛶ࡟つไࡉࢀࠊල⌧໬ࡍࡿ㡯࡟ࡣ༢୍ㄒ
ᙡ㡯ࡢไ⣙ࡀ࠿࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ Du Bois (1987) ࡢ୺ᙇࡣࠊ㡯ࡢᙧᘧ࡜ࡑࡢ᪉␎ࢆ᥈ࡿ࠺࠼࡛
♧၀࡟ᐩࡴࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢไ⣙ࡣ㡯┬␎ࡢከ࠸ࠕヰࡋゝⴥࠖࡢㄯヰࡢࡳࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊẚ㍑ⓗ┬␎㡯ࡀᑡ࡞࠸࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠕ᭩ࡁゝⴥࠖࡢㄯヰ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢ᭷ຠᛶࡀ᳨ドࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ
ࠕ᭩ࡁゝⴥࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ༢୍ㄒᙡ㡯ࡢไ⣙ࡀᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࢆど㔝࡟ධࢀࠊศᯒࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
4.

ᩥἲ㛵ಀ࡜ᙧᘧࡢศᯒ⤖ᯝ➨ 2 ⠇࡛ᥦ♧ࡋࡓ᪉ἲ࡛ࢱࢢ௜ࡅࡋࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࢆศᯒࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ⾲ 3 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀ

ࡓࠋ⮬ືモ୺ㄒ (S) ࡢሙྜࡣࠊ┬␎㡯࡜ㄒᙡ㡯ࡢฟ⌧㢖ᗘࡣ 43.3㸣࡜അ↛࡟ࡶྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊ
3−121−

談話における項の形式とその方略ཷືែ୺ㄒ (dS)ࠊ௚ືモ୺ㄒ(A)ࠊ┠ⓗㄒ(O)ࡢ඲య࡛ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ(3) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊㄒᙡ㡯࡛ࡢฟ⌧ࡀ⤫ィⓗ࡟᭷ព࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
(3)⇿Ⓨⓗ࡞ ࠾ఀໃཧࡾࣈ࣮࣒-ࡀ㉳ࡇࡿ-࡜

ᾘ㈝㟂せ-ࡀ

S, LexS, Lex⃭ቑࡍࡿ(᪥ᮏࢆ๰ࡗࡓ 12 ே)⾲ 3 ᙧᘧ࡜ᩥἲ㛵ಀ
S

ᩥἲ㛵ಀ

ᙧᘧ

ᩘ

dS
๭ྜ

ᩘ

A

O

๭ྜ

ᩘ

๭ྜ

ᩘ

๭ྜ

┬␎

385

43.3%

46

52.3%

‫ڸ‬614

71.5%

152

17.7%

ㄒᙡ

‫ڸ‬385

43.3%

31

35.2%

‫ۃ‬17019.8%‫ڸ‬500

58.2%

௦ྡモ

27

3.0%

5

5.7%

‫ ڸ‬61

7.1%

‫ ۃ‬6

0.7%

ࡑࡢ௚

93

10.4%

6

6.8%

‫ ۃ‬141.6%‫ڸ‬201

23.4%

ྜィ

890

100.0%

88

100.0%

859

100.0%

859

100.0%

Ȯ2=670.786, pf=9, p<.001‫ ڸ‬᭷ព࡟ከ࠸ࠊ‫ ۃ‬᭷ព࡟ᑡ࡞࠸ࠊp<.05ࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᚲ㡲㡯ࡀ㸰ࡘ௨ୖせồࡉࢀࡿࠕAࠖࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ┬␎㡯࡜ㄒᙡ㡯ࡢฟ⌧㢖ᗘࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ 71.5㸣࡜ 19.8㸣࡜ࡑࡢᕪࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛ࠊ⤫ィⓗ࡟ࡶ᭷ព࡞ᕪ࡜ุ᫂ࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠕOࠖ
ࡢᙧᘧฟ⌧⋡ࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊㄒᙡᙧᘧࡀ 58.2㸣࡜᭷ព࡟ከ࠸ࠋ௚ືモᵓᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ(4) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊࠕA࣭┬␎㸭O࣭ㄒᙡࠖࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡛ࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡍࡿ᪉␎ࡀඃໃ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࡣࠊㄒᙡ㡯ࡀ」ᩘ
ฟ⌧࡛ࡁࡿ௚ືモᵓᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢฟ⌧఩⨨ࡀไ㝈ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࠕ༢୍ㄒᙡ㡯
ࡢไ⣙ࠖࡢ᭷ຠᛶࢆᨭᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕ༢୍ㄒᙡ㡯ࡢไ⣙ࠖࡣࠊヰࡋゝⴥ࡟ࡢࡳ㐺⏝࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡓࡀࠊᮏ✏ࡢ౑⏝ࡋࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ᭩ࡁゝⴥࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕ༢୍ㄒᙡ㡯ࡢไ⣙ࠖࡢỗ⏝ᛶࡶ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ
(4)௒᪥ࡣ ᮅ᪩ࡃ ㉳ࡁȭ[࠾⿄࡟ࡇ࡜࡙ࡅࡿ]ᡭ⣬-ࢆ(A)᭩ࡁ࠿ࡅࡓࡀ

O, Lex୓ឤࡇࡶࡈࡶ᮶࡚࡝࠺࡟ࡶ᭩ࡅ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ   (㯮࠸㞵)ࡲࡓࠊᩥἲ㛵ಀࠕSࠖࠕAࠖࠕOࠖࡢᙧᘧศᕸࢆໟᣓⓗ࡟ほᐹࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࡢศᕸ࡟ࡣ୍ᐃࡢ
ࣂ࢖࢔ࢫࡀ࠿࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ
ࠕAࠖࡣࠕ┬␎ࠖ᪉࡬ࠊ
ࠕSࠖࠕOࠖࡣࠕㄒᙡ໬ࠖ࡬ࡢഴྥࡀ
ᙉ࠸ࠋᙧែㄽⓗ࡟ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡣࠕS࣭Aࠖ࡜ࠕOࠖࡀᑐ❧ࡍࡿᑐ᱁ゝㄒ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊᩥἲ
㛵ಀ࡜ᙧᘧࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡣࠊࠕS࣭Oࠖ࡜ࠕAࠖࡢࡺࡿࡸ࠿࡞ᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀほᐹ࡛ࡁࠊ⬟᱁ⓗ࡞≉ᚩࢆᖏࡧ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

4−122−

第17回大会発表論文集

5.

第10号

ࠕ༢୍ㄒᙡ㡯ࡢไ⣙ࠖࡢ᭷┈ᛶ➨ 4 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ㡯┬␎࡜࠸࠺⌧㇟࡟ࠕ༢୍ㄒᙡ㡯ࡢไ⣙ࠖࡀ᭷ຠ࡟ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂♧ࡋࡓࡀࠊ⪃៖ࡍ࡭ࡁၥ㢟ࡀ 2 Ⅼ࠶ࡿࠋ㸯ࡘࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡣࠕpro-drop ゝㄒ࡛ࠖ 1࣭2 ே⛠ࡢ௦ྡモࡣල⌧໬ࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶ࠺㸯ࡘࡣࠊ(5a) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᥋⥆モࠕ࡞ࡀࡽࠖ
⠇ࡸ௜ᖏ≧ἣࡢࠕࢸᙧࠖ᥋⥆ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ(5b) ࡢྡモಟ㣭⠇㸦ෆࡢ㛵ಀ㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୺ㄒࡢฟ⌧࡟ᵓ㐀ୖࡢไ⣙ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(5) a.

ȭ࠸ࡽ࠸ࡽࡋ-࡞ࡀࡽ

(S)

be nervous- CONJ࿧ࡧฟࡋ㡢ࢆᚅࡘࡀ ࡅࢀ࡝⪺ࡇ࠼࡚ࡃࡿࡢࡣ

ࡸࡣࡾࠕࡇࡢ㟁ヰ␒ྕࡣ⌧ᅾ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠖ࡜࠸࠺

⏥㧗࠸ዪࡢ࢔ࢼ࢘ࣥࢫࡔ (ᑐᓊࡢᙼዪ)

ࡗࡓ
b,

[ȭ

㐃ࢀ❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ]- ࠾ẕࡉࢇࡓࡕ-ࡢ-࣮ࣜࢲ࣮᱁࡛

(S)

REL

[ȭ

࠸ࡘࡶ ุ᩿ຊࡢ࠶ࡿゝື-ࢆ

ࡉࢀࡿ]-A ࡉࢇ-ࡀࠕ࠶ࢀࠊࠖ࡜

(A)

ኌ

ࢆ

  REL (㟼࠿࡞⏕ά)࠶ࡆ࡚࠿ࡽ͐

୺ㄒ఩⨨࡟⌧ࢀࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀ 1࣭2 ே⛠ࡢሙྜ࡜ࠊࢼ࣭࢞ࣛࢸᙧ᥋⥆ࠊྡモಟ㣭⠇㸦ෆࡢ㛵ಀ㸧ࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࠿ࡽ㝖࠸ࡓ 1289 ⠇ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊ෌ᗘࠊศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚ࡳࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ⾲ 4 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋ
⾲ 4 ᙧᘧ࡜ᩥἲ㛵ಀ (1࣭2 ே⛠࡞࡝ࢆ㝖ࡃ㸧
S

ᩥἲ㛵ಀ

ᙧᘧ

ᩘ

dS
๭ྜ

ᩘ

A

O

๭ྜ

ᩘ

๭ྜ

ᩘ

๭ྜ

┬␎

261

36.7%

19

33.9%

‫ڸ‬35968.8%‫ ۃ‬72

13.6%

ㄒᙡ

356

50.1%

29

51.8%

‫ۃ‬14427.6%‫ڸ‬337

64.6%

௦ྡモ

11

1.5%

2

3.6%

7

1.3%

4

0.8%

ࡑࡢ௚

83

11.7%

6

10.7%

‫ ۃ‬122.3%‫ڸ‬110

21.1%

ྜィ

711

100.0%

56

100.0%

522

100.0%

522

100.0%

Ȯ2=364.068, pf=9, p<.001‫ ڸ‬᭷ព࡟ከ࠸ࠊ‫ ۃ‬᭷ព࡟ᑡ࡞࠸ࠊp<.05ㄯヰࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ඲⠇ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࡋࡓᙧᘧ࡜ᩥἲ㛵ಀ (⾲ 3) ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢ≉ᚩࡸᵓ㐀ࢆ⪃៖ࡋศᯒᑐ㇟ࢆไ㝈ࡋࡓሙྜ (⾲ 4) ࢆẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕS࣭ㄒᙡ㡯ࠖࡢ᭷ពᛶࡣࠊᚋ⪅࡛ࡣ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞
࠸ࡀࠊࠕA࣭┬␎㸭O࣭ㄒᙡࠖࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡛ࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡍࡿ࡜࠺ഴྥࡣࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡢሙྜ࡟ࡶ᭷┈࡞᪉␎࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶࠊ⠇ෆ࡟ᚲ㡲㡯ࡀ㸰ࡘ௨ୖࡢ௚ືモᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ༢୍ㄒᙡ㡯ࡢไ⣙ࠖࡢ᭷⏝ᛶࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
5−123−

談話における項の形式とその方略

6.

௚ືモᵓᩥࡢᙧᘧ࣭ᩥἲ㛵ಀ࣭ព࿡ᒓᛶ
➨ 4 ⠇ࠊ➨ 5 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࠕSࠖࠕAࠖࠕOࠖࡢ఩⨨࡟⌧ࢀࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢᙧᘧ࡜ᩥἲ㛵ಀࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡟ព࿡ᒓᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠕ᭷⏕㸭↓⏕ࠖࢆຍ࠼ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ㛵ಀࢆ⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
ࡑࡢ࠺ࡕࠊᚲ㡲㡯ࡀ㸰ࡘ௨ୖࡢ௚ືモᵓᩥࡢࠕAࠖ࡜ࠕOࠖࡢᙧᘧ࡜ព࿡ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㡯ࡢᙧᘧࡢ࠺ࡕࠕࡑࡢ௚ࠖࢆ㝖࠸ࡓ⤖ᯝࡀ⾲ 5 ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⾲ 5 ௚ືモᵓᩥࡢᙧᘧ࡜ព࿡

O

ᩥἲ㛵ಀ㻌

㻌
㻌

ព࿡㻌
ᩥ
ἲ
┬␎㻌
㛵 ព ᙧᘧ㻌ಀ ࿡ᩘ㻌 ๭ྜ㻌
㻌┬␎㻌
17 2.6%᭷ ㄒᙡ㻌
5 0.8%⏕
௦ྡモ㻌
0 0.0%
A

᭷⏕㻌
ㄒᙡ㻌

㻌

↓⏕㻌
௦ྡモ㻌

┬␎㻌

㻌

ㄒᙡ㻌

ྜィ㻌

㻌

ᩘ㻌

๭ྜ㻌

ᩘ㻌

๭ྜ㻌

ᩘ㻌

๭ྜ㻌

ᩘ㻌

๭ྜ㻌

ᩘ㻌

๭ྜ㻌

22

3.4%

4

0.6%

90

14.0%

293

45.6%

426

66.3%

4

0.6%

0

0.0%

20

3.1%

74

11.5%

103

16.0%

5

0.8%

0

0.0%

8

1.2%

23

3.6%

36

5.6%

0

0.0%

2

0.3%

2

0.3%

6

0.9%

45

7.0%

55

8.6%

㻌

0

0.0%

1

0.2%

0

0.0%

2

0.3%

20

3.1%

23

3.6%

ྜィ㻌

22

3.4%

34

5.3%

6

0.9%

126

19.6%

455

70.8%

643

100.0%

┬␎㻌

↓
⏕ ㄒᙡ㻌

ㄯヰࢆࠕAࠖ
ࠕOࠖ
ࠕ┬␎ࠖ
ࠕㄒᙡࠖ
ࠕ௦ྡモࠖ
ࠕ᭷⏕ࠖ
ࠕ↓⏕ࠖࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡛ࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡍࡿ࡜ࡍ
ࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡀᆒ➼࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࠕA࣭ㄒᙡ࣭↓⏕㸭O࣭┬␎࣭᭷⏕࡛ࠖㄯヰෆ࡟⌧ࢀࡿ㢖ᗘࡣᴟࡵ࡚ᑡ࡞ࡃࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛ࡣ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(6) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕA࣭┬␎࣭᭷⏕㸭O࣭ㄒᙡ࣭↓⏕ࠖࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡣࠊ᭱ࡶ㢖ᗘࡀ㧗ࡃ 293 ౛࡟ࡶୖࡾࠊ⣙ 5๭ࢆ༨ࡵࡿࠋฟ⌧㢖ᗘࢆ♧ࡋࡓ⾲ 5 ࡢᕥୗ࠿ࡽྑୖ࡬኱ࡁࡃࣂ࢖࢔ࢫࡀ࠿࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(6)

ᙼዪ i-ࡣ ࡍࡄࢀࡓ⢭⚄⛉་࡛࠶ࡾ ࡲࡓ

ࡇࢀࡲ࡛

ȭi
(A,Ani)◊✲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟

ȭi

⚾ࡢⓎ⾲࡟

(A,Ani)᪥ᮏேᚰ⌮-ࢆ
O,Lex,InA

㛵ᚰ-ࢆ ♧ ࡋ ࡚ ࡃ ࢀ ࡓO,Lex,InA (⏑࠼ࡢᵓ㐀)ㄯヰෆࡢ࡝ࡢ఩⨨㸦୺ㄒ఩⨨࠿ྰ࠿㸧࡟ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡᝟ሗ㸦᭷⏕࠿ྰ࠿㸧ࡢ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞
ᙧᘧ㸦┬␎࠿ㄒᙡ࠿㸧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡢ௙᪉࣭᪉␎ࡣ᜛ពⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ࠶ࡿ୍ᐃࡢ
೫ࡾࠊࡘࡲࡾไ㝈ࡀ࠿࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
7.

ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜௒ᚋࡢᒎᮃ
᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㡯┬␎ࢆ෌⪃ࡍࡿ┠ⓗ࡛ࠊDu Bois (1987) ࡢᥦၐࡍࡿࠕ༢୍ㄒᙡ㡯ࡢไ⣙ࠖࢆᡭ᥃࠿ࡾ࡟ࠊ᭩ࡁゝⴥࡢㄯヰࢆ⣽࠿ࡃศᯒࡋ࡚ࡳࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ
ࠕSࠖ
ࠕAࠖࠕOࠖ࡜ᙧᘧ࣭ព࿡࡟ࡣ┦㛵㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋㄯヰ඲య࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕSࠖࠕAࠖࠕOࠖ࡜ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᙧᘧࡢศᕸ࡟ࡣࠊ
6−124−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

ࠕS࣭Oࠖࡣㄒᙡ໬ഴྥࠊ
ࠕAࠖࡣ┬␎ഴྥ࡜࠸࠺⬟᱁ⓗ࡞≉ᚩࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓ (⾲ 3)ࠋࡲࡓࠊព࿡ᒓ
ᛶࢆศᯒ㡯┠࡟ධࢀࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ௚ືモᵓᩥ࡛ࠕA࣭┬␎࣭᭷⏕㸭O࣭ㄒᙡ࣭↓⏕ࠖ࡬ࡢ೫㔜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓ (⾲ 5)ࠋㄯヰෆ࡛ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆ࡝ࡢ㡯఩⨨࡟࡝ࢇ࡞ᙧᘧ࡛⨨ࡃ࠿ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢሙྜࡢព࿡
ᒓᛶࡣఱ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡢ᪉␎࡟ࡣࠊ୍ᐃࡢഴࡁࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࡟ࡣࠊ1 ࡘࡢ⠇ෆ࡟」ᩘࡢ㡯ࡣฟ⌧ࡋ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࠕ༢୍ㄒᙡ㡯ࡢไ⣙ࠖࡀᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ
௒ᅇࡢ⪃ᐹࡣࠊ㡯఩⨨ࡢᙧᘧ࣭ព࿡࡜࠸ࡗࡓᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢ᝟ሗࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡣࠊ
ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆ⾲ࡍྡモྃࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ㏙ㄒ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ࡶ⪃៖ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ୺ㄒ┬␎࡟ࡣ㏙ㄒࡢ㛗ࡉࡢຠᯝ㸦the VP length effect㸧ࡀ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ୺ᙇ (Hyams 2012) ࡞࡝ࠊ㡯┬␎࡜㏙
ㄒ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࢆ㔜せどࡍࡿゝㄝࢆ┠࡟ࡍࡿࠋ௒ᅇࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟ࠕྍ⬟⾲⌧ࠖࡸࠕ⤒㦂⪅ experiencerࠖ࡞࡝ࡢᵝࠎ࡞ࢱࢢࢆࡘࡅࠊࡼࡾ⢭ᗘࢆ㧗ࡵࠊ㡯ࡢᙧᘧ࣭ព࿡࡜㏙ㄒࡢ᝟ሗ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࢆ᳨ドࡋ࡚
࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Du Bois, John W. 1987. "The discourse basis of ergativity". Language 63 4: 805-855.
Fry, John. 2003. Ellipsis and Wa-marking in Japanese Conversation, New York/London:
Routledge.
Hyams, N. 2012. "Missing Subjects in Early Child Language." In J. De Villiers and T. Roeper(eds.) Handbook of Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition,13-52, The
Netherlands: Springer.
Kennedy, Graeme. 1998. An Introduction to Corpus linguistics, London: Longman.
ஂ㔝ᬿ. 1983.ࠗ᪂᪥ᮏᩥἲ◊✲࠘ ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
Nariyama,

Shigeko.

2003.

Ellipsis

andReference

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
◁ᕝ᭷㔛Ꮚ. 2005. ࠗᩥἲ࡜ㄯヰࡢ᥋Ⅼ࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧

7
−125−

tracking

inJapanese.

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

諷喩とは何か--談話分析的レトリック研究の試み-平川裕己 (youkey.hirakawa@gmail.com)
神戸市外国語大学大学院<Abstract>
Previous studies on allegory have characterized some textual genres (i.e., allegorical novels, fables,
parables, and proverbs) as allegories, but failed to relate them to each other. This results in making the categoryof allegory seem unintegrated.

This study points out that allegories can be observed also in dialogicalinteraction, and analyzes the allegorical genres in terms of two aspects observed clearly in allegorical discourse
in dialogue: (i) to what extent persuasion is intended and (ii) to what extent analogy is made explicit. Thismethodology reveals that the allegorical subgenres vary according to how clearly those two aspects are observed.
【キーワード】：諷喩，談話分析，レトリック，説得

1. はじめに相手に何かを伝えようとするとき，それを別の何かにたとえて言うことがある。例えば理科の教科
書には，原子の構造を太陽系の構造にたとえ，両者の類似性をもとに原子の構造を説明するものがある。このようなたとえは，レトリック研究において「諷喩(allegory)」と呼ばれる。
これまで，ことわざやイソップ寓話など，いくつかのテクスト・ジャンルが諷喩の下位に位置づけられてきた。しかし，そういった下位ジャンルは互いを関連づけるかたちで整理されてはおらず，諷喩のカテゴリはまとまりのない雑多なテクストの集合であるかのような印象を与えている。果たして
諷喩は体系立てて理解することができない概念なのだろうか。
本論は，諷喩のカテゴリを整理しなおすことを目的とする。まず２節では，諷喩にまつわる先行研
究とその問題点を明らかにする。具体的には，諷喩を使用の場から切り離したテクストと見てきた先行研究に対し，一般的な会話においても諷喩が用いられ，そこでは諷喩が話し手の伝達行為に寄与す
るを指摘する。３節では，対話的な諷喩で明示的に観察される類似性の発見と聞き手の説得のふたつを手掛かりとして，これまでに指摘されてきた諷喩のジャンルを分析する。この分析に基づいて，４
節では諷喩の下位ジャンルを整理しなおし，発見と説得のふたつを軸として諷喩がまとまり／広がりを示すことを明らかにする。５節では全体のまとめを行ったうえで，本論の方法論上の意義を示す。
2. 先行研究とその問題点
伝統的なレトリック研究において，諷喩は「おなじ系列に属する隠喩を連結して編成した言述」であるとされてきた（佐藤, 1992b: 197）。例えば，《校長が人をだました》という出来事を「狸が（人を）化かした」とたとえる場合を見よう（佐藤, 1992b: 207-208）。これは，人をだました校長の姿と古来から人を欺くとされてきた狸のイメージとの間に類似性を見出して表現したものである。「狸」
および「化かした」は，それぞれ《校長》と《だました》の隠喩となっている。これら２つの隠喩は，共に〈人〉に関わる概念を〈狸〉に関わることばでたとえている点で同じ系列である。そして「狸が（人を）化かした」という表現は，この２つの連結によって成り立っている。伝統的なレトリック研
究は，このように一貫した隠喩をつなげて出来上がるテクストを諷喩と見ていた。以下，諷喩の額面通りの内容（この例では「狸が（人を）化かした」ということ）を「たとえ」，それが実際に表す事
柄（この例では《校長が人をだました》という出来事）を「本題」と呼ぶ。

1

−127−

諷喩とは何か―談話分析的レトリック研究の試み―

伝統レトリックのこうした見方に対し，佐藤（1992b: 204）は諷喩が「構造化した隠喩」であることを指摘した。彼によれば，「狸が（人を）化かした」という表現を単に２つの隠喩の連続と見るのは不十分である。重要なのは，「狸が（人を）化かした」というたとえが構造をなしており，その構造が《校長が人をだました》という出来事と類似関係を結んでいる，という点であるという。つまり，
諷喩はたとえと本題の間の類似性にもとづく「構造的な対応関係」が認められるテクストなのだ（佐藤, 1992b: 208）。
佐藤（1992b: 204）が適切に指摘しているとおり，諷喩はテクストとしての長短とは無関係な概念である。実際，これまでに諷喩の具体例として指摘されてきたのは，テクストとしては様々な形態をとる次の４ジャンルである。１つ目は，The Pilgrim's ProgressやAnimal Farmなど，現実世界を写し取った物語である（Barton and Hudson, 2009: 7；以下「寓意小説(alegorical fiction)」と呼ぶ）。２つ目は，イソップ(Aesop)やラ・フォンテーヌ(La Fontaine)らの名が冠されることの多い寓話(fable)である。寓話
は，動物が登場する，教訓を説くためのお話を指す（Drabble (ed.), 2000: 344）。３つ目は，聖書において，Jesusが教訓や宗教的な教義を述べる際に用いるたとえ話(parable)である（Barton and Hudson,
2004: 149-150）。４つ目はことわざ(proverb)である。ことわざは，社会知を説くための定型句である（Yanakh, 1994: 3386）。このように，テクストとして見た諷喩は，多様な特徴を示す。
諷喩に関する先行研究では以上のことが明らかにされているものの，上に挙げた４つのテクスト・ジャンルはそれぞれが個別に扱われるのみで，互いの関連は不明のままにされている。４ジャンルの共通点は，それらが諷喩であるということのみである。結果として，諷喩のカテゴリはまとまりのない雑多なテクストの集合であるかのような印象を与えている。諷喩は果たして体系立てて理解することができない概念なのだろうか。
諷喩のカテゴリがこうした印象を与えるのは，先行研究が諷喩をテクストとして眺めてきたことによる。これまでの研究は，一定の特徴を共有しジャンルとして固定化した諷喩を取り上げ，それらがテクストとしてもつ特徴に関心を寄せてきた。各ジャンルに際立った特徴に着目する反面，一貫した視座から諷喩のカテゴリ全体を見渡すことはしなかった。その結果，各諷喩に共通の性質はこれまで
明らかになっていない。諷喩のカテゴリが雑多な印象を与えるのは，このためである。
先行研究において諷喩がテクストとして扱われたことの帰結は，もうひとつある。それは，諷喩の語用論的側面が見落とされたということである。諷喩を使用の場から切り離して観察したことで，それらがどのようなディスコースを背景としているかが等閑視されてしまった。しかし，諷喩のテクス
トも何らかのディスコースの一部であり，そこでなされる伝達行為に関わる特徴もつはずだ。このことは，対話において諷喩が利用される様子を観察すると明らかになる。
例えば(1)を見よう。これはChloë Grace Moretzという女優へのインタヴュ記事からの抜粋である。ある映画で彼女の父親役を演じたNicolas Cageとのシーンについて，インタヴュアが話を向ける。
(1)

Interviewer: (a)The scenes with you and Nicolas Cage were so emotional and dramatic.
Moretz: (b)He's a phenomenal actor. So, (c)it was like ping pong: you return the serve. (d)If you playwith a good player, you work hard at it so that you can be on the same level.
amazing actor like him, emotion just flows.

(e)With an(AERA English, Feb. 2011)

インタヴュアの問いかけ(1a)に対し，MoretzはCageが素晴らしい俳優である(1b)とした後で，卓球でサーブを打ち返すのに似ている，と続ける(1c)。いい相手とプレーすれば同じレベルになれるよう頑張るものだと述べ(1d)，彼のように凄い俳優と一緒だと感情は自然と流れてくると言う(1e)。
話題となっている本題は実力のある俳優と共演すること，引き合いに出されているたとえは強い選
手との卓球の試合である。たとえは(1c)から始まるが，ここではたとえと本題の類似は大まかに示される。続く(1d)では，たとえの内容を〈条件とその帰結〉という構造によって具体化している。そして

2

−128−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号(1e)で，(1d)と同じ〈条件とその帰結〉を示す構造を重ね，たとえと本題を明示的に対応づけている。
条件の部分では試合・演技をする相手の質の高さが，帰結の部分ではその相手から良い影響を受ける
点が，それぞれ重ねられる。(1)では，このように，たとえと本題の類似性を示して両者を構造的に対応づけることで伝達（問いかけへの応答）が行われている。よって，Moretzの発話は諷喩と認められる。本論では，このような対話における諷喩を「寓意的論証(allegorical argumentation)」と呼ぶ。
寓意的論証のディスコースにおいて，話し手は対話のやりとりに根ざして諷喩を利用する。(1)ではたとえが(1c)で始まるが，直前の(1b)でMoretzはインタヴュアの問いかけに「直接」応えている。彼女
はこの(1b)を"So"で引き継ぎ，(1c)(1d)と展開させていく。本題に戻った(1e)の後半では，インタヴュアの発した"emotional"に対して"emotion"という語を用い，自身の諷喩(1c-e)を相手の発話への応答として明瞭に位置づけている。つまり，Moretzの発話は，Cageとの共演シーン"emotional"になった理由を卓球のたとえを通してインタヴュアに理解させるよう構成されている。言い換えれば，彼女は諷喩によって聞き手の説得を目指している。寓意的論証では，このように，話し手が聞き手の説得を指向する。
(1)に見たような諷喩の存在は，テクスト・ジャンルとしての諷喩に目を向けてきた先行研究では等閑視されてきた。このような例を見れば，諷喩の背景には発信者の行為があることは明らかである。
この点を踏まえて，本論では諷喩を次のように定義する。
(2)

諷喩は，本題（話題とする事柄）とたとえ（引き合いにだす別の事柄）との間の類似性をもとに，両者の構造的な対応関係を示して伝達を行うディスコースである

諷喩をこのように定義することで，諷喩を介して話し手と聞き手（書き手と読み手）がどのように関わり合うか，つまり諷喩の語用論的特徴を明らかにできる。
3. 各諷喩の分析
これまでの考察をまとめると，次のようになる。諷喩のカテゴリが雑多なテクストの集合に見えるのは，先行研究が諷喩をテクストとして扱ったからである。また，先行研究のこうした方法は，諷喩
の語用論的特徴を等閑視する結果につながった。しかし，これまでは扱われることのなかった対話における諷喩（寓意的論証）を観察すると，諷喩に話し手の行為が伴うこと明らかとなった。対話で諷喩を用いる話し手は，たとえと本題を明示的に対応づけて両者の類似性を発見させることで，聞き手を説得に導く。こうした分析をもとに，本論は諷喩をディスコースの観点から定義しなおした。
聞き手に対する働きかけという観点は，これまでの諷喩研究にはなかった。本節では，類似性の発見と聞き手の説得とが観察される度合いに着目して，これまで指摘されてきた４種の諷喩（ことわざ，
聖書のたとえ話，寓話，寓意小説）を調べてみる。
3.1 ことわざ(proverb)1
まずはことわざ(proverb)を観察しよう。具体例として，映画の一場面(3)を引用する。主人公の男子
高校生Keithは，高校のマドンナのAmandaにアプローチする方法を，親友の女友達Wattsに相談する。
しかしWattsは，KeithではAmandaを落とせるはずがないと言う。
(3)

WATTS: You couldn't score her in a million years. A: you're too shy and closed up to her to evenapproach her. And B: she'd kill you. (a)Chicks like her have one thing on their mind. And you
don't make enough of it to matter to her.
KEITH: Like, (b)you can't judge a book by its cover.
WATTS: (c)Yeah, but you can tell how much it's gonna cost.

3

−129−

諷喩とは何か―談話分析的レトリック研究の試み―

KEITH: That's deep.

(Some Kind of Wonderful)(3b)では，本の表紙と内容の関係がたとえに，Amandaの上辺の印象と実際の性格の関係が本題になっている。Amandaのような女の子に対するステレオタイプ的なイメージを主張するWattsの発話(3a)を受けて，Keithはことわざ(3b)を引く。このことわざは，本の表紙と内容の結びつきを否定する。彼はこの〈本の表紙と内容は無関係〉という構造を本題と対応させ，Amandaの上辺の印象と実際の性格が異なっていることを主張する。つまり，Keithのことわざは，Wattsの考えに反対し，Amandaに関して自分の意見を受け入れるよう説得するものとして機能している。
類似性の発見は，ことわざを導く"Like"によって緩やかに促されている。Keithは本の表紙がAmandaの上辺の印象に，その内容が彼女の実際の性格を表している，という細かな対応関係は示さない。それでも，(3c)で本のたとえをさらに展開させていることから明らかなように，Wattsはそうした対応関係を適切に理解している。これは，ことわざが定型化した諷喩であること（佐藤, 1987: 238-239）と関わる。定型句であるということは，ことわざが社会的に共有されていることを意味する。話し手はことわざの使用に際して，聞き手もそのことわざを知っていると前提できる（Norrick, 1985: 25）。こと
わざ話者は，類似性の発見を聞き手の知識に任せることができるのだ。
ことわざは諷喩の定型句である。対話でことわざを引くとき，話し手は聞き手の説得を指向する。
ことわざは社会的な共有物なので，話し手は聞き手も当該のことわざを知っていることを前提に，たとえと本題の類似性の発見を促せる。対話におけることわざのディスコースはこうした特徴をもつ。
3.2 たとえ話(parable)2
では次に，たとえ話(parable)に移ろう。具体例として，聖書の一節(4)を引用する。
(4)

徴税人や罪人が皆，話を聞こうとしてイエスに近寄って来た。すると，ファリサイ派の人々
や律法学者たちは，「この人は罪人たちを迎えて，食事まで一緒にしている」と不平を言いだした。そこで，イエスは次のようなたとえを話された。「(a)あなたがたの中に，百匹の羊を持っている人がいて，その一匹を見失ったとすれば，九十九匹を野原に残して，見失った一匹を見つけ出すまで捜し回らないだろうか。そして，見つけたら，喜んでその羊を担いで，家に帰り，友達や近所の人々を呼び集めて，『見失った羊を見つけたので，一緒に喜んでください』と言うであろう。言っておくが，(b)このように，悔い改める一人の罪人については，悔い改める必要のない九十九人の正しい人についてよりも大きな喜びが天にある。」（「ルカによる福音書」15.1-7）

聖書は書かれたものなので，書き手は読み手と対面しておらず，個別の読者に向けてことばを発しているわけではない。他方，(4)からも分かるように，（新約）聖書が描くのは（Jesusその他の）登場
人物同士のやりとりである。Jesusは目の前にいる聴衆に向けて，対面的にことばを発する。したがって，たとえ話のディスコースは，登場人物のレベルでは対話としての特徴を有する。読者はJesusらの対話をいわば傍聞きするようなかたちで，間接的にたとえ話を受け取る。
(4)では，迷子になった羊を連れ戻せた時の対応がたとえ，罪人に罪を悔い改めさせることの意味合
いが本題となっている。ファリサイ派の人々と律法学者の不平に答えるかたちで，Jesusはたとえを導入する（橋本, 1983: 74）。このことから，Jesusの諷喩は彼らへの反論として，つまり罪人と食事を共にすることについて彼の考えを理解するよう説得するためのものとして機能していることが分かる。
(4)に見られる特徴のひとつは，Jesusがたとえの提示に語り(narrative)を利用していることである。
Labov(1972)によると，語りは次のように記述される。

4

−130−

第17回大会発表論文集

(5)

第10号

[...] one method of recapitulating past experience by matching a verbal sequence of clauses to thesequence of events which (it is inferred) actually occurred.

(Labov, 1972: 359-360)

Labov(1972)は過去の体験談をもとに(5)の記述をしたが，体験談以外にも語りの枠組みは応用される。そのひとつがたとえ話である。(4a)では，羊を見失ってから連れ帰るまでの顛末が，節の連鎖で表現されている。動詞を順に取り出せば，「見失った」「残し」「探し回（る）」「見つけ」「帰り」「呼び集め」「言う」となり，これらが表す出来事がこの順序で時系列に沿って起こったと解釈できる。このことから，(4a)が語りをなしていることが分かる。
語りに続く(4b)で，Jesusは再び本題に戻っている。「このように」という表現が，それまで語った
たとえと本題とを結びつける。加えて，羊と人の数の一致がたとえと本題のどの要素が対応しているのかを明示している（橋本, 1983: 75）。ただし，語りを利用している分，たとえと本題とを過不足な
く細やかに対応づけることは難しくなる。(4)では，語りの流れ上は必要だが諷喩の構成には寄与しない要素（例えば「友達や近所の人々」）も含んでいる。この点で，特定の枠組みに縛られない寓意的論証と比べると，類似性の発見の明示性は低くなる。
たとえ話は語りの形式をもつ諷喩で，Jesusが聴衆を説得するために利用する。彼は目の前の聴衆に向けて，たとえと本題を明示的に対応づける。聖書の読み手は，Jesusと聴衆のやりとりを傍聞きする
かたちで，たとえ話を間接的に受け取る。読み手自身に諷喩が向けられているわけではないものの，Jesusのことばから類似性の発見および説得の意図は明示的に読み取れる。たとえ話のディスコースには，こうした特徴が認められる。
3.3 寓話(fable)
次は寓話(fable)を観察しよう。具体例として，イソップ寓話のひとつ(6)を挙げる。
(6)

狐と葡萄
(a)腹をすかせた狐君，支柱から垂れ下がる葡萄の房を見て，取ってやろうと思ったが，う

まく届かない。立ち去りぎわに，独り言，「まだ熟れてない」(b)このように人間の場合でも，力不足で出来ないのに，時のせいにする人がいるものだ。
（中務哲郎(訳)『イソップ寓話集』）
ブドウを食べたかったキツネの話(6a)がたとえ，人間の場合について述べた警句(6b)が本題である。
(6a)では，キツネの行動が時系列に沿って節の連続によって示されている。動詞を取り出せば，「見て」「思った」「届かない」「独り言（を言った）」となり，これらが表す出来事がこの順序で起こったと解釈できる。よって(6a)は明瞭な語りの形式を有する。たとえと本題の対応づけは緩やかになされる。語りと警句の類似性は「このように人間の場合でも」という表現によって明示されるが，キツ
ネのどの行為が人間のどういう行為に対応するかまでは示されない。
寓話は書かれたものなので，書き手は読み手と対面せず，個別の読み手を念頭にことばを発していない。さらに，登場人物が諷喩を用いて説得を行っているわけでもない。寓話では，(6)のように，語りと警句の類似が読み手に向けて示されるのみである。一定の主張を行い，読み手を説得しようとする書き手の意図を強くは読み取れない3。本題となる警句(7b)をどのようなものとして受け取るかは，
読み手に委ねられる。例えば，ありがたい教訓ととることも，キツネのような人間に対する嘲笑の文
句ととることも，等しく可能である。
寓話は書きことばによる諷喩で，語りの形式をもつ。たとえとなる語りは緩やかに本題と対応づけ

5
−131−

諷喩とは何か―談話分析的レトリック研究の試み―

られ，類似性の発見が促される。しかし，その対応づけ通して読み手を説得しようとする書き手の意
図は明示的ではない。これが，寓話のディスコースの特徴である。
3.4 寓意小説(allegorical fiction)
最後に，寓意小説(allegorical fiction)を分析しよう。具体例としては，John BunyanによるThe Pilgrim’s
Progressを扱う。(7a)はこの物語のあらすじ，(7b)は一節を抜粋したものである。
(7)a.

語り手が夢で見た旅物語。主人公Christianが，伝道師Evangelistの導きにしたがって，theCelestial Cityを目指してthe City of Destructionから旅に出る。旅の途中でFaithful，
Hopeful，Giant Despairといった人物達に出会いながら，the Slough of Despond，the Valleyof the Shadow of Death，Vanity Fairなどの地を旅していく。旅の終わりにthe Celestial Cityにたどり着いたChristianは，肉の衣を脱ぎ捨て天使たちに迎えられる。
（Abrams, 1985: 5; 横山・石堂(監修), 2006: 128-130）

b. Then Christian fell down at his foot as dead, crying, 'Woe is me, for I am undone', at the sight ofwhich Evangelist caught him by the right hand, saying, 'All manner of sin and blasphemies shall be
forgiven unto men; be not faithless, but believing.' Then did Christian again a little revive, andstood up trembling, as at first, before Evangelist.

(John Bunyan, The Pilgrim's Progress)

この物語は一般に，Christianの旅がキリスト教的世界観に基づく人間の救済過程を表していると解釈される（Semino, 2008: 65）。以降では，この解釈に沿って分析を進める。
たとえとなるのはこの物語で語られているChristianの巡礼の旅，本題は人間の救済過程である。この物語では，Christianの行動が節の連続で表現されており（(7a)の動詞に注目すると，"fell down""Then did [...] revive, and stood up"），その順に沿って出来事が起こったと解釈できる。このことから，
The Pilgrim's Progressが語りの形式をもつことが分かる。読者は語りに含まれる要素（登場人物や土地の名称など）を手掛かりに，この物語を人間の救済過程のたとえとして読むことができる。ただし，
たとえと本題の対応関係が語りの内部で明示されているわけではなく，あくまで示唆されるのみである。したがって，読者は語りを本題と結びつけず，単なる旅物語として読むことも充分にできる。
寓意小説は書きことばによる諷喩で，語りの形式をもつ。本題の存在，及びたとえと本題の対応関係は明示されない。よって，諷喩であること自体が，読み手の解釈に依存することになる（Semino,
2008: 64-66）。寓意小説のディスコースは，こうした特徴をもつ。
4. 諷喩下位ジャンル間の関係
前節では，類似性の発見と聞き手の説得がどれだけ明瞭に観察されるか，それぞれの諷喩のディス
コースを分析した。寓意的論証(allegorical argumentation)は，対話相手とのやりとりに根ざした諷喩である。話し手はたとえと本題とを明示的に対応づけ，その対応関係をもとに聞き手の説得を目指す。
ことわざ(proverb)は定型化した諷喩で，対話においては説得のために利用される。類似性の発見は，聞き手の知識を前提に緩やかに促される。聖書のたとえ話(parable)は語りを利用した書かれた諷喩である。登場人物であるJesusが，類似性の発見を通して目の前の聴衆を説得に導く。寓話(fable)は書かれた語りによる諷喩である。書き手は類似性の発見を緩やかに促すが，説得を指向しない。寓意小説(allegorical fiction)も書かれた語りによる諷喩である。類似性の発見，つまり諷喩であるということ自体が，読み手の解釈に依存する。
これらの特徴をもとに諷喩のカテゴリを整理しなおすと，図１のようになる。対話のやりとりに根

6

−132−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

ざして明示的に用いられる諷喩（図右寄り）では，話し手は聞き手に類似性を発見させ，そこから説得に導く。たとえの部分が語りの形式をもち，さらに書きことばが導入されると，諷喩としての明示性は低くなる（図左寄り）。話し手と聞き手の対面性は薄れ，説得の明示性も下がる。このように，類似性を発見させる度合いと説得が観察される度合いを軸にすると，諷喩のカテゴリを体系的に整理することが可能となる。
諷喩
寓意的論証
寓意小説

寓話

たとえ話

ことわざ
対話

語り
暗示的諷喩

明示的諷喩

発見のみ

発見と説得
図１

各諷喩の特徴と位置づけ

5. おわりに
本論は，これまでは雑多なテクストの集合という印象があった諷喩のカテゴリを整理しなおし，諷
喩が類似性の発見と説得のふたつを軸としてまとまって／広がっていることを明らかにした。この結論は，対話において利用される諷喩に目を向けたことによってたどり着くことが可能となった。寓意的論証を仔細に観察して初めて，諷喩のカテゴリ全体を統一的に眺める視座（類似性の発見と聞き手の説得）を得ることができた。
対話を対象として考察を行うことは，レトリック研究のあり方と密接に結びつく。レトリックには
元来「説得のための技術」という重要な側面があった（野内, 2002: 5-6; 柳澤・中村・香西, 2004: i-ii;
ルブール, 2000: 12-13）。そして説得は，本来的に対話で行われる行為で，目の前の聞き手に対して積極的に働きかける行為であろう。このことから，対話はレトリックが活躍する主要な場であると位置づけることができる。
しかしながら，伝統的なレトリック研究は修辞学としての色合いが強く，（特に文学的な）書かれたテクストにおける文彩(figure of speech)を主な考察対象としてきた（佐藤, 1992a: 47-50; 瀬戸, 1992:250）。書きことばを対象にしたことからも伺えるとおり，伝統レトリックは聞き手に対する話し手の行為のなかでレトリックを捉えようとはしてこなかった。また，近年のレトリック研究においては，
認知意味論が重要な成果を上げてきている。だが，その中心的な関心は比喩表現(figurative language)とヒトの認知能力との関わりを明らかにすることにあり（Dancygier and Sweetser, 2014: 1-3），やはり
レトリックを対人的な行為として眺めてはいない。聞き手に意図を伝えようとする話し手の行為を見据えながらレトリックを捉えることは非常に重要であるにも関わらず，現在のレトリック研究ではこうしたアプローチの方法は採用されていない。
話し手と聞き手のあいだでことばを捉えるのは，談話分析が得意とするところである（Johnstone,
2008: 2-3; 山口, 2009: 105-108）。聞き手に対する働きかけを軸として本論が諷喩について示した結論
は，レトリック研究における談話分析的なアプローチの有効性・重要性を示唆している。

注
1 ことわざは対話でのみ利用されるわけではないが，本論では対話におけることわざを考察対象としている。こ

7

−133−

諷喩とは何か―談話分析的レトリック研究の試み―

れは，ことわざが用いられる基本的なコンテクストが対話であることによる（Norrick, 1985: 12）。しかし，使用のコンテクストが異なれば，ことわざの使われ方にも変化が見られると考えられる。対話以外の場におけること
わざの使用については，今後の考察課題とする。
2 本論では，「たとえ話」という語をテクニカル・タームとして用いている。「お話しの体裁をとる諷喩」を緩やかに指す語としてではなく，「聖書の中でJesusが教義を説くために利用する，語りの形式をもつ諷喩」を指す用語として理解されたい。
3 ただし，警句の導入に際して，命令形が用いられる場合もある。それらの例では，(6)のような場合に比べて書き手の説得意図が明示的である。反対に，語りのみが提示され，（寓意小説の場合と同様に）本題の発見を読み手に任せる例も存在する。このことは，寓話のカテゴリの内部に諷喩のカテゴリと同様の広がりが認められることを示している。寓話のカテゴリの多様性，および２つのカテゴリの連動については，稿を改めて論じたい。

参考文献
Barton, E. J. and G. A. Hudson. 2004. A Contemporary Guide to Literary Terms with Strategies for Writing Essays about
Literature, 2nd ed. Boston and New York: Houghton Mufflin Company.
Dancygier, B. and E. Sweetser. 2014. Figurative Language. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Drabble, M (ed.) 2000. The Oxford Companion to English Literature, 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
橋本 邦彦. 1983. 「譬え話の構造分析」 『文体論研究』 30, 60-81.
Johnstone, B. 2008. Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Labov, W.

1972.

Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular.

Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press.
Norrick, Neal R. 1985. How Proverbs Mean: Semantic Studies in English Proverbs. Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam:
Mouton Publishers.
野内 良三. 2002. 『レトリック入門: 修辞と論証』 京都: 世界思想社.
ルブール, オリヴィエ (Reboul, Olivier). 2000. 『レトリック』 佐野 泰雄(訳) 東京: 白水社.
佐藤 信夫. 1987. 『レトリックの消息』 東京: 白水社.
佐藤 信夫. 1992a. 『レトリック感覚』（講談社学術文庫版） 東京: 講談社.
佐藤 信夫. 1992b. 『レトリック認識』（講談社学術文庫版） 東京: 講談社.
佐藤 信夫・佐々木 健一・松尾 大. 2006. 『レトリック事典』 東京: 大修館書店.
Semino, E. 2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
瀬戸 賢一. 1992. 「拡大するレトリック」 安井 泉(編) 『グラマー・テクスト・レトリック』235-264. 東京: くろしお出版.
山口 治彦. 2009. 「談話分析」 今井 邦彦(編) 『言語学の領域(II)』 99-124. 東京: 朝倉出版.
柳澤 浩哉・中村 敦雄・香西 秀信. 2004. 『レトリック探究法』 東京: 朝倉書店.
Yankah, K. 1994. "Proverb." In R. E. Asher and J. M. Y. Simpson (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics,
3386-3389. Oxford and Tokyo: Pergamon Press.
横山 茂雄・石堂 藍(監修) 2006. 『世界文学あらすじ大事典３』 東京: 国書刊行会.

例文出典
AERA English. 2011年2月号. 東京: 朝日新聞社出版.
Bunyan, J. 1965. The Pilgrim's Progress. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
中務 哲郎(訳) 1999. 『イソップ寓話集』 東京: 岩波書店.
『聖書 新共同訳 旧約聖書続編つき』 1992. 東京: 日本聖書協会.
Some Kind of Wonderful. 1987. Paramount Home Entertainment Japan.

8

−134−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟࡜⚟ᓥぶᏊ࡜ࡢ఍ㄯ
̿┦ㄯ⪅࡜ຓゝ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ࢝ࢸࢦࣜ̿ศᯒ̿
ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩥᏛ◊✲⛉ேᩥᏛᑓᨷ
ゝㄒᏛ༤ኈᚋᮇㄢ⛬ 1 ᖺ⸨ᮏ ኱ᶞdaiki_jp-414@hotmail.co.jp

㸺Abstract㸼
While the Great East Japan Earthquake would require action, politicians often obfuscate and ignore thetruth. Chomsky has attempted to clarify the facts on government. However, it is unclear what makes
Chomsky’s discourse persuasive. The present paper aims to provide an analysis of recent Chomsky’s
discourse in terms of the performative utterances. Chomsky provides a delineation of the power between
government and citizen and perform the speech acts by describing the facts of government’s action. It isshown in this paper that Chomsky’s performative utterances do not involve with his intention.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸㐙⾜ⓗⓎヰࠊ⾜Ⅽࡢグ㏙ࠊヰ⪅ࡢពᅗࠊᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢព࿡

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
2011 ᖺ 3 ᭶ࡢᮾ᪥ᮏ኱㟈⅏ࡀ㉳ࡇࡗࡓᚋࠊᨻ἞ᐙࡣᮏ᮶ࡢᨻ⟇࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃᙜ㠃ࡢᨻᒁࡸಶே
ࡢ⏕ࡁṧࡾ࡟ࡢࡳὀ┠ࡋࠊẸព࠿ࡽ㞳ࢀࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛㆟ㄽࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ┿⌮ࠊ஦ᐇࠊഇ⿦ࠊ⹫ഇࡢቃ┠ࡀ୙᫂☜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ (ඣ⋢ 2013)ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ⚟ᓥࡢぶᏊࡽࡢッ࠼࡟⪥ࢆഴࡅࡓࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟Ặࡢຓゝ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࢼࣛࢸ࢕ࣈ࡟╔┠ࡋࠊゝㄒ⾜ⅭࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊࠕᕷẸࡢ㊊ሙ࡜࡞
ࡾࠊࣉࣟࣇ࢙ࢵࢩࣙࢼࣜࢬ࣒࠿ࡽ㊥㞳ࢆ࡜ࡿࢫࢱࣥࢫ(ὸぢ 2006)ࠖࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄯヰࡢ୰࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋὸぢ(2006) ࡣࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢᨻ἞ⓗ࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮࡜ࡣࣉࣟࣇ࢙
ࢵࢩࣙࢼࣜࢬ࣒࠿ࡽ㊥㞳ࢆ࡜ࡿࢫࢱࣥࢫ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾲㇟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋࠊᕷẸඹྠయࡢ㊊ሙ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆぢฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟࠿ࡽᕷẸ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓᐇ㝿ࡢࢼࣛࢸ࢕ࣈࢆศᯒࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡀᨻᗓࡢბࢆᭀࡁࠊ
ࠕṇࡋࡉࠖࢆ㏣ồࡍࡿゝㄝࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡀࠊ஦ᐇࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆㄽࡌ
࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ
2. ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳ࣮࢜ࢫࢸ࢕ࣥ⮬㌟ࡀ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊゝㄒࡢ᫬௦࡜ゝࢃࢀࡿ 20 ୡ⣖ࡢဴᏛ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ᭱
ࡶ೧኱࡞ဴᏛⓗⓎぢࡢ୍ࡘࡣࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢸ࢕ࣥࡢࢫࣆ࣮ࢳ࢔ࢡࢺ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ1961ᖺ࡟ฟ∧ࡉࢀࡓ”Philosophical Papers”࡟཰㘓ࡉࢀࡓ “Performative Utterances” ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢸ࢕
1−135−

チョムスキーと福島親子との会談―相談者と助言者によるカテゴリー分析―ࣥࡣゝㄒࡢ⏝ἲࢆグ㏙࣭ศ㢮ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ゝㄒࡢ⏝ἲࢆㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡓဴᏛⓗഴྥ࡟␗㆟ࢆၐ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ
୍᪉࡛ࠊࠕゝㄒࡢ⏝ἲࢆิᣲࡍࡿ᪉ἲ࡟ッ࠼ࡿ᳨ド୺⩏ࡢືࡁࡀဴᏛ࡟୍኱㠉࿨ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋࡓࠖ࡜
ࡶ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ➹⪅ࡢ▱ࡿ㝈ࡾࠊ୍య࡝ࡢဴᏛ⪅ࡀゝㄒࡢ⏝ἲࢆิᣲࡍࡿ᪉ἲ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
ဴᏛⓗ㠉࿨ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋࡓࡢ࠿ࡣ୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋᙼ⮬㌟ࡶ㐙⾜ືモࡢศ㢮࡟ຊࢆὀ࠸ࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࠿
ࡽᐹࡍࡿ࡟ࠊ᳨ド୺⩏ⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡟ᢈุⓗ࡞ែᗘࢆ♧ࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡿࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠊᙼ⮬㌟ࡣ᳨ド୺⩏࠿ࡽᢤࡅฟࡋ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊࡴࡋࢁ᳨ド୺⩏ࡢືࡁࡢ୰ᚰ࡟࠸ࡓ࡜᥎ ࡛ࡁࡿࠋゝㄒࡢ⏝ἲࢆグ㏙ࡋศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ᪉ἲ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡢ࣮࢜ࢫࢸ࢕ࣥ⮬㌟ࡢ❧ሙࡣࠊᢈุⓗ࡛࠶ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࡶᴦほⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪻⹸Ꮫ⪅ࡀ⏥⹸ࡢ✀㢮ࢆิᣲࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡟ẚ࡭ࢀࡤࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿゝㄒࡢ⏝ἲࢆิᣲࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜
ࡣᐜ࡛᫆࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢸ࢕ࣥࡣࠊゝㄒࡢ◊✲࡟ࡣゝㄒࡢ⏝ἲࢆิᣲࡋ࡚࠸
ࡃグ㏙ⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡼࡾࡶࡣࡿ࠿࡟㔜せ࡞ືᶵࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࠕゝㄒࡢ⏝ἲࢆㄽࡌࡿ㝿ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋຓゝ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࠊ஦ᐇ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁᨻᗓࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆグ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡢࡀࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ゝㄝࡢ≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⾜Ⅽࡢグ㏙ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺
࡞⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࠿㸽⾜Ⅽࡢグ㏙ࡣࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫࡢ୰࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ാࡁࢆࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࡢ࠿㸽Austin (1961a) ࡀ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊဴᏛ⪅ࡸゝㄒᏛ⪅ࡀ⯆࿡ࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ”could”
ࡸ”might”ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ຓືモࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⓎヰࢆྲྀࡾฟࡋࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢែᗘࡸ⪃࠼᪉࡞࡝ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟Ⓨヰࡢព࿡࡟㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆၥ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ┠ⓗ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ὀ┠ࡋࡓ࠸ࡢࡣࠊࢳࣙ
࣒ࢫ࣮࢟ࡀ஦ᐇ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁᨻᗓࡢၥ㢟ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊຓゝ⪅࡜┦ㄯ⪅ࡢᚰ⌮ⓗࡘ࡞ࡀࡾࡸࣂࢵ
ࢡࢢࣛ࢘ࣥࢻࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋゝㄒ౑⏝ࡢഃ㠃࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ㛫ࡢ⤖᮰ᛶࠊ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂࡸ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡞࡝ࡢព࿡స⏝࡟㛵ಀࡍࡿせ⣲ࢆศᯒࡍࡿ
ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊⓎゝࡢຊ(force)࡜ࡣఱ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ၥ࠺ᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊAustin (1961b) ࡀศ㢮ࡋࡓゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ೌ࠸ࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡀᨻ἞ⓗグ㏙ࢆ୺ᙇ࡜ࡋ࡚Ⓨヰࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣ௨ୗࡢ㸲ࡘࡢゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡀ㐙⾜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
(a) <ఱ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿>ࡢྠᐃ(identifying)ࠊࡘࡲࡾ఩⨨௜ࡅࡿࡇ࡜(placing)(b) ఩⨨࡙ࡅࢆᥦ♧ࡋ(presenting of the placing)ࠊ㑅ࡾࡔࡍࡇ࡜(casting)(c) ゝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜(stating)(d) ౛♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜(instancing)ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡣࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢពᅗࡀ཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿㸽➹⪅ࡢぢゎ࡛ࡣࠊゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆヰ⪅ࡢពᅗ࡟㑏ඖࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡢศᯒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡀ
ព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄞࡳྲྀࢁ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡢࡣ඲ࡃ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡣグ㏙ⓗ࡟୺ᙇࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࡢⓎヰࡣࠊ┿ᐇࢆᭀࡁṇ⩏ࢆ㏣ཬࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟↔Ⅼࡀᙜ࡚ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢグ㏙ⓗ୺ᙇࡸ⪃࠼࡟࡝࠺ᛮ࠺࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡞ࢇࡽࡢពᅗࡶᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸࠿ࡶࡋ
ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࢆㄝᚓࡋࠊఱ࠿ࢆಙࡌࡉࡏࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿពᅗࢆ඲ࡃᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜
ࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞཯ㄽࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ௒ᅇࡢ⚟ᓥ࡛ࡢ఍ㄯࡣࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢᕼ
ᮃ࡛ᐇ⌧ࡋࡓࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ(┦ㄯ⪅)࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢಙᛕࢆᣢࡘࡼ࠺࡟௙ྥࡅࡓࡾࠊ୍ᐃࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆ
⾜࠺ࡼ࠺࡟௙ྥࡅࡓࡾࡍࡿពᅗࡀ࠶ࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊពᅗࡢศᯒࢆゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ࡟㑏ඖࡋ
2−136−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

࡚⪃ᐹࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫࡢศᯒࡣᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠺୺ᙇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊゝㄒࡢᙧᘧⓗ࡞ഃ㠃࠿ࡽゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ᥈ồࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᐇ㝿࡟ヰࡋᡭࡀᢪࡃពᅗࡣࠊຓゝ⪅࡜┦ㄯ⪅࡜࠸࠺࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࠊࡑࢀࡀヰ⪅ࡢពᅗ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᐇ⌧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺
ࠕ࠶ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵタᐃࡉࢀࡓゝㄒ≧ἣ࡛ࠖࡉ࠼ࡶ㠀ᖖ࡟ከᵝ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊグ㏙ⓗⓎヰ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㐙⾜ࡉࢀࡿゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡢศ㢮࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗࡀᙺ❧ࡘࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸࡜᩿ゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢ
ぢゎࡣ Chomsky (1975)ࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋChomsky (1975) ࡣࠊ࣋ࢺࢼ࣒ᡓத࡟཯ᑐ
ࡍࡿ₇ㄝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ᫬ࡢ⮬ࡽࡢయ㦂ࢆ౛࡟ࡋࠊᙼࡢ₇ㄝ࡟ࡣᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢព࿡ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ
ㄆࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡣࡑࡢ᫬ࡢࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢពᅗ࡟ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝㛵ಀࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3. ࢹ࣮ࢱ
OurPlanet TV ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚཰㘓ࡉࢀࡓື⏬ࡢ୰࠿ࡽࠊ2014 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 4 ᪥࡟ᮾி㒔ෆࡢ࣍ࢸ࡛ࣝ⾜ࢃࢀࡓࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟Ặ࡜⚟ᓥࡢぶᏊ࡜ࡢ఍ㄯ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢼࣛࢸ࢕ࣈࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࠋ
4. ⤖ᯝ
ࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࡟ࡣࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ᨻᗓࡢᨻ⟇ࢆ஦ᐇ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁグ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃጼໃ
ࡀᙉࡃ཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫࡢ୰࡟ࠊ┿ᐇࢆᭀࡁṇ⩏ࢆ㏣ཬࡍࡿጼໃࡀ
⾲ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿせᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟⮬㌟ࡢពᅗ࡜ࡣู࡟ࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡀ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ᨻᗓ࡟ᑐࡍ
ࡿグ㏙ⓗࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ୍ᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᨻᗓ࡬ࡢ
ᢈุⓗ࡞Ⓨゝࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢព࿡ࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢពᅗ࡜ࡣู࡟ࠊゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡀ㐙⾜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋX ࢆ Y ࡜ࡋ࡚グ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕX ࡣ Y ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗ(ព࿡)ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ྠࡌ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕX ࡣ Y ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜Ⓨヰࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ(H)࡟ࠕX ࡣ Y࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟௙ྥࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ㐙⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࢆᡭ᥃࠿ࡾ࡟ࡋ࡚ᩥᏐ࡝࠾ࡾࡢព࿡ࢆゎ㔘ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢศᯒࡀ
෪࠼ࢃࡓࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿ⌮⏤ࡢ୍ࡘࡀࠊࡓࡔ஦ᐇࡢグ㏙ࡔࡅ࡟㞟୰ࡋࠊṇࡋࡉࢆ㏣ཬࡍࡿ
ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࡟⾲ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋグ㏙࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㐙⾜ࡉࢀࡿゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡀࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢពᅗ࡜ࡣู࡟Ꮡ
ᅾࡋࠊࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫࡢ≉ᚩࢆᙧᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
5. ㆟ㄽ
5.1 ࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ゝㄝࡢᢈุⓗゎ㔘ࣀ࣮࣐࣭ࣥࣇ࢙࢔ࢡࣛࣇ(Norman Fairclough) ࡀ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢᐈほⓗศᯒࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺศᯒࡣᏛၥศ㔝ࡸ⌮ㄽࢆ㉺࠼࡚♫఍ศᯒࡸᢈホࡶྲྀࡾධࢀ
ࡓᏛ㝿ⓗࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋゝㄒ౑⏝ࡢഃ㠃ࢆ㆟ㄽࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊಶேࡢゝㄝ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿᨻ἞ⓗⓎゝࡣ㐣ཤࡢゝㄝࡸ♫఍ⓗᩥ⬦ࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤศᯒ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᚑ᮶ࡢゝㄒ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ◊✲ࡢᑐ㇟ࡀಶே㛫ࡢ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟⨨࠿ࢀࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ཭㐩ྠᚿࡢ᪥ᖖࡢ఍ヰࠊࢸࣞࣅࡢࢺ࣮
ࢡ␒⤌ࡀศᯒࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓ (➉㔝㇂ 2012)ࠋὸぢ (2006) ࡣࠊࢳࣙࢫ࢟
࣮ࡢゝㄝ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿᨻ἞ⓗⓎゝࢆศᯒࡋࠊ
ࠕࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡣ▱㆑ே୰ࡢ▱㆑ேࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢪࣕࣥ㸻
3−137−

チョムスキーと福島親子との会談―相談者と助言者によるカテゴリー分析―࣏࣮࣭ࣝࢧࣝࢺࣝࡢ⪃࠼ࢆཷᐜࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡿࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠊ஦ᐇ࡜㐨⩏ࢆ㏣ồࡍࡿ೔⌮ⓗ࡞ࠕṇࡋࡉ࡛ࠖேࠎࢆື࠿ࡑ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢゝㄝࡢࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟࡞ࡽ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡣᢈุⓗ࡞ែᗘࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡣࠊ
ࠕᕷẸඹྠయࠖࡢ࠶ࡾࡩࢀࡓᡂဨࡀඹ᭷ࡋ࠺ࡿࠊ஦ᐇㄆ㆑࡜㐨⩏ࢆᚭᗏࡋ࡚㏣ཬࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࠕ▱㆑ேࡢ㈐௵ࠖࢆぢ࠸ࡔࡍࠋࠕ▱㆑ேࡢ㈐௵ࠖࢆㄽࡌࡿ㝿ࡢᙼࡢ㛵ᚰࡣࠊ࠾ࡢ࠾ࡢ
ࡢ▱㆑ேࡀᘬࡁཷࡅࡿ࡭ࡁᑓ㛛ⓗ㡿ᇦ࡛ࡢ௙஦ࡼࡾࡶࠊ
ࠕᕷẸඹྠయࠖࢆࡵࡄࡿゝື(┿ᐇ࡜㐨⩏࡟⫼ࢆࡴࡅ࡚࠸࡞࠸࠿࡝࠺࠿) ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ
(p.130)ࠕࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡀࠊ
ࠕᕷẸඹྠయࠖࡢ୰࡛༑ศ࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆࡶ࡚ࡎࠊࡑࡢ㊊ሙ࡜࡞ࡾ࠼࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺
⌧ᐇࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࠊᢈุⓗ▱㆑ேࡣࠊ♫఍ⓗ࡞ၥ㢟ࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࠕ┿ᐇࢆㄒࡾბࢆᭀࡃࡇ࡜ࠖ
(p.132)࡟ᑓᛕࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠖ

஦ᐇㄆ㆑࡜㐨⩏ࢆᚭᗏࡋ࡚㏣ཬࡍࡿጼໃࡣࠊ⚟ᓥ࡛ࡢ఍ㄯ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶⰍ⃰ࡃ⾲ࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ⚟ᓥ࡛ࡢ఍ㄯ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟࠿ࡽ⚟ᓥࡢ⿕⅏⪅࡬ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓⓎゝࡢ᩿∦ࢆᡭ▷࡟ศᯒࡍࡿࠋ
5.2 ࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢࢼࣛࢸ࢕ࣈ
(1) I mean, I had two daughters about—when they were about the age of your daughter, they would comehome from school telling us how in school they were taught to hide under desks in case there was a
nuclear war. This was right after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the world came very close to nuclear
war.
ࡇࡢ᩿∦ࡣࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟⮬㌟ࡢ⤒㦂ࢆㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㒊ศ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢゝㄝࡢ๓ᥦ࡟࠶ࡿࡢࡣࠊ
ᨻᗓࡸᶒຊ⪅ࡀᕷẸ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ㄗࡗࡓ᝟ሗࢆᥦ౪ࡋၥ㢟ࡢ᰾ᚰࢆ㞃ⶸࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡬ࡢᢈุ࡛
࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ಶேⓗ⤒㦂ࢆㄒࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ┦ㄯ⪅࡜ࡢඹ㏻ࡢᩥ⬦ࢆసࡾฟࡍࡇ࡜࡟
ࡶࡘ࡞ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࠋయ㦂ㄯࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ஦ᐇࢆグ㏙(describing)ࡋࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ᨻᗓࡢ
ᕷẸ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⾜ື࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡢ඾ᆺ౛ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿ(exemplifying)ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡀࡇ
ࢀࡽࡢゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࢆពᅗࡋ࡚⾜࠸ࠊ┦ㄯ⪅࡟ඹ㏻ࡢᩥ⬦ࢆព㆑ࡉࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡟௙ྥࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡢࡣㄗࡗࡓᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋ┦ㄯ⪅ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢពᅗࢆㄞࡳྲྀࡿࡇ
࡜࡛ඹ㏻ࡢᩥ⬦ࢆព㆑ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࢆᡭ᥃࠿ࡾ࡟ᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢព࿡ࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ඹ㏻ࡢᩥ⬦ࢆసࡾฟࡍࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(2) It happens all the time. So, right now, for example, in Iraq, there is a city, Fallujah, which was attacked
by U.S. forces using weapons that no one understands, but they leave a high level of radiation. And
there’s studies by Iraqi and American doctors showing a very high level of cancer among children, far
4−138−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

higher than before, in the whole neighborhood of Fallujah. But the government denies it. The U.S.
government denies it. The Iraqi government doesn’t function. The international organizations refuse to
look.
ࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ there ࡣࠊ᪂᝟ሗࢆㄯヰࡢ୰࡟ᑟධࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟౑ࢃࢀࠊࣇ࢓࣮ࣝࢪ࡛ࣕࡢฟ᮶஦࡟↔
Ⅼࡀᙜ࡚ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋලయ౛ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࣇ࢓࣮ࣝࢪࣕࢆ㑅ࡾࡔࡋ(casting)ࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ
࢝㌷࡜ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾࢆྠᐃࡋ(identify) ఩⨨࡙ࡅࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ(presenting of the placing)ࠋ⬟ືែࡢ୺ㄒࡀ by U.S. forces…࡜┬␎ࡉࢀࡎ࡟⾲ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⌮⏤ࡣࠊࣇ࢓࣮ࣝࢪ࡛ࣕࡢฟ᮶஦ࢆᥥ෗
ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊࠕ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝㌷ࡀࣇ࢓࣮ࣝࢪࣕࢆᨷᧁࡋࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺஦᯶ࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝㌷࡬ࡢᢈุⓗែᗘࡀゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࣇ࢓࣮ࣝࢪࣕࢆᨷᧁࡋࡓࡢࡣࠕ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝㌷࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀゝ᫂ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(stating)ࠋ࢖ࣛࢡே࡜࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡢ་⪅ࡀⓎ⒴ᛶ࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ᨻᗓࡣࡑࢀࢆྰᐃࡋࠊ࢖ࣛࢡᨻᗓ࡜ᅜ㝿ᶵ㛵ࡶ┠ࢆ⫼ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᨻᗓࡣ་⒪ᶵ㛵ࡀ♧ࡋࡓⓎࡀࢇᛶࢆㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊࡑࢀࢆྰᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆၥ㢟Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚ゝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ(stating)ࠋ
ࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡣࠊ࣮࣭࣏࣮ࣛࣜࢡ࡜ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᨺᑕᛶ≀㉁ࡢᨺฟ࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࢆ㞃ⶸࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᨺᑕᛶ≀㉁ࡑࢀ⮬య࡜ྠ➼ࡢ༴㝤ࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡍࠊ࡜࠸࠺࣏࣮ࢡࡢぢゎ࡟ྠពࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡀᠱᛕࡍࡿ᭱኱ࡢ⬣ጾ࡜ࡣࠊࠕࡶࡋᜍࢁࡋ࠸≢⨥࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᮏᙜ࡟㛵ᚰࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ᪤▱ࡢ஦᯶࡞࠸ࡋᐜ᫆࡟▱ࡾ࠺ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ┠ࢆ⫼ࡅࡓࡾࠊᢚᅽࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ (Chomsky and Polk 2013)ࠋࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡇࡢ⬣ጾࡇࡑࡀࠊ(2)ࡢࢹ࢕ࢥ࣮ࢫ୰࡛グ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚ാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿
ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡀ(2)ࡢグ㏙ࡢ๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡀ(2)ࡢࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࡛ࡇࡢ
ࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢹ࢕ࢥ࣮ࢫࢆᡂ❧ࡉࡏࡿ๓ᥦ࡜ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫࡢ୰࡛஦᯶ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞♫఍ⓗᩥ⬦ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ
⪃࠼ࡿࡓࡵࡢ୍ࡘࡢᣦ㔪࡜ࡣ࡞ࡿࡀࠊヰ⪅ࡢពᅗࢆㄞࡳྲྀࡿࡓࡵࡢᴫᛕ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ඲ࡃᶵ⬟ࡋ࡞࠸㸯 ࠋࡇࡢࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ඲య࡛ࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡣၥ㢟ࢆ౛♧ࡍࡿ(instancing) ⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢ⤖᮰ᛶ(cohesion)ࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(3) And this is simply everywhere. I mean, in 1961, the United States began chemical warfare in Vietnam,
South Vietnam, chemical warfare to destroy crops and livestock. That went on for seven years. The
level of poison—they used the most extreme carcinogen known: dioxin. And this went on for years.
There’s enormous effects in South Vietnam.
ࡇࡢ᩿∦ࡶࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ᨻᗓࢆᢈุࡍࡿᥥ෗࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ(2)࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ”the United States began” ࡜࠸࠺ฟࡔࡋ࠿ࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ᨻᗓࢆ౵␎ࡢ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚⬟ືⓗ࡟グ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡣࠊࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡣ㎰స≀࡞࡝ࢆ”destroy”ࡋࠊⓎ⒴≀㉁ࢆ౑ࡗࡓ⪅ (theyused the most extreme carcinogen) ࡜ࡋ࡚グ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᨻᗓࡢ౵␎⾜Ⅽࢆྠᐃ(identifying)ࡋࠊ
࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ᨻᗓࡣ౵␎⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆゝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ(stating)ࠋࡲࡓࠊ ⾜Ⅽࡢグ㏙࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ᫬㛫ࡢ⤒㐣ࡶグ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ(in 1961, that went for seven years, and this went on for years )ࠋ᫬㛫ࡢ⤒㐣ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ࡜࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆၥ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣᮏ✏࡛ᢅ
5−139−

チョムスキーと福島親子との会談―相談者と助言者によるカテゴリー分析―࠼ࡿ⠊ᅖࢆ㉸࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊูࡢᶵ఍࡟ㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋᵓ㐀ⓗ࡟ࡣ(2)࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ
࣮ࢫ඲య࡛࣋ࢺࢼ࣒ᡓத࡛ࡢᨻᗓࡢ౵␎⾜Ⅽࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛౛♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ(instancing)ࠋ ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫࡢ⤖᮰ᛶࡣࠊᨻᗓࡢ౵␎⾜Ⅽࢆ౛♧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᡂࡾ❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(4) They [governments] protect themselves from their own citizens. Governments regard their own
citizens as their main enemy, and they have to be—protect themselves.
ᨻᗓ࡜ᕷẸ࡟↔Ⅼࡀᙜ࡚ࡽࢀࡓࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡣࠊ
ࠕᨻᗓࡣ⮬ࡽࢆ
ᕷẸ࠿ࡽᏲࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᕷẸࢆᩛࡔ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࠊ࡜ᨻᗓ࡜ᕷẸࡢ㛵ಀࢆグ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡀࠕᨻᗓࡣᕷẸࢆᩛࡔ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ(Governments regard their own
citizens as their main enemy)ࠖࠊ࡜グ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᕷẸࡣᨻᗓࡢᩛ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ
ゝ᫂࡜ࡋ࡚ពᅗࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿㸽ࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢពᅗ࡜ࡣ㛵ಀ࡞ࡃࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡣࠊグ㏙࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᨻᗓࡢᐇែࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ࡟㐣ࡂ࡞࠸ࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊࡑࡢグ㏙࡜࠸࠺⾜ⅭࢆࠊᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢព࿡ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢゝ᫂(stating)ࡀ୺ᙇᩥ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㐙⾜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⌮ゎࡍࡿࠋ ࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡣࠊ
ࠕᨻᗓ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᕷẸࡣ”mainenemy”࡛࠶ࡾࠊᨻᗓࡣ⮬ࡽࢆᕷẸ࠿ࡽ”protect”ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜グ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ࡋ
࡚ㄒᙡࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢពᅗ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࠿ࠋ⮬ࡽࡢグ㏙ࢆᩍ໬ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ
ẚ႘ⓗ࡞ㄒࢆពᅗⓗ࡟㑅ᢥࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋLakoff & Johnson (1980) ࢆጞࡵ࡜ࡍࡿㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗㄝ᫂ࢆᙜ࡚ࡣࡵ࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊே㛫ࡢ୍⯡ⓗㄆ▱࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ㆟ㄽ࡜ᡓதࠖ࡜࠸࠺஧ࡘ
ࡢ㡿ᇦ㛫࡟ࡣ෗ീ㛵ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ୍⯡ἲ๎ⓗ᥎ㄽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ(4) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡀ⏘ฟࡉࢀ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊゝㄒ⏘ฟࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡣࠊᨻᗓ࡜ᕷẸࡢ㛵ಀࢆࠊ㏻ᖖࡢ”enemy“,“protect” ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡢ౑⏝࠿ࡽࡑࡢᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢព࿡ࢆࠊᨻᗓ࡜ᕷẸࡢ㛵ಀ࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ
(placing) ࡟㐣ࡂ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠋ㸰ࡘࡢ㡿ᇦ㛫࡟⏕ࡌࡿ㛵ಀࡣⱥㄒヰ⪅≉᭷ࡢࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊ
࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟Ꮫ⩦ࡋᐃ╔ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ၥ࠸ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡉࢀ࡞࠸㝈ࡾࡼ࠸ㄝ᫂ࡔ࡜ࡣᛮ࠼࡞࠸ࠋ ⏕ᡂᩥἲ࡛ࡣࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢⓎ⏕ࡣ㑅ᢥไ㝈ࡢ㐓⬺࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡓ (Chomsky,1969)ࠋࡇࢀ௨㝆ࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡣఱࡽ࠿ࡢࠕ㐓⬺ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ⓨ⏕ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉ࡀᗈ
ࡃᾐ㏱ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ᛮ࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊSearle (1993) ࡣⓎヰ⏘ฟࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ㐓⬺࡟ࡼࡿㄝ᫂ࢆᨺᲠࡋࠊᩥࡢព࿡(word or sentence meaning)࡜ヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗࡋࡓព࿡ (utterance
meaning) ࢆ༊ูࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡓࠋࢧ࣮ࣝࡣࠊS is P ࡜㏙࡭࡞ࡀࡽࠊ ᐇ㝿࡟ S is R ࢆఏ㐩࡛ࡁࡿࡢࡣ࡞ࡐ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ၥ࠸ࢆ❧࡚ࡓࠋTaylor (2003)ࡣࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ Searle(1993) ࡢㄝ᫂ࡣࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࢆ㐓⬺࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛ၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᢈุࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊSearle (1993) ࡣ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡀ࡞ࢇࡽ࠿ࡢ㐓⬺࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬࢆᨺᲠࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௒᪥࡛ࡣࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࢆ㐓⬺࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ(4) ࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࢆศᯒࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊBotha (1989) ࡀᥦฟࡋࡓ㸰✀㢮ࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓
࣮ࢆ༊ูࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿ㸸(a) ゝㄒࡢព࿡つ๎ࢆ◚ࡿ᪂ࡋ࠸ࠕ๰㐀ⓗ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࠖ
ࠊ(b) ព࿡つ๎࡟㐪཯ࡋ࡞࠸ࠕṚࢇࡔ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࠖࠋ(a) ࡣࠊゝㄒヰ⪅ࡢࠕつ๎࡟ᨭ㓄ࡉࢀࡓ๰㐀ᛶ
6−140−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号(rule-governed creativity)ࠖ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢつ๎ࢆ㐓⬺ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊゝㄒヰ⪅ࡣ⮬ศࡢゝㄒ⬟ຊࢆ㉸࠼࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ࠸ࡗࡓࢇẚ႘ⓗᣑᙇࡀసࡾฟࡉࢀࡿ
࡜ࠊࡶ࡜࠿ࡽෆᅾ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿつ๎య⣔ࡀಟṇࡉࢀࠊ(b) ࡀᐃ╔ࡍࡿ(Botha 1989:200)ࠋ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ㛵㐃ᛶࡢ᥈⣴ࠖ࡜࠸࠺᥎ㄽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗࢆᢕᥱࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ࠺ࡕ࡟ࠊ(b)ࡀᐃ
╔ࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ Botha (1989) ࡜ Sperber & Wilson (1986/1995) ࡣࠊ࡯ࡰྠ᫬ᮇ࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊ
ࠕ⏕ᚓⓗゝㄒᶵ⬟ࠖ࡜ࠕ⏕ᚓⓗ㛵㐃ᛶཎ⌮ࠖ࡜࠸࠺௬ㄝࡢࡶ࡜࡛ศᯒ
ࡢ᪉ἲࢆᥦฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋゝㄒᏛⓗ࡟(4)ࡢⓎヰࢆ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟
⏘ฟ࡜ゎ㔘ࡀᐃ╔ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࠿ࢆㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳࡀࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ῝ࡃⰋ࠸ㄝ࡛᫂࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮ࠺㸰ࠋ(5) Citizens are not supposed to know what their government is doing to them.
ࠕᕷẸࡣᨻᗓࡀ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺グ㏙ⓗ࡞Ⓨヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕᨻᗓࡸᑓ㛛ᐙࡢࠕბࠖ
ࢆᭀࡅࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡢゝ᫂ࡀࡇࡢⓎヰࢆᡂ❧ࡉࡏࡿ๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᕷẸ࡜ᨻᗓࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ゝཬࡋࡓⓎヰ࡛ࠊᕷẸ࡜ᨻᗓࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࡶࠊヰ⪅ࡢ
ពᅗࢆⓎヰࡢព࿡࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒ࡟ྲྀࡾ㎸ࡴ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡣᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢⓎヰ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᕷẸ࡜ᨻᗓࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢពᅗࢆ┦ㄯ⪅࡟⌮ゎࡉࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡟௙ྥࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࢳ࣒ࣙࢫ࣮࢟ࡣ஦ᐇ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚グ㏙ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡔࡅ
࡛࠶ࡾࠊᩥᏐ࡝࠾ࡾࡢព࿡ࡋ࠿ఏ㐩ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
6. ᮏ✏ࡢ㝈⏺࡜ᒎᮃᮏ✏ࡢ㝈⏺࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡢศ㢮࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୙Ᏻᐃᡭࡉࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ
ࡿࠋࡑࡶࡑࡶ࡞ࡐ㸲ࡘ࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿ࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ༊ูࡣศᯒ⪅ࡢどⅬ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࡽ࡛
ࡶቑࡸࡏࡿࡋࠊῶࡽࡍࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒࡸㄯヰศᯒࡢどⅬ(perspectives)࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࢆ♧ࡏ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀᮏ✏ࡢ㝈⏺࡛࠶ࡿࠋゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࢆࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ
ศᯒࡢ୰࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡳࠊ⌮ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚☜❧࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿ࠋヰ⪅ࡀ㐙⾜ࡍࡿゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫࡢࢪࣕࣥࣝࡈ࡜࡟ᐇドⓗ࡟ほᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀᚲ
せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᫬㛫ࡢ⤒㐣ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ࡜࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟
ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

ὀゝㄒᏛ⪅ࡸဴᏛ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕ⮬↛ゝㄒࡢ๓ᥦࠖ⌧㇟࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡣከᵝ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᫂☜࡞୍⮴ࡣ࡞࠸(e.g. Fillmore 1971; Zwicky 1971)ࠋᐇ㝿ࠊWilson (1975)࡛ࡣࠊㄽ⌮ⓗ๓ᥦࡸㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ๓ᥦ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡀ⮬↛ゝㄒࡢ୰࡟ෆᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆၥ㢟࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋゝㄒဴᏛ࡜ゝㄒᏛࡢఏ⤫࡛ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᑐ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ(b) ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ(a)ࡢ๓ᥦ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㸯

1. (a). The king of France is bald.
(b). There is a (unique) king of France.
7−141−チョムスキーと福島親子との会談―相談者と助言者によるカテゴリー分析―

2.
3.
4.

㸰

(a). John regrets that Bill is ill.
(b). Bill is ill.
(a). It was John who killed Mary.
(b). Someone killed Mary.
(a). John stopped beating his wife.
(b). John had been beating his wife.
㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢⓎヰゎ㔘ࡢࣔࢪ࣮ࣗࣝᛶࡣࠊSperber & Wilson (1995)࡛⌮ㄽࡢ୰࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀࡓࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩ὸぢඞᙪ. 2006. ࠕᬑ㐢ⓗ▱㆑ேࡢ⌧ᅾࠖ(Chomsky, N. 2002. American Power and the New
Mandarins ࠗ▱㆑ேࡢ㈐௵࠘ΎỈ▱Ꮚࠊὸぢඞᙪࠊ㔝ࠎᮧᏹヂ࡟཰㘓ࡉࢀࡓὸぢඞᙪࡢㄽ✏).
Austin, J. 1979a. “Performative Utterances”. In J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock (eds.)
Philosophical Papers Third Eddition. 233-252. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Austin, J. 1979b. “How to Talk: Some Simple Ways”. In J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock (eds.)
Philosophical Papers Third Eddition. 134-153. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Botha, R.P. 1989. Challenging Chomsky: The Generative Garden Game. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Chomsky, N. 1969. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. and Polk, L. 2013. Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe. New York:
Seven Stories Press.
Fillmore, C.J. 1971. “Verbs of Judging: An Exercise is Semantic Description.” In C. Fillmore
and D. Langendoen (eds.) Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston, 278-289.
ඣ⋢ᚨ⨾. 2013. ࠗࡇ࡜ࡤ࡜ព࿡࠘
ࠊ㛤ᣅ♫.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Searle, J. 1993. “Metaphor”. In A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought.. 83-111. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford:
Blackwell.
➉㔝㇂ࡳࡺࡁ. 2012. ࠕࣃࣈࣜࢵࢡࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢࡢබඹᛶࢆ᥈ࡿ㹼࢚ࢥࣟࢪ࣭࢝ࣝ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡛
ࡳࡿ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝Ẹ୺ඪ኱఍ᇶㄪ₇ㄝࡢࢫࣆ࣮ࢳศᯒ㹼ࠖࠊᮾὒ኱ᏛᩥᏛ㒊⣖せ➨ 65 㞟ࠊⱥㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥᏛ⛉⠍ࠊdialogos 12ࠊ119-134.
Taylor, J. 2003. Linguistic Categorization Third Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, D. 1975. Presuppositions and Non-Truth-Conditional Semantics. London: Academic
Press.
Zwicky, A. 1971. “On Reported Speech”. In C. Fillmore and D. Langendoen (eds.) Studies in
Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 73-77.

8
−142−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

୰ᅜே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࠕ୙ྠពࠖ⾜Ⅽ-࣊ࢵࢪ౑⏝࡟࠾ࡅࡿẕㄒ㌿⛣ࡢྍ⬟ᛶ̺ᇼ⏣ᬛᏊᮾ໭኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᅜ㝿ᩥ໬◊✲⛉<Abstract>
This research reports on an investigation into the use of hedges in speech acts of disagreement and avalidation of pragmatic transfer in terms of interlanguage pragmatics. The invest igation shows thatthe hedges used by Chinese second language learners are notably different from Japanese native
speakers. Furthermore, it clarifies that there is a negative pragmatic transfer from Chinese to
Japanese in the usage of interrogative hedges. I argue that this result shows hedges working as apoliteness strategy. I have also found the variety of linguistic forms used by learners to be limited
because of pragmatic transfer, which indicates some hedges require high pragmatic competence.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࠊ࣊ࢵࢪࠊ୰㛫ゝㄒㄒ⏝ㄽࠊẕㄒ㌿⛣

1. ࡣ ࡌࡵ࡟
ࠕ୙ྠពࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛఍ヰศᯒࡢᡭἲࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ◊✲㸦Pomerantz 1984 ; Rees-Miller
2000 ࡞࡝㸧࡟ࡼࡾᵝࠎ࡞ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋᏛ⩦⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࡋࡓ◊✲ࠊ≉࡟ࠕ࣊ࢵࢪ㸦㎽ゝⓗ⾲⌧㸧ࠖࡢ౑⏝࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓ◊✲ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ẕㄒࡢ㌿⛣࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡓ◊✲ࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟㝈ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࣊ࢵࢪࡣࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ
࣮ࡢ 1 ࡘ࡛࠶ࡾ (Brown and Levinson 1987)ࠊ෇⁥࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿୖ࡛㐺ษ࡞㐠⏝ࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡑࡇ࡛ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ୰ᅜே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀࠕ୙ྠពࠖ⾜Ⅽ࡛౑⏝ࡍࡿࠕ࣊ࢵࢪࠖࡢ≉ᚩࢆゝㄒᙧᘧ࡜ᶵ⬟ࡢ୧ほⅬ࠿ࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢゝㄒ౑⏝࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿẕㄒ㌿⛣ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋᮏㄢ㢟ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ᪥ᮏ
ㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ⌧ሙ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶព⩏ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
2. ᮏ◊✲࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣊ࢵࢪࡢᐃ⩏࣊ࢵࢪࡣࠊᚑ᮶ࠊ࿨㢟ࡢ┿ഇࡢᗘྜ࠸ࢆ᧯సࡍࡿせ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࢃࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ (G.Lakoff 1973)ࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ୍᪉࡛ࠊᑐே㛵ಀⓗᶵ⬟ࢆྵࡴࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊBrown and Levinson (1987)ࠊ Holmes (1995)࡞࡝ࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠕⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࢆ⦆࿴ࡍࡿ㎽ゝⓗ⾲⌧ࠖ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋᮏ
◊✲࡛ࡣඛ⾜◊✲ࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࠊ࣊ࢵࢪࢆࠕ෇⁥࡞ே㛫㛵ಀࢆ☜❧࣭⥔ᣢࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢゝㄒᡭẁࠖࠊࡘࡲࡾࠕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࠖࡢ 1 ࡘ࡜఩⨨࡙ࡅࠊࠕ୙ྠពࠖ⾜Ⅽࡀࡶࡘ FTA ࢆෆⓗ࡟ಟṇࡍࡿゝㄒᙧᘧࠖ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡋࠊ௨ୗࡢ 2 ࡘࡢᶵ⬟ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿゝㄒᙧᘧ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
(a) ྍ⬟ᛶࡸ⛬ᗘᛶࠊ㢮ఝᛶ࡞࡝࿨㢟ෆᐜࡢ୙☜࠿ࡉࢆ♧ࡍᶵ⬟(b) ᝟ሗ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉㸦Ⓨヰែᗘ㸧ࢆ⦆࿴ࡉࡏࡓࡾࠊឤ᝟ࡸᛮ⪃࡞࡝ࡢⓎヰෆᐜࢆ⦆࿴ࡉࡏࡓࡾࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࠋ

−143−

中国人日本語学習者の「不同意」行為―ヘッジ使用における母語転移の可能性―

3. ඛ ⾜◊✲3.1 ࠕ୙ྠពࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣊ࢵࢪ
ࠕ୙ྠពࠖࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ࣊ࢵࢪࡀⓎヰែᗘࢆ⦆࿴ࡉࡏࡿࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊヲ⣽࡞ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ◊✲ࡣ Holtgraves (1997) ࡸ Locher (2004) ࡞࡝ࢆ㝖࠸࡚࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠸ࠋ
࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேⱥㄒヰ⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ Holtgraves (1997) ࡛ࡣࠊ࣊ࢵࢪࡀࠕ୙ྠពࠖࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ 1 ࡘ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᭱ࡶ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡢ㧗࠸ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡔࡗࡓ࡜ሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
≉࡟ࠊ͆I don̓t know͇࡞࡝ࡢྃ (Phrase) ࡸ ͆I think͇࡞࡝ࡢ༢⊂ㄒᙡ (Single Lexical Item)ࡀ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟๓᥋ࡋࡓࡾᚋ᥋ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊពぢࡀ⦆࿴ࡉࢀࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࢺࣝࢥㄒࡸࣇࣛࣥࢫㄒࠊⱥㄒ࡞࡝ࡢẕㄒヰ⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ Locher (2004) ࡣࠊ࣊ࢵࢪࡣ 8✀ࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ 1 ✀࡛࠶ࡾࠊ͆well͇ࠊ͆just͇ࠊ͆uhm͇ࡸ͆uh͇࡞࡝ࡢࡓࡵࡽ
࠸ࢆ♧ࡍ࣐࣮࣮࢝ (Hesitation Marker)ࠊ͆I think͇ࡸ͆I don’t know͇ ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3.2 Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ࣊ࢵࢪ Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢヰࡋࡇ࡜ࡤ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣊ࢵࢪ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓ୺࡞◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊNikula (1997) ࢆᣲࡆࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋNikula (1997) ࡣࠊࣇ࢕ࣥࣛࣥࢻேୖ⣭ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡜ࣇ࢕ࣥࣛࣥࢻẕㄒヰ⪅ࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫேⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ◊✲࡛࠶ࡿࠋศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ࣊ࢵࢪࡣⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ẚ࡭ࠊ౑⏝ᩘࠊ✀㢮࡜ࡶ࡟㝈ᐃⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡸࠊ͂I think̓ ࡢ㐣๫౑⏝ࠊࣔࢲࣜࢸ
࢕ᙧᘧࡢ㠀⏝ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ≉ᐃࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕⓎヰ⾜ⅭࠊⓎヰែᗘࢆ⦆࿴ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࠖࢆࡶࡘゝㄒᙧᘧ࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚ࡓ◊✲ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓᇼ⏣࣭ᇼỤ (2013)ࡣࠊ୧ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡢ୺࡞┦㐪Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚௨ୗ 2 Ⅼࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿ㸸(1) ࣊ࢵࢪࢆ 1 ࡘࡶ౑⏝ࡋ࡞࠸
Ⓨヰᩥࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ẚ࡭Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀከ࠸ࠊ(2) Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ẚ࡭ࠊࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠖࡸࠕᛮ࠺ࠖ࡞࡝」ᩘࡢᶵ⬟ࢆࡶࡘ㝈ࡽࢀࡓゝㄒᙧᘧࢆከ⏝ࡋࠊࠕ࠿࡞ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ⤊ຓモࡢ౑⏝ࡣᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3.3 ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜ၥ㢟ᥦ㉳ ୖ㏙ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࣊ࢵࢪࡀ FTA ࢆ⦆࿴ࡉࡏࡿゝㄒᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚㔜せ࡞ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ 1 ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ࡶࡢࡢࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ࣊ࢵࢪࠊ≉ᐃࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣊ࢵࢪࡢ౑⏝≧ἣࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓ◊✲ࠊࡲࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡢẕㄒࡶ࠶ࢃࡏ࡚ศᯒࡋࠊẕㄒࡢᙳ㡪ࢆ᥈ࡗࡓ◊✲ࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟㝈ᐃⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡛ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ◊✲ࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࠊሙ㠃タᐃࡸㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅ࡢᖺ㱋ࠊᏛ⩦ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡞࡝ࡢᙳ㡪せᅉࢆࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝࡋࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀࠕ୙ྠពࠖ⾜Ⅽ࡛౑⏝ࡍࡿ࣊ࢵࢪࡢ౑⏝≧ἣࢆ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ẚ㍑ࡋࠊ㢮ఝⅬ࠾ࡼࡧ┦㐪Ⅼࢆ᥈ࡿࠋࡲࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡢẕㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ୰ᅜ
ㄒࡢ࣊ࢵࢪࡶ࠶ࢃࡏ࡚ศᯒࡋࠊẕㄒ㌿⛣ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ
4. ◊✲᪉ἲ
4.1 ㄪᰝཧຍ⪅࡜ㄪᰝ᪉ἲ

−144−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

ㄪᰝࡣ 2011 ᖺ 4 ᭶࠿ࡽ 2012 ᖺ 12 ᭶࡟࠿ࡅ㸪௝ྎᕷෆࡢ኱Ꮫ࠾ࡼࡧ᪥ᮏㄒᏛᰯ࡟ᡤᒓࡍࡿ
᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㸦௨ୗࠊJJ㸧࡜୰ᅜேୖ⣭᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅㸦௨ୗࠊCJ㸧ࠊ୰ᅜㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㸦௨ୗࠊ
CC㸧ࡢྛ 20 ྡࢆᑐ㇟࡟⾜ࡗࡓࠋࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࠊ2 ே 1 ⤌࡟ࡼࡿㄢ㢟㐩ᡂᆺࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩࣙࣥ㸦ࠗ◁₍࡛㐼㞴࠘ 㸯 㸦ᰗཎ 2003㸧㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚཰㞟ࡋࡓࠋ᫬㛫ࡣ 20 ศ࠿ࡽ 25 ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞࠾౑⏝ゝㄒࡣࠊJJ ࡜ CJ ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࠊCC ࡣ୰ᅜㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
4.2 ศ ᯒ᪉ἲ཰㞟ࡋࡓⓎヰࢹ࣮ࢱࡣᩥᏐ໬ࡢᚋࠊࠕ୙ྠពࠖ⾜Ⅽࡢࠕ୺せ⾜Ⅽ㒊 (head act)ࠖࢆྵࡴⓎヰᩥࠊࡘࡲࡾ୍ேࡢヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡿࠕᩥࠖࢆᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ㸦Ᏹబ⨾ 2011㸧ࢆᢳฟࡋࡓࠋࠕ୺せ⾜Ⅽ㒊ࠖ࡜ࡣࠊࠕ୙ྠពࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ⬣࠿ࡍ⾜Ⅽ (Face-Threatening Acts; FTA)ࡀᐇ㝿࡟Ⓨヰຠຊࢆᣢࡘព࿡ⓗせ⣲࡛࠶ࡾࠊ௨ୗࡢ 3 ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿ㸸ձ㹹཯ᑐពぢ㹻ࠊղ㹹௦᱌ᥦ♧㹻ࠊճ㹹⌮⏤ᥦ♧㹻ࠋḟ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ Nittono (2003) ࢆࠊ୰ᅜㄒ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ Rue and Zhang (2008) ࡜ᙰ(2012) ࢆཧ⪃࡟ FTA ࢆ⦆࿴ࡉࡏࡿゝㄒᙧᘧࢆᢳฟࡋࡓᚋࠊⓎヰෆᐜ࡜࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡜ࢆ
⪃៖ࡋࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢᐃ⩏࡜ྜ⮴ࡍࡿࡶࡢࢆ࣊ࢵࢪ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆᐃࡋࡓࠋㄆᐃసᴗࡣࠊ➹⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ 2 ྡ࠾ࡼࡧ୰ᅜㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ 2 ྡ࡜࡛⾜ࡗࡓࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ㄆᐃࡋࡓ୺࡞࣊ࢵࢪࡣ⾲㸯ࡢ
㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⾲ 1 ᮏ◊✲࡛ㄆᐃࡋࡓ୺࡞࣊ࢵࢪ
ᙧែ

᪥ᮏㄒ

୰ᅜㄒ

␲ၥ

㹼࡞࠸[Ќ]ࠊ㹼࡛ࡋࡻ[Ќ]ࠊ࠿࡞ࠊࡼࡡ

᫝୙᫝㹼㸪ሩྱ㸽ࠊ㹼㸪ሩ୙ሩ㸽ᛮ࠺ࠊẼࡀࡍࡿࠊ㹼࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠊ㹼ࡓࡾࡍ㿹ᚓࠊ᝿ࠊ䇔Ѫࠊឤ㿹ࠊஓࠊ᭷Ⅼࠊ୍Ⅼࠊࡿࠊࡡࠊ࡜࠿ࠊ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠊࡑ࠺ࡔࠊ ᣿ࠊẚ䖳ࠊᕥྑࠊၢࠊၢொ஄ⓗࠊொ஄ࠊླྀ㏙ࡼ࠺ࡔࠊࡳࡓ࠸ࡔࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠊ࠶ࡲࡾࠊ ொ஄ⓗࠊ఼᝿ࠊஅ㊫ࠊྱࠊდࠊ䈤୙ᐃࠊࡓࡪࢇࠊࡶࡋ࠿ࡋࡓࡽࠊࡅࡗࡇ࠺ࠊឤࡌࠊ ྍ௨ࠊྍ⬟ࠊ᭷ྍ⬟ࠊྍ⬟ᛶࠊ୍⯡᮶䈤ࠊീࠊዲീࠊ㠀せ㹼୙⾜ࠊ୙ኴࠊ୙㹼㑣஄ࠊྍ⬟ᛶࠊ࡜࠸࠺࠿

୙᫝ᚇࠊ୙୍ᐃ
ㄆᐃࡋࡓ࣊ࢵࢪࡣࠊ1 Ⓨヰᩥ୰ࡢ࣊ࢵࢪࡢྜィ౑⏝ᩘࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࠊฟ⌧ࡋࡓⓎヰᩥᩘࢆẕㄒู࡟ẚ㍑ࡋࡓࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ୺せ㒊࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣊ࢵࢪࡢ౑⏝⋡ࢆ 3 ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ (JJ, CJ, CC) 㛫࡛ẚ㍑ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊࢡࣟࢫ㞟ィᚋࠊ࢝࢖஧஌᳨ᐃࢆ⾜࠸ࠊศᕸ࡟ᕪࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋ࢝࢖஧஌᳨ᐃࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ5%Ỉ‽࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ 1%Ỉ‽࡛᭷ពᕪࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊṧᕪศᯒࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ࡝ࡇ࡟೫ࡾࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿☜ㄆࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ᭷ពᛶࢆ᳨ᐃࡋࡓࠋ
ḟ࡟ಶูࡢゝㄒᙧᘧ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡀ඲య࡟༨ࡵࡿ๭ྜࢆࢢ࣮ࣝࣉู࡟ẚ㍑ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊ඲࡚ࡢ࣊ࢵࢪࢆ␲ၥ࣊ࢵࢪ࡜ླྀ㏙࣊ࢵࢪ࡟ศࡅࡓࠋ␲ၥ࣊ࢵࢪ࡜ࡣࠊࡑࡢ࿨㢟࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿ࡀᡂࡾ❧ࡓ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࠊ┦ᡭ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ⮬ศ⮬㌟࡟ၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡓࡾࡍࡿゝㄒᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࡢླྀ㏙࣊ࢵࢪ࡜ࡣࠊෆᐜࡸヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿࡞࡝ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఏ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍゝㄒᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋศ㢮ࡋࡓ 2 ✀㢮ࡢ࣊ࢵࢪ㸦␲ၥ࣊ࢵࢪ࣭ླྀ㏙࣊ࢵࢪ㸧ࡣࠊ୧⪅ࡢᵓᡂẚࢆ

−145−

中国人日本語学習者の「不同意」行為―ヘッジ使用における母語転移の可能性―ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㛫࡛ẚ㍑ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ౑⏝⋡࡜ྠᵝࡢ⤫ィⓗᡭἲࢆ⏝࠸࡚ศᯒࡋࡓࠋ
5. ⤖ ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹ
5.䠍 ౑⏝⋡
3 ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ (JJ, CJ, CC) ࡛ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ࣊ࢵࢪࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡞࠸㸦௨ୗࠊࠕ㠀⏝ࠖ㸧୺せ㒊ࡀ౑⏝ࡍࡿ㸦௨ୗࠊࠕ౑⏝ࠖ㸧ࡢ୺せ㒊ࢆୖᅇࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊ౑⏝⋡ࡣ JJ ࡀ᭱ࡶ㧗ࡃࠊCCࠊCJ ࡀ⥆࠸ࡓ㸦JJ: 40.1%, CJ: 24.8%, CC: 32.2%㸧ࠋࡲࡓ࢝࢖஧஌᳨ᐃࡢ⤖ᯝࠊȮt(2) = 7.7, p < 0.05 ࡜ 5%Ỉ‽࡛᭷ពᕪࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡉ
ࡽ࡟ࠊṧᕪศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠊJJ ࡀ᭷ព࡟ከࡃࠊCJ ࡛ࡣ᭷ព࡟ᑡ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊJJ ࡛ࡣࠕ౑⏝ࠖ࡟ࠊCJ ࡛ࡣࠕ㠀⏝ࠖ࡟ศᕸࡀ೫ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
5.2 ゝㄒᙧᘧ
࣊ࢵࢪ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆᐃࡋࡓゝㄒᙧᘧࡢྜィࡣࠊJJ ࡀ 72 ಶࠊCJ ࡀ 48 ಶࠊCC ࡀ 88 ಶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౑
⏝㢖ᗘࡢ㧗࠿ࡗࡓゝㄒᙧᘧࡣ⾲ 2 ࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋୖ఩ 3 ఩࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊJJ ࡛ࡣࠕ࡞࠸㹙Ќ㹛ࠖ
(20.8%) ࡀ᭱ࡶከࡃࠕ࡜࠿ࠖ(15.3%) ࠊࠕᛮ࠺ࠖ(11.1%) ࡀ⥆࠸ࡓࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ CJ ࡛ࡣࠕࡓࡪ
ࢇࠖ(18.8%) ࡀ᭱ࡶከࡃࠊ
ࠕ࠿࡞ࠖ(16.7%) ࠊࠕᛮ࠺ࠖ(14.6%) ࡀ⥆࠸ࡓࠋCC ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ㿹ᚓ㸦ᛮ࠺㸧ࠖ(23.9%) ࡀ᭱ࡶከࡃࠊࠕஓ㸦ࡲ࠶㸧ࠖ(11.4%)ࠊࠕྱ㸦࠿࡞㸧ࠖ(9.1%) ࡀ⥆࠸ࡓࠋ
⾲ 2 ࣊ࢵࢪࡢゝㄒᙧᘧ (JJ, CJ, CC)
JJ

CJ

CC

1.࡞࠸[Ќ]15(20.8)

1.ࡓࡪࢇ

9(18.8)

1.㿹ᚓ

21(23.9)

2.࡜࠿

11(15.3)

2.࠿࡞

8(16.7)

2.ஓ

10(11.4)

3.ᛮ࠺

8(11.1)

3.ᛮ࠺

7(14.6)

3.ྱ

8

(9.1)

4.ࡓࡪࢇ

5

(6.9)

4.࡜࠿

4

(8.3)

4.ྍ⬟

4

(4.5)

4.࠿࡞

5

(6.9)

5.࡛ࡋࡻ[Ќ]

3

(6.3)

4.ẚ䖳

4

(4.5)

6.࡛ࡋࡻ[Ќ]4(5.6)

5.࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸

3

(6.3)

4.୙୍ᐃ

4

(4.5)

6.࡜࠸࠺࠿

4

(5.6)

5.ឤࡌ

3

(6.3)

4.ொ஄ⓗ

4

(4.5)

ࡑࡢ௚ 15 ✀20(27.8)

ࡑࡢ௚ 9 ✀

11

(22.9)

ࡑࡢ௚ 22 ✀33(37.5)

ྜィ

72

(100)

ྜィ

48

(100)

ྜィ

88

(100)

㸦 㸧ෆࡣ඲య࡟༨ࡵࡿ๭ྜࢆ♧ࡍḟ࡟ࠊ␲ၥ࣊ࢵࢪ࡜ླྀ㏙࣊ࢵࢪࡀ඲య࡟༨ࡵࡿ๭ྜࢆẚ㍑ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࢆᅗ 1 ࡟♧ࡍࠋJJࠊCJࠊCC ඲࡚ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ␲ၥ࣊ࢵࢪࡼࡾࡶླྀ㏙࣊ࢵࢪࡢ౑⏝⋡ࡀ㧗࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊ୧࣊
ࢵࢪࡢᵓᡂẚ࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ␲ၥ࣊ࢵࢪࡢ౑⏝⋡ࡣࠊJJ ࡀ 40.3%࡜᭱ࡶ㧗ࡃࠊḟ࠸࡛ CJ ࡢ
27.1%ࡀ㧗ࡃࠊCC ࡢ 4.5%ࡀ⥆࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡓ࢝࢖஧஌᳨ᐃࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠊȮt(2) = 28.6, p < 0.01
࡜ࠊ1%Ỉ‽࡛᭷ពᕪࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊ␲ၥ࣊ࢵࢪ࡜ླྀ㏙࣊ࢵࢪࡢศᕸࡣࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㛫࡛᭷ព࡟␗࡞ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛ṧᕪศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠊJJ ࡜ CC ࡛ࡣ 1%Ỉ‽࡛᭷ព࡟␗࡞ࡗ
ࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ௚ࡢ 2 ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ẚ࡭ࠊJJ ࡛ࡣ␲ၥ࣊ࢵࢪ࡟ࠊCC ࡛ࡣླྀ㏙࣊ࢵࢪ

−146−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

࡟ศᕸࡀ೫ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊCJ ࡛ࡣ␲ၥ࣊ࢵࢪ࡜ླྀ㏙࣊ࢵࢪࡢ౑⏝ࡀᆒ⾮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿
࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠊ␲ၥ࣊ࢵࢪ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿࠋJJ ࡀ᭱ࡶከࡃ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡢࡣྰᐃ␲ၥࠕ࡞࠸㹙Ќ㹛࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࠊࠕ࡛ࡋࡻ㹙Ќ㹛ࠖࡀ⥆࠸ࡓࠋCJ ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡀ᭱ࡶከࡃࠊࠕ࡛ࡋࡻ㹙Ќ㹛ࠖࠊࠕ࡞࠸㹙Ќ㹛ࠖ࡜ࠕࡼࡡࠖࡀ⥆࠸ࡓࠋCC ࡛ࡣࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶᑡᩘ࡞ࡀࡽࠕ㸪ሩྱ?ࠖ࡜ࠕ㸪ሩ୙
ሩ?ࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡿㅙྰ␲ၥᩥࠊࠕ᫝୙᫝ࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ཯᚟␲ၥᩥࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋJJ ࡀ≉ᚩⓗ࡟ከ⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠕ㹼࡞࠸[Ќ]ࠖࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ (1) ࢆ♧ࡍࠋJJF07A ࡜ JJF07B ࡣࠊചࡢ⏝㏵࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡋྜࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕ㞵Ỉࢆࡓࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ㸦ࡢ࡛ചࡀᚲせࡔ㸧ࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࡿ JJF07A ࡟ᑐࡋࠊJJF07B ࡣࠕ㸦◁₍࡛ࡣ㸧㞵ࡀ㝆ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ചࡀ୙せ࡛࠶ࡿ᰿ᣐࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸦㹹⌮⏤ᥦ♧㹻㸧ࠊࠕ࡞࠸[Ќ]ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ୙☜࠿ࡉࢆ♧ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⮬㌟ࡢุ᩿ࢆ JJF07A ࡟ጤࡡ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(1)

ヰ⪅

Ⓨヰෆᐜ

཯ᛂ

JJF07A㞵Ỉࡓࡵࡿ࡜࠿ࡌࡷࡡ?ࠋ㸦ඛ⾜Ⓨヰ㸧

JJF07B㞵㝆ࡽ࡞ࡃ࡞࠸[Ќ]ࠋ

㹹⌮⏤ᥦ♧㹻

௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠊླྀ㏙࣊ࢵࢪ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿࠋJJ ࡛ࡣࠕ࡜࠿ࠖࡀ᭱ࡶከࡃࠊࠕᛮ࠺ࠖࠊࠕࡓࡪࢇࠖ
ࡀ⥆࠸ࡓࠋCJ ࡛ࡣࠊࠕࡓࡪࢇࠖࡀ᭱ࡶከࡃࠊ
ࠕᛮ࠺ࠖࠊࠕ࡜࠿ࠖࡀ⥆࠸࡚࠾ࡾࠊJJࠊCJ ࡣ࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ୪ิຓモࠕ࡜࠿ࠖࠊືモࠕᛮ࠺ࠖࠊ☜ಙࡢ⛬ᗘࢆ♧ࡍ๪モࠕࡓࡪࢇࠖࡢ 3 ✀ࢆከࡃ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋCC ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ㿹ᚓ㸦ᛮ࠺㸧ࠖࡀ᭱ࡶከࡃࠊ
ࠕஓ㸦ࡲ࠶㸧ࠖࠊࠕྱ㸦࠿࡞㸧ࠖࡀ⥆࠸ࡓࠋ(2) ࡟ࠊCJ ࡀከ⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠕࡓࡪࢇࠖ࡜ࠕᛮ࠺ࠖࡢ౛ࢆ♧ࡍࠋCJF03J ࡜ CJF03C ࡣࠊചࡢᚲ
せᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡋྜࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕ㞵ࡀ㝆ࡗࡓ࡜ࡁ㸦ചࡀᚲせࡔ㸧ࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࡿ CJF03J ࡟ᑐࡋࠊCJF03C ࡣࠕ࠺࣮ࢇࠖ࡜୍᪦ពぢࢆಖ␃ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊࠕ㸦◁₍࡛ࡣ㞵ࡀ㸧㝆ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜
᩿ᐃⓗ࡟㏙࡭㸦㹹⌮⏤㹻㸧ࠊ⥆ࡅ࡚ࠕചࡀせࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ㸦㹹཯ᑐពぢ㹻㸧࡟ࠕࡓࡪࢇࠖ࡜ࠕᛮ࠺ࠖࢆ
௜ຍࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠕ࿨㢟ෆᐜࡢ୙☜࠿ࡉࠖࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−147−

中国人日本語学習者の「不同意」行為―ヘッジ使用における母語転移の可能性―

(2)

ヰ⪅

Ⓨヰෆᐜ

཯ᛂ

CJF03J<➗࠸࡞ࡀࡽ>㞵ࠊ㝆ࡗࡓ࡜ࡁ㸦ചࡀᚲせ㸧[Ў]ࠋ

㸦ඛ⾜Ⓨヰ㸧

CJF03C࠺࣮ࢇࠋ㹹⌮⏤ᥦ♧㹻

CJF03Jࡲ࣮ࠊ㞵ࠊ㝆ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ࡣゝࡗ࡚࡞࠸ࡶࢇࡡ[Ѝ]ࠋ

CJF03C㝆ࡽ࡞࠸ࠊ㹹⌮⏤ᥦ♧㹻

ࡓࡪࢇࠊせࡽ࡞࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࠊചࠋ㹹཯ᑐពぢ㹻

ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ3 ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ(JJ, CJ, CC) ࡢ౑⏝ࡍࡿ࣊ࢵࢪࡣࠊ␲ၥ࣊ࢵࢪ࡜ླྀ㏙࣊ࢵࢪࡢ౑⏝๭ྜࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊಶูࡢゝㄒᙧᘧ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ␗࡞ࡿഴྥࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ
6. ⤖ᯝ
6.1 ౑⏝⋡JJࠊCJ ࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊࠕ㠀⏝ࠖࡢ୺せ㒊ࡀࠕ౑⏝ࠖࢆୖᅇࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊ⤫ィࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ௚ࡢ 2 ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ẚ࡭ࠊJJ ࡣࠕ౑⏝ࠖ࡟ࠊCJ ࡛ࡣࠕ㠀⏝ࠖ࡟೫ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊCC ࡛ࡣ୧⪅ࡀᣕᢠࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ Nikula (1997) ࡸᇼ⏣࣭ᇼỤ (2013) ࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢ࣊ࢵࢪࡢ㐠⏝ࡢ㞴ࡋࡉࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
6.2 ゝㄒᙧᘧ
୧࣊ࢵࢪ㸦␲ၥ࣊ࢵࢪ࣭ླྀ㏙࣊ࢵࢪ㸧ࡀ඲య࡟༨ࡵࡿ๭ྜࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ௚ࡢ 2 ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ẚ࡭ࠊJJ ࡛ࡣ␲ၥ࣊ࢵࢪ࡟᭷ព࡟೫ࡾࠊCJ ࡛ࡣ␲ၥ࣊ࢵࢪ࡜ླྀ㏙࣊ࢵࢪࡢ౑⏝ࡀᆒ⾮ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋCC ࡛ࡣ᭷ព࡟ླྀ㏙࣊ࢵࢪ࡟೫ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋJJ ࡀ␲ၥ࣊ࢵࢪࢆከ⏝ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ Nittono (2003) ࡛ླྀ㏙࣊ࢵࢪ 㸰 ࡀ඲࣊ࢵࢪࡢ
80%௨ୖࢆ༨ࡵࡿ࡜࠸࠺ሗ࿌࡜┦཯ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽ࡟ࡣࠊ♫఍ே࡟ࡼࡿ⮬↛఍ヰ㸦㞧ㄯ㸧࡜Ꮫ⏕࡟ࡼࡿࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩࣙࣥ࡜࠸࠺ᑐ㇟⪅ࡢᒓᛶࡸࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ㐪࠸ࡀᙳ㡪ࡋࡓ࡜ᛮࢃࢀ
ࡿࠋ␲ၥ࣊ࢵࢪࡢ࠺ࡕࠊࠕ㹼࡞࠸[Ќ]ࠖࢆྵࡴྰᐃ␲ၥᩥࡣࠊᙧᘧୖࡣ␲ၥᩥ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࠕヰࡋᡭࡢ஦ែ࡟ᑐࡍࡿఱࡽ࠿ࡢぢ㎸ࡳࠊࡘࡲࡾࠕഴࡁࠖࡢ⌧㇟ࠖ㸦Ᏻ㐩 1999㸧࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࿨㢟ࡢ┿ഇࢆၥ࠺ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢከࡃࡢ JJ ࡣࠊྰᐃ␲ၥᩥ࡟ࡼࡾࠊᙜヱ஦ែ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ఱ࠿
ࡋࡽࡢุ᩿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚୙☜࠿ࡉࢆ♧ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ࡣ┦ᡭ࡟ࡑࡢ஦ែ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢุ᩿ࢆ
ጤࡡ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣྰᐃ␲ၥᩥࡀࠊ
ࠕ࿨㢟ࡢ୙☜࠿ࡉࠖ࡜ࠕⓎヰែᗘࡢ⦆࿴ࠖ࡜࠸࠺࣊ࢵࢪ
ࡢ≉ᚩࢆ㢧ᅾ໬ࡉࡏࡓ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࡢ CJ ࡣࠊJJ ࡟ẚ࡭࡯࡜ࢇ࡝౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡓせᅉࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢ 2Ⅼࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ1 Ⅼ┠ࡣࠊྰᐃ⾲⌧ࡢ⩦ᚓࡢ㞴ࡋࡉ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྰᐃ⾲⌧ࡢ⩦ᚓ㐣⛬ࢆศᯒࡋࡓᐙᮧ (2003) ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ୰ᅜㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀከᵝ࡞ྰᐃ⾲⌧ࢆ⩦ᚓࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊୖ⣭ࣞ࣋ࣝ௨ୖࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅ࡣࠊ඲ဨࡀୖ⣭࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝ࠶ࡿࡓࡵྰᐃ␲
ၥᩥࡢᏑᅾࡣㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟㐪࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡑࢀࢆ㐠⏝ࡍࡿࡲ࡛࡟ࡣ⮳ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ2 Ⅼ┠ࡣࠊ㈇ࡢ㌿⛣࡛࠶ࡿࠋCC ࡣࠊྰᐃ␲ၥ㸦ࠕ୙᫝㹼ੇࠖ࡞࡝㸧ࢆ 1 ౛ࡶ౑⏝−148−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ኱す (1995) ࠾ࡼࡧ஭ୖ࣭㯤 (1996) ࡣࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢྰᐃ␲ၥᩥࡢᵓᩥୖ࡟ࡣ
⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊ୰ᅜㄒ࡛ࡣྰᐃ㎡ࡘࡁࡢ┿ഇ␲ၥᩥࡀ౑࠼ࡿᩥ⬦ࡣᴟࡵ࡚㝈ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊྰᐃ␲ၥᩥࡢ㐠⏝࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊCJ ࡣẕㄒ࠿ࡽࡢ㈇ࡢ㌿⛣ࡀ⏕ࡌࠊゝㄒᙧᘧࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗຠຊ࡟Ẽ௜࠿ࡎࠊ࠺ࡲࡃ࣐ࢵࣆࣥࢢࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࠋ
ླྀ㏙࣊ࢵࢪࡢゝㄒᙧᘧࡣࠊJJࠊCJ ࡢ୺࡞㢮ఝⅬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕᛮ࠺ࠖࠊࠕࡓࡪࢇࠖࠊࠕ࡜࠿ࠖࢆከ
⏝ࡋࠊ࿨㢟ࡢ୙☜࠿ࡉࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓⅬࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊCJ ࡀ┠ᶆゝㄒࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗつ⠊ࢆ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘ⩦ᚓࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୰࡛ࡶࠕᛮ࠺ࠖࡢከ⏝࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡓせᅉ࡟ࡣࠊືモࠕᛮ࠺ࠖࡢ࣊ࢵࢪ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᬑ㐢ᛶ࡜⩦ᚓࡢࡋࡸࡍࡉࡢ 2 Ⅼࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢ CC ࡣࠊࠕ㿹ᚓ㸦ᛮ࠺㸧ࠖࢆᴟࡵ࡚ከࡃ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋᛮ⪃ࢆ♧ࡍືモࡀ࣊ࢵࢪ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋࠊከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ Holmes (1995) ࡸࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࢫ࣌࢖ࣥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ Félix-Brasdefer (2008)ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ Nikula (1997) ࡸᇼ⏣࣭ᇼỤ (2013) ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢືモࡣẕㄒࢆၥࢃࡎヰࡋゝⴥ࡛ᬑ㐢ⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࣊ࢵࢪࡢ୍ࡘࡔ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ2 Ⅼ┠ࡣࠊ⩦ᚓࡢࡋࡸࡍࡉ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕᛮ࠺ࠖࡣࠊ᪥
ᮏㄒࡢึ⣭ᩍ⛉᭩࠿ࡽᑟධࡉࢀࠊᵝࠎ࡞ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⤂௓ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᩍᐊෆ࡛᪩࠸᫬ᮇ࠿ࡽ⩦ᚓࡋ࡚࠸ࡓྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࠋ௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ CJ ࡣࠊࠕᛮ࠺ࠖ࡜ࡑࡢㄒ
⏝ㄽⓗຠຊ࡜ࡢ࣐ࢵࣆࣥࢢࢆẚ㍑ⓗᐜ᫆࡟⾜ࡗࡓ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊ
ࠕࡓࡪࢇࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
ࡶྠᵝࡢࡇ࡜ࡀゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
7. ࠾ ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ୙ྠពࠖ⾜Ⅽࡢ୺せ㒊ࢆ⦆࿴ࡉࡏࡿ࣊ࢵࢪ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚୰㛫ゝㄒㄒ⏝ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࢆ⾜࠸ࠊẕㄒ㌿⛣ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ᳨ドࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ୰ᅜே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ౑⏝ࡍࡿ࣊ࢵࢪ࡟ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜␗࡞ࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ୍㒊ࡢ࣊ࢵࢪࠊ≉࡟␲ၥ࣊ࢵࢪ࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚ࡣẕㄒ࠿ࡽࡢ㈇ࡢ㌿⛣ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡓࡵࠊ౑⏝ࡀᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
௒ᚋࡣᏛ⩦⎔ቃࡢ㐪࠸࡞࡝ࡶేࡏ࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ࣊ࢵࢪ⩦ᚓ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿせᅉࢆࡼࡾ῝ࡃ᥈ࡾࡓ࠸ࠋࡑࡋ࡚᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱⌧ሙ࡛ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⬟ຊࡢᣦᑟ࡟ᛂ⏝ࡉࡏࡓ࠸ࠋ

㸯ࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࡣ㸪ࠕ◁₍࡛㐼㞴ࡋࡓ᫬࡟࡝࠺ࡍࡿ࠿ࠖࢆཧ⪃࡟సᡂࡋࡓࢱࢫࢡࢩ࣮
ࢺࢆᥦ♧ࡋ㸪఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡀ஫࠸ࡢពぢࢆ⪺ࡁ࡞ࡀࡽྜពᙧᡂ㸦⇞࠼┒ࡿ㣕⾜ᶵࡢ୰࠿ࡽྲྀࡾ
ฟࡍ࡭ࡁ 12 ಶࡢရ≀ࡢඃඛ㡰఩ࢆỴࡵࡿ㸧ࢆ┠ᣦࡍࡼ࠺ᣦ♧ࡋࡓࠋ㸰
Nittono (2003) ࡛ࡣࠕㄒᙡⓗ࣊ࢵࢪ (lexical hedging devices)ࠖ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢࠕླྀ㏙࣊ࢵࢪࠖ࡜ྠ⩏࡜ࡍࡿࠋNittono (2003) ࡛ࡣࠊླྀ㏙࣊ࢵࢪ ࡀ඲࣊ࢵࢪࡢ 80%௨ୖࢆ༨ࡵࡿ
࡜ሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩Ᏻ㐩ኴ㑻. 1999.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ␲ၥᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿุ᩿ࡢㅖ┦࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
Brown, P., and Levinson, S.C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.㸦⏣୰඾Ꮚ㸦┘ヂ㸧2011.࣏ࠗࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ ゝㄒ౑⏝࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊ
࠶ࡿᬑ㐢⌧㇟࠘ᮾி㸸◊✲♫ฟ∧㸧.

−149−

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
中国人日本語学習者の「不同意」行為―ヘッジ使用における母語転移の可能性―

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2008. Politeness in Mexico and the United  states: A Contrastive Study of theRealization and Perception of Refusals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Holmes, J. 1995. Women, Men and Politeness. NY: Longman.
Holtgraves, T. 1997. Yes, but… Positive politeness in conversation arguments. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 16, 222–239.
ᇼ⏣ᬛᏊ࣭ᇼỤ⸅ 2013. ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾜ື࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣊ࢵࢪࡢ⪃ᐹ̿୰㛫ゝㄒㄒ⏝ㄽศᯒࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚̿ࠖࠗㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲࠘14: 1-19.
ᙰᅜ㌍. 2012.ࠕ ୰ᅜㄒࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡢᶵ⬟య⣔̿Palmer ࣔࢹࣝ㐺⏝ࡢヨࡳࠖࠗࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡜ゝㄒᩍ⫱࠘ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
ᐙᮧఙᏊ. 2003.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢྰᐃ⾲⌧ࡢ⩦ᚓ㐣⛬୍୰ᅜㄒヰ⪅ࡢⓎヰ㈨ᩱ࠿ࡽ୍ࠖ
ࠗ➨஧ゝㄒ࡜
ࡋ࡚ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⩦ᚓ◊✲࠘6, 52-69.
஭ୖඃ࣭㯤㯇⳹. 1996. ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜୰ᅜㄒࡢ┿ഇ␲ၥᩥࠖࠗᅜㄒᏛ࠘184: 93-106.
Lakoff, G. 1973. Hedges: A study in the meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journalof Philosophical Logic, 2 (4), 458-508.
Locher, M. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action. Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin,
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nikula. T. 1997. ͆Interlanguage View on Hedging.” In R. Markkanen and H. Schröder (eds.)
Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts.
188-207. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Nittono, M. 2003. Japanese Hedging in Friend-friend Discourse. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation.
Teachears’ College, Columbia University.
኱すᬛஅ. 1995.ࠕ୰ᅜㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢྰᐃ␲ၥᩥࠖࠗ୰ᅜㄒᏛ࠘236: 105-115.
Pomerantz, A. 1984. “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes.” In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.) Structures of Social Action:
Studies in Conversation Analysis, 57-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rees-Miller, J. 2000. “Power, Severity, and Context in Disagreement.” Journal of Pragmatics 32:
1087-1111.
Rue Yong-Ju and Zhang Grace Qiao. 2008. Request strategies: a comparative study in Mandarin
Chinese and Korean. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ᏹబ⨾ࡲࡺࡳ. 2011.ࠕᨵゞ∧㸸ᇶᮏⓗ࡞ᩥᏐ໬ࡢཎ๎ (Basic Transcription System for Japanese:
BTSJ) 2011 ᖺᗘ∧ࠖhttp://www.tufs.ac.jp/ts/personal/usamiken/btsj2011.pdf
ᰗཎග. 2003.ࠗCreative O.D. : ே㛫ࡢࡓࡵࡢ⤌⧊㛤Ⓨࢩ࣮ࣜࢬ࠘ᮾி : ⾜ື⛉Ꮫᐇ㊶◊✲఍㸦ࣉࣞࢫࢱ࢖࣒㸧.

−150−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ㢼ࠖࡢ⪃ᐹ̿࡞ࡐࠕඛ㍮㢼ࠖࡣ྿ࡃࡢ࠿㸽̿ᯇᾆ ගྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔
matsuura.hikaru@g.mbox.nagoya-u.ac.jp

㸺Abstract㸼͆Kaze͇has the conceptual components͆direction͇and͆force͇, which are motivated by bodily
experience as metaphorical expressions.͆Direction͇has front/back and up/down, whereas͆force͇has strong/weak. Additionally,͆Kaze͇in itself constructs a frame. It has the following components :͆blow from source”,͆directional change”, “perceived by perceiver”,͆and the resulting influences
after it blew͇. These components constitute a chain of structure based on the proximity of time.

͆Senpaikaze͇is constituted as͆direction͇of an object involving the direction up to down, and͆force͇strongly influences the invisible. This paper suggests we can analyze properties andconstraints to invent the conceptual components of͆Kaze͇.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸Ẽ㇟⌧㇟ࠊᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࠊᤊ࠼᪉ࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕඛ㍮㢼ࠖ

1.ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ Ẽ㇟⌧㇟ࡣࠊLakoff and Johnson (1980)ࡀᥦ♧ࡋࡓᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮1 ࡟࠾࠸࡚㉳Ⅼ㡿ᇦ࡜࡞ࡾࠊᢳ
㇟ⓗ࡞⤒㦂࡛࠶ࡿ᪥ᖖ⏕άࡢᵝࠎ࡞≧ἣࢆ┠ᶆ㡿ᇦ࡜ࡋ࡚෗ീࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡣࠊ᪥ᮏ୰࡝ࡇ࡟࠸࡚ࡶ
⤒㦂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿᬑ㐢ⓗ࡞㌟య⤒㦂࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ᖖ⏕άࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ♫఍᝟ໃࡸே㛫㛵ಀ
࡞࡝ࡢᵝࠎ࡞≧ἣࡢኚ໬ࡀ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࡢࠕ㢼ࠖࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊྠࡌࠕ㢼࡛ࠖࡶࠊࣉࣛࢫࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ㏣࠸㢼ࠖࠊ࣐࢖ࢼࢫࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕྥ࠿࠸㢼ࠖࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡑࡢホ౯ᛶࡣᤊ࠼᪉࡟ࡼࡗ࡚኱ࡁࡃኚࢃࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕඛ㍮㢼ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟Ẽ㇟⌧㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣᏑᅾࡏࡎࠊㄒᵓᡂ࠿ࡽࡳ࡚ࡶព࿡ࡀ᥎ ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ⏝౛ 2 ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁẼ㇟⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠕ㢼ࠖࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ㢼ࠖࡢゝㄒᴫᛕୖࡢᵓᡂせ⣲ࢆࠕ᪉ྥࠖ
࣭ࠕຊࠖ࡜᝿ᐃࡋࠊ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡑࡇ࠿ࡽࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ㢼ࠖࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
2.ࠕ㢼ࠖࢆ㏻ࡋࡓ≧ἣࡢ⌮ゎᡃࠎࡣࠊᵝࠎ࡞≧ἣࢆࠕ㢼ࠖࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ⓗ࡟⌮ゎࡍࡿࠋ⢄ᒣ(2006)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㏣࠸㢼ࡀ྿ࡃࠖ
ࠕ㢼ྥࡁࡀᝏ࠸ࠖ
ࠕ㡰㢼㸦ࡀ྿ࡃ㸧ࠖ
ࠕ㏫㢼ࠖ࡞࡝ࠕ㢼ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⾲⌧ࢆᣲࡆࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ⾲⌧ࡀ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊ
ே㛫㸦ࡢႠࡳ㸧࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࠊࡑࡢேࢆྲྀࡾᕳࡃ≧ἣࠊୡࡢ୰ࡢ≧ἣࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊ㘠ᓥ(2011)ࡣࠊLakoff(1993,1999)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ஦㇟ᵓ㐀࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮(Event Structure
Metaphors)ࢆᇶ࡟᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮<<άືࡣ⛣ື>>ࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ୍㒊࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ<እ㒊஦㇟Ћ኱ࡁ࡞⛣ື≀>3 ࡛ࠕἼࠖࠕὶࢀࠖࠕ㢼ࠖ࡞࡝ࠊእⓗせᅉࡀ⮬↛⎔ቃ࡟႘࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୰࡟ࠊ
ࠕ㏣࠸㢼ࢆཷࡅࡿࠖࢆ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ᣲࡆ࡚࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ௨ୖࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ࡞ࡐࠕ㢼ࠖࡀ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᵝࠎ࡞≧ἣࢆ⾲ࡏࡿࡢ࠿᫂
ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢホ౯ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶゝཬࡣ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡉ
ࡽ࡟ࠊ
ࠕ㢼ྥࡁࠖ
ࠕ㢼ᙜࡓࡾࠖ
ࠕඛ㍮㢼ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢศᯒࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸⾲⌧ࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ

−151−

現代日本語におけるメタファー表現としての「風」の考察―なぜ「先輩風」は吹くのか？―3.ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢ⛣ື࡜ᵓᡂせ⣲ࠕ㢼ࠖࡣࠊࡑࢀ⮬యࡀ⛣ືࢆక࠺Ẽ㇟⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠋẼ㇟⌧㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ㢼ࠖࡢᐃ⩏࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊẼ㇟ᗇ(2007[1998]㸸20)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࡣࠊ኱Ẽࡢᆅ⾲㠃࡟ᑐࡍࡿ┦ᑐⓗ࡞ືࡁ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㢼ྥ࡜㢼㏿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࣋ࢡࢺ࡛ࣝ⾲ࡍࠖ࡜࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠗ኱㎡ᯘ࠘➨୕∧(2006:471)࡛ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟グࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ㢼ࠖ
(1)✵Ẽࡢືࡁࠋ୍⯡࡟ࠊẼᅽࡢ㧗࠸᪉࠿ࡽప࠸᪉࡟ྥ࠿࠺Ỉᖹ᪉ྥࡢ✵Ẽࡢὶࢀࢆ࠸࠺ࠋࠕ 㸫ࡀ྿ࡃࠖ
(2)ே࡟ᑐࡍࡿ♫఍඲యࡢែᗘࠋ
ࠕୡ㛫ࡢ㸫ࡣ෭ࡓ࠸ࠖ
(3)࡞ࡽࢃࡋࠋࡋࡁࡓࡾࠋ㢼⩦ࠋࠕⰱཎࡸṇࡋࡁᅜࡢ㸫࡜ࡋ࡚㸭᪂༓㍕ ៞㈡ࠖ
(4)ྡモࡢୗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪᥋ᑿㄒⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡿࠋ(࢔)ᵝᏊ࣭ែᗘ࣭⣲᣺ࡾ࡞࡝ࡢពࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ
ࠕඛ㍮㸫ࠖ
ࠕᙺே㸫ࠖ
(࢖)ேࢆ࠶ࡿẼศ࡟ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࠕ⮑⑓㸫࡟྿࠿ࢀࡿࠖ Ѝ ࠿ࡐ㸦㢼㑧㸧
ࡇࢀࡽࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡣࠊ✵Ẽࡢືࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡑࡢືࡁ࡟ࡣࠊ㢼ྥ࡜㢼㏿ࡀక࠺ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ㢼ࠖࡣࠊẼᅽࡢ㧗࠸᪉࠿ࡽప࠸᪉࡬ୖ࠿ࡽୗ࡬྿ࡃࠋᡃࠎ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㏿࠸㢼ࡣᙉ࠸㢼࡜ࡋ࡚ᙳ㡪ࡀ኱ࡁࡃࠊ㐜࠸㢼ࡣᙅ࠸㢼࡜ࡋ࡚ᙳ㡪ࡀᑠࡉࡃ࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⤒㦂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ᳃(1998㸸63)࡟
ࡣࠊࠕ㢼ࡀᒣ࡟ᙜࡓࡿ࡜ࠊ✵Ẽࡀᒣ࡟ᢲࡋࡘࡅࡽࢀ࡚㧗Ẽᅽࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࡢ㧗Ẽᅽ࠿ࡽᒣ㡬ࢆ྿ࡁ㉺࠼࡚ࡃࡿ㢼ࡣࠊඖࠎໃ࠸ࡀࡘ࠸࡚࠸ࡿୖ࡟ࠊᒣ⫙ࢆ㌿ࡀࡾⴠࡕࡿࡼ࠺࡟྿ࡃࡢ࡛ࠊᙉ࠸ࠕ࠾ࢁࡋ㢼ࠖ࡜࡞ࡿࠖ࡜࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࠕ㢼ࠖࡣࠊ▱ぬ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᒣࢆⓎ⏕※࡜ࡍࡿ㢼ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇࡇࡲ࡛ࡀࠊẼ㇟⌧㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ㢼ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᡃࠎࡀ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ▱㆑࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆᇶ࡟࣓ࢱࣇ࢓
࣮⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ㢼ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡃࠋᯇᾆ(2014)࡛ࡣࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ㞼ࠖࢆศᯒࡋࠊẼ㇟⌧㇟ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ㐠ືࢆక࠺ࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡶࠕ㞼ࠖ࡜ྠᵝ࡟㐠ືࢆక࠺Ẽ㇟⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐠ືࢆక࠺Ẽ㇟⌧㇟ࢆ⛣ື≀࡜ᐃ⩏ࡍࡿࠋ⛣ື≀࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢẼ㇟⌧㇟࡟ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢᛶ㉁ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
⛣ື≀㸻ほᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࣭ኚ໬ࢆక࠺ືࡁࢆᣢࡘ࣭▱ぬ⪅ࢆᕳࡁ㎸ࡴ࣭▱ぬ⪅࡟ࡣ⛣ື≀ࡢືࡁࡀண ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝ୙⬟ࠋ⛣ື≀࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ㢼ࠖࢆᤊ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ⛣ື࡟ࡣ௒ࡲ࡛ࡳ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ᪉ྥࠖ
࣭ࠕຊࠖࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ
࡜ࡀᣦ᦬࡛ࡁࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࠕ᪉ྥࠖ࡟ࡣࠊ๓/ᚋ࣭ୖ/ୗࠊࠕຊࠖ࡟ࡣࠊᙉ/ᙅࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜᝿ᐃࡍࡿࠋ࡞
࠾ࠊࠕ᪉ྥࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ✵㛫㛵ಀࡣࠊJohnson(1987)ࠊClausner and Croft (1999)ࡀᥦၐࡋࡓ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭
ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡢ୰ࡢ<๓/ᚋ>࣭<ୖ/ୗ>࡟୍⮴ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢືࡁࡣࠊ▱ぬ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᤊ
࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ᴫᛕ໬ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ㌟య⤒㦂࠿ࡽࠕ㢼ࠖ⮬య࡟ࡶࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ 4 ࡀᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
ᣦ᦬࡛ࡁࡿࠋ㢼ࡣⓎ⏕※࠿ࡽ྿ࡃࠊ㢼ࡣ᪉ྥࢆኚ࠼ࡿࠊ㢼ࡣ▱ぬ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠊ㢼ࡣ྿࠸ࡓᚋ࡟ఱ࠿ࡋࡽࡢᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡍࠊ࡜࠸࠺せ⣲ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢせ⣲ࡀ᫬㛫ⓗ㏆᥋ᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ୍㐃ࡢᵓ㐀ࢆᙧᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
4.ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢ⪃ᐹᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ㌟య⤒㦂࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ㢼ࠖࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓᚋࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ⏝౛ࢆᇶ࡟ゝㄒᴫᛕୖࡢᵓᡂせ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࠕ᪉ྥࠖ
࣭ࠕຊࠖ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ┠ᶆ㡿ᇦ࡛࠶ࡿ≧ἣ㡿ᇦ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ㢼ࠖࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ
4.1 ㌟య⤒㦂࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ㢼ࠖࡢᛶ㉁−152−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

4.1.1ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢࠕ᪉ྥࠖ࡜ࠕຊࠖ ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢ⛣ື࡟↔ⅬࡀᙜࡓࡿሙྜࠊⓎ⏕※ࡣ≉ᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ(1)㹼(4)ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢࠕ᪉ྥࠖ࡜ࠕຊࠖ
࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⏝౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(1)௒኱఍࠿ࡽࠕ୍⯡⏨Ꮚභ༑ṓ௨ୖࡢ㒊ࠖࡀ᪂タࡉࢀࠊࣁ࣮ࣇ࣐ࣛࢯ࡛ࣥࡣឡ▱┴ᮾᾆ⏫ࡢ኱Ἠ㏻㸦࡜࠾ࡿ㸧ࡉࢇ㸦㸴㸵㸧ࡀඃ຾ࠋࠕ๓༙ࡣྥ࠿࠸㢼ࡀᙉ࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊᚋ༙ࡣ㏣࠸㢼ࡀ⫼୰ࢆᢲࡋ࡚ࡃࢀࡓࠋ࣐
࢖࣮࣌ࢫ࡛㉮ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠖ࡜➗㢦࡛᣺ࡾ㏉ࡗࡓࠋ(୰᪥᪂⪺ 2010/05/24)(2)ⅆ⅏Ⓨ⏕⌧ሙࡢ㢼ୗഃ࡛ࡣࠊᘏ↝࡟ࡼࡿⅆ⅏ࡢ⛣ືࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ㣕ࡧⅆ࡟ࡼࡿ஧ḟⅆ⅏Ⓨ⏕ࡢ༴㝤ᛶࡶ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆㄆ㆑ࡋࠊⅆ⅏⌧ሙࡢ఩⨨ࡢ☜ㄆ࡜㢼ୖഃ࡬ࡢ᪩ࡵࡢ㑊㞴ࡀ኱ษ࡛ࡍࠋ(ㄞ኎᪂⪺
2009/11/13)(3)㬆Ꮚ⨫ࡸྠ㎰༠࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊಽࢀࡓࡢࡣ஫࠸࡟ᨭᰕࢆ⤖ࡧྜࢃࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࢸࣥࢺ㸳ᙇࡾ࡜ࠊ㞄ࡢ㸯ᙇࡾࠋ໭す࠿ࡽࡢᙉ࠸㢼࡛ࢸࣥࢺࡀᣢࡕୖࡀࡾࠊ᮶ሙ⪅ࡽ࡟そ࠸࠿ࡪࡉࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ಽࢀࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ(᪥ᮏ⤒῭᪂⪺ 2012/11/04)(4)Ꮿ㓄఍♫ࡢఏ⚊⏝ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ⏝⣬ࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ࠶ࡕࡇࡕ࡛ⓑ࠸⥥ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡩࡃࡽࡳࠊᙅ࠸㢼࡟ࡶᦂࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊࢩࣗࣞࢵࢲ࣮࡛⣽࠿ࡃ⿢᩿ࡉࢀࡓࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ⏝⣬ࡔࡗࡓࠋ(BCCWJ:㟷ᮌ្ࠗࢦ࣑࠘)▱ぬ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᚋࢁ࠿ࡽ྿ࡃࠕ㢼ࠖࡣࠊ⛣ືࢆຓࡅࠊຍ㏿ࡉࡏࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ▱ぬ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚๓࠿ࡽ྿
ࡃࠕ㢼ࠖࡣࠊ⛣ືࢆጉࡆࠊῶ㏿ࡉࡏࡿࠋ(1)࡛ࡣࠊ࣐ࣛࢯࣥࡢ㉮⾜࡟࠾࠸࡚▱ぬ⪅ࡢ๓࠿ࡽ྿ࡃࠕྥ࠿
࠸㢼ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᭱ึࡣ㉮ࡿࡢࡀጉࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊ▱ぬ⪅ࡢᚋࢁ࠿ࡽ྿ࡃࠕ㏣࠸㢼ࠖ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊ⫼୰ࡀᢲࡉࢀ࡚㉮ࡾࡸࡍࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡣࠊẼᅽࡢ㧗࠸࡜ࡇࢁ࠿ࡽẼᅽࡢప࠸࡜
ࡇࢁ࡬྿ࡃࠋࡑࡇ࡟ࡣࠊୖ࠿ࡽୗ࡜࠸࠺᪉ྥࡀᣦ᦬࡛ࡁࡿࠋ(2)࡛ࡣࠊ▱ぬ⪅࠿ࡽࡳ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢ྿࠸࡚
᮶ࡿ᪉ྥࡀࠕ㢼ୖࠖࠊ྿࠸࡚⾜ࡃ᪉ྥࡀࠕ㢼ୗࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ
ࠕ㢼ୖࠖ࠿ࡽࡢࠕ㢼ࠖ࡟ࡼࡾࠕ㢼ୗࠖࡣࠊᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅࡸࡍࡃࠊⅆࡸ↮ࡀᗈࡀࡾࡸࡍ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢ᪉ྥ
ࡣ྿࠸࡚᮶ࡿ᪉ྥ࡛࠶ࡿୖ࠿ࡽ྿࠸࡚⾜ࡃ᪉ྥ࡛࠶ࡿୗ࡬࡜ಖᣢࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ᪉ྥ
㛵ಀࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊୗ࠿ࡽୖ࡟ࡣࠕ㢼ࠖࡢᙳ㡪ࡀཬࡤ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ(3)ࠊ(4)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢຊࡢᙉ/ᙅ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡳࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ(3)ࠕᙉ࠸㢼ࠖࡣࠊࢸࣥࢺ࡞࡝
≀ࢆಽࡋࠊேࢆᕳࡁ㎸ࡴሙྜࡣ༴㝤࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(4)ࠕᙅ࠸㢼ࠖࡣࠊ≀ࢆಽࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࢃࡎ࠿࡟
ᦂࡽࡍࡄࡽ࠸ࡢຊࡋ࠿࡞࠸ࠋ
4.1.2ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢ⛣ືࡢᤊ࠼᪉
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢ⛣ືࡣ▱ぬ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(5)㹼(8)ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢ⛣ື࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᵝࠎ࡞ᤊ࠼᪉ࡀ࡞
ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⏝౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(5)ࣟࢱ࣮࣍ࣝࡣࡍࡈࡃࡁࢀ࠸ࡔࡅ࡝ࠊࡑࢀ௨እࡢ࣏࢖ࣥࢺࡣຎࡿࠋἼ࡟ᙅࡃࠊ㢼ྥࡁࡀᝏࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜࡞
࠿࡞࠿₯ࢀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋ(BCCWJ: Yahoo!▱ᜨ⿄)(6)┴༴ᶵ⟶⌮ㄢ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ㔜Ἔࡣ㸯㸷᪥࡟ᐩὠᕷᾏᓊࡢ⣙㸳࢟ࣟ࡟ࡶ⁻╔ࠋ㈌≀⯪࡟ࡣ⣙㸲㸮㸮ࢺࣥࡢ㔜Ἔࡀ✚ࢇ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀὶฟࡣ⥆࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡳࡽࢀࠊ
ࠕ㢼ྥࡁ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ᭦࡟௚ࡢᾏᓊ࡟⁻╔ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ(ẖ᪥᪂⪺ 2014/03/23)
(7)ࣖࢩࡢᮌࡀዲࡁ࡞᪉ࡣࢻࣛࢭࢼࡶዲࡳࡲࡍࠋ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࢻࣛࢭࢼ࡜࿧ࡤࢀ࡚ぶࡋࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠊࢽ
࢜࢖ࢩ࡛ࣗࣟࣛࣥࡍࠋ㢼ᙜࡓࡾࡀᙉ࠸࡜ࠊⴥࡀⴠ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚ᯤࢀࡓࡾࡍࡿࡢ࡛せὀព࡛ࡍࠋ
㸦http://www.nakayama-ueki.com/original82.html㸧
(8)℩ᡞෆᾏ࡟ࡑࡗ࡚ᒊ㢼ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡑࡧ࠼ࡓࡘභ⏥ᒣࡣࠊ⚄ᡞᕷ࣭ⰱᒇᕷ࣭すᐑᕷ࣭ᐆሯᕷࡢ 4 ࡘࡢᕷ−153−現代日本語におけるメタファー表現としての「風」の考察―なぜ「先輩風」は吹くのか？―࡟ࡲࡓࡀࡾࠊ㧗ࡉࡣ᭱㧗࡛㸷㸱㸯mࠋࡲࡕࡢ⫼࡟ࡑࡧ࠼ࡿ⥳㇏࠿࡞ᒣ࡛ࡍࠋ
ࡘࡲࡾ㜰⚄㛫࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿୖࡢ㸲ࡘࡢᕷࡣࠊ໭ࢆභ⏥ᒣ⣔ࠊ༡ࢆ℩ᡞෆᾏ࡟ࡣࡉࡲࢀࠊᮾす࡟㛗ࡃࡢࡧ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡇࡢᆅᇦ࡟࠸ࡿ᫬ࡣࠊ
ࠕᒣࡢ࠶ࡿ᪉ࡀ໭ࠊᾏࡢ࠶ࡿ᪉ࡀ༡ࠖ࡞ࡢ࡛ᮾி࡜㐪ࡗ࡚ࠊ᪉ゅࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋ
ࡇࡢභ⏥ᒣ⣔࠿ࡽ෤࡟྿ࡁ࠾ࢁࡋ࡚ࡃࡿ෭ࡓࡃ࡚ᙉ࠸㢼ࡀࠕභ⏥࠾ࢁࡋ࡛ࠖࡍࠋ
(http://www.uchihashi.jp/masaya/wind/rokko_oroshi.htm)
ࠕ㢼ࠖ⮬యࡣ┤᥋┠࡟ࡣぢ࠼࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ (5)ࠕ㢼ྥࡁࡀᝏࡃ࡞ࡿࠖ࡜ᛮ࠺ࡼ࠺࡟㐍ࡲ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿ
࡜࠸࠺ኚ໬ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ(6)࡛ࡣࠊண ࡣ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝ୙⬟࡞ࠕ㢼ྥࡁࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ὶฟ
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㔜Ἔ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢྥࡁࡣࠊᖖ࡟୍ᐃ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ⤯࠼㛫࡞ࡃኚࢃࡿࠋࠕ㢼ࠖࡢྥࡁ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚≧ἣࡣⰋࡃࡶࠊᝏࡃࡶࠊኚࢃࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ(7)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㢼ᙜࡓࡾࡀᙉ࠸ࠖ࡜ࠊ᳜≀࡛࠶ࡿࢽ࢜࢖ࢩࣗࣟࣛࣥࢆᙅࡽࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕ㢼ࠖࡀࠊ≉ᐃࡢᑐ㇟࡟྿࠸࡚࠸ࡿ≧ἣࡣࠊࡑࡢᑐ㇟ࢆᙅࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ (8)ࡢࠕභ⏥࠾ࢁࡋࠖࡣࠊභ⏥ᒣ⣔ࡢᒣ࠿ࡽ྿ࡃ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠕ㢼࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ▱ぬ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡇࡢࠕ㢼ࠖࡣⓎ⏕※ࡀ≉ᐃ࡛ࡁࠊ
ୖ࠿ࡽୗ࡟྿ࡁ㝆ࢁࡋ࡚ࡃࡿᙉ࠸㢼࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡘࡲࡾࠊⓎ⏕※ࡢ≉ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡀୖ࠿ࡽୗ࡬྿࠸࡚࠸ࡿ≧ἣࡣࠊᕳࡁ㎸ࡲࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࢆᙅࡵࡿዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ᙳ㡪࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
4.2 ≧ἣ㡿ᇦ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ㢼ࠖࡢᛶ㉁4.2.1ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢ⛣ື࡜≧ἣࡢኚ໬ ࠶ࡿ┠ⓗࢆ᭷ࡍࡿάື࡟࠾࠸࡚≧ἣࡢኚ໬ࡀࠕ㢼ࠖࡢࠕ᪉ྥࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ㢼ࠖࡢ⛣ື࡜≧ἣࡢኚ໬ࡢ㛵ಀࢆࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
(9)ୡ⏺ࡢᨻ἞ኚ໬ࡸḢ⡿ࡢ㔠⼥༴ᶵ࡞࡝ࠊ≀஦ࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟ኚࢃࡿᖺ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ぬᝅࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏ࡛ࡶᨻ
ᗓࡢ࢚ࢿࣝࢠ࣮ᇶᮏィ⏬ࡀぢ┤ࡉࢀࠊཎᏊຊࢆࡣࡌࡵ࢚ࢿࣝࢠ࣮౪⤥ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࢆኚ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࢀࡤࠊ
࢞ࢫ஦ᴗ࡟ࡶᚲࡎᙳ㡪ࡍࡿࠋኚ໬ࡀከࡅࢀࡤࣆࣥࢳࡶࢳࣕࣥࢫࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ㏣࠸㢼࠿ࠊྥ࠿࠸㢼࠿ࠊ࠸ࡎࢀ࡟ࡋࢁᙉ࠸㢼ࡀ྿ࡃࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ〇㐀ᣐⅬࡢᾏእ⛣㌿ࡀຍ㏿ࡋ࡚࢞ࢫࡢ㟂せࡀῶࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ࠶ࡿ
࠸ࡣࠊᾏእࡢΰ஘ࢆ㑊ࡅࠊᅜෆ࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡿ௻ᴗࡀቑ࠼ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ(᪥ᮏ⤒῭᪂⪺ 2012/01/20)
(10)⮬Ẹ࡟㏣࠸㢼ࡀ྿࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜ゝࢃࢀ࡚ᡓࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊྛ㝕ႠࡢཷࡅṆࡵࡣ㐪ࡗࡓࠋ
ࠕ↓㢼ࠖ
ࠕࡑ
ࡼ㢼ࠖ
ࠋᙜ㑅⪅ࡓࡕࡣࠊ┴ෆ඲ᇦ࡛ࡢᅽ຾࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝ࡟ᡞᝨ࠸ࠊ☜ࡓࡿᡭᛂ࠼ࡶ࡞࠸ࡲࡲ࡟ࠊᅜ఍㆟ဨࡢࣂࢵࢪࢆ╔ࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ(୰᪥᪂⪺ 2012/12/18)(9)ࠊ(10)ࡣࠊ≧ἣࡢኚ໬ࡀࠕ㢼ࠖࡢືࡁ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (9)࡛ࡣࠊ࢞ࢫ஦ᴗ㛵㐃ࡢ௻ᴗάື
࡟࡜ࡗ࡚࢚ࢿࣝࢠ࣮౪⤥ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࡢኚ໬࡛ࢳࣕࣥࢫ࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿせᅉࡀࠕ㏣࠸㢼ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࠊࣆࣥࢳ
࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿせᅉࢆࠕྥ࠿࠸㢼ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡢせᅉࡶࠊࡶࡓࡽࡍኚ໬ࡶ኱ࡁ࠸ࡓࡵ
ࠕᙉ࠸㢼ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ (10)ࡣࠊᨻ἞࡟ᑐࡍࡿୡㄽࡢ≧ἣࢆࠕ㢼ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋୡ
㛫࡛ࡣࠊ⮬Ẹඪೃ⿵⪅࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᭷฼࡞せᅉࢆࠕ㏣࠸㢼ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ⮬Ẹඪೃ⿵⪅࡟࡜ࡗ
࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕ↓㢼ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕࡑࡼ㢼ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ᐇឤࡀ࡞ࡃࠊᙅ࠸≧ἣࡢኚ໬࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ
ྠࡌࠕ㢼࡛ࠖࡶࠊㄡ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࠿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ኚ໬ࡢ኱ࡁࡉࡀኚࢃࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ▱ぬ⪅ࡢάື࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ≧ἣࡀ㐍ࡴせᅉࡀᏑᅾࡍࢀࡤᚋࢁ࠿ࡽ྿ࡃࠕ㢼ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ
࠼ࡽࢀࠊ≧ἣࡀጉࡆࡽࢀࡿせᅉࡀᏑᅾࡍࢀࡤ๓࠿ࡽ྿ࡃࠕ㢼ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ≧ἣ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࠶ࡿせᅉ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡢホ౯ࢆࠕ㢼ࠖࡢࠕ᪉ྥࠖࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᴫᛕ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ(11)ࠊ(12)ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ௨ୗࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡣ≧ἣ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࠊ≧ἣࡢኚ໬ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀ

−154−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ࠕ㢼ྥࡁࠖࡢኚ໬࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(11)┘╩ࡣ↓㥏࡞ປຊࢆ౑ࢃ࡞࠸ே࡛ࠊࡑࢀࢆ⾲ࡋࡓࡢࡀࠕ୍⏕ᠱ࿨㈇ࡅࡿ࡞ࡼࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝⴥࡔࡗࡓࠋ
୍⏕ᠱ࿨࡟ࡸࡗࡓ࠶ࡆࡃࠊ㈇ࡅࡿࡢࡀ୍␒ࡼࡃ࡞࠸ࠊ㢼ྥࡁࡀᝏ࠸࡜ࡳࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣࡉࡗࡉ࡜ᘬࡁ࡞ࡉ
࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡔࡗࡓࠋ(᪥ᮏ⤒῭᪂⪺ 2011/08/25)(12)Ẹ୺㒔㐃ᖿ㒊ࡢ୍ேࡣࠕ༊㆟㑅ࡣࠗ࡝ࢀࡔࡅṌ࠸ࡓ࠿࠘ࡀ຾㈇ࡔࠋᆅᇦ࡟᰿ᕪࡋࡓ⮬Ẹඪࡣࠊ࡝ࢇ
࡞㢼ࡀ྿ࡇ࠺࡜㆟ᖍࢆ☜ಖࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ㢼࡟᣺ࡾᅇࡉࢀࡿ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࠊඪࡶೃ⿵⪅ࡶᮍ⇍ࡔࠖ࡜ᡄࡵࡿࠋ(ᮾி᪂⪺ 2011/04/26)
ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ㢼ࠖࡢ▱ぬ࡜ཬࡰࡍኚ໬࡟↔Ⅼࡀᙜࡓࡿࠋ▱ぬ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚≧ἣࡀ୍ᐃ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃఱ࠿ࡢኚ
໬ࡀ㉳ࡇࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠕ㢼ྥࡁࠖࡢኚ໬࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(11)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㈇ࡅࡑ࠺࡞ዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸≧ἣࡣࠕ㢼ྥࡁࡀᝏ࠸ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㛫᥋ⓗ࡟࿘ࡾࡢ≧ἣࢆᡭ᥃࠿ࡾ࡟ࠕ㢼ྥࡁࠖࢆࡳࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡣࠊ≧ἣࡢኚ໬ࢆண ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(12)ࠕ࡝ࢇ࡞㢼ࠖ࠿ࡽࡶศ࠿
ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡿࠕ㢼ࠖࡣᖖ࡟྿࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ෽ࡄࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࠊ᣺ࡾᅇࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜
ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᖖ࡟྿࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠕ㢼ࠖࡢືࡁࡣண ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢࠕ᪉ྥࠖࡀࢥࣥࢺ࣮࡛ࣟࣝࡁ࡞࠸
࡜࠸࠺ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࠋ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ≧ἣࡀ୍ᐃ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃኚ໬ࡍࡿࠕ㢼ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
4.2.2ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢⓎ⏕࡜ே㛫ࡢゝືே㛫㛵ಀ࡟࠾࠸࡚≧ἣࢆኚ࠼ࡿࡶࡢࡣゝື࡛࠶ࡿࠋゝືࡣ▱ぬ⪅ࡀࡑࡢሙ࡟࠸࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ேࠎࡀ࠸ࡿ㝈ࡾ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛Ⓨ⏕ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊே㛫ࢆẼ㇟⌧㇟ࡢⓎ⏕※࡜ᤊ࠼ࠊࡑࡢ
ゝືࡀࠕ㢼ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᴫᛕ໬ࡉࢀࡿࠋ5 ᡃࠎࡣࠊேࠎࡢゝືࢆእ࠿ࡽほᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑ
ࡢ୰࡟㌟ࢆ⨨ࡃ࡜ᕳࡁ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡣࠊ┠࡟ぢ࠼࡞࠸ࡓࡵ㛫᥋ⓗ࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍࠋ
(13)బ಴ᕤሙࡢ୍ゅ࡟ᅖ࠸ࢆࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡇࢆᣐⅬ࡜ࡋ FPC ࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺࡣࠊ⫋ሙ⎔ቃࡇࡑᜨࡲࢀ࡞࠿ࡗ
ࡓࡀࠊᢏ⾡ⓗ࡟ࡣ╔ᐇ࡟ᡂᯝࢆୖࡆ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ᥇⟬࡜࠸࠺㠃࡛ࡣࠊⱞᡓ⥆ࡁࠋ1 ൨෇኎ࡾୖࡆࡿࡈ࡜࡟ྠࡌࡃࡽ࠸ࡢ㉥Ꮠࡀฟࡿ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣࡔࡗࡓࠋṌ␃ࡲࡾࡀᝏࡃࠊࢥࢫࢺࡀ࠿ࡉࡳࠊᝏᚠ⎔ࡢ୰࡛ࠊḟ➨࡟♫ෆࡢ㢼ᙜࡓࡾࡀᙉࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡗࡓࠋ
(http://www.fujikura.co.jp/rd/odyssey/vol_04/03.html)(14)Ᏻᚰࠊ㜵⅏ࠊ௦᭰ࠊవຊ͐͐ࠋ㟈⅏௨㝆ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻࢆṊჾ࡟ᅜ஺┬ࡣண⟬ࢆ຾ࡕྲྀࡾࠊ
஦ᴗࢆᣑ኱ࠋබඹ஦ᴗ࡬ࡢཝࡋ࠸㢼ᙜࡓࡾࢆ࠿ࢃࡍࡓࡵࠕḟ࡞ࡿ༴ᶵ࡬ࡢഛ࠼ࠖࢆ๓㠃࡟ᡴࡕฟࡍᡓ
␎ࡀዌຌࡋࡓࠋ(᪥ᮏ⤒῭᪂⪺ 2012/04/21)(13)࡛ࡣࠊ᭱ึࡣࠊᡂᯝࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡓࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺࡀࠊ㉥Ꮠ࡜࠸࠺ฟ᮶஦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚♫ෆࡢே㛫࠿ࡽࡢホุࡀዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ゝື࡜࡞ࡾࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊ(14)࡛ࡣࠊ௒ࡲ࡛ࡢබඹ஦ᴗ
࡬ࡢୡ㛫࠿ࡽࡢゝື࡛࠶ࡿࠕཝࡋ࠸㢼ᙜࡾࠖࢆ࠿ࢃࡍࡓࡵ࡟ᅜ஺┬ࡢᡓ␎ࡀᡴࡕฟࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡝ࡕ
ࡽࡢゝືࡶ㛫᥋ⓗ࡞ᢈุ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ୙≉ᐃࡢⓎ⏕※࠿ࡽࡢゝືࢆࠕ㢼ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡣᖖ࡟྿࠸
࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ୰࡟ᕳࡁ㎸ࡲࢀࡿ࡜ࠕ㢼ࠖࢆ┤᥋ཷࡅࠊࠕ㢼ᙜࡾࠖ࡟᫹ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ែ࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ
(14)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࠿ࢃࡍᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢⓎ⏕※࡜≉ᐃࡢᑐ㇟࡟ཬࡰࡍᙳ㡪࡟↔Ⅼࡀᙜࡓࡿࠋ
(15)㹼(20)ࡣࠊ♫఍ⓗຊࡢୖୗ㛵ಀ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ㢼ࠖࡢⓎ⏕※࡜࿘㎶࡟ཬࡰࡍᙳ㡪࡟↔Ⅼࡀᙜࡓࡗࡓ⏝౛
࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−155−

現代日本語におけるメタファー表現としての「風」の考察―なぜ「先輩風」は吹くのか？―(15)ඛ㍮ࡣ᭱ୖ⣭⏕࡛ࠊ࣮࣎ࣝᣠ࠸ࡸࢢࣛ࢘ࣥࢻᩚഛࠊఇ᠁᫬ࡢ࠾Ⲕࡃࡳࡋ࠿ࡸࡽࡏ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼࡞࠸㸯ᖺ⏕࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ㞼ࡢୖࡢேࡔࡗࡓࠋ࡜࡚ࡶࠊࡇࡕࡽ࠿ࡽヰࡋ࠿ࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡞࡝ฟ᮶ࡿ࣒࣮ࢻ࡛ࡣ࡞࠿
ࡗࡓࡔࡅ࡟ࠊ
ࠕࡘࡽ࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࡀࠊ㎞ᢪࡋࢁࡼࠖ࡜ኌࢆ࠿ࡅ࡚ࡃࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ௒࡛ࡶぬ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୰࡟ࡣඛ
㍮㢼ࢆ྿࠿ࡏࠊᚋ㍮ࢆ࠸ࡌࡵࡿேࡓࡕࡶ࠸ࡓࡀࠊṇᬕඛ㍮࠿ࡽࡣ୍ᗘࡶẀࡽࢀࡓࡾࠊ⌮୙ᑾ࡞࿨௧ࢆ
ࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ (ẖ᪥᪂⪺ 2001/01/23)
(16)ࠕඛ㍮㢼ࠖࡣࡇࡢ᫬ᮇࠊ⫋ሙ࡛ࡼࡃ྿ࡁࡲࡍࠋ᪂ධ♫ဨࢆ๓࡟ࠊ┒ࢇ࡟࣍ࣛࢆ྿ࡃேࡀ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ࠿
ࢃ࠸ࡽࡋ࠸ዪᛶࡀ␗ືࡋ࡚ࡃࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡀ࢚ࢫ࣮࢝ࣞࢺࡍࡿ⏨ᛶ♫ဨࡶ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
(http://www.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/column/20100520/92357/)(17)ᗑ㛗ࠊᩘᖺඛ࡟࣮࢜ࣉࣥࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡔࡅ࡛ࠊ࢚ࣛࡑ࠺࡟⌆⍄ࡢῥࢀ᪉ࢆఏᤵࡋࡓࡾࠊ࣍ࢵࢺࢧࣥ
ࢻ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゎㄝࡋࡓࡾࡋ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࠋඛ㍮㢼ࠊࣅ࣮ࣗࣅ࣮ࣗ྿࠿ࡏࡕࡷࡗࡓࠋ
(http://nakazumi-cafe.jugem.jp/?eid=630)(18)ࡑ࠺࠸࠼ࡤࠊⱝ࠸ዪᛶ࡛ࡶࠊᮅࡢࣛࢵࢩࣗࡢ᫬㛫ᖏ࡟ࠊ㥐ࡢ㝵ẁୗࡸ࣮࣒࣍࡞࡝࡛࠺ࡎࡃࡲࡗ࡚
࠸ࡿጼࢆࡼࡃぢ࠿ࡅࡿࠋ㢦Ⰽࡣ┿ࡗ㟷࡛ࠊ࡝࠺ࡸࡽ❧ࡕࡃࡽࡳࢆ㉳ࡇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡽࡋ࠸ࠋ
ാࡃዪᛶࡢඛ㍮࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᨺࡗ࡚࠾ࡅ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠕ኱୔ኵ㸽ࠖ
ࠕㄡ࠿࡟㐃⤡ࡍࡿ㸽ࠖ࡜ኌࢆ࠿ࡅࡘࡘࠊࡘ࠸
ࡘ࠸ࠕᮅࡈࡣࢇ㣗࡭࡚ࡁࡓ㸽ࠖࠕࡕࡷࢇ࡜ᐷࡓࡢ㸽ࠖ࡞࡝࡜ඛ㍮㢼ࠊ࠸ࡸẕぶ㢼ࢆ྿࠿ࡏࡓࡃ࡞ࡿࠋ(ㄞ኎᪂⪺ 2012/11/04 )(19)Ᏻ⸨Ặࡀ㒊ㄢ㛗ࡽᖿ㒊ࡢ㈨㉁࡜ࡋ࡚ᣲࡆࡿࡢࡣ㸦㸯㸧┴Ẹ୺ᙺࡢ┴ᨻࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡓே㸦㸰㸧ᙺே㢼ࢆ྿࠿ࡉ࡞࠸ே㸦㸱㸧ᡭࡶࡳ㸦ࡈࡲࡍࡾ㸧ࡋ࡞࠸ே㸫㸫ࡢ୕ࡘࠋே஦␗ືࡣ㐜ࡃ࡚ࡶ㸯㸮᭶ࡈࢁࡲ࡛
࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࠊᑐ㇟ࡣࠕㄢ㛗⣭௨ୖࠖࢆど㔝࡟ධࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(ẖ᪥᪂⪺ 2003/07/31)(20) ࣘࣥࢢࡀၥ㢟どࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊ
ࠕ⯙ྎࢆ㞳ࢀ࡚ࡶࡑࡢ௬㠃ࢆእࡏࡎ࡟࠸ࡿேࠖ
⫋ሙࢆ㞳ࢀࡓᚋࡶᩍᖌ㢼ࢆ྿࠿ࡏ࡚ㄝᩍࡌࡳࡓࡇ࡜ࡤ࠿ࡾゝࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࡾࠊዟࡉࢇ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡶࡲࡿ
࡛㒊ୗࢆᢅ࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ែᗘ࡛ᣦᑟࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿேࡣ࣌ࣝࢯࢼ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࡶࡋࢀࡲࡏࢇࠋ
(http://www.j-phyco.com/category1/entry4.html)(15)㹼(17)ࡢࠕඛ㍮㢼ࠖࡣࠊ㉳Ⅼ㡿ᇦࡢẼ㇟⌧㇟࡟ࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠ᫬࡟ࠊ
ࠕඛ㍮㸩㢼ࠖ
ࡢㄒᵓᡂ࠿ࡽࡶព࿡ࡀᑟࡁฟࡏ࡞࠸⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ࠶ࡿሙᡤ࠿ࡽ྿࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᡃࠎࡀᤊ
࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠕ㢼ࠖࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᒣ࠿ࡽ྿ࡃ㢼ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨ⏕※ࡀලయⓗ࡟≉ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࠕ㢼࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆᇶ┙࡟ࠊඛ㍮ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝືࢆࡍࡿே㛫ࢆẼ㇟⌧㇟ࡢⓎ⏕※࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝືࢆࠕ㢼ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊ
ࠕඛ㍮㢼ࠖ࡟ࡣࠊ♫఍ⓗຊࡢୖୗ㛵ಀࡀ๓ᥦ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋᒣ࠿ࡽ྿ࡃ㢼ࡣࠊୖ࠿ࡽୗ࡟྿ࡁ㝆ࢁࡋ࡚ࡃࡿᙉ࠸㢼࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᕳࡁ㎸ࢇࡔୗࡢே㛫࡟ዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࠋ (15)࡛ࡣࠊඛ㍮࠿ࡽᚋ㍮࡬ࠊ(16)࡛ࡣࠊඛ㍮♫ဨ࠿ࡽ᪂ධ♫ဨ࡬ࠊ(17)ඛ࡟㛤ᗑࡋࡓႚⲔᗑ
ࡢᗑ㛗࠿ࡽ㛤ᗑࡋࡓࡤ࠿ࡾࡢᗑ㛗࡬ࠊඛ㍮ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝືࡀࠕඛ㍮㢼ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
(15)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕඛ㍮㢼ࠖ࡟྿࠿ࢀࡓேࡀࠊ᫬࡟ࠊẀࡽࢀࡿࠊ⌮୙ᑾ࡞࿨௧ࢆࡉࢀࡿࠊ࡞࡝ࡢ࠸ࡌࡵࢆཷࡅ
ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(16)࡛ࡣࠊඛ㍮♫ဨࡢ࣍ࣛࢆ྿ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ゝືࡀࠕඛ㍮㢼࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊᕳࡁ
㎸ࡲࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕඛ㍮㢼ࠖࢆ྿࠿ࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
㛫᥋ⓗ࡟┦ᡭࢆᚑࢃࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋణࡋࠊ
ࠕඛ㍮㢼ࠖ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ࿘㎶ࡢேࠎࡣ⛣ືࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡓࡵࠊ㏨ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ (17)ࡣࠊ
ࠕඛ㍮㢼ࠖࡀࠕࣅ࣮ࣗࣅ࣮ࣗࠖ࡜྿ࡃᵝᏊࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡓ᪂ወ࡞⏝౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ๰㐀ⓗ࡞࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࡀ⌧ࢀࠊࡑࡢゎ㔘ࢆྍ⬟࡜ࡍࡿࡢࡶᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢാࡁ࡛࠶
ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
௨ୖ࠿ࡽࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ㢼ࠖ࡟ᕳࡁ㎸ࡲࢀࡿᑐ㇟࡬ࡢୖ࠿ࡽୗ࡜࠸࠺ࠕ᪉ྥࠖ࡜┠࡟ࡣぢ࠼࡞࠸ᙉ࠸ᙳ㡪࡜࠸࠺ࠕຊࠖࡀᣦ᦬࡛ࡁࡿࠋᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊ♫఍ⓗ࡟ୗࡢ㛵ಀࡢே㛫࠿ࡽࡣࠊ♫఍ⓗ−156−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

࡟ୖࡢ㛵ಀࡢே㛫࡟ࡇࡢព࿡࡛ࡢࠕ㢼ࠖࢆ྿࠿ࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ<ୖ/ୗ>ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭ࢫ
࣮࣐࢟ࡀಖᣢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(18)࡛ࡣࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊඛ㍮ࡸẕぶ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊ௚ேࡢⱝ࠸
ዪᛶ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿዪᛶࡀඛ㍮ࡸẕぶࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝື࡛♫఍ⓗ࡟ୖࡢ❧ሙ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚వィ࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆࡋ࡚ࡋ
ࡲ࠺ᵝᏊࡀࠕඛ㍮㢼ࠊ࠸ࡸẕぶ㢼ࢆ྿࠿ࡏࡓࡃ࡞ࡿࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࢆ྿࠿ࡏࡿⓎ⏕※࡟ࡣࠊࠕ㢼ࠖࡢࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(19)ࠕᙺே㢼ࠖࡢ⫼ᬒ࡟ࡣᕷẸࠊ(20)ࠕᩍᖌ㢼ࠖࡢ⫼ᬒ࡟ࡣ⏕ᚐࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢࠕ㢼ࠖ࡟ᕳࡁ㎸ࡲࢀࡿ࡜ࠊഫ៏࡞ែᗘࡸㄝᩍࡌࡳࡓ
ゝືࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᕷẸ࠿ࡽᙺே࡬ࠊ⏕ᚐ࠿ࡽᩍᖌ࡬ࠊ♫఍ⓗຊ㛵ಀࡀ㏫࡟࡞ࡿୗࡢ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽୖࡢ㛵ಀ࡬ࡢゝືࡣࠊࠕ㢼ࠖ࡜ࡣᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡇ࠿ࡽࠊ♫఍ⓗຊ㛵ಀ࡟࠾࠸࡚ୖ࠿
ࡽୗ࡬ࡢᙳ㡪ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊ
ࠕேѺ㢼ࠖࡢᐜㄆᗘࡀୗࡀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ไ⣙ࡀᣦ᦬࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
5.ࡲ࡜ࡵ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡣࠊ㌟య⤒㦂ࢆᇶ┙࡟ࠊ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢゝㄒᴫᛕୖࡢᵓᡂせ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ᪉
ྥ࣭ࠖࠕຊࠖࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
ࠕ᪉ྥࠖ࡟ࡣࠊ๓/ᚋ࣭ୖ/ୗࠊࠕຊࠖ࡟ࡣࠊᙉ/ᙅࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡲ
ࡓࠊࠕ㢼ࠖ⮬య࡟ࡶࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡀᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿࠋ㢼ࡣⓎ⏕※࠿ࡽ྿ࡃࠊ㢼ࡣ᪉ྥࢆኚ࠼ࡿࠊ㢼ࡣ▱ぬ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠊ㢼ࡣ྿࠸ࡓᚋ࡟ఱ࠿ࡋࡽࡢᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡍࠊ࡜࠸࠺せ⣲ࢆᣢࡘࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢせ⣲ࡀ᫬㛫ⓗ㏆᥋ᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ୍㐃ࡢᵓ㐀ࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿࠋ
ᡃࠎࡣࠊ♫఍᝟ໃࡸே㛫㛵ಀ࡞࡝ࡢᵝࠎ࡞≧ἣࡢኚ໬ࢆ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࡢࠕ㢼ࠖࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕඛ㍮㢼ࠖࡣࠊඛ㍮ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝືࢆࡍࡿே㛫ࢆẼ㇟⌧㇟ࡢⓎ⏕※࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⏕ࡲࢀࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࡣࠊே㛫㛵ಀ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ♫఍ⓗຊࡢୖୗ㛵ಀࡀ๓ᥦ࡟࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕඛ㍮
㢼ࠖ࡟ᕳࡁ㎸ࡲࢀࡿᑐ㇟࡬ࡢୖ࠿ࡽୗ࡬ࡢࠕ᪉ྥࠖࠊ┠࡟ࡣぢ࠼࡞࠸ᙉ࠸ᙳ㡪࡛࠶ࡿࠕຊࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᵓ
ᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊ♫఍ⓗ࡟ୗࡢ㛵ಀࡢே㛫࠿ࡽࡣࠊ♫఍ⓗ࡟ୖࡢ㛵ಀࡢே㛫࡟ࡇࡢព࿡࡛ࡢ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࢆ྿࠿ࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ไ⣙࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢゝㄒᴫᛕୖࡢᵓᡂせ⣲ࢆタᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡑࡢᛶ㉁ࡸไ⣙ࢆ⢭⦓࡟ศᯒ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕᅜᐙ㛫ࡢ㝽㛫㢼ࠖࡸࠕୡ㛫ࡢ෭ࡓ࠸㢼ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ㢼ࠖࡢຊࡀ▱ぬ⪅࡟Ẽࢆక࠸స⏝ࡍࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࡸࠕ㢼ࠖࡼࡾࡶ኱ࡁ࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍࠕᔒࠖࡸࠕྎ㢼ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࢆ᥈ࡗ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ࠊ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿẼ㇟⌧㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࡢ඲యീࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ᶆ࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋὀ
1 ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ㌟య⤒㦂㇏ᐩ࡛ලయⓗ࡞㉳Ⅼ㡿ᇦ(Source domain)࠿ࡽ㌟యⓗ⤒㦂ࡀ࠶ࡲࡾ࡞࠸ᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞┠ᶆ㡿ᇦ(Target domain)࡬ࡢᴫᛕ㡿ᇦ㛫ࡢయ⣔ⓗ࡞෗ീ㛵ಀࢆࠕᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ✏࡟࠾࠸
࡚ࡣࠊ<< >>࡜⾲グࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᴫᛕࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࢆල⌧໬ࡋࡓゝㄒ⾲⌧ࢆࠕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
2 ⏝౛୰ࡢഐ⥺ࡣ᩿ࡾࡢ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ௨እ඲࡚Ⓨ⾲⪅࡟ᣐࡿࠋ౛ᩥ␒ྕࡣࠊ඲యࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࡢ㏻ࡋ␒ྕࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠋᐇ⥺ࡣศᯒᑐ㇟⾲⌧ࠊⅬ⥺ࡣศᯒᑐ㇟⾲⌧௨እࡢὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁ⟠ᡤࢆ♧ࡍࠋ

3 㘠ᓥ(2011:174)࡟ࡣࠊࠕࡇࢀࡽࡀ༢⊂ࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡞ࡢ࠿෗ീ࡞ࡢ࠿ࡣ᭕᫕࡛࠶ࡾࠊಶู࡟᳨ドࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠶ࡾࠊ< >࡛⾲グࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࠕ㢼ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮⾲⌧ࡢ⏕⏘ᛶࡢ㧗ࡉࢆ㋃ࡲ
࠼࡚ࠊᴫᛕࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࠋ
4 ᮏ✏࡛ࡢࠕࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࠖࡢᐃ⩏ࡣࠊ⢄ᒣ(2010:93)ࡢࠕ᪥ᖖࡢ⤒㦂ࢆ୍⯡໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㌟࡟ࡘࡅࡓࠊ

−157−

現代日本語におけるメタファー表現としての「風」の考察―なぜ「先輩風」は吹くのか？―」ᩘࡢせ⣲ࡀ⤫ྜࡉࢀࡓ▱㆑ࡢᆺࠖ࡟ᚑ࠺ࠋ
5 ࠗ኱㎡ᯘ࠘➨୕∧(2006:459)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㢼ྥࡁࠖࡢճࡢព࿡࡟ࠕேࡢẼศࠊᶵ᎘ࠋ
ࠕ♫㛗ࡢ㸫ࡀࡼࡃ࡞࠸ࠖ
ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡グ㏙ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊྂ࠸ゝ࠸᪉࡟࡞ࡿࡀࠊே㛫ࢆⓎ⏕※࡜ࡋࡓࠕ㢼ࠖࡀ┠࡟ぢ࠼࡞࠸ᙳ㡪ࢆ࿘㎶࡟ཬࡰࡍ࡜࠸࠺ᛶ㉁ࢆ⾲ࡋࡓゝㄒ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋͤᮏ✏ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍ ➨ 17 ᅇᖺḟ኱఍㸦ᖹᡂ 26 ᖺ 11 ᭶ 30 ᪥(᪥)ࠊ᪊ ி㒔ࣀ࣮ࢺࣝࢲ࣒ዪᏊ
኱Ꮫ㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ◊✲Ⓨ⾲࡟ຍ➹࣭ಟṇࢆ࡯࡝ࡇࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ◊✲Ⓨ⾲᫬࡟ࣇࣟ࢔ࡢⓙᵝ࠿ࡽከࡃࡢ᭷┈࡞ࡈ㉁ၥ࣭ࡈຓゝࢆ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓࠋᚰ࠿ࡽឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ
<ཧ↷ᩥ⊩>
Ẽ㇟ᗇ.2007[1998].ࠗẼ㇟ほ ࡢᡭᘬࡁ࠘Ẽ㇟ᗇ HP(http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/kishou/know/kansoku_guide/tebiki.pdf) ,࢔ࢡࢭࢫ᪥ 2014/10/30.
㘠ᓥᘯ἞ᮁ.2011.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࠘ᮾி:ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ᯇᾆග.2014.ࠕᴫᛕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࠿ࡽࡳࡓ✵ᶍᵝ̿᪂⪺グ஦ࢆ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡋࡓ㺀㞼㺁࡜㺀㟝㺁ࡢ⪃ᐹ̿ࠖࠗ⾲⌧◊✲࠘99, 60-69,⾲⌧Ꮫ఍.
ᯇᮧ᫂(⦅).2006.ࠗ኱㎡ᯘ࠘➨୕∧,ᮾி:୕┬ᇽ.
⢄ᒣὒ௓.2006.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡣே㛫ࢆ࡝࠺ぢ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࠘ᮾி:◊✲♫.
⢄ᒣὒ௓.2010.ࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛධ㛛࠘ᮾி:◊✲♫.
᳃ᮁ.1998.ࠗ㢼࡜Ἴࢆ▱ࡿ 101 ࡢࢥࢶ̿ᾏ㎶ࡢẼ㇟Ꮫධ㛛࠘ᮾி:ᯯฟ∧♫.
Clausner, Timothy and William Croft. 1999.͆Domains and image schemas.͇Cognitive Linguistics
10:1,1-31.
Johnson, Mark.1987.The body in the mind 㸸 The bodily basis of meaning,imagination, andreason.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(Ⳣ㔝┪ᶞ࣭୰ᮧ㞞அ(ヂ).1991.ࠗᚰࡢ࡞࠿ࡢ㌟య࠘
ᮾி:⣖ఀᅧᒇ᭩ᗑ)Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark.1980.Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. (Ώ㒊୍࣭᪼ᴋ℩῟୕࣭ୗ㇂࿴ᖾ(ヂ) .1986.ࠗࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ࡜ே⏕࠘ᮾி:኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ)
Lakoff, George.1993.͆The contemporary theory of metaphor.͇ In Andrew Ortony(ed.) Metaphor

and Thought, 202-251,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark.1999.The Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books. (ィぢ୍㞝(ヂ).2004.ࠗ⫗୰ࡢဴᏛ̿⫗యࢆල᭷ࡋࡓ࣐࢖ࣥࢻࡀすὒࡢᛮ⪃࡟ᣮᡓࡍࡿ࠘ᮾி:ဴᏛ᭩ᡣ)<⏝౛ฟ඾>KOTONOHAࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ᭩ࡁゝⴥᆒ⾮ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠘ᑡ⣡ゝ(BCCWJ)୰᪥᪂⪺࣭ᮾி᪂⪺グ஦ࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ
᪥⤒ࢸࣞࢥࣥ 21(᪥ᮏ⤒῭᪂⪺♫)ẖ⣴(ẖ᪥᪂⪺♫)࣑ࣚࢲࢫṔྐ㤋(ㄞ኎᪂⪺♫)Google(᳨⣴ᮇ㛫 2014/10/10㹼2015/03/03)−158−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗほⅬ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ㧗➼Ꮫᰯⱥㄒᩍ⛉᭩ࡢศᯒ1㸫ࠕⱥㄒ⾲⌧Iࠖࡢ஦౛ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟㸫Ỉᓥ ᲍⣪ᮐᖠᏛ㝔኱ᏛேᩥᏛ㒊 ⱥㄒⱥ⡿ᩥᏛ⛉E-mail: lisa@sgu.ac.jp<Abstract>
Although many interlanguage pragmatic studies have pointed out the lack of pragmatic ability of Japanese EFL learners,
very few of them have pursued its underlying cause. Following the perspectives of LoCastro (1997 2003) Nakano
Miyasaka & Yamazaki (2000) Murata (2006) and Shimizu Fukasawa & Yonekura (2007 2008) this study investigates
how and whether pragmatic aspects of language are provided in the new English textbooks for Japanese high school
students. The researcher analyzed and evaluated 3582 utterances/sentences from the top eight popular textbooks of‘English Expression I’ focusing on (i) language functions (ii) contexts (iii) interactiveness (iv) discourse strategies and (v)explicit metapragmatic instructions and the results showed that those textbooks do not offer sufficient (meta-)pragmatic
information. This study suggests possible improvement measures to enhance learners’ pragmatic understanding.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸯୰㛫ゝㄒㄒ⏝ㄽ㸪㸰ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊ㸪㸱ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ▱㆑㸪4 㧗ᰯⱥㄒᩍ⛉᭩㸪㸳ⱥㄒ⾲⌧ I㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟㸸◊✲ࡢ⫼ᬒ࡜┠ⓗ ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ࡢᐃࡵࡿᑠ࣭୰࣭㧗➼Ꮫᰯ᪂Ꮫ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࠖࡢ⫱ᡂࡣ㸪እᅜㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ᭱ࡶ୺せ࡞┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨௜ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣ㸪እᅜㄒࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࠕゝㄒࡸᩥ໬࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⌮ゎࢆ῝ࡵ㸪✚ᴟⓗ࡟ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆᅗࢁ࠺࡜ࡍࡿែᗘࡢ⫱ᡂࢆᅗࡾ㸪᝟ሗࡸ⪃࠼࡞࡝ࢆⓗ☜࡟⌮ゎࡋࡓࡾ㐺ษ࡟ఏ࠼ࡓࡾࡍࡿࠖ⬟ຊࢆ㣴࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜どࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ࠗ㧗➼ᏛᰯᏛ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿ゎㄝ࠘እᅜㄒ⦅➨2⠇㸧ࠋ ࡇࢀࡲ࡛㸪ᛂ⏝ゝㄒᏛࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡍࡿከࡃࡢ◊✲ࡀࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࠖࡢ୰㌟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌ࡚
ࡁࡓࡀ㸪ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ≉࡟ゝㄒ౑⏝ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗഃ㠃࡟ゝཬࡢ࠶ࡿ Bachman (1990)Bachman & Palmer (19962010) ࡟ゐࢀࡓ࠸ࠋBachman & Palmer ࡣ㸪ᙼࡽࡢ⏝ㄒ࡛࿧ࡪ࡜ࡇࢁࡢࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥゝㄒ⬟ຊࠖ
(communicative language ability) ࡢ୺せ࡞ᵓᡂせ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ゝㄒࡢᙧᘧࡸᶵ⬟㸪♫఍ⓗ㐺ษࡉ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠕゝㄒ▱㆑ࠖ(language knowledge) ࡜㸪ࡑࢀࡽࡢ▱㆑ࢆ㐠⏝ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢࠕ᪉␎ⓗ⬟ຊࠖ(strategic competence) ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿ2ࠋ๓⪅ࡢࠕゝㄒ▱㆑ࠖࡣࡉࡽ࡟ࠕᵓᡂ▱㆑ࠖ(organizational knowledge) ࡜ࠕㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ▱㆑ࠖ(pragmatic knowledge) ࡟ศࡅࡽࢀ㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞㡯┠ࢆྵࡴࠋゝㄒ▱㆑ (language knowledge) ࡢᵓᡂせ⣲¾ ᵓᡂ▱㆑ (organizational knowledge)ᩥἲⓗ࡟ᐜㄆྍ⬟࡞Ⓨヰࡸᩥࢆ⏘ฟ࣭ㄆ㆑ࡋ㸪ࡑࡢ࿨㢟ෆᐜⓗព࿡ࢆ⌮ゎࡋ㸪Ⓨヰࡸᩥࢆ⤌⧊ࡋཱྀ࡚㢌ࡸᩥ᭩ࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ㸦Ⓨヰࡸᩥࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ㸧ࢆᙧసࡿࡢ࡟ᚲせ࡞⬟ຊ3¾ ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ▱㆑ (pragmatic knowledge)Ⓨヰࡸᩥࢆࡑࡢ౑⏝⪅ࡢពᅗࡸゝㄒ౑⏝ࡢ≧ἣⓗ࡞≉ᚩ࡟㛵㐃௜ࡅ㸪ㄯヰࡢ᝿ീࡸ⌮ゎࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡍࡿ⬟ຊ

−159−

語用論的観点に基づく高等学校英語教科書の分析 ―「英語表現Ⅰ」の事例を中心に― ๓⪅ࡢࠕᵓᡂ▱㆑ࠖ࡟ࡣ㸪ゝㄒࡢᙧᘧⓗ࡞ഃ㠃㸦ㄒᙡࡸ⤫ㄒ㸪㡢㡩㸪Ⓨヰࡸᩥࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ࡞࡝㸧࡟㛵ࡍࡿ▱㆑ࡀヱᙜࡍࡿࠋ୍᪉㸪ᚋ⪅ࡢࠕㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ▱㆑ࠖࡣࠕᶵ⬟ⓗ▱㆑ (functional knowledge) 4ࠖ࡜ࠕ♫఍ゝㄒ▱㆑ (sociolinguistic knowledge)ࠖ࠿ࡽᡂࡾ㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀࠕⓎヰࡸᩥ࣭ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜ゝㄒ౑⏝⪅ࡢពᅗ࡜ࡢ
㛵ಀ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ▱㆑ࠖ㸪ࠕ࠶ࡿゝㄒ౑⏝ሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚㐺ษ࡞ゝㄒࡢ⏘ฟࡸ⌮ゎ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ▱㆑ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊ࡟㛵୚ࡍࡿ▱㆑ࡢ୰࡟ࡣ㸪⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿゝㄒࡢᙧᘧ㠃࡟㛵ࡍࡿ▱㆑ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪Ⓨヰ㸦ࡶࡋࡃࡣᩥࡸࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ㸧࡟㎸ࡵࡽࢀࡓ౑⏝⪅ࡢពᅗࡸ㸪♫఍ⓗ࡟㐺ษ࡞ఏ࠼᪉ࢆ⌮ゎࡋᐇ
㊶ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ▱㆑ࡶྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ▱㆑㸦⬟ຊ㸧࡟㛵ࡋ࡚㸪እᅜㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡇࢀ
ࡲ࡛୰㛫ゝㄒㄒ⏝ㄽࡢㅖ◊✲ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪እᅜㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡣࡑࡢゝㄒࡢẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾ㸪Ⓨヰࡸᩥ࡟㎸ࡵࡽࢀࡓពᅗࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡓࡾ㸪ᩥ⬦࡟༶ࡋ࡚㐺ษ࡞⾲⌧ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ᅔ㞴ࢆᢪ࠼ࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢཎᅉࡣゝ࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃ㸪┠ᶆゝㄒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ▱㆑࡜ࡑࢀࢆ㐠⏝ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ⬟ຊࡢ୙㊊࡟࠶ࡿࡢࡔࡀ㸪ᙜヱศ㔝࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩍ⫱◊✲ࡢ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡣ኱Ꮫ⏕ࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡍࡿ㧗➼ᩍ⫱ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛㸪ࡑࢀ௨๓ࡢ୰➼ᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿᣦᑟࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉࡟ࡑࡢ➃⥴ࢆ᥈ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ヨࡳࡣࡈࡃࢃࡎ࠿ࡋ࠿ぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ ࡑࡢ୰࡛㸪᪥ᮏ࡛ࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡓ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࡢᴫせࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋࡲࡎ㸪LoCastro(1997 2003) ࡸ Nakano Miyasaka & Yamazaki (2000) ࡣ㸪㧗ᰯⱥㄒᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ୰࡟┠ᶆゝㄒࡢつ⠊࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋࡓࡾ㸪ᙧᘧⓗ࡟೫ࡗࡓ⾲⌧ࡀከࡃྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀࡑࢀࡽࡢᩍ⛉᭩࠿ࡽㄗࡗࡓㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ▱㆑ࢆᚓ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜࡬ࡢὀពႏ㉳ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ5ࠋࡲࡓ ᮧ⏣ (2006) ࡣ㸪㧗ᰯⱥㄒ⛉┠ࡢ1ࡘ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠕ࢜
࣮࣭ࣛࣝࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥAࠖࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࢆศᯒࡋ㸪ࡑࡇ࡛ᢅࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿゝㄒᶵ⬟ࡢ✀㢮࡟೫ࡾࡀ࠶ࡿ
ࡇ࡜࡜㸪࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡟㓄៖ࡋࡓゝㄒ౑⏝ୖࡢ᪉␎࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄝ᫂ࡀḞዴࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ
࡟㸪Shimizu Fukasawa & Yonekura (2007) ࡶࠕ࣮࣭࢜ࣛࣝࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥϨࠖࡢᩍ⛉᭩17෉ࢆศᯒࡋ㸪ᮧ⏣ (2006) ࡜ྠᵝ㸪ᢅࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿゝㄒᶵ⬟ࡢᩘࡸከᵝᛶࡀஈࡋࡃ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࡓࡵࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗゎㄝࡸ⦎⩦ၥ㢟ࡶ୙㊊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࢆᢈุࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢᐇ᝟ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜㸪ࠕ┠ᶆゝㄒ࡟ࡼࡿྵពࢆṇࡋࡃㄆ㆑࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠖ㸪ࠕពᛮࢆఏ࠼ࡿ㝿㸪㝈ࡽࢀࡓ✀㢮ࡢゝㄒᙧᘧࡋ࠿౑࠼࡞࠸ࠖ㸪ࠕሙ㠃࡟ᛂࡌ࡚⾲⌧ࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠖ࡞࡝㸪ࡇࢀࡲ࡛Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓၥ㢟ࡢᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ୍➃ࡣ㸪㧗➼ᩍ⫱௨๓ࡢẁ㝵࡟㐳ࡗ࡚⪃࠼࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ࡑࡇ࡛㸪ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ⌧ᅾ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㧗ᰯⱥㄒᩍ⛉᭩ࡢศᯒࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᣦᑟ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⌧≧ࡢᢕᥱ࡜ㄢ㢟ࡢ᳨ウࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

㸰㸬ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ศᯒ᪉ἲ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕⱥㄒ⾲⌧Ϩࠖ࡜࠸࠺㑅ᢥ⛉┠6ࡢ᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩8෉7㸦௨ୗࡢࣜࢫࢺࢆཧ↷㸧࠿ࡽ⦎⩦ၥ㢟ࢆ㝖ࡃ3582ࡢⓎヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࢆᢤࡁฟࡋ㸪Microsoft Excelࡢࢩ࣮ࢺ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࡶࡢࢆࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡟ࡣ㸪Ⓩሙே≀࡟ࡼࡿࣔࢹࣝ఍ヰࡸࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ຍ࠼㸪E࣓࣮ࣝ㸪ࣈࣟࢢ࡞࡝࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓᩥࡶྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠕⱥㄒ⾲⌧Ϩࠖࡢᩍ⛉᭩
¾ Vision Quest Advanced㸦ၨᯘ㤋㸧¾ Crown㸦୕┬ᇽ㸧

¾ Vision Quest Standard㸦ၨᯘ㤋㸧¾ New Favorite㸦ᮾி᭩⡠㸧

¾ My Way㸦୕┬ᇽ㸧
¾ Polestar㸦ᩘ◊ฟ∧㸧

¾ Big Dipper㸦ᩘ◊ฟ∧㸧
¾ Vivid㸦➨୍Ꮫ⩦♫㸧

−160−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

 ḟ࡟㸪ᩍ⛉᭩࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡓ඲࡚ࡢⓎヰ㸦ᩥ㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪௨ୗࡢ5ࡘࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽホ౯࡜⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢホ౯㡯┠ࡣ㸪ࠕⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࠖࡸࠕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ୰᰾ࢆᡂࡍ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳࢆ᰿ᮏ࡟⨨࠸ࡓୖ࡛㸪୰㛫ゝㄒㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ㡿ᇦࡀᢅ࠺」ᩘࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆໟྵࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(1) ゝㄒᶵ⬟ࡢከᵝᛶᏛ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿ࡢ౛♧ࡍࡿゝㄒࡢാࡁࡀ࢝ࣂ࣮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿

(2) ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ᫂☜ࡉᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓⓎヰ㸦ᩥ㸧࡟᫂☜࡞ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿

(3) Ⓨヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽᛶ
୍᪉ⓗ࡞Ⓨヰࡸᩥ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢ㏦ࡾᡭ࡜ཷࡅᡭ࡜ࡢ┦஫స⏝ࡀ᝿㉳ࡉࢀࡿෆᐜ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿

(4) Ⓨヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࡢࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫᛶ
Ⓨヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࡢ㐃⥆ࡋࡓࡲ࡜ࡲࡾࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪ㄯヰ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿

(5) ࣓ࢱㄒ⏝ㄽⓗゎㄝࡢ᭷↓ゝㄒᙧᘧࡸࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡟㛵ࡋ㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ほⅬ࠿ࡽ᫂♧ⓗ࡞ゎㄝࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿

㸱㸬ศᯒ⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹ
3. 1. ゝㄒᶵ⬟ࡢከᵝᛶ ⌧⾜ࡢࠗ㧗➼ᏛᰯᏛ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࠘➨ 8 ⠇➨ 4 Ḱࢆཧ↷ࡍࡿ࡜㸪ࠕᩍᮦ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪እᅜㄒࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࢥ
࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࢆ⥲ྜⓗ࡟⫱ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸪ྛ⛉┠ࡢ┠ᶆ࡟ᛂࡌ㸪ᐇ㝿ࡢゝㄒࡢ౑⏝ሙ㠃ࡸゝㄒࡢാࡁ࡟༑ศ㓄៖ࡋࡓࡶࡢࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠖ࡜࠸࠺グ㍕ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ඛ❧ࡘ➨ 3 Ḱ࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕゝㄒࡢാࡁࡢ౛ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ࠕ㹟: ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ෇⁥࡟ࡍࡿࠖ㸪ࠕ㹠: Ẽᣢࡕࢆఏ࠼ࡿࠖ㸪ࠕ㹡:᝟ሗࢆఏ࠼ࡿࠖ㸪ࠕ㹢: ⪃࠼ࡸពᅗࢆఏ࠼ࡿࠖ㸪ࠕ㹣: ┦ᡭࡢ⾜ືࢆಁࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ 5 ࡘࡢゝㄒᶵ⬟ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡜㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢୗ࡟ࡉࡽ࡟ලయⓗ࡞ᶵ⬟౛ࡀ 6 ࡘࡎࡘ㸦ྜィ 30 ✀㢮㸧♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ 8㸪ゝㄒάື࡞࡝ࡢ㝿࡟ࡣ㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡢゝㄒࡢാࡁࡢ୰࠿ࡽࠕྛ⛉┠ࡢ┠ᶆࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡢ࡟ࡩࡉࢃࡋ࠸ࡶࡢࢆ㐺ᐅྲྀࡾୖࡆ㸪᭷ᶵⓗ࡟⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡚ά⏝ࡍࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࡀ᥎ዡࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ᐇ㝿ࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡛ࡇࢀࡽࡢゝㄒᶵ⬟ࡀ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘ㸪ࡑࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࢝ࣂ࣮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ
᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸪3582 ࡢ඲࡚ࡢⓎヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࢆୖグ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡢゝㄒᶵ⬟࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋ୰࡟ࡣ㸪1 ࡘࡢⓎヰ㸦ᩥ㸧࡟」ᩘࡢᶵ⬟ࡀヱᙜࡍࡿࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࡀ㸪ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋ࡚㸪ࡼࡾᙉࡃ᝿㉳ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࠿ࡽඃඛⓗ࡟ศᯒࡋࡓࠋ㏫࡟㸪Ꮫ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿ࡢ౛♧ࡍࡿ࡝ࡢᶵ⬟࡟ࡶᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞࠸஦౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ᚲせ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚᪂ࡓ࡞ᶵ⬟ࢆ㏣ຍࡋ࡚ศ㢮࡟౑⏝ࡋࡓࠋ

D



E

F





G





ॢঝ‫ش‬উ Fَੲਾ॑஫इ
ॊُऋ৸৬भ 

H



ᅗ 1. ゝㄒᶵ⬟ࡢศ㢮⤖ᯝ ᅗ 1 ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪඲యࡢ 58%࡟ᙜࡓࡿ 2061 ࡢⓎヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࡀࠕ㹡㸸᝟ሗࢆఏ࠼ࡿࠖࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿ࡜ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡓࠋᅗ 2 ࡣࡇࡢࠕࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㹡ࠖࡢࡉࡽ࡞ࡿෆヂ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ−161−

語用論的観点に基づく高等学校英語教科書の分析 ―「英語表現Ⅰ」の事例を中心に―َହ৥घॊُऋॢঝ‫ش‬উ F৸৬भ 

ହ৥घॊ













ᅗ 2. ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㹡࡟࠾ࡅࡿᶵ⬟ࡢෆヂ ࠗ㧗➼ᏛᰯᏛ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࠘࡟ࡣ㸪ࠕ᝟ሗࢆఏ࠼ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ാࡁࡢලయ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠖ㸪ࠕሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠖ㸪ࠕᥥ෗ࡍࡿࠖ㸪ࠕ⌮⏤ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠖ㸪ࠕせ⣙ࡍࡿࠖ㸪ࠕゞṇࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ 6 ࡘࡢᶵ⬟ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡀࡇࡢࠕࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㹡ࠖ࡟ྵࡵࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࡢᐇ࡟ 9 ๭ࡀࠕㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠖ࡟ヱᙜࡍࡿ⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋᅗ 1㸪ᅗ 2 ࡀ♧၀ࡍࡿⅬࢆ⥲ྜࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡿ࡜㸪ㄪᰝᑐ㇟ࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡀᥦ౪ࡍࡿゝㄒᶵ⬟ࡢ✀㢮࠾ࡼࡧᩘ࡟ࡣ኱ࡁ࡞೫ࡾࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⤖ㄽ௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡇࡇ࡛≉࡟ὀពࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢࡣ㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡀࡇࡢࠕㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ྵࡵࡓࡶࡢ
ࡢ୰࡟ࡣ㸪௨ୗ࡟ᣲࡆࡿࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟ከࡃྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
1. A soccer field must be rectangular. (Crown p.18)
2. The student who was 5 minutes late for class is the best tennis player in the school. (Polestar p.90)
3. Nothing is as popular as a Christmas party among children. (Vivid p.58)
 ௬࡟ࡇࢀࡽࡢⓎヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࡀ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ୰࡛㝞㏙ࡉࢀࢀࡤ㸪ཷࡅᡭ࡟୍ᐃࡢ᝟ሗࡀఏࢃࡾ㸪ࡑࢀࡀࠕㄝ
᫂ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡍྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ḟ⠇࡛ㄽࡌࡿࡼ࠺࡟㸪࠸࠿࡞ࡿᩥ⬦ࡶ௜ຍࡉࢀ࡞࠸≧ែ࡛ࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛ᩥࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓሙྜ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀࡑࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ാࡁࢆྠᐃࡋࡓࡾ㸪㐺ษᛶࢆุ᩿ࡋࡓࡾ
ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᴟࡵ࡚ᅔ㞴ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋእᅜㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡢྥୖࢆᅗࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ㸪ᵓᡂ▱㆑㸦≉࡟ᩥἲ▱㆑㸧ࡢ⩦ᚓ࡟㛵ࢃࡿഃ㠃ࡢࡳࢆษࡾ㞳ࡋ࡚ඃඛࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ࡼࡾㄒ⏝ㄽⓗഃ㠃ࡢ㛵୚ࢆಁࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

3. 2. ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ᫂☜ࡉ ๓⠇࡛ࡶゐࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪࠶ࡿⓎヰࡸᩥࡢᶵ⬟ࢆ㸪ࡑࢀࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡓ≧ἣⓗᩥ⬦ࢆᢤࡁ࡟ࡋ࡚ㄒࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ
࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪“Are you a professional artist?” (New Favorite p.10) ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ㸦ᩥ㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ࡑࢀࡀ
༢࡞ࡿࠕ㉁ၥࠖ࡞ࡢ࠿㸪ࠕ☜ㄆࠖ࡞ࡢ࠿㸪ࡶࡋࡃࡣཷࡅᡭ࡬ࡢࠕⱞゝࠖࡸࠕ⓶⫗ࠖ࡞ࡢ࠿ࢆ㸪ゝㄒᙧᘧࡢࡳ࠿ࡽุ᩿ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ㸦ࡇࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕᮍ᮶ࡢ⮬ศᐄ࡚࡟ᡭ⣬ࢆ᭩ࡃࠖ࡜࠸࠺ሙ㠃ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪“you” ࡣ᭩ࡁᡭ⮬㌟ࢆ㸪ᩥࡣ㢪ᮃࢆྵࡴ⮬ࡽ࡬ࡢၥ࠸࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࠋࡲࡓ㸪Ⓨヰࡢ㐺ษᛶࡢุ᩿࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ㸪≧ἣⓗᩥ⬦ࡣࡸࡣࡾḞࡃࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸せ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⅼࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼㸪ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣᩍ⛉᭩ࡀᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘ᫂☜࡞≧ἣⓗᩥ⬦ࢆᥦ౪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ㸪
2Ⅼ㸪1Ⅼ㸪0Ⅼࡢ3ẁ㝵࡛ホ౯ࡋࡓࠋ2Ⅼ㸸᫂☜࡞ᩥ⬦㸦ㄡࡀ㸪ㄡ࡟㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡛Ⓨヰ࣭グ㏙ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿㸧ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
1Ⅼ㸸᫂☜࡞ᩥ⬦ࡣ୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀ㸪᥎ ྍ⬟
0Ⅼ㸸ᩥ⬦ࡀ඲ࡃ୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸

−162−

第17回大会発表論文集

SW





SW





第10号

॥থॸॡ५ॺऋ৸ऎଖइ
ैोथःऩः୻ધऋ৸৬भ 

SW





ᅗ3.ࠕࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ᫂☜ࡉࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿホ౯ࡢ⤖ᯝ ᅗ3ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟㸪ศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓᩍ⛉᭩ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛ࡣ㸪ㄡࡀ㸪ㄡ࡟㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡛ࡑࡢⓎヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡀ୙᫂࡞஦౛ࡀ㸪඲యࡢ࠾ࡼࡑ6๭ࢆ༨ࡵ࡚࠸ࡓ㸦๓⠇࡛ᘬ⏝ࡋࡓ1ࠥ3ࡢ౛ᩥࡶࡑࡢ୰
࡟ྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᩥ⬦࡟༶ࡋࡓ㐺ษ࡞ゝㄒࡢ⌮ゎࡸ⏘ฟࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࢆᏛ࡭ࡿࡼ࠺㸪ᩍ⛉᭩ࡣྍ⬟࡞㝈ࡾࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡋࡓ౛ᩥࢆᥦ౪ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

3. 3. Ⓨヰ࣭ᩥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽᛶ Thomas (1995) ࢆࡣࡌࡵ࡜ࡍࡿከࡃࡢㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲ࡀㄽࡌ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪ᮏ᮶Ⓨヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࡢព࿡࡞࠸ࡋ
ᶵ⬟ࡣゝㄒᙧᘧࡢࡳ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶࡓࡽࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢᙜ஦⪅ࡀ㛵ࢃࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ୰࡛Ỵᐃ௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ゝㄒᶵ⬟ࢆᢅ࠺ᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ୰࡛ୖグࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽᛶࡀ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘయ⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ▱ࡿࡓࡵࡢᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪Ⓨヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࢆࡵࡄࡿ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢ㏦ࡾᡭ࣭ཷࡅ
ᡭࡢᏑᅾࡀ᫂☜࡞ࡶࡢ࠿ࡽ㡰࡟2Ⅼࠥ0Ⅼ࡛ホ౯ࡋࡓࠋ
2Ⅼ㸸࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢ㏦ࡾᡭ࣭ཷࡅᡭࡢᏑᅾࡀ᫂☜1Ⅼ㸸࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢ㏦ࡾᡭ࣭ཷࡅᡭࡢᏑᅾࡀ୙᫂☜ࡔࡀ㸪᥎ ྍ⬟
0Ⅼ㸸࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢ㏦ࡾᡭ࣭ཷࡅᡭࡀ୙ᅾ

SW





SW





ওॵ७‫ش‬४भਭऐুधଛ
ॉুऋਂ૔दँॊহ୻ऋ৸৬भ 

SW





ᅗ4. Ⓨヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿホ౯⤖ᯝ ศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪ᅗ4ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟㸪඲యࡢ⣙༙ᩘ࡟ᙜࡓࡿ1744ࡢⓎヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࡀ┦஫⾜ⅭᛶࢆḞࡃ㸪࠶࡚࡝࡞࠸ࣔࣀ࣮ࣟࢢࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦౛ࡢከࡃࡣ㸪୺࡟ゝㄒࡢᙧᘧⓗഃ㠃ࡢゎㄝࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪࠶ࡓ࠿ࡶ࠶ࡿゝㄒᙧᘧ࡟≉ᐃࡢᶵ⬟ࡀഛࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞㸪༢⣧໬ࡋࡓゎ㔘ࢆᏛ⩦⪅࡟᳜࠼௜ࡅ࠿ࡡ࡞࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪“Would you like...?” ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧࡟ࡣ㸪ࠕࠥࡣ࠸࠿
ࡀ࡛ࡍ࠿ࠖࠕࠥࡋࡓ࠸࡛ࡍ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ヂࡀ࠶ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵῧ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࠕ⏦ࡋฟࠖࡢᶵ⬟ࡢᣦᑟ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿሙྜࡀ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ⱥㄒࡢ᪥ᖖ఍ヰ࡛ࡣࡇࡢࣇ࣮ࣞࢬࡀࠕ౫㢗ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢാࡁࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜
ࡶᑡ࡞࠿ࡽࡎ࠶ࡿࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࡀࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡢὶࢀࡢ୰࡛Ⓨヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆṇ☜࡟⌮ゎࡋࡓࡾఏ࠼ࡓࡾ࡛ࡁ
ࡿࡼ࠺㸪౛ᩥࡢᥦ♧ࡢ௙᪉࡟ࡶᕤኵࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸࡜ࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−163−

語用論的観点に基づく高等学校英語教科書の分析 ―「英語表現Ⅰ」の事例を中心に―

3. 4. Ⓨヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࡢࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫᛶ ホ౯㡯┠ࡢ4Ⅼ┠࡟ᣲࡆࡓࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫᛶ࡜ࡣ㸪ゝㄒ౑⏝⪅ࡀ┦஫࡟┠ⓗࢆᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ㸪ㄯヰ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆព㆑ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࢆぢ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸ࠋ
4. Paul: Hey Dan. We’re all going to the movies tonight. Do you want to come?
Dan: Not tonight – I’m helping Emi with her assignment. (Polestar p. 14)
5. I want you to take part in tomorrow’s party. (Vision Quest Standard p.56)
 4ࡣ㸪ࡑࡢෆᐜ࠿ࡽPaul࡜Danࡢ㛫࡛஺ࢃࡉࢀࡿࠕㄏ࠸ࠖ࡜ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࡀ㸪
PaulࡢⓎヰ࡟ࡣࠕணᐃࡢㄝ᫂ࠖࡀ㸪DanࡢⓎヰ࡛ࡣࠕ᩿ࡾࡢ⌮⏤ㄝ᫂ࠖࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀῧ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡑࢀࡽࡢㄯヰୖࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡀ㐃㙐ࡋ࡚఍ヰࡀᵓ⠏ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᵝᏊࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪5࡛ࡣࡇࡢⓎヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࡀ༢⊂࡛୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ᩥ࠿ࡽࠕㄏ࠸ࠖࢆࡵࡄࡿㄯヰ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ᪉␎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ▱㆑ࢆᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ㸦ࡇࡢ5ࡢ౛ᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ࡑࡶࡑࡶ࡞ࡐࠕࣃ࣮ࢸ࢕࣮
࡬ࡢㄏ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽ࡟ “I want you to...” ࡜࠸࠺ᙉ࠸ࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࢆᣢࡘ⾲⌧ࡀᚲせ࡞ࡢ࠿㸪ヰ⪅ྠኈࡢ㛵ಀࡸ≧ἣⓗᩥ⬦࡞࡝࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶᏛ⩦⪅࡬ࡢ᝟ሗᥦ౪ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸧 ࡇࢀࡽࡢ஦౛ࢆᛕ㢌࡟㸪ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣᩍ⛉᭩ࡢᥦ౪ࡍࡿⓎヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࡀࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫᛶ㸦ㄯヰ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ
ࡘ࡞ࡀࡾ㸧ࢆᣢࡕ㸪ㄯヰୖࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆᏛ⩦⪅࡟ᥦ౪ࡋᚓࡿ࠿ࢆ2ࠥ0Ⅼ࡛ホ౯ࡋࡓࠋ2Ⅼ㸸ㄯヰ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢⓎヰࡸᩥࡢࡘ࡞ࡀࡾࡀ࠶ࡿࡶࡢ㸦3ࡘ௨ୖࡢⓎヰ࣭ᩥࡀ┦஫࡟㛵㐃㸧
1Ⅼ㸸ㄯヰ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢⓎヰࡸᩥࡢࡘ࡞ࡀࡾࡀࢃࡎ࠿ࡋ࠿࡞࠸ࡶࡢ㸦2ࡘࡢⓎヰ࣭ᩥࡀ┦஫࡟㛵㐃㸧
0Ⅼ㸸ㄯヰ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢⓎヰࡸᩥࡢࡘ࡞ࡀࡾࡀ඲ࡃ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ㸦༢⊂ࡢⓎヰ࣭ᩥ㸧

SW





SW







SW

৸৬भ ऋ౐৅भ৅ਵ
‫ق‬ધ‫ك‬

ᅗ5. Ⓨヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࡢࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿホ౯ࡢ⤖ᯝ ᅗ5ࡀ♧ࡍ࡜࠾ࡾ㸪ࢹ࣮ࢱ඲యࡢ65%࡟ཬࡪ౛ᩥࡣ㸪࠸࠿࡞ࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡶྵࡲ࡞࠸㸪༢ⓎࡢⓎヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࡢᙧ࡛ᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀᩍ⛉᭩ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚㸪࠶ࡿᶵ⬟࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄯヰࣞ࣋ࣝࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡟ゐࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⬟ຊࡢྥୖࡣᩥ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᣦᑟࡢࡳ࡛ࡣ୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪
ࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ⌧≧ࡢᨵၿࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ

3.5. ࣓ࢱㄒ⏝ㄽⓗゎㄝࡢ᭷↓ ᭱ᚋࡢホ౯㡯┠࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ౛ᩥ࡟࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘ࣓ࢱㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ゎㄝࡀῧ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿
ࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ከࡃࡢ୰㛫ゝㄒㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪ゝㄒࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗഃ㠃ࡢᣦᑟࡣ㸪᫂♧ⓗ࡞࣓ࢱㄒ⏝ㄽⓗゎㄝ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟⾜ࡗࡓ᪉ࡀࡼࡾ㧗࠸ຠᯝࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ
ᛕ㢌࡟㸪ศᯒᑐ㇟ࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘ࣓ࢱㄒ⏝ㄽⓗゎㄝࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆㄪ࡭ࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪୚࠼ࡽ
ࢀࡓⓎヰ㸦ᩥ㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ఱࡽ࠿ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗㄝ᫂ࡢ࠶ࡿ஦౛ࡣ㸪3582௳୰95௳㸦඲యࡢ3%ᙅ㸧࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡶ㸪8෉ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ࡑࡢゎㄝࡢᑐ㇟ࡣ≉ᐃࡢᩥἲ㡯┠࡛࠶ࡿ

−164−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ຓືモ࡟㞟୰ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡣຓືモࡢᣢࡘព࿡ྜ࠸ࡸ୎ᑀᗘࡢẚ㍑࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡋ࠿㸪࣓ࢱㄒ⏝ㄽⓗゎㄝ࡟ゐࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡀศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓⱥㄒᩍ⛉᭩࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ࡑࡶࡑࡶ࣓ࢱㄒ⏝ㄽⓗゎㄝࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟୙㊊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࡀ㸪ࡉࡽ࡟ࡑࡢࢃࡎ࠿࡞ゎㄝࡢ୰࡟ࡶ㸪ㄝ᫂ࡀ୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡾ㸪୙⏝ព࡞༢⣧໬ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡾࡋ࡚㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ㄗࡗࡓ▱㆑ࢆ୚࠼ࡿᜍࢀࡢ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
6. May I ask you a question? (Vision Quest Standard p.38)
ࠑゎㄝࠒMay I~? ࡣࠕࠥࡋ࡚ࡶࡼࢁࡋ࠸࡛ࡍ࠿ࠖ࡜チྍࢆồࡵࡿ⾲⌧ࠋCan [Could] I~? ࡢ᪉ࡀࡼࡃ౑ࢃࢀࡿࠋ
7. You had better see a doctor. (Vision Quest Standard p.40)
ࠑゎㄝࠒhad better do ࡣ┠ୖࡢே࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣ౑ࢃ࡞࠸ࠋ
8. You must visit Daitokuji when you go to Kyoto. (Polestar p.32)
ࠑゎㄝࠒYou must~ ࡣࠕࡐࡦࠥࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜່ࡵࡿ࡚࠸ࡡ࠸࡞ゝ࠸᪉ࠋ

 6࡛ࡣ㸪“May I...?” ࡼࡾࡶ “Can [Could] I...?” ࡢ᪉ࡀࡼࡃ౑ࢃࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ᙜヱࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゎㄝࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡀ୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋຓືモࡢ㑅ᢥࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶ㢖ᗘࡢၥ㢟࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ࡑࡢሙࡢ≧ἣ࡟ᛂࡌࡓ㐺ษ࡞౑࠸ศࡅࡇࡑࡀ㔜せ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙ㠃࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝ࠸ᅇࡋࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮃࡲࡋ࠸ࡢ࠿㸪ලయⓗ࡞ࢩ࣮ࣥ࡟༶ࡋࡓㄝ᫂ࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ7࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪“had better...” ࡜࠸࠺ᙉ࠸ࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࢆᣢࡘ⾲⌧࡬ࡢὀពႏ㉳ࡣ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢ㸪ࠕ┠ୖࡢே࡟ᑐ
ࡋ࡚ࡣ౑ࢃ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゎㄝࡢࡳ࡛௦᭰⾲⌧ࡢᥦ♧ࡀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᚲせ࡞᝟ሗࡀ༑ศ࡟ࡣ
୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࡣ㸪ࡼࡾࡓࡵࡽ࠸ࡀࡕ࡞᱁ୗࡆ⾲⌧ (downgrader) ࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢㄝ᫂ࢆຍ࠼ࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡲࡓ㸪8ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゝㄒᙧᘧ࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ព࿡ྜ࠸ࢆ┤᥋⤖ࡧࡘࡅ࡚ゎㄝࡍࡿഴྥࡣ௚ࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟ࡶከࡃぢࡽࢀࡓࡀ㸪“You must...” ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡣᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡾᢲࡋ௜ࡅࡢᗘྜ
࠸ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡓࡵ㸪ࠕ୎ᑀ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄝ᫂ࡣᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ୰࡛ㄗࡗࡓ▱㆑࡜ࡋ࡚ᅛᐃ໬ࡉࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡿࠋⓎヰ㸦ᩥ㸧ࡢෆᐜࡀཷࡅᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚᭷┈࡞ࡶࡢ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ຺᱌ࡋ㸪ᢲࡋ௜ࡅࡢᗘྜ࠸ࢆㄪᩚࡍ
ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ㔜せᛶࢆ㸪ゎㄝࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ఏ࠼ࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ㸲㸬ᨵၿ࡟ྥࡅࡓᥦゝ࡜௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟㸸ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡟࠿࠼࡚ ᮏㄽࡣ㸪ࠕⱥㄒ⾲⌧Ϩࠖࡢᩍ⛉᭩ศᯒࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ▱㆑ࡢྥୖࢆ┠ᣦࡋࡓᣦᑟࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ᥈ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࡀ㸪ᙜヱศ㔝࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩍ⫱⎔ቃ࡟ࡣࡲࡔከࡃࡢㄢ㢟ࡀṧࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㸪ᨵࡵ࡚ᾋࡁ
᙮ࡾ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ⌧≧ࡢᨵၿ࡟ྥࡅ࡚㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡣࡇࡇ࡛ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᥦゝࢆ⾜࠸ࡓ࠸ࠋ¾ ୍᪉ⓗ࡟ఱ࠿ࢆ㝞㏙ࡍࡿᙧᘧࡢ౛ᩥࢆῶࡽࡋ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀከᵝ࡞ゝㄒᶵ⬟࡟ゐࢀࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡍࡿ
¾ ලయⓗ࡞ᩥ⬦ࢆᥦ౪ࡋ㸪ࡑࡢᩥ⬦ࡢࡶ࡜࡛ゝㄒᙧᘧࡀᣢࡘാࡁࡸ㐺ษᛶࢆ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡍࡿ
¾ ᐇ㝿ࡢ఍ヰ࡟༶ࡋ࡚㸪┦஫⾜Ⅽࡸㄯヰࡢὶࢀࢆ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡞౛ᩥࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿ
¾ ≉ᐃࡢᩥἲ㡯┠௨እ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶ࣓ࢱㄒ⏝ㄽⓗゎㄝࢆࡉࡽ࡟඘ᐇࡉࡏ㸪ᵓᡂ▱㆑࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ▱㆑཮᪉ࡢྥୖࢆᅗࡿ ᙜ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲ࡢᩍ⫱࡬ࡢᛂ⏝ࢆ኱ࡁ࡞ᰕ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪እᅜㄒࡢᣦᑟ⌧ሙ࡟᭷┈࡞᝟ሗࢆⓎಙࡋ⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆ㛗ᮇⓗ࡞┠ᶆ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௒ᚋ㸪ࡉࡽ࡟ヲ⣽࡞ࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒࢆ⾜࠸㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᨵၿ᱌ࢆᥦ౪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃணᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−165−

語用論的観点に基づく高等学校英語教科書の分析 ―「英語表現Ⅰ」の事例を中心に―ὀ1ᮏ◊✲ࡣ㸪2014ᖺ11᭶30᪥࡟ி㒔ࣀ࣮ࢺࣝࢲ࣒ዪᏊ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾࠸࡚㛤ദࡉࢀࡓࠕ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨17ᅇ඲ᅜ኱

఍࡛ࠖࡢཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲࡟ຍ➹࣭ಟṇ㸦ࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ㏣ຍ࡜෌ศᯒࢆྵࡴ㸧ࢆ᪋ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙜ᪥఍ሙ࡛㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓඛ⏕᪉࡟㸪ᚰࡼࡾឤㅰࡢពࢆ⾲ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ2ࡼࡾṇ☜࡟ࡣ㸪Bachman (1990) ࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡣࠕゝㄒ⬟ຊ (language competence)ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ

ࡀ㸪Bachman (1996 2010) ࡛ࡣࡇࢀࡀࠕゝㄒ▱㆑ (language knowledge)ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3ᐃ⩏ࡢ࿴ヂࡣ㸪ΎỈ (2009) ࠿ࡽࡢᘬ⏝ࠋ

4Bachman (1990) ࡛ࡣࠕᶵ⬟ⓗ▱㆑࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠕⓎㄒෆ⬟ຊ (illocutionary competence)ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚

࠸ࡿࠋ
5

LoCastro (1997 2003) ࡣ㸪ศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ㧗ᰯⱥㄒᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ୰࡛㸪ὒ᭹ࡢ௙❧࡚ᒇࢆゼࢀࡓᐈࡀᗑဨ࡟ὀᩥࢆ

ࡍࡿ㝿㸪“I want you to...” ࡜࠸࠺ゝ࠸ᅇࡋࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡓሙ㠃࡟ゝཬࡋ㸪♫఍ⓗ㐺ษࡉࢆḞ࠸ࡓ⾲⌧ࢆᣦᑟᑐ㇟
࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡬ࡢὀពࢆಁࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓ Nakano et al. (2000) ࡣ㸪᪥ᮏேEFLᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ “࿨௧ᙧ+please” ࢆከ⏝ࡍࡿ
ഴྥ࡟ゐࢀ㸪ࡑࡢཎᅉࢆⱥㄒᩍ⛉᭩ࡢᢅ࠺ゝㄒᙧᘧࡢ೫ࡾ࡟ぢฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
6௒ᅇࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪≉࡟ゝㄒࡢ౑⏝㠃࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚㸪ᪧᏛ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ࣮࣭࢜ࣛࣝࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠖ

⏤᮶ࡢ⛉┠࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓࠋࠕⱥㄒ఍ヰࠖࡶࡲࡓྠ⣔ิࡢ⛉┠࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ᐇ᪋⋡ࡣࠕⱥㄒ⾲⌧ࠖࡢ᪉ࡀ኱ᖜ࡟㧗࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪ᙜヱ⛉┠ࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡟㑅ࢇࡔࠋヲࡋࡃࡣᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ࠗᖹᡂ25ᖺᗘබ❧㧗➼Ꮫᰯ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬ࡢ⦅ᡂ࣭ᐇ᪋≧ἣㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࠘ http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/05/27/1342498_02.pdf ࢆཧ↷ࠋ㹙᭱⤊࢔ࢡࢭࢫ᪥㸸2015ᖺ3᭶28᪥㹛㸧7ศᯒᑐ㇟࡟㑅ࢇࡔᩍ⛉᭩ࡣ㸪ᖹᡂ25ᖺᗘ᥇ᢥ⋡ࡢୖ఩8෉ศ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࢩ࢙࢔ࡢྜィࡣ82.8%࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ

8ヲࡋࡃࡣࠗ㧗➼ᏛᰯᏛ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࠘ http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/

afieldfile/2011/03/30/1304427_002.pdf ࡢpp.90-91ࢆཧ↷ࠋ㹙᭱⤊࢔ࢡࢭࢫ᪥㸸2015ᖺ3᭶28᪥㹛ཧ↷ᩥ⊩Bachman L. F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman L. F. and Palmer, A. S. 1996. Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman L. F. and Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language Assessment in Practice: Developing Language Assessments andJustifying Their Use in the Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LoCastro, V. 2003. An Introduction to Pragmatics: Social Action for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor MI: The Universityof Michigan Press.
ᮧ⏣࿴௦. 2006.ࠕ㧗ᰯࡢ࣮࣭࢜ࣛࣝࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿFTAࡢ1౛㸸ࠗ୙ྠព⾲⌧࠘ࡢᢅ࠸ࠖ㸪ᇼ⣲Ꮚ࣭ὠ⏣᪩ⱑ࣭኱ሯᐜᏊ࣭ᮧ⏣Ὀ⨾࣭㔜ග⏤ຍ࣭኱㇂㯞⨾࣭ᮧ⏣࿴௦࣏ࠗࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ⱥㄒᩍ⫱㸸ゝㄒ౑⏝࡟࠾ࡅࡿᑐே㛵ಀࡢᶵ⬟࠘ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ
Nakano M., Miyasaka N. and Yamazki, T. 2000. “A Study of EFL Discourse Using Corpora: An Analysis of Discourse
Completion Tasks.” Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 4, 273-297.
Shimizu T., Fukasawa, E. and Yonekura, S. 2007. “Introductions and Practices of Speech Acts in Oral Communication I
Textbooks: From the Viewpoint of Interlanguage Pragmatics.” Sophia Linguistica 55, 143-163.
ΎỈᓫᩥ. 2009.ࠗ୰㛫ゝㄒㄒ⏝ㄽᴫㄽ㸸➨஧ゝㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⬟ຊࡢ౑⏝࣭⩦ᚓ࣭ᩍ⫱࠘ᮾி㸸ࢫ࣮࢚࣮ࣜࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡ
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.

−166−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号



liuxpecho@gmail.com

Abstract
This paper aims at clarifying the motivation for using ‘mitaina’ at the end of a sentence. Firstly, this paper
defines ‘A mitaina Ø’ as one type of insubordination caused by quotation. Secondly, according to the fact that
if A is someone’s speech or not, a distinction between ''quotation'' and ''supplement to the preceding text'' ismade. This paper concludes with the argument that there are two motivations—positively, to achieve
diversification of expression and negatively, to avoid assertion and tension when there is a turn-taking.
 !"#$$%&

 
'()*+*+,-.'/(01%23456'A  B(0789'A (0:;)'B(+8.<=>?@ABC4@D E 680 FG0HIEJKLMN36'B(0:;COP 6'A (3Q<RS@TUCVWXYZD[\)'(0Q]%^+\6_`3VW0abcdCbe\YZD*+*+fgh+ Yi%\Y@'()6jF9XYfg0Jk6l0mG`3n0i%Co
Y@Dpl0
qr<pXY6st3)6Q]9%J\@'(9uY60vw+ Y0!"xyz<{| 0}96Q]0%^<~ 6n0i%-A<?@[+<?D2  !"#
'(0fgh+ Y0yz9  199561997+2004)6'
(0AB99\Y@D2004)6'(<%0vw+Y6n0T^< W; Y@D2009)%:;0C 9?@E<¡9 Y'(0¢£¤¥¦§¨©AB<&ªDpl)'(0«¬­9 cd34@C6Q]9T\@'(0®¯°0
< 6±²2013)³N9´@'N µ+¶Zµ+0·¸(+'¶Zµ9E@¹º»(9¼Z6'(0AB<; D/C6¶Zµ9E@¹º»0½¾9)¿
À x¼Á0ÂCÃÄ[+*4@036ÅÆÇ?@ÈÉC4@D"Ê2005)'£Ë(<'X ) Y Ìª/(0ÍÎRÏ02Ð+ YÑS6'abQÒl0ÓÔ06ÕÖ×Øy
0ÙÚ(<¼sAB+ Y@D%ÛÜCÝ+8Þ97XY6'Y 3$T\@ X
)6ßNl9àzx9áâ ËxÓÔ34@("Ê 2005:48*0<'Y £Ë(0'ãä(+ Y@D/C6 å2009)'ãä(3)W6æç0%^+ YèSé8Cê
ë/+ÚìY@Dn[36"Ê20050;*Åèí?@îïC4@+S@D

3  $%&'()3.1

*+

1

−167−

付加的非従属化のマーカー「みたいな」の統語語用論的分析'(),-.'/(01¯2036'(0¼s2Ð)'A  B(+½¾3Z@D'A ()1¯=>ð36=>\@'B()ñð0òó:;34@D2004<)ªô6õöabcd3'(0%vw+ Y0yzC÷\
Y@D"Ê2012)'%97@.("Ê 201262+8èS<ÚìY@1Dn[36'A Ø(+8Q]%^9´@'A()6#$xøù)W6%®¯C.0yz<úu+S@2DÛSû610'[X}*ü ý/7()®¯+ Y.0yz<úuD1[X}*ü ý/7Dn Y6=>\@'B(C.34@[+)¾3Z@C6Ks$3)ñ.0ñð9´@+ABCþÿ\Y036'B(9HĀ?@CāÞ34@DÛSû62a 078
9'(0H9QC6b 0789ĂQC6c 0789ñ.0H9õöă,.CHĀ?@[+CĄB34@3Dn[36'A  B(9´@ñ. B *#$xøù)+S@D2a ąĆ)ćĈ/Db ćĈCĉ@+` Dc ąĆ)Kĉ³< D
3.2 ,-.insubordination4+)'2Ðx9)«Ċċ¼Á3ð0789ĊS@*00Čč\ñð%^(5Evans200736734@D"Ê2013)ð<1¯=>ð+1%=>ð0Ďä9;Y@D1%=>ð)Āď,.<HĀĐ@[+CVDEvans2007CÚìY@đĒx)6ñðCOP 61%=>ð3Re@*034@DKs$9þÿ Y\û6đĒx)6'EJ(ē'Ĕ(Ĕ0Āď,.3Re@*034@Dð3Re56ñðCOP Y@'()«ä0 3456«ĕ$ x9)94@*0+ YèSJ\@D E 6đĒx)Āď,.Ĕ3Re@1%=>ð34561¯=>ð34@'A Ø()đĒxEJĖė Y@ô6+ Y0êëy<èS@îïC4@Dst)Ę0 2 ę<Ěě9'A Ø(3T\@1¯=>ð<0«ä+6'%97@(+?D`k6'()'Ĕ(Ĕ0Āď,.+Ĝª7890vw+ YèSJ\@D3a +3b 9ĝ Y@7896'Ĕ(3Re@1%=>ð)'(3Re@1¯=>ð+Q^òĞl Y´56Q]9T\@'()'Ĕ(Ĕ0Āď,.+Ĝª7890vw+ YèSJ\@D3a'ğ*bZý/ĔD(b'ğ*bZý/D(`6'(pĠ0T9*Ĝª78TUCĊJ\@D4aġ4e )n\Ģ\,.'78/(01¯2'78(36ĀģĤ'x/(01¯2'x(6ĀģĤ'Ì('ĥ('Ħ(3³N<RSY@DQCħĨ Y´Jk6'78('x('Ì('ĥ('Ħ(C%
0vw+ YèSJ\@ę)'(+Ĝª34@Du`56Q]0'78('x('Ì('ĥ('Ħ(97XY6Ā0³NC%0yzC!ĩ\6.\Y@Dn[36st)'(+81¯=>ð3Re@TU<'%97@(+?D

2
−168−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

4a 4\63*6ĪK*8īĬĭC4X778Db ĮXįĈ)İğ078ıĲ< 3ĳxDc [X}CĴĵĝ Y3?7ÌD
d _K)´* ĶįCuķuķ+ĸ[XY`?DĹEES}ĺX7ĥ De Ĕ[`3 u[ý/6ĦD
%97@)ĉ01%=>ð3Re@đĒx+Ę0Ďę3Ļ@Dļ«96'%97@()'(Ĕ09'7(ē'ĳ(Ĕ0ĽľĿŀŁłŃCi%Ą
B34@C6đĒx)ńĄB34@DÛSû5365a 0'ŅņēXYý/7Ĕ()i%3ZC65a’0'ņēXYý/7()Ň\@DļĎ96Q<ħĨ?@ň^9uY6đĒxåŉ)6ñð0Ŋ"+vwĀď,.0ŋŌC4@C6'%97@()ñð0Ŋ")ĄB34@*006vw0ŋŌ)ńĄB34@DÛSû63a <ħĨ?@9)6'Ĕ(<ŋŌ Y'ğ*bZý/(9?@[+*3Z\û6'«ō9bZ`
Ŏ8(Ĕ0ñð<ŏŐ?@[+*3Z@Dn\9ő Y63b <ħĨ?@9)6'ğ*bZ
ý/Ìª/(+8ñð<ŏŐ?@[+CĄB34@C6'(<ŋŌ J*+0Œĵ+œ8ĄBy*4@0369ŋŌ?[+)3ZDn0Ge596'(<'/(9?@Ĕ61¯2<RŔ29ŕSY*óç?@D5aŅņēXYý/7ĔDaŖņēXYý/7D
3.3 
CŗŘ97@+8ĉ0èS9ő Y6Kato2014)'additional insubordination(+
8!"xřË©*4@+Ś Dst)śŜy+8Ěě9¼Z6Q]%^'A Ø(0<ŗŘ3)W6!"97@řË©0«ä+èS@D
Q]%^'A Ø(9þÿ Yèí?@+6Ę0ŝu0ŞşCĊJ\@D«u)6'
(3Re@³N)ł©ŠCW56Íš\Y@[+34@DÛSû66364 Ţ)
ţĉ94@ŤFť0ŢŉŦ0[+34@036F02 0³N<'4 Ţ)Ĕ[3 Ŏ8Ìª/ĳ(0789ŧŨ3Z@Dn\9ő Y67)ũŪ94@įà036ñð<'ūŬŭłŃ+E*®Ů ĺìJýÌª3 (0789ŏħ3Z@D6ŤFť34@ĎĈC 1 FEJ 3 F`30Ţ+ů0ŉŦ0å<Űű CJXHF02 '3¿4 Ţ)¿Ĕ[3 Ŏ8¿D(
ŲBTSJ ų ŴyŵĈ0Ŷß 1ŷ6
7ŸŹ0 10 GJ [+)ņE+8źß9ő Y6
Żs+Ďż)ā;0śŽ<N Y@Ďż'10 G0+Z96žſ\@/žſXY´é8Cý3?D(
Żs'së9ſŬŠ0 10 G6žſXY` ĳD(
ŸŹ'ŭ(
Ďż'žſXY(Żs'ūŬŭłŃ+E*®Ů ĺìJýD(Ųƀu0Ɓ}ĺý §ƂƃƄƅŠ ŸŹƆ×Ďż×Żs×ŸŹƆ 2012.11.29ŷ
Ďu0Şş)6ƇƈQ3*ƉÙQ3*i%3Z@[+34@D6+70'(0ñð<ŏħ?@+6Ɗň+*ƉÙQ9@C680ñð)'Ƌ£3ƌ@E* \Ì

3
−169−

付加的非従属化のマーカー「みたいな」の統語語用論的分析ª3?Eĳ(0789źµ0{|<ƍô@ƇƈQ9@D8F11 )4@aťCHƎEJŧƏ?@EĔ8E+8[+<6F12 9{| Y@å­
F11'ªĺ4¿«FēXY¿«FƐƑY(
F12'n8¿8ýD(F11'3¿Ƌ£3ƌ@E* \¿####D(ŲBTSJ ų ŴyŵĈ0Ŷß 5ŷŝu0Şş)6ñ.C«ƒ9ŧŨ3Z[+34@D6ġ8)6'(0ñð<'Ìª/(0789ŧŨ3Z@C6n07899ŏħ3Zåŉ*4@DÛSû69
36N µ)ať36¶Zµ)ƓƔƕ34@DN µ0³N94@'Ɩ`SĶ(+8ƗƘ2EJ*;E@7896N µC¶Zµ9bƙ0àƚ<ïƍ Y@Dñð<'Ìª/(0789ŧŨ?@+6ŒĵABCœ8Dn[369<'Ìª/(+9ŏŐ3Z[+C;E@D9ƓƔƕCńƛƜ9X0360 Ɯ9Ŋű\ƝƞÌ0Ő5ať)ƓƔƕ0
Ɵ<ƠĳYZDƓƔƕ):ơ0Í36ať)ĜƢť0ƣå+«ō9:ơ0Ġ9@å­ať'ƓƔƕ6@ý/ĶƤƥŬŠ0ý*ƦƧ Y@ĢD[0ƨE Ʃ)6ĎØ+ƪXYĉý/DƫŢ< XE5Ɩ`SĶƬ…D(
Ų35 ƭ0ƮƜťŷļ 1 N
pl756'A Ø(9´@ñ.ēñð0ŧŨ9)ūŁŭ§¨©C456«ƒ9ŧ
Ũ3Z[+CeE@Du`56* '(<ŗŘ97@+ YèS@Jû6n0Q^0ƯưƱŠ<Ʋô6ƳCĂŶ9@Dn\9ő Y6'(<!"+ YƳ?\û6śŜx34@0Jk6àƴ0i%g0Ʀ975jƳ9@+èSJ\@D

4 /012Q]%^'A Ø(9´Y6'A(C E0ƱŁƵ+ YèSJ\@EĔ8E97XY6
n0%^<Ď;?@D E0ƱŁƵ+ YèSJ\@åŉ)'%(96ƱŁƵ+ YèSJ\åŉ)'ab³N0ŏŐ(9?@7D
4.1 ,1
%+ Y³N0yz<èS@+Z96'³Ng(³Ng) E+'³NőU( 9ƶE
8³NE0Ďu0¡CƷƸ34@D'(0%%^9´Y6%0'A()³
Ng*³NőU*ƈek4Jƹ@ËƯ0ƱŁƵ+ Yi%ĄB34@D%)6'³NƩ0å(+'%0å(CĻ56%CũŪ0Ʃę9´Yàƴ9áâ
³N34@0Cƺƻ34@D E 6'()6đĒx%%^+œ8yzCĊJ\@D`k6'()90789'%0å(+'³N0å(CƼ@+Z*4@8D
n Y6đĒx%%^9´@%)6ũŪ0Tà0ƱŁƵ34@09ő Y6'()àƴ0ƱŁƵ0Jk6ƽƑ0ƾàâ ƱŁƵ0åŉ*4@Dƿ¯x9)6'
%0å(Cţĉ94@J6%)îkƽƑ9@DÛSû610D'%0å(CũŪ9
4@J6àƴ0ƱŁƵ0åŉ*4\û6ƽƑ0åŉ*4@DÛSû6110%)ũŪ9
4@àƴ0³34@09ő Y612)N µ0ǀ°9¼WƽƑ0h34@D

4
−170−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

10ŸŹ)ĴĵĔ<úXY036ūŬŭłŃ9űYzƈ\@0Cǁ+XHĎż'/EJ6*8ýE 30 9)`XY`?Dǂjªĺý6/XYD)`XY@0CǂjDý
E4\XƤŸŹ}ĺýŕeXýE...D(Ųƀu0Ɓ}ĺý Ďż×Żs×ŸŹƆ 2012.11.29ŷ
11lǃCƮƜƩG9Żs9Ǆǅ0źß< C6sĈ0lǃ)n0ǆǇC+XHlǃ'TÕĔ8/X0Ƥ(
Żs'ğǈZ/Ĕ(lǃ'8n3 Ŏ8D(Żs'ǉ)ǈZªĺE*(Ųƀu0Ɓ}ĺý Ďż×Żs×lǃ 2012.4.26ŷ
12F13 + F14 0ĜƢťCiSĈ/+8ǊǋC4@+$5ŉXH
F14'ǌŁŭ©0Ʃ9¿4ý Z¿4CǍǎXY@XY¶EJ¿}ŎX+1Ǐ?ý
/Ĕ¿ǐôǎ5)u0XYXY¿4¿*8Eª¿ǑĈ3ēXY*JXY`?+E
Z5XYý0D(
F13'S¿ņ<D(
F14'ǌŁŭ©0¿n0¿ǒ Ǔ¿+ED(
F13'4¿éý+D(
F14'8ýD(F14'/EJǔ);E5`ĐýD(
ŲBTSJ ų ŴyŵĈ0Ŷß 6ŷ
4.2 34561'(0'ab³N0ŏŐ(0%^)6'A(Cab?@³N9uY0Ƴ<b8*0
34@DƳőU)6ab³N0$2Ð94@åŉ*4\û6ǕŒ\0åŉ*4@D
ÛSû6736N µ34@Żs0'(094@'ūŬŭłŃ+E*®Ů ĺìJý(+8:;)6ab³N94@'ſŬŠ0 10 GžſXY` (+8$2Ð<Ƴ?
@ô9Śű\«u0Û34@Dn\9ő Y613)6ŏŐx9Ƴ\@őUCab³N0$2Ð9Û34@D13
36F18 )N µ36F17 )¶Zµ34@D1336¶Zµ0'ªĺý¿2 Ĉku3ǖ5lC\û(0³N9)6'n0Ǘ`53 2 Ĉkuǖ5lCX(+8ǕŒC4@DN µ0'Y8E()¶Zµ0³N94@ǕŒ<ǘÿ?@AB<úu036N µ)'n0Ǘ`53 2 Ĉkuǖ5lCX([+<ǘÿ Y@Du`56'(094@'8}J)*8ħ®9¿ý
E¿Ǚ3ǖ5lC5¿ƶ[8)¿ƶ[83ǖ5lC5(+8:;)6¶Zµ0³N94@ǕŒ<ǘÿ?@ô0ƿ¯xƳ34@DǚS\û6'n0Ǘ`53 2 Ĉkuǖ5lCX03)(+8[+9ő?@ŏŐxƳ34@+S@D13F18'ný9¿ǛSY)ǖ5lCJýWYD(
F17'ªĺý¿2 Ĉku3ǖ5lC\ûD(F18'S¿Y8E¿8}J)*8ħ®9¿ýE¿Ǚ3ǖ5lC5¿ƶ[8)¿ƶ[83ǖ5lC5¿D(
ŲBTSJ ų ŴyŵĈ0Ŷß 8ŷ

5 7895−171−付加的非従属化のマーカー「みたいな」の統語語用論的分析"Ê2002)ğľCǜĉ02Ð<%k6ǝ $2<Ǟǟ?@[+9Ǡ0-A+ǡ0-AC
4@+ÚìDst)6[\<Ǣǣ Y6i%gC4@T<i%?@ƴ964@ä0ƸǤ<ǥǦx9ƍô@Ʀ<Ǡ0-A+ 64@ä0ƸǤ<ǧǨ?@Ʀ<ǡ0-A+?@D
5.1
7:).;89'(9)'T<Võ?@(+8Ǡ0-AC4@D'(0!"9756
Ā09)%0yzC!ĩ\6äö0³NƸǤ<úuD`k6%0#$xøùC036i%g9EE@2Ðl0ǡǩCǪDn\)Ę0ŝęEJeE@D«u)63.3 3èí 7896'A Ø()ł©Š+QĒ9´@øþCę34@DĎu)63.2 3Úì7896'(09ĽľĿŀŁłŃ*Ň\@ę
34@DKsĈ0KLMN3'7(ē'ĳ()ńĄOáâ34@D'(09ĽľĿŀŁłŃCŇ\@[+)h0i%g9+XYǈ` [+34@Dŝu)6'(094@ƱŁƵ9)³Ng+³NőU9´@øþCę34@D`6%0Ëxyz97XY6i%g)ƽƑ0ƱŁƵ<Ʋǫ'A Ø(0«Q36Ď
u0åǬǭĎu0ǮŬƥË<ĜƩ9T3Z@DN µ)'A(0:;3œ8Ĉǯ°<ǰªY
Ĕ\éĔǦǱƱŁƵ<XY*6'(0!"3ǲ¡0%ÕÖ9ƪ\@Dǳ96ƱŁƵ
'A(9uY0N µ+¶Zµ0Ǵƻ|ǵ<ƻªYMNgƐ0ǴÌ*ĜƩ9ǶôJ\@D14ǷŴy)ǷǸEJ Ƿ9ǹûE50Ĉ36Ǻsƥ©) ǷǻǼǽÍ0ǺsǾűǿ0Ȁy
34@D Ƿťȁ0śŽg+ Y0Ǻsƥ©)6ƃřž0ȂùƩ9%Œ Yé Ɵƿ
<ZX}5+ïƍ Y´WìZ/+ǷŴy9ȃS
ǷŴy'ȄȅŠËC+Ã@ý3?¿Ƥ(Ǻsƥ©'n8n8D¯ȆȇȈ*ȉ\@03+Œĵ ¿(ǷŴy'Ȋȋ!ZȌȍ3+¿4 Ȏôý3?¿(Ǻsƥ©'u39ȏ*«Ȑ!Y*JS`ĐýEƤ(Ų'´ȑ(Ks$ȒƗŷp68140Ťu0'A Ø()®:'(0%%^36A CƱŁƵ34@DŤu0ƱŁƵ9)Ę0ǴƻęC4@D«u)6'%0å(9´@'³NőU()ļŝg0 Ɵý36'³Ng()ǷŴy34@D*8«u)6'%0å()ǷŴyC Ɵý+Ȃù?@+8ţĉ
94@å­36ƱŁƵCƽƑ*034@D«u0³N36Ǻsƥ©0³N94@%Œ YéƟƿ9 6ȄȅŠËCƟƿ9)J+8Lǵ<ȓ5CJ6ǷŴy)4SYȄȅŠË+8ǦǱÛ<ű Dn[9ǷŴy0Ďu0ŒȔC4@D«u)6ǦǱ[+<ƻ Y6Ǻsƥ©0³NEJÌªńŰȕȖU<T?@[+34@D*8«u)6MN<ȗȘ
9 6źµ+0ųjÌ<ƍô@[+34@D'ȄȅŠËCƟƿ34@(+8ƣșèS<
ƻ Y6ǷŴy)ā;0ȚĿƃ<ĝn8+?@+ĜƩ96źµ9ųjÌ<ĝ 6´ț0Ȝȝ<
Ȟô78+ Y@Dn\9ő Y6Ǻsƥ©)6ǷŴy0³N94@ǕŒ<ȟȠ56źµ9ű
\N9ȡ@[+36ǷŴyCĮ5ű å­9ƌXY@Dn0ǀ°\å­3ā;<źµ+«¯ 6źµ0çå9XY6ǳ9ǦǱÛ3źµ0ǴÌ9ȢªCJ6ǝǴÌïƍ<űY@DĎu0³N0H96ĎĈ0MN0Ǵƻ¼ȣCȤÿ\6n0Į5ű\¼ȣ0l36ĎĈ)ǳ@ǦǱÛ<ƻ Y6źµ<ȑeĐǴÌ<ǶôY@D140Lǵ3èSJ\78ƱŁƵCŇĄ\@0)6'(0!"97XYǲ¡ÕÖ9ƪ\@EJ34@D
5.2

7:).<89

6
−172−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号'/(Cy0yz<úu036'A Ø(0i%9)¾ǧǨ+8ǡ0-A
CèSJ\@D'(0¾ǧǨ)6¶Zµēļŝg9·?@Ǌǋ9i%\@åŉ*4\
û6¶Zµ+Ļ@ŒĊ<Śĝ?@åŉ*4@DÛSû61536N µ)¶Zµ+Ļ@ŒĊ<Śĝ Y@Dźµ+0èS0źœ<ĝ?+80)6źµCƐœXY@+8ŚC4@Du`56źµ0Ɛœ<÷?@0)¶Zµ0ƵƂŠ<ȥȦ?@[+9@Dn[36¶Zµ)'(<Ŋ" Yā;0³0¾<ǧǨ Y@D
15F17 EJ F18 ǻ0ȅ94@'))(9uY6ĎĈCœ8<ĝ Y@å­
F18'V;4 )¿Ų))ŷ3¿Ų))ŷȧĈ0N <Ȩȩ?+Z0h<i80
C¿VýēĶ8ĳ¿ZX+D(
F17'8})¿µ< 1 ǧȪYŲ4¿))ŷȫWǴÌ?@+Z0hD(
ŲBTSJ ų ŴyŵĈ0Ŷß 8ŷ
'A Ø(0i%9)NgǛȬ0ȭȮÌ0ǧǨ+8ǡ0-A*èSJ\@DNg<ǛȬ?@[+CĄB3ȯǎå< Sacks6Schegloff & Jefferson1974)'TRP(transition-relevanceplace+Y@DTRP 9´Y)6N µCā;0N<Ȱď?@[+*ĄB345CJ6¶ZµC³Nȱ<Ƞ@[+*ĄB34@Dn8?@+6TRP 3)6N µ+¶ZµC³Nȱ<Ȳ8+8ȭȮ·¸956NgǛȬCŠȳȴ93ZĄBy*4@Dn[36{ TRP + Y
0ħĨQ0Q]9ȵ Y6ð3Re@ţħĨQ)n0ȭȮ·¸<ǧǨ?@[+C3Z@Du`56NCţħĨ34@pl6N µ)³Nȱ<úXY@Dn\+ĜƩ96ðC4@×ØŒĵ
0ħĨy<úXY@036¶Zµ94}Ĕ0ȶȢAM*ĩSJ\Y@Dn8?@+6NµC³Nȱ<ú}CJ6¶Zµ9³Nȱ<Ƞ@EĔ8E0āÞ*ĩSJ\Y@DŞ96đĒx+œ6'(3Re@ţħĨQ)'(<'/(9?@[+39ħĨ3
Z@Dn\9*·eJk6i%gC'(<Ǟǟ?@0)6'/(9)ȫNgǛȬ
0ïƍC4@09ő Y6'()³NȱǛȬ0āÞØCƮEJ34@+èSJ\@D

6 :=>
st)6`kđĒx+0ȵȷ<ƻ Y'(0!"x0<{| Dn Y6'A(0yz0œ97XY6'A Ø(<'%(+'ab³N0ŏŐ(
0Ďu0%^9; DǂH96'A Ø(0i%9)6'T<Võ?@(+8Ǡ
0-A+'¾ǧǨ('NgǛȬ0ȭȮÌ0ǧǨ(+8ǡ0-AC4@[+<ÚìD_H)'
(0©žȸ§¨©0ŕē6'(+'9(0œ<ȹȺ9 D1'%97@.(+80)6'$EȻEQE<ƈekǬ\TC 1 `+`50ȼ%T+\\û6n0sĉ0Ƚ.y9·¸W6%T®¯C.+Ċ\@("Ê 201262[+34@D
2st3)6'(0Q]%^9þÿ?@C6'ć(078 A 0:;C.3Re@*0<őUĠ+?@D3[[3)ƿ¯Û<Ⱦȿ YC6'A  Bɀñ.(0H)4Jƹ@ă,.CĄB34@+èSJ\@D4ɁɂřȅɃ§2009) insubordination <'ð0ñð(+ɄɅ Y@C6st)"Ê20130'(+8<Ɇ%?@D5Ʌ$)ɁɂřȅɃ§200912697@D
6
BTSJ 0%9´Y6st3)³N00<% Y@D7'(0²234@'/()ȵȷ\Y@Ďu0*00·¸97XY6'ȵɇȵɈ('Ûĝ('Ǖ

7
−173−

付加的非従属化のマーカー「みたいな」の統語語用論的分析

ɉ(0%^C4@+÷?@cdCVWĊJ\@Ɋɋ 1995D E 6'(3Re@³N9)6ȵȷ?
@őUCT\Ypl6'ȵɇ(Ĕ97XY'(0%^<;?@[+CƷƸ/+)èSCD8
936%0'³Ng()N µ36'³NőU()¶Zµ34@D%ā¯)6ũŪ94@³N3)W6'³NƩ0å(94@³N34@D'³NƩ0å(+'%0å(CƼXY@D?@/Aå ĭɌĆ.2009.'Q]9%J\@'((¿ŲKs$+Ks$ȃɍŷ37¿43-59¿ɎǷɏɐɑɒ
Ks$KsQȃɍƱ©Ëɓï.
"Ê Ƽɔ.2002.'$i%g9´@-A045ň9uY(¿ŲɕɋĈQ :ɓïŷ¿36¿
43-50.
"Ê Ƽɔ 2012.'Ks$9´@.y=.J 0ɖɗ+ɘə(ɚɋ ɛɜɝ »ɞŲKÍ&$ 0ǝɟɠ$ɡ+Ƚ.ŷ¿51-76¿ɎǷWĶ ´űɢ.
"Ê Ƽɔ.2013.ŲKs$#$Şy&ŷűɢM.

Kato, Shigehiro.2014.''Insubordination Types in Japanese -What Facilitates Them?-.''.Asian and African
Languages and Linguistics,Vol.8,9-30.
"Ê ɣĆ.2005.'N h9´@³N]0'(9uY(¿ŲKs$ȃɍŷ¿124 ¿43-52.
 ɤɥ.1995.'fgh0ɦžŁȍƥ(¿ŲKs$ ŷ¿141111 ɧɨ¿53-60.
 ɤɥ.1997.'fgh+Q^(¿ŲKs$ ŷ¿1644 ɧɨ¿ 55-64.
Sacks, Harvey,Emanuel Schegloff and Gail,Jefferson.1974.''a Simplest Systematics for the Organizationof Turn-taking for Conversation.''Language650:4,696–735ɩɪɫɅ.2010.'MN0ô0ɬɭǛȬ0ɮ
ɯ==ǂ*ɰ¯ĥxǆÚ(¿ŲMN;¼s&Ǘ ɬɭǛȬ+=ŧ0ɮɯŷ¿7-153¿ǷǸmɗŰǀɱ6ɲĆ K.2004.ŲßN$
Ks$0ɃŃŠ¢Š<ɳĞ?@òóɦžŁȍƥŠžŬłɴ0cdŷɎǷWĶ ´űɢ.
±² ɵ«.2013.''ġ(T0;(¿ŲɶƴQcdŷ¿19¿101-116.
 ɷĆ.2009.'¢£¤¥¦§¨©ŠžŬłɴ+ Y0%T³N]0'(0TƸǤ(¿ŲĈƐQɳóÀ &ɸŷ¿11¿133-142¿´ɹ0ɺŴĆɻĈƐQɳóÀcdÀ.
ɁɂɼƯŬ§Ǯ©žřȅɃ§.2009.Ų$0Ëɽưɴ–|ȓĒ&0ƃƯưɾ-ŷɎǷcdɱ.
 ɿĆ.2004.'Q]T'D(0AB(¿Ų$ŷ¿3310¿10 ɧɨ¿54-57.
Żs =.2010.Ų'´ȑ(Ks$ȒƗŷɎǷǝʀɱ.
Ɋɋ ʁɜ.1995.'ǕɉȵɈȵɇÛĝ='78ʂ(0Vɑy<ôʃXY=(¿ŲżÉɵʄĆať ʅʆǆÔ&Ǘ Ks$0cdŷ¿493-526¿ɎǷʇʈɻ.
B CD
ʉ ĭ`ƹʊ=.2011.'BTSJ 97@Ks$N h¢řŠ2011 Fɢ(¿ŲĈƐ0źțĮ%cd0ô0V$MN¢řŠ0òʋ+n0$%&x;ň^0ʌ³ŷ¿Ɖó 20-22 FØÀ
cdʍŏ,ʎ¼ȣcd BȹȺɭɨ 20320072cdóǤ.

8

−174−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号"Designed Silences": A Study of Silences in Talk in Interaction
Baikuntha Bhatta
Kanagawa University
trishuliriver@yahoo.com

Abstract
Silence in conversation is basically understood as a time in interaction where no participants take aturn. Previous studies suggested that where no participants are selected silence takes place according to theorganization of turn-allocation. Silence is also understood as the participants' unwillingness, uncertainty, ordisagreement with the ongoing interaction. Commonly, when there is minimal silence, they are generally
filled with non-verbal activities but longer silences suggest trouble in mundane interaction. However, theinstances of silence in institutional context call for further examination. This paper focuses on silences innews interview and classroom interaction and attempt to compare them with mundane interaction context.
How and why the participants design silences is the focal aspect of this paper.
Keywords: Institutional Talk, Designed Silences, Classroom Interaction, News Interview
1. Introduction
In a general sense, silence in conversation is the result of no participants taking a turn at talk. Sacks,
Schegloff, and Jefferson interpret silence as a result of the turn taking system where no rules of turnallocation become applicable (1974). The rules of turn allocation in turn taking explain the organization ofturn taking as systematic machinery where the participants equally monitor each other's turns. In further
explaining the systematics of turn allocation techniques, Sacks et al. explain that it is grounded in threebasic rules: (a) current speaker selecting next speaker, (b) next speaker self-selection, and (c) current
speaker continuation. Lack of the application of these methods recycles the whole process, giving the rightof turn allocation to the current speaker, as in (c) above. According to these rules, if the current speaker
does not select a next speaker after arriving at a possible completion and if a next speaker also does not
self-select, silence occurs for a brief moment. This type of silence is relevant in the system because for bothcurrent and next speaker, it is not obligatory either to continue talking or to self-select. However, any of theparticipants may choose to take a turn if the silence further continues.
The model of turn taking proposed by Sacks et al. (1974) presents silence as a relevant sequential
phenomena occurring in mundane interaction. They also defined how silence is not simply a lack of talk,but a place in which much can occur during that absence of speech. The great deals of phenomenon taking
place during the absence of talk have been demonstrated by a number of other studies (Davidson, 1984;
Pomerantz, 1984; Jefferson, 1989). Pomerantz (1984) proposed that the silence after a first pair part ofsome specific speech act could be understood as a trouble indicative. Delaying the relevant second pair part
might result in the production of responses with lack of agreement after the silence. For example, a silence
1−175−

“Designed Silences”: A Study of Silences in Talk in Interaction

following invitations or requests might result in the declination of invitation or denial for the request. Thus
the speaker of the second pair part delays their response so as to minimize the dispreferred responses by
providing extra time to the previous speaker to modify their talk.
In a similar study, Davidson (1984) demonstrated that speakers of a first pair part reformulate their
talk if faced with silence instead of an expected relevant response. In reformulating their original statement,
the producer of the first pair part displays their understanding that their recipient is reluctant to respond, or
not hearing them, or having some other problem and so withholding their response. The following example
from Davidson (1984) exemplifies how speakers modify their talk after a silence in the place of an
expected response and how the silence shades the meaning of the talk.
Extract 1
A: Well did you want me to just pick you- getinto Robinson's so you could buy a little pair of slippers?
(silence)
A: I mean or can I get you something?

Here, the silence after the proposal or request causes the speaker to review prior talk. The speaker tries tomake it more clear and understandable to their recipient by reformulating and perhaps trying to make it
more acceptable to the recipient.
In an insightful study of the occurrence of silence in interaction, Jefferson (1989) discussed thevarying lengths of silences and concluded that normal silences are of approximately one second. In adetailed examination of 289 pages of transcribed data, she found 170 instances in the interaction where thesilences appeared problematic. Out of the total of 170 instances of trouble-indicative silences, she foundthat 106 of them (62%) were between 0.9 seconds to 1.2 seconds. Her study reported that silences longer
than 1.2 seconds are generally filled in some way with non-verbal activities such as writing something
down or looking at some documents.
The evidence from Jefferson (1989) suggests that the average metric of silence is of approximately
one second and that trouble-indicative silences vary in length in mundane interaction. However, Davidson(1984) found instances of silences with much smaller gaps in his research about reformulation of speechacts by speaker of the first pair part. Whatever the average length may be, one thing is clear and that is the
production of silence in mundane conversation is a sequentially relevant and dynamic interactional
phenomena which follows the turn-taking machinery proposed by Sacks et al. (1974). However, theinteraction in institutional setting does not have similar organization of turn-taking system as mundane
conversation. Institutional interaction includes participants with some sort of defined actions they canaccomplish while participating in the interaction. For example, the interactional right of allocating turns or
selecting/changing the topic is limited to the interviewer in news interviews (Heritage, 1985), and to theteacher in the interactional setting of classrooms (McHoul, 1978). Hence, a question arises on whether thechange in the organizational structure of institutional settings changes the understanding of silences in thesesettings. In both news interview and classroom settings, the participants appear to produce silences longer
than discussed by Jefferson (1989) but are not seemingly filled with non-verbal activities. Where the2−176−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

participants are not found to be orienting to the silences as trouble-initiative or recipient unwillingness to
respond, I call them designed silences. This paper attempts to highlight the similarities (or differences) in
the interactional silences occurring in mundane conversation and the designed silences occurring ininstitutional interaction.
Focusing on these central issues, this paper analyzes occurrences of silences in institutional settingsand mundane interaction. The detailed focus is on institutional interaction since the aim here is to see
whether the silence is a byproduct of interaction because of the turn taking system (Sacks et. al., 1974) or
the participants intentionally design them. The data for this study come from video recordings of news
interviews and classroom interaction. I analyze instances from two recorded news interview videos where
the interviewer is a Nepalese journalist and the interviewee is the then British Ambassador to Nepal. The
classroom interaction includes video recordings of regular classrooms from Japan and Nepal. The data from
Nepal includes ten 40-minutes English language classrooms where the teacher and students are Nepalesenationals, while the data from Japan consists of six 45-minutes English language classrooms with theteacher and students from Japan. The classes include students ranging from 14 to 17 years of age.
This study uses the conversation analytic methodology for the observation and analysis of the data.
The main focus is given to the observation and analysis of video recording without any prior perspectives.
The video recorded data is repeatedly viewed and carefully transcribed using the transcription conventions
outlined by Jefferson (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984). Occurrences of silences are categorized and analyzed inrelation with the talk surrounding and other conduct. Understanding of the instances is built from theperspective of the participants rather than applying pre-conceived categories from the observer's mental
aspects.
2. Analysis
As discussed earlier, the occurrence of silence in mundane conversation is an interactional
phenomenon. It could occur as a result of turn taking system (Sacks et al. 1974), or because of therecipients withholding their talk orienting to the preference organization (Pomerantz, 1984). In thefollowing example from Jefferson (1987), the silence indicates some sort of problem in the previous
utterance.
Extract 2
01 Ken: Hey (.) the first ti:me they stopped me from selling02
cigarettes was this morning.
03(1.0)
04 Lou: From selling cigarettes?
05 Ken: Or buying cigarettes.

This extract exemplifies the occurrence of silence in mundane interaction. Lou indicates some problem in
Ken’s utterance and does not immediately produce the next turn. By not directly indicating the problem at
the moment, he provides an extra opportunity to Ken to initiate repair – thus orienting to the preference forself-repair in conversation (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977). However, Ken does not take a turn to3−177−

“Designed Silences”: A Study of Silences in Talk in Interaction

repair the problematic part of his utterance and Lou initiates other repair in line 4. Then Ken repairs theoriginal utterance. We can find the silence completely relevant in this example. The occurrence of silence inline 03 is equally relevant from the perspective of the speaker and recipient. For the speaker, once he hascome to the possible completion, he waits for the recipient to take a turn, and on the other side the recipient
waits for a transition-space repair from the speaker, indicating some problem in the speaker's talk. Though
he waits, the speaker does not initiate repair and the recipient takes the turn to initiate repair, by which thesilence becomes justifiable.
In news interviews, the participants have some sort of decided roles where the interviewer hasinteractional right of turn allocation and management of the turns. The following example analyzes thevarious aspects of silences and describes how the silence could be interpreted in relation with thesurrounding talk.
Extract 3
01 IE:
02 IR:
03 IE:

naw. >we’ll have to continue< in English.
<we’ll have to continue in English.><we wi:ll>04 IR:

ookay. (.) as i was entering, (1.8) British embassy today.

05
06
07
08 IE:
09o(3.0)
it came to my mind that fi:rst time you came tonepal was as a back packer
ya. it was forty years ago >i came as a backpacker<=an i still remember all those days more ago very clearly.

In this example, the interviewer is closing an ongoing sequence (beginning not shown in the transcript) inline 04 with "okay" and beginning a new sequence by preparing background for a question. In theinterviewer's turn, there are two instances of longer than average silences. The lack of talk for 1.8 seconds
and 3 seconds accomplish two different actions in the interaction. In the first 1.3 second of silence, theinterviewer is doing a transformation of and taking time to set the agenda. The common understanding of
in-turn silence could be explained as the speaker's problem in finding a relevant word to use where thesilence generally follows with sound stretches. However, in this in-turn silence the speaker does not appear
to be doing a word search but taking time for transformation.
In another silence of 3 seconds, the speaker appears to hint that something coming next in theutterance is important. Since the interviewer says "as I was entering British embassy today" the turn has notcome to a possible completion and something is yet due. But the interviewer makes an attempt to hint whatis due is the main part of the inquiry so that the interviewee might pay more attention to the upcoming part.
In this way, the silence the interviewer designed could be interpreted as the interviewer's technique tocontinue holding the turn and at the same time a method he uses to attract the attention of his recipient, theinterviewee.
In a different extract taken from the news interview, the interviewer's turn included a considerable
length of silence in the interviewer's turn. Here, the interviewer is designing the silence as a way of holding
the turn since the turn is designed in conditionals.

4
−178−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Extract 4
1IR:
if- if I: sa:y that2
the interpretation of elections by the political party
3
itself is the root cause (.) of the problems today,
4 o (2.6)
5
because, the Nepalese people voted in a manner that all
6parties should work together [(can we)
7IE:[in between
8
I think that’s the fair interpretation

In the above extract, as soon as the interviewer produces "If I say that the interpretation of elections by thepolitical party itself is the root cause of the problems today", he holds his talk and produces a 2.6 seconds inline 4. Since the interviewer has started his turn as a conditional sentence using "if" the next clause of thesentence is still due which shows the turn has not come to the possible completion yet. It is evident for theinterviewee to hold the talk as there is no evidence of possible completion to self-select. However, theinterviewer produces the longer silence even though the turn is structurally incomplete. The interviewer
might have produced the silence to provide the interviewee time to analyze the "if clause" of his utterance.
The silence the interviewer produces here might also be the interviewer's technique of differentiating the"problem" he mentions and the "cause" of it. Furthermore, the silence he designed also stands for theinterviewer's time allocation for the interviewee on interpreting what he has said, and also to pay attention
to the upcoming part. Thus the silence retrospectively stands for the speaker's designed way for his
recipient to analyze the content and form of the previous utterance and to focus on the probably "reason
clause" upcoming next.
In the following section, this paper presents some instances from classroom interaction. As alreadymentioned, the interactional architecture of classrooms includes a teacher with right to control theinteraction, and the students. Similar to the interviewers designing silences in news interviews, teachers arefound producing intentional silences in classroom interaction. In the following example from a Japanese
Senior High School English class, the silence produced by the teacher appears a designed one but not aninteractional one.
Extract 5
01 T:
and ah:: but ah:
02
one thing (.) that we need to care is that (0.8)
03seed banks. (0.8) can't (0.8) change (0.6) our04
environmental problems right.
04
now we have a::: ondanka tte nan dakke?
((what is global warming))
05(1.0)
06 Ss:
global warm[ing07 T:[ah. global warming. right.=
08=can we change global warming if I collect a lot of seeds.
09
(1.8)
10
Yes?
11
(1.2)
12
can I chan[ge the environmental problems if I collect the seeds
13 Ss:[((laughing))
14 T:
if so, I will do it.
15
(1.6)
16
is it possible

5
−179−

“Designed Silences”: A Study of Silences in Talk in Interaction

17
18
19

(3.0)
no:¿ right.
so it's a kind of (1.2) insurance (.) service to::This example includes a variety of silences with considerable length during the classroom interaction.
However, the silences at different points display different features. Firstly, the explanation begins with theintra-turn silences in lines 02 and 03. With the production of "but one thing we need to care is that" theteacher produces a silence of 0.8 seconds. In the continuation of his utterance another silence follows after"seed banks", "can't", and "change" respectively. In each instances, the production of silence after a stressedutterance suggests that the message due in the utterance is of importance. Thus, the teacher designs thesilence as a technique of drawing student attention to the upcoming part of his utterance. This designed
silence works as one of the techniques teachers make use of to allocate processing time for the student
before delivering important information.
Similarly the intra-turn silence in line 19 also represents the teacher producing intentional silences toscaffold student understanding. Here before production of the word "insurance" with a stress, the teacher
takes a break in his utterance. Here the teacher might have attempted to produce the new vocabulary item
"insurance" in isolation so that the student can pay proper attention to the word and recognize the new
vocabulary. The teacher does so by choosing to produce the word in isolation with a 1.2 seconds silence
before and a micropause after the word. The silence in this utterance also exhibits the similar features in thesilence produced in lines 02 and 03. But the focus in lines 02 and 03 is in the delivery of message whereas
the focus in line 19 becomes a vocabulary item "insurance" as the teacher manages to produce it inisolation. Furthermore, the silences in lines 09, 11, 15, and 17 do occur after a complete turn with theteacher asking a known-answer question in surface. But the teacher neither selects any students as next
speaker nor attempts to elicit answer by other prosodies, thus making the known-answer question anunderstanding check and time allocation for the students to process the information.
The instances discussed above describe the silence in institutional interaction as "designed" silences
produced with certain intention of the producer. However, as institutional interaction is also a form of talkin interaction, it also exhibits the features from mundane interaction. In the extract 5, the silence in line 05
shows the interactional problem of turn taking between teachers and students. The teacher asks aknown-answer question in line 04 and waits for the answer. Though the teacher's question appears acomplete turn, the students do not immediately take a turn to answer. This might have caused because of
the teacher not selecting next speaker. The students do not self-select which shows their orientation towards
being students in this particular class where they only speak when asked to do so.
The following example from Nepalese English language classrooms also exemplifies teacher
designed silence. In this extract the teacher is teaching a poem included in the course book. The teacher is
describing what "setting" in a poem stands for.
Extract 6
01 T:
it is called setting my dear.
02
setting means: (0.4) where the (.) event takes place.

6
−180−

第17回大会発表論文集

03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10

第10号

where (1.0) and when the event takes place.
setting is an answer to that very question(.)
confused?
(1.2)
where the event takes place,an' where the event takes place is called
setting. =for example wha......

After producing "it is called setting" and addressing the students, the teacher moves to explain the meaning
starting in line 02 with "setting means:" In this particular utterance, it has two basic features: sound stretch,and a silence afterwards. By producing a 0.4 seconds silence before the actual explanation of "setting", theteacher attempts to draw student attention so that they can grasp the meaning of the upcoming part of theutterance. Again in reformulating the meaning the teacher produces a stressed "where" in line 03 andproduces another silence before producing "when". Using this technique of separating the two head words"where" and "when" by a designed silence, the teacher focuses in delivering the explanation of theparticular word he chooses in this example.
3. Conclusion
In conversation, lack of talk is frequent after some speakers completing their turn. However, thesilence does not simply mean an absence of talk but a lot more takes place during the silence. In mundane
conversation, the occurrence of silence is always addressed by the participants in the following turn,commonly by initiating repair. The participants orient to the silence in mundane conversation as a problem
in interaction and attempt to justify its occurrence in their talk. However, institutional interaction exhibit
differing features of silences occurring in the talk. This presentation tried to address the earlier as"interactional silence" and the later as "designed silence". But I do not claim that all silences in institutional
interaction are "designed". They do exhibit the features of mundane interaction too. It became evident withthe data presented that institutional interaction is a mixture of features of both mundane interaction andinstitutional interaction.
With the data presented, this paper attempted to show that in news interviews, the interviewer
designs silences in allocating time for the interviewee to process the information. Furthermore, theinterviewer is also found designing silence in drawing differences between different parts of a question.
In classroom interaction, the teachers are mainly found providing opportunity for students to process
and understand the information provided. The teacher's designed silence also works to mark the importantmessage being delivered. The teachers mark the vocabulary item and target message of the teaching by
isolating the main information with the production of silences and pauses before and after them. So, thispaper claims that the teacher production of designed silence helps in the development of student
understanding. Also this is equally helpful for teachers in analyzing their own teaching and understanding
various aspects of teacher talk.

7
−181−

“Designed Silences”: A Study of Silences in Talk in Interaction

References
Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.) 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davidson, J. 1984. "Subsequent Versions of Invitations, Offers, Requests, and Proposals Dealing withPotential or Actual Rejection." In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.) Structures of Social Action:
Studies in Conversation Analysis, 102-128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jefferson, G. 1989. "Preliminary Notes on a Possible Metric which Provides for a Standard Maximum
Silence of Approximately One Second in Conversation." In D. Roger & P. Bull (eds.) Conversation:
An Interdisciplinary Perspective, 166-196. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon, UK.
McHoul, A. 1978. "The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom." Language in Society 7,
183-213
Pomerantz, A. 1984. "Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features ofPreferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes." In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.) Structures of Social
Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 57-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. 1974. "A Simplest Systematics for the Organization ofTurn-taking for Conversation." Language 50, 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. 1977. "The preference for self-correction in the organization of
repair in conversation." Language 53, 361-382.

8
−182−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

But I’m Not a Foreigner:
On the Interactive Construction and Contestation of Being a Foreigner in Japan1
Cade BUSHNELL
University of TsukubaParticipants of talk-in-interaction often make various identities relevant to their talk (Hester & Eglin, 1997; Sacks, 1992; Schegloff, 1992,
2007). From an ethnomethodological perspective, such identities are understood not as being co-constructed by the participants on a moment
to moment basis (Hester & Eglin, 1997; Nishizaka, 1995, 1999; Psathas, 1999; Watson, 1997). Additionally, the participants’ co-constructionof, alignment to, or contestation of categories may reflexively affect the sequential organization of their talk (Watson, 1997).
In the present research, I examine a service encounter between a Caucasian Japanese national, his two friends, and the racially Japanese
staff of a public bath house in Japan. In the analysis, I use conversation analysis and membership categorization analysis to examine thespecific ways in which the participants co-construct the categories of Japanese and foreigner, how they constitute the category Japanese as
being bound to differential sets of attributes, rights, legal statuses, and so forth, and how they treat these mutually different categoricalconstitutions as being problematic for assembling the real-world activity of using the bath house facilities. I also consider how the sequential
and categorial aspects of the talk jointly work to make the interaction visible as being a dispute as the participants align to or contest
categories in their interaction.
Keywords: Conversation analysis, Membership categorization analysis, Dispute talk, Discrimination, Nationality

1. Introduction
One pervasive feature of social interaction is the work of assembling people and things into certain categories. Suchmemberships in such categories are treated as identities, which may be bound to or associated with certain rights,
stances, characteristics, attributes, and so forth (Sacks, 1972a, 1972b). In this paper, I consider the participants’interactional construction (and contestation) of two categories in particular: nihonjin ‘Japanese’ and gai(koku)jin‘foreigner’. In regard to Japanese nationality and what it means to be Japanese, Sakai (2005: 4) maintains that thenotion of Japanese nationality is based on “the myth of a single ethnic society living within the discrete boundaries of
the Japanese archipelago.” He further argues that, while it is true that groups of people associating with a nation-sate
may indeed exhibit broadly shared modes of behavior (i.e. cultures), it is not possible to maintain that there is a unity
between all of the various cultures that might exist within the nation-state. As Nishizaka (1995: 306) puts it:“[D]epending on what criteria are to be used, the Sri Lankans and the Japanese may not be any more culturally
different than Bostonians and New Yorkers.”
In the present research, I use sequential conversation and membership categorization analysis to examine a
service encounter between a racially-non-Japanese Japanese citizen, his two racially Japanese friends, and the
racially Japanese staff members of a public bath house in Japan. In the analysis, I demonstrate how the participants
construct, align to and contest categories on a moment to moment basis in their talk, and how they treat thedifferential ways in which these categories are interactionally constituted as being problematic for the real-world
activity of using the bath house facilities.
2. Conceptualizing Identity in Talk
Within the tradition of ethnomethodological inquiry, identity is seen as being managed by the parties to theinteraction in terms of various categories (see Bushnell, 2011 for a concise overview). There has been an enduring
interest in the ways in which sequential and categorial aspects of talk-in-interaction interact with and inform eachother (e.g. Bushnell, 2014; Eglin & Hester, 2003; Hester & Eglin, 1997; Housely & Fitzgerald, 2002, 2009; Stokoe,
2012; Watson, 1997). Discursive approaches to categorization have shown that categories are not relevant by default,
nor are the meanings of categories static or inherent, but rather they are emergent and co-constructed on a moment tomoment basis by the participants of the talk-in-interaction. It thus becomes necessary for the researcher to examine
not only the ways in which the categories are used, but how they are responded to in the subsequent interaction.
In a contextualized view of category analysis (see Hester & Eglin, 1997), categories are not seen as being inexistence a priori, but rather as being occasioned. As Hester and Eglin (1997: 18; original emphasis) argue, “it has tobe decided in each and every case what the category means and this will involve a figuring out of what collection the
category belongs to for this occasion.” A contextualized view of categorization requires us to carefully examine how
the individual participants display their understandings of what a category, and membership in it, means to them onthat particular interactional moment. Participants generate and manage categories in their talk by applying the1

See Bushnell (2015) for a revised and elaborated version of this manuscript.

−183−But Iʼm Not a Foreigner: On the Interactive Construction and Contestation of Being a Foreigner in Japan

resources of turn and sequence (Psathas, 1999; Sacks, 1992; Watson, 1997), as well as various formulations andlabels (Bushnell, 2014). Furthermore, the deployment and subsequent management of categories in talk is reflexively
intertwined with its the sequential structure (Bushnell, 2014; Watson, 1978, 1997).
3. Data, Methodology, and Research Questions
The data of the present study are taken from an audio recording of a service encounter that takes place between a
Caucasian national of Japan (i.e., a naturalized citizen), Debito,2 his two racially Japanese friends, Abe and Baba,
and the racially Japanese staff of the bath house (see Arudou, 2006, 2007). The eleven minute eighteen second audio
recording was made by Debito himself on October 31, 2000, and subsequently posted to an internet forum by him,along with a transcript of the exchange. The obstensible purpose of the recording was to gather evidence of
discriminatory practices by the bath house. For the purposes of the present study, the audio data were entirely
retranscibed from the original audio according to CA standards (see Jefferson, 2004), though information about thephysical environment of the interaction, and the actions of the participants was obtained through reference to thetranscript made by Debito himself (see footnote 5), which features a number of comments about these things.
In the present study, I use conversation analysis (CA) and membership categorization analysis (MCA) toconsider both the sequential and categorial aspects of the data. I also examine how these features jointly indicate theunderlying pattern of the interaction, and, conversely, how that pattern reflexively informs the sequential andcategorial aspects of the talk. It is important to note that it is a fundamental concern of ethnomethodological inquiry
to develop accounts of the actions of the participants and the mundane logic informing the production of theseactions, regardless of whether or not such logic may appear to be circular. Indeed, in the real world, apparently
circular logic often informs the assembly of even courses of action as grave as convicting a person of a serious crime(see, e.g., Onuki & Matsuki, 2003).
The following research questions are pursued:
1.
What membership categories do the participants make relevant in their interaction?
2.
How do participants co-construct, align to, or contest the membership categories?
3.
How do the categorial aspects and the sequential aspects serve to jointly define the interactional pattern as a
specific unfolding activity?
4. Analysis
In this section, I examine the talk-in-interaction produced by Debito (D), his two racially Japanese friends (Abe andBaba), and the racially Japanese manager (M) of a public bath house in Northern Japan.3 Excerpt 1 begins just after
the front attendant of the bath house has gone to call the manager after having been told that Debito is a Japanesecitizen in response to his (the attendant’s) having denied Debito access to the bath house based on an assumption thathe (Debito) is a foreigner.

Excerpt 1: Wakarun desu kedo4
1

D:

2
3

hai oban deshita::
yesevening

C

(2.2)
D:

4

hai. sore dewa, chotto yoroshiku onegaishimasu.
yes

then

littlegood

please

(1.2)

5

M:

e::: >ya< nto taihen mooshiwake [nai n desu kedo ne:=

6

A:

7

D:

e::: >ya< nto taihen mooshiwake [E?
e::: >ya< nto taihen mooshiwake huh
=hai.

uh

no

um

terrible

sorry

N

C

but

P

yes

2

ARUDOU, Debito’s actual name used by permission. All other names are pseudonyms.
The data are from a conversation tape recorded by ARUDOU, Debito on October 31, 2000. Courtesy of Debito.org at
http://www.debito.org/yunohanatranscript103100.htm
4
In regard to the transcripts, the first line appears in Romanized Japanese followed by a literal translation with grammatical elements in all capitalletters. An italicized gloss in natural English is supplied immediately following each transcription. See the appendix for a list of transcription
conventions.
3

−184−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

8

M:

=mooshi[wake nai desu.(kika sareteru no wa wakaru n) desu ke[domo:

9
10

A:
D:

11

M:

=mooshi[^HHHHH=mooshi[wake nai desu.(kika sareteru no wa wakaru n) desu ke[hai.
=mooshi[wake nai desu.(kika sareteru no wa wakaru n) desu ke yes
nto uchi toshite wa:: gaikokujin o itioo okotowari shiteru

sorry

um

12

we

naturalizedasT

foreignerN

T understand N

O presently

refusal

C

but

doing

to iu katachi ni naru n desu yo::=
QT

say

shape

become

N

C

P

13

D:

=>watashi wa gaikokujin ja arimasen. =[nihonjin de-<14

M:=>watasi wa gaikokujin ja arimasen. = [kika sareteru to iu no wa=>watasi wa gaikokujin ja arimasen. = naturalized
QT say N T
wakaru n desu kedo[::D:wakaruwakaru(1)

M:

de: ma. hoka no: ma gaikokujin no koto mo aru node (.)

I

15
16

foreigner

understand N

17
18

T

JapaneseC

butn desu kedo[hai.
n desu kedo yes

and well

19

C

not

other

M

well

foreigner

Mthing also existsominasan ni okotowari shiteru n desu yo.=everyonetorefusing

N

C

P

20

D:

=>(soo dakara) boku wa gaikokujin ja arima[sen. nihonjin desu.

21

Man:

=> (soo dakara boku wa gaikokujin ja arima[n : : : : : : :

that

so

I

T

foreigner

notJapanese

22

D:>nihon no kokuseki [o motteiru n desu. sore de=23

M:>nihon no kokuseki [sore>nihon no kokuseki that24

D:

gaikokuj- gaikokujin ja arimasen yo ne?]<foreign

foreigner

not

25

M:

d e s uk e d on e : :

Japan

C

M

citizenship O

but

have

wa
T

P

N

C

wakaruunderstand
P

n

so

N

P

]

English Translation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11/12
13
14/15
16
17
18/19
20
21
22/24
23/25

D:
D:
M:
A:
D:
M:
A:
D:
M:
D:
M:
D:
M:
D:
M:
D:
Mn:

Yes, good evening.
(2.2)
Yes. Well then, I look forward to your services.
(1.2)
Uh, no, um I am terribly sorry but, you know.
Huh?
Yes.
I am terribly sorry. I understand that you have naturalized, but.
Ughhh
Yes.
Uh, the state of things is that we are presently refusing foreigners.
I’m not a foreigner. I am a JapI understand that you have naturalized, but.
Yes.
(1)And, well, there’s the issue of other foreigners, so we are refusing everyone.
I’m not a foreigner. I’m Japanese.
Yeaaaaah.
I have Japanese citizenship, so I’m not a forei- foreigner, right?
I understand that, but, you know.

−185−

C

But Iʼm Not a Foreigner: On the Interactive Construction and Contestation of Being a Foreigner in Japan

In lines 1 and 3, Debito first offers a greeting to the manager,5 after which he bids for entry to the bath house. Eachof these moves results in silence (lines 2 and 4). Notably, Debito’s line 3 constitutes the first pair-part of an
adjacency pair which might be glossed as bid for admittanceacceptance/refusal. However, it is only after a 1.2
second gap that the manager undertakes his line 5 utterance, which through the reluctance markers (see Bilmes,
1988) “e::: >ya< nto” and an apologetic formulation (i.e., “taihen mooshiwake nai n desu kedo”), which features an
upgraded level of politeness in comparison to excerpt 1, line 4 (i.e., “sumimasen ga”), projects a refusal. As thisaction becomes clear, Abe interjects with a response that is hearable as displaying disbelief (line 6), and Debito
receipts by latching on with hai ‘yes’. In line 8, the manager again apologizes (possibly in response to Abe’s line 6,
which he may be treating as a repair initiation), and continues by stating that he is aware that Debito is a naturalized
citizen. In line 9, Abe overlaps the manager’s line 8 apology with a strong out breath, which is hearable as a displayof disgust or frustration. In line 10, Debito again receipts with hai, overlapping the end of the manager’s line 8.
In line 11, the manager delivers the projected refusal. This utterance is prefaced by “uchi toshite wa,” whichcasts it as a formulation of policy from the standpoint of the bath house as an institution, and is framed as an accountfor why Debito will not be admitted through the use of n desu yo. Thus, the manager’s talk in lines 8 and 11 firstrecognizes Debito as having naturalized, and, following a deployment of the disjunctive conjunction kedomo, denies
him access to the facilities by stating institutional policy prohibiting the use of the bath house by foreigners. In thisway, the manager treats the category of foreigner as possibly being inclusive of naturalized Japanese citizens. Debito
contests this proposed categorization framework by latching onto the manager’s line 12 with a “first priority
response” (Bilmes, 1993; Bushnell, 2014), which negates Debito’s status as a gaikokujin ‘foreigner’, and formulates
him as being a nihonjin ‘Japanese’. In this way, Debito treats naturalized citizens as properly being assembled into
the category Japanese.
In lines 14 and 15, the manager again claims a recognition that Debito has naturalized, and Debito receipts thisin line 16 with hai. Then, following a 1 second silence, the manager provides a further account for disallowing
Debito’s use of the bath house (lines 18 and 19). In this account, the manager mentions “the issue of otherforeigners,” and, through the use of node, formulates this as being the rational basis for refusing “everyone.” Thefollowing two points may be noted. First, the manager deploys n desu yo,6 which strengthens the explanatory tone ofthis utterance. Here the manager is speaking on behalf of the establishment. Second, he deploys hoka ‘other’, whichfunctions to assemble Debito into the category foreigner, along with “others.” Finally, the manager’s use of theexhaustive term minasan ‘everyone’ functions to deny admittance to all members of the category foreigner with noexception. Debito immediately latches onto the manager’s line 19 with a redo of his line 13, framed as such by soo
dakara, which claims a status as Japanese and not foreigner. The manager overlaps part of Debito’s utterance with anelongated n, which prima facie seems to claim a recognition of Debito’s claimed status, but, through its stretched-out
production spanning the duration of the second unit of Debitos’s utterance, may in fact function as a sort of “bomb”
pin-pointing Debito’s claim to be Japanese (see Moerman, 1988). Then, in lines 22 and 24, Debito continues hisutterance with the production of further units, which formulate a claim of his possession of Japanese citizenship, andtake this as the basis for negating his status as a foreigner. Again, in lines 23 and 25, the manager overlaps Debito’sutterance with a claim of understanding, which he (the manager) begins from the point the pragmatic trajectory of
Debito’s utterance becomes clear.
In this way, Debito seems to assemble the category Japanese into an occasioned collection glossable as legal
statuses. He does this by first self categorizing as a member of Japanese, while simultaneously excluding himself
from foreigner (lines 13 and 20), and second, by claiming possession of “Japanese citizenship”, which he formulates
as a basis for negating his status as a foreigner (line 22). On both of these occasions, however, the manager overlaps
Debito’s talk with opposition-relevant utterances (lines 14 and 15, 21, and 23 and 25). In this way, the manager
contests the categorization framework proposed by Debito, and submits an opposing categorization framework
wherein the category foreigner includes in its membership people with the legal status of being naturalized Japanesecitizens.
The analysis of Excerpt 1 has shown how differences in the ways in which the participants assembled
occasioned collections of categories reflexively informed the sequential structure of their talk-in-interaction. It has
also shown how the categorial aspects and sequential aspects of the interaction jointly work to index the interaction
as being a dispute. The participants were shown to have made the categories foreigner, Japanese, and naturalized
citizen, as well as institutional staff and patron, relevant at various points in their interaction. As they worked to5
6

Who does not self identify as such at this time. However, it becomes clear later in the interaction that he is indeed the manager of the bath house.
Yoshimi (1993: 276) suggests that yo can imply that “the license for this information is my context-relevant social role.”−186−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

organize courses of action related to eligibility to use the bath house facilities, in particular, they made theconstitution of the categories Japanese and foreigner an issue in their talk. This project-at-talk reflexively informed
the sequential structure of their interaction such that the participants co-constructed a sequential pattern characterized
by latching, overlap, repetition, and oppositional moves (Bilmes, 1995; Corsaro & Rizzo, 1990; Saft, 2000). Thesefeatures, together with the categorical work, jointly index this interaction as being a disagreement or
misunderstanding.
In Excerpt 2, Debito and his friends are preparing to leave the bath house. They have just finished putting on
their shoes when Abe asks the manager if Chinese people would be permitted into the bath house. Excerpt 2 occurs
at the end of the data, right before Debito, Abe and Baba have their money returned to them and leave the bath house.

Excerpt 2: Gaiken nan da yo ne
1A:

ja chuugokujin wa ii n da yo ne. soo sitara=

2

D:=soo desu yo ne.=3

A:=kao no katachi mo nihonjin ni nite- niteru

well

that

and

Man:

P

good NC

P

P

if.that.is.the.case

P

shape

also

Japanese

to

rese-

resembleafter.allappearance C N

C

P

P

si [>dakara< (.) sore wa:
so

that

T

kochira mo shaberanai to wakaranai to iu katachi ni na[ru (n desu)
this

also

don’t.talk

if

don’t.know

QT

say

shape

becomeNC

D:

kochira mo shaberanai to wakaranai to iu katachi ni na[a demo ima
kochira mo shaberanai to wakaranai to iu katachi ni na[ah but now
demo shoomee shimasita node (.) [sorezore no-Man:demo shoomee shimasita node (.) [sore wa wakarimasu kedo:
demo shoomee shimasita node (.) [that T understandbut((continues))

89Tshi [yappari gaiken na n da yo ne::

6
7

C

face M

4
5

Chinese

but

proof

did

so

each

M

English Translation:
1
2
3/4
5/6
7/8
9

A:
D:
A:
Man:
D:
Man:

Well then, Chinese would be permitted, right? In that case.
That’s right, huh.
The shape of their faces resembles the Japanese, so it is outward appearances after all, right?
So, it’s that we wouldn’t know unless we talk with them.
Oh, but since I’ve proven it now, eachI understand that, but.

In line 1, Abe mentions Chinese people as being possibly eligible users of the bath house. Her soo shitara ‘ifthat’s the case’ seems to index the manager’s just prior statement (not shown) that he cannot let Debito enter becauseeven though Debito is legally a Japanese citizen, the fact that he is not racially Japanese is visually available to otherpatrons of the bath house. Debito immediately aligns with Abe by “piggybacking” (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1990)
onto her turn with soo desu (yo) ne ‘that’s right, huh’. In lines 3 and 4, Abe continues talk production by latching
onto Debito’s line 2 with an assessment of Chinese people as physically resembling Japanese people, andformulating an upshot that it must be a matter of “outward appearances after all.” In this way, Abe invokes acategory glossable as Chinese people, and treats physical resemblance to the Japanese as one feature bound to thiscategory. She then bases on this an assertion that the issue is one of “outward appearance” (gaiken). Abe’s talk thus
reformulates the manager’s prior talk as having treated the problem as being one of racial appearances rather thanlegal status (see Fukuda, 2014 regarding physical appearance as a category-bound predicate of Japanese).
In line 5, near the end of the initial unit of Abe’s lines 3 and 4 utterance, the manager undertakes the productionof talk. Notably, though the occurrence of shi ‘and’ at the end of a unit of talk may overtly signal transition relevance,−187−But Iʼm Not a Foreigner: On the Interactive Construction and Contestation of Being a Foreigner in Japansuch instances would typically be accompanied by the phonological characteristic of sound stretch, that is, shi:::. In
this way, the utterance is constructed as one “trailing off” (Wong & Waring, 2010). However, Abe’s production of
shi is brisk, which seems instead to project further talk. Notably, she continues production of the talk following shi toa full grammatical, pragmatic and intonational completion, even as it is overlapped by the manager’s talk. This
indicates that the “overlap resolution device” (Schegloff, 2000) is not in operation here, and that the manager’s turnin line 5 is being treated by Abe as an interruption (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff, 2000).
The manager’s overlapping talk seems to be designed as a first-priority response (Bilmes, 1993), which should
be deployed as soon as possible in order to avoid an interpretation of acquiescence. The manager begins his line 5utterance with dakara ‘so’. One turn-initial use of dakara seems to be to indicate that an account for actions or statesof affairs problematized by one’s co-participant is forthcoming. Thus, the action projected by the manager’s line 5
seems to be that of justifying, rather than opposing or counter-arguing (in which case, he might have used iya ‘no’,demo ‘but’, etc.); this implicitly validates Abe’s lines 1, 3 and 4 reformulation of his position as being based on
issues of outward appearance, though it simultaneously treats Abe as having reached a faulty conclusion about thereason behind the manager’s position-so-formulated. The manager continues on in line 6 to formulate this reason as
being that, although the institution may allow Chinese to use the facilities, it is only because the staff cannot
differentiate Chinese patrons from the Japanese based only on appearance; they would have to talk to every potential
patron of the bath house in order to do so.
In line 7, Debito self selects, overlapping slightly at a transition relevance place in the manager’s line 6 with ademo, which projects opposing talk. In line 8, Debito produces talk which indexes his action several minutes earlier
of producing his Japanese driver’s license with his name written in Kanji characters on it7 (not shown). He thendeploys node, which taken together with the micropause following it, may have been visible to the manager as
indicating that Debito had concluded his turn-at-talk. Just as the manager begins an utterance, however, Debito
continues with talk, which now becomes visible as an upshot to be based on the talk preceding node. This isoverlapped by the manager’s line 9, which effectively recycles the response he has already made a number of times
throughout the interaction, claiming a recognition of Debito’s status as a naturalized citizen. After this, Debito
produces a lengthy, multi-unit turn (omitted for reasons of space). In this lengthy turn, Debito displays andunderstanding of the manager’s actions of disallowing him (Debito) entrance to the bath house as being based uponissues of race. The turn itself contains five questions. These questions go unanswered by the manager, which seems
to suggest that he is either unable or unwilling to produce (further) counter arguments (Bilmes, 1993, 1995). Debito
then treats the managers declination of further speech production as being closing-relevant (Sacks & Schegloff,
1973) and moves to make a final closing of the encounter.
The analysis of Excerpt 2 has shown that the participants have accomplished closing their interaction by using
the mundane sequential structures of talk-in-interaction (cf. Sacks & Schegloff, 1973). However, the ways in which
they co-construct, align to and/or contest membership categories has informed the sequential structure of theirclosing. Of particular interest is the way in which the participants co-constructed a category glossable as eligible
patrons of the bath house as containing only members who share certain physical traits which Debito does notpossess. Thus, although continually acknowledged throughout the interaction to have a legal status as a Japanesecitizen, Debito is excluded from eligible patrons, while Chinese people who may not have such a legal status areincluded on the basis of racial appearance.
5. Conclusion
In the present research, I have analyzed the language of a sign prohibiting foreigners from using a bath house inJapan, and talk-in-interaction taken from a service encounter in which the policy indicated on the sign is contested
between a non-racially Japanese citizen of Japan and his two racially Japanese friends. In the analysis, I considered
the following research questions:
1.
What membership categories do the participants make relevant to this interaction?
2.
How do participants co-construct, align to, or contest the membership categories?
3.
How do the categorial aspects and the sequential aspects serve to jointly define the interactional pattern as a
specific unfolding activity?
A close analysis of the data using CA and MCA has revealed that the participants have accomplished makingcategories-relevant not only by producing speech overtly mentioning the categories (cf. Schegloff, 1992), but also by
performing and mentioning category-bound attributes, rights, and so forth. A point of particular interest has been theoccasioned manner in which participants have co-constructed, aligned to, or contested categories.
7

As one part of the procedures for becoming a naturalized Japanese citizen, candidates with non-Kanji names must provide Kanji transliterationsof their names.

−188−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Matters of identity and belonging are likely to become increasingly important as Japan continues to push for
globalization, and more non-Japanese people take up permanent residence, or become naturalized citizens. The
participants in this interaction made the categories Japanese and foreigner relevant at various points in their talk-ininteraction. However, the fact that they constituted these categories in very different ways, by treating them as beingbound to the categories different attributes (i.e. legal status, racial appearance, etc.), informed the organization of thetalk so that the sequential and categorical aspects, taken together, worked jointly to index this particular encounter as
a dispute. For the participants, their use of categories-in-talk had grave ramifications on their real-world courses ofaction; in the end, the category work performed on this occasion resulted in providing the bath house management a
resource for disallowing Debito’s use of the facilities. However, the results of the present research should not betaken to mean that non-racially Japanese may never be assembled into the category Japanese. This is an issue at talkfor the participants of the interaction, and thus may turn out very differently under other circumstances.
Acknowledgements:
I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. ARUDOU, Debito and Dr. Olaf Karthaus, who performed the fieldworkfrom which the data are taken.

Appendix: Transcription conventions^
glottal stoprising intonation
falling intonation>word<
fast paced<word>
slow paced[
onset of overlapped speech=no pause between utterances(3.1)
pause measured in seconds(.)
unmeasured pause
Interlinear Key
C: Copula
D: Dative particle (he, ni)
M: Noun modification particle (no, na, etc.)
N: Nominalizer
O: Object marker(xxx)((word))
:::
WORD
word
wo,
.
?

unclear utterance
commentary by transcriptionist
lengthened soundloudemphasized
cut-off
continuing intonation(full stop) falling intonation
rising intonation

P: Interactional particle (yo, ne, sa, na, etc.)
Q: Question marker
QT: Quotation marker
S: Subject marker
T: Topic marker

References
Arudou, D. (2006). Japanese Only: The Otaru Hot Springs Case and Racial Discrimination in Japan. Akashi Shoten: Tokyo.
——— (2007). Japaniizu Onrii: Otaru Onsen Nyuuyoku Kyohi Mondai to Jinshu Sabetsu. Akashi Shoten: Tokyo.
Bushnell, C. (2011). Interactionally constructing practice, community, shared resources, and identity: An ethnomethodological analysis ofinteractions at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawaii.
——— (2014). On developing a systematic methodology for analyzing categories in talk-in-interaction: Sequential categorization analysis.
Pragmatics 24 (4): 735–756.
——— (2015). Gaikokujin ja arimasen (I’m not a foreigner): An analysis of the interactive construction and contestation of being a foreigner inJapan. Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies 7: 137–151.
Bilmes, J. (1995). Negotiation and compromise: A microanalysis of a discussion in the United States Federal Trade Commission. In A. Firth (Ed.),
The Discourse of Negotiation. Pergamon: New York, pp. 61-99.
——— (1993). Ethnomethodology, culture, and implicature: Toward an empirical pragmatics. Pragmatics 3: 387-409——— (1988). The concept of preference in conversation analysis. Language in Society, 17, 161-181.
Corsaro, W. & T. Rizzo. (1990). Disputes in the Peer Culture of American and Italian Nursery-school Children. In A. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict
Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 21-66.
Day, D. (1998). Being ascribed, and resisting, membership of an ethnic group. In C. Antaki & S. M. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in Talk.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 151-170.
Edwards, D. (2000). Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33:
347-73.
Egbert, M. (2004). Other-initiated repair and membership categorization — some conversational events that trigger linguistic and regional
membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1467-1498.

−189−

But Iʼm Not a Foreigner: On the Interactive Construction and Contestation of Being a Foreigner in Japan

Eglin, P. & S. Hester. (2003). The Montréal Massacre: A Story of Membership Categorization Analysis. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier
University Press.
Fukuda, C. (2014). Identities and linguistic varieties in Japanese: An analysis of language ideologies are participants’ accomplishments.
Pragmatics, 24 (1): 35–62.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey.
Goodwin, C. & M. Goodwin. (1990). Interstitial Argument. In A. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments inConversations. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 85-117.
Hansen, A. (2004). A practical task: Ethnicity as a resource in social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38: 63-104.
Hester, S. & P. Eglin. (1997). Membership Categorization Analysis: An Introduction. In S. Hester & P. Eglin (Eds.), Culture in Action.
International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America: Washington D.C., pp. 1-23.
Hester, S. & D. Francis. (2000). Ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and ‘institutional talk’. Text 20 (3): 391-413.
Housley, W. and Fitzgerald, R. (2002). The reconsidered model of membership categorisation. Qualitative Research 2, 59-74.
Housely, W. and Fitzgerald, R. (2009). Membership categorization, culture and norms in action. Discourse and Society 20, 345-362.
Jefferson, G. (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.
Nishizaka, A. (1995). The interactive constitution of interculturality: How to be a Japanese with words. Human Studies 18: 301-326.
Onuki, T., & H. Matsuki. (2003). Hankoukoudou no kousei to seiin kategoriika jissen: iwayuru ‘Ashikaga jiken’ ni okeru seishin kantei womegutte. Japanese Journal of Sociological Criminology, 28, 68-81.
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9: 219-313.
Psathas, G. (1999). Studying the organization in action: Membership Categorization and Interaction Analysis. Human Studies 22: 139-162.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Blackwell: Cambridge.
——— (1972a). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in Social
Interaction (pp. 31-74). New York: Free Press.
——— (1972b). On the analyzability of stories by children. In J. J. Gumperz & D. H. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics; theEthnography of Communication (pp. 325-345). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Sacks, H. & E. Schegloff. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 8: 289-327.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & G. Jefferson. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of talk and socialization. Language 53: 361382.
——— (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50 (4): 696-735.
Saft, S. (2000). Arguing in the institution: Context, culture, and Conversation Analysis in a set of Japanese university faculty meetings.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Sakai, N. (2005). Introduction: Nationality and the politics of the ‘mother tongue’. In N. Sakai, et al. (Eds.), Deconstructing Nationality. New
York: Cornell University Press, pp. 1-38.
Schegloff, E. (2007). A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 462-482.
——— (2000). When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics 21 (2): 205-243.
——— (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society 8 (2): 165-187.
——— (1992). On talk and its institutional occasions. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 101-134.
Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 277–303.
Suzuki, A. (2009). Who is “Japanese” in Hawai‘i?: The discursive construction of ethnic identity. In A. Reyes and A. Lo (Eds.), Beyond Yellow
English. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 148-166.
Watson, R. (1997). General reflections on ‘categorization’ and ‘sequence’ in the analysis of conversation. In S. Hester & P. Eglin (Eds.), Culture
in Action. International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America: Washington D.C.,
pp. 49-75.
——— (1978). Categorisation, authorisation and blame-negotiation in conversation. Sociology, 12, 105-113.
Wong, J., & H. Waring. (2010). Conversation Analysis and Second Language Pedagogy: A Guide for ESL/EFL Teachers. New York: Routledge.
Yoshimi, D. (1993). Getting past politeness: The role of linguistic markers of evidentiality and informational domains in Japanese student-teacher
interactions at the graduate level. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California.

−190−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

When Not Talking is ‘Talking’: The Functions of Silence
Jon S.Y. Hui
The University of Hong Kong

Abstract
Analysing material drawn from a corpus of over one hundred telephone conversations, mainly
between native English speakers recorded in a customer service centre, this paper identifies
the various functions of silence in these workplace interactions. Focussing on the detail of theinteractional exchanges between the customer service representatives and their customers, I
use a number of authentic examples to illustrate the functions of silence, among othercommunication strategies employed by the participants. Two very different outcomes are
identified by the analysis. Silence can be interpreted as a power-asserting device when
uncooperative turn-taking is evident. In other contexts, silence can indicate cooperation when
listening to customers’ complaints. It seems that this linguistic phenomenon cannot be definedin absolute terms. The presence of silence is a result of ongoing negotiation between speakers
and its functions and implications are often significant.
[Keywords]: Silence, Call Centre Discourse, Rapport Management, Telephone Conversation,QWURGXFWLRQ
Silence can generate awkwardness in conversation. It is usually neither welcomed nor
encouraged in an English-speaking cultural context. It relates to signs of trouble (Jefferson
1988). Silence can neither be categorised as talk nor as non-verbal communication, whichusually refers to gestures, body movements and so on. Silence is usually defined as a period
without any sound, a time when it is completely quiet. Jefferson (1989) surveyed a collectionof transcriptions and proposed one second as a tolerable period of silence. That is the‘physical’ definition of the concept as identified in interactional contexts; for instance, faceto-face interaction in one-to-one or one-to-many situations. It is connected to talk or speech−191−

When Not Talking is ʻTalkingʼ: The Functions of Silence

involving interaction between two people or a group of people. Another meaning of silence
refers to the metaphorical aspect of the word. It signifies abstaining from speech or refraining
from expressing one’s opinions. Silence here, for instance, may result from self-censorship asa consequence of real or potential political oppression. While this second meaning of silenceis equally interesting and well worth investigating, it is the first definition as it applies tointeraction that is the focus of this paper.
Intentional silences are noticeable in natural conversations and have been researched in manydifferent social contexts, including casual conversations (e.g. Kogure 2007, Mushin andGardner 2009), inter- and cross-cultural communication (e.g. Tanaka 2006, Hasegawa andGudykunst, 1998), court proceedings (e.g. Eades 2000), classroom interactions (e.g. Fassinger
1995, Nakane 2006, King 2013), workplace communication (e.g. Milliken et al. 2003), andgendered interactions (e.g. DeFrancisco 1991). The issue of silence has also been seen as oneof the causes of communication breakdown (Tanaka 2006, Forey and Lockwood 2007).
While the function of silence in interaction has not been an area investigated in mainstream
research, a brief review in the context of classroom interaction suggests that silence can beseen as ‘a way to express negative emotions passively’ (Gilmore 1985), ‘enabling students togain access, organize and absorb new material’ (Jaworski and Sachdev 1998), and ‘acognitive space for learning’ (King 2013).
The majority of these studies have investigated silence in face-to-face interaction or silence
being complemented by non-verbal communication. A number of them looked at differencesin cultural background or power relations in respect of the occurrence of silence and its
meaning and functions. The functions of silence vary (Jaworski 1993) and its implications areoften significant. Studies on the subject to date have largely been limited to face-to-facediscourse contexts, while silences that occur in telephone conversations where participants
communicate without any non-verbal communication clues seem under-researched.
This paper examines the occurrence of silence in call centre telephone conversations, its
meanings and its functions. The context of this research is different from other research in a
number of ways. Firstly, this study examines silence in telephone conversation, which is amono-modal medium. Participants can only hear but not see the interlocutor. In other words,
no visual elements such as gestures, smiles or nods can be seen by the two parties. Secondly,
the conversations are between customer service representatives (CSRs) and their customers.

−192−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Unlike managers and subordinates, or teachers and students, where a power differential isapparent, the relationship is a service provider/customer one and there is no obvious power
distance.

7KHRUHWLFDOIUDPHZRUNDQGGDWDFROOHFWLRQPHWKRGV
As many researchers have pointed out, interpreting the meanings and functions of silenceneeds to take contextual information into consideration: in other words, when and how and inwhat situation that silence is being invoked. Therefore, interactional sociolinguistics(Gumperz 2001) is well-suited as the overarching theoretical framework for this study. A
range of ethnographical data collection methods have been employed; for instance, participant
observation and interviews. Rapport management theory (Spencer-Oatey 2000) has been
applied in the analysis of the interactional data.
The core data set consists of authentic customer service representative call recordings. These
recordings are usually retained for quality assurance and training purposes. From theserecordings, over 100 telephone conversations from 10 CSRs were sampled. These CSRs
possess work experience ranging from 6 months to 6 years in the current job. In addition tothese recordings, data including interviews, training materials, and observation field notes
were collected over a 3-day period when the field work was conducted.
The telephone conversations are between CSRs and callers of the same or a very similar
cultural background. It is predominantly a Western English-speaking setting and there is very
little power differential between the two speakers as far as their roles are concerned.

5HVXOWVDQGGLVFXVVLRQIn the following analysis, two examples are used to illustrate how silence may serve very
different functions and convey different social meanings.
In Example 1 below, the caller some time ago uploaded a file to the organisation’s online
registration webpage to renew her membership. As far as she is concerned, she has completed
the process and the renewal has been successful. However, she received a letter notifying herthat she needs to submit the information. Otherwise, she risks her membership. She calls the−193−When Not Talking is ʻTalkingʼ: The Functions of Silence

hotline to enquire about her status. The excerpt below starts with the CSR explaining to thecaller the correct procedures.

Example 1(a)
Line
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

ŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ
CS5

CA2
CS5

yeah what happens is that when you upload it
as soon as you’ve uploaded
there’s a little tick box that you agree to upload them
then you have to click submitted at the top
That’s what we did
It hasn’t happened
so you can either go online and upload them again
or post them in to us+++ [silence]10
11

em it definitely yeah hasn’t come through to us+++ [silence]

12
13
14

the change of address is done thoughback on the 21st of November
yeah it’s the same day I uploaded them

CA2ƋƵŝĐŬƚŽůĂƚĐŚŽŶŶŽƚƌĞƉůǇŝŶŐƚŽĂƐƵŐŐĞƐƚŝŽŶ͕ĚĞĂůǁŝƚŚŝƚǁĂŝƚŝŶŐĨŽƌĂďĞƚƚĞƌƐƵŐŐĞƐƚŝŽŶ

ƋƵŝĐŬƚŽůĂƚĐŚŽŶ

In lines 1 to 4, the CSR is trying to help and explain to the caller the ‘proper’ procedure, aprocedure that is often missed by other customers µFOLFNVXEPLWWHG DWWKHWRS¶ (line 4). The
caller is quick to respond and declares that she has completed the procedure properly (line 5).
In lines 7 and 8, the CSR reports that the document has not been registered in the system andoffers a couple of options µXSORDGWKHPDJDLQRUSRVWLQ WRXV¶. However, at this point, there is
no response from the caller. The CSR then tries again and confirms that the file has not
arrived (line 10). The caller continues to keep silent, which suggests that she is perhaps
waiting for a better option or wanting the CSR to deal with the situation. The CSR again tries
to engage with the caller by reporting the information that she could see from the system: achange of address was completed on 21st of November (lines 12 and 13). This time the caller
is quick to respond and claims that that is the date she did her upload of the document µLW¶VWKH
VDPHGD\,XSORDGHGWKHP¶ (line 14). By now it is quite clear that the caller is not very happy
with the situation.

−194−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

The call continues and the CSR is able to persuade the caller to upload her file again to meet adeadline. Line 15 shows the caller’s reluctant agreement to do so.
Example 1(b)
15
16
17
18
19

CA2

20
21
22
23

CS5

CS5
CA2

CA2

it’d be ok
but em yeah it’s just that I did all that
I uploaded it I submitted it and everythingyeah it doesn’t look like it’s comeit looked like it went through the processyeah I’m sorry I’m not sure what’s happened+++ [silence]
we definitely haven’t received it though
uhm ah that’s not helpful at all is itĂŐƌĞĞƚŽƵƉůŽĂĚĂŐĂŝŶĚŝƐĂŐƌĞĞŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
^Z



ĐŽŵƉůĂŝŶŝŶŐ

Later in the call, the caller conceded that she will probably have to do something in order tocomplete the process and enquires about the deadline for submission. But she still insists thatshe did not miss anything (lines 16 and 17). The CSR again reiterates that the file has notreached the system µLWGRHVQ¶WORRNOLNH LW¶V«¶ (line 18). In response to this, the caller echoes
the structure used by the CSR to make her point µLWORRNHG OLNHLW «¶ (line 19). The CSR
apologises and concedes that she does not know what happened (line 20). Here, the caller
does not acknowledge the CSR’s apologies and remains silent (line 21). This forces the CSR
to take up the turn and restate the fact that the file has not been received (line 22). This time
the caller shows her dissatisfaction with the situation and comments that µWKDW¶VQRWKHOSIXODW
DOOLVLW¶ (line 23).
This excerpt provides examples of silence employed as a power-asserting device. By not
responding to suggestions (lines 7-9), the caller effectively violates the turn-taking convention(Sacks et al. 1974) and forces the CSR to self-nominate and continue the turn. Thisphenomenon can be observed in lines 10, 12, and 21. This ‘silent’ treatment seems to force
the CSR to do her best to engage with the caller time and time again.
The function of silence illustrated in the second example is very different. Here a longtime
customer calls and complains about bugs on the organisation’s website. The webpage seizes
up every time he searches for information under certain categories. The usual solution is toreboot the computer. While he knows how to clear his computer, he is not at all happy.

−195−When Not Talking is ʻTalkingʼ: The Functions of Silence

Example 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

CA1
CS1
CA1
CS1
CA1
CS1
CA1

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

CA1

CS1

CS1
CA1

CS1
CA1
CS1

you understand what I mean
mhmm yeah/==\you don’t need to follow instructions
yeah
and neither do I as a customer
mhmm
CA1: have to um [tut] you know follow [drawls]:er:
these instruction because I mean I don’t do anything
wrong on my side just because my computer’s cachingwell hey that’s the in-built system into everybody’s
computer +++++ [silence] there are some specificguidelines that you follow when you develop a site
and when it’s done (I mean like a pro one) you have to
do certain things +++ to make it work +++you’ve got a developer that is not very goodI mean this is not the only problem there’s a lot ofthingy + but + I haven’t gone into that and I don’t need
to because + not my problem but em you know I meanat least you want your website to open up
CSR: Umm ++++ [silence] okay andI would be happy to speak to one of your people whoare high up
mhmm
if you like + discuss the problem and give me somegood feedback then in writing but I won’t do it rightnow because I haven’t got the time nor do I think I
should because em yeah I mean you’ve got somebody
working on it and you should consider that person fit
but obviously this person not able to fix I mean I’ve
been using your sites for years now and it’s just a painright
in fact it’s the worst website I’ve ever gone on because
it is just a headache every time I go on there++++ [silence) rightŵŝŶŝŵĂůĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬ
ŵŝŶŝŵĂůĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬ
ŵŝŶŝŵĂůĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬ











ǁĂŝƚƚŚĞŶŵŝŶŝŵĂůĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬŵŝŶŝŵĂůĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬ







ĂŐƌĞĞŝŶŐǁĂŝƚƚŚĞŶĂŐƌĞĞ

This first few exchanges of this excerpt shows the CSR is very patient with the customer by
providing minimal feedback (lines 2, 4, and 6). Unlike the caller in Example 1, this customer
is a rather slow speaker with pauses in some turns (lines 17, 18).
In this example, silence can be seen as a rapport-building device. The CSR allows plenty oftime for the caller to express his opinion about the website (line 7-19), the company
procedures (line 3) and so on. There are gaps where she could have come in (lines 11 and 14),but does not do so. This silence on her part is supported by the organisation’s training manual−196−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

on dealing with challenging customers. The procedure advocates that the CSR should ‘allow
the client to let off steam’ because ‘the more they talk the calmer they get’. Once the client iscalm, ‘gather data, suggest solutions, problem solve etc. can be proceed’. Listening to thecustomer’s opinion without interrupting appeals to the quality face and social identity face.
Hence, rapport is maintained. It is obvious here that the CSR employs this strategy, remaining
silent where appropriate, to handle this complaint call more effectively.
The two examples have shown very diverse meanings and functions of silence in interactions.
Apart from the meanings and functions of silence, these two samples also demonstrate thatsilence in interactions cannot be defined as a fixed period of time. Whether it is to beconsidered as ‘silence’ is negotiated between the participants and how they perceive it. In
Example 1, the silence is not a long period in absolute terms. However, when this compares tothe way the caller’s almost latch-on responses in the other turns, this is rather marked. In
contrast, some of the pauses in Example 2 seem relatively long. However, considering thecaller here is a slow speaker, this may seem less noticeable. It is the ‘noticeable absence’ thatmakes the silence marked.

Conclusion
When people in interactions choose not to talk, this can be interpreted as ‘I will not talk’, ‘I
must not talk’, ‘I cannot talk’, ‘I don’t know how to respond’ and so on. So, not talking in fact
carries meanings and fulfils various functions. In this paper, I have demonstrated that silence
can function as a coercive device where the assertion of power is evident. It can also be
employed as a collaborative device with the effect of attenuating negative emotions in a callcentre setting. In addition, the notion of ‘noticeable absence’ is vital in the analysis of silence
in interactions.

5HIHUHQFHVDeFrancisco, V. L. 1991. The Sounds of Silence: How Men Silence Women in Marital Relations.
Discourse & Society, 2:4, 413 –423.
Eades, D. 2000. I Don’t Think It’s an Answer to the Question: Silencing Aboriginal Witnesses in Court.
Language in Society, 29:2, 161–195.
Fassinger, P. A. 1995. Understanding Classroom Interaction: Students’ and Professors’ Contributions
to Students’ Silence. The Journal of Higher Education, 66:1, 82–96.
Forey, G., & Lockwood, J. 2007. “I’d love to put someone in jail for this”: An initial investigation of−197−

When Not Talking is ʻTalkingʼ: The Functions of Silence

English in the business processing outsourcing (BPO) industry. English for Specific Purposes,
26:3, 308–326.
Gilmore, P. 1985. Silence and sulking: Emotional displays in the classroom. In D. Tannen & M. SavilleTroike (Eds.), Perspectives on silence, 139-163. Norwood, N.J: Ablex Pub. Corp.
Gumperz, J. J. 2001. Interactional Sociolinguistics: A Personal Perspective. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen,& H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 215-228. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Hasegawa, T., & Gudykunst, W. B. 1998. Silence in Japan and the United States. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 29:5, 668 –684.
Jaworski, A. (1993). The power of silence: social and pragmatic perspectives. Newbury Park, Calif:
Sage.
Jaworski, A., & Sachdev, I. 1998. Beliefs about silence in the classroom. Language and Education,
12:4, 273–92.
Jefferson, G. 1988. On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation. Social
Problems, 35:4, 418–441. http://doi.org/10.2307/800595
Jefferson, G. 1989. Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a “standard maximum”
silence of approximately one second in conversation. In D. Roger & P. Bull (Eds.),
Conversation: an interdisciplinary perspective, 166-196. Clevedon, [Avon]; Philadelphia:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
King, J. 2013. Silence in the Second Language Classrooms of Japanese Universities. Applied
Linguistics, 34:3, 325–343. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams043
Kogure, M. 2007. Nodding and smiling in silence during the loop sequence of backchannels inJapanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 39:7, 1275–1289. http://doi.org/doi:
10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.011
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. 2003. An Exploratory Study of Employee Silence: Issues
that Employees Don’t Communicate Upward and Why. Journal of Management Studies,40(6), 1453–1476. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387
Mushin, I., & Gardner, R. 2009. Silence is talk: Conversational silence in Australian Aboriginal talk-ininteraction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41:10, 2033–2052. http://doi.org/doi:
10.1016/j.pragma.2008.11.004
Nakane, I. 2006. Silence and politeness in intercultural communication in university seminars. Journalof Pragmatics, 38(11), 1811–1835. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.01.005
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. 1974. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of TurnTaking for Conversation. Language, 50:4, 696–735. http://doi.org/10.2307/412243
Spencer-Oatey, H. 2000. Culturally Speaking: Managing Repport Through Talk Across Cultures.
London: Continuum.
Tanaka, H. 2006. Emerging English-speaking business discourses in Japan. Journal of Asian PacificCommunication (John Benjamins Publishing Co.), 16(1), 25–50.

7UDQVFULSWLRQFRQYHQWLRQV
Pseudonyms are used
CS = Customer Service Representative (CSR)
CA = Customer/Caller+ = pause < 1 sec.
... = not transcribed−198−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Masculinity and politeness in intercultural communication:
Do men really use a masculine style?

Hiroko Itakura
Department of English Language and Literature
The Hong Kong Baptist University
Email: hiroko@hkbu.edu.hk

Abstract
This paper focuses on the little-known research area of gender and politeness in interculturalcommunication by addressing the question of whether Asian and Western men modify (ormaintain) “masculine” conversational styles during L2 English intercultural conversations.
The paper reports a case study of naturalistic L2 English conversations between a Hong Kong
Chinese male speaker and a Swedish male speaker and discusses the possibility thatmasculine conversational styles may become more “feminized” in L2 intercultural contexts
than is generally believed. In addition, Asian men’s style may undergo feminization to agreater extent than Western men's due to the transfer of “Asian” norms of politenessincluding emphasis on modesty and avoidance of self-praise. The paper discusses somecontextual specifics that may account for modifications in masculine speech styles as well as
analytical methods suitable for investigating gender and conversation. Implications for future
research in the interface between gender and politeness in intercultural communication are
also discussed.
Keywords: gender, politeness, conversational style, masculinity, intercultural communication
1. Introduction
This paper focuses on the little-known research area of gender and politeness in interculturalcommunication. Research findings in the field of language and gender have informed us thatconversation is one of the most important sites for the construction of identity. According to
the social constructionist approach, speakers adopt (or avoid) linguistic and interactionalfeatures that are generally associated with masculine and conversational styles in order toconstruct gender identities that are close to (or challenge) normative masculine or feminine
identities within a given cultural context (e.g., Butler, 1990; Weedon, 1997). A masculine
conversational style is generally characterized as competitive, self-oriented, hierarchical andinformation-oriented, a while feminine conversational style is generally seen as collaborative,
other-oriented, egalitarian, and affective. Masculine and feminine conversational styles are
generally viewed as being constructed through different uses of common linguistic andinteractional features such as turn-taking, questions, topic development, and amount of talk1
−199−

Masculinity and politeness in intercultural communication: Do men really use a masculine style?

(e.g., Coates, 2003, 2004, Coates & Pichler, 2011; Holmes, 2006; Kiesling, 2005). However,research findings also point out that the nature of gender identity thus constructed
linguistically depends on contextual factors, such as professional role , interpersonal
relationships, and level of formality of the context (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2013).
Previous research findings thus inform us about a range of linguistic and interactionalfeatures used as resources for constructing normative gender identities and also emphasize
the importance of contextual factors that may lead to individual differences. However, thisknowledge is generally limited to first language (L1) conversations, especially in relation to
English. Little is known with regard to the construction of gender identity in foreign language(L2) conversation. One of the intriguing questions thus arising is whether gender identities
may be similarly constructed in speakers’ first and second language conversations or whether
their gender identities may be modified due to certain contextual factors especially thosespecific to the foreign language context.
This paper is of an exploratory nature and addresses the questions of whether male EFL
learners modify (or maintain) “masculine” conversational styles during their L2 English
intercultural conversations and explores relevant contextual factors. By reporting a case studyof naturalistic L2 English conversations between a Hong Kong Chinese male speaker and a
Swedish male speaker, the study suggests that masculine conversational styles may become“feminized” and that Asian men’s conversational styles may undergo “feminization” to agreater extent than Western men's due to the transfer of “Asian” norms of politeness to L2
conversations.
2. PolitenessSince the publication of seminal work on politeness theory by Brown and Levinson (1987),
there has been an ongoing discussion as to whether the notion of politeness is universal orculture-specific. Brown and Levinson (1987) proposed that politeness consists primarily of aset of face-saving strategies speakers decide to adopt by considering their interpersonal goals,
implying that this perspective is applicable to different languages. By contrast, other scholars
have suggested that politeness is more concerned with appropriate language use and behavior
as determined by cultural norms rather than individual speakers’ personal decision , including
see Chen, 2010a) for Chinese and Ide (1989) and Matsumoto (1988) for Japanese.
One of the most frequently cited culture-specific aspects of politeness is different levels ofimportance attached to modesty in Eastern and Western i languages. For example, Leech(2007) suggests that while there are no absolute divisions between Western and Eastern
languages with regard to basic notions of politeness, modesty and self-denigration are more
highly emphasized in Eastern languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean than inWestern languages such as English. The importance of self-denigration and praise the otherare also described as important features of politeness in Chinese by a number of researchers,
including Chen (2010), Gu (1990), Kádár and Pan (2011), and Spencer-Oatey and Ng (2002).
For example, Kádár and Pan (2011: p. 138) argue that:… it is unquestionable that they [self-denigration and addressee-elevation] areactively present in modern Chinese behavior. In practice, elevation and denigration
manifest themselves in the symbolic underestimation of the entities belonging to the
speaker and their dependents and the overestimation of the entities belonging to theinterlocutor and their dependents.
2−200−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Chen (2010a) reviews a substantial number of previous studies conducted on complimentgiving and responding behavior across many different languages and discusses both English
and non-English European languages such as German, Spanish tend to accept praise andcompliments, whereas Asian languages tend to reject them. In comparison with a growing
number of empirical studies of politeness in Chinese language and European languages ingeneral, little research has been conducted on Swedish (but see Ahlqvist, 2005). For the
purpose of this study, which focuses in part on a male L1 speaker of that language, it isassumed that Swedish may show closer similarities to English politeness norms than doeswith Chinese with regard to modesty and self-denigration.
Compliments have also received a great deal of attention in the field of language and gender(e.g., Holmes, 1988; Rees-Miller, 2011). Those studies have generally found that women tend
to give and receive compliments more frequently as solidarity strategies and that women tend
to avoid accepting compliments or self-praise.
3. The study
The present study addresses the following questions:
1. Do men use a masculine style during L2 English intercultural conversations between
Asian (here, Hong Kong Chinese) and European (here, Swedish) males?
2. What contextual factors may lead to modifications to masculine conversational styles?
The first question is concerned with whether both Hong Kong Chinese and Swedish men use
masculine styles, or, whether Hong Kong Chinese men use masculine styles to a greater
degree than do Swedish men, or vice versa. The second question explores the possibility thatdifferent norms of politeness between Asian and European languages may be a contributing
factor in introducing modifications to masculine conversational styles in L2 interculturalconversations. To the extent that speakers’ L1 cultural norms of politeness are reported astransferring into intercultural communication between speakers from different ethnic or
cultural backgrounds and causing conflicts (e.g., Itakura, 2014; Spencer-Oatey, 2009; Murata,
2005; Nakane, 2007), it is worthwhile to investigate the possible influence of L1 norms ofpoliteness on masculine conversational styles in intercultural conversation.
For the basis of the study, two pieces of all-male L2 English conversations were chosen froma larger corpus consisting of L2 English conversations with Hong Kong students andanalyzed. The details are summarized as follows:
Dataset• All-male L2 English conversation (1 hour x 2)
• Participants:ii– Carson: Hong Kong Chinese (age: 23)– Stefan: Swedish (age: 24)– English proficiency for both: very good (IELTS score: 7.5)–
At the time of the recordings, Stefan was an exchange student studying on an MA program inbusiness studies in a Hong Kong university, where Carson was also studying on an MA
program in education. They had mutual friends but had never had a long conversation prior to
3

−201−

Masculinity and politeness in intercultural communication: Do men really use a masculine style?

the first recording session. They were recruited by the author’s research assistant and invited
to have conversations in English over lunch. The recorded conversations were lively andfrequently accompanied by laughter and jokes. Both speakers appeared relaxed and seemed
to enjoy getting to know each other and each other’s country.
In this paper, I present findings from the second recording because the topic covered during
most of this conversation was a comparison of Hong Kong (Asia) and Sweden (Europe), bothterms being used by Carson and Stefan. The conversation therefore facilitates aninvestigation into the participants’ conversational styles on a constant topic.
4. Findings: Self-denigration and other-praise
Carson and Stefan both use typical masculine conversational styles, including giving longmonologues. On the other hand, they also showed “feminine” conversational features,
including facilitative questions, or questions used to develop the other speaker’s questions,and joint turn construction. A particularly interesting feature of politeness is also observed,that is, an unequal distribution of self-denigration and self-praise between Carson and Stefan,
which is analyzed below.
When comparing Hong Kong and Sweden, Carson consistently evaluates Hong Kong in arather negative light, for example, by criticizing Hong Kong and not accepting praise of Hong
Kong offered by Stefan. On the other hand, Carson praised Sweden, often in an exaggerated
manner. By comparison, Stefan frequently gives a positive evaluation of Sweden and accepts
praise for Sweden received from Carson, using no self-denigration. This is illustrated in theexcerpt below:
Excerpt
Carson and Stefan are discussing working conditions in Hong Kong and Sweden. Stefan has
just explained that it may in fact be unfair that people who earn more should pay more tax asthey have to work long hours.
1

Carson:yeah, yeah. Oh by the way, Hong Kong is top in the working hours list.

2

Stefan:is it?

3

Carson:I think it’s top one or maybe top three (short pause) in the world. ((Stefan:oh)) Like all Asian countries, like all Asian countries, we are top of the list.
We are top of the top. ((Stefan: yeah)) In the United States and Hong Kong.
It’s top of the top.

4

Stefan:that’s crazy.

5

Carson:((laughter)) and that’s the reason why we think you know, Europe is sogood. Hong Kong people know about Europe is that they always only drink
alcohol ((laughter))[10 turns omitted]

4
−202−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

16

Stefan:and you have water at home. And I think people are nice here.

17

Carson:I think it’s the people we have, like the most difference

18

Stefan:Yeah

19

Carson:and I guess you know they [Sweden] have better air there. You know air
pollution in Hong Kong ((Stefan: yeah))

20

Stefan:that’s so true, and we have a lot of space. That’s the huge difference((Carson: yeah)) Yeah you are the one who told me that Europe has somuch space.

21

Carson:yeah! So much space. We have so little in Hong Kong ((Stefan: yeah)) I
was talking with my Hong Kong friend who moved to Australia for a few
years already. We were like talking about a flat or buying a house in Hong
Kong and in Australia. And for the same price, like maybe 3 million Hong
Kong dollars, you will get a small flat in Hong Kong and then you will geta house in Australia. ((Stefan: yeah)) Like two-story house.

22

Stefan:yeah, but I think this is the same in Sweden ((Carson: oh)) I mean for three
thousand Hong Kong dollar (1.5-second pause), we will not get a big house
but you can get a house.

23

Carson:this is really frustrating. ((laughter))

24

Stefan:Yeah

The excerpt illustrates how Carson and Stefan frequently dichotomize geographical andsociocultural differences between Hong Kong/Asia and Sweden/Europe by giving praise one
to the other, responding to praise given by the other, and resorting to self-praise and selfdenigration. It also illustrates how the modesty principle of politeness seems to be moreclosely followed by Carson. First, Carson introduces the topic of self-denigration (HongKong seen negatively; Turn 1), or self-denigration combined with other-praise (Hong Kong
seen negatively and Sweden seen positively; Turn 19). Second, his self-denigration is often
exaggerated. For example, in Turn 3, Carson repeatedly states the problem of long working
hours in Hong Kong (see also Carson’s elaboration of problems in Hong Kong and hisfrustration at these; Turns 21 and 23). Third, Carson often praises Sweden emphatically(“Europe is so good”; Turn 5). Fourth, he rarely accepts praise for Hong Kong offered by
Stefan directly but instead deflects it. For example, in Turn 17, Carson does not explicitly
accept the praise of Hong Kong people offered by Stefan but instead offers an agreement
token implicitly with a hedging expression (“I think”). By comparison, Stefan often
introduces self-praise for Sweden. For example, in Turn 22, following Carson’s positive
evaluation of Australia in relation to the relative ease of buying property there, Stefan shifts
the topic to a positive evaluation of Sweden. Second, Stefan usually responds to praise for
Sweden offered by Carson by accepting it directly (e.g., Turn 20).

5
−203−

Masculinity and politeness in intercultural communication: Do men really use a masculine style?

5. Discussion and Conclusion
Though limited, the findings are informative for the exploration of the possible influence of
L1 cultural norms of politeness on masculine conversational styles in several respects.
First, the content of the praise or self-denigration offered by Carson and Stefan is different
from previous findings on praise and compliments and gender, especially in relation to
English. The seminal work on gender and compliment by Holmes (1988) and its follow-up
study by Rees-Miller (2011) have similarly suggested that men’s compliments generally
focus on positive evaluations of the recipient’s talent, achievements, or possessions, and arealso described as reflecting a competitive masculine culture. For example, the recipient may
accept praise on his higher achievements than the provider's, thus creating a hierarchy
between them. On the other hand, Holmes and Rees-Miller suggest that women’scompliments tend to focus on the recipient’s appearance, with the recipient tending to avoid
accepting compliments but rather deflecting them. The contents of most of the praise found in
the present dataset focus on each other’s country (Hong Kong and Sweden). This may be
shaped by the intercultural context, that is, participants may be more generally attuned tocomparisons between different countries than to each other’s achievements.
Second, the general pattern of Carson’s avoidance of praise and other-praise and Stefan’scontrasting acceptance suggest that their conversational styles may be influenced by thetransfer of different norms of politeness, that is, the Asian norms that emphasize modesty andthe Western norms that accept self-praise to a greater degree (e.g., Leech, 2007).
Third, a frequent use of self-denigration, or putting one’s country in a negative light, which isobserved in Carson’s talk, suggests that, perhaps due to the transfer of Asian politeness norms,
his conversational style may be seen as more “feminine.” That is, self-denigration issometimes described as more characteristic of women’s talk. For example, Holmes andSchnuur (2005) discuss how feminine humor tends toward self-denigration than masculine
which tends toward teasing and banter, even playfully abusive remarks concerning theaddressee, although both kinds of humors are used to create solidarity. It is noticeable that
Carson’s self-denigrating remarks about Hong Kong are often accompanied with laughter,
which suggests that they may have been intended as a solidarity strategy.
To conclude, as the present study is of an exploratory nature and relies on a limited amount of
data, no broad generalizations should be made. However, the case study reported here raises
the possibility that masculine conversational styles may be maintained to a certain degree, forexample as monologue giving, in L2 English intercultural conversations between an Asianand a European male speaker. However, Asian male speakers’ conversational styles may be
modified to become more “feminine” due to the transfer of Asian norms of politeness thatemphasizes modesty, thus suggesting a possible interface between gender and politeness inintercultural communication.
To address the limitation created by the small size of the dataset on which the present study isbased, future research will need to analyze larger datasets. In collecting such a dataset ofrecorded conversations between Asian and European men, it may be worthwhile to specify
that the topic of conversation should be a comparison between their respective countries oforigin (e.g., China – America; Japan – Britain), as this facilitates the collection of data oncomplimenting and self-denigrating behaviors on a topic that is closely related to interculturalcommunication. This in turn would enable a verification of the possibility suggested in thepresent study whereby different L1 norms of politeness between Eastern and Western
languages seem to account for different degrees of feminization of masculine conversational
6−204−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

styles in L2 English intercultural conversation. In addition, in quantifying instances ofpoliteness behavior in conversations between Asian and European male speakers, it may be
useful to classify these into: a) praise-giving to self or other; b) praise-receiving as accepting
or rejecting; and c) self-denigration, as this may enable an investigation of the level ofadherence to praising the other and denigrating the self, one of the politeness maxims that has
been claimed to show a contrast between Eastern and Western languages, together with theuse of hedges and boosters to mitigate or emphasize praise or self-denigration.

Acknowledgements
I am indebted to Carson and Stefan for participating in the recordings. I am also grateful to
Viggo Cheung and Shirley Wu and for their assistance with the transcription and data
analysis.

References
Ahlqvist, A. 2005. “Forms of address in Irish and Swedish.” In R. T. Lakoff & S. Ide (eds.),
Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness, 235–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, J. 1999. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York:
Routledge.
Chen, R. 2010a. “Compliment and compliment response research.” In A. Trosborg (ed.),Pragmatics across languages and cultures, 79–102. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Chen R. 2010b. “Pragmatics between East and West: Similar or different?” In A. Trosborg(ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures, 167–188. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Coates, J. 2003. Men talk: Stories in the making of masculinities. Oxford: Blackwell.
Coates, J. 2004. Women, men, and language: A sociolinguistic account of sex differences inlanguage. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
Coates, J., & Pichler, P. 2011. Language and gender: A reader (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. 2013. Language and gender (2nd ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gu, Y. 1990. “Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics, 14:22,
237–257.
Holmes, J. 1988. “Paying compliments: a sex-preferential politeness strategy,” Journal of
Pragmatics, 12, 445-465.
Holmes, J. 2006. Gendered talk at work: Constructing gender identity through workplace
discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Holmes, J and Schnurr, S. 2005. “Politeness, humour and gender in the workplace:
Negotiating norms and identifying contestation.”, Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 139– 167.
Ide, S. 1989. “Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of
linguistic politeness.” Multilingua, 8:2, 223–248.
Itakura, H. 2014. “Femininity in mixed-sex talk and intercultural communication: Are
Japanese women polite and submissive?” Pragmatics and Society, 5:3, 455–483.
Kádár, D. Z. & Pan, Y. 2011. “Politeness in China.” In D. Z. Kádár & Y. Pan. (eds.),
Politeness in East Asia, 125–146. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kiesling, F. 2005. “Homosocial desire in men’s talk: Balancing and recreating cultural
discourses of masculinity”. Language in Society, 34, 695–727.
7−205−

Masculinity and politeness in intercultural communication: Do men really use a masculine style?

Leech, G. 2007. “Politeness: Is there an East-West divide?” Journal of Politeness Research, 3,
167–206.
Matsumoto, Y. 1988. “Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena inJapanese.” Journal of Pragmatics, 12:4, 403–426.
Murata, K. 2005. “Laughter in Japanese business meetings: A rational perspective.”
Wellington Working Papers in Linguistics, 19, 1–20.
Nakane, I. 2007. Silence in intercultural communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rees-Miller, J. 2011. “Compliments revisited: Contemporary compliments and gender.”Journal of Pragmatics, 43:11, 2673–2688.
Spencer-Oatey, H. 2009. “Face, identity and interactional goals.” In F. Bargiela-Chiappini &M. Haugh (eds.), Face, communication, and social interaction, 137–154. London:
Equinox.
Spencer-Oatey, H. & Ng, P. 2002. “Reconsidering Chinese modesty: Hong Kong andmainland Chinese evaluative judgements of compliment responses.” Journal of Asian
Pacific Comunication, 11:2, 181–201.
Weedon, C. 1997. Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
i

In accordance with researchers who compared politeness phenomena across languages (e.g., Brown &Levinson, 1987; Leech, 2007), a contrast is made here between “Eastern” and “Western” languages (but see
Chen, 2010a for the “Asian” v. “European” alternative).

ii

The participants’ names are pseudonyms.

8
−206−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Analyzing the force of pragmatic particles in actual use
Judit Kroo
Stanford University
judykroo@stanford.edu
Abstract
This study considers the social construction of masculine types including sooshokukeidanshi. Using data from theJapanese drama Shitsuren Shokoratie ‘Broken Hearted Chocolatier,’ as well as the Japanese film Sooshokukeidanshi,
this paper demonstrates how the pragmatic force and social meaning of lexical items such as first person pronouns
and pragmatic particles in sentence final position can be work together to construct a range of gendered stances.
The results of this study furthermore indicate that in many cases it is not that use/non-use of a particular first person
pronoun or pragmatic particle directly indexes social stance. Rather, the pragmatic and social force of first person
pronouns and pragmatic particles are found to be emergent and relational – arising over the course of conversations
through the use of combinations of various first person pronouns/pragmatic particles and with respect to the patterns
exhibited by interlocutors. This study advocates for a more flexible model of first person pronouns and pragmaticparticles that can better treat these aspects of first person pronoun/pragmatic particle meaning.
Keywords: masculine stance construction, first person pronouns, pragmatic particles
1 Introduction
A range of recent studies (e.g. Matsumoto, 2002; Miyazaki, 2004; Mizumoto, 2001) has investigated therelationship between use/non-use of socially salient variables, including lexical variables, and the construction ofcomplex gendered stances. Matsumoto (2002), for example, looked at the use of variables that are commonly
considered to be ‘masculine’ by young female speakers. She found that it was not the case that these speakers were
‘doing male,’ but were rather constructing a complex ‘cute’ femininity. Similarly, Mizumoto (2001) argued that therange of social/indexical meanings associated with use of lexical items that had been previously considered to begendered varied between (young female) speakers and (young male) interlocutors – although female speakers
interpreted use of certain pragmatic particles negatively as ‘old-fashioned,’ male interlocutors viewed thempositively, i.e. as ‘cute’ or ‘girly’. The above analyses emphasized that the relationship between use/non-use ofparticular linguistic variables is always contingent. This is in contrast to earlier work on so-called Japanese women’s
language (Shibamoto 1985), which suggested that the use of particular lexical items, for example pragmatic particles(hereafter PPs), indexed gender directly.
Other recent work, notably Nin (2003), has considered the process by which indexical values attach to
linguistic variables such as PPs from a diachronic perspective. Nin found that even as some linguistic variables lostsalience as sites of gender performance, other sites became relevant for the construction and performance of thiskind of distinction. This process continues as long as the distinction itself remained relevant. If maintaining aparticular distinction, for example a gender distinction, is relevant to speakers then as particular lexical items losesalience with respect to gender performance other lexical items pick up the slack and the distinction remains intact.
By emphasizing the contingent nature of the social meanings attached to linguistic variables and thediversity of social meanings that speakers or interlocutors may interpret with respect to use/non-use of the same
linguistic variable (see Eckert (2008)’s treatment of the indexical field,) the findings described above call out foranalyses that test the range of social meanings and indexical values associated with linguistic variables.
Of particular interest would be linguistic variables whose indexical value could be shown to be speakerdependent. Also of interest would be linguistic variables that exhibit complex indexical patterns – the availability ofsuch patterns would be useful for theorizing the processes by which social meanings and distinctions are constructed
and maintained in communities.
The following paper will consider patterns of use of linguistic variables that appear to be salient for theconstruction of a range of masculine stances. Investigating the construction of these masculinities via media
representation of male characters in the drama Shitsuren Shokoratie (Broken Hearted Chocolatier) and the film
Sooshokukeidasnhi, this analysis will demonstrate how a variety of linguistic resources can be marshaled to performgender-work.
The paper will focus on patterns in the use of first person pronouns and pragmatic particles in sentence
final position. With respect to first person pronouns, this paper will consider both cases in which use of a particular
first person pronoun is directly associated with a particular speaker as well as cases where patterns of first person−207−Analyzing the force of pragmatic particles in actual use

pronoun use construct gendered stances relationally, i.e. where gendered stances that are defined against each other.
Examination of these patterns will show how gendered stances can emerge over time and sometimes through themixed use of both deprecatory and plain first person pronouns.
Similarly, with respect to pragmatic particles in sentence final position, this paper will be demonstrate how
it is not the case that pragmatic particles directly index dominant or masculine stances, but rather these stances
emerge through relational patterns, i.e. with respect to the use-patterns associated with other gendered stances.
Through the examination of such complex, relational patterns in the use of lexical items that are commonly
treated as gendered, this paper will make a case for considering the pragmatic and social meaning of such lexical
items as emergent across discourses, and relational with respect to both other speakers’ use patterns and the use ofsimilar lexical items by a single speaker.
2 Men in the MediaThe term yakuwarigo ‘role language,’ as described in Kinsui (2003) and Teshigawara and Kinsui (2011), isof particular relevance for a discussion of media depictions of male characters and character types. The term
yakuwarigo describes how “a character’s vocabulary and grammar vary greatly according to the person’s attributes,
gender, age, social status, occupation, region of residence or birthplace, appearance, personality, etc.” (Teshigawara
and Kinsui, 2011: 38) Some examples of characters to whom yakuwarigo are ascribed include ‘Chinese person,’and ‘elderly man.’
The yakuwarigo associated with a particular type is remarkably consistent both across media and over time.
Additionally, even though yakuwarigo bears very little relation to actual Japanese as it is spoken, Japanese media
consumers have no difficulty identifying the character type associated with a particular yakuwarigo. In this way,
yakuwarigo is useful not only as an analytical tool for literary scholars, but also for linguists interested in thinking
about how social and indexical values may attach to linguistic variables and continue to inform speakers’ andinterlocutors’ meta-linguistic understanding or theorizing about their own language, even in cases where the actualuse of the variable in question diverges significantly from this meta-linguistic understanding. At the same time,
yakuwarigo is a helpful theoretical tool for considering the relationship between media discourse representations of
the stances associated with social types and the actual linguistic variables that speakers may use to construct suchstances.
Kinsui has stressed that while it may include elements that are present in contemporary varieties ofJapanese, for example in Japanese hoogen ‘regional dialects,’ yakuwarigo should be not considered sociolects.
Nonetheless, the yakuwarigo framework bears many similarities to the social construction processes of teyo-dawa‘Japanese school girl’ speech during the Meiji Period (Inoue, 2004; Nakamura 2007). Inoue (2004) argues that thiskind of speech, which was considered by language commentators of the period to be corrupt and vulgar, was in facta social construction: that “it was in the process of circulation and consumption of reported speech that themateriality of teyo-dawa speech came into being.” (Inoue 2004: 46) Inoue’s insight suggests that even though
yakuwarigo is not ‘real’ language, it has the potential to become real via consumption processes.
Put another way, like yakuwarigo, teyo-dawa is the result of discourse construction and is therefore metalinguistically present in speakers’ minds. Furthermore, although teyo-dewa is a social construction, it nonethelesshas effects in the ‘real-world.’ For example, as Nakamura (2007) demonstrated, young female consumers of novels
containing teyo-dawa speakers began to mimic and emulate these artificial speech styles – in effect making these
artificial languages real.
3 Broken-Hearted Men
The Japanese drama Shitsuren Shokoratie ‘Broken Hearted Chocolatier,’ which aired at 9PM on Monday nights on
Fuji Television during the Winter 2014 television season provides a rich data set for considering the media
representations and construction of a range of masculine stances. The drama tells the story of young chocolate
maker, Souta, (played by Matsumoto Jun of the Japanese idol group Arashi) who falls in love with but is rejected by
an idealized girl, Saeko. He then leaves Tokyo for Paris, becomes a famous chocolatier and returns to Tokyo toopen a chocolate shop alongside two secondary characters Kaoruko, a woman who had worked in Souta’s father’s
pastry shop and Olivier, in the drama a half-Japanese/half-French chocolate maker Souta met in Paris. Other
characters include Ricodor, the male owner of a rival chocolate shop, who is in love with Souta, and Erena, a modelwith whom Souta enters into a `sex-friend' relationship. A final main character is Matsuri, Souta's younger sister,
who ends up in a relationship with Olivier.

−208−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Although the following discussion will focus exclusively on the construction of distinctive speaking styles
for the male characters, it is worth mentioning that the female characters in Broken Hearted Chocolatier also exhibita range of gendered stances, the analysis of which would surely provide an interesting counterpoint to the malefocused analysis given here.
3. 1 Salient Sites of Variation
Both first person pronouns (FPPs) and pragmatic particles (PPs) appear to be highly salient sites for theconstruction of various masculine stances in Broken Hearted Chocolatier.
With regard to FPPs, the patterns are very distinct and exception-less, closely mirroring common genderedcharacterizations of these lexical items. An example of such a characterization is given in Table (1) below, takenfrom Miyazaki (2004). Importantly, although Miyazaki (2004) includes this table to introduce common genderedcharacterizations of FPPs, her analysis given makes it clear that actual use of FPPs does not conform to thesimplistic one-to-one mapping of gender and FPP-use as suggested by in Table (1) and that speakers rather
strategically use a range of FPPs to construct and maintain a variety of complex stances.
Table 1
Japanese First Person Pronouns(Masculine Characterized)(Feminine Characterized)

FormalWataskushi
Watashi

Watakushi
Atakushi

Plain

Boku

WatashiAtashi

DeprecatoryOre0
Miyazaki (2004: 257)

In Broken-Hearted Chocolatier individual ‘masculine characterized’ FPPs are exclusively associated with particularcharacters. Specifically, while the main character Souta, only ever uses the FPP ore, the second lead Olivier only
ever uses the FPP boku. Similarly, Ricodor, who is depicted as gay, never deviates from the FPP watashi.
These patterns in the use of FPPs are highly consonant with the gendered characterization of FPPs given
above. Souta, although he is kind and considerate, is also depicted as sexually desirable – he enters into a ‘sexfriend’ relationship with Elena and also has an affair with Saeko. Furthermore, he is played by the idol actor
Matsumoto Jun – like Souta, Matsumoto is commonly thought to be the most stereotypically manly and sexy of themembers of his idol group Arashi. His use of the FPP ore can thus be seen as part of the overall construction of
Souta as sexually attractive main lead.
In contrast, Olivier is constructed as a stereotypical second-lead male character – incredibly kind,considerate and quite innocent. Olivier falls in love with Souta’s younger sister Matsuri, even though the latter gets
involved with her best female friend’s boyfriend. When Matsuri and Olivier finally consummate their relationship,
it is Olivier who is shown to be nervous and shy. His use of the FPP boku is consonant with this characterization –more boyish than manly. This characterization is especially interesting because the character of Olivier is halfJapanese and half-French (although he is portrayed by the Japanese actor Mizubata Junpei).
Finally, Ricodor’s use of the formal FPP watashi identifies him as the least masculine of the main malecharacters. Discussions of so-called okama ‘gay’ language (Lunsing and Maree, 2004) have noted that stereotypical,
yakuwarigo okama languages are marked by use of lexical items commonly characterized as more ‘feminine.’
Looking at the Table (1), we note that watashi is the only FPP that listed in both the ‘masculine characterized’ and‘feminine characterized’ column. Further, it is the default FPP for female speakers. Thus, Ricodor’s use of this FPP
suggests that within the discourse of the drama, ‘gayness’ is associated with non-masculinity.
The patterns established above extend to characters’ use of PPs in sentence final position. The range of PPs
available to Japanese speakers is extensive and has been the subject of extensive research, which this paper cannot
hope to do justice to. The reader is advised to consult for example Saigo (2011) for background on PPs. In the−209−Analyzing the force of pragmatic particles in actual use

following I will use PPs to mean lexical items, the addition of which add an interpersonal, pragmatic value toutterance. The meaning of the PP is the pragmatic value of what the speaker is doing to the addressee.
In general patterns in the use or non-use of PPs in sentence final position in Broken Hearted Chocolatier
are relational. Most often it is not that a character will never use a particular PP – rather a character is more or lesslikely than another character to use a particular PP in a particular context.
The simplest pattern of use occurs with respect to the PP sa, which is closely associated with Souta - othercharacters do not use this PP at all. As with the FPP ore, Souta’s use of sa is consonant with the construction of hisrole in the group as the sexual or manly character. This is because sa is often treated as an ‘insisting’ PP. On theseaccounts, for example McGloin (1990) the pragmatic force of insistence becomes semiotically linked to masculine
gender performance.
A few examples of Souta’s use of the PP sa are given below. Notice that sa can occur both in question
non-question contexts – as a PP of strong assertion it can be used both when a speaker wants to emphasize a point
and/or be critical of the interlocutor.
ࡉࠋ
1 a. ゝ࠸㐣ࡂࡓࡅ࡝ࡉ
Ii sugita
kedo sa?
Say pass.PAST but
PP‘But didn’t you go too far (i.e. say too much)?’b. ࠺ࡕ ࢣ࣮࢟ࡔ࠿ࡽ ࡉࠋ
Uchi keeki dakarasaInside cake because PP‘Because it’s our cake (i.e. a cake that our bakery made).’If, following McGloin, we treat sa as a PP that be associated with masculine gender performance, thenSouta’s use of sa and the other character’s non-use of sa are both salient. Not only does Souta’s use of sa mark him
as a ‘masculine,’ the other characters’ non-use of sa marks as them as less masculine in comparison to Souta. Thus,
patterns of both use and non-use are marshaled to create indicate various characters’ relative masculine stances.
The patterning of the PP ne by Olivier is slightly different to that of sa. In this case, other characters,
including Souta, but most notably female characters, also use the PP ne in non-question contexts. The pragmaticforce of ne in these contexts might be generalized as confirmation or agreement with previous statements (Kinsui,1993). What is relevant for our discussion is that while Souta ne, Olivier uses no other PPs besides ne. Some
examples of this pattern of use are given below. In both of the examples below, Olivier uses both non-question
context ne and question context ne.
2 a. ࠶ࡗࡕࡣ ࡸࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࠿ࡽ ࡡ࠼ࠋࡡ࠼㸽Acchi wa yarenakatta
kara nee. nee?
That one TOP do.POT.NEG because PP
PP‘That one couldn’t do it, right. right?’b. ࡉ࠼ࡇ ࡉࢇ ࡡ࠼. ࡡ࠼㸽
Saeko san nee. nee?
Saeko san PP PP‘Saeko san, right. right?’
4 Sooshokukeidanshi in the Media
Patterns of FPP and PP use are also salient with respect to the construction of what might be termed‘alternative’ masculine stances. An example of this kind of masculine type is sooshokukei-danshi ‘herbivore men.’
The term sooshokukei-danshi (SKD) is used to describe young Japanese men who do not participate in normative
masculine behaviors and are perceived to be unsuccessful in romantic relationships.
While arguably more salient for Japanese speakers in their late 20s to mid 30s, the term continues to haveculturally relevance and has spawned a range of related male-type descriptors including nikushokukei-danshi‘carnivore men,’ the highly masculine opposite of SKDs and even ‘mixed’-types, e.g. beekonasupara-danshi ‘bacon−210−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

wrapped asparagus men,’ who appear to be highly masculine (wrapped in meat) but are actually SKD (a vegetable
center).
The 2010 Japanese comedy Sooshokukeidanshi, which is constructed as an anthropological study of SKD
behaviors, is a good example of how variation with respect to FPPs and PPs can be marshaled to construct the SKD
masculine type. Relying on the social meanings associated with FPPs and PPs and combining them in complex
ways, the film Sooshokukei-danshi distinguishes SKDs from both ‘normative’ male types and from non-SKD otaku‘nerds.’ Note that with respect to the film, we can treat otaku as a pre-existing category since the otaku character is
explicitly identified as such within the film.
4.1 Salient Sites of Variation
Patterns of FPP and PP use in the film are consonant are generally consonant with the drama Broken
Hearted Chocolatier.
With respect to FPPs, use of boku is overall associated with the SKD character - there are four tokens of the
FPP boku by the SKD and only one token for all of the other non-SKD, non-otaku male characters. However, incontrast to Broken Hearted Chocolatier, where there was a direct link between use of a given FPP and a particularcharacter, simply using boku does not indicate that the speaker is an SKD because use of this FPP is not exclusive to
the SKD character - the otaku ‘nerd’ character also uses boku. The difference is that in contrast to the SKD
character, who uses both boku and ore, the otaku character only uses boku. Indeed use of FPPs is relatively evenly
distributed between both boku and ore for the SKD character with 6 tokens of ore (compared to 4 tokens of boku)
across the film.
The pattern of FPP use established in the film Sooshokukeidanshi might be summarizes as follows.
Exclusive use of boku is associated with otaku ‘nerds’, who are presented as undesirable and unsociable. Mixed useof both boku and ore is associated with SKDs, who are generally presented in the film as well intentioned if a bitclueless. Finally, exclusive use of ore is associated with ‘normative’ male characters. Interestingly, the film
includes no use of the FPP watashi by any male characters.
Turning to sentence final PPs, the patterns established above with respect to FPPs, i.e. the construction of
three distinct patterns of use, hold up in this case as well. The overall distribution of PPs is given below in Table 2.
Table 2 *PPs that are discussed below are highlighted.
SKD
Otaku
da ne
1
1
desu ne1
desu yo1
desu yone
1
kana
4
1
na
3
nanka
1
ne
12
clause + no (non2question)
yo
8
1
yo ne
8
yo na
2
clause + na
1clause + sa
1
da zo
wa
ze
zo
da na
no yo

−211−

Male Characters

Female Characters

2
2

10
3

6

3
6

7
5
2
1
1
1

1

1
1

Analyzing the force of pragmatic particles in actual use

First of all, notice that the otaku character’s overall use of PPs is extremely low (only three recorded
tokens). Due to the low rate of use, it is difficult to draw any clear conclusions about patterns of use. In spite of this,we might claim that it is in fact non-use of PPs that is the hallmark of the otaku style.
The SKD character’s patterns of PP use might be compared against both the female characters’ use of PPs
as well as the other non-otaku male characters’ usage patterns. The SKD character’s use of PPs follows other nonotaku male characters with respect to use of the PP yo (highlighted in green). On the other hand, the SKD
character’s pattern of PP use follows that of the film’s female characters with respect to use of the PPs kana, ne,clause+no, and yo ne (highlighted in yellow). As with FPPs, the highlight of the SKD-style is its mixed quality – inthis case the mixing results in patterning like other male characters with respect to the use of some PPs andpatterning like female characters with respect to the use of other PPs.
The final distinct category of male PP use is for the non-otaku, non-SKD male characters. The pattern of
PP use here is marked by use of the PPs clause+na, clause+sa, and yo (the first two highlighted in pink, the latter ingreen) and general avoidance of other PPs. Another hallmark of this pattern of PP use is that there is virtually nooverlap with the PPs used by female characters.
Overall, then, in the film Sooshokukeidanshi the patterns of PP and FPP use are relational. Use or non-use
of a particular FPP or PP does not directly construct a gendered stance in isolation. It is rather the case that patterns
across sets of FPPs and PPs together contribute to gendered stance construction. Furthermore these patterns emerge
relationally, i.e. with respect to the patterns established for other characters.
5 Conclusion and Implications
This study has considered the patterns of FPP and PP use across two sets of scripted material: the Japanese
drama Broken Hearted Chocolatier, as well as the Japanese film Sooshokukeidanshi. Focusing on the use of FPPs
and PPs by male characters in these scripted materials, this study has shown how patterns of use/non-use of theselexical items can be part of the construction of a range of gendered stances.
Furthermore, this study has argued that one-to-one mappings between FPPs or PPs and gendered stancesmight not be sufficient to account for observed patterns. Rather, the construction of gendered stances via use of
FPPs and PPs is emergent with respect to use of other FPPs or PPs and relational with respect to interlocutor use of
FPPs and PPs. As shown in the foregoing discussion it is not always the case that we can look at use of a particular
FPP or PP as an indicator of a gendered stance – rather it is the combination of FPPs or PPs that together construct aparticular stance. Furthermore, these patterns are relational – speakers’ use/non-use of combinations of FPPs andPPs do not occur in a vacuum but occur with respect to other speakers.
The results of this study suggest possible avenues of revision for models of the pragmatic and social force
of FPPs and PPs which try to arrange these kind of lexical items along various meaning axes, e.g. more formal tomore deprecatory or more to less dominant. The kind of model that the foregoing analysis suggests is one that takes
into account the way in which patterns in the use of multiple FPPs or PPs together contribute to the formation of agendered stance. Such a model would better reflect actual use of these types of lexical items.
Furthermore, a model of this kind would have an inbuilt flexibility since it would treat social and pragmaticforce as arising from the use of combinations or clusters of FPPs and PPs rather than locking particular stances
directly to use of particular FPPs/PPs etc. A consequence of this flexibility is that it could handle instances where
the pragmatic and social force of combinations of lexical items such as FPPs and PPs varies depending on context
and/or interlocutor. An example of this is would be the different patterning of FPPs in the drama Shitsuren
Shokoratei versus the film Sooshokukeidanshi.

−212−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Bibliography
Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of sociolinguistics, 12, 453-76.
Inoue, M. (2004). What does language remember? Indexical inversion and the naturalized history of Japanesewomen. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14(1), 39-56.
Inoue, M. (2006). Vicarious language: Gender and linguistic modernity in Japan. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Ishida, K. (2007). Developing understanding of how the desu/masu and plain forms express one’s stance. In D.R.
Yoshimi & H. Wang (Eds.), Selected papers from the conference on pragmatics in the CJK classroom.
http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/CJKProceedings.
Kajino, S and Adachi, C. (2014). Herbivore men: stance-based construction of gender through Japanese discourse
marker nanka. IGALA 8, Simon Fraser University, Canada.
Kinsui, S. (1993). Shuujoshi yo ne [Final particles yo and ne]. Gekkan gengo [Monthly journal], 22(4), 13-19.
Kinsui, S. (2003). Vaacharu nihongo yakuwarigo no nazo [Virtual Japanese: the riddle of yakuwarigo]. Tokyo:
Iwanami Shoten.
Lunsing, W. and Maree, C. (2004). Shifting speakers: Negotiating reference in relation to sexuality and gender. In S.
Okamoto & J.S. Shibamoto Smith (Eds.), Japanese language, gender and ideology: Cultural models and real
people (pp. 92 - 109). New York: Oxford University Press.
Matsumoto, Y. (2002). Gender identity and the presentation of self in Japanese. In S. Benor, M. Rose, D. Sharma, J.
Sweetland & Q. Zhang (Eds.), Gendered practices in language (pp. 339-354). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
McGloin, N.H. (1990). Sex differences and sentence-final particles. In S. Ide & N.H. McGloin (Eds.), Aspects ofJapanese women’s language. (pp. 23 – 41). Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Miyazaki, A. (2004). Japanese junior high schoolgirls' and boy's first-person pronoun use and their social world. In
S. Okamoto & J.S. Shibamoto Smith (Eds.), Japanese language, gender and ideology: Cultural models andreal people (pp. 256-274). New York: Oxford University Press.
Mizumoto, M. (2001). Terebi dorama ni okeru josei kotoba to jendaa [Women's language and gender in television
dramas]. Nihongo to jendaa. 5(3). Retrieved from http://www.gender.jp/journal/no5/1usami.html
Nakamura, M. (2007). 'Onna kotoba' wa tsukurareru ['Women's language' is a construction]. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.
Nin, R. (2003). Shuujoshi kashira ni okeru dan/jo sa no keisei: kindai shoosetsu ni okeru yoorei choosa o chuushin
ni [The formation of male/female difference with respect to the sentence final particle kashia: an analysis
focusing on examples from modern novels]. Tsukuba Nihongo kenkyuu, 8. Tsukuba, Japan: Tsukuba University
Press.
Saigo, H. (2011). The Japanese sentence-final particles in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shibamoto, J.S. (1985). Japanese women's language. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press.
Teshigawara, M. and Kinsui, S. (2011). Modern Japanese ‘role language’ (yakuwarigo): Fictionalised orality inJapanese literature and popular culture. Sociolinguistic studies, 5(1), 37-58.

−213−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

On the negative use of the Japanese intensifier totemo ‘very’
Osamu Sawada
Mie University
sawadao@human.mie-u.ac.jp<Abstract>
Sawada (2014) claims that the negative totemo intensifies the unlikelihood or impossibility ofa given proposition and refuses to update the common ground with the at-issue proposition.
He then argues that it is the pragmatic function of refusal that forces the at-issue proposition
to occur in a negative environment. In this paper, I will further investigate the refusal functionof totemo and claim that the negative totemo has the use-conditional constraint that “theat-issue proposition (without negation and modality) must be activated in the current
discourse.” This paper shows that there is a fundamental difference between negation andrefusal in terms of information updating.
࠙Keywordsࠚ: intensification, expressive, refusal of update, modality, discourse structure
1. Introduction
The Japanese intensifier totemo ‘very’ can intensify the degree associated with a gradable
predicate:(1) Kono ie-wa
totemoThis house-TOP very
‘This house is very big.’{ookii/ *ookiku-nai}.
big / big-NEG

This use of totemo is a positive polarity item (PPI) because it cannot co-occur with logicalnegation, as shown in (1). Interestingly, however, totemo can also intensify a negative modal
statement:(2) a. Tetuya-osuru-nado totemo{deki-nai/*dekiru}.
(Ability)
Staying up all night-ACC do-NADO TOTEMO can-NEG/can‘Staying up all night is impossible.’(Implication: I am emphasizing the impossibility.)b. Taro-ga
shiken-ni ukaru-nado totemo{arisooni-nai/*arisoo-da}. (Epistemic)
Taro-NOM exam-in pass-NADO TOTEMO likely-NEG/likely-PRED‘It is unlikely that Taro will pass the exam.’(Implication: I am emphasizing the unlikelihood.)
Descriptively, in (2a), totemo emphasizes a modal statement that is concerned with ability. In(2a), totemo emphasizes that “I cannot stay up all night,” and, in (2b), totemo emphasizes themodal statement that “Taro is unlikely to pass the exam.”
The important point of totemo in (2) is that it only appears in a negative context (e.g.
Morita 1989; Watanabe 2001). The positive counterparts in (2) are all ill-formed. Sawada(2014) claims that the negative totemo is not a logical NPI which is licensed by negation anddownward-entailing or non-veridical operators. Rather, it is a conventional−215−

On the negative use of the Japanese intensifier totemo ʻveryʼ

implicature-triggering expression or expressive that intensifies the unlikelihood or
impossibility of a given proposition and refuses to update the common ground (the set ofmutually accepted or pragmatically presupposed propositions) with the at-issue proposition(the proposition without modality and negation). He also argues that it is the pragmaticfunction of refusal that forces the at-issue proposition to occur in a negative environment.
In this paper, I will further investigate the refusal function of totemo and claim that thenegative totemo has the use-conditional constraint that “the at-issue proposition (without
negation and modality) must be activated in the current discourse.” I will show that this canbe considered a felicity condition for the act of refusal. This paper will also consider thedifference between refusal and negation and show that they are fundamentally different interms of information update. While a simple negative sentence instructs an at-issue
proposition to be excluded from a common ground, refusal does not have the exclusive update
function.
2. The negative totemo induces a CI
Before discussing the refusal function of the negative totemo in detail, let us first overview thesemantic characteristics of the negative totemo. It has been observed in the literature that thenegative totemo appears in a negative modal environment that has to do with “ability” (e.g.,Morita 1989; Harima 1993; Watanabe 2001; Park 2010). Sawada (2014) investigated themeaning of the negative totemo more deeply and claimed that the negative totemo canintensify two kinds of modal statement: i.e., the unlikelihood or impossibility of a given
proposition. Sawada then claims that the negative totemo has a pragmatic function of refusal.
Namely, it refuses to update the common ground (the context set) with the at-issue
proposition.
The crucial point in Sawada (2014)’s analyses is that the intensificational andrefusal-related meaning of the negative totemo is a conventional implicature (CI). In theGricean theory of meaning, CIs are considered part of the meanings of words, but they are
independent of “what is said” (e.g., Grice 1975; Potts 2005, 2007; Horn 2007; McCready2010; Sawada 2010; Gutzmann 2011). Furthermore, CI expressions are speaker-oriented(Potts 2007). One might think that the negative totemo is a presupposition rather than a CI.
There are several pieces of evidence for the idea that the negative totemo is anexpressive or a CI. The first piece of evidence is concerned with denial. As we can see in (3),denial cannot target the CI part of totemo.1(3) A: Tetuya-osuru-nado {totemo/totemo janaiga}   deki-nai.
Staying up all night-ACC
so-NADO TOTEMO/TOTEMO JANAIGA can-NEG
At-issue: Staying up all night is impossible.
CI: I am emphasizing the impossibility (and refusing to accept the proposition “staying
up all night is possible.”)B: Iya sore-wa uso-da.
No that-TOP false-PRED‘Lit. No, that’s false.’
In this conversation, the speaker (3B) is challenging the at-issue part of (3A) (i.e., staying up
all night is impossible for A), but not the CI part. It is odd to consider that speaker B isNote that the negative totemo (but not the semantic totemo) can be paraphrased by totemo
janaiga lit. very-NEG-although.’

1

−216−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

challenging the CI part of (3B) because that would mean that he/she is objecting to A’s feeling.
Generally speaking, we cannot object to a speaker’s emotion. It is odd to say “no, that is nottrue” after someone says “ouch!” (Yusuke Kubota, personal communication.)
The second piece of evidence for the idea that the negative totemo is independent of“what is said” is that the negative totemo cannot be under the scope of logical operators. Let
us consider this on the basis of the example in which the modal negative sentence with totemo
is embedded under another modal expression such as daroo ‘probably’:(4) Tetuya-osuru-nado {totemo/totemo.janai.ga}
Staying up all night-ACC so-NANTE TOTEMO/TOTEMO JANAOGA
deki-nai-daroo.
can-NEG-EPI.MOD
At-issue: Probably, staying up all night will be impossible for him/her.
CI: I am emphasizing the degree of impossibility and I am refusing to update the common
ground (the context set) with the at-issue proposition.
Here, the meaning of totemo does not fall within the scope of daroo; that is, the speaker is notsaying that there is a possibility of an emphatic emotion toward the impossibility. The
speaker’s emphatic attitude is not within the scope of the epistemic operator daroo ‘probably.’
3. Formal analysis of the negative totemo (Sawada 2014)
The question is: Why must the negative totemo be used in a negative environment? This paper
claims that the negative totemo must appear in a negative context because it is a special typeof negative expressive that signals that the speaker refuses to update the common ground (cg)with the at-issue proposition (the proposition without modality and negation). More formally,
I proposed that the negative totemo is “mixed content” (e.g., McCready 2010; Gutzmann 2011,2012; Sawada 2014), taking a negative modal predicate at both at-issue and CI levels while
intensifying the degree only at the CI level. In addition to these static meanings, I also
proposed that the CI component contains a use-conditional constraint in which the speakerassumes that there is no overlap between the common ground and the at-issue proposition:(5) [[totemoNEG]] = ȜGMODALȜpȜtȜwd[d>STAND ‫ ޔ‬G(d)(p)(t)(w)]iȜGMODALȜpȜtȜwd[d>!!STAND ‫ ޔ‬G(d)(p)(t)(w)] (where p(t) ŀ (ŀcg) =Ø](Based on Sawada 2014)
The left side of i is an at-issue domain, and the right side of i is a CI domain. “>!!STAND”
means “much greater than a standard” (Kennedy and McNally 2005). Regarding theuse-conditional component, p(t) stands for the set of worlds in which the tensed propositionp(t) is true and ŀcg (the context set) stands for the set of worlds that are compatible with all of
the shared propositions. Note that here I am assuming that the common ground (cg) is the setof mutually accepted or pragmatically presupposed propositions and the context set of theworlds that are compatible with these shared propositions (see Stalnaker 1978).
The important point of this analysis is that a negative modal expression as a whole (i.e.,
modality plus a negative element) behaves as a single gradable predicate. I assume that these
represent relationships between individuals and degrees. For example, the denotations ofnegative modal predicates such as deki-nai ‘impossible’ and arie-nai ‘unlikely’ have thefollowing meanings (cf. Lassiter 2011; Klecha 2012):−217−

On the negative use of the Japanese intensifier totemo ʻveryʼ(6) a. [[deki-nai]] : <da,<pa,<ia,<sa,ta>>>> = ȜdȜpȜtȜw.impossibleABIL(p(t)(w)) = d b. [[soo-ni-nai]] : <da,<pa,<ia,<sa,ta>>>> = ȜdȜpȜtȜw.unlikely(p(t)(w)) = d
The negative totemo is then combined with a negative modal expression using mixed
application (McCready 2010; Gutzmann 2011):(7) Mixed application:

Į(Ȗ)iȕ(Ȗ): Ĳa u ȣsĮiȕ: <ıa, Ĳa> u <ıa, ȣs>Ȗ: ıa(Based on McCready 2010: 20)
Superscript a stands for an at-issue type, and superscript s stands for a shunting type.
Superscript s is used for the semantic interpretation of CI involving an operation of shunting(cf. Potts’s (2005) CI application).
The following figure illustrates part of a semantic derivation of (8):(8) Tetuya-osuru-nado
totemoStaying up all night-ACC
so-NANTE very
Staying up all night is impossible.
(Implication: I am emphasizing the impossibility.){deki-nai/*dekiru}.
can-NEG/can(9)ȜtȜwd[d>STAND ‫ ޔ‬impossibleABL(I stay up all night at t in w) = d]iȜtȜwd[d>!!STAND ‫ ޔ‬impossibleABL(I stay up all night at t in w) = d]ȜtȜw. I stay up all night at t in w
   tetuya-o suru“(I) stay up all night”

ȜpȜtȜwd[d>STAND ‫ ޔ‬impossibleABL(p(t)(w)) = d]iȜpȜtȜwd[d>!!STAND ‫ ޔ‬impossibleABL(p(t)(w)) = d]totemodeki-nai “impossible”
ȜdȜpȜtȜw.impossibleABL(p(t)(w)) = d

Finally, the following two-dimensional meanings for the sentence (8) are obtained:(10)
d[d>STAND ‫ ޔ‬impossibleABILITY(I stay up all night at t0 in w0) = d)]Ɣd[d>!!STAND ‫ ޔ‬impossibleABILITY(I stay up all night at t0 in w0) = d]ĸ at-issueĸ CI

Note that this representation only shows the static meaning. In the CI component there
is also a dynamic constraint that says that the intersection between the set of possible worlds
in which the at-issue proposition is true and the context set is empty. This emptiness triggers anegative emotion of “rejection/refusal.” The following situation graphically describes the−218−第17回大会発表論文集第10号

situation in (8):(11) The situation of information update in the negative totemo is as follows:     

w1
w4

w3

w2

w6

w5

w8

ŀcg
The set of worlds in which all of
the shared propositions are true.

w7
w9

The set of worlds in which“I stay up all night” is true.

The above figure shows that there is no world in ŀcg in which the at-issue proposition (‘I stayup all night’) is true.
This analysis will naturally explain why the negative totemo should appear in anegative context. The negative totemo cannot appear in a positive context because, if it is used
in a positive context, then a contradiction between an at-issue component and a CI component
emerges:(12) a.*Sonnakoto boku-ni-wa totemo
dekiru.
(Ability)Suchthing I-to-TOP
TOTEMO possible
At-issue: I can do such a thing.
The refusal function of totemo: The proposition “I do it” cannot be updated.
b.*Ame-wa
totemoyami-soo-da.
(Epistemic, evidential)
Rain-TOPTOTEMO stop-seem-PRED
The rain seems to stop.
The refusal function of totemo: The proposition “it stops raining” cannot be updated.
The CI component says that the at-issue proposition should not be updated. However, theat-issue component of (12) suggests that it is possible to update the at-issue proposition, thus
leading to a contradiction. The only way to make the sentence felicitous is to use it in anegative context.
4. The refusal function and discourse context
In the previous section, we overviewed Sawada’s analyses of the negative totemo and its
pragmatic function of refusal. In this section, we will further investigate the pragmaticfunction of rejection more deeply. In Sawada’s analysis, the “rejection/refusal” function of thenegative totemo is derived from the use-conditional constraint that the intersection between
the set of possible worlds in which the at-issue proposition is true and the context set is empty.
However, this analysis does not explain the dynamic aspect of rejection.
In this section, I will look at the function of rejection more dynamically and claim that
it is necessary to add a use-conditional constraint that the at-issue proposition (without
negation and modality) is activated at the current stage in the discourse either explicitly or
implicitly. By “a proposition is activated”, I mean the proposition is currently under discussion
or recognized in the speaker’s mind (see Zimmermann 2011).
As the following example shows, the negative totemo is often used in a context where
the at-issue proposition is under discussion:−219−

On the negative use of the Japanese intensifier totemo ʻveryʼ(13) A: Kono mondai tok-e-masu-ka?
This problem solve-can-PRED.POLITE-Q‘Can you solve this problem?’
B: Iya, boku-ni-wa totemo
tok-e-masen.
No I-to-TOP
TOTEMO solve-can-NEG.PRED.POLITE‘No, I can’t solve this problem.’ (I am emphasizing the inability.)This makes sense because one cannot perform an act of refusal if there is nothing to refuse. If
there is no previous context such as (13A), the sentence sounds strange. One might think thatthe negative totemo can actually be used without a previous utterance (for example, in thecontext of an exam). However, even in such cases, the at-issue proposition (the proposition
without negation) is activated implicitly at the current stage in the discourse. Namely, in thiscase, the speaker has been expected to solve the problem. As Watanabe (2001) observes, thenegative totemo is often used in a context where the speaker thinks that the at-issue
proposition/event is preferable or necessary to be the case.
The idea that the at-issue proposition should be activated in the current stage in the
discourse is supported by various linguistic facts. First, while the negative totemo can
co-occur with the topic marker wa, it cannot co-occur with the exhaustive ga:(14) Kono sao-de-wa
totemokatuo-{wa/*ga}tur-e-masen.
This rod-with-TOP TOTEMO bonito-TOP/NOM fish-can-NEG.PRED.POLITE‘We can’t fish a bonito with this rod.’(CI: I am emphasizing the impossibility.)This seems to make sense because the element with an exhaustive ga is usually a new piece of
information, thus the whole proposition cannot be considered currently under discussion. On
the other hand, the topic marker wa often attaches to an element that is given by the discourse.
Thus, it is consistent with the totemo’s requirement that the at-issue proposition should be
activated in the discourse.
The second supportive evidence is that the discourse particle nado is often attached to
the verb in the sentence with the negative totemo:(15) Tetuya-osuru-{nado/*koto-ga}
Staying up all night-ACC do-NADO/thing-NOM‘Staying up all night is impossible.’(CI: I am emphasizing the impossibility.)

totemodeki-nai.
TOTEMO can-NEG/can

When nado is attached to a verb, it signals that the speaker is assuming the given
proposition/event to be currently under discussion. (Furthermore, nado also has a negative
implication that the speaker does not want to accept the given proposition.)
Based on this discussion, I would like to add an additional use-constraint in which “pis currently activated.”(16) [[totemoNEG]] = ȜGMODALȜpȜtȜwd[d>STAND ‫ ޔ‬G(d)(p)(t)(w)]iȜGMODALȜpȜtȜwd[d>!!STAND ‫ ޔ‬G(d)(p)(t)(w) (where p(t) ŀ (ŀcg) =Ø] and p is currently activated in the discourse)−220−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

From the viewpoint of speech act theory, we can consider that the constraint in which thegiven proposition must be currently activated can be considered a felicity condition for the
speech act of refusal (Searle 1969).
5. The difference between negation and refusal
Finally, let us compare the difference between simple negation and refusal/rejection in termsof information update. In a simple negative assertion, the at-issue proposition (without
negation) does not have to be old:(17) A: Yamada-sensei-wa
donna
kata-desu-ka?
Yamada-teacher-TOP what kind person. HON-PRED.HON-Q‘What kind of person is Prof. Yamada?’
B: Totemoyasashiku-te
atama-gaii
sensei-desu.
TOTEMO kind-and
head-NOM good teacher-PRED.HON‘Prof. Yamada is a very kind and smart teacher.’
B: Sorekara, Yamada-sensei-wa
osake-ganom-e-masen.
And
Yamada-teacher-TOP alcohol-NOM drink-can-NEG.PRED.HON‘And Prof. Yamada cannot drink alcohol.’Here, Speaker B asserts that Yamada cannot drink alcohol as a new piece of information (aspart of the answer to the question under discussion). Notice that the negative totemo cannot be
used in this context.
In dynamic semantics literature, a simple negative proposition (p) is often assumed
to create a new context set that contains no worlds in which p is true (I abbreviate ŀcg as cs):
(18) Negation of p (in dynamic semantics)
cs[p] = cs  cs[p]On the other hand, the negative totemo does not have an instruction like (18). It is
refusing to update the context set with the at-issue proposition:(19) Refusal of p (in dynamic semantics)
p ŀ cs = Ø
Notice, however, that the sentence with the negative totemo has an at-issue component
as well. Thus, it seems possible to say that the speaker is trying to update the context set withthe “negative modal statement” (e.g., ABLE(p)) in the at-issue component. This suggeststhat there are two kinds of dynamic meanings in the sentence with the negative totemo: one isfor updating a negative modal statement (e.g., ABLE(p)) and the other is for refusing p.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, I investigated the rejection function of totemo and clarified that the negative
totemo has the use-conditional constraint that “the at-issue proposition (without negation andmodality) must be activated in the current discourse.” I also showed that there is afundamental difference between negation and refusal in terms of information updating.
Sawada (2014) claims that the negative totemo is a discourse-pragmatic NPI whose
distribution is constrained by its pragmatic function (not licensed by downward
entailing/non-veridical operators). I think that this paper further strengthens the idea that the−221−On the negative use of the Japanese intensifier totemo ʻveryʼ

negative totemo is a discourse-oriented polarity item.
Acknowledgement: Thanks to the audience of the Pragmatic Society of Japan (2014) for theirvaluable comments and discussions. This study is based upon work supported by JSPS
KAKENHI Grant Number 26770140.
References
Grice, P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and
Semantics, iii: Speech Acts, 43-58. New York: Academic Press.
Gutzmann, D. 2011. “Expressive Modifiers and Mixed Expressives.” In O. Bonami and P.
Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8, 123-141.
Harima, K. 1993. “Totemo, zenzen nado ni mirareru fukushi no yohoo hensen no itiruikei”(The typology of usage change in adverbs such as totemo and zenzen). Gobun Kenkyu
75: 11-22. Kyoshu University, Kokugokokubun gakkai.
Horn, L.R. 2007. “Toward a Fregean Pragmatics: Voraussetzung, Nebengedanke, Andeutung.”
In I. Kecskes and L.R. Horn (eds.), Explorations in Pragmatics, 39-69. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Kennedy, C, and McNally, L. 2005. “Scale Structure, Degree Modification, and the Semantics
of Gradable Predicates.” Language 81: 345-381.
Klecha, P. 2012. “Positive and Conditional Semantics for Gradable Modals.” Proceedings ofSinn und Bedeutung 16, 363-376.
Lassiter, D. 2011. Measurement and Modality: The Scalar Basis of Modal Semantics.
Doctoral dissertation, New York University.
McCready, E. 2010. “Varieties of Conventional Implicature.” Semantics & Pragmatics 3:
1-57.
Morita, Y. 1989. Kiso Nihongo Jiten (A Dictionary of Basic Japanese). Kadokawa Tokyo:
Syoten.
Park, S. 2010. “Hitei tomo koutei tomo kyouki suru fukusi totemo ni tuite” (On the JapaneseAdverb Totemo: Focusing on the Structural Properties of Its Negative Usage). Handai
Nihongo kenkyu 22: 43-63.
Potts, C. 2007. “The Expressive Dimension.” Theoretical Linguistics 33, 2: 165-197.
Potts, C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sawada, O. 2014. “Polarity Sensitivity and Update Refusal: The Case of the Japanese
Negative Totemo ‘very’.” Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Logic andEngineering of Natural Language Semantics (LENLS 11), 313-326.
Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Stalnaker, R. 1978. “Assertion.” In P. Cole. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics,
315-332. New York: Academic Press.
Watanabe, M. 2001. Sasuga! Nihongo (Sasuga Japanese). Chimuma Sinsyo. Tokyo.
Zimmermann, M. 2011. “Discourse Particles.” In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P.
Portner (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning
Volume 2, 2011-2038. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

−222−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Demonstratives and Deictic Shift in Narrative
SUGIYAMA, Sayaka
Kansai Gaidai University

Abstract
This study examines the use of the singular proximal demonstrative (e.g., this/this dog) bypresenting data from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, in the framework of Deictic Shift Theory(Duchan, Bruder, & Hewitt, 1995). This theory hypothesizes that when we are absorbed in astory, the center of our consciousness shifts into an imagined world, and the author uses
various linguistic expressions in order to signal stability or change of components in the
Deictic Center. The present study proposes that the use of proximal demonstratives innarrative parts involve these deictic shifts and vividly describe key elements in a given
scenario.
࠙Keywordsࠚ: Demonstratives, Narrative, Deictic Shift Theory
1. INTRODUCTION
The issue of referring expressions has been discussed in various fields. Bühler (1934) firstused the term “deixis” to refer to the linguistic expressions whose interpretation depends oncontextual information. This study examines the use of referring expressions, specifically,
singular proximal demonstrative pronouns (e.g., this) and demonstrative noun phrases (e.g.,this dog) by presenting data from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz in the framework of Deictic
Shift Theory (Duchan, Bruder, & Hewitt, 1995).
2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON DEMONSTRATIVES
Demonstratives are categorized as one of the typical deictic expressions, and their choice
is traditionally explained by proximity from the speaker. “Proximity” implies not only
physical distance between the speaker and the referent but also the speaker’s emotion or
attention toward the referent (Lakoff, 1974; Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Quirk et al., 1985; Ariel,
1992; among others). In addition, it is assumed that the head nouns of demonstrative
determiners should be superordinates or synonyms of the antecedents. Considering excerpt (1),however, their explanation is not clear: Why did the author use he/him first, and then use thedemonstrative noun phrase? Besides, the head of the demonstrative noun phrase, addition, is
not the superordinate or synonym of the antecedent, the Scarecrow.

−223−

Demonstratives and Deictic Shift in Narrative(1) (In the scene where Dorothy meets the Scarecrow, she says to him)
“If you will come with me I'll ask Oz to do all he can for you.”"Thank you,” he answered gratefully. They walked back to the road. Dorothy helped him
over the fence, and they started along the path of yellow brick for the Emerald City.
Toto did not like this addition to the party at first.

While Halliday and Hasan focus on a topic or a text, some researchers emphasize thecognitive process of interpreting references. They propose that linguistic expressions refer to arepresentation constructed in the mind (Brown & Yule, 1983; Chafe, 1994; Cornish, 1996;
Langacker, 2002; Yoshida, 2011; among others). From the cognitive standpoint of processing
information, Gundel et al. (1993) developed the accessibility scale of referring expressions (cf.
Prince, 1981; Givon, 1983; and Ariel, 1990) and proposed the Givenness Hierarchy.
According to this theory, the most accessible (in focus, that is to say, most easily retrievable)
entity is referred to by a pronoun. In (1), the author first refers to the Scarecrow withpronouns, and then in the last sentence he uses the demonstrative noun phrase: this suggeststhat the first sentence implies that the Scarecrow is in focus, but its accessibility is reduced in
the next sentence.

(Fig.1) The Givenness Hierarchy (Gundel et al., 1993)

In summary, in works of fiction, there remain issues that need more discussion. I will adopt
the Deictic Shift Theory, which is also one of the cognitive approaches.
3. DEICTIC SHIFT THEORYThe Deictic Shift Theory is proposed by a group of cognitive scientists that attempts tocomprehend the structure of fiction in terms of our cognitive abilities (Duchan, Bruder, &Hewitt, 1995). Fiction has two characteristics that distinguish it from conversation. First, in
fiction, the writer and the reader do not share a physical environment or episodic memory.

−224−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Successful authors use textual expressions efficiently so that the reader can experience eventsand emotions as if they were in the narrative world. Zubin and Hewitt (1995) stated that ‘thestory … opens a conceptual window through which the story world can be glimpsed (p.131)’.
The center of the window which constructed by a reader is called ‘a Deictic Center (DC)’.
As I mentioned before, Bühler (1934/1982) first pointed out these phenomena: Bühler
insisted that imagination enables us to shift one DC to another DC that belongs to a different
person, time, and place. The Deictic Shift Theory developed his theory, adding othersignificant research in narratology and linguistics such as Genette’s (1988) focalization,
Banfield’s (1982) pure narration, and Fauconnier’s (1985) Mental Spaces.
A DC comprises four elements: (a) WHO, (b) WHEN, (c) WHERE, and (d) WHAT. These
components are subject to various operations: the values can be introduced, maintained,
shifted, or suspended. To signal stability or change in the DC, the author uses various DC
devices (e.g., past forms precede the center of WHEN, while progressive forms maintain thecenter of WHEN).
4. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DATA
Before the discussion, I will briefly explain the characteristics of a work of fiction. The
Wonderful Wizard of Oz is a children’s novel written in the third person. The plot is as follows.
A young girl Dorothy and her little dog Toto live in Kansas. One day, a tornado lifts up theirhouse up and drops it in the Land of Oz. Dorothy, Toto, and her new friends, the Scarecrow,
the Tin Woodman, and the Cowardly Lion overcome many difficulties together to make theirwishes come true.
The novel contains a total of about 40,000 words. The following table lists how often the
singular referring expressions this, that, it, he, and she are used. The table shows that this has
a frequency lower than the others.
PRONOUNDETERMINER

TOTAL

IT

it

409

its + NP

28

437

HE

He

440

his + NP

215

655

SHE

She

345

her + NP

336

681

THAT

“that”

333“that + NP”

32

365

THIS

“this”

63“this + NP”

84

147

(Table 1)−225−

Demonstratives and Deictic Shift in Narrative

I will observe what roles demonstratives play in narrative parts because they differ fromthe roles in conversational parts.
this + NP

Sum

conversational parts 29

55

77

narrative parts

36

70

this (pronoun)
34(Table 2)

In the Default DC of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, WHO does not belong to any
character, as in (2), the opening.

(2) Dorothy lived in the midst of the great Kansas prairies, with Uncle Henry, who was a
farmer, and Aunt Em, who was the farmer's wife. Their house was small, for the lumber tobuild it had to be carried by wagon many miles.

5. DISCUSSION: AN EXPLANATION FROM DEICTIC SHIFT THEORYNow let us consider Excerpt (1) again. The first to third sentences describe
conversation and actions that can be observed from the default DC (i.e., an objective
viewpoint). The sentence where this is used, however, starts to describe Toto’s evaluation(emotion), which implies that WHO in a DC starts to shift to Toto. The reason why the author
refers to the Scarecrow using the word addition is to capture “the Scarecrow” from Toto’s
perspective. As I mentioned, previous studies also pointed out that in the emotional use ofdemonstratives, the different point is that the scale of proximity often belongs to characters
the author strongly empathizes with (cf. Kuno 1987).
In narrative parts, most instances of this (25 out of 34) and this + NP (21 out of 36) appear
in sentences that describe someone’s emotion, vision, or mind, as in the following excerpts.
(3) a. Dorothy listened to this speech with wonder.
b.

This worried Dorothy a little,

c. They were greatly pleased to see this delightful country before them,d. When the Wizard was given this message he was so frightened thate. Dorothy was quite grieved at this mishap.
f. The Lion was angry at this speech,−226−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

However, emotion is not the only motivation for the use of proximal demonstratives: it isalso used even if the sentence describes Toto’s emotion, as in the following excerpt.

(4) After the first few whirls around, and one other time when the house tipped badly, she
felt as if she were being rocked gently, like a baby in a cradle. Toto did not like it. He ran
about the room, now here, now there, barking loudly.

The following excerpt (5) is similar to (1). This is the scene where the Lion is added tothe party. However, in this excerpt, the use of the new comrade is also acceptable. What is the
motivation to use this NP here?

(5) So once more the little company set off upon the journey, the Lion walking with stately
strides at Dorothy's side. Toto did not approve this new comrade at first, for he could
not forget how nearly he had been crushed between the Lion's great jaws.

When I investigated all of the text, I found out that the author uses demonstratives to refer tothe Scarecrow and the Lion only once, although they appear throughout the story. The scenes
are where the Lion and the Scarecrow are first added to the party.
These uses of this are somewhat similar to “indefinite this,” which Gundel et al. (1993)
distinguished from other types of this. Because indefinite this is the usage of this that first
introduces a referential entity to a discourse, it is difficult to categorize the use of (1) and (3)as “indefinite this”. However, they have a similar function: to provide vividness to a newly
introduced key element.
Similar effects can be observed when the Golden Cap and the Winged Monkeys are
introduced. The Golden Cap and the monkeys have a magical power and play an importantrole throughout the story. The following excerpt contains many proximal demonstratives,
although they are used less frequently in the other parts, as listed in Table (1). This is used toemphasize the Winged Monkey’s power.
(6) …but she was a powerful Witch, as well as a wicked one, and she soon made up her mind
how to act. There was, in her cupboard, a Golden Cap, with a circle of diamonds andrubies running round it. This Golden Cap had a charm. Whoever owned it could callthree times upon the Winged Monkeys, who would obey any order they were given. But−227−

Demonstratives and Deictic Shift in Narrative

no person could command these strange creatures more than three times. Twice alreadythe Wicked Witch had used the charm of the Cap, Once was when she had made theWinkies her slaves, and set herself to rule over their country. The Winged Monkeys had
helped her do this. The second time was when she had fought against the Great Oz
himself, and driven him out of the land of the West. The Winged Monkeys had also
helped her in doing this. Only once more could she use this Golden Cap, for which
reason she did not like to do so until all her other powers were exhausted. But now thather fierce wolves and her wild crows and her stinging bees were gone, and her slaves had
been scared away by the Cowardly Lion, she saw there was only one way left to destroy
Dorothy and her friends. So the Wicked Witch took the Golden Cap from her cupboard
and placed it upon her head.
The second sentence introduces the background knowledge about the Golden Cap. In otherwords, the shift of WHEN and WHERE in DC are shifted. The last sentence in the excerpt
describes how the Wicked Witch feels about the Golden Cap.
Excerpt (7) also uses the head noun of the demonstrative determiner that appeared
before. Although the head noun is not a key element, this use of this involves the shift of
WHO and WHERE: the sentence starts to describe events from the standpoint of the Wicked
Witch, who lives far from the main characters.
(7) (The main characters are on the way to the castle of the Wicked Witch,)
They waited until Dorothy awoke the next morning.
The little girl was quite frightened when she saw the great pile of shaggy
wolves, but the Tin Woodman told her all.
She thanked him for saving them and sat down to breakfast, after which
they started again upon their journey.
Now this same morning the Wicked Witch came to the door of her castle and looked
out with her one eye that could see far off.
Lastly, let us consider the Excerpt (8). Generally speaking, a tree and a bridge are notsynonyms, but in this context, the tree works as a bridge for the characters. In other words, thesentence where this queer bridge is used starts to describe events from characters’ vision. Thisis also supported by the fact that words such as just are used. This expression vividly
describes the scene where the horrible beasts appear.

−228−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号(8) (In front of the ditch, which is so deep that the characters cannot leap across it)"Here is a great tree, standing close to the ditch. If the Tin Woodman can chop it down,
so that it will fall to the other side, we can walk across it easily.""That is a first-rate idea," said the Lion. "One would almost suspect you had brains inyour head, instead of straw."
The Woodman set to work at once, and so sharp was his axe that the tree was soon
chopped nearly through. Then the Lion put his strong front legs against the tree andpushed with all his might, and slowly the big tree tipped and fell with a crash across theditch, with its top branches on the other side.
They had just started to cross this queer bridge when a sharp growl made them all lookup, and to their horror they saw running toward them two great beasts with bodies likebears and heads like tigers.

6. CONCLUSION
In this study, I observed how demonstratives are used in a third-person work of fiction,
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, and tried to explain their use on the basis of the Deictic Shift
Theory. Previous studies explained the choice of referring expressions in terms of therelationship between the speaker and the listener. In fiction, however, anaphoric resolution isachieved mainly in a different way. I investigated a 40,000-word fiction text and provided amore detailed explanation for some excerpts that cannot be fully explained by previous
theories. The findings are as follows: (i) Most of the sentences (47 out of 70) in which
singular proximal demonstratives are used to describe someone’s change of mind or emotion(the shift of WHO), and (ii) I discovered that singular proximal demonstratives often used
when key elements are introduced to the story. Through these observations, I propose that theuse of demonstratives involves deictic shifts and provides vividness to the scenes in a given
scenario.
7. REFERENCES
Ariel, M. 1990.

Accessing NP Antecedents. London: Routledge.

Banfield, A. 1982.

Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. London:

Routledge.
Bühler, K. 1982. "The deictic Field of Deictic Words." In J. Jarvella & W.Klein (eds.) Speech, Place and Action:
Studies in Deixis and Related Topics, 9-30. New York: Wiley.
Brown,G. & Yule, G. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

−229−

Demonstratives and Deictic Shift in Narrative

Chafe, W. L. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in
Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cornish, F. 1999. Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding: evidence from English and French. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Duchan, J. F., G. A. Bruder and L. E. Hewitt, L.E. (eds). 1995. Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science
Perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Du Bois, J. W. 1980. “Beyond definiteness: Trace of identity in discourse.” In W. L. Chafe (ed.) The Pear
Stories,203-274. Norwood: N. J. Ablex.
Fillmore, C. 1997. Lectures on Deixis. Stanford㸸CSLI Publications.
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. London: John
Benjamin.
Gundel, J. k., Hedberg,N., & Zacharski, R. 1993. ”Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in
discourse.“ Language 69:2, 274-307.
Genette, G. 1980. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Basil Blackwell.
Kuno, S. 1987. Functional syntax: anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. “Deixis and subjectivity.” In F. Brisard (ed.) Grounding: The Epistemic Footingof Deixis and Reference,1-28. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics 1 & 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive grammar of the English Language.
New York: Longman
Sanders and Redeker (1996), “Perspective and the Representation of Speech and Thought in Narrative
Discourse.” In G. Fauconnier and E. Sweetser (eds.) Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, 227-239.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Yoshida, Etsuko. 2011. Referring expressions in English and Japanese: patterns of use in dialogue processing.
The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Zubin, David and Hewitt, Lynne. 1995. “ The Deictic Center: A Theory of Deixis in Narrative.” In Duchan, J. F.,
G. A. Bruder and L. E. Hewitt, L.E. (eds.) 1995. Deixis in narrative,129-155. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

−230−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Reconsidering the validity of examining constituent orderin terms of information status of constituents
Yoko Yamada
Niigata University<Abstract>
Constituent order has been examined in terms of several factors. One trend of research has
been to examine constituent order in terms of the information status of constituents. The
ordering of main clauses and as-clauses that express reasons has been examined in a similarvein. However, it is not clear as to which definition of given information has been used in
examining the information status of as-clauses. This study applies the notion of given
information proposed by Prince (1992) to the information status of as-clauses and reconsiders
the validity of examining the ordering of main and subordinate clauses in terms of theinformation status of subordinate clauses.
[Keywords]: constituent order, information status of constituents,
as-clauses expressing reasons

1. Introduction
Constituent order has been examined in terms of several factors. One trend ofresearch has examined constituent order as regards the information status of constituents (e.g.
Birner and Ward 1998). The ordering of main clauses and as-clauses expressing reasons(henceforth, as-clauses) has been examined in a similar vein; the tendency of as-clauses toprecede the main clause is related to the information status of as-clauses (see, e.g. Altenberg
1984; Diessel 2005; GENIUS English-Japanese Dictionary (fourth ed.)).
However, these previous studies are problematic in certain aspects. For instance, it is
not clear which definition of given information is used in examining the information status ofas-clauses. Diessel (2005: 465), for example, claims that ‘causal since- and as-clauses tend to
encode a known cause’. However, it is not clear how Diessel defines ‘a known cause’.
In addition, the information status of as-clauses can vary, depending on thedefinitions used. In Zufferey and Cartoni (2012), where given information is treatedrestrictively, 69.5% of as-clauses present new information.
Moreover, it is questionable whether the results of previous studies (e.g. Altenberg
1984; Quirk et al. 1985; Diessel 2005) can be interpreted as illustrating a strong tendency of
as-clauses to precede the main clause. For example, Altenberg (1984) examined spoken andwritten data from the London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English (LLC) and theLancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English (LOB), respectively. Altenberg (1984: 41)
showed that while 15 instances of as-clauses occurred in the final position, 11 instances of
as-clauses occurred in the initial position. When the results of as-clauses were compared withthose of because-clauses, 12 instances of because-clauses occurred in the initial position and
407 instances of because-clauses occurred in the final position; thus, it is certain thatcompared with because-clauses, as-clauses tended to precede the main clause. Nevertheless, it−231−

Reconsidering the validity of examining constituent order in terms of information status of constituentsis questionable whether Altenberg’s 11 out of 26 instances of as-clauses (42.3%) can beinterpreted as a tendency of as-clauses to precede the main clause.
This study addresses the problems raised above and deals with the following
questions:
1. What is the position in which as-clauses occur most frequently?
2. Why do as-clauses occur in that position most frequently?
2. Methodology
2.1. Data
Data were collected, taking two points into consideration. One point is that it isdifficult to evaluate the information status of constituents within a limited context.1 The otherpoint is that the frequency of as-clauses varies, depending on dialects and registers (e.g. Biberet al. 1999). Based on these two points, this study focused on British English and manually
collected as-clauses from the first about 100 pages of eight expository/academic books
ranging in date from 1999 to 2011. The books used as the sources of data were:2(1) 1. Steve Blandford’s Film, Drama and the Break-up of Britain
2. Kate Fox’s Watching the English
3. Steve Hindle’s The State and Social Change in Early Modern England,c. 1550-1640
4. Colin Joyce’s Let’s England
5. Angela McRobbie’s In the Culture Society
6. Jeremy Paxman’s The English
7. Roger Scruton’s England
8. Jessica Williams’s 50 Facts That Should Change the World
Some instances of as-clauses were not included, such as those that were unclear inmeaning;3 additionally, as-clauses that were without a main clause and those that occur inquotations were not included. The collected as-clauses were examined by another Japanese
linguist in order to obtain a reliable sample. The agreement on the sample clauses was 92.9%.
All instances of disagreement were resolved through discussion, and some of them were
excluded. In total, 92 instances of as-clauses were obtained.
2.2. Prince’s (1992) notion of given/new information
This study applies the notion of given information proposed by Prince (1992) to theinformation status of as-clauses. In her study on the differences between subjects andnonsubjects with respect to one formal phenomenon (definiteness) and one discourse
phenomenon (the information status of the entities which the subjects and nonsubjects
represent), Prince (1992) distinguishes old/new information with respect to hearer-status from
old/new information with respect to discourse-status.
Consider the following examples in Prince (1992):−232−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号(2) a. I’m waiting for it to be noon so I can call Sandy Thompson.
(Prince 1992: 301) (Original italic)
b. I’m waiting for it to be noon so I can call someone in California.
(Prince 1992: 301) (Original italic)
Sandy Thompson in (2a) is the entity that the speaker assumes is known to the hearer, whereas
someone in California in (2b) is the entity that the speaker assumes is new to the hearer. Thus,
Sandy Thompson in (2a) represents information that Prince (1992) calls ‘Hearer-old’, whereas
someone in California in (2b) represents information that Prince (1992) calls ‘Hearer-new’.
In addition, information may also be old or new with respect to discourse-status. If(2a) and (2b) are spoken at the beginning of the discourse, both the information status of
Sandy Thompson in (2a) and that of someone in California in (2b) are what Prince (1992)
calls ‘Discourse-new’.
Old or new information with respect to hearer-status and old or new information withrespect to discourse-status create four possible combinations: discourse-new and hearer-new;
discourse-new but hearer-old; discourse-old and hearer-old; and discourse-old but hearer-new.
Prince (1992) assumes that the fourth combination (discourse-old but hearer-new) does notoccur.4
Prince’s (1992) notion of given information has been crucial in previous studies suchas Birner and Ward (1998). Although Prince (1992) proposes this notion to distinguish theinformation status of noun phrases, the results of Birner and Ward (1998) extend this notion toother categories such as adjectives.
3. Results
This section describes the results obtained from the data. As mentioned in section 2.1,
a total of 92 instances of as-clauses were obtained for study. Since the total number of
instances of as-clauses is limited, no distinction is made between instances falling under what
Sweetser (1990: 77) calls ‘a content-conjunction reading’ and those falling under what
Sweetser (1990: 77-78) calls ‘an epistemic-conjunction reading’. Example (3) is the case of
the former and example (4) is the case of the latter.
(3) The heatwave had other serious consequences, too. Crop yields slumped as fields
turned from green to brown, […](Jessica Williams, 50 Facts That Should Change the World: 109)
(Underline is mine)(4) Hands are half-extended and then withdrawn or turned into a sort of vague wave;
there may be awkward, hesitant moves towards a cheek-kiss or some other formof physical contact such as an arm-touch — as no contact at all feels a bit
unfriendly — but these are also often aborted half-way.
(Kate Fox, Watching the English: 38) (Underline is mine)
The results indicate that almost all the as-clauses in the data follow the main clause(87 out of 92 instances (94.6%)). There are two explanations for this preference. The first is
relative familiarity with the immediately preceding sentence and the second is the sentence’s−233−

Reconsidering the validity of examining constituent order in terms of information status of constituents

structural complexity. In the data, 42 out of 87 instances fall under the category of relative
familiarity with the immediately preceding sentence and 31 out of 87 instances relate to thesentence’s structural complexity.5 In the following sub-sections, both of these categories are
examined.
3.1. Relative familiarity with the immediately preceding sentence
The data offers several illustrations in which the main clause is more closely related
to what is referred to in the immediately preceding sentence than as-clause.6 For example,
subject NPs in the main clause refer to the immediately preceding sentence. A total of 16
instances in the data fall under this category. The following are two examples in which subject
NPs in the main clause refer to the immediately preceding sentence:(5) Most people have a horror story relating to round buying. I can remember
arriving at a bar to meet a friend, who was already there with five of his workcolleagues. Custom compelled me to offer them all a drink when I went up to thebar, even though he and I would have to leave after that one. It was quite
upsetting for me as I was out of work at the time. It wasn’t a cheap bar either.
(Colin Joyce, Let’s England: 103) (Underline is mine)(6) Historically too, the Union Jack pops up everywhere. It appeared in miniature on
the flag of South Africa until 1994. In the very early days of the United States,
following the Declaration of Independence, the Americans adopted a flag that had
the Union Flag in the corner. The Continental Army marched under that flag,
which is quite surprising as the entire point of their struggle was to separate fromthe British.
(Colin Joyce, Let’s England: 28-29) (Underline is mine)
In example (5), the subject NP in the main clause is the demonstrative pronoun it, which isused anaphorically and refers to the immediately preceding sentence. In example (6), which isquite surprising functions as the main clause for the as-clause. The relative pronoun whichrefers to the immediately preceding clause (The Continental Army marched under that flag).
The other example is the case in which subject NPs in the main clause refer to theexpression used in the immediately preceding sentence. In the data, there are 13 such
instances, as in example (7).
(7) When the person’s occupation is finally revealed, it is customary, howeverboring or predictable this occupation might be, to express surprise.
The standard response to ‘Yes, I am a doctor [or teacher, accountant, IT manager,secretary, etc.]’ is ‘Oh, really?!’ as though the occupation were both unexpected
and fascinating. This is almost invariably followed by an embarrassed pause, as
you search desperately for an appropriate comment or question about the person’s
profession — and he or she tries to think of something modest, amusing, butsomehow also impressive, to say in response.
(Kate Fox, Watching the English: 45)(Underline is mine; original italic)−234−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

In example (7), the subject NP in the main clause, the demonstrative pronoun this, refers to
the expression used in the immediately preceding sentence (Oh, really?!).
3.2. Structural complexity
The data offers three cases in which placing as-clauses in the initial position makes
sentences more complex. The first case is when as-clauses are long. Placing long as-clausesin the initial position creates difficulty in understanding. For instance, consider example (8).
(8) The prescribed etiquette for offering a drink to the publican or bar staff is to say,‘And one for yourself?’ or ‘And will you have one yourself?’ at the end of yourorder. [ … ] If one is not ordering drinks, it is still acceptable to ask the bartenderor publican ‘Will you have a drink?’ but the ‘And one for yourself?’ approach ismuch preferred, as it implies that the customer and the bartender are having adrink together, that the bartender is being included in the ‘round’.
(Kate Fox, Watching the English: 95) (Underline is mine)
In example (8), both the subject NP in the main clause and that in the as-clause are the same(the ‘And one for yourself?’ approach). As far as the relative familiarity with the immediately
preceding sentence is concerned, there is no difference between the subject NP in the mainclause and that in the as-clause. However, changing the ordering of the main and as-clauses inexample (8) increases the difficulty in understanding the sentence.
In the data, 19 instances fall under this category. In these 19 instances, the mean
word number of the main clauses is 9.84, whereas the mean word number of the as-clauses is26.2.7The second case in which placing as-clauses in the initial position makes sentencesmore complex is when the main and as-clauses are embedded in another clause.8 Five such
instances occur in the data. The following is one typical instance:(9) The US Census Bureau predicts that 51 countries will see a fall in the average life
expectancy as the virus continues to claim millions of lives.
(Jessica Williams, 50 Facts That Should Change the World: 8)(Underline is mine)
The third case in which placing as-clauses in the initial position makes sentencesmore complex is when the sentence begins with an adverbial clause. Seven instances in thedata fall under this category. Consider example (10):(10) As rapidly growing populations put the land and natural resources underincreasing strain, more and more land is turning to desert as local ecosystems
are destroyed.
(Jessica Williams, 50 Facts That Should Change the World: 8)(Underline is mine)
In example (10), placing the as-clause (as local ecosystems are destroyed) before the main−235−

Reconsidering the validity of examining constituent order in terms of information status of constituentsclause (more and more land is turning to desert) causes difficulty in understanding thesentence.
4. Discussion
The strong tendency of as-clauses to follow the main clause most often reflects
relative familiarity with the immediately preceding sentence. For this reason, as-clauses
following the main clause will be explored further, with a focus on the cases in which theordering of main and as-clauses reflects relative familiarity with the immediately preceding
sentence. Consider example (11).
(11) Custom compelled me to offer them all a drink when I went up to the bar,even though he and I would have to leave after that one. It was quite upsetting
for me as I was out of work at the time.
(= part of (5))
In example (11), the main clause (It was quite upsetting for me) is a comment on what isreferred to in the preceding sentence, and the as-clause provides information as to why theauthor in example (11) made such a comment. In terms of discourse organisation, it can besaid that the ordering of main clauses and as-clauses contributes to controlling theinformation flow in discourse.
If as-clauses contribute to controlling the information flow in discourse by occurring
after the main clause, then what is the information status of as-clauses? Is it discourse-newand hearer-new? Or is it discourse-new but hearer-old? Or is it discourse-old and hearer-old?
Or is it discourse-old but hearer-new?
The data indicates that the information status of as-clauses varies depending on thereader: if readers are familiar with the topic discussed, the information status of as-clauses is
discourse-new but hearer-old. However, if readers are not familiar with the topic, theinformation status is discourse-new and hearer-new. The following example illustrates this:(12) The overwhelming majority of English people — probably 99 out of 100 —will know of “The Rovers Return” and “The Queen Vic”. Most people willrecognise them instantly if they see them, will be able to tell you which street
they are on and may even be able to name some of their staff and proprietors
over the years. Which is curious really, as neither of these places actually exist.
(Colin Joyce, Let’s England: 99) (Underline is mine)
Example (12) occurs at the beginning of a new chapter. The Rovers Return and The Queen Vic
are fictional pubs in two British soap operas. If readers are those who know these two British
soap operas, they have the information presented in the as-clause as the fictitious pubs fromtwo famous British soap operas. Thus, the information status of the as-clause is discourse-new
but hearer-old. However, if the readers are those who do not know these two British soap
operas, they do not have the information presented in the as-clause, and the information statusof the as-clause is discourse-new and hearer-new.
Unlike the information status of referents evoked by NPs, how the speaker or writer
treats the addressee’s knowledge is not marked with syntactic forms, such as proper nouns, in−236−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

the case of the information status of as-clauses. The results suggest difficulty in determining
the information status of propositions evoked by clauses, at least on the basis of Prince’s(1992) notion. The results raise questions about the validity of examining the ordering of mainand subordinate clauses in terms of the information status of propositions.
5. Conclusion
The analysis of the data gathered for this study has revealed a different picture of
as-clauses than that presented in previous studies. Unlike previous studies, the as-clauses inthe data predominantly follow the main clause. This strong preference is explained in terms of
relative familiarity with the immediately preceding sentence or in terms of structuralcomplexity but not in terms of the information status of as-clauses.
Concerning the information status of as-clauses, the results in this study suggest
difficulty in determining the information status of propositions evoked by clauses, at least on
the basis of the notion of given information proposed by Prince (1992). These results raisequestions about the validity of examining the ordering of main and subordinate clauses interms of the information status of propositions.
To obtain a more reliable conclusion, further research using data collected fromdifferent registers and dialects is recommended. It is also necessary to consider whether otherframeworks of the information status of constituents are applicable in examining theinformation status of propositions evoked by clauses.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Research Project from Institute of Humanities, Social
Sciences and Education, Niigata University (S. Homma, Principal investigator).
Notes
1. It is for this reason that Zufferey and Cartoni (2012) treated given information restrictively.
2. More detailed information about the books used as the sources of data is illustrated at the end of thispaper.
3. As is well known, as-clauses have multiple meanings, and it is not always easy to distinguish one
meaning from another. See Biber et al. (1999), for instance, for the discussion on the meanings of
as-clauses.
4. See Birner (2006) for discussion on this type of combination.
5. There are a few examples falling under both reasons. I categorised such examples into the first reason.
6. Biber et al. (1999: 835) claim that ‘when the main clause contains given information, the adverbial
clauses, with new information, tend to be in final position’. However, Biber et al.’s (1999: 835) claim isproblematic at least in two points. One problem is that it is not clear what Biber et al. mean by claiming that‘the main clause contains given information’. Does it mean that the proposition evoked by the main clauseis given information? Or does it mean that the referent evoked by some constituents of the main clause isgiven information? The other problem is that it is not clear which definition of given information is used in
Biber et al. (1999: 835).
7. Placing long as-clauses in the final position is not restricted to as-clauses. The same applies to otherfinite adverbial clauses (see, e.g. Ford and Thompson 1986; Biber et al. 1999) and other types of
constituents (see, e.g. Quirk et al. 1985; Huddleston and Pullum 2002).

−237−

Reconsidering the validity of examining constituent order in terms of information status of constituents

8. The tendency of placing as-clauses in the finial position when the main and as-clauses are embedded inanother clause is not restricted to as-clauses. The same tendency is also found in other finite adverbial
clauses such as conditionals (see Ford and Thompson 1986; Biber et al. 1999).
References
Altenberg, B. 1984. “Causal Linking in Spoken and Written English.” Studia Linguistica 38:1, 20-69.
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad and E. Finegan 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken andWritten English. London: Longman.
Birner, B. J. 2006. “Inferential Relations and Noncanonical Word Order.” In B. J. Birner and G. Ward
(eds.) Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics inHonor of Laurence R. Horn, 31-51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Birner, B. J. and G. Ward 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Diessel, H. 2005. “Competing Motivations for the Ordering of Main and Adverbial Clauses.” Linguistics
43:3, 449-470.
Ford, C. E. and S. A. Thompson 1986. “Conditionals in Discourse: A Text-based Study from English.”
In E. C. Traugott, A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly and C. A. Ferguson (eds.) On Conditionals,
353-372.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huddleston, R. and G. K. Pullum 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Prince, E. F. 1992. “The ZPG Letter: Subjects, Definiteness, and Information-status.” In W. C. Mann and
S. A. Thompson (eds.) Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising Text,
295-325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language. London: Longman.
Sweetser, E. E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic
Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zufferey, S. and B. Cartoni 2012. “English and French Causal Connectives in Contrast.” Languages inContrast 12:2, 232-250.
Dictionary
GENIUS English-Japanese Dictionary Fourth edition. 2006. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Sources of data
Blandford, S. 2007. Film, Drama and the Break-up of Britain. Bristol: Intellect.
Fox, K. 2005. Watching the English. London: Hodder and Stoughton Ltd.
Hindle, S. 2000. The State and Social Change in Early Modern England, c. 1550-1640. Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Joyce, C. 2011. Let’s England. Tokyo: NHK Publishing.
McRobbie, A. 1999. In the Culture Society: Art, Fashion and Popular Music. London: Routledge.
Paxman, J. 2007. The English. London: Penguin Books.
Scruton, R. 2006. England: An Elegy. London: Continuum.
Williams, J. 2007. 50 Facts That Should Change the World. Cambridge: Icon Books Ltd.

−238−

ポスターセッション
Poster Sessions

ٛAbstractٜ

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号$6' ుभঽ๑૎ੲ॑୘िৢ௻੐଑৾௻दभ੍ରभৰᄷহ୻

‫ୁص‬৷૛৓॥঑গॽॣ‫ش‬३ঙথ௽૩पା৯खथ ‫ص‬લ௳୾ส‫ূق‬਎഼৾প৾প৾੹ઇ୘৾ଢ଼஢ఐ‫  ك‬ਥ৥ఎ‫ેق‬ધஊ৾ୱ੓৕প৾‫ك‬   ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) children are involved in a lot of problem in regular classrooms ofelementary school, and many of the problems are due to the social and communication skills of them. And it
can be considered their pragmatic disabilities as a direct cause of the problems. Their self-esteem is loweredby the stacking of trouble and failure. In this paper, we focused on pragmatic problem in cognitive
characteristics of ASD children and treated them with the rehabilitation involvement against emotional
problem to enhance their self-esteem and we support to enhance the communication skills that lead to theresolution. As a result, they gradually recovered self-esteem, and were able to be adapted to regular class.
य़‫ش‬ড‫    ॻش‬$6'‫ୁ ؚ‬৷૛৓॥঑গॽॣ‫ش‬३ঙথ௽૩‫ ؚ‬ঽ๑૎ੲ

ࡗ࡚኱ࡁࡃኚ໬ࡍࡿࠋ       ‫؝ڭ‬मगीप ASD ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ≉ᚩ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣᵝࠎ࡞ඛ‫؝‬ASD ໪୛भ૗ዮ
⾜◊✲ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ70 ᖺ௦ࡲ࡛࡟ゝㄒࢆࡶࡘ⮬㛢⑕ඣࡢ㡢㡩࣭ ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ⮬㛢ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ࣒ࣛ⑕㸦Autism Spectrum⤫ㄒ࣭ᙧែࡀ࡯ࡰṧᏑࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࠊ80
ᖺ௦࡟Disorder, ௨ୗ ASD㸧ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿඣ❺ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊࡑࡢㄒ⏝ࡣព࿡㞀ᐖ௬ㄝ࡟␲ၥࡀᢞࡆ࠿ࡅࡽࢀㄒ⏝ㄽࡀ῝้࡞㞀ࡢᅔ㞴࡟╔┠ࡋࠊᐇ㊶ࡋࡓ஦౛◊✲࡛࠶ࡿࠋᐖࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ぢ᪉࡟ኚ໬ࡋࠊ90 ᖺ௦࡟ࡣࠕᚰࡢ
 ASD ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡣࠊ1943 ᖺ࡟࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢඣ❺⢭⚄⛉*1ࠖࡢḞዴ࡞࡝ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ㞀ᐖ (௨ୗㄒ⏝㞀ᐖ) ࡢ⫼ᬒ⌮ㄽ་࢝ࢼ࣮㸦Kanner㸧ࡀ㸪⊂≉࡞⑕≧ࢆ♧ࡍ 11 ேࡢ⑕౛࡟
࡟┠ࡀྥࡃࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ㸦Tager-Flusberg,
1996㸧ࠋ
ࡘ࠸࡚ฟࡋࡓㄽᩥࠕ᝟⥴ⓗ᥋ゐࡢ⮬㛢ⓗ㞀ᐖࠖ(Autistic
Kanner㸦1943㸧௨᮶ࠊASDࡢ⮫ᗋീࡢ㝿❧ࡗࡓ≉ᚩࡀゝ
Disturbances of Affective Contact㸧࡟ጞࡲࡿࠋ⩣ᖺ࢝ࢼㄒࡢ♫఍ⓗ౑⏝ࡢ␗ᖖࡉ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᪩ࡃ࠿ࡽᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ
࣮ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ⑕౛ࢆࠕ᪩ᮇᗂඣ⮬㛢⑕ࠖ㸦Early Infantile
࡚ࡁࡓࠋ1980 ᖺ๓ᚋ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࢀࢆㄒ⏝㞀ᐖ࡜ࡋ࡚≉ᚩ௜
Autism㸧࡜࿨ྡࡋࠊࡲࡓྠᖺࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣜ࢔ࡢᑠඣ⛉་ࡅࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿヨࡳࡀጞࡲࡗࡓ㸦኱஭㸪2006㸧ࠋㄒ⏝ㄽࡣࠊ࢔ࢫ࣮࣌ࣝ࢞㸦Asperger㸧ࡣࠊࠕᑠඣᮇࡢ⮬㛢ⓗ⢭⚄⑓㉁ࠖ
ࠕᩥ⬦ࡢ୰࡛ࡢព࿡ࠖ
࡜࠸࠺ㄽᩥࢆⓎ⾲ࡋࡓ㸦ḟⰋ୸ࠊ஬༑ᔒ, 2002㸹༑୍, 2006㸧ࠋ ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࠕⓎヰ≧ἣ࡟㛵ಀࡍࡿព࿡ࠖ ௨᮶ࠊ㞀ᐖඣ⮫ᗋ࡟࠾࠸࡚⮬㛢⑕◊✲ࡣ᭱ࡶὀ┠ࢆᾎࡧࠊ ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀ㸦⛙㔝㸪2001㸧ࠊゝㄒࡢᑐேᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚㐺ษ࡟౑⏝ࡍࡿഃ㠃ࢆᣦࡍ㸦኱క㸪2010㸧ࠋㄒ⏝ࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟ࡣࠊ⮬㛢⑕ࡢ⑌ᝈᴫᛕࠊ⑓ᅉㄽࠊ἞⒪᪉ἲ➼࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ⣛వゝㄒࢆ⋓ᚓࡍࡿ௨๓ࡢⓎኌࡸ㌟᣺ࡾືస࡞࡝ࡢఏ㐩⾜Ⅽ᭤ᢡࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ1950 ᖺ௦ᚋ༙࠿ࡽᵝࠎ࡞ᐇドⓗࠊ⛉Ꮫⓗࢆྵࡴ๓ゝㄒᮇࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠊㄯヰࡢỈ‽࡟࠾࠸࡞◊✲ࡀ⵳✚ࡉࢀࡓࠋRutter & Bartak㸦1973㸧ࡢゝㄒ࣭࡚ࡣࢱ࣮ࣥࢸ࣮࢟ࣥࢢࠊࢺࣆࢵࢡࢫࡢጞⓎࡸ⥔ᣢ࡞࡝ࡢࡼ
ㄆ▱㞀ᐖㄝࡢྎ㢌ࠊ㐟ᡙ⒪ἲⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࠿ࡽ⾜ືㄽⓗ࢔࠺࡞఍ヰ࡜ࠊ᫬⣔ิ࣭ᅉᯝⓗ࡟ฟ᮶஦ࢆㄒࡿࢼࣛࢸ࢕ࣈ
ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡬ࡢኚ㑄ࢆ⤒࡚ࠊ෌ࡧឤ᝟ㄆ▱㞀ᐖ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉
㸦narrative㸧ࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Leinonen, Letts, & Smith,㸦Hobson, 1986a, 1986b; ᑠᯘ, 2000㸧ࡸ㐃⥆య࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ
2000㸧ࠋ௨ୖ࠿ࡽࠊㄒ⏝࡜࠸࠺どⅬࡣࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ
ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ࣒ࣛ㞀ᐖ㸦Wing, 1996㸧࡜࠸ࡗࡓᤊ࠼᪉ࡶᥦ᱌ࡉ
ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ♫఍ᛶࡢഃ㠃ࡶᣢࡕྜࢃࡏ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ
ࢀࠊ⪃࠼᪉ࡶฎ㐝ࡢ᪉ἲࡶ኱ࡁࡃኚ໬ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡜♫఍ᛶࢆࡘ࡞ࡄほⅬ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ⮬㛢⑕ࡣ⬻ࡢᶵ⬟㞀ᐖࡀᙉࡃ᥎ᐹࡉࢀࡿ≉␗ⓗ࡞Ⓨ㐩㞀 ASD ≉᭷ࡢㄒ⏝㞀ᐖࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ୎ᑀࡉࡢㄪ⠇ࡢኻᩋࠊᐖ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ㸦Ᏹబᕝ, 2007㸧ࠋᖺ㱋ᕪࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡞࠸ヰࡋ᪉ࠊㄯヰࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㛵㐃᝟ሗ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ⢭⚄་Ꮫ఍ࡢデ᩿ᇶ‽ DSM-ϫࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺᨵゞ࡜↓㛵㐃᝟ሗࡢุูࡢᅔ㞴ࡉࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟౯್ࡢ࡞࠸᝟ሗᥦ
∧(2000)࡛ࡣࠊࠕᗈỗᛶⓎ㐩㞀ᐖࠖ (Pervasive౪ࠊ᪂ᪧ᝟ሗࡢุูࠊே⛠ࡸ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅᙧᘧࡢ୙ṇ☜࡞౑⏝Developmental Disorderࠊ௨ୗ PDD㸧࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋࡢ
ᨵゞ∧ࠊDSM-5 (2013)࡛ࡣࠊPDD ࡢデ᩿ᴫᛕࡀ⊃ࡲࡾࠊ 㸦Baltaxe㸪1977㸧ࠊヰ㢟ࡀ⥔ᣢࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡸ┦ᡭࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ↓どࡍࡿࡇ࡜㸦Tager-Flusberg, 1989㸧ࠊヰࡋᡭASD ࡟ኚ᭦ࡉࢀࡓࠋ
ࡢពᅗࡋࡓព࿡ࡢྲྀࡾ㐪࠸ࠊ཯ㄒࡸẚ႘⌮ゎࡢᅔ㞴ࡉ‫؝‬ASD भ॥঑গॽॣ‫ش‬३ঙথभ્ඉ㸦Frith, 1989㸧ࠊ㐣๫࡞㉁ၥ࡟ࡼࡿ఍ヰࡢ㛤ጞࠊ୙㐺ษ࡞ ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ ASD ࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊWing ࡀ Kanner ࡢ⮬㛢⑕ᴫ
Ⓨヰ஺᭰ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࡢ↓どࠊ
㸦McTear, Conti-Ramsden,ᛕࢆⓎᒎࡋࡓᙧ࡛ᥦၐࡋࡓᴫᛕ㸦1996㸧࡛࠶ࡾࠊᐃᆺⓎ㐩
1992㸧ࠊ㐣๫࡞Ꮠ⩏㏻ࡾࡢ⌮ゎ 㸦Mitchell, Saltmarsh,
ඣ㸦Typically Developing Children, ௨ୗ TD ඣ㸧࡜ẚ࡭
Russell, 1997㸧➼ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ኱஭㸦2004, 2005,
࡚ࠊⓎ㐩᪩ᮇ࠿ࡽ♫఍ᛶࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠊ࢖࣐ࢪࢿ
2006㸧ࡣࠊㄒ⏝㞀ᐖࡢࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᡂேᚋ࡟⮳࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㸦᝿ീຊࠊᛮ⪃ࡢᰂ㌾ᛶ㸧ࡢ 3 㡿ᇦ࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ⬻ࡢᶵ⬟ⓗ࣭ჾ㉁ⓗ㞀ᐖࡢ࠶ࡿ≧ែࢆ࠸࠺㸦㣤ሯ, 2007㸧࡜ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢㄢ㢟ࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿᇶᮏⓗ࡞≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ୙ჾ⏝࡞㐠ືᶵ⬟ࠊឤぬࡢ㐣ᩄࡉࠊㄆ▱ࡢၥ㢟㸦どぬඃ఩㸧ࠊゝㄒࡢㄢ㢟➼ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡽࡢㄢ
㢟ࡣࠊᅛᐃⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᖺ㱋ࠊᡂ㛗ࠊ⎔ቃ࡞࡝࡟ࡼ

‫صصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصصص‬*1 ੱभ৶૛‫ق‬Theory of Mind‫؟ك‬࿱শథभষ৿॑ଢ଼஢घॊੱ৶৾঻भ David
Premack & Guy Woodruff‫ق‬1978‫ك‬ऋ‫ؚ‬૛ધ "Does the chimpanzee have atheory of mind?" भরदਈੂप઀๼ख৬௺৲खञ৶૛‫ੱ؛‬भ৶૛ୖ਻धखथ‫ؚ‬౎঻पमҦঽীध౮ऩॊੱҧऋோ૔घॊऒध॑৐઀धखथ৅੧खञෙਦ୛ୖ਻प
ৌखथ‫ؚ‬TD ుभৃ়‫ؚ‬3‫ع‬4 ୃుदमऺध॒नऋৢૌखऩःऋ‫ؚ‬4‫ع‬5 ୃుपऩॊध 8 સ੺ऎऋৢૌख‫ؚ‬6 ୃਰ঱दमऺऻ৸৩ऋৢૌखञ‫ق‬ઢ৙‫؜‬2005‫؛ك‬−239−

ASD児の自尊感情を育む通級指導学級での支援の実践事例―語用論的コミュニケーション障害に着目して―ࡗ࡚ࡶࡑࢀࡀᣢ⥆ࡋ࡚࠸࡚ࠊல⣽࡞ࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ஺΅࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠊ⋡┤࡟≀ࢆゝ࠸㐣ࡂࡿࠊ⮬ศࡔࡅࡀ㛗ࠎ࡜ヰࡋ⥆ࡅࡿࠊ᩿ࡾ࡞ࡋ࡟ヰ㢟ࢆኚ࠼ࡿࠊ┦ᡭࢆ୙ᛌ࡟ࡍࡿゝⴥ㐵࠸ࢆࡍࡿࠊ┦ᡭࡢࡇ࡜ࡤࡢព࿡ࢆ᥎ㄽ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠊ෕ㄯ࣭ẚ႘࣭཯ㄒࡢ⌮ゎࡢᅔ㞴ࡉࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ       ‫؝ڮ‬ూବधৰଙ
‫؝‬ৰᄷभూବ ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ࡀ 10 ᖺࡪࡾ࡟⾜ࡗࡓබ❧ᑠ࣭୰Ꮫᰯ㏻ᖖᏛ
⣭ᑐ㇟ࡢ඲ᅜᐇែㄪᰝ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊⓎ㐩㞀ᐖࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿඣ❺࣭⏕ᚐࡢᅾ⡠⋡ࡣࠊ6.5㸣࡛࠶ࡗࡓ㸦ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬, 2012㸧ࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࢆࡶ࡜࡟≉ูᨭ᥼ᩍ⫱ࢥ࣮ࢹ࢕ࢿ࣮ࢱ࣮࡜ࡋ࡚
ᑠᏛᰯ඲యࢆぢΏࡍ࡜ࠊᰯෆጤဨ఍࡛ྡ๓ࡀᣲࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ
ඣ❺ᩘࡔࡅ࡛ࡶ඲యࡢ㸯๭ࡣᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋᩍဨࢆᝎࡲࡏࡿඣ
❺㛫ࡢࢺࣛࣈࣝࡢከࡃ࡟ ASD ඣࡀ㛵୚ࡋࠊࡑࡢࢺࣛࣈࣝ
ࡢ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡀᙼࡽࡢ♫఍ᛶ࣭ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢫ࢟ࣝ࡟
㉳ᅉࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᐇឤࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࢺࣛࣈࣝࡢ┤᥋ⓗ࡞ཎᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ᙼࡽࡢㄒ⏝ࡢㄢ㢟ࡀࢡ࣮ࣟࢬ࢔ࢵࣉࡉࢀࡿ㸦ྂụ,
2009㸧ࠋᏛᰯ࡟㡰ᛂࡋࠊ㞟ᅋ⏕άࢆ₶⁥࡟㏦ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ
♫఍ᛶ࣭ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢫ࢟ࣝࡀᚲ㡲࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㞟ᅋ⏕ά࡟ࡣᚲせ୙ྍḞ࡞㈨㉁࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
 ከࡃࡢඣ❺ࡣࠊࢺࣛࣈࣝ࡟ࡼࡿྏ㈐࡜ㄆ▱ࡢ೫ࡾࡸࡇࡔ
ࢃࡾࡀ㉳ᅉࡍࡿኻᩋయ㦂ࡢ✚ࡳ㔜ࡡ࠿ࡽࠊ⮬ᑛឤ᝟ࢆపୗ
ࡉࡏࠊ⮬ᕫ⫯ᐃឤࢆࡶ࡚࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋࡑࢀࡀࠊ᝟⥴ⓗ࡞ㄢ㢟ࢆ⏕ࡳ஧ḟ㞀ᐖࢆᣍࡁ㏻ᖖࡢᏛ⣭࡛ࡢ㐺ᛂࡢ㞴ࡋࡉࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍ࡜࠸ࡗࡓᝏᚠ⎔࡟㝗ࡿࠋ⤖ᯝࠊᢸ௵ࡣ㐺ษ࡞ᑐᛂࢆྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㞴ࡋࡃ࡞ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊᮏேࡶ㏻ᖖࢡࣛࢫ࡛
ࡢ㞟ᅋάືࡀⱞ③࡟࡞ࡾ㐓⬺⾜ື࡟⮳ࡿࡓࡵࠊᏛᰯࡸᐙᗞ
࡬ࡢ⌮ゎ࡜ᨭ᥼ࢆồࡵࡘࡘྲྀᕳࡃྲྀࡾᕳࡃ⎔ቃࢆໟᣓⓗ࡟ㄪᩚࡍࡿᚲせᛶ࠿ࡽ㏻⣭ᣦᑟᏛ⣭࡟㏻࠸ጞࡵࡿࢣ࣮ࢫ
ࡀከ࠸ࠋ➹⪅ࡣࠊୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡞せᅉ࡟ࡼࡾ㏻⣭ᣦᑟᏛ⣭࡟
㏻࠺ඣ❺ࡢㄆ▱ࡢ೫ࡾ࡟ᐤࡾῧ࠸࡞ࡀࡽࠊྛࠎࡢඣ❺ࡢㄢ㢟࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࠊᑠ㞟ᅋάືࡸಶูᣦᑟࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ㐩ᡂឤࠊᡂᑵឤ࡟ࡼࡾᡂຌయ㦂ࢆ✚ࡳ㔜ࡡࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊே࡜ࡢಙ㢗㛵ಀࢆᵓ⠏ࡋ⮬ᑛឤ᝟ࡀ㧗ࡵࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺ࠊࡲࡓࠊࡇࡔࢃࡾࡢ
㍍ῶࠊ♫఍ᛶ࣭ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢫ࢟ࣝࡢྥୖࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ᐇ㊶ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋASD ඣࡢㄆ▱≉ᛶࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢫ࢟ࣝࡢㄢ㢟ࡣㄒ⏝ㄽࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽㄽࡌࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከࡃࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ≉࡟᪥ᖖ⏕ά࡛㉳ࡁࡿලయⓗ࡞ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗㄢ㢟࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓࠋ
‫؝‬A ৢ௻पणःथ
‫؝‬੐଑஄ଙउेल੐଑৔ઍ‫ق‬ঽয়ણ৿‫ك‬ A ㏻⣭࡛ࡣࠊ୺࡟♫఍ᛶࡸࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢㄢ㢟࠿ࡽࢺࣛࣈࣝࢆ㢖⦾࡟㉳ࡇࡋࠊ஧ḟ㞀ᐖࢆేⓎࡋࠊ㏻ᖖᏛ⣭࡛ࡢ㐺ᛂࡀ㞴ࡋࡃ࡞ࡗࡓᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࢆᑐ㇟࡟ᣦᑟࢆࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋᏛ⣭ࡢᴫせ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊඣ❺ᩘ 40 ྡ㸦9 ᭶ 1 ᪥⌧ᅾ㸧ࠊᣦᑟ᫬㛫ࡣࠊ᭶㹼㔠ࡢ༗๓㸲᫬㛫㸭༗ᚋ 2 ᫬㛫࡛ࠊ
ྛᅇ 5 ྡࡎࡘࠋᣦᑟᩍဨࡣࠊඣ❺ 5 ྡ࡟ 5 ேࡢṇつᩍဨ㸩௓ຓဨ㸦ಖ⫱ኈ㸧ࡀ௜ࡃࠋධ⣭᪉ἲࡣࠊ་⒪ᶵ㛵࡛Ⓨ㐩㞀ᐖ⣔ࡢデ᩿ࢆཷࡅࠊᕷᩍጤ୺ദࡢධ⣭ุᐃ఍࡛ᑂᰝࡋỴᐃࡉࢀࡿ(▱ⓗ㞀ᐖࢆ㝖ࡃ)ࠋ ᮏ㏻⣭࡛ࡣࠊᑠ㞟ᅋάື࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᣵᣜࠊฟᖍ☜ㄆࠊ೺ᗣほᐹࠊணᐃ࡜ࡵ࠶࡚ࡢ☜ㄆࠊಀάື☜ㄆࠊ௒᪥ࡢ୍ゝⓎ⾲ࠊ⏿సᴗࠊΎᤲసᴗࠊᕤసࠊࣅࢪࣙࣥࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢࠊࢯ࣮ࢩ
ࣕࣝࢫ࢟ࣝࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢࠊヰࡋྜ࠸άືࠊⓎ⾲άືࠊᑠ㞟ᅋࢤ࣮࣒ࠊㄪ⌮Ꮫ⩦ࠊ㈙࠸≀Ꮫ⩦ࠊᰯእᏛ⩦➼ࠊ㐠ື࡛ࡣࠊయ⫱㤋࡛ࣛࣥࢽࣥࢢࠊయ࡯ࡄࡋࡢ㐠ືࠊឤぬ⤫ྜ㐠ືࠊࣂࣛࣥࢫ࣮࣎ࣝ㐠ືࠊࢤ࣮࣒ᙧᘧࡢάື࡞࡝ࠊࡲࡓࠊಶูᣦ
ᑟ࡛ࡣࠊಶࠎࡢඣ❺ࡢ᝟⥴ࡢ≧ែ࡟ྜࢃࡏࡓᣦᑟࠊⓎ㐩ࡢ೫ࡾࢆ⪃៖ࡋࡓᣦᑟࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ⤥㣗ࢆ㣗࡭࡚ࠕᖐࡾࡢ఍࡛ࠖ
ࡑࡢ᪥ࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚Ⓨ⾲ࡋ࡚⤊஢ࠋ ᮏᏛ⣭ࡢᣦᑟࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ⒪⫱ⓗ࡞㛵ࢃࡾࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࣉࣞ࢖ࢭࣛࣆ࣮ࠊẼᣢࡕࡢཷᐜ࣭ඹឤࢆ⾜࠸࡞ࡀࡽᣦᑟ⪅࡜ࡢⰋዲ࡞㛵ಀࡢ୰࡛ಙ㢗㛵ಀࡢᙧᡂࢆ᭱ඃඛࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ
࡚ࠊάື࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ≉࡟ప୰Ꮫᖺඣ❺࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᡂຌయ
㦂ࡢ✚ࡳ㔜ࡡࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵࠊ㈐௵ࡢእᅾ໬ࠊᨭ᥼せㄳࢫ࢟ࣝࡢぢᮏᥦ♧ࠊ⮬ᕫ⫯ᐃឤࢆୖࡆࡿゝⴥ࠿ࡅࠊศ࠿ࡾࡸࡍ࠸
ᣦ♧➼ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊㄆ▱࣭⾜ື࣭Ⓨ㐩ࡢ೫ࡾ࡟ᐤࡾῧ࠸ࠊឤぬࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚ࠊᏊ࡝ࡶ࡟↓⌮ࡢ࡞࠸㐙⾜ྍ⬟࡞ㄢ㢟࠿ࡽẁ㝵ⓗ࡟㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࢫ࣮ࣔࣝࢫࢸࢵࣉ࡛ᨭ᥼ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
⾜ື⒪ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢺ࣮ࢡ࢚ࣥࢥࣀ࣑࣮ࠊ㄃ࡵࡿࠊឤㅰࡍࡿ
➼ࡢ௚ࠊὀព࣭ᣦ♧➼ࡢඛ⾜่⃭࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᩍဨࡢ㢪࠸ࢆఏ࠼ࡿ᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ I(࢔࢖)࣭࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆ౑࠺ࠋୖ㏙ࡢ⎔ቃ࣭≧ἣタᐃࡢ୰࡛ࠊ♫఍ᛶ࣭ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥຊࡢᣦ
ᑟࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
‫ৢ؝‬ଞ৾௻दभుญभৰଙ
 ㏻ᖖᏛ⣭ࡢᩍဨࡢ┠࡟ၥ㢟ඣ࡜ᫎࡿ⾲㠃ⓗ࡞ඣ❺ࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊⴠࡕ╔ࡁࡀ࡞࠸ࠊ࠾ࡋࡷ࡭ࡾࠊࡦࡻ࠺ࡁࢇࠊ⢒ᭀࠊษࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࠊ཯ᢠⓗࠊࡘࡗࡥࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠊࢃࡀࡲࡲࠊ⮬ศ຾ᡭࠊᛀࢀ≀ࡀከ࠸ࠊࡎࡿ࠸ࠊゝ࠸ヂࡤ࠿ࡾࡍࡿࠊேࡢ
ࡏ࠸࡟ࡍࡿࠊ┿㠃┠ࡍࡂࡿࠊ⼥㏻ࡀ฼࠿࡞࠸ࠊࡢࢁ࠸ࠊせ㡿ࡀᝏ࠸ࠊㄔᐇࡍࡂࡿࠊ࠾ࡏࡗ࠿࠸ࡸࡁࠊ࡛ࡋࡷࡤࡾࠊ┠❧ࡕࡓࡀࡾࠊពḧࡀ࡞࠸ࠊ᫆ࡁ࡟ὶࢀࡿࠊẼศᒇࠊ⌮ゎࡀ㐜࠸ࠊⰋ࠸ጼໃ࡛ᗙࡽ࡞࠸ࠊ▱⬟ࡀప࠸ࠊࡋࡘࡅࡀᝏ࠸ࠊ
ぶ࡟ឡࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠊぶࡢせồ࡟ࡘࡪࡉࢀࡑ࠺➼ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊㄆ▱ࡢ೫ࡾࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ぢࡿ࡜ࠊ⊂ࡾゝࡸࣃࢱ࣮ࣥⓗ࡞ゝ࠸ᅇࡋࠊ೫ࡗࡓヰ㢟ࡀከࡃࠊࡑࡢᏊ⊂⮬ࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧ࢆ౑࠸ࠊ❧ሙ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ゝⴥࢆኚ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢᅔ㞴ࡉࠊᢳ㇟ᴫᛕࡢ⌮ゎࡢᅔ㞴ࡉࠊ┦ᡭࡢ㢌ࡢ୰࡟࠶ࡿ᝟ሗ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࡢᅔ㞴ࡉࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ㐣ᗘ࡟෗ᐇⓗ࡞ᨃ㡢ㄒࢆከ⏝ࡋࠊゝⴥࡢ㡢㡩࡟㐣ᗘࡢὀពࡀྥࡁࠊ⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ༢ㄒ࡟೫ࡾࡸ
ᩥ⬦࡛ࡢ⿵࠸ࡢஈࡋࡉࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᏐ⩏㏻ࡾ࡟ゎ㔘ࡋࠊ័⏝⾲⌧ࡸẚ႘ࡀศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ⥭ᙇ࣭୙Ᏻሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟⌮ゎࡀ㞴ࡋࡃ࡞ࡿ➼ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ᪥ࠎඣ❺ྠኈࡢࢺࣛࣈࣝ࡟
㐼㐝ࡍࡿࡀࠊ┤᥋せᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᏐ⩏㏻ࡾࡢ⌮ゎࠊኌࡢㄪᩚࠊ࣐ࢼ࣮࡟཯ࡍࡿⓎゝࠊࢱ࣮ࣥࢸ࢖࢟ࣥࢢࡢኻᩋࠊ┦ᡭࡢゝⴥࡢཷࡅṆࡵ᪉ࡢࢠࣕࢵࣉࡸ⌮ゎࡢ௙᪉ࡢ㐪࠸ࠊሙ࡟ࡑࡄࢃ࡞࠸Ⓨヰෆᐜ➼ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢኻᩋ࡟ࡼࡗ
࡚ࠊᛮ࠸ࡀఏࢃࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚㉳ࡇࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋ
 ৢ௻दभుญभৄয়थ ࡲࡎࡣࠊᩍဨࡀᅔࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࠊඣ❺ᮏேࡀఱ࡟ᅔࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ୙㐺ษ࡞⾜ືࡢ⌮⏤ࡣఱ࠿ࢆぢᴟࡵࠊ࡝ࢇ࡞᥼ຓࡀᚲせ࡛ࠊ࡝ࡇࡲ࡛ᨭ᥼ࡀྍ⬟࠿ࢆぢᴟࡵࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽጞࡵࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡶࠊᣦᑟ⪅ࡣⓎ㐩ࡢどⅬ࡛ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮃࡲࡋ࠸ࠋࡁࡕࢇ࡜⪺࠸࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢࡣ⪺ࡃຊࡢ೫ࡾ
ࢆ␲࠸ࠊࡁࡕࢇ࡜ぢ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢࡣぢࡿຊࡢ೫ࡾࢆ␲࠺ࠋⴠ
ࡕ╔ࡁࡀ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊయࡢάᛶࡀ㐣๫࡜ぢࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᛀࢀ≀ࡀከ࠸ࡢࡣὀព㞟୰ࡀᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㎞ᢪࡀ㊊ࡾ࡞࠸ࡢࡣⓎ㐩㞀ᐖࡢ஧ḟ㞀ᐖ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ぢࡿࠋࡍࡄ࡟࢟ࣞࡿࡢࡣࠊᐙ᪘
ࡸᢸ௵ࡢ⌮ゎࡢ࡞࠸ᑐᛂࢆ␲࠸ࠊᡭ㊊ࢆฟࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ
཭㐩➼ࡢ୙㐺ษ࡞ᑐᛂࢆ␲࠺ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᏊ࡝ࡶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ

−240−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

࡛ࡶ㣗࡭࡞࠸࡜኱ࡁࡃ࡞ࢀ࡞࠸ࡼࠋࠖ࡟ᑐࡋࠊࠕࡇࡢ࠾─
᝟ሗࢆ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ࡞ഃ㠃࠿ࡽ཰㞟ࡍࡿࠋࡑࢀࡽࢆᩚ⌮࣭ศᯒࡶ㣗࡭࡞࠸࡜࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࡢ㸽ࠖ࡜཯ᛂࡍࡿ౛ࠊᖐࡾࡢ఍࡛ࠕ௒
ࡋ࡚Ꮚ࡝ࡶࡢ≧ែീ࡟㏕ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢࡓࡵ࡟
ࡣࠊ௚ᶵ㛵࡜ࡢ㐃ᦠࡀḞ࠿ࡏ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ་Ꮫⓗ᳨ᰝࠊ ᪥ࡣࡲࡗࡍࡄᐙ࡟ᖐࡾࡲࡋࡻ࠺ࠖ࡟ᑐࡋࠊࠕ㐨ࢆ᭤ࡀࡽ࡞
࠸࡜ᐙ࡟ᖐࢀ࡞࠸ࡼ㸟ࠖ࡜཯ㄽࡍࡿ౛ࠋࡲࡓࠊึᑐ㠃࡛ࠕࡰ⾜ືほᐹࠊ▱⬟࣭ㄆ▱㠃ࡢ᳨ᰝࠊ⏕⫱ṔࠊᏛ⩦㠃ࠊᏛᰯ࡛ࡢᵝᏊ➼ࠊໟᣓⓗ࡞࢔ࢭࢫ࣓ࣥࢺ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ඣ❺ࢆぢ❧࡚ࡿࠋ ࡃఱࡀዲࡁ࠿㸽700 ⣔ࠋࢻࢡࢱ࣮࢖࢚࣮ࣟࠋ࠶࡜ࡡࠊᑠ⏣ᛴ⥺࡟ࡶ஌ࡿࢇࡔࠋࠖ࡜ࠊᮏ㢟࠿ࡽ࡝ࢇ࡝ࢇእࢀࠊ┦ᡭࡢ       ‫؝گ‬৯৓≧ἣࢆ⪃࠼ࡎ࡟୍᪉ⓗ࡟ヰࡋ࠿ࡅ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺౛➼ࠋ ㏻ᖖᏛ⣭࡛ࡢࢺࣛࣈࣝࡸྏ㈐࡞࡝ࡢኻᩋయ㦂ࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ ఻৬৓ऩ੍ର্১‫؟‬ࡋ࠿ࡽ⮬ᕫ⫯ᐃឤࢆኻࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓඣ❺࡟ᑐࡋࠊࢭࣛࣆ࣮হ୻‫ ؟ڭ‬M ࡉࢇ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࠕ⤥㣗ᙜ␒ࡢேࡣ࣐ࢫࢡࢆ
ⓗ࡞㛵ࢃࡾࡢ୰࡛ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ᪉ἲࡢᨭ᥼ࢆ⾜࠺௜ࡅࡿỴࡲࡾࡔࡼࡡࠋ⌮⏤ࡣศ࠿ࡿ㸽㸦Ɇศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ㸧ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ᝟⥴ⓗ࡟Ᏻᐃࡉࡏ⮬ᑛឤ᝟ࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࠋ㓄⮃୰࡟࠾ࡋࡷ࡭ࡾࢆࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࡢேࡢၚࡀ㣕ࢇ࡛㣗࡭≀       ‫؝ڰ‬ৰᄷ্১࡟௜࠸ࡓࡾࡍࡿ࡜᎘࡛ࡋࡻࠋở࠸ࡼࡡࠋࡔ࠿ࡽࠊ㓄⮃୰ࡣ࣐ࢫࢡࢆࡋ࡚ࠊ࠾ヰࢆࡋ࡚ࡶၚࡀ㣕ࡤ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
 ৌ଴ࢇࡔࠋࠖ࡜୺┠ⓗࢆఏ࠼ࡓᚋ࡟ࠊࠕM ࡉࢇࡣ௒᪥⤥㣗ᙜ␒ ᑠᏛᰯ㏻ᖖᏛ⣭࡟ᅾ⡠ࡋ᝟⥴㞀ᐖ➼㏻⣭ᣦᑟᏛ⣭࡟㏻ࡔࡗࡓࡅ࡝ࠊ࣐ࢫࢡࢆᛀࢀ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࢇࡔࡼࡡࠋ
㸦Ɇࡑ࠺ࠋ㸧
࠺ඣ❺ 40 ྡࢆᑐ㇟࡟ᣦᑟࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ≉࡟ࡑࡢ୰ࡢ 30
ࡑࢀ࡛ࠊS ࡃࢇࡀࠗࡋࡷ࡭ࡗࡕࡷࡔࡵ࠘࡜ゝࡗࡓࢇࡔࠋ࡛
ྡ㸦⏨ඣ 24 ྡࠊዪඣ 6 ྡ㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ලయⓗ࡞ᐇ㊶ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᏛᖺࡢෆヂࡣࠊ1㹼6 ᖺ⏕ࡀࠊ㡰࡟ 4 ྡࠊ5 ྡࠊ6 ྡࠊ ࡶࠊS ࡃࢇࡢゝ࠺ࠗࡋࡷ࡭ࡗࡕࡷࡔࡵ࠘ࡣࠊࡎࡗ࡜ࡋࡷ࡭
ࡗ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࠗ⤥㣗ࡢ㓄⮃୰ࡣ࠾
8 ྡࠊ1 ྡࠊ6 ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ་⒪ᶵ㛵࡟࠾࠸࡚ ASD㛵㐃ࡢデ᩿ྡ㸦࢔ࢫ࣮࣌ࣝ࢞㞀ᐖࠊᗈỗᛶⓎ㐩㞀ᐖ➼㸧ࠊ ࡋࡷ࡭ࡾࢆࡍࡿ࡜ၚࡀ㣕ࡪ࠿ࡽࠊࡋࡷ࡭ࡗࡕࡷࡔࡵ࠘࡜࠸
࠺ព࿡ࡔࡗࡓࢇࡔࡼࠋࡔ࠿ࡽࠊࡋࡷ࡭ࡿࡢࢆᡃ៏ࡍࡿࡢࡣ
ࡲࡓࡣࡑࡢ␲࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜グࡉࢀࡓඣ❺࡛ࠊⓎ㐩᳨ᰝ㓄⮃ࡢ࡜ࡁࡔࡅ࡛Ⰻ࠿ࡗࡓࢇࡔࠋS ྩࡣࠊ⤥㣗ᚋࡶࡋࡷ࡭
(WISC)ࡢ IQ ࡀ 80 ௨ୖ࡛▱ⓗ㞀ᐖࡢデ᩿ྡࡀ࡞࠸ඣ❺ࡢࡽ࡞࠸࡛࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣᛮࡗ࡚࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࠿ࡽࠊヰ࠿ࡅ࡚ࡁࡓࡋࠊ
ࡳࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࠕASD ඣࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྡ⛠ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ఱࡶゝࢃ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࠿ࡽࠊࠗ↓どࡋࡓ࠘ࡗ࡚ᛣ
 ੍ର্১ࡗࡓࢇࡔࡡࠋḟ࠿ࡽࡣࠊࠗ࠸ࡘࡲ࡛㸽࠘࡜࠿ࠗఱศ㛫㸽࠘ ੦মभৌૢ‫ ؟‬Ꮫ⩦⎔ቃࡸᣦᑟయไࡢᵓ㐀໬ࢆ⾜࡜࠿⪺ࡃ࡜࠸࠸ࡼࠋࠖ࡜ఏ࠼ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ࿘ࡾࡶ⫱࡚ࡿព࿡࠸ࠊಶࠎ࡟ᛂࡌࡓ┠ᶆࢆタᐃࡋࠊࡀࢇࡤࡾࢆ⮬ศ࡛ࡶホ౯࠿ࡽࠊS ྩ࡟ࡶᣦᑟࡍࡿࠋ
ࠕM ࡉࢇ࡟ఱ࠿ࢆఏ࠼ࡿ࡜ࡁࡣࠊ
࡛ࡁࡿάືࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊឤ᝟ࡸ⾜ືࢆไᚚࡍࡿຊࢆᇵ࠺ࠋࡲ
ࡶ࠺ᑡࡋලయⓗ࡟ᅇᩘ࡜࠿᫬㛫࡜࠿ࢆఏ࠼࡚࠶ࡆࡼ࠺ࠋMࡓࠊᵝࠎ࡞άືࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ࡛ࡁࡓ㸟ࢃ࠿ࡗࡓ㸟ࠖ➼ᡂຌࡉࢇࡣࠊ↓どࡋࡓࢇࡌࡷ࡞ࡃ࡚ࠊ⤥㣗ᙜ␒ࡢ࡜ࡁ࡟ S ྩࡀయ㦂ࡢ✚ࡳ㔜ࡡ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ⮬ಙ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡆࡿࠋゝⴥ࡟ࡼࡿ⾲⌧ຊࡸ⌮ゎຊࢆ㧗ࡵࡓࡾࠊᨭ᥼せㄳࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿຊࢆ⫱࡚ࡿࠋ ࠗࡋࡷ࡭ࡗࡕࡷࡔࡵ࠘࡜ゝࡗࡓࡢࢆࠊࡑࡢᚋࡶࡎࡗ࡜⣙᮰ࢆᏲࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࢇࡔࡼࠋM ࡉࢇ⣙᮰Ᏺࢀ࡚೧࠸ࡡࠋࠖ
᝟⥴ࡀ୙Ᏻᐃ࡟࡞ࡗࡓ᫬ࡣࠊ⮬ศࡢẼᣢࡕ࡟ྥࡁྜ࠸ࠊ࡝
হ୻‫ࡢࡇ؟ڮ‬஦౛ࡶ 1 ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ලయⓗ࡟ࠊࠕඛ⏕ࡀゝࡗࡓࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾜ືࡍ࡭ࡁ࠿ࢆ୍⥴࡟⪃࠼ࡿࠋ≉࡟⮬㛢ഴྥࡢ࠶ࠗ࠸ࡘࡲ࡛ࡶヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜㹼࠘࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊࠗ௒ࠊᤵᴗࢆ
ࡿඣ❺࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ୍᪥ࡢணᐃ࡞࡝ぢ㏻ࡋࢆࡶࡓࡏࠊ᝟⥴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㛫ࡣࠊᤵᴗ࡟㛵ಀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡸ⮬ศ຾ᡭ࡞࠾ࡋࡷ࡭
ⓗ࡟Ᏻᐃࡋ࡚Ꮫ⩦࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡵࡿࡼ࠺ᨭ᥼ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊሙ
ࡾࢆࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࢇࡔࡅ࡝ࠊࡶࡋṆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࢀ㠃タᐃࢆࡋ࡚ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࢆ⫱࡚ࠊᑐே㛵ಀࡢࡤ㹼࠘࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡔࡼࠋࡔ࠿ࡽࠊᤵᴗࡀ⤊ࢃࢀࡤࠊ࠸ࡘࡶ
ᨵၿࢆᅗࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊどぬᩍᮦࢆ⏝࠸࡚ලయⓗ࡟㏻ࡾ࡟⮬⏤࡟࠾ヰࢆࡋ࡚ࡶᵓࢃ࡞࠸ࢇࡔࡼࠋࠖ
┠ᶆࡸᡭ㡰ࢆ♧ࡍ࡞࡝ࠊㄆ▱≉ᛶ࡟ᛂࡌࡓᣦᑟࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ᝟जभ౎भহ୻‫ࠗ؟‬㣗஦୰ࡣືࡃ࡞࠘эࠗ㣗஦୰ࡣᖍࢆ❧ࡓ⥴ࡀ୙Ᏻᐃ࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣูᐊ࡛ಶู࡟ᑐᛂࡋࠊࢭࣛࣆ
ࠗఱ࣮ⓗ࡞ᑐᛂ࡟ࡼࡾᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࡢᚰ⌮ⓗᏳᐃࢆᅗࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡎࠊ㣗஦࡜┤᥋㛵ಀࡢ࡞࠸⾜ືࢆྲྀࡗ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸࠘ࠊ
࡛ࡶ㣗࡭࡞࠸࡜኱ࡁࡃ࡞ࢀ࡞࠸ࡼࠋ࠘эࠗᰤ㣴ࡢࣂࣛࣥࢫ
 ୁ৷૛৓ୖ਻‫؟‬ࢆ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ࡞㣗≀ࢆᑡࡋࡎࡘ࡛ࡶᵓࢃ࡞࠸࠿ࡽዲ
হ୻‫⤥؟ڭ‬㣗᫬ࠊ㓄⮃ᙜ␒ࡣ࣐ࢫࢡ╔⏝ࡀ୍⯡ⓗ࡞つ๎࡛ࡁ᎘࠸࡞ࡃ㣗࡭࡞࠸࡜ࠊ⑓Ẽ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡾ೫ࡗ࡚ᡂ㛗ࡋࡓࡾ࠶ࡿࠋASD ඣࡢ M ࡉࢇࡣࠊ⤥㣗ᙜ␒ࡔࡗࡓࡀ࣐ࢫࢡࢆᛀ
ࡍࡿࡼࠋఱ࡛ࡶ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ㣗࡭≀ࡔࡅࢆᣦࡋ࡚
ࢀࡓࡓࡵࠊ࣐ࢫࢡ࡞ࡋ࡛άືࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ㝿ࠊS ྩ࡟ࠕ࠾ࡋ
࠸ࡿࡼࠋ࠘ࠊࠗ௒᪥ࡣࡲࡗࡍࡄᐙ࡟ᖐࡾࡲࡋࡻ࠺࠘эࠗୗࡷ࡭ࡾࡋࡕࡷࡔࡵࡔࡼࠖ࡜ゝࢃࢀࡓࠋM ࡉࢇࡣࠊ⣙᮰㏻ࡾ
ᰯ㏵୰ࠊᏛᰯࢆฟ࡚ᐙ࡟╔ࡃࡲ࡛ࡢ㛫࡟ࠊᏛ❺ࡸሿࡶྵࡵ
ࡎࡗ࡜࠾ࡋࡷ࡭ࡾࢆࡏࡎ࡟࠸ࡓࠋ⤥㣗ࡀ⤊ࢃࡾఇࡳ᫬㛫࡟࡚࡝ࡇ࠿࡟❧ࡕᐤࡗࡓࡾࠊ❧ࡕṆࡲࡗ࡚཭㐩࡜ࡎࡗ࡜࠾ࡋ
࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊS ࡃࢇࡣ M ࡉࢇ࡟ヰࡋ࠿ࡅࡓࡀࠊM ࡉࢇࡣ⣙᮰ࡷ࡭ࡾࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡾࠊ㐟ࢇࡔࡾࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࡼࠋ௒᪥ࡣ
㏻ࡾ㡹࡞࡟ཱྀࢆ㛤࠿࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡍࡿ࡜ࠊS ࡃࢇࡀࠕ↓どࢆᐤࡾ㐨ࢆࡋ࡞࠸࡛ࠊ࠸ࡘࡶࡢṌࡃ㏿ࡉ࡛Ṍࡁ⥆ࡅ࡚┤᥋ᐙࡋࡓࠖ࡜ᛣࡾฟࡋࡓࠋM ࡉࢇࡣ⣙᮰ࢆᏲࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡟ࠊ࡝
࡟ᖐࡿࢇࡔࡼࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠕࡲࡗࡍࡄࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊࠕᐤࡾ㐨࠺ࡋ࡚ S ྩࡀᛣࡗࡓ࠿ࡀ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ࢆࡋ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡔࡼࠋ࠘ࠊ┦ᡭࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ↓どࡋ୍࡚হ୻‫؟ڮ‬ᤵᴗ୰࡟࠾ࡋࡷ࡭ࡾࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡓᩘே࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕ࠸
᪉ⓗ࡟ヰࡋ⥆ࡅࡿඣ❺ࡣከ࠸ࡀࠊࠕ௚ࡢேࡣ N ྩࡢヰࢆ⪺ࡘࡲ࡛ࡶヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⤥㣗ࢆ㣗࡭ࡉࡏࡲࡏࢇࡼࠋࠖ࡜⌧௦࠸࡚࠸࡚ࡶࡼࡃศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡋࠊࡳࢇ࡞ࡣ⪺࠸࡚࠸࡚ࡶࡘࡲ
࡛ࡣయ⨩࡜࡞ࡿᨾࠊ⚗࡛ྃ࠶ࡿᩍဨࡢࢭࣜࣇ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑ
ࡽ࡞࠸ࡳࡓ࠸ࡔࡼࠋࡳࢇ࡞ࡀ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠾ヰࢆࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠸
࠺ゝࢃࢀࡓ ASD ඣࡣࠊࡑࡢᚋࡢఇࡳ᫬㛫࡟ヰࢆࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ
࠿࡞ࠋࠖ࡜࠿ࠊሙ㠃࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊࠕࡈࡵࢇࡡࠋࡑࡢヰࡣ௒ࡗࡓࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᣦ♧㏻ࡾ࡟⤥㣗ࢆ㣗࡭࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ຮᙉࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡜㛵ಀ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡀ⤊ࢃࡗࡓࡽᚋ࡛
जभ౎भহ୻‫ࠕ࡚࠸࡚ࡅࡊࡩ؟‬㣗஦୰ࡣືࡃ࡞ࠖ࡜ゝࢃࢀヰࡋ࡚ࡡࠋࠖ࡜ఏ࠼ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ໬Ꮫࡢඖ⣲グྕࢆࡸࡓࡽヰࡿ࡜ࠊ඲ࡃື࠿࡞ࡃ࡞ࡾ㣗࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶࡋ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓ౛ࠊ
ࠕఱ

−241−

ASD児の自尊感情を育む通級指導学級での支援の実践事例―語用論的コミュニケーション障害に着目して―ࡋࡓࡀࡿ 6 ᖺ⏕ඣ❺࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࠕࡑࡢヰࡣࠊ௚ࡢ࠾཭㐩LD ඣ➼ࠊࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞Ⓨ㐩㞀ᐖࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡀ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ
ࡣศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸࠿ࡽࠊඛ⏕࡜ࡔࡅ࡟ࡋࡼ࠺ࡡࠋࠖ➼ࠋඹ㏻ࡋ
ࡢㄢ㢟ࡀ㐪࠺ᨾࠊࡑࡢ㞀ᐖ≉ᛶ࡟ྜࢃࡏࡓᐇ㊶ࡀᚲせ࡜࡞࡚ゝ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ౯್ᇶ‽ࡀேࡑࢀࡒࢀ㐪࠺࠶࠸ࡲ࠸࡞ゝࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࠋᡃࠎࡀᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿඣ❺࡟ࡣࠊゝㄒᏛⓗ࡟ぢⴥࠕࡁࢀ࠸࡟ࠖࠕࡕࡷࢇ࡜ࠖࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠖࠕ㐺ᙜ࡟ࠖࡢ౑
࡚ࡶࠊㄒ⏝ࡢㄢ㢟ࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ㡢㡩ㄢ㢟ࠊ⤫ㄒㄢ㢟ࠊㄯヰ⏝ࡣᴟຊ㑊ࡅࠊලయⓗ࡟ఏ࠼ࡿࠋࠕᮘࡢ୰ࡣࡁࢀ࠸࡟ࡋ࡞
ㄢ㢟࡜ᵝࠎ࡞ㄢ㢟ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿᨾࠊ௒ᚋࡣࡑࡢ௚ࡢゝㄒⓗࡉ࠸ࠖэࠕᮘࡢ୰ࡢᕥࡢ㐨ල⟽ࡢᕥഃዟ࡟⦪࡟➹⟽ࢆ⨨ࡁࠊ ㄢ㢟࡬ࡢᑐᛂࡶồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏࡀ㞀ᐖ⪅ᶒ฼᮲…ࠖ࡜ࠊලయⓗ࡟ఱࢆ࡝ࡇ࡟⨨ࡃࡢ࠿ࢆఏ࠼ࡿࠋࠕࡕࡻࡗ
⣙࡟ᢈ෸ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᩍ⫱ࡢୡ⏺࡛ࡶ࢖ࣥࢡ࣮ࣝࢪࣙࣥࡢ
࡜ࠖэࠕ࠶࡜ 5 ศࠖࠕ᫬ィࡢ㛗࠸㔪ࡀ 3 ࡢ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟᮶ࡓࡽࠖࠊ
Ἴࢆ㑊ࡅ࡚㏻ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࢀᨾࠊᡃࠎᣦᑟ
ࠕ㐺ᙜ࡟ࠖэࠕ5 ࢭࣥࢳࡢ㝽㛫ࢆṧࡋ࡚㹼ࠖࠊࠕࡑࡢ㎶࡛⪅ࡣࠊࡲࡍࡲࡍᵝࠎ࡞ඣ❺࡟ྜࢃࡏࡓᨭ᥼ࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ
Ṇࡵ࡚ࠖэࠕ࠶࡜ఱᅇࡋࡓࡽṆࡵ࡚ࠖࠕఱ᫬࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡽṆࡶࡕࢁࢇᩍ⫱⌧ሙࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ㝈⏺ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ་⒪ࡸࡑࡢ௚ࡢᑓ
ࡵ࡚ࠖ࡜ලయⓗ࡟ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊゝ࠸ࡓ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ࠺ࡲࡃゝ࠼࡞㛛ᶵ㛵࡜ࡢ㐃ᦠࡶᚲせ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡉࡽ࡞ࡿໟᣓ
࠸ࡶ࡝࠿ࡋࡉࡸ㎞ࡉࢆඹឤࡋࠊ
ࠕࡘࡲࡾ㹼ࡗ࡚ࡇ࡜࠿࡞㸽ࠖ ⓗ࡞ᨭ᥼ࡀᮃࡲࢀࡿࠋ
࡞࡝ࡢࡇࡕࡽ࡛ゎ㔘ࡋ࡚࠶ࡆࡿࠋASD ඣࡣࠊ⮬ศ࡛⪃࠼ࡉࡏ࡚ࡶฟ࡚ࡇ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊሙ㠃ሙ㠃࡛࡝࠺ゝࡗࡓࡽⰋ࠸࠿ࠊ ૞සધ൴
1. Kanner, L. 1943. Autistic disturbances of affective contact, Nervous Child, 2,࡝࠺ࡋࡓࡽⰋ࠸࠿➼ࡢ࠾ᡭᮏࢆࡓࡃࡉࢇᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ࠾
217-2. [∾⏣Ύᚿヂ㸸ྂ඾⤂௓㸦᝟⥴ⓗ᥋ゐࡢ⮬㛢ⓗ㞀ᐖ㸧➨୍ᅇࠊ➨㸰ᅇ ⢭⚄་Ꮫ, 18, 777-896, p897-906 (1976)].
ᡭᮏࡢᩘࡀࠊᑗ᮶ࡢ⮬❧࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿ࢔࢖ࢸ࣒࡜࡞ࡿࠋ       ‫؝ڱ‬੥ટ఺लઅ௄
 ੥ટ
 ㏻⣭࡛ࡢᑠ㞟ᅋάື࡛ࡢᣦᑟࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ㞴ࡋ࠸ሙ㠃ࢆษࡾᢤࡅࡿゝⴥࡢ࢔࢖ࢸ࣒ࡸ⾜ືࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀḟ➨࡟ቑ࠼࡚ࡁࡓࠋᏛ⩦ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆᣦᑟ⪅ࡢゝⴥ࠿ࡅ࡛ࠊࡍࡄ࡟⮬ศࡢゝⴥ࡜ࡋ࡚౑࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࡾࠊ௚ඣ࠿ࡽホ౯ࡉࢀࡓࡾࡍ
ࡿ୰࡛ࠊ࠾஫࠸ࡢ⮬ᑛឤ᝟ࡀ㧗ࡲࡾྜ࠸ࠊ᝟⥴ⓗ࡟ࡶᏳᐃࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ་⒪ࡢ௓ධ࡛ࡶ≧ἣࡀኚ໬ࡍࡿࡀࠊࡸࡣࡾపᏛ
ᖺ࠿ࡽ㏻⣭ᣦᑟࢆཷࡅ࡚ࡁࡓඣ❺ࡣࠊ୰Ꮫᖺ࡛ࡣᏳᐃࡋࡓ
ඣ❺ࡀ㞟ࡲࡿ༗ᚋ⣭࡟⛣ࡾࠊ୰࡟ࡣ༞ᴗࢆᚅࡓࡎ࡟㏥⣭࡟࡞ࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ㧗Ꮫᖺ࡛㏻⣭࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡗࡓࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࡣࠊᛮ᫓ᮇࡢ୙Ᏻᐃࡉ࡜ࡶ㔜࡞ࡾࠊ༞ᴗࡍࡿ
㝿࡟ࡶࠊࡲࡓ༑ศ࡟⮬ᕫ⫯ᐃឤࡀᣢ࡚ࡎࠊ᝟⥴ⓗ࡟୙Ᏻᐃ࡛ࠊ୰Ꮫᰯ௨㝆ࡀᚰ㓄ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
 અ௄
 ASD ඣࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗㄢ㢟ࡣࠊ኱ே࡛ࡉ࠼ࡶ୙ᛌឤࢆぬ࠼ࡿᨾࠊඣ❺ྠኈ࡛࠶ࢀࡤ࡞࠾ࡉࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋASD ඣࡀ 10 ே
࠸ࢀࡤࠊ10 ㏻ࡾࡢㄆ▱ഴྥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ10 ㏻ࡾࡢᑐᛂࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ఱࡋࢁ㐺ᛂ⠊ᅖࡀᗈࡍࡂ࡚࣐ࢽࣗ࢔ࣝ໬ࡶ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ
୍ࡘᏛ⩦ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᛂ⏝ࡀຠ࠿࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊఝࡓࡼ࠺࡞ฟ᮶஦
࡟ࡣ౑࠼ࡎࠊࡑࡢ㒔ᗘ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚ఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡢ㥖ࢆ࠸ࡃࡘᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡛ࠊᑗ᮶ࡢ
⮬❧ࢆᕥྑࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢᩘࢆࡓࡃࡉࢇቑࡸࡍព࿡࡛ࡶࠊࡲࡓࠊ
᝟⥴ⓗ࡟Ᏻᐃࡋ࡚ᛮ᫓ᮇࢆ㏄࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡶࠊ㏻⣭ᣦᑟࡣࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶᑠᏛᰯ㸱ᖺ⏕ࡲ࡛࡟ࡣ㛤ጞࡋ࡞࠸࡜ࠊㄢ㢟ࡀඛ
㏦ࡾࡉࢀணᚋࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁࡑ࠺࡟࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ᭱㏆ࡣឡ╔㞀ᐖࡀ⤡ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࡀከ࠸ࡀࠊឡ╔ᙧᡂ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿᐙᗞ
⎔ቃ࡬ࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆ㛤ጞࡍࡿ࡜࠸ࡗࡓഃ㠃ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡶࠊㄢ㢟ࡢ᪩ᮇⓎぢࠊ᪩ᮇᨭ᥼ࡀᮃࡲࢀࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ৰᄷभऽधी ᡂຌయ㦂ࡀ✚ࡳ㔜ࡡࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟Ꮚ࡝ࡶࡢ⮬ᕫ⫯ᐃឤࠊ⮬ᑛឤ᝟ࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡓࡵࡢᨭ᥼ࢆࡍࡿࠋᏊ࡝ࡶࡢ᝟⥴ࡢ≧ែ࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ㒔ᗘᑐᛂࢆኚ࠼ࡓࡾࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᏊ࡝ࡶ࡟
ᐤࡾῧࡗࡓᨭ᥼ࢆ⥆ࡅࡿࠋ㏻⣭࡛ࡢᑐᛂࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᕷ
ᩍጤᑓ㛛ࢳ࣮࣒ࡸ་⒪ᶵ㛵➼࡜㐃ᦠࢆᐦ࡟ᅗࡿࠋᏊ࡝ࡶࢆ
ྲྀࡾᕳࡃ⎔ቃࡢᩚഛࠊ≉࡟ேⓗ⎔ቃࡢᨵၿࡀ㔜せ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ       ‫؝ڲ‬০৏भୖ਻धன஦ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊㄒ⏝ㄽ࡟ࢫ࣏ࢵࢺࢆᙜ࡚ࡓᨭ᥼࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ሗ࿌
ࢆࡋࡓࡀࠊ㏻⣭ඣ❺ࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊASD ඣ௨እ࡟ࡶ ADHD ඣࠊ

2. ḟⰋ୸╬Ꮚ, ஬༑ᔒ୍ᯞ. 2002.㺀Ⓨ㐩㞀ᐖࡢ⮫ᗋᚰ⌮Ꮫ㺁 p82-104: ໭኱㊰᭩ᡣ.
3. ༑୍ඖ୕, ௚. 2006. ࢔ࢫ࣮࣌ࣝ࢞㞀ᐖ Q&A 㞟.ࠕࡇࡇࢁࡢࡾࢇࡋࡻ࠺ à lacarteࠖ, 25(2), p138-192.: ᫍ࿴᭩ᗑ㸬
4. Rutter, M & Bartak, L. 1973. Special education treatment of autistic
children.Ɇ
A comparative study II. Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 16, p241-270.
5. Hobson, R. P. 1986a. The autistic child’s appraisal of expressions of emotion.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 27, p321-342.
6. Hobson, R. P. 1986b. The autistic child’s appraisal of expressions of emotion:
A further study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 27, p621-680.
7. ᑠᯘ㝯ඣ. 2000. ⮬㛢⑕ࡢ㛵ಀ㞀ᐖ⮫ᗋ: ࣑ࢿࣦࣝ࢓᭩ᡣ.
Wing, L. 1996. The autistic spectrum: A guide for parents and professionals.
Constable and Company Limited. ‫୲ق‬৳᳹ฆ౎๨‫ؚ‬1998. ঽ൷ඪ५ঌॡॺঝɆ
஡ध௧୅ੇभञीभफ़ॖॻঈॵॡɆ : ূ਎છආ.‫ك‬
9. Ᏹబᕝᾈ. 2007. ➨ 16 ❶ ⮬㛢⑕ඣࡢⓎ㐩⮫ᗋ㸬ࠕឤぬ࡜㐠ືࡢ㧗ḟ໬࡟ࡼࡿⓎ㐩⮫ᗋࡢᐇ㝿ࠖ. p44-59 : Ꮫⱌ♫.
10. American Psychiatric Association. 2000. : Diagnostic and Statistical Manualof Mental Disorders,(4ed) DSM௅ϫText Revision, Author, Washington, D. C.
11. American Psychiatric Association. 2013.㸸Diagnostic and Statistical Manualof Mental Disorders, (5ed) DSM௅5. Author, Washington, D. C.
12. 㣤ሯ┤⨾. 2007. ⮬㛢⑕ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ࣒ࣛࡢ⌮ゎ㸬➲἟⃈Ꮚ㸦⦅㸧Ⓨ㐩ゝㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㞀ᐖࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸どⅬ࡜௓ධ⌮ㄽ㸬 p3-11㸬:་Ꮫ᭩㝔.
13. Tager-Flusberg,H. Brief report. 1996. Current theory and research on
language and communication in autism. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 26(2),p169-172.
14. ኱஭Ꮫ. 2006. 㧗ᶵ⬟ᗈỗᛶⓎ㐩㞀ᐖ࡟࡜ࡶ࡞࠺ㄒ⏝㞀ᐖ㸸≉ᚩࠊ⫼ᬒࠊᨭ᥼㸬ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㞀ᐖᏛ 23(2), p87-104.
15. ⛙㔝ᝋᏊ. 2001. ♫఍ⓗᩥ⬦࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄒ⏝ㄽ▱㆑ࡢⓎ㐩㸬⛙㔝ᝋᏊ㸦⦅㸧ධ㛛ࢥ࣮ࢫ࣭ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢⓎ㐩࡜㞀ᐖձࡇ࡜ࡤࡢⓎ㐩ධ㛛㸬p116-143. : ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
16. ኱క₩. 2010. ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢⓎ㐩࠿ࡽࡳࡓ㞀ᐖ≉ᛶ.⛙㔝ᝋᏊ(⦅), ⏕ࡁࡓゝⴥࡢຊ࡜ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ. p28-59 : 㔠Ꮚ᭩ᡣ.
17.
Leinonen,E.,Letts,C.
&Smith,B,R.
2000.
Children’s
Pragmatic
Communication Difficulties. Whurr Publishing, UK.
18. Baltaxe, C.A.M. 1977. Pragmatic deficits in the language of autistic
adolescents. J.Pedict.Psychol,2(4), p176-180.
19. Tager-Flusberg, H. 1989. A psycholinguistic perspective on language
development in the autistic child. In G. Dawson (Ed.), Autism: Nature,
diagnosis, and treatment,
p92–115.
20. Frith. U. 1989. Autism : Explaining the enigma‫؝‬Blackwell, Oxford, UK.༴িઌ౶‫؞‬஬਷೨୏๨. 1991. ঽ൷ඪभ⎚॑ੰऌ৥ऊघ: ূ਎છආ‫؝‬
21. McTear, M. F., Conti-Ramsden, G. 1992. Pragmatic disability in children.
London, : Whurr Publishers.
22. Mitchell, P., Saltmarsh, R. & Russell, H. 1997. Overly literalinterpretations of speech in autism: Understanding that messages arise
from minds. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 38 (6), 685-691.
23. প੩৾. 2004. ৈਃચઁሑਙ৅୸௽૩॑ुणযषभ॥঑গॽॣ‫ش‬३ঙথ੍ର.
௽૩঻ਖ਻ଢ଼஢. 32 (2). p22-30.
24. প੩৾. 2005. ஒফ਋भॢঝ‫ش‬উણ৿ऋुणਔ௡ Ҧൎ৑ऋःथਛশऋँॊҧ.
പ৛ఃಂ୙ (ౣ)॔५ঌঝफ़‫ش‬ඪ౜ණधৈਃચঽ൷ඪٕஒফ਋भ঺ভਙभञीप.
p168-173 : ৾ಆଢ଼஢঺.
25. প੩৾. 2006. ৈਃચઁሑਙ৅୸௽૩पधुऩअୁ৷௽૩‫્؟‬ඉ‫ؚ‬ూବ‫੍ؚ‬ର‫؝‬॥঑গॽॣ‫ش‬३ঙথ௽૩৾ 23(2), p87-104.
26. David Premack & Guy Woodruff. 1978. nDoes the chimpanzee have atheory of mind?|. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1 (4), p515-526.
27. ઢ৙೗. 2005.॔ॽও‫ش‬३ঙথගੱभ৶૛ୖ਻ ver.2.: DIK ઇ୘লග‫؝‬28. ધ৖ఐ৾੄ੂಉরಉઇ୘ଂ્શ੍ରઇ୘ୖ.2012.َৢଞभ৾௻प૔ආघॊ৅୸
௽૩भ૭ચਙभँॊ્શऩઇ୘৓੍ର॑૑ਏधघॊుญেെपঢ়घॊ৹ਪ੥ટ
पणःथُ
29. ଽ౱଄୴.209. ৕नुभୁ৷૛৓ડએपঢ়घॊ॔७५ওথॺ‫؝‬඄ৄ৾ୱ੓৕প
৾ધ৾৖౶ਏ,42,87-101−242−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

K M.fi?bdIgJkWBm
hiECSe[Z=5HrO-6X23<?sm-okugiri@thcu.ac.jp
0pnl>rO-;9i<?sijuin@tufs.ac.jp
AR8>rLT<?skomokazu@meiji.ac.jp<Abstract>
This study examines English opinion essay of six native speakers of English and seven Japanese
speakers to find out the difference and similarities in rhetorical patterns and linguistic forms. The results
show that English native speakers have a tendency to first present background information to support
their main idea then to state their argument/opinion in the later section of their writings. On the other
hand, the learners showed a strong tendency to state their argument in the first section. Furthermore, ourdetailed analysis demonstrates redundant discourse markers by the learners, which is likely to be
attributed to the learners’ strategy to keep their writings more coherent and the effect of English andJapanese writing instruction.
"*)*' +D1a & $#*$(*!* `NG IgJ ^,hifi
M\]ZY KM.fi?bdfiIgJ:_okWBmL  &ŅŐŌŰŐţŰňŰűSchiffrin, 1987ŲŁĎħ¸bŁĩďĩĜħĎĽĮĒŁćÄØØÓ½ĮB³ĜġdÊsĩãĝĽĘĩĬĺĤħć

ÍĝĽĘĩĨčĽĈ


&*%
dÊsĮB³½įw~ĮILĨÄØŁLĲw~ ÄØL»½űTOEIC600 ćčĽĎįćÄ
2 ·Ų7 :ćđĺıńťũňĹw~ĮILĬ@µĝĽÄØØÓ½ 8 :ĨčĽĈĎĞľĮB³½ĸć9ĮÛĀsŁÚĵćå}īĪįğĞć400 ŭŰŘ®ZĨ 1 {ñĬB³ĝĽĺďÛĚ
ľġĈÛĀsĬÎäĚľħĎĽj¨įųĮèļĨčĽĈ

“Currently, people worldwide are able to use the Internet. Some people say that since we can read thenews online, there is no need for newspapers or magazines, while others say that newspapers andmagazines will still be necessary in the future. Please write your opinion about this issue.”−243−

日本人英語学習者による意見文の論理展開―言語形式とその機能に着目して―

4P`Qc@ăĮ¸ćw~ÄØL»½(NNS)ĮB³ĜġÄØdÊsĬįćs±eŁÆĝŖŅŐŌŰŐ

ţŰňŰēHĚľħĎĽĘĩēŀĒĤġĈdÊsĬđĎħćNNS ĮHĕįćÿĨ\űņŮőŰŚ
œŗřŧŰŐĩćt¾ůøÖĮzûŲŁæĳħĒĻć\ŁpĐĽiŁÉr!kĜħĎġēćiŁÎæĜħĎĽ6ÅĮÿĨćFirst…ćSecond…ćThird…Įĺďī^[ŁĎħĎġĈĴġć¸ÝŁæĳĽÅĮÿĬįćIn conclusion…Ĺ To sum up...īĪć]ÔÅēĴĩķĨčĽĘĩŁÆĝËØ^[ēĚľħĎġĈĘĮĺďīŖŅŐŌŰŐţŰňŰĮĬĥĎħćNNS Ĭ`ņŮőŜŧŰĨOĭ
ġĩĘĿća¬¢ĮILĮÄØĮŨņŕŅŮŋŊŨŐĨLłĢ}ĔuĨčĽĘĩēŀĒĤġĈućÄØØÓ½(NS)įĘĮĺďīÆįŀĞć#Įs±ĩĮ¸bŁdßĜīēĻćĮ(1)ć(2)ĮĺďĬćnow that īĪĮØ3ŁĎħ\ŁpĐĽiĮÀ|¡cEŁ¨Ĝġļćstill ĩĎĤġ$ÑīĪŁĝĽĘĩĬĺļć¸bŁĥUJŁĜħĎĽĘĩēŀĒĤġĈÄØØÓ½(NS)Į(1) Now that many people in developed countries are starting to use more tablets and personal computers,
people are able to receive information by a press of a button.
(2) With technology in the form of phones, tablets, computers and now televisions, we now have many
forms of technology that would allow the majority to read items from a newspaper or magazine online
on the internet. Plus all libraries now have all forms of electronic data for anybody to use to look up thisinformation for those that still do not own any of this technology.
ĴġćNNS ŖŰőĬįćNS ĩįīĽĮŖŅŐŌŰŐţŰňŰē×ķĻľġĈĮ(3) ć(4)ĮĺďĬćNNS įĉ¨ĊĩĉMĊŁÆĝF7ĮĎĞľĬĸćfor example ŁĜħĎġĈućNS ēfor example ŁďĮįć(5)Ĵġį NNS Į(3)ĮĺďĬć¡īNŁkėĽ¨ĮF7ĮĵĨčĤġĈ(3) ĉ¨ĊĮűNNSŲ
Many people uses twitter and facebook and they write their daily life, for example, it might be what they
enjoyed and what they irritated.
(4)ĉMĊĮűNNSŲ
Second, in internet, we can access much information anytime anywhere if you want it. For example
when I talk to my friend about same topics but they don’t know them, I can look up them on internetsoon.
(5) ĉ¨ĊĮűNSŲOver the last 20 years as technology has improved, the amount of data that an average person receives−244−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

has multiplied by an extraordinary amount. For example, many people around the world are starting touse different social media sites and this allows people to give and receive information in real time thatwas not allowed before when all of the media was on printed-paper.
ĘĮĺďī NNS ĮĉMĊĮįćfor example Įw~ØĮ£]ÆĉĐİĊĮd<Į_ýĨįīĎĒĩmĚľĽĈw~ØĮĉĐİĊįćŁ¨ĝF7ĢĖĨīĕćĉĐİćX ĢĤġĩĜ
ĺďĊĮĺďĬćŁM¡ĬÏMĝĽĬĸĎĻľĽĈĝīŀģćű4ŲĮĺďī NNS Į for example ĮįćØĮw~ØĮĉĐİĊĮd<ŁćÄØĬĠĮĴĴâ­Ěğġ¸Į4ÁbēčĽĈ
ĘĮĘĩŁ§ĒķĽġķĬćċxð?ØåČćċ¶ëw~?ØIåČćċ$ÑåČćċqVĩL»½ĮġķĮw~ØsAåČ ĨćĉĐİĊĮd<ĬòĝĽÎæŁ§×ĜġĩĘĿćw~ØĮĉĐİĊĮd<įćĄĉ¨ĊŴvĮĬĥĎħÕĜĕÙxĝĽġķĬŁkėĽćąĉ>ĊŴ>ĬĎĽNŁkėĽćĆĉMĊŴMĬĎĽNŁkėĽćĮ 3 ¯ĬĴĩķĻľġĈućÄØĮ for example ŁċOxford Dictionary of EnglishČĩċThe American Heritage Dictionaryof the English LanguageČĨÜĳħĵĽĩćAŁkėĽĉ¨ĊĮd<ĮĵĨčĤġĈĚĻĬÄ
=åĮċPLĂŨŮŒŤśŇŐÄ=åČĩċ¦°ªtÄ=åČĬįćĉġĩĐİĊĩĎďÐēÎäĚ
ľħĎĽĬĩĪĴĤħĎĽĈă ĠĘĨćw~ØØÓ½ēĉĐİĊŁĪĮĺďĬĜħĎĽĒŁ§×ĝĽġķĬćÒĵĬw~ØØÓ½ĮB³Ĝġw~ØĮdÊsĬÊĻľĽĉĐİĊĮĩãĝĽĘĩĬĜġĈĬĎġw~ØØÓ½Įw~ØdÊsįć~¦°ĩĕ9ĮuĨ0÷ĚľġŖŰőĨčļű÷ô,2010Ųć£Ĭã4ÁīĸĮĨčĽĈŝŃņŪrį 134 ¹čļć]ÔŖŰőĒĻĉĐİĊŁhĜġ

ĩĘĿć35 ēÊĥĒĤġĈĘĮ 35 ĬĥĎħćB³½ 3

Ĩ§×ĜġĩĘĿć35 Įďģ 28 

ű80%Ųēĉ¨Ċć7 (20%)ēĉMĊĨčļćĉ>ĊĮį 0 ĨčĤġĈ ĉ¨ĊēHĕŁ,ķħđļć(6) ĮĺďĬć#sĮiĮŁÆĝ¨ĬĚľħĎĽĸĮīĪēčĤġēćĉMĊĬĥ
Ďħįć(7)ĮĺďĬćŁMĜħàÝŁķħĎĘďĩĝĽēÊĻľġĈ

(6) ĉ¨ĊĮPC ĨřŧŰŐōņŗŁÊĽF7īĪį%7t¾ćøÖĩGŀļĮīĎcEïŁfĬĝĽĘĩĸĨĔĺď
ēćŢŰőŞŪťŖŅńćĐİoWùÓīĪĨįćt¾ćøÖĩĳħĒīļPĚīcEïĜĒgď
ĘĩēĨĔīĎĈ
(7) ĉMĊĮĜĒĜćt¾ĹøÖŁÚĶĘĩĮdºćĩĎďĸĮįćÂ
čļĴğłĈĐİćÂĮ¥ļġĎcEŁfĬľĽĘĩĢĖĨį

ēywĮşŬîĮ¸Ł¥ļġĎĩĔćt¾ŁXėĽĩĜĴĝĈŐŢŰŔ

ŁÚĶġķĬįćšŰŏŁķĕĤħŐŢŰŔŁlĚīĖľİīļĴğłĈ

ućNNS Į for example Įįć#nű3ŲĹű4ŲŁ;ķć7Ì 6 čļćĠľĻĮd<Ł−245−

日本人英語学習者による意見文の論理展開―言語形式とその機能に着目して―§×ĜġĩĘĿćĉ¨ĊĩĉMĊē 3 (50%)ĞĥĨčĤġĈĴġćNS Į for example Įį 2 
ĮĵĨć2 (100%)ĩĸĬĉ¨ĊĨčĤġĈĮ¸ĒĻćNNS įØĨčĽw~ØĮĉĐİĊĮd<ŁÄØĮ for example Ĭâ­ĜćÄØĨ for example ŁĝĽõĬćw~ØĮĉĐİĊēŝŅŪőŰĩīĤħĎĽ4ÁbēmĚľĽĈ/Fjq
ă NNS ĮŖŅŐŌŰŐţŰňŰĮ"įćq¿Į_ýĹĠľĬCĦĕ NNS ĮŜũŰŝĨčĽ4ÁbĸčĽēćĘďĜġŖŅŐŌŰŐţŰňŰŁĝĽĘĩĨć²ËØĮóĻľġËØ¥ßĨdÊsŁB
³ĝĽóŁÈĤħĎĽĩ¼ĐĽĘĩĸĨĔĽĈ
~¦°įć@´ĮdÊsŖŰőŠŰŐĮíĬCĦĕĒĤġĈ`įć@0÷ĨčĽÄØ NS .ı NNS ŖŰőĸĨčļćŖŰőrē*ĨįīĬ'ĐćÄØ NS ĩw~Ø NS ĬĺĽdÊs.ı NNS ĬĺĽÄØĮdÊsĮŖŅŐŌŰŐţŰňŰĮĮ£êīĪŁlļćØĮ_ýĹ²ËØĮ»ZĩĮòéīĪĬĥĎħ

ÍĜħĎĔġĎĈ

ÞåŬŎőŰůŢŰŪćR«JćŉũŰůŗŤćî2Çć¦°ĬĥĎħĮŌťŮŗŁčļ
ēĩďęěĎĴĜġĈĴġţũŅůŊūńćúQ/KćSTĜĴĘćìKć8¤ćĠĮ

ò½ĮuĬįćç'ŖŰő0÷ĬđĎħHIīę+&ŁþĔĴĜġĘĩŁđ

©ĜėĴĝĈ~¦°į JSPS ¬¦á 25370705 Į(eŁ1ĖġĸĮĨĝĈ
7UJV
ŋŪŰşůŏŦţŎņ. 1998. ċqVĩL»½ĮġķĮw~ØsAåČ. 

ŴĕĿĜđāÃsů«K. 1994. ċ$ÑåČ.  : D.
)-ö. 2010. ċxð?ØåČ².  :IĂ}Y.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
PLĂű¹Ų.2006.ċ¶ëă w~?ØIåČ.  ŴPLĂStevenson, Angus. 2010. Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd. edition), Oxford, Oxford University Press.
The American Heritage Dictionaries editors. 2011. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language (5th edition), Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
ŖŰőŠŰŐ
÷ôìK. 2010. w~ůü?ů5ĮILĬĺĽw~ØdÊsŖŰőŠŰŐ.
http:// www.tufs.ac.jp/ts/personal/ijuin/koukai_data1.html−246−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Get ཷືᩥ࡜෌ᖐ௦ྡモࢆྵࡴ Get ౑ᙺᩥࡢ㛵ಀ㸫⪺ࡁᡭࡢゎ㔘࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚ஂ஭⏣ ┤அ᪥ᮏ኱Ꮫ⤒῭Ꮫ㒊< Abstract >This paper aims to focus on the relationship between get-passive and get-causative withreflexive and consider how get-passive without reflexive can imply causative interpretation.
Our conclusion is described by the results of an informant investigation and it is shown thatget-passive with reflexive can indicate more responsibility.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚget ཷືᩥࠊget ౑ᙺᩥࠊ෌ᖐ௦ྡモࠊ㈐௵ࠊᩥ⬦1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊget ཷືᩥ(get + 㐣ཤศモ)ࡢ≉ᛶ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ୺ㄒࡢ㈐௵ࡸពᅗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢゎ㔘࡟╔┠ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊget ཷືᩥ࡜෌ᖐ௦ྡモࢆక࠺ get ౑ᙺᩥ(get + ෌ᖐ௦ྡモ+㐣ཤศモ)ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺㄪᰝ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊ୺ㄒࡢ㈐௵ࡢ኱ࡁࡉࡀࡇࢀ
ࡽࡢᵓᩥࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ඛ⾜◊✲
2.1

Chappell(1980)

Chappell(1980)ࡣ get ཷືᩥࢆࠊᩥᆺ࡜ᩥࡢ୺ㄒࠊࡑࡋ࡚୺ㄒ࡟฼┈ࡸ୙฼┈ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿
࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚ࠊnon-reflexive ͂adversative̓ get-passive, reflexive ͂adversative̓ get-passive,
non-reflexive ͂beneficial̓ get-passive, reflexive ͂beneficial̓ get-passive, ͂adversative̓
get-passive with an inanimate subject, ͂beneficial̓ get-passive with an inanimate subject
ࡢ 6 ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢศ㢮࡟ᇶ࡙ࡅࡤࠊ(1a) ࡣ non-reflexive ͂adversative̓ ࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊ(1b)ࡣ reflexive ͂adversative̓ ࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊ(1a)࡜ẚ࡭࡚ࠊ෌ᖐ௦ྡモࢆక࠺(1b) ࡣ John
⮬ࡽࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀゎ㞠࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽ࡟ྥ࠿ࢃࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂☜࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(1) a. Jane got fired.
b. Jane got herself fired.
2.2(a-b: Chappell 1980:445-446)

Sussex (1982)

Sussex (1982)ࡣ Chappell(1980)࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊᩥ⬦ࡀ♧ࡍ volitionࠊactionࠊࡑࡋ࡚ causation ࡜෌ᖐ௦ྡモࢆక࠺ get ౑ᙺᩥࡢ㛵ಀࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ෌ᖐ௦ྡモࢆక࠺ get ౑ᙺᩥࡀࠊ୺ㄒࡢ John ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢ୙฼┈ࢆ♧ࡋࠊ๪モࡸᩥ⬦ࡀ volitionࠊ actionࠊࡑࡋ࡚ causation ࢆ♧ࡍ౛ࡀ(2a)-(2c)࡛ࠊ
๪モࡸᩥ⬦ࡀ volition ࡞࡝࡟཯ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ౛ࡀ(3a)-(3c)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−247−

Get受動文と再帰代名詞を含むGet使役文の関係―聞き手の解釈に着目して(2) a. As he had wished, John got himself run over by a car.
b. John rushed blindly out into the road and got himself run over by a car.
c. Because he had a death wish, John got himself run over by a car.

(a-c: Sussex 1982: 87)(3) a. Contrary to his wishes, John got himself run over by a car.
b. In spite of his actions, John got himself run over by a car.
c. One afternoon, out of the blue, and without any visible links to any previous actions,John got himself run over by a car.

(a-c: ibid., 87)ࡲࡓ୺ㄒࡢ John ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢ฼┈ࢆ♧ࡋࠊ๪モࡸᩥ⬦ࡀ volitionࠊ actionࠊࡑࡋ࡚ causation ࢆ♧ࡍ౛ࡀ(4a)-(4c)࡛ࠊ๪モࡸᩥ⬦ࡀ volition ࡞࡝࡟཯ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ౛ࡀ(5a)-(5c)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(4) a. As he had wished, John got himself promoted.
b. John bribed the boss’s secretary and got himself promoted.
c. Because of his high ambitions, John got himself promoted.

(a-c: ibid., 88)(5) a. ?Contrary to his wishes, John got himself promoted.
b. ? John was late for work every day, and got himself promoted.
c. ? John had no job ambitions at all, and got himself promoted.

(a-c: ibid., 88)

2.3 Quirk et al. (1985)
Quirk et al. (1985:162)ࡣࠊኚ๎ⓗ࡞࢖ࢹ࢕࣒࡛࢜࠶ࡿ get started ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛࡜ get ౑ᙺᩥࡀᐦ
᥋࡞㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(6) a.͆How soon can we get ourselves started on the pool?͇
b.͆How soon can we get started on the swimming pool?͇

   (b: Quirk et al. 1985:162)

2.4 Ᏻ⸨(2005)
Ᏻ⸨(2005:352)ࡣࠊ
ࠕ୺ㄒࡢពᅗ࡜࠿୙฼┈࡜࠿ࡢព࿡ࡣࠊ࡝ࡇ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜
ࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤ get killed ࡣࠊඖ᮶ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ get oneself killed ࡜࠸࠺౑ᙺᵓ㐀࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺௬
ㄝ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄝ᫂ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠖ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋࠊ
͂get oneself + -en̓࠿ࡽ oneself ࡢ๐㝖࡟ࡼࡗ࡚͂get + -en̓ࡀ⏕ࡌࡓ࡜࠸࠺௬ㄝࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(7)͆I’m going to New York tomorrow morning to enlist in the Amy.”
͆You’re crazy – you could get yourself killed…”
2.5 Carter and McCarthy (2006)−248−    (Ᏻ⸨ 2005:352)

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Carter and McCarthy (2006: 797)ࡣࠊget ཷືᩥ࡜෌ᖐ௦ྡモࢆక࠺ get ౑ᙺᩥࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
(8b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ get ཷືᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ୺ㄒ࡟㈐௵ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(8) a. She got herself locked out. ( It was an accident, but partly her fault.)
b. She got locked out. ( It was not her fault.)    (a-b: Carter and McCarthy 2006: 797)    
2.1 ࠿ࡽ 2.5 ࡲ࡛ࡢඛ⾜◊✲࠿ࡽࠊ౑ᙺⓗ࡞ゎ㔘࡜୺ㄒࡢ㈐௵ࡸពᅗࡀᐦ᥋࡟㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ෌ᖐ௦ྡモࢆకࢃ࡞࠸༢ᩥࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊゎ㔘࡟ࡣᦂࢀࡀ⏕ࡌࠊࡑࡢཎᅉࡣࠊ୺ㄒࡢ㈐௵ࡸពᅗࡢゎ㔘࠿ࡽࡃࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
3. ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺ࡟ࡼࡿㄪᰝ
ㄪᰝࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢ(9)࠿ࡽ(14)ࡢᩥࢆࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣈࢫࣆ࣮࣮࢝20 ே࡟ᥦ♧ࡋࠊྛᩥ࡛ཎ๎࡜ࡋ࡚ get ཷືᩥࡶࡋࡃࡣ෌ᖐ௦ྡモࢆక࠺ get ౑ᙺᩥࡢ㸰ࡘࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥࠿ࡽ㑅ࡪᙧᘧ࡛⾜࠸ࠊ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿㑅ࡪࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜ᅇ⟅ࡉࢀࡓሙྜࢆࡑࡢ௚࡜ࡋࠊࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡶồࡵࡓࠋ1 ࡑࡢㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡓ
ࡶࡢࡀ⾲㸯࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(9) As the key was left in the room, {(a) she got locked out. (b) she got herself locked out. }(10) After fighting with her boyfriend, {(a) she got locked out. (b) she got herself locked out. }(11)As she left her room key in her room, {(a) she got locked out. (b) she got herself locked out.}(12) After the announcement about the personnel transfers,{(a)she got transferred to the general affairs department. (b)she got herself transferred to
the general affairs department. }(13) As she made a big mistake,{(a)she got transferred to the general affairs department. (b)she got herself transferred to
the general affairs department. }(14) She has wanted to work in the general affairs department for a few years, and finally{(a) she got transferred to the general affairs department. (b) she got herself transferred to
the general affairs department. }
タၥ

ᩥ⬦

(a)

(b)

ࡑࡢ௚

(9)

୰❧ⓗ

15

4

1

(10)

୺ㄒࡢ㈐௵

16

2

2

(11)

୺ㄒࡢ㈐௵(኱)

14

5

1

(12)

୰❧ⓗ

18

2

0

(13)

୺ㄒࡢ㈐௵(኱)

16

4

0

(14)

୺ㄒࡢពᅗ

12

7

1

⾲ 1 ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ

−249−

Get受動文と再帰代名詞を含むGet使役文の関係―聞き手の解釈に着目してㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࢆᴫほࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ(11)ࡸ(13)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞୺ㄒࡢ㈐௵ࡀᩥ⬦࡟᫂♧ࡉࢀࠊ㈐௵ࡀ኱ࡁ࠸ሙྜࡸࠊ
୺ㄒࡢពᅗࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(14)ࡢሙྜࠊ෌ᖐ௦ྡモࢆక࠺ get ౑ᙺᩥࡀ㑅ࡤࢀࡸࡍ࠸ഴྥࡀࡳ
ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ୰❧ⓗ࡞౛ࡢ(9)࡜(12)࡛ࡶࠊ(9)ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀࡼࡾ୺ㄒࡢ㈐௵࡛࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡢㄞࡳ㎸ࡳࡀࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ(12)ࡼࡾ෌ᖐ௦ྡモࢆక࠺ get ౑ᙺᩥࡀ㑅ࡤࢀࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ2
4. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟(ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟)ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢゎ㔘࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊget ཷືᩥ࡜෌ᖐ௦ྡモࢆక࠺ get ౑ᙺᩥࡢ㛵ಀࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊ୺ㄒࡢ㈐௵ࡸពᅗࡀ኱ࡁ࠸ሙྜࠊ෌ᖐ௦ྡモࢆక࠺ get౑ᙺᩥࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ௒ᚋࡣࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ㔞ⓗ࡞◊✲ࡶ⾜࠸ࠊ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺࢳ࢙ࢵࢡࡢᩘࡶቑࡸࡋ࡚ࠊ᳨ドࢆ⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
ὀ
1. ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣈࢫࣆ࣮࣮࢝ࡢෆヂࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ฟ㌟ 5 ேࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫฟ㌟ 5 ேࠊ࢝ࢼࢲฟ㌟ 10 ேࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔ฟ㌟ 5 ேࠋ
2. (9)࡜(12)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᅇ⟅㞟ィᚋ࡟ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㏣ຍ࡛ồࡵࠊே஦␗ືࡢⓎ⾲ᚋ࡜࠸࠺ᩥ⬦ࡢ(12)ࡼࡾࡶࠊ(9)ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀ୺ㄒ࡟㈐௵ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ㄞࡳࡇࡳࡀ⮬↛࡜࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ」ᩘᚓࡓࠋㅰ㎡*ᮏ✏ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 17 ᅇ኱఍㸦2014 ᖺ 11 ᭶ 30 ᪥㸦᪥㸧᪊㸸ி㒔ࣀ࣮ࢺࣝࢲ࣒ዪᏊ኱Ꮫ)࡟࡚࣏ࢫࢱ࣮Ⓨ⾲ࡋࡓෆᐜ࡟ຍ➹࣭ಟṇࢆ᪋ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆୗࡉࡗࡓඛ⏕᪉ࠊࡑࡋ࡚኱఍㐠Ⴀጤဨࡢඛ⏕᪉࡟ࡣᚰࡼࡾឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ✏࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୙ഛࡸㄗࡾࡣ඲
࡚➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩Ᏻ⸨㈆㞝. 2005.ࠗ⌧௦ⱥᩥἲㅮ⩏࠘ᮾி:㛤ᣅ♫.
Chappell, H. 1980. “Is the Get-passive Adversative?” Papers in Linguistics 13: 411 – 452.
Carter, R. and M. McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Quirk, R, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the

English Language. New York: Longman.
Sussex, R. 1982. “A note on the Get-passive Construction. ” Australian Journal of

Linguistics 2: 83-95.

−250−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

᪥ࢱ࢖୧ゝㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ⏦ࡋฟࠖࠕ౫㢗ࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾲⌧ࡢ◊✲̿᪥ᮏே࠾ࡼࡧࢱ࢖ேࡢ♫఍ேࢆㄪᰝᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚̿⚟ཎ⨾᛭ி㒔⢭⳹኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔

f212ml04@kyoto-seika.ac.jp

Abstract!
This paper is a pragmatic research which focuses on refusal expressions in response toproposals and requests, and which aims to show the differences in refusal expressions between
Japanese and Thai languages. Inappropriate ways of refusal may strike them as rude or generate
misunderstanding in some situations.

Before we refuse, we must consider the relationship withthem, choosing proper expressions not to offend them.

What is more, while certain refusal

expressions are regarded as appropriate in some languages, they may be considered ill-chosen or
impolite in other languages.

With a background above, this paper examines the differences inrefusal expressions between Japanese and Thai languages.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸㸯ࠊ᩿ࡾ 㸰ࠊព࿡බᘧ 㸱ࠊ⏦ࡋฟ 㸲ࠊ౫㢗㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊࠕ⏦ࡋฟࠖࠕ౫㢗ࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾲⌧࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞␗ྠࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂
ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲࡛࠶ࡿࠋ༠ຊ⪅ࡣࠊࢱ࢖ㄒࡢᏛ⩦⤒㦂ࡀ࡞࠸᪥ᮏㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ♫఍ே࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢᏛ⩦⤒㦂ࡀ࡞࠸ࢱ࢖ㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ♫఍ே࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ᮏ◊✲ࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ⏦ࡋฟࠖ࠾ࡼࡧࠕ౫㢗ࠖࡢሙ㠃ࢆ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿タᐃࡋࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ
⾲⌧ࢆ⾜࠺࠿グධࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ㄯヰ᏶ᡂㄢ㢟ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᚓࡽࢀࡓᅇ⟅ࢆ %HHEHHWDO㸦㸧ࡀᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚Ⓨ⌧ᅇᩘ࡜Ⓨ⌧㡰ᗎࢆศᯒࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ%HHEHHWDO
㸦㸧ࡢࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࡣᵝࠎ࡞㆟ㄽࡀࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࡢ෌⪃ࡢዎᶵ࡜ࡶࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
㸰㸬ㄯヰ᏶ᡂㄢ㢟࡟ࡼࡿㄪᰝ࡜ศᯒ᪉ἲ ㄪᰝ༠ຊ⪅࠾ࡼࡧㄪᰝᮇ㛫㹼 ௦ࡢ♫఍ே࡜ࡋ࡚௻ᴗ࡞࡝࡛ാ࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ᪥ᮏே  ྡ࣭ࢱ࢖ேࡣ  ྡ࠿ࡽ༠ຊࢆᚓ
ࡓࠋㄪᰝᮇ㛫ࡣࠊ ᖺ  ᭶  ᪥㹼 ᖺ  ᭶  ᪥࡛᪥ᮏ࡜ࢱ࢖࡛ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ
ㄪᰝ᪉ἲ
ࡇࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊㄯヰ᏶ᡂㄢ㢟࡜࠸࠺ᡭἲࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓࠋㄯヰ᏶ᡂㄢ㢟ࡣࠕ⏦ࡋฟࠖ࡜ࠕ౫㢗ࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢ㸰ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟タᐃࡋࠊぶ␯㛵ಀ㸦ぶ࣭␯㸧ࠊᖺ㱋ᕪ㸦ඛ㍮࣭ྠࡌᖺ㱋࣭ᚋ㍮㸧ࠊࠕ⏦ࡋฟࠖࠕ౫㢗ࠖࡢ㈇ᢸࡢ኱ࡁࡉ㸦㈇ᢸࡀ㍍࠸ࡶࡢ࣭㈇ᢸࡀ㔜࠸ࡶࡢ㸧ࢆኚᩘ࡜ࡋࡓࠋྜィ  ࡢ㉁ၥ㡯┠࡟ᑐࡋ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᩿ࡿ࠿グධࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋㄯヰ᏶ᡂㄢ㢟ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ࢱ࢖ㄒࡢ㸰ゝㄒ࡛సᡂࡋࡓࠋ

−251−

日タイ両言語における「申し出」「依頼」に対する「断り」表現の研究―日本人およびタイ人の社会人を調査対象として―ศᯒ᪉ἲ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ⏕㔝࣭ᚿᮧ㸦㸧ࡀ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ヂࡋࡓ %HHEHHWDO㸦㸧ࡢࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࢆ฼⏝ࡋࠊ୧⪅ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡බᘧࢆ฼⏝ࡋࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨ⌧ᅇᩘ࡛ࠊࡲࡓࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨ⌧㡰ᗎ࡛ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ
⾲⌧ࢆ㐙⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆศᯒࡋࡓࠋ௨ୗࡀ௒ᅇࡢㄪᰝ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓ୺࡞ࠕព࿡බᘧ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
Ϩ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾ %㐙⾜ືモࢆ౑ࢃ࡞࠸᩿ࡾ ࠕ࠸࠸࠼ࠖ㸦౛㸸ࠕ࠸ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ㸧㸦௨ୗࠊࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%㸧 ࡸࡿẼࡸ⬟ຊࡢྰᐃ㸦౛㸸ࠕ࡛͐ࡁࡲࡏࢇࠖࠕ↓⌮࡛ࡍࠖ㸧㸦௨ୗࠊࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%ࠖ㸧ϩ㛫᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾ$ ㅰ⨥࣭ṧᛕ࡞Ẽᣢࡕ㸦౛㸸ࠕ⏦ࡋヂ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠖࠕࡈࡵࢇࡡࠖ㸧㸦௨ୗࠊࠕㅰ⨥ࠖ㸧% 㢪ᮃ㸦౛㸸ࠕ㡸࠿ࡾࡓ࠸ࡢ࡛ࡍࡀ͐ࠖ㸧㸦௨ୗࠊࠕ㢪ᮃࠖ㸧& ゝ࠸ヂࠊ⌮⏤㸦౛㸸ࠕ཭㐩࡟࠶ࡆࡿ⣙᮰ࡋࡓࡢ࡛͐ࠖ㸧㸦௨ୗࠊࠕ⌮⏤㸧'௦᱌ࡢᥦ♧< ࡢ௦ࢃࡾ࡟ ; ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ㸦౛㸸ࠕ௚ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᡭఏ࠺ࡼࠖ㸧㸦௨ୗࠊࠕ௦᱌ ࠖ㸧 )ᑗ᮶ᢎ▱ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺⣙᮰㸦౛㸸ࠕ཭㐩ࡢᚋ࡟㈚ࡍࡡࠖࠕ᮶㐌࡞ࡽ⾜ࡅࡿࠖ㸧㸦௨ୗࠊࠕᑗ᮶ࠖ㸧 ,┦ᡭࢆᛮ࠸Ṇࡽࡏࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺ヨࡳ౫㢗ࠊ౫㢗⪅➼ࡢᢈุ㸦ྰᐃⓗ࡞ឤ᝟ࡸពぢ㸧㸦౛㸸ࠕඛ࡟ࡑࡢ㞧ㄅ㏉ࡋ࡚ࠖ㸧㸦௨ୗࠊࠕ౫㢗ࠊ౫㢗⪅➼ࡢᢈุࠖ㸧┦ᡭࡢ⫪ࡢⲴࢆୗࢁࡍ㸦౛㸸ࠕ኱୔ኵࠖࠕ࣐࢖࣌ࣥࣛ࢖㸦ࢱ࢖ㄒ㸧ࠖ㸧㸦௨ୗࠊࠕ┦ᡭࡢ⫪ࡢⲴࢆୗࢁࡍࠖ㸧᩿ࡾ࡬ࡢ௜㝶≀㸦ࡑࢀࡣ୍ࡘ࡛ᡂࡾ❧ࡓࡎࠊ᩿ࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚ാ࠿࡞࠸௜㝶ⓗ࡞Ⓨゝ㸧 ឤㅰ㸭ㅰព㸦౛㸸ࠕ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࠖ㸧㸦௨ୗࠊࠕឤㅰࠖ㸧ͤࡲࡓࠊࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࡢ㡯┠௨እࡢࡶࡢࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࡓࡵࠊࡑࢀࡽࡣࠕRWK㸦チ㸧ࠖ ࠕRWKࠖࡣࠕRWKHUࠖࡢ␎ ࠕRWK㸦4㸧ࠖࠕRWK㸦⪃㸧ࠖࠕRWKࠖࠕ↓ࠖ㸦᩿ࡽ࡞࠸㸧࡜࠸࠺㡯┠ࢆసᡂࡋศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋ㸱㸬ㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࡢศᯒ࡜⪃ᐹࡲࡎࠕ⏦ࡋฟࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊ୧⪅࡜ࡶࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࠕឤㅰࠖࡶࡋࡃࡣࠕ┦ᡭࡢ⫪ࡢⲴࢆୗࢁࡍࠖࢆከࡃ౑⏝ࡋࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉࡟᪥ᮏேࡢ᪉ࡀࢱ࢖ே࡟ẚ࡭ࠕឤㅰࠖ
ࢆከ⏝ࡋࠊࢱ࢖ேࡢ᪉ࡀ᪥ᮏேࡼࡾࠕ┦ᡭࡢ⫪ࡢⲴࢆୗࢁࡍࠖࢆከ⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ┦ᡭࡢ⫪ࡢⲴࢆୗࢁ
ࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࡀࢱ࢖ேࡢ౑⏝⋡ࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟㧗࠸ࡢࡣࠊᡂ⏣࣭ᡂ⏣㸦㸧ࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡟ࡶ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࢱ࢖ㄒ⊂≉ࡢࠕ࣐࢖࣌ࣥࣛ࢖ࠖࢆࠕ⏦ࡋฟࠖࡢࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࢆ⾜࠺㝿ከ⏝ࡍࡿ࠿ࡽࡔ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ᪥ᮏேࡣኚᩘ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%ࠖࡸࠕㅰ⨥ࠖࡶࡋࡃࡣࠕ౫㢗ࠊ౫㢗⪅➼ࡢᢈุࠖࢆ
ຍ࠼࡚Ⓨゝࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊࢱ࢖ேࡣࠕRWK ⪃ ࠖࡸࠕ౫㢗ࠊ౫㢗⪅➼ࡢᢈุࠖࢆຍ࠼࡚Ⓨゝࡋࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ
ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋⓎ⌧㡰ᗎࡢୖ఩ࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊ᪥ᮏே࡛ࡣձࠕឤㅰࠖЍࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࠊղࠕឤㅰࠖЍࠕ⌮⏤ࠖЍࠕ┦ᡭࡢ⫪ࡢⲴࢆୗࢁࡍࠖࠊճࠕ⌮⏤ࠖЍࠕឤㅰࠖࡀ඲యⓗ࡟ከ⏝ࡉࢀࠊࢱ࢖ே࡛ࡣձࠕ┦ᡭࡢ⫪ࡢⲴࢆୗࢁࡍࠖЍࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࠊղࠕឤㅰࠖЍࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࠊճࠕ┦ᡭࡢ⫪ࡢⲴࢆୗࢁࡍࠖЍࠕ⌮⏤ࠖЍࠕឤㅰࠖࡢ
㡰࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࠕ⏦ࡋฟࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾ࡛ࠖࡣࠊ୧⪅࡜ࡶࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࠕឤㅰࠖࡶࡋࡃࡣࠕ┦ᡭࡢ⫪ࡢⲴࢆ

−252−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ୗࢁࡍࠖࢆ୰ᚰ࡟Ⓨゝࡋࠊࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࡢࡳࡸࠕ┦ᡭࡢ⫪ࡢⲴࢆୗࢁࡍࠖࡢࡳࡢⓎゝࡶୖ఩࡟ධࡗ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏேࡣࠊୖグࡢ㸱ࡘࡢࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࡢ๓ᚋ࡟ࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾࠖࡸ᭦࡟ኚᩘ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࡑࡇ࡟
ࠕㅰ⨥ࠖࡸࠕ౫㢗ࠊ౫㢗⪅➼ࡢᢈุࠖࢆຍ࠼࡚Ⓨゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࢱ࢖ே࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࡶ
ࡕࢁࢇ㐪࠺Ⓨ⌧㡰ᗎࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕ┦ᡭࡢ⫪ࡢⲴࢆୗࢁࡍࠖЍࠕ⌮⏤ࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨ⌧㡰ᗎࡀୖ఩࡛ከࡃぢࡽࢀࠊࡑࡇ࡟ࠕRWK㸦⪃㸧ࠖࡸࠕ౫㢗ࠊ౫㢗⪅➼ࡢᢈุࠖࢆຍ࠼࡚Ⓨゝࡍࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜
ࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
ࠕ౫㢗ࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢⓎ⌧ᅇᩘࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊ୧⪅࡜ࡶࠕㅰ⨥ࠖࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࢆከࡃ౑⏝ࡋࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࢆ
⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୧⪅ࡢ኱ࡁ࡞ࡕࡀ࠸ࢆ࠶ࡆࡿ࡜ࠊ᪥ᮏேࡣࢱ࢖ேࡼࡾࠕㅰ⨥ࠖࢆከ⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂
ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊࢱ࢖ேࡣ᪥ᮏேࡼࡾࡶࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%ࠖࢆከ⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ௚ࡢ୧⪅ࡢࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࢆࡳࡿ࡜ࠕ㢪ᮃࠖࠕ௦᱌ ࠖ
ࠕᑗ᮶ࠖࡀẚ㍑ⓗ౑⏝⋡ࡀ㧗ࡃࠊ᭦࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡓ㉁ၥ㡯┠࡛ࡣ୧⪅࡜ࡶࠕRWK チ ࠖࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊࡲࡓࠕ↓㸦᩿ࡽ࡞࠸㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋḟ࡟Ⓨ⌧㡰ᗎࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜ࠊ᪥ᮏேࡣձࠕㅰ⨥ࠖЍࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࠊղࠕ⌮⏤ࠖЍࠕㅰ⨥ࠖࠊճࠕㅰ⨥ࠖЍࠕ⌮⏤ࠖЍࠕᑗ᮶ࠖࡀୖ
఩࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࢱ࢖ேࡣձࠕㅰ⨥ࠖЍࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࠊղࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%ࠖЍࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࠊճࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࡢࡳࡀୖ఩࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౫㢗ሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேࡢࡳ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿⓎ⌧㡰ᗎࡣほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ↓࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊࢱ
࢖ேࡢࡳࡢⓎ⌧㡰ᗎࡣࠕㅰ⨥ࠖЍࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%ࠖЍࠕ⌮⏤ࠖ࡜ࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%࡛ࠖ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡲࡓࢱ࢖ேࡣࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%ࠖЍࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࠊࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%ࠖЍࠕ⌮⏤ࠖЍࠕㅰ⨥ࠖࡶࡋࡃࡣ
ࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%ࠖࡢࡳ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%ࠖࢆ᭱ึ࡟ⓎゝࡍࡿⓎ⌧㡰ᗎࡀୖ఩࡛ࡳ
ࡽࢀࡓࡀࠊ᪥ᮏே࡟ࡣ඲ࡃぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ౫㢗ሙ㠃࡛ࡣ୧⪅࡜ࡶࠕㅰ⨥ࠖࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࢆ୰ᚰ࡟
ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ᪥ᮏேࡼࡾࢱ࢖ேࡢ᪉ࡀࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%ࠖ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸࡚ࠊ
ࡲࡓࠊࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࡢࡳࡸࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%ࠖࡢࡳ࡛ࡢࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡶከࡃࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ୧⪅࡜ࡶኚᩘ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
ࡣࠊࠕㅰ⨥ࠖЍࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࡢᚋࡶࡋࡃࡣࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࡢᚋ࡟ࠕ௦᱌ ࠖࠊࠕᑗ᮶ࠖࠊࠕ౫㢗ࠊ౫㢗⪅➼ࡢᢈุࠖࡢ
ࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࢆ୺࡟౑⏝ࡋࠊࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ୧ゝㄒ࡜ࡶࠕㅰ⨥ࠖЍࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࡢⓎ⌧㡰ᗎࡀከࡃࠊࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࡢᚋ࡟ࠕ௦᱌ ࠖࠊࠕᑗ᮶ࠖࠊ
ࠕ౫㢗ࠊ౫㢗⪅➼ࡢᢈุࠖࡢព࿡බᘧࢆ୺
࡟౑⏝ࡋࠊࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
௨ୖࡢㄪᰝࡢศᯒ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊ୧ゝㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ⏦ࡋฟࠖ࡜ࠕ౫㢗ࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾲⌧ࡢ␗ྠࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ➹⪅ࡣ୧ゝㄒࡢࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢ᭱ึࡢⓎゝ࡟╔┠ࡋ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡲࡎࠕ⏦ࡋฟࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏேࡣ୺࡟ࠕឤㅰࠖࡶࡋࡃࡣࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࢆ᭱ึ࡟Ⓨゝࡋࠊࡲࡓࠊኚᩘ࡟
ࡼࡾࠕ┦ᡭࡢ⫪ࡢⲴࢆୗࢁࡍࠖࡸࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%㸯ࠖࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀᵝࠎ࡞᩿ࡾ᪉ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋࢱ࢖ே
ࡣኚᩘ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࡸࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%ࠖࡶ᭱ึ࡟Ⓨゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ୺࡟ࠕ┦ᡭࡢ⫪ࡢⲴࢆୗࢁࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠕ⏦ࡋฟࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢ㝿ࠊ᪥ᮏேࡢ᪉ࡀᵝࠎ࡞ࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࢆ᭱ึ࡟౑⏝ࡋࠊࡲࡓࡑࡢᚋ࡟ࡶ⥆ࡃࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࡶከᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࢱ࢖ㄒࡢ᪉ࡣẚ㍑ⓗỴࡲࡗࡓࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ౫㢗ࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡣຍ⣡࣭ᱵ㸦㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ᪥ᮏேࡣ౫㢗ሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕルࡧඛ⾜ᆺࠖ㸦ㅰ⨥ࢆ᭱ึ࡟Ⓨゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜㸧ࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂
ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ௒ᅇࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ࡛ࡶࠊຍ⣡࣭ᱵ㸦㸧ྠᵝ᪥ᮏேࡣࠕㅰ⨥ࠖࢆ᭱ึ࡟Ⓨゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
ከࡃࠊࢱ࢖ேࡶࡲࡓ᭱ึ࡟ࠕㅰ⨥ࠖࢆⓎゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋḟ࡟ࠊከࡃ᭱ึ࡟
Ⓨゝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊ᪥ᮏேࡣࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࢆ᭱ึ࡟Ⓨゝࡋࠊࢱ࢖ேࡣࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%ࠖࢆ᭱ึ࡟Ⓨゝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࢱ࢖ேࡢ᪉ࡀࠕ⌮⏤ࠖࡢࡳࡢⓎゝࡀከࡃࠊࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%ࠖࡢ

−253−

日タイ両言語における「申し出」「依頼」に対する「断り」表現の研究―日本人およびタイ人の社会人を調査対象として―ࡳࡣࢱ࢖ேࡔࡅࡀ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୰࡛ࡶࠊ᪥ᮏே࡜ࢱ࢖ே࡜࡛ࡣඛ㍮࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᭱ึࡢⓎゝ࡟౑⏝ࡍࡿࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࡀ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏேࡣࠕㅰ⨥ࠖࢆ᭱ึ࡟Ⓨゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࡀࠊ㈇ᢸ኱࡛ࡣぶ␯㛵
ಀ࡞ࡃඛ㍮࡟ࡣࠕ⌮⏤ࠖ࠿ࡽⓎゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀẚ㍑ⓗከ࠸ࠋࢱ࢖ேࡣぶ␯㛵ಀ࡞ࡃ㈇ᢸ኱࡛ࡣ᭱ึ࡟ࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%ࠖⓎゝࡋࠊ㈇ᢸᑠ࡛ࡣࠕ⌮⏤ࡢࡳ࡛ࠖࠕ౫㢗ࠖࡢࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠕ౫㢗ࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏேࡣ඲࡚ࡢኚᩘ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕㅰ⨥ࠖࢆ᭱ึ࡟⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟ከ࠸ࡇ࡜
ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࢱ࢖ேࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேྠᵝࠕㅰ⨥ࠖࢆ᭱ึ࡟Ⓨゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࡀࠊኚᩘ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕㅰ
⨥ࠖࡼࡾ᭱ึ࡟ࠕ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾϨ%ࠖࢆⓎゝࡍࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࡃࡣࠕ⌮⏤ࡢࡳ࡛ࠖⓎゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ௒ᅇࡢศᯒࢆ㏻ࡋࠊ%HHEHHWDO  ࡢᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࡀ᭷ຠ࡞ᯟ⤌ࡳࡔ࡜࠸࠺
ࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠕព࿡බᘧࠖ࡟࠶࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞࠸㡯┠ࡀ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿࠶ࡗࡓࠋࠕRWK 4 ࠖ
ࡸࠕRWKࠖࡣࠊࠕ౫㢗ࠖࡸࠕ⏦ࡋฟࠖࡢࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ࡟┤᥋㛵㐃ࡀ↓࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࡸ㛵ಀ⥔ᣢࡢࡓࡵ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ≉࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠕRWK チ ࠖࡸࠕRWK㸦⪃㸧ࠖࡣࠕព࿡බᘧ࡛ࠖࡣゐࢀࡽࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡇࢀࡽࡣ᪥ᮏே࡜ࢱ࢖ே࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࢆ⾜࠺࡜ࡁࡢ㔜せ࡞ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ௒ᅇࡢㄪᰝ࠿ࡽࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࠕRWK チ ࠖࡸࠕRWK ⪃ ࠖࡣព࿡බᘧ࡟᪂ࡓ࡟ຍ࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ㡯┠࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࢆ฼⏝ࡋศᯒࡍࡿࡲ࡛࡟␃ࡲࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࠊࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ⤫ィⓗฎ⌮ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠕ᩿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㡯┠ࡀ୧⪅࡜ࡶ࡟ẚ㍑ⓗ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊࣇ
࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࣭࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢆᐇ᪋ࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠕ࡞ࡐ᩿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⪃ᐹࡲ࡛࡟ࡣ⮳ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠕㅰ⨥ࠖࠕ⌮⏤ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࡢ୰࡟ࡶᵝࠎ࡞ゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ௒ᚋࡣࠊゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢ⣽࠿࠸ศᯒࢆ⾜࠸ %HHEHHWDO  ࡢࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࢆ෌⪃ࡋࠊ᭦࡟ูࡢሙ㠃࡛ࡢㄪᰝࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ᪂ࡓ࡞ࠕព࿡බᘧࠖࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
%HHEH/07DNDKDVKL7 8OLVV:HOW]53UDJPDWLFWUDQVIHULQ(6/UHIXVDOV,Q5&
6FDUFHOOD($QGHUVHQ 6&.UDVKHQ㸦(GV㸧2QWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIFRPPXQLFDWLYHFRPSHWHQFH

LQDVHFRQGODQJXDJH
⏕㥖▱Ꮚ࣭ᚿᮧ᫂ᙪࠕⱥㄒ࠿ࡽ᪥ᮏㄒ࡬ࡢࣉࣛࢢ࣐ࢸ࢕ࢵࢡ࣭ࢺࣛࣥࢫࣇ࢓࣮㸸ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ࡜࠸
࠺Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘ࠊ ྕࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍ࠊ
ఀ⸨ᜨ⨾Ꮚࠕ౫㢗ሙ㠃࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ᩿ࡾ⾲⌧ࡢ≉ᚩ̿᪥ᮏㄒ࣭ࢪࣕ࣡ㄒ࣭࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒ࣭࣐ࣞ
࣮ࢩ࢔ㄒ࣭ࢱ࢖ㄒࡢẚ㍑̿ࠖࠊࠗ␃Ꮫ⏕ᩍ⫱࠘ࠊࠊ␃Ꮫ⏕ᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍ࠊ
ຍ⣡㝣ே࣭ᱵᬡⶈࠕ᪥୰୧ゝㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ࣭ࣙࣥࢠࣕࢵࣉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⪃ᐹ᩿̿ࡾ⾲⌧ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟̿ࠖࠊࠗゝㄒ࡜ᩥ໬࠘ࠊ➨  ྕࠊᩥᩍ኱Ꮫࠊ
ᡂ⏣ᫀᏊ࣭ᡂ⏣㧗ᏹࠕ
ࠕ⏦ࡋฟࡢ᩿ࡾࠖ⾲⌧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪥ᮏㄒ࣭ࢱ࢖ㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࢱ࢖ே᪥
ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢព࿡බᘧ౑⏝ࡢ┦㐪ࠖࠊࠗᑠฟグᛕ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱◊✲఍ㄽᩥ㞟࠘ࠊ ྕࠊᑠฟグᛕ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱◊✲఍ࠊ

−254−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

ၟᶆࡢᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡢホ౯ࢆࡵࡄࡿゝㄒᏛⓗศᯒᇼ⏣⚽࿃࣭᪥⨨Ꮥ୍࣭⸨⏣ᨻ༤᫂἞኱Ꮫ࣭⚄ᡞ኱Ꮫ࣭㛵す኱Ꮫ
hotta@meiji.ac.jp
㸺Abstract㸼 ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ࣍ࢵࢳ࢟ࢫࠖࡸࠕṇ㟢୸ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊၟᶆࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠺ࡕ࡟ࠊࡑ
ࡢၟရ࣭ࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ඲యࢆᣦࡍ⾲⌧࡟࡞ࡿࠊᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬࡜࠸࠺⌧㇟࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚ࠊ
Dreyfuss(1990)ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽၟᶆ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡀ᭷ࡍࡿᶵ⬟࡜࠸࠺ഃ㠃࠿ࡽၟᶆࡢᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬࡜࠸࠺⌧㇟ࢆㄽࡌࡓୖ࡛ࠊᮏ◊✲ࢳ࣮࣒ࡀ⾜࡞ࡗࡓࠊᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿ ERP㸦Event Related Potentials ஦㇟㛵㐃㟁఩㸧ࡢணഛᐇ㦂ࡢ⤖ᯝࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡋࡘࡘ࠶ࡿྡ⛠ࡣࠊ཯ᛂ₯᫬࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕၟᶆ=
ᬑ㏻ྡ⛠㸺ᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡋࡓၟᶆࢆᬑ㏻ྡ⛠࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡶࡢ㸺ᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡋࡓၟᶆࢆၟᶆ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡶࡢࠖ࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝ࡟࡞ࡾࠊERP ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡋࡓ
ၟᶆࢆᬑ㏻ྡ⛠࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ N300 ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟ࡼࡾࠊၟᶆࡢ
ᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡣࠊ㏻ᖖࡼࡾከࡃࡢㄆ▱㈨※ࢆᚲせ࡜ࡍࡿ⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸 ၟᶆࠊᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࠊ஦㇟㛵㐃㟁఩ࠊἲゝㄒᏛࠊၟᶆゝㄒࡢᶵ⬟ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ၟᶆ࡜ࡣࠊࠕANAࠖࡸࠕᏯᛴ౽ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊၟရࡲࡓࡣࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࢆ௚⪅࡜༊ูࡍࡿ
ࡓࡵ࡟஦ᴗ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࣐࣮ࢡࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ࠸࠺ࠋၟᶆࡢᵓᡂせ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊゝㄒࡣ㔜せ࡞఩⨨ࢆ༨ࡵࡿࠋゝㄒࡀ㛵ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡟ࡣࠊᙜ↛ࠊゝㄒᏛࡢศᯒᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿ㸦Shuy
2002, ᇼ⏣ 2007㸧ࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊၟᶆࡢゝㄒࡀ㛵ࡿㅖၥ㢟ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬࡜࠸࠺⌧㇟࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚ࡿࠋ
ᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬࡜ࡣࠊࠕ࣍ࢵࢳ࢟ࢫࠖࡸࠕṇ㟢୸ࠖࡸࠕࢭࣟࢸ࣮ࣉࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊၟᶆࡀ౑
ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠺ࡕ࡟ࠊࡑࡢၟရ࣭ࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ඲యࢆ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ᣦࡍ⾲⌧࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺⌧㇟ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᣦࡍࠋၟᶆࡀᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊἲⓗಖㆤࢆཷࡅࡿᶒ฼ࢆኻ࠸㸦43 ᮲ 2 ➨ 1
㡯 1 ྕࠊ46 ᮲ 1 㡯 2 ྕ㸧ࠊᙜヱၟᶆࡢᶒ฼⪅௨እࡢ➨୕⪅ࡀ⮬⏤࡟ࡑࡢၟᶆࢆ౑࠺ࡇ
࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊၟᶆࡢᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡢἲⓗุ᩿ࡢᇶ‽ࡣ᭕᫕࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏ࡣࠊၟᶆࡀᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬࡜࠸࠺⌧㇟ࢆࠊ⏕⌮ᣦᶆࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚グ㏙࣭ᢕᥱࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ
ᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡢἲⓗุ᩿ࢆ⿵ຓࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒᏛⓗᇶ┙ࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋㄒ⏝ㄽ࡜ၟᶆ ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ୍ぢࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊㄒ⏝ㄽ࡜ࡣ↓㛵ಀ࡟ぢ࠼ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢᐃ⩏ࢆᨵࡵ࡚ぢ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕⓎヰࡢព࿡ࢆᢅ࠺ศ㔝ࠖ㸦బஂ㛫࣭ຍ⸨࣭⏫⏣ 2004㸧࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕゝㄒࢆࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠾࠸࡚ၥ࠺Ꮫၥศ㔝࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ
࡚ࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕᙜヱࡢⓎヰ㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺ㸧ࢆྲྀࡾᕳࡃ≧ἣࠊ⫼ᬒࠖ㸦⃝⏣ 2007㸧ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ࠸࠺ࠋၟᶆࡢ ᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊࡲࡉ࡟ࠊ≉ᐃࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡀ᭷ࡍࡿࠕ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࠖ࡜ࠕၟᶆ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ≉᭷ࡢព࿡ࠖࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡿ࠿
࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࢆᢅ࠺ྲྀ⤌ࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࡋࠊ㸦ၟᶆ㸧ἲ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢ౑⏝ࡀไ㝈ࡉࢀࡓࡾࠊᶒ฼ࢆᖏࡧࡓࡾࡍࡿࠊἲ࡜࠸࠺≉Ṧ࡞ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒ౑⏝ࡢၥ㢟ࢆᢅ࠺ヂ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊࡸࡣࡾㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠ᫬࡟ࠊゝㄒㄆ㆑࡟㛵ࡍࡿၥ㢟࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࠿ࡽᚰ⌮ゝㄒᏛⓗᐇ㦂ࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡶ࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿࠋ

−255−

商標の普通名称化の評価をめぐる言語学的分析

Teflon ἲ ၟᶆࡢᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿᐇ㦂ࢆ⾜࠺࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊ Teflon ἲ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠊᐇ㝿࡟࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡸ᪥ᮏࡢၟᶆ⿢ุ࡛ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊၟᶆࡢၟᶆྡ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ౑⏝࡟↔Ⅼࢆྜࢃ ࡏ ࡓ ㄪ ᰝ ᪉ ἲ ࡟ ᇶ ࡙ ࠸ ࡓ ᐇ 㦂 ᪉ ἲ ࢆ ᥇ ⏝ ࡋ ࡓ ࠋ Teflon ἲ ࡜ ࡣ ࠊ ࠕ Teflon ࠖࠕTHERMOSࠖࠕSTPࠖࠕMARGARINEࠖࠕ JELL-OࠖࠕREFRIGERATORࠖࠕASPIRINࠖ
ࠕCOKEࠖ࡜ゝࡗࡓࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢྡ⛠ࢆᐇ㦂ཧຍ⪅࡟ᥦ♧ࡋࠊ ࠕ۵۵۵ࡣࠊ
ࠗࣈࣛࣥࢻྡ࡛࠘ࡋࡻ࠺࠿ࠊࡑࢀ࡜ࡶࠊࠗၟရࡢᬑ㏻ྡ⛠࡛࠘ࡋࡻ࠺࠿?ࠖ࡜ᑜࡡࡿ᪉ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ࣭ࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥ
ᮏᐇ㦂࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊձ ၟᶆࡢᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬࡜࠸࠺⌧㇟࡟ゝㄒᏛⓗศᯒ࡛ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿഴྥ
ࡣᏑᅾࡍࡿࡢ࠿㸽ղᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊゝㄒᏛⓗ᰿ᣐ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓᇶ‽ࡣタᐃࡋ࠺ࡿ࠿㸽࡜࠸࠺஧ࡘࡢၥࢆࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ࣭ࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥ࡜ࡋ࡚タᐃࡋࡓࠋᐇ㦂᪉ἲ ᐇ㦂ཧຍ⪅ࡣࠊ12 ேࡢ⏨ዪ㸦኱Ꮫ⏕㸧࡛ࠊ่⃭࡟ࡣࠊᬑ㏻ྡ⛠㸦౛ࠊࣂࢱ࣮㸪ࣇ࢛࣮ࢡ㸪ࢧࢶ࣐࢖ࣔ࡞࡝㸧ࠊၟᶆ㸦ࡼࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࣈࣛࣥࢻྡࢆ౑⏝㸬౛ࠊࢲ࢖ࢯ
࣮㸪ࢥ࢝ࢥ࣮ࣛ㸪↓༳ၟရ࡞࡝㸧ࠊᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿၟᶆ㸦ࢩࣕࢳࣁࢱ㸪ࢭࣟࢸ࣮ࣉ㸪࣍ࢵࢳ࢟ࢫ࡞࡝㸧ࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀ 50 ࡎࡘ⏝ពࡋࡓࠋᐇ㦂ࡢヨ⾜㛫ࡢ㛫㝸㸦inter trial
interval; ITI㸧ࡣ 1250ms(1.25 ⛊)ࠊ่⃭࿊♧ࢱ࢖࣑ࣥࢢ㸦stimulus onset㸧ࡣヨ⾜㛤
ጞᚋ 1500ms(1.5 ⛊)࡜ࡋࠊ่⃭࿊♧㛫㝸ࡣ᭱ᑠ࡛ࡶ 2750ms㸦2.75 ⛊㸧ࢆ☜ಖࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡋࡓࠋྛヨ⾜࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊヨ⾜㛤ጞ┤ᚋ࡟⏬㠃୰ኸ࡟ὀどⅬ㸦͆㸩͇㸧ࢆ 1500ms ࢆ࿊♧ࡋࠊ ὀどⅬࡀᾘ࠼ࡓ┤ᚋ࡟༢ㄒࡀ࿊♧ࠊཧຍ⪅ࡀ࣎ࢱࣥᢲࡋ཯ᛂࢆ⾜࠺ࡲ࡛⏬
㠃ୖ࡟⥅⥆ⓗ࡟࿊♧ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᐇ㦂ཧຍ⪅ࡀ཯ᛂࡋࡓࡢࡕ࡟ 1250ms(1.25 ⛊)ࡢ᫬㛫ࢆ࠾࠸࡚㸪ḟࡢヨ⾜ࢆ㛤ጞࡋࡓࠋ౑⏝⿦⨨ࡣࠊTEAC Polymate II (12 channels)࡛ࠊィ 㒊఩ࡣࠊF3, Fz, F4, C3, Cz,
C4, P3, Pz, P4 ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽ㸷㒊఩࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ཯ᛂ₯᫬࡜஦㇟㛵㐃㟁఩ࢆ ᐃࡋࡓࠋ ゎᯒ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࡣࠊձᬑ㏻ྡ⛠ࢆᬑ㏻ྡ⛠࡜᳨ฟ㸦㉥㸧ࠊղࣈࣛࣥࢻྡࢆࣈࣛࣥࢻ
ྡ࡜᳨ฟ㸦㟷㸧ࠊճᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡋࡓࣈࣛࣥࢻྡࢆࣈࣛࣥࢻྡ࡜᳨ฟ㸦⥳㸧ࠊմᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡋࡓࣈࣛࣥࢻྡࢆᬑ㏻ྡ⛠࡜᳨ฟ㸦㉥◚⥺㸧ࡢ㸲✀㢮ࢆ༊ูࡋࡓࠋ
ᅗ㸯 ่⃭࿊♧ᚋ 600ms ࡲ࡛ Cz㸦㢌㡬㒊㸧ࡢ ERP㸦ཧຍ⪅ 12 ྡࡢᖹᆒ㸧   ⤖ᯝ࡜㆟ㄽ཯ ᛂ ₯ ᫬ ࡟ ࡘ ࠸ ࡚ ࡣ ࠊ ࣈ ࣛ ࣥ ࢻ ྡ (M=806.71 ms, SD=156.26) ࠊ ᬑ ㏻ ྡ ⛠(M=892.01 ms, SD=287.00) ࠊᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡋࡓࣈࣛࣥࢻྡࢆᬑ㏻ྡ⛠ (M=1011.17
ms, SD=279.67) ࠊ ᬑ ㏻ ྡ ⛠ ໬ ࡋ ࡓ ࣈ ࣛ ࣥ ࢻ ྡ ࢆ ࣈ ࣛ ࣥ ࢻ ྡ (M=1055.05 ms,
SD=284.77) ࡢ 㡰 ࡛ ࠊ ่ ⃭ ࿊ ♧ ᚋ ࡢ ཯ ᛂ ㏿ ᗘ ࡀ 㐜 ࡃ ࡞ ࡿࡇ ࡜ ࡀ ほ ᐹ ࡉࢀ ࡓ (F(3,33)=10.16, p<.01, ୗ఩᳨ᐃࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪ࣈࣛࣥࢻྡ᮲௳㸺ᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡋࡓࣈࣛࣥࢻྡࢆ
ᬑ㏻ྡ⛠㸻ᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡋࡓࣈࣛࣥࢻྡࢆࣈࣛࣥࢻྡ㸪࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋࡓࡔ
ࡋࠊࣈࣛࣥࢻྡ᮲௳㸫ᬑ㏻ྡ⛠᮲௳㛫࡟ࡣ᭷ព࡞ᕪࡣ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ)ࠋᬑ㏻ྡ
⛠໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྡ⛠ࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊࣈࣛࣥࢻྡࡼࡾከࡃࡢㄆ▱㈨※ࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ
࡜ࡀ❚࠼ࡿࠋ

−256−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

 ᅗ 1 ࡣࠊ่⃭࿊♧ᚋ 600ms ࡲ࡛ Cz㸦㢌㡬㒊㸧ࡢ ERP ࡢཧຍ⪅ 12 ྡࡢᖹᆒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
≉ᚩⓗ࡞ࡢࡣ㸪ᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡋࡓࣈࣛࣥࢻࢆᬑ㏻ྡ⛠(◚⥺)࡜᳨ฟࡋࡓ㝿㸪่⃭࿊♧࠿ࡽ 300ms ᚋ࡟㝜ᛶࡢἼᙧ㸦N300㸧ࡀ࿊♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
N300 ᡂศࡣࠊどぬ่⃭࡜㈓ⶶグ᠈ࡢ࣐ࢵࢳࣥࢢ࡟㐪࿴ឤࢆぬ࠼ࡓ㝿࡟⏕ࡌࡿ Ἴᙧ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(Schendan and Kutas, 2007; Sitnikova et al., 2008; Yum etal., 2011)ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢ࣓࣮ࣔࣜࡢฎ⌮㔞ࡢቑຍࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

⤖ㄽࣈࣛࣥࢻྡ࡜ᬑ㏻ྡ⛠ࢆㄆ㆑ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊ཯ᛂ₯᫬ࠊ஦㇟㛵㐃㟁఩ࡢ㠃࡛ࡣ⤫ィⓗ࡟᭷ព࡞ᕪࡣぢཷࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡋࡓࣈࣛࣥࢻྡࢆᬑ㏻ྡ⛠࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡣࠊ཯ᛂ₯᫬࠾ࡼࡧ஦㇟㛵㐃㟁఩࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊㄆ▱㈨※ࢆከࡃ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ཯ᛂࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡋࡓࣈࣛࣥࢻྡࢆᬑ㏻ྡ⛠࡜ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿ㝿࡟୍ᐃࡢ≉ᚩࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢၟᶆࡀᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆἲⓗ࡟ุ᩿ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡇࡢ཯ᛂࢆᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ࣭ࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥ࡟ᥖࡆࡓࠊ
ࠕၟᶆࡢᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬࡜࠸࠺⌧㇟࡟ゝㄒᏛⓗศᯒ࡛ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿഴྥࡣᏑᅾࡍࡿࡢ࠿㸽ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ၥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡋࡘࡘ࠶ࡿྡ⛠ࡣࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃ୧⩏ᛶࢆᣢࡘࡓࡵ࡟⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ཯ᛂࡢ㐜ᘏࠊ࠾ࡼࡧ஦㇟㛵㐃㟁఩ୖࡢ⏕⌮཯ᛂࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢ≉Ṧ࡞ゝㄒฎ⌮ࡀ⬻ෆ࡛⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀண
࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࠕᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊゝㄒᏛⓗ᰿ᣐ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓᇶ‽ࡣタᐃࡋ࠺ࡿ࠿㸽ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᬑ㏻ྡ⛠໬ࡋࡘࡘ࠶ࡿྡ
⛠࡟ࡣࠊ཯ᛂ₯᫬ࡸ ERP ࡢ ᐃ⤖ᯝࢆᇶ‽࡜ࡋ࡚฼⏝ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋ
௒ᚋࡢᒎᮃ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡼࡾከࡃࡢཧຍ⪅࡟ᐇ㦂ࢆヨ⾜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠊಶࠎࡢ่⃭㸦ၟᶆ㸧ࡢホ౯ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࠊ௚ゝㄒࡢẕㄒヰ⪅ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ẚ㍑ᐇ㦂ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡉࡽ࡟㡹೺࡞ゝㄒ⌧㇟ࡢᇶ┙ࢆᥦ౪࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Hotta, S. (2007). Morphosyntactic Structure of Japanese Trademarks and Their Distinctiveness: A New
Model for Linguistic Analysis of Trademarks. Language and the Law 2005: East Meets West, The
University of University of Lodz.
஭ୖ⏤㔛Ꮚ (2008)ࠕᬑ㏻ྡ⛠ᛶࡢ❧ド࡜࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ Ɇ࢔࣓࡛ࣜ࢝ࡢ㆟ㄽࢆ⣲ᮦ࡟̿ࠖ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲
Vol.20 235-263.
బஂ㛫῟୍࣭ຍ⸨㔜ᗈ࣭⏫⏣೺(2004)ࠗゝㄒᏛධ㛛࠘◊✲♫.
Schendan, H.E., and Kutas, M. (2007). Neurophysiological evidence for the time course of activation of global
shape, part, and local contour represen- tations during visual object categorization and memory. Journal of

Cognitive Neuroscience 19 (5), 734–749.
Sitnikova, T., Kuperberg, G., and Holocomb, P. J. (2003). Semantic integration in videos of real-world events:
an electrophysiological investigation. Psychophysiology 40, 160–164.
Shuy, R. (2002). Linguistic Battles in Trademark Disputes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yum, Y. N., Holcomb, P. J., and Grainger, J. (2011). Words and pictures: an electrophysiological investigationof domain specific processing in native Chinese and English speakers. Neuropsychologia 49 (7), 1910–1922.

−257−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

␲ၥᩥࢆᘬ⏝ࡋ࡚୺⠇࡛⟅࠼ࡿ⾲⌧ࡢᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡ᒣἨ ᐇ ᫂ᾏ኱Ꮫ እᅜㄒᏛ㒊
yamaizumi.minoru@gmail.com
ࠑAbstractࠒ Japanese features a conditional construction where a quoted question in the protasis is
answered in the apodosis. Semantically speaking, an instance of this construction expresses a proposition
which can be expressed by a simpler monoclausal sentence, but the former is as pragmatically different
from the latter as are cleft-constructions, particularly, English pseudo-clefts (also called wh-clefts) in many
ways: (i) the order of information (i.e., the focus follows the presupposition), (ii) how to present thevariable in the presupposition (i.e., via an interrogative), (iii) how to present the focus, and (iv) a constraint
on information structure (i.e., the presupposition has to be given in the sense of Prince (1978)).
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ␲ၥᩥࠊ␲ၥモ␲ၥࠊศ⿣ᩥࠊᨃఝศ⿣ᩥࠊ᝟ሗᵓ㐀  ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

␗࡞ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆㄽࡌࡿࠋ⤖ㄽࢆ୍ゝ࡛ゝ࠺࡜ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢ౛ࡢࡼ࠺࡟␲ၥᩥࢆ᮲௳⠇WHQPQ&A ࡣศ⿣ᩥࠊ≉࡟ⱥㄒࡢᨃఝศ⿣ᩥ

࡛ᘬ⏝ࡋࠊ୺⠇௨ୗ࡛⟅࠼ࡿᙧࡢᵓᩥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

㸦wh ศ⿣ᩥࠊ(2)㸧࡟㓞ఝࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᨃఝᨃఝ
ศ⿣ᩥ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡶࡼࡉࡑ࠺࡞࡯࡝࡛࠶ࡿࠋ1(1) ⚾ࡀఱࢆసࡾࡓ࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ࠊ࣒࢜ࣞࢶࡔ
/࣒࢜ࣞࢶࢆసࡾࡓ࠸ࠋ

(2)

What I want to make is omelets.

௨ୗ࡛ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵓᩥࡢ᮲௳⠇ࢆ QPQ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢ⏝ㄒ࡛ゝ࠼ࡤࠊWHQPQ&A ࡜ᨃ

㸦Quoted and Preempted Questions㸧ࠊ୺⠇ࡶྜࢃ

ఝศ⿣ᩥࡣ㢮ఝࡢᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠺

ࡏࡓᵓᩥ඲యࢆ QPQ&A ࡜࿧ࡪࠋ⫯ྰ␲ၥᩥࡸ

ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୗࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆヲ⣽࡟ㄽࡌࡿࠋ

㑅ᢥ␲ၥᩥࡶᘬ⏝㒊࡟⌧ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡶ
ࡢࡢࠊ௒ᅇࡣ␲ၥモ␲ၥᩥࡀᘬ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶ ศᯒ㸸ᨃఝᨃఝศ⿣ᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ WHQPQ&Aࡢ㸦WHQPQ&A㸧ࡔࡅࢆᢅ࠺ࠋ  ᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡ WHQPQ&A ࡀ⾲ࡍ࿨㢟ࡣࠊ(1)࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ௨

ᨃఝศ⿣ᩥࡢᡭ⥆ࡁⓗព࿡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ Juckerୗࡢ౛ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟༢ᩥ࡛ࡶ⾲ࢃࡏࡿࠋ

㸦1997㸧ࡢᡤㄝࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊᑐᛂࡍࡿ
㠀ศ⿣ᩥࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࠿ࡅࡿฎ⌮ປຊ࠿ࡽ㆟ㄽ(1)ƍ ⚾ࡀ࣒࢜ࣞࢶࢆసࡾࡓ࠸ࠋ

ࢆጞࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

WHQPQ&A ࡣᑐᛂࡍࡿ༢ᩥ࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟࡝࠺(3)[5 Elaine [4 started to [3 play [2 the [1
MOONLIGHT] sonata]]]].

␗࡞ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᒣἨ㸦2014, ㏆ห㸧࡟࠾࠸

㸦Jucker, 1997: 190ࠊ኱ᩥᏐࡣᩥᙉໃ㸧࡚ࠊQPQ&A ࡣᑐᛂࡍࡿ༢ᩥ࡜௨ୗࡢⅬ࡛␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋQPQ㸤A ࡣゎㄝ␲ၥᩥ㸦expository questions㸧ࡢᘬ⏝࡜ࡑࡢ⟅࠼㸦༶㠀ศ⿣ᩥ(3)ࡢ↔Ⅼ2࡟࠶ࡓࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊ1–5 ࡢ࠸ࡕゎㄝ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊQPQ ࡣࠊࡑࡢ⟅࠼ࡢࡎ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡝ࢀ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡢุ᩿ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ጤ㒊ศ㸦㸻୺⠇௨ୗ㸧ࡀ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ

ࡡࡽࢀࠊࡇࡢⅬ࡛ฎ⌮ປຊࢆせࡍࡿ㸦Jucker,࡚㛵㐃ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜♧ࡍࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢ

1997: 189㸧ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ␲ၥモ␲ၥᩥ(4)࡟ࡼࡿ㉁␲ၥᩥࡢศᯒ㸦Wilson & Sperber 1988/2012㸧࠿ၥ࡟⟅࠼࡚(3)ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓሙྜࡢ↔Ⅼࡣ࡝࠺ࡽࡢᖐ⤖࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊWHQPQ&A ࡣᑐࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᛂࡍࡿ༢ᩥ࡜≉࡟᝟ሗᵓ㐀ࡢⅬ࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟

−259−

疑問文を引用して主節で答える表現の手続き的意味(4)

1978: 101㸧࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ

What did Elaine start to play?
(Jucker, 1997: 190) ➨஧࡟ࠊ๓ᥦෆࡢ࿨㢟ࡢኚ㡯ࢆ⾲ࡍ᪉ἲࡶඹ
㏻࡛ࠊ୧⪅࡜ࡶࠊ㐺ᙜ࡞␲ၥモࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡞ࡅ

ࡇࡢሙྜࡢ↔Ⅼࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ⪃࠼ࡿࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊ ࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢⅬࡶ it ศ⿣ᩥ࡜ࡢ┦㐪Ⅼ࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ 2㸦= the MOONLIGHT sonata㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

࠶ࡿࠋIt ศ⿣ᩥ࡛↔Ⅼࡢᚋ࡟࠶ࡿ㛵ಀ௦ྡモⓗศ⿣ᩥࡶ WHQPQ ࡶࠊ␲ၥモ␲ၥᩥࡢࡇࡢാ

せ⣲ࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࡣࠊ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ

ࡁࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᨃఝศ⿣ᩥ(5)࡛ࡶ

ࡢࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ⩏ົⓗ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

WHQPQ&A(6)࡛ࡶࠊ(4)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㉁ၥࡀ࡞ࡃ࡜ ➨୕࡟ࠊ↔Ⅼࡢᥦ♧᪉ἲ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡶࠊ↔Ⅼ࣭๓ᥦࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ᫂☜࡟♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

WHQPQ&A ࡜ᨃఝศ⿣ᩥࡣ୍ぢ␗࡞ࡿࠋᨃఝ
ศ⿣ᩥ࡛ࡣྡモྃ㏙ㄒࠊWHQPQ&A ࡛ࡣ୺⠇(5) What Elaine started to play was the㸦(1)ࡢࠕ࣒࢜ࣞࢶࡀసࡾࡓ࠸ࠖ㸧ࡀ↔Ⅼࢆ⾲ࡍ

Moonlight sonata. (Jucker, 1997: 191)ࡶࡢࡀ᭱ࡶつ⠊ⓗ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㏫࡟

(6) ࢚ࣞ࢖ࢾࡀఱࢆᙎࡁጞࡵࡓ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ࠊ

ᨃఝศ⿣ᩥ࡛⠇࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸦Prince, 1978; Hopper,
2001㸧ࠊWHQPQ&A ࡛ྡモྃ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸦(1)ࡢ

ࠕ᭶ගࠖࢯࢼࢱࡔࠋ

ࠕ࣒࢜ࣞࢶࡔࠖ㸧↔Ⅼࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࡶᐇ౛࡛
ࡘࡲࡾࠊ↔Ⅼ࡜๓ᥦࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡋ࡚⪺ࡁᡭࡢฎࡣᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞࠸ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᨃఝศ⿣ᩥ࡛ࡶ㸦Hopper,⌮ປຊࢆ㍍ῶࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࢆ㧗ࡵ

2001: 113㸧ࠊWHQPQ&A ࡛ࡶࠊ↔Ⅼ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ

ࡿࡇ࡜࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡶࡢࡢグ㏙ࡀᩥ 1 ࡘ࡛⤊ࢃࡽࡎ࡟ࠊ」ᩘࡢᩥ࡟

 ௨ୖࡢ㆟ㄽ࠿ࡽࠊWHQPQ ࡣ௨ୗࡢᡭ⥆ࡁⓗ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᐇ౛ࡉ࠼⌋ࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࠋ

ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ㸸ࡑࢀ࠿ࡽ᚟ඖࡉࢀࡿ࿨㢟ࢆ๓ᥦ㸦Ҹ⫼ᬒྵព㸧ࠊ↔

(8) ௒ࡲ࡛༑ᖺ㛫ࡎࡗ࡜࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛

Ⅼࡣ␲ၥモ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ㒊ศ࡜ࡋࠊ୺⠇࠿ࡽ᚟ඖࡍࡼࡡࠊṧᛕ࡞ࡀࡽࠋ࡞ࡐ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࠿

ࡉࢀࡿ࿨㢟ࢆ๓ᬒྵព࡜ࡋ࡚ฎ⌮ࠋ࡜࠸࠼ࡤࠊ⤖ᒁࠊ౛࠼ࡤ஧ࠐࠐࠐᖺࠊඛ࡯
࡝౛ࢆᣲࡆࡲࡋࡓࡡࠋ㸦 ᩥ┬␎㸧⤖ᒁࠊ  WHQPQ&A ࡜ᨃఝศ⿣ᩥࡢඹ㏻Ⅼࡶ࡜ࡢࡶࡃ࠶ࡳ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡍࡡࠋ㸦➨ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊWHQPQ&A ࡣྛ✀ศ⿣ᩥࡢ୰࡛ࡶ

183 ᅇ⾗㆟㝔ᅜ఍఍㆟㘓ࠊᙉㄪᘬ⏝⪅㸧≉࡟ᨃఝศ⿣ᩥ࡟㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ ➨୍࡟ࠊ୧⪅ࡣ๓ᥦĺ↔Ⅼ࡜࠸࠺᝟ሗࡢᥦ♧ྠᵝࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ it ศ⿣ᩥ࡛ࡣ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ

ࡢ㡰ᗎࡀඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(9) *It is that we tried in the past different groups.
(1) ⚾ࡀఱࢆసࡾࡓ࠸࠿
(2) What I want to makeSo you ask somebody from each of these࡜࠸࠺࡜ࠊ࣒࢜ࣞࢶࡔࠋ

----------๓ᥦ----------   is--↔Ⅼ--

about three or four different forms ... thatomelets.

happen(s).3 (Hopper, 2001: 113 ࡢᨃఝศ⿣
ᩥࡢ౛ࢆඖ࡟ࡋࡓస౛)ࡇࡢⅬࡣ↔Ⅼĺ๓ᥦࡢ㡰ᗎ࡟࡞ࡿ it ศ⿣ᩥ(7) ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊWHQPQ&A ࡢ↔Ⅼ㒊ࡣ୺⠇࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡢ┦㐪Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

୍᪉࡛ᨃఝศ⿣ᩥ࡛ࡣࡑ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡣ࠸࠼ࠊ
(7)ᨃఝศ⿣ᩥࡢ↔Ⅼ㒊࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ⿵ᩥ໬㎡ that

It is omelets that I want to make.

ࡢḞዴࡸ࿨௧ᩥࡢ⏕㉳࡞࡝ࡢ୺⠇⌧㇟ࡀぢࡽ
࡞࠾ࠊWHQPQ ࡀ๓ᥦࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ⟅࠼ࡢ್ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦Prince, 1978: 891㸧ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ

ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺␲ၥモ␲ၥᩥࡢ๓ᥦ㸦ᶫᮏ

↔Ⅼࡢᥦ♧᪉ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ୧⪅ࡣᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟࡯࡜−260−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ࢇ࡝ᕪࡀ࡞࠸ࠋ୍᪉ࠊit ศ⿣ᩥࡢ↔Ⅼ㒊࡟ࡣ࿨ࡁ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ୙ᐃࡢ㒊ศࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ゎㄝࡣࠊ௧ᩥࡣ⏕㉳࡛ࡁࡎ(10)ࠊ⿵ᩥ໬㎡ that ࡢ࡞࠸ᖹㄯヰࡢὶࢀ࡜ࡋ࡚୙⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋླྀᩥࡶᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸(11) ࠋ4

 ࡇࢀࡽࡢⅬࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊWHQPQ㸤A ࡣࠊ
it ศ⿣ᩥࡸࣀࣁศ⿣ᩥ࡜ࡼࡾࡶᨃఝศ⿣ᩥ࡜

(10) *It is do your best that you should do.

ࡢඹ㏻Ⅼࡀ┠❧ࡘࠋࡶࡕࢁࢇࠊ୧⪅࡟ᕪࡀ࡞࠸

(11) *It is he is wrong that I firmly believe.

ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋPrince㸦1978: 1.2㸧࡞࡝᳨࡛ウࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ↔Ⅼ㒊ศࡢ⤫ㄒ⠊␪ࡢไ⣙ࡣ ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ୧⪅ࡣඹ㏻ࡢ᝟ሗᵓ㐀ୖࡢไ⣙ࢆᣢ

WHQPQ&A ࡟ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊୖ࡛㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᨃఝศ⿣ᩥࡢ๓ᥦ㒊ศࡣ given࡟ᨃఝศ⿣ᩥࡢ↔Ⅼ࡟ࡣ࿨௧ᩥࢆධࢀࡿࡇ࡜

information㸦Ⓨヰ᫬࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡢព㆑࡟࠶ࡿ࡜᝿

ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ୍᪉ࠊWHQPQ&A ࡛ࡣ࿨௧ᩥࡀ୺⠇ᐃࡋ࡚ࡼ࠸᝟ሗ㸧࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸㸦Prince,࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

1978㸧ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ⇃ᮏ㸦1989: 24㸧ࡀ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊㄯヰࡢ᭱ึࠊ≉࡟Ⓨヰ≧ἣ࡜࠿ࡅ㞳ࢀ(16) What you should do is do your best.

ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣ౑࠸࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ

(17)ḟ౛ࡣグ஦ࡢ᭱ึࡢᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ୙㐺ษ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(12) ?When Henry Ford gave us the weekend was?࠶࡞ࡓࡀఱࢆࡍ࡭ࡁ࠿࡜ゝ࠺࡜ࠊ᭱ၿ
ࢆᑾࡃࡏࠋࡇࢀࡶ WHQPQ ࡣゎㄝ␲ၥࡢᘬ⏝࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ࡛ࠊ

just about 50 years ago. 㸦Collins, 1991: 105㸧 ࡑࡢ⟅࠼࡛࠶ࡿ୺⠇ࡣゎㄝ࡟㝈ࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶
ࡿ㸦ᒣἨ, 2014࣭㏆ห㸧ࠋIt ศ⿣ᩥࡣࡇࡢⅬ࡛ᑐ↷ⓗ࡛ࠊⓎヰ≧ἣ࡜࠿ࡅ㞳ࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࢆㄯヰࡢ᭱ึ࡛㏙࡭ࡿࡢ࡟౑࠼ࡿࠋ  WHQPQ ࡀᑟࡃⓎヰゎ㔘㐣⛬ࢫ࣌ࣝ࣋ࣝ㸤࢘࢕ࣝࢯࣥ㸦1999: 4 ❶ 5 ⠇㸧࡛(13) It was just about 50 years ago that Henry Fordgave us the weekend.

ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰゎ㔘㐣⛬5ࡢࣔࢹࣝࡀᥦ
♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ 1 ᩥࢆ  (Prince, 1978: 898ࠊ᪂⪺࠿ࡽࡢᐇ౛)⫈ࡁ⤊ࢃࡗ࡚ึࡵ࡚ࡑࡢゎ㔘࡟ྲྀࡾ࠿࠿ࡿࡢ
࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᩥࢆ⪺࠸࡚࠸ࡿ᭱୰࡟ண᝿⤫ㄒ௬ㄝྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞ᑐ↷ࡣ WHQPQ&A ࡜ࣀࣁศ⿣ᩥࡢ

ࢆ❧࡚ࠊࡑࢀࢆᇶ࡟ண᝿ㄽ⌮௬ㄝࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿࠋ㛫࡟ࡶほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋWHQPQ&A ࡣࣀࣁศ⿣ᩥ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(15)࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ๓ᥦ㒊ศࡀ given information ࡛(18)࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ

John invited …
㸦ࢫ࣌ࣝ࣋ࣝ㸤࢘࢕ࣝࢯࣥ, 1999: 250㸧(14) ?㹙グ஦ࡢෑ㢌㹛࣮࣭࣊ࣥࣜࣇ࢛࣮ࢻࡀᡃࠎ
࡟࠸ࡘ㐌ᮎࢆࡃࢀࡓ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ࠊ࡯ࢇࡢ

࡜⪺࠸࡚࠸ࡿ᭱୰࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ண

50 ᖺ࡯࡝๓ࡔࡗࡓࠋ

᝿⤫ㄒ௬ㄝࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿࠋ(15) 㹙グ஦ࡢෑ㢌㹛࣮࣭࣊ࣥࣜࣇ࢛࣮ࢻࡀᡃࠎ
࡟㐌ᮎࢆࡃࢀࡓࡢࡣࠊ࡯ࢇࡢ 50 ᖺ࡯࡝๓(19)

[S [NP John] [VP [V invited] [NP x]]]ࡔࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀ࠿ࡽ NP ࡀ᮶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ண᝿ࡢඖ࡟ࠊࡑࡢኚ
WHQPQ&A ࡟ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ไ⣙ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢࡣࠊゎ㡯ࡢ㒊ศࢆ୙ᐃせ⣲࡟⨨᥮ࡋ࡚ࠊ௨ୗࡢண᝿ㄽ

ㄝ␲ၥࡢᘬ⏝࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡢព㆑

⌮௬ㄝࢆᚓࡿࠋ

࡟࠶ࡿ࡜᝿ᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸᝟ሗࢆ✺↛ᣢࡕฟࡋ࡚

−261−

疑問文を引用して主節で答える表現の手続き的意味(20)

John invited someone.

ࡇࢀ࡟ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢ௜୚࡜⬺᭕᫕໬ࢆ᪋ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞᝟ሗࢆᚓࡿࠋ
(21)

John Smith invited someone.

ࡑࡢ㝿ࠊࡇࡢ᝟ሗࡣࠊࡓ࡜࠼ㄆ▱ຠᯝࢆࡶࡓࡽ
ࡉ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࿧ࡧฟࡋྍ⬟࡞ᩥ⬦࡛ḟࡢၥ࠸(22)ࢆ࿧ࡧ㉳ࡇࡋᚓࡿࠋ
(22)

Who did John Smith invite?

᭱㐺ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࢆᮇᚅࡍࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊࠕࡇࢀࡣヰࡋᡭࡀពᅗⓗ࡟࿧ࡧ㉳ࡋࡓ␲ၥ࡛ࠊṧࡾࡢⓎヰࡣࡑࢀ࡟⟅࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ⟅࠼ࡣ࿧ࡧฟࡍࡼ
࠺࡟ಁࡉࢀࡓᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚㛵㐃ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡛࠶
ࢁ࠺࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠖ࡜ࢫ࣌ࣝ࣋ࣝ㸤࢘࢕ࣝࢯࣥ㸦1999: 252㸧ࡣ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡔࠊࡇ
ࡢၥ࠸⮬యࡣヰࡋᡭࡀពᅗ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ఏ࠼ࡼ࠺
࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᖖ࡟ࡑ
࠺⪃࠼ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡶࡗ࡜ࡶࠊJohn
invited …(18)࡛ᩒ࠼࡚ⓎヰࢆṆࡵࢀࡤࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ
࡝ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࡑ࠺⪃࠼ฟࡍࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
 WHQPQ ࡣࠊࡇࢀ࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰゎ㔘㐣⛬ࢆᑟࡃ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋ(18)–(22)ࡢࡼ
࠺࡞㐣⛬ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ⮬୺ⓗ࣭↓ព㆑ⓗ࡟㎺ࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊWHQPQ ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ၥ࠸ࢆᙉไⓗ࣭᫂♧ⓗ࡟࿧ࡧ㉳ࡇࡉࡏࡿ࡜࠸࠺
ࡇ࡜ࡀ኱ࡁ࡞㐪࠸࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ト 1 ⯆࿡῝࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࠊᮌᮧ࣭ᕷ⏣㸦2014㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜᪥ᮏᡭヰ࡛ࡶ␲ၥモ␲ၥࢆ౑ࡗࡓ↔Ⅼ໬ࡢᵓᩥ㸦ࠕWH ศ⿣ᩥࠖ㸧ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ
[1 ே⛠ 㣧ࡴ ዲࡁ ఱ㸽 ࣡࢖ࣥ 1 ே⛠]㸦[㣧ࡴࡢࡀዲࡁ࡞ࡢࡣఱ࠿࡜࠸࠼ࡤ࣡࢖࡛ࣥ
ࡍ]࡜┤ヂࡉࢀࡿᵓ㐀㸧ࡣࠊ┤ヂࡢ WHQPQ&A࡯࡝኱ࡆࡉ࡞⾲⌧࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ“࠾㓇ࡢ୰࡛ዲࡁ
࡞ࡢࡣ࣡࢖࡛ࣥࡍ”࡜ヂࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡞୍⯡ⓗ࡞⾲⌧࡟࡞ࡿ㸦p. 178㸧ࠋ2㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ㸦Wilson & Sperber, 1979; ࢫ࣌ࣝ࣋ࣝ&࢘࢕ࣝࢯࣥ, 1999: 4 ❶ 5 ⠇; Jucker, 1997㸧࡛ࡣࠊ๓ᥦ࣭↔Ⅼ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࢆ⏝࠸ࡎ࡟ࠊ㡰ᗎ௜ࡁྵព㸦ordered entailments㸧࠿ࡽᑟ࠿ࢀࡿ๓
ᬒྵព࣭⫼ᬒྵព࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕ࡛ྠࡌ⌧㇟ࢆศᯒࡋࠊ↔Ⅼࡣ๓ᬒྵពࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍ᭱኱ࡢᵓᡂ⣲࡜ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ⣬ᖜࡢ㒔ྜ࡛ࠊࡇࡢᯟ⤌࡟ࡣ❧ࡕධࡽࡎࠊ௦ࢃࡾ࡟ᗈࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ๓ᥦ࣭↔Ⅼࡢᴫᛕࢆ౽ᐅⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡿࠋ3(9)–(11)ࡢᐜㄆᛶุ᩿ࡣ࢖ࢠࣜࢫⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ James Charlton Ặ࡟ࡼࡿࠋ4
⿵ᩥ໬㎡ that ࡢ࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊPrince(1978: ト 2)ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
5ࢫ࣌ࣝ࣋ࣝ㸤㹱࢘࢕ࣝࢯࣥ(1999)ࡣⱥㄒࡢ౛
ࢆඖ࡟ㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㄒ㡰ࡢ␗࡞ࡿ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅ
ࡿྠᵝࡢⓎヰゎ㔘㐣⛬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᑎᮧ㸦1993㸧࡛ㄽࡌࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩⇃ᮏ ༓᫂㸦1989㸧ࠕ᪥࣭ⱥㄒࡢศ⿣ᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ
ࠗబ㈡኱ᏛⱥᩥᏛ◊✲࠘17: 11–34.
ࢫ࣌ࣝ࣋ࣝ㸪ࢲ࣭ࣥ࢘࢕ࣝࢯࣥ㸪ࢹ࢕࢔ࢻࣜ 㸦ෆ⏣⪷஧௚ヂ㸧㸦1999㸧ࠗ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ㸸ఏ㐩࡜ㄆ▱࠘㸦➨ 2 ∧㸧◊✲♫.
ᑎᮧ ⚽ኵ㸦1993㸧ࠕ⫈ࡁྲྀࡾ࡟࠾ࡅࡿண ⬟ຊ࡜ᩥἲⓗ▱㆑ࠖࠗᑎᮧ⚽ኵㄽᩥ㞟 IIȸゝㄒᏛ࣭᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱⦅ȸ࠘pp. 97–114. ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ᶫᮏ ⴙኴ㑻㸦1978㸧ࠕ⌧௦༤ゝᏛ 1㸸୙ᐃᣦ♧࡜␲ၥ㸦ୖ㸧ࠖࠗ᭶㛫ゝㄒ࠘7(1): 101–109.
ᒣἨ ᐇ 㸦2014㸧ࠕ␲ၥモ␲ၥࢆᘬ⏝ࡍࡿ⾲⌧ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍኱఍Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘9: 275–
278.
ᒣἨ ᐇ 㸦㏆ห㸧ࠕ᮲௳⠇࡛␲ၥᩥࢆᘬ⏝ࡍࡿᵓᩥ㸸ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⪃ᐹࠖຍ⸨㔜ᗈ⦅ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒㄒ⏝ㄽࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛ㸯࠘ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
Collins, P. C. (1991) Cleft and pseudo-cleft
constructions in English. London: Routledge.
Hopper, P. J. (2001) Grammatical constructions
and their discourse origins: Prototype orfamily resemblance? In M. Pütz & S.
Niemeier (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics
I: Theory and language acquisition, 109–129.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jucker, A. H. (1997) The relevance of cleft
constructions. Multilingua, 16: 187–198.
Prince, E. F. (1978) A comparison of wh-clefts
and it-clefts in discourse. Language, 54(4):883–906.
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (1998/2012) Mood andthe analysis of non-declarative sentences. In
D. Wilson & D. Sperber, Meaning andrelevance, 210–229.

−262−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ゝእࡢࠕᩥ⬦ⓗྵពࠖ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚Ⓨࡏࡽࢀࡿࢣࢻࡢᶵ⬟ᶓ⏣ᩔᏊ䛚Ⲕ䛾ỈዪᏊ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔

Abstract

The sentence finished in kedo clause without the main clause is often described interms of politeness, however, there is also a function that cannot be explained assuch aspect. This paper argues another function, which works as "marker"
requesting to reconsider the inference derived from the preceding context. According
to the premises that argue sentence finished in kedo clause has a function of recognition correction
towards the participant, this study will show the two different cases whether the recognition
correction is made due to: i㸧 "basis of judgment", ii㸧 "premise of the speech act".
࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ゝእࡢᩥ⬦ⓗྵពࠊㄆ㆑⿵ṇࠊ₇⧢᥎ㄽ᥋⥆ຓモ䜺䜔䜿䝗䛜୺⠇䛷䛒䜛ᚋ௳䜢క䜟䛺䛔䜎䜎⤊⤖䛧䛯Ⓨヰᩥ㸦௨ୗࠊࢣࢻ⠇ᩥ㸧䛿䚸఍ヰ䛾ሙ㠃䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸䜘䛟⏝䛔䜙䜜䜛䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䜿䝗⠇ᩥࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ㝿ࠊⓎヰ࡟ࡣ┤᥋⌧ࢀ࡞࠸ゝእࡢᩥ⬦ⓗྵព㸦contextual implications㸧ࡀ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ ࡢ౛࡟࠾ࡅࡿ B ࡢࠕఱࡶ࡛࡚ࡇ࡞࠸࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࢣࢻࠖࡣࠊA ࡢⓎヰ࠿ࡽᑟ࠿ࢀࡿᩥ⬦ⓗྵពࠕὙ࠸
┤ࡍЍఱ࠿࡛࡚ࡃࡿࠖ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚Ⓨࡏࡽࢀࠊࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄆ㆑࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢᨵኚࢆಁࡍࡼ࠺࡞ཧ↷᝟ሗࢆᥦ♧ࠖ㸦ⓑᕝ 㸧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊᑐヰ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡋㄆ㆑⿵ṇࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
㸦ฮ஦஧ேࡀ௨๓ᢅࡗࡓ஦௳࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃࡛㸧$㸸ࠕࡶ࠺୍ᗘὙ࠸┤ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࠿ࠋࠖ
%㸸ࠕఱࡶ࡛࡚ࡇ࡞࠸࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࢣࢻࠖ
኱὾㸦㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠕ࠶ࡿⓎヰ P ࡀⓎࡏࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ P ࢆᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊPĺQ㸦P ࡞ࡽࡤ Q㸧࡜࠸࠺᝿ᐃࢆ㢧ᅾ໬ࡉࡏࡿࠋࢣࢻࡣ㢧ᅾ໬ࡉࢀࡓ Q ࢆྰᐃࡍࡿᶆ㆑࡛࠶ࡿࠖ
࡜ࡉࢀࠊࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᝿ᐃࢆᣢࡘ࠿ࡣࠊணࡵィ⟬࡛ࡁࡿࠖࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊ኱὾㸦㸧ࡢᣦ᦬ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ PĺQ ࡟ᐜ᫆࡟࢔ࢡࢭࢫ࡛ࡁ₇⧢᥎ㄽ࠿ࡽ᝿ᐃࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿሙ
ྜ࡟ຍ࠼ࠊᩥ⬦ⓗྵពࡀ₇⧢᥎ㄽ࠿ࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊᑐヰ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿㄆ㆑⿵ṇࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆồࡵࢣࢻ⠇ᩥⓎヰࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊㄆ㆑⿵ṇࢆ
Sweetser㸦㸧ࡢ୕ࡘࡢㄆ▱㡿ᇦࡢ࠺ࡕࠕෆᐜ㡿ᇦࠖࠕゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ㡿ᇦࠖࡢ஧ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟
ศࡅㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡿ㸦ᅗ 㸧ࠋୖグ  ࡢ౛ࡀࠕෆᐜ㡿ᇦࠖࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡾࠊ௨ୗࡢ  ࡀࠕゝㄒ⾜−263−

言外の「文脈的含意」に対して発せられるケドの機能Ⅽ㡿ᇦࠖࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸧㸦≧ἣ㸸ࢳࣕࢵࢺ࡛ࡢ఍ヰ୰㸪࠾஫࠸ࣅ࣮ࣝࢆ㣧ࡳጞࡵࡓ A ࡜ Bࠋ㣧ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࣅ࣮ࣝ
ࡢ㖭᯶ࡣ࠾஫࠸▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ㸧
A㸸ࠕ࠾࠸ࡋ࠸ࢃ࣮࣮࢔ࢧࣄࢨࣉ࣑ࣞ࢔࣒㸪ࢻࣛ࢖ࡼࡾ࠾࠸ࡋ࠸ࡡࠋࠖ
B㸸ࠕࢻࣛ࢖㣧ࢇ࡛ࡿࢇ࡛ࡍࡀờࠖ
A㸸
ࠕࢃ࣮㸪ࡲࡓ࠸ࡽࡗ࡜ࡋࡓ㸽ࡋࡓ㸪ࡋࡓ㸽ዲࡳࡔ࠿ࡽ㸪B ࡣࢻࣛ࢖ࡢࡀ࠾࠸ࡋ࠸࠿ࡶࡼࠋࠖ ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ A ࡢࠕ࢔ࢧࣄࢨࣉ࣑ࣞ࢔࣒ࡣࢻࣛ࢖ࡼࡾ࠾࠸ࡋ࠸ࠖࡢⓎゝࡣࠊಶேⓗ࡞⯆࿡ࡸႴዲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢゝཬ࡛࠶ࡾࠊゝእࡢᩥ⬦ⓗྵពࡣᑟࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠕㄆ㆑㡿ᇦࠖ࡟ᒓࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕࢻࣛ࢖㣧ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࢇ࡛ࡍ࢞ࠖ࡜ࢣࢻ⠇ᩥࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᛂ⟅ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠕゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ㡿ᇦࠖ࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊA ࡢࠕ࢔ࢧࣄࢨࣉ࣑ࣞ࢔࣒ࡣࢻࣛ࢖ࡼࡾ࠾࠸ࡋ࠸ࠖ
࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰࡢ๓ᥦ㸦ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠺⌮⏤᰿ᣐ㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ၥ࠺ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ౛ᩥ  ࡀࠕෆᐜ㡿ᇦࠖෆࡢㄪᩚ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ౛ᩥ  ࡛ࡣ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰ࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗỈ‽ࢆ␗࡟ࡋࡓᛂ⟅ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋⓎヰࡢỈ‽ࡀࠕෆᐜ㡿ᇦࠖ࡟ᒓࡍࡿ࠿ࠕゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ㡿ᇦࠖ࡟ᒓࡍࡿ࠿ࡣࠊᩥ
ᮎࡢᙧᘧࡸⓎヰ≧ἣ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅࡿࠋ

ᅗ 㸸



ཧ↷ᩥ⊩

−264−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

኱὾ࡿ࠸Ꮚࠕ᥋⥆ຓモࢣࢻࡢ⏝ἲ㛫ࡢ㛵ಀ෌⪃ࠖࠗᗈᓥ኱Ꮫ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱◊✲࠘ࠊࠊ
ⓑᕝ༤அࠗࠕゝ࠸ࡉࡋᩥࠖࡢ◊✲࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧
Sweetser㻘㻌Eve㻚㻌㻝㻥㻥㻜㻚 From Etymology to Pragmatics Metaphorical and Cultural Aspect ofSemantic Structure㻘 Cambridge University Press㻚 ⃝⏣἞⨾ヂࠗㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽࡢᒎ㛤࠘◊✲♫ฟ∧ ㅰ㎡㸸࣏ࢫࢱ࣮Ⓨ⾲࡛ࡣ୎ᑀ࡞ࡈᣦᑟࡈຓゝࢆ㡬ࡁࡲࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࠊᚰࡼࡾឤㅰ⏦ࡋ࠶ࡆࡲࡍࠋ


−265−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

␗࡞ࡿㄯヰ⎔ቃࢆ⧅ࡄゝㄒ⾜ື̿㐲㝸఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᑐ㠃ᛶᵓ⠏ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟̿Ặྡ ྜྷ⏣╬㻌ᡤᒓ ᮾிᏛⱁ኱Ꮫ㸦㝃ᒓᅜ㝿୰➼ᩍ⫱Ꮫᰯ㸧㻌

㸺Abstract㸼
The increase of Japanese language students in web based videoconferencing systems has enabled“face-to-face” communication between the Japanese native speaker and the overseas learner. However, thistechnological resource introduces interactive and multiple linguistic issues. To effectively utilize thistechnology in Japanese language education, this study aims to use discourse analysis to decipher
characteristic strategies for creating fluid communication in distance contact situations. From theobservation, the author argues that effective distance communication has considerable linguistic features
including multimodal strategies and needs to be clarified in various discourse environments.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱ࠊ㐲㝸ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠊ᥋ゐሙ㠃ࠊㄯヰ⎔ቃ

1. ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㐲㝸ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢά⏝᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠕ᥋ゐሙ㠃ࠖࡢᶵ఍ࡣࠊᩍᐊෆࡢᩥ
ἲᏛ⩦ࡸ఍ヰ⦎⩦࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢ┤᥋ⓗ࡞ࡸࡾྲྀࡾࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊヰ㢟ࡢ㑅ᢥࡸ᝟ሗせồ࣭ᥦ♧ࡢࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝࠊព࿡஺΅࡞࡝ࡢ┦஫ⓗ࡞᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦ࢆಁ㐍ࡉࡏࡿࠋ≉࡟᪥ᮏㄒ࣭᪥ᮏᩥ໬
࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࡀᑡ࡞࠸ᾏእ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ᥋ゐሙ㠃ࡣ♫఍ゝㄒᏛⓗ⬟ຊࡸࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ
࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡢྥୖࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᏛ⩦⪅⮬㌟ࡢᏛ⩦ពḧࡸᩥἲ౑⏝ሙ㠃ࡢ⌮ゎ࡟⧅ࡀࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࣅࢹ࢜࢝ࣥࣇ࢓ࣞࣥࢫࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ㐲㝸᥋ゐሙ㠃ࢆᾏእ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡜ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ㡢ኌⓗ᥋ゐࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡋ᳨࡚ウࡋࠊ㡢ኌ࣭ᫎീ㈨ᩱࢆࡶ࡜࡟≉ᚩⓗ࡞ゝㄒ⾲ฟࡸ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡢẼ࡙ࡁࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ2. 㐲㝸ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ㟂せ 㐲㝸ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ᑟධࡢᚲせᛶࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱ࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ௚ࡢከࡃࡢศ㔝࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ✚ᴟⓗ࡟⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྛᅜ࡛ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺ⎔ቃࡢᬑཬ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊICT㸦Information and communications
technology㸧ࡣᏛ⩦ࡢᡭẁࡸᏛ⩦⎔ቃ࡜ࡋ୍࡚ᒙ㔜せ࡞せ⣲࡜ࡉࢀࠊᏛ⩦ື⏬࡞࡝ࡢᩍᮦࡢࢹࢪࢱ
ࣝ໬ࡸ⛣ືࢆకࢃࡎ࡟ᩍ⫱ࢆᥦ౪࡛ࡁࡿ㐲㝸ᤵᴗ࡞࡝ࠊ᪤࡟᭷ຠ࡞ά⏝஦౛ࡶከ࠸ࠋࡲࡓ㐲㝸ᆅ࡜ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ㟂せࡣࠊ㏆ᖺ᥎㐍ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᩍ⫱ࡢࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ໬ࢆ⫼ᬒ࡟ᅜෆࡢẕㄒヰ⪅࡬ࡶᗈࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉࡟ 2013 ᖺ 6 ᭶௨㝆ࠊࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝேᮦ⫱ᡂࢆ┠ᶆ࡜ࡋ࡚ᅜ㝿ࣂ࢝ࣟࣞ࢔ᩍ⫱ 1 ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ㛤Ⓨ࣭ᑟධࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀࠊᾏእ኱Ꮫ࡬ࡢᏛ⏕⛣ື࣭◊✲㐃ᦠ➼ࠊ᪥ᮏᅜෆࡢ
Ꮫ⏕ࡀᩍ⫱ࡢሙࢆ୺యⓗ࡟㑅ᢥ࡛ࡁࡿ᫬௦࡬ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟క࠸ࠊ㐲㝸ᆅ㛫ࡢ཮᪉ྥᤵᴗ
ࡸಶே࣭♫఍ⓗ࡞஺ὶ➼ࠊ㐲㝸ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ㟂せࡣࡉࡽ࡟㧗ࡲࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓ

−267−

異なる談話環境を繋ぐ言語行動―遠隔会話における対面性構築を中心に―ࡵࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ㐲㝸ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪥ᮏㄒ㐠⏝ࡢ≉ᚩⓗ࡞Ⅼࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࠊ௒ᚋࡲࡍ
ࡲࡍỗ⏝ⓗ࡟࡞ࡿ㐲㝸ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢゝㄒᩍ⫱࡬ࡢᛂ⏝ࡢྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
3. ㄪᰝᑐ㇟
ㄪᰝࡣࠊᾏእ኱Ꮫᶵ㛵ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ⛉࡟ᡤᒓࡍࡿ኱Ꮫ⏕㸦Ꮫ⩦⪅㸧࡜ᅜෆ኱Ꮫᶵ㛵ࡢ኱Ꮫ࣭኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸦ẕㄒヰ⪅㸧࡜ࢆ᥋⥆ࡋࡓㄪᰝ 1㸦ከ⪅㛫㐲㝸఍ヰ 6 ྡ/6 ྡ㸧ཬࡧㄪᰝ 2㸦஧⪅㛫㐲㝸఍ヰ 1 ྡ/1 ྡࠊ7 ⤌㸧ࠊᾏእ኱኱Ꮫᶵ㛵࡜᪥ᮏᅜෆࡢ㧗➼Ꮫᰯࢆ᥋⥆ࡋࡓㄪᰝ 3㸦ᅗ 1ࠊከ⪅㛫㐲㝸఍ヰ 7
ྡ/4 ྡ㸧ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋᾏእ᥋⥆ඛ࡛࠶ࡿࣇࣛࣥࢫ࡜ࡢ᫬ᕪࡣ 8 ᫬㛫ࠊཧຍ⪅ࡣ㐲㝸఍ヰ㛤ጞࡲ࡛஫࠸࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࡣඹ᭷ࡋ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ⏬㠃ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ึࡵ࡚㛵ಀࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿึᑐ㠃᥋ゐሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ࡞࠾᥋⥆ᶵჾࡣࠊPolycomHDX7000 ཬࡧ Skype ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓཧຍ⪅ࡢ᥋⥆ືᶵ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᾏእ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢ఍ヰࡢᶵ఍ࠊᅜෆẕㄒヰ⪅ࡣࠊᾏእ࡛ࡢゝㄒᩍ⫱࡟㛵ᚰࡢ࠶ࡿゝㄒ࣭ᩍ⫱ᏛࢆᑓᨷࡍࡿᏛ⏕㸦ㄪᰝ 1ࠊ2㸧ࠊᾏእ࡛ࡢᑵ
Ꮫ⤒㦂ࢆᣢࡘᖐᅜᏛ⏕ࠊᾏእ኱Ꮫ࡬ࡢ㐍Ꮫࢆணᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㧗ᰯ⏕㸦ㄪᰝ 3㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ཧຍࡋࡓࠋ࡞
࠾ࠊ㡢ኌࡢࢺࣛࣥࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺ࡟ࡣࠊ఍ヰศᯒศ㔝࡛ᗈࡃ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿグ㏙ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿ Jeffferson ࡢ㌿෗ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ 2㸦す㜰௚, 2008㸧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋ       
4. ⪃ᐹ
4.1 ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ㜼ᐖࡍࡿせᅉ㐲㝸ሙ㠃ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ≉ᚩࡣࠊᶵᮦࡢ᥋⥆ࠊ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺࡢ㏿ᗘࠊ࣓࢝ࣛᛶ⬟➼ࡢࠕ㞳ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙᡤࢆ⧅ࡄࠖ㝿ࡢᢏ⾡ⓗせᅉ࡟㉳ᅉࡍࡿሙྜࡀከ࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓไ
ᗘⓗሙ㠃ࡢゝㄒ㐠⏝ࢆᤊ࠼ࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊࡇࡢᢏ⾡ⓗせᅉࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒⓗ≉ᚩࢆ⏘ฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ヲ⣽࡟ゝཬࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㐲㝸఍ヰࢆศᯒࡋࡓ⚟Ọ௚(1993)ࡣࠊࣅࢹ࢜఍㆟ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆ௓ࡋࡓࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ෇⁥࡞ពᛮ␯㏻ࢆ㜼ᐖࡍࡿせᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⏬㠃ࡢ⏬㉁ࡸ኱
ࡁࡉࡢၥ㢟ࠊ⏬㠃ࡢ㛢ሰᛶࠊ✵㛫ࡢ㠀ඹ᭷ࠊど⥺ࡢ୙୍⮴ࠊ㊥㞳ឤ࡜≀⌮ⓗ᥋ゐࡢḞዴࡢ 5 Ⅼࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊゝㄒᏛ⩦࡟࠾࠸࡚㔜せ࡜࡞ࡿ㡢ኌ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄢ㢟ࢆຍ࠼ࠊどぬせᅉࠊ⎔ቃせᅉࠊ㡢ኌせᅉࡢ 3 せᅉࢆ♧ࡋࠊᑐ㠃ᛶᵓ⠏㸦≀⌮ⓗ࡟ᑐ㠃ࡋ࡚࠸࡞≧ἣࢆ⿵ൾࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢࢫࢺ
ࣛࢸࢪ࣮㸧ࡢࡓࡵࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡜ࡋ࡚≉ᚩⓗ࡟⾲ࢀࡓሙ㠃ࢆグ㏙ࡋࡓࠋ
4.2 ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿၥ㢟࡜ཧຍ⪅ࡢㄆ㆑ࠊ⟶⌮ 㐲㝸᥋ゐሙ㠃ࡣࠊࠕ㐲㝸఍ヰࠖ࡜ࠕ᥋ゐሙ㠃(᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ఍ヰ)ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ 2 ࡘࡢゝㄒⓗ≉ᚩࡀ㔜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ไᗘⓗ఍ヰ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡀㄪᰝᐇ᪋๓ᚋ࡟⾜ࡗࡓグ㏙ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ⾲ 1 ࡣࠊㄪᰝ 3 ࡢẕㄒヰ⪅ཧຍ⪅ࡢグ㏙ᘧ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࡋࡓ㐲㝸఍ヰᐇ᪋๓ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࣭ᑐฎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄢ㢟࡜ࡣࠊࠕ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺࡢ᥋⥆ࡀᝏࡃࠊ㡢࡜⏬ീࡀ୍⮴ࡋ࡞࠸㸦እᅉⓗ㸧ࠖࠕ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛࡝ࡇࡲ࡛ࡸࡾྲྀࡾࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿୙Ᏻ㸦ෆᅉⓗ㸧ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ᥋⥆ࡢ㝿࡟⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿၥ
㢟ࢆᣦࡋࠊᑐฎ࡜ࡣࠕ⣬࡟᭩࠸࡚ぢࡏࡿ㸦እᅉⓗ㸧ࠖࠕ⪺ࡁྲྀࡾࡸࡍ࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ࡺࡗࡃࡾヰࡍ㸦ෆᅉⓗ㸧ࠖ࡞࡝ࠊㄢ㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿఱࡽ࠿ࡢᑐᛂࢆᣦࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢㄢ㢟࣭ᑐฎࢆࠊᶵᮦࡸලయⓗ࡞⾜ື࡜㛵㐃ࡋࡓእⓗせᅉࠊゝㄒ㐠⏝ࡸᚰ⌮㠃࡟㛵㐃ࡋࡓෆᅉⓗせᅉ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࠊ௨ୗࡢ⾲࡟

−268−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

♧ࡍࠋ
ᐇ᪋๓

㸦௳ᩘ㸧

ᐇ᪋ᚋ

እᅉⓗ

ෆᅉⓗ

እᅉⓗ

ෆᅉⓗ

ㄢ㢟

23

16

22

26

ᑐฎ

11

12

12

11

⾲ 1 ㄪᰝᐇ᪋๓ᚋࡢ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡢㄆ㆑࣭⟶⌮㸦௳ᩘ㸧 ୖ⾲ࡼࡾࠊᐇ᪋๓࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡣᶵᮦ➼ࡢእᅉⓗせᅉࢆከࡃグ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊᐇ᪋
ᚋ࡟ࡣෆᅉⓗㄢ㢟ࡢ௳ᩘࡀቑຍࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓᐇ㝿࡟⾜ࡗࡓᑐฎ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᐇ᪋๓࣭ᐇ᪋ᚋ࡜ࡶ࡟
እᅉⓗ࣭ෆᅉⓗせᅉࡢグ㏙௳ᩘ࡟኱ᕪࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡼࡾࠊᚑ᮶ࠊ⌧ᆅ࡜ࡢ᥋⥆ࡸ㡢㉁ࠊ
⏬㉁➼ࡢእᅉⓗせᅉ࡟↔Ⅼࡀᙜ࡚ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ㐲㝸ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊཧຍ⪅ࡢゝㄒ㐠⏝㠃ࡸᚰ⌮㠃࡜࠸࠺ෆᅉⓗせᅉ࠿ࡽࡢ᭦࡞ࡿศᯒࡢᚲせᛶࡀᣦ᦬࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠕヰࡢࢸ࣮࣐ࡸ࠸ࡘ఍ヰࢆ⤊࠼ࡿ࡞࡝ࡢヲ⣽ࢆỴࡵ࡚࠾ࡃࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓヰ㢟ࡸ఍ヰ⤊⤖࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࡢグ㏙ࠊࠕᫎീࡀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶఏࢃࡿࡼ࠺࡟Ẽࢆ௜ࡅࡿࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㠀ゝㄒせ⣲ࡢ᭷↓ࡢ᝿ᐃ࡞࡝ࠊ
ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ㜼ᐖせᅉࢆ஦๓࡟ண ࡋࠊᐇ᪋๓࠿ࡽࡢ‽ഛࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿグ㏙ࡶࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋ
ࡇࢀࡼࡾࠊ㐲㝸᥋ゐሙ㠃࡜࠸࠺ไᗘⓗㄯヰࡣࠊᑐ㠃ᛶࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺≉Ṧ࡞㐣⛬࡛ࠊཧຍ⪅ࡀㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞≧ἣㄆ㆑ࡸᑐฎ㸦ㄯヰ⟶⌮㸧ࢆព㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ᪂ࡓ࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢሙ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ
࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
4.3 ㄯヰᵓ㐀࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿᑐ㠃ᛶᵓ⠏ḟࡢ㈨ᩱࡣࠊ㐲㝸఍ヰ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓ୍ሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ఍ヰࡢ୰┙࡛ࠊNS1㸦ẕㄒヰ⪅㸧ࡀ NNS㸦Ꮫ⩦⪅㸧࡬ヰࢆษࡾฟࡍሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
NS1: (࿘ࡾࢆぢᅇࡋ)ࡌࡷ࠶⾜ࡃ⾜ࡃ(.)(ᡭࢆᣲࡆࡿ)㉁ၥࡋ࡚࠸࠸࡛ࡍЌ࠿::
NNS1: ࡣ࠸(.)࡝࠺ࡒ.
NS: Hahhhh.
NS1: ࠼:::࡞ࡐ::᪥ᮏㄒࢆᏛࡰ࠺࡜ᛮࡗࡓࢇ࡛ࡍЌ࠿::
NNS: (ẕㄒ࡛ヰࡍ)࠼::ࡑࢀࡣ㠃ⓑࡃ࡞࠸࡛ࡍࡅࢀ࡝ࡶ::NS: Hahhhୖグࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊNS1 ࡣ᪂ࡓ࡞ヰ㢟ᑟධ࡟㝿ࡋࠊࠕ(࿘ࡾࢆぢᅇࡋ)ࡌࡷ࠶⾜ࡃ⾜ࡃࠖ࡜Ⓨヰ㡰ࢆ⋓ᚓࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆẕㄒヰ⪅඲ဨ࡟ၥ࠺ᵝᏊࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊ⏬㠃ࡢ᥋⥆ඛ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ
ࠕ(ᡭࢆᣲࡆࡿ)㉁ၥࡋ࡚࠸࠸࡛ࡍЌ࠿::ࠖ࡜ᡭࢆᣲࡆ࡚⮬ศࡀḟࡢⓎヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆどぬⓗ࡟♧ࡋࠊࠕ㉁ၥࡋ࡚࠸࠸࡛ࡍЌ࠿::ࠖ࡜㡢ኌ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶḟࡢࢱ࣮ࣥࡢཷࡅᡭࢆᣦ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ୍㐃ࡢⓎヰཬࡧゝㄒ⾜ືࡣࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡀ෇⁥࡟㐍ࡴࡓࡵ㸦ᑐ㠃ᛶᵓ⠏㸧ࡢᡭẁ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅⮬㌟ࡀᚎࠎ࡟㐲㝸఍ヰ≉᭷ࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ⋓ᚓࡍࡿᵝᏊࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ−269−

異なる談話環境を繋ぐ言語行動―遠隔会話における対面性構築を中心に―

4.3 ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿຠᯝⓗ࡞฼⏝࡬ྥࡅ࡚ 」㞧࡞ゝㄒ㐠⏝つ⠊ࠊ♫఍࣭ᩥ໬ⓗ⫼ᬒࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㐠⏝ࡣࠊእᅜேᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᐜ᫆࡟⩦ᚓ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋእᅜேᩍᖌࡀቑຍࡋࠊ␃Ꮫࡢᶵ఍ࡸ⌧ᆅ࡛ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢ஺ὶ࡟ᜨࡲࢀ࡞࠸Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ㐲㝸᥋ゐሙ㠃ࡣ᭷ຠ࡞Ꮫ⩦⎔ቃ࡜ࡋ࡚☜❧ࡋࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࠋ
♫఍ᏛⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊKramsch㸦1993㸧ࡣࠕ➨୕ࡢሙᡤࠖࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊᏛ⩦ࡣಶࠎࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᏛࡪ㐣⛬࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ࿘ᅖ࡜ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚▱㆑ࡀ๰㐀ࡉࢀࡿ࡞࠿࡛୺యⓗ࡟Ꮫࡤࢀࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡿࠋゝㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㐲㝸᥋ゐሙ㠃ࡢά⏝ࡣࠊẕᩥ໬ࡢゝㄒ౑⏝つ⠊࡜␗࡞ࡿ᪂ࡓ࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ
࢕࣮ࡸᩥ⬦࡜᥋ࡋࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ⮬ศ࡞ࡾࡢᏛࡧࢆ๰㐀࡛ࡁࡿሙ㸦ゝㄒⓗ᥋Ⅼ㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ຠᯝⓗ࡜࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ࡲࡓ 4.2 ࡢ⪃ᐹࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព㆑ࡢྥୖࢆಁࡍྍ⬟ᛶࢆᣢࡘ㐲㝸᥋ゐሙ㠃ࡣࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡸど⥺ࠊ㛫㸦ࡲ㸧➼ࡢᩍᮦ໬ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸㠀ゝㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡿࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶᣦ
᦬࡛ࡁࡿࠋཧຍ⪅ྠኈࡀ≀⌮ⓗ࡟㞳ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࠿ࡽࠊ㠀ゝㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡀᙉㄪ࣭
ከ⏝ࡉࢀࠊᏛ⩦⪅⮬㌟ࡀᚲせᛶࢆឤࡌ࡞ࡀࡽ⩦ᚓࡍࡿᶵ఍࡜࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
5. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ㐲㝸᥋ゐሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿ≉ᚩⓗ࡞ࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡜ࠊཧຍ⪅⮬㌟ࡀព㆑ࡋ⾜ࡗࡓ≉ᚩⓗ࡞ゝㄒ㐠⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚グ㏙ࡋࡓࠋෆ┬ⓗグ㏙࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊẕㄒヰ⪅ഃࡢ㈨ᩱ࡟␃ࡲࡗࡓࡀࠊ௒ᚋᏛ⩦⪅ഃࡢព㆑ㄪᰝࡶᐇ᪋ࡋࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ୧➃ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓ 1990 ᖺ௨㝆ከࡃࡢ◊✲ࡀ⵳✚ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ CMC(computer mediated communication)◊✲ࡢ୰࡛ࡶࠊゝㄒⓗศᯒ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓ▱ぢࡣᑡ࡞࠸ࠋᑐ㠃ᛶᵓ⠏࡜ࡋ࡚≉ᚩⓗ࡟⾲ࢀࡿゝㄒ㐠⏝ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡢ⫱ᡂࡸゝㄒⓗ≉ᚩࡢ෌⪃࡬࡜ᙺ❧ࡘྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡶゝㄒᩍ⫱࡬ࡢຠᯝⓗ࡞ᛂ⏝ࢆ┠ᣦࡋࠊศᯒࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋὀ
1 ᅜ㝿ࣂ࢝ࣟࣞ࢔ᶵᵓࡀᥦ౪ࡍࡿᩍ⫱ࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛ࠶ࡾࠊึ➼ᩍ⫱࠿ࡽྛᅜ࡛ࡢ኱ᏛධᏛ㈨᱁࡛࠶ࡿᅜ㝿ࣂ࢝ࣟ
ࣞ࢔㸦Diploma㸧ྲྀᚓࡲ࡛ࠊୡ⏺ 140 ௨ୖࡢᅜ࣭ᆅᇦࠊ4,211 ᰯ㸦᪥ᮏᅜෆ㸸34 ᰯ㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ᐇ᪋ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⌧ᅾᅜෆ࡛ࡣ 2020 ᖺࡲ࡛࡟ᅜ㝿ࣂ࢝ࣟࣞ࢔ㄆᐃᰯࢆ 200 ᰯ௨ୖ࡟ቑࡸࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ᥎㐍ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬, 2015㸧ࠋ
2 ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠕ[㸸」ᩘࡢヰ⪅ࡢ㔜」ࠖ
ࠕ(.)㸸▷࠸㛫ྜ࠸ࠖࠕゝⴥ::㸸┤๓ࡢ㡢ࡀ㛗࠸ࠖ
ࠕh/.h㸸࿧Ẽ㡢/྾Ẽ㡢ࠖࠕhh, huh,heh ➼㸸➗࠸ࠖࠕ¥ ¥㸸➗࠸ኌ࡛ヰࡍࠖࠕゝⴥ㸸ᙉࡃⓎࡍࡿⓎヰࠖࠕЌЎ㸸㡢ㄪࡢᴟ➃࡞ୖࡀࡾୗࡀࡾࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩す㜰௮࣭୵⏣⚽ஓ࣭⇃㇂ᬛᏊ (2008)ࠕ≉㞟ࠕ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒ౑⏝: ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ◊✲ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖࠗ♫఍ゝㄒ⛉Ꮫ࠘, ➨ 10 ᕳ, ➨ 2 ྕ, 13̽15.
ᩥ 㒊 ⛉ Ꮫ ┬ (2015) ࠕ ᅜ 㝿 ࣂ ࢝ ࣟ ࣞ ࢔ ࡢ ᥎ 㐍 ࡟ 㛵 ࡍ ࡿ ᥦ ゝ ➼ ࠖ
http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/ib/1352964.htm㸦2015 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 31 ᪥⌧ᅾ㸧Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

−270−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Semantic-pragmatic Analysis of Japanese Case Markers ‘Wo’ and ‘De’
Lee Chee Siong
Sapporo University
This thesis is about the semantics and pragmatics of the Japanese case makers ‘wo’ and‘de’. Their meanings and uses are simplified for an easy understanding in learning thecase markers. In my arguments, the basic meaning of ‘wo’ is to specify the target entityof the action a verb designates. On the other hand, the basic usage of ‘de’ is to specify thelocation that a thing or an event occupies, and other uses are extended by applying theidea of “domain centrality”. The ambiguities of both of these two case markers can becomprehended by the application of the concept Figure and Ground.
1. Introduction
The primary purpose of my presentation is to elucidate where the difference in uses
between Japanese case markers ‘wo’ and ‘de’ comes from by resorting to the basic
notions of Cognitive Grammar and pragmatic factors. My discussion begins with thesemantic difference between the two case markers in question, as shown below:(1) a. ⚾ࡣබᅬࢆṌ࠸ࡓࠋb. ⚾ࡣබᅬ࡛Ṍ࠸ࡓࠋ
Here, the case markers ‘wo’ and ‘de’ have seeming commonality in that they equallydesignate a space. However, the spatial meaning the case marker ‘wo’ designates isdifferent from the one the case marker ‘de’ does. The basic meaning of ‘wo’ is todesignate the object (or the target) of the action a verb designates, whose typicalreferent is a thing (e.g., ᐙࢆ㈙࠺).
Regarding the case marker ‘de,’ the basic meaning is to designate or specify thelocation that a thing or an event occupies, and other uses are extended depending on theprinciple of “domain centrality” in the sense of Langacker (2008). The difference inmeanings of ‘de’ reflects which domain is foregrounded.
<foregrounded domain>(2) a. ࢪࣙࣥࡣᮾி࡛཭㐩࡜఍ࡗࡓࠋ
(location)b. ኴ㑻ࡣࣂࢫ࡛Ꮫᰯ࡟⾜ࡃࠋ(means)c. ⚾ࡣ⑭ࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟බᅬ࡛Ṍࡃࠋ(reason or means)
I will argue in this respect that there exists some commonality in the respective uses of‘de,’ i.e., the entities marked ‘de’ function as a supporting element to fulfill the main
event.
2. Introductions of Cognitive Perspective
2.1 Idealized Cognitive Models (ICMs)
The theory of idealized cognitive models (ICMs) is put forward by Lakoff (1987)
and it shows how our knowledge of the world is organized in our minds based on humanexperience. What is crucial to this theory is that the presence of mutual knowledge is an
important prerequisite for the proper organization of a given ICM.
2.2 Figure and GroundThe concept of figure/ground organization, which originally came from Gestalt
psychology and is exemplified by the famous picture of “Rubin’s Goblet,” forms afundamental and valid feature of our pattern of cognition. In the psychological senseof the terms, the figure within a scene is an entity perceived as standing out from theground and is accorded prominence as the pivotal entity around which the scene isorganized.
These notions (i.e., the figure and ground) are central to thecharacterization of grammatical structures.
There is an example indicates the idea of figure and ground.
FigureGround(1) We got married after we had children.
(event2 [secondary]– event1 [primary])
Figure Ground−271−

Semantic-pragmatic Analysis of Japanese Case Markers ʻWoʼ and ʻDeʼ(2) We had children before we got married.
(event1 [primary]– event2 [secondary])
Gunter Radden and Rene Dirven (2007:28-29)
Both sentences describe the same sequence of events, which is indicated by subscripted
numbers with each event: ‘we first had children and then got married.’ In general, thefunction of a subordinate clause is to provide the ground for the figure event, which is
described by the main clause.
2.3 Cognitive Domains
One of the basic tenets of cognitive grammar is that every expression is characterized
and relative to cognitive domains. Taylor (2002) shows the example of the cognitive
domains, as the following:1)

a. The photograph is torn.
b. The photograph is out of focus.
c. The photograph was awarded as a prize.

Taylor argues that the concept ‘photograph’ is characterized against a number ofdifferent domains such as: (1) Material object (2) Technology (3) Aesthetic value and soon. In sentence (1a), ‘photograph’ draws on the notion of a photograph as material object(a piece of paper). Moreover, in sentence (1b), ‘photograph’ activates the notion of aphotograph as a visual image created by a certain technology. Furthermore, sentence(1c), ‘photograph’ focuses on the aesthetic value of a photograph (the artistic skill of its
creator).
Cognitive Domains of Photograph
Aesthetic

Material

Technology

Figure 1: Domains of photographIn sentence (1a), the ‘photograph’ is the material, so the domain of material is focused.
In sentence (1b), the ‘photograph’ is about technology, thus the domain of technology isin focus. In the sentence (1c), the ‘photograph’ is in aesthetic value, therefore, thisdomain of aesthetic is centralized.
3.0 Previous study
3.1 Oka’s (2013) analyses of Japanese case markers ‘Wo and ‘De’−272−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

3.1.1 Oka`s analysis of Japanese case marker ‘Wo’

According to Oka (2013), the use of starting point (㉳Ⅼ⏝ἲ) refers to the agent who
leaves the starting point which is profiled and after leaving the starting point, the agent
moves along the route until the destination. For example:
1. ᐙࢆฟࡿࠋ
2. ᨾ㒓ࢆ㞳ࢀࡿࠋIn the use of path/route, path/route is profiled and the agent moves from the starting
point to finishing point. For example:
3. ࢻ࣮ࣂ࣮ᾏᓙࢆὋࡄࠋ
4. ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࢆ᪑⾜ࡍࡿࠋ
5. බᅬࢆᩓṌࡋࡲࡍࠋWhereas, in the use of object, the agent is the starting point and the object is thefinishing point. The energy is moved by the agent to the object. The passive movementof object (ᤵཷ.౑ᙺ⛣ື) is also the use of object and the agent is used for receiving theenergy to get the object.
6. ࢸࣞࣅࢆぢࡿ−273−

Semantic-pragmatic Analysis of Japanese Case Markers ʻWoʼ and ʻDeʼ

7. ᮏࢆ᥈ࡍࠋ
3.1.2 Oka`s analysis of Japanese case marker ‘De’
The prototypical use of ࢹ is location. The use of location is used for the happenings. For
example:8. Ꮫᰯ࡛ຮᙉࡍࡿࠋ
The use of time is extended from the concept of space metaphorically. For example:
9. ࠶࡜㸱㸮ศ࡛௙஦ࡀ⤊ࢃࡿࠋIn addition, quantity limit relates to time limit as the following examples.
10. ྂᮏࢆ㸳㸮㸮෇࡛㈙࠺ࠋ
11. ༸㸯㸮ಶ࡛࣒࢜ࣞࢶࢆసࡿࠋ
The use of causality is used for the place where the happenings occur. For examples:
12. ࡇࡢ᪑⾜࡛ࠊ Ἠࡀዲࡁ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
13. ᙉ࠸㢼࡛┳ᯈࡀಽࢀࡓࠋ
The use of mode and material is extended from the situation which plays a role as thelocation metaphorically.
14. ㌴ࡀ⊛ࢫࣆ࣮ࢻ࡛㉮ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
15. ࡇࡢ࠿ࡤࢇࡣ㠉࡛࡛ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
The use of tool/manner is used for a change of the object which is made by atool/manner.
16. ኴ㑻ࡣࢼ࢖ࣇ࡛ḟ㑻ࢆẅࡋࡓࠋThe use of material is used for generating an object which is made by a material.
17. ẟ⣒࡛ᡭ⿄ࢆ⦅ࡴࠋ
3.0 Dicussion
I have some different ideas with the Oka’s analysis of the case markers ‘Wo’ and ‘De’. As
far as I am concerned, the case marker ‘Wo’ designates a thing as an object of the action
the main verb indicates. For example in Oka’s analysis 2013, the case marker ‘Wo’ iscategorized into three different categories. First, in the sentence ‘ᐙࢆฟࡿ’ , the casemarker ‘Wo’ is stated as the starting point. Second, the case marker ‘Wo’ in the sentence‘බᅬ(ᯟࡲࡓࡣ⠊ᅖࡀ࠶ࡿ)ࢆᩓṌࡍࡿ’ shows a path and third is the use of finishingpoint/object of the case marker ‘Wo’ as in the sentence ‘ᮏࢆ᥈ࡍ’. Nevertheless, in myopinion, these three categories can be simplified by objectifying as a prototypical use.
‘ᐙ’, ‘බᅬ’ and ‘ᮏ’ can be objectified to the main verbs respectively. Moreover, theprototypical use can be extended to space semantically. For instance ‘ᐙࢆ㈙࠺’, ‘ᐙ’ isobjectified as a thing/object to the verb; and in the sentence ‘ᐙࢆᤲ㝖ࡍࡿ’, ‘ᐙ’ now is−274−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

extended to spatial concept which means ‘ᐙ’ is the space to hold the event/action ‘ᤲ㝖ࡍ
ࡿ’. These phenomena can be paralleled with the idea of Idealized Cognitive Models(ICMs) of Lakoff (1987). This idea indicates that the presence of mutual knowledge is an
important prerequisite for the proper organization of a word. The different meanings of‘ᐙ’ with the application of ICMs, thoroughly reflects the extension use of the casemarker ‘wo’ from the prototypical use to other use.
On the other hand, in the case marker ‘de’ of Oka’ analysis, it is divided into two
different categories which are the use of location (ሙᡤ⏝ἲ) and the use of thing (ࣔࣀ⏝ἲ). However, there are some categories have been ignored in the Oka’s analysis of thecase marker ‘de’. For example in the category of range (⠊ᅖ㝈ᐃ), in the sentence ‘ᙼࡣࢡࣛࢫ୍࡛␒⫼ࡀ㧗࠸’ (he is the tallest in the class). ‘ࢡࣛࢫ’ is merely a certain range inthe school, and it will be in just ‘A ࢡࣛࢫ’ but not in ‘B ࢡࣛࢫ’ ,or not for the whole school.
There is an argument that ‘ࢡࣛࢫ࡛’ can be a location as Oka’s analysis stated. In orderto make it clearer, the contrast between two different sentences is necessary. As in thefollowing sentences:(1)ᙼࡣࢡ
ࢡࣛࢫ୍࡛␒⫼ࡀ㧗࠸ࠋ
Kare-wa kurasu-de ichiban se-ga takai‘He is the tallest in the class.’(2)ᙼࡣࢡ
ࢡࣛࢫ࡛ຮᙉࡋࡲࡍࠋ
Kare-wa kurasu-de benkyoushimasu‘He studies in the class.’
In sentence (1), the case marker ‘De’ indicates that ‘ࢡࣛࢫ’ is a (limited) range of theschool. But, in the sentence (2), a certain location in the school is the central idea of thecase marker ‘De’ (i.e. as mentioned in the Oka`s analysis). The difference between these
two sentences is the purpose /objective. In the sentence (1), the objective is thecomparison of the height in the class (he is in only), whereas, in the sentence (2), thepurpose of the agent (he) is doing study in the class (anywhere he likes as long as theclass is set as a location of study). These two different uses of the case marker ‘De’ aremisleading easily if the purpose/objective is vague.
I suggest that the uses of the case marker ‘De’ can be shown by the domain centrality of
the constitutive cognitive domains. It is shown as in Figure 1:−275−

Semantic-pragmatic Analysis of Japanese Case Markers ʻWoʼ and ʻDeʼᡭẁ㝈ᐃ㸦᫬㛫㸧ືస୺㐨ල㝈ᐃ㸦⠊ᅖ㸧

ཎᅉ

᫬㛫

ᵝែ

ሙᡤ

Figure 1

In the Figure 1, the eight categories are the general uses of the case marker ‘De’ inJapanese daily conversation, they are location (ሙᡤ), time (᫬㛫), range (㝈ᐃ⠊ᅖ),means (ᡭẁ), agent (ືస୺), tool (㐨ල), reason (ཎᅉ) and mode (ᵝែ). However, mostof the Japanese use the case marker ‘De’ unconsciously without this kind of knowledge.
Most of the time, they learn the use of the case markers from their parents. In otherwords, most of the children will never acquire such language-specific knowledge unlessthat language is used with them and around them, and they will learn to use only thelanguage used around them (M. Saville-Troike, 2012). Therefore, these ideas can help alanguage learner to differentiate the various uses of the case markers ‘wo’ and ‘de’ either
in implication or explication of the uses of the case markers, instead of memorizing
some of the examples in the references or studying in the way of rote learning.
In fact, there are some ambiguities in case markers ‘Wo’ and ‘De’. The uses of casemarkers ‘Wo’ and ‘De’ can be interchangeable in some situations.
For example:
1. In case marker ‘Wo’‘ᐙࢆᤲ㝖ࡍࡿ’, the situations can be changed as in the questions.
Q1) ఱࢆᤲ㝖ࡋࡲࡍ࠿㸽(this is for the aspect of thing)Q2) ࡝ࡇࢆᤲ㝖ࡋࡲࡍ࠿㸽(the aspect of space is focused)
2. In the case marker ‘De’‘ࣂࢫ࡛Ꮫᰯ࡟⾜ࡃ’Q1) ࡞ࢇࡢ஌ࡾ≀࡛Ꮫᰯ࡟⾜ࡁࡲࡍ࠿㸽(this question is asking about the tool)
Q2)࡝࠺ࡸࡗ࡚Ꮫᰯ࡟⾜ࡁࡲࡍ࠿㸽(in this case, method is the central problem)
I argue that the causality of the appearance of these ambiguities is the flexibility of theideas which a person generates based on his focus. This phenomenon can be clarified by
the concept of Figure and Ground from Dirven (2007) which is used for differing an ideafrom the different views. For example:
There is an individual perceives an environment as a whole unit. In other words, he or−276−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

she concentrates on the scene of what is being seen and the captured scene (figure) is
composed of the stimuli of which the individual is attracted by which the individual isaware to, whereas, the rest is being ignore or set as a background of the focus (ground).
The stimuli happen spontaneously simultaneously. The process of the concept of figureand ground is perceptual and it changes momentarily. Observe the following expression.
(3)㸰㸮㸮㸲ᖺࡢ࢜ࣜࣥࣆࢵࢡࡣ࢔ࢸࢿ࡛㛤࠿ࢀࡿࠋ(a)2004 Greece
Olympics

Ground/in Greece

Location

AthensAbstraction oflocation࡛Olympics

Focus/Spot

In the given example (diagram a), Athens, where is the place to hold the 2004 Olympics,
is located in Greece. In the diagram a, Athens is focused as a Figure in the event of 2004
Olympics, meanwhile, the rest of the diagram is Ground (Greece). On the other hand,when Greece is figural, the merely small part of Greece (Athens) disappears into theground. In fact, we are able to change our perceptions from one figure to the others inorder to appreciate the process of emerging figures and receding grounds as it occurs inour daily life. The interchangeable focal points (figures) resemble the different
perceptions of an individual looking at a certain view in a life situation. The perceptionof a figure is momentary, however, it is a consequence of an internal choice that involves
a complicated internal processes when it emerges from the ground. In the internal
world, an individual’s needs, views, beliefs, values and so on, provide the impetus forthe choice of figure which search for the special meaning that the individual attends to.
4. Conclusion
In this study, there are some novel ideas which are generated to simplify for an easy
understanding in learning the Japanese case markers ‘wo’ and ‘de’. Particularly for the
ESL learners. Therefore, there are some contrasts in the perspectives of the casemarkers ‘wo’ and ‘de’ between the past studies and my research. One of the contrasts is
between Oka’s analysis (2013) of the case marker ‘wo’ and ‘de’. In my arguments, there
are three different new ideas which are applicable in understanding the uses of theJapanese case markers ‘wo’ and ‘de’ more comfortably than the complex statementsfrom the past researchers. As they said, every question has two side, thus, a goodreference is an aid in the learning path or will be counterproductive and the setback−277−

Semantic-pragmatic Analysis of Japanese Case Markers ʻWoʼ and ʻDeʼ

throughout the study.
References
Gunter Radden and Rene Dirven. 2007. Cognitive Grammar. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kato, Shigehiro. 2006. ‘Taishio-kaku to basho-kaku no renzokusei --- kakujosho shiron.’ Hokkaido
Daigaku Bungaku Kenkyuka Kiyo, vol. 118. 135-182. Hokkaido Daigaku.
Kyo, Eiran. 2010. Chushosei no hikui sukiima no juyosei --- ‘kiru’ to ‘waru’ ni okeru taisho-kaku tobasho-kaku no metonimi’ Nihon Ninchi Gengo Gakkai Rongunshu, vol. 10, 160-170.
Nihon Ninchi Gengo Gakkai.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive Application.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Langacker, Ronald. W. 1995. “Viewing in Cognition and Grammar,” in Philip W. Davis (ed.),Alternative Linguistics: Descriptive and Theoretical Modes, 153-212. John Benjamins,
Amsterdam.
Langacker, Ronald. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisite.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Littlemore, J. 2009. Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning and Teaching
Morita, Yoshiyuki. 1989. Kiso Nihongo Jiten. Kadokawa Shoten.
Nakau, Minoru. 1998. ‘Kukan to sonzai no kozu.’ Kobun to Jisho Gensho. Kenkyusha.
Oka, Tomoyuki. 2013. Basho no Gengogaku. Hituji Shobo.
Oka, Tomoyuki. 2005. ‘Bashoteki sonzairon ni yoru ‘de’ kaku no toitsuteki setsumei.’ Nichigo
Nichibungaku Kenkyu 52. 171-189. Kankoku Nichigo Nichibun Gakkai.
Saville-Troike, M. 2012 Introducing Second Language Acquisition Second Edition, Cambridge
University Press, Chapters 1,2
Shin, Moriyama. 2008. NInchi gengogaku kara mita nihongo kakujoshi no imi kozo to shutoku.
Hituji Shobo
Sugai, Kazumi. 1997. ‘Kakujoshi ‘de’ no imitokusei ni kannsuru ichi kosatsu.’ Nagoya Daigaku
Bungakubu Kenkyu Ronshu 127. 23-40. Nagoya Daigaku Bungakubu.
Takebayashi, Kazushi. 2007. ‘Wo’ to ‘Ni’ no Nazo wo Toku.’ Kasama Shoin.
Taylor, John. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford University Press.

−278−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

A Gender Analysis of Compliments and Compliment Responses in Japanese Conversation
Kayo Fujimura-Wilson
Yamaguchi University<Abstract>
This paper illustrates the use of Japanese compliments and compliment responses among
gender. Compliments and compliment responses have been studied in different languages
including gender analyses. However, few studies have been conducted regarding Japanesecompliments across gender; therefore, this study focuses on investigating gendercharacteristics of Japanese compliments and compliment responses.
There are several gender characteristics in Japanese compliments and compliment
responses, including addressees of compliments, utterance types of compliments, topics ofcompliments, and types of compliment responses. Women often become a compliment receiver,
however, they tend to deny and use a deflection when receiving compliments. They also tend
to give compliments on people’s characteristics and appearance. On the other hand, men tend
to give compliments on people’s performance, and they accept compliments more than women
although they do also deflect away from them. Knowing these differences might help
understand gender speech characteristics in both mix-gender and in particular, cross-culturalcommunication.
[Keywords]: 1. Compliments, 2. Compliment responses, 3. Japanese conversation, 4. Gender,
5. Positive politeness1. Introduction
In everyday conversation, people talk and praise each other’s personality, skills, appearance,and so on. This speech act of negotiating solidarity, in which speakers praise people andobjects to make people feel good and try to deliver positive thoughts in conversation, is called
a compliment (Herbert, 1986; Holmes, 1986).
Compliments and compliment responses have been studied in different languages including
English, German, Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese in order to see the differences amongcultures and languages. In the English language, compliments are often said to be formulaic
as particular verbs and syntactic forms tend to be used (Wolfson, 1981, Manes and Wolfson,1981). For example, adjectives, such as ‘nice’, ‘good’, ‘beautiful’, ‘pretty’, and ‘great’, and verbs,
such as ‘like’ and ‘love’ tend to be frequently used when giving compliments (Wolfson, 1981).
After receiving compliments, interlocutors may respond to them either positively or
negatively. Pomerantz (1978), Herbert (1986), Holmes (1986), and Chick (1996) categorized
compliments responses into three major classifications, including agreement, disagreement,
and deflection, although the names of the categorizations vary in each study. For example,−279−

A Gender Analysisof Compliments and Compliment Responsesin Japanese Conversation

Holmes’ (1986) categorization consists of agreement, rejection, and deflection/evasion, while
Chick’s (1996) categorization consists of accepting, deflating/deflecting/rejecting, andquestioning/ignoring/reinterpreting.
Compliments relate to linguistic politeness since they can be a positive politeness behaviour
when showing closeness and enthusiasm to addressees (Brown and Levinson, 1978; Holmes,
1986), and compliments and their responses can also be a face-threatening act when they
become the cause of an embarrassment for addressees (Lorenzo-Dus, 2001). Moreover,compliment receivers need to be aware of how they respond to compliments, since they can beunderstood as being self-praise when they accept them confidently (Holmes, 1986;
Lorenzo-Dus, 2001).
Compliments and compliment responses have been examined across gender in American and
New Zealand English (Knapp, Hopper, and Bell, 1984; Herbert, 1990; Holmes, 1988; Holmes
and Brown, 1987; Rees-Miller, 2011; Wolfson, 1983) and Jordanian Arabic (Farghal and
Al-Khatib, 2001). Only a few studies have been conducted in Japanese (Barnlund and Araki,
1985; Daikuhara, 1986). Therefore, this study focuses on Japanese compliments andcompliment responses across gender.
2. The method of the study
The data of this study consists of 21 informal Japanese conversations which were recorded in
Hiroshima, Japan (ten conversations), and in London, England (eleven conversations). The
total length of conversations is approximately 7 hours long. Participants include 55 womenand 19 men and their age ranges from 18 to 50’s. Each conversation consisted of either single
gender participants or mixed gender participants, and the reason for the unbalance of genderparticipants was that there were more female groups than males in single gender groups.
Also in mixed gender groups, some groups consisted of more female speakers than malespeakers.
In the recorded conversation, compliments and compliment responses naturally occurredamong families and friends, and situations were often at home and in restaurants whileeating lunch or dinner.
3. Results
3.1

Giving compliments across gender

A total of 151 compliments were observed in the collected Japanese conversations. Women
gave 113 compliments (75%) while men gave 38 compliments (25%). Since the ratio of female
and male participants was 75:25; both genders therefore gave compliments with similarfrequency. This result includes third-person compliments in which speakers give to a person
who is not present in conversation (see Figure 2).
The results show that Japanese compliments are formulaic using a variety of adjectives.
Japanese people generally used fairly short sentences and the sentence pattern was often a−280−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

combination of an adjective, such as sugoi (‘great’), oishi (‘delicious’), ii and yokatta(‘good’/‘nice’), and a Japanese final particle, such as ne, yo, and yone (‘isn’t it?’). Examples are
as follows;(1) sugoi yo ne (It’s great, isn’t it?)
ADJ FP FP(2) ii nee (It’s good, isn’t it?)
ADJ FP(3) oishii yo ne(It’s delicious, isn’t it?)

ADJ FP FP
Note: ADJ = adjective, ADV = adverb, N = noun, and FP = final particle.
In the results, Japanese compliments were formulaic and particular positive adjectives were
often observed (see Figure 1). For example, women used sugoi (‘great’) the most frequently,
followed by ii, yoi, yokatta (‘good’) and oishii (‘delicious’). On the other hand, men used oishii(‘delicious’) the most frequently, followed by ii, yoi, yokatta (‘good’) and jyoozu (‘good at’).

Oishii (‘delicious’) was used when speakers were eating and this word was frequently andcasually used to appreciate food itself and praise the person who cooked the meal.
Figure 1 Frequent Japanese adjectives used in compliments across gender (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
sugoi (great) sugoi (great)ii, yoi,jyoozu (goodyokatta (good)
at)
Women

kawaii(pretty)sutekina(lovely)

kakkoii (goodlooking)

Men

Regarding addressees of compliments across gender, women often became complimentreceivers. They also gave compliments to a third person who was not in the conversation (seeFigure 2), suggesting that women use compliments as a strategy to bring a positive
interaction in order to maintain a conversation. Men also generally gave compliments towomen rather than the same gender interlocutors (see Figure 2). One possible reason why
men gave compliments a lot less to the same gender was that in this study, the number ofmale participants was uneven to females; therefore, women had more chance to receive
compliments than men.

−281−

A Gender Analysisof Compliments and Compliment Responsesin Japanese Conversation

Figure 2 Combination of compliment givers and receivers across gender (N = 151)
60
40
20
0
W-W

W-M

W-3rd

M-M

M-W

M-3rd

Japanese men and women saw different factors in people, which were reflected in their useof compliments. Men tended to give compliments on people’s performance including cooking
skills, while women tended to give compliments on people’s performance and appearance (seeFigure 3). These results suggested that Japanese people generally compliment people’s
performance; however, women were more conscious of people’s characteristics including
appearance and personality. On the other hand, men rather focused on people’s achievement
including the deliciousness of food.
Figure 3 Frequent topics of compliments to present participants across gender (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Appearance

Performance Performance(excluding(food andcooking skills) cooking skills)

Women

Personality

Possession

Men

As Japanese women described people’s personal appearance more explicitly than Japanesemen, they used Japanese adjectives, such as sutekina (lovely, wonderful, marvelous) andkakkoii (good-looking, cool). No men used these words in the data. The following example (4)shows that a female speaker gives a compliment on participants’ slender arms.
(4) Speakers are talking about arms.
1 Woman 1:

hosokute nagakute(Your arms are slender and long.)−282−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

suteki2 Woman 2 :(They’re nice.)
In general, men pay compliments on food more often than women (see Figures 1 and 3).
Since the recordings were sometimes set at lunch or dinner, speakers often talked about theirfood. Actually, in the recorded conversation, men were often invited to lunch or dinner. In thecase of eating at somebody’s house, Japanese women generally cooked and served forJapanese men. The men might have complimented on the food in order to show theiracknowledgement towards the women’s effort and thus have showed their appreciation
towards the food and the women’s contribution. Example 5 below shows that a male speakershows his appreciation towards the food and its chef.
(5) A male speaker is paying a compliment on food.
1 Man:

a oishii yo(This is delicious.)

2 Woman: hontoo(Really?)
3.2

Receiving compliments: compliment responses across gender

In general, three types of compliment responses were observed in the results, such as
acceptance, rejection (disagreement), and deflection (giving comments, laugh, hesitation, andno response). Japanese speakers tended to evade when receiving compliments and theacceptance rate of Japanese people was very low (see Figure 4). Among gender, women
rejected and ignored the received compliments slightly more often than men, while men more
likely accepted the received compliments compared to women.
Figure 4 Types of compliment responses (%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
AcceptanceRejection
Women

Deflection

Men

The following examples show compliment responses by both men and women. In (6), thefemale speaker tells the male speaker, Naoyuki, that her friend gave a compliment to him. He
seems to be very pleased to hear that, and sounds excited by saying maji de (‘Oh, really?’),−283−

A Gender Analysisof Compliments and Compliment Responsesin Japanese Conversation

which responds positively while displaying a smile. On the other hand, in (7), woman 2 gives
her compliment response with a lack of confidence. When the speakers gave compliments on
the food that was cooked by woman 2, she seems to be worried about whether there is toomuch seasoning and asks them about its spiciness.
(6) Woman is talking to the male participant, Naoyuki, about her friend’s compliment on him.
1 Woman : Matsuoka-san hometotta yo(Ms Matsuoka praised you, you know.)
2 Naoyuki : maji de(Oh, really?)
3 Woman:unun xxx doshitan Naoyuki-kun sugoi jan(Yeah, yeah, xxx what happened to him? Naoyuki is great, isn’t he?)4 Naoyuki: fufufu((laugh))
Note: xxx shows an unclear utterance.
(7) Speakers are giving compliments on food and its cook.
1 Man:

a ii kanji yo(Oh, it seems good.)

2 Woman 1: oishii(It’s delicious.)
3 Man:

uun(Yeah.)

4 Woman 2: karakunai sukoshi yokatta(Isn’t it a little bit hot? I am relieved.)
3.3

Repetitions and compliments in Japanese conversation

Furthermore, Japanese speakers frequently used repetitions when giving and receiving
compliments. Thus, they used this speech act for showing participants’ cooperation andtended to collaboratively talk and give responses. Repetitions often appear in female speechinteraction, suggesting that females show their high involvement among speakers (Coates,
1996). Both compliments and repetitions are used as positive politeness (Brown and Levinson,
1978; Coates, 1986; Holmes, 1995). In this study, more than half of the compliments thatappeared with repetition were uttered by women.
In conversation (8), when a female speaker gives a compliment to her friend, Mr. Oohashi,
who is a lot more mature than her, a male interlocutor agrees with the difference. Bothspeakers emphasize and give their compliment on the difference of their friend’s maturity byrepeating chigau (different) in lines 1, 2, and 3. When participants repeat the compliment,
they are collaboratively showing their closeness, which shows their positive politeness.

−284−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号(8) Speakers are talking about their friend’s characteristics.
1 Woman: nanka isshoni koodoo shitari suruto a nanka yappari zennzenn chigau

watashitachi to(When we go out together, he behaves differently. He is much more mature than us.)2 Man:

aaa chigau(Yeah, he is different.)

3 Woman: un chigau a moo Oohashi-san otona desu ne mitaina(Yes, he is different. Mr. Oohashi is more mature.)
4 Man:

aaa(Yeah.)

4. Conclusion
This paper has illustrated the use of Japanese compliments and compliment responses
among gender in daily casual conversation. In the results, Japanese compliments were
formulaic using a variety of adjectives, and Japanese speakers used fairly short sentences.
Their sentence patterns were often a combination of an adjective, such as sugoi (‘great’), oishi(‘delicious’), ii and yokatta (‘good’/‘nice’), and a Japanese final particle, such as ne, yo, andyone (‘isn’t it?’, ‘you know’). Repetitions also often appeared in Japanese compliment andcompliment responses.
There are several gender differences in Japanese compliments and compliment responses.
Types of addressees differed among gender, women tended to become a compliment receiverand men also tended to give compliments to women rather than the same gender. Japanese
men and women found interest in different factors of people, which reflected theircompliments. Men tended to give compliments on people’s performance, while women tended
to give compliments on people’s performance and appearance. Thus, Men respect people’s
performance and achievement, while women were more aware of people’ characteristics
including appearance and personality. In compliment responses, both men and women tended
to deflect by giving comments and ignoring the compliment. In particular, women usedslightly more deflection and rejection than men.
The imbalance of data across gender might be criticized; however, this is an ongoing study.
Nevertheless, both Japanese men and women in this study showed some differences in giving
and receiving compliments, and the results showed a perception of both gendercharacteristics of Japanese compliments, which I believe that the findings help understandgender speech behaviour in mix-gender and cross-cultural communication.
References:
Barnlund, D. C. and Araki, S. (1985). Intercultural Encounters, The Management ofCompliments by Japanese and Americans, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16 (1),−285−

A Gender Analysisof Compliments and Compliment Responsesin Japanese Conversation

9-26.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chick, J.K. (1996). Intercultural Communication, in McKay, S. L. and Hornberger, N. H.
(eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, pp.329-348. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Coates, J. (1996). Women Talk, Oxford: Blackwell.
Daikuhara, M. (1986). A Study of Compliment from A Cross-cultural Perspective:

Japanesevs. American English, Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 2, 103-133.
Farghal, M. and Al-Khatib, M. A. (2001). Jordanian College Students’ Responses toCompliments: A Pilot Study, Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1485-1502.
Herbert, R. K. (1986). Say “Thank You” – Or Something, American Speech, 61, 76-88.
Herbert, R. K. (1990). Sex-Based Differences in Compliment Behavior, Language in Society,19, 201-224.
Holmes,J.

(1986).

Compliments

andCompliment

Responses,

Anthropological

Linguistics, 28, 485-508.
Holmes, J. (1988). Paying Compliments: A Sex-Preferential Politeness Strategy, Journal of

Pragmatics, 12, 445-465.
Holmes, J. and D. F. Brown (1987). Teachers and Students Learning about Compliments,

TESOL Quarterly, 21 (3), 523-546.
Knapp, M.L., Hopper, R., and Bell, R. A. (1984). Compliments: A descriptive Taxonomy,

Journal of Communication, 34 (4), 12-31.
Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2001). Compliment Responses among British and Spanish University
Students: A Contrastive Study, Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 107-127.
Manes, J. and Wolfson, N., (1981). The compliment formula. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.),
Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations andPrepatterned Speech. pp. 115-132, Mouton Publishers: The Hague,.
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment Responses, Notes on the Co-Operation of Multiple
Constraints, in Schenkein, J. (ed.), Studies in The Organization of Conversational

Interaction, pp.79-112, London: Academic Press.
Rees-Miller, J. (2011). Compliments Revisited: Contemporary Compliments and Gender,

Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2673-2688.
Wolfson, N. (1981). Compliments in cross-cultural perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 15 (2),117-124.
Wolfson, N. (1983). An Empirically Based Analysis of Complimenting in American English, in
Wolfson, N. and Jodd, E. (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, pp.82-95.
New York: Newbury House.

−286−

ワークショップ
Workshop Sessions

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

୰᩿⠇ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽ࡜㢮ᆺㄽ㸸⮬↛Ⓨヰ࣭࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺ࣭
࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࡛ࡢ౑⏝౛ࢆᑐ㇟࡟
ᇼỤ⸅
ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ
horie@lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp<Abstract>
This workshop intendeds to present an overview of recent research on the pragmatics and typology of “suspended clauses”  (Ohori 1995) with specific focus on those that appear in Japanese and Korean conversations, internet,and media. Two case studies
are presented, one on Japanese suspended clauses introduced by kedo (‘but’), and the other one on suspended clauses in the 
Korean cyberspace (e.g. blogs) introduced by the quotative complementizer ko, followed by the discussant’s commentaries based
on his pioneering works on suspended clauses.

࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸୰᩿⠇ࠊㄒ⏝ㄽࠊゝㄒ㢮ᆺㄽࠊᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ୺⠇໬(insubordination)

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
㏆ᖺࠊ┦஫⾜ⅭゝㄒᏛࠊ఍ヰศᯒ࡜࠸ࡗࡓᗈ⩏ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ㞄᥋ㅖศ㔝ࡀከࡃࡢ㛵ᚰࢆ㞟ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ
ㄒ⏝ㄽ࡜࠸࠺Ꮫၥࡢᡂ❧ᇶ┙⮬యࢆぢ┤ࡍࠕゎᨺⓗㄒ⏝ㄽࠖ࡜࠸࠺ヨࡳࡶ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦஭ฟ࣭⸨஭
2014㸧ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ືྥࡢ୰࡛ࠊ⮬↛࡞ゝㄒ౑⏝ࡢほᐹ࡛ࡁࡿศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢヰࡋゝⴥ࡟≉᭷ࡢᩥἲ⌧㇟ࡢゝㄒෆࡢ⾲㇟ࠊ㏻ゝㄒⓗ࡞ኚ␗࡟ὀ┠ࡀ㞟ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Laury and Suzuki 2011㸧ࠋヰࡋゝⴥ࡟≉ᚩⓗ࡞⌧㇟࡜ࡋ࡚᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚⏕⏘ⓗ࡟◊✲ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᵓᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ୰᩿⠇㸦ゝ࠸ࡉࡋ, suspended clause㸧ࠖࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࠕ୰᩿⠇ࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡟ࡣ୍⯡ゝㄒᏛ࡛࠸࠺ࠕ๪モ⠇ࠖ(1)ࡸ᪥ᮏ
ㄒᏛ࡛࠸࠺ࠕ㐃⏝ಟ㣭⠇ࠖ(2)ࡀࠊ༢⊂࡛ࠕ୺⠇ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ(1)(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌧㇟ࢆᣦࡍࠋ

(1) TA 3: If you go down to the bottom left hand corner of your page,
TB 4: Aha.
TA 5: do you have a van?

(ྜྷ⏣, ༳ๅ୰)(2) ࠶ࡓࡋࡣࡉࡗࡁࡶヰࡋࡓࢇࡔࡅ࡝࣮㸦Mr. O Corpus㸧୰᩿⠇ࡣࠊ┦஫⾜ⅭゝㄒᏛࠊ఍ヰศᯒ࡜࠸ࡗࡓᗈ⩏ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ㞄᥋ㅖศ㔝࠿ࡽࡶከࡃࡢ㛵ᚰࢆ㞟ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ (Ohori 1995, ኱ᇼ 2002, ⓑᕝ 2009)ࠋᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢヰࡋゝⴥ࡟࠾࠸࡚㢧ⴭ࡟ぢࡽࢀ
ࡿ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕゝ࠸ࡉࡋࠖ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕ୰᩿⠇(suspended clause)ࠖ㸦኱ᇼ2002㸧ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩ࡜㢮ᆺㄽⓗ≉ᚩࡢゎ᫂࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠊ୰᩿⠇⌧㇟ࡀ㇏ᐩ࡟ほᐹࡉࢀࡿ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜㡑ᅜㄒࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ⌧ᅾ㐍⾜୰ࡢ◊✲ࢆ⤂௓ࡋࠊ௒ᚋࡢᒎᮃࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚㛤ദࡋࡓࠋ−287−

中断節の語用論と類型論：自然発話・インターネット・メディアでの使用例を対象に

ᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡢᵓᡂࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ᭱ึ࡟ࠊᇼỤ࠿ࡽࠊ୰᩿⠇ࡢグ㏙ⓗ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࣭ゝㄒ㢮ᆺㄽⓗ◊✲ࡢࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ㐍ᒎ࡜⌧≧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᴫほࢆᥦ౪ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ㝿࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᏛࡢグ㏙ⓗࠕゝ࠸ࡉࡋࠖ◊✲ࡢ⵳✚㸦ⓑᕝ 2009㸧ࠊᶵ⬟୺⩏ⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࠕ୰᩿⠇ࠖࡢඛ㥑ⓗ◊✲㸦Ohori 1995㸧ࠊゝㄒ㢮ᆺㄽࡢinsubordination㸦ᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ୺⠇໬㸧◊✲ࡢᒎ㛤㸦Evans 2007㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᭱ึ࡟⡆༢࡟⤂௓ࡋࡓࠋḟ࠸࡛ࠊᇼỤ⮬㌟ࡢ᪥㡑ㄒࡢ୰᩿⠇◊✲㸦ᇼỤ࣭ࣃࣝࢹࢩ2009, ᇼỤ࣭㔠 2011, Horie 2012, ᇼỤ2014a, b, ‽ഛ୰, Horie, to appear㸧࠾ࡼࡧ୰᩿⠇ࡢ㢮ᆺ໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⌧ᅾ㐍⾜୰ࡢ◊✲࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゐࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ୰᩿⠇◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢹ࣮ࢱࡀᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ㏙࡭ࠊᇼỤࡀཧຍࡋࡓඹྠ◊✲ࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺ࡛
㛤ⓎࡉࢀࡓMr. O Corpus㸦஭ฟ࣭⸨஭2014㸧ࡢ⤂௓ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋḟ࠸࡛ࠊᶓ᳃ࡀ఍ヰศᯒࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ୰᩿⠇ࡢ౑⏝ࡀ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢᐇ⌧࡟࠾࠸࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺
࡞㈨※࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆලయⓗ࡞ᐇ౛ࡢศᯒ࡟ᇶ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ㔠ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕ࡜ࠖ࡟ᑐᛂ
ࡍࡿ㡑ᅜㄒࡢࠕ-koࠖ࡟ࡼࡿ୰᩿⠇ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊᶵ⬟୺⩏ⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽ୰᩿⠇ࡢ◊✲ࢆ୍㈏ࡋ࡚࣮ࣜࢻࡋ࡚ࡁࡓᣦᐃウㄽ⪅ࡢ኱ᇼࡼࡾࠊⓎ⾲࡟ᑐࡍࡿࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ⮬㌟ࡢ◊✲ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓ୰᩿⠇◊✲ࡢ⌧≧࡟ᑐࡍࡿホ౯ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧ௒ᚋࡢᒎ㛤࡟㛵ࡍࡿ♧၀ࢆ㏙࡭࡚㡬ࡁࠊࡑࡢᚋࣇࣟ࢔ࢆ஺࠼ࡓ⥲ྜウ㆟ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩Evans, Nicholas (2007) “Insubordination and its Uses,” Finiteness. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, ed. by Irina Nikolaeva, 366431. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Horie, Kaoru (2012) “The Interactional Origin of Nominal Predicate Structure in Japanese: A Comparative and Historical Pragmatic
Perspective,” Journal of Pragmatics 44, 663-679.
ᇼỤ⸅(2014a)ࠕ୺⠇࡜ᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ┦஫ᶵ⬟ᣑᙇ⌧㇟࡜㏻ゝㄒⓗ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࠖ┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ࡯࠿㸦⦅㸧ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ」ᩥᵓᩥࡢ◊✲࠘, 673694.ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ,ᮾி.
ᇼỤ⸅(2014b)ࠕᩥᮎྡモ໬ᵓᩥࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽᶵ⬟㸸᪥㡑ㄒ⮬↛Ⓨヰࢹ࣮ࢱࡢᑐ↷ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࠖᇼỤ⸅㸦‽ഛ୰㸧ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕ㠀⤊Ṇᙧࠖࡢࢱ࢖࣏ࣟࢪ࣮㸫௚ゝㄒ࡜ࡢẚ㍑ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚㸫ࠖ┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ㸦⦅㸧ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ◊✲࡜ࡑࡢྍ⬟ᛶ࠘㛤ᣅ♫
Horie, Kaoru (to appear, a) “Subordination,” The Handbook of Japanese Contrastive Linguistics, ed. by Prashant Pardeshi and Taro
Kageyama. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
ᇼỤ⸅࣭ࣉࣛࢩࣕࣥࢺ࣭ࣃࣝࢹࢩ(2009)ࠗゝㄒࡢࢱ࢖࣏ࣟࢪ࣮㸫ㄆ▱㢮ᆺㄽࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ㸫࠘◊✲♫,ᮾி.㸦ࠕㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢࣇࣟࣥࢸ࢕࢔ࢩ࣮ࣜࢬࠖ5ᕳ㸧ᇼỤ⸅࣭㔠ᘐ⌇(2011)ࠕ᪥㡑ㄒࡢᩥᮎ⾲⌧࡟ぢࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡ኚ໬㸫ᶵ⬟୺⩏ⓗ㢮ᆺㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸫ࠖ㧗⏣༤⾜࡯࠿㸦⦅㸧㹠ࠗṔྐㄒ⏝ㄽධ㛛࠘, 193-207.኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ,ᮾி.
஭ฟ⚈Ꮚ࣭⸨஭ὒᏊ㸦⦅㸧ࠗゎᨺⓗㄒ⏝ㄽࡢᣮᡓ࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧,ᮾி.
Laury, Ritva, and Ryoko Suzuki. (eds.) (2011) Subordination in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ohori, Toshio (1995) “Remarks on Suspended Clauses: A Contribution to Japanese Phraseology,” Essays on Semantics and Pragmatics, ed.
by Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra A. Thompson, 201-218. John Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia.
኱ᇼኖኵ(2002)ࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ࠘ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧ⓑᕝ༤அ(2009)ࠗࠕゝ࠸ࡉࡋᩥࠖࡢ◊✲࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧, ᮾி.
ྜྷ⏣ᝋᏊ(༳ๅ୰)ࠕᩥἲ࡜ㄯヰࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ㸸ࠕᏙ⊂࡞ࠖif ⠇ࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࠖJELS㸦᪥ᮏⱥㄒᏛ఍㸧−288−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ㈨※࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥ
ᶓ᳃኱㍜
஑ᕞ኱Ꮫ
yokomori@flc.kyushu-u.ac.jp<Abstract>
Among the various types of suspended clause constructions in Japanese (Ohori, 1995), the stand-alone kedo-clause is one of the most frequent
constructions. Although numerous attempts have been made by scholars to describe the discourse-pragmatic function of the stand-alone kedoclause, little is known about when and why conversational participants employ it in actual conversational contexts. Based on an examination of
50 instances of the stand-alone kedo-clause taken from 18 hour recordings of naturally-occurring Japanese conversation, the present study
shows that there are three types of interactional pattern featuring a stand-alone kedo-clause and argues that it is used as a resource to solicit
hearer’s response to the speaker’s observation, knowledge or thought by marking a contrastive relationship using kedo.

࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥࠊⓎヰࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࢵࢺࠊ㈨※ࠊ⮬↛఍ヰࠊ┦஫⾜ⅭゝㄒᏛ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⮬↛఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࢆ᳨ウࡋࠊࡇࡢⓎヰࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࢵࢺࡀ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄢ㢟࡟ᑐฎࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ㈨※࡜ࡋ࡚฼⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ୍➃ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥ (Ohori, 1995)ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕᚑᒓ⠇ࡀ୺⠇ࢆకࢃࡎ࡟ࡑࢀ༢⊂࡛᏶⤖ࡋࡓⓎヰ࡜࡞ࡿᙧᘧࡢ୰
࡛ࠊ᭱ࡶ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࡢ୍ࡘࡀࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ⠇࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ㸦ࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋOhori (1995) ࡀࡇࡢ⌧㇟ࢆࠕᵓᩥࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡓࡇ࡜࡟㇟ᚩࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ⠇༢⊂୍࡛ࡘࡢⓎヰࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜
ࡣࠊ᪥ᖖࡢゝㄒ౑⏝࡟࠾࠸࡚⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ⌧ࢀࡿࠊᐃ╔ࡋࡓⓎヰࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࢵࢺ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥ㸦࠾ࡼࡧࡑࡢ௚ࡢ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥ㸧ࡣࠊ⤊ຓモࠕࡼࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࡾ」ྜⓗ࡞ᩥᮎ⾲⌧ࠕࢇࡌࡷ࡞࠸࠿࡞ࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ࠊⓎヰࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࢵࢺࡢᵝࠎ࡞ࣞࣃ࣮ࢺ࣮ࣜࡢ୍ࡘ࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢヰ⪅ࡀᩘ࠶ࡿࣞࣃ࣮ࢺ࣮ࣜࡢ୰࠿ࡽࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥࢆⓎヰࡢࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࢵࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚
㑅ࡪࡢࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
ࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥࡢാࡁ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠕ୺ᙇࡢㄪᏊࢆࡸࢃࡽࡆࡿࠖ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡜᩿ᐃࡍࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺᪨ࡢグ㏙ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓ㸦cf. ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤ, 1951:49; ᳃⏣, 1980:135-136; Hinds,
1986:91; Nakayama & Nakayama, 1997㸧ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᮏ✏᳨࡛ウࡍࡿࠕࡍࡈ࠸ᗈ࠸ࢇࡔࡅ࡝ࠖࠕࡵࡗࡕࡷ➗ࡗ࡚ࡿࡅ࡝ ࠖ ࡞࡝ࢆࡣࡌࡵ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞グ㏙ࡀ࠺ࡲࡃ㐺⏝ࡋ㞴࠸஦౛ࡶᩘከࡃほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊⓑᕝ (2009)ࡣࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿ᝟ሗࢆࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡀఱ࠿ࢆࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ཧ⪃࡟࡞ࡿ᝟ሗ࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ♧ࠖ(p.30)ࡋ
ࠊࠕࡑࡢ᮲௳ୗ࡛ࡢᖐ⤖ࢆ┦ᡭ࡟⪃࠼ࡉࡏࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠊᾘᴟⓗ࡞ാࡁ࠿ࡅࠖ(p.31)ࢆ⾜࠺࡜ᐃᘧ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ
ᐃᘧ໬ࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟♧၀ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᮏ✏ࡢศᯒ࡜ࡶ኱ࡁࡃ▩┪ࡋ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ఍ヰᩥ⬦ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ࠸ࡘࠊఱࡢࡓࡵ࡟
ཧ୚⪅ࡀᙜヱࡢⓎヰᙧᘧࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟㛵ࡍࡿヲ⣽ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ
୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥࡢⓎヰࡀࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆ㐩ᡂ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ

2. ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ㈨※࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᵓᩥ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ┦஫⾜ⅭゝㄒᏛ (Interactional Linguistics; Fox et al., 2013) ࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࠊࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥࡀ┦஫⾜−289−

相互行為の資源としての「けど」中断節構文

Ⅽࡢ㈨※࡜ࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᛶ᱁ࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࡈࡃ⡆༢࡟ࠕ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ㈨※࡜ࡋ࡚ࠖ࡜࠸
࠺ࡇ࡜ࡢព࿡࡜ࠊࡑࢀࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢᡭἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡇ࠺ࠋ
ゝⴥࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿᶵ఍ࡢ࠺ࡕ᭱ࡶᇶᮏⓗ࡛᰿※ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࡣࠊ௚⪅࡜ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟ᚑ஦ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡿ (Goffman, 1964) ࠋࡑࡇ࡛Ⓨࡉࢀࡿゝⴥࡣ඲࡚ࠊࡑࢀࢆᇙࡵ㎸ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡜㛵㐃௜ࡅࡽࢀ࡚௚ࡢཧ୚⪅࠿ࡽ⪺࠿ࢀࠊゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ (Schegloff, 2007:244-245) ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ୰࡛ゝⴥࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡁࠊᵓᩥࢆ
ࡣࡌࡵ࡜ࡍࡿゝㄒⓗ▱㆑ࡣࠊ༢࡟ྛಶே࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝⴥࡢ⏘ฟ࡜⌮ゎࡢ▱ⓗᇶ┙࡜࡞ࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࠕヰࡋᡭࡀ࠸ࡲ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ୰࡛ఱࢆࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࡝ࡇ࡟ྥ࠿࠾࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠖࢆཧ୚⪅㐩ࡀㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢࠕ㈨※ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᛶ᱁ࢆᖏࡧ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ┦஫⾜ⅭゝㄒᏛ࡛ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿゝㄒᙧᘧࡢᶵ⬟ⓗ≉ᚩࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ
ࡑࡢゝㄒᙧᘧࡀ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ୰ࡢ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞┦஫⾜Ⅽୖࡢㄢ㢟࡟ᑐฎࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸ࡗࡓほⅬ࠿ࡽලయⓗ࡞ᐇ㊶ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆグ㏙ࡋࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ୰ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢཧ୚⪅㐩ࡀᙜヱࡢゝㄒᙧᘧࡢ㈨※࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᛶ᱁ࢆᐇ㝿࡟ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡾᢅࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ࡜࠸࠺᪉ἲࢆ᥇⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㏆ᖺࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪉ྥᛶ࠿ࡽࠊⓎヰࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࢵࢺࡢᚤ⣽࡞ᕪ␗ࢆ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ㈨※࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽグ㏙ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡀ┒ࢇ࡟⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋRaymond (2003) ࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢᴟᛶ␲ၥᩥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᛂ⟅Ⓨヰࡢࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࢵࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚
ࠕᛂ⟅モ (Yes/No) ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿᛂ⟅ࠖ࡜ࠕ⏝࠸࡞࠸ᛂ⟅ࠖࢆẚ㍑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊCurl & Drew (2008) ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ
౫㢗Ⓨヰࡢࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࢵࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ƎCan you …Ǝ࡜ƎI wonder if …Ǝࡢẚ㍑ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⤊ຓモ㢮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊ⤊ຓモࠕࡼࠖ࠾ࡼࡧࠕࡡࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿHayano (2011) ࡢ◊✲ࡸࠕࡗࡅࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ (Hayashi, 2012) ࡢ◊✲ࡶ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᮏ◊✲ࡣࡇࢀࡽࡢᚋ࡟⥆ࡃ㈉⊩࡜࡞ࡿ࡭ࡃ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
➹⪅ࡣࠊᵝࠎ࡞⏕άሙ㠃࡛཰㘓ࡉࢀࡓ᪥ᮏㄒ⮬↛఍ヰ㸦ྜィ⣙18᫬㛫㸧ࡢ୰࠿ࡽࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥࡢᐇ౛50౛ࢆ཰㞟ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ㝿ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽⓗࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡜ࡋ࡚3ࡘࡢ㢧ⴭ࡞ࢱ࢖ࣉࢆྠᐃࡋࡓ1ࠋ௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠊྛ
ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚஦౛ࢆ࠶ࡆ࡞ࡀࡽ᳨ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ࡞࠾ࠊࡇࡇ࡛࠶ࡆࡿ3ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡣ┦஫࡟᤼௚ⓗ࡞࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ
࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ」ᩘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ≉ᚩࢆేࡏࡶࡘ஦౛ࡶᑡ࡞࠿ࡽࡎᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢ3ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ
୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥࡢ⏝ἲࡢ඲࡚ࢆ⥙⨶ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࡶ␃ពࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ

3. ࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥࡢ⏕㉳⎔ቃ
3.1 ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡢヲ㏙ࢆㄏ࠸ฟࡍ
➨୍ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡣࠊ௚ࡢཧ୚⪅࡟ࡼࡿⓎゝࡢ┤ᚋ࡟ࠊྠࡌヰ㢟࡟㛵ࡋ࡚⮬ศࡢᚓࡓఏ⪺ࡸࠕ⮬ศࡀୗࡋࡓุ᩿
ࢆࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ୰᩿⠇ࡢࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࢵࢺ࡛ᥦ♧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊᚋ⥆ᩥ⬦࡛┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡢヲ㏙ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ
᭦࡞ࡿㄒࡾࡸゎㄝࢆㄏ࠸ฟࡍⓎヰ࡜ࡋ࡚ാࡃࠋ
௨ୗࡢ᩿∦ࡣࠊA࡜BࡀࢲࣥࢫᏛᰯ᫬௦ࡢඹ㏻ࡢ཭ேࡢ㏆ἣࢆヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ1⾜┠࠿ࡽ8⾜┠࡟࠿ࡅ࡚ࠊඹ㏻ࡢ཭ே㸦࢔࢖ࣅ࣮㸧ࡢ㏆ἣ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊAࡢഃ࠿ࡽB࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᝟ሗᥦ౪ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࠊࡇࡢヰ㢟࡟㛵ࡋ࡚Aࡀ
ࠕࡼࡃ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ㸦㸻ㄆ㆑ⓗ࡟ඃ఩㸧࡜࠸࠺ࢫࢱࣥࢫࡀࡇࡢᒁᡤⓗ࡞ᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚୧⪅ࡢ㛫࡟☜❧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࠋ7㹼8⾜┠࡛ࠕ࢔࢖ࣅ࣮ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿヰ㢟ࡀ୍᪦཰᮰ࡋࡓ┤ᚋࡢ఩⨨ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ9⾜┠࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ⠇୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥࡀ⏘ฟࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᩿࠙∦1ࠚ
1

A: ࢼࢩࣙࢼࣝࢶ࢔࣮࡟ࡶཷ࠿ࡗ࡚ࢇࡢࡼ:. (0.3) [࠶ࡢே.]

2

B:

3

A: (0.2) ࡔ࠸- ࢔࢖ࣅ࣮.

4

B: (0.7) ࠶. ࢫࢦ࠸[ࡡ:_ ]                          

5

A:

6
7

[ࡔࢀ:? ][ࡔ࠿ࡽ]஧᭶ࡶࢽ࣮࣮ࣗࣚࢡ࡟ࣜࣁ࣮ࢧ࡛ࣝ==᮶ࡿࡋࡶࡕࢁࢇ, ᅄ᭶࠿ࡽࣟࢫ࡛, (0.2) ࣮࢜ࣉࣥࡍࡿ^ࡋ:,

B: (0.4) ࠶:ࡑ࠺࡞ࢇࡔ.

−290−

第17回大会発表論文集

8

A: [ࡑ ࠺ .

9

B: [

第10号

]

࣏࣮ࣝࡣ ]࡞ࢇ࠿ཷ࠿ࡗࡓࡗ࡚⪺࠸ࡓࢇࡔࡅ࡝.

10 A: ࠼, ࣏࣮ࣝ:?.
11 B: ࠺ࢇ.
12 A: ࡞࡟࡟:.
13 B: ࢽ࣮࣮ࣗࣚࢡ.
14

(0.9)

15 B: ࡟⾜ࡃࡗ࡚⚾ࡣᘬ㉺ࡋ[ࡍࡿࡗ࡚⪺࠸ࡓࡼ:?]
16 A:
17

[

< ࡑ ࢀ ࡀ ࠶ ]࡞ࡓ⾜ࡃࡗ࡚>ᮏேࡶゝࡗ࡚ࡓࡢࡼ:.

 .hh㸦ࡕࡷ㸧ࡇࡢ㛫ࢲࢽ࢚ࣝ࡟㟁ヰࡋࡓࡽࡉ:, .h[h

18 B:        ]ࠕAࡕࡷ:ࢇ,=          [࠺ࢇ.]19 A: =.h ൅࡜࣏࣮ࣝࡣ࣮࢜ࢩࣕࣥࢻ࣮࣒࡟ᡠࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠖࡔࡗ࡚.

ࡇࡢ9⾜┠ࡢⓎヰࡣࠊࠕ࡞ࢇ࠿ࠖࠕࡗ࡚⪺࠸ࡓࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⮬ศࡢഃࡣࠕ࠶ࡲࡾࡼࡃ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺
ࢫࢱࣥࢫࢆ᫂♧ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ┤๓ࡢヰ㢟㸦࢔࢖ࣅ࣮㸧࡜ྠࡌ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ㸦ඹ㏻ࡢ཭ே㸧ࡢูࡢᡂဨ㸦࣏࣮ࣝ㸧࡟ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰࡢ඲యࡀࠕࡅ࡝࡛࣐࣮ࠖࢡࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡀᥦ♧ࡋࡓ࣏࣮ࣝ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄆ㆑ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢഃࡢㄆ㆑࡜ᑐẚࡉࢀࠊBࡢഃ࠿ࡽ࡝ࢇ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡀゝ࠼ࡿ࠿ࢆㅎࡿⓎヰ࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋᐇ㝿࡟ࡑࡢᚋ࡟㉳ࡁࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ10⾜┠࠾ࡼࡧ12⾜┠࡛Aࡀ⪺ࡁ㏉ࡋࢆ⾜࠸᝟ሗᥦ౪ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡞࠸࡜ࠊBࡣ⮬ศࡢᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ᝟ሗࢆᑡࡋࡎࡘ㏣ຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦13⾜┠ࠊ15⾜┠㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊᘬࡁ⥆ࡁAࡢഃ
࡟᝟ሗᥦ౪ࢆࡉࡏࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺ヨࡳ࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚16⾜┠࠿ࡽA࡟ࡼࡿࠕ࣏࣮ࣝࠖࡢ㏆ἣ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄒࡾࡀᐇ⾜࡟࠺ࡘࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3.2 ࡑࡢሙࡢ㈐௵⪅࡟ࡼࡿᑐᛂࢆㄏ࠸ฟࡍ
➨஧ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡣࠊ⮬ศࡀほᐹࡋࡓఱࡽ࠿ࡢࢺࣛࣈࣝࡸ㐪࿴ឤࡢ࠶ࡿ஦㇟ࢆࠊࡑࡢሙ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚⟶⌮㈐௵ࡢ࠶ࡿ
ே≀࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ୰᩿⠇ࡢࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࢵࢺ࡛ᥦ♧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊᚋ⥆ᩥ⬦࡟࡚ࡑࡢሙࡢ㈐௵
⪅࡟ࡼࡿᑐᛂࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࡋ࠿ࡿ࡭ࡁᑐฎ࡞࠸ࡋㄝ᫂ࢆಁࡍⓎヰ࡜ࡋ࡚ാࡃࠋ
௨ୗࡢ᩿∦ࡣࠊC࡜Dኵጔࡢఫࡴᐙ࡟ࡑࡢ཭ே࡛࠶ࡿA, B, E, Fࡀゼၥࡋࠊ࡜ࡶ࡟ࢸ࣮ࣈࣝࢆᅖࢇ࡛㣗஦ࢆࡋ࡞ࡀࡽㄯ➗ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ15⾜┠࡛D࡟ࡼࡾゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊC࡜Dࡣ௚ࡢேࡀఫࡴᐙࢆᐙලࡶྵࡵ
࡚೉ࡾ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ1㹼3⾜┠࡟࠾ࡅࡿC࡜Dኵጔࡢ㛫࡛ࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡛ࡣࠊ࣡࢖ࣥࡀࡇࡰࢀ࡚ࢸ࣮ࣈࣝࡀởࢀ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓ
࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀၥ㢟࡟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ2ேࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡣࠊ࡜ࡶ࡟ࢸ࣮ࣈࣝࢆᅖࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ௚ࡢཧ୚⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᴟࡵ
࡚┠❧ࡘࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ௚ࡢཧ୚⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶⓎ⏕ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿၥ㢟࡟ὀពࢆྥࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㐺ษ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸦5㹼6⾜┠㸧ࡇࡢ఩⨨࡛ࠊEࡀࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ⠇୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥࢆ⏘ฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
᩿࠙∦2ࠚ
1

C: ࠺:^࠾:,(.) ࡸࡤ࠸ࡇࢀ. (0.5) >࡝࠺ࡋࡼ<.

2

D: (0.5) ࠶::, ⤖ᵓ࠸ࡗ࡚ࡿ?

3

C: (.)࠸ࡗࡕࡷࡗࡓ࠸ࡗࡕࡷࡗࡓ. (0.8) ࠶ࡇࢀࡸࡤ࠸ࡸࡤ࠸.

4

(0.7)

5

F: [^ࢇ:].

6

B: [ s:]ࡋ[ࡳ ?

7

E:

]

[>ࡍࡲࡏ]ࢇࡕࡻ࡜< ^ࡇࡢ࡬ࢇࡶ:,࣡࢖ࣥࡀ,−291−

相互行為の資源としての「けど」中断節構文

8
9

(0.7)
E: ࡇࡰࢀࡕࡷࡗࡓࢇࡍࡅ࡝.

10 D: (0.3) huh hu hh ((Eࡢࢢࣛࢫࡢ㎶ࡾࢆぢࡿ))
11

(1.1)

12 C: ࠶, ࠶.
13(2.0) ((EࡣᡭඖࢆᣔࡁࠊDࡣࡑࢀࢆࡳ࡚࠸ࡿ))14 D: ࡶ࠺ࡡ:, ࡸࡗࡥࡇࡇ, (.) hேࡀఫࢇ࡛ࡿᐙ࡞ࢇ࡛ࡡ:ࡇࡢ:,
15

(0.5)

16 B: ☜࠿࡟ࡡ:?

7⾜┠࠿ࡽࡢEࡢⓎヰࡣࠊ ࠕࡍࡲࡏࢇࠖ ࡜࠸࠺࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㛤ጞࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᪂ࡓ࡞ࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࢆ㛤ጞࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⌮ゎྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࢥ⣔ᣦ♧モ࡜ຓモࠕࡶࠖࢆྵࡴࠕࡇࡢ࡬ࢇࡶ࡛ࠖ⮬ศࡢഃ࡟㏆᥋
ⓗ࡞஦㇟ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭࡀヰ㢟࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡜㛵㐃௜ࡅࠊࠕࡕࡷࡗࡓ࡛ࠖࡑࢀࡀᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸஦㇟࡛࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚
ᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰࡢ඲యࡀࠕࡅ࡝࡛࣐࣮ࠖࢡࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊEࡀሗ࿌ࡍࡿၥ㢟࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ
ሙࡢ࣍ࢫࢺᙺ࡛࠶ࡿC࡞࠸ࡋD࡟ᑐᛂࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊDࡣ10⾜┠࡛Eࡢࢢࣛࢫࡢ㎶ࡾ࡟ὀពࢆ♧ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ➗࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᛂ⟅ࢆ㐜ࡽࡏࡘࡘࡶ⮬ศࡀᛂ⟅ࡍ࡭ࡁ❧ሙ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⌮ゎࢆ♧ࡋࠊ14⾜┠࡟࠾࠸࡚࣍ࢫࢺࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽㄝ᫂ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢㄝ᫂ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡲ࡛௚ࡢཧ୚⪅ࡣD㸦࡞࠸ࡋC㸧ࡢᛂ⟅ࢆᚅࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ⠇୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥࡢᚋ࡟ㄡࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᛂ⟅ࢆ⾜࠺࡭ࡁ࠿࡜࠸࠺ཧ୚⪅⮬㌟ࡢᚿྥࢆぢ࡚ྲྀࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

3.2 ௚ࡢཧ୚⪅࠿ࡽࡢ㛵ᚰࡢ⾲♧ࢆㄏ࠸ฟࡍ
➨୕ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡣࠊ⮬ศࡀឤࡌࡓホ౯ⓗែᗘࢆࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ୰᩿⠇ࡢࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࢵࢺ࡛ᥦ♧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡣࠊᚋ⥆ᩥ⬦࡛⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ㛵ᚰࡸඹឤࡢ཯ᛂࢆㄏ࠸ฟࡍⓎヰ࡜ࡋ࡚ാࡃࠋ
௨ୗࡢ᩿∦ࡣࠊᕷẸ྿ዌᴦᅋࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮10ே࡯࡝ࡀࠊ⦎⩦ᚋ࡟ࣇ࢓࣑࣮ࣜࣞࢫࢺ࡛ࣛࣥ㣗஦ࢆࡋࠊࡑࡢࡲࡲࡑ
ࡇ࡛㞧ㄯࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ2⾜┠ࡣࠊࢱࣂࢥࢆ㉎ධࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟୍᪦ࣞࢫࢺࣛࣥධཱྀࡢ⮬㈍ᶵࡲ࡛⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓBࡀࠊࢸ࣮ࣈࣝ࡟ᡠࡗ࡚᮶ࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᅵ◁㝆ࡾ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚௚ࡢཧ୚⪅࠿ࡽࡢ☜ㄆࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Bࡢ☜ㄆせồ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚Eࡢࡳࡀ཯ᛂࡋࠊ௚ࡢཧ୚⪅ࡣ࢝ࢺ࣮ࣛࣜࢆࢸ࣮ࣈࣝ࠿ࡽⴠ࡜ࡋࡓGࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸㸦1, 3, 5⾜┠㸧࡟ὀពࢆྥࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊ7⾜┠࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊBࡣ2⾜┠࡜࡯ࡰྠࡌ࿨㢟ෆᐜࢆࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ⠇୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥࡢࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࢵࢺ࡛⏘ฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
᩿࠙∦3ࠚ
1  G: ((࢝ࢺ࣮ࣛࣜࢣ࣮ࢫࢆࢸ࣮ࣈࣝ࠿ࡽⴠ࡜ࡍ))2  B: ࡚࠸࠺࠿ᅵ[◁㝆ࡾĹࡌࡷĻ࡞࠸?] ((ࣞࢫࢺࣛࣥධཱྀ࠿ࡽࢸ࣮ࣈࣝࡢ᪉࡟Ṍ࠸࡚ࡁ࡞ࡀࡽ))3  G:  [ eh heh heh heh]

4  E: ࠿࡞ࡾ, ^ࡍࡈ࠸ࡼ.=5  G: =ኻ♩࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡋࡓ. hh ((ࠕᗑဨࠖࡀヰࡍ᫬ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ኌⰍ))6    (0.7)
7

B: ((⮬ศࡢᖍࡲ࡛Ṍ࠸࡚ࡁ࡞ࡀࡽ)) ࠼, ࡲࡌᅵ◁㝆ࡾ࡞ࢇࡔࡅ࡝.

8

(0.3)

9

E: ࡍࡈ࠸[ࡼ:?]−292−第17回大会発表論文集

10

B:

11

第10号

[ ^ࡍ]ࢇࡈ࠸ᅵ◁㝆ࡾ. ((ᗙࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࠋど⥺ࡣ᳔Ꮚ࡞࡝))
(0.8)

12

E: [ ࡯ࢇ࡜ࡍࡈ࠸ࡼ? ]13

B: [>࠶ࡾࡀ࡜<ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲ]:[ࡍ. ] ((G࡟࣮࢝ࢻࢆΏࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠋ))7⾜┠ࡢⓎヰࡣࠊࠕ࠼࡛ࠖ㛤ጞࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾఱ࠿㐓⬺ⓗ஦ែ࡟Ẽ௜࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࡀබ↛໬ࡉࢀࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࣞࢫࢺࣛࣥ
ࡢእࡢᵝᏊࡀࠕᅵ◁㝆ࡾࠖ࡜࠸࠺ホ౯ᛶࡢᙉ࠸⾲⌧࡟ࠕࡲࡌࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙉព⾲⌧ࢆῧ࠼࡚ᥥ෗ࡉࢀࠊヰࡋᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ
BࡢẼ௜ࡁ࡜ホ౯ⓗែᗘࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰࡢ඲యࡀࠕࡅ࡝࡛࣐࣮ࠖࢡࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡢẼ௜ࡁࡸホ౯ⓗែᗘ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࿘ࡾࡢேࡀྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ὀពࡸ㛵ᚰࢆྥࡅࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ↔Ⅼ໬ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢሙ࡟ࡣ10ே࡯࡝࠸ࡿ࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊࡑࡢᚋࡶE࠿ࡽࡋ࠿཯ᛂࢆᚓࡽࢀ࡞࠸2ࠋ⤖ᒁBࡣ⊂ࡾゝࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧ࡛෌ࡧྠࡌ࿨㢟ࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ⮬ศࡢⓎヰࡀ཯ᛂࢆᚓࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡟ᑐฎࡋ㸦10⾜┠㸧
13⾜┠࡛᪂ࡋ࠸㐃㙐ࢆ㛤ጞࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ㐃㙐ࢆ᏶඲࡟⤊஢ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

4. ⪃ᐹ௒ᅇྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ3ࡘࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊࠕࡅ࡝࡛࣐࣮ࠖࢡࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀほᐹࡋࡓࡇ࡜࣭Ẽ௜࠸ࡓࡇ࡜࣭▱ࡿ࡟⮳ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭࡢഃࡢㄆ㆑࡜ᑐẚࡉࡏ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ཯ᛂࢆㄏ࠸ฟࡍⓎヰ࡜ࡋ࡚ാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ
࡜࠸࠺ඹ㏻Ⅼࡀぢฟࡏࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊྠᵝࡢ࿨㢟ࡀ௚ࡢⓎヰࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࢵࢺ࡛⏘ฟࡉࢀࡓሙྜ࡜ࡣᑐ↷ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛
࠼ࡤ᩿࠙∦3ࠚࢆࡳ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋBࡀࠕእࡀᅵ◁㝆ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ෆᐜࢆⓎヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊ2⾜┠ࡢࠕ࡚࠸࠺࠿
ᅵ◁㝆ࡾĹࡌࡷĻ࡞࠸?ࠖࠊ7⾜┠ࡢࠕ࠼, ࡲࡌᅵ◁㝆ࡾ࡞ࢇࡔࡅ࡝.ࠖࠊ10⾜┠ࡢࠕ^ࡍࢇࡈ࠸ᅵ◁㝆ࡾ.ࠖࡢ୕ᗘ࡟
Ώࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ୰࡛ࠕ㹼ࡌࡷ࡞࠸㸽ࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࢵࢺࡣࠊ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽᛂ⟅㸦≉࡟ྠពⓗ࡞ᛂ⟅㸧ࡀᘬࡁฟࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᙉࡃྵពࡍࡿᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢഃ࡟᫂☜࡞ᛂ⟅ࡢ⩏ົࡀⓎ⏕ࡍࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡜ࡣᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊ ࠕ ^ࡍࢇࡈ࠸ᅵ◁㝆ࡾ. ࠖ ࡣ⤊ຓモ࡞࡝ࡢᩥᮎࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕⾲⌧ࡀ୍ษ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ཯ᛂࢆᮇᚅࡋ
࡞࠸ࠊ⊂ࡾゝࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰ࡜ࡋ࡚ᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡓሙྜࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ཯ᛂࢆࡺࡿࡸ࠿࡟せồࡍࡿ㸦ㄏ࠸ฟࡍ㸧Ⓨヰ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊຓモࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠕᑐẚ㛵ಀࢆ⾲ࡍᚑᒓ⠇࣐࣮࣮࢝ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᩥἲⓗ▱㆑ࡀཧ୚⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㈨※࡜ࡋ࡚฼⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

ὀ
1. ᮏ✏࡛♧ࡍ3ࡘࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡣࠊᶓ᳃ (2013) ࡢ➨6❶➨4⠇࡟࠾ࡅࡿศᯒ࡟ಟṇࢆ᪋ࡋ࡚෌ᵓᡂࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2. ࠕᅵ◁㝆ࡾࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ཯ᛂࡢⷧࡉࡣࠊ➨୍࡟Bࡀࢱࣂࢥࢆ㈙࠸࡟⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㛫࡟௚ࡢཧ୚⪅ࡣ㞵࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢヰࢆࡦ࡜ࡋࡁࡾ
῭ࡲࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࠊ➨஧࡟Gࡀ࢝ࢺ࣮ࣛࣜࢆࢸ࣮ࣈࣝ࠿ࡽⴠ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࢆ㠃ⓑ࠾࠿ࡋࡃฎ⌮ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺άືࡀྠ᫬࡟㐍⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࡀせᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩Curl, Traci S. and Drew, Paul. 2008. Contingency and Action: a Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 41, 1-25.
Fox, Babara, Sandra Thompson, Cecilia Ford & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2013. Conversation Analysis and Linguistics, In: Jack Sidnell and
Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley Blackwell, 726-740.
Goffman, Erving. 1964. The Neglected Situation, American Anthropologist 66(6-2), 133-136.
Hayano, Kaoru. 2011. “Claiming Epistemic Primacy: Yo-marked Assessments in Japanese,” In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, & Jakob
Steensig (eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, 58-81, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayashi, Makoto. 2012. Claiming Uncertainty in Recollection: a Study of Kke-marked Utterances in Japanese Conversation. Discourse
Processes 49(5), 391-425.
Hinds, John. 1986. Japanese. London and New York: Routledge.

−293−相互行為の資源としての「けど」中断節構文ᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤ. 1951.ࠗ⌧௦ㄒࡢຓモ࣭ຓືモʊ⏝ἲ࡜ᐇ౛ʊ࠘, ᮾி㸸⚽ⱥฟ∧.
᳃⏣Ⰻ⾜. 1980. ࠗᇶ♏᪥ᮏㄒ㸰࠘, ᮾி㸸ゅᕝ᭩ᗑ.
Nakayama, Toshihide and Kumiko Ichihashi-Nakayama. 1997. Japanese kedo: Discourse Genre and Grammaticization. In Homin Sohn andJohn Haig (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 6. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 607-618.
Ohori, Toshio. 1995. Remarks on Suspended Clauses: a Contribution to Japanese Phraseology. In Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra A.
Thompson (eds.), Essays on Semantics and Pragmatics, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 201-218.
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding. American Sociological
Review 68(6), 939-967.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
ⓑᕝ༤அ. 2009. ࠗゝ࠸ࡉࡋᩥࡢ◊✲࠘, ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ᶓ᳃኱㍜. 2013. ࠗ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ୰ࡢᩥἲʊ᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ๪モ⠇ᵓᩥࡢ๰Ⓨ࡜⛛ᗎʊ࠘ி㒔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ே㛫࣭⎔ቃᏛ◊✲⛉༤ኈㄽᩥ.

㡑ᅜㄒࡢ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

2. ࠕkoࠖࡢ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥ−294−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

㡑ᅜㄒࡢ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥ㔠ᘐ⌇㯇⃝኱Ꮫ
kjm0630@gmail.com<Abstract>
This study analyzes the characteristics of the connective -ko clause as a case of suspended clauses in
Korean. Based on the data used on the internet and TV, this study suggests that their functions cantentatively be classified into the following 3 types: (i)additional explanation to the preceding sentence,(ii)enumeration of more than two contrastive or similar events, and (iii)discourse marker expressing the
speaker’s emotional attitude toward the other’s utterance.
[࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ]㸸୰᩿⠇ࠊ㡑ᅜㄒࠊ㐃⤖ㄒᑿ-koࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
᪥ᮏㄒࡢ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ㏆ᖺ⏕⏘ⓗ࡟◊✲ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(Ohori 1995ࠊ኱ᇼ 2002ࠊⓑᕝ 2009࡞࡝)ࠋ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ᩥἲⓗ࡟㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㡑ᅜㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ౛ࡀከᩘᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋᚑ᮶ࡢ
㡑ᅜㄒࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ୺࡟-nikka(ࠕ࠿ࡽ㸭ࡢ࡛ࠖ࡟┦ᙜ)ࡸ-nuntey(ࠕࠥࡅ࡝㸭ࡀࠖ࡟┦ᙜ)ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠊ㐃⤖ㄒᑿ࠿ࡽ⤊⤖ㄒᑿ໬࡬࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ◊✲ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ(ₖ䌲㡓 2000ࠊSohn 2003ࠊRhee 2012࡞࡝)ࠋ
ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛࠶ࡲࡾὀ┠ࡉࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠊ㐃⤖ㄒᑿࠕkoࠖ(ࡋ㸭ࢸᙧ㸭㐃⏝ᙧࠖ࡟┦ᙜࠖ)1࡟ࡼࡿᚑᒓ⠇(➼఩⠇)ࡀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ୺⠇ࢆ㝶కࡏࡎࡑࢀࡔࡅ࡛ゝ࠸⤊ࢃࡿ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣ᭱㏆࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺࡢࣈࣟࢢࡸࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿࠕkoࠖ⠇ࡢ⏝౛ࢆ⪃ᐹᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࠊࡑࡢ≉ᚩࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿ2ࠋ

2. ࠕkoࠖࡢ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥ㡑ᅜㄒࡢࠕkoࠖࡣ⏝ゝࡢㄒᖿ࡟௜ࡃ㐃⤖ㄒᑿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟2ࡘ௨ୖࡢ஦᯶ࢆ⨶ิࡍࡿ㝿࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓ(1)࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ2ࡘࡢࠕkoࠖ⠇ࡢ㡰ᗎࢆ(1’)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ධࢀ᭰࠼࡚ࡶᩥ඲యࡢព࿡ࡣኚࢃࡽ࡞࠸
(ₖ䌲㡓2000ࠊ㥺䘟䡚2005࡞࡝)ࠋ
(1)Pi-nun o-ko,

nal-un chwup-ko, palam-un pwu-n-ta.  

㞵-ࡣ 㝆-㐃⤖ㄒᑿ ᪥-ࡣᐮ࠸-㐃⤖ㄒᑿ 㢼-ࡣ྿ࡃ-⌧ᅾ̺⤊⤖ㄒᑿࠕ㞵ࡣ㝆ࡿࡋࠊᐮ࠸ࡋࠊ㢼ࡣ྿ࡃࠋࠖ(㥺䘟䡚 2005:21ࠊཎᩥ㡑ᅜㄒ⾲グ3ࠊ௨ୗྠᵝ)(1’) Nal-un chwup-ko,
 ᪥-ࡣ

pi-nun  o-ko,

ᐮ࠸-㐃⤖ㄒᑿ 㞵-ࡣ

palam-un pwu-n-ta.  㝆ࡿ-㐃⤖ㄒᑿ  㢼-ࡣ྿ࡃ-⌧ᅾ̺⤊⤖ㄒᑿࠕᐮ࠸ࡋࠊ㞵ࡣ㝆ࡿࡋࠊ㢼ࡣ྿ࡃࠋࠖ ୍᪉࡛(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᮏ᮶ࠕkoࠖ⠇࡟ᚋ᥋ࡍࡿࡣࡎࡢ୺⠇ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀࡎࠊࠕkoࠖ⠇ࡢࡳ࡛ᩥࢆ⤊Ṇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⏝౛ࡀぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⏝ἲ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊඛ⾜ᩥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⿵㊊ㄝ᫂ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ㝿࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᣦ᦬ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(ῃⰓῃ㠊㤦 2005:32ࠊ㧻ἓ䡚 2012ࠊ㩫㰚 2013)ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ(2)ࢆ
(2’)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ඛ⾜ᩥ࡜ࠕkoࠖ⠇ࡢ㡰ᗎࢆ஺᭰ࡍࡿ࡜ព࿡ⓗ࡟୙㐺ษ࡞ᩥ࡜࡞ࡾࠊࠕkoࠖ⠇ࡀಽ⨨ࡉࢀࡓᩥ

−295−

ko

韓国語の中断節構文࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡎࠊ(1)࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࠕkoࠖ⠇࡜ࡶࡑࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸᪉ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ
(2)Wusen pang-i nemwu  chwuwe-yo. Ttukewu-n mwul-to nao-ci anh-ko-yo.
ࡲࡎ  㒊ᒇ-ࡀ  ࠶ࡲࡾ࡟ࡶ ᐮ࠸-୎ᑀ   ⇕࠸-㐃యᙧ  Ỉ-ࡶฟࡿ-ྰᐃ-㐃⤖ㄒᑿ-୎ᑀࠕࡲࡎࠊ㒊ᒇࡀ࡜࡚ࡶᐮ࠸࡛ࡍࠋ࠾‫ࡶ‮‬ฟࡲࡏࢇࡋࠋࠖ(㩫㰚 2013:193)(2’)* Ttukewu-n mwul-to nao-ci anh-ko-yo.   Wusen pang-i  nemwu chwuwe-yo.
⇕࠸-㐃యᙧ Ỉ-ࡶ ฟࡿ-ྰᐃ-㐃⤖ㄒᑿ-୎ᑀ  ࡲࡎ   㒊ᒇ-ࡀ  ࠶ࡲࡾ࡟ࡶ ᐮ࠸-୎ᑀࠕ࠾‫ࡶ‮‬ฟࡲࡏࢇࡋࠋࡲࡎࠊ㒊ᒇࡀ࡜࡚ࡶᐮ࠸࡛ࡍࠋࠖ
ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕkoࠖ⠇ࢆ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࠊ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺࡸࢸࣞࣅ␒
⤌࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ⏝౛࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ศᯒࢆࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ㝿࡟௒ᚋࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ࡢᑐ↷ศᯒࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆᑕ⛬࡟ධࢀ࡚ࠊ
᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕࡋࠖ⠇ࢆศᯒࡋࡓⓑᕝ(2009)ࢆ㐺ᐅཧ↷ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ୰᩿⠇ࠕkoࠖࡢฟ⌧⎔ቃཬࡧᶵ⬟ࢆ⌧ẁ㝵࡛ࡣ⾲1ࡢࡼ࠺࡟3ศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋ௨ୗ࡟(I)㹼(III)࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢヱᙜ౛ࢆ㡰࡟♧ࡍࠋ⾲ࠕkoࠖ⠇ࡢฟ⌧⎔ቃ࡜ᶵ⬟
ศ㢮
(I)
(II)
(III)

ฟ⌧⎔
⎔ቃ
ඛ⾜ᩥ㸩ࠥko.
ࠥko, ࠥko.㸩(ᚋ⾜ᩥ)
Toy-ss-ko.㸩ᚋ⾜ᩥᶵ⬟ඛ⾜ᩥ⬦(࡬)ࡢ௜ࡅࡓࡋ
ࠕᑐẚⓗ࡞஦᯶ࠖࡲࡓࡣࠕ㢮౛ࠖࢆ⨶ิㄯヰᶆ㆑

ࡲࡎࠊ(I)ࡢヱᙜ౛࡜ࡋ࡚(3)ࡣࠕ࣭࢝ࣥࢯࣛࠖ࡜࠸࠺ዪඃ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᭩ࡁᡭࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࠋඛ⾜ᩥ࡛㏙࡭ࡓࠕᙼዪࡀࡁࢀ࠸ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠕసရࢆ㑅ࡪ┠ࡶ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ௜ࡅຍ࠼ࡿ㝿࡟ࠕkoࠖ⠇ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣୖ㏙ࡋࡓ㏻ࡾࠊ㧻ἓ䡚(2012)ࠊ㩫㰚(2013)࡞࡝ࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡍ࡛࡟ᣦ
᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᶵ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ(3)ࢆࠕ*Cakphwum kolu-nun nwun-to coh-ko. Kang sola yeyppu-ta. (సရࢆ㑅ࡪ┠ࡶ࠸࠸ࡋࠋ࣭࢝ࣥࢯࣛࡁࢀ࠸ࡔࠋࠖ)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ධࢀ᭰࠼ࡿ࡜(2)࡜ྠᵝ࡟㠀ᩥ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
(3)Kang sola yeyppu-ta.   Cakphwum kolu-nun nwun-to coh-ko.
ேྡ   ࡁࢀ࠸ࡔ-⤊⤖ㄒᑿ సရ  㑅ࡪ-㐃యᙧ ┠-ࡶ   ࠸࠸Ǧ㐃⤖ㄒᑿࠕ࣭࢝ࣥࢯࣛ(ዪඃࡢྡ๓)ࠊࡁࢀ࠸ࠋసရ(ࢆ)㑅ࡪ┠ࡶ࠸࠸ࡋࡋࠋࠖḟ࡟(II)ࡢヱᙜ౛࡜ࡋ࡚(4)࡜(5)ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ(4)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᚋ⾜ᩥࠕ࠸ࡘࡶⴱ⸨࡟㝗ࡿࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ⌮⏤ࠖ
࡜ࡋ࡚2ࡘࡢࠕkoࠖ⠇ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊࠕ࠾㔠ࡀ࡞࠸ࠖࡇ࡜࡜ࠕ㈙࠺(࡭ࡁᚲせ࡞)ࡶࡢࡀከ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺࠾஫࠸ᑐ
ẚⓗ࡞2ࡘࡢ஦᯶ࢆ⨶ิࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(5)ࡣࠕᐮ࠸ࠊ࠾⭡ࡀࡍ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠊ㏥ᒅࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺3ࡘࡢ஦᯶ࡀิᣲࡉࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽࡣ(࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜)ᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸஦ែࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࠕ㢮౛ࠖࢆ⨶ิࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠕkoࠖ⠇ࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ(5)ࡣࠊ(4)࡜㐪ࡗ࡚ᚋ⾜ᩥࡀゝㄒ໬(᫂♧)ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎ4ࠊ㢦ᩥᏐࠕ෌෌ Ἵ ࡛ࠖࡶࡗ࡚ᝒࡋ࠸Ẽᣢࡕࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ⮬ศࢆᝒࡋࡲࡏࡿ⌮⏤ࡀ࡯࠿࡟ࡶࡲࡔ࠶ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࢆᬯ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(4)Ton-un eps-ko,  sa-l    ke-nmanh-ko. Hangsang kaltung-ey ppaci-ne-yo.

 㔠-ࡣ ࡞࠸-᥋⥆ㄒᑿ ㈙࠺-㐃యᙧ ࡶࡢ-ࡣ ከ࠸-㐃⤖ㄒᑿ ࠸ࡘࡶ   ⴱ⸨-࡟ ࠕ㔠ࡣ࡞࠸ࡋࠊ㈙࠺(࡭ࡁᚲせ࡞)ࡶࡢࡣከ࠸ࡋ
ࡋࠋ࠸ࡘࡶᝎࢇࡌࡷ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࠖ

ko,

ࡋ

ko,

ࡋ

kwu.

ࡋ

−296−

ⴠࡕࡿ-⤊⤖ㄒᑿ-୎ᑀko,  s-ko.
第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

ࡋ(5) Chwup-ko, paykophu-ko,

simsimha-kwu. ෌෌ᐮ࠸-㐃⤖ㄒᑿ ࠾⭡ࡍࡃ-㐃⤖ㄒᑿ  ㏥ᒅࡔ-㐃⤖ㄒᑿ (Ἵ)ࠕᐮ࠸ࡋࡋࠊ࠾⭡ࡍ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡋ
ࡋࠊ㏥ᒅࡔࡋ
ࡋ(Ἵ)ࠋࠖ 㸺http://cafe.naver.com/enjoyulsan100/8962 (2014/12/13)㸼
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊఝࡓࡼ࠺࡞౛࡜ࡋ࡚(6)ࡶྜࢃࡏ࡚⤂௓ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ(6)ࡣᙧᘧྡモppwun(ࡔࡅ)ࠊᣦᐃモi-ta(ࡔ)ࡢㄒ
ᖿ࡟ࠕkoࠖࡀ௜࠸ࡓࠕࠥppwun-i-kko(ࠥࡔࡅࡔࡋ)ࠖ5࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࢆྵࡴࠕkoࠖ⠇ࡀ」ᩘ୪࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᚋ⾜ᩥࢆ㠀⾲♧ࡢࡲࡲ࡟ࡋࠊ࠶࠼࡚⤖ㄽࢆ㏙࡭ࡎᩥࡢ⤊⤖㒊ࢆ࣮࢜ࣉࣥ࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ(ど⫈⪅)࡟ጤࡡ࡚ࠊ➗ࢆ࡜ࡿヰࡢ࢜ࢳ࡜ࡶ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(6)㸺2009ᖺᗘࡢ⤒῭ࡢぢ㏻ࡋ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ሗ㐨ࡍࡿሙ㠃㸼グ⪅:Hwanyul-i 980wen-sen-ulo halakha-m-ey   ttala    hankuk kyengcey-ka᥮⋡ࡀ   ࢛࢘ࣥ-⥺Ǧ࡬ ୗⴠࡍࡿǦྡモ໬㎡Ǧ࡟ ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚  㡑ᅜ⤒῭Ǧࡀ

anceng-ul  toycac-ko iss-nuntey   㸦ỿ㯲ࡀὶࢀࡿ㸧ྲྀࡾᡠࡍǦ⥅⥆Ǧ㐃⤖ㄒᑿ ࠕ(␎)Ⅽ࣮᭰ࣞࢺࡀ980࢛࢘ࣥྎࡲ࡛ୗⴠࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ(␎)㡑ᅜࡢ⤒
῭ࡀᏳᐃࢆྲྀࡾᡠࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࡀ…ࠖᏳᐃǦࢆࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ࢟ࣕࢫࢱ࣮㸸An sangthay kica! An sangthay kica!    ேྡ   グ⪅グ⪅  ࠕ࢔ࣥࢧࣥࢸグ⪅! ࢔ࣥࢧࣥࢸグ⪅!ࠖேྡ

al-ko    monttang talle sa-ss-ko,

グ⪅:Na-n hwanyul 2000wen-kkaci ka-nun  cwul⚾ͼࡣ ᥮⋡    ࢛࢘ࣥǦࡲ࡛ ⾜ࡃǦ㐃యᙧ ᙧᘧྡモ ▱ࡿǦ㐃⤖ㄒᑿ ඲㒊    ࢻࣝ ㈙࠺Ǧ㐣ཤǦ㐃⤖ㄒᑿ

ku talle panthomak na-ssul-ppwun-i-ko

emma-ka na mongtwungi-lo panthomak nay-keyss-ta-to  ࡑࡢ ࢻࣝ ༙ศ࡟࡞ࡿǦ㐃యᙧǦࡔࡅǦࡔǦ㐃⤖ㄒᑿẕͼࡀ⚾  Წ-࡛༙ศ࡟ษࡾ้ࡴǦពᚿǦ⤊⤖ㄒᑿ-ᘬ⏝

ha-ko iss-ko!
ゝ࠺Ǧ⥅⥆Ǧ㐃⤖ㄒᑿࠕ൅ࡣ(ࢻࣝࡢ)Ⅽ࣮᭰ࣞࢺࡀ2༓࢛࢘ࣥࡲ࡛ୖࡀࡿ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚඲㒊ࢻࣝ(ࢆ)㈙ࡗ(࡚ࡋࡲࡗ)ࡓࡋ
ࡋࠊࡑࡢࢻࣝ(ࡣ)༙ศ࡟࡞ࡗࡓ(ୗⴠࡋࡓ)ࡔࡅࡔࡋࠊẕࡀ൅ࢆᲬ࡛༙ศ࡟ࡍࡿ࡜ゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡋࡋ!ࠖ
᭱ᚋ࡟(III)࡟ᙜࡓࡿ(7)ࡣࠊ┦ᡭ(೉୺)ࡢⓎヰࢆཷࡅ࡚ࠊࡇࢀ௨ୖ⪺ࡁࡓࡃ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ヰࡋᡭ(ᐙ୺)ࡢឤ᝟
ⓗ࡞ែᗘࢆ♧ࡍㄯヰᶆ㆑࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㡑ᅜㄒࡢືモࠕtoy-ta(࡞ࡿ)ࠖࡢ㐣ཤᙧࠕtway-sseyo(࡞ࡿ-㐣ཤ-⤊⤖ㄒᑿ)ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡣ័⏝ⓗ࡟┦ᡭ࡟᩿ࡾࡸ㐲៖ࢆ⾲ࡍ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ(7)࡛ࡣゝ࠸ษࡾࡢ⤊⤖ㄒᑿࠕeyo࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃ㐃⤖ㄒᑿࠕkoࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠕtway-ss-ko(࡞ࡿ-㐣ཤ-㐃⤖ㄒᑿ)࡛ࠖⓎヰࢆጞࡵࠊࡑࡢᚋ࡟ヰࡋᡭࡢゝ࠸ศࡀ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(9)೉ࡾ୺:㸦␎㸧Myechil-man-ilato  yeyu-lul cwu-si-myen
ᩘ᪥-ࡔࡅ-࡛ࡶ  వ⿱-ࢆ  ࡃࢀࡿ-ᑛᩗ-᮲௳

cey-ka ci-pul olmki-lkkey-yo.
⚾-ࡀ       ࠕᩘ᪥ࡔࡅ࡛ࡶవ⿱ࢆࡃࡔࡉࢀࡤࠊᘬࡗ㉺ࡋࡲࡍࠋࠖ

−297−

㸱㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟

ᐙ-ࢆ  ⛣ࡍ-ពᚿ-୎ᑀ韓国語の中断節構文ᐙ୺㸸 Toway-ss-ko!
Cikum kunyang࡞ࡿ-㐣ཤ-㐃⤖ㄒᑿ ௒ 

naka-la-ko.

ࡓࡔฟ࡚⾜ࡃ-࿨௧-ᘬ⏝ࠕ⤖ᵓ࡛ࡍ࠿ࡽ㸟௒ࡑࡢࡲࡲฟ࡚࠸ࡅࡗ࡚ࡤࠋࠖ<http://stylebox.egloos.com/viewer/2155905, (2014/08/23)>㸱㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣ㡑ᅜㄒࡢ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥࡢ1ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕkoࠖ⠇ࢆ⤂௓ࡋࠊ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺࡸࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌࡟⌧ࢀࡿ⏝౛ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠕkoࠖ⠇ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆ ᬻᐃⓗ࡟ (i)ඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࡬ࡢࡘࡅࡓࡋࠊ(ii)ᑐẚࡲࡓࡣ㢮ఝࡍࡿ஦᯶ࡢ⨶ิࠊ(iii)ㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡢ3ࡘ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋ௒ᚋࡣࠕkoࠖ⠇ࡢ⏝౛ࢆቑࡸࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࠊࠕkoࠖ⠇ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀᚑᒓ⠇ෆ࡛⏕㉳ࡋࡓሙྜ࡜୰᩿⠇࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓሙྜ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᶵ⬟ⓗ≉␗ᛶཬࡧ⼥㏻ᛶࢆゎ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕࠥࡋࠖ⠇(ⓑᕝ2009ࠊ㏆⸨2011)࡜ࡢᑐ↷ศᯒࡶྵࡵ࡚◊✲ࢆ⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ
1 ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕࢸᙧ㸭୰Ṇᙧ㸭ࡋࠖ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࡀࠊ㐣ཤᙧ࡜ࡢඹ㉳ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿⅬ࡛ࡣࠕࡋࠖ࡜ඹ㏻ࡍࡿࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠕkoࠖ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢᑐᛂᙧᘧࡢヲ⣽࡞ศᯒࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡇࢀ௨ୖࡣゐࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠕkoࠖࡣヰࡋゝⴥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡋࡤࡋࡤࠕkwuࠖ࡜Ⓨ㡢ࡉࢀࡿ(ῃⰓῃ㠊㡆ῂ㤦 2005:32)ࠋ
2 ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉⓎ⾲᫬࡟ࡣࠕkoࠖ⠇ࡢ࡯࠿࡟ࡶ㐃య⠇ࡢ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ᘬ⏝ಟ㣭⠇ࠕtanun(ࠕ࡜࠸࠺ࠖ࡟┦ᙜ)ࠖ࡜ࠕ㐃యᙧṆࡵࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚ࡶྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ⣬ᖜࡢ㒔ྜୖࠊ๭ឡࡍࡿࠋヲ⣽ࡣ㔠(2014)ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
3㡑ᅜㄒࡢ⾲グࡣYaleᘧࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠋ

4ᚋ⾜ᩥࡣゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛⾲1ࡢ(II)ࢆࠕ(ᚋ⾜ᩥ)ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟( )௜ࡁ࡛⾲♧ࡋࡓࠋ

52008ᖺࡈࢁ㡑ᅜᨺ㏦බ♫(KBS)〇సࡢࠗGag Concert࠘࡜࠸࠺࠾➗࠸␒⤌࡛ࡢ౑⏝ࡀࡁࡗ࠿ࡅ࡜࡞ࡗ୍࡚᫬ᮇὶ⾜ࡗࡓ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩Ohori,Toshio.1995.“Remarks on Suspended Clauses: A Contribution to Japanese Phraseology.” In Shibatani and Thompson(eds), Essays on

Semantics and Pragmatics, Amsterdam:John Benjamis,201-218.
኱ᇼኖኵ.2002.ࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ࠘ᮾி:ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧఍.

㧻ἓ䡚.2012.ࠕ㡆ἆ㠊⹎㠦㍲ ₆㤦䞲 㫛ἆ㠊⹎㦮 㦮⹎ 㡆ῂ ‘-ἶ/-⓪◆’㦮 ╊䢪 㦮⹎ ₆⓻㦚 㭧㕂㦒⪲ࠖࠗ䞲ῃ㠊 㦮⹎䞯࠘38, 109-134.
㩫㰚.2013.ࠕ㫛ἆ㠊⹎䢪♲ ‘-ἶ(㣪)’㦮 䐋㌂ ῂ㫆㢖 ╊䢪 ₆⓻ࠖࠗ╊䢪㢖 㧎㰖࠘, 20:1, 183-200.
ₖ䌲㡓.2001.૸ῃ㠊 㫛ἆ㠊⹎㦮 ⶎ⻫ૹࢯ࢘ࣝ:ῃ䞯㧦⬢㤦.
㔠ᘐ⌇.2014.ࠕ㡑ᅜㄒࡢᘬ⏝ಟ㣭⠇ࡢ୺⠇໬ࠖ┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ࣭኱ᓥ㈨⏕࣭ᶫᮏಟ࣭ᇼỤ⸅࣭๓⏣┤Ꮚ࣭୸ᒣᓅᙪ(⦅)ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ」ᩥᵓᩥࡢ◊✲࠘,695717, ᮾி:ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
㏆⸨◊⮳.2011.ࠕ᥋⥆ຓモࢩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖࠗゝㄒ࡜ᩥ໬࠘24,68-83.
ῃⰓῃ㠊㡆ῂ㤦.2005.૸㣎ῃ㧎㦚 㥚䞲 䞲ῃ㠊 ⶎ⻫2ૹࢯ࢘ࣝ:䄺ⷺ┞䅖㧊㎮⿗㓺.
Rhee, Seongha.2012. Context-induced Reinterpretation and (Inter)subjectification: The Case of Grammaticalization of Sentence-Final
Particles. Language Sciences 34, 284-300.
ⓑᕝ༤அ.2009.ࠗࠕゝ࠸ࡉࡋᩥࠖࡢ◊✲࠘ᮾி:ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
Sohn,Sung-Ock.2003. On the Emergence of Intersubjectivity: An Analysis of Sentence-Final nikka in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics
12, 52-63.
㥺䘟䡚(2005)૸䡚╖ῃ㠊 㩧㏣㠊⹎ 㡆ῂૹࢯ࢘ࣝ:⹫㧊㩫. −298−୰᩿⠇ࢆࡵࡄࡿ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡢㄽᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

୰᩿⠇ࢆࡵࡄࡿ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡢㄽᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ
኱ᇼኖኵ
ᮾி኱Ꮫ
tohori@boz.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp<Abstract>
Recently, suspended clauses (aka insubordination) have attracted the attention of a fair number of researchers. This commentarytakes up the presentations from the workshop on this topic, with some clarifications of their background. Yokomori’s paper is
unique in that it incorporates insights from CA into discourse-based analysis of grammatical constructions, while Kim’s paper isequally important with its close attention to the early phase of the rise of suspended clauses. The commentary closes with somesuggestions for future research.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ୰᩿⠇ࠊᚑᒓ⠇ࠊ┦஫⾜Ⅽࠊㄯヰᶵ⬟ࠊᩥἲ໬ 1. ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ୰᩿⠇⌧㇟㸦suspended clause; Ohori 1995, 2000ཧ↷㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊEvans (2007)ࡀinsubordination࡜࠸࠺࿧⛠ࡢࡶ࡜࡟ከࡃࡢ㢮ᆺㄽⓗࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᘬࡁࡘࡘໟᣓⓗ࡞ࢧ࣮࣋࢖ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚௨᮶ࠊㄯヰศᯒࡸㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ◊✲⪅ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࣇ࢕࣮ࣝࢻ࣮࣡ࢡ୰ᚰ࡟ಶูゝㄒࡢศᯒ࣭グ㏙࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴከࡃࡢ◊✲⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡶ㛵ᚰࡢⓗ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡓࡔࠊOhori (1995௚)࡜Evans (2007)ࡢᢅ࠺⠊ᅖࡣྠࡌ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᚋ⪅ࡀࡑࡢ࿨ྡࡢ࡜࠾ࡾࠊsubordinationࡍ࡞ࢃࡕᚑᒓᵓ㐀ࡢ⮬❧໬ࢆ୺࡞ᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ๓⪅ࡣ㏻ᖖࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣᚑᒓᵓ㐀ࡢ࠺ࡕ࡟ධࡽ࡞࠸ᵓ
㐀ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ⠇㐃㙐㸦clause chain㸧ࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞୍✀ࡢ➼఩ᵓ㐀㸦ࡼࡾṇ☜࡟ࡣ኱ᇼ 2014࡟ゝ࠺ࡼ࠺࡞㐃఩᥋⥆ࡶྵࡴ㸧ࡶศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୍᪉ࠊEvans (2007)࡟♧၀ࢆཷࡅࡓ◊✲࡟ࡣ⿵ᩥᵓ㐀࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡀከࡃࠊࡇࢀࡣOhori (1995௚)ࡢ୍㐃ࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣࡈࡃ㝈ࡽࢀࡓ⠊ᅖ࡛ࡋ࠿ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞┦㐪ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⠇ࡢ᥋⥆ᵓ㐀࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢᙧ࡛୺⠇࡟౫Ꮡࡍࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ⠇ࡀ⮬❧ᛶࢆࡶࡘ࡟⮳ࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࡣࠊゝㄒグ㏙ࡦ࠸࡚ࡣゝㄒ⌮ㄽ࡟ྲྀࡾධࢀࡿᚲ↛ᛶࢆ༑ศ࡟ᣢࡘ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋྠ᫬࡟ࠊ୰᩿⠇ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡶ୍ᵝ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊከᵝ࡞⌧ࢀ᪉ࢆぢࡏࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ከᵝ࡞⌧㇟࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣఱ㏻ࡾࡶࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ࡛ࡣࡑࡢ୰࠿ࡽ஧ࡘࡢ␗࡞ࡿᡂᯝࡀᶓ᳃Ặ࡜㔠Ặ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋ௨ୗࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟
ࡘ࠸࡚ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡍࡿࠋ

 2. ᶓ᳃ẶࡢⓎ⾲ࡣᵓᩥࢆࠕ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ㈨※ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡟ࡣ㸱ࡘࡢ๓ᥦࡀ࠶ࡿ㸸(i) ⚾ࡓࡕࡀゝㄒࡢࠕᵓ㐀ࠖ㸦ྂ඾ⓗ࡞ព࿡࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࣛࣥࢢࠖ㸧࡜ぢ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊ඲࡚ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ┠ⓗࡢࡓࡵࡢ㈨※㸻ࣜࢯ࣮ࢫ࡛࠶ࡿ㸹(ii) ࠕᩥἲࠖࡣᑡᩘࡢᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ཎ⌮ࡢయ⣔࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊಶูゝㄒ࡟≉᭷࡞ᵓᩥࡢ㞟ྜయ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ㸹(iii) ゝㄒࡀᯝࡓࡍ࡭ࡁ┠ⓗ࡟ࡣ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ࣐ࢿ࣮ࢪ࣓ࣥࢺࡀྵࡲࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ(i)ࡣᶵ⬟୺⩏ࡢᇶᮏ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
(ii)ࡣᵓᩥ⌮ㄽࡢᇶᮏ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊⱥㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚୺ㄒ࡜ຓືモࡢಽ⨨㸦Had I more time,
I’d visit another museum㸧࡜࠸࠺ᙧࡀ᮲௳ᩥࡢ๓௳ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡓࡵࡢࠕ㈨※ࠖ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ほᐹࡣᖖ㆑࡟ᒓࡍࡿࠋ᭱ࡶ㔜せ࡞ࡢࡣ(iii)࡛ࠊゝㄒࡢ౑⏝┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚┦஫⾜Ⅽࡀど㔝࡟ධࡗ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊwhat he’s saying is ...
ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᨃఝศ⿣ᵓᩥࡣ(i)-(ii)ࡔࡅࡢ⠊ᅖ࡛⪃࠼ࢀࡤࠊ࿨㢟ࡢ୍㒊ࢆ↔Ⅼ໬ࡋࡓᵓᩥ࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩ࡙ࡅ࡛῭ࡴ࠿ࡶ−299−

中断節をめぐるワークショップの論文についてのコメントࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ(iii)ࡢ⪃࠼ࢆᑟධࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡑࢀࡣHopper (2004)ࡢゝ࠺ࡼ࠺࡟⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿㄯヰࡢෆᐜࡢ୍㒊ࡔࡅࢆࠕ㢌ฟࡋࠖࡋࠊṧࡗࡓ㒊ศࡣᚋ࡟ࠕඛ㏦ࡾࠖࡍࡿprojectionࡢຠᯝࢆࡶࡘ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ⮬ᕫ㛤♧ࠊㄝ᫂ࡸ཯ᛂࡢㄏⓎࠊᙜ㠃ࡢヰ㢟࡬ࡢ㛵୚ࡢࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝࠊ➼ࡢ♫఍ⓗ࡞┦஫⾜Ⅽࢆᐇ⾜ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ゝㄒグྕ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕᵓᩥࠖࡀ㸦௚ࡢࣜࢯ࣮ࢫ࡜ඹ࡟㸧ືဨࡉࢀࡿííࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ศᯒࡢどⅬࡣࠊ௒ᚋࡉࡽ࡟㔜せᗘࡀቑࡋ࡚࠸
ࡃࡔࢁ࠺ࠋᶓ᳃Ặࡢศᯒࡣࠊヲ⣽࡞ㄯヰࢹ࣮ࢱࡢศᯒ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊ୰᩿⠇⏝ἲࡢࢣࢻ⠇ࡀࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚ࡉࢀ
ࡓࡼ࠺࡞ࠕࡸࢃࡽࡆࠖࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊㄯヰࢆ㏻ࡌࡓ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢᡂ❧࡟ᐤ୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠ᫬
࡟ࠊࢣࢻ⠇࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧ࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠕࡡ࠼ࡡ࠼ࠖࠊࠕࡍ࠸ࡲࡏࢇࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧࡟ࡶࠕゝㄒᵓ㐀ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࠖ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽὀ┠ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⌧㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ」ྜⓗ࡛ㄯヰ࡟ࡲࡓࡀࡿ୙㐃⥆࡞ᵓᩥࢸࣥ
ࣉ࣮ࣞࢺ࡜ぢ࡞ࡋ࠺ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣࠊᵓᩥ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡶ⯆࿡῝࠸ࠋ௒ᚋࡢࡉࡽ࡞ࡿ◊✲ࡀᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿࠋ

 3. 㔠Ặࡢㄽᩥࡣࠊ㡑ᅜㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୰᩿⠇ᵓᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊኚ໬ࡢึᮇẁ㝵࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ඙ࡋࠖ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓ◊✲࡜ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣ୰᩿⠇⏝ἲࡀᐃ╔ࡋࡓ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢣࢻ⠇࡜ࡣዲᑐ↷࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡋࡤࡋࡤᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㡑ᅜㄒࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊᩥࢆ⤊⤖ࡉࡏࡿᙧែࡀ௚ࡢά⏝ᙧ࡜᫂☜࡟༊ูࡉࢀࡿ
ࠋ⤊⤖ᙧࢆ࡜ࡿᩥ࡜ࠊྡモಟ㣭ࡸ⿵ᩥᵓ㐀࡜ࡢ㛫ࡣࠊࡇࡢⅬ࡛୙㐃⥆࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㡑ᅜㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚୰᩿⠇⏝ἲࡀぢฟࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸⌮⏤ࢆࡇࡇ࡟ồࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡣጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡔࡀࡑࢀ࡛ࡶᐇ㝿ࡢ⏝ἲࡣไ⣙ࢆࡍࡾᢤࡿࠋTVᨺ
㏦ࡸ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺୖ࡛ࡢࠊẚ㍑ⓗⱝ࠸ᖺ௦࡟ࡼࡿつ⠊ព㆑ࡢⷧ࠸ゝㄒάືࢆࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡍࡿ㔠Ặࡢ◊✲ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡲ࡛࡞࠿ࡗࡓᵓᩥ㛫ࡢ㐃⥆ᛶࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋOhori (1995௚)࡛ࡣࠕㄡࡶຓࡅࡸࡋ࡞࠸࡜࠸
࠺ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧ࡛Ⓨヰࡀ⤊⤖ࡍࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࢆࠕ཯᫂ドᛶ㸦anti-evidential㸧ࠖ࡜࿧ࢇࡔࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢ┤᥋⤒㦂࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊఏ⪺ᙧᘧࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛᝟ሗࡢࢯ࣮ࢫࡢᡤ᭷ᶒࢆᡭᨺࡍࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡓࠋࡔࡀㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ┦஫
⾜Ⅽ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽぢࡿ࡜ࠊูࡢ⯆࿡῝࠸㠃ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࠋୖグࡢ౛ࡣࣛࢪ࢜DJࡢࢺ࣮ࢡ࠿ࡽ᥇ྲྀࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ
ࠋࡑࢀࡣ㐠ື఍࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᛮ࠸ฟヰ࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀᚐ➇㉮࡟ฟࡓ᫬࡟㌿ಽࡋ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࡢࡔࡀࠊ௚ࡢ㉮⪅ࡣࡑࡢࡲࡲ㉮ࡾཤࡾࠊ࿘ࡾࡢ⪅ࡶ࣮ࣞࢫ୰ࡣຓࡅ࡟᮶࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࠊࠕṧᛕ࡞య㦂ㄯࠖࡢࢪࣕࣥࣝ࡟ᒓࡍࡿㄯヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢㄒࡾࡢὶࢀ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᙜヱࡢⓎヰࡣ Labov & Waletzky (1967)ࡢゝ࠺ホ౯㸦evaluation㸧࡟࠶ࡓࡿࡶࡢ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋ㔠Ặࡀ᭱㏆ࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᘬ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿࠕヰࡢᒣሙࠊ┒ࡾୖࡀࡾࠖ࡜࠸࠺ほᐹࡣࡇࡢⅬ࡜࿧ᛂࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆ཯᫂ドᛶ࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩ࡜㛵㐃࡙ࡅࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊⓎヰࢆࡑࡇ࡛⤊⤖ࡉࡏࡿࠕ࡜࠸࠺ࠖࡣⓎゝෆᐜ࡜ࡑࡢຠᯝࢆㄯヰࡢࠕሙ࡛ࠖඹ᭷ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ୺⠇࡟ࡼࡿgroundingࢆゎ㝖ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

 4. ⿵ᩥ⠇࡜௚ࡢ✀㢮ࡢ୰᩿⠇ࠊ౛࠼ࡤࢣࢻ⠇ࡢࡼ࠺࡞๪モ⠇⏤᮶ࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࡔ
ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ୍ࡘࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡣࠊᵓᩥࡢඹྠᵓ⠏ 㸦 co-construction 㸧 ࡢ┦㐪࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⿵ᩥ⠇࡜ඹྠᵓ⠏ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ୺
⠇ࡣࠊ㞄᥋ࡋࡓ࣌࢔ࢆ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ๪モ⠇ࡣ㞄᥋ࡋ࡞࠸Ⓨヰ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡶ
ࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢⓎヰࢆࡲࡓ࠸࡛⌮⏤ࡸ᮲௳ࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣ㏻ᖖࡢඹྠᵓ⠏ࢆ㉺࠼࡚ㄯヰࡢ⤖᮰ᛶ࡟ᐤ୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⿵ᩥ⠇࡜๪モ⠇࡛ࡣඹྠᵓ⠏ࡢぢࡽࢀࡿ㢖ᗘࡀ㐪࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ౑⏝ࡢ㢖ᗘ࡜ᵓᩥ࡜ࡋ
࡚ࡢᐃ╔ࡀ┦㛵ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡇࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢ஧ࡘࡢᵓᩥࡢẚ㍑ࡣࠊ୰᩿⠇⏝ἲࡢⓎ⏕ᒁ㠃࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⯆࿡῝࠸Ὕᐹࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ୰᩿⠇⌧㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⯆࿡῝࠸ಶู◊✲ࡢ✚ࡳ㔜ࡡࡀ㡰ㄪ࡟⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍⯡໬ࢆ⾜࠺࡟ࡣࡲࡔ᫬ᮇᑦ᪩
ࡔࡀࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞௬ㄝࡀྍ⬟࠿ᶍ⣴ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩

−300−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Evans, N. 2007. “Insubordination and its Uses.” In I. Nikolaeva (ed.) Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, 366-431. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hopper, P.J. 2004. “The Openness of Grammatical Constructions.” CLS 40, 239-256.
Labov, W. and Waletzky, J. 1967. “Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal Experience.” In J. Helms (ed.) Essays in the Verbal andVisual Arts, 12-44. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Ohori, T. 1995. “Remarks on Suspended Clauses: A Contribution to Japanese Phraseology.” In M. Shibatani and S.A. Thompson (eds.) Essays
in Semantics and Pragmatics, 201-218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ohori, T. 2000. “Framing Effect in Japanese Non-final Clauses: Toward an Optimal Grammar-pragmatics Interface.” BLS 23, 471-480.
኱ᇼኖኵ. 2014. ࠕᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ㝵ᒙࢆ෌⪃ࡍࡿ㸸༡ࣔࢹࣝࡢ⌮ㄽⓗᇶ┙ࠖࠊ┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ࣭኱ᓥ㈨⏕࣭ᶫᮏಟ࣭ᇼỤ⸅࣭๓⏣┤Ꮚ࣭୸ᒣᓅᙪ㸦⦅㸧ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ」ᩥᵓᩥࡢ◊✲࠘ࠊ645-672ࠊᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.

−301−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ༠ാⓗࣇ࣮࣒ࣞᵓ⠏㇂ᬛᏊ 㸦୕㔜኱Ꮫ㸧㸺abstract>
Gokon parties are very popular parties for those who want to find their partners, andsome studies start to focus on this kind of parties, but there are few empirical studies onthem. In this study, we focus on how people behave cooperatively at Gokon parties(match
making parties). As a result of our analysis, we found that there are very big genderdifferences in showing cooperativeness. Men show cooperativeness in the ways thatthey try to dominate the conversation, and amuse women. On the other hand, womentend to follow the ways men do. Therefore we can conclude that gender roles can beclearly observed at the parties.
<࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸼࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠊྜࢥࣥࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࠊ♫఍ⓗつ⠊ࠊ༠ാᵓ⠏

㸯㸬

ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

㏆ᖺࠊ⤖፧࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿฟ఍࠸ࢆồࡵ࡚άືࡍࡿࠕ፧άࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝⴥࡀࡼࡃ⪺࠿ࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞
ࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕ፧άࠖࡣ୺࡟᪥ᮏࡢⱝ⪅࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㛵ᚰ஦ࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࠕ፧άࠖ
ࡢ୰࡛ࡶࣃ࣮ࢺࢼ࣮᥈ࡋࡢࡓࡵࡢ࢝ࢪࣗ࢔ࣝ࡞ሙ࡜ࡋ࡚ᗈࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀࠕྜࢥ࡛ࣥࠖ
࠶ࡿࠋ໭ᮧ࣭㜿㒊(2007)ࡣࠊྜࢥ࡛ࣥࡣࠊ㛗ᮇⓗ࡞ᜊឡࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡣ⤖፧࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿฟ఍࠸ࡀ
ᮇᚅࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡋࠊ➇தࠊ➇ྜ࡞࡝ࡢࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞␗ᛶ㛫ࠊྠᛶ㛫࡟࠾ࡅࡿᛮᝨࡀ

ᕳ࠸࡚࠸ࡿሙ࡛࠶ࡿ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋྜࢥࣥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ♫఍ⓗ࡞㛵ᚰࡣ㧗࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊ◊✲ࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ྜ
ࢥࣥ࡟┠ࢆྥࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡣࡲࡔࡈࡃᑡᩘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ໭ᮧ࣭㜿㒊ࡀ㏙࡭ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ྜࢥࣥ
࡟ࡣከࡃࡢᛮᝨࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡶࠊࡑࡢࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢬ࣒ࡀ㢧ⴭ࡟ఛ࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊᐇドⓗ࡟ྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓ◊✲ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝Ꮡᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊᐇ㝿ࡢྜࢥࣥࡢ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾ࡅ
ࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢᐇែ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽヲᐹࡍࡿࠋ≉࡟ࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡀࠊྜࢥࣥ≉᭷ࡢࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᵓ⠏ࡋࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ㐙⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࠿
࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿࠋ
2.ඛ⾜◊✲
2.1 ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㛫ࡢึᑐ㠃఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ
ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊྜࢥࣥ࡜࠸࠺≉ᐃࡢ≧ἣୗࠊཧຍ⪅㛫ࡢ㛵ಀᛶ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞”relational
1−303−

合コンにおける協働的フレーム構築

work”(Locher & Watts (2008)) ࡀႠࡲࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋྜࢥࣥࡣᇶ
ᮏⓗ࡟ࡣึᑐ㠃఍ヰ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿiࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡲࡎࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ึᑐ㠃఍ヰ࡛ࡣࠊேࠎࡣ࡝ࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡟᣺⯙࠸ࠊࡑࡇ࠿ࡽ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞つ⠊ࡀぢฟࡉࢀᚓࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㛫ࡢึᑐ㠃఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆㄽࡌࡓ◊✲ࡣࠊᩥᮎࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࣞ࣋
ࣝ࡟╔┠ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡀከ࠸ࠋ(୕∾ 2013, Ᏹబ⨾ 2001 ➼) ࡑࡢ୰࡛ࠊᏱబ⨾(2001)ࡣࠊ」ᩘ࣌
࢔ࡢ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽᩥᮎࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࣞ࣋ࣝࡢഴྥࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㛫ࡢึᑐ㠃఍ヰࡣᩗయࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᇶᮏ≧ែ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ୕∾(2013)ࡣࠊึᑐ㠃఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰ㢟ࠊ⮬ᕫ㛤♧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿ୰࡛ࠊࣉࣛ࢖ࣂࢩ࣮࡟ࡲࡘࢃࡿෆᐜࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋึᑐ㠃఍ヰࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᴫほࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡣ࠶ࡿ୍ᐃࡢ㊥㞳ࢆಖࡕࠊ௚⪅㡿ᇦ࡟౵ධࡋ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺♫఍ⓗ࡞つ⠊ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ
ᐇ㦂ⓗ࡟ึᑐ㠃ሙ㠃ࢆタᐃࡋࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ཰㘓ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡀከࡃࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ఍ヰሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣏
ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢᅾࡾ᪉ࢆ⥙⨶ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠸㞴࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊྜࢥࣥ࡜࠸࠺ࣃ࣮ࢺࢼ࣮᥈ࡋࡢሙ
࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ▱ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃࡛ࡣ≉᭷ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡀ⾲♧ࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ㸰㸬㸰 ྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ ྜࢥࣥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࡣ⌧ẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊࡈࡃ㝈ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ໭ᮧࠊ㜿㒊(2007)ࡣࠊ♫఍
ᏛࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊྜࢥࣥࢆ⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛ࠊྜࢥࣥ࡜࠸࠺ሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠊᙉ࠸⤖፧㢪ᮃࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊྠᛶࡢ཭ே㛫࡛ࡢ➇ྜࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࡢሙࡢ఍ヰࢆ෇⁥࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ༠ຊ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡶ
ࡳࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ◊✲ࡣᐇ㝿ࡢྜࢥࣥሙ㠃ࢆศᯒࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
⌧ᅾࠊᐇ㝿ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥሙ㠃ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࡶࡢࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝Ꮡᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ
Otsuka&Tani(2013)ࡣࠊྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ෕ㄯ࡜ᩗయ౑⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ୍⯡ⓗ࡞᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㛫ࡢึᑐ㠃ࡢつ⠊࡛࠶ࡿࠊࠕ௚⪅㡿ᇦࢆ౵ᐖࡋ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜
࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀᙉࡃព㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊࣃ࣮ࢺࢼ࣮ࢆ᥈ࡍ࡜࠸࠺┠ⓗ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠕ┦ᡭ࡟✚ᴟⓗ࡟᥋㏆ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠊྜࢥࣥ≉᭷ࡢつ⠊࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡶࡢࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀ
ࡽࡢ஧ࡘつ⠊ࡣ┦཯ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋᐇ㝿ࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡣᩥᮎࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࣞ࣋ࣝ
ࡣᩗయࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࠊࠕ௚⪅㡿ᇦࢆ౵ᐖࡋ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺つ⠊ࢆᐇ⌧ࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊ
෕ㄯࢆከࡃ஺࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠕ┦ᡭ࡟᥋㏆ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᐇ⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇ
ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ஧✀ࡢつ⠊ࡀᏑᅾࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆㄆ㆑ࡋࡘࡘ఍ヰࢆ㐍ࡵࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀྜࢥࣥ≉᭷ࡢ
ࣇ࣮࣒ࣞiiࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
㸱㸬ᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗ ୖ㏙ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊྜࢥࣥ࡟ࡣ≉᭷ࡢࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡢᐇែࢆᐇドⓗ࡟᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊྜࢥࣥ࡜࠸࠺ሙ࡟࠾ࡅࡿேࠎࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⾲♧ࡢᅾࡾ᪉ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࡢ
ࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢬ࣒ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊྜࢥࣥ࡜࠸࠺ሙ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢ┠ⓗࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘ෇⁥࡟఍ヰࢆ㐍ࡵࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡣ༠ຊⓗ࡟఍ヰ࡟ཧຍࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ≉࡟ࠊ┦ᡭ࡟᥋㏆ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦྥࡋࡓ┦஫⾜Ⅽ
2−304−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊࡑࡇ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ༠ാᛶࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊྜࢥࣥ࡜࠸࠺≉ᐃࡢሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿ”relational work”㸦 Locher and Watts 2008㸧ࡢᅾࡾ᪉ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
㸲㸬

఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱ

 ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ཰㞟࡟㝿ࡋ࡚ࠊࡲࡎࠊࣃ࣮ࢺࢼ࣮ࢆ᥈ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿேࢆເࡾࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ྜࢥࣥ࡜ࡋ࡚ཧຍࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࡼ࠺౫㢗ࡋࡓࠋ኱㜰ᕷෆࡢᒃ㓇ᒇ࡛㣧㣗ࢆࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࡢ఍ヰࢆࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࠊࡑࡢᵝᏊࢆࣅࢹ࣓࢜࢝ࣛཬࡧ IC ࣞࢥ࣮ࢲࢆ⏝࠸࡚グ㘓ࡋࡓࠋ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡣࠊ㸯ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࠶ࡓࡾࠊ⏨ዪࡑࢀࡒࢀ 3 ྡࡎࡘࠊィ 6 ே࡛ࠊ඲ 10 ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉศ཰㘓ࢆࡋࡓࠋ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡢᖺ㱋ࡣ㸰㸳ṓ㹼㸱㸳ṓ࡛ࠊ⏨ዪࡑࢀࡒࢀྠᛶྠኈࡣ཭ே࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᚋ᪥ࠊᚲせ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ࠊࣇ
࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡶ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
㸳㸬

఍ヰ౛ศᯒ

2 ⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊྜࢥࣥ≉᭷ࡢࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡢᏑᅾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚グࡋࡓࡀࠊ┦ᡭ࡜᥋㏆ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ
࡜ࡣྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡢࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ㔜せどࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ᥋㏆ࢆᣦྥࡋࡓ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿձࢱ࣮ࣥࢸ࢖࢟ࣥࢢࠊղ࡯ࡵࠊճ෕ㄯࠊմࢤ࣮࣒࡟㛵ࡋ࡚Ⓨ⾲࡛ࡣ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ⣬㠃ࡢ㒔ྜୖࠊձࢱ࣮ࣥࢸ࢖࢟ࣥࢢࠊղ࡯ࡵࠊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚♧ࡍࠋࡲࡎࠊ⮬ᕫ⤂௓ሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢱ࣮ࣥࢸ࢖࢟ࣥࢢ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡍࡿࠋ௨ୗࡢ఍ヰ౛㸯ࡣࠊྜࢥࣥࡢ⮬ᕫ⤂௓ሙ㠃ࡢෑ㢌ࡢ㒊ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸺఍ヰ౛㸯iii㸼
(1) M1: ࠶ࠊࡌࡷ࠶ࠊ࡜ࡾ࠶࠼ࡎࡌࡷ࠶ࠊ⮬ᕫ⤂௓⡆༢࡞࣮ࡲࡋࡻ࠺࠿ࠋ㻌(2) M1: ࡌࡷ࠶ࡇ࠺࿘ࡾ࡛࣮㸦ᡭࢆᕥࡲࢃࡾ࡟෇ࢆᥥࡃࡼ࠺
࡟ື࠿ࡍ㸧㻌
(3) F1:ࡇ࠺࿘ࡾ࡛ࡍ࠿࣮Ќ㻌(4) F1:࢔ࣁࣁࣁࣁࣁࣁ㻌(5) ඲ဨ: ࢔ࣁࣁࣁࣁࣁࣁ㻌(6) M1: ࠶࠶ࡌࡷ࠶൅࠿ࡽ࠸ࡁࡲࡍࠋ㻌(7)M1:࠼࣮൅ࡣ࠶ࡢ‫ࢇࡉەەࠊەە‬㸦ㄪᰝ⪅㸧ࡢ▱ࡾྜ࠸Ќ㻌㸺୰␎㸼㻌(8) M1: ᖺ㱋ࢆ㸦M3 ࡟ࡴ࠿ࡗ࡚㸧㻌(9) M3: ࠾ࢀࠊ㸱㸱࡛ࡍ㻌(10) M3: ஧ࡘࠊ඗࡛ࡍ㻌㸺୰␎㸼㻌(11) M1: ࡌࡷ࠶ࠊࡘࡂ࣮B ࡉࢇ㻌ࡇࡢ఍ヰ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⏨ᛶࡢ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ M㸯ࡀࠊ㸦㸯㸧ࠕ⮬ᕫ⤂௓⡆༢࡞࣮ࡲࡋࡻ࠺࠿ࠋࠖ
ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⮬ᕫ⤂௓ࢆ㛤ጞࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࠊ㸦㸰㸧ࠕࡌࡷ࠶ࡇ࠺࿘ࡾ࡛࣮ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࢪ࢙
ࢫࢳ࣮ࣕ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⮬ᕫ⤂௓ࡢ㡰␒ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊM㸯⮬ࡽ⮬ᕫ⤂௓ࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊࡑ
ࡢᚋࠊูࡢ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡀ⮬ᕫ⤂௓ࡍࡿሙ㠃࡛ࡶ㸦㸶㸧ࠕᖺ㱋ࢆࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ M1 ࡀ⮬ᕫ⤂௓ࡢෆᐜࢆ᪉ྥ௜ࡅࡓࡾࠊ㸦㸯㸯㸧ࠕࡌࡷ࠶ࠊࡘࡂ࣮B ࡉࢇࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ḟ࡟⮬ᕫ⤂௓ࡍࡿ⪅ࢆᣦྡࡋࡓࡾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡇࡇ࠿ࡽࠊ⏨ᛶ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡢ୍ே࡛࠶ࡿ M1 ࡀࢱ࣮ࣥࢸ࢖࢟ࣥࢢࢆ୺ᑟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿
ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ M1 ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࡯࠿ࡢ⏨ዪࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡶᐇ㝿ࡢⓎヰࡸ➗࠸࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚༠ຊ
ⓗ࡟࡞ࡾࠊ఍ヰࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊึᑐ㠃ሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ỿ㯲ࢆ㑊ࡅࠊࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡟఍ヰࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࡓࡵࡢ㓄៖࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸ࡿࠋ࡝ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡶᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ୍ேࡀ⮬ᕫ⤂௓࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢱ࣮
ࣥࢸ࢖࢟ࣥࢢࢆᨭ㓄ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁⅬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᚲࡎࠊ୰ᚰ࡟࡞ࡿࡢࡣ⏨ᛶ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮
࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

3
−305−

合コンにおける協働的フレーム構築 ࢱ࣮ࣥࢸ࢖࢟ࣥࢢ௨እࡢ෕ㄯࡸࢤ࣮࣒ࢆ⾜࠺ሙ㠃࡛ࡶࠊ⏨ᛶ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡢᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ୍ேࡀ
୰ᚰ࡟࡞ࡾࠊࡑࢀ௨እࡢ⏨ᛶ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮࡜ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊዪᛶࢆᴦࡋࡲࡏࠊሙࢆ┒ࡾୖࡆࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚୺࡟➗࠸࡞࡝࡛ዪᛶ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡶ✚ᴟⓗ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
ḟ࡟ࠊዪᛶ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮࡟࠾࠸࡚≉ᚩⓗ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠕ࡯ࡵࠖ࡜࠸࠺┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࡍࡿࠋ
㸺఍ヰ౛㸰㸼
(1) M10: ࡌࡷ࠶ࠊዲࡁ࡞㣗࡭≀ࡣఱ࡛ࡍ࠿Ќ㻌(2) F10: ࠼࣮࣮ࡗ࡜࠾ࠊ࠸ࡕࡈ࡛ࡍ㻌(3) F11: ࡵࡗࡕࡷ࠿ࢃ࠸࠸//࣮࣮㻌(4) F12: ࠿ࢃ࠸࠸࣮㻌(5) M11: ࠾//࠾࣮࣮࣮࣮㻌(6) M10: ࠾࠾࣮࣮࣮㻌ࡇࡢሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠊዪᛶ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡢ୍ேࡀࠊዲࡁ࡞㣗࡭≀࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ(2)ࠕ࠸ࡕࡈ࡛
ࡍࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࡯࠿ࡢዪᛶ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡣ(3)ࠕࡵࡗࡕࡷ࠿ࢃ࠸࠸࣮ࠖ㸦㸲㸧ࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸࠸࣮ࠖ࡜࡯ࡵࡿࠋዪᛶྠኈ࡛࡯ࡵࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ཭ேࢆ⫯ᐃⓗ࡟ホ౯ࡋࠊ఍ヰ㐍⾜࡟༠ຊⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ⮬ᕫࢆ⾲ฟ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍ぢࠊዪᛶྠኈ࡛ࡇࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡣ㐙⾜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽ୍㐃ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࢆ⏨ᛶഃ࡟ぢࡏࠊ⏨ᛶ࠿ࡽࡢ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ホ౯࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࢆᮇᚅࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ពᅗࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
㸴㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ㸸༠ാⓗྜࢥࣥࣇ࣮࣒ࣞᵓ⠏௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⏨ᛶࡣ఍ヰࡢ㐍⾜ࢆ୺ᑟࡋࠊዪᛶࡣࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚༠ຊⓗ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⏨ዪࡢᙺ๭ࡀ㢧ⴭ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊዪᛶྠኈࡣࠊྠᛶ཭ேྠኈ࡛࡯ࡵࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࡶ༠ຊⓗ࡞⮬ᕫࢆ⾲ฟࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ⏨ᛶഃ࡟ࡳࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡛⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ホ౯ࢆᮇᚅࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼
ࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⏨ዪ㛫ࡢᙺ๭ࡣࡍ࡭࡚ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟࠾࠸࡚ほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ⏨ዪ୧⪅࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊࣃ
࣮ࢺࢼ࣮ࢆ᥈ࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡟ྜࢥࣥ࡟ཧຍࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢ┠ⓗࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟఍ヰ㐍⾜࡟༠ຊⓗ࡟࡞ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ᪉ἲࡣ⏨ዪ࡛␗࡞ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡀᕦࡳ࡟࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆ᧯సࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽ࠼ࡿࠋᮏㄽ࡛ࡣྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ┠ⓗ㐩ᡂࡢࡓࡵࡢ≉᭷ࡢࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡢᵓ⠏࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊ⏨ዪࡢᙺ๭ࢆᢸ࠸࡞ࡀࡽ༠ຊⓗ࡞ែᗘࢆぢࡏࡿ࡜࠸࠺”relational work”ࡢᅾࡾ᪉ࡀ᫂
ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㸸
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. 2008. “Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behavior.” In: D.
Bousfield and M. A. Locher (eds.). Impoliteness in Language.Mouton de Gruyter, 77-99.
Otsuka, S & T, Tani. 2013. “Positive Politeness at Gokon Parties in Japan”,

7th international conference on politeness proceedings .
Ᏹబ⨾ࡲࡺࡳ. 2001. ࠕㄯヰࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫȰ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢㄯヰ⌮ㄽᵓ᝿ࠖ. ࠗㄯヰࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࠘. ᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤ. 9-58.
໭ᮧᩥ࣭㜿㒊┿኱. 2007. ࠗྜࢥࣥࡢ♫఍Ꮫ࠘ ගᩥ♫᪂᭩.
୕∾㝧Ꮚ. 2013. ࣏ࠗࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢㄯヰศᯒึᑐ㠃ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢጼ࡜ࡋࡃࡳ࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
iྜࢥࣥࡢᙧែࡣከ✀ከᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊ␗ᛶྠኈࡣึᑐ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋ
ࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡢᐃ⩏࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊTannen & Wallat (1993)ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋࠊࠕ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⌧ᅾఱࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆᐃ⩏࡙ࡅࡿࡶࡢࠖ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
iii ఍ヰ౛࡟࠾ࡅࡿ M ࡣ⏨ᛶࠊF ࡣዪᛶࢆᣦࡍࠋᩥᏐ໬ࡢつ๎ࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕЌࠖ㸸ୖ᪼࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠊࠕࠖ㸸⪺ࡁྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓⓎヰࠊࠕ㸦 㸧ࠖ㸸ࢪ࢙ࢫࢳ࣮ࣕࡸど⥺࡞࡝ࠋ ➗࠸ࡣ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅᛅᐇ࡟࢝ࢱ࢝ࢼ࡛グࡍࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿ
ii

4
−306−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ྜࢥࣥ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮ࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫ࡜ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࣮࣡ࢡ኱ሯ ⏕Ꮚ㸦኱㜰ᕤᴗ኱Ꮫ㸧ࠓAbstractࠔ
At Gokon parties, which presuppose heterosexual romance, participants often present
stereotypical womanliness/manliness in order to be chosen as someone’s romantic partner. At
the same time, they need to pay attention to relationships with friends of the same gender.
The analytical points of this study are following: through discourse analysis of the actual
conversations at Gokon parties, I investigate 1. Gender performance (Goffman, 1959) which
each participant conducted in order to make themselves attractive to the members of the
opposite gender, 2. Complicated facework which they have to engage in, trying to enhanceher/his face more than others and to keep good relationships with them, and 3. Reconstructed
gender norms in Gokon discourse.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚྜࢥࣥ㸪ㄯヰศᯒ㸪ࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮㸪ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ㸪ࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫ

㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᮏ◊✲ࡣ㸪࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࠕྜࢥࣥࡢㄯヰศᯒ㸸࢖ࣥ㸭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮࡟ࡲࡘࢃࡿつ⠊࡜ᐇ㝿ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ከゅⓗ࡞どⅬ࠿ࡽྜࢥࣥࢆᥥࡁฟࡑ࠺࡜ࡍࡿヨࡳࡢ୍⎔࡜ࡋ࡚ᐇ㝿ࡢྜࢥࣥሙ㠃ࡢㄯヰ 1 ࢆ Goffman(1959)ࡢ
ࠕࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫ(performance)ࠖ2ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ3ࠋ≉࡟㸪ࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫ࡜ࡑࡇ࡛⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࣮࣡ࢡࡢศᯒࢆ㏻ࡋ㸪ࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮つ⠊(➨୍Ⓨ⾲)࡜ᐇ㝿ࡢࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫ࡜ࡢ┦஫స⏝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟ
ࢠ࣮ࡀ(෌)⏕⏘ࡉࢀࡿᵝ࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿࠋ㸰㸬ホ౯ࡢㄯヰⓗ ෌ ᵓ⠏ ㄯヰศᯒ㸸ࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮ࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫ ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ㸪ࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ホ౯ࡀㄯヰⓗ࡟(෌)ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿ㐣⛬ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ࠙ㄯヰ౛ 1ࠚ
(1) M10: ࡌࡷ࠶㸪ዲࡁ࡞㣗࡭≀ࡣఱ࡛ࡍ࠿㸽(2) F10: ࠼࣮࣮ࡗ࡜࠾㸪࠸ࡕࡈ࡛ࡍ.
(3) F11: ࡵࡗࡕࡷ࠿ࢃ࠸࠸//࣮࣮
(4) F12: ࠿ࢃ࠸࠸࣮
(5) M11: ࠾//࠾࣮࣮࣮࣮
(6) M10: ࠾࠾࣮࣮࣮
ዪᛶ(F10)ࡀዲࡁ࡞㣗࡭≀ࢆᑜࡡࡽࢀ㸪ࠕ࠸ࡕࡈࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋホ౯ࡢᇶ┙࡟ࡣࠕ࠸ࡕࡈࡀዲࡁࠖ㸻ࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸࠸ዪᛶࠖ࡜࠸࠺♫఍ᩥ໬ⓗ౯್ᇶ‽ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓ࠸4ࠋ␗ᛶឡࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋࡓྜࢥࣥ࡜࠸࠺ሙ࡛㸪F10ࡣࡇࡢࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫ࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ࠕዪࡽࡋࡉࠖ࡜
࠸࠺ഃ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚௚ࡢዪᛶࡽ(F11, 12)ࡼࡾࡶ
┦ᑐⓗ࡟⮬ᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆୖࡆࡿ(enhance)ࠋ௚
᪉㸪௚ࡢዪᛶࡽ(F11, 12)࡟ࡼࡿ⫯ᐃⓗホ౯ࡢ⾲᫂((3), (4))ࡣ㸪ࡑࢀ⮬య┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ༠ㄪ
ᛶࢆ♧ࡍ࡜ྠ᫬࡟㸪⮬ศࡓࡕࡀࠕࡼ࠸఍ヰཧຍ⪅࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾ㸪ぶษ࡛㸪F10 ࡀࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸࠸ࠖࡇ࡜
ࢆࡦࡀࢇ࡛ࡣ࠸࡞࠸㸪࡜࠸࠺ࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮࡟ᇶ࡙
ࡃရ⾜ࢆࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇ
ࡢ⾜Ⅽࡣᙼዪࡽࡀ F10 ࡼࡾ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ప࠸఩⨨࡟࠶ࡗࡓ⮬ศࡓࡕࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ⮬ᕫ⿵ൾࡍࡿ
ാࡁࢆࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ⏨ᛶࡽ࡟ࡼࡿឤჃ
ࡢኌ(5, 6)ࡶྠᵝ࡟㸪ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥୖࡢ
༠ㄪᛶ࡜㸪ࠕ࠿ࢃ࠸࠸ዪᛶ࡟ឤჃࡍࡿࠖ⏨ᛶᛶࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ㸪ྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚࣊ࢸࣟࢭࢡࢩࣗ࢔ࣝ
࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ␗ᛶ࡟ᑐࡋ⾲᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ྠ᫬࡟⏨ᛶྠኈ࡛ࡣ㸪⮬ศࡓࡕࡣ␗ᛶឡ⪅࡛࠶ࡿ ࡜ ࠸ ࠺ homosociety ࡢ ᵓ ᡂ ဨ ࡜ ࡋ ࡚ ࡢsolidarity ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿഃ㠃ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡶ࠸
࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࣮࣡
ࢡ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫࢆྛཧຍ⪅ࡽࡀ࣏

−307−

合コンにみられるジェンダーパフォーマンスとフェイスワーク

ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࡟ホ౯ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㏻ࡋ㸪ࡇࡢ✀ࡢᙧែࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡀࠕࡼ࠸ࡶࡢࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚෌ホ౯ࡉࢀ㸪෌⏕⏘ࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
 ࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ
⏨ᛶЍዪᛶ

ዪᛶЍ⏨ᛶ

ヰࢆ⪺ࡃࡢࡀ࠺ࡲ࠸㸪఍ヰࢆ⪺ࡃࡢࡀ࠺ࡲ࠸㸪⤀ヰࡀ⥆ࡃ㸪఍ヰ࡟༠ຊኈⓗ㸪఍ヰࢆ࣮ࣜࢻࡍࡿ㸪ⓗ㸪ⓙ࡟ᩱ⌮ࢆྲྀࡾศࡅ

㞺ᅖẼࢆ┒ࡾୖࡆࡿ㸪✺ࡿ㸪✵Ẽࢆ⪃࠼ࡓࡇ࡜ࡤ

ࡗ㎸ࡳࡀ࠾ࡶࡋࢁ࠸㸪ᗑࡸヰࡋ᪉ࢆࡍࡿ㸪௚ே࡟ဨ࡟ぶษ㸪ඃࡋ࠸㸪➗㢦ᛮ࠸ࡸࡾࢆ♧ࡍ㸪ࣀࣜࡀࡀ⣲ᩛ㸪ሙࢆ┒ࡾୖࡆࡿⰋ࠸㸪⨾ே㸪Ⰻ࠸㞺ᅖẼࡢࡀ࠺ࡲ࠸㸪ⴠࡕ╔࠸ࡓࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸪ⱥㄒࡀႅ

㞺ᅖẼ

ࢀࡿ

 ḟ࡟㸪ྜࢥࣥࡢᚋ࡟ཧຍ⪅඲ဨ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⾜ࡗࡓࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࣭࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢩ࣮ࢺ࡟ࡼࡿ࣓ࢱホ౯ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃࠋୖ⾲ࡣ㸪ྜࢥࣥᚋ㸪ࠕ୍␒Ⰻ࠸࡜ᛮࡗࡓ␗ᛶࠖ
࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㉁ၥࡋ㸪ࡑࡢ⌮⏤ࢆ⮬⏤グ㏙᪉ᘧ࡛᭩࠸࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⥙᥃ࡅࡢせ⣲ࡀ఍ヰୖࡢホ౯࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ከࡃࡢホ౯ࡀࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ
ࣙࣥ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࠿ࡽศ࠿
ࡿࡢࡣ㸪ᐜጼࡸࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉⓗ࡞ࠕዪ㸭⏨ࡽࡋࡉࠖ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ྜࢥࣥ࡜࠸࠺ࠕሙࠖ࡬ࡢ㈉⊩ࡀ㸪ከࡃࡢሙྜ㧗ࡃホ౯ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡬ࡢ㈉⊩࡟ࡼࡿホ౯࡛ࡍࡽ㸪ࠕዪᛶࡣ༠ㄪⓗࠖ㸪⏨ᛶࡣࠕሙࢆ࣮ࣜࢻ
ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㸪ࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮ᕪ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࢫࢸࣞ
࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢫࢸࣞ࢜
ࢱ࢖ࣉࡀᐇ㝿ࡢሙ㠃࡛㧗ࡃホ౯ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪๓㡯ࡢㄯヰศᯒ࡛ぢࡓࡢ࡜ྠᵝ㸪ࠕዪ㸭⏨ࡽࡋࡉࠖࡢࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫࡢ෌⏕⏘ࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡍࡇ࡜
࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
 ᶒຊ࡟ࡼࡿ࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮ࡢ෌⏕⏘➨୍Ⓨ⾲(ᰗ⏣ࠕྜࢥ࣐ࣥࢽࣗ࢔ࣝᮏ࡟ࡳࡽ
ࢀࡿ࢖ࣥ㸭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮࣭࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮ࠖ)࡛ࡳࡓྜࢥࣥࡢ How to ᮏࡶࡇࡢ෌
⏕⏘࡟୍ᙺ㈙ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᵝࠎ࡞ How to ᮏ㸫ࡋ࠿ࡶᰗ⏣(2013)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜㸪ࠕྜࢥࣥ⇍⦎⪅ࠖ࡟ࡼࡿ⤒㦂ㄯ㸫ࡀࠕ᭩⡠ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧୖࡢᶒጾࢆ
ࡲ࡜࠸㸪ዪᛶ࡜⏨ᛶࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢᆺ
ࢆ␗࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚⤂௓ࡋࡓୖ࡛㸪ࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮
ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࠕዲࡲࡋ࠸᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࠖࢆㄞ⪅࡟ࠕᩍᤵࠖࡍࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡟᭩࠿ࢀࡓ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡣ㸪ྜࢥࣥ࡟ཧຍࡋࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺ㄞ⪅࡟ྜࢥࣥᡂຌࡢࡓࡵࡢ᮲௳࡜ࡋ࡚つ⠊ⓗ࡟ཷࡅ࡜ࡵࡽ
ࢀ㸪ᐇ㝿ࡢྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᐇ㊶ࡉࢀ㸪ࡑࡢᐇ㊶ࡀㄯヰ౛ 1 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟௚ࡢཧຍ⪅࠿ࡽ㧗ホ౯ࢆᚓࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕዲࡲࡋ࠸᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࠖ࡜෌ホ౯ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡀࡲࡓ㸪⤒㦂⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚How to ᮏ࡟㑏ඖࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺㸪つ⠊࡜ᐇ㝿࡜ࡢ┦஫స⏝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮ࡢ෌⏕⏘ࡀᚠ⎔ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᵓᅗ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸱㸬ྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ࡯ࡵࠖ㸸ࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢつ⠊࡜ᐇ㝿 ྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ࡯ࡵࠖ ࡋ࠿ࡋᙜ↛࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ᐇ㝿ࡢྜࢥ࡛ࣥࡣ How
to ᮏ࡟グ㏙ࡉࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟≧ἣࡀ㐍ࡲ࡞࠸ሙྜࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࠕ࡯ࡵࠖ࡟╔┠ࡍࡿ࡜㸪➨୍Ⓨ⾲࡛ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡓࠕHow to ᮏ࡛᥎ዡࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡯
ࡵࡢࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮ᕪࠖࡣ ௨๓➹⪅ࡽ(Otsuka&Tani, 2013)ࡀศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓᐇ㝿ࡢྜࢥࣥሙ㠃࡛ࡣほᐹࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋHow to ᮏ࡛ࡋࡤࡋࡤᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿࢫࢸ࢖ࢱࢫ࡯ࡵ(໅ࡵඛ࣭࣏ࢪࢩ࣭ࣙࣥ⫋✀)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ㸪ᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣ⮬ᕫ⤂௓ሙ㠃࡛ࢧ࣮࣐ࣛࣜࣥ㸪ᩍဨ㸪බົဨ㸪࡜࠸ࡗࡓ⛬ᗘࡢ⮬ᕫ࿊♧ࡋ࠿⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎ㸪♫఍ⓗᆅ఩ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ᭷ᶆⓗ࡞࡯ࡵࡣ࠸ࡎ
ࢀࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛ࡶほᐹࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ၏୍㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛ࡣ㸪ዪᛶ࠿ࡽ⏨ᛶ࡟ᑐࡋࢫࢸ࢖
ࢱࢫ࡯ࡵࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿሙ㠃ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡀ㸪ࡇࢀࡣ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ኻᩋ࡟⤊ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋḟ㡯࡛ࡣࡇࡢㄯヰࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ㸪ࢫࢸ࢖ࢱࢫ࡯ࡵ࡜ྜࢥࣥ
࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡢ㐺ษࡉࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿࠋ ㄯヰศᯒ㸸ࢫࢸ࢖ࢱࢫ࡯ࡵ
࠙ㄯヰ౛ ࠚ
1 F1:௒㸪࡞㸪ఱࡉࢀ࡚ࡿࢇ࡛ࡍ࠿
2 F1㸸ఱࡉࢀ࡚ࡿ࡛ࡍ࠿
࠶㸪࠼࣮࡜㸪㸭㸭ࡶ࠺ࡋࡀ࡞࠸ࢧ࣮ࣛࣜ
3 M1:࠶
࣐࡛ࣥࡍ
4 M2:㸭㸭࢔ࣁࣁࣁࣁࣁࣁ
5 M3:࢔ࣁࣁࣁࣁࣁࣁࣇࢵࣇࢵࣇࢵࣇࢵࣇ
6 M1:ᬑ㏻ࡢࢧ࣮࣐ࣛࣜࣥ࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝ࡶ㸪ࡑ
ࢀ࡛ᬑ㏻࡟ാ࠸࡚ࡲࡍ
7 F1:࠼㸪౛࠼ࡤ࡝࠺㸪࡝࠺࠸࠺࣮㸭㸭ࡂࡻ㸪ᴗ✀ࡗ࡚ࡺ࠺㸽
8 M2㸸ࣇࣇ

−308−

第17回大会発表論文集

9 F2:࠶ࡗᴗ✀̿
10 M1:࠶ࡗ൅̿ࡦࡽࡓࡃࡺ࠼ࡤ࣮࠶ࡢ࣮ࢫ࣮
ࣃ࣮࡛ࡍࡡ࣮
11 F1:࢖࢜ࣥЌ
12 M1::࠸㸭㸭ࡸ㸪ࢧࣥࢹ࢕࣮ࡗ࡚ࡺ࠺ࢫ࣮ࣃ
࣮࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝࣮
13F2:࢘ࣇࣇࣇࢵࣇࣇࢵ
14 F1:࠶ࡗࡣࡗ⁠㈡࡟ࡶ࠶ࡾࡲࡍ࣮
15 M1:࠶ࡗ⁠㈡࡟ࡶ࠶ࡾࡲࡍ㸭㸭ࡼࡡ
16 F1:ࡣ࠸࠶ࡾࡲࡍ
17 M1:ࡑࡇ࡛㸭㸭࠶ࡢ࣮㸪ࡣ࠸㸪࣭࣭࣭ࣇࢵ
18F2:㸭㸭࡬࣮࣮
19 M2:㸭㸭࢔ࣁࣁࣁࣁࣁࣁࣁ
20 M3:࢔ࣁࣁࣁࣁࣁࣁ
21 F2㸸㸭㸭ࣇࣇࣇࣇࣇࣇ
22 M1:ࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸
23 M1:ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࡕࡻࡗ࡜㸪ࡋࡻࡰࡃ࡚ኚ࡞
ឤࡌ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚
24 F1㸸ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇ㸪㸭㸭ࢧࣥࢹ࢕࣮⁠/㈡࡟ࡶ
࠶ࡿ
25 F2㸸㸭㸭ࣇࣇࣇࣇ(㸽㸽㸽)26 M2:ྡ๓࣮
27 M2:ྡ๓ࡣЌ
28 F2㸸࠶ࡢ࣮⮬ᕫ⤂௓ࡀ࡚ࡽ࣮
ࡇࡢㄯヰ౛ࡣ㸪ᙜヱࡢྜࢥࣥࡀ㛤ጞࡋ࡚㛫ࡶ࡞࠸ሙ㠃࠿ࡽࡢᢤ⢋࡛࠶ࡿࠋዪᛶ F1 ࡀ⏨ᛶ
M1 ࡟⫋ᴗࢆᑜࡡࡿࡀ㸪M1 ࡀࠕࡋࡀ࡞࠸ࢧࣛ
࣮࣐ࣜࣥࠖ(3)࡜⟅࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ㸪F1 ࡣᴗ✀࡟ࡲ࡛㋃ࡳ㎸ࢇ࡛⪺ࡁฟࡑ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ
(7)ࠋF1 ࡣࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࣭࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮࡛ࣗ㸪ࠕྜࢥࣥࡔ࠿ࡽ㡹ᙇࡗࡓࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠾ࡾ㸪F1ࡣࠕྜࢥࣥࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᯟ⤌ࡳࡢ୰࡛ᮇᚅࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ண ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ㸪M1 ࡢࢫࢸ࢖ࢱࢫ࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ࡯ࡵࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵ࡟᝟ሗࢆᘬࡁฟ
ࡑ࠺࡜ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ぢ࡞ࡏࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋ M1 ࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࢫࢸ࢖ࢱࢫࡀ㧗࠸࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࢫ࣮ࣃ࣮࣐࣮ࢣࢵࢺࡢ୍
⯡ᚑᴗဨ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ㸪F1 ࡣࡑࡢ஦ᐇ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࢫࢸ࢖ࢱࢫ࡯ࡵࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆㅉࡵ㸪14 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪⮬ศࡢᆅඖ࡟ࡶᨭᗑࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ M1 ࡢ໅ࡵࡿࢫ࣮ࣃ࣮࡟ࡣ࡞ࡌࡳࡀ࠶ࡿ㸪࡜࠸࠺ぶ㏆ឤࡢ࿊♧࡟ษࡾ᭰࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௚ࡢཧຍ⪅ࡽ࠿ࡽࡢ➗
࠸ࡣ㸪ࢫࢸ࢖ࢱࢫ࡯ࡵࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚ᙜ↛࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡑࡢ✀ࡢ࡯ࡵ

第10号

ࡀᡂຌࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡟㉳ᅉࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪
16 ௨㝆୍ྠࡢ఍ヰࡣࡋࡤࡋ೵⁫ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡇࡇ࡛⯆࿡῝࠸ࡢࡣ M1 ࡢࠕࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࡕ
ࡻࡗ࡜㸪ࡋࡻࡰࡃ࡚ኚ࡞ឤࡌ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࠖ(23)࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸪F1 ࡀ⮬ศࡢࢫࢸ࢖ࢱࢫࢆ࡯ࡵࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫࢆ⾜࠾࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆྵពࡋ࡚
࠾ࡾ㸪ࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣ⮬ศࡢ᪉࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟㸪⮬ศࡢࢫࢸ࢖ࢱࢫࡀ㧗ࡃࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ(ࠕࡋࡻࡰ࠿ࡗࡓࠖ)ࡓࡵ࡟ F1 ࡀ⮬ศࢆࠕ࡯ࡵࠖࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ㅰ⨥ࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡀព࿡ࡍࡿࡢࡣ㸪(ᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ)M1 ࡀ㸪ྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ዪᛶࡣ⏨ᛶࡢࢫࢸ࢖ࢱࢫࢆ࡯ࡵࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࡑ
ࡢᙺ๭ࢆ₇ࡌࡉࡏࡿ㸪ࡘࡲࡾࠕ࡯ࡵࡉࡏ࡚ࡸࡿ
(let her compliment him)ࠖࡢࡀ㐺ษ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
࠸࠺⪃࠼ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
 ྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢖ࣥ㸭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ ㄯヰ౛ 2 ࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪ྜࢥࣥ࡜࠸࠺ࢥࣥࢸ
ࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠕዪᛶࡀ⏨ᛶࡢࢫࢸ࢖ࢱࢫࢆ
࡯ࡵࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫࡀ
ࠕ㐺ษࠖ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Mills(2005)ࡣ㸪࢖ࣥ㸭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢホ౯ࡣࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟↷ࡽࡋྜࢃࡏ
࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ᮏ◊✲࡟࠾ࡅࡿྜ
ࢥࣥࡣࠕ࣊ࢸࣟࢭࢡࢩࣗ࢔ࣝ࡞ᜊឡࠖࢆ๓ᥦ࡜
ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࡑࡇࡣྜࢥࣥ≉᭷ࡢ㸪ࡼࡾ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ἢࡗࡓ᣺
ࡿ⯙࠸ࡀᙜ↛࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿሙ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ ࠿ ࡋ ୍ ᪉ ࡛ ඛ ⾜ ◊ ✲ (Otsuka&Tani,2013)ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟㸪How to ᮏ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ࡯ࡵᑐ㇟(➨୍Ⓨ⾲ཧ↷)࡟ᑐࡍࡿ඾ᆺⓗ࡯ࡵࡣ㸪ᐇ㝿ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛ࡣほᐹࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜
࠿ࡽ᥎ᐹࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪⏨ᛶ࡬ࡢࢫࢸ࢖ࢱࢫ࡯ࡵࡸዪᛶ࡬ࡢ㧥ᆺ࣭ࢿ࢖ࣝ࡯ࡵ࡞࡝
ࡢ㸪ྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ
࡟ἢࡗࡓ࡯ࡵ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣ㸪⌧ẁ㝵࡛ How to ᮏ➼࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࠶ࡲࡾ࡟ࡶࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬ࡉࢀ
࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫᛶ㸪ࡘࡲࡾసⅭᛶࡀ㧗࠸࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀ⪃࠼ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡘ
ࡲࡾ㸪ᩍ⛉᭩㏻ࡾࡢ࡯ࡵࡣ㸪␗ᛶ࠿ࡽぢࢀࡤពᅗⓗ࡞ィ⟬㧗࠸ࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫ㸪ዮィ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀ㸪ㄯヰ౛ 1 ࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪ྠᛶ࠿ࡽࡶ

−309−

合コンにみられるジェンダーパフォーマンスとフェイスワーク

ࠕዪᛶࡽࡋࡉࠖ
ࠕ⏨ᛶࡽࡋࡉࠖࡢᢤࡁࢇ࡛ࡓᥦ
♧࡜ࡋ࡚⮬ศࡓࡕ࠿ࡽ୍Ṍ࣮ࣜࢻࡋࡼ࠺࡜࠸
࠺ពᅗࢆࡶࡗ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡿࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞
࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
 Goffman(1959)ࡢ࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟㸪ࡓ࡜࠼ୖ㏙ࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡞ࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫᛶࡢ㧗ࡉࢆ┦ᡭࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᢪ࠸ࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ㸪ᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢつ⠊ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸪ཷᐜ⪅ഃࡶࡇࢀ࡟Ẽ࡙࠿࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟᣺ࡿ⯙࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ㸪ㄯヰ౛ 1 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾲㠃ୖࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⮬యࡣ෇⁥࡟㐍ࡴࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ
࠿ࡋ 2. 2 ࡛ࡶぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙ
ࣥୖࡢ༠ㄪᛶࡣྜࢥࣥ࡜࠸࠺ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚㔜どࡉࢀࡿせ⣲࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ᜊឡࡢࣃ࣮ࢺࢼ࣮ࢆぢࡘࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺ྜࢥࣥࡢ┠ⓗ࡟↷ࡽࡋྜࢃࡏ࡚⪃࠼ࡿ࡜㸪⮬ศࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡀዮィ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ୙฼┈࡟࡞ࡿୖ㸪ྠᛶྠኈࡢࡑࡢᚋࡢ཭ே㛵ಀ࡟ᝏᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡍྍ⬟ᛶࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
ᚑࡗ࡚㸪ᐇ㝿ࡢྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ྜࢥࣥ࡜࠸࠺ᯟ⤌ࡳ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖
ࣉ࡟ἢࡗ࡚᣺ࡿ⯙ࡗࡓሙྜ㸪ࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞ホ౯ࢆཷࡅࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵ㏫࡟㑊ࡅࡽࢀࡿഴ
ྥ࡟࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᐇ㝿࡟⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣ㸪࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮ࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ
࢖ࣉ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣ㸪┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡢホ౯ࢆ㔜どࡋࡓࠕရ⾜ࠖᆺࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽ
ࢣ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
㸴㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮ࡢ෌⏕⏘࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪୰ᮧ(1995)ࡀࠕ࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮࡟ࡼࡿ㛫᥋ⓗᨭ㓄ࡣ㸪࠶࠿ࡽࡉࡲ࡞ᭀຊࡀ࡞࠸ࡔࡅᕦጁ࡛Ẽ࡙ࡁ࡟ࡃ࠸ᨭ㓄ࡢᵓ㐀࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡀ㔜どࡉࢀࡿྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾
࠸࡚ࡶ㸪ࡑࡢ୰࡟ᩓぢࡉࢀࡿࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮ࢫࢸࣞ
࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ᚑࢃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡛㸪ࣃ࣮ࢺࢼ࣮ࢆᚓࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺୙฼┈ࢆ⿕ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࡀཧຍ⪅ࡽࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࢆไ㝈ࡍࡿせ⣲࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ྜࢥࣥࡣࠕ⏨ዪࡢᜊឡࠖࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ
࡜࡛㸪ࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࠕရ⾜ࠖ࡟ἢࡗࡓࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫࢆ⾜࠺㸪ࡲࡓࡣ⾜ࢃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ㸪ᐇ㝿ୖࡢ฼┈࣭୙฼┈࡟኱ࡁࡃᙳ㡪ࡍࡿሙࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ࢪ࢙ࣥࢲ࣮࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮ࢆ෌⏕⏘ࡍࡿ How toᮏ࡜ᐇ㝿࡜ࡢࢬࣞࡀ௒ᚋ㸪ࡇࡢ✀ࡢᣦ༡᭩࡟ࡶ
ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼㸪ᐇ㊶࡜┦ࡲࡗ࡚␗࡞ࡿ࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ
࣮ࢆ෌⏕⏘ࡍࡿ᪉ྥ࡟ࢩࣇࢺࡋ࡚࠸ࡃྍ⬟ᛶࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

1 ศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࡢヲ⣽࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ➨஧Ⓨ
⾲(㇂ᬛᏊࠕྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ༠ྠⓗࣇ࣮࣒ࣞᵓ⠏ࠖ)ࢆ
ཧ↷ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ
2 Goffman(1959)ࡣព㆑ⓗ࡟₇ࡌࡿᙺ๭࡜↓ព㆑ⓗ࡟₇ࡌࡿᙺ๭࡜ࢆ༊ูࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ
discursive approach ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊព㆑ⓗ㸭↓ព㆑ⓗ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎホ౯ࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿ⾜Ⅽࡣࡍ࡭࡚ࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐
ࣥࢫ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡓ࠸ࠋ
3 ㄯヰࢹ࣮ࢱࡢヲ⣽࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ➨஧Ⓨ⾲(㇂ᬛᏊࠕྜࢥ
ࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ༠ྠⓗࣇ࣮࣒ࣞᵓ⠏ࠖ)ࢆཧ↷ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ
4 ࡇࡇ࡛⏨ᛶ(M)ࠊዪᛶ(F)࡜ࡶࠕ࠸ࡕࡈࡀዲࡁࠖ࡜࠸
࠺Ⓨヰ࡟ᑐࡋ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞ホ౯ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡓ࡜
࠼ F10 ࡀ࠿ࢃ࠸࠸ዪᛶࢆព㆑ⓗ࡟ࠕ₇ࡌࠖࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊF10 ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡸ⮬ᕫࡢရ⾜ࢆಖᣢࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊᙺ๭㊥㞳ࡀ኱ࡁ࠸ࡶࡢࢆ₇ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸
࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ௚⪅ࡀ㢧ᅾⓗ࡟ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾཧຍ
⪅ࡽࡣࠕẼ࡙࠿࡞࠸ࡩࡾࢆࡍࡿࠖࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫࢆ㏉ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥୖࡢつ⠊࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ

࠙ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ࠚ
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self inEveryday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
----------. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on
Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Pantheon
Books.
Mills, S. (2005). Gender and impoliteness. Journalof Politeness Research 1(2): 263-280.
୰ᮧ᱈Ꮚ(1995)ࠗࡇ࡜ࡤ࡜ࣇ࢙࣑ࢽࢬ࣒࠘

ວⲡ᭩

ᡣ㸸ᮾி
Otsuka, S & T, Tani. (2013). “Positive Politeness at
Gokon Parties in Japan”, 6thinternational

conference on politeness proceedings.
Yanagida,

−310−

R.

(2013).

“How

tobehaveatmatchmaking party (gou-kon)?: Gendered double
standards in Japanese how-to books”.
international
proceedings.

conference

on

6th

politeness第17回大会発表論文集第10号

័⩦໬ࡉࢀࡓ᪥ᮏㄒ㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢⓎ᝿

ᑠ㔝ṇᶞ
⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ
<Abstract>
We classify the Japanese expressions of consideration based on the analysis of Japanesehonorifics by Minami (1974) into 4 categories: quality, quantity, relation and manner.
Observing the collocated expressions of te sumimasen and te gomennasai, we try to establish
the overall picture of the Japanese expressions of consideration.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸Ⓨヰᶵ⬟ࠊ㸰㡯ᑐ❧ࠊඹ㉳ࠊ㻌 ㅰ⨥⾲⌧ࠊឤㅰ⾲⌧㻌㻌㻌㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㓄៖⾲⌧࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨ᝿ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠋᒣᒸ࣭∾ཎ࣭ᑠ㔝㻔㻞㻜㻝㻜㻕࡛ࡣࠕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺ
ࢿࢫ⌮ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㓄៖⾲⌧ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㻸㼑㼑㼏㼔㻔㻝㻥㻤㻟㻕ࡢࠕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢཎ⌮ࠖࡢ㈇ᢸ࡜฼┈ࡢ㛵ಀࡀᑐ⛠ⓗ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ㻌㻌ձ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢཎ⌮ղ㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢཎ⌮(A)(a)௚⪅ࡢ㈇ᢸࢆ᭱ᑠ㝈࡟ࡏࡼ(a)௚⪅ࡢ㈇ᢸࡀ኱ࡁ࠸࡜㏙࡭ࡼẼ㓄ࡾࡢཎ๎(b)௚⪅ࡢ฼┈ࢆ᭱኱㝈࡟ࡏࡼ(b)௚⪅ࡢ฼┈ࡀᑠࡉ࠸࡜㏙࡭ࡼ

(B)(a)⮬ᕫࡢ฼┈ࢆ᭱ᑠ㝈࡟ࡏࡼ(a)⮬ᕫࡢ฼┈ࡀ኱ࡁ࠸࡜㏙࡭ࡼ

ᐶ኱ᛶࡢཎ๎(b)⮬ᕫࡢ㈇ᢸࢆ᭱኱㝈࡟ࡏࡼ(b)⮬ᕫࡢ㈇ᢸࡀᑠࡉ࠸࡜㏙࡭ࡼᒣᒸ࣭∾ཎ࣭ᑠ㔝㻔㻞㻜㻝㻜㻕ࡼࡾ㻌㻌 ᪥ᮏㄒࢆ㏻᫬ⓗ࡟ほᐹࡋࡓ㔝⏣࣭㧗ᒣ࣭ᑠᯘ㻔㻞㻜㻝㻠㻕࡛ࡣࠊࠕୖ఩ᚅ㐝ࠖ
ࠕ᩿ᐃ⦆࿴ࠖࠕ㻌 ඹឤ⾲᫂ࠖࠕ㻌 ㈇ᢸ⾲᫂ࠖࠕ㻌 ㅰ⨥ࠖࠕ㻌 ⌮⏤ㄝ᫂㻌 ࠖࢆ᪥ᮏㄒ㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨࡙ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍ᐃࡢ᪥
ᮏㄒ㓄៖⾲⌧ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣぢ࠼ࡿࡢࡔࡀࠊ㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢయ⣔໬ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ㝿࡟ࡣࠊࡼࡾୖ఩ࡢᢳ㇟ⓗᛮ⪃࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝᤊ࠼┤ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀࠊከゝㄒࡢᑐ↷ࢆ᭷ຠ࡟ࡍࡿࠋ㻌㻌㸰㸬᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ័⩦໬ 㻸㼑㼑㼏㼔㻌㻔㻝㻥㻤㻟㻦㻞㻠㻙㻟㻜㻕ࡢᣲࡆࡿ័⩦໬࡜ືᶵ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ㐳ࡗ࡚⌧㇟ࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛
ࡁࡿࠋᖹᏳ᫬௦ࡢ࿴ḷ࡛࡜ࡶ࡟≉ᐃࡢㄒ࡟࠿࠿ࡗ࡚ಟ㣭ࡲࡓࡣཱྀㄪࢆᩚ࠼ࡿࡢ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠊᯖモ࡜ᗎモࡢ㛵ಀࡶྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕᖹᏳ᫬௦ࡢ࿴ḷࡣ⾲⌧ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆ୍ᐃ࡟ࡋࠊࡑࡢ୍ᐃࡢࣃࢱ࣮
ࣥࢆ࠸࠿࡟ᕦࡳ࡟࢔ࣞࣥࢪ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺≉Ⰽࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠖ
㸦ࠗ࿴ḷ኱㎡඾࠘ࠕḷᯖࠖࡢ㡯㸧୰࡛ࠊࠕ㸦ᗎモࡣ㸧ᯖモ࡜ᶵ⬟ⓗ࡟ࡣኚࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ㡢ᩘ࡟ไ㝈ࡀ࡞ࡃ஧ྃ௨ୖ࡟ཬࡧࠊࡘࡡ࡟ලయⓗෆᐜࢆకࡗ࡚⮬⏤࡟๰సࡋ࠺ࡿⅬ࡟㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ
㸦ࠗ࿴ḷ኱㎡඾࠘ࠕᗎモࠖࡢ㡯㸧࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ័⩦໬ࡢ㐍ࢇࡔ⾲⌧ࡀḷᯖ࡛࠶ࡾࠊືᶵ໬ࡀᙉࡅࢀࡤᗎモ࡜࠸࠺㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㓄៖⾲⌧

1
−311−

慣習化された日本語配慮表現の発想ࡢ័⩦ⓗ࡞Ⓨ᝿࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊḟࡢ౛ࢆᣲࡆࡿࠋ∾ཎ㻔㻞㻜㻜㻡㻕࡛ࡣ๪モࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠖࡀ⛬ᗘࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ἲ࠿ࡽ㞳ࢀࡓㄯヰୖ࡛ࡢᑐேⓗ⏝ἲࢆ㓄៖⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌  㸦┦ᡭࡢⓎゝ࡟ᛣࡗ࡚㸧ࡍ࠸ࡲࡏࢇࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜ฟ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡲࡍ࠿ࠋ
ࡇࡢࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠖࡣࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ᐮ࠸ࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ኱ኚᐮ࠸ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞⛬ᗘࡢ኱ᑠࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ
࡞ࡃࠊࠕฟ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡲࡍ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⫈⪅࡟㈇ᢸࢆ࠿ࡅࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆ࿴ࡽࡆࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊ㻔㻝㻕ࢆࠕ኱ኚࠖ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶࠊ⛬ᗘ๪モ࠿ࡽὴ⏕ࡋࡓ⏝ἲ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ័⩦໬ࡀ㐍ࡴ࡜≉ᐃࡢⓎヰᶵ⬟࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡃࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠋ㻌㻌 ࠗࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠊࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠋ࠘࡜ヰࡋ࠿ࡅࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠗࡣ࠸㸽㸦ఱ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺࠿㸧࠘࡜⟅࠼ࡿ஦ࡀከ࠸
࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ㻌㼅㻭㻴㻻㻻㻍㻌㻶㻭㻼㻭㻺 ▱ᜨ⿄ 㼔㼠㼠㼜㻦㻛㻛㼐㼑㼠㼍㼕㼘㻚㼏㼔㼕㼑㼎㼡㼗㼡㼞㼛㻚㼥㼍㼔㼛㼛㻚㼏㼛㻚㼖㼜㻛㼝㼍㻛㼝㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼋㼐㼑㼠㼍㼕㼘㻛㼝㻝㻠㻝㻜㻜㻣㻞㻥㻡㻠㻌㻌  ࠕࡈ㏞ᝨࢆ࠾࠿ࡅࡋࠊ኱ኚ⏦ࡋヂࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡏࢇ࡛ࡋࡓࠖㅰ⨥఍ぢࡸ࣐ࢫࢥ࣑࡬ࡢㅰ⨥ᩥ࡛࠾Ỵࡲࡾࡢࣇ࣮ࣞࢬ࡛ࡍࡀࠊ᭱㏆࡛ࡣࡇࡢᩥゝࢆࢸࣞࣅࡸ᪂⪺࡛┠࡟ࡋ࡞࠸᪥ࡣ࡞࠸࡯࡝ࠊ
⾜ᨻࡸ௻ᴗࡢ୙⚈஦ࡣᚋࢆ⤯ࡕࡲࡏࢇࠋ㻌㻭㼛㼘㻚㻺㻱㼃㻿㻌㼔㼠㼠㼜㻦㻛㻛㼚㼑㼣㼟㻚㼍㼛㼘㻚㼖㼜㻛㻞㻜㻝㻟㻛㻝㻜㻛㻝㻥㻛㼟㼡㼙㼕㼙㼍㼟㼑㼚㻛㻌㻌ࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠖࡣ⫈⪅࡬ࡢ౫㢗⾲⌧࡜ඹ㉳ࡋࡸࡍࡃࠊ㻔㻟㻕࡟ぢࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ኱ኚࠖࡣㅰ⨥⾲⌧࡜ඹ㉳ࡋࡸࡍࡃࠊⓎヰᶵ⬟࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃㅰ⨥⾲⌧࡞࡝࡟ࡶ័⩦໬ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㸱㸬㸰㡯ᑐ❧ࡢグ㏙ⓗ᭷ຠᛶ࡜య⣔໬ ័⩦໬࡜ືᶵ໬ࡢᑐ❧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᡃࠎࡣ᪥ᖖⓗ࡟஧ࡘࡢᴟࢆ᝿ᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋᒣཱྀ㻌 㻔㻝㻥㻣㻡㻕㻌࡛ࡣࠊᩥ໬ே㢮Ꮫ⪅ 㻮㼡㼞㼗㼑㻔㻝㻥㻢㻢㻕ࠕே㛫ࡢᛶ⾜ࡢᇶ♏ࠖࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊㅙ㸭ྰࠊၿ㸭ᝏࠊ┿㸭ഇࠊṇ㸭ㄗࠊ⛛ᗎ㸭཯⛛ᗎࠊᏱᐂ㸭ΰἁࠊᡂຌ㸭ኻᩋࠊᏑᅾ㸭㠀ᅾࠊᛌᴦ㸭ⱞ③ࠊί㸭୙ίࠊ⏕㸭Ṛࠊឡ㸭៮ࠊ࢚ࣟࢫ㸭ࢱࢼࢺࢫ➼࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ㸰㡯ᑐ❧ࢆᩗㄒ◊✲࡟ᣢࡕ㎸ࢇࡔ༡㻔㻝㻥㻣㻠㻕ࢆ㔜せ࡞ᣦ᦬࡜ࡋ࡚ཷࡅṆࡵࠊ㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢⓎ᝿ࢆయ⣔໬ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ༡ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㓄៖ࠖ࡜ࠕᢅ࠸ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚
௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㓄៖̾ゝ㝿୺యࡢ㸪࡞ࢇࡽ࠿ࡢᑐ㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ㓄៖㻚ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ㻘ゝㄒ୺య࡜┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ
㓄៖࡞࡝㻌ᢅ࠸̾ࡑࡢ㓄៖࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ㸪࡞ࢇࡽ࠿ࡢᑐ㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⾲⌧ୖࡢᢅ࠸᪉ࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ㸪࡞ࢇࡽ࠿ࡢⅬ࡛ୖࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚⾲⌧ࡍࡿ࠿㻌 ୗࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚⾲⌧ࡍࡿ࠿࡞࡝㻌㻌ࠕᢅ࠸ࠖࡢ⠊␪ࠕᢅ࠸᪉ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊୖࡆ㻛ୗࡆ㻛୰❧ࠊᙉ㻛ᙅ㻛୰❧ࠊ㏆࡙ࡁ㻛ࡣ࡞ࢀ㻛୰❧ࠊ࠶ࡽࡓࡲࡾ㻛ࡃࡔࡅ㻛୰❧ࠊ㈇ࢃࡏ㻛㈇࠸㻛୰❧ࠊ⨾㻛㓶㻛୰❧ࠊ࠾ࡑࢀ㻛࠶࡞࡝ࡾ㻛୰❧ࠊࡓࡵࡽ࠸㻛ࡍࡄ㻛୰❧ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢయ⣔໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㻳㼞㼕㼏㼑㻔㻝㻥㻣㻡㻕ࡢࠗ༠ㄪࡢཎ⌮࠘ࡢᅄࡘࡢୗ఩ཎ๎ࢆ
᥼⏝ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ㻌2−312−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

㻌㔞࡛♧ࡍ㓄៖㻌㉁࡛♧ࡍ㓄៖㻌㛵㐃ᛶ࡛♧ࡍ㓄៖㻌ᵝែ࡛♧ࡍ㓄៖㻌㻌㸲㸬ࠕ࡚ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖ
ࠕ࡚ࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜ࡢඹ㉳⾲⌧ ㄪᰝᴫせ  ࠕ⌧௦᪥ᮏ᭩ࡁゝⴥᆒ⾮ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࠖᑡ⣡ゝࢆ⏝࠸ࠊࠕ࡚ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖ㸦ࠕ࡚ࠊࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖࠕ࡚ࡍ
ࡲࢇࠖࠕ࡚ࠊࡍࡲࢇࠖࢆྵࡴ㸧࡜ࠊࠕ࡚ࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖ㸦ࠕ࡚ࠊࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸ࠖࠕ࡚ࡈࡵࢇࠖࠕ࡚ࠊࡈ
ࡵࢇࠖࢆ᳨⣴ࡋࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡀ๓⠇ඹ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆほᐹࡋࠊ㻳㼞㼕㼏㼑㻔㻝㻥㻣㻡㻕ࡢᅄࡘࡢୗ఩ཎ๎
ࡢ⠊␪࣭ྡ⛠࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡵࡓࠋ㻌㻌 㔞࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢ
㹹ከᑡ㹻
㹹㛗▷㹻
㹹㈇ᢸᜠᜨ㹻࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊ㻔㻠㻕ࡢࠕ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁࠖ࡜࠸࠺㔞ࡢከࡉࠊ㻔㻡㻕ࠕ㛗࠸ࠖ࡜ゝ࠺᫬㛫ⓗ㛗ࡉࠊ㻔㻢㻕ࠕ↓⌮ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㈇ᢸࡢከࡉࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ㻔㻣㻕ᤵཷ⾲⌧ࠕࡃࢀࡿ࡛ࠖᜠᜨࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕ⪺࠸࡚ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖ
ࠕ㉁ၥࡋ࡚ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖ
ࠕࡇࡢᏊࡢ࿡᪉࡛࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺࡛ࠖࡶ⾲⌧ពᅗࡣ
㏻ࡌࡿࡀࠊ
㹹ከᑡ㹻
㹹㛗▷㹻
㹹㈇ᢸᜠᜨ㹻࡞࡝ࡢ⾲⌧ࢆຍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊㅰ⨥ࡸឤㅰࡢẼᣢࡕࢆࡼࡾ⫈⪅࡟ఏ࠼ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ㻌㻌  㹹ከᑡ㹻࣒ࣜ࡜ᴗ⪅ࡀゝࡗ࡚ࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊࡸࢀࡿᴗ⪅ࡶ࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡍ࠿㸽࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ⪺࠸࡚ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠋ㻌  㹹㛗▷㹻㉁ၥࡀ㛗ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠋ㻌 㻌  㹹㈇ᢸᜠᜨ㹻ࡇࡢᏊࡢ࿡᪉ࢆࡋ࡚ࡃࢀ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࠋ㻌㻌 ㉁࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢ 㹹⣽㞧㹻㹹⨾㓶㹻㹹㞴᫆㹻ࡢࣃ࣓ࣛࢱ࣮ࢆタᐃࡍࡿࡀࠊ㻔㻣㻕ࡢࠕࡇࢇ࡞ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⨾ࡋࡃ࡞ࡉࠊ㻔㻤㻕ࠕࡁࡕࢇ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㞧ࡉࠊ㻔㻥㻕ࠕࢃ࠿ࡾ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㞴ࡋࡉࢆྵࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊㅰ⨥ࡸẼᣢࡕࢆࡼࡾ⫈⪅࡟ఏ࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌㻌  㹹⨾㓶㹻ࡇࢇ࡞ࡶࡢࡋ࠿⏝ព࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃࠊࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠋ㻌  㹹⣽㞧㹻ࡁࡕࢇ࡜ࡋࡓᅇ⟅࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡞ࡃ࡚ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠋ㻌  㹹㞴᫆㹻࡜࡚ࡶࢃ࠿ࡾ࡟ࡃࡃ࡚ࠊࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠋ㻌㻌 㛵㐃ᛶ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢ 㹹ᚲせᛶ㹻㹹┤᥋ᛶ㹻㹹᪩㐜㹻ࡢࣃ࣓ࣛࢱ࣮ࢆタᐃࡍࡿࠋ㻔㻝㻜㻕ࡢࠕࡲ࡛ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ῧຍࠊ㻔㻝㻝㻕ࠕᮏ᪥ࡣࠖ࡜࠸࠺᫬㛫ࡢࢲ࢖ࢡࢸ࢕ࢵࢡࠊ㻌 㻔㻝㻞㻕ࠕࡶࡗ࡜ࠖ࡜࠸࠺᫬㛫ⓗ࡞㛵㐃ᛶࢆ⫈⪅࡟ఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌㻌  㹹ᚲせᛶ㹻⚾ࡲ࡛ᣍᚅࡋ࡚ୗࡉࡗ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࠋ㻌
3

−313−

慣習化された日本語配慮表現の発想  㹹┤᥋ᛶ㹻ᮏ᪥ࡣ࠾┦కࢆࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ㻌 㻌  㹹᪩㐜㹻ࡶࡗ࡜᪩ࡃ᮶ࡽࢀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࠊࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠋ㻌㻌 ᵝែ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢ 㹹ᙉᙅ㹻ࡢࣃ࣓ࣛࢱ࣮ࢆタᐃࡍࡿࠋ㻌 㻔㻝㻟㻕ࠕࡑ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㛫᥋⾲⌧ࢆྵࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊㅰ⨥ࡸẼᣢࡕࢆࡼࡾ⫈⪅࡟ఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌  㹹ᙉᙅ㹻⾜ࡅࡑ࠺ࡶ࡞ࡃ࡚ࠊࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠋ㻌㻌㻌㸳㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟 ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ㻳㼞㼕㼏㼑 ࡢ㧗ᗘ࡛ᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ཎ๎ࡢศ㢮ྡ⛠ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢⓎ᝿ࡢศ㢮ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᐇドἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ඹ㉳ᛶࡢ㢖ᗘ࠿ࡽࠊ័⩦໬ࡢㄝ᫂ࢆᅗࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࠊⓎヰᶵ⬟ࡈ࡜ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡈ࡜ࡢ㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢᓧูࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡛⢭⦓໬ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ
࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻌౑⏝ࢹ࣮ࢱ
ᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤ 㻷㻻㼀㻻㻺㻻㻴㻭ࠕ⌧௦᪥ᮏ᭩ࡁゝⴥᆒ⾮ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࠖᑡ⣡ゝ㻌㻌 㻌 㼅㻭㻴㻻㻻㻍㻌㻶㻭㻼㻭㻺 ▱ᜨ⿄㸦㻞㻜㻝㻠 ᖺ 㻝㻝 ᭶㸯᪥᳨⣴㸧㻌㻌 㻌 㻭㼛㼘㻚㻺㻱㼃㻿㸦㻞㻜㻝㻠 ᖺ 㻝㻝 ᭶㸯᪥᳨⣴㸧㻌౑⏝㎡᭩
ࠗ࿴ḷ኱㎡඾࠘㻝㻥㻤㻢㻚≟㣴ᗮ࣭ఀ⬟᐀㞝࣭኱ஂಖṇ࣭ᑠ㔝ᐶ࣭⏣୰⿱࣭ᶫᮏ୙⨾⏨࣭⸨ᖹ᫓⏨⦅ࠊ
᫂἞᭩㝔㻌
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Burke,K.1966. “Myth, Poetry and Philosophy”, Language as Symbolic Action, University of California Press,
op. cit., 474
Grice, H.P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation“, in Cole and Morgan, op. cit., 41-58
Leech, G. 1983. “Principles of Pragmatics“, Longman.
∾ཎຌ. 2005.ࠕㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠗࡕࡻࡗ࡜࠘ࡢᶵ⬟ࠖࠗ⩌㤿኱Ꮫ␃Ꮫ⏕ࢭࣥࢱ࣮ㄽ㞟࠘➨ 5 ྕࠊ1-12ࠊ⩌㤿኱Ꮫ.
༡୙஧⏨ 1974.ࠕ⌧௦ᩗㄒࡢព࿡ᵓ㐀ࠖ㔝⏣ᑦྐ࣭㧗ᒣၿ⾜࣭ᑠᯘ㝯⦅ 2014.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢከᵝᛶ̿̿Ṕྐⓗኚ໬࡜ᆅ⌮ⓗ࣭♫఍ⓗᕪ␗࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧
ᑠ㔝ṇᶞ 2013.ࠕ
ࠕ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࠖ࡜ࠕࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ◊✲ㄽ㞟࠘3 ྕࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ◊✲఍⦅ࠊ35-42ᑠ㔝ṇᶞ 2014.ࠕບࡲࡋ⾲⌧ࠕ㡹ᙇࡗ࡚ࠖࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࠖ
ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒゝᩥ໬◊✲࠘➨ 5 ྕࠊ኱㐃⌮ᕤ኱Ꮫฟ∧♫ࠊ51-58
ᒣཱྀᫀ⏨ 1975.ࠗᩥ໬࡜୧⩏ᛶ࠘ᮾி㸸ᒾἼ᭩ᗑᒣᒸᨻ⣖࣭∾ཎຌ࣭ᑠ㔝ṇᶞ 2010.ࠗࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡜㓄៖⾲⌧࠘ᮾி㸸᫂἞᭩㝔

4
−314−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

័⩦໬ࡉࢀࡓ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢᐃ⩏
ᒣᒸᨻ⣖
๰౯኱Ꮫ

<Abstract>
 The studies of considerate expressions are now established in the pragmatic modern
Japanese research area. They always explain them from the viewpoint of politeness. Of course,
considerate expressions not equal politeness. Since politeness is essentially functional andrelative concept, it is not confined into any specific forms. However, in Japanese we often findthe phenomenon that the politeness usages of the specific words and phrases areconventionalized into the fixed expressions, e.g. tsumar-ana-i-mono-desu-ga (an introduction
to presentation of a gift). In this paper, I pay attention to the concept of conventionalization in
the research method of considerate expressions. In conclusion, I propose to modify thedefinition of considerate expressions.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸㓄៖⾲⌧ࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠊ័⩦ࠊືᶵ࡙ࡅࠊ័⩦໬㻌㻌㻌㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒࡢㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕ㓄៖⾲⌧ࠖࡀ୍ࡘࡢࢸ࣮࣐࡜ࡋ࡚ᐃ╔ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢㄝ᫂
࡟ࡣᚲࡎ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ㸻㓄៖⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋゝㄒᙧᘧࡀ᭷ࡍࡿᮏ᮶ࡢㄒ⩏ࡀࠊ㓄៖ព㆑࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ័⩦໬ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ᕼⷧ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡜࡞ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡀ㓄៖⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠖࡸ
ࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠖ࡞࡝ࡣࠊ័⩦໬ࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ㎡᭩ⓗព࿡ࡀᕼⷧ໬ࡋࠊ㓄៖⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚⊂⮬ࡢព࿡ࢆᢸ࠺
ࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞㓄៖⾲⌧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ័⩦໬ࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅࢆ᫂☜໬ࡋࠊࠕ㓄៖⾲⌧ࠖࡢᐃ⩏ࢆぢ┤ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ㻌㻌㸰㸬ࠕ㓄៖⾲⌧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡢฟ⌧㻸㼑㼑㼏㼔㻔㻝㻥㻤㻟㻕ࡸ 㻮㻒㻸㻔㻝㻥㻤㻣㻕ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡣ 㻝㻥㻤㻜 ᖺ௦࠿ࡽᚋ༙࠿ࡽ୺࡟ⱥㄒ㛵㐃ࡢㄽ⪃ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚᪥ᮏ࡟ࡶ⤂௓ࡉࢀࡓࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᏛศ㔝࡛࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡀ▱ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡢࡣ 㻥㻜 ᖺ௦࡟ධࡗ࡚࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⏕⏣㻔㻝㻥㻥㻣㻦㻢㻤㻕ࡣᚑ๓ࡢࡶࡢ࡜㐪࠸ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⏝౛ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡋࡓࡇ࡜
࡛ࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡀಶูゝㄒ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀ࡞࠸ᬑ㐢ⓗཎ⌮࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ㛵ಀ⪅࡟Ẽ࡙࠿ࡏࡿᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆࠕ୎ᑀ⾲⌧ࠊᚅ㐝⾲⌧ࠊᩗព⾲⌧ࠖ࡞࡝࡜ヂࡍࡇ࡜࡟཯ᑐࡋࠊ
ࠕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡣᙜ஦⪅ྠኈࡢ஫࠸ࡢ㠃Ꮚࡢಖᣢࠊே㛫㛵ಀࡢ⥔ᣢࢆ៖ࡗ࡚෇⁥࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆᅗࢁ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ♫఍ⓗゝㄒ⾜ືࢆᣦࡍࠋࡑࡢព࿡࡛ࡣࠊゝⴥࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿ
ࢫࡣࠗ㓄៖⾲⌧࠘ࠊゝㄒⓗࠗ㓄៖⾜ື࠘࡞࡝࡜࿧ࡪ࡯࠺ࡀ㐺ษ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࠕ㓄៖⾲⌧ࠖࡀࠊ⟶ぢࡢ㝈ࡾࡇࡢㄒࡢึฟ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌 ஭ฟ㻔㻞㻜㻜㻝㻦㻡㻙㻢㻕㻌 ࡛ࡣࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿᩗㄒ࡜␗࡞ࡿࠕᩗព⾲⌧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࢆ᪂ࡓ࡟ᥦၐࡋࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ┦஫ᑛ㔜ࡢ⢭⚄࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊ┦ᡭࡸሙ㠃࡟㓄៖
1−315−

慣習化されたポライトネスとしての配慮表現の定義

ࡋ࡚౑࠸ศࡅ࡚࠸ࡿゝⴥ㐵࠸ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋࡑࢀࡽࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ┦ᡭࡢே᱁ࡸ❧ሙࢆᑛ㔜ࡋࠊᩗㄒࡸ
ᩗㄒ௨እࡢᵝࠎ࡞⾲⌧࠿ࡽ㐺ษ࡞ࡶࡢࢆ⮬ᕫ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚㑅ᢥࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠖࡇࡢᐃ⩏ࡣ࠸ࢃࡤ
᪥ᮏㄒ∧࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟฿ࡿ㆟ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ஭ฟࡀጤဨࢆົࡵࡓ➨ 㻞㻝 ᮇᅜㄒᑂ㆟఍ࡢ
㆟஦㘓࡟ࡣ࡛ࡣᩗព⾲⌧࡟௦ࢃࡿ⏝ㄒࡢೃ⿵࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ㓄៖⾲⌧ࠖࡶᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㸱᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࡟ฟ⌧ࡋࡓ୍⩌ࡢ㓄៖⾲⌧◊✲ ࡇࢀ࡜㌶ࢆ୍࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࡛ࡣ 㻥㻜 ᖺ௦ᚋ༙࠿ࡽࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㓄៖࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ⓨ⏕ࡍࡿゝㄒ⌧㇟ࡢ⪃ᐹࡀ┦ḟ࠸࡛Ⓨ⾲ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡽࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ≉ᐃࡢゝㄒᙧᘧࡢ⏝ἲ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗ
ࡓࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣᶫᮏ㻔㻞㻜㻜㻜㻕࡟ࡼࡿ⤊ຓモࠕࡶࡢࠖࠊᖹ⏣㻔㻞㻜㻜㻝㻕࡟ࡼࡿࠕ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠖ
ࠊ⚟ᓥ㻔㻞㻜㻜㻞㻕࡟ࡼࡿࠕࡐࡦࠖࠊ∾ཎ㻔㻞㻜㻜㻡㻕࡟ࡼࡿࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠖࡢ⪃ᐹ࡞࡝࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢㄽ⪃࡟ࡣᚲࡎࠕ㓄៖ࠖࡲࡓࡣࠕ㓄៖⾲⌧ࠖࡢ⏝ㄒࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋ࡚ࡇࡢ᫬ᮇ࡟⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲࡟㓄៖⾲⌧࡜࠸࠺◊✲ࢸ࣮࣐ࡀㄌ⏕ࡋࡓ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡼ࠸ࠋ㻌㻞㻜㻜㻟 ᖺ㸱᭶࡟໭ி኱Ꮫ࡛ࠊྠᖺ 㻢 ᭶࡟๰౯኱Ꮫ࡛ࠊࠕ㓄៖⾲⌧ࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘ࠖࢆ㛤ദࡋࡓࠋࡇ
ࡇ࡟ᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡢⓎ⾲⪅㸱ྡࡀ㞟࠸ࠊඹྠ◊✲ࢆ㛤ጞࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊᅜෆእࡢ◊✲఍࣭ࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࡛࢘ࡓࡧࡓࡧ㐃ྡⓎ⾲ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ㻞㻜㻝㻜 ᖺ࡟ࡣࡑࡢᡂᯝࢆᒣᒸ࣭∾ཎ࣭ᑠ㔝㻔㻞㻜㻝㻜㻕࡜ࡋ࡚ห⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌ᮏ᮶ࠊ㻲㼀㻭 ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⿵ൾ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢゝㄒᙧᘧࡢព⩏࡜ࡋ࡚ᅛᐃⓗ࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᙜヱᩥ⬦୍࡛ᅇⓗࠊ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿゝㄒ⾜ື࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡺ࠼࡟ྠࡌㄒ
ࡀᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࡯ࡵゝⴥ㸦㸻࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ㸧࡟ࡶ࡞ࢀࡤ᎘࿡㸦㸻㻲㼀㻭㸧࡟ࡶ࡞ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌࡛ࡣୖグࡢ୍⩌ࡢ◊✲ࡣఱ࡟╔┠ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࠿ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊ≉ᐃࡢㄒᙡࡸゝㄒᙧᘧ࡟࠾
࠸࡚ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢព㆑࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡓ⏝ἲࡀࠊḟ➨࡟ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ໬ࡋ
࡚័⩦໬ࡋࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊᙜヱᙧᘧࡢᮏ᮶ࡢព࿡࠿ࡽὴ⏕ࡋࡓ⏝ἲࡀᐃ╔ࡋࡓࡶࡢࠊࡤ࠿ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⏝ἲࡀ័⩦໬ࡋࡓㄒᙡࡸᙧᘧࡀ௚ࡢゝㄒࡼࡾከࡃᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࡑࢀࢆࠕ㓄៖⾲⌧ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚⠊␪໬ࡍࡿᚲ↛ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㸲㸬័⩦࡜ືᶵ࡙ࡅ
㻳㻚㻌㻸㼑㼑㼏㼔㻌㻔㻝㻥㻤㻟㻦㻞㻠㻙㻟㻜㻕㻌 ࡛ࡣࠊ័⩦㻔㼏㼛㼚㼢㼑㼚㼠㼕㼛㼚㻕࡜ືᶵ࡙ࡅ㻔㼙㼛㼠㼕㼢㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻕ࡢᑐẚࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᩥἲࡢつ๎㻔㼞㼡㼘㼑㻕ࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟័⩦ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᙧᘧ࡜ព࿡࡜ࢆࡘ࡞ࡄࡶࡢࡀ↓ព㆑ࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟₯ᅾ໬ࡋࠊ࡞ࡐࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゝ࠺࠿࡜ၥ࠼ࡤつ๎ࡔ࠿ࡽ࡜ࡋ࠿⟅࠼ࡼ࠺ࡀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠸
ࡗࡱ࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢཎ⌮㻔㼜㼞㼕㼚㼏㼕㼜㼘㼑㻕ࡣ㠀័⩦ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣ࠶ࡿ⾲⌧ពᅗࢆ┦ᡭ࡟ఏ࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ヰ⪅ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࡀព㆑ୖ࡟㢧ᅾ໬ࡋ࡚࠸࡚ࠊヰ⪅ࡢពᚿ࡛ࡑࡢ⾲⌧ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋࡓ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌౛࠼ࡤࠊⱥㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚㻔㻝㻕ࡣ౫㢗⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚័⩦໬ࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊ࠶ࡿᩥ⬦࡛ࡣ┦ᡭ࡟ࠕ᫬ィࢆಟ⧋ࡍࡿ⬟ຊࠖࡢ᭷↓ࢆᑜࡡࡿࡇ࡜ࡀヰ⪅ࡢࠕㄡ࠿࡟᫬ィࡢಟ⧋ࢆ౫㢗ࡋࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ
ࢆ┦ᡭ࡟⌮ゎࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚౫㢗ࡢຠຊࢆྵពࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ㠀័⩦ⓗ࡞౫㢗࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠸ࡗࡱ࠺㻔㻞㻕䇿㻯㼍㼚㻌 㼥㼛㼡㻌 㹼㸽䇿࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࡣⱥㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚౫㢗⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚័⩦໬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀ
ࡀᮏ᮶ព࿡ࡍࡿࠕ⬟ຊࢆၥ࠺ࠖࡇ࡜ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࡣ₯ᅾ໬ࡋ࡚ᛀࢀࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻝㻕 㻭㼞㼑㻌㼥㼛㼡㻌㼍㼎㼘㼑㻌㼠㼛㻌㼞㼑㼜㼍㼕㼞㻌㼠㼔㼕㼟㻌㼣㼍㼠㼏㼔㻫 㸻㠀័⩦ⓗ࡟ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡓࠓ౫㢗ࠔ㻌㻔㻞㻕 㻯㼍㼚㻌㼥㼛㼡㻌㼞㼑㼜㼍㼕㼞㻌㼠㼔㼕㼟㻌㼣㼍㼠㼏㼔㻫㻌  㸻័⩦໬ࡋ࡚ືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆኻࡗࡓࠓ౫㢗ࠔ㻌
2−316−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

㻌᏶඲࡞័⩦࡜᏶඲࡞ືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟୰㛫ⓗ࡞ẁ㝵ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ୧⪅ࡢ๭ྜࡣᵝࠎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ័⩦໬ࡀ㐍ࡵࡤ㐍ࡴ࡯࡝ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡣⷧࡲࡿࠊ⿵᏶ⓗ࡞㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟័⩦໬ࡢᗘྜ࠸࡟⛬ᗘⓗ࡞⃰ῐࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ 㻸㼑㼑㼏㼔 ࡣ័⩦໬ࡢ໙㓄ᛶ㻔㼀㼔㼑㻌㼓㼞㼍㼐㼕㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼛㼒㻌㼏㼛㼚㼢㼑㼚㼠㼕㼛㼚㼍㼘㼕㼦㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻕࡜࿧ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㸳㸬᪥ᮏㄒ㓄៖⾲⌧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ័⩦໬ࡢ஦౛
ࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛ࡍࡀ
᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥ໬࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ฼┈ࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⢭⚄ⓗ㈇ᢸ㸦㸻೉ࡾࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠊ㏉♩ࡢᚲせࢆឤࡌࡿ㸧࡜ཷࡅṆࡵࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚㉗ࡾ≀ࢆ㉗ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ⮬㌟ࡢ✚ᴟⓗࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ‶㊊
ࡉࡏࡿ཯㠃ࠊ┦ᡭࡢᾘᴟⓗࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ⬣࠿ࡍ 㻲㼀㻭 ࡟ࡶ࡞ࡿࠋ㉗ࡾ≀ࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿ㝿ࠊ┦ᡭࡢ⢭⚄ⓗ㈇ᢸࢆ㍍ࡃࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ㓄៖ࡀാࡃࠋࡇࡢ㓄៖ࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡜ࡋࡓᥦ౪ࡢ๓⨨ࡁ⾲⌧ࡀ㻔㻟㻕ࠊ㻔㻠㻕࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ㠀័⩦ⓗ࡞㠀ᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠸ࡗࡱ࠺ࠊ㻔㻡㻕ࡣ㉗ࡾ≀ࢆ㉗ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ≧ἣࡀ័⩦໬ࡉࢀࡓ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ┦ᡭ࡟Ẽࢆ㐵ࢃࡏ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ㉗ࡾ≀ࡢ౯್ࢆపࡃఏ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿືᶵ࡙
ࡅࡀⷧࡽ࠸࡛࠸ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻟㻕ࠕ኱ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝ࠖ㸻㠀័⩦ⓗ࡟ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡓࠓᥦ౪ࠔ๓⨨ࡁ㻌㻔㻠㻕ࠕ࡯ࢇࡢẼᣢࡕࡤ࠿ࡾࡢࡶࡢ࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡀࠖ㸻     ྠୖ㻌㻔㻡㻕ࠕࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠖ㸻័⩦໬ࡋ࡚ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡀⷧࡽ࠸ࡔࠓᥦ౪ࠔ๓⨨ࡁ㻌 㻌 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞័⩦ⓗ࡞ᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡣࠕ㓄៖⾲⌧ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ᏶඲࡟័⩦໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡲ࡛ࡣゝ࠸ษࢀࡎࠊ㓄៖ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࡣⷧࡽ࠸࡛ࡣ࠸࡚ࡶ᏶඲࡟ኻࢃࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋ㻌㻌๪モࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠖ
័⩦໬ࡢ⤖ᯝࠊㄒ⩏ࡀኚ㉁ࡍࡿ஦౛ࡀ∾ཎ㻔㻞㻜㻜㻡㻕࡛⪃ᐹࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ๪モࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠖࡢᮏ᮶ࡢ
ㄒ⩏ࡣప⛬ᗘࡢ⛬ᗘ๪モ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻝㻕 ௒᪥ࡣࡕࡻࡗ࡜ᐮ࠸ࠋ㻌㻔㻞㻕 ࢬ࣎ࣥࡢ୔ࡀࡕࡻࡗ࡜▷࠸ࠋ㻌㻌┦ᡭࡢᾘᴟⓗࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ⬣࠿ࡍࠓ㠀㞴ࠔࡢⓎヰ≧ἣ࡛ࠊ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢᦶ᧿ࢆ⦆࿴ࡍࡿ㓄៖ࢆືᶵ࡙
ࡅ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⛬ᗘࢆᢚไࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠖ࡟ࡣ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻟㻕 ྩࡢ᭩㢮ࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜㞧ࡔ࡞ࠋ㻌㻔㻠㻕 ࠶࡞ࡓࡢヰࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜㛗࠸ࡡࠋ㻌㻌ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⏝౛ࡢ⦆࿴ࡢព㆑ࡔࡅࡀṧࡗ࡚័⩦໬ࡋࠊ࠶ࡿ✀ࡢᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡜࡞ࡗࡓ⏝ἲࡀ㻔㻡㻕㹼㻔㻣㻕࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ⿕ಟ㣭ㄒ࡟ࡣ⛬ᗘᛶࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠖࡢప⛬ᗘࡢព࿡ࡣ᏶඲࡟႙ኻࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻡㻕㻌㻭㸸୍൨஬༓୓෇࡯࡝⼥㈨ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡓ࠸ࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ
ࠓ౫㢗ࠔ㻌
3

−317−

慣習化されたポライトネスとしての配慮表現の定義㻮㸸ࡑࡢ㔠㢠ࡣࡕࡻࡗ࡜↓⌮࠿࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࡀࠋ
ࠓ᩿ࡾࠔ㻌㻔㻢㻕㻌 ᮾி⫱ࡕࡢྩ࡟ࡣࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࡅࢀ࡝ࠋ
ࠓ㠀㞴ࠔ㻌㻔㻣㻕㻌 ࠕࡍ࠸ࡲࡏࢇࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜ฟ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡲࡍ࠿ࠖࠓ㠀㞴ࠔࢆྵࡴࠓ౫㢗ࠔ㻌㻌ᩥᮎ⾲⌧ࠕ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠖ
័⩦໬ࡢ⤖ᯝࠊㄒ⩏ࡀኚ㉁ࡍࡿ஦౛ࡢ஧ࡘ┠ࡣᖹ⏣㻔㻞㻜㻜㻝㻕ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠕ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡢᮏ᮶ࡢㄒ⩏ࡣྍ⬟ᛶุ᩿ࠊ⵹↛ᛶุ᩿࡜ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ඾ᆺⓗ⏝౛ࡀ㻔㻤㻕ࠊ㻔㻥㻕࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻤㻕㻌 ᫂᪥ࡣ㞵ࡀ㝆ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ㻌㻔㻥㻕㻌 ࠶ࡢ⏨ࡀ≢ே࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ㻌㻌ࠕ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠖࡣ᩿ᐃᅇ㑊ࡢ୺ほ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋࠓ୺ᙇࠔࢆࡰ࠿ࡋ࡚ពぢ⾪✺ࡢࣜࢫࢡࢆపῶࡋࡓࡾࠊࠓᛅ࿌ࠔ➼ࡢ 㻲㼀㻭 ࢆ⦆࿴ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿ㝿ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋ㻔㻝㻞㻕࡛ࡣࡶࡣࡸ⦆࿴ᶵ⬟ࡔࡅࡀṧࡗ࡚័⩦໬ࡋࠊྍ⬟ᛶุ᩿ࡢព࿡ࡣ᏶඲࡟ኻࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌㻌㻔㻝㻜㻕㻌 ࡇࡇࡢ࣮࣓ࣛࣥࠊࡍࡈࡃ࠾࠸ࡋ࠸࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࠓ୺ᙇࠔ㻌㻔㻝㻝㻕㻌 ࡈࡵࢇࠋྩࡢ࢖ࣖ࣍ࣥࡢ㡢ࠊ኱ࡁ࠸࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠓᛅ࿌ࠔ㻌㻔㻝㻞㻕㻌 ྩࡣヨྜ࡟ࡣ຾ࡗࡓ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᐇຊࡣࡲࡔࡲࡔࡔ࡜ᛮࡗࡓ࡯࠺ࡀ࠸࠸ࠋࠓᛅ࿌ࠔ㻌㻌㸴㸬㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢᐃ⩏௨ୖࡢ⪃ᐹࢆඖ࡟ᒣᒸ௚㻔㻞㻜㻝㻜㻦㻝㻠㻟㻕࡛⾜ࡗࡓ㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢᐃ⩏࡟୍㒊ຍ➹ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ㻌ᑐேⓗࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢᑐே㛵ಀࢆ࡞ࡿ࡭ࡃⰋዲ࡟ಖࡘࡇ࡜࡟㓄៖ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ୍ᐃ⛬ᗘ௨ୖ࡟័⩦໬ࡉࢀࡓゝㄒ⾲⌧㻌㻌ཧ↷ᩥ⊩Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
⚟ᓥὈṇ. 2002.ࠕࠗࡐࡦ࠘ࡢᶵ⬟࡜౑⏝᮲௳࡟ࡘ࠸࡚Ɇ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఱ࠿ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗࡋࡓሙྜɆࠖ
ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘
113 ྕࠊ24-33ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍.
ᶫᮏె⨾. 2000.ࠕ⤊ຓモࠗࡶࡢ࠘ࡢ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠖࠗᖹᡂ 12 ᖺᗘ♫఍ゝㄒ⛉Ꮫ఍➨ 6 ᅇ◊✲Ⓨ⾲኱఍ㄽᩥ㞟࠘ࠊ50-55ࠊ♫఍ゝㄒ⛉Ꮫ఍.
ᖹ⏣┿⨾. 2001.ࠕࠗ࢝ࣔࢩࣞࢼ࢖࠘ࡢព࿡ɔɔࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ᥋Ⅼࢆ᥈ࡿɔɔࠖ
ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘108 ྕࠊ60-68ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍.
஭ฟ⚈Ꮚ. 2001.ࠕᅜ㝿♫఍ࡢ୰ࡢᩗព⾲⌧ɔɔࡑࡢᅜ㝿ᛶ࡜ᩥ໬⊂⮬ᛶࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘➨ 20 ᕳ➨ 4 ྕࠊ4-13ࠊᮾி㸸᫂἞᭩㝔.
⏕⏣ᑡᏊ. 1997.ࠕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢ⌮ㄽࠖࠗゝㄒ࠘➨ 26 ᕳ➨ 6 ྕࠊ66-71ࠊᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics, London: Longman.
∾ཎຌ. 2005.ࠕㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠗࡕࡻࡗ࡜࠘ࡢᶵ⬟ࠖࠗ⩌㤿኱Ꮫ␃Ꮫ⏕ࢭࣥࢱ࣮ㄽ㞟࠘➨ 5 ྕࠊ1-12ࠊ⩌㤿኱Ꮫ.
ᒣᒸᨻ⣖࣭∾ཎຌ࣭ᑠ㔝ṇᶞ. 2010.ࠗࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡜㓄៖⾲⌧࠘ᮾி㸸᫂἞᭩㝔.

4
−318−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

㓄៖⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢὀ㔘⾲⌧࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹ
∾ཎຌ
⩌㤿኱Ꮫ

<Abstract>
The purpose of this article is to consider the conventionalization of the considerate
expressions of Japanese.
Conventionalization is a very important concept in defining considerate expressions.
However, in that case, important expressions those function for interpersonalconsideration will be excluded from considerate expressions.
In this study, I will survey the forms to express the consider ation which have notbeen conventionalized enough, and I will argue that they should also be written in amanner different to the way they appear in the database.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸㓄៖⾲⌧ࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠊ័⩦໬ࠊ๓⨨ࡁ⾲⌧ࠊὀ㔘⾲⌧㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏேࡀ↓ព㆑࡟౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ FTA ᅇ㑊ࡢࡓࡵࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧ࢆ㐺ษ࡟⩦ᚓࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㓄៖⾲⌧࡟㛵ࢃࡿゝㄒᙧᘧࢆิᣲࡋ࡚
ᥦ♧ࡍࡿࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫࢆసᡂࡋᥦ౪ࡍࢀࡤࠊࡑࢀ࡟ἢࡗ࡚෇⁥࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆᅗ
ࡿࡓࡵࡢ▱㆑ࢆ⩦ᚓࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊࡲࡓࠊ ཧ↷⏝࡜ࡋ࡚㎡᭩ⓗ࡞౑⏝ࡶྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿ࡞࡝
᭷┈࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ Leech(1983)࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡣࠊࡑࡢ᫬ࠎࡢヰ⪅ࡢุ᩿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ືᶵ
࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡓ㠀័⩦ⓗ࡞ (non-conventional)ゝㄒ⾜ື࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡶࡑࡶ
ᐃᆺ໬ࡋࡓᙧᘧࢆ◊✲ᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᒣᒸࡽࡣᒣᒸ௚(2010)࡛ࡢ
㓄៖⾲⌧ࡢᐃ⩏ࢆಟṇࡋࠊ㓄៖⾲⌧ࢆࠕࠕᑐேⓗࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢᑐே㛵ಀࢆ࡞ࡿ࡭ࡃⰋዲ࡟ಖࡘࡓࡵࡢ㓄៖࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ୍ᐃ⛬ᗘ௨ୖ࡟័⩦໬ࡉࢀࡓゝㄒ⾲⌧ࠖ࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
᪥ᮏㄒࡢᑐே㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࡍᵝࠎ࡞ᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠖࠕࡐࡦࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞๪モࡸ๪モⓗᡂศࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡅ࡞࠸࡛ࡋࡻ࠺࠿ࠖ
ࠕ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡅࡿ࡜࠶ࡾࡀࡓ࠸ࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠖࡢࡼ
࠺࡞ᩥᮎࡢᡂศࡀ◊✲ࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ័⩦໬ࡀ㐍ࡳࠊᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊᩥ୰ࡢ๪モⓗᡂศ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿᚑᒓ⠇ࡑࢀ⮬యࡀ㓄៖⾲⌧࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࡣከࠎぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊࠕᜍࢀධࡾࡲࡍࡀࠖࠕ࠾Ẽᣢࡕࡣ࠶ࡾࡀࡓ࠸ࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠖࠕࡇࢇ࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࡢࡣൗ㉺࡞ࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠖ࡞࡝࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ཰㞟ࡍࡿ㝿࡟័⩦໬࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ㓄៖࡟㛵ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ࢆᩚ⌮ࡋࡓሙྜࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
ୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧࡢ⮬⏤ᗘࡢ㧗࠸ᚑᒓ⠇ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡣ㓄៖⾲⌧࠿ࡽእࡍࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮ
ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ័⩦໬࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࡛ぢࡿ࡜㓄៖⾲⌧࡜ㄆࡵ㞴࠸ゝㄒᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ᪥ᮏ
ㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣ⌮ゎࡀᚲせ࡞ࡶࡢࡶከ࠸ࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆᴫほࡋࠊ⊃⩏ࡢ㓄៖⾲⌧࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢఱࡽ࠿ࡢᙧ࡛ࢹ࣮ࢱ

−319−

配慮表現としての注釈表現に関する一考察࣮࣋ࢫ࡟グ㍕ࡋ࡚࠾ࡃ࡭ࡁࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡍࡿࠋ ࡞࠾ࠊᑐே㓄៖࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ័⩦໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ゝㄒᙧᘧࡢ௦⾲ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚௨ୗࡢ 3 ✀㢮ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋ
㸯㸬ᮏ᮶ࡣࡲࡗࡓࡃ␗࡞ࡿᩥἲⓗᶵ⬟ࢆᢸ࠸࡞ࡀࡽࠊᑐே㓄៖࡟ 㛵ࢃࡿᩥἲᙧᘧࠋ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࡣࢸࣥࢫ࣭࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࠊ࣎࢖ࢫ࡞࡝ࡢᩥἲ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢᡂศ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿㅖ
ᙧᘧࠋ㸰㸬ᩥ୰࡛๪モⓗᡂศ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࠊ」㞧࡞ᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘ๓⨨ࡁ⾲⌧㸦ᚑᒓ⠇㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠕᜍࢀධࡾࡲࡍࡀࠖ
ࠕ⏦ࡋヂ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࡀࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞༢⣧࡞ᵓ㐀ࡢࠕ๓⨨ࡁ⾲⌧ࠖ࡜ྠᵝࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘࡀ༑ศ࡟័⩦໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
㸱㸬ᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ẚ㍑ⓗ⮬⏤࡟⏕ᡂ࡛ࡁࡿὀ㔘⾲⌧㸦ᩥ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࡶࡢ㸧㸰㸬ᩥἲ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᩥἲᙧᘧ
ඛ࡟ᣲࡆࡓࡶࡢࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ㸯ࡢᩥἲᙧᘧࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࣎࢖ࢫ࡜ࢸࣥࢫ࣭࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡀᑐே
㓄៖࡟㛵ࢃࡿ౛ࢆ௨ୗ࡟♧ࡍࠋ୰ᅜㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢሙྜࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢືモࡢ⮬௚ࡢᙧࡀྠࡌ࡛
࠶ࡿࡓࡵࡑࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸࡜ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢከࡃࡀ௚ື
モࢆ⏝࠸ࡿሙྜ࡛ࡶ⮬ືモࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ኻ♩࡞Ⓨヰ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࡲࡲ࠶ࡿࠋ
౛࠼ࡤࠊ೉ࡾ࡚࠸ࡓ࣓࢝ࣛࢆࠊ
ࠕ౑⏝⪅ࡢ㐣ኻ࡛ቯࡋࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼ࡿሙ㠃࡛ࡢⓎヰ౛࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ㸺୰ᅜேẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡃࡳࡽࢀࡿ౛㸼(1) ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠊ࠾೉ࡾࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࣓࢝ࣛࡀቯࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚͐
㸺᪥ᮏேヰ⪅ࡢ౛㸼(2) ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠊ࠾೉ࡾࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࣓࢝ࣛࠊቯࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࡲࡋ࡚͐
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ືモࡢ⮬௚㑅ᢥࡣࠊ༢࡞ࡿどⅬࡢ㐪࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡽࡎࠊヰ⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡬
ࡢ⮬ぬࡢ᭷↓࡞࡝࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ㓄៖࡟㛵ࢃࡿゝㄒᙧᘧ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ࢸࣥࢫ࣭࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ ࢸ࢖ࣝࡀ⤖ᯝ≧ែࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟ࡣ㐣ཤࢆ⾲ࡍࢸࣥࢫ࡜ព࿡ⓗ࡞┦㐪ࡣᑠࡉ࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊࢸ࢖ࣝࢆ౑࠺ࡇ࡜࡛⪺ࡁᡭ࡟୙ᛌឤࢆ
୚࠼ࡿ౛ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
(3) A㸸᪥ᮏㄒ⬟ຊヨ㦂ࠊྜ᱁ࡋࡲࡋࡓ࠿㸽
B㸸ࡣ࠸ࠊཤᖺྜ᱁ࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ
㸽ࡣ࠸ࠊཤᖺྜ᱁ࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
㸽ࡣ࠸ࠊࡶ࠺ཤᖺྜ᱁ࡋࡲࡋࡓ/ࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ࡇࢀࡣࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺࡢࢸ࢖ࣝࢆ⏝࠸ࡓሙྜࠊどⅬࡀ⌧ᅾࡢ≧ἣ࡟࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ┦ᡭࡢ⌧ᅾࡢㄆ㆑ࢆᙉไⓗ࡟ಟṇࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ാࡁࡀᙉࡃ࡞ࡾࠊFTA ࢆక࠺Ⓨヰ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡶ㓄៖࡟㛵ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ ᩥἲⓗ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ࡉࢀࡿゝㄒᙧᘧࡢከࡃࡀ㓄៖࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ∾ཎ
(2012)࡛ࡶ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊୖグࡣᩘከࡃࡢ౛ࡢ୍㒊࡟㐣ࡂ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡩࡿࡲ࠸ࡣ᪥

−320−

第17回大会発表論文集第10号

ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣ⌮ゎࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ ័⩦໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡛ࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫ࡟
཰㞟ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊูࡢఱࡽ࠿ࡢ᪉ἲ࡛ᥦ౪ࡍࡿᚲせᛶࡀ㧗࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ㸱㸬๓⨨ࡁ⾲⌧࡜័⩦໬ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝᩥ୰࡛๪モⓗᡂศ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿ⠇࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕ࠾ᛁࡋ࠸࡜ࡇࢁᜍࢀධࡾࡲࡍࡀࠖࡸࠕ࠾
᫬㛫ࡢ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡁ࡛ᵓ࠸ࡲࡏࢇࡢ࡛ࠖ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊ
ࠕᛁࡋ࠸࡜ࡁ࡟⏦ ࡋヂ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࡀࠖࡸࠕᑡࡋᬤ࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜ࡁ࡛࠸࠸࡛ࡍ࠿ࡽࠖ࡞࡝࡜ ゝ࠸᥮࠼࡚ࡶၥ㢟ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᙧᘧⓗ࡞⮬⏤ᗘࡀ኱ࡁ࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ๪モ⠇ࢆ๓⨨ࡁ⾲⌧࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࡀࠊ๓⨨ࡁ⾲⌧࡟ࡣࠊ୍ㄒࡢ๪モ࡟㏆࠸ᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘ๪モ⠇࠿ࡽࠊᩥ࡟㏆࠸」㞧࡞ᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘ๪モ⠇ ࡲ࡛ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠕ୙㌫࡞ࡀࡽࠖ࠿ࡽࠕࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࡢࡣ୙㌫࡛኱ኚ⏦ࡋヂ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠖࡲ࡛ࠊᵝࠎ࡞ࣞ࣋ࣝࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢᵓ㐀ࡢ」㞧ࡉ࡜ࠊ௚ࡢ⾲⌧࡛௦᭰ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟ࡣ୍ᐃࡢ┦㛵㛵ಀࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୗࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ౛
ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡚ࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊࠕࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛ࡍࡀࠖ࡜࠸࠺㠀ᖖ࡟▷࠸๪モ⠇ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋࡇࡢ ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟ࡣࠕ┦ᡭࡢᚰ⌮ⓗ㈇ᢸࢆᑠࡉࡃࡋࠊ⮬ศࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆㅬ㐯ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊΏࡍࡶࡢࡢ౯
್ࢆపࡃ㏙࡭ࠊ┦ᡭࡢᾘᴟⓗࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟㓄៖ࡍࡿࠖࡶࡢ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋྠᵝࡢព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟ࢆࡶࡘࠊᩥἲⓗ࡟⏕⏘ࡉࢀࡓ㸦័⩦໬ࡢ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸࡞࠸㸧௚ࡢᙧᘧ࡜ࡢ௦᭰ ࡀྍ⬟࠿ぢ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ
(4)??ࡇࢀᏳ࠸ࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ࡛ࡍࡀ
(5)? ࡇࢀ㧗౯࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡍࡀ
ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊゝ࠸᥮࠼࡟ࡣไ⣙ࡀక࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ࠾ᛁࡋ࠸࡜ࡇࢁᜍ
ࢀධࡾࡲࡍࡀࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡸࡸ」㞧໬ࡋࡓ๪モ⠇࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕ⾜Ⅽࢆ౫㢗ࡍࡿ┦ᡭ࡟ࠊ⮬ศࡢ౫
㢗⾜Ⅽࡀ኱ࡁ࡞㈇ᢸ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ┦ᡭࡢᾘᴟⓗࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟
㓄៖ࡍࡿࠖࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࠊྠᵝࡢព࿡ⓗ࡞ෆᐜࢆ⾲ࡍ௚ࡢᙧᘧ࡛ࡢ௦᭰ࡢྍྰࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ
(6) ࡈከ⏝ࡢ࡜ࡇࢁ⏦ࡋヂ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࡀ
(7) ࡈከ⏝୰࡜ࡣᏑࡌࡲࡍࡀ
(8)?࠾᫬㛫ࡢ࡞࠸࡜ࡁ࡟⏦ࡋヂ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࡀ
(9)?࠾ᛁࡋࡑ࠺࡞࡜ࡇࢁᜍࢀධࡾࡲࡍࡀ
ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘ௦᭰⾲⌧ࡢ౑⏝ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊࡑࢀ࡛ࡶไ⣙ࡀṧࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺
࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊࠕ࠾᫬㛫ࡢ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡁ࡛ᵓ࠸ࡲࡏࢇࡢ࡛ࠖ࡜࠸࠺๪モ⠇ࢆࠕ┦ᡭ࡟౫㢗ࡋࡓෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ᫬㛫ⓗ࡞వ⿱ࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛┦ᡭࡢᾘᴟⓗࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟㓄៖ࡍࡿࠖࡶࡢ
࡜࡜ࡽ࠼ࠊ௚ࡢᙧᘧ࡛ࡢ௦᭰ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
(10) ࠸ࡘ࡛ࡶᵓ࠸ࡲࡏࢇࡢ࡛
(11) ࡺࡗࡃࡾ࡛ᵓ࠸ࡲࡏࢇࡢ࡛
(12) ࡈ㒔ྜࡢࡘࡃ࡜ࡁ࡛ᵓ࠸ࡲࡏࢇࡢ࡛
(13)??࠾ᬤ࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜ࡁ࡛ᵓ࠸ࡲࡏࢇࡢ࡛

−321−

配慮表現としての注釈表現に関する一考察ࡇࢀࡽࡢไ⣙ࡀ࡞ࡐ⏕ࡌࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⏝࠸ࡿㄒᙡࡢෆໟⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡢ㛵୚࡞࡝ᵝࠎ࡞ཎᅉࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ༢⣧࡞ᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘ๓⨨ࡁ⾲⌧ࡣ័⩦໬ࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠾ࡾࠊࠕ ព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟ࠖ࡟ྜ⮴ࡋࡓ௚ࡢ⾲⌧࡛ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸ࡶࡢࡀከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊ」㞧໬ࡋࡓ ๪モ⠇ࡀ๓⨨ࡁ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࠊ័⩦໬ࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠾ࡽࡎࠊ
ࠕព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟ࠖ࡟ᑐᛂࡋࡓ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊከᵝ࡞⾲⌧ࡀ౑⏝ྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡀ ࠊ๪モ⠇ࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿᩥἲᡂศࡸㄒᙡࡢ
㑅ᢥ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ୙㐺ษ࡞⾲⌧࡜࡞ࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣゝ࠼ࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ๓⨨ࡁ⾲⌧ࡣࡑࡢࠕព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟ࠖࢆ♧ࡋ࡚ࠕࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠺࡜ࡁࡣࠊࡇࡢព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟ ࢆ⾲ࡍ⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᣦ♧ࢆᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ༢⣧࡞ᵓ㐀ࡢࡶࡢ࡟㝈ࡽࡎࠊᑐே㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࡍ๓⨨ࡁ⾲⌧ࢆᏛ⩦⪅࡟ᥦ♧ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢᙧ࡛Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ᣦ♧ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
㸲㸬ᩥ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝᶵ⬟ࡍࡿὀ㔘⾲⌧ᩥ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝᑐே㓄៖࡟㛵ࢃࡿ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᮡᡞ(1983ࠊ1986)࡞࡝࡛
ᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࣓ࢱゝㄒ⾲⌧ࠊ㺀௚࡞ࡽࡠྩ࡟ࡇࡑゝ࠸ࡓ࠿ࡗࡓࢇ࡛ࡍࡅࢀ࡝ࡡ͐㹿㺁㺀⚾࡞࡝ࡀࡋࡷࡋࡷࡾฟ࡚୙㌫࡛ࡍࡅࢀ࡝ࡶ͐㹿㺁㺀࠾ྲྀࡾ㎸ࡳࡢ࡜ࡇࢁ⏦ࡋヂ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࡀ͐㹿㺁࡞࡝ࡀヱᙜࡍࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᙧᘧࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᙧᘧⓗ࡞ไ⣙ࡣᑠࡉ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢὀ㔘⾲⌧ࡀ㐺ษ࡟౑⏝࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡀࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊ࡟኱ࡁࡃ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ㔠ᇛ௚(2007)࡟ࡼࡗ࡚♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟ᩓぢࡉࢀࡿㄗ⏝౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ✚ᴟⓗࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮ࠺ࠋ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ
⩦⪅࡛࠶ࡿ␃Ꮫ⏕࠿ࡽᒆࡃ࣓࣮ࣝ࡞࡝࡟ࠕඛ⏕ࠊ࠸ࡘࡶ࠾ୡヰ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ
࡜࠿ࠕඛ㐌ࡢᤵᴗࠊ࡜࡚ࡶຮᙉ࡟࡞ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ✚ᴟⓗࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟ከࡃ㐪࿴ឤࢆぬ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࡀࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⅼ࡬ࡢᣦᑟࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡛ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ
࡝⪃៖ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢࡀ⌧≧ࡔ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ὀ㔘⾲⌧࡟ࡣከᵝ࡞⾲⌧ᙧែࡀ࠶ࡾ័⩦໬ࡣ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸࡞࠸ࠋ㓄៖ࢆ⾲ࡍ⾲⌧࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
୍ᐃ⛬ᗘ័⩦໬ࡉࢀࡓゝㄒᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㓄៖⾲⌧࡟ࡣྵࡳ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ᪥
ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⩦ᚓࡣ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ᥎ᐹ ࡉࢀࠊࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶఱࡽ࠿ࡢ᝟ሗᥦ౪ࡀᚲせࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩㔠ᇛᑦ⨾㺃⋢ᇛ࠶ࡺࡳ㺃୰すᮅᏊ . 2007.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒ㠀ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ࣓ࢱゝㄒ⾜ື⾲⌧࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹ㸫㓄៖࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸫ࠖࠊࠗ⌰⌫኱Ꮫ␃Ꮫ⏕ࢭࣥࢱ࣮⣖せ,࠘➨ 4 ྕࠊ19-41ࠊ⌰⌫኱Ꮫ.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics, Longman.
∾ཎຌ. 2012.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㓄៖⾲⌧࡟㛵ࢃࡿᩥἲ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࠖࠊࠗ ⩌㤿኱Ꮫᅜ㝿ᩍ⫱࣭◊✲ࢭࣥࢱ࣮ㄽ㞟࠘➨ 11 ྕࠊ1-14ࠊ⩌㤿኱Ꮫ.
ᮡᡞΎᶞ. 1983.ࠕ ᚅ㐝⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢゝㄒ⾜ື㸸ὀ㔘࡜࠸࠺どⅬࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘2 ᕳ 7 ྕࠊ32-42ࠊ᫂἞᭩㝔.
ᮡᡞΎᶞ.1989.ࠕゝㄒ⾜ື࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࡁࡲࡾࡇ࡜ࡤࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘8 ᕳ 2 ྕࠊ4-14ࠊ᫂἞᭩㝔.
ᒣᒸᨻ⣖࣭∾ཎຌ࣭ᑠ㔝ṇᶞ. 2010.ࠗࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡜㓄៖⾲⌧࠘ᮾி㸸᫂἞᭩㝔.

−322−

シンポジウムSymposium第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Exploring the Nature and Process of Medical Discoursein the Light of Pragmatics
Teruko Ueda
Aomori Public University<Abstract>
This paper investigates one of the major quantitative methods which is widely used in the westerncountries to analyze the medical discourse, "RIAS" (Roter Interactional Analysis System) (Roterand Larson, 2002) in order to explore the nature and the process of doctor-patient interviews. We
address (1) the characteristics, effectiveness, and limitations of RIAS, (2) the interactional

discourse analysis of doctor-patient communication, and (3) the possibility of a different(pragmatic) type of analysis (Ueda, 2014).
࠙Keywordsࠚ㸸doctor-patient communication, quantitative, interactional discourse analysis,
Pragmatics

1. Introduction

The doctor-patient relationship has been described since the time of the Greeks; however, thesystematic study of medical communication is a modern phenomenon. Although medical
communication studies using quantitative methods have grown markedly even in Japan overthe past decade, there have been few qualitative studies of doctor-patient communication. The
Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) is widely used in the US, Europe as a major
quantitative method for coding medical dialogue (Roter & Larson, 2002).
2. Background
During the past decades, communication between doctors and patients has attracted
an increasing amount of attention within health care studies. Results from some of thesestudies indicate that certain aspects of medical communication may have an influence on
patients’ satisfaction, adherence to treatment, recall and understanding of medical
information, quality of life, and even state of health (Kaplan et al., 1989; Bensing, 1991a,b;
Hall et al., 1994a,b).
In order to study communication between doctors and patients, social scientists havedeveloped observation instruments, called “interaction analysis systems”(IAS). These systems
enable the methodic identification, categorization, and quantification of salient features ofdoctor–patient communications (Wasserman and Inui, 1983).
The Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS) is a widely used IAS in the US and Europe.
1

−323−

Exploring the Nature and Process of Medical Discourse in the Light of Pragmatics

More than 200 previous studies have been conducted in the world. The reliability and thevalidity of RIAS has already been examined (Ford et al., 1996; Hall et al., 1994). Furthermore,comparative studies can be done easily.
The reason why RIAS is widely used in healthcare studies is that it has four “R”
advantages; namely, (1) Representativeness, (2) Reactivity, (3) Reliability, and (4)Replicability, according to the common characteristics of quantitative methods (Roter andLarson, 2002).
3. Analysis
In exploring the nature and process of medical discourse, the purpose of this study is toinvestigate the following topics: (1) the characteristics, effectiveness, and limitations of RIAS,(2) the interactional discourse analysis of doctor-patient communication, and (3) the
possibility of a different (pragmatic) type of analysis (Ueda, 2014).
3.1 Method
RIAS has 42 utterance categories for coding, and they are divided into two groups: (1)socio-emotional utterances, and (2) task-oriented utterances. Doctor task-oriented behaviors
are defined as technically based skills used in problem solving that comprise the base of
medical education. The affective dimension of doctor behavior includes those exchanges with
explicit socio-emotional content related to the building of social and emotional rapport, suchas the use of social amenities, empathy, concern, or reassurance.
3.1.1. Data
Doctor-patient visits were audiotaped (N=78) in one hospital and two clinics in Tokyo
and Osaka. First, they were coded using an adaptation of the RIAS. Second, considering thelimitations of RIAS, interactional analysis was used to clarify the nature and the process of aproblem conversation and a consensual conversation in terms of “cohesion” and “coherence.”
Other types of pragmatic analysis were used and discussed to better understand qualitative
differences in the doctor-patient interaction.

The average age of the patients was 83.4

(SD=11.8), and 31 (40.0%) were male. The characteristics of the patients and theconsultations are shown in Table 1.

2
−324−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Table 1
Characteristics of patients and consultations
VariablesN(%)
Patient characteristics
GenderMale    
31 (40.0%)
Female47 (60.0%)
Mean age (years)
63.4 (SD=11.8)
Consultation characteristics
Mean length of consultation (min) 5.2 (SD =4.2)

Tokyo

Osaka

13
28
65.7 (SD=11.6)
3.5**(SD=2.5)181960.8 (SD=11.59
6.7**(SD=4.4)**p<0.01

3.1.2. Procedure
Although the RIAS allows coding directly from audiotapes without transcripts, weprepared transcripts for all consultations and carried out coding with transcripts andaudiotapes in order to perform precise coding and avoid incorrectness.
The unit of analysis is the “utterance,” defined as the smallest discriminable speechsegment to which classification may be assigned. Every utterance is assigned to one of themutually exclusive categories of the RIAS and then condensed into larger clusters for thisstudy as shown in Table 2.
Table 2Clusters of communication distinguished in the present study
Cluster of the present study
Original categories of the RIAS combined
Open-ended question
Open-ended questions about all topics(i.e. medical
condition, therapeutic regimen, lifestyle,psychosocial feelings)
Closed question
Closed questions about all topics
Information giving
Information giving about medical condition,therapeutic regimen, lifestyle
DirectionCounseling and direction about all topics
Emotional expression (pt)/emotional responsiveness(dr)Shows concern, reassurance, self-disclosure (dr),empathy (dr), asks for reassurance (pt), gives
information about psychosocial feelings (pt),
Facilitation
Paraphrase, asks for understanding/repetition, asks
for opinion (dr)Positive talkShows agreement, approval, laughs/tells jokes
Negative talkShows disapproval, criticism
Orientation
Gives orientation (dr)Requests for service
Requests for services (pt)Social talk
Personal remarks/social conversation*Categories are used for both doctor and patient, unless specified as (dr) or (pt).

Coding was carried out by two coders. Ten percent of the total consultations weredouble-coded in order to examine intercoder reliability. We calculated the Spearman
correlation coefficients between two coders for the categories. The average correlation was
3−325−

Exploring the Nature and Process of Medical Discourse in the Light of Pragmatics

0.88 (069-0.94) for physician categories, and 0.88 (0.73-0.97) for patient categories.
3.2. Results
We obtained the percentage ratio of the doctor utterances for each behavior to the total
doctor utterances in the consultation. Similarly, the percentage ratio of each patient behavior
to total patient utterances was calculated. The percentage ratio was used instead of theabsolute number of utterances per cluster to control for the duration of the consultation. The
proportional measure represents the amount of a certain communication relative to othercommunications within the consultation time.
The mean frequency and percentage of each communication for doctor and patient are
shown in Table 3.
Table 3Frequency and percentage of clusters of utterances for doctor and patient per consultation
Clusters of utterances
DoctorPatient
Frequency%
Frequency%(utterances)(utterances)Open-ended question
1.8
2.2
0.4
0.5
Closed question
5.6
6.4
2.0
2.5
Information giving
18.3
19.6
19.6
23.9
Counseling
2.7
2.6
N.A.
N.A.
Emotional responsiveness/expression
5.8
6.5
4.6
5.6
Facilitation
7.7
8.3
2.6
3.4
Positive talk
23.8
30.2
32.8
48.1
Negative talk
0.7
0.5
1.2
1.4
Orientation
2.7
6.8
N.A.
N.A.
Requests for service
N.A.
N.A.
0.4
0.4
Social talk
2.2
2.5
2.2
1.1
Other
12.6
14.7
6.4
8.9
Total
85.5
54.2
72.3
45.8

A major part of the interaction concerned information-giving on the part of both doctor
and patient; this consisted of 20% and 24% of their communication, respectively. On the other
hand, some categories showed differences between doctor and patient. The percentage ofdoctors' question-asking was almost triple that of patients' for both open-ended and closed
questions, while patients made almost twice as many positive utterances as doctors.
3.2.3 Comparisons with a previous study
The characteristics of doctor-patient interaction in this study were compared with adifferent type of interaction; namely, cancer consultation in Japan (Ishikawa et al., 2002).
Graph 1 and 2 show the results of the comparison. It is clearly shown that the cancer doctors
made more “give-information” utterances (35.2%) than the primary doctors did (19.6%). In
contrast, the primary doctors gave more positive responses (30.2%) and negative responses
4−326−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号(0.5%) than the cancer doctors (19.8% and 0.2%). The patients also showed the sametendencies. It seemed that there were more “giving-information” utterances by cancer
patients (34.3%) but more positive responses and negative responses by the primary patients(48.1% and 1.4% respectively). However, these findings should be carefully interpreted
because of methodological limitations and the small number of studies compared.

Graph 1. Utterance rate of primary doctor vs. cancer doctor

5
−327−

Exploring the Nature and Process of Medical Discourse in the Light of Pragmatics

Graph 2. Utterance rate of primary patient vs. cancer patient
4. Discussion
The methodological advantage of using RIAS is the application for comparative studies.
In general, quantitative studies can offer the same procedure and the tools for usefulcomparison. However, some limitations of RIAS were noticed, as follows: (1) Ambiguity, (2)Time consumption, (3) Loss of details of utterance contents, (4) Loss of context, and (5) Loss of
doctor-patient “real” interaction (Ueda, 2014). Especially, (3), (4) and (5) cannot be examinedbecause RIAS calculates the average frequency of utterances and categorizes them into 41
types of utterance. That means each utterance is condensed and therefore its contents,
context, and details disappear, to some degree.
In order to explore the nature and process of medical discourse, let us bring in the lightof pragmatics using the Interactional Discourse Analysis approach, as follows:
1) Ambiguity
RIAS allows only one coding category for one utterance even though utterances may
have multiple meanings. Further, the definitions of some categories are ambiguous andincomplete. For example, "laughter” has ambiguity of polysemy because patients use both

positive and negative laugher (Ueda, 2014). Examples 1 and 2 show these different type oflaughter. We marked @࣭࣭࣭@ to show that laughter continued during the production of the6−328−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

utterance.
Ex. 1. Positive laughter:
Patient: Konbanwaࠊha, ha-ha. “Hello, huh-huhu”
Ex. 2. Negative laughter:
Patient: Oyayubi ni chikara ga nai@ndesumono@ “My thumb @does not have power@”
As for negative laughter, in the second example the patient expressed her powerlessness,anxiety, and inconvenience with laughter, which is clearly different from the positive laughter
during greetings as shown in the first example. Laughter, which is one of the non-linguistic
functions, can serve to hide one's feeling of dissatisfaction, anxiety, and even criticism.
Example 3 also shows laughter functioning as an expression of patient anxiety and theneed for self-defense (because how to medicate is a doctor’s special territory). It seemed thatlaughter was used in this case to soften the patient's complaint, and it can be categorize as
negative laughter.
Ex. 3. Negative "laughter"
Patient: @Kusuri ga ki ni nattene@.

"㸾I am worried about medicine@"

By applying a discourse analysis approach, we can interpret each utterance (including
even non-verbal communication) more precisely and deeply.
2) Time consumption
Japanese conversations have more overlap, and utterances become more fragmentary
than English (Mizutani, 1993); therefore, coding takes time. The only solution is to make ascript of the Japanese doctor-patient dialogue, as linguists do for pragmatic analysis.
3) Loss of details of utterance contents
Generally speaking, quantitative methods lose details of utterance contents because wesometimes categorize utterances expressed in different ways into one utterance category.
For example, the Japanese edition of RIAS extended the definition of “empathy statements”
to include when “words are expressed with an empathic voice tone and facial expression, suchas "so desu ka࣭࣭࣭" "Well࣭࣭࣭" and "so desu ne࣭࣭࣭" “Is that so࣭࣭࣭”. Such short expressions
without clear statements of empathy can be also coded as empathy statements. This can leadto ambiguity. We need to analyze the difference between such implicit empathy and explicit
empathy statements by applying interactional discourse analysis line by line.
4) Loss of context, and 5) Loss of doctor-patient “real” interaction
7−329−

Exploring the Nature and Process of Medical Discourse in the Light of Pragmatics

It is obvious that sociolinguistic phenomena such as dialects and code-switching cannot
be properly studied with RIAS. In contrast, pragmatic analysis can examine differences inutterance content according to how local dialects and the Tokyo dialect (which is standard
Japanese ) are used.
In order to shed light on context and doctor-patient "real" interaction, we need to
examine each utterance by pragmatic analysis based on interactional sociolinguistic key
concepts such as "cohesion" and "cohesive" (Halliday and Hasan, 1976).
5. Conclusion
It is important to make a correct choice of analysis tools based on our carefulinterpretation of data. By RIAS, a rough tendency of medical communication is shown.
However, by pragmatic analysis, we can analyze in more detail the content and context ofutterances, as well as the process of interactions between doctors and patients which are
influenced by their underlying views of the world.
Based on the characteristics of a study’s purpose and data, it may be necessary to use
several techniques concurrently while considering the effectiveness and limitations of eachanalysis approach. The nature and process of actual medical discourse will be elucidated
multifactorially in the light of pragmatics. Needless to say, we should also consider thelimitations of pragmatics based on qualitative methods.
References
1) Roter, D., & Larson, S. 2002. "The Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS); Utility andflexibility for analysis of medical interactions." Patient Education and Counseling 46, 243-251.
2) Mizutani, N. 1993. "Kyowa kara 'Taiwa' e." (From "Co-construction dialogue to "Dialogue").
Nihongogaku 7:12, 28-36.
3) Ueda, T. 2014. Shinryo Bamen niokeru Kanja to Ishi no Communication (Patient–Doctor
Communication: A Disourse Analytical Approach) Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobou.

8
−330−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

1
When do children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder comprehend figurative
language literally?
Manabu Oi
Kanazawa University

Abstract
The present study discussed figurative language comprehension in children with autism byreviewing studies conducted mainly by the author. Studies showed repeatedly no intergroupdifference between Japanese children with and without autism with little exception.
Conventionality of figurative language seemed to explain this point. The explanation, however,didn’t apply to sarcasm comprehension. On the other, theory of mind reasoning (ToM) didn’t
contribute to figurative language comprehension in Japanese children. Contradictory to theseresults, Taiwanese children with autism performed lower than typically developing children in
figurative language comprehension. Additionally, in Taiwanese children with autism, ToM
contributed to their figurative language comprehension.
Keywords: figurative language, autism, conventionality, theory of mind

1 Introduction
Do individuals with autism always comprehend figurative language literally? My answer
is “no”. They do sometimes and do not sometimes when taking a look at the data the author’s got.
Literalness in autism has been pointed out repeatedly by researchers (Frith, 1989; 2003; Happé,
1993; Perkins, 2007). Particularly, figurative language such as metaphor, irony and indirect
request has been believed to be comprehended literally by individuals with autism. We doubt,
however from clinical impression, individuals with autism show literalness all-time incomprehension of these figurative language.
One of our studies on ambiguous language comprehension in autism has showed
literalness occurred just in 10 out of 50 sentences (Oi & Tanaka, in press). They have asked
children to rate 5-point scale put between the two cartoons representing literal and non-literalinterpretation of the ambiguous sentence. They found no group difference between 2nd-to-6th

1
−331−

When do children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder comprehend figurative language literally?

2
graders with and without high-functioning autism spectrum disorder (HFASD) in 40 out of 50 tasks.
Additionally, they have shown that only in 4 sentences, children with HFASD showed stronger
preference for literal meaning, and in 6 sentences, conversely, showed stronger preference fornon-literal meaning than typically developing (TD) children. This finding contradicts a belief that
autistic language is literal. HFASD and TD kids showed no intergroup difference in preference
between literal and non-literal meaning for 9 out of 10 metaphors/idioms. In Table 1, the results ofstudies on figurative language comprehension in children with HFASD are shown. We can havestudies which utilized written scenario tasks to examine child’s comprehension of figurative
language as shown in this table. We don’t see intergroup difference often between children with
HFASD and TD children in terms of figurative language comprehension except for irony
comprehension in Adachi et al. We see here theory of mind reasoning (ToM) tasks were frequently
failed by children who could comprehend figurative language appropriately.

2 Conventionality of figurative language
Oi and Tanaka (2011) asked college freshmen to evaluate the degree of strangeness ofa figurative expression on a 5-point scale. This was done because comprehension of a figurative
sentence in individuals with autism, regardless of literalness or nonliteralness, might vary

2
−332−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

3
depending on the degree of conventionality of the usage of the sentence in certain context. In
Figure 1, dark bar indicates significant difference in comprehension of irony between HFASD
children and TD children. White bars indicate no intergroup difference in comprehension of
metaphor, sarcasm, and indirect reproach. Values of strangeness were low for metaphor andindirect reproach. This means children with HFASD would comprehend figurative language
nonliterally when it is evaluated less strange by college freshmen. Values of strangeness werehigh in irony and sarcasm while these two differ in comprehension in children. The result for irony
support the hypothesis that low strangeness (high conventionality) leads to nonliteralcomprehension. However the result for sarcasm did not support such a hypothesis.
Unlike their English-speaking counterparts, Japanese children with high-functioning
autism spectrum disorders (HFASD) perform as well as typically developing (TD) children incomprehending metaphor, despite lacking 1st order theory of mind (ToM) reasoning (Table 1).
Additionally, although Japanese sarcasm and indirect reproach appear theoretically to need 2ndorder ToM reasoning, HFASD children without this comprehended these as well as TD children.
To attempt to explain this contradiction, we asked college freshmen to evaluate the strangeness(unconventionality) of these types of figurative language. We aimed to test the hypothesis that
metaphor, sarcasm, and indirect reproach might be evaluated as more conventional than irony,which children with HFASD do not comprehend as well as those with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder. The results for irony, metaphor, and indirect reproach supported the hypothesis, while
those for sarcasm did not. Sarcasm is comprehended by HFASD children as well as by TD
children despite being evaluated as highly unconventional. This contradiction is discussed from aself-in-relation-to-other perspective. The need for a new explanation of disabilities of figurative
language comprehension in children with HFASD is suggested instead of relying on a single
cognitive process. The results did not fully support the hypothesis that the less strange a figurative
language statement was rated, the more easily it would be comprehended by children with
HFASD. The results for the ironic statements support the hypothesis as these statements were
evaluated as highly strange by college freshmen and were more difficult for children with HFASD
than for children with AD/HD to comprehend. The findings for metaphor and indirect reproach also
supported the hypothesis as both types of statements were evaluated as less strange and werecomprehended as well by children with HFASD as by their TD counterparts. The exception was

3
−333−

When do children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder comprehend figurative language literally?

4

sarcasm. Although sarcastic phrases were evaluated as highest strange among the four types of
figurative language by the college students, these phrases were comprehended as well by
children with HFASD as by TD children, despite the lack of the 2nd order ToM reasoning in nearly
half of the children with HFASD.
Two questions arise here. The first is why only irony was poorly understood by Japanesechildren with HFASD while the other three types of language were comprehended. The ironic
statements investigated in the present study were evaluated as highly strange (far lessconventional than typical statements). Giora et al.(2012) postulate that conventionality can beseen as a major determinant influencing figurative language comprehension both in children with
HFASD and in TD children. They contend that making sense of nonliteral language relies on thesalience of that language. According to their graded salience hypothesis, novelty (in other words,
unconventionality) matters rather than nonliterality. This appears to hold true regarding the highdegree of strangeness of ironic statements in the present study, which were poorly understood bychildren with HFASD, and it is also borne out by the low degree of strangeness of metaphors andindirect reproaches, both of which were understood by children with HFASD.
The present findings regarding sarcasm, however, do not support the graded saliencehypothesis at all. We need an explanation that applies to both failure to understand ironic

4
−334−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

5
statements and ability to comprehend sarcastic ones. A closer look at the ironic statements used
by Adachi et al. might lend some insight into this. Of the five ironic statements investigated, fourare not addressed directly from one character to the other in the scenario. Rather these were told
in the form of a soliloquy with a humorous feel. In addition to this, in the remaining ironic statement,
the child was asked to assume s/he was directly given the statement from another character in the
scenario. In contrast, all the sarcastic statements investigated were addressed from one characterto the other in the scenario. To succeed in comprehending these five ironies, children had to put
themselves in the shoes of the character that made the statement or received the statement, while
such a need did not exist for the sarcastic statements to be comprehended. In this regard, themetaphors and indirect reproaches investigated were similar to the sarcastic statements in thatthe child did not need to put themselves in the place of the listener or speaker. Hence in metaphor,sarcasm, and indirect reproach, it seems the child would have understood the statement when heor she could observe correctly what the scenario depicted.

3 The role of Theory of mind in figurative language comprehension
The second question to be addressed is whether or not sarcasm and indirect reproach
are of sufficient difficulty as to require 2nd order ToM reasoning to be understood. Happé (1991)
suggested this was the case, as she, based on the findings of Sperber and Wilson, made a
distinction between an utterance that requires elucidation of “an interpretation of an attributed
thought or a desirable thought” and one that requires interpretation of “a description of an actual
state of affairs or a desirable state of affairs.” She stated that the former type of utterance includes
ironies and interrogatives, and the latter includes ordinary assertions and basic imperatives.
Happé predicted that the former requires second-order metarepresentation while the latter
requires only first-order metarepresentation. The sarcastic statements and indirect reproaches
investigated here seem to demand the child to interpret the speaker’s thoughts regarding thehearer in the scenario. If this is true, how can we explain the finding that nearly half of theparticipants of the studies of Yata and Oi failed the 2nd order ToM task (Table 1)?
One plausible explanation is again the absence of a need for the child to put her/himself
in the shoes of another character to comprehend the statement. Hence, without requiring 2ndorder ToM reasoning, children could comprehend sarcasm by logical computations such as those

5
−335−

When do children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder comprehend figurative language literally?

6
postulated by Grandin in learning to recognize situations where people “do not mean what theysay”. To do this, children would use simple rules such as: literally false or puzzling speech + smile= joke, or literally false or puzzling speech + frown = sarcasm. The sarcastic phrases investigatedin the present study were exchanged between third parties for the child. The child could
accordingly behave as just an observer of the scenario who computes the meaning of the
figurative language. If children had not achieved 2nd order ToM reasoning, and sarcasm was notvery familiar to them, they could comprehend these scenarios “correctly” by the sort ofcomputation mentioned above, rather than “appropriately” by putting themselves in the place ofthe character in the scenario. However, children who had achieved 2nd order ToM reasoning
could of course use this rather than the more difficult computation. On the other hand, assuggested by the present findings, indirect reproach might be more familiar than sarcasm, so thatthe child has the choice of relying on retrieving the memory of the meaning of indirect reproach aswell as computation regarding the third parties, instead of using 2nd order ToM reasoning forcomprehension.
Taguchi et al. found, though not for the four categories of figurative language
investigated here, that children with HFASD failed to respond to indirect requests appropriately
when these were directly addressed to them from adults, yet they succeeded when asked tochoose an appropriate response from three types of responses when an indirect request scenario
was written or played on a screen. This indicates that the difficulty relates to self-awareness,particularly the need to put oneself in another’s place in the scenarios with embedded ironic
statements. In responding appropriately to indirect requests such as “Is your mother there?”(meaning “Call your mother”) via telephone, children have to put themselves in the shoes of the
speaker. Children with HFASD, indeed, failed this task in Oi and Tanaka (in press). We should
therefore take a self-in-relation-to-other perspective when investigating figurative language
comprehension in autism, as well as considering ToM, conventionality (salience), weak central
coherence or executive dysfunction (the latter two factors were not discussed in the present
study). Comprehension of figurative language does not consist of a single cognitive process, butshould instead be thought of as a product of complex interaction among various socio-cognitive
processes.

6
−336−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

7
4 Culture and figurative language comprehension
Huang and Oi (under review) investigated the role of ToM and language ability incomprehending figurative language in 50 Taiwanese children with high-functioning autism
spectrum disorders (HFASD) compared with 50 typically developing children. Results showed that
the No-ToM HFASD group performed worse than the first-order ToM HFASD group and thesecond-order ToM HFASD group in comprehension of metaphors, irony, sarcasm, and indirect
reproach, but not for indirect request. Receptive vocabulary correlated only with metaphor
comprehension. The volatility of results seen among studies (Happè1993;Nobury, 2005;Adachi etal.,2006; Huang & Oi) in terms of the relationship between ToM and figurative language
comprehension suggests the relationship may vary as an emergent property brought frominteraction among socio-cognitive processes and inter-cultural differences.
Taken together, temporary answers to the initial question are as follows. Children with
HFASD comprehend figurative language appropriately when the meaning of it is “visible”. Gradedsalience hypothesis applies to metaphor, indirect reproach and irony but not to sarcasm inJapanese. ToM is not necessary for every metaphor or irony to comprehend for Japanese children
with HFASD, but necessary for sarcasm, irony, metaphor, indirect reproach for Taiwanese children
with HFASD. Figurative language is difficult to comprehend when the child is the hearer of it, ors/he has to put him/herself in other’s shoes.

References
Adachi, T., Hirabayashi, S., Shiota, M., Suzuki, S., Wakamiya, E., Kitayama, S., et al. 2006. The
study of situational recognition of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders, Asperger’s disorder andhigh functioning autism with the metaphor and sarcasm scenario test (MSST). No To Hattatsu,
38(3), 177–181.
Frith,U. 1989 AUTISM: Explaining the enigma.,Basil Blackwell Ltd, UK.
Frith,U. 2003 Autism: Explaining the enigma, Second edition, John Wiley/Blackwell Publishing,
Oxford,UK.
Giora,R.,Gazal,O.,and Goldstein, I., et al.2012 Salience and context: Interpretation of
metaphorical and literal language by young adults diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome.
Metaphor and Symbol,27(1),22-54.

7
−337−

When do children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder comprehend figurative language literally?

8
Happè, F. G .E.1991 The autobiographical writings of three Asperger syndrome adults: problems
of interpretation and implicature for theory.,in Autism and Asperger syndrome, Frith, U.
(Ed) ,Cambridge;Cambridge University Press.207-242
Happé, F. G. E. 1993. Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: a test of
relevance theory. Cognition, 48(2), 101–119.
Huang,S.&,Oi,M. under review Figurative language comprehension in Taiwanese children with
autism: The role of theory of mind and receptive vocabulary.
Norbury, C. F. 2005 The relationship between theory of mind and metaphor: Evidence fromchildren with language impairment and autistic spectrum disorder. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 23,383–399.
Taguchi, A., Oi, M., Takahashi, K. 2010. Comprehension of indirect speech in children with highfunctioning pervasive developmental disorders under different task conditions. Japanese Journalof Communication Disorders, 27(3), 168–177.
Oi, M., & Tanaka, S. 2011. When do Japanese children with autism spectrum disordercomprehend ambiguous language overliterally or overnonliterally? Asia Pacific Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing, 14(1), 1–12.
Oi,M.and Tanaka,S. in press Revisiting autistic language: “Literalness” and “non-literalness” inJapanese children with autism. In Handbook of Applied Japanese Linguistics, Minam,M (Ed)Mouton publishers,Hague, The Netherlands.
Oi, M., Tanaka, S., & Ohoka, H. 2013. The relationship between comprehension of figurative
language by Japanese children with high functioning autism spectrum disorders and college
freshmen’s assessment of its conventionality of usage. Autism Research and Treatment.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/480635.
Perkins, M. 2007. Pragmatic Impairment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Taguchi,A.,Oi,M.,and Takahashi,K.2010 Comprehension of indirect speech in children withhigh-functioning pervasive developmental disorders under different task conditions. Japanese
Journal of Communication Disorders,27(3),168-177.
Yata, A., & Oi, M. 2009. Comprehension of indirect speech in children with high-functioning
pervasive developmental disorders. Japanese Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18(2), 128–137.

8
−338−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

What does linguistics contribute to the research in clinical psychology and/or psychiatry?
Sumi Kato
Aomori Chuo Gakuin University
Research Center for Child Mental Development,
Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki University

Abstract
This study pays specific attention to the system network in Systemic Functional Linguistics, assuming that
tracing client’s language choices in the system network identifies the client’s predominant language use,which is suggestive of how the client construes his/her experiential world. If the therapist succeeds in
identifying the client’s predominant language use, then that knowledge works as a useful resource tomaneuver the therapy session in a manner that is beneficial to the client.
This study also assumes that each mental disorder has predominant language use specific to thatdisorder, which should be of help to the diagnosis of mental disease, since most mental disorders do nothave indicative biological markers.
This study introduces the Japanese version of the Therapeutic Cycles Model (JTCM) as a pilot study
developed by Kato (2012), which was modified from the original Therapeutic Cycles Model (Mergenthaler,
1996). JTCM identifies the change process by quantifying the language choices made by the therapist andthe client. The potential contributions that linguistic can make to psychotherapy is demonstrated in thisexample of process research.
࠙KeywordsࠚSystemic Functional Linguistics; Therapeutic Cycles Model; psychotherapy; psychiatry;
linguistic analysis
1. The background of Japanese psychotherapy research
It should be made clear that there are two types of research in psychotherapy, outcome research and process
research. Outcome research is only concerned with the results of research. It compares where clients are at
the end of therapy, with where they began. It uses various instruments, but mainly self-reporting fromclients. Outcome research measures the efficacy of psychotherapy. Process research, on the other hand, isconcern with the process of psychotherapy itself, paying particular attention to what produces change inclients without regard to the before/after. In reality, nearly all psychotherapy conducted in the past ten years
has been a combination of both (Lepper and Riding, 2006).
It is important to note that outcome research had relevance in the days when the efficacy ofpsychotherapy, by and large, was the main research aim. Now that the validity of psychotherapy is
accepted, investigation has moved to the comparison of treatments. Thus, process elements have to beheld accountable.

From a practical perspective also, process research is important because it gives

practical knowledge and information to clinicians doing actual treatments, regarding therapist’s
intervention and understanding the clients’ change process.
When considering psychotherapy research in Japan, we find two major problems as follows:
Problem 1: The case study is the main stream of research.
The case study approach has a good point and a bad point. The good point is that case studies play an
1−339−

What does linguistics contribute to the research in clinical psychology and/or psychiatry?

important role in training clinicians in terms of how to treat clients and how to use language, as well as
providing other tips for the actual treatment of clients.

On the other hand, the bad point is that casestudies are based on the therapist’s process records, written after the therapy sessions, based on thetherapist’s memories. In this method, the accuracy of memory is hard to guarantee, since distortions ofmemory can occur. This may be because of the therapist's subjectivity, or because of the therapist's moodwhile s/he is recalling the details of the session. The therapist's mood can influence his/her interpretation of
his/her recollections. Also, confirmation bias1 often occurs. Therefore, all the issues, such as how
successful the psychotherapy is and what is needed for improvement, are left with the therapist’s
subjectivity. Due to these problems the objectivity needed for science is hard to ensure, and this in turnmars scientific research.
Problem 2: There are no research instruments or methods common across fields.
In the current state of affairs of research what exactly does linguistics contribute to psychotherapy
research? I assume there are three aspects linguistic research can contribute to.
The first contribution to psychotherapy research is that linguistic analysis deals with primary data, simply
put, language.

Quantitative and qualitative analyses are performed using primary data; guaranteeing thescientific objectivity of the research.

This allows for the compilation of clinical evidence, which is necessary toshow a scientifically significant result.
Secondly, there are no analytical methods, approaches, or concepts being exchanged, or for comparison
among schools or approaches.

Linguistic methods, from their theory-neutral position, have a great potential tobe established as the norm in terms of analytical instruments, thereby bridging the gap among schools orapproaches.

Consequently, The linguistic method will make common aspects as well as divergent aspects ofpsychotherapy research clear among schools.

Using the linguistic method, researchers with different

approaches will have a common tool to use for the analysis of data. Ultimately, linguistic analysis should
contribute to the development of a more integrated and effective clinical method, thereby leading to greater
accountability in the field.
Thirdly, linguistic analysis should be useful in the training of clinicians in terms of how to use
language. It should make it clear that therapists making appropriate language choices lead to good patient
outcomes.
2. The approach from Systemic Functional Linguistics
Now we move on to linguistics. The linguistics this research is based on is Halliday’s Systemic
Functional Linguistics (SFL, hereafter). Here it is important to make the point of what specific attention
is paid to in SFL.
For SFL, language is a meaning-making system. In this system, speakers must make choices from thesystem network. Because the emphasis is on the choices that speakers make, focus is placed on what
speakers might, or tend to, do when they use language. SFL looks at how speakers make choices from thesystem network. Systems in SFL are networks of paradigmatic oppositions. Paradigmatic systems areways of indicating the meaning potential of language users (i.e., the options from which a speaker may
choose). For example, we take the therapist’s utterance, “What makes you feel anxious or uneasy?”
2−340−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Analyzing this sentence in the system network of mood, the mood selected for this utterance is, going fromleft to right, indicative, and then, interrogative, and then, -wh. If interrogative is chosen, then the next
choice is opened up between polar or wh, as illustrated in Fig 1. System networks provide speakers withchoices that enable different kinds of grammatical realizations as shown in this example.

polarinterrogative
indicativewhdeclarativeFig.1 The system network of mood for “What makes you feel anxious or uneasy?”
At the same time, we have other choices for the same meaning as exemplified in the following
sentences.
1. What makes you feel anxious or uneasy?
2. Is there anything that makes you feel anxious or uneasy?
3. I am wondering if you have something that makes you feel anxious or uneasy.
4. It seems that you have something that makes you feel anxious or uneasy.
The therapist’s intent is to probe into the client’s anxiety. In therapy, it is often appropriate to ask
questions in an indirect manner rather than asking straightforwardly. Sentence 1 could be too
straightforward depending on the context. A straightforward question is likely to cause client to become
defensive, if it makes the client feel uneasy. Sentence 1 also could be a loaded question since the therapist
presupposed the client had anxiety. From this perspective, sentence 2 is slightly better than 1 because thetherapist does not judge the client to have anxiety. In sentence 3 and 4, the declarative form is selected
instead of interrogative. Consequently, if the client does not wish to talk about this matter, s/he does nothave to answer the declarative sentence. We can see the linguistic tactics that therapist can employ here
and these kinds of tactics are needed in the therapeutic process.
3. Predominant language use
In the context of psychotherapy, by tracing client’s choices in the system network, we can identify theclient’s predominant language use, or a certain tendency of language use, which is suggestive of how theclient construes his/her experiential world. The predominant language use reflects how the client
construes his/her experiential world. This will provide the therapist with clues to (1) probe into theclient’s method of thinking, or way of dealing with interpersonal matters and to (2) reformulate the client’s
speech.
Here special attention should be paid to ‘reformulate’, or ‘reformulation’ since this is an important concept
in psychotherapy.
Reformulation is technically to alter the client’s perception of experienced situations by providing a3−341−

What does linguistics contribute to the research in clinical psychology and/or psychiatry?

new linguistic frame of reference to the client. Reformulation is important because it creates newmeaning through a change in conceptual or emotional setting, and makes alterations to perceptions offamiliar situations, thus effecting a change in mental state.
Let us think of the example illustrated in Fig. 2, indicating the therapist’s reformulation of thepatient’s formulation. In this example, the therapist reformulated the patient’s hallucinatory thought as a‘feel like’ state by inserting projecting Mental Process clauses. If the patient restates this simply adding, ‘Ifeel like’, to the original wording, then the schizophrenic traits will disappear. Not openly rejecting thepatient’s words or ideas and expressing that the therapist cannot share the patient’s beliefs is a tip fortreatment. Otherwise, the therapist will create a stumbling block to future therapy and endanger thepatient-therapist relationship.
The patient’s formulation
The therapist’s reformulation
Somebody is killing himself every day on You just like to think somebody is killingmy account.
himself every day on your accountFig. 2 The therapist’s reformulation of the patient’s formulation
Sullivan suggests, that when discussing the patient’s delusional thoughts, it is acceptable for thetherapist to admit that s/he her/himself cannot share the patient’s beliefs (Chapman, 1978). This may help
to open up further dialogue between a patient and a therapist, and this in turn may lead to a better
understanding of the underlying basis for the patient’s reality and allow the therapist to guide the patient bypresenting a different reality.
Jasper (1957) and Kimura (1975) argue that one of the traits of schizophrenics’ hallucinations is not
the impossibility of the content, but his/her conclusive or assertive attitude toward the hallucination.
Kimura points out that if the patient’s delusional utterance is paraphrased simply by adding the phrase ‘asif...’ or ‘it is like...’, the patient’s schizophrenic trait disappears in terms of language. This often occurs tonormal people as well. We sometimes might say:
1. I feel like my mind is being read.
2. Everybody knows what I am thinking as if I were eavesdropped on every bit of my conversation
with others.
In these examples, if we drop ‘as if...’ or ‘feel like…’, this phenomena will turn into a hallucinatory
thought, as schizophrenics have.
The question is, how much effect this type of reformulation has on schizophrenic’s perception ofreality. Basically, schizophrenia is a biological matter, so what verbal interaction can do is limited. It is
said, by clinicians, that psychotherapy is not applicable to schizophrenics. So there may be some
objection to the idea that schizophrenia can be treated in the semantic and lexico-grammatical dimensions.
By and large, this objection may be true. Sullivan (1962), however, had the belief that schizophrenia
could also be cured to a certain degree through verbal interactions. He believed in the clinical power of
verbal interaction and believed it could be applied to schizophrenics, especially to those in a catatonic state.
In any event, language use reflecting the type of traits discussed above can also be taken as one type4−342−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

of predominant language use. This study assumes each mental disorder might have predominant language
use specific to that disorder. If the therapist successfully identifies the client’s predominant language use,
this then, will give the therapist insight into how the client thinks, or how the client deals with interpersonal
relationships. Then the therapist will be able to use that knowledge to maneuver the therapy session in amanner that is beneficial to the client.
3 Therapeutic Cycles Model
3.1 Theoretical framework of Therapeutic Cycles Model
This section illustrates an example of process research, which identifies the change process by quantifying
the language choices made by the therapist and the client.
The Therapeutic Cycles Model (TCM, hereafter) is a quantitative process research method developedby Mergenthaler (1996). TCM is based on computerized text analysis that was developed to identify
significant elements and key moments in therapeutic interaction and to provide an adequate theory ofchange. Key moments refer to one or more sessions of a treatment, or to segments of a session, that areclinically important because they are considered turning points or breakthroughs. They mirror points of
insight as they occur in sessions. (Mergenthaler, 1996).
Fig. 3 shows how the therapeutic cycle prototypically flows. Each bar indicates 4 phases of thesession, relaxing, experiencing, connecting, reflecting, and again relaxing.

The TCM is grounded on theclinical assumption that the therapeutic change process is driven by the interaction between emotional
experiencing and cognitive reflection on a certain experience. It is important to note that the experienceof emotion is recognized as a central issue to most psychotherapeutic methods.

Therapeutic Cycle

Emotional tone

Ϩ Relaxing

ϩ Experiencing

Abstraction

Ϫ Connectingϫ Reflecting

Ϭ Relaxing

Fig.3 Prototypical flow of TC
TCM consists of two main constructs, emotional tone (ET) and abstract tone (AB).

ET is measured

on the basis of the frequency of emotionally toned words. On the other hand, AB is measured on the basisof the occurrence of abstract words. Word lists are programmed into a computer dictionary. Relative
frequencies are calculated per text segment with the help of z-transformation, and typical
Emotion-Abstraction Patterns (EAPs, hereafter) can thus be identified for every scoring unit.

Abstraction

tone words are mainly nouns and nominalized words, and emotion toned words are mainly adjectives.
Abstract words are based on grammatically metaphoric expressions and differentiated from emotional tone
5−343−

What does linguistics contribute to the research in clinical psychology and/or psychiatry?

words by nominalization. EAPs have four patterns. Fig. 4 illustrates the definitions of the four patterns.

Phase
I Relaxing䊡Experiencing

䊢Connecting䊣

Reflecting㼐㼑㼟㼏㼞㼕㼜㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼛㼒㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼜㼔㼍㼟㼑
little emotional tone & Patients talk about material not manifestly
little abstraction
connected to their central symptoms or issues. They
describe rather than reflect.
much emotional & little Patients find themselves in a state of emotional
abstraction
experiencing. Patients may be raising conflictual
themes and experience them emotionally.
much emotional tone & Patients have found emotional access to conflictive
much abstraction
themes and they can reflect on them. Clinicallyimportant moment often coinciding with a momentof insight or change.
little emotional tone & Patients discuss topics with a high amount ofmuch abstraction
abstraction and without intervening emotions.

Fig. 4 Four patterns of EAPs
Among these four, Connecting is essential for the therapeutic change of the client. It indicates aturning point or a breakthrough that takes place through a client’s emotional-cognitive integration. This iswhere clients are able to make a breakthrough because of the integration of their cognitive awareness andtheir own emotional state (Mergenthaler, 1996). For therapy to be effective, connecting is the requirement.
In other words, patients who do not succeed in connecting emotion tone with abstraction during their
therapy are unlikely to improve.
3.2 Applying TCM to Japanese
How is TCM applied to Japanese? TCM is becoming an established content analysis method and now thismethod has been applied to several languages such as English, Spanish, and Italian as well as German.
With Mergenthaler’s cooperation, Kato (2012a, 2012b) developed the Japanese version of TCM (JTCM,
hereafter). In the application to Japanese, some modifications were made as mentioned below.
Firstly, the theoretical framework for the dictionary was changed. The dictionary for the Japaneseversion was restructured based on Appraisal theory (Martin and White, 2005) from SFL. The dictionary
for JTCM is grounded on some psychological assumptions that human emotion reflects their evaluative
process.
Secondly, the number of words for word block segmentation was changed based on cultural andlanguage differences. Culture plays an important role in shaping emotional experience. A number of
researchers found that Japanese tends to be less expressive of emotional experiences compared toWesterners. Also the word choice Japanese speakers make to express emotion is different. For example,
Kitayama and Markus (1990) sampled 20 emotion words from the Japanese language, and then found that
half of them were also found in English and the rest of them were not and they found that those words wereindigenous to Japanese culture. Another example is that of Matsumoto et al. (1988), who found thatJapanese tends to express less anger, and/or avert anger compared to Americans. Considering thesefindings, the size of the measuring unit was modified.
Fig. 5 shows the TCM applied to a Japanese session. Three dimensions of analysis are combined to6−344−第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

identify the cycles. The uppermost graph shows the TC. The two circles indicate TCs. Some changes in
the client are thought to be happening here. The colored bars indicate emotional tone words, and the red
one abstract tone words. The vertical axis indicates standard deviations from the mean. The horizontal
axis indicates word blocks. The second graph shows the speech proportion, or ratio of the speech amountwithin a word block. The white bars indicate the client’s speech and the colored ones the therapist’s.
The third graph shows the positive/negative tone with the standard deviation from the mean. The
computer dictionary specifies that each word has either positive or negative connotation.
Cyclesstandard deviation

3
2
1
0
-1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

-2

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

15

16

17

13

14

15

16

17

16

17

word blockemotionabstraction

Speech proportion
200%
0%
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
T

200%

10

11

12

13

14

C

standard deviation

positive/negative marker
6
4
2
0
-2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

-4
positive

negative

Fig.5 Tc of the session from individual therapy
3.3 Discussion
What TCM identifies is (1) the clinical phase, and (2) the critical moment. These are identified by thecomprehensive examination of the three dimensions. They are TC, the ratio of each speaker’s speech
amount, and the ratio of positive/negative tone.

Unlike qualitative analysis, TCM is only concerned withmapping the general picture of the session and locating the place of clinical interest. This is useful for the
researcher to get a synoptic view of the therapeutic process. This could be compared to a geographicalmap. Once we have identified the TC, we will be able to go on to further [linguistic] research, such as
qualitative analysis, in order to identify finer features of the change process.
It is important to note the change we observe in cycles is brought on mostly by therapist’sreformulation. The ultimate purpose of psychotherapy across [schools and] approaches is to have theclient attain change and insight into the construal of his/her experiential world, and let the change influence
his/her daily behavior. In order to realize this, the therapist teaches the client how to reconstrue theclient’s experiential world. Ultimately, psychotherapy could be considered an educational process. The
educational process is realized by the negotiation of meaning by the therapist’s reformulation of the client’s
speech. The therapist never forces his/her reformulated meaning on the client so as not to incur theclient’s defense or resistance. Once the therapist succeeds in the negotiation of meaning and the client
7−345−

What does linguistics contribute to the research in clinical psychology and/or psychiatry?

accepts the therapist’s reformulation, the therapy progress a step further, and the next negotiation begins.
Therapeutic interaction is under constant negotiation of meaning between the therapist and the client until
the client finally attains change and insight.
JTCM needs to be under the validation process to ensure that these modifications reflect the clinicalelement in Japanese session texts. In order to verify this, JTCM should be tested using comparative
methods with other clinical instrument as seen in the studies conducted in combination with the original
TCM such as Mergenthaler and Bucci (1999), Lepper and Mergenthaler (2005), McCarthy, Mergenthaler,
Schneider, and Grenyer (2011). Through this process, this method continues to be refined.

If thismethod is found valid, it is expected that the potential contribution to process research will be considerable,
as an analysis instrument common to all approaches.
References
1.

Havens, L. 1986. Making Contact. Harvard University Press.

2.

Chapman, A.H. 1978. The Treatment Technique of Harry Stack Sullivan. New York: Brunner/ Mazel, Inc.

3.

Jaspers, K. 1957. Allegemeine Psychopathologie. 6. Aufl. Berlin/Göttingen/ Heidelberg.

4.

Kato, S. 2012a. “Development of amended JTCM from TCM and its adaptability to psychotherapy inJapanese-adaptation to individual therapy.” The 31th Annual convention of The Association of Japanese ClinicalPsychology.

5.

Kato, S. 2012b. “Development of amended JTCM from TCM and its adaptability to psychotherapy in

6.

Kimura, Bin . 1975. Bunnretsubyo no genshogaku. Tokyo: Kobundo.

7.

Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. (1990, August). Culture and emotion: The role of other-focused emotions. Paper presented

Japanese.-adaptation to family therapy.“ The 29th Annual convention of the Family Psychology.

at the 98th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston.
8.

Lepper,G. and Mergenthaler, E. 2005. “Exploring group process.” Psychotherapy Research. 15(4) 433-444.

9.

Lepper, G and Riding, N. 2006. Researching the Psychotherapy Process. N.Y.:Palgrave

10. Martin, J.R. and White, P.R.R. 2005. The Language of Evaluation :Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
11. Matsumoto, D., Kudoh, T., Scherer, K., & Wallbott, H. 1988. “Antecedents of and reactions to emotions in the UnitedStates and Japan.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, 267-286.
12. McCarthy, K.L., Mergenthaler, E., Schneider, S., and Grenyer, B.F.S. 2011. “Psychodynamic change in psychotherapy:
Cycles of patient-therapist linguistic interactions and interventions.” Psychotherapy Research. 1-10.
13. Mergenthaler, E. and Bucci, W. 1999. “Linking verbal and non-verbal representations: Computer analysis of referential
activity.” British Journal of Medical Psychology. 72,339-354.
14. Mergenthaler, E., & Bucci, W. 1999. Lnking verbal and non-verbal representations: Computer analysis of referential
activity. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 72, 339-354.
15. Sullivan, H.S. 1962. Schizophrenia As A Human Process. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.

1 Confirmation bias, also called mysides bias, is a tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses.

8
−346−

付

録

第17回大会発表論文集

第10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。）−347−

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＜個人情報の取り扱いに関する御連絡のお願い＞
本学会では、この度、学会の更なる発展と会員相互の連絡交流の促進を計ることを念頭に、会員名簿を作成することになりました。名簿の発行に付きましては、近年、特に個人情報保護の観点から、様々な問題が指摘されていることは御承知の通りです。そこで、本学会でも、これらの情報につきましては、その適正な取扱いの確保と個人の権利や利益の侵害の防止を図る為、その公表には慎重な取り扱いをさせていただく所存であります。つきましては、新しく本学会に入会希望をお届けの際には、
１．氏名
２．住所
３．所属（身分＜教員、学生、非常勤等＞）
４．電話番号
５．ファックス番号
６．メールアドレスのうち、項目別に、会員名簿上に掲載を不可とするものがありましたら（また代替の情報がある場合はその内容を）事務局にメールでご連絡いただきますようお願いします。
特にご指定がなければ、ご氏名、ご所属、メールアドレスのみ公開可とさせていただき
ます。
=

記

=

『語用論研究』は毎年12月に刊行、Newsletterは毎年４月末と10月末にお送りしています。会員になられると、『語用論研究』、Newsletter、大会プログラムなどをお送りい
たします。

−348−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10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。

−349−

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。

−350−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10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）−351−『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−352−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

見分けのイメージ（１ページ目）

タイトル○○○
氏名○○
所属○○

＜要旨＞
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・【キーワード】：１、２、３、

本文

２．その他の注意事項
ａ．執筆者は、前年度の大会の「研究発表」、「ワークショップ発表」、「ポスター発表」での報告者に限る。
ｂ．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）。
ｃ．使用言語は原則として日本語または英語とする。
ｄ．『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。
ｅ．別のカバーシート用紙（A4）に次の事項を記入して提出すること：
・「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「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、１）ファ○イルを添付した電子メールか ２）オンラインからの投稿（EasyChair経由）のいずれ
かとする。

−353−

○

送付先：

【電子メールによる場合】○○

journal -at- pragmatics.gr.jp（注意：-at- を半角の＠に置き換えて下さい）（『語用論研究』編集委員長 加藤重弘）○（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：電子メールによる送付の場合、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、必ず、こちらからの確認返信メールがあるまで、
hiko -at- hi-net.zaq.ne.jp（-at- を半角の＠に変換）に連絡してください。

【オンラインによる場合】○

http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sip15 から投稿する。投稿にあたって
は、サイトへの登録が必要です。サイトへの登録方法、ならびに、オンラインでの投稿については、次のページを参考にすること。

−354−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号

Request of submitting the manuscripts
for the Proceedings[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
who have presented their work at the Conference as lecture presentations, inworkshops, or in poster sessions.
Instructions for Preparing Manuscripts
1. Writing requirements
1. Paper and length:
All manuscripts should be submitted on A4 size paper. Manuscripts for lecture
presentations should be no more than 8 pages in length. Workshop and poster presentations
should be no longer than 4 pages. Please note that these length restrictions include theabstract and the reference list. There is no restriction on the number of words or charactersper 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.
f. References should follow the style sheet of Goyoron Kenkyu (Studies in Pragmatics) (seethe homepage of PSJ).
3. Abstracts:
a. All abstracts should be written in English and should be about 100 words in length.
b. The abstract should appear on the first page of the manuscript, after the title, authorʼs−355−name, and authorʼs affiliation. The abstract should begin with the word ʻAbstractʼ in theupper left corner.
4. Keywords:
a. A maximum of 5 keywords should be given below the abstract, preceded by【Keywords】
ʻ
ʼ. [Refer to the figure below.]b. Main text should be preceded by two blank lines.

Title
Authorʼs nameAuthorʼs affiliation＜Abstract＞
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・【Keywords】：1, 2, 3,
Main Text

2. Other important points
a. All contributors must have given a lecture presentation, a workshop presentation, or aposter presentation at PSJʼs Conference of the Society.
b. Aside from necessary corrections, manuscript contents should be faithful to the content of
the presentation actually given at the Annual Meeting.
c. As a general rule, manuscripts should be written in either Japanese or English.
d. Extended versions of papers which have appeared in the Proceedings may be submitted
for review to PSJʼs Journal Goyoron Kenkyu (Studies in Pragmatics). In that case additions
and corrections should be made to the original manuscript.
e. On a separate (A4) coversheet, please indicate the following information:i. Whether your presentation was a lecture, a workshop, presentation, or a poster
presentation.
ii. The title of your paper and your name.
iii. Your e-mail address−356−

第17回大会発表論文集

第10号<第18回大会で発表された方へのお知らせ>
第18回『大会発表論文集』（Proceedings）（第11号）
掲載論文原稿執筆のお願い。
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、今年度の大会の「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、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。尚、原稿の提出先や提出期限等の詳しいことは、追って、HPやニュースレターでもお知らせします。次号（第11号）の発行は、来年度の大会時となります。
（日本語用論学会−357−

事務局より）

Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan

編集後記『日本語用論学会

第17回大会発表論文集』第10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、大会後に発行することになりました。今号では、研究発表30件（日本語発表22件、英語発表8件）、ワークショッ
プ発表9件（日本語発表）、ポスターセッション11件（日本語発表9件、英語発表2件）、シン
ポジウム3件（英語発表）、合計53件のご寄稿をいただきました。『大会発表論文集』創刊号を発行し今年で10年目となります。語用論研究がますます発展することを願っております。
なお創刊号からすべて国立国会図書館（東西）に永久保存されました。第18回大会後は『日本語用論学会

第18回大会発表論文集』第11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：高木佐知子

日本語用論学会

第17回大会発表論文集

森山卓郎

森山由紀子

第10号（2014）（Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan）
発行日

2015年12月5日

代

表

者

林

編集・発行

宅男

日本語用論学会

事務局（The Pragmatics Society of Japan）〒564-8680 大阪府吹田市山手町3-3-35
関西大学 外国語学部 山本 英一 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

首藤佐智子）

PSJⓒ日本語用論学会