ISSN 1881−445X

日本語用 論 学 会■

第 15 回

大会発表論文集
第８号

Proceedings of the 15th
Conference of the Pragmatics Societyof Japan

2012年12月1・2日（土・日）■

於 大阪学院大学

PSJ
The Pragmatics Society of Japan

日本語用論学会

2012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 ：
会
計 ：
（編
集
部）
4. 編 集 委 員 長 ：副 委 員 長 ：編 集 委 員 ：：（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（委員） ：大会委員（発表）：
大会委員（実行）：
大会委員（プロシーデイング） ：（事
業部）
6. 事 業 委 員 長 ：事業副委員長 ：事 業 委 員 ：：（広報部）
7. 広 報 委 員 長 ：広報副委員長 ：広 報 委 員 ：

林 拓男
東森 勲
山本英一
五十嵐海理、加藤重弘
長友俊一郎
山口治彦
Lawrence Schourup
井上逸兵、久保 進、田中廣明、名嶋義直、鍋島弘治朗、
西山祐司、東森 勲、平塚 徹、山梨正明
久保 進
加藤重弘
小山哲春
野澤 元
鈴木光代
井上逸平、澤田治美、名嶋義直、西光義弘、林
金丸敏幸、高木佐知子
五十嵐海理、岡本雅史、野澤 元
森山卓郎
平塚 徹
余 維
長友俊一郎、鍋島弘治朗、野澤Lawrence Schourup

礼子、元、森山卓郎、

田中廣明
金丸敏幸（Homepage）、森山由紀子（Newsletter）
岡本雅史（Homepage）、名嶋義直（Newsletter）（2013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）■

英語広告表現におけるメタ言語否定・意味反転・共有知識からの逸脱に関するズレの階層性―言語表現と非言語表現の接点を含めた意味伝達― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 有光 奈美■

直接的認識表現ヤハリの生成過程：日本語の「含過程構造」のコード化 ‥ 氏家■

談話における「よね」の機能 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 大久保加奈子■

文末が名詞で終わる報告・引用表現 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 大西

■

洋子
美穂

「左と右の周辺部（Left and Right Peripheries）」と「主観性・間主観性」との関係は？
―歴史語用論における考察 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 小野寺典子

1
9
17
25

■

主語名詞句が左方転位化されている日英語の左方転位構文 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 海寳

康臣■

on the contraryの意味と対立関係 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 黒川尚彦■

be lined withについて ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 黒宮公彦■

多重質問のsarcasmと修辞性 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 後藤

リサ■

談話標識 I mean の意味体系とその使用原理 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 小林

隆

33
41
49
57
65
73

■

言葉遊びから生じる発話の力―洒落が駄洒落となる場合の文法的及び語用論的条件― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 小松原哲太

81

視点、文脈と指標性―英語指示詞における聞き手への視点移動の現象を中心に― ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 澤田

淳■

日本語の促音形複合動詞の構成と意味形成 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 史

春花

89
97

■

現代英語における話し言葉と書き言葉の文法的差異に関する語彙的な研究―主語省略と感覚動詞― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 柴田かよ子

105

認知叙述類型論の試み: 英語の中間構文・他動詞-able構文と日本語の能動的可能構文・受動的可能構文の事例 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 對馬

康博

113

John looks happy. / I saw John happy.
視覚に関する2つの知覚動詞構文における事態把握のパタン ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 徳山

聖美

121

■

■

■

■

アメリカ英語における定形節補部を伴う連結詞的知覚動詞の使用の発達について:
The Corpus of Historical American Englishの調査に基づいて ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 中村 文紀■

日本語の一人称語の人称転換と消費者の自己実現 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 西田■

光一

ロシア人日本語学習者が依頼に対する「断り」のストラテジーを選択する諸要因 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ ブラーエヴァ・マリア

129
137

■

不満表明の日中対照研究―性差を中心に― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 莫

暁雪

145
153

■

「YはP」の発話に対する「Xの方がもっとP」における「もっと」の語用論的機能について ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 森貞

161「褒め」に対する日本人英語学習者の応答―海外語学研修の前と後の会話を資料として― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 山本綾■

中国語の指示詞による総称表現について―英語との比較を兼ねて― ‥‥‥ 劉驫■“你说” “我说” ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 汪

宇

169
177
185

■

PSJ

研究発表（英語発表）■

Concession in the academic context: power and expertise factors ‥‥‥‥‥‥ Andrzej Łyda187■

A Quantitative Analysis of Noncanonical Though Clauses in Naturally
Occurring Discourse ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Yuko Mizuno

205

Teleology Marking in English Conversations in American Media:
The Discourse Marker So ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ George OʼNeal

213■

The meaning and use of utterance situation-based comparison in Japanese ‥‥‥Osamu Sawada

221■

Characteristics of descriptive texts produced by intermediate andupper-intermediate learners of English ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Yoko YAMADA

229

■

PSJ

ポスター発表（日本語発表）
宜仁

237

守鎮・堀江

薫

241

他者受益の授受動詞「もらう」の補助動詞形「てもらう」の用法―「子供達に楽しんでもらう」と言うのはなぜか― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 関根

和枝

245

ニュース報道での「［VN（動名詞）］/ N（名詞）］＋です」表現について〜「イチロー選手が電撃移籍です」「尖閣諸島で新たな動きです」〜 ‥‥‥ 田中

伊式

249

合コンにおける褒めの分析―ポジティブ・ポライトネスの観点から― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 谷

生子

253

■

連辞型響鳴におけるトークンと生起傾向 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 伊澤■

韓国語の連体形「kes-kathun」の終止形化と語用論的拡張―日本語の連体形「みたいな」との対比を通じて― ‥‥‥‥ 呉

■

■

■

智子・大塚

■

レトリックと受身 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 原

江利

257

■

会話の推意としての ʻproximalʼ̶尺度推意を用いたコ系とア系の分析̶ ‥‥ 平田

未季

261

■

イギリス英語会話と日本語会話の言語・非言語行為に対する印象―母国語話者へのインタビューデータより― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 藤村ウィルソン香予

265

日本語名詞句トートロジー再考：「AはAだ」‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 山本

尚子

269

■

Reconsidering Future Tense Markers in Indonesian ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Yoshimi Miyake

273■

Gender-related variation in the responses to criticisms:
A contrastive study of Taiwanese and American speakers‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Huitsen Jeanne Tuan281■

ポスターセッション（英語発表）

PSJ

ワークショップ
若者ことばに見られる語用論的特徴

司会：尾谷

昌則

■

若年層におけるネオ敬語「ス」の使用動機について ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 呉

泰均

289

■

若者言葉における略語―渋谷語（ギャル語）を中心に― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 黒田

一平

293

■

「適当」と「最高」がカタカナ表記される動機の違い―関連性理論からの分析― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 吉田

充良

297

Hemingway作品を読み解く―語用論、文体論、認知言語学の接点を求めて―

司会：深田
コメンテイター：大沼智
雅彦

文学と言語学の狭間でヘミングウェイを読む―揺れ動く解釈と登場人物の心理― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 倉林

秀男

303

■

視座と〈見え〉からHemingway作品に迫る ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 深田

智

307

■

表現と省略の構図：“Indian Camp”における文体と物語のなぞ ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 山口

治彦

311

■

想ったこと ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 大沼

雅彦

315

■

語用論研究から日本語教育へ、日本語教育から語用論研究へ

司会：名嶋

義直

■

語用論研究から日本語教育へ、日本語教育から語用論研究へ ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 名嶋

義直

317

■

聞き手が示す共感―聞き手の感想が付け加えられた場合 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 釜田友里江

321■

日本語学習者のポライトネス・ストラテジーに関する一考察 ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 梅木

俊輔

325

■

インドネシア人のコミュニケーション・ストラテジーについての一考察―接触場面でのコミュニケーションを円滑に進めるために― ‥ エミ・インダー・ブリヤンティ

329

コンテクストから見た動詞の意味解釈をめぐって：
過程構成の参与要素と過程中核部に 関する日英語の対照研究

司会：龍城

正明

■

日英語の動作動詞文に関する一考察 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 綾野

誠紀

333

■

日本語の能格動詞に関する一考察：過程構成と主題構造の関係から ‥‥‥ 藤田

透

337

■

コンテクストから見た英語の起動的/他動的解釈の一試案 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 鷲嶽

正道

341

PSJ

シンポジウム■Interface of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥Shinʼichiro Ishikawa

345

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16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■■Nami ARIMITSU: Scalarity in Gaps in Meta-linguistic Negation, Semantic Reversal and Shared Knowledge inEnglish Advertisements: Communication between verbal and non-verbal expressions ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥

1

Yoko UJIIE: Generation Process of Japanese Yahari as a Direct Expression of a Speakerʼs Epistemic Content:
Encoding by SEMP (words with a structure enfolding mental processes) ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥

9■

Kanako OKUBO: The functions of ʻyoneʼ in the Discourse ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 17■

Miho ONISHI: Quoting and Reporting Sentences that end in a Noun ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 25■

Noriko ONODERA: The Relationship of “Left and Right Peripheries” and “Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity”:
A Historical Pragmatic Observation ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 33■

Yasuomi KAIHO: Left-Dislocation in English and Japanese Where a Subject NP Is Left-Dislocated ‥‥‥‥ 41■

Naohiko KUROKAWA: The Semantics of on the contrary and Opposition ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 49■

Kimihiko KUROMIYA: On be lined with ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 57■

Risa GOTO: Sarcasm and Rhetoricity of Complex Questions ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 65■

Takashi KOBAYASHI: The Usage and Principle on the Use of the Discourse Marker I mean ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 73■

Tetsuta KOMATSUBARA: Rhetorical Functions in Word Play: A Cognitive Linguistics Approach ‥‥‥‥ 81■

Jun SAWADA: Viewpoint, Context, and Indexicality: Indexical Shifting in English Demonstratives. ‥‥‥‥ 89■

Chunhua SHI: Word Formation and Meaning Formation of Geminate Compound Verbs in Japanese ‥‥‥‥ 97■

Kayoko SHIBATA: A Lexical Approach to the Syntactic Difference between Spoken and Written English:
The Relation between Ellipsis and Perception Verbs ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 105■

Yasuhiro TSUSHIMA: Cognitive Typology on Property Descriptions: A Case of Middle Construction,
Transitive Verb-ABLE Construction, Active Potential Constriction, and Passive Potential Construction ‥ 113■

Kiyomi TOKUYAMA: John looks happy. / I saw John happy. : Construal in two types of visual perception verb
constructions ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 121■

Fuminori NAKAMURA: The Development of Copulative Perception Verbs with Clausal Complements:
A Survey of the Corpus of Historical American English ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 129■

Koichi NISHIDA: Person shift in first-person terms in Japanese and self-realization of consumers ‥‥‥‥‥ 137■

Maria BULAEVA: Multivariate Analysis of Refusal Strategies in Request Situations:
The Case of Russian JFL learners ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 145■

Xiaoxue Mo: A Contrastive Study of Complaining between Japanese and Chinese:
Focusing on Gender difference ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 153■

Sadashi MORI: On the Pragmatic Functions of ʻmottoʼ in “X-no-hoo-ga motto P”
Used as a Disagreement Response to “Y-wa P”…‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 161■

Aya YAMAMOTO: Compliment Responses of Japanese Learners of English:
Before and After a Study Abroad Program ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 169■

Biao LIU: Generic Demonstratives in Chinese - in comparison with English‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 177■

Yu WANG: Anaphoric Relation of Jibun from the View of “Standpoint and Object”‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 185

PSJ

Lecture Sessions: Presentation in English■

Andrej LYDA: Concession in the Academic Context: Power and Expertise Factors ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 187■

Yuko MIZUNO: A Quantitative Analysis of Noncanonical though Clauses in Naturally Occurring Discourse ‥ 205■

George O’NEAL: The Discourse Marker “So” in American Media: Teleology Marking in Interaction ‥‥‥ 213■

Osamu SAWADA: The Meaning and Use of Utterance Situation-Based Comparison in Japanese ‥‥‥‥‥ 221■

Yoko YAMADA: Characteristics of Descriptive Texts Produced by Intermediate andUpper-intermediate Learners of English ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 229

PSJ

Poster Sessions: Presentation in Japanese■

Yoshihito IZAWA: Token Pattern in Frame Resonance ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 237■

Sujin OH, Kaoru HORIE: A Pragmatic Extension of the Sentence-final Attributive Predicate form
ʻkes-kathunʼ in Korean: A contrastive Study with Japanese ʻmitainaʼ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 241■

Kazue SEKINE: Japanese speakers use -temorau expression:
A case study of their own benefits through the other personʼs happiness ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 245■

Ishiki TANAKA: Japanese Expressions Using “(Verbal Noun / Noun)+desu” in News Reports“Dengeki iseki desu” for Ichiroʼs Surprise Transfer, “Aratana Ugoki desu” for a New Turn Taken on the
Senkaku Islands ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 249■

Tomoko TANI, Seiko OTSUKA: The Exchange of Compliments at Gokon Parties from the Perspective of
Positive Politeness ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 253■

Eri HARA: Relationship between Speech rhetoric and Passive verbs in Japanese language ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 257■

Miki HIRATA: ʻProximalʼ as a conversational implicature: The analysis of Japanese ko- and a- using scalar
implicature ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 261■

Kayo FUJIMURA-WILSON: The Different Interpretations of Particular Conversational Features in
British English and Japanese Conversation ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 265■

Naoko YAMAMOTO: Revisiting Japanese Nominal Tautologies: A wa A da‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 269

Poster Sessions: Presentation in English■

Yoshimi MIYAKE: Reconsidering Future Tense Markers in Indonesian ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 273■

Huitsen Jeanne Tuan: Gender-related variation in the responses to criticisms:
A contrastive study of Taiwanese and American speakers ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 281

PSJ

Workshop Sessions■

Pragmatic Properties of Teen Slang

Chair: Masanori ODANI

Tae-kyoon OH: Why Do Young People Use Neo-honorifics “Su”? ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 289
Ippei KURODA: Abbreviations in Teen Slang: The Case of Shibuya-go ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 293
Mitsuyoshi YOSHIDA: On the Difference of the Motivations for writting “Tekitou” and “Saikou” inKatakana: A Relevance-theoretic Accaount ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 297■

Reading Deeply into the Works of Ernest Hemingway:
Exploring the Interface between Pragmatics, Stylistics and Cognitive Linguistics
Chair: Chie FUKADA
Commentator: Masahiko OHNUMA
Hideo KURABAYASHI: Reading Hemingway with Striking a Balance between Literary Criticism and
Linguistic Theory: Investigating Nickʼs State of Mind ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 303
Chie FUKADA: Approaching Ernest Hemingwayʼs Works from the Perspective of “Who Sees What” ‥ 307
Haruhiko YAMAGUCHI: Expression and Deletion: Style and Narrative Mystery in ʻIndian Campʼ ‥‥‥ 311
Masahiko ONUMA: Comments ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 315■

From Pragmatics to Applied Linguistics, From Applied Linguistics to Pragmatics
Chair: Yoshinao NAJIMA
NAJIMA Yoshinao: From Pragmatics to Applied Linguistics, From Applied Linguistics to Pragmatics ‥ 317
KAMATA Yurie: The Empathetic Utterance Expressed by Listeners:
In the Case that the Listeners Add their Comments on the Utterance ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 321
UMEKI Shunsuke: A Case Study of Politeness Strategies by Japanese Learners ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 325
EMMY INDAH PRIYANTI: Indonesian Communication Strategies:
How to Make a Smooth Communication in Contact Situations ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 329■

On the Semantic Interpretation of Some Verbs or Transitivity of SFL Viewed from CONTEXT:A Contrastive Study of English and Japanese
Chair: Masa-aki TATSUKI
Seiki Ayano: Semantic and Syntactic Properties of Motion Verbs in English and Japanese ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 333
Toru FUJITA: A Consideration on Ergative Verbs in Japanese:
Relationship between Transitivity and Theme ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 337
Masamichi WASHITAKE: A Contextual Analysis of English Clauses:
Ergative/Transitive Interpretations ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 341

PSJ

Symposium■

Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics

Chair: Susumu KUBO
Designated Discussant: Kaoru HORIE
Designated Discussant: Michael Rundell

Shin’ichiro Ishikawa: Interface of corpus linguistics and pragmatics ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 345

PSJ

研究発表
Lecture Sessions

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ⱥㄒᗈ࿌⾲⌧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃ࣭ព࿡཯㌿࣭ඹ᭷▱㆑࠿ࡽࡢ㐓⬺࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢬࣞࡢ㝵ᒙᛶ̿ゝㄒ⾲⌧࡜㠀ゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢ᥋Ⅼࢆྵࡵࡓព࿡ఏ㐩̿
᭷ගዉ⨾
ᮾὒ኱Ꮫ
<Abstract>
This paper aims at fathoming the scalarity in gaps underlying meta-linguistic negation, semantic
reversal and shared knowledge in English advertisements. The gaps in the shared knowledge are themain focus in the paper. There are gaps in proverbial expressions, metaphors, and novel expressions.
There are gaps in non-verbal elements as well. Messages conveyed by an unusual media (i.e. papercup), facial expressions and font designs are also factors used to emphasize the message in theadvertisements. Advertisements skillfully use the gaps at various levels in order to convey theirhidden message indirectly with sufficient influence.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸㸯ࠊࢬࣞࡢ㝵ᒙᛶ 2ࠊ㠀ゝㄒ⾲⌧ 㸱ࠊᩥ⬦࡜⎔ቃ 㸲ࠊ፹య 5ࠊࢹࢨ࢖ࣥ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
Leech (1966) ࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢᗈ࿌࡟࿨௧ᩥࡢ౑⏝ࡀከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊⱥㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢᗈ
࿌ࢆᑐẚࡉࡏࡿ࡜ࠊၟရࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ࡶᣐࡿࡀ๓⪅ࡀ࿨௧ᩥࢆከ⏝ࡋᚋ⪅ࡣ๓⪅࡯࡝᫂♧ⓗ࡞࿨௧ᩥࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ᭷ග (2012) ➼࡛ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀጞࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ㡢㡩ࣞ࣋ࣝࠊㄒᙡࣞ࣋ࣝࠊᩥࣞ࣋ࣝࠊㄯ
ヰࣞ࣋ࣝࠊඹ᭷▱㆑ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡜࠸࠺どⅬࢆタࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢬࣞࡢ㝵ᒙᛶࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆヨࡳࡿࠋᖖ࡟ኚ໬ࡍࡿ♫఍࡜࠸࠺⎔ቃⓗᩥ⬦ࢆ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓᗈ࿌⾲⌧ࡀࠊ㡢㡩ࣞ࣋ࣝࠊㄒᙡࣞ࣋ࣝࠊᩥࣞ࣋ࣝࠊ
ㄯヰࣞ࣋ࣝࠊඹ᭷▱㆑ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢬࣞࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡜ࡋ࡚ព࿡ࢆ๰ฟࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊㄆ▱୺య࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢே㛫࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ព࿡⌮ゎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆㄽࡌࡿࠋ
ࠕ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃࠖ
ࠊࠕព࿡཯㌿ࠖ
ࠊࠕඹ᭷▱㆑࠿ࡽࡢ㐓⬺ࠖࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶᏐ⩏㏻ࡾࡢព࿡࡛ࡣゎ㔘ࡋ࠼࡞࠸ᑐ㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ⾲⌧ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿࣞ
ࢺࣜࢵࢡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୍㒊ࢆࢬࣞࡸᕪ␗ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᏐ⩏㏻ࡾ࡟ࡣ P ࡛࠶ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽゎ㔘᫬࡟ࡣព࿡ⓗ࡟ not P࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ᇶ┙ࡀᨭ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣ≉࡟ࠊඹ᭷▱㆑ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㐓⬺࡜࠸
࠺Ⅼ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࠊேࡢὀ┠ࢆចࡁࡘࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆㄽࡌࡿࠋ
2. ඛ⾜◊✲
ゝㄒ◊✲࡜ᗈ࿌⾲⌧ࡢ᥋Ⅼ
2.1.
Leech (ibid.:110-111) ࡣ ࠊ “The very high frequency of imperatives in advertising is not acharacteristic of other types of loaded language.” ࡜㏙࡭ࠊⱥㄒᗈ࿌࡟࿨௧ᩥࡀከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋࡲ
ࡓࠊ≉ᐃࡢືモࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡢ㧗ࡉࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࠊ㢖ฟືモ 3 ศ㢮ࢆᢳฟࡋࡓࠋ
(A) 〇ရࡢ⋓ᚓ࡟㛵ࡍࡿືモ㸸get, buy, ask for, choose ➼(B) 〇ရࡢᾘ㈝ࡸ౑⏝࡟㛵ࡍࡿືモ㸸have, try, use, enjoy ➼(C) ᐇ≀ᩍ♧࡟㛵ࡍࡿືモ㸸look, see, watch, remember, make sure, see ➼ࡲࡓࠊLeech ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ྰᐃᩥࡢ≉ᛶࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
As might be expected, prohibitive warnings like “don’t let imagination spoil your day” arevery infrequent beside positive exhortations. Only about one imperative in fifty isaccompanied by a negative form. (ibid.:110-111)
ࡇࢀࡣࠊྰᐃ࿨௧ᩥࡀ⫯ᐃ࿨௧ᩥࡼࡾ⣙ 50 ᑐ 1 ࡢ๭ྜ࡛ᑡ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ᣦ᦬࡛࠶ࡾࠊGivón (1979) ࡢㄝࡃࠕྰᐃࡢ஧ḟᛶࠖ࡜࠸࠺≉ᛶࢆ⿬௜ࡅࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚⣡ᚓࡀ࠸ࡃࠋ

−1−

英語広告表現におけるメタ言語否定・意味反転・共有知識からの逸脱に関するズレの階層性―言語表現と非言語表現の接点を含めた意味伝達―᪥ᮏ࡛ࡣࠊ㕥ᮌ (1995:39-48) ࡀࠊ3 ศ㢮௨እࡢືモฟ⌧ࡢ㢖ฟࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᓟ (2008) ࡀࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊᗈ࿌ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ஺㏻ᶆ㆑➼ࡶࠊ࿨௧ᙧࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿഴྥࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࠊIshimaru (2004) ࡛ࡶ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ࣇࣛࣥࢫㄒࡢᗈ࿌ẚ㍑➼࡛ࡶྠᵝࡢ◊✲ࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛫࡟࠾ࡅࡿ፣᭤⾲⌧ࡸඹឤ⾲⌧ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊⱥㄒ࡟ࡶ㠀࿨௧ᩥ౑⏝ࡢᗈ࿌ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ࿨௧ᩥ࠿ྰ࠿࡜࠸࠺どⅬ࡟࡜ࡽࢃࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸ᗈ࿌⾲⌧ศᯒࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡓࠋヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ཮᪉ࡢ୺యᛶࠊ㌟యᛶࠊ๰㐀ᛶ࡜࠸ࡗࡓㄆ▱ⓗ࡛ືⓗ࡞ほⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ2.2. ࣅࢪࢿࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᗈ࿌ࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅᗈ࿌࡜ࢪ࣮ࣙࢡ࡟ࡣ㢮ఝⅬࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࢪ࣮ࣙࢡࡣࠕࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࢪ࣮ࣙࢡࢆゝ࠸ࡲࡍࠖ࡜ᐉゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ⛥࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࢪ࣮ࣙࢡࢆゝ࠸ࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠊ➗ࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡟⾜ືࢆ᫂♧ⓗ࡟࿨௧ࡋ࡚ಁࡍ࡜࠸
࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ⛥࡛࠶ࡿࠋᗈ࿌ࡶࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞㠃ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᗈ࿌ࡀࠕࡇࢀ࠿ࡽᗈ࿌ࢆぢࡏࡲࡍࠖ࡜ᐉゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ⛥࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕࡇࢀ࠿ࡽᗈ࿌ࢆぢࡏࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠊぬ࠼࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋⰋ࠸༳㇟ࢆᣢࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
࡛ࡁࢀࡤ㈙ࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡟⾜ືࢆ᫂♧ⓗ࡟࿨௧ࡋ࡚ಁࡍࡇ࡜ࡶ⛥࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕᬬ࠸࡞࠶ࠖ࡜Ⓨヰࡋࡘࡘᮏᙜ࡟ఏ࠼ࡓ࠸࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡣࠕ❆ࢆ㛤ࡅ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ෭ᡣࢆධࢀ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢලయ
ⓗ⾜Ⅽࡢせồࡸ౫㢗➼࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊⓎヰ⾜Ⅽㄽࡢ୰ᚰⓗࢺࣆࢵࢡࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠕ෭ᡣࢆධࢀ࡚
ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜᫂♧ⓗ࡟㏙࡭ࡿࡼࡾࡶ࣓ࣜࢵࢺࡸᚲせᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᗈ࿌ࡶࠕ㈙ࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸
࠺௨ୖࡢ฼Ⅼࡸᚲせࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚᫂♧ⓗ࿨௧ᩥࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ≉ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
㎷㸦2004:241㸧ࡸ Barthes (1985:75) ࡶㄽࡌ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࠕㄝᚓࠖࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡀ඲㠃࡟ฟࡿ࡜ᗈ
࿌࡜ࡋ࡚ᡂຌࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᗈ࿌ࡣㄝᚓࡋࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺┠ⓗࢆᣢࡕࡘࡘࠊ⾲࡟ฟࡉ࡞࠸⛬ᗘ࡟⾲⌧ࡍࡿᚲせᛶ࡜ጁ࿡ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⏣୰࣭୸ᒸ㸦1991:121㸧ࡀࠕከࡃࡢሙྜࠊᗈ࿌ࡣࠊ┤᥋⾜ື࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶࠊ࠶ࡿ≧ែ㸦ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥຠᯝ㸧ࢆᾘ㈝⪅ࡢᚰࡢ୰࡟సࡾࡔࡋࠊ౯᱁ࡸࢭ࣮
ࣝࢫࣉ࣮ࣟࣔࢩࣙࣥ➼࡜࠸ࡗࡓ௚ࡢせᅉ࡜┦ࡲࡗ࡚ࠊᗈ࿌୺࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᮃࡲࡋ࠸⾜ືࢆ⏕㉳ࡉࡏࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶
ࡿࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᗈ࿌ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠕ㈙ࢃࡏࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾜ືࢆ࡜ࡽࡏࡿࡔࡅࡣ࡞࠸Ⅼࡶ㔜せ࡞ഃ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
Product, Price, Place, Promotion ࡜ࡣࠊࣔࣀ኎ࡾࡢᇶᮏ࡛࠶ࡿࠕ㸲㹎ࠖ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ㸲ࡘࡢせ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࠋࣔ
ࣀ኎ࡾ࡜࠸࠺άືෆࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᗈ࿌ࡣࡇࡢ㸲せ⣲ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊPromotion㸦ᗈሗࠊᗈ࿌ࠊ㈍኎ಁ㐍ࠊேⓗ㈍኎㸧࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊConsumer value, Cost, Communication, Convenience ࡜ࡣࠊ㈙࠸ᡭࡢどⅬ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ㸲Cࠖ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ㸲ࡘࡢせ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࠋᗈ࿌ࡣ㸲せ⣲ࡢ Communication ࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿࠋᗈ࿌࡟᥋
ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽᾘ㈝⪅ࡣၟရࢆ㨩ຊⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡋࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸ࢽ࣮ࢬࡸ࢛࢘ࣥࢶࢆឤࡌࠊ⌧ᐇ࡟ྜࢃࡏࡓᥦ᱌ࢆ
ཷࡅྲྀࡿࠋ௻ᴗഃ࠿ࡽぢࢀࡤࠊᗈ࿌࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡀୖᡭࡃఏࢃࢀࡤࠊࣔࣀࡀ኎ࢀࠊ㏫࡞ࡽ኎ࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡾࡍ
ࡿࠋᾘ㈝⪅ഃ࠿ࡽぢࢀࡤࠊᗈ࿌࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡀୖᡭࡃఏࢃࢀࡤࠊ௚ࡢၟရ࡜ࡣ㐪࠺㨩ຊࢆㄆ㆑ࡋࠊࢽ࣮ࢬࡸ
࢛࢘ࣥࢶࢆឤࡌࠊࡼࡾⰋ࠸⏕άࡀ࡛ࡁࡑ࠺ࡔ࡜⣡ᚓࡍࢀࡤ௻ᴗഃࡢᥦ᱌ࢆཷࡅྲྀࡗ࡚㉎㈙άືࢆ࡜ࡿࠋ᪂
⪺ᗈ࿌ࠊ㞧ㄅᗈ࿌ࠊ㹁㹋㸦ࢸࣞࣅࠊࣛࢪ࢜➼㸧ࠊࢲ࢖ࣞࢡࢺ࣓࣮ࣝࠊ࣮࢟ࣕࣥ࣌ࣥࠊཱྀࢥ࣑➼ࠊᗈ࿌ࡀヱᙜࡍࡿ፹యࡣከᵝ࡛ࠊ⌧ᅾ࡛ࡣ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺᗈ࿌ࠊࢹࢪࢱࣝࢧ࢖ࢿ࣮ࢪࠊᒇእᗈ࿌➼ࡢᏑᅾࡶ㔜せ࡞఩⨨ࢆ༨ࡵࡿࠋ⾲⌧ࢆᗈࡃ࡜ࡽ࠼ࠊᗑྡࠊ፹యࠊࣇ࢛ࣥࢺࡲ࡛ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿ࢖࣓࣮ࢪႏ㉳࡜ព࿡ఏ㐩ࡲ࡛ྵࡵ࡚ㄽ
ࡌࡿࠋ
2-2. ᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࿨௧ᩥᆺ࡜␲ၥᩥᆺ
ⱥㄒࡢᗈ࿌࡟ࡣ࿨௧ᩥࡢ౑⏝ࡀ⁄ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࢆ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟┤ヂࡍࡿ࡜㐪࿴ឤࡀ኱ࡁ࠸ࠋㄞࡳᡭ࣭⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࠊࡑࡢ࿨௧ᩥࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜ࢃࡏࡓ࠸࡞ࡽࡤࠊ┤ヂࡼࡾ᪥ᮏㄒࡽࡋ࠸⾲⌧ࡢ㑅ᢥࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ⱥㄒ
ᗈ࿌ࡢᐇ౛ࡣᩘከ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕ࿨௧ᩥᆺࠖᗈ࿌ࡣ┤᥋ⓗ࡟⾜ືࢆಁࡍࠋ
(1) HELP HIM PUT HIS MOST KISSABLE FACE FORWARD. TOUCH AND BE TOUCHED.
(Beiersdorf ♫ NIVEA ࢫ࢟ࣥࢣ࢔ၟရ)(2) Erase odor from your vocabulary. (PURIMA ♫ TIDY CATS ࣌ࢵࢺࡢᾘ⮯๣)᫂♧ⓗ࿨௧ᙧࡢືモ౑⏝⾲⌧ࢆ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟┤ヂࡍࡿ࡜㐪࿴ឤࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕ␲ၥᩥᆺࠖᗈ࿌ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟㉁ၥࢆࡋࡘ

−2−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ࡘࠊၟရࡢຠᯝࠊ≉ᛶࠊ⣲ᬕࡽࡋࡉࢆఏ࠼ࠊ⫯ᐃⓗ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᣢࡓࡏࠊ㈙࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ಁࡍࠋ
(3) Okay, question. What’s the best part of the perfect Piña Colada? The pineapple or the coconut?
Lucky for you, our cocktail mixologists have worked for decades, creating the perfect Frozen Piña
Colada blend so you can enjoy tropical, coconutty, pineapply refreshment. What could beeasier....just freeze, squeeze and enjoy! (American Beverage Group, Daily’s Coctails ♫ Tropical
Frozen PouchesࠊPiña Colada ࿡)(4) SIREN? VIXEN? TEMPTRESS? FLIRT? 64COLORS FOR EVERY SHADE OF YOU. (Revlon ♫Nail Enamel)⡆༢࡟࢝ࢡࢸࣝࢆసࢀࡿၟရ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡸࠊ࠸࠿࡞ࡿࢱ࢖ࣉࡢዪᛶ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶࡇࡢ࣐ࢽ࢟ࣗ࢔ࢆ౑࠼ࡤ
ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆッ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(5) Ask for more. (Pepsco ♫ ࣌ࣉࢩࢥ࣮ࣛ㸧(6) Ẽ࡟ࡋ࡚ࡿ㸽࣌ࣉࢩࡣ೺ᗣ࡬ࠋ
㸦࣌ࣉࢩࢥ♫ ࣌ࣉࢩࢥ࣮ࣛ㸧ྠࡌၟရࡢᗈ࿌࡛ࡶ࿨௧ᩥࢆ┤ヂࡏࡎࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᗈ࿌࡛ࡣ␲ၥᩥᆺ࡟ࡍࡿ࡜ཷࡅṆࡵࡸࡍ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
3. ゝㄒ⾲⌧࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢬࣞࡢᛶ㉁࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃ (meta-linguistic negation) ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓ஦౛3.1.
࣓ࢱゝㄒⓗྰᐃ(Horn 1985) ࡣࠊ༢࡞ࡿ཯ᑐ㛵ಀ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ྰᐃࡢᣢࡘᶵ⬟ࡢከᵝᛶࢆ♧၀ࡋࠊᑐẚ࡜ྰᐃࡢ㐪࠸࡟Ẽ࡙࠿ࡏࡿᡭࡀ࠿ࡾࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࣓ࢱゝㄒⓗྰᐃ࡜ࡣࠊඛ⾜ࡍࡿⓎヰ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ␗㆟ࢆၐ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧࡛ࠊⓎ㡢ࠊ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺࠊ⥛ࡾࠊ㛵ಀ➼ࢆ࣓ࢱⓗ࡟ྰᐃࡍࡿࠋ
(7) It’s not a car, it’s a Volkswagen. (VW commercial and advertisement)(8) a. 71 ᖺ㛫ࠊࡈឡㄞ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ
㸦1993 ᖺ 10 ᭶ 8 ᪥ྕ㸧b. ᫂᪥ࠊ᪂⿦ห ࡇࢀࡣࠊ㐌หᮅ᪥࡛ࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋ
㸦1993 ᖺ 10 ᭶ 15 ᪥ྕ㸧Volkswagen ࡣ㌴࡛࠶ࡾ It’s not a car.ࡣ┿ᐇ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ༢࡞ࡿ㌴࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ⣲ᬕࡽࡋ࠸㌴࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㝿❧ࡓࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ㐌หᮅ᪥ࠖࡢࣟࢦࢱ࢖ࣉ㸦ࣇ࢛ࣥࢺࢹࢨ࢖ࣥ㸧ࡣ㸰ࡘ࡛␗࡞ࡾࠊ
ࠕ᪂⿦หࠖ࡜࠸࠺
࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆゝㄒ࡜ࢹࢨ࢖ࣥ࡜ඹ࡟ఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡞ࡿ࣓ࢱࣞ࣋ࣝ⾲⌧ࡣᚋࢁࡢࢭࢡࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࡶᢅ࠺ࠋ
3.2.
⫯ᐃ࡜ྰᐃࡢ㛫ࡢព࿡཯㌿ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓ஦౛ゝㄒࡢព࿡ࡣ㏻᫬ⓗࠊඹ᫬ⓗ࡟ኚ໬ࡍࡿࠋព࿡ኚ໬ࡸព࿡ᣑᙇࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᙉពㄒࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࡀ
Jing-Schumidt (2007), Traugott (2006) ➼࡛ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᭷ᶆⓗ≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡿྰᐃⓗ౯್ negativeevaluation (Horn 1989:334-337) ࡟᰿ࡊࡍ௚ࡢ๪モ awfully, terribly, horribly ➼ࡣᜍࢁࡋࡉࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊᙉពㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋdead ࡣࠕ᏶඲࡟ࠊ࡜࡚ࡶࠖ
ࠊcold ࡣࠕ᏶඲࡟ࠖ
ࠊawfully, terribly,
horribly ➼ࡣࠕ࡜࡚ࡶࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙉពㄒ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᗈ࿌࡛ࡣࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ஧㔜ࡢព࿡ࢆᕦࡳ࡟౑࠺ࡇ࡜
ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࠕᆅ⊹ࠖࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡋࡓ helluva㸦hell of a ࡢ▷⦰ᙧ) ➼ࡶཱྀㄒ࡛័⏝໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ஬༑ᔒ (2013) ࡛ࡣࠊA: It doesn’t mean anything. B: Like hell it doesn’t. (= It means a lot.) ࡜࠸࠺౛ࢆ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࡀ௓ᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ⌧㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(9) a. Devilishly good brownies (Devilishly good brownies co. ࣈࣛ࢘ࢽ࣮ࢣ࣮࢟ࡢᏯ㓄)
b. “Devilishly handsome” mug 㸦The Oakroom ♫ ࣐ࢢ࢝ࢵࣉ㸧(10) Heluva Good Sour Cream French Onion Dip (Heluva Good ♫ ࿡௜ࡅࢹ࢕ࢵࣉ)−3−

英語広告表現におけるメタ言語否定・意味反転・共有知識からの逸脱に関するズレの階層性―言語表現と非言語表現の接点を含めた意味伝達―ᗈ࿌ࡸၟရྡࡣᮏ᮶ࠕ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞౯್ࠖࢆఏ࠼ࡿࡣࡎ࡜࠸࠺ண ࡀㄞࡳᡭ࡟࠶ࡿ୰࡛ࠊព࿡཯㌿ࢆᣢࡘㄒࢆ
⏝࠸ࡿ࡜ࠊᏐ⩏࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࠕྰᐃⓗ࡞౯್ࠖࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵព࿡ࡢ⾪✺ࡀ㉳ࡇࡾࠊ༢࡟ࠕ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞౯್ࠖࢆఏ࠼ࡿࡼࡾࡶࠊᙉ࠸༳㇟ࢆṧࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
4. ඹ᭷▱㆑࠿ࡽࡢ㐓⬺࡜ከᵝ࡞ࣞ࣋ࣝඹ᭷▱㆑ࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅ
4.1.
 ඹ᭷▱㆑࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒࡣゝㄒᏛࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎဴᏛࡸࢤ࣮࣒⌮ㄽ➼ࠊᖜᗈ࠸ศ㔝࡛ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ┠ⓗ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛫ࡢ㡢㡩ࠊㄒᙡࠊᩥࠊ♫఍ᩥ໬㏻ᛕࠊ౯್ほ➼ࡢඹ᭷ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡞ࡀࡽࠊ
ࣇ࢛ࣥࢺࡸ⾲᝟࡟ᣐࡿ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢఏ㐩ഃ㠃ࡲ࡛ྵࡵࠊከᵝ࡞ࢬࣞࡢᏑᅾ࡜ࡑࡢព࿡ఏ㐩ࡢຠᯝࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ▱㆑ࢆඹ᭷ࡍࡿ࠾࠿ࡆ࡛ࢬࣞࡢᏑᅾࢆㄆ㆑࡛ࡁࡿࠋ▱㆑ࢆඹ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⛬ᗘ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ࢬࣞࡢண ࡶྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋㄡࡶࡀ඲ࡃྠ୍ࡢ㡢㡩ࠊㄒᙡࠊᩥἲつ๎ࠊᩥᵓ㐀ࠊㄯヰᵓ㐀ࠊព࿡⌮ゎࠊ♫఍ᩥ໬㏻
ᛕࠊ౯್ほ➼ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࢃࢀࢃࢀࡢゝㄒάືࡣࠊಶேࣞ࣋ࣝࠊᆅᇦࣞ࣋ࣝࠊᅜࣞ࣋ࣝࠊᩥ
໬ࣞ࣋ࣝࠊ♫఍ࣞ࣋ࣝࠊୡ⏺ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊඹ᫬ⓗࠊ㏻᫬ⓗ࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢࢬࣞࢆᖖ࡟ෆໟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
4.2.
㡢㡩ࣞ࣋ࣝࠊㄒᙡࣞ࣋ࣝࠊᩥࣞ࣋ࣝࠊ♫఍㏻ᛕࣞ࣋ࣝࠊ
௨ୗ࡛ࡣࠊWake Up ࡜ Make Up ࡛㡩ࢆ㋃ࡲࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࡉࡽ࡟ၟရࢆᨃே໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(11) Wake Up Your Make Up (RIMMEL ♫ ໬⢝ရ)(12) IT’S COOL. MAYBE TOO COOL. (Banana Boat ♫ Coolzone ࡦࢇࡸࡾࡍࡿ᪥↝ࡅṆࡵ)(13) Break Every Law of Lengthening with Illegal Length Mascara.㸦Maybelline ♫ Illegal Length
Fiber Extensions Mascara㸧(12) ࡛ࡣ COOL ࡀᏐ⩏㏻ࡾ࡟ࠕ෭ࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࡇࡢၟရࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ࡜ࠕࡍ࡚ࡁࡔࠖ࡜࠸
࠺ព࿡ࡶ㎸ࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࠋᾏࢆ⫼ᬒ࡟Ỉ╔ࢆ╔ࡓ⏨ᛶࡀࢧ࣮ࣇ࣮࣎ࢻࡢୖ࡛࣮࢜ࣝࢆᣢࡕࠊ
┿ኟࡢ⫼ᬒ࡜᱁ዲ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⏨ᛶࡢ㧨ࡣ෾ࡗ࡚࠸࡚㢌࡟ࡣᬮ࠿ࡑ࠺࡞ᖗᏊࢆ⿕ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺㄂ᙇ⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓどぬⓗ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪ࡜ඹ࡟ࠊᩥᏐ᝟ሗࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍ぢ (13) ࡣࠕἲᚊࢆ◚ࢀࠖ࡜࠸࠺཯♫఍ⓗ࡛ᣮⓎⓗ࡞࿨௧ᩥࡔ࡜ᛮࢃࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊㄞࡳ㐍ࡴ࡜ࠕ㛗ࡃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠖ࡜⥆ࡃࡓࡵ࡟ࠊἲᚊ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾἲ๎
࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡔࢁ࠺࠿࡜Ẽ࡙࠿ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡘẟࢆ㛗ࡃぢࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣⱞᚰࡍࡿࡶࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠺ἲ๎ࢆ࿡ࢃࡗ࡚
࠸ࡿከࡃࡢዪᛶࡀୡࡢ୰࡟ࡣᏑᅾࡍࡿ⌧ᐇ࡟ᑐࡋࠊࡇࡢ࣐ࢫ࢝ࣛࢆ౑࠼ࡤ୍⯡ⓗ࡞㐨ලࡼࡾࡶࡲࡘẟࢆ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝୙ἲ࡛࠶ࡿ࡯࡝⏒ࡔࡋ࠸⛬ᗘࡲ࡛ࡍࡤࡽࡋࡃ㛗ࡃ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊBreak Every
Law ࡲ࡛ࡀᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡜ᛮ࠸࠿ࡡ࡞࠸ㄞࡳᡭࡢண ࢆ⿬ษࡾࠊ῝࠸༳㇟ࢆṧࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊࡇࡢ illegalࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡣࠊ๓ࡢࢭࢡࢩ࡛ࣙࣥ㏙࡭ࡓྰᐃⓗ౯್ࡢព࿡཯㌿࡟ࡼࡿᙉពㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ฼⏝ࡀぢ࠸ࡔࡏࡿࠋ
(14) You don’t need words to make a statement. (Sunglass Hut ♫ ࢧࣥࢢࣛࢫ)(15) Go ahead, judge it by its cover. (IKEA ♫ ࢟ࢵࢳࣥᨵ⿦ IKEA-USA.com/kitchen)(16) Less is More
Christmas can be a very wasteful time. So this year we’re reduced the amount of packaging on
our Christmas range by over 100 tonnes. (Mars 〇Ⳬ఍♫ www.mars.co.uk/raisingthebar)(14) ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡟୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛▩┪ࢆឤࡌࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࢧࣥࢢࣛࢫࡢᗈ࿌࡛࠶
ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊThe eye is the window of the mind. The eyes say more than the mouth.ࠕ┠ࡣཱྀ࡯࡝࡟ࡶ
ࡢࢆゝ࠺ࠖ➼ࡢㅗࡶ᝿㉳ࡉࢀࠊᮏၟရࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢᴦࡋࡉࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋ(15) ࡣ Don’t judge a bookby its cover. ࡸ Don’t judge a person by their appearance.࡜࠸࠺ㅗ࡜↷ࡽࡋ㐪࿴ឤࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࡣࠕぢࡓ┠ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃᶵ⬟ࡶ⣲ᬕࡽࡋ࠸ࠖ
࡜࠸࠺ᗈ࿌࡛ࠊ
ᗈࡃ▱ࡽࢀࡓㅗ࡜ࡢࢬࣞࢆ฼⏝ࡋㄞࡳᡭࡢὀពࢆ㞟ࡵࡿࠋ(16) ࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡞࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜≉␗࡞࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜ࡢᑐẚ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࢃࢀࢃࢀࡣࠊMORE IS GOOD.
LESS IS BAD. MORE IS UP. LESS IS DOWN.࡜࠸࠺࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ (Lakoff and Johnson 1980) ࢆᇶ┙࡟−4−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号⏕ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋLESS IS MORE. ࡣ୍⯡ⓗᇶ┙࡜ࢬ࡚ࣞ࠾ࡾ㏫࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࢬࣞࡀㄞࡳᡭࡢὀពࢆࡦࡃࠋ
4.3.
᪂ወ࡞⾲⌧ࢆ⌮ゎࡉࡏࡿᇶ┙࡜ࢬࣞ♫఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪥ᖖⓗ࡞⤒㦂࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ᢳ㇟໬࣭ᵓ㐀໬ࡉࢀࡓࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸦ᛮ⪃άືࢆ⾜࠺㝿ࡢᇶ┙࡜࡞ࡿ▱㆑ࡢ㗪ᆺ࣭つ⠊㸧ࡣࠊ▱㆑ᙧែࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᑐ㇟ࡢ⌮ゎࢆಁࡍࠋ౑⏝ࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿ࠺ࡕ࡟ࠊ᪂ወ࡞⾲⌧ࡀᐃ╔ࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࠊ
㐺ษ࡞⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ᗈࡃ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕ๭ᘬࠖࡣࣅࢪࢿࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿάືࡢ୍ࡘ࡛ࠊ
ᾘ㈝⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࢃ࠿ࡾࡸࡍ࠸㨩ຊࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᗈ࿌⾲⌧࡟ࡶከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(17) a.Ꮫ๭㸦Ꮫ⏕๭ᘬ㸧b. ᐙ᪘๭㸦ᐙ᪘๭ᘬ㸧c.ኵ፬๭㸦ኵ፬๭ᘬ㸧d. ᪩๭㸦᪩ᮇண⣙ࢆࡋࡓሙྜࡢ๭ᘬ㸧e.⮬⾨㝲๭
᭱ᚋࡢࠕ⮬⾨㝲๭ࠖࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡࡟࡞ࡿ࠿⪃࠼ࡓሙྜࠊࡇࢀࡀ༢⊂࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࢀࡤࠊព࿡ࡢゎ㔘ࡣᐜ࡛᫆ࡣ࡞࠸ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㣧㣗ᗑࡢධࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࣅࣝࡢ୰ࠊ㣧㣗ᗑࡀ୪ࡪ࢚࣮ࣞ࣋ࢱ࣮ࡢᶓ
࡟ࠊࠕ⮬⾨㝲๭ࠖ࡜ࡔࡅ኱ࡁࡃ᭩࠿ࢀࡓ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ࡀ㈞ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࢀࡤ⎔ቃ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᩥ⬦ࢆ୚࠼ࡽࢀࠊゎ㔘ྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᗑྡࡀᑠࡉࡃ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ࡢୗẁ࡟ぢࡘ࠿ࢀࡤࠊࣞࢫࢺ࡛ࣛࣥ࠶ࡾࠊ㣧㣗ࢆࡍࡿሙᡤ
࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㣗ᚋࡣᨭᡶࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࡀᾋ࠿ࢇ࡛ࡃࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑࡇࡀ⮬⾨㝲㥔ᒡᆅࡢ㏆ᡤ࡜࠸࠺ᅵᆅ᯶࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢ㣧㣗ᗑࡣࡑࡇ࡟໅ࡵࡿ⮬⾨㝲ဨࢆ㢳ᐈ࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࡜᝿ീࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ⮬⾨㝲๭ࠖࡣࠕᏛ๭ࠖ➼ࡢ᪥ᖖゝㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚᪤࡟ࡼࡾᐃ╔ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⾲⌧ࢆᯟ⤌ࡳ࡜ࡋ࡚ά⏝ࡋࡘࡘࠊࡎࡽࡋࡓព࿡ࡢᣑᙇࢆᴦࡋࡲࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ᗈ࿌࡜ࡋ࡚㐨⾜ࡃேࡢὀ┠ࢆᘬ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕMY
๭㸦AU㸧
㸦୍ே࡛ᐙ᪘๭ྠ➼ࡢ๭ᘬ㸧ࠖࠕㄡ࡛ࡶ๭㸦AU㸧ࠖࠕ୍ே࡛ࡶ๭㸦docomo㸧ࠖࠕࣖࣥࢢ๭㸦ࢯࣛࢩࢻ࢚࢔㸧㸦‶ 12 ṓ௨ୖ 22 ᡯᮍ‶ࡢ᪉ࡶࡋࡃࡣᏛ⏕ࡀ฼⏝࡛ࡁࡿ㐠㈤㸧
ࠖ➼ࡶ㢮౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋⱥㄒ࡟ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
(18) It’s 7 Up, it’s Uncola. (1975) (Dr Pepper Snapple Group ♫ Ύᾴ㣧ᩱỈ)(19) Undo it with 7 Up. (1977-78) 㸦ྠୖ㸧ࡣྰᐃ᥋㢌㎡࡜ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡛ undo ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡀࠊ(18) ࡣ㐀ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋun-ࡣࠊunhappy, unfoldࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᙧᐜモࡸྡモ࡜⤖ࡧࡘ࠸࡚ྰᐃࡸ཯ᑐࡢព࿡ࢆసࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊuncola ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡣ
࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊㄞࡳᡭࡣព࿡ࡢゎ㔘ࢆồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ
cola ࠿ࡽᗈࡃ㣧ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿCoca-Cola ࡀ୍␒࡟㐃᝿ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࢭࣈࣥ࢔ࢵࣉ㸦Ύᾴ㣧ᩱỈ㸧࡜࠸࠺ၟရࡣࠊࢥ࣭࢝ࢥ࣮ࣛ࡞࡝࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠊࢥ࣭࢝ࢥ࣮ࣛࡼࡾࡶ㨩ຊⓗ࡞ၟရ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆッ࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊun-X ࡜࠸࠺ᙧࢆ๰㐀ⓗ࡟ά⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊព࿡ࢆᣑᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(20) Take a shave-cation. Go ahead, take a vacation from shaving. (Schick ♫ 㹏uattro ࢩ࢙࢖ࣅࣥࢢ)(20)ࡣ๰㐀ⓗ࡞ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ༢⊂࡛ࡣព࿡ࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡀࠊTake a vacation. ࡀᇶ┙࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᚋ⥆ࡢᩥࢆจ⦰ࡋࡓ᪂ወ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢧ࣮ࣇ࣮࣎ࢻࢆᢪ࠼ࡓỈ╔ጼࡢዪᛶࡀࠊᴦࡋࡑ࠺࡟ᾏ࡟ධࢁ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿどぬⓗ᝟ሗ࡜ేࡏ࡚ぢࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡇࡢၟရࢆ౑࠼ࡤࢩ࢙࢖ࣅࣥࢢࡢᡭ㛫ࡀ┬ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఇᬤ࡟࡞ࡒࡽ࠼
࡚ࠊࡍࡤࡽࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜࡜ࡋ࡚ఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
4.4.
୍⯡ⓗ࡞ᗑྡ࡜ࡢࢬࣞࢆά⏝ࡋࡓ஦౛ ௬࡟ࠕnico and…ࠖ࡜༳ๅࡉࢀࡓ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓሙྜࠊㄞࡳᡭࡣఱࢆᛮ࠸ᾋ࠿࡭ࡿ࠿ࠊࡑࢀࡣㄞࡳᡭ
ࡢࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢே⏕ࡀᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⫼ᬒ▱㆑࡟ࡶ౫Ꮡࡋࠊㄞࡳᡭࡀ⌧ᅾ࡝ࡇ࡟࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ሙᡤ࡟ࡶ㛵ಀࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠕ࣐ࣝ࢖ࠖ
㸦ၟᴗ᪋タ㸧ࡢ࢚ࢫ࣮࢝ࣞࢱ࣮࡟ᥖ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࿘ࡾ࡟ DHC㸦໬⢝ရ㸧ࡸࢡࣟࢵࢡࢫ
㸦㠐㸧࡜࠸ࡗࡓᗑࡢྡ๓ࡶ୪ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ
ᗑྡ࡟ࡕࡀ࠸࡞࠸࡜᝿ീ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࠕnico and…ࠖ
࡜࠸࠺ᩥᏐࡢ௚ࠊዪᛶࢱࣞࣥࢺ࡛࠶ࡿᗈᮎᾴᏊࡀ┠࡟ᾦࢆࡓࡵ࡚࠸ࡿᵝᏊࡀ᭎ࡾ✵࠿ࡽ㝖ࡃኤ↝ࡅࡀᾏཎࢆ↷ࡽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞Ⰽྜ࠸ࡢ୰࡟ᫎࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࡋࡷࡰࢇ⋢ࡸỈࡋࡎࡃࢆᛮࢃࡏࡿỈᶍᵝࡶᗈࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᗈ࿌࡛➗㢦ࡢࢱࣞࣥࢺࢆᥖ㍕ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞࠸ࠋ➗㢦ࡣゝㄒࢆ㉸࠼࡚ࠊ㏻ᖖ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ᬑ㐢ⓗ࡟࣏ࢪࢸ−5−英語広告表現におけるメタ言語否定・意味反転・共有知識からの逸脱に関するズレの階層性―言語表現と非言語表現の接点を含めた意味伝達―࢕ࣈ࡞౯್ࢆᣢࡘ⾲᝟࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡦ࠸࡚ࡣ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞ၟရ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡸࣈࣛࣥࢻ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
┠ᣦࡍࡓࡵ࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ┿๢ࡉࡸㄔᐇࡉࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ࠶࠼࡚➗㢦࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊཝࡋ࠸ࡲ࡞ࡊࡋࡸ⾲᝟ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᗈ࿌ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᎰࡋᾦ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ᾦࡸἽࡁ㢦ࡀ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࡣྰᐃⓗ౯್ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ᤊ࠼
ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ୰ࠊពᅗⓗ࡟ᗈ࿌⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡁࠊࡑࡇ࡟ࡣඹ㏻▱㆑ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㐓⬺ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᪥ᖖ࡜ࡢࢬࣞࡸᑐẚࢆぢࡘࡅࡿ࡜ࠊேࡣὀពࢆࡦ࠿ࢀࠊグ᠈࡟ṧࡾࠊෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏻ᖖࡼࡾࡶ῝ࡃ▱ࡾࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ዲወᚰࡸ⯆࿡ࢆࡦ࠿ࢀࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕnico and…ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲グࡢ࠾ࡼࡑ 4 ศࡢ 1 ⛬ᗘࡢᑠࡉ࡞ᩥᏐ࡛ࠊ
ࠕ୙᏶඲࡞ࡦ࡜ ୙᏶඲࡞ࢃࡓࡋࠖ࡜᭩࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⿕᭹ࠊ࣐ࣇ࣮ࣛࠊࢥࢵࣉࠊࣈࢵࢡࢫ
ࢱࣥࢻ➼ࡀ୪࡭ࡽࢀࠊ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪୖ࡛ࡣࠕࢼࢳࣗࣛࣝ᭹࡜࢖ࣥࢸࣜ࢔㞧㈌ࠖࢆᢅ࠺ᗑ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㉎㈙ᒙࡣ 30 ௦ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ 20㹼50 ௦ࡢ⏨ዪࡀࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕnico and…ࠖࡣ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚㏻ᖖᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ᗑྡࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࠿ࡽࡢࢬࣞࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ձᑠᩥᏐ࡛ጞࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋղྡモࡀᑠᩥᏐ࡛ጞࡲࡿࡇ࡜ࡣⰋ࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊnico ࡀᅛ᭷ྡモ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡞
ࡽࠊᑠᩥᏐ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡣ㐪࿴ឤࡀ࠶ࡿࠋճand…ࡢᚋࢁ࡟ఱࡀ⥆ࡃࡢ࠿᫂࠿ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠊ࡜࠸ࡗࡓⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⱥㄒࡶ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡶ A and B ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ㡰ࡀᅛࡃ័⏝໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊB and A ࡜ࡣゝࢃ࡞࠸஦౛ࡀ
Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㏻ᖖᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿྡモ࡛ྃ࠶ࢀࡤࠊNico and Poco ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㢮ఝ࡞せ⣲㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ bread andbutter ࡢࡼ࠺࡟୍య໬ࡍࡿࡶࡢ㸧ࡀ୪ࡪ࠿ࠊṇ཯ᑐ࡞ࡶࡢ㸦black and white ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ㸧ࡀ୪ࡪ࠿ࠊ
࡜࠸ࡗࡓண ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢᗑྡࡣࠊᚋ⪅ࡢ㒊ศࢆㄞࡳᡭࡢ᝿ീ࡟ጤࡡ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࠿ࡽࠊ୙᏶඲
ࡉࠊ㊊ࡾ࡞ࡉࠊḞⴠឤࠊ᭕᫕ࡉࠊࡶࢁࡉࠊࡣ࠿࡞ࡉࠊ↓㜵ഛࠊຊࡀᢤࡅ࡚࠸ࡿᵝᏊࠊ㝽ࡔࡽࡅࠊࢃࢀࢃࢀ
ࡀ㏻ᖖ♫఍ⓗ࡟⾲❧ࡗ࡚ぢࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡞࠸⿬ഃ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ༳㇟ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊnico ࡜࠸࠺㡢ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏே࡟㐃᝿ࡸ᝿ീࡢవᆅࢆṧࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋnico ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡓࡵ
࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕ࡟ࡇ࡟ࡇࠖ➼ࡢ࢜ࣀ࣐ࢺ࣌࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿㄞࡳᡭࡶᏑᅾࡋ࠺ࡿࠋ୍᪉࡛ࠊࡦࡽࡀ࡞ࡸ࢝ࢱ࢝ࢼ࡛⾲グࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ࢔ࣝࣇ࢓࣋ࢵࢺ⾲グ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡇࢀࡣὒ㢼࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺₍↛࡜ࡋࡓ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡶႏ㉳ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࠊすὒᮾὒࡢ㍺ධ㞧㈌ࡶᢅࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋnico and…ࡢᚋࢁࡢ㒊ศࡣࠊఱ࠿⏕άࡢ୰࡛Ḟࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡶゎ㔘࡛ࡁࠊࡲࡓࠊே㛫ࡀ㏻ᖖᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡝ࢇ࡞࡟‶ࡓࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛ࡶ‶ࡓࡉࢀࡁࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿᚰ⌮ⓗ࡞Ọ㐲ࡢ୙᏶඲ࡉࢆᬯ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ
≀㉁ⓗ㒊ศ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࡇࡢ࠾ᗑ࡛⿵࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㐲ᅇࡋࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪ࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡶཷࡅྲྀࢀࡿࠋ
(21) ேࡣࠊ⏕ࡲࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡲࡲ࡛ࡣఱ࠿ࡓࡾ࡞࠸ࠋ
nico and …ࡣࠊேࡸࠊࡃࡽࡋ࡟ [ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ] ࢆຍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ
⮬ศࡽࡋࡉࢆ๰㐀ࡍࡿᖾࡏࢆᥦ౪ࡋࡲࡍࠋ
㸦http://www.nikoand.jp/concept/index.html㸧
ୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡟࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ࡟ࡣ᭩࠿ࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊື⏬ࢆ᭱ᚋࡲ࡛ぢࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊnico and …ࡢᚋࢁ࡟ධࡿࡢࡣ [ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ] ࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺ࡔ࡜ุ᫂ࡍࡿࡢࡔࡀࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࠊື⏬ࡲ࡛☜ㄆࡍࡿேཱྀ࡜࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ࡢࡳࢆ┠࡟ࡍࡿேཱྀࡢ཮᪉ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕnico and …ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᗑྡࡣࠊពᅗⓗ࡟ඹ᭷▱㆑࠿ࡽࡢ㐓⬺ࢆά⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᗑྡࡢ஦౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
4.5.
፹య࡜ࡢ࣑ࢵࢡࢫ࡟ࡼࡿព࿡ࡢ㔜ࡡྜ࠸࡜ࢬࣞࡢ෌ゎ㔘 ⾲⌧࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢬࣞ࡜෌ゎ㔘࡟ࡼࡿ㏻ᖖࡼࡾࡶ῝࠸ࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡⓗ࡞ព࿡⌮ゎࡣࠊ፹య࡜ࡢ࣑ࢵࢡࢫ࡛ࡶ㉳ࡇࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽ࠼ࡿࠋ(22) Delicious? We have hotels for every taste. (HRS, The hotel portal)ᩥᏐࡔࡅࢆㄞࢇ࡛ࡶఱࡽ࠿ࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡣఏࢃࡿࡀࠊព࿡ࡸពᅗࡢ⌮ゎ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ඘ศ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢᗈ
࿌⾲⌧ࡣࠊ⣬ࢥࢵࣉ㸦࡜࠸࠺፹య㸧࡟༳ๅࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ⣬ࢥࢵࣉ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࢥ࣮ࣄ࣮ࡸỈ➼ࢆ୰࡟࠸ࢀࠊࡑࡢࢥࢵࣉࡣࠊཱྀ࡟ゐࢀ࡚ࠊ㣧ࡳ≀ࡀ࿡ࢃࢃࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀᇶ┙࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㣧ࡳ≀ࢆ࿡ࢃ࠺࡜࠸࠺どⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ࠸ࡁ࡞ࡾ Delicious?࡜ᑜࡡ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−6−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

ᚋ⥆ࡢ We have hotels for every taste.࡟࠾ࡅࡿ taste ࡣࠕዲࡳࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
HRS, The
hotel portal ࡜ࡣࠊ୺࡟࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿಶே࣭ἲேྥࡅࡢ᪑⾜ࡢ↓ᩱ࣍ࢸࣝண⣙ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡛
࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⣬ࢥࢵࣉࢆ࣍ࢸࣝࡢ㒊ᒇ࡟⨨࠸࡚࠾ࡃࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ༢࡞ࡿࡕࡽࡋࡸࠊ༢࡞ࡿࣃࣥࣇࣞࢵࢺࢆ
ࢸ࣮ࣈࣝ࡟⨨࠸࡚ᗈ࿌άືࢆ⾜࠺௨ୖ࡟ࠊࣘࢽ࣮ࢡ࡛༳㇟࡟ṧࡿᗈ࿌άືࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
4.6.
ࣇ࢛ࣥࢺࢆά⏝ࡋࡓࢬࣞᗈ࿌⾲⌧࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࢬࣞࡢά⏝ࡣࠊゝㄒ⾲⌧࡜࠸࠺ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞࠸ࠋࣇ࢛ࣥࢺࡣᗈ࿌࡟࠾
ࡅࡿ⯆࿡῝࠸ᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠࡌ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆఏ࠼ࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡶࠊ␗࡞ࡿࣇ࢛ࣥࢺࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ␗࡞ࡿ
༳㇟ࢆఏ㐩࡛ࡁࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛࠶ࢀࡤ᫂ᮅయࡸࢦࢩࢵࢡయ➼ࠊⱥㄒ࡛࠶ࢀࡤ Century ࡸ arial ➼ࠊࡼࡃ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࣇ࢛ࣥࢺࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊ౑⏝㢖ᗘ࡟࠾࠸࡚ຎࡿࣇ࢛ࣥࢺࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ⾜᭩య࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ࿴
㣗ࣞࢫࢺࣛࣥࡢᚚရ᭩ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡞ලయⓗ࠿ࡘ㝈ᐃⓗ࡞࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᗈ࿌
࡛ࡣࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࣇ࢛ࣥࢺࡢ≉ᚩࢆᕦࡳ࡟ά⏝ࡋࡓసရࢆぢࡘࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(23) ஬✐୐ⲡ ࣉࣁ࣮㸟㸦᪥ᮏࢥ࣭࢝ࢥ࣮ࣛ♫ ∝೺⨾Ⲕ㸧ࠊ࡝࠺࠺ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ㏞࠸
࠸ࡓࡓࡎࡴ
ࡴࠊ㞵ࡢ㐌
㐌ᮎࠋ
(24) ㈙࠸≀ࠊ
ࡑࡢ 15 ศ࡛ὀᩥ࡛ࡁࡿࠊ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺ࣭࣮࢜ࢲ࣮ࢩࣕࢶࠋ
㸦Bluem sarto ♫ ࣮࢜ࢲ࣮࣡࢖ࢩࣕࢶ㸧(25) ᒾᮌᒣࡀ㞷ᖗᏊࢆ࠿ࡪࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ࡟ࢇ࡟ࡃ⏿࡟᫓ࡀ᮶ࡲࡋࡓࡡࠋ
㸦⮬↛ඹ⏕♫ ೺ᗣ㣗ရ㸧(26) ᵿᵬᵬᵣᴾᵤᵭᵬᵲᵿᵧᵬᵣᴾ ίwww.annefontaine.com㸧
(27) Coca-Colaࠕ஬✐୐ⲡ ࣉࣁ࣮㸟ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᩥᏐࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ࣃࢯࢥࣥ➼ධࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࣇ࢛ࣥࢺ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋⰍྜ࠸ࡶ㯮ࡸ㉥ࡢ༢Ⰽ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᡭ᭩ࡁࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡛⧄⣽࡞Ⰽᙬࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢၟရࡣࠕ∝೺⨾Ⲕࡲࢁࡸ࠿ࣈࣞࣥࢻ㸦㸯㸳ࡢ᪪ࣈࣞࣥࢻ㸧
ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚㈍኎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡶࡢࡀࠊ
ࠕ∝೺⨾Ⲕࡍࡗࡁࡾࣈࣞࣥࢻࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚
ࣈࣞࣥࢻࢆኚ࠼࡚㈍኎ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋᚑ᮶ࠕ∝೺⨾Ⲕࠖ࡜࠸࠺ၟရྡࡶ࣎ࢺࣝ࡟㯮༢Ⰽ࡛ᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚
࠸ࡓࡀࠊࠕ஬✐୐ⲡ ࣉࣁ࣮㸟ࠖ࡜࠸࠺࢟ࣕࢵࢳࢥࣆ࣮ࡣከⰍๅࡾ࡟ࡋࠊ
ࠕ∝೺⨾Ⲕࠖ࡜࠸࠺࣎ࢺࣝࡢᩥᏐ
ࡶ㟷⥳Ⰽ࡟ኚ᭦ࡋࠊ࣎ࢺࣝࡶࡃࡧࢀࡢ࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡟ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡼࡾ㨩ຊⓗ࡞ࠕ᪂࣭∝೺⨾Ⲕࠖ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡇ
࡜ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊᴦࡋ࠸࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡸඖẼ࡛᫂ࡿ࠸࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㢮ఝࡢᩥᏐࢹࢨ࢖ࣥ
ࡣ Lipton ࡢ NEW ࣜࣉࢺ࣮ࣥࣜࣔࢿ
ࠕ࣓ࢳ࣓ࣕࢳࣕ࢖࢖Ⲕⴥࢳࣕࣂ࢝ࣛ࢖ࣞࢳࣕࠖ
ࡢᗈ࿌࡛ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࠊBluem sarto ♫ࡣࠊ⮬ศࡔࡅࡢ୍╔ࡀసࢀࡿ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺ࣭࣮࢜ࢲ࣮ࢩࣕࢶ࡛ࠊࢹࢨ࢖ࣥࢆ㑅ࡪࡢ࡟ 5 ศࠊࢧ࢖ࢬࢆィࡿࡢ࡟ 10 ศࠊ㉎ධᡭ⥆ࡁ᏶஢ࡋ࡚࠿ࡽᒆࡃࡲ࡛ 2 㐌㛫࡜࠸࠺ࣅࢪࢿࢫࢆࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋࡇࡢ࢟ࣕࢵࢳࢥࣆ࣮ࡣࠊ┤᥋ⓗ࡟࡝ࡇ࡟ࡶ࣮࢜ࢲ࣮ࢩࣕࢶ࡜ࡣ᭩࠿ࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ୍ぢࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛ࡣ
ఱࡢᗈ࿌࡞ࡢ࠿୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠕ㈙ࠖ
ࠕࠊ
ࠖ
ࠕ࠺ࠖ
ࠕࡋࠖ
ࠕ࠸ࠖ
ࠕࡴࠖ
ࠕࠊ
ࠖ
ࠕ㐌ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᩥᏐࡔࡅࡀኴᏐ࡟
࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓୗẁ࡛ࡣ 15 ࡜࠸࠺ᩘᏐࡔࡅࣇ࢛ࣥࢺࡀ 4 ಸ࡯࡝࡟኱ࡁࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋゎ㔘ࡣࡉࡲࡊࡲ
࡟ྍ⬟ࡔࡀࠊᬑ㏻ࡢࣇ࢛ࣥࢺ࡜ࠕኴᏐࠖ࡜ࡢᑐẚࡀࠊ㞵⢏ࡀ❆࢞ࣛࢫ࡟ᙜࡓࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ෗┿࡜┦ࡲࡗ࡚ࠊ㞵⢏ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡶぢ࠼ࠊ㞵ࡢ㝆ࡿᵝᏊࢆぢ࡞ࡀࡽఱ࠿ࢆ㏞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ᫬㛫ࡀ࠶ࡿࡃࡽ࠸࡞ࡽࠊࡑࡢ᫬㛫࡛⡆༢࡟ᙜ♫ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺ࣭࣮࢜ࢲ࣮ࢩࣕࢶࡀᡭ࡟ධࡾࡲࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆッ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡶゎࡉࢀࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࠊࢲ࢖ࣞࢡࢺ࣓࣮ࣝ࡟ࡼࡿᗈ࿌άືࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ஦౛࡛ࡣࠊᡭ᭩ࡁࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪ࡜ᡭ᭩ࡁࡢ⤮ࡀ༳ๅࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ୍ぢࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀಶே࠿ࡽಶே࡟ᐄ࡚ࡽࢀࡓಶேⓗ࡞࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄗゎࡍࡿ࡯࡝࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⾲㠃ࡢᕪฟேẶྡఫᡤࡶࡩࡒࢁ࠸࡞ᡭ᭩ࡁࡢᩥᏐ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᭩࠿ࢀࡓෆᐜࡀ༳ๅࡉࢀ
࡚࠾ࡾࠊಶேⓗ࡞㒑౽≀࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡞༳㇟ࢆ୍ᒙᙉࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ຠᯝࡣ᫂ᮅయ
ࡸࢦࢩࢵࢡయࡢ༳ๅ≀࡛ࡣᮇᚅ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ண ࡉࢀࡿࣇ࢛ࣥࢺ࡜ࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡛࡞࠸๰㐀ⓗ࡞ࣇ࢛ࣥࢺ࠿ࡽࡢࢬࣞ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⏕ࡌࡿ⫯ᐃⓗ౯್ࢆᣢࡘຠᯝ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
Anne Fontaine ࡣࢹࢨ࢖ࢼ࣮ࡢྡ๓࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢேྡ⮬యࡀࣇࣛࣥࢫࡢࢩࣕࢶࠊࣈࣛ࢘ࢫࡢࣈࣛࣥࢻ
ྡ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊྡ๓ࢆࡑࡢࡲࡲ⥛ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ (24) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟኱ᩥᏐࡢ୰࡟ “a” ࡢࡳᑠᩥᏐ࡛ΰࡐࡿ࡜࠸࠺⾲グࡢ௙᪉ࢆ᥇ᢥࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ“a” ࡣᑠᩥᏐ࡛࠶ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽ኱ᩥᏐ࡜ྠࡌ኱ࡁࡉ࡟ࡲ

−7−

英語広告表現におけるメタ言語否定・意味反転・共有知識からの逸脱に関するズレの階層性―言語表現と非言語表現の接点を含めた意味伝達―࡛ᣑ኱ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ㐪࿴ឤࡀㄞࡳᡭࡢ┠ࢆࡦࡁࡘࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊCoca-Cola ࡜࠸࠺⾲グ࡟ࡶỴࡲࡗࡓࢹࢨ࢖ࣥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ༢࡞ࡿၟရྡ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࡞どぬⓗࢹࢨ࢖ࣥࠊ࣎ࢺࣝࡢᙧ≧➼ࠎࡢၟရࢹࢨ࢖ࣥࢆ඲࡚ྵࡵ࡚ࡢ⥲࿴࡜ࡋ࡚ၟရ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⤫୍ⓗ࡞࣓ࢵࢭ࣮
ࢪࡸ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋJR ➼ࡢ㕲㐨఍♫࡛ࡣ㥐ྡ⾲♧࡟౑⏝ࡍࡿࣇ࢛ࣥࢺ➼ࡣ⤫୍ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
఍♫ࡸၟရࡸࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢఏ㐩ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ♫఍࡟ᬽࡽࡍ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅከࡃࡢேࡓࡕ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ぢࡸࡍࡉࡸࢃ࠿ࡾࡸࡍࡉࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿ᝟ሗᙧᘧ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡼࡾྜ⌮ᛶࢆᕼồࡍࡿᐇ⏝ⓗ࡞┠ⓗࢆࡶྵࡴࠋ
5. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊᗈ࿌⾲⌧࡟࠾ࡅࡿከᵝ࡞ࢬࣞ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓࠋ㡢㡩ࣞ࣋ࣝࠊㄒᙡࣞ࣋ࣝࠊᩥࣞ࣋ࣝࠊㄯヰࣞ࣋ࣝࠊඹ᭷▱㆑ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡜࠸࠺㝵ᒙᛶࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ≉࡟ඹ᭷▱㆑ࣞ࣋ࣝࢆࡉࡽ࡟Ⓨᒎࡉࡏࠊ᪂ወ࡞⾲⌧ࡢ⌮ゎࡢᇶ┙ࡶㄽࡌࡓࠋࢬࣞ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ႐ᛣယᴦࡢ⾲᝟ࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿἽࡁ㢦ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊ
୙᏶඲ᛶࢆᬯ♧ࡍࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧࡜ඹ࡟ࠊ㠀ゝㄒⓗせ⣲࡜ゝㄒⓗせ⣲ࡢΰᅾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶᢅࡗࡓࠋ፹య࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
ࢬࣞࡢ஦౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㏻ᖖᗈ࿌࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ⌋ࡋ࠸⣬ࢥࢵࣉࡢ஦౛ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡚ศᯒࡋࡓࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࣇ
࢛ࣥࢺࡸࢹࢨ࢖ࣥ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ⾲⌧ᙧែ࡟ࡶὀ┠ࡋࠊゝㄒࢆྵࡳࡘࡘࠊゝㄒࢆ㉸࠼ࡓ⾲⌧ࡢྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽ
ࡌࡓࠋࢬࣞࡢᏑᅾࡣࠊࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ሙ㠃࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ࢬࣞࡸᑐẚࡢㄆ▱ࡀே㛫ࡢㄆ▱ᇶ┙ࡢ୍㒊ࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ≀ㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࢠࣜࢩࣕᝒ๻ࡢ᫇࠿ࡽ༢࡞ࡿࠕᖾࡏࠊᎰࡋ࠸ࠊᖾࡏࠊ
Ꮀࡋ࠸ࠊᖾࡏࠊᎰࡋ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡢᵓ㐀ࡣ⛥࡛ࠊࡴࡋࢁࠕⱞࡋ࠸ࠊ㡹ᙇࡿࠊᖾࡏࠊᎰࡋ࠸ࠊⱞࡋ࠸ࠊ
㡹ᙇࡿࠊᖾࡏࠊᎰࡋ࠸㸦ከᵝ࡞⤊ᮎ㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᵓ㐀ࡀ≀ㄒ࡟ࡣᚲせ࡞ࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡶ㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩᭷ගዉ⨾ 2012.ࠕ㤶Ỉࡢࢿ࣮࣑ࣥࢢ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄆ▱⾜ື࡜࣐࣮ࢣࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ̿ⱥㄒ㞧ㄅᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿලయ஦౛
ࡢ㔞ⓗ◊✲̿ࠖ
ࠊࠗᮾὒ኱Ꮫ⤒Ⴀㄽ㞟࠘ࠊ➨ 80 ྕࠊ151-168.
㸦ヂ㸧
1988.
Barthes, R. 1985. Le message publicitaire. L’Aveenture Séiologiquie. Edition du Seuil.㸦ⰼ㍯ග
ࠕᗈ࿌ࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࠖ
ࠊࠗグྕᏛࡢෑ㝤࠘ࠊࡳࡍࡎ᭩ᡣ.pp.69-77.㸧
Givón, Talmy, 1979. On Understanding Grammar, New York, Academic Press.
஬༑ᔒᾏ㔛 2013.ࠕ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡜ྰᐃࠖࠊ➨ 9 ᅇⱥㄒㄒἲᩥἲࢭ࣑ࢼ࣮㈨ᩱ(᪊㛵すᏛ㝔኱Ꮫᱵ⏣࢟ࣕࣥࣃࢫ).
Ishimaru, Kumiko 2004. Analyse du discourse publicitaire en France et au Japon: sur les produits debeauté. DEA dissertation, Université de Nantes.
Jing-Schumidt, Zhuo. 2007. Negativity bias in Language: A cognitive-affective model of emotive
intensifiers. Cognitive Linguistics 18-3.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.㸦Ώ㒊୍࣭᪼ ᴋ℩῟୕࣭ୗ㇂࿴ᖾ㸦ヂ㸧1980.ࠗࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ࡜ே⏕࠘ࠊᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.㸧
Laskey, H. A., Day, E, & Crask, M. M. 1989. “Typology of main message strategies for televisioncommercial”, Journal of advertising, 18 (1), 36-41.
Leech, Geoffery. 1966. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
ᓟ ṇᚿ 2008.ࠕ஺㏻ᶆ㆑࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠗ࡯ࡢࡵ࠿ࡋ࠘⾲⌧ࠖࠊࠗ㔠ἑ኱Ꮫ␃Ꮫ⏕ࢭࣥࢱ࣮⣖せ࠘ࠊ➨11 ྕࠊ23-34.
㕥ᮌ⦾ᖾ 1995. ࠕⱥᩥᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࿨௧ᩥࡢ୍◊✲ࠖࠊࠗⱥㄒⱥᩥᏛ◊✲ No.1࠘
ࠊᮾிᐙᨻ኱ᏛᩥᏛ㒊.
⏣୰ ὒ࣭୸ᒸྜྷே㸦ⴭ㸧1991. ோ⛉㈆ᩥ㸦┘ಟ㸧ࠗ᪂ᗈ࿌ᚰ⌮࠘ࠊᮾி㸸㟁㏻.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2006. The semantic development of scalar focus modiferes. In Ans canKemenade and Bettelou Los, eds., The Handbook of the History of English, 335-359. Oxford:
Blackwell.
㎷ ኱௓ 2004.ࠕᗈ࿌ࡢ࡝ࡇ࡟ၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿㸸ᾘ㈝♫఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⌧ᐇ࡜⹫ᵓࡢࡺࡽࡂࠖ
ࠊ࣓ࠗࢹ࢕࢔࡜ࡇ
࡜ࡤ㸯ࠕ࣐ࢫ࣓ࠖࢹ࢕࢔ࡢࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࠘
ࠊᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂. 2000. ࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛཎ⌮࠘ࠊᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂. 2009. ࠗㄆ▱ᵓᩥㄽ---ᩥἲࡢࢤࢩࣗࢱࣝࢺᛶ࠘
ࠊᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
Ᏻ⏣㍤⏨. 1997.ࠗ࠶ࡢᗈ࿌ࡣࡍࡈ࠿ࡗࡓ㸟࠘ࠊᮾி㸸୰⤒ฟ∧.
−8−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

ࠑAbstractࠒ┤᥋ⓗㄆ㆑⾲⌧ࣖࣁࣜࡢ⏕ᡂ㐣⛬㸸᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕྵ㐣⛬ᵓ㐀ࠖࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ໬Ặᐙ ὒᏊ ࣀ㸫ࢺࣝࢲ࣒ΎᚰዪᏊ኱ ujiie@post.ndsu.ac.jp

Japanese adverb yahari has the structure of word which enfolds a speaker’s mental
processes (SEMP). Diachronic study based on descriptions in Japanese dictionaries(35 editions) has revealed the detail of process steps of extension/deviation in its use,
starting from the original objectified expression towards the direct expression of a
speaker’s epistemic content. Also contrastive study has shown that English has
words/phrases only corresponding to limited process steps of extension/deviation of

yahari. These results have indicated distinctive, multiple functions of SEMP words
in Japanese.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸┤᥋ⓗㄆ㆑⾲⌧ ࣖࣁࣜ ྵ㐣⛬ᵓ㐀 ゝㄒᩥ໬ 㸯 ゝㄒᩥ໬⌮ゎࡢ࢝ࢠ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ ‘enfold’ࡉࢀࡓ⾲⌧᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡐ┠๓ࡢ஦ែࢆᤊ࠼ࡓ᫬ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢᣢࡘグ᠈ࡸ▱㆑࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡅ࡚ࡢ⾲⌧ࡀࡼࡃ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠋㄆ▱ࡋࡓ஦ែࡀグ᠈ෆᐜ࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡁࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡾ⢭⚄ෆ࡟ఱࡽ࠿
ࡢ᪂ࡓ࡞ࡶࡢࡀ⏘ฟࡉࢀࠊࡇࢀࡀⓎヰືᅉ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟⮳ࡿࡶࡢ࡜᥎

ࡉࢀࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡣ୍ㄒࠊࡲࡓࡣ୍ㄒ࡛ྃࠊ୍ᐃࡢ᫬㛫࡟ࢃࡓࡿヰࡋᡭࡢᚰⓗ㐣⛬ࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ
ࠕྵ㐣⛬ᵓ㐀ࠖ㸦Ặᐙ 1974ࠊUjiie 1989 b㸧ࢆᣢࡘㄒྃ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠋ௚ࡢゝㄒ࡛ࡣ࡝࠺࡞ࡢ࠿ࠋࡇࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ⾲⌧ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟⪃࠼ࡓሙྜࠊ␗ゝㄒ࡛㐺ษ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ⾲⌧ࡣ௒ࡢ࡜ࡇࢁࠊࡳࡘ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡀṔྐⓗ࡟ᙧᡂࡉࢀ࡚᮶ࡓࡶࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ
࡜ࢆ᝿㉳ࡍࡿ࡜ࡇࡇ࡟ࡣᚲ↛ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⾲⌧ࡣࠊࠕࡸࡣࡾࠊࡉࡍࡀࠊࡏࡵ
࡚ࠊ࡝࠺࡟ࡶࠊ࡞ࡲࡌࠊࡼࡶࡸࠊ㹼ࡢ(࡛ࡍ)ࠊ㹼ࡣࠖ➼ࠎࡢ୍ᐃࡢ๪モ࣭๪モྃࡸຓモࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ the structure of word which enfolds a speaker’s mental
processes㸦␎⛠ SEMP㸧࡜⾲⌧࡛ࡁࡿ㸦Ujiie 1986㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡣヰࡋᡭࡢㄆ㆑ࢆ┤᥋ⓗ࡟⾲ࢃࡍࠕ୺యⓗ⾲⌧ࠖ࡟ᒓࡍࠋ୺యⓗ⾲⌧ࡣẕㄒヰ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ゝㄒ⾲⌧ୖࠊ୙ྍḞ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽḟࡢ⌮⏤࡛ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋձ ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⾜ື࡟࠾࠸࡚↓ព㆑ࡢෆ࡟㌟࡟ࡘࡅࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊㄆ▱࣭ㄆ㆑άືࡢ୺య࡛࠶ࡿ⮬ࡽ࡟ព㆑ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡳࡢ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋղ ᐈయⓗ⾲⌧࡜㐪࠸ࠊᴫᛕ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊゝⴥ࡟ࡼࡿㄝ᫂ࡀࡋ࡟
ࡃ࠸ࠋእ⏺ࡢࡶࡢࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡋࡓࡾࠊᡭ᥃࠿ࡾ࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
ຍ࠼࡚ࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅྵ㐣⛬ᵓ㐀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࡇࢀࡀẕㄒヰ⪅ྠኈࡢࡳ࡛ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙ
ࣥ≧ែࡢᣢ⥆ࡋࡓࠕ≧ἣඹ᭷♫఍࡛ࠖ౑ࢃࢀⓎ㐩ࡋࡓ㸦Ặᐙ 1989b㸧࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀᣲࡆ
1−9−

直接的認識表現ヤハリの生成過程：日本語の「含過程構造」のコード化ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊゝㄒ୺య⮬㌟ࡀࡇࡢ⾲⌧ἲࡢ⊂⮬ᛶ࡟Ẽ௜࠿ࡎ࡟᮶ࡓࠋᑐ㇟໬ࡍࡿ
ᶵ఍ࢆᚓࡎ࡟᮶ࡓ୰࡛ࠊㄝ᫂ࡢᚲせᛶ࡟Ẽ௜࠸ࡓ᫬Ⅼ࡛ᑐ㇟໬ࢆᅗࡗ࡚ࡶࡑࡢ⤒㦂ࡀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊㄝ᫂ࡋ㞴࠸࡜ឤࡌࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡀ␗ゝㄒ࣭␗ᩥ໬ࢆ⫼ᬒ࡟ᣢࡘᏛ⩦⪅࡟༑ศ࡟ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡚࠸࡞࠸⌧≧࡟┤⤖ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊලయⓗ࡞⾲⌧ࢆ୍ࡘྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊࡑࢀࡀ࡝ࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡟ᙧᡂࡉࢀ࡚᮶ࡓ࠿ࢆㄪᰝ᳨ウࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ㸰 ㄆ㆑ⓗゝㄒศᯒ࡜ࠕྵ㐣⛬ᵓ㐀ࠖ ㏆ᖺࠊす᪉ࡢゝㄒᩥ໬࠿ࡽ฿᮶ࡋࡓㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡀ┒ࢇࡔࡀࠊࡑࢀࡣ᪤࡟᪥ᮏ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍ
ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᣦ᦬㸦⸨஭ 1999㸧ࡣ᪩ࡃ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚᮶ࡓࠋ⃝⏣㸦2010㸧ࡶࡲࡓ᪥ᮏㄒࡢㄆ
㆑ⓗศᯒ࡜ࡋ࡚᫬ᯞ(1941)ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ᫬ᯞ⮬㌟ࡢㄒࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࡇ
ࢀࡣỤᡞᮇࡲ࡛ࡢṔྐⓗ࡞ࠕモࠖࠕ㎡ࠖศ㢮ࡢ⥅ᢎ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࠋ᫬ᯞ(1941)࡛ࡣࠕモࠖࡣᴫᛕ໬ࡢ㐣⛬ࢆ⤒࡚సࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ࠕ㎡ࠖࡣᴫᛕ໬ࡢ㐣⛬ࢆ⤒࡞࠸ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢㄆ▱࣭ㄆ㆑ࡢ┤᥋ⓗ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᫬ᯞ㸦1956㸧࡛ࡣࡇࢀࡀྡ⛠ኚ᭦ࡉࢀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀᐈయ
ⓗ⾲⌧ࠊ୺యⓗ⾲⌧࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋྡモࠊືモࠊᙧᐜモࠊ๪モࡢ୍㒊➼ࡀᐈయⓗ⾲⌧࡟ヱᙜࡋࠊឤືモࠊ᥋⥆モࠊຓモࠊከࡃࡢຓືモࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ๪モࡢูࡢ୍㒊ࡀ୺యⓗ⾲⌧࡜࡞ࡿ㸦᫬ᯞ 1950㸧ࠋ࡝ࡢゝㄒ࡟ࡶ࠶ࡿ࡜᥎ᐃࡉࢀࡿឤືモ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ୺యⓗ⾲⌧ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ୺యⓗ⾲⌧ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࡉࡽ࡟ศ໬࣭Ⓨ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⾜ື୰ࠊヰࡋᡭࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཮᪉࡟⏕ࡌࡿ┤᥋ⓗ࡛ືⓗ࡞ㄆ▱࣭ㄆ㆑άື࡟࠾࠸࡚┦ᡭࡢゝ࠿ࡽ┿ពࡸពᅗࢆỮࡳྲྀࡿάືࡀ࡝࠺⏕ࡌࡿࡢ࠿ࢆゎ᫂ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ୺యⓗ⾲⌧࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲ㡲࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢ୺యⓗ⾲⌧࡟ᒓࡍࡶࡢ࡛ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟≉ᚩⓗ࡜ぢࡽࢀࡿ⾲⌧⩌࡜ࡋ࡚๓⠇࡛ᣲࡆࡓࠕྵ㐣⛬ᵓ㐀ࠖࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ୍౛ࢆ๪モ࣭๪モྃ࠿ࡽᣲࡆ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
౛ᩥ㸯 a1 ᫖᪥ࡣᐮ࠿ࡗࡓ࡛ࡍࡡࠋb ࠸ࡸ࠶ࠊᮏᙜࠋ࠺ࡕ࡛ࡣᬮᡣჾࡀᨾ㞀ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲࡗ࡚ࠊ࡝࠺࡟ࡶᐮࡃ࡚ᅔࡾ
ࡲࡋࡓࡼࠋa2 ࠼ࡗ㸽 ࡑࢀࡣ኱ኚ࡛ࡋࡓࡡ ---ࠋ౛ᩥ㸰 a1 ௒ᗘࠊ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥࢺ࣮ࣞࢻ࡛ࡶጞࡵࡼ࠺࠿࡜ᛮࡗ࡚---ࠋb ࠺࣮ࢇ---ࠊ࡞ࡲࡌࡑࢇ࡞ࡶࡢ࡟ᡭࢆฟࡉ࡞࠸࡯࠺ࡀ࠸࠸ࢇࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࡢ㸽a2 ࠼࣮ࡗࠊࡑ࠺࠿࡞࠶㸽౛㸯࡛ࡣࠕ࡜࡚ࡶᐮ࠸࡛ࠖᐮࡉࡢ⛬ᗘࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠊ
ࠕᐮࡉࢆࡋࡢࡄࡓࡵ࡟
ᡃ៏ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺㐣⛬ࢆ⤒ࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ୍ᐃࡢ᫬㛫࡟ࢃࡓࡿヰࡋᡭࡢᚰⓗ㐣⛬ࡀࠕᅔࡿࠖ
࡜ඹ࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛ 2 ࡛ࡣࠕ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥࢺ࣮ࣞࢻ࡛ࡶጞࡵࡼ࠺࠿࡜ᛮ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺
a ࡢⓎヰ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ㸦a ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸧ࠕ༴࡞࠸ࡶࡢࠊ㞴ࡋ࠸ࡶࡢ࡟ࡣ㛵୚ࡋ࡞࠸ࡢࡀ↓㞴࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ヰࡋᡭ b ࡢ୰࡛ࡢ᪤ᡂࡢ☜ಙࡸಙᛕࢆేࡏ࡚Ⓨヰࡋࡓࡢࡀ b ࡜ぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ2−10−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ྛゝㄒ࡟ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࠕྵ㐣⛬ࠖⓗࠊenfold ࡉࢀࡓ㸦ໟࡳ㎸ࡲࢀࡓ㸧⾲⌧ࡣᅾࡾᚓࡿ࡜ᛮ
ࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡀ࡜ࡾࢃࡅ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛Ⓨ㐩ࡋࡓ≉ᚩⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜᥎

ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣḟࡢ⌧㇟ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᐜ᫆࡟⌮ゎ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠊ༑ศ࡞⩦ᚓࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠊࡲࡓࠊᑠㄝࡢ⩻ヂ➼࡟࠾࠸࡚㸦᭩࠿ࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸧↓どࡉࢀࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣㄗヂࡉࢀࡿ౛ࡀከࠎぢࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⌧㇟ࡢ⏕ࡌࡿ⌮⏤ࡣᏛ⩦⪅࣭⩻ヂ⪅ࡢẕㄒ࡟㢮ఝࡋࡓࡶࡢࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋẕㄒヰ⪅ࡀࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㠀ẕㄒヰ⪅࡟⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡞ㄝ᫂࡟ດࡵࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ᙜヱ⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚▱ࡿ࡜ඹ࡟ࠊ┦஫⌮ゎࡀࡋྜ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⮬௚ࢆྵࡵࡓゝㄒᩥ໬⌮ゎ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⾲⌧ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᙧᡂࡉࢀ࡚᮶ࡓ࠿࡜࠸࠺㐣⛬࡜ඹ࡟ࠊ␗ゝㄒ࡛ࡢᑐᛂ⾲⌧࡜ࡢᑐ↷ࢆㄪᰝ᳨࣭ウࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡑࡢㄒྃ࡟₯ࡴព࿡ࠊࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕゝㄒ୺యࡢពࠖࠊࡢṇయࢆ✺ࡁṆࡵࠊ⌮ゎࢆ῝ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ3┤᥋ⓗㄆ㆑⾲⌧ࣖࣁࣜࡢ⏕ᡂ㐣⛬㸸ᐈయⓗ⾲⌧࠿ࡽ୺యⓗ⾲⌧࡬ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣྵ㐣⛬ᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘㄒࡢ୍౛࡜ࡋ࡚๪モࣖࣁࣜ㸦ࡇࡢ⾲グ࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡸࡣࡾࠊࡸ
ࡗࡥࡋ➼ࢆྵࡴࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿ㸧ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊࡇࢀࡀ┤᥋ⓗㄆ㆑ࡢ⾲⌧࡜࡞ࡿ㐣⛬ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊ
࡝ࢇ࡞ព࿡ࡢᣑ኱ࠊ⛣⾜ࡢ㐣⛬ࢆ⤒࡚ࠊ୍༢ㄒ࡛ヰࡋᡭࡢ┤᥋ⓗㄆ㆑ࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿ఩⨨ࢆ⋓ᚓࡋࡓ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ㏆⌧௦ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ㎡᭩඲ 35 Ⅼ㸦඲ 22 ✀ࡢ㎡᭩ࡢࠊ∧࡟ࡼࡾෆᐜࡀ␗࡞ࡿሙྜࢆྵࡵࡓᩘ㸧ࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓປసࠊຍ⣡㸦2012㸧ࢆ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ✀ࡢㄪᰝࡣࡇࢀࡽ᪥ᮏㄒ㎡᭩ࡀ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒࢆつ⠊ⓗ࡟グ㏙ࡋࡓ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜࠿
ࡽฟⓎࡍࡿࡀࠊᙜヱㄒࡢᣢࡘ≉ᛶ㸦୺యⓗ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡾࠊྵ㐣⛬ᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘ㸧࠿ࡽ㎡᭩࡟
༶ᗙ࡟グ㏙ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ㄒࠊゝ࠸᥮࠼⾲⌧ࡢグ㍕࡟ጞࡲ
ࡾࠊࡑࡢᚋࠊ
ࠕグ㏙ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ࡟ࡩࡉࢃࡋ࠸ࡶࡢࡢⓏሙ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ᫬௦ࠊព࿡ෆᐜࠊ
ᇳ➹⪅➼ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀ཯ᫎࡉࢀࡿࠋ≉࡟ࡇࡢㄒ࡟⏕ࡌࡓព࿡ෆᐜࡢኚ໬ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊᣑ኱࣭⛣⾜➼࡟ᇳ➹⪅ࡀ࠸ࡘ╔┠ࡋ㸦ᙜ↛ࠊලయⓗ࡞ゝㄒ౑⏝ࡢᐃ╔ᚋ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸧ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟
ᢕᥱࡋࡓ࠿ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡦ࡜ࡓࡧ╔┠ࡉࢀࡓ஦ᐇࡸ᪂ࡓ࡞ᢕᥱἲ࡟Ẽ
௜ࡁࠊ㋃くࡍࡿ᫬ᮇࡢ㐜㏿ࡢ㐪࠸➼ࡶ┠࡟௜ࡃࠋ⤖ㄽⓗ࡟ࡣᐈయⓗ⾲⌧࡜୺యⓗ⾲⌧ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆព㆑ࡋ࡚ぢࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࠊࡲࡓࠊᐈయⓗ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡟୺యⓗ⾲⌧࡜࠸࠺ഃ㠃ࡀຍࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ែࢆぢ㏨ࡉ࡞࠸࠿ྰ࠿࡟ࡼࡾࠊᢕᥱෆᐜ࡟㐪࠸ࡀฟ࡚᮶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ㄒࠊゝ࠸᥮࠼⾲⌧ࠊグ㏙ࠊᘬ⏝౛ࢆྵࡵࡓ㎡᭩ࡢグ㏙ෆᐜࢆᐈయⓗ⾲⌧࠿ࡽ୺యⓗ⾲⌧࡬ࡢ᥎⛣࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊࡑࡇ࡟ㄆ▱࣭ㄆ㆑άືࡀ࡝࠺ᢕᥱࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿
࡟╔┠ࡋ᳨࡚ウࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࣖࣁࣜࡢព࿡ෆᐜࡢᣑ኱࣭ኚ㑄࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⌧᫬Ⅼ࡛❧࡚ࡽࢀࡿ௬ㄝࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ㸯 ᐈయⓗ≧ែࠕ୙ືࠖ
㸦A㸧ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡟ጞࡲࡿࠋࠑ᝟ែ๪モ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊືモࠕᒃࡿ㸭⨨ࡃࠖ➼ࢆಟ㣭ࡍࡿࠋࠒ㸰 ࠕ୙ኚࠖ
㸦B㸧ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡬࡜ᣑ኱ࡍࡿࠋືస⤖ᯝࡀᣢ⥆ࡍࡿࡉࡲࢆ♧ࡍࠋ3−11−

直接的認識表現ヤハリの生成過程：日本語の「含過程構造」のコード化ࠑືモࠕ⿕ࡿࠖ
ࠕྊࡍࠖ➼ࢆಟ㣭ࡋࠊືసࡢ⤖ᯝࡀᣢ⥆ࡍࡿࡉࡲ㸦࢝ࣈࢵࢸ࢖ࣝࠊ
࣓ࢩࢸ࢖ࣝ㸧ࢆಟ㣭ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡟ጞࡲࡿࠋࠒ
ࠑ᫬㛫ࢆ㐃⥆ᖏ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠒࠑ⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠕࡲࡔࠖ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋࠒ㸱 ㄆ▱ࡋࡓ஦ែࢆ᫬㛫ⓗ࡟ࠕ๓ࠖࡢ஦ែ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋࠊ୍⮴ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠕ๓࡜ྠࡌࠖ㸦C㸧࡬࡜㸦B㸧ࡀศ໬ࡍࡿࠋ
ࠑヰࡋᡭࡀⓎヰ᫬Ⅼ࡛ᣢࡘព㆑࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊㄆ▱ࡋࡓ஦ែࢆࠕ๓ࠖ࡜ẚ㍑ᑐ↷ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᫬㛫ࢆศ⠇ⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠒࠑ౛㸸࠾ఫࡲ࠸ࡣࣖࣁࣜ㒔ෆ࡛ࡍ࠿㸽ࠒḟ࠸࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡀࠊㄆ▱ࡋࡓಶูⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࢆࠕ௚ࠖࡢࡶࡢ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋࠊ୍⮴ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠕ௚࡜ྠࡌࠖ
㸦D㸧࡬࡜ᣑ኱࣭⛣⾜ࡍࡿࠋࠑ౛㸸⚾ࡶࣖࣁࣜ㈶ᡂ࡛ࡍࠋࠒࠑ⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸦D㸧ࡣࠕࡶࠖ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋࠒ
[ࡇࡇࡲ࡛ࡣᐈయᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࠋ⾲⌧ᑐ㇟ࡀ▱ぬྍ⬟࡞㸦ᗈ⩏࡛ࡢ㸧ᐈయ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ]
[ࡇࡇࡲ࡛ࡢⓎᒎ࡟㐃ࢀࠊ
㸦A㸧ࡣᾘኻࡋ࡚⾜ࡃ]㸲㸫㸯 ㄆ▱ࡋࡓ஦ែࢆ⮬㌟ࡢ⤒㦂࣭▱㆑࡜↷ྜࡋ࡚᪤ᡂࡢほᛕ࡜ࡢྠ୍ᛶࢆ
☜ㄆࡋࠊࠕࡑࡇ࡬ࡢᅇᖐࢆㄆࡵࡿពࠖࢆ♧ࡍ㸦E㸧࡬࡜ᣑ኱ࠋヰࡋᡭࡢㄆ㆑ୡ
⏺ෆࡢࡶࡢࢆྵࡴࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ࠑㆡṌ⠇࡜ࡢඹ㉳⾲⌧ࡀከ࠸ࠋࠒ
ࠑ౛㸸ࣖࣁࣜࠊᏊ
࡝ࡶࡣᏊ࡝ࡶࡔࠋࠒ
㸲㸫㸰 ┠๓ࡢ஦ែ࡟⮫ࡳࠊ⪃࠼┤ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊඖࡢㄆ㆑㸦௒ࡢㄆ㆑௨๓࡟ᣢࡗࡓ
ㄆ㆑㸧࡟ᅇᖐࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄆࡵࡿࠕពࠖࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㸲㸫㸯ࡀᐈయⓗ࡞☜ᐃᛶࢆᣢࡘࡶ
ࡢ࡬ࡢᅇᖐ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ẚࡋࠊヰࡋᡭࡢෆ㒊ୡ⏺ࡢࡶࡢ࡬ࡢᅇᖐ࡜࠸࠺ᙧ࡛ࡢᣑ኱ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࠑㆡṌ⠇࡜ࡢඹ㉳⾲⌧ࡀከ࠸ࠋࠒࠑ౛㸸ࣖࣁࣜࠊḞᖍࡋࡲࡍࠋࠒ [㸲ࡣᐈయⓗ⾲⌧࠿ࡽ୺యⓗ⾲⌧࡬ࡢ㐣Ώⓗ࡞ẁ㝵࡜ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ]㸳 ㄆ▱ࡋࡓ஦ែ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⮬㌟ࡢண᝿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓෆᐜ࡜୍⮴ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠕពࠖࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㸲ࡀᡈࡿព࿡࡛ᐈయⓗ☜ᐃᛶࢆᣢࡘ㸦ࠕ᪤ᡂࠖࠊ
ࠕඖࡢࠖ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞㸧ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊࡼࡾಶேⓗ࡟ᚰෆ࡟Ꮡࡍࡿࡢࡳࡢࠕண᝿࡜ࡢ୍⮴ࠖ㸦F㸧࡜࠸࠺┤᥋ⓗㄆ㆑ࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿ࡟⮳ࡿࠋࠑࠕண᝿ࠖࡀᣑ኱ࡉࢀࡓࠕ᝿ᐃ⠊ᅖෆࠖࡢࡶࡢ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶᙜ࡚ࡣࡵࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ⊂❧⏝ἲ㸦Ujiie 2012㸧ࡀ≉࡟㸳ࡢẁ㝵࡛ከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡾࠊឤືモⓗ⏝ἲࡀㄌ⏕ࠋࠒࠑ౛㸸ࡇࡇࡣࣖࣁࣜఫࡳᚰᆅࡀ࠸࠸ࠋ
ࠒ[ࡇ࠺ࡋ࡚┤᥋ⓗ୺యⓗ⾲⌧ࡀ᏶ᡂࡋࠊ㝞㏙๪モࠊᩥ๪モࡢ఩⨨ࢆ☜❧ࡍࡿ]CࠊD ࡢẁ㝵࠿ࡽ㐍ࢇ࡛ࠊࡸࡀ࡚ࠊㄆ▱ࡋࡓ஦ែࢆᚰෆ࡟࠶ࡿࠕ㢮ఝࡋࡓ஦ែࡢグ᠈ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ▱㆑ࡸୡ㛫࡛సࡽࢀࡓほᛕ࡜࠸࠺ࠕᚰෆ࡟࠶ࡿ
ࡶࡢࠖࢆ᝿㉳ࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡜ẚ㍑ᑐ↷ࡍࡿẁ㝵࡬⛣⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ᪤ᡂࡢほᛕࡸ௨๓ࡢ஦ែ
ࡸㄆ㆑࡟╔┠ࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡜ᑐ↷ࡋࠊ㑅ࡧྲྀࡿࠖពࡀ E ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕண᝿࡜ᑐ↷ࡋࠊྠࡌ࡛࠶
ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࠖពࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡬࡜ᣑ኱࣭⛣⾜ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡀ F ࡛࠶ࡿࠋB ࠿ࡽ CࠊD࡬ࠊD ࠿ࡽ EࠊF ࡬࡜㐍ࡴ୰࡛ࠊ㛵㐃஦㡯ࡀ࡯ࡰ⮬ືⓗ࡟᝿㉳ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟⚄⤒ᅇ㊰ࡀ
4−12−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号⏕ᡂࡉࢀࡿࡉࡲࡀ᝿ീࡉࢀࡿࠋඛேࡢᚰෆ࡛࡞ࡉࢀࡓ㢮᥎άື࡛࠶ࡿ B ࠿ࡽ CࠊD ࡬ࡢືࡁࡀࡸࡀ࡚ F ࡟ࡲ࡛⮳ࡗࡓ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ⏕ᡂࡉࢀࡓ⚄⤒ᅇ㊰ࡣࡸࡀ࡚⮬ືⓗ࡟㐍⾜ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡀヰ⪅࡟ព㆑ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇ࠺ࡋ࡚ࠊࣖࣁࣜࢆ౑ࡗࡓⓎヰࢆ⪥࡟ࡍࢀࡤࠊ᪤࡟ࠕヰ⪅ࡢᚰ୰࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢᙧ࡛࠶ࡗ
ࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟᝿ീ࡛ࡁࡿᆅⅬ࡟ࡲ࡛฿㐩ࡋࡓ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡
ෆᐜ᥎⛣࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⪃ᐹࡣㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ┿ࡢⓎᒎ࡟ྥࡅ࡚㧗࠸᭷ຠᛶࢆᣢࡘࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࢁ
࠺࠿ࠋᙜヱㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⪃ᐹ࡞ࡋ࡟⌧᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡢゝㄒ౑⏝ࡢࡳ࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛
ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟ㄽࡌࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࡀࠊࡑࡇ࡟ࡣ⮬ࡎ࡜㝈⏺ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ┦ᡭࡢゝ࡟཯ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆゝ࠸ฟࡍ㝿ࡢ౑⏝ࡀὀ┠ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡑࡢゝ࡟ᅽ㏕ឤࢆឤࡌࡘࡘ཯ㄽࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢព࿡࡛ࡢࠕ᪤Ꮡࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆṊჾ࡜ࡋ࡚౑࠺࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋㆡṌ⠇࡜ඹ㉳ࡋࠊ୍ᐃࡢ᮲௳ෆ࡛ከࡃ౑ࢃࢀࡿ⌮⏤࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊE ࡛ࡣ⮬㌟ࡢண᝿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓෆᐜ࡜㛵㐃௜ࡅࠊ୍⮴ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ពࢆ♧ࡍࠋண᝿࡟ᮇᚅࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࠊࡑࡢᮇᚅ࡟཯ࡍࡿ⤖ᯝࡀฟ࡚ࡶ᝿ᐃ⠊ᅖෆࡢࡶࡢ࡜ぢ࡚ࠊࡑࡇ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃௜ࡅࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࠊ୍⮴ࡍࡿពࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࣖࣁࣜࡀ୺యⓗ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡉࡽ࡟ศ໬ࡍࡿ㐣⛬ࡣ୺య໬⌧㇟ࡢⓎᒎ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊ⯆࿡῝࠸ࠋࣖࣁࣜࡣ B㹼F ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࠕఱ࠿࡜୍⮴ࠖࡍࡿ஦ែࡸពࢆ♧ࡍ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ព࿡ྜ࠸ࡣศ໬ࡋᣑ኱ࡋ࡚᮶ࡓࡀࠊព࿡࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࡇࢀࡀࣖࣁࣜࡢ᰿ᗏ࡟࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋㅖ✀ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ㎡᭩ࡢ୰࡛ 1979 ᖺ࡟⮳ࡗ࡚ࠗᒾἼᅜㄒ㎡඾࠘➨ 3 ∧㸦ࣖࣁࣜ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ 2009 ᖺหࡢ➨ 7 ∧ࡲ࡛ྠ୍㸧࡛ࡑࢀࡲ࡛ࡢྛ✀㎡᭩ࡢグ㏙ࢆ㞟኱ᡂࡋࠊ⤫ྜࡋࡓグ㏙࡜ࡋ࡚ࡇࡢࠕఱ࠿࡜ྠࡌࠖ࡜࠸࠺⥺࡛⤫୍ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡀห⾜ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࡇ࡟ヰ⪅ࡀ㢮ఝࡋࡓࡶࡢࢆ᝿㉳ࡋࠊ㛵㐃௜ࡅࠊゝཬࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺┤᥋ⓗ࡞୺యⓗ⾲⌧ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ࡟⮳ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ኱࠸࡟ὀ┠ࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ➨㸰⠇࡛ぢࡓ㏻ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡣከࡃࡢ୺యⓗ⾲⌧ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢ⾲⌧ࡀⓎ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑ
ࢀ࡟ࡶᣊࢃࡽࡎࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡀ㎡᭩ࡢᇳ➹⪅ࡸ◊✲⪅㛫࡛࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘព㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟ࡣ
␲ၥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ୺యⓗ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆṇ☜࡟グ㏙ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊᐈయⓗ≧ែࢆ♧ࡍࠕ㹼ࡍࡿᵝࠖ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕ㹼ࡢពࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚༊ูࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢ༊ูࡣᙜヱㄒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㝈ࡾࠊṇ☜࡟࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᐈయⓗࠊ୺యⓗ⾲⌧ࡀ༊ูࡉࢀࡎΰྠࡋ࡚ព㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᙜヱㄒ࡟㝈ࡽࡎࠊ୺య໬⌧㇟࡬ࡢ㐣Ώᮇ࡟࠶ࡿࠊᡈ࠸ࡣࠊ୺య໬⌧㇟ࡢⓎᒎᮇ࡟࠶ࡿㄒ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ㄪᰝࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡣὀពࡍࡿᚲ
せࡢ࠶ࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊ⯆࿡῝࠸Ⅼ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
4┤᥋ⓗㄆ㆑⾲⌧ࣖࣁࣜࡢⱥㄒ┦➼ㄒྃ㸸࿴ⱥ㎡᭩࡜᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⛉᭩ࡢグ㏙

 ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࣖࣁࣜࡢព࿡ෆᐜࡢᣑ኱࣭⛣⾜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ぢ࡚᮶ࡿ࡜ࠊ᪤࡟᪥ᮏㄒෆ࡛ศ
໬࣭Ⓨᒎࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇࢀࢆ␗ゝㄒ࡜ᑐ↷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡣ┦➼ࡢ㝈⏺ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝࢃࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ⩻ヂᩥ࡛ࡢヂ౛ࢆ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡋ࡚ぢࡿሙྜࠊ⩻ヂ࡟ᙜࡓࡗ࡚౑ࡗ
ࡓ᪥ᮏㄒ㎡᭩ࡸ࿴ⱥ㎡᭩࡟ࡣห⾜᫬ᮇ࡟ࡼࡾࠊୖࡢ B㹼D ࠿ࡽ E㹼F ࡢ࡝ࡇࡲ࡛ࡀ᭩࠿
5−13−

直接的認識表現ヤハリの生成過程：日本語の「含過程構造」のコード化ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ↓どࡉࢀ࡚⩻ヂࡉࢀ࡞࠸౛ࡢከࡃぢࡘ࠿ࡿ᭩ࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊヂ⪅ࡢ⌮ゎ୙㊊ࠊᑐᛂ⾲⌧ࡀ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡓࠊ࡜᥎ᐃࡉࢀࡿ࡯࠿࡟ࠊ⩻ヂ᫬Ⅼ࡛㎡᭩㢮ࡢグ㍕
ࡀ୙༑ศࡔࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡶ⪃៖࡟ධࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
ᐈయⓗ஦ែࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡶࡢࡣᴫᛕ໬ࡢ㐣⛬ࢆ⤒࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡣ୍⯡࡟␗ゝㄒ࡟ࡶᑐᛂࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀぢࡘ࠿ࡿࠋ┦➼ㄒࡀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ␗ゝㄒ࡛ࡢㄝ᫂ࡸゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࣖࣁࣜࡢ B~D ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ␗ゝㄒ࡟ࡶ㢮ఝ⾲⌧ࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡉࡋࡓࡿ㞀ᐖࡶ࡞ࡃヂࡉࢀ
ࡿࠋ1867 ᖺห࣊࣎ࣥⴭࠗ࿴ⱥㄒᯘ㞟ᡂ࠘ࡣᮏ᱁ⓗ࿴ⱥ㎡᭩ࡢ᭱ึࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ
ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ B~D ࡢヂㄒࡢࡳࡀᣲࡀࡿࠋࡑࡢ୍࡟ still ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊヂ౛ࡣᕝ➃ᗣᡂ 1937ࠗ㞷ᅜ࠘ࡢ Seidensticker ࡟ࡼࡿヂᩥ Snow Country. 1957.㸦p.11㸧ࢆึࡵᯛᣲ࡟࠸࡜ࡲࡀ↓࠸ࠋၥ㢟ࡣࡇࢀࡀ EࠊF ࡢẁ㝵ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢㄆ㆑ࢆ┤᥋⾲⌧ࡍࡿሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࡢⱥ
ヂࡣ E ࡜ࡢᑐᛂ࡜ぢࡽࢀࡿ after all ࡟ጞࡲࡿ࡜ぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ๪モྃࢆ౑ࡗࡓⱥヂࡀከࡃ࡞ࡉࢀࡿඖ࡟࡞ࡗࡓ㎡᭩࡜ࡋ࡚ 1906 ᖺหࠗᐿ⏝࿴ⱥ᪂㎫඾࠘ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋYahariࡢ㡯࡟ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ᩥࡀᣲࡀࡿࠋ
౛ᩥ 3 ࢻ࢘ࢩࢸࣔ▮ᙇே㛫ࡣ⮬ศ຾ᡭ࡞⪅࣐࣐ࡔࠋAfter all, man is a selfish being.
ࡇࢀࡣᐇࡣࠕ࡝࠺ࡋ࡚ࡶࡸࡣࡾࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚౑ࢃࢀࡿሙྜࡢࣖࣁࣜࠊࡘࡲࡾࣖࣁࣜࡢ౑ࢃࢀ
ࡿᡈࡿ≉ᐃࡢሙྜࡢⱥヂ࡜ࡋ࡚ after all ࢆᑐᛂࡉࡏࡓࡶࡢ࡜ぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡕ࡞ࡳ࡟ᮏ㎡඾࡛ࡣព࿡ෆᐜࢆ♧ࡍ㡯┠࡟ࡣࡇࡢㄒྃࡀᣲࡀࡽࡎࠊࡲࡓࠊ඲ 10 Ⅼࡢ౛ᩥࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࡇࡢ
ࠕࢻ࢘ࢩࢸࣔࠖࡔࡅࡀ∦௬ྡ⾲グ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛ᩥࡣࡓ࡜࠼స౛࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜ࠊᇳ➹⪅ࡀ≧ἣࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟⾲⌧ୖࡢᕤኵࢆࡋࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓゝ࠸᪉ࢆぢ⪺ࡁࡍࡿ࡜ุ᩿ࡋ࡚ᣲࡆ
ࡓࡶࡢࡢࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ༢࡞ࡿ┦➼⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ㄒྃࡸࠊ㡯┠ྡ࡜ࡋ࡚ᣲࡀࡿࡶ
ࡢ࡟ẚࡋࠊㄞࡳᡭ࡟ከࡃࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ᥎㔞ࡉࡏࡿ⮬⏤ᗘࢆᣢࡘࠋ⌧᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡢㄪᰝ࡛ࡣ౛ᩥ 3ࡀ᪥ᮏ࡛᭱ึ࡟ࣖࣁࣜ E ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡽࢀࡓᑐᛂ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ぢࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡀ௨ᚋࡢ⩻ヂ➼࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡓ࡜᥎

ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠕ࡝࠺ࡋ࡚ࡶࡸࡣࡾࠖࡢヂ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ㐺ษ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡑࢀࡀᣑ኱ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࠊࣖࣁ୍ࣜ⯡࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡘࡲࡾࠊࡇࢀࡀࠕࣖࣁࣜ㸸after allࠖ࡟ጞࡲࡾࠊⱥ࿴㎡᭩࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕafter all㸸⤖ᒁࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧ࡟⤖ࡧ௜ࡁࠊḟ࠸࡛ࠊࠕ⤖ᒁ㸻ࣖࣁࣜࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᤊ࠼᪉࡟ࡲ࡛ཬࡧࠊࡑࢀࡀ᪥ᮏㄒ
㎡᭩ࡢグ㏙࡟ࡲ࡛ᙳ㡪ࡋࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ⠇ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ୍ᑐ୍ࡢ┦➼ㄒྃࡀ࡞࠸
⩻ヂ⾜Ⅽࡢ୰࡛ࡣ㉳ࡁᚓࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
⩻ヂ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣୖ㏙ࡢ 1957 ᖺࡢ Seidensticker ࡟ࡼࡿヂᩥ㸦p.113㸧
ࠊኟ┠ₙ▼ 1906ࠗᆓࡕࡷࢇ࠘ࡢ A. Turney ࡟ࡼࡿヂᩥࠊ1985 ᖺ Botchan㸦p.13㸧➼࡟⌧ᅾ࡞ࡽㄗヂ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡶࡢࡀぢࡘ࠿ࡿ㸦Ujiie 2012㸧㸦࡞࠾ࠊBotchan ࡢ౛ᩥࡣຍ⣡㸦2011㸧ཧ↷㸧ࠋ⩻ࡗ࡚ࠊⱥㄒࡢ๪モྃ after all ࡣࠕࡍ࡭࡚ࡢࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡓᚋ࡛ࠖࡀཎ⩏࡛࠶ࡾ㸦Swan
1988ࠊOxford English Dictionary 2 1989㸧ࠊࡇࢀࡀศ໬ࡋ࡚ perspective use ࡜ contrastive useࡢ 2 ⏝ἲ㸦Ujiie 2012㸧ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓ࡜ぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢෆࠊperspective use ࡀ E ࡢ┦➼⾲⌧࡜
6−14−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ぢࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࣖࣁࣜࡢᣢࡘព࿡ࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊE ࡢ୍㒊࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡟ຍ
ࢃࡗࡓࡢࡀࠊF ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ as I expected ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᮏ᱁ⓗㄝ᫂ࡣ 1983 ᖺหࠗ࿴ⱥ୰㎡඾࠘➨୕∧࡟࠾ࡅࡿグ㏙࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ึࡵ࡚㡢ㄪ࡟㛵ࡍࡿグ㏙㸦Ặᐙ 2011㸧
࡜ As I (we, you, people, ---) expected (thought) ࡞࡝ࡢ as expected ⣔ࢆྵࡴヲ⣽࡞グ㏙ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡓ㸦Ặᐙ 1989 a㸧ࠋAs expected ⣔ࡣヰ⪅ࡢண᝿࡜୍⮴ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ F ࡢព࿡࡟ᑐᛂ
ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ┦➼ࡍࡿㄒྃࡀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵᚑᒓ⠇ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ࡢㄝ᫂ⓗ⾲⌧࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋ௨ᚋࠊࡇࡢグ㏙ࡣ⥅ᢎࡉࢀࠊ⩻ヂ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ┤᥋ⓗㄆ㆑⾲⌧ࣖࣁࣜࡢᑐᛂ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ᐃ╔ࠊࡲࡓࡣㄗࡾࢆྵࡴ㐣๫࡞౑⏝㸦Ujiie 2012㸧ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࡟⮳ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀ࡟㛵㐃ࡋ࡚ࠊHealey ࡟ࡼࡿ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⛉᭩ Introduction To Japanese, Volume III
㸦Healey. 1975: 226㸧࡟ࡣࣖࣁࣜ࡟ᙜࡓࡿヂᩥ㸦ୗ⥺ࡣⴭ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ㸧࡟ḟࡢ౛ࡀᣲࡀࡿࠋ
ձHe didn’t come after all (we thought he might not because of the weather).
ղIt did turn out to be too small in the end, did it?
ճ We were too late in the end (although I thought we might just make it).
ࡇࡢෆࠊղճࡣ㡢ㄪࡢᣦ᦬࡛࠶ࡾࠊࣖࣁࣜࡢ F ࡟ᙜࡓࡿㄆ㆑⮬యࡣ␗࡞ࡿゝㄒᩥ໬࡟ࡶ
࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋձࡣ after all ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ᭱⤊ⓗᒁ㠃࡛ࡢⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡾࠊafter
all ࡢཎ⩏ࠊࡲࡓࡣࡑࢀࢆⰍ⃰ࡃṧࡋࡓ perspective use ࡢሙྜ࡟ヱᙜࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ㸳 ⤖ࡧྵ㐣⛬ᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘ┤᥋ⓗㄆ㆑⾲⌧ࣖࣁࣜࡢ⏕ᡂ㐣⛬ࢆᴫほࡋࡓࠋᐈయⓗ஦ែ࡛࠶ࡿ୙
ືࠊ୙ኚࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡟Ⓨࡋࠊ≧ἣඹ᭷ᛶࡢ㧗࠸♫఍࡛ᣑ኱࣭⛣⾜ࢆ㐙ࡆࠊ⏕ᡂࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜ぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࣖࣁࣜࡀ⊂⮬ᛶࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࢆ␗ゝㄒࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣⱥㄒ࡜ࡢẚ㍑ᑐ↷ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋⱥㄒ࡟┦➼ㄒྃࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㒊ศⓗᑐᛂࢆᣢࡘㄒྃ after all ࡜ㄝ᫂ⓗゝ࠸᥮࠼ as expected ⣔ࡀᑐᛂ⾲⌧࡜࡞ࡿࠋ⊂⮬ᛶࢆᣢࡘ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ୺యⓗ⾲⌧ࢆศᯒࡍࡿ㝿ࠊṔྐⓗࠊ♫఍ⓗ࡞⏕ᡂࢆど㔝࡟ධࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗㄝ᫂ࡣᙉ໬ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ㅰ㎡
ཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲ᚋ࡟㡬࠸ࡓࢥ࣓ࣥ࡟ࡼࡾ⪃ᐹࢆ῝ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊࡲࡓࠊ㈨ᩱ཰㞟࡟࠾࠸࡚ຍ⣡㯞⾰ᏊẶ㸦ࣀ࣮ࢺࣝࢲ࣒ΎᚰዪᏊ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔༤ኈᚋᮇㄢ⛬㸧ࡢ༠ຊ࡟㈇࠺࡜ࡇࢁࡀ኱ࡁ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆグࡋࠊ࠾♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩⸨஭㈆࿴. 1999ࠕᅜㄒᏛྐⓗᡂ❧---᫬ᯞㄔグㄽࡢ୍⎔---ࠖࠗᛮ᝿࠘899. 83-101. ᮾி: ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ.
G. H. Healey. 1975. Introduction To Japanese, Volume III, 246. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.
ຍ ⣡ 㯞 ⾰ Ꮚ . 2011. ࠕࠗ ࡸ ࡗ ࡥ ࡾ ࠘ ࡜ ‘after all’ 㸸 ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ࡢ ୺ య ⓗ ⾲ ⌧ ࡜ ⱥ ㄒ ᑐ ᛂ ⾲ ⌧ ࡢ ♧ ࡍ ㄆ ㆑ ࠖࠗΎᚰㄒᩥ࠘13. 1-14.
ຍ⣡㯞⾰Ꮚ.

2012.ࠕ୺యⓗ⾲⌧ࠕࡸࡣࡾ㸭ࡸࡗࡥࡾࠖࡢᡂ❧㸸㏆⌧௦ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ㎡᭩ࡢព࿡グ㏙᳨ウࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠖࠗΎᚰㄒᩥ࠘14. 1-12.

7−15−

直接的認識表現ヤハリの生成過程：日本語の「含過程構造」のコード化⃝⏣἞⨾. 2010.ࠕࠗ୺ほᛶ࡜୺యᛶ࠘ᗎㄽࠖࠊ⃝⏣⦅ࠗ୺ほᛶ࡜୺యᛶ࠘ࠊiii-xࠊᮾி: ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
Swan. 1984. Basic English Usage, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
᫬ᯞㄔグ. 1941/2007.ࠗᅜㄒᏛཎㄽ࠘. ᮾி: ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ.
᫬ᯞㄔグ. 1950.ࠗ᪥ᮏᩥἲ ཱྀㄒ⠍࠘. ᮾி: ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ.
᫬ᯞㄔグ. 1953.ࠕゝㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺యⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࠖ.ࠗ㔠⏣୍༤ኈྂᕼグᛕ ゝㄒẸ᪘ㄽྀ࠘ᮾி:୕┬ᇽẶᐙὒᏊ. 1974.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ぢࡿࠗྵ㐣⛬ᵓ㐀࠘ࠖᅜㄒᏛ఍᫓Ꮨ኱఍ཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲.㸦せ᪨㸸ࠗᅜㄒᏛ࠘99㸧.
Ujiie, Y. 1986. “Utilisation of a Given Form in Natural Language-Developed use of the function of Japaneseparticle 'NO'-”, Travaux de Linguistique Japonaise, 8, 143-150. Paris: Institut des Hautes Etudes
Japonaises, Universite de Paris 7.㸦Ujiie, Y. 2010 ᡤ཰㸧.
ẶᐙὒᏊ. 1989a.ࠕ࿴ⱥ㎡඾࡜᪥ᮏㄒ㸸ྵ㐣⛬ᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘ๪モࡢⱥㄒ࡬ࡢ⨨᥮࠼ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠖ.ࠗᅜᩥᏛ ゎ㔘࡜㚷㈹࠘54:1. 85-88.
ẶᐙὒᏊ. 1989b. ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢྵ㐣⛬ᵓ㐀࡜ࡑࢀࢆ⫱ࢇࡔ≧ἣඹ᭷♫఍ࠖࠊࠗᒣᙧ኱Ꮫ⣖せ㸦ேᩥ⛉Ꮫ㸧࠘11: 4.
57-75.㸦Ặᐙ. 1996.ࠗゝㄒᩥ໬ᏛࡢどⅬ࠘ᮾி: ࠾࠺ࡩ࠺ᡤ཰㸧ẶᐙὒᏊ. 2007ࠕ᪥ᮏேࡣ࡞ࡐࠗࡸࡗࡥࡾ࠘ࢆከ⏝ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠖࠊᑠụΎ἞࣭Ặᐙ࣭⛅ඖ⨾ᬕⴭࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱᥈✲ἲ࠘㸦➨ 14 ❶㸧112-123. ᮅ಴᭩ᗑ.
Ujiie, Y. 2010 A Speaker’s Cognition Encoded in Japanese: Speech, Mind, and Society. ᮾி㸸୕ඖ♫.
ẶᐙὒᏊ. 2011.ࠕ᪥ⱥㄒᑐ↷࠿ࡽぢࡿࠕಙྕㄒ࣭ࠖ⿬ኌ㸸୺యⓗ⾲⌧࡜ࡑࡢ⏕ᡂ㐣⛬ࠖ. ᮡ⸨⨾௦Ꮚ⦅ࠗ㡢ኌᩥἲ࠘181-198. ᮾி: ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
Ujiie, Y. 2012 . “The difference of epistemic contents of Japanese subjective word yappari and its English
equivalents”, Paper prepared for NDLP 2012, University of Lotz, Poland, Book of Abstracts NDLP2012,
6th Lodz Symposium: New Developments in Linguistic Pragmatics, 149-150.
㎡᭩
࣭ⱥㄒᩍᤵ◊✲᭳⦅⧩. 1906.ࠗᐿ⏝࿴ⱥ᪂㎫඾࠘ྜྷᕝᘯᩥ㤋. ࣭Oxford English Dictionary 2. 1989. Oxford
University Press. ࣭࣊࣎ࣥ, J. C. 1867.ࠗ࿴ⱥㄒᯘ㞟ᡂ࠘ㅮㄯ♫. ࣭ᕷᕝ࣭ࢥࣜࢵࢡ࣭᪥༡⏣࣭∾. 1983.ࠗ࿴ⱥ୰㎡඾࠘➨ 3 ∧.◊✲♫. ࣭すᑿᐇ ᒾῡᝋኴ㑻 Ỉ㇂㟼ኵ. 1979.ࠗᒾἼᅜㄒ㎡඾࠘➨ 3 ∧.ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ.
⏝౛඾ᣐ࣭ᕝ➃ᗣᡂ. 1937.ࠗ㞷ᅜ࠘[౑⏝ᮏ㸸1947.᪂₻♫]. ࣭Seidensticker, E. G. 1957. Snow Country. C. E. Tuttle Publisher.
࣭ኟ┠ₙ▼. 1906.ࠗᆓࡕࡷࢇ࠘ [౑⏝ᮏ㸸ゅᕝ᭩ᗑ 2004]. Turney, A. 1985. Botchan. 1985. Kodansha International.

8−16−第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢᶵ⬟኱ஂಖ ຍዉᏊ
ி㒔ᗓ❧኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸺Abstract㸼
The purpose of this paper is to examine how Japanese particle yone is used in casual conversation,
analyzing data from the Ritsumeikan Japanese conversation corpus. Speakers often use yone when they seek a
topic which they can share with their partners. Meanwhile hearers use yone when two participants of
conversation collaboratively tell a story.

࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸ࡼࡡࠊㄯヰศᯒࠊ㞧ㄯࠊ఍ヰཧຍࡢ❧ሙࠊ఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸯.  ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚⤊ຓモࡣ୙ྍḞࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࡑࡢ୰ࡢࠕࡼࡡࠖࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊ
ࠕ❧࿨㤋᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸦௨ୗࠕ❧࿨఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࠖ࡜࿧ࡪ㸧1 ࢆࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㞧ㄯ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕࡼࡡࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ㝿ࡢヰ⪅ࡢᙺ๭࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㏻ᖖࠊ఍ヰ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡣࠊ஧ே௨ୖࡢཧຍ⪅ࡀࠕヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙺ๭ࢆ஺᭰ࡉࡏ࡞ࡀࡽ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡀࡕ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋᐇ㝿ࡢ఍ヰࢆほᐹࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕヰࡋᡭ㸭⪺ࡁᡭࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙺ๭
ࡣࡑࢀ࡯࡝ุ↛࡜༊ู࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ≉࡟᪥ᮏㄒࡢ఍ヰ࡟ࡣࠊࠕඹヰ㸦Ỉ㇂ 1980㸧ࠖࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕඹ
ྠⓎヰ㸦ࢨࢺࣛ࢘ࢫ࣮࢟2000㸧
ࠖ࡞࡝࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿ⌧㇟ࡀ≉ᚩⓗ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋỈ㇂
㸦1988㸧ࡀࠕඹヰࠖࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡸ┦ᡭࡢࡇ࡜ࡤࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࠊゝ࠸᥮࠼ࠊ┦ᡭࡢゝ࠸ࡉࡋࢆ⿵᏶ࡍࡿⓎヰ࡞࡝࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ࠾ࡶ࡟᝟ሗࢆཷᐜࡍࡿ❧ሙ࡟࠶ࡿ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡀ✚ᴟⓗ࡟┦ᡭࡢヰࡢᵓ⠏ࢆຓࡅࡿ㝿࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞❧ሙ࠿ࡽ࡝ࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡞⏝ἲ࡛ࠕࡼࡡࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ㸰.  ࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢ⏝ἲ ࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡲࡎᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊࠕ☜ㄆせồ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࠕ☜ㄆせồࠖ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ⾲⌧࡟ࡣ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢ≉ᚩࡣ஦ᐇ㛵ಀࡑࡢࡶࡢࢆၥ㢟࡟ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ ࠊࠕࡇ࠺࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸㸦ࡇ࠺࠶ࡿ࡭ࡁࡔ㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠕᙜ↛ᛶࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺㸦ᐑ
ᓮ 2000㸪2002㸪㔝⏣ 2002㸧ࠋࡲࡓࠊࠕࡼࡡࠖ࡟ࡣࠕ☜ㄆせồࠖࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࡢ୰࡛ࡣᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸⏝ἲࡶ࠶ࡾࠊศᯒࡢほⅬ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ศ㢮ࡀᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᶵ⬟࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓ◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᕷᮧ㸦2007㸧ࠊᙇ㸦2009㸧ࠊ๽㸦2010㸧࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
㆟ㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࡼࡡࠖࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓᕷᮧ㸦2007㸧ࡣࠊࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢ⏝ἲࢆࠕ☜ㄆࠖࠕඹ㏻ㄆ㆑ࡢႏ

−17−

談話における「よね」の機能㉳ࠖࠕ୺ᙇࡢ࿴ࡽࡆࠖࠕྠព⾲᫂ࠖࡢ 4 ࡘ࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㆟ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ୺ᙇࡸ㉁ၥ࡟ᚲせ࡞᝟ሗࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽࡢྠពࢆᘬࡁฟࡍ㝿࡟ࠕࡼࡡࠖࡀຠᯝⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⮬↛఍ヰࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓᙇ㸦2009㸧ࡣࠊ㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿ᝟ሗࡀヰࡋᡭ࣭⪺ࡁᡭ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿୍᪉࡟ᒓࡍࡿ
ࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ࠿࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ୧⪅࡟ᒓࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡜ࠊ
ࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢⓎヰ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࡝࠺཯ᛂࡍࡿࡢ
࠿࡜࠸࠺ 2 ࡘࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢ⾲⌧ᶵ⬟ࢆ኱ࡁࡃ 3 ✀㢮ࠊ⣽࠿ࡃ 4 ✀㢮࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋA 㢮ࠕ☜ㄆせồࠖࠊB 㢮ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ౪ࠖࠊC 㢮ࠕඹឤ⾲♧࣭せồࠖ࡜ 3 ࡘ࡟኱ูࡋࡓ࠺࠼࡛ࠊC 㢮ࢆࡉࡽ࡟ C-1 㢮ࠕඹឤ⾲♧ࠖࠊC-2 㢮ࠕඹឤ⾲♧㸩せồࠖ࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ༢⊂࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠕࡔࡼࡡࠖࢆศᯒࡋࡓ๽㸦2010㸧ࡣࠊࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢᶵ⬟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ┦ᡭࡢㄆ㆑࡟
ᑐࡍࡿཷࡅධࢀࡸྠព࣭ྠឤࢆ♧ࡍࠖࠕ┦ᡭ࡟⮬ศࡀᣢࡘㄆ㆑࡟ᑐࡍࡿཷࡅධࢀࡸྠព࣭ྠឤࢆồࡵࡿࠖࠕ┦ᡭ࡟ྠព࣭ྠឤࢆ♧ࡍ୍᪉ࠊ⮬ศࡢㄆ㆑࡟ᑐࡍࡿྠព࣭ྠឤࢆ෌ࡧồࡵࡿࠖࡢ 3 ࡘࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
๽㸦2010㸧ࡢ◊✲ࡣ༢⊂ࡢࠕࡔࡼࡡࠖࢆ⪃ᐹᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊᕷᮧ㸦2007㸧ࡢࠕ୺ᙇࡢ࿴ࡽࡆࠖࠊ
ᙇ㸦2009㸧ࡢ B 㢮ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ౪ࠖ࡟ヱᙜࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀࡓ࡚ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊⓎヰ⪅ࡀ᝟ሗࡢᥦ౪⪅࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ཷᐜ⪅࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡀཧ⪃࡟࡞ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣඛ⾜◊✲ࡢศ㢮ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋࡘࡘࠊⓎヰ⪅ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞❧ሙ࠿ࡽⓎヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡟㛵ࢃࡿほⅬ࠿ࡽࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢ⏝ἲࢆศ㢮ࡍࡿࠋࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢⓎヰ࡛㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿ᝟ሗࡀヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࢀ࡜ࡶ┦ᡭࡢ๓ࡢⓎヰࢆཷࡅ࡚ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡞ࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡜ࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ Yes㸭No ࡢ㏉⟅ࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࠿ࡽࠊ⾲㸯ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ 4 ࡘ࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿࠋ⾲㸯 ࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢ⏝ἲࡢศ㢮㏉⟅ࢆồࡵࡿ

㏉⟅ࢆồࡵ࡞࠸

᝟ሗᥦ♧㸩☜ㄆ࣭ྠពせồ᝟ሗᥦ♧ྠព࣭ゎ㔘⾲᫂㸩☜ㄆ࣭ྠពせồྠព⾲᫂ヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ᝟ሗࡢᥦ♧┦ᡭࡢᥦ♧ࡋࡓ᝟ሗ࡬ࡢ཯ᛂ

㸱.  ࢹ࣮ࢱ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠕ❧࿨఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࠖࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅஧ே୍⤌ࡢ⮬↛఍ヰ㸯᫬㛫ࢆ㸳⤌ࠊィ㸳᫬㛫ศ㘓⏬ࡋࠊྛ఍ヰࡢෑ㢌 10 ศ㛫ࡢグ㘓ࢆඖ࡟సࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ཰㞟ࡣ 2010
ᖺ 2 ᭶࠿ࡽ 3 ᭶࡟࠿ࡅ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡓࠋヰ⪅ࡢᒓᛶ࡜఍ヰཧຍ⪅ྠኈࡢ㛵ಀࢆ⾲㸰࡟♧ࡍࠋ⾲㸰 ヰ⪅࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗ

఍ヰ
␒ྕ
01

ヰ⪅
␒ྕ

ᖺ㱋

ᛶู

ฟ㌟ᆅ

⫋ᴗ

▱ࡾྜࡗ
ࡓ᫬ᮇ

┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ఍
ヰ᫬㛫

┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ఍
ヰ㢖ᗘ



20 ௦๓༙

ዪ

ឡ▱┴

Ꮫ⏕

1 ᖺ๓

30 ᫬㛫

㐌1ᅇ



30 ௦

⏨

ឡ▱┴

Ꮫ⏕

1 ᖺ๓

30 ᫬㛫

㐌1ᅇ

−18−

第15回大会発表論文集

30 ௦


02

03

04

05

ዪ

第８号

ᗈᓥ┴

Ꮫ⏕

1 ᖺ๓

100 ᫬㛫

㐌 2,3 ᅇ1 ᖺ๓

100 ᫬㛫

㐌2ᅇ



30 ௦ᚋ༙

ዪி㒔ᗓ᪥ᮏㄒᩍᖌ㸭Ꮫ⏕

20 ௦๓༙

ዪ

ᒸᒣ

኱Ꮫ㝔⏕

1 ᖺ๓

1 ᫬㛫

㐌2ᅇ



20 ௦ᚋ༙

⏨

⁠㈡┴

Ꮫ⏕

1 ᖺ๓

1 ᫬㛫

㐌2ᅇ



20 ௦๓༙

ዪ

⚟஭┴

኱Ꮫ㝔⏕

1 ᖺ๓

50 ᫬㛫

㐌2ᅇ



20 ௦๓༙

ዪ

⛅⏣┴

Ꮫ⏕

1 ᖺ๓

50 ᫬㛫

㐌2ᅇ



20 ௦๓༙

⏨

ᮾி㒔

Ꮫ⏕

6 ࣨ᭶๓

5 ᫬㛫

᭶2ᅇ



40 ௦๓༙

ዪ

ி㒔ᗓ

Ꮫ⏕

6 ࣨ᭶๓

5 ᫬㛫

᭶1ᅇ

㸲.  ྛ⏝ἲࡢ౑⏝ẚ⋡ࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢྛ⏝ἲࡢ⏝౛ᩘࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡢࡀ⾲㸱࡛࠶ࡿࠋ┦ᡭ࡟ Yes㸭ࡢ No ࡢ㏉⟅ࢆồࡵࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡜
࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ┦ᡭ࡟㏉⟅ࢆồࡵࡿࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧㸩☜ㄆ࣭ྠពせồࠖ࡜ࠕྠព࣭ゎ㔘⾲᫂㸩☜ㄆ࣭ྠពせồࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡀྜࢃࡏ࡚ 67.9㸣࡜ࠊ඲యࡢ 3 ศࡢ 2 ௨ୖࢆ༨ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊヰ⪅ࡢഃ࠿ࡽ᝟ሗ
ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧㸩☜ㄆ࣭ྠពせồࠖ࡜ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖࡢྜィࡀ 51.8㸣ࠊ┦ᡭࡢᥦ♧ࡋࡓ᝟ሗ࡟ᑐ
ࡍࡿࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠕྠព࣭ゎ㔘⾲᫂㸩☜ㄆ࣭ྠពせồࠖ࡜ࠕྠព⾲᫂ࠖࡢྜィࡀ 48.2㸣࡜ࠊ୧⪅ࡣ࡯ࡰྠ⛬ᗘ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ⾲㸱 ࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢ⏝ἲู⏝౛ᩘヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ᝟ሗࡢᥦ
♧┦ᡭࡢᥦ♧ࡋࡓ᝟ሗ
࡬ࡢ཯ᛂィ㏉⟅ࢆồࡵࡿ

㏉⟅ࢆồࡵ࡞࠸

ィ᝟ሗᥦ♧㸩☜ㄆ࣭ྠពせồ

᝟ሗᥦ♧

29 ౛

20 ౛㸦35.7%㸧

9 ౛㸦16.1%㸧

㸦51.8%㸧ྠព࣭ゎ㔘⾲᫂㸩☜ㄆ࣭ྠពせồ

ྠព⾲᫂

27 ౛

18 ౛㸦32.1%㸧

9 ౛㸦16.1%㸧

㸦48.2%㸧

38 ౛㸦67.9%㸧

18 ౛㸦32.1%㸧

56 ౛

㸳.  ⏝౛ศᯒ㸳.㸯 ᝟ሗᥦ♧㸩☜ㄆ࣭ྠពせồ ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧㸩☜ㄆ࣭ྠពせồࠖࡢࠕࡼࡡࠖࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(1)01

ࡼࡡ ࠊ࡞ࢇࡔࡗࡓ ࡔ࠿ࡽ࠵ࡗ࡚ࠊhh ࢇ࡛ࠊ࠶ࡢࠊ࣐ࣟࢿࢫࢡ࡜ࡶ࠺㸯ಶ࡞ࢇ࠿࠶ࡾࡲࡋࡓࡼ
࠿࡞࠵࣭

−19−

談話における「よね」の機能

02

 ࡞ࢇ࠿࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁࢦࢩࢵࢡ㹙࡜࠿࠶ࡾࡲࡍࡡ࠻

03



㹙࠶ࠊࡑ࠺ࡑ࠺ࡑ࠺ࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿ࡡࠊࢦࢩࢵࢡᵝᘧࡗ࡚ࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿ᑤሪࡀ
✺ࡁ❧ࡗ࡚࡚࠻

(2)01

 ࠺ࢇࠊ⤖ᵓ⪺ࡁࡲࡍࡋࠊࡲ㡹ᙇࡗ࡚ࡿ࡞࠵࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠊ୍᫬ᮇ࠶ࢀ࡛ࡋࡓࡼ
ࡼࡡࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿ࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿02 ࡞ࢇ࠿㹙㯞⸆࠿࡞ࢇ࠿

03



㹙࡞ࢇ࠿㯞⸆࠿࡞ࢇ࠿࡛ࠊ࡛࠶ࢇ᫬࡟ࠊ࠼ࠊࡇࡢே኱୔ኵ࡞ࡢ࠿࡞࠵ࠊ࡜࠿ᛮ࠸ࡲ
ࡋࡓࡅ࡝

04

 ࣍ࣔࡗẼ࠶ࡿࡗ࡚ゝࡗ࡚ࡓࡼࡼࡡ

05

 ࠶ࠊࡑ࠺࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍ࠿

06

 ࠺ࢇࠊࡑ࠺ࡗ࡚⪺࠸ࡓࡼ07

 ࡩ㹼㹼㹼ࢇ(1)ࡢ 1 ⾜┠ࠊ(2)ࡢ 1 ⾜┠࡛ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡣࠕ࡞ࢇ࠿࠶ࡾࡲࡋࡓࡼࡡࠖ
ࠕ࠶ࢀ࡛ࡋࡓࡼࡡࠖ࡜ࠊ୙☜ᐃ࡞᝟ሗࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚┦ᡭࡢຓࡅࢆ೉ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࠕࢦࢩࢵࢡᵝᘧࠖࠕ㯞⸆ࠖ࡜࠸࠺᝟ሗࢆᘬࡁฟ
ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ᡂຌࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚(1)࡛ࡣࠊ⮬㌟ࡢᣢࡕฟࡋࡓᘓ⠏࡟㛵ࡍࡿヰ㢟ࢆᒎ㛤ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
࠸ࡗࡱ࠺(2)࡛ࡣඹ㏻ࡢヰ㢟ࢆ᥈ࡋࡓࡾࠊᒎ㛤ࡉࡏࡓࡾࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠕࡼࡡࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(2)ࡣ࢝ࣛ࢜ࢣࡢヰ㢟࠿ࡽ≉ᐃࡢḷᡭࡢヰ㢟࡟⛣ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡿࠋヰ⪅  ࡢࠕ࠶ࢀ࡛ࡋࡓࡼࡡ㸦1⾜┠㸧ࠖࢆཷࡅ࡚ࠊ ࡣࠕ㯞⸆ࠖ࡜࠸࠺᝟ሗࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊ ࡶࡑࢀࢆཷࡅධࢀࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ஧ேࡢ㛫࡟
ඹ㏻ㄆ㆑ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࡑࡢᚋ࡟  ࡀᥦ♧ࡋࡓࠕ࣍ࣔࡗẼ࠶ࡿ㸦4 ⾜┠㸧ࠖࠊ࡜࠸࠺ㄆ㆑ࡣࠊࠕ࠶ࠊࡑ࠺࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍ࠿㸦5 ⾜┠㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺  ࡢ཯ᛂ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊඹ᭷ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ
࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ ࡣඹ㏻ࡢㄆ㆑ࢆ᥈⣴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡀኻᩋ࡟⤊ࢃࡾࠊࡇࡢᚋヰ㢟ࡣ෌ࡧඖࡢ࢝ࣛ࢜ࢣࡢヰ࡟ᡠࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧㸩☜ㄆ࣭ྠពせồࠖࡣヰ⪅ࡀ᝟ሗࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿㄆ㆑ࡢ୍⮴ࢆၥ࠺⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊᑐヰⓗ࡞ഃ㠃ࡀ኱ࡁ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ❧࿨఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟཰㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
㞧ㄯ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ༢࡟ㄆ㆑ࡢ୍⮴ࢆၥ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࡼࡾࡶࠊ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟┦ᡭ࡜ࡢඹ㏻ࡢヰ㢟ࢆ᥈⣴ࡋࠊ఍ヰࢆⓎᒎࡉࡏࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺≧ἣ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ౛ࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ㸳.㸰 ᝟ሗᥦ♧ḟ࡟ᣲࡆࡿࡢࡣࠊࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖࡢ⏝౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(3)01

 㸯᭤㸰㸮㸮෇࡞ࡢࡼ02 ࠶ࠊ

03

 ࡑࡢࠊࢫࢼࢵࢡࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࡅ࡝ࠊ㹙࡞ࢇ࠿

−20−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

04



05

 ࡑ ࠺ ࠸ ࠺ ไ ᗘ ࡞ ࡢ ࡼ 㹙 ࢫ ࢼ ࢵ ࢡ ࡳ ࡓ ࠸ ࡞ ࡞ ࢇ ࠿ XXXXXXXXXXXXX ࡀ ࠸ ࡸ㹙࠺࣮ࢇࠊ࠼ࠊࡑ࠺࠸࠺ไᗘ࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍ࠿XXXXXXXXXXX ࡗ࡚

06



07

 ࡓࡔࡶ࠺

08

 ࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇ

09 ࣐࣐ࡉࢇࡳࡓ࠸࡞ேࡀࡉ

10 ࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇ

11 ࢳ࢙ࢵࢡࡋ࡚ࢇࡔࡼࡼࡡ12 ࡬࠻࣮

13 ࡛࣐࣐ࡶࡉ࠵ࠊḷ࠺ࢇࡼࠊ࡛࢝࢘ࣥࢺࡋ࡚ࡃࡿࢃࡅࡌࡷࢇ㹙㸯 ᭤࠹㸰㸮㸮෇࡜࠿ゝࡗ h ࠼ࡑ࠺࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍ࠿ࠊ࡬࠻࣮

(4)01

 ࡣ࠸ࠊࢇ࡛࠻ࠊࡑࢇ࡜ࡁ࡟ࠊ࠶ࡢࠊࢻ࢖ࢶㄒࡢᤵᴗࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊ

02 ࡣ࠸ࡣ࠸

03

 ࡑࡢඛ⏕ࡀࡍࡈ࠸㐲㊊ዲࡁ࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࡼࡡ

04

 ࡬࠻㹼㹼05

 ࡔ࠿ࡽࡇ࡜࠶ࡿࡈ࡜࡟㐲㊊⾜ࡇ࠺ࡗ࡚ゝࢃࢀ࡚㹙hh

06



㹙hh

 (3)ࠊ(4)ࡣࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ┦ᡭ࡜ඹ᭷ࡋ࡞࠸ヰ⪅⮬㌟ࡢ㐣ཤࡢ⤒㦂࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿ㝿࡟ࠕࡼࡡࠖ
ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ┦ᡭ࡟ඹ᭷ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿ஦᯶࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠕࡼࡡࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚㏙࡭ࠊ
┦ᡭ࡟ඹ᭷ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆồࡵࡿ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀ⮬㌟ࡢヰࢆᒎ㛤ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡃ୰࡛ࠊ᝟ሗࡢ୍ࡘࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡾࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛ࠕࡼ
ࡡࠖࢆ౑ࡗ࡚࠸ࡗࡓࢇⓎヰࢆษࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢ┤ᚋ࡟┦ᡭࡣࠕ࡬࠻ࠖ࡜࠸࠺࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆධࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖࡢࠕࡼࡡࠖࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟⮬ศࡢヰࢆᒎ㛤ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡃ୰࡛ࠊ┦ᡭࡢ⌮ゎ࣭ඹឤࢆᚓ࡞
ࡀࡽヰࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡛ከࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ

㸳.㸱 ྠព⾲᫂ ࠕྠព⾲᫂ࠖࡢࠕࡼࡡࠖࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
(5)01

 ࡔ࠸ࡓ࠸ࠊ㸯ேࡔ࠸ࡓ࠸㸲ࠊ㸲ศࡄࡽ࠸ࡌࡷࢇ㹙ࡡ

02



03

 ୍ᅇࡾࡋ࡚ࡔ࠸ࡓ࠸㸱㸮ศ

04

 㸱㸮ศ࡛ࡍࡼࡼࡡࠊࡔ࠿ࡽࡑࢇ࡞࡟㹙ḷࡗࡓࡗ࡚ヂ࡛ࡣ㹛

05



㹙࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇ࣭㹙 㸯 ᫬ 㛫 ࡟ 㹛㸰᭤㹙ḷ࠼ࡤ

−21−

談話における「よね」の機能

06



㹙࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇࠊࡑ࠺
࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࣀ࣐ࣝ㐩ᡂ࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍ

(6)01

 ࡇ࠺ࠊࡍࡈ࠸᐀ᩍ࡛᭷ྡ࡞⾤࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍ㹙ࡼ࠽

02



03



04

 ࢤ࢖㹙 ࣃ࣮ࣞࢻ hh ࠿࠵ hh ࠊ ࠼࠼࡛ࡶ XX ࡕࡻࡗ࡜ ࢝ࢺࣜࢵࢡ 㹛ࡗ࡚࠶ࢇࡲࡾ㹙ࡑ㹙ࡣ࠸㹙ࡣ࠸
㹙࡛ࡶྠ᫬࡟ ࠊ࠶ࡢࢤ࢖ࣃ࣮ࣞࢻ࡜࠿ࡀ࠶
ࡗ࡚࠻

࠺ ࠸
05



࠺ ࡢ㹛ㄆࡵ࡚࡞࠸࡛ࡍࡼࡡ࠻

㹙ࡑ࠺ࡑ࠺ࡑ࠺ࡑ࠺ࠊ㸯㸮᭶ࡄࡽ࠸࡟࡞ࢇ࠿ࢤ࢖ࠊࡑ࠺ࡑ࠺ࡑ࠺㹛      㹙ࡑ࠺࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࡼࡡ㹛(5)࡛ࡣࠊ ࡀ㸵ே࡛㸳᫬㛫࢝ࣛ࢜ࢣࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀヰ㢟࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡚ࠊ஧ேࡢヰ⪅ࡣ୍ேఱ᭤ࡎࡘḷࡗࡓ࠿ࢆ๭ࡾฟࡑ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ3 ⾜┠࡛  ࡀࠕ୍ᅇࡾࡋ࡚ࡔ࠸ࡓ࠸㸱㸮ศࠖ࡜࠸࠺ィ⟬⤖ᯝࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓࡢࢆཷࡅ࡚ࠊ ࡣ 4 ⾜┠࡛ࠕ㸱㸮ศ࡛ࡍࡼࡡࠖ࡜ࠊࡑࡢㄆ㆑࡟ྠពࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲᫂ࡋࠊࠕ㸯᫬㛫࡟㸰᭤ḷ࠼ࡤࣀ࣐ࣝ㐩ᡂࠖ࡜࠸࠺⤖ㄽࢆ஧ே࡛༠ຊࡋ࡚ᑟࡁฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(6)࡛ࡣࠊ4 ⾜┠ࡢ  ࡢࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜࢝ࢺࣜࢵࢡࡗ࡚࠶ࢇࡲࡾ㸦ࡑ࠺࠸࠺ࡢࠊㄆࡵ࡚࡞࠸࡛ࡍࡼࡡ࠻㸧ࠖ
࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰࢆཷࡅ࡚ࠊ ࡣ 5 ⾜┠࡛ࠕࡑ࠺࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࡡࠖ࡜ྠពࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
࠸ࡎࢀࡢ౛࡛ࡶࠕྠព⾲᫂ࠖࡢࠕࡼࡡࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚Ⓨヰ⪅⮬㌟ࡢㄆ㆑࡜┦ᡭࡢㄆ㆑ࡀ୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆゝ᫂ࡋࠊ┦ᡭࡢㄆ㆑࡟ᑐࡍࡿྠព࣭ඹឤࢆ✚ᴟⓗ࡟♧ࡋࠊඹឤࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㸳.㸲 ྠព࣭ゎ㔘⾲᫂㸩☜ㄆ࣭ྠពせࠕྠព࣭ゎ㔘⾲᫂㸩☜ㄆ࣭ྠពせồࠖࡢࠕࡼࡡࠖࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(7)01

 ࡑ࠺ࡑ࠺ࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿ி㒔⯙ྎ࡟ࡋࡓᫎ⏬࡜࠿ࡉ02 ࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇ࠺ࢇ

03

 㹙㹙࡞ࢇࡇ࠺ࠊ࠶ࡿࡼࡡ㹛ࠊࡑ࠺ࡑ࠺ࠊ࡞ࢇࡸࡗࡅࡇࡢ๓ᐇᐙ࡟ᖐࡗࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ぢ࡚࣮ࠊ࠸࠸࡞
࠶ࡗ࡚ᛮࡗࡓࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿

04

 㹙㹙 ⤖ ᵓ ࠶ ࡿ ࡼ ࡡ㹛(8)01 ࡋࡹࡈ࢟ࣕࣛ㸟ࡗ࡚ఱࡗ࡚㹙 ᛮ ࡗ ࡚ 㹛ࠊ୺ேබࡀ࠶ࡴࡕࡷࢇ࡜࠿࠵㹙hh

02



03

 ࠶ࡢࠊ࠶ࡴࡕࡷࢇ࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼ㹙 ࠶㹼࠶㹼 㹛            㹙hhࠊࡍࡈ࠸ྡ๓࡛ࡍࡡࡗ

−22−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

04

 ࠶ࡴࡕࡷࢇ hh ࠊ05 ࢇ࡛ࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿ࡑࢀ࣮ࢆࠊࡇ࠺ぢࡏ࡚࠶ࡆࡓࡽࡑࡢᏊࠊ࠾࣮࠶ࡴ࡜࠿ゝࡗ㹙࡚࠻ hh

06                                㹙hh ࡑࡇ࡟ࡣ႞࠸ࡘ
ࡼࡡ࠻
ࡃࢇ࡛ࡍࡼ

07

 ႞࠸ࡘࡃࢇ࡛ࡍࡼ࠽

(9)01

 ࡶ࠺ࠊ⑂ࢀࡿࠊ࡛ࠊࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࡡࠊࡑࢇ࡜ࡁࠊ࠶ࠊ࠶࡜ࠊࢣࣝࣥࡀி㒔ࡢጜጒ㒔ᕷ࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࡡ02 ࡩ㹼㹼ࢇ03

 ࠶ࠊ኱ὠࡸࡗࡓ࠿ࠊ㐪࠺ி㒔ࡸ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠊி㒔ࢫࢺ࣮ࣜࢺࡀ࠶ࡿࢇࡍࡼ࣭

04

 㹙㹙࡬࠻05

 㹙㹙ி㒔㏻ࡾࡗ࡚ࡢࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊ

06

 ࡬࡬ࡗ

07

 ࡋ࠿ࡶ⦾⳹⾤࠿ࡽ࠿࡞ࡾ㞳ࢀࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟㹙࠶ ࡿ㹛

08

                   㹙ࡍࡈ࠸㹛 ▩┪ࡋ࡚㹙ࡲࡍࡡ

09



㹙ࡑ࠺࡞ࢇࡍࡼࡗ㹛࠸ࡁ࡞ࡾ㹙ࣂࢵ࡚ࠊ࠾࣮࠸࠾࣮࠸㹛 Ⓨヰ⪅ 06 ࡗ࡚ゝࢃࢀ࡚ࠊఱ࡛ࡍ࠿ࠊி㒔ࢫࢺ࣮ࣜࢺࠊ࠼ࡗ࡚ hh

10 㹙hh11 ி㒔ࠊ࠾㹼ி㒔࡛ࡍ࠿࠵ࡗ࡚ࠊ࡬࠻㹼12

 ࠶ࠊ࠶㹼ࡳࡓ࠸࡞ឤࡌ࡛ࡍࡼ
ࡼࡡ hh

13

 hhࠊጜጒ㒔ᕷ࡞ࢇࡔࢁࡗ࡚ゝࢃࢀ࡚ࠊࡑ࠺࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍ࠿ࡗ࡚ hhࠊఱࡶ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࢇࡔࡡࡗ࡚࠸

࢝࢜ࢫ

hh㹛

࠺ࡢࢆ➗㢦࡛ゝࢃࢀ࡚࣭ (7)࡛ࡣࠊ ࡀ 1 ⾜┠࡛ゝ࠸ࡉࡋࡓࠕ࡞ࢇ࠿ி㒔⯙ྎ࡟ࡋࡓᫎ⏬࡜࠿ࡉࠖࡢⓎヰࢆ  ࡀࠕ⤖ᵓ࠶ࡿࡼࡡࠖ࡜⿵᏶ࡍࡿ୰࡛ࠊࠕࡼࡡࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(8)࡛ࡣ  ࡀࠊ(9)࡛ࡣ  ࡀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ⮬㌟ࡀ⤒㦂ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ἣ࡛ࠊ᝟ሗཷᐜ⪅࡛࠶ࡿࡶ࠺୍᪉ࡢ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡀࡑࡢヰ㢟ࡢᒎ㛤࡟ἢࡗࡓゎ㔘ࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊ┦ᡭ࡟☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ」ᩘࡢ
఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡀ࠾஫࠸ࡢㄆ㆑ࢆ☜ㄆࠊඹ᭷ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊඹྠ࡛ࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࢆᵓ⠏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᝟ሗཷᐜ⪅࡛࠶ࡗࡓ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡀࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࢆཷࡅ࡚ࡑࡢពᅗࢆ᥎

ࡋࠊྠព࣭ඹឤࡋࡓ

㝿࡟ࠕゎ㔘࣭ྠព⾲᫂㸩☜ㄆ࣭ྠពせồࠖࡢࠕࡼࡡࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

㸴. ࡲ࡜ࡵ ࠕࡼࡡࠖࡣࠕ❧࿨఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࠖࡢ୰࡛ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
(10) a. ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧㸩☜ㄆ࣭ྠពせồ㸦20 ౛㸧ࠖࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢຓࡅࢆ೉ࡾ࡚୙☜࠿࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ᐇ໬ࡉࡏ࡚
⮬ศࡢヰࢆᒎ㛤ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡃ㝿ࡸࠊඹ㏻ࡢヰ㢟ࢆ᳨⣴ࡋ࡚఍ヰࢆࡩࡃࡽࡲࡏࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ㝿࡟⏝࠸ࡽ

−23−

談話における「よね」の機能ࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋb. ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧㸦9 ౛㸧ࠖࡣࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ┦ᡭ࡜ඹ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸⮬㌟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ஦᯶࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ඹ᭷ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆồࡵࡿ㝿࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ≉࡟ࠊヰࢆᒎ㛤ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡃ୰࡛࠸ࡗࡓࢇษࡾࠊ
┦ᡭࡢ⌮ゎ࣭ඹឤࢆᚓ࡞ࡀࡽヰࢆ㐍ࡵࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ከࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
c. ࠕྠព⾲᫂㸦9 ౛㸧ࠖࡣࠊ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢㄆ㆑ࡢ୍⮴ࢆ✚ᴟⓗ࡟♧ࡍ㝿࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
d. ࠕྠព࣭ゎ㔘⾲᫂㸩☜ㄆ࣭ྠពせồ㸦18 ౛㸧ࠖࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࢆཷࡅ࡚ࠊ᝟ሗཷᐜ⪅࡛࠶ࡿࡶ࠺୍᪉ࡢ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡀࡑࡢヰ㢟ࡢᒎ㛤࡟ἢࡗࡓゎ㔘ࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊ┦ᡭ࡟☜ㄆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ」ᩘࡢ఍
ヰཧຍ⪅ࡀ࠾஫࠸ࡢㄆ㆑ࢆ☜ㄆࠊඹ᭷ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊඹྠ࡛ࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿ㝿࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸
ࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ୰࡛ࠊ≉࡟ከࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡢࡀࠊa ࡢඹ㏻ࡢヰ㢟ࢆ᳨⣴ࡍࡿ㝿ࡢ⏝౛࡜ࠊd ࡢඹྠ࡛ࢫ
ࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿ㝿ࡢ⏝౛࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿྛཧຍ⪅ࡢᙺ๭ࡣὶືⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᝟ሗᥦ౪⪅࡜᝟ሗཷᐜ⪅ࡢᙺ๭ࡣ㢖⦾࡟஺᭰ࡋࠊ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣ┦ᡭࡢࡇ࡜ࡤࢆ⿵㊊ࡋࡓࡾ௦ࢃࡾ࡟Ⓨࡋࡓࡾࡋ࡚ࠊඹヰⓗ࡟఍ヰࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࠖ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ❧ሙࡢ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡶࠊ఍ヰࡢᵓ⠏ࡢ୰࡛㔜せ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᢸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊヰ⪅ࡢഃ࠿ࡽ᝟ሗࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿ㝿࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢⓎヰࡶࠊ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢඹ㏻ࡢヰ㢟ࢆ᥈ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ༠ㄪⓗ࡞ືᶵ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

ὀ
1. ࠕ❧࿨㤋᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࠖࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢㄯヰศᯒࡢࡓࡵ࡟㛤Ⓨࡉࢀࡓࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢹ࣮ࢱࡢᴫせ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸱㸬࡛㏙࡭ࡿࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ᕷᮧⴥᏊ㸬2007㸬ࠕ㆟ㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢㄯヰᶵ⬟ࠖࠊࠗ⚟஭኱Ꮫ␃Ꮫ⏕ࢭࣥࢱ࣮⣖せ࠘
ࠊ3ࠊ13-26㸬ࢨࢺࣛ࢘ࢫ࣮࣭࣏࣮࢟ࣜ㸬2000㸬
ࠕඹྠⓎヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿཧຍ⪅ࡢ❧ሙ࡜ゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜ືࡢ㛵㐃࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ
ࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ⛉Ꮫ࠘ࠊ7ࠊ44-69㸬
ᙇᜨⰾ㸬2009㸬ࠕ⮬↛఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࣚࢿࠖࡢព࿡㢮ᆺ࡜⾲⌧ᶵ⬟ࠖࠊࠗゝㄒᏛㄽྀ࠘
ࠊ28ࠊ17-32㸬㔝⏣᫓⨾㸬2002㸬
ࠕ⤊ຓモࡢᶵ⬟ࠖࠊᐑᓮ࿴ே࣭Ᏻ㐩ኴ㑻࣭㔝⏣᫓⨾࣭㧗᲍ಙ஀ࠗ᪂᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ㑅᭩ 4 ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࠘
ࠊ
261-288ࠊᮾி㸸 ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧Ỉ㇂ಙᏊ㸬1980㸬ࠕእᅜㄒࡢ⩦ᚓ࡜ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠖࠊࠗゝㄒ⏕ά࠘ࠊ344ࠊ28-36㸬Ỉ㇂ಙᏊ㸬1988㸬ࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕㄽࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘ࠊ7: 13ࠊ4-11㸬
ᐑᓮ࿴ே㸬2000㸬ࠕ☜ㄆせồ⾲⌧ࡢయ⣔ᛶࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘
ࠊ106ࠊ7-16㸬
ࠊ203-227ࠊᐑᓮ࿴ே㸬2002㸬
ࠕ☜ㄆせồࠖࠊᐑᓮ࿴ே࣭Ᏻ㐩ኴ㑻࣭㔝⏣᫓⨾࣭㧗᲍ಙ஀ࠗ᪂᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ㑅᭩ 4 ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࠘ᮾி㸸 ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧๽㞞㟼㸬2010㸬
ࠕㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ༢⊂ࡢࠕࡔࡼࡡࠖࡢ⏝ἲ̿⤊ຓモࠕࡼࡡࠖࡢᶵ⬟࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᳨ウࢆවࡡ࡚̿ࠖࠊࠗ⟃Ἴᛂ⏝ゝㄒᏛ◊✲࠘ࠊ17 ྕࠊ71-84㸬

−24−第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ᩥᮎࡀྡモ࡛⤊ࢃࡿሗ࿌࣭ᘬ⏝⾲⌧኱す ⨾✑㸦ONISHI, Miho㸧ྡྂᒇ▷ᮇ኱Ꮫ㸦Nagoya College㸧㸺Abstract㸼
Predicate noun sentences without a copula da ("Nȭ") are often found in newspaper articles. In television news
programs, in contrast, sentences which convey the same meaning as "Nȭ" take desu which is a variation of da.
This suggests that da and desu has different functions. This paper first argues the multi-functionality of da and its
variations, then discusses its motivation. It concludes that the key factors that motivate such multi-functionality are
the genre-specific context, the style, and the speaker and the hearer.

࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸ࠕࡔࠖࠊドᣐᛶࠊヰ⪅ࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕࣮ࠊ㓄៖ࠊᩥయ

1.

ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
᪂⪺グ஦࡛ࡣࠕࡔࠖࡸࡑࢀ࡟‽ࡌࡿᙧᘧࢆకࢃࡎࠊྡモ࡛⤊ࢃࡿᩥࡀከࡃほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ

(1)
(2)

ᮾᯇᒣ⨫࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢࡋࡻ࠺ࡺࡣࠊỤᡞ᫬௦࠿ࡽࡢṔྐࢆ㄂ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⪁⯒ࠕ➜ᮌ㓺Ἔࠖ㸦ᇸ⋢┴ᕝᓥ⏫ୖఀⲡ㸧ࡢ〇ရࠋ
㸦2012-8-9 MSN ⏘⤒㸧ࡇࡢ࡯࠿࡟ࡶ」ᩘࡢࣂࢫࡢ஌ᐈࡀࡅࡀࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᶍᵝࠋ
㸦2012-7-25 ㄞ኎᪂⪺㸧

ୖࡢ 2 ౛ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊྡモࡀᩥᮎ࡟ฟࡿ࡜࠸࠺ඹ㏻Ⅼࢆ㝖ࡅࡤᵓᩥࢱ࢖ࣉࡣከᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡣࡇࡢ⌧㇟ࢆࠕࡔࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡢ᭷↓ࡢᑐ❧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࠊࠕࡔࠖࡀ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸⌧㇟࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊྡモ࡛⤊ࢃࡿ⾲⌧࠾ࡼࡧࠕࡔࠖࡢᶵ⬟࡟ࡏࡲࡿࠋศᯒࡣࠊヰ⪅ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࠊ᝟ሗ※ࡢྛ≉ᚩู࡛ࡢࠕࡔࠖ㢮ࡢ౑⏝ࡢⅬ࠿ࡽ⾜࠺ࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ᝟ሗ※ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ㹼࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠖ࡞࡝ࡀసࡿᩥ⬦ࡉ࠼࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠕࡔࠖࡢ⏕㉳ࡀ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ
ࠕࡔࠖࡀ୙⮬↛࡞ࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࡶࠊ㠃๓ࡢලయⓗ࡞⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢሗ࿌࡜࠸࠺⎔ቃ࡛ࡣ୎ᑀᙧࠕ࡛
ࡍࠖࡀᚲ㡲࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡞࡝ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࠊ
ࠕࡔࠖࡢከᶵ⬟ᛶࡢ୍➃ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ㄽⅬ࡜⪃ᐹ᪉ἲ
2.1. ᭷ᶆᛶ
ྡモ࡛⤊ࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺⌧㇟࡜ࠊࠕࡔࠖࡸࠊࡇࢀ࡟‽ࡌࡿせ⣲ࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺⌧㇟ࡀᑐ❧ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ ௨ୗࡣࠊ(1)ࢆඖ࡟సᩥࡋࡓࠋ(3)(a)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࡞ࡐࠕࡔࠖࡀ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࡢ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜
࡛ࠊࠕࡔࠖࡢᶵ⬟ࢆ᥈ࡾࡓ࠸ࠋ
(3)a.㹼࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢࡋࡻ࠺ࡺࡣࠊ᭷ྡ࡞⪁⯒ࡢ〇ရ ȭࠋb.㹼࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢࡋࡻ࠺ࡺࡣࠊ᭷ྡ࡞⪁⯒ࡢ〇ရࡔࠋ

2.2. ࠕࡔࠖࡢᶵ⬟ศ໬ࡲࡎࠊ౑⏝⎔ቃࡸᩥయࡀᘬࡁ㔠࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ほᐹࡉࢀࡿ⌧㇟ࢆ(4)࡟ᣲࡆࡿࠋ

−25−

文末が名詞で終わる報告・引用表現(4)a.㹼࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢࡋࡻ࠺ࡺࡣࠊ᭷ྡ࡞⪁⯒ࡢ〇ရ ȭࠋb.㹼࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢࡋࡻ࠺ࡺࡣࠊ᭷ྡ࡞⪁⯒ࡢ〇ရࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡍࠋ
c.ࡇࡢࡋࡻ࠺ࡺࡣࠊ᭷ྡ࡞⪁⯒ࡢ〇ရࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ
d.ࡇࡢࡋࡻ࠺ࡺࡣࠊ᭷ྡ࡞⪁⯒ࡢ〇ရ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ ȭࠋ
e. ᭷ྡ࡞⪁⯒ࡢ〇ရ࡛ࡍࡼ࣮ࡔࠋ
㸦ࠕࢃ࠿ࡗ࡚ࡲࡍࡼ㹼ࡔࠋࠖ㸦 ࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ㸦2008: . 89㸧

(4)(a)ࡣࠊ᪂⪺グ஦࡟ከࡃほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠕࡔࠖࡢ↓࠸ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(b)ࡣࠊࢸࣞࣅࡢࢽ࣮ࣗࢫሗ㐨࡞࡝ࠊཱྀ㢌ࡢఏ㐩࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿࠕࡔࠖࡢ࠶ࡿࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ࠊᘬ⏝ࢆᶆ♧ࡍࡿࠕ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࠖ࡟⥆ࡁࠊࡉࡽ࡟
ࠕ࡛ࡍࠖࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡾవ๫ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡽࠕࡔࠖ࡜ࠕ࡛ࡍࠖࡣูᶵ⬟࡟ศ໬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
వ๫ᛶࡣឤࡌࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠕࡇ࡜࡛ࡍ㸦㸻ࡇ࡜ࡔ㸧ࠖࡢ㒊ศࡣ(c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟┬␎ࡋ࡚ࡶ⮬↛࡞⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆኻ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀぢ࡚ྲྀࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ(d)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕࡇ࡜ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྡモ࡛ᩥࡀ⤊ࢃࡿⅬ࡛ࠊ(c)࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠕࡔࠖࢆᚋ᥋ࡉࡏࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋ௨ୖࠊࠕࡔࠖࢆྵࡴᩥᮎࢆほᐹࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ᪂⪺グ஦ࠊࢸࣞࣅࡢࢽ࣮ࣗࢫሗ㐨ࠊࡑࡢ௚ࡢࢪࣕࣥࣝࡢ㐪࠸ࠊࡲࡓ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᚅ㐝ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࠊ
ࠕ࡜ࠖ࡞࡝ࢆྵࡴᘬ⏝⾲⌧ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀࡿ࠿ྰ࠿࡞࡝
ࡢⅬ࡛⾲⌧࡟ᕪ␗ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋవ๫ⓗ࡞ࠕࡔࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ㸦2008: 4 ❶㸧ࡣࠊࠕ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕࣮⾲⌧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡢࡶ࡜୍㐃ࡢ⌧㇟ࢆㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕࣮ࠖࡣࠊྠࡌ
ヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࢪࣕࣥࣝ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚␗࡞ࡿ⌧ࢀ᪉ࢆࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࠕࡔࠖࡀࠊࢪࣕࣥࣝࡈ࡜ࡢヰ⪅ࡢ❧ሙࠊែᗘࠊࡲࡓ᝟ពࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࡜ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ヰ⪅ࡢ⌧ࢀ᪉ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀᩥయࡸ⾲⌧ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟ᐃ╔ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺⌧㇟ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊ
ࠕࡔࠖࡢከᶵ⬟໬ࢆㄽࡌࡿࠋ
2.2.1. ほᐹࡉࢀࡿ⌧㇟ࡢศ㢮ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡇࡲ࡛࡛♧ࡋࡓࠊ౑⏝⎔ቃࡸᩥయ࡞࡝࡟౫Ꮡࡋࡓࠕࡔࠖࡢゎ㔘ࡢほᐹ࠿ࡽᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࠕࡔࠖ
ࡢศ㢮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ௬ㄝࢆ♧ࡍࠋ(5)ほᐹࡉࢀࡿ⌧㇟ࡢศ㢮㸦௬㸧
a. Ḟዴࢱ࢖ࣉ Nȭࠋb. వ๫ࢱ࢖ࣉ N+ࡔ㸭࡛ࡍ㸭࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(5)(a)ࡢࠕḞዴࢱ࢖ࣉࠖࡣࠊḞዴࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞ࢇࡽ࠿ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆ⾲♧ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ(a)ࢆ᪂ࡓ࡞ᇶ‽࡜ࡋ
࡚ࠊ(b)ࡢࠕవ๫ࢱ࢖ࣉࠖࡣࠊ࡞ࢇࡽ࠿ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆ㊊ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ┠ⓗ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ(b)ࡢࠕࡔࠖ㢮ࡣࠊ(a)࡟࠾࠸࡚Ḟዴࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠕࡔࠖ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘࠋḟ࡟ࠊ(5)(b)ࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕࡔࠖࡢኚ✀ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ኚ✀࡜ᶵ⬟࡜࡟ᑐᛂࡣ࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ(6)a. ᬑ㏻య
b. ୎ᑀయ
c. ྰᐃ࡛

ࡔ㸭࡛࠶ࡿ࡛ࡍ㸭࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ
㸦ࡣ㸧࡞࠸㸭࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡛ࡍ㸭࡛ࡣࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡏࢇ

2.2.2. 4 ࡘࡢせᅉࠕࡔࠖࡢᶵ⬟ศ໬ࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿせᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ௨ୗࡢ 4 ࡘࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ
i.ヰ⪅㸸ሗ㐨ᶵ㛵㸦බⓗ㸧ࠊಶே㸦⚾ⓗ㸧ࠊⴭ⪅ii.⪺ࡁᡭ㸸୍⯡ⓗ࡞ㄞ⪅ࠊලయⓗ࡞⪺ࡁᡭ
iii.᝟ሗ※㸸ࠕ㹼࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠖ
ࠊࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠖࠊᩥᮎྡモࠕᶍᵝࠖ࡞࡝
iv.ࢪࣕࣥࣝ㸸᪂⪺ࠊࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ␒⤌ࠊ⚾ಙࠊⴭస≀ࠊཱྀ㢌ఏ㐩

−26−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

3. ⪃ᐹ
3.1. ᩥࡢᵓ㐀ྡモ࡛⤊ࢃࡿ࡜࠸ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊᩥᵓ㐀ࡣఱ✀㢮࠿࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(7)
(8)
(9)

X ࡣ N㸦ࡔ㸧ࠋ㸦ྡモ㏙ㄒᩥࡢࠕࡔࠖࡀ࡞࠸㸧V ࡋࡓ␲࠸㸭ᶍᵝ㸭⏤㸦ࡔ㸧ࠋ㸦ே㨶ᵓᩥ㸦యゝ⥾ࡵᩥ࣭ᩥᮎྡモᩥ㸧ࡢࠕࡔࠖࡀ࡞࠸㸧V ࡋࡓࡶࡢ㸭࡜ࡢࡇ࡜㸦ࡔ㸧ࠋ㸦ᶵ⬟ⓗ୺せ㒊ࢆᣢࡘྡモಟ㣭⠇㸧(7)ࡣ(1)ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(8)ࡣ᪂ᒇ(1989)ࡢ"ᩥᮎྡモᩥ"ゅ⏣(2011)ࡢ"ே㨶ᵓᩥ"࡞࡝ࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ(2)ࡢࠕᶍᵝ࡛ࠖ⤊ࢃࡿᩥࡶࡇࡇ࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࠋᩥᮎࡀᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ୺せ㒊ྡモࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣᩥᮎ࡟ࠕࡔࠖ࡜ඹ࡟⏕㉳ࡋࠊ༢ᩥ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶඛ⾜◊✲࡛ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵᩥᮎࡢྡモࡢᶵ⬟໬ࡶᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ᭱ࡶᶵ⬟໬ࡋࡓᙧࡀ(9)ࡢࠕࡶࡢࠖࡸࠕࡇ࡜ࠖࡢ౛࡜
⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ(8)࡜(9)ࡣࡲ࡜ࡵ᳨࡚ウࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
3.1.1. ྡモ㏙ㄒᩥࡢࠕࡔࠖࡀ࡞࠸ࢱ࢖ࣉ
ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊୖ㏙ࡢ(7)࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿ౛ࢆほᐹࡍࡿࠋ(10)a. ᮾᯇᒣ⨫࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢࡋࡻ࠺ࡺࡣࠊ⪁⯒ࠕ➜ᮌ㓺Ἔࠖࡢ〇ရࠋ
㸦=(1)㸧
b. ሷ㔩⨫࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊཬᕝᐜ␲⪅ࡣ㧗ᶫࡉࢇ࡜௨๓࠿ࡽࡢ▱ࡾྜ࠸ࠋ㸦ඹྠ㸧㸦᪥หࢫ࣏࣮ࢶ
2012-7-31㸧㸦グ஦᭱ᚋࡢᩥ㸧c. ᖾᡭ⨫࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ⏨ᛶࡣ㸱㸳㹼㸳㸮ṓࡃࡽ࠸࡛ࠊ㌟㛗⣙㸯㸴㸳ࢭࣥࢳࡢࡸࡏᙧࠋ
㸦MSN ⏘⤒ 2012-8-9㸧
d. ୙ᑂ≀ࡣ㉥࡜ⓑࡢẁ࣮࣎ࣝ⟽஧ࡘࢆ⢓╔ࢸ࣮ࣉ࡛ᅛᐃࡋࡓࡶࡢࠋ
㸦ᮅ᪥᪂⪺ 2012-7-25
e. ᱜ஭⨫࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ⌧ሙࡣ㐽᩿ᶵࡸ㆙ሗᶵࡀ࡞࠸㋃ษࠋ
㸦MSN ⏘⤒ 2012-8-3㸧

௨ୖࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊྡモ㏙ㄒᩥࡢୗ఩ศ㢮࡟㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊࠕࡔࠖࡀ⌧ࢀ࡞࠸⌧㇟ࡀ୍㈏ࡋ࡚㉳ࡇࡿᵝᏊࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ୍ࡘࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ࠶ࡿព࿡ࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿ」ᩘࡢᩥࡢ᭱ᚋࡢࡳ࡟ࠕࡔࠖࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜࠸࠺ሙྜ
ࡶᑡ࡞࠿ࡽࡎ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕࡔࠖࡢ┬␎ࡀᩥྠኈࡢ⤖᮰ࢆᙉࡵࡿ࡜࠸࠺ാࡁࡣྰࡵ࡞࠸ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(10)(b)ࡢࡼ࠺
࡟ࠊグ஦ࡢ᭱ᚋ࡟ྡモ࡛⤊ࢃࡿᩥࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢせᅉࡶ⪃࠼ࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ3.1.2. ே㨶ᵓᩥ࣭ᶵ⬟ⓗ୺せ㒊ḟ࡟(8)ࠊ(9)࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿ౛ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ(8)ࡢே㨶ᵓᩥࡣࠊࠕጞࡵ࡟⠇ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊྡモࡀ⥆࠸࡚ࠊ࠸ࢃ
ࡺࡿࢥࣆࣗࣛࠕࡔ࡛ࠖ⤊ࢃࡿࠋࠖ
㸦ゅ⏣ 2012: 3㸧࡜ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
(11)㹙⠇㹛ྡモࡔࠋ

(11)ࡢࠕྡモࠖࡣࠊᐇ㉁ྡモࠊᙧᘧྡモࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠕࡢ࡛ࠖࠊ
ࠕ⠇ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࢞ࣀ஺᭰ࡀ↓࠸ࠊ୺㢟ࡢࣁࡀ⏕㉳ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡞࡝ࠊ
୺⠇ࡢ≉ᚩࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ
」ᩥ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ༢ᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡢ㝿ࠊྡモࡀᩥἲ໬ࡋࠊࡑࡢᶵ⬟࡟ࡣࠊ࣮ࣔࢲࣝࠊ࢔ࢫ࣌ࢡࢺ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛≉࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺ࡢࡣࠊ ࠕevidential ࡞ᶵ⬟ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿྡモ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕᶍᵝࠊᵝᏊࠊẼ㓄ࠊ≧ែࠊ≧ἣࠊ᝟ໃࠊ஦ែࠊ᭷ᵝࠊᙧࠊ᱁ዲࠊጞᮎࠊ␲࠸ࠖ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢே㨶ᵓᩥ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿᵓᩥࠊ࠾ࡼࡧྡモࡢᶵ⬟໬ࡀࡼࡾ㐍⾜ࡋࡓࠕࡇ࡜ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ౛ࢆ௨ୗ࡛ほᐹࡍࡿࠋ−27−

文末が名詞で終わる報告・引用表現(12)a. ࡇࡢ࡯࠿࡟ࡶ」ᩘࡢࣂࢫࡢ஌ᐈࡀࡅࡀࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᶍᵝࠋ
㸦=(2)㸧
b. ⰼᏊࡀྜ᱁ࡋࡓ⏤ࠋ㸦ྠ㸧㸭*ⰼᏊࡀྜ᱁ࡋࡓ⏤ࡔࠋ㸦ࠕࡔࠖࡣ୙ྍ㸧c. ┴㆙ࡣ๓▱஦ࢆ㐊ᤕࡋࡓࠋㄪ࡭࡛ࡣᘓタᴗ⏺࠿ࡽ୍༓୓෇ࢆࡶࡽࡗࡓ␲࠸ࠋ
㸦ゅ⏣ 2011㸸58㸧
d. ࣈ࣮ࢫࢆฟᒎࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ〇㯝఍♫ࠕྔᒇࠖࡢᚋ⸨ᐶ἞ᑓົ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢ㯝ࢆసࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᴗ⪅ࡣᐩኈᐑᕷ࡟ 3 ♫ࡋ࠿࡞࠸࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ
㸦2006-7-5 ୰ᅜ᪂⪺㸧e. ᨻᗓࡣ⡿ࡢ㍺ධࢆ⚗Ṇࡋࡓࠋ㎰Ẹࡢせồ࡟⟅࠼ࡓࡶࡢࠋ
㸦ゅ⏣ 2012: 8㸧
㸦ࠕࡔࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⌮⏤௜ࡅࡢ୺యࡀኚࢃࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ
㸧(12)(a)࠿ࡽ(c)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕࡔࠖࡣࠊ(c)࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕㄪ࡭࡛ࡣࠖ࡞࡝᝟ሗ※ࢆㄒᙡⓗ࡟⾲ࡍ⾲⌧࡜ព࿡ⓗ࡟▩┪ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(b)ࡢࠕ⏤ࠖ࡜(d)ࡢࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠖࡣࠊᩥᮎ࡟࠾࠸࡚㠀ᖖ࡟㢮ఝࡋࡓᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡍࠋ
ࠕ⏤ࡔࠖࡣ័⩦ⓗ࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡟ࡃࡃࠊࡇࢀࡣゅ⏣ࡶᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠖ࡟ࡶࠕࡔࠖࡀక࠺
ࡇ࡜࡛୙⮬↛࡟࡞ࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊᚋ࡟᳨ウࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠕࡔࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢఏ㐩ࡢព࿡ࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋ(e)ࡢࠕࡶࡢࠖࡣࠊ๓ᩥࡢ஦ᐇᥥ෗࡟᰿ᣐࢆ୚࠼ࠊ2 ᩥࢆ⤖᮰ࡉࡏࡿᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘࡀࠊ୍⯡࡟ࠕࡶࡢࡔࠖࡢᙧ࡛グ㏙ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ᪂⪺ࡢࠕࡔࠖࡣࠊ᭩ࡁᡭࡀ
2 ᩥ┠࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᰿ᣐࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ᪂⪺グ஦࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᐈほᛶࢆጉࡆࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ௨ୖࡢほᐹ࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕࡔࠖࡀᾘ࠼ࡿせᅉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿ㆟ㄽࡣḟࡢⅬ࡟࡞ࡿࠋࠕࡔࠖࡀฟ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡢせᅉࡀ⣬ᖜࡢ㒔ྜ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊᚲ㡲せ⣲࡛࠶ࢀࡤ┬␎ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊ⤖᮰ᛶ㸦୙᏶඲ࡉࡀᚋ⥆ᩥ࡬ࡢ㐃⥆ᛶࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍ㸧ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࢀࡤࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᩥࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊྡモ࡛⤊ࢃࡿᩥࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ௨ୖࡣࠊ
ࠕࡔࠖࡀฟ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࡣఱࡽ࠿ࡢືᶵ௜
ࡅࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ᭷ᶆࡢ⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3.1.3. ༊ูࡍ࡭ࡁࢣ࣮ࢫ
ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࠕࡔࠖࡢḞዴࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࢆ㝖እࡍࡿ┠ⓗ࡛ᣲࡆࡿࠋ
(13)

(14)

࣮࣮࣭࢞ࣜࣈࣛ࢘ࣥࡉࢇࡢゟሗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊྠㄅࡣࢶ࢖ࢵࢱ࣮࡛ࠕᙼዪࡣୡ⏺ⓗ࡟ዪᛶࡢᶒ฼ྥ
ୖ࡟㠉࿨ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋࡓࠖ࡞࡝࡜ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆᥖ㍕ࠋ⡿ேẼࢻ࣐ࣛࠕࢭࢵࢡࢫ࣭࢔ࣥࢻ࣭ࢨ࣭ࢩࢸ
࢕࣮ࠖࡢཎస⪅ࠊ࢟ࣕࣥࢹ࢕ࢫ࣭ࣈࢩࣗࢿࣝࡉࢇࡶࠕ㸯ࡘࡢ᫬௦ࡀ⤊ࢃࡾࢆ࿌ࡆࡓࠖ࡜ࢶ࢖࣮
ࢺࡋࡓࠋ
㸦2012-8-14 ࣟ࢖ࢱ࣮㸧⚄ᡞỈୖ⨫࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ⏨ࡀࢫ࣮࢝ࣇࢆᡭ࡟ᥱࡾ⥾ࡵࡓࡲࡲฟ࡚⾜ࡃࡢࢆ㆙ഛဨࡀⓎぢࠋ㏣࠸᥃ࡅ࡚ྠ⨫ဨ࡟ᘬࡁΏࡋࡓࠋ
㸦2012-8-13 ࢫ࣏࣮ࢶࢽࢵ࣏ࣥ㸧(13)ࡣࠊྠࡌ┠ⓗࡢࡦ࡜ࡲ࡜ࡲࡾࡢ⾜Ⅽࠊ(14)ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿே≀ࡢ㐃⥆ⓗ࡞⾜Ⅽࢆླྀ㏙ࡍࡿࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࠊ⤖᮰ᛶࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࡓ⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(15)ࡣࠊ
ࠕ࢔࣋ࢵࢡࡀᅵᡭ࡟⭜ࢆୗࢁࡋࠊᜊࢆㄒࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞↓ᶆࡢᩥ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ᭷ᶆᩥ࡜ぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ(15)ᅵᡭ࡟⭜ࢆୗࢁࡋࠊᜊࢆㄒࡿ࢔࣋ࢵࢡࠋࡑࢀࢆ࠺ࡽࡸࡲࡋࡑ࠺࡟═ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ※බࠋ㸦ࠗ⏨ࡣࡘࡽ࠸ࡼᐥḟ㑻ࣁ࢖ࣅࢫ࢝ࢫࡢⰼ࠘
ࠊᆤᮏ 2002: 60㸧ฟ᮶஦㸦࢔࣋ࢵࢡࡀᜊࢆㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧࡜ ཧ୚⪅㸦࢔࣋ࢵࢡ㸧 ࡀ㌿᥮ࡋࠊཧ୚⪅࡬ࡢὀ┠ࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ⾲⌧ຠᯝࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠺ࠋࡇࡢ⌧㇟࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜୺ᩥࡀ࠶ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕࡔࠖࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࡢ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ༢఩࡛᏶ᡂࡋࡓฟ᮶஦ᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋ
3.2. ドᣐᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
๓⠇࡛㝖እࡋࡓせᅉ௨እ࡟ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞せᅉ࡛ࠕࡔࠖࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀࡿ⌧㇟ࡀ㉳ࡇࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ−28−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ࡲࡎࠊࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ␒⤌࡜᪂⪺グ஦ࢆẚ㍑ࡋࠊࢪࣕࣥࣝ࡟ࡼࡿᙧᘧⓗ࡞㐪࠸ࢆほᐹࡍࡿࠋ
(16)
(17)

ୖ㔝ື≀ᅬ࡟ࡼࡾࡲࡍ࡜ࠊṚᅉࡣ⫵⅖ࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡍࠋ
㸦2012-7-11 NHK ࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ㸧Ỉᡞ⨫࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊṚᅉࡣỈṚࠋ
㸦2012-8-14 MSN ⏘⤒㸧(16)㸦ࢸࣞࣅࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ㸧࡜(17)㸦᪂⪺㸧ࡣᩥᮎ࡟┦㐪ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿព࿡ࡣ࡯ࡰྠࡌ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡼ࠸ࠋᩥᮎࡢ┦㐪ࡢせᅉࡣࠊ౑⏝ሙ㠃ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(16)࡛ࡣᘬ⏝ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ㹼࡜࠺࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࠖࡀฟ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ(17)ࡶࢸࣞࣅࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀࢀࡤࠕỈṚࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡍࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆᣢࡘࠋ௨ୗࡢ(18)(a)ࡣ㐣ཤᙧࠕ࡛ࡋࡓࠖࡢ౛࡛ࠊ㐣ཤᙧ࡛ࡣ(b)࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ࡜࠸
࠺ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᘬ⏝ᙧᘧࡢ࡞࠸౛ࡶほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ⌧ᅾᙧ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ(16)࡜(17)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᑐ❧࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿᑐẚࢆぢࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(18)

(19)

a. ⌧ሙࡣࠊ∦ഃ㸱㌴⥺ࡢぢ㏻ࡋࡢࡼ࠸┤⥺㐨㊰࡛ࡋࡓࠋ㸦᪥ࢸࣞ NEWS24 2012-11-9㸧b. ⌧ሙࡣᮏᐑ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢳ࢙ࣥࢪ࠿ࡽᩘⓒ࣓࣮ࢺࣝ໭ഃࡢ∦ഃ㸰㌴⥺ࡢ┤⥺㐨㊰ࡔࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺
ࡇ࡜࡛ࡍࠋ㸦ࢳࣂࢸࣞ NEWS 2010-9-27㸧
a. 㹼࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ⌧ሙࡣ∦ഃ㸯㌴⥺ࡢಙྕᶵࡸᶓ᩿Ṍ㐨ࡢ࡞࠸஺ᕪⅬࠋ㸦ୗ㔝᪂⪺ 2012-11-16
b. 㹼࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ⌧ሙࡣಙྕᶵࡢ࡞࠸஺ᕪⅬࡔࡗࡓࠋ (2012-11-06 MSN ⏘⤒)c. ??㹼࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ⌧ሙࡣ∦ഃ㸯㌴⥺ࡢಙྕᶵࡸᶓ᩿Ṍ㐨ࡢ࡞࠸஺ᕪⅬࡔࠋ(స౛㸧᪂⪺࡛ࡣࠊ⌧ᅾᙧࡢ(19)(a)࡜㐣ཤᙧࡢ(b)ࡀࠕ࡜࠸࠺ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢᘬ⏝ᙧᘧࡀฟ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛⌧ᅾᙧ࡜㐣ཤᙧࡢᑐᛂࢆぢࡏࡿࠋ㏻ᖖ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿᑐᛂࡣࠊ(c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕࡔࠖ࡜(b)ࡢࠕࡔࡗࡓ࡛ࠖ࠶ࢁ࠺ࡀࠊ(c)ࡣ୙⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ౛ࡣస౛࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕࡔࠖࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊヰ⪅㸦グ⪅㸧ࡀ⌧ሙࢆぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇࢀࢆ㑊ࡅ࡚(a)ࢆ㠀㐣ཤ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ㐣ཤᙧ࡛ࡣࠕࡔࠖ
ࢆ⏝࠸࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠕࡓࠖࢆ௜ຍࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࢸࣥࢫᶆ♧ࡢ┠ⓗࡢࡳ࡛ࠕࡔࡗࡓࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ(19)(b)࡟༉ᩛࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ஺ᕪⅬࡔࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ
ࠖࡶ౑ࢃࢀࡿࠋ
௨ୖ࠿ࡽࠊ㐣ཤᙧࡢࠕࡔࡗࡓࠖࡢࠕࡔࠖࡣࠊ⌧ᅾᙧࡢࠕࡔࠖ࡜᫬ไࡢⅬ࡛ᑐᛂࡍࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕࡔࠖࡢฟ࡞࠸ࠕ஺ᕪⅬ ȭࠋࠖࡣࠕ஺ᕪⅬࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡍࠋ
ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢸࣞࣅࢽ
࣮ࣗࢫሗ㐨ࡢ⾲⌧࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ
ࠕȭ࡛ࠖᘬ⏝⾲⌧ࡢゎ㔘ࢆᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࡇࡢ⌧㇟ࢆࠊヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡿุ᩿ࡸ᩿ᐃࢆࡍࡿࠕࡔࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ᾘᴟⓗ࡞᪉⟇࡛ࠊᘬ⏝ࡢゎ㔘ࢆᡴࡕᾘࡉ࡞࠸࡜
࠸࠺ຠᯝࢆᮇᚅࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࠊḟ⠇࡛ࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᩥᮎ࡟ὀ┠ࡋ㆟ㄽࡍࡿࠋ3.2.1. ᩥᮎࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ
࡛ࠖࡢㄪᰝࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠖࡣⓎヰࡢᘬ⏝࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊヰ⪅ࡢ┤᥋▱ぬ࡟ࡼࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࢱ࢖ࣉࡢドᣐᛶࢆᶆ♧ࡍࡿ㸦ᚋ㏙㸧ࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵヰ⪅ࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕࣮ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࠕࡔࠖ࡜ࡢඹ㉳ࡀ▩┪ࢆ㉳ࡇࡍࡇ࡜ࡀண
ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ࡓࡔࡋࠊࢸࣥࢫᶆ♧ࡸᚅ㐝࡞࡝ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࢀࡤࠕ࡛ࡍࠖ
ࠊࠕࡔࡗࡓࠖ࡞࡝ࠊ
ࠕࡔࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡊࡿࢆᚓ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞」㞧࡞஦᝟࠿ࡽࠊሗ㐨ࡢᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠕࡔࠖࡀከᶵ⬟໬ࡋࡓ࡜ண
࡛ࡁࡿࠋᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕࡔࠖ
ࠕ࡛ࡍࠖ
ࠕ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ
ࠕȭࠖ࡞࡝ࡢᙧᘧࡢ㐪࠸࠿ࡽࠊࡇࡢ୺ᙇࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ
3.2.1.1. ඛ⾜◊✲ࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࡀࠊᘬ⏝ᶵ⬟࡟≉໬ࡋࡓドᣐᛶࢆᶆ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋඛ
⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ࡜ࡢࠖ࡜ࠕ࡜࠸࠺ࠖࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿ┈ᒸ㸦1997: 30-46㸧ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᵓ㐀ࡣࠕ࡜+ࡢ+N࡛ࠖࠊࠕ㹼࡜ࡢ Nࠖࡣෆᐜ⠇ࡢാࡁࢆࡍࡿࠋ┈ᒸࡣࠊᑎᮧ㸦1975-78㸧ࢆᇶ┙࡟ࠊN ࡣࠕⓎヰ࣭ᛮ⪃ࡢྡモ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊ
ࠕშࠖࠊࠕ⪃࠼ࠖࡢ౛ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−29−

文末が名詞で終わる報告・引用表現

(20)
(21)

ኴ㑻ࡀブḭᖌ࡟㦄ࡉࢀࡓ࡜ࡢშ㸦┈ᒸ 1997: 41㸧
⛅Ꮚࡣ࠾ࡑࡽࡃ఍♫ࢆ㎡ࡵࡿࡔࢁ࠺࡜ࡢ⪃࠼㸦┈ᒸ 1997: 42㸧(22)࡟ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕ஦ᐇࠖࡸࠕ஦௳ࠖ࡞࡝ࡣಟ㣭࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ
ࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠖࡢࠕࡇ࡜ࠖࡶࠊⓎヰ࣭ᛮ⪃ࡢྡモ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟᳨ウࡍࡿ࡜ࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠖࡢࠕࡇ࡜ࠖࡣࠊ(23)ࡢࡼ࠺
࡟ᛮ⪃ࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡉ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊⓎヰࡢᘬ⏝࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠕⓎヰࡢྡモࠖ࡟㝈ᐃࡋ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
(22)
(23)

*࢔࣓ࣜ࢝኱㝣ࡀ 15 ୡ⣖࡟Ⓨぢࡉࢀࡓ࡜ࡢ஦ᐇ㸦┈ᒸ 1997: 42㸧㸦*஦ᐇ㸭*஦௳㸧⛅Ꮚࡣ࠾ࡑࡽࡃ఍♫ࢆ㎡ࡵࡿࡔࢁ࠺࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ㸦 ⪃࠼㸧

3.2.1.2. ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫㄪᰝ
ḟ࡟ゝㄒ㈨※㸦BCCWJ㸧࠿ࡽࠊᩥᮎ࡛ࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ
ࠖࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡿ๭
ྜࢆぢࡓࠋࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠖ3176 ௳࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
ᩥᮎࡢࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ
ࠖ
ࡣ 1154 ௳࡜ࠊ
36 ࣃ࣮ࢭࣥࢺᙉࡢ๭ྜ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡜ᑐ❧ࡍࡿᩥᮎࡢࠕ࡜
ࡢࡇ࡜ࡔࠋࠖࡢ౑⏝௳ᩘࡣᑡ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ୎ᑀయࡀ 933 ௳࡜ࠊ᭷ព࡟
ከ࠸ࠋ㐣ཤᙧ࡛ࡶ౑⏝௳ᩘࡀከࡃ
࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ࡛࠶ࡿࠖࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡣࢪࣕࣥࣝ࡟೫ࡾࡀ࠶ࡾ㸦࡯ࡰࠕ᭩⡠ࠖ㸧ࠊᩥయࡢᙳ㡪ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
3.2.2. ドᣐᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⪃ᐹࡢࡲ࡜ࡵ
[A] ᪂⪺グ஦㸸ࠕ㹼࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ドᣐᛶࡢ᪉⟇㸦Aichenvald 2006㸧ࡸࠊࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ
ἲⓗᡭẁࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⎔ቃ࡛ࡣࠊᩥᮎ࡛ࠕࡔࠖࡣ㉳ࡇࡾ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊࢸࣥࢫࡸ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆᶆ♧ࡍࡿ┠ⓗ࡛ࠊࠕࡔࠖࡀฟ࡞࠸఩⨨࡛ࡶࠕࡔࡗࡓࠖ
ࠊࠕ࡛ࡍࠖ࡞࡝ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࠋ[B]ࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ␒⤌㸸᪂⪺グ஦࡛ࠕࡔࠖࡀฟ࡞࠸㸦Nȭࠋ㸧⌧㇟࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ␒⤌࡛ࡢ⾲⌧ࡣࠊࠕࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡍࠖ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
[C] ⴭస≀ 㸸ࢪู࡛ࣕࣥࣝぢࡿ࡜ⴭస≀ࡢሙྜ࡟ࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠖࡢ౑⏝ᩘࡀ㢧ⴭ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(24)ࡣࠊࡼࡾヲ⣽࡞᳨ウࡀᚲせ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊⴭస≀ࡢෆᐜ࡬㈐௵ࡢ⌧ࢀ࡜࠸࠺ⴭ⪅ࡢែᗘࡀࠕ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ
࡟⌧ࢀࠊࡇࡢࠕ࡛࠶ࡿࠖࡣవ๫ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ぢ࡚Ⰻ࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕࡔ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠕ࡛࠶ࡿࠖࡀ౑
ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ᩥయࡢ㠃࡛᱁ᘧࢆಖࡘ࡜࠸࠺ᶵ⬟ࡶᣦ᦬࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(24)ࡑࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠕṊ┦ᅔẸඪࠖ࡟ࡣཧຍࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦BCCWJ㸧

3.3. ヰ⪅࡜⪺ࡁᡭ
3.3.1. どⅬ࡜⤫ㄒⓗ≉ᚩሗ㐨ࡢ୺యࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ࡣࠊሗ㐨ࢆࡍࡿ୺య࡜᝟ሗ※࡜ࡢ୙୍⮴ࡸࠊ᝟ሗ※ࡢṇᙜᛶࢆཝᐦ࡟ゝㄒ࡟཯ᫎࡉࡏࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋどⅬ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽࡇࢀࢆぢࡿࠋ(25)ⴠ㞾ࡀཎᅉ࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ
㸦2012-8-11 ୰᪥᪂⪺㸧

−30−

第15回大会発表論文集

(26)

第８号

…ඹㅛࡋ࡚౵ධࡋࠊࢿࢵࢡࣞࢫ࡞࡝㸯㸳Ⅼࢆ┐ࢇࡔ␲࠸ࡀᣢࡓࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸰ேࡣᐜ␲ࢆㄆࡵ࡚
࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ
㸦2012-7-17 MSN ⏘⤒㸧(25)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕࡳ࡚ࠖ࠸ࡿே≀ࡀヰ⪅࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࠕࡳࡽࢀࡿࠖ࡟ࠊ(26)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕᣢࡓࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࠖ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࣦ࢛࢖ࢫ࡛ヰ⪅ࡢ❧⬮Ⅼࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௨ୗࡢࠕ␲࠸ࠖ࡜ẚ㍑ࡉࢀࡓ࠸
(27)ㄪ࡭࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ஧ேࡣ༑୕᪥ࠊཌู༊ෆࡢ࢔ࣃ࣮ࢺࡢ㥔㌴ሙ࠿ࡽࣛ࢖ࢺࣂ୍ࣥྎࢆ┐ࢇࡔ␲࠸ࠋ

(26)(27)ࡀྠࡌどⅬ࠿ࡽㄒࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣὀ┠࡟್ࡍࡿࠋ
ࠕࡔࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡞࠸(27)࡛ࡣࣦ࢛࢖ࢫࡶ✚ᴟⓗ࡟♧ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊどⅬࡣࣦ࢛࢖ࢫࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀࡿ(26)࡜ྠࡌ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟タᐃࡉࢀࡓゎ㔘ࡀᚓࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᩒ࠼࡚ࠕࡔࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡛ሗ㐨ࡢ୺యࡀ᝟ሗ※࡜୍⮴ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㑊ࡅࡽࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚Ⰻ࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
3.3.2. ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢሗ࿌ࢆᶆ♧ࡍࡿࠕ࡛ࡍࠖ
ࡲࡎࠊᬑ㏻ྡモࡢሙྜࢆぢ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ(28)(a)࡛ࡣࠕ㋃ษࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྡモ࡛ᩥࡀ⤊ࢃࡿࠋ(28)(a)ࡀᐇ౛㸦᪂⪺グ஦㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕࡔࠖࢆ௜ຍࡍࡿ࡜ࠊぢ࡚ࡁࡓ᝟ሗࡢࡼ࠺࡞༳㇟ࢆ୚࠼୙⮬↛࡜࡞ࡿࠋ᪂⪺࡜࠸࠺ᩥ⬦ࢆ㞳ࢀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ሗ࿌ࡍࡿ≧ἣୗ࡟࠶ࢀࡤࠊ(c)ࡣ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(28)

a. ᱜ஭⨫࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ⌧ሙࡣ㐽᩿ᶵࡸ㆙ሗᶵࡀ࡞࠸㋃ษࠋ
㸦=(3e)㸧
b. ?ᱜ஭⨫࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ⌧ሙࡣ㐽᩿ᶵࡸ㆙ሗᶵࡀ࡞࠸㋃ษࡔࠋ
c.㸦ලయⓗ࡞⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ሗ࿌㸧ᱜ஭⨫࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ⌧ሙࡣ㐽᩿ᶵࡸ㆙ሗᶵࡀ࡞࠸㋃ษ࡛ࡍࠋ

ḟ࡟ࠊᶵ⬟⠊␪࡟ᒓࡍࡿࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠖࡢ౛ࢆぢࡿࠋ(29)ࡢ᪂⪺ሗ㐨࡛ࡣࠕࡔࠖࡀฟ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊ㠃๓ࡢලయⓗ࡞⪺ࡁᡭࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿ(30)(31)ࡢሙྜࠕࡔࠖࡸࠕ࡛ࡍࠖࡀᚲ㡲࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ୧⪅ࡢே㛫㛵ಀࡀせᅉ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚౑࠸ศࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶศ࠿ࡿࠋ
(29)
(30)
(31)

㹼࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢ㯝ࢆసࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᴗ⪅ࡣᐩኈᐑᕷ࡟ 3 ♫ࡋ࠿࡞࠸࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ
㸦=(4d))
࣭࣭࣭ᡃ㍮࡟ࠊ㜌ࡢᖇ⋤࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᚰࢆ㛢ࡌࡿ⾡ࢆࠊྩ࡟ᩍ࠼࡚࡯ࡋ࠸࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࡔࠖ(BCCWJ ࣁ࣮࣭࣏ࣜࢵࢱ࣮࡜୙Ṛ㫽ࡢ㥽ኈᅋ)㸦ࢫࢿ࢖ࣉ࠿ࡽࣁ࣮ࣜ࡬ࠋࢲࣥࣈࣝࢻ࢔ᰯ㛗ࡀ᝟ሗ※㸧࠶࡞ࡓ࡜ᰗࡉࢇࢆࠊ㒔ෆࡢ࣍ࢸࣝࡢ୍ᐊ࡟ಖㆤࡏࡼ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜࡛ࡍࠖ
ࠕ࣍ࢸࣝ㸽ぢᙇࡾࡣࡘࡃࢇࡔࢁ࠺࡞㸽ࠖ㸦᪂₻ 100㸸㉥ᕝḟ㑻ࠗዪ♫㛗࡟஝ᮼ㸟࠘㸧ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ⚾ಙ㸦ᩥ᭩㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕ㹼࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠊ㐙⾜ᩥࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᵓ㐀ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ๓௳࡜ᚋ௳ࡢ㛫࡟᥋⥆せ⣲ࡀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊྡモ໬ࡋ࡚࠸࡚ࡶᇙࡵ㎸ࡳ⠇࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺㏙㒊ⓗᛶ᱁ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠕᑵ⫋ࡀỴࡲࡗࡓࠖࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚᪤▱ࡢ᝟ሗ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊヰ⪅ࡢุ᩿ࡢ᫂♧ࡶࠊሗ࿌ࡢ᫂♧ࡶࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ୙せ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜࡛ࡍ࡛ࠖࡣࠊሗ࿌࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ
(32)ࡈᑵ⫋ࡀỴࡲࡗࡓ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ࠊ࠾ࡵ࡛࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ/*ࡈᑵ⫋ࡀỴࡲࡗࡓ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜࡛ࡍࠋ

4.

⤖ㄽ⤖ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊከᶵ⬟ᛶ࡜ኚ✀ࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋヰ⪅ࡢᏑᅾࡀࠕࡔࠖ࡟⌧ࢀࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ
ᑐᓖࡍࡿᐈయ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊヰ⪅ࡢ࡝ࡢഃ㠃ࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡍࡿ࠿ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋᘬ⏝⾲⌧࡛ࡣࠊᘬ⏝᝟ሗࡀヰ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢᐈయ࡟࡞ࡾࠊ᝟ሗࡢ┿ഇ࡟㛵୚ࡍࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࡀࠕࡔࠖࡢ᫂♧࣭㠀᫂♧࡟⌧ࢀࡿࠋሗ࿌
⾲⌧࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀヰ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢᐈయ࡜࡞ࡾࠊᚅ㐝ࡀ୺࡟ࠕ࡛ࡍ࡛ࠖ᫂♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋኚ✀㸦ྛᙧ

−31−

文末が名詞で終わる報告・引用表現ᘧ㸧ࡢ౑⏝⎔ቃࡢࠕഴྥࠖࢆ࠸࠿࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ
[1] ᪂⪺ࠕNȭࠋࠖ⣬ᖜࡢ㒔ྜࠊ⡆₩ᛶࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿ⎔ቃ࡛ࠊ᫂♧ⓗ࡞ᶆ㆑ࡼࡾࡶ㠀᫂♧࡟ࡼࡿ᭷ᶆⓗᡭẁࡀዲࡲࢀࠊࠕࡔࠖࢆᩒ࠼࡚౑ࢃ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺᪉⟇ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ
[2] ࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ␒⤌ࠕN ࡛ࡍࠋࠖ᪂⪺グ஦࡜ྠࡌෆᐜࢆሗ㐨ࡍࡿሙྜ࡛ࡶ୎ᑀయࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊሗ㐨ෆᐜ࡬ࡢุ᩿ᶵ⬟ࡣ⫼ᬒ໬ࡋࠊど⫈⪅࡟ᑐࡍࡿᚅ㐝ࡢᶵ⬟ࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡍࡿࠋ
[3] ⴭస≀ࠕN ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠖࠕࡔࠖࡼࡾࠕ࡛࠶ࡿࠖࡢ᪉ࡀᅛ࠸ᩥయ࡟㥆ᰁࡳࠊⴭ⪅ࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕࣮ࡶྠ᫬࡟♧ࡍࠋࡲࡓࠊⴭ⪅ࡀⴭస≀ࡢෆᐜ࡟㈐௵ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠺❧ሙࢆ♧ࡍᶵ⬟ࡶᑐᛂࡍࡿࠋ
[4] ཱྀ㢌ఏ㐩ࠕ࡜ࡢࡇ࡜࡛ࡍࠋ
ࠖ
㸦
ࠕࡔࠋ
ࠖ
ࠊ*ࠕ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠖ㸧⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࢆక࠺ఏ㐩ᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘࠋ♫఍ⓗຊ㛵ಀࡢせᅉ࡛㓄៖ࡀ୙せ࡞┦ᡭ࡟ࡣࠕࡔࠖࡀ
⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊࡸࡣࡾఏ㐩ᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡍࠋ⚾ಙࡢࠕ⏤㸭࡜ࡢࡇ࡜ ȭࠊ㐙⾜ᩥࠋࠖ࡞࡝ࡢሙྜࠊࡑࡢ
㐙⾜ࡢሙࢆタᐃࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘࠋุ᩿ࡶఏ㐩ࡶ୙せ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵḞዴࢱ࢖ࣉࡀ᭱㐺ࠋ
5.

࠾ࢃࡾ࡟㸸ᒎᮃ࡜ㄢ㢟౑⏝ືᶵ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㓄៖ࠊ᝟ሗࡢ᪤࣭ᮍ▱ࠊ⣬ᖜࡢ㒔ྜ࡞࡝ࡀ┤᥋せᅉ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿
ࡋࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡢ౑⏝ࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⎔ቃ࡛౑ࢃࢀࡸࡍ࠸ᙧᘧࡀࠕࡔࠖ
ࠊࠕ࡛ࡍࠖࠊࠕ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡞
࡝࡟ศ໬ࡋ࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᙜヱࡢᙧᘧศ໬࡜ᶵ⬟ศ໬ࡢᑐᛂ⌧㇟ࡣỴࡋ࡚ᙉ࠸࣮ࣝࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚
ാ࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ౑⏝࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡺࢀࡶ࠶ࡾࠊഴྥ࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸ࠋẚ㍑ⓗ㢖⦾࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ᭷ᶆࡢ
⌧㇟࡟ࠊ㕥ᮌ㸦2012: 345-8㸧ࡸ⏣୰㸦2012㸧࡛ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ㹼ࢆᚭᗏྲྀᮦ࡛ࡍࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ
ࢽ࣮ࣗࢫࡢࠕ࡛ࡍࠖࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᮏ✏ࡢ㆟ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡶㄢ㢟࡜࡞ࡿ⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2006) Evidentiality. NY: Oxford University Press.
┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ㸦1997㸧
ࠗ」ᩥ࠘
ࠊᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ࣭K࣭ἨᏊ㸦2008㸧࣐ࠗࣝࢳࢪࣕࣥࣝㄯヰㄽ࠘ࠊᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
᪂ᒇᫎᏊ㸦1989㸧
ࠕ"ᩥᮎྡモ"࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ
ࠊࠗᅧㄒᏥ࠘159: 88-75,59-58.
㕥ᮌᬛ⨾㸦2012㸧ࠕࢽ࣮ࣗࢫሗ㐨࠾ࡼࡧࣈࣟࢢ➼࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࠕ㹼࡛ࡍࠖᩥࡢព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟ʊࠕ㹼ࢆᚭᗏྲྀᮦ࡛ࡍࠖ
ࠕ㹼࡟ᮇᚅ࡛ࡍࠖ
ࠕ㹼ࢆࡼࢁࡋࡃ࡛ࡍࠖʊࠖ
ࠊࠗᮾிእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫㄽ㞟࠘84: 341-357.
⏣୰ఀᘧ㸦2012㸧ࠕࢽ࣮ࣗࢫሗ㐨࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕྡモ㸩࡛ࡍࠖ⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠗᨺ㏦◊✲࡜ㄪᰝ࠘10
᭶ྕࠊNHK ᨺ㏦ᩥ໬◊✲ᡤ.
ᑎᮧ⚽ኵ㸦1992㸧
ࠗᑎᮧ⚽ኵㄽᩥ㞟Ϩ࠘ࠊᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ᆤᮏ⠜ᮁ㸦2002)ࠕࣔࣀ࡜ࢥࢺ࠿ࡽぢࡓ᪥ⱥㄒẚ㍑ࠖ
ࠊࠗᅜ㝿㛵ಀ࣭ẚ㍑ᩥ໬◊✲࠘㸦㟼ᒸ┴❧኱Ꮫ㸧1(1), 57-78.
ゅ⏣ኴస㸦2011㸧ࠕே㨶ᵓᩥ㸸᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠿ࡽ୍⯡ゝㄒᏛ࡬ࡢ㈉⊩ࠖࠊࠗᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤㄽ㞟࠘ 1: 53-75.
౛ᩥฟ඾ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ᭩ࡁゝⴥᆒ⾮ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠘
㸦BCCWJ㸧ࠊᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤ.
᪂₻ᩥᗜ 100 ෉ CD-ROM㸦1995㸧ᮾி㸸᪂₻♫.

−32−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ž߼ƱӫƷԗᡀᢿᲢ.GHVCPF4KIJV2GTKRJGTKGUᲣſƱžɼᚇࣱȷ᧓ɼᚇࣱſƱƷ᧙̞ƸᲹÜഭӪᛖဇᛯƴƓƚǔᎋ‫ݑ‬ᑠ㔝ᑎ ඾Ꮚ
㟷ᒣᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ onodera@cl.aoyama.ac.jp<Abstract>
Periphery is a recent topic and concept, which has drawn interest for the last several years. Tentatively,
periphery refers to “utterance-initial and utterance-final positions (Left Periphery; LP, and Right Periphery;
RP). One primary focus seems to be “form-function-periphery” mapping, which considers “what linguistic
forms appear and what functions are served at the LP and RP”. From the observation of Japanese discourse,
this paper suggests a mapping where both LP and RP show both subjectivity and intersubjectivity, incontrast to some European languages, for which a different mapping of “LP—subjectivity, RP—intersubjectivity” has been put forward. This paper also shows that the former type of mapping indeed
accords with the layered structure model of utterance (4).
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸ᕥࡢ࿘㎶㒊(LP)ࠊྑࡢ࿘㎶㒊(RP)ࠊ୺ほᛶࠊ㛫୺ほᛶࠊṔྐㄒ⏝ㄽࡣࡌࡵ࡟
 ࿘㎶㒊(periphery)࡜ࡣࠊⓎヰࡢෑ㢌࡜ᮎᑿࡢ㒊ศࢆᣦࡋࠊゝㄒ◊✲ࠊ≉࡟Ṕྐㄒ⏝ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᩘ
ᖺ๓࠿ࡽ㛵ᚰࢆ㞟ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿ(Beeching and Detges forthcoming, Onodera forthcoming ࡞࡝ࢆཧ↷) ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠕⓎヰ (utterance)ࠖ࡜ࡣࠊヰࡋࡇ࡜ࡤ(spoken language) ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࠾࠾ࡼࡑ᭩ࡁࡇ࡜ࡤ(written language)࡟⌧ࢀࡿᩥ(sentence)࡟༉ᩛࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࿘
㎶㒊ࡣࠊࡲࡔᐃ⩏⮬యࡶ㆟ㄽࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᪂ࡋ࠸ᴫᛕࡔࡀࠊࡇࡢ⌧㇟࡟㛵ᚰࡀᐤࡏࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞
ࡗࡓ⫼ᬒ࡟ࡣࠊ௒᪥ࡲ࡛ 30 ᖺ㛫⥆ࡅࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓᩥἲ໬◊✲ࡸព࿡ኚ㑄◊✲ࡢᗈࡀࡾࠊࡲࡓ 1980ᖺ௦࠿ࡽ┒ࢇ࡟࡞ࡗࡓヰࡋࡇ࡜ࡤ◊✲㸦ㄯヰศᯒ࣭఍ヰศᯒ㸧࡬ࡢ㛵ᚰࡢ㧗ࡲࡾࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࡇࡢ㸰ࡘࡢ₻ὶࡢᘏ㛗⥺ୖ࡟࠶ࡿṔྐㄒ⏝ㄽࡢⓎᒎࡶ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
 ࿘㎶㒊◊✲࡛ࡣࠊⓎヰࡢ࿘㎶㒊㸦ᕥ࡜ྑࡢ࿘㎶㒊; LP ࡜ RP㸧୍࡛య࡝ࢇ࡞ゝㄒᙧᘧࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊ࡝ࢇ࡞ᶵ⬟㸦ព࿡㸧ࡀస⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆၥ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ2011 ᖺᅜ㝿ㄒ⏝ㄽ఍㆟࡛ࡢࣃࢿࣝ
㸦Beeching 2011㸧࡟ࡘ࡙ࡁࠊ2013 ᖺ኱఍࡛ࡶ࿘㎶㒊࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࣃࢿ࡛ࣝ◊✲ࡢᡂᯝࡀၥࢃࢀࡿࠋ
≉࡟࠸ࡲὀ┠ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿၥ㢟Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕゝㄒᙧᘧ㸫ᶵ⬟㸫࿘㎶㒊㸦ྑ࡜ᕥ㸧ࠖࡢ㛵ಀ㸦form-
function-periphery (LP/RP) mapping㸧ࡀ␗ゝㄒ㛫࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ࡝ࢇ࡞ㄒࡸ⾲⌧ࡀࠊᕥ࡜ྑࡢ࿘㎶㒊࡟⌧ࢀ࡚ࠊ࡝ࢇ࡞ᶵ⬟ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ࠶ࡿ
⾲⌧ࡀ࠶ࡿᶵ⬟ࢆకࡗ࡚ᕥ࡟⌧ࢀࡿࡀࠊྑ࡟⌧ࢀࡓࡢ࡛ࡣព࿡ࢆ࡞ࡉ࡞࠸㸦ྑ࡛ࡣ non-usable㸧࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓศᕸࡀࠊⱥㄒ࡜ࢺࣝࢥㄒ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ゝㄒࡀ␗࡞ࡿ࡜␗࡞ࡿࡢ
1−33−

「左と右の周辺部（Left and Right Peripheries）」と「主観性・間主観性」との関係は？―歴史語用論における考察࠿ࠊࡑࢀ࡜ࡶゝㄒᬑ㐢ⓗ࡟ྠࡌ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠋ ヰࡋࡇ࡜ࡤࠊࡲࡓᑐேࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊேࡣヰࡋࡣࡌࡵ㸦ᕥࡢ࿘㎶㒊㸧࡟ఱࢆゝ࠸ࠊఱࢆఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋⓎヰࡢ⤊ࢃࡾ㸦ྑࡢ࿘㎶㒊㸧࡛ࡣࠊ⚾㐩ࡣఱࢆゝ࠸ࠊఱࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆྛゝㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊほᐹ࣭グ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿẁ㝵࡟࠶ࡿࠋ࿘㎶㒊࡜ࡣ ࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟ᥦၐࡉࢀࡓᐃ⩏ࡢ㸯ࡘࡣࠊࠕ࿘㎶㒊࡜ࡣࠊⓎヰࡢ୧➃ࢆᣦࡍࠖ Beeching 2011, Beeching
and Detges forthcoming ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊⓎヰࡢෑ㢌ࡀᕥࡢ࿘㎶㒊ࠊⓎヰᮎࡀྑࡢ࿘㎶㒊࡟࠶ࡓࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ࿘㎶㒊ࡀࠕఱࠖࡢ࿘㎶㒊࡟࠶ࡓࡿ࡜つᐃࡍࡿࡢࡀ᭱ࡶⰋ࠸ࡢ࠿ࠊ௒࡞࠾ៅ㔜࡞᳨ウ
ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕ⠇(clause)ࠖࠕヰ㡰(turn)ࠖࡢ࿘㎶㒊࡜⪃࠼ࡓ᪉ࡀⰋ࠸࡜࠸࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࡶ኱ࡁ࠸ࠋ
 ࿘㎶㒊࡜ࡣࠕ⠇ࠖࡢ࿘㎶㒊࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁࡔ࡜࠸࠺ㄽᣐࡢ㸯ࡘ࡟ࠊSandra A. Thompson ࡟ࡼࡿ⪃࠼᪉ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊᩥἲ࡜ࡣㄆ▱ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࠊࠕࡇ࡜ࡤ౑⏝ࠖ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃゝㄒᏛࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ┦஫స⏝ࡢゝㄒᏛ㸦interactional linguistics㸧ࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࠊேࡣ⠇ࡢ༢఩࡛ヰࢆ⏕⏘ࡋࠊ⠇ࡢ༢఩࡛ࠕ⾜Ⅽ (social action)ࠖࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿ㸦cf. Thompson and Couper-Kuhlen 2005㸧ࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⪃࠼᪉࠿ࡽࡣࠊேࡀࠊ
ࠕ⠇ࠖ࡜࠸࠺༢఩ࢆᇶᮏ༢఩࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢෑ㢌࡛ࠊ⾜Ⅽࡢ๓ẁ㝵࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࣉࣞ⾜Ⅽ㸦pre-action㸧㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊ࿧ࡧ᥃ࡅࠊὀពႏ㉳࡞࡝㸧ࢆᑐேⓗ࡞(interactional)ᶵ⬟࡜
ࡋ࡚Ⓨಙࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡼ࠺ࠋᮏ᮶ࠊᇶᮏ༢఩࡛࠶ࡿ⠇ࡢ๓ࡢ࡯࠺࡛⾜ࢃࢀࡿࣉࣞ
⾜Ⅽࡀᚋ⨨ࡉࢀࠊ⠇࡟ᚋ⥆ࡋ࡚㉳ࡁࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺㸦౛㸸࿧ࡧ᥃ࡅࠕ࠾Ꮉࡉࢇࠖࡣࠊ⠇ࡢ๓࡛ࠕ࠾Ꮉࡉࢇࠊ௒࠿ࡽ㥐ࡲ࡛⾜ࡁࡲࡍࡼࠖ࡜ࡶࠊᚋ⨨ࡋ࡚ࠕ௒࠿ࡽ㥐ࡲ࡛⾜ࡁࡲࡍࡼࠊ࠾ㆡࡉࢇࠖ
࡜ࡶゝ࠼ࡿ㸧
ࠋࡑ࠺ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᑐேⓗ࡞⾜Ⅽࡣࠕ⠇ࠖࡢ࿘㎶㒊࡛⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ୍᪉࡛ࠊ࿘㎶㒊ࡣࠕⓎヰࠖ㸦utterance㸧ࡢෑ㢌࡜ᮎᑿ࡟࠶ࡓࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉ࡶ᰿ᙉࡃࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᩥࡲࡓࡣⓎヰࡢࡣࡌࡵ࡜⤊ࢃࡾࢆ࿘㎶㒊࡜ࡋ࡚ほᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋඛ࡟ᣲࡆࡓ Beeching
and Detges (forthcoming) ࡛ࡣࠊㄽᩥ㞟ࡢ┠ⓗࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ㡯࡟ “… what happens on the left and right
periphery of the utterance (LP and RP, respectively). …” ࡜࠸࠺グ㏙ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᕥࡢ࿘㎶㒊ࡀⓎヰࡢᕥࡢ㒊ศࢆࠊྑࡢ࿘㎶㒊ࡀⓎヰࡢྑࡢ㒊ศࢆᣦࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋOhori (1998) ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢⓎヰᮎ࡟ࠕ࣭࣭࡞࠸ ࡢ ࡼ ࡡࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ⤊ຓモࢆྵࡴࢥࣥࣅࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡀ㉳ࡇࡾࠊⓎヰࡢ࿘㎶㒊ࡀࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࠕㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⥥ᐦࡉ(pragmatic elaboration)ࠖࡢ㉳ࡇࡿ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ሙᡤࡔ࡜㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Suzuki (1998)ࡶྠᵝ࡟ࠊࠕࢃࡅࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡀⓎヰᮎࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗຓモ㸦utterance-final pragmatic particle㸧࡟࡞ࡗࡓኚ㑄ࢆᩥἲ໬࡜ᤊ࠼ࠊㄒ⏝ㄽᶵ⬟ࡀᙉ໬ࡉࢀࡓ⾲⌧ࡀⓎヰᮎ࡟⌧ࢀࡿࡉࡲࢆᥥ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊᇼỤ㸦2012㸧ࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࣭㡑ᅜㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᚑᒓ⠇ࡀ୺⠇ࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࢆࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟
࡞ࡿ⌧㇟㸦ࠕᚑᒓ⠇࠿ࡽ୺⠇࡬ࡢ₃ฟ㸦ᣑᙇ㸧ࠖ; insubordination㸧ࢆ⠇࡟ὀ┠ࡋほᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ
᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕᩥᮎࠖࡀࠕྑ➃㸦right periphery㸧࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜♧၀ࡍࡿㄝ᫂ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ୺⠇໬ࡢືᶵ௜ࡅࢆㄒ⏝ㄽ໬㸦pragmaticization㸧࡜⪃࠼ࠊࠕྑ➃ࡢ఩⨨ࡣ㸦S㸧OV ゝㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ㄒ⏝ㄽ໬ࡀ㢧ⴭ࡟㉳ࡇࡿ఩⨨ࠖࡔ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡉ࡟ࠊ⠇࣭ᩥ࣭Ⓨヰࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡢ➃ࢆ࿘㎶㒊࡜࿧ࡪ࡭ࡁ࠿⪃࠼ࡉࡏࡽࢀࡿ◊✲࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢⓎヰࡢ㝵ᒙᵓ㐀㸦layered structure model㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢከࡃࡢ◊✲ࡣࠊⓎヰࡲࡓࡣᩥࡀ㝵ᒙᵓ㐀ࢆ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ぢ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦༡㸦1974㸧ࠊΏ㎶㸦1971㸧ࠊዟὠ㸦1978㸧Shinzato (2007)
2−34−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

௚ከᩘ㸧ࠋࡸࡣࡾࠊ㛗࠸Ṕྐࢆᣢࡘ᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࠕᩥࡲࡓࡣⓎヰࠖࡢ࿘㎶㒊ࡶࡋࡃࡣྑࡢ
࿘㎶㒊ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕᩥᮎ࡛ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⢭⦓࣭⥥ᐦࡉࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ぢ᪉ࡀ㸯ࡘࡢఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ぢ᪉࡞ࡢࡔࢁ࠺ࠋୖ࡟ᣲࡆࡓከࡃࡢ◊✲ࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥ㢌࣭ᩥᮎ㸦≉࡟ᩥᮎ㸧ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡇࡢ㝵ᒙᵓ㐀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ 4.࡛ࡉࡽ࡟ヲࡋࡃ㏙࡭ࡿࠋ
࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃゝㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢศᯒ࠿ࡽࡢ␗࡞ࡿᥦ᱌ ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢᩘᖺ㛫࡛ࠊ࿘㎶㒊࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃゝㄒ㸦ⱥㄒ࣭ࣇࣛࣥࢫㄒ࣭ࢻ
࢖ࢶㄒ࡞࡝㸧࡜᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ほᐹࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࠊ▱ぢࡀ⵳✚ࡉࢀࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࠊୡ⏺ࡢゝㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࿘
㎶㒊◊✲ࢆ✚ࡳୖࡆ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ┠ᣦࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟㸯Ⅼࡔࡅࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃゝㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢศᯒ࠿ࡽࡢᥦ᱌࡛␗࡞ࡿⅬࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢⅬ࡟ゐࢀ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ ⡆₩࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃゝㄒ࠿ࡽࡣࠕᕥࡢ࿘㎶㒊̿୺ほᛶࠊྑࡢ࿘㎶㒊̿㛫୺ほᛶࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᑐᛂࡀࠊࡑࡋ࡚᪥ᮏㄒ࠿ࡽࡣࠕᕥࡢ࿘㎶㒊̿୺ほᛶ࣭㛫୺ほᛶࠊྑࡢ࿘㎶㒊̿୺ほᛶ࣭㛫୺ほᛶࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᑐᛂࡀᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃゝㄒ࡛ࡣࠊᕥ࡛୺ほᛶࠊྑ࡛㛫୺ほᛶࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ 1 ᑐ 1 ᑐᛂࡀᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿ㸦Beeching 2011㸧ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࡑ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᕥ࡜ྑࡢ࿘㎶㒊ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕⓎヰࡢෑ㢌࣭ᮎᑿࡢ୧᪉࡛ࠊ୺ほᛶ࣭㛫୺ほᛶࡢ୧᪉ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀࡿ 2 ᑐ 2 ᑐᛂࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺┦㐪Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿ 1ࠋ
 ࡲࡎ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃゝㄒ࠿ࡽࡢᥦ᱌࡜ࡑࡢㄽᣐࢆᴫほࡋ㸦3.1.㸧ࠊࡘ࡙࠸࡚᪥ᮏㄒࡢ 2 ᑐ 2 ᑐᛂࢆぢ࡚⾜ࡃ(3.2.)ࠋ
࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃゝㄒࡢศᯒ࠿ࡽᥦ᱌ࡉࢀࡓࠕ/3୺ほᛶࠊ53㛫୺ほᛶࠖᑐᛂ
Traugott (2010: 60)ࡣࠕࡼࡾ୺ほ໬ࡋࡓゝㄒⓗせ⣲ࡣࠊࡼࡾ࿘㎶ࡢ఩⨨࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ࡜
࠸࠺ሗ࿌ࡀቑ࠼࡚ࡁࡓࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࠊࠕ୺ほ໬ࡋࡓせ⣲ࡣࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡟ VO ゝㄒ࡛ᕥ࡟ࠊOV ゝㄒ࡛ྑ࡟⌧ࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕindeed, in fact, actually ࡜࠸ࡗࡓㄯヰᶆ㆑(discourse
markers)ࡀ୺ほ໬࡜ඹ࡟ᕥ࡟⌧ࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ(Traugott and Dasher 2002)ࠊࡲࡓࠊྡモྃࡢᕥ᪉ྥ࡟⾜ࡅࡤ࠸ࡃ⛬ࠊ୺ほ໬ࡋࡓᙧᐜモࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ(Adamson 2000)ࠖࡇ࡜ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛ࠕLP-- ୺ほᛶࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᑐᛂࡢㄽᣐࡢ㸯ࡘ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠕ୺ほ໬ࡋࡓᙧᐜモࡀࡼࡾᕥ࡟⌧ࢀࡿࠖ⌧㇟ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋࡇࢀࡣྡモྃᵓ㐀࡟࠾ࡅࡿᙧᐜモࡢㄒ㡰ࢆྫྷ࿡ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊAdamson(2000)࡜ Ghesquière (2010)࡟ヲࡋ࠸ሗ࿌ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࡑࡢ㆟ㄽࡢᴫ␎ࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋ ౛࠼ࡤ nice large soft green cushions (Adamson 2000: 43)࡜࠸࠺ྡモྃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢡࢵࢩࣙࣥࢆಟ㣭ࡍࡿ nice 㸦඲య࡜ࡋ࡚Ⰻ࠸㸧ࠊlarge㸦኱ࡁ࠸㸧ࠊsoft㸦ࡸࢃࡽ࠿࠸㸧ࠊgreen㸦⥳Ⰽࡢ㸧࡜࠸࠺㸲ࡘࡢᙧᐜモࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢㄒࡢ㐃㙐ࡢᕥ࡟⾜ࡅࡤ࠸ࡃ࡯࡝୺ほᛶࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸦1㸧ࡣAdamson ࡟ࡼࡿࠕ㸵ࡘࡢព࿡ㄽⓗୗ఩༊ศࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᐜモࡢศ㢮࡛࠶ࡾࠊᩘᏐࡀᑠࡉࡃ࡞ࢀࡤ࡞ࡿ࡯࡝ྡモࡢࡼࡾᕥࡢ࡯࠺㸦ᕥࡢ࿘㎶㒊㸧࡟⌧ࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺㡰ᗎࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(1)ࡢᙧᐜモ⩌࡛ࡣࠊ1.ࠕ౯್ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍᙧᐜモࡀ᭱ࡶᕥ࡟⌧ࢀࠊヰ⪅୰ᚰࡢ୺ほⓗุ᩿࣭ព࿡ࢆ
⾲ࡍࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊ7.ࠕⰍࠖࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢ୺ほⓗุ᩿ࡢධࡿవᆅࡢ࡞࠸ࠊྡモ (head noun)࡟ᮏ᮶ⓗ࡞ព࿡࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᙧᐜモࡀ᭱ࡶྑ࡟⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྡモࡢ๓࡟࠸ࡃࡘࡶᙧᐜモࡀ௜ࡃሙྜࠊᕥ
࠿ࡽྑ࡬ 1.-7.ࡢ㡰࡛୪ࡪ࡜࠸࠺㸦Adamson 2000: 43)ࠋWhorf (1956: 93)ࡶࠊᮏ᮶ⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆ⾲ࡍᙧ
3−35−

「左と右の周辺部（Left and Right Peripheries）」と「主観性・間主観性」との関係は？―歴史語用論における考察(1) ࠕ㸵ࡘࡢព࿡ㄽⓗୗ఩༊ศࠖ(Adamson 2000: 43)㸦ࠕྡモࡢ๓ࡢᙧᐜモࡢ㡰ᗎࠖ㸸➹⪅ࡢຍ➹ 2㸧
ᕥ 1. VALUE – good, nice, excellent, horrible, delicious …
  2. DIMENSION – small, long, thin, large, wide …
  3. PHISICAL PROPERTY-- crisp, hard, soft, heavy, smooth …
  4. SPEED – fast, quick, slow …
  5. HUMAN PROPENSITY—gracious, kind, proud, generous …
  6. AGE – new, young, old …
ྑ 7. COLOUR – black, green, red …
ᐜモ࡯࡝ྡモ㸦head noun㸧࡟㏆࠸ሙᡤ࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺୍⯡ⓗἲ๎ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋඛࡢ౛ nicelarge soft green cushions ࡛ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡢホ౯ⓗᙧᐜモ nice(1.)ࡀ᭱ࡶᕥ࡟ࠊlarge (2.)ࡀḟ࡟ࠊ≀㉁ⓗᛶ㉁ soft (3.)ࡀࡑࡢḟࠊ᭱ࡶྡモ࡟㏆࠸఩⨨࡟Ⰽ green (7.)ࡀ㓄⨨ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡲࡓྠࡌ Adamson ㄽᩥ࡟ࡣࠊᙧᐜモࡢព࿡ࡀ୺ほᛶࢆᖏࡧࢀࡤᖏࡧࡿ࡯࡝ࠊྡモྃෆ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
ㄒ㡰ࡣᕥ࡬⛣ືࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺㏻᫬ⓗ࡞ព࿡ኚ㑄ࡶᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋLovely ࡜࠸࠺ᥥ෗ⓗᙧᐜモࡀࠊⓎ㐩ࡢ᭱⤊ẁ㝵࡛୺ほⓗ࡞ุ᩿ࢆ⾲ࡍᙉពモ㸦intensifier㸧࡟ኚ㑄ࡍࡿࡉࡲࡣࠊ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵ
ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ     (2)Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3 

lovely ேࢆ⾲ࡍᙧᐜモ(5.) > ㌟యࢆᙧᐜ(3.)
1500 – 1700

> ᙉពモ(1.)

1700 – 1800

1850 㸫1900

Lovely ࡣࠊStage 1㸦ึᮇ㏆௦ⱥㄒ㸧࡛ࠕឡ᝿ࡢ࠸࠸ࠊឡ᝟ࡢ࠶ࡿ(amiable, loving)ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ேࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊStage 2 ࡛ࠕ⨾ࡋ࠸㢦ࡸ㤳ࠖ࡜㌟యࢆᙧᐜࡍࡿㄒ࡜࡞ࡾࠊStage 3 ࡛௚ࡢᙧᐜモࢆಟ㣭ࡍࡿᙉពモ㸦౛ a lovely little example㸧࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࠋGood, nice, jolly, pretty, lovely ࡜࠸ࡗࡓㄒࡣ᝟⥴ⓗᙧᐜモ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊᙉពモ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ඲࡚ࠊṔྐⓗ࡟ぢࢀࡤࠊࠕᥥ෗ⓗᙧᐜモ 㸼 ᝟⥴ⓗᙧᐜモ 㸼 ᙉពモࠖ࡜࠸࠺ኚ໬ࢆࡓ࡝ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࡢⓎ㐩ࡢὶࢀࡣᩥἲ໬
ࡢࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢഴྥ㸦cline㸧࡟ຍ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᥦၐࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ(Adamson 2000: 55)ࠋ᝟⥴ⓗᙧᐜモࡣᥥ෗ⓗᙧᐜモࡼࡾ୺ほⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᙉពモࡣᙧᐜモࡼࡾࡶ୺ほⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡼࡾ୺ほⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆᖏࡧࡓㄒࡀᕥ࡟⌧ࢀࡿࠊ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ibid.㸧ࠋ ௨ୖ Adamson ㄽᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊඹ᫬ⓗ࣭㏻᫬ⓗ࡟ࠕྡモྃෆࡢᙧᐜモࠖࡢ୺ほᛶࢆほᐹࡋࠊ⯆࿡῝࠸⪃ᐹࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡇࡇ࡛ࠊⓎヰࡢ࿘㎶㒊࡜࠸࠺ࡑࡶࡑࡶࡢࢸ࣮࣐࡟❧ࡕ㏉ࡾࠊྡモྃࡢ㉳ࡁࡿሙᡤࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋྡモྃࡣࠊLP ࡸ RP ࡟㉳ࡁࡿ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢྡモྃ㸦౛ Nice little John㸧ࡶ࠶ࡾᚓࡿࡀࠊ
඾ᆺⓗ࡟ࡣ࿨㢟ࢆసࡗ࡚࠸ࡃෆ㒊ⓗせ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚⌧ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠋAdamson(2000)
࡟ࡼࡿࠊ୺ほⓗព࿡ࡀࡼࡾᕥ࡟㉳ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺ほᐹࡣಙ៰ᛶࡢ㧗࠸ࡶࡢࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ୍᪉࡛ࠊࡇࡢ୺ほᛶࡢⓎ⏕ࡢ఩⨨㛵ಀࡣࠊྡモྃࡢ୰ࡔࡅ࡟㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ไ㝈ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋLP ࡜ RP ࡜࠸
࠺Ⓨヰࡢ࿘㎶㒊࡛ࡣࠊ࿨㢟ⓗせ⣲࡜ࡣᛶ㉁ࡢ඲ࡃ␗࡞ࡿせ⣲̿ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡶࡗ࡜ᑐேⓗ࣭♫఍ⓗ4−36−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号(3) ࿘㎶㒊࡜ྡモྃ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚             ࿨ 㢟    LP      ྡモྃ     ྡモྃ      RP                         Ⓨ ヰࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟༶ࡋࡓᶵ⬟ࡀാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣᥦၐࡋࡓ
࠸㸦4.ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡢศᯒ࡛ほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠕ/3࣭53୺ほᛶ࣭㛫୺ほᛶࠖᑐᛂ
3.1.࡛♧ࡋࡓ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃゝㄒࡢศᯒ࠿ࡽ⾜ࢃࢀࡓᥦ᱌--ࠕLP--୺ほᛶࠊRP--㛫୺ほᛶࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᑐ
ᛂ㛵ಀ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣᕥ࡜ྑࡢ࿘㎶㒊ࡢ୧᪉࡛ࠊ୺ほᛶࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࡶ࠶ࢀࡤࠊ㛫୺ほᛶࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࠕ୧᪉ࡢ࿘㎶㒊--୺ほᛶ࣭㛫୺ほᛶࡢ୧᪉ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᑐᛂ㛵ಀࢆሗ࿌ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࠊLP ࡟࠾࠸࡚ឤືモ࣭᥋⥆モ࣭ㄯヰᶆ㆑࡜࠸ࡗࡓᙧᘧࡀ୺ほ࣭㛫୺ほ୧᪉ࡢព࿡ࢆ
⾲ࡍሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ RP ࡛ࡶ⤊ຓモ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗຓモ㸦ᙧᘧྡモ࠿ࡽⓎᒎࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡞࡝㸧࡞࡝ࡀ୺ほ࣭㛫୺ほ୧᪉ࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ(4)ࡀ LPࠊ(5)ࡀ RP ࡟⌧ࢀࡿᙧᘧ࡜ᶵ⬟ࡢ౛ࡢᗄࡘ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(4) ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ LP ࡟⌧ࢀࡿ㸦㛫㸧୺ほⓗព࿡ ឤືモ   ࡡ࠼ 㛫 ࠕࡡ࠼ࠊ࠾ㆡࡉࢇࠖ
㸦࿧ࡧ᥃ࡅ㸧       ࠶࠶ ୺ ࠕ࠶࠶ࠊᐮ࠸ࠖ㸦ឤჃ㸧 ᥋⥆モ   ࡔ࠿ࡽ ୺ ࠕࡔ࠿ࡽ᫖᪥Ḟᖍࡋࡓࠖ㸦ᅉᯝ㸧       ࡔ࠿ࡽ 㛫 ࠕࡔ࠿ࡽゝࡗࡓ࡛ࡋࡻ㸟ࠖ(㠀㞴)(5) ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ RP ࡟⌧ࢀࡿ㸦㛫㸧୺ほⓗព࿡⤊ຓモ   ࡡ ୺ ࠕ⚾ࡣṇࡋ࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࡡࠖ㸦ᙉㄪ㸧       ࡡ 㛫 ࠕⅆ᭙᪥ࠊᏛᰯ⾜ࡃࡡࠖ㸦☜ㄆ㸧
ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ
 ຓモ

 ࡇ࡜ ୺ࠕࡼࡃ㡹ᙇࡗࡓࡇ࡜㸟ࠖ(ឤჃ)
 ࡇ࡜ 㛫ࠕࡶ࠺ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜㸟ࠖ 㸦࿨௧)(ᙧᘧྡモ
 ࡼࡾⓎᒎ㸧 ࡢ ୺ࠕ⚾ᐮ࠸ࡢࠖ       ࡢ㸦ឤჃ㸧㛫ࠕ᮶࡞ࡃ࡚࠸࠸ࡢ㸟ࠖ (࿨௧/౫㢗)

5−37−

「左と右の周辺部（Left and Right Peripheries）」と「主観性・間主観性」との関係は？―歴史語用論における考察(4)࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊLP ࡟⌧ࢀࡿឤືモ࣭᥋⥆モࡣ୺ほ࣭㛫୺ほ୧᪉ࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ
ྠ୍ࡢᙧᘧ࡛ࡉ࠼㸦౛ ࡔ࠿ࡽ㸧ࠊሙྜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚୺ほ࣭㛫୺ほ୧᪉ࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ(5)࡛ࡶྠᵝ࡟ࠊྠ୍ࡢᙧᘧ࡛ࡶࠊࡑࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ୺ほⓗࡲࡓ㛫୺ほⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜ᙧᘧྡモࡔࡗࡓࠕࡇ࡜࣭ࡢࠖࡣࠊ㸦㛫㸧୺ほⓗព࿡ࢆᖏࡧ࡚࿘㎶㒊㸦RP㸧࡟⌧ࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋឤჃࡣヰ⪅ࡢ୺ほⓗឤືࢆ⾲ࡍࡀࠊ࿨௧ࡸ౫㢗ࡢ᫬࡟Ⓨࡏࡽࢀࡿࠕࡇ࡜࣭ࡢࠖࡣ┦ᡭ㸦⪺ࡁᡭ㸧࡬ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓព࿡࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㛫୺ほⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (4)(5)ࡢほᐹ࠿ࡽࡔࡅ࡛ࡶࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢⓎヰ࡛ࡣᕥ࡜ྑࡢ୧᪉ࡢ࿘㎶㒊࡛ࠊヰ⪅ࡢ⣽࠿࡞ࢽࣗ࢔ࣥ
ࢫࢆఏ࠼ࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࡀᐇ⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Ⓨヰࡢ㝵ᒙᵓ㐀ࣔࢹࣝ࡜ࠊ࿘㎶㒊࡛ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࠕ⾜Ⅽᵓ㐀࣭ࠖࠕࡸࡾ࡜ࡾᵓ㐀ࠖࡢᥦ᱌ ⣬ᖜࡢ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ㛗࠸᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ᗘࠎᥦၐࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠕⓎヰࡢ㝵ᒙᵓ㐀ࣔࢹࣝࠖࡢ⤂௓࡟⛣ࡾࠊࡲࡓⓎヰࡢ୧࿘㎶㒊㸦ෑ㢌࡜ᮎᑿ㸧࡛⾜Ⅽᵓ㐀࣭ࡸࡾ࡜ࡾᵓ㐀ࡢព࿡ࡀᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
(6) 㝵ᒙᵓ㐀ࣔࢹࣝ㸦Shinzato 2007: 177 ࡼࡾࠋ༡㸦1974㸧௚࠿ࡽᘬ⏝ࠋ➹⪅ヂࠋ㸧3
D (ఏ㐩 communication =㛫୺ほᛶ)C (ุ᩿ judgment =୺ほᛶ)B (஦ែ events)
A (ືస)ࡡ࠻࡝࠺ࡶGឤ ື ๪モG

ࡺࡁᏊࡀG

㏉஦ࢆฟࡉ

୺ㄒG

࡞࠿ࡗࡓ

ࡼ࠺ࡔ

ࡼ

ྰᐃ̾㐣ཤ

㺱㺎㺞㺼㺷

⤊ຓモ

=ಙ᮲

=୺ᙇ

モ
‘It seems that Yukiko didn’t send a reply, (I tell you)’ࡇࡢࣔࢹࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୰ኸࡢ AB ᒙ࡛࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢ࿨㢟ࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋShinzato (2007)ࡣࠊC ᒙ࡛୺ほᛶࢆࠊD ᒙ࡛㛫୺ほᛶࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊⓎヰࡢእഃ࡟㸦࿘㎶㒊࡟㸧⾜ࡃ࡟ࡋࡓࡀ
ࡗ࡚ࠊ୺ほᛶࡑࡋ࡚㛫୺ほᛶࡀࡼࡾ⾲ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࣔࢹࣝࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋⓎヰࢆࡍࡿ㝿ࠊࡣࡌࡵ࡟㸦LP㸧࿧ࡧ᥃ࡅ࣭ὀពႏ㉳࡞࡝ࠊᑐேࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ pre-action ࡟࠶ࡓࡿࡼ࠺࡞
ᶵ⬟ࡀぢࡽࢀࠊⓎヰࡢᮎᑿ(RP)࡛ヰ⪅ࡢᚰⓗែᗘ㸦࣮ࣔࢲࣝ㸧࣭┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ୺ᙇ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㸦㛫㸧୺ほⓗព࿡ࡀⓎ⏕ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 Schiffrin (1987)࡛ࡣࠊㄯヰ㸦discourse㸧ࡀ」ᩘࡢ␗࡞ࡿࣞ࣋ࣝ࠿ࡽᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࠊࠕㄯヰࣔࢹࣝࠖࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ(i)ཧຍ⪅ᵓ㐀㸦ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿ
participation framework㸧ࠊ(ii) ࿨㢟ᵓ㐀㸦࿨㢟ࡀᵓᡂ༢఩࡛࠶ࡿ ideational structure㸧ࠊ(iii) ⾜Ⅽᵓ㐀㸦⾜Ⅽ (act ࡲࡓࡣ social action)ࡀ༢఩࡛࠶ࡿ action structure㸧ࠊ(iv) ࡸࡾ࡜ࡾᵓ㐀㸦ヰ㡰(turn㸧ࡀ༢఩࡛࠶ࡿ exchange structure) ࠊ(v)᝟ሗᵓ㐀㸦▱㆑࣭࣓ࢱ▱㆑࠿ࡽᡂࡾ❧ࡘ information state㸧࡜࠸࠺㸳ࡘࡢᛶ㉁࣭ḟඖࡢ඲ࡃ␗࡞ࡿࣞ࣋ࣝ࠿ࡽㄯヰ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡀᡂࡾ❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᥦゝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ6−38−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

 ࡇࡇ࡛ࡢⓎヰࠕࡡ࠻ࠊ࡝࠺ࡶࡺࡁᏊࡀ㏉஦ࢆฟࡉ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡼ࠺ࡔࡼࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊேࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽ
ࢣ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࡣࠊヰࡋࡣࡌࡵ࡟ࠕὀពႏ㉳㸦ឤືモࠕࡡ࠻ࠖ࡟ࡼࡿ㸧ࡸ࿧ࡧ᥃ࡅ㸦࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅㄒࡢ
ྡモ father, Miss, ࣇ࢓࣮ࢫࢺࢿ࣮࣒࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡿ㸧ࠖࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࡲࡓⓎヰࡢ⤊ࢃࡾ࡛ヰ⪅ࡢ୺యⓗ࡞ែᗘࡢ⾲᫂(⤊ຓモࠕࡼࠖ࡟ࡼࡿ)ࡸࠊḟࡢヰ㡰ࢆಁࡍࡼ࠺࡞ᶵ⬟㸦turn-yielding deviceࠊ௜ຍ␲ၥ࡟
ࡼࡿ㸧࡜࠸ࡗࡓㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࡀ඾ᆺⓗ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊ㝵ᒙᵓ㐀ࣔࢹࣝࡢ୰ᚰ㒊࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿ࿨㢟ⓗᵓ㐀࡜ࡣ඲ࡃᛶ㉁ࡢ␗࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊே࡜ே࡜ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆᡂ❧ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡃ⾜Ⅽ㸦act, action㸧ࡢ㐃㙐ࡸヰ㡰஺௦㸦turn-taking system㸧࡜㛵ಀࡍࡿᶵ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓᶵ⬟ࡣࠊ
Schiffrin (1987)ࡀᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠕ⾜Ⅽᵓ㐀ࠖࠕࡸࡾ࡜ࡾᵓ㐀ࠖ࡟࠶ࡓࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ  ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊḟࡢⅬࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋSchiffrin ࡣㄯヰࡢከඖⓗ࡞ᵓ㐀ࢆᤊ࠼ࠊࠕㄯヰࣔࢹࣝࠖࢆᥦ
ၐࡋࡓࡀࠊࡑࡢ୰ࡢ㸳ࡘࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᵓ㐀ࡢ࠺ࡕࠕ⾜Ⅽᵓ㐀ࠖ࡜ࠕࡸࡾ࡜ࡾᵓ㐀ࠖࡀⓎヰࡢ࿘㎶㒊㸦ᕥ࡜ྑࡢ࿘㎶㒊㸧࡛ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡔࢁ࠺࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎヰࡢࡣࡌࡵ࡜⤊ࢃࡾࡣࠊ㝵ᒙᵓ㐀ࣔࢹࣝ(6)࡛ࡣእ࿘㒊ศࡢ D࣭C ᒙ࠶ࡓࡾࡢ㒊ศࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ⾜Ⅽᵓ㐀࡟ᒓࡍࡿලయⓗ࡞ᶵ⬟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊⓎヰ㢌㸦LP㸧࡛ࠊேࡀᮏ㢟࡟ධࡿ๓ࡢ⾜Ⅽ(action)ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡾࠊ๓࡟㉳ࡇࡗࡓㄯヰ࡜࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㛵ಀࡢヰࢆࡍࡿ࠿ࢆ♧ࡍ(Beeching and Detges forthcoming)ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊㄯヰᶆ㆑࡟ࡼࡾࠕ఍ヰ㛤ጞࠊ఍ヰ෌㛤ࠊヰ㢟㌿᥮࡞࡝ࠖࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊⓎヰᮎ㸦RP㸧࡛ࡣᑐேⓗ࡞⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ☜ㄆࠖసᴗࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡾࡍࡿࠋࡸࡾ࡜ࡾᵓ㐀ࡢලయ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊLP ࡛ well㸦ㄯヰᶆ㆑㸧࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࠊヰ⪅ࡀ⮬ศࡢヰ㡰ࢆ୺ᙇࡋࡓࡾࠊⓎヰᮎ࡛ “didn’t you?”ࠊ”… n’est ce pas?” ࡞࡝ࡢ௜ຍ
␲ၥ࡛ḟࡢヰ㡰ࢆㄏⓎࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ᶵ⬟ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡟ᣲࡆࡓ౛ࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽᵓ㐀࣭ࡸࡾ࡜ࡾᵓ㐀࡝ࡕࡽ࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ௒ᚋࡢศᯒࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍ 2012 ᖺᗘ኱఍࡛ࡣࠊLP ࡛⾜Ⅽᵓ㐀࡟㛵ࢃࡿព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡀࠕࡇࢀ࠿ࡽ㉳ࡁࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆ♧ࡍ(marking the upcoming action)ࠖ౛ࢆⱥ᪥⊂ㄒ࠿ࡽ㸯ࡘࡎࡘᣲࡆࡓࠋࡇ
࠺ࡋࡓᐇ㝿౛ࡢࡉࡽ࡞ࡿศᯒࡸ⪃ᐹ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ✏ࢆᨵࡵࡓ࠸ࠋ ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃゝㄒࡢ࿘㎶㒊ࡢ◊✲࠿ࡽࠕᕥ࡬⾜ࡅࡤ࠸ࡃ࡯࡝୺ほᛶࡀ㧗࠸ Ѝ ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ LP =୺ほᛶࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅗᘧࡀᥦ᱌ࡉࢀࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࡀࠊேࡢ⮬↛Ⓨヰ࡟ࡼࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡑ
࠺ࡋࡓ࿨㢟ⓗ㸦஦ᐇ㛵ಀⓗ㸧ព࿡ࡢ㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊࠕヰ㡰ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࠖࠕ♫఍ⓗ⾜Ⅽࡢ࢟ࣕࢵࢳ࣮࣎ࣝࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡼࡾࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢵࢡ࡞ḟඖࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡲࡓࡑ࠺
ࡋࡓࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢡࢫࡀࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ࡜ࡶࡍࢀࡤゝㄒእ㸦non-
linguistic㸧࡜ࡋ࡚㝖እࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࠊࡼࡾ♫఍ⓗ࡞せ⣲ (social actions ࡜ turn-takingࠊ≉࡟ social actions)ࢆྲྀࡾධࢀ࡚ࡇࡑࠊேࡢࡇ࡜ࡤ࡟ࡼࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ඲యീࢆᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࡇࡢⅬࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
ὀ ࠕᕥ࡜ྑࡢ࿘㎶㒊 㛫㸧୺ほᛶࠖࡢᑐᛂ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊⓎ⾲ᚋࠊᒸᮏⰾ࿴ඛ⏕࡜ࡶ࠺࠾୍ேࡢඛ⏕࠿ࡽࠕࡸࡣࡾ
ᕥࡢ࿘㎶㒊࡟㛫୺ほᛶࡣぢࡽࢀࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺㈗㔜࡞ࡈពぢࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋឤㅰࢆ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ ࠕྑЍᕥࠖࡢ▮༳ࡶ➹⪅ࡢຍ➹࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 㝵ᒙᵓ㐀ࣔࢹࣝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍኱఍࡛ࡢⓎ⾲ᚋࠊ⃝⏣἞⨾ඛ⏕ࡼࡾៅ㔜ㄽࡶ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࡈᣦ᦬࠸ࡓ

7−39−

「左と右の周辺部（Left and Right Peripheries）」と「主観性・間主観性」との関係は？―歴史語用論における考察

ࡔ࠸ࡓࠋ㈗㔜࡞ࡈពぢ࡟ឤㅰࡋࠊ௒ᚋࡶ᳨ウࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Adamson, Sylvia. 2000. “A Lovely Little Example: Word Order Options and Category Shift in the
Premodifying String.” In O. Fisher, A. Rosenbach and D. Stein (eds.) Pathways of Change, 39-66.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Beeching, Kate. 2011. Panel on The Role of the Left and Right Periphery in Semantic Change. (IPrA 2011,
July 4, Manchester)
Beeching, Kate, and Ulrich Detges (eds.). forthcoming. The Role of the Left and Right Periphery in
Semantic Change. Studies in Pragmatics. Oxford: Elsevier.
Ghesquière, Lobke. 2010. “On the Subjectification and Intersubjectification Paths Followed by The
Adjectives of Completeness.”

In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte and H. Cuyckens (eds.)

Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, 277-314. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
ᇼỤ⸅. 2012. ࠕゝㄒ㢮ᆺㄽ࣭ᑐ↷ゝㄒᏛࠖ㸦ࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘ࠗ」ᩥᵓᩥࡢព࿡ࡢ◊✲࠘ࠕ」ᩥᵓᩥࣉ
ࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺࠖࡢ୰㛫ሗ࿌࡟࡚Ⓨ⾲㸧ᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤ㸦12 ᭶ 16 ᪥㸧༡୙஧ኵ. 1974.ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒࡢᵓ㐀࠘ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
Ohori, Toshio. 1998. “Close to the Edge: A Commentary on Horie’s Paper.” In T. Ohori (ed.) Studies inJapanese Grammaticalization, 193-197. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
ዟὠᩗ୍㑻. 1978. ࠗࠕ࣎ࢡࣁ ࢘ࢼࢠࢲࠖࡢᩥἲ㸸ࢲ࡜ࣀ࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
Onodera, Noriko O. forthcoming. “Setting Up a Mental Space: A Function of Discourse Markers on theLeft Periphery (LP).” In K. Beeching and U. Detges (eds.) forthcoming.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Shinzato, Rumiko. 2007. “(Inter)subjectification, Japanese Syntax and Syntactic Scope Increase.” In N. O.
Onodera, and R. Suzuki (eds.) Historical Changes in Japanese: Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity.
Special Issue of Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8 (2), 171-206.
Suzuki, Ryoko. 1998. “From a Lexical Noun to an Utterance-Final Pragmatic Particle: Wake.” In T. Ohori(ed.) Studies in Japanese Grammaticalization, 67-92. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Thompson, Sandra A. and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. “The Clause as a Locus of Grammar and Interaction.”
Discourse Studies Vol. 7(4-5), 481-505.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2010. “(Inter)subjectivity and (Inter)subjectification: A Reassessment.” In K.
Davidse, L. Vandelanotte and H. Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification andGrammaticalization, 29-71. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Ώ㎶ᐇ. 1971.ࠗᅜㄒᵓᩥㄽ࠘ᮾி㸸ሮ᭩ᡣ.
Whorf, Benjamin. L. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, ed.
J. B. Carrol, Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
8−40−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

୺ㄒྡモྃࡀᕥ᪉㌿఩໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᪥ⱥㄒࡢᕥ᪉㌿఩ᵓᩥ*ᾏᑉᗣ⮧❧࿨㤋኱Ꮫკクㅮᖌ                                 < Abstract >This paper considers left-dislocation in English and Japanese where a subject NP is left-dislocated in discourse level.
I wish to make the following points: (ϸ) Left-dislocation can be categorized into a hearer-oriented type and a
speaker-oriented type. (Ϲ) While the use of a sentence with canonical word order I-implicates a continuity in the flow of
discourse, the use of the former type M-implicates a discontinuity in the flow of discourse. (Ϻ) The word order of thelatter variety directly reflects the speaker’s thought process.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࠊM ᥎ពࠊI ᥎ពࠊᩥヰ㢟ࠊㄯヰヰ㢟
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ᕥ᪉㌿఩ᵓᩥ࡜ࡣࠊᩥ㢌ࡢせ⣲࡜ྠ୍ᣦ♧ࡢ௦ྡモࡀ୺ᩥࡢ୺ㄒࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣ┠ⓗㄒࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᡤ᭷᱁ࡢㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᵓᩥࢆᣦࡍࠋᮏ✏ࡢ⪃ᐹᑐ㇟ࡣࠊ(1b)(2b)(2d)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᕥ᪉㌿఩໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿせ⣲㸦௨ୗࠊL ㌿఩せ⣲࡜࿧ࡪ㸧࡜ྠ୍ᣦ♧ࡢせ⣲ࡀ୺ᩥࡢ୺ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᕥ᪉㌿఩ᵓᩥ㸦௨ୗ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡜࿧ࡪ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(1a)(2a)(2c)ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊ
(1b)(2b)(2d)࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ↓ᶆࡢㄒ㡰ࢆྲྀࡿᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(1) a. That shameless fellow beat his wife again.
b. That shameless fellowi, hei beat his wife again.

         (஭ୖ 1978: 78)(2) a. ࠶ࡢ᜝▱ࡽࡎࡀ⮬ศࡢጔࢆࡲࡓ࡞ࡄࡗࡓࠋ
b. ࠶ࡢ᜝▱ࡽࡎ iࠊ࠶࠸ࡘ i ࡀ⮬ศࡢጔࢆࡲࡓ࡞ࡄࡗࡓࠋ

(஭ୖ 1978: 78)1)c. ࠶ࡢ᜝▱ࡽࡎࡣ⮬ศࡢጔࢆࡲࡓ࡞ࡄࡗࡓࠋ
d. ࠶ࡢ᜝▱ࡽࡎ iࠊ࠶࠸ࡘ i ࡣ⮬ศࡢጔࢆࡲࡓ࡞ࡄࡗࡓࠋ2)ᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡟ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭᚿྥࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ヰࡋᡭᚿྥࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡜ࠊྛࢱ࢖ࣉࢆㄯヰ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝ⪃ᐹࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ≉ᚩࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ3) ⪺ࡁᡭᚿྥࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊㄯヰෆ࡛ᯝࡓࡍᶵ⬟ࢆ Levinson (2000)ࡢ୍⯡໬ࡉࢀࡓ఍ヰࡢ᥎ព (generalized conversational implicature)࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊヰࡋᡭᚿྥࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢᛮ⪃㐣⛬ࢆㄒ㡰࡟┤᥋཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ
2. ⪺ࡁᡭᚿྥࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ
2.1. ஦ᐇほᐹ࡜ඛ⾜◊✲ᕥ᪉㌿఩ᵓᩥࡀㄯヰෆ࡛ᯝࡓࡍᶵ⬟࡟ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ௦⾲ⓗ࡞ඛ⾜◊✲࡟ Rodman (1974)ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋRodman ࡣࠊ᪤࡟ヰ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚☜❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࢆᕥ᪉㌿఩໬ࡍࡿ࡜ᴟࡵ࡚୙⮬↛࡟࡞ࡿࡢࡣࠊᕥ᪉㌿఩ࡀヰ㢟ࢆ☜❧ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ᧯స࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ࡜୺ᙇ
ࡋࠊ(3B1)ࡀᐜㄆ୙ྍ⬟࡞ࡢࡣ┤๓ࡢ A ࡢⓎヰ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ John ࡀヰ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚☜❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊᨵࡵ࡚ John ࢆヰ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚☜❧ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ௚᪉(3B2)ࡀᐜㄆྍ⬟࡞ࡢࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢヰ㢟࡜ࡣ㐪࠺ Bill ࢆヰ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚☜❧ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ(3) A: What can you tell me about John?
B1: *John, Mary kissed him.4)
B2: Nothing. But Bill, Mary kissed him.

(Rodman 1974)−41−

主語名詞句が左方転位化されている日英語の左方転位構文(3B1)࡜(3B2)ࡢᐜㄆᗘࡢ㐪࠸ࡣࠊᕥ᪉㌿఩ᵓᩥࡀㄯヰࡢὶࢀࢆኚ࠼ࡿሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ㄯヰࡢὶࢀࡀኚࢃࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟▱ࡽࡏࡿᚲせࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟ᕥ᪉㌿఩ᵓᩥࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࡜ᐜㄆᗘࡀప࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ┠ⓗㄒࡀᕥ᪉㌿఩໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᕥ᪉㌿఩ᵓᩥࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡢሙྜ࡟ࡶ࠸࠼ࡿࠋ(4) Once there was a wizard. ?Now the wizard, he lived in Africa.

(Givón 1976: 153)

(5) Once there was a wizard. He was very wise, rich, and was married to a beautiful witch. They had two sons.
The first was tall and brooding, he spent his days in the forest hunting snails, and his mother was afraid of him.
The second was short and vivacious, a bit crazy but always game. Now the wizard, he lived in Africa.
(Givón 1976: 153)
(4)࡛ࡣ➨㸯ᩥ࡛ᚋ⥆ᩥࡢヰ㢟࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀண᝿ࡉࢀࡿ a wizard ࡀㄯヰෆ࡟ᑟධࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᚋ⥆ᩥࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡣࡑࡢ
ண᝿㏻ࡾ➨㸯ᩥ࡛ᑟධࡉࢀࡓ㨱ἲ౑࠸࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㝞㏙ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢᚋ⥆ᩥ࡛ㄯヰࡢὶࢀࡀኚࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣࡳ
࡞ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ௚᪉(5)࡛ࡣࠊୗ⥺㒊ࡢ┤๓ࡢヰ㢟ࡀࠕ㨱ἲ౑࠸ࡢ஧␒┠ࡢᜥᏊࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊୗ⥺㒊ࡢ୺ㄒ L㌿఩ᩥ࡛ࡣヰ㢟ࡀᙜึࡢヰ㢟ࡢࠕ㨱ἲ౑࠸ࠖ࡟ᡠࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡜ࡑࡢ┤๓ࡢᩥࡢ㛫࡛ㄯヰࡢὶࢀ࡟ኚ໬ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ ᕥ᪉㌿఩ᵓᩥࡀヰ㢟ࢆኚ᭦ࡍࡿ㝿࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ぢゎࡣࠊRodman ௨እࡢ◊✲⪅࡟ࡶᨭᣢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋGivón (1976)
ࡣ(4)࡜(5)ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡇࡢぢゎࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊReinhart (1982)ࡣᕥ᪉㌿఩ࡣ┠ୗࡢ఍ヰࡢヰ㢟ࢆኚ᭦ࡋࠊ᪂ࡓ࡞
ヰ㢟ࢆᑟධࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋࠊCarlson (1983)ࡣ᪂ࡓ࡞ dialogue subject ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿᡭẁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ Carlson ࡣࠊdialogue subject ࢆ what a sentence intuitively is about ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋCarlson (1983)ࡢ dialogue
subject ࡣࠊLambrecht (1994)ࡢ topic ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋLambrecht ࡣ topic ࢆ(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟つᐃࡍࡿࠋ(6) TOPIC: A referent is interpreted as the topic of a proposition if in a given situation the proposition is construed as
being about this referent, i.e. as expressing information which is relevant to and which increases theaddressee’s knowledge of this referent.

(Lambrecht 1994: 131)

Lambrecht ࡣ topic ࢆᩥ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊLambrecht ࡢ topic ࢆᩥヰ㢟 (sentence topic) ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ ࡇࡇ࡛ࠕㄯヰࡢὶࢀࡀኚࢃࡿࠖ
ࠊࠕㄯヰࡢὶࢀࡀኚࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚つᐃࡍࡿࠋ(7) A: Who is Goofy’s oldest friend?
B: Goofy’s oldest friend is Mickey Mouse. Mickey is Disney’s oldest character.

(Carlson 1983: 263)

(8) A: Who is Goofy’s oldest friend?
B: Goofy’s oldest friend is Mickey Mouse. Mickey, he is Disney’s oldest character.

(Carlson 1983: 263)

(9) Mickey’s identity is kept in low profile [in (7)], as it is only a subordinate matter. In [(8)], in contrast, Mickey
seems to become a main character: the speaker drops Goofy as the subject of the dialogue and takes up Mickey.
(Carlson 1983: 263)
(10) A left dislocated phrase is indeed apt to indicate what is foremost on the mind of the author – viz. the dialogue

subject he is speaking about in the sentence following.

(Carlson 1983: 262)

(7B)ࡢ➨㸯ᩥࡢᩥヰ㢟ࡣ Goofy ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ➨㸰ᩥࡢᩥヰ㢟ࡣ Mickey ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(9)ࡢ๓༙㒊ศࡢ Carlson ࡢグ㏙ࡣࠊ
Mickey ࡀㄡ࡞ࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ๪ḟⓗ࡞஦᯶࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛┠❧ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࡢグ㏙࠿ࡽࠊ(7B)ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡢᩥࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ Goofy ࠿ࡽ Mickey ࡟ヰ㢟ࡀኚࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺㢼࡟ࡣ⌮ゎࡋ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ(7B)ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡢᩥࡢ௦ࢃࡾ࡟ࠊ(8B)ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡀ⏕㉳ࡋࡓሙྜࠊ(9)ࡢ➨ 2 ᩥ࡛ Carlson ࡀグࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊMickey ࡀ୺ᙺ࡟࡞
ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊGoofy ࢆ dialogue subject ࠿ࡽᘬࡁࡎࡾ࠾ࢁࡋࠊMickey ࢆ dialogue subject ࡜ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿ

−42−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

࡜࠸࠺༳㇟ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟୚࠼ࡿࠋCarlson ࡣ(10)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᕥ᪉㌿఩໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿྃࡣࠊఱࡀヰࡋᡭࡢᚰࡢ୰࡛๓ᬒ໬ࡉࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ༶ࡕࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᩥࡢ dialogue subject ࡀఱ࠿ࢆ♧ࡍഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ(7)ࡢ↓ᶆࡢᩥ࡜(8)ࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఏ㐩ࡍࡿ஦᯶ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ㚷ࡳ࡚ࠊᩥヰ㢟ࡢኚ᭦ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶኚ᭦ᚋࡢᩥヰ㢟ࡀ⥅⥆ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ண᝿ࡉࡏࡿሙྜࢆࠊㄯヰࡢὶࢀࡀኚࢃࡿሙྜࡢ୍ࡘ࡜つᐃࡍࡿࠋ ࠕㄯヰࡢὶࢀࡀኚࢃࡿሙྜࠖࡢࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡣࠊㄯヰヰ㢟 (discourse topic) ࡀኚ᭦ࡉࢀࡿሙྜ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊㄯヰヰ㢟ࡢᐃ⩏ࡣࠊ(11)࡟♧ࡋࡓ Giora (1997)ࡢᐃ⩏࡟ᚑ࠺ࠋ(11) The discourse-topic is a generalization, preferably made explicit, and placed in the beginning of the discourse.
It functions as a reference point relevant to which all incoming propositions are assessed and stored.
(Giora 1997)(12) Once there was a wizard. He was very wise, rich, and was married to a beautiful witch. He lived in amagnificent mansion by the lake, had forty-nine servants, and owned an impressive collection of rare books.
Now the wizard, he was very ambitious. He had been planning for years to conquer the world and finally he
was ready.

(Enç 1986)(12)ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡢᩥヰ㢟ࡣ┤๓࡜ྠࡌࠕ㨱ἲ౑࠸࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢ஧ᩥ㛫࡛ᩥヰ㢟ࡢኚ᭦ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽㄯ
ヰヰ㢟ࡣࠊ┤๓ࡲ࡛ࡢࠕ㨱ἲ౑࠸ࡢ㇦⳹࡛ᜨࡲࢀࡓ⏕άࡪࡾࠖ࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕ㨱ἲ౑࠸ࡢୡ⏺ᚁ᭹ィ⏬ࠖ࡟ኚ᭦ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(12)࡜
ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ(4)ࡢᐜㄆᗘࡀప࠸ࡢࡣࠊୗ⥺㒊ࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡜ࡑࡢ┤๓ࡢᩥࡢ㛫࡛ᩥヰ㢟ࡢኚ᭦ࡶㄯヰヰ㢟ࡢኚ᭦ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊ୺
ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡜ࡑࡢ┤๓࡛ㄯヰࡢὶࢀࡀኚࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
2.2. ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡜ M ᥎ព๓⠇࡛ࡣࠊ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡣㄯヰࡢὶࢀࡢኚ໬ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋࡓࡀࠊྠᵓᩥࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿሙྜࠊ࡞ࡐㄯヰࡢὶࢀࡀኚࢃࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ␲ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡀ෕㛗࡞ᬑ㏻࡛࡞࠸᭷ᶆࡢ⾲⌧࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟᭷ᶆࡢゎ㔘ࡀࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᥎ㄽࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋᑠす (1981: 301-302)ࡶ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࢆ౛♧ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ
ࠕࡇࡢㄒἲࡣゝㄒᏛⓗ࡟ࡣࠗ◚᱁ᵓᩥ࠘࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ୺ㄒࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ௦ྡモ࡛⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡓవ๫ㄒἲ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡯࠺ࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࠊ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡀ෕㛗࡞⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ෕㛗࡞ᬑ㏻࡛࡞࠸᭷ᶆࡢ⾲⌧ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜᭷ᶆࡢゎ㔘ࡀࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ(13)ࡢ M ཎ⌮࡟ࡼࡿࠋLevinson (2000: 141)ࡣࠊࡇࡢ M ཎ⌮࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ᥎ㄽࢆ(14)ࡢ I ཎ⌮࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ᥎ㄽ࡜ᑐẚࡉࡏ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ(15)ࢆ౛࡟ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(13) The M-Principle

Speaker’s maxim: Indicate an abnormal, nonstereotypical situation by using marked expressions that contrast
with those you would use to describe the corresponding normal, stereotypical situation.

Recipient’s corollary: What is said in abnormal way indicates an abnormal situation, or marked messages
indicate marked situations….

(Levinson 2000: 136)

(14) I-Principle

Speaker’s maxim: the maxim of Minimalization. “Say as little as necessary”; that is, produce the minimal
linguistic information sufficient to achieve your communicational ends (bearing Q in mind).

Recipient corollary: the Enrichment Rule. Amplify the informational content of the speaker’s utterance, byfinding the most specific interpretation, up to what you judge to be the speaker’s m-intended point, unless the
speaker has broken the maxim of Minimalization by using a marked or prolix expression.5)(Levinson 2000: 114)
(15) a. Sue moved the car.
I ++> Sue moved the car by driving it, by using the engine.

−43−主語名詞句が左方転位化されている日英語の左方転位構文

b. Sue made the car move.
M++> Sue moved the car in some abnormal way, e.g., by pushing it.

(Levinson 2000: 141)

౛࠼ࡤࠊ㌴ࢆ⛣ືࡉࡏࡿ≧ἣ࡛ࡣࠊ㏻ᖖࡢࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉⓗ࡞≧ἣࢆ♧ࡍࡢ࡟౑࠺⾲⌧ࡣ(15a)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௚᪉ࠊ(15b)ࡢ㎽ゝⓗ࡞⾲⌧ࡣࠊࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉⓗ࡞≧ἣࢆ♧ࡍࡢ࡟౑࠺⾲⌧࡜ᑐ↷ⓗ࡞᭷ᶆࡢ⾲⌧࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ㏻ᖖ࡜ࡣ㐪࠺௙᪉࡛ゝࢃࢀࡓ⾲⌧࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ(15b)ࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓሙྜࠕSue ࡣ㌴ࢆ㏻ᖖ࡜ࡣ㐪࠺௙᪉࡛ࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊᡭ࡛ᢲࡋ࡚⛣ືࡉࡏࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺᥎ពࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࡇࡢ᥎ពࡣ M ᥎ព࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ(15a)ࡣࠕSue ࡣ࢚ࣥࢪࣥࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚㌴ࢆ
㐠㌿ࡋ࡚⛣ືࡋࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺᥎ពࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ᥎ពࡣ(14)ࡢ I ཎ⌮࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࠊI ᥎ព࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠋ
M ཎ⌮࡜ I ཎ⌮ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ࠊ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡜↓ᶆࡢㄒ㡰ࡢᩥࡢᙧᘧࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡣࠊ↓ᶆࡢㄒ㡰ࡢᩥ࡟ẚ࡭࡚෕㛗࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⏕㉳㢖ᗘࡶᅽಽⓗ࡟ᑡ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡜↓ᶆࡢㄒ㡰ࡢᩥࡢព࿡ࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿ
࡜ࠊ↓ᶆࡢㄒ㡰ࡢᩥࡣࠊᩥヰ㢟ࡸㄯヰヰ㢟ࢆኚ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊㄯヰࡢὶࢀࢆኚ࠼࡞࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤ(7)ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡢᩥࡣࠊ┠ୗࡢヰ㢟࡛࠶ࡿ Goofy ࡀᚋ⥆ᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ⥅⥆ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ I ᥎ពࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࠋㄯヰෆ࡛┠ୗࡢヰ㢟ࡀ⥅⥆ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀࡓሙྜࠊ㐪࿴ឤࢆぬ࠼ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢ㐪࿴ឤࡣࠊ㌴ࢆ⛣ືࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࢃࡊࢃࡊࠕ࢚ࣥࢪࣥࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ឤࡌࡿ㐪࿴ឤ࡜ྠ✀ࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(8)ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡢࡼ࠺࡞୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡣࠊ┤๓ࡢᩥࡢᩥヰ㢟ࢆኚ᭦ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ㄯヰࡢὶࢀࢆኚ࠼
ࡿࠋㄯヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚┠ୗࡢヰ㢟ࡢ⥅⥆ࡣ↓ᶆ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢኚ᭦ࡣ᭷ᶆ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ┠ୗࡢヰ㢟ࡀ⥅⥆ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ㏻ᖖࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࢆࢃࡊࢃࡊ᩿ࡿᚲせࡀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊኚ᭦ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊby the way ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᶆ㆑ࡀᚲせ࡞ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶ࠺
࠿ࡀ࠼ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡀఏ㐩ࡍࡿࠕㄯヰࡢὶࢀࢆኚ࠼ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝእࡢព࿡ࡣ᥎ព࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼ࡿࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢゝእࡢព࿡ࡀྲྀࡾᾘࡋྍ⬟࡞ࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(8)ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡢ┤ᚋ࡟ࡣࠊ(16)ࡢ⏕㉳ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ6)(16) Goofy has a lot of friends because he is generous.
ࡇࡢሙྜࠊࡇࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᩥࡢヰ㢟ࡀ Mickey ࡟ኚࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺᥎ពࡣྲྀࡾᾘࡉࢀࡿࠋ࡞࠾ྲྀࡾᾘࡋྍ⬟ᛶࡣ᥎ពࡢ≉ᛶࡢ୰࡛᭱ࡶ㔜せ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ7) ຍ⸨ (2008)ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୍⯡໬ࡉࢀࡓ఍ヰࡢ᥎ពࡢྲྀࡾᾘࡋࡣࠊ≉ᐃ໬ࡉࢀࡓ఍ヰࡢ᥎ព(particularized conversational implicature)ࡢྲྀࡾᾘࡋ࡟ẚ࡭࡚㞴ࡋ࠸ࠋ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ(8)ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡢ┤ᚋ࡟(16)ࢆ⏕㉳ࡉࡏࡓሙྜࠊヰ㢟ࡀ Mickey ࡟ኚࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺᥎ពࢆྲྀࡾᾘࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢࡣࠊ(16)ࡢヰ㢟ࡀA ࡢ㛵ᚰ஦࡛࠶ࡿ Goofy ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ᪂ࡓ࡞ヰ㢟࡟ኚࢃࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋࡓᚋ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࡸࡣࡾ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛵ᚰ஦ࢆඃඛࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ヰ㢟ࡢኚ᭦ࡣࡸࡵࡿ࡜࠸࠺㑅ᢥࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟チᐜࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡢࡔ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ(8)ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡢ┤ᚋ࡟(16)ࡀ⏕㉳ࡋࡓሙྜࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ┤๓࡟⏕㉳ࡋࡓᩥ࡜୍㈏ᛶ (coherence)ࢆ⠏ࡁ࡞ࡀࡽㄯヰࢆᒎ㛤ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ➻࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⪺ࡁᡭࡢ᝿ᐃࡀኚ᭦ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢኚ᭦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᙜヱࡢ᥎ពࡀྲྀࡾᾘࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
2.3. ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡀㄯヰෆ࡛ᯝࡓࡍᶵ⬟ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ⱥㄒࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡀㄯヰෆ࡛ᯝࡓࡍᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᐇ౛࡟༶ࡋ࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎⱥㄒࡢᐇ౛ࢆࡳ࡚ࠊḟ࡟᪥ᮏㄒࡢᐇ౛ࢆࡳࡿࠋ
(17) "The Democratic Party is just a party of slogans: they only call for freedom," says Muath Karra, an eyeglass
salesman. "But George W. Bush, he is brave, and he is a man of action. I hope he wins this election, because heis a genius - and brave."

(http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0723/p04s01-woiq.html)(17)ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡢ┤๓ࡢᩥ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢᩥヰ㢟ࡣࠕẸ୺ඪ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ
L ㌿఩せ⣲ࡢࠕࢪ࣮ࣙࢪ࣭W࣭ࣈࢵࢩࣗࠖ࡟ኚࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᩥࡢᩥヰ㢟ࡀ George W. Bush࡟ኚࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺᥎ពࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ(18)ࡣ⡿኱⤫㡿ࡢࣂࣛࢡ࣭࢜ࣂ࣐ࡢⓎゝ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊㄯヰෆ࡟୺

−44−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡀ୕ࡘ⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(18) And then I think about Michelle’s mom, and the fact that 1Michelle’s mom and dad, they didn’t come from awealthy family.

2Michelle’s dad, he worked a blue-collar job at the sanitary plant in Chicago.

And 3mymother-in-law, she stayed at home until the kids got older. And she ended up becoming a secretary, and that's
where she worked at most of her life, as a secretary at a bank.
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/remarks-president-campaign-event-0)
ୗ⥺㒊 1 ࡢ┤๓ࡢᩥヰ㢟ࡣࠕ࢜ࣂ࣐ኵேࡢẕぶ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊୗ⥺㒊 1 ࡢᩥヰ㢟ࡣࠕ࢜ࣂ࣐ኵேࡢẕぶ࡜∗ぶ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᚋ⥆ᩥ⬦ࡢୗ⥺㒊 2 ࡜ୗ⥺㒊 3 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡇࡢᩥヰ㢟ࢆ⥅⥆ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋୗ⥺㒊 2 ࡢ┤๓ࡢᩥヰ㢟ࡣࠕ࢜ࣂ࣐ኵேࡢẕぶ࡜∗ぶ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᩥࡣ L ㌿఩せ⣲ࡀ Michelle’s dad ࡞ࡢ࡛ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᩥ࡛ᩥヰ㢟ࡀࠕ࢜ࣂ࣐ኵேࡢ∗ぶࠖ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ㄯヰࡀᒎ㛤ࡍࡿ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ண᝿ࡉࡏࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࡢண᝿࡟཯ࡋ࡚ୗ⥺㒊 3 ࡢᩥヰ㢟ࡣࠕ࢜ࣂ࣐ኵேࡢẕぶࠖ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓୗ⥺㒊 3ࡢᚋ⥆ᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠕ࢜ࣂ࣐ኵேࡢ∗ぶࠖࡀᩥヰ㢟࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᩥࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊୗ⥺㒊 2 ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡿᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᩥࡢᩥヰ㢟ࡣࠕ࢜ࣂ࣐ኵேࡢ∗ぶࠖ࡟ኚࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺᥎ពࡣྲྀࡾᾘࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛᥎ពࡢྲྀࡾᾘࡋࡀྍ⬟࡞ࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢㄯヰࡢෑ㢌ࡢ I think about Michelle’s mom ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀヰࡋᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ࢜ࣂ࣐ࡀࠕ࢜ࣂ࣐ኵேࡢẕぶࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᮇᚅࢆᢪ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᮇᚅ࡟ᛂ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆඃඛࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊヰ㢟ࡢኚ᭦ࡣࡸࡵ
ࡿ࡜࠸࠺㑅ᢥࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚チᐜࡋࡸࡍ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋୗ⥺㒊 3 ࢆ⪥࡟ࡋࡓ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ┤๓ࡢⓎヰ࡜୍㈏ᛶࢆ
⠏ࡃ➻࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺᝿ᐃࢆኚ᭦ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊࡇࡢኚ᭦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡇࡢ᥎ពࡀྲྀࡾᾘࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋୗ⥺㒊 3 ࡛ࡣࠊ┤๓ࡢᩥヰ㢟ࡀࠕ࢜ࣂ࣐ኵேࡢ∗ぶ࡛ࠖࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᩥࡢᩥヰ㢟ࡀ L ㌿఩せ⣲ࡢࠕ࢜ࣂ࣐ኵேࡢẕぶ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊୗ
⥺㒊࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡿᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᩥࡢヰ㢟ࡣࠕ࢜ࣂ࣐ኵேࡢẕぶࠖ࡟ኚࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺᥎ពࡣྲྀࡾᾘࡉࢀࡎ࡟ㄯヰࡀᒎ㛤ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ḟ࡟᪥ᮏㄒࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡀㄯヰෆ࡛ᯝࡓࡍᶵ⬟ࢆࡳࡿࠋ(19)㞴Ẹ◊✲ዪᏊࡣࠊ⮬ศࡀ࣐ࢪ࡛ࠕ㞴Ẹࠖ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡜⮬ぬࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡶࠊ⛥࡞ࡿ㞴⑓࡛ࠊࡈ㔜య࡛ࠊ㸦୰␎㸧⾜ࡁሙࡀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࠊ⏕ࡁࡿ⣊ࢆᚓࡿ⾡ࡀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࠊࢃࡓࡋࡀ௚ேࡔࡗࡓࡽ⤯ᑐ࡟ᡭࡢฟࡋࡼ࠺ࡀ࡞࠸ࠊ┦ᙜ῝้࡞ࠕ㞴Ẹ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ  ࠕ㞴Ẹࠖ࠿㸬
㸬
㸬
㸬
㸬
㸬
㸬
㸬
㸬
㸬
㸬
ࠋ࢜࢔ࢩࢫ࡛ࡢධ㝔⏕άࡀጞࡲࡗ࡚࠿ࡽ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࠊ࡜ࢇ࡜⪃࠼ࡿᶵ఍ࡶ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠊࢱ࢖̿
ࣅ࣐ࣝᅜቃࡢ㞴Ẹ࢟ࣕࣥࣉࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᛮ࠸㉳ࡇࡋ࡚ࡳࡓࠋ     㞴Ẹࡢ཭ேࡓࡕࠊᙼࡽࡣࡳࢇ࡞ࠊ⮬ࡽࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࡓቃ㐝࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࢆࡼࡃ⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࢃࡓࡋ࡟࡞ࡅ࡞ࡋࡢ㣗ᮦ࡛ࡈࡣࢇࢆࡈࡕࡑ࠺ࡋ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࢃࡓࡋ࡟ఱ࠿㐣ᗘ࡟ᮇᚅࡋࡓࡾࠊồࡵࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ୍ᗘࡶ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ   ࡌࡷ࠶࢟ࣕࣥࣉࡢ୰࡛ࠊࣅ࣐ࣝ㞴Ẹࡀ㢗ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡶࡢࡣఱࡔࡗࡓࡗࡅࠊ࡜ࠊグ᠈ࢆࡼࡳࡀ࠼ࡽࡏ࡚ࡳࡿࠋUNHCR㸦ᅜ㐃㞴Ẹ㧗➼ᘚົᐁ஦ົᡤ㸧ࡢ᥼ຓ⡿ࠋNGO ࡢᛴࡈࡋࡽ࠼ࡢ⑓㝔ࠋIOM㸦ᅜ㝿⛣ఫᶵ㛵㸧ࡢࣂࢫ࡟஌ࡾࠊእࡢୡ
⏺࡟ฟࡽࢀ࡞࠸㞴Ẹ࢟ࣕࣥࣉ࠿ࡽබⓗ࡟⬺ฟࡍࡿ၏୍ࡢ᪉ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ
➨୕ᅜᐃఫࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛḢ⡿࡬⬺ฟࡋ࡚ࡺࡃጼ
ࡀࠊ⬻⿬ࢆࡼࡂࡗࡓࠋ     ࡘࡲࡾࡑࢀࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕᅜᐙࠖ
ࠋ
ࠕ♫఍ࠖ
ࠋ
ࠕไᗘࠖ
ࠋ≉ᐃࡢㄡ࠿࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡑࡢࡶࡢࠋ

(ࠗᅔࡗ࡚ࡿே࠘)(19)ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡢ┤๓ࡲ࡛࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᩥࡢヰ㢟ࡣࠕ㸦኱Ꮫ㝔࡛ࣅ࣐ࣝࡢ㞴Ẹࢆ◊✲ᑐ㇟࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ㸧➹⪅⮬㌟࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᩥࡢヰ㢟ࡣ L ㌿఩せ⣲ࡢࠕࣅ࣐ࣝࡢ㞴Ẹࡢ཭ேࡓࡕࠖ࡟ኚࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋୗ⥺㒊ࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿᩥࡢᩥヰ㢟ࡀࠕࣅ࣐ࣝࡢ㞴Ẹࡢ཭ேࡓࡕࠖ࡟ኚࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺᥎ពࢆఏ࠼ࡿᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(20)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࢆቃ࡟ㄯヰࡢὶࢀࡢኚ໬ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ ᰴ౯ࡀᆏ㐨ࢆ㌿ࡆⴠࡕࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛴⴠࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ ୓  ༓࣏࢖ࣥࢺ࠶ࡗࡓࢲ࢘ࡣ  ྎ࡟ࠊ ࣏࢖ࣥࢺ㏆ࡃ࠶ࡗ
ࡓ 1$6'$4 ࡀ  ྎ࡟ࠋ㸦୰␎㸧ᖺෆ࡟ᅇ᚟ࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺࡜ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡓᬒẼࡣࠊ⤯ᑐ࡟௒ᖺ࠸ࡗࡥ࠸ࡣᅇ᚟ࡋࡲ

−45−

主語名詞句が左方転位化されている日英語の左方転位構文ࡏࢇࠋୗᡭࡍࡿ࡜ 㸫 ᖺࡣ↓⌮࠿ࡶ㸽 ࢸ࢟ࢧࢫࡢ∾ሙ୺ࡣࠊࡇࡢ㞴ᒁࢆ࡝࠺஌ࡾษࡿ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࠋࡓࡪࢇࠊᅜẸࡢ┠ࢆ୰ᮾ࡟ྥࡅࡉࡏࠊ࢖ࣛࢡ࠶ࡓࡾࢆᨷᧁࡋ࡚㌷㟂⏘ᴗࡔࡅࡣࠕᬒẼᅇ᚟ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀ㛵ࡢᒣࡔ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
ୡ⏺ࡢ㈨ᮏ୺⩏ࡢ࠾ᡭᮏࡔࡗࡓ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࠊࡑࢀࡀ௒ᦂࡽ࠸࡛࠸ࡲࡍࠋ࢚ࣥࣟࣥ࠿ࡽ 0&, ࣮࣡ࣝࢻࢥ࣒ࠊࢮࣟࢵࢡࢫ
࡜⢊㣭Ỵ⟬ࡢ㐃⥆ࠋࠕ௚࡟ࡶࡲࡔࡲࡔฟ࡚ࡃࡿࡒࠖ࡜఍♫ࡢಙ㢗ࡀᔂࢀࡓ⤖ᯝ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡛ࡋࡻ࠺࠿㸽 㸦୰␎㸧 ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡣ඲࡚ࡀࢠࣕࣥࣈࣝ㸽௻ᴗ㈙཰ࡶࡑ࠺࡛ࠊᨾᒣᮏ┤⣧ẶࡀἽ࠸࡚႐ࡧࡑ࠺࡞ࠕ኱ࡁ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣ࠸࠸஦ࡔࠖⓗ࡟㞷ࡔࡿࡲࡢࡼ࠺࡟⭾ࡽࢇ࡛኱ࡁࡃ࡞ࡿ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ఍♫ࠋ⤖ᒁࡑࡢᚋጞᮎࡀࡁࡕࢇ࡜࡛ࡁ࡚࠸࡞࠸࠿ࡽᅗయࡔࡅ኱ࡁ࡞୰
㌟ࡢ↓࠸௻ᴗࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ㸽 㸦ᚋ␎㸧   KWWSZZZPLPL\RULFRPFLW\DWODQWDGLDU\XVGLDU\SKS          ࡛ࡣࠊୗ⥺㒊ࡢ୺ㄒ / ㌿఩ᩥࢆቃ࡟ࠊㄯヰヰ㢟ࡀࠕ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝⤒῭ࡢప㏞ࡢண᝿ࠖ࠿ࡽࠕ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ኱௻ᴗࡢಙ㢗ࡢኻቒࠖ࡟ኚࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ୺ㄒ / ㌿఩ᩥࡣࠊࠕ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝⤒῭ࡢప㏞ࡢண᝿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺┤๓ࡢㄯヰࡢヰ㢟ࡀኚ᭦ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺᥎ពࢆఏ
㐩ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ  ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡢ୺ㄒ / ㌿఩ᩥࡀࠊࠕ㨱ἲ౑࠸ࡢ㇦⳹࡛ᜨࡲࢀࡓ⏕άࡪࡾࠖ࡜࠸࠺┤๓ࡢㄯヰヰ㢟ࢆኚ᭦ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺᥎ពࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡜ྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ3. ヰࡋᡭᚿྥࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄯヰ⌮ゎࢆᐜ᫆࡟ࡍࡿ┠ⓗ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ⪺ࡁᡭᚿྥࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ┠ⓗ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠊヰࡋᡭࡢᛮ⪃㐣⛬ࡀㄒ㡰࡟┤᥋཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿヰࡋᡭᚿྥࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ
࡟ࡣ஧ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎࠋ୍ࡘ┠ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ(21)-(23)ࡀࡑࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿ
(21) A: What did the Bishop do in the actress’ boudoir?
B: The Bishop, he admonished the actress.

(Carlson 1983: 264)(22) A: Tell him about Bingo. Tell him about your iguana?
B: My iguana Bingo, he almost bit my finger off.

(Manetta 2007)(23) A: ᒣ⏣ࡗ࡚࡝ࢇ࡞ࡸࡘࡔ࠸㸽
B: ᒣ⏣ࠊᙼࡣ࠸࠸ࡸࡘࡔࡼࠋ

(∾㔝 1980: 140)(21)-(23)ࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡛ࡣࠊA ࡜ B ࡜࡛ヰ㢟ࡢኚ᭦ࡀ࡞ࡃࠊㄯヰࡢὶࢀࡀኚࢃࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ(21)࡛ࡣ AࠊB ࡜ࡶ࡟ᩥヰ㢟ࡣࠕྖᩍ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ(22)ࡢᩥヰ㢟ࡣ AࠊB ࡜ࡶ࡟ࠕB ࡀ㣫ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࢖ࢢ࢔ࢼ࡛ࠖࠊ(23) ࡢᩥヰ㢟ࡣ AࠊB ࡜ࡶ࡟ࠕᒣ⏣࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
ㄯヰࡢὶࢀࡢኚ໬ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟▱ࡽࡏࡿാࡁࢆࡋ࡞࠸ࠊ(21)-(23)ࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡣࠊఱࡢࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡇࡢ␲
ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ L ㌿఩せ⣲࡟ᑐࡍࡿホゝ (comment)ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ᫬㛫ࢆᘬࡁᘏࡤࡍࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠊ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ࡞࠾ホゝ࡜ࡣࠊㄒࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿ㒊ศࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᣦࡍࠋ(21)-(23)ࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓሙྜࠊᑐᛂࡍࡿ↓ᶆࡢㄒ㡰ࡢᩥࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓሙྜࡼࡾࡶࠊ┤๓ࡢᩥ⬦࡛ၥ㢟࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᑐ㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊホゝࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡲ࡛ࡢ᫬㛫ࡀⱝᖸ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀ㛗ࡃ࠿࠿ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ(21)-(23)ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀၥ㢟࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᑐ㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡺࡗࡃࡾ࡜⪃࠼ࡿᛮ⪃㐣⛬ࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡛ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢᛮ⪃㐣⛬ࡀㄒ㡰࡟┤᥋཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
ヰࡋᡭࡀ᝟ሗࢆ᥈⣴୰࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ
ࡘࡲࡾヰࡋᡭࡀᛮ⪃୰࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ⾲⌧࡜ඹ㉳ࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡿࠋ(24)ࡣࢸࣞࣅࢻ࣐ࣛࡢ୰࡛ࠊႚⲔᗑ࡟୍
ே࡛࠸ࡿே≀࡟ࡼࡿᚰෆⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(24) ὀᩥࢆぬ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺࡯࡝ࣝࣀ࢔࣮ࣝ࡟᪥ཧࡍࡿ᪥ࠎࠋᐇ࡟つ๎ṇࡋ࠸⏕άࡔࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊఱ࠿኱ษ࡞ࡶࡢࡀḞዴࡋ࡚(ࠗཤᖺࣝࣀ࢔࣮࡛ࣝ࠘)࠸ࡿࠋ኱ษ࡞ఱ࠿ࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊࡑࢀࡣฟ఍࠸ࡔࠋ

ࡇࡢ౛࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠕࡑࢀࡣࠊࡑࢀࡣࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝ࠸ᾷࡳࡀࠊホゝࢆ᥈⣴୰࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊྠᵝ࡟(25) ࡛ࡣࠊwell, you know ࡜࠸࠺ゝ࠸ᾷࡳࡀホゝࢆ᥈⣴୰࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−46−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号(25) The girl, the other girl, well, you know, she was just gorgeous.

(Acuña Fariña 1995)(21)-(23)ࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ(26)࠿ࡽ(28)ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊL ㌿఩せ⣲ࡢᚋ࡟ࠊwell ࡸࠕ࠼࣮ࡗ࡜ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊ㐺ᙜ࡞ᚋ⥆⾲⌧ࢆ᥈ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ᫬࡟౑⏝ࡍࡿㄒࡀ⏕㉳ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(26) A: What did the Bishop do in the actress’ boudoir?
B: The Bishop, well, he admonished the actress.
(27) A: Tell him about Bingo. Tell him about your iguana?
B: My iguana Bingo, well, he almost bit my finger off.
(28) A: ᒣ⏣ࡗ࡚࡝ࢇ࡞ࡸࡘࡔ࠸㸽
B: ᒣ⏣ࠊ࠼࣮ࡗ࡜ࠊᙼࡣ࠸࠸ࡸࡘࡔࡼࠋ
(29)ࡣࠊKeenan and Schieffelin (1976)ࡀ L ㌿఩せ⣲࡜୺ᩥࡢ㛫࡟㛗࠸࣏࣮ࢬࢆ࠸ࢀࡿ࡜ᐜㄆྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㛗࠸࣏࣮ࢬࢆ࠸ࢀࡿ࡜ᐜㄆྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࡢࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ L ㌿఩せ⣲࡟ᑐࡍࡿホゝࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ᫬㛫ࢆᘬࡁᘏࡤࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࡇࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
(29) A: What happened to Tom?
B: ?Tom, he left.

(Keenan and Schieffelin 1976) ḟ࡟ヰࡋᡭᚿྥࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡢ஧ࡘ┠ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ(30)(31)ࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊA ࡜ B ࡜࡛ヰ㢟ࡢኚ᭦ࡀ࡞ࡃࠊㄯヰࡢὶࢀࡣኚࢃࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
(30) A: Who is Ichiro’s mother?
B: Yamada Hanako, SHE is his mother.

(Yamaizumi 2011)(31) A: ㄡࡀ୍㑻ࡢẕ࡛ࡍ࠿ࠋ
B: ᒣ⏣ⰼᏊࠊᙼዪࡀ୍㑻ࡢẕ࡛ࡍࠋ(Yamaizumi 2011)(30)(31)࡛ࡣ AࠊB ࡜ࡶ࡟ᩥヰ㢟ࡣࠕ୍㑻ࡢẕ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ(30)(31)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡣࠊఱࡢࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ
࠺࠿ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ┤๓ࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚༶ᗙ࡟ᾋ࠿ࢇࡔᅇ⟅ࡀࠊṇࡋ࠸࠿ྰ࠿ࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿ᫬㛫ࢆ☜ಖࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜୺
ᙇࡍࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡣ༶ᗙ࡟ᾋ࠿ࢇࡔᅇ⟅ࢆࡲࡎⓎヰࡋࠊࡑࡢᅇ⟅ࡀṇࡋ࠸࠿ྰ࠿ࢆ⪃࠼ࠊṇࡋ࠸࡜ุ᩿ࡋࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ(30)(31)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ L ㌿఩せ⣲ࡢᚋ࡟୺ᩥࢆ⏕㉳ࡉࡏࡿࠋ௚᪉ࠊ༶ᗙ࡟ᾋ࠿ࢇࡔᅇ⟅ࡀㄗࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣ(32)(33)ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゞṇࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ(32) A: Who is Ichiro’s mother?
B: Yamada Hanako. Correction, Yamada Yoko, she is his mother.
(33) A: ㄡࡀ୍㑻ࡢẕ࡛ࡍ࠿ࠋ
B: ᒣ⏣ⰼᏊࠊ࠸ࡸࠊᒣ⏣ⴥᏊࠊᙼዪࡀ୍㑻ࡢẕ࡛ࡍࠋ
4. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ⱥㄒࡢ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋࠊ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥ࡟ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭᚿྥࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ヰࡋᡭᚿྥࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ
๓⪅ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡣࠊㄯヰࡢὶࢀࡀኚࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺ M ᥎ពࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ぢゎࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊᚋ⪅ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢᛮ⪃㐣⛬ࢆㄒ㡰࡟┤᥋཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ L ㌿఩せ⣲࡟ᑐࡍࡿホゝࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ᫬㛫ࢆᘬࡁᘏࡤࡍࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡿࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࠊ┤๓ࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚༶ᗙ࡟ᾋ࠿ࢇࡔᅇ⟅ࡀࠊṇࡋ࠸࠿ྰ࠿ࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿ᫬㛫ࢆ☜ಖࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࢱ࢖ࣉࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ

−47−

主語名詞句が左方転位化されている日英語の左方転位構文

ࡓࠋ

ὀ
*

ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 15 ᅇ኱఍㸦2012 ᖺ 12 ᭶ 2 ᪥ࠊ᪊㸸኱㜰Ꮫ㝔኱Ꮫ㸧ཱྀ࡛㢌Ⓨ⾲ࡋࡓෆᐜ࡟ຍ➹࡜ಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙜ᪥ྖ఍ࢆࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓᒣཱྀ἞ᙪඛ⏕࡞ࡽࡧ࡟ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡸ㉁ၥࢆࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓ఍ሙࡢ᪉ࠎ࡟ឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓභ⏥ⱥㄒᏛ◊✲఍࡟࠾࠸࡚ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡸ㉁ၥࢆࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓ᪉ࠎ࡟ࡶࡇࡢሙࢆ೉ࡾ࡚࠾♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡓ࠸ࠋ

1) ⏝౛୰ࡢ࢖ࣥࢹࢵࢡࢫࡢ౑⏝ࡣⓎ⾲⪅࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2) ฟ඾ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⏝౛ࡢᐜㄆᗘࡢุ᩿ࡣⓎ⾲⪅࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ3) ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊㄯヰࡢෑ㢌࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ୺ㄒ L ㌿఩ᩥࡣ⪃ᐹࡢᑐ㇟እ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ✏ࢆᨵࡵ࡚ㄽࡌࡓ࠸ࠋ4) ᮏ✏࡟࠾࠸࡚⏝౛࡟ᘬ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
5) Levinson (2000: 391)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊm ពᅗ(m-intention)ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀ⮬ศࡢពᅗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ㄆ㆑ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢຠᯝࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡑ࠺࡜࠸࠺ヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᣦࡍࠋ
6) ࡑࡢᐜㄆᗘࡢุ᩿࠾ࡼࡧฟ඾ࡀ᫂グࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ⱥㄒࡢ⏝౛ࡢᐜㄆᗘࡢุ᩿ࡣࠊ࢝ࢼࢲฟ㌟ࡢⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ7) ⃝⏣ (2001)ࢆཧ↷ࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Acuña Fariña, J.C. 1995. “Left-Dislocation Revisited.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 8, 7-23.
஭ୖ࿴Ꮚ. 1978. ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥἲつ๎࠘ᮾி: ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
Carlson, L. H. 1982. “Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis.” Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Enç, M. 1986. “Subject pronouns as topic shifting devices in Turkish.” In Dan I. S. and K. Zimmer eds. Studies in Turkish

Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Giora, R. 1997. “Discourse Coherence and Theory of Relevance: Stumbling Blocks in Search of a Unified Theory.” Journalof Pragmatics 27:17-34.
Givón, T. 1976. “Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement.” In Li, C.N. ed. Subject and Topic, 149-188 New York:
Academic Press.
ຍ⸨㔜ᗈ. 2008. ࠕᵓᩥ࡜᥎ព ̿ຓືモࢱᙧࢆ୰ᚰ࡟̿ࠖ ➨ 15 ᅇ୰᪥⌮ㄽゝㄒᏛ◊✲఍Ⓨ⾲㈨ᩱ.
Keenan, E.O. and B. Schieffelin 1976. “Foregrounding Referents: a Reconsideration of Left Dislocation in Discourse,”

BLS 2, 240-257.
ᑠす཭୐. 1981. ࠗ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒࡢㄒἲ࠘ᮾி: ◊✲♫.
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representation of

Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press 㸦⏣୰ᘅ࣭᫂஬༑ᔒᾏ⌮ヂ. 2007.ࠗព࿡ࡢ᥎ᐃ࠘ᮾி: ◊✲♫.㸧∾㔝ᡂ୍. 1980. ࠗࡃࡾ࠿࠼ࡋࡢᩥἲ࠘ᮾி: ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
Manetta, E. 2007. “Unexpected Left Dislocation: A English Corpus Study.” Journal of Pragmatics 39, 1029-1035.
Reinhart, T. 1982. Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics. Bloomington: Indiana University
Linguistics Club.
Rodman, R. 1974. “On Left Dislocation.” Papers in Linguistics 7, 437-466.
⃝⏣἞⨾. 2001. ࠕ᥎ពࠖࠊᑠἨಖ㸦⦅㸧ࠗධ㛛ㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲̺⌮ㄽ࡜ᛂ⏝̺࠘
ࠊ35-63ࠊᮾி: ◊✲♫.
Yamaizumi, M. 2011. “Left-Dislocation in Japanese and Information Structure Theory.” ᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤㄽ㞟 (NINJAL
Research Papers) 1, 77-92.

−48−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

on the contrary ࡢព࿡࡜ᑐ❧㛵ಀ㯮ᕝ ᑦᙪ኱㜰ᕤᴗ኱Ꮫ

<Abstract> This paper discusses the one-speaker and two-speaker cases of on the contrary. In both cases, it is used as thesequence “S1. On the contrary, S2.” — more precisely, “S1.” “On the contrary, S2.” in the two-speaker case. The aim of thispaper is to propose the encoded meaning of on the contrary (i.e. OPPOSITION (S1, S2)), which semantically requires the hearer
to recognise an opposition between S1 (its affirmative counterpart in some cases) and S2. I will provide a unified account of
the sequence “S1. On the contrary, S2.” in terms of the distinction of attributors to S1 and S2.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࣭ᑐ❧㛵ಀ࣭ᖐᒓ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
on the contrary㸦௨ୗ OTC㸧ࡣᩥ࡜ᩥࢆࡘ࡞ࡄാࡁࢆࡋࠊ(1)(2)࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㸯ே࡟ࡼࡿⓎヰ࡛ࡶࠊ㸰ேࡢⓎヰ࡛ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

(1) Mary didn’t make a trivial mistake. On the contrary, she made a horrendous error. (Fraser 2009: 90)(2) A: I suppose the job was boring?
B: On the contrary, it was really exciting. (Swan 2005)

Fraser (1998, 2009)࡛㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㏻౛ OTC ࡣᩥ㢌࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ≉ᚩࡣࠊ(1)(2)ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㸯
ேࡢⓎヰࡢሙྜ࡟ࡶࠊ㸰ேࡢ఍ヰࡢሙྜ࡟ࡶඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊOTC ࡣ㏻౛ࠕS1. OTC, S2.ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ OTC ࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ 1ࠋ
 Quirk et al. (1985)࡛ࡣࠊOTC ࡣࡑࢀ࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿ⠇࡜ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ⠇㸦ࡘࡲࡾࠊS1 ࡜ S2㸧࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ṇ཯ᑐࡢ㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ᥋⥆⾲⌧࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ☜࠿࡟(2)࡛ࡣ S1 ࡢ the job was boring ࡜ S2 ࡢ it was really exciting ࡢ㛵ಀࡣṇ཯ᑐ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(1)࡛ࡶ a trivial mistake ࡜ a horrendous error ࡢ㛫࡟ᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀぢ࡚࡜ࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ(2)࡛ࡣ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ㛫࡟ᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ(1)ࡣ S2 ࡜ᑐ❧㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࡢࡣࠊS1 ⮬య࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊS1 ࡢ⫯ᐃᙧ㸦ࡘࡲࡾ S1 ࠿ࡽ not ࡀ๐㝖ࡉࢀࡓෆᐜ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋせࡍࡿ࡟ࠊ(1)࡜(2)࡛ࡣ S2 ࡜ᑐ❧㛵ಀࢆᡂ❧ࡍࡿ S1 ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊOTC ࡀ♧ࡍᑐ❧㛵ಀࢆ⢭ᰝࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊS1. OTC, S2.࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ OTC ࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࠊOTC ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࡣࠕS1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ㛫࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑ
ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡࡟ࡶ࡜࡙ࡁࠊ㸯ேࡢⓎヰ࡜㸰ேࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᑐ❧㛵ಀࡢᡂ❧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㐪࠸ࡣᖐᒓ㸦attribution㸧ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ

−49−

on the contraryの意味と対立関係

2. ඛ⾜◊✲㸸Fraser (1998, 2009)
Fraser ࡣ OTC ࢆ S2 ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿෆᐜࡀṇࡋ࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ S1 ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿෆᐜࡀㄗࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍㄯヰᶆ㆑࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ 2ࠋ᥮ゝࡍࡿ࡜ࠊS2 ࡢヰࡋᡭࡀ S1 ࢆṇࡋࡃ࡞࠸⾲㇟࡜ぢ࡞ࡋࠊS2 ࢆṇࡋ࠸⾲㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ
♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ OTC ࡀ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊFraser ࡶ㸯ேࡢⓎヰࡢሙྜ࡜㸰ேࡢ఍ヰࡢሙྜ࡜࡟
ศ㢮ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡲࡎࠊ㸰ேࡢ఍ヰࡢሙྜ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ OTC ࡛ࡣࠊඛ⾜⠇ S1 ࡟ࡣ≉࡟ఱࡢไ⣙ࡶ࡞࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(3)-(6)࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊS1 ࡣ⫯ᐃᩥࠊྰᐃᩥࠊ␲ၥᩥࠊ࿨௧ᩥࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡶチᐜࡉࢀࡿࠋ

(3) A: Jack is in Boston today.

(Fraser 2009: 89)

B: On the contrary, he is in New York.
(4) A: He hasn’t arrived.
B: On the contrary, he got here 15 minutes ago.
(5) A: Did you say that Mary made a trivial mistake?
B: On the contrary, I said she made a horrendous error.
(6) A: Let him go.
B: On the contrary, shoot him.

ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊOTC ࡣ S1 ࡀ⫯ᐃᩥ࡛࠶ࢀྰᐃᩥ࡛࠶ࢀࠊS1 ࡢ཯ᑐෆᐜࢆ S2 ࡲࡓࡣㄝ᫂ⓗࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡑࡢ୧᪉
࡜ࡋ࡚ᑟධࡍࡿࠋ(7)ࡣ S1 ࡀྰᐃᩥࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࡾࠊB ࡢⓎヰࡣ S1 ࡢ཯ᑐෆᐜࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࢝ࢵࢥෆࡢ࿨㢟ෆᐜࡣ S1 ࡢ཯ᑐ࡟┦ᙜࡋࠊHe is over 7 feet.ࡣㄝ᫂ⓗࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡛࠶ࡾࠊS1 ࡢ཯ᑐࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
S1 ࡀ⫯ᐃᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ(8)ࡢሙྜ࡟ࡶᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠋ

(7) A: Harry is not tall.

(Fraser 1998: 321)

B: On the contrary, (he is tall). He is over 7 feet.
(8) A: Harry is tall.
B: On the contrary, (he is not tall). He is quite short.

 ḟ࡟ࠊ㸯ேࡢⓎヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ OTC ࡔࡀࠊ
Fraser ࡣࡇࢀࢆࡉࡽ࡟ self-attribution ࡜ other-attribution ࡢ㸰ࡘ࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚ࠊศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋself-attribution ࡣࠊS1 ࡜ S2 ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿෆᐜࡀྠ୍ே≀࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐ
ࡋࠊother-attribution ࡣࡑࢀࡽࡢᖐᒓ⪅ࡀ␗࡞ࡿሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋୗࡢ(9a)࡛ࠊS1 ࡶ S2 ࡶ㸯ேࡢヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢࡔࡀࠊ
S1 ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᛮ⪃ࡢ⾲㇟࡛࠶ࡾࠊS2 ࡣヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢᛮ⪃ࡢ⾲㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ(9b)࡛ࡣ S1 ࡶ S2 ࡶ㸯ேࡢヰࡋᡭ࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿᛮ⪃ࡢ⾲㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠋFraser (2009)࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ(9b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ self-attribution ࡢሙྜࠊS1 ࡣ not ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄒ࡛᫂♧ⓗ࡟ྰᐃࡉࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽࡎࠊS2 ࡣᖹླྀᩥ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ 3ࠋࡲࡓࠊ(9a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ other-attribution
ࡢሙྜࠊS2 ࡟ᑐࡍࡿไ⣙ࡣྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊS1 ࡟ࡣࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᴟᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿไ⣙ࡣ࡞࠸࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−50−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号(9) a. (You think) She is gorgeous. On the contrary, I find her rather ordinary looking.

(Fraser 2009: 90)

b. Mary didn’t make a trivial mistake. On the contrary, she made a horrendous error. (=(1))≉࡟ࠊself-attribution ࡢሙྜ S1 ࡶ S2 ࡶ࡝ࡕࡽࡶヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢᛮ⪃ࡢ⾲㇟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀࡿ࡜ࠊୖ࡛㏙࡭
ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ OTC ࡣ S1 ࡀㄗࡗࡓ⾲㇟ࠊS2 ࡀṇࡋ࠸⾲㇟ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊOTC ࡣ S2 ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ S1 ࢆಟṇࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡍࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(9b)࡛ヰࡋᡭࡣ S1 ࡢࠕ࣓࢔࣮ࣜࡀ≢ࡋࡓ㐣ࡕࡣྲྀࡿ࡟㊊ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ෆᐜࢆ S2 ࡢࠕ෭ࡸờࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ෆᐜ࡛ಟṇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 Fraser ࡢศᯒࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࡣḟࡢ㸱Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨㸯࡟ࠊ㸯ேࡢⓎヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ OTC ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ Fraser ࡀㄗࡗࡓ⾲㇟࡜ぢ࡞ࡍࡢࡣࠊS1 ⮬య࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
S1 ࡢ⫯ᐃᙧ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(9a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㸯ேࡢⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ other-attributionࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊS1 ࡣㄗࡗࡓ⾲㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊS1 ࢆㄗࡗࡓ⾲㇟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ぢ࡞ࡍࡢࡣ୙༑ศ࡜ゝࢃࡊࡿࢆ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊFraser ࡣ self-attribution ࡢሙྜࠊS1 ࡟ྰᐃᩥ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ᴟᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿไ⣙ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ(10)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ S1 ࡀྰᐃᩥ࡛࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ౛ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

(10) Fortunately, he won five million dollars in the lottery. On the contrary, he, unfortunately, lost his close friends.

S1 ࡶ S2 ࡶヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟࡟ᖐᒓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊFraser ࡢ୺ᙇࡀṇࡋࡅࢀࡤ(10)ࡣᐜㄆ୙ྍ⬟࡜ணࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿

ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ(10)ࡣ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ࿨㢟ែᗘ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࠊᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ ḟ࡟ࠊS1㸦ࡢ⫯ᐃᙧ㸧ࢆࠕㄗࡗࡓ⾲㇟ࠖ࡜௬ᐃࡍࡿ࡜ࠊS1 ࡀྰᐃᩥ࡛࠶ࢀࡤ࡝ࢇ࡞ᩥ࡛ࡶᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀண
ࡉࢀࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊ
ࠕㄗࡗࡓ⾲㇟ࠖࡢྰᐃࡣࠊࡑࢀ௨እࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ⾲㇟ࡀ┿࡛࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆㄽ⌮ⓗ࡟ྵពࡍࡿࡓ
ࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ(11)ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊS1 ࡀྰᐃᩥ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶఱࡽ࠿ࡢᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊࡑࡢ
Ⓨヰࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

(11) I didn’t take the letter. *On the contrary, I left it lying on the table.

(Fraser 2009: 94)

 ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊFraser ࡢศᯒࡢ᪉ἲㄽⓗၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋFraser ࡣ OTC ࢆࡲࡎ㸯ேࡢⓎヰ࡜㸰ேࡢ఍ヰ࡜ࡢሙྜ࡟ศࡅࠊ
๓⪅ࢆࡉࡽ࡟ self-attribution ࡜ other-attribution ࡜࡟⣽ศ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊ㸰ேࡢ఍ヰࡀᮏ㉁ⓗ࡟ᖐᒓࡀ␗࡞
ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࢀࡤࠊヰࡋᡭࡢᩘ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡢᖐᒓࡀྠ୍㸦self-attribution㸧࡞ࡢ࠿␗࡞ࡿ㸦other-attribution㸧ࡢ࠿࡛ศ㢮ࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡼࡾᬑ㐢ⓗ࡞ศᯒࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢᩘ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᖐᒓࡢほⅬ࡟ࡼࡿศᯒ
ࡢ᪉ࡀ㐺ษ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ㆟ㄽ࠿ࡽࠊFraser ࡢศᯒࡢၥ㢟ⅬࢆゎỴࡍࡿ㘽ࡣࠊS1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ㛫࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࠶ࡿ✀ࡢᑐ❧㛵ಀࡢᡂ❧࡜ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᖐᒓ࡟࠶ࡿࠋḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࡲࡎᑐ❧㛵ಀࢆᐃ⩏ࡋࠊḟ࡟ OTC ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆࡶ
࡜࡟ᖐᒓࡢ୍⮴࣭୙୍⮴࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ S1. OTC, S2.ࡢศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

3. on the contrary ࡢព࿡࡜ᑐ❧㛵ಀ

−51−

on the contraryの意味と対立関係

3.1 ᑐ❧㛵ಀࠕᑐ❧㛵ಀࠖ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕ཯ᑐࠖ࡜ࡣࠊLyons (1977: 286)࡛ゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ஧⪅ࢆẚ㍑࣭ᑐẚࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡿ㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(12) When we compare and contrast two objects with respect to their possession or lack of one or more properties, we do sogenerally on the basis of their similarity in other respects. … Oppositions are drawn along some dimension ofsimilarity. (Lyons 1977: 286) (ᙉㄪࡣ➹⪅࡟ࡼࡿ)࡜ࡾࢃࡅ㔜せ࡞ࡢࡣࠊ஧⪅㛫ࡢ┦㐪Ⅼࡼࡾࡶࠊࡑࢀ௨እࡢࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚㢮ఝᛶࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛
࠶ࡿࠋ⡆₩࡟ゝ࠼ࡤࠊࠕᑐ❧㛵ಀࠖࡣࠊᩘከࡃࡢ㢮ఝⅬ࡜ᩘᑡ࡞࠸┦㐪Ⅼࡢ୰࡛ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡿ஧⪅㛫ࡢ㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
Murphy (2003: 44)࡛ࡣࠊᑐ⩏ㄒࡢ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᑐ❧ࡍࡿព࿡㛵ಀࡢ᰿ᗏ࡟࠶ࡿࡢࡣࠊࠕ᭱ᑠ㝈ࡢ┦㐪㸦minimal
difference㸧ࠖࡢཎ⌮࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊMurphy ࡢᑐ⩏ㄒࡢ㛵ࡍࡿ▱ぢࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࠊࠕOTC ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᑐ❧㛵ಀ㸦opposition㸧ࠖࢆ(13)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐃ⩏ࡍࡿࠋ(13) Opposition is an opposite relation which holds between S1 and S2 if they have all the same contextually relevant
properties but one (along a cline or dimension).

ᑐ⩏ㄒࡢሙྜ࡜␗࡞ࡿࡢࡣࠊS1. OTC, S2.࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ OTC ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡢࡣ㸰ࡘࡢ࿨㢟 S1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ㛫࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊOTC ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᑐ❧㛵ಀࡣ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ㛫࡛ᡂ❧ࡍࡿ㛵ಀ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ὀពࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࡢࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤ(9b)ࡢᑐ❧㛵ಀࡣ୍ぢ trivial ࡜ horrendous ࡜࠸࠺㸰ࡘࡢㄒࡢ㛫࡛ᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡑ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ࿨㢟ෆᐜ඲య࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲ
ࡾࠊMary made a trivial mistake ࡜ Mary made a horrendous error ࡜࠸࠺ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ࿨㢟ෆᐜ㛫ࡢ㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

3.2 on the contrary ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡
ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ OTC ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋQuirk et al. (1985)࡛ࡶ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊOTC ࡀ S1 ࡜ S2ࡢᑐ❧㛵ಀࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊOTC ࡢ୰ᚰⓗᵓᡂせ⣲࡛࠶ࡿ contrary ⮬యࡀࠕ཯ᑐࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᴫ
ᛕࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ஦ᐇ࠿ࡽࠊOTC ࡢព࿡ࢆ(14)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟つᐃࡍࡿࠋ(14) on the contrary: OPPOSITION (S1, S2) 4ࡇࡢᐃ⩏ࡣࠊOTC ࡀ OPPOSITION ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡋࠊࡑࡢᴫᛕࡣඛ⾜⠇ S1 ࡜࣍ࢫࢺ⠇ S2 ࡢ஧⪅㛫࡟ᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(14)ࡢᐃ⩏࡟ࡼࡗ࡚せồࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊS1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ㛫࡟ᡂ❧ࡍࡿᑐ❧㛵ಀࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡘࡲࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣゎ㔘࡟࠾࠸࡚ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ㛫࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢᑐ❧㛵ಀࢆぢฟࡍࡇ࡜ࢆせồࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᑐ❧㛵ಀࢆぢฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊS1. OTC, S2.ࡢⓎヰࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆண

−52−

ࡍࡿࠋ

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

 (14)ࡢᥦ᱌ࡀ Fraser ࡢ୺ᙇ࡜␗࡞ࡿ㔜せ࡞Ⅼࡣḟࡢ㸱Ⅼ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ➨㸯࡟ࠊOTC ⮬య࡟ S2 ࡟ࡼࡿ S1 ࡢಟṇᶵ⬟ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ☜࠿࡟ࠊ(9b)࡛ࡣࠊS2 ࡀ S1 ࢆಟṇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ(15)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ OTCࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ S2 ࡣ S1 ࢆಟṇࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(15) Mary didn’t make a trivial mistake. She made a horrendous error.

ࡇࡢ஦ᐇ࠿ࡽࠊS2 ࡟ࡼࡿ S1 ࡢಟṇᶵ⬟ࡣࠊS1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟౫Ꮡࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊOTC ࡟ᣐࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ
࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠸ࢃࡤࠊOTC ࡟࠾ࡅࡿಟṇᶵ⬟ࡣ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡿ๪ḟⓗຠᯝ࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸ࠋ஦ᐇࠊ(9b)࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊS1 ࡀྰᐃᩥ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊS2 ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ಟṇࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ(16)࡛ࡣ S2 ࡀ S1 ࢆಟṇࡍࡿゎ㔘ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊS1 ࡜ S2 ࡀṇ཯ᑐࡢ஦ែࢆᥥ෗ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(16) If you don’t take this medicine, you won’t feel better. On the contrary, if you take it, you will get better soon.

 ➨㸰࡟ࠊOPPOSITION (S1, S2)࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡣ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚≉ู࡞ไ⣙ࢆㄢࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ 5ࠋ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊself-attributionࡢሙྜ࡛ࡶ S1 ࡀྰᐃᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆせồࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ(10)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ S1 ࡀ⫯ᐃᩥ࡛ࡶᐜㄆࡉࢀ
ࡿሙྜࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡶࠊ(14)ࡀṇࡋࡅࢀࡤࠊ(11)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ㛫࡟ᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸౛ࢆ᤼㝖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ(11)ࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊOTC ࡀせồࡍࡿᑐ❧㛵ಀࡢᡂ❧࡟ྜ⮴ࡋ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ(14)ࡀヰࡋᡭࡢᩘ࡟ࡼࡿศ㢮ࢆᚲせ࡜ࡋ࡞࠸Ⅼࡣ᫂ⓑࡔࢁ࠺ࠋOTC ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡿᴫᛕࡢ S1
ࡣࠊOTC ࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ௚⪅࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ≉࡟ไ⣙ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ ௨ୖࡢ㸱Ⅼ࠿ࡽゝ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ(14)ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡞ OTC ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ㛫࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡼ࠺ព࿡ㄽⓗ࡟せㄳࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

3.3 ព࿡ㄽⓗせㄳ㸸ᑐ❧㛵ಀᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊOTC ࡀព࿡ㄽⓗ࡟せㄳࡍࡿ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ㛫ࡢᑐ❧㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡼࡾヲ⣽࡟㆟ㄽࡍࡿࠋ(14)࡛ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡟ఱࡢไ⣙ࡶㄢࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊS1 ࡜ S2 ࡢᑐ❧㛵ಀࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⾲ព㛫ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ⾲ព࡜᥎ពࡢ㛫ࡢᑐ❧㛵ಀࡶチᐜࡉࢀࡿࠋ(9b)㸦(17)࡜ࡋ࡚෌ᥖ㸧࡛ࡣࠊS1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ⾲ព㛫࡟࠾ࡅࡿᑐ❧㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
(18)࡛ࡣ S1 ࠿ࡽᑟฟࡉࢀࡿ᥎ព࡜ S2 ࡢ⾲ព࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(19a)ࡢ S1 ࡢ⾲ព࡜(19b)ࡢ᥎ព๓
ᥦ࠿ࡽ(19c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᥎ពᖐ⤖ࡀᑟฟࡉࢀࠊ
(19c)ࡢ᥎ព࡜ S2 ࡢ⾲ព࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢᑐ❧㛵ಀࢆ⪺ࡁᡭࡣぢฟࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ
(18)ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᑐ❧㛵ಀࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶ⾲ព㛫࡛ࡢࡳᡂ❧ࡍࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ(17) Mary didn’t make a trivial mistake. On the contrary, she made a horrendous error.
(18) When you do have an allergic reaction to individual food groups, you may feel that you have had a setback. On thecontrary, any reaction should be regarded as a positive step. (BNC)−53−

on the contraryの意味と対立関係(19) a. ... the hearer may feel that he has had a setback
b. If people feel that they have had a setback, they would (normally) regard reactions like a setback as a negative step.
c. Reactions like as a setback would be regarded as a negative step.

 ࡲࡓࠊᑐ❧㛵ಀࡣ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡢ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ(10)㸦(20)࡜ࡋ࡚෌ᥖ㸧ࡀࡑࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡾࠊ(21a)ࡣ S1
ࡢ⾲ពࢆࠊ(21b)ࡣ S2 ࡢ⾲ពࢆ⾲ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(20) Fortunately, he won five million dollars in the lottery. On the contrary, he, unfortunately, lost his close friends.
(21) a. The speakeri believes it is fortunate that hej won five million dollars in the lottery.
b. The speakeri believes it is unfortunate that hej lost his close friends.
(22) He won five million dollars in the lottery. *On the contrary, he lost his close friends.

(20)࡛ࡣࠊᇶᮏࣞ࣋ࣝ⾲ព࡛ࡢᑐ❧㛵ಀࡣ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡢ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢጇᙜᛶ
ࡣ(20)ࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ព࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿ࿨㢟ែᗘ๪モࡀ࡞࠸(22)ࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(22)ࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸
ࡢࡣࠊOTC ࡀせㄳࡍࡿᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟㉳ᅉࡍࡿࠋ OTC ࡀせㄳࡍࡿᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀ(17)ࡢ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ⾲ព㛫࡛ᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊୗࡢ(23)࡛ࡶྠᵝ࡟ᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡶࡋᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ࡞ࡐ(23)ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ(24)ࡣ(23)ࡢ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡢヰࡋᡭࡀ␗࡞ࡿ౛࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࡞ࡐ(24)ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ

(23) Mary made a trivial mistake. *On the contrary, she made a horrendous error.
(24) A: Mary made a trivial mistake.
B: On the contrary, she made a horrendous error.

ḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢၥ㢟࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊS1 ࡜ S2 ࡢᖐᒓࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊS1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ㛵ಀࡶᐜㄆᛶ࡟ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆぢࡿࠋ

4. S1 ࡜ S2 ࡢᖐᒓࡢ㐪࠸ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ 3.3 ⠇࡛ᣲࡆࡓ(23)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡛ᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡽࡎᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸౛ࡸྠ
୍ࡢෆᐜࢆ㸰ே࡟ࡼࡿ఍ヰ࡛࠶ࢀࡤᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ(24)࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᖐᒓࡢ㐪࠸࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋᮏ✏࡛ゝ࠺ᖐᒓ࡜ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿᛮ⪃ࡢ⾲㇟ࡀㄡࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㏻౛ࠊⓎヰࡣࡑࡢヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢ
ᛮ⪃ࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢሙྜࡑࡢⓎヰࡣヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊⓎヰࡀᚲࡎࡋࡶヰࡋᡭ࡟ᖐᒓ
ࡍࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(9a)ࡢ S1 ࡣᩥ⬦࠿ࡽ you think ࢆ⿵࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊS1 ࡢ࿨㢟ෆᐜࡣヰࡋᡭ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦you㸧࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ⮬ศࡢᛮ⪃࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᛮ⪃ࢆ⾲㇟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ᖐᒓࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚(24)ࡣᐜ᫆࡟ㄝ᫂ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(24)ࡢ S1 ࡣ A ࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊS2 ࡣ B ࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿࠋ

−54−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

ࡘࡲࡾࠊS1 ࡜ S2 ࡢᑐ❧࡜ࡣ A ࡜ B ࡢᛮ⪃ࡢᑐ❧࡟௚࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋゝ࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊࡓ࡜࠼஦ែࡣྠ୍࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ
ࡑࡢᤊ࠼᪉ࡣ༑ே༑Ⰽ࡛࠶ࡾࠊA ࡜ B ࡀᑐ❧ࡍࡿᛮ⪃ࢆ⾲㇟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣఱࡢᨭ㞀ࡶ᮶ࡓࡉ࡞࠸ࠋ ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ(23)࡛ࡣ S1 ࡶ S2 ࡶヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊS1 ࡜ S2 ࡣᑐ❧ࡍࡿᛮ⪃ࡢ⾲㇟࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇ
ࡢ▩┪ࡍࡿ㸰ࡘࡢ⾲㇟ࢆ㸯ேࡢヰࡋᡭ࡟ᖐࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㠀ྜ⌮ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋS1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ㛫࡟ᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ୧⪅ࡢᖐᒓࡀྠ୍࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ㠀ྜ⌮ᛶࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟వィ࡞ฎ⌮ປຊࢆ࠿ࡅࡿせᅉ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊ(23)ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(24)࡛ࡣࠊ୧⪅ࡢᖐᒓࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡓࡵ(23)࡛ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞㠀ྜ⌮ᛶࡣ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
(24)ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡛ࡣࠊ(17)ࡢᐜㄆᛶࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡲࡎࠊ(17)ࡢ not ࡣࡩࡘ࠺ࡢྰᐃ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௬࡟ not ࡀࡩࡘ࠺ࡢྰᐃ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊS1 ࡣ S2 ࡜ྠ➼ࡢព࿡ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ஦ᐇࠊ
ࡩࡘ࠺ࠕ≢ࡋࡓ㐣ࡕࡣᑠࡉࡃ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺࿨㢟ࡣࠕ㔜኱࡞㐣ࡕࢆ≢ࡋࡓࠖࢆྵពࡍࡿࠋ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊS1 ࡜
S2 ࡣ࡯ࡰྠࡌෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡾࠊS2 ࡣ S1 ࡢゝ࠸᥮࠼࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊS1 ࡜ S2 ࡟ᑐ❧㛵ಀࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀ
࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊnot ࡣࡩࡘ࠺ࡢྰᐃ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡶࡋ not ࡀ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊྰᐃࡢ
ᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿࡢࡣ S1 ࡢ⫯ᐃᙧࡢ࿨㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡶࠊࡑࡢ࿨㢟ࡣ S2 ࡢヰࡋᡭ௨እࡢே࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ࣓࢔
࣮ࣜࡢ㐣ࡕ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ୍⯡ே࡞ࡽࠕ࣓࢔࣮ࣜࡀྲྀࡿ࡟㊊ࡽ࡞࠸㐣ࡕࢆ≢ࡋࡓࠖ࡜⌮ゎࡍࡿሙྜࠊS1 ࡢ⫯ᐃᙧࡢ࿨㢟ෆᐜࡣ୍⯡ே࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊS1 ࡢ⫯ᐃᙧࡢ࿨㢟ࡣ S2 ࡢヰࡋᡭ࡜ࡣูࡢே࡟ᖐᒓࡋࠊࡇࢀࡣ
ᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟(24)࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࠋࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊ(17)࡛ࡣࠊnot ࡀ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊS1 ࡢ⫯ᐃᙧࡢ࿨㢟࡜ S2 ࡢᖐᒓࡀ␗࡞ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࡢ㸰ࡘࡢ࿨㢟࡟ᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊOTC ࡀせㄳࡍࡿᑐ❧㛵ಀࡢᡂ❧ࢆ‶ࡓࡍࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ(17)ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊS1 ࡀྰᐃᩥࡢሙྜ࡟ S2 ࡜ᑐ❧㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࡢࡀ S1 ඲య࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ S1 ࡢ⫯ᐃᙧ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࢆ
ࡶㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋS1 ࡢ not ࡀ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊS1 ࡢ⫯ᐃᙧࡢ࿨㢟ࢆྰᐃࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࡢᖐᒓࡣ S2 ࡢᖐᒓ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊᖐᒓࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ(17)ࡸ(24)ࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊࡉࡽ࡟(23)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸
౛ࢆ㐺ษ࡟᤼㝖࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆぢࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊS1. OTC, S2.࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࡢᐜㄆᛶࢆᤊ࠼ࡿ࡟ࡣࠊOTC ࡀゝㄒⓗ࡟せㄳࡍࡿ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ㛫ࡢᑐ❧㛵ಀ࡜ࠊS1 ࡜ S2 ࡢᖐᒓࡢ≉ᐃࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ

5. ⤖ㄒᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊOTC ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࢆ(14)࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ᱌ࡋࠊS1. OTC, S2.࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࡢⓎヰ࡛ࡣ S1 ࡜ S2 ࡢ㛫࡟ᑐ❧㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆせㄳࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆぢࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰࡀ㸯ேࡢⓎヰ࡜㸰ேࡢ఍ヰ࡜࠸࠺ヰࡋᡭࡢ
ᩘ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊS1 ࡜ S2 ࡢᖐᒓࡢ୍⮴࣭୙୍⮴࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᳨ドࡋࡓࠋ*ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 15 ᅇ኱఍㸦2012 ᖺ 12 ᭶ 1 ᪥ࠊ᪊㸸኱㜰Ꮫ㝔኱Ꮫ㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎ⾲ࡢᢡ࡟ࠊྖ఍ࡢ⏣୰ᘅ᫂ඛ⏕㸦ி㒔ᕤⱁ⧄⥔኱Ꮫ㸧ࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁᏊඛ⏕㸦ዉⰋዪᏊ኱Ꮫ㸧࣭⃝⏣἞ඛ⏕㸦୕㔜኱Ꮫ㸧࠿ࡽࠊⓎ⾲ࡢ‽ഛẁ㝵࡟ࠊἙୖㄋసඛ⏕࣭ᒸ⏣⚞அඛ⏕࣭㒯⪷Ợඛ⏕㸦኱㜰኱Ꮫ㸧࠿ࡽ㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㡬ࡅࡓࡇ࡜࡟ᚰ࠿ࡽឤㅰࡋ
ࡓ࠸ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ✏ࡢ୙ഛࡣᇳ➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡟࠶ࡿࠋ

−55−

on the contraryの意味と対立関係ὀ
1. ࡶࡕࢁࢇ OTC ࡀᖖ࡟ᩥ㢌࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿヂ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᩥ୰ࠊᩥᮎ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ㢖ᗘࡣᩥ㢌࡟ẚ࡭࡚ࡣࡿ࠿࡟ᑡ࡞࠸ࠋCOCA ࡢ 2009 ᖺ࠿ࡽ 2011 ᖺ࡛ࡣ OTC ࡀ 165 ౛ぢࡘ࠿ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ࠺ࡕ 138 ౛㸦83.6%㸧ࡀᩥ㢌࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2. Fraser (2009)ࡢゝ࠺ㄯヰᶆ㆑࡜ࡣᶵ⬟ⓗ࡞⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡾࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ࿨㢟ෆᐜࡢព࿡࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊඛ⾜ࡍࡿ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ♧ࡍᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡍ⾲⌧ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3. S1 ࡀ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ྰᐃࡉࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊunhappy ࡸ disagree ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྰᐃ⦅ධࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ
࡜ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ௨ୗࡢ(i)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ(i) Harry is unhappy. *On the contrary, he is extremely depressed.

(Fraser 1998: 322)

4. ⌧ẁ㝵࡛ࠊ(14)ࡢᐃ⩏ࡣ୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣㄆࡵࡊࡿࢆ࠼࡞࠸ࠋṧࡉࢀࡓ኱ࡁ࡞ㄢ㢟ࡢ㸯ࡘࡣࠊOTC ࡢࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓᴫᛕOPPOSITION ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࣍ࢫࢺ⠇࡛࠶ࡿ S2 ࡢ⾲ព࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

5. Fraser (2009)࡛ࡣࠊ㸯ே࡟ࡼࡿⓎヰࡢሙྜ S2 ࡀᖹླྀᩥ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࠸࡜࠸࠺ไ⣙ࡶㄢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࡉࡽ࡟⢭ᰝࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ㸰ேࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ไ⣙ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ౛࠼ࡤ(6)ࡢ S2 ࡣ࿨௧ᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᬑ㐢ⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡶࠊS2ࡢไ⣙࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㆟ㄽࡣࠊ⣬ᖜࡢ㒔ྜୖࠊ✏ࢆᨵࡵࡓ࠸ࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Blackwell, Oxford.
Carston, R. 2008. “Optional Pragmatic Processes or Optional Covert Linguistic Structure?” UCL Working Papers in
Linguistics 20: 143-156.
Cruse, A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cruse, A. 2004. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics, 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Fraser, B. 1998. “Contrastive Discourse Markers in English.” In A. H. Jucker and Y. Ziv (eds.) Discourse Markers:
Descriptions and Theory. 301-326. John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam.
Fraser, B. 2009. “The English Contrastive Discourse Marker On the Contrary.” In K. Turner and B. Fraser (eds.) Languagein Life, and a Life in Language: Jacob Mey – A Festschrift. 87-95. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley (UK).
Jones, S, et.al. 2012. Antonyms in English: Construals, Constructions and Canonicity. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics Vol.1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Murphy, M L. 2003. Semantic Relations and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Murphy, M L. 2010. Lexical Meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Quirk, R. et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of English Language. Longman, London.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell, Oxford.
Swan, M. 2005. Practical English Usage (3rd edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford.

−56−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

be lined with >79
                                   Ý°ÕƋ                                   œå}œkuromiya@ogu.ac.jp<Abstract>
This article is concerned with a phrase be lined with NP, which has mainly three senses:
1. some objects (=NP) are arranged into a line; 2. the inside of something is covered withsomething (=NP); and 3. a line is drawn with something (=NP). Based on the analysis ofcorpus data, it argues that the verb line in sense 1 and 2 is usually used in the passive
form. It also argues that how we disambiguate the sense in which an instance is used
depends on the context where it occurs, and proposes some factors for thedisambiguation.
]pfbe lined with ĠĔăÓĈŰØƝ ō«ı@ě

A-L> ƦÊ±@ďƃŪAÓ>AĠĔăÓĈŰØƝ

;:MÑFG#ØƝ"ŋã.S@:A=!

;ªư:63ù@(1)WË9JP(1) a. [B]ut on the valley side the water is lined with trees[.] 1
b. She leaned against the wooden table that was sprinkled with flour[.] 2 (1a)A water

1Q%Ļ!!4;ñVTS >69Ʈ(trees)"ƟGQT 3Äļģ>=6

9S(;WƎ,9S"ăÓA water :Rýâ>ƟGQT9SA/@ trees A with »:ú*T9SűƷ>(1b):Mcjn@ğ>ĘƁƜ(flour)"ƉDì69S(;WƎ,9SA/4"¡Àóĸ@vƩğ@ăÓA the wooden table :Rýâ>ë#ìQ*T9S flour A
with »:ú*T9S(TA·ƩĨÎĞ;ÏS4U 1(:(@ØƝ>79şß.G%^h`WƸ9ąðL> be lined with ;ƎÎWşG
9J3;(U!7>M1(:ēL9 be lined with "ō«:S(;>§ƒ31,9(@ō«ı"Ɲƪ>P69<@P>ě*T!>,9Ɲƪ>ň,3Ó«"ŵť*TS@!;ưŕ
M·ƩĨM@:SP>ñVT31(:ĠĔăÓĈŰØƝ>79AC;I/Ŀ#be linedwith @ō«ı"Ɲƪ>P69<@P>ě*TS@!1@ĢÆWşGS(;>,31@şßÄ
WI;L3M@"ƦÙ:SM6;M(@şßÄAÒ:ËSP>ĠĔăÓĈŰØƝ;ƫ:
A=@:(@ØƝ>Mę,ĦTS"ƦÙ@ă£A%I:M be lined with @Ó«@ŵť>S(;WQ!-L)Ěř

#¤3

ĠĔăÓĈŰØƝ

−57−

be lined withについて

 (1):Ë3P=ØƝWƦÙ:A> ĠĔăÓĈŰØƝ ;ÑF(;>.SI3 Clark and Clark(1979)N Levin (1993)>čĠĔWƨ3,9SM@

W<LOCATUM>;ÑF(;>.S;

(@ØƝAù@P=haq4;(;>=S
(2)<LOCATION> is V-en with <LOCATUM>.

 I3Űó V "ƎV.Űæ@ýâ@ŐĞAăÓ:A=%with »:ú*TS<LOCATUM>4;
Ū>(@ØƝ@ŵŞ"S (@ØƝ>¡.SĹÛÊ±A Rowlands (2002)>V/!>Ï¯*T9S@WĖ&BH;X<Ëŭ3Q=34,VOS

ĠĔÔŒ(locative alternation):tVTSćǀ@Ɲ@5

with »WƄƤ@ƝWĈ&ĩ>,3M@"(@ØƝ4;ÚS(;Aſ4;ñVTSu>ĠĔ
ÔŒ@ǁW³'S(3) a. Irv loaded hay into the wagon.
b. Irv loaded the wagon with hay.

(Pinker 1989: 49)

 (TQ@5@(3b).=V5 with »WƄƤ@ƝWĈŰő>,3M@"ƦÙ:ĠĔăÓĈŰØ
Ɲ;ÑX:SM@@Ĵŏ4;ÚS=QBV+V+ĈŰƝ4&WĄRğ'3Ê±"=@AŭĽ
!M,T=ýâPinker (1989)Jackendoff (1990)Ů>PS;ĠĔÔŒ@ with »WƄ
Ƥ@Ɲ>

9ƯŧÓAŖ=S<LOCATION>WƎ,9S@:A=%Űó"ƎV.Űæ>P69

Q!@~¸WĈ&SM@;,9@ĠĔ4;ÚQT9S4!Q(1ĠĔWƎ.Ƭó»"ƯŧÓ>=TSV&:S1:S=QB1TWăÓ;.SĈŰƝ"69MƑñ¬:A=
 ,!,Űó>P69AĈŰƝ>ƸQTS(;@Ƥ"ƭQ!>ōM@"SP>ñVTS7IRĈŰƝ>ŵ,3ØƝ@ŋã"ƵŁ*TS1(: be lined with ;»W^h`WƸ9şß,9J3şß@Ƥƥ
 ½ŏŧ=şß@ƤƥAu@ŤR:S
[1] Űó line A²ÃM²ƛóÃM lined :S(;W®Ƹ,British National Corpus (BNC)WƸ9 lined @ÒŢÒ;AÐQ=

> with "ÎTSƝWÈç,3;(U600 ǁH<"ibe,3[2] (TQ 600 µ@ǁƝ77>ýâ>ƯWŤ,ƫ¡À=ǁWƀĖ,3ğ:Űó line "Ƹ
QTS@Aù@ ab @/T"ō!>79şG3a) NP1 lined NP2 with NP3 ;haq:

NP1 " NP2 >69 NP3 WƟG3;vƩWƎ

.M@(@ĠÜ NP2 A<LOCATION>NP3 A<LOCATUM>WƎ,9S(;>=Sb) NP1 is lined with NP2 ;haq:

NP1 >69 NP2 "ƟX:S;vƩWƎ.

M@(@ĠÜ NP1 A<LOCATION>NP2 A<LOCATUM>WƎ,9S(;>=S =a >79A²øİ@J4"b Aľ9@øİ@M@W¢LS(;>=S3LŖĒ>ƾÿ

@įWƆ.S@AƑŨĶ4;ÚMS!M,T=,!,="Q a.=V5ſŰő@Îã−58−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

øİ:@ƸǁA63;,9Mō%=;ƵŁ*T,3"69 a ; b @į@ŖĒƆ:Mœ#=ưŕA=;ƅŗ,3be lined with @ō«ı
 .:>ĐG3ŤRèWðL9

M=%“NP1 is lined with NP2”"ō«:S(;>§ƒ!*T3ă>ù@7@Ó«"è*TS(4) a. NP1 >69 NP2 "ƟX:S
b. NP1 " NP2 :ŷŝR*T9S

M,%AƔ#­LQT9Sc. NP1 > NP2 :ļ"Ə!T9S

M,%A

NP1 " NP2 @3L>Ǉ>=69S u>½ŏǁWú.(5a, b)"(4b)@ǁ(5c)"(4c)@ǁ:S=ƙī%*T9S(4a)@ǁA.:>(1a):Ë3(5) a. It is assumed that the interior of the cap was lined with soft leather.

(BNC: CFK)

b. A basket must first be lined with polythene to make it waterproof.

(BNC: A70)

c. Fergie’s title has been casually lined through with a ballpoint pen.

(BNC: CH2)

 (TQ7@Ó«"Ɲƪ@<@P=ƹ{>P69ě*T!>,9Ɲƪ>ň,3Ó«"ŵť
*TS!>79Mƞ09è.S(;>,31@âƳƸ:S@" Sinclair (1991) @ SÓ>Ƙį@Ó«"SĠÜ1T2T@Ó«ASŵť@Øņ;ÄD79S ;ÚƤ:S 3(T>¦8#Ó«Wŵť.S3L@ƹ{Wè.SÄ şß@ÄAù@ŤR463
5.1 ſŰĈŰƆ
 (4):Ë3P> NP1 is lined with NP2 >Aă> 3 7@Ó«"S"(@5(4a);(4b)A
/TM(2)@ǁ4;ÏSŌƤ(4c)@ NP2 A<LOCATUM>4;AÏŸ1(:(4c)@ǁAC;
I/Ŀ#(4a, b)@ǁWzI;L>,91T>Ő.SſŰƝ;@įWƆ.S;ù@P>=63
(6) a. ĈŰƝ
b. ſŰƝ

NP1 is lined with NP2

386 ǁ 4

NP1 lined NP2 with NP3

13 ǁ ÏS;ĈŰƝ"Ʋ 96.7WĺLS;Ä;=63Ɲ@¦Ʀ"ſŰƝ:S(;WÚÜV0S;ĈŰƝ"Ʋ 96.7;@Awġ4;ÏV+SWŴ=7IR line A(@Ƹƥ:A
ĈŰƝ:ƸQTS@"ƕŤ4;ÚQTS5
5.2 Ó«>PSŃy

−59−

be lined withについて

 ((:(4a).=V5ĳǂŶJ@Ƹƥ;(4b).=V5ŷŝRŶJ@Ƹƥ;W¼ơ.S;*Q=SŃy"Ëď*TS (4a)>79AĈŰƝ 191 ǁ>Ő,ſŰƝAǁ463(@ǁW(7)>ú."ƆǆƎÎ:S(;MRýâ>A(4a)@Ƹǁ=@!(4b)@Ƹǁ=@!ƅơ,8Q
(7) To lay the ground for his plan Mr Clinton has tarred opponents in advance as‘defenders of decline’ who have ‘already lined the corridors of power with high-priced
lobbyists’ to prevent the changes he wants.

(BNC: K5D)

 ŌƤ(4b)>79AĈŰƝ 195 ǁ>Ő,9ſŰƝA 12 ǁ463M6;M(7)W(4b)@ǁ;Ë
=.=QſŰƝA 13 ǁ:R®>(4a)@Ó«:@ſŰƝ@ǁAƫ;(;>=S=(7)@

Ó«>79Aĸ:*Q=SÚèW3 /T>0PuğWI;LS;(4a)@Ƹƥ@ſŰƝAH;X<ËQT="(4b)@Ƹƥ@ĠÜ4;ſŰƝAV/!="QîƸ*TS ľŏ@ĂWĺLS ;Ï1:S 6(4a)@Ƹƥ@ſŰƝ@ǁ;,9 Rowlands (2002)Aù@(8)W³'9S@4"(@P=ǁ"ýâ>îVTS
(;AI/=@:A=4U!
(8) The town planner lined the street with trees.

(Rowlands 2002: 46)

 ĈŰƝ:TBÄģőWƎ.@:ƮAûĽ>ĵ3M@:MĪ"ŠŽÅW&9Ĥĉ,3Ä7,!ŤR>69Ʈ"Ƽ5ƟF(;>=63@:MØV=,!,ſŰƝ;=S;(8)>ËSP>“the town planner”;63!=RŵĆ=ăÓ;ŵĆ=ģ¶WŁť,=&TBƝ"ĲR
Ƽ3=(4a)@Ƹƥ@ſŰƝ"L63>ƸQT=@AŭĽ@(;;ÏP
5.3 ō«@ě ýâ@ƸǁWË9JS;(4a);(4b)@/T@Ó«:ƸQT9S@!ƅŗ@,8QM@M
S"1T2T@Ƹƥ>79koeaZkŧ=ŵŞ;ÏSM@Aŋã,9Su>1TQ
WI;LS(;>.S
5.3.1 ĳǂŶJ@Ƹƥ NP1 is lined with NP2 "(4a)@ĳǂŶJ.=V5

NP1 >69 NP2 "ƟX:S@

ǁ4;ā*TS3L@ĢÆAu@ŤR:S(9) a. NP1 AũÂŧ>A streetroadriver =<ų@P=áŠĠĔ 

b. NP2 AÍŇ;,9ƘįÃc. NP2 AũÂŧ>A

ų@V#>Ƽ69SĮŢƤ×>DSM@:Çƚ!ĉƮ@(;"ō
d. ,3"69 NP2 AŤġƫĵƚ4"ĪÜ:M ƦĪ@vñ:ƟX:S!<!

@ǁM 15 ǁ 191 ǁś Ë7!63,!,1@ĠƟFŰæA7ÛVT3@! ;63Ū>79Aŵ

>vü*T9=−60−

第15回大会発表論文集

e. ľŏ;,9NP2 A NP1 >69Ů

第８号

>ĳĽ;ƟX:S;ā*TS(;"ō

f. with NP2 A lined @ŢÒ>ÎTS@"ÍŇlined ; with NP2 @>Q!@ƹŀ"ŻS@A 191 ǁśǁ@J:R5ǁ" on both sideson either side M,%A on one side :S
5.3.2 lined @Ò> up "ÎTSĠÜ ğ¨(9f)@ĢÆ@ĎƹıWƺ.S3L>((:Ɔ*TSG#A NP1 is lined up with NP2 ;
Ɲ:lined ; with NP2 @> up "łŻ*T9SM@:S(T>Au@P=ŵŞ"è*TS(10) a. NP1 AŤġ

ĠĔ

:A=%

ƟGQTS

đƊ*TS

M@

WƎ.

b. Űæ@vĭı"-QTS
c. with NP2 AƄV=(;Mō7IR(@Ƹƥ:AƌĬ@ƹŀ:A=with NP2 "ƄĠÜA

NP2 >ÜV09

NP2 Wą>,9ƟGSƟF;63vƩWƎ,<LOCATUM>;A=Q=
 7IR up @Ƴƫ>P69Ɲ@vƩAIS:ƢV69,I@:S
5.3.3 ŷŝRŶJ@Ƹƥ *9NP1 is lined with NP2 "(4b)@ŷŝRŶJ.=V5S

ƧLī%*T9S(11) a. NP1 AũÂŧ>A xǀƖ;63Ơ-QT3¾

ľŏ:A ƻŎ5*T9S ;ā*TS !M,%A Ƃľŏ:A ŷŝR*T9SƔ#­LQT9S Ů;ā*TS 

b. NP2 AÍŇ;,9ŖįÃ:ũÂŧ>A
Ã@M@M 51 ǁ
9SSć@195 ǁś

ŀäc. ľŏ;,9NP1 " NP2 :ŷŝR*T9

@ǁ4;ā*TS3L@ĢÆAu@ŤR:S

ƓŚI3Aŧ>ÜĲ*T3ŀä NP2 "ƘįS"ÍŇ;,9ťóWƄV=Ƒť@ČÜŏ:RNP1 Wƙ6

4;Ë=0S(;"ō 7

NP2 A NP1 @ŷƖWƙī%,9S;ā*TS(;"ōd. (9f) űƷwith NP2 A lined @ŢÒ>ÎTS@"ÍŇlined ; with NP2 @>Q!@ƹŀ"ŻS@A 195 ǁśǁ@J
5.3.3 ļĢŶJ@Ƹƥ ù> NP1 is lined with NP2 "(4c)@ļĢŶJ.=V5

NP1 > NP2 :ļ"Ə!T9S

NP1 " NP2 @3L>Ǉ>=69S @vƩWƎ.Ƹƥ>794"1M1Mį"ę= 15 ǁ
@J (TA be lined @(@Ƹƥûŏ"ţ,;(;:A=%with NP2 WƄƸǁ"ę=;(;:UV/!=ǁ!QĢÆWŲ#ď.@A¥Ì:S"

K?u@P=Á×"è*TS(12) a. NP1 Aĩŏ@zƖƛ:S(;"ō% Ǉ>=69S
T9S

u>M

YZ_lf[Ů"|!

ļģ@ė"79S ;63ǁ"è*T3ĩŏƖƛu:A(5c)@P> ĕ!

−61−

be lined withについて

T3M@"ļ:ě*T9S

b. NP2 A;ǁM63ļW|%3L@ų½:S(;"ō"ļ@ĥNŀä

@(;MSlined "Ǉ>=69S (;WƎ.ĠÜ>A NP2 A age N years @P> ø@ƽTNǃ WƎ.ǁ"ËQT3ƣŉrŔ@şß;Ä 5.1 ĸ:ĐG3P> with NP »WƄĠÜ line AĈŰő:ƸQTS(;"sŬŧ>ō:Awith NP »WƄV=ĠÜ:MſŰő:ƸQTS(;Aō%=@4U!àÒ>(@Ū>7
9ż.S(;>,3
 ,!,^h`ŷ@ line N lined @ǁľ9>ƯWŤ.@AœƢ=æ¹:S1(: BNC :“belining”;»WÈç,3;(U47 ǁ"ibe,35 39 ǁ"ÒUH;X<@ĠÜŢÒ

> up WƄ63ǁ:S3LÚè@ŐĞ!Q,3 1@ƺƴA 5.3.2 ĸ:Ë3ŤR:S íR
ǁ@5ǁ"ŷŝRŶJ@ǁ463"/TM“to line one’s pocket [handbag]”@Ã:òƗWƇN.

;vƩ:ƸQT93*Q>íR@ǁ"ĳǂŶJ@ǁ463"ľ9“<LOCATUM> is lining <LOCATION>”;haq463
(13) a. [M]en, women and children are lining the main route through the town[.](BNC: A61)
b. Thousands of fans are lining the streets[.](BNC: K1P)

 7IR line "ĳǂŶJ@vƩ:ſŰƝś>ƸQTSĠÜ(8)@ǁ:Ë3P=(14a)@haq:A=%(14b)@P= with @ÎT=haq:ƸQTS(;"ō@:A=!;Ƶ
Ł*TS 8(14) a. <AGENT> lines <LOCATION> with <LOCATUM>.
b. <LOCATUM> lines <LOCATION>.
 uğWEI9²Ã@“lined the street”“lined the road”;63»W BNC :Èç,9J
3;(UV/!:AS"ýǁ"Ë7!631,91TQA/TM(14b)@haq:ƸQ
T93
 *Q>·ƩĨ@A“lined the street”"V/!ǁ:63@>Ő,ƯŧÓWƘįÃ>,3“lined the streets”A 11 ǁË7!63(;:S,!M“lined the streets”@ăÓA 11 ǁśǁ: crowds

M,%A“a crowd of 2,000”463(15)>Èç,3ăƹ=»W³'S\b^ŷAă=ăÓįöAýǁ@įWú.
(15) a. lined the street 1 (flags)
a’. lined the streets 11 (crowds 5; a crowd of 2,000 1; people 3; troops 1)
b. lined the road 3 (houses 2; buildings 1)
b’. lined the roads 3 (crowds 1; that number9 1)
c. lined the path 0−62−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

c’. lined the paths 1 (children)
d. lined the river bank 0d’. lined the river banks 1 (crowds) uğ!QƯŧÓAƘį@(;"ō%,!M1@ĠÜăÓAĪ:S(;"ō;Á×"Ë9ĄTS(TAƯŧÓ"Ŗį@ĠÜăÓAƫĵƚ@(;"ō@;ŐĜŧ:S((!Q to line
NPplural A

ŤR>ǂW=.

;PRAK,UŤR>¿"SŤRWƧLī%.

;gmYq`W÷69Sſı"S;ÏP(TAK,UŷŝRŶJ>º(7):Ë3ƆǆƎÎM(@zǁ4;ÚSG#4U
 34,ğ¨WÄǄ;.S>Aýǁ"ę=.$SI3(15)A“lined the street”ŮWz7@»;,
9Èç,3Ä:RÏS; lined @ŢÒ> the street Ů"ÎT9Sǁ@į,!į9
=1@P=V&:ÄǄI:>AMę,ħĎ>èWŊ&Sƌƹ"SI;L ƦÙ:A^h`;,9BNCWƸ9be lined with;»Wşß,31@Ä>¦8#ƦÙ
Au@ŪWăŝ.S Ŕz>“NP1 is lined with NP2”>Ő.S“NP1 lined NP2 with NP3”;ƝA

ƈƝ:A=

>0P IRƸQT=ÏS;(@Ƹƥ@ line AŤġĈ&ĩ:ƸQTS;(;:S(@õýAI3 ĠĔăÓĈŰØƝ C9AĈŰő>ŵ,3ØƝ@ŋãWúÞ,9S ŔŹ>“NP1 lined NP2 with NP3”A line @Ó«>P69îƸƐū"w=SŷŝRŶJ@line :AøķƸQTS(;MS"ĳǂŶJ:AI/ƸQT= Ŕé>ĳǂŶJ@ line "ſŰƝ:ƸQTSĠÜA<LOCATUM> lines <LOCATION>;
 with »WƄV=haq:ƸQTSÁ×"ËQTS34,ĈŰƝ@Ƹǁ>ƆGS;įA!
=Rę=I3(TQAýâ>AŷŝRŶJ:SſıMS 1,9Ŕï>“NP1 is lined with NP2”>Aœ#%7@Ó«"R1@/T:S!AƝƪ
>PRńÜŧ>ƅŗ*TS;RV&Ďƹ=ƹ{A a) NP2 "Ŗį!Ƙį!b) NP1

PD NP2 @v

Ʃc) line "Ĉ&ĩ:ƸQT9S(;d) with NP2 WƄ69S(;e) lined ; with NP2@> up "ÎT=(;:SŜƦÙAźƦÓƸǄŔ 15 ¨žœ 2012 Ž 12 Åźœå}œ :@ÖůƃƎ>ƣƍĊĴW3M@:SƃƎ>â,9©Ď=)vËW*63Ƥ>ĀvWƎ,3I3ƃƎÒ>L9da@ËŢ,WÛ63;(UĊĴ.G#Ū"%7!Ë7!633L

ǅD.S;;M>ŦĴ*09š%,3"69įŘ@zƖ"ƃƎø@M@;w=S(;"S@:)Ŝv¤3
1) John Steinbeck, Of Mice and Men/Cannery Row, London/New York: Penguin Books, 1978, p.1.
2) Raymond Carver, Where I’m Calling From, New York: Vintage Contemporaries, 1989, p.403.
3) ǁB Sinclair (1991: 53)Aù@P>ĐGS“[T]here is a close correlation between the different
senses of a word and the structures in which it occurs.” I3 Sinclair (1996)Hunston and Francis
(2000)Stubbs (2002)Gries (2006)MêĜ
4) ĈŰƝ 386 ǁ@5ýâ> NP1 be lined with NP2 ;haq:ƸQT9S@A 149 ǁ 38.6

−63−

be lined withについて@J:S1TuA be WƄV/ lined with NP @Ã:Ãƶó»@ƱW3,9Sǁ:S"lined"²ƛó:S(;>ƢVRA=@:ĈŰƝ@ǁ>¢LS(;>.S
5) ((!Qlined AMAN²ƛó:A=%Ãƶó;Ë=.G#4;ÚS(;M:#S!M,T=,!
, 5.2 ĸ:ĐGSP>ŷŝRŶJ@Ƹƥ:AV/!="QſŰő:MîƸ*TS(;I3(1):Ë3P
> line u>MűƷ@îVTƤW.SŰó"ŋã.S ƦÙ:Aĝ,%ĐG="Ō@ǁ;,9A litter "³'QTS(;!QƦÙ:AC;I/ lined AÃƶó:A=%²ƛó4;ÚS(;>,àċŧ=ÄǄAĠĔăÓĈŰØƝ

Wşß,3Ò>ĹŅR*09š#3

6) BNC u>M Who Is Coming to Our House?
ŽJoseph Slate æAshley Wolff Putnam þ1988;Ʀ@ś:“I will line the crib with eider.”;ƝWË7&S(;":#3Ʀ:S3L(@Ɲ"Ǝ,9S½ŏŧ=ģ¶"Ə!T9
#­LS

SA

ƧLī%.

R©Ď=ôƿ;ÏS(@WËTBƛ!S"ƭQ!> Ɣģ¶WƎ,97) Salkoff (1983)@VOS swarm ØƝ>R zǂ>ƟGS

@:A=

&S with NP @ĢÆMêĜ@(;ĠĔăÓĈŰØƝ; swarm

ØƝ;AĈŰő;ſŰő;yASM@@/TMĠĔWăÓ;.S with »WƄØƝ:Rō%@ŵŞW´Ƴ,9S;ƵŁ*TS8) (14)@ a ; b ;@¡ÀW Levin (1993: 81-2)A Locatum Subject Alternation ;ÑX:"è*TSŰó@ś> line M¢L9S,!,ƦÙ:ż,3;R(@ÔŒ

R(7)WŷŝRŶJ@ǁ>¢L3

ĠÜĳǂŶJ:A(14a)@ýǁAƫ;Ï69P%ŷŝRŶJ:M 13 ǁ,!=!63
9) Ɲƪ!Qƅŗ.S;(@“that number”A“that number of people”WvƩ,9SêĜƝÉBritish National Corpus (see the following web site: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/)
Clark, Eve V. and Herbert H. Clark. 1979. “When Nouns Surface as Verbs.” Language 55, 767-811.
Gries, Stefan Th. 2006. “Corpus-based Methods and Cognitive Semantics: The Many Senses of To

Run.” In Stefan Th. Gries and Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.) Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics, 57-99.
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hunston, Susan and Gill Francis. 2000. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the

Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Rowlands, Rachel C. 2002. Swarming with Bees: Property Predication and the Swarm Alternation.
Master Thesis at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. (Available at the following web site:
http://www.fren.canterbury.ac.nz/ling/documents/Rowlands_Thesis.pdf)
Salkoff, Morris. 1983. “Bees Are Swarming in the Garden: A Systematic Synchronic Study of
Productivity.” Language 59, 288-346.
Sinclair, John M. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
---. 1996. “The Search for Units of Meaning.” In John Sinclair, Trust the Text, 24-48. London:
Routledge. 2004.
Stubbs, Michael. 2002. Words and Phrases. Oxford: Blackwell.

−64−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

ከ㔜㉁ၥ䛾 sarcasm 䛸ಟ㎡ᛶᚋ⸨㻌 䝸䝃㛵すእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ

<Abstract>
The aim of this paper is to investigate the rhetorical uses of complex questions, especially the understanding
process by which the cognition of sarcasm in loaded language reflects the rhetorical readings. In traditional
logico-linguistics, a complex question is a question that has multiple presuppositions. Although complex
questions can be understood as either ‘seeking information’ or ‘rhetorical’, some cases that include loaded
language, such as trashy (novel) and terrible (film), are somehow sarcastic and therefore rhetorical. The
speaker of a complex question containing such loaded language expresses a certain attitude to thepresupposition or the propositional content, rather than their confirmatory intention.
࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ከ㔜㉁ၥࠊ๓ᥦࠊVDUFDVPࠊಟ㎡ᛶࠊ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊከ㔜㉁ၥ㸦complex questions㸧࡟㢮ࡍࡿ␲ၥᩥⓎヰࡢ୰࡛ࠊ≉࡟๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ᝿ᐃࡀヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡿᑐ㇟࡬ࡢᢈุࡸ㠀㞴࡜࠸ࡗࡓࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞ホ౯ࢆ♧ࡍࢣ࣮ࢫ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊࡑࡢಟ㎡ᛶࡢ᭷↓࠾ࡼࡧಟ㎡ᛶࡢ⛬ᗘ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ≉࡟㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢࠕ㐃⥆య࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ
ಟ㎡ᛶࠖࡢᴫᛕࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ㸦Wilson and Sperber 2012; Sperber and Wilson 1990, 19952; Wilson 2000 ௚㸧ࠋᐇ㝿ࠊಟ㎡␲ၥᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿᝟ሗせㄳ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡢุ᩿ࡀࡘ࠿࡞࠸࣮࣎ࢲ࣮ࣛ࢖ࣥࢣ࣮ࢫࡣᩘከࡃᏑ
ᅾࡍࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺஦౛ࡣࠊᑐ㇟࡬ࡢࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞ホ౯࡟㛵ࢃࡿ࿨㢟ෆᐜࢆᣢࡘ๓ᥦ࿨㢟࡬ࡢ࿨㢟ែᗘ㸦ヰ⪅ಙᛕ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ⾲ព㸧ࡀཧ୚⪅㛫࡛㢧ᅾ໬ 㸯 ࡉࢀࠊࡑࢀࡺ࠼࡟᝟ሗせㄳࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟㛵ࢃࡿヰ⪅ែᗘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㧗ḟࡢ⾲ពࡢ㢧ᅾᛶࡀ୙᫂░࡜࡞ࡿ࣮࣎ࢲ࣮ࣛ࢖ࣥࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕᑐ㇟࡬ࡢࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞ホ౯ࠖࡣࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ≉࡟ loaded language㸦ࠕ඘ሸࡉࢀࡓㄒࠖࠊᚋ㏙ࡢሷ㇂ 2011 ࢆཧ↷㸧࡟ࡼࡿホ౯࡜ࡋࠊsarcasm ࡜㛵㐃࡙ࡅࡿࠋヰ⪅ࡢ sarcasm ࡀࠊloaded language ࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡼࡾ㢧ᅾ໬ࡉࢀࡓሙྜ࡟ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥㄞࡳࡀᙉࡲࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ ࡲࡎࠊከ㔜㉁ၥ࡜ࡣࠊ」ᩘࡢ๓ᥦࢆᣢࡘ㉁ၥ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦Walton 1989㸧ࠋManor (1979)ࡢ౛࡛ぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ(1) Did you drive your car to the office today?

(Manor 1979: 16)

Presupposition: You have a car.
(2) a. answer1: I did drive my car today, orb. answer2: I did not drive my car today.
c. retort1: I don’t have a car.
d. retort2: I drove Sam’s VW.

(ibid.)−65−

多重質問のsarcasmと修辞性

Manor (1979)ࡣࠊ(1)ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡢྍ⬟࡞㏉⟅㸦response㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ answer ࡜ retort ࡢ 2 ✀࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࠊ(2a)ࡲࡓࡣ(2b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㉁ၥᩥࡢࡼ࠺࡟࿨㢟ࡢ┿ഇ࡟┤᥋࠿࠿ࢃࡿ㏉⟅ࡣࠕ⟅࠼ࠖ㸦answer㸧࡛࠶ࡾࠊ୍
᪉(2c)ࠊ(2d)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ๓ᥦ you have a car.ࢆྰᐃࡍࡿሙྜࡣࠕษࡾ㏉ࡋࠖ㸦retort㸧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓ㸰ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟」ᩘࡢ㏉⟅᪉ἲࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࢃ࠿ࡿ㏻ࡾࠊ(1)ࡢⓎヰࡣ」ᩘࡢၥ࠸ࢆྵពࡍࡿ
㸦༶ࡕ(1)࡛ࡣࠕ⫈ࡁᡭࡣ⮬ศࡢ㌴ࢆ㐠㌿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡗࡓࡢ࠿ྰ࠿ࠖ࠾ࡼࡧࠕ⫈ࡁᡭࡣ㐠㌿ࢆࡋࡓࡢ࠿ྰ
࠿ࠖࢆၥ࠺㸧ከ㔜㉁ၥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

㸬ከ㔜㉁ၥ࡜ㄗㅸᛶ
ከ㔜㉁ၥࡣㄗㅸⓗ㸦fallacious㸧࡛࠶ࡿሙྜ࡜ࡑ࠺࡛࡞࠸ሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢ౛ࢆぢࡼ࠺ࠋ(3) a. Who is the king of Spain?
b. Who is the king of France?
(3a)ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣࠕࢫ࣌࢖ࣥ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿሙᡤࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ࠕࡑࡇ࡟ࡣ⋤ࡀ࠸ࡿࠖࡢ 2 ࡘࡢ┿࡜࡞ࡿ࿨㢟ࢆ๓ᥦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉(3b)ࡣࠕࣇࣛࣥࢫ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿሙᡤࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺┿ࡢ࿨㢟࡟ຍ࠼ࠊࠕࡑࡇ࡟ࡣ⋤ࡀ࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ഇࡢ࿨㢟ࢆࡶ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᚋ⪅ࡣㄗㅸⓗ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋḟࡢ(4)ࡣㄗㅸⓗ࡞ከ㔜㉁ၥࡢ୍౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡼࡃྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀࡿⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(4) Have you stopped beating your spouse?
Presupposition: You have beaten your spouse.

(Walton 1989: 197-8)(4)ࡢⓎヰࡣࠊἲᘐᑜၥ➼ࡢ≉Ṧ࡞≧ἣ࡛ࠕ⫈⪅ࢆ㝗ࢀࡿࠖ㢮ࡢಟ㎡ᛶࢆ᭷ࡍࡿ␲ၥᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦Walton
1989㸧ࠋ⫈⪅ࡀ yes ࡜⟅࠼ࡼ࠺ࡀ no ࡜⟅࠼ࡼ࠺ࡀ๓ᥦ࿨㢟 you have beaten your spouse ࡀ┿࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄆࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ๓ᥦࡀഇ࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡞㸦༶ࡕࠊthe hearer never beat his spouse.࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡞㸧ᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᩒ࠼࡚ࡇࡢ㉁ၥࢆᢞࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀ⫈⪅ࢆ୙฼࡞❧ሙ࡟㏣࠸㎸ࡴࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟௚࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ⫈⪅ࡀࡇࡢ๓ᥦࢆྰㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ(4)ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣㄗㅸⓗ㸦fallacious㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ๓ᥦࡀ┿࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ఏ㐩ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛ࠊ␲ၥᩥⓎヰᮏ᮶ࡢࠕၥ࠺ࠖᶵ⬟ࡀᙅࡲࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊಟ㎡ⓗ࡞౑⏝࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
୍᪉ࠊヰ⪅ࡀ๓ᥦ the hearer has beaten his spouse.ࡀ┿࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ಙࡌ࡚࠸ࡿᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕၥ࠺ࠖ
ᶵ⬟ࡣᯝࡓࡉࢀࠊ᝟ሗせㄳࡢ␲ၥᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀᚓࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ(4)ࡢⓎヰࡢಟ㎡ᛶࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀ௙᥃ࡅࡓከ㔜㉁ၥࡢㄗㅸ࡟ᖐࡍࡿࠋಟ㎡ᛶࡢㄆ▱ࡣヰ⪅ࡢពᅗʊ⫈ࡁᡭ࡟๓ᥦ࿨㢟ࡀ┿࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
⮬ࡽㄆࡵࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ʊࡢㄆ▱࡜ྠ➼࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡛ࡣࠊከ㔜㉁ၥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡑࡢࠕㄗㅸᛶࠖࡺ࠼࡟ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥゎ㔘࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊ(1)ࡢⓎヰ౛ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄗㅸⓗ࡛࡞࠸ከ㔜㉁ၥࡣࠊಟ㎡ᛶࢆᣢࡕᚓ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ⟅࠼ࡣྰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋḟ⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿከ㔜㉁ၥࡢⓎヰ౛ࢆᣲࡆࠊࡑࡢಟ㎡ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ

−66−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

3㸬ከ㔜㉁ၥ࡜ಟ㎡ᛶከ㔜㉁ၥࡢಟ㎡ᛶㄆ▱࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡿ᝿ᐃࠊࡲࡓࡣࠊ᝟ሗせㄳࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟㛵ࢃࡿヰ⪅ែᗘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⾲ព᝿ᐃࡢࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡀࠕࡼࡾ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ࠖఏ㐩ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࠕᰝᐃࠖࡀゎ㔘ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᚲ㡲࡛࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࠕఏ㐩ࡢ᫂♧ᛶࠖࡣࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠕ㢧ᅾᛶࠖࡢᴫᛕࢆ⏝࠸࡚ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋ௨ୗࠊⱥ᪥ࡢⓎヰ౛ࡢゎ㔘ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚㢧ᅾ໬ࡉࢀᚓࡿ᝿ᐃ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ(5)ࢆぢࡼ࠺ࠋ
(5) a. [Watching a news story about a child who had been murdered, the speaker utters to her husband]
What monster would dare to harm a sleeping child? (Sperber and Wilson 19952: 247)
Presupposition: The murderer is a monster (i.e. monstrous person).
b. [ᫎ⏬ࢆほࡓᚋࠊ୍⥴࡟ほ࡚࠸ࡓ࣮࣎࢖ࣇࣞࣥࢻ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚]࡝ࡇࡢ㤿㮵ࡀࢃࡊࢃࡊࡇࢇ࡞ࡦ࡝࠸ᫎ⏬ࢆࡘࡃࡿࡢ࠿ࡋࡽ㸽 㸦ᮧୖ 1991: 263㸧๓ᥦ 1: ࡇࡢᫎ⏬ࢆసࡗࡓࡢࡣ㤿㮵࡞ே㛫ࡔࠋ๓ᥦ 2: ࡇࡢᫎ⏬ࡣࡦ࡝࠸ࠋ
(5a)࠾ࡼࡧ(5b)ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊከ㔜㉁ၥ࡛࠶ࡿࡀㄗㅸⓗ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ(5a)ࠊ(5b)୧Ⓨヰࡢ๓ᥦࡣࠊⓎヰࡢヰ⪅ࡢホ౯࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿಙᛕࡢ᝿ᐃ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡼࡗ࡚๓ᥦෆᐜࡢ┿ᛶࡣಖドࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
୧Ⓨヰࡀ᝟ሗせㄳࡢ␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢಟ㎡ᛶࡣࠊ࠸࠿࡟ㄆ▱ࡉࢀᚓࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡲࡎࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢಟ㎡ᛶࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ␲
ၥᩥࡢಟ㎡ᛶุ᩿ࡢᇶ‽࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣḟࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
(6) ␲ၥᩥⓎヰࡢಟ㎡ᛶุ᩿࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ㐺ษᛶ᮲௳㸱ヰ⪅ࡣ⟅࠼ࢆᮇᚅࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶḟࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡀཧ୚⪅㛫࡟࠾࠸࡚㢧ᅾⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋa. ヰ⪅ࡀ⟅࠼ࢆ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
b. ヰ⪅ࡣ⟅࠼ࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ㸦⟅࠼ࢆ▱ࡾࡓࡃ࡜ࡶ㸧ࡑࡢ⟅࠼ࡣㄡ࡟ࡶ▱ࡾࡼ࠺ࡀ࡞࠸ࠋ
(5a)࠾ࡼࡧ(5b)ࡢྛⓎヰࡣࠊⓎヰ⪅ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊࠕẅே⪅ Xࠖࠊࠕᫎ⏬ࡢ〇స⪅ Xࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓಶே㸦X㸧ࢆ≉ᐃࡋᚓ࡞࠸ᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ(6b)ࡢ㐺ษᛶ᮲௳ࢆ‶ࡓࡍಟ㎡␲ၥᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(6b)࡜᝟
ሗせㄳࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞㐪࠸ࡣࠊ(6b)ࡀᛮ⣴ⓗ␲ၥᩥ㸦Sperber and Wilson 19952, Blakemore 1992 ➼࡛ࡣSpeculative questions ࡟࠶ࡓࡿ㸧ࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡇ࡛㔜せ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ(5a)࠾ࡼ
ࡧ(5b)ࡢⓎヰࡀࠊ(6b)ࡲࡓࡣ᝟ሗせㄳࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡢ㐺ษᛶ᮲௳ࢆ‶ࡓࡍಟ㎡␲ၥᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆᰝᐃࡍ
ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ␲ၥᩥⓎヰࡢಟ㎡ᛶ⌮ゎࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࠕࠕ᝟ሗせㄳ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ᝿ᐃࡼࡾࡶࠊྛⓎヰࡢ๓ᥦ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢヰ⪅ಙᛕ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ᝿ᐃࡀࠊࡼࡾ㛵㐃ᛶࡢ㧗࠸᝿ᐃ࡜ࡋ࡚ఏ㐩ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࡀཧ୚⪅㛫࡛㢧ᅾⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠖࡢᰝᐃࡀ୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (5a)ࠊ(5b)ࡢ୧Ⓨヰࡢ๓ᥦࡀ♧ࡍෆᐜࡣࠊ
ࠕᑐ㇟࡬ࡢホ౯ࠖ࡟㛵ࢃࡿᙉ࠸ヰ⪅ែᗘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(5a)࡛ࡣ
ࠕẅே⪅ Xࠖ࡬ࡢࠊ(5b)࡛ࡣࠕᫎ⏬〇స⪅ Xࠖ࡬ࡢࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞ホ౯ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢホ౯ෆᐜࡣヰ⪅ࡢಙᛕࢆ♧ࡍ㧗ḟ⾲ព࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡿࠋ−67−

多重質問のsarcasmと修辞性(7) Speaker believes that P.

[P = presupposition]

௨ୖࠊ(5a)ࠊ(5b)ࡢ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥࠊ༶ࡕࠊಟ㎡ᛶࡀ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ఏ㐩ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࢆぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊḟ⠇࡛ࡣࠊከ㔜㉁ၥࡢಟ㎡ᛶࡀ୙᫂░࡞࣮࣎ࢲ࣮ࣛ࢖ࣥࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㸬6DUFDVP㸲࡜ಟ㎡ᛶᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊḟࡢ(8a)࠾ࡼࡧ(8b)ࡢࠊⱥㄒ࠾ࡼࡧ᪥ᮏㄒࡢከ㔜㉁ၥࡢⓎヰ౛ࢆẚ㍑⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ୧Ⓨヰࡣࠊ๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡿ᝿ᐃ࡟ࠕᑐ㇟㸦㸻ヰ㢟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᮏ㸧࡬ࡢヰ⪅ࡢᢈุⓗホ౯ࠖࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊಟ㎡ᛶࡢ⛬ᗘ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣⓎヰࡢゝㄒ᝟ሗ࠿ࡽࡣ୙᫂░࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᝟ሗせㄳ࡜ࡶྲྀࢀࡿࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢⓎヰࡀࠊ᝟ሗせㄳࠊಟ㎡ⓗ౑⏝ࡢࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢゎ㔘࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿ≧ἣタᐃࢆ௨ୗࡢ㏻
ࡾ୚࠼ࠊヲࡋࡃぢ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
(8) a. Have you read that trashy novel?
Presupposition: The novel is trashy.
b. ࠶ࡢࡃࡔࡽ࡞࠸ᮏࢆㄞࢇࡔࡢ㸽๓ᥦ㸸࠶ࡢᮏࡣࡃࡔࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ㸺᝟ሗせㄳ࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿᩥ⬦㸦㦫Ⴣࢆక࠺㸧㸼[AࠊBࠊCࡢ3ேࡢཧ୚⪅ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊA࡜Bࡀ࠶ࡿ᪂ห᭩࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰ㢟࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ](9a) A: It was disappointing.
B: Yeah. It really was. [ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊBࡣC࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚] John, have you read that trashy novel?
(9b) A: ‫ࡢۑۑ‬᪂సࡣࠊࡃࡔࡽ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡀࡗ࠿ࡾࡔࡗࡓࡼࠋ
B: ᮏᙜ࡟ࡑ࠺ࡔࡡࠋ[ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊBࡣC࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚] C⏨ࠊྩࡣ࠶ࡢࡃࡔࡽ࡞࠸ᮏࢆㄞࢇࡔࡢ㸽㸺ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥ࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿᩥ⬦㸦sarcasmࢆక࠺㸧㸼[A࡜Bࡀ࠶ࡿ᪂ห᭩࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᩓࠎᢈุⓗ࡞఍ヰࢆ⥆ࡅࡓᣲྃࠊBࡀḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゝ࠺](10a) B: Only an idiot would read that book. John, have YOU read that trashy novel?
(10b) B: ࠶ࢇ࡞ᮏࢆㄞࡴࡢࡣ㤿㮵ࡔࡅࡔࠋC⏨ࠊྩࡣ࠶ࡢࡃࡔࡽ࡞࠸ᮏࢆㄞࢇࡔࡢ㸽(8a)࠾ࡼࡧ(8b)ࡢⓎヰࡀࠊ᝟ሗせㄳ࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿᩥ⬦[(9a)(9b)]ࠊಟ㎡␲ၥᩥ࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿᩥ⬦[(10a)(10b)]࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡑࢀࡒࢀⓎヰࡉࢀࡓሙྜࢆẚ㍑ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡎⱥㄒⓎヰ(9a-B)ࠊ(10a-B)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ(9)࡛ࡣࠊAࠊBࠊC ࡢ 3 ேࡢཧ୚⪅ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊA ࡜ B ࡀ࠶ࡿ᪂ห᭩࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰ㢟࡟ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊA ࡣࡑࢀࡀ㥏స࡛ࡀࡗ࠿ࡾࡔ࡜࠸ࡗࡓෆᐜࡢⓎヰࢆࡍࡿࠋB ࡶࡑࢀ࡟ྠពࡍࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ B ࡣ C ࡀ㯲ࡗ࡚⫈࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟Ẽ௜ࡁࠊC ࡣ࡝࠺ᛮ࠺࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᑜࡡࡿࠋࡇࡢ(9a-B)ࡢ➨ 2 Ⓨヰ[=(8a)]ࡣࠊ⣧⢋࡟᝟ሗࢆồࡵࡿពᅗࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊಟ㎡ᛶࡣឤࡌࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
(10a)࡛ࡣࠊA ࡜ B ࡀ࠶ࡿ᪂ห᭩࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᩓࠎᢈุࡋࡓᣲྃࠊB ࡀࠊ➨ 1 Ⓨヰ Only an idiot would readthat novel.ࡢᚋࠊ⥆ࡅ࡚➨ 2 Ⓨヰ[=(8a)]࡛ you ࡟ᙉໃࢆ⨨࠸ࡓⓎヰࢆࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ you ࡟⨨࠿ࢀࡓᙉໃ
ࡀࠊ➨ 1 Ⓨヰࡢ idiot ࢆ᝿㉳ࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵࡢᙉໃ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࠊ༶ࡕ⫈⪅ࡢゎ㔘㐣⛬࡟࠾࠸࡚ idiot࡜ you ࡀ read ࡜࠸࠺ືモྃࢆඹ᭷ࡋࡓࣃࣛࣞࣝ࡞Ꮡᅾ࡜ࡋ࡚㢧ᅾ໬ࡉࢀࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚⫈⪅࡬ࡢ㠀㞴

−68−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀᚓࡿࠋ ୍᪉ࠊ(9a)ࠊ(10a)ࡢᩥ⬦࡜㢮ఝࡢ᪥ᮏㄒⓎヰᩥ⬦(9b)ࠊ(10b)࡛ࡣࠊ(9b)ࡢ᝟ሗせㄳࢆྵពࡍࡿᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ┤ほⓗ࡟ࡣࠊB ࡢ➨ 2 Ⓨヰ[=(8b)]ࡢᐜㄆᛶࡣప࠸ࠋⱥㄒࡢ trashy ࡀࠕࡑࡢᮏࡢసရ࠾ࡼ
ࡧస⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠖࡢホ౯ࢆ♧ࡋࡑࢀ௨እࡢྵࡳࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ᥎ព㸦implicature㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕࡃࡔࡽ࡞࠸ᮏࢆㄞࡴே㛫ࡶࡃࡔࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡟㢮ࡋࡓࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ᎘࿡ࠖࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ࡞ࡐࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
ࠕࡃࡔࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺᪥ᮏㄒࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊሷ㇂㸦2011㸧ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゝ࠺ࠋཷࡅᡭ㸦⪺ࡁᡭ࣭ㄞࡳᡭ㸧࡟ㄽ㢟࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ឤ᝟ⓗ࡞ඛධほࢆᣢࡓࡏࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚ᩥࡢ୰࡟ᤄධࡋࡓ
ㄒྃࡢࡇ࡜ࢆloaded language㸦඘ሸࡉࢀࡓㄒࠊࡲࡓࡣ emotionally charged words㸧࡜ゝ࠺ࠋ༑ศ࡟
ヰࢆ⪺࠸࡚࠸࡞࠸࠺ࡕ࠿ࡽࠕࡑࡢࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸㆟ㄽࡣࠖ࡜࠿ࠕࡑࢇ࡞ࡢࡣࡃࡔࡽ࡞࠸ヰ࡛ࡍࡀࠖ࡜
࠿ࠊࠕኚ࡞⪃࠼ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿேࡢヰࡔࡅ࡝ࠖ࡜࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㏫࡟ࠕࡇࢀࡇࡑṇㄽ࡛ࡍࡀࠖ࡜࠿ࠕホุࡢ࠸࠸ேࡢヰ࡛ࡍ࠿ࡽࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡩ࠺࡟ࠊෆᐜࡀᐈほⓗ࡟༑ศ࡟⤂௓࣭㆟ㄽࡉࢀࡿ๓࠿ࡽࠊヰ⪅ࡀ⮬ศࡢホ౯ࢆ┒ࡾ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ᭱ึ࠿ࡽヰ࡟Ⰽࢆࡘࡅࠊཷࡅᡭ࡟ඛධほࢆᣢࡓࡏࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺㆟
ㄽ࡛ࠊ㉁ࡀᝏ࠸࣑ࢫ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞࠸ࠋ
ሷ㇂ࡢ࠸࠺loaded language࡟ࡣヰ⪅ࡢᙉ࠸ఏ㐩ពᅗࡀឤࡌࡽࢀࠊᚑࡗ࡚ࡇࢀࡽࡢㄒࡀ␲ၥᩥⓎヰ࡟⌧ࢀࢀࡤࠊࠕ᝟ሗせㄳ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ᝿ᐃࠖ௨ୖ࡟ࠕホ౯࡟㛵ࢃࡿ᝿ᐃࠖࡀࡼࡾ㢧ᅾᛶࢆቑࡋࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚␲ၥᩥࡢಟ㎡ᛶࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ(9b-B)ࠊ(10b-B)ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ
(8b)ࡢⓎヰࡣᑡ࡞࠿ࡽࡎಟ㎡ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘ࢆᑟࡃ࡜࠸࠼ࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞᝟ሗせㄳ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠸㞴࠸ࠋ(9b)ࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⫈⪅ࡀᙜヱᮏࢆㄞࢇࡔ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆၥ࠺᝟ሗせㄳࡢ␲ၥᩥࡀⓎヰࡉࢀࡿ㏫ࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ
ࢆ⪃࠼ࡓሙྜࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞ホ౯࡟㛵ࢃࡿㄒࡢ౑⏝⮬యࢆ㑊ࡅࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸
ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(10b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥㄞࡳࡀ⮬↛࡞ᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ(8b)ࡢⓎヰࡣ㐪࿴ឤ࡞ࡃ౑
⏝࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆබᘧ໬ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊḟࡢ(11)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(11) a. Ⓨヰ㸸࠶ࡢࡃࡔࡽ࡞࠸ᮏࢆㄞࢇࡔࡢ㸽㸟 [=(8b)]b. ␲ၥᩥⓎヰࡢ㧗ḟ⾲ព: The speaker is asking whether ⫈⪅ࡀ࠶ࡢࡃࡔࡽ࡞࠸ᮏࢆㄞࢇࡔ.
c. ᝟ሗせồ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ㧗ḟ⾲ព: The speaker wants to confirm that ⫈⪅ࡣ࠶ࡢࡃࡔࡽ࡞࠸ᮏࢆㄞࢇ
ࡔ.
d. ๓ᥦ: ࠶ࡢᮏࡣࡃࡔࡽ࡞࠸.
e. 㸦(11d)⤒⏤࡛࿧ࡧฟࡉࢀࡿ㸧᥎ព๓ᥦ㸸ࡃࡔࡽ࡞࠸ᮏࢆㄞࡴே㛫ࡣࡃࡔࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
f. ᖐ⤖᥎ព㸸⫈⪅ࡶࡲࡓࡃࡔࡽ࡞࠸ே㛫ࡔࠋ㸦sarcastic㸧g. 㢧ᅾᛶࡢ⛬ᗘ㸸i) ᥎ព᝿ᐃ⩌(11d)㹼(11f) 㸼 ᝟ሗせồ(11c)ii) ๓ᥦ(11d) Ӎ ᝟ሗせồ(11c)㸦ಟ㎡␲ၥᩥㄞࡳࡀඃໃ̿(10b-B)㸧

㸦ಟ㎡ᛶ୙᫂░࡞࣮࣎ࢲ࣮ࣛ࢖ࣥࢣ࣮ࢫ̿(9b-B)㸧

(11b)ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡣࠊ␲ၥᩥࡢㄞࡳࡀ᝟ሗせㄳࡲࡓࡣಟ㎡␲ၥᩥㄞࡳࡢ࠸
ࡎࢀࡢሙྜ࡟ࡶ㢧ᅾ໬ࡉࢀࡿ᝿ᐃ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(11c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᝟ሗせㄳ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ㧗ḟ⾲

−69−

多重質問のsarcasmと修辞性ពࠊࡲࡓࡣ sarcasm ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ(11d)㹼(11f)ࡢ୍㐃ࡢ᝿ᐃ⩌ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡀࠊ⫈⪅ࡢゎ㔘㐣⛬࡟࠾࠸࡚᚟
ඖࡉࢀᚓࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ᚋ⪅(11d)㹼(11f)ࡢ᝿ᐃ⩌ࡀᙉࡃ㢧ᅾ໬ࡉࢀࢀࡤࠊಟ㎡ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿㄞࡳࡀ᝟ሗせㄳࡢㄞࡳࡼࡾࡶඃໃ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᰝᐃࡉࢀᚓࡿࡔࢁ࠺[(g-i)]ࠋ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛⪃ᐹࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ
(11c)ࡣ㢧ᅾ໬ࡉࢀࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ(11f)ࡼࡾᙅ࠸᝿ᐃ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿㸦sarcasm ࢆᙉࡃఏ㐩ࡍࡿ࣮࣎ࢲ࣮ࣛ࢖ࣥ
ࢣ࣮ࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ␲ၥᩥⓎヰ㸧ࠊᡈ࠸ࡣ㢧ᅾ໬ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡲࡲ㸦㛵㐃ᛶࢆᚓࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡲࡲ㸧⫈⪅ࡢゎ㔘㐣⛬ࡀࢫࢺࢵࣉࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺㸦ಟ㎡ᛶࡢᙉ࠸ㄞࡳ㸧࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ୍᪉ࠊ(8a)ࡢⱥㄒⓎヰࡀ(9a-B)ࠊ(10a-B)࡟⌧ࢀࡓሙྜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶྠᵝ࡟ࠊ2 ✀ࡢㄞࡳ࡬࡜ᑟࡃ᝿ᐃ
⩌ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡀࠊࡼࡾ㢧ᅾ໬ࡉࢀᚓࡿ࡜ண

࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊⱥㄒࡢሙྜࡣ(10a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ sarcasm ㄆ▱࡬࡜ᑟࡃ᫂♧ⓗ࡞ᡭ᥃࠿ࡾࢆ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓሙྜ࡟㝈ࡾࠊಟ㎡ᛶࢆ᭷ࡍࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࠊ(9b)࡛ࡣ᝟ሗせㄳࡢゎ㔘ࡀඃໃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ(8a)ࡢⓎヰࡣࡑࢀ⮬య࡛ࡣ sarcasm ࡢ᭷↓ࡸ⛬ᗘࡀ୙᫂░࡛ࠊ(9a-B)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᝟ሗせㄳࡢᶵ⬟ࢆಖᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࡀ୍⯡ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀ➹⪅ࡢ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺ 㸳ࡢண࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⤖ࡧ
ከ㔜㉁ၥࡢⓎヰゎ㔘࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊヰ⪅ࡢホ౯࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ๓ᥦ᝟ሗࡀࠊࡑࡢಟ㎡ⓗ࡞ㄞࡳࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ᝟ሗせㄳࡢㄞࡳ࡬࡜ᑟࡃࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚࠸࠿࡞ࡿᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ᪥ⱥࡢⓎヰ౛ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ⤖ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ᝟ሗせㄳ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ㧗ḟ⾲ពࡢࠕ㢧ᅾᛶࡢ⛬ᗘࠖࢆୖᅇࡿࠊࡼࡾ㢧ᅾᛶࡢᙉ࠸᝿ᐃ㸦⩌㸧ࡀ᥎ពࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡼࡾᙉ࠸ಟ㎡ᛶࡀㄆ▱ࡉࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤಟ㎡ᛶࡀ୙᫂░࡞࣮࣎ࢲ࣮ࣛ࢖ࣥࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࡢ⌮ゎࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊsarcasm ➼ᵝࠎ࡞ឤ᝟ࡢ⾲ฟ࡟࠿࠿ࢃ
ࡿヰ⪅ែᗘࡢ㢧ᅾᛶ࡜ࠊ␲ၥᩥࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿヰ⪅᝿ᐃࡢ㢧ᅾᛶࡢᰝᐃࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃጇᙜ࡞ㄝ᫂ࡣࠊゎ㔘⪅ࡣ loaded language ࡸᩥ⬦᝟ሗ࡞࡝ࠊᵝࠎ࡞ྍ⬟࡞せᅉࢆᡭ᥃࠿ࡾ࡜ࡋࠊ㢧ᅾᛶࡢ⛬ᗘࡀࠕࡼࡾᙉ࠸ࠖ᝿ᐃ㸦༶ࡕࠊ᭱㐺࡞㛵㐃ᛶࢆᣢࡘ᝿ᐃ㸧࡟฿㐩ࡋࠊゎ㔘ࢆࢫࢺࢵࣉࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡓࡔࡋࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ಟ㎡ᛶゎ㔘࡬࡜ᑟࡃせ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠊヰ⪅ࡢࠕᑐ㇟࡬ࡢホ౯࡟㛵ࢃࡿ㸦ሷ㇂ 2011ࡢゝ࠺࡜ࡇࢁࡢ㸧loaded languageࠊ༶ࡕࠊtrashy ࡸࠕࡃࡔࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓㄒࡢ౑⏝ࡀࡶࡓࡽࡍ sarcasm
ࡢ᭷↓࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽࡣࠊ᪥ⱥㄒẚ㍑࡟࠾࠸࡚ᕪ␗ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋ┤ほⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏ
ㄒⓎヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ loaded language ࡢ౑⏝ࡑࢀ⮬యࡀ sarcasm ࡢㄆ▱࡟┤᥋ⓗ࡟స⏝ࡍࡿࡀࠊ୍᪉ⱥ
ㄒⓎヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㠀㞴ࡢᑐ㇟ࡀ᫂♧ⓗ࡞ᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡢࡳࠊsarcasm ࡀㄆ▱ࡉࢀࡿࠋヰ⪅ែᗘࡢㄆ▱࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒ㛫ࡢᕪ␗ࡀ࡝ࡇ࠿ࡽ᮶ࡿࡢ࠿ࡣࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢ኱ࡁ࡞ၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ࣏
ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ➼ࡢࠊ♫఍ゝㄒᏛⓗぢᆅ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼࡞࠾ࡍ࡭ࡁၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ௒ᚋࡢᒎᮃ࡜ࡋ
࡚ࡣࠊࡲࡎⱥㄒ࣭᪥ᮏㄒ௨እࡢゝㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊከ㔜㉁ၥࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ㞟ࡵ࡚⪃ᐹࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

−70−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

ㅰ㎡
ᮏ✏䛿䚸᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 15 ᅇ኱఍䠄᪊኱㜰Ꮫ㝔኱Ꮫ䠅䛷ཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲䛧䛯ෆᐜ䛻ຍ➹䞉ಟṇ䜢᪋䛧䛯䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹ᙜ᪥ྖ఍䜢䛧䛶䛟䛰䛥䛳䛯ᒸᮏ㞞ྐඛ⏕䛸䚸ஂಖ㐍ඛ⏕䚸┾⏣ᩗ௓ඛ⏕௚䚸㈗㔜䛺䛤ຓゝ䜢䛟䛰䛥䛳䛯᪉䚻䛻䚸䛣䛾ሙ䜢೉䜚䛶ឤㅰ䜢⏦䛧ୖ䛢䛯䛔䚹ὀ
1.

mutual manifestness㸦┦஫㢧ᅾᛶ㸧 (Sperber and Wilson 19952: 39):
a. A fact is manifest to an individual at a given time if and only if he is capable at that time ofrepresenting it mentally and accepting its representation as true or probably true.
b. A cognitive environment of an individual is a set of facts that are manifest to him.

2.

Manor(1979)࡛ࡣࠊretort ࡟ࡣ๓ᥦࢆࠕゞṇࡍࡿ㸦corrective㸧ࠖᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

3.

ᮏ✏࡛ࡢಟ㎡␲ၥᩥⓎヰࡢಟ㎡ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢࠕ㐃⥆య࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢಟ㎡ᛶࠖࡢᴫᛕ
ࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࠊࠕ⛬ᗘᛶࠖࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿぢゎ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ㸦ヲ⣽ࡣ Goto2012 ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋ(6a)ࡢࠕ⟅࠼ࡢ᫂ⓑᛶࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᚑ᮶ࡢಟ㎡␲ၥᩥ࠾ࡼࡧಟ㎡␲ၥᩥⓎヰࡢ◊✲ࡢከࡃ࡟࠾࠸
࡚ゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Rohde 2006 ௚㸧ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(6b)ࡢࠕ⟅࠼ࢆ▱ࡾࡼ࠺ࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊDriver (1988:
247-50)ࡣᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶḟࡢ 3 ✀࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(i)ᐃ୙⬟࡛⟅࠼ࡀฟ࡞࠸ࢣ࣮ࢫ㸸e.g. How many drops of water are there in the ocean?

(ii) ⟅࠼ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡑ࠺࡟࡞࠸㞴㢟㸸e.g. Are the edges of this piece of paper incommensurable?
(iii) 2 ࡘ௨ୖࡢㄽ⌮ⓗ࡟ྍ⬟࡞⟅࠼ࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿࢣ࣮ࢫ㸸e.g. Does body exist?
ࡓࡔࡋ Driver ࡣࡇࢀࡽࡀ vain questions ࡛࠶ࡾࠊಟ㎡␲ၥᩥࡢ㢮࡟ࡣᒓࡉ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ
ၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ✏ࢆᨵࡵ࡚ㄽࡌࡓ࠸ࠋ
4.

sarcasm ࡢᐃ⩏࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᵝࠎ࡞ඛ⾜◊✲ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊGibbs and Colston (2001)ࠊBrown andLevinson (1987)➼㸧ࡀࠊᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣ Fowler (1965)ࡸ Barbe (1995)ࡢ࠸࠺ࠕsarcasm ࡣ victim㸦㠀㞴ࡢᑐ㇟㸧ࢆᣢࡘࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄽ࡜ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕsarcasm ࡣࠊⓎヰࡢ࿨㢟ែᗘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ dissociative attitude ࡢ୍ࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦Wilson 2006, Sperber and Wilson 19952 ௚㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄽ࡜ࢆ㔜ࡡྜࢃࡏ࡚ᤊ࠼┤ࡋࡓࠕsarcasm ࡣ≉࡟ irony Ⓨヰゎ㔘ࡢ㝿࡟ㄆ▱ࡉࢀࠊ㠀㞴ᑐ㇟࡟┤᥋ⓗ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡿヰ⪅ែᗘ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ぢゎ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

5.

ࡈ༠ຊ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓ Mark Donnellan Ặ㸦㛵すᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ㠀ᖖ໅ㅮᖌ㸧ࠊLeila Kardan Ặ㸦ᐩᒣ┴ ALT㸧ࡢ୧Ặ࡟ࡇࡢሙࢆ೉ࡾឤㅰࡢពࢆ⾲ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ−71−

多重質問のsarcasmと修辞性ཧ↷ᩥ⊩Barbe K. 1995. Irony in Context, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.䠄Ṋෆ㐨Ꮚ䚸ᒣᓮⱥ୍ヂ, 䛄䜂䛸䛿Ⓨヰ䜢䛹䛖⌮ゎ䛩䜛䛛ʊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽධ㛛䛅 䜂䛴䛨᭩ᡣ, 1994䠅
Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Driver, J.L. 1988. ‘Vain Questions’, in M. Meyer (ed.) Question and Questioning. New York: de Gruyter,
243-251.
Fowler, H.W. 1965. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gibbs, R W. and Colston, H L. 2001. ‘The Risks and Rewards of Ironic Communication’, in L. Anolli, R.
Ciceri and G. Riva (eds.) New perspectives on miscommunication, IOS Press.
Gibbs, R W. 1986. On the Psycholinguistics of Sarcasm, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 115:1,
3-15.
Goto, R. 2012. A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis of English and Japanese Rhetorical Questions, Doctoral
thesis submitted to Nara Women’s University.
Manor, R. 1979. ‘A Language for Questions and Answers’, Theoretical Linguistics 6.
Rohde, H. 2006. ‘Rhetorical Questions as Redundant Interrogatives.’ San Diego Linguistic Papers2,
134-168.
ሷ㇂ⱥ୍㑻㸬2011㸬ࠕゝㄒᏛ࡜ࢡࣜࢸ࢕࣭࢝ࣝࢩࣥ࢟ࣥࢢʊㄗㅸㄽࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠖࠊ
ࠗᖇி኱Ꮫ⥲ྜᩍ⫱ࢭࣥࢱ࣮ㄽ㞟࠘ࠊ3, 79-98.
Sperber, D. and D Wilson. 1990. ‘Rhetoric and Relevance’, In David Wellbery and John Bender (eds.) The
Ends of Rhetoric: History, Theory, Practice, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 140-155.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 19952. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Oxford. 91 䠄ෆ⏣⪷஧௚ヂ䛄㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ䛅➨䠎∧䚸ᮾி䠖◊✲♫䚸1999)
Toplak, M. and A. N. Katz. 2000. ‘On the Uses of Sarcastic Irony’, Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1467-1488.
Walton, D N. 1988. ‘Question-Asking Fallacies’, in M. Meyer (ed.) Question and Questioning. New York: de
Gruyter, 195-221.
Wilson,D.

2000.

‘MetarepresentationinLinguistic

Communication’,In

D,

Sperber(ed.)

Metarepresesntation: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 411-448.
Wilson, D. 2006. ‘The Pragmatics of Verbal Irony: Echo or Pretence?” Lingua116, 1722-1743.
Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 1988. ‘Mood and the Analysis of Non-declarative Sentences.’ In Human agency. J.
Dancy et al. (eds.) California: Stanford University Press, 77-101.
Wilson, D and Sperber, D. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

⏝౛ฟ඾ᮧୖ᫓ᶞ. 1991. ࠗࢲࣥࢫ࣭ࢲࣥࢫ࣭ࢲࣥࢫ࠘ᮾி㸸ㅮㄯ♫.

−72−

第15回大会発表論文集    

第８号 t»ŧ Ŝŧ
ŖÎaiȥŚȦŧ B]ĳùȢ|ŧƥƝơƔƓƪƓƤƚƛűŲųŴžƙƟƓƛƞŮƕơƟŧ

ŧŧJ KƇƠŧ ƥƚƛƤŧ ƢƓƢƗƣŬŧ ƥƚƗŧ ƦƤƓƙƗŧ ơƘŧ ƥƚƗŧ ƖƛƤƕơƦƣƤƗŧ ƟƓƣƝƗƣŧ  ŧ ƛƤŧ ƖƗƘƛƠƗƖŧ ƓƤŧ Ɠŧ ƟƓƣƝƗƣŧ ƣƗƢƣƗƤƗƠƥƛƠƙŧ ƓŧƧƛơƞƓƥƛơƠŧơƘŧƕƗƣƥƓƛƠŧƢƣƛƠƕƛƢƞƗƤŧơƘŧƕơƠƧƗƣƤƓƥƛơƠŧƓƤŧƨƗƞƞŧƓƤŧƥƚƗŧƤƢƗƓƝƗƣưƤŧƨƛƞƞŧƥơŧƘơƞƞơƨŧƛƥŮŧƏƢƗƕƛƘƛƕƓƞƞƪŬŧƇŧ ƖƗƘƛƠƗŧ ƱƕƗƣƥƓƛƠŧ ƢƣƛƠƕƛƢƞƗƤŧ ơƘŧ ƕơƠƧƗƣƤƓƥƛơƠƲŧ ƓƤŧ ƅƣƛƕƗưƤŧ ƕơƠƧƗƣƤƓƥƛơƠƓƞŧ ƟƓƩƛƟƤŧ ŪƅƣƛƕƗŧ ŪűŹŸŹūūŬŧ

  ŧƤƥƣƓƥƗƙƛƗƤŧƛƠŧƥƚƗŧƎơƞƛƥƗƠƗƤƤŧƐƚƗơƣƪŧŪƀƣơƨƠŧƓƠƖŧƊƗƧƛƠƤơƠŧŪűŹŸŷūūŬŧơƣŧ   ŧƕơơƣƖƛƠƓƥƛơƠŧƔƗƥƨƗƗƠŧƥƚƗŧƤƢƗƓƝƗƣŧƓƠƖŧƚƗƓƣƗƣŧŪƑƗƣƚƓƙƗƠŧŪŲŰŰŵŬŧŲŰŰŷūūŮŧ ŧ*323.ȣĵĩÄĸŬŧŬŧ ǽȗǵȃǛ-àŬŧ ȑȗǵȈȊȃàĶŬŧ Ř

ġŧ

ŧ
ŧ


$&"
ĵ ĩ Ä ĸ   ǚ Ǔ ƺ Ǖ ǅǭ ǣǖ¨ ǆǭ Ǐ ĭ ä Ķ ê Å Ē ǜ Ħ Ń ê Ǚ ǧǛ ƿ ` ǁŪƗŮƙŮŧ

ƀƣƛƠƥơƠŧŪŲŰŰŸūƴåȝòwŧ ŪűŹŹŴūƴƄơƩŧƐƣƗƗŧƓƠƖŧƏƕƚƣơƕƝŧŪŲŰŰŲūūƴǍǧǍǧƷǙǌ  ƿ$ÈǗǇǕäƺǪǭǬǛƾƸƴǍǛäCàǚřǉǬĹĶǜǙǆǭǙƾǒǏƵ ǛhĎêPǛH
²ƿaǀƺǅǗǜ

ÓǖǀǬƿȟƏƕƚƛƘƘƣƛƠŧ ŪűŹŸŷūƴƂƗƚƬŧ ƓƠƖŧ ƒƛƕƚƟƓƠƠŧ ŪŲŰűŰūȠƴǅǛěßƿƷàæ

ǔǃƸǨƷôƸǙǘǛèǙǬĭäĶêPȟƀƣƛƠƥơƠŧ ŪŲŰŰŸūȠǰyǞǬǅǗǰǍǛhĎêPǛǤ
ƾǪİ±ǉǬǅǗǜŞǇƺƵ¶éěǖǜƴĩǛ-àŧ ȟƅƣƛƕƗŧ ŪűŹŸŹūȠƴȑȗǵȈȊȃàĶȟƀƣơƨƠŧ
ƓƠƖŧƊƗƧƛƠƤơƠŧŪűŹŸŷūȠūƴƽǩǞīðģĭiǛŘ

ġȟƑƗƣƚƓƙƗƠŧŪŲŰŰŵŬŧŲŰŰŷūȠǛġÕƾǪƴĩǇƿ   ǰäƺǬ=ÅǗǇǕƴǽȗǵȃǛ-àǛŇĔƴîǛȌǷǵȃ

nƴĩǇǗđǀǛlǛîŊƿƴǍǛäCàǚÒǁřǇǕƺǬǅǗǰ±ǪƾǚǉǬƵŧ


5B@A!

#8G<

 e£ûíïcYa !)./,,7/4ĐđF7/4954Đ đF5="7++'4*!).75)1Đ  đg`vËVrGk[ !)./,,7/4Đđh¬Ā 3+'4 gÒÔg`gÅ´QqFH~þăéØöIcH~ĂéØöIg`f¦ďY]GÙðbĊjrRF3+'4 gÊZ»Ĉ
R 7/)+ĐđgMNHþus]WcIgcHĂéÌÅIgRLrpNfFãµusaMrąĂ×ć 3+'4 gæÛR¬Ā 3+'4 gÉ`ÒÔg`gÅ´QqÞåYaMrWchÚYMcÂusrG ¦ďg !)./,,7/4Đđf»YF7/4954Đ đfpr  ¦ďhF !" ¨ÁgèĂvü]cSg 3+'4 gÀ©f`MaUfh
ÆªYaMrpNfüOr GYQYe\ĂYÇR¨gèĂv !" væMaH¡ÚIYeUsiMUeMQcMNwze}|f`Mahþ®XsaMeMG5=
"7++ '4* !).75)1 Đ  đ b h F 7/4954 Đ  đ f n þ ® X s a M r H »  é æ Û−73−

談話標識 I meanの意味体系とその使用原理

Đ/49+76+7854'23+'4/4-đIvFëÇg

xw|v¹tNcZrw|äĆgýà

QqĄÏvālaMràRÅôßMGYQYeRqFĂfPUrõSÇo~yz|
x{g¢ĎfâfÜêY]]mfF7/4954Đ đbËVqsaMrH§éæÛ
Đ'6658/9/54'23+'4/4-8đIedF !" gÒÔgÅ´R¾T¯ÐYaMræÛf`Mag¦ÖReXsaMeMGÿg`g£ûíïfPMa¤ċYaMrgRFĂYÇRe\¨gèĂv !" væMaþMÍOvû_aMrQRÏqQbeMWcbLrG+1),#6?'D(!ŧ ĩǇƿ   ǰäƺǬǛǜǣǊƴǛǛǩƻǚƴ9Ǜéĩǖ­hŅǫǛPǛŐƿƹƺǣƺǙǏǦǖƹǬƵŧ
ŧŪűū ƈſźŧƂơŧƇƤƓƔƗƞƞƓŧƓƠƖŧƁơƠƠơƣŧƕơƟƗŧƖơƨƠŧƥơŧƌƓƤƚƧƛƞƞƗŧƓŧƞơƥŽŧ
ƌƉźŧƌơŬŧƥƚƗƪŧƖơƠũƥŮŧƐƚƗƪũƣƗŧƠơƥŧƕƣƓƫƪŧƓƔơƦƥŧƌƓƤƚƧƛƞƞƗŮŧƐƚƗƪũƣƗŧƤơŧƙƣơƨƠŧƦƢŧƠơƨŮŧ ŧƇ ŧƟ Ɨ Ɠ Ơ ŬŧƥƚƗƪũƣƗŧƓƖƦƞƥƤŮŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŪƁƍƁſųūŧ
ŧȟűȠǖĩǇȟƌƉȠǜƷƇƤƓƔƗƞƞƓ Ǘ ƁơƠƠơƣ ƿǧƻaǙǏǦƴƌƓƤƚƧƛƞƞƗ Ǘƺƻ\ǚǅǐǯǒǕǜ
ƺǙƺƸǗģ ǒǕƺǬƿƴƷ Ǫƿa  ǐ ƸǗƺ ƻǅǗǰě ß ǉ ǬǏ Ǧ ǚ ō  ǇǏ ´ 5 Ǜ ĭ  ƿƱƙƣơƨƠŧ ƦƢƲǖƹǒǏƵǇƾǇƴǍǛĭǜāöêǚaǖƹǬǅǗǰPǇƴǊǇǧĿêǚaǖƹǬĜƿǙƺǏǦƴĩǇǜ   ǖāöêȝĿêǚaǖƹǬǅǗǰPǉǬƱƓƖƦƞƥƲǚģƺ§ƼǕƺǬƵŧ
ƅƣƛƕƗȟűŹŸŹȠǜƷĩǛE;Đǜ@ĴêǖƹǬƸǗƺƻa9¦ǗƴǍǛǚƷŋ4ǙŕǛ[ǰƼǬǅǗƸƴƷÈǇƺǅǗǰģƻǅǗƸƴƷř!ǛƹǬǅǗǰģƻǅǗƸƴƷñǚģƻǅǗƸǗƺƻTǓǛ
C8ǰħlǉǬǅǗǖƴǘǛǩƻǚǇǕģ_ǛPƿ­hŅǫǛPƾǪ¥ĶǖǀǬǛƾǰİ±ǇǩƻǗǇǏƵģǯǭǏǅǗǗĩê¥ǜǍǭǎǭƴ­hŅǫǛPǗģ_ǛPǛǅǗǖƴĩê¥ǜƷĝƴǘǭƾǛ-àǚŇĔǇǕƺǬǩƻǚƼǕǧƴÒƺȚȐșǖǜ@ĴǛCàǰjǒ
ǕƺǬƸǗďƼǬǅǗǖđǀǜĩǇƿWǇǏPǰ¤ǬǅǗƿǖǀǬƵƷ@ĴǛC8ƸƿǍǛa
9¦ǗǇǕƹǬǛǜƴǍǧǍǧǍǛǩƻǙC8ƿǙǃǭǝƴđǀǜ-àƾǪŇĔǇǕƺǬéĩǛǧ
ƻǓǛPȟƷĩê¥ƸȠƿǙǛƾǗŢǰǣǋǏǫǜǇǙƺƾǪǖƹǬƵŧ
ȟűȠǖǜƴĩǇƿ9ǛéĩǖƷÃǛ-àȟƟƓƩƛƟŧ ơƘŧ ƋƓƠƠƗƣȠƸǛþ

ÀÞƷƹƺǣƺǙģ

ƺ®ǰŎǃǩȟƓƧơƛƖŧƓƟƔƛƙƦƛƥƪȠƸǰ×ĞǇǕƽǫȟuǙǁǗǧƴ ǗéĩǇǏǗǀǚǜƴ9ǛéĩǖǛģƺ®ƿǜǒǀǫǇǕƺǙƺǅǗǰĕğǇǕƺǬȠƴ   ǖ-àǚKƻǩƻǙǚíǇǕƺǬƵǅǅǚ ƊƗƧƛƠƤơƠȟŲŰŰŰȠǛ¨ǉǬƷǽȗǵȃǛáƸƿĝǪǭǬ ŴƵƷģǯǭǏǅǗƸǛȚȐșǚ

3ŤǖǀǬ   ǚǜƴƷÃǛ-àƸǛǚƷļǛ-àƸǛ×ĞǰěǉǧǛƿƹǫƴ ŧ ǖǍǭǎǭǛ-àǚKǒǏǚǙǬǅǗǖƴ9ǛéĩǛƹƺǣƺƿ£śǆǭƴįǫƿĤÈǆǭǬ
ǛǖƹǬƵŧ  ǛäǰǆǪǚĝǕƺǁǗƴƷģǯǭǏǅǗƸƾǪ-àǛ7äǚǩǒǕâǤ2ǆǭǬƷĩê¥Ƹƿƴ ǩǫ9ǖǽȗǵȃǛ-àǚŇĔǇǕƺǬƿƹǬƵŧ
ŧ

−74−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

ŪŲū ſźŧƆƓƧƗŧƪơƦŧƙƦƪƤŧƔƗƗƠŧƥơŧſƦƤƥƣƓƞƛƓŧƔƗƘơƣƗŽŧ
ƀźŧƆƗŧƚƓƤŬŧƇƇ ŧ Ɵ Ɨ Ɠ Ơ ŬŧƇŧƓƟŧƙơƛƠƙŧƥơŧƧƛƤƛƥŧƥƚƗƣƗŧƠƗƩƥŧƪƗƓƣŧƥƚơƦƙƚŮŧ
ƀưźŧƇŧƚƓƧƗƠưƥŬŧƇƇ ŧ Ɵ Ɨ Ɠ Ơ ŬŧƇưƟŧƙơƛƠƙŧƥơŧƧƛƤƛƥŧƥƚƗƣƗŧƠƗƩƥŧƪƗƓƣŧƥƚơƦƙƚŮŧ
ŧȟŲȠǖǜƴĩǇ ſ Ǜ ƀ Ǘ Ɓ ǚrǉǬļSǚrǇƴƀ ǛłÿǗǇǕ

ŅǫôǇǏƵĩǇ ƀ ǜƴǣǊ Ɓ ǚǛǤǚģFǇȟƱƆƗŧ ƚƓƤƲȠƴƹƼǕƷŕǛ-àƸǰ×ĞǉǬǅǗǖƷĕ3ǜǹȞȃȈȗȘǳǚ
ĚǒǏǅǗƿǙƺƸǗƺƻǅǗǰƷĩê¥ƸǗǇǕƼǕƺǬƵǍǇǕƴ   ǖ ƀ ĕĿǚģFǉǬǅǗǖ[ŕǰ)ĽǇǕƺǬƵ®ƴƀưǖǜ   ǩǫ9ǖĕĿǚǓƺǕģFǇǕƺǬȟƱƇŧ
ƚƓƧƗƠưƥƲȠǏǦƴƷŕǛ-àƸǛŇĔǜǙƺƵǵȜȌǸȞȒȜȈǚǩǬǗƴƀưŧ ǜȌǴȗȞǰň}ǚä
ƺǬǛéĩǚđǅƼǬǩƻǖƴ ǖǙǁǗǧǛȌǴȗȞǖäǖǀǬǗǛǅǗǖƹǬƵǅǛǅǗ
ƾǪƴƀ Ǜ®ƿǩǫ¶¹êPǛH²ǆǭǏ¾êǙ  ǛäÏǐǗƺƼǬƵă{ǛőK:ǉǬƿƴǚǧĩǇƿ  ǩǫ9ǛéĩǖƷļȝř!ȝÃǛ-àƸǚŇĔǇƴ ǖ-àǚKƻǠģƺ§ƼǕƺǬƿĝǪǭǏƵŧŧ01)-/,?E'D(!  ǛrĺǗǙǬǛƿƴ9ǛéĩǛģǯǭǏǅǗǖǧƴĩê¥ǖǧǙƺǗǀƴǓǣǫǽȗǵ
ȃǛ½ĆǤǖǜ¢ƼǪǭǙƺ$ÈǛǜƴƷĩǇȝđǀǛȌǷǵȃǠǛŒƸǛġÕǰs+Ǉ
ǏȑȗǵȈȊȃàĶǚǩǒǕİ±ǉǬǅǗƿǖǀǬƵŧ
ŧŪųū ƱƆƛŬŧƂƓƟƛƓƠŨƲŧƐơƠƪŧƤƟƛƞƗƖŬŧƥƚƗƠŧƖƛƖŧƓŧƖơƦƔƞƗŧƥƓƝƗŧƓƥŧƥƚƗŧƞơơƝŧƛƠŧƂƓƟƛƓƠƯƤŧƝƠƛƘƗŭƞƛƝƗŧƗƪƗƤŮŧ ŧƱƇŧƭŧƇƇ ŧ Ɵ Ɨ Ɠ Ơ  ƋƣŧƄƞƛƠƥƲŻŧƚƗŧƓƟƗƠƖƗƖŧƚƦƣƣƛƗƖƞƪŧƓƠƖŧƗƩƥƗƠƖƗƖŧƓŧƚƓƠƖŮŧ
ƱƆơƨŧƓƣƗŧƪơƦŬŧƤƛƣŽƲŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŪƀƌƁŵūŧ
ŧȟųȠǖ ƐơƠƪ ǜ ƂƓƟƛƓƠ ǚĠǇǤǰŀǦǕȌǲȞȃȈȊȞȓǖQǞƾǃǬǛǖƹǬƿƴƐơƠƪ Ǜ¬ǖƹǬ ƂƓƟƛƓƠ ǜgǰŀǦǏŗƺĞċǰłǉƵƐơƠƪ ǜǍǛgǰqǇƴØǒǕ 
ǖ©ø ƋƣŮǰǃǏģƺ§ƼǰĚǒǕƺǬƵƱƂƓƟƛƓƠƲǗƱƋƣŮŧ ƄƞƛƠƥƲǜLÛǰǇǕƺǬǏǦƴÙƷģǯǭǏǅǗƸǛģƺ§ƼǖǜǙǁƴǆǪǚǜ[ŕƴïmƴř!ƴģƺ®ǛǘǭǧǽȗǵȃǛ-àǰÔǏǇǕƺǬǗƺƼǬƵđǀǛgǰqðǇǕģƺ§ƼǰǉǬǅǛ  ǛäÏǜƴîǛõêý\ǚŒǇǏěßōǖƹǫƴǅǅǖƷîǛȌǷǵȃ"ƸǗƺƻȑȗ
ǵȈȊȃàĶǛÁǰs+ǉǬǅǗǜfǖƹǬǗǯǭǬƵŧ
ƀƣơƨƠŧ ƓƠƖŧ ƊƗƧƛƠƤơƠȟűŹŸŷȠǚǩǬǗƴõǰÂǉǬǚǜƷîƾǪŏŦǆǭǏǁǙƺƸǗ
ƺƻȊǻȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃȟƌƗƙƓƥƛƧƗŧ ƄƓƕƗȠƴƷî  ǚǩǁ ǯǭǏƺƸǗƺƻȑȂȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃ
ȟƎơƤƛƥƛƧƗŧ ƄƓƕƗȠǛ

úŤǛîHǉǬÇÌƿƹǬƵǪǜîǛȊǻȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃǚŒǇǏģĭōǗȑȂȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃǚŒǇǏģĭōǛǏǦǚǍǭǎǭ űŰ Ǘ űŵ ǛȃȈȗȇȂȞǰ¡Ǆ
ǕƺǬƵ9ĐǚǜƷ©ǰôǋȟƅƛƧƗŧƖƗƘƗƣƗƠƕƗȠƸƿƹǫƴƼǝƴƱƏƠƦƙƙƤƲǗƺƻǩǫƱƋƣŮŧƏƠƦƙƙƤƲ
Ǘƺƻ®ƿîǛȊǻȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃǰ

nǉǬ}KƺƿǁǙǬȟƀƣơƨƠŧ ƓƠƖŧ ƊƗƧƛƠƤơƠŧ ŪűŹŸŷźŧ

űŸŰūȠƵĐǚǜƷîǠǛĖPȝřǰôǋȟƌơƥƛƕƗŬŧ ƓƥƥƗƠƖŧ ƥơŧ ƆȠƸƿƹǫƴƼǝȏǳȞȃȅǵ
șǰ^ƼǏîǚrǇǕǩǫǧ*ǚǍǭǚËǔǁǅǗǖƴîǛƷǩǁǯǭǏƺƸǗƺƻȑȂȇǴ

−75−

談話標識 I meanの意味体系とその使用原理ȍȝȌǷǵȃǰ"ǖǀǬȟƀƣơƨƠŧƓƠƖŧƊƗƧƛƠƤơƠŧŪűŹŸŷźŧűŰųūȠƵǇƾǇƴéĩǛúŤǛǚǜƷȌǷǵ
ȃnĚÖȟƄƐſȣƄƓƕƗŧ ƐƚƣƗƓƥƗƠƛƠƙŧ ſƕƥȠƸǗQǝǭǬƴǘƻǇǕǧîǛȌǷǵȃ

nƿŎǃǪǭ

ǙƺǧǛƿƹǬƵƼǝƴķčǗƺƻéĩȟĚÖȠǜƴîǚ7ëǰƼǏǫƴîǧǙƺǆǋǏǫǇǙǃǭǝķǬĜǜǙƺǛǖƴǘƻǇǕǧĕ3ǛȑȂȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃǰ

nǇǕǇǣƻǅǗ

ǚǙǬƵŧȟųȠǖŧ ƱƂƓƟƛƓƠƲǗƱƋƣŮŧ ƄƞƛƠƥƲǜLÛǰǇǕƺǬǏǦƴĩǇǜÙƱƂƓƟƛƓƠƲǗƺƻ

ĭƿǓPĶêPǰ$ÈǇǕƺǬǛǖǜǙƺǇƴǍǛĭǰȟųȠǛ­ēǖäƺǬǅǗǖđǀ
ǚǯǬĭäĶêPǰģƺ§ƼǕƺǬǛǖǧǙƺƵĩǇǜ´5ƴîǛȑȂȇǴȍȝȌǷǵ
ȃǚŒǇǕȌǲȞȃȈȊȞȓǖQǞƾǃǏƿƴđǀǛgǰqðǇǕ©øǰǓǃǕģƺ§ƼǕƺǬƵǅǭǜƷ©ǰôǋƸǗƺƻîǛȊǻȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃǚŒǇǏȃȈȗȇȂȞǚZǔǁě
ßōǖƹǬƵǚǧƴîǛȑȂȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃǚŒǇǏ   ǛäǧĝǪǭǏƵǇƾǇǙ
ƿǪƴƏƕƚơƦƣƦƢȟűŹŹŹȠǜŃǛǩƻǙ3ºǚǓƺǕƴ Ǜµ×ǚř!Ǚǁ9ǛéĩǚîǛȌǷǵȃnǗ"ÅĒƿīǦǪǭǬǅǗƾǪƴ   Ǜ¶ļêÅĒǖǜǙƺǗǇǕƺǬȟŲŵŰȠƵ

¶Ķ­ǖǜƴ  ǛäCàǰĢ±ǉǬǏǦǚǜĵĩǛÑǭǛġqƿĜJÆǖƹǬǗƺ
ƻý\ǰIǫƴ  Ǜ¶ļêÅĒǗǇǕƷĩǇǛȑȂȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃ"Ƹǰ¡ǄǬƵĩǇǜ
9ǛéĩǖǛģƺįǫǰīǦƴƱƇũƟŧ ƤơƣƣƪŬŧ Ƈŧ ƟƗƓƠŬƲǗģƻǅǗǖƴîǛȊǻȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃǛ
nǰUŎǉǬǅǗƿǖǀǬƿƴķčǜƷȌǷǵȃ
ǵȃnĚÖƸǛǓǖƹǫƴĩǇǛȑȂȇǴȍȝȌǷ

nǜŎǃǪǭǙƺƵǍǅǖƴĕǪǛşǰīǦǬǅǗǙǁ   ǛǤǖģƺ§ƼǰĚƻǅǗǖƴ

ĩǇǜĕĿǛȑȂȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃǰ"ǖǀǬǛǖƹǬƵǇǏƿǒǕƴƷĩǇĕĿǛȑȂȇǴ
ȍȝȌǷǵȃǛ"Ƹƿ  ,ǚ.ŅǉǬÜǖƹǬǗƺƼǬƵŧŧ   ǩǫ9ǖǽȗǵȃǛ-àƾǪŇĔǇƴƹƺǣƺǙģƺ®ǰǇǏǫƴk,ǙģƺŘŊƺǰǇǏ
ǫƴǆǪǚǜîǛȌǷǵȃǰ

nǉǬéĩǰǇǏǗǀƴ÷ǏǑ°¶ǛğƾǪģƼǝƴƷŘŊƼ

ǣǇǏƸǨƷǉƺǣǋǱƸǰǃ;ƼǬǙǘǇǕĕǪǛįǫǰīǦǏǫƴķčǉǬ®ƿĕÙǖƹǬǩƻ
ǚǯǭǬƵĘĭǖǧƱƇũƟŧƤơƣƣƪŬŧ ŬƲǗƺƻǩƻǚƴķčǛéĩĚÖǛƹǗǚ  ǰäƺǬǅǗǧǖǀǬǛǖƹǬƿƴđǀǛõêXǨľŝǚǩǒǕƴķčǛéĩĚÖǰ;ƼǏǢƻƿǩ
ƺǗǀǗǙǁǕǧǩƺǗǀƿƹǬǩƻǖƹǬƵŧ
ŧŪŴū ŧ ŧ ƓŮŧŪƥơŧƓŧƤƥƣƓƠƙƗƣūŧƃƩƕƦƤƗŧƟƗŬŧƟƓƪŧƇŧƔơƣƣơƨŧƪơƦƣŧƢƗƠŽŧƇƇ ư Ɵ ŧ Ƥ ơ ƣ ƣ ƪ Ŭ ŧ      ŧƓŧƢƗƠƕƛƞŮŧŧ ŧ ƔŮŧŪƥơŧƓŧƤƥƣƓƠƙƗƣūŧƃƩƕƦƤƗŧƟƗŬŧƟƓƪŧƇŧƔơƣƣơƨŧƪơƦƣŧƢƗƠŽŧ      ŧƓŧƢƗƠƕƛƞŮŧ ŧŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ƕŮŧŪƥơŧƪơƦƣŧƕƞơƤƗŧƘƣƛƗƠƖūŧƆƗƪŬŧƕƓƠŧƇŧƔơƣƣơƨŧƪơƦƣŧƢƗƠŽŧŧ       ŧ ƓŧƢƗƠƕƛƞŮŧŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ƖŮŧŪƥơŧƪơƦƣŧƕƞơƤƗŧƘƣƛƗƠƖūŧƆƗƪŬŧƕƓƠŧƇŧƔơƣƣơƨŧƪơƦƣŧƢƗƠŽŧƇƇ ư Ɵ ŧ Ƥ ơ ƣ ƣ ƪ Ŭ ŧ      ŧƓŧƢƗƠƕƛƞŮŧ
ŧȟŴȠǜƱƇưƟŧ ƤơƣƣƪƲǗƺƻķčǛƹǗǚ   ǰäƺǕģƺ§ƼǖǀǬǅǗǰôǇǕƺǬƵȟŴƓȠǰĝǬǗƴȊǻȇǴȍȝȑȗǵȈȊȃǛȃȈȗȇȂȞǚƷķčǋǩƸǗƺƻšìƿƹǬǅǗƾǪƴķčǉǬ
ǅǗǖîǛȊǻȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃǰ"ǉǬǅǗƿǖǀǬƿƴķčǜ ƄƐſ ǙǏǦƴĕ3ǛȑȂȇǴ
ȍȝȌǷǵȃǜ

nǆǭǬƵǍǅǖƴ   ȟƷmǜƴǅƻƺƻǅǗǐƸȠǗģƻǅǗǖƴƷîƾǪǩǁǯǭǏƺƸǗƺƻĕǪǛȑȂȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃ"ǰŉǖǀǬǛǖƹǬƵȟŴƔȠǖǜ´5ƾǪķčǉǬǅ
ǗǙǇǚ  ǖģƺ§ƼǰŉǇǕƺǬǏǦƴîǛȊǻȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃǠǛŒǜ4Ǚǁƴ

−76−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

ĕ3ǛȑȂȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃǛǤǰ"ǇǕƺǬǗƺƼǬƵķčǉǬǅǗǙǇǚ   ǩǫ9ǛéĩǖÝǇǏģƺŘŊƺǰĤÈǖǀǬǗƺƻ  ǛäÏ,ǚ.ŅǉǬǅǛÜƾǪƴ  ǚƷĩ
ǇĕǪǛȑȂȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃ"ƸǛÅĒƿƹǬǗćĶǔǃǬǅǗƿǖǀǬƵǵȜȌǸȞȒȜȈǚǩ
ǬǗƴǩǁðǪǙƺîǨĕ3ǩǫõêý\ƿǚƹǬîǚǜķčǰǃǬǢƻȟŪŴƔūǩǫǧŪŴƓūȠ
ƿeǣǭƴĠǇƺGŉǙǘǩǁðǒǕƺǬîǚrǇǕǜķčƿǙƺǢƻȟŪŴƖūǩǫǧŪŴƕūȠƿeǣǭ
ǬǩƻǖƹǬƵǆǪǚǵȜȌǸȞȒȜȈǚǩǭǝƴąƾƺŘŊƺǚrǇǕķčǉǬȟƱƇưƟŧ ƤơƣƣƪƲǗģƻȠ
ĜǜǙƺǩƻǖƹǬƵǅǛǅǗƾǪ3ƾǬǩƻǚƴ°¶ĭǖǜ©ĭǙǘƴîǛȊǻȇǴȍȝȌǷǵ
ȃǰ"ǇǩƻǗ<ǦǬǛǚrǇƴĘĭǖǜƷ%Ǘƽ9Ǜř!ǖǅǛǁǪƺǛŘŊƺǜSţǙƺƸǗ
ƺƻîǛƷŘǖƺǏƺƸǗƺƻȑȂȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃǰ"ǇǩƻǗ<ǦǬǛǖǜǙƺƾǗďƼǪǭ
ǬƵŧŧH  I"(F4C9'D(!ǅǅǣǖ  ǚǜƷĩǛ-àǛŇĔȟǽȗǵȃǛ-àǛŇĔǗîǛȌǷǵȃ

nȠǰôǇƴ

-àǚKǒǏǚģƺ§ƼǰǉǬƸ'ǀƿƹǬǅǗƴǆǪǚ  ǜķčǉǬǅǗǙǇǖģƺ§ƼƿǖǀǬǗƺƻÕǖƷĩǇǛȑȂȇǴȍȝȌǷǵȃ"ƸǛÅĒƿƹǬǅǗǰ±ǪƾǚǇǏƵǇƾǇǙƿ
ǪƴǽȗǵȃǛ-àǨȑȗǵȈȊȃàĶǗƺǒǏĭäĶêàĶƾǪǜİ±ǉǬǅǗƿŞǇƺƿƹǬƵŧŧŪŵū ƱƇƠŧƚƗƣŧƞƓƤƥŧƤƗƓƤơƠŧơƠŧƥƗƞƗƧƛƤƛơƠŬŧƍƢƣƓƚŧƨƓƠƥƤŧƥơŧƟơƖƗƞŧƘơƣŧƚƗƣŧƓƦƖƛƗƠƕƗŧơƘŧƟƛƞƞƛơƠƤŧƥƚƗŧƓƣƥŧơƘŧ
ƕơƟƛƠƙŧƥơŧƙƣƛƢƤŧƨƛƥƚŧƥƚƗŧƦƠƗƓƤƪŧƔƦƤƛƠƗƤƤŧơƘŧƣƗƢƓƛƣƛƠƙŧƥơƣƠŧƣƗƞƓƥƛơƠƤŮŧƄƓƠƤŧƓƣƗŧƞƓƢƢƛƠƙŧƛƥŧƦƢŮŧƇŧ
ƣƗƓƞƞƪŧƥƚơƦƙƚƥŧƤơƟƗơƠƗŧƞƛƝƗŧƍƢƣƓƚŬŧƨƛƥƚŧƓƞƞŧƚƗƣŧƟơƠƗƪŧƓƠƖŧƘƓƟƗŬŧƨơƦƞƖƠƯƥŧƕƓƣƗŧƛƘŧƢƗơƢƞƗŧƨƗƣƗŧ
ƟƓƖŧ Ɠƥŧ ƚƗƣŧ ơƣŧ ƖƛƖƠưƥŧ ƞƛƝƗŧ ƚƗƣŮŧŧ Ƈ ŧ Ɵ Ɨ Ɠ Ơ Ŭŧ ƤƚƗƯƤŧ ƍƢƣƓƚŬƲŧ ƤƓƪƤŧ ſƦƖƣƗƪŧ ƋƓƤơƠŬŧ ųųŬŧ Ɠŧ ƢƣƛƧƓƥƗŧ
ƠƦƣƤƗŧƘƣơƟŧƁƞƗƧƗƞƓƠƖŬŧƍƚƛơŮŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŪƁƍƁſūŧ
ŧȟŵȠǛéĩǖĩţǚǙǒǕƺǬǛǜƴǳȔȘǺǛµMǙd(ȝǾȔȜȇȞȅȞǖƴǹȎȗȝǶǴȜ
ȃȘȞȟƍƢƣƓƚȠǖƹǬƵǹȎȗǜƷǹȎȗȝǶǴȜȃȘƮȝȁȖȞƸǗƺƻȇȚȋçĆǛǾȔȜȇȞȅȞǗǇ
ǕƴęMǰçĆǚQǞƴǍǛÊėǖňDǰ³ƺǏǫƴȃǼȕȜȆșǰńFǇǏǫǇǕƴǅǭǣǖ
ªƶǛ¬ǰǒǕǀǏƵǇƾǇǹȎȗǢǘĻãoǖťMǙǖƹǭǝƴƿĕ3ǛǅǗǚǓƺǕ
ǘƻƽƻƿËǚǇǙƺǗƺƻǛƿéĩĐȟſƦƖƣƗƪŧƋƓƤơƠȠǛďƼǖƹǬƵ ǩǫ9Ǜéĩǚǜ
?3Ǚ[ŕǗĮmƴř!ƿƹǫƴģƺ®ǚǧÜǚSţǜǙǁƴȌǷǵȃǚǓƺǕǧƴ9ǛéĩǖȌǷǵȃ

nǗ"Ǜř!ǜīǦǪǭǙƺƵ  ǛéĩǛƷdƿǹȎȗƸǐǗƺƻǅǗǜ¯ðǛ

mǖƹǫƴǥǇǮǽȗǵȃǛŕǛ-àǛþÀÞƷ?3Ǚ[ŕǰƼǩƸǰ×Ğ

ǇǕƺǬǩƻǚǯǭǬƵǍǛÕǖƷǜǐƸǨƷĂ¸ǜĂ¸ƸǙǘǛȈȞȈțȂȞÂ­ǚ.

ŅǉǬǗǅǮƿƹǬƵȈȞȈțȂȞÂ­ǜǽȗǵȃĕĿƴŕǛ-àǛ×ĞǗǇǕ¡ǄǬěǖƹǬƿȟƅƣƛƕƗŧ ŪűŹŸŹźŧ ųųūȠƴđǀǛǓǓǛņĉǉǬǺȇǿȘȞġǰOlǇƴşņĉêǙǺȇǿȘ

Ȟġǰ¦ôǉǬǗƺƻīðêǙȎțȄȃǜǽȗǵȃǛ-àǖǜİ±ƿŞǇƺȟ·ŧ ŪŲŰŰŲŬŧ ŲŰűŰūȠƵ
ǽȗǵȃȟűŹŸŹȠƿ±ǪƾǚǇǏǛǜƴĩǇƿŕǛ-àǰ×ĞǇƴđǀǜĩǇǛƷ@ĴǛC8ƸǛŌjǰlǉǬǅǗǖǍǛ¥ǰıǤIǬǗƺƻǗǅǮǣǖǖƴ/êǚĩǇƿđǀǚǓƺ

−77−

談話標識 I meanの意味体系とその使用原理ǕǘǛǩƻǙlǰǉǬǛƾǣǖǜİ±ǇǕƺǙƺƵŧ
ƑƗƣƚƓƙƗƠ ȟ ŲŰŰŷ Ƞ ǚ ǩ Ǭ Ǘ ƴ ǅ Ǜ ǩ ƻ Ǚ ĩ Ǉ  Ǘ đ ǀ  Ǘ Ǜ Ř Ǜ  [ Ĵ « ƿ Ʒ ŘȟƇƠƥƗƣƤƦƔƜƗƕƥƛƧƛƥƪȠƸǖƹǬǗƺƻȟƑƗƣƚƓƙƗƠŧ ŪŲŰŰŷźŧ ŶŰūȠƵ

Ǜīð

ġ

ȟĩǖǜĩǇǗđǀȠƿƽƺǚîƿǘǛǩƻǚďƼǕƺǬǛƾǰıǱǖƴġÕǰĴ«ǉǬǅǗǖƴǍǅǚ.Ņī
ĸƿâǣǭǬǗƺƻǅǗǖƹǬȟ·ȟŲŰűŰźŧ ŴųŲȠȠƵ/êǙģĭěßǛ3ºǠǛŘġêġÕǛŔĜǰôǉǛƿǛǩƻǙǖƹǬƵŧŪŶū ŧ ŧ Ƈ ŧƥ ƚ ƛ Ơ Ɲ ŧƚƗŧƨƛƞƞŧƓƣƣƛƧƗŧơƠŧƥƛƟƗŬŧƔƦƥŧƇŧƓƟŧƠơƥŧƤƦƣƗŮŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŪƑƗƣƚƓƙƗƠŧŪŲŰŰŷźŧŷűūŧ
ŧŪŷū ŧ ŧ ŪƥƓƞƝƛƠƙŧƓƔơƦƥŧƓŧƢƚơƥơŧƕơƞƞƓƙƗŧơƠŧƥƚƗŧƨƓƞƞūŧ
ƥƗƣƣƪźŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ Ƈ ŧ ƥ ƚ ƛ Ơ Ɲ ŧƛƥưƤŧƕơơƞŮŧ ŧƓƔƔƛƗźŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ƛƥŧƛŧżŧƤŧƕơơƞŮŧ ŧƟƓƦƣƣƗƠźŧ ŧ ƛƥŧƛŧżŧƤŧƙƣƗƓƥŮŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŧ ŪƑƗƣƚƓƙƗƠŧŪŲŰŰŵźŧŹŲūŧ
ŧ  ǗƺƻěßǚǜƴȟŶȠǛǩƻǚvĀǛ0pǚǓƺǕǛĩǇǛ}ǰěǉäÏǗƴȟŷȠǛǩƻǚƴvĀǰƺǙƿǪǧvĀǛ0pǖǜǙǁƴĩǇǛƷĕ#ǛǙǆƸǙǘǛđǀǚrǇǕǛ}ǰěǉäÏƿƹǬƵƑƗƣƚƓƙƗƠȟŲŰŰŷȠǖǜƴǍǛīðǛ®ÏǰǍǭǎǭǛǩƻǙWǖôǇǕƺǬƵŧ
ŧŪŸū ŧ ŧ ŧ

(0+)95,)54)+69:'2/?'9/54
!:(0+)95,)54)+69:'2/?'9/54



75:4*



ŧŧŧ
ŧ

ŧ
54897:'2)54,/-:7'9/54</9.B,/7896+7854C'85(0+)95,)54)+69:'2/?'9/54

ŧŧŧŧ

$+7.'-+4 

ŧŪŹū ŧ ŧ ŧ
(0+)95,)54)+69:7'2/?'9/54
!:(0+)95,)54)+69:'2/?'9/54
1

75:4*ŧŧŧŧŧŧ
ŧŧ

2
ŧ

54897:'2)54,/-:7'9/54,57+6/89+3/)/49+767+9'9/54$+7-'-+4  ŧǛWȟŸȠǛ®ǜvĀǚ~ǁģFǉǬ   ǛäÏȟŶȠǛīðÂWǖƴīðrĺȟÉǛǓǛȠǗV¼ř!ȟǍǛ

ǓǛǰǓǙǂċȠƿȎțȌǲǵșǆǭǕƺǬȟbċǚǙǒǕƺǬȠǛǜƴ

−78−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

   ƿīðrĺǚ~ǁģFǇǕƺǬƴǓǣǫĩǇǛvĀǛ0pǚǓƺǕǛ}ƿ~ǁH²ǉǬǏǦǖƹǬƵǣǏƴĲǛ}ƾǗģƼǝĩǇǖƹǫƴěßǍǭĕǚƱƇƲƿ±ô>ǆǭǕƺǬ
ǏǦǚīðȡȟÉǛx&ǛȠƿLÃǚȎțȌǲǵșǆǭǬƵ¢Ƽ®ȟǗǰǓǙǂYíí

ċȠƿȎțȌǲǵșǆǭǕƺǬǛǜƴ  ǚĩǇǛRţǚrǉǬ}ƴǓǣǫīð

Ǜ¢Ƽ®ȟƕơƠƤƥƣƦƓƞȠǛ®ƿH²ǆǭǕƺǬǏǦǖƹǬƵǍǭǚrǇƴWȟŹȠǜĩǇƿđǀǚ~ǁģFǉǬ ƗƢƛƤƥƗƟƛƕŧ ƟƓƣƝƗƣ ǗQǝǭǬ    ǛäÏǰěǇǕƺǬƵȟŷȠǛĩǇǛƷĕ#ǛǙƺƸ } ǜ R ţ 0 p ǚ ǖ ǜ Ǚ ǁƴđ ǀ ǚ N ǃ Ǫǭ Ǐ ǧǛ ǖ ƹ ǬǏ Ǧ ƴ É ǩǫ É Ǜ ǽ ȗ Ƕ Ȝ ȉȟƅƣơƦƠƖȠǛĜĄƿǩǫȎțȌǲǵșǆǭǬƵcǛYííċƿȎțȌǲǵșǆǭǬǛǜƴ  ǜzǚvĀǰƺƴĩǇƿđǀǰĬǒǕĊǚďƼǬȟ.LÐĞȠǛǜvĀǛ0pǖƹǬǏǦǐǗǯǭǬƵŧ  ǛŘġê3ºǰǟǣƼƴ1ǞǆǀǢǘǛ  ǛȟŵȠǰǤǬǗƴȟŵȠǖĩǇƿPǇǕƺǬǛǜƴ­hŅǫǛPƴǓǣǫƷdƿǹȎȗǖƹǬƸǗƺƻ

mǖǜǙǁƴƷƹǙǏǜǹ

Ȏȗ_ǛǛµMǙǪËǚǉǬƾǧǇǭǙƺǗďƼǬƾǧǇǭǙƺƿƴǹȎȗǜŊƻȟËǚǉǬ
ǅǗǜĈrǚǙƺȠƸǗƺƻǅǗǖƹǬƵĩǇƿĕĿǛďƼǬđǀǛlǰĕ3ǛǍǭǗŁǔǃ
ǩƻǗǇǕƺǬǅǗƾǪƴǅǅǚǜĩǇǗđǀǗǛ[ǛĴ«ƿƹǬǗƺƼǬƵƱƳŧ ƣƛƕƚŬŧ  ŬŧƣƛƕƚŮƲǨƱƳŧ ƔƛƙŬŧ  Ŭŧ ƔƛƙŮƲǙǘƴLǈĭƿ   Ǜ9ǖHǇǕƺǬäÏǜƴLÃǚİ±ǉǬǅǗƿJĒǖƹǬƵīðÂWǖěǉǗƴǆǀǢǘǛ ƗƢƛƤƥƗƟƛƕŧ ƟƓƣƝƗƣ ǛäÏǗLǈWȟWȟŹȠȠ
ǚǙǬǗǯǭǬƿƴīð

L]ǰǓǙǂċǛPƿèǙǫƴ   Ǜ\KƷĕ#ǛǙǆƸǰî

ǚƼǬǛǚrǇƴȟŵȠǛǩƻǙ   ǛäÏǜƷîǛlǰĕ3ǛlǚŁǔǃƸǕƺ
ǬƵŧ
ŧ


%!&
ƴĭäĶǗīðģĭiǛàĶǚZǔǁ3ºƾǪƴĩǇƿ   ǰäƺǬ=ÅǗǇǕƷĩǛ-àǚKƻǚǉǬƸǗƷđǀǛȌǷǵȃǰjǬƸƴƷĩǇǛlǰĕ3ǛlǗŁǔǃǬƸ
ǛǓƿƹǬǅǗǰŃǡǏƵ¹ǛóüǖǜƷ   Ȥ$ÈƸǗƺƻ9¦ƿ¿~ƺƿƴĭäĶêƴ
īðģĭiê&ŠƾǪĪąǚ3ºǉǬǅǗǖƴ äǛ=Åǔǃƿ±ǪƾǚǙǬǗďƼǬƵŧŧŧ;űŧ ŧ ǅǅǖäƺǬƷĵĩÄĸƸǗƺƻäĭǜ ƏƕƚƛƘƘƣƛƠȟűŹŸŹȠǛÁ ƖƛƤƕơƦƣƤƗŧƟƓƣƝƗƣƤ ǛlĎǚrǇǕƺǬƵóüĐǚǩǫ ƖƛƤƕơƦƣƤƗŧƢƓƣƥƛƕƞƗƤ Ǩ ƖƛƤƕơƦƣƤƗŧơƢƗƣƓƥơƣƤƴƢƣƓƙƟƓƥƛƕŧƟƓƣƝƗƣƤ ǗÃƶǙQ
øƿƹǬƿƴäĭǛĹĶǚǓƺǕǜ ƏƕƚơƦƣƦƢȟűŹŹŹȠǰEÚƵŧŲŧ ŧ ƀƣƛƠƥơƠȟŲŰŰŸȠǜßĘĭǖĝǪǭǬ   ǛäÏǰ ƘƦƞƞŧ ƟƗƓƠƛƠƙƴƓƢƢơƤƛƥƛơƠƓƞŧ ƟƗƓƠƛƠƙƤƴ
ƕƓƦƤƓƞŧƟƗƓƠƛƠƙƴƗƩƢƣƗƤƤƛơƠƤŧơƘŧƤƢƗƓƝƗƣŧƓƥƥƛƥƦƖƗƴƛƠƥƗƣƢƗƣƤơƠƓƞŧƟƗƓƠƛƠƙ Ǘƺƻ ŵ ǓǛǺȇǿȘȞǚ
3ǃǏƵƘƦƞƞŧƟƗƓƠƛƠƙ ǚ Ų ǓƴƓƢƢơƤƛƥƛơƠƓƞŧƟƗƓƠƛƠƙƤ ǚ Ŵ ǓƴƗƩƢƣƗƤƤƛơƠƤŧơƘŧƤƢƗƓƝƗƣŧƓƥƥƛƥƦƖƗ ǚ ŲǓǛȀȍǺȇǿȘȞǰħlǇǕƽǫƴĥ űŰ ǛǺȇǿȘȞǰħlǇǏǅǗǚǙǬƵǣǏƴƀƣƛƠƥơƠȟŲŰŰŸȠ
ǜǍǛĭäĶêPȟƢƣƓƙƟƓƥƛƕŧƟƗƓƠƛƠƙȠǰ ƊƗƧƛƠƤơƠŧŪŲŰŰŰūǛ ƋŭŧƆƗƦƣƛƤƥƛƕƴƹǬƺǜǽȗǵȃǛ
ÃǛ-àƾǪâǈǬƷĬǯǭǏ¥ĶȟƛƠƧƛƥƗƖŧ ƛƠƘƗƣƗƠƕƗƤȠƸǗǇǕİ±ǖǀǬǗǇǕƺǬƵǇƾǇǙ

−79−

談話標識 I meanの意味体系とその使用原理ƿǪƴƷLǈ[ƿAǚČǫłǆǭǕǙƺǅǗƾǪƴđǀǜń;êǙ[ƿƹǬǗ¥ĶǉǬȟƀƣƛƠƥơƠŧŪŲŰŰŸźŧűŲŹȠƸǗƺƻİ±ǰ  ǛǉǡǕǛĭäĶêPǚŋäǉǬĨǤǜêǖƹǫƴǙǌǓǛƿƷĤÈȟƣƗƢƓƛƣȠƸǗĢœǆǭƴ6ǛƿƷàæǔǃȟƕƓƦƤƓƞŧ ƟƗƓƠƛƠƙȠƸǗǇǕĢ
œǆǭǬǛƾǚǓƺǕ±ǪƾǚǇǙƺƵ¶ûǖǜ   ǛPäÏǚǓƺǕƴƷǙǌĩǇƿ  ǰäƺǕģƺ§ƼǰǉǬǛƾƸǚØÕǰǕƴǍǛģƺ§ƼǛȎțȄȃǰǽȗǵȃǛǛàǚZǔƺǕ/êǚôǉƵŧųŧ ŧ ƁơƣƢƦƤŧơƘŧƁơƠƥƗƟƢơƣƓƣƪŧſƟƗƣƛƕƓƠŧƃƠƙƞƛƤƚŧŪƚƥƥƢźůůƕơƣƢƦƤŮƔƪƦŮƗƖƦůƕơƕƓůūŧŴŧ ŧ ƹƺǣƺǛśDǨôÛȝíôǛÍlǙǘƴǽȗǵȃǛƷģǯǭǏǅǗƸǛPÂǚƷĩê¥Ƹã2ǛȎțȄȃƿřǯǒǕƽǫƴǅǛßĺǜƷǽȗǵȃǛáȟƅƣƛƕƗưƤŧ ƕƛƣƕƞƗȠƸǗQǝǭǬ
ȟƊƗƧƛƠƤơƠŧŪŲŰŰŰźŧűŸŶūȠƵŧŵŧ ŧ ƀƣƛƥƛƤƚŧƌƓƥƛơƠƓƞŧƁơƣƢƦƤŧŪƚƥƥƢźůůƔƠƕŮƜƝƠŲűŮƕơƟůūŧ
ŧ

7=:>
7/4954':7+2  #!!"' (&"" & '3(7/*-+'3(7/*-+#4/;+78/9> 7+88
75<4 +4+256+'4*!9+6.+4+;/4854# '"&&#!")%& " "(&'3(7/*-+'3(7/*-+#4/;+78/9> 7+88
5="7+++'4'4*58+,!).75)1  D'8/)3+'4/4-5,,#("#*'4* !"E #(%" #%!'&  +.@/)52+'4*44+%/).3'44 D".+:29/,:4)9/54'2/9>5,6/89+3/)
 '7+49.+9/)'28/4/8)5:78+ 7585*/):+8959.+!+3'49/)67'-3'9/)5:4*'7>E("'#"&# "( 7/)+ ':2'(&"',##%&'3(7/*-+'88'7;'7*#4/;+78/9>
 7+88
+;/4854 !9+6.+4   %&(!$') ""&  #%, # "% -#")%&'#"  !$ '(%'3(7/*-+'88" 7+88Óø  H­^h­^ĉUhĉUIFJþăKF Đ Ñ°đF ĒÓø H²ºcĐčđýÃIFJ²ºcþăäĆKF«úÝ¿±ÓLS·åóĐòđF

FÕēČÈîĒ!)./,,7/4+(57'.&#(%&%%&'3(7/*-+#4/;+78/9> 7+88'3(7/*-+
!).5:7:6'<7+4)+D/8)5:78+'71+78E "(
çùñì¼

A

 HÎ½þăfPUrÅ´gåÆē&5:145< c 3+'4 gÀ©IF

JÄ¶¥ä¸íï¶³÷áþă¥äĐđK  F Ē
$+7.'-+47/+  #"&'%('#"&#"'%&(')',&#(%&&,"'+"#"'#"=,57*=,57*#4/;+78/9> 7+88
$+7.'-+47/+ D54897:'2'4* +786+)9:'2/?'9/54E4/71++7'+798'4*:(+79:>)1+48+*+#% "####"') "(&'& =,57*=,57*#4/;+78/9> 7+88

−80−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ゝⴥ㐟ࡧ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡿⓎヰࡢຊ̿ὗⴠࡀ㥏ὗⴠ࡜࡞ࡿሙྜࡢᩥἲⓗཬࡧㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᮲௳̿ᑠᯇཎဴኴி㒔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸭᪥ᮏᏛ⾡᣺⯆఍komatsubara@hi.h.kyoto-u.ac.jp<Abstract>
The purpose of this research is to show how people interpret and evaluate puns from theviewpoint of Cognitive Linguistics. My analysis indicates that an ineffective pun has threecharacteristics. First, it directs the attention of the listener on the speaker's intention formaking a pun, whereas an effective pun allows the listener to notice the speaker's intention
indirectly. Second, an ineffective pun focuses on sound similarity, whereas an effective pun
takes advantage of sound similarity to create ambiguity. Third, although some ambiguity isnecessary when making a pun, an ineffective pun focuses too much attention on its ambiguity.

࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸ὗⴠࠊಟ㎡ᛶࡢホ౯ࠊ័⩦ⓗྵពࠊⓎヰࡢຊ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᭱ࡶᗈ࠸ព࿡࡛ᤊ࠼ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊゝⴥ㐟ࡧ (wordplay) ࡜ࡣព࿡ఏ㐩ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡞࠸㐟ᡙⓗ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊゝⴥ㐟ࡧࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿὗⴠ (pun) ࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࠊὗ
ⴠࡢಟ㎡ⓗᶵ⬟ཬࡧㄆ▱ⓗ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡢ୍㒊ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ ゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢಟ㎡ⓗᶵ⬟ࡢศᯒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥㄽⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽࡣࠊὗⴠࡢ⌧㇟ࡣࠊゝㄒ୺యࡢホ౯ࢆ௓ࡋ࡚ࠊゝㄒ౑⏝ࡢሙ࡟࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣦ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣦ࡞ຠᯝࢆ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࠊゝㄒࡢᑐேⓗᶵ⬟࡟㛵ࢃࡿಟ㎡ⓗ⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡳࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᩥἲ࡜ಟ㎡࡟㛵ࢃࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗゝㄒ⌧㇟ࢆㄆ▱⬟ຊࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡃㄆ▱ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ❧ሙ㸦ᒣ᲍ 2009: 61-62㸧࠿ࡽࠊὗⴠࡢಟ㎡ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿゝㄒศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ ᮏ✏ࡢᵓᡂࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨ 2 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊᗈ⩏ࡢὗⴠࡢᐃ⩏ࢆ㏙࡭ࡓᚋ࡟ࠊ㥏ὗⴠࡢ⌧㇟࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚ࠊὗⴠࡢホ౯ᛶ࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ➨ 3 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡜ྵពࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㥏ὗⴠࡢศᯒࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡞㥏ὗⴠࡢලయ஦౛࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊὗⴠࡀ㥏ὗⴠ࡜࡞ࡿ
ሙྜࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᮲௳ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ➨ 4 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊᮏ✏ࡢศᯒࡢせⅬ࡜ᒎᮃࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠋ
2. ὗⴠ࡜㥏ὗⴠ ᭱ࡶᗈ࠸ព࿡࡛つᐃࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊὗⴠ࡜ࡣࠊ㢮㡢ᛶࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ព࿡࡟࠶࠸ࡲ࠸ᛶࢆࡶࡓ
ࡏࡿಟ㎡࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿ 㸯ࠋὗⴠ⾲⌧୍⯡ࡀࡇࡢ✀ࡢࢫ࣮࣐࢟ⓗ࡞ඹ㏻ᛶࢆࡶࡘ୍᪉࡛ࠊ
1−81−

言葉遊びから生じる発話の力―洒落が駄洒落となる場合の文法的及び語用論的条件―

ಶࠎࡢὗⴠࡢලయ஦౛࡟ࡣࠊಟ㎡ᛶࡢⅬ࡛ᕪ␗ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊὗⴠ࡟ࡣᢏᕦⓗ࡛㈹㈶ࢆ⏕ࡴ஦౛ࡶ࠶ࢀࡤࠊᏳ࡛᫆㍍⶜ࢆ⏕ࡴ஦౛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊᚋ⪅ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ஦౛
ࢆ"㥏"ὗⴠ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ୍⯡ࡢὗⴠ࠿ࡽ༊ูࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ ⤒㦂࠿ࡽศ࠿ࡿ࡜࠾ࡾࠊὗⴠ࡟ࡣࡼ࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ᝏ࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ✲ᴟⓗホ౯ᇶ‽ࡣ≧ἣࡸಶேࡢᚰ⌮࡟ᖐࡏࡽࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊ㥏ὗⴠ࡟ࡣ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢᩥἲⓗཬࡧㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࡉ ࡌ ࡁ

(1)

a. ࡑࡢ᪥ࡣᮅࡣࡸࡃ࠿ࡽࢦ࣮ࣝ๓ࡢᱞᩜ࡟࡛ࢇ࡜⭜ࢆࡍ࠼ࠊ㨱ἲࡧࢇ࡟ࡘࡵࡓ
ࢫࢥࢵࢳ࢘࢕ࢫ࣮࢟ࢆࠊࡍࡇࡗࡕࡎࡘࡸࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ࣮࣎ࢺࡀぢ࠼࡚ࡃࡿࡢࢆ
ᚅࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
㸦஭ୖࡦࡉࡋࠕࣈࣥ࡜ࣇࣥࠖ: 36㸧b. 㨱ἲࡧࢇ࡟ࡘࡵࡓࢫࢥࢵࢳ࢘࢕ࢫ࣮࢟ࢆࠊࡍࡇࡋࡎࡘࡸࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ࣮࣎ࢺࡀ
ぢ࠼࡚ࡃࡿࡢࢆᚅࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ

 (1a) ࡛ࡣࠊࠕࢫࢥࢵࢳ࢘࢕ࢫ࣮࢟ࠖ࡜ࠕࡍࡇࡗࡕࡎࡘࠖ࡜ࡀ᥃ࡅࡽࢀ࡚ࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤ
"㥏"ὗⴠ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ὀពࡍ࡭ࡁࡣࠕࡍࡇࡗࡕࡎࡘࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡀ᪥ᮏㄒࡢㄒᙡ࡟
Ꮡᅾࡏࡎࠊࠕᑡࡋࡎࡘࠖࡢࡶࡌࡾ㸰࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(1b) ࡜ࡢẚ㍑࠿
ࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ㥏ὗⴠ࡜࠸࠺ホ౯ࡣࡶࡌࡾ࡜࠸࠺ᙧែㄽⓗ㐓⬺ᛶࡀ┤᥋ࡢせᅉ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࠶ࡿேࡢ୺ほⓗホ౯࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶࠊゝㄒ⾲⌧࡟ෆᅾࡍࡿᵓ㐀ⓗ≉ᚩࡀၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊὗⴠࡢලయ஦౛ࡢグ㏙ศᯒࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊὗⴠࡢホ౯ᛶࡢゝㄒⓗ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
3. 㥏ὗⴠࡢㄆ▱ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᇶ┙ ὗⴠࡢ⏕ࡴຠᯝࡣከᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ඾ᆺᶵ࡞㥏ὗⴠ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ஦౛ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ
࡚ࠊὗⴠࡢಟ㎡ⓗ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡟㛵ࡍࡿศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ3.1 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ័⩦ⓗྵព࡜ࡢ㛵㐃࡛ࠊ㥏ὗⴠࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗศᯒࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ3.2 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊⓎヰ⾜ⅭㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ㥏ὗⴠࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽㄽⓗഃ㠃࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ3.3 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ㥏ὗⴠࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᮲௳ࡢㄆ▱ⓗᇶ┙࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ
3.1. ὗⴠࡢྵព
 ࠶ࡿⓎヰ࠿ࡽὗⴠࡢྵពࢆࡃࡳྲྀࡿሙྜࠊ⡆༢࡟ὗⴠࡀ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࢀࡤࠊὗⴠ
࠿ࡑ࠺࡛࡞࠸࠿ࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿࡢࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿὗⴠࡢྵពࡀࠊ఍ヰࡢྵព࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࠊ័⩦ⓗྵព࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡀὗⴠࡢホ౯ᛶ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ ୍⯡࡟ࠊ఍ヰࡢྵព࡜័⩦ⓗྵព࡜ࡣࠊ୺࡟ศ㞳୙ྍ⬟ᛶ࡜࢟ࣕࣥࢭࣝྍ⬟ᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚
␗࡞ࡿᛶ㉁ࢆࡶࡘ㸱ࠋ఍ヰࡢྵព (conversational implicature) ࡣࠊศ㞳୙ྍ⬟࠿ࡘ࢟ࣕࣥ
ࢭࣝྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ (Grice 1975: 57-58) ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ័⩦ⓗྵព (conventional implicature) ࡣࠊ2−82−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ศ㞳ྍ⬟࠿ࡘ࢟ࣕࣥࢭࣝ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ (Levinson 1983: 128)ࠋ
 ࠶ࡿྵពࡀศ㞳୙ྍ⬟ (non-detachable) ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢྵពࡀ≉ู࡞ㄒᙡࡸᩥἲᙧᘧ࡟⤖ࡧࡘ࠸࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ࿨㢟ⓗព࿡ࢆኚ࠼࡞࠸ࣃࣛࣇ࣮ࣞࢬࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚ࡶྵពࡀṧ␃ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ࠸࠺ࠋ(1a) ࡜ (1b) ࡢẚ㍑࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ(1a) ࡀὗⴠ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ྵពࡣࡶࡌࡾ
࡜࠸࠺ㄒᙧኚᙧ࡟⤖ࡧࡘ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢྵពࡣศ㞳ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࠶ࡿྵពࡀ࢟ࣕࣥࢭࣝྍ⬟ (cancellable) ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ⾲⌧ࡢྵពࡀࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ
ࢆ௜ࡅຍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚↓ຠ໬ࡉࢀᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ࠸࠺ࠋ௨ୗࡢ஦౛࡛ࡣࠊὗⴠ࡛࡞࠸᪨ࢆ
᫂ゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊὗⴠࡢྵពࡀ࢟ࣕࣥࢭࣝྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(2)a. ࡘࡲࡾே㛫ࡀࡍ࡭࡚࡟⑂ປࡋᑾࡃࡋࡓ࡜ࡁࣄ࣮࣮ࣟࡀ࠶ࡽࢃࢀࡿࡢࡔࠋ
b. ࡘࡲࡾே㛫ࡀࡍ࡭࡚࡟⑂ປࡋᑾࡃࡋࡓ࡜ࡁࣄ࣮࣮ࣟࡀ࠶ࡽࢃࢀࡿࡢࡔࠋ
ࠕࣄ࣮ࣟࠖ࡜ࠕࣄ࣮࣮ࣟࠖ࡜࡛ㄒ࿅ྜࢃࡏࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣỴࡋ࡚࡞࠸(͐) ࠋ㸦஭ୖࡦࡉࡋࠕ࠶࡜ࡀࡁ࡟࠿࠼࡚ࠖ: 235㸧 ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࡶࡌࡾࢆྵࡴ஦౛࡛ࡣࠊ࢟ࣕࣥࢭࣝ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(3)? ࡑࡢ᪥ࡣᮅࡣࡸࡃ࠿ࡽࠊ㨱ἲࡧࢇ࡟ࡘࡵࡓࢫࢥࢵࢳ࢘࢕ࢫ࣮࢟ࢆࠊࡍࡇࡗࡕࡎࡘ
ࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ͐࡜ࡇࢀࡣὗⴠࢆゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ ௨ୖ࠿ࡽࠊ(1a) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡌࡾࢆྵࡴ඾ᆺⓗ࡞㥏ὗⴠ⾲⌧࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡿὗⴠࡢྵពࡣࠊศ
㞳ྍ⬟࠿ࡘ࢟ࣕࣥࢭࣝ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊ័⩦ⓗྵព࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ‶ࡓࡍࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ ఍ヰࡢྵពࡣࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞≧ἣ࡬ࡢ౫Ꮡᛶ࡜ࠊゎ㔘⪅ࡢ᥎ㄽࡢከᵝᛶ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ(2a) ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢゝⴥ㐟ࡧࡀὗⴠ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ྵពࡣࠊ఍ヰࡢྵព࡜ࡋ࡚⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢ㢮㡢ᛶࡀὗⴠ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࡣゎ㔘⪅ࡢุ᩿࡟௵ࡉ
ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ័⩦ⓗྵពࡣࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞≧ἣ࠿ࡽ┦ᑐⓗ࡟⮬ᚊⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊゎ㔘⪅ࡢ᥎ㄽࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ(1a) ࡀὗⴠ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ྵពࡣࠊࡶ
ࡌࡾ࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒᙧᘧ࡟ᙉࡃ⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ㏫࡟ゝ࠼ࡤࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢゝㄒᙧᘧࡣゎ㔘⪅࡟ὗⴠࡢྵពࢆᙉไࡍࡿᶆ㆑࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
3.2. 㥏ὗⴠࡢ᮲௳ ὗⴠࡣࠊᩥࡢ㝞㏙ⓗព࿡ࢆࡶࡘࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢᩥࡀὗⴠ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ྵពࢆక࠺ࠋࡑ
ࡋ࡚ࠊὗⴠ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ྵពࡣࠊゝㄒࡢᑐேⓗᶵ⬟࡟㛵ࢃࡿఱࡽ࠿ࡢຠᯝ (effect) ࢆ⏕ࡴ㸲ࠋⓎヰ⾜ⅭㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡣࠊࡇࡢຠᯝࢆὗⴠࡢຊ (force) ࡜ࡼࡪࡇ࡜ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋAustin(1962: 98-107) ࡣࠊⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟కࡗ࡚ࡣࡓࡽࡃㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ຠᯝ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊⓎㄒෆⓗ࡞ຠᯝ࡜Ⓨㄒ፹௓ⓗ࡞ຠᯝ࡜ࢆ༊ูࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3−83−

言葉遊びから生じる発話の力―洒落が駄洒落となる場合の文法的及び語用論的条件―

 ࠶ࡿⓎヰ⾜ⅭࡀⓎㄒෆⓗ (illocutionary) ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜⮬య࡟࠾࠸࡚ (in saying something) ⾜Ⅽࡀ㐙⾜ࡉࢀ࡚ࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ຊࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࢆゝ࠺㸦e.g.
I order you to leave. ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࿨௧ࡢຊ㸧ࠋ(1a) ࡛ࡣࠊゝㄒᙧᘧ⮬యࡢ୰࡟ὗⴠࡢពᅗࡀࡶ
ࡌࡾ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᫂♧ⓗ࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢሙྜࠊὗⴠࡢຊࡣⓎㄒෆⓗ࡟㐙⾜ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࠶ࡿⓎヰ⾜ⅭࡀⓎㄒ፹௓ⓗ (perlocutionary) ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ (by saying something) ࠊࡑࡢຠᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘⪅
ࡀⓎヰ⪅ࡢពᅗࢆㄆࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ࠸࠺㸦e.g. There is a snake behind you. ࡟ࡼࡿ㆙࿌ࡢຊ㸧ࠋ(2a) ࡛ࡣࠊὗⴠ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࡣゎ㔘⪅ࡢ᥎ㄽ࡟௵ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊὗⴠࡢ
ຊࡣⓎㄒ፹௓ⓗ࡟㐙⾜ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿ㸳ࠋ (2a) ࡀᕦࡳ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࡣู࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ(1a) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡌࡾࢆྵࡴὗⴠࡣ㥏ὗⴠ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉ
ࢀࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࠿ࡽࡣࠊⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡿຊࡀ┤᥋ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࠊὗⴠࡀ㥏ὗⴠ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡣ┦㛵ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣ௨ୗࡢ᮲௳ (P) ࢆࠊὗⴠࡀ㥏ὗⴠ࡜࡞ࡿሙྜࡢ୍⯡ⓗ᮲௳࡛࠶ࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡍࡿࠋ
(P)ὗⴠࡢຊࡀⓎㄒෆⓗ࡟㐙⾜ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠊὗⴠࡣ㥏ὗⴠ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

3.3. 㥏ὗⴠࡢ᮲௳ࡢ୕ࡘࡢഃ㠃 㥏ὗⴠࡢ᮲௳ (P) ࡣⓎヰࡢຊ࡟㛵ࢃࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᮲௳࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡛ࡣࠊ㥏ὗⴠࡢ᮲௳ (P) ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒⓗ≉ᚩࢆࡶࡕࠊࡲࡓ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄆ▱ⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆࡶࡘࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ㥏ὗⴠࡢ᮲௳ (P) ࡢㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗᇶ┙࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ ࡲࡎࠊⓎヰ⪅ࡢពᅗ࡜ゎ㔘⪅ࡢㄆ▱ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡳࡓሙྜࠊⓎㄒෆⓗ࡞ຊࡢᛶ㉁࠿ࡽࠊ㥏ὗⴠࡢ᮲௳ (P) ࡣḟࡢㄆ▱ⓗഃ㠃ࢆࡶࡘࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(P-1) ὗⴠࡢពᅗࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡉࢀࡓሙྜࠊὗⴠࡣ㥏ὗⴠ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ ḟࡢ஦౛࡛ࡣࠊ㥏ὗⴠࡢ᮲௳ (P-1) ࡀಟ㎡ᛶࡢホ౯࡜㛵㐃ࡍࡿࠋ(4)బ⸨ࡣ኱Ꮫ᫬௦ࡣࣛࢢࣅ࣮㒊ࡢ๪ᑗ᱁࡛ࣇࣟࣥࢺ࣭࣮ࣟࠊࢫࢡ࣒ࣛࢆ⤌ࡳ┦ᡭࢆᢲࡋ࡚ࡤ࠿ࡾ࠸ࡓࡏ࠸࠿ᢲࡋࡀᙉ࠸ࠋ
㸦஭ୖࡦࡉࡋࠗྜྷ㔛ྜྷ㔛ே࠘: 13㸧

 (4) ࡛ࡣࠊ≀⌮ⓗ࡟┦ᡭࢆᢲࡍࡇ࡜࡜ࠕᢲࡋࡀᙉ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺័⏝⾲⌧࡜ࡢ࠶࠸ࡲ࠸ᛶࡀ
฼⏝ࡉࢀ࡚ὗⴠ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ὀពࡍ࡭ࡁࡣࠊ≀⌮ⓗ࡟ேࢆᢲࡍࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ஺΅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᢲࡋࡀᙉࡃ࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢㄽ⌮ⓗཎᅉ࡟ࡣ࡞ࡾ࠼࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠕࡏ࠸࠿ࠖ࡜࠸
࠺ᅉᯝ㛵ಀࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍ᥋⥆⾲⌧ࢆ▩┪↓ࡃព࿡ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊྠ㡢ᛶ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚஧ㄒࡀ
⤖ࡤࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࡇࢀࡀὗⴠ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ๓ᬒ໬ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ
4−84−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㥏ὗⴠࡢ᮲௳ (P-1) ࡀ‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ḟ࡟ࠊグྕㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡳࡓሙྜࠊ㥏ὗⴠࡢ᮲௳ (P) ࡣ㡢࡜ព࿡ࡢ୧ഃ㠃࠿ࡽᤊ࠼࡚
࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ඾ᆺⓗ࡞㥏ὗⴠ࡛࠶ࡿ (1a) ࡣࠊᅗ 1 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄆ▱ᩥἲㄽⓗศᯒࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ㸴ࠋ 㡢㡩✵㛫 (phonological space) ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕࢫࢥࢵࢳ࢘࢕ࢫ࣮࢟ࠖ࡜ࠕࡍࡇࡗࡕࡎࡘࠖ
ࡢࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢㄒ㢌࡟ᑐᛂ㛵ಀࡀㄆ▱ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡩࡘ࠺ㄒࡢ඲యࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡁࠊ㡢⠇ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ༢఩ࡣ┦ᑐⓗ࡟⫼ᬒ໬ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ㡢⠇ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ༢఩ࡀ㡢཯᚟࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㝿❧ࡕࠊ஧ࡘࡢゝㄒࣞ࣋ࣝࡢάᛶ໬ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡣᆒ⾮ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ㐺ษ࡞ព࿡ゎ㔘ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ
㠀ࢥ࣮ࢻㄒᙡࠕࡍࡇࡗࡕࡎࡘࠖࡢ㡢㡩ᙧᘧ࠿ࡽᩥἲⓗㄒᙡࠕᑡࡋࡎࡘࠖࡢ㡢㡩ᙧᘧࢆ᥎ㄽ
ࡍࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋཧ↷Ⅼ R ࠿ࡽࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ T ࡬ࡢཧ↷Ⅼ㛵ಀ (Langacker 1993) ࡣࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢ᥎ㄽࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍࠋ୍᪉ࠊព࿡✵㛫 (semantic space) ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡇࡢ᥎
ㄽࡢࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ࠿ࡽࠕᑡࡋࡎࡘࠖࡢព࿡ᴟࡀㄏᘬࡉࢀ࡚ゝㄒ⌮ゎࡢ࣮࣋ࢫ࡜࡞ࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕᑡࡋࡎࡘࠖࡣᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡑࡢព࿡ᴟࡣࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

ᅗ 1㸸ࡶࡌࡾࢆྵࡴὗⴠ
 ᅗ 1 ࠿ࡽศ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊኴ⥺࡛♧ࡉࢀࡓ㝿❧ࡕࡢ㧗࠸せ⣲ࡣ㡢㡩✵㛫࡟㞟୰ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ✀ࡢ⾲⌧࡛ࡣ㡢㡩ᙧᘧࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊὗⴠࡢ㡢㡩ⓗഃ㠃࡛࠶ࡿ㢮㡢ᛶࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ㥏ὗⴠࡢ᮲௳ (P) ࡣࠊḟࡢ㡢㡩ㄽⓗഃ㠃ࢆࡶࡘࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(P-2) ὗⴠࡢ㢮㡢ᛶࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡉࢀࡓሙྜࠊὗⴠࡣ㥏ὗⴠ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ḟࡢ஦౛࡛ࡣࠊ㥏ὗⴠࡢ᮲௳ (P-2) ࡀಟ㎡ᛶࡢホ౯࡜㛵㐃ࡍࡿࠋ(5) 㟼ᒸᕷ࡛ࡋࡓࡢ࡛ࠊ࠾ᅵ⏘ࡣࢳ࣮ࢬ࠾ⳫᏊ࡟ࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ
5−85−

言葉遊びから生じる発話の力―洒落が駄洒落となる場合の文法的及び語用論的条件―

 (5) ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ㟼ᒸᕷࠖ࡜ࠕࢳ࣮ࢬ࠾ⳫᏊࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ᦶ᧿㡢࡜◚᧿㡢ࡢᑐ❧ࠊ▷ẕ㡢࡜㛗ẕ㡢ࡢᑐ❧ࡀ᫂☜࡟ㄆ▱ࡉࢀࡿࠋᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࠊὗⴠ࡟ࡣ㧗࠸㢮㡢ᛶࡀせồࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊఝ
࡚࠸࡞࠸஧ࡘࡢゝⴥࢆὗⴠ࡜ࡋ࡚㛵㐃࡙ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ (㕥ᮌ 1959: 900) ࡣࠊ㢮㡢ᛶࢆ๓ᬒ໬ࡍ
ࡿ࡜࠸࠺㥏ὗⴠࡢ᮲௳ (P-2) ࢆ‶ࡓࡍࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࠊὗⴠࡢ㢮㡢ᛶࡣព࿡࡟࠶࠸ࡲ࠸ᛶࢆࡶࡓࡏࡿࠋ(1a) ࡛ࡣࠊᮏ᮶ࠕࢫࢥࢵࢳ࢘࢖ࢫ
࣮࢟ࠖ࡜ࠕᑡࡋࡎࡘࠖ࡜࠸࠺஧ࡘࡢㄒྃࡣࠊရモࡶ㐪࠼ࡤព࿡ෆᐜࡶ↓㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡾࠊព࿡
ࡢ࠶࠸ࡲ࠸ᛶࡣࡲࡎ↓࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࡶࡌࡾ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᙉᘬ࡟㢮㡢ᛶࡀᙧᡂࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊᮏ᮶Ꮡᅾࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ព࿡ࡢ࠶࠸ࡲ࠸ᛶࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊὗⴠࡢព࿡ⓗഃ㠃࡛࠶ࡿ࠶࠸ࡲ࠸ᛶࢆ୙ᙜ࡟๓ᬒ໬ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ㥏ὗⴠࡢ᮲௳ (P) ࡣḟࡢព࿡ㄽⓗഃ㠃ࢆࡶࡘࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(P-3) ὗⴠࡢ࠶࠸ࡲ࠸ᛶࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡉࢀࡓሙྜࠊὗⴠࡣ㥏ὗⴠ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ḟࡢ஦౛࡛ࡣࠊ㥏ὗⴠࡢ᮲௳ (P-3) ࡀಟ㎡ᛶࡢホ౯࡜㛵㐃ࡍࡿࠋ(6)῱ὶ㔮࡟ฟ࠿ࡅ࡚ࡃࡿ࡜ࡣゝࡗࡓࡶࡢࡢ㔮ᯝࡣ࡞ࡋࠊᒾ㨶㈙ࡗࡓ࡜ࡣゝࢃ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠊ࠸ࡸゝ࠼࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

 (6) ࡛ࡣࠊࠕᒾ㨶㈙ࡗࡓࠖࡣ┠ⓗㄒࢆ࡜ࡿືモྃ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࢆ NP + VP =VP ࡜␗ศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ⤫ㄒㄽⓗ࠶࠸ࡲ࠸ᛶࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ✀ࡢ␗ศᯒࡣࠊᮏ᮶Ꮡᅾ
ࡋ࡞࠸࠶࠸ࡲ࠸ᛶࢆᙉᘬ࡟ᙧᡂࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࠊὗⴠࡢ࠶࠸ࡲ࠸ᛶࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ
࡜࠸࠼ࠊ㥏ὗⴠࡢ᮲௳ (P-3) ࡀ‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
4. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊὗⴠࡢホ౯࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡞㥏ὗⴠ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄆ▱ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊὗⴠࡢホ౯ᛶࡀⓎヰ⾜Ⅽㄽⓗ࡞㐙⾜ᛶ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡽࢀᚓࡿࡇ
࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ㥏ὗⴠࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽㄽⓗ࡞᮲௳ࡀࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒⓗ≉ᚩ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚‶ࡓࡉࢀᚓࡿ࠿࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊලయ஦౛࡜࡜ࡶ࡟グ㏙ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ୺࡟㥏ὗⴠࢆࡵࡄࡿ⪃ᐹࢆ୰ᚰ࡟⾜ࡗࡓࡀࠊ"㥏"ὗⴠࡢศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ"ᕦ࠸"ὗⴠ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⪃ᐹࢆ㛫᥋ⓗ࡟⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢศᯒ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊᕦࡳ࡞ὗⴠࡢ
≉ᚩ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ௨ୗࡢ஧Ⅼࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࠋ➨୍࡟ࠊ3.1 ⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡞㥏ὗⴠ࡛ࡣࠊ
ὗⴠࡢྵពࡀ័⩦ⓗྵព࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㏫࡟ࠊᕦࡳ࡞ὗⴠ
ࡢྵពࡣࠊ఍ヰࡢྵព࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࠋᕦࡳ࡞ὗⴠ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊྵព
ࢆࡃࡳྲྀࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࡣゎ㔘⪅ࡢุ᩿࡟௵ࡉࢀࠊᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢゎ㔘࡜࠶࠸ࡲ࠸࡛࠶ࡿࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊᕦࡳ࡞ὗⴠࡣⓎㄒ፹௓ⓗ࡟⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩࢆࡶࡘ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ➨஧࡟ࠊ
6−86−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

3.2 ⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⮬᫂࡞࠶࠸ࡲ࠸ᛶࢆࡇ࡜ࡉࡽᙉㄪࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㢮㡢ᛶࢆኚᙧࠊࡶࡌ
ࡾ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ഇ㐀ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㥏ὗⴠ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᕦࡳ࡞ὗⴠ࡜
ࡣࠊゝㄒࡢ୰࡟⮬↛࡟ഛࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㢮㡢ᛶཪࡣ࠶࠸ࡲ࠸ᛶࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࠋ஑㨣࿘㐀ࡣࠊᩥᏛ࡟࠾ࡅࡿὗⴠࡢၥ㢟࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊᩥᏛࡣࠕ㡢㡩ୖࡢഅ↛ࡢ୍⮴ࠖࢆά࠿ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺㸦஑㨣 1980[1933]: 100㸧ࠋᮏ✏࡛ᣲࡆࡓලయ஦౛࠿ࡽࡶ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊὗⴠࡀᕦࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࠊὗⴠࡀᩥᏛⓗ࡟᪼⳹ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡣ↓㛵ಀ࡛࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࠿ࡽࡣࠊ㢮㡢ᛶ࣭࠶࠸ࡲ࠸ᛶࡢ⮬↛ࡉࡣࠊὗⴠࡢᩥᏛᛶ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ
⨾ⓗᛶ㉁࡜ࡶ㛵㐃ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ὀ
1.

ࡇࡢព࿡࡛ࡣࠊὗⴠ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒࢆࠊ⚽࣭ྃᆅཱྀ࣭ࡶࡌࡾ࣭࠿ࡍࡾཱྀ࣭ྜ࣭ࡴࡔཱྀ࣭↓⌮ၥ⟅࣭᥃モ➼ࢆໟᣓࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ㸦㕥ᮌ 1959, 1979, ᑽࣨᓮ 1988, ୰ᮧ 1991, ᒣཱྀ 2009㸧ࠋ2.

ࡶࡌࡾ࡜ࡣ"᤟ࡾ"࡛࠶ࡾࠊඖࡢㄒࢆኚᙧࡋ࡚ὗⴠ࡟⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ࠸࠺ࠋ

3.

఍ヰࡢྵព࡜័⩦ⓗྵពࡣ௚࡟ࡶࠊィ⟬ྍ⬟ᛶࠊ័⩦ᛶࠊྵពࡢỴᐃᛶࠊᬑ㐢ᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶᑐ↷ⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆࡶࡘ (Levinson 1983: 127-128)ࠋ

4.

ὗⴠ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ྵព࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡿಟ㎡ⓗ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᑐேⓗຠᯝࡣከᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋὗⴠࡣࠊ
࣮ࣘࣔ࢔࡟㛵ࢃࡿಟ㎡ⓗຠᯝࢆ⏕ࡴሙྜࡶ࠶ࢀࡤࠊሙࢆ"෾ࡽࡏࡿ"ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ኱ࡋ
࡚㠃ⓑࡃࡶ࡞࠸ὗⴠ࠿ࡽࠊ఍ヰࡢሙࡀ࿴ࡴࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡾᚓࡿࠋ

5.

࣮࢜ࢫࢸ࢕ࣥࡣࠊⓎㄒෆⓗ⾜Ⅽࡢຠᯝࡣゝㄒࡢ័⩦ⓗ (conventional) ᛶ㉁࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶ
ࡓࡽࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊⓎㄒ፹௓ⓗ⾜Ⅽࡢຠᯝࡣࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㠀័⩦ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ (Austin 1962: 103)ࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡛ࡣࠊⓎㄒෆⓗ⾜Ⅽ࡜Ⓨㄒ፹௓ⓗ⾜Ⅽࡢ༊ูࡣࠊ
័⩦ⓗྵព࡜఍ヰࡢྵពࡢ༊ู࡜୪⾜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ6.

㡢㡩✵㛫ࠊព࿡✵㛫࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Langacker (1987: 76-81) ࢆཧ↷ࠋᘬ⏝౛ฟ඾஭ୖ ࡦࡉࡋ. 1974a. ࠕ࠶࡜ࡀࡁ࡟࠿࠼࡚ࠖࠊ
ࠗࣔࢵ࣏࢟ࣥࢵࢺᖌࡢᚋጞᮎ࠘232-235ࠊᮾி: ᪂₻♫㸬஭ୖ ࡦࡉࡋ. 1974b. ࠗࣈࣥ࡜ࣇࣥ࠘ᮾி: ᪂₻♫㸬஭ୖ ࡦࡉࡋ. 1981. ࠗྜྷ㔛ྜྷ㔛ே࠘ᮾி: ᪂₻♫㸬ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ᑽࣨᓮ ᙯ. 1988. ࠗ᪥ᮏࡢࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡȰ₇ᢏࡍࡿゝⴥ࠘ᮾி: ⟃ᦶ᭩ᡣ㸬
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press.
Grice, H. Pall. 1975[1967]. "Logic and Conversation." In Cole, P. and J. L. Morgan (eds.)
Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
7−87−言葉遊びから生じる発話の力―洒落が駄洒落となる場合の文法的及び語用論的条件―஑㨣 ࿘㐀. 1980[1933]. ࠕᩥᏛᴫㄽࠖࠗ஑㨣࿘㐀඲㞟➨ 11 ᕳ࠘ࠊ1-186ࠊᮾி: ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸬
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume I Theoretical
Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1993. "Reference-point Constructions." Cognitive Linguistics 4: 1,
1-38.
Levinson, Stephan C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
୰ᮧ ᫂. 1991. ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡࡢయ⣔Ȱᩥయࡢ࡞࠿࡟࠶ࡿ⾲⌧ᢏἲࡢࡦࢁࡀࡾȰ࠘ᮾி: ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸬㕥ᮌ Ჸ୕㸦⦅㸧1959. ࠗࡇ࡜ࡤ㐟ࡧ㎡඾࠘ᮾி: ᮾிᇽฟ∧㸬㕥ᮌ Ჸ୕. 1979. ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࡋࡷࢀ࠘ᮾி: ㅮㄯ♫㸬ᒣཱྀ ᨻಙ. 2009. ࠕ๰సࡇ࡜ࢃࡊȰᶍೌ࡜๰㐀ࡢࡇ࡜ࡤ㐟ࡧࠖࠊࠗᅜᩥᏛゎ㔘࡜㚷㈹࠘ࠊ74: 12ࠊ
139-145㸬ᒣ᲍ ṇ᫂. 2009. ࠕㄆ▱ㄒ⏝ㄽ࠿ࡽࡳࡓᩥἲ࣭ㄽ⌮࣭ࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡࠖࠊ
ࠗㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲࠘ࠊ11ࠊ61-97.

8

−88−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

どⅬࠊᩥ⬦࡜ᣦᶆᛶ
ʊⱥㄒᣦ♧モ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ືࡢ⌧㇟ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ʊ⃝⏣ ῟㟷ᒣᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ
㸺Abstract㸼
This paper focuses on the English distal demonstrative that (and there) which deictically refers to thethings (or places) that the speaker is touching or holding, as in: “Look at that!” He held out his hand. On thepalm were three little pyramids of black, doughy clay. (Arthur Conan Doyle, ‘The Adventure of the Three
Students’). I argue that the use of this kind of that (there) reflects the perspective shift from the speaker to thehearer. By taking the hearer’s perspective the speaker can strongly attract the hearer’s attention to the thing (orplace). The data this paper focuses on shed a new light on the ‘indexical shifting’ in the Kaplanian context.

࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸ᣦ♧モࠊ┤♧ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࠊどⅬࠊᣦᶆモࢩࣇࢺࠊࣔࣥࢫࢱ࣮㸯 ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ㏆ഐ࡟࠶ࡿᑐ㇟ࡸࠊヰࡋᡭࡀᡭ࡟ࡍࡿᑐ㇟ࢆᣦ♧ࡍࡿሙྜࠊ୍⯡࡟ࠊ㏆⛠ᣦ♧モ this ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ☜࠿࡟ࠊḟࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ࣮࣒࣍ࢬࡣࠊ⮬㌟ࡀ
ᡭ࡟ࡍࡿᑐ㇟㸦࣑ࣝࢡࡢᑠ─㸧ࢆ this ࡛┤♧ⓗ࡟ᣦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧“There isn’t a cat in it, for example?”“No. What a strange idea!”“Well, look at this!” He took up a small saucer of milk which stood on the top of it.
㸦Arthur Conan Doyle, ‘The Adventure of the Speckled Band’ 268 㡫㸧࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊ⯆࿡῝࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࠊḟࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ࣮࣒࣍ࢬࡣࠊ⮬㌟ࡀᡭ࡟ࡍࡿᑐ㇟㸦≢ேỴࡵᡭࡢドᣐ࡜࡞ࡿᅵࡢ࠿ࡓࡲࡾ㸧ࢆ this ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ that ࡛ᣦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 㸦2㸧“But what fresh evidence could you have got?”“Aha! It is not for nothing that I have turned myself out of bed at the untimely hour of six. I
have put in two hours’ hard work and covered at least five miles, with something to show for
it. Look at that!” He held out his hand. On the palm were three little pyramids of black,doughy clay.㸦ࠕࡇࢀࢆぢ࡚ࡃࢀࡓࡲ࠼ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗ࡚ᙼࡣ∦ᡭࢆࡦࢁࡆ࡚ࡳࡏࡓࠋᡭࡢࡦࡽ࡟ࡣࣆ
࣑ࣛࢵࢻᆺࡢᑠࡉ࡞ᅵࡢ࠿ࡓࡲࡾࡀ୕ࡘࡢࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ㸧

㸦Arthur Conan Doyle, ‘The Adventure of the Three Students’ 604 㡫㸧᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ᑐ↷ࡋࡓሙྜࠊࡇࢀࡣᴟࡵ࡚⯆࿡῝࠸⌧㇟࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬㌟ࡢ
ᡭ࡟ゐࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᑐ㇟ࢆ┤♧ⓗ࡟ᣦࡍሙྜࠊ㏆⛠ᣦ♧モࢥ࡟౑⏝ࡀᙉࡃไ㝈ࡉࢀࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ㸦2㸧ࡢ≧ἣ࡛ࡣࠊࠕࡇࢀࠖ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊࠕࡑࢀࠖࡸࠕ࠶ࢀࠖࡣ඲ࡃ౑࠼࡞࠸ࠋ㸦2㸧ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࠊⱥㄒ
࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡯࡝㏆⛠ᣦ♧࡟ࡼࡿไ⣙ࡀᙉࡃ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࢀࡀ≧ἣ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣᐜ᫆࡟◚ࡽࢀᚓࡿࡇ

−89−

視点、文脈と指標性―英語指示詞における聞き手への視点移動の現象を中心に―࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ㐲⛠ᣦ♧モࡀ♧ࡍண᝿እࡢ㐠⏝࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ㐠⏝ࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟࠶ࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸰 ⪺ࡁᡭ㡿ᇦࡢᣑᙇ࡟ࡼࡿㄝ᫂࡜ࡑࡢၥ㢟ḟࡣࠊᫎ⏬ Charade㸦ࠗࢩ࣮ࣕࣞࢻ࠘㸧࠿ࡽࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝኱౑㤋ࡢ஦ົᐁ࡛࠶ࡿࣂ
࣮ࢯ࣑࣮ࣟࣗࡀࠊኵࢳ࣮ࣕࣝࢬࡢᶓ㡿஦௳࡟ᕳࡁ㎸ࡲࢀࡓᮍஸேࣞࢪ࣮ࢼ࡟ࠊ୍ᯛࡢ෗┿ࢆぢࡏࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࣂ࣮ࢯ࣑࣮ࣟࣗࡣࠊ⮬㌟ࡀᡭ࡟ࡍࡿ෗┿ࢆ that ࡛┤♧ⓗ࡟ᣦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦3㸧BARTHOLOMEW: Mrs. Lampert, would you look at that photograph and tell me if you
recognize anyone, please. Just a moment, have a good look.㸦ࠕࣛࣥࣃ࣮ࢺࡉࢇࠊ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ෗┿ࢆぢ࡚ぢぬ࠼ࡢ࠶ࡿேࡀ࠸ࡓࡽᩍ࠼࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠊ࠸࠸࡛ࡍࡡ㸽ࡕࡻࡗ࡜ᚅࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ㹙⹸║㙾ࢆΏࡋ࡚㹛ࡼࡃぢ࡚ࠋࠖ࠙ὀ㸸that ࡢⓎヰࡣࠊୗࡢᫎീ࡜ᑐᛂࠚREGGIE: It's Charles!                     㸦ᫎ⏬ Charade㸧     ᅗ㸯 ᫎ⏬ Charade ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ that ࡢⓎヰᫎീ ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊthat ࡀฟ⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⌮⏤ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼ࢀࡤࡼ࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋㄝ
᫂ἲࡢ 1 ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊၥ㢟ࡢᑐ㇟ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᕪࡋฟࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ᪤࡟ᑐ㇟ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᨭ㓄㡿ᇦ࡟ධࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࠊthat ࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠺ㄝ᫂ἲࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇ
ࡢㄝ᫂ἲ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊၥ㢟ࡢ that ࡣࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ㡿ᇦᣦ♧⏝ἲࠖࡢ that ࡛࠶ࡾࠊே⛠ᣦྥࢩࢫࢸ࣒㸦ᑐ
࣭

࣭

࣭

࣭

❧ᆺ㸧ࡢᵓᅗ㏻ࡾࡢ㐠⏝࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢㄝ᫂ἲ࡟ࡣᗄࡘ࠿ࡢᮏ㉁ⓗ㞴Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ1 ࡘࡣࠊthat ࡢⓎヰ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡣࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡣᮍࡔヰࡋᡭࡢᡭ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡀᡭ࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ௨ୖࠊᑐ㇟ࡣᮍࡔヰࡋᡭࡢᨭ㓄㡿ᇦෆ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿぢ᪉ࡶྰᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸㸦᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡶࠊ㸦3㸧ࡢ౛ࡢ≧ἣ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ㡿ᇦᣦ♧⏝ἲࠖࡢࢯࡣ౑࠼࡞࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺㸧ࠋୖグࡢㄝ᫂ἲࡢࡶ࠺ 1 ࡘࡢࠊࡑࡋ࡚᭱኱ࡢ㞴Ⅼࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐ㇟ࡀΏࡽ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡛ࡶ that ࡀ౑ࢃࢀᚓࡿ஦ᐇ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬↛࡞ㄝ᫂ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦2㸧ࡣࡲࡉ࡟ࡑࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟౛ࢆ㏣ຍࡋࡼ࠺ࠋḟࡣࠊᫎ⏬ The Wonderful Wizard of Oz㸦ࠗ࢜ࢬࡢ㨱ἲ౑࠸࠘㸧࠿ࡽࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㨱ዪࡀ㞳ࢀࡓሙᡤ࡟࠶ࡿ኱ࡁ࡞◁᫬ィࢆྲྀࡾ࡟⾜ࡁࠊࡑࡢሙᡤ࠿ࡽ◁᫬ィࡢṧࡾ᫬㛫ࢆᑡዪࢻࣟࢩ࣮࡟ぢࡏࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㨱ዪࡣࠊᡭ࡟ࡋࡓ◁᫬ィࢆ that ࡛ᣦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ  㸦4㸧The Wicked Witch moves toward a big hourglass.࠙ᅗ 2 ᕥࡢᫎീ࡜ᑐᛂࠚ
She picks up the hourglass, turning it upside down and pointing to it.
WICKED WITCH: Do you see that? That's how much longer you've got to be alive! And
it isn't long, my pretty! It isn't long! I can't wait forever to get those shoes!㸦ࠕࡇࢀࡀࢃ࠿ࡿ࠿㸽ࡇࢀࡀ࠾๓ࡉࢇ࡟ṧࡉࢀࡓ࿨ࡢ㛗ࡉࡔࡼ㸟 ࡋ࠿ࡶࡉ࡯࡝㛗ࡃ࡞࠸ࡡࠊ࠾Ꮉࡕࡷࢇࡼࠋ㸦␎㸧ࠖ㸧        
࠙ᅗ 2 ྑࡢᫎീ࡜ᑐᛂࠚ             㸦ᫎ⏬ The Wonderful Wizard of Oz㸧

−90−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

 㸼
                ᅗ㸰 ᫎ⏬ The Wonderful Wizard of Oz ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᑐᛂᫎീ
㨱ዪࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ࢻࣟࢩ࣮㸧࠿ࡽ 10 ࣓࣮ࢺࣝ㏆ࡃ㞳ࢀࡓሙᡤ࡛◁᫬ィࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᑐ㇟
ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᨭ㓄㡿ᇦෆ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᴟࡵ࡚ᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸱 ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ືࡢཎ๎
 ᣦ♧モ WKDW ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ື ࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫ⾲⌧ࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊᵝࠎ࡞ゝㄒ⌧㇟࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࠕどⅬࠖ㸦viewpoint/vantage point㸧ࡣ㔜せ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍࠋ࡜ࡾࢃࡅどⅬࡀヰࡋᡭࡢഃ࡟࠶ࡿ࠿ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢഃ࡟࠶ࡿ࠿ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀㄒᙡ㑅ᢥࡢ୍せᅉ࡜࡞ࡿ⌧㇟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ┤♧ⓗ⛣ືືモ come/go ࡢ㑅ᢥࡀࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦5㸧I {went/came over} to your place last night, but you weren’t home.㸦Fillmore㸦1997: 90㸧㸧ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞どⅬࡢ㐪࠸ࡣࠊᣦ♧モ this/that ࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ཯ᫎࡉࢀᚓࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ㸦2㸧-㸦4㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ that ࡢ౑⏝ࡣࠊ඲࡚⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ືࡢ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ศᯒࡍࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡀᡭ࡟ࡍࡿᑐ㇟ࡣ this ࡛ᣦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚ࡋ࠿ࡿ࡭ࡁᑐ
㇟࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࡑࡢᑐ㇟ࡣ that ࡛ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿ㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡍࢀࡤᑐ㇟ࡣ that ࡛ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿ㡿ᇦ࡟࠶ࡿ㸧ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦௨ୗࠊࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ື⏝ἲࠖࡢ that ࡜࿧ࡪ㸧ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠊୖࡢ㸦2㸧-㸦4㸧ࡢ౛࡛ that ࡀ⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᵓᩥࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆ♧ࡍ࡜ࠊLook at that!ࠊ
Would you look at that NPࠊDo you see that?࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࠿ࡽࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩࡀᢳฟ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ➨1 ࡟ࠊthat ࡣࠊ࿨௧ࠊ౫㢗ࠊ☜ㄆ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࠖࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡍࡿ⪺ࡁᡭᣦྥⓗ࡞㐙⾜Ⓨヰ㸦performative utterance㸧ࡢ୰࡛⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ➨ 2 ࡟ࠊthat ࢆྵࡴ㐙⾜Ⓨヰᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
୺య㸦▱ぬ୺య㸧ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨ 3 ࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⌧ሙ㸦࡞࠸ࡋࡣࠊ┤♧✵㛫㸧ࢆඹ᭷ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡀᥦ♧ࡍࡿᑐ㇟ࢆ▱ぬ࡛ࡁࡿ఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊḟࡢཎ๎ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦6㸧ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ືࡢཎ๎ࠖ㸸⌧ሙࢆඹ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྥࡅࡓ⪺ࡁᡭᣦྥⓗ࡞㐙⾜Ⓨヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࠊ⮬㌟ࡀᡭ࡟ࡍࡿᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢどⅬ࡟❧ࡗࡓ㐲⛠ᣦ♧モ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ࡓࡔࡋࠊ⪺ࡁᡭᣦྥⓗ࡞㐙⾜Ⓨヰෆ࡛ࡣ㐲⛠ᣦ♧モࡢ౑⏝ࡀ⩏ົⓗ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞
࠸ࠋ㸦1㸧ࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊ㸦2㸧ࡢ౛࡞࡝࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ㏆⛠ᣦ♧モࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊヰࡋᡭ
どⅬࡀಖᣢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋヰࡋᡭどⅬࢆಖᣢࡋࡓ this ࢆ౑࠺࠿ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭどⅬ࡟❧ࡗࡓ that ࢆ౑࠺࠿ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘヰࡋᡭࡢ⿢㔞࡟ጤࡡࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

−91−

視点、文脈と指標性―英語指示詞における聞き手への視点移動の現象を中心に―ࡉ࡚ࠊࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ືࡢཎ๎ࠖࡣࠊḟࡢ౛࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢࡍࡄ㏆ഐࡢࢪࣕࢣࢵࢺࡀ thisࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎ that ࡛ᣦ♧ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡶ⮬↛࡟ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ  㸦7㸧㸦ὒ᭹኎ࡾሙ࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬㌟ࡢࡍࡄ㏆ഐ࡟࠶ࡿࢪࣕࢣࢵࢺࢆᣦࡋ࡚㸧How about {this/that} one?         㸦Huddleston and Pullum㸦2002: 1505㸧㸧
Huddleston and Pullum㸦2002: 1505㸧࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊὒ᭹ࢆ㈙࠾࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀヰࡋᡭࡢሙྜ࡟
ࡣ this ࡢ౑⏝ࡀࠊࡑࢀࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣ that ࡢ౑⏝ࡀዲࡲࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋࡇࡢㄝ᫂࡟ἢ࠼ࡤࠊ
this ࡢ౛ࡣࠊᙜヱࡢ᭹ࡀ⮬ศ࡟ఝྜ࠺࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑜࡡ࡚࠸ࡿⓎヰࠊthat ࡢ౛ࡣࠊ㛫᥋ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽⓗ࡟ᙜヱࡢ᭹ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟່ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿⓎヰ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋどⅬ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃᮏ✏ࡢศᯒἲ࡟ᚑ࠺࡞ࡽࡤࠊthis ࡢ౛ࡣヰࡋᡭどⅬࠊthat ࡢ౛ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭどⅬࡢⓎヰ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜
࡟࡞ࡿࡀࠊୖࡢ that ࡢ౛ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ່ࡵ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡢࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢどⅬ࡟❧ࡗࡓⓎヰࡔ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
 ྠᵝ࡟ࠊࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ືࡢཎ๎ࠖࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࠊ௨ୗࡢ౛ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
࣭

࣭

࣭

࣭

࣭

࣭

㸦8㸧㸦ᝈ⪅ࡀ③ࡴṑࢆ⮬ศ࡛ᣦᕪࡋࠊ་⪅࡟ࡑࢀࢆఏ࠼ࡿሙ㠃㸧It’s {this/that} one.               㸦Fillmore㸦1997: 123㸧㸧Fillmore㸦1997: 123㸧࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢ౛࡛ヰࡋᡭࡀ that ࢆ౑ࡗࡓ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡑࢀࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢどⅬ࡟❧ࡗࡓゝ࠸᪉࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋどⅬࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋࡓㄝ࡛᫂࠶ࡿⅬࡀὀ┠ࡉࢀࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᩥࡢⓎヰᶵ⬟࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿࠋ㸦8㸧ࡣࠊᖹླྀᩥ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ③࠸ṑࡣ࡝ࡢṑ࠿࡜⪺࠿ࢀࡓࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦་⪅㸧࡬ࡢࠕᅇ⟅ࠖࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓⓎヰ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋᅇ⟅ᥦ♧ࡶࡲࡓࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋࡓ⪺ࡁᡭᣦྥⓗ࡞㐙⾜Ⓨヰ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㸦6㸧ࡢཎ๎࡟ࡼࡾࠊthat ࡀ౑⏝࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
Fillmore㸦1997: 123㸧ࡣࠊୖࡢ㸦8㸧ࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊᣦ♧モࡢᣢࡘ㏆᥋㸭㐲㝸㸦proximal/distal㸧ࡢᇶᮏᑐ❧ࡀࠕ୰࿴໬ࠖࡉࢀࡿ࡟⮳ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦get ‘neutralized’㸧࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ
ࠕ㊥㞳ࡢ୰࿴໬ࠖࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ᝿ᐃࡍࡿᚲせࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ື⏝ἲࡢ that ࡣࠊே⛠ᣦྥࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡍࡿ≉Ṧ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㊥㞳༊ศ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃே⛠༊ศࡀ㛵୚ࡋࡓ⏝ἲࡔ࠿ࡽ
࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㊥㞳ᣦྥࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊே⛠ᣦྥࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍ᰿ᣐ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇ
ࡢ⏝ἲࡢ that ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࢆព㆑ࡋ࡞࠸ෆゝࡸ⊂ⓑࡢⓎヰࡢ୰࡛ࡣ⌧ࢀࡎࠊᖖ࡟ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡀᑐ㠃ࡋࡓⓎヰ≧ἣ࡛⌧ࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏ࡢㄝ᫂ࣔࢹࣝࡣࠊே⛠ᣦྥᆺ㸦ᑐ❧ᆺ㸧ࡢᣦ♧ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆᣢࡓࡎࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡟㊥㞳ᣦྥᆺ㸦ᢪྜᆺ࣭⊂❧ᆺ㸧ࡢᣦ♧ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ᣦ♧モࡢ㐠⏝࣭㑅ᢥࢆ࡞ࡍゝㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ㠀㏆⛠ᣦ♧モࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ື⏝ἲࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ⌮ㄽⓗ࡟ண ࡍࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࠊᣦ♧モࡢ㐠⏝ࡀᇶᮏⓗ࡟㊥㞳ᣦྥᆺࡢᣦ♧ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ୰ᅜㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ㐲⛠ᣦ♧モࠕ㑣ࠖ㸦ná㸧ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀᡭ࡟ࡍࡿᑐ㇟ࢆᣦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁࡎࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ື⏝ἲࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࠋ
 ሙᡤᣦ♧モ WKHUH ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ືࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ືࡢཎ๎ࠖࡣࠊሙᡤᣦ♧モ there ࡢ⯆࿡῝࠸ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆࡶ⮬↛࡟ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ
ḟࡣࠊᫎ⏬ Roman Holiday㸦࣮࣐ࠗࣟࡢఇ᪥࠘㸧ࡢ୍ሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⁫ᅾඛࡢᐑᘐࢆᢤࡅฟࡋࡓ

−92−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

࢔ࣥ⋤ዪࡣࠊ⾤ゅࡢ࡜࠶ࡿ⨾ᐜ㝔࡟ධࡿࠋḟࡣࠊ㧥ࢆ࡝ࡢ㛗ࡉࡲ࡛ษࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⌮㧥ᖌ࣐ࣜ࢜࡜࢔ࣥ⋤ዪࡢၥ⟅ሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦9㸧MARIO: What a wonderful er, hair you have! Messa in piega?
PRINCESS: Just cut, thank you.
MARIO: Just cut? Well—then—(pointing with the scissors) cut, uh, so?
PRINCESS: Higher.
MARIO: Higher? (Putting his fingers a little bit higher) Here?
PRINCESS: More.
MARIO: (A little bit higher) Here!
PRINCESS: Even more.
MARIO: (Giving up) Where?
PRINCESS: (Holding her hair at chin length) There. 㸦㢡ࡲ࡛ࡢ㛗ࡉࡢ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛㧥ࢆᥗࡳ㸧㸦ࡇࡇࠋ㸧               ࠙ࡇࡢ there ࡢⓎヰࡣࠊୗࡢᫎീ࡜ᑐᛂࠚMARIO: There. Are you sure, Miss?
PRINCESS: (Clearly) I'm quite sure, thank you.

㸦ᫎ⏬ Roman Holiday㸧ᅗ㸱 ᫎ⏬ Roman Holiday ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ there ࡢⓎヰᫎീὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ࢔ࣥ⋤ዪࡣࠊ⮬㌟ࡢ㧥ࢆᥗࡳ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡑࡢ㧥ࡢ఩⨨ࢆ there ࡛ᣦ♧ࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦ࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ there ࡣࠊඛ⾜モࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ๓᪉↷ᛂ⏝ἲ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸧ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ there ࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ there ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿⅬ࡟␃ពࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
㸦10㸧㸦≧ἣ㸸B ⮬㌟ࡣࠊ⮬ศࡢ⫪࡟ࡣゐࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸧A (rubbing B’s stiff shoulder): Where does it hurt?
   B: Right {there/*here}.

      㸦cf. Tanz㸦1980: 71㸧㸧㸦10㸧࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ≀⌮ⓗ࡟㏆࠸ࡣࡎࡢ⮬㌟ࡢ⫪ࢆ there ࡛ᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡢ⫪ࡣࠊ௒⪺ࡁᡭ㸦་⪅㸧ࡀゐデ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ゐࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࠊ⮬㌟ࡢᝈ㒊ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㡿ศ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡋࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㡿ᇦᣦ♧⏝ἲࡢ there ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ≧ἣ࡛ࡣࠊhereࡣ౑࠼ࡎ there ࡢࡳࡀ㐺᱁࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࠿ࡽࠊࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ㡿ᇦᣦ♧⏝ἲࡢ there ࡣࠊhere ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺୍⯡໬ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿࠋ
࡛ࡣࠊ෌ᗘࠊ㸦9㸧ࡢ there ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ࢔ࣥ⋤ዪࡀⓎࡋࡓ㸦9㸧ࡢ there ࡣࠊhere ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊୖࡢ୍⯡໬࠿ࡽࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㡿ᇦᣦ♧⏝ἲࡢ there ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟࡞
ࡿࠋ㸦9㸧ࡢ there ࡢⓎヰ୰࡟ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟㸦㧥㸧࡟ゐࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࣐࡛ࣜ࢜ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊヰࡋ

−93−

視点、文脈と指標性―英語指示詞における聞き手への視点移動の現象を中心に―ᡭ࢔ࣥ⋤ዪ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡣࠊ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ヰࡋᡭࡀゐࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ㡿ศ㸦࡞࠸ࡋࡣࠊᨭ㓄㡿ᇦ㸧࡟࠶ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
࡛ࡣࠊ࡞ࡐࠊヰࡋᡭ࢔ࣥ⋤ዪࡣࠊ⮬㌟ࡀゐࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᑐ㇟ࡢ఩⨨ࢆ there ࡛ᣦ♧࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࡛࠶
ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ືࡀ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊヰࡋᡭ࢔ࣥ⋤ዪ
ࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽࡍࢀࡤࠊ⮬㌟ࡀᡭ࡟ゐࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡢ఩⨨ࡣ here ࡛ᣦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚ࡋ࠿ࡿ࡭ࡁሙᡤ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ
㸦ᐇ㝿ࠊhere ࡛ࡶ㐺᱁࡜࡞ࡿ㸧ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࣐ࣜ࢜ࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡇࡣ there ࡛ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡿሙᡤ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦9㸧ࡢ there ࡣ୍ㄒⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࣐ࣜ࢜ࡢ㉁ၥ㸦Where?㸧
࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕᅇ⟅ᥦ♧ࠖࡢⓎヰᶵ⬟ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿⅬࡶὀ┠ࡉࢀࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢ⪃ᐹ࠿ࡽࠊၥ㢟ࡢ there ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ㡿ᇦᣦ♧⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ື⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡢุูࢸࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊḟࡢࢸࢫࢺࡀᥦฟ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ  㸦11㸧ุูࢸࢫࢺ㸸⪺ࡁᡭ㡿ᇦᣦ♧⏝ἲࡢ there ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ື⏝ἲࡢ thereࡣࠊhere ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ࡇࡢุูࢸࢫࢺ࠿ࡽࠊḟࡢ౛ࡢ there ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ື⏝ἲࡢ there ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
㸦12㸧㸦ヰࡋᡭࡣዎ⣙᭩ࡢ⨫ྡḍ࡟࣌ࣥࢆᙜ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟⨫ྡࢆಁࡍሙ㠃㸦ᅗ 4㸧㸧 

Sign {there/here} please.             ᅗ㸲 Sign {there/here} please ࡢⓎヰ≧ἣ 1
㸦12㸧ࡢ there ࡣࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿዎ⣙᭩ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᡭඖ࡟࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ୍ぢࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㡿ᇦᣦ♧⏝ἲࡢ there ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡀࠊhere ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ື⏝ἲࡢ there ࡜ぢ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋዎ⣙᭩ࡢ⨫ྡḍࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ࡛࣌ࣥゐࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡢᨭ㓄㡿ᇦ࡟࠶ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡶࠊヰࡋᡭࡀᑐ㇟࡟ゐࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㡿ᇦᣦ♧⏝ἲࡢࢯࡣ౑࠼࡞࠸㸦㹙⨫ྡḍ࡟࣌ࣥࢆᙜ࡚࡞ࡀࡽ㹛㹹ࡇࡇ㸭*ࡑࡇ㹻࡟⨫ྡࢆ࠾㢪࠸ࡋࡲࡍ㸧㸧ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᡭඖ࡟࠶ࡿ⨫ྡḍ࡜ࠊࡑࡇࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍヰࡋᡭࡢ࣌ࣥ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᣦ㸧࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ㊥㞳ࡀ㞳ࢀࡿ࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ㡿ᇦᣦ♧⏝ἲࡢ there ࡢゎ㔘ࡀඃໃ࡜࡞ࡾࠊthere ࡢ here ࡬ࡢ⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡣ㞴ࡋࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃ㸦ࡇࡢሙྜࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡶࠕࡑࡇࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡀඃໃ࡜࡞ࡾࠊࠕࡇࡇࠖࡣ౑࠸
࡟ࡃࡃ࡞ࡿ㸧ࠋ ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ືࡢືᶵ
࡛ࡣࠊ࡞ࡐࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࠊࢃࡊࢃࡊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢどⅬ࡟❧ࡗࡓᣦ♧ࢆ⾜࠺ࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ┦ᡭࡢどⅬ࡟❧ࡗࡓᣦ♧ࡣࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟᭷ᶆ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࡔࡅࡢ඘ศ࡞ືᶵࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢどⅬ࡟❧ࡗࡓᣦ♧ࢆ⾜࠺ືᶵ࡜ࡋ࡚ḟࡢࡶࡢࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ

−94−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

㸦13㸧ヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢどⅬ࡟❧ࡗࡓᣦ♧ࢆ⾜࠺ືᶵ࡟ࡣࠊ⮬㌟ࡀゐࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᑐ㇟ࡸሙᡤ
࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕὀពࠖ㸦attention㸧ࢆᙉࡃᘬࡃ㸦ࡲࡓࡣࠊᑐ㇟ࡸሙᡤ࡬ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕὀពႏ㉳ࠖࢆᙉࡵࡿ㸧ࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡿࠋ
ᐇ㝿ࠊୖ࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊthat/there ࡣࠊᣦ♧ࡍࡿᑐ㇟ࡸሙᡤ࡬ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕὀ
ពႏ㉳ࠖࢆᙉࡃពᅗࡋࡓࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛࡛ᣦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᑐ㇟ࡸሙᡤࡣࠊㄯヰୖࠊヰࡋᡭࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㸦㔜せ࡞ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ㸧ὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁᑐ㇟ࡸሙᡤ࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ㸦➹⪅ࡀ཰㞟ࡋࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ⠊ᅖ࠿ࡽ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀ㸧ၥ㢟ࡢ㐲⛠ᣦ♧モࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࢆ▱ぬ୺య࡜ࡍࡿ▱ぬືモ㸦look atࠊsee㸧࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ౛ࡀከ࠸஦ᐇࡶ⮬↛࡟ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽࡢぢ࠼ࢆ⾲ࡍ▱ぬືモࡢ౑⏝ࡣࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡬ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពႏ㉳ࢆពᅗࡍࡿၥ㢟ࡢ㐲⛠ᣦ♧モࡢ㐠⏝࡜ࡼࡃㄪ࿴ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢどⅬ࡟❧ࡗࡓᣦ♧ࢆ⾜࠺ືᶵ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢඹឤࡸぶᐦࡉࢆᅗࡿ࣏ࢪ
ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊthat ࡸ there ࡢ౑࣭࣭࣭⏝ࡀ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢඹឤࡸぶᐦࡉࡢ㔊ᡂ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡲ࡛ࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶྰᐃࡋ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ
࣭

࣭

࣭

࣭

⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢඹឤࡸぶᐦࡉࡢᙧᡂࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ື⏝ἲࡢthat/there ࡢ✚ᴟⓗ࡞౑⏝ືᶵ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ㸦4㸧ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㨱ዪࡀ that ࢆ౑ࡗࡓືᶵࡀᑡዪࢻࣟࢩ࣮
࡜ࡢඹឤࡸぶᐦࡉࡢᙧᡂ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣᴟࡵ࡚⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸㸦௚ࡢ⏝౛࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥ
ࢺ࠿ࡽࡣࠊthat ࡸ there ࡢ౑⏝ືᶵ࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢඹឤࡸぶᐦࡉࡢᙧᡂࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸࡜
ࡢពぢࡀぢࡽࢀࡓ㸧ࠋ㸲 ᣦᶆモࢩࣇࢺ࡜ࣔࣥࢫࢱ࣮ ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ືࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓၥ㢟ࡢ㐲⛠ᣦ♧モࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࠊ㏆ᖺࡢᙧᘧព࿡ㄽ࣭ᙧᘧㄒ⏝ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚⌮ㄽⓗ↔Ⅼࡢ୍ࡘ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠕᣦᶆモࢩࣇࢺࠖࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࡓሙྜࠊ⌮ㄽⓗ࡟ᴟࡵ࡚㔜せ࡞ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿࠋKaplan㸦1989: 490㸧ࡣࠊࠕᣦ♧モࠖ㸦demonstratives㸧࡜ࠕ⣧⢋ᣦᶆモࠖ㸦pure indexicals㸧ࢆ⥲⛠࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕᣦᶆモࠖ㸦indexicals㸧࡜࿧ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ㸦⣧⢋ᣦᶆモ࡟ࡣࠊே⛠௦ྡモ࡜᫬㛫ⓗᣦ♧モ㸦now ➼㸧ࡀྵࡲࢀࡿ㸧ࠋKaplan㸦1989㸧ࡢ㔜せ࡞୺ᙇࡢ 1ࡘ࡟ࠊᣦᶆモࡢព࿡ࡣᖖ࡟ヰࡋᡭࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡍࡿⓎヰሙ࡟ᅛᐃࡉࢀࠊࡑࢀࡺ࠼ࠊᣦᶆモࡣࢩࣇࢺ㸦どⅬ⛣ື㸧ࡋ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺୺ᙇࡀ࠶ࡿࠋKaplan㸦1989: 511㸧ࡣࠊ⮬↛ゝㄒ࡟ࡣᣦᶆモࢩࣇࢺࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡍ࣮࢜࣌ࣞࢱ࣮ࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᐇᅾᛶࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸࣮࢜࣌ࣞࢱ࣮ࢆࠕࣔ
ࣥࢫࢱ࣮㸦᛹≀㸧ࠖ㸦monster㸧࡜࿧ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ㏆ᖺࠊᙧᘧព࿡ㄽ࣭ᙧᘧㄒ⏝ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࣔࣥ
ࢫࢱ࣮ࢆࡵࡄࡾࠊάⓎ࡞㆟ㄽࡀᒎ㛤ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢዎᶵ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࡢࡀ Schlenker㸦2003㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋSchlenker㸦2003㸧ࡣࠊ࢚ࢳ࢜ࣆ࢔ࡢබ⏝ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ࢔࣒ࣁࣛㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ୍ே⛠௦ྡモࡀࠕែᗘືモࠖ㸦attitude verbs㸧ࡢᇙࡵ㎸ࡳᩥෆ㸦㛫᥋ヰἲ㸧ࡢ⎔ቃ࡟㝈ࡾ୺ᩥ୺ㄒࢆࡶᣦ♧ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ஦ᐇࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆヰࡋᡭ࠿ࡽ୺ᩥ୺ㄒ࡬ࡢᣦᶆモࢩࣇࢺࡢ⌧㇟࡜ࡳ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦14㸧‫ۥ‬on‫ۑۥ‬gna John heron‫ۑ‬-ññ

yܺl-allbe.PF-1sO

3M.say-AUX. 3M ‘(lit.): Johni says that Ii am a hero.’㸦Schlenker㸦2003: 31, 68㸧㸧

−95−

視点、文脈と指標性―英語指示詞における聞き手への視点移動の現象を中心に―Schlenker㸦2003㸧ࡣࠊ࢔࣒ࣁࣛㄒࡢ୍ே⛠௦ྡモࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࠊKaplan㸦1989㸧ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠕࣔࣥࢫࢱ࣮ࠖࡣᐇᅾࡋࠊࡑࢀࡀࠕែᗘືモ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋSchlenker
㸦2003㸧ࡢᣦ᦬௨㝆ࠊࢨࢨ࢟ㄒ㸦Zazaki㸧ࠊࢫ࣮ࣦࣞㄒ㸦Slave㸧ࠊ࢘࢖ࢢࣝㄒ㸦Uyghur㸧࡞࡝ࠊ࢔࣒ࣁࣛㄒ௨እࡢゝㄒ࡛ࡶࠊྠ✀ࡢᣦᶆモࢩࣇࢺࡢ⌧㇟ࡀሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏ࡢ that/there ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡶࠊᣦᶆモࢩࣇࢺ㸦どⅬ⛣ື㸧ࡢ⌧㇟࡜ࡳ࡞ࡋᚓࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡀ⌮ㄽⓗ࡟㔜せ࡞ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࡢࡣࠊᚑ᮶ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ୺ᩥ୺ㄒ㸦୺ᩥせ⣲㸧࡬ࡢࢩࣇࢺ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢࢩࣇࢺࢆ♧ࡍⅬ࡟࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࠿ࡽࠊែᗘືモ࡜ࡣ඲ࡃูࡢࣔࣥࢫࢱ࣮
ࡢᏑᅾࡀ௬ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ࿨௧ࠊ౫㢗ࠊ☜ㄆ࡞࡝ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋࡓ⪺ࡁᡭᣦྥⓗ࡞㐙⾜Ⓨヰࡀthat/there ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢࢩࣇࢺࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄽࡌࡓࠋ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢᣦᶆモࢩࣇࢺ࡟㝈ࢀࡤࠊゝㄒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢⓎヰᶵ⬟ࡀࣔࣥࢫࢱ࣮࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ㸳 ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ✏࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓࡼ࠺࡞ᣦ♧モࡢ⌧㇟ࡣࠊⓎヰෆ㒊ࡢ≧ἣ࡟ࡲ࡛ព㆑ⓗ࡟ὀពࢆྥࡅ࡞ࡅࢀࡤぢ㐣ࡈࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡾࠊ௚ゝㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄪᰝࡶ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸࡞࠸ࠋ௒ᚋࡣࠊ㏻ゝㄒⓗ࡞ほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊၥ㢟ࡢᣦ♧モࡢ◊✲ࢆ῝ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢどⅬ⛣ື⏝ἲࡢ
that/there ࡢព࿡࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᙧᘧ໬ࢆ᪋ࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᮏ✏࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓᣦᶆモࢩࣇࢺࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ
୍ᒙ᫂♧໬ࡍࡿ࡜ඹ࡟ࠊே⛠モࢆࡣࡌࡵ࡜ࡍࡿ௚ࡢᵝࠎ࡞ᣦᶆモࢩࣇࢺࡢ⌧㇟㸦ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ᪥
ᮏㄒࡢ୍ே⛠௦ྡモ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ൅ࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ㸽ࠖࡢࠕ൅ࠖࡢ㐠⏝࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢࢩࣇࢺ⌧㇟㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ⌮ㄽⓗ࡞⪃ᐹࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ
ὀ
1. ᅗࡢ URL㸸http://www.flickr.com/photos/femkepemke/2894313051/in/photostreamཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Fillmore, C. J. 1997. Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Huddleston, R and G. K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, D. 1989. Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic. Metaphysics, and Epistemology ofDemonstratives and Other Indexicals. In: Almog, J, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein (eds.) Themes from
Kaplan. 481-563. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schlenker, P. 2003. A Plea for Monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy. 26: 29-120.
Tanz, C. 1980. Studies in the Acquisition of Deictic Terms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
౛ᩥฟ඾㸦ᑠㄝࠊᫎ⏬㸧
Arthur Conan Doyle. 2009. The Complete Sherlock Holmes. London: Vintage Books.
ࠗྡసᫎ⏬᏶඲ࢭࣜࣇ㞟ࢫࢡ࣮ࣜࣥࣉࣞ࢖࣭ࢩ࣮ࣜࢬ 127 ࣮࣐ࣟࡢఇ᪥࠘ᮾி: ᰴᘧ఍♫ࣇ࢛࣮࢖ࣥ.
ࠗྡసᫎ⏬᏶඲ࢭࣜࣇ㞟 ࢫࢡ࣮ࣜࣥࣉࣞ࢖࣭ࢩ࣮ࣜࢬ 134 ࢜ࢬࡢ㨱ἲ౑㸦ᨵゞ∧㸧࠘ᮾி: ᰴᘧ఍♫ࣇ࢛࣮࢖ࣥ.
ࠗྡసᫎ⏬᏶඲ࢭࣜࣇ㞟 ࢫࢡ࣮ࣜࣥࣉࣞ࢖࣭ࢩ࣮ࣜࢬ 138 ࢩ࣮ࣕࣞࢻ࠘ᮾி: ᰴᘧ఍♫ࣇ࢛࣮࢖ࣥ.

−96−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

᪥ᮏㄒࡢಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢᵓᡂ࡜ព࿡ᙧᡂྐ ᫓ⰼ  ⚄ᡞ኱Ꮫ㹙㝔㹛shichunhua219@gmail.com<Abstract>
The present study focuses on Japanese Geminate Compound Verbs (GCV), such as hik-kaesu (pull-return)‘turn back’ or tup-pasiru (thrust-run) ‘dash’. In contrast to the input-oriented approaches in previous studies,
we claim it is necessary to adopt the framework of Construction Morphology, which takes an output-oriented
viewpoint, when examining the word formation and the particular stylistic features of GCV. On a
constructional approach, GCV is captured as a lexical construction, which can be represented as aform/property pairing:[[(C)VQ]V1[CV]*V2]Vļ<stylistic feature 㸻 informal/crude speaking style>.
Furthermore, based on the degree of semantic bleaching in their V1s’ meanings, the meanings of GCV canbe accounted for by three meaning schemas: < V1V2㸼, <V1(bleached) V2>, and < V2>.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ:ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࠊࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࠊಁ㡢໬ࠊᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࠊព࿡ᙧᡂ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢㄒᙡⓗ」ྜືモࡢ࠺ࡕࠊࠕᘬࡗ㏉ࡍࠖ
ࠕ✺ࡗ㉮ࡿࠖ
ࠕࡦࡗ྇ࡃࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊV1ࡢ㒊ศ࡟ಁ㡢ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠕಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࠖࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢㄒࡢᵓᡂࠊཬࡧㄒࡢព࿡ᙧᡂ
ࡢ≉ᚩࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋㄒࡢᵓᡂ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊV1 ࡢ࣮ࣔࣛᩘ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿไ㝈ࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟୍⯡໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡟
ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡍࡿࠋព࿡ᙧᡂ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢព࿡࡜ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡀᣢࡘ≉Ṧ࡞ࠕᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡍࡿࠋ
2. ඛ⾜◊✲
ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࢆ⣔⤫ⓗ࡟ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ᭱ึࡢ◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᩪ⸨ (1986, 1992) ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋಁ
㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢᙧᡂ࡞࡝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᩪ⸨ (1986, 1992) ࡣࠊᅗ 1 ࡟♧ࡍࣔࢹࣝࢆᥦ
᱌ࡋࡓࠋᙧែ㡢㡩ㄽⓗ࡞ᙧែ⣲ࣞ࣋ࣝ

ࣉࣟࢭࢫ 1 (㠀㡢౽໬)A 㸩 B ĺ A B
౛.HIKU KAESUᙧែࣞ࣋ࣝa b ౛. hikikaesu
a’b ౛. hiQkaesu

HIKU㺃KAESUᙧែ㡢㡩ㄽⓗ࡞ࣉࣟࢭࢫ 2 (㡢౽໬)ᅗ 1 ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢᙧᡂࢆ♧ࡍࣔࢹࣝ (ᩪ⸨ 1992: 235)

−97−

日本語の促音形複合動詞の構成と意味形成ලయ౛ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊν) ືモ Aࠕᘬࡃࠖ࡜ືモ Bࠕ㏉ࡍࠖࡀ⤖ྜࡍࡿሙྜࠊࡲࡎࠕHIKU࣭KAESUࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ㄒᙡ⣲ AB ࢆసࡿࠋAB ࡟㠀㡢౽໬ࢆ⾲ࡍᙧែ㡢㡩ㄽⓗ࡞ࣉࣟࢭࢫ 1 ࡜㡢౽໬ࢆ⾲ࡍᙧែ㡢㡩ㄽⓗ࡞ࣉࣟࢭࢫ 2 ࡢ୧᪉ࡀാࡁ࠿ࡅࡓࡓࡵࠊ㠀㡢౽ᙧࠕᘬࡁ㏉ࡍࠖ࡜㡢౽
ᙧࠕᘬࡗ㏉ࡍࠖࡢ୧᪉ࡀᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡿࠋϹ) A ࡜ B ࡀࠕᘬࡃࠖ࡜ࠕ⥅ࡄࠖࡢሙྜࠊ㠀㡢౽໬ࢆ⾲ࡍᙧែ㡢㡩ㄽⓗ࡞ࣉࣟࢭࢫ 1 ࡋ࠿ാ࠿࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ㠀㡢౽ᙧ」ྜືモࠕᘬࡁ⥅ࡄࠖࡋ࠿ᐇ⌧ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋϺ) A ࡜ B ࡀࠕ✺ࡃࠖ࡜ࠕ㉮ࡿࠖࡢሙྜࠊ㡢౽໬ࢆ⾲ࡍᙧែ㡢㡩ㄽⓗ࡞ࣉࣟࢭࢫ 2 ࡋ࠿ാ࠿࡞࠸ࡓ
ࡵࠊ㡢౽ᙧࡢࠕ✺ࡗ㉮ࡿࠖࡋ࠿ᐇ⌧ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
ᅗ 1 ࡢࣔࢹࣝࡣࠊධຊ (input) ࡢᵓᡂせ⣲࡛࠶ࡿືモ A ࡜ືモ B ࡟ࠊㄒᵓᡂ࣮ࣝࣝࢆ⾲ࡍᙧែ㡢㡩ㄽⓗ࡞ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀാࡃࡇ࡜࡛㠀ಁ㡢ᙧࡸಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡀసࡽࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠕධຊ㸩ㄒᵓᡂ࣮ࣝࣝࠖࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽㄒᵓᡂࡢ୍⯡໬ࢆヨࡳࡓࣔࢹ࡛ࣝ࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ≉ᚩࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊᩪ⸨ (1986, 1992) ࡀྲྀࡿධຊ㔜ど (input-oriented) ࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥᙧែㄽ (Booij 2010) ࡀᥦၐࡍࡿฟຊ㔜ど (output-oriented) ࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࠿ࡽࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࢆࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠊ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊࡲࡎ 3.2 ⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡣ㡢⠇ᵓ㐀࡟࠾࠸࡚≉Ṧ࡞ไ㝈ࡀぢࡽࢀࠊࡑࢀࡣධຊ (input) ࠿ࡽࡢ୍⯡໬ࡼࡾࡶࠊฟຊ (output) ࠿ࡽ୍⯡໬ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ᪉ࡀࡼࡾࢩࣥࣉࣝ࡟ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊ3.3 ⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモ࡟ࡣࠕ≉Ṧ࡞ᩥయⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࠖࢆᣢࡕࠊࡑࢀࡣධຊ࠿ࡽㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡎࠊฟຊ࠿ࡽㄝ᫂ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ᛶ㉁࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿࠋ
3. ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࢆࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡜ぢ࡞ࡍᚲせᛶ
3.1. ࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡜ࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥᙧែㄽ
Goldberg (1995: 4) ࡣࠊࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࢆࠊධຊࡢᵓᡂせ⣲࠿ࡽண ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࠕᙧ
ᘧ࡜ព࿡/ᛶ㉁ࡢ࣌࢔ࣜࣥࢢ (pairing)ࠖ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⪃࠼ࢆࠊBooij (2010) ࡞࡝ࡣᙧែㄽ
࡟ᛂ⏝ࡋࠊࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥᙧែㄽ (construction morphology) ࢆᥦၐࡋࡓࠋࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥ
ᙧែㄽ࡛ࡣࠊฟຊ㔜どࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽ୍⯡໬ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊὴ⏕ㄒࡸ」ྜㄒ࡞࡝ࡢ」㞧ㄒ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿᵓᡂせ⣲࡟㑏ඖ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ᛶ㉁ࢆࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࡀᣢࡘᛶ㉁࡜ࡋ࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊձಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢ㡢㡩ᵓ㐀࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿไ㝈ࡣࠊฟຊ࠿ࡽࡼࡾ⤒῭ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿ୍⯡໬ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࠊղಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡀᣢࡘ≉Ṧ࡞ᩥయⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࡣࠊධຊࡢᵓᡂせ⣲࠿ࡽண ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊࡢ 2 Ⅼࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡑࡇ࠿ࡽࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡀㄒᙡࣞ࣋ࣝࡢࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩ
࡛ࣙࣥ࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࢆ≉ᐃࡢᙧᘧ࡜≉Ṧ࡞ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁࡜ࡢ࣌࢔ࣜࣥࢢ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ
࠼ࡿࠋ
3.2. ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢ㡢⠇ᵓ㐀࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿไ⣙ࡣฟຊ࠿ࡽࡢ୍⯡໬ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡣ㡢⠇ᵓ㐀࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊV1 ࡀಁ㡢ࢆධࢀ࡚ 2 ࣮࡛ࣔࣛ࠶ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ไ⣙ࢆᣢࡘࠋ௨ୗࡣࡇࡢไ⣙ࡀ஧ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚☜ㄆࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモ࡟ 2 ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ (ᩪ⸨ 1986 ཧ↷)ࠋ୍ࡘࡣࠊ
(1) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡀ㠀ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモ࡜ᑐᛂࡍࡿᙧ࡛Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−98−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号(1) ᑐᛂࡍࡿ㠀ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモᑐᛂࡍࡿᙧ࡛Ꮡᅾࡍࡿಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモa. ࠾ࡗࡥࡽ࠺

cf. ࠾࠸ࡣࡽ࠺/owiharau/d. ࡓࡓࡗࡇࡴ

cf. ࡓࡓࡁࡇࡴ/tatakikomu/b. ࠾ࡗࡘࡅࡿ

cf. ࠾ࡋࡘࡅࡿ/ositukeru/e. ࡜ࡗ࠿࠼ࡿ

cf. ࡜ࡾ࠿࠼ࡿ/torikaeru/c. ࡦࡗ࠿࠼ࡍ

cf. ࡦࡁ࠿࠼ࡍ/hikikaesu/

f. ࡪࡗࡇࢁࡍ

cf. ࡪࡕࡇࢁࡍ/butikorosu/ࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡣࠊ
ࠕࡪࡗಽࡍࠖ
ࠕࡪࡗᤄࡍࠖ
ࠕࡪࡗ㣕ࡤࡍࠖ
ࠊࠕ✺ࡗ㉮ࡿࠖ
ࠕ✺ࡗษࡿࠖ
ࠕ✺ࡗ❧ࡘࠖ
ࠊࠕࡦࡗᥗࡴࠖࠕࡦࡗᤊ࠼ࡿࠖࠕࡦࡗ྇ࡃࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᑐᛂࡍࡿ㠀ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲ࡀ㞟ࡵࡓィ 142 ࡢಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモ 1)ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ๓⪅ࡢᩘࡣ 46 ࡛ࠊᚋ⪅ࡢᩘࡣ 96 ࡛࠶ࡿࠋV1 ࡢ࣮ࣔࣛᩘ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ぢࡿ࡜ࠊᚋ⪅࡟ࡣ୍ࡘࡶ౛እࡀ࡞ࡃࠊ96 ㄒࡢ V1 ࡢ࣮ࣔࣛᩘࡣࡍ࡭࡚
(ಁ㡢ࢆධࢀ࡚) 2 ࣮࡛ࣔࣛ࠶ࡿࠋ
୍᪉ࠊ๓⪅ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡣࠊ
ࠕࡓࡓࡗࡇࡴࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ V1 ࡀ 3 ࣮ࣔࣛࡢࡶࡢࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ㠀ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡀྠᵝࡢ㡢㡩ⓗ᮲௳ࢆഛ࠼ࡓሙྜࠊ3 ࣮ࣔࣛ (௨ୖ) ࡢ V1ࢆᣢࡘ㠀ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡼࡾࠊ2 ࣮ࣔࣛࡢ V1 ࢆᣢࡘ㠀ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモ࡟ࠊᑐᛂࡍࡿಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜື
モࡀ᭷ព࡟ᣢࡕࡸࡍ࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡇ࠿ࡽࠊࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊV1 ࡀ 2 ࣮ࣔࣛࢆせồࡍࡿไ⣙ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㠀ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモ࡜ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡀᑐᛂࡋ࡚Ꮡᅾࡍࡿሙྜࠊ㠀ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡣᚲせ࡞㡢㡩ⓗ᮲௳ࢆ‶ࡓࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ࿴ㄒࡢಁ㡢୍⯡࡟࠿࠿ࡿ㡢㡩ⓗ࡞ไ⣙ (᭷ᆏ1940:111, ❑ᅬ࣭ኴ⏣ 1998: 117 ࡞࡝) ࡜ᮏ◊✲ࡀ㞟ࡵࡓ 46 ⤌ࡢ౛ (1) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ಁ㡢ᙧ࡜㠀ಁ㡢ᙧࡢ࣌࢔࠿ࡽぢࡽࢀࡓ㡢㡩ⓗ࡞≉ᚩ࡜ࢆྜࢃࡏ࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊࡑࡢᚲせ࡞㡢㡩ⓗ᮲௳ࢆ (2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(2) V1 㐃⏝ᙧࡢㄒᮎẕ㡢ࡣ㧗ẕ㡢/i/ࠊࡑࡢ๓ࡢᏊ㡢ࡀ/s, k, t, w, r/࡛ࠊV2 ࡢ㢌Ꮚ㡢ࡀ/p, t, k, h/࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(2) ࡣᚲせ᮲௳࡛ࠊࡇࡢ᮲௳ࢆ‶ࡓࡋࡓ㠀ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモ࡛ࡶᚲࡎᑐᛂࡍࡿಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࢆᣢࡘ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ2 ࣮ࣔࣛࡢ V1 ࢆᣢࡘ㠀ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝ࠺࡜ࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠕᘬࡁ㏉ࡍ/hikikaesu/ࠖ࡟ࠕࡦࡗ࠿࠼ࡍࠖࠊ
ࠕྲྀࡾ᭰࠼ࡿ/owikakeru/ࠖ࡟ࠕ࡜ࡗ࠿࠼ࡿࠖࢆᣢࡘࡀࠊ
ࠕἽࡁᔂࢀࡿ
/nakikuzureru/ࠖ࡟ࠕ*࡞ࡗࡃࡎࢀࡿࠖࠊ
ࠕྲྀࡾᅖࡴ/torikakomu㸧ࠖ࡟ࠕ*࡜ࡗ࠿ࡇࡴࠖࡣᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࠋ
୍᪉ࠊ3 ࣮ࣔࣛ (௨ୖ) ࡢ V1 ࢆᣢࡘ㠀ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢሙྜࠊࠕ྇ࡃࠖࢆ V1 ࡟ྲྀࡿࠕࡓࡓࡁ㎸ࡴࠖࠕࡓࡓࡁษࡿࠖ࡜ࠕࡓࡓࡁẅࡍࠖ࡟ࡑࢀࡒࢀᑐᛂࡍࡿಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࠕࡓࡓࡗࡇࡴࠖ
ࠕࡓࡓࡗࡁࡿࠖ࡜ࠕࡓࡓࡗࡇࢁࡍࠖࢆᣢࡘ௨እ࡟ࠊ඲ࡃᑐᛂࡍࡿಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ(3) ࡟ࡣࠊ(2)ࡢ㡢㡩ⓗ࡞ᚲせ᮲௳ࢆ‶ࡓࡋࡓ 3 ࣮ࣔࣛ (௨ୖ) ࡢ V1 ࢆᣢࡘ㠀ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢ౛ࢆᣲࡆࡿࠋ
(3) ࡍࢃࡾࡇࡴࠊ࠾ࡑ࠸࠿࠿ࡿࠊࡶ࠺ࡋࡇࡴࠊࡣ࡞ࡋ࠿ࡅࡿࠊࡣࡓࡽࡁ࠿ࡅࡿࠊ࡞ࡆࡁ࠿࡞ࡋࡴ
ᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ㄒࡀసᡂࡋࡓࠕ᪥ᮏㄒ」ྜືモࣜࢫࢺ࡛ࠖㄪ࡭ࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ(3) ࡢ㡢㡩᮲௳ࢆ‶ࡓࡍ㠀ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢ୰࡛ࠊ2 ࣮ࣔࣛࡢ V1 ࢆᣢࡘ 994 ㄒࡢ࠺ࡕࠊಁ㡢ᙧࢆᣢࡘࡢࡣ 46 ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀ

−99−

日本語の促音形複合動詞の構成と意味形成࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
3 ࣮ࣔࣛ (௨ୖ) ࡢ V1 ࢆᣢࡘ 424 ㄒࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ
ಁ㡢ᙧࢆᣢࡘࡢࡣ 3 ㄒࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿ (Ȥ2=12.542;
df=1; p㸺.0001)ࠋ
 ௨ୖࡢ⪃ᐹ࠿ࡽࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡣ V1 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡑࡢ࣮ࣔࣛᩘࡀ 2 ࣮࡛ࣔࣛ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆせồࡍࡿ࡜ศ࠿ࡿࠋ
ධຊ࠿ࡽಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢㄒࡢᵓᡂࢆ⪃࠼ࡿሙྜࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟␗࡞ࡿ 2 ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜ
ືモࡣࠊ஧ࡘࡢ㐪࠺つ๎࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⏕⏘ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋධຊ㔜どࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࠿
ࡽಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢ㡢㡩ᵓ㐀࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣮ࣔࣛᩘࡢไ⣙࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊ஧ࡘࡢつ๎ࢆタᐃࡋࠊࡒࢀࡒࢀࡢつ๎࡟࠾࠸࡚ୖ㏙ࡢไ⣙ࡀᏲࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞ࡃࠊ୙⤒῭࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊฟຊ㔜どࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࠿ࡽ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢไ⣙ࡣฟຊ࡟࠾࠸࡚Ᏺࡽࢀࡓඹ㏻ࡢ༢୍ไ⣙࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢩࣥࣉࣝ࡟୍⯡໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊฟຊ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡣࠊV1 ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡑࡢ࣮ࣔࣛᩘࡀ 2 ࣮࡛ࣔࣛ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆせồࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡩ࠺࡟୍⯡໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᮏ◊✲ࡣฟຊࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ[[(C)VQ]V1[CV]*V2]V ࡜࠸࠺ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࢆタᐃࡋ࡚ࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢㄒࡢᵓ㐀ࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࠋ[(C)VQ]V1 ࡣ V1 ࡛ࠊCVQ ࡣ V1 ࡟ CV 2)࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿ 1 ࣮ࣔࣛ࡜ಁ㡢ࢆ⾲ࡍ Q ࡜ࡢ 2 ࣮ࣔࣛࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࠕ࠾ࡗ࠿ࡅࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ V1 ࡀẕ㡢࠿ࡽጞࡲࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿ
ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊV1 ࡢ㢌Ꮚ㡢ࢆᣓᘼ௜ࡁࡢ(C)࡜⾲グࡍࡿࠋ[CV] V2*ࡣ V2 ࡛ࠊ*ࡣ CV ࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࢆ⾲ࡋࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊV2 ࡀ 2 ࣮ࣔࣛࡢሙྜ࡟ CV ࡣ 2 ᅇࠊ3 ࣮ࣔࣛࡢሙྜ࡟ 3 ᅇ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ
3.3. ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡀᣢࡘᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࡣධຊ࠿ࡽண

࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモ࡟ࡣࠊ᭩ࡁゝⴥࡸᨵࡲࡗࡓሙ㠃࡛ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾ౑ࢃࢀ࡞࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠺≉Ṧ࡞ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࠋಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ㧗ᒣ (1993)ࠊᩪ⸨ (1986, 1992) ࡣࠊࠕࡃࡔࡅࡓᩥయⓗ౯್ࠖࡸࠕ಑ࡗࡱ࠸࢖࣓࣮ࢪࠖࢆᣢࡕࠊAkita (2011) ࡣࠊࠕ㠀ṇᘧ/஘ᭀ࡞Ⓨヰ(informal / rude discourse)ࠖ
࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡢࡳ౑ࢃࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩࢆᣢࡘ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊAkita (2011) ࡣࠊୖ㏙ࡢᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡣࠊᅜ఍ⓑ᭩ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ṇᘧ࡞ᩥ᭩࡟Ṥ࡝⌧ࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆࢥ࣮ࣃ
ࢫㄪᰝ࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩࢆࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ㸺㠀ṇᘧ࡟/ࡒࢇࡊ࠸࡟⾲⌧ࡍࡿ㸼ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁࡜࿧ࡪࠋ
୍㒊ࡢಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモ࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࡣࠊࡑࢀࢆసࡿධຊࡢᵓᡂせ⣲࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶࡓࡽࡉࢀࡓྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊඖࠎṇᘧ࡞ᩥ᭩ࡸᨵࡲࡗࡓሙ㠃࡛౑ࢃࢀ࡞࠸ࠕࡪࡘࠖࢆ
V1 ࡟ྲྀࡿࠕࡪࡗ㣕ࡤࡍࠖࠕࡪࡗ㎸ࡴࠖࠕࡪࡗቯࡍࠖ࡞࡝ࡀࡑࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊከࡃࡢಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࡣධຊ࠿ࡽㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠕ㏣ࡗ࠿ࡅࡿࠖ࡜ࠕࡦࡗᥗࡴࠖ౛࡟ࡋ࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ๓⪅ࡢධຊࡣࠕ㏣࠸࠿ࡅࡿࠖཬࡧಁ㡢ࠕࡗ࡛ࠖࠊᚋ⪅ࡣࠕᘬࡃࠖ
ࠕᥗࡴࠖཬࡧಁ㡢ࠕࡗ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢせ⣲ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ
ࠕ㏣࠸࠿ࡅࡿࠖ
࡜ࠕᘬࡃࠖཬࡧࠕᥗࡴࠖ࡟㸺㠀ṇᘧ࡟/ࡒࢇࡊ࠸࡟⾲⌧ࡍࡿ㸼ᩥయⓗ≉ᚩࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜
ࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ᳨⣴࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡀᩥ❶ࡢᨵࡲࡾᗘࡀ㧗࠸࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠗⓑ᭩࠘࡜ࠗἲᚊ࠘࡞࡝ࡢBCCWJ ࡢࢧࣈࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽᐜ᫆࡟᳨ド࡛ࡁࡿࠋ3) ṧࡉࢀࡓၥ㢟ࡣࠊಁ㡢࡟≉Ṧ࡞ᩥయⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
Backhouse (1983) ࡣࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ౛ (4) ࡟♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡞ಁ㡢ࢆྵࡴ࿴ㄒㄒᙡ
࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊಁ㡢ࡢฟ⌧࡜≉Ṧ࡞ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁࡜ࡢඹ㉳࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊಁ㡢⮬య࡟≉Ṧ࡞ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࡀ⤖−100−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ࡧ௜࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺❧ሙࢆྲྀࡿࠋ
(4) Backhouse (1983) ࡟࠾ࡅࡿಁ㡢ࢆྵࡴㄒࡢ౛ 4)a. ಁ㡢ࢆྵࡴ༢⣧ㄒ: ࡳࡳࡗࡕ࠸, ࡋࡻࡗࡥ࠸, ࡞࡝b. ಁ㡢ࡀᤄධࡉࢀࡓ༢⣧ㄒ (ᙧᐜモ/๪モ): ࠶ࡗࡘ࠸ (cf.࠶ࡘ࠸), ࠸ࡗࡘࡶ (cf.࠸ࡘࡶ), ࡞࡝ c. ಁ㡢ࡀᤄධࡉࢀࡓ」ྜྡモ: ⊧ࡗ⿕ࡾ (cf. ⊧⿕ࡾ), ኴࡗ⭡ (cf. ኴ⭡), ࡞࡝d. ಁ㡢ࢆྵࡴ」ྜືモ: ࡩࡗ࡜ࡤࡍ, ࡦࡗࡥࡓࡃ, ࡞࡝ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊಁ㡢ࢆྵࡴㄒࡀ≉Ṧ࡞ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘཎᅉࡣಁ㡢࡟ᖐ⤖࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜୺
ᙇࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ༢⣧ㄒ࠿ࡽゝ࠺࡜ࠊỴࡋ࡚ Backhouse (1983) ࡀ౛እ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡯࡝ࠊಁ
㡢ࢆྵࡴ࿴ㄒ࡟ᩥయ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࢽ࣮ࣗࢺࣛࣝ࡞ㄒࡀᩘከࡃ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ࠶ࡗࡉࡾࠊ๎ࡿࠊࡣࡗࡁ
ࡾࠊ࠸ࡽࡗࡋࡷࡿࠊ࠾ࡗࡋࡷࡿࠊ࡞࡝࡛࠶ࡿࠋಁ㡢⮬య࡟㸺㠀ṇᘧ࡟/ࡒࢇࡊ࠸࡟⾲⌧ࡍࡿ㸼࡜࠸࠺≉Ṧ࡞ᩥయⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘ࡞ࡽࠊࡇࢀࡽࡀ≉Ṧ࡞ᩥయⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊࠕ࠶ࡗࡘ࠸ࠖ
ࠕ⊧ࡗ⿕ࡾࠖ࡞࡝࡟≉Ṧ࡞ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿཎᅉࡣࠊ⚟ᓥ (1993) ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡀࠊಁ㡢ࡢᤄධ࡟ࡼࡾඖࠎᨵࡲࡾᗘࡀ㧗࠸ࠕ࠶ࡘ࠸ࠖࠕࡡࡇ࠿ࡪࡾࠖ
࡞࡝ࡢࠕᶆ‽ᙧᘧࠖ࠿ࡽ㐓ࢀࡓࠕ㠀ᶆ‽ᙧᘧࠖ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋྠࡌࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ౛࠼
ࡤࠊ
ࠕ࡞ࡀ࠸ࠖ
ࠕࡓ࠿࠸ࠖ
ࠕ࠾ࡡࡀ࠸ࡋࡲࡍࠖ࡞࡝ࡢࠕᶆ‽ᙧᘧࠖࡀࠕ࡞ࡀ࠶࠸ࠖ
ࠕࡓ࠿࠶࠸ࠖ
ࠕ࠾ࡡࡀ࠸ࡋࡲ࠶ࡍࠖ࡞࡝ࡢࠕ㠀ᶆ‽ᙧᘧࠖ࡟ኚ᥮ࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᨵࡲࡾᗘࡢ㧗࠸ሙ㠃࡛౑࠼࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿሙྜ࡟ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡀᣢࡘ≉Ṧ࡞ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࡶࠊ
ࠕྲྀࡗ᭰࠼ࡿࠖ࡞࡝ࡢಁ㡢ᙧࡀࠕྲྀࡾ᭰࠼ࡿࠖ࡞࡝
ࡢࠕ㠀ᶆ‽ᙧᘧ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ 5)ࠊಁ㡢⮬య࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
௨ୖࡢㄝ᫂࠿ࡽࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡀᣢࡘ㸺㠀ṇᘧ࡟/ࡑࢇࡊ࠸࡟⾲⌧ࡍࡿ㸼࡜࠸࠺ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࡣࠊ
ධຊ࠿ࡽண࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ศ࠿ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ධຊ࡟㑏ඖ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡣࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡜ぢ࡞ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡀᣢࡘ ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࡣࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢ[[(C)VQ]V1[CV]*V2]V ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧ࡜ᑐᛂࡋ࡚ᣢࡘࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
4. ≉Ṧ࡞ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁࡜ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢ⤖ࡧࡘࡁ
 3 ⠇࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡀㄒᙡࣞ࣋ࣝࡢࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩ࡛ࣙࣥ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂
ࡋࡓࠋ4 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡀᣢࡘᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࡣࠊධຊ࠿ࡽண ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ㐃⥆㡢ኌ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕಁ㡢໬ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㡢㡩࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡜ࡑࡢⓎヰሙ㠃ࡀᣢࡘ≉ᚩ࠿ࡽືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ
㐃⥆㡢ኌ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕಁ㡢໬ࠖ࡜ࡣࠊṇᘧ࡞⾲グἲࡸ୎ᑀ࡟Ⓨ㡢ࡉࢀࡿ㝿࡟ࠊಁ㡢࡛࡞࠸ࡶࡢ
ࡀࠊ⮬Ⓨⓗ࡞㐃⥆ࡢ㡢ኌゝㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ಁ㡢࡜ࡋ࡚Ⓨ㡢ࡉࢀࡿ⌧㇟ࢆᣦࡍ (ᮡ⸨࣭ᐑ⡲ 2003, ᒸ⏣2008)ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(5) ࡟♧ࡋࡓඖࠎಁ㡢ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࠕ࠸ࡕࣃ࣮ࢭࣥࢺࠖࡸࠕࡍࡈࡃឤࡌࡓࠖࡀࠊ
ࠕ࠸ࡗࣃ࣮ࢭࣥࢺࠖ
ࠕࡍࡈࡗឤࡌࡓࠖ࡜Ⓨ㡢ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞⌧㇟ࢆᣦࡍࠋ

−101−

日本語の促音形複合動詞の構成と意味形成(5) a. ࠸ࡕࣃ࣮ࢭࣥࢺ/itipaasento/ĺ ࠸ࡗࣃ࣮ࢭࣥࢺ /iQpaasento/b. ࡍࡈࡃឤࡌࡓ /sugokukanjita/ ĺ ࡍࡈࡗឤࡌࡓ /sugoQkanjita/c. ᭩ࡃࡇ࡜ /kakukoto/ ĺ ࠿ࡗࡇ࡜ /kaQkoto/d. ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁࡣ /surutokiha/ ĺ ࡍࡗ࡜ࡁࡣ /suQtokiha/e. ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࠿ /sitemiruka/ ĺ ࡋ࡚ࡳࡗ࠿ /sitemiQka/
ᮡ⸨࣭ᐑ⡲ (2003)ࠊᒸ⏣ (2008) ࡢ㐃⥆㡢ኌ࡟࠾ࡅࡿಁ㡢໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜື
モ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ≉࡟ゐࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊ㠀ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡶ㐃⥆࡟Ⓨࡍࡿ㡢ኌ࡜ぢࢀࡤࠊ3.2 ⠇ࡢ౛
(1) ࡟ᣲࡆࡓ㠀ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモ࡜ᑐᛂࡋ࡚Ꮡᅾࡍࡿಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ (౛࠼ࡤࠊࠕ࡜ࡗ࠿࠼
ࡿࠖ࡜ࠕ࡜ࡾ࠿࠼ࡿࠖ) ࡣࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡣ㠀ಁ㡢ᙧࡀୖ㏙ࡢሙྜ࡜ྠᵝࡢࠕಁ㡢໬ࠖࢆᐇ⌧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐃⥆㡢ኌ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕಁ㡢໬ࠖࡢⓎ⏕ࡣࠊ㡢㡩ୖࡢᚲせ᮲௳ࡀ࠶ࡿ௨እ࡟ࠊ(6) ࡟ᣲࡆࡓࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒእࡢ᮲௳ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ (ᮡ⸨࣭⡲ᐑ 2003, ᒸ⏣ 2008)ࠋ
(6) Ⓨ㡢࡟ᛰࡾࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࡸࠊ࢝ࢪࣗ࢔ࣝ࡞ࡲࡓࡣ୎ᑀ࡛࡞࠸Ⓨヰࢫࢱ࢖࡛ࣝⓎヰࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠋ
ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝ࠺࡜ࠊࠕ࡜ࡾ࠿࠼ࡿࠖࡸࠕࡦࡁ࠿࠼ࡍࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕᶆ‽ᙧᘧࠖࡢ㠀ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡀࠊ㐃⥆㡢ኌ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࢝ࢪࣗ࢔ࣝ/㠀୎ᑀ࡞Ⓨヰࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡸሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚Ⓨ㡢ࡉࢀࡓ⤖ᯝࠊࠕ࡜ࡗ࠿࠼ࡿࠖ
ࠕࡦࡗ࠿࠼ࡍࠖ࡞࡝ࡢࠕ㠀ᶆ‽ᙧᘧࠖࡢಁ㡢ᙧࡀᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ࢝ࢪࣗ࢔࡛ࣝ㠀୎
ᑀ࡞Ⓨヰሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢࠕ㠀ᶆ‽ᙧᘧࠖࡢಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡣࠊᚲ↛࡞⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ㠀ṇᘧ/ࡒࢇࡊ࠸ࠖ࡞ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ࠕ࡜ࡗ࠿࠼ࡿࠖ
ࠕࡦࡗ࠿࠼ࡍࠖ࡞࡝ࡢಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡀᣢࡘ㸺㠀ṇᘧ࡟/ࡒࢇࡊ࠸࡟⾲⌧ࡍࡿ㸼ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࡣࠊඖࠎࡣⓎヰሙ㠃ࡲࡓࡣⓎヰ᪉ᘧࡀᣢࡘᛶ㉁࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࡣࠊࡢࡕ࡟[[(C)V]V1[CV]*V2]V ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࢫ࣮࣐࢟࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡃࠋ
Croft (2000: 126) ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌧㇟ࢆ hypoanalysis ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋHypoanalysis ࡜ࡣࠊ≉ᐃ࡞ᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚౑ࢃࢀࡿሙྜ࡟ᣢࡘព࿡/ᶵ⬟ࡀࠊࡑࡢ⤫ㄒ༢఩⮬యࡀᣢࡘᛶ㉁࡜ࡋ࡚ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ࡟ࡘ
ࢀ࡚ࠊᙜヱ⤫ㄒ༢఩ࡀ᪂ࡋ࠸ព࿡/ᶵ⬟ࢆ⋓ᚓࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦࡍࠋ
ࡼ࠺ࡍࡿ࡟ࠊⓎヰሙ㠃ࡀᣢࡘ㸺㠀ṇᘧ࡟/ࡒࢇࡊ࠸࡟⾲⌧ࡍࡿ㸼࡜࠸࠺ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࡣࠊࡇࡢⓎヰሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚౑ࢃࢀࡿ[[(C)V]V1[CV]*V2]V ࡜࠸࠺ㄒᙡ༢఩ࡀᣢࡘ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡉࢀࡿ࡟ࡘࢀ࡚ࠊ[[(C)V]V1[CV]*V2]V ࡜࠸࠺ㄒᙡ༢఩⮬యࡀ㸺㠀ṇᘧ࡟/ࡒࢇࡊ࠸࡟⾲⌧ࡍࡿ㸼࡜࠸࠺ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࢆ
ᣢࡘࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆࢫ࣮࣐࢟໬ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧ࡜ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࡢ࣌࢔ࣜࣥࢢ(ࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥ) ࡜ࡋ࡚⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(7) ࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢࢫ࣮࣐࢟:[[(C)V]V1[CV]*V2]V ļ 㸺ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁㸻㠀ṇᘧ࡟/ࡒࢇࡊ࠸࡟⾲⌧ࡍࡿ㸼ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢᙧᘧ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿㄒࡣࠊࡑࡢࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢᛶ㉁ࢆᘬࡁ⥅ࡄࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠕࡘࡗࡥࡋࡿࠖ
ࠕࡪࡗ࠿ࡅࡿࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ[[(C)V]V1[CV]*V2]V ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࢫ࣮࣐࢟࡟୍⮴ࡍ

−102−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

ࡿಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡣࠊࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࡀᣢࡘ㸺㠀ṇᘧ࡟/ࡒࢇࡊ࠸࡟⾲⌧ࡍࡿ㸼࡜࠸࠺ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࢆᘬࡁ⥅ࡄࠋ
5. V1 ࡢព࿡ࡢᕼⷧ໬࡜ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢព࿡ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢព࿡ࡣࠊV1 ࡢព࿡ࡢᕼⷧ໬ (bleaching) ࡟ࡼࡿᙳ㡪ࡀ኱ࡁࡃࠊ
V1 ࡢព࿡ࡢᕼⷧ໬ࡢ⛬ᗘ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ୕ࡘࡢព࿡ࢫ࣮࣐࢟࠿ࡽㄝ᫂ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ (ྐ2012 ཧ↷)ࠋࢫ࣮࣐࢟ 1 ࡛ࡣࠊV1 ࡟ព࿡ࡢᕼⷧ໬ࡀぢࡽࢀࡎࠊV1 ࡣ༢⊂࡛౑⏝ࡍࡿሙྜࡢ V1 ᮏືモࡢព
࿡࡛ V2 ࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࡾࠊ㸺V1V2㸼ࡢᙧ࡛ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢព࿡ࢆసࡿࠋ඾ᆺ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ㓉ࡗᡶ
࠺ࠖࠕ㋾ࡗ㣕ࡤࡍࠖ
ࠕ㏣ࡗ࠿ࡅࡿࠖ➼ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ 2 ࡢ඾ᆺ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕࡪࡗ྇ࡃࠖ
ࠕ✺ࡗ㉮ࡿࠖ
ࠕࡦࡗᥙࡃࠖ➼ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢಁ
㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢព࿡ࡣࠊ㸺V1(bleached) V2㸼࡜࠸࠺ࢫ࣮࣐࢟࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ౛࠼
ࡤࠊࠕ(ኴ㰘ࢆ)ࡪࡗ྇ࡃࠖࡣࠊ㸺(ኴ㰘ࢆ)Ẁࡗ࡚྇ࡃ㸼࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㸺ຊᙉࡃ྇ࡃ㸼ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋV1ࠕࡪࡗࠖࡣ V1 ᮏືモࠕࡪࡘࠖࡀ༢⊂࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿሙྜࡢព࿡㸺Ẁࡿ㸼࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊẀࡿືసࢆ⾜࠺㝿ࡢᵝែ࡛࠶ࡿ㸺ຊᙉࡃ㸼ࡢព࿡࡛ V2 ࡜⤖ྜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕ✺ࡗ㉮ࡿࠖࠕᘬࡗᥗࡴࠖ➼࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊV1 ࡣ V1 ᮏືモ࠿ࡽᕼⷧ໬ࡋࡓ㸺ᵝែ㸼ࡢព࿡࡛ V2 ࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ 3 ࢆ௦⾲ࡍࡿ඾ᆺ౛ 1 ࡟ࠊࠕ࠾ࡗᗈࡆࡿࠖ
ࠕࡃࡗࡘࡅࡿࠖ
ࠕࡪࡗࡓࡲࡆࡿࠖ➼ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࢫ
࣮࣐࢟ 2 ࡟ẚ࡭࡚ࠊV1 ࡢព࿡ࡢᕼⷧ໬ࡀ᭦࡟㐍ࡳࠊࠕ࠾ࡗᗈࡆࡿࠖࡸࠕࡃࡗࡘࡅࡿࠖ➼࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ࠾ࡗࠖࡸࠕࡃࡗࠖࡣࠊㄒ※ⓗ࡟ V1 ᮏືモ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠕᢲࡍࠖࡸࠕ㣗࠺ࠖ࡜ࡢព࿡ⓗ㛵㐃ᛶࡣṤ࡝ឤࡌࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋලయⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ V1 ࡣ୺࡟ V2 ࡢព࿡ࢆࠕᙉㄪࠖࡍࡿᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡋࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢព࿡ࡣࠊ㸺V2㸼࡜࠸࠺ࢫ࣮࣐࢟࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾲ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
6. ⤊ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠕಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࠖࢆᑐ㇟࡟⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ௨ୗࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋϨ) ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢ㡢⠇ᵓ㐀࡟࠾࠸࡚ぢࡽࢀࡿไ⣙ࡣฟຊࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽࡢ୍⯡໬ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ≉Ṧ࡞ᩥయⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࡣධຊࡢᵓᡂせ⣲࠿ࡽண࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡢ஧ࡘ࠿ࡽࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡀࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩ࡛ࣙࣥ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ[[(C)V]V1[CV]*V2]V ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧ࡜㸺㠀ṇᘧ㸭ࡒࢇࡊ࠸࡟⾲⌧ࡍࡿ㸼࡜࠸࠺ᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘ࣌࢔ࣜࣥࢢ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡓࠋϩ) ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢᩥయⓗᛶ㉁ࡣࠊ㐃⥆㡢ኌ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕಁ㡢໬ࠖࡀⓎ⏕ࡍࡿ㡢㡩ⓗ࡞࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡜ࡑࡢⓎヰሙ㠃ࡀᣢࡘ≉ᚩ࠿ࡽືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋϪ) ಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜືモࡢព࿡ࡣࠊV1 ࡢព࿡ࡢᕼⷧ໬࠿ࡽᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅࠊV1 ࡢព࿡ࡢᕼⷧ໬ࡢ⛬ᗘ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ୕ࡘࡢព࿡ࢫ࣮࣐࢟࠿ࡽࡑࡢព࿡ࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ㅰ㎡: ᮏ✏ࡣ➨ 14 ᅇㄒ⏝ㄽ኱఍࡛ࡢཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲࡟ຍ➹ࠊಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎ⾲ࡢᢡࠊ໭∎బ▱Ꮚඛ⏕ࠊ㛗㇂ᕝᚭඛ⏕ࠊⳢᒣㅬṇඛ⏕ࢆࡣࡌࡵ࡜ࡍࡿከࡃࡢ᪉࠿ࡽ㈗㔜࡞ࡈຓゝࠊࡈᣦ᦬ࢆ
㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ⚄ᡞ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢮ࣑ࠊබ㛤Ⓨ⾲఍࡜Ꮫෆእ࡟࠾ࡅࡿಶே஺ὶ࡞࡝ࡢᶵ఍࡛ࠊᯇ
ᮏ᭙ඛ⏕ࠊᓊᮏ⚽ᶞඛ⏕ࠊ⏣୰┿୍ඛ⏕ࠊ㕥ᮌ⩏࿴ඛ⏕ࠊ⛅⏣႐⨾Ặࠊ㕥ᮌᖾᖹẶ࠾ࡼࡧ⚄ᡞ኱

−103−日本語の促音形複合動詞の構成と意味形成ᏛゝㄒᏛᑓಟࡢ㝔⏕ࡢ᪉ࠎ࠿ࡽከࡃࡢ᭷┈࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡜ࡈ♧၀ࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋᚰࡼࡾឤㅰࡢពࢆ⾲ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ✏࡟࠶ࡿ୙ഛࡣࡍ࡭࡚➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋὀ:1) ࢹ࣮ࢱ཰㞟㝿ࡣࠊBCCWJࠕ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ᭩ࡁゝⴥᆒ⾮ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࠖࡢ2009ᖺࢹࣔࢫࢺ࣮ࣞࢩࣙࣥ

(DVD)∧ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࠊBCCWJ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࢺ࣮ࢡࣥ㢖ᗘࡀ2ࡢࡶࡢࢆ◊✲ᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
2) C࡜VࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀConsonant࡜Vowelࡢ␎࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3)ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࣄࢵࢺᩘࡣࠊ
ࠕ㏣࠸࠿ࡅࡿࠖࡀ 3 ௳ࠊࠕᘬࡃࠖࡀ 58 ௳ࠊࠕᥗࡴࠖࡀ 12 ௳࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

4 ) Backhouse (1983)࡛ࡣࠊಁ㡢ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ᧕㡢ࡸᣉ㡢ࢆྵࡴㄒࡶᑐ㇟࡟ྵࡵࡓࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣᮏ◊✲࡜㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿಁ㡢ࢆྵࡴㄒࡔࡅࢆ࠶ࡆࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
5) ࡓࡔࡋࠊ
ࠕ࠶ࡗࡘ࠸ࠖࡣಁ㡢ᤄධ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕ㠀ᶆ‽ᙧᘧࠖࡀᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊಁ㡢ᙧ」ྜ

ືモࡢሙྜࡢࠕ㠀ᶆ‽ᙧᘧࠖࡣࠊ
ࠕಁ㡢໬ࠖࡢ㡢㡩ኚ໬࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬཬࡧࠕ✺ࡗ㉮ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ඖࠎࠕᶆ‽ᙧᘧࠖ(㠀ಁ㡢ᙧ) ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢㄝ᫂ࡣ4⠇࡛⾜࠺ࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Akita, K. 2011. Register-specific Morphophonological Constructions: The Case of Motherese Verbs andHeavy-prefix Verbs in Japanese. In The Japanese Society for Language Sciences (JSLS) 2011
Conference Handbook. pp. 61-64.
᭷ᆏ ⚽ୡ. 1940. ࠗ㡢㡩ㄽ࠘ᮾி: ୕┬ᇽ.
Backhouse, A. E. 1983. The Expressive Stratum in Modern Japanese. In GengoKenkyu. 83: 61-78.
Booij, G. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.
⸨ᮏ 㞞Ꮚ࣭⡲ᐑ 㝯அ. 2003. ࠕࠗ᪥ᮏㄒヰࡋゝⴥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠘࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿಁ㡢౽໬ࠖ ࠗ㟁Ꮚ᝟
ሗ㏻ಙᏛ఍ᢏ⾡◊✲ሗ࿌࠘ NLC2003-82: 193-198.

⚟ᓥ ᜤ௓. 1993. ࠕㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᧕㡢, ಁ㡢, ᣉ㡢ࡢ㠀ᶆ‽ⓗ࡞౑⏝࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹʊʊࢺ࣮
ࢡ␒⤌ࢆ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠖ ࠗᅜㄒᅜᩥㄽ㞟࠘22: 1-17.
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Construction: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
❑ⷵ ᬕኵ࣭ኴ⏣ ⪽. 1998. ࠗ㡢㡩ᵓ㐀࡜࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺ࠘ ᮾி: ◊✲♫ฟ∧.
ᒸ⏣ ⚈ᖹ. 2008. ࠕ⮬Ⓨⓗ࡞ࠑᶆ‽ㄒࠒ㡢ኌ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠑಁ㡢ࠒ໬ࡢᴫほࠖ ࠗ㡢ኌゝㄒ࠘ϭ: 105-124
ᩪ⸨ ೔᫂. 1986. ࠕ」ྜືモ㡢౽ᙧࡢព࿡ʊࠗ᥋㢌㎡໬࠘࡜ࠗᙉㄪ໬࠘ࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ʊࠖ ࠗᐑᇛᩍ⫱኱Ꮫᅜㄒᅜᩥ࠘16: 49-60.
ᩪ⸨ ೔᫂. 1992. ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒࡢㄒᵓᡂⓗ◊✲ʊㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᙧ࡜ព࿡ʊ࠘ᮾி: ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
ྐ ᫓ⰼ. 2013. ࠕࢥࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥᙧែㄽ࠿ࡽぢࡓ᪥ᮏㄒࡢಁ㡢౽」ྜືモࠖ ࠗ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ఍ㄽᩥ㞟࠘13: 272-284.
㧗ᒣ ▱᫂. 1993. ࠕ」ྜㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿಁ㡢ᤄධ࡜᥋㢌㎡ࠗࣈࢵ࠘ࠗࣄࢵ࠘➼ࢆᣢࡘ㢮࡜ࡢᖸ΅ᅇ㑊࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ ࠗ㤶ᕝ኱Ꮫᅜᩥ◊✲࠘18: 62-68.

−104−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋゝⴥ࡜᭩ࡁゝⴥࡢᩥἲⓗᕪ␗࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄒᙡⓗ࡞◊✲
̿୺ㄒ┬␎࡜ឤぬືモ̿ᰘ⏣࠿ࡼᏊி㒔ᗓ❧኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔<Abstract>
This paper investigates, from a pragmatic and semantic point of view, in what situation thesubjective ellipsis occurs. It is analyzed using the corpus taking into account factors like verbs,
subjects, spoken English, written English and fixed expressions. The verbs of perception,
which are the subcategory of the stative verbs, are divided into three groups and analyzed
concerning the relationship between the ellipsis and those verbs. In the later chapters someperception verbs are further examined as to how they are used in the phrases in order to figureout another condition for the ellipsis.
[keywords] : ୺ㄒ┬␎ࠊ┤㏆ࡢࢥࣥࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࠊሙ㠃ࡢࢥࣥࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࠊᐃᙧ⾲⌧ࠊ▱ぬືモ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋゝⴥ࡜᭩ࡁゝⴥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥἲⓗᕪ␗ࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠕ┬␎ࠖࠊ࡜ࡾ
ࢃࡅࠕ୺ㄒ┬␎ࠖࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊືモูࠊ୺ㄒูࠊspoken/written English ู࡟ࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢆศᯒࡋࠊ୺ㄒ┬␎ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ௙⤌ࡳࢆព࿡ㄽ࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ᥈ồࡍࡿࠋ㸰㸬ᐃ⩏2.1㸬┬␎ࡢᐃ⩏Quirk et al. (1985) ࡣ ellipsis ࢆ situational ellipsis, textual ellipsis, structural ellipsis ࡢ 3✀㢮࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ situational ellipsis ࢆ◊✲ᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋQuirk et al.
(1985) ࡜ Carter & McCarthy (1995) ࡣࠕsituational ellipsis ࡢ≉ᚩࡣ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ┤㏆ࡢ≧ἣ㸦┤㏆ࡢࢥࣥࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࠊሙ㠃ࡢࢥࣥࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆྵࡴ㸧࠿ࡽ┬␎ࡉࢀࡓゝⴥࢆྲྀࡾᡠࡍࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊ఍ヰࡢ୰ࡢཧ୚⪅ࠊ┠ⓗ≀ࠊᐇᅾ≀ࠊࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀࢃ࠿ࡿሙ
ྜ࡟㉳ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶࠕ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ┤㏆ࡢࢥࣥࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ

−105−

現代英語における話し言葉と書き言葉の文法的差異に関する語彙的な研究―主語省略と感覚動詞―

࠿ࡽࠊ┬␎ࡉࢀࡓゝⴥࡀ⌮ゎྍ⬟࡛࠶ࢀࡤ┬␎ࡀ㉳ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠖࠊ࡜ࡣᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ⪃࠼࡞࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊᚋ⛬ヲ⣽ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡀឤぬືモࡢሙྜࠊ┤㏆ࡢ≧ἣ࡜㛵ಀ࡞ࡃືモࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊືモࡀព࿡ㄽⓗ࡟ experienceࠕ⤒㦂ࠖࡸ percept ࠕ▱ぬࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠊࡘࡲࡾ୺ㄒࡀືモࢆࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸≧ែࡢሙྜࡣ┬␎ࡀ㉳ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ┬␎ࢆᐃ⩏ࡍࡿୖ࡛ࠊQuirk et al.
(1985) ࡜ Carter & McCarthy (1995) ࡢᐃ⩏࡟ࠊࠕ୺ㄒ┬␎ࡢᚋ࡟ࡃࡿືモࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀ┬␎ࡢ୙ྍ࡟ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜௜ࡅຍ࠼ࡓ࠸ࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ၥ㢟(Research Questions) ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゎ⟅ࢆฟࡍࠋ
2.2㸬Research Questions ୺ㄒ┬␎ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡛㉳ࡁࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊ࡞ࡐ㉳ࡁࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ୺ㄒࡢ✀㢮࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⏕ࡌࡿ㢖ᗘࡀኚࢃࡿࡢ࠿ࠊኚࢃࡿ࡜ࡍࢀࡤ࡞ࡐࡑ࠺࡞ࡢ࠿
୺ㄒ┬␎ࡣ spoken English ࡛ࡣࡼࡃ㉳ࡁࡿࡀ written English ࡛ࡣ࠿࡞ࡾ㢖ᗘࡀప࠸ࠋࡶࡋࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡢ࠿
fixed expressions ࡜ඹ࡟୺ㄒ┬␎ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠊ࡜ከࡃࡢ◊✲⪅ࡀ୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࡑࡢ
┿ഇࢆ☜࠿ࡵศᯒࡍࡿࠋ

௨ୖࡢⅬࢆᇶ࡟ࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮཰㞟࡜ศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ
2.3㸬ᐃᙧ⾲⌧ࡢᐃ⩏ ᮏ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᐃᙧ⾲⌧ࡢᐃ⩏ࢆ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐃࡵࡓࠋ

ᅛᐃ໬ࡉࢀࡓືモ࡛ྃ࠶ࡿࠋ(e.g. shovel up, kick the bucket)
ㄯヰⓗ࡟ᅛᐃ໬ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࠊࡲࡓࡣព࿡ⓗ࡟ุㄞ୙⬟࡞ࡶࡢࠋ㸦e.g. carry the can㸧ࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࡢኚ໬ࢆྍ⬟࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢࠋ
㸦e.g. take a chanceэI took the first chance I got.㸧⩦័ⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࠋ(e.g. Thank you.㸧



Collocation ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࠋ(e.g. Doubt it.)




3㸬᪉ἲㄽ
3.1㸬ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮
ࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ 4 ൨ 5 ༓୓ㄒࡢ spoken/written English ࡀ཰㘓ࡉࢀࡓ The Corpus ofContemporary American English (COCA) ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊ⌧ᅾ᫬ไ࡛⫯ᐃᩥࠊ␲ၥᩥࡢࡳࢆ
ᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓ spoken English, written English ඹ࡟ࡑࢀࡒࢀ 200 ࡢ౛ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ㄪᰝࡋ
ࡓࠋ
COCA ࡣ 1990 ᖺ࠿ࡽ 2012 ᖺࡢ㛫࡟཰㘓ࡉࢀࡓࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡛ࠊ
spoken English ࡛ࡣ CNN,
ABC, FOX, NBC, CBS ➼࠿ࡽࠊwritten English ࡛ࡣࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ㸦ᅜ㝿ࠊᅜෆࠊ㔠⼥ࠊ⏕άࠊࢫ࣏࣮ࢶ➼㸧ࠊ㞧ㄅ㸦ពぢࠊ㔠⼥ࠊ⛉Ꮫࠊᢏ⾡ࠊࢫ࣏࣮ࢶ➼㸧ࠊ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡ㸦ᩍ⫱ࠊṔྐࠊ་Ꮫ➼㸧࠿ࡽ཰㞟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−106−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

3.2㸬ᡭ㡰ඛࡎືモࢆ㠀≧ែືモ࡜≧ែືモ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࠊ㠀≧ែືモ (e.g. take, pick, drive, give,
make, put, eat, get) ࡜ࡑࢀࡽࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓᐃᙧ⾲⌧ (e.g. get away from, pick up, drive you
home, eat out) ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ┬␎ࡀ࡯ࡰ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓᚋࠊ≧ែືモࡢࡳ࡟╔┠ࡋࡓࠋCarter & McCarthy (2006) ࡣ୺ㄒ┬␎ I ࡀ mental verbs㸦▱ぬືモ㸧(e.g. think,reckon, guess, hope, like, love, wonder, suppose) ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ
ࡑࡢ┿ഇࢆㄪᰝࡋ㸦Table 1.㸧ࡑࡢᐃᙧ⾲⌧㸦Table 3.㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ┬␎ࡢ᭷↓ࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓࠋḟ࡟▱ぬືモࡢୗ㒊࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿឤぬືモ㸦e.g. feel, hear, smell, see,sound㸧
㸦Table 4.㸧࡜ࡲࡓࡑࡢᐃᙧ⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶྠᵝ࡟ㄪᰝࡋࠊឤぬືモࡢศ㢮ࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿ percept verbs ࡢᐃᙧ⾲⌧ࠊLooks good, Sounds good, Smells good, Tastes good,
Feels good ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ┬␎୺ㄒ It ࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸࡟㛵ࡋ࡚᭦࡟᥈ồࡋࡓࠋ㸲㸬⪃ᐹ
4.1. ≧ែືモ
   sp okenw r itten

hope

8

3

like

0

0

dislike

10

suppose

4

2

think

0

0

love

1

0

hate

3

1

wonder1

1

reckon10believe

10

assume

1

0

guess

0

0

doubt

0

1

expect

2

0

have

4

0

want

79

2

possess00desire

1

0

Total

107

10

Table 1. ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ spoken English ࡟࠾࠸࡚┬␎㢖ᗘࡢ㧗࠸ want ࢆᕪࡋᘬ࠸ࡓ࡜
ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊspoken ࡜ written English ࡢ┬␎㢖ᗘྜィࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊspoken English ࡛ࡼࡾ┬␎ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࡀࠊཝᐦ࡟ぢࡿ࡜඲࡚ࡢ spoken English ࡢືモ࡟࠾࠸࡚㧗࠸ᩘ್ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋdislike, Love, wonder, reckon, believe, assume
expect, desire ࡛ࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟ప࠸ᩘ್ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ≧ែືモ࡟࠾࠸࡚
spoken English ࡢ᪉ࡀ written English ࡼࡾࡶᖹᆒࡋ࡚┬␎ࡢ㢖ᗘࡣ㧗࠸ࡀࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ

−107−

現代英語における話し言葉と書き言葉の文法的差異に関する語彙的な研究―主語省略と感覚動詞―

඲࡚ࡢືモ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࡀᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋwant ࡀ࡞ࡐ┬␎㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠸࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊKuno (1973) ࡢㄝ᫂࠿ࡽ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿࠋKuno (1973: 83) ࡣ want ࢆ“internal feeling” ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍືモ࡜ࡋ࡚♧ࡋࠊ⮬ศࡢ “internal feeling” ࡣ⾲⌧࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊ
➨୕⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ “internal feeling” ࡣ⾲⌧࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠊࡲࡓ➨஧⪅࡟ࡣ “internal feeling”
ࢆᑜࡡࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ want ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿேࡢ୺ㄒࡀ㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡓ
ࡵ࡟┬␎ࡀ⏕ࡌࡸࡍ࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋspoken English ࡢ᪉ࡀ written English ࡼࡾࡶ┬␎㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠸⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊspoken English ࡛ࡣ written English ࡟ࡣ↓࠸ࠕሙ㠃ࡢࢥࣥࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࠖࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ┬␎ࡉࢀࡓ୺ㄒࡢྲྀࡾᡠࡋࡀᐜ᫆࡟࡞ࡿࡓࡵ࡟┬␎ࡀ㉳ࡁ᫆࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠕேࡣฟ᮶ࡿ㝈ࡾᑡ࡞࠸ດຊ࡛௙஦ࢆࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ Zipf
(1949: 7) ࡢ “The Principle of Least Effort” ࡸ Grice (1975㸧ࡢࠕ㔞ࡢ᱁⋡ࠖ࠿ࡽࡶㄝ᫂
ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ            
I

we

you

He/she

it

hope

8

0

0

0

0

they
0

like

0

0

0

0

0

0

dislike

0

0

0

0

0

1

suppose

3

0

1

0

0

0

think

0

0

0

0

0

0

love

0

0

1

0

0

0

hate

3

0

0

0

0

0

wonder

0

0

1

0

0

0

reckon

1

0

0

0

0

0

believe

1

0

0

0

0

0

assume

1

0

0

0

0

0

guess

0

0

0

0

0

0

doubt

0

0

0

0

0

0

expect

1

0

1

0

0

0

have

0

0

4

0

0

0

want

25

0

53

0

0

1

possess

0

0

0

0

0

0

desire

1

0

0

0

0

0

Total

44

0

61

0

0

2

Table 2. ࡣ spoken English ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ≧ែືモࡢ୺ㄒ┬␎ࢆ୺ㄒู࡟♧ࡋࡓࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࡛
࠶ࡿࠋ┬␎ࡣ୺࡟ you ࡜ I ࡛⏕ࡌ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᚑࡗ࡚ Carter & McCarthy (2006: 183) ࡢࠕ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣝ࡞఍ヰ࡛ࡢゝ᫂ᩥ࡛ࡣᩥ㢌ࡢ I ࡣࡋࡤࡋࡤ୙せ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺୺ᙇࡣ࡯
ࡰṇࡋ࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋThey ࡛ 2 ௳ࡢ┬␎ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡀࠊ1 ௳ࡣ㑅ᣲ⤖ᯝࡢⓎ⾲ࡢ㝿ࠊࡶ
࠺ 1 ௳ࡣࡍ࡛࡟఍ヰࡢ୰࡛㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚ேࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢშヰࡢ㝿࡟┬␎ࡀ⏕ࡌࡓࠋ
 Table 3.ࡣ Table 1.࡛♧ࡉࢀࡓືモࡢᐃᙧ⾲⌧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺ㄒ┬␎ࡢ୍㒊ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢆ
♧ࡋࡓ⾲࡛࠶ࡿࠋTable 1. ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ᐃᙧ⾲⌧ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ spoken ࡢ᪉ࡀ
written English ࡼࡾࡶ┬␎㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࡀࠊ୍ㄒືモ࡟࠾࠸࡚┬␎㢖ᗘࡀప࠸ືモ࡛ࡶᐃᙧ⾲⌧࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊ┬␎㢖ᗘࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿഴྥࡀ඲యⓗ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ−108−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

wonder ࢆ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ぢࡿ࡜ࠊTable 1. ࡛ࡣ spoken/written English ඹ࡟ 1 ௳ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ Table 3. ࡢᐃᙧ⾲⌧ wonder why, wonder how ࡛ࡣቑຍࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋdoubt, think,guess ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ spoken English ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣྠᵝࡢഴྥࡀ❚ࢃࢀࡿࠋ

spokenwritten

Hope for the best

60Love it

6

4

Hate it7

1(con.2)

Wonder why

48

Wonder how

65

Believe in

1

0

Doubt it2

1

Think twice

20

Guess so10(con.3)

Guess what

82

60(con.45)(Thank you)

(198)

(193)

Have back

1

0

Want some14

4 (con.8)132(198)

83(193) (con.58)

Totalᐃᙧ⾲⌧࡜୺ㄒ┬␎࡜ࡢ┦㛵㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊCarter & McCarthy (2006: 187) ࡣ༢࡟ࠕᐃ
ᙧ⾲⌧ࡣ඲࡚ࡢཧ୚⪅ࡀ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠖ┬␎ࡀ⏕ࡌࡸࡍ࠸࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣᐃᙧ⾲⌧ࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࠕ୺ㄒࡢྲྀࡾᡠࡋࠖࡢ㝿ࡢศᯒせ⣲ࡀቑຍࡋࠊ⤠ࡾ㎸ࡳࡀࡼࡾᐜ᫆࡟࡛ࡁࡿࡓࡵ࡟┬␎ࡀ⏕ࡌࡸࡍ࠸࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆḟࡢ spoken English ࡢ౛ᩥ࡛ࡶࡗ࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ
(1) a. A: This is a technical question, but it interests me, hope it interests some of the viewers.
                          (corpus.bui.edu/coca)(2) b. A: It’s still United States that plays the chief role. And…and hope for the best in thatsituation,…       (corpus.bui.edu/coca)ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ spoken/written English ඹ࡟ࠊGrice (1975) ࡢࠕ㛵ಀࡢ᱁⋡ࠖ
ࠊSperber & Wilson(1986) ࡢࠕ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࠖ࠿ࡽࠕ┤㏆ࡢࢥࣥࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࠖࡢᏑᅾࡣᚲ㡲࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ(1) a. ࡢ౛࡛ࡣ hope ࡢ๓࡟ me ࡜⾲⌧ࡉࢀࠊ⥆࠸࡚ྠࡌヰ⪅ࡀ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ hope ࡢ୺ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ I ࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀゎࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠕ┤㏆ࡢࢥࣥࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࠖ࡜ヰ⪅ A࡜⪺ࡁᡭ B ࡀ࢜ࣥࢫࢸ࣮ࢪ࡛఍ヰࢆ⾜࠺ࠕሙ㠃ࡢࢥࣥࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࠖࡢ஧ࡘࡢせ⣲࠿ࡽࠕ୺ㄒࡢྲྀࡾᡠࡋࠖࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ (1) b.࡛ࡣ hope for the best ࡜࠸࠺ᐃᙧ⾲⌧ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࠕ┤㏆ࡢࢥࣥࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࠖࠊࠕሙ㠃ࡢࢥࣥࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࠖ࡟ࠕᐃᙧ⾲⌧ࠖࡢせ⣲ࢆ

−109−

現代英語における話し言葉と書き言葉の文法的差異に関する語彙的な研究―主語省略と感覚動詞―ຍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠕ୺ㄒࡢྲྀࡾᡠࡋࠖࡢ㝿࡟ࠊࡼࡾೃ⿵ࡢࠕ⤠ࡾ㎸ࡳࠖࢆಁࡍࡇ࡜࡜
࡞ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ᐃᙧ⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛┬␎㢖ᗘࡀቑຍࡋࡓ࡜ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
4.2 ឤぬືモʊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗศᯒ  Table 4. ࡣឤぬືモ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ spoken ࡀ written English ࡼࡾࡶ┬␎㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓᚋ࡟㸦spoken Englishʊ254 ௳ࠊwritten Englishʊ83 ௳㸧ࠊspoken English ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺ㄒูࡢ┬␎㢖ᗘࢆ♧ࡋࡓࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢆᥖࡆࡓࠋព࿡ㄽⓗ࡟ឤぬືモࢆExperience (E) ⤒㦂ࠊActivity (A) ⾜ືࠊPercept (P) ▱ぬࡢ 3 ✀㢮࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ
(Ibarretxe-Antunano 1996, Gisborne 1996, and Viberg 1984)ࠊActivity (A) ࡢືモࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛ࡣ┬␎㢖ᗘࡀ඲࡚ 0 ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡓࡵ㸦E㸧࡜㸦P㸧ࡢືモࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡢ⤖ᯝࡢࡳࢆୗ
グ࡟グࡋࡓࠋ(A) ࡢືモࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡣ look at, listen to, feel, smell, taste ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ                                  
I

you

we

He/sheit

they

See + nouns

(E)

0

1

0

0

0

0

(See you)

(E)

(20)

0

0

0

0

0

Hear you

(E)

2

0

0

0

0

0

Feel + nouns

(E)

2

0

0

0

0

0

Feel it

(E)

0

1

0

0

0

0

Smell + nouns

(E)

0

0

0

0

0

0

Smell it

(E)

1

0

0

0

0

0

Look adj.

(P)

0

2

0

0

0

2

Looks good

(P)

0

0

0

4

52

0

Sound adj.

(P)

0

0

0

0

16

0

Sound good

(P)

0

0

0

0

3

0

Sounds good

(P)

0

0

0

0

84

0

Feel adj.

(P)

2

8

0

0

0

0

Feel good

(P)

3

1

0

0

0

0

Feels good

(P)

0

0

0

0

23

0

Smell adj.

(P)

0

0

0

0

20

0

Smell good

(P)

0

0

0

0

1

1

Smells good

(P)

0

0

0

0

17

0

Tastes good

(P)

0

0

0

0

8

0

10 (20)

13

0

4

225

3

Total

Table 4. ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜≉࡟୺ㄒ I, you, it ࡜┬␎ࡀඹ㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊI, you ࡜ඹ࡟⏕ࡌࡿ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ Chafe (1974: 123) ࡛㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢᏑᅾ
ࡣᪧ᝟ሗࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࢃࢀࠊཧ୚⪅ࡢព㆑ࡢ୰࡟࠶ࡿ᝟ሗࡣⓎヰࢆࡍࡿᚲせࡀ↓࠸࡜ヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠊࡑࢀࡺ࠼࡟┬␎ࡀ㉳ࡁࡿ࡜ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
4.3㸬ឤぬືモʊព࿡ㄽⓗศᯒ ḟ࡟ឤぬືモ࡜┬␎ࡢ㛵ಀࢆព࿡ㄽⓗ࡟ศᯒࡍࡿ࡜ࠊඛ࡟㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡐࠕ⾜ືࠖ(A) ࡢືモࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛ࡣ┬␎ࡀ⏕ࡌࡎࠊࠕ⤒㦂ࠖ(E) ࡜ࠕ▱ぬࠖ(P) ࡛ࡣ⏕ࡌࡿࡢ࠿ࡀ
⮬ࡎ࡜⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ┬␎ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠕ⤒㦂ࠖ(E) (e.g. see, hear, feel/touch, smell, taste) ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡢ౛࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ−110−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号(3) a. (I) smell it.
b. (I) hear you.
(E) ࡢືモࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡣࠕ⤒㦂୺ㄒࡢ≧ែࠖ(Lehrer, 1990: 223), 㺀୺ㄒࡣ่⃭ࢆព㆑ⓗ࡟ࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝࡋ࡞࠸㺁(Ibarretxe-Antunano, 1996: 43) ࠿ࡽ୺ㄒ┬␎ࡀࡉࢀ࡚ࡶᩥࡢෆᐜ
࡟వࡾᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡉ࡞࠸ࠊ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛┬␎ࡀ⏕ࡌ᫆࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋḟࡣ┬␎ࡢぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ (A) ࡢືモࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ (look at, listen to, feel, smell, taste) ࢆୗグ࡛ศᯒࡍࡿࠋ(4) a. Peter looked at the birds.               (Viberg, 1984: 125)b. Peter listened to the birds.              (Viberg, 1984: 125)(A) ࡢືモࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡣࠕ⾜ືⓗ⤒㦂୺ㄒࠖ(Lehrer, 1990: 223), ࠕே㛫ࡢཧ୚⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ព㆑ⓗ࡟ࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࠖ(Viber, 1984: 123) ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࠊࠕ⾜ືⓗ⤒㦂୺ㄒࠖࡣືモ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࠊ୺ㄒࡀ↓ࡅࢀࡤᩥࡢព࿡ࡀᡂࡾ❧ࡓ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ୺
ㄒ┬␎ࡀฟ᮶࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟(P) ࡢືモࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㸦e.g. look, sound, feel, smell,taste㸧ࢆḟࡢ౛࡛⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ(5) a. (It) tastes good.
b. (It) sounds good.
(P) ࡢືモࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡣࠕ่⃭୺ㄒࠖ(Lehrer, 1990: 223) ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࠕ୺ㄒࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀ▱ぬࡢ่⃭ࠖ(Ibarretxe-Antunano, 1999: 44-45) ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୺ㄒࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀࡑࡢᚋࡢືモ࡟వࡾᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡟┬␎ࡀ⏕ࡌ᫆࠸࡜ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
4.4. ឤぬືモ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺ㄒ it ࡢ≉ᚩlooks good, sounds good, smells good, tastes good, feels good ࡢ୺ㄒ┬␎ it ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺
࡞⏝ἲ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆㄪᰝࡍࡿ࡜ࠊfeels good ࡢࡳࡀᚋ᪉↷ᛂⓗ࡟㢖⦾࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀุ᫂ࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣ feel ࡣ௚ࡢឤぬືモ࡜㐪࠸ㄆ▱ჾᐁࢆ㏻ࡉ࡞࠸ឤ
᝟ືモ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ␗࡞ࡗࡓ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓᚋ࡟ࠊ௒ᚋࡉࡽ࡞ࡿ┬␎ࡢ᮲௳࡜᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢㄪᰝ࡬࡜Ⓨᒎࡉࡏࡿணᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
5. ⤖ㄽ
≧ែືモࠊ≉࡟▱ぬືモࠊឤぬືモ࡜ඹ࡟୺ㄒ┬␎ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠊࡲࡓࡑࡢ⌮⏤ࡣㄒ⏝ㄽⓗࠊព࿡ㄽⓗ࡟ㄝ᫂ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୺ㄒ I, you ࡜ඹ࡟┬␎ࡀ㢖⦾࡟⏕ࡌ୕ே⛠࡛ࡣవࡾぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢᏑᅾࡣᪧ᝟ሗ࡜

−111−

現代英語における話し言葉と書き言葉の文法的差異に関する語彙的な研究―主語省略と感覚動詞―ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡓࡵ࡟ࠊI, you ࡢ୺ㄒ┬␎ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ 3 ே⛠୺ㄒࡣ఍ヰࡢࢫࢸ࣮ࢪୖ࡛ࡣ࢜ࣇࢫࢸ࣮ࢪ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡟┬␎ࡣ⏕ࡌ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋᐃᙧ⾲⌧ࡢ౑⏝࡛┬␎㢖ᗘࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣ୺ㄒࡢࠕྲྀࡾᡠࡋࠖࡢ㝿࡟ศᯒせ⣲ࡀቑࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠕ⤠ࡾ㎸ࡳࠖࡀᐜ᫆࡟࡞ࡿࡓࡵࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ㅰ㎡㸸ᮏ✏ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 15 ᅇ኱఍࡛ࡢཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲࡟ຍ➹ࠊಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛
ࡍࠋᣦᑟᩍᐁ࡛࠶ࡿⳢᒣㅬṇඛ⏕࡟ࡣ᠓ษ୎ᑀ࡟ࡈᣦᑟ㈷ࡾࡲࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆࠊࡇࡢሙࢆ
࠿ࡾ࡚ࡈ♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Carter, R. and M. McCarthey. 1995. “Grammar and the Spoken Language.” Applied Linguistics 16.2.
141-158.
Carter, R. and M. McCarthey. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Chafe, W.L. 1974. “Language and Consciousness.” Language 50.1. 111-133.
Gisborne, N. S. 1996. English Perception Verbs. PhD Dissertation, University College London.
Grice, H. P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts. Syntax and
Semantics, Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press. 41-58.
Ibarretxe-Antunano, B.I. 1999. Polysemy and Metaphor in Perception Verbs: A Cross-Linguistic Study.
PhD Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuno, S. 1973. “The structure of the Japanese Language.” Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lehrer, A. 1990. “Polysemy, Conventionality, and the Structure of the Lexicon.” Cognitive Linguistics. 1.2.
207-246.
Malinowski, B. 1923. “The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages.” An Appendix to Ogden &Richards. The Meaning of Meanings.307
Martinet, A. 1962. A Functional View of language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Quirk, R. et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.
Rogers, A. 1971. “Three Kinds of Physical Perception Verbs.” Chicago Linguistic Society 7. 206-223.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1986. “Relevance: Communication and Cognition.” Oxford: Blackwell.
The Corpus of Contemporary American English. Mark Davies of Brigham Young University.
Thomas, L, A. 1979. “Ellipsis: The Interplay of Sentence Structure and Context.” Lingua 47. 43-68.
Thomas, L, A. 1987. “The Use and Interpretation of Verbally Determinate Verb Group Ellipsis in English.”
IRAL XXV/1 1-14.
Viberg, A. 1984. “The Verbs of Perception: A Typological Study.” Linguistics 21.1. 123-162.
Zipf, G. K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley
Press.

−112−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

ㄆ▱ླྀ㏙㢮ᆺㄽࡢヨࡳⱥㄒࡢ୰㛫ᵓᩥ࣭௚ືモDEOH ᵓᩥ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⬟ືⓗྍ⬟ᵓᩥ࣭ཷືⓗྍ⬟ᵓᩥࡢ஦౛ᑞ㤿 ᗣ༤
ᮐᖠ኱Ꮫ

㸺$EVWUDFW㸼
This paper deals with linguistic phenomena called “Middle Construction” and “Transitive Verb-ABLE Construction” inEnglish, and “Active Potential Construction” and “Passive Potential Construction” in Japanese from the perspective ofJapanese-English Contrastive Linguistics. The paper adopts the framework of Cognitive Linguistics; especially, “planemodel” in Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1999a, b), “mode of cognition ” (Nakamura 2009), and “intersubjectivity”. It
reveals that the cognitive mechanisms of the four constructions are motivated by de-subjectitification, actuality/vitality andintersubjectivity, and further that the category of the constructions form a “constructional ecology” in terms of linguistic
typology.
>࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ@ ㄆ▱ླྀ㏙㢮ᆺ, ᵓᩥ, ㄆ▱࣮ࣔࢻ, ḟඖࣔࢹࣝ, 㛫୺ほᛶ ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ௚᪉ࠊᒓᛶླྀ㏙࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ APC ࡣ࠶ࡿᮏㄽࡣࠕㄆ▱ླྀ㏙㢮ᆺㄽࠖࡢヨࡳ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ୰ᮧ(2009ືస୺࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢ⾜Ⅽ㐙⾜ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿᵓᩥ

➼)ࡢࠕㄆ▱࣮ࣔࢻ(mode of cognition)ࠖ࡜ Langacker

࡛࠶ࡾࠊMC ࡸ TVAC ࡜ᑐᛂ࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚◊✲ࡉࢀࡿࡇ(1999a, b ➼)ࡢㄆ▱ᩥἲࠊ≉࡟ࠕḟඖ(plane)ࣔࢹࣝࠖࡢ

࡜ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ᭱㏆ࡢㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ◊⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳ࡜ࡑࡇ࡟ࠕ㛫୺ほᛶ(intersubjectivity)ࠖࡢ

✲ࡢ୰ᮧ (2004, 2009)ࡣ୍Ṍ㋃ࡳ㎸ࢇࡔ㆟ㄽࢆࡋ࡚࠸

ほⅬࢆ⤡ࡵศᯒࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࠋゝㄒ⌧㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ḟࡢࢱࡿࠋḟࡢ౛ࢆぢࡼ࠺ࠋ࢖ࣉࡢᵓᩥࢆᑕ⛬࡟⣡ࡵࡿࠋ1(5) a. ࡇࡢࣂ࣮࣋ࣝࡣᣢࡕୖࡀࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
b. *This barbell won’t lift up.

(1) The sentence reads clearly. ࠕ ୰ 㛫 ᵓ ᩥ (Middle
Construction, ௨ୗ MC)ࠖ c. ࡇࡢ࣮࢞ࣞࢪࡢࢻ࢔ࡣᣢࡕ࠶ࡀࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ

(2) His handwriting is readable. ࠕ ௚ ື モ -able ᵓ ᩥ d. This garage door won’t lift up.

(Transitive Verb-ABLE Construction, ௨ୗ TVAC)ࠖ

(6) a. ࡇࡢࡾࢇࡈࡣ 3 ศ࡛㣗࡭ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
a’. ࡇࡢࡾࢇࡈ࡞ࡽ 3 ศ࡛㣗࡭ࡽࢀࡿ࡞࠶ࠋ

(3) ࡇࡢ㓇ࡣ㣧ࡵ࡞࠸ࠋࠕ⬟ືⓗྍ⬟ᵓᩥ(cf. ᑎᮧ(7)1982)(Active Potential Construction, ௨ୗ APC)ࠖ

These curtains are washable.
((5)=୰ᮧ 2004: 384)((6), (7)=୰ᮧ 2008: 364)

(4) ࡇࡢᫍࡣ⫗║࡛ࡶぢࡽࢀࡲࡍࠋ
ࠕཷືⓗྍ⬟ᵓᩥ(cf.
ibid.)(Passive Potential Construction, ௨ୗ PPC)ࠖ

(5b)ࡢ MC ࡛ࡣࣂ࣮࣋ࣝࡣᮏ᮶ᣢࡕୖࡆࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛
ⱥㄒࡢ MC ཬࡧ TVAC ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢ PPC ࡣ୺ㄒࡢᣢࡘ

࠶ࡾࠊࡑ࠺࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺୍⯡ⓗᒓᛶࢆᣢࡘ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼୍⯡ⓗ≉ᛶࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿᒓᛶླྀ㏙ᩥ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ

࡟ࡃ࠸ࡓࡵᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ௚᪉ࠊ(5d)࡛ࡣࢻ࢔ࡣቯࢀࡿ

ඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣ⾲ࡢ㏻ࡾᑐᛂ࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ

࡞࡝ࡋ࡚ᜏᖖⓗ࡟ᣢࡕୖࡀࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺≉ᛶࢆᣢࡕྜ
ࢃࡍࡓࡵᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊᑐᛂࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒ⾲⌧(5a, c)ᑐᛂࡍࡿᵓᩥ

ࡣࣂ࣮࣭࣋ࣝࢻ࢔ࡀᣢࡕୖࡆࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ᑐ㇟≀ࡢඛ⾜◊✲MC̾PPC㧗ぢ(1993), ྜྷᮧ(1995)࡞࡝

ᒓᛶゎ㔘࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊㄆ▱୺యࡢࡑࡢሙࡢయ㦂ሗ࿌ࢆࡍ

TVAC̾PPC

ᑎᮧ(1982)࡞࡝

ࡿゎ㔘ࢆࡶᣢࡕྜࢃࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊ(7)ࡢ TVAC ࡣ࢝

MC㸤TVAC̾PPC ୰ྑ(1991), ୰ᮧ(2004, 2009)࡞࡝

࣮ࢸࣥࡢᐈほⓗ≉ᛶࡢࡳࢆఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ(6a, a’)⾲0& ཬࡧ 79$& ࡜ 33& ࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀࡣྠࡌྍ⬟ᵓᩥ࡛ࡶࠊ(6a’)ࡣࡑࡢሙࡢయ㦂ሗ࿌ᩥ࡜ࡋ
࡚ࠊࡲࡓ(6a)ࡣ୍⯡ⓗ≉ᛶࡢᒓᛶᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ−113−

認知叙述類型論の試み: 英語の中間構文・他動詞-able構文と日本語の能動的可能構文・受動的可能構文の事例

ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ୰ᮧ(ibid.)ࡣࡇ࠺ࡋࡓព࿡┦㐪࡟ࡣࠕㄆ▱ࣔ ࡲࡎࠊⱥㄒࡢ MC ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡋࡼ࠺ࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢఏ

࣮ࢻࠖࡀ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜᝿ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣ᪥⤫ⓗ◊✲࡛ࡣ Jespersen (1927)ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊMC

ᮏㄒࡣㄆ▱୺య࡜ᑐ㇟࡜ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࡀ㔜どࡉࡣ୺ㄒྡモྃࡢᣢࡘᒓᛶ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࢀࡿ≧ἣᐦ᥋ᆺㄆ▱ࢆ཯ᫎࡍࡿ I(nteractional)࣮ࣔࢻࡢ
඾ᆺ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊⱥㄒࡣ୺యࡀ⬺୺య໬࡟ࡼࡾ≧(9) The sentence (=MC) is therefore is descriptive ofἣ࠿ࡽ㞳⬺ࡋᑐ㇟࡜ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࡀᕼⷧ໬ࡋࡓ

something that is felt as characteristic of the subject, and≧ἣእㄆ▱ࢆ཯ᫎࡍࡿ D(isplaced)࣮ࣔࢻࡢ඾ᆺ࡛࠶ࡿ

therefore the verb generally requires some descriptiveࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞┦㐪ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

adjective or adverb […].
 (ୗ⥺㒊ཬࡧᣓᘼෆࡣⴭ⪅) (Jespersen 1927: 351)

 ௨ୖࡢ㆟ㄽࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ࠊ௨ୗࡢ஦౛ࢆணഛⓗ࡟⪃ᐹࡋࡼ࠺ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊMC ࡣᑐ㇟≀ࢆ⾲♧ࡍࡿ୺ㄒྡモྃ࡜ࡑࡢᒓ
(8) a. ࡇࡢⲖࡣ㣗࡭ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ᛶࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿ㏙㒊࡟ศ࠿ࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ศᯒࡉࢀࠊࡇࢀࢆ

b. *This mushroom eats well.

཯ᫎࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚(10)ࡢᙧᘧ࡜ព࿡ࡀᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࠋ

c. This mushroom is eatable.
(10) ୰㛫ᵓᩥ(Middle Construction, MC)(8a)ࡣࠊ༢ᩥࣦ࢙࡛ࣞࣝࡣࠊࡇࡢⲖࡣ㣗࡭ࡽࢀࡿ✀㢮ࡢᙧᘧ: [NP1 V Adjunct]ࡶࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠺୍⯡ⓗ≉ᛶࢆ♧ࡍPPC ゎ㔘࡜ࡇࡢⲖࡣ↻

  

X

࡚ࡶ↝࠸࡚ࡶ࡝࠺ࡋ࡚ࡶ㣗࡭ࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ಶேࡢ┤ព࿡: [X (in virtue of Property) ENABLES WHAT IS᥋య㦂࣭༳㇟ሗ࿌࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ APC ゎ㔘ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺

DENOTED BY THE PREDICATE](Yoshimura 1998, ᨵኚ)࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ2 ࡲࡓ୍⯡ⓗ≉ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍ(8b)ࡢ MC ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡔࡀࠊྠࡌࡃ≉ᛶࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿ(8c)ࡢ TVACࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ணഛⓗ⪃ ࡲࡓࠊFellbaum (1985), Yoshimura (1998)ࢆࡣࡌࡵ࡜ࡍ

ᐹ࠿ࡽࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ⾲ 1 ࡛ᣲࡆࡓᑐᛂ㛵ಀࡣ㐺ษ࡞ࡶࡢ࡞

ࡿ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊMC ࡣ୙≉ᐃⓗ(unspecified)࠿ࡘ㠀᫂♧ⓗࡢ࠿␲ၥࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ(8a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡣ࡞ࡐࡦ(unexpressed)࡞ືస୺ࡀ⫼ᬒ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡉ

࡜ࡘࡢ༢ᩥ⾲⌧࡛ከ⩏ⓗ࡟ APC ゎ㔘࡜ PPC ゎ㔘ࡀྍࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋලయⓗゝ࠼ࡤࠊ(11a)ࡢ MC ࡛ࡣືస୺ࡣ᫂

⬟࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓࠊⱥㄒࡢ MC ࡜ TVAC ࡣ୍⯡ⓗ≉ᛶࢆ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡋࠊࡲࡓࡑࢀࢆ by ྃ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚๓ᬒ໬

⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ㛫㐪࠸࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࡀࠊ༢⣧࡟᪥ᮏㄒࡢ PPC

ࡍ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࡶ ୙ ྍ ⬟ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ (e.g. *This car handles࡜ᑐᛂࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓ࡞ࡐ(8b, c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡀ๭smoothly by John / by any drivers / by people in general)ࠋ

ࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡟㛵ࡋ࡚␲ၥࡢవᆅࡀṧࡿࠋ✺ࡁワࡵ࡚ゝ࠼ࡇࡇ࡛⯆࿡῝࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊศᯒࢆ⿬௜ࡅࡿドᣐ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ

ࡤࠊMC, TVAC, APC, PPC ࡣᵓᩥศᕸ(constructional(11a)ࡢྠ⩏⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚(11b-d)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊྍ⬟ࢆ♧ࡍἲ

ecology)࡟࠾࠸࡚┦⿵ศᕸࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ຓືモ“can”࡜ඹ࡟“people, in general”ࡸ“one”ࢆ୺ㄒ࡜ ௨ୖࡢணഛ⪃ᐹࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ࠊᮏ✏ࡣ᪥ⱥᑐ↷ࡢほⅬࡍࡿ⬟ືᩥࡸཷືᩥ࡛ by ྃ“people, in general”ࢆ⏝࠸࠿ࡽᙜヱ 4 ᵓᩥࡢㄆ▱࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜

࡚ࣃࣛࣇ࣮ࣞࢬࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛

࡛ㄆ▱ླྀ㏙㢮ᆺ࡟㏕ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ᶆ࡜ࡍࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢᵓᡂ࠶ࡿ(cf. Fellbaum ibid.)ࠋ

ࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨ 2 ⠇࡛ࡣⱥㄒࡢ MC, TVAC ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢ APC, PPC ࡢᵓᩥ≉ᛶࡢⅬᥥࢆඛ⾜◊✲ࢆ㏻(11) a. This car handles smoothly.

ࡌ࡚ᴫほࡍࡿࠋ➨ 3 ⠇࡛ࡣ⌮ㄽⓗ㐨ල❧࡚ࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋb. People, in general, can handle this car smoothly.

➨ 4 ⠇࡛ࡣᙜヱ 4 ᵓᩥࡢㄆ▱࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡜ㄆ▱ླྀ㏙㢮

c. One can handle this car smoothly.

ᆺࢆࡢヨ᱌ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ➨ 5 ⠇ࡣ⤖ㄽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

d. This car can be handled smoothly by people, in
general.
(Fellbaum 1985: 21-22)

 0&79$&$3&33& ࡢⅬᥥ
 0& ࡜ 79$& ࡢⅬᥥᮏ⠇࡛ࡣⱥㄒࡢ MC, TVAC ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢ APC, PPC ࡢ ࡉࡽ࡟ MC ࡛ࡣࠊྰᐃᩥ࡞࡝ࡢ≉ᐃࡢ᮲௳ࡀᩚࢃ࡞

ᵓᩥ≉ᛶࡢⅬᥥࢆ୺࡟ඛ⾜◊✲ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ᴫほࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ ࠸㝈ࡾࠊ๪モྃࡣᑐ㇟≀ࡢᒓᛶࢆ⾲♧ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ⩏ົ

−114−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号ⓗせ⣲(adjunct)࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࢆ⾲♧ࡋ࡞࠸ᩥ(e.g. *This

 $3& ࡜ 33& ࡢⅬᥥ

car handles.)ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸(cf. Fellbaum 1985)ࠋ

 ḟ࡟ࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ APC ࡜ PPC ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹ ḟ࡟ TVAC ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡼ࠺ࠋLakoff (1970)ࡣ(12)ࡢ౛ࡢ

ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡲࡎࠊ(15)ࡢ APC ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆぢࡼ࠺ࠋࡼ࠺࡟ࠊྍ⬟ࢆ♧ࡍἲຓືモ“can”࡜ඹ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ௚ືモࡢཷືᩥ࠿ࡽ TVAC ࡀᑟ࠿ࢀࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚“ABLE(15) a. ࡇࡢ㨶ࡣᮌ࡟ࡢࡰࢀࡿ

Substitution”࡜࠸࠺ኚᙧつ๎ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

b. ᙼ{࡟/ࡀ}୰ᅜㄒࡀヰࡏࡿ(ࡇ࡜)
            (ᑎᮧ 1982: 257-259)(12) a. His handwriting can be readэ His handwriting is readableࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢఏ⤫ⓗ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊAPC ࡣ㏻ᖖࠊື

b. The present can be returnedస୺ࡀ≉ᐃⓗ࡛᫂♧໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢືస୺࡟࡜ࡗ

э The present is returnable࡚㏙㒊࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ⾜Ⅽࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍᵓᩥ

(Lakoff 1970: 32)࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᙧᘧ࡜ព࿡ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐃᘧ໬ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

TVAC ୰ࡢ“-able”࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Quirk et al. (1985: 155)ࡀ
͆of the kind that can be V-ed”࡜ࠊࡲࡓྠᵝ࡟ Huddleston(16) ⬟ືⓗྍ⬟ᵓᩥ(Active Potential Construction,& Pullum (2002: 1707)ࡣ͆capable of being ~ -ed”࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ

APC)࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ TVAC ࡣཷືⓗព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ

ᙧᘧ: a. X {ࢽ㸭࢞} Y ࢞ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡇࡢᵓᩥࡢᙧᘧ࡜ព࿡ࢆ(13)ࡢ㏻ࡾᑟࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ

b. X ࢞ 

c. X ࢞

Yࣤ

V-ྍ⬟ᙧ(V-࢚ࣝ/ࣞࣝ/-ࣛࣞࣝ)(13) ௚ ື モ -able ᵓ ᩥ (Transitive Verb-ABLE

ព࿡: X ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚(Y ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚)V-ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶

Construction, TVAC)ࡿࠋࡲࡓࡣ X ࡀ V-ࡍࡿ⬟ຊࢆࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ᙧᘧ: [NP1 be V-able](ibid.: 258, ᨵኚ)   Xࡇࡇ࡛☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ MC ࡸ

ព࿡: [X CAN BE V-ED]
TVACࠊḟ࡟ࡳࡿ PPC ࡜㐪࠸ࠊAPC ࡣ୺ㄒྡモྃࡢᒓ

 TVAC ࡜ MC ࡜ࡢ㢮ఝⅬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᑎᮧ(1982: 261)

ᛶླྀ㏙ᩥ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊືస୺࡟ࡼࡿฟ᮶஦ᩥ(eventitive)ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊືస୺ࡣ୙≉ᐃⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ே඲⯡࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ┦㐪Ⅼࡶ࠸ ḟ࡟ PPC ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋḟࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆぢࡼ࠺ࠋࡃࡘ࠿࠶ࡿࠋࡦ࡜ࡘࡣ(13)ࡢᙧᘧ࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
MC ࡜ࡣ㐪࠸ࠊ๪モྃࢆ⩏ົⓗ࡟ྲྀࡿᚲせࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸

(17) a. ࡇࡢỈࡣ㣧ࡵࡲࡍ࠿㸽b. ࡇࡢⲖࡣ㣗࡭ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ

࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶ࠺ࡦ࡜ࡘࡣ Quirk et al. ࡀグ㏙ࡍࡿࡼ

(ibid.: 259)࠺࡟ࠊḟࡢ㏻ࡾ by ྃ࡟ࡼࡾືస୺యࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࣖࢥࣈࢭࣥ(1989: 242)ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
PPC ࡣ୺ㄒ࡛

(14) a. The comet was observable by anyone owning a
powerful telescope.

࠶ࡿᑐ㇟≀ࡢ୍⯡ⓗ≉ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍᒓᛶᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ᑎᮧ(1982)࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊPPC ࡣືస୺ࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ

b. ?The comet was observable by John.

࡞ࡃࠊືస୺ࢆ⿵࠺࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊ
ࠕ୍⯡࡟࣭ேࠎ࣭ࢃࢀࢃ

(Quirk et al. 1985: 1555)

ࢀ࣭࠶࡞ࡓ(ࡀࡓ)࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ

ࡉࡽ࡟ᑎᮧࡣືస୺ࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊၥ㢟࡟

ࡓࡔࡋࠊQuirk et al. ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊby ࡛ྃ⾲♧ࡉ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡓࡵᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ PPC ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋࠊࡇ

ࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢಶேࡼࡾࡶ୍⯡ⓗືస୺(“chieflyࡢᵓᩥࡣ APC ࠿ࡽὴ⏕ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࠊࡑࡢὴ⏕㐣⛬ࢆgeneral agent rather than a specific one” (Quirk et al. ibid.))(18)ࡢ㏻ࡾグ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
(18) a. X ࢞−115−Y ࣤ V-ru

認知叙述類型論の試み: 英語の中間構文・他動詞-able構文と日本語の能動的可能構文・受動的可能構文の事例[ᡃࠎࡀࡇࡢ㨶ࢆ㣗࡭ࡿࠋ]  b. ЍX ࢽ Y ࢞ V-e/rare-ru  c. Ѝ̿ḟඖ(actual plane, ௨ୗAP)࡜௬᝿ḟඖ(virtual plane, ௨ୗ(X ࡣ୍⯡ࠊ୙≉ᐃࡢ͂ே̓)

VP)࣭ᵓ⠏ḟඖ(structural plane, ௨ୗST)࡟ศࡅࡽࢀࡿ

[[ᡃࠎ࡟]ࡇࡢ㨶ࡀ㣗࡭ࡽࢀࡿࠋ](Langacker 1999a, b)ࠋ๓⪅ࡣ⌧ᐇୡ⏺ࡢ஦ែࢆ᝿㉳ࡍࡿY ࢞ V-e/rare-ru ࡓࡵࡢᴫᛕ✵㛫࡛࠶ࡾࠊᚋ⪅ࡣᴫᛕୖᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡓୡ⏺࡛[ȭ ࡇࡢ㨶ࡀ㣗࡭ࡽࢀࡿࠋ]d. Ѝḟඖࣔࢹࣝ࡜ࡣᴫᛕୡ⏺ࢆ⾲ࡍ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⌧ᐇY ࣁ V-e/rare-ru ࡢ⌧ᐇࡢಶࠎࡢ஦ែ࠿ࡽ୍⯡໬(generalization)ࡉࢀࡓ஦
ែࢆᴫᛕ໬ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ✵㛫࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵ๓⪅࡛ࡣࠊ[ࡇࡢ㨶ࡣ㣗࡭ࡽࢀࡿࠋ]஦ែࡀ⌧ᐇ࡟⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗࡍࡿࡀࠊᚋ⪅࡛ࡣࠊ஦ែ

(ᣓᘼෆࡢ౛ࡣ㧗ぢ (1993: 138)࡟ࡼࡿ) (ᑎᮧ 1982:258)

ࡀࡑࡢᴫᛕ✵㛫ୖ௨እ࡛ࡣᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀ

ࡿࠋලయ஦౛࡜ࡋ࡚ᅗ2࡜ࡑࡢ౛ࢆࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ

ࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊࡲࡎ a ࠿ࡽ b ࡢẁ㝵࡜ࡋ࡚ືస୺ࡢ X

a. A messenger just

Type
Plane

ࡀ࢞᱁ࢆక࠺ືస୺࠿ࡽ஧᱁ࢆక࠺⤒㦂⪅࡬࡜㝆᱁ࡉࢀࠊY ࡀ࢞᱁ࢆక࠸ᑐ㇟≀໬ࡉࢀࠊࡉࡽ࡟㏙㒊ࡀྍ⬟

delivered a package.

Instantiationᙧ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ b ࠿ࡽ c ࡢẁ㝵࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⤒㦂⪅ࡀ⬺b. A messenger will↔Ⅼ໬ࡉࢀࠊc ࠿ࡽ d ࡢ᭱⤊ẁ㝵࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᑐ㇟≀ࡀヰ

deliver a package this㢟໬ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ PPC ࡀὴ⏕ࡉࢀࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢ⪃ᐹ࠿ࡽ PPC ࡢᙧᘧ࡜ព࿡ࡣ(19)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐃ

afternoon.

t
Generalizationᘧ໬ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

Real
Instance(19) ཷືⓗྍ⬟ᵓᩥ(Passive Potential Construction,
PPC)

Extrapolation
Potentiality

Realityᙧᘧ: Y ࢞Structural
Plane

Arbitrary
Instance

ActualInstance

ActualPlane

c. A messenger always
delivers a package ontime

G

t

V-ྍ⬟ᙧ

(図: Langacker 1999a: 275, 例: ibid.: 276)

ព࿡: Y ࡀ V-ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ୍⯡࡟ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(ᑎᮧ 1982: 259-260, ᨵኚ)   ᅗ ḟඖࣔࢹࣝ

 ࡇࢀࡽࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ࠊ➨ 4 ⠇࡛ࡣᙜヱ 4 ᵓᩥࡢᅗ 2 ࡢ(a)࡛ࡣ㓄㐩ேࡀᑠໟࢆ㓄㐩ࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺㐣ཤࡢ⌧ㄆ▱࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡜ࡑࡢ㢮ᆺ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

ᐇࡢ஦ែࢆ᝿㉳ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊAP ୖ࡛᝿㉳ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋࡲࡓ(b)࡛ࡣࠊྠᵝࡢ஦ែࡀ AP ୖ࡛ᮍ᮶࡟࠾࠸࡚ ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳ₯ᅾྍ⬟ⓗ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ண ࢆᥥ෗ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉ

 ㄆ ▱ ᩥ ἲ ̿ ḟ ඖ ࣔ ࢹ ࣝ SODQH ࡜ 㝿 ❧ ࡕ

ࡽ࡟(c)࡛ࡣࠊ⌧ᐇࡢಶࠎࡢ஦ែࡀ୍⯡໬ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟

SURPLQHQFH ̿ࡼࡾ௬᝿໬ࡉࢀࠊVP(ST)ୖ࡛⩦័ⓗ஦ែ࡜ࡋ࡚᝿㉳ࡉ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ➨4⠇ࡢศᯒ࡛⏝࠸ࡿㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢ㐨ල❧ࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ3 ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓḟඖࡢ༊ู࡟ࡼࡾࠊᵝࠎ࡚ࢆᴫほࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡲࡎࠊᅗ1࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࠕḟඖ(plane)࡞஦ែࡢᴫᛕ໬ࢆ㐺ษ࡟グ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋࣔࢹࣝࠖ࠿ࡽ⪃࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ ḟ࡟ࠕ㝿❧ࡕ(prominence)ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⌧㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡼ࠺ࠋᡃࠎࡣእ⏺ୡ⏺ࢆㄆ▱ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊࡑࡢ୰࡛㝿❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡟↔Ⅼࢆྜࢃࡏࡼ࠺ࡍࡿㄆ▱⬟ຊࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣ↔Ⅼㄪᩚ࡟ࡣ 2 ࡘࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ4 ࡦ࡜ࡘࡣࠕtr/lm ㄆ▱ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ࢺࣛࢪ࢙ࢡࢱ࣮(trajector, ௨ୗ tr)࡜ࡣሙ㠃ࡢ୰࡛᭱ࡶ
㝿❧ࡘࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࣛࣥࢻ࣐࣮ࢡ(landmark, ௨ୗ lm)࡜ࡣ஧␒┠࡟┠❧ࡘࡶࡢ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡩࡘ࠺ࠊ
(Langacker 1999b: 79)ᅗ ḟඖࣔࢹࣝ

tr ࠿ࡽ lm ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣຊື㛵ಀࡀ⏕ࡌࠊ๓⪅࠿ࡽᚋ⪅࡟ຊࡢఏ㐩ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ㛵ಀࡣᅗ 3 ࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿࠕᶆ‽ⓗ஦ែࣔࢹ࡛ࣝࠖᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢᵓᅗ࡛ࡣࠊᴫᛕ໬

−116−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ࡉࢀࡿෆᐜࢆ඲࡚ྵࢇࡔࡶࡢࢆ᭱኱ࢫࢥ࣮ࣉ(maximal
scope, MS)࡜࠸࠸ࠊࡑࡢ୰࡛ほᐹ⪅(V)(ࡘࡲࡾࠊㄆ▱୺య)ࡀ㝿❧ࡘᑐ㇟≀ࢆ┤᥋ほᐹྍ⬟࡞⠊ᅖࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ┤᥋ࢫࢥ࣮ࣉ(immediate scope, ௨ୗ IS)࡜࠸࠺ࠋࡇࡇ࡛㔜せ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊIS ࡢእ(ࡘࡲࡾࠊ≧ἣእ)࠿ࡽ㝿❧ࡕ㛵ಀࢆほᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ tr ࡜࡞ࡿືస୺(AG)࡜ lm ࡜࡞ࡿ㠀ືస୺(PAT)ࢆྠᐃࡋࠊࡑࡇ࡟ຊື㛵ಀࢆぢ࠸ࡔࡋ࡚࠸
(ibid.: 359)

ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(ibid.: 363)

 ᅗ,࣮ࣔࢻ      ᅗ'࣮ࣔࢻ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ(20)ࡢ≉ᛶ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊཎጞⓗ࡞I࣮ࣔࢻ࠿ࡽࠊ
ㄆ▱୺యࡣㄆ▱ࡢሙ࠿ࡽ࠶ࡓ࠿ࡶእ࡟ฟ࡚(displaced)ࠊ
እ࠿ࡽᐈほⓗ࡟═ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠕẼศࠖ࡞ࡿࠊࡘࡲ
ࡾ⬺୺య໬(de-subjectification)ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿ≧(Langacker 2008: 357) 

 (ibid.: 84)

ἣእࡢどⅬᵓᅗ࡬⛣⾜ࡋࡓㄆ▱ᵝᘧࡀD࣮ࣔࢻ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ᅗᶆ‽ⓗ஦ែࣔࢹࣝ  ᅗཧ↷Ⅼᵓ㐀ࡇࡢᵝᏊࡣᅗ6࡟♧ࡉࢀࠊձㄆ▱୺య࡜ᑐ㇟࣭⎔ቃࡢ┤᥋ⓗ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࡣⷧࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡋࠊղㄆ▱୺యࡢ ࡶ࠺ࡦ࡜ࡘࡢ㝿❧ࡕ㛵ಀ࡟ᅗ4࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿཧ↷Ⅼᵓㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆⰍ⃰ࡃ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊᐈ

㐀࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࠕR/Tㄆ▱ࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿᵓᅗࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᵓ

ほⓗ࡟⯙ྎࡢእ࠿ࡽ═ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟㐣ࡂࡎࠊࡺ࠼࡟

ᅗࡣtr/lmㄆ▱࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ≧ἣෆ࡟ᐦ╔ࡋࡓどⅬࢆ཯ᫎճㄆ▱ീࡶㄆ▱୺య࠿ࡽษࡾ㞳ࡉࢀࡓᐈయ࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮡᅾ

ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊㄆ▱୺య(C)ࡀྠ୍ሙ㠃ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ᭱ࡶ㝿❧ࡘࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿᵓᅗ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡜⪃࠼ࡿཧ↷Ⅼ(Reference-point, ௨ୗR)ࢆ࡜ࡗ࠿࠿ࡾࠊ  ࡲࡓࠊㄆ▱࣮ࣔࢻࡣ᪥ⱥㄒࡢ≉ᛶ࡟ࡶ཯ᫎࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࡑࢀࡀႏ㉳ࡍࡿᨭ㓄ᇦ(D)ࡢ୰࡛ḟ࡟㝿❧ࡘࢱ࣮ࢤࢵ

୰ᮧ(2009)࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ㢟┠ඃඛゝㄒࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࡣI࣮ࣔࢻࢺ(target, ௨ୗT)ࢆྠᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡢ඾ᆺ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ୺ㄒඃඛゝㄒࡢⱥㄒࡣDࣔ ࣮ࢻࡢ඾ᆺ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠸ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ
ࠕtr/lmㄆ▱ࠖࡣDࣔ

ㄆ▱࣮ࣔࢻ࣮ࢻࢆࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠕR/Tㄆ▱ࠖࡣI࣮ࣔࢻࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ୰ᮧ(2009➼)࡛ࡣࠊᡃࠎࡢ஦ែᢕᥱࡢ᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚2ࡘ࡜࠸࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊྛ࣮ࣔࢻ㛫࡟ࡣẁ㝵ᛶࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡇ

ࡢㄆ▱ᵝᘧ(mode of cognition)ࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡦ࡜

࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡀゝㄒ⌧㇟࡟ࡶ཯ᫎࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡘࡣI࣮ࣔࢻ(Interactional mode of cognition)࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡶ࠺



ࡦ࡜ࡘࡣD࣮ࣔࢻ(Displaced mode of cognition)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

㛫୺ほᛶࡇࡢ2ࡘࡢ࣮ࣔࢻࡢ୺࡞≉ᛶࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ㞟⣙ࡉࢀࡿࠋ  㛫୺ほᛶ(intersubjectivity)ࡣᩥἲ໬ࢆࡣࡌࡵᵝࠎ࡞ศ㔝࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣTraugott(20) a. ㄆ▱୺య࡜ᑐ㇟࡜ࡢ୺ᐈᮍศࡢ㌟యⓗ࢖ࣥ(2010: 29)࡟ࡼࡿࠕヰ⪅࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢព࿡ࡢ௜ࡅྜࢃࡏ
(“speaker-hearer negotiation of meaning”)ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᐃ⩏ࢆ᥇ࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡍࡿࠋb. I ࣮ࣔࢻ࠿ࡽ D ࣮ࣔࢻ࡬ࡢ⛣⾜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

(୰ᮧ 2009: 358)
 0&79$&$3&33& ࡢㄆ▱࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡜ㄆ▱ླྀ
㏙㢮ᆺㄽࡢヨࡳࡲࡎࠊI࣮ࣔࢻࡣ≧ἣ࡟ᐦ╔ࡋࡓཎጞⓗ࡞ㄆ▱ᵓᅗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢᵝᏊࡣᅗ5࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢᵓᅗ࡛ࡣࠊㄆ▱୺

0&79$&$3&33& ࡢㄆ▱࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒

య(C)ࡣ༢࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢᑐ㇟ࢆほ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᴃ෇

 ➨4⠇࡛ࡣ๓⠇࡛ᴫほࡋࡓ㐨ල❧࡚ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᙜヱ4ᵓ࡛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿྠ୍ࡢㄆ▱ࡢሙ(ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ≧ἣ)ࡢ୰࡟

ᩥࡢㄆ▱࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆゎ᫂ࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡑࡇ࠿ࡽㄆ▱ླྀ࡜࡝ࡲࡾࠊձᑐ㇟࣭⎔ቃ࡜ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࢆ㏻ࡌ

㏙㢮ᆺࡢヨ᱌ࢆᑟ࠸࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

࡚ࠊղㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ⏕ࡌࠊճᑐ㇟ࡢㄆ▱ീࡀᙧᡂࡉ ࡲࡎࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢAPC࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ2⠇࡛☜ㄆࡋࡓࡼࢀࠊୡ⏺ࢆ❧ࡕୖࡆ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

࠺࡟ࠊAPCࡣືస୺࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㏙㒊࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿ⾜Ⅽࡢ

−117−

認知叙述類型論の試み: 英語の中間構文・他動詞-able構文と日本語の能動的可能構文・受動的可能構文の事例(a, bࡢ౛ࡣᑎᮧ 1982: 257, 259)ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍฟ᮶஦ᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣḟࡢ㏻ࡾࠊ2✀㢮࡟ศࡅࡿᚲせᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡦ࡜ࡘࡣ(21)࡟ᣲࡆࡿ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡛ࡣࠊືస୺ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛
APC1ࡼࡾࡶ⬺୺య໬ࡀ㐍ࢇࡔࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

(21) APC1: ㄆ▱୺యࡢ┤᥋య㦂࣭༳㇟ሗ࿌ᩥ

ࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࢆAPC2࡜࿧ࡰ࠺ࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ(22a, b)࡛ࡣa. ࡇࡢ㓇ࡣ㣧ࡵ࡞࠸ࠋ(=3)୺య௨እࡢ୕ே⛠ࡀືస୺࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ(22c)࡛ࡣ୺య࡜

b. ࡇࡢࡾࢇࡈ࡞ࡽ3ศ࡛㣗࡭ࡽࢀࡿ࡞࠶ࠋ(=6a’)ືస୺ࡀ୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ๓⪅ࡢ࣌࢔࣮࡛ࡣࠊ୕ே⛠࡛࠶ࡿືస୺ࡢ⾜Ⅽྍ⬟ᛶࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⌧ᐇ࡟ࡑࡢ஦ែࡀ

ࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡛ࡣືస୺ࡀ㠀᫂♧ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢሙྜࡣㄆ

⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣ᭕᫕࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡺ࠼࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ

▱୺య࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᵓᩥࢆAPC1࡜࿧ࡰ࠺ࠋ

஦ែࡣ୺యࡢࡑࡢሙࡢ༳㇟࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶࠊ୺యࡀືస୺

APC1ࡣㄆ▱୺యࡢࡑࡢሙ࡛ࡢ┤᥋య㦂࣭༳㇟ࢆሗ࿌ࡍ

࡟ࡼࡿ⾜Ⅽࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊVPୖ࡛᝿㉳ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(21a)࡛ࡣ୺యࡀ㓇ࢆཱྀ࡟ࡋࡓ᫬࡛࠶ࢀ

࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ௚᪉ࠊ(22c)࡛ࡣ୺య࡜

ࡤࠊࡑࡢሙࡢ┤᥋య㦂ࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ⌧ᐇୡ⏺࡛⏕ືస୺ࡀ୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊືస୺࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ⚾ࠖࢆᐈయ㉳ࡍࡿ஦ែࢆᥥ෗ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊAPୖ࡛᝿㉳ࡉࢀࡿࠋ௚᪉ࠊ どࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ࠸ࢃࡤࠕ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ࠖࡢ≧ែ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼㓇ࢆぢࡓ᫬ࡢࡑࡢሙࡢ༳㇟࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ஦ែ⏕㉳ࡢྍ⬟ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊAPC1ྠᵝ࡟APୖ࡛᝿㉳ࡉࢀࡿࡑࡢሙ

ᛶࢆᥥ෗ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊVPୖ࡛᝿㉳ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡢయ㦂࣭༳㇟ሗ࿌࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶゎ㔘ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡋࠊࡲࡓVP
ྠᵝ࡟(21b)࡛ࡣ୺యࡀᐇ㝿࡟ࡾࢇࡈࢆཱྀ࡟ࡋࡓ᫬ࡢ┤ୖ࡛⾜Ⅽࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶྍ⬟᥋య㦂࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊAPୖ࡛᝿㉳ࡉࢀࡿࡋࠊぢࡓ┠ࡢ༳㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊAPC2ࡢሙྜࡶྠᵝ࡟ࠊVPୖ࡛᝿㉳ࡉࢀ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊVPୖ࡛᝿㉳ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓAPC1࡛ࡣAPୖ࡛ࡿࡶࡢࡢ᪉ࡀ⬺୺య໬ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀ㧗࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ᝿㉳ࡉࢀࡿ஦ែࡼࡾࡶࠊࠕ࠸ࡲ࣭ࡇࡇࠖࡢ᫬Ⅼࢆ㞳⬺ࡇࡢㄆ▱ᵓᅗࡣᅗ8࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋᅗ࡛ࡣ⬺୺య໬ࡀ⏕ࡋVPୖ࡛ᴫᛕ໬ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࡢ᪉ࡀ௬᝿ᛶࡀ㧗ࡲࡿࡓࡌࠊ୺య(C)ࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶືస୺࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞ࡃࠊࡲ

ࡵࠊࡸࡸ⬺୺య໬ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀ㧗࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࡓࡑࡢሙྜࡣᑐ㇟≀⮬య࡜ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࡀᙅࡃ
࡞ࡾࠊࡉࡽ࡟┤᥋య㦂࡟క࠺▱ぬ࡞࡝ࡢㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡶ
ᙅࡲࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇࢀࡣࡸࡸ⣽⥺࡛⾲グࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᵓᩥ
࡛ࡣࡴࡋࢁࠊ୺యࡣኴ⥺ࡢ෇࡛ᥥ࠿ࢀࡿ୺య௨እࡢືస  ୺ࡸ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ࡉࢀࡓ⮬ᕫ࡜࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࡑ ᅗ$3&        ᅗ$3&

ࢀࢆR࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡋࠊ㢟┠࡛ゝㄒ໬ࡋࠊࡑࡢືస୺ࡢ⾜Ⅽ඲యࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆT࡜ࡋ࡚ሗ࿌ࡍࡿ᱁ዲ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢㄆ▱࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡣᅗ7࡛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᅗ࡛ࡣㄆ ḟ࡟ࠊPPC࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ

▱୺య(C)࡜ᑐ㇟≀(ᅄゅࡢ୰ࡢ෇)࡜ࡑࢀࢆ⤖ࡪ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥ(஧㔜▮༳⥺)ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ㝿❧ࡘ(23) a. ࡇࡢỈࡣ㣧ࡵࡲࡍ࠿㸽 (=17a)ࡓࡵࠊኴᏐ࡛⾲♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୺యࡣࡲࡎᑐ㇟≀࡜ࡢb. ࡇࡢⲖࡣ㣗࡭ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ(=17b)࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࠊࡑࡢሙ࡛ㄆ㆑ྍ⬟࡞ᑐ㇟c. ࡇࡢࡾࢇࡈࡣ3ศ࡛㣗࡭ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(=6a)≀ࢆR࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡋࠊḟ࡟ࠊࡑࡇ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡿឤぬࢆ▱ぬࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢT࡜࡞ࡿㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢᵓᩥࡣAPC2ࡼࡾࡶࡉࡽ࡟⬺୺య໬ࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿゝㄒ⌧㇟࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡛ࡣࠊR࡜࡞ࡿᑐ㇟≀ࡣࠕ㢟┠ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠊ஦ែࢆAPୖ࡛⌧ᐇ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡼࡾࡶࠊ

࡚ࠊࡲࡓࠊT࡜࡞ࡿ┤᥋య㦂ࡸ༳㇟ࡢ▱ぬ࡜࠸࠺ㄆ▱ࣉ୺యࡀ⌧ᐇ࠿ࡽ㞳⬺ࡋࡓVPୖ࡛᝿㉳ࡍࡿᑐ㇟≀ࡢ୍ࣟࢭࢫࡣࠕླྀ㏙࡛ࠖ♧ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

⯡ⓗᒓᛶ࣭≉ᛶࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(23)ࡢ஦౛࡛ࡣࠊ ࡶ࠺ࡦ࡜ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡣ(22)࡟ᣲࡆࡿ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

࠸ࡎࢀࡶືస୺ࡣ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࡇࡢ஦
౛࡛ࡣࠕࡇࡢⲖࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡟㣗࡭ࡽࢀࡿ࣭ࡇࡢỈࡣ㣧ࡵ(22) APC2: ㄆ▱୺యࡢືస୺࡟ࡼࡿ⾜Ⅽྍ⬟ᛶሗ࿌ᩥࡿ✀㢮ࡢࡶࡢࡔ࣭ࡇࡢࡾࢇࡈࡣ᪩㣗࠸࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢࡔࠖ

a. ࡇࡢ㨶ࡣᮌ࡟ࡢࡰࢀࡿ

࡜࠸࠺ᑐ㇟≀ࡢᒓᛶ࣭≉ᛶࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ≉ᐃࡢືసb. ᙼ{࡟/ࡀ}୰ᅜㄒࡀヰࡏࡿ(ࡇ࡜)୺࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ୙≉ᐃ඲⯡ࡢືస୺࡟ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ

c. ൅࡟ࡣࡇࡢ㓇ࡀ㣧ࡵࡿࠋ⾲ࡍࡓࡵࠊືస୺ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

−118−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

 ࡇࡢᵝᏊࡣᅗ9࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢᅗ࡛ࡣ⬺୺య໬ࡀ㐍⪃ᐹ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡅࡤࠊAPC࠿ࡽPPC࡬ࡢ⛣⾜ࡣࠊ⬺୺య໬ࡳࠊ୺య࡜࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࠊࡉࡽ࡟┤᥋▱ぬ࡞࡝ࡢ࡜ࡑࢀ࡟௜㝶ࡍࡿືస୺࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ୺య࠿ࡽᑐ㇟≀࡬ࡢㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡣⷧࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡿࡀࠊ⫼ᚋ࡟ࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸

㝿❧ࡕ㝿❧ࡕࡢ཯㌿⌧㇟࡜AP࠿ࡽVP࡬ࡢᴫᛕ✵㛫ࡢࡿࡓࡵࠊ⣽⥺࡛⾲♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ㢟┠ࡋ࡚ゝ⛣⾜࡟ࡼࡿே㛫ࡢ⮬↛࡞ㄆ▱ࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࠿ࡽືᶵ࡙

ㄒ໬ࡉࢀࡿR࡜࡞ࡿᑐ㇟≀࡜ླྀ㏙࡜ࡋ࡚ゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀࡿ

ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

T࡜࡞ࡿㄆ▱ീ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ஦ែࡀ↔Ⅼ໬ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊኴ⥺ ḟ࡟ⱥㄒࡢMC࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ḟࡢ౛࡜ඹ࡟⪃ᐹࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ

࡛⾲♧ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿ᱁ዲ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(24) a. The car drives well.
b. This cheese slices, dices, and grates easily.
(Yoshimura 1998: 171)2⠇࡛☜ㄆࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊMCࡣᑐ㇟≀ࡢ୍⯡ⓗᒓᛶ࣭≉ᅗ$33&ᛶࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊືస୺ࢆ᫂♧ࡏࡎࠊࡉࡽ࡟by࡛ྃࡶ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡶ࠺ࡦ࡜ࡘࡢྍ⬟ᛶ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ༢ᩥࣦ࢙ࣞࣝ

ືస୺ࢆᐈయ໬ࡋ࡚⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡎࠊࡇࡢ஦ែࡢ⤒࡟࠾ࡅࡿ(23)ࡢ஦౛ᙧᘧ࡛ࡣࠊAPC1ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡶṧࡋ࡚㦂⪅ࡣ୺యࢆࡶྵࡴ୍⯡໬ࡉࢀࡓ⪅࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࠸ࡿ࡜ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࠕࡇࡢⲖࡣ↻࡚ࡶ↝

ࡿࡓࡵࠊPPCࡼࡾ⬺୺య໬ࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡀࠊ᏶඲࡟ࡣ

࠸࡚ࡶ࣭ఱᅇᣮᡓࡋ࡚ࡳ࡚ࡶ㣗࡭ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠖࡸࠕࡇࡢ

ࡋ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ୺యࡢឤぬࢆṧࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿

Ỉࡣ┿Ỉ࡛ࡶ‪࠿ࡋ࡚ࡶ࡝࠺ࡋ࡚ࡶ㣧ࡵ࡞࠸ࠖ࡞࡝࡜

ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊMCࡣᑐ㇟≀ࡢᒓᛶ࠿ࡽཷࡅࡿឤぬࡀே඲⯡࠸࠺୺యࡀືస୺࡜ྠ໬ࡋࠊ㠀᫂♧໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿಶே

࡟㛤࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊணഛⓗ⪃ᐹ࡛ࡳࡓ(8b)ࡢ“eat”ࡢࡼࡢ┤᥋య㦂࣭༳㇟ሗ࿌ᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶࠺࡞ືモࡣ୰㛫ືモ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺⌮⏤ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ

ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ(23)ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡣPPC࠿

ࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀே඲⯡ࡢឤぬ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊࡣࡓࡲࡓ୺యಶேࡔ

APC1࡜ࡋ࡚࠿ணࡵศ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶࠊ(ᑡ࡞ࡅࡢឤぬ࡞ࡢ࠿≉ᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺⌮⏤ࡶຍࢃࡾࠊMCࡃ࡜ࡶ༢ᩥࣦ࢙ࣞࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ) ࠕᵓᩥⓗከ⩏࡛ࡣ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

(constructional ambiguity)ࠖࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ MCࡢㄆ▱ᵓᅗࡣᅗ11࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋⱥㄒࡣD࣮ࣔࢻᛶࡀᙉ࠸ࡓࡵࠊㄆ▱୺యࡣሙ㠃(ᴃ෇)ࡢእ࠿ࡽ═ࡵࡿࡼ࠺࡞᱁ዲ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢPPCࡼࡾࡶ⬺୺య໬ࡀ㐍ࡴࡓ
ࡵࠊAPୖ࠿ࡽ㞳⬺ࡋVPୖࡢࡳ࠿ࡽ᝿㉳ࡉࢀࡿ஦ែ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊMC࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ⾲⌧ࡣ୺య࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶ
⤒㦂ࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆṧࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊᑐ㇟≀࡜ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥ(஧㔜▮༳⥺)ࡀ᏶඲࡟ᾘ⁛ࡉࡏࡎ࡟ṧࡇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊD࣮ࣔࢻ࡛ࡣtr/lmㄆ▱ࡀ཯ᫎࡉࢀࡿ

ᅗ$3&࡜33&ࡢゎ㔘ࡓࡵࠊᑐ㇟≀ࡣtr࡛୺ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

࡝ࡕࡽࡢᵓᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᅗ10࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭ(S)࡜⪺ࡁᡭ(H)ࡢ㛫୺ほᛶ࡟ࡼࡿࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢵࢡ࡞ព࿡ࡢ௜ࡅྜࢃࡏ࡟
ࡼࡾࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟Ỵᐃࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡀࠊPPC࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊㄆ▱୺యࠊ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࠊㄆ
▱ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡣⷧࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡿࡀࠊ⫼ᚋ࡟ࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ᅗ0&    ᅗ79$&࡜⪃࠼ࡿ⌮⏤࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᏶඲࡟⬺୺య໬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ㝿❧ࡕࡀ཯㌿ࡍࢀࡤAPC1࡜ࡋ࡚⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࢃ
ࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ1⠇ࡢணഛ⪃ᐹ࡛ぢࡓ(8a)࡟㛵ࡋ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊTVAC࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ḟࡢ౛࡜ඹ࡟⪃ᐹࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ

࡚ࡶྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ᚑ᮶ࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊPPCࡣAPC࠿ࡽὴ⏕࡜࠸࠺ኚᙧ᧯

(25) a. His handwriting is readable. (=12a)సࢆ⤒ࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊᮏ✏ࡢୖグࡢ

b. The present is returnable. (=12b)−119−

認知叙述類型論の試み: 英語の中間構文・他動詞-able構文と日本語の能動的可能構文・受動的可能構文の事例

TVACࡣMCྠᵝ࡟D࣮ࣔࢻㄆ▱ࢆ཯ᫎࡋࠊtr࡜࡞ࡿᑐ㇟

ㄽⓗ࡟Ỵࡲࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࡳࡓࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ㄆ▱࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡟

≀ࡢᒓᛶ࣭≉ᛶࢆ⾲ࡋࠊVPୖ࡛᝿㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡀࠊ

ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊ4 ᵓᩥࡣㄆ▱ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽླྀ㏙㢮ᆺ (ࡍ࡞ࢃMC࡜㐪࠸ࡣby࡛ྃ୙≉ᐃ඲⯡ࡢືస୺ࢆᐈయ໬ࡋ࡚

ࡕࠊࠕㄆ▱ླྀ㏙㢮ᆺࠖ) ࡀᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠋ

⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿ(cf. (14))ࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊMC
ࡼࡾࡶㄆ▱୺యࡢឤぬࢆ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ṧࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜⛬ࡲ㸺ὀ㸼ͤᮏ✏ࡣᖹᡂ 24 ᖺᗘᮐᖠ኱Ꮫ◊✲ຓᡂ ಶே◊✲ ◊✲ㄢ㢟ྡࠕ᪥ⱥᑐ↷ᒓᛶླྀ㏙ࡢㄆ▱㢮ᆺㄽࡢヨࡳⱥㄒࡢ୰㛫ᵓᩥ࡛ࡳࡓ౛ࡣࠊ“eat”࡜࠸࠺ឤぬࡀ᏶඲࡟୺యಶேࡢࡶࡢ࡛
࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢྍ⬟ᵓᩥࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࠖࡢ◊✲ᡂᯝࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡣ࡞ࡃࠊே඲⯡࡟㛤࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ≉ᐃ໬ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ 1ࡇࡇ࡛ࡢᵓᩥྡ⛠ࡣᑞ㤿࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࠕᒓᛶ
ླྀ㏙ࠖࡢᐃ⩏ࡣ┈ᒸ(2008)࡟ᚑ࠺ࠋ
ᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
2
APC ゎ㔘ࡢ㝿࡟ࡣయ㦂⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ⚾ࡣࠖࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸
 TVACࡢㄆ▱ᵓᅗࡣᅗ12࡛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ
ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ศᯒࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶ༢ᩥࣦࣞ
ㄆ▱୺య࡟ࡼࡗ࡚୺యⓗ࡟⤒㦂ࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆ࡯࡜ࢇ ࢙࡛ࣝࡣ APC ゎ㔘࠿ PPC ゎ㔘࠿ࡣ⤯ᑐⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
࡝ṧࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊᑐ㇟≀࡜ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥ 4 ⠇࡛㏙࡭ࡿ㛫୺ほᛶ࡟ࡼࡾㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟Ỵᐃࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
3
VP ࡜ ST ࡣ⌮ㄽୖཝᐦ࡟ࡣྠ⩏࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣྠ(஧㔜▮༳⥺)ࡀ᏶඲࡟ᾘ⁛ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࠊᮏ᮶ࡣᏑᅾࡋ୍࡚どࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵ࡟Ⅼ⥺࡛♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
4⌮ㄽⓗཝᐦࡉࢆồࡵࢀࡤࠊLangacker (2008)࡛ࡣࠊtr/lm ㄆ▱ࡣ㝿❧ࡕ(prominence) ࡢၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡾࠊR/T ㄆ▱ࡣほⅬ(perspective)ࡢၥ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ౽ᐅⓗ࡟ᚋ⪅ ㄆ▱ླྀ㏙㢮ᆺㄽࡢヨࡳࡶ๓⪅ྠᵝ࡟㝿❧ࡕࡢၥ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

࡛⬺୺య໬ࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋணഛ⪃ᐹࡢ(8c)๓⠇ࡲ࡛ࡢ㆟ㄽ࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᙜヱ4ᵓᩥࡣࡑࢀ

ࡒࢀ㢮ఝⅬࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⬺୺య໬࡜⌧ᐇᛶࡢ⛬ᗘ࡜ࡑࢀ㸺ཧ↷ᩥ⊩㸼
Fellbaum, Christine. 1985. “Adverbs in agentless actives and passives.”  
CLS 21/2. 21-31.
࡟᪥ⱥㄒࡀᑐᛂ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ
Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridgeࡴࡋࢁࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊᅗ13࡛♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ┦⿵ศᕸࡢ㛵ಀ
Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press.
࡟࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢᅗ࡛ࡣࠊ⦪㍈ࡣ⌧ Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A Modern English Grammar: on Historical
Principles. Part 3: syntax. George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
ᐇᛶࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊཎⅬ࡟⾜ࡃ࡟ࡘࢀ࡚௬᝿ᛶࡀ㧗ࡲ Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularity in Syntax. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,INC.
ࡿࠋᶓ㍈ࡣ⬺୺య໬ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊཎⅬ࠿ࡽ㐲ࡊ࠿ࡿ
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999a. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin /࡟ẚ౛ࡋ࡚㧗ࡲࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ௬᝿ᛶ࡜⬺୺య໬ࡢᗘྜࡣNew York: Mouton de Gruyter.
┦㛵ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡇ࡟AP/VPࡢ༊ู࡜㛫୺ほᛶࡀ㛵 Langacker, Ronald W. 1999b. “Virtual Reality.” Studies in the Linguistic
Sciences 29.2. 77-103.
୚ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᙜヱ4ᵓᩥࡢㄆ▱ླྀ㏙㢮ᆺࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿࠋ Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction.
Oxford University Press.
┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ. 2008. ࠕླྀ㏙㢮ᆺㄽ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠖ ┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ(⦅). ࠗླྀ㏙㢮ᆺㄽ࠘3-18. ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
୰ྑᐇ. 1991. ࠕ୰㛫ែ࡜⮬Ⓨែࠖ ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘Vol. 10. 56-64.
୰ᮧⰾஂ. 2004. ࠕᾘ࠼ࡓ࢚࣮ࢪ࢙ࣥࢺࠖἙୖㄋసᩍᤵ㏥ᐁグᛕㄽᩥ㞟ห⾜఍(⦅). ࠗゝⴥࡢ࠿ࡽࡃࡾ࠘ 371-387. ⱥᐆ♫.
୰ᮧⰾஂ. 2009. ࠕㄆ▱࣮ࣔࢻࡢᑕ⛬ࠖᆤᮏ⠜ᮁ࣭᪩℩ᑦᏊ࣭࿴⏣ᑦ᫂(⦅).ࠗࠕෆࠖ࡜ࠕእࠖࡢゝㄒᏛ࠘ 353-393. 㛤ᣅ♫.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffery Leech, and Jan Svartvik.
1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman.
㧗ぢ೺୍. 1993. ࠕ୰㛫ែࠊྍ⬟ែ࡜ࠕ≉ᚩ௜ࡅࠖࠖ୰㒊ゝㄒᏛ఍(⦅). Aarts linguistica: Linguistic studies of Shizuoka. 121-141.
ᑎᮧ⚽ኵ. 1982. ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢩࣥࢱࢡࢫ࡜ព࿡I࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ᅗ$3&33&0&79$&ࡢㄆ▱ླྀ㏙㢮ᆺ
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. “(Inter)subjectivity and(inter)subjectification: A reassessment.” In: Kristin Davise, Lieven

Vandelanotee, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds). Subjectification,⤖ ㄽIntersubjectification and Grammaticalization. 29-71. De Gruyter
Mouton.
 ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊAPC, PPC, MC, TVAC ࡢㄆ▱࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒
ࣖࢥࣈࢭࣥ, ࢙࢘ࢫ࣮࣭ࣜM. 1989. ࠕ௚ືᛶ࡜ࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉㄽࠖ
ࡣ⬺୺య໬࡜⌧ᐇᛶࡢ⛬ᗘ࡜ࡑࢀ࡟క࠺ḟඖࣔࢹࣝஂ㔝ᬿ࣭ᰘ㇂᪉Ⰻ (⦅). ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛࡢ᪂ᒎ㛤 ࠘ 213-248. ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽືᶵ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ྜྷᮧබᏹ. 1995. ࠗㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽࡢ᪉ἲ࠘ி㒔: ேᩥ᭩㝔.
APC ࡣ 2 ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡾࠊAPC1 ࡜ PPC
Yoshimura, Kimihiro. 1998. The Middle Construction in English: A
cognitive Linguistic Analysis. Doctoral Dissertation. University of ofࡢ㛫࡟ࡣᵓᩥⓗከ⩏ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺
Otago.

࡟క࠺AP/VP࡬ࡢ⛣⾜࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛┦㐪Ⅼࡶ࠶ࡾࠊ༢⣧ࡁᡭࡢ㛫୺ほᛶ࡟ࡼࡿព࿡ࡢ✺ࡁྜࢃࡏࡢ୰࡛ㄒ⏝−120−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

John looks happy. / I saw John happy.
どぬ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ 2 ࡘࡢ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ஦ែᢕᥱࡢࣃࢱࣥ
ᚨᒣ⪷⨾⚄ᡞᕷእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸺Abstract㸼
In this paper I will examine perception verb sentences such as (a) John looks happy, and (b) I saw
John happy. Although (b) is not totally accepted in the simple present tense: I see John happy which is
the most basic sentence level, it is completely embraced in certain cases as it can be found frequently
in corpora. One of the aims of this paper is to demonstrate the characteristics and the situation in theactual use of expressions like (b). To be specific, they are quite natural only when they describe
temporary states of the perceptual object. By contrasting (a) and (b) with regard to the perceptual
process, the degree of subjectivity, and immediacy/displacement, I also elucidate that the difference inconstrual of the same event is reflected in the difference of linguistic facts.
[Keywords] 㐃⤖ⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ(CPV ᵓᩥ), ௚ືⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ(TPV ᵓᩥ), ஦ែᢕᥱ, ࣃ࣮ࢫ࣌ࢡࢸ࢕ࣦ,୺యᛶࡢᗘྜ.

䠍䠊㻌 䛿䛨䜑䛻㻌▱ぬࢆ⾲ࡍ(1)ࡢ㸰ࡘࡢ⾲⌧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ(1a)ࡣࡈࡃ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ(1b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡣࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡞࡝࡛ࡣ㢖⦾࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᩥࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ୍ᩥࡔࡅࢆ」ᩘࡢⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ぢࡏࡿ࡜ࠊ100%ࡀᐜㄆ࡛ࡁ
࡞࠸࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋ
(1) a. John looks happy.
b. ?I see John happy.
ᮏⓎ⾲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊࡲࡎ௒ࡲ࡛ศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡢᑡ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ͆I see John happy.͇ࡢࡼ࠺
࡞ࠊ᭱ࡶᇶᮏᙧ࡛࠶ࡿ⌧ᅾᙧࡢ༢ᩥࡀᐜㄆ୙ྍ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡀࠊ୍ᐃࡢ᮲௳ࡢࡶ࡜࡛ࡣࠊᩥ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝ࠶ࡗ
࡚ࡶၥ㢟࡞ࡃᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࢆࡲࡎᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢୖ࡛ࠊࠕ▱ぬ୺య࡛࠶ࡿヰࡋᡭࡀࠊ▱ぬᑐ㇟(ࢪࣙࣥ)ࢆぢ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ▱ぬෆᐜ(ࢪࣙࣥࡣࡋ࠶ࢃࡏ࡛࠶ࡿ)ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ඹ㏻ࡢ஦ែ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ஦ែᢕᥱࡢࣃࢱࣥࡢ㐪࠸ࡀࠊ(1a)(1b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡢ㐪࠸࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿ1ࠋ䠎䠊㐃⤖ⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ㻌 㻔㻯㻼㼂 ᵓᩥ㻕(1a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵓᩥࡣ㐃⤖ⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ(Copulative Perception Verb Construction = CPV ᵓᩥ)࡜࿧ࡤࢀ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋඛ⾜◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ Taniguchi(1997)ࠊ㇂ཱྀ(2005)ࠊᮏከ(2005)ࠊNakamura(2013)ࠊᚨᒣ(2006, 2010)࡞
࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᵓᩥ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ௨ୗ࡛(1b)࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿ㝿࡟㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿ2ࠋ㻌䠏䠊௚ືⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ㻌 㻔㼀㻼㼂 ᵓᩥ㻕(1b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲࡟ࡣࠊ↓ෙモ」ᩘྡモࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡓ Carlson(1980)ࠊ▱ぬࡋࡓෆᐜࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿ perception reports ࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡋࡓ Jäger(1999, 2001)ࠊ⿵㒊࡟ࡣ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍᙧᐜモࡸྡモྃ࡞࡝ࡀ⏕㉳ࡍࡿ࡜ࡋࡓᙳᒣ(2009)ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
๓㏙ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ(1b)ࡢ͆I see John happy.”࡜࠸࠺༢ᩥࢆぢࡏࡿ࡜ࠊ100%ࡢ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺࡀᐜㄆ୙ྍ࡜ࡋ
࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣ 100%ࡀᐜㄆ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࠋ

−121−

John looks happy. / I saw John happy. 視覚に関する2つの知覚動詞構文における事態把握のパタン(2)“The only time I saw him happy was when he was singing and the happiest was when hewas singing gospels,” said Earl Douglas Dodge.
Why Elvis Left the Building by Heart Lanier Shapre (2011:219)

ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐜㄆᛶࡀኚࢃࡿ᮲௳࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᙧᐜモࡢ✀㢮ࡸᑐ㇟ࡢே⛠ࠊࡉࡽ࡟▱ぬືモࡢ᫬ไࢆኚ࠼࡚ࠊ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ᮲௳࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ༢ᩥ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶᐜㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢࡀ
ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡘࡲࡾࠊࡇࡢ⾲⌧࡟࠾࠸࡚ዲࡲࢀࡿᙧᐜモࡸே⛠ࠊ᫬ไࡢഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࢆ≉ᐃࡢព࿡࡜ᙧᘧࢆᣢࡘࠕᵓᩥࠖ3࡜ࡋ࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ(1a)ࡢືモࡀ㐃⤖(copulative)ືモ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
(1b)(2)ࡢືモࡣ௚ືモ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ௚ືⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ(Transitive Perception Verb
Construction = TPV ᵓᩥ)4࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡛ᐇ౛ࢆほᐹࡋࠊ᫬ไࡸே⛠ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ඹ㉳ࡍࡿᙧᐜモ࡞࡝ࡢഴྥࢆ๭ࡾฟࡋࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥࡀ
⌧ࢀࡸࡍ࠸஦ែࡢ೫ࡾࢆㄪᰝࡍࡿࠋࡑࡇ࠿ࡽᵓᩥ඲య࡜ࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡿព࿡ࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ㻌㻟䠊䠍㻌 㻌 ᩥ䝺䝧䝹䛷䛾 㼀㻼㼂 ᵓᩥⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ 10 ྡ5࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ▱ぬືモ see ࢆ⌧ᅾᙧ࣭㐣ཤᙧ࣭᏶஢ᙧࠊ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࢆ஧ே⛠࣭୕ே⛠ࠊᙧᐜモ⿵ㄒࢆ≧ែ6ࢆ⾲ࡍ A ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㸸happy, sad, relaxed, miserable, scared, alive, naked, drunkࠊᒓᛶࢆ⾲ࡍ B ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㸸beautiful, tall, handsome, intelligent ࡞࡝࡜ࡋࡓ༢ᩥ㸦ྜィ 190 ౛㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᐜㄆᗘㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ㸦▱ぬ୺యࡀヰࡋᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ CPV ᵓᩥ࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ୺ㄒࡣ୍ே⛠ I ࡟㝈ᐃࡍࡿ㸧
ࠋ(3)ࡣࡑࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ A ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ(≧ែ)㸸happy ࢆ⿵ㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ 6 ౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᐜㄆྍ⬟࡜ࡋࡓᩘࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(3) a. I see you happy.
b. I see him happy.
c. I saw you happy.
d. I saw him happy.
e. I’ve seen you happy.
f. I’ve seen him happy.

⌧ᅾᙧ / ஧ே⛠㸸10 ே୰ 0 ே⌧ᅾᙧ / ୕ே⛠㸸10 ே୰ 0 ே
㐣ཤᙧ / ஧ே⛠㸸10 ே୰ 3 ே㐣ཤᙧ / ୕ே⛠㸸10 ே୰ 9 ே
᏶஢ᙧ / ஧ே⛠㸸10 ே୰ 10 ே᏶஢ᙧ / ୕ே⛠㸸10 ே୰ 10 ே

A ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡢ௚ࡢᙧᐜモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶྠᵝࡢഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡀࠊnaked ࡔࡅࡣ(3a)-(3f)඲࡚ࡢࣃࢱࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ 10
ே୰ 10 ேࡀၥ㢟࡞ࡃᐜㄆ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡋࡓ7ࠋᒓᛶࢆ⾲ࡍ B ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡢᙧᐜモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ(3a)-(3f)඲࡚ࡢࣃࢱࣥ࡟
࠾࠸࡚ 100%ࡀᐜㄆ୙ྍ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ᫬ไ࡜┦ࢆᗈ࠸ព࿡࡛ゎ㔘ࡋ࡚ࠕ▱ぬ᫬㡿ᇦࠖ࡜ࡋࠊ▱ぬࡋࡓ᫬Ⅼࢆࠕ⌧ᅾࠖ࡜ࠕ㐣ཤࠖࡢ㸰ࡘ࡟༊ศࡍࡿࠋ▱ぬࡋࡓ᫬Ⅼࡀ᏶඲࡟Ⓨヰ᫬࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿሙ㠃࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⌧ᅾ᏶஢ࢆ⌧ᅾ๓᫬㡿ᇦ a pre-present domain(Declerck 1991:97)࡜⪃࠼ࠊQuirk.et al(1985:190)࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟༢⣧㐣ཤࡶ⌧ᅾ᏶஢ࡶ࡜ࡶ࡟ࠕ㐣ཤࠖࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ༢⣧㐣ཤࠊ⌧ᅾ᏶஢ࠊ㐣ཤ᏶஢ࡢ▱ぬ᫬㡿ᇦࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠕ㐣ཤࠖ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ
࡚ࠊ(3c)-(3f)ࡢ▱ぬ᫬㡿ᇦࡣࠕ㐣ཤࠖࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ(3)ࡢᐜㄆᗘㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊ▱ぬ᫬㡿ᇦ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠕ⌧ᅾࠖࡀ୙ྍ࡛ࠊ
ࠕ㐣ཤࠖ(≉࡟᏶஢ᙧ)ࡣᐜㄆᗘࡀୖࡀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥࡀᩥࣞ࣋ࣝࡢሙྜࡣࠊ᭱ࡶᇶᮏⓗ࡞༢⣧⌧ᅾᙧࡀᐜㄆ୙ྍ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ㠀ᖖ࡟ࣘࢽ࣮ࢡ࡞ᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࡢே⛠࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ஧ே⛠ࡼࡾࡶ୕ே⛠ࡢ᪉ࡀᐜㄆᗘࡀ
㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᙧᐜモ⿵ㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡶᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟≧ែ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲ
ࡾࠊ࠸࠿࡞ࡿ▱ぬ᫬㡿ᇦࡸே⛠࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊᒓᛶࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢࡣᩥ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡣ 100%ᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

㻟䠊㻞㻌 䝕䜱䝇䝁䞊䝇䝺䝧䝹䛷䛾 㼀㻼㼂 ᵓᩥ㻌COCA ཬࡧ Google ࠿ࡽ᥇ྲྀࡋࡓࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ TPV ᵓᩥ 14 ౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ༢ᩥ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ⌧ᅾᙧࡶྵࡵ࡚ࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ 100%ᐜㄆྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ(4)-(7)ࡣࡑ
ࡢ୰ࡢ 4 ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−122−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号(4) STACEY CASTOR㸸I backed out of the bedroom and closed the door behind me.
DAVID MUIR㸸(Voiceover) She says it was the last time she saw him alive. This was the first time
Stacey Castor was offering any details about that final weekend.
ABC 20/20 (2010)(5) Much of the early and middle nineteenth century readers’ affiliation imagery, though widely
scattered, was quite unsophisticated as shown by the following (Parker and Watson 1857) example:“I love my dear little brother and I am pleased when I see him happy. I did not intend to disobey
you, dear father, and I hope you will not be displeased with me for what I have done” (p75). The
discussion of the joys of giving to others continued unabated for the next page and a half.

The Textbook as Discourse: Sociocultural Dimensions of American Schoolbooksby Provenzo, JR.,Eugene F. Provenzo, Jr.,Annis N. Shaver,Manuel Bello (2010:30)(6) PRIEST㸸We are gathered here today to celebrate the marriage of Marie and Jess, and to consecrate
their vows of matrimony. The vows they take join their lives, the wine their will sharewinds all their hopes together, and by the rings their will wear, they will be known to all ashusband and wife.
SALLY㸸I've never seen her so happy, she's a totally different person.
ALICE㸸Oh yeah, she is, well... is great, so, what are you going to do about you?

When Harry Met Sally(7) "Now open your eyes." Such scenes warm Young's colleagues. "It's good to see him happy again,"says his longtime secretary, Maggie Womack. "He was down for so long." Jean Young's illness
devastated her husband.
Atlanta Games by Jim Auchmutey (1996)㻟䠊㻟㻌㼀㻼㼂 ᵓᩥ䛻ぢ䜙䜜䜛▱ぬ᫬㡿ᇦ䞉ே⛠䞉ᙧᐜモ⿵ㄒ䛾೫䜚㻌
3 ⠇࡛ᣲࡆࡓ(2)࡜ୖࡢ(4)(5)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊTPV ᵓᩥࡣሙ㠃ࢆ㝈ᐃࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞୍᫬ⓗ࡞≧ែࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿ the only
time 㹼ࡸ the last time 㹼ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ when ⠇࡟⌧ࢀࡿሙྜࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࡣࠊ༢ᩥ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝ
ᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ⌧ᅾᙧ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࡁࢃࡵ࡚⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᏶஢ᙧࡣ༢
ᩥࣞ࣋ࣝྠᵝ࡟ᐜㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ(7)ࡢ it’s good to see 㹼ࡢ௚࡟ࡶࠊwant to 㹼ࠊwould like to 㹼ࠊbe gladto 㹼ࠊbe pleased to 㹼࡞࡝࡟⥆ࡃሙྜࡣࠊ▱ぬ᫬㡿ᇦࡢࠕ⌧ᅾ࣭㐣ཤࠖࡸᑐ㇟ࡢே⛠࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡢ
ሙྜࡶၥ㢟࡞ࡃᐜㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋ
▱ぬ᫬㡿ᇦ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ࠺ᑡࡋヲࡋࡃぢ࡚ࡳࡿࠋCOCA ࡢᐇ౛ࢆぢ࡚ࡶࠊࡸࡣࡾࠕ⌧ᅾࠖࡼࡾࡶࠕ㐣ཤࠖࡢ᪉ࡀ㧗㢖ᗘ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ⾲ 1 ࡣࡑࡢ୍౛࡛࠶ࡿ(▱ぬᑐ㇟ࡣ୕ே⛠ him)ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ⾲ࡢ alive ࡢิࡣ͆see him alive͇ࡀ 7 ౛࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
͆saw him alive͇࡜͆seen him alive͇ࡣ 45 ౛࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
[⾲ 1]

㸦ᑐ㇟ him㸸see vs. saw/seen㸧
⌧ᅾ

㐣ཤ

alive

7

45

naked
angry

8
2

22
16

better
happy

1
1

11
6

−123−

John looks happy. / I saw John happy. 視覚に関する2つの知覚動詞構文における事態把握のパタンḟ࡟ࠊᑐ㇟ࡢே⛠࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ೫ࡾࢆ COCA ࡛ぢࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ
஧ே⛠ࡀ 100 ౛ࠊ୕ே⛠ࡀ 541 ౛(him:261, her:280)
࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୕ே⛠ࡢ᪉ࡀ㧗㢖ᗘ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ⿵ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᙧᐜモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶᩥࣞ࣋ࣝྠᵝࠊ୍᫬ⓗ≧ែ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࠊᒓᛶࢆ⾲ࡍᙧᐜモࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ
࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺᫂ࡽ࠿࡞೫ࡾࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋCOCA ࡛ඹ㉳ࡍࡿᙧᐜモࢆ᳨⣴ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࢆ௨ୗ࡟♧ࡍ8ࠋ࣭ࢱ࢖ࣉ㸸211 / ࢺ࣮ࢡࣥ㸸641
࣭211 ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢୖ఩ 20 ࡜ࡑࡢࢺ࣮ࢡࣥ
naked (118), alive (111), dead (60), happy (49), better (26), angry (24), drunk (16), safe (15),alone (9), dressed (7), undressed (7), asleep (7), hurt (7), afraid (7), upset (7), healthy (5), sick(5), mad (5), sad (5), scared (5)ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ౛እ࡜ࡋ࡚(8)(9)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᒓᛶࢆ⾲ࡍ skinny, unkind, foolish, tall ࡞࡝ࡀ 9 ࢱ࢖ࣉࠊ15 ࢺ࣮ࢡࣥぢࡘ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ(8) Instead, I saw him skinny in some hospital bed.
(9) “Shut up and get out,” he snapped. It was the first time I’d seen him unkind. “What’s the matter,honey?” I asked him, …
(8)ࡢࠕ⑓㝔ࡢ࣋ࢵࢻ࡛ᐷ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡁࡣ㹼ࠖࡸ(9)ࡢࠕ⌮ᛶࢆኻࡗ࡚ᛣ㬆ࡗࡓࡑࡢ࡜ࡁࡔࡅࡣ㹼ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
๓ᥦ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ≧ែ࠿ࡽࡢኚ໬ࢆᛕ㢌࡟⨨ࡁࠊᜏᖖⓗ࡞ᒓᛶ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㝈ࡽࢀࡓ≧ἣ࡛ࡢᒓᛶࡀ୍᫬ⓗ࡞≧ែ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢕᥱࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺㄪᰝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ 100%ᐜㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢ஦ᐇࡶࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥࡀሙ㠃ࢆ㝈ᐃࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞୍᫬ⓗ≧ែࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⿬࡙ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㻟䠊䠐㻌 どぬ䜢⾲䛩 㼀㻼㼂 ᵓᩥ䛾ᙧᘧ䛸ព࿡どぬࢆ⾲ࡍ௚ືⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ(TPV ᵓᩥ)ࡢᙧᘧ࡜ព࿡ࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ᙧᘧ㸸୺ㄒࡣ▱ぬ୺యࠊ㏙ㄒࡣ▱ぬືモ VHHࠊ┠ⓗㄒࡣ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࠊ⿵ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿᙧᐜモࡣ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍࠋព࿡㸸୺య ᴫᛕ໬⪅ ࡀᑐ㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚┤᥋▱ぬࡋࡓෆᐜ ୍᫬ⓗ≧ែ ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ
ᵓᩥࡢព࿡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᑡࡋㄝ᫂ࢆຍ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ▱ぬືモ VHH ࡟ࠕሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺ
ㄪᰝ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ⊂ࡾゝ࡛͆He looks drunk.͇࡜ࡣゝ࠼ࡿࡀࠊ͆I saw him drunk.͇࡜ᬑ㏻ࡣゝࢃ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ3.3
࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊI want to see㹼ࠊI’m glad to see㹼ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢᚰⓗែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍࣇ࣮ࣞࢬ࡜ከࡃඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊTPV ᵓᩥ࡟ࡣᚲࡎ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ከࡃࡢᐇ౛࠿ࡽࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ▱ぬࡋࡓෆᐜࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ሗ࿌ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ඹ㏻ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆྲྀࡾฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠸࡚ࠊࠕ ౛ ᙼࡀ㓉ࡗࡥࡽࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆぢࡓࡼࠖ࡜Ⓨヰࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊࡑࢀ⮬యࡀࠕ⾜Ⅽࠖࡘࡲࡾࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠕሗ࿌ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᶵ⬟ࢆᵓᩥࡢព࿡࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᵓᩥࡢព࿡ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ㝿࡟ࡣࠊⓎヰ⾜ⅭࡢⅬ࠿ࡽᵓᩥࡢㄒ
⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
䠐䠊㻯㻼㼂 ᵓᩥ䛸 㼀㻼㼂 ᵓᩥ䛾஦ែᢕᥱ䛾䝟䝍䞁㻌๓⠇࡛ࡣ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺㄪᰝ࡜ᐇ౛࠿ࡽࠊTPV ᵓᩥࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ᐇࢆ♧ࡋࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥࡀ⌧ࢀࡸࡍ࠸஦ែࡢ೫ࡾࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡑࡢ≉ᚩࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊどぬ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ CPV ᵓᩥ࡜ TPV ᵓᩥࢆẚ㍑ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ
2 ࡘ┠ࡢ┠ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠊඹ㏻ࡢ஦ែ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ஦ែᢕᥱࡢࣃࢱࣥࡢ㐪࠸ࡀࠊ(1a)(1b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡢ㐪࠸࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ


㻌

−124−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

䠐䠊㻝㻌㻯㻼㼂 ᵓᩥ䛸 㼀㻼㼂 ᵓᩥ䛾ᙧᘧ㻌 㻌(1) a. John looks happy.
bƘ I saw John happy.9(1a)ࡢ CPV ᵓᩥࡢ୺ㄒࡣ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࠊ㏙ㄒࡣ lookࠊ⿵ㄒࡣ≧ែࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ͆John looks intelligent.͇ࡢࡼ࠺࡟
ᒓᛶࢆ⾲ࡍᙧᐜモࡶඹ㉳࡛ࡁࠊ୍⯡࡟▱ぬ୺య࡛࠶ࡿヰࡋᡭࡣ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(1bƘ)ࡢ TPV ᵓᩥࡢ୺ㄒࡣ
▱ぬ୺యࠊ㏙ㄒࡣ seeࠊ┠ⓗㄒࡣ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࠊࡑࡋ࡚⿵ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿᙧᐜモࡣ≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧࡢ㐪࠸࠿ࡽࠊ
2 ࡘࡢᵓᩥࡢ஦ែᢕᥱࡢࣃࢱࣥࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ௨ୗ࡛㡰࡟⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࡀࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡣ⊂❧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
஫࠸࡟㛵㐃ࡋྜࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㻌䠐䠊䠎㻌 㻌 ▱ぬ䛾䝥䝻䝉䝇
2 ࡘࡢᵓᩥࡢ▱ぬࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿࡢ࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ▱ぬືモࡢព࿡࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
࣭look㸸to direct one’s sight; to apply one’s power of vision. (OED)
to turn your eyes in a particular direction; to try to find sb/sth (OALD)
CPV ᵓᩥࡢ▱ぬືモ look ࡣࠕᑐ㇟࡟ど⥺ࢆྥࡅ࡚ࠊぢࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⬟ືⓗ▱ぬືモ࡜ࡋ࡚ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(Rogers(1971: 260)ࠊᅜᗈ(1981: 31)࡞࡝)ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ(1a)࡛ࡣᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿࢪࣙࣥ࡟ど⥺ࢆྥࡅ࡚ࠕぢࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺୺యࡢ⬟ືⓗ࡞▱ぬ⾜Ⅽࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࢪࣙࣥࡢ≧ែ࣭ᒓᛶࢆุ᩿ࠊホ౯ࡍࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊCPVᵓᩥࡣ▱ぬࡢ᭱⤊ᒁ㠃࡟⮳ࡿࡲ࡛ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ඲యࢆࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡋࡓ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋᬑ㏻ࡢᙧᐜモᩥ࡛ࡣ͆*Johnis happy to me.͇࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࡀࠊCPV ᵓᩥࡢሙྜࡣ͆John looks happy to me.͇࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲ
ࡾࠊࡓ࡜࠼᫂♧ⓗ࡟ᣦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊlook ࡢ₯ᅾⓗືస୺࡛࠶ࡿヰࡋᡭࡢᏑᅾࡀࠊࡼࡾព࿡
ࡢ୰࡟ྲྀࡾ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕࢪࣙࣥࡣᖾࡏࡑ࠺ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ヰࡋᡭࡢ᥎ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿุ᩿
ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
୍᪉ࠊTPV ᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ▱ぬືモ see ࡢព࿡ࡣḟࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
࣭see㸸experience or witness an event or situation. (ODE)
to notice someone or something using your eyes. (MED 2nd)
▱ぬືモ see ࡣࠕ஦㇟ࡸ≧ἣࢆ⤒㦂࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ┠ᧁࡍࡿࠖࠕどぬⓗ࡟Ẽ࡙ࡃࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊཷືⓗ▱ぬືモ࡜ࡋ࡚ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(Rogers(1971: 260)ࠊᅜᗈ(1981: 31)࡞࡝)ࠋࡲࡓࠊsee ࡣ᯽㔝(2012: 203)ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࠕࡑࡢሙ࡛㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿฟ᮶஦ࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿ▐㛫ⓗ࡞▱ぬ(a momentary perception)ࢆ⾲ࡍືモ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊ
͆Seeing is not a process … but a kind of achievement or success.(Vendler1967: 113)͇࠿ࡽࡶࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
see ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ TPV ᵓᩥࡣ CPV ᵓᩥࡢࡼ࠺࡞▱ぬࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ඲యࢆྵࢇ࡛ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ▱ぬࡢ᭱⤊ᒁ㠃ࡢࡳࡀࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡉࢀࡓ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࠕࢪࣙࣥࡀᖾࡏ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺≧ែࢆヰࡋᡭࡀぢ࡚ࠊ
achievement ࢆ⾲ࡍཷືⓗ▱ぬືモ see ࡛ࠕࢪࣙࣥࡀᖾࡏ࡞ࡢࢆぢࡓࠖ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ሗ࿌ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡩࡉࢃࡋ࠸
⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋGruber(1967: 937)ࡶ look ࡜ see ࡣ┦⿵ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊlook ࡣ agentive ࡛᪉ྥᛶࢆࠊsee ࡣ
non-agentive ࡛⤊஢Ⅼࢆྵពࡍࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

䠐䠊㻟㻌 ▱ぬ᫬㡿ᇦ䛾ഴྥ
3 ⠇࡛♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊTPV ᵓᩥࡣ▱ぬࡀⓎヰ᫬ࡼࡾࡶඛ⾜ࡍࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠕ㐣ཤࠖࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
CPV ᵓᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊTPV ᵓᩥࡢࡼ࠺࡞㢧ⴭ࡞೫ࡾࡣほᐹࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊCPV ᵓᩥ࡛᭱ࡶඹ㉳㢖ᗘࡢ㧗࠸ᙧᐜモ good (౛㸸͆He looks good.͇)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ぢࡿ࡜ࠊࠕ⌧ᅾࠖࡀ 2108 ౛ࠊࠕ㐣ཤࠖࡀ 983 ౛࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕ⌧ᅾࠖࡢ᪉࡟೫ࡾࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡀࠊ௚ࡢᙧᐜモࢆぢࡓሙྜࠊ࠶ࡲࡾᕪࡢ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡸࠊsad ࡸ miserable ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣦ࡞ព࿡ࡢᙧᐜモ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ㏫࡟ࠕ㐣ཤࠖࡢ᪉ࡀከ࠸ࡶࡢࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ䠐䠊䠐㻌 ㏆᥋ⓗ䝰䞊䝗䛸㐲㝸ⓗ䝰䞊䝗
Chafe (1994: 195)ࡣࠊ࠸ࡲ࣭ࡇࡇ࡟࠶ࡿ஦᯶ࠊࡘࡲࡾ㏆᥋≧ἣ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡍ࡜ࡁ࡜ࠊ࠸ࡲ࣭ࡇࡇ࡟࡞࠸஦᯶
࡛࠶ࡿ㐲㝸≧ἣ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿ࡜ࡁ࡜࡛ࡣࠊᚰⓗ࡟ࡶゝㄒⓗ࡟ࡶ㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−125−

John looks happy. / I saw John happy. 視覚に関する2つの知覚動詞構文における事態把握のパタン

TPV ᵓᩥ࡛ࡣࠊᑐ㇟ࡀ஧ே⛠ࡼࡾࡶ୕ே⛠ࡀࠊࡲࡓ▱ぬ᫬㡿ᇦࡣࠕ⌧ᅾࠖࡼࡾࡶⓎヰ᫬࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿࠕ㐣ཤࠖࡢ㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆぢ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࠕሗ࿌ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᶵ⬟ୖࠊ┠ࡢ๓࡟࠸ࡿ┦ᡭࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ሗ࿌ⓗ࡟ㄒࡿࡢࡣ୙⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ࠸ࡲ࣭ࡇࡇ୍࡛⥴࡟ぢ࡚࠸ࡿ஦᯶࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣ᝟ሗᛶࡀࡑࢀ࡯࡝㧗࠸࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡜ࡣ㏫࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ࠸ࡲ࣭ࡇࡇ௨እ࡛⤒㦂ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚᝟ሗᛶࡀࡼࡾ㧗࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊTPV ᵓᩥࡣ஧ே⛠ࡼࡾ୕ே⛠ࠊࠕ⌧ᅾࠖࡼࡾࠕ㐣ཤࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㐲㝸≧ἣࢆ⾲ࡍࡢ࡟ࡩࡉࢃࡋ
࠸ᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
୍᪉ࠊCPV ᵓᩥࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ▱ぬ୺య࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⮬ᕫ࡜୍య໬ࡋࠊ┤᥋⤒㦂ࡋࡓ▱ぬࠊゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿ࡜ࠕぢ࠼ࠖࢆࡑࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡶྵࡵ࡚ࠊࡑࡢࡲࡲ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⌧ሙᛶࡢ㧗࠸⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
͆That looks great.͇ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ヰࡋᡭࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡀᬑ㏻࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊሙྜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ͆Looks great!͇ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ▱ぬࡢᑐ㇟ࡉ࠼᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ CPV ᵓᩥࡀヰࡋᡭ࣭⪺ࡁᡭ཮᪉࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ㏆᥋ⓗ࡞≧ἣ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡢ࡟ࡩࡉࢃࡋ࠸ᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ2 ࡘࡢᵓᩥࡢ㐪࠸ࡣ Chafe ࡢ immediacy ࡜ displacement ࡟ྜ⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ䠐䠊㻡㻌 ෆ䞉እ䛾䝟䞊䝇䝨䜽䝔䜱䞂㻝㻜㻌4.1ࠊ4.2 ࡛㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊCPV ᵓᩥࡣ⬟ືⓗ▱ぬືモ look ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ₯ᅾⓗ࡞▱ぬ୺యࡀྵពࡉࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡿ
ࡀࠊ୺య⮬యࡣ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜࠸ࡗࡓࠊ୺యࡀ⤒㦂⪅࡜ࡋ࡚஦ែࡢ୰࡟ධࡾ㎸ࢇࡔࠊ⌧ሙᛶࡢ㧗࠸⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊTPV ᵓᩥࡣ୺యࢆ୺ㄒ࡛᫂♧ⓗ࡟ᣦࡋ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ୺యࡀ≧ἣࡢእ࡟❧ࡗ࡚ࠊ᪤࡟᏶஢ࡋ
ࡓ▱ぬ⾜Ⅽࡢ⤖ᯝࠊุ᩿ࡋࡓෆᐜࠊゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿ࡜㸺ࢥࢺ㸼ࢆࠊほᐹ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽ஦ᚋⓗ࡟ࠊࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆྵ
ࡲ࡞࠸ࠊࡦ࡜ࡲ࡜ࡲࡾࡢ㸺ࣔࣀ㸼࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㟼ⓗ࡟ᢕᥱࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋCPV ᵓᩥࡢ୺యࡀ஦ែࡢ୰࡟ධࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡢ࡜ࡣᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊTPV ᵓᩥࡣ୺యࡀእ࠿ࡽ஦ែࢆᤊ࠼ࡿሗ࿌ᛶࡢ㧗࠸⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊCPV ᵓᩥࡣෆ࠿ࡽࡢࣃ࣮ࢫ࣌ࢡࢸ࢕ࣦ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ୍᪉ࡢ TPV ᵓᩥࡣእ࠿ࡽࡢࣃ࣮ࢫ࣌ࢡࢸ࢕ࣦ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚஦ែࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿࠋ㻌䠐䠊㻢㻌 どᗙ䛾⛣ື䛻䜘䜛⮬ᕫ䛾ᐈయ໬
CPV ᵓᩥ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡓ(10a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞୰㛫ᵓᩥ11ࡀࠊどᗙࡢ⛣ື࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᥈⣴ࡍࡿ⮬ᕫࢆᐈయ໬ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊྠ
᫬࡟࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢻ12ࡉࢀࡿ⾜Ⅽࡢᐇ⾜ࢆグ㏙ࡋࡓ⾲⌧࡟࡞ࡿ(10b) (ᮏከ 2005: 90)ࠋ(10) a. This car handles smoothly. (୰㛫ᵓᩥ)b. We can handle this car smoothly.
ྠᵝ࡟ࠊCPV ᵓᩥ(11a)ࡢ᥈⣴ࡍࡿ⮬ᕫࢆᐈయ໬ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ୺య I ࢆ୺ㄒ࡟ࡋࡓ(11b)࡟࡞ࡿࡀࠊ(10a)-(10b)ࡢ㛵ಀ࡜㐪ࡗ࡚ࠊ(11a)࡜ྠࡌព࿡࡛ࡢ᏶⤖ࡋࡓᩥ࡟ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ(11c)ࡣᙜ↛㠀ᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ CPV ᵓᩥࡢ᥈⣴ࡍࡿ⮬ᕫࢆᐈయ໬ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡀࠊ(12)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ TPV ᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ(11) a. John looked happy.
b. I looked (at) John.
c. *I looked (at) John happy.
(12) I saw John happy.
㻌䠐䠊䠓㻌 ୺యᛶ䛾ᗘྜ㻌
4.5ࠊ4.6 ࠿ࡽ 2 ࡘࡢᵓᩥࢆ୺యᛶࡢᗘྜ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽぢࡿ࡜ࠊCPV ᵓᩥࡣ TPV ᵓᩥ࡟ẚ࡭࡚୺యᛶࡢᗘ
ྜࡀ㧗ࡃࠊ㏫࡟ TPV ᵓᩥࡣ CPV ᵓᩥ࡟ẚ࡭࡚୺యᛶࡢᗘྜࡀప࠸⾲⌧ࠊゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊᐈయᛶࡢᗘྜࡀ㧗࠸⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿ13ࠋ䠐䠊䠔㻌 䜎䛸䜑㻌ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊඹ㏻ࡢ஦ែ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ஦ែᢕᥱࡢࣃࢱࣥࡢ㐪࠸ࡀࠊ(1a)(1b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡢ㐪࠸࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ⾲ 2 ࡣ 2 ࡘࡢᵓᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ≉ᚩ࡜஦ែᢕᥱࡢࣃࢱࣥࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−126−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号>⾲ 2@㐃⤖ⓗ▱ぬືモ(CPV)ᵓᩥ

௚ືⓗ▱ぬືモ(TPV)ᵓᩥ

S㸸▱ぬᑐ㇟
V㸸lookC㸸ᙧᐜモ(≧ែ࣭ᒓᛶ)S㸸▱ぬ୺య
V㸸seeO㸸▱ぬᑐ㇟
C㸸ᙧᐜモ (≧ែࡢࡳ)▱ぬࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ
▱ぬ᫬㡿ᇦࡢ೫ࡾ

ࣉࣟࢭࢫ඲యࢆࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ
࡞ࡋ᭱⤊ᒁ㠃ࡢࡳࢆࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ࠶ࡾ (⌧ᅾ㸺㐣ཤ)ே⛠(ᑐ㇟)ࡢ೫ࡾ
㏆᥋࣭㐲㝸࣮ࣔࢻ࡞ࡋ㏆᥋ⓗ࠶ࡾ (஧ே⛠㸺୕ே⛠)㐲㝸ⓗᙧᘧࣃ࣮ࢫ࣌ࢡࢸ࢕ࣦ

ෆእ୺యᛶࡢᗘྜ࠸㧗࠸ప࠸䠑䠊㻌 䛚䜟䜚䛻
ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊ௒ࡲ࡛࠶ࡲࡾศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ TPV ᵓᩥࡢ౑⏝࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒ஦ᐇ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ▱ぬ୺య࡛࠶ࡿヰࡋᡭࡀ▱ぬᑐ㇟ࢆぢ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ▱ぬෆᐜࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ඹ㏻ࡢ஦ែ
࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ(1a) John looks happy. (1bƘ) I saw John happy.ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ CPV ᵓᩥ࡜ TPV ᵓᩥࡀศᴗࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡢࡣࠊ஦ែᢕᥱࡢࣃࢱࣥࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆࠊලయⓗ࡞ᐇ౛࡟ࡼࡗ࡚♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡇࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⚾ࡓࡕࡀྠࡌ஦ែࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊព㆑ⓗࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ↓ព㆑࡟ࠊ␗࡞ࡗࡓゝㄒᙧᘧࢆ⏝࠸࡚⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ
ඹ㏻ࡢ஦ែ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚␗࡞ࡗࡓ▱ぬࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡀാࡁࠊ
ࡑࢀࡀゝㄒ஦ᐇ࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
௒ᅇࡣどぬ࡟㝈ᐃࡋ࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡀࠊCPV ᵓᩥ࡜ࡣᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ TPV ᵓᩥ࡛ࡣどぬ௨እࡢືモࡢᐜㄆᗘࡀప࠸ࠋ
௒ᚋࡣࠊࡑࡢせᅉࢆ᥈ࡿࡇ࡜࡛୧ᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄆ▱ⓗ࡞ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡸືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡲࡓࠊsee௨እࡢどぬࢆ⾲ࡍ▱ぬືモࡸࠊTPV ᵓᩥ࡜ᙧᘧࡀ㢮ఝࡋࡓㄆ㆑ືモ find (I found him alive.)࡞࡝࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿࡇ
࡜࡛ࠊTPV ᵓᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡉࡽ࡟⪃ᐹࢆ῝ࡵࡓ࠸ࠋ‫ޚ‬Ⓨ⾲ࡢ‽ഛẁ㝵࠿ࡽࠊᒣཱྀ἞ᙪඛ⏕ࠊᮏከၨඛ⏕࡟㈗㔜࡞ຓゝ࡜ከ኱࡞ࡈᣦᑟࢆ࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊྖ఍ࡢ⚟⏣୍㞝ඛ⏕ࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊඣ⋢ᚨ⨾ඛ⏕ࠊ᯽㔝೺ḟඛ⏕ࠊᑿ㇂ᫀ๎ඛ⏕ࠊす⏣ග୍ඛ⏕ࠊฟỈᏕ඾ඛ⏕ࠊ୰ᮧᩥ⣖Ặ࠿ࡽ኱ኚ᭷┈࡞ࡈពぢࢆ㈷ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋᚰ࠿ࡽឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ

1 (1a)ࡣᙧᐜモ௨እ࡟ྡモྃࡸ like / as if ࢆඹ㉳࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣᙧᐜモඹ㉳ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋ(1b)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ͆I saw him

cross / crossing the street.͇ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ືモ do / doing ࢆక࠺ࡶࡢ࡜ࡣ༊ูࡋࠊᙧᐜモඹ㉳ࡢࡶࡢ࡟㝈ᐃࡋ࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ
2 どぬ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ CPV ᵓᩥ࡟ࡣࠊ
͆John looks happy.͇௨እ࡟͆John appears happy.͇ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ(1b)ࡢ▱ぬືモ see

࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ
͆John looks happy.͇ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺ࠋ
3 ព࿡࡜ᙧᘧ࡜ࡀ⤖ࡧࡘ࠸ࡓࠊࢤࢩࣗࢱࣝࢺⓗ࡞ᵓᡂయ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢゝㄒࣘࢽࢵࢺ (ᒣ᲍ 2009: 32)ࠋ4 ཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲ࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠊJäger(1999)ࡢ⏝ㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡚▱ぬሗ࿌ᵓᩥ(Perception Reports Construction)࡜࠸࠺ྡ⛠ࢆ౑ࡗࡓࡀࠊ㐃⤖ⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ(Copulative Perception Verb Construction = CPV ᵓᩥ)࡜ᑐẚࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣᮏከၨඛ⏕ࡢࡈຓゝ࡟ࡼࡾࠊᵓᩥࡢྡ⛠ࢆ௚ືⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ(Transitive Perception Verb Construction = TPV ᵓᩥ)࡟ᨵࡵࡓࠋ
5 ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺ 10 ྡࡢෆヂࡣࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫே 2 ྡࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ே 3 ྡࠊ࢝ࢼࢲே 2 ྡࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔ே 2 ྡࠊࢽ࣮ࣗࢪ࣮
ࣛࣥࢻே 1 ྡࠋ⏨ᛶ㸵ྡࠊዪᛶ㸱ྡࠋᖺ㱋ࡣ 20㹼50 ௦ࠋ⫋ᴗࡣ኱Ꮫᩍဨࠊ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢼࢩࣙࢼࣝࢫࢡ࣮ࣝᩍဨࠊⱥ఍ヰㅮᖌࠋ
6 ࠕ≧ែࠖ࡜ࠕᒓᛶࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ┈ᒸ(1987)ࠊோ⏣(2012)ࢆཧ↷ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋCarlson(1980: 106)࡛ࡣࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕ≧ែࠖࢆࠕ᫬
㛫ࡢ᥎⛣ࡢ࠶ࡿ୰࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊ࠶ࡿ≉ᐃࡢሙ㠃ࡔࡅ࡛ᡂ❧ࡋࠊࡑࡢᚋࡣኚ໬ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ stage-level predicate࡜ࡋࠊࠕᒓᛶࠖࢆࠕ୺ㄒࡢྡモࡀᮏ᮶ഛ࠼࡚࠸ࡿᛶ㉁ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࡶࡢࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ individual-level predicate ࡜࿧ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ
7 ᙧᐜモ naked ࡀࠊぢ࡚ࡍࡄ࡟ࢃ࠿ࡿ⾪ᧁⓗ࡞≧ែࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ⌮⏤࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
8 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ᳨࡚⣴ࡋࡓ㝿࡟ࠊI saw him smiling / sleeping / struggling.ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌧ᅾศモᙧࡀ 44 ࢱ࢖ࣉ / 121 ࢺ࣮ࢡࣥぢࡽࢀࡓࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ࢝࢘ࣥࢺࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
9 ࡇࢀࡲ࡛⌧ᅾᙧ࡛ᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ(1b) I see John happy.ࢆࠊࡇࡇ࠿ࡽࡣᐜㄆᛶࡢ㧗࠸ࠕ㐣ཤ࡛ࠖ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

−127−

John looks happy. / I saw John happy. 視覚に関する2つの知覚動詞構文における事態把握のパタン

10 ࣃ࣮ࢫ࣌ࢡࢸ࢕ࣦ࡟ࡣࠊど⥺ࡢྥࡁ࣭❧⬮Ⅼ࣭᪉ྥᛶ࣭࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘ୺యⓗ/ᐈయⓗ࡟ゎ㔘ࡍࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࠊ4 ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡀྵࡲࢀ
ࡿ(Langacker 2008, ῝⏣࣭௰ᮏ 2008: 43)ࠋ11 ୰㛫ᵓᩥ࡜ CPV ᵓᩥࡢ୪⾜ᛶࡣ㇂ཱྀ(2005)ࠊᮏከ(2005)ࠊᚨᒣ(㏆ห)ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
12 ࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢲࣥࢫ࡜ࡣ⎔ቃࡢ୰ࡢࡶࡢࡀ▱ぬ⪅࡟ᥦ౪ࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽࡢྍ⬟ᛶࠋ౛㸸᳔Ꮚࡣே㛫࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕᗙࡿࠖ⾜Ⅽࢆ࢔ࣇ࢛࣮
ࢻࡍࡿ㸦ᮏከ 2005: 56㸧ࠋ13୺యᛶ࣭୺యⓗ࡜ࡣࠊࠕᴫᛕ໬ࡢᑐ㇟࡜ᑐẚࡉࢀࡓᴫᛕ໬ࡢ୺య࡟㛵ࢃࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡿ(Langacker 1990 ࡞࡝)ࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩Carlson, Gregory. 1980. Reference to Kinds in English. New York: Garland.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in

Speaking and Writing. The University of Chicago Press.
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Kaitakusha.
῝⏣ᬛ࣭௰ᮏᗣ୍㑻. 2008. ࠗᴫᛕ໬࡜ព࿡ࡢୡ⏺㸸ㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࠘ᮾி㸸◊✲♫.
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1967. Look and see. Language. Vol.43 No.4: 937-947.
ᮏከၨ. 2005.ࠗ࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢲࣥࢫࡢㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽ㸸⏕ែᚰ⌮Ꮫ࠿ࡽぢࡓᩥἲ⌧㇟࠘ᮾி㸸ᮾ኱ฟ∧఍.
Jäger, Gerhard. 1999. “Stage level, states, and the semantics of the copula.” ZAS Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 1-30.
Jäger, Gerhard. 2001. “The topic-comment structure and contrast between stage-level and individual-level predicates.”

Journal of semantics 18: 83-126.
ᙳᒣኴ㑻. 2009.ࠗ᪥ⱥᑐ↷㸸ᙧᐜモ࡜๪モࡢព࿡࡜ᵓᩥ࠘ᙳᒣኴ㑻(⦅). ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
᯽㔝೺ḟ. 2012. ࠗⱥㄒㄒἲヲゎ㸸ⱥㄒㄒἲᏛࡢ☜❧࡟ྥࡅ࡚࠘ ᮾி㸸୕┬ᇽ.
ᅜᗈဴᘺ. 1981.ࠕㄒᙡࡢᵓ㐀ࡢẚ㍑ࠖ
ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒẚ㍑ㅮᗙ➨ 3 ᕳ ព࿡࡜ㄒᙡ࠘15-52. ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. "Subjectification." Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5-38.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ. 1987. ࠗ࿨㢟ࡢᩥἲ㸸᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲᗎㄝ࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
Nakamura, Fuminori. 2013. “A Corpus-based Approach to Competitions between Synonymic Expressions: with Special
Reference to English Copulative Perception Verbs.” ࠗ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ఍ㄽᩥ㞟࠘13: 429-441.
ோ⏣⩏⏨. 2012. ࠕ≧ែࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࠖ
ࠗᒓᛶླྀ㏙ࡢୡ⏺࠘ᙳᒣኴ㑻 (⦅) 177-199.
Quirk, Randolph, et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Rogers, Andy. 1971. “Three Kinds of Physical Perception Verbs.” CLS 7: 206-222.
Taniguchi, Kazumi. 1997. “On the Semantics and Development of Copulative Perception Verbs in English: A Cognitive
Perspective.” English Linguistics 14: 270-299.
㇂୍ཱྀ⨾. 2005. ࠗ஦ែᴫᛕࡢグྕ໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗ◊✲࠘ ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
ᚨᒣ⪷⨾. 2006. ࠕ㐃⤖ⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥࢆࡵࡄࡿၥ㢟ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘2: 81-88.
ᚨᒣ⪷⨾. 2010. ࠕ㐃⤖ⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ appear ࡜ look㸸ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ᳨࡛ドࡍࡿㄆ▱ⓗศᴗࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘6: 97-104.
ᚨᒣ⪷⨾. (㏆ห) ࠕᵓᩥࡢⓎ㐩࡜ືモࡢㄆ▱ⓗศᴗ㸸㐃⤖ⓗ▱ぬືモᵓᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ appear ࡜ look ࡢศᕸࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠖ
ࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛㄽ⪃ 11࠘ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂(⦅). ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. “Verbs and times.” Linguistics in Philosophy. 97-121. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University Press.
ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂. 2009. ࠗㄆ▱ᵓᩥㄽ㸸ᩥἲࡢࢤࢩࣗࢱࣝࢺᛶ࠘ ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
㸺㎡᭩㸼

MED㸸Macmillan English Dictionary, 2nd edition. 2007.
OALD㸸Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 8th edition. 2010.
ODE㸸Oxford Dictionary of English, 2nd edition. 2005.
OED㸸Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition. 1989.
㸺ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸼
COCA㸸Corpus of Contemporary American English (http://corpus.byu.edu/coca)−128−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

アメリカ英語における定形節補部を伴う連結詞的知覚動詞の使用の発達について:
The Corpus of Historical American English の調査に基づいて
中村文紀（北里大学）

fumi3648@gmail.com
 Abstract This corpus-based paper aims to investigate the diachronic development of Copulative Perception Verbs(CPVs) with clausal complements in Modern American English. Data are collected from Corpus of Historical American English, which covers from 1810 to 2009. First, following Taniguchi (1997, 2005),
who argues that the clausal complementation stems from that of seem via their semantic similarity, thequantitative survey is made, comparing with seem. The results suggest that CPVs with clausal complements are now replacing seem. Second, each of the examples is manually tagged with grammatical andsemantic tags and analysed qualitatively. The ﬁndings of the survey shows that CPVs have developed
from perception to more grammaticalized, and abstract inferential meaning.
【キーワード】：知覚動詞、証拠性、推論、文法化

1 本稿の目的
現代英語には、主語に知覚者ではなく知覚対象を選択する連結的知覚動詞 (Copulative Perception

Verbs、以下 CPVs) と呼ばれる動詞群が存在する。この動詞は、現在定型節を補部としてとることができ、意味の側面でも seem との類似していることが明らかになっている。しかしどのように発達したのかに関して、その生起数が少なかったこともあり通時的な調査はあまりなされていない。
本稿の目的は、seem との類似性を考慮しながら、現代アメリカ英語における定型節をとる CPVsの通時的な発達を調べることである。データは、1810 年から 2009 年までをカバーする大規模通時
コーパスである Corpus of Historical American English から収集した。その結果、CPVs はその生起数を伸ばしており、それに対して seem は大きくその生起を減らしていた。次に、一例一例タグ付けした上で質的に調査した。その結果、元々知覚を表していた動詞が、より抽象化されて推論を表す用法を獲得したことが明らかとなった。これは、知覚対象と評価対象の二つの意味役割を持っていた主語が、次第にその役割を失い、最終的に仮主語や主語のない例が散見される形で表れる。
本稿の構成は以下のようになる。次の第 2 節では、研究の背景と先行研究を概観する。第 3 節ではデータと手順を説明する。第 4 節で量的な調査の結果を報告し、第 5 節で例文による質的な分析を行う。第 6 節は結論と今後の展望である。

2 研究の背景と先行研究
2.1 連結詞的知覚動詞と定型節補部
知覚事態では、知覚を用いて外界の情報を得る知覚者と外界の情報としての知覚対象を参与者として存在していると考えられる。この事態が言語化される場合、どちらの参与者が主語になるのかに関−129−アメリカ英語における定形節補部を伴う連結詞的知覚動詞の使用の発達について: The Corpus of Historical American Englishの調査に基づいてして二つの選択肢が考えられるが、ほとんどの場合一つの動詞が両方の参与者を選択的に主語にとるということはできない。また、たとえ情報構造やその他談話構造の要請を受けて、任意の知覚動詞が典型例とは異なる主語を選択することが好ましい時でも、通常受動化等のなんらかの形態的・統語的操作が行われる。
しかし、現代英語には、知覚者を統語的に主語としない知覚動詞があることが知られている。これらは、知覚者を主語に、知覚対象を目的語（あるいは目的語的な要素）にとる他動詞的な用法を持っているにも関わらず、同時に動詞の形態的な変化を伴わず、知覚対象を主語に、知覚者を随意的要素である前置詞句としてとる自動詞的な用法も同時に有しているという点において特異的である1 。本稿では、Taniguchi (1997) に倣い、このタイプの知覚動詞を連結的知覚動詞 (Copulative Perception

Verbs、以下 CPVs) と呼ぶ。典型的な例は以下のものである (谷口 2005:213)。
(1)

a.

John looks happy.

b.

It sounds reasonable.

c.

The ﬂower smells sweet.

d.

This cake tastes good.

e.

The cloth feels soft.

例えば、(1a) では、主語である John は知覚者ではなく、話者が知覚する対象を表す。CPVs は、文全体では、動詞の表す知覚を用いて得た情報によって、主語で指示される対象が補部の性質を持っていることを話者が推論したことを意味する。そのため、Taniguchi (1997:272) や Huddleston and Pullum(2002:261) が指摘するように、CPVs は自動詞ではあるが、補部は義務的であり、これを削除してしまうと自動詞用法としての容認性が落ちることが確認できる。

(2)

a.

* John looks.

b.

* It sounds.

それゆえ、補部は、話者が知覚した証拠をもとに推論した結果を表しており、CPVs が持つ意味機能において重要な役割を果たしている。
現代英語において、CPVs は、統語的に様々な補部パターンをとることが報告されている (Gisborne

2010:243)。
(3)a.

Jane sounds nice.

b.

Jane sounds a nice girl.2c.

Jane sounds like a nice girl.

d.

Jane sounds like/as if she is a nice girl.

特に、(3d) で見られるように補部に定型節が生起できるようになったことは、重要な意味を持つ。なぜならば、このことによって補部はそれ自体で命題的に完全となるためであり、特に形式的な側面に目を当てると、主節の主語と独立して主語を持つことが可能となるからである。

−130−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

2.2 先行研究谷口 (2005:245) は、連結詞的知覚動詞の補部分布の一部（e.g. to-inﬁnitive と定形節補部）は seemとの意味的類似性から生じていると論じている。

... 本来ある種の知覚様式を通じての推論を表す CPVs（特に、推論に中心的な知覚である視覚・聴覚の場合）に seem との類推が起こり、その影響で共に類似した統語的振る舞いを示す傾向があると言える。
また、小西 (1990:1349) も同様に、seem が「appear、look などと同じく、人や物事についての話し手の見方・判断を述べる基本的な語で「... であると思われる」という推定の意味を表す」と述べている。
このような類似性の結果、現在では以下の例文のように現在では、形式的・意味的な類似性を示す。

(4)

a.

John {seems/looks/sounds} as if he’s seen a ghost. (谷口 2005:245)b.

Jane {seems/sounds} {like/as if/as though} she won. (Gisborne 2010:269)

この二つの動詞群が類似していることは、類語辞典でも同様に見いだせる。以下のように、seem の
見出しにおいて、look や sound が見つけることができる。(5a) は、特に本稿で扱うアメリカ英語に関係するため重要である。

(5)

a.

they seem friendly: appear (to be), have the appearance/air of being, give the impressionof being, look, look as though one is, show signs of being, look to be; come across as,
strike someone as, sound.
(Oxford American Writer’s Thsaurus, s.v. seem)b.

she seemed annoyed at this: appear, appear to be, have the appearance/air of being, givethe impression of being, look, look like, look as though one is, look to be, have the lookof, show signs of; come across as, strike someone as, give someone the feeling that one
is, sound.
(Oxford Thsaurus of English, s.v. seem)

このような seem との類似性をもととする定型節の獲得については、多くの文献で言及されているが、その後の定型節を伴う CPVs がどのように発達したのかについての研究は必ずしも多くない。本稿では、このギャップを埋めるために、アメリカ英語の大規模コーパスを使いた実例をベースに、主語に特に注目しながらこの問題を解決する為に調査を行った。

3 データと手順
本稿では、Corpus of Historical American English (以下、COHA) を調査する (Davies 2010–)。COHA
は、1810 年から 2009 年までの 200 年間の近代アメリカ英語を収集した 4 億語レベルの書き言葉均
衡コーパスである。その構成は、小説 Fiction、雑誌 Popular magazine、新聞 Newspaper、ノンフィク
ション Non ﬁction book の 4 つのジャンルである。すべての年代において、約半数が小説である。新−131−アメリカ英語における定形節補部を伴う連結詞的知覚動詞の使用の発達について: The Corpus of Historical American Englishの調査に基づいて

聞は、1810 年から 1850 年の間はコーパスに含まれておらず、それ以降は組み込まれるものの量的に安定するのは 1920 年代からである。
調査対象は、CPVs の中でも視覚を表す look と聴覚を表す sound と比較対照のための seem とappear に限定した。これは、CPVs の中でもこの二つの知覚様態が特に推論の為に使われる為であり、seem との類推が起こりやすいと考えられるからである。また、定型節を導く接続詞は as if(though) と like をそれぞれ別個に収集した。調査では、まず、200 年を 10 年ごとに区切った上でそれぞれの時代で実例を収集した。次の節で量的に出しているグラフは、収集した実例すべてを考慮したものである。収集後、質的に分析するためにそれぞれに実例に対して主語の性質、助動詞、定型節などのタグを一例ずつ付与した。タグ付けの時、分析をそれぞれの年代で実例数が大きく異なることから、100 例を超える場合には 100 例を無作為に収集した。以下の表が、質的に分析を行った実例の
数である。

look

sound

seem

appearas if (though)

1,860

993

1,913

318

like

1,264

342

655

8

表1

収集しタグ付けした実例数

4 量的な調査結果
まず、量的な調査結果を述べる。図 1 は、as if (though) 節を伴うそれぞれの動詞の歴史的な変遷を見たものである。as if (though) 節を取る CPVs は、19 世紀の間に数を増やし、20 世紀には安定している。look が最も頻度の高い動詞であり、sound の生起は多くない。興味深いのは、seem の変化である。19 世紀には、調査対象の中でも最も生起数の多い動詞であったが、その後大きくその数を減らし、look とその順位を逆転している。
図 2 は、like 節をとる場合の変遷をまとめたものである。like が導く補部節の場合には、もともとlook like が最も多い頻度であり、seem like や他の表現はそれに続く形になっている。このような接続
節ごとの発達の違いを分析することは、興味深いことではあるが、本稿の調査範囲を超えるため扱わない。

5 主語についての質的分析
本節は、文法化 Grammaticalization (cf. Hopper and Traugott 2003) の観点から定型節をとる CPVsの発達を考察する。より具体的な知覚事態をその意味に含んでいた CPVs が、より抽象的な推論に近い用法を発達させてていることを明らかにする。そのときに一つの指標となるのが主語が担う役割であり、週消化されていく中で希薄化していく様子を明らかにする。

CPVs は、原初的には知覚そのものと、それに基づいた評価という二つの行為が意味される。Rogers(1971:214) から引いた以下の例文のように、CPVs の行為は、その前提として Reuben を実際に話者が見たと言うことをその前提として意味に含んでいる。

−132−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

図 1 as if (though) を節を伴う動詞の頻度変遷 (100 万語あたり)

図2

like を節を伴う動詞の頻度変遷 (100 万語あたり)−133−

アメリカ英語における定形節補部を伴う連結詞的知覚動詞の使用の発達について: The Corpus of Historical American Englishの調査に基づいて

(6)

a.

Reuben looked stoned to me.

b.

I saw Reuben.

そのため、(6a) において主語の対象は、知覚事態における知覚対象と評価行う際の評価対象の二つを同時に担っていると考えられる。例えば、上記の例文は、特に文脈による補正がないとすれば、話者は実際に Reuben を目にしており、そのときの表情や動作などの視覚的な情報から stoned で表される状態であると判断したという意味を持つと解釈される。定型節以外の補部の場合には、補部が独自の主語を持たないため、必ず補部の意味上の主語は、文全体の主語と一致する。定型節が補部として生起した場合でも、主節と従属節の主語はその指示対象において一致することが多い。
しかし、as if (though) や like に導かれる従属節が主節の主語とは独立して形式的な主語を持つため、この一致の制約から除外される可能性を持つに至ったのである。
まず、主節の主語と従属節の主語がずれる例を考えてみよう。以下の例を参考にされたい。

(7)

a.

Everything looked as if the Republican party would prove itself the Democratic Party after
all. (COHA)b.

His voice sounded as if the matter worried him. (COHA)c.

This passage sounds as if the Commissioners had made certain very great discoveries.
(COHA)(7a) の場合には、「状況すべてとしての」everything が主節の主語になっており、これは意味役割としては知覚対象であると考えられる。ただし、この場合は、視覚的な情報と言うよりはやや抽象化された情報源へのアクセス程度の意味で知覚であると言う必要がある。それに対して、話者が話題として取り上げたい、つまり評価の対象となっているのは、この everything ではなく、従属節の主語である the Republican party である。(7b) では、さらに特定されている、主節の主語である his voice は、情報源の役割しか持っていない。そして、声を証拠として、問題が彼を悩ませているという命題を推論して導き出したことを意味している。(7c) では、これらの例で共通しているのは、主節の主語が情報源としての知覚対象であり、従属節の内容が話者が推論した結果導き出されたものである。
次に見るのは、実例ではなく定型節が補部でもないが、主語が知覚対象ではなく評価対象であるという点で前段落で見た例文と好対照をなすので触れておきたい。

(8)(I’ve heard/seen the forecast and) tomorrow’s weather sounds/looks ﬁne. (Gisborne 2010:245)

この文の主語は tomorrow’s weather であるが、これは知覚対象でない為推論の為の証拠になり得ない。次の日の天候は、発話時点では話者が知覚できたいためである。むしろ、この主語が担っているのは、評価対象のみであり、証拠自体は発話の外に置かれていると考えられる。この場合は (I’ve{heard/seen} the forecast and) の部分が知覚された内容である。
今まで見た 2 つのパターンは、もともと定型節を取らなかったときには、主語が担っていた二つの役割のどちらかが失われたパターンであるということもできる。次に見る例は、主語が仮主語

dummy subject の it になった例であり、この主語はもはや知覚対象も評価対象も明確に指示しないと考えられる。

(9)a.

It looked as if he had lived a pretty narrow life.（COHA）−134−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

b.

It looked as if they were having a good day.（COHA）

c.

They’re closed, and it looks like they won’t reopen for several days. (COHA)

最後に、主語が形式的にも明示されていない例を取り上げる。

(10)

a.

“Wow, doesn’t look like you’ve gotten much done. ” (COHA)

この例では、特定の視覚的な情報が like 節の内容を推論するための証拠として機能しているわけではない。むしろ、ここでは、「何からの根拠があって、それをもとに推論した」という意味を言うしており、話者の推論であるということがより前景化されていると考えられる。
全体として、元々知覚事態とそこで得られた情報を元に話者が推論する評価という二つの事柄を意味していたのが、知覚の意味が次第に希薄化し、話者の推論の側面が焦点となってきている。つまり、従属節の内容に対する話者の態度を示す標識としての役割になりつつあることが示唆される。

6 結論と今後の展望
本稿では、COHA を使った調査によって、以下のことに明らかにした。

1. as if (though) および like を導かれる定型節補部をとる連結詞的知覚動詞は、この 200 年で米語において増加しており、それとは対照的に同じ文型パターンをとる seem は大きく減少している。

2. もともと知覚と評価の二つを表すため、主語には知覚対象と評価対象の二つの意味役割が割り振られていたが、段階が明らかになった。現在では、仮主語や非明示的な主語を取ることができるようになっている。

3. 特に仮主語や非明示的な主語の場合には、知覚動詞を含む主節は話者の心的態度を表し、従属節の方が話者が主張したい命題になっている。
全体として、より具体的な知覚の意味を希薄化させることによってより推論に特化した用法を発達させたことが明らかとなった。この推論ベースの用法は、視覚や聴覚といった特定の知覚様態に限定されることがないため、幅広い文脈で用いることができる。また、知覚の意味が意味の焦点から外れたため、seem と近い意味と用法を獲得した。その推論は、話者の意見を述べるために使われることになり、従属節の内容が重要であり、主節はその内容を事実と断定しないための緩衝材として作用している用法もある。
今後の展望であるが、まずこの度はアメリカ英語のみを対象としたが、本論の結論がイギリス英語
や他の英語でも同様なのかということはまだ分かってはいない。そのため、それぞれの英語に対して同様の結論が出るかどうかさらに調査する必要がある。仮に異なるのであれば、その要因は何であるのかということも分析する予定である。
最後に、補部を導く節によって発達の経路が異なっていることが図 1 と図 2 の対比によって明らかとなった。この違いの要因が何であるのか分かってはいないため、今後の課題としたい。

−135−

アメリカ英語における定形節補部を伴う連結詞的知覚動詞の使用の発達について: The Corpus of Historical American Englishの調査に基づいて

註
1 聴覚を表す sound だけは、連結詞的知覚動詞としての自動詞的な用法しかなく、知覚者を主語に選択する用法は存在しない。しかし、Oxford English Dictionary によると、look に対応する listen には、連結詞的知覚動詞としての用法が存在する。

How does it listen to you? (s.v. listen)(11)

ただしこの用法は、極めて少数であり、ここには sound と listen との競合関係があると考えられる。
2 この名詞句を補部としてとる用法は、イギリス英語の用法であることが安藤 (2005:51) で言及されている。

(12)

That sounds a great idea.

同様のことは、小西 (1990:893) でも指摘されており、補部に名詞を取るのは英国用法であり、通例は look like を用い、さらに通常性質・状態・程度を表す形容詞が共に表れるのが普通だとしている。

(13)

a.

He looks [looks like] a perfect fool [a clever fellow, an honest man].

b.

He looks like a gentleman.

参考文献
Davies, Mark. 2010–. The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 Million Words, 1810-2009.
Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/.
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2010. The Event Structure of Perception Verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hopper, Paul and Elizabeth Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, Andy. 1971. Three kinds of physical perception verbs. CLS 7:206–222.
Taniguchi, Kazumi. 1997. On the semantics and development of copulative perception verbs in English: A cognitive perspective. English Linguistics 14:270–299.
安藤, 貞雄. 2005. 現代英文法講義. 東京: 開拓社.
小西, 友七, ed. 1990. 英語基本動詞辞典. 研究社.
谷口, 一美. 2005. 事態の記号化に関する認知言語学的研究. ひつじ書房.

−136−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

᪥ᮏㄒࡢ୍ே⛠ㄒࡢே⛠㌿᥮࡜ᾘ㈝⪅ࡢ⮬ᕫᐇ⌧*す⏣ ග୍    ୗ㛵ᕷ❧኱Ꮫ
nishida-k@shimonoseki-cu.ac.jp
㸺Abstract㸼
This article discusses person shift in Japanese first-person terms like watasi ‘I,’ which
typically occurs in advertisement copies and magazine article titles.

It is argued that such

person shift is motivated by the consumer’s self-realization via consumption, which parallels
the speaker’s self-reference in the first-person.

The advertisement copies whose watasi

stands for the consumer selectively deal with the goods and services with which she chooses
the life style she prefers and becomes a message source, because these contexts are made topropose that to buy for oneself is to express oneself and model the consumer who buys thesethings from providers as the speaker who talks about herself to the addressee in dialogue.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸୍ே⛠ㄒࠊே⛠㌿᥮ࠊᾘ㈝ࠊ᝟ሗⓎಙࠊࣛ࢖ࣇࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢ㑅ᢥ㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ୍ே⛠ㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᗈ࿌ࡸࢱ࢖ࢺ࡛ࣝࡢ⏝ἲࢆ㆟ㄽࡍࡿࠋ(1) ᮏᙜࡣᩍ࠼ࡓࡃ࡞࠸⚾ࡔࡅࡢ೺ᗣἲ 㸦ࠗ፬ேබㄽ࠘
ࠊ2011 ᖺ 10 ᭶ 22 ᪥ྕ㸧(1)ࡣ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺグ஦ࡢࢱ࢖ࢺ࡛ࣝࠕ⚾ࠖࡣࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡢ᭩ࡁᡭࢆᣦࡉ࡞࠸ࠋࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࢆᮏᩥ࡟ኚ࠼
ࡓࠕ⚾ࡔࡅࡢ೺ᗣἲࡣᮏᙜࡣᩍ࠼ࡓࡃ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࠊ
ࠊࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠕ⚾ࠖࡣࠊࡇࡢᩥࡢ᭩ࡁᡭࢆ
ᣦࡍㄞࡳࡋ࠿࡞࠸ࠋ(2)ࡣࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆᇶ࡟୍ே⛠ㄒࡢ⏝ἲࡢศ㢮ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(2)

     

a-i. ≉ᐃࡢಶே࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⌧ᅾࡢヰࡋᡭࢆᣦࡍࠋ

a. ᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲࠕ⚾ࠖ              a-ii. ヰࡋᡭ࣭᝟ሗⓎಙ⪅ࡢ㞟ᅋࡢ௦⾲ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋb. 㠀ᣦ♧ⓗ⏝ἲ㸸୙≉ᐃࡢᾘ㈝⪅࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(1)ࡢࠕ⚾ࠖࡣࠊࡑࡢࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡀᑟࡃグ஦ࡢከࡃࡢⓏሙே≀ࡀඹ㏻ࡋ࡚౑࠺⮬⛠ㄒ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ(2a-ii)࡟ヱᙜࡋࠊ(2b)ࡢ⏝ἲࡣࠊ(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄞ⪅ࡢ୰࠿ࡽᙜヱࡢၟရࢆ㈙࠾࠺࡜ࡍࡿேࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ⚾ࠖ࡟ヱᙜࡍࡿࠋᮏㄽࡣࠊᗈ࿌ࡸࢱ࢖ࢺࣝ࡟≉ᚩⓗ࡞ே⛠㌿᥮ࢆᢅ࠸ࠊ(4)ࡢ 2 ࡘࡢၥ㢟࡟⟅࠼ࡿࠋ(3) a. ┠ぬࡵࡼࠊ⚾ࡢ⨾ⓑຊ 㸦ࣇ࢓ࣥࢣࣝࠊ໬⢝ရ㸧b. ⚾ࢆඖẼ࡟ࡍࡿ 63 ࡢ᪑ 㸦ࠗ᪑࠘
ࠊ2011 ᖺ 11 ᭶ྕ㸧(4) a. ᗈ࿌ࡸࢱ࢖ࢺ࡛ࣝࠊ୍ே⛠ㄒࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀᐇ㝿ࡢ᭩ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽㄞ⪅࡟⛣ࡿ⌮⏤ࡣఱ࠿ࠋb. ୍ே⛠ㄒࡢᗈ࿌࡟ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᐉఏຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࠋ

−137−

日本語の一人称語の人称転換と消費者の自己実現ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ㸰⠇࡛ᑐヰ✵㛫ࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡍࡿ┤♧ㄒࡢ≉ᚩࢆ㆟ㄽࡋࠊ㸱⠇࡛ᾘ㈝ࢆືᶵ࡜ࡋ୍࡚ே⛠ㄒࢆ㌿᥮ࡉࡏࡿ௙⤌ࡳࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ㸲⠇࡛ࡣ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࢆ᳨ウࡋࠊ㸳⠇ࡀ⤖ㄽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸰㸬ᑐヰ✵㛫ࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡍࡿ┤♧ㄒᒣཱྀ (2011)ࡣࠊྜྷᮏ (1986)ࡢᥦ᱌ࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࠊ┤♧ㄒࢆࠊヰࡋᡭ୰ᚰࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢᑐヰ✵㛫ࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡟༊ศࡋࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕ᮶ࡿࠖࡣヰࡋᡭᮏேࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠊⱥㄒࡢ comeࡣᑐヰ✵㛫ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟౑࠺࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(5)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊcome ࡣࠊࡑࡢ᪉ྥࡢ╔Ⅼࢆヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡀඹ᭷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜┦ᡭࡀྠࡌሙᡤ࡟⛣ືࡍࡿ㝿ࡣࠊ஧ே࡜ࡶ come ࡀ౑࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ࠕ᮶ࡿࠖࡣࠊࡑࡢ╔Ⅼ࡟ヰࡋᡭࡀ࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡔࡅ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜ྠࡌሙᡤ࡟
⛣ືࡍࡿሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊ┦ᡭࡣ⮬ศࡢሙᡤ࠿ࡽ㞳ࢀࡿព࿡࡛ࠕ⾜ࡃࠖࢆ౑࠸ࠊ
ࠕ᮶ࡿࠖࡣ౑࠼࡞࠸ࠋ
(5) A: Are you coming, too?
B: Yes, I’m {coming/*going}.

(5’) A: ࣄࣟࢱࣥࡶ᮶ࡿ?
B: ࠺ࢇࠊࣄࣟࢱࣥࡶ{⾜ࡃ/*᮶ࡿ}ࠋ

ᑐヰ✵㛫ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟౑࠺┤♧ㄒࡢ≉ᚩࡣࠊ(5B)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᙜヱࡢ┤♧ㄒࡀ୰ᚰ࡜ࡍࡿሙᡤ࡟⮬ศࡣ࠸࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊヰࡋ┦ᡭࡀ࠸ࡿሙྜࡣࠊࡑࡢ┤♧ㄒࢆヰࡋᡭࡀ౑࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ୍ே⛠ㄒࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ come ࡜ྠࡌࡃᑐヰ✵㛫ࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋࠊヰࡋᡭᮏே࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢ
┦ᡭࢆ୰ᚰ࡟౑࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞グ஦࡛ࡣࠊグ஦ࡢⓏሙே≀ࡀ᝟ሗࡢⓎಙ⪅࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⦅㞟⪅ࡸྲྀᮦ⪅࡞࡝ࡢᐇ㝿ࡢ᭩ࡁᡭࡣⓏሙே≀ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭᙺ࡟⛣ࡿࡓࡵࠊ୍ே⛠ㄒࡣ(2a-ii)ࡢ⏝ἲ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ⪺ࡁᡭᙺࢆ┦ᡭ࡜ࡍࡿ᝟ሗⓎಙ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢⓏሙே≀ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋḟࡢᗈ࿌ࡢ౛ࡢࡼ࠺࡟(3)ࡢ
⏝ἲࡣ(1)ࡼࡾ⹫ᵓᛶࡀ㧗ࡃࠊ᭩ࡁᡭ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᗈ࿌୺ࡣㄞ⪅࡜␲ఝⓗ࡞ᑐヰࢆタᐃࡋࡓ࠺࠼࡛ࠊ᝟
ሗⓎಙࡢᙺ๭ࢆ⮬ศ࠿ࡽಶࠎࡢㄞ⪅࡟⛣ࡋࠊᙜヱࡢၟရࢆ㈙࠺ㄞ⪅࡞ࡽࠊ⮬ศࡶࡑࡢᗈ࿌ࡢࡼ࠺
࡟᝟ሗⓎಙࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍ(cf. 㛵ἑ (2005))ࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ୍ே⛠ㄒࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜┤᥋⤖ࡧ௜ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ
ࡾࠊᑐヰ࡛ࡢ᝟ሗⓎಙᙺࢆ⾲ࡋࠊᐇ㝿ࡢヰࡋᡭࡀᑐヰࡢ⪺ࡁᡭᙺ࡟⛣ࡿ࡜ࠊே⛠㌿᥮ࢆ㉳ࡇࡍࠋฟ඾ ࠗOggi࠘ 2010 ᖺ 11 ᭶ྕ p.318

ࠗឡࡋࡢᩥᡣල࠘ 2011 ᖺ 6 ᭶ྕ p.25

ᗈ࿌࡛ࡢᗈ࿌୺࡜ㄞ⪅ࡢᑐヰࡢ≉ᚩࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ2010 ᖺ࠿ࡽ 2012 ᖺࡢ㞧ㄅ 30 ㄅࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ(2b)ࡢ୍ே⛠ㄒࢆ౑ࡗࡓᗈ࿌ࡣࠊ(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㈙࠸ᡭࡀ㑅ࢇ࡛㈙࠸ࠊ⮬ศࡢయ㦂࡟⤌ࡳධࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ㈙࠸ᡭᮏே࡟⮬ᕫᐇ⌧ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍၟရ࡟㝈ࡗ࡚౑ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

−138−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号(6) a. ᩍ⫱ࠊᑵ⫋ࠊ⤖፧࡞࡝⮬ศࡢே⏕タィࢆኚ࠼ࡿᨭฟࡢᑐ㇟
b. ⾰᭹ࠊ໬⢝ࠊఫᏯ࡞࡝⮬ศࡢ㌟యࢆᛌ㐺࡟ࡍࡿᨭฟࡢᑐ㇟
c. ㄞ᭩ࠊ᪑⾜ࠊᩱ⌮࡞࡝⮬ศࡢ⏕άࢆᴦࡋࡃࡍࡿᨭฟࡢᑐ㇟
ୖࡢ౛࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ(6b)ࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࣈࣛࣥࢻရࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࡢ᭩ࡁᡭࢆᣦࡉ࡞࠸୍ே⛠ㄒࡣࠊᨻ἞ࡸ⛉Ꮫࡢグ஦ࡢࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡸ᪥⏝ရࡢᗈ࿌࡛ࡣ౑ࢃࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ஧ே⛠ࡢࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࠖࡣㄞ⪅࡟ྥࡅࠊࠕ௒᭶ࡢ࠶࡞ࡓࠖ㸦ࠗHERS࠘ࠊ㐃㍕ḍ㸧࡜࠸ࡗࡓ༨࠸ࡸࠕ୍⁲ࡢ⾑ᾮ࡛࠶࡞ࡓࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡀ
ࢃ࠿ࡿࠖ
㸦
ࠗ⨾ⓗ࠘
ࠊ2012 ᖺ 4 ᭶ྕ㸧࡜࠸ࡗࡓ་⒪グ஦ࡢࢱ࢖ࢺ࡛ࣝ≉ᚩⓗ࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸱㸬ᾘ㈝ࢆືᶵ࡜ࡍࡿே⛠㌿᥮ᒣᓮ (1984:➨ 3 ❶)࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊே㛫ࡢ⾜ືࡣ⏕⏘࡜ᾘ㈝࡟኱ูࡉࢀࠊ⏕⏘࡜ࡣຠ⋡୺⩏࡟❧ࡕࠊ᫬㛫ࢆ⠇⣙ࡋ࡚᭱኱㝈ࡢࣔࣀࡢᾘ⪖࡜෌⏕ࢆࡵࡊࡍ⾜ື࡛࠶ࡾࠊᾘ㈝࡜ࡣຠ⋡୺⩏ࡢᑐᴟ࡟࠶ࡗ
࡚඘ᐇࡋࡓ᫬㛫ࡢᾘ⪖ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࠊ┠ⓗࡢᐇ⌧ࡼࡾࡣᐇ⌧ࡢ㐣⛬࡟㛵ᚰࢆᣢࡗࡓ⾜ື࡛࠶ࡾࠊ୧
⪅ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣከࡃࡢẁ㝵ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ(6)ࡣࠊ඲࡚ಶேࡢ᫬㛫ࡢ඘ᐇ࡟㈨ࡍࡿᨭฟࡢᑐ㇟࡛ࠊᒣᓮࡢ࠸࠺
ᾘ㈝ࡽࡋ࠸ᾘ㈝ࢆᐇ⌧ࡍࡿᡭẁࢆ࡞ࡋࠊࡇࢀ࡟ヱᙜࡍࡿၟရࡢ౯್ࡣᾘ㈝⪅ࡀ㑅ࡪࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
࣮࣎ࢻ࣮ࣜࣖࣝ (1970/1979)ࢆጞࡵᗈࡃ♫఍⛉Ꮫ࡛ࡣࠊᾘ㈝ࡣ♫఍ࡸ⤌⧊࡞࡝ࡢ㞟ᅋ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃಶ
ேࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࢆつᐃࡍࡿ≉ᚩ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ㛫ࠎ⏣ (2007: 170)ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㏆௦♫఍ࡢᡂ❧௨㝆ࠊẸ୺୺⩏ࡢᐃ╔ࠊ⏕άỈ‽ࡢྥୖࠊ㒔ᕷ໬ࡢ㐍ᒎ࡞࡝࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊᾘ
㈝⪅ࡣࠊ♫఍ⓗつ⠊ࡸఏ⤫㸦ᅜᐙࠊẸ᪘ࠊᆅᇦ࡞࡝㸧ࡢᣊ᮰࠿ࡽḟ➨࡟චࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡢ㝿ࠊᾘ㈝ࡣಶேࡀ᭱ࡶ⮬⏤࡟⾜ືࡋ࠺ࡿศ㔝࡜࡞ࡾࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡣᾘ㈝⾜ືࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚⮬ศࡢḧồ࡜⮬ศࡽࡋࡉࢆᛮ࠺Ꮡศᐇ⌧ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦୰␎㸧ᾘ㈝⾜Ⅽࡣࠊᙜヱ♫఍ⓗᆅ఩ࡸ㞟ᅋ࡬ࡢᖐᒓ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊࡑࡢᾘ㈝⪅ࡢಶே࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ≉ᛶࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀከࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ಶேࡢ≉ᛶࢆ♧ࡍᾘ㈝࡜ࠊヰࡋᡭࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡍࡿ┤♧ㄒ࡟ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ᐃ⩏ୖࡢඹ㏻Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᾘ㈝ࢆ⏕⏘⪅ࡲࡓࡣ㈍኎⪅࡜ᾘ㈝⪅ࡢᑐヰ࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅࡿ࡜ࠊಶேࡢᾘ㈝⾜Ⅽ࡜ᑐヰ࡛ࡢヰࡋᡭࡢ⮬ᕫᣦ♧࡟ࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟᰿ᮏⓗ࡞ඹ㏻ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࠋᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊᗈ࿌ࡢࠕ⚾ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ୍ே⛠ㄒࡢ⏝ἲࡣࠊᾘ㈝࡛ࡢ㈌ᖯࡢᨭฟࢆᶍೌࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ(7)ࡢཎ๎࡟ᚑ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࠊ
ࡇࡢཎ๎࠿ࡽࠊ୍ே⛠ㄒࡢᗈ࿌ࡣ(8)ࡢ 3 Ⅼࡢ≉ᚩࢆഛ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄽࡌࡿࠋ
(7) ᾘ㈝࡟ࡼࡿ⮬ᕫᐇ⌧ࢆ᝟ሗⓎಙ࡟ࡼࡿ⮬ᕫ⾲⌧࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡼࠋ
(8) 1. ᫬㛫ࡢᾘ⪖ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿၟရࡣ୍ே⛠ࡢே⛠㌿᥮࡛ᐉఏࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
2. ㈙࠸ᡭࡀࡑࡢ౯್࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᝟ሗⓎಙࡋ࡞࠸ၟရࡣ୍ே⛠࡛ᐉఏࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
3. ୍ே⛠ࡢᗈ࿌ࡣᐉఏຠᯝࡢ※ࢆඹ᭷ࡉࢀࡓ⮬ᕫᐇ⌧࡬ࡢḧồ࡟⨨ࡃࠋࡲࡎࠊ୍ே⛠ㄒࡢ㌿᥮ࡢືᶵࢆၟရࡢ౑࠸᪉࡟ồࡵࡓ(8-1)ࢆㄽドࡍࡿࠋ┈ᒸ (2004)ࡣࠊᮏ᮶ࠊ୺
ㄒ࡟୍ே⛠ᚿྥࡀ࠶ࡿຓືモࠕ㹼ࡋࡓ࠸ࠖࡣࠊ(9)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᗈ࿌࡛ࡣ᭩ࡁᡭࡣᙜヱࡢ㢪ᮃࢆᣢࡕࡘ
ࡘࡶࠊᮏேࡀࡑࡢ㢪ᮃࢆ⾜ື࡟⛣ࡍព࿡࠿ࡽ㞳ࢀࠊㄞ⪅࡟່ࡵࡿព࿡࡛౑࠼ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(9) ࠾Ẽ࡟ධࡾࡢᮏࢆᣢࡗ࡚ࠊࡦ࡜ࡾ࡛ฟ᥃ࡅࡓ࠸

−139−

日本語の一人称語の人称転換と消費者の自己実現

Sakakibara (2004)ࡶࠊ᭩ࡁᡭࡀ୍ே⛠ᚿྥࢆ㐪཯ࡋࡓࠕࡁࢀ࠸࡟࡞ࡾࡓ࠸ࠖࡣᗈ࿌࡛ㄞ⪅ࢆᾘ㈝࡟ㄏ࠼ࡿࡀࠊᐈほⓗ࡟ㄞ⪅ࢆᥥ෗ࡋࡓࠕࡁࢀ࠸࡟࡞ࡾࡓࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡣㄏ࠼࡞࠸࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ௨ୗࡢ౛ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࠕ㹼ࡋࡓ࠸ࠖࡢᗈ࿌ࡶ(6)ࡢၟရ࡟≉ᚩⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠᵝ࡟ព࿡ୖࡢ୺ㄒ࡟୍
ே⛠ᚿྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠕᴦࡋ࠸ࠊ㠃ⓑ࠸ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢឤ᝟ᙧᐜモࡢ᩿ᐃⓗ࡞㏙ㄒ⏝ἲ(cf. ኳ㔝 (2008))ࡶࠊே
⛠㌿᥮ࢆ㉳ࡇࡍ⣲ᆅࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⌮⏤࡛ᾘ㈝⪅ࢆ᪑⾜࡞࡝ࡢᾘ㈝࡟ಁࡍᗈ࿌࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ฟ඾ࠗEFiL࠘ 2010 ᖺ 9 ᭶ 10 ᭶ྕ p.40

ࠗCREA࠘ 2011 ᖺ 1 ᭶ྕ pp.78-79ᗈ࿌࡛ࡣࠊࠕ㹼ࡋࡓ࠸ࠖࡸឤ᝟ᙧᐜモࡢព࿡ࡀኚࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ⾲⌧ࡀᚲせ࡜ࡍࡿ┤♧ⓗ୰ᚰࡀᗈ࿌୺࡞࡝ࡢᐇ㝿ࡢ᭩ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽࠊࡑࡢᑐヰࡢ┦ᡭ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᾘ㈝⪅࡟ධࢀ᭰ࢃࡿࠋ
ḟ࡟ࠊ(8-2)ࢆㄽドࡍࡿࠋ᪤࡟ゝཬࡋࡓࡀࠊࠕ⚄ࠎ࠿ࡽ࠶࡞ࡓ࡬ࠖ㸦ࠗOggi࠘ࠊ㐃㍕ḍ㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ዪᛶㄅྛㄅ࡟ඹ㏻ࡋࠊ༨࠸ࢥ࣮ࢼ࣮࡛ࡣࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࠖࢆධࢀࡓࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡀ≉ᚩⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ་⒪グ஦ࡶྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ༨࠸ࡸ་⒪グ஦࡛ࡣࠊ⦅㞟⪅ࡀㄞ⪅ࡢኌࢆ⪺ࡃࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊㄞ⪅ࡣ᝟ሗⓎಙࡢᙺ๭ࢆᢸࢃ࡞࠸ࠋㄞ⪅ࡶࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢグ஦࠿ࡽຠ⋡ࡼࡃ▱㆑ࢆᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࡢ▱㆑ࡢᦤྲྀࡣᒣᓮࡢ࠸࠺ᾘ㈝ࡼࡾࡶ⏕⏘࡟㈨ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡟࡞ࡾࠊ୍ே⛠ㄒࡀ㌿᥮ࡍࡿᩥ⬦ࢆ࡞ࡉ࡞࠸ࠋ
᭱ᚋ࡟(8-3)ࢆㄽドࡍࡿࠋඛ࡟୍ே⛠ㄒ࡛ᐉఏࡉࢀࡿ(6b)ࡢၟရࡣࠊࣈࣛࣥࢻရ࡟೫ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ
᦬ࡋࡓࠋ▼஭ (1999: 193-194)ࡣࠊࣈࣛࣥࢻရࡢಶேࡢ⏕ά࡬ࡢຠᯝࢆḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࣈࣛࣥࢻࢆ㑅ᢥࡋࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣࠊព㆑ࡍࡿ࡟ࡋࢁព㆑ࡋ࡞࠸࡟ࡋࢁࠊࡑࡢࣈࣛࣥࢻࡀྍ⬟ᛶ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠶ࡿ✀ࡢࣛ࢖ࣇࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢ㑅ᢥࡀྠ᫬ⓗᚲ↛ⓗ࡟࡜ࡶ࡞࠺ࠋ
㸦୰␎㸧ࡑࡢࣈ
ࣛࣥࢻࡀᑗ᮶࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࡘࡃࡾࡔࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ㸦ࡑࡢࣈࣛࣥࢻࢆ㑅ࢇࡔ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣ୙ᅾࡢࢫ
ࢱ࢖ࣝ㸧࡬࡜ㄏᑟࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸦୰␎㸧᭱ึࠊࠕࢼ࢖࢟ࠖࢆ
ࢫ࣏࣮ࢶࢩ࣮ࣗࢬ࡜ࡋ࡚㑅ࢇࡔᾘ㈝⪅ࡀࠊ࠸ࡘࡢ㛫࡟࠿ࠊ⾤ࡢࢫࢺ࣮ࣜࢺ࡛ࠊ᭱᪂ࡢࣇ࢓ࢵ
ࢩࣙࣥࢆ㌟࡟ࡘࡅࠕࢼ࢖࢟ࠖࢆ㄂ࡽࡋࡆ࡟ᒚ࠸ࡓ⮬ศ࡟Ẽࡀࡘࡃࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ᾘ㈝⪅ࡀ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪᛶ㇏࠿࡞ࣈࣛࣥࢻࢆ㑅ࡪ࡜ࡁࠊᚎࠎ࡟࡛ࡣ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࢀ࡜ࡋ࡚ព㆑
࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊࡳࡎ࠿ࡽࡢࣛ࢖ࣇࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢆኚ᭦ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆ㑅ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ
௒ࡲ࡛ࠕᾘ㈝⪅ࡢ⮬ᕫᐇ⌧ࠖࢆᐃ⩏ࡏࡎ࡟౑ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊ▼஭ࡢᣦ᦬ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࠊࡑࡢෆᐜࢆ᫂☜࡟࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣᾘ㈝⪅⮬ࡽࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸ࣛ࢖ࣇࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢ㑅ᢥ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᾘ㈝๓ࡢ⮬ศࢆᾘ㈝ᚋࡢ᪂
ࡋ࠸⮬ศ࡟஺᥮ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࣈࣛࣥࢻရࡀࠊࡑࢀࢆ㌟࡟௜ࡅࡓᾘ㈝⪅ࡢ௦⌮ࢆ࡞ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
㉎ධ࡟ࡼࡾᾘ㈝⪅ࡀ᪂ࡋ࠸⮬ศ࡟஺᥮ࡍࡿᙺ๭ࡢၟရࡀᾘ㈝⪅ࡢ⮬ᕫᐇ⌧࡟㈨ࡍࡿၟရ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᾘ㈝⪅ࡀ⮬ศ࡜஺᥮ࡋ࡚౑࠼ࡿ⮬ศࡢ௦⌮࡟ࡣࠊࡇ࡜ࡤ࡛ࡣ⮬ศࢆ⾲ࡍ୍ே⛠ㄒࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᾘ㈝−140−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ᑐ㇟࡛ࡣ⮬ศࡢࣛ࢖ࣇࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿၟရࡀ࠶ࡿࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊḟࡢ✀㢮ࡢᨭฟࡢᑐ㇟ࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅࠿ࡽぢࢀࡤࠊ୍ே⛠ㄒ࡜➼ࡋࡃ⮬ศ࡜஺᥮ࡋ࡚౑࠼ࡿ⮬ศࡢ௦⌮ࢆ࡞ࡍࠋ(10) 1㸬ே⏕ࡢ㌿ᶵ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢ㸦Ꮫᰯࡢ㑅ᢥ࡞࡝㸧
2㸬⏕άᚲ㟂ရࡼࡾࡶዝౘရ㸦㉕ἑရ࡛㧗㢠㸧
3㸬ಶே࡛ࡋ࠿౑ࢃ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ㸦໬⢝ရ࡞࡝㸧
(10-1, -2, -3)ࡢၟရࡣࠊ඲࡚ᾘ㈝⪅ᮏேࡢ᫬㛫ࢆၟရ໬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᾘ㈝࡟ࡼࡿࣛ࢖ࣇࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢ㑅
ᢥ࡟㈨ࡍࡿࠋ௚ࡢࡶࡢ࡜஺᥮ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ඹ㏻Ⅼࢆᇶ࡟ࠊᒾ஭ (1998)ࡣࠊၟရ࡜஺᥮ࡉࢀࡿ㈌ᖯ
࡜ୡ⏺ࡢ஦≀࡜஺᥮ࡉࢀࡿゝㄒࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀࢆㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣࠊ⮬ᕫ⾲⌧ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ศ࡜஺᥮ࡋࠊ⮬ศࡢグྕୖࡢ௦⌮࡜ࡍࡿ୍ே⛠ㄒ࡜ࠊ௚⪅࡜ࡣ㐪࠺ࣛ࢖ࣇࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢆධᡭࡍࡿ
ࡓࡵ࡟ᾘ㈝⪅ࡀ⌧≧ࡢ⮬ศ࡜஺᥮ࡍࡿ᪂ࡋ࠸⮬ศ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࡶᡂࡾ❧ࡘࠋᾘ㈝࡟ᨭฟࡉࢀࡿ㈌ᖯࡣ
ᾘ㈝⪅ࡢ⮬ศࡢ௦⌮࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ౑࠺୍ே⛠ㄒࡶ⮬ศࡢ௦⌮࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ୧⪅ࡣ஺᥮ୖࠊᑐ➼࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ 2 ࡘࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡢᨭฟ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡽࢀࠊḟࡢẚ౛ᘧ࡟ࡼࡾ⾲ࡉࢀࡿࠋ(11) ၟရ㸸㈌ᖯ㸻ᾘ㈝⪅ࡢᨭฟ๓ࡢ⮬ศ㸸ᾘ㈝⪅ࡢᨭฟᚋࡢ⮬ศ㸻ヰࡋᡭ㸸୍ே⛠ㄒࡇࢀࡣࠊ୍ே⛠ㄒࡢᗈ࿌࡛ࡣࠊၟရࡀᾘ㈝⪅ࡢᨭฟᚋࡢ⮬ศ࡜஺᥮ࡉࢀࠊ㛫᥋ⓗ࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᾘ㈝⪅ᮏேࡢ௦⌮࡜ࡶ஺᥮ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡇࡇ࡟ࠊ୍ே⛠ㄒࡢᗈ࿌࡛ࡣ(6)ࡢᨭฟࡢᑐ㇟
ࡀඃඛⓗ࡟ᢅࢃࢀࠊ཯ᑐ࡟ㄡ࡛ࡶ➼ࡋࡃ㈙࠸ࠊᾘ㈝⪅ಶேࡢ௦⌮࡟࡞ࡽ࡞࠸᪥⏝ရࡣ᤼㝖ࡉࢀࡿືᶵࡀ࠶ࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠕ⚾ࡢ୍╔ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࢫ࣮ࢶࡢᗈ࿌ࡣ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ᪥⏝ရࡢᏳ኎ࡾᗈ࿌࡛
ࠕ⚾ࡢ࢟ࣕ࣋ࢶࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ⾲⌧ࡣ౑ࢃࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ᪥⏝ရࡣࠊࣛ࢖ࣇࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿᡭẁ࡟࡞ࡽࡎࠊࡑࡢ㉎ධࡣຠ⋡ᛶࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊᒣᓮ (1984)ࡢ࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ᾘ㈝࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ⏕⏘࡟ヱᙜࡍࡿࠋ (11)ࡢẚ౛ᘧࡣࠊᗈ࿌࡛ࡢ୍ே⛠ㄒࡢព࿡ࢆࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀ⮬ᕫᐇ⌧ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ᨭฟࡍࡿ㈌ᖯ࡜➼౯࡜つᐃࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(11)࡛ࡣࠊ3 ࡘࡢ஺᥮㛵ಀ࡜ࡶᑐ➼࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ3 ␒┠ࡢ஺᥮ࢆ⾲ࡍࡔࡅ࡛ࠊ
᭱ึ࡜ 2 ␒┠ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ୍ே⛠ࡢᗈ࿌ࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀၟရ㉎ධࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚᝟ሗⓎಙ⪅࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆྵពࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊၟရ㉎ධࢆ┤᥋⾲⌧ࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶㄞ⪅࡟ᨭฟࢆಁࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(11)ࢆ஧ே⛠࡟ᛂ⏝ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࡣࡶ࠺ 1 ẁ㝵᪩ࡃ࡞ࡿ㸟ࠖࠗࣛࣥࢼ࣮ࢬ࠘ࠊ2011 ᖺ 12 ᭶㸦࣐ࣛࢯࣥ⦎⩦ἲ㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࠖࢆධࢀࡓᗈ࿌ࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀᑓ㛛ᐙࡢ᝟ሗࢆ⮬ศࡢ▱㆑࡟஺᥮ࡍࡿၟရࡢᐉఏ࡟㝈ࡽࢀࠊࡑࡢ஧ே⛠ㄒࡣᾘ㈝⪅ࡀ᝟ሗࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡋ࡚ᨭฟࡍࡿ㈌ᖯ࡜ᑐᛂࡍࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋMcCracken (2005: 103-105)ࡣࠊၟရࡢᗈ࿌ࡀ⾲ࡍព࿡ࡣࠊࡑࡢၟရࡢᩥ໬ࡢ୍㒊࡟࡞ࡗࡓᾘ㈝⪅ࡢ౑࠸᪉࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᗈ࿌ࡢ୍ே⛠࡜஧ே⛠ࡢ༊ูࡣࠊࡇࢀࢆලయ
໬ࡋࠊၟရ㉎ධࡢ㝿࡟ᾘ㈝⪅ࡀ᝟ሗⓎಙ⪅࡟࡞ࡿ࠿᝟ሗཷಙ⪅࡟࡞ࡿ࠿ࡢᙺ๭ࡢ༊ูࢆ♧ࡍࠋᒾ஭ࡀㄽࡌࡿ✀㢮ࡢ㈌ᖯ࡜ゝㄒࡢᑐᛂ࡛ࡣࠊୡ⏺ࡢ஦≀࡜ࡢ஺᥮ᑓ⏝ࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚௦ྡモ
ࡀ᭱ࡶ㈌ᖯ࡟㏆࠸ࠋᗈ࿌࡛ࡣᾘ㈝⪅ࡀၟရ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᣢࡘᙺ๭࡟ᛂࡌ࡚㈌ᖯ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ௦ྡモࡢே⛠ࡀỴࡲࡿࠋᗈ࿌ࡢ୍ே⛠ㄒࡣࠊ⮬ศࢆ᭦᪂ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿேࢆᾘ㈝⪅࡟㑅ࡧ(cf. ΎỈ (2012))ࠊᗈ
࿌࡟ᚑࡗ୍࡚ே⛠ㄒࢆ౑࠺ேࡀᙜヱၟရࢆ㈙࠺ຠᯝࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍࠋࡇࡢ㝿ࡢ㈌ᖯࡢᨭฟࡣࠊၟရ౪
⤥⪅࡜ࡢᑐヰ࡛ヰࡋᡭࡢᙺ๭ࢆᢸ࠺ᾘ㈝⪅࡟࡜ࡗ୍࡚ே⛠ㄒ࡜ྠ➼ࡢ⮬ᕫ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊ㈌ᖯࡀゝㄒࡢ୰࡛ࡶ௦ྡモ࡜ྠ➼ࡢ⾲⌧ᡭẁ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ(cf. McCracken (1988:chap.4))ࠋ

−141−日本語の一人称語の人称転換と消費者の自己実現

௒ࡲ࡛ࡢ㆟ㄽࡣᩥἲⓗ࡟⿬௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࡢ᭩ࡁᡭ௨እࢆ⾲ࡍࡼ࠺࡟୍ே⛠ㄒࡀே⛠㌿᥮ࡍࡿᗈ࿌ࡣࠊ୺⠇୺ㄒ࡜ྠ୍ᣦ♧࡛ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ୍ே⛠ㄒࢆᑟࡃⓎヰືモ⿵ᩥ࡜ඹ㏻ࡋࡓᩥ⬦ࢆ࡞ࡍࠋ(12) a. ⰼᏊ i ࡣࠊḟࡣ⚾ i/j ࡢ␒ࡔ࡜{ゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠊᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ/ ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ⪺࠸࡚࠸ࡿ}ࠋ
b. ⰼᏊ i ࡣࠊ᪑⾜࡟⾜ࡁࡓ࠸ i ࡜{ゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠊᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ/*▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ*⪺࠸࡚࠸ࡿ}ࠋ
Nishida (2013)࡛ㄽࡌࡓ࡜࠾ࡾࠊ(12a)࡛ࠊ୺⠇୺ㄒࡀ᝟ሗⓎಙࡢᙺ๭ࢆᢸ࠺ࠕゝ࠺ࠊᛮ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ືモ࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢ⿵ᩥ୍࡛ே⛠ㄒࡀ୺⠇୺ㄒ࡜ྠ୍ᣦ♧࡛ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊ୺⠇୺ㄒࡀ᝟ሗⓎಙࡢᙺ๭ࢆᢸࢃ࡞࠸ࠕ▱ࡿࠊ⪺ࡃ࡛ࠖࡣࠊ⿵ᩥෆࡢ୍ே⛠ㄒࡣᩥ඲యࡢヰࡋᡭࢆᣦࡍゎ㔘ࡋ࠿࡞࠸ࠋ
ྠࡌࡇ࡜ࡣ(12b)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୍ே⛠ᚿྥࢆᣢࡘࠕ㹼ࡋࡓ࠸ࠖࡢព࿡ୖࡢ୺ㄒ࡟ࡶᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢ஦ᐇ࠿ࡽࠊᗈ࿌ࡸࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡣⓎヰືモ⿵ᩥ࡜ඹ㏻ࡢ≉ᚩࢆᣢࡕࠊⓎヰືモ࡟➼ࡋ࠸ᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ᩥ⬦࡟ᨭ㓄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋᗈ࿌ࡢ⾲⌧ࡣࠕᾘ㈝⪅ࡣ㹼࡜᝟ሗⓎಙࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
࡟➼ࡋ࠸ᩥ⬦࡛ࠊࡑࡢ⿵ᩥࡢࠕ㹼ࠖࡢ㒊ศ࡟ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟㌿᥮ࡋࡓ୍ே⛠ㄒࡣᾘ㈝๓ࡢ⮬ศࢆᾘ㈝ᚋࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸⮬ศ࡟஺᥮ࡋࠊ⮬ᕫᐇ⌧࡟㈨ࡍࡿၟရࡢᗈ࿌࡟ࡋ࠿ฟ
࡚ࡇ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡢ⮬ᕫᐇ⌧ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࡓᾘ㈝ࡣࠊⓎヰືモࡢࠕゝ࠺ࠖ࡟➼ࡋ࠸᝟ሗⓎಙຊࢆഛ࠼ࡓ⾜Ⅽ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ(4b)ࡢၥ㢟ࡢ୍ே⛠ㄒࡢᗈ࿌ࡢᐉఏຠᯝࡢ※ࡣࠊᮏㄽࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࡣࠊࠕ⮬ศࡢᾘ㈝ࡢࡓࡵ࡟㈙࠺ࠖ⾜Ⅽࡀືモࡢࠕゝ࠺ࠖ࡟➼ࡋࡃᙜヱ⾜Ⅽࡢ୺య࡟᝟ሗⓎಙࡢᙺ๭ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡀᗈ࿌࡛ᢅࢃࢀࡿၟရ࡬ࡢᨭฟࢆక࠺Ⅼ࡟ồࡵࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
⮬ศࡢᾘ㈝ࡢࡓࡵ࡟㈙࠺⾜Ⅽࡼࡾࠊ୍ே⛠⾲⌧ࡢ᪉ࡀࡣࡿ࠿࡟⡆༢࡛ࠊᚋ⪅ࡣ๓⪅ࡢ୍㒊࡟㐣ࡂ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᗈ࿌࡛๓⪅ࢆᚋ⪅࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ㒊ศ࡛඲యࢆ⾲ࡍ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡟ࡼࡾࠊᨭฟࢆక࠺
⾜Ⅽࢆྛಶே࡟ඹ㏻ࡢ⮬⛠࡜ࡋ࡚⾲ࡋࠊᙜヱၟရ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㟂せᒙࢆᗈࡆࡿᐉఏຠᯝࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋ㸲㸬௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟 ௒ࡲ୍࡛ே⛠ࡢே⛠㌿᥮ࢆ౑ࡗࡓᗈ࿌ࡢ⾲⌧ຠᯝࢆ㆟ㄽࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢᗈ࿌ࡀᐃ╔ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ⤒⦋࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᮏㄽ࡜ྠࡌၥ㢟ࢆᢅ࠺ඛ⾜◊✲ࢆ⤂௓ࡋࠊ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
㛵ἑ (2005)ࡣࠊᗈ࿌ࡢཷࡅᡭഃࢆ୍ே⛠ㄒ࡛⾲ࡍᗈ࿌ࡣ 1960 ᖺ௦࠿ࡽ࠶ࡾ 1980 ᖺ௦࠿ࡽቑ
ຍࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ࡜ほᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋὸ㔝 (1998)ࡣࠊ1970 ᖺ๰หࡢ㞧ㄅ anan ࡢグ஦࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀධࡗࡓࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡢグ஦࡜ࠊࡑࡢグ஦ࡢᮏᩥࡢ㛵ಀࢆᖺ௦ู࡟ㄪᰝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ1974 ᖺ 1 ᭶ 5 ᪥ྕࡢࠕࡶ࠺ࡦ࡜ࡾࡢ⚾ࠖ࡜࠸࠺≉㞟࡛ࡣࠊᬑẁ࡜ࡣ㐪࠺᭹⿦ࢆヨࡋ࡚ኚ㌟ࡍࡿዪᛶࡀⓏሙࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ
グ஦࡛ࡣࠊࢱ࢖ࢺࣝ࡟㺀⚾㺁ࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊᮏᩥ࡛ࡣࠊኚ㌟ࡍࡿᮏேࡢኌࡀ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ฟ࡚ࡇࡎ࡟ࠊ
ࠕ▱ࡽ࡞࠸࠾Ꮉࡉࢇ࡟ኌࢆ࠿ࡅࠊࡍࡗ࠿ࡾ᭹ࢆ╔ࡏ᭰࠼ࡕࡷ࠺ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟⦅㞟⪅࡜ࢫࢱ࢖ࣜࢫࢺ࡞࡝
ࡢ᪉㔪ࡀ᭩࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ྠᵝ࡟ㄞ⪅ᒙࡢ୍⯡ዪᛶࡀኚ㌟య㦂ࡍࡿグ஦࡛ࡶ 1979 ᖺ 9 ᭶ 11 ྕࡢࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࡀ࡞ࡾࡓ࠸ዪࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ࡝࠺⾲⌧ࡍࡿ࠿࡛ࠖࡣࠕ࠸ࡋࡔ࠶ࡺࡳࡢࡼ࠺࡞ዪ࡟࡞ࡾࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜
࠸ࡗࡓⓏሙே≀ࡢෆ㠃ࢆ๓㠃࡟ฟࡍᮏᩥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ⦅㞟⪅ࡓࡕࡼࡾⓏሙே≀ࡢ᪉࡟Ⓨಙຊࡀ⛣ࡗ࡚
ࡁࡓࠋ1990 ᖺ௦࡟ධࡾࠊࢱ࢖ࢺ࡛ࣝࡶᮏᩥ࡛ࡶⓏሙே≀୰ᚰ࡟ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡿグ஦ࡢᵓᡂࡀᐃ
╔ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋὸ㔝 (1998:50)ࡣࠊࡇࡢグ஦ᵓᡂࡢኚ໬ࡣࠊ
ࠕ᪤Ꮡࡢ⮬ศࢆࡓ࠼ࡎᲠ༷ࡋࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸⮬ศࢆࡶ࡜ࡵ⥆ࡅࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᾘ㈝⪅ಶேࡢᾘ㈝ࡢᣑ኱᪉⟇ࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ
௒ᚋࠊὸ㔝ࡢᖺ௦ูㄪᰝࢆཧ⪃࡟ࠊዪᛶಶேࡢࣛ࢖ࣇࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡜ྍฎศᡤᚓࡢኚ໬࡜ࢼࣝࢩࢩ
ࢬ࣒࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿᾘ㈝ࡢ┦㛵࡟╔┠ࡋࠊ୍ே⛠ㄒࡢᗈ࿌ࡀᢅ࠺ၟရࡸ୍ே⛠ㄒࡢࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡢグ஦ࡢ

−142−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ᮏᩥࡀ(6)ࡢᨭฟࡢᑐ㇟࡟⤠ࡽࢀࡿ㐣⛬ࢆゎ᫂ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ(cf. Lasch (1979/1981))ࠋୖグࡢὸ㔝ࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ࡜᫬௦ࡀ୍⮴ࡋ࡚ࠊ1977 ᖺ࡟ࠗࢃࡓࡋࡣዪ࠘࡜࠸࠺ㄞ⪅ࡀⓎಙࡍࡿዪᛶㄅࡀ๰หࡉࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊྑୗࡢྎ‴ࡢ㞧ㄅࡢ౛ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢࠕᡃࠖࡶ໬⢝ရࡢᗈ࿌࡛౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡀࠊ୍ே⛠ㄒࡢᗈ࿌ࡀᢅ࠺ၟရࡀ௚ࡢゝㄒᅪ࡛ࡶ୍⯡ⓗ࡟(6)ࡢ✀㢮࡟೫ࡿ࠿᳨ドࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

ฟ඾ࠗࢃࡓࡋࡣዪ࠘ 1977 ᖺ 7 ᭶๰หྕ⾲⣬ࠗBEAUTY ኱⨾ே࠘ 2012 ᖺ 1 ᭶ྕ p.211

ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣᗈ࿌ࡸࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࢆ▷࠸ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚⊂❧ࡉࡏ࡚ᢅࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ᭱ᚋ
࡟ᮏㄽ࡜ඣ⋢ (2012)ࡢ㛵㐃ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋඣ⋢ࡣㄒ⏝ㄽࢆḟࡢ 2 ✀㢮࡟኱ูࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(13) ࣑ࢡࣟㄒ⏝ㄽ㸸㞄᥋ࡍࡿ 2ࠊ3 ࡢᩥࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊㄒࡢព࿡࣭⏝ἲࡀゝㄒ㐠⏝ࡢᩥ⬦ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ࡝࠺ኚᐜࡍࡿ࠿࡟╔┠ࡋࠊヰࡋᡭ࣭⪺ࡁᡭࡀ┦஫⌮ゎࡍࡿ㝿ࡢඹ㏻ࡢ᮲௳ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
࣐ࢡࣟㄒ⏝ㄽ㸸ゝㄝ඲యࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊゝㄒࡀே࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
ゝㄒ࡜ㄆ▱࣭♫఍࣭ᩥ໬࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࢆㄽࡌࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ౯್ほ࣭ಙᛕయ⣔࡞࡝࡟ࡶὀ┠ࡍࡿࠋᩥᏛࡸἲᚊࡢࡼ࠺࡟኱ࡁ࡞ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆᢅ࠺࡜ࠊ࣑ࢡࣟㄒ⏝ㄽ࡜࣐ࢡࣟㄒ⏝ㄽࡀ஋㞳ࡍࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ᗈ࿌ࡣࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡀᑠࡉ࠸ࡓࡵࠊ୧⪅ࡢ㊥㞳ࡀ㏆ࡃࠊㄒྃࡢ≉ᚩࡀㄯヰࡢ≉ᚩ࡟┤⤖ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ
ㄽࡣ୍ே⛠ㄒࡢ⏝ἲࢆศᯒࡍࡿⅬ࡛࣑ࢡࣟㄒ⏝ㄽ࡟ᒓࡍࡀࠊࡇ࡜ࡤࡀᾘ㈝⪅࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ㡪ࢆᢅ࠺
Ⅼ࡛࣐ࢡࣟㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ୍౛࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊࢱ࢖ࢺࣝ࡜ᮏᩥࡢ㛵ಀࡣ࣑ࢡࣟㄒ⏝ㄽ࡛ᢅ࠸࡟ࡃ࠸
Ⅼࡶ࠶ࡾࠊᮏᩥ඲య࡜᫬௦ࡢኚ໬ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓ࣐ࢡࣟⓗ࡞ࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡢ◊✲ࡀ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸳㸬⤖ㄽᮏㄽࡣࠊᑐヰ✵㛫ࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡍࡿ┤♧ㄒࡢ⏝ἲࡀᗈ࿌࡛౪⤥⪅࡜ᾘ㈝⪅ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ᛂ⏝ࡉࢀࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࢆヰࡋᡭ࡜ྠࡌ❧ሙ࡟⨨ࡃᗈ࿌ࡢ୍ே⛠⾲⌧ࡀᾘ㈝⤒῭࡟ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
⏕⏘࡜ࡣᑐ↷ⓗ࡞ᾘ㈝ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࡓᒣᓮ (1984)࡜ࠊ㈌ᖯ࡜ゝㄒࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀࢆ♧၀ࡋࡓᒾ஭ (1993)ࡢㄝࢆᛂ⏝ࡋࠊᗈ࿌࡛㌿᥮ࡋࡓ୍ே⛠ㄒࡢព࿡ࢆᗈ࿌࡛ᐉఏࡉࢀࡿၟရ࡟ồࡵࠊᐇ㝿ࡢヰࡋᡭ௨እ࡟୍ே⛠ㄒ࡟ព࿡ࢆ୚࠼ࡿၟရࡣᾘ㈝⪅ࡢ⮬ᕫᐇ⌧࡟㈨ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡟㝈ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ
ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢᑐヰ࡛ࡢᙺ๭஺᭰ࢆᇶ࡟ᾘ㈝⪅࡜౪⤥⪅ࡢ౯್ࡢ஺᥮ࢆ⌮ゎࡋࠊᾘ㈝⤒῭࡛ၟရ౯್ࡢᅾࡾฎࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿ࠺࠼࡛┤♧ࡢ୰ᚰࡢࣔࢹࣝࡀ᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆලయⓗ࡟♧ࡋࡓࠋ

−143−

日本語の一人称語の人称転換と消費者の自己実現*ᮏㄽࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 15 ᅇ኱఍࡛Ⓨ⾲ࡋࡓཎ✏ࢆಟṇࡋࠊ㆟ㄽࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙜ
᪥ࠊྖ఍ࢆົࡵ࡚ຓゝࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓ㡲㈡࠶ࡺࡳඛ⏕ࠊⓎ⾲ࢆ⪺࠸࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓ᪉ࠎࠊ≉࡟ᘓタⓗ࡞㉁ၥࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓᒣཱྀ἞ᙪẶ࡟ឤㅰࡋࡓ࠸ࠋᮏᩥ୰࡟ṧࡿ㆟ㄽࡢ୙ഛࡣ඲࡚⚾ࡢ㈐௵࡛
࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊୗ㛵ᕷ❧኱Ꮫᖹᡂ 24 ᖺᗘ≉ᐃዡບ◊✲㈝㹀ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢே⛠㌿᥮࡜ᾘ㈝⪅ཧຍᆺࡢၟရ㛤Ⓨࠖ
㸦◊✲௦⾲⪅ࠊす⏣ග୍㸧࡟ࡼࡾㄒ⏝ㄽ࡜⤒῭Ꮫࡢ᥋Ⅼࢆ᥈ồࡋࡓᡂᯝࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩ኳ㔝ࡳ࡝ࡾ㸬2008㸬ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ࠘ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ㸬ὸ㔝ᬛᙪ㸬1998㸬ࠕᾘ㈝♫఍࡜ࠕ⚾ࠖゝㄝࡢኚᐜྐ㸸anan ࡢグ஦ࢆ⣲ᮦ࡟ࠖࠊ኱ே࡜Ꮚ౪ࡢ㛵ಀྐ◊✲఍ࠗ኱ே࡜Ꮚ౪ࡢ㛵ಀྐ 3࠘
ࠊ37-53ࠊᮾி኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩍ⫱Ꮫ◊✲⛉ᩍ⫱Ꮫ◊✲ᐊ㸬
Baudrillard, J. 1970. La Société de Consommation: ses Mythes, ses Structures. ࢪ࣭࣮ࣕࣥ࣎
ࢻ࣮ࣜࣖࣝ㸬1979㸬
ࠗᾘ㈝♫఍ࡢ⚄ヰ࡜ᵓ㐀࠘௒ᮧோྖࠊሯཎྐヂࠊᮾி㸸⣖ఀᅜᒇ᭩ᗑ㸬▼஭῟ⶶ㸬1999㸬ࠗࣈࣛࣥࢻ̿౯್ࡢ๰㐀࠘ᮾி㸸ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸬ᒾ஭ඞே㸬1993㸬
ࠗ㈌ᖯㄽ࠘ᮾி㸸⟃ᦶ᭩ᡣ㸬ඣ⋢ᚨ⨾㸬2012㸬ࠕゝㄒศᯒ࡬ࡢᥦゝࠖࠗㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲࠘➨ 13 ྕࠊ32-37㸬
Lasch, C. 1979. The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing

Expectations. New York: Norton. ࢡࣜࢫࢺࣇ࢓࣮࣭ࣛࢵࢩࣗ㸬1981㸬ࠗࢼࣝࢩࢩࢬ࣒ࡢ᫬௦࠘
▼ᕝᘯ⩏ヂࠊᮾி㸸ࢼࢶ࣓♫㸬
McCracken, G. D. 1988. Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic

Character of Consumer Goods and Activities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
McCracken, G. D. 2005. Culture and Consumption II: Markets, Meaning, and Brand

Management. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
㛫ࠎ⏣Ꮥኵ㸬2007㸬ࠗ➨୕ࡢᾘ㈝ᩥ໬ㄽ㸸ࣔࢲ࡛ࣥࡶ࣏ࢫࢺࣔࢲ࡛ࣥࡶ࡞ࡃ࠘ி㒔㸸࣑ࢿࣦࣝ࢓
᭩ᡣ㸬┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ㸬2004㸬ࠕᗈ࿌ᩥ࡞࡝࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㢪ᮃ⾲⌧ࠕ㹼ࡋࡓ࠸ࠖࠖࠗゝㄒ࠘33: 11㸦11 ᭶ྕ㸧ࠊ86-87㸬
Nishida,

K.

2013.

“Logophoric

First-person

Terms

in

JapaneseandGeneralized

Conversational Implicatures,” Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of theBerkeley Linguistics Society. 287-299. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
available from: http://elanguage.net/journals/bls/article/view/3608
㛵ἑⱥᙪ㸬2005㸬
ࠕෆ࡞ࡿኌ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᗈ࿌㸸ே⛠モ࡜ᗈ࿌࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪ࡬ࡢྠ୍໬⌧㇟ࠖࠗࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⛉Ꮫ࠘
ࠊ37-60ࠊᮾி⤒῭኱Ꮫ㸬
Sakakibara, A. 2004. “On -Tai in Japanese Advertisements.” ኱ᗞᖾ⏨࡯࠿㸦⦅㸧ࠗゝⴥࡢ࠿ࡽࡃࡾ Ἑୖㄋసᩍᤵ㏥ᐁグᛕㄽᩥ㞟࠘
ࠊ631-643㸬ᮾி㸸ⱥᐆ♫㸬ΎỈබ୍㸬2012㸬ࠗᗈ࿌ࡢ⌮ㄽ࡜ᡓ␎ 17 ∧࠘ᮾி㸸๰ᡂ♫㸬ᒣཱྀ἞ᙪ㸬2011㸬ࠕⱥㄒ࡜ࡢᑐ↷ࠖ┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ㸦⦅㸧ࠗࡣࡌࡵ࡚Ꮫࡪ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ㸸ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢዟ῝ࡉࢆ▱
ࡿ 15 ❶࠘
ࠊ205-220㸬ி㒔㸸࣑ࢿࣦࣝ࢓᭩ᡣ㸬ᒣᓮṇ࿴㸬1984㸬ࠗᰂࡽ࠿࠸ಶே୺⩏ࡢㄌ⏕㸸ᾘ㈝♫఍ࡢ⨾Ꮫ࠘ᮾி㸸୰ኸබㄽ♫㸬ྜྷᮏၨ㸬1986㸬ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧モࢥࢯ࢔ࡢయ⣔ࠖ㔠Ỉᩄ࣭⏣❑⾜๎㸦⦅㸧ࠗᣦ♧モ࠘ࠊ105-122㸬ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ㸬−144−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ࣟࢩ࢔ே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ౫㢗࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿㅖせᅉࣈ࣮࢚ࣦࣛ࢓࣭࣐ࣜ࢔
ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ
mashabyaka@gmail.com

㸺Abstract㸼 Using decision tree analysis the present study investigated the rank order of significance between
the five factors (i.e., power, distance, situational factor, culture/language and type of refusal strategy) when
predicting the choice of refusal strategies in request situations. Cultural and language differences were not thestrongest factor, so we can conclude that the results of our analysis provide support for the universality of Brown
and Levinson’s politeness formula.

࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࠊ᩿ࡾࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࠊࣟࢩ࢔ே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࠊศ㢮ᮌศᯒ㸯㸬◊✲⫼ᬒ࡜┠ⓗࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽ⮬ศ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓᮇᚅࡸせᮃ࡟ῧ࠼࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼ࠊ┦ᡭ࡟⌮ゎࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ᩿ࡿ⪅ࡣ┦ᡭࡢẼᣢࡕࢆയࡘࡅ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺ᵝࠎ࡞㓄៖ࢆゝㄒ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ᐇ⌧ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㓄៖ࢆ♧ࡍ᩿ࡾ⾲⌧ࡀே㛫㛵ಀࠊሙ㠃ࡢ஦᯶ࠊᩥ໬࣭⩦័ⓗ࡞せᅉ࡞࡝࡟ࡼ
ࡗ࡚ᵝࠎ࡟␗࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊእᅜㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡜ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ㛫࡛ㄗゎࢆᣍࡃࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋBrown and Levinson(1987)ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊຊ㛵ಀ㸦P㸧ࠊ♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳㸦D㸧ࠊ┦ᡭ࡟࠿ࡅࡿ㈇ᢸࡢᗘྜ࠸㸦Rx㸧
࡞࡝ࠊ」㞧࡟⤡ࡳྜ࠺♫఍࣭ᚰ⌮ⓗㅖせᅉࡀࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ౵ᐖ⾜Ⅽࡢ㔜ࡉ㸦Wx㸧ࠊ᩿ࡾࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟㛵୚ࡍࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࡣከᩘぢࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ᪥ᮏ࡜ࣟࢩ࢔࡛ࡢࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡣⓙ↓࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊྠ᫬࡟᪥ᮏࡢ♫఍࣭ᩥ໬࡟࠾ࡅࡿⓎ᝿ࡸ౯್ほࢆ㌟࡟╔ࡅࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡛
ࡶ࠶ࡿ(ࣝࣥࢸ࢕࣮ࣛ,2004)ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ᪥㟢ࡢゝㄒ࣭ᩥ໬ᕪཬࡧ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦ࡢᙳ㡪ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᐇ㝿࡟⮬ᕫࡢ L1 ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ▱㆑ࢆ L2 ࡛౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ௨ୗࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ
ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ㄯヰ᏶ᡂࢸࢫࢺ࡟ࡼࡿㄪᰝࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ㸦1㸧ࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࡋ࠿ヰࡏ࡞࠸ࣟࢩ࢔ேࠊ㸦2㸧ࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚᪥ᮏㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࣟࢩ࢔ேࠊ㸦3㸧ࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࡢᏛ⩦Ṕࡀ࡞࠸᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ㸱ࡘࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢㄪᰝࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊḟࡢ 4 Ⅼ࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚ࠊ᩿ࡾࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ౑⏝≧ἣ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡋࡓࠋࡲࡎ➨㸯࡟ࠊBrown and Levinson (1987)ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡟࠶ࡿㅖせᅉࡀࠊ౫㢗࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᩿ࡾࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟࡝࠺ᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆࠊศ㢮ᮌศᯒ㸦classification tree
analysis㸧࡜࠸࠺ከኚ㔞ゎᯒࡢ⤫ィᡭἲࢆ౑ࡗ࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ➨㸰࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ
࡬ࡢᙳ㡪ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆࠊࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࡋ࠿ヰࡏ࡞࠸ࣟࢩ࢔ே࡜᪥ᮏㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࣟࢩ࢔ேࡢࣟࢩ
࢔ㄒ࡛ࡢ᩿ࡾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ẚ㍑ࡋࡓࠋ➨㸱࡟ࠊࣟࢩ࢔ே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ࡛ࡢ᩿ࡾࢆ༊

1
−145−

ロシア人日本語学習者が依頼に対する「断り」のストラテジーを選択する諸要因ูࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࣟࢩ࢔ேࡢࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡢ᩿ࡾ
࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ẚ㍑᳨ウࡋࡓࠋ➨㸲࡟ࠊࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ࡬ࡢᙳ㡪ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࣟࢩ࢔ேࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ౑⏝᮲௳࡛ࡢ᩿ࡾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ẚ㍑ࡋࡓࠋ

㸰㸬◊✲᪉ἲ
㸰.㸯㸬ㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅2011 ᖺ 5 ᭶࠿ࡽ 6 ᭶࡟࠿ࡅ࡚ࠊࣟࢩ࢔ᴟᮾᆅᇦࡢ኱Ꮫ࡟ᅾ⡠ࡋࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦Ṕࡢ↓࠸ࣟࢩ࢔ㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ 50 ྡ࡜ࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ 50 ྡ࠾ࡼࡧ᪥ᮏᅾఫࡢ᪥ᮏே኱Ꮫ⏕(ࣟࢩ࢔ㄒᏛ⩦⤒㦂ࡢ↓࠸)50 ྡࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊㄪᰝ⣬ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓㄯヰ᏶ᡂࢸࢫࢺࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢ඲ㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅ࡣ 150 ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᖺ㱋ࡣࠊࣟࢩ࢔ㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢᖹᆒࡀ 20 ṓ࡜ 4 ࣧ᭶ࠊࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᖹᆒࡀ 21 ṓ࡜ 2 ࣧ᭶ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢᖹᆒࡀ 20 ṓ࡜ 11 ࣧ᭶࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
࡯ࡰྠࡌᖺ㱋ᒙࡢ⿕㦂⪅࡛࠶ࡿࠋࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦Ṕࡣࠊᖹᆒ࡛ 4 ᖺ࡜ 5 ࣨ᭶࡛ࠊ᪥ᮏ࡬▷ᮇ␃Ꮫࡋࡓ
ࡇ࡜ࡢ࠶ࡿᏛ⏕ࡀ 27 ྡ࠾ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ᪥ᮏ⁫ᅾᮇ㛫ࡢᖹᆒࡣࠊ3 ࣨ᭶࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ

㸰㸬㸰. ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢሙ㠃タᐃ࡜ㄯヰ᏶ᡂࢸࢫࢺ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣㄯヰ᏶ᡂࢸࢫࢺࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ⾲㸯࡟♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᩿ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋࡓ౫㢗ሙ㠃ࢆ㸷ࡘ⏝ពࡋࡓࠋ᪥ᮏ࡜ࣟࢩ࢔ࡢ୧᪉ࡢ♫఍࣭ᩥ໬࡟࠾࠸࡚㉳ࡇࡾ࠺ࡿࡼ࠺࡞⮬↛࡞ሙ㠃ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔࠋຊ㛵ಀ࡛ࠊ┠ୖࠊྠ➼ࠊ┠ୗࡢ㸱ࡘ࡟ศࡅࡓࠋ┠ୖ࡟ᙜࡓࡿࡢࡣࠊ࠾ẕࡉࢇࠊඛ⏕ࠊୖྖ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠ➼ࡣࠊྠ⣭⏕ࠊྠ൉ࠊ཭㐩࡛࠶ࡿࠋ┠ୗࡣࡍ࡭࡚ᚋ㍮࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊྛຊ㛵ಀ࡟♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳࡜ࡋ࡚ぶ␯㛵ಀࢆ㏣ຍࡋࡓࠋぶ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊぶࡋ࠸㛫᯶ࡢே࡛࠶ࡾࠊ␯ࡣᬑẁṤ࡝ヰࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞࠸ே࡜ᐃ⩏ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊሙ㠃㸯ࡢ࠾ẕࡉࢇ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⮬ศࡢẕぶࢆぶࡋ࠸࡜ࡋࠊぶࡋࡃ࡞࠸࠾ẕࡉࢇࡣࠊ཭㐩ࡢẕぶ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ࡞࠾ࠊሙ㠃㸯࡜ሙ㠃㸴ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ∧࡜ࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ∧ࡢㄪᰝ࡛タᐃࢆⱝᖸኚ࠼ࡓࠋሙ㠃㸯ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ∧࡛ࡣࠊ໭ᾏ㐨࡟᪑⾜ࡍࡿ᫬࡟㈙࠸≀ࢆ㢗ࡲࢀࡿタᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ∧࡛ࡣ୰ᅜࢆ᪑⾜ࡍࡿ㝿࡟㈙࠸≀ࢆ㢗ࡲࢀࡿሙ㠃࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓ᪥ᮏㄒ∧ࡢሙ㠃㸴ࡣኟ⚍ࡾ࡜ࡋࡓࡀࠊࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ∧࡛ࡣ㸵᭶࡟㛤ദࡉࢀࡿ࢘ࣛࢪ࢜ࢫࢺࢵࢡࡢ㛤グᛕ᪥ࡢ⚍ࡾ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ⾜ࡁඛ࡜⚍ࡾࡢ✀㢮ࢆኚ࠼ࡓࡔࡅ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊሙ

㠃ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟ࡣᙳ㡪ࡣ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ඲ㄪᰝ㡯┠ࡣࠊ♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳ࡀ㸱ࡘ࡛ࠊྛ㸱ࡘࡢሙ㠃ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡑ
ࢀࡒࢀ࡟ぶ␯㛵ಀࡀ㸰ࡘ㏣ຍࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ18 ࡢ㉁ၥ㡯┠(㸱‫܉‬㸱‫܉‬㸰)࡜࡞ࡿࠋᮏㄽᩥࡢ᭱ᚋ࡟㈨ᩱ࡜
ࡋ࡚ࠊሙ㠃㸰ࡢຊ㛵ಀࡀ┠ୖ(ඛ⏕)࡛ࠊ♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳ࡀぶࡢ౛ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ⾲ 1 㸷ࡘࡢࠕ౫㢗ࠖሙ㠃ࡢタᐃ#ሙ㠃࣭౫㢗ࡢෆᐜ (Wx: ㈇ᢸࡢᗘྜ࠸)1᪑⾜ඛ࡛≉ᐃࡢ㈙࠸≀ࢆ㢗ࡲࢀࡓ

2◊✲ᐊࡢᘬ㉺ࡋࡢᡭఏ࠸ࢆ㢗ࡲࢀࡓ

3

ຊ㛵ಀ

౫㢗⪅

♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳

࠾ẕࡉࢇ

ぶ

␯

ඛ⏕

ぶ

␯

࢔ࣝࣂ࢖ࢺඛ࡛ᐗ఍ࡢᖿ஦ࢆ㢗ࡲࢀࡓ

ୖྖ

ぶ

␯

4

ㅮ⩏ࡢࣀ࣮ࢺࢆ㈚ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ㢗ࡲࢀࡓ

ྠ⣭⏕

ぶ

␯

5

࢔ࣝࣂ࢖ࢺඛ࡛௦⌮ฟ໅ࢆ㢗ࡲࢀࡓ

ྠ൉

ぶ

␯

┠ୖ

ྠ➼

2
−146−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

6

5 ༓෇ࢆ㈚ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ㢗ࡲࢀࡓ

཭㐩

ぶ

␯

7

ᐟ㢟ࡢᡭఏ࠸ࢆ㢗ࡲࢀࡓ

ᚋ㍮

ぶ

␯

8

ࣂ࣮࣮࣋࢟ࣗࡢ㈙࠸ฟࡋࢆ㢗ࡲࢀࡓ

ᚋ㍮

ぶ

␯

9

ᩍ⛉᭩ࢆ㈚ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ㢗ࡲࢀࡓ

ᚋ㍮

ぶ

␯

┠ୗ

ㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅࡟ࠊ⾲ 1 ࡢ 9 ࡘࡢࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢሙ㠃࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᑐヰᵓ⠏ᆺࡢㄯヰ᏶ᡂࢸࢫࢺࢆグධࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋㄯヰ᏶ᡂࢸࢫࢺࡣࠊሙ㠃ㄝ᫂ࠊ┦ᡭࡢࢭࣜࣇࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⟅࠼ࢆ᭩ࡁධࢀࡿ✵ⓑḍ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢸࢫࢺࡢ౛ࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋሙ㠃ղぶࡋ࠸㛫᯶ࡢᣦᑟᩍᐁࡢᤵᴗࡀ⤊ࢃࡗࡓᚋ㸪࠶࡞ࡓࡣᣦᑟᩍᐁ࡟◊✲ᐊࡢᘬ㉺ࡋࡢᡭఏ࠸ࢆ㢗ࡲࢀࡲࡋࡓ㸬࡝࠺᩿ࡾࡲࡍ࠿㸬ᣦᑟᩍᐁ㸸żżࡉࢇ㸪௒᪥ࡣ᫬㛫࠶ࡿ࠿࡞㸽௒᪥◊✲ᐊࡢᘬ㉺ࡋࢆࡍࡿࢇࡔࡅ࡝㸪ᡭఏࡗ࡚ࡃࢀࡿ࡜ຓ
࠿ࡿࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝㸬࠶࡞ࡓ㸸___________________㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝ࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࡋ࠿ヰࡏ࡞࠸ࣟࢩ࢔ேࡣࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ∧ࡢ㉁ၥ⣬ࡢࡳࢆグධࡋࡓࠋࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ᪥ᮏ
ㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࡣࠊࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ∧࡜᪥ᮏㄒ∧ࡢ୧㉁ၥ⣬࡟⟅࠼࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ㝿ࠊࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࡢẕㄒࡢᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡲࡎ᪥ᮏㄒ∧ࡢ㉁ၥ⣬࡟ᅇ⟅ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࠊࡑࡢᚋ࡛ࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ∧ࡢㄪᰝࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ
᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ∧ࡢ㉁ၥ⣬ࡢࡳࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ㉁ၥ⣬ࡢᅇ⟅᫬㛫ࡣࠊẕㄒࡢሙྜࡀ 30 ศ⛬ᗘ࡛ࠊእᅜㄒࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࡢሙྜࡀ 50 ศ⛬ᗘ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ

㸰㸬㸱 ព࿡බᘧࡢศ㢮ㄯヰ᏶ᡂࢸࢫࢺࢆᐇ᪋ࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡓࢹ࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽព࿡බᘧࢆᢳฟࡋࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣඛ⾜◊✲㸦Beebe et al. 1990; ⏕㥖࣭ᚿᮧ, 1993; ⸨᳃, 1994; ఀ⸨, 2001a ࡞࡝㸧ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࡢᑓ㛛ᐙ࡜ពぢ஺᥮ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᶵ⬟ู࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋ⾲㸰ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿព࿡බᘧࡢศ㢮
㸡

ព࿡

ᶵ⬟

౛㸦᪥ᮏㄒ㸧

౛㸦ࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ㸧┦ᡭࡢពྥ࡟ῧ࠼࡞࠸஦᝟ࡢ

⏝஦ࡀ࠶ࡿࢇࡔࡅ࡝/Ɂɚɜɬɪɚ

ㄝ᫂

௚ࡢே࡟㈚ࡋࡓ࠿ࡽ

ɤɨɧɬɪɨɥɶɧɚɹ/ɦɧɟ

බᘧ
㸯

⌮⏤

ɫɚɦɨɦɭ ɧɭɠɧɵ
㸰

㸱

ඹឤ

⤖ㄽ

┦ᡭࡢពྥ࡟ῧ࠸ࡓ࠸ᚰ᝟ࡢ

ṧᛕ࡛ࡍࡀ/

Ʉ ɫɨɠɚɥɟɧɢɸ/ɹ ɛɵ ɫ⾲᫂⾜ࡁࡓ࠸ࡅ࡝

ɭɞɨɜɨɥɶɫɬɜɢɟɦ, ɧɨฟ᮶࡞࠸/ɇɟ ɦɨɝɭ/ɧɟ┦ᡭࡢពྥ࡟ῧ࠼࡞࠸ពᅗ⾲

3
−147−

ロシア人日本語学習者が依頼に対する「断り」のストラテジーを選択する諸要因㸲㸳㸦୙ྍ㸧 ♧ࠋ┤᥋ⓗ࡞᩿ࡾ⾲⌧࡜㛫᥋ⓗࡑࢀࡣ↓⌮࠿࡞/࡞᩿ࡾ⾲⌧୧᪉ࢆྵࡴ

᫂᪥ࡣࡕࡻࡗ࡜

┦ᡭࡢពྥ࡟ῧ࠼࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ

⏦ࡋヂ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇ/㈇ᢸ࡟ឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ᪨ࡢ⾲᫂ࡈࡵࢇࡡ/ᝏ࠸ࡅ࡝

ㅰ⨥௦᱌┦ᡭࡢ᱌࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬ศ࠿ࡽฟ
ࡍูࡢ᱌

㸴

㸵

㛵ಀ

┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ⥔ᣢࡋࡓ࠸᪨

⥔ᣢࡢᾘᴟⓗ࡞ാࡁ࠿ࡅ

ᙼ࡟㢗ࢇࡔࡽ/ɩɨɥɭɱɢɬɫɹ

ɂɡɜɢɧɢ

Ⱦɚɜɚɣ ɹ ɩɨɩɪɨɲɭ ɟɝɨ௚ࡢே࡟⪺࠸࡚ࡳࡲࡋࡻ࠺࠿
ḟᅇࡣࡸࡾࡲࡍ/ȼ ɫɥɟɞɭɸɳɢɣ ɪɚɡࡲࡓ௒ᗘࡡɨɛɹɡɚɬɟɥɶɧɨ

᮲௳᮲௳࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⮬ศࡀฟ᮶ࡿሙ

᫬㛫ࡀ࠶ࢀࡤ/࣏࣮ࣞࢺࢆ᭩

ȿɫɥɢ ɛɭɞɟɬ ɜɪɟɦɹ /㸦᩿ࡾྜ࡜ฟ᮶࡞࠸ሙྜࡢ୧᪉ࡢྍ

࠸࡚࠿ࡽ/࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢃ

ɟɫɥɢ ɩɨɥɭɱɢɬɫɹ

ࡢ␃ಖ㸧 ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ

࠿ࡽ࡞࠸/⣙᮰ࡣฟ᮶࡞࠸ࡀ㸱㸬ศᯒ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣタᐃࡉࢀࡓ 9 ࡘࡢ౫㢗࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢሙ㠃࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
㸦㸯㸧┠ୖ࣭ྠ➼࣭┠ୗࡢຊ㛵ಀࠊ㸦㸰㸧ぶ࡜␯ࡢ♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳ࠊ㸦㸱㸧㸷ࡘࡢ᩿ࡾࡢሙ㠃ࠊ㸦㸲㸧ࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢ౑⏝ゝㄒࠊ㸦㸳㸧ព࿡බᘧࡢ✀㢮ࡢ㸳ࡘࡢ⊂❧ኚᩘ࡛ࠊព࿡බᘧࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘ㸦ᚑᒓኚᩘ㸧ࢆணࡍࡿศ㢮ᮌศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋBrown and Levinson ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡢබᘧ࡛ゝ࠼ࡤࠊ⊂❧ኚᩘࡢ㸦㸯㸧ࡣ P ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㸦㸰㸧ࡣD ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㸦㸱㸧ࠊ㸦㸲㸧ࠊ㸦㸳㸧ࡣ Rx ࡛࠶ࡿࠋBrown and Levinson ࡢ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊே㛫㛵ಀ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢ௨እࡣࡍ࡭࡚ Rx ࡟ධࡿࡢ࡛ࠊRx ࡢᴫᛕࡣከᑡᢳ㇟ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ Rx ࡢ኱ࡊࡗࡥ࡞ᤊ࠼᪉࡟
ࡼࡗ࡚ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࣭࣮࣡ࢡ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢᬑ㐢ᛶࢆㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ౫㢗ࡢ᩿ࡾሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࣭ࣜࢫࢡࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿㅖせᅉࡢᙳ㡪ᗘࢆㄪ࡭ࡿࡓࡵࠊRx ࡟㛵ࢃࡿせᅉࢆಶู࡟᳨
ウࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼࠿ࡽࠊRx ࢆ㸱ࡘࡢୗ఩せᅉ࡟ศࡅࡓࠋሙ㠃ࡢෆᐜࢆ Rx㸯ࠊゝㄒ࣭ᩥ໬ᕪ
㸦ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡜౑⏝ゝㄒ㸧ࢆ Rx㸰ࠊ᩿ࡾࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ㸦ព࿡බᘧࡢ✀㢮㸧ࢆ Rx㸱࡜ࡋࡓࠋศ㢮ᮌศᯒࡣࠊ」ᩘࡢせᅉࡢᙳ㡪ࡢᙉࡉࢆᶞᙧᅗࡢᙧ࡛どぬⓗ࡟ᥥ࠸࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᩿ࡾࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸳ࡘࡢせᅉࡀ࡝࠺ᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆྠ᫬࡟⪃ᐹࡋࡓ࠸ሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ᭱㐺࡞ከኚ㔞ゎᯒࡢᡭἲ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦⤫ィᡭἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⋢ᒸ, 2006 ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋ௨ୗࠊศ㢮ᮌศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ

㸲㸬ࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࢆணࡍࡿศ㢮ᮌศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ ౫㢗࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ౑⏝ࢆணࡍࡿศ㢮ᮌศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ㸦࣮࣌ࢪᩘࡢไ㝈ୖࠊᶞᙧᅗࢆ๭ឡࡍࡿ㸧ࠋศ㢮ᮌศᯒࡢ඲యࢧࣥࣉࣝᩘࡣࠊぶ࡜␯ࡢ㸰ࡘࡢタᐃ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㸷ࡘࡢሙ㠃࡟ᑐࡋ
࡚ࠊ7 ✀㢮ࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊࣟࢩ࢔ㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㸦௨ୗࠊRR ࡜グࡍ㸧ࡢ 50 ྡࡀᅇ⟅ࡋࠊ18 ၥ×㸵×50 ྡ㸻6,300 ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㸦௨ୗࠊJJ ࡜グࡍ㸧ࡢ 50 ྡࡀᅇ⟅ࡋࠊྠࡌࡃ 6,300 ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿࣟࢩ࢔ே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ 50 ྡࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ㸦௨ୗࠊRJJ ࡜グࡍ㸧࡜ࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ
㸦௨ୗࠊRJR ࡜グࡍ㸧ࡢ୧᪉࡛ᅇ⟅ࡋࡓࡢ࡛ࠊ18 ၥ×㸵×2 ᅇ㸦᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ㸧×50 ྡ㸻࡛࠶ࡗࡓ12,600ࠋḞᦆ್ࡀ࡞ࡃࠊRR ࡀ 6,300 ࢧࣥࣉࣝࠊJJ ࡀ 6,300 ࢧࣥࣉࣝࠊRJJ ࡀ 6,300 ࢧࣥࣉࣝࠊRJR ࡀ 6,300
ࢧࣥࣉ࡛ࣝࠊ඲యࡢࢧࣥࣉࣝᩘࡀ 25,200 ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ7 ✀㢮ࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡀฟ⌧ࡋࡓࡢࡣ 7560 ᅇ࡛࠶

4
−148−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ࡾࠊฟ⌧ࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢࡣ 17,640 ᅇ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ព࿡බᘧࡢ✀㢮ࡀ㸪ព࿡බᘧࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࢆỴᐃࡍࡿࡶࡗ࡜ࡶᙉ࠸せᅉ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓ
2[Ȥ (6)=9882.105, p<.001]ࠋ௨ୗࠊព࿡බᘧู࡟ศ㢮ᮌศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ

㸲㸬㸯㸬㹹⌮⏤㹻ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࢆணࡍࡿศ㢮ᮌศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝព࿡බᘧࡢ୰࡛ࡣࠊ
㹹⌮⏤㹻㸦௨ୗࠊ㹹 㹻ࡣព࿡බᘧࢆ⾲ࡍ㸧ࡀ᭱ࡶከࡃ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ㸦3,070 ᅇ㸧ࠋぶ␯㛵ಀࢆ♧ࡍ♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳㸦D㸧ࡣࠊ㹹⌮⏤㹻ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᭱ࡶᙉࡃᙳ㡪ࡋࡓ[Ȥ2(1)=39.728, p<.001]ࠋ
ぶࡋ࠸㛵ಀࡢ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ౫㢗ࢆ᩿ࡿሙྜࠊぶࡋࡃ࡞࠸┦ᡭ࡜ࡢሙ㠃ࡼࡾࠊ᩿ࡾࡢ⌮⏤ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓ㸦1602 ᅇᑐ 1468 ᅇ㸧ࠋぶࡋ࠸┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ౫㢗ࢆ᩿ࡿ᫬ࠊ
㹹⌮⏤㹻ࡢ౑⏝ࡀሙ㠃ࡢෆᐜ࡟ࡼࡗ
࡚␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ[Ȥ2(3)=77.462, p<.001]ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࣔࣀ㸦࠾㔠ࠊᩍ⛉᭩㸧ࢆ㈚ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ᩿ࡿሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㹹⌮⏤㹻ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀ୍␒㧗࠿ࡗࡓ㸦381 ᅇࠊ95.2㸣㸧ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ ␯㐲࡞౫㢗⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊゝㄒ࣭ᩥ໬ᕪཬࡧゝㄒᏛ⩦ࡢᙳ㡪ࡀぢࡽࢀ[Ȥ2(1)=43.078, p<.001]ࠊJJ ࡜ RJJ ࡀ RR ࡜ RJR ࡼࡾ㹹⌮⏤㹻ࢆከ⏝ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓ㸦๓⪅ࡣ 788 ᅇࠊᚋ⪅ࡣ 680 ᅇ㸧ࠋ㸲㸬㸰㸬㹹ㅰ⨥㹻ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࢆணࡍࡿศ㢮ᮌศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ㹹ㅰ⨥㹻ࡀ 2,051 ᅇฟ⌧ࡋࠊ㸰␒┠࡟ከ࠿ࡗࡓព࿡බᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋゝㄒ࣭ᩥ໬ᕪཬࡧゝㄒᏛ⩦ࡀ㹹ㅰ⨥㹻ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘ࡟ᙉࡃᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ[Ȥ2(2)=307.693, p<.001]ࠋRJJ ࡟ࡣ㹹ㅰ⨥㹻ࡢ౑⏝ࡀ᭱ࡶከࡃぢࡽࢀࡓ㸦659
ᅇ㸧ࠋJJ ࡜ RJR ࡣྠࡌഴྥࢆ♧ࡋ㸦ྜィ 1,090 ᅇ㸧ࠊRR ࡢሙྜ࡛ࡣ㹹ㅰ⨥㹻ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀⴭࡋࡃᑡ࡞࠿
ࡗࡓ㸦302 ᅇ㸧ࠋሙ㠃ࡢෆᐜࡀࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࣭౑⏝ゝㄒࡢḟ࡟ᙉ࠸せᅉ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋRJJ ࡢሙྜࡣ[Ȥ2(2)=27.528,
p<.01]ࠊJJ ࡜ RJR ࡢሙྜࡣ[Ȥ2(3)=72.796, p<.001]ࠊRR ࡢሙྜࡣ[Ȥ2(3)=46.592, p<.001]࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ

㸲㸬㸱㸬㹹୙ྍ㹻ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࢆணࡍࡿศ㢮ᮌศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ㹹୙ྍ㹻ࡀ 1,217 ᅇ౑⏝ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢ౑⏝ࡣሙ㠃ࡢෆᐜḟ➨࡛࠶ࡗࡓ[Ȥ2(4)=223.553, p<.001]ࠋሙ㠃࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࣭౑⏝ゝㄒࡢᙳ㡪ࡀḟ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ࢔ࣝࣂ࢖ࢺඛ࡟ྠ൉࠿ࡽࡢ౫㢗࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㹹୙ྍ㹻ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ୍␒ᙉ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࣔࣀ㸦࠾㔠ࠊᩍ⛉᭩㸧ࢆ㈚ࡍሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅ࡀ࠶ࡲࡾ┤᥋ⓗ࡟ࡣ᩿ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸ࡗࡓഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ඲యⓗ࡟ࠊRR ࡣ JJ ࡼࡾ㹹୙ྍ㹻ࢆከ⏝ࡋࡓࡀࠊሙ㠃㸯ࠕ᪑⾜ඛ࡛ࡢ㈙࠸≀ࡢ౫㢗ࢆ᩿ࡿࠖࠊሙ㠃㸲ࠕㅮ⩏ࡢࣀ࣮ࢺࢆ㈚ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ᩿ࡿࠖࠊሙ㠃㸵ࠕᐟ㢟ࡢᡭఏ࠸ࢆ᩿ࡿࠖࠊሙ㠃㸴ࠕ࠾㔠ࢆ㈚ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ᩿ࡿࠖࠊሙ㠃㸷ࠕᩍ⛉᭩ࢆ㈚ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ᩿ࡿࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ
JJ ࡢ᪉ࡀ㹹୙ྍ㹻ࢆከࡃ౑⏝ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋRJJ ࡟ࡼࡿ㹹୙ྍ㹻ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀపࡃࠊ➨㸯ゝㄒࡼࡾ୙ྍ⾲⌧ࡢ౑⏝ࡢ๭ྜࡀῶᑡࡋࠊࡼࡾ㛫᥋ⓗ࡟᩿ࡾࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ㸲㸬㸲㸬㹹௦᱌㹻ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࢆணࡍࡿศ㢮ᮌศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ㹹௦᱌㹻ࡀ 662 ᅇฟ⌧ࡋࠊሙ㠃࣭౫㢗ࡢෆᐜࡀࡑࡢ౑⏝࡟ᙉࡃᙳ㡪ࡋࡓ[Ȥ2(3)=121.833, p<.001]ࠋࡑࡢḟ࡟ࠊࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࣭౑⏝ゝㄒ࡟ࡼࡿ㐪࠸ࡢᙳ㡪ࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࣔࣀ㸦ࣀ࣮ࢺࠊ࠾㔠ࠊᩍ⛉᭩㸧ࢆ㈚ࡍሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠊ♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳㸦D㸧ࡢᙳ㡪ࡶᙉ࠿ࡗࡓ[Ȥ2(1)=27.309, p<.001]ࠋ᪥㟢୧ゝㄒඹ࡟ぶࡋ࠸┦ᡭࡢ౫㢗ࢆ᩿ࡿሙ㠃࡛ࡣࡑ࠺࡛࡞࠸ሙ㠃࡟ẚ࡭࡚ࠊ௦᱌ࡀከࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓ㸦136 ᅇᑐ 68 ᅇ㸧ࠋ

5
−149−

ロシア人日本語学習者が依頼に対する「断り」のストラテジーを選択する諸要因㸲㸬㸳㸬㹹ඹឤ㹻ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࢆணࡍࡿศ㢮ᮌศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ㹹ඹឤ㹻ࡀ 297 ᅇฟ⌧ࡋࠊ㹹୙ྍ㹻ཬࡧ㹹௦᱌㹻࡜ྠᵝ࡟㹹ඹឤ㹻ࡢ౑⏝ࡣሙ㠃ࡢෆᐜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚␗࡞
ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ[Ȥ2(3)=111.471, p<.001]ࠋ౫㢗⪅ࡣᩍဨ࡛࠶ࡿሙ㠃㸰࡛ࡣࠊ㹹ඹឤ㹻ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀ୍␒㧗࠿ࡗࡓ
㸦71 ᅇ㸧ࠋሙ㠃࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࣭౑⏝ゝㄒ࡟ࡼࡿᙳ㡪ࡀḟ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓࠋRR ࡜ RJR ࡣ௚ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝ
ࣉࡼࡾከࡃ㹹ඹឤ㹻ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊRJJ ࡣ JJ ࡜ྠࡌഴྥࢆぢࡏࡓ࠿ࠊJJ ࡼࡾ㹹ඹឤ㹻ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀከᑡከ
࠿ࡗࡓࠋྠ⣭⏕࡜ࡢሙ㠃㸲࡜ᚋ㍮࡜ࡢ඲࡚ࡢሙ㠃㸦㸵,㸶,㸷㸧࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳㸦D㸧࡟ࡼࡿᙳ㡪ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ[Ȥ2(1)=8.121, p<.01]ࠋぶࡋ࠸┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ౫㢗ࢆ᩿ࡿ࡜ࡁࠊ㹹ඹឤ㹻ࡀ 42 ᅇ㸦5.2㸣㸧ฟ⌧ࡋࠊぶࡋࡃ࡞࠸┦ᡭࡢሙྜࠊ20 ᅇ㸦2.5㸣㸧࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ

㸲㸬㸴㸬㹹᮲௳㸦᩿ࡾࡢಖ␃㸧㹻ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࢆண

ࡍࡿศ㢮ᮌศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ㹹᮲௳㸦᩿ࡾࡢಖ␃㸧㹻ࡀ 164 ᅇ౑⏝ࡉࢀࠊሙ㠃ࡢෆᐜࡢᙳ㡪ࡀᙉ࠿ࡗࡓ[Ȥ2(2)=364.867, p<.001]ࠋሙ
㠃㸯࡛ࡣ⿕㦂⪅ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡜౑⏝ゝㄒࡢᙳ㡪ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓ[Ȥ2(1)=10.316, p<.01]ࠋRR ࡣ௚ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡼࡾࠊ
㹹᮲௳㸦᩿ࡾࡢಖ␃㸧㹻ࢆከࡃ౑⏝ࡋࡓࠋሙ㠃 2㸪4㸪5㸪9 ࡛ࡣࠊぶ␯㛵ಀࢆ⾲ࡍ♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳㸦D㸧ࡀሙ㠃ࡢḟ࡟ᙉ࠸せᅉ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ[Ȥ2(1)=10.833, p<.001]ࠋぶࡋ࠸㛵ಀࡢ౫㢗⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᮲௳ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࡼࡾከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

㸲㸬㸵㸬㹹㛵ಀ⥔ᣢ㹻ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࢆணࡍࡿศ㢮ᮌศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ 㹹㛵ಀ⥔ᣢ㹻ࡀ 117 ᅇฟ⌧ࡋࠊሙ㠃ࡢෆᐜࡀ㹹㛵ಀ⥔ᣢ㹻ࡢ౑⏝࡟ᙉࡃᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ[Ȥ2(3)=75.909,
p<.001]ࠋሙ㠃࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࣭౑⏝ゝㄒࡢᙳ㡪ࡀḟ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓࠋᏛ⩦⪅㸦RJJ ࡜ RJR㸧ࡣࠊJJ ࡜
RR ࡢ୰㛫࡟఩⨨ࡋࠊRR ࡣṤ࡝㹹㛵ಀ⥔ᣢ㹻ࢆ౑ࢃ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩࡀࡣࡗࡁࡾぢࡽࢀࡓࠋሙ㠃㸴ࠊ㸶ࠊ㸷࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㹹㛵ಀ⥔ᣢ㹻ࡢฟ⌧࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊሙ㠃ࡢෆᐜ௨እࡢせᅉࡢᙳ㡪ࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ㸳㸬⪃ᐹ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊBrown and Levinson㸦1987㸧ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡢබᘧ࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊຊ㛵ಀ㸦P㸧ࠊ♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳㸦D㸧ࠊሙ㠃ࡢෆᐜ㸦Rx㸯㸧ࠊẕㄒࡢ♫఍ᩥ໬ⓗつ⠊࡜౑⏝ゝㄒ㸦ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡜౑⏝ゝㄒ㸹Rx㸰㸧ࠊ᩿ࡾࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ✀㢮㸦Rx㸱㸧ࡢ㸳ࡘࡢせᅉࡀࠊࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘ㸦Wx㸧࡟࡝࠺ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿ࠿ࢆࠊ
ศ㢮ᮌศᯒࢆ౑ࡗ᳨࡚ウࡋࡓࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ௨ୗࡢ 4 Ⅼ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㸳㸬㸯㸬᩿ࡾࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘ࡟㛵ࢃࡿㅖせᅉࡢᙳ㡪㛵ಀ ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࢆணࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࠊࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ✀㢮ࡀ᭱ࡶᙉ࠸せᅉ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ඲

యⓗ࡟ࠊࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊሙ㠃ࡢෆᐜ㸼ゝㄒ࣭ᩥ໬ᕪ㸦ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡜౑⏝ゝㄒ㸧ࡢ㡰࡛ࡼࡾᙉࡃ
ᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
㹹ㅰ⨥㹻ࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊゝㄒ࣭ᩥ໬ᕪ࡟ࡼࡿᙳ㡪ࡀᙉ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
㹹⌮⏤㹻
ࠊ
㹹௦᱌㹻
ࠊ
㹹ඹ
ឤ㹻
ࠊ
㹹᮲௳㸦᩿ࡾࡢಖ␃㸧ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿሙྜࡢࡳࠊ♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳ࡢᙳ㡪ࡀ㒊ศⓗ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓࡀࠊຊ㛵ಀ㸦♫఍ᆅ఩㸧ࡣຠ࠸࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ᩿ࡾࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ౑⏝ಶᩘࠊฟ⌧㡰ᗎࠊࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢෆᐜཬࡧ
ࢫࣆ࣮ࢳ࣭ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢሙྜࠊຊ㛵ಀࡣ☜࠿࡟ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘ࡜ຊ㛵ಀࡣ㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

6
−150−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

㸳㸬㸰㸬᪥ᮏㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡢࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ࡬ࡢᙳ㡪ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ㄯヰ᏶ᡂࢸࢫࢺࢆࠊࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢ
୧ゝㄒ࡛⾜࠸ࠊࡑࡢ㐪࠸ࢆࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࡢࡳࢆヰࡍࣟࢩ࢔ே࡜ẚ㍑ࡋࡓࠋࣟࢩ࢔ே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊ⤫ไ⩌ࡢࣟࢩ࢔ே࠿ࡽ᭷ព࡟␗࡞ࡗࡓࡢࡣࠊ㹹ㅰ⨥㹻ࠊ㹹୙ྍ㹻㸦ሙ㠃㸱ࠊ㸳㸧ࠊ㹹㛵ಀ⥔ᣢ㹻㸦ሙ㠃㸯ࠊ㸰ࠊ㸱㸪㸲㸪㸳㸪㸵㸧ࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ≉࡟ࠊ㹹ㅰ⨥㹻࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ
ࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ྠࡌഴྥࢆ♧ࡋࠊࣟࢩ࢔ㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࢆࡣࡿ࠿࡟ୖᅇࡗࡓ㸦ྜィ 1090 ᅇᑐ
302 ᅇ㸧
ࠋ㸳㸬㸱㸬ࣟࢩ࢔ே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࡼࡿ᩿ࡾ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࡢ༊ู ᮲௳࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࣟࢩ࢔ே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡣࠊࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ࡛཯ᛂࡍࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ࣟࢩ࢔ㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟㏆ࡃࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛཯ᛂࡍࡿ࡜ࡁࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞ഴྥࢆ♧ࡍ⤖ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋලయⓗ࡟ࠊぶࡋ࠸㛫᯶ࡢ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㹹⌮⏤㹻ࠊሙ㠃㸰㸪㸶࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㹹୙ྍ㹻ࠊሙ㠃㸵࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㹹௦᱌㹻ࠊሙ㠃㸯㸪㸰㸪㸴࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㹹ඹឤ㹻ࡢ౑⏝ࡀࡑࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ᪥㟢୧ゝㄒࡢ♫఍࣭ᩥ໬ⓗつ⠊ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆព㆑ࡋ࡚㸪᪥ᮏㄒࢆ㐠⏝ࡍࡿ᫬࡟ẕㄒࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࢆᢚไࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪᪥ᮏㄒࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕
ࢸ࢕ࢆ₇ࡌࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿᚿྥᛶࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

㸳㸬㸲㸬᪥ᮏㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡿࣟࢩ࢔ேࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ౑⏝࡬ࡢᙳ㡪 እᅜㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ┠ᶆゝㄒࡢ♫఍࣭ᩥ໬࠿ࡽࡢᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅࠊࡑࢀ࡟㡰ᛂࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡛
࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊሙ㠃㸴㸪㸷࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㹹୙ྍ㹻ࠊሙ㠃㸱ࠊ㸶࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㹹௦᱌㹻ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࣟ
ࢩ࢔ே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ౑⏝᮲௳࡛ࡶ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡼࡾ᪥ᮏㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࣟࢩ࢔ே࡟
㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡑࢀࡣᏛ⩦⪅ࡢព㆑࡟῝ࡃ᰿ࡊࡋ࡚࠸ࡿẕㄒࡢࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ♫఍ⓗㄆ㆑ࡀാࡁࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ♫఍࣭ᩥ໬ⓗつ⠊ࡣᙳ㡪ࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟
࠾ࡅࡿ㹹ㅰ⨥㹻ࡢ౑⏝ࡀ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢࡑࢀࢆ኱ࡁࡃୖᅇࡿ⤖ᯝࡀฟࡓࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㅰ⨥ࡢ௙᪉࡟ᙳ
㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ⌮⏤ࡢ୍ࡘࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᣢࡘゝㄒࡢᬑ㐢ᛶ࣭≉␗ᛶࡢㄆ㆑ࡢ௙᪉ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊྠࡌⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡀ␗࡞ࡗࡓゝㄒ࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࡢែᗘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊゝㄒࡸᩥ໬࡟㛵ಀ࡞ࡃヰࡋᡭࡀ㈐௵ࢆឤࡌࡿᗘྜ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ㅰ⨥ࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿ࡭ࡁࡔ࡜࠸࠺ᬑ㐢ⓗ࡞ㄆ㆑ࢆᣢࡗ࡚
࠸ࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࣟࢩ࢔ே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࡣ㹹ㅰ⨥ࡢ⾲᫂㹻ࡀከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟
࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒ⾜ືࡢ≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⬟ຊࡀࡲࡔ㌟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࠸࡞࠸Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀࡑࢀࢆ㐣๫⯡໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ
㹹㛵ಀ⥔ᣢ㹻࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࣟࢩ࢔ㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡀࡑࢀࢆṤ࡝౑⏝ࡋ࡞࠸⤖ᯝ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ⩦⪅㸦᪥㟢୧ゝㄒ㸧ࡀ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜㏆࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋࣟࢩ࢔ㄒ࡛
ࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢពྥ࡟ῧ࠼࡞࠸ሙྜࠊ᫂☜࡟௦᱌ࡶࡋࡃࡣ᮲௳ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢ⤖ᯝࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦ࡢᙳ㡪ࢆド᫂ࡋࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࣟࢩ࢔ேࡣ᮲௳࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ẹ᪘ⓗ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࢆ⥔ᣢࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ┠ᶆゝㄒࡢ♫఍࣭ᩥ໬ⓗつ⠊ࡶྲྀࡾ㎸ࡶ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

㸴㸬⤊ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࣟࢩ࢔ே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊ᪥㟢ࡢᩥ໬ᕪ࡜ゝㄒᏛ⩦ࡢᙳ㡪࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚ࠊ౫㢗࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᩿ࡾࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘ࡟ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿㅖせᅉࢆໟᣓⓗ࠿ࡘ㝵ᒙⓗ࡟᳨ウࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ

7
−151−

ロシア人日本語学習者が依頼に対する「断り」のストラテジーを選択する諸要因ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ㑅ᢥ㸦౑⏝㢖ᗘ㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡶࡗ࡜ࡶᙉ࠸ᙳ㡪せᅉ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࡢࡣࠊࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ✀㢮
㸦Rx3㸧࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋḟ࡟ࠊሙ㠃ࡢෆᐜ㸦Rx㸯㸧ࠊ౑⏝ゝㄒ࣭ᩥ໬ᕪ㸦Rx2㸧ࠊ♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳㸦D㸧ࡢᙳ㡪ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋຊ㛵ಀ㸦P㸧࡟ࡼࡿᙳ㡪ࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ᪥㟢࡟࠾ࡅࡿ౑⏝ゝㄒ࣭ᩥ໬ᕪࡢᙳ㡪ࡀሙ㠃ࡢෆᐜࡸල
యⓗ࡞ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ✀㢮࡟ᛂࡌ࡚」㞧࡟⤌ࡳྜ࠸࡞ࡀࡽぢࡽࢀࡿ⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡾࠊỴࡋ୍࡚㈏ࡋ࡚ᙉ࠸
ᙳ㡪ຊࢆᣢࡘࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡢᬑ㐢ᛶࢆᨭᣢࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ㅖせᅉࡢ㝵ᒙⓗ࡞ᙳ㡪㛵ಀࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. 1990. “Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals.” Developing
communicative competence in a second language, 55–73, New York: Newbury House.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., &Kasper, G. 1989. “Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview.” Cross-cultural
Pragmatics: Request and Apologies, 1-34.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals of Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
⏕㥖▱Ꮚ࣭ᚿᮧ᫂ᙪ. 1993. ࠕⱥㄒ࠿ࡽ᪥ᮏㄒ࡬ࡢࣉࣛࢢ࣐ࢸ࢕ࢵࢡ࣭ࢺࣛࣥࢫࣇ࢓࣮㸸᩿ࠗࡾ࠘࡜࠸
࠺࠸࠺Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㺁ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘79, 41-52. ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍.
ఀ⸨ᜨ⨾Ꮚ. 2001a.ࠕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡢᐇドⓗ⪃ᐹʊᚰ⌮ⓗ㈇ᢸࡢᗘྜ࠸ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ព࿡බᘧࡢᩘ್ࡢ
ほⅬ࠿ࡽʊࠖ
ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱ㄽ㞟࠘17,1-20.
Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. 1993. Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
ⵚ枓. 2008.ࠕ୰ᅜே᪥ᮏㄒୖ⣭Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢㄒ⏝ⓗ㌿⛣ࡢ୍⪃ᐹʊ౫㢗࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᩿ࡾ⾲⌧ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢ
⾲ࡋ᪉࠿ࡽࠖ
ࠗᅜ㝿㛤Ⓨ◊✲ࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛ࠘36, 241-254.
Olshtain, E. 1983. “Sociocultural competence and language transfer: The case of apology.” Language transfer inlanguage learning, 232-249, Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
ࣝࣥࢸ࢕࣮࣭ࣛ࣡ࣥ࢘࢕ࣔࣥ. 2004. ࠕࢱ࢖ே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࠕᥦ᱌࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᩿ࡾࠖ⾲⌧࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ㌿⛣ʊࢱ࢖ㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢⓎヰࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡢẚ㍑࠿ࡽʊࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘121ࠊ46-55.
ΎỈᓫᩥ. 2009.ࠗ୰㛫ゝㄒㄒ⏝ㄽࡢᴫㄽ࠘ࢫ࣮࢚࣮ࣜࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡ㸬⁪ᾆ┿ே. 2008.࣏ࠗࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫධ㛛࠘◊✲♫㸬⋢ᒸ㈡ὠ㞝. 2006.ࠕỴᐃᮌศᯒ࡟ࡼࡿࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ◊✲ࡢྍ⬟ᛶ: ๪モ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ᥋⥆ຓモ ࠕ࠿ࡽࠖࠕࡢ࡛ࠖࠕࡢ࡟ࠖࡢᩥ୰࣭ᩥᮎ⾲⌧ࢆ౛࡟ࠖࠗ⮬↛ゝㄒฎ⌮࠘13(2), 169-179.
⸨᳃ᘯᏊ. 1994.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࣉࣛࢢ࣐ࢸ࢕ࢵࢡ࣭ࢺࣛࣥࢫࣇ࢓࣮ʊࠕ᩿ࡾࠖ⾜Ⅽࡢሙྜʊࠖ
ࠗྡྂᒇᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࣭᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱ㄽ㞟࠘1, 1-19.

8
−152−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

୙‶⾲᫂ࡢ᪥୰ᑐ↷◊✲̿ᛶᕪࢆ୰ᚰ࡟̿Ặྡ Ⳙ ᬡ㞷ᡤᒓ ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᅜ㝿㛤Ⓨ◊✲⛉
E-mail  moxiaoxue_1227@hotmail.com

㸺Abstract㸼
The purpose of this study is to investigate the differences of complaining between Japanese native speakers (JNS) andChinese native speakers (CNS) with a focus on gender difference and the seriousness of complaint. The relationship between
speaker and addressee was controlled as “same grade acquaintance”. Using the discourse completion task (DCT), a survey was
conducted among 100 native speakers of each language (50 male and 50 female). The study revealed that differences havebeen seen from the seriousness of complaint, gender difference, and the use of the opening as well as the adjunct ofcomplaining.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸 1 ࠊᛶᕪ 2ࠊ୙‶ᗘ 3ࠊ୙‶⾲᫂ࡢ㛤ጞ㒊 4ࠊ୙‶⾲᫂ࡢ⤊⤖㒊

1. ᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ↓♩⾜Ⅽ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୙‶ࡢ⛬ᗘ࡜ᛶᕪ࡟↔Ⅼࢆ⨨࠸࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅(JNS)࡜୰ᅜㄒẕㄒヰ⪅(CNS)ࡢ୙‶⾲᫂ࡢඹ㏻Ⅼ࡜┦㐪Ⅼࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ2. ࠕ୙‶⾲᫂ࠖ(complaining)ࡢศ㢮࡜ᐃ⩏ ࠕ୙‶⾲᫂ࠖࡣࠊ୙‶ࡢཎᅉ࡜Ⓨヰࡢ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࢆᇶ‽࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ㛫᥋ⓗ୙‶⾲᫂ࠖ(indirect complaining)࡜ࠕ┤᥋ⓗ୙‶⾲᫂ࠖ(direct complaining)ࡢ኱ࡁࡃ 2 ✀㢮࡟ศࡅࡽࢀࡿ(Boxer 1993: 280)ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠕ┤᥋ⓗ୙‶⾲᫂ࠖࡢࡳࢆᢅ࠸ࠊ
ࠕ୙‶⾲᫂ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࠋ
ึ㮵㔝ࡽ(1996: 130)ࡣࠊ
ࠕ୙‶⾲᫂ࠖ࡜ࡣࠊዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸≧ἣ࡬ࡢ཯ᛂ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭ S ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ H ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
┤᥋࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㛫᥋ⓗ࡟⾜࠺ᚰⓗែᗘࡢ⾲ฟ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩࢆᣢࡘ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(1) ヰࡋᡭ S ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ H ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ✀ࡢ⾜ືᮇᚅࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(2) S ࡣ⾜ືᮇᚅ࡟཯ࡍࡿ≧ែࢆዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸࡜ㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(3) S ࡣ⌧≧ࢆዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢཎᅉࡣ H ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡉࢀࡓ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(4) S ࡣዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸≧ἣࡀ H ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡉࢀࡓ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊH ࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢᡭẁ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఏ࠼ࡓ
࠸࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊึ㮵㔝ࡽ (1996: 130)ࡢᐃ⩏ࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊ᭦࡟௨ୗࡢ 2 ࡘࡢ᮲௳ࢆຍ࠼࡚ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ཰㞟ࡋࡓࠋ(1)ࠕS ࡣ➨ 1 Ⓨヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡿࠖࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊS ࡜ H ࡢ㛫ࡢ఍ヰࡣ H ࡢⓎヰ㸦ㅰ⨥ࡸ☜ㄆ࡞࡝㸧࠿ࡽ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊS ࠿ࡽጞࡲࡗࡓ఍ヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(2)ࠕH ࡀ S ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸≧ἣࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡋࡓሙ࡛ࠊS ࡣዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸࡜ㄆ㆑ࡋࠊࡍࡄ࡟ H ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
⮬ࡽࡢᚰⓗ࡞ែᗘࢆఱࡽ࠿ࡢᡭẁ࡛⾲ࡍࠖࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊH ࡀᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡋࡓዲࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸≧ἣࢆ S ࡀㄆ㆑ࡋࡓ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࠊS ࡜ H ࡣ୍⥴࡟࠸ࡿࠋ3. ඛ⾜◊✲ࡢ⪃ᐹ࡜ᮏ◊✲ࡢ◊✲ㄢ㢟
Holmes (1995: 167)ࡣࠊࢽ࣮ࣗࢪ࣮ࣛࣥࢻࡢⓑே࡟࠾ࡅࡿㅰ⨥ࡢゝㄒࢹ࣮ࢱࢆヲ⣽࡟᳨ウࡋࡓ࠺࠼࡛ࠊㅰ⨥ࡢཎᅉ࡜࡞ࡿࠕ↓♩⾜Ⅽ(offence)ࠖࢆ኱ࡁࡃࠊ
ࠕ1 ✵㛫(space)1ࠖࠊࠕ2 ヰ(talk)ࠖ
ࠊࠕ3 ᫬㛫(time)ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕ4 ᡤ᭷≀(possession)ࠖ
ࠊࠕ5 ♫఍࣐ࢼ࣮(social gaffes)ࠖ
ࠊࠕ6 ୙౽(inconvenience/inadequate service)ࠖ
ࠊࡢ 6 ࡘࡢ⠊␪࡟ศࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ↓♩⾜Ⅽࠖࡢ✀㢮ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᛶᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⮬ศࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀ┦ᡭ࡟୙౽࣭ᦆᐖ࣭
୙ទᛌࢆ୚࠼ࡿሙྜࠊ⮬ศࡣㅰ⨥ࡍࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊ┦ᡭࡣ୙‶ࢆឤࡌࠊ୙‶⾲᫂ࢆࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋㅰ⨥࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᛶᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୙‶⾲᫂࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊᛶᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ

1
−153−

不満表明の日中対照研究―性差を中心に―

㒌☐⹒(2007)ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ␗ᛶྠኈ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ୙‶⾲᫂ࡢ⛬ᗘࡀపࡃ࡞ࡾࠊྠᛶྠኈ࡛࠶ࢀ
ࡤࠊ୙‶⾲᫂ࡢ⛬ᗘࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋLin (2007)ࡣࠊྎ‴࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୙‶⾲᫂ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊዪᛶࡣ⏨ᛶࡼࡾ㛗࠸Ⓨヰࢆ౑࠺ഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࠊ⏨ᛶ࡜ዪᛶࡣ㢖⦾࡟౑࠺୙‶⾲᫂ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ✀㢮ࡶ␗࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙
࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ࠶ࡿ≉ᐃࡢሙ㠃࡟୙‶ࢆឤࡌࡓሙྜࠊࡑࢀࢆ┦ᡭ࡟ࢫࢺ࣮ࣞࢺ࡟ఏ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕኻ♩࡛ࡍ࣭ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࡀࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞๓⨨ࡁ⾲⌧ࢆධࢀ࡚࠿ࡽ୙‶⾲᫂ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿ㸦ᮤၿጲ 2006: 61㸧ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ୙
‶ࢆ⾲᫂ࡋࡓᚋࡢ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀಟ᚟ࢆᅗࡿࡓࡵࡢⓎヰࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ㸦ᮤၿጲ 2006: 62㸧ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㒌☐⹒(2007)࡜
Lin (2007)ࡣ୙‶⾲᫂ࡢ୺せ㒊ࡢࡳࢆ◊✲ᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Kuha (2010)ࡣⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ୙‶⾲᫂ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀឤࡌࡿ୙‶ࡢ⛬ᗘ࡟ᙳ㡪ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟
ࡋࡓࠋᅇ⟅⪅ࡢ↓♩⾜Ⅽ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୙‶ࡢ⛬ᗘ㸦௨ୗࠊ୙‶ᗘ࡜┬␎㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢุ᩿࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࡀ୙㊊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࠊゝㄒࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⌮ゎࡀ୙༑ศ࡟࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ
௨ୖࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ௨ୗࡢ◊✲ㄢ㢟ࢆࡓ࡚ࡿࠋ
(1) ୙‶⾲᫂ࡢⓎヰࡢࠕ୺せ㒊ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୙‶ᗘࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࠿㸽(2) ୙‶⾲᫂ࡢⓎヰࡢࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ࡜ࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖࡢ㒊ศ࡟ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࠿㸽4. ࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ཰㞟᪉ἲ࡜ኚᩘࡢタᐃࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ཰㞟᪉ἲᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ཰㞟᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊㄯヰ᏶ᡂㄢ㢟(Discourse Completion Task)㸦௨ୗࠊDCT ࡜┬␎㸧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠋ༠ຊ⪅ࡣࠊ୰ᅜࡢ㛗᫓୰་⸆኱Ꮫ࡜᪥ᮏࡢྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫࡢ19-23 ṓࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3 ࡛㏙࡭ࡓHolmes (1995: 167)ࡢࠕ↓♩⾜Ⅽࠖࡢศ㢮ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊሙ㠃ࢆ኱ࡁࡃ 4 ✀㢮2࡟ศࡅࠊྛ✀㢮ࡢࠕ↓♩⾜Ⅽࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ῝้ᗘࡔࡅࡀ␗࡞ࡿ 3 ࡘࡢሙ㠃ࢆタᐃࡋࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ2011 ᖺ 11 ᭶࠿ࡽ 2011 ᖺ 12 ᭶୰᪪ࡲ࡛ࠊJNS ࡣ 100 ྡ㸦⏨ᛶࡣࠊ50ྡࠊዪᛶࡣࠊ50 ྡ㸧ࠊCNS ࡣ 100 ྡ㸦⏨ᛶࡣࠊ50 ྡࠊዪᛶࡣࠊ50 ྡ㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ12 ಶࡢሙ㠃࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿ DCT ࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋᅇ⟅ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ 30 ศ⛬ᗘࡢ᫬㛫ࢆྲྀࡗࡓࠋኚᩘࡢタᐃ
 Olshtain and Weinbach (1987: 197)ࡣࠊ୙‶⾲᫂࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿኚᩘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ(1) ຊ㛵ಀࡣࠊୖࠊᑐ➼ࠊୗ (2) ぶ␯㛵ಀࡣࠊ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ேࠊ▱ࡾྜ࠸ࠊ཭㐩ࠊぶᡉ (3) ዎ⣙㛵ಀ3ࡣࠊᬯ♧ࠊ᫂♧ (4) ୙‶ᗘࡣࠊ㧗࠸ࠊప࠸ࠊࢆ࠶
ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣᛶᕪࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ぢࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࡢ௚ࡢኚᩘࢆࠊぶ␯㛵ಀࡣࠕ▱ࡾྜ࠸ࠖ࡟ࠊຊ㛵ಀࡣࠕྠࡌຊࢆ
ᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿேࠖ4࡟ࠊዎ⣙㛵ಀࡣࠕᬯ♧ⓗ5ࠖ࡟⤫ไࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ୙‶ᗘࡣ༠ຊ⪅࡟ุ᩿ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓࠋ

5. ศᯒ࡜⤖ᯝᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࢥࣝࣔࢦࣟࣇ࣭ࢫ࣑ࣝࣀࣇ᳨ᐃ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ṇつᛶࢆ᳨ᐃࡋࡓࡀࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ṇつᛶࡀᚓࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊࣀࣥࣃ࣓ࣛࢺࣜࢵࢡ᳨ᐃࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋ6ࠊ◊✲ㄢ㢟ࡢ⟅࠼࡜ࡋ࡚௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋ

5.1 ୙‶⾲᫂ࡢⓎヰࡢࠕ୺せ㒊ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୙‶ᗘࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࠿㸽5.1.1 JNS ࡜ CNS ࡢ୙‶ࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿᡭẁࡢ౑⏝ࡀ␗࡞ࡿ࠿㸽୙‶ࢆឤࡌ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊヰࡋᡭࡀఱࢆゝࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࢀࡣ୙‶⾲᫂࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᅇ⟅⪅ࡢ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ୙‶ᗘࢆࠊ
ࠕ1 ୙‶ࢆឤࡌ࡞࠸ࠊ2 ᑡࡋ୙‶ࢆឤࡌࡿࠊ3 ୰⛬ᗘ࡟୙‶ࢆឤࡌࡿࠊ4 ᙉࡃ୙‶ࢆឤࡌࡿࠖࡢ 4 ẁ㝵࡟ศࡅࠊ୙‶ࢆឤࡌࡿሙྜࡢࡳࢆ◊✲ᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋ୙‶ࡢ᭷↓ࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ⾲ 1 ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ
⾲ 1 JNS ࡜ CNS ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୙‶ࡢ᭷↓ࡢ๭ྜ㸦ᣓᘼ୰ࡢᩘᏐࡣ౑⏝㢖ᗘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୗྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸧
୙‶᭷

୙‶↓

ྜィ

JNS

91.0(2183)

9.0(217)100(2400)

CNS

89. 8(2156)

10.2(244)

100(2400)⾲ 1 ࠿ࡽࠊᮏㄪᰝ࡟タᐃࡉࢀࡓሙ㠃࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊJNS ࡜ CNS ࡀ୙‶ࢆឤࡌࡿ࡜ุ᩿ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡣ࡯ࡰ 90%࡛࠶ࡿ
2−154−第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ୙‶ࢆឤࡌ࡚ࡶ୙‶ࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ࡞࠸ྍ⬟ᛶࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ୙‶ࢆ⾲᫂ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ
ゝⴥ࡛⾲᫂ࡍࡿ࠿ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ⾜ືࢆྲྀࡿ࠿࡞࡝ࠊᅇ⟅⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ␗࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊᮏ
ࠊ
ࠕ2◊✲ࡣࡇࢀࡽࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆࠕ୙‶ࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿᡭẁࠖ࡜࿧ࡧࠊㄪᰝ⚊࡟ࠕ1 ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ఱ࠿ゝ࠺㸦௨ୗࠊࠕཱྀ㢌ࠖ࡜┬␎㸧ࠖ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ఱࡶゝࢃ࡞࠸ࡀࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢ⾜ືࢆྲྀࡿ㸦௨ୗࠊࠕ⾜ືࠖ࡜┬␎㸧ࠖࠊ
ࠕ3 ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ఱࡶゝࢃ࡞࠸ࡋࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢ
⾜ືࡶྲྀࡽ࡞࠸㸦௨ୗࠊࠕ↓⾲᫂ࠖ࡜┬␎㸧ࠖ࡜ゝ࠺ 3 ࡘࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓࠋ୙‶ᗘࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿࠕ୙‶ࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿᡭẁࠖࡢ౑⏝ࢆ⾲ 2 ࡜⾲ 3 ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ
⾲ 2 ୙‶ᗘࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿ JNS ࡜ CNS ࡢ୙‶ᡭẁࡢ౑⏝ഴྥ       ⾲ 3 JNS ࡜ CNS ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୙‶ᗘࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿ୙‶ᡭẁࡢ౑⏝ഴྥ
↓⾲᫂

⾜ື

ཱྀ㢌

ྜィ

JNS

↓⾲᫂

⾜ື

ཱྀ㢌

ྜィ

୙‶ᗘ 1J

26.9 (161)25.3 (156)48.3 (296)

100(613)୙‶ᗘ 1J

26.9 (161)25.3 (156)48.3 (296)

100(613)୙‶ᗘ 1C

15.3 (119)13.9 (108)70.8 (551)

100(778)୙‶ᗘ 2J

15.2 (100)29.1 (192)

55.7 (367)

100(659)୙‶ᗘ 2J

15.2 (100)29.1 (192)

55.7 (367)

100(659)୙‶ᗘ 3J

23.3 (212)67.4 (614)

100(911)୙‶ᗘ 2C

10.3 (79)12.8 (98)76.8 (587)

100(764)

CNS

↓⾲᫂

⾜ື

ཱྀ㢌

ྜィ

୙‶ᗘ 3J

9.3 (85)

23.3 (212)67.4 (614)

100(911)୙‶ᗘ 1C

15.3 (119)13.9 (108)70.8 (551)

100(778)୙‶ᗘ 3C

9.8 (60)

15.0 (92)75.2 (462)

100(614)୙‶ᗘ 2C

10.3 (79)12.8 (98)76.8 (587)

100(764)

JNS ྜィ

15.8 (346)

25.7 (560)

58.5 (1277)

100(2183)୙‶ᗘ 3C

9.8 (60)

15.0 (92)75.2 (462)

100(614)

CNS ྜィ

12.0 (258)

13.8 (298)74.2 (1600)

100(2156)

9.3 (85)⾲ 2 ࠿ࡽ௨ୗࡢࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
1඲యⓗ࡟ぢࡿ࡜ࠊJNS ࡣ CNS ࡼࡾࠕ↓⾲᫂ࠖ
㸦U=2261893.000, p<0.05㸧ࡢ๭ྜࡀ㧗࠸ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ୙‶ࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿሙྜࠊJNS ࡣ CNS ࡼࡾࠕ⾜ືࠖ㸦U=2074861.000, p<00.5㸧ࡢ๭ྜࡀ㧗ࡃࠊࠕཱྀ㢌ࠖ
㸦U=1983480.000,
p<0.05㸧ࡢ๭ྜࡀపࡃࠊᕪࡀ᭷ព࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2
୙‶ᗘ 1 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊJNS ࡣ CNS ࡼࡾࠕ↓⾲᫂ࠖ
㸦U=212301.500, p<0.05㸧࡜ࠕ⾜ືࠖ㸦U=210875.000 p<0.05㸧
ࠊ
CNS ࡣ JNS ࡼࡾࠕཱྀ㢌ࠖ(U=184719.500, p<0.05)ࡢ౑⏝๭ྜࡀ㧗ࡃࠊᕪࡣ᭷ព࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3
୙‶ᗘ 2 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊJNS ࡣ CNS ࡼࡾࠕ↓⾲᫂ࠖ
㸦U=239568.500, p<0.5㸧࡜ࠕ⾜ືࠖ㸦U=210685.000 p<0.05㸧
ࠊ
CNS ࡣ JNS ࡼࡾࠕཱྀ㢌ࠖ(U=198515.500, p<0.05)ࡢ౑⏝๭ྜࡀ㧗ࡃࠊᕪࡣ᭷ព࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
4
୙‶ᗘ 3 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊJNS ࡣ CNS ࡼࡾࠕ⾜ືࠖ㸦U=256499.000, p<0.05㸧
ࠊ
CNS ࡣ JNS ࡼࡾࠕཱྀ㢌ࠖ(U=257734.000,
p<0.05)ࡢ౑⏝๭ྜࡀ㧗ࡃࠊᕪࡣ᭷ព࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⾲ 3 ࠿ࡽ௨ୗࡢࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
5
JNS ࡣࠊ
ࠕ↓⾲᫂ࠖࡣ୙‶ᗘ 1 (Ȥ2(2)=79.069, p<0.05)ࠊ
ࠕ⾜ືࠖࡣ୙‶ᗘ 2 (Ȥ2(2)=6.0910 p<0.05)ࠊ
ࠕཱྀ㢌ࠖࡣ
2
୙‶ᗘ 3 (Ȥ (2)=58.164, p<0.05)࡟࠾࠸࡚㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᕪࡣ᭷ព࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
6
CNS ࡣࠊ
ࠕ↓⾲᫂ࠖࡣ୙‶ᗘ 1 (Ȥ2(2)=12.904, p<0.05)ࠊ
ࠕཱྀ㢌ࠖࡣ୙‶ᗘ 2 (Ȥ2(2)=7.750, p<0.05)࡟࠾࠸࡚㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᕪࡣ᭷ព࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊJNS ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
5.1.2 JNS ࡜ CNS ࡢ୙‶⾲᫂ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ㢮ᆺࡢ㑅ᢥࡀ␗࡞ࡿ࠿㸽
Olshtain and Weinbach (1987)ࡣ୙‶ࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭ࠿ࡽ┦ᡭ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓⓎヰ࡟ࡣࠊ౛ 1 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕ୙‶⾲᫂ࠖ࡟᭱ࡶ┤᥋ⓗ࡞㛵ࢃࡾࢆᣢࡘࡶࡢ࡜ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ඛ⾜ࡶࡋࡃࡣᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀࠊ㛤ጞ㒊(Opening)㸩
୺せ㒊㸦Head Act)㸩⤊⤖㒊(Adjunct)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
౛ 1  ሙ㠃 1㸦㡢₃ࢀ㸧JNS ⏨ ࠶ࡢࡉࠊ㡢ࡕࡻࡗ࡜₃ࢀ࡚ࡿ࠿ࡽࡉࠊࡶ࠺ࡕࡻࡗ࡜ᑠࡉࡃࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚࠸࠸࠿࡞ࠊࡈࡵࢇࡡࠋ
ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ        ࠕ୺せ㒊ࠖ                   ࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ୙‶⾲᫂ࡢⓎヰࡢࠕ୺せ㒊ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊSearle (1976 10)ࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ
࣮ࢆ኱ࡁࡃ 2 ࡘࡢ㢮ᆺ࡟ศࡅࡿࠋ
ែᗘ⾲᫂ᆺ(expressives)

ヰࡋᡭࡢឤ᝟ࡸែᗘࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿࠋ㸦ឤㅰࠊㅰ⨥ࠊ〔ࡵࠊ⚃⚟࡞࡝ࠋ㸧

⾜Ⅽせㄳᆺ(directives)

⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࠶ࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆࡉࡏࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦౫㢗ࠊᣦ♧ࠊᥦ᱌ࠊ᠓㢪࡞࡝ࠋ㸧୙‶⾲᫂ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ㢮ᆺ㸦௨ୗࠊࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ㢮ᆺ࡜┬␎㸧ࡢ౑⏝≧ἣ࠿ࡽࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕែᗘ⾲ฟᆺࠖ࡜ࠕ⾜Ⅽせㄳᆺࠖࢆ༢⊂࡟౑⏝ࡍࡿࢣ࣮ࢫ࡜ࠊ୧⪅ࢆ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡚౑⏝ࡍࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊJNS ࡜ CNS࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࠕែᗘ⾲ฟᆺࠖ
㸦௨ୗࠊࠕែᗘࠖ࡜┬␎㸧ࠊ
ࠕ⾜Ⅽせㄳᆺࠖ
㸦௨ୗࠊࠕせㄳࠖ࡜┬␎㸧ࠊࠕែᗘ⾲ฟᆺ㸩⾜Ⅽせㄳᆺࠖ㸦௨ୗࠊࠕែᗘ㸩せㄳࠖ࡜┬␎㸧ࡢ 3 ✀㢮࡟ศࡅࠊ౛ 2 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᩘ࠼ࡿࠋ
3−155−

不満表明の日中対照研究―性差を中心に―

౛ 2  ሙ㠃 1㸦㡢₃ࢀ㸧JNS ⏨ ࣊ࢵࢻࣇ࢛ࣥ࠿ࡽ㡢₃ࢀ࡚ࡿࡼࠋ ĺ ࠕែᗘࠖࡀ 1 ᅇ
ሙ㠃 1㸦㡢₃ࢀ㸧JNS ⏨ 㡢ࢆୗࡆ࡚ࠋĺࠕせㄳࠖࡀ 1 ᅇ
ሙ㠃 1㸦㡢₃ࢀ㸧 JNS ⏨࢖ࣖ࣍ࣥ࠿ࡽ㡢ࡀࡶࢀ࡚ࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠊࡶ࠺ᑡࡋ㡢㔞ࢆୗࡆ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡅࡿ࡜࠶ࡾࡀࡓ࠸࡛ࡍࠋ
ĺࠕែᗘ㸩せㄳࠖࡀ1 ᅇࠕែᗘࠖ                 ࠕせㄳࠖࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ୙‶ᗘࡈ࡜࡟ࠊJNS ࡜ CNS ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୙‶⾲᫂ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ㢮ᆺࡢ౑⏝ഴྥࢆ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ
⾲ 4 ୙‶ᗘࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿ JNS ࡜ CNS ࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮       ⾲ 5 JNS ࡜ CNS ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୙‶ᗘࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮         ࡢ㢮ᆺࡢ౑⏝ഴྥ                           ࡢ㢮ᆺࡢ౑⏝ഴྥ
ែᗘ

せㄳ

ែᗘ㸩せㄳ

ྜィ

JNS

ែᗘ

୙‶ᗘ 1J

77.4 (229)

5.7 (17)16.9 (50)100(296)୙‶ᗘ 1J

77.4 (229)

5.7 (17)16.9 (50)100(296)୙‶ᗘ 1C59.2 (326)13.2 (73)27.6 (152)

100(551)୙‶ᗘ 2J

76.6 (281)

7.1 (26)

16.3 (60)100(367)୙‶ᗘ 2J

76.6 (281)

7.1 (26)

16.3 (60)100(367)୙‶ᗘ 3J

77.9 (478)

6.7 (41)15.5 (95)

100(614)୙‶ᗘ 2C

55.5 (326)12.6 (74)31.9 (187)

100(587)

CNS

ែᗘ

せㄳ

୙‶ᗘ 3J

77.9 (478)

6.7 (41)15.5 (95)

100(614)୙‶ᗘ 1C59.2 (326)13.2 (73)27.6 (152)

100(551)୙‶ᗘ 3C

61.0 (282)13.0 (60)26.0 (120)

100(462)୙‶ᗘ 2C

55.5 (326)12.6 (74)31.9 (187)

100(587)

JNS ྜィ

77.4 (988)

6.6 (84)

16.1 (205)100(1277)୙‶ᗘ 3C

61.0 (282)13.0 (60)26.0 (120)

100(462)

CNS ྜィ

58.4 (934)12.9 (207)28.7 (459)

100(1600)

せㄳ

ែᗘ㸩せㄳ

ែᗘ㸩せㄳ

ྜィ

ྜィ

 ⾲ 4 ࡜⾲ 5 ࠿ࡽ௨ୗࡢࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
1
JNS ࡣ CNS ࡼࡾࠕែᗘࠖ
㸦U=828359.000, P<0.05㸧ࡢ౑⏝๭ྜࡀ㧗ࡃ࡚ࠊCNS ࡣ JNS ࡼࡾࠕせㄳࠖ
㸦U=956630.000, P<0.05㸧࡜ࠕែᗘ㸩せㄳࠖ
㸦U=892528.000, P<0.05㸧ࡢ౑⏝๭ྜࡀ㧗ࡃࠊᕪࡣ᭷ព࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2
୙‶ᗘ 1 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊJNS ࡣ CNS ࡼࡾࠕែᗘࠖ
㸦U=66982.500, p<0.05㸧
ࠊCNS ࡣ JNS ࡼࡾࠕせㄳࠖ(U=75427.500,
p<0.05)࡜ࠕែᗘ㸩せㄳࠖ(U=72872.000, p<0.05)ࡢ౑⏝๭ྜࡀ㧗ࡃࠊᕪࡣ᭷ព࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3
୙‶ᗘ 2 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊJNS ࡣ CNS ࡼࡾࠕែᗘࠖ㸦U=85062.000, p<0.05㸧
ࠊ
CNS ࡣ JNS ࡼࡾࠕせㄳࠖ(U=101766.500,
p<0.05)࡜ࠕែᗘ㸩せㄳࠖ(U=91010.000, p<0.05)ࡢ౑⏝๭ྜࡀ㧗ࡃࠊᕪࡣ᭷ព࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
4
୙‶ᗘ 3 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊJNS ࡣ CNS ࡼࡾࠕែᗘࠖ㸦U=117990.000, p<0.05㸧
ࠊ
CNS ࡣ JNS ࡼࡾࠕせㄳࠖ(U=132885.500,
p<0.05)࡜ࠕែᗘ㸩せㄳࠖ(U=126939.000, p<0.05)ࡢ౑⏝๭ྜࡀ㧗ࡃࠊᕪࡣ᭷ព࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
5
JNS ࡜ CNS ࡢ୙‶ᗘࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿ୙‶⾲᫂ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ㢮ᆺࡢ౑⏝๭ྜࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡀࠊ୧᪉࡜ࡶ᭷ពᕪࡀぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
5.1 ࡛ࠊJNS ࡜ CNS ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୙‶ᗘࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿ୙‶⾲᫂ࡍࡿᡭẁ࡜ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ㢮ᆺࡢ౑⏝๭ྜ࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚㏙࡭ࡓࠋ඲యⓗ࡟ JNS ࡣ CNS ࡼࡾ୙‶ࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ୙‶ࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊJNSࡣ CNS ࡼࡾゝⴥ࡛⾲᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ୙‶ᗘࡀ㧗࠸࡯࡝ࠊJNS ࡣゝⴥ࡛୙‶⾲᫂ࢆࡍࡿ๭ྜࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊCNS ࡣ୰⛬ᗘࢆឤࡌࡿሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊゝⴥ࡛୙‶⾲᫂ࢆࡍࡿ๭ྜࡀ᭱ࡶ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

5.2 ୙‶⾲᫂ࡢⓎヰࡢࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ࡜ࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖࡢ㒊ศ࡟ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࠿㸽ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊOlshtain and Weinbach (1987)ࡢࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ࡜ࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪥୰ᕪ࡜ᛶᕪ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿࠋ
5.2.1 ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ JNS ࡜ CNS ࡢ≉ᚩࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⾲⌧㢮ᆺࡣࠕ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࠖࠕᣵᣜ⾲⌧ࠖ
ࠕὀពႏ㉳⾲⌧ࠖࠕㅰ⨥⾲⌧ࠖ
ࠕࡑࡢ௚ࠖࡢ 5 ✀㢮࡟ศࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋJNS ࡜ CNS ࡟࠾ࡅࡿྛ⾲⌧㢮ᆺࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࢆ⾲ 6 ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ
⾲ 6 ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖࡢ⾲⌧㢮ᆺ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ JNS ࡜ CNS ࡢ౑⏝ഴྥ (%)࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧

ᣵᣜ⾲⌧ὀពႏ㉳⾲⌧

ㅰ⨥⾲⌧

ࡑࡢ௚⾲⌧

JNS

0 (0)

4.0 (10)26.6 (67)68.7 (173)

0.8 (2)100(252)

CNS

69.1 (520)

7.2 (54)

5.6 (42)17.6 (132)

0.5 (4)100(752)

⾲ 6 ࠿ࡽ௨ୗࡢࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
4
−156−

ྜィ

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

1 ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊJNS ࡢ㛤ጞ㒊ࡢ౑⏝ࡣ CNS ࡼࡾ඲యⓗ࡟ᑡ࡞࠸ࠋ
2 ࠕ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊCNS ࡣ᭱ࡶ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊJNS ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ3 ࠕㅰ⨥⾲⌧ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊJNS ࡣ CNS ࡼࡾ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿ(U=35522.000, p<0.05)ࠋ
4 ࠕὀពႏ㉳⾲⌧ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊJNS ࡣ CNS ࡼࡾ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿ(U=48133.000, p<0.05)ࠋ
5 ࠕᣵᣜ⾲⌧ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊCNS ࡣ JNS ࡼࡾ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿ(U=60081.500,p<0.05)ࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊCNS ࡢࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ࡟ࡣࠊࠕㅰ⨥⾲⌧㸩ㅰ⨥⾲⌧ нྭ᜿ᙍǃᢃᢠал㸦ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜࠾㑧㨱ࡋࡲࡍ㸧ࠖࠊࠕ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧㸩ㅰ⨥⾲⌧ ਼ᆖǃнྭ᜿ᙍ㸦ྠ❆ࠊࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇ㸧ࠖࠊࠕὀពႏ㉳⾲⌧㸩࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ லǃ㖾ྣ㸦࠶ࡢࠊࡁࢀ࠸࡞
ࠖࠊࠕᣵᣜ⾲⌧㸩࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ ᐵକǃ֐ྭ㸦᱁ዲ࠸࠸⏨ࠊࡇࢇ࡟ࡕࡣ㸧ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞」ᩘࡢ⾲⌧㢮ᆺ㸦౛ 3㸧ࡀ㐃⥆ⓗ࡟⏝࠾Ꮉࡉࢇ㸧࠸ࡽࢀࡿ⌧㇟(15.3%)ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊJNS ࡢࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ࡟ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
౛ 3  ሙ㠃 3㸦ᖍ 2㸧CNS ⏨ уླᝅᙓȽଛԢǃᡁаⴤ൘䘉њսᆀᆖҐҶǃ֐ⴻᡁⲴҖ䘈൘䘉઒ǃ哫✖䇙алྭੇ˛ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ       ࠕែᗘࠖ               ࠕᨵၿࠖнྭ᜿ᙍǃକԜǃᡁ аⴤ ൘ 䘉њ սᆀ ᆖҐ Ҷǃ ֐ ⴻ ᡁ Ⲵ Җ 䘈ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇ ࠾඗ࡉࢇ  ⚾  ࡎࡗ࡜  ࡛  ࡇࡢ   ᖍ   ຮᙉ  ࡛࠶ࡿ ࠶࡞ࡓ ぢࡿ  ⚾   ࡢ  ᮏ  ࡲࡓ൘ 䘉 ઒ǃ 哫✖  䇙 ал ྭ ੇ˛࡟  ࡇࡇ ࡚࠸ࡿ ᡭᩘࢆ࠿ࡅࡿ  ㆡࡿ ࡕࡻࡗ࡜ ࡼ࠸ ␲ၥ  ࡈࡵࢇࠊ࠾඗ࡉࢇࠋ൅ࡣࡎࡗ࡜ࡇࡢᖍ࡛ຮᙉࡋ࡚ࡓࢇࡔࠋ࡯ࡽࠊᮏࡀࡲࡔ⨨࠸࡚࠶ࡿ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࠋࡕࡻࡗ࡜ㆡࡗ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚࠸࠸㸽5.2.1.1 ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ JNS ࡢ⏨ዪᕪ
JNS ࡀࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ࡟⏝࠸ࡿ⾲⌧㢮ᆺࡣ୺࡟ࠕㅰ⨥⾲⌧ࠖ࡜ࠕὀពႏ㉳࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋJNS ࡢࠕㅰ⨥⾲⌧ࠖ࡟ࡣࠊ
ࠕࡍ
ࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖ
ࠕࡈࡵࢇࠖ
ࠕᝏ࠸ࠖࡢ 3 ✀㢮ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕὀពႏ㉳ࠖ࡟ࡣࠊ⏨ᛶࡣࠕ࠶ࡢ࣭࠶ࡢࡉࠖ
ࠕ࡞࠶ࠖ࡞࡝ዪᛶࡣࠕࡡ࠼࣭ࡡ࠼ࡡ࠼ࠖ
ࠕ࠶ࡢ࣭࠶ࡢࡉࠖ࡞࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㛫ᢞモࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡢࡀᬑ㏻࡛࠶ࡿࠋJNS ࡟࠾ࡅࡿྛ⾲⌧㢮ᆺࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࢆ⾲ 7 ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ
⾲ 7 JNS ࡀࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ࡟⏝࠸ࡿ⾲⌧㢮ᆺࡢ⏨ዪᕪ䉒⨥⾲⌧ὀពႏ㉳⾲⌧

ᣵᣜ⾲⌧

ࡑࡢ௚

ྜィ

JNS ⏨

51.4 (57)37.8 (42)9.0 (10)

1.8 (2)100(111)

JNS ዪ

82.3 (116)17.1 (25)

0 (0)

0 (0)

100(141)⏨ᛶ࡜ዪᛶࡣඹ࡟ࠊ
ࠕㅰ⨥⾲⌧ࠖࢆ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸࡚࠾ࡾࠊዪᛶࡣ⏨ᛶࡼࡾ㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠸(U=3980.500, p<0.05)ࠋ
ࠕὀពႏ㉳⾲⌧ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⏨ᛶࡣዪᛶࡼࡾ㢖ᗘࡀ㧗ࡃ(U=4208.500, p<0.05)ࠊ
ࠕᣵᣜ⾲⌧ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ౛ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⏨ᛶࡢࡳ⏝࠸ࡿ⌧㇟ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ౛ 4  ሙ㠃 4㸦ᖍ 1  ࿘ࡾ࡟✵ᖍࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ㸧JNS ⏨ ࠾ࡗࡍࠊࡇࡇᮏᙜࡣᗙࡗ࡚ࡓࢇࡔࡅ࡝ࠊ௚࡟ࡶ✵࠸࡚ࡿᖍ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࠸࠸ࡼࠋ                         ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ    ࠕែᗘࠖࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖࠕὀពႏ㉳⾲⌧ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ௨ୗࡢ౛ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕ࡞࠶ࠖ࡜ࠕ࠾࠸ࠖࡣ⏨ᛶࡢࡳࡀ౑࠸ࠊዪᛶࡣ౑ࢃ࡞࠸ࠊ
ࠕࡡ࠼࣭ࡡ࠼ࡡ࠼ࠖࡣዪᛶࡢࡳࡀ౑࠸ࠊ⏨ᛶࡣ౑ࢃ࡞࠸ࠊ
ࠕ࠶ࡢ࣭࠶ࡢࡉࠖ࡜ࠕ䛒䛑䡚䞉䛒䞊䞉䛒ࠖࡣ⏨ዪඹ࡟⏝࠸ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺⌧㇟ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ౛ 5  ሙ㠃 11(ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ 2 ༙ศࡄࡽ࠸⤊࠼ࡓ࣏࣮ࣞࢺࡢࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡀ↓ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓሙྜࠋ)JNS ⏨ ࡞࠶ࠊ࣏࣮ࣞࢺࡀ࡞࠸ࢇࡔࡅ࡝ࠊ▱ࡽࢇ㸽        ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ       ࠕែᗘࠖሙ㠃 1㸦୙౽ 1 㡢₃ࢀ㸧JNS ዪ ࡡ࠼ࡡ࠼ࠊࡶ࠺ࡕࡻࡗ࡜㡢ࢆୗࡆ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚ࡶ࠸࠸࡛ࡍ࠿㸽ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ          ࠕせㄳࠖ ࠕㅰ⨥⾲⌧ࠖࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⏨ᛶࡣዪᛶࡼࡾࠕࡈࡵࢇࠖ࡜ࠕᝏ࠸ࠖࢆ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ዪᛶࡣ⏨ᛶࡼࡾࠕࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖࢆ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡿࠋ⏨ᛶࡣࠕࡈࡵࢇࠖࡢ౑⏝๭ྜࡀࠕࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖ࡜ࠕᝏ࠸ࠖࡢ౑
⏝๭ྜࡼࡾ㧗ࡃࠊዪᛶࡣࠕࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠖࡢ౑⏝๭ྜࡀࠕࡈࡵࢇࠖ࡜ࠕᝏ࠸ࠖࡢ౑⏝๭ྜࡼࡾ㧗࠸ࠋ
5−157−

不満表明の日中対照研究―性差を中心に―

౛ 6  ሙ㠃 3㸦୙౽ 3 㟁ヰ㸧JNS ዪ ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠊ㐪࠺࡜ࡇࢁ࡛ヰࡋ࡚ࡃࢀࡲࡏࢇ࠿㸽                   ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ      ࠕせㄳࠖ

5.2.1.2 ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ CNS ࡢ⏨ዪᕪ
CNS ࡢ㛤ጞ㒊࡟ࡣࠊ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࡢࠕକԜ࣭ဪ‫ݯ‬Ԝ ௚ே࡟ᑐࡍࡿᩗពࢆྵࢇࡔ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࠖ
ࠕབྷက ࠾ጜࡉࢇࠖ
ࠕབྷକ ࠾඗ࡉࢇࠖ
ࠕ਼ᆖ Ꮫ཭࣭ྠ❆ࠖࠕ㖾ྣ ࡁࢀ࠸࡞ዪᛶࠖ
ࠕᐵକ ࠿ࡗࡇ࠺ࡀࡼ࠸⏨ᛶࠖࠊㅰ⨥⾲⌧ࡢࠕ୙
ዲពᛮ ࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸࣭⏦ࡋヂ࡞࠸࣭ࡍࡲ࡞࠸ࠖ
ࠕሩн䎧 ࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸࣭⏦ࡋヂ࡞࠸࣭ࡍࡲ࡞࠸ࠖ
ࠕᢃᢠал ࡕࡻࡗ࡜࠾㑧㨱ࡍࡿࠖࠊᣵᣜ⾲⌧ࡢࠕ֐ྭ ࡇࢇ࡟ࡕࡣࠖ
ࠊࠕὀពႏ㉳⾲⌧ࠖࡢࠕல(wei)ǃఘ(hai)ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞㛫ᢞモࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋCNS ࡟࠾ࡅࡿྛ⾲⌧㢮ᆺࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࢆ⾲ 8 ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ
⾲ 8 CNS ࡀࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ࡟⏝࠸ࡿ⾲⌧㢮ᆺࡢ⏨ዪᕪ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ㅰ⨥⾲⌧ᣵᣜ⾲⌧ὀពႏ㉳⾲⌧

඼௚

ྜィ

CNS ዪ

69.3 (255)

18.5 (68)

7.3 (27)

4.3 (16)0.5 (2)100(368)

CNS ⏨69.0 (265)16.7 (64)

7.3 (27)

6.8 (26)

0.5 (2)100(384)

CNS ࡢ⏨ዪ࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ
ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࠖࢆ㢖⦾࡟౑⏝ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⏨ᛶ࡜ዪᛶࡢࠕ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࠖࠕㅰ⨥⾲⌧ࠖ
ࠕᣵᣜ⾲⌧ࠖ
ࠕࡑࡢ௚ࠖࡢ౑⏝๭ྜࡣ࡯ࡰྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕὀពႏ㉳⾲⌧ࠖࡢ౑⏝๭ྜࡣዪᛶࡼࡾ⏨ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ᭷ពᕪࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
㛤ጞ㒊࡟ࠕ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧ࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ㝿ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᛶูࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿ≉ᚩࡶぢࡽࢀࡿ㸦᭷ពᕪࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ㸧ࠋ
1⏨ᛶࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕକԜ ௚ே࡟ᑐࡍࡿᩗពࢆྵࢇࡔ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࠖ
ࠕ਼ᆖ Ꮫ཭࣭ྠ❆ࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ዪᛶࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕ㖾ྣ ࡁࢀ࠸࡞ዪᛶࠖ
ࠕ਼ᆖ Ꮫ཭࣭ྠ❆ࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ਼ᆖ Ꮫ཭࣭ྠ❆ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢᛶูࢆၥࢃࡎ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ2ዪᛶࡣ⏨ᛶࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕབྷକ ࠾඗ࡉࢇࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࠊዪᛶࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕབྷက ࠾ጜࡉࢇࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ⏨ᛶࡣࡇࢀࡽࡢ⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸࡞࠸ࠋ3⏨ᛶࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
ዪᛶࡢヰࡋᡭࡣ⏨ᛶࡢヰࡋᡭࡼࡾࠕᐵକ ࠿ࡗࡇ࠺ࡀࡼ࠸⏨ᛶࠖࢆ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡿࠋ
ዪᛶࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⏨ᛶࡢヰࡋᡭࡣዪᛶࡢヰࡋᡭࡼࡾࠕ㖾ྣ ࡁࢀ࠸࡞ዪᛶࠖࢆ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡿࠋ
4ࠕକԜ࣭ဪ‫ݯ‬Ԝ ௚ே࡟ᑐࡍࡿᩗពࢆྵࢇࡔ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࠖ࡜ゝ࠺⾲⌧ࡣ⏨ᛶࡢヰࡋᡭࡀዪᛶࡢヰࡋᡭࡼࡾ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡿࠋ  ౛ 7  ሙ㠃7㸦㐜้ 2 ༙ศࡄࡽ࠸⤊ࢃࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ࠊ┦ᡭࡀ᮶ࡓሙྜࠋ㸧
CNS ዪ   ཝဆ,  ֐ᒢӰѸ৫Ҷ˛䘉Ѹᲊ᡽ᶕǄ            ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ   ࠕែᗘࠖ኱  ጠ,  ఼  ᖸ ொ஄ ཤ ஢㸽䘉஄ ᫽ ᡯ  ᮶ࠋ኱ࡁ࠸ ࠾ጜࡉࢇࠊ ࠶࡞ࡓ   ࡍࡿ ఱ     ࠸ࡃ ᏶஢㸽 ࡇࢇ࡞࡟ 㐜࠸ ࡸࡗ࡜ ᮶ࡿࠋ  ࠾ጜࡉࢇࠊఱࢆࡋ࡚ࡓࡢ㸽ࡇࢇ࡞࡟㐜ࢀࡿ࡞ࢇ࡚ࠋ      ሙ㠃11㸦ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ 2 ༙ศࡄࡽ࠸⤊࠼ࡓ࣏࣮ࣞࢺࡢࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡀ↓ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓሙྜࠋ
㸧
CNS ዪ    ੂᆜࠊ఼ࡊᡯ᭷┳฿ᡃⓗసъ஢ੇ㸽           ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ   ࠕែᗘࠖྠᏛࠊ  ఼  ࡊᡯ ᭷ ┳ ฿ ᡃ ⓗ  సъ ஢   ੇ㸽ྠ❆࣭Ꮫ཭   ࠶࡞ࡓ  ࡉࡗࡁ  ࠶ࡿ ぢࡿ ⮳ࡿ  ⚾  ࡢ   ㄢ㢟   ᏶஢    ␲ၥ  ࡡ࠼ࠊࡉࡗࡁ⚾ࡢㄢ㢟ࢆぢࡓ㸽ሙ㠃 2㸦㡢₃ࢀ㸧CNS ⏨ 47Sĺ⏨ H ଛԢǃਟԕᢺ֐Ⲵ㙣ᵪሿ⛩༠ੇ˛                 ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ   ࠕせㄳࠖକԜǃ ਟԕ ᢺ ֐  Ⲵ 㙣ᵪ  ሿ  ⛩  ༠ ੇ˛࠾඗ࡉࢇ  ࡛ࡁࡿ  ࢆ  ࠶࡞ࡓ  ࡢ ࣊ࢵࢺࣇ࢛ࣥ ᑠࡉ࠸ ࡕࡻࡗ࡜  㡢㔞  ␲ၥ  ࠾඗ࡉࢇࠊ࣊ࢵࢻࣇ࢛ࣥࡢ㡢㔞ࢆࡕࡻࡗ࡜ୗࡆ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡿ㸽ࠕㅰ⨥⾲⌧ࠖ࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡢᛶูࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿ≉ᚩࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊヰࡋᡭࡢᛶูࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ౑⏝⾲⌧ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࠋዪᛶࡢヰࡋᡭࡣ⏨ᛶࡢヰࡋᡭࡼࡾࠕнྭ᜿ᙍ ࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸࣭⏦ࡋヂ࡞࠸࣭ࡍࡲ࡞࠸ࠖࢆ㢖⦾࡟౑࠸ࠊ⏨ᛶࡢヰࡋᡭࡣዪᛶࡢヰࡋᡭࡼࡾࠕሩн䎧 ࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸࣭⏦ࡋヂ࡞࠸࣭ࡍࡲ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ࠕᢃᢠал ࡕࡻࡗ࡜࠾㑧6−158−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

㨱ࡍࡿࠖࢆ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡿ㸦᭷ពᕪࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ㸧ࠋ౛ 8  ሙ㠃 2㸦㰯ḷ㸧CNS ዪ  уླᝅᙓǃਟԕн㾱ବḷੇ˛                  ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ  ࠕせㄳࠖн  ྭ  ᜿ᙍǃ ਟԕ  н  㾱    ବⅼ ੇ˛࡞࠸   ࡼ࠸   ᚰᣢࡕ  ࡛ࡁࡿ    ࡞࠸  ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ   㰯ḷ  ␲ၥ  ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࠋ㰯ḷࢆࡸࡵ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚࠸࠸㸽ሙ㠃 3㸦㟁ヰ㸧CNS ⏨  ᢉᢦжсǃᡁԜ䘉䗩к㠚Ґ઒ǃਟԕࡠ䛓䗩୐ੇ˛                ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ  ࠕែᗘࠖ     ࠕせㄳࠖᢃᢠ алǃ ᡁ Ԝ 䘉䗩  к 㠚Ґ ઒ǃ ਟԕ ࡠ 䛓䗩 ୐  ੇ˛㑧㨱ࡍࡿ ࡕࡻࡗ࡜  ⚾  ࡓࡕ ࡇࡢ࡬ࢇ  ࡍࡿ  ⮬⩦ ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ࡛ࡁࡿ  ⮳ࡿ  ࡑࡢ㎶ ࡋࡷ࡭ࡿ  ␲ၥ  ࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࡈࡵࢇࠋ൅ࡽࡇࡇ࡛⮬⩦ࡋ࡚ࡿࢇ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ㎶࡟⛣ືࡋ࡚ࠊႅࡗ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚࠸࠸㸽

5.2.2 ࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ≉ᚩ ࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖ࡟⏝࠸ࡿ⾲⌧ࡣࠕチྍࢆồࡵࡿࠖࠕឤㅰ⾲⌧ࠖ
ࠕㅰ⨥⾲⌧ࠖࡢ 3 ✀㢮࡟ศࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋCNS ࡣ 3 ✀㢮ࡢ⾲⌧ࡍ࡭࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊJNS ࡣࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࠋJNS ࡢዪᛶࡣࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖ࡟ࠕࡈࡵ
ࢇࠖᆺࡢㅰ⨥⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⏨ᛶࡣࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖ࡟ࠕᝏ࠸ࠖ࡜ゝ࠺⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋJNS ࡢࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖ࡟ࡣࠕឤㅰࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡀぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊࠕチྍࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡣࠕ౫㢗⾲⌧ࠖ࡟కࡗ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ⌧㇟ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿ㸦౛
9 ࢆཧ↷㸧
ࠋ
౛ 9  ሙ㠃 6㸦ᖍ 3 ࿘ࡾࢆぢࡿ㝈ࡾ✵ᖍࡣ࡞࠸ሙྜࠋ㸧
JNS ዪ ࡇࡢᖍ౑ࡗ࡚ࡓࡢ࡛ࠊ࠿ࢃࡗ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚ࡶ࠸࠸࡛ࡍ࠿㸽  ࠕែᗘࠖ         ࠕせㄳࠖ

CNS ࡣࠊࠕチྍࢆồࡵࡿࠖ࡟ࡣࠕྭੇ㸽 ࠸࠸࡛ࡍ࠿ࠖ
ࠕਟԕੇ㸽 ࡛ࡁࡲࡍ࠿ࠖ
ࠕ㹼ੇ㸽 ࠸࠸࡛ࡍ࠿ࠖࡢࡼ
࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕឤㅰ⾲⌧ࠖ࡟ࡣࠕ䉒䉒 ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠖ
ࠕ䉒䉒ਸ֌ ࡈ༠ຊࠊ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺
ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕㅰ⨥⾲⌧ࠖ࡟ࡣࠕнྭ᜿ᙍ ࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸࣭ࡍࡲ࡞࠸࣭⏦ࡋヂ࡞࠸ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྛ⾲⌧㢮ᆺ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⏨ዪᕪࢆ⾲ 9 ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ
⾲ 9 CNS ࡀࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖ࡟⏝࠸ࡿ⾲⌧㢮ᆺࡢ⏨ዪᕪチྍࢆồࡵࡿ

ㅰ⨥⾲⌧

ࡑࡢ௚

CNS ⏨

ឤㅰ⾲⌧
45.1 (21)41.2 (23)

9.8 (5)3.9 (2)

ྜィ
51

CNS ዪ

55.6 (11)20.4 (30)

14.8 (8)9.3 (5)54

 CNS ࡢ⏨ዪ࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ
ࠕឤㅰࠖĺࠕチྍࠖĺࠕㅰ⨥ࠖࡢ㡰࡟౑⏝๭ྜࡀపࡃ࡞ࡿഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋዪᛶࡣ⏨ᛶࡼࡾࠕឤㅰࠖ࡜ࠕㅰ⨥ࠖࢆ㢖⦾࡟౑⏝ࡋࠊ⏨ᛶࡣዪᛶࡼࡾࠕチྍࠖࢆ㢖⦾࡟౑⏝ࡍࡿ㸦᭷ពᕪࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ㸧ࠋ౛ 10  ሙ㠃 2㸦㰯ḷ㸧CNS ዪ 䘉ս㖾ྣǃਟԕሿ⛩༠ੇ˛䉘䉘Ⱦ                ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ ࠕせㄳࠖ  ࠕ⤊⤖㒊 ឤㅰࠖ䘉఩ ⨾  ዪࠊ ྍ௨  ᑠ   Ⅼ  ኌ ੇ㸽 䉒䉒ࡇࡢ  ⨾ࡋ࠸   ዪᛶ    ࡛ࡁࡿ   ᑠࡉ࠸   ࡕࡻࡗ࡜   㡢 ␲ၥ    ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺  ࠾ጜࡉࢇࠊኌࡕࡻࡗ࡜ᑠࡉࡃࡋ࡚ࡃࢀࡿ㸽࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࠋ
ሙ㠃 3㸦㟁ヰ㸧CNS ⏨ ྠᏛࠊ䈧఼ᦒ୭ᆅ᪉᥋⭥䈍ࠊ ླ੍㸽              ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ ࠕせㄳࠖ   ࠕ⤊⤖㒊㸸チྍ਼ࠖᆖǃ    䈧    ֐    ᦒ     њ  ൠᯩ   ᧕   ⭥䈍ǃ   ྭ  ੇ˛ྠ❆࣭Ꮫ཭ ࡃࡔࡉ࠸  ࠶࡞ࡓ  ኚ࠼ࡿ   ಶ  ሙᡤ   ฟࡿ  㟁ヰ    ࡼ࠸   ␲ၥ ࡡ࠼ࠊሙᡤࢆኚ࠼࡚㟁ヰࡋ࡚ࡃࢀࡲࡏࢇ࠿㸽6. ࡲ࡜ࡵ ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊࡲࡎࠊ୙‶ᗘࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ୙‶ࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿᡭẁࠊཱྀ㢌࡛୙‶ࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡿ୙‶⾲᫂ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ㢮ᆺࢆศᯒࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ୙‶⾲᫂ࡢࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ࡜ࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖ࡟⏝࠸ࡿ⾲⌧㢮ᆺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭ
7−159−

不満表明の日中対照研究―性差を中心に―ཬࡧ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᛶูࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿ≉ᚩࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
1 ୙‶ᗘࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ୙‶ࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿᡭẁࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀ␗࡞ࡿࠋ୙‶ᗘࢆ୙‶⾲᫂࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿኚᩘ࡜
ࡋ࡚⪃៖ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2 ࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ࡜ࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊJNS ࡜ CNS ࡣ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡿ⾲⌧㢮ᆺࡀ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊCNS ࡣ JNS ࡼࡾከᵝ࡞⾲⌧㢮ᆺࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊJNS ࡣࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖࡼࡾࠕືモ㸩ᤵཷືモࠖࡢᙧࢆ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
᪥ᮏே୰ᅜㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡜୰ᅜே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ┠ᶆゝㄒ࡛୙‶ࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊࠕ㛤ጞ㒊ࠖ࡜ࠕ⤊⤖㒊ࠖࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ㐪࿴ឤࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࠙ὀࠚ1㸬ࠕ✵㛫ࠖࡢ౛ࡣࠊே࡟ࡪࡘ࠿ࡿࠊิ࡟๭ࡾ㎸ࡴࠋࠕヰࠖࡢ౛ࡣࠊヰࢆࡉ࠼ࡂࡿࠊ㛗ࡃヰࡋࡍࡂࡿࠋ
ࠕ᫬㛫ࠖࡢ౛ࡣࠊேࢆᚅࡓ
ࡏࡿࠊ᫬㛫ࢆ࠿ࡅࡍࡂࡿࠋ
ࠕᡤ᭷≀ࠖࡢ౛ࡣࠊேࡢࡶࡢࢆയࡘࡅࡿࠊ࡞ࡃࡍࠋ
ࠕ♫఍࣐ࢼ࣮ࠖࡢ౛ࡣࠊࢤࢵࣉࠊတࠊ୙㐺ษ࡟➗
࠺ࠋࠕ୙౽ࠖࡢ౛ࡣࠊ㛫㐪ࡗࡓၟရࢆΏࡍࠋ
2㸬
ࠕ୙౽ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕ✵㛫ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕ᫬㛫ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕᡤ᭷≀ࠖࡢ 4 ✀㢮࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3㸬ἲᚊࡸ࣮ࣝࣝ࡞࡝࡛᫂♧ⓗ࡟タᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊྠࡌ࣐ࣥࢩࣙࣥ࡟ఫࢇ࡛࠸ࡿேࡓࡕ࡟ᑐ
ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕኪ 10 ᫬௨㝆Ὑ℆ᶵࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ධᒃ๓ࡢዎ⣙᭩࡟᭩࠸࡚࠶ࡿሙྜࡣ᫂♧ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ4㸬㠃㆑ࡣ࠶ࡿࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠊ཭ே࡜ࡣ࿧࡭࡞࠸⛬ᗘࡢぶࡋࡉࡢྠᏛᖺࡢே࡟⤫ไࡍࡿࠋ
5㸬▱ࡾྜ࠸ࡢ㛫࡛㉳ࡇࡗࡓಶேⓗ࡞⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊᬯ♧ⓗ࡟ࡍࡿࠋ6㸬௨ୗࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ᭷ពᕪࡢ᳨ᐃ࡟ࡣ p=0.05 ࢆ㑅ࡧࠊ2 ಶࡢ⊂❧ࡋࡓᶆᮏࡢሙྜࡣ࣐࣭ࣥ࣍࢖ࢵࢺࢽ࣮ࡢ᳨ᐃࢆ⏝࠸ࠊ3 ಶ௨ୖࡢ⊂❧ࡋࡓᶆᮏࡢሙྜࡣࢡࣛࢫ࣭࢛࢝ࣝ࢘ࣜࢫ᳨ᐃࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕࠖࢆࡘࡅ࡚࠸ࡿᩘᏐࡣࡶ࠺୍᪉ࡼࡾ౑⏝๭ྜࡀ㧗࠸᪉࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠙ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ࠚ
Boxer, D. 1993. “Social Distance and Speech Behavior: The Case of Indirect Complaints.” Journal of Pragmatics 19: 2,
103-125.
ึ㮵㔝 㜿ࢀ࣭⇃ྲྀ㇂ ဴኵ࣭⸨᳃ ᘯᏊ㸬1996㸬ࠕ୙‶⾲᫂ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ౑⏝ഴྥ̿᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢẚ㍑̿ࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘ࠊ88ࠊ128-139㸬
Holmes, J. 1995. Women, Men and Politeness. New York: Longman.
ᮤ ၿጲ㸬2006㸬ࠕ᪥㡑ࡢࠗ୙‶⾲᫂࠘࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹ̿᪥ᮏேᏛ⏕࡜㡑ᅜேᏛ⏕ࡢẚ㍑ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚̿ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠗ♫఍ゝㄒ
⛉Ꮫ࠘
ࠊ8: 2ࠊ 53-64.
㒌 ☐⹒㸬2007㸬ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ୙‶⾲᫂ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡍせᅉ̿♫఍ⓗ࣭ᩥ໬ⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠗ᫂ᾏ᪥ᮏ
ㄒ࠘
ࠊ12ࠊ51-59㸬
Kuha, M. 2003. “Perceived Seriousness of Offense: The Ignored Extraneous Variable.” Journal of Pragmatics 35:12,
1803-1821.
Lin, Y. H. 2007. “Making Complaints in Chinese: Gender Differences and the Sociolinguistic Universal.” In M.Y. Tseng (ed.)
Exploring Language at the Interface, 41-76. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Olshtain, E. and L. Weinbach 1987. “Complaints: A Study of Speech Act Behavior among Native and Nonnative Speakers of
Hebrew.” In J. Verschueren and M. Bertucelli-Papi (eds.) The Pragmatic Perspective, 195-208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Searle, J. R. 1976. “A classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 5:1, 1-23.

1ࠕ✵㛫ࠖࡢ౛ ே࡟ࡪࡘ࠿ࡿࠊิ࡟๭ࡾ㎸ࡴࠋࠕヰࠖࡢ౛ ヰࢆࡉ࠼ࡂࡿࠊ㛗ࡃヰࡋࡍࡂࡿࠋ
ࠕ᫬㛫ࠖࡢ౛ ேࢆᚅࡓࡏࡿࠊ᫬㛫ࢆ࠿ࡅࡍࡂࡿࠋ
ࠕᡤ᭷≀ࠖࡢ౛ ேࡢࡶࡢࢆയࡘࡅࡿࠊ࡞ࡃࡍࠋ
ࠕ♫఍࣐ࢼ࣮ࠖࡢ౛ ࢤࢵࣉࠊတࠊ୙㐺ษ࡟➗࠺ࠋࠕ୙౽ࠖࡢ౛ 㛫㐪ࡗࡓၟရࢆΏࡍࠋ
2
ࠕ୙౽ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕ✵㛫ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕ᫬㛫ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕᡤ᭷≀ࠖࡢ 4 ✀㢮࡛࠶ࡿࠋ3

 ἲᚊࡸ࣮ࣝࣝ࡞࡝࡛᫂♧ⓗ࡟タᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊྠࡌ࣐ࣥࢩࣙࣥ࡟ఫࢇ࡛࠸ࡿேࡓࡕ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕኪ 10 ᫬௨㝆Ὑ℆ᶵࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ධᒃ๓ࡢዎ⣙᭩࡟᭩࠸࡚࠶ࡿሙྜࡣ᫂♧ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ4 㠃㆑ࡣ࠶ࡿࡅࢀ࡝ࡶࠊ཭ே࡜ࡣ࿧࡭࡞࠸⛬ᗘࡢぶࡋࡉࡢྠᏛᖺࡢே࡟⤫ไࡍࡿࠋ5 ▱ࡾྜ࠸ࡢ㛫࡛㉳ࡇࡗࡓಶேⓗ࡞⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊᬯ♧ⓗ࡟ࡍࡿࠋ௨ୗࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ᭷ពᕪࡢ᳨ᐃ࡟ࡣ p=0.05 ࢆ㑅ࡧࠊ2 ಶࡢ⊂❧ࡋࡓᶆᮏࡢሙྜࡣ࣐࣭ࣥ࣍࢖ࢵࢺࢽ࣮ࡢ᳨ᐃࢆ⏝࠸ࠊ3 ಶ௨ୖࡢ⊂❧ࡋࡓᶆᮏࡢሙ
ྜࡣࢡࣛࢫ࣭࢛࢝ࣝ࢘ࣜࢫ᳨ᐃࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࠕ ࠖࢆࡘࡅ࡚࠸ࡿᩘᏐࡣࡶ࠺୍᪉ࡼࡾ౑⏝๭ྜࡀ㧗࠸᪉࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
6

8
−160−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

䛂Y 䛿 P䛃䛾Ⓨヰ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛䛂X 䛾᪉䛜䜒䛳䛸 P䛃䛻䛚䛡䜛䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟䛻䛴䛔䛶᳃㻌 㻌 㻌 ㈆⚟஭ᕤᴗ㧗➼ᑓ㛛Ꮫᰯ(mori@fukui-nct.ac.jp)

䚾Abstract䚿
The purpose of this paper is to examine the pragmatic functions of the degree adverb motto incomparative constructions such as (Tai-ryori-yori) Indo-ryori-no-hoo-ga motto karai-yo [Indian foodis even spicier (than Thai food)] used as a reply to the statement Tai-ryori-tte karai-yo-ne [Tai food isspicy, isn’t it?]. On the basis of the results of several questionnaire surveys, it is claimed that motto has
the following two functions: one is to inform the hearer that the speaker accepts the view of the hearer
to some extent, which is regarded as one of the positive politeness strategies, and the other is toemphasize that the view of the hearer should be replaced by that of the speaker, which facilitates joint
attention.
䛆䜻䞊䝽䞊䝗䛇䠖㻌 䠍䚸䜒䛳䛸㻌 䠎䚸ẚ㍑ᵓᩥ㻌 䠏䚸䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䞉䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊㻌 䠐䚸ඹྠὀど䛾ಁ㐍䠍䠊 䛿䛨䜑䛻㻌 ௨ୗ䛾ᑐヰᩥ䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸(1a)(1b)䛻䜘䜛ᛂ⟅䛿䛔䛪䜜䜒ၥ㢟䛜䛺䛔䜘䛖䛻ᛮ䜟䜜䜛䚹(1) ヰ⪅ A䠖 䝍䜲ᩱ⌮䛳䛶㎞䛔䜘䛽䚹ヰ⪅ B䠖 (a) 䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛾᪉䛜㎞䛔䜘䚹㻌(b) 䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛾᪉䛜䜒䛳䛸㎞䛔䜘䚹䛧䛛䛧䚸䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖 A䠄2012 ᖺ 5 ᭶ᐇ᪋䚸203 ேᅇ⟅䛊⚟஭㧗ᑓᏛ⏕ 171 ே䚸⚟஭┴❧኱ᏛᏛ⏕32 ே䛋䠅䛾⤖ᯝ䛿䚸⾲ 1 䛻♧䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䜘䛖䛻䚸ண᝿䛸኱䛝䛟␗䛺䛳䛶䛔䜛䠄OK䠖ၥ㢟䛺䛟౑䛖㻌 ?䠖✚ᴟⓗ䛻䛿౑䜟䛺䛔㻌 ??䠖䜋䛸䜣䛹౑䜟䛺䛔 *䠖౑䜟䛺䛔䠅䚹⾲䠍䠖䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖 A 䛾⤖ᯝ
(1a)
(1b)

OK
203 (100%)
104 (51%)?
0 (0%)
51 (25%)??
0 (0%)
36 (18%)*0 (0%)
12 (6%)(1a)䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸ᅇ⟅⪅䛾඲ဨ䛜 OK 䛸ุ᩿䛧䛯䛾䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䚸(1b)䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸OK 䛸ุ᩿䛧䛯ᅇ⟅⪅䛜 51%䚸䛭䜜௨እ䛾ุ᩿䜢䛧䛯ᅇ⟅⪅䛜 49%䛸䜀䜙䛴䛝䛜䛒䜚䚸䛣䛾䜀䜙䛴䛝䛾ཎᅉ䛜䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾㢧⌧䛻䛒䜛䛣䛸䛿㛫㐪䛔䛺䛔䚹䛣䛣䛷ὀព䛩䜉䛝䛣䛸䛿䚸(1b)䛻䛚䛡䜛䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾౑⏝䛻䛿ᴟ䜑䛶ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ䠄㛫୺ほⓗ䠅䛺せᅉ䛜㛵୚䛧䛶䛔䜛䛸ண 䛥䜜䜛Ⅼ䛷䛒䜛䚹䛸䛔䛖䛾䜒䚸(1a)(1b)䛿ព࿡ㄽⓗ䛻䛿䛸䜒䛻䚸䛆㎞䛥䛾⛬ᗘ䠖䝍䜲ᩱ⌮䠘䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛇䜢⾲䛧䛶䛚䜚䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛻ព࿡ㄽⓗ㈉⊩䛜ㄆ䜑䜙䜜䛺䛔䛛䜙䛷䛒䜛䠄ୗグ䛻♧䛩䜘䛖䛻䚸䛂䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛿䜒䛳䛸㎞䛔䜘䛃䛻䛚䛡䜛䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛻䛿ព࿡ㄽⓗ㈉⊩䛜ㄆ䜑䜙䜜䜛䛯䜑䚸┬␎䛿䛷䛝䛺䛔䠅䚹(2) ヰ⪅ A䠖 䝍䜲ᩱ⌮䛳䛶㎞䛔䜘䛽

−161−

「YはP」の発話に対する「Xの方がもっとP」における「もっと」の語用論的機能について㻌 㻌 ヰ⪅ B䠖 (a) 䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛿*䠄䜒䛳䛸䠅㎞䛔䜘䚹㻌㻌㻌㻌(b) 䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛾᪉䛜䠄䜒䛳䛸䠅㎞䛔䜘䚹䛧䛯䛜䛳䛶䚸ᮏ✏䛷䛿䚸䜎䛪䚸(1b)䛾 OK ุ᩿䛻ᐤ୚䛩䜛䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟䛸(1b)䛾 OK ุ᩿䜢㜼Ṇ䛩䜛䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟䜢᫂䜙䛛䛻䛩䜛䚹䠎䠊 OK ุ᩿䛻ᐤ୚䛩䜛䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟䠉௚⪅ほⅬㄆᐃఏ㐩ᶵ⬟ᮏ⠇䛷䛿䚸䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䛾ほⅬ䛛䜙ヰ⪅ B 䛾ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ䛜ヰ⪅ A 䛾䝣䜵䜲䝇䜢⬣䛛䛩䛔䜟䜖䜛䝣䜵䜲䝇౵ᐖ⾜Ⅽ (Face Threatening Acts)䛷䛒䜚䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾౑⏝䛜䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䞉䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊䛸䛺䜚ᚓ䜛䛣䛸䜢᫂䜙䛛䛻䛩䜛䚹
䠎䠊䠍㻌 䝣䜵䜲䝇౵ᐖ⾜Ⅽ
Brown & Levinson 䛾䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇⌮ㄽ(1987)䛷䛿䚸䛂䝣䜵䜲䝇䛃䛸䛔䛖ᴫᛕ䛜㘽ᴫᛕ䛸䛧䛶ᑟධ䛥䜜䛶䛚䜚䚸Ᏹబ⨾(2002)䛷䛿䚸䛂䝣䜵䜲䝇䛃䛻㛵䛧䛶䚸ୗグ䛾䜘䛖䛻ㄝ᫂䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹(3) ♫఍⏕ά䜢Ⴀ䜐ୖ䛷୙ྍḞ䛷䛒䜛䛂ᑐே䝁䝭䝳䝙䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁䛃䛻䛛䛛䜟䜛ᇶᮏⓗḧồ䛸䛧䛶䚸ே㛫䛻䛿䛂䝫䝆䝔䜱䝤䞉䝣䜵䜲䝇䛃(positive face) 䛸䛂䝛䜺䝔䜱䝤䞉䝣䜵䜲䝇䛃(negative face) 䛸䛔䛖஧✀㢮䛾䝣䜵䜲䝇䛜䛒䜛䛸䛩䜛䚹䛂䝫䝆䝔䜱䝤䞉䝣䜵䜲䝇䛃䛸䛿䚸௚⪅䛻⌮ゎ䛥䜜䛯䛔䚸ዲ䛛䜜䛯䛔䚸㈹㈶䛥
䜜䛯䛔䚸௚ே䛻㏆䛵䛝䛯䛔䛸䛔䛖䝥䝷䝇᪉ྥ䠄እྥ䠅䜈䛾ḧồ䛷䛒䜚䚸䛂䝛䜺䝔䜱䝤䞉䝣䜵䜲䝇䛃䛸䛿䚸㈹㈶䛥䜜䛺䛔䜎䛷䜒䚸ᑡ䛺䛟䛸䜒䚸௚⪅䛻㑧㨱䛥䜜䛯䜚䚸❧䛱ධ䜙䜜䛯䛟䛺䛔䛸䛔䛖䚸䝬䜲䝘䝇᪉ྥ䠄ෆྥ䠅䛻㛵䜟䜛ḧồ䛸䛧䛶ᤊ䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹(p. 98)
ᮏ✏䛷䛿䚸ୖグ䛾஧䛴䛾䝣䜵䜲䝇䛿䛭䜜䛮䜜ୗグ䛾䜘䛖䛻ᅗ♧䛩䜛䠄Ᏹబ⨾(2002: 99)䛾ᅗ䠍䜢䝠䞁䝖䛻䛧䛯䠅䚹

㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌
䝫䝆䝔䜱䝤䞉䝣䜵䜲䝇㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 䝛䜺䝔䜱䝤䞉䝣䜵䜲䝇ᅗ 1䠖஧䛴䛾䝣䜵䜲䝇㻌 ᅗ 1 䜢⏝䛔䜛䛸䚸ヰ⪅ A 䛾ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ䛿ᅗ 2 䛾䜘䛖䛻ᅗ♧䛥䜜䜛䚹ヰ⪅ A㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ヰ⪅ B
ᅗ 2䠖ヰ⪅ A 䛾ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ−162−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

ヰ⪅ A 䛾Ⓨゝ䛿䚸䛆䝍䜲ᩱ⌮䛿㎞䛔䛇䛸䛔䛖ㄆ㆑䜢ヰ⪅ B 䛻⌮ゎ䞉ඹឤ䛥䜜䛯䛔䛸䛔䛖ḧồ䠄䝫䝆䝔䜱䝤䞉䝣䜵䜲䝇䠅䛛䜙⏕䛨䛯䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䛜䚸䛭䛾Ⓨゝ䛿ྠ᫬䛻䚸ヰ⪅ B 䛾䝛䜺䝔䜱䝤䞉䝣䜵䜲䝇䜢⬣䛛䛩䜒䛾䛸䛺䜛䚹䛸䛔䛖䛾䜒䚸ヰ⪅ B 䛻䛸䛳䛶䛆䝍䜲ᩱ⌮䛿㎞䛔䛇䛸䛔䛖ㄆ㆑䛿ヰ⪅ B 䛾ぢゎ䛸᏶඲䛻୍⮴䛧䛶䛔䜛䜟䛡䛷䛿䛺䛔䛛䜙䛷䛒䜛䚹௚᪉䚸ヰ⪅ B 䛾ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ䛿ᅗ 3 䛾䜘䛖䛻ᅗ♧䛥䜜䜛䚹ヰ⪅ A㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ヰ⪅ B
ᅗ 3䠖ヰ⪅ B 䛾ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽヰ⪅ B 䛾Ⓨゝෆᐜ䛿䚸ヰ⪅ A 䛾ㄆ㆑ෆᐜ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛␗ㄽ䛷䛒䜚䚸ヰ⪅ B 䛾ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ䛿䚸䛂୙ྠព䛾⾲᫂䛃䛸䛔䛖Ⅼ䛷䚸ヰ⪅ A 䛾䝫䝆䝔䜱䝤䞉䝣䜵䜲䝇䜢౵ᐖ䛧䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛿᫂ⓑ䛷䛒䜛䚹䛣䛣䛷ὀព䛩䜉䛝䛿䚸䛣䛾ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ䛜ྠ᫬䛻䚸ヰ⪅ A 䛾䝛䜺䝔䜱䝤䞉䝣䜵䜲䝇䜢䜒⬣䛛䛧䛶䛔䜛䛸䛔䛖Ⅼ䛷䛒䜛䚹䛸䛔䛖䛾䜒䚸ヰ⪅ B 䛾Ⓨゝ䛿䚸䛆㎞䛥䛾Ⅼ䛷䛿䚸䝍䜲ᩱ⌮䜘䜚䜒䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛾᪉䛜䛭䛾⛬ᗘ䛜㧗䛔䛇䛸䛔䛖ㄆ㆑䜢ヰ⪅ A 䛻⌮ゎ䞉ඹឤ䛥䜜䛯䛔䛸䛔䛖ḧồ䠄䝫䝆䝔䜱䝤䞉䝣䜵䜲䝇䠅䛛䜙⏕䛨䛶䛚䜚䚸䛭䛾ㄆ㆑䛿ヰ⪅ A 䛻䛸䛳䛶ཷ䛡ධ䜜㞴䛔䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛜䛒䜛䛛䜙䛷䛒䜛䚹䠎䠊䠎㻌 䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䞉䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊䛸䛧䛶䛾䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾౑⏝䝣䜵䜲䝇౵ᐖ⾜Ⅽ䜢䛫䛦䜛䜢ᚓ䛺䛔≧ἣ䛻䛚䛔䛶䛿䚸┦ᡭ䛸䛾㛵ಀ䜢䛷䛝䜛䛰䛡Ⰻዲ䛻ಖ䛴䛯䜑䛻䚸䝣䜵䜲䝇౵ᐖᗘ䜢㍍ῶ䛩䜛䛔䜟䜖䜛 FT ㍍ῶ⾜Ⅽ(redressive action)䛜ᐇ⾜䛥䜜䜛ሙྜ䛜䛒䜛䚹䛣䛣䛷䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛻㛵䛩䜛ඛ⾜◊✲䠄౛䛘䜀䚸Ώ㎶(1986)䚸ዟᮧ(1995)䚸బ㔝(1998)䛺䛹䠅䛾ከ䛟䛻䚸䛊ヰ⪅䛜䛂䠵䜒䛒䜛⛬ᗘ䠬䛃䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢ㄆ䜑䛶䛔䛺䛔䛸䚸䛂䠴䛾᪉䛜䠄䠵䜘䜚䜒䠅䜒䛳䛸䠬䛃➼䛾⾲⌧䛿ᡂ❧䛧䛺䛔䛋䛸䛔䛖᪨䛾ᣦ᦬䛜䛺䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䜢☜ㄆ䛧䛯䛔䚹䛣䜜䜢ఏ㐩ㄽⓗ䛻ゎ㔘䛩䜛䛸䚸䛂䠴䛾᪉䛜䠄䠵䜘䜚䜒䠅䜒䛳䛸䠬䛃䛻䛚䛡䜛䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛿䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛜⪺䛝ᡭ䛾ほⅬ䠄(1)䛷䛒䜜䜀䛆Y(䝍䜲ᩱ⌮)䛜 P䠄㎞䛔䠅䛇䠅䜢ㄆ䜑䛶䛔䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䜢ఏ㐩䛩䜛ᶵ⬟䠉௚⪅ほⅬㄆᐃఏ㐩ᶵ⬟䠉䜢᭷䛧䛶䛔䜛䛸ゝ䛔᥮䛘䜛䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䚹ᑐヰ⪅䠄⪺䛝ᡭ䠅䛾ほⅬ䜢ㄆ䜑䜛䛸䛔䛖⾜Ⅽ䛿䚸ᑐヰ⪅䛾䝫䝆䝔䜱䝤䞉䝣䜵䜲䝇䜢ᑛ㔜䛩
䜛⾜Ⅽ䛷䛒䜚䚸䛂␗ㄽ䜢ၐ䛘䛃䛺䛡䜜䜀䛺䜙䛺䛔≧ἣ䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾౑⏝䛿䚸䝣䜵䜲䝇౵ᐖᗘ䛾
㍍ῶ䛻ᐤ୚䛩䜛᭷ຠ䛺䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊䠄䝫䝆䝔䜱䝤䞉䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䠅䛸䛺䜚ᚓ䜛䚹䛧䛯䛜䛳䛶䚸(1b)୰䛾䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛜ୖグ䛾ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟䜢Ⓨ᥹䛧䛶䛔䜛䛸ព㆑䛧䛯ሙྜ䛻䛿䚸(1b)䜢
OK 䛸ุ᩿䛩䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛜㧗䛟䛺䜛䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹䠏䠊㻌 OK ุ᩿䜢㜼Ṇ䛩䜛䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟䠉ඹྠὀどಁ㐍ᶵ⬟㻌 ᮏ⠇䛷䛿䚸Verhagen(2007)䛾ᯟ⤌䜏䜢⏝䛔䛶䚸ヰ⪅ B 䛾ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ䛻䛿䚸ヰ⪅ A 䛻䛒䜛⾜ື䜢ྲྀ䜙䛫䜘䛖䛸䛩䜛⾜Ⅽᣦ♧䛜ពᅗ䛥䜜䛶䛚䜚䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛿䚸⾜Ⅽᣦ♧䛾ຠຊ䜢ᙉ䜑䜛䛯䜑䛻౑⏝䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛜䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢᫂䜙䛛䛻䛩䜛䚹䠏䠊䠍㻌 ඹ㏻ㄆ㆑䛾ᙧᡂ
Verhagen(2007: 59-67)䛷䛿䚸䛂䝠䝖䛾䝁䝭䝳䝙䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁䛷䛿䚸஧ே䠄䛒䜛䛔䛿䛭䜜௨ୖ䛾䠅ㄆ▱୺య䛜䚸஫䛔䛾ほⅬ䜢ㄞ䜏䛒䛔䚸ほⅬ䛾ㄪᩚ(coordination of perspectives)䜢ィ䛳䛶䚸䛭䛣䛻ඹ㏻ㄆ
㆑䜢ᙧᡂ䛧䛶䛔䛟䛃䠄୰ᮧ 2010: 432䠅䛸䛔䛖Ⅼ䛜ຊㄝ䛥䜜䚸ᅗ 4 䛻♧䛩ᢕᥱᵓᅗ (construal−163−

「YはP」の発話に対する「Xの方がもっとP」における「もっと」の語用論的機能について

configuration)䛜ᥦ᱌䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䠄ὀ䠅䠖
෇ 1䠖ヰ䛧ᡭ䠄ㄆ▱୺య䠍䠅䚸㻌 ෇ 2䠖⪺䛝ᡭ䠄ㄆ▱୺య䠎䠅䚸෇ 1 䛸෇ 2 䜢⤖䜆Ỉᖹ䛾┤⥺䠖ㄪᩚ䚸㻌 ᆶ┤䛾┤⥺䠖ඹྠὀどᅗ 4䠖The construal configuration and its basic elementsୖグ䛾⪃䛘᪉䛿䚸≉䛻䚸ᩥྰᐃ䛾ศᯒ䛻䛚䛔䛶᪂䛯䛺ᒁ㠃䜢㛤䛟䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䛸䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹(4) Mary is not happy.
ᩥྰᐃ䛾(4)䛷䛿䚸ㄆ▱୺య 1 䛜ㄆ▱୺య 2 䛾䛂䝯䜰䝸䞊䛿ᖾ䛫䛷䛒䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖ᴫᛕ໬䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䚸
䠄(4)䛾Ⓨヰ䜢㏻䛧䛶䚸䠅䛂䝯䜰䝸䞊䛿ᖾ䛫䛷䛿䛺䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖ᴫᛕ໬䜢ඹྠὀど䛥䛫䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸ㄆ▱୺య 2䛻䛂䝯䜰䝸䞊䛿ᖾ䛫䛷䛒䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖ᴫᛕ໬䜢ᗫᲠ䛥䛫䚸䛂䝯䜰䝸䞊䛿ᖾ䛫䛷䛿䛺䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖ᴫᛕ໬䜢ㄆ▱
୺య 1 䛸ㄆ▱୺య 2 䛸䛾㛫䛾᪂䛯䛺ඹ㏻ㄆ㆑䛸䛧䛶ᵓ⠏䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜ពᅗ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䠄䛣䛾ሙྜ䚸ㄆ▱୺య䛸ㄆ▱ᑐ㇟䛿䛸䜒䛻䝥䝻䝣䜯䜲䝹䛥䜜䚸ᅗ 5 䛻♧䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䜘䛖䛻䚸ᅗ 1 䛾䛩䜉䛶䛾㒊ศ䛜ኴ⥺䛷⾲䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䛻䛺䜛䠅䚹ᅗ 5䠖 Construal configuration for coordination of perspectives (Verhagen 2007: 68)䛣䛖䛧䛯⪃䛘᪉䛿䚸ⱝᖸ䛾ಟṇ䜢ຍ䛘䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸(1a)䠄䛭䛧䛶䚸(1b)䠅䛾ศᯒ䠄ゎ㔘䠅䛻㐺⏝ྍ⬟䛷䛒䜛䚹౛䛘䜀䚸(1a)䛷䛿䚸ヰ⪅ A䠄ㄆ▱୺య 2䠅䛾䛂䝍䜲ᩱ⌮䛿㎞䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖ᴫᛕ໬䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䚸䠄(1a)䛾Ⓨヰ䜢㏻䛧䛶䚸䠅䛂䠄䝍䜲ᩱ⌮䜘䜚䜒䠅䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛾᪉䛜㎞䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖ᴫᛕ໬䜢ඹྠὀど䛥䛫䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸ヰ⪅ A䛻䛂䝍䜲ᩱ⌮䛿㎞䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖ᴫᛕ໬䜢ᗫᲠ䛥䛫䚸䛂䠄䝍䜲ᩱ⌮䜘䜚䜒䠅䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛾᪉䛜㎞䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖ᴫᛕ໬䜢ヰ⪅ B䠄ㄆ▱୺య 1䠅䛸ヰ⪅ A 䛸䛾㛫䛾᪂䛯䛺ඹ㏻ㄆ㆑䛸䛧䛶ᵓ⠏䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜ពᅗ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛸⪃䛘䜛䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䚹᥮ゝ䛩䜜䜀䚸ヰ⪅ B 䛾ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ䛻䛿䚸ヰ⪅ A 䜈䛾⾜Ⅽᣦ♧䠄ඹྠὀど䠅䛜ពᅗ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹䠏䠊䠎㻌 ⾜Ⅽᣦ♧䠄ඹྠὀど䠅䛾ຠຊ䜢ᙉ䜑䜛䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾౑⏝ୖ䛷ぢ䛯䜘䛖䛻䚸ヰ⪅ B 䛾ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ䛜ヰ⪅ A 䛻ᑐ䛩䜛⾜Ⅽᣦ♧䜢ពᅗ䛧䛯䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䛸䛩䜛䛺䜙䜀䚸ヰ⪅ B 䛾ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ䛿䚸ヰ⪅ A 䛾䝛䜺䝔䜱䝤䞉䝣䜵䜲䝇䜢⬣䛛䛩䝣䜵䜲䝇౵ᐖ⾜Ⅽ䛸䛧䛶ᤊ䛘䜛䛣䛸

−164−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

䛜䛷䛝䜛䚹䠎䠊䠎⠇䛷䜒㏙䜉䛯䛜䚸䝣䜵䜲䝇౵ᐖ⾜Ⅽ䜢⾜䛖ሙྜ䚸FT ㍍ῶ⾜Ⅽ䠄䛣䛾ሙྜ䛿䚸⾜Ⅽᣦ♧䠷ඹྠὀど䠹䛾ຠຊ䛾ᙅ䜑䜛䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊䛾᥇⏝䠅䛜ᐇ⾜䛥䜜䜛䛾䛜୍⯡ⓗ䛷䛒䜛䛸⪃䛘䜛䛸䚸(1b)䜢
OK 䛸ุ᩿䛧䛺䛛䛳䛯ᅇ⟅⪅䛿䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾㢧⌧䠄౑⏝䠅䜢 FT ㍍ῶ䛻㏫⾜䛩䜛䜒䛾䠉⾜Ⅽᣦ♧䠄ඹྠὀど䠅䛾ຠຊ䜢ᙉ䜑䜛䜒䛾䠉䛸䛧䛶ᤊ䛘䛶䛔䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛜㧗䛔䚹䛭䛾ドᕥ䛸䛧䛶䚸䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖䛾⮬⏤グ㏙䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸䛂䛄䜒䛳䛸䛅䛜䛒䜛䛣䛸䛷⮬ศ䛾ពぢ䜢ᢲ䛧௜䛡䛶䛔䜛䜘䛖䛻ឤ䛨䜛䛃䛸䛛䛂䛄䜒䛳䛸䛅䛜䛒䜛䛸䛝䛴䛔ゝ䛔᪉䛻⪺䛣䛘䜛䛃➼䛾グ㍕䛜䛒䛳䛯䛣䛸䜢䛒䛢䜛䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䚹䛷䛿䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛿䛹䛾䜘䛖䛺ᙧ䛷䚸⾜Ⅽᣦ♧䠄ඹྠὀど䠅䛾ຠຊ䜢ᙉ䜑䛶䛔䜛䛾䛷䛒䜝䛖䛛䚹ᑐ㇟ A
䛸ᑐ㇟ B 䛜ㄆ▱㔝䛻Ꮡᅾ䛧䚸ᑐ㇟ B 䜢ඹྠὀど䛥䛫䛯䛔ሙྜ䚸ᑐ㇟ A 䜈䛾ὀ┠ᗘ䛜ୗ䛜䜜䜀ୗ䛜䜛䜋䛹䠈䛭䛧䛶ᑐ㇟ B 䜈䛾ὀ┠ᗘ䛜ୖ䛜䜜䜀ୖ䛜䜛䜋䛹䚸ᑐ㇟ B 䜢ඹྠὀど䛥䛫䜛ຠຊ䛜ᙉ䜎䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䜢⪃៖䛩䜛䛸䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾䛆ྰᐃⓗ⏝ἲ䛇䛜䜎䛥䛧䛟ᑐ㇟ A 䜈䛾ὀ┠ᗘ䜢ୗ䛢䠈ᑐ㇟ B 䜈䛾ὀ┠ᗘ䜢ୖ䛢䜛䛣䛸䛻㈉⊩䛧䛶䛔䜛䛸ゝ䛘䛭䛖䛷䛒䜛䚹䛸䛔䛖䛾䜒䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾䛆ྰᐃⓗ⏝ἲ䛇䛷䛿䚸䠷ẚ㍑
ᇶ‽䠹䛜ྰᐃ䛥䜜䚸䠷ẚ㍑ᑐ㇟䠹䛜㐺ᙜ䛺್䛸䛧䛶ᤊ䛘䜙䜜䜛䛣䛸䛻䛺䜛䛛䜙䛷䛒䜛䠄బ㔝 2004䠅䚹
(5) ヰ⪅ A䠖㻌 䝍䜲ᩱ⌮䛳䛶㎞䛔䜘䛽䚹ヰ⪅ B䠖 䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛾᪉䛜䜒䛳䛸㎞䛔䜘䚹
㻌㻌[ẚ㍑ᇶ‽]䠙䝍䜲ᩱ⌮䛿㎞䛔䠄㽢䠅㻌 䠷ẚ㍑ᑐ㇟䠹䠙䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛾᪉䛜㎞䛔䠄䖂䠅㻌 ௨ୖ䛾㆟ㄽ䛿䠈ᢕᥱᵓᅗ䜢⏝䛔䛶䚸ᅗ 6 䛾䜘䛖䛻⾲䛩䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䚹㻌㻌㻌㻌䛂X 䛾᪉䛜 P䛃㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌䛂X 䛾᪉䛜䜒䛳䛸 P䛃
ᅗ 6䠖 䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾᭷↓䜢཯ᫎ䛧䛯ᢕᥱᵓᅗ䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛜䛒䜛᪉䛿䚸ඹྠὀど䛾ຠຊ䛜ᙉ໬䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛯䜑䛻䚸ඹྠὀど䜢⾲䛩ᆶ┤䛾⥺䛿䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛜䛺䛔᪉䛻ẚ䜉䛶䠈䜘䜚ኴ䛔⥺䛷⾲䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䠐䠊㻌 ู䛾䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖ㄪᰝ䜢⏝䛔䛯䛥䜙䛺䜛᳨ド䠎⠇䛚䜘䜃䠏⠇䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸(1b)䛾 OK ุ᩿䛻ᐤ୚䛩䜛䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟䛸䛧䛶䚸䛄௚⪅ほⅬㄆᐃఏ㐩ᶵ⬟䛅䜢䚸(1b)䛾 OK ุ᩿䜢㜼Ṇ䛩䜛䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟䛸䛧䛶䚸䛄ඹྠὀどಁ㐍ᶵ⬟䛅䜢ᥦ᱌䛧䛯䛜䚸ᮏ⠇䛷䛿䚸ู䛾䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖ㄪᰝ䜢⏝䛔䛶䚸䛥䜙䛺䜛᳨ド䜢⾜䛖䚹䠐䠊䠍㻌 ᑐヰ⪅㛫䛾♫఍ⓗ㛵ಀ䜢᫂♧䛧䛯䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖ㄪᰝ䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䛻㛵䜟䜛ゝㄒㄪᰝ䛷䛿䚸ᑐヰ⪅㛫䛾♫఍ⓗ㛵ಀ䛜㔜せ䛺䝣䜯䜽䝍䞊䛸䛺䜛䚹䛭䛣䛷䚸♫఍ⓗ❧ሙ䛾㐪䛔䜢ព㆑䛧䛯ୖ䛷ᅇ⟅䛩䜛䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖ㄪᰝ䠄䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖 B䠖2012 ᖺ 6 ᭶ᐇ᪋䚸169
ேᅇ⟅䛊⚟஭㧗ᑓᏛ⏕ 135 ே䚸⚟஭┴❧኱ᏛᏛ⏕ 34 ே䛋䠅䠉ᅇ⟅⪅䛿ヰ⪅ B 䛾❧ሙ䛷(a)䛛(b)䛾
䛔䛪䜜䛛䜢㑅ᢥ䛩䜛䠉䜢ᐇ᪋䛧䛯䚹䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖ෆᐜ䛚䜘䜃䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖⤖ᯝ䛿௨ୗ䛾䛸䛚䜚䛷䛒䜛䚹−165−

「YはP」の発話に対する「Xの方がもっとP」における「もっと」の語用論的機能について(6) ヰ⪅ A䠄ୖྖ䞉ඛ㍮䠅䠖㻌 䝍䜲ᩱ⌮䛳䛶㎞䛔䜘䛺䚹ヰ⪅ B䠄㒊ୗ䞉ᚋ㍮䠅䠖 (a) 䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛾᪉䛜㎞䛔䛷䛩䜘䚹(b) 䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛾᪉䛜䜒䛳䛸㎞䛔䛷䛩䜘䚹(7) ヰ⪅ A䠄㒊ୗ䞉ᚋ㍮䠅䠖 䝍䜲ᩱ⌮䛳䛶㎞䛔䛷䛩䜘䛽䚹ヰ⪅ B䠄ୖྖ䞉ඛ㍮䠅䠖 (a) 䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛾᪉䛜㎞䛔䜘䚹(b) 䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛾᪉䛜䜒䛳䛸㎞䛔䜘䚹
⾲ 2䠖䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖 B 䛾⤖ᯝ
(7a)
(7b)
ྜィ

(6a)
67 (39.6%)
33 (19.5%)
100 (59.2%)(6b)
40 (23.7%)
29 (17.2%)
69 (40.8%)ྜィ
107 (63.3%)
62 (36.7%)
169 (100%)(6)䛸(7)䜢㍑䜉䛯ሙྜ䚸(6)䛻䛚䛡䜛ヰ⪅ B 䛾᪉䛜䠈ヰ⪅ A 䛾䝣䜵䜲䝇䜢⬣䛛䛩༴㝤ᗘ䠄䝣䜵䜲䝇౵ᐖᗘ䠅䛜㧗䛔䚹䛸䛔䛖䛾䜒䚸(6)䛷䛿䚸♫఍ⓗᆅ఩䛜ୖ఩䛷䛒䜛ୖྖ䞉ඛ㍮䛾ぢゎ䠄ពぢ䠅䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䚸䛂␗ㄽ䜢ၐ䛘䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖䝣䜵䜲䝇౵ᐖ⾜Ⅽ䛜ᐇ⾜䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛛䜙䛷䛒䜛䚹䛧䛯䛜䛳䛶䚸ᙜ↛䛺䛜䜙䚸ヰ⪅ B 䛿
FT ㍍ῶ⾜Ⅽ䜢ᐇ⾜䛧䛶䛔䜛䛿䛪䛷䛒䜛䚹๓⠇䜎䛷䛾㆟ㄽ䜢຺᱌䛩䜛䛸䚸(6a)䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯ᅇ⟅⪅䛿䚸(6b)䛻䛚䛡䜛䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛻䠄䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䞉䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊䛸ぢ䛺䛫䜛䠅䛄௚⪅ほⅬㄆᐃఏ㐩ᶵ⬟䛅䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸䠄FT ㍍ῶ䛻㏫⾜䛩䜛䠅䛄ඹྠὀどಁ㐍ᶵ⬟䛅䛾௜୚䜢ㄆ䜑䛶䛔䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛜㧗䛟䚸௚᪉䚸(6b)䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯ᅇ⟅⪅䛿䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛻䛄௚⪅ほⅬㄆᐃఏ㐩ᶵ⬟䛅䛾௜୚䜢ㄆ䜑䛶䛔䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛜㧗䛔䚹䛣䜜䜙䜢຺᱌䛩䜛䛸䚸๓⪅䛿(6a)䛾᪉䛜(6b)䜘䜚䜒୎ᑀ䛺⾲⌧䛷䛒䜛䛸ุ᩿䛧䚸ᚋ⪅䛿䛭䛾㏫䛾ุ᩿䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛜㧗䛔䛸ゝ䛘䛭䛖䛷䛒䜛䚹(7)䛷䛿䚸♫఍ⓗᆅ఩䛜ୗ఩䛷䛒䜛㒊ୗ䞉ᚋ㍮䛾ぢゎ䠄ពぢ䠅䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䚸䝣䜵䜲䝇౵ᐖ⾜Ⅽ䛜ᐇ⾜䛥䜜䛶䛚䜚䚸䝣䜵䜲䝇౵ᐖᗘ䛿䛭䜜䜋䛹㧗䛟ぢ✚䜒䜙䜜䛺䛔䛾䛷䚸(7b)䛻䛚䛡䜛䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾౑⏝䛾ືᶵ௜䛡䛸䛧䛶䚸FT ㍍ῶ䛾ពᅗ䛿᝿ᐃ䛥䜜䛻䛟䛟䚸(7b)䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯ᅇ⟅⪅䛿䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛻ヰ⪅ B 䛾䝫䝆䝔䜱䝤䞉䝣䜵䜲䝇䛾ቑᙉ䛻ᐤ୚䛩䜛䛄ඹྠὀどಁ㐍ᶵ⬟䛅䛾௜୚䜢ㄆ䜑䛶䛔䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛜㧗䛔䚹(1b)䛾ᐜㄆᛶุ᩿䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸䛣䛾ゝㄒᚰ⌮䛜ാ䛔䛶䛔䜛ሙྜ䛻䛿䚸(1b)䜢 OK 䛸ุ᩿䛩䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛜䛒䜚䚸䛭䛾ሙྜ䛻䛿䚸䠄OK ุ᩿䛾㜼Ṇせᅉ䛸䛧䛯䠅䛄ඹྠὀどಁ㐍ᶵ⬟䛅䛜 OK ุ᩿䛻ᐤ୚䛩䜛ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟䛸ぢ䛺䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䛻䛺䜛䚹௚᪉䚸(7a)䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯ᅇ⟅⪅䛿䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛻䛄௚⪅ほⅬㄆᐃఏ㐩ᶵ⬟䛅䛾௜୚䜢ㄆ䜑䛶䛔䜛䛜䜖䛘䛻䚸FT ㍍ῶ䛾ᚲせᛶ䛜䛺䛔≧ἣ䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾㢧⌧䜢୙⮬↛䛺䜒䛾䛸䛧䛶ᤊ䛘䛶䛔䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛜䛒䜛䚹ୖグ䛾㆟ㄽ䛛䜙䚸(6a, 7a)䚸(6a, 7b)䚸(6b, 7a)䚸(6b, 7b)䛾䝨䜰䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯ᅇ⟅⪅䛾䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾ᤊ䛘᪉䛻㛵䛩䜛ゝㄒᚰ⌮䛿䛭䜜䛮䜜௨ୗ䛾䜘䛖䛻♧䛩䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䚹(8) (6a, 7a)䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯ᅇ⟅⪅䛾ゝㄒᚰ⌮㻌 㻌 䞉(6b)䛾䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛻䛄ඹྠὀどಁ㐍ᶵ⬟䛅䛾௜୚䜢ព㆑䛧䛶䛔䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛒䜚䚹㻌 㻌 䞉(7b)䛾䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛻䛄௚⪅ほⅬㄆᐃఏ㐩ᶵ⬟䛅䛾௜୚䜢ព㆑䛧䛶䛔䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛒䜚䚹(9) (6a, 7b)䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯ᅇ⟅⪅䛾ゝㄒᚰ⌮㻌 㻌 䞉(6b)䛾䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛻䛄ඹྠὀどಁ㐍ᶵ⬟䛅䛾௜୚䜢ព㆑䛧䛶䛔䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛒䜚䚹㻌 㻌 䞉(7b)䛾䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛻䛄ඹྠὀどಁ㐍ᶵ⬟䛅䛾௜୚䜢ព㆑䛧䛶䛔䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛒䜚䚹

−166−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号(10) (6b, 7a)䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯ᅇ⟅⪅䛾ゝㄒᚰ⌮㻌 㻌 䞉(6b)䛾䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛻䛄௚⪅ほⅬㄆᐃఏ㐩ᶵ⬟䛅䛾௜୚䜢ព㆑䛧䛶䛔䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛒䜚䚹㻌 㻌 䞉(7b)䛾䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛻䛄௚⪅ほⅬㄆᐃఏ㐩ᶵ⬟䛅䛾௜୚䜢ព㆑䛧䛶䛔䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛒䜚䚹(11) (6b, 7b)䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯ᅇ⟅⪅䛾ゝㄒᚰ⌮㻌 㻌 䞉(6b)䛾䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛻䛄௚⪅ほⅬㄆᐃఏ㐩ᶵ⬟䛅䛾௜୚䜢ព㆑䛧䛶䛔䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛒䜚䚹㻌 㻌 䞉(7b)䛾䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛻䛄ඹྠὀどಁ㐍ᶵ⬟䛅䛾௜୚䜢ព㆑䛧䛶䛔䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛒䜚䚹䛯䛰䚸(8)(11)䛾䜘䛖䛻䚸䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖䛻䜘䛳䛶ព㆑䛥䜜䜛ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟䛜␗䛺䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛿᝿ᐃ䛧䛻䛟䛔䚹䜒䛧䛛䛩䜛䛸䚸(6a, 7a)䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯ᅇ⟅⪅䜒(6b, 7b)䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯ᅇ⟅⪅䜒䛸䜒䛻䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛻䛄ඹྠὀどಁ㐍ᶵ⬟䛅䛾௜୚䛾䜏䜢ព㆑䛧䛶䛔䛶䚸ᅇ⟅⪅䛾ᛶ᱁䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸๓⪅䛿䚸ゝㄒάື䛻䛚䛔䛶௚⪅䛸䛾ㄪ࿴䜢ඃඛ䛩䜛ഴྥ䛜䛒䜛䛜䜖䛘䛻䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾౑⏝䜢㑊䛡䚸௚᪉䚸ᚋ⪅䛿䚸ゝㄒάື䛻䛚䛔䛶ඹ㏻ㄆ㆑䛾ᡂ❧䜢ඃඛ䛩䜛ഴྥ䛜䛒䜛䛜䜖䛘䛻䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾౑⏝䛻✚ᴟⓗ䛷䛒䜛䛾䛛䜒䛧䜜䛺䛔䚹䛣䛾ၥ㢟䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸䛥䜙䛺䜛ㄪᰝ䞉◊✲䛜ᚲせ䛷䛒䜛䚹䠐䠊䠎㻌 ヰ⪅ A 䛾Ⓨヰᩥ䛻ᙉពㄒ䜢㢧⌧䛥䛫䛯౛ᩥ䜢⏝䛔䛯䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖ㄪᰝ➨䠍䠑ᅇ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍䛷䛾◊✲Ⓨ⾲䛾㉁␲ᛂ⟅䛾᫬䛻䚸䝣䝻䜰䜘䜚䚸ヰ⪅ A 䛾Ⓨヰᩥ䛻䛚䛡䜛
䛂㎞䛔䛃䛾๓䛻䛂䛸䛶䜒䛃䜔䛂෶䛟䛃䛾䜘䛖䛺ᙉពㄒ䜢௜䛡ຍ䛘䜛䛸䚸䛂䡚䛾᪉䛜㎞䛔䜘䛃䛸ᛂ䛘䜛䜘䜚䜒䛂䡚䛾᪉䛜䜒䛳䛸㎞䛔䜘䛃䛸ᛂ䛘䜛᪉䛜⮬↛䛺ᛂ⟅䛾䜘䛖䛻ឤ䛨䜛䛸䛔䛳䛯㊃᪨䛾Ⓨゝ䛜䛒䛳䛯䚹䛭䛾㝿䚸䛂⚾⮬㌟䜒䛭䛾䜘䛖䛻ឤ䛨䜛䛃䛸Ⓨゝ䛧䛯ぬ䛘䛜䛒䜛䛜䚸䛣䛾䜘䛖䛺ឤぬ䛜୍⯡ⓗ䛺䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䛾䛛䛹䛖䛛䜢☜ㄆ䛩䜛䛯䜑䛻䚸ヰ⪅ A 䛾Ⓨヰᩥ䛻䛚䛡䜛䛂㎞䛔䛃䛾๓䛻䠄ⱝ⪅䛜䜘䛟౑䛖䠅䛂䜑䛱䜓䜑䛱䜓䛃䛸䛔䛖ᙉពㄒ䜢㢧⌧䛥䛫䛯౛ᩥ䜢⏝䛔䛶䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖ㄪᰝ䠄䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖 C䠖2013 ᖺ 1 ᭶ᐇ᪋䚸175 ேᅇ⟅䛊⚟஭㧗ᑓᏛ⏕ 141 ே䚸⚟஭┴❧኱ᏛᏛ⏕ 34 ே䛋䠅䠉ヰ⪅ A 䛿ヰ⪅ B 䛻䛸䛳䛶ぶ䛧䛔཭ே䛷䛒䜚䚸ᅇ⟅⪅䛿ヰ⪅ B 䛾❧ሙ䛷䚸(a)䛛(b)䛾䛔䛪䜜䛛䜢㑅ᢥ䛩䜛䠉䜢ᐇ᪋䛧䛯䚹䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖ෆᐜ䛚䜘䜃䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖⤖ᯝ䛿௨ୗ䛾䛸䛚䜚䛷䛒䜛䚹(12) ヰ⪅ A䠖 䝍䜲ᩱ⌮䛳䛶㎞䛔䜘䛺䚹ヰ⪅ B䠖 (a) 䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛾᪉䛜㎞䛔䜘䚹(b) 䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛾᪉䛜䜒䛳䛸㎞䛔䜘䚹(13) ヰ⪅ A䠖 䝍䜲ᩱ⌮䛳䛶䜑䛱䜓䜑䛱䜓㎞䛔䜘䛺䚹㻌 㻌 㻌 ヰ⪅ B䠖 (a) 䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛾᪉䛜㎞䛔䜘䚹(b) 䜲䞁䝗ᩱ⌮䛾᪉䛜䜒䛳䛸㎞䛔䜘䚹
⾲ 3䠖䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖 C 䛾⤖ᯝ
(13a)
(13b)
ྜィ

(12a)
81 (46.3%)
68 (38.9%)
149 (85.1%)(12b)
9 (5.1%)17 (9.7%)
26 (14.9%)

ྜィ
90 (51.4%)
85 (48.6%)
175 (100%)(12)䛷䛿(b)䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯ᅇ⟅⪅䛾๭ྜ䛜 14.9%䛷䛒䜛䛾䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䚸(13)䛷䛿(b)䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯ᅇ⟅⪅䛾๭ྜ䛿䛭䛾䠏ಸᙉ䛾 48.6%䛷䛒䜛䚹䜎䛯䚸(12a, 13b)䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯ᅇ⟅⪅䛾๭ྜ䛿 38.9%䛷䛒䜚䚸䛣䜜䜙䛾ᩘᏐ䛛䜙䚸┦ᡭ䛾Ⓨヰᩥ䛻ᙉពㄒ䛜౑䜟䜜䛶䛔䜛䛸䚸䛭䛖䛷䛺䛔ሙྜ䛻㍑䜉䛶䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾㢧⌧−167−

「YはP」の発話に対する「Xの方がもっとP」における「もっと」の語用論的機能について䜢チ䛧䜔䛩䛟䛺䜛䛸ゝ䛘䛭䛖䛷䛒䜛䚹䛷䛿䚸䛺䛬䚸┦ᡭ䛾Ⓨヰᩥ䛻ᙉពㄒ䛜౑䜟䜜䛶䛔䜛䛸䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䜢⏝䛔䛯ᛂ⟅ᩥ䛾㑅ዲᗘ䛜ୖ䛜䜛䛾䛷䛒䜝䛖䛛䚹ᙉពㄒ䛜౑䜟䜜䛶䛔䛖䛣䛸䛿䛭䜜䛰䛡ヰ⪅ A 䛿Ⓨゝෆᐜ䛻⮬ಙ䜢ᣢ䛳䛶䛔䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛷䛒䜚䚸䛭䛾Ⓨゝෆᐜ䜢◚Რ䛥䛫䛶䚸ඹ㏻ㄆ㆑䜢ᡂ❧䛥䛫䜛䛯䜑䛻䛿䚸ヰ⪅ B 䛿ඹྠὀど䜢ᙉ໬䛥䛫䜛ᚲせ䛜䛒䜛䚹䛭䛾ᙺ๭䜢ᯝ䛯䛧ᚓ䜛䛾䛜䚸䛄ඹྠὀどಁ㐍ᶵ⬟䛅䜢᭷䛩䜛䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛷䛒䜚䚸䛭䜜䜖䛘䛻䚸(13)䛷䛿(b)䜢㑅ᢥ䛩䜛ᅇ⟅⪅䛾๭ྜ䛜ከ䛟䛺䛳䛯䛸⪃䛘䜛䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䚹䠑䠊㻌 䛚䜟䜚䛻
ᮏ✏䛷䛿䚸ゝㄒឤぬ䜢ၥ䛖」ᩘ䛾䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖ㄪᰝ䠄䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖 A, B, C䠅䛛䜙ᚓ䜙䜜䛯䝕䞊䝍䛾ศᯒ
䜢㏻䛧䛶䚸䛣䜜䜎䛷䜋䛸䜣䛹㆟ㄽ䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䛾䛺䛛䛳䛯䠄䛂Y 䛿 P䛃䛾Ⓨヰ䛻ᑐ䛧䛶⏝䛔䜙䜜䜛䠅䛂X 䛾᪉䛜䜒䛳䛸 P䛃䛻䛚䛡䜛䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ䠄㛫୺ほⓗ䠅ᶵ⬟䜢᥈䛳䛯䚹䛂X 䛾᪉䛜 P䛃䛚䜘䜃䛂X 䛾᪉䛜䜒䛳䛸 P䛃䛿ඹ䛻䚸䛂Y 䛿 P䛃䛸䛔䛖ぢゎ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛୙ྠព䜢⾲䛧䛶䛚䜚䚸䛧䛯䛜䛳䛶䚸䛭䜜䜙䛾Ⓨヰ䛿䝣䜵䜲䝇౵ᐖ⾜Ⅽ䛸ุ᩿䛥䜜䜛䛜䚸๓⪅䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸䛩䜉䛶䛾ᅇ⟅⪅䛜OK 䛸ุ᩿䛧䛯䛾䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䚸ᚋ⪅䛷䛿ᐜㄆᛶุ᩿䛻䜀䜙䛴䛝䛜ぢ䜙䜜䛯䠄䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖 A䠅䚹䛭䛣䛷䚸䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛻䛿䚸ᑡ䛺䛟䛸䜒䚸FT ㍍ῶ䛻ᐤ୚䛧䚸OK ุ᩿䜢ಁ䛩ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟䛸䚸FT ㍍ῶ䛻㏫⾜䛧䚸OKุ᩿䜢㜼Ṇ䛩䜛ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟䛜௜୚䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛸ண 䛧䚸๓⪅䛾ᶵ⬟䛸䛧䛶䚸䛄௚⪅ほⅬㄆᐃఏ㐩ᶵ⬟䛅䜢䚸ᚋ⪅䛾ᶵ⬟䛸䛧䛶䚸䛄ඹྠὀどಁ㐍ᶵ⬟䛅䜢᝿ᐃ䛧䛯䚹䛧䛛䛧䚸ᑐヰ⪅㛫䛾♫఍ⓗ㛵ಀ䜢᫂♧䛧䛯䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖ㄪᰝ䠄䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖 B䠅䛾⤖ᯝ䛛䜙䚸Ⓨヰ⪅䛻௚⪅䛸䛾ㄪ࿴䜘䜚䜒ඹ㏻ㄆ㆑䛾ᡂ❧䜢ඃඛ䛥䛫䜛ព㆑䛜ാ䛔䛶䛔䜛ሙྜ䛻䛿䚸䛄ඹྠὀどಁ㐍ᶵ⬟䛅䛜 OK ุ᩿䛻ᐤ୚䛩䜛ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟䛻䛺䜚ᚓ䜛䛣䛸䜢ᑟ䛝ฟ䛧䛯䚹䜎䛯䚸䛂Y 䛿䜑䛱䜓䜑䛱䜓 P䛃䛾䜘䛖䛻 P 䜢ᙉㄪ䛩䜛ㄒ䜢㢧⌧䛥䛫䛯ሙྜ䚸䛭䛖䛷䛺䛔ሙྜ䛻㍑䜉䛶䚸䛄ඹྠὀどಁ㐍ᶵ⬟䛅䛜௜୚䛥䜜䛯䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䛾౑⏝⋡䛜ୖ䛜䜛䛣䛸䜢☜ㄆ䛧䛯䠄䜰䞁䜿䞊䝖 C䠅䚹䛯䛰䚸䠐䠊䠍⠇䛷䜒ゐ䜜䛯䛜䚸ᐇ㝿䛾Ⓨヰ䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸䛹䛱䜙䛾ᶵ⬟䜢ព㆑䛧䛯ୖ䛷䛂䜒䛳䛸䛃䜢౑⏝䠄䛒䜛䛔䛿୙౑⏝䠅䛧䛶䛔䜛䛾䛛䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸Ⓨヰ⪅䛾ᛶ᱁➼䛸䛾㛵ಀ䜒ྵ䜑䛶䚸୙᫂䛺Ⅼ䛜ከ䛟䚸䛣䛾ၥ㢟䛾ゎ᫂䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿௒ᚋ䛾ㄢ㢟䛸䛧䛯䛔䚹୺せཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Brown P. and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge University Press.
ᕷᕝಖᏊ(⦅ⴭ)㻌 2010. 䛄᪥ᮏㄒㄗ⏝㎡඾䛅 䝇䝸䞊䜶䞊䝛䝑䝖䝽䞊䜽.
ᕝ➃ඖᏊ 2002. 䛂ẚ㍑⾲⌧䛻ฟ⌧䛩䜛⛬ᗘ๪モ䛃, 䛄᪥ᮏㄒ⛉Ꮫ䛅, 12, 29-47.
ᮌୗᜤᏊ 2001. 䛂ẚ㍑䛾๪モ䛄䜒䛳䛸䛅䛻䛚䛡䜛୺ほᛶ䛃, 䛄ᅜㄒᏛ䛅, 52-2, 16-29.
୰ᮧⰾஂ 2010. 䛂ྰᐃ䛸䠄㛫䠅୺ほᛶ䛃, 䛄ྰᐃ䛸ゝㄒ⌮ㄽ䛅 ຍ⸨Ὀᙪ䞉ྜྷᮧ䛒䛝Ꮚ䞉௒ோ⏕⨾(⦅),
424-442, 㛤ᣅ♫.
ዟᮧ኱ᚿ 1995. 䛂䛄䜒䛳䛸䛅䛻䛴䛔䛶䛾⪃ᐹ䛃, 䛄᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱䛅, 87, 91-102.
బ㔝⏤⣖Ꮚ 1998. 䛂ẚ㍑䛻㛵䜟䜛⛬ᗘ๪モ䛻䛴䛔䛶䛃, 䛄ᅜㄒᏛ䛅, 195, 1-14.
బ㔝⏤⣖Ꮚ 2004. 䛂䛄䜒䛳䛸䛅䛾ྰᐃⓗ⏝ἲ䛻䛴䛔䛶䛃, 䛄᪥ᮏㄒ⛉Ꮫ䛅, 15, 5-21.
Ᏹబ⨾䜎䜖䜏 2002. 䛂䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇⌮ㄽ䛾ᒎ㛤㻌 䠐䛃, 䛄᭶หゝㄒ䛅, 31-4, 96-101, ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
Verhagen, Arie 2007. “Construal and Perspectivization,” The Oxford Handbook of
Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Greeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, 48-81, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Ώ㎶㻌 ᐇ 1985. 䛂ẚ㍑䛾๪モ䠉䛄䜒䛳䛸䛅䜢୰ᚰ䛻䠉䛃, 䛄Ꮫ⩦㝔኱Ꮫゝㄒඹྠ◊✲ᡤ⣖せ䛅, 8,
65-74.

−168−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

ࠕ〔ࡵࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᛂ⟅̿ᾏእㄒᏛ◊ಟࡢ๓࡜ᚋࡢ఍ヰࢆ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡋ࡚̿ᒣᮏ ⥤ᅜ❧኱Ꮫἲே ㇏ᶫᢏ⾡⛉Ꮫ኱Ꮫ
<Abstract>
This study examines the compliment responses (CRs) of Japanese learners of English tounderstand how skills relevant to the sequential organization of CRs develop. Non-elicitedconversation between native speakers of English and Japanese college students (N=27) who
enrolled in a six-week study-abroad program were used as data. Discourse analysis ofnaturally occurring CRs suggests that (1) the learners’ CRs tended to be nonverbal (i.e.,laughter and pauses) rather than verbal (e.g., Thank you or No); (2) the native speakers took
the initiative in closing CR sequences; (3) learners began to close CR sequences by imitating
the native speakers’ pattern after studying abroad.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸 〔ࡵࠊᛂ⟅ࠊㄯヰ⟶⌮ࠊ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࠊᾏእㄒᏛ◊ಟ ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ〔ࡵ㸦FRPSOLPHQW㸹௨ୗ & ࡜ࡍࡿ㸧࡜ࡑࡢᛂ⟅㸦FRPSOLPHQWUHVSRQVH㸹௨ୗ &5 ࡜ࡍࡿ㸧࡜࠸࠺㐃㙐࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࡩࡿࡲ࠸࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄪᰝࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ& ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿ㸸
6SHHFKDFWZKLFKH[SOLFLWO\RULPSOLFLWO\DWWULEXWHVFUHGLWWRVRPHRQHRWKHUWKDQWKHVSHDNHUXVXDOO\WKHSHUVRQDGGUHVVHGIRUVRPH͂JRRG̓ZKLFKLVSRVLWLYHO\YDOXHGE\WKHVSHDNHUDQGWKHKHDUHU +ROPHV ࠋ+ROPHV  ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ〔ࡵࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡾࡸࡍ࠸ࡢࡣࠊ┠ࡢ๓࡟࠸ࡿ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡢእぢࠊ⬟ຊ࣭ᡂᯝࠊᣢࡕ≀ࠊᛶ᱁࣭ே㛫㛵ಀ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᒓᛶࡸ஦≀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ〔ࡵࡇ࡜ࡤࡀ࠾ࡃࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࠊ〔ࡵࡽࢀࡓഃࡣ࠶ࡿࢪ࣐ࣞࣥࢆᢪ࠼ࡿ㸦3RPHUDQW]㸧ࠋ〔ࡵᡭ࡟ྠពࡍࢀࡤ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆ⛠㈶ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊㅬ⹫ࡉ࡟Ḟࡅࡿ༳㇟ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ࠾ࡑࢀࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉࡛ࠊ〔ࡵᡭ࡟ྠពࡋ࡞ࡅ
ࢀࡤ௚⪅ࡢ୺ᙇࢆྰᐃࡋࡓࡾ␗㆟ࢆၐ࠼ࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊᑐே㛵ಀࡢᵓ⠏ࡸ⥔ᣢ࡟ᨭ㞀ࢆࡁࡓࡍ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ〔ࡵࡽࢀࡓഃࡀᢪ࠼ࡿࡇ࠺ࡋࡓⴱ⸨ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪉␎࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᅇ㑊࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ〔ࡵ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ㸦㸧ㅬ⹫ࡉ࡜௚⪅࡬ࡢඹឤࡢᗘྜ࠸ࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽᛂ
⟅ࢆࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࢀࡤ㸦㸧ࡉࡾࡆ࡞ࡃูࡢヰ㢟ࢆᑟධࡋ࡚ & ࡜ &5 ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿ㞄᥋ᛂ⟅࣌࢔
㸦DGMDFHQF\SDLU6FKHJORIIDQG6DFNV㸧ࢆ⤊⤖ࡉࡏࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ㄯヰ⟶⌮࡛࠶ࡿࠋ እᅜㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ⱥㄒࢆᏛࡪ᪥ᮏேᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄯヰ⟶⌮ࢆ⾜࠺⬟ຊࢆ㌟࡟ࡘ

ࡅࡿࡢࡣᐜ࡛᫆ࡣ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᩍᐊ⎔ቃ࡛ࡣࠊ&5 ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚Ꮫࡪᶵ఍ࡣ㝈ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ&&5ࡢᐇ㝿ࡢ஦౛ࢆほᐹࡋࡓࡾࠊᏛ⩦⪅⮬㌟ࡀ &&5 ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡾࡍࡿ⤒㦂ࡀ✚ࡳ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡓࡵ
࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢẕㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊዲࡲࢀࡿ &5 ࡟㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ㸦ᶓ⏣
࡯࠿㸧ࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓゝㄒᩥ໬㛫ࡢᕪ␗࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⌮ゎࢆ῝ࡵࡿᶵ఍ࡀࠊᩍᐊᏛ⩦ࡢ୰࡛༑ศ࡟ᥦ౪ࡉࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠸㞴࠸ࠋ࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡀ᪥ᖖⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⎔ቃ࡟⁫ᅾࡋࠊẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢ᥋ゐ⤒−169−

「褒め」に対する日本人英語学習者の応答―海外語学研修の前と後の会話を資料として―㦂ࢆ⵳✚ࡋࡓሙྜࡣ࡝࠺࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ&5 ࡢ௙᪉࡟ࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢኚ໬ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
ࡇࡢၥ࠸࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⟅࠼ࢆ᥈ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊⱥㄒᅪ࡛⾜ࢃࢀࡓᾏእㄒᏛ◊ಟ࡟ཧຍࡋࡓ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᐇドⓗㄪᰝࢆヨࡳࡿࠋ ඛ⾜◊✲ࡢᴫほ࡜ᮏ◊✲ࡢㄢ㢟 ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ㄒ⏝ㄽࢆࡣࡌࡵ఍ヰศᯒࡸ➨஧ゝㄒ⩦ᚓ◊✲ࡢศ㔝࡛ࠊⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ⌮ㄽࡸ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ
⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊ&5 ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᵝࠎ࡞ศᯒࡀ㐍ࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
౛࠼ࡤࠊ&5 ࡣࠊ& ࢆཷࡅධࢀࡿ DFFHSW ࠊྰᐃࡍࡿ UHMHFW ࠊᛂ⟅ࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿ GHIOHFW ࠊ࡜࠸࠺㸱✀㢮࡟኱ࡁࡃศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿ㸦+ROPHV
࡯࠿㸧ࠋࡇࡢศ㢮ࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊ␗࡞ࡿゝㄒᩥ໬㛫ࡢẚ㍑࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣẕㄒヰ⪅࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢẚ㍑ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦&5 ◊✲ࡢࡼࡾໟᣓⓗ࡞ࡲ࡜ࡵࡣΎỈ  ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋ ࡓࡔࡋࠊ&5 ࡟╔┠ࡋࡓඛ⾜◊✲ࡢከࡃࡣࠊㄯヰ᏶ᡂㄢ㢟ࡸ࣮ࣟࣝࣉࣞ࢖࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᚓࡓ㈨ᩱ࡟౫
ᣐࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᵝࠎ࡞⾜ືࠊ≉࡟㠀ゝㄒⓗ࡞⾜ືࢆ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘࡲ࡛⢭ᐦ࡟ᢕᥱࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿␲ၥࡀṧࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ᣦ᦬ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦-XFNHU㸧ࠋࡲࡓࠊ୍ࡘ୍ࡘࡢ &5 ࡢᶵ⬟ࡔࡅ࡛
࡞ࡃࠊ& ࡜ &5 ࡢ㐃㙐ࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚⤊ࢃࡽࡏࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺⤊⤖㒊ࡲ࡛ᑕ⛬࡟ྵࡵࡓㄪᰝࡣ࡯
࡜ࢇ࡝࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢⅬࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣㄯヰศᯒࡢᡭἲࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᐇ㝿ࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⾜ືࢆゝㄒ࡜㠀ゝㄒࡢ୧㠃࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ&&5 㐃㙐ࡢ⤊⤖㒊ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࢆほᐹࡍࡿࠋྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴ◊✲ㄢ㢟ࡣ௨ୗࡢ  Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
◊✲ㄢ㢟㸯 ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ &5 ࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿
◊✲ㄢ㢟㸰 &&5 㐃㙐ࡢ⤊⤖㒊ࡢᵓ㐀ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿
◊✲ㄢ㢟㸱 ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢ᥋ゐ⤒㦂ࢆ⵳✚ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ&5 ࠾ࡼࡧ &&5 㐃㙐ࡢ⤊⤖ࡢ௙᪉࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ኚ໬ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢ࠿

 ㈨ᩱ࡜᪉ἲ ⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢ᥋ゐ⤒㦂࡟ࡼࡿᙳ㡪ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊⱥㄒᅪ࡟⣙㸴㐌㛫⁫ᅾࡋࡓ᪥ᮏே
ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࢆㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅࡜ࡋࡓ ࠋึࡵ࡟ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ◊ಟ࡟ฟⓎࡍࡿ㸴㐌㛫๓࡜ᖐᅜ࠿ࡽ㸴㐌㛫ᚋ࡟ࠊึᑐ㠃ࡢⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜୍ᑐ୍ࡢᑐ㠃࡟࡚ࠊⱥㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡚఍ヰࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓ ࠋ఍ヰࡢ᫬㛫ࡣࠊ◊ಟ๓ࠊᚋ࡜ࡶ࡟୍⤌ᙜࡓࡾ⣙ ศ㛫࡜ࡋࡓࠋᏛ⩦⪅࠾ࡼࡧࡑࡢ఍ヰ┦ᡭࢆົࡵࡿⱥㄒ
ẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡣࠊ஦๓࡟ࠕ⮬⏤࡟ヰࡋ࡚ୗࡉ࠸ࠖ
ࠕ఍ヰࡢ᭱ึ࡟⡆༢࡞⮬ᕫ⤂௓ࢆࡋ࡚ୗࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜ᣦ
♧ࡋࡓࠋᙺ๭ࡸヰ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ≉࡟ᣦᐃࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ఍ヰࡣ඲࡚㘓㡢ࡋࠊᩥᏐ໬ࡋࡓࠋ ḟ࡟ࠊ఍ヰ㈨ᩱࡢ୰࠿ࡽࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡀࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⬟ຊࡸே᯶ࠊᣢࡕ≀࡞࡝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ホ౯ࢆ㏙࡭ࡓ஦౛ࢆᢳฟࡋࡓࠋᢳฟࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡣࠊ&&5 㐃㙐ࡢ⤊⤖㒊ࢆぢࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ&5 Ⓨヰࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ &5 ௨㝆ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࡲ࡛ྵࡵ࡚ྲྀࡾฟࡋࡓࠋศᯒࡢ༢఩ࡣࠊ7&8㸦WXUQFRQVWUXFWLRQDOXQLW
6DFNV6FKHJORII -HIIHUVRQ㸧࡜ࡋࡓࠋ ศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊࡲࡎ◊ಟ๓ %()25( ㈨ᩱ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ◊✲ㄢ㢟㸯㸪㸰࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࡓࠋ◊✲ㄢ㢟㸯࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ &5 ࡀゝㄒ࡟ࡼࡿ᫂♧ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ➗࠸࡞࡝ࡢ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊゝㄒⓗ &5 ࡛࠶ࢀࡤ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆㄪ࡭ࡿࠋ◊✲ㄢ㢟㸰࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ&&5 㐃㙐ࡢ⤊⤖㒊࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕࡔࢀࠖࡀࠕ࡞࡟ࠖࢆࠕ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚ࠖ⾜ࡗࡓࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿

−170−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

࡟ࡍࡿࠋᚓࡽࢀࡓ▱ぢࢆࡩࡲ࠼࡚ࠊ◊✲ㄢ㢟㸱࡜ࡋ࡚◊ಟᚋ $)7(5 ㈨ᩱ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢኚ໬ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ ᮏ◊✲࡛⏝࠸ࡓ㈨ᩱࢆ௨ୗ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ⾲㸯 ᮏ◊✲࡛⏝࠸ࡓ㈨ᩱ


◊ಟ๓

◊ಟᚋ

㸦%()25(㸧㸦$)7(5㸧఍ヰࡢᘏ࡭᫬㛫

⣙㸷᫬㛫

⣙㸷᫬㛫

ᘏ࡭ㄒᩘ





&&5 ஦౛ᩘ





&&5 ஦౛୰ࡢ 7&8 ᩘ





 ⤖ᯝ
 &5 ࡢ≉ᚩ㸸◊ಟ๓㸦%()25(㸧㈨ᩱࡢศᯒ࠿ࡽ Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ &5 ࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ➗࠸ࡸỿ㯲࡞࡝ࠊ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࡀከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ◊ಟ࡟ཧຍࡍࡿ๓ࡢ఍ヰ㈨ᩱ࡟ࡣࠊ&&5 㐃㙐ࡀ  ஦౛ྵࡲࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࡼࡿ &5 ࡣ  7&8࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ༙ᩘ௨ୖࡀࠊỿ㯲ࡸ➗࠸࡜࠸࠺㠀ゝㄒⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ㸦ෆヂࡣࠊỿ㯲ࡀ 7&8ࠊ➗࠸ࡀ 7&8㸧ࠋゝㄒⓗ࡞ &5 ࡛ࡣࠊᐃᆺ⾲⌧㸦WKDQN\RX ࡞࡝㸧ࡸᛂ⟅モ㸦\HVQR㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⡆࡛᫆▷࠸ᙧᘧࠊ
ࠕ࢚࣮ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢㄯヰᶆ㆑㸦GLVFRXUVHPDUNHU6FKLIIULQ ࡯࠿㸧ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓ ࠋ஦౛ ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ &5 ࠙✵ᡭࡢ⭎๓ࠚBrian: Wow that is cool.
ń ࢖ࢡࢥ: ((➗࠸))
Brian: That is cool.
ń(2)Brian: Did you want to study Karate or did your mom or dad say do you want to study?
or࢖ࢡࢥ: Uhm
Brian: Why did you start.
࢖ࢡࢥ: First mom
Brian: Yeah
࢖ࢡࢥ: Mom
Brian: Yeah
࢖ࢡࢥ: Suggested me
Brain: Mm hm. Wow. They would’ve been very proud of you when you got the black belt.
ń(1)Brian: Yeah?
ń(2)Brian: Wow that is good. I I only have one friend who who got the black belt so, that’s
like wow. Very good. [Good.]ń ࢖ࢡࢥ:         [((➗࠸))]−171−

「褒め」に対する日本人英語学習者の応答―海外語学研修の前と後の会話を資料として―

Brian:

Excellent.

  ࢖ࢡࢥࡣ✵ᡭ࡛㯮ᖏ࡜࠸࠺㧗࠸ẁ఩ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ%ULDQ ࡀ͆7KLVLVFRRO͇࡞࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟
〔ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࢖ࢡࢥࡣ & ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚➗࠺࠿ỿ㯲ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ᛂ⟅ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᙼዪ
ࡣⱥㄒࢆ඲ࡃヰࡏ࡞࠸ࠊヰࡑ࠺࡜ࡋ࡞࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ✵ᡭࢆࡣࡌࡵࡓ࠸ࡁࡉࡘࢆᑜࡡ
ࡽࢀࢀࡤࠊ➗ࡗࡓࡾ㯲ࡾ㎸ࢇࡔࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃ͆)LUVW P\ PRP͐VXJJHVWHGPH͇࡜⟅࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ఍ヰ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ & ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㑅ᢥⓗ࡟ࠊỿ㯲ࡸ➗࠸࡛ᛂࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ
஦౛ ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ &5 ࠙ⱥㄒࡢ㐠⏝⬟ຊࠚ
George:Well I think your English is quite good.
ń ࢚ࣜ:George:((➗࠸)) ࢚:
Yeah [yeah][࢚: ࢚:] Really? Thank you.

ń ࢚ࣜ:
George:ń ࢚ࣜ:This is very natural, normal conversation. So.
࢔: Thank you.

 ⱥㄒ࡛఍ヰࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ〔ࡵࡽࢀࡓ࢚ࣜࡣࠊࡲࡎ➗࠸ࠊḟ࠸࡛ࠕ࢚࣮ࠖ࡜࠸࠺᪥ᮏㄒࡢㄯヰᶆ㆑ࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊⱥㄒ࡟ษࡾ᭰࠼࡚ゝㄒⓗ࡞ &5 ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡈࡃ▷࠸ᐃᆺ⾲⌧
͆5HDOO\"͇ࠊ7KDQN\RX͇௨እࡢᙧᘧࡣ⏝࠸࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
 &&5 㐃㙐ࡢ⤊⤖㒊ࡢᵓ㐀㸸◊ಟ๓㸦%()25(㸧㈨ᩱࡢศᯒ࠿ࡽ
 &&5 㐃㙐ࡢ⤊⤖㒊ࡢᵓ㐀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊձ&&5 ࡢ㐃㙐ࡢ┤ᚋ࡟ձㄡࡀⓎヰᶒࢆ࡜ࡾࠊղ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞
ᙧᘧࠊճᶵ⬟ࡢⓎヰࢆࡋࡓࡢ࠿ࢆㄪ࡭ࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊձⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡀⓎヰᶒࢆ࡜ࡾࠊղㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡸࣇ࢕࣮ࣛ࡜␲ၥᩥࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊճヰ㢟ࡢ㌿᥮ࢆヨࡳ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ ◊ಟ๓ࡢ  ஦౛඲࡚࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ&5 ┤ᚋ࡟Ⓨヰᶒࢆ࡜ࡗࡓࡢࡣⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢࢱ
࣮ࣥࡣࠊㄯヰᶆ㆑㸦ZHOOࠊDQGࠊVR࡞࡝㸧࠿ࣇ࢕࣮ࣛ㸦XKP ࡞࡝㸧ࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࠊḟ࡟␲ၥᩥࡀ⥆ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ᵓ㐀࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ␲ၥᩥࡣࠊ〔ࡵࡓ஦≀࡜ఱࡽ࠿ࡢព࿡ⓗ㛵ಀࢆᣢࡘ஦≀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᑜࡡ
ࡿࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࢀࡤࠊ඲ࡃ↓㛵ಀࡢ஦᯶࡟ࡘ࠸࡚၈✺࡟ၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡿࡶࡢࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡢሙྜࡶࠊ
Ꮫ⩦⪅࠿ࡽ᝟ሗᥦ౪ࢆᘬࡁฟࡍࡇ࡜࡟ᡂຌࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊẕㄒヰ⪅ࡣࠊㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡸࣇ࢕࣮ࣛ
࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ヰ㢟ࡢቃ⏺ࢆྜᅗࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊ᝟ሗせồࡢ࠿ࡓࡕࢆྲྀࡾ࡞ࡀࡽ᪂ࡋ࠸ヰ㢟ࢆᑟධࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
ࡑ࠺ࡋࡓẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢヨࡳ࡟ࡼࡾࠊỿ㯲ࡸ➗࠸࡛⁫ࡾࡀࡕࡔࡗࡓ఍ヰࡀ෌ࡧάᛶ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶぢ࡚࡜ࢀࡓࠋ஦౛ ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ &&5 ⤊⤖㒊࠙ⱥㄒࡢ㐠⏝⬟ຊࠚ
George:

You are you are doing well.
(1)

George:

Yeah

−172−

第15回大会発表論文集

ࢳ࢝:

࣮ࣥ

George:You You’re getting at that.

ࢳ࢝:

ࣥ.  [࢔: ]George:ń

第８号[Yeah.] Good for you.

George:Yeah and uh well how how long will you stay in uh New Zealand this summer?

ࢳ࢝:ࢺ: six weeks.

 ⱥㄒࡢຊࢆ࡯ࡵࡽࢀࡓࢳ࢝ࡣࠊỿ㯲ࡍࡿ࠿ࠊࠕࣥ㸦࣮㸧ࠖ
ࠕ࢔࣮ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࣇ࢕࣮ࣛࢆ㏉ࡍࠋ*HRUJH
ࡣࠊఱᗘ࠿ & ࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡓᚋ࡛ࡋࡤࡽࡃゝ࠸ᾷࢇ࡛࠿ࡽࠊZHOO ࢆ⨨ࡁࠊࢽ࣮ࣗࢪ࣮ࣛࣥࢻ࡛ࡢ◊ಟ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㉁ၥࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࢳ࢝ࡶࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡜ⱥㄒ࡛ᛂ⟅ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ㉁ၥࢆࡁࡗ࠿
ࡅ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ఍ヰࡢヰ㢟ࡣࠊࢳ࢝ࡢⱥㄒࡢຊ࠿ࡽࢽ࣮ࣗࢪ࣮ࣛࣥࢻ◊ಟ࡬࡜⛣⾜ࡍࡿࠋ*HRUJH ࡀ୺
ᑟࡋ࡚ࠊ&&5 ࡢ㐃㙐ࢆ⤊ࢃࡽࡏࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸ヰ㢟ࡢᑟධ࡟ᡂຌࡋࡓ஦౛࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢኚ໬㸸◊ಟ๓㸦%()25(㸧࡜◊ಟᚋ $)7(5 ㈨ᩱࡢẚ㍑࠿ࡽ ◊ಟ࡬ࡢཧຍࢆ⤒࡚ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ &5 ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟ࡣ㢧ⴭ࡞ኚ໬ࡣ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊ&&5 ⤊⤖࡬ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾ᪉࡟㛵ࡋ࡚⯆࿡῝࠸஦౛ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀⱥㄒᅪ࡛ࡢ◊ಟ࠿ࡽᖐᅜࡋࡓᚋࡢ఍ヰ㈨ᩱ࡛ࡣࠊ ࡢ &&5 ஦౛ࡀぢࡽࢀࠊ&5 ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ 7&8 ࡣ  ྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ &5 ࡣࠊ౫↛࡜ࡋ࡚㠀ゝㄒⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࡀ㐣༙ᩘࢆ༨ࡵ࡚࠸ࡓ
㸦7&8㸧ࠋ◊ಟ๓ࡢ 7&8 ࡟ẚ࡭ࢀࡤῶᑡࡋࡓࡀࠊ᭷ព࡞ᕪ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊỿ㯲ࡣ 7&8
࠿ࡽ 7&8 ࡬࡜ῶᑡࡋࡓࠋゝㄒⓗ࡞ &5 ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ぢࡿ࡜ࠊ& ࢆཷࡅධࢀࡿ WKDQN\RX ࡜ࠊྰᐃࡍࡿ

QR ࡜ࡶ࡟ⱝᖸቑ࠼࡚࠸ࡓࠋ ⾲㸰 Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ &5
◊ಟ๓

◊ಟᚋ

  

7&8 

7&8 

ỿ㯲





➗࠸





7KDQN\RX





<HV<HDK

5HDOO\〔ࡵࡽࢀࡓ஦≀ࡢ⏤᮶࣭⤒⦋ࡢㄝ᫂





1R













ࡑࡢ௚୙᫂
 &&5 㐃㙐ࡢ⤊⤖㒊࡛ࡣࠊఱே࠿ࡢᏛ⩦⪅࡟ኚ໬ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋẕㄒヰ⪅ࡀ⤊⤖ࢆ୺ᑟࡍࡿࡤ࠿ࡾ

−173−

「褒め」に対する日本人英語学習者の応答―海外語学研修の前と後の会話を資料として―࡛࡞ࡃࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ⮬ࡽ &&5 㐃㙐ࢆ⤊⤖ࡉࡏࡿ஦౛ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓ㸦㸴஦౛㸧ࠋࡑࡢ㝿ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡣࡲࡎㄯヰᶆ㆑ VRRKࡸࣇ࢕࣮ࣛXKP ࢆ⨨ࡁࠊ᝟ሗせồࡸ㝞㏙ࢆ⥆ࡅࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ᝟ሗせồࡸ㝞㏙࡛ࡣࠊ〔ࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ஦≀࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠊఱ࠿ูࡢ஦≀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋㄯヰᶆ㆑࡟ࡼࡿヰ㢟ࡢቃ⏺௜ࡅࠊ⥆ࡅ࡚᪂つࡢヰ㢟ࡢᑟධ࡜࠸࠺ᵓ㐀ࡣࠊ ࡛♧ࡋࡓẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡼ
ࡿ &&5 ⤊⤖㒊ࡢᵓ㐀࡜ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
஦౛ ◊ಟᚋࡢ &5 ࡜ &&5 ⤊⤖㒊࠙ⱥㄒࡢ㐠⏝⬟ຊࠚ
Chuck:Your English improved.

ࢩࣀ:

Yeah. English. ࣥ: I don’t think my English is improved ((➗࠸))Ք

Chuck:
ࢩࣀ:ńń

I’m sure it ((studying abroad)) helped.
((➗࠸)) ࣥ: ࣥ::So, in New Zealand, I had a ࣥ: ࣥ: much time to think about myself, about

Japan.
Chuck:Mm

ࢩࣀ:So mm I love I love Japan now ((➗࠸))

 ࢩࣀࡣࠕⱥㄒࡀ◊ಟ๓ࡼࡾࡶୖ㐩ࡋࡓࠖ࡜〔ࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᙼዪࡣ &5 ࡟ࡣ➗࠸ࡸ࣮ࣥ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ
ࣇ࢕࣮ࣛࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡼࡾࡶ」㞧࡞ࡶࡢࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ ͆,GRQ̓WWKLQN͇͐ ࠋ&&5 ࡢ ᚟ࡀࡋࡤࡽࡃ⥆࠸ࡓᚋࠊࢩࣀࡣㄯヰᶆ㆑ VR࡛๓⨨ࡁࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊࢽ࣮ࣗࢪ࣮ࣛࣥࢻ࡛ࡢ⤒㦂ࡸ⮬ศࡢෆ㠃ࡢኚ໬࡟ゐࢀࠊヰ㢟ࢆ⮬㌟ࡢⱥㄒࡢ⬟ຊ࠿ࡽ㐓ࡽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
஦౛ ◊ಟᚋࡢ &5 ࡜ &&5 ⤊⤖㒊࠙➨஧ゝㄒࢆ⩦ᚓࡍࡿᡯ⬟ࠚDavid:

You’re good at languages.

ࢳ࢝:((➗࠸)) No no ((➗࠸))

David:

Well I mean you learn quickly Laos and your English is, you speak English.

ࢳ࢝:Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah.

David:

So wonderful. [Wonderful.]ࢳ࢝:David:
ńࢳ࢝:[ࣥ:]Laos. [I have never been][So] I’m

I’m interested in South East Asia.

 ࢳ࢝ࡀࠕࣛ࢜ࢫㄒࢆヰࡏࡿࠖ࡜ㄒࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ'DYLG ࡀ〔ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢳ࢝ࡢ &5 ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡣࠊ◊ಟ๓࡜ྠᵝ࡟➗࠸ࡸࣇ࢕࣮ࣛࠊࡑࡋ࡚▷࠸㛫ᢞモ QR ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ&&5 ⤊⤖㒊࡛ࡢࡩࡿࡲ࠸ࡣ
௨๓࡜␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ'DYLG ࡢⓎヰ࡟㔜」ࡉࡏ࡚ㄯヰᶆ㆑ VR ࢆⓎࡋࠊヰ㢟ࢆ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢ⬟ຊ࠿ࡽᮾ༡࢔ࢪ࢔࡬ࡢ㛵ᚰ࡬࡜㌿᥮ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ


−174−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

 ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ〔ࡵ࡜ᛂ⟅࡜࠸࠺ࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡟╔┠ࡋࠊ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࡩࡿࡲ࠸࡜ࡑࡢኚ໬࡟
ࡘ࠸࡚ㄯヰศᯒࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ௨ୗࡢ▱ぢࢆᚓࡓࠋ
◊✲ㄢ㢟㸯㸦Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ &5 ࡢ≉ᚩ㸧㸸➗࠸ࡸỿ㯲ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㠀ゝㄒⓗ࡛᫂♧ⓗ࡛࡞࠸ &5 ࡟౫Ꮡࡍࡿഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋゝㄒⓗ࡞ &5 ࡣࠊ▷ࡃᐃᆺⓗ࡞⾲⌧ࡀ୰ᚰࢆ༨ࡵࡿࠋ
◊✲ㄢ㢟㸰㸦&&5 㐃㙐ࡢ⤊⤖㒊ࡢᵓ㐀㸧㸸&&5 㐃㙐ࡢ⤊⤖ࢆ୺ᑟࡍࡿࡢࡣⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡾࠊ◊ಟ๓ࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡣᏛ⩦⪅࠿ࡽ⤊⤖ࢆヨࡳࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡣࠊVR ࡞࡝ࡢㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡸ XK ࡞࡝ࡢࣇ࢕࣮ࣛ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ヰ㢟ࢆቃ⏺௜ࡅࡓୖ࡛ࠊḟࡢヰ㢟ࢆᑟධࡍࡿࠋ
◊✲ㄢ㢟㸱 㸦◊ಟᚋࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࡢኚ໬㸧㸸Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ࡼࡿ &5 ࡣࠊ౫↛࡜ࡋ࡚㠀ゝㄒⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࡀከ࠸ࡀࠊỿ㯲ࡍࡿഴྥࡣᙅࡲࡿࠋゝㄒⓗ࡞ &5ࡣࠊ▷ࡃᐃᆺ໬ࡋࡓ⾲⌧ࡀ୺࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛ࠊ◊ಟ๓࡜ᚋ࡛኱ࡁ࡞ኚ໬ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ&&5 ⤊⤖㒊࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ◊ಟࢆ⤒࡚ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ⤊⤖ࢆ୺ᑟࡍࡿ஦౛ࡀ⌧ࢀࡓࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࡣࠊࡲࡎㄯヰᶆ㆑࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ヰ㢟ࡢቃ⏺ࢆྜᅗࡋࠊ⥆ࡅ࡚ḟࡢヰ㢟ࢆᑟධࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᵓ㐀ࢆ᥇ࡾ࠸ࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ⤊⤖㒊ࡢᵓ㐀࡜㧗࠸ඹ㏻ᛶࢆ♧ࡍࠋ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᩍᐊ⎔ቃ௨እ࡛ẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢ᥋ゐࢆ㔜ࡡࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ&&5 㐃㙐ࠊゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤ
〔ࡵࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ሙ㠃࡛ㄯヰࢆ⟶⌮ࡍࡿ⬟ຊࡀⓎ㐩ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺௬ㄝࢆ❧࡚࡚ㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊⱥㄒᅪ࡛ࡢ  㐌㛫ࡢ◊ಟཧຍࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡣẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ఝࡓࡸࡾ᪉࡛〔ࡵ̺〔ࡵࡽࢀࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾࢆ⤊⤖ࡉࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺♧၀ࢆᚓࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡣẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢ᥋ゐ⤒㦂ࡢ⵳✚ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊẕㄒヰ⪅ࢆᶍೌࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊㄯヰࢆ࣐ࢡ࡛ࣟࣞ࣋ࣝ⟶⌮ࡍࡿ⬟ຊࢆᚎࠎ࡟Ⓨ㐩ࡉࡏࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉࡛ࠊ〔ࡵࡇ࡜ࡤࡢ୍ࡘ୍ࡘ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟
ᛂ⟅ࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺࣑ࢡ࡛ࣟࣞ࣋ࣝࡢㄯヰ⟶⌮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡜ࡋࡓኚ໬ࢆぢ࡚࡜ࡿࡇ࡜
ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ௒ᚋࡣࠊࡼࡾ㛗ᮇ࡟ࢃࡓࡾⱥㄒᅪ࡟⁫ᅾࡍࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⤒᫬ⓗ࡟ㄪᰝࢆ⾜࠸ࡓ࠸ࠋὀ ᮏ◊✲ࡣ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ⱝᡭ◊✲ % ࠕពぢᑐ❧ሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㄪᩚ᪉␎ࡢ◊✲ࠖㄢ㢟␒ྕ  ◊✲௦⾲⪅㸸ᒣᮏ⥤㸧ࠋ ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨㸯㸳ᅇ኱఍࡛ࡢཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲࡟ຍ➹࣭ಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㈗㔜࡞ࡈᣦ᦬࡜♧၀ࢆୗࡉࡗࡓ᪉ࠎ࡟ࠊᚚ♩ࢆ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ✏ࡢ୙ഛࡸㄗࡾࡣ඲࡚➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅ࡣࠊ㤳㒔ᅪ࡟࠶ࡿ኱Ꮫ࡟ᅾ⡠ࡍࡿ 㸪ᖺ⏕ ே࡛࠶ࡿࠋ඲࡚ዪᛶ࡛ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡋࠊⱥㄒ
ࢆ୰ᏛᰯධᏛ๓ᚋ࠿ࡽᩍᐊ⎔ቃࡢࡳ࡛Ꮫ⩦ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ72(,&p,3ࢸࢫࢺࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟㸦ᖹᆒ 㸦᭱㧗 ࠊ᭱ప ࠊᶆ‽೫ᕪ 㸧㸧࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ୰⣭⛬ᗘࡢㄒᙡࠊᩥἲ▱㆑ࢆഛ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ඲ဨࡀࠊ኱Ꮫ୺ദࡢᾏእㄒ
Ꮫ◊ಟ࡟ཧຍࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࡓࡕ࡛࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔ࡲࡓࡣࢽ࣮ࣗࢪ࣮ࣛࣥࢻ࡟㸴㐌㛫⁫ᅾࡋࡓࠋ⌧ᆅࡢᐙᗞ࡟⁫ᅾࡋࠊⱥㄒࡢ㠀ẕㄒヰ⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᶵ㛵࡛  㐌࠶ࡓࡾ⣙  ᫬㛫ࡢᤵᴗࢆཷࡅࡓࠋ ㄪᰝ࡟༠ຊ㡬࠸ࡓⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡣࠊṓ௦࠿ࡽ ṓ௦ࡢ⏨ᛶ㸦࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ྜ⾗ᅜฟ㌟ ྡ㸪࢝ࢼࢲฟ㌟ ྡ㸪−175−

「褒め」に対する日本人英語学習者の応答―海外語学研修の前と後の会話を資料として―࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔ฟ㌟ ྡ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏ⁫ᅾṔࡣࠊᖹᆒ ᖺ㸦᭱▷ ᖺ㸪᭱㛗 ᖺ㸧࡛ࠊ඲ဨࡀ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢ᥋ゐᶵ఍ࢆ᪥ᖖⓗ࡟ᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ ㄯヰᶆ㆑࡜ࡣ㸪㛫ᢞモࡸ᥋⥆モࠊࡲࡓࡣ \RXNQRZ ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᐃᆺ⾲⌧࡛ࠊձ⠇ࡢᵓᡂせ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣᚲ㡲࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺⤫ㄒⓗ≉ᚩ㸪ղ࿨㢟ࡢ┿⌮᮲௳࡟㈉⊩ࡋ࡞࠸࠿㸪㈉⊩ࡀ⾲㠃࡟⌧ࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ⓗ≉ᚩ㸪ճ఍ヰࡢ෇⁥࡞㐍⾜ࢆᨭ࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᶵ⬟ࢆഛ࠼ࡓゝㄒᙧᘧ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ㸦6FKLIIULQ ࡯࠿㸧ࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㛫ᢞモࠕ࠼࣮ࠖࡣࠊ
+D\DVKL  ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊពእᛶࠊࡘࡲࡾணࡸつ⠊࠿ࡽࡢ㐓⬺ࢆྜᅗࡍࡿㄯヰᶆ㆑࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㝃グ ఍ヰࡢᩥᏐ໬࡟⏝࠸ࡓグྕ㸦-HIIHUVRQ ࡟‽ࡌࡿ㸧࠙ ࠚ఍ヰࡢヰ㢟. ୗ㝆ㄪ? ୖ᪼ㄪ: ┤๓ࡢ㡢ࡢᘬࡁᘏࡤࡋ㸦: ࡢᩘࡣᘬࡁᘏࡤࡋࡢ㛗ࡉࢆ♧ࡍ)(ᩘᏐ) ỿ㯲ࡀ⥆࠸ࡓ⛊ᩘ, ▷࠸ỿ㯲[] ྠ᫬Ⓨヰࡢ㛤ጞ࣭⤊஢(( )) ⿵㊊ⓗ࡞᝟ሗཧ↷ᩥ⊩%LOOP\HU.͆,5HDOO\/LNH<RXU/LIHVW\OH(6//HDUQHUV/HDUQLQJ+RZWR&RPSOLPHQW͇

3HQQ:RUNLQJ3DSHUVLQ(GXFDWLRQDO/LQJXLVWLFV
+D\DVKL0͆0DUNLQJD 1RWLFLQJRI'HSDUWXUH LQ7DON(K3UHIDFHG7XUQVLQ-DSDQHVH

&RQYHUVDWLRQ͇-RXUQDORI3UDJPDWLFV
+ROPHV-͆&RPSOLPHQWVDQG&RPSOLPHQW5HVSRQVHVLQ1HZ=HDODQG(QJOLVK͇$QWKURSRORJLFDO/LQJXLVWLFV
ᇼ⣲Ꮚ࣭ὠ⏣᪩ⱑ࣭኱ሯᐜᏊ࣭ᮧ⏣Ὀ⨾࣭㔜ග⏤ຍ࣭኱㇂㯞⨾࣭ᮧ⏣࿴௦࣏ࠗࣛ࢖ࢺࢿ
ࢫ࡜ⱥㄒᩍ⫱̿ゝㄒ౑⏝࡟࠾ࡅࡿᑐே㛵ಀࡢᶵ⬟࠘ᮾிࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ-HIIHUVRQ*͆7UDQVFULSW1RWDWLRQ͇,Q-0$WNLQVRQDQG-+HULWDJH HGV 

6WUXFWXUHVRI6RFLDO,QWHUDFWLRQL[[YL1HZ<RUN&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV-XFNHU$+͆6SHHFK$FW5HVHDUFKEHWZHHQ$UPFKDLU)LHOGDQG/DERUDWRU\7KH&DVH
RI&RPSOLPHQWV͇-RXUQDORI3UDJPDWLFV
3RPHUDQW]$͆&RPSOLPHQW5HVSRQVHV1RWHVRQWKH&RRSHUDWLRQRI0XOWLSOH
&RQVWUDLQWV͇,Q-6FKHQNHLQ HG 6WXGLHVLQWKH2UJDQL]DWLRQRI&RQYHUVDWLRQDO,QWHUDFWLRQ1HZ<RUN$FDGHPLF3UHVV
6DFNV+$6FKHJORII($DQG-HIIHUVRQ*͆$6LPSOHVW6\VWHPDWLFVIRUWKH
2UJDQL]DWLRQRI7XUQWDNLQJIRU&RQYHUVDWLRQ͇/DQJXDJH
6FKHJORII($DQG6DFNV+$͆2SHQLQJXS&ORVLQJV͇6HPLRWLFD
6FKLIIULQ''LVFRXUVH0DUNHUV&DPEULGJH&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVVΎỈᓫᩥࠗ୰㛫ゝㄒㄒ⏝ㄽᴫㄽ㸸➨஧ゝㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⬟ຊࡢ౑⏝࣭⩦ᚓ࣭ᩍ⫱࠘ᮾிࢫ࣮࢚࣮ࣜࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡᶓ⏣῟Ꮚࠕ࡯ࡵࡽࢀࡓ᫬ࡢ㏉⟅࡟࠾ࡅࡿẕᅜㄒ࠿ࡽࡢ♫఍ゝㄒᏛⓗ㌿⛣ࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ
⫱࠘ࠊࠊ

−176−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧モ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
̿ⱥㄒ࡜ࡢẚ㍑ࢆවࡡ࡚̿๽ 㦴ி㒔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔࣭᪥ᮏᏛ⾡᣺⯆఍≉ู◊✲ဨ
<Abstract>
This paper firstly introduces Bowdle & Ward (1995)’s findings. Secondly, based on Bowdle &Ward’s achievements, this paper will investigate the use of Chinese demonstrative NPs in genericcontexts. Thirdly, this paper focuses on Chinese demonstrative plural and singular pronouns, andexamines whether they can receive a generic interpretation.

<Keywords> ୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧モࠊ⥲⛠⾲⌧ࠊ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࠊ㔞モ

㸯㸬

ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧モ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠⾲⌧࡟㛵ࡍࡿၥ㢟ࢆᢅࡗࡓ◊✲ࡣࡲࡔぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡓ
ࡵࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡲࡎࠊBowdle & Ward (1995)࡟ࡼࡿⱥㄒࡢᣦ♧ᙧᐜモࡢ⥲⛠⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠ࡣྍ⬟࠿ྰ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࠊࡶࡋྍ⬟࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊⱥㄒ࡜ࡢẚ㍑ࢆවࡡ࡚ࠊዴఱ࡞ࡿไ⣙ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

㸰㸬

ඛ⾜◊✲

ⱥㄒࡢࠕ⥲⛠ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ (Carlson 1977, Declerck1991 ࡞࡝) ࡛ࡣࠊ୍⯡࡟ 3 ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ศ࠿ࢀࡿࠋ

I.

〄」ᩘྡモ

Dogs are loyal companions.
II. ᐃෙモ+༢ᩘྡモ

The whale is no more a fish than a horse is.
III. ୙ᐃෙモ+༢ᩘྡモ

−177−中国語の指示詞による総称表現について―英語との比較を兼ねて―

A whale is no more a fish than a horse is.
 ୍᪉ࠊBowdle & Ward (1995) ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ㸺ᣦ♧ᙧᐜモ+ྡモ㸼࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠⾲⌧㸦౛ᩥ (1)㸧ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾὀ┠ࡉࢀࡎ◊✲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋBowdle & Ward (1995)࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ
⪺ࡁᡭ B ࡣࠊࠕThose Labradorsࠖ࡜࠸࠺㸺ᣦ♧ᙧᐜモ+ྡモ㸼ࡢᙧ࡛ࠕࣛࣈࣛࢻ࣮ࣝࠖ࡜࠸
࠺㢮ࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(1) A: My roommate just bought a Labrador.
B: Those Labradors make great pets.㸦Bowdle & Ward (1995): 32㸧 ྠ᫬࡟ࠊBowdle & Ward (1995)ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢᣦ♧ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠ࡢไ⣙࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ௨ୗࡢ୕
Ⅼࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡲࡎࠊ㏙ㄒࡣホ౯ⓗ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸㸦౛ᩥ (2)㸧ࠋ௨ୗࡢ B1 ࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ B ࡢホ౯ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕextremely loyal㸦ᴟࡵ࡚ᛅᐇࡔ㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㏙ㄒࡣࠊᣦ♧ᙧᐜモࡢ⥲⛠ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡋࡓࠋ୍
᪉ࠊB2 ࡢࠕfirst bred in Newfoundlandࠖ࡜࠸࠺㏙ㄒࡣホ౯ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ༢࡟஦ᐇࢆ
㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡔࡅ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊᣦ♧ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ〄」ᩘྡモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠࡟ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ไ⣙ࡣ࡞࠸㸦B3㸧ࠋ(2) A: My cousin just returned from Canada with an adorable Labrador retriever
puppy.
B1: Those Labradors are extremely loyal, you know.
B2: #Those Labradors were first bred in Newfoundland, you know.
B3: Labradors were first bred in Newfoundland, you know. (Bowdle & Ward (1995):34) ḟ࡟ࠊᣦ♧ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡍ࡛࡟ࡼࡃ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㢮 (kind)࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ
࡞࠸ࠋ౛ (3)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕthose small carsࠖࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢ᪤▱᝟ሗ (hearer-old Prince 1992)࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ⥲⛠ࡣᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡀࠊࠕthose red carsࠖࡢሙྜࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡑࢀࢆࡼࡃ▱ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸
ࡓࡵࠊ⥲⛠ࡣᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸࡜ Bowdle & Ward (1995)ࡀ୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(3) A: My brother just bought a small car.
B1: Those small cars are dangerous!

−178−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

B2: Small cars are dangerous!㸦Bowdle & Ward (1995): 34㸧
(4) A: My brother just bought a red car.
B1: #Those red cars are so garish!
B2: Red cars are so garish!㸦Bowdle & Ward (1995): 34㸧 ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡍ࡛࡟ࡼࡃ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㢮 (kind)࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ Bowdle &Ward (1995)ࡢつᐃࡣ᭕᫕࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢつᐃࢆḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ኚ᭦ࡍࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᣦ♧ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕ♫఍࣭ᩥ໬ⓗ࡟☜❧ࡉࢀࡓ㢮࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜つᐃࡍࡿ࡯࠺ࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࠊᮏ◊✲ࡣ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ
 3 ␒┠ࡢไ⣙࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊᇶᮏ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ(the basic level of categorization, Rosch et al.
(1976))ࡢㄒࡣ౑࠼ࡎࠊࡑࡢୗ఩࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ(the subordinate level of categorization)ࡢㄒ࡛࡞
ࡃ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ౛ᩥ (6)ࡢࠕLabradors㸦ࣛࣈࣛࢻ࣮ࣝ㸧ࠖࡣᇶᮏ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜㄒࡢࠕdogs࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࡼࡾලయⓗ࡞஦౛࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ
౛ᩥ (5)ࡢ B2 ࡣ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ౛ᩥ (6)ࡢ B2 ࡣ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

(5) A: My roommate just bought a dog.
B1: Dogs make great pets.
B2: #Those dogs make great pets.㸦Bowdle & Ward (1995): 34㸧
(6) A: My roommate just bought a Labrador.
B1: Labradors make great pets.
B2: Those Labradors make great pets.㸦Bowdle & Ward (1995): 35㸧 ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡣࠊBowdle & Ward (1995)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡇࡇ࠿ࡽࡣࠊ࠸ࡲࡲ࡛ㄽࡌࡽࢀ
࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ୰ᅜㄒᣦ♧ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠࡜ࡑࡢไ⣙࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡍࡿࠋ㸱㸬୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠࡜ࡑࡢไ⣙ ⱥㄒ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠ࡶᡂࡾ❧ࡘࠋ
ࡲࡎࠊࠕ㏙ㄒࡣホ౯ⓗ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ไ⣙ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࢆ᳨ドࡋ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ

(7) A: ᡁⲴ਼һᴰ䘁ҠҶа䖶⭥ࣘ㠚㹼䖖Ǆ⚾ࡢྠ൉ࡣ᭱㏆㟁ື⮬㌿㌴ࢆ㈙ࡗࡓࠋ

B1: ֐⸕䚃ˈ䛓Ӌ⭥ࣘ㠚㹼䖖ᚴᰐ༠᚟ˈ䶎ᑨড䲙Ǆ

−179−

中国語の指示詞による総称表現について―英語との比較を兼ねて―  ࠶ࡢ㟁ື⮬㌿㌴ࡗ࡚㡢ࡀࡋ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡜࡚ࡶ༴㝤ࡔࡼࠋ
B2: ֐⸕䚃ˈ䛓Ӌ⭥ࣘ㠚㹼䖖䜭ᱟґ䭷Աъࡦ䙐ⲴǄ  ࠶ࡢ㟁ື⮬㌿㌴ࡗ࡚඲㒊㒓㙠௻ᴗࡀ〇㐀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࡼࠋ

 (7)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊB1 ࡣ㏙ㄒࡀホ౯ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊB2 ࡣ㏙ㄒࡀホ౯ⓗ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃ
ࡽࡎࠊ⥲⛠ࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࡣ B1 ࡶ B2 ࡶ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠࡛ࡣࠊࠕ㏙ㄒࡣホ౯ⓗ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ไ⣙ࡀ࡞࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ ḟ࡟ࠊࠕ♫఍࣭ᩥ໬ⓗ࡟☜❧ࡉࢀࡓ㢮࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ไ⣙࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ(8) A: ᡁⲴ਼һࡊࡊҠҶа䜘йᱏ᡻ᵪǄ  ⚾ࡢྠ൉ࡣࢧ࣒ࢯࣥࡢᦠᖏ㟁ヰࢆ㈙ࡗࡓࡤ࠿ࡾࡔࠋ
B: ᱟѸˈ䛓Ӌйᱏ᡻ᵪᖸ⍱㹼઒ʽ  ࡑ࠺࡛ࡍ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡢࢧ࣒ࢯࣥࡢᦠᖏ㟁ヰࡗ࡚࡜࡚ࡶὶ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࡼࠋ
(9) A: ᡁⲴ਼һࡊࡊҠҶа䜘㓒㢢Ⲵ᡻ᵪǄ  ⚾ࡢྠ൉ࡣ㉥࠸ᦠᖏ㟁ヰࢆ㈙ࡗࡓࡤ࠿ࡾࡔࠋ
B: #ᱟѸˈ䛓Ӌ㓒㢢Ⲵ᡻ᵪᖸ⍱㹼઒ʽ  ࡑ࠺࡛ࡍ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡢ㉥࠸ᦠᖏ㟁ヰࡗ࡚࡜࡚ࡶὶ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࡼࠋ

 (8)B ࡢࠕ㤩᷌᡻ᵪ㸦iPhone㸧ࠖࡣ♫఍࣭ᩥ໬ⓗ࡟☜❧ࡉࢀࡓ㢮࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⥲⛠ࡣྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୍᪉ࠊ(9)B ࡢࠕ㓒㢢Ⲵ᡻ᵪ㸦㉥࠸ᦠᖏ㸧ࠖࡣࡑ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ⥲⛠ࡣᡂࡾ❧ࡓ࡞࠸ࠋ ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊᇶᮏ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢㄒࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࠿ྰ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ౛ᩥ(10)࡛ࡣࠊ⥲⛠⾲⌧ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ࡁ࡟ᇶᮏ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢࠕ⤇㸦࠸ࡠ㸧ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡎࠊࡑࡢୗ఩࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ⾲⌧ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠕਹဳဳ㸦ࢳ࣡࣡㸧࡛ࠖ࠶ࢀࡤ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ㸦౛(11)㸧
ࠋ

(10)

A: ᡁⲴ਼һкᱏᵏҠҶаᶑ⤇Ǆ   ⚾ࡢྠ൉ࡣඛ㐌≟ࢆ㈙ࡗࡓࠋ
B: #䛓Ӌ⤇ⵏᱟਟ⡡઒ʽ  ࠶ࡢ≟ࡗ࡚ᮏᙜ࡟ྍឡ࠸ࡼࡡࠋ
(11)

A: ᡁⲴ਼һкᱏᵏҠҶаᶑਹဳဳǄ   ⚾ࡢྠ൉ࡣඛ㐌ࢳ࣡࣡ࢆ㈙ࡗࡓࠋ

−180−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

B: 䛓Ӌਹဳဳⵏᱟਟ⡡઒ʽ ࠶ࡢࢳ࣡࣡ࡗ࡚ᮏᙜ࡟ྍឡ࠸ࡼࡡࠋ ࡲࡓࠊBowdle & Ward (1995)࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊⱥㄒࡢ⥲⛠ᩥ࡛ࡣ༢ᩘᙧࡢࠕthatࠖ࡜」ᩘᙧࡢ
ࠕthoseࠖࡣ୧᪉⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ㸦౛(12)㸧ࠋ୰ᅜㄒࡢ〄ྡモ࡟ࡣ༢ᩘ࣭」ᩘࡢ༊ูࡀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ
㸺ᣦ♧モ+㔞モ㸦ຓᩘモ㸧+〄ྡモ㸼࡜࠸࠺ᙧ࡛ྡモࡢ༢ᩘ࣭」ᩘࢆ༊ูࡍࡿࠋ୰ᅜㄒࡢ⥲⛠⾲⌧ࢆ⾲ࡍ㝿࡟ࠊ(13)࡛ࡣ」ᩘᙧࡢࠕ㑣Ӌ㸦those㸧ࠖࡣ౑ࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊ༢ᩘᙧࡢࠕ䛓ਠ㸦that㸧ࠖࡣ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ

(12)

A: My roommate owns an IBM ThinkPad.

B1: Those IBM ThinkPads are quite popular.
B2: That IBM ThinkPad is quite popular. 㸦Bowdle & Ward (1995): 33㸧
(13)

A: ᡁⲴᇔ৻ࡊࡊҠҶаਠ iPadǄ   ⚾ࡢ࣮࣒࣓ࣝ࢖ࢺࡣ iPad ࢆ㈙ࡗࡓࡤ࠿ࡾࡔࠋ
B1: 䛓Ӌ iPad ᇎ൘ᱟཚᐵҶʽ  ࠶ࢀࡽࡢ iPad ࡗ࡚࢝ࢵࢥ࢖࢖ࡼࡡ㸟
B2: #䛓ਠ iPad ᇎ൘ᱟཚᐵҶʽ࠶ࡢ iPad ࡗ࡚࢝ࢵࢥ࢖࢖ࡼࡡ㸟
B3: 䛓њ iPad ᇎ൘ᱟཚᐵҶʽ࠶ࡢ iPad ࡗ࡚࢝ࢵࢥ࢖࢖ࡼࡡ㸟୍᪉ࠊ୰ᅜㄒ࡛ࡣ(13)ࡢࠕiPadࠖࢆಟ㣭ࡍࡿ㔞モࡣࠊࠕྎࠖࡢሙྜࡣ୙⮬↛࡜࡞ࡿࡀࠊᑓ⏝ࡢ㔞モࡢ࡞࠸ྡモ࡟⏝࠸ࡿ᭱ࡶᗈࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ㔞モ࡛࠶ࡿࠕњ㸦⟠㸧ࠖࡢሙྜࡣ⮬↛࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡸࡣࡾࠊࠕњࠖࡣᬑ㐢ⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ㔞モ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ⥲⛠ࢆ⾲ࡍ᫬࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࠕྎࠖࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ࠶ࡿ≉ᐃࡢࣃࢯࢥࣥࢆᣦࡍࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⥲⛠ࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

㸲㸬୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧௦ྡモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠ࡢྍ⬟ᛶ ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧௦ྡモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠ࡢྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
Bowdle & Ward (1995)࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡣᣦ♧௦ྡモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠ࡣྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ㸦౛ᩥ (14)㸧
ࠋ

(14)

A: My sister owns a Honda Civic.

−181−

中国語の指示詞による総称表現について―英語との比較を兼ねて―

B1: Those are great cars.
B2: That's a great car.

 ࡲࡓࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧௦ྡモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠ࡢྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡍࡿࠋ(15)

A: ᡁକକҠҶа䖶བྷ࠷䈪สǄ   ඗ࡣࢢࣛࣥࢻࢳ࢙࣮ࣟ࢟ࢆ㈙ࡗࡓࠋ
B1: #䛓Ӌᱟྭ䖖Ǆ  ࠶ࢀࡽࡣ࠸࠸㌴ࡔࠋ
B2: #䛓䖶ᱟྭ䖖Ǆ  ࠶ࢀࡣ࠸࠸㌴ࡔࠋ
B3: 䛓њᱟྭ䖖Ǆ  ࠶ࢀࡣ࠸࠸㌴ࡔࠋ ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕa Honda Civicࠖ࡜ࠕThoseࠖ࡜࠸࠺㸺ࢺ࣮ࢡࣥ㸫ࢱ࢖ࣉ㸼ࡢ↷ᛂ㛵ಀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⥲⛠ࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ౛(13)࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ㌴ࡢᑓ⏝ࡢ㔞モࠕ䖶ࠖࢆྵࡴᣦ♧௦ྡモࠕ䛓䖶ࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࡜ࠊ࠶ࡿ≉ᐃࡢಶయࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⥲⛠⾲⌧ࡣᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᬑ㐢ⓗ࡞㔞モࠕњࠖࢆྵࡴࠕ䛓њࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࡜ࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧௦ྡモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠ࡶྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୰ᅜㄒ࡛ࡣ㸺ࢺ࣮ࢡࣥ㸫ࢱ࢖ࣉ㸼ࡢ↷ᛂ㛵ಀࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃
࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

㸳㸬

࠾ࢃࡾ࡟

ᮏ✏ࡣࠊⱥㄒ࡜ࡢẚ㍑ࢆවࡡ࡚ࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀ
ࡲ࡛ࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡑࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣព⩏῝࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢ⪃ᐹࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢ 3 Ⅼ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ
I.

ᣦ♧ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠ࡢไ⣙̿୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧ᙧᐜモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࠕ♫఍࣭ᩥ໬
ⓗ࡟☜❧ࡉࢀࡓ㢮࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ
ࠕᇶᮏ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢୗ఩࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢㄒ࡛࡞ࡃ࡚
ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖࡢ 2 ࡘࡢไ⣙ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕ㏙ㄒࡣホ౯ⓗ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ไ⣙ࡀ࡞࠸࡜ุ᫂ࡋࡓࠋ

II. ༢ᩘ࣭」ᩘ̿୰ᅜㄒ࡛ࡣ⥲⛠ࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࡣࠊ」ᩘᙧࡢࠕ㑣Ӌࠖࡣ౑ࢃࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ༢ᩘ
ᙧࡢሙྜࡣࠊᑓ⏝ࡢ㔞モࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࡜࠶ࡿ≉ᐃࡢᑐ㇟ࢆᣦࡍࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊ⥲⛠ࡣᡂࡾ❧ࡓ

−182−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

࡞࠸ࡀࠊᑓ⏝ࡢ㔞モࡢ࡞࠸ྡモ࡟⏝࠸ࡿ᭱ࡶᗈࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ㔞モ࡛࠶ࡿࠕњࠖࡢሙྜࡣ
⥲⛠ࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
III. ᣦ♧௦ྡモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠ࡢྍ⬟ᛶ̿ⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ」ᩘᙧཬࡧ༢ᩘᙧࡢᣦ♧௦ྡモ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠ࡣ୧᪉ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢሙྜࡣࠊ」ᩘᙧࡢࠕ㑣Ӌࠖ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠ࡣ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ༢ᩘᙧࡢሙྜࠊᑓ⏝ࡢ㔞モࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠕ䛓䖶ࠖࡣ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᬑ㐢ⓗ࡞㔞モࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠕ㑣њࠖࡣྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡢᣦ♧モ࡟ࡼࡿ⥲⛠ࡀྍ⬟࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣࠊ㔞モࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟ᙉࡃᕥྑࡉ
ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶุ᫂ࡋࡓࠋ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ୰ᅜㄒ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡐࠕ㏙ㄒࡣホ౯ⓗ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞
࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ไ⣙ࡀ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚◊✲ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Ariel,M. 1990. Accessing NP Antecedents. London: Routledge.
Bowdle, Brian F. y Ward, Gregory L. 1995. Generic Demonstratives, BLS21:32-43.
Carlson, G.N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. University of Massachusetts at
Amherst Ph.D. dissertation.
Chen, R. 1990. English demonstratives: a case of semantic expansion. Language Sciences
12:139-53.
Declerck, R. 1991. The origins of genericity. Linguistics 29:79-102.
Fried, L.S., & K.J. Holyoak. 1984. Induction of category distributions: A framework forclassiÀcation learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, andCognition 10:234-57.
Gibbs, R. 1994. The poetics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Joshi, A.K. 1982. Role of mutual beliefs in question-answer systems. In Smith, N., ed.
Mutual knowledge. NY: Academic Press.
Takubo, Y. & Kinsui, S. 1997. Discourse management in terms of mental spaces. Journalof Pragmatics 28: 741-58, Amsterdam, Elsevier Science
Lakoff, R. 1974. Remarks on this and that. In Lagaly, M. et al., eds. CLS 10:345-56.
Langacker, R.W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nisbett, R.E., & Z. Kunda. 1985. Perception of social distributions. Journal of Personality−183−中国語の指示詞による総称表現について―英語との比較を兼ねて―and Social Psychology 48:297-311.
Park, B., & R. Hastie. 1987. The perception of variability in category development:
Instanceversus abstraction-based stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 53:621-35.
Prince, E.F. 1992. The ZPG letter: subjects, deÀniteness, and information-status. In S.
Thompson and W. Mann, eds., Discourse description: diverse analyses of a fundraising text. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 295-325.
Rips, L.J. 1989. Similarity, typicality and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony, eds.
Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Routledge, 1998. Encyclopedic Dictionary. In R.R.K. Hartmann and Gregory James,
Dictionary of Lexicography
Rosch, E., C.B. Mervis, W. Gray, D. Johnson, & P. Boyes-Braem. 1976. Basic objects innatural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8:382-439.
Smith, E.R., & M.A. Zarate. 1990. Exemplar and prototype use in social categorization.
Social Cognition 8:243-62.
Talmy, L. 1988. The relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn, ed. Topics in
cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tulving, E. 1983. The Elements of Episodic Memory. Oxford University Press.

−184−第15回大会発表論文集第８号

͆֐䈤͇͆ᡁ䈤͇ứ Ᏹ㸦ᮾி⚟♴኱Ꮫ㸧͆֐䈤͇࡜͆ᡁ䈤͇ࡣࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࡀゝ࠺ࠖ࡜ࠕ⚾ࡀゝ࠺ࠖࢆព࿡ࡍࡿ௚ࠊࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࡀ⪃࠼ࡿࠖ࡜ࠕ⚾ࡀ⪃࠼ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ὴ⏕ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࠊࠕ࠶࡞ࡓ࡟ὀពࢆࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜ࠕ⚾ࡢពぢࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄯヰᶆ㆑ࡢᙺ๭ࡲ࡛ᢸ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠕ⚾ࠖ࡜ࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ே
⛠ࡢ┦㐪ࡀಖࡓࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࠕ⚾ࠖ࡜ࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࠖࡀᑐ❧ࡍࡿ❧ሙ࡛࠶ࡿ࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊሙྜ
࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ͆֐䈤͇࡜͆ᡁ䈤͇ࡀධࢀ᭰࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏⓎ⾲ࡣࠕㄒᙡࠖࠊ
ࠕᩥ⬦ࠖࠊࠕ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡢ❧ሙࠖࠊࡢ୕ࡘࡢゅᗘ࠿ࡽ୧⪅ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࠊධࢀ᭰࠼ࡢྍ⬟࡞⌮⏤ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㸸(1) 6FKLIIULQ''LVFRXUVH0DUNHUV&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV ࡈᎊĀᡁ䈤āⲴ䈝ѹ╄ਈ৺ަѫ㿲ॆࠗ䈝᮷⹄ウ࠘  ᴩ ⿰⧢. 2010.
Ӿѫ䉃㔃ᶴࡠ䈍䈝ḷ䇠̿Āᡁ㸭֐ VāⲴ䈝⌅ॆ৺⴨‫ޣ‬䰞仈.ࠗ≹䈝ᆖҐ࠘5. 38-50.

−185−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

Andrzej àydaUniversity of Silesia
Katowice, Poland

Concession in the academic context:
power and expertise factors
1. Introduction
Over the past three decades we have witnessed an unprecedented
progress in the research in the area of academic communication,
especially English academic communication, with the majority of thestudies having concentrated on written academic discourse. As has been
indicated earlier, there has been considerably less attention given to theanalysis of spoken academic discourse, the study of which might
contribute to our understanding of such practices of scholarly
communication as exchanging views and arguing one's position. One
such area in which discourse relation that has received almost no interestin previous research is the relation of Concession understood here after
Couper-Kuhlen and Thompson's (1999, 2000), Barth-Weingarten (2000,
2003) and àyda (2007), serving here as a point of reference, as a tripartite
relation involving simultaneous agreement/acknowledgement anddisagreement with a previous claim. The relation, as might be expected,
seems to be fundamental in the academia with its quest for truth. The
present study, whose title alludes to Holtgraves’ (1997) study onpoliteness in conversation arguments, focuses on the realisation of theagreement/acknowledgement move in English spoken academic
discourse in a variety of spoken discourse events such as lectures,
seminars, defences, group meetings, etc. More specifically, it attempts toestablish whether the academic status of the speaker (academic position
and indirectly age) affects the lexical realisation of the move of
Acknowledgement, thus being a contextual determinant of the discoursepragmatic relation of Concession.

1.1. Linguistic choices and power
Academic discourse realised by means of its specific genres can be
regarded as a form of “truth-seeking-through-argumentation”, which
necessarily involves not only compromise but also competition andconflict resulting from the unavoidable need to challenge the once
accepted views and propose new solutions (Allwood, 1993). Warchaá(2010: 140) recognises the two forces of consensus and disagreement asfactors shaping a rhetorical profile of academic communication, when she
claims:On the one hand, academic authors must win recognition as
scholars and thus seek acceptance for their claims by the rest of theacademic discourse community – they search for consensus. On
the other hand, to make their research results public they must−187−

Concession in the academic context: power and expertise factors

create a research space [...] by posing a potential challenge to theexisting paradigm through academic criticism or, at least, byoffering some so far unconsidered data or a new perspective
setting themselves apart from other researchers engaged in thesame field.

The two goals of any scholarly activity necessarily entail a kind of
dialogic perspective on academic communication in which the authors
have to take a position in favour of or against an idea or methodologicalpractices in accordance with the shared system of values in the academic
world. They have to inescapably orient themselves “with respect toprevious performances in the same sphere ... thus the printed verbal
performance engages, as it were, in ideological colloquy of a large scale:it responds to something, affirms something, anticipates possible
responses and objections, seeks support, and so on” (Voloshinov 1995:
139). Actually, not only with respect to “printed verbal performances”,
but in all likelihood, more frequently with respect to spoken
performances in lecture-halls, university laboratories and conferencerooms. In all these settings academic communication involves forging thebackground of consensus, against which a differing, yet not necessarily
incompatible, view can be presented and acknowledged in the common
process of constructing meanings and knowledge.
The relation of Concession analysed here belongs to the
dialogistic resources that not only recognise the fact that any propositionis only one of many propositions available in the current context, but
invite a variety of seemingly incompatible views. This is accomplished ina number of ways, some of which – such as frequency of occurrence andthe modes of realisation related to the configuration of roles of interacting
speakers – are characteristic of academic discourse. In àyda (2007) andàyda and Warchaá (2009) a claim has been advanced that the fact that
academic discourse is shaped both by experts and novices aspiring tobecome regular members of the academic community leads to specificconfiguration and distribution of forms and functions.
This corroborates the view that institutions, including theacademia, are social constructions resulting from a meaningful interaction(Kress, 1995; Parker, 1992). In other words, they are social constructions
constituted through discourse and its restrictive power As Fairclough
1995: 38) notes:
Each institution has its own set of speech events, its own
differentiated settings and scenes, its cast of participants, and its
own norms for their combination ... It is, I suggest, necessary to
see the institution as simultaneously facilitating and constraining
the social action of its members: it provides them with a frame foraction, without which they could not act, but it thereby constrainsthem to act within that frame

Also Bastow (2008:138) writes that in order to guard their interests andretain the power they hold institutions construct a representation of theworld and “draw upon an established repertoire of linguistic patterns andphrases which their consumers will expect, but which others may seek toresist”.
The relation of Concession, as shown in previous studies, can beconceived of as an element of such a linguistic repertoire of preferred
expressions of the academic community. This mainly due to the fact thatit creates dialogistic opportunities because it invites a variety of views−188−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

and indicates through its tripartite structure that the speaker recognisesthat a claim made is but one among a number of claims available in thecurrent communicative context. While admitting conflict it seekscompromise or, just the opposite, developing consensus it provides other– seemingly incompatible – views
One way to think about academic discourse is to see it as a formof institutionalised discourse reflecting a specific distribution of power
understood after van Dijk (1996: 84) as:
the control exercised by one group or organisation (or its
members) over the actions and/or the minds of (the members of)another group, thus limiting the freedom of action of the others, or
influencing their knowledge, attitudes or ideologies.

Power and its distribution become most clearly visible in the situation of
conflict and the discourse conventions to which the speakers get access.
In some settings with institutionalised power more powerful participants
are likely to use direct forms of disagreement whereas less powerfulparticipants resort to alignment and mitigation
Reese-Miller (2000:1095) predicts that the same might be holdtrue in the university setting because of the power in possession ofuniversity professors over students in virtue of their greater knowledge,
academic status, and age, as well as of the fact that professors are
responsible for assigning grades. In the context of the present study what
is most relevant in her assessment of power in the university is her
observation relating to the right to disagree. As she claims, “by virtue ofgreater knowledge and skill, the professor has an institutionalised right todisagree with students [...] whereas in contrast, students do not have an
institutionalised right to disagree since they do not possess the sameknowledge or skill as a professor.” If they endeavour to disagree, thisverbal behaviour can be often treated as a face-threatening act.
Within the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) framework it isassumed that power is based on privileged access to valued social
resources, such as wealth, jobs, status (van Dijk 1996: 84). In theacademic community the valued social resources include among others
access to discourse and communication, yet as might be expected theways of exercising the right of access will differ according to the degreeof power held. This, as I believe, is reproduced discursively in therelation of Concession acting as an indicator of power.
1.2. Concessive Relation
Concession has been traditionally defined as the subordinate relation ofcontrast identified mainly due to the presence of certain conjunctions likealthough or even though (for a list of such markers see e.g. Knott, 1996
and Rudolph, 1996). In this study Concession is understood as one ofnumerous rhetorical relations identified by Mann and Thompson within aframework of Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann and Thompson 1985,
1986, 1987; Mann, Matthiessen and Thompson 1992; Matthiessen andThompson 1989). The major tenet of the theory is that alongside thesyntactic structure of text there can be identified another structure, afunctional- organizational one, responsible for the impression of thewholeness of the text. Since the two structures, namely the syntactic andfunctional, do not map uniquely, the type of relation does not follow fromthe form of the text, i.e. specific conjunctions or particular words. For this−189−

Concession in the academic context: power and expertise factors

reason the RST structures are structures of functions rather thanstructures of forms.
RST as a theory of text organisation attempts to identify relations
between “minimally two parts of uninterrupted linear interval[s] of text”(Mann and Thompson 1987:4). The size of the spans may range from aclause to units above the clause level such as groups and paragraphs. It isalso assumed that patterns of text organisation are independent of thelevel and the size of text units, which is tantamount to stating that thepatterns are genre-non-specific. The two spans are linked together by aset of relations, most of which are asymmetrical nucleus-satellite ones.
The relations are defined in terms of their function, the function
following from purposes of the text author or intended effects on the text
recipients. Finally, the relations are defined in terms of the constraints
imposed on the text spans (nucleus and satellite) as well as a statement on
the expected effect as intended by the writer.
Concession, as one of over twenty relations identified in RST, isa nucleus-satellite relation between two spans of texts and its essence liesin the speaker’s acknowledgement of information in the nucleus andsatellite situations, regarded as apparently incompatible but actuallycompatible:
CONCESSION
constraints on N: W has positive regard for the situation presented inNconstraints on S: W is not claiming that the situation presented in S
doesn’t holdconstraints on the N + S combination:
W acknowledges a potential or apparent incompatibility
between the situations presented in N and S; W regards
the situations presented in N and S as compatible;
recognizing the compatibility between the situations
presented in N and S increases R’s positive regard forthe situation presented in N
the effect: R’s positive regard for the situation presented in N isincreasedlocus of the effect: N and S

These initial proposals concerning Concession were developed within theframework of interactional linguistics by Couper-Kuhlen and Thompson(1998, 1999), Barth-Weingarten (2003) and àyda (2007), where it isclaimed that the relation of Concession can be understood as a recurring
action realised through a dyadic structural pattern or rather a number ofsuch patterns, consisting of the initial claim (X) by speaker A, followedby an acknowledgement (X’) and a counterclaim (Y) produced byspeaker B.
For a pair of speakers engaged in an interaction, the first of thesemoves X realised by speaker A counts as making a claim. Its validity is
acknowledged in the second move X’ by speaker B. The third move Y,
also performed by the second speaker, counters this validity by assertingthat another claim, incompatible with X, can hold (àyda 2007: 101). This
most common pattern of realisation of Concession, referred to by CouperKuhlen and Thompson (1998, 1999) as the Cardinal Concessive Scheme,
is shown below:
A:
B:

X
X’ Y

−190−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

and exemplified by the following exchange from the MICASE:
S1: X: you're sticking to this interpretation
S2: X’: yes
Y: but uh uh but i'm also saying that he's not uh he neverconsciously tried to do that. i uh he he never came out and said
i'm using alap structures uh to apply uh, uh in in my solo concerts
in fact i i i i doubt that he would have, ever conceptualized it onthat level so therefore what i'm saying [S1: uhuh ] is there is asimilar need, in uh, in improvised languages, that so heavily rely

The degree of incompatibility between two propositions is difficult toassess a priori, as the contrast can hold between the propositions, theirentailments and even implicatures.
The Cardinal Concessive Scheme puts no constraints on the sizeof the moves, which may range from single words to whole chunks of
discourse. However, as shown in àyda (2007) and àyda and Warchaá(2008), the most common realisation of the second move is Yes, but...,accounting for more than 90% of all concessive patterns in the academic
speech corpus, with very infrequent occurrences of linkage between X’and Y by means of although, though, if, even if and even though. In
addition to these syndetic means the scheme allows for asyndetic
constructions (àyda 2007).
As concerns the number of pattern types, six individual patterns
can be identified with a different combination of (1) X, X’, Y (Cardinal
Concessive); (2): X, Y, X’ (Reversed Cardinal); (3): X’, X, Y; (4): X’, Y,
X (5): Y, X’, X; (6): Y, X, X’. The frequencies of occurrence of thepatterns vary, with the Cardinal and the Reversed Cardinal ranking
highest. The Cardinal type is shown below:
The Cardinal
ADV700JU047:

Concessive

Scheme:Academic

Advising

S2: no to get an L-S-and-A degree [S1: okay ] to graduate fromthis school, right? so how you want to fill
S1: yeah but what about getting the double degree?

One crucial characteristic to note is that although the relation ofConcession involves the presence of two interacting speakers, theCardinal Concessive schema can be enacted monologically in a pseudodyadic and monadic patterns.
The pseudo-dyadic sequence of moves is identical with that ofthe dyadic Cardinal Concessive schema. What makes them different,
however, is the fact of the production of the moves by a single speaker. In
the monadic type, also enacted by a single speaker, the pattern is reduced
and lacks an explicitly marked X move.
Despite the variety of realisation of Concession involving thenumber of speakers and the sequencing of moves, one element remains
constant: the presence (at least implicated) of the acknowledging move,which distinguishes Concession from Contrast and Antithesis relations.

−191−

Concession in the academic context: power and expertise factors

The missing acknowledgement move disqualifies a sequence of moves as
Concession. This once more highlights the importance of the
Acknowledgement in the concessive pattern.

1.3. Acknowledgement
If we accept Leung’s (2005: 3) definition of conflict talk as an activity inwhich alternative positions, reconcilable or not, on the same issue aretaken by the participants, it can be argued that the Concessive pattern,
integrating contrasting but not necessarily incompatible claims, can beseen as one of the minimal instantiations of conflict talk. However, thepresence of the Acknowledgement move enables speakers to affect the
management of disagreement. The Acknowledgement is defined as aclaim that is compatible with a previous claim. As such it is a usefulrhetorical devices for the construction of consensus on the ideational andinterpersonal levels in the sense of Halliday (1985, 1994). Thisconsensus-oriented function of the Acknowledgement in the Concessive
pattern makes it possible for speakers to achieve a number of “local”
goals related to the preparation of ground for the oncoming counterclaim
or – in the Reversed Scheme – to the attempt to weaken the facethreatening force of the preceding counterclaim.
In àyda (2007) the Acknowledgement is defined in terms of its
relation to the initial claim on the basis of its formal and functional
characteristics, as shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1. Forms of realisation of the Acknowledgement move

This classification assumes that the acknowledging move can be realised
explicitly or implicitly, i.e. contextually or prosodically. Explicit
acknowledgements may take two forms. First, the Acknowledgement
may be expressed strongly by means of linguistic forms that mark the
speaker’s non-negative attitude to the claim (e.g. Yes; I agree, etc.).
Alternatively, weaker forms can be employed such as non-linguistic
gestures (e.g. nodding one’s head) and correlative conjuncts like well:
Example 1
Artificial Intelligence Research Group Meeting MTG 270SG049
S1: so look at it this way, suppose that, uh, Dave and i are sellers
and you're a buyer. we know that there you you've offered to buy
at ten. and it costs me, three. [S2: right ] so i say, i know, i'm
gonna offer to sell at nine, let's try to get more than (almost in)surplus. Dave comes in and offers to sell at eight, and i can't lower
the price because it's an ascending, auction. [SU-2: (okay) ] i'm,−192−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

i'm screwed... so, that's one reason why, i shouldn't have gone rightto nine i should have stayed at, three, and raise it to nine later
maybe.
S2: but if you were the only, supplierS1: well, but i have no way of knowing that.

or clause final-though considered by Quirk et al. (1986) and Backlund(1984) equivalent to an abbreviated clause with the conjunction though,as in the following extract from MICASE.
Example 2
Community Change Student Presentations STP560JG118
S1: you have thirty s- thirty seconds to see what you can do collaboratingwith your, (xx)S4: i like mine though

The model proposed above recognises that the strong explicit
acknowledging move can be performed in four different ways and thefour subcategories comprise:1) agreement phrases used to express agreement or willingness to agreesuch as the answering particle yes and its variant forms yeah and yep,and also okay, no, I agree, agree, couldn’t agree more, that’s it, uhhuh, mhm and even point taken, as in:
Example 3
Graduate Public Policy Seminar SEM340JG072
S11 um, the potency of crack cocaine is that it gets into your system justas if you were using it but a lot of them don't actually use it it's just in
their system because, as a dealer or whatever they have to go through thatprocess and that, so i don't know (just get tested as kinda)
S1: mhm. so that some of the people that s- purportedly have it in them
they weren't actually using it but, it doesn't exactly paint a picture thatthey're not culpable, i mean they were cooking it and, <SS: LAUGH> andthat to me doesn't suggest that <LAUGH> but, point taken. um, i i think
this is a lit- a little bit related to some of what we were just talking about.

2) Assessments, which signal agreement by means of a a comment on thetruth value of the initial claim. As truth-evaluators they correspond to
the traditional class of content disjuncts, such as certainly, evidently,
indeed, obviously, surely, etc. Other items included here function asvalue judgments, e.g. correctly or rightly. Also miscellaneous
expressions of similar function belong to this category: absolutely,
exactly, fine, of course, right, sure, true, I see your point, etc.
Example 4
Technical Communications Tutorial OFC578SG037
S1: so, [S2: so ] the the the [S2: this research (xx) oh, okay, theobjective of this ] objective is, to address, [S2: got it ] some of themore significant, [S2: deficiencies ] deficiency in the Kovacs.

−193−

Concession in the academic context: power and expertise factors

that's what your research objective is and i feel like it's again, it'sb- a little bit buried, in the last paragraph
S2: [...] basically what i did is i do a quick description of theParker-Kovacs model here [S1: right ] based on these twoparagraphs, and then say okay, this is [S1: right ] what's, where it's
lacking this is what i'm gonna do [S1: right ] um, i see your p- i see
your point exactly obviously but um i could put a small
paragraph in here saying, um, the goal of this research is to, um,
make some of the, well i was wondering about s-3) Repetitions are defined as propositional forms that represent fully or
partially the proposition asserted in the initial claim. Partial repetitions
are particularly common whenever the initial claim is complex andconsists of two or more propositions. In such cases the other speaker
may take a stance on only one of the claims and acknowledge its
validity by partitioning the complex claim.
Example 5
Behavior Theory Management Lecture LEL185SU066
S26: so basically (then) it's a commission.
S28: yeah it is a commission but it's, yeah. but it's based on their profits
instead of4) Reformulations are restatements of the original claim by significant
changes which, nevertheless, keep the claim intact.
Example 6
Sex, Gender, and the Body Lecture LES565SU137
S1: oh but you would think of that as being erotica rather thanpornography.
S13: yeah definitely.
S1: yeah okay. okay there's somebody over here yes.
S14: yeah i agree with, Debbie and Mustafa that it's, it may be more
kinky but just [S1: huh ] involving more elements in one way you
know [S1: okay ] whereas pornography's maybe just focused on like,the sexual act like intercourse [S1: mhm ] and stuff and then there's_
can be many other ways to see things sexually,

This model with a few minor modifications described below will serve
for the analysis undertaken in this study.

1.4. The Study
1.4.1. Objectives
As indicated above, the acknowledging move in the Concessive rhetorical
scheme is the defining element of the Concessive relation, by means ofwhich this discourse-pragmatic relation contrasts sharply with Contrast−194−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

and Antithesis. In this study I will take a look at some data from the
MICASE corpus and investigate the ways in which the
Acknowledgement is realised in a number of speech events ofinteractional nature with the view to establishing whether the speakers’
status – measured in terms of academic position– correlates with apreferred pattern of acknowledging.
1.4.2. Materials and methods
The analysis is based on the data gathered from the MICASE corpus at
the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor in a variety of academic
settings ranging from lectures to tours.
The system of classification of speech events (genres) in the
MICASE rests on four primary discourse modes distinguished on thebasis of two characteristics: monologue vs. polylogue and the degree ofmonopolisation of the floor by a single speaker, which are correlated withthe binary criterion of classroom and non-class events. The primarymodes include monologic events, panels, mixed, and interactive events.
In àyda (2007) the relation of Concession was analysed in the
corpus of interactive events. Considering the high number of concessive
patterns identified in his study, which precludes the possibility of indepth examinations within the confines of this article, the present analysis
is restricted to the highly interactive events. In addition, since the analysis
focuses on the direct interaction of two speakers, there have been
excluded monadic and pseudo-dyadic concessive patterns, which arerealised by the same speaker. No consideration has been given also to
implicit acknowledgements because in many cases this would require
access to sound and video recordings.
Among 30 speech events in which the mode is predominant, there
are Advising Sessions, Discussions Sections, Interviews, Labs, Small
Lectures, Meetings, Office Hours, Seminars, Study Groups, Students
Presentations, Service Encounters, Tutorials and one Tour. In the whole
MICASE these speech events amount to about 30% of the total numberof the events. In terms of wordcount the figure is higher and amounts toabout 40%.
The MICASE corpus offers a very useful search interface, bymeans of which it is possible to select search criteria including speakers’
attributes such as gender, age, academic position/role, native speakerstatus and the first language as well as transcript attributes: speech event
type, academic division, academic discipline, participant level andinteractivity rating, shown in Figure 1.2. It also provides descriptive
statistics for the search terms.
The criteria according to which the search was performed include
gender, age, academic position/role as well as interactivity rating. No
account was made of disciplinary variation and academic discipline factor.
For the initial search of Concessive patterns a database obtained by àyda(2007) was used. From the database the cases of Concessive sequencesthat did not meet the set criteria were eliminated.
1.4.3. Results and discussion
The statistics presented below show that 707 Concessive patterns
containing the Acknowledgement move were identified in the relevant
part of the corpus. From the figures shown in Table 1.1. it can be noticed−195−

Concession in the academic context: power and expertise factorsthat students produced 366 acknowledging moves, which isinsignificantly more than 341 Acknowledgements occurring in faculty
members’ speech.
no. ofoccurrences
Students’ Acknowledgements

366

% of
the
total
51.77

Faculty Members’ Acknowledgements

341

48.23

Total:

707

Table 1.1. The frequency of the Acknowledgement move in the Faculty members
and Students groups

The data obtained from the count are actually difficult to interpret. In
absolute terms, the scores could indicate that acknowledgements are tosome extent more common in students’ oral production. As the number of
the acknowledging moves implies the same number of preceding claims
the data could be analysed in terms of the total number of claims in therelevant part of the corpus, which is, however, practically unfeasible
considering the size of the corpus. What can be done is to relativise thescore to the total volume of students’ and faculty members’ speech inorder to gain further insights into the frequency of Acknowledgements.
The total length of recordings for the analysed part of the corpus is about
2, 700 minutes (~ 45 hours),
while the total number of Concessive
constructions in the corpus amounts to 707. This means that the speakers
produced on the average about 15.71 concessive patterns an hour. This
mean value is important for two reasons. First, it can be used as areference value for the study of variation in the frequency of occurrenceof Concession in the two groups of speakers. Secondly, it can be used inassessing “the degree of concessivity” in academic spoken American,
when the value is compared with the mean value obtained in previous
studies on Concession in other spoken genres. As regards the latter point,
the value is lower than the one obtained in àyda (2007) and BarthWeingarten (2003), yet it should be remembered that monadic andpseudo-dyadic patterns are excluded from the present study. In
addressing the first issue, it can be noted that the frequencies ofoccurrence of acknowledging move in students’ group and the faculty
members’ group amount to 16.26 and 15.16, respectively. However, if we
consider the factor of the volume of speech produced by students andnon-students in the whole MICASE, the figures will be different. Since
the students’ share in the corpus amounts to almost 59% of the total, thiswould indicate that the expected value for the frequency of
acknowledgements would be 417, with the remaining 290 produced byfaculty members. The value is actually lower by almost 13%, which
demonstrates effectively that Acknowledgements (and Counterclaims)
are more frequently found in professors’ s turns than in students’ ones.
Next the acknowledging moves were examined in terms of the
speakers’ status. They were divided into four groups on the basis of thecategory of the interacting participants: student – faculty member; faculty
member – student; student – student, and faculty member – faculty
member, as shown in Figure 1.2. The order in which the participants
appear corresponds to the order of the Claim (X) – Acknowledgement−196−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号(X’) moves, e.g. student – faculty member refers to a situation in which
the claim was made by a student and acknowledged by a faculty member.
247

229

250
200

119

150

112

100
50
0
student –facultymemberfacultymember –student

student student

facultymember –facultymemberFigure 1.2. The Acknowledgement move in four configurations of interacting
speakers.

The figure illustrates that the occurrence of the acknowledging moves inthe student – faculty member is much more frequent than their occurrencein the faculty member – student pair. In other words, it is the faculty
members who acknowledge claims and produce counters rather thanstudents. It is interesting to note that the frequency of Acknowledgements
increases in the student group when the interaction takes place among
peers. This would suggest that students are more likely to acknowledge
and counter in the situation of relatively equal power. By contrast, thenumber of the acknowledging moves drops when the interaction takes
place among faculty staff, yet the reservation must be made that thesespeech events are not represented quantitatively to the same extent asother ones.
The next search focused in on the four types of major categoriesof the Acknowledgement move in the corpus. It was found that the mostfrequently represented category was the combined category of agreement
and assessment phrases. This is consistent with previous findings (BarthWeingarten 2003; àyda, 2007), although the percentages differ
insignificantly from the figures for the whole interactive component of
the MICASE.
Acknowledgement
type
Repetition

no. ofoccurrences99% ofthe total
14.00

Reformulation

72

10.19

Agreement/Assessment

367

51.91

Correlative conjunct

169

23.90

Total:

707

100%

−197−

Concession in the academic context: power and expertise factors

Table 1.2. The frequency of four major categories of the Acknowledgement
move

The category of agreement and assessment phrases stands out inparticular due to the high frequency of Acknowledgements realised bymeans of yeah, yes, no (for confirming a negative statement) and okay inthe agreement group and right in the assessment group:
Example 7
Computer Science Office Hours OFC270MG048
S1: well that's (what) i'm saying and since i've showed that, when ibroke it here, and then i've showed that these are all conditionallydependent.
S2: right right right, but but the point is if you're, actually physicif if you're making these one node, then that means that the arrows
into this one, combined node include this one this one that one that
one and that one. [S1: mhm ] whereas if you leave them as
separate nodes then you only have these two arrows, and thesegoing in.
Example 8
Computer Science Office Hours OFC270MG048
S1: okay. i still couldn't, prove, that, that they were, for part B
doing this one, [S2: mhm ] i still can't, i still say it's insufficient.
[S2: kay ] cuz no matter how i, do it, i always come up with, things
i can prove over P-one_ P of E-one and P of E-two.
S2: okay, but can you get P of E-one can you get P of E-two?

Another most common category is the category of correlative conjuncts,
whose major lexical marker of the acknowledging move is well, followedby though.
Example 9
Math Study Group SGR385SU057
S2: no because if you put infinity over here, then it's gonna be,bigger than zero... that's the idea.
S1: well, but infinity's over here to start with [S2: yeah but if you
move it ] so oh you're subtracting X minus F-of-infinity, not X
minus infinity. [S2: yeah. ] oh okay. alright.

Well is classified as a weak acknowledgement marker because of its lessclear acknowledging status. Well appears in various functions, yet as a
discourse marker well is used to convey the information that the speakeris going to perform a dispreferred move (Pomerantz 1984). Since thedispreferred move for claims is disagreement, it is justified to treat well asa marker of an oncoming explicit counter.
From the table above it can be seen that two poorly represented
categories were repetitions, comprising both partial and complete−198−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

repetitions, and claim reformulations, whose percentage is as low as
about 10%. This coincides with the results obtained in previous studies
on the relation of Concession in academic speech.
If the frequencies of the acknowledgement types are examined
across the students and faculty members groups, we notice evidence ofmuch variational distribution as can be seen in Figure 1.4. Here the figure
shows that that certain types are used overwhelmingly by students andothers by faculty members.
With regard to agreement and assessment phrases, there are
relatively fewer occurrences of this type of the acknowledging move infaculty member speech. Figure 1.3. shows also that in comparison tofaculty members, students used more correlative conjuncts than the latterdid.
The opposite tendency is revealed in the case of reformulations
and repetitions, which require greater cognitive effort consisting inverbatim repetitions or syntactic and/or lexical paraphrases. In the twocategories it was faculty members who were found to be more frequent
users of these lexical markers of the Acknowledgement.

250
212
200
155
150
99
100

70

61
50

38

students

44

faculty members

28

0Figure 1.3. The frequency of four major categories of the Acknowledgement
move in the Faculty members and Students groups

In order to find whether the type and direction of the interaction played arole in the use of a particular Acknowledgement category, the data wereanalysed for each of the categories of the acknowledging move. The
comparative statistics are shown in Table 1.3.
Acknowledgement
type
Repetition

studentfaculty
43

facultystudent

studentstudent

23

15

facultyfaculty
18

Reformulation

31

17

11

13

Agreement/Assessment

99

75

137

56

−199−

Concession in the academic context: power and expertise factors

Correlative conjunct

46

54

45

24

Total:

219

169

208

111

Table 1.3. The frequency of four major categories of the Acknowledgement
move in the four configurations of interaction between speakers.

From the overall examination of the table, it follows that the direction of
the talk exchange and the status of both the producer of the initial claim
and the acknowledging speaker are an important factor of variation.

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

65.86
50.45
45.2

44.37

19.63

31.95

11.71

14.15
21

21.62
16.21

10.05
13.6

5.28
7.21

Repetition

Reformulation

Agreement/assessment phrases

Correlative conjuncts

21.63

Figure 1.4. The distribution (%) of four major categories of the
Acknowledgement move in four configurations of interaction
between speakers

An objection may be raised that the data shown in Table 1.3. represent
the total scores ignoring the fact that the volume of verbal production by
the two groups of speakers was not taken into consideration. For thisreason a distributional approach was taken and the scores for each type ofAcknowledgement were represented in terms of their individual share.
This quantitative breakdown in Figure 1.4. indicates that generally
repetitions and reformulations will be more common among faculty
members acknowledging the claims made by students than vice versa.
There are a few possible reasons why this type of the acknowledging
move is relatively more frequent in the group of faculty members. First,
reformulation and also repetitions, especially repetitions of longer claims,
are more demanding cognitively than simple one-word agreements
because they require not only advanced vocabulary but also sufficientexpertise enabling the speaker to highlight certain semantic nuances, as in
Example 6 above. Secondly, reformulation and repetition give thespeaker additional time needed to prepare a counter. Thirdly, as argued inàyda and Warchaá (2009), while shorter acknowledgements are mostoften an indicator of a longer counter, longer acknowledgements do notnecessarily indicate shorter counters. As such, they are rhetoricallyunmarked in an argumentation. In the fourth place, partial repetitions
allow the speaker to acknowledge only a part of the original claim, which
again calls for relevant expertise. Finally, repetitions being echoic
utterances can be interpreted as ironic (see, e.g., Sperber and Wilson,−200−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

1981), which may explain why they are less common in faculty member– student interaction.
With regard to other types of the acknowledging move in theinteraction between speakers of unequal academic status, while the sharesof agreement/assessment phrases are almost identical for student-faculty
and faculty-student pairs, the category of correlative conjuncts is better
represented in the interaction between faculty members and students.
When the interaction involving the Concessive relation takes
place among peers the distribution patterns look quite different. In student– student Concessive patterns, the acknowledging move in as many as
65.86% takes the form of agreement/assessment phrases, often single
word yeah or a correlative conjunct well (21.63%). By contrast, even if
agreement/assessment phrases are the most common form of
acknowledging in faculty-faculty concessive interaction, the share of
repetitions and reformulations is of notable statistical importance.
Although not as common as in student-faculty exchanges, repetitions
amount to 16.21% and 11.71%, respectively, which may be interpreted asa sign of close attention paid by interacting faculty members to theformulation of the initial claim. These figures, once again, strongly
suggest that the realisation of Concession is linked to the factor of power.

1.5. Concluding Remarks
This study focused on examining the influence of power measured interms of the interlocutors’ status on the lexico-syntactic realisation of theacknowledging move in the discourse-pragmatic relation of Concession.
The main research question driving the examination asked how the rightto agree (Acknowledgement) with a claim only to present a different view
(Counterclaim) is exercised by speakers in the university setting in avariety of highly interactive events such as meetings, student
presentations, seminars, etc. Using a corpus-based methodology allowed
for a number of contextual elements to be explored in detail. In responseto the question posed the answer, still tentative due to a number ofreservations listed below, is that with regard to the frequency and patterns
the acknowledging move is realised differently both in quantitative andqualitative terms by faculty members and students.The realisation islargely influenced by the academic status of the acknowledging speaker.
However, much remains to be done. The present study
concentrated only on a handful of factors that were hypothesised toinfluence the distribution of Acknowledgement types. No account was
taken of the Concessive scheme type, i.e. whether the scheme was
Cardinal or Reversed Cardinal with the counter preceding theacknowledgement. Neither was there examined the dynamics of the
speech events measured in terms of the number of participants and speech
event type. In spite of the limitations I hope that the study should shedsome light on the relation between power in the academia and on uttering
Yes, that’s definitely true, but...

−201−

Concession in the academic context: power and expertise factors

References:
Allwood, J. (1993). The academic seminar as an arena of conflict and conflict
Resolution. Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 67, 1–35
Bäcklund, I.(1984). Conjunction-headed Abbreviated Clauses in English.
Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Barth, D. (2000). “that 's true, although not really, but still”: Expressing
Concession in spoken English. In E. Couper-Kuhlen and B. Kortmann (eds.),
Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives(pp. 411-437). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barth-Weingarten, D. (2003). Concession in Spoken English. On the Realisationof a Discourse-Pragmatic Relation. Tübingen: Narr.
Bastow, T. (2008) Defence discourse II: A corpus perspective on routine andrhetoric in defence discourse. In A. Mayr (ed.) Language and Power (pp. 138161). London: Continuum.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Thompson, S.A. (1998). On the concessive relation inconversational English. (Manuscript; pre-publication version of CouperKuhlen, E. and S. A. Thompson 1999).
Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Thompson, S.A. (1999). On the concessive relation inconversational English”. In F. Neumann and S. Schuelting (eds.), Anglistentag
1998 Erfurt: Proceedings (pp. 29-39). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Thompson, S.A. (2000). Concessive patterns inconversation”. In E. Couper-Kuhlen and B. Kortmann (eds.), Cause, Condition,
Concession, Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives (pp. 381-410).
Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. Boston: Addison Wesley.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Spoken and Written Language. Victoria, Australia:
Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London:
Arnold.
Holtgraves, T. (1997). Yes, but... Positive politeness in conversation arguments.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 222-239.
Knott, A. (1996): A Data-driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence
Relations. Ph. D. Thesis. University of Edinburgh.
Kress, G. (1995). The social production of language: History and structures ofdomination. In P. Fries and M. Gregory (eds.), Discourse in Society: Systemic
Functional Perspectives (pp.169–191). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Leung, K. (2002). Conflict talk: A discourse analytical perspective. Working
Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 2, 1-19.
àyda, A. (2007). Concessive Relation in Spoken Discourse: A Study into
Academic Spoken English. Katowice: Uniwersytet ĝląski.
àyda, A. and Warchaá, K. (2009). Kontekstowe uwarunkowania recyklingu
kontrtwierdzeĔ w relacji koncesywnej. In A. àyda and K. Warchaá (eds.),
Granice rozmyte – terytoria niczyje. Studia z zakresu jĊzyka i kultury (pp. 85–
105). Katowice: WSZMiJO.
Mann, W. and Thompson, S. (1986). Relational propositions in discourse.
Discourse Processes, 9, 57-90.
Mann, W. and Thompson, S. (1987). Rhetorical Structure Theory: A theory oftext organization”. Technical Reports ISI/RS, 87-190.
Mann, W. and Thompson, S (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward afunctional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243-281.
Mann, W., Matthiessen, C. and Thompson, S. (1992). Rhetorical Structure
Theory and text analysis”. In W. Mann and S. Thompson (eds.), Discourse−202−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

Description. Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising Text. Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Matthiessen, C. and Thompson, S. (1988). The structure of discourse and“subordination”. In J. Haiman. and S. Thompson (eds.), Clause Combining in
Grammar and Discourse (pp. 275-330). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Parker, I. (1992). Discourse Dynamics: Critical Analysis for Social andIndividual Psychology. London: Routledge.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Somefeatures of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Atkinson, J. Maxwell and
J. Heritage (eds.), (pp. 57-101). Structures of Social Action. Studies inConversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik (1985). A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Reese-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of
Pragmatics, 32, 1087-1111.
Rudolph, E. (1996). Contrast: Adversative and Concessive Relations and their
Expressions in English, German, Spanish and Portuguese on Sentence Level
and Text Level. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1996). Discourse, power and access. In C. Caldas-Coulthard
and M. Coulthard. Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse
Analysis (pp. 84-104). London: Routledge.
Voloshinov, V. N. (1995). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, Bakhtinian
Thought – an Introductory Reader. S. Dentith, L. Matejka and I. R. Titunik(trans.). London: Routledge.
Warchaá, K. (2010). Moulding interpersonal relations through conditionalclauses: Consensus-building strategies in written academic discourse. Journalof English for Academic Purposes, 9, 140-150−203−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

A Quantitative Analysis of Noncanonical Though Clauses in Naturally Occurring Discourse
Yuko Mizuno
Asahikawa National College of Technology
㧨Abstract㧪
Though clauses sometimes have unusual word order in which a certain constituent appears in the position
immediately before though. Though clauses in usual word order (e.g. Though it might be unfair, Cecilia
couldn't forgive him.) is called “canonical though clauses” and though clauses in unusual word order (e.g.
Unfair though it might be, Cecilia couldn't forgive him.) is called “noncanonical though clauses.” Thegoal of this paper is to examine what kinds of constituents occur before though in natural texts and how
frequently each type occurs, and to clarify the commonalities and differences between canonical andnoncanonical though clauses in terms of their distribution and usages.
‫ޣ‬Keywords‫ޤ‬: noncanonical word order, adverbial clause, concessive, quantitative analysis
1. Introduction
Though clauses sometimes have unusual word order in which a certain constituent appears in theposition immediately before though, as shown in (1b): (1) a. Though it might be unfair, Cecilia couldn't forgive him.
b. Unfair though it might be, Cecilia couldn't forgive him.
This phenomenon has been given different labels by different linguists: Though Inversion (Emonds 1976),
Though Movement (Radford 1981, Andrews 1982, Ichikawa 1984), Though-Preposing (Baltin 1982, Ross
1986, McCawley 1988), and Though-Attraction (Culicover 1982, Koizumi 1985, Nakajima 1999). For
convenience’ sake, however, I will call though clauses in usual word order as in (1a) “canonical thoughclauses” and though clauses in unusual word order as in (1b) “noncanonical though clauses” (cf. Birner andWard 1998). Like canonical though clauses, noncanonical though clauses may occur in sentence-initial,
medial, or final positions, as illustrated in examples in (1b) above, (2), and (3) below, respectively: (2) That job, grotesque though it was, was the cleanest part of the work.
 (3) She would miss him, crazy though he was.
Previous studies have presented many grammatical features of noncanonical though clauses. For
example, not only an adjective, as in (1b), (2), and (3) above, but also a noun, a verb, an adverb, and a
prepositional phrase may occur before though, as illustrated in (4):
 (4) a. Genius though she was, she was quite unassuming. (noun)(Quirk et al. 1985: 1097)
b. Fail though I did, I would not abandon my goal. (verb)(ibid.: 1098)
c. Carefully though he drives, he often suffers an accident. (adverb)(Nakajima 1999: 520)
d. In trouble though John is, he still smiles bravely. (prepositional phrase) (Ichikawa 1984: 38)
It has also been pointed out that when a noun occurs before though, the article must be omitted, as can beseen in (5a) below. The sentence in (5a) becomes ungrammatical if the article appears in the noun phrase
before though, as illustrated in (5b).
 (5) a. Genius though John is, he can’t tie his shoe laces.
b. *A genius though John is, he can’t tie his shoe laces.

(Culicover 1982: 1)(ibid.: 2)

Because of their interesting behavior, noncanonical though clauses have been analyzed by a number ofstudies. Syntactic analyses were proposed by Emonds (1976), Culicover (1982), Andrews (1982), Baltin(1982), Ichikawa (1984), Koizumi (1985), Ross (1986), and Nakajima (1999), and a semantic analysis byHirota (1993), among others.
However, previous research is insufficient in at least two respects. First, most of the previous studies
have been restricted to constructed examples. As a result, it has not been revealed what kinds ofconstituents actually occur before though in natural data and how frequently each type occurs. Second,−205−

A Quantitative Analysis of Noncanonical Though Clauses in Naturally Occurring Discourse

not much consideration has been given to the commonalities and differences between canonical andnoncanonical though clauses. Biber et al. (1999: 909) point out that noncanonical though clauses, but not
canonical though clauses, emphasize the elements before though. However, almost no study has closelycompared the two types of though clauses with respect to the following two respects:
 (A) How frequently they occur in sentence-initial, medial, and final positions.
 (B) What kinds of usages they have in natural texts and how frequently each type occurs.
The goals of this paper are twofold: to examine what kinds of constituents occur before though innaturally occurring discourse and how frequently each type occurs, and to clarify the commonalities anddifferences between canonical and noncanonical though clauses with respect to the two points in (A) and(B) above. In order to compare the two types of though clauses, I will use the analysis of canonicalthough clauses made in Mizuno (2010). Mizuno (2010) analyzed a total of 194 examples of canonicalthough clauses taken from the juvenile fictions compiled in The Corpus of Contemporary American
English from 2004 to 2007, and found the following two points. First, final though clauses are more
frequent than initial though clauses, which are in turn more frequent than medial though clauses. Second,canonical though clauses express five types of relations, that is, standard concessive, rhetorical concessive,
rectifying concessive, speech-act, and contrast.
2. Five Types of Relations Expressed by Canonical Though ClausesThis section explains the five types of relations expressed by canonical though clauses identified by
Mizuno (2010), i.e., standard concessive, rhetorical concessive, rectifying concessive, speech-act, andcontrast. First, standard concessive is exemplified in (6) below.
  (6) Though their meal was surprisingly good, Mik spent more time shoving his food around the plate
than actually eating.
(Example (17) in Mizuno 2010)
In this use, the speaker of though p, q (or q, though p) asserts these two propositions against thebackground assumption that ‘if p, then normally not-q’ (König 1994: 679). For example, the speaker of(6) may assume that if their meal was great, Mik did not shove his food around the plate.
Second, rhetorical concessive is illustrated in (7):
 (7) “I have a job for you,” Tallient continued. “I’m listening.” I had no choice. Though my parents
were incredibly wealthy, they thought I was nuts and had stopped speaking to me the instant I
married Simon.
(Example (18) in Mizuno (2010)
In this use, the first clause p is an argument for a conclusion r, while the second clause q is an argument forthe opposite conclusion not-r, and the second conclusion carries more weight in the whole argument(König 1985: 6). For example, in (7), a job is offered to the speaker by Tallient. The though clause myparents were incredibly wealthy supports the conclusion that the speaker would not take on the job, whereas
the main clause they thought I was nuts supports the opposite conclusion.
Third, rectifying concessive is exemplified in (8) below:(8) A woman came out of a port building holding some object, probably a holofile, though he couldn’t
be sure from so far away.
(Example (28) in Mizuno 2010)

According to König (1994: 681), the content of the main clause is weakened whenever a rectifying clausefollows. In (8), for example, the main clause states that a woman is probably holding a holofile.
However, the validity of this statement is weakened by the following though clause.
Fourth, speech-act use of though is illustrated in (9):
 (9) He deserved the promotion, though it’s not my place to say so.

(Quirk et al. 1985: 1072)

In this use, the though clause forms an obstacle for the realization of the speech-act expressed in the mainclause. In (9), the propositional content of the though clause it’s not my place to say so is in conflict withthe speech act of asserting that he deserved the promotion.
Finally, the relation of contrast (or “semantic opposition” in Lakoff’s (1971) term) is shown in (10): (10) John is tall but Bill is short.

(Lakoff 1971: 133)−206−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

In this relation, “the subjects of the two sentences are directly opposed to each other at a particular property”(Lakoff 1971: 133). According to Lakoff (1971), contrast is distinguished from standard concessive (or“denial of expectation” in Lakoff’s (1971) term) in terms of three respects. First, standard concessive
involves a background assumption, while contrast does not. Second, for contrast, the order of the
conjuncts can be changed, as in (11) below, while it cannot for standard concessive. Third, contrast can be
expressed by while, as in (12) below, while standard concessive cannot.
 (11) Bill is short but John is tall.
 (12) John is tall while Bill is short.
While Lakoff (1971) assumes that only but, but not although, can express contrast, Mizuno (2010) showsthat both although and though can express contrast, as shown in (13) below: (13) Just last week, she and Ian Hamlin opened an office together in a small converted house, only
about a mile from Miles Hamasaki’s former high-rise, high-rent law firm in downtown, Honolulu.
Though Hamlin had been fairly well established before Miles Hamasaki’s death, Storm had been amere law clerk for her beloved Uncle Miles.
(Example (19a) in Mizuno 2010)
In (13), Hamlin and Storm are contrasted with regard to their careers.
The distinction among these five types of relations is theoretically important, because these relations
have been identified in several studies. Standard concessive corresponds to Lakoff’s (1971) “denial of
expectation,” Blakemore’s (1989) “direct denial,” and Izutsu’s (2005) “direct-concessive.” Rhetoricalconcessive corresponds to Blakemore’s (1989) “indirect denial,” Spooren’s (1989) “concessive opposition,”and Izutsu’s (2005) “indirect concessive.” Rectifying concessive has also been called “restrictive” in
Rudolph (1996). Contrast was also identified in Blakemore (1989) and Izutsu (2005). Lastly, speech-act
use of concessive conjunctions was identified in Sweetser (1990) and Crevels (2000).
3. Data
I collected the data from fictions compiled in The Corpus of Contemporary American English(COCA) from 1990 to 2011. Initially, I collected all the tokens of though included in the fictional sectionof the corpus and obtained a total of 52,763 tokens of though. Then, I manually extracted from themtokens of though used in noncanonical though clauses and obtained a total of 338 noncanonical thoughclauses.
4. Results
4.1 The Kinds of Constituents Occurring before ThoughThis section examines what kinds of constituents occur before though in noncanonical though clausesin the data and how frequently each type occurs. As noted in Section 1, previous studies have revealed
that five categories, i.e., an adjective, a noun, a verb, an adverb, and a prepositional phrase, can occur
before though. The present data show that all of the five categories actually occur before though innatural texts, as illustrated in (14) below: (14) a. Unfair though it might be, Cecilia couldn't forgive him. (adjective)(COCA, FIC, 16 Lighthouse Road, 2001)
b. Giant though he was, he was a sick man.
(noun)(COCA, FIC, Fantasy & Science Fiction, 2011)(COCA, FIC, Silver flame, 2008)
c. Search though I do, it continues to elude me.
(verb)
d. Back though they go, neither is much into commemoration. (adverb)(COCA, FIC, Michigan Quarterly Review, 2006)
e. Thus was self-awareness taking root even in the breast of a woman like Saneko, weak and in ill
health though she was.
(prepositional phrase)(COCA, FIC, Literary Review, 1996)
Table 1 below shows the number of examples of each type in the data. The table shows that while all of
the five categories occur before though, they differ greatly in frequency. The most frequent category is anadjective; a noun and a verb are far less frequent than an adjective; and an adverb and a prepositional
phrase are the least frequent.

−207−

A Quantitative Analysis of Noncanonical Though Clauses in Naturally Occurring Discourse

Table 1 The kinds of constituents occurring before though in noncanonical though clauses1
adjectivenoun
verb
adverb prepositional phrase
total
234
50
43
8
4
339
(69.0%)(14.7%)(12.7%)(2.4%)(1.2%)(100.0%)4.2 Frequency of Initial, Medial, and Final Noncanonical Though ClausesThis section reports the positioning pattern of noncanonical though clauses. I distinguished initial,
medial, and final positions following Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 575).2 Initial position is before thesubject, final position is after the verb and some or all of its dependents, and medial position is between
subject and verb. Table 2 below shows the frequency of initial, medial, and final noncanonical thoughclauses in the data.
Table 2 Linear order of noncanonical though clauses in fiction
initialmedialfinal
total
150 (44.4%)
60 (17.7%)
128 (37.9%)
338 (100.0%)
Table 2 shows that initial though clauses are more frequent than final though clauses, which are in turnmore frequent than medial though clauses: 150 out of 338 (44.4%) tokens occur sentence-initially, 128 outof 338 (37.9%) tokens occur sentence-finally, and 60 out of 338 (17.7%) tokens occur sentence-medially.
Next, let us compare the distribution of noncanonical though clauses with that of canonical thoughclauses observed in Mizuno (2010). Table 3 below shows the frequency of initial, medial, and final
canonical though clauses in the fictional data used in Mizuno (2010).
Table 3 Linear order of canonical though clauses in fiction (Mizuno 2010)
initialmedialfinal
total
75 (38.7%)
1 (0.5%) 118 (60.8%) 194 (100.0%)
Table 3 shows that unlike noncanonical though clauses, final canonical though clauses are far more
frequent than initial clauses: 118 out of 194 (60.8%) tokens follow the main clause, while 75 out of 194(38.7%) tokens precede the main clause. The table also shows that medial canonical though clauses are
extremely infrequent: only one (0.5%) token occurs in medial position.
Thus, noncanonical though clauses differ greatly from canonical though clauses with respect to theirdistribution. First, while canonical though clauses occur sentence-finally far more often thansentence-initially, noncanonical though clauses occur sentence-initially more often than sentence-finally.
Second, noncanonical though clauses occur in medial position more often than canonical though clauses.
4.3 Usage Types of Noncanonical Though Clauses and the Frequency of Each Type
This section examines usage types of noncanonical though clauses and the frequency of each type. I
analyzed the 338 examples of noncanonical though clauses in the data in terms of whether they represent
the five types of relations which were introduced in Section 2.
4.3.1 Initial Noncanonical Though Clauses
A total of 150 initial noncanonical though clauses in the data can be classified into three main classes:
standard, rhetorical, and rectifying concessive. There are no clear examples of contrast and speech-act.
First, standard concessive is the most frequent type of initial noncanonical though clauses in the data.
125 out of 150 (83.3%) examples express standard concessive, as exemplified in (15): (15) Weak though he was, he would not cease to struggle.

(COCA, FIC, Southern Review, 2000)

In (15), we may assume that if he was weak, he would cease to struggle. However, this assumption isincompatible with the propositional content of the main clause.
Second, rhetorical concessive is far less frequent than standard concessive. Only 20 out of 150(13.3%) examples express rhetorical concessive, as illustrated in (16): (16) As far as he was concerned what was now taking place was not apparently entirely unexpected.
As a matter of fact, he had assiduously prepared for it. Cruel and unpleasant though this kind of
surgical operation always turned out to be, time and again it had proved utterly indispensable.

−208−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号(COCA, FIC, World Literature Today, 1996)
In (16), the propositional content of the though clause, this kind of surgical operation always turned out tobe cruel and unpleasant, provides an argument against the claim that he had assiduously prepared for it.
On the other hand, the main clause time and again it had proved utterly indispensable supports the claim.
Third, only 5 out of 150 (3.3%) examples in the data express rectifying concessive. In this type, thecontent of the main clause is weakened, as illustrated in (17): (17) He pulled the bandage off his hand. Out of the deep tear in his flesh, black-scabbed though it was,the naked tendons peeked.
(COCA, FIC, Fantasy & Science Fiction, 2004)
In (17), the seriousness of the tear mentioned in the main clause is weakened by the though clause.
4.3.2 Medial Noncanonical Though Clauses
Like initial noncanonical though clauses, a total of 60 medial noncanonical though clauses in the data
can be classified into three main classes: standard, rectifying, and rhetorical concessive.
First, like initial though clauses, standard concessive is the most frequent type. 46 out of 60 (76.7%)
examples express standard concessive, as illustrated in (18): (18) In front of him rose a wall of fire blazing so fiercely that Yellow-Mane, brave though he was, drew
back from it.
(COCA, FIC, The Arkadians, 1995)
In (18), the though clause may evoke an assumption that if Yellow-Mane was brave, he did not draw backfrom a wall of fire. However, this assumption is denied by the propositional content of the main clause.
Next, rectifying concessive is less frequent than standard concessive. 13 out of 60 (21.7%) examples
express rectifying concessive, as exemplified in (19): (19) The measuring look vanished, and Carlos's smile, small though it was, returned.
(COCA, FIC, Steve Perry, 1991)
In (19), the though clause weakens the propositional content of the main clause by saying that the smile
mentioned in the main clause was small.
Third, only 1 out of 60 (1.7%) examples in the data can be regarded as rhetorical concessive, as shownin (20).
 (20) And we can't afford to hire a homecare worker." "We could if..." she began, and he mentallyfinished that sentence: if we sold the house. He looked out one of the windows again. Yes, thishouse, small though it was, was bigger than they needed, and had been since Emily had moved out
more than twenty years ago.
(COCA, FIC, Analog Science Fiction & Fact, 2006)
In (20), the underlined sentence mentions an idea of selling the house.
an argument against this idea, the main clause supports it.

While the though clause provides

4.3.3 Final Noncanonical Though Clauses
A total of 128 final noncanonical though clauses in the data can be classified into three main classes:
rectifying concessive, standard concessive, and speech-act.
First, unlike initial and medial noncanonical though clauses, rectifying concessive is the most frequenttype. 75 out of 128 (58.6%) examples express rectifying concessive, as illustrated in (21): (21) Reading her sporadic entries is bittersweet, for while they bring our years together to life, they also
show me my flaws and the ways in which I hurt her, unintentional though they were.
(COCA, FIC, City of tranquil light :a novel, 2010)
In (21), the speaker’s flaws are mentioned in the main clause. However, the though clause weakens theseriousness of his flaws by stating that they were unintentional.
Second, standard concessive is less frequent than rectifying concessive in the data. 48 out of 128(37.5%) examples express standard concessive, as exemplified in (22):−209−

A Quantitative Analysis of Noncanonical Though Clauses in Naturally Occurring Discourse (22) Mont took an instant dislike to the dark-haired woman, beautiful and friendly though she was.
(COCA, FIC, Cannons of the Comstock, 1992)
In (22), one may assume that if a woman was beautiful and friendly, Mont did not dislike her.
this assumption is incompatible with the propositional content of the main clause.
Finally, there were 5 (3.9%) examples of speech-act relation, as illustrated in (23):However, (23) Sing of my rage, yes, of my rage, O Muse, small and insignificant though that rage may be whenmeasured against the anger of the immortal gods, or when compared to the wrath of the god-killer,
Achilles.
(COCA, FIC, Ilium, 2003)
In (23), the main clause is an imperative sentence and expresses the speech act of requesting. The thoughclause says that the speaker’s rage may be small and insignificant, and suggests that the rage may not beworth requesting Muse to sing of. However, in spite of the fact that the speaker’s rage may beinsignificant, he requests Muse to sing of his rage.
4.3.4 Similarities and Differences between Canonical and Noncanonical Though Clauses in their
UsagesTable 4 below summarizes the usages of noncanonical though clauses.
Table 4 Usages of initial, medial, and final noncanonical though clauses
initialmedial
final
UsagesNo. of clauses
No. of clauses
No. of clausesStandard
125(83.3%)
46(76.7%)
48(37.5%)
Rhetorical20(13.3%)
1(1.7%)
0(0.0%)
Rectifying
5(3.3%)
13(21.7%)
75(58.6%)
Speech-act
0(0.0%)
0(0.0%)
5(3.9%)
Contrast
0(0.0%)
0(0.0%)
0(0.0%)
Total
150(100.0%)60(100.0%)128(100.0%)
Table 4 shows that initial and medial noncanonical though clauses are similar in the kinds of usages andtheir most frequent usage. Both of them express standard, rhetorical, and rectifying concessive, and theirmost frequent usage is standard concessive. On the other hand, final noncanonical though clauses aredifferent from initial and medial though clauses: final noncanonical though clauses express standard
concessive, rectifying concessive, and speech-act, and their most frequent usage is rectifying concessive.
Next, let us compare the usages of noncanonical though clauses with those of canonical thoughclauses observed in Mizuno (2010), the latter of which are shown in Table 5 below.
Table 5 Usages of initial and final canonical though clauses (Mizuno 2010)
final
initialUsagesNo. of clauses
No. of clausesStandard
61(81.3%)
37(31.4%)
Rhetorical3(4.0%)
2(1.7%)
Rectifying
0(0.0%)
71(60.2%)
Speech-act
1(1.3%)
0(0.0%)
Contrast
10(13.35%)7(5.9%)
Unclear0(0.0%)
1(0.8%)
Total
75(100.0%)118(100.0%)According to tables 4 and 5, there are both differences and similarities between canonical and noncanonicalthough clauses. First, they are different in the kinds of usages: while initial canonical though clauses
express standard concessive, rhetorical concessive, speech-act and contrast, initial noncanonical thoughclauses express standard, rhetorical, and rectifying concessive; while final canonical though clauses express
standard concessive, rhetorical concessive, rectifying concessive, and contrast, final noncanonical thoughclauses express standard concessive, rectifying concessive, and speech-act. Second, on the other hand,
they are similar in their most frequent usage: the most frequent usage of initial canonical and noncanonicalthough clauses is standard concessive; the most frequent usage of final canonical and noncanonical thoughclauses is rectifying concessive.3−210−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

5. Discussion
This section considers the following two findings reported in the previous section. First,
noncanonical though clauses tend to precede the main clause while canonical though clauses tend to follow
it: while 60.8 percent of canonical though clauses follow the main clause, only 37.9 percent of
noncanonical though clauses follow it. Second, while the relation of contrast is expressed by both initialand final canonical though clauses, it is not expressed by either initial or final noncanonical though clauses.
First, let us consider why noncanonical though clauses tend to precede the main clause while
canonical though clauses tend to follow it. I suggest this can be explained in terms of their weight (orlength) (cf. Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 1371). It is well known that heavy constituents tend to occur
sentence-finally (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1361-1362). I counted the number of words in each of the 194
canonical though clauses used in Mizuno (2010) and the number of words in each of the 338 noncanonicalthough clauses collected for the present study. Table 6 shows the average number of words in the
canonical and noncanonical though clauses.
Table 6 The average number of words in though clauses
canonical noncanonicalNo. of words
11.3
6.1
On average, the canonical though clause is almost twice the length of the noncanonical though clause.
The average number of words in canonical though clauses is 11.3, while that of noncanonical thoughclauses is only 6.1. Therefore, it is natural that canonical though clauses tend to occur sentence-finallybecause they are relatively heavy. Likewise, it is natural that noncanonical though clauses tend to occur ininitial or medial positions because they are relatively light.
Next, let us consider why noncanonical though clauses do not express contrast, while canonicalthough clauses do. According to a native speaker of English, the canonical though clause in (13) above,
which expresses contrast, becomes far less acceptable if the predicate adjective is positioned before though,as illustrated in (24).
 (24) ?Fairly well established though Hamlin had been before Miles Hamasaki’s death, Storm had been amere law clerk for her beloved Uncle Miles.
Two factors seem to be relevant here, i.e., the semantic characteristic of the relation of contrast, on the one
hand, and emphasis made by the noncanonical though clause, on the other. According to Lakoff (1971:135), the two clauses which express the relation of contrast are symmetric in that the order of clauses canbe reversed without significant change in meaning. For example, the order of the two clauses in (13)above, which express the relation of contrast, can be reversed, as shown in (25): (25) Though Storm had been a mere law clerk for her beloved Uncle Miles, Hamlin had been fairly wellestablished before Miles Hamasaki’s death.
Sweetser (1990: 105) also suggests that the two clauses expressing contrast “are presented as equal andindependent.” On the other hand, as noted in Section 1, Biber et al. (1999: 909) suggest that the mainfunction of noncanonical though clauses is to emphasize the element occurring before though. If Biber etal.’s (1999) analysis is correct, noncanonial though clauses and their main clause can be regarded asasymmetric, because only the though clause, but not the main clause, is emphasized. Thus, we canassume that noncanonical though clauses cannot express contrast due to a mismatch in meaning.
Noncanonical though sentences express an asymmetric relation, while contrast is a symmetric relation.
6. Conclusion
The discussion of this paper has come up with the following new findings. (i) While all of the fivecategories, i.e., a noun, an adjective, a verb, an adverb, and a prepositional phrase, occur before though,they differ greatly in frequency. The most frequent category is an adjective. (ii) There are at least two
differences between canonical and noncanonical though clauses. First, they are different in theirpositioning patterns: while canonical though clauses occur sentence-finally far more often thansentence-initially, noncanonical though clauses occur sentence-initially more often than sentence-finally;
noncanonical though clauses occur in medial position far more often than canonical though clauses.
Second, they are different in the kinds of usages: while the relations of standard concessive, rhetorical−211−

A Quantitative Analysis of Noncanonical Though Clauses in Naturally Occurring Discourse

concessive, rectifying concessive, and speech-act are expressed by both canonical and noncanonical thoughclauses, the relation of contrast is expressed by canonical, but not noncanonical, though clauses. (iii)
Canonical and noncanonical though clauses are similar in their most frequent usage: the most frequent
usage of initial canonical and noncanonical though clauses is standard concessive, and the most frequent
usage of final canonical and noncanonical though clauses is rectifying concessive.
Notes
1
Although the total number of noncanonical though clauses in the data was 338, the total number in Table 1 is339 because there was one example ((14e) above) in which both an adjective and a prepositional phrase occur
before though at the same time.
2
In Huddleston and Pullum (2002), initial, medial, and final positions are called front, central, and end positions,
respectively.
3
Table 5 does not show the usages of medial canonical though clauses because the data used in Mizuno (2010)
contained only one example of medial canonical though clause and the example was excluded from the analysis
made in Mizuno (2010).
References
Andrews III, A. 1982. “A Note of the Constituent Structure of Adverbials and Auxiliaries.” Linguistic Inquiry
13:2, 313-317.
Baltin, M. 1982. “A Landing Site Theory of Movement Rules.” Linguistic Inquiry 13:1, 1-38.
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written
English. London: Longman.
Birner, B. and G. Ward. 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Blakemore, D. 1989. “Denial and Contrast: A Relevance Theoretic Analysis of BUT.” Linguistics andPhilosophy 12, 15-37.
Crevels, M. 2000. “Concessives on Different Semantic Levels: A Typological Perspective.” In E. Couper-Kuhlen
and B. Kortmann (eds.) Cause-Condition-Concession-Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspective,
313-339. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Culicover, P. 1982. Though-Attraction. Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Davies, M. 2008-. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present,
http://corpus.byu.adu/coca/.
Emonds, J.E. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure-Preserving, and Local
Transformations. New York: Academic Press.
Hirota, N. 1993. “On Though-Attraction Phenomena.” Gifu Daigaku Kyoiku Gakubu Kenkyu Hokoku: Jinbun
Kagaku (Report of the Faculty of Education, Gifu University) 41, 173-183.
Huddleston, R. and G. K. Pullum (eds.) 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ichikawa, Y. 1984. “Though Movement ni Kansuru Ichi Koosatsu (A Study of Though Movement).” Leo 13,
31-45.
Izutsu, N.M. 2005. Contrast, Concessive, and Corrective: A Unifying Analysis of Opposition Relations inEnglish. Ph.D. Dissertation, Hokkaido University.
Koizumi, N. 1985. “Certain Peculiarities of Though-Attraction.” English Linguistics Today, 271-291. Tokyo:
Kaitakusha.
König, E. 1985. “On the History of Concessive Connectives in English. Diachronic and Synchronic Evidence.”
Lingua 66, 1-19.
König, E. 1994. “Concessive Clauses.” In R. E. Asher (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics,
679-681. Oxford: Oxford Pergamon Press.
Lakoff, R. 1971. “If’s, And’s, and But’s about Conjunction.” In C.J. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen (eds.)
Studies in Linguistic Semantics, 114-149. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
McCawley, J.D. 1988. The Syntactic Phenomena of English Volume 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Mizuno, Y. 2010. “A Quantitative Analysis of Although and Though Clauses: Their Commonalities andDifferences.” Hokkaido Eigo Eibungaku (Hokkaido English Language and Literature) 55, 41-60.
Nakajima, H. 1999. “Irregular Though Though-Attraction Seems To Be.” In Muraki, M and E. Iwamoto (eds.)
Linguistics: In Search of the Human Mind, 520-539. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.
London: Longman.
Radford, A. 1981. Transformational Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ross, J. R. 1986. Infinite Syntax! Norwood: Ablex.
Rudolph, E. 1996. Contrast: Adversative and Concessive Expressions on Sentence and Text Level. Berlin: Walterde Gruyter.
Spooren, W.P.M.S. 1989. Some Aspects of the Form and Interpretation of Global Contrastive Coherence
Relations. Ph.D. Dissertation, Nijimegen University.
Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

−212−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

Teleology Marking in English Conversations in American Media: The Discourse Marker So
George O’Neal
Niigata University
cerebralabstraction@gmail.com<Abstract>
This paper argues that the discourse marker so signals the imminent transition to the
purpose, or teleology, of the conversation; that is, the deployment of the discourse
marker so indicates that the speaker will initiate the purpose for which the conversation
was begun. This argument is similar in many respects to the analysis of the discourse
marker so offered by Bolden (2008a, 2008b), but differs as to where deployment occurs:
Bolden (2008a) claims that the discourse marker so is deployed only after anchor point;
this paper, however, claims that the discourse marker so can appear at anchor point.
Using a corpus of authentic and inauthentic data gathered from American media, thispaper argues that the discourse marker so is a teleology marker deployed at anchor point.

࠙Keywordsࠚ: Discourse Marker, So, Teleology, Discourse Particle, Conversation
Analysis, American English

1

Introduction
The discourse marker so is a perennial feature of transactional conversations. It appears as a preface toutterances that launch the purpose of the conversation, and as such, it seems adumbrate a teleologicaltransition; that is, utterances prefaced with the discourse marker so foreshadow the beginning of the main
agenda. This paper examines the sequential and conversational positioning of the discourse marker so in
American English media, and argues both that the discourse marker so consistently prefaces utterances that
represent a teleological initiation and that anchor point is also a possible point of deployment.

2

Previous Research
So is often categorized as a discourse marker (e.g., Schiffrin 1987). Some argue that the discourse

marker so manifests the basic meaning of “result” (Schiffrin 1987) or “inference” (Blakemore 2002). Other
scholars have identified more specific meanings: Raymond (2004) claims that the discourse marker so canbe used to prompt the interlocutor to produce the next relevant action; Johnson (2002) claims that it focuses

−213−

1

Teleology Marking in English Conversations in American Media: The Discourse Marker So

the interlocutor’s attention on the interview’s agenda; Bolden (2008a, 2008b) claims it indicates that the
speaker is moving the interaction to the agenda after the anchor point of the conversation. Anchor positionis the first available slot in a conversation to introduce the reason for the conversation after the greeting andidentification sequences (Schegloff 1986). That is, Bolden (2008a) claims that the discourse marker soadumbrates the initiation of the agenda after the first possible point at which it could have been introduced.

3

Methodology & Data
This paper utilizes Conversation Analytic methodology (e.g., Schegloff 2007) to examine theinteractional effect of the discourse marker so in extracts of American media. However, there was one
major point of departure from standard Conversation Analytic methodology: this study utilized bothauthentic media (Podcasts) and inauthentic media (TV shows). Inauthentic media does not qualify as
legitimate data under the strictures of Conversation Analytic data collection. In spite of that, this study
examines the inauthentic data just like the authentic data, but only claims that the interactional praxis
discovered represents interactional praxis in American media. The data were taken from three sources: theAmerican TV show Madmen, the American Podcast Macworld, and the American Podcast PBS Newshour.

4

Results & Discussion
In the following section, we examine four extracts of American media and determine the usage of the

discourse marker so. The first example is taken from Mad Men. Previous to this extract, Mr. Price found awallet on the way to work, and being an honest gentleman, Mr. Price called a phone number written on apiece of paper in the wallet in the hope that he could return the wallet to its rightful owner. However,
unbeknownst to Mr. Price, he found the wallet of a pimp. Mr. Price gets called back, but the caller is a
prostitute named Dolores, who works for the pimp who lost his wallet, Alex Bullio.
Teleological So Example 1: Mad Men Season 5, Episode 2
1

Secretary: I have the owner of the wallet returning your call.

2

Mr. Price: Thank you ((to the secretary)). Hello ((to the caller)).

3

Dolores:4

Mr. Price: And who is this?

5

Dolores:6

Mr. Price: Oh

7

(1.0)

Hello. Mr. Price. I’m calling for Alex Bullio.

This is his girl Dolores.

8

Mr. Price: well when he comes into the office I think I should speak with him personally.

9

Dolores:

Oh I’m not his secretary. I’m his girl. I’m like his wife but I can’t call myself that.

−214−

2

第15回大会発表論文集

10

(1.0)

11

Mr. Price: Oh

12

(1.0)

第８号

13

Mr. Price: You don’t sound happy about that.

14

Dolores:15

Mr. Price: I’m married myself.

16

Dolores:17

Mr. Price: Rebecca. Rebecca Price. Well obviously.

18

Dolores:19

Mr. Price: I suppose so. She enjoys it.

20

Dolores:21

Mr. Price: Oh uh I should hope not.

22

Dolores:23

Mr. Price: Yes I do

24

Dolores:25

Mr. Price: I’m at my offices in midtown

Excuse me?

Oh good for you. What’s her name?

That’s a pretty name.

Do you think she’s at home right now lying in bed talking to a stranger?

So:::: so you have Alex’s wallet?

And where are you?

The example above begins with a clear notification of the purpose of the interaction. Mr. Price’s
secretary notifies Mr. Price that the owner of the wallet is on the telephone line, which tells us the teleologyof the interaction that is about to happen: the owner of the wallet wants to arrange for the handover of thewallet. First, Mr. Price and Dolores exchange self-identification sequences (lines 2~6), and then exchange
information concerning their marital statuses (lines 7~15). After that, Dolores comments on the beauty of
Mr. Price’s wife’s name (lines 16-19), and inquires about the current whereabouts of Mr. Price’s wife (lines
20~21). The discourse marker so finally makes an appearance in line 22: Dolores finally deploys thediscourse marker so twice in line 22 before the utterance “you have Alex’s wallet?”, which coincides
exactly with the teleological purpose of the interaction. That is, the discourse marker so prefaces theutterance that represents the initiation of the purpose of the interaction. Furthermore, this example isconsistent with the behavior of the discourse marker so suggested by Bolden (2008a). The discourse marker
so is used to initiate the teleology of the conversation after the anchor point of the conversation. The anchor
point of the conversation is in line 8, but the discourse marker so is not deployed until line 22.
The next example further demonstrates that the discourse marker so is deployed before the utterance
that starts the purpose of the conversation. In the next example, Peggy comes into Don's office, and asks
him for his signature. Therefore, at least nominally, Peggy explicitly states the purpose of the interaction:
Peggy needs to get Don to sign something for her. If the hypothesis that the discourse marker so prefaces

−215−

3

Teleology Marking in English Conversations in American Media: The Discourse Marker So

utterances that initiate the main purpose of the interaction is true, then one would expect that the discourse
marker so would be deployed before the utterance that requests Don’s signature. However, Peggy does not
do that. In fact, Peggy deploys the discourse marker so at a very different location. Peggy deploys thediscourse marker so before an attempt to steer the conversation toward a plumb assignment that could
substantially better Peggy’s career—if she can get Don to give her the assignment.
Teleological So Example 2: Mad Men, Season 3, Episode 7
1

Don:

.hhh

2

Peggy:

I just need a minute. I need to send Martin’s to the printers.

3

Don:

Come on in.

4((Peggy hands Don a document. Don signs it))5

Peggy:

So, do you know who you’re gonna put on Hilton yet?

6

Don:

No

7

Peggy:

Well, I don’t know if they want a woman’s point of view but I read his

89book and::=
Don:

10

=who told we were gonna land Hilton, because we’re not.
And I resent you bringing work in here under pretense.

11

Peggy:

12

Don:

13

Peggy:

I didn’t==I didn’t need to sign off on this.
I’m sorry. I was excited. And I heard there was an amazing assignment.

First, Peggy reveals the nominal purpose of the conversation in line 2: She tells Don that she needs his
signature. However, there is no discourse marker so at the beginning of this utterance. Accordingly, one
might point to this interaction as a counter-example to the idea that the discourse marker so is a teleology
marker. However, Peggy does deploy the discourse marker so in line 5, and starts to make the case that sheshould be the one in charge of the Hilton account, and that Don should assign her to the account (lines 5~8).
But Don cuts her off, and accuses Peggy of pretending that her real purpose in initiating the conversation
had nothing to do with getting his signature (lines 9~10). That is, Don claims that Peggy’s nominal purposeof initiating this interaction, getting Don’s signature, and the real purpose in initiating the interaction,
getting herself assigned to the Hilton account, are different, which is what was intended by the “pretense”
comment. Initially Peggy denies Don’s accusation (line 11), but Don cuts her off again and confronts her
with the evidence for his accusation: he did not need to sign the document that Peggy asked him to sign
(line 12). Next, Peggy admits that the nominal purpose of the interaction and the real purpose of theinteraction are different, and then apologizes to Don (line 13).
One can see that the discourse marker so is deployed at the beginning of the utterance that represents

−216−

4

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

the initiation of the real purpose of the conversation. Although nominally the purpose of the conversation
was to get Don’s signature, upon a retroactive inspection of the entire conversation, one can see that theactual purpose of the conversation, the actual teleological orientation of the conversation, was to get Don toassign Peggy to the Hilton account. It is important to note that the discourse marker so is deployed in frontof the real teleological utterance of the conversation, not the nominal one.
Like the first example, this example is also consistent with the behavior of the discourse marker sosuggested by Bolden (2008a). The discourse marker so is used to initiate the teleology of the conversation
after the anchor point of the conversation. The anchor point of the conversation is line 2, but the discourse
marker so is not deployed until line 5. However, further examples from authentic data reveal that thediscourse marker so is not consistently utilized in the manner suggested by Bolden (2008a). The discourse
marker so can, and often is, used in anchor position to initiate the teleology of a conversation. This isespecially true with American Podcasts: the discourse marker so is commonly deployed at the anchor
position of the conversation to initiate the teleology of the conversation.
Our first example from the authentic data set, and the penultimate example, is taken from the
Macworld Podcast. In the podcast, a panel of tech-savvy Mac-lovers will discuss what was then thesoon-to-be-released iPad mini. We know this before we even listen to the podcast because the teleology, thepurpose, of the podcast is listed in the podcast description, as is shown below.
Podcast Screenshot Example 1: Macworld Podcast 327

A quick perusal of the podcast description indicates that the speakers have gathered to discuss the iPad
mini. That is, the purpose of the interaction in the extract below is to discuss the iPad mini, and if the
discourse marker so really does adumbrate the initiation of the teleology of the interaction, then one would
expect that the first utterance that initiates the discussion of the iPad mini would be prefaced by thediscourse marker so—and that is exactly what happens in line 15.
Teleological So Example 3: Macworld Podcast 327
1

Phil:

Macworld podcast number 327 for Wednesday November 7th. Hello again podcast

2listeners. It’s the Macworld podcast. I’m Phillip Michaels. I’m hosting this week.

3

What is on everyone’s mind? I don’t know about you whether it’s the election

−217−

5

Teleology Marking in English Conversations in American Media: The Discourse Marker So

4where someone was just elected. We’re not recording this on Wednesday.

5

Or whether it’s the iPad mini. And here to talk about the new iPad mini, the newly

6

released slimmed-down version of the iPad, is the man who reviewed it, Dan Frakes.

7

Hello [Dan8

Frakes:[hey Phil hello.

9

Dan:

How are you today [.hhh10Frakes:

11

Dan:

[good
And because we are legally mandated to have two Dans in every podcast and also

12

because he knows a thing or two about the iPad it is Dan Moren as well. Hello Dan

13

Moren.

14

Moren:

15

Phil:

16

Hi Phil. My agent thanks you==yes so::: uh the iPad mini, is it just a big iPod touch
Dan Frakes?

17

Frakes:

18

Phil:

19

Frakes:

It is:::==or is it a smalle[r::[a smaller iPadIn the example above, Phillip Michaels (Phil in the transcript), the host of the podcast, introduces the
podcast to the listeners (lines 1~5). Next Phillip introduces the two other panelists: Dan Frakes and Dan
Moren (lines 6~14). No discourse marker so ever makes an appearance during the podcast introduction andthe panelist introductions, which is consistent with the hypothesis that the discourse marker so prefaces theutterance that initiates the teleology of the interaction. The discourse marker so does make an appearance inthe data though. In line 15, at anchor position, Phillip Michaels deploys the discourse marker so as apreface to the utterance that initiates the teleology and purpose of the interaction: discussing the iPad miniwith the panelists. Accordingly, the deployment of the discourse marker so as a preface to the utterance that
initiates discussion of the main purpose of the interaction matches the podcast description of the main
purpose of the interaction—reviewing the iPad mini.
This example is inconsistent with the behavior of the discourse marker so suggested by Bolden(2008a): the discourse marker so is used to initiate the teleology of the conversation at the anchor point of
the conversation, in direct contradiction to Bolden (2008a). In conversations, anchor position is locatedafter the greetings and identifications (Schegloff 1986). In Podcasts, however, anchor position is locatedafter the greetings and introduction of the Podcast panelists; indeed, the first available slot to introduce thereason for the interaction is after the identification of the panelists. The discourse marker so is deployed atanchor position in this podcast. But this is not a fluke. The same thing happens in the next example.

−218−

6

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

The final example is also taken from a podcast, the PBS Newshour Podcast. The host, Judy
Woodworth, interviews two panelists, David Brooks and Mark Shields, about the importance of the state of
Ohio in the American electoral process and the microtargeting of voters. We know this before we evenlisten to the podcast because the teleology, the purpose, of the podcast is listed in the podcast description.
Podcast Screenshot Example 2: The PBS Newshour Podcast (10/26/2012)

A quick glance at the podcast description indicates that the host and the two panelists have gathered to
discuss the importance of Ohio in American presidential elections and the “microtargeting” of voters. If the
discourse marker so adumbrates the teleology of the interaction, then one would expect that the firstutterance that initiates the discussion of either the importance of Ohio in American elections or the
microtargeting of voters would be prefaced by the discourse marker so—and that is exactly what happensin line 4.
Teleological So Example 4: The PBS Newshour (10/26/2012)
1

Judy:

2

And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark
Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks. Welcome gentlemen.

3

Mark:

Judy

4

Judy:

So:::::: we just heard the professor say, Mark, uh, whoever wins Ohio is gonna win

5

the election. Is that how you see it?

6

Mark:

I never argue with a tenured professor.

7

Judy:

(laughs)

8

Mark:

No, I think he’s absolutely right.

9

(3.0)

10

Judy:

Okay. Uh, David, what do you think?

11

David:

Well, I spend a lot of time arguing with tenured professors,

In the example above, Judy introduces the segment and the two panelists (lines 1~2), and thenexchanges greetings with the panelists (lines 2~3). In line 4, at anchor position, Judy Woodworth deploys
the discourse marker so before the first utterance that initiates discussion of importance of the state of Ohioin American elections, which is one of the purposes of the interaction listed in the podcast description.
Therefore, the deployment of the discourse marker so as a preface to the utterance that initiates discussionof one of the main purposes of the interaction matches the podcast description of the main purpose of the

−219−

7

Teleology Marking in English Conversations in American Media: The Discourse Marker So

interaction.
Neither this example nor the previous example is consistent with the behavior of the discourse marker
so suggested by Bolden (2008a). The discourse marker so is used to initiate the teleology of theconversation at the anchor point of the conversation, in direct contradiction to Bolden (2008a). That is, thediscourse marker so can be, and usually is, deployed at anchor position to initiate the teleology of aninteraction.

5

Conclusion
The discourse marker so is a teleology marker that can be deployed anywhere in a conversation. The

deployment of the discourse marker so is not limited to positions after anchor point as Bolden (2008a)
claims. It can, and often is, deployed at anchor position in conversations to adumbrate the initiation of the
purpose of the conversation. Although Bolden (2008a, 2008b) was right to claim that the discourse marker
so is involved in the foreshadowing the purpose of the conversation, Bolden (2008a) was wrong to claimthat the positions in which it is deployed are limited.

6

References

Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse
Markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bolden, G. 2008a. “’So What’s Up?’: Using the Discourse Marker So to Launch Conversational Business.”
Research on Language and Social Interaction 41:3, 302-337.
Bolden, G. 2008b. “Implementing Incipient Actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation.”
Journal of Pragmatics 41, 974-998.
Johnson, A. 2002. “So…?: Pragmatic implications of so-prefaced questions in formal police interviews.” In
J. Cotterill (ed.), Language in the Legal Process, 91-110. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Macworld. 2012. Macworld Podcast. Episode 327 (Originally Aired 7/11/2012). IDG Consumer & SMB.
PBS. 2012. PBS Newshour. (Originally Aired 10/26/2012). MacNeil/Lehrer Productions.
Raymond, G. 2004. “Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation.” Research on
Language and Social Interaction 37, 185-218.
Schegloff, E. A. 1986. “The Routine as Achievement.” Human Studies 9, 111-151.
Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Weiner, M. 2010. Mad Men: Season Three. Perf. Hamm, John & Elizabeth Moss. Lionsgate, DVD.
Weiner, M. 2012. Mad Men: Season Five. Perf. Hamm, John & Elizabeth Moss. Lionsgate, DVD.

−220−

8

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

The meaning and use of utterance situation-based comparison in JapaneseOsamu Sawada
Mie University
sawadao@human.mie-u.ac.jp<Abstract>
It has been claimed in the literature that the Japanese degree adverb motto has two uses: a “degree” use and a“negative” use (Watanabe 1986; Sano 2004). The degree motto is analyzed as an intensified comparative
morpheme, while the negative motto is analyzed as a kind of contrastive negative marker that conveys that the
opposite of an at-issue gradable predicate is now true with respect to the subject. In this paper, I argue that thenegative motto is also a comparative morpheme, but unlike the degree motto, it compares the same individual
based on different situations—an expected situation and an utterance situation.
This paper shows that there is a semantic extension from an individual comparison to a situation-based
comparison and the extension can be captured naturally, based on the multidimensional theory of meaning.
࠙Key wordsࠚutterance situation-based comparison, speaker’s emotion, expressive, conventional implicature
1. Introduction
It has been claimed in the literature that the Japanese degree adverb motto has two uses: a “degree” use and a“negative” use (Watanabe 1986; Sano 2004). For example, the motto in (1) is considered to be a degree use:
(1) Hanako-no
keeki-wa
Taro-nokeeki-yori(-mo)
mottooishi-katta.
Hanako-GEN
cake-TOP
Taro-GEN cake-than-MO
MOTTO
delicious-PAST
Degree reading: Hanako’s cake was {still much/even} more delicious than Taro’s cake.
Sentence (1) is used in a positive context where both Hanako’s cake and Taro’s cake are delicious, but Hanako’s
cake is still much more delicious.
In contrast, (2) can be ambiguous between a degree reading and a negative reading (Note: if a stress isplaced on motto, the degree reading becomes salient (Sano 2004)):(2) Kono mise-no
keeki-wamottooishi-katta.
This
store-GEN cake-TOP
MOTTO
delicious-PASTa. Degree reading: This store’s cake was even more delicious than a contextual store’s cake.
b. Negative reading: This store’s cake was delicious. (Implied: It is not delicious now.)
In the degree reading, the sentence is interpreted as an “elliptical” comparison. It is similar to (1) in that thesentence conveys that, although a given store’s cake and a contextual store’s cake were both delicious, the given
store’s cake was much more delicious.
On the other hand, in the negative reading, the sentence conveys the speaker’s complaint about theutterance situation, i.e., the store’s cake is not delicious now. Besides the past tense, the negative reading canarise in intensional contexts such as commands, conditionals, modals, and questions. For example, the following
imperative sentence can have a negative reading as well as a degree reading:(3) Motto
hayakuhasi-re!
MOTTO fastrun-IMPERATIVE
a. Run even faster!
b. Run fast! (Implied: You are running slowly now.)(Imperative)(Degree reading)(Negative reading)What is interesting about the negative motto is that its distribution pattern is narrower than that of thedegree motto. For example, the negative reading never arises with the simple present tense, as in (4):(4) ?? KonoThis

mise-nostore-GEN

keeki-wacake-TOP

motto
MOTTO

oishii.
delicious−221−(Present tense)

The meaning and use of utterance situation-based comparison in Japanese‘This store’s cake was still much more delicious than a contextual store’s cake.’(only the degree reading is available)
Furthermore, the negative reading never arises in explicit comparisons with the yori “than” PP, as in (1).
How can we analyze the meaning of the negative use of motto? Where does the negative inference of thenegative motto come from? How can we explain the limited distribution patterns of the negative motto? The
purpose of this paper is to investigate the meaning/use of the Japanese degree adverb in terms of
semantics/pragmatics, and to try to answer these questions.
As for the meaning of the negative motto, I will argue that it is also a comparative morpheme, but unlike thedegree motto, it compares the utterance situation of a particular individual to an alternative expected situation.
More specifically, I will claim that the negative motto conventionally implicates that the degree of the targetedindividual in an alternative expected situation is much greater than the target’s current degree. It will be shownthat the speaker’s negative attitude toward the utterance situation comes from this large gap. I will also claim thatthe distribution patterns of the negative motto can be accounted for naturally, based on this conventional
implicature. This paper shows that there is a semantic extension from an individual comparison to a situationbased comparison, and that the extension can be captured naturally, based on the multidimensional theory of
meaning.
2. The meaning of degree motto
Before investigating the meaning of the negative motto, let us first consider the meaning of the degree motto. I
assume that the degree motto has two kinds of meaning as in (5):(5) The meaning of the degree mottoa. At-issue meaning: The degree motto semantically denotes that the degree to which “x is A” is muchgreater than the degree to which “y is A” (A = adjective).
b. Presupposition: The degree motto presupposes that the standard y is A.
From this view, we can consider that sentence (6) has an at-issue component and a presupposition:(6) Explicit comparative with yori
Hanako-no
keeki-wa
Taro-no  keeki-yori(-mo)
motto
Hanako-GEN
cake-TOP
Taro-GEN cake-than-MO
MOTTO
At-issue: Hanako’s cake was much more delicious than Taro’s cake.
Presupposition: Taro’s cake was good.

oishi-katta.
delicious-PASTThe inference that Hanako’s cake is also good comes from the relative relationship between Hanako’s cake andTaro’s cake, i.e., [Hanako’s cake > Taro’s cake].
There are several pieces of evidence for the idea that the degree motto has a presupposition component.
First, even if sentence (6) is negated, the norm-related meaning on the standard of comparison still remains:(7) Hanako-no
keeki-wa Taro-no
keeki-yori
mo’ttooishi-katta-wake-de-wa-nai.
Hanako-GEN cake-TOP Taro-GEN cake-thanstill.much.more delicious-PAST-it is not the case
‘It is not the case that Hanako’s cake was even bigger than Taro’s cake.’
Presupposition: Taro’s cake was big.
Second, we can target the presupposition part of the utterance by saying, Hey, wait a minute! I didn’t knowthat ..., which signals the speaker’s objection to the assumed background of what is said (von Fintel 2004;
Shanon 1976). For example, we can naturally utter Hey wait a minute! I didn’t know that Taro’s cake wasdelicious! in order to challenge the presupposition in (7).
Let us consider the meaning of the degree motto in a more formal way. Based on the standard assumptionthat comparative morphemes (MORE) have a comparative meaning, I assume that the degree motto is a special
kind of comparative morpheme and has the following denotation:(8) [[mottoDEGREE]] = Ȝg<d, <e,<i<s,t>>>>ȜyȜxȜtȜw: d[dtStand  g(d)(y)(t)(w)]. max{d| g(d)(x)(t)(w)} >!! max{d|g(d)(y)(t)(w)} (where the underlined part is a presupposition)
The degree motto in (8): (i) presupposes that the degree of the standard y is greater than or equal to thecontextual standard of a gradable predicate g at time t in w, and (ii) semantically denotes that the maximal degree−222−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

of the target x is much greater than that of the standard y on the scale of g at t in w.
The degree morpheme then combines with a gradable predicate. As for the meaning of gradable adjectives,
I assume that they denote relations between individuals and degrees (see Seuren 1973, Cresswell 1977, vonStechow 1984, Kennedy and McNally 2005).
(9)[[ookii]]= ȜdȜzȜtȜw. big(z)(t)(w) = d

(10)
…

DegP

ȜyȜxȜtȜw: d[dtStand  big(y)(t)(w) = d]. max{d| g(d)(x)(t)(w)} >!! max{d| big(y)(t)(w) = d}
Deg MottoDegree

AP ookii ‘big’

Ȝg<d, <e,<i<s,t>>>>ȜyȜxȜtȜw: d[dtStand  g(d)(y)(t)(w)].

ȜdȜzȜtȜw. big(z)(t)(w) = d

max{d| g(d)(x)(t)(w)} >!! max{d| g(d)(y)(t)(w)}

3. The negative motto is an expressive comparative morpheme
Let us now turn our attention to the meaning of the negative motto. Like the degree motto, the negative motto isalso a comparative morpheme, but unlike the degree motto, it compares the utterance situation to an alternative
expected situation. The negative inference of the negative motto comes from this large gap between an expected
situation and an utterance situation. Note that the negative motto has the property of an expressive (Cruse 1986;
Kaplan 1999; Potts 2005, 2007). Similar to damn, it makes a statement about the “current situation.”
In terms of the status of meaning, the comparative meaning in the negative motto is a conventional
implicature (CI) (Grice 1975; Potts 2005).
(11) Potts’ definition of CI:
a. CIs are part of the conventional meaning of words.
b. CIs are commitments, and thus give rise to entailments.
c. These commitments are made by the speaker of the utterance.
d. CIs are logically and compositionally independent of “what is said.”
The CI component of the negative motto is independent of “what is said” because we cannot challenge thecomparative meaning triggered by the negative motto by saying, “No, that’s not true!”(12) Kono mise-no
keeki-wamottooishi-katta.
This
store-GEN cake-TOP
MOTTO
delicious-PAST
At-issue: This store’s cake was delicious.
CI: The expected degree (i.e., the degree of deliciousness of the store’s cake in the past in the actual world)
is much greater than the current degree of deliciousness of the store’s cake.
The meaning triggered by the negative motto is not a presupposition. It is not background information. This iscorroborated by the fact that it is not felicitous to say, Hey wait a minute! I didn’t know that your expected
degree is much greater than the current degree!, after a sentence with a negative motto.
4. Analysis of the meaning of negative motto
Let us now consider how the meaning of the negative motto is interpreted in a compositional way, based on thefollowing example:(13) Kono mise-no
keeki-wamottooishi-katta.
This
store-GEN cake-TOP
MOTTO delicious-PAST
At-issue: This store’s cake was delicious.
CI: The degree of deliciousness of the store’s cake in the past was much greater than the current degree ofdeliciousness of the store’s cake.
Examples of the negative motto, as in (13), are problematic in a standard composition system because both kindsof scalar meanings need a lexical meaning for the gradable predicate g (here, oishii “delicious”); however, there
is only one such gradable predicate in these sentences.

−223−

The meaning and use of utterance situation-based comparison in JapaneseThis leads us to consider the negative motto to be “mixed” content (McCready 2010) (The left side of Ƈ isthe at-issue component, and the right side of Ƈ is the CI component):(14) [[mottoNEG]] = ȜgȜxȜtȜw.d[dtStand  g(d)(x)(t)(w)] Ƈ ȜgȜxȜtȜw.max{d| g(d)(x)(t)(w)} >!! max{d|(where t0 = current time, w0 = the actual world)g(d)(x)(t0)(w0)}The compositional rules for mixed content that involves a shunting operation (McCready 2010) are shown in(15a) and (15b):(15) a.

b.

At-issue level oĮ(Ȗ): Ĳa

At-issue level oĮ(Ȗ): Ĳa

CI-level oxȕ(Ȗ): ȣsCI-level oxȕ(Ȗ): ȣsĮ iȕ: <ıa, Ĳa> u <ıa, ȣs>

Ȗ: ıa

Į: <ıa, Ĳa>x
ȕ: <ıa, ȣs>Ȗ: ıaSuperscript a stands for an at-issue type and superscript s stands for a shunting type. Superscript s is used for a
special kind of CI, triggering expressions such as mixed content. Figure (16) shows part of the semantic
derivation of (13), and (17) shows the CI part:(16)
At-issue level o ȜtȜw.d[dtStand big(this store’s cake)(t)(w) = d] : <ia, <sa ta>>x

CI level oȜtȜw.max{d| big(this store’s cake)(t)(w) = d}>!!max{d| big(this store’s cake)(t0)(w0) = d}
: <ia, <sa ts>>

Kono mise-no keeki

a

a

a a

ȜxȜtȜw.d[dtStand big(x)(t)(w) = d] : <e , <i , <s t >>>‘this store’s cake’xȜxȜtȜw.max{d| big(x)(t)(w) = d}>!!max{d| big(x)(t0)(w0) = d}: <ea, <ia, <sa ts>>>
Adj: ooki ‘big’

Deg: mottoNEG.COMP
ȜgȜxȜtȜw.d[dtStand  g(d)(x)(t)(w)] iȜdȜzȜtȜw. big(z)(t)(w) = dȜgȜxȜtȜw.max{d| g(d)(x)(t)(w)} >!! max{d| g(d)(x)(t0)(w0)}: <da, <ea, <ia,<sa, ta>>>>(17) CI meaning of (13)ȜtȜw. max{d| big(this store’s cake)(t)(w) = d} >!! max{d| big(this store’s cake)(t0)(w0) = d} 

expected situationutterance situation(where t0 = now, w0 = actual world)

In the case of (13), the tense variable corresponds to the past, and the world variable corresponds to the current
world. Thus, the expected situation will be the past degree in the actual world. In the introduction, we observedthat the negative motto conveys the speaker’s complaint about the utterance situation. We can now understandthat the negative inference of the negative motto comes from a large gap between an expected situation (the pastdegree in the actual world) and an utterance situation.
However, as we observed in the introduction, the negative motto can be used in various intensional contexts
including commands, conditionals, modals, and questions. I propose that there are various types of expected
situations. I claim that there are three types of expected situations, and each type can be automaticallydetermined by the environment in which the motto is used, as in (18):(18) Possible variations of the negative mottoType I

Expected degree
The past degree in the actualStandard of comparison
The present degree in the actual−224−

Environment
Simple past tense第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

Type IIworld
The present degree in a
non-actual world

world
The present degree in the actual
world

Type
III

The past degree
non-actual world

The present degree in the actual
world

in

the

Epistemic modal (with present
question(present),
tense),
imperative, conditional
Epistemic modal (with pasttense)Let us consider each type of motto individually. In Type I, a comparison is made between the degree in thepast in the actual world and the current degree in the actual world:(19) Kono mise-no
keeki-wamottooishi-katta.
This
store-GENcake-TOP
MOTTO
delicious-PAST
At-issue: This store’s cake was delicious in the past in the actual world.
CI: The degree of deliciousness of the store’s cake in the past in the actual world is much greater than thecurrent degree of deliciousness of the store’s cake.
The following shows the simplified logical structure of Type I:(20) Logical structure of Type I
At-issue level oĮ(Ȗ)(w0): ta

CI level oȕ(Ȗ)(w0): tsx

At-issue level oĮ(Ȗ): <sa, ta>



w0

World

x

ȕ(Ȗ): <sa,ts> CI level o
At-issue level oĮ <ia, <sa,ta>>

Ȗ: ia-ta ‘past’x

CI level oȕ <ia, <sa,ts>>

Note that here I treat the tense and world as pronouns, on a par with individuals (Hacquard 2006; Percus 2000).
By default, the topmost world variable corresponds to the actual world.
(21) CI meaning of Type I
max{d| delicious(this store’s cake)(PAST)(w0) = d} >!! max{d| delicious(this store’s cake)(t0)(w0) = d}Sentence (21) says that the maximum degree of deliciousness of the store’s cake in the past in the actual world ismuch greater than the maximum degree of deliciousness of the store’s cake at the current time in the actual
world.
In Type II, a comparison is made between the current degree in a non-actual world and the current degree inthe actual world:(22) Kono mise-no
keeki-wamottooishii-hazu-da.
(Epistemic modal)This
store-GEN cake-TOP
MOTTO delicious-must-PRED
At-issue: This store’s cake should be delicious now in the actual world.
CI: The current degree of deliciousness of the store’s cake in a non-actual world is much greater than thecurrent degree.
(23) Mottooisiikeeki-wa
ari-masu-ka(Question)
MOTTO fastcake-TOP
exist-perf.hon-Q
At-issue: Can you run fast?
CI: The current degree of the addressee’s running speed in a non-actual world is much greater than his/hercurrent running speed in the actual world.
The following figure shows the simplified logical structure of Type II:−225−

The meaning and use of utterance situation-based comparison in Japanese(24) Logical structure of Type II
Modal operator(Į(Ȗ)): ta

At-issue level oĮ(Ȗ): <sa, ta>

At-issue level oIntensional operator: <<sa, ta>, ta>re ‘imperative’


//

x

CI level oȕ(Ȗ): <sa,ts>s(The world variable (t ) is bound via an existential closure)hazuda ‘must’(thetara ‘if’
yoo ‘let’s’
At-issue level o Į: <ia, <sa,ta>>

Ȗ: ia

PRESENTx

CI level o

ȕ: <ia, <sa,ts>>

Note that the CI meaning (i.e., ȕ(Ȗ)) cannot be within the scope of logical operators. Recall that CIs are logicallyindependent of “what is said.” For instance, in the case of the example with the modal operator hazuda “must,”
hazuda can only take an at-issue proposition as its argument. (It does not take the CI meaning as its argument.)(25) [[hazuda]] w,g = Ȝp<sa,ta>. w’ compatible with the evidence in w0: p(w’) = 1
This means that the world variable in ȕ(Ȗ) (= CI meaning) is saturated indirectly by an existential closure:(26) CI meaning of Type IIw.max{d| delicious(this store’s cake)(PRESENT)(w) = d} >!! max{d| delicious(this store’s cake)(t0)(w0)=d}Sentence (26) says that the maximum degree of deliciousness of the store’s cake at the current time in a
non-actual world is much greater than the maximum degree of deliciousness of the store’s cake at the current
time in the actual world.
In Type III, a comparison is made between the past degree in some non-actual world and the current degreein the actual world. The world variable is saturated via existential closure.
(27) Motto with past tense epistemic modal
Kono
mise-nokeeki-wa mottooishi-katta-hazu-da.
Thisstore-GEN cake-TOP MOTTO
delicious-PAST-must-PRED
At-issue: This store’s cake should have been delicious.
CI: The degree of deliciousness of the store’s cake in the past in some world is much greater than thecurrent degree.
(28) Logical structure of Type III
hazuda(Į(Ȗ)): ta

At-issue level oĮ(Ȗ): <sa, ta>

At-issue level oxhazuda ‘must’: <<sa, ta>, ta>//

CI level oȕ(Ȗ): <sa,ts>s(The world variable (t ) is bound via an existential closure)At-issue level o

Į: <ia, <sa,ta>>

CI level o

ȕ: <ia, <sa,ts>>

Ȗ: ia ( = ta ‘PAST’)x(29) The CI meaning of Type III
w.max{d| delicious(this store’s cake)(PAST)(w) = d} >!! max{d| delicious(this store’s cake)(t0)(w0) = d}Sentence (29) says that the maximum degree of the store’s cake in the past in a non-actual world is much greaterthan the maximum degree of the store’s cake at the current time in the actual world.

−226−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

6. Explaining the distribution patterns of the negative motto
Our proposed analysis of the meaning of the negative motto can naturally explain its distribution patterns. The
negative motto cannot arise in a comparison between two different individuals, because the essence of thenegative motto is to compare one individual based on two different times/worlds.
(30) Kono mise-no
keeki-wa ano mise-no
keeki-yori-(mo) mottoooki-katta.
This
store-GEN cake-TOP that store-GEN cake-than-MO
MOTTO
big-PAST
Degree reading: This store’s cake was {still much/even} more delicious than that store’s cake.
The negative motto cannot arise in a simple present tense sentence, as in (31), because we cannot make acomparison if there is no contrast between the utterance situation and an alternative expected situation in termsof time/world:(31) ??Taro-wa
motto
kashikoi.
(Past tense)
Taro-TOP MOTTO smart
Degree reading: Taro is still much smarter.
7. The alternative approach: the negation-based approach
Finally, let us briefly consider an alternative approach to the negative motto—the negation-based approach:(32) The negation-based (polarity reversed) approach: The negative motto conventionally implicatesthat the opposite of an at-issue gradable predicate g is true with respect to a particular individual x now
in the actual world.
This approach is similar to the current literature on negative motto. Watanabe (1986) and Sano (2004) argue thatin the environment [motto A], motto signals “not ¬ A but A.” In this view (13) can be analyzed as follows:(33) Kono mise-no
keeki-wamottoThis
store-GEN cake-TOP
MOTTO
At-issue: This store’s cake was delicious.
CI: This store’s cake is not delicious now.

oishi-katta.
delicious-PAST

This view will then assume that the negative motto has the following meaning:(34) The meaning of the negative motto in the negation-based approach:[[mottoCONTRAST]] = ȜgȜxȜtȜw.d[dtStand  g(d)(x)(t)(w)]ƇȜgȜx. ¬(d[dtStand  g(d)(x)(t0)(w0)] )(where t0 = now, w0 = actual world)
The following figure shows the logical structure of (33):(35)ȜxȜtȜw.d[dt Stand  big(x)(t)(w) = d]xȜx. ¬(d[dt Stand  big(x)(t0)(w0)= d])
Deg: mottoNEG   ȜgȜxȜtȜw.d[dt Stand  g(d)(x)(t)]i

Adj: ooki ‘big’ȜdȜzȜtȜw. big(z)(t)(w) = d

ȜgȜx. ¬(d[dt Stand  g(d)(x)(t0)(w0)])

The question is which approach is better? I would like to consider that although the negation-based approach canalso explain the contrastive meaning of the negative motto, the comparison-based approach is better. The
comparison-based approach, but not the negation-based approach, can naturally explain that the negative
inference triggered by the negative motto is cancellable:(36) (Context: the speaker is eating a cake at a restaurant.)−227−

The meaning and use of utterance situation-based comparison in Japanesea. Konomise-nokeeki-wamottooisi-katta-to
omou.
This
store-GEN cake-TOP
MOTTO
good-PAST-that
think
At-issue: I think that this store’s cake was good.
CI: The degree of deliciousness of this store’s cake in the past was much higher than the current degree.
(conversational implicature: The store’s cake is not good now.)b. Maaima-demo
juubunoisii-desu-ga
Well
now-evenenoughgood-PRED.POL-though‘Well, this cake is good now, too, though.’Since the comparison-based approach assumes that the negative inference triggered by the negative motto isconversational, it makes sense that it can be cancellable. On the other hand, the negation-based approach cannot
explain that the negative inference can be cancellable since it assumes that the negative meaning is part of thelexical meaning of the negative motto.
8. Conclusion
In this paper I investigated the meaning of the negative motto. I argued that the negative motto is similar to thedegree motto in that it is a kind of comparative morpheme, but unlike the degree motto, it compares the utterance
situation of a particular individual to an alternative situation. I claimed that the negative motto’s CI is that the
expected degree is much greater than the current degree and this naturally explains the emergence of the
speaker’s negative attitude toward the utterance situation. I also claimed that the proposed CI meaning of thenegative motto naturally explains its distribution patterns.
The theoretical implication of this paper is that there is a shared conceptual basis between intensifiers(semantics) and expressives (pragmatics). The phenomenon of the Japanese degree adverb motto supports themultidimensional view that at-issue meaning and CI are dimensionally independent, but both are compositional(Potts 2005), cf. the relevance theoretic procedural approach. In the future, I would like to further investigate theintensional expressive comparison in terms of a cross-linguistic perspective.
* I am grateful to the audience of the Pragmatic Society of Japan (2012) for their valuable comments anddiscussions. This paper is based upon work supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science(Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B), Grant number: 23720204).
References
Cresswell, Max J. 1977. “The semantics of degree.” In Barbara Partee (ed.), Montague Grammar, 261-92. New
York: Academic Press.
Cruse, D. Allan. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Grice, Paul. H. (1975). “Logic and conversation.” In Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics,iii: Speech Acts, 43-58. New York: Academic Press.
Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of Modality. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Kennedy, Christopher, and McNally, Louise. 2005. “Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics ofgradable predicates.” Language 81(2), 345-381.
McCready, Eric. 2010. “Varieties of Conventional Implicature: Evidence from Japanese.” Semantics &Pragmatics, 3, 1-57.
Percus, Orin. 2000. “Constraints on some other variables in syntax.” Natural Language Semantics 8, 173-229.
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford University Press.
Potts, Christopher. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2), 165-197.
Sano, Yukiko. 2004. “Motto no hiteiteki youhou ni tuite (The ‘negative usage’ of motto).” Nihongo kagaku 15.
Seuren, Peter.A.M. 1973. “The comparative.” In Ferenc Kiefer and Nicolas Ruwet (eds.), Generative Grammar
in Europe, 528–64. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Shanon, Benny. 1976. “On the two kinds of presupposition in natural language.” Foundations of Language 14(2),247-249.
von Stechow, Arnim. 1984. “Comparing semantic theories of comparison.” Journal of Semantics 3, 1-77.
von Fintel, Kai. 2004. “Would you believe it? The King of France is back!” (Presuppositions and truth-value
intuitions). In Anne Bezuidenhout & Marga Reimer (eds.) Descriptions and Beyond: An
Interdisciplinary Collection of Essays on Definite and Indefinite Descriptions and other Related
Phenomena, 315–341. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Watanabe, Minoru. 1985. “Hikaku no fukushi: ‘motto’ o tyuushinni” (The Comparative Adverbs in Japanese:
The Case of Motto). Bulletin of the Language Institute of Gakushuin University 8.

−228−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

Characteristics of descriptive texts produced
by intermediate and upper-intermediate learners of English*
Yoko YAMADA
Kansai Gaidai University<Abstract>
To organise information, we select it, decide its order and choose expressions to linearize it. Previous
studies within the quaestio framework (Stutterheim and Klein 1989) have investigated characteristicsof L2 learners’ organising information mainly based on advanced learners’ descriptions. However,analysing advanced learners’ descriptions does not capture the whole picture of the developmental
process of L2 learners’ organising information. This study is part of my project that explores thecharacteristics of L2 learners’ organising information and specifically examines the influence oflearners’ proficiency level, focusing on descriptions produced by less proficient learners.
[Keywords]: L2 learners’ organising information, influence of learners’ proficiency level,
L1 preferred patterns

1. Introduction
To construct well organised texts, we select information, decide the order in which theinformation should be presented and choose expressions to linearize the information. Our selection andlinearization of information expressed in discourse is not accomplished at random. According to
Stutterheim and Klein (1989), texts are produced as an answer to a specific question, the quaestio. The
quaestio imposes constraints on the way various referential domains (e.g. temporal domain and spatial
domain) are used in a text.
Previous studies within the quaestio framework indicate language-specific patterns of
information organisation in descriptive texts (Carroll and Stutterheim 1993). They also indicate thateven advanced L2 learners retain the patterns of information organisation preferred in their L1 (Carroll
et al. 2000). Characteristics of L2 learners’ organising information have been mostly studied on thebasis of descriptive texts produced by advanced learners. However, analysing advanced learners’
descriptions cannot capture the whole picture of the developmental process of L2 learners’ organisinginformation.
My previous study analysed English descriptions produced by Japanese EFL learners at
different proficiency levels; it suggested that learners’ developmental process might be divided into
three stages (Yamada 2010)1:First stage: Mainly described the existence of objects such as people and animals and theirstates (e.g. The boys are playing the game).
Second stage: Individual objects are described in relation to their places as in, Two boys areplaying near one big house. However, descriptive sequences are notnecessarily created, and texts resemble enumerations.
Third stage: The picture is divided into manageable parts, and one or two objects are used asanchoring points for locating other objects belonging to the same subdivision.

−229−

Characteristics of descriptive texts produced by intermediate and upper-intermediate learners of English

How can we explain these results? Is this developmental process simply derived from learners’
proficiency level such as knowledge about vocabularies and grammar? Or does this developmental
process have anything to do with features of the learners’ L1? My previous study did not answer thesequestions, and how exactly learners’ proficiency level influences their organising of information has yet
to be explained. Moreover, since the corpus used by my previous study does not contain Japanesedescriptions produced by the same Japanese EFL learners, it is not clear whether the results haveanything to do with features of Japanese.
This study tackles the problems posed in my previous study and specifically deals with thefollowing questions:
1. Are there any differences between Japanese and English with respect to patterns of information
organisation in descriptive texts?
If so, do English descriptions produced by Japanese EFL learners reflect their L1 preferredpatterns?
2. How does learners’ English proficiency level influence their organising of information in English
descriptive texts?
2. Methodology
2.1. Participants
The participants were 17 intermediate Japanese EFL learners, 17 upper-intermediate Japanese
EFL learners, and 10 native speakers of English. All of them were university students. Learners’
proficiency level was determined according to the length of their formal English education.
2.2. Procedure
Data were collected through a single picture description task. The following picture was usedin this task2:

Figure 1. Picture used in the task
Participants were asked to think about how to describe the picture for 30 seconds and then describe it in
writing, in English (or in Japanese), in five minutes. In the case of Japanese participants, they
completed the same task twice, once in Japanese (or in English) and four to five weeks later in English(or in Japanese).

−230−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

3. Results
3.1. Influence of L1
The data revealed a difference between Japanese and English: while native speakers ofEnglish start their descriptions with information on what the picture is about before providing the main
body of information, Japanese EFL learners, in Japanese, simply provide the main body of information(see Figure 2)3. This difference between Japanese and English achieved statistical significance (aFisher’s exact test; p < 0.01 between intermediate Japanese EFL learners and native speakers ofEnglish and p < 0.05 between upper-intermediate Japanese EFL learners and native speakers ofEnglish).

Figure 2. Difference between Japanese and English with respect to patterns of
information organisation in a single picture description
Examples (1) and (2) illustrate findings: the first sentence underlined in (1) is the information on what
the picture is about. Such information is not found in (2)4.
(1) This image shows what appears to be a suburban neighborhood scene.
In the foreground, an older man reads the paper in a swivel chair outside his house.
Beside him in the garden are three sunflowers. […](description by a native speaker of English)(2) Ookina niwa
tsuki-no ikkenya-ga
ari-masu.
big
garden with-GEN one house-NOM exist-POL.NONP
Niwa-de-wa
onnanoko-ga nawatobi-oshi tari, shounen-tati-ga
garden- in-TOP girl-NOM
jump rope-ACC do and boy-PL-NOM
sakka-oshi tari shi-teimasu. […]soccer-ACC do and do-TE-POL.NONP‘There is a house with a big garden. In the garden, a girl is jumping rope and boys are(description by an intermediate Japanese EFL learner)
playing soccer. […]’On the other hand, there was no significant difference between Japanese descriptions
produced by the intermediate and upper-intermediate Japanese EFL learners. Japanese EFL learners ––independent of their proficiency levels –– describe the picture in a similar way in Japanese.
As Example (3) shows, the pattern of information organisation preferred in Japanese isretained in learners’ English descriptions: (3) does not contain information on what the picture is about.

−231−

Characteristics of descriptive texts produced by intermediate and upper-intermediate learners of English(3) There is a house.
Two boys are playing soccer in front of the house, and a girl is also playing there.
Two women are walking on the street with a dog. A boy is running.
An old man is reading a newspapers sitting on the chair.
(description by an upper-intermediate Japanese EFL learner)
3.2. Influence of English proficiency level
Before investigating the influence of learners’ proficiency level, I would like to emphasisethat native speakers of English and Japanese EFL learners, when in Japanese, organise the main bodyof information in a similar way: they divide the picture into manageable parts and describe eachsubdivision one after another. To analyse the data statistically, I transformed this action into a binary
scale (i.e. ‘1’ or ‘0’). If a participant divided the picture into manageable parts, and described eachsubdivision one after another, then that description was scored as ‘1’. If not, it was scored as ‘0’. The
result of transforming the data is, Japanese descriptions by intermediate Japanese EFL learners: 0.765;
Japanese descriptions by upper-intermediate Japanese EFL learners: 0.647; English descriptions by
native speakers of English: 0.700. A Fisher’s exact test showed no significant difference between
English descriptions produced by native speakers of English and Japanese descriptions by Japanese
EFL learners, with respect to the way they organise the main body of information.
Different from narrative, in which the main body of information is organised based on thechronological order of events (Stutterheim and Klein 1989: 50), in this study no specific linear order
was found in native speakers of English and Japanese EFL learners, when using Japanese5. After
dividing the picture into manageable parts, some participants started their description by describing thebackground of the picture and moved towards the foreground; others described the picture in thereverse of this. Still others started their description from the centre of the picture and then moved either
to the background or to the foreground of the picture.
Furthermore, the data reveal that expressions marking a shift from one subdivision to the next
are used. In (4), which is a description including Example (1), the underlined expression marks a shift
from the foreground of the picture to the centre of the picture. Similarly in (5), which is a description
including (2), the underlined expression marks a shift from the background to the centre of the picture.
(4) This image shows what appears to be a suburban neighbourhood scene.
In the foreground, an older man reads the paper in a swivel chair outside his house.
Beside him in the garden are three sunflowers. In the street before the old man’s house
two presumably younger women are walking a small dog. […](description by a native speaker of English)(5) Ookina niwa
tsuki-no ikkenya-ga
ari-masu.
big
garden with-GEN one house-NOM exist-POL.NONP
Niwa-de-wa
onnanoko-ga nawatobi-oshi tari, shounen-tati-ga
garden-in-TOP girl-NOM
jump rope-ACC do and boy-PL-NOM
sakka-oshi tari shi-teimasu.
soccer-ACC do and do-TE-POL.NONP
Ie-no
mae-ni-wa douro-ga
too-tteori,
hitobito-wa inu-no
house-GEN front-in-TOP street-NOM run-TE-NONP people-TOP dog-GEN
sanpo-oshi tari zyogingu-o
shi tari shi-teimasu. […]taking a walk-ACC do and jogging-ACC do and do-TE-POL.NONP−232−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号‘There is a house with a big garden. In the garden, a girl is jumping rope and boys areplaying soccer. A street runs in front of the house, and people are taking a walk with a
dog and are jogging. […]’
(description by an intermediate Japanese EFL learner)
To analyse the data statistically, I rated it on a 4-point scale: ‘1’ meant that the subdivisions
were not linearized linguistically at all, and ‘4’ meant that the subdivisions were linearized
linguistically very well. The result of my rating is, Japanese descriptions by intermediate Japaneselearners: 2.412; Japanese descriptions by upper-intermediate Japanese learners: 2.765; English
descriptions by native speakers of English: 2.800. Statistically, there was no significant difference
between English descriptions produced by native speakers of English and Japanese descriptions by
Japanese EFL learners, with respect to the degree of linearizing information linguistically.
Now, let’s focus on the influence of learners’ proficiency level. The influence of learners’
proficiency level is found in the way they organise the main body of information. First, to analyse thedata statistically, I transformed the data into a binary scale. If a participant divided the picture into
manageable parts, and described each subdivision one after another, then that description was scored as‘1’. If not, it was scored as ‘0’. Figure 3 illustrates the result schematically, and a t-test showed that theway intermediate learners select the main body of information and decide the order in which theinformation is organised for English description tends to be significantly different from the way they doso for Japanese description (t (16) = 2.0628, p = 0.0557).

Figure 3. Intermediate learners dividing the picture into manageable parts anddescribing each subdivision one after another
Example (6) contains descriptions by the same intermediate learner. In Japanese, the learner
divided the picture into manageable parts, started his/her description from the background, moved
towards the centre and then towards the foreground of the picture. However, in English, this learner did
not describe the picture in the same way.
(6) a. Ie-ga
ni-ken a-tte,
huta-ri-no
otokonoko-ga sakka bouru-de
house-NOM two-CL exist-TE two-CL-GEN boy-NOM
soccer ball-withason-deiru.
Tiisana onnnanoko-ga hitori-de
nawatobi-oplay-TE-NONP little
girl-NOM
alone-with jumping rope-ACC
shite-ite, huta-ri-no
onnanohito-ga i-ppiki-no  inu-oture-tedo-TE two-CL-GEN woman-NOM one-CL-GEN dog-ACC take-TE−233−

Characteristics of descriptive texts produced by intermediate and upper-intermediate learners of English

sanposhi-teiru.
Kuruma-ga miti-ni
toma-ttete, sono ue-de
neko-gatake a walk-TE-NONP car-NOM street-on stop-TE that on-LOC cat-NOM
nemu-tteiru.
Hitori-no
otokonohito-ga ranningu-o
shi-teite
sleep-TE-NONP one person-GEN man-NOM
running-ACC do-TE-NONP
ojiisan-ga
nokisaki-desuwa-tte shinbun-oyon-deiru.
old man-NOM under the eaves-LOC sit-TE newspaper-ACC read-TE-NONP‘There are two houses, and two boys are playing the soccer.
A little girl is jumping rope, and two women are taking a walk with a dog.
A car stops on the street and a cat is sleeping on the car.
A man is running and an old man is reading a newspaper sitting under the eaves.’
b. There are 7 person, two house, one dog, one cat, and one car.
Two person who I think are lady are walking with a dog.
2 person who are in uniforms of soccer are playing with soccer ball.
One person who looks very old is reading newspaper seated on a chair in the garden.
One person who looks little is playing alone with loap in front of a house.
As for upper-intermediate Japanese EFL learners, the way they select the main body of
information and decide the order is similar for both the English and Japanese descriptions. However,
the information selected for English description is not well linearized linguistically. For the purpose ofanalysing the data statistically, I rated every description on a 4-point scale: ‘1’ meant that thesubdivisions were not linearized linguistically at all and ‘4’ meant that the subdivisions were
linguistically well linearized. Figure 4 illustrates the results. A t-test showed a significant difference
between the English and Japanese descriptions, with respect to the degree of linearizing theinformation linguistically (t (16) = 2.7617, p < 0.05).

Figure 4. Upper-intermediate learners’ linearizing of the information linguistically
Example (7) contains descriptions by the same upper-intermediate learner. The expressions
underlined in (7a) mark a shift from one subdivision to the next. Unlike the Japanese description, theEnglish description does not contain such expressions.
(7) a. Ie-no
mae-noniwa-de, huta-ri-no
otokonoko-ga sakka-ohouse-GEN front-GEN garden-in two-CL-GEN boy-NOM soccer-ACC
shi-te ason-deimasu.
Mata, onnanoko-wa nawatobi-odo-TE play-TE-POL.NONP also girl-TOP
jump rope-ACC
shi-teimasu.
Ie-no
mae-nomiti-ni, huta-ri-no−234−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

do-TE-POL.NONP
house-GEN front-GEN street-on, two-CL-GEN
jyosei-ga
hanasi-nagara arui-teimasu.
Hito-ri-wa
inu-o
woman-NOM talk-withwalk-TE-POL.NONP one-CL-TOP dog-ACC      ture-teimasu.
Miti-nitoma-tteiru
kuruma-no ue ni-wa
take-TE-POL.NONP street-on stop-TE-NONP
car-GEN on at-TOP
neko-ga imasu.
Mata, miti-de-wa
hito-ri-no
otokonoko-ga
cat-NOM exist-POL.NONP also street-on-TOP one-CL-GEN boy-NOM      ranningu-o
shi-teimasu.
Mukai-noie-noniwa-de-wa,
running-ACC do-TE-POL.NONP opposite-GEN house-GEN garden- in-TOP
ojiisan-ga
isu nikosikake-te sinbun-oyon-deimasu.
      old man-NOM chair on sit-TE
newspaper-ACC read-TE-POL-NONP‘Two boys are playing soccer in the garden of the house, and a girl is jumping rope.
On the street in front of the house, two women are talking and walking.
One of them is taking a dog. There is a cat on a car stopping on the street.
Also, a boy is running the street.
In the garden of the house across the street, an old man is reading a newspaper sitting
on the chair.’b. There is a house. Two boys are playing soccer in front of the house, and a girl is also
playing there. Two women are walking on the street with a dog. A boy is running.
An old man is reading a newspapers sitting on the chair. (= (3))
4. Discussion
As mentioned in the previous section, unlike upper-intermediate learners, the way
intermediate learners select the main body of information and decide the order of organising theinformation for English description tends to be significantly different from the way they do so forJapanese description. This result cannot be explained in terms of influencing L1 preferred patterns,
since both L1 (= Japanese) and L2 (= English) are similar in the way the main body of information isorganised.
One possible explanation for intermediate learners’ result is that intermediate learners lack‘strategic competence’ (Yule 20104: 194). Yule (20104: 194) defines strategic competence as ‘the ability
to organize a message effectively and to compensate, via strategies, for any difficulties’. Of all theobjects in the picture, it is the little girl jumping a rope that some Japanese EFL learners have difficulty
describing in English. This difficulty restricts the way learners describe the picture. When intermediate
learners did not divide the picture into manageable parts and did not describe each subdivision one
after another, they tended to describe the little girl at the end or not describe her at all. In the case of(6b), the learner did not divide the picture into manageable parts and did not describe each subdivision
one after another. This learner stuck to describing the little girl as a person jumping a rope.
Interestingly, upper-intermediate learners are more flexible about the way they describe thelittle girl and tend to describe her using simple vocabulary known (see (7b)). Based on the results of thedata, it seems that strategic competence is acquired with increasing proficiency.
As for upper-intermediate learners, they tend to lack expressions marking a shift from one
subdivision to the next. A possible reason for this is that learners are not used to using expressions suchas in the garden of the house across the street. Such expressions play an important role in marking ashift from one subdivision to the next. Learners have to become accustomed to using these expressions
to linearize the information linguistically.

−235−

Characteristics of descriptive texts produced by intermediate and upper-intermediate learners of English

5. Summary
This study has examined the influence of learners’ L1 and the influence of their proficiency
level, focusing on descriptions produced by intermediate and upper-intermediate Japanese EFL
learners. The analysis of data obtained from a single picture description task has demonstrated
language-specific patterns of information organisation in a single picture description; the pattern of
information organisation preferred in Japanese is retained in learners’ English descriptions.
The data has also demonstrated the influence of learners’ proficiency level: the way
intermediate Japanese EFL learners select the main body of information and decide the order oforganising the information for English description tends to be significantly different from the way they
do so for Japanese description. This is derived from the learners’ lack of strategic competence. As forupper-intermediate learners, the way they select the main body of information and decide the order issimilar for both the English and Japanese descriptions. However, the information selected for the
English description is not linguistically well organised. This is derived from learners’ lesser familiarity
with expressions used for marking a shift from one subdivision to the next.
Notes*I would like to thank Shingo Matsumiya for his assistance with statistics and the audience at the 15th conference of the
Pragmatics Society of Japan for their comments. Any remaining inadequacies are my own.
1
As data ,Yamada (2010) used single picture descriptions available as part of the NICT JLE Corpus, a spoken corpus.
2
The author of this study gained some ideas for the picture in this study from single picture descriptions available aspart of the NICT JLE Corpus and from Total English 3 (Horiguchi et al., 2011), and drew this picture.
3‘Intermediate’ in Figure 2 means Japanese descriptions produced by intermediate Japanese EFL learners. Similarly,‘upper-intermediate’ means Japanese descriptions by upper-intermediate Japanese EFL learners and ‘native speakers’
means English descriptions by native speakers of English. The vertical axis indicates percentage.
4
The following abbreviations are used. ACC: Accusative, CL: classifier, GEN: Genitive, LOC: Locative, NOM:
Nominative, NONP: Nonpast, PL: Plural, POL: Polite, TE: te-form of the verb, TOP: Topic
5
Ehrich and Koster’s (1983) experiment on describing a living room demonstrates that speakers choose different
ordering principles according to the way the room is arranged. The same might apply to describing a suburbanneighbourhood scene in this study. Features such as types of objects, their size and their locations might provide
speakers with specific ordering principles.
References
Carroll, M. and C. von Stutterheim. 1993. “The Representation of Spatial Configurations in English and German and
the Grammatical Structure of Locative and Anaphoric Expressions.” Linguistics 31:6, 1011-1041.
Carroll, M., J. Murcia-Serra, M. Watorek and A. Bendiscioli. 2000. “The Relevance of Information Organization to
Second Language Acquisition Studies: The Descriptive Discourse of Advanced Adult Learners of German.”Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22:3, 441-466.
Ehrich, V. and C. Koster. 1983. “Discourse Organization and Sentence Form: The Structure of Room Descriptions in
Dutch.” Discourse Processes 6, 169-195.
von Stutterheim, C. and W. Klein. 1989. “Referential Movement in Descriptive and Narrative Discourse.” In R.
Dietrich and C. F. Graumann (eds.) Language Processing in Social Context, 39-76. Amsterdam:
North-Holland.
Yamada, Y. 2010. “L2 learners’ Organizing Information in Descriptive Texts.” Poster presentation given at the 18th
International conference of Pragmatics and Language Learning at Kobe University on 16-19 July, 2010.
Yule, G. 20104. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

−236−ポスター発表
Poster Sessions

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

連辞型響鳴におけるトークンと生起傾向
伊澤宜仁
慶應義塾大学大学院＜Abstract＞
Usage-based model proposes that our grammar emerges from experience; therefore, individual grammar is tosome extent idiosyncratic. The question is thus described: What enables us to achieve mutual understanding
successfully? In the light of interactive alignment, participants’ mental representations are jointed throughvarious channels, and it facilitates mutual understanding. On this point, the linguistic trigger to align participants
is resonance of Du Bois (2001). This study examines actual resonances in interaction, and reveals themechanism of facilitated exchange. In conclusion, alignment is not always automatic; rather, it can be generated
as a conversational strategy to facilitate interaction.
【Keywords】：談話分析、対話統語論、くり返し、響鳴、提携

1.

はじめに
対話は、場に応じた適切な所作を要求する相互行為であり、発話理解・産出やプランニングなど、
同時並列的で複雑な処理を必要とする。また、その断片性にも特徴があり、発話単位としての文は対話では稀である。これらの特徴にも関わらず、参与者は、対話を独話より容易であるとする傾向にある。その主な要因として、先行研究は聞き手によるフィードバックや発話産出の猶予などを挙げてきた。同時に、対話の言語的特徴として、参与者間における語の反復や類似発話の使用も指摘されている。対話をパターンの配置と見なす
場合、話し手が異なる隣接発話対で似たパターンが使用される確率は、そう高くないと考えられる。
しかし、実際には直近の先行発話に似た後続発話がしばしば使われており、対話における何らかの性質を反映するものと想定される。以上の問題を踏まえ、本研究は対話における類似発話を観察し、参与者が他者発話をどのように利用するか、なぜ語の反復や類似発話が生成されるかを考察する。
先行研究としては、後述の Du Bois (2001)による
対話統語論(dialogic syntax)に着眼し、類似発話の抽出・記述の基盤とする。また、分析対象は英語とし、実例の集積として SBCSAE (Santa Barbara
Corpus of Spoken American English)を利用する。

2.

先行研究
対話における類似発話は、一般的にくり返し(repetition)として議論される。先行研究としては、Bock (1986) による構造プライミング (structural
priming)、Tannen (1989) による関与 (involvement)などが存在し、いずれも類似発話の機能を考察している。特に、Tannen (1989)による産出・理解・
結束・相互行為という 4 機能の指摘は、広く支持されてきた。しかし、先行研究は母体が限定的で、類似性の扱いも体系化されていない。以上の先行研究に対し、対話統語論は従来のくり返しを響鳴(resonance)と再規定し、ダイアグラフ(diagraph)という連辞・連合関係の表記から、発話間の構造的並行性 (structural parallelism)を記述・分析する。
響鳴とダイアグラフの簡例は以下の通りである。
(diagraph)
1

Joanne;it’skind of

like

^you

Ken

.

3

Ken;

that

’s

not at^all

like

me

Joanne.

（Du Bois 2001: 4; 左はコーパスの行番号）

この発話対では、like と’s が同じトークンとして使用され、it = that / you = me という指示の一致も見られる。末尾の Ken と Joanne はともに呼格であり、kind of と not at all の互換性も想定される。

−237−

連辞型響鳴におけるトークンと生起傾向

4.

さらには、ともにコピュラ述語文でありながら、肯定と否定という反対の意味を示す。このように、
対話統語論は語・統語・指示などの様々なレベルで生じる並行性を響鳴として着眼し、その原理や動機付けを探究する。
以上の対話統語論は、参与者間にプライミング
による心的表象の提携も措定する。Chafe (1994)の活性化 (activation)とも関係するが、具体的には、
話し手の発話は聞き手の心的表象を活性化させており、その活性化した表象が、聞き手の発話に影響を与えると考える。発話間の語・統語レベルの影響から敷衍して、対話における類似パターンの使用が、参与者間の心的表象レベルでの類似性も高めると想定する点に特色がある。この参与者間の心的提携 (interactive alignment) によって、スタンスの提示や対話の易化、発話の断片化が成立すると言える (Du Bois 2007; 﨑田・岡本 2010)。
言語上の類似性と表象の類似性のリンキングは、
対話の構造を考える上で非常に示唆的である。

連辞型響鳴におけるトークン
対話における響鳴の実例を得るため、本研究は英語対話コーパスの SBCSAE において利用可能
な 2 人対話を媒体とし、人手で響鳴を抽出した。
人手による抽出に際しては、類似性の判断に主観が入る懸念がある。しかし、響鳴を抽象的な統語構造まで拡張すると、[SVO-VO]といった発話対も考えようで響鳴となり、議論が煩雑化することも事実である。この線引きは、類似性の判断における Low-resonance の問題とされる。本研究は、このような「考えようでは似ている発話対」には立ち入らず、観察者の直観を便宜上の境界として事例を抽出した。また、実時間における発話の乖
離、すなわち響鳴の Distance の問題も存在するが、こちらも響鳴の基本単位である「複数の話し手による隣接発話対」に絞って抽出した。さらには、先行発話を前提としない共話や重複、笑いなどの
非言語的な情報についても除外した。以下は抽出した事例の一つである。

3.

(diagraph)

提携とプライミング
抽象的な構造プライミングに対して、トークン
により部分的に具体化された発話が響鳴である。
Du Bois (2001) は、その分類として連辞型・連合型響鳴 (frame / focal resonance)を提案している。
(diagraph)
1

JOANNE;

3LENORE;

yet

he ’s

still

^healthy

.

he ’s

still

walking ^around.

(Du Bois 2001: 5)

U1 :
U2 :

yeah

so

you

don’t

know

.

but

I

do

know

.

(SBC05: 166-68)

結果として、SBCSAE 内の 2 人対話においては、
上記のような響鳴を計 189 例まで抽出した。これ
らにおける U1-U2 の発話対で、その間に構造的並行性が見られる部分について、生起頻度が 3 以上の軸語を分類すると以下の通りになる。

上記の発話対においては、Lenore は軸語として
he’s still という共通のトークンを使用し、healthyと walking around の間に、アドホックな類義関係を形成している。この軸語群が連辞型響鳴であり、それに基づく連合関係が連合型響鳴とされる。
Du Bois (2001)は、特定のトークンが響鳴としてくり返されることで構成体が創発し得るとし、Ariel (2008)も for the most part / for the whole partなどの創発を議論している。これに対し本研究は、構成体の創発まで踏み込まず、あくまでトークンについて機能語・内容語・頻度などの点から考察
を試みる。

計

計

計

計

the

32

one

10

out

6

did

3

I

31

she

10

just

5

good

3

it

27

do

9

on

5

her

3

is

23

right

9

am

4

see

3

that

20

are

8

him

4

this

3

you

19

he

8

how

4

with

3

be

17

to

8

there

4

would

3

not

17

in

7

they

4

yeah

3

get

15

so

7

well

4

very

3

have

14

and

6

what

4

your

3

will

12

gonna

6

all

3

a

12

of

6

at

3

know

10

okay

6

can

3

図 1 連辞型響鳴におけるトークンの例−238−

第15回大会発表論文集

図 1 から、響鳴部のトークンは Biber et al. (1999)
による話し言葉の特徴や、SBCSAE 全体の粗頻度とほぼ一致する分布を示すことが分かる。これは、響鳴も話し言葉の性質を色濃く反映することを意味するが、一方で話し言葉と異なり、right, mhm,
oh, uh, yeah などの間投詞や談話標識については減少していることも伺える。
また、観察された全トークンを品詞別に分類し、総計すると次のようになる。
代表例 (頻度順)

品詞

it, that, one, this代名詞

I, you, he, she, him, they, heris, was, be, are, am

動詞

know, get, have, do, gonna etc.

総数
154
139

名詞

cheese, parlor, point, room, week etc.

形容詞

good, okay, all etc.

117
51

冠詞

the, a, an

44

副詞

just, so, there, very, not etc.

43

前置詞

in, of, to, on, with, at etc.

42

助動詞

don't, do, can, gonna, have etc.

37

接続詞

and, that, so, because etc.

22

間投詞

right, okay, yeah etc.

16

疑問詞

how, what etc.

7

図2

図 1 ~ 2 より、対話の参与者は、他者の発話から機能語・代名詞・高頻度語を軸語として取り出し、
名詞・動詞・形容詞などをスロット化しながら次の発話に利用する場合があると考えられる。
続いて、先行発話によるプライミングを響鳴として具体化させる場合について考える。発話間で並行関係にある要素の品詞は、以下の比率を示す。

250

先行発話(U1)

後続発話(U2)

200

150

100

50

0

図3

図 3 より、後続発話を構成するトークンとしては、代名詞・動詞・副詞・前置詞・接続詞などの比率が低下することが伺える。また、発話対における人称代名詞、
特に 1 人称と 2 人称の視点の置換や、後続発話における [SV] の消去も多く、特に後者
は代名詞・動詞の減少をもたらしている。逆に、
間投詞 right などは、生起数は粗頻度に比べて少ないが、1 語発話対として並行性が保たれており、多くが隣接応答ペアと関係すると想定される。
以上を要約すると、対話における類似パターンの発話対、すなわち響鳴の先行発話と後続発話は全くの同型にはなり難く、機能語は維持されるが、代名詞・動詞・副詞などの品詞は置換ないし消去される傾向にある。換言すると、響鳴の後続発話は断片化が許される傾向にあり、一定の並行性が保たれていれば、断片的な発話で対話が成立する点が注目に値する。
補足として、SBCSAE は韻律単位である IU(intonation unit)により分節化されているが、類似パターンは主に後続発話の冒頭かつ単一の IU として使用される傾向があることも判明した。

5.

発話対 U1 と U2 における軸語の分類

第８号

考察
対話は、実時間に沿って産出された発話内容を、
参 与 者 間 の 共 有 基 盤 (common ground; Clark
1996)に付与しつつ進行する。参与者はそこから
共同注意のフレームを形成し、他者と特定の対象への注意を共有する (Tomasello 2003)。その中で、なぜ語の反復や類似発話が生成されるのか。以下、その仕組みについて考察していく。
対話における響鳴は、傾向として i ) 韻律上の単位として産出され、ii ) 先行発話と後続発話は並行しつつも、iii ) 先行発話の一部が消去される。
まず、IU としての単位性は認知上のまとまりを意味し、生起位置は時間の確保 (Tannen 1989;
Schegloff 1997; 伝 2004)という機能を示唆する。
処理負荷を軽減する他者発話の再利用 (Chafe
1994)とも言えるだろう。また、後続の話し手は先行発話を同じようには使わず、機能語や高頻度語などを残しつつ、代名詞・動詞・副詞・前置詞・接続詞などを消去することもある。この断片化は、
類似パターンにより心的提携が発生し、意味関係の復元が容易となることに起因する。以上より、参与者は他者発話を産出の負荷軽減に利用する

発話の並行性とトークンの比率−239−

連辞型響鳴におけるトークンと生起傾向ことが示唆され、さらに、同語や類似パターンにより参与者間の心的提携も構築・強化されるので、その証左として一部の発話が断片化され得ると考えられる。関連して、修復 (repair)も問題への心的提携を構築するストラテジーであるが、先行発話から数語を再利用するような修復は、まさに同語による心的提携の賜物と言える。
以上、連辞型響鳴は機能語や同一指示の代名詞を軸語としてアドホックな構成体を形成し、そこからアドホックな連合関係も可能にすることで、参与者同士の表象を提携させ、対話を効率化すると考えられる。語の反復や類似パターンの生起は、伝達上の最適化の反映であり、この言語の類似性と表象の類似性のリンキングを活用することで、意識的に提携を構築し、情報の伝達や相互行為を円滑にすることも可能となる。このように、対話における同一のトークンや類似パターンの使用
は、参与者間の表象レベルでの類似性も惹起し、相互理解を促進させる面を持つ。これは分散認知の体系とも言えるが、一方で対話・実時間ごとに響鳴の分布に偏りがあることも留意すべき事実であり、より精緻な考察の余地がある。

6.

結語
本研究は、理論的背景として Du Bois (2001)の提唱する対話統語論を設定し、響鳴という現象に着眼した上で、参与者が他者の発話をどのように利用するか、なぜ語の反復や類似発話が生まれるかについて考察した。結果として、対話における類似発話対では、トークンの偏りや、後続発話の断片化の傾向が観察された。ここから、響鳴にはアコモデーションなどの心理的側面のみでなく、対話における他者という資源を利用する仕組みも見てとれる。対話における発話は、他者の表象に少なからぬ影響を与える存在であり、参与者間で表象が変容する仕組みを明らかにすることで、World Englishes などの変異間コミュニケーションにも応用が期待できる。
本研究の課題としては、イディオムやコロケー
ションの措置、生起位置や行為連鎖 (targeting anext action, Schegloff 1997)との兼ね合いがある。
今後は、これらを踏まえた検証と考察を重ねて、異文化間コミュニケーションや対話における言語の可能性について究明していきたい。

参照文献
Ariel, M. 2008. Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge
University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan,
E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written
English. Pearson Education.
Bock, J. 1986. “Syntactic Persistence in Language
Production”. Cognitive Psychology 18, 355-87.
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The
Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in
Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Du Bois, J. 2001. “Towards a Dialogic Syntax”. Universityof California, Santa Barbara [manuscript].
Du Bois, J. 2007. The stance triangle. In Englebretson,
Robert (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity,
Evaluation, Interaction. Benjamins. 139-82.
Du Bois, J., Chafe, W., Meyer, C., & Thompson, S. 2000.
Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English,
Part 1. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Du Bois, J., Chafe, W., Meyer, C., Thompson, S., & Martey,
N. 2003. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American
English, Part 2. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data
Consortium.
Du Bois, J., & Englebretson, R. 2004. Santa Barbara
Corpus of Spoken American English, Part 3.
Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Du Bois, J., & Englebretson, R. 2005. Santa Barbara
Corpus of Spoken American English, Part 4.
Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Schegloff, E. 1997. Practices and actions: Boundary casesof other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23(3).
499-545.
Tannen, D. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, andImagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A
Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
串田秀也・定延利之・伝康晴 2004 『時間の中の文と発話』 ひつじ書房
﨑田智子・岡本雅史 2010『言語運用のダイナミズム』
研究社

−240−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

㖧࿖⺆ߩㅪ૕ᒻ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫ޠ‬‫⚳ߩޠ‬ᱛᒻൻߣ⺆↪⺰⊛᜛ᒛ̆ᣣᧄ⺆ߩㅪ૕ᒻ‫ߩߣޠߥ޿ߚߺޟ‬ኻᲧࠍㅢߓߡ̆


๓቞㎾ ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮 xၳᳯ ⮍ ฬฎደᄢቇ <Abstract>
This paper presents a pragmatic-semantic analysis of the functional extension of the ‘sentencefinal’ attributive predicate forms in Korean, which have become increasingly frequent in TV
captions (subtitles) and internet blogs. Specifically, this paper focuses on the form ‘kes-kathun’,the attributive form of ‘kes-kathta’ (‘be like’), which occurs sentence-finally by itself though it
is expected to be followed by a head noun.
The ‘kes-kathun’ form functions to encode conjecturing and indirectness, which are similar to thepragmatic-semantic nuances conveyed by its Japanese counterpart ‘mitaina’ (the attributive formof ‘mitaida’ (‘be like’). Unlike ‘mitaina’, however, the Korean ‘kes-kathun’ is limited to written
language (esp. blogs) and fails to quote speech.

೿Keywordsഀ Korean ‘kes-kathun’, Japanese ‘mitaina’, Sentence-final attributive predicate formsߪߓ߼ߦ
㖧࿖⺆ߪᣣᧄ⺆ߣᄙߊߩ౒ㅢߒߚ㘃ဳ⺰⊛․ᓽࠍᜬߞߡ޿ࠆߣ⍮ࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬ਔ⸒⺆ߪㅪ૕ᒻߣ⚳ᱛᒻߩ඙೎ߩ઀ᣇ߇ᄢ߈ߊ⇣ߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫⃻ޕ‬ઍ㖧࿖⺆ߪోߡߩㅀ⺆ߦ߅޿ߡㅪ૕
ᒻߣ⚳ᱛᒻ߇෩ኒߦ඙೎ߐࠇ‫ᤨޔ‬೙߽⃻࿷࡮ㆊ෰࡮ᧂ᧪㧔㕖⃻ታ㧕ߣ޿ߞߚⶄ㔀ߥಽൻࠍߒ
ߡ޿ࠆ (ၳᳯ2001)ߩߦኻߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄ⺆ߩ႐วߪᒻኈേ⹖ߣࠦࡇࡘ࡜ᢥࠍ㒰߈‫ޔ‬ㅪ૕ᒻߣ⚳ᱛᒻߩ඙೎߇ή޿‫ޕ‬ߎߩࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬㖧࿖⺆ߩㅪ૕ᒻߣ⚳ᱛᒻߪ᣿⏕ߦ඙೎ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߦ߽߆߆ࠊࠄߕ‫ޔ‬ㄭᐕ㖧࿖ߩࠗࡦ࠲࡯ࡀ࠶࠻ ࡉࡠࠣ ߦ߅޿ߡ‫⚳ޟ‬ᱛᒻ‫߈ߴࠆࠊ⚳ߢޠ‬ᢥᧃߦ‫ޟ‬ㅪ૕ᒻ‫⃻ࠆߔ⿠↢߇ޠ‬⽎߇ⷰኤߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߘޕ‬ઍ⴫⊛ߥ߽ߩߣߒߡ଀ᢥ(1)ߩࠃ߁ߥᣣᧄ⺆ߩ‫⋧ߦޠ߁޿ߣޟ‬ᒰߔࠆᒁ↪ㅪ૕ᒻᑼ‫ޟ‬tanun‫ޟޔࠅ޽߇ޠ‬ㅪ૕ᒻ‫ޟߩޠ‬tanun‫߇ޠ‬ᢥᧃߦන⁛ߢ⃻ࠊࠇࠆߎߣߦࠃ
ߞߡ‫ޟ‬ᢿቯ଻⇐‫ߩޠ‬௛߈ࠍߒߡ޿ࠆߎߣ߇ᜰ៰ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ(ၳᳯ̒㊄2011)‫ޕ‬(1) ࡆ࡯࡞ߩ౮⌀ߟ߈ߩࡉࡠࠣߢ 
Saylo nao-n
maykcwu nemnem masiss-tanun…
ᣂߒߊ   ಴ࠆㆊ෰ㅪ૕ᒻ ࡆ࡯࡞      ߣߡ߽   ߅޿ߒ޿6#070
‫ޟ‬ᣂߒߊ಴ߚࡆ࡯࡞‫߁޿ߣ޿ߒ޿߅߽ߡߣޕ‬đ‫ޠ‬ᧄ⎇ⓥߢߪ‫ޔ‬㖧࿖⺆ߩࠗࡦ࠲࡯ࡀ࠶࠻ߦ߅޿ߡㄭᐕⷰኤߐࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥߞߚ‫ޔ‬ᢥᧃߦ↢⿠ߔࠆㅪ૕ᒻᒻᑼߩࡃ࡝ࠛ࡯࡚ࠪࡦߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄ⺆ߩ‫⋧ߦޠ߁޿ߣޟ‬ᒰߔࠆ㖧࿖⺆ߩ‫ޟ‬tanun‫ޠ‬−241−韓国語の連体形「kes-kathun」の終止形化と語用論的拡張―日本語の連体形「みたいな」との対比を通じて―એᄖߦ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄ⺆ߩ‫⋧ߦޠߥ޿ߚߺޟ‬ᒰߔࠆ㖧࿖⺆ߩㅪ૕ᒻ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫⚳ߩޠ‬ᱛᒻൻߣߘࠇ
ߦ઻߁⺆↪⺰⊛ᗧ๧᜛ᒛࠍಽᨆߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄ⺆‫ߩޠߥ޿ߚߺޟ‬႐วߦ߽⚳ᱛᒻൻߣߘࠇߦ઻߁
ᯏ⢻⊛᜛ᒛ߇ⷰኤߐࠇࠆߎߣ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬ਔ⠪ࠍኻᲧߔࠆߎߣߦࠃߞߡ୘‫ߩޘ‬ᒻᑼߦ࿕᦭ߥ․ᓽ߇
᣿ࠄ߆ߦߥࠆߎߣ߇ᦼᓙߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ᢥᧃߦ↢⿠ߔࠆ㖧࿖⺆ߩ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫ޠ‬‫ޠ‬㖧࿖⺆ߩㅪ૕ᒻᱛ߼ߪㄭᐕࠗࡦ࠲࡯ࡀ࠶࠻ࠍਛᔃߣߒߡࠃߊ⷗ࠄࠇࠆ⃻⽎ߢ޽ࠅ‫ౕޔ‬૕⊛ߦߪએਅߩ(2)ߦ␜ߒߚࠃ߁ߦ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫⚳ߩޠ‬ᱛᒻߣߒߡߩ↪ᴺ߇ⷰኤߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬(2)a. Yeki-l ketta po-myen eps-ten
salang-to sayngki-lߎߎࠍ ᱠ޿ߡߺࠆ᧦ઙ ߥ޿ㆊ෰ㅪ૕ᒻ
ᕜ߽ߢ߈ࠆᧂ᧪ㅪ૕ᒻ
‫ࠍߎߎޟ‬ᱠ޿ߡߺࠆߣߥ߆ߞߚᕜ߽ߢ߈ߘ߁ߥ‫ޠ‬b. Cincca phyengsayng yokes-man ssu-l
kes kathun!
ᧄᒰߦ৻↢ߎࠇ߫߆ࠅ ૶߁ᧂ᧪ㅪ૕ᒻ KES-KATHUN‫ᧄޟ‬ᒰߦ৻↢ߎࠇ߫߆ࠅ૶޿ߘ߁ߥ‫ޠ‬c. Hwangcengmin-man nawa-ss-ta

hamyenta caymiss-nun

kes kathun~!!
KES-KATHUN

kes kathun..ɣ

ࡈࠔࡦ࡛ࠫࡦࡒࡦߛߌ಴ߡߊࠆㆊ෰⚳⚿⺆የ ߔࠆߣోㇱ㕙⊕޿⃻࿷ㅪ૕ᒻ KES-KATHUN‫ߌߛࡦࡒࡦ࡛ࠫࡦࠔࡈޟ‬಴ߡ߈ߚߣߔࠆߣోㇱ㕙⊕޿ࠃ߁ߥ‫ޠ‬d. Ilcwuil-ey tipi
phulo-ul han osip-kay-nun po-n
kes kathun…
৻ㅳ㑆ߢ  ࠹࡟ࡆ   ⇟⚵ࠍ   ᄢ૕     50୘ߪ    ⷗ࠆㆊ෰ㅪ૕ᒻKES-KATHUN‫৻ޟ‬ㅳ㑆ߢ࠹࡟ࡆ⇟⚵ࠍᄢ૕୘ߪ⷗ߚࠃ߁ߥ‫ ޠ‬
଀ᢥ(2)ߩᢥᧃߩ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫޿⸒ޔߪޠ‬ಾࠅߩ⚳ᱛᒻ‫ޟ‬kes-kathta‫߈⟎ߦޠ‬឵߃ߡ߽޿޿ߪ
ߕߢ޽ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬ㅪ૕ᒻߩ⚳ᱛᒻൻ⃻⽎ߩ⢛ᓟߦߪߤߩࠃ߁ߥ⺆↪⺰⊛േᯏߠߌ߇޽ࠅ‫ࠇߘޔ‬ߪ⚳ᱛᒻߩ‫ޟ‬kes-kathta‫ޕ߆߁ࠈ޽ߢߩࠆߥ⇣ߦ߁ࠃߩߤߣޠ‬଀ᢥ(2a)㨪(2d)ߪᗵᖱx⠨߃(2a㨪2c)‫߈ᦠޔ‬ᚻߩ⚻㛎(2d)ࠍ␜ߒߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬ㅪ૕ᒻߩ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫ߢޠ‬ᢥࠍ⚳⚿ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᢥᧃߩ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫ߩޠ‬႐ว‫᧪ᧂޔ‬ㅪ૕ᒻ(2a‫ޔ‬2b)ߣ⃻࿷xㆊ෰ㅪ૕ᒻ(2c‫ޔ‬2d)ߩ೨ធ߇น⢻ߢ޽ࠆ߇‫࠻࠶ࡀޔ‬਄ߢ⺞ߴߚߣߎࠈ‫᧪ᧂޔ‬ㅪ૕ᒻߦ೨ធߔࠆ↪଀ᢙ߇ᄙߊ⷗ࠄࠇࠆ‫଀ޕ‬ᢥ(2a㨪2b)ߩ႐ว‫߈ᦠޔ‬ᚻߪ‫ࠍߎߎޟ‬ᱠ޿ߡߺࠆߣߥ߆ߞߚᕜ߽ߢ߈ࠆ‫ޠ‬‫ᧄޟ‬ᒰߦ৻↢ߎࠇ߫߆ࠅ૶߁‫ߛ߹߁޿ߣޠ‬ታ⃻ߒߡ޿ߥ޿੐ᘒߦ‫ޔ‬ㅪ૕ᒻߩ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫ޠ‬ߢᢥࠍ⚳⚿ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫᧪ᧂޕ‬ㅪ૕ᒻߪ੐ᘒߩᚑ┙ߦ߅޿ߡ‫޿ߥ޿ߡࠇࠊߥⴕߛ߹ޔ‬㕖⃻ታࠍ⴫ߔߚ߼ߦ↪޿ࠄࠇࠆߚ߼‫ޟޔ‬㘃ૃᕈ࡮ㄭૃᕈ‫ޟߔ⴫ࠍޠ‬kes-kathun‫ࠍޠ‬ઃടߔࠆߎߣߦࠃߞ
ߡ㕖⃻ታ੐ᘒ߇዁᧪޽ࠅ߃ࠆ಴᧪੐ߢ޽ࠆߎߣࠍ␜ߔ௛߈ࠍߒߡ޿ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬৻ᣇ‫(ޔ‬2c㨪2d)ߩ႐ว‫߈ᦠޔ‬ᚻߪ‫ߌߛࡦࡒࡦ࡛ࠫࡦࠔࡈޟޔ‬಴ߡ߈ߚߣߔࠆߣోㇱ㕙⊕޿‫ޠ‬‫৻ޟ‬ㅳ㑆ߢ࠹࡟ࡆ⇟⚵ࠍᄢ૕50୘ߪ⷗ߚ‫ߦߢߔ߁޿ߣޠ‬ታ⃻ߒߡ޿ࠆ⥄ಽߩᗵᖱx⠨߃߿⋥ធ⚻㛎ࠍᦠ޿ߡ޿ࠆߦ߽߆߆ࠊࠄߕ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫߁޿ߣޠ‬ㅪ૕ᒻߢᢥࠍ✦߼ߊߊߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎࠇࠄߩ႐วߪ‫⥄ޔ‬ಽߩ⚻㛎ࠍჿ㜞ߦ⺆ࠆߎߣࠍㆱߌࠆࠃ߁ߥ‫ޟ‬ᢿቯߩ࿁ㆱ‫ߥ⊛ޠ‬ᯏ⢻ࠍᨐߚߒߡ޿ࠆ߽ߩߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄ⺆ߩ‫ޟߩ⺆⧷ޔޠߥ޿ߚߺޟ‬like‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߤߥޠ‬㘃ૃᕈࠍ␜ߔᒻᑼ߇ᒁ↪ᒻᑼߣߒߡ
ᢥᴺൻߔࠆ⃻⽎߇ㅢ⸒⺆⊛ߦ⷗ࠄࠇࠆ߇‫ޔ‬㘃ૃߒߚᢥᴺ⊛ᗧ๧ࠍᜬߟ㖧࿖⺆ߩ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫ޠ‬−242−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ߦ߅޿ߡ߽‫ޔ‬ᒁ↪ᒻᑼߣ޿ߞߚห᭽ߩᗧ๧᜛ᒛ߇⷗ࠄࠇࠆߩߢ޽ࠈ߁߆‫ޕ‬㖧࿖⺆ߩㅪ૕ᒻ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫ޠ‬‫ߣޠ‬ᣣᧄ⺆ߩㅪ૕ᒻ‫ߩߣޠߥ޿ߚߺޟ‬ኻᲧߎߎߢߪ‫ޔ‬㖧࿖⺆ߩㅪ૕ᒻ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫⚳ߩޠ‬ᱛᒻൻߣ⴫㕙⊛ߦࠃߊૃߚ⃻⽎ߣߒߡᣣᧄ
⺆ߩㅪ૕ᒻ‫ߡ޿ߟߦޠߥ޿ߚߺޟ‬ᬌ⸛ߔࠆ‫ޟߕ߹ޕ‬kes-kathun‫ߣޠߥ޿ߚߺޟޠ‬ᵷ↢㑐ଥߦ޽ࠆ⚳ᱛᒻߩ‫ޟ‬kes-kathta‫ߩߣޠߛ޿ߚߺޟޠ‬㑐ㅪߢਔ⠪ߩၮᧄ⊛ߥᢥᴺ⊛ᗧ๧ࠍ⏕⹺ߒߡ߅߈ߚ޿‫ޕ‬એਅߩ଀ᢥ(3a) (4a)ߦ␜ߔࠃ߁ߦ⚳ᱛᒻߩ‫ޟ‬kes-kathta‫ޟߪޠߛ޿ߚߺޟޠ‬ផ㊂‫ޠ‬‫ޟ‬ᇑᦛ‫ߩޠ‬ᢥᴺ⊛ᗧ๧ࠍ᦭ߒߡ߅ࠅ‫଀ޔ‬ᢥ(3b)(4b)ߩᢥਛߩ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫߅ߦޠߥ޿ߚߺޟޠ‬޿ߡ߽‫ޔ‬ᓟធߔࠆ‫ޟ‬nukkimi㧔ᗵߓ㧕‫ߚߞ޿ߣޠ‬ฬ⹖ߦ઻ࠊࠇߡ↪޿ࠄࠇ‫ޟࠅߪ߿ޔ‬ផ㊂‫ޠ‬‫ޟ‬ᇑᦛ‫ߩޠ‬ᢥᴺ⊛ᗧ๧ࠍ⴫ߔ‫ޕ‬(3)a. Ku-nun salang-ey ppaci-n
kes-kathta.
ᓐߪ ᕜߦ  ⪭ߜࠆㆊ෰ㅪ૕ᒻ KESKATHTA‫ޟ‬ᓐߪᕜߦ⪭ߜߚߺߚ޿ߛ‫ޠޕ‬b. Sin-i na-lul peli-n   
kes kathun␹߇⑳ࠍ ᝥߡࠆㆊ෰ㅪ૕ᒻ KESKATHTA⃻࿷ㅪ૕ᒻ‫␹ޟ‬᭽߇⑳ߩߎߣࠍᝥߡߚߺߚ޿ߥᗵߓ߇ߔࠆ‫ޠޕ‬(4)a.ᓐߪᕜߦ⪭ߜߚߺߚ޿ߛ‫ޕ‬b.␹᭽߇⑳ߩߎߣࠍᝥߡߚߺߚ޿ߥᗵߓ߇ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬nukkim-iᗵߓ߇tunta.
ߔࠆએ਄ߩߎߣ߆ࠄߔࠆߣ‫ޔ‬㖧࿖⺆ߩ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫ߣޠ‬ᣣᧄ⺆ߩ‫ޟߩߣޠߥ޿ߚߺޟ‬㘃ૃᕈ࡮Ყᴫ‫ߦޠ‬㑐ߔࠆᗧ๧ᯏ⢻ߪᐔⴕ⊛ߢ޽ࠆ߇‫⚳ޟޔ‬ᱛᒻ‫↪ޠ‬ᴺߦ㑐ߒߡߪ㗼⪺ߥ㆑޿߇⹺߼ࠄ
ࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬Fujii (2006)ߥߤߩ⎇ⓥ߆ࠄ᣿ࠄ߆ߥࠃ߁ߦ‫⚳ޟޔ‬ᱛᒻ‫଀ޔߪޠߥ޿ߚߺޟߩߡߒߣޠ‬ᢥ(5)ߦ␜ߔࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬ਥߣߒߡ⹤ߒ⸒⪲ߦ߅޿ߡ‫⥄ޔ‬ಽ(⹤ߒᚻᦠ߈ᚻ)޽ࠆ޿ߪઁ⠪ߩ⊒⸒߿⠨߃ࠍ౬⺣߿߆ࠄ߆޿ߣ޿ߞߚ⹏ଔࠍ੤߃ߡ‫ޟ‬ᒁ↪‫ࠆߔޠ‬ᒻᑼ߳ߣᯏ⢻ᄌൻߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߎޕ‬ߩᯏ⢻ᄌൻߪ⧷⺆ߩ㘃ૃᕈࠍ⴫ߔ‫ޟ‬like‫ߩޠ‬ᢥᴺൻ(Romaine and Lange 1991)ߣᐔⴕ⊛ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬(5) a.'- ဈᧄ ߩฃ㛎ߩᤨߩࠛࡇ࠰࡯࠼ࠍᝄࠅ㄰ߥ߇ࠄߩ⊒⸒ ̒̒̒࠙࠽ࠡߩ㛽߇ߩߤߦᒁߞ߆߆ߞߡ‫ޔߡߊߥࠇߣࠎߗࠎߗޔ‬ᄛਛߩᤨߦ∛㒮ߦⴕߊ㛍߉‫߁߽ޔ‬᣿ᣣ࠹ࠬ࠻
ߥߩߦ‫ᧄߪߦࠡ࠽࠙ޕߥ޿ߚߺޔ‬ᒰ᳇ࠍઃߌߡߊߛߐ޿‫ޟ⚵⇟ࠝࠫ࡜ ޕ‬ဈᧄ⌀✍IURP HYHU\ZKHUH‫ ޠ‬ b 㜞ᩞᤨઍߩࠢ࡜ࠬߩਛߢߪߤࠎߥሽ࿷‫'߁޿ߣ߆ߔߢࠎߚߞߛࡦ࡚ࠪࠫࡐޔ‬-ߩ⾰໧ߦኻߔࠆ⊒⸒ ጊᧄ㧦ᅚሶ߆ࠄߪ޽ߩ‫ోޔ‬ὼ߽ߡߥ߆ߞߚࠎߢߔߨ‫߇ࡦ࡚ࠪࡦ࠹ߩߘޔߣ߁޿ߡߞ߆ߜߞߤޔߩ޽ޕ‬਄߇ߞߚߣߎࠈࠍ⷗ߚᤨߩᅚሶߩ৻⸒ߪ‫ޟ‬ጊᧄᔺ޿‫ޟ⚵⇟ࠝࠫ࡜ ޕߥ޿ߚߺޠ‬3HRSOH✬㓸㐳㧍߅ᤨ㑆ߢߔ‫ ޠ‬ᧄ᧪ߩ‫ޟ‬ផ㊂‫ޟޠ‬ᇑᦛ‫ޟࠄ߆ޠ‬ᒁ↪‫ߣ߳ޠ‬ᯏ⢻⊛ߦᄢ߈ߊᄌ⾰ߒߡ޿ࠆᣣᧄ⺆ߩ‫޿ߚߺޟ‬ߥ‫ߣޠ‬ᒻᘒ⊛ߦ㘃ૃߒߡ޿ࠆ㖧࿖⺆ߩ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫ࠍࠣࡠࡉߩ࠻࠶ࡀ࡯࠲ࡦࠗߪޠ‬ਛᔃߣߒߚᦠ߈⸒⪲ߦ߅ߌࠆ૶↪߇ਛᔃߢ޽ࠅ‫ߪߢ⪲⸒ߒ⹤ޔ‬ᱴߤⷰኤߐࠇߥ޿ߩߪ⏕߆ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬৻ᣇ‫ޔ‬㖧࿖⺆ߩ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫⃻ޔߪޠ‬ታߩ⏕ቯߐࠇߚ੐ᘒ‫ࠆࠇࠊߥⴕࠄ߆ࠇߎޔ‬น⢻ᕈߩ−243−

韓国語の連体形「kes-kathun」の終止形化と語用論的拡張―日本語の連体形「みたいな」との対比を通じて―޽ࠆ㕖⃻ታߩ੐ᘒߦᓟធߒߡ‫߈ᦠޔ‬ᚻߦࠃࠆᗵᖱ̒⠨߃‫⚻ޔ‬㛎ߥߤࠍ߷߆ߔߎߣߦࠃߞߡᢿ
ቯࠍ଻⇐ߔࠆᯏ⢻ࠍᨐߚߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔߛߚޕ‬ᣣᧄ⺆ߩ‫⋧ߦޠ߁޿ߣޟ‬ᒰߔࠆ㖧࿖⺆ߩ‫ޟ‬tanun‫ޠ‬߇ᦠ߈ᚻ⥄ಽߩ⚻㛎‫ޔ‬ᗵᖱࠍᒁ↪ߒߚࠅ‫ޔ‬ᗧᄖᕈ(ਥⷰ⊛ᘒᐲ)ࠍ␜ߔᒻᑼߦォߓߡ޿ࠆ(ၳᳯx㊄ 2011‫ޔ‬Horie 2012)‫ߦࠇߎޕ‬ኻߒ‫ޔ‬㖧࿖⺆ߩ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫ߪޠ‬ᣣᧄ⺆ߩ‫ࠃߩޠߥ޿ߚߺޟ‬߁ߦᒁ↪ᒻᑼߣߒߡߩᯏ⢻ࠍ₪ᓧߒߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬߅ࠊࠅߦ
ᧄ⎇ⓥߢߪ‫ޔ‬㖧࿖⺆ߩࠗࡦ࠲࡯ࡀ࠶࠻㧔․ߦࡉࡠࠣ㧕ߦ߅޿ߡㅪ૕ᒻ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫߇ޠ‬‫⚳ޟ‬ᱛᒻ‫ޟࠇࠄ޿↪ߡߒߣޠ‬ᢿቯ଻⇐‫⊛⺰↪⺆߁޿ߣޠ‬ᯏ⢻ࠍᨐߚߔࠃ߁ߦߥߞߚ⃻⽎ࠍ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄ⺆ߩ‫ߩߣޠߥ޿ߚߺޟ‬ኻᲧࠍㅢߓߡ⠨ኤߒߚ‫ޟޕ‬ㅪ૕ᒻ‫⚳ޟߣޠ‬ᱛᒻ‫ߩޠ‬඙೎߇෩ᩰߢ
޽ࠆ㖧࿖⺆ߦ߅޿ߡ‫ޟޔ‬ㅪ૕ᒻ‫⚳ޟࠄ߆ޠ‬ᱛᒻ‫ߩ߳ޠ‬ォ឵ߣ޿߁ᢥᴺ૕♽ߩႺ⇇ߩࠁࠇ߇⷗
ࠄࠇࠆߎߣߪᵈ⋡ߦ୯ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ᢥᧃߦ↢⿠ߔࠆ㖧࿖⺆ߩㅪ૕ᒻ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫ߪޠ‬ᵷ↢㑐ଥߦ޽ࠆ‫ߩ᧪ᧄޔ‬ㅪ૕ᒻ↪ᴺ(3b)߅
ࠃ߮⚳ᱛᒻ(3a)‫ޟ‬kes-katha‫ޟߪߣޠ‬ផ㊂‫ޟޠ‬ᇑᦛ‫߁޿ߣޠ‬ᢥᴺ⊛ᗧ๧ߩㅪ⛯ᕈ߇⷗ࠄࠇࠆߣ
หᤨߦࠗࡦ࠲࡯ࡀ࠶࠻ߩࡉࡠࠣࠍਛᔃߣߒߚᦠ߈⸒⪲ߣ޿߁ࠫࡖࡦ࡞ߩ㒢ቯ߇⷗ࠄࠇߚ‫ߎޕ‬ࠇߦኻߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᢥᧃߦ↢⿠ߔࠆᣣᧄ⺆‫⴫ޔߪޠߥ޿ߚߺޟ‬㕙⊛ߦ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫ߣޠ‬ห᭽ߩᝄࠆ
⥰޿ࠍߔࠆ߇‫ޔࠇࠄ޿↪ߢ⪲⸒ߒ⹤ޔ‬ᒁ↪ᒻᑼߦᗧ๧᜛ᒛߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄ⺆ߩ‫ߪޠߥ޿ߚߺޟ‬ᒻᘒ⊛ߦ㖧࿖⺆ߩ‫ޟ‬kes-kathun‫ߦޠ‬㘃ૃߔࠆ߇‫ޔ‬ᯏ⢻⊛㘃ૃᕈ߇⷗ࠄࠇࠆߩߪ㖧࿖⺆ߩᒁ↪ᒻᑼ‫ޟ‬tanun‫ޔߜࠊߥߔޕࠆ޽ߢޠ‬ਔ⸒⺆ߪ‫ޟ‬ㅪ૕ᒻߩ⚳ᱛᒻൻ‫ޠ‬ߣ޿߁౒ㅢᕈࠍ⷗ߖߟߟ߽‫ߥ⊛⺰↪⺆ޔ‬ᗧ๧᜛ᒛߩ⒟ᐲߩᄢዊߣ޿߁ኻᲧ߇ⷰኤߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬

ෳᾖᢥ₂
Fujii, Seiko (2006). Quoted Thought and Speech Using the Mitai-na‘be-like’. In: Satoko Suzuki (ed.)
Emotive Communication in Japanese, 53-95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Horie, Kaoru(2012). The interactional origin of nominal predicate structure in japanese:A comparativeand historical pragmatics perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 44, 663-679.
Romaine, Suzanne and Deborah Lange (1991). The Use of LIKE as a Marker of Reported Speech andThought: A Case of Grammaticalization in Progress. American Speech 66, 227-279.
ၳᳯ ⮍(2001)‫ࠆߌ߅ߦ⺆⌕⤔ޟ‬ᢥᴺൻߩ․ᓽߦ㑐ߔࠆ⹺⍮⸒⺆ቇ⊛⠨ኤ㧙ᣣᧄ⺆ߣ㖧࿖⺆ࠍኻ⽎ߦ㧙‫ޠ‬ጊ᪸ᱜ᣿ઁ(✬)‫⹺ޡ‬⍮⸒⺆ቇ⺰⠨ No1‫ᦠߓߟ߭ޢ‬ᚱ, 89-131
ၳᳯ⮍̒㊄ᑨ⃛(2011)‫ޟ‬ᣣ㖧⺆ߩᢥᧃ⴫⃻ߦ⷗ࠆ⺆↪⺰⊛ᗧ๧ᄌൻ‫ޠ‬㜞↰ඳⴕ̒ᬁฬ⟤ᥓ̒ዊ㊁
ኹౖሶ(✬)‫ޡ‬ᱧผ⺆↪⺰౉㐷‫ޢ‬ᄢୃ㙚ᦠᐫ, 193-207↪଀಴ౖ
଀ᢥ(2)ߪࡉࡠࠣ(www.blog.naver.com) ‫଀ޔ‬ᢥ(3)(4)ߪ(╩⠪ߩ)૞଀‫଀ޔ‬ᢥ(5)ߪ࡜ࠫࠝ߆ࠄᛮ☴ߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬−244−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

௚⪅ཷ┈ࡢᤵཷືモࠕࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢ⿵ຓືモᙧࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢ⏝ἲ̿ࠕᏊ౪㐩࡟ᴦࡋࢇ࡛ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜ゝ࠺ࡢࡣ࡞ࡐ࠿̿        㛵᰿࿴ᯞ᫛࿴ዪᏊ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔༤ኈㄢ⛬㸺Abstract㸼
The present study proposes to analyze and describe the ‘auxiliary’ use of the verb morau, not in termsof the aggregate of abstract concepts like ‘benefaction’ and ‘passivization’ as in many traditional
approaches, but in terms of the cognitive process which the speaker of the language undergoes when
she chooses to construe and encode the situation by using the verb phrase - temorau. This study will
focus on the type; speaker is affected indirectly/psychologically from the other one’s pleasure, it ispointed out that the stage ͂prospective process̓ is identified in this type of construction.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ┈  ௚⪅ཷ┈  Ⓨヰࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒ
ࠑ⮬ᕫᢞධࠒ
㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

ࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ ከࡃࡢゝㄒ࡛ࠊᤵཷࡣ୚࠼ᡭࢆ୺ㄒ࡜ࡋࠊ
ࠕࡸࡿࠖヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡣ௚⪅ࡢཷ┈ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⮬ࡽࡢཷ┈ࢆㄆ࡜࠸࠺᪉ྥᛶࢆ୰ᚰ࡟⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ

㆑ࡍࡿࡓࡵ௚⪅ࡢཷ┈ࡶࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜⾲⌧࡛ࡁ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᤵཷືモࠕࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢ⿵ຓືモᙧࠕ࡚ࡶࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ௨ୗࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀⓎࡽ࠺ࠖࡣཷࡅᡭࢆ୺ㄒ࡜ࡋࠊ⾜Ⅽࡢᤵཷࢆ⾲⌧ࡍヰࡍࡿᤵཷືモࠕࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢ⿵ຓືモᙧࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ

ࡿࠋᒣ⏣㸦2004:347㸧ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ᙧᘧࢆᣢ࠺ࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᩥࢆࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡜⛠ࡍࡿࠋࡘゝㄒࡣᑡ࡞࠸࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡣࡉࡽ
࡟ࠕ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖ࡜␗࡞ࡾാࡁ࠿ࡅࡢព࿡ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ

㸰㸬ඛ⾜◊✲࡜ᮏ✏ࡢศᯒࡢ❧ሙ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࣦ࢛࢖ࢫࡢほⅬ࡛౑ᙺࡢព࿡࡟ゎ㔘࡛ࡁ㸰㸬㸯ඛ⾜◊✲ࡢၥ㢟ࡢᡤᅾࡿ࠿ࠊࡲࡓࡣཷ㌟ࡢព࿡࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ㆟ㄽࡉࢀඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡢࣦ࢛࢖ࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢศᯒࡣാࡁ࠿ࡅ

࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣᤵཷືモࠕࡶࡽࡢ᭷↓ᙉᙅࡀ◊✲ほⅬ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᒣ⏣࠺ࠖࡢ⿵ຓືモᙧࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࢆヰ⪅ࡀⓎヰࡍࡿ㸦2004:131㸧ࡣࠊࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡣࠕពᚿⓗ࡟ࡶ↓ሙྜࡢ⏝ἲࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋᤵཷືモࠕࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢ

ពᚿⓗ࡟ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊពᚿⓗ࡛࠶ࢀࡤാࡁ࠿ࡅࡀ

⿵ຓືモⓗ⏝ἲࡣࠊḟࡢ㸦1a㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟඾ᆺⓗ࡟ឤࡌࡽࢀࡓࡾチᐜⓗ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡾࡍࡿࡀࠊ↓ពᚿⓗࡣヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖ⮬㌟ࡢཷ┈ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ௚⪅ཷ࡛࠶ࢀࡤാࡁ࠿ࡅࡀឤࡌࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟௚

┈࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ㸦1b㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜ゝ࠺ࠋ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ࡋࠊࡲࡓᒣᮏ㸦2006:70㸧ࡶ㸦2㸧ࢆ♧ࡋࠊ౫㢗ⓗ࡟ࡶཷືⓗ࡟ࡶゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ

㸦1㸧a.཭㐩࡟ᡭఏࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࡘࡶࡾࡔࠋ

ࠕࠗ㹼࡚ࡶࡽ࠺࠘ࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࡢ⌧ࢀ᪉ࡣࠊᖖ࡟୍ᐃb.⏣୰ࡉࢇ࡟႐ࢇ࡛ࡶࡽ࠾࠺ࠋ

ࡢゎ㔘࡟࡞ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺௨ୖ࡟ࡣゝ࠼
࡞࠸࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㸦1a㸧
㸦1b㸧ࡣヰ⪅ࡀࡇࢀ࠿ࡽཷ┈ࢆࡍࡿࠋヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡣཷ┈ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᮇᚅࡋ࡚ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡼ࠺࡜

㸦2㸧ẕ࡜㈙࠸≀࡟⾜ࡗ࡚ࠊࢭ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢆ㈙ࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ

ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡗࡓࠋ㸦ᒣᮏ 2006:70(28)ୗ⥺⠊ᅖࡣ➹⪅ࡢุ᩿㸧ࡾࠊ୺ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ┈ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࡇࡢ࠺ࡕ㸦1b㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ

୍᪉ࠊヰ⪅ࡢⓎヰ࡜ࡋ࡚ぢࡓሙྜࠊ㸦2㸧ࡣヰ⪅

ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀ௚⪅ཷ┈࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠕ
㸦⚾ࡀ㸧㹼࡚ࡶ

ࠕ⚾ࠖ⮬㌟࡟ࡣࠊẕ࡟㢗ࢇ࡛㈙ࡗ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࡢ࠿ࠊ

−245−

他者受益の授受動詞「もらう」の補助動詞形「てもらう」の用法―「子供達に楽しんでもらう」と言うのはなぜか―ẕࡀ⚾ࡢࢭ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢆ㈙࠺࡜࠸࠺ᛮ࠸ࡀࡅ࡞࠸⾜Ⅽࡉࡽ࡟ụୖ㸦2006:189-190㸧ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡣࢆཷࡅࡓࡢ࠿ࡣࢃ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࠕ⮬ศࡀ⮫ሙࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ែࡢ୰࡟㌟ࢆ⨨࠸ࡓࡲࡲࡀ㸦2㸧࡛⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊẕࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ヰ⪅

࡛ࠊࡑࡢどᗙ࠿ࡽࠗ⮬ᕫ࣭୰ᚰⓗ࠘㸦ego-centric㸧ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀཷ┈ࢆࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࣦ

࡞ࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒࢆࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࢛࢖ࢫࡢほⅬ࡛ࡣ㸦1b㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟௚⪅ࡢཷ┈࡟ヰࡲࡓụୖ㸦2004:24㸧ࡣ஦ែ࡟ヰ⪅ࡀయ㦂ⓗ࡟ཧ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ┈ࢆ⾲ࡍᙧᘧࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ୚ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕⓎヰࡢ୺యࡣࠑ࠸ࡲ࣭ࡇࡇࠒ

⌮⏤ࡣࠊㄝ᫂ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

࡟㌟ࢆ⨨ࡁࡘࡘࡶࠊᢕᥱࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ஦ែࢆࡑࢀ

ࡲࡓ௚⪅ཷ┈ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡣ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ

࡟㛵ࢃࡿ⮬ᕫࡶࢁ࡜ࡶࠊ
ࠑ࠸ࡲ࣭ࡇࡇࠒ࠿ࡽ᫬㛫ⓗࠊࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡶᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⋤㸦2004:249㸧ࡣ✵㛫ⓗ࡟ࡎࡽࡋࡓୖ࡛య㦂ⓗ࡟ᢕᥱࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ㄆ

㸦3㸧ࢆᣲࡆዲពⓗ⾜ື࡬ࡢㅬ㐯ࡔ࡜ศᯒࡋࠕ฼┈▱ⓗ࡞᧯సࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࢆᚓ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ࠊ࠶࠼࡚฼┈ࢆᚓࡿࡼ࠺࡟⾲⌧ࡑࢀࡣࠊ1 ࡘࡣᮍ᮶ࡸ㐣ཤ࡜࠸࠺᫬✵࡬ࡢࠑ⮬ᕫࡍࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࠿ࡽࠊ⾲⌧⪅ࡢㅬ㐯ࡉࡀⁱࡳฟࡿࡢ࡛

ᢞධࠒ
ࠊࡶ࠺ 1 ࡘࡣ௚⪅ࡸ≀ㄒࡢⓏሙே≀࡬ࡢࠑ⮬ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ㸦p.249㸧
ࠋࠖ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ᕫᢞධࠒࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ㸦2004:20-26㸧ࠋࡲࡓࡑࡢሙྜ࡟ࠕⓎヰࡢ୺యࡣࠑ࠸ࡲ࣭ࡇࡇࠒ࡛࡞࠸

㸦3㸧⚾ࡣ᫖᪥ࠊஎṊࡃࢇࡢᐙ࡟ࠊ࠾ⳫᏊࢆᒆࡅ࡚

᫬ⅬࡸᆅⅬ࡛ࡢฟ᮶஦࡜㛵ࢃࡿ⮬ᕫ࡟⮬ࡽࡢព㆑ࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋ⑓㝔࡛㣗࡭࡚ࡶࡽ࠾࠺࡜ᛮࡗ࡚ࠋ

ࢆᢞධࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡜୍య໬ࡋࡓୖ࡛஦ែࢆᢕᥱࡍࡿ

㸦⋤ 2004:248(8b)୰ᅜㄒࡢᩥࡣ➹⪅ࡀ␎㸧࡜࠸࠺ࢫࢱࣥࢫࡢ᥇ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ๓ᥦ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠖ࡜
㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡋ࠿ࡋ㸦4㸧ࡣㅬ㐯ⓗែᗘ࡛ࡣㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
㸰㸬㸱ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡢヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ┈ㄆ㆑ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡟౑ᙺᆺࠊཷືᆺࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬

㸦4㸧Ꮚ౪㐩࡟ᖾࡏ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ࠾࠺ࠋ

ࡍࡿ┈ᒸࡢḟࡢ౛ࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊ౑ᙺᆺࡢ㸦7㸧ࡣヰ⪅ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀ㸦1㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡀࠕᑐ㇟ே≀ࡀ㎡ࡵࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࢆᮃࢇ࡛࠾ࡾࠊ

ࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜ᮇᚅࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ
㸦3㸧
㸦4㸧

ࡑࡢே≀࡟㎡ࡵࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡇࢀ࠿ࡽാࡁ࠿ࡅࡿ࡜ゎࡢࡼ࠺࡟௚⪅ཷ┈ࡶࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜㔘࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊཷືᆺࡢ㸦8㸧ࡣヰ⪅ࡀど⫈⪅࡟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢㄆ▱࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒᑐࡋ࡚ᴦࡋ࠸ᨺ㏦ࢆ⾜࠺࡜࠸࠺ാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆࡋࡓ⤖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺◊✲❧ሙࢆྲྀࡿࠋḟᯝࠊཷ┈ࡋࡓど⫈⪅ࡀ┦ᙜᩘ࠸ࡿࡔࢁ࠺࡜ࠊ௚⪅࡟᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒࡢ≉ᚩࢆㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛཷ┈ࢆཷ┈⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㢳ࡳ࡚⮬ᕫ‶㊊ࢆࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ

ࡢ◊✲ࡼࡾ♧ࡍࠋ࡛⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㸰㸬㸰ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡟࠶ࡿヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ┈ࡢ

㸦7㸧ࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊ௦⾲ࡢᗙࢆ㎡ࡵ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࡋ࠿

ࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒ࡞࠸ࠋ ụୖ㸦2011:60㸧ࡣࠊᤵཷ⿵ຓືモࢆ஦ែ࡜⮬ศ

㸦8㸧⾨ᫍᨺ㏦࡞࡝࡛ぢࡓ᪉ࢆྵࡵࡿ࡜ࠊ┦ᙜ࡜ࢆ⤖ࡧ௜ࡅ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡑࢀࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿᩥἲⓗᡭẁ࡛ᩘࡢ᪉࡟ᴦࡋࢇ࡛ࡶࡽࡗࡓ࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋ
㸦┈ᒸ 2001:28(14)(13)ୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅㸧࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡛ゝ࠼ࡤࠊḟࡢ㸦5㸧࡛㸦5a㸧ࡢ஦ែࡀヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢࡓࡵ࡛࠶
ࡿሙྜࠊࡑࡢ஦ែࡀヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ཷ┈ࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾲⌧ࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀཷ┈ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢⓎヰ࡟ࡼࡿࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ
࠺ࠖᩥ࡟ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀཷ┈ࡋࡓ࠸ࠊཷ┈ࡋࡓ㸦5㸧a. ⰼᏊࡀ࠾Ⲕࢆධࢀࡿࠋ  Ņ࡜࠸࠺ㄆ㆑ࡀྵពࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋཷ┈ࡋࡓ࠸ࠊ࡜࠸

ⰼᏊࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖ࡜⤖ࡧࡘ࠺ㄆ㆑ࡣࡇࢀ࠿ࡽヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀཷ┈ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡬ࡢ

ࡅࡿᮇᚅࡸࠊࡑࢀ࡟⥆ࡃ⾜Ⅽ⏕㉳࡬ࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆ⤒࡚  b. ⰼᏊ࡟࠾Ⲕࢆධࢀ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠋ

ཷ┈࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺࡜࠸࠺ぢ㎸ࡳࡀྵពࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ      ࠕヰ⪅ࠗ⚾࠘ࡢཷ┈ࠖ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋཷ┈ࡋࡓࠊ࡜࠸࠺ㄆ㆑ࡣࠊヰ⪅
ࠕ⚾ࠖ

−246−

第15回大会発表論文集ࡀཷ┈⤖ᯝࢆయ㦂ࡋࠊཷ┈ࢆᅇ᝿ⓗ࡟⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸

第８号⪅ࡢ㛵ಀࠊศᯒ㸰㸬௚⪅ࡢཷ┈ࡢ୰㌟࠿ࡽ⾜࠺ࠋࡿ࡜ࡶゝ࠼ࡿࠋ

ࡲࡎࠊศᯒ㸯㸬࡛㸦9㸧ࡢヰ⪅ࡣ༠఍஦ົᒁ㛗ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟≉ᚩⓗ࡞ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡟

ཷ┈⪅ࡣ⿕⅏ᆅࡢᏊ౪㐩ࠊ
㸦10㸧ࡢヰ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ

ࡣᮍ᮶ࡢ⮬ศࡢཷ┈≧ែ࡬ࡢࠑ⮬ᕫᢞධࠒࠊ௚⪅ཷཷ┈⪅ࡣヰ⪅ࡢࣂࣥࢻࡢ࣮ࣜࢲ࣮࡛ࠊ
㸦9㸧㸦10㸧┈ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡛ࡢ௚⪅࡬ࡢࠑ⮬ᕫᢞධࠒࠊࡑࡢヰ⪅ࡣ௚⪅࡛࠶ࡿཷ┈⪅ࢆ⮬ศ࡜㛵ಀࡉࡏ࡚ࡑ

ࡋ࡚ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ┈ࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋࡓࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒ

ࡢ௚⪅ࡢཷ┈ࢆ㢪ࡗࡓࡾാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣ

࡜࠸࠺᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢㄆ▱ࡢ≉ᚩࡀ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ

௚⪅࡬ࡢᚰ⌮ⓗ᥋㏆ࠊ⮬ᕫࢆᢞධࡍࡿẁ㝵࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ḟ࡟ࠊศᯒ㸰㸬࡛⏝౛ࡢᩳయ࡛♧ࡋࡓ௚⪅ࡢཷ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋḟ⠇࡛ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀ⏘ฟࡋࡓࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ
࠺ࠖᩥࡢ⏝౛࠿ࡽศᯒ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ┈ࡢ୰㌟ࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊ௚⪅⮬㌟ࡢ⾜Ⅽࡣ௚⪅⮬㌟ࡀ

㸱㸬ㄒ⏝ศᯒ

⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡣ⤮ᮏࡢ㏦ࡾඛࡢ⿕⅏ᆅࡢᏊ౪ࡀࠕᴦࡋࡴࠖ

ཷ┈≧ែ࡟ኚࢃࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦9㸧࡛௚⪅⮬㌟ࡢヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡢศᯒ࡟ࡣࠊస౛

࡛࠶ࡾࠊᴦࡋࡴ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀཷ┈ࢆࡍࡿࠋ
㸦10㸧࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢ⏘ฟ⏝౛ࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡍ

࡛௚⪅⮬㌟ࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡣࠕᢤࡅࡿࠖ
ࠕࡑࢀ࠿ࡽ᮶ࡿࠖ

ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ⮬↛఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡜ࠊ᪂⪺࠿ࡽࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ௚⪅࣮ࣜࢲ࣮ࡀࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᴦࢆࡋࠊ

ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࢆᢳฟࡋࡓࠋi ⮬↛఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫዟࡉࢇ࡜㐣ࡈࡏࡿ࡜࠸࠺ཷ┈ࢆࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ௚

࠿ࡽࡢᢳฟ౛ 117 ౛㸦48.5%㸧
ࠊ᪂⪺࠿ࡽࡢᢳฟᩘ

⪅⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀཷ┈ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡛ࡣヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀ௚⪅

124 ౛㸦51.5%㸧
ࠊศᯒ᭷ຠ⏝౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᢳฟ౛ࡣ

⮬㌟ࡢཷ┈࡟ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡢࡣ࡞ࡐ࠿ࠋ

ィ 241 ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ࠺ࡕ⚾ࡢཷ┈ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠕ௚
⪅࡟ാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡚ヰ⪅ࡀ┤᥋ཷ┈ࡍࡿࠖࢱ࢖ࣉࡢࠕ࡚

㸲㸬⪃ᐹࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡣ 192 ౛ (79.7%)࡛ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡢ

௚⪅ཷ┈ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࢆヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ┈ࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊḟ࠸࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢࡀࠊ

ࢆ⾲ࡍᙧᘧࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺࡛ࠖ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ

ᮏ◊✲࡛ᢅ࠺௚⪅ཷ┈ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡛ࠊ22 ౛

2 Ⅼ࠿ࡽㄝ᫂ࢆࡍࡿࠋ

(9.1%)࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ௚⪅ཷ┈ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ
ᩥࡣ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚᪥ᖖⓗ࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼㸲㸬㸯௚⪅࡬ࡢࠑ⮬ᕫᢞධࠒ

ࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ௚⪅ཷ┈ࡢ⏝౛࡜ࡋ࡚ḟࡢ㸦9㸧ศᯒ㸯࡛௚⪅࡬ࡢᚰ⌮ⓗ࡞᥋㏆࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕ⚾ࠖ

㸦10㸧ࢆศᯒࡍࡿࠋ
㸦⏝౛ࡢ㸦m10855㸧ࡢ m ࡣࠗ⏨ࡣ௚⪅ࡢཷ┈࡜࠸࠺ฟ᮶஦ࡢ୰࡟㌟ࢆ⨨ࡃ࡜⪃࠼ᛶࡢࡇ࡜ࡤ࣭⫋ሙ⦅࠘࠿ࡽ࡛ࠊᩘᏐࡣࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢࣞࢥ࣮

ࡽࢀࡿࠋศᯒ㸰࡛ࡣࠊ᥋㏆⮬ᕫᢞධࡋࡓᏊ౪㐩ࡸࢻ␒ྕ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ᪂⪺࠿ࡽࡢ⏝౛㸦3.22 M㸧ࡣࠊM࣮ࣜࢲ࣮ࡢཷ┈ࢆ⮬ᕫ࣭୰ᚰⓗࠊ୺ほⓗ࡟ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡣ᪂⪺ࡢᮅหࠊ ᩘᏐࡣ 3 ᭶ 22 ᪥࡜࠸࠺᭶᪥ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ㸧ࡀయ㦂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ஦ࡣㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡸᚰ⌮ᏛࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡶㄝ᫂ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㄆ▱ゝ㸦9㸧㸦┴༠఍஦ົᒁ㛗ࡀࠊ⿕⅏ᆅࡢᏊ౪㐩࡟⤮ᮏࢆᒆㄒᏛࡢほⅬ࡛ụୖ㸦2004:23㸧ࡣࠊࠕⓎヰࡢ୺యࡣࠊ
஦ែ࡟⮫ሙ࣭య㦂ࡋࠊ┤᥋⮬ࡽࡢ㌟య࡟࠾࠸࡚஦

ࡅࡿ‽ഛ࡛㸧

ࠕ㸦Ꮚ౪㐩࡟㸸➹⪅ຍ➹㸧ᴦࡋࢇ࡛ࡶࡽ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺

ែࢆឤ▱ࡍࡿࠖ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋࠊヰ⪅ࡢ⮫ሙ࣭య㦂ࡣࠕࡑ࡟ᮏࢆ㑅ࡪࡢࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠖ
㸦4.10M㸧

ࡇ࠿ࡽㄏⓎࡉࢀࡿᙧ࡛ఱ➼࠿ࡢẼᣢࠊឤ᝟ࠊ᝿࠸

㸦10㸧㸦ࣂࣥࢻ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡢ௰㛫࡜ࡢ఍ヰࠋヰ㢟ࡢࣂࣥࢻࡀᚰ࡟ᾋ࠿ࢇ࡛ࡃࡿࡇ࡜ࡲ࡛ࢆྵࡴࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࠖ

࣮ࣜࢲ࣮ࡣዟࡉࢇࡀฟ⏘࡛ࠊ⦎⩦࡟ฟ࡚ࡃࡿࡢ

࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᚰ⌮ᏛࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡶᐑᓮ࣭

ࡣ኱ኚࡔࢁ࠺࡜ヰ⪅ࡀẼ㐵࠸ࠊᥦ᱌㸧ୖ㔝㸦1985㸧ࡣࠕ௚⪅࡟௬᝿ⓗ⮬ᕫࢆὴ㐵ࡋࠊ௚ a.ࠕࡔ࠿ࡽࠊᅵ᭙᪥ࡣࡉ࣮ࠊᢤࡅ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚

⪅࡟͆࡞ࡗ࡚͇ࡑࡢᚰ᝟ࢆᐇឤⓗ࡟⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠖ

ࡉ࣮ࠊ࣮࣍ࣥࡢࣇ࣮ࣞࢬࠊ஧ேࡔࡅ࡛స

ࡣࠕ௚⪅ࡢඹឤⓗ⌮ゎ㸦empathic understanding㸧ࡗࡕࡷ࠼ࡤ࠸࠸ࡌࡷࢇࠋ
ࠖ (m10852)

ࢆ࠾ࡇ࡞࠺ࡇ࡜㸦p.144㸧
࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

b.ࠕ ࡑࢀ࠿ࡽ᮶ ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࡍࢀࡤࠋࠖ

ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀཷ┈ࡋࡓ௚⪅࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡳ࡚ࠊ
㸦9㸧࡛

(m10855)ࡣࠕᴦࡋࡴࠖ
ࠊ
㸦10㸧࡛ࡣࠕᢤࡅࡿࠋࡑࢀ࠿ࡽ᮶ࡿࠖ
࡜࠸࠺௬᝿య㦂ࢆࡍࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠕ⚾ࠖࡣ㸦9㸧࡛ᴦศᯒࡣḟࡢ 2 Ⅼࠊศᯒ㸯㸬ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢ௚⪅࡜ヰࡋࡴ௚⪅ࡢཷ┈࡟ඹឤࡋࠊ
ࠕ⚾ࠖࡶᴦࡋࡳᖾࡏ࡞Ẽ−247−

他者受益の授受動詞「もらう」の補助動詞形「てもらう」の用法―「子供達に楽しんでもらう」と言うのはなぜか―ᣢࡕ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ㸦10㸧࡛ࡣᴦࢆࡋࠊዟࡉࢇ࡜㐣ࡈࡍ㸳㸬⤖ㄽ࡜࠸࠺࣮ࣜࢲ࣮ࡢཷ┈࡟ඹឤࡋࠊ
ࠕ⚾ࠖࡶᎰࡋ࠸Ẽᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣヰ⪅ࡀⓎヰࡍࡿ௚⪅ཷ┈ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ

ᣢࡕ࡟࡞ࡾᚰ⌮ⓗ࡟ཷ┈ࡍࡿ࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋᚑࡗ

࠺ࠖᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊヰ⪅ࡣ⮬ࡽࡢཷ┈ࢆ௚⪅࡬ࡢࠑ⮬࡚ࠊ௚⪅ཷ┈ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡣᐇࡣヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖᕫᢞධࠒࠊᮍ᮶࡬ࡢࠑ⮬ᕫᢞධࠒࠊࠑ⮬ᕫ࣭୰ᚰⓗࠒࡢᚰ⌮ⓗཷ┈࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡛ࡣࠊ௚⪅ࡢཷ┈࠿ࡽヰ⪅࡞ࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒ࡟ࡼࡿヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖ⮬㌟ࡢཷ┈࡬ࡢぢ㎸ࡳ࡜࠸࠺ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᢕᥱࡋࠊ
ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ

ࡣ࡞ࡐཷ┈࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࢃ࠿ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ

࡜⾲⌧ࡍࡿ࡜ࡲ࡜ࡵࠊ⤖ㄽ࡜ࡍࡿࠋϹ㸲㸬㸰ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ┈ぢ㎸ࡳᚑ᮶ࡢᤵཷࡸࣦ࢛࢖ࢫ࡛ࡣㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸௚⪅ཷࡑࢀࡣࠊࡇࢀ࠿ࡽヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀ௚⪅⮬㌟ࡢཷ┈┈࠿ࡽࡢ㛫᥋ⓗࠊᚰ⌮ⓗ࡞ཷ┈ࡣࠊ⤖ᒁヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖ⾜Ⅽࢆാࡁ࠿ࡅࢀࡤࠊᛂࡌࡓ௚⪅⮬㌟ࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡼࡢཷ┈ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀⓎヰࡢヰ⪅ࡢࡗ࡚௚⪅ࡀཷ┈ࢆࡍࡿ࡜⤒㦂ⓗ࡟ࢃ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿

ཷ┈஦ែࡢㄆ▱ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡣㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓ

ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ⤮ᮏࢆ㏦ࡿヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡣࡇࢀ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢㅬ㐯࡜࠸࠺ㄝ᫂ࡢ㝈⏺

ࡲ࡛ࡢୡࡢ୰࡛ࡢయ㦂࠿ࡽࠊ௚⪅ཷ┈⪅ࡀࡇࢀ࠿ࡶ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ┈ࡀ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ

ࡽఱࢆാࡁ࠿ࡅࡽࢀࢀࡤᎰࡋ࠸ࡢ࠿ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸

ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡣࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊാࡁ࠿ࡅࡿ௨๓࡟௬᝿య㦂࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡢཷ┈ࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᢕᥱࡢ௙᪉࡛ㄝ᫂ࡀ

ཷ┈⤖ᯝࡢᎰࡋࡉࡀࢃ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡣࠊࡘࡃࠋ⚾ࡢཷ┈ࡢᐇ⌧ࡢࡓࡵ࡟௚⪅ࡢཷ┈࡜࡞ࡿ⤮ᮏࢆࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟Ⓨヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᤵཷືモࠕࡶ

㏦ࡿ➼ࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆാࡁ࠿ࡅࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢヰࡽ࠺ࠖࡢ⿵ຓືモᙧࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢㄆ▱ⓗཷ┈ࢆḟ࡛ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ

ࡢࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒࡢㄆ▱ⓗ≉ᚩࢆ⾲ฟࡍ࡭ࡃゝㄒ໬ࡋࡓᙧᘧࡔ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒࡀゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀࡓᙧᘧࡣࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡔࡅ
࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ              ϸࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡣ⮬↛఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ⏝࠸ࠊヰ⪅ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡣ⿕⅏⪅ࠊᅜࠊ㛵ಀ⤌⧊ࠊ఍♫ࠊ⮬἞యࠊᅜẸ࣭ఫẸࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡢ⮬↛⏘ฟ⏝౛ࢆᢳฟࡋࡓࠋ᪂⪺㈨ᩱࡣࠊ2011㛫࡛せồࠊᣦ♧ࠊᮇᚅࠊឤㅰ࡞࡝ࡢከᵝ࡞ሙ㠃࡛ࡢࠕ࡚ᖺ 3 ᭶ 11 ᪥࡟㉳ࡁࡓᕧ኱ᆅ㟈࣭ὠἼ࡜ཎᏊຊⓎ㟁ᡤࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࢆ཰㞟࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡢ஦ᨾ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿᮾ᪥ᮏ኱㟈⅏⩣᪥ࡢ 2011 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 12 ᪥࠿ࡽ 2011 ᖺ 4 ᭶ 20 ᪥ࡲ࡛ࡢᮅ᪥᪂⪺ᮅห࡜ኤหࠊྕ

Ϲ➹⪅ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢㄆ▱ⓗཷ┈ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢヲ⣽ࡣู✏࡟ணᐃࠋእ࠿ࡽࠊ➹⪅ࡀࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࢆᢳฟࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⌮⏤㸺ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㸼
ụୖ჆ᙪ. 2004.ࠕゝㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠑ୺ほᛶࠒ࡜ࠑ୺
ほᛶࠒࡢゝㄒⓗᣦᶆ㸦1㸧ࠖࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛㄽ⪃࠘No.3 ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ,1-49
ụୖ჆ᙪ. 2006.ࠗⱥㄒࡢឤぬ࣭᪥ᮏㄒࡢឤぬࠑࡇ࡜ࡤࡢព࿡ࠒࡢࡋࡃࡳ࠘.NHK ࣈࢵࢡࢫ[1066],᪥ᮏᨺ㏦ฟ∧༠఍ụୖ჆ᙪ. 2011.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ୺ほᛶ࣭୺యᛶࠖ
ࠗࡦࡘࡌព࿡ㄽㅮᗙ➨㸳ᕳ ୺ほᛶ࡜୺యᛶ࠘
ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ, 49-67⋤ ⇩. 2004.ࠕࢸࣔࣛ࢘ᵓᩥࡢእⓗ㐃㛵࡟ࡘ࠸࡚̿୰ᅜㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ
⫱ࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽ̿ࠖ
ࠗ21 ୡ⣖ゝㄒᏛ◊✲㸸㕥ᮌὈஅᩍᤵྂᕼグᛕㄽ㞟࠘ⓑᖇ♫, 243-262┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ. 2001.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᤵཷືモ࡜ᜠᜨᛶࠖ᭶หࠗゝㄒ࠘,Vol.30,No.5.኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ, 26-32ᐑᓮΎᏕ࣭ୖ㔝┤ᶞ. 1985.ࠗどⅬ࠘ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ
∧఍ᒣ⏣ᩄᘯ. 2004.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ࣋ࢿࣇ࢓ࢡࢸ࢕ࣈ㸫ࠕ࡚ࡸࡿࠖࠕ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖ
ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢᩥἲ࠘
᫂἞᭩㝔ᒣᮏ⿱Ꮚ. 2006.ࠗ᪉ྥᛶࢆᣢࡘ⿵ຓືモࡢព࿡࡜ᶵ⬟࠘ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔༤ኈㄽᩥ−248−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号



ࢽ࣮ࣗࢫሗ㐨࡛ࡢࠕ㹙㹔㹌㸦ືྡモ㸧㹛㹌㸦ྡモ㸧㹛㸩࡛ࡍࠖ⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
㹼ࠕ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㑅ᡭࡀ㟁ᧁ⛣⡠࡛ࡍࠖࠕᑤ㛶ㅖᓥ࡛᪂ࡓ࡞ືࡁ࡛ࡍࠖ㹼
      ⏣୰ఀᘧ
  㹌㹆㹉ᨺ㏦ᩥ໬◊✲ᡤ
㸺DEVWUDFW㸼
5HFHQWO\ZHRIWHQKHDU-DSDQHVHH[SUHVVLRQVHQGLQJZLWK͆QRXQGHVX͇LQQHZVSURJUDPV
VXFKDV͆,FKLURVHQVKXJDGHQJHNLLVHNLGHVX͇IRU͆,FKLURPDGHDVXUSULVHWUDQVIHU͇DQG͆6HQNDNXVKRWRGHDUDWDQDXJRNLGHVX͇IRU͆$QHZWXUQZDVWDNHQRQWKH6HQNDNX,VODQGV͇7KHVHH[SUHVVLRQVDUHPDLQO\XVHGLQWKHRSHQLQJRIQHZVSURJUDPVIXQFWLRQLQJWREUHDNDQHZIDFWZLWKDVWURQJLPSDFW7KHVHXQLTXHH[SUHVVLRQVDUHFRQVLVWRIDQ
H[WUDRUGLQDU\FRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKHVHQWHQFHZKHUH͆QHXWUDOGHVFULSWLRQ͇IRUP WKHIRFXVLVRQWKHZKROHVHQWHQFH ZKLFKXVXDOO\IXQFWLRQVLQYHUESUHGLFDWHRUDGMHFWLYH
SUHGLFDWHVHQWHQFHVZRUNVZHOOLQ͆QRXQSUHGLFDWHVHQWHQFHV͇࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
୰❧ླྀ㏙ ྡモ㏙ㄒᩥ ືྡモ ↔Ⅼᵓ㐀 ඲య↔Ⅼ ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࢸࣞࣅࡢࢽ࣮ࣗࢫሗ㐨␒⤌ࡢ୰࡛ࡇࡢ࡜ࡇࢁ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࡼࡃ࠶
ࡿࠋ㸦௨ୗᩳᏐయࡢ౛ᩥࡣᨺ㏦࡛ࡢᐇ㝿ࡢⓎヰ౛ࠋ㸧  ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㑅ᡭࡀ㟁ᧁ⛣⡠࡛ࡍࠋ  ࢧࢵ࣮࢝᪥ᮏ⏨Ꮚࡀ኱㔠࡛ᫍࡍࠋ  ᑤ㛶ㅖᓥ࡛᪂ࡓ࡞ືࡁ࡛ࡍࠋ

㏻ᖖࡣືモࢆ౑࠸ࠕ㟁ᧁ⛣⡠ࡋࡲࡋࡓࠖࠕ኱㔠ᫍࢆᣲࡆࡲࡋࡓࠖࠕ᪂ࡓ࡞ືࡁࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡋ
ࡓࠖ࡞࡝࡜࡞ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁࢆࠕ㹙㹔㹌㸦ືྡモ㸧㸭㹌㸦ྡモ㸧㹛㸩࡛ࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧࡢᩥᮎ࡟ࡍࡿࡢ
ࡀ≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᨺ㏦࡛ࡣࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ㡯┠ࡢ⤂௓࡞࡝␒⤌ࡢෑ㢌㒊ศ࡛⪺ࡁᡭࢆᘬࡁࡘࡅࡿࡓ
ࡵࡢ࢖ࣥࣃࢡࢺࡢ࠶ࡿ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚౑ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣ࡞ࡐࡇࡢ⾲⌧ࡀ࢖ࣥࣃࢡ
ࢺࢆᣢࡗ࡚ཷࡅṆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࡑࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ◊✲ࡸㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ▱ぢࢆ᥼⏝ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽᨺ㏦࡛ࡢᐇ౛ࢆࡶ࡜࡟⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㸦ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣ௨ୗࡇࢀࢆࠕぢฟࡋᵓᩥࠖ࡜
౽ᐅୖ࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿ㸧ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕぢฟࡋᵓᩥࠖࢆ㸪௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐃ⩏ࡍࡿࠋᩥᮎࡀࠕ஦㇟ྡモ㸩࡛ࡍࠖ࡜࡞ࡿ
ࠕࢽ࣮ࣗࢫぢฟࡋࠖࡢ⾲⌧ࡇࡇ࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿ஦㇟ྡモࡣ㸪୺࡟㸪ືྡモ㸦ࢧኚືモࡢㄒᖿ㸧ࢆᣦࡍࡀ㸪࡞࠿࡟ࡣ㸪ືྡモ࡜࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪࿴ㄒࠕືࡃࠖࡢ㐃⏝ᙧ࠿ࡽ㌿ࡌࡓࠕືࡁࠖ㸪ࡲࡓ₎ㄒࡢࠕ␗

−249−

-1-

ニュース報道での「［VN（動名詞）］/ N（名詞）］＋です」表現について〜「イチロー選手が電撃移籍です」「尖閣諸島で新たな動きです」〜ኚࠖࠕ⥭ᛴ஦ែࠖ㸪ࡲࡓእ᮶ㄒࡢࠕࢺࣛࣈࣝࠖ࡞࡝㸪஦ែ࣭஦㇟ࢆෆໟࡍࡿྡモ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
 ୰ᅜ㥔ᅾࡢ୹⩚኱౑ࡀ୍᫬ᖐᅜ࡛ࡍࠋ㸦ືྡモ㸧 ᮍゎỴ஦௳࡟᪂ࡓ࡞ືࡁ࡛ࡍࠋ 㸦ྡモ㸧ぢฟࡋᵓᩥࡢ㢮ᆺ
ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣぢฟࡋᵓᩥࢆ㸰ࡘࡢᆺ࡟኱ูࡍࡿࠋ
‫ۍ‬Ϩᆺ㸦۵۵ࡀ㹼࡛ࡍ㸧͐୺㒊㸩㏙㒊ᆺ㸦㸧࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㑅ᡭࡀ㟁ᧁ⛣⡠࡛ࡍࠋ㸦෌ᥖ㸧    㸿㸻࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㑅ᡭ 㹀㸻㟁ᧁ⛣⡠ࠕ㸿ࡀ㹀࡛ࡍࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᩥࢆ୺㒊࡜㏙㒊࡟ศࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿሙྜࢆϨᆺ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ ‫ۍ‬ϩᆺ㸦㹼ࢆ㹼࡛ࡍ㸧㸦㹼࡛㹼࡛ࡍ㸧㸦㹼࡟㹼࡛ࡍ㸧͐ ㏙㒊ࡢࡳᆺୗグࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᩥࡀ㏙㒊ࡔࡅ࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࢆϩᆺ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
  ࢜ࣜࣥࣆࢵࢡ㛤ᖥࡲ࡛࠶࡜㸲᪥኱఍ὀ┠ࡢ࢔ࢫ࣮ࣜࢺࢆ≉㞟࡛ࡍࠋ ⏕ά㦁㡢ࢆࡵࡄࡿ㞄ேࢺࣛࣈ࡛ࣝ᭱ᝏࡢ⤖ᮎ࡛ࡍࠋ ⁪⾜࡜⛠ࡋፉࢆ❅ᜥṚࡉࡏࡓ∗ぶ࡟ุỴ࡛ࡍࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࢆ๓⠇ࡢ 91 ືྡモ ࡢሙྜ1 ྡモ ࡢሙྜ࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢ㸲ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ
࡟ศࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
 ձ91Ϩᆺ  ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㑅ᡭࡀ㟁ᧁ⛣⡠࡛ࡍࠋ㸦෌ᥖ㸧 ղ1Ϩᆺ  ࢧࢵ࣮࢝᪥ᮏ⏨Ꮚࡀ኱㔠࡛ᫍࡍࠋ㸦෌ᥖ㸧 ճ91ϩᆺ  ኱఍ὀ┠ࡢ࢔ࢫ࣮ࣜࢺࢆ≉㞟࡛ࡍࠋ㸦෌ᥖ㸧 մ1ϩᆺ  ᑤ㛶ㅖᓥ࡛᪂ࡓ࡞ືࡁ࡛ࡍࠋ㸦෌ᥖ㸧㸱㸬ぢฟࡋᵓᩥࡢ≉ᚩ ࡇࡢぢฟࡋᵓᩥࡢ኱ࡁ࡞≉ᚩࡢ୍ࡘࡣࠕ᭷㢟ᩥ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ↓㢟ᩥࠖࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸿㸦୺㒊㸧࡜㹀㸦㏙㒊㸧࡟ศࡅ࡚⪃࠼ࡓ᫬㏻ᖖࠕ㸿ࡣ㹀࡛ࡍ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠕ㸿ࡀ㹀࡛ࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺
ᙧࢆྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ㕥ᮌᬛ⨾ 㸧࡛ࡣࡇࡢᩥࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ↓㢟ᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠖࡇ
࡜ࡢ࡯࠿ࠕ㐣ཤᙧࡸྰᐃᙧ࡛ࡣ౑ࢃࢀ࡞࠸ࠖࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕࢀࡿ࣭ࡽࢀࡿࠖࡀḞⴠࡋࡓࡲࡲືྡモࡀព࿡ୖཷࡅ㌟࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿሙྜࡶᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞࠸ࠋ   㔠ṇᜠ➨୍᭩グࡢഃ㏆ࡀ✺↛ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᙺ⫋ࢆゎ௵࡛ࡍࠋ ↔Ⅼᵓ㐀ࡢศᯒࠕぢฟࡋᵓᩥࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ࡜ࡶࡍࢀࡤᩥᮎࡢࠕྡモ㸩࡛ࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧ࡟ࡢࡳ┠ࡀ⾜ࡁࡀࡕࡔࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࢖ࣥࣃࢡࢺ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࡣ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀࡟ࡑࡢ኱ࡁ࡞せᅉࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋϨᆺ㸦୺㒊㸩㏙㒊ᆺ㸧ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ศᯒࡍࡿࠋ
ࡲࡎ௨ୗࡢ‫ۑ‬࢖‫ۑ‬ࣟ 㸰ࡘࡢᩥࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿࠋ࢖ ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㑅ᡭࡀ㟁ᧁ⛣⡠ࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ ືモ㏙ㄒᩥ ‫ۑ‬ࣟ ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㑅ᡭࡀ㟁ᧁ⛣⡠࡛ࡍࠋ 㸦ྡモ㏙ㄒᩥ㸧㹙ぢฟࡋᵓᩥ㹛
‫ۑ‬

−250−

-2-

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ࡇࡢ᫬ぢฟࡋᵓᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ‫ۑ‬ࣟ ࡟ࡼࡾᙉ࠸࢖ࣥࣃࢡࢺࢆឤࡌࡿ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࡑࢀࡀఱ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
ࡶࡓࡽࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ࠿↔Ⅼᵓ㐀ࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࡉࡄࡿࠋ
ᩥ࡟ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟ᩥ⬦ࢆ୚࠼ࠕ๓ᥦ࡜↔ⅬࠖࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࡍࡿ࡜ୗグձ㹼մࡢ㸲ࡘࡢᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ௨ୗࡢ㸴㏻ࡾ࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ձ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㑅ᡭࡣ㟁ᧁ⛣⡠ࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋэ㸦ᚋ㡯↔Ⅼ㸭ືモ㏙ㄒᩥ㸧ղ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㑅ᡭࡀ㟁ᧁ⛣⡠ࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋэD㸦඲య↔Ⅼ㸭ືモ㏙ㄒᩥ㸧 эE㸦๓㡯↔Ⅼືモ㏙ㄒᩥ㸧ճ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㑅ᡭࡣ㟁ᧁ⛣⡠࡛ࡍࠋэ㸦ᚋ㡯↔Ⅼ㸭ྡモ㏙ㄒᩥ㸧մ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㑅ᡭࡀ㟁ᧁ⛣⡠࡛ࡍࠋэD㸦඲య↔Ⅼ㸭ྡモ㏙ㄒᩥ㸧               эE㸦๓㡯↔Ⅼ㸭ྡモ㏙ㄒᩥ㸧 ղ࡜մ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ඲య↔Ⅼ࡞ࡢ࠿๓㡯↔Ⅼ࡞ࡢ࠿ࡣᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ኚࢃࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࠋࠕㄡࡀ
㟁ᧁ⛣⡠ࡋࡓࡢ࠿㸽ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ၥ࠸ࡀࡇࡢᩥࡢ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤ↔Ⅼࡣࡑࡢ⟅࠼࡛࠶ࡿࠕ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㑅ᡭࠖࡘࡲࡾ๓㡯࡟೫ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠕᣦᐃᩥࠖ㸦⥲グ㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢゎ㔘ࡀጇᙜ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࡑࡢၥ࠸ࢆ๓ᥦ࡟ᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠕ඲య↔Ⅼᩥࠖ㸦୰❧ླྀ㏙㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾղE ࡜մE ࡣࠕㄡࡀ㟁ᧁ⛣⡠ࡋࡓࡢ࠿㸽ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ၥ࠸࡟ᑐ
ࡋ࡚ࠕ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㑅ᡭࠖࡀࡑࡢ⟅࠼࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿ୍᪉ղD ࡜մD ࡣ๓㡯ᚋ㡯࡝ࡕࡽ࡟ࡶ↔
Ⅼࡀ೫ࡽ࡞࠸ࠕ඲య↔Ⅼᩥࠖ㸦୰❧ླྀ㏙㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࠕぢฟࡋᵓᩥࠖࡣୖグմD ࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠕྡモ㏙ㄒᩥ࡛࠶ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽ୰❧ླྀ㏙ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᵓᩥୖࡢ
≉␗ᛶࡀᾋ࠿ࡧୖࡀࡿࠋ
᪂ᒇ㸦㸧ࡣ㏻ᖖࡣືモླྀ㏙ᩥ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ୰❧ླྀ㏙ࡀྡモ㏙ㄒᩥࡢ୰࡛ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࢆ㸲ࡘᥖࡆࡑࡢ⾲⌧ࡀྵពࡍࡿ≉ᚩࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࡑࡢ୰࡛ࠕ஦ែ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㦫ࡁ㸦ពእᛶ㸧࣭ឤ៓ࠖࡀࡇࡢࠕぢฟࡋᵓᩥࠖ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ὀ┠ࡉࢀࡿࠋ᪂ᒇࡀ♧ࡋࡓ௨ୗࡢ⏝౛ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ୰❧ླྀ㏙ࡢྡモ㏙ㄒᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
 ࣭ࠕ࠶ࡢኴ㑻ࡀ㧗ᰯ⏕ࡡ࠼᭶᪥ࡢ⤒ࡘࡢࡣ᪩࠸ࡶࡢࡔࠋࠖ
࣭ࠕ࠶ࡗᐙࡀࢻ࣮࣒ᆺࡔࠋࠖ
 
᪥ᖖࡢⓎヰ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿྠᵝࡢ⾲⌧ࠕぢฟࡋᵓᩥࠖ࡜ྠࡌᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘ⾲⌧ࡣᨺ㏦࡟≉᭷࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ᪥ᖖࡢⓎヰ࡛ࡶ≉࡟┠ࡢ๓ࡢ≧ἣࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ᙧ࡛ࡼࡃ౑ࢃࢀࡿࠋ
◁ᕝ㸦㸧ࡣࠕ୰❧ླྀ㏙ࡢྡモ㏙ㄒᩥࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚௨ୗࡢ౛ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ      㺃ࠕಙྕࡀ㉥ࡔࡼࠋẼࢆࡘࡅ࡚ࠋࠖ     $ ಙྕ % ㉥   㺃ࠕ࠶ࢀࡗ㸽㣗ᇽࡀఇࡳࡔࠋࠖ        $ 㣗ᇽ % ఇࡳ ୖグ㸰ࡘࡢ⏝౛ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ๓ᥦࡀ࡞࠸㸦ࡇࢀࢆ⟅࠼࡜ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ၥ࠸ࡀ࡞࠸㸧Ⓨヰ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠕ㸿࢞㹀ࢲࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ϩᆺ㸦ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ 1Ϩᆺ㸧ࡢぢฟࡋᵓᩥ࡜ྠࡌᙧ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓϩᆺ㸦㏙㒊ࡢࡳࡢᆺ㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠕ㞷ࡔࠖࠕⅆ஦ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰࢆ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ᥖࡆࡿࡇ
࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࠕ㞷ࡔ㸟ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠕ㞷ࡀ㝆ࡾጞࡵࡓࠖ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕᮅ࣮࢝ࢸࣥࢆ㛤ࡅࡓࡽ

−251−
-3-

ニュース報道での「［VN（動名詞）］/ N（名詞）］＋です」表現について〜「イチロー選手が電撃移籍です」「尖閣諸島で新たな動きです」〜❆ࡢእࡀ୍㠃ࡢ㞷ᬒⰍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ሙ㠃࡛౑ࢃࢀࡿࠋࠕⅆ஦ࡔࠖࡣࠕⅆ஦ࡀ㉳ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡇ࡜ࢆ
⾲ࡍࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡢ⏝ἲࡶゎ⟅ᥦ♧㸦ᣦᐃ㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ㞷ࠖࠕⅆ஦࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃⓎヰ⪅ࡢ㦫ࡁࢆ♧ࡍ඲య↔Ⅼᩥ㸦୰❧ླྀ㏙㸧࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟᪥ᖖ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡈࡃ㌟㏆࡞౛࡜ࡋ࡚௨
ୗࢆᣲࡆࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ  ࣭ࠕㄢ㛗㸟㕥ᮌࡉࢇ࠿ࡽ㟁ヰ࡛ࡍࠋࠖ
ࠕㄡ࠿ࡽࡢ㟁ヰ㸽ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ၥ࠸㸦๓ᥦ㸧࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⟅࠼࡛࡞࠸㝈ࡾࡇࢀࡣ඲య↔Ⅼᩥ࡛࠶ࡾ
ࠕ㕥ᮌࡉࢇ࠿ࡽ㟁ヰࡀ࠿࠿ࡗ࡚ࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋࠖ࡜ఏ࠼ࡿࡼࡾࡶࡼࡾ➃ⓗ࡟࢖ࣥࣃࢡࢺࢆకࡗࡓ
ᙧ࡛≧ἣࢆఏ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㸦ࡇࢀࡣ㸰⠇࡛♧ࡋࡓศ㢮ࡢ 1ϩᆺ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ㸧ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜⿵㊊ ᩥᮎ࡟ྡモࢆ⨨࠸࡚యゝ࡛⥾ࡵࡿᙧࡢᩥࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟ࡶࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞✀㢮ࡢࡶࡢࡀ◊✲ࡢಋୖ࡟ୖࡀࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋゅ⏣ኴస㸦㸧࡛ᢅࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠕே㨶ᵓᩥ㸦ኴ㑻ࡣྡྂᒇ࡟⾜ࡃணᐃࡔࠋ ࠖ஭ୖඃ㸦㸧ࡢࠕ࠸࠸ኳẼࡔᵓᩥ㸦௒᪥ࡣ࠸࠸ኳẼࡔࠋ㸧ࠖ༡୙஧⏨㸦㸧ࡢࠕ␲ఝྡ
モ㏙ㄒᩥ㸦ᕤ஦ࣁ௒᪥୰ࢽ⤊஢ࢲ㸧ࠖࡢ࡯࠿ྂࡃࡣ࢘ࢼࢠᩥ㸦➃ᢡࡾᩥ㸧ࡶࡑࡢࡦ࡜ࡘ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࠕぢฟࡋᵓᩥࠖࡶᩥᮎࢆయゝ࡛⥾ࡵࡿࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕయゝ⥾ࡵࠖࡢᩥࡢࡦ࡜
ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࠕ࢖ࢳ࣮ࣟ㑅ᡭࡀ㟁ᧁ⛣⡠࡛ࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ぢฟࡋᵓᩥࡢ࢖ࣥࣃࢡࢺࡣࠕྡモ㏙ㄒᩥ࡛࠶ࡾ࡞
ࡀࡽ୰❧ླྀ㏙ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇࡢ≉Ṧ࡞⤫ㄒᵓ㐀ࡀ኱ࡁ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀᩥᮎࡢືモࢆྡモ࡟௦࠼࡚⏝࠸ࡿᩥᮎྡモ⾲⌧㸦ࠕ஢ゎ࡛ࡍࠖࠕ฿╔࡛ࡍࠖࠕⓏሙ࡛ࡍࠖࠕឤㅰ࡛
ࡍࠖ࡞࡝㸧ࡀ୍⯡࡟ඃໃ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶᐜㄆᗘࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ⫼ᬒࡢࡦ࡜ࡘ࡟࠶ࡿࡢ࡛
ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥᮎࡢྡモ⾲⌧ࡢືໃࢆ᥈ࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟㸰⠇࡛♧ࡋࡓࠕぢฟࡋᵓᩥࠖࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡈ࡜ࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡉࡽ࡟᥀ࡾୗࡆ࡚⾜ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩࣭஭ୖඃ  ࠕయゝ⥾ࡵᩥ࡜ࠕ࠸࠸ኳẼࡔࠖᵓᩥࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘࣭⳥ᆅᗣே㸦㸧ࠕࠕࡀࠖࡢ⏝ἲࡢᴫほࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ య⣔࡜᪉ἲ࠘ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ
࣭ஂ㔝ᬿ㸦㸧ࠗ᪥ᮏᩥἲ◊✲࠘኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ࣭᪂ᒇᫎᏊ㸦㸧ࠕព࿡ᵓ㐀࠿ࡽぢࡓᖹླྀᩥศ㢮ࡢヨࡳࠖࠗᮾிእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⛉ᖺሗ࠘
࣭㕥ᮌᬛ⨾㸦㸧ࠕࢽ࣮ࣗࢫሗ㐨࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ㹹ືྡモ㸦㹔㹌㸧㸭ྡモ㸦㹌㸧㹻㸩࡛ࡍࠖᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ ࠗᮾிእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ␃Ꮫ⏕᪥ᮏㄒࢭࣥࢱ࣮ㄽ㞟࠘
࣭◁ᕝ᭷㔛Ꮚ㸦㸧ࠗᩥἲ࡜ㄯヰࡢ᥋Ⅼ࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧࣭⏣୰ఀᘧ㸦㸧㺀ࢽ࣮ࣗࢫሗ㐨࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕྡモ㸩࡛ࡍࠖ⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㺁ࠗᨺ㏦◊✲࡜ㄪᰝ࠘  ᭶ྕ࣭⏣୰ఀᘧ㸦㸧ࠕࢹࢫ᪘ࡢỏ℃ࠖࠗᨺ㏦◊✲࡜ㄪᰝ࠘ ᭶ྕ ࣭ゅ⏣ኴస㸦㸧ࠕே㨶ᵓᩥ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠿ࡽ୍⯡ゝㄒᏛ࡬ࡢ㈉⊩ࠖࠗᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤㄽ㞟࠘࣭すᒣభྖ㸦㸧ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒྡモྃࡢព࿡ㄽ࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽ̿ᣦ♧ⓗྡモྃ࡜㠀ᣦ♧ⓗྡモྃ̿࠘ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ
࣭༡୙஧⏨㸦㸧ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲࡢ㍯㒌࠘኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ



−252−

-4-

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ〔ࡵࡢศᯒ
࣏̿ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿㇂ᬛᏊ(୕㔜኱Ꮫ) ኱ሯ⏕Ꮚ(㏆␥኱Ꮫ)ࠑAbstractࠒ

7KH([FKDQJHRI&RPSOLPHQWVDW*RNRQ3DUWLHV
IURPWKH3HUVSHFWLYHRI3RVLWLYH3ROLWHQHVVTANI Tomoko(Mie University), OTSUKA Seiko(Kinki University)
In this study, we observed Gokon parties and documented male participants’ usage ofcomplimentary discourse- to get closer to their female counterparts.

Our study takes

discursive approach to politeness. We discovered that the men’s compliments toward female
participants gradually changed in nature as the parties moved forward, beginning withpraise of their social attributes, followed by behavior, and finally personality.

This indicatesthat invasion to female participants’ individual territories came to be permitted as the parties
progressed.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ1 ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠊ2 ྜࢥࣥࠊ3 〔ࡵ㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ⌧௦᪥ᮏ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕྜࢥࣥࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ୍
⯡࡟⏨ዪࡢฟ఍࠸ࡢሙ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜᝿ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢㄆ㆑ࢆඹ᭷ࡋࡓ⪅ࡀ㞟ࡲࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ๓
ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋ໭ᮧ࣭㜿㒊(2007)ࡣࠊྜࢥࣥ
࡛ࡢฟ఍࠸ࡣከࡃࡢሙྜࠊ㛗ᮇⓗ࡞ᜊឡࡸࡉࡽ࡟
ࡣ⤖፧࡟⮳ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮇᚅࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
⤖፧㢪ᮃࡸྠᛶ࡜ࡢ➇தᚰ࡞࡝ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ᛮᝨࡀ
ᕳࡃ୰࡛ࠊཧຍ⪅ࡓࡕࡣ༠ຊⓗ࡟࡞ࡾࠊࢫ࣒࣮
ࢬ࡟఍ヰࢆ㐍ࡵࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 ᮏⓎ⾲ࡣࠊᵝࠎ࡞ほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢศᯒࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆᣢࡘࠕྜࢥࣥࠖ࡜࠸࠺ሙ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ≉࡟ཧຍ⪅ࡀࠕ〔ࡵࠖ㸯ࢆ⾜࠺ሙ㠃࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྜࢥࣥ
࡜࠸࠺ึᑐ㠃࠿ࡘ᫬㛫ࡢ㝈ࡽࢀࡓሙ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᜊ
ឡཬࡧ⤖፧࡜࠸࠺ಶேࡢ㔜኱஦࡬ࡢ㛵ᚰࢆඹ᭷ࡋ
࡞ࡀࡽே㛫㛵ಀ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᥋㏆ࡢ᪉ἲࡢࡦ࡜ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠕ〔ࡵࠖࢆࠊ␗ᛶ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾲᫂ࡋࠊࡲࡓࡑࢀࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡕࠊࡉࡽ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ
࠺࡞ኚ㑄ࢆ㎺ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㸰㸬୺せᴫᛕ࠾ࡼࡧඛ⾜◊✲ Brown and Levinson(1987, ௨ୗ B&L)ࡣࠊ
Goffman(1967)ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫᴫᛕ㸰ࢆᇶ࡟ࠊࡇࢀࢆ
ࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࠊ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢ
2 ✀㢮࡟ศࡅࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀேࡀᬑ㐢ⓗ࡟ᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥୖࡢࠕḧồࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼࡚࠸
ࡿࠋࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕ௚⪅࠿ࡽ⾜ືࢆไ㝈ࡉࢀࡓࡃ࡞࠸ࠊ㡿ᇦࢆ౵ᐖࡉࢀࡓࡃ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜
࠸࠺ḧồࠊ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡜ࡣࠕ௚⪅࡜ぶࡋࡃ࡞ࡾࡓ࠸ࠊ᥋㏆ࡋࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ḧồ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡣ
ࡋࡤࡋࡤ⬣࠿ࡉࢀࡿ༴㝤ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋB&L ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ౵ᐖ⾜Ⅽࢆ FTA(Face
1

−253−

合コンにおける褒めの分析―ポジティブ・ポライトネスの観点から―

Threatening Acts)࡜࿧ࡧࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆࠊFTA
ࢆ㍍ῶࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢゝㄒ⾜ື࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ
◊✲࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠕ〔ࡵࠖࡣࠊB&L ࡛ࡣ࣏ࢪࢸ
࢕ࣈ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ(࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ⿵ൾࡍࡿࡶࡢ)࡟࠶ࡓࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓ㏆ᖺࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊB&Lࡢ⌮ㄽඛ⾜ᆺࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᢈุ࠿
ࡽࠊ᪂ࡓ࡟ᐇ㝿ࡢㄯヰ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡽࡢㄆ㆑ࢆศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ discursive approach ࡢᡭἲࡀ⯆㝯ࡋ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊB&L ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢᤊ࠼᪉࡟ࡣᢈุࡀከ࠸ࡀࠊGoffman(1967)ࡢ
ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽぢࢀࡤࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿ
ࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ౑⏝ࡣ༢࡟఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡽࡀ෇⁥࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ┠ᣦࡍࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕရ⾜ࠖ(demeanor)࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ౑
⏝ࡋࡓᮏேࡢ♫఍ⓗホ౯࡟⤖ࡧ௜ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢ౑⏝ࡣ༢࡟┦ᡭ࡜ࡢே㛫㛵ಀ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㊥㞳ࢆ⦰ࡵࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ౑⏝ࡋࡓᮏேࡢホ౯࡟㛵ࢃࡿᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
࠸࠺ほⅬࢆຍ࠼ࡓ࠸ࠋ

ࢵࣉ࣭࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢆ⾜࠸ࠊศᯒ࡟࠾࠸࡚࡛ࡁࡿ
㝈ࡾཧຍ⪅ࡢㄆ㆑ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࡼ࠺ດࡵࡓ㸱ࠋ㸲㸬ㄯヰ౛ศᯒ
 ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࡇࡢ୰࡛≉࡟୍ேࡢ⏨ᛶࡢ␗ᛶ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ〔ࡵࠖࡢኚ㑄࡟╔┠ࡋࡓࠋྜࢥࣥཧຍ⪅ࡢ୍ே࡛࠶ࡿ A(௬ྡࠊ⏨ᛶࠊ㛵ᮾᆅᇦฟ㌟)ࡣࠊྜ
ࢥࣥ㛤ጞࡢࡈࡃึᮇࡢẁ㝵࡛ࠊዪᛶ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡢ
B(௬ྡࠊ㛵すᆅᇦฟ㌟)࡟ᑐࡋዲឤࢆᢪ࠸ࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ
ྜࢥࣥ㛤ጞ᫬࡟㑅ᢥࡋࡓࠕ᭱ࡶዲࡲࡋ࠸ዪᛶ࣓ࣥ
ࣂ࣮࡛ࠖࡶࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡞ホ౯࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊA ࡣ B ࢆᣦྡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ௨ୗࡢㄯヰ౛ࡣࠊ᫬㛫ࡢ⤒㐣㡰࡟⌧ࢃࢀࡓࠊAࡢ B ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ〔ࡵࡢኚ㑄࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄯヰ౛ 㸬࠙〔ࡵᑐ㇟㸸ᡤᒓ࣭ᖐᒓⓗせ⣲ࠚ
1A:࡛ࡶࠊ࠸ࡗࡍࡡ‫܌‬
2A:㛵すࡢዪࡢᏊࠊዪᛶࡣ࠶࠿ࡿࡃ࡚ࡡ࣮‫܌‬
3C:ࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࡡ࣮ࠊ࢔ࣁࣁࣁࣁ㸲
4C:࡞ࠊ࡞ࢇ࡛ࡑ࠺࠸࠺ヰ࡟
5A:‫ۑۑ‬㸦A ࡢฟ㌟ᆅ㸧࡜඲↛㐪࠸ࡲࡍࡶࢇ ྜࢥࣥ㛤ጞึᮇࡢࠊ⮬ᕫ⤂௓ሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿ఍ヰ࠿ࡽࡢᢤ⢋࡛࠶ࡿ(C ࡣ⏨ᛶ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡢ 1 ே)ࠋ B ࡀ㛵すᆅᇦࡢฟ㌟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡓࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
A ࡣ 1ࠊ2 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ㛵すࡢዪᛶࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᖐᒓⓗせ⣲ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡚〔ࡵࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࡉࡽ࡟௚ࡢ⏨ᛶ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮࡛࠶ࡿ C ࡶ A ࡢⓎヰ࡟ᑐࡋ 3C ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ྠ
ពࢆ♧ࡍⓎヰࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ A ࡣࠊ⮬ᕫࡢ〔ࡵ࡟ㄝᚓຊࢆᣢࡓࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ⮬ศࡢฟ㌟ᆅࡢዪ
ᛶࢆᘬࡁྜ࠸࡟ฟࡋ࡚ࠕ඲↛㐪࠺ࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࠊ┦ᑐⓗ࡟㛵すᆅᇦฟ㌟ࡢዪᛶࢆ㧗ࡵࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ୍᪉ B ࡣࠊࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࣭࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ࡟ࡼ
ࡿ࡜ࠊฟ㌟ᆅᇦ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ〔ࡵࠖࢆ♫஺㎡௧࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ௚ࡢᆅᇦࡢዪᛶ࡜ࡢẚ㍑
࡟ࡼࡾヰࡀᒎ㛤ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ㠃ⓑ࠿ࡗࡓ࡜㏙࡭ࠊࡲࡓ㛵すࢆ┦ᑐⓗ࡟〔ࡵࡽࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ࠺ࢀࡋࡃឤࡌ
ࡓ࡜ヰࡋࡓࠋ⮬ᕫ⤂௓ሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠊ௚ࡢ⤌࡛ࡶᡤᒓࡍࡿ఍♫࡞࡝ࠊᡤᒓ࣭ᖐᒓⓗせ⣲࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡢ〔ࡵࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ
ㄯヰ౛ 㸬࠙〔ࡵᑐ㇟㸸⾜ື࡟㛵ࡍࡿせ⣲ࠚ ㄯヰ౛ 2 ࡣࠊ᭱ึࡢᩱ⌮࡛࠶ࡿࢧࣛࢲࡀ㐠ࡤࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ㝿࡟ࠊB ࡀࡑࢀࢆ⋡ඛࡋ࡚௚ࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮࡟
ྲྀࡾศࡅࡿሙ㠃࠿ࡽࡢᢤ⢋࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸱㸬◊✲ࡢ᪉ἲ ఍ヰࡢグ㘓࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ⏨ᛶ 3 ேࠊዪᛶ3 ேࡢィ6 ேࢆ1 ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕྜࢥࣥࢆࡍࡿࠖ
࡜࠸࠺ྡ┠࡛㞟ࡲࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࠊ
ࣅࢹ࣓࢜࢝ࣛ 2 ྎࠊ
IC ࣞࢥ࣮ࢲ࣮2 ྎࢆ⏝࠸࡚グ㘓ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋグ㘓ࡣᮏⓎ⾲ᐇ᪋᫬Ⅼ࡛ 3 ⤌ࠊィ 18 ே࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⾜ࡗࡓ(⌧ᅾグ㘓⥅⥆୰)ࠋ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ15 ேࡣ㛵
すᆅᇦࡢฟ㌟ࠊ3 ேࡣ㛵ᮾᆅᇦࡢฟ㌟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ⤌࡛ࠊ⏨ᛶࠊዪᛶࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ཭ேྠኈ
ࡔࡀࠊ⏨ዪ㛫࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ඲ဨࡀึᑐ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋグ㘓ሙᡤࡣ኱㜰ᕷෆࡢ㣧㣗ᗑ࡛ࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ྜࢥࣥ࡟
㏆࡙ࡅࡿࡓࡵࠊ㣗஦࣭㣧㓇ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ఍ヰࢆࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋグ㘓᫬㛫ࡣྛࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ 2 ᫬㛫⛬ᗘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ఍ヰࡢグ㘓ࡢ௚ࠊྜࢥࣥ㛤ጞ᫬ࠊ⮬ᕫ⤂௓๓ࡢ㢦ࢆぢࡓࡔࡅࡢ≧ἣ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ┦ᡭ᪉
࡛࠶ࡿ 3 ேࡢ␗ᛶࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ࡝ࡢேࡀ᭱ࡶዲࡲࡋ࠸
࠿ࢆᗙᖍ⾲࡛♧ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࠊྜࢥࣥ⤊஢ᚋ࡟ࡶྠ
ᵝࡢ㉁ၥࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࣭࢖ࣥ
ࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢩ࣮ࢺ(ฟ㌟ᆅࠊᖺ㱋➼ࡢᇶᮏ᝟ሗ࠾ࡼࡧ
ᙜヱྜࢥࣥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿឤ᝿ࠊᑐேⓗഃ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⮬ᕫࡢᛶ㉁ࡢホ౯࡞࡝)࡬ࡢグධࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔
2

−254−

第15回大会発表論文集

㸦B ࡀࢧࣛࢲࢆྲྀࡾࢃࡅࡿ㸧
1A:࠶࣮ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇ
2A:࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ
3A:ࢃ࣮ࡸࡉࡋ࠸࡞࣮
4C:࣡ࣁࣁࣁࣁࣁ ࡇࡢሙ㠃࡛ࠊA ࡣ B ࡢ⾜ື࡟ᑐࡍࡿ〔ࡵࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣBಶே࡟≉໬ࡋࡓ〔ࡵ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ᐇ㝿ࡢ⾲㠃໬ࡋࡓ⾜ື࡟ᑐࡍࡿホ౯࡛࠶ࡾࠊಶே
ࡢෆ㠃ⓗ࡞㡿ᇦ࡟㋃ࡳ㎸ࢇࡔࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠼
ࡿࠋB ࡣࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ〔ࡵ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࡓࡵ࡟ྲྀࡾศ
ࡅࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ
ࠕዪᛶ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠖ࡜⌮⏤࡙ࡅࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂☜࡞ពᅗࡣ࡞࠸࡟ࡏࡼࠊ
⏨ዪࡢධࡾΰࡌࡗࡓሙ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕዪᛶࡢᙺ๭ࠖࢆ
₇ࡌ࡚ዪᛶᛶࢆ⾲♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊホ౯ࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄆ㆑ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ௚࡟ࡶࠊูࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛ࡣ᭹⿦࡞࡝࡟ᑐࡍࡿ〔ࡵ࡞࡝ࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋㄯヰ౛ 㸬࠙〔ࡵᑐ㇟㸸ே᱁࣭㈨㉁ⓗせ⣲ࠚ ㄯヰ౛ 3 ࡣࠊྜࢥࣥ㛤ጞᚋ⣙ 1 ᫬㛫ࡀ⤒㐣ࡋࡓ
᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡢ఍ヰ࠿ࡽࡢᢤ⢋࡛࠶ࡿࠋ B ࡀ㛗ᮇ㛫࢔ࢪ࢔ࡢᅜ࡟ఫࢇ࡛࠸ࡓ࡜࠸࠺ヰࡢᚋࠊ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡣዲࡳࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡋྜࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
1B:A(ࢽࢵࢡࢿ࣮࣒)ࡣ㸽
2A:൅ࡣ࡛ࡍࡡ࣮㸦1.0㸧࢚࢜ࣜࣥࢱࣝ࡞࣮㸭ឤࡌ࡛ࡍࡡࠋ
3B㸸㸭࢚࢜ࣜࣥࢱࣝ
㸦୰␎㸧
4A㸸࡛ࡶ࣮ࡳࢇ࡞࣮࣭࣭࣭B㸦ࢽࢵࢡࢿ࣮࣒㸧࡞ࢇ࠿࣮࡯ࢇ࡜ᬑ㏻ࡢ࣮ዪࡢᏊࡔࡅ࡝࣮ࡵࡗࡕࡷ῝࠸ࡡࠋ
5B:࠸ࡸࠊࡑࢇ࡞඲↛6B:࢚࢜ࣜࣥࢱ࣮ࣝࡗࡱ࠸࡛ࡍ࠿㸽
7B:࠶ࢀࠊࡕࡀ࠺㸽
8A:࠸ࡸࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜࢚࢜ࣜࣥࢱࣝࡗࡱ࠸࡞࣮
 A ࡣ 4A ࡛ࡑࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ B ࡢヰࡢෆᐜࢆཷࡅ࡚ࠊ
ࠕᬑ㏻ࡢዪࡢᏊࡔࡅ࡝ࠖ࡜ዪᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆゝㄒ໬ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠕࡵࡗࡕࡷ῝࠸ࡡࠖ࡜ே᱁࡟ᑐࡍࡿ
〔ࡵࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓ A ࡣ B ࡀ࢔ࢪ࢔ࡢᅜ࡟㛗ᮇ㛫ᬽࡽࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆࡑࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ఍ヰ࠿ࡽ▱ࡗ

第８号

࡚࠸࡞ࡀࡽࠊዲࡳࡢ␗ᛶࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠕ࢜ࣜ
࢚ࣥࢱࣝࠖ࡞ே࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝཬࡋࠊࡲࡓ 8A ࡛ࡣ B⮬㌟ࡀ࢚࢜ࣜࣥࢱࣝ࡞ே࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇ
ࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊB ࡀ⮬ศ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠕዲࡳࡢዪᛶ࡛ࠖ࠶
ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ࡯ࡢࡵ࠿ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᜊឡᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚
B ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
 B ࡣࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ⮬ᕫࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕࡜ࡋ
࡚㔜ࡁࢆ⨨࠸࡚࠸ࡿᾏእ⏕ά⤒㦂ࢆࠊே᱁࡟㛵㐃ࡉࡏ࡚ホ౯ࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ࠺ࢀࡋࡃឤࡌࡓ࡜㏙࡭࡚
࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕ࢚࢜ࣜࣥࢱࣝࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧⮬య࡟〔ࡵࡢせ⣲ࢆឤࡌࡣࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡢࠊA ࡀ⮬ศࡢዲࡳ࡜ྜ⮴ࡍࡿ࡜࡯ࡢࡵ࠿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࡣㄆ▱ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊA ࡢ⮬ศ࡟ᑐࡍࡿዲពࡣࡇࡢẁ㝵࡛᫂☜࡟ឤࡌࡓ࡜ヰࡋࡓࠋ ே᱁࡟ᑐࡍࡿ〔ࡵࡣࠊ᫬㛫ࡢ⤒㐣࡜࡜ࡶ࡟㐍⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ⮬ᕫ㛤♧࡟క࠸ࠊ┦ᡭࡢෆ㠃ⓗ࣭ே᱁ⓗ࡞㒊ศ࡟㋃ࡳ㎸ࢇࡔホ౯ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⧄
⣽࡞ุ᩿ࢆせࡍࡿࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࡢ
ഃ㠃࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ┦ᡭࡀ⮬ศࡢ␗ᛶࡢዲࡳ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ゝཬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊྜࢥࣥ࡜࠸࠺ᜊឡࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆෆໟࡋࡓᯟ
⤌ࡳ࡟࠾࠸࡚㔜せ࡞ព࿡ࢆࡶࡘ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣏ࣛ
࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ
〔ࡵࡣᑐே㛵ಀࡢ㊥㞳ࡀྜࢥࣥ㛤ጞ᫬ࡼࡾࡶ᥋㏆ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊࡲࡓࡼࡾ᥋㏆ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡟
⌧ࢃࢀࡿࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㸳㸬⪃ᐹ ࠕ〔ࡵࠖࡣ఍ヰ඲య࡟ᩓぢࡉࢀࡓࡀࠊศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࡲࡎࠊA ࡢ〔ࡵࡢෆᐜ࣭ᑐ㇟ࡀࠊึᑐ㠃࠿ࡽ఍ヰࡀ㐍⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ኚ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡗࡓࡇ࡜
ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊㄯヰ౛ศᯒ࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
〔ࡵࡢෆᐜ࣭ᑐ㇟ࡀ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊḟ➨࡟┦ᡭࡢಶேⓗ㡿ᇦ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࡼ࠺࡞ኚ㑄ࢆࡓ࡝ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ㸬 ᡤᒓ࣭ᖐᒓⓗせ⣲ ㄯヰ౛ 1㸸ࠕ㛵すࡢዪᛶࡗ࡚⣲ᩛ࡛ࡍࡼࡡࠖ࡞࡝
㸬⾜ື࡟㛵ࡍࡿせ⣲ ㄯヰ౛ 2㸸(ᩱ⌮ࢆྲྀࡾศࡅ࡚ࡃࢀࡓࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋ)ࠕࡸࡉࡋ࠸ࡡࠖ࡞࡝
㸬ே᱁࣭㈨㉁ⓗせ⣲ ㄯヰ౛ 3㸸(⮬ศࡢዲࡳࡢዪᛶࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࢆ㏙࡭ࡓᚋ)ࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࡣࡑࢀ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ពࡢ
3

−255−

合コンにおける褒めの分析―ポジティブ・ポライトネスの観点から―Ⓨヰࠊ(ே᱁࡟ᑐࡋ࡚)ࠕࡵࡗࡕࡷ῝࠸ࡡࠖ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢆ㏻ࡋࡓ⪺ࡁᡭࡢホ౯ࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊᙜヱ఍ヰ୰࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡓ〔ࡵࡀ㐺ษ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊಶேⓗ㡿ᇦ࡬ࡢ᥋㏆ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓ
ࡶࡢ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
ᮏ᮶┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ
࣮࣡ࢡ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃⓎヰࡢពᅗ࡜ホ౯࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᒎ㛤ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ⏘ฟ࡟㔜Ⅼࢆ⨨࠸ࡓ B&L ࡢ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
〔ࡵࡀヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢせồ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚㐺ษ࡟⾜ࢃࢀࠊᮏ᮶ࡢຠᯝࢆᣢࡗࡓ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿࡇ
࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
௒ᚋࡣࠊ⮬ᕫ㛤♧ࡢෆᐜ࡜〔ࡵࡢෆᐜ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ࡸࠊ࣮࢜ࢹ࢕࢚ࣥࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢṧࡾࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡀࠊ
〔ࡵࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓ࠿࡞࡝ࡶྵࡵࠊ〔ࡵࡀࡑࡢሙ࡟ࡶࡓࡽࡋࡓព⩏ࡸᶵ⬟࡞࡝ࢆ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊྜࢥࣥ࡜࠸࠺ࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡢ୰࡛࡝ࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡞ヰ㢟࡟࠾࠸࡚࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘࡢ᥋㏆ࡀチᐜࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆࠊࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࣭࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢆే
⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Ӑཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ӑ ࡇࢀࡽࡢࠕ〔ࡵࠖࡢኚ㑄࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊྜࢥࣥ㛤ጞึᮇࡢẁ㝵࡟࠾࠸࡚ 3 ࡣほᐹࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊ3ࡀほᐹࡉࢀጞࡵࡓᚋ༙࡛ࡣࠊ᪤࡟ࡑࡢ๓ࡢẁ㝵࡛ほᐹࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ 1 ࡸ 2 ࡢ〔ࡵࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊྜࢥࣥ㛤ጞᙜึࠊ┦ᡭࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟῝ࡃࡣ❧ࡕධࡽ࡞࠸ࠊ↓㞴࡞ᑐ㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚〔ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ෇⁥࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ㐙⾜ࢆ୍᫬ⓗ࡞┠ⓗ࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡶࡢࡀࠊ
᫬㛫ࢆ⤒ࡿ࡟ࡘࢀࠊᜊឡ࡬ࡢⓎᒎ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿぶᐦ໬ḧồ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊࡑ
ࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡛ᚓࡓ┦ᡭࡢ᝟ሗࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓࡼ
ࡾ㏆᥋໬ࢆᚿྥࡍࡿ〔ࡵ࡬࡜⛣ࡾ࠿ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ
࡜ࢆព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ┦ᡭࡢ⫼ᬒ▱㆑࡟ᑐࡍࡿඹ᭷ࢆ⤒ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊぶᐦ໬ḧồ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ〔ࡵ࡜࠸࠺࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢ⾲᫂᪉ἲࡀኚ໬ࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊྜࢥࣥ
ཧຍ⪅ࡽࡣࠊ〔ࡵࢆ⾜࠺ሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊ〔ࡵࡢᑐ㇟ࡣ
ఱ࡛ࡶⰋ࠸ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶࡢኚ໬
ࡸ఍ヰࡢ㐍⾜࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡾࠊ〔ࡵ࡚ࡶⰋ࠸ᑐ㇟ࡀኚ
໬ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
┦஫⾜ⅭⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽぢࡿ࡜ࠊA ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࣇ࢛ࣟ
࣮࢔ࢵࣉ࣭࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮࡛ࣗࡣࠊA ࡣ⮬ศࡢ⾜ࡗࡓࠕ〔ࡵࠖࡀ B ࡟ྰᐃⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸࡜࠸
࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆࠊB ࡢែᗘ࡞࡝࠿ࡽㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ヰࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋB ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶㄯヰ౛ศᯒ୰࡟㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊA ࡢ〔ࡵࢆ⫯ᐃⓗ࡟ཷࡅྲྀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊB ࡣ A ࠿ࡽࡢ〔ࡵ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬ᕫࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟㋃ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀ㐣ࡂࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞୙ᛌࢆឤࡌ࡚ࡣ࠾ࡽࡎࠊ
A ࡜ B ࡜ࡢ㊥㞳ࡢ⦰ࡵ᪉࣭ྲྀࡾ᪉ࡀ཮᪉࡟࡜ࡗ࡚
㐺ᗘ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ୍⯡໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶྜࢥࣥ࡜࠸
࠺ᯟ⤌ࡳ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡇࡢ஧ே࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ2 ᫬㛫࡜࠸࠺▷᫬㛫ࡢ㛫࡟࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘࡲ࡛┦ᡭࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟❧ࡕධࡗ࡚〔ࡵࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀチᐜࡉࢀࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ
ඹ㏻ࡢㄆ㆑ࡀᙧᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡶࡢ࡜ุ᩿࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

Brown, P and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some

Universals

inLanguage

Usage.

Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, E. 1967 [1982]. Interaction Ritual: Essays on

Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.
Holmes,J.

1988.

Payingcompliments:

Sex-Preferential Politeness Strategy.

A

Journal of

Pragmatics 12, 445-465.
໭ᮧᩥ࣭㜿㒊┿኱. 2007. ࠗྜࢥࣥࡢ♫఍Ꮫ࠘ගᩥ♫. ᮾி.
Mills, S. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
㸯 ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠕ〔ࡵࠖࢆ Holmes(1988)ࡢḟࡢᐃ⩏࡟ᚑ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ“A compliment is speech act which
explicitly or implicitly attributes credit to someone otherthan the speaker, usually the person addressed, forsome ‘good’ (possession, characteristic, skill etc.) which is
positively valued by the speaker and the hearer”(Holmes, 1988: 446)
㸰 “the positive social value a person effectively claims
for himself by the line others assume he has taken
during a particular contact”(Goffman, 1967; 5)
㸱 Mills(2003)ࡣ㸪ࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࣭࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢ㔜せᛶࢆ୺ᙇࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊෆᐜࢆ↓᮲௳࡛஦ᐇ࡜ุ᩿ࡍ
࡭ࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸲 ᩥᏐ໬ࡢつ๎㸸    ࡣ➗࠸࡞ࡀࡽ࡞ࡉࢀࡓⓎヰࠋ㸴㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ྜࢥࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿึᑐ㠃఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᜊឡ࡟
㛵㐃ࡍࡿぶᐦ໬࡬ࡢḧồ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ▷࠸᫬㛫ࡢ୰࡛┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ㊥㞳ࢆࡼࡾ⦰ࡵ࡚࠸ࡇ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ〔ࡵࡀከࡃほᐹࡉࢀࠊࡲࡓྜࢥࣥࡢ᫬㛫ⓗ㐍⾜࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ࡑ
ࡢ㉁ࡢኚ໬ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࣭
4

−256−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

䝺䝖䝸䝑䜽䛸ཷ㌟㻌Ặྡ㻌 ཎ㻌 Ụ฼㻌㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ᡤᒓ㻌 ᨺ㏦኱ᏛᏛ㒊㻌㻨㻭㼎㼟㼠㼞㼍㼏㼠㻪㻌㼃㼔㼑㼚㻌㼣㼑㻌㻶㼍㼜㼍㼚㼑㼟㼑㻌㼠㼍㼘㼗㻌㼠㼛㻌㼟㼛㼙㼑㼛㼚㼑㻌㼣㼕㼠㼔㻌㼜㼍㼟㼟㼕㼢㼑㻌㼢㼑㼞㼎㼟㻘㻌㼣㼔㼍㼠㻌㼗㼕㼚㼐㻌㼛㼒㻌㼕㼚㼠㼑㼚㼟㼕㼛㼚㻌㼣㼑㻌㼍㼞㼑㻌㼟㼡㼜㼜㼛㼟㼑㼐㻌㼠㼛㻌㼔㼍㼢㼑㻫㻌㻵㼚㻌㼠㼔㼕㼟㻌㼞㼑㼜㼛㼞㼠㻘㻌㻵㻌㼣㼕㼘㼘㻌㼍㼚㼟㼣㼑㼞㻌㼣㼕㼠㼔㻌㼙㼥㻌㼔㼥㼜㼛㼠㼔㼑㼟㼕㼟㻌㼠㼔㼍㼠㻌㼠㼔㼑㼞㼑㻌㼕㼟㻌㼍㼚㻌㼕㼚㼢㼕㼟㼕㼎㼘㼑㻌㼞㼑㼘㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㼟㼔㼕㼜㻚㻌㻿㼛㼙㼑㼠㼕㼙㼑㻘㻌㼣㼑㻌㼏㼍㼚㻌㼔㼑㼍㼞㻌㼠㼔㼍㼠㻌㼜㼍㼟㼟㼕㼢㼑㻌㼢㼑㼞㼎㼟㻌㼞㼑㼜㼞㼑㼟㼑㼚㼠㻌㼕㼞㼞㼑㼟㼜㼛㼚㼟㼕㼎㼘㼑㻘㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㻵㻌㼔㼍㼢㼑㻌㼍㻌㼐㼕㼒㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼠㻌㼕㼐㼑㼍㻚㻌㻹㼥㻌㼏㼛㼚㼏㼘㼡㼟㼕㼛㼚㻌㼕㼟㻌㼠㼔㼍㼠㻌㼜㼍㼟㼟㼕㼢㼑㻌㼢㼑㼞㼎㼟㻌㼣㼛㼡㼘㼐㻌㼚㼛㼠㻌㼓㼕㼢㼑㻌㼎㼍㼐㻌㼕㼙㼜㼞㼑㼟㼟㼕㼛㼚㻌㻚㼍㼎㼛㼡㼠㻌㼟㼜㼑㼍㼗㼑㼞㻘㻌㼎㼑㼏㼍㼡㼟㼑㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼜㼍㼟㼟㼕㼢㼑㻌㼢㼑㼞㼎㼟㻌㼕㼟㻌㼡㼟㼑㼐㻌㼍㼠㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼟㼕㼠㼡㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼔㼛㼣㻌㼓㼛㼛㼐㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼟㼜㼑㼍㼗㼑㼞㻌㼕㼟㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㼔㼛㼣㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼟㼜㼑㼍㼗㼑㼞㻌㼐㼕㼐㻌㼛㼚㼑䇻㼟㻌㼎㼑㼟㼠㻚㻌㼀㼔㼕㼟㻌㼕㼐㼑㼍㻌㼏㼛㼙㼑㼟㻌㼒㼞㼛㼙㻌㼟㼜㼑㼑㼏㼔㻌㼞㼔㼑㼠㼛㼞㼕㼏㻌㼛㼒㻌㼏㼛㼙㼙㼡㼚㼕㼏㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼟㼠㼡㼐㼥㻚㻌 㻌㻌㻌䛆䜻䞊䝽䞊䝗䛇㻌
᪥ᮏㄒ䚸ཷ㌟䚸䝁䝭䝳䝙䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁䚸㻔䝇䝢䞊䝏㻕䝺䝖䝸䝑䜽䚸ዲឤ㻌㻌㻌䠍䠊䛿䛨䜑䛻㻌
᪥ᮏㄒ䛾ヰ䛧ᡭ䛿䚸䛹䛾䜘䛖䛺ሙ㠃䛾䛹䛾䜘䛖䛺ヰ㢟䛷ཷ㌟⾲⌧䜢౑䛖䛾䛰䜝䛖䛛䚹䛒䜛ሙ㠃䞉ヰ㢟䛷ཷ㌟⾲⌧䛜౑䜟䜜䜛᫬䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛾ពᅗ䛿䛹䛣䛻䛒䜛䛸⪃䛘䜛䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䛰䜝䛖䛛䚹୍⯡ⓗ䛻䚸ㄒ⏝ㄽ䛜ゝⴥ䛻䜘䜛䝁䝭䝳䝙䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁䜢ᑐ㇟䛻䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖䛺䜙䚸䝁䝭䝳䝙䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁⌮ㄽ䛷䛿ゝⴥ䛻䜘䜛⾲⌧䛿䛹䛖ほᐹ䛥䜜䜛䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䛾䛰䜝䛖䛛䚹䛭䛣䛷䚸ᮏⓎ⾲䛷䛿䝁䝭䝳䝙䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁⌮ㄽ䛾୍ศ㔝䛷䛒䜛䝇䝢䞊䝏䝺䝖䝸䝑䜽䚸䛸䜚䜟䛡ヰ䛧ᡭ䛾ᡓ␎◊✲䛸䛔䜟䜜䜛䜰䝫䝻䜼䜰䛸䛭䛾䠐䛴䛾ᡓ␎䜢ྲྀ䜚ୖ䛢䚸ཷ㌟⾲⌧䛸䝺䝖䝸䝑䜽䛾㛵䜟䜚䜢⪃ᐹ䛧䛯䚹㻌䛭䛾⤖ᯝ䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛜ཷ㌟䜢౑⏝䛩䜛䛾䛿䚸䜰䝫䝻䜼䜰䛾⿵ᙉ䛸䛔䛖ᡓ␎䚸䛴䜎䜚ヰ䛧ᡭ䛾ពᅗ䛜⪺䛝ᡭ䜈䛾ാ䛝䛛䛡䚸䛸䜚䜟䛡ዲឤ䜢ᣢ䛳䛶䜒䜙䛖䛣䛸䜢≺䛳䛯䝺䝖䝸䝑䜽䛾୰䛷౑⏝䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䛜ከ䛟ほᐹ䛥䜜䛯䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸ཷ㌟䛿䜰䝫䝻䜼䜰䛾⿵ᙉ䛂ዲ䜎䛧䛔ே≀ീ䛃䜢♧䛩ሙ㠃䛷⾲⌧䛸䛧䛶㑅䜀䜜䛯䛸䛔䛘䜛䚹㻌㻌䠎䠊䜰䝫䝻䜼䜰䛸䛿ఱ䛛㻌
ᮏⓎ⾲䛷ᢅ䛖䜰䝫䝻䜼䜰䛸䛿䚸䝁䝭䝳䝙䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁⌮ㄽ䛾◊✲ศ㔝䛷䛒䜛䝺䝖䝸䝑䜽䠍䛾䛺䛛䛾䠍◊✲ศ㔝䛷䛒䜛䚹୺䛻ㅰ⨥఍ぢ䠎䛾ሙ㠃䜢ᢅ䛔䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛜⮬ศ⮬㌟䛻䛴䛔䛶ㄒ䜛᫬䚸౑⏝䛩䜛ᡓ␎䛾⌮ㄽ䛸䛥䜜䜛䚹ᮏⓎ⾲䛷䛸䜚䛒䛢䛯㎡௵఍ぢ䛿䚸ㅰ⨥఍ぢ䛾䠍ศ㔝䛸ぢ䛺䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛯䜑䚸㎡௵఍ぢ䛾ゝㄝ䛷䜒ヰ䛧ᡭ䛿䜰䝫䝻䜼䜰䜢㥑౑䛧䛶䛔䜛䛸䛥䜜䜛䚹㻌㻌䠏䠊䜰䝫䝻䜼䜰䛾䠐䛴䛾ᡓ␎㻌䜰䝫䝻䜼䜰䛾┠ⓗ䛿䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛜⪺䛝ᡭ䜢ㄝᚓ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛻䛒䜛䚹ヰ䛧ᡭ䛿䚸᫬䛻䛿⮬䜙䛾ே≀ീ䜢ኚ᭦䛧⮬㌟䜈䛾ඹឤ䛺䛹䜢㏻䛨䛶⪺䛝ᡭ䛾ឤ᝟䛻ാ䛝䛛䛡䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䜢ㄝᚓ䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖䚹ㄝᚓ䛿䠐䛴䛾ᡓ␎䛷⾜䜟䜜䜛䛸䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹㻌䛥䜙䛻䚸䛣䜜䜙䛾ᡓ␎䛿኱䛝䛟䠎䛴䛻ศ䛛䜜䜛䚹䠍䛴䛿䚸䠄㻭䠅ྰᐃ䛸㻔㻯㻕ศ᩿䛾䜾䝹䞊䝥䛷䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛜ᣢ䛳䛶䛔䜛ヰ䛧ᡭീ䛻ᑐ䛧䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ⮬㌟䛜ኚ᭦䜢୚䛘䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ⮬㌟䛜ṇ䛧䛔䛸ᛮ䛳䛶䛔䜛⮬ᕫീ䜢♧䛩ᡓ␎䛷䛒䜛䚹䜒䛖 㻝 䛴䛿䚸⿵ᙉ㻔㻮㻕䛸㉸㉺㻔㻰㻕䛾䜾䝹䞊䝥䛷䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛜ዲ䜎䛧䛟ᛮ䛖䜲䝯䞊䝆䛻䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ⮬㌟䛜㐍䜣䛷⮬ศ䛾䜲䝯䞊䝆䜢㏆䛵䛡䜛䛣䛸䛷ඹឤ䜢ᚓ䜘䛖䛸䛩䜛ᡓ␎䛷䛒䜛䚹䛭䜜䛮䜜䛾ᡓ␎䛜ാ䛝䛛䛡䜛ឤ᝟䛿䚸ḟ䛾䜘䛖䛻䛺䜛䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹㻌

−257−

レトリックと受身㻌䠐䛴䛾ᡓ␎䛸ᴫせ䚸ឤ᝟䛸䛾㛵ಀ㻌䠄㻭䠅㻌 ྰᐃ䠖␲䛔䜢ྰᐃ䛩䜛䛣䛸䚸䛂䡚䛷䛺䛔䛃䛸ゝⴥ䛷᫂♧䛩䜛䛣䛸䊻₩ⓑ䛾ᥦ♧㻌䠄㻮䠅㻌 ⿵ᙉ䠖ྰᐃ䜢⿵ᙉ䛩䜛㏣ຍ䛾ㄝ᫂䜢䛩䜛䛣䛸䊻ዲ䜎䛧䛔ே≀ീ䜢♧䛩䛣䛸㻌䠄㻯䠅㻌 ศ᩿䠖᪂䛧䛔䜒䛾䛾ぢ᪉䜢ᥦ౪䛩䜛䛣䛸䚸ᯟ䜢䛪䜙䛧䛶ぢ䛫䜛䛣䛸䊻ከ㠃ⓗ䛻≀஦䜢ᤊ䛘䜛䛣䛸㻌䠄㻰䠅㻌 ㉸㉺䠖⪺䛝ᡭ䛾䛰䜜䜒䛜Ẽ䛵䛔䛶䛔䛺䛔䜘䜚኱䛝䛺ᯟ⤌䜏䜢♧䛩䛣䛸䊻኱ᡤ䞉㧗ᡤ䛛䜙䛾ぢ᪉䜢♧䛩䛣䛸㻌㻌ᅗ 㻝㻌 䜰䝫䝻䜼䜰䛾ᡓ␎䛸ឤ᝟㻌
䨛
ኚ
᭦
䪮
䠇
䪯

㻌
㻌
㻌

ヰ
䧣
ᡭ
䧸
䨧
䩤
䩻
䨻

⪺
䧙
ᡭ㻌
䧘
ᣢ㻌
䧮

ヰ䛧ᡭ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ඹឤ㻌 䠄䠇䠅㻌
ྰᐃ㻌

⿵ᙉ㻌

ศ᩿㻌

㉸㉺㻌

౛࠼ࡤ㺃㺃㺃䠘䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛜䛚㔠䜢䜒䜙䛳䛯䛃䛸⪺䛝ᡭ䛜ᛮ䛳䛶䛔䜛≧ἣ䛷䚸䛂䜒䜙䛳䛶䛔䛺䛔䛃䛣䛸䜢♧䛧⣡ᚓ䛧䛶䜒䜙䛖ㄯヰ䛾౛䠚䠄A䠅 ⚾䛿䚸䛚㔠䛿඲䛟䜒䜙䛳䛶䛔䛺䛔

䠄B䠅 ⚾䛿䚸≟䛿䛒䜎䜚ዲ䛝䛷䛺䛔䛜䚸䛣䛾Ꮚ≟䛿䛹䛖䛔䛖䜟䛡䛛⚾䛜㣵䜢䜔䜙䛺䛔䛸㣵䜢㣗䜉䛺䛔䚹䛹䛖䜒䛺䛴䛛䜜䛶䛧䜎䛳䛯䜘䛖䛰䚹䠄C䠅 䛧䛛䛧䚸䛚㔠䛿䜒䜙䛳䛶䛔䛺䛔䛜䚸ᐇ

䠄D䠅㻌 ⚾䛜䛂≟䛿᎘䛔䛰䛃䛸䛔䛳䛶ୡヰ䜢䛧䛺䛡䜜䜀䚸

䛿㉗䜙䜜䛯䜒䛾䛜䛒䜛䚹Ꮚ≟䛰䚹ື≀ឡㆤᅋయ䛛䜙㠀㞴䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䛻䛺䜛䛰䜝䛖䚹䛚㔠䜢䜒䜙䛖䛹䛣䜝䛛䚸ᨭᡶ䛔䛜ቑ䛘䜛୍᪉䛰䚹䠐䠊 ㎡௵఍ぢ䠏䛷ཷ㌟䛜ฟ⌧䛧䛯ලయ౛䛸䛭䛾᫬䛾ヰ㢟㻌ᐇ㝿䛾఍ぢ䛷ཷ㌟䛜ฟ⌧䛧䛯䛾䛿䚸ᑵ௵䜔ḟᨻᶒ䛻䛴䛔䛶㏙䜉䜛ሙ㠃䚸䜎䛯ᅾ௵୰䛾஦௳䛺䛹䛻䛴䛔䛶㏙䜉䜛ሙ㠃䛷䛒䛳䛯䚹䛣䜜䜙䛾ሙ㠃䜢䚸䜰䝫䝻䜼䜰䛾ศ㢮䛻䛧䛯䛜䛳䛶ᩚ⌮䛧䛯䛸䛣䜝䚸ḟ䛾䜘䛖䛻䛺䛳䛯䚹㻌㻌㻠䠉㻝䠊㻌 ྰᐃ㻔㻭㻕䛾౛䠖㻌 㻜 ౛㻌㻌 䛂䡚䜙䜜䛺䛔䛃䛾䜘䛖䛺䛂ཷ㌟䠇䛺䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖⾲⌧䛿䚸௒ᅇᑐ㇟䛸䛧䛯㎡௵఍ぢ䛛䜙䛿᥇ྲྀ䛷䛝䛺䛛䛳䛯䚹㻌㻌㻠䠉㻞䠊㻌 ⿵ᙉ㻌 㻔㻮㻕䛾౛䠖㻌 䠓౛㻌⿵ᙉ䛿䚸ዲ䜎䛧䛔ே≀ീ䛾ᥦ౪䜢┠ⓗ䛸䛩䜛䚹᥇ྲྀ䛧䛯ሙ㠃䛿䚸ᑵ௵䛻䛴䛔䛶㏙䜉䜛ሙ㠃䐟䚸ຓゝ⪅䛸䛺䜛ሙ㠃䐠䚸ᅾ௵୰䛾஦௳䛻䛴䛔䛶㏙䜉䜛ሙ㠃䐡䛾䠏ሙ㠃䛷䚸ḟ䛾 㻣 ౛䛜ヱᙜ䛩䜛䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹㻌䐟䠘ᑵ௵䛻䛴䛔䛶㏙䜉䜛ሙ㠃㻙ᑵ௵᫬䛾ᮇᚅ䛧䛯㡭䜢ᛮ䛔ฟ䛧䛶䠚㻌౛䠍㻌 ṇ┤⏦䛧䜎䛧䛶䚸᭱ึ䛛䜙䛷䛩䛽䚸ᨻ἞㈨㔠䛾ၥ㢟䚸ᖺ㔠グ㘓ၥ㢟䚸䜎䛯 C ᆺ⫢⅖ၥ㢟䚸㜵⾨┬䛾୙⚈஦䚸䡡䡡䡡ḟ䛛䜙ḟ䜈䛸✚ᖺ䛾ၥ㢟䛜㢧ᅾ໬䛧䛶䛝䛯䛸䚸䛣䛖䛔䛖䛣䛸䛻㐼㐝䜢䛔䛯䛧䛯䜟䛡䛷䛒䜚䜎䛧䛶䚸䛭䛾ฎ⌮䛻ᛁẅ䜢䛥䜜䜎䛧䛯䚹䠄F䠅౛䠎㻌 ゝ䛖䛺䜙䜀䚸䡡䡡䡡⚾䛿䛭䛾௵䛻䛴䛔䛯䛸䛝䛻䚸⮬ศ䛺䜚䛻஬༑ᖺ䛾⠇┠䛻㐼㐝䜢䛧䛶䚸ୡ⏺䛜኱䛝䛟㌿᥮䜢䛩䜛䚸䛣䛖䛔䛖᫬௦䛻䛚䛡䜛Ṕྐⓗ䛺ᙺ๭䛜ᢸ䜟䛥䜜䛯䛸䚹䠄N䠅䐠䠘ḟᅜ఍䛻䛴䛔䛶㏙䜉䜛ሙ㠃㻙ḟ䛾⥲⌮䛻⤒㦂⪅䛸䛧䛶ຓゝ䛷䛝䜛ே≀䠚㻌౛䠏㻌 䛔䜎䚸᪥ᮏ⤒῭䛿䚸ᅜẸ⏕ά䜢⪃䛘䛯ሙྜ䛻䚸௒ᗘ㛤䛛䜜䜛ᅜ఍䛷䛣䛾䜘䛖䛺䛣䛸䛿Ỵ䛧䛶㉳䛣䛳䛶䛿䛺䜙䛺䛔䛣䛸䚹䠄F䠅

−258−

第15回大会発表論文集

䐡第８号

䠘ᅾ௵୰䛻㉳䛝䛯஦௳䛻䛴䛔䛶㏙䜉䜛ሙ㠃㻙௵ົ䛿㐙⾜䛧䛯䠚㻌౛䠐㻌 ஦௳䜔஦ᨾ䛻㏣䛔䜎䛟䜙䜜䛶䛝䛯୍ᖺ䛷䜒䛒䛳䛯䛸ゝ䛳䛶䜒㐣ゝ䛷䛿䛺䛔䜘䛖䛺ᖺ䛷䛒䛳䛯䛸⚾䛿ᛮ䛔䜎
䛩䚹䠄M䚸௚䛻 2 ౛䠐䠅౛䠑㻌 䛧䛛䛧䚸⾜ᨻᨵ㠉䛸䛔䛖䜒䛾䜢୰㍈䛻䛧䛶䚸≉䛻䛒䛾㡭䛿䠏䠧䛸䛔䛖䜒䛾䛜ၥ㢟䛷䛧䛯䚹ᅜ㕲䚸೺ಖ䚸⡿䛸䚸䛣䜜䜢䛛䛯䛵䛡䜛䛸䛔䛖኱䛝䛺௙஦䜢୚䛘䜙䜜䜎䛧䛶䚸䡡䡡䡡⾜ᨻᨵ㠉䜢୰ᚰ䞉୰㍈䛻䛧䛶䡡䡡䡡䚸⚾䛾Ẽᣢ䛱䜒䛭䛖䛔䛖஦䛷䛒䛳䛯䜟䛡䛷䛩䚹䠄N䠅㻠䠉㻟䠊ศ᩿㻔㻯㻕䛾౛䠖㻌 䠍౛㻌ศ᩿䛿䚸᪂䛧䛔䜒䛾䛾ぢ᪉䜢ᥦ౪䛩䜛䚹ᅾ௵୰䛾஦௳䛻䛴䛔䛶㏙䜉䜛ሙ㠃䛛䜙䚸᥇ྲྀ䛧䛯䚹ศ᩿䛿䛂㉳䛝䛯஦௳䛜ၥ㢟䛻䛺䜛䛰䛡䛨䜓䛺䛟䚸䛭䛾⫼ᚋ䛻䛒䜛ၥ㢟䛻䛿Ẽ䛜䛴䛔䛶䛔䜎䛩䛛䛃䛸ၥ䛔䛛䛡䚸どⅬ䜢ኚ᭦䛧䜘䛖䛸䛩䜛ヰ䛧ᡭ䛾ពᅗ䛜♧䛥䜜䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸ู䛾❧ሙ䛛䜙䛾䜒䛾䛾ぢ᪉䜢ᥦ♧䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜┠ⓗ䛸䛺䛳䛶䛔䜛䛸䛔䛘䜛䚹㻌౛䠒㻌 ᭦䛻⛅䛻䛿䚸Ἀ⦖䛾஧ே䛾ᑡዪ䛜㠀㐨䛺஦௳䛻㐼䛖䛸䛔䛳䛯䜘䛖䛺ၥ㢟䜒䛤䛦䛔䜎䛧䛶䚸Ἀ⦖䛻䛚䛡䜛ᇶᆅ䛾ၥ㢟䜔䚸᪥⡿Ᏻಖయไ䚸Ᏻಖ᮲⣙䛾ᅾ䜚᪉➼䛻䛴䛔䛶ၥ䜟䜜䜛஦ែ䛸䛺䛳䛶䜎䛔䜚䜎䛧䛯䚹䠄M䠅㻠䠉㻠䠊㉸㉺㻔㻰㻕䛾౛䠖㻌 䠍౛㻌㉸㉺䛾┠ⓗ䛿䚸኱ᡤ䞉㧗ᡤ䛛䜙䛾䜒䛾䛾ぢ᪉䜢ᥦ౪䛩䜛䚹䛣䛾ሙ㠃䛿䚸䠘༢⊂ᨻᶒ䚸䛒䜛䛔䛿Ỉಛ⑓䛾䜘䛖䛺⊃䛔ヰ㢟䛨䜓䛺䛔䚸䛣䛣䛷ၥ㢟䛻䛧䛶䛔䜛䛾䛿䚸୕ඪ㐃❧䛸䛔䛖኱䛝䛺ᯟ⤌䜏䜔䚸බᐖ䛾ཎⅬ䛾䜘䛖䛺኱䛝䛺ᯟ⤌䜏䛾䛣䛸䜢ヰ䛧䛶䛔䜛䛾䛰䠚䛸㏙䜉䜛ሙ㠃䛷᥇ྲྀ䛧䛯䚹㻌౛䠓㻌 䛭䛧䛶䚸䛣䛾୕ඪ㐃❧ᨻᶒ䛷䛺䛡䜜䜀ᡂ䛧ᚓ䛺䛔䛸ᛮ䜟䜜䛶䜎䛔䜚䜎䛧䛯⿕⇿⪅᥼ㆤἲ䛾ၥ㢟䚸䛒䜛䛔䛿䚸ᚑ㌷៘Ᏻ፬䛾ၥ㢟䚸䛒䜛䛔䛿䜎䛯බᐖ䛾ཎⅬ䛸䜒ゝ䜟䜜䜛Ỉಛ⑓䛾ၥ㢟➼䛻䛴䛔䛶䜒୍ᛂ䛾Ỵ╔䜢䛴䛡䜛䛣䛸䛜ฟ᮶䛯䛸⚾䛿ᛮ䛳䛶䛚䜚䜎䛩䚹䠄M䠅㻌௨ୖ䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸㎡௵఍ぢ䛻䛚䛡䜛䜰䝫䝻䜼䜰䛸ཷ㌟䛾ฟ⌧ᩘ䜢ᩚ⌮䛩䜛䛸ḟ䛾䜘䛖䛻䛺䛳䛯䚹䠄⾲䠍䠅㻌㻌⾲䠍㻌 ㎡௵఍ぢ䛻䛚䛡䜛䜰䝫䝻䜼䜰䛸ཷ㌟䛾ฟ⌧ᩘ㻌㻔㻭㻕㻌 ྰᐃ䠖㻌 䠌౛㻌㻔㻮㻕㻌 ⿵ᙉ䠖㻌 䠏䛴䛾ሙ㠃䚸ィ 㻣 ౛㻌㻔㻯㻕㻌 ศ᩿䠖㻌 䠍䛴䛾ሙ㠃䚸䠍౛㻌㻔㻰㻕㻌 ㉸㉺䠖㻌 䠍䛴䛾ሙ㠃䚸䠍౛㻌㻌ヰ䛧ᡭ䛜㎡௵఍ぢ䛷ཷ㌟䜢౑䛖䛾䛿䚸䛂⿵ᙉ䞉ศ᩿䞉㉸㉺䛃䛾䠏䛴䛾䜰䝫䝻䜼䜰䛾ᡓ␎䛾ሙ㠃䛷䛒䛳䛶䚸ཷ㌟䛸䛔䛖ゝⴥ䛷᫂♧䛧䛂ྰᐃ䛃䛩䜛⾲⌧䛿ほᐹ䛷䛝䛺䛛䛳䛯䚹䜎䛯䚸⿵ᙉ䛿䠏䛴䛾ሙ㠃䛷ほᐹ䛷䛝䛯䛜䚸ศ᩿䛸㉸㉺䛿ྛ䚻䠍䛴䛾ሙ㠃䛷䛒䛳䛯䚹௨ୖ䛛䜙䚸ཷ㌟䜢౑⏝䛩䜛ሙ㠃䛿䛂⿵ᙉ䛃䛸䛔䛖ᡓ␎䛾ሙ㠃䛷᭱䜒ከ䛔䛣䛸䛜ほᐹ䛷䛝䛯䚹㻌㻌䠑䠊䝺䝖䝸䝑䜽䛾⾲⌧ຠᯝ㻌䝺䝖䝸䝑䜽䛷䛿䚸ാ䛝䛛䛡䛻ᙉᙅ䛜䛒䜛䛸⪃䛘䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䛭䛾ᙉᙅ䛻䜘䛳䛶ㄝᚓ䛻ᙳ㡪䛜䛒䜛䛸䛩䜛䚹ヰ䛧ᡭ䛜ᙉ䛟ാ䛝䛛䛡䜛䛸䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛾⣡ᚓ䜢ᚓ䛻䛟䛔䛸䛩䜛䚹䛣䛣䛷䚸௬䛻ᅗ䠍䛾⦪ୗྥ䛝▮༳䛜䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛾ᙳ㡪ຊ䛜ᙉ䛔䛣䛸䜢♧䛧䛶䛔䜛䛸䛩䜛䛺䜙䚸䛂ྰᐃ䛃䛸䛂⿵ᙉ䛃䛾⾲⌧䛜⪺䛝ᡭ䛾⣡ᚓ䜢ᚓ䜔䛩䛟䚸䛂ศ᩿䛃䛸䛂㉸㉺䛃䛾⾲⌧䛷䛿䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛾⣡ᚓ䛜ᚓ䛻䛟䛔䛣䛸䛻䛺䜛䚹⪺䛝ᡭ䛾⣡ᚓ䛧䜔䛩䛥䛸䛔䛖Ⅼ䛻䛴䛔䛶䜒䛂⿵ᙉ䛃䛾ᡓ␎䛿ຠᯝ䛜኱䛝䛔䛣䛸䛜᥎ 䛷䛝䜛䚹㻌
㻌
㻌
㻌

−259−

レトリックと受身ᅗ 㻞㻌 䜰䝫䝻䜼䜰䛾ᡓ␎䛸䝺䝖䝸䝑䜽䛷♧䛥䜜䜛⪺䛝ᡭ䛾⣡ᚓ㻌
㻌
䨻
䨛
ኚ
㻌᭦
䪮
䠇
㻌䪯

ヰ
䧣
ᡭ
䧸
䨧
䩤
䩻

⪺
䧙
ᡭ
䧘
ᣢ
䧮

⪺
䧙
ᡭ
⣡
ᚓ
䪮
䠇
䪯

ヰ䛧ᡭ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ඹឤ㻌 䠄䠇䠅㻌
ྰᐃ㻌

⿵ᙉ㻌

ศ᩿㻌

㉸㉺㻌

㻌
㻌
䠒䠊䜎䛸䜑㻌
ᮏⓎ⾲䛿䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛜ཷ㌟䜢౑⏝䛩䜛⌮⏤䜢䜰䝫䝻䜼䜰䛾䠐䛴䛾ᡓ␎䛛䜙ㄝ᫂䛧䜘䛖䛸䛩䜛䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹䛭䛾⤖ᯝ䚸䛣䛾䠏䛴䛾㎡௵఍ぢ䛷䛿䚸䜰䝫䝻䜼䜰䛾䠐䛴䛾ᡓ␎䛾䛖䛱䚸䛂⿵ᙉ䛃䚸䛴䜎䜚䛂ዲ䜎䛧䛔ே≀ീ䛾ᥦ౪䛃䛸䛔䛖ᩥ⬦䛾ሙ㠃䛷䚸ཷ㌟䛾౑⏝䛜ከ䛔䛣䛸䛜ほᐹ䛷䛝䛯䚹ヰ䛧ᡭ⮬㌟䛜⮬䜙䜢䛂⥲⌮䛸䛧䛶ዲ䜎䛧䛔ே≀䛷䛒䛳䛯䛃䛣䛸䜢♧䛭䛖䛸䛩䜛᫬䚸䛭䛾⾲⌧䛜ཷ㌟⾲⌧䛰䛳䛯䛸䛔䛘䜛䚹୍᪉䚸䛂ྰᐃ䛃䛸ぢ䜙䜜䜛౑⏝౛䛿䛺䛛䛳䛯䚹㻌䜎䛯ཷ㌟⾲⌧䛿䚸䛂⿵ᙉ䛃௨እ䛻䜒䛂ศ᩿䛃䛸䛂㉸㉺䛃䛷䛭䜜䛮䜜 㻝 ౛䛪䛴ฟ⌧䛧䛶䛔䛯䚹䛣䛾䠎䛴䛾ᡓ␎䛻ඹ㏻䛩䜛
≉ᚩ䛿䚸䛂⪺䛝ᡭ䛜ᣢ䛴ヰ䛧ᡭ䛾䜲䝯䞊䝆䜢ኚ᭦䛩䜛䛃䛣䛸䛷䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛜䜘䜚✚ᴟⓗ䛺ែᗘ䛷⪺䛝ᡭ䜢ㄝᚓ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛷䛒䜛䚹䛧䛛䛧䚸ཷ㌟⾲⌧䛾඲ฟ⌧ᩘ䛜 㻥 ౛䛷䛒䜛䛖䛱䛾 㻞 ౛䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛛䜙䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛜ㄝᚓ䛻ᑐ䛧䛶✚ᴟⓗ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢♧䛩䜘䜚䜒ᾘᴟⓗ䛺ែᗘ䜢♧䛩䛯䜑䛻౑⏝䛥䜜䛯䛸䛔䛘䜛䚹ㄝᚓ䛻䛒䛯䜛ヰ䛧ᡭ䛾ែᗘ䛜ᾘᴟⓗ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛿䚸䝺䝖䝸䝑䜽⾲⌧䛾ຠᯝ䛸䛧䛶䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛾⣡ᚓ䛜ᚓ䜔䛩䛔䛸䛥䜜䜛䚹㻌䛥䜙䛻䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛛䜙䛾ඹឤ䛾ᚓ䜔䛩䛔䛸䛔䛖Ⅼ䛷䜒䛂⿵ᙉ䛃䛸䛂㉸㉺䛃䛜㑅䜀䜜䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛛䜙䛾⣡ᚓ䜢ᚓ䜔䛩䛥䛸䛔䛖Ⅼ䛷䚸䛂⿵ᙉ䛃䛜㑅䜀䜜䜛䛣䛸䛛䜙䚸䛭䛾䜘䛖䛺ሙ㠃䛷౑䜟䜜䜛ཷ㌟⾲⌧䛜ඹឤ䜔⣡ᚓ䜢ᚓ䜛䛯䜑䛻౑⏝䛥䜜䛯䛸䛔䛘䜛䚹㻌䛴䜎䜚䚸ཷ㌟⾲⌧䛿䚸䜰䝫䝻䜼䜰ᡓ␎䛷䛾䛂⿵ᙉ䛃䛷౑⏝䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䛜ከ䛔䚹䛂⿵ᙉ䛃䛿䚸䠄㻮䠅ዲ䜎䛧䛔ே≀ീ䜢ᥦ౪䛩䜛ᡓ␎䛷䛒䜚䚸ㄝᚓ䛻䛒䛯䜛ヰ䛧ᡭ䛾ែᗘ䛜ᾘᴟⓗ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䚸ඹឤ䛜ᚓ䜔䛩䛔䛣䛸䛛䜙ཷ㌟⾲⌧䛜౑⏝䛥䜜䛯䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹㻌㻌㻌ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩䠖ᒸ㒊ᮁ୍㻌 㻔㻝㻥㻥㻞㻕㻌 㻌 䛄ᨻ἞䝁䝭䝳䝙䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁䛅㻌 ᭷ᩫ㛶㑅᭩㻌㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㤶す⚽ಙ௚㻌 䠄㻞㻜㻜㻠䠅㻌 䛄䝺䝖䝸䝑䜽᥈ồἲ䛅㻌 ᮅ಴᭩ᗑ㻌
㻌
㻌
㻌
㻌
䠍

㻌 ⡿ᅜ኱⤫㡿䛾₇ㄝ䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸ㄝᚓ䛸䛔䛖ほⅬ䛛䜙䛾◊✲䛺䛹䛜┒䜣䛺ศ㔝䠎㻌 ⮬ศ䛾⾜ື䛻䛴䛔䛶ㄝ᫂䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖ព࿡䛾 㼑㼤㼏㼡㼟㼑 䛾ㄯヰ䠏ᮏⓎ⾲䛷ᑐ㇟䛸䛧䛯㎡௵఍ぢ䛿䠏䛴䛷䛒䜛䚹ྛ౛䛾ᩥᮎ䛻䛿䛭䜜䛮䜜䚸䠄F䠅⚟⏣ᗣኵ䚸䠄M䠅ᮧᒣᐩᕷ䚸䠄N䠅:୰᭮᰿ᗣᘯ䛾 3 ே䛾⥲⌮䛾㎡௵఍ぢ䛾ㄯヰ䛷䛒䜛䚹(ᩗ⛠␎)㻌
䠐㻌 ௚䛾 㻞 ౛䛿ḟ䛾㏻䜚䚹䝫䝇䝍䞊Ⓨ⾲䛾䛯䜑䚸༑ศ䛺䝇䝨䞊䝇䛜䛸䜜䛪䚸┬␎䛧䛯䚹㻌౛ 㻠㻙㻞㻌 ปᝏ஦௳䛻ᑐ䛩䜛෌Ⓨ䛾㜵Ṇ䡡䡡䡡䛿䚸ᚭᗏᤚᰝ䛜⥆䛡䜙䜜䛶඲ᐜ䛜ゎ᫂䛥䜜䛴䛴䛒䜚䜎䛩䛜䚸䡡䡡䡡ᑐᛂ䛻䛴䛝䜎䛧䛶䜒䚸୓඲䜢ᮇ䛩䜛యไ䜢ᩚ䛯䜑䛻ດຊ䜢䛧䛶䜎䛔䜚䜎䛧䛯䚹㻌౛ 㻠㻙㻡㻌 䛣䛾୍ᖺ㛫䛿඲䛟᝿ᐃฟ᮶䛺䛔䜘䛖䛺஦௳䜔஦ᨾ䛜┦ḟ䛔䛷䜎䛔䜚䜎䛧䛯䛡䜜䛹䜒䚸⚾䛿⚾䛺䜚䛻୚䛘䜙䜜䛯ㄢ㢟䛻䛴䛔䛶඲ຊ䜢ᣲ䛢䛶ྲྀ䜚⤌䜣䛷䛝䛯䛴䜒䜚䛷䛤䛦䛔䜎䛩䚹㻌−260−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

఍ヰࡢ᥎ព࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ ‘proximal’—ᑻᗘ᥎ពࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࢥ⣔࡜࢔⣔ࡢศᯒ—ᖹ⏣ᮍᏘ໭ᾏ㐨኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᅜ㝿ᗈሗ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔◊✲⛉asandtem@yahoo.co.jp

㸺abstract㸼
The present study provides an analysis of Japanese demonstrative pronouns, ko- and a- based on the
pragmatic theory of conversational implicature. In contrast to the previous accounts of the meaning of koand a-, in which ko- encodes [+proximal] and a- encodes [-proximal], the distributional facts show theindicating range of ko- and a- are asymmetrical. While a- indicates only referents that are far from the
speaker, ko- has flexibility with regard to the spatial location of its referents and conceivable in contexts
where a- is used. The present analysis reasons that ko- does not encode any spatial information, and shows
proximity of ko- is not entailment but scalar implicature using the neo-Gricean framework.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸ᣦ♧モ㸪┤♧⏝ἲ㸪᝟ሗᥦ౪ᛶ㸪ᑻᗘ᥎ព1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᚑ᮶ࢥ⣔㸪࢔⣔ࡢព࿡ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ [+proximal]㸪[-proximal] ࡜グ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡇࡢグ㏙࠿ࡽࡣࢥ⣔࡜࢔⣔ࡀᑐ⛠ᛶࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࡀண

ࡉࢀࡿࡀ㸪ᐇ㝿ࡣࢥ⣔࡜࢔⣔ࡢศᕸ࡟ࡣ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

࢔⣔ࡀ [-proximal] ࡢᣦᐃ㏻ࡾ㸪ヰ⪅࡟㏆᥋ࡍࡿᑐ㇟ࡣᣦࡏ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪ࢥ⣔ࡣ౑⏝ྍ⬟࡞⠊ᅖࡀᗈࡃ㸪ヰ⪅࠿ࡽ㐲ࡢᑐ㇟ࢆࡶᣦࡋ࠺ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣ㸪ࡇࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࡣ୧⪅ࡢ᝟ሗ㔞ࡢᕪ࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ Enfield (2003, 2009) ࡢࣛ࢜ㄒᣦ♧モศᯒࢆࡶ࡜࡟♧ࡋ㸪[+proximal] ࡣ㸪ࢥ⣔ࡢព࿡࡛ࡣ
࡞ࡃ㸪᝟ሗ㔞ࡢ␗࡞ࡿ௦᭰ᙧ㸪࢔⣔ࡢᏑᅾ࡟ࡼࡾ⏕ࡌࡿᑻᗘ᥎ព࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄽࡌࡿࠋ

2. ࢥ⣔࡜࢔⣔ࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ⓗ࡞ศᕸ ከࡃࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࢥ⣔࡜࢔⣔ࡢព࿡ࡣ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟グ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (Hoji et al.
2003, ⏣❑ 2008㸪ሐ 2012 ➼)ࠋ

(1) ࢥ⣔/࢔⣔ࡢព࿡⣲ᛶ (⏣❑ 2008: 328-329)
   ࢥ⣔   [+proximal]−261−

会話の推意としての ʻproximalʼ―尺度推意を用いたコ系とア系の分析―   ࢔⣔   [-proximal] (1) ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ [proximal] ࡣࢥ⣔࡜࢔⣔࡟୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿㄒᙡ⣲ᛶ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪[+proximal] ࡣࢥ⣔ࡀࠕ㏆࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿせ⣲࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡃࠖࡇ࡜ࢆ㸪[-proximal] ࡣ࢔⣔ࡀࠕ㐲࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿせ⣲࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡃࠖࡇ࡜ࢆᣦᐃࡍࡿ (⏣❑ 2008: 329)ࠋⓎヰሙ㠃ࡢせ⣲࡟ᑐࡍࡿࡇࡢࠕ㏆ࠖࠕ㐲ࠖࡢุ᩿ࡣ㸪⤯ᑐⓗ࡞ᇶ‽࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ㄆ▱୺య࡛࠶ࡿヰࡋᡭࡀ୺ほⓗ࡟Ỵᐃࡍࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚㸪Ⓨヰ✵㛫࡛ྠࡌ఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿᑐ㇟ࢆࠕ㏆ࠖ࡜ุ᩿ࡋࢥ⣔࡛ᣦࡍࡇ࡜ࡶ㸪ࠕ㐲ࠖ࡜ุ᩿ࡋ࢔⣔࡛ᣦࡍࡇ࡜ࡶᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣྍ⬟࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ࡇࡢண࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾ㸪ࢥ⣔࡜࢔⣔ࡢᣦ♧㡿ᇦࡣ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࢆ♧ࡍࠋࢥ⣔ࡣ࢔⣔࡜ᇶᮏⓗ࡟஺᭰ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾ≀⌮ⓗ࡟㞳ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᑐ㇟ࡶᣦࡋ࠺ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪࢔⣔ࡣ㸪ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ヰࡋᡭ࡟㏆᥋ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ㸪ࢥ⣔࡜஺᭰ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ (⏣❑ 2002, 2008)ࠋ

 (2) ࢔⣔࡜஺᭰ྍ⬟࡞ࢥ⣔   (㞄࡟࠸ࡿே࡟㸪10 ࣓࣮ࢺࣝඛࡢ⏨ࡢேࢆᣦࡉࡋ࡚){ࡇࡢ㸭࠶ࡢ}⏨ࡣࡇࢇ࡝ࢃࡋࡀ࢔   ࣓ࣜ࢝࠿ࡽ㐃ࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ேࡌࡷࠋ(⏣❑ 2008: 330)
 (3) ࢥ⣔࡜஺᭰୙ྍ⬟࡞࢔⣔   (ᡭࢆࡘ࡞࠸࡛࠸ࡿேࢆᣦࡋ࡚) {ࡇࡢ㸭*࠶ࡢ}ேࡣ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ே࡛ࡍࠋ (⏣❑ 2008: 329)⏣❑ (2002: 200) ࡣ㸪ࡇࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࡣヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰሙ㠃ࡢゎ㔘࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ㄢࡉࢀࡿㄆ▱ⓗ࡞ไ⣙ࡢᏑᅾ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࡋ㸪ࡇࢀࢆࠕ㏆⛠ไ⣙ (Condition on Proximal Construal)ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࠋ

 (4) ࠕ㏆⛠ไ⣙ࠖ   ᇶᮏⓗ࡟㐲ࡃ࡟࠶ࡿᑐ㇟ࢆᚰ⌮ⓗ࡞᧯స࡟ࡼࡾ㏆ࡃ࡟ᤊ࠼࡞࠾ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ࠸ࡘ࡛ࡶྍ⬟   ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪㏆ࡃ࡟࠶ࡿࡶࡢࢆ㐲ࡃ࡟ᤊ࠼࡞࠾ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ࠿࡞ࡾ㞴ࡋ࠸ヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰሙ㠃࡟ᑐࡍࡿゎ㔘࡟ (4) ࡢไ㝈ࡀㄢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪ୖ࡛㏙࡭ࡓࢥ⣔࡜࢔⣔ࡢศᕸⓗ஦ᐇࡣㄝ᫂ࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡇࡢไ⣙ࡣࢥ⣔࡜࢔⣔ࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࡢグ㏙ⓗ࡞୍⯡໬࡟㐣ࡂࡎ㸪࡞ࡐࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ไ⣙ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࡇࡢไ⣙ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モࡢศᯒ࡟ࡢࡳ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿไ⣙࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣ㸪ࡇࡢࢥ⣔࡜࢔⣔ࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࡀ㸪ゝㄒᬑ㐢ⓗ࡞⌮ㄽ࡛࠶ࡿ᪂ࢢࣛ࢖ࢫὴࡢᑻᗘ᥎ព࠿ࡽᖐ⤖ࡍࡿᙧ࡛ㄝ᫂ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄽࡌࡿࠋ

3. Enfield (2003, 2009) ࡟ࡼࡿ᥎ព⌮ㄽࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࣛ࢜ㄒᣦ♧モࡢศᯒ ࢥ⣔࣭࢔⣔࡜ྠᵝࡢศᕸ஦ᐇࢆ♧ࡍᣦ♧モయ⣔ࢆᣢࡘゝㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࣛ࢜ㄒ (Lao) ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ

−262−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ࣛ࢜ㄒࡣ nii4 ࡜ nan4 ࡜࠸࠺ 2 ࡘࡢᣦ♧ỴᐃモࢆᣢࡘࠋEnfield (2009: 36) ࡣ㸪ࣅࢹ࢜ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ᇶ࡙
ࡃศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪ࠕnii4 ࡣᖖ࡟㸪nan4 ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ࡑࡢ㏫ࡣ┿࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜㏙࡭㸪୧⪅ࡀᚑ᮶ࡢグ㏙࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿศᕸࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ nii4 ࡜ nan4ࡢศᕸࡣ㸪ࢥ⣔࡜࢔⣔ࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ⓗ࡞ศᕸ࡜୍⮴ࡍࡿࠋEnfield (2003, 2009) ࡣ nii4 ࡜ nan4 ࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ⓗ࡞ศᕸࡣ㸪୧⪅ࡢព࿡ࡢ≉ᐃᗘࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡿ࡜⪃࠼㸪nii4 ࡜ nan4 ࡢព࿡ࢆ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟
グ㏙ࡋࡓࠋ

 (5) Enfield (2003, 2009) ࡟ࡼࡿࣛ࢜ㄒᣦ♧モࡢព࿡グ㏙
nii4

DEM

nan4

DEM NOT HERE1

nii4 ࡣ࠸࠿࡞ࡿ✵㛫᝟ሗࡶࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡽࡎ㸪ᣦ♧モࡢ᰿ᮏⓗ࡞ព࿡‘DEM’ࡢࡳࢆᣢࡘࠋ‘DEM’࡜ࡣ㸪඲࡚ࡢᣦ♧モࡢ᰾࡜࡞ࡿࠕᣦࡋ♧ࡍࠖ(indicating) ᶵ⬟࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀⓎヰሙ㠃࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢࡳࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉㸪nan4 ࡣ‘DEM’࡟ຍ࠼㸪NOT HERE ࡜࠸࠺ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢ✵㛫ⓗ఩⨨ࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿព࿡ࢆᣢࡕ㸪nii4 ࡼࡾࡶࡼࡾᙉ࠸ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪ព࿡ࡢ≉ᐃᗘࡀ␗࡞ࡿ nii4
࡜ nan4 ࡣ᝟ሗᥦ౪ᛶࡢᑻᗘ (informativeness scale) ࢆᙧᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᑻᗘୖࡢព࿡ࡀᙅ࠸㡯┠ࡢ౑⏝ࡣ㸪ព࿡ࡀᙉ࠸㡯┠ࡢ㏫ࢆ᥎ពࡍࡿ (Levinson 2000: 68)ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ㸪nan4 ࡀ౑⏝ྍ⬟࡞ᩥ⬦࡛ࡼࡾព࿡ࡀᙅ࠸ nii4 ࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓሙྜ㸪nan4 ࡀࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡍࡿ NOT HERE ࡢ㏫࡛࠶ࡿ HERE ࡀ᥎ពࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

4. ᥎ព࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㏆᥋ᛶᮏ◊✲ࡣ㸪ࣛ࢜ㄒᣦ♧Ỵᐃモ nii4 / nan4 ࡜ྠᵝࡢศᕸࢆ♧ࡍࢥ⣔࡜࢔⣔ࡶ㸪᝟ሗᥦ౪ᛶࡢ␗࡞ࡿ
ᑐ↷㞟ྜࢆᙧᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋEnfield (2003, 2009) ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࢆ⏝࠸࡚㸪ࢥ⣔࡜࢔⣔ࡢព࿡ࢆ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟෌グ㏙ࡍࡿࠋ (6) ࢥ⣔࡜࢔⣔ࡢព࿡グ㏙
ࢥ⣔

DEM

࢔⣔

DEM NOT HERE

(6) ࡣ㸪✵㛫ⓗ࡟ᰂ㌾ᛶࢆᣢࡘࢥ⣔ࡀ㸪ࣛ࢜ㄒࡢ nii4 ࡜ྠᵝ㸪‘DEM’ ࡢࡳࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ
࡜㸪ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࢔⣔ࡣ㸪nan4 ྠᵝ㸪‘DEM’ ࡟ຍ࠼ ‘NOT HERE’ ࡜࠸࠺ᑐ㇟ࡢ✵㛫᝟ሗࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ

1
 Enfield (2009) ࡣ㸪ᣦ♧モࡢព࿡ཬࡧ᥎ពࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡓࡵ HERE / NOT HERE ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࡀ㸪ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ㆟ㄽࢆ༢⣧࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸪௨ୗࡇࢀࡽࢆ‘proximal / non-proximal’࡜ྠ⩏࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺ࠋ

−263−

会話の推意としての ʻproximalʼ―尺度推意を用いたコ系とア系の分析―໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟᝟ሗᥦ౪ᛶࡀ␗࡞ࡿ㞟ྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪࢔⣔ࡀ౑⏝ྍ⬟࡞ᩥ⬦࡛ព࿡ⓗ࡟ᙅ࠸ࢥ⣔ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓሙྜ㸪࢔⣔ࡀࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡍࡿ ‘NOT HERE’ ࡢ㏫ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ
‘HERE’ ࡀᑻᗘ᥎ពࡉࢀࡿࠋࢥ⣔ࡀᣢࡘ ‘HERE’ ࡜࠸࠺᝟ሗ࡜㸪࢔⣔ࡀᣢࡘ ‘NOT HERE’ ࡜࠸࠺
᝟ሗࡀ㉁ⓗ࡟␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪㸯⠇ࡢ (2), (3) ࡢ౛࡟♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(2) ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᥎ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ᥎ព࡛࠶ࡿ ‘HERE’ ࡣ㸪≉ᐃࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚◚Რྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪࢔⣔ࡢព࿡ㄽⓗྵព࡛࠶ࡿ ‘NOT HERE’ ࡣ (3) ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟◚Რࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

5. ⤖ㄽ ௨ୖ㸪Enfield (2009) ࡢࣛ࢜ㄒᣦ♧モศᯒࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡜ᑻᗘ᥎ព⌮ㄽࢆ⏝࠸࡚㸪ࢥ⣔࡜࢔⣔ࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ⓗ࡞ศᕸࡢㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡓࠋ࢔⣔ࡣࠕ㐲ࠖ࡜࠸࠺✵㛫᝟ሗࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪ࢥ⣔ࡣ࠸࠿࡞ࡿ✵㛫᝟ሗࡶᣢࡓࡎ㸪‘DEM’࡜࠸࠺ࠕᣦࡋ♧ࡍࠖᶵ⬟ࡢࡳࢆᣢࡘࡓࠋୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪ࢥ⣔࡜࢔⣔ࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ⓗ࡞ศᕸࡀㄝ᫂ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪ᡂேࡢ᪥ᖖ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢥ⣔ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡢ㧗ࡉ㸪ࡑࡋ࡚ᣦ♧モ⩦ᚓ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢥ⣔ࡢඃ఩ᛶࡶㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩Anderson, S. R. and E. L. Keenan. 1985. “Deixis.” In T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic
Description 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, 259-308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Enfield, N. J. 2003. “Demonstratives in Space and Interaction: Data from Lao Speakers and Implications for
Semantic Analysis. ”Language 79, 82–117.
Enfield, N. J. 2009. The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Language, Culture
and Cognition 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoji, H., S. Kinsui, Y. Takubo, and A. Ueyama. 2003. “The Demonstratives in Modern Japanese” In Li, Y. A. and
A. Simpson (eds.) Functional Structure(s), Form, and Interaction: Perspective from East Asian
Languages,97-128. London: Routledge Curzon.
㔠Ỉᩄ࣭ᒸᓮ཭Ꮚ࣭᭫⨾ᗒ.2002.ࠕᣦ♧モࡢṔྐⓗ࣭ᑐ↷ゝㄒᏛⓗ◊✲㸫᪥ᮏㄒ࣭㡑ᅜㄒ࣭ࢺࣝࢥㄒ㸫ࠖࠊ⏕㉺┤ᶞ (⦅)ࠗᑐ↷ゝㄒᏛ࠘(ࢩ࣮ࣜࢬゝㄒ⛉Ꮫ)ࠊ➨ 4 ᕳࠊ217-247ࠊᮾி: ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧఍.
Levinson, S. C. 2000.Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature.
Cambridge and London: MIT Press.
⏣❑⾜๎. 2002.ࠕㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿྡモࡢ౑⏝ࠖࠊோ⏣⩏㞝࣭┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ (⦅) ࠗ」ᩥ࡜ㄯヰ࠘(᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥἲ)ࠊ
➨ 4 ᕳࠊ193-216ࠊᮾி: ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ.
⏣❑⾜๎. 2008.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モࡢព࿡ㄽ࡜⤫ㄒㄽ㸫◊✲ྐⓗᴫㄝ㸫ࠖࠊࠗㄒᏛᩍ⫱ࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛ࠘16ࠊ311-337.
ሐⰋ୍. 2012.ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モࡢ⥲ྜⓗ◊✲࠘ᮾி: ࢥࢥฟ∧.

−264−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

࢖ࢠࣜࢫⱥㄒ఍ヰ࡜᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰࡢゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ༳㇟㸫 ẕᅜㄒヰ⪅࡬ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢹ࣮ࢱࡼࡾ 㸫                     ⸨ᮧ࢘࢕ࣝࢯࣥ 㤶ண   Ᏻ⏣ዪᏊ኱Ꮫ㸺Abstract㸼
This article illustrates the way in which English and Japanese people find particularconversational features that reflect their cultural values and importance in speech interaction.
An interview had been conducted in order to find the meanings of particular conversationalfeatures, such as backchannels, pauses, English tag questions and Japanese final particles,
and repetitions, and revealed some rules and expectation towards these conversationalfeatures. These comments were able to be cross-culturally categorized, and the goal of
conversation also diverged between English and Japanese people. In addition, Japanesepeople living in England seemed to show ‘convergence’ since some of their comments weresimilar to those of English people.
࠙Keywordsࠚ: 1. ࢖ࢠࣜࢫⱥㄒ఍ヰࠊ2. ᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰࠊ3. ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢹ࣮ࢱࠊ4. ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࠊ5.
㠀ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫⱥㄒ఍ヰ࡜᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ  ࡘࡢゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ㸦┦ᵔࠊ㛫ࠊ௜ຍ␲ၥ࡜⤊ຓモࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊヰ⪅ࡢពᅗ࡜౑⏝┠ⓗࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡓ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢ⤖ᯝࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ࢖ࢠࣜࢫே࡜᪥ᮏேࡢ⿕㦂⪅࡟ࡣࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡇࢀࡽࡢゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ
⾜Ⅽࡀከࡃ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㘓㡢ࡉࢀࡓ఍ヰࢆ⪺࠸࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࠊ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ༳㇟ࡸࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㏙࡭࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋᮏሗ࿌࡛ࡣ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ࢖ࢠࣜࢫே࡜᪥ᮏேࡢ
㛫࡛ẚ㍑᳨ドࡍࡿ࡜ඹ࡟ࠊ⿕㦂⪅ࡢゝㄒ⎔ቃ࡟ࡼࡿᙳ㡪࡟ࡶ╔┠ࡋࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫ࡟⁫ᅾࡍࡿ᪥ᮏே
࡜᪥ᮏ࡟ఫࡴ᪥ᮏேࡢ␗࡞ࡿぢゎࡶ⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⿕㦂⪅ࡀ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮࡛ࣗ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ⾲⌧࡟ࡶ╔┠ࡋࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫே࡜᪥ᮏேࡢ఍ヰࡢ┠ⓗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ
2. ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢᡭ㡰௒ᅇࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢ⿕㦂⪅ࡣ࢖ࢠࣜࢫࡢࣟࣥࢻࣥ㏆㑹࡟ఫࡴ࢖ࢠࣜࢫே 18 ྡࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫࡢࣟ
ࣥࢻࣥ࡟ᅾఫࡍࡿ᪥ᮏே 18 ྡࠊࡑࡋ࡚᪥ᮏࡢᮾி࡜ᗈᓥ࡟ఫࡴ᪥ᮏே 21 ྡࡢྜィ 57 ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢᡭ㡰࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ᭱ึ࡟⿕㦂⪅㐩࡟࣌࢔࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ 2 ࡘࡢ఍ヰࢆ⪺࠸࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࠊ2 ࡘࡢ఍ヰࡢ㐪࠸ࡸ⪺ࡁࡸࡍࡉࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ⌮⏤ࢆ㏙࡭࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋ࣌࢔࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ 2 ࡘࡢ఍ヰࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣྠࡌ఍ヰ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ୍ࡘࡣ࠶ࡿ≉ᐃࡢゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࢆ඲࡚ྲྀࡾ㝖࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋ௒ᅇྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ≉ᐃࡢゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡣࠊ┦ᵔࠊⓎヰࡢ㛫ࠊ௜ຍ␲ၥ࡜⤊ຓモࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡢ 4 ࡘ࡛ࠊ⿕㦂⪅㐩࡟ࡣྜィ 8 ࡘࡢ఍ヰࢆ⪺࠸࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋ⦅㞟ࡉࢀࡓ఍ヰ࡜඲ࡃ⦅㞟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸1−265−

イギリス英語会話と日本語会話の言語・非言語行為に対する印象―母国語話者へのインタビューデータより―࡞࠸఍ヰࢆ㡰୙ྠ࡛⪺࠸࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ⿕㦂⪅㐩ࡣ㘓㡢఍ヰࢆ⪺ࡃ㝿࡟ࠊ࡝ࡢゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡀ๐㝖ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡣ▱ࡽࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡑࡢᚋࠊゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࢆࡋࠊ⿕㦂⪅㐩࡟ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀ఍ヰ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆ⪺ࡁࠊ఍ヰࡢ୰࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆᑜࡡࡓࠋ⿕㦂⪅㐩ࡣྛ⮬ࡢ⤒㦂ࢆ஺࠼࡞ࡀࡽࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢゎ㔘ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋࠊ᫬࡟ࡣ⮬ᅜࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࢆྵࡵࡓពぢࢆ஺࠼࡞ࡀࡽ⮬⏤࡟ពぢࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡓࠋ

3. ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ⤖ᯝ
3.1 ᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰࡢ࣮ࣝࣝ ᮏ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮࡛ࣗࡣ⿕㦂⪅㐩ࡀẕㄒࡢ౑⏝࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ4 ࡘࡢゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ୍⯡ⓗ࡟᪥ᮏேࡢ⿕㦂⪅㐩ࡣࡇࢀࡽࡢゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡢ౑⏝ࡣ୙ྍḞ࡜⪃࠼ࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸఍ヰ࡟㐪࿴ឤࢆぬ࠼࡚࠸ࡓࠋᙼࡽࡣࡇࢀࡽ
4 ࡘࡢゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡀ఍ヰ࡟ᚲせ࡞⌮⏤ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋࠊ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜࡣྰᐃⓗ࡞ពぢࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከࡃࠊ఍ヰࡢ⌮ゎᗘ࡟ࡶᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚ࡃࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
᪥ᮏேࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ౛࣭ ┦ᵔࡀ㏉ࡗ࡚ࡇ࡞࠸࡜ヰࡀ⥆ࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ࣭ ┦ᵔࡣ⮬ศࡢពぢࡸពᛮ⾲♧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࣭ 㛫ࡀ࡞࠸࡜᪩ࡃ࡚⌮ゎࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ࣭ ࡍࡄ࡟ヰࡍ࡜Ẽࢆ౑ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟⪺ࡇ࠼ࡿࠋ㛫ࡣᚲせࠋ࣭ ᢞࡆ࠿ࡅࡽࢀࡿⓎヰࡢ᪉ࡀࢃ࠿ࡾࡸࡍ࠸ࠋ࣭ ┦ᡭ࡟ྠពࡋ࡚ḧࡋ࠸࡜⪺࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ཯ᛂࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࣭ ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜ෆᐜࡀࡼࡃࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ࣭ ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡀ࠶ࡿ࡯࠺ࡀඖẼ࡛┒ࡾୖࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
3.2 Ⓨゝࡢ⮬⏤࡜࢖ࢠࣜࢫⱥㄒ఍ヰ ୍᪉ࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫேࡢ⿕㦂⪅ࡣࠊ4 ࡘࡢゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡢ᭷↓ࡀ඲ࡃࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸⪅ࡶ࠾ࡾࠊࡇ
ࢀࡽࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶᵓࢃ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ఍ヰࢆ㐍ࡵࡿୖ࡛ゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡢ౑⏝ࡣẚ㍑ⓗ⮬⏤࡟⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺ࡔࡗࡓࠋ࢖ࢠࣜࢫேࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏே࡜ࡣ㏫࡟ࠊ㢖⦾࡞ゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡢ౑⏝࡟ᑐࡍࡿྰᐃⓗ࡞ពぢࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࠊ㢖⦾࡞౑⏝࡜ࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿឤ
᝿ࢆ “fake,” “boring,” “sarcastic,” “provoking,” “aggressive,” “tedious,” “irritating” ࡞࡝ྛ⮬ࡀᵝࠎ࡞ᙧᐜモࢆ⏝࠸࡚⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
࢖ࢠࣜࢫேࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ౛
࣭ Both conversations sound the same. I don’t mind not receiving backchannels while I’m
speaking.
࣭ When you make a point, you need signals.
࣭ The conversation having no pauses sounds as if interlocutors are agreeing a lot.
2−266−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

࣭ If there are lots of gaps, listeners are not interested in the conversation, or they’re justbeing polite.
࣭ My mother told me not to use tags because they don’t mean anything.
࣭ The utterance without a tag sounds like it makes the point clearer and speakers are notinterrupting each other so much.
࣭ The conversation without repetitions was easier to understand.
3.3 ᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰ࡜࢖ࢠࣜࢫⱥㄒ఍ヰࡢ┠ⓗ ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡟㢖⦾࡟ฟ࡚ࡁࡓ⾲⌧ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜ࠊ⿕㦂⪅㐩ࡀ⪃࠼ࡿ࢖ࢠࣜࢫⱥㄒ
఍ヰ࡜᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰࡢ┠ⓗࡀぢ࠼࡚ࡃࡿࠋ࢖ࢠࣜࢫே࡜᪥ᮏே࡛ࡣ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡢ౑⏝⌮⏤ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ఍ヰࡢ┠ⓗ࡟┦㐪ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ⾲ 1 ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡛㢖⦾࡟౑ࢃࢀࡓ⾲⌧ࡢᅇᩘ
㻝㻜
㻥
㻤
㻣
㻢
㻡
㻠
㻟
㻞
㻝
㻜

ଐஜʴ
ỶἀἼἋʴ

ӷॖ
ửᘙẴ

σज़
ẴỦ

ңᛦ
ẴỦ

ᐻԛ
ửᅆẴ

ᎋả
ửᡓ

ỔỦẆ
ɼࢌ
ẴỦ


᪥ᮏேࡢ⿕㦂⪅㐩ࡣゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡀྠពࠊඹឤࠊ༠ㄪࡋ
࡞ࡀࡽඹ࡟఍ヰࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫேࡢ⿕㦂⪅㐩ࡣࠊ఍ヰࡣ༠ㄪࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࡀࠊヰࡋᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⯆࿡ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡾࠊ⮬ᕫࡢ⪃࠼ࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ኱ษ
࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡓ (⾲ 1 ࢆཧ↷)ࠋ⮬ศࡓࡕࡢ㆟ㄽࡸ୺ᙇࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ពぢࡣ᪥ᮏேࡢ⿕㦂⪅࠿ࡽࡣ඲ࡃ⪺࠿ࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢពぢ࠿ࡽࢃ࠿ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேࡣ࢖ࢠࣜࢫே࡟ẚ࡭௚⪅ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃࠼࡞ࡀࡽ఍ヰࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ኱ษ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫேࡣ༠ㄪࡋ࡞
ࡀࡽ఍ヰ࡟⯆࿡ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊヰ⪅ࡢ⪃࠼ࡸ୺ᙇࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆุ᩿ࡋࠊ௚
⪅࡜ࡢㄪ࿴࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃྛ⮬ࡢ୺ᙇࡢ᫂♧ࢆព㆑ࡍࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏே࡜࢖ࢠࣜࢫேࡢ㛫࡛ពぢࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊబ⸨ (2001) ࡶ⮬ศࡢពぢࢆࡣࡗࡁࡾ㏙࡭ࡿ࢖ࢠࣜࢫே࡟ẚ࡭ࠊ᪥ᮏேࡣ௚⪅ࢆẼ࡟ࡋ㐣ࡂ࡚⮬ศ㐩ࡢពぢࢆࡣࡗࡁࡾ㏙࡭࡞࠸࡜グ㏙ࡋࠊ⮬ᕫ㛤♧ࡸ⮬ᕫ⾲⌧ࡀᚓព࡛࡞࠸᪥ᮏேࡢ≉ᚩࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3.4 ࢖ࢠࣜࢫ࡟ఫࡴ᪥ᮏே ᮏㄪᰝ࡛ࡣ࢖ࢠࣜࢫ࡟⁫ᅾࡍࡿ᪥ᮏே࡟ࡶ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢆ⾜࠸ࠊⱥㄒᅪ࡛⏕άࢆࡍࡿ᪥ᮏேࡢ
఍ヰ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⪃࠼᪉࡟ゝㄒ⎔ቃࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡶ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ࢖ࢠࣜࢫ࡟ఫࡴ᪥ᮏே
3−267−

イギリス英語会話と日本語会話の言語・非言語行為に対する印象―母国語話者へのインタビューデータより―ࡣ⫋ሙࡸᏛᰯ࡛ⱥㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊ᫬࡟ࡣ᪥ᮏேࡢ཭㐩࡜᪥ᮏㄒ࡛఍ヰࢆࡍࡿ 2 ࡘࡢゝㄒ⎔ቃࡀഛࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᙼࡽࡣᮏ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮࡛ࣗࠊ⦅㞟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸఍ヰ࡜⦅㞟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࣌࢔ࡢ఍ヰࢆ⪺࠸ࡓ㝿ࠊ௚ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡢ⿕㦂⪅࡟ẚ࡭ࠊ㐪࠸ࢆぢࡘࡅฟࡍࡇ࡜࡟ඃࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣ᪥ᮏ࡟⁫ᅾࡍࡿ⿕㦂⪅࡟ẚ࡭ࠊⱥㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢ୧ゝㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊゝㄒ㛫ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ゐࢀࡿᶵ఍ࡀከ࠸ࡓࡵࠊゝㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࢆㄆ㆑ࡍࡿ⬟ຊ ‘Language competence’ ࡀඃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Cook, 1991㸧ࡓࡵࡔࡗࡓࠋ ࡲࡓࠊ≉࡟ⱝ࠸⿕㦂⪅ࡣ࢖ࢠࣜࢫே࡜ఝ㏻ࡗࡓពぢࡸྛ⮬ࡢពぢࢆࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡜㏙࡭ࡿഴྥ࡟࠶
ࡗࡓࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ┦ᵔࡢ౑⏝࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ࠶ࡾࡍࡂࡿ࡜࠺ࡗ࡜࠺ࡋ࠸ࠖࠕ⒯࡟ゐࡿࠖ࡞࡝࡜㏙࡭ࠊⓎヰࡢ㛫࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ14 ேࡢ⿕㦂⪅ (70㸣) ࡀ㛫ࡢ࡞࠸఍ヰࢆዲࡳࠊᩄ㏿࡟Ⓨヰࡀ஺᥮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
఍ヰࢆዲࡴഴྥ࡟࠶ࡗࡓࠋ⤊ຓモࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸Ⓨヰࢆዲࡳࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊྠ
ࡌⓎヰࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡿ఍ヰࢆࠕឤ᝟ࡀ⾲ࢀࡍࡂ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⌮⏤࡛ᣄྰࡍࡿ⿕㦂⪅ࡶ࠸ࡓࠋ ࡇࢀࡽࡢពぢ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⿕㦂⪅ࡢ఍ヰ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⪃࠼᪉࡟ࡣࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫ࡛ࡢゝㄒ⎔ቃ࡜ⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡀᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺ࡔࡗࡓࠋゝㄒᚰ⌮Ꮫ࡛ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀࡑࡢሙࡢゝㄒ⎔ቃ࡟㡰ᛂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵ࡟⮬ࡽ㐍ࢇ࡛ゝㄒࡢࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࡿ⾜ື࡟࡛ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢኚ໬ࡣࠕᚰ⌮ⓗ཰᮰ࡢㄏⓎࠖ‘Convergence in the Speech Accommodation Theory’ (Giles
and Coupland, 1991) ࡜࿧ࡤࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫ࡟ఫࡴ᪥ᮏே⿕㦂⪅㐩ࡣ⌧ᆅ࡛⩦ᚓࡋࡓⱥㄒ
ࡢヰࡋ᪉ࢆ᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰ࡟ᛂ⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
4. ࡲ࡜ࡵ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ࡜࠸࠺ᡭἲࢆ⏝࠸࡚఍ヰࡢ 4 ࡘࡢゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ㸦┦ᵔࠊ㛫ࠊ௜ຍ␲ၥ࡜⤊ຓモࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ㸧ࡢ౑⏝ࡢពᅗ࡜┠ⓗࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰ࡜ⱥㄒ఍ヰࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢゝㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ⿕㦂⪅࠿ࡽពぢࢆ㞟ࡵࠊゝㄒ㛫࡛ẚ㍑ࡋࠊ┦㐪ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏே࡜࢖ࢠࣜࢫேࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ 4 ࡘࡢゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡢᚲ
せᛶ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⪃࠼᪉ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ྠពࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ఍ヰࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃ᪥ᮏே࡜ࠊ⮬ศࡢពぢࢆ᫂☜࡟㏙࡭࡞ࡀࡽ఍ヰࢆࡍࡿ࢖ࢠࣜࢫேࡢ఍ヰ࡟ᑐࡍࡿጼໃ࡜┠ⓗࡢ㐪࠸ࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫ࡟⁫ᅾࡍࡿ᪥ᮏேࡢ୰࡟ࡣ࢖ࢠࣜࢫே࡜ఝ㏻ࡗࡓពぢࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ⪅ࡶぢࡽࢀࠊ⿕㦂⪅ࡢᒓࡍࡿ♫఍࡜ゝㄒ⎔ቃࡀᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶㄆ㆑࡛ࡁࡓࠋ ㄯヰศᯒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ◊✲⪅ྛ⮬ࡢゎ㔘࡜ุ᩿ࢆࡼࡾ☜ᐇ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ௒ᅇࡢࡼ࠺࡞࢖ࣥ
ࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ࡟ࡼࡿᐈほⓗ࡞ࢹ࣮ࢱࡀᙺ❧ࡘࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋᡭἲࡸࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ㔞࡞࡝ᵝࠎ࡞ព⩏ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ⪃࠼ࡽ࠼ࡿࡀࠊ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢᡭἲࢆㄯヰศᯒ࡟✚ᴟⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ♧࡛ࡁࡿ⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩㸸
Cook, V. J. (1991). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching, London: Edward Arnold.
Giles, H. and Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Contexts and Consequences, Milton Keynes:
Open University Press.
బ⸨ῄᏊ. (2001). ࠗ࢖ࢠࣜࢫࡢ࠸࠸Ꮚ ᪥ᮏࡢ࠸࠸Ꮚ ⮬ᕫ୺ᙇ࡜ࡀࡲࢇࡢᩍ⫱Ꮫ࠘ࠊᮾி㸸
୰බ᪂᭩.
4
−268−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

᪥ᮏㄒྡモྃࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮෌⪃㸸ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖᒣᮏ ᑦᏊ
ዉⰋ኱Ꮫ<Abstract>
In this paper, I discuss the meaning encoded in the Japanese nominal tautology A wa A da. Previous studies havesuggested that the interpretation process of A wa A da could be accounted for in terms of negation (in a broad sense),
but a clear characterization of the interpretation process has yet to be determined. I propose the following meaning: A
wa A da must be processed in such a way as to communicate an assumption that contradicts and eliminates anotherassumption about the referent of the subject A, attributed to someone other than the speaker at the point of utterance.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸ࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࠊᡭ⥆ࡁⓗ᝟ሗࠊࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ௚ࡢᩥ࡟ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊ༢⊂࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡢࢹ࣮ࢱほᐹ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊࠕAࡣ A ࡔࠖ࡟ࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡉࢀࡓព࿡ࡣఱ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡣࠊ୺ㄒ A ࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠊ
Ⓨヰ᫬Ⅼࡢヰ⪅௨እࡢㄡ࠿࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ㸦P㸧࡜▩┪ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ๐㝖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ᝿ᐃ㸦Q㸧ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ฎ⌮ࡢ௙᪉ࢆせồࡍࡿ⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺つᐃࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ඛ⾜◊✲
2.1. ㎷ᮏ (1996)
 ㎷ᮏ (1996)ࡣࠊ⫈⪅ࡀࠊX is not A ࡜ᐃᘧ໬ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠊヰ⪅࡟ᑐࡍࡿ཯ᑐពぢࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ἣ࡛ࠊヰ⪅ࡀࠊX is A ࢆ෌ᗘᙉࡃ୺ᙇࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊA is A ࢆⓎヰࡍࡿࠊ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋX ࡣࠊࡑࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡟
࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ஦≀࣭஦㇟ࠊA ࡣࠊA is A ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ A ࢆᣦࡍࠋࠕX ࡣ A ࡔࠖࠊࠕX ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ศᯒࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ A is A ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊX is AࠊX is not A ࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊ
ࡣ A ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡢ஦౛࡟ࡶ㐺⏝ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼
ࡤࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
(1) ᘚㆤே㸸⿢ุ㛗㸟ኴ㑻ࡣࠊ㢗ࡲࢀ࡚ḟ㑻ࢆẅࡋࡓࢇ࡛ࡍࠋࡔ࠿ࡽࠊᮏ௳࡟ࡣ᝟≧㓃㔞ࡢవᆅࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜
⪃࠼ࡲࡍࠋ᳨ᐹᐁ㸸ఱࢆゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢇ࡛ࡍ࠿ࠋẅẅேࡣẅே࡛ࡍࠋ
ୖグࡢศᯒ࡟ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠊX ࡣࠕኴ㑻ࡢࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࠖ
ࠊA ࡣࠕẅே࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊ᳨ᐹᐁ㸦ヰ⪅㸧ࡣࠊᘚㆤே㸦⫈⪅㸧ࡀࠕኴ㑻ࡢࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡣẅே࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺཯ᑐពぢࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ἣ࡛ࠊࠕኴ㑻ࡢࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡣẅேࡔࠖࢆ෌ᗘ୺ᙇࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ
ࠕẅேࡣẅே࡛ࡍࠖࢆⓎヰࡋࡓࠊ࡜ศᯒࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ㎷ᮏࡢศᯒ࡟ࡣၥ㢟Ⅼࡀ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ
ࠕX ࡣ A ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᐃᘧ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺཯ᑐពぢࡀࡑࡶࡑࡶఱ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࠊ୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊୖ㏙ࡋࡓᐃᘧ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࡼ࠺࡞ Xࢆ≉ᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
(2) 㹙ᗂ⛶ᅬඣࡢ⏨ࡢᏊࡀࠊẕぶ࡟ࠕ୙೔ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡢព࿡ࢆᑜࡡ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㹛ᜥᏊ㸸ࡡ࠼ࠊ୙೔ࡗ࡚࡞ࢇࡢࡇ࡜㸽ᩍ࠼࡚ࡼࠋẕぶ㸸ࡑࢇ࡞ࡇ࡜▱ࡽ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ࠸࠸ࡢࡼࠋ
ᜥᏊ㸸ࡡ࠼ࠊᩍ࠼࡚ࡼࠋẕぶ㸸ࡔ࠿ࡽࡡࠊ୙
୙೔ࡣ୙೔࡞ࡢࠋࡶ࠺ࡑࢇ࡞ࡇ࡜⪺࠿࡞࠸࡛ࡕࡻ࠺ࡔ࠸ࠋ

−269−

日本語名詞句トートロジー再考：「AはAだ」(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡶࡑࡶᜥᏊ㸦⫈⪅㸧ࡣࠕ୙೔ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡢព࿡ࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ
ࠕX ࡣ A ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ᐃᘧ໬ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠊẕぶ㸦ヰ⪅㸧࡬ࡢ཯ᑐពぢ㸦୺ᙇ㸧ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑ
ࡢࡼ࠺࡞཯ᑐពぢࢆ≉ᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡢ࡞ࡽࡤࠊヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡿẕぶࡣࠊࠕ୙೔ࡣ୙೔࡞ࡢࠖ࡜Ⓨヰࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࠕXࡣ A ࡔࠖࢆ෌ᗘ୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ศᯒࡶᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ
2.2. ୰ᮧ (2000)
 ୰ᮧ (2000: 72)ࡣࠊ
ࠕ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡣࠊ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜA ࡜ูࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜB ࡜ࢆ㐃⥆ⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜほ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊA ࡜ B ࡢ㠀㐃⥆ⓗ࡞࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜほࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊ㐃⥆ⓗ࡞࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜほࢆྰᐃࡍࡿࠖ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ1 ౛࠼ࡤࠊᝰࡋ࠸㏫㌿㈇ࡅࢆႚࡋࡓ㈗ⰼ⏣࡟ࠊグ⪅ࡓࡕࡀࠕᝰࡋ࠿ࡗࡓ࡛ࡍࡡࠖ
࡞࡝࡜៘ࡵࡢࡇ࡜ࡤࢆ࠿ࡅࡓ࡜ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ㈗ⰼ⏣ࡀࠕ㈇ࡅࡣ㈇ࡅࠖ࡜ゝࡗࡓ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ
࠺࡞ሙྜࠊグ⪅ࡓࡕࡣࠊ
ࠕ㈇ࡅࠖࢆࠕ຾ࡕࠖ࡜࡯ࡰ➼ࡋ࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ᤊ࠼ࠊ୧⪅ࢆ᫂☜࡟ศࡅ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ㈗ⰼ⏣ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㈇ࡅࠖࢆࠕ຾ࡕࠖ࡜␗࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᤊ࠼ࠊ୧⪅ࢆ᫂☜࡟ศࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୰ᮧࡢศᯒ࡟ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠕ㈇ࡅࡣ㈇ࡅࠖࡣࠊ
ࠕ㈇ࡅࠖ࡜ࠕ຾ࡕࠖ࡜ࢆ㐃⥆ⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜほ㸦ᅗ 1a㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ㈇ࡅࠖ࡜ࠕ຾ࡕࠖ
ࡢ㠀㐃⥆ⓗ࡞࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜほ㸦ᅗ 1b㸧ࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊ㐃⥆ⓗ࡞࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜほࢆྰᐃࡍࡿࠊ࡜ศᯒࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋ

ᅗ1

㸦୰ᮧ 2000: 72㸧ࡔࡀࠊࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮࡟ࡣࠊ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜAࠊB ࢆ㠀㐃⥆ⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜほ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊAࠊB ࡢ㐃⥆ⓗ࡞࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜほࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊ㠀㐃⥆ⓗ࡞࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜほࢆྰᐃࡍࡿ࡜ศᯒࡉࢀ࠺ࡿሙྜࡶࠊ2 ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ
ࡢ㸦㠀㸧㐃⥆ⓗ࡞࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜほ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃศᯒ࡛ࡣㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ୰ᮧ (ibid.: 74)ࡣࠊEven
if there are times when I don’t have the price of a cup of coffee, I’m still me ࢆࠕࢥ࣮ࣄ࣮௦ࡀ࡞࠸⚾࡛ࡶ⚾ࡔࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑ࠺ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᙜヱⓎヰࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠕࢥ࣮ࣄ࣮௦ࡀ࡞࠸⚾ࠖ࡜ࠕࢥ࣮ࣄ࣮௦ࡀ࠶ࡿ⚾ࠖࢆ㠀㐃⥆ⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜほ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ㐃⥆ⓗ࡞࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜほࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊ㠀㐃⥆ⓗ࡞࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜほࢆྰᐃࡍࡿࠊ࡜ศᯒࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊᜥᏊࡀẕぶ࡟ࠕ୙೔ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡢព࿡ࢆᑜࡡࡿ౛ࡣࠊ
2 ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ㸦㠀㸧㐃⥆ⓗ࡞࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜほ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃศᯒ࡛ࡣ࠺ࡲࡃㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
3. ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ ๓⠇࡛ࡣࠊඛ⾜◊✲ࡀ୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศᯒࡉࢀࡿ
ࡢࡀጇᙜ࡞ࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࠊࡑࡢゎ㔘ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ 2 ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡀ࠿࠿ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ௒௬࡟ࠊP ࢆࠕᩥ⬦࡟ࡍ࡛࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ᝿ᐃࠖ
ࠊQ ࢆࠕヰ⪅ࡀᢪࡃ᝿ᐃࠖ࡜ࡋࠊ
ලయ౛(3)-(5)ࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ
(3) ᳨ᐹᐁ㸸ఱࢆゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢇ࡛ࡍ࠿ࠋ
ẅேࡣẅே࡛ࡍࠋ
㸦㸻 (1)㸧
(4) 㹙௰㛫ࡀḟࠎ࡟๻ᅋࢆࡸࡵ࡚࠸ࡁࠊ᫓Ꮚࡣዪඃ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ክࢆ㏣࠸࠿ࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡓࡵࡽ࠸ࢆឤࡌ࡚
࠸ࡓࠋࡔࡀࠊ᭱ᚋ࡟ࡣࠊ๻ᅋࢆ⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆỴᚰࡍࡿࠋ㹛᫓Ꮚ㸸⚾⚾ࡣ⚾ࠋ௚ேࡣ㛵ಀ࡞࠸ࠋ㸦㸻 (2)㸧
(5) ẕぶ㸸ࡔ࠿ࡽࡡࠊ୙೔ࡣ୙೔࡞ࡢࠋࡶ࠺ࡑࢇ࡞ࡇ࡜⪺࠿࡞࠸࡛ࡕࡻ࠺ࡔ࠸ࠋ
(3)࡛ࡣࠊᘚㆤேࡣࠊP㹙ኴ㑻ࡀ≢ࡋࡓẅேࡣࠊ᝟≧㓃㔞ࡍ࡭ࡁࡔ㹛࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ᳨ᐹᐁࡣࠊ
ࠕẅேࡣẅே࡛ࡍࠖ࡜Ⓨࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊQ㹙ኴ㑻ࡀ≢ࡋࡓẅேࡣࠊ᝟≧㓃㔞ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㹛ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᫓Ꮚࡢ⊂ࡾゝ࡛࠶ࡿ(4)࡛ࡣࠊ᫓Ꮚ㸦ヰ⪅㸧ࡣࠊ௨๓ࡣ P㹙⚾㸦᫓Ꮚ㸧ࡣ₇๻ࡢຮᙉࢆ࠶ࡁࡽࡵࡿ࡭ࡁ
ࡔ㹛࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⌧ᅾࡣࠊQ㹙⚾㸦᫓Ꮚ㸧ࡣ₇๻ࡢຮᙉࢆ࠶ࡁࡽࡵࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㹛࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(5)࡛ࡣࠊᜥᏊࡣࠊP㹙⚾㸦ᜥᏊ㸧ࡣ࠶࡞ࡓ㸦ẕぶ㸧࡟ࠕ୙೔ࠖࡢព࿡ࢆᩍ࠼࡚࡯ࡋ࠸㹛࡜⪃࠼࡚

−270−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊẕぶࡣࠊࠕ୙೔ࡣ୙೔࡞ࡢࠖ࡜Ⓨࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊQ㹙⚾㸦ẕぶ㸧ࡣ࠶࡞ࡓ㸦ᜥᏊ㸧࡟ࠕ୙೔ࠖ
ࡢព࿡ࢆᩍ࠼ࡓࡃ࡞࠸㹛ࡇ࡜ࢆఏ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
4. ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡢព࿡
 3 ⠇࡛ᣲࡆࡓ౛ࢆぢ࡚ࡲࡎẼ࡙ࡃࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡀⓎࡏࡽࢀࡿᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠊP ࡜ Q ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟⏕ࡌࡿ
▩┪ࡀࠊP ࢆ๐㝖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ゎỴࡉࢀࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪉ྥ࡟᥎ㄽࡍ࡭ࡁ࠿ࢆᣦ♧ࡍࡿᡭ⥆ࡁⓗ᝟ሗࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋḟ࡟Ẽ࡙ࡃࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡢព࿡ࢆつᐃࡍࡿሙྜࠊPࠊQࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡽ 2 ࡘࡢ㛵ಀᛶ
࡜࠸࠺ 3 Ⅼࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
᭱ึ࡟ࠊP ࡜ Q ࡢ㛵ಀᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿࠋ3 ⠇࡛ࡢ⪃ᐹ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ࡜ࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡣࠊP
࡜▩┪ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ๐㝖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ Q ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ฎ⌮ࡢ௙᪉ࢆせồࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(3)ࠕẅேࡣẅே࡛ࡍࠖࡣࠊPࠕኴ㑻ࡀ≢ࡋࡓẅேࡣࠊ᝟≧㓃㔞ࡍ࡭ࡁࡔࠖ࡜▩┪ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ๐㝖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ Qࠕኴ㑻ࡀ≢ࡋࡓẅேࡣࠊ᝟≧㓃㔞ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ฎ⌮ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆせồࡍࡿ⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋ(4)ࠊ(5)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡀⓎࡏࡽࢀࡿᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊ▩┪ࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡋ࡚᪤Ꮡࡢ᝿ᐃࢆྲྀࡾᾘࡍࡼ࠺࡟ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡀࠊᑐẚ᝿ᐃࢆᣢࡘᩥ⬦ࠊูࡢゝ࠸᪉ࢆࡍࢀࡤࠊ
ࠕྰᐃࡢㄆ▱ᵓ㐀ࠖ㸦ྜྷᮧ (1999)㸧
࡛ฎ⌮ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆせồࡍࡿ⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠊQ ࢆࠕヰ⪅ࡀᢪࡃ᝿ᐃࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ㆟ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ௬࡟ࠊP ࢆࠕᩥ⬦࡟ࡍ࡛࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ᝿ᐃࠖ
ࡓࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀṇ☜࡟ࡣఱ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡎࠊP ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
(3)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ Pࠕኴ㑻ࡀ≢ࡋࡓẅேࡣࠊ᝟≧㓃㔞ࡍ࡭ࡁࡔࠖࡣࠊ๓ࡢヰ⪅㸦= ᘚㆤே㸧ࡢⓎヰ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ
࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(4)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ Pࠕ⚾㸦᫓Ꮚ㸧ࡣࠊ₇๻ࡢຮᙉࢆ࠶ࡁࡽࡵࡿ࡭ࡁࡔࠖࡣࠊ㐣ཤࡢヰ⪅⮬㌟ࡢᛮ⪃࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊP ࡣ୍ぢࡍࡿ࡜ከᵝ࡟ᛮ࠼ࡿࡀࠊ3 ⠇࡛ࡢ⪃ᐹ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊP ࡣࠊ
ࠕ୺ㄒ A ࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠊⓎヰ᫬Ⅼࡢヰ⪅௨እࡢㄡ࠿࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿ᝿ᐃࠖ࡜୍⯡໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊQ ࡣࠊࠕࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿ᝿ᐃࠖ࡜୍⯡໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(3)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ Pࠕኴ㑻ࡀ≢ࡋࡓẅேࡣࠊ᝟≧㓃㔞ࡍ࡭ࡁࡔࠖࡣࠊ୺ㄒࠕẅேࠖࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟㸦= ኴ㑻ࡀ≢ࡋࡓẅே㸧࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠊᘚㆤே
࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊQࠕኴ㑻ࡀ≢ࡋࡓẅேࡣࠊ᝟≧㓃㔞ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖࡣࠊ
ࠕẅேࡣẅே࡛ࡍࠖ
࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿ᝿ᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠᵝࡢศᯒࡀࠊ(4)ࠊ(5)࡟ࡶᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡢព࿡ࡣ(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟つᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋ
(6) ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡢព࿡㸸ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡣࠊ୺ㄒ A ࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠊⓎヰ᫬Ⅼࡢヰ⪅௨እࡢㄡ࠿࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿ᝿ᐃ㸦P㸧࡜▩┪ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ๐㝖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ᝿ᐃ㸦Q㸧ࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ฎ⌮ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆせồࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞つᐃࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕA ࡶ A ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿ᝿ᐃ㸦Q㸧ࡣࠊ⾲ព࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾ
᥎ព࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
5. ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࢆᡭ⥆ࡁⓗ᝟ሗࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡍࡿ༢఩࡜ぢ࡞ࡍศᯒࡢጇᙜᛶ
 4 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡀࠊ(6)࡟♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡞᝟ሗࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ
᱌ࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠺ࠊᮏ✏ࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ཯ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࠺ࡿ 4 ࡘࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚㆟ㄽࡋࠊ࡝ࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡶࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ౛ࢆ⤫୍ⓗ࡞どⅬ࠿ࡽㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ ࡲࡎࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖ࡜ࠕA ࡣ B ࡔࠖ࡜ࡢᙧᘧⓗ࡞㢮ఝᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ཯ㄽࡀ 2 ࡘ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ➨୍࡟ࠊࠕA ࡣA ࡔࠖࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ B ࡔࠖ࡜ྠࡌࡃࠊྠ୍ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡣࡎࡔ࡜࠸࠺཯ㄽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡔࡀࠊࡶࡋࠕAࡣ A ࡔࠖࡀྠ୍ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ୺ㄒ A ࡜㏙ㄒ A ࡣྠ୍ࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊ
ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘ࡣࡲࡗࡓࡃព࿡ࢆᡂࡉ࡞࠸ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࢆྠ୍ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡜ศᯒࡍࡿ❧ሙࡣࠊᨭᣢ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

−271−

日本語名詞句トートロジー再考：「AはAだ」

 ➨஧ࡢ཯ㄽࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡣࠊࠕA ࡣ B ࡔࠖ࡜ྠᵝࠊໟᦤᛶࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡣࡎࡔࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡶ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶࡋࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡀࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ୺ㄒ A ࡜㏙ㄒ A ࡣ␗࡞ࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊ୍ぢࡍࡿ࡜ព࿡ࢆᡂࡍࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡔࡀࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ศᯒࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(5)ࠕ୙೔ࡣ୙
೔࡞ࡢࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࢆㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⤫୍ⓗ࡞ศᯒ࡜ࡣぢ࡞ࡏ࡞࠸ࠋ ௨ୖࡢ㆟ㄽࡣࠊࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡢព࿡ࡀࠊࡑࢀࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿྛせ⣲ࡢព࿡ࢆ㊊ࡋ⟬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ᚓࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ
࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀࠊᙜヱ⾲⌧୰ࡢ༢ㄒࡢព࿡࠿ࡽࡣ⊂❧ࡋࡓព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࠊ࡜⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࠊࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀࠊ(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ໬
ࡋࠊ᥎ពᙧᡂ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ᥎ㄽ࡬ࡢᡭ⥆ࡁⓗไ⣙ࢆㄢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఏ
㐩ࡉࢀࡿ᝿ᐃ㸦Q㸧ࡀࠊ⮬⏤ᣑ඘ࡸ࢔ࢻ࣍ࢵࢡᴫᛕᙧᡂ࡜࠸࠺⾲ពᙧᡂ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᚓࡽࢀ
࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ࡲࡎࠊࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡢఏ㐩ෆᐜࡀ⮬⏤ᣑ඘࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(4)ࠕ⚾ࡣ⚾ࠖࡢ⾲ฟ࿨㢟ࡢ୍㒊࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⣧⢋࡟ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞せồ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఱࡽ࠿ࡢせ⣲ࢆ⿵࠺ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠊᙜヱⓎヰ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ヰ⪅ࡀ⫈⪅࡟ఏ㐩ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓෆᐜࢆᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ⮬⏤ᣑ඘࡟ࡼࡿ
ศᯒࡣࠊࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ౛ࢆ⤫୍ⓗ࡟ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡞ศᯒ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋḟ࡟ࠊࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㏙ㄒ A ࡢゎ㔘ࡀ࢔ࢻ࣍ࢵࢡᴫᛕᙧᡂ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ศᯒࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿ⪅ࡣࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࡢཎ๎࡟୍⮴ࡍࡿ⾲ពࢆᚓࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ㏙ㄒ A ࡢㄒᙡᴫᛕࡀᩥ⬦࡟ྜ࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟ㄪᩚࡉࢀࡓࡑࡢሙ㝈ࡾࡢᴫᛕ࡟ྲྀࡗ࡚௦ࢃࡽࢀࡿࠊ࡜ศᯒࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
㸦cf. すᕝ (2003)㸧ࡇࡢ⪃࠼᪉࡟ᚑ࠼ࡤࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(3)ࠕẅேࡣẅே࡛ࡍࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡣㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿ࠿ࡶࡋ
ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡔࡀࠊ(5)ࠕ୙೔ࡣ୙೔࡞ࡢࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊ㏙ㄒࠕ୙೔ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒᙡ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟ㄪᩚࡉࢀ
ࡓ࢔ࢻ࣍ࢵࢡᴫᛕࡀ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡋࡼ࠺ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࡢཎ๎࡟୍⮴ࡍࡿ⾲ពࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞࢔
ࢻ࣍ࢵࢡᴫᛕࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࠊ୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ࢔ࢻ࣍ࢵࢡᴫᛕᙧᡂ࡟ࡼࡿศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ౛ࢆ⤫୍ⓗ࡞どⅬ࠿ࡽㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠸ษࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
௨ୖࠊࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠺ᮏ✏ࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ཯ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࠺ࡿ 4 ࡘࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㆟ㄽࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀጇᙜ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋ
6. ⤖ㄽᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ௚ࡢᩥ࡟ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊ༢⊂࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡢࢹ࣮ࢱほᐹ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊࠕAࡣ A ࡔࠖࡢព࿡つᐃࢆヨࡳࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᙜヱ⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡀࠊ(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᡭ⥆ࡁⓗ᝟ሗࢆࢥ࣮ࢻ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ
࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
ࠕA ࡣ A ࡔࠖࡀ⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠺ᮏ୺ᙇࡣࠊBlakemore (1987)࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
ᥦ᱌ࡉࢀࡓᡭ⥆ࡁⓗࢥ࣮ࢻ໬࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡀࠊㄒᙡࣞ࣋ࣝࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⾲⌧ᙧᘧࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ* ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 15 ᅇ኱఍㸦2012 ᖺ 12 ᭶ 1 ᪥᪊኱㜰Ꮫ㝔኱Ꮫ㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮Ⓨ⾲ࢆຍ➹ಟṇࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ఍ሙ࡛ࡣࠊከࡃࡢ᪉࠿ࡽ㈗㔜࡞ࡈពぢࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢሙࢆ೉ࡾ࡚ឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࠋ
ὀ
1. ୰ᮧ (2000: 72)ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕA ࡣ A ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿつᐃࡢࡳࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊㄽᩥ୰࡛ࡣⱥㄒࡢ A
is A ࡢ౛ࡶྠᵝ࡟ศᯒࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
୺せཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance, Oxford: Blackwell.
୰ᮧⰾஂ㸬2000㸬ࠕࠕ຾ࡕࡣ຾ࡕࠖ
ࠕ㈇ࡅࡣ㈇ࡅࠖ㸫ࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮࡟₯ࡴㄆ▱ⓗྰᐃࠖࠗゝㄒ࠘29 (11): 71-76㸬
すᕝ┿⏤⨾㸬2003㸬
ࠕࢺ࣮ࢺࣟࢪ࣮ࡢ⪃ᐹ㸫࢔ࢻ࣍ࢵࢡᴫᛕࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠖࠗㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲࠘5: 45-58㸬
㎷ᮏᬛᏊ㸬1996㸬“Tautology in Discourse,” ᑿᓮᐤ᫓࣭኱἟㞞ᙪ୧ᩍᤵ㏥ᐁグᛕㄽᩥ㞟ห⾜ጤဨ఍㸦⦅㸧ࠗᑿᓮᐤ᫓࣭኱἟㞞ᙪ୧ᩍᤵ㏥ᐁグᛕㄽᩥ㞟࠘127-136, ி㒔㸸࠶ࡱࢁࢇ♫㸬ᒣᮏᑦᏊ㸬2008㸬“Cognitive Aspects of Tautology,” JELS 25: 265-274.
ྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁᏊ㸬1999㸬ࠗྰᐃᴟᛶ⌧㇟࠘ᮾி㸸ⱥᐆ♫㸬

−272−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

Reconsidering Future Tense Markers in Indonesian
Yoshimi Miyake
Akita University
miyake@ed.akita-u.ac.jp
Abstract
This paper reconsiders extended uses of Indonesian auxiliary verbs to express the futuretense, especially mau and nanti. This study also shows how verbs denoting ‘desire’ and‘wait’ gradually develop into denoting simple ‘future’. I will show a variety of uses of

mau and nanti observed in modern Indonesian dialogues and literature.
Keyword:future tense, Indonesian, grammaticalization

1. Introduction
Indonesian has no inflectional means of marking future tense. Meanwhile theseveral independent words carry future tense meanings and occur with a highfrequency. Linguistically, functions of future tense markers are listed as follows:
Future tense distribution
1. Desire:

mau, pingin, ingin, hendak

2. Intention: mau
3. Obligation: harus
4. Necessity:perlu

5. Imminence: nanti㸽㸽㸽6. Command: imperative --lah
7. Politeness: bisa, boleh
8. Supposition: bisa
The purpose of this paper is to reconsider functions of the Indonesian futuretense markers, focusing on two problems, i.e. (1) the most commonly used mau fordesire, and (2) a development of an adverb nanti ‘later’ as a future tense marker.
Among the nine feature tense markers above, the following two future markers
denote simple future and desire each.
1. akan㸻pure future marker(1)

Aku akan pulang antara
1st.p

return (home)between−273−

Reconsidering Future Tense Markers in Indonesian

jam

tiga

dan

o̓clock

empat.

three and four

‘I will come back home between three and four.’
2. Ingin and its cognates, pingin, kepingin, or pengen

kepingin(2) Akudenote desire for future.

pergi ke Jepang.

kepengen
ingin
1st

want

go

to Japan‘I want to go to Japan.’3.

Grammaticalization of mau
Bybee and others report that words such as want (desire, intention), can(potential)

may develop to future tense markers (Bybee 1985, Givon 1975, Heine

and Reh 1984, Paguliuca 1985).

In Indonesian, too, it can be said that mau, aregular verb for ‘want’ has developed to denote future tense for desire.
Investigating data from novels from 1900s: mau is a default auxiliary verbs of‘desire’.
We argue that mau developed from being a regular verb, to an auxiliary verb

mau for willing and desicre, then in current Indonesian speech,
Mau (old spelling: maoe) has been dominant in terms of the frequency.
䈄Kommermaoe 167 (93.2%)
ingin 3 (1.7%)
pingin 0 / kepingin 2 (1.1%)
hendak 7 (3.9%)

䈄

Lupus

mau 187 (85.8%)
ingin 19 (8.7%)
pengen 1 / kepengen 1 (0.9%)
hendak 10 (4.6%)
3.1. Regular verb mau
A regular verb mau denotes ‘want’ as in mau+ noun
(3) Aku

mau

kue

ini.

−274−

第15回大会発表論文集

I

want

cake

第８号

this

‘I want this cake.’䈄䈄

3.2.  Auxiliary verb mau
This is used for more immediate desire, compared with ingin.
(4)

Aku

mau

bermaintenis.

䈄

I

want

play

tennis䈄‘I want to play the tennis’.

(5) Saya

mau

makan

es krim1st p.

maueat

ice cream‘I want to eat ice cream.’
4. Other uses of mau
However, interestingly, mau has other functions.
found in conversations.

Those derivative uses are

Those functions are rather new.

4.1. Mau for interlocutors
This use of mau is used in telephone conversations.
e.g. a telephone conversation(6) a. Bisa bicara dengan Ibu Tari?
䈄

Can talk

with

Mrs. Tari‘Can I talk to Mrs. Tari?’b. Mau䈄䈄
4.2.

dengansiapa?

withwho‘Who would you like to talk to?’Mau for evidential

The auxiliary use mau can be used for inanimate subject

mau habis

㸦7㸧 a. Batterinya
battery-def.art

finish‘The battery is about to run out.’
㸦8㸧 Kelihatannya mau   it looksmauhujan.
rain‘It looks it is about to rain.’−275−

Reconsidering Future Tense Markers in Indonesian

The difference between mau and a common future auxiliary verb akan

is thatmau is used for closer future. (The sky got dark, so it is really about to rain.)
4.3.

Mau for request
Furthermore, mau can be colloquially used for request.

(9) Mas, kamumaungantarAdd. you

mau

want

saya?
take

me

‘Mas, will you take me (home/to somewhere)?’
(mau:
5.

Will you accept my request?)

Nanti

Nanti used to be a regular verb denoting ‘wait’ . In recent conversations, nanti isused as an adverb denoting ‘later’, and furthermore, nanti could substituteauxiliary verb akan (Myhill 1990).

Syntactically nanti can be freely located asshown in all the sentences in (9).
䈄
(10)
䈄
䈄

a Nantiakumakan.

later

1st p.

eat

b.

makan

nanti.

eat

later

nanti

makan.

later

eat

Aku

1st

䈄

c.

䈄

p.
Aku

䈄

1st p.

䈄͂I will eat later.̓

䈄
5.1. Nanti as an adverb

Nanti is an adverb marking future (most frequently appearing)(11) Nanti sayalater

1st p.

makan.
eat‘I will eat later.’ (12) Aku
I

bermaintennisnanti.

play

tennislater

͂I will play tennis later.̓
5.2.

Delaying a future act−276−第15回大会発表論文集(13) a. Ini

harus

this

第８号

diperbaiki.

must

fixed

‘This (appliance) has to be fixed.’b.

Mau sekarang?
want now‘Do you want to do so now?’

Nanti

saja.

nanti

just

‘Later.’(14)

Sampai tillnanti.
later‘See/talk to you later.’
(15)

Nanti

dulu.

wait

before͂Wait for a second
5.3. Co-occuring with an auxiliary verb akan
Adding nanti delays the action. In this case, having an auxiliary verb akan or not is
not relevant.
(16)

a.

The sentences a. and b. are the same.

nanti

saya

makan.

nanti

I

eat

‘I will eat later.’
b.



nanti

saya

akan

makan.

nanti

I

akan

eat

‘I will eat later.’
c.

saya

akan

makan

(segera)

I

akan

eat

(right now)

‘I am going to eat (now).’

5.4.

Nanti as conditional

Nanti has a conditional function. Sometimes it functions as a ‘warning’. However, apositive use is also possible.

−277−

Reconsidering Future Tense Markers in Indonesian(17)

Bawalah payung,nantihujan.

take

later

rain.

umbrella‘Take umbrella with you. It will rain later.’(18)

Selesaikanlah

PRmu

dulu.

finishyour homework assignment

beforehand

Kalau

tidak,

nanti

if

neg.

nanti get scolded

dimarahi‘Finish your homework first.
(19)

Nanti

ditertawakan.

laterlaughted at.’guru
teacher

If not, you will be scolded by the teacher’.

͂(otherwise) you will be laughted at̓.
(20)

Belajarlah

keras. Nanti lulus ujian.

Study

hard

‘Study hard.
5.5.

nanti

pass

exam

You will pass (if you do so).’Regular verb ‘wait’A regular verb nantidenotes‘wait’ or ‘looking forward to’. This use occurs lessoften, connoting that the original function of nanti became weakened but anadverbial use has become more prominent. Usually a regular verb nanti is usedwith a prefix me-.
(21)

selalumenanti

Saya

akan

I

future always waiting for

ciuman hangat darimu.
kiss

warm

from you‘I will be always waiting for your warm kissing.’
Conclusion
This paper focused on a certain development of future tense markers, i.e. mau, andnanti. Mau, a regular verb denoting ‘want’ developed to be a future tense marker(an auxiliary verb use) for desire, and currently, mau can be used fornear/immediate future as well as an evidential for inanimate subject.

Secondly, we

also discussed the development of nanti, which originated from a verb denoting‘wait’ for future event.

The most frequently use of nanti is an adverbial use

situated in a sentence initial or final. Furthermore, nanti can substitute future−278−第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

tense marker akan.

Reference䈄

Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

䈄

Givon, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.

䈄

Heine,Bernd

and

Mechthild

Reh.

1984.

Grammaticalizationand

reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Buske.
䈄

Hopper, P. and E. C. Traugott, 2003 Grammaticalization.

Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
1990

Indonesian future tense: nanti (Unpublished)䈄Myhill, John,䈄

Pagliuca, William, 1985. The evolution of future meaning. SUNY at Buffalo
MS.

㻌

−279−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

Gender-related variation in the responses to criticisms: A contrastive study of
Taiwanese and American speakers
Huitsen Jeanne Tuan
Shu-te University
jtuan@stu.edu.tw
Huimei Yao
National Penghu University
jessyhm@gms.npu.edu.tw<Abstract>
The cross-cultural pragmatics literature has paid considerable attention to the
influence of gender on linguistic production. However, the relevance of gender inthe realization of the positive face-threatening act of “criticisms” and their responses
receives little interest. The study investigates the effects of gender on techniquesof responding to the act of criticism in a Chinese and English corpus. Thisempirical analysis is based on data obtained through Interactive Discourse
Completion Task (IDCT) scenarios, responded to by Taiwanese Chinese andAmerican English speakers. Sociocultural variables built into the data are, first andforemost, gender (both speaker- and addressee-gender) and the relative power status
between speaker and addressee. We transcribed and analyzed 359 reactions in two
broad categories of realization strategies: deference politeness strategies andsolidarity politeness strategies. Significant results appear in three dimensions.
First of all, with regards to sex differences, there is no significant difference between
men and women in their responses to criticisms. Second, there is strong evidence
that the addressee’s gender has a significant effect on responses to criticisms.
Third, there are various distributions of response strategies, depending on
cross-cultural and power variation.
˰Keywords˱: Gender; Speech act; Cross-cultural difference; Power
1. Introduction
The difference in language use between women and men has long been an issue ofinterest in the field of language study. Based on the extensive research on language
and gender in the approaches of the deficit, power/dominance and culture/difference
during the past decades, a list featuring typical ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’interactional styles are summarized by Holmes (2006: 6). As Holmes points out, thelist does oversimplify and does not account for the influence of a cohort of contextual
factors, issues of social power and other features of social identity on the performanceof speech styles. However, producing such lists is still very useful as it does provide
1−281−

Gender-related variation in the responses to criticisms: A contrastive study of Taiwanese and American speakers

evidence of social and cultural expectations regarding what are considered appropriate
interactional norms for women and men to use.
Table 1 Widely cited features of ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ interaction style (adaptedfrom Holmes, 2006).
Feminine









Masculine

indirectconciliatory
facilitative
collaborativeminor contribution (in public)
supportive feedback
person/process-oriented
affectively oriented










directconfrontational
competitive
autonomous
dominates (public) talking time
aggressive interruptions
task/outcome-oriented
referentially oriented

This study was designed to address the issue whether the Taiwanese ‘women’s andmen’s languages’ are related to some of the normative gendered interactional styles
associated with the normative and unmarked gender identity. In particular, thepresent study focuses on their linguistic production in the confrontational contexts inwhich interlocutors with asymmetrical workplace power issue criticisms and probes
whether there as any difference in male and female patterns of linguistic production.
2. Data and methodology
Following the research tradition of cross-cultural pragmatics research tradition(Blum-Kulka et al 1989; Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993), this study uses an Interactive
Dictation Completion Test (IDCT), a technologically innovative version of discourse
completion tests (DCTs) as its data elicitation procedure. The IDCT consists of foursituations in the workplace and an academic institution where the variable of power (P)is controlled. It attempts to elicit the second pair part of a criticism in situations withwhich the subjects could easily identify. A total of 99 subjects participating in the
study. Of these, 54 (28 female and 26 male) are American undergraduates and 45(23 female and 22 male) are Taiwanese undergraduates.
Alerters

Head Act

Supportive MoveBeg your pardon, younglady!

Who are you? Stole youridea?

Can you please tell me thewhole story?

Excuse me,

but you are completely
wrong.
2−282−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

The authors divide criticism responses into three main parts: alerters, head acts,
and supportive moves, with the head act being the only core part of a speech act.
Consider the above examples.
3. Politeness, gender and the behavior of responding to criticism
3.1. Strategies of criticism responses
Head acts are the core parts of criticism responses. The face-threatening
oppositional turns, labeled as solidarity politeness strategies, consist of the strategies
of Challenge, Contradiction, Accusation, Request for Justification, and Irrelevancy
Claim. Based on Scollon and Scollon’s classification scheme (1983), the head acts
can be classified as solidarity politeness strategies because of their emphasis on the“commonality between the speaker and the hearer” (p. 162).
The face-involving turns, which constitute the category of deference politenessstrategies, include the strategies of Counterclaim (CC), Promise of forbearance(Promise), Apology, Admission of Responsibility (Admission), and Grounder. Thesesubsumed under the category of deference politeness strategies plot “formality andrespect” (García, 1996: 666).
3.1.1 Overview: Taiwanese vs. Americans
Table 2 shows the distribution of the two main categories of head acts used to respondto the previous turn of criticism across all situations by the two subject groups.
Americans and Taiwanese used deference politeness strategies more frequently thansolidarity politeness strategies. Proportionally, the Taiwanese subjects employeddeference politeness strategies more often than the Americans. These results seem tosupport the characterization of Chinese as first language (L1) speakers favoring“clothed disagreement” to lessen the offense of disagreement, as described in Wang’s(1998) study.
Table 2 Mean and raw frequencies of head acts for each subject group
Head acts

Group
AmericanTaiwanese

Deference

2.74 (54)2.94 (48)

Solidarity

2.30 (51)2.40 (44)

Tables 3 presents the distribution of the two main categories of strategies used ashead acts across all situations for the male and female subjects of both groups.
According to Table 3, the overall trend of criticism-response behavior by the two
subject groups held when males and females are examined separately. Further, male3−283−

Gender-related variation in the responses to criticisms: A contrastive study of Taiwanese and American speakers

Taiwanese Mandarin speakers tend to adopt deference strategies more often than thefemale speakers, contrary to the stereotype of Chinese L1 men, who are more direct
and blunt. Surprisingly, the female Taiwanese did not use “clothed disagreement” asoften as the males did; they were not likely to significantly mitigate their opposition.
Cross-culturally, female Americans favored strategies that express deference
politeness and mitigate their responses to a greater extent than those from the
Taiwanese group.
Table 3

Mean and raw frequencies of head acts for each subject group

Head acts

Group
AmericanTaiwanese

Male

FemaleMale

FemaleDeference

2.62
(25)

2.86
(28)

2.65
(25)

2.60
(23)

Solidarity

2.58
(25)

2.04
(26)

2.00
(23)

2.22
(21)

Total

50

54

48

44

Total

42

48

39

43

3.1.2 Responses to a Boss’ Reprimand: female vs. male
Generally speaking, both men and women exhibit a slight preference of deference
politeness strategies which account for 54% and 52% respectively.
On closer
inspection, various cross-gender differences could be observed. A factorial ANOVA
is conducted to probe the effects of ‘group’ and ‘subjects’ gender’ on all subjects’ useof deference and solidarity politeness strategies as head acts. In terms of the use ofsolidarity politeness strategies, the comparisons among groups reveal a significant
difference only between the American and the Taiwanese female participants (F(2,99)= 4.57, p< .05) because of the relatively greater use by the American females.
Upon examining specific patterns for individual situations, the authors observethat addressee’s gender has a significant impact on opposition formulation. In
responding to the addressee’s blame with greater institutionalized power, the females
apologize most frequently while the males do least often: (F(2, 97)= 2.79, p< .05).
The apologetic expression, like “I’m terribly sorry, sir, to have been coming in lateand not finishing the work”, is employed by the American women to reduce theiraccountability for an offense.
When the speakers’ need to maintain face overpowers considerations of theaddressee’s face, they prefer the strategies that threaten the interlocutor’s face wants.
4−284−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

The Americans tend to endorse the independence values highly as to use less indirectcommunication than the Chinese. When a disapproval exchange is categorized as aContradiction, the Contradiction is usually followed by a supportive move ofaccusation. The Americans prefer using accusations as supporting moves toaggravate their CT response.
The types of aggravated disagreement used most by
the American participants are: accusatory/imperative you (as in “Maybe you should
read the textbook before becoming teacher”), and judgmental vocabulary (as in “I
don’t think that is reason enough to penalize me” and “You are a bit closed minded
and don’t consider other viewpoints). Taiwanese, on the other hand, sounded lessblunt and offensive; they applied a number of hedges (such as wo jue de ”I feel”),
downtoners (such as ye xu “maybe” and you dian “a bit”), and verb of uncertainty(such as hao xian bu shi zhe yang “it doesn’t seem like the case”) into their CT +accusation sequence, exemplified as follows.
Zong jing li, wo bin mei you chi dao, zao tui, ye wan cheng we de gong zuo. Wo
jue de ren shi zhu ren hao xian dui wo you pian jian, ye xu wo de zhi wei ben lai
yin gai shi ta lao po de. Xi wan zong jing li neng cha ming zhen xiang.

ᕴ࿶౛"!‫ך‬٠ؒԖᒨ‫ډ‬ԐଏǴΨֹԋ‫ޑך‬πբǶ‫ך‬᝺ளΓ٣ЬҺӳႽჹ‫ך‬Ԗୃ‫ـ‬ǴΨ೚‫ޑך‬ᙍՏҁٰᔈ၀ࢂдԴஇ‫ޑ‬Ƕ‫׆‬ఈᕴ࿶౛ૈܴࢗ੿࣬!!!ġ ġ ġ ġ ġ ġ ġ ġ ġ“Boss, I’m not coming in late nor leaving earlier. I also complete my work. I
feel I’m biased by the personnel manager. Probably, my position should beoriginally taken by his wife. Hope you can find the fact! (CM 17; response to
the boss’ reprimand)
3.1.3 Responses to an Assistant’ Accusation: female vs. male
Being placed in the position of expressing opposition to an assistant about her
unfounded accusation, the American English speakers are noted to have a preference
for deference over solidarity politeness strategies to a small extent (56.7% vs. 43.3%).
Converse of the American behavior, the Taiwanese subjects favor solidarity overdeference politeness strategies (63.2% vs. 36.8%), although these differences are notstatistically significant under the performance of paired-samples t-tests. Comparing
the participation of the Americans and the Taiwanese, we can see that the formergroup uses more deference politeness strategies than do the Chinese Mandarin
speakers on the Taiwan Island to a significant extent (56.7% vs. 36.8%) (t= 2.28,
p< .05).
The Taiwanese, by contrast, employ solidarity politeness strategies more often
than the Americans (63.2% vs. 43.3%). However, this difference is not statisticallysignificant because an independent-samples t-test does not reject the null hypothesis
5−285−

Gender-related variation in the responses to criticisms: A contrastive study of Taiwanese and American speakers

of no preference between the two sets of politeness strategies (t= 1.01, ns). The
Taiwanese choose more strategies that threaten the interlocutor’s positive face as headacts (i.e. Contradiction, Irrelevancy claim, Challenge and Accusation), and thosestrategies account for 50.9% of all their strategies used. In spite of thisnon-significant difference, the finding seems to attest the Scollon and Scollon’s (1983:
162) assertion: “in asymmetrical relationships…the person holding more power will
speak ‘downward’, using solidarity politeness strategies…” (cited in García,
1996:664).
We would like to continue the gender issue and address the research question: arethere differences in the behavior of disagreement exhibited by males and females? A
factorial ANOVA is performed to explore the effect of ‘group’ and ‘subjects’ gender’on all subjects’ use of deference and solidarity politeness strategies as head acts.
The Americans apparently deviate from the Taiwanese group to a different degree, interms of the use of deference politeness strategies (F(2, 97)= 3.14, p< .05).
Noted also a significant difference among groups in the use of solidarity
politeness strategies (F(2, 97)= 3.29, p< .05). Quite the reverse, the post-hoc testshows that the group difference is attributable to the greater use of this category by
the Taiwanese group than the Americans.
Cross-gender differences have been observed as we examine specific patterns forindividual strategies. Men and women appear to have interpreted this situation of
being accused of stealing ideas from an assistant as very face-damaging and requiring
great displays of rapport-restoration. The present subjects provide withCounterclaim by giving reasons without openly stating direct opposition and avoid
direct confrontation. The Taiwanese employ the strategies of Counterclaim
proportionally more often than their American counterpart; the group differences isalso significant in both male- and female-addressee situations (F(2, 97)= 22.87,
p< .001). However, the subjects do not differ from each other in terms of their own
gender in uttering Counterclaim. This is probably due partly to the use of giving
reasons geared toward a non-dominant gender.
A further gender difference in the present corpus is found in relation to the use of
Challenge. Challenge is a most aggravating T2 disagreement for it “directly attacks
the competence of the other” (Muntigl & Turnbull, 1998: 244). A Challenge
typically has an interrogative form, being prefaced with markers, like “when, what,
who, why, where and how” (Muntigl & Turnbull, 1998: 229). That is, a Challenge
appears in the syntactic structure of a question, which exhibits a high frequency ofoccurrence in the present data, especially in the situations of expressing disagreements
to the interlocutors with less institutionalized power. The Taiwanese group is foundto use this strategy as head act proportionally more often than their American
6−286−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

counterpart. They prefer using interrogative forms to challenge a previous claim byshowing doubt and downplaying the proposition. In general, all subjects are more
likely to challenge the previous claims made by male-addressees thanfemale-addressees (F(3, 97)= 4.06, p< .01). One possible explanation, we believe, isthat “behave badly” to male-addressees with lower institutionalized power could
make the speaker’s speech more assertive or powerful. On the contrary, “behave
nicely” to the less powerful female-addressee could be interpreted as an example ofthe speaker’s tendency to maximize familiarity, hence foster in-groupness while
minimizing that of power.
4. Conclusion
Informants’ perception in the four situations of the IDCT do not corroborate Holmes’(1995) conclusions to the effect that female interactional style is always cooperativeand facilitative whereas male style is always competitive and verbally aggressive.
On the other hand, the study proves Montgomery’s claim about that the speakers areaware of their interlocutor and make linguistic adjustments based on who that personis (Montgomery 1998, cited in Bailey and Tillery 1999: 389).
Gender has been posited to be a significant factor in verbal interaction, but thedata collected for this study partially show gender to be as influential in either theseverity of oppositional turns or the use of softeners of disagreement as it postulated
in the literature. The contextual variables, such as settings of verbal interaction andtopics of conversation, apparently interact with gender in a complex way to shapeinteractional patterns.
Addressees’ gender has been suggested to have sociolinguistic effects in theliterature (e.g., Holmes, 1988). Our results underscore the importance of attention to
the influence of sex of addressee on discourse because the present speakers generally
use more mitigated disagreement to male addressees and more aggravateddisagreement to female ones. The discrepancies in the expressions of disagreements
towards male and female addressees reveal that in a male-dominated society, women’s
subordinate position makes themselves easily ambushed at any point in a verbal
interaction.
Additionally, the study lends support to Okamoto’s (2002:102) view that “gendercannot be isolated as an independent variable for determining language us, and …
other variables need to be considered as simultaneously relevant”. Genderresearchers should pay greater attention to intra-gender and inter-gender similarities instrategic discourse since, as our data has revealed, there are many interesting patterns
that, while traditionally ascribed to either male or female speech style, are used byboth groups.
7−287−

Gender-related variation in the responses to criticisms: A contrastive study of Taiwanese and American speakers

References
Bailey P.H. & Tilley S. (2002) Storytelling and the interpretation of meaning inqualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 38, 574–583.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness.
In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kapser (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics:
Requests and apologies (pp. 37-70). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
García, C. (1996). Reprimanding and responding to a reprimand: a case study of
Peruvian Spanish speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 663-697.
Holmes, J., (1988). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategies.
Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 445-465.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. New York: Longman.
Holmes, J. (2006). Gendered Talk at Work. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kapser, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Montgomery, M. B. (1998). Multiple Modals in LAGS and LAMSAS. In M. B.
Montgomery & T. E. Nunnally (Eds.), From the Gulf States and Beyond: The
Legacy of Lee Pederson and LAGS. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama. pp.
90Ʈ122.
Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing.
Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 225-256.
Okamoto, S. (2002). Ideology and Social Meanings: Rethinking the Relationshipbetween Language, Politeness, and Gender. In S. Benor, M. Rose, D. Sharma,
J. Sweetland, and W. Zhang (eds.), Gender Practices in Language, Stanford:
Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 91-113.
Scollon, R., & Wong-Scollon, S. (1983). Face in interethnic communication. In I.
C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp.
156-188). London: Longman.
Stokoe, E.H. (1998). Talking About Gender: the Conversational Construction of
Gender Categories in Academic Discourse, Discourse & Society 9: 217–40.
Wang, Y. (1998). The linguistic structures of agreement and disagreement in
Mandarin Chinese.

Paper presented at the Joint Meeting of the 7thInternational Conference on Chinese Linguistics and the 10th North American
Conference on Chinese Linguistics, Standford University, California, U.S.A.,
25-28 June 1998.
Yeung, L.N.T. (2000). The question of Chinese indirectness: A comparison of Chineseand English participative decision-making discourse. Multilingua, 19 (3),221-264.

8−288−

ワークショップ
Workshop Sessions

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ⱝᖺᒙ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢿ࢜ᩗㄒࠕࢫࠖࡢ౑⏝ືᶵ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࿋ Ὀᆒ
໭ᾏ㐨኱Ꮫ࣭ᑓ㛛◊✲ဨ
㸺Abstract㸼This thesis discusses the use of ‘neo-honorifics’ “su” among young people adopting the
proposal introduced by Oh (2012), in which “su” is considered as a conversational style
between the plain and the formal style. This thesis explains the use of “su” from the point ofview of ‘wording’, focusing on the fact that while adults use it in an active way, young people
use it in a passive way (‘negative motivation’), due to the following three factors: the low
capacity of them to deal with the formal form; the needless of a deep knowledge of it; thewillingness to avoid the language used by adults.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸୎ᑀㄒᙧᘧ㸪ࢿ࢜ᩗㄒ㸦neo-honorifics㸧㸪࣮࣡ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ㸦wording㸧㸪㈇ࡢືᶵ㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪ලయⓗ࡞ሙ㠃࡛ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ୖ㸪ᖖయ࡜ᩗయࡢ୰㛫ヰయ࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿ࿋
ࠕࢫࠖࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ㸪ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ
㸦L㸧ࡢࢿ࢜ᩗㄒ㸦QHRKRQRULILFVLL㸧ࠕࢫࠖࡢ౑⏝ືᶵ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ࠕゝㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊࡢ♫఍໬ࠖ㸦wording㸧ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞せᅉ
ࡀⓎືࡋࡓ࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࡢ࠿㸪ࡑࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ
㸰㸬♫఍ⓗゝㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊࡢⓎ㐩࡜ࠕࢫࠖࡢ౑⏝ ࿋㸦㸧࡛᪤࡟᳨ウࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪♫఍ⓗゝㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊࡀⓎ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿヰ⪅࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࢫࠖࡢ
౑⏝࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ࠕࢫࠖࡀ౑࠼ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠕࢹࢫࠖࡶ౑࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾ㸪ࠕࢹࢫࠖࡀ౑࠼
࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺⌮⏤࡛ࠕࢫࠖࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ㸪ࠕࢹࢫࠖࠕࢫࠖ࡜ࡶ౑࠼ࡿヰ⪅ࡀࠕࢹࢫ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ពᅗⓗ࡟ࠕࢫࠖࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࢆ㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗㄪᩚࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ㔜せ࡞ၥ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙧᘧࡢ㠃࠿ࡽࡍࡿ࡜㸪」㞧࡞ᑛᩗㄒࡸㅬㆡㄒࡢ౑⏝࡜ࡣ㐪ࡗ࡚㸪ࠕࢹࢫࠖࢆ౑࠺࠿ࠕࢫࠖࢆ౑࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣ㸪ࠕࢹࠖࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺༢⣧࡞㐪࠸࡛࠶ࡗ࡚㸪࡝ࡕࡽࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ヰ⪅ࡢ౑⏝ពᛮ㸪㑅ᢥࡢືᶵࡀ㔜せ࡞ࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࢃࡊࢃࡊࠕࢹࢫ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞
ࡃ࡚ࠕࢫࠖࢆ౑ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺࡜ࡇࢁ࡟╔┠ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࠕࢫࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪࿋㸦㸧࡛ࡣ㸪♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳㸦ᩗ㑊ⓗᶵ⬟㸧ࢆ♧ࡋࡘࡘ㸪ಶே㛫࡟࠾ࡅࡿᚰ⌮ⓗ㊥㞳ࢆືⓗ࡟ㄪᩚࡋ㸪ࠕぶ㏆ឤࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࣉࣛࢫࡢⓎヰຠᯝࢆᑟࡁฟࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ

−289−
1

若年層におけるネオ敬語「ス」の使用動機について♧၀ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸪ぶᐦࡉࡀឤࡌࡽࢀࡿ㛵ಀࢆᙧᡂࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢ₯ᅾⓗពᅗࡀࠕࢫࠖࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᘬࡁฟࡉࢀࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋせࡍࡿ࡟㸪♫఍ⓗゝㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊࡀⓎ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤ㸪ࠕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝࡍࡿゝㄒⓗࡩࡿࡲ࠸ࠖࢆ
ᣦྥࡍࡿᚅ㐝⾲⌧ᙧᘧࠕࢫࠖࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪࡝࠺࠸࠺Ⓨヰຠᯝࡀ⏕ࡳฟࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࢆぢ㏻ࡋ࡚Ⓨヰࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡞ࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜㸪♫఍ⓗゝㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊࡀⓎ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡢࠕࢫࠖࡢ㑅ᢥ࣭౑⏝ືᶵ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡀⓎືࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ  㸦㸧୎ᑀᗘࢆୗࡆ࡚┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ㊥㞳ࢆ⦰ࡵࡓ࠸
 ࠕࢫࠖ࡜ࠕࢹࢫࠖࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪࡝ࡕࡽࡢᙧᘧࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ㄪᩚࡣ㸪ࠕᖖయࠖ࡜ࠕᩗయࠖࡢ࠺ࡕ
࡝ࡕࡽࢆ౑࠺࠿㸪ࡘࡲࡾ㸪㊥㞳ࢆ⨨ࡃ࠿⨨࠿࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺㞳ᩓⓗㄪᩚ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾ㸪㸦㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕࢫࠖࡢ㑅ᢥ࣭౑⏝ືᶵ࡟ࡼࡿရ఩ࡸ୎ᑀᗘࢆୗࡆࡿ࡜࠸࠺ㄪᩚ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪♫఍ゝㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊࡀⓎ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࢹࢫЍࢫࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄪᩚࡣ㸪୎ᑀᗘࢆୗࡆࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡿຠ
ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟㸪ࢿ࢜ᩗㄒࠕࢫࠖࡣ㸪ࠕពᅗⓗࠖࠕ✚ᴟⓗࠖ࡟ά⏝ࡋࡓ࣏ࣛ࢖
ࢺࢿࢫࢆࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝࡍࡿᚅ㐝⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚㸪ᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣࡃࡔࡅࡓゝ࠸᪉࡜ࡋ࡚ࢿ࢜ᩗㄒࠕࢫࠖࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟ὀពࢆᡶ࠺࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸱㸬♫఍ⓗゝㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊࡢᮍⓎ㐩࡜ࠕࢫࠖࡢ౑⏝ ୎ᑀᗘྜ࠸ࡢ␗࡞ࡿ᭷ᶆᙧᘧࠕࢫࠖ
ࠕࢹࢫࡲࡍࠖ
ࠕࢹࢦࢨ࢖࣐ࢫࠖࢆពᅗⓗ࡟ㄪᩚࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀゝㄒᙧᘧࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟క࠺Ⓨヰຠᯝࡢㄪᩚࡀྍ⬟࡞♫఍ⓗゝㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊࡀⓎ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀせồࡉࢀࡿࠋ࣮࣡ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ㸦wording㸧࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣ㸪ࠕே㛫ࡣ㸪ࡑࡶࡑࡶᏛ㱋ᮇࡲ࡛࡟୍ᐃࡢᩥ
ἲ⬟ຊࡸㄒᙡຊࢆ㌟࡟ࡘࡅࡿࡀ㸪Ⓨヰ≧ἣ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚㐺ษ࠿ࡘⓗ☜࡟㐠⏝ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ⬟ຊࡣ㸪♫఍ᛶࡀⓎ㐩ࡍࡿ࡟ࡘࢀ࡚Ⓨ㐩ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡇࡇ࡛㸪♫఍ⓗゝㄒ⬟ຊࡀⓎ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜ࡛ࡢࠕࢫࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡣ㸪ࡑࡶࡑࡶࠕ㑅ᢥ⫥ࡀ࡞࠸࠿ࡽࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᾘᴟⓗ࡞⌮⏤ࡀ㸯ࡘࡢ㑅ᢥせᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪 ௦ࡢሙྜࡣ࡝࠺ࡋ࡚
ࡶ౑࠼ࡿ౑⏝ㄒᙡࡀ㝈ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪▱ࡗ࡚࠸࡚⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿࡀ౑ࢃ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃ
࢔ࢡࢸ࢕ࣈࡕ㸪⌮ゎㄒᙡࡢ୰࡟౑⏝ㄒᙡࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪౑⏝ㄒᙡࡣ⬟ືⓗ࡟౑࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡀ㸪⌮ゎㄒࣃ ࢵ ࢩ ࣈᙡࡣཷືⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛㸪ཷࡅྲྀࡿࡔࡅ࡛⮬ศ࠿ࡽⓎಙࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾ࡞࠸ࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ኱ேࡀ౑
࠺ࡼ࠺࡞ゝ࠸᪉ࢆⱝ⪅ࡀ⪺࠸ࡓ࡜ࡁ㸪ࠕព࿡ࡣศ࠿ࡿࡅ࡝㸪ࡑࢀࡣ౑ࢃ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࢃ
ࡅ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪኱ே࡟࡞ࡾ♫఍ᛶࡀⓎ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ࡟ࡘࢀ࡚㸪ࡑࡢᕪࡀᚎࠎ࡟ᇙࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᩗㄒ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡶࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᛶ㉁ࡢࡶࡢ࡛㸪㞳ࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ౑⏝ㄒᙡ࡜⌮ゎㄒᙡࡢ㛫ࡀ㸪ẁࠎ౑⏝ㄒᙡࡀ኱ࡁࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚⌮ゎㄒᙡ࡟㏆࠸࡜ࡇࢁࡲ࡛㸪ࡑࡢࢠࣕࢵࣉࡀᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇ
࠺ࡋࡓᩗㄒࡢ≉ᚩࡣ㸪Jacob L. Mey ࡢゝ࠺ࠕwordingࠖࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ  ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࡢ࡛

−290−
2

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ ࡉࡽ࡟㸪ⱝᖺᒙ࡟ࡼࡿࠕࢫࠖࡢ౑⏝࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪୎ᑀㄒᙧᘧࢆ⣽࠿ࡃ㐠⏝࡛ࡁࡿ⬟ຊࡀప࠸ࡓࡵ㸪౑࠸ศࡅࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸㸪ࡘࡲࡾ㸪Ⓨヰຠᯝࡢㄪᩚࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺⌮⏤࡜࡜ࡶ࡟㸪ࡑࡶࡑࡶ౑࠸ศࡅࡿᚲせࡀ࡞࠸ྍ⬟ᛶࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪୰Ꮫ⏕ࡸ㧗ᰯ⏕࡞࡝ࡢ  ௦ࡢሙྜࡣ㸪ゝㄒ౑⏝⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ぶ࣭ぶᡉ࣭ඛ⏕࣭཭㐩࣭ඛ㍮࡞࡝㸪ᚰ⌮ⓗ㊥㞳ࡢ㏆࠸㌟㏆࡞ே࡜ࡢ᥋ゐࡀከ࠸ࡓࡵ㸪୍⯡ⓗ࡞᪥ᖖ⏕άࡢ୰࡛ࡢゝㄒ㐠⏝ୖ㸪⣽࠿࠸ㄪᩚࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿሙ㠃ࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ
ࡓࡵ㸪ⱝᖺᒙ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡢࠕࢫࠖࡢ౑⏝⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ࠕ୎ᑀㄒᙧᘧࢆ⣽࠿ࡃ౑࠸ศࡅࡿᚲせ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ࡲࡓ㸪࠶ࡿゝㄒᙧᘧࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ㝿㸪ゝㄒᙧᘧࢆ౑⏝࣭㑅ᢥࡍࡿヰ⪅ࡢᚰ⌮㸪ࡘࡲࡾ㸪ࠕ࡝ࡕࡽࡢᙧᘧࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ࡜㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡀࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡶ࠶
ࡿࡀ㸪ᖖ࡟┠ⓗࡸ≺࠸ࡲ࡛ぢ㏻ࡋ࡚Ⓨヰࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪ࠕ࡛͐ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠖ
࡜࠸࠺ゝ࠸᪉ࡣ㸪ࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ᅛࡃ࡚ྂ࠸࠿ࡽ౑࠸ࡓࡃ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⌮⏤࡛ࠕ࡛͐ࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࢆ
㑅ᢥࡍࡿ࡞࡝㸪ูࡢᙧᘧ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡿゝㄒⓗ᧯సࡶ࠶ࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸪ຍ⸨㸦LLL㸧࡛ゝ࠺ࠕṇࡢືᶵࠖ࡜ࠕ㈇ࡢືᶵࠖ࡜࠸࠺  ࡘࡢᴫᛕ࡛ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋࢿ࢜ᩗㄒࠕࢫࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡣ㸪඲⯡ⓗ࡟㧗࠸ᖺ㱋ᒙ࡜ẚ࡭࡚♫఍ⓗゝㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊࡀప࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿⱝᖺᒙ࡟೫ࡾࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪ࠕ኱ேࡪࡗࡓゝ࠸᪉࡟᢬ᢠࢆឤࡌࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⌮⏤࡛ࠕࢫࠖࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ
ࡣ㸪ຍ⸨㸦㸧ࡢࠕゝㄒ౑⏝⪅࡟࠾ࡅࡿືᶵࠖ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽࡍࡿ࡜㸪
ࠕ㈇ࡢືᶵࠖࡢⓎື࡟ࡼࡿ㑅ᢥ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪㧗ᰯ⏕ࡀ㒊άࡢඛ㍮㸪ᢸ௵ࡢඛ⏕࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕ࠺ࡲ
࠸࡛ࡍࡡࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡍࢀࡤ㸪ࡇࢀࡣࠕရ఩ࡀ㧗ࡃ࡚㸪኱ேࡪࡗࡓឤࡌࡀࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ุ᩿ࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪ࡑࢀࢆぶࡋ࠸ඛ㍮ࡸඛ⏕࡟⏝࠸ࡿࡢࡣ㐪࿴ឤࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪┦ᛂࡋࡃ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ุ᩿ࡀ࠶ࢀࡤ㸪ࡑࡇ࡛
ࠕ㈇ࡢືᶵࠖࡀⓎືࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾ㸪ࠕ࠺ࡲ࠸ࡍࡡࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪౯್ࡢ␗࡞ࡿゝㄒᙧᘧࡀ  ࡘ௨ୖᏑᅾࡍࡿሙྜ㸪ࠕࡇࡕࡽࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ࡜ࡇ࠺࠸࠺ຠᯝ
ࡀ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺┠ⓗࡸ≺࠸ࡀṔ↛࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡜ࡣ㐪ࡗ࡚㸪ࠕ∦᪉ࡀ౑࠸ࡓࡃ࡞
࠸࠿ࡽ∦᪉ࢆ౑࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞༢⣧࡞㑅ᢥࡶ࠶ࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇ࡜ࡤ౑࠸ࡢ㐠⏝⬟ຊࡀⓎ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ⱝ⪅ࡢሙྜࡣ㸪ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓឤぬⓗ࡞ุ᩿࡟ࡼࡿ㑅ᢥࢆ⾜࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࡶ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋ
㸲㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ ௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪ࠕពᅗⓗࠖ࡟ࠕࢫࠖࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ㸦♫఍㐠⏝⬟ຊࡀⓎ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧኱ே࡟ᑐࡋ㸪♫఍ゝㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊࡀ࠶ࡲࡾⓎ㐩ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ⱝᖺᒙ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࢫࠖࡢ౑⏝⌮⏤࣭ືᶵ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ  㸦㸧୎ᑀㄒᙧᘧࢆ⣽࠿ࡃㄪᩚࡍࡿ⬟ຊࡀప࠸  㸦㸧୎ᑀㄒᙧᘧࢆ⣽࠿ࡃㄪᩚࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࡞࠸

−291−
3

若年層におけるネオ敬語「ス」の使用動機について  㸦㸧ရ఩ࡀ㧗ࡃ࡚኱ேࡪࡗࡓឤࡌࡀࡍࡿゝ࠸᪉ࢆ㑊ࡅࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࠕ㈇ࡢືᶵࠖࡢⓎື  ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪ゝㄒᙧᘧࢆ⣽࠿ࡃㄪᩚ࡛ࡁࡿ♫఍㐠⏝⬟ຊࡢప࠸ⱝᖺᒙ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ࢿ࢜ᩗㄒࠕࢫࠖ
ࢆ⬟ືⓗ࠿ࡘ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ά⏝ࡍࡿ኱ேࡢሙྜ࡜ࡣ㐪ࡗ࡚㸪ࠕ௚࡟㐺ษ࡞⾲⌧ࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖࠕ኱ேࡪࡗ
ࡓゝ࠸᪉࡟᢬ᢠࢆឤࡌࡿࠖ࡞࡝㸪ཷືⓗ࡛ᾘᴟⓗ࡞౑⏝⌮⏤࣭ືᶵ࡛ࠕࢫࠖࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᤊ
࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
i࿋㸦㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ᩗㄒⓗព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ᭷ᶆᙧᘧࠕࢫࠖࢆ㸪ࠕ୎ᑀࡉࡢ㐃⥆ⓗᑻᗘ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᚅ㐝ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢືⓗㄪᩚࠖࠕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝࡍࡿゝㄒⓗࡩࡿࡲ࠸ࠖࢆᣦྥࡍࡿᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭㸪ࠕࢲࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞༢⣧࡛୰❧ⓗ࡞ᖖయࡢ౑࠸᪉࡜ᩗㄒⓗᚅ㐝ࡢព࿡ࡀ௜୚ࡉࢀࡿ୎ᑀ࡞ࠕࢹࢫࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᶆ‽ⓗ࡞୎ᑀ⾲⌧ࡢ୰㛫ⓗ࡞ࢫࢱ࢖࣭ࣝ
୎ᑀ࡞୰㛫ヰయ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛㸪ࢿ࢜ᩗㄒ QHRKRQRULILFV ࡜఩⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ii ࿋㸦㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕࢿ࢜ᩗㄒࠖࡢⱥㄒヂ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕneo-politeness styleࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪࿋㸦2013㸧ࡢ༤ኈᏛ఩
ㄽᩥ㸦໭ᾏ㐨኱Ꮫ㸧ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ⪺ࡁᡭᚅ㐝⾲⌧ࡢ♫఍ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ◊✲࡛࠘ࡣ㸪ࠕneo-honorificsࠖ࡜ಟṇࡋ࡚⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
iiiຍ⸨㸦㸸㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ゝㄒ౑⏝⪅ࡀ≉ᐃࡢ⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿືᶵ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪┦཯ࡍࡿ㸰ࡘࡢᴫᛕ࡛ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿ࡜
ᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᪂ࡓ࡞ㄒᙧࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜࠸ࡗࡓኚ໬ࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡍືᶵࡣ㸪ཎ๎࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ṇࡢືᶵ SRVLWLYH
PRWLYDWLRQ ࡜㈇ࡢືᶵ QHJDWLYHPRWLYDWLRQ ࡜࡟஧ศࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ㸪ṇࡢືᶵ࡜ࡣ㸪ࠓ᪂ࡋ࠸ᙧᘧ㸦ㄒᙧࡸ⏝ἲ㸧ࡀᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ุ᩿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪ᪧ᮶ࡢᙧᘧࢆ⏝࠸ࡎ㸪᪂ࡋ࠸ᙧᘧࢆ⏝࠸ࡿពᛮࠔ
ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾ㸪㈇ࡢືᶵ࡜ࡣࠓᪧ᮶ࡢᙧᘧ㸦ㄒᙧࡸ⏝ἲ㸧࡛ࡣ୙㐺ษ㸪࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㸪୙༑ศࡔ࡜࠸࠺ุ᩿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪ᪧ᮶ࡢᙧᘧࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪᪂ࡋ࠸ᙧᘧࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ពᛮࠔࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㅰ㎡ᮏ✏ࡣ㸪᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨  ᅇᖺḟ኱఍㸦 ᖺ  ᭶㸪᪊኱㜰Ꮫ㝔኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࠕⱝ
⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩ࡛ࠖࡢⓎ⾲ࢆᇶ࡟ಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ఍ሙ࡛ᮏ◊✲࡟ᑐ
ࡍࡿ㈗㔜࡞ࡈពぢࢆ䛟䛰䛥䛳䛯ⓙᵝ᪉䛻䠈䛣䛾ᶵ఍䜢೉䜚䛶῝䛟ឤㅰ䛾ព䜢⾲䛧䛯䛔䚹


ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Jacob L. Mey. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Blackwell.
஭ୖྐ㞝ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ࢛࢘ࢵࢳࣥࢢ࠘ᮾி㸸ᒾἼ᪂᭩
࿋Ὀᆒࠕࢿ࢜ᩗㄒࠗࢫ࠘ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࠖ᪥ᮏゝㄒᏛ఍  ᖺ  ᭶㸪᪊ᮾிእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ ࠗ᪥ᮏゝㄒᏛ఍➨  ኱఍ண✏㞟࠘㸪
࿋Ὀᆒࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ⪺ࡁᡭᚅ㐝⾲⌧ࡢ♫఍ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ◊✲࠘ࠕᖹᡂ  ᖺᗘ໭ᾏ㐨኱Ꮫ༤ኈᏛ఩
ㄽᩥࠖ㸪໭ᾏ㐨኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩥᏛ◊✲⛉ຍ⸨㔜ᗈࠕゝㄒ౑⏝⪅࡟࠾ࡅࡿືᶵࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ
ࠗᐩᒣ኱ᏛேᩥᏛ㒊⣖せ࠘

−292−
4

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ᒉᎍᚕᓶỆấẬỦဦᛖᴾ Ḙฑ᜿ᛖίἀἵἽᛖὸửɶ࣎ỆḘᴾ㯮⏣୍ᖹி㒔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔<Abstract>
This study investigates pragmatic functions of abbreviations in Shibuya-go, a Japanese slang usedby the young. Previous studies on abbreviations or young people's slang have referred tomotivations or effects of them, but they have hardly focused on the contexts of use. In this paper, I
first categorize the abbreviations by their formal and semantic features. Then, I arrange themotivations and effects claimed by previous studies into five functions. Finally, I illustrate thatthese functions corresponds to the motivations or effects in individual usage events. This approachsuggests that we can characterize the motivation and effect of abbreviations by the combination offunctions and the context of use.

࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
ⱝ⪅ゝⴥࠊ␎ㄒࠊ᪂ㄒࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ᵏᵌᴾ ỊẳỜỆᴾ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ᢅ࠺ࡢࡣⱝ⪅ゝⴥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␎ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡢⱝ⪅ゝⴥ࡜ࡣࠕ῰㇂ㄒࠖࠕࢠࣕࣝㄒࠖ
࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠊ῰㇂ࡢⱝ࠸ዪᛶࢆ୰ᚰ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦࠸ࡓ㸧ⱝ⪅ゝⴥࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿࠋⱝ⪅ゝⴥ࡟ࡣᵝࠎ࡞㐀ㄒἲࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ≉࡟␎ㄒࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿ㸦⡿ᕝ 1995 ௚㸧ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ␎ㄒ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕ࠶ࡿඖ⾲⌧ࡀ▷⦰ࡋ࡚సࡽࢀࡓ࡜ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿㄒྃࠖ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ␎ㄒ࡟ࡣࠊㄒ✀ࡸ┬␎⟠ᡤ࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡗ
࡚ᵝࠎ࡞✀㢮ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊ࢖ࢽࢩࣕࣜࢬ࣒(initialism) ࡸ࢔ࢡࣟࢽ࣒(acronym) ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ࢔ࣝࣇ࢓࣋ࢵࢺ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡜ࠊㄒ࣭ྃࡢ୍㒊㸦㡢⠇㸧ࢆṧࡍࢡࣜࢵࣆࣥࢢ(clipping) ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢࢆࡳࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡢᙧᘧࡶࠊⱝ⪅ゝⴥ࡟㝈ࡽࡎࠊᵝࠎ࡞ゝㄒኚ✀࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊⱝ⪅ゝⴥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿ␎ㄒࢆᙧᘧⓗ࣭ព࿡ⓗ≉ᚩ࠿ࡽศ㢮ࡋࠊࡑࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟㸦౑⏝ືᶵࡸ⾲⌧ຠᯝ㸧ࢆ౑⏝౛࠿ࡽࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
ᵐᵌᴾ ฑ᜿ᛖỉ࢟ࡸႎὉॖԛႎཎࣉᴾࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ 2008 ᖺ๓ᚋ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ῰㇂ㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␎ㄒࡢලయ౛ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ௨ୗࡢ
ྛ౛ࡣᕳᮎࡢཧ↷㈨ᩱ࡟ࡼࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧 a. ࢣ࣮ࣃࣥ 㸦<ẟ⣒ࡢࣃࣥࢶ㸧b. ࢖࣋ࢧ࣮ 㸦<࢖࣋ࣥࢺࢧ࣮ࢡࣝ㸧㸦2㸧 a. ࡪ㹼ࡸ 㸦<ࢩࣈࣖࠋ῰㇂㸧b. ࣃࢿ࢙ 㸦<ࣁࣥࣃࡡ࠻ࠋ༙➃࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸧1−293−

若者言葉における略語―渋谷語（ギャル語）を中心に―

㸦3㸧 a. ࢝ࣛ࢔ࢤ 㸦<࢝ࣛඖẼ࡛࢔ࢤ࢔ࢤ㸧b. ࢚ࣟࢫ 㸦<࠼ࡽࡃ(኱ኚ) ࣟࢫ(ᦆ) ࡍࡿࡇ࡜㸧㸦4㸧 a. KY 㸦<ձ✵Ẽㄞࡵ࡞࠸ ղᜊࡢணឤ ճ௒ኪࡀᒣ㸧b. KD 㸦<ձ㧗ᰯࢹࣅ࣮ࣗ ղ໬⢝⏨Ꮚ ճ㢦ࡀࢹ࢝࠸㸧㸦5㸧 a. PK 㸦<ࣃࣥࢶ㣗࠸ࡇࢇ࡛ࡿ㸧b. AKB 㸦<࠶࠼࡚✵Ẽࡪࡗࡇࢃࡍ㸧 (1),(2) ࡣ῰㇂ㄒ௨እࡢⱝ⪅ゝⴥࡸ಑ㄒ࡟ࡶࡳࡽࢀࡿᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ (1) ࡣࠕㄒ㢌ࢆṧࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺
␎ㄒࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ཎ๎࡟ᚑࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (2) ࡣㄒ㢌ࢆ┬␎ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ඖ⾲⌧ࢆศ࠿ࡾ࡟ࡃࡃࡉࡏࡿᙧ
ᘧ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕࡸࡃࡊゝⴥࠖ࡞࡝࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ㸦cf. ❑ⷵ 2006㸧ࠋ(3) ࡣ῰㇂ㄒ࡟≉ᚩⓗ࡞ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
┬␎ᚋࡢゝⴥࡀ᪤Ꮡࡢㄒࡸ␎ㄒ࡜ྠ㡢࡟࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟సࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(4),(5) ࡣ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕKY ㄒࠖ࡜ࡼࡤࢀࡿᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㢌Ꮠㄒ㢮ࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧࡣ῰㇂ㄒ≉᭷ࡢࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ᡓ๓ࡢᪧ᪥ᮏᾏ㌷࡛ࡶ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜࠸࠺㸦໭ཎ 2008㸧ࠋࡲࡓࠊⱥㄒᅪ࡛ࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡞┬␎ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ῰㇂ㄒࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ(4) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ከ⩏ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࡸࠊ(5) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᪤Ꮡࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ㄒࡸ␎ㄒ
࡜㔜࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟సࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ඲యⓗ࡟ࠊ῰㇂ㄒࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊඖ⾲⌧ࡀྡモ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃྃ
ࡸ⠇ࡢࡶࡢࡀከࡃࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋ
ᵑᵌᴾ ဦᛖỉᛖဇᛯႎೞᏡᴾ␎ㄒࡣࠊཎ๎ⓗ࡟ࡣඖ⾲⌧࡜ྠࡌᣦ♧ⓗព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࠋ୍᪉ࠊࡑࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟㸦౑⏝ືᶵ࣭⾲⌧ຠᯝ㸧ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡢព࿡࡛ࠊ␎ㄒࡣࡑࡢඖ⾲⌧࡜㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋඛ⾜◊✲࡞࡝࠿ࡽࠊ␎ㄒࡀᯝࡓࡍᶵ⬟ࡣࠊḟࡢ 5 ࡘ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿ㸦ᮧ⏣ 2005, ኱ᵳ 2002, ⡿ᕝ 1995 ௚ 㸧ࠋࡓࡔࡋࡇࢀࡽࡣ┦஫᤼௚ⓗ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
㸦6㸧 a. ⤒῭ᛶ㸸㡢ኌ࣭ᩥᏐࡢ▷⦰࡟ࡼࡿࠊⓎヰࡸゎ㔘ࡢࢥࢫࢺࡢ๐ῶᶵ⬟b. 㛢㙐ᛶ㸸␎ㄒࡢゝㄒኚ✀ࢆ♧ࡍࠊ㞟ᅋㄒ㸦఩┦ㄒ㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᶵ⬟c. ⥭ᐦᛶ㸸ᑐ㇟࡬ࡢぶ㏆ឤ࣭᎘ᝏឤࢆ⾲ࡍᶵ⬟d. ፗᴦᛶ㸸ㄒ࿅ࡢⰋࡉࡸࠊゝⴥ㐟ࡧⓗ࡞఍ヰࡢಁ㐍ᶵ⬟e. ፣᭤ᛶ㸸ゝ࠸࡙ࡽ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ㛫᥋ⓗ࡟⾲⌧ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ (6b) ࡣࠊゝㄒ㞟ᅋࡢࠕ࢘ࢳࠖ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ㐃ᖏឤࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ാ
ࡃ㸦ඹឤⓗ㛢㙐ᛶ㸧ࠋࡲࡓࠊࠕࢯࢺࠖ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ␗࡞ࡿゝㄒኚ✀㸦⌮ゎ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸⾲⌧㸧ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡿ␯እឤ࣭᎘ᝏឤࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍ㸦㞃ㄒⓗ㛢㙐ᛶ㸧ࠋᵒᵌᴾ ฑ᜿ᛖỆấẬỦᛖဇᛯႎೞᏡᴾ
ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ῰㇂ㄒࡢ౑⏝౛࠿ࡽࠊࡑࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕヰࡋᡭࡢ౑⏝ືᶵ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡀཷࡅࡿ⾲⌧ຠᯝࢆࠊලయⓗ࡟᳨ドࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
(7) ࡣ (1a) ࡢ౑⏝౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2−294−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

㸦7㸧 A: ࡑࢁࡑࢁࢣ࣮ࣃࣥࡢᏘ⠇ࡔࡡ
B: ࢣ࣮ࣃࣥࡗ࡚

࠿ࡃ࡚ྍឡࡃ࡚㉸౑࠼ࡿ‫ݜ‬㸦ࢣ࣮ࣃࣥ㸻ẟ⣒ࡢࣃࣥࢶ㸧       㸦ࠗ῰㇂ㄒ㎡඾ '09̺'10࠘: 14, ୗ⥺➹⪅㸧(7) ࡢヰࡋᡭ A ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊⓎヰ࠿ࡽ᥎ࡉࢀࡿ␎ㄒࡢ౑⏝ືᶵ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᡭ▷࡟ゝ࠸ࡓ࠸㸦⤒῭ᛶ㸧ࠊ㐃ᖏឤࢆᚓࡓ࠸㸦ඹឤⓗ㛢㙐ᛶ㸧ࠊᑐ㇟ࡢ฼⏝㢖ᗘࡢ㧗ࡉࢆ⾲ࡋࡓ࠸㸦⥭ᐦᛶ㸧ࠊ఍ヰࡢࢸ࣏ࣥࢆࡼࡃࡋࡓ࠸㸦ፗᴦᛶ㸧࡞࡝ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊB ࡀ A ࡢⓎヰ࠿ࡽཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ⾲⌧ຠᯝࡣࠊ⪺ࡁ㸦ㄞࡳ㸧ࡸࡍ࠸㸦⤒῭ᛶ㸧ࠊ㐃ᖏឤࢆឤࡌࡿ㸦ඹឤⓗ㛢㙐ᛶ㸧ࠊᑐ㇟ࡢ฼⏝㢖ᗘࡢ㧗ࡉࢆឤࡌࡿ㸦⥭ᐦᛶ㸧ࠊㄒ࿅ࡀ࠸࠸㸦ፗᴦᛶ㸧࡞࡝ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(8) ࡣ (2a) ࡢ౑⏝౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦8㸧 A: ௒᪥Ꮫᰯ⤊ࢃࡗࡓࡽࡪ㹼ࡸ⾜࠿࡞࠸㸽
B: ⾜ࡃ⾜ࡃ㸟࣐࣮࡛ࣝ࢟ࣗ᭹㈙ࡗ࡚࠿ࡽࠊࡲࡗࡓࡾ࠾Ⲕࡋࡼ࠺ࡼ
㸦ࡪ㹼ࡸ㸻῰㇂㸧    㸦ࠗ῰㇂ㄒ㎡඾ 2008࠘: 53, ୗ⥺➹⪅㸧ࡇࡢ౛㸦ࡪ㹼ࡸ㸧࡛ࡣࠊ㛗㡢ࡢᤄධࡢࡓࡵࠊ┬␎ࡢ๓ᚋ࡛㛗ࡉࡀኚࢃࡽ࡞࠸㸦㸱࣮ࣔࣛ㸧ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊඹឤⓗ㛢㙐ᛶࡸፗᴦᛶ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ௚ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࡀ㔜どࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
(9), (10), (11) ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ (4a), (5a), (6a) ࡢ౑⏝౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦9㸧 A: ನࠊ᫖᪥࢝ࣀࢪࣙ࡟ࡩࡽࢀࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࡉ࠵㹼
B: ࡑ࠺࠿ࠊṧᛕࡔࡗࡓ࡞ࠋࡲ࠵࢝ࣛ࢔ࢤ࡛࠸ࡇ࠺ࡐ࢝ࣛ࢔ࢤ࡛
A: ࠾๓ࠊࡇࢇ࡞࡜ࡁ࡟၈ᥭࡆ࡞ࢇ࡚㣗ࡗ࡚ࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࡼ͐
㸦ࠗ῰㇂ㄒ㎡඾ 2008࠘: 23, ୗ⥺➹⪅㸧
㸦10㸧 A: ࡇࡢ෤ࡇࡑࠊᙼẶࡀ࡛ࡁࡑ࠺࡞Ẽࡀࡍࡿࡢ‫ݗ‬
B: KY ࡗ࡚ࡸࡘࡔࡡࠋ௒ᗘࡇࡑࠊࡑࡢ຺ᙜࡓࡿ࡜࠸࠸ࡡ‫ݜ‬㸦ࠗ῰㇂ㄒ㎡඾ '09̺'10࠘: 104, ୗ⥺➹⪅㸧
㸦11㸧 A: ࡝࠺ࡋࡓࡢ㸽
B: ࡉࡗࡁ࠿ࡽࡎࡗ࡜ PK ࡞ࢇࡔࢃࠋࡘ࣮࠿ࡇࡇ࡛┤ࡋ࡚࠸࠸㸽
A: ࠶ࡑࡇࡢ࣓࢟ࣔࣥࡀࡇࡗࡕぢ࡚ࡿ࠿ࡽࡸࡵ࡜ࡁ࡞
㸦ࠗKY ㄒ㎡඾࠘: 12, ୗ⥺➹⪅㸧
2 ⠇࡛ࡳࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡣ᪤Ꮡࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ㄒࡸ␎ㄒࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡣࠊゎ㔘࡟࠿࠿ࡿࢥࢫࢺࡸࠊゎ㔘ࡢኻᩋ࡜࠸࠺ࣜࢫࢡࡢࡓࡵࠊ(8) ࡜ྠᵝࠊ⤒῭ᛶࡼࡾࡶඹឤⓗ㛢㙐ᛶࡸፗᴦᛶࡀ㔜どࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ(9) ࡛ࡣ B ࡣࠕ࢝ࣛඖẼ࡛࢔ࢤ࢔ࢤࠖࡢ␎࡜ࡋ࡚
ࠕ࢝ࣛ࢔ࢤࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊA ࡣᏐ⩏㏻ࡾ࡟ࠕ၈ᥭࡆࠖ࡜ཷࡅྲྀࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ␎ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢゎ㔘ࡣኻᩋࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(10) ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ✵Ẽㄞࡵ࡞࠸(Kuuki Yomenai)ࠖࡢ␎ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚᭷ྡ࡞ࠕKYࠖ࡜࠸
3

−295−

若者言葉における略語―渋谷語（ギャル語）を中心に―࠺⾲⌧ࡀࠕᜊࡢணឤ(Koi no Yokan)ࠖࡢ␎ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋB ࡢ౑⏝ືᶵ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊඹ
ឤࡸࠊㅦ࠿ࡅⓗ࡞ፗᴦᛶࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(11) ࡛ࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࡣࢧࢵ࣮࢝ࡢࠕ࣌ࢼࣝࢸ࢕࣭࢟ࢵࢡࠖ
ࡢ␎࡜ࡋ࡚▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕPKࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡀࠊࠕࣃࣥࢶࡀ㣗࠸㎸ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋB ࡢ౑⏝ືᶵ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ⠇ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ⾲⌧ࢆ༢ㄒ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝ⾲ࡍ࡜࠸࠺⤒῭ᛶࡢ௚࡟ࠊゝⴥ㐟ࡧ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢፗᴦᛶ࡞࡝ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ≉࡟ࡇࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊእ㒊ࡢே㛫࡟ࡣ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ࠸㸦㞃ㄒⓗ㛢㙐ᛶ㸧࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ A ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚┤᥋ⓗ࡞≀ゝ࠸ࢆ㑊ࡅࡓ࠸㸦፣᭤ᛶ㸧࡜࠸࠺౑⏝ືᶵࡀᙉࡃാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭࡸ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿ౑⏝ືᶵࡸ⾲⌧ຠᯝࡣࠊࡑࡢ౑⏝ᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ỵᐃࡉࢀࠊྛㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡜ࡋ࡚グ㏙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
ᵓᵌᴾ ộểỜểʻࢸỉᛢ᫆ᴾ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ␎ㄒࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࢆᩚ⌮ࡋࠊ఍ヰⓗ࡞౑⏝౛࠿ࡽࡑࢀࡽࡢ౑⏝ືᶵࡸ⾲⌧ຠᯝࢆ᳨ウࡋࡓࠋᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊⱝ⪅ゝⴥࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿ῰㇂ㄒࢆ⏝࠸ࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆᙧᘧⓗ࣭ព࿡ⓗ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ౑⏝౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊྛ౑⏝౛࡛ࠊࡑࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟࡟㐪࠸ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ␎ㄒࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࢆㄽࡌࡿ㝿࡟ᩥ⬦ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢᚲせᛶࠊ࠾ࡼࡧྛ␎ㄒࡢ౑⏝ືᶵ࣭⾲⌧ຠᯝࡀࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡜ࡋ࡚グ㏙࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ
໬ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡲࡎྛㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᶵ⬟ࢆ᪤Ꮡࡢᴫᛕ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃࠿ࡽ⢭⦓໬ࡋࠊᐈほⓗ࡞ุ᩿ᇶ‽ࢆタࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢୖ࡛ࠊ῰㇂ㄒ௨እࡢⱝ⪅ゝⴥࡸࠊⱝ⪅ゝⴥ௨እࡢ␎ㄒ࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࡼࡾከࡃࡢ஦౛ࢆศᯒࡋ࡚࠸ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋӋༀ૨ྂᴾ▼㔝༤ྐ. 1993. ࠕ␎ㄒࡢ㐀ㄒἲࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘
ࠊ12: 10ࠊ57-64.
໭ཎಖ㞝. 2008. ࠗKY ᘧ᪥ᮏㄒ ࣮࣐ࣟᏐ␎ㄒࡀ࡞ࡐὶ⾜ࡿࡢ࠿࠘ࠊᮾி: ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
❑ⷵᬕኵ. 2006. ࠕⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢゝㄒᵓ㐀ࠖࠊࠗ᭶หゝㄒ࠘
ࠊ35: 3㸦3 ᭶ྕ㸧ࠊ52-59.
᳃ᒸ೺஧. 1988. ࠕ␎ㄒࡢ᮲௳ࠖ
ࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘
ࠊ7: 10ࠊ4-12.
ᮧ⏣࿴௦. 2005. ࠕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࠿ࡽぢࡿⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢᶵ⬟̿㱟㇂኱Ꮫ࢟ࣕࣥࣃࢫㄒࡢศᯒࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚̿ࠖ
ࠊࠗ㱟㇂኱Ꮫᅜ㝿ࢭࣥࢱ࣮◊✲ᖺሗ࠘ࠊ➨ 14 ྕࠊ25-37.
すᑿᐥᘺ. 1980. ࠕ␎ㄒࡢᵓ㐀ࠖࠊࠗゝㄒ⏕ά࠘
ࠊ➨ 339 ྕࠊ40-47.
኱ᵳ⨾ᬛᏊ. 2002. ࠕ␎ㄒ࡜ㄒ✀ ⱝ⪅ゝⴥࡢ␎ㄒ࡜ࡑࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅࠖࠊࠗ኱㇂ዪᏊ኱ᅜᩥ࠘
ࠊ➨ 32 ྕࠊ21-40.
ㄶゼ ຌ. 1971. ࠕ␎ㄒࡢၥ㢟ࠖࠊࠗゝㄒᩥ໬࠘
ࠊ➨ 7 ᕳࠊ3-20.
⡿ᕝ᫂ᙪ. 1995. ࠕ㐃㍕㸹ⱝ⪅ㄒࡢୡ⏺(3)̿ⱝ⪅ㄒࡢ㐀ㄒἲ(ୖ)ࠖ
ࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘
ࠊ14: 1ࠊ114-123.

Ӌༀ᝻૰ᴾ
BROCKBUSTER + ⌧௦␎ㄒ◊✲఍. 2008. ࠗKY ㄒ㎡඾࠘ࠊᮾி: ⓑኪ᭩ᡣ.
ட஭ Ꮥ࣭Ἑ㔝භ㑻࣭༓㔝ᰤ୍(⦅). 1996. ࠗゝㄒᏛ኱㎡඾ 6 ⾡ㄒ⦅࠘ࠊᮾி: ୕┬ᇽ.
῰㇂ㄒไసጤဨ఍. 2008. ࠗ῰㇂ㄒ㎡඾ 2008࠘ࠊᮾி: TWJ.
῰㇂ㄒไసጤဨ఍. 2009. ࠗ῰㇂ㄒ㎡඾ '09̺'10࠘
ࠊᮾி: TWJ.

4−296−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ࠕ㐺ᙜࠖ࡜ࠕ᭱㧗ࠖࡀ࢝ࢱ࢝ࢼ⾲グࡉࢀࡿືᶵࡢ㐪࠸̿̿㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࠿ࡽࡢศᯒ̿̿
ྜྷ⏣඘Ⰻἲᨻ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸺Abstract㸼
In recent years, young people often writes "㐺ᙜ" as "ࢸ࢟ࢺ࣮," and "᭱㧗" as "ࢧ࢖ࢥ࣮."

It is well known which type of character they use depends on the meanings. This

research focuses on the "㐺ᙜ/ࢸ࢟ࢺ࣮" and "᭱㧗/ࢧ࢖ࢥ࣮," and explains how these four
expressions are different in their meanings from a viewpoint of Relevance Theory.
䛆䜻䞊䝽䞊䝗䛇䠖䜹䝍䜹䝘㻔∦௬ྡ㻕⾲グ䚸㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ䚸ゎ㔘䝁䝇䝖䚸ពᅗ᫂♧ⓗ่⃭䚸ఏ㐩ⓗពᅗ㻔ྵព㻕㻌 ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
㏆ᖺ䚸ⱝ⪅䜢୰ᚰ䛻䛂㐺ᙜ䛃䜢䛂䝔䜻䝖䞊䛃䚸䛂᭱㧗䛃䜢䛂䝃䜲䝁䞊䛃䛸⾲グ䛩䜛౛䛜┠❧䛴䜘䛖䛻䛺䛳䛶䛝䛯䛜䚸⾲グἲ䛾㑅ᢥ䛿༢䛺䜛അ↛䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸ఱ䛛䛧䜙䛾ព࿡䜢ᣢ䛴䛣䛸䛜䜘䛟▱䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䠄ᅵᒇ 1976䚸ᰘ⏣ 1998䚸ᇼᑿ䞉๎ᯇ 2006䚸⮻ᮌ 2008䠅䚹䛭䛣䛷ᮏ✏䛷䛿䚸䛂㐺ᙜ䛃䛸䛂᭱㧗䛃䛜䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛥䜜䜛ືᶵ䛾㐪䛔䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸䛂ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡䛾ᕪ䛃䛻╔┠䛧䚸㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ䛾ほⅬ䛛䜙ㄝ᫂䜢ヨ䜏䜛䚹 ඛ⾜◊✲ᰘ⏣(1998)䛿䚸ᅵᒇ(1976)䞉బ➉(1980)䞉㔝ᮧ(1981)䜢㋃䜎䛘䛶䚸㏻ᖖ₎Ꮠ(䜎䛯䛿䜂䜙䛜䛺)⾲グ䛥䜜䜛ㄒ䛜ᩒ䛘䛶䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛥䜜䜛⌮⏤䜢ḟ䛾䜘䛖䛻䜎䛸䜑䛶䛔䜛䚹(䜰) ᭩䛝䛻䛟䛔₎Ꮠ䜔ㄞ䜏䛻䛟䛔₎ㄒ䜢ศ䛛䜚䜔䛩䛟⾲グ䛩䜛(ྵ⾲እ₎Ꮠ䞉⾲እ㡢カ)(䜲) ヰ䛧䛣䛸䜀ⓗ䛺≉ᚩ䜢⏕䛛䛩(䜴) ≉Ṧ䛺ព࿡䜔ㄒឤ䜢ᣢ䛯䛫䜛(䜶) ㄒྃ䛾䛂ษ䜜┠䛃䜢⾲♧䛩䜛ᙺ๭䜢ᯝ䛯䛩㻌 㻌 (ᰘ⏣ 1998)䜎䛯䚸๎ᯇ䞉ᇼᑿ(2006)䛿䚸ⱝ⪅㞧ㄅ䜢ᑐ㇟䛸䛧䛯ㄒᙡㄪᰝ䛻ᇶ䛵䛔䛶䚸䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛥䜜䜔䛩䛔ഴྥ䛜䛒䜛䜒䛾䛸䛧䛶䛂ᛶ㉁䜔≧ែ䛺䛹ᒓᛶ䜢⾲䛩ㄒ䜔䚸ឤぬ䞉ᚰ᝟䛺䛹᝟ែ䜢⾲䛩ㄒ䛃䜢ᣲ䛢䛶䛔䜛䚹䛣䛖䛧䛯◊✲䜢㋃䜎䛘䛶䚸⮻ᮌ(2008)䛿䚸ẚ㍑ⓗ㛗ᮇ㛫䛻䜟䛯䛳䛶Ⓨ⾜䛥䜜⥆䛡䛶䛔䜛㞧ㄅ䛾ㄒᙡㄪᰝ(10ᖺ䛚䛝䚸80 ᖺศ)䜢⾜䛔䚸䛂1986 ᖺ௨㝆䚸ྠ䛨⾲グ䛜⧞䜚㏉䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䛜ቑ䛘䛶䛚䜚䚸∦௬ྡ⾲グ䛾ከᵝ໬䛿㏆ᖺ཰᮰䛧䛴䛴䛒䜛䛃䛣䛸䜢ᣦ᦬䛧䚸ᐃ╔ഴྥ䛸䛭䛖䛷䛺䛔䜒䛾䛸䜢♧䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ᐃ╔ഴྥ䜢♧䛩䜒䛾䛸䛧䛶䛿䛂ᨃኌㄒ䚸ᨃែㄒ䚸๪モ䚸ឤືモ➼䛾∦௬ྡ⾲グ䛃䞉䛂䛄䝍䝛䛅䛄䝎䝯䛅䛺䛹䛾࿴ㄒ䞉₎ㄒ䛾∦௬ྡ⾲グ䛃䜢ᣲ䛢䛶䛔䜛䚹௨ୖ䛾◊✲䜢㋃䜎䛘䛯ୖ䛷䚸ᮏ✏䛷䛿䚸ㄒ䛾౑⏝ሙ㠃䛻↔Ⅼ䜢⤠䜚䚸ព࿡ゎ㔘䛻୚䛘䜛䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛾ᙳ㡪䛻䛴䛔䛶⪃ᐹ䛩䜛䚹

1

−297−

「適当」と「最高」がカタカナ表記される動機の違い―関連性理論からの分析― ࠕゎ㔘ࢥࢫࢺࡢ๐ῶࠖࡢࡓࡵࡢ࢝ࢱ࢝ࢼ⾲グ̿̿ࠕࢸ࢟ࢺ࣮ࠖ̿̿
᪂㔝(2011)䛿䛂ኚ໬䛧䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛿ᗈ䛟▱䜙䜜䛶䛔䛺䛜䜙䚸䜎䛳䛯䛟䛄ㄗ⏝䛅ど䛥䜜䛺䛔஦౛䛃䛸䛧䛶䛂㐺ᙜ䛃䛾Ꮡᅾ䜢ᣦ᦬䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹(1) ᮇᮎヨ㦂䛷䛂ḟ䛾タၥ䛻ᑐ䛧䚸ゎ⟅ḍ䛻㐺ᙜ䛺⟅䜢᭩䛡䛃䛸䛔䛖ၥ㢟䛜ฟ䛯䛜䚸䛥䛳䜁䜚䜟䛛䜙䛺䛛䛳䛯䛾䛷䚸䛧䜗䛖䛜䛺䛟䝔䜻䝖䞊䛺⟅䜢᭩䛔䛯䜙䚸䜔䛳䜁䜚×䛰䛳䛯䚹(᪂㔝 2011䚸ୗ⥺➹⪅)᪂㔝(2011)䛿䚸䛂㐺ᙜ䛃䜢䚸䛂ᑐ⩏ⓗ᪉ྥ䜈䛾ព࿡ኚ໬䛜㉳䛝䛯䛜䚸䛺䛚䚸䝥䝷䝇䞉䝬䜲䝘䝇䛾ṇ཯ᑐ䛾ព࿡䛜⌧ᅾ᪥ᖖㄒ䛷ే⏝䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䚸㠀ᖖ䛻⯆࿡῝䛔ㄒ䛾౛䛃䛸䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹㻌 㻌 㻌 (᪂㔝 2011)䐟 䛥䜟䛧䛔(䝥䝷䝇䛾ព࿡)䚸ղ䛔䛔䛛䛢䜣(䝬䜲䝘䝇䛾ព࿡)⾲ 1 䛿䚸䛂⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ᭩䛝ゝⴥᆒ⾮䝁䞊䝟䝇(௨ୗ䚸BCCWJ)䛃䛾䛩䜉䛶䛾䝃䝤䝁䞊䝟䝇䜢ᑐ㇟䛸䛧䛯䛂୰⣡ゝ䛃䛻䜘䜛䛂㐺ᙜ䛃䛾᳨⣴䛷ᚓ䜙䜜䛯 1970 ᖺ௦䛛䜙 2000 ᖺ௦䛻䛛䛡䛶䛾⏝౛䛾ඛ㢌 100 ௳䜢ព࿡䛤䛸䛻ศ㢮䛧䚸䛭䜜䛮䜜䛾⏝౛ᩘ䜢♧䛧䛯䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹᫬㛫䛾⤒㐣䛻ᚑ䛳䛶ղ䛾ព࿡䛾๭ྜ䛜ḟ➨䛻ቑຍ䛩䜛ഴྥ䜢ㄞ䜏ྲྀ䜛䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䚸᪂㔝(2011)䛾ᣦ᦬䛿ᴫ䛽ጇᙜ䛸ᛮ䜟䜜䜛䚹㐺ᙜ
1970 ᖺ௦
1980 ᖺ௦
1990 ᖺ௦
2000 ᖺ௦

ձ
99
89
82
55

ղ
1
11
18
45

1970 ᖺ௦
1980 ᖺ௦
1990 ᖺ௦
2000 ᖺ௦⾲ 㻝㻌 䛂㐺ᙜ䛃ព࿡䛾᥎⛣㻌

㐺ᙜ
130
380
701
1642(884)

ࢸ࢟ࢺ࣮
0
0
5
14(62)

⾲ 㻞㻌 䛂㐺ᙜ䠋䝃䜲䝁䞊䛃ᖺ௦䛤䛸䛾⏝౛ᩘ䛾᥎⛣㻌䈜㻔㻌 㻕ෆ䛿䚸㼅㼍㼔㼛㼛㻍▱ᜨ⿄䞉䝤䝻䜾䛾⏝౛ᩘ㻌

⾲ 2 䛻♧䛩䛾䛿䚸BCCWJ 䛾䛂୰⣡ゝ䛃䛻䜘䜛䛂㐺ᙜ䛃䞉䛂䝔䜻䝖䞊䛃䛾᳨⣴䛷ᚓ䜙䜜䛯ᖺ௦䛤䛸䛾䝠䝑䝖௳ᩘ䜢䜎䛸䜑䛯䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹1990 ᖺ௦䛻ධ䜚䛂䝔䜻䝖䞊䛃䛾⏝౛䛜ฟ⌧䛧䚸2000 ᖺ௦䛷䛿䛭䛾⏝౛ᩘ䛜ቑຍ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛣䛣䛷ᚓ䜙䜜䛯䛂䝔䜻䝖䞊䛃䛾⏝౛䜢☜ㄆ䛩䜛䛸䛩䜉䛶ղ䛾ព࿡䛷䛒䛳䛯䚹䛣䜜䜢㋃䜎䛘䚸䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛥䜜䛯䛂䝔䜻䝖䞊䛃䜢䜑䛠䜛᭩䛝ᡭ䞉ㄞ䜏ᡭ䛻䜘䜛䛭䜜䛮䜜䛾᝿ᐃ䜢ḟ䛾⾲ 3 䛻䜎䛸䜑䛯䚹

1.
2.
3.

᭩ࡁᡭ
㐺ᙜ䛻䛿஧䛴䛾ព࿡䛜䛒䜛䛂᝟ሗⓗពᅗ䛃䜢䜒䛳䛶㏻ᖖ䛿₎Ꮠ
⾲グ䛥䜜䜛ㄒ䜢䛣䛣䛷䛿䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛩䜛䜹䝍䜹䝘䛷᭩䛟䛣䛸䛷䛂䛭䛾ㄒ䜢ձ䛷䛿䛺䛟ղ䛾ព࿡䛸⤖䜃௜䛡䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖䛂ఏ㐩ⓗពᅗ(ྵព)䛃䜢᫂♧䛩䜛ㄞࡳᡭグ᠈䜔୍⯡ᖖ㆑䛛䜙䚸䛂㐺ᙜ䛃䛿䛂ձ䚸ղ䛾 2 䛴䛾ព࿡䜢ᣢ䛴䛣䛸䛃䜔䛂㏻ᖖ䛿₎Ꮠ䛷⾲グ䛥䜜䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䜢᝿ᐃ䛩䜛
2. 䛂㏻ᖖ₎Ꮠ⾲グ䛥䜜䜛䜒䛾䛜䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䛷⏕䛨䜛㐪࿴ឤ䛃䜔䛂⿵ຓⓗ䛺ᙺ๭(㔝ᮧ 1981)䛃䛸䛔䛖䜹䝍䜹䝘䛻ᑐ䛩䜛䜲䝯䞊䝆䜒᝿ᐃ䛥䜜䜛
3. 䛂㏻ᖖ䛿₎Ꮠ䛷⾲グ䛥䜜䜛䛜䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛥䜜䜛ሙྜ䛿ձ䛾ព࿡䛷䛿䛺䛟ղ䛾ព࿡䛻䛺䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖᥎ㄽ䛜ാ䛝䚸䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛥䜜䛯䛂䝔䜻䝖䞊䛃䜢ղ䛾ព࿡䛸ྠᐃ䛧䚸ゎ㔘䛩䜛ͤ 䛯䛰䛧䚸䛣䛾᥎ㄽ䛿䚸ㄞ䜏ᡭ䛾⤒㦂䛸䛧䛶䛂䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛥䜜䛯䝔䜻䝖䞊䛜ղ䛾ព࿡䛸ඹ㉳䛩䜛䛃䛣䛸䜢๓ᥦ䛸䛩䜛ᚲ
せ䛜䛒䜛

1.

⾲ 㻟㻌 䛂䝔䜻䝖䞊䛃䜢䜑䛠䜛᭩䛝ᡭ䞉ㄞ䜏ᡭ䛻䜘䜛᝿ᐃ㻌₎Ꮠ⾲グ䛥䜜䛯䛂㐺ᙜ䛃䛻䛿 2 䛴䛾ᑐ⩏ⓗ䛺ព࿡䛜䛒䜛䛯䜑䚸ゎ㔘䛻䛿ᩥ⬦䛛䜙ព࿡䛾ྠᐃ䜢䛩䜛䛧䛛䛺䛔䚹2 䛴䛾ព࿡䛾䛖䛱䛹䛱䜙䛛䜢ᩥ⬦䛛䜙ุ᩿䛩䜛䛾䛿ゎ㔘䛻䝁䝇䝖䛜䛛䛛䜛䚹ே㛫䛾ㄆ▱䛿᝿ᐃ䜢

2

−298−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ᨵၿ䛧䛯䛔䛸䛔䛖ḧồ䜢ᣢ䛴䛯䜑䚸䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛷ղ䛾ព࿡䛜ᙉ䛟⤖䜃䛴䛟䛸䛔䛖᝿ᐃ䛾ᨵၿ䜢䛧䚸ゎ㔘䛻䛛䛛䜛䝁䝇䝖䜢᭱ᑠ㝈䛻ᢚ䛘䜘䛖䛸䛩䜛ㄆ▱⬟ຊ䛜ാ䛟䚹䛣䛾䛣䛸䛜䚸BCCWJ 䛷ᚓ䜙䜜䛯⏝౛䛾䛩䜉䛶䛜ղ䛾ព࿡䛷䛒䛳䛯⌮⏤䛷䛒䜛䛸ᛮ䜟䜜䜛䚹䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸᭩䛝ᡭ䛿䛂ձ䛷䛿䛺䛔ղ䛾ព࿡䛃䛸䛔䛖ఏ㐩ⓗពᅗ(ྵព)䜢᫂♧䛧䚸ㄞ䜏ᡭ䛿䛂ձ䛷䛿䛺䛔ղ䛾ព࿡䛃䛸䛔䛖ゎ㔘䜢᭱ᑠປຊ䛾㐨➽䜢䛯䛹䛳䛶䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜ྍ⬟䛻䛺䜛䚹௨ୖ䛾䛣䛸䛛䜙䚸䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛜䛂ពᅗ᫂♧ⓗ่⃭(ྜྷᮧ 2011)䛃䛷䛒䜛䛸ุ᩿䛩䜛䛸䚸䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛻䛿㛵㐃ᛶ䜢᭱኱໬䛩䜛ᶵ⬟䛜䛒䜛䛸䛔䛘䜛䚹 ࠕ୺ほᛶࡢ᫂♧ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࢝ࢱ࢝ࢼ⾲グ̿̿ࠕࢧ࢖ࢥ࣮ࠖ̿̿
䛄᫂㙾ᅜㄒ㎡඾䛅䛿䚸䛂᭱㧗䛃䛻䛴䛔䛶䛂ձ䜒䛳䛸䜒㧗䛔䛣䛸䚸ղ䜒䛳䛸䜒䛩䛠䜜䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䚸ճ䛣䛾ୖ䛺䛟䛩䜀䜙䛧䛔䛣䛸䛃䛾 3 䛴䛾ព࿡䛾㡯┠䜢❧䛶䛶䛔䜛䛜䚸䛣䛾ព࿡䛿┦஫䛻ඹ㏻䛩䜛㒊ศ䛜ከ䛟䚸䛂㐺ᙜ䛃䛾䜘䛖䛻ᑐ⩏ⓗ䛺ព࿡䜢ᢪ䛘䛶䛔䜛䜟䛡䛷䛿䛺䛔䛯䜑䚸䛣䛣䛷䛿䛂᭱㧗䛃䜢༢⩏ㄒ䛸䛧䛶ᢅ䛖䛣䛸䛸䛩䜛䚹⾲ 4 䛿䚸
BCCWJ 䛾䛂୰⣡ゝ䛃䛻䜘䜛䛂᭱㧗䛃䞉䛂䝃䜲䝁䞊䛃䛾᳨⣴䛷ᚓ䜙䜜䛯ᖺ௦䛤䛸䛾䝠䝑䝖௳ᩘ䜢䜎䛸䜑䛯䜒䛾䛷䛒
䜛䚹1990 ᖺ௦䛻ධ䜚䛂䝃䜲䝁䞊䛃䛾⏝౛䛜ฟ⌧䛧䚸2000 ᖺ௦䛷䛿䛭䛾⏝౛ᩘ䛜ቑຍ䛧䛶䛚䜚䚸䛂䝔䜻䝖䞊䛃䛸ྠᵝ䛾ഴྥ䜢♧䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹1970 ᖺ௦
1980 ᖺ௦
1990 ᖺ௦
2000 ᖺ௦

᭱㧗
177
687
1885
5041(2898)

ࢧ࢖ࢥ࣮
0
0
5
17(62)

⾲ 㻠㻌 䛂᭱㧗䠋䝃䜲䝁䞊䛃ᖺ௦䛤䛸䛾⏝౛ᩘ䛾᥎⛣㻌䈜㻔㻌 㻕ෆ䛿䚸㼅㼍㼔㼛㼛㻍▱ᜨ⿄䞉䝤䝻䜾䛾⏝౛ᩘ㻌(2) 㐃⤖⤒ᖖ฼┈䛿୍඙෇䛻㏕䜛䜒䛾䛸䛺䜚䚸᪥ᮏ௻ᴗ䛸䛧䛶ྐୖ᭱㧗䛾ᴗ⦼䜢ୡ㛫䛻♧䛩䜒䛾䛸䛺䛳䛯㻌 㻌 㻌 (BCCWJ䚸ୗ⥺➹⪅)(3) ᙼ䜙䞉ᙼዪ䜙䛜ཱྀ䜢䛭䜝䛘䛶ゝ䛖䛾䛜䛂㌟యື䛛䛧䛶䛚㔠䜒䜙䛘䜛䛺䜣䛶䝃䜲䝁䞊䟿䛃䛸䛔䛖䝉䝸䝣(BCCWJ䚸ୗ⥺➹⪅)(2)䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿ᐈほⓗ஦ᐇ䛻ᇶ䛵䛔䛯䛂᭱㧗䛃䛾ព࿡䜢⾲䛧䛶䛔䜛䛾䛻ᑐ䛧䚸(3)䛿(2)䛻ẚ䜉䜛䛸䜘䜚୺ほⓗ䛺䛂᭱㧗䛃䛾ព࿡(䛂㌟యື䛛䛧䛶䛚㔠䜒䜙䛘䜛䛃䛣䛸䛜 A 䛻䛸䛳䛶䛿᭱㧗䛷䜒䚸B 䛻䛸䛳䛶䛿᭱ప䛷䛒䜛䛛䜒䛧䜜䛺䛔)䜢⾲䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛂᭱㧗䛃䛜䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛥䜜䜛ືᶵ䛿䚸బ➉(1980)䛾♧䛩䛸䛣䜝䛾䛂ឤ᝟䜔ホ౯䜢⾲䛩䛣䛸䜀䛾ᙉㄪ䛃䛷䛒䜚䚸䛂㐺ᙜ䛃䛜䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛥䜜䜛ືᶵ䛸䛿␗䛺䜛䚹௨ୖ䛾䛣䛸䛛䜙䚸䛂㐺ᙜ䛃䛾䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛜ຠ⋡ⓗ䛛䛴ྜ⌮ⓗ䛺ືᶵ䛻ᨭ䛘䜙䜜䜛䜒䛾䛷䛒䛳䛯䛾䛻ᑐ䛧䚸䛂᭱㧗䛃䛜䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛥䜜䜛ືᶵ䛿䛂୺ほᛶ䛾᫂♧䛃䛷䛒䜛䛸䛔䛘䜛䚹⾲ 5 䛿䚸䛂᭱㧗䛃䞉䛂䝃䜲䝁䞊䛃䛾୰⣡ゝ䛷䛾᳨⣴⤖ᯝ䛾ඛ㢌 100 ௳(䛂䝃䜲䝁䞊䛃䛿 84 ௳)䜢ᩥ୰䛷䛾ᩥἲⓗᶵ⬟䛻╔┠䛧䛶ศ㢮䛧䚸䛭䜜䛮䜜䛾⏝౛ᩘ䜢䜎䛸䜑䛯䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹㐃యಟ㣭⏝ἲɆࡢɆ࡛ࡍɆ࡞ᩥᮎ࡛ࠕ㸟ࠖ࡞࡝࡜ࡢඹ㉳

᭱㧗
58
28
9
5
0

ࢧ࢖ࢥ࣮
0
7
31
7
36

⏝౛(BCCWJ ࡼࡾ)సᡓ⏝රࡢ᭱㧗㈐௵⪅࡛࠶ࡿ㌷௧㒊⥲㛗㤳┦஧ᅇ࡜࠸࠺᭱㧗ࡢ⤒Ṕ஝⇱ࡋࡓሙᡤࡀ᭱㧗࡛ࡍ᭱㧗࡟Ᏻࡗࡱ࠸ྜᡂ⧄⥔ࡢ᳔Ꮚ㇜࣒࢟ࢳࢧ࢖ࢥ࣮㸟⾲ 㻡㻌 䛂᭱㧗䠋䝃䜲䝁䞊䛃ᩥἲⓗᶵ⬟䛻╔┠䛧䛯ศ㢮㻌

3

−299−

「適当」と「最高」がカタカナ表記される動機の違い―関連性理論からの分析―䛂᭱㧗䛃䛿௚䛾ྡモ䛻┤᥋⤖䜃䛴䛟㐃యಟ㣭⏝ἲ䛷ከ䛟ぢ䜙䜜䛯䚹䛂䝃䜲䝁䞊䛃䛿఍ヰᩥ䜔ヰ䛧ゝⴥⓗ䛺ᩥ䛾ᩥᮎ䛷䛂䟿䛃䜔㢦ᩥᏐ䛸ඹ㉳䛧䚸ឤືモⓗ䛺౑⏝䛜ከ䛟䚸౑⏝䛥䜜䜛ᩥ䝍䜲䝥䛻㐪䛔䛜ぢ䜙䜜䛯䚹௨ୖ䛾䛣䛸䛛䜙䚸䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛜⤫ㄒ᝟ሗ䛾ᕪ␗䜢᫂♧䛩䜛ഴྥ䛜䛒䜛䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹䛂㐺ᙜ䠋䝔䜻䝖䞊䛃䛾䜘䛖䛻䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛜ព࿡䛾ᕪ␗䜢᫂♧䛩䜛䜟䛡䛷䛿䛺䛔䛜䚸䛒䜛ㄒ䛜ᩥ୰䛷䛾ᶵ⬟䛻㐪䛔䜢⏕䛨䜛䛸䛝䚸䛭䛾ရモ䛾㐪䛔䜢ゝㄒ⾲⌧䛾஦ែㄆ㆑䛾㐪䛔䛾཯ᫎ䛸⪃䛘䜜䜀䚸䛂䝃䜲䝁䞊䛃䛜䛭䛖䛧䛯ᕪ␗䜢᫂♧䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖ព࿡䛷䚸䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛜㛵㐃ᛶ䜢᭱኱໬䛥䛫䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛜ᣦ᦬䛷䛝䜛䚹 ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ✏䛷䛿䚸䛂㐺ᙜ䛃䞉䛂᭱㧗䛃䛜䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛥䜜䜛ືᶵ䛾㐪䛔䜢䛭䜜䛮䜜䛂ゎ㔘䝁䝇䝖䛾๐ῶ䛃䞉䛂୺ほᛶ䛾᫂♧䛃䛸䛔䛖ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព࿡䛾ᕪ䛻䜘䜛䜒䛾䛸ᤊ䛘䚸䛣䛾䜘䛖䛺䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛜䚸ㄒ䛾䛭䜜䛮䜜䛾౑⏝ሙ㠃䛻䛚䛔䛶㛵㐃ᛶ䜢᭱኱໬䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖ືᶵ䛻ᨭ䛘䜙䜜䛯䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢☜ㄆ䛧䛯䚹㏻ᖖ₎Ꮠ(䜎䛯䛿䜂䜙䛜䛺)⾲グ䛥䜜䜛ㄒ䛾䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ໬䛿䚸᭩䛝ᡭ䛾⾲グ㑅ᢥ䛻䜖䛰䛽䜙䜜䜛䛣䛸䛜ከ䛟䚸ㄒ䛻䜘䜚䛭䛾ഴྥ䛿䛥䜎䛦䜎䛷䛒䜛䚹䛯䛰䚸䛣䛖䛧䛯≧ἣ䜢䛂ㄒ䛻≉Ṧ䛺ព࿡䜔ㄒឤ䜢ᣢ䛯䛫䜛(ᰘ⏣1998)䛃䛸䛔䛖ㄝ᫂䛷䛸䛹䜑䜛䛾䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸⏝౛ᩘ䛾᥎⛣䜔ලయⓗ䛺⏝౛䛾ព࿡䞉౑⏝ሙ㠃䜢ほᐹ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸䛒䜙䛯䛺ศᯒほⅬ䜢♧䛧䛶䛔䛟䛣䛸䛜ồ䜑䜙䜜䜛䛾䛷䛿䛺䛛䜝䛖䛛䚹ㅰ㎡
ᮏ✏䛿䚸2012 ᖺ 12 ᭶䛻኱㜰Ꮫ㝔኱Ꮫ䛷㛤ദ䛥䜜䛯᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 15 ᅇᖺḟ኱఍䝽䞊䜽䝅䝵䝑䝥䛂ⱝ⪅䛣䛸䜀䛻ぢ䜙䜜䜛ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩ䛃䛷䛾Ⓨ⾲䛻ຍ➹䞉ಟṇ䜢᪋䛧䛯䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹䝽䞊䜽䝅䝵䝑䝥఍ሙ䛷ᮏ◊✲䛻ᑐ䛩䜛㈗㔜䛺䛤ຓゝ䞉䛤ពぢ䜢㈷䜚䜎䛧䛯ⓙᵝ䛻䛣䛾ሙ䜢䛚೉䜚䛧䛶ᚚ♩⏦䛧ୖ䛢䜎䛩䚹ཧ↷ᩥ⊩⮻ᮌ ᬛᏊ. 2008. 䛂㞧ㄅ䛾∦௬ྡ⾲グɆɆᇶ‽䛛䜙እ䜜䜛⾲グ䛻䛴䛔䛶ɆɆ䛃䚸䛄ᅜᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔◊✲⣖せɆᩥᏛ◊✲⛉Ɇ䛅䚸40䚸265-280
బ➉ ⚽㞝. 1980. 䛂ⱝ⪅㞧ㄅ䛾䛣䛸䜀ɆɆ᪂䞉ゝᩥ୍⮴యɆɆ䛃䚸䛄ゝㄒ⏕ά䛅䚸343䚸46-52
ᰘ⏣ ┿⨾. 1998. 䛂⌧௦䛾䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ䛻䛴䛔䛶䛃䚸䛄Ꮫ⩦㝔኱ᏛᅜㄒᅜᩥᏛ఍ㄅ䛅䚸41䚸12-20
ᅵᒇ ಙ୍. 1977. 䛂⌧௦᪂⪺䛾∦௬ྡ⾲グ䛃䚸ᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤሗ࿌ 59䚸䛄㟁Ꮚィ⟬ᶵ䛻䜘䜛ᅜㄒ◊✲ϯ䛅䚸140-159᪂㔝 ┤ဢ. 2011. 䛄⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ䛻䛚䛡䜛㐍⾜୰䛾ኚ໬䛾◊✲Ɇ䛂ㄗ⏝䛃䛂Ẽ䛵䛛䛺䛔ኚ໬䛃䜢୰ᚰ䛻䛅䚸ᮾி䠖䜂䛴䛨᭩ᡣ㔝ᮧ 㞞᫛. 1981. 䛂㐌หㄅ䛾∦௬ྡ⾲グㄒ䛃䚸䛄㤿ῡ࿴ኵ༤ኈ㏥ᐁグᛕᅜㄒᏛㄽᩥ㞟䛅䚸847-866䚸ᮾி䠖኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ๎ᯇ ᬛᏊ䞉ᇼᑿ 㤶௦Ꮚ. 2006. 䛂ⱝ⪅㞧ㄅ䛻䛚䛡䜛ᖖ⏝₎Ꮠ䛾䜹䝍䜹䝘⾲グ໬ɆɆព࿡ศᯒ䛾ほⅬ䛛䜙ɆɆ䛃䚸䛄໭஑ᕞᕷ❧኱ᏛᩥᏛ㒊⣖せ䛅䚸72䚸19-32ᒣ⏣ ᛅ㞝௚⦅. 2011. 䛄᪂᫂ゎᅜㄒ㎡඾䛅(➨୐∧)ᮾி : ୕┬ᇽྜྷᮧ 䛒䛝Ꮚ. 2011. 䛂㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽɆɆⓎヰゎ㔘䝰䝕䝹䛸ㄆ▱⛉ᏛⓗᚿྥᛶɆɆ䛃䚸䛄᪥ᮏㄒᏛ䛅䚸30(14)䚸106-114

౑⏝ࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫ᳨࣭⣴ࢩࢫࢸ࣒
⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ᭩䛝ゝⴥᆒ⾮䝁䞊䝟䝇(BCCWJ)䞉୰⣡ゝ(https://chunagon.ninjal.ac.jp/login)

4
−300−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号+HPLQJZD\ ੿ષ峼ഭ峩ੰ岹‫ୁص‬৷૛岝ધ৬૛岝ੳੴ੉ୁ৾峘மਡ峼੷峫峐‫ص‬>ྖ఍࣭Ⓨ⾲@῝⏣ᬛ㸦ி㒔ᕤⱁ⧄⥔኱Ꮫ㸧>Ⓨ⾲@ᒣཱྀ἞ᙪ㸦⚄ᡞᕷእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ㸧>Ⓨ⾲@಴ᯘ⚽⏨㸦ᮥᯘ኱Ꮫ㸧>ᣦᐃウㄽ⪅@኱἟㞞ᙪ㸦኱㜰ᕷ❧኱Ꮫྡ㄃ᩍᤵ㸧

<Abstract >The workshop title "Reading deeply into the works of Ernest Hemingway" means, in one
interpretation, “to understand what is not explicitly stated in his ‘sharp and simple’ writing.” In thisworkshop, we presented three approaches to his literary works: a discourse analytic approach, astylistic approach, and a cognitive linguistic approach, and showed what can be understood byanalyzing the text from each perspective. Through these studies, we can rediscover the stylistic
characteristics of Hemingway’s works and more deeply consider what is left unsaid in the story.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚHemingwayࠊᩥయࠊㄒ⏝ㄽ࣭ㄯヰศᯒࠊᩥయㄽࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ㻌㻌
Ernest Hemingway ࡢᩥయࡣࠊ୍⯡࡟ࠕࣁ࣮ࢻ࣎࢖ࣝࢻࠖ࡜ᙧᐜࡉࢀࡿࠋࠕఱࢆ᭩࠿ࡃ࠿ࠖ௨ୖ࡟ࠕఱ
ࢆ᭩࠿࡞࠸࠿ࠖ࡟㓄៖ࡋࡓࠊษࡾワࡵࡽࢀࡓᩥయ࠿ࡽఱࢆㄞࡳゎࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ࡣࠊㄞ⪅ḟ➨࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ࡛ࡣࠊHemingway ࡢ▷⦅సရࢆ㸯ࡘ㸦࡞࠸ࡋࡣ㸰ࡘ㸧ྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊࢸࢡࢫ
ࢺࡔࡅࢆᡭ᥃࠿ࡾ࡟ࠊㄒ⏝ㄽ࣭ㄯヰศᯒࠊᩥయㄽࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛ㄞࡳゎࡃࡇ࡜ࢆヨࡳࡓࠋᒣཱྀࡣࠊㄒ⏝ㄽ࣭ㄯヰศᯒࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ“Indian Camp”ࡢᩥయ࡜≀ㄒࡢ࡞ࡒ࡟㏕ࡗࡓࠋᣦ♧⾲⌧࡟╔┠
ࡋࠊHemingway సရ≉᭷ࡢࠊᐻ㯲࡛⥭ᐦ࡞ᩥయࡢ≉ᚩࢆ෌☜ㄆࡍࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊࡇࡢ▷⦅ࡀෆᅾࡍࡿࠕ࡞
ࡒࠖࡢྲྀࡾᢅ࠸࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ಴ᯘࡣࠊᩥయㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ“Indian Camp”࡜“Big Two-Hearted River”
࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᪂ࡓ࡞ㄞࡳࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓࠋゝㄒᏛࡢ▱ぢࡶྍ⬟࡞㝈ࡾྲྀࡾ㎸ࡳ࡞ࡀࡽࠊHemingway ࡢᩥయⓗ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢࠕぢࡿࠖ࡜ࠕឤࡌࡿࠖࡢ ᚟㐠ືࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ῝⏣ࡣࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ“Indian Camp”࡜“Hills like White Elephants”ࡢ㸰సရࢆࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢᚰ᝟⌮ゎ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃࡛ẚ㍑ࡋࡓࠋㄒࡾᡭࡢどᗙࡸࡑࡇ࠿ࡽࡢࠑぢ࠼ࠒ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠑ⪺ࡇ࠼ࠒ㸧࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊษࡾワࡵࡽࢀࡓᩥయ࠿ࡽࡶⓏሙே≀ࡢᚰࡢᶵᚤࡀᾋࡁ᙮ࡾ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᐇドࡋࡓࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢศᯒ⪅ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓ᫂
♧ⓗ࡟ࡣ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸≀ㄒࡢഃ㠃ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࡀࠊὀ┠ࡋࡓゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿㸦ᙧᐜモࠊ▱ぬ⾲⌧ࠊ࡞࡝㸧ࡣ㔜࡞ࡿࠋ౫ࡗ࡚❧ࡘ⌮ㄽࡸᯟ⤌ࡳࡣ㐪࠼࡝ࡶࠊ㗦ࡃ⡆⣲࡞ᩥయ࡛᭩࠿ࢀࡓ Hemingway సရࢆㄞࡳ
ゎࡃ࡟ࡣࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧ࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊస⪅࡛࠶ࡿ Hemingway ࡀྫྷ࿡ࢆ㔜ࡡ࡚㑅ࡧฟࡋࡓ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ゝⴥࡢ୍ࡘ୍ࡘ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊ⮬㌟ࡢ▱㆑ࡸ⤒㦂ࠊឤぬࢆᢞᙳࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊసရୡ⏺ࢆᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺
ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ

−301−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ᩥᏛ࡜ゝㄒᏛࡢ⊃㛫࡛࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖ࢆㄞࡴ
̿ᦂࢀືࡃゎ㔘࡜Ⓩሙே≀ࡢᚰ⌮̿಴ᯘ ⚽⏨
ᮥᯘ኱ᏛእᅜㄒᏛ㒊hkura@ks.kyorin-u.ac.jp<Abstract>
When it comes to analyzing literature, linguistic theory is rarely adopted but literary theory
has been mainly adapted to the examination and evaluation of a work of literature or its aspect. The
objective of this paper is to analyze Ernest Hemingway’s short story, “Indian Camp,” from linguistic
aspects in order to reconsider Hemingway’s typical prose style which has been considered andpraised as “muscular,” “sharp and simple prose,” and “hard-boiled.” Then I point out that the notionof linguistics may be able to help us to read and interpret literature through my analysis.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚᩥయㄽࠊ࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖ࠊ▱ぬືモࠊᚰⓗែᗘ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟㸸ࠕᩥయㄽࠖ࡜ࡣ㸽 ࠕᩥయࠖࡣ࢔ࣜࢫࢺࢸࣞࢫࡢ᫬௦࠿ࡽㄽࡌࡽࢀࠊಟ㎡ἲࡢ◊✲࡟኱ࡁ࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡚ࡁ
ࡓࠋࢯࢩ࣮ࣗࣝ௨ᚋࡢゝㄒᏛ◊✲ࡢ₻ὶࡢ୰࡛ࠊ࣐࣭ࣟࣥࣖࢥࣈࢯࣥࡣࠊᩥᏛ◊✲ࡸࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ಟ㎡Ꮫࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡗࡓᩥయ◊✲ࢆゝㄒᏛ࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡀࠊゝㄒᏛⓗᩥయㄽࡢጞࡲࡾ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࢀ௨㝆ࠊᩥయㄽࡣ┤ឤ࡟㢗ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓㄞࡳ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊゝㄒᏛࡀࡑࡢㄞࡳࢆᢸಖࡋࡓࡾࠊ᪂ࡓ࡞ゎ㔘ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋᒎ㛤ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ࢔࣮ࢿࢫࢺ࣭࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖ࡢᩥయ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆᚤどⓗ࡟෌ㄞࡋࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᩥᏛ◊✲ࡢ㡿ᇦ࡛ㄽࡌࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡇ࡜࡬ࡢࠊၥ㢟ᥦ㉳ࢆࡋࠊ᪂ࡓ࡞ㄞࡳࡢ
ྍ⬟ᛶࡢᥦ♧ࢆヨࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ
2. ᩥᏛ◊✲࡟ࡼࡿ࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖ࡢᩥయホ౯ ࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖ࡢᩥయࡣࠊࡑࡢᩥࡢ▷ࡉ࠿ࡽࠕࢩࣥࣉࣝࠖ
ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ㄒᙡⓗ࡞༢⣧ࡉࠊ≀ㄒࡢᒎ㛤࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢᚰ⌮ᥥ෗ࡀᑡ࡞ࡃࠊ⾜ືᥥ෗ࡀ୰ᚰ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⥲ࡌ࡚ࠕࣁ࣮ࢻ࣎࢖ࣝࢻࠖ࡜⛠ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖ࡢᩥయ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࣇ࢕ࣜࢵࣉ࣭ࣖࣥࢢ(1966)ࡢぢゎ࡟㈇࠺࡜ࡇ
ࢁࡀᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞࠸ࠋ௨ୗ࡟ᣲࡆࡿࣖࣥࢢ(1966)ࡢぢゎࡣࠊ࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖ࡢึᮇࡢసရ⩌࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢᩥ❶ᵓᡂ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ௒᪥࡛ࡶࡇࡢぢゎ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᢈุⓗ࡞ពぢࡣṤ࡝Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
These qualities of these early stories which attracted most attention to Hemingway,
and which seemed to mark his work as his own and no other’s, were the rigorous
objectivity with which they were told, their complete lack of “thinking,” and the−303−

文学と言語学の狭間でヘミングウェイを読む―揺れ動く解釈と登場人物の心理―

unbelievably sharp and simple prose.(Young 1966: 181)
 ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖సရࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚ㄞࡳ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃ࠺ࡕ࡟ࠊࡇࡢࣖࣥࢢ
(1966)ࡢぢゎ࡟␲ၥࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚ࡃࡿࠋࣖࣥࢢࡀᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᐈほⓗ࡞どⅬ࡛Ⓩሙே≀ࡢ⾜ືᥥ෗ࢆ⾜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃ࡀከࡃ࠶ࡿࡀࠊヲ⣽࡟ᩥయࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜ࠊ⾜ືᥥ෗ࡢྜ
㛫࡟ᚰ⌮ᥥ෗ࡸどぬ࣭▱ぬ⾲⌧ࢆᕦࡳ࡟⧊ࡾ஺ࡐࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢᚰࡢ୰ࢆな࠿ࡏࡿሙ㠃࡟ᗄᗘ࡜࡞ࡃฟ఍࠺ࠋ
3. “Indian Camp”෌ㄞࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࠕ࢖ࣥࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࣥ࢟ࣕࣥࣉࠖ(“Indian Camp,” 1925)ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊᩥయࡢຠᯝ࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ1ࡇࡢసရࡣࠊ୺ேබࡢᑡᖺࢽࢵࢡࡀࠊ་ᖌࡢ∗ぶ࡜ུ∗࡜࢖ࣥࢹ࢕࢔ࣥࡢዷ፬࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㯞㓉ࢆ౑ࢃࡎࠊᖇ⋤ษ㛤ࡢᡭ⾡࡟ࡼࡿฟ⏘ࡢሙ㠃࡟❧ࡕ఍࠺ࠋࡉ
ࡽ࡟ࠊዪᛶࡢኵࡀႃࢆษࡾ⮬ẅࡋࡓሙ㠃ࢆ┠ᧁࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺≀ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᩥ
Ꮫ◊✲ࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟࠾࠸ࡣࠊฟ⏘ࡸ⮬ẅࢆ┠ᧁࡋ࡚ࢽࢵࢡࡀᡂ㛗ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࠊࢽࢵࢡࡢ࢖ࢽࢩ࢚࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ≀ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖ࡢᩥయࡢ≉ᚩࢆࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࡓࡵ࡟ࠊฟ⏘ࡢሙ㠃࠿ࡽぢ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜
࡟ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋࡇࡢሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠊᚰ⌮ⓗືモ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ“see”ࠊ “watch” ࠊ“look at”ࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࢽࢵࢡࡢᚰⓗែᗘࡢኚ໬ࢆຠᯝⓗ࡟ᥥ෗ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
Nick held the basin for his father. It all took a long time.
 His father picked the baby up and slapped it to make it breath and handed it tothe old woman.
“See, it’s a boy, Nick,” he said. “How do you like being an interne?”
Nick said, “All right.” He was looking away so as not to see what his father was
doing.
“There. That gets it,” said his father and put something into the basin.
Nick didn’t look at it.
“Now,” his father said, “there’s some stitches to put in. You can watch this or not,Nick just as you like. I’m going to sew up the incision I made.”
Nick did not watch. His curiosity had been gone for a long time. (17)ࢽࢵࢡࡣ∗ぶࡀ㉥ࢇᆓࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ▐㛫ࠊὙ㠃ჾࢆᣢࡕ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣฟ⏘ࢆ⮬ศࡢ┠࡛ぢ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࢽࢵࢡࡣ∗ぶ࠿ࡽヰࡋ࠿ࡅࡽࢀ࡚ࡶࠊ∗ぶࡢᡭඖࢆぢ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋᙼࡀ᏶඲࡟㢦ࢆࡑࡽࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡓࡵࠊ∗ࡀὙ㠃ჾࡢ୰࡟ලయⓗ࡟ఱࢆධࢀࡓࡀ
ࢃ࠿ࡽࡎࠊࠕఱ࠿(something)ࠖࢆධࢀࡓ࡜࠸࠺₍↛࡜ࡋࡓ⾲⌧࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ⤖ᒁࢽࢵࢡࡣฟ⏘ࡢ୍㒊ጞ⤊ࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊᙜึᢪ࠸࡚࠸ࡓ⯆࿡ࡶᾘ࠼ኻࡏ࡚ࡋࡲࡗ
1 Ⓨ⾲࡛ࡣ“Indian Camp”࡜“Big Two Hearted River”ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓࡀࠊ⣬㠃ࡢ㒔ྜୖᚋ⪅ࡢ㆟ㄽࢆ๭ឡࡋࡓ

ࡇ࡜ࢆ࠾チࡋࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᚋ⪅ࡶྠᵝ࡟ᚰ⌮ᥥ෗࡜どぬ࣭⫈ぬ⾲⌧࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡓࡀࠊ⤖ㄽࡣ
ྠᵝࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ

−304−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࢽࢵࢡ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠕぢࡿ㸭ぢ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟㔜せ࡞ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ
ࠕぢ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠖࡀࠕ⯆࿡ࢆኻ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᚰ⌮ⓗ࡞ഃ㠃ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ௨ୗࡢᘬ⏝࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣྠࡌ≧ἣࢆࠊどⅬࢆࢽࢵࢡ࡟ኚ࠼ࠊ “watch”ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᥥ෗ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ“Those must boil,” he said, and began to scrub his hands in the basin of hot water witha cake of soap he had brought from the camp. Nick watched his father’s hands
scrubbing each other with the soap. While his father washed his hands very carefully
and thoroughly, he talked. (17)ࡇࡢሙ㠃࡛ࠊ “Nick watched his father’s hands scrubbing each other with the soap”࡜࠸࠺୍ᩥࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺ⮬యࡢ⤖᮰ᵓ㐀ࡣ◚⥢ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊព࿡ࡢ㏻ࡗࡓ
ࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢᚰ⌮ⓗືモࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᥥ෗ࡀࠊඛ࡟ᣲࡆࡓࠊ“Nick did not
watch.”࡜࿧ᛂࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡇࡢ୍ᩥࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟ຠᯝⓗ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᢸ࠺ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᡭ⾡ࢆጞࡵࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ࡁࠊࢽࢵࢡࡣࡑࢀ࡟⯆࿡ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ∗ぶࡢ୍ᣲᡭ୍ᢞ㊊వࡍࡇ࡜࡞ࡃぢ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ᫬㛫࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ∗ぶࡀ㧗ᥭࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࡜ࡣ㏫࡟ࠊᙼࡢ⯆࿡ࡣኻࢃࢀ࡚
࠸ࡃࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊࢽࢵࢡࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽࡣヲ⣽࡞ᡭ⾡ࡢᥥ෗ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡎࠊࠕぢࡿࠖ࡜ࠕぢ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡔࡅ࡛ࠊࢽࢵࢡࡢᚰ⌮≧ἣࡢኚ໬ࢆᕦࡳ࡟⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ḟ࡟ࢽࢵࢡࡀṚࢆ┠ᧁࡍࡿሙ㠃࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡳ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋࢽࢵࢡࡣ⮬ศࡢពᛮ࡜
ࡣ㛵ಀ࡞ࡃࠊ࢖ࣥࢹ࢕࢔ࣥࡢኵࡢṚࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
  There was no need of that. Nick standing in the door of the kitchen, had a goodview of the upper bunk where his father, the lamp in one hand, tripped Indian’s headback. (18)Ṛࢆ┠ᧁࡍࡿሙ㠃࡛ࡣ“have a view”ࢆ⏝࠸ࠊព㆑ࡋ࡚ఱ࠿ᑐ㇟≀࡟┠ࢆྥࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾ
ࡶࠊ⮬↛࡜┠࡟ධࡗ࡚ࡃࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ྜ࠸ࢆฟࡋ࡚ࠊࢽࢵࢡࡣ࢖ࣥࢹ࢕࢔ࣥࡢṚࢆព㆑ⓗ࡟ࡣぢ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊഅ↛┠࡟ධࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ࡜ᥥ෗ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ㄽࡌ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ▱ぬࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀࠊࢽࢵࢡࡢᚰ⌮≧ែ࡬ࡢኚ໬࡟స⏝ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࠿ࡽࠊ⪃ᐹࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ≀ㄒ⤖ᮎ㒊ศࡢࢽࢵࢡ࡜∗ࡀྠࡌᑠ⯚࡟஌ࡾᖐ㊰࡟ࡘࡃሙ㠃ࢆ᳨ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜
࡟ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ ࢽࢵࢡࡀỈ㠃࡟ᡭࢆධࢀࡓ࡜ࡁࠊឤぬࢆ⾲ࡍືモ “feel”ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿࠋThey were seated in the boat, Nick in the stern, his father rowing. The sun was coming
up over the hills. A bass jumped, making a circle in the water. Nick trailed his hand in
the water. It felt warm in the sharp chill of the morning.
In the early morning on the lake sitting in the stern of the boat with his father
rowing, he felt quite sure that he would never die. (19)−305−

文学と言語学の狭間でヘミングウェイを読む―揺れ動く解釈と登場人物の心理―ࡉࡽ࡟“felt”࡟ຍ࠼ࠊឤぬุ᩿ࢆ⾲ࡍᙧᐜモ “warm”ࠊ ”sharp”ࠊ “chill”ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊࢽࢵ
ࢡࡢෆ㠃ⓗ࡞ࠕឤぬࠖࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿᩥయ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ᭱ᚋࡢᩥࡣࠊ“felt”࡟ຍ࠼, ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕せ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ“quite sure”ࡸ”never”ࠊຓືモࡢ “would”࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࢽࢵࢡࡢᚰⓗែᗘࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿ୺ほⓗ࡞ㄒࡾ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≀ㄒࡣ୰┙ࡲ࡛ࠊᐈほⓗ࡟➨୕⪅ࡢどⅬࢆᏲࡾ⥆ࡅࠊῐࠎ࡜㐍⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊᡭ⾡ࡢሙ㠃࠿ࡽᩥయ࡟ኚ໬ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊᚰ⌮ⓗືモࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᚋ࡟ࠊࢽࢵࢡࡢᚰⓗែᗘࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᩥయ࡬࡜ኚ໬ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛౑ࢃ
ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᚰ⌮ⓗືモࡶࠊ᭱ึࡣࠕどぬࠖࢆ⾲ࡋࠊእⓗୡ⏺ࡢ▱ぬࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡗࡓ
ࡀࠊࡸࡀ࡚ࠕឤぬࠖ࡜࠸࠺እⓗୡ⏺ࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ឤࡌࡓ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࠊෆⓗୡ⏺ࡢᥥ෗࡬࡜ኚ
໬ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢᚰⓗែᗘࢆ᫂☜࡟࠶ࡽࢃࡍࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ㄒྃࡀ౑ࢃࢀࠊ⮬⏤㛫᥋ᛮ⪃⾲⌧ࡢᩥయ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ⊂ⓑⓗ࡞ᩥయ࡬࡜ኚ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡗࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ
⏕࡜Ṛࡢ୧᪉࡟❧ࡕ఍ࡗࡓᑡᖺࡢᚰࡢኚ໬ࡣࠊᩥయࡢኚ໬࡜┦஫࡟స⏝ࡋྜ࠸ࠊ≀ㄒୡ⏺
ࡀᙧᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
4. ࡲ࡜ࡵ㸸ゝㄒᏛ࡜ᩥᏛࡣࡘ࡞ࡀࡿ࠿㸽 ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖ࡢᩥయࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢᥥ෗࡟ࡣࠕぢࡿࠖ࡜ࠕឤࡌࡿࠖࡢ ᚟㐠ືࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ▱ぬ࡟ࡼࡿ่⃭ࡀࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢព㆑ࡢᥥ
෗࡬࡜⛣⾜ࡋࡓࡾࠊឤぬ࡟ࡼࡿ่⃭ࡀ▱ぬᥥ෗࡬࡜⛣⾜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢᥥ෗ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࠕぢࡿࠖ࡜ࠕឤࡌࡿࠖࡢ ᚟㐠ືࡢ㛫࡟ࡣࠊవศ࡞グ㏙ࡀ࡞ࡃࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊㄝ
᫂ⓗ࡞ᩥ❶ࡸㄒࡾᡭࡢኌࢆᣳࡴࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊከࡃࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡞࠸ᩥయ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼
ࡿࠋࡇࡢᩥయࡣࠊ
ࡇࢀࡲ࡛࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖ࡢᩥయ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄽࡌࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡇ࡜࡜୍⮴ࡍࡿࡀࠊከࡃࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࡣࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢព㆑ࡢᥥ෗ࢆ⾜ࢃࡎࠊᐈほⓗグ㏙࡛≀ㄒࢆᒎ㛤ࡉࡏࡿᩥయ
࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡀ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊゝㄒᏛࡢ▱ぢ࠿ࡽࠊᮏ◊✲࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࡢࡣࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢ୺ほᛶࡀ㔜どࡉࢀࡿ▱ぬࡸឤぬ࡞࡝ࢆ⾲ࡍሙ㠃ࢆヲ⣽࡟ぢ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜ࠊ▱ぬ࡜ឤぬࡢ ᚟㐠ືࡀ㉳ࡇࡾࠊࡑࡢ㛫࡟ࡣవศ࡞グ㏙ࢆᕪࡋᣳࡲ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ᩥయࡇࡑࡀࠊ࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖≉᭷ࡢᩥయ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Beegel, S. F. (ed.) 1989. Hemingway’s Neglected Short Fiction. Alabama: Alabama University Press.
Benson, J. J. 1969. Hemingway: The Writer’s Art of Self-Defense. Minneapolis: Minnesota
University Press.
Flora, J. M. 1989. Ernest Hemingway: A Study of the Short Fiction. Boston: Twayne.
Hemingway, E. 1996. In Our Times. New York: Scribner.
Leech, G. N. and M. H. Short. 1981. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional

Prose. London: Longman.
Short, Mick. 1996. Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. London: Longman.
Smith, Paul. (ed.) 1989. A Reader’s Guide to the Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway. Boston: G.K.
Hall & Co.
Young, P. 1966. Ernest Hemingway: A Reconsideration. University Park: Pennsylvania State
University Press.

−306−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ᙻࡈểẌᙸảẍẦỤ ᵦᶃᶋᶇᶌᶅᶕᵿᶗ ˺ԼỆᡐỦᴾ῝⏣ ᬛி㒔ᕤⱁ⧄⥔኱Ꮫ
chieft@kit.ac.jp<Abstract >Ernest Hemingway’s style is often described as being “hard-boiled.” The readers of his stories however can
imagine the feelings of the characters through the text. In the present study, I analyze two of his shortstories, “Indian Camp” and “Hills like White Elephants,” using cognitive linguistic findings on viewpoint
and subjectivity. Investigating each text from the perspective of “who sees what” and “who hears what,” I
claim that the text of “Hills like White Elephants” enables the readers to more easily imagine the subtletiesof the heart of the characters than those of “Indian Camp.”࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚどᗙࠊ
ࠑぢ࠼ࠒ
ࠊ
ࠑ⪺ࡇ࠼ࠒ
ࠊ୺యᛶࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢᚰ᝟⌮ゎ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟㸸Heminway సရࢆㄞࡳゎࡃヨࡳ࡜ㄒࡾᡭࡢどᗙ
Hemingway ࡢᩥయࡣࠊ୍⯡࡟ࠕࣁ࣮ࢻ࣎࢖ࣝࢻࠖ࡜ᙧᐜࡉࢀࡿࠋࣁ࣮ࢻ࣎࢖ࣝࢻ࡞ᩥయ࡛ࡣࠊ≀ㄒୡ⏺ࡀㄒࡾᡭ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕᐈほⓗࠖ࡟ㄒࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊㄒࡾᡭࡀࠊྍ⬟࡞㝈ࡾࡑࡢ≀ㄒୡ⏺࡟ධࡿࡢࢆ᥍࠼ࠊㄒࡾ
ᡭ⮬㌟ࡢどᗙ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠑぢ࠼ࠒࡸࠑ⪺ࡇ࠼ࠒ࡞࡝ࡢ▱ぬ᝟ሗࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿
ࡋࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢࣁ࣮ࢻ࣎࢖ࣝࢻ࡞ᩥయ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊㄞ⪅ࡣࠊ୎ᑀ࡟ㄞࡳ㐍ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢᚰ᝟ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊษࡾワࡵࡽࢀࡓゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢ୰࡟ࠊ᥎ㄽࢆ௓ࡋ࡚ᚰ᝟ࢆ᝿ീࡉࡏࡿࡔࡅࡢ᝟ሗࡀࡕࡾࡤࡵ
ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕHemingway సရࢆㄞࡳゎࡃࠖࡇ࡜ࡢព⩏ࢆࠊࠕ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ࡣᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸
Ⓩሙே≀ࡢᚰ᝟ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠖ࡜ࡋࠊどᗙ࡜୺యᛶ㸦subjectivity㸧࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢ◊✲ᡂᯝ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸
࡚ࠊࡇࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ୍➃ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆヨࡳࡿࠋ1ලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊHemingway ࡢ▷⦅“Indian Camp”࡜“Hills like White Elephants”࡟࠾ࡅࡿⓏሙே≀ࡢᚰ᝟⌮ゎࡢၥ㢟ࢆࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࢆ⏝࠸࡚ẚ㍑᳨࣭ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡀ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊゝⴥ࡟ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿどᗙ࡟❧ࡗࡓヰࡋᡭࡢゎ㔘ࡀ཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᩥᏛసရࡢㄒࡾ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ࠶ࡿどᗙ࠿ࡽࡢㄒࡾᡭ࡞࠸ࡋࡣ
Ⓩሙே≀ࡢゎ㔘ࡀ཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡑࡢどᗙࡢ఩⨨࡜⛣ືࢆ⌮ゎࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡜ྠࡌ㸦ࡶࡋࡃࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡟㏆࠸㸧
どᗙ࡟❧ࡘࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ
᫂♧ⓗ࡟ࡣ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ഃ㠃ࡲ࡛ࢆࡶᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࣁ࣮ࢻ࣎࢖ࣝࢻ࡞ᩥయ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ Hemingway సရ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࡇࡢㄒࡾࡢどᗙࡀㄒࡾᡭ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊ
ᮏ✏࡛♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡑࡢどᗙࡀᖖ࡟୍ᐃ୙ኚ࡛ࠊ≀ㄒୡ⏺ࡢእ࡟⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋⓏሙே≀ࡓࡕࢆ㛫㏆࡛ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞どᗙ࡟❧ࡗࡓࡾࠊࡑࡢ୰ࡢ୍ே࡟ᐤࡗࡓどᗙࢆྲྀࡗࡓࡾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋୖ㏙ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊㄒࡽ
ࢀࡿෆᐜࡢከࡃࡀࠊㄒࡾᡭࡀཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓࠑぢ࠼ࠒࡸࠑ⪺ࡇ࠼ࠒࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ▱ぬ᝟ሗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊㄒࡾ
ᡭࡀⓏሙே≀࡟㏆࡙࠸ࡓࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢ୰ࡢ୍ே࡟ᐤࡗࡓどᗙࢆྲྀࡗࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢ▱ぬ᝟ሗࡣࠊⓏ
ሙே≀ࡀཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓࡢ࡜ྠࡌ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡟㢮ఝࡍࡿ㸧᝟ሗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊㄒࡾᡭࡢどᗙ࡜ࡑࡢ⛣ືࠊཬࡧࡑࡇ࠿ࡽࡢࠑぢ࠼ࠒ࡞࠸ࡋࡣࠑ⪺ࡇ࠼ࠒࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚ศᯒࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋᐑᓮ࣭ୖ㔝㸦1985: 7 ❶㸧ࡀ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
௚⪅ࡢᚰ᝟ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊࡲࡎࡑࡢࠑぢ࠼ࠒࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ▱ぬෆᐜࢆ⏕ᡂࡋ࡚ࡳࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡇ
ࡢ✀ࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊㄒࡾᡭࡢࠊࡦ࠸࡚ࡣⓏሙே≀ࡢࠑぢ࠼ࠒࡸࠑ⪺ࡇ࠼ࠒࢆ෌⌧ࡋࠊྠࡌどᗙ࡟❧ࡗࡓㄞ⪅࡟ࠊࡑࡢᚰ᝟ࢆࢩ࣑࣮ࣗࣞࢺࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ࡣ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸
Ⓩሙே≀ࡢᚰ᝟⌮ゎࡀࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ௓ࡋ࡚ྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᐇドࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡲࡓࠊ࠸࠿࡞ࡿᩥᏛసရ
1 “subjectivity”࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒࡣࠊࠕ୺యᛶࠖ࡞࠸ࡋࡣࠕ୺ほᛶࠖ࡜ヂࡉࢀࡿࠋࠕ୺యᛶࠖ࡜ࠕ୺ほᛶࠖࡣཝᐦ࡟ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ“subjectivity”ࡢヂㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ୺యᛶࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚㆟ㄽࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

−307−

視座と〈見え〉からHemingway作品に迫るࡶㄞ⪅ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚᭩࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡑࡢㄒࡾ࡟ࡣࠊㄞ⪅ࢆ≀ㄒୡ⏺ࡢ୰࡟ධࡾ㎸ࡲࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡞ᕤኵࡀ
᪋ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋㄒࡾᡭࡢどᗙ࡜ࡑࡢ⛣ື࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢᕤኵࡢ୍➃ࢆᇉ㛫ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

2. ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡜ᩥᏛసရ⌮ゎㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࢆᩥᏛసရ⌮ゎ࡜㛵㐃࡙ࡅ࡚㆟ㄽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ◊✲ࡢ㸯ࡘ࡟ࠊLangacker (2008) ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋLangacker (2008: 535-536) ࡣࠊ௚⪅ࡢᚰ᝟⌮ゎࡸᩥᏛసရ⌮ゎ࡟ࠊࢩ࣑࣮ࣗࣞࢩࣙࣥࡀ῝ࡃ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜
ࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛ゝ࠺ࢩ࣑࣮ࣗࣞࢩࣙࣥ࡜ࡣࠊ
ᐇ㝿࡟ࡣయ㦂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸஦ែࡸ≧ἣࢆࠊࡑࢀ࡜ྠࡌࠊ
ࡶࡋࡃࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡟㢮ఝࡍࡿ㐣ཤࡢ⤒㦂ࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࠊࡑࡢ㝿࡟㉳ࡇࡗࡓࡢ࡜ྠࡌㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆႏ㉳ࡉࡏ࡚⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋLangacker (2008) ࡀ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᐇయ㦂࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃእ㒊ୡ⏺ࡢㄆ▱ࡀ୺యᛶࡢ᰿※࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊᩥᏛసရࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡜ࡣࠊ᭩࠿ࢀࡓゝㄒ⾲⌧࠿ࡽࠊࡑࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ୺య㸦Ⓩ
ሙே≀࡞࠸ࡋࡣㄒࡾᡭ㸧ࡢ஦ែㄆ▱ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊⓏሙே≀࡞࠸ࡋࡣㄒࡾᡭࡢ୺యᛶ㸧ࢆࠊᩥᏛసရࢆ
⌮ゎࡍࡿ୺య࡛࠶ࡿㄞ⪅⮬㌟ࡢ୺యᛶ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ㢮ఝࡍࡿ⮬ࡽࡢᐇయ㦂ࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࠊⓏሙே≀࡞࠸ࡋࡣㄒࡾᡭࡢ஦ែㄆ▱ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆࢩ࣑࣮ࣗࣞࢺࡋ࡚㸧⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ㐣⛬࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊLangacker ࡢ୺యᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㆟ㄽࢆㄒࡾࡢศᯒ࡜㛵㐃࡙ࡅࡓ◊✲࡟ࡣࠊRubba (1996) ࡸ Sanders andRedeker (1996) ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋRubba (1996) ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿㄒࡾࡢୡ⏺ࡢ⌮ゎࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ⏝࠸ࡓゝㄒ⾲⌧࡜⪺ࡁᡭ⮬㌟ࡢ▱㆑࡟౫Ꮡࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡲࡓࠊㄒࡾࡢ୰࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ this ࡸ here ࡞࡝ࡢ┤♧⾲⌧ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ᝿ീࡋࡓㄒࡾࡢୡ⏺࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ㊥㞳ឤࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊSanders and Redeker (1996)ࡣࠊ┤᥋ヰἲࠊ⮬⏤㛫᥋ヰἲࠊ㛫᥋ヰἲࠊᆅࡢᩥ㸦ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ“implicit perspective”ࢆࠕᆅࡢᩥࠖ࡜ヂࡋࡓ㸧ࡢ 4ࡘࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊㄒࡾᡭࡢ୺యᛶ࡜Ⓩሙே≀ࡢ୺యᛶࢆ༊ูࡋ࡚⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡢ㔜せᛶࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ◊✲ᡂᯝࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊㄒࡾᡭࡢどᗙ࡜ࡑࡢ⛣ືࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊㄒࡾᡭ㸦᫬࡟ࠊㄒࡾᡭࡀࡑࡢ
どᗙࢆᐤࡏࡓⓏሙே≀ࡢ㸧▱ぬ࣭ឤぬࠊ✵㛫ㄆ▱࡞࡝ࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧ Ɇ ౛࠼ࡤࠊ┤♧ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ come ࡸ thisࠊᙧᐜモྃࠊ✵㛫㛵ಀ⾲⌧࡞࡝ Ɇ ࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚ࠊHemingway సရࢆㄞࡳゎ࠸࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢከࡃࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ୺యᛶ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୺యⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍゝㄒ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡉࢀ࡚ࡁ
ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨ 1 ⠇࡛㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ௚⪅ࡢ▱ぬෆᐜࡢ⏕ᡂࡣࠊࡑࡢᚰ᝟⌮ゎ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊㄒࡾᡭࡀᐤࡗࡓⓏሙே≀ࡢࠑぢ࠼ࠒࡸࠑ⪺ࡇ࠼ࠒ࡞࡝ࢆࢩ࣑࣮ࣗࣞࢺࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ᫂♧ⓗ࡟ࡣ㏙࡭ࡽ
ࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸Ⓩሙே≀ࡢᚰ᝟ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ຍ࠼࡚ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ┤᥋ᘬ⏝࡟ࡶὀ┠ࡋ࡚⪃ᐹࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࠋ┤᥋ᘬ⏝ࡣࠊㄒࡾᡭࡢࠑ⪺ࡇ࠼ࠒࢆ཯ᫎࡋࡓゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᒣཱྀ (2009) ࡀ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ┤᥋ᘬ⏝ࡀࠊ௚⪅ࡢゝⴥࢆ௚⪅ࡢゝⴥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊヰ⪅ࡢࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࡜ࡣษࡾ㞳ࡋ࡚ᥦ♧ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࣁ࣮ࢻ࣎࢖ࣝࢻ࡞ Hemingway సရ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ┤᥋ᘬ⏝ࡣࠊㄒࡾᡭࡀ⮬ศ࡜ࡑࡢⓎヰ⪅࡜ࢆษࡾ㞳ࡋࠊ⪺ࡇ࠼࡚ࡁࡓⓎヰࢆ⮬㌟ࡢࠑ⪺ࡇ࠼ࠒࡢ୍
㒊࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕᐈほⓗࠖ࡟ᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ┤᥋ᘬ⏝࡟௜㝶ࡍࡿఏ㐩⠇ࡣࠊᘬ⏝
ࡉࢀࡓⓎヰࡀㄡࡢⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆ᫂♧ⓗ࡟♧ࡍゝㄒ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡀ௜㝶ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡇࡢⓎヰ୺యࡀࠊࡑࡢⓎヰࢆ⪺ࡁྲྀࡗࡓ୺యࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊㄒࡾᡭ࡞࠸ࡋࡣㄒࡾᡭࡀどᗙࢆᐤࡏࡓⓏሙே≀࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ“Indian Camp”࡜“Hills like White Elephants”࡛ࡣࠊఏ㐩⠇ࢆకࢃ࡞࠸┤᥋ᘬ⏝ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛ఏ㐩⠇ࢆక࠺ࢱ࢖ࣉࡀฟ⌧ࡋࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ୍㐃ࡢ఍ヰࡀࠊఏ㐩⠇ࡢ୺ㄒ࡛♧ࡉࢀࡓⓏሙே≀௨እࡢே≀ࡢどᗙ࡟❧ࡗ࡚ㄒࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜௬ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢࠑ⪺ࡇ࠼ࠒࡢ୺యࢆࡶㄞࡳゎ࠸࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡼࡾ῝࠸సရ⌮ゎ࡟⮳ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

3. “Indian Camp”ཬࡧ“Hills like White Elephants”ࡢศᯒᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ“Indian Camp”࡜“Hills like White Elephants”ࡢ㸰సရࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊ(i)ㄒࡾᡭࡀࠊࡼࡾⓏሙே≀
ᐤࡾࡢどᗙࢆྲྀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿ࠊ(ii)ㄒࡾᡭࡢどᗙࡣ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘᅛᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊ(iii)࠶ࡿⓏሙ
ே≀ᐤࡾࡢどᗙࢆྲྀࡗࡓㄒࡾᡭࡢࠑぢ࠼ࠒࡸࠑ⪺ࡇ࠼ࠒ࡞࡝࠿ࡽࠊㄞ⪅ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘࡑࡢⓏሙே≀ࡢᚰ᝟ࢆㄞࡳ
ゎࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ࠊ࡞࡝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ
3.1 “Indian Camp”“Indian Camp”࡛≉࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓࡢࡣࠊෑ㢌࡜≀ㄒࡢ୰┙ࠊཬࡧ⤊ࢃࡾࡢሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋෑ㢌ࡢ㒊ศ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄒ

−308−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

ࡾᡭࡢどᗙࡣࠊ㠀ᖖ࡟ὶືⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨ 1 ࣃࣛࢢࣛࣇ࡛ another rowboat ࢆどぬⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁࡿ㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡶ࠺୍⯺ࡢ࣮࣎ࢺ࡟஌ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࢽࢵࢡࡢ∗ぶᐤࡾࡢどᗙࢆྲྀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿㄒࡾᡭࡣࠊ➨ 2ࣃࣛࢢࣛࣇ Nick heard ௨㝆࡛ࡣࠊࢽࢵࢡᐤࡾࡢどᗙࢆྲྀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊࢽࢵࢡᐤࡾࡢどᗙ࡟❧ࡘࡇ࡜࡛ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ
㸦quick choppy strokes㸧ࠊࡿࠊࡶ࠺୍⯺ࡢ࣮࣎ࢺࡢࠑぢ࠼ࠒ㸦quite a way aheadࠊmoved further ahead㸧ࡸࠑ⪺ࡇ࠼ࠒࡉࡽ࡟ࡣࠊࢽࢵࢡࡢどᗙ࡟❧ࡘࡇ࡜࡛ឤࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁࡿẼ 㸦cold㸧ࡸ⯪ࢆࡇࡄ࢖ࣥࢹ࢕࢔ࣥࡢ༳㇟㸦working
very hard㸧ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ⥆ࡃࢽࢵࢡ࡜ࢽࢵࢡࡢ∗ぶࡢᑐヰ࠿ࡽࡣࠊㄒࡾᡭ
ࡀ෌ࡧࢽࢵࢡࡢ∗ぶᐤࡾࡢどᗙ࡟❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ┤᥋ᘬ⏝࡟௜㝶ࡍࡿᤄධ⠇ࡀ Nickasked ཬࡧ Nick said ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡑࡢᚋ࡟⥆ࡃࣃࣛࢢࣛࣇ࡛ࡣࠊࢽࢵࢡ࡜ࢽࢵࢡࡢ∗ぶࡢࠑぢ࠼ࠒࡀ they found ࡜࠸࠺ゝⴥ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄒࡽࢀ㸦ࡺ࠼࡟ࠊㄒࡾᡭࡢどᗙࡣࠊࡇࡢ୧⪅ࡢ㏆ࡃ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜᝿ᐃ
࡛ࡁࡿ㸧ࠊࡑࡢḟࡢࣃࣛࢢࣛࣇ࡛ࡣࠊࢽࢵࢡ࡜ࢽࢵࢡࡢ∗ぶࠊࢪ࣮ࣙࢪུ∗ࡢ⛣ືࡢᵝᏊࡀ㸦They walked up fromthe beach through a meadowࠊfollowing the young Indianࠊthey went into the woods and followed a trail ࡞࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸧♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊㄒࡾᡭࡣࠊࡇࡢ୍㐃ࡢ⛣ືࢆᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿどᗙࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊⓏሙே≀࠿ࡽ㞳ࢀࡓどᗙ࡟❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᥎ ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟⥆ࡃ They came around a bend ࠿ࡽࡣࠊㄒࡾᡭࡣⓏሙே≀ࢆᚅࡕᵓ࠼ࡿどᗙ࡟❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࠊࡑࡢᚋࠊ෌ࡧⓏሙே≀࡜୍⥴࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࠊྭ࠼࡞ࡀࡽࡇࡕࡽ࡟㏆࡙
ࠊ๓᪉ࢆぢࡿ㸦Ahead were the lights of the shanties㸧ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟
࠸࡚ࡃࡿ≟ࢆぢ㸦a dog came out barking㸧“Indian Camp”ࡢෑ㢌ࡢሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠊㄒࡾᡭࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ≉ᐃࡢⓏሙே≀࡟ᐤࡗࡓどᗙࢆྲྀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡶࠊࡲࡓࠊ
Ⓩሙே≀඲ဨ࠿ࡽ୍ᐃࡢ㊥㞳ࢆಖࡗࡓどᗙ࡟❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ✀ࡢㄒࡾࡀෑ㢌࡟⌧ࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊㄞ
⪅ࡣࠊࡇࡢసရୡ⏺ࡢ⯙ྎࡸⓏሙே≀ࡢே㛫㛵ಀ࡞࡝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ኱ᯟࢆᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ≀ㄒࡢ୰┙ࠊࢽࢵࢡࡢ∗ぶࡀᖇ⋤ษ㛤ࢆࡍࡿ㎶ࡾ࠿ࡽࡣࠊㄒࡾᡭࡢどᗙࡣࢽࢵࢡᐤࡾ࡟࡯ࡰᅛᐃࡉ
ࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ‘There. That gets it,’ said his father and put something into the basin.࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡾ࠿ࡽࡶ࠺࠿ࡀ
࠼ࡿࠋᖇ⋤ษ㛤ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊὙ㠃ჾࡢ୰࡟ࠕఱ࠿ࠖ
㸦something㸧ࢆධࢀࡓ∗ぶ࡟ࡣࠊ⮬ศࡀධࢀࡓࡶࡢࡀఱ࡛࠶ࡿ
࠿ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋὙ㠃ჾࡢ୰࡟ධࢀࡓࡶࡢࢆࠕఱ࠿ࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊ∗ぶࡢᵝᏊࢆ㞳ࢀ࡚ぢ࡚࠸ࡿࢽࢵࢡᐤࡾࡢどᗙࢆྲྀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ≀ㄒࡢ᭱ᚋࡢሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠊࢽࢵࢡ࡜ࢽࢵࢡࡢ∗ぶࡢ఍ヰࡀఏ㐩⠇ࢆక࠺ࡇ࡜࡞
ࡃ⥆࠸࡚࠸ࡃࠋㄒࡾᡭࡣࠊࡇࡢ஧ேࡢ఍ヰࡀ⪺ࡇ࠼ࡿどᗙ࡟❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜᝿ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊ⥆ࡃ It felt warm in the
sharp chill of the morning ཬࡧ he [=Nick] felt quite sure that he would never die ࠿ࡽࠊࡑࡢどᗙࡣࢽࢵࢡᐤ
ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜᥎ ࡉࢀࡿࠋIt felt …ࡣࢽࢵࢡࡢయឤࢆࠊhe felt quite sure …ࡣࢽࢵࢡࡢ☜ಙࢆࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀㄒࡗ࡚࠸
ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ“Indian Camp”ࡣࠊ඲య࡜ࡋ࡚ࢽࢵࢡᐤࡾࡢどᗙ࠿ࡽㄒࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊNick
said ࡜ his father said ࡢฟ⌧㢖ᗘࢆẚ㍑ࡋࡓሙྜ࡟ࠊ๓⪅ࡀ 7 ౛ࠊᚋ⪅ࡀ 14 ౛࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࠿ࡽࡶ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼
ࡿࠋ2ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊㄒࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊࢽࢵࢡࡢ㸦ཬࡧࢽࢵࢡᐤࡾࡢどᗙ࡟❧ࡗࡓㄒࡾᡭࡢ㸧┠ࡢ๓࡛ᒎ㛤ࡉࢀࡿฟ᮶஦ࡀ୰ᚰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ“Indian Camp”ࡣࠊࢽࢵࢡᐤࡾࡢどᗙ࡟❧ࡗࡓㄒࡾ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣ࠸
࠼ࠊྍ⬟࡞㝈ࡾᐈほⓗ࡟ฟ᮶஦ࢆㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿసရ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࣁ࣮ࢻ࣎࢖ࣝࢻ࡞ Hemingway ࡢᩥయࢆ௦
⾲ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞సရࡢ㸯ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ
3.2 “Hills like White Elephants”“Hills like White Elephants”࡛ࡣࠊ୺࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊෑ㢌࡜⤊┙ࠊཬࡧ᭱ᚋࡢሙ㠃ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ≀ㄒࡢෑ㢌࡛ࠊㄒࡾᡭࡣࠊ≀ㄒࡢ⯙ྎ඲యࢆぢΏࡏࡿ㥐ࡢࠕࡇࡕࡽഃࠖ
㸦On this side㸧࠿ࡽ୺ேබ࡜࡞ࡿ஧ேࡢ⏨ዪࡢᑐヰࡀ⪺ࡇ࠼ࡿሙᡤ࡬࡜ᚎࠎ࡟ୗࡾ࡚ࡃࡿ㸦The hills across the valley of the Ebro …ńthe stationńClose againstࠋࡇࡢㄒࡾᡭࡢどᗙࡢ⛣ື㸦⯙ྎ඲
the side of the station …ńthe barńThe American and the girl with him㸧యࢆぢΏࡍどᗙ࠿ࡽ஧ேࡢ୺ேබ࡬ࡢ Zoom-in㸧ࡣࠊㄞ⪅ࢆసရୡ⏺࡟ධࡾ㎸ࡲࡏࡿ୍ࡘࡢᡭẁ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋどᗙࡀ୺ேබࡢ஧ேࡢ࡜ࡇࢁࡲ࡛ୗࡾ࡚ࡁࡓࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ⥆ࡃ It was very hot and the express from
Barcelona would come in forty minutes.㸦ୗ⥺➹⪅㸧࠿ࡽࡶ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊ࢙࢘࢖ࢺࣞࢫࡶ஺࠼ࡓ⏨ዪࡢ఍ヰࡀᩘ⾜⥆ࡁࠊThe girl was looking off at the line of hills ௨㝆ࠊ≀ㄒࡢ୰┙㎶ࡾࡲ࡛ࡣࠊዪࡀఱ࠿ࢆぢ࡚

2 Nick said ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡣࠊsaid NickࠊNick askedࠊasked Nick ࡶྵࡲࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊhis father said ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡣࠊsaid his fatherࡣࡶࡕࢁࢇࡢࡇ࡜ࠊࢽࢵࢡࡢ∗ぶࡀ the doctor ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ he ࡜ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡓሙྜࡶྵࡴࠋ

−309−

視座と〈見え〉からHemingway作品に迫る࠸ࡿᵝᏊࢆㄒࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧㸦{The girl / she} {was looking / looked} ~㸧ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿ㸦6 ౛㸧ࠋ3ࡇࢀࡣࠊㄒࡾᡭࡀࠊ
ዪࡢᵝᏊࢆほᐹࡍࡿどᗙࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕዪ࡜୍⥴࡟࠸ࡿ⏨ᐤࡾࡢどᗙ࡟❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௚⪅ࡢど⥺ࢆ
㏣࠺࡜࠸࠺ど⥺㏣ᚑࡀࠊࡑࡢ௚⪅࡜ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆྲྀࡾࡓ࠸ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࡑࡢ௚⪅࡜ඹឤࡋࡓ࠸࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡟㉳ࡇࡿ㸦ᮏከ (2005: ➨ 8 ❶) ཧ↷㸧࡜ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧࠿ࡽࠊዪ࡜ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙ
ࣥࢆྲྀࡾࡓ࠸ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊዪ࡜ඹឤࡋࡓ࠸࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿ⏨ࡢᚰ᝟ࡀᾋ࠿ࡧୖࡀࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ┤᥋ヰἲ࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿ⏨ዪࡢ఍ヰࡢ୰࡛ࠊ⏨ࢆ୺ㄒ࡟ྲྀࡿఏ㐩⠇㸦the man said ࡜ he askedࠊ He did
not say anything.ࢆྵࡴ㸧࡜ዪࢆ୺ㄒ࡟ྲྀࡿఏ㐩⠇㸦the girl saidࠊshe saidࠊsaid the girlࠊasked the girl ࡜
The girl did not say anything.㸧ࡢฟ⌧㢖ᗘࢆẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ๓⪅ࡀ 10 ౛ࠊᚋ⪅ࡀ 18 ౛࡜ࠊᅽಽⓗ࡟ዪࢆ୺ㄒ࡜ࡍࡿࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ࡯࠺ࡀከ࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡶࠊ⏨ᐤࡾࡢどᗙࢆྲྀࡗࡓㄒࡾᡭࡢࠑ⪺ࡇ࠼ࠒࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ
“Hills like White Elephants”ࡢㄒࡾࡣࠊ≀ㄒࡢ⤊┙ࡲ࡛ࠊዪࢆẼ㐵࠺⏨ᐤࡾࡢどᗙ࠿ࡽㄒࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ≀ㄒࡢ⤊┙࡛ࠊዪࡀᙉ࠸ཱྀㄪ࡛⏨࡟ Would you please please please please please please pleasestop talking?࡜ゝࡗࡓᚋ࠿ࡽࡣࠊㄒࡾᡭࡣࠊ୺ேබࡢ஧ேࢆ➼ࡋࡃほᐹࡍࡿどᗙ࡟❧ࡘࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊࡇࡢⓎヰ௨㝆ࠊ⏨ࢆ୺ㄒ࡜ࡍࡿఏ㐩⠇࡜ዪࢆ୺ㄒ࡜ࡍࡿఏ㐩⠇ࡢᩘࡀྠ➼࡟࡞ࡿⅬࠊཬࡧࠊ≀ㄒࡢ᭱ᚋࡢሙ㠃࡛ࠊ஧ேࡢ୺ேබ
ࡢᵝᏊ㸦ᚤ➗ࡴዪ࡜㔜࠸Ⲵ≀ࢆ࣮࣒࣍࡟㐠ࡪ⏨㸧ࢆ➼ࡋࡃㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࠿ࡽࡶ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊෑ㢌࠿ࡽࡎࡗ࡜⏨ࡀዪࢆ㠀ᖖ࡟Ẽ㐵ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᙼࡢࠊᙼዪ࡟ᑐࡍࡿゝⴥࡸᙼዪࢆぢࡘࡵࡿど⥺㸦ᙼዪࡢ୍ᣲᡭ୍ᢞ㊊࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᵝᏊ㸧࠿ࡽ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢᵝᏊࡣࠊ≀ㄒࡢ᭱ᚋ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿ⏨ዪࡢ఍
ヰ“Do you feel better?” he asked. “I feel fine,” she said. “There’s nothing wrong with me. I feel fine.”࠿ࡽࡶ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ“Hills like White Elephants”ࡢㄒࡾࡣࠊ“Indian Camp”࡯࡝ࢻࣛ࢖࡛ࣁ࣮ࢻ
࣎࢖ࣝࢻ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ୎ᑀ࡟ㄞࡳ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡅࡤࠊ஧ேࡢⓏሙே≀ࡢᚰ᝟ࡸᚰ⌮ࠊ୧⪅ࡢຊ㛵ಀࢆឤࡌྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛
ࡁࡿㄒࡾ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

4. ⤊ࢃࡾ࡟㸸Hemingway సရ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⓏሙே≀ࡢᚰ᝟⌮ゎᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊErnest Hemingway ࡢ㸰సရࠊ“Indian Camp”࡜“Hills like White Elephants”ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊㄒࡾᡭࡢどᗙ࡜ࠑぢ࠼ࠒࡸࠑ⪺ࡇ࠼ࠒ࡟㛵ࢃࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚ࠊⓏሙே≀ࡢᚰ᝟ࢆ᥎ࡋ㔞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆヨࡳࡓࠋ“Indian
Camp”࡛ࡣࠊㄒࡾᡭࡣࠊ୺ேබ࡛࠶ࡿࢽࢵࢡᐤࡾࡢどᗙࢆྲྀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼ࠊࡑࡇ࠿ࡽࡢ▱ぬ᝟ሗࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠊ
ྍ⬟࡞㝈ࡾᐈほⓗ࡟≧ἣࢆㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୍⯡࡟ࣁ࣮ࢻ࣎࢖ࣝࢻ࡜⛠ࡉࢀࡿ Hemingway సရࡢ≉ᚩࢆⰍ⃰ࡃ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿసရ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ“Hills like White Elephants”࡛ࡣࠊෑ㢌࡛ㄞ⪅ࢆࡇࡢ≀ㄒୡ⏺
࡟ᘬࡁ㎸ࡴࡼ࠺࡞ㄒࡾࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࠊࡑࢀ࡟⥆࠸࡚ࠊ୺ேබࡢ୍ே࡛࠶ࡿዪࡢ⾜ືࡸⓎゝࡀࠊࡶ࠺୍ேࡢ୺ேබ࡛࠶
ࡿ⏨࡟ᐤࡗࡓどᗙ࠿ࡽㄒࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࡢㄒࡾ࠿ࡽࠊ஧ேࡢ୺ேබࡢᚰ᝟ࡸຊ㛵ಀࢆ᥎ࡋ㔞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ“Hills like White Elephants”ࡣࠊ“Indian Camp”࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ༢⣧࡟ࣁ࣮ࢻ࣎࢖ࣝࢻ࡜⛠ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ್ࡋ࡞࠸సရ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ᮏከၨ. 2005. ࠗ࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢲࣥࢫࡢㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽ࠘ ᮾி㸸ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧఍.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ᐑᓮΎᏕ࣭ୖ㔝┤ᶞ. 1985. ࠗどⅬ࠘ ᮾி㸸ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧఍.
Rubba, Jo. 1996. “Alternate Grounds in the Interpretation of Deictic Expressions.” In Gilles Fauconnier and
Eve Sweetser (eds.), Space, Worlds, and Grammar, 227-261. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sanders, José, and Gisela Redeker. 1996. “Perspective and the Representation of Speech and Thought inNarrative Discourse.” In Gilles Fauconnier and Eve Sweetser (eds.), Space, Worlds, and Grammar,
290-317. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
ᒣཱྀ἞ᙪ. 2009. ࠗ᫂ᬓ࡞ᘬ⏝ࠊࡋ࡞ࡸ࠿࡞ᘬ⏝㸫ヰἲࡢ᪥ⱥᑐ↷◊✲࠘ ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.

3 ࡕ࡞ࡳ࡟ᚋ༙࡟ධࡿ࡜ࠊ⏨ࡀఱ࠿ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡿᵝᏊࢆㄒࡿ{The man / he} looked ~ࡶ 4 ౛ぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ−310−第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ᘙྵƱႾဦƷನ‫׋‬Ჴ+PFKCP%CORƴƓƚǔ૨˳ƱཋᛖƷƳƧᒣཱྀ἞ᙪ⚄ᡞᕷእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ
<Abstract>
Featuring Hemingway's "Indian Camp", this paper talks about two things. One is about
Hemingway's reticent style, which leaves many things unsaid and lets readers retrieve theunspoken information. This paper focuses among others on referring expressions with (a)modifier(s) in order to bring out the eloquent reticence of Hemingway's style. The otherfocus of the paper is a mystery embedded in this story. That is, no conclusive answer has
been given as to the reason of the Indian husband's suicide. This paper claims that the
mystery is so required as to present to the protagonist two unrelated events of life and death,and that readers do not have to bother themselves with the reason of the suicide.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚᑠㄝ㸪ᩥయ㸪ᣦ♧⾲⌧㸪ㄒࡾ㸪どⅬᲫᲨƸơǊƴ ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࠕHemingway సရࢆㄞࡳゎࡃࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚▷⦅"Indian Camp"ࢆ㢟ᮦ࡟♧ࡋ࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪ḟࡢࡩࡓࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡦ࡜ࡘࡣ㸪ᣦ♧⾲⌧࡟╔┠ࡋ㸪࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖ࡢᐻ㯲࡛⥭ᐦ࡞ᩥయࡢ≉ᚩࢆලయⓗ࡟᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡶ࠺ࡦ࡜ࡘࡣ㸪࢖ࣥࢹ࢕࢔ࣥ⏨ᛶࡢ⮬ᐖࡢ࡞ࡒࡣ㸪≀ㄒࡢᵓᡂୖᚲせ࡞࣑ࢫࢸ࣮࡛ࣜ࠶ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢ⌮⏤ࢆࡇ࡜ࡉࡽ࡟ồࡵࡿᚲせࡀ࡞࠸࡜ᣦ
᦬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᑠ⪃ࡣ㸪ࡇࡢ㸰Ⅼࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋ ࡓࡔࡋ㸪ᚋ⪅ࡢ࢖ࣥࢹ࢕࢔ࣥ⏨ᛶ⮬ᐖࡢ࡞ࡒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ᣦᐃウㄽ⪅ࡢ኱἟㞞ᙪẶࡢពぢࢆཷࡅ࡚㸪⌧ᅾࡣ⪃࠼ࢆᨵࡵࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪኱఍ࣉ࣮ࣟࢩ࣮ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࢬ࡜࠸࠺ᛶ᱁ࢆ⪃࠼࡚㸪Ⓨ⾲ᙜ᫬ࡢ⪃࠼ࡢᴫ␎ࢆグࡋ㸪᪂ࡓ࡞ゎ㔘࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣู✏ࢆ⏝ពࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
ᲬᲨਦᅆᘙྵƔǒᙸǔȘȟȳǰǦǧǤƷ૨˳ ࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖ࡢᩥయࡣࡼࡃịᒣ࡟႘࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ⣬㠃࡟✺ࡁฟࡓࢸࢡࢫࢺࡼࡾࡶࡣࡿ࠿࡟ከࡃ
ࡢࡇ࡜ࡀ᭩࠿ࢀ࡞࠸ࡲࡲ࡟⣬㠃ࡢୗ࡟₯ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᐻ㯲࡛࠶ࡿࡀከࡃࡢࡇ࡜ࢆㄒ
ࡾ࠼ࡿ࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖ࡢᩥయ࡜ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࠿ࠋᆅࡢᩥ࡟⾲ࢀࡓ㹙ಟ㣭ㄒ㸩ྡモ㹛ࡢᵓ㐀ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ㸪๐ࡂⴠࡉࢀࡎ࡟ṧࡉࢀࡓಟ㣭ㄒࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ᛶࢆᢸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ ࡶ࡜ࡼࡾ㸪ಟ㣭ㄒࡀࡘࡃྡモྃࡢᩘࡣከࡃ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ㸪࡞࠿࡛ࡶ "another rowboat", "quick
choppy strokes", ࠾ࡼࡧ "all his post-operative exhilaration" ࡢ㸱ࡘࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋ
(1)

At the lake shore there was another rowboat drawn up. The two Indians stood waiting.
Nick and his father got in the stern of the boat and the Indians shoved it off and oneof them got in to row. Uncle George sat in the stern of the camp rowboat.

−311−

表現と省略の構図：“Indian Camp”における文体と物語のなぞ (1) ࡣ▷⦅ࡢෑ㢌࡛࠶ࡿࠋ"another rowboat" ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡀ࠸ࡁ࡞ࡾᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ࣮࣎ࢺࢆ
"another" ࡜࿧ࡪ࠿ࡽ࡟ࡣ㸪ࡶ࠺୍⯺㸪ᇶⅬ࡜࡞ࡿ࣮࣎ࢺࡀ࠶ࡿࡣࡎࡔࠋ஦ᐇ㸪ḟࡢẁⴠ࡛࣮࣎ࢺࡀ 2 ⯺࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࡍࡄ࡟᫂࠿ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
 (1) ࡣᑡᖺࢽࢵࢡࡢど⥺ࢆ࡞ࡒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢽࢵࢡࡣ∗࡜ུ∗࡜࡜ࡶ࡟࣮࣎ࢺ࡛†ࢆΏࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ
ࡢࡔࡀ㸪ࡑࡢ࣮࣎ࢺࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࢽࢵࢡ࡟ࡣᙜࡓࡾ๓ࡢ๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡚㸪ᙼࡢព㆑࡟ࡣୖࡗ࡚࠸࡞
࠸ࠋࡑࡢ࡜ࡁ࡟㸪ࡩࡓࡾࡢ࢖ࣥࢹ࢕࢔ࣥࡀᮧ (camp) ࠿ࡽ஌ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠕࡶ࠺୍⯺ูࡢ࣮࣎ࢺࠖࢆ
†ᓊ࡟ㄆࡵࡓࠋࢽࢵࢡ࡜∗ࡣ⮬ศࡓࡕࡢ࣮࣎ࢺ ("the boat") ࡟ṧࡾ㸪࢖ࣥࢹ࢕࢔ࣥࡀࡦ࡜ࡾ₈ࡂᡭ࡜ࡋ࡚஌ࡾ㎸ࡴࠋࢪ࣮ࣙࢪ࠾ࡌࡉࢇࡣ㸪࢖ࣥࢹ࢕࢔ࣥࡀᮧ࠿ࡽ஌ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ࣮࣎ࢺ ("the camp
rowboat") ࡟஌ࡾ㎸ࢇࡔࠋ ࡇࢀࡔࡅࡢࡇ࡜ࡀ㸲ࡘࡢᩥ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఏ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ↓㥏ࡣ୍ษ࡞࠸ࠋㄞ⪅ࡣ㸪⥭ᐦ࡟⦅ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀࡓᩥయࢆ๓࡟㸪ከࡃࡢෆᐜࢆㄞࡳ㎸ࡲࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
(2)

The two boats started off in the dark. Nick heard the oarlocks of the other boatquite a way ahead of them in the mist. The Indians rowed with quick choppy strokes.

 (2) ࡛ࡣኪ㟝ࡢ࡞࠿ࢆ࣮࣎ࢺࡀ㐍ࡴᵝࡀᥥ෗ࡉࢀࡿࠋ"quick choppy strokes" ࡛ࡣಟ㣭ㄒࡀࡩࡓࡘ㸪ࡇࡢ▷⦅ࡢᩥయ࠿ࡽࡍࢀࡤࠕẼ๓ࡼࡃࠖ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ "choppy" ࡣ࣮࢜ࣝࡀỈ㠃ࢆษࡿ࡜ࡁࡢ㡢ࢆ㐃᝿ࡉࡏࡿࠋ㜌࡜㟝ࡢࡏ࠸࡛ど⏺ࡀᝏࡃ㸪㡢࠿ࡽࡢㄆ㆑ࡀᨭ㓄ⓗ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ
ࡔࠋࢽࢵࢡࡀ₈ࡂᡭࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆ࠾ࡶ࡟⫈ぬ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀఏࢃࡿࡀ㸪ࡇࡢ"choppy" ࢆḞࡃ࡜ࡑࡢゎ㔘ࡀ๓㠃࡟ฟ࡚ࡇ࡞࠸ࠋ ḟࡣ㸪"all his post-operative exhilaration"࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ▷⦅࡛ࡶ⩌ࢆᢤ࠸࡚┠❧ࡘࡇࡢ⾲⌧ࡣ㸪ዷ፬ࡢኵࡢ⮬ᐖ࡟ពẼᾘỿࡍࡿࢽࢵࢡࡢ∗࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(3)"I'm terribly sorry I brought you along; Nickie," said his father, all his
post-operative exhilaration gone. "It was an awful mess to put you through." 㞴⏘࡟ⱞࡋࡴ࢖ࣥࢹ࢕࢔ࣥዪᛶࡣ㸪㯞㓉ࡶ࡞ࡃᡭ㊊ࢆᢲࡉ࠼ࡘࡅࡽࢀ࡚ࢪࣕࢵࢡࢼ࢖ࣇ࡛ᖇ⋤ษ㛤ࡢᡭ⾡ࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢࠕᇳยࠖࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡢࡀࢽࢵࢡࡢ∗࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙼࡣ㸪㔮ࡾ⣒࡛⦭ྜࡋࡓࡇࡢᡭ⾡ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ㄂ࡾ㸪ヨྜᚋ㸪᥍࠼ᐊ࡛┒ࡾୖࡀࡿࣇࢵࢺ࣮࣎ࣝ㑅ᡭࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋࡷ
࡭ࡾ❧࡚࡚࠸ࡓ㸦(4)ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋ ࠶ࡓ࠿ࡶᐙ␆ࡢฟ⏘ࢆぢᏛࡉࡏࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪࠾⏘ࡢ⌧ሙࢆᜥᏊ࡟ぢᏛࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡓ་ᖌ࡟ᑐࡍ
ࡿ┤᥋ⓗ࡞ホ౯ࡣ㸪స⪅࠿ࡽ୍ษ♧ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋㄞ⪅ࡣ㸪ᥥ࠿ࢀࡓෆᐜ⮬య࡜ᩘᑡ࡞࠸㛫᥋ⓗ࡞ᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࠿ࡽ㸪་ᖌ࡟ᑐࡍࡿホ౯ࢆඹ᭷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡢᩘᑡ࡞࠸㛫᥋ⓗᡭࡀ࠿ࡾࡢࡦ࡜ࡘࡀ㸪ࡇࡢ"all his post-operative exhilaration"࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕ⾡ᚋᛶ㧗ᥭឤࠖ࡜࡛ࡶヂࡋ࡚ࡼ࠸ࡼ࠺࡞ሀⱞ
ࡋ࠸⾲⌧ࡣ㸪་ᖌࡢ⌧ᅾࡢពẼᾘỿࢆ㊥㞳ࢆ⨨ࡁࡘࡘ෭ࡸࡸ࠿࡟ఏ࠼ࡿࠋ࡜ྠ᫬࡟㸪ᡭ⾡ࡀᡂຌࡋࡓ࡜ࡁࡢ་ᖌࡢ႐ࡧࡼ࠺࡟㛵ࡍࡿ௨ୗࡢグ㏙ࢆᢈุⓗ࡟ᛮ࠸㉳ࡇࡉࡏࡿࠋ

−312−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号(4) He was feeling exalted and talkative as football players are in the dressing room after agame.
"That's one for the medical journal, George," he said. "Doing a Caesarian with ajack-knife and sewing it up with nine-foot, tapered gut leaders." ࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖ࡣಟ㣭ㄒࡢ↓㥏㐵࠸ࢆࡋ࡞࠸ࠋᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡟ࡣ㸪ࡑࢀ࡞ࡾࡢᩥ⬦ຠᯝࡀᖖ࡟ᮇᚅࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋỈ㠃ୗ࡟㞃ࢀࡓịᒣࡢᇶ㒊ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆㄞ⪅ࡣᛮࢃࡎ࡟ࡣ࠸ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
ᲭᲨȟǹȆȪȸƱཋᛖƷᛯྸᲴ‫پ‬ƷᐯܹǛǊƙƬƯ ๓⠇࡛ࡶゐࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪་ᖌ࡛࠶ࡿࢽࢵࢡࡢ∗ࡣ㸪㯞㓉ࡢ࡞࠸≧ἣ࡛ࢪࣕࢵࢡࢼ࢖ࣇ࡜㔮ࡾ⣒࡛ᖇ⋤ษ㛤ࡢᡭ⾡ࢆࡸࡾࡁࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋẕᏊࡣඹ࡟ຓ࠿ࡿࠋ⮬ศࡢࠕ೧ᴗࠖࢆ⮬㈶ࡍࡿࡢࡶ᮰ࡢ
㛫㸪ྠࡌ㒊ᒇ࡛㊊ࢆ᛹ᡃࡋ࡚ᐷ࡚࠸ࡓࡣࡎࡢኵࡣ㸪ᡭ⾡ࡢ᭱୰࡟ႃࢆ࠿ࡁษࡗ࡚⮬ᐖࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
⚾ࡓࡕࡀ᪥㡭័ࢀぶࡋࡴᅉᯝᚊ࠿ࡽࡍࢀࡤ㸪࠶ࡲࡾ࡟୙ྍゎ࡞Ṛ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ㄞ⪅ࡣ୙ྍゎ࡞≧ែࢆゎᾘࡋࡓ࠸ࠋస⪅ࡣ㸪ࡔ࠿ࡽ㸪ࡇࡢ࡞ࡒ࡟ࡲࡗࡓࡃゐࢀࡎ࡟≀ㄒࢆ⤊࠼ࡿࢃࡅ࡟ࡣ࠸࠿࡞࠸ࠋᐇ㝿㸪≀ㄒ⤖ᮎࡢ఍ヰ㒊࡛ࢽࢵࢡࡣࡇࡢ࡞ࡒ࡟ゝཬࡍࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪∗ࡣ᭕᫕࡟ࡋ࠿⟅࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
(5) "Why did he kill himself, Daddy?""I don't know, Nick. He couldn't stand things, I guess." ࡇࡢ⮬ᐖࡢ⌮⏤࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡇࢀࡲ࡛‶㊊࡞ᅇ⟅ࡣᢈホᐙ࠿ࡽࡶᐤࡏࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡼ࠺ࡔ㸦㧗㔝
2005, Meyers 1988 ࡞࡝ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋ࡛ࡣ㸪సရࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿ࠺࠼࡛ࡇࡢ࡞ࡒࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼ࡓࡽࡼ࠸ࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞࡞ࡒࢆ๓࡟ࡋ࡚ㄞ⪅ࡀ࡜ࡿែᗘࡣ㸪༢⣧࡟⪃࠼࡚ࡩࡓࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢෆእ࡟
࡞ࡒࢆゎࡃ㘽ࡀ࠶ࡿࡣࡎࡔ࡜ಙࡌ࡚㞃ࡉࢀࡓ⌮⏤ࢆồࡵࡿ࠿㸪ࡑࢀ࡜ࡶ㸪࡞ࡒࡣ࡞ࡒ࡜ࡋ࡚୙ᛮ
㆟ࢆ୙ၥ࡜ࡍࡿ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ๓⪅ࡢ❧ሙࡣ㸪㏻ᖖࡢᅉᯝ㛵ಀ࡛ࡣㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠸⌮⏤ࢆ௚⪅࡛࠶ࡿ࢖ࣥࢹ࢕࢔ࣥ࡟ồࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪ᚋ⪅ࡢ❧ሙࢆ࡜ࡿ࡞ࡽ㸪࡞ࡒࡀ᭕᫕࡞ࡲࡲ≀ㄒࡀᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿ㐣⛬࡟ࡘ࠸୍࡚ᐃ
ࡢㄝ᫂ࡀᚲせ࡟࡞ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
 ᮏⓎ⾲ࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟ᚋ⪅ࡢ❧ሙࢆ࡜ࡿࠋ࡛ࡣ㸪࡞ࡒࢆ࡞ࡒ࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ♧ࡍࡿ࡜ࡣ࡝࠺࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡔࢁ
࠺࠿ࠋᑡࡋᅇࡾ㐨࡟࡞ࡿࡀ㸪࡞ࡒࡸ୙ᛮ㆟ࢆᚲ↛ⓗ࡟ࡣࡽࡴㄒࡾ࡛࠶ࡿ㸪ࢩࣥࢹ࣭ࣞࣛࢫࢺ࣮ࣜ
࣮ࢆ౛࡟࡜ࡗ࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ ⚾ࡓࡕࡣ⮬ศࡢᡂຌࢆㄒࡿ࡜ࡁ㸪኱ࡁࡃศࡅ࡚㸰✀㢮ࡢ᪉ἲ࡟㢗ࡿࠋࡦ࡜ࡘࡣ㸪⮬ศࡢດຊ࡜
ᕤኵࢆ⮬㈶ࡍࡿࠕờ࡜ᾦࠖࡢ≀ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶ࠺ࡦ࡜ࡘࡣ㸪ᖾ㐠ࡸഅ↛ࡸ㨱ἲⓗせ⣲࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᡂຌ
ࡀᑟ࠿ࢀࡓ࡜ㄒࡿࢩࣥࢹ࣭ࣞࣛࢫࢺ࣮࣮࡛ࣜ࠶ࡿ㸦ᒣཱྀ 2008㸧ࠋ௨ୗࡣ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺୖ࡟බ㛤ࡉࢀࡓ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ࠿ࡽ᥇ࡗࡓࠋヰࡋᡭࡣὒⳫᏊ㈍኎࡛ࡢᡂຌ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(6) ࡑ࠺࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࠋ
ࠕḟࡢࢫࢸࢵࣉࡣࢹࣃ࣮ࢺ࡟ฟᗑࡔࡡࠊ࡝࠺ࡸࡗࡓࡽฟᗑ࡛ࡁࡿࢇࡔࢁ࠺㸽ࠖ−313−

表現と省略の構図：“Indian Camp”における文体と物語のなぞ࡞ࢇ࡚ヰࡋ࡚ࡓࡽࠊࡲࡿ࡛ቨ࡟⪥ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᯾᭷ྡࢹࣃ࣮ࢺࡢேࡀദ஦࡬ࡢฟᒎ౫㢗ࢆࡋ࡚ࡁ࡚ࠋ࡯ࢇ࡜ࠊ㦫ࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑࢀࡀ኎ࢀ࡚ࡋࡲࡗ࡚ࠋ࡞ࢇ࠿ࠊຓࡅ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸࡜ᛮ
ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࠊ࡝ࡇ࠿ࡽ࠿ຓࡅ࡚ࡃࢀࡿேࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࡡࠋ୙ᛮ㆟࡜ࠋ
KWWSZZZZPVW\OHMSDUFKLYHVBSKS  ࢩࣥࢹ࣭ࣞࣛࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࡣ㸪ࡀࢇࡤࡗࡓ࠿ࡽᡂຌࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᅉᯝ㛵ಀ࡟ッ࠼ࡿㄒࡾ᪉ࡣࡋ࡞
࠸ࠋㄒࡾࡢฟ᮶஦ࢆ⣳ࡄᅉᯝᛶࢆㄆࡵ࡞࠸ࢃࡅࡔ࠿ࡽ㸪ᚲ↛ⓗ࡟അ↛ࡸ୙ᛮ㆟࡟㢗ࡽࡡࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞
࠸ࠋୖࡢᘬ⏝࡛ࡶ㸪ࠕ୙ᛮ㆟࡜ࠖ
ࠕࡲࡿ࡛ቨ࡟⪥ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠖ
ࠕ࡝ࡇ࠿ࡽ࠿ຓࡅ࡚ࡃࢀࡿேࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࠖࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪ᅉᯝᛶࢆᨺᲠࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ㸪୺ேබ࡟ᖾ㐠ࡀᤵࡅࡽࢀࡓ㸪ࡑࡢᖾ㐠ࡣ୺ேබ࡟ࡇࡑࡩࡉࢃࡋ࠸㸪࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀ๓㠃࡟ᢲࡋฟࡉࢀࡿࠋࢩࣥࢹ࣭ࣞࣛࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜ࡟࠾࠸࡚
ᅉᯝᛶࡀ㏣ồࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࡣ㸪ព࿡ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢࡔࠋ
 ヰࢆ"Indian Camp"࡟ᡠࡑ࠺ࠋኵࡢ⮬ᐖࡢ⌮⏤ࡣ㸪ୖ࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪ࢽࢵࢡ࡟ࡶࡑࡢ∗࡟ࡶศࡽ࡞࠸ࠋㄞ⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᫂♧ⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂ࡣ࡞ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪ࢽࢵࢡࡀ⤒㦂ࡋࡓ㸪࢖ࣥࢹ࢕࢔ࣥ
ዪᛶࡢฟ⏘࡜ࡑࡢኵࡢ⮬ᐖ࡜࠸࠺㸪⏕࡜Ṛࡢࡩࡓࡘࡢฟ᮶஦ࡀ㸪᫂░࡟㛵㐃࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃ㸪࠸ࢃࡤ〄ࡢࡲࡲ࡛ᑡᖺࢽࢵࢡࡢ๓࡟ᕪࡋฟࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡀ㔜せ࡞ࡢࡔ࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋ
 "Indian Camp"ࡣᑡᖺࢽࢵࢡࡀ࢖ࣥࢹ࢕࢔ࣥࡢᮧ࡛⤒㦂ࡍࡿ⏕࡜Ṛࡢ࢖ࢽࢩ࢚࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ≀ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ≀ㄒࡢ࡞࠿࡟࡞ࡒࢆෆໟࡋࡓࡲࡲࡢ࡯࠺ࡀ㸪ᑡᖺࡢ࢖ࢽࢩ࢚࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡀ㝿❧ࡘࠋ⏕࡜Ṛࡢᑐ❧ࡀࡼࡾ༳㇟ⓗ࡟❧ࡕ⌧ࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢ࡯࠺ࡀసရࡢ୺㢟࡜ࡶᩚྜࡍࡿࠋࡑ࠺⪃࠼ࡓࠋᲮᲨƓǘǓƴ ࠕࡣࡌࡵ࡟࡛ࠖᑡࡋゐࢀࡓࡀ㸪࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡢᚋ࡛኱἟Ặ࠿ࡽ㈗㔜࡞♧၀ࢆ࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓࠋᨃ
ፔ࡜࠸࠺⩦಑̾̾ጔࡢฟ⏘࡟ඛ❧ࡗ࡚㸪ࡶࡋࡃࡣࡑࢀ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ኵࡀᨃఝⓗ࡟ศፔࢆయ㦂ࡍࡿ̾̾ࡢᏑ
ᅾࡀኵࡢ⮬ᐖ࡜࠿࠿ࢃࡿࡇ࡜ࡸ㸪ࢪ࣮ࣙࢪ࠾ࡌࡉࢇࡢ୙ᅾࡢ⌮⏤࡞࡝ࡀࡑࡢෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᐇࡣ㸪ୖ࡛ゝཬࡋࡓ Meyers ࡢㄽᩥࡶࡇࡢᨃፔࢆ⮬ᐖࡢ⌮⏤࡜⤖ࡧ௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࡀ㸪Meyers ࡢㄝ᫂࡟ࡣ⣡ᚓࡀ࠸࠿ࡎ㸪࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡢⓎ⾲᫬࡟ࡣᨃፔࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ⪃៖࡟࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋ㸪ᨃፔ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᑡࡋㄪ࡭ࡿ࠺ࡕ࡟㸪ኵࡢ⮬ᐖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࡗ࡜ㄝᚓຊࡢ࠶ࡿゎ㔘ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟Ẽ࡙࠸ࡓࠋ ࡓࡔ㸪⮬ᐖࡢ࡞ࡒ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᨃፔࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࡋࡓ୍ᐃࡢ⌮⏤௜ࡅࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡟ࡋ࡚ࡶ㸪⤖ᒁࡢ࡜ࡇࢁ୍⯡ࡢㄞ⪅࡟ࡣ࡞ࡒࡣ࡞ࡒࡢࡲࡲ࡛⤊ࢃࡿࠋㄞ⪅ࡣࡩࡘ࠺ᨃፔࡢ⩦಑࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ▱ࡽ࡞࠸࠿ࡽࡔࠋ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜㸪ᑓ㛛ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘࡜ࡋ࡚≀ㄒࡢ࡞ࡒࡣゎࡅࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡜㸪୍⯡ㄞ⪅࡟ࡣ౫↛࡜ࡋ࡚࡞ࡒࢆ⤒㦂ࡉࡏࡿ࠿ࡓࡕ࡛ㄒࡾࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ᨵࡵ࡚ㄝ᫂ࡀᚲせ࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡑ࠺࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚௒ᚋ㸪✏ࢆᨵࡵ࡚ㄽࡌࡼ࠺࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋ
Ӌᎋ૨ྂ
Meyers, Jeffery. 1988. Hemingway's Primitivism and "Indian Camp": Hemingway's
Primitivism and "Indian Camp" Twentieth Century Literature. 34:2, 211-222.
㧗㔝Ὀᚿ. 2005. ࠕ㯞㓉ࡢㄆ㆑ㄽ㸸ࠕ࢖ࣥࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࣥ࢟ࣕࣥࣉࠖࢆࡵࡄࡿᖇᅜࡢḧᮃࠖࠗ࢔࣓ࣜ
࢝ࢫ◊✲࠘10, 153-166. ኳ⌮኱Ꮫ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࢫᏛ఍
ᒣཱྀ἞ᙪ. 2008. ࠕờ࡜ᾦࡢࢩࣥࢹࣞࣛ㸸ࢧࢡࢭࢫࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࡢㄒࡾ᪉ࠖ
ࠗゝㄒ࠘37:1, 66-71.

−314−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

              ᝿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜  ኱἟㞞ᙪ ኱㜰ᕷ❧኱Ꮫྡ㄃ᩍᤵ

ᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡣ࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖ࡢ▷⦅ࡢศᯒࢆ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ␗࡞ࡿ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ
࠿ࡽヨࡳࠊ࡝࠺࠸࠺ഃ㠃 ࡛࡝ࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡀ᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ
࣑࣊ࣥࢢ࢙࢘࢖ࡢᢏἲࡢゎ᫂ࢆከゅⓗ࡟ヨࡳࡼ࠺ ࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣὭ
࡟⯆࿡ࢆࡑࡑࡽࢀࡿヨࡳ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⫈⾗࣭Ⓨ⾲⪅࣭ࢥ࣓ࣥࢸ࣮ࢱ࣮୕⪅୍య ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ࡢάⓎ࡞㆟ㄽࡀᮇᚅࡉࢀࡓࠋ࡟ࡶᣊࡽࡎࠊ᫬㛫ⓗ࡞ไ⣙࠿ࡽᮇᚅࡉࢀࡓ㆟ㄽࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏᚓ࡞࠿ࡗ ࡓࡢࡣ㑇᠍ࡢᴟࡳ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ࡜࠸࠺ჾ࡟┒ࡿ࡟ࡣవࡾ࡟ࡶ኱ࡁࡍࡂࡿࢸ࣮࣐࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ

−315−

第15回大会発表論文集A2C78

第８号

+-A(;+-A(;

A2C78





¿éŽŤ
ħ«Ô×

ǥAbstractǦ
We organized this workshop as an experimental one in order to discuss about a social
contribution of pragmatic study, that is, contribution to the Japanese language education frompragmatics and contribution to the pragmatics from Japanese language education.

In theworkshop, we claimed that we should aim a symbiotic relationship that is the Japanese
language education and pragmatics research, mutually influence each other sustainably.
The workshop was also an attempted experimental for realizing the claim mentioned
above.

It was composed of three presentations and we described that research on "action oflistener" need more for pragmatic study and Japanese language education.

IjgjW ǤǟūŠƫŎ ǠŐƦ>ŏÏ4 ǡŏÏ>ŐƦ4 Ǣî>ùœ
DţŠ*"ŧŭƘŗǣŐƦ*ùœ*/ĈŹŠ,őǋ

KIBG>/*:

JI<,

A2C78ƴëŧŭĂĩ/ǉ<ū4/ƿDƷ

!A

/Æ

@k

ă-0)@)Ĥơ×ű/ĂĩDŁœ@*s÷)A@ơœƦŧŭ<Ɨơđƃ-ǋC@ă;?-Ų@*Dļ:>A(
B

-+

ĻË
ǚp.207Ǜ-,%("*0Á:,@*ſ>A@ūƫŎ@-&ƒ)@ /¤-ſ,A1,>,
@=

,ǋ-

*

@

ĪņŠ,Æ

)

Ǒ

%

(;M_aXLjObhƅ¦/ƃĂ-ŋňDî("đƃŢE,?&&

@5

-ä

@ /·?Ŷ807#ź"1?)?ơœƦŧŭ>/ĝ,@[FjWZSJøƒ,ĸǎ)70/Ƥǖ-ÇŲDq@5ơœƦ*ėĤơđƃ*/ǋD-ſ(8"%"*D¸ėĤơđƃ--úCA@ A0ŐƦƗơ×

*ùœƗơ×*+/=@=kĕƴë/M_aXLjObhŧŭ/ƹæ(ſ@*;Ǆ*/ŸĩǅŔǚ2012Ǜƶ5(-ėĤơđƃ×ėĤơ×<Ɨơ×/ĭ/Ų/k&ŏÏ4/ùœ*ŏÏ>/čī)+-A(;

ėĤơđƃ-@A7)/ùœ0ė

(×/ūƫŎ-Þ@ƒƥǙ7%()ŀÿD,A1,>,



@
*0ơ

œƦŧŭ/ĂĩD­-ùœ"#)0

1

−317−

語用論研究から日本語教育へ、日本語教育から語用論研究へ@ŹA7)/ėĤơđƃǍ?ǜƆ),%"(ĤgjJObS]-&(ƶ5@ŐƦŧŭ4/ôçŠ,ÖǋDM_a
XLjObhđƃ*rŘ--őŒ(7*)A@)0ǝ+/=ư7-ń9/)B

LI&H5@

(;ŊĆ
@*





/=

,×Æ/ŝæ/?ĕ0kġkÑ

-0ÙŏA@;/)0,ŧŭƀ<ŧŭK-A1¾ƲD;ej]/s)ĚǊD(ǁĂA(

/)
+-A(;-

A2C78 /ƤǖDƖľ@":-0B /=

,ğĴŠ,Ǝ½DŦĢŠikĚŠ-?*0),
B

A!A/Ů

#

*ĊĄŠ-ſ"/ĤgjJObS

Ï/yǊv&/ƔňDĈ%(ŧŭ*ŏÏ-]/ÿÉ)ƈ9*Ǆƒ)@

ǋ÷;ś,?ŧŭ/Ƅě;Ƥǖ;Óè-C"

 k&0ŧŭ/ŝþĸǎ>ėĤơđƃ4@ŧŭƀDŶ8½C(gjJObS]DƐ

/ùœiŁœ*)DĢò"C)@ŐƦŧŭ>ŏÏ4/ùœDÿÉ@/)>*) >ĔƔňD·?ƳE)ƘŗD

Ů(îƝŧŭDÙĖ@*)



A1Ğ

ADţĲ-@*Ġ7%"ŧŭƀ*(/çû;ƊÃő7A@*@)my/ƌąŧŭƀ>,@gjJO

bS]Dŗ"£ƼţĲ0ŐƦŧŭ*ù>œŧŭ/Ǝ½*ėĤơĹơƜƀŧŭ*ÒÊ@ ×ƞæĠâÕÄǚ2006Ǜ)şê®uĺyėĤơ×žƀŧŭ/Ǝ½)¾ı/ƮĘ/*D¾ŧŭ*Ĥyŧŭƀ/Ɣň*ÒÊyŧŭƀ/Ɣň/Ǝ?ĕDċ(ƶ5(

ŧŭ/

½*

@ǚpp.156-159Ǜ? -ėƒŵD§"ÙǏ-ƐCA"ŝƑA-ƫŎ)@/0=?;ėĤơđƃǋ

0ėĤyŧŭƀ-=@ėĤyĹơƜƀDÞƪ

ƀ)@7"ơœƦŧŭ*ėĤơđƃ*-"ŧŭėĤyŧŭƀ-=@ėĤyĹơƜ

DĳŅ@×<ŗ´ĕ/ǅ-ţǀ?

ƀǞÒÊyėĤơ×žƀDÞƪ-"ŧŭÒ¢yĥ/ƃĂ,+;Ǆƒ)Êyŧŭƀ-=@ėĤyĹơƜƀǞÒÊyė

 ;œƦŧŭ4/[FjWZSJ)ƐBĤơ×žƀDÞƪ-"ŧŭ/mŝƑ)k&/^GhV0ėĤơđƃ>ơ

*;Ǆƒ)@ ~o)0/ǔŚ-ŝƑÚDįƢ@@AD@*ſ@ŐƦ>ùœ4#)0,ùœ>ŐƦ4*

MI$4=.36F"łAD?kĕ{ĕ-ôç@/)0,94=´ĕōŮ&&;ťw-ðǓDq½
,őǋDİŴ@øƒůkŝƑƀ0¿¹åÔ×Ô×ǌő/ǆŔ³



ǃĽĺ)

@ŐƦù

@ĤŝƑ0ƁąƜą/œ/ƹæD /ùœ/ƹæŐƦ-Þ

ŝƜDƇ>7"?^PTF\,ƚ4Ơá

Ĕ",ƤǖDčũ@ /ƤǖDƖľ5(vy)k&/ĕÀDţĉ(ŐƦŝæDƺ@ /=,ťw-Ö@,+/Ɛ©DƷ(Ɯą/ŝƜD;*őǋĈŹºƅ,×Æ/ŝæ*-Ɖ>/ƚD§,>Ɯą-

;/)



DƐ%(

½

B

%"?

@*Dę>-@Ɓą0Ɯą/ŝƜDkì¸ķ:  7)Dǟų)ċ"Ƥǖ4/ÇŲ*

2

−318−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

>ĝ-Ɓą/ƜDŝæ@ï)ŝƜD

Ɛ%(ƹæpºĵ)@C)@ŝƑƀ0/Ɓ(ŝƑƀ0 /":-0ơœƦŧŭ/@*tí@Š-0

ą/ĀþD|§@ŝƜťwŐƖ<ǋİ

ôĦ/+$>*Ŵ-ƫŎ(-Ů%"ŝƜĴƅ/ƙƶ#)0,Ɯą@Ǆƒ,ñ¥Dć%(@**Ɯą>/Ɣň

ſ>A@*tí@ (Ɓą/Āþ-Þ@Ɓą/µù*D|§(Þ@Ɯą/µù4/lÝ,ţǀ?DÂ:

@ŝƜDƷ"Ɯą4//Ɓą/µù-yǊǋ/İŴ-ñŮ%(@*D

ƾ²Š-ØŽA@ťwƐŉŠƔňDŶ8Ƴĝ-ĨDŃ:(čũ(*ƶ5@

E#ƙƶ4*ŝæ(

"

øƒ

@*ƶ

5@

7" ADėĤơđƃ-@Ɯđƃ/s)·?nƜą/ŝƜ/8Ǆƒ,/)0,Ɓą*(ĀþD|§"ŝƜDn:-0ŐƦ/ŝæ;øƒ#*ąƐ@*DƜą/ŝ

ůkŝƑƀ>/ũÅ-Þ@ƵŲ&ƒ-ƁąČ A-Þ+/

ƥŠ,[FjWZSJ*,%(?ơœƦŧ@Dũ*)×žƀŭDƹ@*-&,@ėĤơđƃ

*;Ǆƒ)

ƜD+/==-(-("

@*Dũ;/) /ůkŝƑ0Ɓą/ĀþDƶ5@Ɛƃ-;ñŮ&*

/"

ň-

(

>/[FjWZSJơœƦ/ƹæ-Ûq)*ƶ5@

©Dĝ-ƙƶ@øƒ

/tí0ƁąŧŭǄƒ#

ŕDƶ5@Ɛ©~Ò)0×žƀ/Ɛ©0+@ A0ėĤơđ

*Dtí(

,%(

@;/

)
ơœƦ>/čƗ)

?
ŐƦ>

ŐƦ4/[FjWZSJDƐ*-Ő

@ A*¾Ě-
Ő

@/#B

*

ŜÆ-;&,@Ú*,%(?ůmŝƑ4*ŝæ(Ʀ>ùœ4/ĕÀûiºƅûDčũ@;94=/*(ż'>A@ ůmŝƑƀ0ħ«Ô×Ô×ǌő/H_iGhRji]d`hTFĺ)@ĤŝƑ0ÒÊy94=ėĤơ×žƀ/M_aXLjObhQVcT ůvŝƑƀ0ħ«Ô×Ô×ǌő/ĬģƱ

Pj-&

ĺ)

Ů$t-ÒÊy×žƀ/ėĤơƻœ-ŋňD@ĤŝƑ0ėĤơĹơƜƀ*ÒÊyėĤơ×žƀ*/Ɛ©-&(Ʀ@;/)ėĤơđƃ-Ů&ŝƑ)@ )0¯î(((Ʀ@;/)ėĤơđƃ-@ŝƑ)@ )0ėĤơƅ¦p¬);M_aXLjObhQVcTPÈiŐŕDà.@Ě-ĹơƜƀ*×žƀ*/jD¨ĩŠ-œ@*-=%(ƜDƐ©-ƽ7ƹƐ@*)@*M_aXL

Ɠ>A"*D;*-Þƪ*,@ýÎ/ƭi
+/ĸǎ)Ɨ

*%"jObhÆǖő"Ě#)0,M_aň<ťą-Þ@āì/ũĕiťąǕ

XLjObhÆǖő,

Ì4/ư8Ƴ8ĕ,+/ťą-Þ@N^j

@M_aXLjObhQVcTPj;

V/āìűĝ-0

_aXLjObh-/ƖǂDťą-Õ.@

M_aXLjObh/æǉ/ĕ*

%"

=

-œA
?M

(Ǆƒ,ñ¥Dĩ"

QVcTPjDėĤơ×ž/Ģ/ĸǎ

ňDÂ:(×žƀ-z~n-řÿD*>á5)øƒ)0,

kĕ)Ɯą*(/QVcTPj**ƶ5>A@

3

−319−

@*

*tíA@語用論研究から日本語教育へ、日本語教育から語用論研究へœ0ƕÜA"Ɓą*(/QVcTP@ŞÐƀ0îė/ŝƑ-À(ì;ƩƦ

jœ06*E+ƕÜA,%"*ƶ5ƁDƐą*(ƜDŇ-ƹ:@":/QVcbS]DƷ(77,ŷǘD >TPj-&Ǆƒ,D×E#0)

Dƶ5((;ŧŭDƹ:"*@ ƌąŧŭƀ/·?Ŷ8DŝƑ@*)ŝ@/ƤǖDƦ@":-0ŐƦ

>/[FjWZSJ;pºĵ)-ƤǖüĮDƐ%("zÇ/gjJO?/ňƑƀ/ĂǈD>-0A7)/ơœ@ƦŧŭŘ*ėĤơđƃŘ-Þ(>/[(ůkŝƑ4/ƒƥ*,%( ůmŝƑ0ůvŝƑ)0·?n>A,

FjWZSJDčũ@*)",>%"×žƀ/Ĉ&¡/kǑDę>-

A0ßĦ-À"Ĕ",ŐƦ*ùœ*/ő"*ǋ*ŧŭƀ/YSVgjJ/k&/Ƌň)ůvŝƑ*&,?ÒÊyėĤơ×žƀ/đƃ>ſ(;Ɓą/ŧŭ

*,@)

øƒ)

@ň)

Ƒƀ0;$BE/*Űƀ;ơœƦŧŭ*ėůkŝƑ4/ƵŲŠ,[FjWZSJ*;,Ĥơđƃŧŭ=3ÙƯ*/´ĕ-ǋC%(%(

"ƀ*(zó;ŧŭ*ùœ/ƹæ-ö¦

@*

@;/)

*Dtí(@

B

A>/Ě}Dć,>Ûq(N-?!'%,A1,>,

ƌąŝ

 /Ƭ

ªDĐ:(Ɵƨ"Ķů)@ ůkŝƑŐƦ>ŐƦ4/[FjWZS ĤƦēǐ)0ĤŬ-Ź(gjJObSJDƐ**;-ùœ4/ĕÀûDũ])/ŝƑó-ĝ-ƦſDŃ:(ÍŰA"

 AD¸(ůvŝƑ)0ùœǑ>Ɠ

¼ŝƑƀ/ƦēǆŔƦēĬģƦēH_(;ůkŝƑ)ũA"ŐƦ/ŝæøƒƦē/ǔ)¶ǇA()@*DďĈĝ,@ŧŭ/ƹæDƒƥ

"#ŝƑƀiÍŰƀ-ÞĜ;°

"ůmŝƑ)0ůvŝƑ*0ś,@ƕňĉáiǒĎ/6+DgjJObS]/Ƭƀ*(Ǘ>;¾ı/*Ɨ@*Dƶ5"7"

@2*;ƣ8Ŗn@Ķů)@

ůvŝƑ*ůmŝƑ0Ɓą/Ɛ©*ň-(ǋƸ@;/)FjWZSJDq½

?w

;/);

DEO/=-[,ÙǘŠ,ƛ8/ÏDq(#%"ėĤơœƦ×*îėġ>/ǉ%" /mŝƑ/ğĴŠ,Ǝ½0gjJObS-;ǋC>gjJObS]-±§(o]Dŗ"Űƀ>A1ŐƦùœ4ƫ%"ÓĒ/±§ƀ/šı-Þ÷=?õŪD

ŎùœŐƦ4ƫŎ@k&/*(Ŗn7

Ɵ:(=



7"

*úCA@ĤgjJObS]/

ǅ÷Š,ÿÉƼĂ)"+
0)

?*

%"-&

#0)1

 /¨ĩ

(0îėgjJOb

×ƞæĠâÕÄǝ2006ǝėĤơēĿ×/

S]-±§(#%"ƂƏ/ĕ*Ĥ]æĠėĤơēĿ6-1ėĤơēĿ×

fOjUFhKQ/ƣƀ-=@Ć

148-186ħxǤBŌ.

,A1,>,DƧƍ-ǅŔã»ǚŻǛǝ2012ǝėĤơđƃ/":/M

 "#k&#ŨÙ-Ɨ@*0ŝƑƀ

_aXLjObhŧŭħxǤB*(ŞÐ"m¿/ƌąŧŭƀ/Ăǈ)

Ōǝ

4

−320−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号⪺ࡁᡭࡀ♧ࡍඹឤ㸫⪺ࡁᡭࡢឤ᝿ࡀ௜ࡅຍ࠼ࡽࢀࡓሙྜ                                     㔩⏣ ཭㔛Ụྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸺Abstract㸼
The utterance to which "comment" was added found things for not having only conveyed
a listener's idea or an opinion to a speaker. A reaction is not only shown, but I would like toshow the utterance to which comment were added that it is working on the speaker. For
example, it is possible that utterance which makes a partner turn to in the positive direction,at the same time, listener as like is also performing encouragement. I would like only for a
speaker's utterance not to be important, and for a listener to catch a speaker's utterance how,and to show whether it has influenced to it.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸⪺ࡁᡭࠊឤ᝿ࠊ⤒㦂㸯ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟╔┠ࡋࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ఍ヰࡢ୰ࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆศᯒࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࡢ఍ヰࡢ୰࡛ࠊ࡛⪺ࡁᡭࡀឤ᝿ࢆ௜ຍࡋࡓⓎヰࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜

⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ື࡟ឤ᝿ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ

ࡋࡓࠋ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕࡍࡈ࠸࡛ࡍࡡ࣮ࠖ
ࠕࡧࡗࡃ ኱ࡁࡃ 2 ࡘࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ࡾ࡛ࡍࡡ࣮ࠖ࡞࡝┦ᡭࡢヰࡢෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿඹឤ

ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ1 ࡘࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ឤ᝿ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿ

ࢆ⾲ฟࡍࡿࠕឤ᝿ࠖࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࢆሗ࿌ࡋ࡚

࠿ࠋ2 ࡘ┠ࡣࠊឤ᝿ࢆ௜ࡅຍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ

࠸ࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡣヰࡋᡭ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆാࡁ࠿ࡅ

ඹឤ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⏣୰㸦2001㸧࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ௨ୖࡢ 2 ⅬࢆⓎヰࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ྠኈࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࠊࠕ┦ᡭࡢᥦ⪅㛫࡛ඹ㏻ࡢ⤒㦂ࡀ᭷ࡿሙྜ࡜↓࠸ሙྜࡢほ♧ࡋࡓヰ㢟࡬ࡢឤ᝿ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࠖⓎヰࡀඹឤ⾲᫂

Ⅼ࠿ࡽࡶศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ࡜ࡋ࡚≉ᚩⓗ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ࡞ࡿ࡯࡝ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢヰ㢟࡬ࡢ⌮ゎࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡜ࠊ
ࠕ࠾࠿ࡋ࠸ࡡࠊࡑࢇ࡞ฟ᮶஦ࡀ࠶ࡿࢇࡔࠖ࡞࡝

㸰ඛ⾜◊✲ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿㄒࡾࡢ㐍⾜ಁ㐍㸦୵⏣;2006,2009㸧ࡸࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢゝㄒ⾜ືࡢᶵ⬟㸦ᇼࡢヰ㢟࡬ࡢఱࡽ࠿ࡢホ౯ࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ཱྀ;1988㸧ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡀヰඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ఍ヰࡢ୰࡛⪺ࡁᡭࡀࠊࠕឤ᝿ࠖࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ཯ᛂࡸാ

ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿⓎヰࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ⌮ゎࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢࡸࠊヰ㢟ࡁ࠿ࡅࠊຓࡅࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰࡋࡇ࡜ࡤ࡟ࡼࡿ࡬ࡢホ౯ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸

ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ✚ᴟⓗ࡞ཧຍࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ௨ୗࡢ 2 ⅬࡀḞࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊᮏ

࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡋ࡚

◊✲᳨࡛ウࡋࡓ࠸ࠋձලయⓗ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕឤ

࠸ࡿࠋ᳜㔝㸦2012㸧ࡣࠊㄒࡾ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ᝿ࠖࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࠋղࡑࡢࠕឤ᝿ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ

−321−

聞き手が示す共感―聞き手の感想が付け加えられた場合⪺ࡁᡭࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆヰࡋᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ

㸲㸯⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎ᝿࡚⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠋ

㸲㸯㸯 ⤒㦂ࡀ᭷ࡿሙྜ

௨ୖࡢ 2 Ⅼࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁ㸺஦౛ 1㸼

ᡭࡀ༠࿴ⓗ࡞఍ヰࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ㐣⛬࡛࡝ࡢ

ࡇࡢ๓ࡢⓎヰ࡛ࠊB ࡣࢭࣥࢱ࣮ヨ㦂࡛ࡼ࠺࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆゎ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃᡭ

ᅜㄒࡢⅬᩘࡀ 160 Ⅼ௨ୖࡔࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆヰࡋ࡚᥃࠿ࡾ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ࠸ࡿࠋA ࡶࢭࣥࢱ࣮ヨ㦂࡛ᅜㄒࢆཷࡅࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ

ࣙࣥࡢ୰࡛┦ᡭ࡬ࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆ⾜࠺ඹឤⓗⓎఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ヰࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ே㛫㛵ಀࡢᵓ⠏࡟⧅ࡀࡗ࡚࠸
ࡿ࠿ࢆᐇ㝿ࡢⓎヰ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡛᪂ࡓ

1

A 㸸࡞ࢇ࡛⌮¥⣔ hh㸽¥[heh heh h࡞▱ぢࢆᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠋ

2

B 㸸      3B 㸸.hh ࠶ࡓࡋࡶ 3 ᖺ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠿ࡽ㸦.㸧ᩥ⌮ࢭ=㸱㸬◊✲᪉ἲ

4

B 㸸=ࣥࢱ࣮࡛࣑ࢫࡗࡓ࡞ࡗ࡚ᛮࡗࡓࡶ[ࢇ ᮏ◊✲ࡣㄪᰝᑐ㇟⪅ࡢᐇ㝿ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮࢔ࢡ

5A 㸸ࢩࣙࣥࢆ㘓㡢ࡋࡓ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆศᯒ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡋ

6ࡓࠋㄪᰝࡣ 2010 ᖺ 5 ᭶࠿ࡽ 6 ᭶࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄪᰝ

7

A 㸸ࡲ࠵[h ha .hᑐ㇟⪅ࡣྠࡌ኱ᏛࡢᏛ㒊  ᖺ⏕࡟㝈ᐃࡋࠊ⏨ᛶ

8

B 㸸  [huh huh huh huh .h10 ྡࠊዪᛶ 10 ྡࠊྜィ 20 ྡࢆᑐ㇟⪅࡜ࡋࡓࠋ

9 ЍA 㸸ᅜㄒ࠶ࢀ࡛ 160 ྲྀࢀࡓࡽࡍࡈ࠸[࡞:㸽⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡣ⏨ᛶ఍ヰ 5 ⤌ࠊዪᛶ఍ヰ 5 ⤌ࠊ

10B㸸␗ᛶ఍ヰ 10 ⤌ࡢྜィ 20 ⤌࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄪᰝᑐ㇟

11

B 㸸࡛ࡶྂᩥ࡞ࡸࡗࡓࡇ࡜࠶ࡗ࡚ࢇ࠺ࡕ㸦.㸧

⪅ࡣึࡵ࡚㢦ࢆྜࢃࡏࡿࡼ࠺ࠊ௚Ꮫ㒊࡛࣌࢔ࢆ

12

A 㸸࠶㸦.㸧࠾ࢀࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ

[ࡑ࠾

[࠶:::

  

㸸(1.7)  [huh huh .h⤌ࢇࡔࠋࡼࡾ⮬↛ⓗ࡞఍ヰࡀ㉳ࡇࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊㄪ
ᰝࡢෆᐜ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡢㄝ᫂ࡣ࠶࠼࡚⾜ࢃࡎࠊ⮬⏤ࡇࡢ๓ࡢⓎヰ࡛ B ࡣࢭࣥࢱ࣮ヨ㦂࡛ᅜㄒࡣ࡟ 15 ศ㛫ࠊ఍ヰࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋ఍ヰࡣ඲

160 Ⅼࡔࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡇ࡜࡟㛵࡚ IC ࣞࢥ࣮ࢲ࣮࡛㘓㡢ࡋࡓࠋ15 ศࡀ⤒㐣ࡋࡓࡋ࡚ࠊ9 ⾜┠࡛ A ࡀឤ᝿ࢆ௜ຍࡋࡓⓎヰࢆ⾜ࡗ᫬Ⅼ࡛ᑐ㇟⪅࡟ IC ࣞࢥ࣮ࢲ࣮ࢆ࡜ࡵ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ

࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕ࠶ࢀࠖࡣ⮬ศࡶ┦ᡭࡶ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᣦ

ࡓࠋㄪᰝ⤊஢ᚋࡣಶู࡟ࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࣭࢖ࣥ

♧ᑐ㇟ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࠕࡍࡈ࠸ࠖࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ඲࡚఍ヰཬࡧࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔

ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢពぢࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡳࡽࢀࡿ

ࢵࣉ࣭࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡣᩥᏐ㉳ࡇࡋࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᩥᮎᙧᘧࡢࠕ࡞ࠖࡣ┦ᡭ࡟ఏ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᙉࡃព
㆑ࡏࡎࠊឤ᝟ࡸ᝿㉳ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆᢳ㇟ⓗ࡟㏙࡭࡚㸲㸬ศᯒ⤖ᯝ

࠸ࡿ㸦ோ⏣;2003㸧
ࠋA ࡣ⮬ศࡶయ㦂ࡋࡓᅜㄒࡢ ឤ᝿ࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀࡓⓎヰ࡟ࡣ኱ࡁࡃ 2 ࡘࡢ≉ヨ㦂ࢆ᝿㉳ࡋࠊ160 Ⅼ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼᩘ࡬ࡢ㦫ࡁ࡜ࠊᚩࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋ1 ࡘࡣࠊࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎ᝿ࠖࢆ୰

160 Ⅼࢆ࡜ࡗࡓ B ࡀ⣲ᬕࡽࡋ࠸࡜⛠㈶ࡋ࡚࠸

ᚰ࡟㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ2 ࡘ┠ࡣࠊࠕヰࡋ

ࡿࠋ㈹㈶ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟␃ࡲࡽࡎࠊ㉁ၥᙧᘧࢆ⏝࠸

ᡭࡢⓎヰࢆᚋᢲࡋࠖࡍࡿ࠿ࡓࡕ࡛ࠊ┤๓ࡢヰࡋ࡚┦ᡭ࡟☜ㄆࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᡭࡢពぢࡸ⪃࠼ࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡀࡳࡽ

9 ⾜┠ࡢⓎヰࢆཷࡅ࡚ࠊB ࡢヰࡋᡭࡣ 10 ⾜ࢀࡓࠋ1 ࡘ┠ࡢࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎ᝿ࠖࢆ୰ᚰ࡟㏙࡭┠࡛➗ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋA ࡀࡍࡈ࠸࡜ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ

࡚࠸ࡿឤ᝿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊ⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

࡜࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࠕࡑ࠺࡞ࡢࠖࠊࠕ⮬ศ࡛ࡶࡧࡗࡃࡾ

−322−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ࡋࡓࡢࠖ࡞࡝࡜⟅࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ᛮ

ᮌ;2004㸧ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡀࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞ゝ࠸ࢃࢀࡿࡀ༑ศ࡟⟅࠼࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ11᪉ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࡟ᤊ࠼

⾜┠࡛ࡣྂᩥࢆ௨๓࡟ࡸࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ

ࡼ࠺࡜ッ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ྠ᫬࡟

࡜᰿ᣐࢆ㏙࡭ࠊ࡝࠺ࡋ࡚ 160 Ⅼࢆ࡜ࢀࡓ࠿࡟

┦ᡭࢆບࡲࡍ⾜Ⅽࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ㛵㐃௜ࡅࡓ⌮⏤ࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋ

⪺ࡁᡭࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࡣ B ࡢ⬟ຊࢆ⛠㈶ࠊ⮬ศࡑࡢᚋࡢ 13 ⾜┠ࡢヰࡋᡭ B ࡢⓎヰ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ࡞ࡢ⬟ຊ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࠊ┦ᡭࢆㄆࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࢇ࠿ࡑࢇ࡞ࡢࡤࡗ࠿ࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࠊ11 ⾜┠ࡢ A ࡢࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

Ⓨヰࢆྰᐃࡶࡏࡎࠊཷࡅධࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡶ⪃࠼㞴⪺ࡁᡭࡣ༢࡟ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎ᝿ࠖࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ࠸㏉⟅ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕࡑ࠺ࡔࡼࡡࠖ
ࠊࠕ☜࠿࡟ࠖ

ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊヰࡋᡭ࡟ാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜཯ᛂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀ B ࡣࠊ࠶ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ

ࡲ࡛⮬ศࡢయ㦂ㄯࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜࡟␃ࡲࡗ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⪺ࡁᡭࡀ཯ᛂࢆ♧ࡍࠊ㸲㸯㸰ඹ㏻⤒㦂ࡀ↓࠸ሙྜ㸺஦౛ 2㸼

࡜ྠ᫬࡟ヰࡋᡭ࡬ാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆ⾜࠺ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞

B ࡀᡤᒓࡍࡿࢧ࣮ࢡࣝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࢧ࢖ࢡࣝࢆ┦஫ࡢࢱ࢖࣑ࣥࢢ࡛ࠊ࿧྾ࢆྜࢃࡏ
࡞ࡀࡽ㐍ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡛఍ヰࡀࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡟⾜ࢃࢀ

1

B 㸸ࡲ࠵

2

  㸸(1.1) ((࠾ⳫᏊࢆཱྀ࡟ධࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ))3

B 㸸࡛ࡶࡡ࠶ࢇࡲ཭㐩ನࡼࡾ᮶࡞࠸ࢇࡔࡼ

5

B 㸸ನ࡯ࡰẖ㐌⾜ࡗ࡚ࢇࡢ࡟[h huhu

6A 㸸           [¥ࡲࡌ࡛ࡲࡌ࡛¥7࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠋ
㸳ࡲ࡜ࡵ
⪺ࡁᡭࡣヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰࢆࡶ࡜࡟⮬ࡽࡢホ౯ࢆຍ࠼࡞ࡀࡽࠊヰࡋᡭ࡟ാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡣヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ㸸(0.8)

8B 㸸࡞ࢇ࠿཭㐩ࡼࡾࡡ:ࡑࡢࢆ୍ᗘཷࡅ࡜ࡵࠊࡑࡇ࠿ࡽ᭦࡟ヰࢆⓎᒎࡉࡏࡿ

9

A 㸸࠺ࢇ

࠿ࡓࡕ࡛Ⓨヰࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰࢆ⭾

10

B㸸㍯ࢆᗈࡆࡕࡷࡗࡓឤࡌ h haࡽࡲࡏࡓࡾ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞ホ౯࡬ㄏᑟࡉࡏ࡚ࠊ2

11ЍA 㸸࠸࠸ࢇࡌࡷ࡞࠸㸽ࡑࢀࡢ࡯࠺ࡀᴦࡋ࠸ࡼ⤯ᑐ
12
13

ே࡛ 1 ࡘࡢ᪉ྥࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ࡞࡝ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢឤ᝿ࢆ௜ຍࡍࡿⓎヰࡣࠊ┦஫⌮ゎࡸ㛵ಀᵓ⠏࡟㸸(0.4)
B 㸸࡞ࢇ࠿ࡑࢇ࡞ࡢࡤࡗ࠿

㈉⊩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㔜せ࡞ᙺ๭࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ8 ⾜┠ࠊ10 ⾜┠ࡢ B ࡢⓎヰ࡟╔┠ࡋࡲࡓࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ఍ヰᩍ⫱ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ

ࡓ࠸ࠋヰࡋᡭࡢ B ࡣ཭㐩ࡼࡾࡶࢧ࣮ࢡࣝࡢ㍯఍ヰ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿឤ᝿ࢆ௜ຍࡋࡓⓎヰࢆᙺ❧࡚ࢆᗈࡆ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓ࡜ࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࡟⮬ศࡢࡇ࡜ࡓ࠸ࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡀឤ᝿ࢆ௜ຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⓎヰࡀ⾜࠺ࢆఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊ11 ⾜┠࡛⪺ࡁᡭࡢ Aാࡁ࠿ࡅࡀே㛫㛵ಀࡢᵓ⠏࡟ᙺ❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ

ࡣࠊB ࡀࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࡟ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ఏ࠼ࡓⓎヰ࡜ࢆࠊࡇࢀ࠿ࡽศᯒࢆ῝ࡵࠊᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ

࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕ࠸࠸ࠖ࡜࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࡟ホ౯ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

఍ヰᩍ⫱ࡢ୰࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰࡢࡳࡀ㔜せ࡛ࠕࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࠖࡣ⮬ศࡢㄆ㆑࡜ྠࡌㄆ㆑ࡀ┦ᡭࡢࡣ࡞ࡃࠊヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡀᤊഃ࡟ࡶ☜❧ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟┦ᡭࢆㄏᑟࡍࡿᶵ⬟㸦㕥࠼ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸

−323−

聞き手が示す共感―聞き手の感想が付け加えられた場合

ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
᳜㔝㈗ᚿᏊ㸦2012㸧
ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ⾜ືࡢ♫఍ゝㄒᏛ ⓗ⪃ᐹ㸫ㄒࡾ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅ㸫ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏዪᏊ኱Ꮫ⣖せ. ᩥᏛ㒊࠘61 57-68.୵⏣⚽ஓ㸦2006㸧
ࠗ┦஫⾜Ⅽ⛛ᗎ࡜఍ヰศᯒ㸫ࠕヰࡋᡭࠖ࡜ࠕඹ㸫ᡂဨᛶࠖࢆࡵࡄࡿཧຍࡢ
⤌໬㸫࠘ୡ⏺ᛮ᝿♫.
୵⏣⚽ஓ㸦2009㸧ࠕ⫈ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡿㄒࡾࡢ㐍⾜ಁ㸫⥅⥆ᨭᣢ࣭⥅⥆ദಁ࣭⥅⥆ヨ⾜㸫ࠖࠗㄆ▱⛉Ꮫ࠘16㸦1㸧 12-23.
㕥ᮌὒᏊ㸦2004㸧ࠕ☜ㄆࢆせồࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒᛂ⟅ᮇᚅᩥࡢᩥᮎᙧᘧ࡜ࡑࡢᶵ⬟㸫ẕㄒヰ⪅࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ౑⏝࠿ࡽ㸫ࠖࠗᛂ⏝ゝㄒᏛ◊✲࠘᫂ᾏ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᛂ⏝ゝㄒᏛ◊✲⛉⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ 6 249-261.
⏣୰ጁᏊ㸦2001㸧ࠕ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿඹឤ⾲᫂Ⓨヰࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘៞ᛂ⩏ሿ኱Ꮫ ᪥ᮏㄒ࣭᪥ᮏᩥ໬ᩍ⫱ࢭࣥࢱ࣮ 30 51-60.
ோ⏣⩏㞝㸦2003㸧 ᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍㸦⦅㸧ࠕ➨ 6 ❶ఏ㐩ࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࠖ
ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ
4 ➨ 8 㒊 ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧
260-263.
ᇼཱྀ⣧Ꮚ㸦1988㸧ࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ ⪺ ࡁ ᡭ ࡢ ゝ ㄒ ⾜ ື ࠖࠗ ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ᩍ ⫱ ࠘ 64
13-26.
㈨ᩱ
す㜰௮ࠕࢺࣛࣥࢫࢡࣜࣉࢩࣙࣥࡢࡓࡵࡢグྕࠖ
㸺http://www.meijigakuin.ac.jp/~aug/transsym.htm㸼

㸦᭱⤊࢔ࢡࢭࢫ᪥㸸2012 ᖺ 12 ᭶ 3 ᪥㸧−324−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ᣣᧄ⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߩࡐ࡜ࠗ࠻ࡀࠬ࡮ࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯ߦ㑐ߔࠆ৻⠨ኤ ᪢ᧁବテ᧲ർᄢቇᄢቇ㒮㧨Abstract㧪
As a case study of conversation Japanese learner written, from the point of view of negative politenessstrategy to partner, it is found a serious matter that the learner is lack of knowledge involved ingoal-oriented discourse. Specifically, (1) the learner often asks "Why ~?" rather than "What’s the matterwith you?", and (2) the interactions to build a common understanding of a conversation situation are notdone, and (3) the attitude of the speaker to opponent, such as "I am worried", is manifested in the turn, etc.
Conventionally, in the Pragmatic approaches, the description of individual speech function was relatively
from the speaker side, however considering the application to the educational aspect, the description asinteraction including the listener parts is desired, to which, the pragmatic approach is expected tocontribute.
‫ޤ࠼࡯ࡢ࡯ࠠޣ‬㧦ᣣᧄ⺆ቇ⠌⠪‫ޔ‬ળ⹤‫⋧ޔ‬੕ⴕὑ‫ࡠࡊࠕ⊛⺰↪⺆ޔ࡯ࠫ࠹࡜࠻ࠬ࡮ࠬࡀ࠻ࠗ࡜ࡐޔ‬࡯࠴ߦࠃࠆ⸒⺆ᢎ⢒ߪߓ߼ߦ

ߢߔ‫ᦨޕ‬ㄭ‫ޔ‬㧼ߐࠎߪㅪ⛊ߒߥ޿ߢࠕ࡞ࡃࠗ࠻

ᧄ⎇ⓥߪ‫ޔ‬ળ⹤ߦ⃻ࠇߚ⋧੕⊛ࡐ࡜ࠗ࠻ࡀ

ࠍભ߻ߎߣ߇ᄙ޿ߢߔ‫߈ߣࠆ᧪ߦ࠻ࠗࡃ࡞ࠕޕ‬ࠬ࡮ࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯ߩ੐଀ࠍᣣᧄ⺆ቇ⠌⠪ߣᲣ⺆߽‫ޔ‬ㆃೞߔࠆߩߢ‫઀ޔ‬੐߇ోㇱ⚳ࠊࠅ߹ߖࠎ‫ޕ‬⹤⠪ߣߩ㑆ߢᲧセߒ‫⚿ߩߘޔ‬ᨐࠍ߽ߣߦ‫ࡒࠦޔ‬ߘߩߚ߼ᰴߩࠕ࡞ࡃࠗ࠻ߩੱ߇ߣߡ߽࿎ߞߡ

ࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦᢎ⢒ߦኻߔࠆ⺆↪⺰⊛ࠕࡊࡠ޿߹ߔ‫ߪߚߥ޽ޕ‬㧼ߐࠎࠍᔃ㈩ߒߡ޿߹ߔ‫޽ޕ‬࡯࠴ߩ᦭ലᕈࠍᬌ⸛ߔࠆߎߣࠍ⋡⊛ߣߔࠆ‫⋧ޕ‬ߥߚߪ㧼ߐࠎߦ૗ߣ⸒޿߹ߔ߆㧫੕⊛ࡐ࡜ࠗ࠻ࡀࠬ࡮ࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯ߣߪ‫ޔ‬ෳਈ⠪ᣣᏱߩࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦߢߪ‫⋧ޔ‬ᚻߩࡀࠟ࠹

㧔⹤ߒᚻ㧛⡞߈ᚻ㧕ߩࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉ㧛ࡀࠟ࠹ࠖࠖࡉ࡮ࡈࠚࠗࠬߦ㑐ࠊࠆᖱႎ╬‫৻ޔ‬ቯߩ㈩ᘦࠍ

ࡉ࡮ࡈࠚࠗࠬߦኻߒ㧘ෳਈ⠪㑆ߩ⋧੕ⴕὑߣߒ

␜ߒߟߟ‫⋧ޔ‬ᚻߩ಴ᣇߦᔕߓߚࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯ࠪ

ߡขࠅ੤ࠊߐࠇࠆ⸒⺆⊛▤ℂࠍᜰߔ‫ޕ‬࡚ࡦߩዷ㐿߇᳞߼ࠄࠇࠆ⁁ᴫ߽⷗ࠄࠇࠆ‫߃ࠁޕ‬੐଀ߣߥࠆળ⹤ߪ‫ޔ‬ਛ‫ߩ☨ޔ⽕ޔ‬ᄢቇቇㇱ↢ߦ‫⎇ᧄޔ‬ⓥߪෳട⠪߇ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦߩዷ

7 ฬ㧔↵ 3㧦ᅚ 4㧕ߣᣣᧄੱቇㇱ↢ߩߘࠇߙࠇ

㐿ߣߒߡਥ૕⊛ߦᗐቯߒߚ⚿ᨐߣߒߡߩળ⹤

ߦࠃࠅ╩⠪߇ᜂᒰߒߚᣣᧄ⺆ߩ᝼ᬺਛߦ૞ᚑ

߇ߤߩࠃ߁ߥ߽ߩߣߥࠆ߆ࠍ⺞ߴࠆߎߣߦਥ

ߐࠇߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ቇ⠌⠪ߩᣣᧄ⺆⢻ജߪਛ⚖⌒ࠍ⟎޿ߚ‫ߩࠢࠬ࠲ޔߢߎߘޕ‬ታᣉߦ߅޿ߡ‫ޔ‬೨ඨ㨪ਛ⚖ᓟඨ⒟ᐲߢ޽ࠅ‫߽ࠇߕ޿ޔ‬ᣣᧄ⺆߇ෳട⠪ߦߪ‫ޔ‬‫ޟ‬ଐ㗬ߔࠆ‫ޟ߿ޠ‬ᢿࠆ‫ߚߞ޿ߣޠ‬ਥኾ᡹ߢߪߥ޿‫ޕ‬એਅ‫ޔ‬ળ⹤ߩ૞ᚑߦ޽ߚߞߡ

⊒⹤ⴕὑߩㆬᛯࠍ฽߼‫ౕޔ‬૕⊛⁁ᴫߩਛߢߤ߁

⸳ቯߒߚ⁁ᴫࠍ␜ߔ‫ޕ‬ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦࠍߣࠆ߆ࠍਥ૕⊛ߦ᳿߼޽ߥߚߪࠕ࡞ࡃࠗ࠻వߩ㧼ߐࠎߣખ߇޿޿

ࠆࠃ߁ଦߒ‫ޔ‬ㆬᛯߔߴ߈⊒⹤ⴕὑߦߟ޿ߡ੍߼

−325−

日本語学習者のポライトネス・ストラテジーに関する一考察ᜰ␜ࠍਈ߃ࠆߎߣߪߒߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬㧼㧦ᦨㄭ૕߇ߛࠆߊߡߐ޼‫߈ߥ߆ⴕ࠻ࠗࡃޕ‬߾ߣߪᕁ߁ࠎߛߌߤ‫߆ߥ߆ߥޔ‬േ߈಴ߖߥ޿

㧞⚿ᨐ߅ࠃ߮⠨ኤࠎߛࠃߨ‫ޕ‬Უ⺆⹤⠪ߣᲧセߒߡቇ⠌⠪ߦߪ‫ޔ‬ળ⹤ߣߒߡ

㧮㧦ߘ߁ߥࠎ‫∛ޕ‬᳇㧫ߩࠧ࡯࡞߳ะߌ‫⹤⊒ޔ‬ㅪ㎮ࠍߤ߁ዷ㐿ߐߖߡ޿㧼㧦޿߿‫∛ޔ‬᳇ߓ߾ߥ޿ߣߪᕁ߁ࠎߛߌߤߐ‫ޕ‬ߊ߆ߣ޿߁ὐߦኻߔࠆ⍮⼂߇ਇ⿷᳇๧ߢ޽ࠆ

㧮㧦ߘߞ߆޼‫޽߹ޕߨߤߌߛࠎ޿޿ࠄߥޕ‬ᰴߎߣ߇␜ໂߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ߩࡃࠗ࠻ߩੱ߽࿎ߞߡࠆߺߚ޿ߛ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬ㅪ⛊ߛߌߪ౉ࠇߚ߶߁߇޿޿߆߽ࠃ‫ޕ‬ℂ↱ߩ໧޿ᣇ

㧼㧦ߛࠃߨ‫ޕ‬ㅪ⛊ߛߌߪ౉ࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߔࠆߨ‫ޕ‬ቇ⠌⠪ߪ̌ℂ↱ߩ໧޿ᣇ̍ߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬એਅߩࠃ߁ߦ‫ߡߒ߁ߤޟ‬㨪㧫‫ޕࠆ޿↪ࠍޠ‬ߥߗᲣ⺆⹤⠪ߦ‫޿ߥࠇࠄ޿↪߇ޠߡߒ߁ߤޟ‬ߩߢ޽ࠈ߁߆‫ߪޠߡߒ߁ߤޟޕ‬Ᏹߦળ⹤ߩ౨㗡㧝㧕ቇ⠌⠪㧭

ߢ↪޿ߦߊ޿ߣ޿߁ߎߣߢߪߥ޿‫ޕ‬એਅߩࠃ߁

ψ㧭㧦ߤߤ߁ߒߡᦨㄭ‫ࠍ࠻ࠗࡃ࡞ࠕޔ‬ભ߻ߩ㧫ߦ‫⋧ޔ‬ᚻߩࡐࠫ࠹ࠖࡉ࡮ࡈࠚࠗࠬߦ㑐ߔࠆ႐ว‫ޔ‬㧼㧦ౕว߇ᖡߊߥߞߡߒ߹ߞߡ‫ޕ‬ㅪ⛊ߒࠃ߁໊⓭ߐߪ޽ߞߡ߽⹣໧⊛ߥශ⽎ߪ↢߹ࠇߥ޿‫ޕ‬ߣߪᕁ߁ࠎߛߌߤ޿ߟ߽ᔓࠇߡߒ߹߁ࠎߛ‫ޕ‬ળ⹤ߩ౨㗡ߢߩ‫ߞ߆ߥࠇߐ↪૶߇ޠߡߒ߁ߤޟ‬ψ㧭㧦ߓ߾޽ㆃೞߔࠆᤨߪ‫ߤޔ‬ߤ߁ߒߡ㧫

ߚߩߪ‫⹣߿ߐ⓭໊߇↪૶ߩߘޔ‬໧⺞ߣ޿ߞߚශ

㧼㧦᝼ᬺ߇޽ࠆ߆ࠄ‫ޕ‬⽎ࠍ↢ߓߐߖࠆ߆ࠄߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬㧭㧦ߜ߾ࠎߣℂ↱߇޽ࠆߩߪࠊ߆ߞߚ‫ࠇߌޕ‬ߤ߽‫ߦߜߚੱߩઁޔߢߣߎߩߚߥ޽ޔ‬ㅅᖺ߇

㧠㧕C޽ࠇߞ‫੹ޔ‬ᣣߪߘࠎߥ߅ߒ߾ࠇߒߡ‫ޔ‬߆߆ߞߡࠆࠃ‫ߩߘ߽ߦੱߩઁޕ‬ℂ↱ࠍવ߃ߥ޿ߣ‫ߪߚߥ޽ޔ‬ᖡ⠪ߦߥߞߡߒ߹߁ࠃ‫ޕ‬ߤ߁ߒߚߩ㧫
D޽ࠇߞ‫੹ޔ‬ᣣߪߤ߁ߒߡߘࠎߥ߅ߒ߾ࠇ
ߒߡ޿ࠆߩ㧫৻ᣇ‫ޔ‬Უ⺆⹤⠪ߦࠃࠆ̌ℂ↱ߩ໧޿ᣇ̍ࠍ⷗ࠆ
ߣ‫ߩߚߒ߁ߤޟޔ‬㧫‫ޟޔޠ‬૗߆޽ߞߚߩ㧫‫↪ࠍޠ‬ߔߥࠊߜ‫⹣߿ߐ⓭໊ߩޠߡߒ߁ߤޟޔ‬໧⺞ߣ޿޿ߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߞߚශ⽎ߪ‫ޔ‬ኻ⽎ߣߥࠆᖱႎ߇⋧ᚻߩࡀࠟ࠹ࠖ
ࡉ࡮ࡈࠚࠗࠬߦ㑐ߔࠆ႐ว‫ޔ‬ᖱႎࠍⷐ᳞ߔࠆ஥

㧞㧕Უ⺆⹤⠪㧭ߣߐࠇࠆ஥ߣ޿߁ᓎഀࠍ౒᦭ߔࠆ೨ߦ૶↪ߔߤ߁ߒߚߩ㧫ψ㧭㧦ᦨㄭࡃࠗ࠻᧪ߥ޿ߨ‫ߤޕ‬ࠆߎߣߢ↢ߓࠆ‫⋧߼੍ߦ߃ࠁޕ‬ᚻߩࡈࠚࠗࠬଚ

㧼㧦ߜࠂߞߣᔔߒ޿ߩ‫ޕ‬ኂ߇੍ᗐߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ⹤ߒᚻߪ‫ޔ‬ળ⹤ߩ౨㗡ߢߩ㧭㧦ᰴߩੱ࿎ߞߡߚࠃ‫ޕ‬ㅪ⛊ߒߡߊࠇࠇ߫

‫ࠍ↪૶ߩޠߡߒ߁ߤޟ‬ប߃ࠆߩߛߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ߚ߹ߦࠪࡈ࠻ᄌࠊࠆࠃ‫ޕ‬ળ⹤ߩ౨㗡㧼㧦޽ࠅ߇ߣ߁‫ޕ‬ቇ⠌⠪ߩળ⹤ߩ౨㗡ߢߪ‫ߩߟ৻ޔ߫ߒ߫ߒޔ‬㧟㧕Უ⺆⹤⠪㧮࠲࡯ࡦౝߢⶄᢙߩౝኈߦ߆߆ࠊࠆ⊒⹤߇⇥ߺψ㧮㧦ߨ߃‫ᦨޔ‬ㄭࡃࠗ࠻ભࠎߛࠅㆃೞߒߚࠅߒ

ដߌࠆࠃ߁ߦߺࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ߡࠆߌߤ‫ޔ‬૗૗߆޽ߞߚߩ㧫

−326−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

㧡㧕ቇ⠌⠪㧮

㧣㧕ቇ⠌⠪㧯

ψ㧮㧦ߐߐ޿߈ࠎ‫ޔ‬ᄢਂᄦߢߔ߆‫৻߁߽ޕ‬ㅳ㑆ߢψ㧯㧦㧼㧼ߐࠎࠍᔃ㈩ߒߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ߔߨ‫ࠍ࠻ࠗࡃ࡞ࠕߪߚߥ޽ޕ‬ભ߻ࠎߛ‫ޕ‬ᔔߒ㧼㧦߃߃̖ߤ߁ߒߡ㧫޿ߢߔ߆㧫໧㗴߇޽ߚࠄ‫ޔ‬௢㧯㧦ࠇࠎࠄߊߒߥ޿ߢࠕ࡞ࡃࠗ࠻ࠍભ߻ߎߣ
߇ᄙ޿ߢߔ߆ࠄ‫ޕ‬ߎࠇߦኻߒ‫ޔ‬Უ⺆⹤⠪ߩળ⹤ߪ‫ޔ‬᭴ㅧ⊛ߦ᣿⏕㧼㧦ߘ߁ߢߔ߆‫ߪߚߥ޽ޕ‬ᔃ㈩ߒߡ޿ࠆߎߣ‫ޔ‬ߥ߿ࠅߣࠅ㧔⾰໧̆㄰╵̆⹏ଔ㧕ߣߒߡㅴዷߒ

޽ߩ‫߽ߊߙ߆ࠎߐߊߚޔ߽ߢޕ߁ߣ߇ࠅ޽ޔ‬ߡ޿ࠆߎߣ߇ಽ߆ࠆ‫ޕ‬ࠎߛ޿߇޽ࠆߌߤ‫ޔ‬ભ߻߆ࠄ‫ޕ‬㧯㧦ᄢᄌߢߔߨ‫ߔ߹ࠅ޽߇޿ߛࠎ߽ߥࠎߤޕ‬㧢㧕Უ⺆⹤⠪㧯߆‫ߪ⑳ޕ‬㧭ߐࠎߩ߽ࠎߛ޿ࠍ⡞޿ߡߊߛߐ

ψ㧯㧦㧼‫ᦨޔ‬ㄭࡃࠗ࠻ભࠎߛࠅㆃೞߒߚࠅߒߡ

޿‫ޕ‬
㧼㧦ਔⷫ

ࠆߺߚ޿ߛߌߤ‫ޔ‬૗߆ᔔߒ޿ߩ㧫ψ㧼㧦߁ࠎ‫ᦨߣߞࠂߜޔ‬ㄭᄢቇߩീᒝ߇ᔔߒߊ

৻ᣇ㧘Უ⺆⹤⠪ߩ႐ว‫ޔ‬‫ޟ‬ᔃ㈩ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫╬ޠ‬ߡౕวᖡߊߥࠆߎߣ߇ᄙߊߡ‫ޕ‬ψ㧯㧦ߘ߁ߥࠎߛ‫ࠅ߹ࠎ޽ޕ‬㗎ᒛࠅߔ߉ߥ޿ߢ

ߩᘒᐲߪ‫ޔ‬‫ޟ‬ᔔߒ޿ߩ㧫‫ޠ‬‫ޟ‬ᄢਂᄦ㧫‫ߚߞ޿ߣޠ‬࠲࡯ࡦ੤឵ߩㅪ㎮⚵❱㧔goal-oriented discourse㧕ߨ‫ޕ‬ߣߒߡ᭴▽࡮౒᦭ߐࠇࠆ㧔Hayashi, 1996.㧕‫ޕ‬ψ㧼㧦߁ࠎ‫ޕ߁ߣ߇ࠅ޽ޔ‬ψ㧯㧦ߢ߽ߨ‫ࠂߜߪ߈ߣ߁޿߁ߘߪࠄ߆ࠇߎޔ‬ߞߣㅪ⛊ߒߡߊࠇߥ޿㧫઀੐ߩㇺว߇޽ࠆ

㧤㧕Უ⺆⹤⠪㧰߆ࠄߐ‫ޕ‬ψ㧰㧦㧼ߐࠎ㧘ᦨㄭ޽߹ࠅࡃࠗ࠻ߢ⷗߆ߌߥ߆

ψ㧼㧦ࠊ߆ߞߚ‫ޕߨࠎ߼ߏޕ‬᳇ࠍߟߌࠆࠃ‫ޕ‬ߞߚߌߤ‫ޔ‬૗߆޽ߞߚߩ㧫ᄢਂᄦ㧫㧼㧦߁࡯ࠎ‫ᦨޔ‬ㄭ૕ߩ⺞ሶ߇ᖡߊߡ

ቇ⠌⠪ߦࠃࠆળ⹤ߩ౨㗡ߢߩ⇥ߺដߌࠆࠃ

ψ㧰㧦ߘ߁ߛߞߚࠎߛ‫ࠅ߹޽޽߾ߓޕ‬ήℂߒߥ

߁ߥᖱႎߩ಴ߒᣇߪ‫ޔ‬઒ߦᧄੱ߇ഥ⸒ߔࠆߟ߽

޿ᣇ߇޿޿ࠃ‫ޕ‬ࠅߢⴕߞߡ޿ࠆߣߒߡ߽‫⋧ޔ‬ᚻߦᗧ࿑ㅢࠅߦข

㧼㧦޽ࠅ߇ߣ߁

ࠅวߞߡ߽ࠄ߃ߥ޿ᕟࠇ߇޽ࠆ‫ޡޕ‬ᐢㄉ⧞‫ߦޢ‬㧰㧦ભ߻ߣ߈ߣ߆‫ޔ‬ㆃೞߒߜ߾޿ߘ߁ߥᤨߪ‫ޔ‬ࠃࠆߣ‫ޔ‬ഥ⸒ߪ‫ࠍ⪲⸒ࠄ߆ࠄࠊߚ߆ޟޔ‬ᷝ߃ߡㅪ⛊ߛߌ߅㗿޿ഥߌࠆߎߣ‫ޕ‬‫ߺ⇥ޔߒ߆ߒޕࠆ޽ߣޠ‬ដߌࠆᖱႎߩ಴ߒᣇߪ‫ޔ‬ᷝ߃ࠆኻ⽎߇⋧ᚻ߆ࠄ಴ࠆᥜ߇

਄⸥ߩࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬Უ⺆⹤⠪ߩ႐วߦ߅ߌࠆ⹤⠪ߩਈ߃ࠄࠇߡ߅ࠄߕ‫⋧ࠈߒ߻ޔ‬ᚻߦᔘ๔ߦㄭ޿߽

ᘒᐲߪ‫ޔ‬ะߌࠄࠇࠆ஥ߩᗵ⻢ߩߎߣ߫‫ߛ߁ߘޟ‬ߩߣߒߡฃߌขࠄࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦᕁࠊࠇࠆz‫ޕ‬ߨ‫⼂⹺ࠄ߆╬ޠ߁ߣ߇ࠅ޽ޔ‬น⢻ߣߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߚߛ‫੹ޔ‬࿁ߩ࠺࡯࠲ߦ㑐ߒߡߪ‫ޔ‬ቇ⠌⠪߇࠲ࠬ⋧ᚻߦኻߔࠆᘒᐲߩ␜ߒᣇ

ࠢߩᜰቯߦ޽ߞߚᖱႎࠍߘߩ߹߹ᦠ߈౮ߒߚ

ቇ⠌⠪ߩ႐ว‫ޔ‬‫ޟ‬ᔃ㈩ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔߚߞ޿ߣ╬ޠ‬ߦㆊ߉ߥ޿น⢻ᕈ߽޽ࠆ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬Უ⺆⹤⠪ߦ߅⋧ᚻߦኻߔࠆ⹤⠪ߩᘒᐲࠍ࠲࡯ࡦౝߢ᣿␜ߔ

޿ߡ߽‫ⴕޔ‬േߦኻߔࠆ⺋⸃ࠍ⸃ߊߎߣࠍ⋡⊛ߣࠆ଀߇ᢔ⷗ߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ߒߚᑯ᣿ߩ㓙╬‫ޔ‬᣿␜⊛ߦ⹤⠪ߩᘒᐲ߇␜ߐࠇ
ࠆߎߣ߽޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬Უ⺆⹤⠪߇Ᏹߦ࠲࡯ࡦౝߢ⹤⠪−327−

日本語学習者のポライトネス・ストラテジーに関する一考察ࠄߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߩᘒᐲࠍ᣿␜ߒߥ޿ߣ޿߁ߎߣߢߪߥ޿‫ޕ‬㧟߹ߣ߼㧦⺆↪⺰ߩ⽸₂

⋧ᚻ㗔ၞ߳ߩ〯ߺㄟߺᣇ

ᓥ᧪‫ࠆࠃߦ࠴࡯ࡠࡊࠕ⊛⺰↪⺆ޔ‬୘‫⹤⊒ߩޘ‬ᯏ⢻ߩ⸥ㅀߪᲧセ⊛⹤ߒᚻ஥߆ࠄߩ߽ߩ߇ਛ

㧥㧕ቇ⠌⠪㧰
㧰㧦޿ߟ߽ㅪ⛊ߢ߈ߥ޿ߒ‫઀ޔ‬੐߽ㆃೞߔࠆ

ᔃߢ޽ߞߚ‫⫾ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬Ⓧߐࠇߡ߈ߚ⍮⷗ߦߪ‫ޔ‬ߌߤ‫ޔ‬ᄢਂᄦ㧫ᦝߥࠆ⸥ㅀߩలታ߇ᦸ߹ࠇࠆㇱಽ߽ዋߥߊߥψ㧼㧦߁߁ࠎ‫ޔ‬ᄢਂᄦ㧍ߥࠎߢ߽ߥ޿‫ޕ‬޿‫ޕ‬ᢎ⢒਄ߩᔕ↪ߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬਄⸥‫ߩޠߡߒ߁ߤޟ‬ψ㧰㧦߹߹ߓߢ㧫⑳ߦ⸒ߞߡ߳޿߈ࠃ‫␠ޕ‬㐳ߦ߽ࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬නߦ‫ޟ‬ේ࿃࡮ℂ↱ࠍ዆ߨࠆ‫ߚߞ޿ߣޠ‬⸒ࠊߥ޿߆ࠄ‫ޕ‬ߎߣߩઁ‫ޟޔ‬ኻ⽎ߣߥࠆᖱႎߩ⾰‫ߩߤޟ߿ޠ‬Ბ㧼㧦߃ߞߣ‫߇ߧ޿ߩߜ߁ࠈߏߩߎޔߪߟߓޔ‬㓏ߢ⸒߁߆‫ߚߞ޿ߣޠ‬ὐ‫⋧ߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔ‬ᚻߦኻߔ∛᳇ߦߥߞߚߩߢ‫ޔ‬ኅߦ޿ߚ޿ߣᕁ߁‫ࠂߜޕ‬ࠆࠨࡐ࡯࠻ߩᘒᐲ╬‫⋧ࠍ㉼⸃ߩߘޔ‬ᚻߦᆔߨࠆ

ߞߣᄢᄌߛߒ‫∛ߡߒߘޔ‬᳇ߥߞߚ޿ߧߪ߆ࠊ

ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦߩዷ㐿ߩߐߖᣇߣ޿ߞߚ

޿ߘ߁ߛߒ‫߽ߟ޿ޔ‬਎⹤ߒߚ޿ߣᕁ߁‫ޕ‬ὐࠍ฽߼ߡቇ⠌⠪ߩ⇐ᗧࠍଦߔߎߣࠍ⠨߃ߚ㧰㧦޽ߞ‫̖ࠄ߆޿޿ޕߤ߶ࠆߥޔ‬ᚻવ߁ߎߣ

႐ว‫ߦ․ޔ‬⡞߈ᚻߩ෻ᔕߦኻߔࠆৼካߥ⋡㈩ࠅ

ߥ޿㧫ࠍ฽߼‫ޔ‬㆚෸⊛ߦቯ⟵ߐࠇࠆ⋧੕ⴕὑ⊛ⷞὐࠍ⚵ߺㄟࠎߛ⸥ㅀ߳ߣ⊒ዷߐߖߡ޿ߊᔅⷐ߇޽

㧝㧜㧕Უ⺆⹤⠪㧱ࠆ߆ࠄߢ޽ࠆ‫⎇⺰↪⺆ߪߦ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬ⓥߩㅴዷ㧱㧦ߥࠎ߆ߐ޿߈ࠎㆃೞ߇ᄙ޿ࠄߒ޿ߌߤߛ

߇ਇนᰳߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄ⺆ᢎ⢒߆ࠄߩࡈࠖ࡯࠼ࡃ

޿ߓࠂ߁߱㧫࠶ࠢ߇⺆↪⺰ߩㅴዷߦነਈߢ߈ࠆ଀ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ψ㧼㧦ࠎࠎ‫ޕߐߡߞ޽ࠈ޿ࠈ޿߆ࠎߥޔ‬ψ㧱㧦ߘߘ߁ߥࠎߛ‫ߡ߼ߖ߽ߢ޽߹ޕ‬ᐫ㐳ߐࠎߦᵈ
1. ‫ޡ‬ᐢㄉ⧞‫ޔߣࠆࠃߦޢ‬ഥ⸒ߪ‫߆ࠄࠊߚ߆ޟ‬ߓߓࠂ߁ࠍ⹤ߒߚ߶߁߇ࠃߊߥ޿㧫㧼㧦߁ࠎ̖ߘ߁ߛߨ‫ޕ‬ࠄ⸒⪲ࠍᷝ߃ߡഥߌࠆߎߣ‫ޕ⪲⸒ߩߘߚ߹ޕ‬㧱㧦ᐫ㐳ߐࠎ߽ߥࠎ߆ᔃ㈩ߒߡࠆߺߚ޿ࠃ‫ޕ‬ญᷝ߃‫ޕ‬‫ࠍ́ޟ‬ਈ߃ࠆ‫ޠ‬‫́ޟ‬⠪‫ޠޠ‬㧔‫ޡ‬ᐢㄉ⧞‫ޢ‬:㧼㧦߁ࠎ‫੹ޔ‬ᐲᐫ㐳ߐࠎߦ⹤ߒߡߺࠆ‫ޕ‬1410.㧕ߣ޽ࠆߩߦኻߒ‫ޔ‬ᔘ๔ߪ‫ߎߏ߹ޟ‬ࠈࠍ߽ߞߡઁੱߩㆊᄬ࡮ᰳὐࠍᜰ៰ߒߡᚓ
߼ߐߣߔߎߣ‫ߦ́ޟޕ߃ߙࠈߎߎޕ‬ᓥ߁‫ޠޠ‬਄⸥଀ߦ⷗ࠄࠇࠆ㆑޿ߪ‫ࠬࠗࠚࡈޔ‬ଚኂⴕὑ㧔‫ޡ‬ᐢㄉ⧞‫ޢ‬: 1814.㧕ߣ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬

㧔FTA㧕ߩ⷗Ⓧ߽ࠅߦኻߔࠆ୘ੱᏅߣߒߡ৻ᔕ
ߩ⺑᣿ߪߟߊ‫߇ੱᧄޔߛߚޕ‬ታ㓙ߩ႐㕙ߢห᭽ߦ⸒߁߆ߤ߁߆ࠍᬌ⸽ߔࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ߒ߆ߒޕ‬ෳᾖᢥ₂ߘࠇߢ߽ߥ߅‫ޔ‬Უ⺆⹤⠪ߦ㑐ߒߡߪ‫ޔ‬਄⸥ߩᢥHayashi, Takuo. 1996. Politeness in Conflict⣂ߢߪ〯ߺㄟ߹ߥ޿੍ᗐ߇ᒝߊ௛ߊߩߢߪߥ

Management: A Conversation Analysis of޿߆‫ߩߎޔࠄߥߗߥޕ‬ᢥ⣂ߩਛᔃ߇ℂ↱ߪ૗ߢDispreferred Message from a Cognitive޽ࠇ‫ޔ‬ㅪ⛊ߪᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆߎߣࠍવ߃ࠆߎߣߢ޽

Perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 25, 227-255.

ࠅ‫⹤ߢߣߎߩߘޔ‬㗴߇ቢ⚿ߔࠆߢ޽ࠈ߁ߎߣࠍ

ᣂ᧛಴㧔✬㧕. 2008. ‫ޡ‬ᐢㄉ⧞╙౐Უ⺆⹤⠪ߪࠬࠠ࡯ࡑߣߒߡᜬߟߣᕁࠊࠇࠆ߆

ᐫ.

−328−

‫ޢ‬, ጤᵄᦠ

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ேࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ࣭ࣙࣥࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ୍⪃ᐹ̿᥋ゐሙ㠃࡛ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ෇⁥࡟㐍ࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟̿
࢚࣑࣭࢖ࣥࢲ࣮࣭ࣉࣜࣖࣥࢸ࢕
ᮾ໭኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸺Abstract㸼
We studied Indonesian (INS) communication strategies (CS) at contact situations withJapanese (JNS). We found that INS used ձback channel, ղdiscourse marker, ճhonorificlanguage and մ apology as CS. ձ and ղ are used by intermediate and advanceINS. ճ and մ are mainly used by advance INS, where they have more variety of CS. We
suggest that CS are taught from early stages of Japanese language pedagogy.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸㸯ࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ࣭ࣙࣥࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮㸦CS㸧 㸰ࠊ෇⁥໬ 㸱ࠊ᥋ゐሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸯㸬◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗ➨஧ゝㄒ⩦ᚓࡢศ㔝࡛ࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽ

ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒヰ⪅㸦INS㸧ࡀ᪥ࢣ࣮ࢩ࣭ࣙࣥࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮㸦CS㸧ࡢ౑⏝࡟㛵ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㸦JNS㸧࡜ࡢ఍ヰ୰࡟఍ヰࢆ෇⁥ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡢከࡃࡣࠊCS ࢆゝㄒ⬟ຊ୙㊊࡟ࡼࡿ࡟㐍ࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ CS ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟

ၥ㢟ࡀ⏕ࡌࡓ᫬ࡢၥ㢟ฎ⌮࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼࡚ࡁࡓ

ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࠕ఍ヰࢆ෇⁥࡟㐍ࡵࡿ㸦 Faerch&Kasper1983 ࠊ 1984 ➼ 㸧ࠋ ᑿ ᓮࡓࡵࡢ CS ࡜ࡣࠊ఍ヰ୰࡟ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ

㸦1981㸧ࡣࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢࠕෆᐜ࡟㛵ၥ㢟ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ゝⴥ㐵࠸ࡸែᗘࢆᕤኵ

ࢃࡿഃ㠃ࠖ࡜ࠕ෇⁥໬࡟㛵ࢃࡿഃ㠃ࠖࡢㄗࡾࢆ

ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢⰋዲⓗ࡞㛵ಀࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿࡓ㜵ࡄࠕ஦๓ゞṇࠖࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ᢅࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࠕㄗ

ࡵ࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡿ᪉␎ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋ

ࡾࢆ㜵ࡄࠗ஦๓ゞṇ࠘ࠖࡢᐃ⩏ࡀ࡞ࡃࠊࢥ࣑ࣗ
㸰㸬◊✲ࡢ᪉ἲ

ࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥၥ㢟ࡀ㉳ࡁࡓ᫬ࡢฎ⌮ࡶࠕ஦๓ゞṇࠖ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᑿᓮ㸦1993㸧ࡣ Canaleᮏ◊✲ࡣ 4 ⤌ࡢ INS ࡜ JNS ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⮬⏤㸦1983㸧ࢆ࠺ࡅࠊCS ࡟ࡣࠕၥ㢟ฎ⌮᪉⟇ࠖ࡜఍ヰࢆ㘓㡢㺃㘓⏬ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆᩥᏐ໬ࡋࡓࡶࡢࢆ

ࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ෇⁥࡟㐍ࡵࡿࡓࡵࡢ

ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡋࡓࠋㄪᰝࡣྠᛶࡢึᑐ㠃ሙ㠃ࡢ఍ヰ᪉⟇ࠖࡢ 2 ࡘࡢᙺ๭ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࡀࠊၥ㢟ࢆタᐃࡋࡓࠋINS ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ⬟ຊࡣࠊ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫฎ⌮᪉⟇ࡢ◊✲࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

␃Ꮫ⏕ࢭࣥࢱ࣮࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㛤Ⓨࡉࢀࡓ SPOTࡲࡓࠊ㝞㸦2011㸧ࡣ᥋ゐሙ㠃࡛ࡢヰ⪅㛫ࡢ㸦Simple Performance-Oriented Test㸧ࢸࢫࢺᚰⓗ㊥㞳▷⦰ᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮

ุ࡛᩿ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ INS1 ࡜ࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡣ

INS2 ࡣ୰⣭⪅࡛ࠊINS3 ࡜ INS4 ࡣୖ⣭⪅࡛ヰ㢟ᥦ౪࣭ヰ㢟㌿᥮࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢࡳ

࠶ࡿ࡜ุᐃࡉࢀࡓࠋ

1

−329−

インドネシア人のコミュニケーション・ストラテジーについての一考察―接触場面でのコミュニケーションを円滑に進めるために―ศᯒ࡟౑⏝ࡍࡿࢹ࣮ࢱࡣᩥᏐ໬ࡋࡓィ 80 ศ

ࡎࡋࡶⓎヰࡢෆᐜࢆ⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆᡴࡗ

ࡢ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ༠ຊ⪅ࡢෆ┬ࢆㄪ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
㸦b㸧࡜㸦c㸧࡭ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ఍ヰ⤊஢ᚋ࡟ࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࣭࢖

ࡣ㸪࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆᡴࡗࡓ᫬ࠊINS ࡀ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ㸦FUI㸧ࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ㘓㡢ࡋࡓ FUIࡢෆᐜࢆ⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
INS ࡀ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆᡴࡘࡇ࡜࡛ࠊJNS ࡀᏳᚰ

ࢆᚲせ࡞࡜ࡇࢁࡢࡳᩥᏐ໬ࡋ࡚఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ

ࡋ࡚Ⓨヰࢆ⥆ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟఍ヰࡀ෇ศᯒࡢ㝿ࠊཧ⪃㈨ᩱ࡟ࡋࡓࠋ

⁥࡟㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡣ JNS ࡜ࡢ఍ヰ࡟✚ᴟⓗ࡟ཧຍࡋ࡚࠸ࡿጼໃࡶ♧ࡋ࡚࠸㸱㸬◊✲ࡢ⤖ᯝㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࠊINS ࡣձ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠊղㄯヰ࣐ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ JNS ࡀ FUI ࡛ INS ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢ

࣮࣮࢝ࠊճᑛᩗㄒࠊմルࡧ⾲⌧ࡢ㸲ࡘࡢ CS ࢆ౑⏝ࡀዲホ౯ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡶ࠿ࡽࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ

౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋձ࡜ղࡣ୰⣭⪅࡟ࡶୖ⣭⪅࡟ࡶJNS3 ࡜ JNS4 ࡣࠊINS3 ࡜ INS4 ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ

౑⏝ࡉࢀࠊճ࡜մࡣୖ⣭⪅࡟ࡋ࠿౑⏝ࡉࢀࡎࠊࡢ㔞࡜✀㢮ࡀ JNS ࡜␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ FUIୖ⣭⪅ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀ CS ࡢ✀㢮ࡀከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ

࡛ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋJNS4 ࡣࠊINS4 ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢ㔞ࡀࡸࡸᑡ࡞

࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋḟ⠇࡛ࡑࢀࡽࡢᐇ౛ࢆぢ࡞ࡀࡽ࠸࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ INS4 ࡣ FUI ࡛

CS ࡢ౑⏝ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ

┦ᡭࡢⓎヰ࡬ࡢ཯ᛂ࡜ࡋ࡚ពᅗⓗ࡟࠶࠸࡙ࡕ
࠶࠸࡙ࡕ

ࢆᡴࡗࡓ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢ㔞ࡣ඘ศࡔ INS ࡀ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡣࠊ
㸦a㸧┦ᡭ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡓࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ࠶࠸

ࡢヰࢆ⪺࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠊ㸦b㸧┦ᡭࡢヰ࡟࡙ࡕࡢ㔞࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ INS4 ࡜ JNS4 ࡢุ᩿ᇶ‽࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⯆࿡ࢆ♧ࡍࠊ㸦c㸧┦ᡭ࡬ࡢඹឤࢆ♧ࡍࠊࢬࣞࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊJNS3 ࡣࠊࡇ࡜ࡢ 3 ࡘࡢ┠ⓗ࡛⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ

INS3 ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢ㔞ࡣ඘ศࡔࡀࠊ
㸦a㸧ࡢ࠶࠸

㸦a㸧ࡢᐇ౛ࢆᣲࡆࡿࠋ

࡙ࡕࡢࡳ࡛ࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢ㉁ࡀ JNS ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡗ
࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ఍ヰࢆጉࡆࡿࡲ࡛࡟ࡣ࡞ࡽ

ࢹ࣮ࢱ 1

࡞࠸ࡀࠊINS3 ࡢ఍ヰ࡬ࡢཧຍࡢጼໃ࡟ᑡࠎ୙

033JNS1㸸.h ࡞ࢇ࠿࣐ࣖࣆ:᪥ᮏேࡔࡅ࡝[࡞‶ࢆឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡓࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ㸦a㸧ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡣ᭱ࡶ༴㝤࡞ࡶࡢࡔࢇ࠿,Ѝ034INS1㸸            [ࡣ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋព࿡ࢆ⌮ゎࡏࡎ࡟┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࢆ⪺ࡁὶࡍጼໃࡣࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥၥ㢟ࢆ㉳࠸
035JNS1㸸⚾࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ(࠸ࡘ)᪥ᮏே࡟ࡣぢ࠼ࡇࡍせᅉ࡟࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

࡞࠸࡞ࢇ࠿࡝ࡇ࠿ࡢእᅜே,እᅜㄯヰ࣐࣮࣮࢝

ࡢேࡳࡓ࠸࡞,ㄯヰ࣐࣮࣮࢝ࡣヰ㢟㌿᥮ࡍࡿ᫬࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ

Ѝ036INS1㸸࠾::࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊJNS ࡟၈✺ឤࢆ୚࠼࡞࠸ࡼ
ࢹ࣮ࢱ 1 ࡛ࡳࡽࢀࡓ㸦a㸧ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡣ JNS࠺࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋヰ㢟㌿᥮᫬ࡢㄯヰྠኈࡢ఍ヰ࡟ࡶࡳࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦Ọ⏣࣐࣮࣮࢝ࡣࠕ࡞ࢇ࠿ࠖ
࣭
ࠕ࡛ࡶࠖ
࣭
ࠕ࡛ࠖ
࣭
ࠕࡕ࡞ࡳ

ࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊINS ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ࡟ࡣࠕព࿡
2004 ➼㸧࡟࣭ࠖࠕࡑࡋ࡚࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࠕ࡞ࢇ࠿ࠖ࡜ࠕ࡛ࡶࠖ

⌮ゎࠖࡣྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊINS ࡣᚲࡣ JNS ࡟ࡶ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
ࠕ࡛ࠖ
࣭
ࠕࡕ

2

−330−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

ࢹ࣮ࢱ 3

࡞ࡳ࡟࣭ࠖࠕࡑࡋ࡚ࠖࡣ INS ࡢࡳࡢ౑⏝ࡀࡳࡽ

076JNS4㸸ຮᙉࡋࡓ:,ࡋࡣࡌࡵࡓࡤ࠿ࡾ࡞ࡢ

ࢀࡓࠋࢹ࣮ࢱ 4 ࡣࠕࡑࡋ࡚ࠖࡢᐇ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

࡛,
Ѝ077INS4㸸ࡇࡇ࡛ຮᙉࡋ࡚°࡞ࡉࡿࢇ [࡛ࡍࢹ࣮ࢱ 2089JNS2㸸ඛ࡞ࢇ࠿◊✲ᐊ࡟࡞ࢇ࠿୍Ἡ஧

࠿?°
078JNS4㸸᪥࡛[࠿ࡲ]
090INS2㸸

[࠺ࢇ]

[ࡣ࠸

ᩥᏛ㒊ࡢ࡞ࢇ࠿ᤵᴗࡀ

091JNS2㸸㙊಴࡜⇕ᾏ࡜:
ࢹ࣮ࢱ 3 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᑛᩗㄒࡢ౑⏝ࡣ INS3 ࡜

092INS2㸸࠺ࢇ

INS4 ࡢ఍ヰ࡟ࡢࡳࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋINS3 ࡜ INS4

093JNS2㸸࠶࡜࡞ࢇࡔࡗࡅ((࿧྾))ࡑࡇࡽ࡬
ࢇࢆ,ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࡢึᑐ㠃ሙ㠃࡛ࠊJNS

094INS2㸸࠺ࢇࡢᑛᩗㄒࡢ౑⏝ࢆᩘከࡃほᐹࡋࠊึᑐ㠃ሙ㠃࡛

095JNS2㸸࠸ s ୍Ἡ஧᪥࡛᮶ࡓ࡜[(hh)]ࡣᑛᩗㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿ

096INS2㸸࡜ FUI ࡛㏙࡭ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢࠕỴࡲࡾ[࠾::]097JNS2㸸࠸࠺ேࡀᖐࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚((࿧྾))°ࢇ?

ᩥྃࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࢆ౑⏝ࡍࢀࡤ

ࢇ.࠶-(ࡇࢀ)°(1.9)┦ᡭ࡟ኻ♩࡞༳㇟ࢆ୚࠼࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺୰㛫ゝㄒЍ098INS2㸸ࡑࡋ࡚ࡶ Ἠࡣ:,ࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊJNS3

099JNS2㸸࠶:࡜ JNS4 ࡣࠊINS3 ࡜ INS4 ࡣ୎ᑀ࡞ேࡔ࡜࠸

100INS2㸸⾜ࡗࡓࡇ࡜:(0.6)ࡀ࡞࠸[࠿ࡽ,⾜ࡁ࠺༳㇟ࢆཷࡅࡓ࡜ FUI ࡛㏙࡭࡚࠾ࡾࠊINS3
࡜ INS4 ࡢᑛᩗㄒࡢ౑⏝ࡀຠᯝⓗ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜

ࡓ࠸ hhhhhhhh࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᑛᩗㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ
 INS ࡣヰ㢟㌿᥮ࢆࡼࡾ᫂☜࡟ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿJNS1 ࡜ JNS2 ࡶ┦ᡭ࡟ዲ༳㇟ࢆ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓࡇ

㝿࡟㺀ㄯヰ࣐࣮࣮࢝㺁ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡼ

࡜࠿ࡽࠊึᑐ㠃ሙ㠃࡛ࡣᑛᩗㄒࡢ౑⏝ࡀᚲࡎࡋࡾ఍ヰࡀᨭ㞀࡞ࡃ෇⁥࡟㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆᮇࡶᚲせ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋᚅࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ 2 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞୙㐺ษ࡞౑⏝ルࡧ⾲⌧ࡶࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊヰ㢟㌿᥮᫬ࡢ၈✺ឤࢆルࡧ⾲⌧ࡣ INS4 ࣌࢔ࡢࡳ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋINS4୚࠼࡞࠸࡯࠿ࡢ CS ࢆ INS ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟ᩍࡣ JNS4 ࡀ JNS4 ࡢ཯ᛂ࠿ࡽ఍ヰࢆᴦࡋࢇ࡛࠼ࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

࠸࡞࠸࡜ุ᩿ࡋࡓ࡜ FUI ࡛㏙࡭ࡓࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡣ
⮬ศ࡟ࡶ㈐௵ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ឤࡌࠊ఍ヰࡀ⤊஢ࡍࡿ┤ᑛᩗㄒ
INS ඲ဨࡀึᑐ㠃ሙ㠃ࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡣ୎ᑀ࡞᪥

๓࡟ JNS4 ࡟ࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸఍ヰࢆࡉࡏ࡚ࡋࡲࡗ

ᮏㄒ⾲⌧ࢆ౑⏝ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡜࠸࠺▱㆑ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸

࡚ᜍ⦰ࡔ࡜࠸࠺Ẽᣢࡕࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵ࡟ルࡧ⾲⌧ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊINS ࡣ୎ᑀయ࡛఍ヰࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ

࠸ࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊୖ⣭⪅ࡢ INS3 ࡜ INS4 ࡣࡼࡾࢹ࣮ࢱ 4୎ᑀ࡞⾲⌧ࢆ౑⏝ࡍ࡭ࡁࡔ࡜࠸࠺▱㆑ࢆᣢࡗ

141JNS4㸸[ࡣ࠸ hhhh]࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ hhhh࡚࠾ࡾࠊ௒ᅇࡢㄪᰝ࡛ࡶᑛᩗㄒࡶ౑⏝ࡋࡓ࡜
FUI ࡛㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

Ѝ142INS4㸸=࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡍ hhhhhhhhhhh

3

−331−

インドネシア人のコミュニケーション・ストラテジーについての一考察―接触場面でのコミュニケーションを円滑に進めるために―ࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚㔜せ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍ CS ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ

ࡈࡵࢇࡡࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸ヰࢆ(ࡋ࡚)
143JNS4㸸=ࡣ::ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇ࡞ࢇ࠿(.)࠶ࡾࡀᏛ⩦ࡢึᮇࡢẁ㝵࠿ࡽᑟධࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋᮏ◊✲࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓ CS ࡢ࡯࡜࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓ.((↓ኌ➗࠸))
144INS4㸸°࠸ࡸ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋ

ࢇ࡝ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢ CS ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ

ࡓ°((↓ኌ➗࠸))࠺ࢇ

CS ࡣࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢ࡯࠿࡟⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡋ࡚఍ヰࢆ෇⁥࡟㐍 FUI ࡛ INS4 ࡣࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ 4 ࡛ INS4 ࡀヰࡋࡓࡵࡿࡓࡵࡢ CS ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆ

ࠕࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸ヰࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᮏㄪᰝ࡛ึᑐ㠃ࡢ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡶ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋJNS4 ࡜ 20 ศࡶ࡞ࢇ࡜࠿఍ヰࢆ⥔ᣢࡍ࡭ࡁࡇ
࡜ࡔ࡜㏙࡭ࡓࠋ᫬㛫ไ㝈ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊ఍ヰࡀཧ↷ᩥ⊩

ࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡟ὶࢀࡎࠊヰ㢟ࡶ㣕ࢇ࡛ࡋࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟

Canale, M. 1983. “From Communicative࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ INS4 ࡣࠊ఍ヰ⤊஢ᚋ࡛ࡶCompetence to Communicative Language

JNS4 ࡜ࡢⰋዲⓗ࡞㛵ಀࢆಖࡘࡓࡵ࡟ㅰ⨥ࡋ

Pedagogy.” In Richards, J. C. and Schmidt,ࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ఍ヰࡢ㛤ጞ᫬Ⅼ࠿ࡽ⤊஢ࡍ

R.W. (eds) Language and Communication.
2-27. New York: Longman.

ࡿ᫬Ⅼࡲ࡛࡟㉳ࡇࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡍࡿㅰ⨥ࡔ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ㝞 ▼㡰.2011.ࠕ␗ᩥ໬ヰ⪅㛫ࡢ఍ヰ࡛ぢࡽࢀࡿ ௚࣌࢔࡛ࡶ఍ヰࡀ෇⁥࡟㐍ࡲ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜

ᚰⓗ㊥㞳▷⦰ᶵ⬟̿㡑ᅜே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀ⮬ศ࡟㈐௵ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ

ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ࣭ࣙࣥࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟

࠺࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊINS4 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ලయⓗ࡟౧ࡧࡢ̿ࠖࠊࠗᏛ⩦㝔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔᪥ᮏㄒ᪥ᮏᩥᏛ࠘7ࠊᙧ࡛⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

106-79㸦i-xxviii㸧㸬
Faerch, C. and Kasper, G. 1983. “Plans andStrategies in Foreign Language㸲ࡲ࡜ࡵFUI ࡢศᯒ࠿ࡽࠊJNS ࡣ INS ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ⬟ຊ

Communication.” In Faerch, C. and Kasper,࡟㛵ಀ࡞ࡃ INS ࡜࠺ࡲࡃ఍ヰࡀ࡛ࡁࡓ࡜ឤࡌ

G. (eds) Strategies in Interlanguage࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗ

Communication. 20-60. New York:ࡓࡾ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢ㔞ࡀᑡ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡾࡋ࡚ INS ࡢ

Longman.
̿̿̿ .1984. “Two Ways DefiningⓎヰ࡟Ẽ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ඲యⓗ࡟ࡣ
JNS ࡣ INS ࡟ዲ༳㇟ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ

Communication Strategies”. Language

Learning 34:1, 45-63.

௨ୖࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⬟ຊࡀ୙༑ศ࡛ࡶ
CS ࢆຠᯝⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ఍ヰࢆỌ⏣Ⰻኴ. 2004.ࠕ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢᶵ⬟㸸࠺ࡲࡃ㐍⾜ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓ

Ⓨヰ㏵୰࡟ᡴࡓࢀࡿ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚ࠖࠊ➨஧ゝㄒ⩦ᚓࡢศ㔝࡛࠸ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ

ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘120ࠊ53-62.

CS ࡣ ゝ ㄒ ⬟ ຊ ࢆ ⿵ ඘ ࡍ ࡿ ࡶ ࡢ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿᑿᓮ᫂ே. 1981.ࠕୖ⣭᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢఏ㐩⬟ຊ࡟

㸦Faerch&Kasper㸪1983㸧ࡀࠊࡑࢀࡣࢥ࣑ࣗ

ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘45ࠊ41-52.

ࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥၥ㢟ࡀ⏕ࡌࡓ᫬ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࢥ

̿̿̿. 1993.ࠕ᥋ゐሙ㠃ࡢゞṇࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮̿

࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥၥ㢟ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟⾜ࢃࠕ⪺ࡁ㏉ࡋࠖࡢⓎヰ஺᥮ࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚̿ࠖࠊ
ࠗ᪥

ࢀࡿ CS ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙ

ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘81ࠊ19-30.

4

−332−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

᪥ⱥㄒࡢືసືモᩥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹ
⥤㔝ㄔ⣖
୕㔜኱Ꮫ
<abstract>
This study examines semantic and syntactic properties of motion verbs in English and Japanese, focusing
on walk in English and aruku “walk” in Japanese. Drawing on Halliday’s (1967a, 1967b, 1968) semantic
analysis of verb classes and Maruta’s (2000) LCS analysis of motion verbs, differences between walk andits Japanese equivalent can be accounted for in terms of causation and reflexivity. This study also showsthat Maruta’s semantic analysis of the motion verbs in question can be recast within a syntactic frameworkin terms of the presence of or the absence of a null reflexive verb and a null causative.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚືసືモࠊືモࢡࣛࢫ஺᭰ࠊ෌ᖐ໬ࠊ౑ᙺ໬
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ⱥㄒࡢືసືモ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡍࡿࠋᶵ⬟୺⩏ゝㄒᏛࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ⏕ᡂᩥἲ⌮ㄽࡶྵࡵࡓᵝࠎ࡞ศ㔝ࡢ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⌧ᅾ࡛ࡶከࡃᘬ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ Halliday (1967a, 1967b, 1968)ࡢ୍㐃ࡢ◊✲ࠊࡲࡓࠊㄒᙡព࿡ㄽ◊✲࡟࠾ࡅࡿ▱ぢࡶཧ⪃࡟ࡋࡘࡘࠊ᪥ⱥㄒࡢືసືモࡢᩥἲⓗ࡞᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡘ࠸࡚グ㏙ࡋࠊㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡿࠋඛࡎࠊⱥㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢືసືモ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ(1)࡜(2)ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡞ᕪ␗ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ
(1) a. John walked in the park.
b. John walked to the park.
c. John walked his dog in the neighborhood.
(2) a. John-ga  kooen-de aru-ita.
John-NOM park-IN walk-PAST“John walked in the park.”
b. *John-ga  kooen-ni/e aru-ita.
John-NOM park-TO/TO walk-PAST“John walked to the park.”c. *John-ga inu-o kinnzyo-de   aru-ita.
John-NOM dog-ACC neighborhood-IN walk-PAST “John walked the dog in the neighborhood.”(1a)࡜(1b)ࡀ♧ࡍ㏻ࡾࠊⱥㄒࡢືసືモ“walk”ࡣࠊሙᡤ࡜᪉ྥࢆ⾲ࡍ๓⨨モྃ“in the park”ࡸ“to thepark”࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(1c)࡛♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡞౑ᙺࡢ⏝ἲࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊⱥㄒࡢ“walk”
࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ᪥ᮏㄒࡢືసືモࠕṌࡃࠖࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ(1a)࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ⏝ἲࡋ࠿࡞ࡃࠊ(2b)ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
᪉ྥࢆ⾲ࡍᚋ⨨モྃ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊ(2c)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟౑ᙺືモ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ౑⏝ࡶ୙ྍ࡛
࠶ࡿࠋ(1)࡛ほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࠊⱥㄒࡢືసືモࡢືモࢡࣛࢫࡢ஺᭰ྍ⬟ᛶࠊࡲࡓࠊ(2)ࡀ♧ࡍࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢືసືモࡢືモࢡࣛࢫࡢ஺᭰ࡢ୙ᅾࢆ࠸࠿࡟グ㏙ࠊࡲࡓࠊㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ௨
ୗ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋඛࡎࡣࠊHalliday (1967a, 1967b, 1968)࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ(1)ࡢ஦ᐇࡢศᯒࢆ⤂௓ࡋࠊࡑࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓᚋࠊ୸⏣(2000)ࡢ LCS ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢ౑ᙺศᯒࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋࡘࡘࠊ⤫ㄒㄽ࠿ࡽࡢศᯒࢆ
ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ
2. Halliday(1967a, 1967b, 1968)ࡢືモࢡࣛࢫ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃศᯒ
Halliday(1967a, 1967b, 1968)ࡣࠊtransitivity㸦௚ືᛶ㸧࡜ ergativity㸦㉳ືᛶ㸧ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽືモࢡࣛࢫཬࡧᩥෆせ⣲ࡢᢸ࠺ព࿡ᙺ๭ࢆᐃ⩏ࡋࡓࠋtransitivity ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢព࿡ᙺ๭࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊActor,
Initiator, Goalࠊࡲࡓࠊergativity ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡣࠊCauser ࡜ Affected ࡢ㸰ࡘࡢព࿡ᙺ๭ࡀᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊືモࢡࣛࢫ࡟ࡣḟࡢ 3 ✀㢮ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(i) Effective ࢡࣛࢫ㸸㏻ᖖࡢ௚ືモ࡛
࠶ࡾࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀᑐ㇟࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢస⏝ࢆཬࡰࡍࡶࡢࠊ(ii) Nuclear ࢡࣛࢫ㸸⮬௚஺᭰ࢆࡍࡿࡶࡢࠊ(iii)
Descriptive ࢡࣛࢫ㸸⬟ືᩥࡢ୺ㄒࡀ౑ᙺ୺ᙺ๭ࢆᢸ࠸ࠊ┠ⓗㄒࡀ౑ᙺ୺ࡢ㉳ື࡟ࡼࡾ࠶ࡿ⊂❧ࡋ
ࡓ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠺ࡶࡢࠋ
(1)ࡢᩥෆせ⣲ࡢព࿡ᙺ๭ࢆࠊHalliday(1967a, 1967b, 1968)࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁグ㏙ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡀࠊ(1a’)㹼(1c’)
1−333−日英語の動作動詞文に関する一考察

࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(1a´)
(1b´)
(1c´)

John         walked in the park
Actor/Initiator/Causer     AdjunctJohn walked     to the park.
Actor/Initiator/Causer AdjunctJohn walked
his dogin the neighborhood.
Initiator/Causer Actor/Affected Adjunct[Descriptive, middle][Descriptive, middle][Descriptive, operative](1a) ࡣ descriptive ࡢ middle 㸦 ୰ 㛫 ᩥ 㸧 ࡟ ศ 㢮 ࡉ ࢀ ࡿ ࠋ ୺ ㄒ “John” ࡢ ᢸ ࠺ ព ࿡ ᙺ ๭ ࡣ ࠊActor/Initiator/Causer ࡢ 3 ✀㢮࡛࠶ࡾࠊྠᵝ࡟ࠊ(1b)ࡶ descriptive ࡢ middle ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ
Halliday(1967a, 1967b, 1968)ࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊሙᡤࢆ⾲ࡍ“in the park”ࡶࠊ╔Ⅼࢆ⾲ࡍ“to the park”ࡶྠᵝ࡟ Adjunct ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(1c)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊdescriptive ࢡࣛࢫࡢ operative㸦⬟ືᩥ㸧࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࠊ
୺ㄒࡢ“John”ࡣ Initiator/Causerࠊ┠ⓗㄒࡢ“his dog”ࡣࠊActor/Affected ࡢព࿡ᙺ๭ࢆᢸ࠺ࠋࡉ࡚ࠊ௨
ୖࡢศᯒ࡟ࡣᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ 3 ࡘࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ඛࡎࡣࠊ(1a)࡜(1b)ࡢ๓⨨モྃࡀ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ Adjunct ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ(3)࡛♧ࡍ㏻ࡾࠊศ⿣ᩥࢸࢫࢺ࡟ࡼࡾືモྃࡢᵓᡂ⣲ࢸࢫࢺࢆ⾜࠺࡜ࠊ(1a)࡜(1b)ࡢ๓⨨モྃࡀ␗࡞ࡗࡓ᣺ࡿ
⯙࠸ࢆࡍࡿ(Ayano 2007)ࠋࡲࡓࠊ(3b)ࡢ╔Ⅼࢆ⾲ࡍ๓⨨モྃ“to the park”ࡣࠊ(3c)ࡢ๓⨨モྃ“at thestation”࡜ྠᵝࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ
(3)

a. What the students did in the park was walk.
b. *What the students did to the park was walk.
c. *What the students did at the station was arrive.

ḟࡢၥ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊືモ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿຓືモࡢၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋከࡃࡢゝㄒ࡛ほᐹࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
᪉ྥ㸦╔Ⅼཬࡧ㉳Ⅼ㸧ࢆ⾲ࡍ๓࣭ᚋ⨨モྃ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿືモ࡜ࠊ༢࡟ሙᡤࢆ⾲ࡍືモ࡜࡛ࡣࠊࡑࢀ
ࡒࢀ␗࡞ࡗࡓຓືモࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿࠋ(4)࡛♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࢜ࣛࣥࢲㄒ࡛ࡣࠊᚋ⪅ࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ HAVE࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿຓືモࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࠊ๓⪅ࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ BE ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿຓືモࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(4)

a. Hij heeft/*is gelopen.
 
he has/is run
b. Hij is/?heeft naar huis gelopen.
He is/has to house run  “He ran.”“He has run home.”(Zaenen 1993:22)

ࡘ ࡲ ࡾ ࠊ (1b) ࡢ ╔ Ⅼ ࢆ ⾲ ࡍ ๓ ⨨ モ ྃ ࡜ ඹ ㉳ ࡍ ࡿ “walk”ࡣ ࠊ ෆ 㡯 ࡢ ࡳ ࢆ 㑅 ᢥ ࡍ ࡿ 㠀 ᑐ ᱁ ື モ(unaccusative verb (Perlmutter (1978))࡜ྠᵝࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢ஦ᐇ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ࡜ࠊ(1b)ࡢᩥࡣࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡞⮬௚஺᭰ືモ࡛࠶ࡿ nuclear ࢡࣛࢫ࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࠊ
“walk”ࡢ୺ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ“John”ࡣࠊGoal ࡢព࿡ᙺ๭࡜⿕౑ᙺ୺ࡢ Affected ࡢព࿡ᙺ๭ࢆᣢࡘ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡉ࡚ࠊᙜึࡢືసືモࡢືモࢡࣛࢫࡢ஺᭰࡟❧ࡕᡠࡿࠋHalliday ࡢศᯒࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࡜ࠊ(1a)ࡢ“walk”
ࡢ୺ㄒࡣࠊActor ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓ Causer ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(1b)࡛ࡣࠊ“John”ࡣ Goal ࡛࠶ࡾࠊAffected ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(1c)࡛ࡣࠊ୺ㄒࡀ Causer ࡢᙺ๭ࢆᢸ࠸ࠊ┠ⓗㄒࡀ Actor ཬࡧ Initiator ࡢᙺ๭ࢆᢸࡗ࡚
࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋḟࡢ 3 ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ౑ᙺ࣭㉳ື࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊㄒᙡព࿡ㄽ◊✲࡟࠾ࡅࡿ▱ぢࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋࡘࡘࠊⱥㄒࡢ“walk”ࡢືモࢡࣛࢫࡢ஺᭰ྍ⬟ᛶࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕṌࡃࠖࡢືモࢡࣛࢫࡢ஺᭰ࡢ୙ᅾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ᳨ウࡍࡿ
3. ືモࢡࣛࢫ஺᭰࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸸ㄒᙡព࿡ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ௨ୗࠊ୸⏣(2000)ࡢㄒᙡព࿡ㄽࡢ౑ᙺ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࢆᇶ࡟ࠊ(1)࡟࠾࠸࡚ほᐹࡋࡓືసືモࡢ஺
2−334−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

᭰⌧㇟࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࢆ⥆ࡅࡿࠋ୸⏣(2000)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ(5)࡛♧ࡍ㏻ࡾࠊ౑ᙺ࡟ࡣࠊOnset Causationࠊ
Extended Causation ࡢ 2 ✀㢮࠶ࡿࠋ(5)

a. Onset causation (INITIATE):
b. Extended causation (CAUSE):John spun the top.
John cut the bread.

Onset Causation ࡟ࡣࠊ⮬௚஺᭰ືモࡀ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ౑ᙺ୺ࡀᑐ㇟࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ጞⓎࡢせᅉ࡜࡞ࡿఱ
ࡽ࠿ࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ⿕౑ᙺ୺ࡀ⊂⮬ࡢ஦ែࢆᐇ⌧ࡍࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞
౑ᙺ୺ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ Initiator ࡜࿧ࡧࠊ౑ᙺࢆ⿕ࡿព࿡ᙺ๭ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ Effector ࡜࿧ࡪࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ“John spun
the top”࡜࠸࠺ሙྜࡢࢥ࣐ࡣࠊ౑ᙺ୺࠿ࡽࡢ㉳ືࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࠊ⮬ᚊⓗ࡞ᅇ㌿ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
Extended Causation ࡜ࡣࠊ౑ᙺ୺ࡢ⾜Ⅽࡢᙳ㡪ࡀᑐ㇟ࡢኚ໬඲య࡟ཬࡧࠊᑐ㇟⮬యࡀ⊂⮬ࡢ஦ែࢆᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ“John cut the bread”࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⾜Ⅽࡢᑐ㇟ࡢࣃࣥࡣࠊ⮬ᚊⓗ࡟ࠕศ㞳ࠖࢆ⾜ࢃ࡞࠸ࠋ୸⏣ࡣࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ“run”ࡸ“walk”࡜࠸ࡗࡓືసືモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ Onset Causation ศᯒࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ືモࡢ୺ㄒ࡛ࠊពᚿࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡶࡢࢆࠊVolitional Initiator ࡜࿧ࡪࠋ(6)࡛♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ“run”
ࡢࡼ࠺࡞༢⣧࡞ືసືモ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࡢ LCS ⾲♧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊFoley and Van Valin (1984)ࡀ୺ᙇࡍ
ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ౑ᙺ୺࡜⿕౑ᙺ୺ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜ᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(6)

John ran last in the race.
Vol-Initiator/Effector[x=JOHN DO ACT-OF-VOL] INITIATE [x=JOHN RUN]

ࡉ࡚ࠊ(1)ࡢ”walk”ࡣࠊ୸⏣ࡢᥦ᱌ࡍࡿ LCS ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ(1´´)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾲♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ(1a´´)(1b´´)(1c´´)

John walked in the park.
John walked to the park.

[x DO ACT-OF-VOL] INITIATE [x WALK][[x DO ACT-OF-VOL] INITIATE [y WALK]]CAUSE [BECOME [y=x <PLACE>]]John walked his dog in the neighborhood[[x DO ACT ON y] INITIATE [y WALK](1a´´)࡛ࡣࠊពᚿࢆᣢࡗࡓ୺ㄒࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ Volitional Initiator ࡛࠶ࡿ“John”࡜ࡣู࡟ࠊOnset Causation࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᐇ㝿࡟㉮ࡿࠊ“John”ࡢ㌟యࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊ(1b´´)ࡣࠊ୺ㄒࡢ“John”ࡀ౑ᙺࢆཬࡰࡍ෌ᖐⓗ࡞“John”ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ෌ᖐⓗ࡞“John”ࡘࡲࡾ“himself”
ࡣࠊ(7)ࡢᵝ࡟ࠊPLACE ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊSTATE ࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣ㢧ᅾ໬ࡍࡿࠋ
(7)

a. We walked ourselves into a state of exhaustion.
b. I walked myself weary.

(Levin 1993).

᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ(1c´´)ࡢ┠ⓗㄒࡢ≟ࡣࠊពᚿⓗ࡞ᣦᑟຊࢆḞࡁࠊ⣧⢋࡟㌟య⾜Ⅽࡢࡳࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ(1b´´)࡟࠾࠸࡚୸⏣ࡀᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ෌ᖐศᯒࢆ㛫᥋ⓗ࡟ᨭᣢࡍࡿࢻ࢖ࢶㄒࡢ஦ᐇࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ(8c)࡛
♧ࡍ㏻ࡾࠊࢻ࢖ࢶㄒࡢ“open”࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿືモࡣࠊ෌ᖐ௦ྡモࢆせồࡍࡿ(Steinbach 2002)ࠋ
(8)

a. Middle Construction
Das Buch liest sich leicht
the book reads RP easilyb. Reflexive Construction
Herr Rossi rasiert sich
Mr. Rossi shaves RP
c. Anticaustive Construction
Die Tür öffnet sichthe door opens RP
d. Inherent Reflexive Construction
3−335−

日英語の動作動詞文に関する一考察

Herr Rossi erkaältet sich
Mr. Rossi catches.a.cold RP
4. ࡲ࡜ࡵ㸦⤫ㄒㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢศᯒ㸧௨ୖࡢ㆟ㄽࢆ⤫ㄒㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽᩚ⌮ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊⱥㄒࡢ“walk”ࡢ(1a)࡜(1b)࡟࠾ࡅࡿ஺᭰ࡣࠊ㠀㢧ᅾⓗ࡞෌ᖐ௦ྡモࡢ᭷↓ࡀࡑࡢཎᅉ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ୍᪉ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚஺᭰ࡀ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊ㠀㢧ᅾⓗ࡞෌ᖐ௦ྡモࡀᖖ࡟୙ᅾ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟㉳ᅉࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ(1c)࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ౑ᙺ
ᩥࡢ୙ᅾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ㠀㢧♧ⓗ࡞౑ᙺືモࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ୙ᅾ࡛࠶ࡿ
࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࡢ౑ᙺືモ࡜ࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊBowers(2010)ࡀᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞(cf Svenonius
(2004))ࠊືస୺ࢆㄆྍࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡣ⊂❧ࡋࡓࠊ౑ᙺ୺ࢆㄆྍࡍࡿᶵ⬟⠊␪ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᣦࡍࠋ᪥ᮏㄒ
࡛ࡣࠊ(1c)ࢆ㢧ᅾⓗ࡞౑ᙺືモ࡛⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ(9a)ࡢࠕṌࡃࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ౛࡟ࡣⱝᖸ㐪࿴ឤࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࠕᩓṌࡍࡿࠖ࡜⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡓ(9b)ࡣࠊ඲ࡃၥ㢟ࡀ࡞࠸ࠋ(9)ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ౛ࡢࡼ࠺࡟」ᩥ
ࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿㄒᙡ⠊␪ࡢ౑ᙺືモ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊⱥㄒ࡟ࡣ౑ᙺ୺ࢆㄆྍࡍࡿ㠀㢧ᅾⓗ࡞ᶵ⬟⠊␪ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀ୺ᙇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(9)a. Taroo-ga  inu-ni kooen-o aruk-ase-ta.
Taroo-NOM dog-DAT park-O walk-CAUS-PAST“Taroo made the dog walk in the park.”b. Taroo-ga
inu-nikooen-o sampo-sase-ta.
Taroo-NOM dog-DAT park-O walk-CAUS-PAST“Taroo made the dog walk in the park.”௨ୖࡢ⤫ㄒㄽ࠿ࡽࡢศᯒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡞ࡿ᳨ドࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣゝ࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࠋ௒ᚋࡢ
ㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩Ayano, S. 2007. “Talmy’s Lexical-Semantic Typology and Three Types of Directional PPs in Japanese,”
BLS 31, 25-36.
Bowers, J. 2010. Arguments as Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Foley, W. A. and Van Valin, R. D. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1967a. “Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English, Part 1,” Journal of Linguistics 3:1,
37-81.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1967b. “Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English, Part 2,” Journal of Linguistics 3:2,
199-244.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1968. “Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English, Part 3,” Journal of Linguistics 4:2,
179-215.
Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
୸⏣ᛅ㞝. 2000. ࠕືモࡢㄒᙡព࿡㗪ᆺ࡜ㄒᙡࡢᣑᙇ – walkࢆ౛࡟ࠖࠊ୸⏣ᛅ㞝࣭㡲㈡୍ዲ㸦⦅㸧ࠗ᪥ⱥㄒࡢ⮬௚ࡢ஺᭰࠘ࠊ209-240ࠊᮾி: ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
Perlmutter, D. 1978. “Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis,” BLS 4, 157-189.
Steinbach, M. 2002. Middle Voice: A Comparative Study in the Syntax-Semantics Interface of German.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Svenonius, P. 2004. “Outside Inside,” Paper presented at the Workshop on Argument Structure, Center for
Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics, University of Tromsø.
Zaenen, A. 1993. “Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating Syntax and Lexical Semantics.” In J. Pustejovsky,(ed.) Semantics and the Lexicon, 129-161. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

4
−336−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⬟᱁ືモ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹ㸸㐣⛬ᵓᡂ࡜୺㢟ᵓ㐀ࡢ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽẶྡ ⸨⏣ ㏱
ᡤᒓ ㏆␥኱Ꮫ㠀ᖖ໅ㅮᖌ<Abstract>
This paper focuses on ergative verbs, which was originally introduced by Halliday (1967-8), in
English and Japanese in the framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Such verbs are analysed
in both transitive and ergative interpretations. The element functioning as an Actor in the former may
be treated as a Medium in the latter, which makes it possible to treat logically identical participants
as the same. With these treatments, Japanese expressions with ergative verbs are investigated toshow that both interpretations are necessary to describe texts, because there is inconsistency of themeanings between uses of the particles accompanying the participants.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸㑅ᢥయ⣔ᶵ⬟ゝㄒᏛࠊ㐣⛬ᵓᡂࠊ௚ືⓗゎ㔘ࠊ㉳ືⓗゎ㔘㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
M. A. K. Halliday ࡀᥦၐࡍࡿ㑅ᢥయ⣔ᶵ⬟ゝㄒᏛ㸦SFL㸧ࡣࠊ࣓ࢱᶵ⬟㸦metafunction㸧ࡸල⌧໬㸦realization㸧࡜࠸ࡗࡓᴫᛕ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡼࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳࡣࠊHalliday (1984㸧௨๓ࡢ SFL ࡀලయ໬ࡍࡿ๓ẁ㝵࠿ࡽᚎࠎ࡟ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀ࡚ࠊ௒᪥ࡢⓎᒎࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Halliday andMatthiessen, 2004㸧ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊSFL ࡢ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳࡀ኱ࡁࡃ౫ᣐࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠊHalliday㸦1967a, 1967b, 1968㸧ࡢ୍㐃ࡢศᯒ࠿ࡽࠊ⌧ᅾ୕ࡘࡢ࣓ࢱᶵ⬟ࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ㐣⛬ᵓᡂ㸦transitivity㸧1ࡢศᯒࢆྲྀࡾୖ
ࡆࡿࠋ≉࡟௚ືⓗゎ㔘㸦transitive interpretation㸧࡜㉳ືⓗゎ㔘㸦ergative interpretation㸧࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿ
ศᯒ᪉ἲࢆẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⮬ືモ࡜௚ືモࡢ␗࡞ࡿල⌧ᙧࡢ⏝ἲࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㸰㸬㐣⛬ᵓᡂࡢ௚ືⓗゎ㔘࡜㉳ືⓗゎ㔘
SFL ࡢ୕ࡘࡢ࣓ࢱᶵ⬟ࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿほᛕᵓᡂⓗ࣓ࢱᶵ⬟㸦ideational metafunction㸧ࡣࠊලయⓗ࡞ືసࢆㄡࡀ࠸ࡘ⾜ࡗࡓ࠿࡞࡝ࠊẚ㍑ⓗᐈほⓗ࡞஦ᐇ࡟ᙜࡓࡿព࿡ࢆල⌧ࡍࡿᶵ⬟࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
㸦Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004㸧ࠋࡇࡢ࣓ࢱᶵ⬟ࢆᐇ㝿࡟⠇ࡢ୰࡛ල⌧ࡍࡿᵓ㐀ࢆࠊ㐣⛬ᵓᡂ࡜࿧ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋⱥㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ㐣⛬୰᰾㒊㸦Process㸧࡜ࡑࡢ௚ࡢཧ୚せ⣲࠿ࡽᡂࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
Tom closed his eyes ࡜࠸࠺⠇ࡀ࠶ࢀࡤࠊTom ࢆ⾜Ⅽ⪅㸦Actor㸧ࠊືモࡢ closed ࢆ㐣⛬୰᰾㒊ࠊhis eyesࢆᑐ㇟㸦Goal㸧࡜ศᯒࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊclosed ࢆ⮬ືモ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡓ Tom’s eyes closed ࡜࠸࠺⠇࡛ࡣࠊTom’s eyes ࢆ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡍࡿ㸦Halliday, 1994, p. 164㸧ࠋࡇࡢࠊ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶ୺ㄒࡀࠕ㛢ࡌࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ືసࢆ⾜࠺୺యࢆ௚ືⓗゎ㔘࡜࿧ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ
௚᪉ࠊ㉳ືⓗゎ㔘࡛ࡣᐇ㝿࡟㛢ࡌࡿືసࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㒊ศ࡟╔┠ࡍࡿࠋ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࠊ㉳ືⓗ㸦⬟᱁㸹ergative㸧࡜ࡣ௚ືモࡢ୺ㄒ࡜࡞ࡿྡモࡢ᱁ኚ໬ࡢ୍✀ཬࡧࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿゝㄒࢆᣦࡍࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ Halliday㸦1967a㸧ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྡモࡢ᱁ኚ໬ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࠊⱥㄒࡢືモࡢ୰ࡢ⬟᱁ືモ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿ✀ࢆᤊ࠼࡚ࠊྠࡌᙧᘧࡢ௚ືモ࡜⮬ືモࡢࡑࢀࡒࢀ┠ⓗㄒ࡜୺ㄒࡀព࿡ⓗ࡟୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡟ྠࡌศᯒࢆࡍࡿ㉳ືⓗゎ㔘ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋHalliday㸦1994, p. 164㸧࡛ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇ
ࡢ✀ࡢྡモ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚፹య㸦Medium㸧࡜࠸࠺ᶵ⬟࡛ศᯒࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−337−

日本語の能格動詞に関する一考察：過程構成と主題構造の関係から

௚ືⓗゎ㔘

Tom
Actor

closedProcess

his eyes.
Goal

㉳ືⓗゎ㔘

Agent

Process

Medium௚ືⓗゎ㔘

Tom’s eyes
Actorclosed.
Process㉳ືⓗゎ㔘MediumProcessࡇࡢ୰࡛ࠊhis eyes ࡜ Tom’s eyes ࡣ␗࡞ࡿᙧᘧࢆᣢࡗ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡿࡀࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࠕ㛢ࡌࡓ㸦closed㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ືసࡀⓎ⏕ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㒊ศ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣྠ୍࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊ୍᪉ࡣ௚ືモࡢ┠ⓗㄒࠊ௚᪉ࡣ⮬ືモࡢ୺ㄒ࡜࠸࠺ᩥἲⓗ࡞ᙺ๭࡟㛵ಀ࡞ࡃࠊྠ➼࡟ព࿡ⓗ࡟ࡣ፹య㸦Medium㸧࡜ศᯒࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊⱥㄒ࡛ࡣ⮬௚஺᭰ࡍࡿືモࢆྵࡴ⠇࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ௚ືⓗゎ㔘࡜㉳ືⓗゎ㔘࡜࠸࠺஧ࡘࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ㐣⛬ᵓᡂࡢศᯒࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋ஧✀ࡢゎ㔘ࢆ౑࠸ศࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ㐣⛬୰᰾㒊࡜ཧ୚せ⣲ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ୧㠃࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊືモࡢ≉ᚩࢆᶵ⬟ⓗ࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛
ࡁࡿࠋ㸱㸬᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⬟᱁ືモ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡶࠊ௚ືⓗゎ㔘࡜㉳ືⓗゎ㔘ࢆᚲせ࡜ࡍࡿ⬟᱁ືモࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋᑡᩘ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊ
ྠᙧᘧ࡛௚ືモࡢ┠ⓗㄒ࡜⮬ືモࡢ୺ㄒࡀ୍⮴ࡍࡿືモࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ㛤ࡃࠖࠕ㛢ࡌࡿࠖࠕᣑ኱ࡍࡿࠖ
ࠕኚᙧࡍࡿࠖ
ࠕ᏶ᡂࡍࡿࠖࠕᅇ㌿ࡍࡿࠖ➼ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿ㸦ᙳᒣ㸪1996㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢືモࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢሙ
ྜ࡜ྠᵝ࡟௚ືⓗࠊ㉳ືⓗ࡟ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟᪥ᮏㄒࡢゎ㔘࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒ࡟ࡣ࡞࠸≉ᚩࢆᣲࡆࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡎ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ௚ືモࡢ୺ㄒࢆ⠇ࡢ୰࡟᫂♧ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࡞࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊࠕ㸦ࢺ࣒ࡀ㸧ࢻ࢔ࢆ㛤ࡅࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୺ㄒࢆ᫂
♧ࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶᩥἲⓗ࡟㐺ษ࡞⾲⌧࡜ᡂࡾᚓࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࠕࡣࠖ࡜࠸࠺ຓモࢆ౑࠺ࡇ࡜࡟
ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⠇ෆࡔࡅ࡛ࡣྡモࡀ୺᱁࠿┠ⓗ᱁࠿ࢆ≉ᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸⾲⌧ࢆసࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ༢࡟ࠕࢻ
࢔ࡣ㛤ࡃࠖ࡜ゝࡗࡓሙྜࠊ
ࠕㄡ࠿ࡀࢻ࢔ࢆ㛤ࡃࠖࡢ࠿ࠕࡦ࡜ࡾ࡛࡟ࢻ࢔ࡀ㛤ࡃࠖࡢ࠿ࢆࠊ௚ࡢ᝟ሗ
࡞ࡋ࡟≉ᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ↓ᶆࡢㄒ㡰࡛ࡣ୺ㄒࡶ┠ⓗㄒࡶືモࡢ๓࡟⨨࠿ࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡀࡼࡾ⠇㢌࡟㏆࠸఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ุ᩿࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ሙྜࡀ࠶
ࡿࠋ᥮ゝࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕࢻ࢔㹹ࡀ㸭ࢆ㸭ࡣ㹻㛤ࡃࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ㡰࡛ࠊ࡝ࡢຓモࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀ࡚ࡶ⠇࡜ࡋ࡚୙㐺ษ࡟࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋⱥㄒࡣࠊ୺ㄒ࠿┠ⓗㄒ࠿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ྡモࡢ఩⨨ࡀኚ໬ࡍࡿࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡣྡモࡢ఩⨨ኚ໬ࢆకࢃࡎ࡟ືモࡢ⮬௚஺᭰ࡀ㉳ࡇࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ≉ᚩࡔ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࡟㚷ࡳ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⬟᱁ືモࢆศᯒࡍࡿ࡜ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ࢻ࢔㹹ࡀ㸭ࢆ㸭ࡣ㹻

㛤ࡃࠋ

௚ືⓗゎ㔘

㹹Actor / Goal / Actor or Goal㹻

Process㉳ືⓗゎ㔘MediumProcessࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ௚ືⓗゎ㔘࡛ࡣຓモࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᶵ⬟࡟㐪࠸ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ㉳ືⓗゎ㔘࡛ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ፹య㸦Medium㸧࡜ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋᐇ㝿࡟ࠕ㛤ࡃࠖ࡜࠸࠺ືࡁࡀⓎ⏕ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠕࢻ࢔ࠖ
࡟୍ᐃࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡓࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࠿ࡽࠊ㉳ືⓗゎ㔘ࡢ᭷⏝ᛶࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࡓࡔࡋࠊ⤒㦂ⓗෆᐜࢆ⤫୍ⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࠊ௚ືⓗゎ㔘ࡀ୙㐺ᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞
࠸ࠋᐇ㝿࡟ࠕ㛤ࡃࠖ࡜࠸࠺ືసࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ஦㇟ࡔࡅࢆᤊ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ㉳ືⓗゎ㔘ࡢࡳ࡛༑ศ࡛࠶

−338−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊྠࡌ஦㇟ࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࠕࡀࠖࠕࢆࠖ
ࠕࡣࠖ࡜࠸࠺ከᵝ࡞ຓモࡢ㑅ᢥࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢព࿡ⓗ࡞㐪࠸ࢆໟྵࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡢࡀ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢຓモࡢᐇ㝿ࡢ౑⏝ἲ࡟┦㐪ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆ☜࠿ࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࠗᑡ⣡ゝ࠘ࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚⾲ࡢࡼ࠺࡟౑⏝௳ᩘࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓࠋྛ㡯┠࡛ࠊຓモ࡟⥆࠸࡚ྛືモࡢ⤊Ṇᙧࡀ㐃⥆ࡍࡿᙧᘧࡢࠊ௳ᩘࢆᢳฟࡋࡓࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠕࡀ㛤ࡃࠖࢆྵࡴ౑⏝౛ࡀ 459 ௳࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ

ࡀࠥV
ࢆࠥV
ࡣࠥV

㛤ࡃ

ᨵၿࡍࡿ

ᣑ኱ࡍࡿ

459
1826
32

37
465
13

141
365
25

⾲㸸ຓモ࡜⬟᱁ືモࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏᩘ
⾲࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊຓモ࡜ືモࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ౑⏝௳ᩘ࡟࠿࡞ࡾࡤࡽࡘࡁࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜
ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡢືモࡶࠊࠕࡀࠖࡢ⏝౛ࡼࡾࠕࢆࠖࢆ౑ࡗࡓ⏝౛ࡢ᪉ࡀከࡃぢࡘ࠿ࡾࠊࠕࡣࠖࢆ
౑ࡗࡓ⏝౛ࡣᑡᩘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ௚ືⓗゎ㔘࡟ࡼࡿศᯒࡀ♧ࡍ㏻ࡾࠊྛᙧᘧࡢ౑⏝≧ἣࡀ␗࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ௚ືⓗゎ㔘࡜㉳ືⓗゎ㔘ࡣࠊ୍᪉ࡀ௚᪉࡟ඃඛⓗࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ཮᪉ࡢゎ㔘ࢆࡶࡗ୍࡚㐃ࡢ⾲⌧ࡢ඲యീࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸲㸬ࢸࢡࢫࢺศᯒ࡬ࡢᛂ⏝ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ஦㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⾲⌧ࢆࠊ௚ືⓗゎ㔘࡜㉳ືⓗゎ㔘ࡢศᯒ࡟ᕪ␗ࡀ࠶ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ㉳ືⓗゎ㔘࡛ࡣࠊྠࡌ஦㇟ࢆྠࡌᶵ⬟࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ๓⠇ࡢ⾲࡟ぢࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୍ぢྠࡌᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ୕✀ࡢ⾲⌧ࡀࠊᐇ㝿࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ㢖ᗘ࡟ࡣ࠿࡞ࡾࡤࡽࡘࡁࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
౛࠼ࡤࠊḟࡢ⬟᱁ືモࠕ㛤ࡃࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ౛ࢆぢࡿ࡜ᩥἲⓗ࡟ࡣྍ⬟࡞⾲⌧ࡶࡑࡢ౑⏝⠊ᅖࡀ㝈ࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧 a.
b.
c.
㸦2㸧 a.
b.
c.
㸦3㸧 a.
b.
c.

ࣃࢯࢥࣥࡣ㛤ࡃࡢࡀࡵࢇ࡝࠺ࡔ࠿ࡽࡡ࣮ࠋ
?ࣃࢯࢥࣥࡀ㛤ࡃࡢࡀࡵࢇ࡝࠺ࡔ࠿ࡽࡡ࣮ࠋ
ࣃࢯࢥࣥࢆ㛤ࡃࡢࡀࡵࢇ࡝࠺ࡔ࠿ࡽࡡ࣮ࠋ
㌟ࢆ㐓ࡽࡉ࡞࠸ᑐỴ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡇࡑ᪂ࡋ࠸㐨ࡣ㛤ࡃࠋ
㌟ࢆ㐓ࡽࡉ࡞࠸ᑐỴ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡇࡑ᪂ࡋ࠸㐨ࡀ㛤ࡃࠋ
?㌟ࢆ㐓ࡽࡉ࡞࠸ᑐỴ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡇࡑ᪂ࡋ࠸㐨ࢆ㛤ࡃࠋ?ྑഃࡢᡬࡣ㛤ࡁࡲࡍࠋࡈὀពࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
ྑഃࡢᡬࡀ㛤ࡁࡲࡍࠋࡈὀពࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
ྑഃࡢᡬࢆ㛤ࡁࡲࡍࠋࡈὀពࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ

㸦ࠗᑡ⣡ゝ࠘
㸧㸦ࠗᑡ⣡ゝ࠘㸧

㸦1a㸧࡜㸦2a㸧ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢ⏝౛࡛ࠊຓモࠕࡣࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
㸦1b-c㸧
ཬࡧ㸦2b-c㸧ࡣྛ౛ࡢຓモࢆࠊࠕࡀࠖࠕࢆࠖ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᩥἲⓗ࡟ࡣࠊࠕࣃࢯࢥࣥࠖࡸ
ࠕ㐨ࠖࡀࠕ㛤ࡃࠖࡇ࡜࡟ࡣኚࢃࡾ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ
ࠕࡀࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࡶࠕࢆࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࡶᕪࡋᨭ࠼࡞࠸ࡣࡎ
࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊ㸦1b㸧ࡸ㸦2c㸧ࡣⱝᖸࡢ୙⮬↛ࡉࢆṧࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸦1b㸧ࡀ㐺ᙜ࡞ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ
ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊࣂࢿ➼ࡀ௙᥃ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡚ࠊࡩ࡜ࡋࡓᢿᏊ࡟຾ᡭ࡟ࠕࣃࢯࢥࣥࡀ㛤ࡃࡢࡀࡵࢇ࡝࠺
ࡔ࠿ࡽࡡ࣮ࠖ࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡓࡔࡋ㸦1a㸧ࡢࠊ௚ࡢᶵჾ࡟ẚ࡭࡚ࣃࢯࢥࣥࡣ

−339−

日本語の能格動詞に関する一考察：過程構成と主題構造の関係から

௮ࠎࡋࡃ࡚࠸ࡕ࠸ࡕࠕ㛤ࡃࡢࡀࡵࢇ࡝࠺ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡟ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊ㸦2c㸧࡛ࡣࠕᑐỴࠖ࡜ࡣ┤᥋㛵ಀ࡞࠸➨୕⪅ࡀࠕ㐨ࢆ㛤ࡃࠖࡼ࠺࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸࠿ࡡ࡞࠸ࠋ
୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࡣࠊࣃࢯࢥࣥࡣ⮬ືⓗ࡟㛤ࡃࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ୺ㄒ࡜࡞ࡿே㛫ࡀ௓ᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜
ࢆᬯ♧ࡍࡿ㸦1c㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡀዲࡲࢀࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
㸦2c㸧ࡢሙྜࡸࠊ㟁㌴
ෆࡢᨺ㏦࡛㌴ᤸࡀᡬࢆ᧯సࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸦3b-c㸧ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶே≀ࡢ௓ᅾࡔࡅࢆ
ᣦᶆ࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⬟᱁ືモࢆ౑࠺⾲⌧ࢆ௚ືⓗゎ㔘࡜㉳ືⓗゎ㔘࠿ࡽぢࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
␗࡞ࡿᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ㒊ศ࡜ྠࡌᶵ⬟ࢆ⾲ࡍ㒊ศࢆ᫂☜࡟♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ୧ゎ㔘ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟
ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺศᯒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶྠࡌᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡕࡘࡘࡶࠊ␗࡞ࡿ⏝ἲࢆ࿊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⠇ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ㸳㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊSFL ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛ Halliday㸦1967a, 1967b, 1994; Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004㸧ࡀᥦၐࡍࡿࠊ㐣⛬ᵓᡂࡢ௚ືⓗゎ㔘࡜㉳ືⓗゎ㔘࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡢศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡶࠊ
ⱥㄒ࡜ྠᵝ࡟௚ືモࡢ┠ⓗㄒ࡜⮬ືモࡢ୺ㄒࡀ୍⮴ࡍࡿ⮬௚஺᭰ࢆ㉳ࡇࡍࠊ⬟᱁ືモࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ⬟᱁ືモࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ⠇ࡣࠊ஧㏻ࡾࡢゎ㔘ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࡢ⏝౛ࡢศᯒ࡛ࡶࠊ㉳ືⓗゎ㔘࡛ࡣືモ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚グ㏙ࡉࢀࡿືసࡢ୍⮴ࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊ௚ືⓗゎ㔘࡛ࡣྠࡌព࿡࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿຓモ࡟౑࠸ศࡅࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ௒ᚋࠊ୧㠃ࡢゎ㔘࠿ࡽࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆศᯒ
ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ༢⣧࡟⮬௚஺᭰ࢆࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺⤫ㄒⓗ࡞஦ᐇࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ౑⏝ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆࡼࡾ῝ࡃศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ὀ“transitivity”ࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ヂㄒࠕ௚ືᛶࠖࡣࠊᮏㄽ࡛ᢅ࠺ᴫᛕࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵ࡟ㄒᘢࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ SFL◊✲࡛ᐃ╔ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ㐣⛬ᵓᡂࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ㸦ᒣཱྀ㸪2000㸹㱟ᇛ㸪2000㸧ࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊ”ergative interpretation”
࡟ࡣࠊࠕ⬟᱁ⓗゎ㔘࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠕ㉳ືⓗゎ㔘ࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ㸦Halliday, 1994/2001㸧ࠋ1

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩Halliday, M.A.K. 1967a. “Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English - Part 1.” Journal of Linguistics 3, 37-81. (Reprinted
in Halliday, 2005, pp. 5-54).
Halliday, M.A.K. 1967b. “Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English - Part 2.” Journal of Linguistics 3, 199-244.
(Reprinted in Halliday, 2005, pp. 55-109).
Halliday, M.A.K. 1968. “Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English - Part 3.” Journal of Linguistics 4, 179-215. (Reprinted
in Halliday, 2005, pp. 110-153).
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd. ed.). London: Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2001.ࠗᶵ⬟ᩥἲᴫㄝ㸸ࣁࣜࢹ࣮⌮ㄽ࡬ࡢㄏ࠸࠘ᒣཱྀ Ⓩ࣭⟍ ኖ㞝㸦ヂ㸧㸬ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬㸦ཎ∧ 1994 ᖺฟ∧㸧Halliday, M.A.K. 2005. The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday: Vol. 7. Studies in English Language (Jonathan J. Webster,Ed.). London: Continuum.
Halliday, M.A.K., and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.
ᙳᒣ ኴ㑻㸬1996㸬ࠗືモព࿡ㄽ㸸ゝㄒ࡜ㄆ▱ࡢ᥋Ⅼ࠘㸬ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬ࠗᑡ⣡ゝ࠘ࠊᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤࠊ
ࠕKOTONOHA㸸⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ᭩ࡁゝⴥᆒ⾮ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࠖ㸬㱟ᇛ ṇ᫂㸬ࠕࢸ࣮࣐࣭࣮࣐ࣞࡢゎ㔘࡜ࢫ࣮ࣉࣛࢸ࣮࣐㸸ࣉ࣮ࣛࢢゝㄒᏛὴ࠿ࡽ㑅ᢥయ⣔ᶵ⬟ゝㄒᏛ࡬ࠖࠊᑠἨ ಖ㸦⦅㸧ࠗゝㄒ◊✲࡟࠾ࡅࡿᶵ⬟୺⩏㸸ㄅୖウㄽ఍࠘ࠊᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬ᒣཱྀ Ⓩ㸬ࠕ㑅ᢥయ⣔ᶵ⬟⌮ㄽࡢᵓᅗ㸸ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࣭ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࣭ࢸࢡࢫࢺࠖࠊᑠἨ ಖ㸦⦅㸧ࠗゝㄒ◊✲࡟࠾ࡅࡿᶵ
⬟୺⩏㸸ㄅୖウㄽ఍࠘ࠊᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬

−340−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖䛛䜙ぢ䛯ⱥㄒ䛾㉳ືⓗ㻛௚ືⓗゎ㔘䛾୍ヨ᱌㻌㮖ᕌṇ㐨ឡ▱Ꮫ㝔኱Ꮫ
washitak@dpc.agu.ac.jp<Abstract>
This paper suggests how a clause is interpreted from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL).
Based on three clause types (effective, descriptive and nuclear) and two patterns of clause organization (ergative
and transitive), a clause is analyzed. Through this analysis, the fact that a clause may include semantic ambiguity is
confirmed, and the way clause interpretation is determined by the three dimensions of context of situation is
explored. This paper concludes that context of situation has a crucial role in clause interpretation, and may require
circumstantial elements as obligatory components in a clause.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㑅ᢥయ⣔ᶵ⬟ゝㄒᏛࠊ㉳ືⓗศᯒࠊ௚ືⓗศᯒࠊ⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉࠊ≧ἣࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ

㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
㑅ᢥయ⣔ᶵ⬟ゝㄒᏛ(Systemic Functional Linguistics)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⤒㦂ࡢᅉᯝ㛵ಀ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓศᯒἲ࡛࠶
ࡿ㉳ືⓗ(ergative)ศᯒࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽ࡜ᑐ㇟࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓ௚ືⓗ(transitive)ศᯒ࡜┦⿵ⓗ࡞㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࠋHalliday(1967, 1968)࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒ࡛⾜Ⅽࢆල⌧ࡍࡿ⠇࡟ 3 ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࢆྠᐃࡋࠊ⾜Ⅽࡀ⾜Ⅽ⪅௨እࡢ஦≀࡟ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿ effectiveࠊ⾜Ⅽࡀ⾜Ⅽ⪅௨እ࡟ཬࡤ࡞࠸ descriptiveࠊ୧⪅ࡢ≉ᚩࢆ⤫ྜࡋࡓࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ⮬௚஺᭰ྍ⬟࡞ືモࢆᣢࡘ nuclear ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡀ↓ᶆ࡜࡞ࡿ࠿ࡣࠊືモࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᐇ㝿ࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊⱥㄒࡢ⠇ࡢ㉳ືⓗゎ㔘/௚ືⓗゎ㔘࡟࠶ࡿព࿡ⓗ㸦ᩥἲⓗ㸧࡞᭕᫕ࡉ࡜ࠊゎ㔘ࢆỴᐃࡋ࠺ࡿせ⣲࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㆟ㄽࡍࡿࠋ㸰㸬⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ཧ୚せ⣲ࡢᙺ๭ ⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ᑐᛂࡋࡓ㐣⛬࡜ཧ୚せ⣲ࡢᙺ๭࡟ࡣ㉳ືⓗศᯒ࡜௚ືⓗศᯒࡢ 2 ࡘࡢぢ᪉ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ㉳ືⓗศᯒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊၥ㢟ࡣ⾜Ⅽࡢཎᅉࡀ⾜Ⅽࡑࡢࡶࡢࡢ୰࡟࠶ࡿ࠿ྰ࠿ࡀࠊ௚ືⓗศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽࡀ
⾜Ⅽ⪅௨እࡢせ⣲㸦ᑐ㇟㸧࡟ཬࡪ࠿ྰ࠿ࡀၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿ(Halliday 1968: 185)ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢศᯒࢆᑟධࡍࡿᚲ
せᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊHalliday (1967, 1968)ࡣḟࡢ౛ᩥࢆ⏝࠸࡚㆟ㄽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 (1) John opened the door.
 (2) The door opened.
 (3) She washed the clothes.
 (4) He marched the prisoners.
(1) ࢆ㉳ືⓗศᯒࡋࡓሙྜࠊJohn ࡣ the door ࡟ࡼࡿ opened ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡋࡓእⓗせᅉ࡜࡞ࡿ
せ⣲(Causer)࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡉࢀࠊthe door ࡣࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ opened ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࡀᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡿせ⣲(Affected)࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉࡛ࠊ௚ືⓗศᯒࢆࡋࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊthe door ࡣ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠺ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣኚ໬ࢆࡶࡓ

−341−

コンテクストから見た英語の起動的/他動的解釈の一試案

ࡽࡍ⾜Ⅽ⪅(Actor)࠿ࡘ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡟⾜Ⅽࢆࡉࡏࡿせ⣲(Initiator)࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡉࢀࠊthe door ࡣ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀ
ཬࡪᑐ㇟(Goal)࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ(1)࡛ࡣ⮬௚஺᭰ྍ⬟࡞ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢືモࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓ
ࡵࠊ⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉࡣ nuclear ࡜ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋྠᵝࡢศᯒࢆ(1)ࠥ(4)ࡢ⠇࡟᪋ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡀᅗ 1 ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᅗ 1㸸⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ཧ୚せ⣲ࡢᙺ๭ (adapted from Halliday, 1968)(1) John

openedthe door㉳ືⓗCauserAffected௚ືⓗActor/ Initiator

Goal(2) The door㉳ືⓗAffected௚ືⓗGoal(3) Sheopened㹙⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉ㸸nuclear㹛

washedthe clothes㉳ືⓗCauserAffected௚ືⓗActor/ Initiator

Goal(4) He㹙⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉ㸸nuclear㹛

marchedthe prisoners㉳ືⓗCauserAffected

௚ືⓗInitiator

Actor

㹙⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉ㸸effective㹛㹙⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉ㸸descriptive㹛 (2)࡛ࡣࠊthe door ࡣ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ୺ㄒࡢ఩⨨࡟࠶ࡿࡀࠊཧ୚せ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᙺ๭ࡣ⠇(1)ࡢ the door ࡜ྠࡌ࡜ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉࡣ nuclear ࡜ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࠋ(3)࡜(4)ࡣ୍ぢྠࡌ⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡀࠊ(3)࡟
࠾࠸࡚ she ࡀ washed ࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡍእⓗせᅉ(Causer)࠿ࡘ⾜Ⅽࡢ୺య(Actor)࡜ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡉࢀࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊ
(4)
࡛ࡣ he ࡣ marched ࡢእⓗせᅉ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⾜Ⅽࡢ୺య࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ศᯒࡉࢀࡿ㸦marched ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࢆᐇ⾜ࡍࡿࡢࡣ the prisoner ࡛࠶ࡿ㸧ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊ(3)ࡣ⾜Ⅽ⪅ she ࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀ⾜Ⅽ⪅௨እࡢ the clothes ࡟ཬࡪ effectiveࠊ(4)ࡣ⾜Ⅽ⪅ the prisoner ࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀ⾜Ⅽ⪅௨እ࡟ཬࡤ࡞࠸ descriptive ࡜⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉࢆศᯒࡍࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ㉳ືⓗศᯒࢆࡋࡓሙྜࠊ(3)࡜(4)ࡣྠࡌ⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ௚ືⓗゎ㔘ࢆࡋࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ␗࡞
ࡗࡓ⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶࠊ㉳ືⓗ/௚ືⓗࡢ 2 ࡘࡢศᯒἲࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
㸱㸬ࢸࢡࢫࢺゎ㔘ࡢ᭕᫕ࡉ࡜ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺศᯒ ๓⠇ࡢ(1)ࠥ(4)ࡣࠊ㉳ືⓗ/௚ືⓗࡢ࡝ࡕࡽࡢศᯒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶཧ୚せ⣲ࡢᙺ๭࡜⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ᭕᫕ࡉࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊᐇ㝿ࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟ࡣࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢゎ㔘ࡀྍ⬟࡞ࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡑ
ࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣᐇ㝿ࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢゎ㔘࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᭕᫕ࡉ࡜᭕᫕ࡉࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿせ⣲࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㆟ㄽࡍࡿࠋ ḟ࡟♧ࡍ(5)ࡣࠊ࢝ࢼࢲࡢࢫࢱ࣮ࣥࣞࣃ࣮ࢡ࡟タ⨨ࡉࢀࡓ኱◙ࡢ┳ᯈ࡟᭩࠿ࢀࡓὀព᭩ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞
࠾ࠊὀព᭩ࡁࡣࡇࡢ⠇ 1 ࡘࡢࡳ࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 (5) This gun fires with a very loud report 9:00 PM daily.

−342−

第15回大会発表論文集第８号

ࡇࡢ⠇ࢆࠊ⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ཧ୚せ⣲ࡢᙺ๭࠿ࡽศᯒࡋࡓࡶࡢࡀᅗ 2 ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᅗ 2㸸(5)ࡢ⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ཧ୚せ⣲ࡢᙺ๭ࡢゎ㔘ゎ㔘 1㸦nuclear ࢱ࢖ࣉ㸧This gun㉳ືⓗAffected

௚ືⓗ

Goal

fires

with a very loud report 9:00 PM dailyゎ㔘 2㸦effective/ receptive ࢱ࢖ࣉ㸧This gun㉳ືⓗAffected

௚ືⓗ

Goal

fires

with a very loud report 9:00 PM daily

fires(e.g. the bullet)ゎ㔘 3㸦effective/operative ࢱ࢖ࣉ㸧This gun㉳ືⓗCauserAffected௚ືⓗActor/ Initiator

Goalwith a very loud report 9:00 PM dailyゎ㔘 4㸦descriptive ࢱ࢖ࣉ㸧This gun㉳ືⓗAffected௚ືⓗActor/ Initiator

fireswith a very loud report 9:00 PM daily ᅗ 2 ࡢ࡜࠾ࡾࠊ⠇ࡢࡳࢆぢࡓሙྜࠊ(5)࡟ࡣ 4 ࡘࡢゎ㔘ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋゎ㔘 1 ࡣࠊthe door opened ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊnuclear ࡢ⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢゎ㔘ࢆࡋࡓሙྜࠊ⠇ࡢヂࡣࠕࡇࡢ኱◙ࡣ࡜࡚ࡶ኱ࡁ࡞㡢ࢆ❧࡚࡚ⅆࢆᄇࡁࡲࡍࠖ࡜ྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢゎ㔘࡛ࡣࠊேࡀ᮶࡚኱◙࡟╔ⅆࡍࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣၥ㢟࡜ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ ゎ㔘 2 ࡣࠊeffective ࡢ⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢཷື(receptive)࡜ࡋ࡚⠇ࢆゎ㔘ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦ࡓࡔࡋࠊࡇࡢ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿཷືែࢆྲྀࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸧ࠋࡇࡢゎ㔘ࢆࡋࡓሙྜࠊ⠇ࡢヂࡣࠕࡇࡢ኱◙ࡣ࡜࡚ࡶ኱ࡁ࡞㡢ࢆ❧࡚࡚Ⓨᑕࡉࢀࡲࡍࠖ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊⓎᑕࡣ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸እⓗせᅉ㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊ◙ᧁᡭ㸧࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ゎ㔘3ࡣ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ⬟ື(operative)࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ᑐ㇟ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡞࠸⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡍࡿሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡓࡔࡋࠊࡇࡢゎ㔘ࡣᑠㄝࡢ୍ሙ㠃࡞࡝ࡢࡈࡃ⊃࠸ゝㄒ౑⏝ᇦ࡛ࡢࡳྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢゎ㔘ࢆࡋࡓሙྜ
ࡢヂࡣࠕࡇࡢ኱◙ࡣ࡜࡚ࡶ኱ࡁ࡞㡢ࢆ❧࡚࡚㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊᙎ୸ࢆ㸧Ⓨᑕࡋࡲࡍࠖ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ ゎ㔘 4 ࡣࠊdescriptive ࡢ⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊfired ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࡀ this gun ௨እ࡟Ἴཬࡋ࡞࠸࡜ࡍࡿゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ኱◙ࡀᭀⓎࡋࡓሙྜࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠊࠕࡇࡢ኱◙ࡣ࡜࡚ࡶ኱ࡁ࡞㡢ࢆ❧࡚࡚㸦຾ᡭ࡟㸧
Ⓨᑕࡋࡲࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ヂࢆྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ௨ୖࠊ(5)ࡢゎ㔘ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊ⠇⮬యࢆぢࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠊ᭕᫕ࡉࢆ㑊ࡅ࡚ࠊゎ㔘ࢆ 1 ࡘ࡟⤠ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊゎ㔘ࢆ⤠ࡿ᪉ἲࢆࠕ≧ἣࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ(context of situation)ࠖ࡟ồࡵࡿࠋ 㑅ᢥయ⣔ᶵ⬟ゝㄒᏛ࡛ࡣࠊ≧ἣࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟ 3 ࡘࡢ㡿ᇦࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ࡝ࢇ࡞ᑐேⓗ┦஫స⏝ࡀ

−343−

コンテクストから見た英語の起動的/他動的解釈の一試案

⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡟㛵ࢃࡿάື㡿ᇦ(field)ࠊࡑࡢ㝿ࡢᑐேⓗᙺ๭ࡣఱ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࠊ࡟㛵ࢃࡿᙺ๭㛵ಀ(tenor)ࠊࡑࡢᑐேⓗ┦஫స⏝ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞፹యࢆ⏝࠸࡚⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡟㛵ࢃࡿఏ㐩ᵝᘧ(mode)ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࣔࢹࣝ࡟ἢࡗ࡚ࡇࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ≧ἣࢆศᯒࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ άື㡿ᇦ㸸බᅬ࡟タ⨨ࡉࢀࡓ኱◙ࡢⓎᑕ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㆙࿌ࢆࡍࡿ ᙺ๭㛵ಀ㸸බᅬࡢ⟶⌮⪅࡜኱◙࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᝟ሗࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸࡜᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿ᮶ゼ⪅ ఏ㐩ᵝᘧ㸸බᅬෆࡢ኱◙࡟௜㝶ࡍࡿ┳ᯈ࡟᭩࠿ࢀࡓᩥᏐ άື㡿ᇦ࡜ᙺ๭㛵ಀࡢศᯒ࠿ࡽࠊ኱◙ࡀබᅬࡢ⟶⌮ୗ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡾࠊゎ㔘 3 ࡜ 4 ࡀ᤼㝖ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊఏ㐩ᵝᘧࡢศᯒ࠿ࡽࠊゎ㔘 2 ࡶ᤼㝖ࡉࢀࡿࠋ௬࡟ேࡀ᮶࡚ᙎ୸ࢆⓎᑕࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊⓎᑕࡍࡿேࡀ㆙࿌ࡍࡿࡣࡎࡔ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺศᯒ࡟ࡼࡾࠊゎ㔘 1 ࡀࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡾ࠺ࡿゎ㔘࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡶ࠺ࡦ࡜ࡘࠊ
᭕᫕ࡉࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢせ⣲ࡀࠊ≧ἣせ⣲࡛࠶ࡿ 9:00 PM daily ࡛࠶ࡿࠋୖグࡢ≧ἣࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺศ
ᯒ࠿ࡽࡶࢃ࠿ࡿ࡜࠾ࡾࠊࡇࡢ┳ᯈ࡛᭱ࡶ኱஦࡞᝟ሗࡣࠕ኱◙ࡀ࡝࠺࡞ࡿ࠿࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠕẖᬌ 9 ᫬࡟ࠖ኱◙ࡀ㬆ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺ(5)࡛ࡣࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢせㄳ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ௵ពࡢせ⣲࡜ࡉࢀࡿ≧ἣせ⣲ࡢ 9:00 PM daily ࡣࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟ᚲ㡲ࡢせ⣲࡜࡞ࡿࠋࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢヂ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠕ኱◙ࡣẖ᪥ 9 ᫬࡟኱ࡁ࡞㡢ࢆ❧࡚࡚㬆ࡾࡲࡍࠖࡀࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡾ࠺ࡿゎ㔘࡛ࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ኱◙ࡣࢱ࢖࣐࣮࡛⇿㡢ࡀ㬆ࡿ௙⤌ࡳ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࡑࢀ࡟క࠺ཧ୚せ⣲ࡢᙺ๭ࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡣࠊ≧ἣࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢᩚ⌮࡜⌮ゎࡀ୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ௵ពࡢせ⣲࡛࠶ࡿ≧ἣせ⣲(9:00 PM daily)ࡀ⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢゎ㔘࡟࠾࠸࡚Ỵᐃⓗ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ㸲㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢゎ㔘࡟࠾ࡅࡿព࿡ⓗ࡞㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᩥἲⓗ࡞㸧᭕᫕ࡉ࡜᭕᫕ࡉࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵࡢ
᪉⟇ࢆ㆟ㄽࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛ࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡣ≧ἣࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢศᯒࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ௵ពࡢせ⣲࡜ࡉࢀࡿ≧ἣせ⣲ࡀ⠇ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢゎ㔘࡟Ỵᐃⓗ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊ≧ἣࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ࠶ࡾࡼ࠺࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ≧ἣせ⣲ࡀᚲ㡲ࡢせ⣲࡜࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ ᮏㅮ࡛ࡣゝㄒࡢ࣓ࢱᶵ⬟ࡢ࠺ࡕほᛕᵓᡂⓗ࣓ࢱᶵ⬟(ideational metafunction)࡟ࡢࡳ↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚࡚⠇ࢆศᯒࡋࡓࡀࠊ⠇ࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡣ௚ࡢ࣓ࢱᶵ⬟࠿ࡽࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡶᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Halliday, M.A.K. 1967. “Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English, Part 1”. Journal of Linguistics 3.1, 37-81.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1968. “Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English, Part 3”. Journal of Linguistics 4, 179-215.
Halliday, M.A.K. & C.M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.) London:
Arnold.
㱟ᇛṇ᫂㸦⦅㸧2006.ࠗࡇ࡜ࡤࡣ⏕ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ㸸㑅ᢥయ⣔ᶵ⬟ゝㄒᏛᗎㄝ࠘
ࠊᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧−344−

シンポジウムSymposium

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号

Interface of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics
Shin’ichiro Ishikawa
Kobe University<Abstract>
One of the striking differences between corpus linguistics and pragmatics is thatthe former usually depends on quantitative analysis, while the latter on qualitative
analysis. However, two approaches, both of which pay greater attention to language in
use rather than to language in theory, are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Corpus
linguistics undoubtedly contributes to sophistication of description of pragmatic
dimensions of language in use. In this sense, corpus-based pragmatics or CBP seems apromising field of research.
In the current talk, using a balanced corpus of modern Japanese, the author
reconsidered sentence-final politeness markers of Japanese, which have been
traditionally analyzed in the field of pragmatics, as a case study exploring theinterface of corpus linguistics and pragmatics.
࠙Keywordsࠚ
Corpus

Linguistics,

Pragmatics,

Japanese

Sentence-final

PolitenessMarkers,

Quantitative Analysis,

Selected Bibliography
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bunt, J. (2003). Oxford Japanese grammar & verbs . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ishikawa, S. (2008). Eigo kopasu to gengo kyoiku . Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten. [English
corpus and language education]
Ishikawa, S. (2012). Beshikku kopasu gengogaku . Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. [Basics ofcorpus linguistics]
Lee, J., Ishikawa, S., & Sunagawa, Y. (2012). Nihongo kyoiku no tame no kopasu chosanyumon . Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. [Introduction to corpus analysis for teaching
Japanese]
Masuoka, T. (1991). Modaritei no bumpo . Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. [Grammar ofmodality]
Takiura, M. (2008). Poraitonesu  nyumon . Tokyo: Kenkyusha. [Introduction topoliteness]

1
−345−

付

録

第15回大会発表論文集

第８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（関西外国語大学国際言語学部・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15回大会発表論文集

第８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15回大会発表論文集

第８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15回大会発表論文集

第８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】○

psj.proceedings-at-gmail.com（『大会論文集』編集委員長 鈴木光代）○（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。）（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。）【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、学会ホームページの『語用論研究』（投稿方法）の項で確認してください。

−354−

第15回大会発表論文集

第８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
ʻ【Keywords】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15回大会発表論文集

第８号<第16回大会で発表された方へのお知らせ>
第16回『大会発表論文集』（Proceedings）（第９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９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 15th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan

編集後記『日本語用論学会

第15回大会発表論文集』第８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29件（日本語発表24件、英語発表５件）、ワークショッ
プ発表14件、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１件、合計51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８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16回大会後は『日本語用論学会

第16回大会

発表論文集』第９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：鈴木光代

日本語用論学会

第15回大会発表論文集

第８号（2012）（Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan）
発行日

2013年11月3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

TEL：075-343-0006

FAX：075-341-4476

森山卓郎）

PSJ

ⓒ日本語用論学会