ISSN 1881−445X

日本語用 論 学 会■

第 16 回

大会発表論文集
第９号

Proceedings of the 16th
Conference of the Pragmatics Societyof Japan

2013年12月7・8日（土・日）■

於 慶應義塾大学

PSJ
The Pragmatics Society of Japan

日本語用論学会

2013日本語用論学会（The Pragmatics Society of Japan）
略称：PSJ

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

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

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

元（2014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）■■「のだ文」を用いた日本語母語話者の伝達方略―話し言葉コーパスの分析に基づいて― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 市村

葉子・堀江

薫

1

起業コンサルテーション会話における「知識の非対称」と「意向」：
コンサルタントの「質問」を中心に ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 臼田 泰如・高梨克也■

論証的ポリフォニー理論による緩叙法・婉曲語法の分析 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 大久保朝憲

9
17

■

ポライトネス理論における話し手の自己フェイスに関する一考察‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 大塚智子

25

英語法副詞のモダリティと主観性―話し手の捉え方と言語行為の観点から― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 岡本

芳和

33

■

日本語とマレーシア語の対照会話分析―あいづちの観点から― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 勝田

順子

41

■

インターネットにおける放射能リスク情報の分析‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 川田拓也・鳥澤健太郎・大竹清敬■

文副詞 contrary to 句の表意 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 黒川尚彦■

疑問文に生起する英語認識的法助動詞の容認可能性について ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 眞田

敬介

49
57
65

■

授受動詞「もらう」の補助動詞的用法の考察―話者の受益結果とプロセス― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 関根和枝■

日本語指示詞の談話直示用法 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 曾

䆽

73
81

■

不一致に対処する修復についての一考察―不同意の顕在化と修復のプロセス― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 張玲玲

89

現代の茶席の会話における「気遣い」談話の質的分析―ディスコース・ポライトネス理論の観点から― ‥‥‥‥‥‥ エカテリーナ・ツォイ

97

終助詞「かな」の語用論的特徴―「疑念」「ぼかし」「非難」の違い― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 中西久実子

105

■

■

■

■

生子・谷

推理小説の文体分析―関連性理論の観点から― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 中村秩祥子

113
121
129

■

談話標識 okay の機能的意味 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 西川眞由美■

会話文における主語省略を制限する要因についての考察 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 付

改華■

くびき語法の再考察―メタファー理論の観点から ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 望月

雄大■

英語における「家族」カテゴリー形成：true, realをてがかりに ‥‥‥‥‥ 山田仁子■“文化的”反義語の試案：第4のカテゴリーとして ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 山田

政通■

指示・命令遂行時の言語形式選択におけるR値と授受形式の役割について ‥ 横倉

真弥

137
145
153
161

■

「菊池さんはまんがだ」をどう解釈するか：
解釈のメカニズムとコンテクストの要因 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 吉田愛

169

談話標識「というか」の統語語用論的分析 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 劉

暁苹

177

■

PSJ

研究発表（英語発表）
Pragmatic development of Japanese learners:
A ten-monthʼs longitudinal study of request ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Fusako BEUCKMANN

185

Identity shift, and learning to use terminology at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Cade BUSHNELL

193■

The building blocks of tone-of-voice ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Mark CAMPANA

201■

A Functional Analysis of Japanese Passives‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥Satoshi IMAMURA・Einar Andreas HELGASON・Masatoshi KOIZUMI

209

A cognitive-pragmatic approach to metaphor:an inquiry into systematic mappings and processing effort ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Junling MAO

217

The Dolichologic Discourse Marker Okay:
A dumbrating an Extended Turn in Interaction ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ George OʼNEAL

225■

The Conventionality of Pragmatic Inference in Noteworthy Comparison ‥‥Osamu SAWADA

233■

The Impact of Color codability on reference production with changing role of Color:
Evidences from a Narrative Discourse in Malayalam ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Rinu SURESH

241

On the development of sentence final kke in Japanese‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Mizuho TAMAJI・Yumiko KAWANISHI・Foong Ha YAP

249

Doing leadership: An analysis of gendered discourse in business meetings in Taiwan‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥Jeanne H. TUAN・Huimei YAO

257

Two competitive factors influencing the production of descriptive texts ‥‥‥ Yoko YAMADA

273

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

PSJ

ポスターセッション（日本語発表）
宇281

視点の切り替えと認識の相対性―“転喩”としての移動・変化・時間表現の考察― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 大神雄一郎

285■

因果関係を表す接続詞の日仏語比較 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 木山

桂菜

289

■

前提のキャンセルから生じる修辞的効果 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 小松原哲太

293■

対話におけるメタファーの連鎖パターン―対話相手の反応に現れるメタファーに注目して― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 杉本

巧

297

発話行為としての「助言」―その定義を試みる― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 髙橋千代枝

301「てやる」と「e cwuta（テヤル）」の意味機能と文法化 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 韓

京娥

305

批判的談話分析からみたメディア・リテラシー―新聞コラムに対する論述の分析をもとに― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 柳田

亮吾

309

多様なメトニミーとその機能 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 山本

幸一

313

■

■

■

■

■

■

「視座」「注視点」と「自分」の照応関係 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 汪

直毅・濱上

PSJ

ワークショップ
More thoughts on ʻclauseʼ from a historical-pragmatic perspective
Convener: Reijirou SHIBASAKI■■■

More thoughts on stand-alone because-clauses from a historical–pragmatic perspective‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Yuko HIGASHIZUMI

317

From pragmatic marker to main clause?
With a focus on the problem is (that) in the history of American English ‥ Reijirou SHIBASAKI

325“Exist exist”: Verbs as reactive tokens in Japanese conversation ‥‥‥‥‥‥ Ryoko SUZUKI

329

言語人類学とエスノグラフィー

司会：武黒麻紀子■

協働学習における学びのダイナミクス ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 津田ひろみ

337■『合衆国』な石垣島での相互行為と社会関係 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 武黒麻紀子

341

フィジーにおける神話のスタイルシフトと文化変容 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 浅井345■

疑問文の語用論

優一

司会：加藤

重広

■

疑問文の語用論（ワークショップ趣旨説明）‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 加藤

重広

349

■

疑いの疑問文の弱い問いかけ性について―語用論的観点から ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 馬

穎瑞

353

■

疑問詞疑問を引用する表現 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 山泉

実

357

■

広告における疑問文に関する語用論的考察 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 呂晶361

メタ表示と語用論

司会：東森

勲

■

メタ表示と語用論（ワークショップ趣旨説明） ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 東森

勲

365

■

発話行為条件文とメタ表示 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 中島

信夫

367

■

否定とメタ表示をめぐって ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 五十嵐海理

371■

英語ジョークとメタ表示をめぐって ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 東森

375

PSJ

勲

シンポジウム
Implicature■

Chair: Lawrence SCHOURUP
Designated Discussant: Mira ARIEL

Relevance and Another Type of Implicature ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ Akiko YOSHIMURA

379

付録
■

入会案内 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 387■

日本語用論学会規約 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 389■『大会発表論文集』（Proceedings）執筆規定 ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 392■＜第17回大会で発表された方へのお知らせ＞ ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 397

PSJ

Table of Contents
Lecture Sessions: Presentation in Japanese■■

Yoko ICHIMURA, Kaoru HORIE: Communication Strategies of Native Japanese Speakers Using “no dasentences” – Based on Analysis of a Spoken Discourse Corpus – ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥

1

Yasuyuki USUDA, Katsuya TAKANASHI: “Gap of Knowledge” and “Opinion” in the Conversation ofBusiness Consultation: Focused on Question of Consultants ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥

9■

Tomonori OKUBO: Litotes and euphemism from the standpoint of the Argumentative polyphony theory ‥‥ 17■

Seiko OTSUKA, Tomoko TANI: Rethinking the Concept of Face in Politeness Theory– Focusing on Speakerʼs Face – ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 25■

Yoshikazu OKAMOTO: Modality of English Modal Adverbs and Subjectivity– In Terms of Speakerʼs Construal and Speech Act ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 33■

Junko KATSUDA: Comparative Discourse Analysis between Japanese and Malaysian Language– in respect of continuers – ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 41■

Takuya KAWADA, Kentaro TORISAWA, Kiyonori OHTAKE: The analysis of radioactive risk informationon the Web ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 49■

Naohiko KUROKAWA: The explicit messages communicated by the sentence adverbial contrary to ‥‥‥‥ 57■

Keisuke SANADA: Notes on the Acceptability of English Epistemic Modals in Interrogatives ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 65■

Kazue SEKINE: A study of the speakerʼs usage of ʻ-temorauʼ expression– The speakerʼs cognitive processes to her own benefit. – ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 73■

Jing ZENG: Discourse deixis use of the Japanese demonstratives ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 81■

Lingling ZHANG: Analysis of repairing of disagreement– disagreement expression and the process of its repair – ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 89■

Ekaterina TSOY: Qualitative analysis of the act of kidzukai in modern Japanese tea ceremony:from the viewpoint of Discourse Politeness Theory ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 97■

Kumiko NAKANISHI: Pragmatic Characterictics of Japanese Particle “KANA”:
Difference among doubt, euphemism and blame ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 105■

Chisako NAKAMURA: A stylistic analysis on detective stories:
from a viewpoint of Relevance Theory ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 113■

Mayumi NISHIKAWA: Functional Meaning of Discourse Marker okay ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 121■

Kaika HU: Thoughts on the factors that restrict subject omission in Japanese conversations ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 129■

Yuta MOCHIZUKI: Reconsideration of zeugma-from the viewpoint of metaphorical theory ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 137■

Hitoko YAMADA: Categorization of FAMILY and family members with true and real in English ‥‥‥‥‥ 145■

Masamichi YAMADA: A Proposal for“Cultural”Antonyms as the Fourth Category ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 153■

Manami YOKOKURA: The role of R (ranking of imposition) and the Japanese auxiliary verbs of giving &receiving when linguistic forms are chosen for commands and directives ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 161■

Megumi YOSHIDA: How to interpret the sentence ʻKikuti-san wa manga daʼ:mechanism of interpretation and contextual factors ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 169■

Xiaoping LIU: A syntactic pragmatics analysis of discourse marker toiuka ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 177

PSJ

Lecture Sessions: Presentation in English■

Fusako BEUCKMANN: Pragmatic development of Japanese learners:
A ten-monthʼs longitudinal study of request ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 185■

Cade BUSHNELL: Identity shift, and learning to use terminology at conversation
analytic data sessions in Japan ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 193■

Mark CAMPANA: The building blocks of tone-of-voice ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 201■

Satoshi IMAMURA, Einar Andreas HELGASON, Masatoshi KOIZUMI: A Functional Analysis ofJapanese Passives ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 209■

Junling MAO: A cognitive-pragmatic approach to metaphor:an inquiry into systematic mappings and processing effort ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 217■

George O’NEAL: The Dolichologic Discourse Marker Okay:
A dumbrating an Extended Turn in Interaction ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 225■

Osamu SAWADA: The Conventionality of Pragmatic Inference in Noteworthy Comparison ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 233■

Rinu SURESH: The Impact of Color codability on reference production with changing role of Color:
Evidences from a Narrative Discourse in Malayalam ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 241■

Mizuho TAMAJI, Yumiko KAWANISHI, Foong Ha YAP: On the development of sentence
final kke in Japanese ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 249■

Jeanne H. TUAN, Huimei YAO: Doing leadership: An analysis of gendered discourse
in business meetings in Taiwan ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 257■

Yoko YAMADA: Two competitive factors influencing the production of descriptive texts‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 273

PSJ

Poster Sessions: Presentation in Japanese■

Yu WANG: Position, Viewpoint and the antecedent of zibun ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 281■

Yuichiro OGAMI: “Experiential viewpoint”and “Analytical viewpoint”on Metalepsis ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 285■

Naoki KIYAMA, Keina HAMAGAMI: ComparisonAnalysis among the Causal Conjunctions;kara and kedo in Japanese and parce que and puisque in French ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 289■

Tetsuta KOMATSUBARA: The rhetorical effects caused by invalid use of presupposition marker ‥‥‥‥ 293■

Takumi SUGIMOTO: Chains between metaphors in conversation:
A focus on metaphors uttered by the other participant ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 297■

Chiyoe TAKAHASHI: Advise as a speech act – concerning about the definition – ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 301■

Kyunga HAN: Grammaticalization and the functional meaning of “-te yaru”, “-e cwuta” ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 305■

Ryogo YANAGIDA: Media Literacy and Critical Discourse Analysis:
An Analysis of University Studentsʼ Reports on a Newspaper Editorial ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 309■

Koichi YAMAMOTO: A Variety of Metonymical Expressions and Their Functions ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 313

PSJ

Workshop Sessions■

More thoughts on ‘clause’ from a historical-pragmatic perspective
Convener: Reijirou SHIBASAKI
Yuko HIGASHIZUMI: More thoughts on stand-alone because-clauses
from a historical–pragmatic perspective ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 317
Reijirou SHIBASAKI: From pragmatic marker to main clause?
With a focus on the problem is (that) in the history of American English ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 325
Ryoko SUZUKI: “Exist exist”: Predicates as reactive tokens in Japanese conversation‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 329■

Linguistic Anthropology and Ethnography

Chair: Makiko TAKEKURO

Hiromi TSUDA: An Investigation of Group Dynamics in Collaborative Learning‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 337
Makiko TAKEKURO: Interaction and social relations in Ishigaki ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 341
Yuichi ASAI: “Stylistic Shift in Fijian mythical Texts and Cultural Change” ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 345■

Pragmatics of interrogative sentences

Chair: Shigehiro KATO

Shigehiro KATO: Pragmatics of interrogative sentences: introduction ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 349
Yingrui MA: A study on doubt from the viewpoint of pragmatics ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 353
Minoru YAMAIZUMI: A Japanese conditional construction where a wh-question is quoted in the protasis ‥ 357
Jing LU: A Pragmatic Study of Interrogative Sentences in Advertisement Copies ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 361■

Metarepresentations and Pragmatics

Chair: Isao HIGASHIMORI

Isao HIGASHIMORI: Metarepresentations and Pragmatics: Abstract ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 365
Nobuo NAKASHIMA: Speech-Act Conditionals and Metarepresentations ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 367
Kairi IGARASHI: Negation and Metarepresentations‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 371
Isao HIGASHIMORI: English Jokes and Metarepresentations ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 375

PSJ

Symposium■

Implicature

Chair: Lawrence SCHOURUP
Designated Discussant: Mira ARIEL

Akiko YOSHIMURA: Relevance and Another Type of Implicature ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 379

PSJ

研究発表
Lecture Sessions

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢఏ㐩᪉␎㸫ヰࡋゝⴥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢศᯒ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚㸫
ᕷᮧⴥᏊ(ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔)࣭ᇼỤ⸅(ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ)㸺Abstract㸼 This study discusses the communication strategies of native Japanese speakers using ‘noda’ sentences as representative examples. The results show that regardless of theirconversation partners, when providing information, native Japanese speakers tend to display
their attitude with respect to propositional content by using co-occurring sentence-final
particles or other grammatical constructions while avoiding the use of ‘n’da/n’desu (‫ ’)׎‬that
expresses decisiveness. In addition, the study reveals that a compartmentalization exists inwhich ‘no (‫’)׎‬, regarded as the alternative to ‘no da’, is used in information-providing andinquiry settings, whereas ‘n’da (‫ ’)׎‬is used in information-receiving settings.
 ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ ࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࠕࡢ(‫ ࠖ)׎(ࡔࢇࠕࠖ)׎‬᩿ᐃᅇ㑊㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ࠕࡢࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢヰࡋゝⴥ㸪᭩ࡁࡇ࡜ࡤ୧㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚Ḟ࠿ࡏ࡞࠸Ꮡᅾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
Maynard(1993)㸪࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ(2005:356)ࡣ㸪ࠕࠕࡢࡔࠖࡣᑐヰ࡛ 25.83%㸪⮬↛఍ヰ࡛ 25.48%౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪౑⏝㢖ᗘࡢ㧗࠸ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜グ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ᐇ㝿࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕࡢࡔࠖ
ᩥࡀ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿㸪࡜࠸࠺ࠕࡢࡔࠖࡢ౑⏝ᐇែࢆᐃ㔞ⓗ࡟ㄪᰝࡋࡓ◊✲ࡣ⟶ぢࡢ㝈ࡾ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠕࢇ࡛ࡍ(ø)ࠖࠕࢇࡔ(ø)ࠖࠕࡢ(ø)ࠖࢆ୰ᚰ࡟㸪⮬↛఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕࡢ
ࡔᩥࠖࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧ࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆศᯒ㸪⪃ᐹࡋ㸪᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢఏ㐩᪉␎ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
㸰㸬ඛ⾜◊✲࡜◊✲ㄢ㢟ඛ⾜◊✲ࠕࡢࡔࠖࡢᇶᮏⓗᛶ㉁
 ࠕࡢࡔࠖࡢᇶᮏⓗᛶ㉁࡜ᙧᘧ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍(2003)ࡣ㸪௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟グ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕࠕࡢࡔࠖࡣྡモ໬ࡢാࡁࢆᣢࡘࠕࡢࠖ࡟ࠕࡔࠖࡀ᥋⥆ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡔࡀ㸪1 ࡘࡢຓືモ࡜⪃࠼࡚ࡼ࠸ࠋ㸦୰␎㸧(ㄝ᫂ࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡢ)ࠕࡢࡔࠖࡣᖹླྀᩥࡢᩥᮎ࡟ࡣࠕࡢࡔࠖࠕࢇࡔࠖࠕࡢ࡛ࡍࠖ
ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍࠖࠕࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠖࠕࡢࠖࡢᙧ࡛⌧ࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟ᩥయᕪ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ᶵ⬟ࡣ࡯ࡰྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࠋヰࡋࡇ࡜ࡤ࡛ࡣࠕࢇࡔࠖ
ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍࠖࠕࡢࠖࡢᙧࢆ࡜ࡿࠖ
(pp.195-196 (  )ෆ➹⪅)ࠕࡢࡔࠖࡢఏ㐩ⓗᶵ⬟ࠕࡢࡔࠖࡢព࿡ࡸᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ◊✲ࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟ከ࠸ࡀ㸪ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽࠕࡢࡔࠖ

−1−

「のだ文」を用いた日本語母語話者の伝達方略―話し言葉コーパスの分析に基づいて―ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆศᯒࡋ㸪ᙜヱᙧᘧࡢࠕఏ㐩ⓗᶵ⬟ࠖࢆグ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྡᔱ(2007)ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟᥇ࡾୖࡆࡿࠋࠕఏ㐩ⓗᶵ⬟ࠖ࡜ࡣ㸪ྡᔱ(2007)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜㸪ࠕゝㄒᙧᘧࡑࡢࡶࡢࡢᶵ⬟࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ࡑࡢࠕ౑⏝ࠖࡀఱࡽ࠿ࡢព࿡ࢆὴ⏕ⓗ࡟ఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠖ(p.118)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ྡᔱ(2007)࡛ࡣ㸪ࣀࢲࡢୗ఩ศ㢮࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ࠕㄝ᫂ࡢࣀࢲࠖ࡜ࠕⓎぢࡢࣀࢲࠖ࡟ศࡅ࡚ศᯒ㸪グ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(1)ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
ࠕㄝ᫂ࡢࣀࢲࠖࡢఏ㐩ⓗᶵ⬟ࡣ㸪ࠕࠕゎ㔘࡜ࡋ࡚ཷࡅධࢀࡉࡏࡼ࠺ࠖ
࡜࠸࠺ヰࡋᡭࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿⓎヰពᅗࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠖ(p.147)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉㸪ࠕⓎぢࡢࣀࢲࠖࡢఏ㐩ⓗᶵ⬟ࡣ㸪ࠕヰࡋᡭࡀᙜヱ࿨㢟ࢆヰࡋᡭࡢᛮ⪃࡟Ⓩ㘓ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆᙜヱⓎヰࡢཷಙ⪅࡟ఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾ㸪ࡇࡢࣀࢲࡣ⊂ヰ࡛ࡶ౑⏝ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ
(1) B1㸸 (A ࡀእࢆぢ࡚ࠕ࠶㸪ࡲ࠸ࡗࡓ࡞࠶ࠖ࡜ゝࡗࡓ㸧࠼ࡗ㸪ఱ㸽A㸸 㞵ࡀ㝆ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢇࡔࠋ       ࠙Ћㄝ᫂ࡢࣀࢲࠚ
B2㸸࡬࠻㸪㞵ࡀ㝆ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢇࡔࠋ   ࠙ЋⓎぢࡢࣀࢲࠚ   (p.145 (23)࠙ ࠚෆ➹⪅)ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ࡇࡢࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࢆⓎࡋࡓヰ⪅ࡀ᝟ሗࡢ୚࠼ᡭ࠿ཷࡅᡭ࠿࡜࠸࠺ほⅬࡣ㸪ࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࡢ
ศᯒ࡟᭷┈࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ◊✲ㄢ㢟 ᮏ◊✲ࡣྡᔱ(2007)ࡢࠕㄝ᫂ࡢࣀࢲࠖ࡜ࠕⓎぢࡢࣀࢲࠖ࡜࠸࠺ 2 ศ㢮ࢆ᥇⏝ࡋ㸪⮬↛఍ヰ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࢆศᯒࡍࡿࠋ࡞࠾㸪ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠕㄝ᫂ࡢࣀࢲᩥࠖࢆࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࡢࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࠖ㸪ࠕⓎぢࡢࣀࢲᩥࠖࡢ≉࡟┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ᝟ሗᥦ♧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠕࣀࢲᩥࠖࢆࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࡢࠕࡢ
ࡔᩥࠖࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࠋࡲࡓ㸪ࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࢆⓎヰࡋࡓ⪅ࢆࠕヰࡋᡭࠖ
㸪Ⓨヰࡉࢀࡓഃࢆࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࠖ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚㸪௨ୗࡢ 2 Ⅼࢆ◊✲ㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ㸪ศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋϨ ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ࡜ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖࡢࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖ࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠋϩ ࡑࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡣᛶู㸪ぶ␯ ࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࣞ࣋ࣝ ࡟ࡼࡿ㐪࠸ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ
㸱㸬ㄪᰝᴫせ࡜⤖ᯝㄪᰝᴫせ ㈨ᩱ㸸ࠕBTSJ ࡟ࡼࡿ᪥ᮏㄒヰࡋゝⴥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ 2011 ᖺ∧ࠖ    ึᑐ㠃ཬࡧ཭ேࡢ㞧ㄯ㸪⏨ዪྛ 4 ᫬㛫 ྜィ⣙ 16 ᫬㛫ศ ᡭ㡰㸸 ϸ㸬ᑐ㇟ࡢࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࢆᢳฟ  Ϲ㸬ึᑐ㠃ཬࡧ཭ேࡢ㞧ㄯࢆ⏨ዪ࡟ศࡅ࡚ศᯒ   Ϻ㸬ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖሙ㠃࡜ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖሙ㠃࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿᙧᘧࢆศᯒ㸪⪃ᐹㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ⥲ᩘ㸪ศᯒᑐ㇟ᩘཬࡧ౑⏝ᙧᘧ ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࡣ 4017 Ⓨヰほᐹࡉࢀࡓ(⾲ 1)ࠋ⏨ዪ࡜ࡶぶ␯࡟㛵ࢃࡽࡎྠ⛬ᗘ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪๓ᚋࡢᩥᏐ໬ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸࡞࠸Ⓨヰ㸪ᘬ⏝⾲⌧ࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⓎヰ㸪ࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࣞ࣋ࣝࢩࣇࢺࡀ㉳ࡁࡓⓎヰ㸪᝟ሗᥦ♧࠿᝟ሗཷᐜ࠿ุ᩿ࡀ㞴
ࡋ࠸Ⓨヰࡣᑐ㇟እ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪3393 Ⓨヰࡀศᯒᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ

−2−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

⾲ 1 ᮏ㈨ᩱ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࠕࡢࡔࠖᩥࡢ⥲ᩘཬࡧศᯒᑐ㇟ᩘ
ึ࣭⏨ᛶ

ึ࣭ዪᛶ

཭࣭⏨ᛶ

཭࣭ዪᛶ

ྜィ

⥲ᩘ

945

1085

928

1059

4017

ᑐ㇟ᩘ

801

810

825

957

3393

౑⏝ᙧᘧࡣ㸪ึᑐ㠃⏨ᛶ㸪ዪᛶ࡜ࡶ 12 ᙧᘧ㸪཭ே⏨ᛶࡣ 27 ᙧᘧ㸪ዪᛶࡣ 22 ᙧᘧほᐹࡉࢀ㸪཭ேࡢሙྜ㸪ึᑐ㠃࡟ẚ࡭࡚ᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡗࡓ౑⏝ᙧᘧࡢ✀㢮ࡀከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ḟ࡟㸪౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࠕࡢࡔࠖᙧᘧࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓ(⾲ 2)ࠋ⣬ᖜࡢ㛵ಀୖ㸪ୖ఩ 5 ᙧᘧࢆ♧ࡍࠋ
⾲ 2 ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࠕࡢࡔࠖᙧᘧ(ୖ఩ 5 ᙧᘧ)
ึ࣭⏨ᛶ

ึ࣭ዪᛶ

཭࣭⏨ᛶ

཭࣭ዪᛶ

1

ࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝

ࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝

ࡢ(‫)׎‬

ࡢ(‫)׎‬

2

ࢇ࡛ࡍ࠿

ࢇ࡛ࡍ࠿

ࢇࡔࡅ࡝

ࢇࡔࡅ࡝

3

ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼ

ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼ

ࢇࡔ(ࡢ)ࡼ

ࢇࡔ(‫)׎‬

4

ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࡡ

ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࡡ

ࢇࡔ(‫)׎‬ࢇࡔ(ࡢ)ࡼࡡ

5

ࢇ࡛ࡍࡡ

ࢇ࡛ࡍࡡ

ࢇࡔ(ࡢ)ࡼࡡ

ࢇࡔ(ࡢ)ࡼ⤖ᯝࢆぢࡿ࡜㸪ึᑐ㠃㸪཭ே࡜ࡶᛶู࡟㛵ಀ࡞ࡃ㸪౑⏝㢖ᗘࡢ㧗࠸ᙧᘧࡣྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿
ࡗࡓࠋࡓࡔࡋ㸪ึᑐ㠃ࡢሙྜࡣୖ఩ 5 ᙧᘧ࡛඲యࡢ 95㸣ࢆ༨ࡵ࡚࠸ࡓࡀ㸪཭ேࡢሙྜࡣ඲యࡢ
70㸣࡜㸪ࡑࡢ౑⏝๭ྜ࡟ࡣᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟㸪〄ࡢᙧᘧࠕࢇ࡛ࡍ(‫ࠖ)׎‬ࠕࢇࡔ(‫ࠖ)׎‬ࠕࡢ(‫࡟ࠖ)׎‬ὀ┠ࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ㸪ึᑐ㠃ࡣ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࠕࢇ
࡛ࡍ(‫⏨ࡀࠖ)׎‬ዪ࡜ࡶ 16 Ⓨヰࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪඲యࡢ⣙ 2㸣࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉㸪཭ேࡢሙྜࡣࠕࡢ(‫ࠖ)׎‬ࡣ⏨ዪ࡜ࡶ඲యࡢ 3 ๭⛬ᗘほᐹࡉࢀ㸪౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓᙧᘧ࡛᭱ࡶከ࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪ࠕࢇࡔ(‫⏨ࡣࠖ)׎‬ዪ࡜ࡶ඲యࡢ 1 ๭⛬ᗘ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪
ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍ(‫ࠖ)׎‬ࠕࢇࡔ(‫ࠖ)׎‬ࠕࡢ(‫ࡢࠖࡔࡢࠕࡌྠࡣࠖ)׎‬ኚ␗య࡛࠶ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ㸪౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀ␗࡞ࡿ⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࡑࡢ⌮⏤ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪ࡇࡢ 3 ᙧᘧࡢ౑⏝ᕪ࡜⏝ἲ࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
ࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࡢศ㢮࡜౑⏝ᩘᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣඛ⾜◊✲ࡸ๓ᚋࡢᩥ⬦࡞࡝ࢆࡶ࡜࡟㸪ࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࢆ௨ୗ㸳ࡘ࡟㢮ᆺ໬ࡋࡓࠋձ ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖࡢࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖ㸸ྡᔱ  ࡢࠕㄝ᫂ࡢࣀࢲࠖ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࠋ(2) ࠸࠸ඛ⏕࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝ࡡ࣮㸪ࢮ࣑ࡣࡘࡲࢇ࡞࠸ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࠋ (ึ 1࣭ዪᛶ)ղࠕ㉁ၥࠖࡢࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖ
㸸⪺ࡁᡭ࡟᝟ሗࢆồࡵࡿࠋࡶࡋࡃࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡟⮬㌟ࡢゎ㔘ࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࠋ(3) ௒᪥࡝ࡕࡽ࠿ࡽ࠸ࡽࡋࡓࢇ࡛ࡍ࠿ࠋ (ึ࣭⏨ᛶ)ճ ࠕྠពồࡵ࣭☜ㄆࠖࡢࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖ
㸸ヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟㸪࠶ࡿෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ྠᵝࡢゎ㔘ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿㸪ࡲࡓࡣヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢゎ㔘ࡀṇࡋ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ၥ࠺ࠋ

−3−

「のだ文」を用いた日本語母語話者の伝達方略―話し言葉コーパスの分析に基づいて―(4) A㸸࠶ࡢᏊ㸪୍ᾉࡋ࡚ࡿࢇ࡛ࡋࡻ?ࠋ (཭࣭⏨ᛶ)B㸸ࡑ࠺ࡑ࠺ࡑ࠺ࠋմ ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖࡢࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖ㸸ྡᔱ(2007)ࡢࠕⓎぢࡢࣀࢲࠖࡢୗ఩ศ㢮ࠋ⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽ᝟ሗࢆཷࡅ
ྲྀࡗࡓ㝿࡟㸪ࡑࡢ᝟ሗࢆヰࡋᡭࡢᛮ⪃࡟Ⓩ㘓ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఏ㐩ࡍࡿࠋ(5) A㸸ඛ㐌ఇㅮࡔࡗࡓࡢࠋ B㸸࠶㸪ࡑ࠺࡞ࢇࡔࠋ (཭࣭ዪᛶ)յ ࠕ⊂ヰⓗࠖ࡞ࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖ㸸≉࡟┦ᡭ࡟཯ᛂࢆồࡵ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋࠕ᝿㉳ࡢࠕࡢࡔࠖࠖྵࡴࠋ
(6) ࠶ࡢே⤖፧ࡋ࡚ࢇࡢ࠿࡞࣮ࠋࡼࡃศ࠿ࢇ࡞࠸ࠋ (཭࣭ዪᛶ)ḟ࡟㸪ྛࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࡢ౑⏝ᩘࢆศᯒࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ㸪⾲ 3 ཬࡧ⾲ 4 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
⾲ 3 ึᑐ㠃ሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࡢ౑⏝ᩘ
᝟ሗᥦ♧

㉁ၥ

ྠồ࣭☜ㄆ

ཷᐜ

⊂ヰⓗ

ࡑࡢ௚

ྜィ

⏨ᛶ

561

129

31

50

26

4

801

ዪᛶ

515

172

35

80

7

1

810

ྜィ

1076

301

66

130

33

5

1611

⾲ 4 ཭ேሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࡢ౑⏝ᩘ
᝟ሗᥦ♧

㉁ၥ

ྠồ࣭☜ㄆ

ཷᐜ

⊂ヰⓗ

ࡑࡢ௚

ྜィ

⏨ᛶ

371

210

82

75

86

1

825

ዪᛶ

499

177

87

114

78

2

957

ྜィ

870

387

169

189

164

3

1782

ึᑐ㠃࡜཭ே࡛ࡣࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ࡜ࠕྠពồࡵ࣭☜ㄆࠖࡢ౑⏝ഴྥࡀ␗࡞ࡿ⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓ(⏨ᛶ㸸
ǘ²(1)=44.04, p<.01ዪᛶ㸸 ǘ²(1)=21.30, p<.01)ࠋࡲࡓ㸪
ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍ(ø)ࠖࠕࢇࡔ(ø)ࠖࠕࡢ(ø)ࠖ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ㸪
ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍ(ø)ࠖࡣࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ࡟㸪ࠕࢇࡔ(ø)ࠖࠕࡢ(ø)ࠖࡣ୺࡟ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ
ࠕ㉁ၥࠖࠕ᝟
ሗཷᐜࠖ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍ(ø)ࠖ

⾲ 5 ྛࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖࡢࠕࡢࡔࠖᙧᘧ(ึ)ࠕࢇࡔ(ø)ࠖࠕࡢ(ø)ࠖࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖࠕ㉁ၥࠖ
ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖࡢࠕࡢࡔࠖᙧᘧࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓࠋ
ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖࡢࠕࡢࡔࠖᙧᘧ
⾲ 3 ࡜⾲ 5 ࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪ึᑐ㠃ࡣୖ఩ 5 ᙧᘧ࡛඲యࡢ 100%㏆ࡃࢆ༨ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪
ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍ(ø) ࠖࡣ⏨ዪ࡜ࡶ 16 Ⓨヰࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࡇࢀࡣࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࠕࡢࡔࠖᙧᘧࡢ 3%௨ୗ࡛
࠶ࡗࡓࠋ᭱ࡶከࡃ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡢࡣ㸪ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝ࠖ
࡛⏨ᛶࡣ඲యࡢ 55.97%㸪ዪᛶࡣ 57.48%ࢆ༨ࡵ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ

−4−

⏨ᛶ

ዪᛶ

ࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝

314

296

ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼ

117

146

ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࡡ

87

37

ࢇ࡛ࡍࡡ

23

11

ࢇ࡛ࡍ ȭ ࢇࡌࡷ࡞࠸࡛ࡍ࠿ࡡ

1

6

ࡑࡢ௚

3

3

ྜィ

561

515

第16回大会発表論文集第９号⯆࿡῝࠸⌧㇟࡜ࡋ࡚㸪(7)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝ࠖࢆከ⏝ࡋ⮬㌟࡛ㄯヰࢆᒎ㛤ࡍࡿ౛ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ
(7) (UF04 ࡀ 4 ᭶࡟ෆᐃࢆࡶࡽࡗࡓࡀ㸪௚ࢆ࠶ࡁࡽࡵࡁࢀࡎ㸪ࡑࡢᚋ 2 ࠿᭶ᑵ⫋άືࢆ⥆ࡅࡓࡶࡢࡢ㸪⤖ᒁ᭱ึࡢ఍♫࡟ᑵ⫋ࡀỴࡲࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ヰ)
UF04 : ࡑࢀ࡛㸪((ᑵ⫋άືࢆ))ࡸࡵ࡞࠸࡛㸪“࠸ࡸ㸪ࡇࡢ఍♫ࡕࡻࡗ࡜࣮”࡜ᛮࡗ࡚㸪ࡎࡗ࡜⥆ࡅ࡚ࡓࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝ࠋ
UF03 : ࠶࣮ࠋ
UF04 : ௚ࡢ఍♫࠿ࡽ㸪ࢇ࣮㸪ෆᐃࡀฟࡓࡢࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝㸪ࡸࡗࡥࡾ㸪୍␒ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ෆᐃࡀฟ
ࡓ㸪఍♫࡜㸪ࡇ࠺ኳ⛗࡟࠿ࡅ࡚,,UF03 : ࠿ࡅࡲࡍࡼࡡ㸪ࡣ࠸ࡣ࠸ࠋ
UF04 : ࡑࢀ࡛㸪ࡶ࠺㸪㋾ࡗࡓࡾࠋ࡛㸪ࡅࡗࡇ࠺⾜ࡁࡓ࠸఍♫ࡔࡗࡓࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝㸪࠶ࡢ㸪᭱⤊㠃᥋ࡲ࡛⾜ࡗ࡚ⴠࡕࡕࡷࡗࡓࡾ㸪࡜࠿㸪࡛⤖ᒁࡶ࠺㸪ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ෆᐃࡶࡽࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࡋ࠿㸪㥖ࡀ࡞ࡃ࡚㸪ࡶ࠺"ࡑࡇ࡟⾜ࡃ࠿"ࡗ࡚㸪ࡑࢀࡋ࠿࡞࠸ࢇ࡛ࡍࡡࠋ⤖ᒁࡑ࠺࠸࠺ឤࡌ࡛ࠋ

(ึ࣭ዪᛶ)

ḟ࡟㸪཭ேࡢሙྜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡳ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜㸪⏨ዪ࡜ࡶ඲యⓗ࡟౑⏝ഴྥࡀ㏆ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿
ࡗࡓ(⾲ 6)ࠋ᭱ࡶ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡢࡣึᑐ㠃ྠᵝ㸪ࠕࡅ࡝ࠖ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋࡓࠕࢇࡔࡅ࡝࡛ࠖ࠶ࡗࡓࡀ㸪ึᑐ㠃࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾ㸪ᵝࠎ࡞ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ᙧᘧ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋࡓࠕࡢࡔࠖࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ ࠕࢇࡔ(ø)ࠖࠕࡢ(ø)ࠖ࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿ࡜㸪
ࠕࡢ(ø)ࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡀࠕࢇࡔ(ø)ࠖ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࠕࢇࡔ(ø)ࠖ

 ⾲ 6 ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖࡢࠕࡢࡔࠖᙧᘧ(཭)
⏨ᛶ

ዪᛶ

122

159

ࡢ





ࢇࡔ(ࡢ)ࡼ

85

54

ࢇࡔ(ࡢ)ࡼࡡ

52

51

ࡢࡡ

16

26

ࢇࡔࡗ࡚

11(6)

40(30)

ࢇࡔ ȭ 





ࢇࡌࡷ࡞࠸

10

7

ࢇࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࡢ

6

3

ࢇࡔࡼ࡞

6

2

⤖ᯝࡣ⾲ 7 ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟㸪⏨ዪ࡜ࡶࠕࡢ(ø)ࠖࡢ౑⏝ᩘࡀ

ࡑࡢ௚

7

5

✺ฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࠕࡢ࠿ࠖࡸ㸪ࠕࡢ(ø)ࠖ࡜ྠᵝ㸪

ྜィ

371

499

ࡢ౑⏝๭ྜࡣ඲యࡢ⣙ 2,3%࡜㸪ึᑐ㠃࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠕࢇ࡛ࡍ(ø)ࠖ࡜౑⏝๭ྜࡀఝ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ
(8) F19 :࡞ࢇ࠿࣮㸪࠶ࡓࡋࡶ࣮㸪ࡇ࠺㸪ᑵ⫋άືࡋ࡚࡚ 

ࡉ (࠺࣮ࢇ)㸪⮬ศࡀᛮࡗ࡚ࡿ⮬ศ࡜࣮㸪௚ே࠿   ࡽぢࡿ⮬ศࡣ࠿࡞ࡾࢠࣕࢵࣉࡀ࠶ࡿ㸪࡚ࡇ࡜࡟Ẽ࡙࠸ࡓࡢࠋ࡞ࢇ࠿㸪⚾㸪ࡗ࡚㸪ࡲࡎ࡞ࢇ࠿㸪㯲ࡗ࡚ࡿ࡜ࡉ㸪ᛣࡗ࡚ࡿ ࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡽࡋ࠸ࡢࠋ
F20 : ࠺ࢇࠋ        

 (཭࣭ዪᛶ)ࠕ㉁ၥࠖࡢࠕࡢࡔࠖᙧᘧ

ࢇࡔࡅ࡝ࠕࡢ࠿ࠖ␲ၥᩥࡢኚ␗య࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠕࢇࡔ(ø)ࠖࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ほᐹࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
(9) M05 : ࡔ㸪㺀Ꮫ⛉ྡ 4㺁ࡡ࣮㸪ࡪࡗࡕࡷࡅ㸪((ዲࡳࡢዪࡢᏊࡀ ))ㄡࡶ௒ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࢇࡔࡼ࡞࣮ࠋ
M06 : ㄡࡀ࠸࠸ࡢ?ࠋ
M05 : 㺀Ꮫ⛉ྡ 4㺁?ࠋM06 : ࠺ࢇࠋM05 : ࠸࡞࠸ࠋ


M06 : ඲↛࠸࡞࠸ࡢ㸽ࠋ
M05 : ṇ┤㸪௒ࢇ࡜ࡇࢁ㸪࠸࡞࠸ࡅ࡝ࠋ

−5−⾲ 7 ࠕ㉁ၥࠖࡢࠕࡢࡔࠖᙧᘧ(཭)
⏨ᛶ

ዪᛶ

ࡢ ȭ 





ࢇࡔࡗࡅ

10

3

ࡢ࠿

8

1

ࢇࡔ ȭ

5

1

ࡑࡢ௚

3

2

ྜィ

210

177

「のだ文」を用いた日本語母語話者の伝達方略―話し言葉コーパスの分析に基づいて―ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖࡢࠕࡢࡔࠖᙧᘧ ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࠕࡢࡔࠖᙧᘧࡣ⾲ 8 ࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࠕࢇࡔ(ø)ࠖ࡜ࠕࡢ(ø)ࠖࡢ౑⏝ᩘࡀࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ࠾ࡼࡧࠕ㉁ၥࠖࡢሙྜ࡜ᑐ↷ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
⾲ 8 ࠕཷᐜࠖࡢࠕࡢࡔࠖᙧᘧ(཭)(10) 1M15 : ࡞ࢇ࠿㸪ࠕேྡ 3ࠖࡀࡉ㸪㌴ࡶࡗ࡚ࢇࡔࡅ࡝(࠺ࢇ)㸪<ࡑࢀ>{<}ࠋ

⏨ᛶࢇࡔ ȭ 

M16 : <࡞ࢇ>{>}ࡔࡗࡅ㸪ࣉࣞ㸪ࣉࣞࢭ࢔ࡔࡗࡅ?ࠋ
M15 :࠶ࢀࡣࡡ࣮(࠺ࢇ)㸪ࡘࡪࡋࡕࡷࡗࡓࢇࡔࡼ㸪<஦ᨾ࡛>{<}ࠋ
M16 : <࠶㸪ࡑ࠺>{>}࡞ࢇࡔࠋ
M15 : ࠺ࢇࠋᗫ㌴ࢇ࡞ࡗࡕࡷࡗ࡚࣮ࠋ
M16 : ஦ᨾࡗࡓࢇࡔ㸪࠶࠸ࡘࠋ

ዪᛶ





ࡢ





ࡢ࠿

8

6

ࢇࡔࡡ(ࡢࡡ)

1

7

ࢇࡔ࡞

0

1

ྜィ

75

114

M15 : ࠺ࢇࠋ            (཭࣭⏨ᛶ)௨ୖ㸪〄ࡢᙧᘧࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖࠕ㉁ၥࠖࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ㸪࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠕࡢ(ø)ࠖ࡜ࠕࢇࡔ(ø)ࠖࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡢ㸪⏨ዪ࡜ࡶࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ࡜ࠕ㉁ၥࠖ࡟ࡣࠕࡢ(ø)ࠖ㸪ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖ࡟ࡣࠕࢇࡔ(ø)ࠖࡢ౑⏝๭ྜࡀ㧗࠸⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
㸲㸬⪃ᐹ⥲ᩘ㸪ศᯒᑐ㇟ᩘཬࡧ౑⏝ᙧᘧศᯒᑐ㇟ᩘࡣ඲యࡢ 84.47%࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀ㸪ࠕึᑐ㠃࣭ዪᛶࠖࡀ௚࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡗࡓ๭ྜࡀ
ప࠸⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸪ぶࡋࡃ࡞࠸ࠕ␯ࠖࡢ㛵ಀ࡛ࡶ㸪ዪᛶࡣ఍ヰࡀ㐍ࡴ࡟ࡘࢀ㸪ࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࣞ࣋ࣝࡀࠕᖖయࠖ࡬࡜ࢩࣇࢺࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
౑⏝ᙧᘧ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ࡲࡎ㸪ึᑐ㠃࡜཭ே࡜ࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜㸪ึᑐ㠃ࡣࠕࡢࡔࠖᙧᘧࡢ✀㢮ࡀᑡ࡞ࡃ㸪ୖ఩ 5 ᙧᘧ࡛඲యࡢ 95%ࢆ༨ࡵ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ㸪⮬↛఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᩗయࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿሙྜ㸪ࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࡢᙧᘧࡣ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘ㝈ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟㸪ぶ␯㛵ಀ࡟㛵ಀ࡞ࡃ㸪⏨ዪ࡜ࡶྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋᚑࡗ࡚㸪ࠕࡢࡔࠖᙧᘧࡣ
ᴫࡡᛶᕪ࡞ࡃ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࡢศ㢮࡜౑⏝ᩘ࡛ࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࢆศ㢮ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ㸪ึᑐ㠃┦ᡭࡢሙྜࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖࡢࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࡀከࡃ㸪≉࡟ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝ࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡀ⏨ዪ࡜ࡶ඲యࡢ 5 ๭ࢆ㉸࠼࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪┦ᡭ࡜ࠕ␯ࠖࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿሙྜ㸪(7)࡛♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟┦ᡭ࡟✚ᴟⓗ࡞ཧຍࢆồࡵࡎ⮬㌟࡛ㄯヰࢆᒎ㛤ࡍࡿ᪉ἲࡀ㑅ዲࡉࢀࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟㸪ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ほᐹࡉࢀࡓ⥲Ⓨヰ୰㸪ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍ(ø)ࠖࡣ
⏨ዪ࡜ࡶ 16 Ⓨヰࡢࡳ㸪඲యࡢ 3%௨ୗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪⮬↛఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ゝ࠸ษࡾࡢࠕࢇ࡛ࡍ(ø)ࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡣᅇ㑊ࡉࢀ㸪௦᭰ᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚(7)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝ࠖࡸ(11)࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟⤊ຓモ࡞࡝࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡓ」ྜᙧᘧࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ(11)ࡣࠕ₎Ꮠ
㸰࡜᭩ࡃࢇ࡛ࡍࠖ࡜㸪ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍ(ø)࡛ࠖゝ࠸ษࡿࡇ࡜ࡶྍ⬟ࡔࡀ㸪௚ᙧᘧ࡜ඹ㉳ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡛᩿ᐃ
ࢆᅇ㑊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(11) OM01 : ࠕOM01 ጣࠖ࡜⏦ࡋࡲࡍࠋ

BM02 : ࠶ࡗࠕOM01 ጣࠖ?ࠋ−6−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

OM01 : ࡣ࠸ࠋBM02 : ࡣ࠸?ࠋ

OM01 : ࠕOM01 ጣࠖࠋࠕ₎Ꮠ 1 ࢆྵࡴゝⴥࠖࡢࠕ₎Ꮠ 1ࠖ࡟࡛ࡍࡡ㸪(࠶ࡗ)ࠕ₎Ꮠ 2 㡢ㄞࡳࠖ࡜᭩ࡃࢇ࡛ࡍࡡ>{<}ࠋ
BM02 : <࠶㸪࡞ࡿ࡯࡝>{>}ࠋ                       (ึ࣭⏨ᛶ)୍᪉㸪཭ே࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣ⏨ዪ࡜ࡶึᑐ㠃࡟ẚ࡭࡚ࠕྠពồࡵ࣭☜ㄆࠖࡢ౑⏝ࡀከ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡸ㸪ࠕࡅ࡝ࠖࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪⾲ 6 ࡟♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ᵝࠎ࡞ᑐヰⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘ⤊ຓモ(┦ᙜ)ࡢᙧᘧࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠕ᝟ሗ
ᥦ♧ࠖࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪཭ே㛫࡛ࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࢆ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ཧຍࡉࡏ࡞ࡀࡽ
ㄯヰࢆᒎ㛤ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓ㸪௚ᙧᘧ࡜ඹ㉳ࡋ࡞࠸ࠕࡢ(ø)ࠖཬࡧࠕࢇࡔ(ø)ࠖࡣ୺࡟ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ
ࠕ㉁ၥࠖ
ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖ࡟
౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ࡜ࠕ㉁ၥࠖࡣ୺࡟ࠕࡢ(ø)ࠖࡀ㸪ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖ࡟ࡣ୺࡟ࠕࢇ
ࡔ(ø)ࠖࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠕࡢࠖ࡜ࠕࢇ
ࡔࠖࡣࠕᶵ⬟ࡣ࡯ࡰྠࡌࠖ࡜グ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ(⏣㔝ᮧ 1990㸪㔝⏣ 1993;1997㸪᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ
◊✲఍ 2003)㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟ࡼࡾ㸪⮬↛఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣඛ㏙ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡞ᶵ⬟ศᢸࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋ
࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ(2005:344)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜㸪ࠕࡔࠖࡣࠕ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞᩿ᐃࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᙉࡃゝ࠸ษࡿᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘࠖࡶ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࡇࡢࠕࡔࠖࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ࠕࡑࡢゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡀពᅗⓗ࡟᩿ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼
ࡿࠖࠋࡇࡢሙྜࡢࠕ࡛ࡍࠖࡀࠕࡔࠖࡢኚ␗య࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜㸪⮬↛఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖࡍࡿሙྜ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣ┦ᡭ࡟㛵ࢃࡽࡎ᩿ᐃࢆᅇ㑊ࡋ㸪⤊ຓモࡸࡑࡢ௚ࡢᙧᘧࢆඹ㉳ࡉࡏ࡚㸪ᙜヱ࿨㢟ࢆ఍ヰࡢ୰࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿㸪࡜࠸࠺⮬㌟ࡢែᗘࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟᫂♧ࡍࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ୍᪉㸪ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖ࡟ࠕࢇࡔ(ø)ࠖࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣᙜヱᙧᘧࡀྡᔱ(2007)
ࡢ࠸࠺ࠕⓎぢࡢࣀࢲࠖࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪⊂ヰⓗ࡟Ⓨヰࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࠕࡢ º ࠖࡢᛶ㉁
᭱ᚋ࡟㸪௒ᅇὀ┠ࡋࡓ 3 ᙧᘧࡢ୰࡛౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠿ࡗࡓࠕࡢ(ø)ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪ࠕࡢ(ø)ࠖࡣ୺࡟ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖཬࡧࠕ㉁ၥࠖሙ㠃࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ㔝⏣(1997)ࡣ㸪ࠕᑐ஦ⓗࠕࡢࡔࠖࡣ㸪ࠕࡢࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓᙧࡣ࡜ࡾ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ
ࠕࡢࠖࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜
ࡁ࡟㸪ࡑࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࢆព㆑ࡋ࡚㑅ࡤࢀࡿᙧ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ(p.68)࡜グ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ᇼỤ࣭ࣃࣝࢹࢩ
(2009)࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕࢥࣆࣗࣛࢆకࢃ࡞࠸ᩥᮎྡモ໬ᵓᩥࡣ㸪ࢥࣆࣗࣛࢆకࡗࡓ⏝ἲ࡜ព࿡ⓗ࡞㐃⥆ᛶࢆᣢࡕࡘࡘࡶ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿఱࡽ࠿ࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅ ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ┠ᙜ࡚ࠖ ࡢព࿡ࡀࡼࡾ᫂☜࡟࡞ࡾ㸪౑⏝ᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗゎ㔘ࡢᖜࡀࡼࡾᗈࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠕㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᐩ໬ࠖࡢഴྥࡀ᥎ᐹࡉ
ࢀࡿࠖ(p.95 ኴᏐ➹⪅)࡜グ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛グ㏙ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟㸪ࠕࡢ(ø)ࠖࡣࠕㄝ
᫂ࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡣࠕࡔࠖࢆకࢃ࡞࠸ࠕࡢ(ѫ)ࠖࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ྠ᫬࡟⮬㌟ࡢఏ㐩ែᗘࢆࡶ⾲ࡑ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜᥎ᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ
㸳㸬⤖ㄽ࡜௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟 ௨ୖࡢ⪃ᐹࢆᇶ࡟㸪◊✲ㄢ㢟ࡢᅇ⟅ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࠋϨ ࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖ࡜ࠕ᝟ሗཷᐜࠖࡢࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖ࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧᘧࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ
⮬↛఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪┦ᡭ࡟㛵ࢃࡽࡎ㸪⮬㌟ࡀ᝟ሗࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿሙྜ㸪ࠕࢇࡔ㸭ࢇ࡛ࡍ(‫ࡢࠖ)׎‬౑⏝ࡣᅇ㑊ࡉࢀ㸪ࠕࡔࠖࢆకࢃ࡞࠸ࠕࡢ(ѫ)ࠖࡸ㸪ࡑࡢ௚ࡢᙧᘧࢆඹ㉳ࡉࡏ࡚ࠕᙜヱ࿨㢟ࢆ఍ヰࡢ

−7−

「のだ文」を用いた日本語母語話者の伝達方略―話し言葉コーパスの分析に基づいて―୰࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠖࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟᫂♧ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
୍᪉㸪཭ே㛫࡛᝟ሗࢆཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓሙྜ࡟ࠕࢇࡔ(‫ࡣࡢࡿࢀࡉ⏝౑ࡀࠖ)׎‬㸪ࡇࡢࠕࢇࡔࠖࡀࠕⓎぢࡢࠕࣀࢲ࡛ࠖࠖ࠶ࡾ㸪⊂ヰⓗ࡟Ⓨヰࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ϩ ࡑࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡣᛶู㸪ぶ␯㸪ࡘࡲࡾ㸪ࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ࡼࡿ㐪࠸ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ
ᮏ◊✲ࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪ぶ␯࡜ࡶ㸪࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢࠕࡢࡔࠖᙧᘧࡣᛶᕪ࡞ࡃ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࠕ␯ࠖ
ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡣࠕ᝟ሗᥦ♧ࠖࡢࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖ㸪≉࡟ࠕࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝ࠖࢆከ⏝ࡋ࡚⮬㌟࡛ㄯヰࢆᒎ㛤ࡍࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡾ㸪ࠕぶࠖࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣ㸪ࠕࢇࡔࡅ࡝ࠖ௨እ࡟ࡶࠕࡢ(ѫ)ࠖࡸ㸪ᵝࠎ࡞ᑐேⓗᶵ⬟ࢆᢸ࠺ᙧᘧࢆඹ㉳ࡉࡏࡓࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚㸪⪺ࡁᡭࢆ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ཧຍࡉࡏ࡞ࡀࡽㄯヰࢆᒎ㛤ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ⪺ࡁᡭ㓄៖ࡢఏ㐩᪉␎࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪⮬↛఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࡢࡔᩥࠖࡢⓎヰពᅗࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ㸪ࠕࡢ(‫࡞࠺ࡼࡢࠖ)׎‬〄ࡢᙧᘧࡣࡶ࡜ࡼࡾ㸪」ྜᙧᘧࡢ㉁ⓗศᯒ࣭⪃ᐹࡀ୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡣᮏ◊✲ࡢ⤖ᯝࡀỗ⏝ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆ᳨ドࡋ㸪ࡲࡓ㸪㡢ㄪࢆྵࡵࡓྛᙧᘧࡢ㉁ⓗศᯒ࣭⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠸㸪᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ࡣ⮬↛఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࡢࡔࠖࡢ඲యീࢆグ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋὀ
1 ௨ୗ㸪఍ヰࡢࠕึࠖࡣࠕึᑐ㠃ࡢ㞧ㄯࠖ㸪ࠕ཭ࠖࡣࠕ཭ேྠኈࡢ㞧ㄯ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ
2 ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ<>ࡣྠ᫬Ⓨヰࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㔜࡞ࡗࡓ㒊ศ཮᪉ࢆ< >࡛ࡃࡃࡾ㸪㔜ࡡࡽࢀࡓⓎヰ࡟ࡣ㸪< >ࡢᚋ࡟㸪{<}ࢆࡘࡅࡿࠋࡲࡓ㔜ࡡࡓ᪉ࡢⓎヰ࡟ࡣ㸪< >ࡢᚋ࡟㸪{>}ࢆࡘࡅࡿࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩ᇼỤ⸅࣭㺪㺽㺵㺚㺊㺻㺢࣭㺨㺽㺷㺡㺼㺚. 2009. ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂(⦅)ࠗㅮᗙ ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢ㺪㺹㺻㺡㺆㺏 5 ゝㄒࡢࢱ࢖࣏ࣟࢪ࣮ 㸫ㄆ▱㢮ᆺㄽࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ㸫࠘◊✲♫.
Maynard,Senko K. 1993. Interactional functions of formulaicity : A case of utterance-final
forms in Japanese.Proceedings of 15th

International Congress of Linguists, 1, 355-357.

Quebec City, Canada : Laval University.
࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻࠊἨᏊ࣭K. 2005.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ⌧ሙ࡛౑࠼ࡿ ㄯヰ⾲⌧ࣁࣥࢻࣈࢵࢡ࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ྡᔱ ⩏┤. 2007. ࠗࣀࢲࡢព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟㸫㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸫(Frontier series ᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲ྀ᭩ 19)࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍(⦅). 2003.ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ 4➨ 8 㒊 ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.

㔝⏣ ᫓⨾. 1993.ࠕࠕࡢࡔࠖ࡜⤊ຓモࠕࡢࠖࡢቃ⏺ࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘ࠊ12-11ࠊ43-50ࠊ᫂
἞᭩㝔.
 

  . 1997.ࠗࠕࡢ(ࡔ)ࠖࡢᶵ⬟(Frontier series ᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲ྀ᭩ 9)࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.

⏣㔝ᮧ ᛅ. 1990. ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥἲϨࠕࡢࡔࠖࡢព࿡࡜⏝ἲ࠘࿴Ἠ᭩ᗑ.

㈨ᩱ
Ᏹబ⨾ࡲࡺࡳ┘ಟ. 2011.ࠕBTSJ ࡟ࡼࡿ᪥ᮏㄒヰࡋゝⴥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ(2011 ᖺ∧)ࠖࠗே㛫ࡢ┦஫స⏝  ◊✲ࡢࡓࡵࡢከゝㄒ఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢᵓ⠏࡜ࡑࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗศᯒ᪉ἲࡢ㛤Ⓨ࠘ᖹᡂ 20㸫22 ᖺᗘ  ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠ᇶ┙◊✲ B(ㄢ㢟␒ྕ 20320072)◊✲ᡂᯝ.

−8−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

起業コンサルテーション会話における「知識の非対称」と「意向」：
コンサルタントの「質問」を中心に

臼田 泰如（京都大学大学院 人間・環境学研究科）
usuda.yasuyuki.23n@st.kyoto-u.ac.jp
高梨 克也（京都大学学術情報メディアセンター）〈Abstract〉
This study investigates the strategies management consultants use in a business contest. The consultants respect opinions of challengers of contest at one hand, and advisefrom the viewpoint of specialists of management at the other hand. Authors use video
data recorded in the business contest by Skylight Consulting Inc. called Entrepreneur
Challenge (起業チャレンジ) . This study clariﬁes the fact that questions - answer pairs
are employed by consultants for respecting opinions of challengers and making advices.
From this viewpoint, the relation between the gap of knowledge, the relationship among
participants and communication is discussed.
【キーワード】起業コンサルテーション、質問、知識の非対称、意向

1.

はじめに

本研究では、起業コンサルテーション（起業コンテスト）会話において、コンサルタント
が応募者に対してアドバイスを行う際、コンサルタントがどのような行為によって目的を達成しているのかについて検討を行う。特に、コンサルタントが応募者に対して行う「質問」に着目する。
ここでの起業コンサルテーションとは、起業を目指すチーム（コンテストの応募者）が作成したプランについて、コンサルタントと応募者が共同で改善案を議論する活動である（「起業チャレンジ」については 3. にて詳述）。コンサルタントと応募者は、基本的には「助言者」と「被助言者」という成員カテゴリーを持ち、それに沿う形で提案・助言・提案などを行う。そのような基本的な非対称性が前提とされる場において、Sinclair & Coulthard (1975;
1992) の述べる Initiation - Response - Follow-up (IRF) という、教室会話における教師と生徒の会話にみられる質問応答の構造に似たものが見られる。しかし一方で、コンサル
テーションでの「質問」には IRF とは構造や機能が異なり、必ずしも「正解を知っている教師が、生徒の答えを正しいか間違っているか判定する」というものではない。本研究の目的
は、起業コンサルテーションという活動の場面において、コンサルタントは「質問」をする
ことでどのような行為を行っているのかについて考察することである。

2.

先行研究

典型的な「質問」は話し手が聞き手に対して情報の提供を求める手段であるといえるが、必ずしもすべての「質問」が情報要求岳を行っているわけではない。Masuda (2012) では、

1−9−起業コンサルテーション会話における「知識の非対称」と「意向」：コンサルタントの「質問」を中心に質問に関する先行研究を総括し、情報の要求や確認のほか、会話の開始、話題の切り替えといった機能をもつと述べている。
また、Sinclair & Coulthard (1975; 1992) は、教室場面のような「教える - 教えられる」
カテゴリー間の会話に見られる Initiation - Response - Follow-up (IRF) という特徴的な構造を指摘している。典型的な構造として、IRF においては教師の質問に対して生徒が応答し、その応答について教師が評価 (accept) を行う、というものである。これは教師が、生徒がその場所で発するべき答えを知っており、正解か不正解かを判断することができる、という制度的状況が背景にある。これに対して、BUM における「質問」は、コンサルタン
トは必ずしも応募者の答えに対して正解か不正解かを判断するという構造をとらない。

3.

データ

本研究では、スカイライトコンサルティング株式会社による起業コンテスト「起業チャレンジ」1 の 2010 年における映像記録を用いる（高梨 2011）。「起業チャレンジ」は、起業を希望する 2 人以上のチームを対象に事業プランを募集し、これに対するアドバイスを行った
上で最終的なプランの選考を行って入賞チームを決定するというものである。入賞チームには 1 年以内の会社設立を条件に、起業資金として 300 万円が贈られる。設立後、スカイライ
トコンサルティングはその会社の株主となり、業務上の相談を行うなど、コンテスト終了後も入賞チームとの関係が継続する。
「起業チャレンジ」のうち、本研究では、書類選考を経て最終選考に残ったいくつかの起業チームに対し、スカイライトコンサルティングの社員によるプラン改善のミーティング（ブラッシュアップミーティング：BUM）を行う場面の映像記録を用いる。BUM においては、スカイライトコンサルティングから社員（社外協力者を含む）が相談役となり、一週間
おきに 5 回にわたってミーティングを行う。相談役となる社員は入賞チーム決定にかかる選考には加わらないことが事前に説明されている。

4.

分析

末尾に掲載した会話データは 5 回の BUM のうち 3 回目の抜粋である。2 人の応募者は前回の BUM において指摘された改善点を踏まえて新たな起業プランを作成してきており、この抜粋部分に先立ってそのプランの説明を 10 分程度行っている。抜粋部分はそれを受けて、コンサルタントが問題点の指摘を行う場面である。
全体の見通しとして、この抜粋部分においてコンサルタントは応募者が持参したプランにある本質的な問題に言及するため、複数の手段を使って準備を行い、78 行目から 80 行目における「問題点の指摘」に接続している、とみることができる。以下、本研究の課題である「質問」に着目し、主に 3ヶ所のコンサルタントによる「質問」を中心に検討していく。
質問 1：7 行目〜12 行目
7 行目から 12 行目にかけて、コンサルタントは「前回の応募者のプランから変わった点」
について質問している。7 行目の「前回のプランへの言及」は、それに後続する「問題点の指摘」がなぜ今なされるか、という前提条件を準備していると考えられる。つまり、「ママコミュニティー」の抱える問題点に言及するための準備として、「問題は何か」という話題
1

http://www.startup-challenge.jp/stup/2−10−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号に先行して、共有されている情報である前回のミーティング内容に言及して「前回と異なる理由」を引き出すという手順をとっている。
質問 2：41 行目〜43 行目
41 行目から 43 行目にかけての「質問」においては、「どういう存在」という曖昧な表現を用いて「即答できない問い」を発しているといえる。これが「即答できない問い」である
ことは、後続する応募者の応答が「どういう存在になっていくか」という「鸚鵡返し」であること、それに続けてコンサルタントはこの質問に対する特段の修復を行うなどして応募者からの応答をさらに追求せずに「どういう存在」についての説明を開始していることから、相互行為上の位置づけを理解できる。
ここでの重要なことは、「どういう存在になっていくか」という質問形式の発話を用いることによって「応募者のプランによって利用者はどのように変化していくか」という観点を導入していることである。それまでの応募者の説明では、利用者は「既にママコミュニティの成員である人々」というカテゴライズがなされていた。しかしこの質問に後続するコンサ
ルタントの説明においては、このサービスを利用することで「ママコミュニティの中で和気あいあいと過ごす人々」というイメージだけでなく「プロのフリーランスを目指して経験と実績を積む人々」というイメージを対比的に導入し、二者択一求めている。さらに、「どういう存在に なっていく」からも理解できるように、サービスを利用することでこの二者のいずれかに「変化していく」という観点を導入している。
質問 3：69 行目
このような説明を経てなされる、69 行目の「どっちなんでしょうね」は、「どういう存在になっていくか」の繰り返しであるといえる。ここまでのやりとりによって、応募者は「どういう存在になっていくか」という問題意識を共有するに至っている。このことは繰り返された 69 行目の質問に対してスムーズに応答していることからも傍証される。言い換えると、ここまでのやりとりによって、後続する「問題点の指摘」を行う準備がほぼなされたとみることができる。
最後の準備は、76 行目の「そのときの問題点って何だろ」である。先行する二者択一のうち応募者が選んだほうに「問題がある」ことを示唆している。コンサルタントはここで、問題の所在を示したのち、応募者の明確な回答を待たず、またこれ以前の部分のようにヒントを出すこともなく、いわば「応募者を待たずに」問題点を提示している。
このように、ここでは 78 行目から 80 行目における「問題点の指摘」が行われるために、
1〜3 の 3 つの質問を通して、3 段階の「準備」が行われ、「助言」のために必要な前提の共有が行われているといえる。

5.

考察

5.1.

「質問」と問題解決

4. では、本研究のデータにおいてコンサルタントが問題提起を行う際にどのような前提の準備がなされているかについて検討した。本節では、「問題点の指摘の準備」のための「質問」という観点について考察したい。
上記の 3 つの「質問」はいずれも、冒頭に直前の相手発話との関連性を示す接続詞などの表現を用いていない。このことは、これらの「質問」が直前の話題と disjunct なものである
ことを含意する。Masuda (2011) で概括されているように、質問は会話の開始や話題の転換3−11−

起業コンサルテーション会話における「知識の非対称」と「意向」：コンサルタントの「質問」を中心にといった談話構成上の機能をもつ。本研究で例示した「質問」は、いずれも狭義の会話の開始や話題の転換といったものではないが、言及がない、またはフォーカスされていない観点を話題の中心に据え直す機能を持つという点で、会話の開始や話題の転換といったこれまで指摘されてきた質問の機能と類似したものと言える。
質問 1 は、応募者からのプランの説明が終わり、コンサルタントのコメントや質問、確認といった行為が期待される相互行為上の場所である。つまり、「説明」という第一ペアに対して期待される第二ペアが置かれるべき場所である。従って、この場所で「前回の話に言及する質問」を行うことは、それ自体がこれ以降の問題の焦点になるかどうかはこの時点では不明だが、その点に問題が所在することを示すものとなると考えられる。つまりここでは、これ以降の問題提起の準備として、応募者から論点を引き出すための「質問」が用いられているといえる。
「即答されない問い」であると述べた。鸚鵡返しの第二ペアに続いて、コ
一方、質問 2 は、ンサルタントは問題の前提となる問題の所在について引き出すのではなく自ら述べている。
ここでの「質問」は準備自体のさらにプレとして、後続する問題の所在の説明が妥当となる
相互行為上の場所を形成している。IRF にみられるような 3 つのペアパートからなる構造であるといえるが、Follow-up (accept/denial) とは異なり、第 3 パートは第 2 パートの正誤を評価する発話ではなく、質問形式の発話によって導入した内容の説明を行っている。
質問 3 では、コンサルタントは明確な応答を待たずに問題の指摘を行う。いわばここまでの会話によって、指摘の準備という活動は達成され、次に「問題の指摘」という活動に移行する。そうした活動の境界として「そのときの問題点って何だろ」という発話が置かれているといえる。

5.2.

「知識の非対称」「意向」と質問

ついで、より発展的な分析課題として、「起業チャレンジ」の会話において、このような前提の準備が要請される背景について、「知識の非対称」および応募者の「意向」という観点から考察してみたい。
先に述べたように、BUM はコンサルタントが応募者のプランに助言を行い、最終選考のためにプランの改善を目指すミーティングである。経営の専門家であるコンサルタントは「助言する立場」として、プランの不備や見通しの厳しさといったことについて指摘することが妥当な「カテゴリー付随活動」(Sacks, 1972) であるといえる。この助言者 - 被助言者というカテゴリーは、活動を通して助言やその準備を行うことを通じてレリバントになっている。この助言者 - 被助言者というカテゴリー化装置において、助言者は経営的知識に関して大幅に応募者を凌駕している。
一方、助言者 - 被助言者というカテゴリー化装置と並行的に、構築しようとしているサー
ビスのフィールド（ここでのデータの場合は、小さい子どもがいて仕事の一線を退いている
母親のおかれている状況など）、どのようなサービスを構築したいかという意向をもっているかどうか、つまり当事者 - 部外者というカテゴリー化装置も潜在しているはずである。このカテゴリー化装置は、特に「ビジネスプランを自分のものとして説明する」という行為において顕著にレリバントになると考えられる。とりわけ、コンサルタントは応募者がどのようなサービスを構築したいか、ということについて、本人から引き出す以外には知ることができない。単に知ることができないばかりでなく、コンサルタントはその「意向」の部分に、誤りの指摘などの直接的な介入を行うことができない。このためここで、並行するふたつの4−12−第16回大会発表論文集第９号

カテゴリー化装置は、関係する重要な情報に関して、片方を資源として利用できる側はもう片方を利用できない、という二重の非対称性をもつことになる。つまり、単純に知識が多い- 少ないという対立ではなく、ある局面においてはコンサルタントが優勢になり、別の局面
では応募者が優勢になる。このことを図示したのが図 1 である。

図 1: 本データにおける二重の非対称性のイメージ

5.3.

問題提起／解決と関係性の構築

BUM および「起業チャレンジ」は、応募者のプランの改善およびコンテスト入賞という課題を解決するために、数ヶ月にわたって続けられる活動である。本研究の中心的な対象である BUM に限っても、ミーティング開始から最終プレゼンテーションまで約 1ヶ月半の間
継続的に行われる。
継続的な活動の場合は特に、問題解決のためにそれぞれの立場に基づいた役割を果たすことについての信頼関係の構築が重要な課題になると考えられる。本論では萌芽的な段階に留まるが、このような問題解決と信頼関係の構築についても考察したい。
本研究において想定する問題解決と信頼関係のモデルは概略図 2 のようなものである。
BUM において具体的に話し合われるのは「個々の問題解決」についてである。同時に、そうした問題の指摘と解決のための試みを通して、コンサルタントは応募者に対して「指摘に応じることができる」かどうか、応募者はその指摘によって「意向を実現する可能性を見いだせる」かどうかという観点から、互いに相手に対する「信頼」を確認・更新しながらやりとりを進めていくと考えられる。
さらに、そのようにして構築された信頼関係は、具体的な活動においてそれぞれの役割を果たすことができることを意味する。ここでは応募者が「指摘に応じることができる」ことによってコンサルタントは「指摘をすること」が可能となり、またコンサルタントによって「意向を実現する可能性を見いだせる」から応募者は「意向を実現するための応募者の考え」
を提示することが可能となる。
そのような信頼関係の構築と、構築された信頼関係がもつ活動への影響については、今後の研究においてさらに考察を深めていきたい。

5−13−

起業コンサルテーション会話における「知識の非対称」と「意向」：コンサルタントの「質問」を中心に

図 2: 信頼関係と問題解決のイメージ

参考文献[1] Masanobu, Masuda. (2011) Question-responses in Japanese Interview Dialogues: Examination of Doo-type Q-word Question. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Kyoto
University.
[2] Sacks, H. (1972) An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data fordoing sociology. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York: Free
Press.
[3] Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[4] Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1992) Towards an analysis of discourse. In Coulthard,
M. (Ed) Advances in spoken discourse analysis. London: Routledge.
[5] 高梨克也 (2011) 「実社会で自然に生起する継続的なミーティング活動のフィールド調査の狙いと工夫」『人工知能学会研究会資料』 SIG-SLUD-B101: 55-62.

6−14−

第16回大会発表論文集

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44

応：
コ：

第９号

っていうふうに考えています
はい

応： はい
(間：約 5 秒

資料をめくっている)

コ： ふうん(間：約 7 秒 資料をめくっている)
コ：

最初のころ言ってたやつで<ママコミュニティーにはしたくないっていうの::> (たよね) ありまし応：コ：

はい [hh[とか: あと: これはやってるとこってあるじゃないですかママコミュニティーっていう意応：

味では(頷き) [コミュニティー

コ：
応：

そ[ことはどういうスタンスの違いがあると思いますか
うう::んママコミュニティーにはしたくないっていう気持ちはいまでもあっ[てー

コ：
応：

[うん
ママサー (.) クルみたいな活動には: (.) とは思う (.) 一方で: あの::::: (2.0) 初めは: (0.2) <マ

コ：マっていう属性を外して> (0.2) こういう形態を取っていた[んです[うんうん (.) うん

応：コ：

ただ:: (.) そうしたときに: (.) あの (.) ここに集まる意義が↓
うんうん

応：
コ：

見えにくくなってしまっ[たんですよ[うんうんうん応：コ：

あのー (.) 主婦たちの技術者::::: (.) の: (2.5) おのおのの:: (0.5)
うん[うん

応：
応：

[イベントっていうのが↓:なので: (.) 一つ考え方::によっては:これはママ用イベントだけれども:こっちは働く女性向け?

コ：

こっちは専任向けみたいなうん。[まあこっち・・・ (応：
応：[イベントをはい。[つくるっていう方法もあるのかな:と思いなが[ら::

コ：
応：

[うーん
[うーん
ただ:ママって:すごいその::結束力が (.) あって:: (0.5) 友達を誘って: (.) あの::いままでもその::)ベビーマッサージの>先生とかを呼んだりしたとき<に:: (.) 軽く 20 人集まる[>んですよ地方で
やっても<
コ：
応：

[うんうんうんうん(吸気音) そこが:あの:::一つ::その:: (1.0) 成り立ちやすいのではないかっていう (.) (吸) [ところ
で::

コ：
応：

[なる
ほど
ターゲットを絞るっていう課題に対して::まず出した (.) 方法がママっていう区切り方で:::コ：> <このサービスを受けていくと::>応： はい。
コ：> <かよちゃんはどういう (か*) (.) 存在になっていくんでしょうか (0.5) の[かしら>応：[どういう存在になっ−15−

起業コンサルテーション会話における「知識の非対称」と「意向」：コンサルタントの「質問」を中心に

45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86

コ：

ていくか=
=例えば[ (0.2)

応：
コ：

[はい=
=あの:::コミュニティーとか::サークルっていう意味だと:: (ま*) いま:ちょっとフラストレー
ション抱えて一人でもんもんとしている人たちが::友達ができます (2.0) で::みんなと同じような (1.5) 何だ (0.5) 志¿ (.) 志でもないかな::何かこう (.) まあ和気あいあいと::それぞれネイルやり合ったり何やったりっていうそれぞれの: (.) まあ (0.2) 持っているスキルを持ち合ってみんなでいろいろ話しましょうっていうコミュニティーができてハッピーになるよね[って

応：
コ：
コ：

[うんうん [はい[っていうのがゴールなのか (0.3) それとも:: (.) あの:::例えば (0.2) いま (0.2) は (.) まだ資格取ったばっかりでアマチュア[で (

)

応：
コ：

[うーん
実績積むところもありませ[ん

応：
コ：

[うーん
だから::えっと::それを実績積む場を (0.3) ここで得られるので:そこで一生懸命やって (.) 最終
的には (0.2) プロのフリーランスとし< て¿あの::やっていきたいと思って (もはちっちゃいから: (ん:) がんがん働くことはできないけど:)>いま*子ど応：コ：

は:い例えば::まあ: (.) 小学校行ったりとか中学校行ったりしてきたら:: (.) じゃそのブランク期間も応：あった (けど*) そこでももう: (.) 経験は積んでいただいて (0.3) で::中学ぐらいになって: (.)
ん::

コ：

応：

じゃ::その経験使ってフリーランスやってみ* (.) るようにしますと か (0.3) ま:あるいはそれを-:ん:の*スキルを生かした就職 (0.3) え*就職しますと#か (0.5) #いう感じのず (.) イメージなの
か:: どっちなんでしょうね(2) そうですね::ん (.) 目指すところは::後者の方で:す=

コ：
応：

=う[ん
そ[の:: (0.5) > 何だろうな < (1.5) サー
クルという:::>よりは< (0.3) 自分の能力を人に:貢献してお金を得るっていう (0.2) その:: (2.5)
仕組みが:できる (.) サイトで[ありたいなと思っているんですけど:コ：コ：[うんうんうん(0.5) そのときの問題点って何だろ?

応：コ：(2.0) ん::::::::[::::[何かね[ (.) >もう* (.) あの (.) ちょと*僕の考え言っちゃう<と=応：[はいコ：> その (.) ん*問題はその結束力の (0.2) 高さだと思うんですよ応：コ：

n ああ:::[::
[逆にね

応：
コ：

あ:::
何か (.) 分かるかもしれない[すけど

応：
コ：

[は::い
飛び抜けられないんですよね (.) k

−16−

=はい

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

論証的ポリフォニー理論による緩叙法・婉曲語法の分析
大久保朝憲
関西大学

<Abstract>
This paper tries to analyze two rhetorical figures: litotes and euphemism from the standpoint of theArgumentative polyphony theory (APT). By using such theoretical notions as tones, textual
functions, etc., and by elaborating these notions in order that textual functions can be gradable, asemantic continuity between irony, litotes, and euphemism was made clear. The textual function isdetermined by the speaker’s attitude toward the semantic content, which can be endorsed,
excluded, or accorded. From APT’s point of view, litotes and euphemism are quite similar to eachother, but they differ in the degree of endorsing or excluding the semantic content.

【キーワード】緩叙法・婉曲語法・論証的ポリフォニー理論・トーン・発話機能

はじめに
本発表では、「論証的ポリフォニー理論 La théorie argumentative de la polyphonie」に依拠し、修辞学で「緩叙法」「婉曲語法」といわれる文彩の分析をこころみた。その際、緩叙法をアイロニーの一種、
婉曲語法をポライトネス表現の一種とかんがえて、両者は表裏一体の関係にあるということを理論的に論じることを目的とした。
データについては、それぞれの文彩の性質に応じて、日本語・英語のものをもちいている（出典をしめしていない例はすべて説明のための作例である）。


分析対象
修辞学でいう緩叙法 litotes と婉曲語法 euphemism は、各種文献をみても、相互の区別がはっきりしないことがおおく、記述上の混同がみられることもすくなくない。フランスの古典的な修辞学者（Dumarsais, Fontanier など）の定義にしたがえば、両者はおおむねつぎのように特徴づけられる。
緩叙法とは、あることを実際より極端によわく表現して、そのギャップでかえってつよさをかんじさせること（例：とてもよいとおもっているくせに “Not bad.” などという）。婉曲語法とは、そのままいうときつくなる、あいてをきずつけてしまう、というときに、実際よりおさえた表現をもちいること（例：全然できないとおもっている学生のことを “He is not excellent.” などという）。
本発表では、緩叙法・婉曲語法のいずれについてもなんらかの「評価」にかかわるものをあつかう。
形式的には、両者ともに、実際にいうべき語の反意語を否定することによるのが典型的だが、評価にかかわる述語の否定について注意しておくべきことがある。まず、よい意味をあらわす語の否定は、その語が反意語と（矛盾関係ではなく）反対関係をむすぶばあいでも「かといってわるくもない」という中間段階をしめさず、わるいほうの意味にひっぱられる傾向が観察される。
(1)? It’s not {good/safe/kind/beautiful}, but it’s not {bad/dangerous/unkind/ugly} either.

(2)？｛おいしくない／安全ではない／親切じゃない／きれいじゃない｝が、｛まずくもない／危険

1−17−

論証的ポリフォニー理論による緩叙法・婉曲語法の分析でもない／不親切でもない／きたなくもない｝。
なにかをたべて「おいしくない」というのは、「まずい」とおもっているときで、どちらでもない意味
でそういいたければ、日本語では「とくに」などの副詞をつけて意味をはっきりさせるのが普通である。いっぽう、婉曲語法では、この種の好評価語を否定し、かつあいてをきずつけないようにしないといけないので、よい意味の述語を、いまのべた「とくに」などでひきたてたり、もとから程度が極端にたかい語をえらんで否定するのが通常である。したがって、典型的な婉曲語法とは、以下のようなものになる。
(3)

It’s not {ideal/excellent/extremely clean/perfect}.

(4)

理想的ではないですね／卓抜とはいえない／超清潔ってかんじではない／完璧ではないかな。

これにたいして緩叙法では、実際にいわれることと本来いうべきことのギャップがポイントとなる。
前述のように、好評価語の否定は、わるい意味にひっぱられる傾向があるので、緩叙法にはなじまない。典型的には、悪評価語の否定をもちいると緩叙法的性格があらわれやすい。
(5)

It’s not {bad/stupid/ugly/awful}.

(6)

わるくない／ばかじゃない／ぶさいくじゃない／ひどくない

わるい意味の語には、否定してもいい意味のほうにひっぱられる傾向はないので、これらの語は、通常の、「まあまあ」の意味でも使用できるが、緩叙法は、文脈からあきらかに「『まあまあ』ではたりない、もっとほめるべき」というときに使用されて効果を発揮する 1。
以上の議論から、両者の性質をおおむねつぎのようにまとめることができる。
緩叙法：実際には好評価の発話がのぞまれる文脈で悪評価語の否定という不十分ないいまわしでギャップを生じさせること。
婉曲語法：悪評価せざるをえないときに、程度の高い好評価語を否定することで、直接的な悪評価をさけること。
したがって、婉曲語法は典型的な FTA 回避表現、つまりポライトネス表現とみることができるいっ
ぽうで、緩叙法は一種のアイロニーであるということができる。
「わざと反対のことをいう」という一
般的なアイロニーの理解に即していえば、緩叙法は、「（反対までいかないが）わざと程度が極端にひくいことをいう」ことで、状況にふつりあいな発話をしているという点でアイロニーにちかいものであることが観察できる。緩叙法についてのおおくの研究でもこれはひろくみとめられており、たとえば Wilson (2006) では、緩叙法は「アイロニー的ひかえめ表現 ironical understatement」とよばれている。


理論的わくぐみ：論証的ポリフォニー理論 
本研究が、「論証 argumentation」に注目して言語を分析するというとき、それは、フランスの言語学者 Ducrot の論証主義的言語学にもとづいている。これは、言語をもちいておこなう論証というより

2−18−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

も、言語そのものが論証的な構造物であるという認識を出発点にし、あらゆる発話は、前後の発話との一定の論証的な関係によって意味をもっているのだというかんがえかたである。
つぎに、「ポリフォニー」とは、バフチンの文学理論でもちいられた概念を、デュクロが借用し、テクスト以前に、言語そのものがポリフォニー的なものであるというたちばから発話を記述しようとこ
ころみたものである。ポリフォニー的というのは、ひとつの発話には、しばしば複数の声がひびきあっていて、話者はそれらの声をきかせながら、発話主体として全体をまとめているのだというかんがえかたである。以下の例をかんがえてみよう。
(7)

きみの作品は駄作じゃない、逆に傑作だよ。

「逆に」はその前後の要素が対立・矛盾していることをしめすとかんがえられるが、実はそうではない。
「駄作じゃない」ことと「傑作」であることは矛盾しないので、ここで対立関係にあるのはむしろ「駄作である」ことと「傑作である」ことではないだろうか。つまり、「逆に」は、前半部分にひそむ「きみの作品は駄作だ」という内容を参照しているのであり、このことは、前半の否定文には、肯定の内容を主張する声と否定のそれを主張する声が両方ふくまれていることをしめしている。ポリフォ
ニー理論は、このような発話内の声の複数性＝多声性に注目し、そのしくみをあきらかにしようとする理論である。
ポリフォニー理論は、1984 年のデュクロの論文 (Ducrot (1984)) にはじまるが、のちにキャレルによって論証的ポリフォニー理論（Théorie argumentative de la polyphonie (TAP)）として再理論化された (Carel (2011))。本研究が依拠しているのもこの理論なので、その道具だてをごく簡単に紹介する。
TAP は、「トーン tons」と「発話機能 fonctions textuelles」という 2 つの主要概念によって、「意味
内容 contenu sémantique2」をディスコース上にいちづけ、発話として機能させるのだとかんがえる。
 トーン
トーンとは、発話内の意味内容が、だれによっていわれているものかをしめすもので、3 つのトーンが区別される。
話者トーン：「単なる絶叫戦術はテロ行為とその本質においてあまり変わらない 3」というとき、その内容は、ほかでもない話者自身が、自分で国会周辺の街頭デモのようすをみてかんじたことをのべている。このようなとき、この内容には「話者トーン」が付与されているという。
世界トーン：報道をみききしたうえで、「特定秘密保護法が国会で可決された」というとき、これは自分でそうおもったのではなく、世界でそういう事態が生じたということを認識したうえでのべられるものである。このようなとき、この内容には「世界トーン」が付与されているという。
他者トーン：「福島第 1 原発の汚染水もれは、完全にコントロールされているらしいよ 4」というとき、この内容を、話者は自分でおもったわけでもなく、世界内の事実としてそうだとしったのでもなく、
だれかがそうのべていたことをきいてそれを報告している。このようなとき、この内容には「他者トーン」が付与されているという。
以上のように、ある発話の物理的主体は話者自身だが、その内容によって、実際には複数のトーンが関与しているというのが TAP のかんがえかたである。

3−19−

論証的ポリフォニー理論による緩叙法・婉曲語法の分析 発話機能
発話される内容は、前節でみたようにさまざまなトーンをとりうるが、その内容が、どのような態度をもって発話されるかということは、これとは独立してかんがえることができる。これが発話機能 5で、現状では 3 つの発話機能が提案されている。
ひきうけ       ：話者が意味内容をディスコースの前面にいちづけ、その内容がディスコー
ス内でもちうる論証的方向性にしたがってディスコースが展開することを認可するとき、話者はその内容を「ひきうけ」ているという。
(8)

捨て場所もないような原発を経済成長に必要だからとつくるのはばかげている。同じ金を自然エ
ネルギーに使って循環型社会をつくる方が建設的だ 6。

自明のようにみえるが、(8) では、話者が前半部分の内容を「ひきうける」からこそ、後半部分のよ
うにディスコースを展開することができる。しかし、ひきうけが自明でないことは、つぎのような例
からしることができる。
(9)

命や健康よりも大切なものがある！ 私たち原発推進派は自民党を支持します。

これはある政治運動家が自分の街宣車にかかげた文言 7 であるが、話者がこの内容をひきうけていない
ことはあきらかである。
排除    ：(7) の否定文をふくむ例でみたように、否定文では、肯定・否定の 2 つの内容がしめされ、ディスコースは、否定のほうの内容にもとづいて展開し、肯定のほうをひきついで展開することは禁じられる。そのことを TAP では「排除」という。排除は、否定形態素のような標識で表示されるのが普通だが、上記 (9) の例のように、標識なしで判断されるばあいもある。
承認 ：これは、意味論の「前提」にちかい発話機能で、その内容を話者はみとめるが、ディスコース上では背景化し、そこからディスコースが展開することはない。
(10) 特定秘密保護法で、日本の民主主義は解体するだろうな。
この発話から、「日本の民主主義が解体する」という内容以外に、「日本は現在民主主義国家である」という内容をよみとることもできるが、ここではそれにそってディスコースが展開することは想定されていない。このとき、この内容は「承認」されていることになる。
 による緩叙法の分析 アイロニー
緩叙法はアイロニーの一種であるとすでにのべたが、まず Ducrot (2010) で提案された TAP によるアイロニーの記述を紹介し、そこから緩叙法がどのように記述できるのかをかんがえてみよう。Ducrot

4−20−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

は、アイロニーとは、ある内容に話者トーンがあたえられながらも、排除されたものが発話されることであるとしている。つまり、あることを、自分でおもいついたこととしていいながら、その内容にしたがってディスコースを展開してゆく気がない、というのがアイロニーだということである。排除は、否定辞など、さきにみたようになんらかの言語的標識をともなうのが通常だが、アイロニーではそれがないことが特徴である。
(11) きみの予想どおりの日本ばれだな。
これは、ききての予想に反して悪天になった状況などで、古典的なアイロニー発話となる例である。
TAP では、こうした典型的なアイロニーではつぎのようなことがおこっているとかんがえる。
「日本ばれである」ということを、話者は話者トーンで発話するが、同時に、この内容をひきうけずに排除し、「日本ばれである」という内容から展開しうるディスコースを拒否している。アイロニーの特徴は、
この「排除」という発話機能が、明示的な言語的標識なしにおこなわれるということである。そして、
話者トーンであるのにひきうけられていない、というかたちでその内容をディスコースに位置づけることで、アイロニーについてよくいわれる「ふり pretence」 の発話としての性質についても説明できる。あることを「いっているふりをする」というのは、まさに、自分のものとしてはなすことの内容を、ひきうけないということにほかならない。さきの (9) の発話も、その点でアイロニーであることがわかる。
アイロニーにはもちろんほかにもいろいろなタイプがあるが、基本的にはこの図式による記述が有効であるとかんがえられる。そして、これから検討する緩叙法もアイロニーの 1 タイプととらえることができる以上、基本的なメカニズムは同様であるとかんがえて考察をすすめたい。
 発話機能の程度と緩叙法
アイロニーは、典型的には辛辣な内容を反転させていうことでその効果をだすが、好評価ができる
のに、わざとその反対のことをいうようなタイプのアイロニーもある。すでにのべたように（2 章）、緩叙法も好評価文脈で使用されることがおおいので、それと平行して考察するために、好評価アイロ
ニーと緩叙法をあわせて検討してみよう 8。
(12) Your husband is really a very bad cook.
(13) Your husband is not a bad cook.
(12)はアイロニー、(13)は緩叙法の事例である。友人宅に招待されていってみたら、高級レストラン
なみのごちそうがテーブルにならんでいた、といような状況を想定されたい。(13)が緩叙法的効果を発揮するためには、これが反論的否定ではなく、話者のすなおな評価としてこういういいかたがされたという状況を想定されたい。豪華なごちそうにもかかわらず、あえて not a bad cook ということ、これが緩叙法の醍醐味である。
(12)のアイロニーについての記述はすでにしめしたアイロニーの例と同様、話者は、[Your husband isreally a very bad cook]という内容を、みずからかんがえたものとして話者トーンでいいつつ、そこに同時に「排除」の発話機能を付与している。これにたいして(13)では、まず否定の発話として、肯定の内容 [your husband is a bad cook] が排除され、否定の内容 [your husband is not a bad cook]

5
−21−

がひき

論証的ポリフォニー理論による緩叙法・婉曲語法の分析うけられているというプロセスがあるが、本来のべられるべき内容が [your husband is an excellent
cook] であることから、このひきうけられた内容もあらためて（不十分なものとして）「排除」されるとかんがえる必要がある。ところで、(12) のアイロニー発話で排除される内容 [your husband is reallya very bad cook] と [your husband is an excellent cook]のあいだには、意味論的にも、論証的にも対極的な対立があり、アイロニーで前者が排除されているというのはその点でも理解されやすいが、緩叙法では、[your husband is not a bad cook]と[your husband is an excellent cook]は、意味論的には矛盾がなく、論証的な対立もよわい。それぞれの内容は、非常に単純化したものではあるが、ディコース
内でたとえば以下のような展開が期待されるものである。
(14) [your husband is really a very bad cook] > [I refuse to eat his dish](15) [your husband is not a bad cook] > [I can eat his dish](16) [your husband is an excellent cook] > [I will eat his dish with pleasure](12)がアイロニーの発話であるとき、(14)の前半の内容が排除されるので、そこから後半のようにディスコースが展開することが定義上禁じられ、「けなすどころかほめている」という意味がつたわる。また、(13)が緩叙法として発話されれば、同様に、(15) ののようなディスコース展開が禁じられるが、ここでは、前者のように、「それどころか」という意味の逆転がかんじられるのではなく、[not a badcook]、あるいは[I can eat …]では「とてもいいつくされていない」という意味がつたわる。
「逆である」
ことも「十分でない」ということも、その内容を排除しているといえるが、排除の程度に差がかんじられる。つまり、緩叙法における排除は、典型的なアイロニーにおける排除にくらべて「よわい」ものであることが観察されるのだ。緩叙法を「緩和されたアイロニー」とよぶのは、まさにこのような事情による。
「いいたいことの反対をいうことによる」というだけはつくされないとする、これまでもしばしば批判されてきたアイロニーの古典的な定義の問題は、TAP の規定する発話機能である排除の「程度」の問題であり、これが十全なものが古典的な定義に合致する典型的なアイロニーであり、緩叙法をふくむその他のものも、排除の「程度」をかんがえることで記述できる可能性がある。
 による婉曲語法の分析
悪評価の直接的言述をさける文彩としての婉曲語法について、つぎの発話を考察したい。

(17) He is not an excellent cook.
さきのアイロニー・緩叙法の例とは逆に、ここでは、まねかれた先での友人の夫の料理がひどいものだったという設定になる。とにかくまずい食事をしてようやくその家をでてきたところで、非常にポライトな同伴者が (17) のようにいったとしよう。つまりここでは、[He is really a very bad cook] という内容が、さきほどとは逆に「本来いうべきこと」になっている状況である。この発話 (17) は、論
証的には、たとえば以下のようなディスコース展開を予想させるものである。
(18) [he is not an excellent cook] > [I will not eat his dish with pleasure](19) [he is really a very bad cook] > [I refuse to eat his dish]6−22−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号(19)は、本来言われるべき内容として参考までにつけたが、(14)とほぼおなじものである。婉曲語法では、話者は発話内容をひきうけている、つまり、(18)のようなディスコース展開をみとめていると本発
表ではかんがえた。批判的にすぎることをつたえず、ポライトな言述をおこなう以上、(19)のような「真意」がつたわってはいけない。だから(18)のようなディスコース展開をみとめるというのがポライトな発話のポライトたるゆえんではないかとかんがえられるからである。しかし、同時にまた、ポライト
ネスとは、「わたしはポライトにふるまっている」ということを「みせる」発話行為でもあり、そうであるためには、(17)が完全にもじどおりに理解されてはいけない。「料理の達人ではないが、そこそこだ」という意味がそのままつたわってしまっては、ただそういうことをいったことになってしまう。
発話内容にたいするこのようなある種の「距離感」を TAP の概念をつかってとらえなおすと、それは、「弱化されたひきうけ」ととらえることができる。そして、このようにかんがえることで、冒頭でのべた、緩叙法、アイロニーとポライトな発話の連続性がとらえやすくなる。これまでの議論のまとめとして、最後にこのことについてかんがえてみたい。


緩叙法・婉曲語法の推移
2 章でのべたように、緩叙法と婉曲語法の対象となる述語には語彙的「すみわけ」とでもいえるようなものがあり、緩叙法は悪評価語の否定、婉曲語法は極度な好評価語の否定によるものが基本的な実現形式となっている。ただ、これはひとつの原則にすぎず、文脈がととのえば、原則外のケースもありうる。婉曲語法の例としてあげた(17)の例について再考してみたい。
(20) He is not an excellent cook. (=(17))(21) He is a horrible cook.
かりに、友人の夫がただ料理がへたというだけでなく、だされた料理はすべて奇妙なあじつけで、実際まねかれた話者たちは食事中に体調をくずし、這々の体で友人宅を退出してきたというような状況を想定されたい。そのような状況でも、話者の同伴者は、性格上きわめて慇懃な人物であるために、(21)のようにはどうしてもいえず、くるしまぎれに(20)のようにいうことになるが、ここではもう、婉
曲語法としてその内容をひきうけきれないことはあきらかである。そのいっぽうで、ここでは、アイ
ロニー成立のために必要なギャップが十分に確保されてしまうことで、この状況での(20) のききては、
つぎのように反応してもおかしくはないことになる。
(22) Is it an irony or what ?
以上のことから、つぎのようにいうことができる。TAP で提案される 2 つの発話機能である「ひきうけ」と「排除」は、論証的に対極的な機能だが、その機能のしかたはともに程度化できるものである。ある内容をひきうけるとは、その内容にそったディスコース展開を認可することだが、ポライト
ネス的発話は、このひきうけが弱化されたもので、弱化したひきうけであることをしめすことがポラ
イトネスをしめすことになる。しかし、状況から、ひきうけがさらに弱化すると、それは排除に接近し、ある程度以上になると、これは「弱化されたひきうけ」から「弱化された排除」とみなされるよ
うになり、緩叙法と判断されることになる。この緩叙法はアイロニーの一種だが、これが緩和された
アイロニーであるのは、典型的なアイロニーでは、「排除」が 100%なされるものだからということで

7−23−

論証的ポリフォニー理論による緩叙法・婉曲語法の分析ある。以上を図示するとつぎの(23)のようになる。
(23) 発話機能の程度と緩叙法・婉曲語法の推移
排除
典型的アイロニー

ひきうけ
緩叙法

婉曲語法

通常の発話

ひきうけ・排除の程度化には、本来なんらかの言語標識が関与するところであるとかんがえられるが、アイロニー、緩叙法、婉曲語法といった文彩では、特にそうした言語標識なしで、発話機能の程度化が実現している。


結論
以上みてきたように、文彩的な発話とは、ひきうけ、排除といった発話機能のはたらきの程度をうまくコントロールすることで実現するとかんがえられる。そして、すくなくとも緩叙法と婉曲語法については、これらがもたらす修辞的効果は表裏一体で、TAP によって、その連続性を一貫性のあるものとして記述できる。このことはまた、日常の言語使用で、ポライトネスに配慮していったつもりが皮肉になってしまう、皮肉のつもりが好意的にとられてしまうといった経験にも合致するものである。
注
1日本語の例(6)をみてもわかるとおり、日本語は緩叙法があまりうまく機能しない言語で、「もじどおり」に理解されて、単に不適切な発話をしていると解釈されがちである。
「かわいくない」など、一部語彙化したものもある
が、生産性はひくい。
2 「意味内容」とは、語レベルの signifié にあたるものにかぎらず、むしろ論証性の契機となるような一定のながさの言語表現によってつたえられるもののことである。一般的な意味論で「命題内容」といわれるものに比較可能であるが、真理条件にくみするものではない点がそれとの本質的なちがいである。
3 石破茂オフィシャルブログより（http://ishiba-shigeru.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2013/11/post-18a0.html）（2014
年 3 月 31 日確認時点で、該当箇所に字けし線あり。）
4 「福島第 1 原発の汚染水もれは、完全にコントロールされている」という内容自体は、国際オリンピック委員会(IOC) 総会（2013 年 9 月 7 日）の招致演説での、安倍晋三首相の発言にもとづいている。
5 原語では fonction textuelle とされているが、この用語がしめす内容を日本語でより適切に表現するため、「発話機能」とよぶことにする。
6 小泉純一郎氏の記者会見での発言（2013 年 11 月 13 日）にもとづく。
7 政治運動家外山恒一氏が、2013 年夏の参院選運動時に街宣車にかかげた文言にもとづく。
8 好評価をあえて反転させた意味内容でアイロニカルに表現するという手法は、日本語の慣用にはあまりなじまないので、以下は英語の作例を中心に検討する。

参照文献
Carel, M. 2011. L’Entrelacement argumentatif. Lexique, discours et blocs sémantiques. Paris: Éditions HonoréChampion.
Ducrot, O. 1984. Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.
Ducrot, O. 2010. “Ironie et négation.” In V. Atayan & U. Wienen (ed.) Ironie et un peu plus – Hommage à Oswald
Ducrot pour son 80ème anniversaire –, 169-179. Berne: Peter Lang.
Du Marsais, 1730/1977. Traité des Tropes. Paris: Le nouveau commerce.
Fontanier, P. 1821-1827/1977. Les figures du discours. Paris: Flammarion.
Wilson, D. 2006. “The Pragmatics of Verbal Irony : Echo or Pretence?”, Lingua 116 (10), 1722 - 1743.

8−24−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋᡭࡢ⮬ᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹ኱ሯ⏕Ꮚ(㏆␥኱Ꮫ 㠀ᖖ໅ㅮᖌ)㇂ᬛᏊ(୕㔜኱Ꮫ ≉௵ㅮᖌ)ࠓAbstractࠔ
In this paper, we investigate the concept of ‘speaker’s face’ from the perspective of a
discursive approach to politeness. Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory mainly focuses on‘hearer’s face’ when it considers concrete politeness strategies.

This paper, in contrast,emphasizes the importance of focusing on both hearer’s face and speaker’s face. Throughanalysis of boasting and quarrel interactions, we establish that speakers judge whether‘speaker’s face’ or ‘hearer’s face’ is more important in a given situation and then choose
appropriate politeness strategies based on this judgment. We found that speakers may say
something that could threaten hearer’s face, because they deem their own face more
important than hearer’s face.

The same framework can be used to consider impoliteness.

࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠊdiscursive approachࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ⮬ᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ

㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

ࢺࢿࢫࢆྵࡴ᪂ࡓ࡞࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ◊✲ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡟

Brown and Levinson(1987, ௨ୗ B&L)ࡢ࣏ࣛ

ࡼࡾࠊ෇⁥࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡍࡿ

࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽ 1 ࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ◊✲࡟࠾

B&L ࡢࣔࢹ࡛ࣝࡣᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙ㠃࣭⌧㇟࣭࠸࡚᭱ࡶ᭷ຊ࡛ᙳ㡪ຊࡢᙉ࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ

≧ἣ➼ࡶࠊゝㄒ⾜ືࢆ㏻ࡋࡓே㛫㛵ಀᵓ⠏ࡢሙ࡜ࡋ࠿ࡋ㏆ᖺࠊᙼࡽࡢࣔࢹࣝࡣ⌮ㄽඛ⾜ᆺ࡛つ⠊ⓗࡋ࡚ศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡢᢈุ࠿ࡽࠊ᪂ࡓ࡟ discursive approachࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᢅࢃࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᡭἲࢆ⏝࠸࡚࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ◊✲ࢆ⾜࠺࡭ࡁヰࡋᡭࡢ⮬ᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟╔┠ࡋࠊࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮㑅࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡢὶࢀࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࢖࣏ࣥࣛ࢖

ᢥࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࢆࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࣮࣡ࢡࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ

B&L(1987)ࡣ Goffman(1967)ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢᴫᛕࢆᒎ㛤ࡉࡏ࡚ negative face ࡜ positive face ࡟ศࡅ㸪ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ
࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿேࠎࡢࠕᇶᮏⓗḧồࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚
࠶ࡿ⾜Ⅽࡀ┦ᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ⬣࠿ࡍᗘྜ࠸ࢆࠕFTA ᗘྜ࠸ࡢぢ✚ࡶࡾබᘧࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⟬ฟࡋࠊࡑࡢᗘྜ࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
FTA ᗘྜ࠸ࢆୗࡆࡿࡓࡵࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚Ⓨヰࢆ⏘ฟࡍࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
FTA ᗘྜ࠸ࡢぢ✚ࡾබᘧ㸸Wx=D(S,H)㸩(H,S)㸩Rx
(B&L,1987:76)
S ࡣࠕヰࡋᡭ(Speaker)ࠖH ࡣࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ(Hearer)ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍࠋWx㸸࠶ࡿ⾜Ⅽ x ࡀ┦ᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ⬣࠿ࡍᗘྜ࠸
(Weight)ࠊD(S, H)㸸ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢ♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳(Distance)ࠊP(H, S)㸸ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ┦ᑐⓗᶒຊ(Power)ࠊRx㸸࠶ࡿ⾜Ⅽ x ࡢ㸪≉ᐃࡢᩥ໬࡟࠾ࡅࡿᢲࡋ௜
ࡅࡀࡲࡋࡉࡢ⛬ᗘࡢ⤯ᑐⓗ࡞㡰఩௜ࡅ(Rank)

1

㸰㸬㏆ᖺࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ◊✲B&L ࢆࡣࡌࡵ࡜ࡍࡿࡑࢀࡲ࡛ࡢྜ⌮୺⩏ⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ(rationalistic approach)࡟ࡼࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺ
ࢿࢫ◊✲࡟ᑐࡋࠊࡇࢀࡽࡣ⌮ㄽ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡵ࡚Ⓨヰࢆゎ㔘ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࢺࢵࣉࢲ࢘ࣥᘧ࡛࠶ࡾࠊつ⠊ࢆෆໟࡍࡿࡶࡢࡔ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢈุࢆ⾜࠺࣏ࢫࢺࣔࢲࣥⓗ ㄯ ヰ ⓗ ࢔ ࣉ ࣟ ࣮ ࢳ (postmodern, discursive
approach)ࡢᡭἲ࡟ࡼࡿ◊✲ࡀ⯆㝯ࡋ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡣࠊEelen(2001)ࡸ Watts(1992, 2003)࡞࡝࡟
1−25−

ポライトネス理論における話し手の自己フェイスに関する一考察௦⾲ࡉࢀࡿࠊBroudieu ࡞࡝ࡢ♫఍⌮ㄽࢆ᥼⏝ࡋࡓࡌࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚◊✲ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁࡔ࡜ࡍࡿ❧࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡛ࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ఍ヰࡢศᯒࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᐇドⓗሙࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋMills(2003)ࡶࡲࡓࠊ◊࠿ࡘ࣎ࢺ࣒࢔ࢵࣉᘧ࡟⌮ㄽࢆᵓ⠏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡇ࠺࡜ࡍ

✲⪅ࡀ⊂⮬ࡢุ᩿࡛᪤Ꮡࡢ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳ࡟๎ࡗ࡚

ࡿጼໃࢆྲྀࡿࠋ

఍ヰࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ༴㝤ᛶࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ఍

Eelen(2001)ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡟㛵ࡍヰཧຍ⪅ࡢㄆ㆑ࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟఍ヰグ㘓ࡿ୺せ࡞◊✲(LakoffࠊB&LࠊLeechࠊGuࠊIdeࠊᚋࡢࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࣭࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢ㔜せᛶࢆ୺

Blum-KulkaࠊFraser and NolenࠊJanney andᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ArndtࠊWatts)ࢆᣲࡆࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⌮ㄽࡢ≉ᚩࢆ ࡇࢀࡽࡢ discursive approach ࡟ࡼࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺᴫほࡋࡓࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡲ࡛ࡢከࡃࡢ࣏ࣛ

ࢿࢫ◊✲ࡢ୰࠿ࡽࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢኻ

࢖ࢺࢿࢫ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ឤぬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ࣏ࣛ

ᩋࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ࢖࣏ࣥࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡟ࡘ

࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠖ(politeness1)࡜ᑓ㛛⏝ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ࣏

࠸࡚ࡶࠊࡑࢀ⮬య࡜ࡋ࡚ᑐே㛵ಀ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢࠊ

ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠖ(politeness2)ࡀΰྠࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸

࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ᪉␎ⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖

࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊ࡝ࡢ◊✲ࡶ⤖ᒁࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ෇⁥࡞ࢥ࣑ࢺࢿࢫ࡜㛵㐃࡙ࡅ࡚✚ᴟⓗ࡟◊✲ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡼ࠺

ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ┠ᣦࡍࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸

࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ(Culpeper, 2005; 2011; Bousfield,࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ❧ሙ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ⪃ᐹࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜

2008 ➼)ࠋB&L ࡢ⌮ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊୖ㏙ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟෇⁥ࡢᢈุࡶ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋEelen ࡣࠊ⌧௦ࡢྜ⌮୺⩏࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ┠ᣦࡍࡓࡵ࡟ヰࡋᡭࡀ࡝࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡸ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢከࡃࡀ

ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ(ព㆑ⓗ࣭↓ព㆑ⓗ࡟࠿࠿㝗 ࡗ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠕ 3 ࡘ ࡢ ᴫ ᛕ ୖ ࡢ ೫ ྥ (tripleࢃࡽࡎ)㑅ᢥࡍࡿ࠿࡟୺║ࡀ⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡘࡲࡾ

conceptual baias)ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊḟࡢ 3 Ⅼࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸

⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ヰࡋᡭࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㓄ࡿࠋ៖⾜ືࢆ♧ࡍ࠿(࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ FTA ࡜࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿ⾜ື⮬యࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ࡞࠸࠿)ࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࢖࣏ࣥࣛ࢖

࣭towards the polite side of the polite-impoliteࢺࢿࢫ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜࢖࣏ࣥࣛ

distinction࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆࡦ࡜ࡘࡢᑻᗘ࡛ᤊ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿヨࡳࡀ

࣭towards the speaker in the interactional࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡲࡔẚ㍑ⓗ᪂ࡋ࠸㡿ᇦ࡛࠶ࡿࡓ

dyad

ࡵ௒ᚋࡢⓎᒎࡀᮃࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࣭towards the production of behavior rather
than its evaluation㸱㸬ࠕ⮬ᕫࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࠖ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ
 Goffman(1967: 5)࡛ࡣࠊࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡣ“The term

(Eelen, 2001: 119)

face may be defined as the positive social value
Watts(2003)ࡶྠᵝ࡟ࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢつ⠊ᛶࢆa person effectively claims for himself by theṔྐⓗ࡟⪃ᐹࡋࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ◊✲ࡢᴫᛕ࡜ࡋ࡚

line other assume he has taken during aࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ(second-order politeness,particular contact”࡜ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊேࡀ┦஫⾜politeness2)࡜ࡣู࡟ࠊ୍⯡ࡢேࠎࡢ᪥ᖖⓗ࡞ゝㄒⅭ࡟࠾࠸࡚୺ᙇࡍࡿ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞♫఍ⓗ౯್࡜ぢ࡞ࡉ

⾜ື࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ(first-orderࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋGoffman ࡢㄽ࡛ࡣࠊேࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ⮬ᑛ

politeness, politeness1)࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ◊✲ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀᚰࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜(⮬ᕫࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆಖᣢࡍࡿ)ࡇ࡜ࡀ

ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ◊✲⪅ࡀ࠶ࡿᮇᚅࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾࠸࡚≉ᐃࡢⓎヰ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⌮ㄽ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡵ࡚ polite ࡔ࡜௚⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡬ࡢ㓄៖࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ⮬ᕫࡢࣇ࢙࢖

ุ᩿ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ୍⯡ࡢேࠎࡀ polite ࡔ࡜ឤࢫࢆಖᣢࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬࡀ㔜せ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀ
2−26−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

యࢆ෌⪃ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ

࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ ୍᪉ B&L ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
Goffman ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ negative㸲㸬఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱ

face ࡜ positive face ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࠊ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ㝿࡟ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ 7 ⤌ࡢኵ፬㛫⮬⏤఍ヰ(ィ⣙ 13 ᫬㛫ಶேࡀᣢࡘḧồ࡜ᤊ࠼࡞࠾ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⁪ᾆ30 ศ㸭ྛ⤌ 1㹼7 ᅇࠊྛ 20㹼60 ศ⛬ᗘ)࠾ࡼࡧ 3(2008)ࡣࡇࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠕ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢே㛫㛵ಀࡢ㊥㞳⤌ࡢ▱ே࣭཭ே㛫⮬⏤఍ヰ(ィ⣙ 9 ᫬㛫㸭ྛ⤌ 8 ᅇࠊ࡟㛵ࡍࡿಶேࡢḧồࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ྛ 20 ศ⛬ᗘ)ࢆศᯒ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡍࡿ(ᩥᏐ໬ࡢつ๎ࡣ✏ᮎཧ↷)ࠋグ㘓࡟ࡣࣅࢹ࣓࢜࢝ࣛ࡜ IC ࣞࢥ࣮ࢲ࣮

negative face: the want of every ‘competentࢆ⏝࠸ࠊᚋ᪥ಶู࡟ศᯒᑐ㇟⟠ᡤ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࣇ࢛

adult member’ that his actions࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࣭࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊbe unimpeded by others.

ᑐ❧ሙ㠃2㸦ኵ፬㛫఍ヰ㸧࡜ཧຍ⪅ࡢ୍᪉ࡀ⮬៏ࡋ

positive face: the want of every member࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃㸦▱ே࣭཭ே㛫఍ヰ㸧࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿࠋthat his wants be desirable to atleast some others.

㸳㸬ㄯヰ౛ศᯒ
࠙ㄯヰ౛ 㸸ᑐ❧㸦ኵ፬㛫఍ヰ㸧ࠚ29 ṓኵ K࣭29

(B&L, 1987: 62)
 B&L ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡣୖ㏙ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᇶ

ṓጔ S㸭⤖፧ 5 ᖺ┠ᮏⓗ࡟ヰࡋᡭࡀⓎヰ⏘ฟࡢ㝿ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ

グ㘓ሙᡤ㸸⮬Ꮿ グ㘓᫬㛫㸸⣙ 30 ศ グ㘓᪉ἲ㸸ࢆ౵ᐖࡋ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ㑅IC ࣞࢥ࣮ࢲ࣮࡟ࡼࡿ㡢ኌグ㘓ᢥ ࡍ ࡿ ࠿ ࡟ ࡘ ࠸ ࡚ ࡢ 㢮 ᆺ ࡛ ࠶ ࡾ ࠊ Modelヰ㢟㸸ᜥᏊ(5 ṓ)ࡢ㐍Ꮫඛ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚(ኵ㸻බ❧୰Ꮫ

Person(MP)࡟ࡼࡿ෇⁥࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡀ

ฟ㌟㸭ጔ㸻⚾❧୰Ꮫฟ㌟)

๓ᥦ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊB&L ࡛᝿ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸

1 ኵ K㸸ࡕࡷ࠺ࡸࢇࠊನࡣࡑࡽࠊ௒࡛ࡶ㣧ࢇࡔࡾࡿࡢࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫḧồࡀᑐ❧ࡋ࡞Ⰽࠎ࠶ࡿ࡛㸽ࠊࡑ࠺ࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࡸࡘࡶ࡞ࢇ

࠸≧ἣࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ⿵ൾࡍࡿ

ࡰ࡛ࡶ࠾ࡿࡅ࡝ࡸࠊ㸭㸭࡛ࡶನࡣබ❧࡛ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡢࣇࡼ࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚ࡿࡋࠊ࠶࠸ࡘࡽ࡜ࡘࡿ

࢙࢖ࢫḧồࡶ‶ࡓࡉࢀࡿ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡛

ࢇ࡛ࡼ࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚ࡿࡋ

࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᤊ࠼᪉࡟ࡣࠊ⪺2 ጔ S㸸ࡑࡸࢁࠊࡑࢀࡸࡗࡓࡽ

ࡁᡭࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢ฼┈࡜⮬㌟ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢ฼┈࡜ࡀ3 ጔ S㸸࡛ࡶ⚾❧ࡸ࠿ࡽࡗ࡚཭㐩࡛ࡁࡦࢇࢃࡅࡕࡷ

ᑐ❧ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ヰࡋᡭࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࣮࣡

࠺ࡸࢇࠊ࠶ࡓࡋࡶ࠸ࡗࡥ࠸཭㐩࠾ࡿࡗ࡚ࢡࢆ⾜࠺ࡢ࠿ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃ

4 ኵ K㸸࡛ࡶ࠾๓ᆅඖࡢ཭㐩࠾ࡽࢇࡸࢇ

ࡕࠊB&L ࡟ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡼࡾࡶ⮬5 ጔ S㸸㸻࡛ࡶ࠶ࢇࡓࡼࡾ኱Ꮫࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ㧗࠸ࡸࢇศ⮬㌟ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆಖᣢࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶

6 (1.4)

ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬࡀḞࡅ࡚࠾ࡾࠊⓎヰ⏘ฟࡢ㝿ࡢヰࡋ

7 ኵ K㸸࠾๓[࠾ࢇࡲ]⤖ᒁ஦ົࡸࢇࡅࠊႠᴗ⫋⾜ࡗᡭ⮬㌟ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫಖᣢḧồࡀࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮Ỵᐃࡢ࡚ࡤࡾࡤࡾാ࠸࡚ࡳࢁࡸࠓኌ㸸኱࣭ㄒㄪ㸸せ⣲࡟ධࢀࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ᙉ࠸ࠔ࢖࣏ࣥࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫሙ㠃ࡶྵࡵࡓᑐே㛵ಀᙧᡂ࡟㛵ࡍࡿゝㄒ࣭㠀ゝㄒ⾜ືࢆໟᣓⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡃࡓ

2 ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠕᑐ❧ࠖࢆࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡽࡢㄆ㆑࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓࠕ୙

ᛌࡉࠖࡸࠕᛣࡾࠖ࡞࡝ࡢྰᐃⓗឤ᝟࣭ホ౯ࢆక࠺ពぢࡸែᗘࡢ⾪✺࡜ぢ࡞ࡍࠋゝㄒ⾲⌧ୖពぢ࡞࡝ࡢᑐ❧ࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊྰᐃⓗឤ᝟࡟㛵㐃ࡋ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟ࡣศᯒ
ᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

ࡵ࡟ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫಖᣢ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬࢆྵࡵࠊ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ᰿ᗏ࡟࠶ࡿࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢᤊ࠼᪉⮬3−27−

ポライトネス理論における話し手の自己フェイスに関する一考察

8 ጔ S㸸࠶ࡓࡋࡣዪࡸ࠿ࡽ஦ົ࡛⾜ࡗ࡚ࢇࡸࢇࠊࡑ

ࡣ༊ูࡋ࡚ࠕ⮬ᕫ⿵ൾࠖ࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

ࢀࡣ࠶ࡓࡋࡢ㑅ᢥࡢၥ㢟
8 (0.8)࠙ㄯヰ౛ 㸸⮬៏㸦཭ே㛫఍ヰ㸧ࠚ23 ṓዪᛶ E࣭22

10 ኵ K㸸ࡩ࣮ࢇṓዪᛶ F

11 (8.0)グ㘓ሙᡤ㸸኱Ꮫෆㅮ⩏ᐊ グ㘓᫬㛫㸸⣙ 20 ศ

12 ጔ S㸸࠺ࢇグ㘓᪉ἲ㸸ࣅࢹ࣓࢜࢝ࣛ,IC ࣞࢥ࣮ࢲ࣮࡟ࡼࡿグ㘓

13 (25.0)

ヰ㢟㸸E ࡢᣦᑟᩍဨࡢ E ࡟ᑐࡍࡿホ౯
1 E: (1.0) ᮇᚅࡋ࡚ࡲࡍࡼ{ప㡢}ࡗ࡚ࡺࢃࢀࡿ࡜
㸭㸭ࡍࡈ࠸ࣉࣞࢵࢩ࣮ࣕࡔ࠿ࡽࡸࡵ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸ࢇࡸ

୧⪅ࡣ஫࠸࡟⮬ศࡢ⤒㦂ࢆ⫯ᐃⓗ࡟ぢ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊᜥᏊࡢ㐍Ꮫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ᭱ึ࠿ࡽពぢࡢᑐ❧ࡀࡅ࡝㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᭱ึࡣ஫࠸࡟ᡃࡀᏊࡢᑗ᮶ࢆ⪃࠼

2 F: ࠶ࡗ࡯ࢇࡲ࡟?

ࡓ⣧⢋࡞ពぢࡢᑐ❧࣭ヰࡋྜ࠸ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ஧ேࡔ

3 E: (3.0) ࠾ࢀࡑࢇ࡞ᮇᚅ࡟⟅࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞ே

ࡀࠊᢤ⢋㒊ศ࡛ࡣ┦ᡭࡢே᱁ࡸ⬟ຊ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⃭ࡋ㛫ࡌࡷ࠶ࡾࡲࡏ࣮ࢇࡳࡓ࠸࡞࠸ᨷᧁࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ

4 F: ࡍࡈ࣮࠸
5 E: ࠸ࡸ࠸ࡸ

ኵࡢ 4 ࡢⓎヰࡣࠊࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࣭࢖ࣥࢱࣅࣗ
࣮࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ጔ࡬ࡢ FTA ࢆពᅗࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ

6 E: A ඛ⏕࠾ࢀ࡟ຮᙉࡍࡿ࡞ࡗ࡚ࡺ࣮ࢇࡸࡅ࡝ࡉ

࡞ࡃࠕᆅඖࡢࠖࢆᙉㄪࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡘࡶࡾࡔࡗࡓ࡜࠸

࣮ࡋ࡞ࡁࡷࡸ࡭࣮

࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋጔࡣࠕ཭㐩ࡀ࠸࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺࡯࠺࡟↔

7 F: ࡞ࢇ࡛?

Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࠊࡇࡢⓎヰࢆ FTA ࡔ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸

8 E: ࢃ࠿ࡽࢇ

ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ጔࡣ⥆ࡃ 5 ࡛㛫㧥ධࢀࡎ࡟ࠊࡇࡢኵ፬

9 E: A ඛ⏕ࡢ┠࠿ࡽࡳࡓࡽ࠶ࡓࡋࡣຮᙉࡋࡍࡂ࡚

࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࢱࣈ࣮ࡔ࡜࠸࠺ᏛṔࡢヰ㢟ࢆᣢࡕฟࡋ࡚

ࡿࡽࡋ࠸ࡢࡼ࣮

࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ⮬ศࡀཷࡅࡓ FTA ࡬ࡢពᅗⓗ࡞ሗ

10 E: ⤯ᑐࡑࢇ࡞ࡇ࡜࡞࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࢇࡸࡅ࡝

᚟⾜ື࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ⥆ࡃ

11 F: ࡔ࠿ࡽ࠿ኵࡢ 7 ࡢⓎヰࡶྠᵝࠊ㠀ᖖ࡟ᨷᧁⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡇ

12 E: ࣇࢵ࡛ࡢதⅬࡣࡑࡶࡑࡶࠕᜥᏊࡢ㐍Ꮫඛ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡗࡓ࡟

13 E: ࠶ࡓࡋ⤯ᑐ࡟ຮᙉࡋ࡚࡞࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࢇࡸࡅ࡝

ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ஫࠸࡟ಶேࢆᢈุࡋྜ࠺࡜࠸࠺ࠊ

࣮ឤ᝟࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᑐ❧࡬࡜Ⓨᒎࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡟కࡗ࡚

14 F: ࡬࣮ࡋ࡚ࡿࡸࢁ

FTA ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡶ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᛮࢃ

15 E: ඲↛ຮᙉ୙㊊ࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟౵ᐖࡉࢀࡓ⮬ᕫࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆࠊ
┦ᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆྠ➼ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡑࢀ௨ୖ࡟౵ᐖ

ࡇࡢㄯヰ౛࡛ࡣࠊE ࡀ⮬ࡽࡢᣦᑟᩍဨࡢヰࢆࡋࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚┦ᑐⓗ࡟⿵ൾࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࢫࢺ

࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛ࠊ1ࠊ9 ࡛ E ࡀᣦᑟᩍဨ࠿ࡽᮇᚅ

ࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠕFTA ሗ᚟ࠖ࿧ࡪࠋ

ࡉࢀࠊຮᙉ⇕ᚰ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜㏙

ࡲࡓࠊኵ፬㛫఍ヰࡢᑐ❧ሙ㠃࡛ࡣ௚࡟ࠊᬑẁ࠿࡭ࡿࠋ௚⪅ࠊࡑࢀࡶᣦᑟᩍဨ࠿ࡽㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ

ࡽࡼࡃბࢆࡘࡃ࡜࠸࠺ኵࡀࠊࡲࡓბࢆࡘ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ

࡜㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ⮬ศࡢ⬟ຊࡀඃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ

࡜ጔ࠿ࡽ㈐ࡵࡽࢀࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚౵ᐖࡉࢀࡓ

㛫᥋ⓗ࡟♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࠊࡇࢀࡣ⮬៏࡛࠶ࡿ࡜

⮬ࡽࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆࠊゝ࠸ヂࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚⮬ศࡢ୺⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ᙇࢆ⿵ᙉࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⧋࠺ሙ㠃ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ

3ࠊ6ࠊ10ࠊ15 ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊE ࡣࡑࡢࡼ࠺

ࡇࢀࢆࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࣮࣡ࢡࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠕFTA ሗ᚟ࠖ࡜࡟ᣦᑟᩍᐁ࠿ࡽㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ࡟್ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࠊ
4−28−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ㅬ㐯ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠᏛᖺ࣌࢔࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㚷ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡇࡲ࡛౽ᐅୖࠕ⮬ᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࠖ
ࠕ௚⪅ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࠖ

ヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡼࡾࡶඃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀࢆ஧ศ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⏝࠸࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠊࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ౵ᐖ࡟࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶ᫂☜࡟༊ูࡢ࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
Goffman ࡢࠕရࡀ㧗࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞༴㝤ᛶࢆ E ࡶㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓ

⾜(demeanor)ࠖࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ⮬ศࡢ⾜ࡗࡵࠊ㐺ᐅࠊ┦ᡭࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡬ࡢ⿵ൾ⾜Ⅽࡶ஺࠼࡞ࡀ

ࡓ⾜Ⅽࡣ௚⪅࠿ࡽホ౯ࡉࢀࠊ♫఍ⓗホ౯࡜ࡋ࡚⮬ࡽ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡀ㐙⾜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ

ᕫ࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ௚⪅ࡢ୍㐃ࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࡢ୰࡛ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ⿵ൾ

ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆᑛ㔜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ㓄៖ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚ぢࡏࡿࡇ

⾜Ⅽࢆకࢃࡏ࡞ࡀࡽࠊE ࡣ⮬ࡽࡢᣦᑟᩍᐁ࠿ࡽホ࡜ࡣࠊ⮬ᕫࡢ♫఍ⓗホ౯ࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࠊ⮬౯ࡉࢀࡓ࢚ࣆࢯ࣮ࢻࢆㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡟࠾࠸࡚

ศ⮬㌟ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢ㸯ࡘࡢഃ㠃ࢆಖᣢ࣭⿵ൾࡍࡿ

⮬ࡽࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ㧗ࡵࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ḧồࡀᙉࡃ⾲ࢀࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᮏㄯヰ౛࡛ࡣ┦୍᪉࡛ࠊㄯヰ౛࡛ぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢ FTA

ᡭ࠿ࡽ FTA ࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸࡞࠸≧ἣ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊFTA

࡜࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ࡞࠾ಖᣢ࣭⿵ൾࠊ࠶ࡿ

㍍ῶࡢࡓࡵࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ⏝࠸࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠕ⮬៏࠸ࡣ㧗ࡵࡓ࠸࡜ᮃࡴࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢഃ㠃ࡶ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ

ヰࠖ࡜࠸࠺⮬ᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ⾜Ⅽࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢഃ㠃࡟ᑐࡋࠕ⮬࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

ᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௚⪅ࡢࣇ཭ே㛫఍ヰ࡛ࡣ௚࡟ࡶࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡽࡀಟኈㄽ

࢙࢖ࢫ࡟ᑐࡋඃඛⓗ࡞㓄៖ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ௚⪅ࡢᩥࢆᇳ➹ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ྠ➼ࡢ❧ሙ࡛ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆಖᣢ࣭⿵ൾࡍࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢ

࠶ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ୍᪉ࡀ௚᪉ࡢࢸ࣮࣐ࢆホ౯♫఍ⓗホ౯࡜࠸࠺ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢഃ㠃ࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟

ࡋࠊࠕ࢔ࢻࣂ࢖ࢫࠖࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿㄯヰࡀほᐹࡉࢀ࡚࡞ࡾࠊ௚᪉⮬ᕫࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆඃඛࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ

࠸ࡿࠋ࢔ࢻࣂ࢖ࢫࡣࠊ࢔ࢻࣂ࢖ࢫࢆ⾜࠺ഃࡀࡼࡾ♫఍ⓗホ౯࡜ࡣูࡢࠊࡼࡾẚ㔜ࢆ⨨ࡁࡓ࠸ࣇ࢙࢖

ከࡃࡢࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ᭷┈࡞▱ぢࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺

ࢫࡢഃ㠃ࢆಖᣢ࣭⿵ൾࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ᐇ⾜ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ

ࡇ࡜ࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᚑࡗ࡚ྠ➼ࠊࡲࡓࡣ┠ୗ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡣࠊᅗ࡟♧ࡋࡓࡼࡢ⪅࠿ࡽ┠ୖࡢ⪅࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࢔ࢻࣂ࢖ࢫࡣࡋࡤࡋࡤ

࠺࡟ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ௚⪅ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࠖ࡜ࠕ⮬ᕫࣇ࢙┦ᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ౵ᐖ⾜Ⅽ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋ

࢖ࢫࠖࡢ࡝ࡕࡽ࡟࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘࡢẚ㔜ࢆ⨨ࡃ࠿ࢆⓎヰࡑࢀ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎྠ➼࡞཭ே㛫࡛ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾜⏘ฟࡢ㝿⪃៖࡟ධࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋⅭࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ࢔ࢻࣂ࢖ࢫࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⪅ࡀࠊࡲࡓࠊࡇࢀࡽࡣࠕ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡟ẚ㔜ࢆ⨨ࡃࠖ࡜࠸⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢ◊✲ࡸಟኈㄽᩥᇳ➹࡟㛵ࡍࡿ▱㆑ࡢ㇏࠺ࡼࡾࡶࠊ⛗ࡸࢩ࣮ࢯ࣮ࡢࡼ࠺࡟(ࡋ࠿ࡋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃ

ᐩࡉࢆ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚♧ࡋࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ḧồࡀࠊ┦ᡭᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ஧᪉ྥࡢࣂࣛࣥࢫ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃᵝࠎ࡞せ⣲ࡀࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㓄៖ࡼࡾࡶඃඛࡉࢀࡓ⤖ᯝࡔከ㔜࡟ᙳ㡪ࡋ࠶ࡗ࡚ከḟඖⓗ࡟)⛬ᗘࡢၥ㢟࡜ࡋ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ

࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ౛࠼ࡤㄯヰ౛ 2 ࡢࠕ⮬៏
ヰࠖࡣࠊB&L ࡢࣔࢹࣝࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡋࡤࡋࡤ

㸴㸬⮬ᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫẚ㔜ศᯒᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ౫㢗ሙ㠃࡞࡝ࠊఱ࠿ࢆ೉ࡾ

 ࠕ⮬ᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࠖ࡜ࠕ௚⪅ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࠖ

࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡞ᐇ㝿ⓗ࡞ၥ㢟࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ                   ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊゝࢃࡎ࡟῭ࡲࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࡶ

⮬ᕫ䝣䜵䜲䝇

ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᐇ㝿࡟ㄯヰ౛ 2 ࡛ࡶࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢヰࡀ┦௚⪅䝣䜵䜲䝇

ᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡬ࡢ⬣ጾ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ศ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ
ࡇࡑࠊE ࡣࡑࢀࢆ㍍ῶࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ
⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ุ᩿࡛ࡁࡿࠋᐇ㝿ୖࡢᚲ↛ᛶࡀᅗ  ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࣭ࣂࣛࣥࢫᶍᘧ

5

−29−

ポライトネス理論における話し手の自己フェイスに関する一考察࡞࠸࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧ࡛┦ᡭࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ

࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ FTA ࡢ⛬ᗘࡀ㧗࠸࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀ࡬ࡢ⬣ጾ࡜࡞ࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆᐇ⾜ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ┦ࡿゝㄒᙧᘧୖࠕ஘ᭀࠖ࡞Ⓨヰ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟㓄៖ࢆ⾜࠸࡞ࡀࡽࡶูࡢഃ㠃࡟࠾࡟ FTA ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡣ FTA ຠᯝࡀ࠸࡚⮬ᕫࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ㧗ࡵࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ḧồࡀ࠶ࡿ࠶ࡿ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊヰࡋᡭ࡟ FTA ࡢពᅗࡀ࠿ࡽࡔ࡜ุ᩿ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ

࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࢀࡀࠕ୙ᛌ࡞≧ែࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚⪺ ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࣭ࣂࣛࣥࢫ࡟ࡼࡿࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮㑅ᢥࡁᡭ࡟ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜ4࡟ࡣࠊFTA ຠᯝࡀ࡞ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ

࠸࡜ุ᩿ࡍࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊⓎヰ⏘ฟࡢ㝿ࡢ⮬ᕫࣇ࢙ࡲࡎࠊᙜヱⓎヰࢆ⏘ฟࡍࡿ๓ẁ㝵࡛┦ᡭ࠿ࡽ࢖ࢫ࡜௚⪅ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢẚ㔜ࢆ௨ୗࡢᅗ࡟⾲ࡋࡓࠋ

FTA ࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡓሙྜࠊ๓㏙ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⮬ᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬࢆⓎヰ⏘ฟࡢ㝿ࡢせ⣲࡟ྲྀࡾධࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ௚⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆಖᣢ࣭⿵ൾ

FTAຠᯝ

䝣䜵䜲䝇ẚ㔜

㑅ᢥ䛥䜜䜛䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊

௚⪅䝣䜵䜲䝇
ಖᣢ䞉⿵ൾ┦ᡭ䛛䜙FTA䜢
ཷ䛡䛯ሙྜ

䝞䝷䞁䝇

䐟⮬ᕫ⿵ൾ
(ㄯヰ౛1)⮬ᕫ䝣䜵䜲䝇
ಖᣢ䞉⿵ൾ

䐠FTAሗ᚟
(ㄯヰ౛2)

௚⪅䝣䜵䜲䝇
ಖᣢ䞉⿵ൾ

䐡䞉䞉䞉䞉

┦ᡭ䛛䜙FTA䜢ཷ䛡䛶䛔䛺䛔ሙྜ䝞䝷䞁䝇⮬ᕫ䝣䜵䜲䝇
ಖᣢ䞉⿵ൾ䐟⮬៏ヰ㻔ㄯヰ౛㻟㻕䐠䜰 䝗䝞䜲䝇 㻔ㄯヰ౛㻠㻕䐡䞉䞉䞉䞉ᅗ  ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࣭ࣂࣛࣥࢫ࡟ࡼࡿࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮㑅ᢥࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ ┦஫⾜ⅭⓗどⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ᕫࣇࡍࡿ࠿ࠊ⮬ᕫࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆಖᣢ࣭⿵ൾࡍࡿ࠿ࠊ࡝

࢙࢖ࢫ࡟ẚ㔜ࢆ࠾࠸ࡓⓎヰࢆ⏘ฟࡍࡿ๓ࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡕࡽࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘࡢඃඛⓗẚ㔜ࢆ⨨࠸࡚ࡑࢀࢆㄏⓎࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ FTA3ࢆཷࡅࡓᐇ㝿ࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ࠿ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࠿࡝࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺ほⅬࡀᚲせ࡟࡞ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋᅗ࡛ࡣ

ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋㄯヰ౛࡛ᐇ㝿࡟㑅ᢥࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࢫࢺࣛ

ࠕFTAࠖࠕFTA ຠᯝࠖ࡜グࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࢸࢪ࣮ࡣࠊㄯヰ౛ 1 ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓࠕFTA ሗ᚟ࠖࡸࠊ

ࡣᐇ㝿ࡢ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡽࡢㄆ㆑ࢆᇶ࡟ศᯒࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚ྠࡌࡃኵ፬㛫఍ヰ࡛ほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠕ⮬ᕫ⿵ൾࠖⓗࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ┦஫⾜Ⅽୖ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽ

3ࡇࡇ࡛⏝࠸ࡓࠕFTAࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡣࠊ⣧⢋࡟ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ౵ᐖ⾜Ⅽ (face-threatening acts)ࢆព
࿡ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊB&L ࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ≉ู࡞⏝ἲࡢྵពࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃ
ࡕࠊヰࡋᡭ࠿ࡽࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࡶࡢ
࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࠿ࡘࠕணࡵ㍍ῶࡋ࡚⾲᫂ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁࠖ࡜࠸
࠺ྵព࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

஦๓࡟ FTA ࢆ⾜ࢃࢀࡓሙྜ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓࢫࢺࣛࢸ
ࢪ࣮࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊᅗ࡛ࡣࠕ⮬ᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫಖᣢ࣭

4ㄯヰ࡟⾲ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⾲⌧⮬యࡸࠊࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉ࣭
࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ࡟ᇶ࠸࡚⪺ࡁᡭࡢホ౯ࢆุ᩿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

6

−30−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

⿵ൾࠖ࠿ࡽ㉳ࡇࡿࡶࡢ࡜⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ๓㏙ࡋࡓ

ࡁ࡞࠸ࡓࡵලయⓗ࡟⤖ㄽࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡓ

ࡼ࠺࡟ᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ⮬ᕫ㸭௚⪅ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡬ࡢẚ㔜ࡢ⨨ࡔࡋࠊኵ፬㛫఍ヰ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚࠸࠼ࡤࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟┦ᡭࡁ᪉ࡣ⛬ᗘࡢၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢሙྜ⮬ᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ

ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡬ࡢ FTA ㍍ῶࡢࡓࡵࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ

࡟ࡼࡾ㔜ࡁࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࡓሙྜࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡋ

⏝࠸࡚⮬៏ヰࡸ࢔ࢻࣂ࢖ࢫࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡶ

࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡢࡣほᐹࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ୍᪉ࡢ཭ே㛫఍ヰࡲࡓࠊ┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ FTA ࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟ࡘ

࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡣぶࡋ࠸཭ேྠኈࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡣ࠸࡚ࠊㄯヰ౛ 2 ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓࠕ⮬៏ヰࠖࡸࠊྠࡌࡃ

࡞ࡃࠊ┦ᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ౵ᐖࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿᙧ

཭ே㛫఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ࢔ࢻࣂ࢖ࢫࠖሙ㠃ࡣࠊ┦ᡭ࡛⮬ᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟ẚ㔜ࡀ⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ุ᩿ࡍࡿ

࡬ࡢ⿵ൾࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆకࡗ࡚⾲᫂ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓ

ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࡢࡣࠊㄯヰ౛࡟⏝࠸ࡓ࣌࢔ࡢヱᙜሙࡵࠊ௚⪅ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢ࡬㓄៖ࡶ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼

㠃ࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡾࠊF ࡣ E ࡢ⮬៏ヰࡸ࢔ࢻࣂ࢖ࢫ࡟ࠕ㐪ࡿࡀࠊ⮬ᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡇࢀࡽࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸ

࿴ឤࠖࢆឤࡌࡓ࡜ᚋࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮࡛ࣗ㏙࡭࡚ࡣ࠸ࢪ࣮ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᐇ㝿ⓗ࡞ᚲ↛ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢᚋࡑࡢ FTA ࡟ᑐࡋㄯヰୖ࡛ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ᭷

ᛶࡢ࡞࠸ FTA Ⓨヰࡀ࡞ࡐ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍ

ᶆⓗ࡞ゝㄒ⾜ືࡣ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ࡇࢀࡽࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮㑅ᢥࡢ㝿࡟⮬ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮㑅ᢥࡢ㝿ࠊᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟ẚ㔜ࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࡿせᅉ࡟ࡣࠊFTA ຠᯝ௚⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ⮬ᕫࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ⮬ࡢ᭷↓ࠊࡲࡓ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢே㛫㛵ಀࡢぶᐦࡉࡢ⛬ᗘࡀࡽಖᣢ࣭⿵ൾࡋࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ḧồࢆᣢࡕࠊ୧⪅ࡢࣂ㛵㐃ࡍࡿ࡜᥎ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ

ࣛࣥࢫࢆ⪃࠼࡚ලయⓗ࡞ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚ ࡲࡓࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣලయⓗ࡟⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ

࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭࢖ࣥ

࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊB&L ࡢ FTA ᗘྜ࠸ࡢぢ✚ࡶࡾබᘧ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆྠ୍ࡢᑻᗘ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㐃⥆ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࡢせ⣲࡛࠶ࡿ PࠊDࠊR ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ⮬ᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ

࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ

࡟ẚ㔜ࢆ⨨ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ㝿ࡢせᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ษࡾ㞳ࡉࢀ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡀࡕ࡛࠶ࡗ

ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ௚࡟ࠊMills(2003)࡛

ࡓ࢖࣏ࣥࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊ⮬ᕫ࡜௚⪅ࡢࣇྲྀࡾධࢀࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ▷ᮇⓗ┠ᶆ࢙ࠖ࢖ࢫࡢ㐃⥆ⓗ࡞ࣂࣛࣥࢫ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮

࡜ࠕ㛗ᮇⓗ┠ᶆࠖ࡜࠸࠺どⅬࡶ᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋ

ࡢ㑅ᢥࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࢀࡤࠊ௚⪅ࣇ࢙ࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊேࡣ┦஫⾜Ⅽࡢ㝿ࠊ௒࣭ࡇࡇ࡛

࢖ࢫ࡟ࡼࡾከࡃࡢẚ㔜ࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࡓ㝿࡟㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿ㐩ᡂࡋࡓ࠸▷ᮇⓗ࡞┠ᶆ࡜ࡣู࡟ࠊ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ㛗ᮇࡢࡀ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࠊ⮬ᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ

ⓗ࡞㛵ಀ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ┠ᶆࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛

࡟ࡼࡾከࡃࡢẚ㔜ࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࡓ㝿࡟㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿࡢࡀ

࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢせ⣲ࡶⓎヰࢆỴᐃࡍࡿ㝿ࠊ⮬ᕫࣇ࢖࣏ࣥࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡛࠶ࡾࠊࣇ࢙࢖

࢙࢖ࢫ࡜௚⪅ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢẚ㔜ࡢ⛬ᗘࢆỴᐃࡍࡿせࢫ࣮࣡ࢡࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽẚ㔜ࢆ⨨ࡃ⛬ᗘၥ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ྠᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊཷࡅࡓ FTA ࡢ୍ࡢᑻᗘ࡟ࡼࡾⓎヰ⏘ฟࡢཎ⌮ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ

ຠᯝࡢ⛬ᗘ࡜ࠊ┦ᡭࡢ FTA ࡢពᅗࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゎྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ

㔘ࡍࡿ࠿࡞࡝ࡢせ⣲ࡶ⪃࠼ࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮ
ࢃࢀࡿࠋ㸵㸬ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫẚ㔜࡟㛵ࢃࡿせᅉ࡜௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛௚⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⮬ᕫ࡜௚⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢẚ㔜ࡣ࡝ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚෇⁥࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗ஧ࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ┠ࡼ࠺࡞せᅉ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ỵᐃ࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸

ᣦࡍࡇ࡜ࡀᙜ↛どࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ◊✲࡟࡚ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛⏝࠸ࡓㄯヰࡣኵ፬㛫఍ヰ࡜཭ே㛫఍

࠾࠸࡚ࠊGoffman ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢࡑࡶࡑࡶࡢᤊ࠼᪉

ヰ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ༢⣧࡟୧⪅ࢆẚ㍑࣭⤫ྜࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛

࡛࠶ࡿࠊ⮬ᕫࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢಖᣢ࣭⿵ൾ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ
7−31−

ポライトネス理論における話し手の自己フェイスに関する一考察ࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࠊdiscursive approach ࡢᡭἲ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚

ࡍࡄ㉳ࡇࡗࡓⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㸭ࠓ ࠔ㸸㡩ᚊࡢ≉ᐇ㝿ࡢ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡽࡢㄆ㆑ࢆᑐ↷࡟⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᚩࠊ⪺ࡃ⪅࡟୚࠼ࡿ༳㇟ࢆグࡍࠋ㸭➗࠸ࡣୗ⥺㸦Ⅼ⥺㸧࡛ࡇࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡽࡀࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮

♧ࡍࠋ㑅ᢥࡢ㝿ࠊ௚⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ(௚⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ⮬య࡜ࠊ௚⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆᑛ㔜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᚓࡿࡇ࡜

ࠓཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ࠔ

ࡢ࡛ࡁࡿ⮬ᕫࡢ♫఍ⓗホ౯)࡜⮬ᕫࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ(௚Bousfield, D. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction.

⪅ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆಖᣢࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᚓ

Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

ࡽࢀࡿ⮬ᕫࡢ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞♫఍ⓗホ౯௨እࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ

Brown, P & S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness:ࡢഃ㠃ࢆಖᣢ࣭⿵ൾ࣭㧗ᥭࡋࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺せồ)࡜ࡢ

Some Universals in Language Usage.

㛫࡛ࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡢഃ㠃࡟࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘࡢẚ㔜ࢆ⨨ࡃ࠿ࢆ

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper,Ỵᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆࠊㄯヰ౛

J.

2005.

Impolitenessandentertainment in the television quiz show:

ࡢศᯒࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⪃ᐹࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ㔜せ࡞ㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ṧࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢ୍ࡘࡣࠊ

The Weakest Link. Journal of Politenessᮏ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚౽ᐅⓗ࡟ࠕ⮬ᕫࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚

Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture.

ᢅࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠊࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢࠕ♫఍ⓗホ౯ࠖ௨እࡢഃ

1, 35-72.

㠃࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

Culpeper, J. 2011. Impoliteness: using language

Spencer-Oatey(2000)➼࡛ࡣࠊ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕࡞

to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

࡝ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ௒ᚋ࢖ࣥ㸭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ

Eelen, G. 2001. A Critique of Politenessࡢᐇド◊✲ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃୖ࡛ࠊࡇࢀࢆ༑ศ࡟᳨ド

Theories. Manchester: St Jerome.

ࡋࠊᮍࡔ㆟ㄽࡢศ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢᤊ࠼᪉ࢆ
᫂☜࡟ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊୖ㏙ࡋࡓ

Goffman, E. 1967[1982]. Interaction Ritual:ࡼ࠺࡟ẚ㍑ྍ⬟࡞఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼ

Essays on Face Behavior. New York:
Pantheon Books.

ࡗ࡚ࠊࣇ࢙࢖ࢫẚ㔜࡟㛵ࢃࡿせ⣲࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶලయ

Mills,ⓗ࡟♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

S.

2003.

Genderand

Politeness.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spencer-Oatey, H. 2000. Culturally Speaking.

ࠓᩥᏐ໬ࡢつ๎ࠔNew York: Continuum.

㸭㸭㸸㸭㸭ࡢᚋࡢⓎヰࡀḟࡢ␒ྕࡢⓎヰ࡜ྠ᫬࡟Ⓨࡏࡽࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ(0.5)㸸( )ࡢ୰ࡢᩘᏐࡣ 0.1 ⛊้ࡳ࡛⾲♧ࡉ⁪ᾆ┿ே. 2008.࣏ࠗࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫධ㛛࠘ᮾி㸸◊✲ࢀࡿࠊヰࡢ୰࡛㉳ࡇࡿỿ㯲ࡢ㛗ࡉࢆ♧ࡍࠋ(0.5)ࡣࠊ0.5 ⛊ࡢỿ㯲࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㸭࣮㸸ࠕ࣮ࠖࡢ๓ࡢ㡢⠇ࡀ㛗ࡃ

♫.
Watts, R. 1992. Linguistic politeness and politicᘏࡤࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࠕ࣮ࠖࡢᩘࡀከ࠸࡯࡝ࠊ㛗ࡃverbal behaviour, Watts, R., Ide, S., andⓎࡏࡽࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ(ࠕࡡ࠼ࠖࡣࠕ࠼ࠖࡀࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡜Ⓨ

Ehlich, K.(eds.) Politeness in language:

ࡏࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࠕࡡ࣮ࠖࡣࠕࡡࠖࡢ㡢ࡀఙࡤࡉࢀࡓ

Studies in its history, theory and practice.

ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ)㸭㸽㸸␲ၥ➢࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊୖ᪼ࡢ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙ

Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

ࣥࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㸭ࠊ
㸸Ⓨヰࡢ turn ࡢ୰࡛୙⮬↛࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠊࡈࡃ
▷࠸ỿ㯲ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㸭[pp. 43-70.

]㸸┤๓ࡢ₎Ꮠ⾲グࡢㄒྃࡢᐇ㝿ࡢ----------.

Ⓨ㡢ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ(౛ࠕ୰୍᪥ࠖ[࡞࠿࠸ࡕࢇࡕ])㸭㸻㸸㛫ࡀ࡞ࡃ

2003.

Politeness.

Cambridge University Press.

8

−32−

Cambridge:第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ⱥㄒἲ๪モࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡜୺ほᛶ㸫ヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉࡜ゝㄒ⾜ⅭࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸫㔠ἑᫍ⛸኱Ꮫ ᒸᮏ ⰾ࿴㸦yokamoto@seiryo-u.ac.jp㸧
㸺Abstract㸼
The purpose of this paper is to investigate modality, which a speaker expresses by using modal
adverbs, and subjectivity. Additionally, I will examine how the speaker construes modality inspeech act. In general, modal adverbs cannot co-occur with interrogatives. However, they cansometimes co-occur with tag questions or declarative questions. In order to understand thisphenomenon, semantic and pragmatic elements have to be considered in the analysis of modal
adverbs. Therefore, I will explain it in terms of modality, subjectivity and speech act, and give a
detailed explanation of how the speaker construes the situation.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ: ⱥㄒἲ๪モࠊࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࠊ
㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶࠊᤊ࠼᪉ࠊゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡜ࡣࠊ୍⯡࡟ࠊࠕ஦᯶㸦ࡶࡋࡃࡣࠊ࿨㢟ෆᐜ㸧ࡢᅾࡾ᪉ࠖࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡜ࡉࢀࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ࡜᰿※ⓗ㸦㸻᮰⦡ⓗࠊຊືⓗ㸧࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᩘከࡃࡢ◊✲ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ㸦
㸦Halliday 1970, Lyons
22
1977, Coates 1983, Sweetser 1990, Palmer 1990 , 2001 , ୰㔝 1993, ⃝⏣ 1993, 2006, Westney
1995, Hoye 1997, Verstraete 2001, Narrog 2005, 2012,࡞࡝㸧ࠋࡇࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡢ◊✲࡟ࡣࠊࠕヰࡋᡭࡢᚰⓗែᗘࠖࡸࠕ
㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶࠖࡢၥ㢟ࡀ኱ࡁࡃ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣἲຓືモࡢ◊✲ࡀࡼࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊἲ๪モࡶ◊✲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(1) Certainly, he is a genius.
㸦௨ୗୗ⥺➹⪅㸧(2) *Will he certainly be there?
(Greenbaum (1969: 112))(3) a. John is certainly a doctor, isn’t he?
(Stockwell et al. (1970: 603))
b. Certainly he hadn’t come that far, had he?
(D. Brown, Deception)(1)ࡢᖹླྀᩥ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿἲ๪モ certainly ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢ☜ಙᛶࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࡇࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࢆ୺ほⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(2)࡜(3)࡛ࡣࠊἲ๪モࡀ␲ၥᩥ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣࠊἲ๪モࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᩥࡣᐜㄆ୙ྍ⬟࡜ࡉࢀࡿ(Greenbaum 1969, Stockwell et al.
1970, ᑠす 1989, Simon-Vandenbergen and Aijmer 2007 ࡞࡝)ࠋ(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞௜ຍ␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣࡑࢀࡀ
ᐜㄆྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ(2)࡜(3)࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿၥ㢟ࢆࠕ㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶࠖ
ࠊࠕヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉ࠖ
ࠊࠕゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࠖ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽㄝ᫂ࢆࡋࠊἲ๪モࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡜ࡑࡢ୺ほᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ
2. ⱥㄒἲ๪モ࡜ᩥࡢ✀㢮
2.1. ඛ⾜◊✲ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊḟࡢ(4)࠿ࡽ(6)ࡢ౛ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊἲ๪モࡀᵝࠎ࡞✀㢮ࡢᩥ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ1−33−

英語法副詞のモダリティと主観性―話し手の捉え方と言語行為の観点から―㝿࡟ࡣព࿡ㄽⓗ࡞ไ⣙ࡀㄢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
(4) ྰᐃᩥ
a. Obviously, he doesn’t want us to help him.
b. It is obvious that he doesn’t want us to help him.
c. It is not obvious whether he wants us to help him.
(⃝⏣ (1993: 239))(5) ␲ၥᩥ
 a. *Will he certainly be there?
(Greenbaum (1969: 112))
 b. *Is he certainly stupid?
(Simon-Vandenbergen and Aijmer (2007: 286))(6) ࿨௧ᩥ
*Certainly, do it at once, John.
(Greenbaum (1969: 112))⃝⏣ (1993: 239)ࡣࠊἲ๪モࡣྰᐃࡢస⏝ᇦ࡟ྵࡲࢀ࡞࠸࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(4a)ࡣ(4b)࡜ྠ⩏࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊ
(4c)࡜ྠ⩏࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ (5)ࡢ౛࠿ࡽࡶࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊྰᐃᩥ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊⱥㄒἲ๪モࡣ␲ၥࡢస⏝ᇦ࡟ྵࡲࢀ࡞࠸ࠋSimon-Vandenbergen and Aijmer (2007: 286)ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢࢥ࣑ࢵࢺ࣓ࣥࢺࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࢆ␲ၥ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(6)࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊἲ๪モࡣ࿨௧ᩥ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸1ࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊἲ๪モࡣ࿨௧ࡢస⏝ᇦ࡟ࡣྵࡲࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
2.2. ⱥㄒἲ๪モ࡜௜ຍ␲ၥᩥ࣭ᖹླྀ␲ၥᩥ ๓⠇࡛ㄝ᫂ࡋࡓ␲ၥᩥ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ௜ຍ␲ၥᩥࡸᖹླྀ␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣἲ๪モࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
(7) ௜ຍ␲ၥᩥ ((3)࡜ྠࡌ)a. John is certainly a doctor, isn’t he?
(Stockwell et al. (1970: 603))
  b. Certainly he hadn’t come that far, had he?
(D. Brown, Deception)
 (8) ᖹླྀ␲ၥᩥ
But now you’re definitely on to something?
(A. Christie, Dead Man’s Folly)
Stockwell et al. (1970: 603)ࡣࠊ(7a)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ἲ๪モࡀ௜ຍ␲ၥᩥ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿ౛ࡣ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀ
࡟㛵ࡍࡿヲࡋ࠸ㄝ᫂ࢆࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸2ࠋ(7)ࡸ(8)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ
ࠕࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡢ㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶࠖࡸࠕゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓᴫᛕࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
3. 㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶ࡜ヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉
3.1. 㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶἲ๪モ࡟ࡣ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢ☜ಙࡢ⛬ᗘࢆ⾲ࡍᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࡟ࡣࠕ
㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶࠖࡢ
ၥ㢟ࡀ኱ࡁࡃ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ
㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶࠖࡢᐃ⩏ࡣࠊTraugott ࡀၐ࠼ࡿࡑࡢᐃ⩏࡟ᚑ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋTraugott (2010: 33)ࡣࠊ୺ほᛶ࣭㛫୺ほᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ3ࠋ

2−34−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号(9)㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
The term subjectivity refers to the way in which natural languages, in their structure and theirnormal manner of operation, provide for the locutionary agent’s expression of himself and his
own attitudes and beliefs.
ࠕ୺ほᛶࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕⓎㄒࡍࡿே㸦ヰ⪅㸧⮬㌟ࡢែᗘࡸಙ᮲ࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࠖࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕ⮬↛ゝㄒࡀࠊ
ࡑࡢᵓ㐀࡜㏻ᖖࡢാࡁ᪉ࡢ୰࡟ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ⮬ᕫ࡞ࡽࡧ࡟⮬ࡽࡢែᗘ࣭ಙ᮲ࡢ⾲ฟ࡟ഛ࠼࡚࠸
ࡿࡉࡲ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
…intersubjectivity in my view refers to the way in which natural languages, in their structure
and their normal manner of operation, provide for the locutionary agent’s expression of his or
her awareness of the addressee’s attitudes and beliefs, most especially their “face” or“self-image.”ࠕ㛫୺ほᛶࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕ⮬↛ゝㄒࡀࠊࡑࡢᵓ㐀࡜㏻ᖖࡢാࡁ᪉ࡢ୰࡟ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢែᗘ࣭
ಙᛕࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕ㠃Ꮚ㸦ࡶࡋࡃࡣࠊయ㠃㸧ࠖࡶࡋࡃࡣࠕ⮬ᕫ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ(self-image)ࡢ⾲ฟ࡟ഛ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡉࡲ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
(Traugott (2010: 33))(᪥ᮏㄒヂ, ⃝⏣ (2011: 31-32))ࠕ୺ほᛶࠖ࡟ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࡀ㛵ಀࡋࠊࠕ㛫୺ほᛶࠖ࡟ࡣࡑࡢヰࡋᡭࡢែᗘࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡇ࡜࡟㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3.2. ᩥࡢ✀㢮࡜ヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊἲ๪モࡀ⾲ࡍࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࢆヰࡋᡭࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆᅗࢆ⏝࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉ࠖ࡜ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀࡑࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࢆࠕ୺ほⓗ࡟ࠖᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠕ㛫୺ほⓗ࡟ࠖᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ4ࠋࠕᤊ࠼ࡿࠖ࡜ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡤࡀ⾲ࡍࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ⌮ゎࡋࠊࡑࡢゎ㔘ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚ࠊ஦ែ࣭≧ἣࢆᢕᥱࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3.2.1 ࢱ࢖ࣉ 1㸸ᖹླྀᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉ ࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ࡣࠊ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡣ୺ほⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊProbably,
he told a lie.࡜࠸࠺ᩥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉ࢆ♧ࡍ࡜ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
 (10) Probably, he told a lie.
M-adverb Ѝ[P]Probably, [he told a lie].
Speaker (Sub)M-adverb㸻ἲ๪モࠊP=࿨㢟ෆᐜࠊSub=୺ほⓗᅗ 1: ࢱ࢖ࣉ 1 ࡢヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉
ᅗ 1 ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࠕM-adverb Ѝ[P]ࠖࡣ࿨㢟ෆᐜࡀἲ๪モ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ಟ㣭ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡢୗ఩㒊ศࡣࠊࡇࡢᩥࡢヰࡋᡭࡀἲ๪モ probably ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࢆ୺ほⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㐙⾜ࡉࢀࡿゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡣࠕ୺ᙇ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
3.2.2 ࢱ࢖ࣉ 2㸸ྰᐃᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉ ࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊࢱ࢖ࣉ 1 ࡜ྠᵝ࡟࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡣ୺ほⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡽ3−35−英語法副詞のモダリティと主観性―話し手の捉え方と言語行為の観点から―ࢀࡿࠋ௨ୗ࡟ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ࡑࡢᤊ࠼᪉ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ
(11) Certainly, he is not wrong.
M-adverb Ѝ[NEG(p)]Certainly,[he is not wrong].
Speaker (Sub)M-adverb㸻ἲ๪モࠊP=࿨㢟ෆᐜࠊSub=୺ほⓗᅗ 2: ࢱ࢖ࣉ 2 ࡢヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉
ྰᐃࢆ⾲ࡍ not ࡀ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟ྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࢆ㝖ࡅࡤࠊࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉ࡣࢱ࢖ࣉ
1 ࡜ྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡣ୺ほⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㐙⾜ࡉࢀࡿゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡣࠕ୺ᙇ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
3.2.3. ࢱ࢖ࣉ 3㸸␲ၥᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉
ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠊἲ๪モࡣ␲ၥᩥ࡜ඹ㉳ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ୺ᙇࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊἲ๪モࡀ௜ຍ␲ၥᩥ࣭ᖹླྀ␲ၥᩥ࡞࡝࡛ࡣ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
(12) ἲ๪モ࡜௜ຍ␲ၥᩥ
Certainly, he is a genius, isn’t he?
       
M-adverb Ѝ[P]+ ?㸭tag ?
Certainly, he is a genius, isn’t he? Speech Act
Speaker (InterSub)                  
Speaker-Oriented          
Hearer-Oriented ⮬ၥ⮬⟅ ☜ㄆ

M-adverb㸻ἲ๪モࠊP=࿨㢟ෆᐜࠊInterSub=㛫୺ほⓗᅗ 3: ヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡼࡿ㛫୺ほⓗ࡞ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡢᤊ࠼᪉
ࡇࡢᅗࡢᕥഃࡢ㒊ศ㸦M-adverb Ѝ[P]㸧࡟␲ၥᩥ࣭ᖹླྀ␲ၥᩥ࣭௜ຍ␲ၥᩥࢆసࡿ␲ၥ࣐࣮࣮࢝ࡀຍ
ࢃࡿࠋࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡣ࿨㢟ෆᐜࢆಟ㣭ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ␲ၥࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟ࡣධࡗ࡚ࡇ࡞࠸㸦ᅗࡢୖࡢ▮༳ࡢ㒊ศ㸧ࠋ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࡣࠊࡇࡢ␲ၥ࣐࣮࣮࢝ࡀ௜ࡅຍ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ㉁ၥࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ㔜せ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ࡣࡑࢀࡀ༢⣧࡞ࠕ㉁ၥࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺
ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡀ㛫୺ほⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࠊヰࡋᡭᣦྥࡢሙྜࠊ
ࠕ⮬ၥ⮬⟅ࠖࡢゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡀ㐙⾜ࡉࢀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭᣦྥࡢሙྜࠊ
ࠕ☜ㄆࠖࡢゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡀ㐙⾜ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
3.3 ᥦ᱌
๓⠇࡛ࡣࠊᩥࡢ✀㢮࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࢆ 3 ࡘ࡟ศࡅ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᤊ࠼࡚࠸
ࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࣔࢹࣝᅗࢆᥥ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡋࡓࠋᩥࡢ✀㢮࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ 3 ࡘ࡟ศ࠿ࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡀࠊ
⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ࡣḟࡢ(13)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ 2 ࡘࡢᤊ࠼᪉ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ

4−36−

第16回大会発表論文集

 (13) ᖹླྀᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉
ྰᐃᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉

第９号

 Ѝ୺ほⓗ␲ၥᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉   Ѝ㛫୺ほⓗࡇࢀ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞௬ㄝࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ (14) ࠓ௬ㄝձࠔ௜ຍ␲ၥᩥ࣭ᖹླྀ␲ၥᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒἲ๪モࡢ୺ほᛶ ⱥㄒἲ๪モࡀ௜ຍ␲ၥᩥ࣭ᖹླྀ␲ၥᩥ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠊ
ࡑࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡣ㛫୺ほⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ㐙⾜ࡍࡿゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡣࠊヰࡋᡭᣦྥࡢሙྜࡣࠕ⮬ၥ⮬⟅ࠖࠊ⪺ࡁᡭᣦྥࡢሙྜࡣࠕ☜ㄆࠖࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࠕ⮬ၥ⮬⟅ࠖࡸࠕ☜ㄆࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽࡢ㐙⾜ࡢᇶ࡜࡞ࡿ๓ᥦࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ5ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ㉁ၥෆᐜࡣ๓ᩥ㸦ࡶࡋࡃࡣࠊ๓ࡢⓎヰ㸧ࡢෆᐜࢆ┤᥋ⓗ࡟ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ㛫᥋ⓗ࡟♧၀ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ(16)࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊḟࡢ௬ㄝࡶᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ (15) ࠓ௬ㄝղࠔⱥㄒἲ๪モࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ௜ຍ␲ၥᩥ࣭ᖹླྀ␲ၥᩥࡢ㉁ၥෆᐜ
 ⱥㄒἲ๪モࡀ௜ຍ␲ၥᩥ࣭ᖹླྀ␲ၥᩥ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠊࡑࡢ㉁ၥෆᐜࡣⓎヰ௨๓ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ
࡟⤖ࡧࡘ࠸࡚࠸࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ
(15)ࡢ௬ㄝࢆヲࡋࡃㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᅗ࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ Xヰࡋᡭࡢ᝿ᐃ

Ⓨヰ௨๓ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ᰿ᣐ           ヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿㸦ࠕ᝿ᐃ࡟▩┪ࠖ orࠕ᝿ᐃࢆ☜ㄆࠖ㸧                                  ヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ㸸ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ㸦ࠕ⮬ၥ⮬⟅ࠖor ࠕ☜ㄆࠖ㸧  ㉁ၥෆᐜ㸸 ヰࡋᡭࡢ᝿ᐃ X’ 㸩ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕㸩?
ᅗ 4: ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆᇶ࡟ࡋࡓヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉
ࡇࡢᅗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣏࢖ࣥࢺࡣࠊ㉁ၥෆᐜ࡟࠶ࡿヰࡋᡭࡢ᝿ᐃࡣⓎヰ௨๓ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟ࡶ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺
ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎヰ௨๓ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ᝿ᐃࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀ࡟࠶ࡿ᰿ᣐࡀຍࢃࡗ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋࡑࡢุ᩿ࡣࠊ
ࠕ᝿ᐃ࡟▩┪ࠖࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࠕ᝿ᐃࢆ☜ㄆࠖࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢุ᩿࡟
ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ㉁ၥෆᐜࢆⓎヰࡋࠊゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡀ㐙⾜ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢ㉁ၥෆᐜ࡟ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢ᝿ᐃ X ࡀ X’࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸6ࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡜␲ၥ࣐࣮࣮࢝ࡀຍࢃࡿᙧᘧ࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿࠋ
4. ᐇ౛᳨ドᮏ⠇ࡣࠊἲ๪モ certainly ࡜ definitely ࡀᖹླྀ␲ၥᩥࡸ௜ຍ␲ၥᩥ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓሙྜࠊ๓⠇࡛ㄝ᫂ࡋࡓ௬ㄝࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࢆᐇ౛ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ⣬㠃ࡢ㒔ྜୖࠊศᯒᑐ㇟࡜࡞
ࡿ౛ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ୍ࡘࡔࡅࡢㄝ᫂࡟␃ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᩿ࡗ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ

5−37−

英語法副詞のモダリティと主観性―話し手の捉え方と言語行為の観点から―

4.1. ⮬ၥ⮬⟅ᮏ⠇࡛ᢅ࠺౛ࡣࠕ⮬ၥ⮬⟅ࠖࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ㉁ၥࡋࡓᩥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࡑࡢ⟅࠼ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
(18)ࠓሙ㠃ࠔࢥ࣮࣮࢟㸦Ᏹᐂ≀⌮Ꮫ⪅㸧ࡣ࣮ࣔࢱ࣮࣮࣎ࢺ࡛㏨㉮୰ࡔࡀࠊྑ㊊ࢆ㈇യࡋࠊࡑࡢ᧯⦪
ᖍࢆ㞳ࢀࠊࡑࡢ἞⒪ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ࣮ࣔࢱ࣮࣮࣎ࢺࡢᗋ࡟ᗙࡾ㎸ࡳࠊḟࡢ஦ࢆᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
Sitting on the floor of the runaway Crestliner, Corky felt confused about why the chopper
hadn’t found him yet. He looked out now, scanning the horizon behind him, expecting to see
the distant Goya and incoming helicopter. Oddly, he saw neither. The lights of the Goya had
disappeared. Certainly he hadn’t come that far, had he?
Corky suddenly felt hopeful he might escape. Maybe they had lost him in the dark. Maybe hecould get to shore!
(D. Brown, Deception)(18)ࡢヱᙜ⟠ᡤ௨๓ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛ࡣࠊࢥ࣮࣮࢟⮬㌟ࡣࡑࢀ࡯࡝㐲ࡃࡲ࡛㏨ࡆ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᙼࡣ㏣ᡭࡀࡇ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ୙ᛮ㆟࡟ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᙼࡣࠕࡑࢇ࡞࡟㐲ࡃࡲ࡛᮶࡚࠸
࡞࠸ࡣࡎ࡞ࡢ࡟ࠖ࡜⮬ၥ⮬⟅ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࠊࡇࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࢆ㛫୺ほⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࢆࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡜ࡢ⤖ࡧ௜ࡁ࡛⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ(19)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
 (19)
Xヰࡋᡭࡢ᝿ᐃ
ࡑࢇ࡞࡟㐲ࡃࡲ࡛㏨ࡆ࡚࠸࡞࠸

Ⓨヰ௨๓ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ

᰿ᣐ
㏣ᡭࡀ᮶ࡿẼ㓄ࡀ࡞࠸  ヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿㸸᝿ᐃ࡟▩┪                                  ヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ㸸ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ㸦ࠕ⮬ၥ⮬⟅ࠖ
㸧  ㉁ၥෆᐜ㸸 ࠕࡑࢇ࡞࡟㐲ࡃࡲ࡛᮶࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡣࡎ࡞ࡢ࡟ࠖ

4.2. ☜ㄆᮏ⠇࡛ᢅ࠺౛ࡣࠕ☜ㄆࠖࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ⟅࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(18) ࠓሙ㠃ࠔࣂ࣮ࢪࢽ࢔ᕞ᳨どᒁ㛗࡛࠶ࡿࢣ࢖(I)ࡀඖᜊே࣐࣮ࢡ(he)࡜෌఍ࡋࡓࠋ෌఍ᚋࠊ࠸ࢁ࠸
ࢁ࡞ᛮ࠸ฟヰࢆࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛ࠊ࣐࣮ࢡࡀ㏆ἣࢆḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄒࡗࡓࠋ
“My firm’s opening an office in D.C.,” he said as our eyes met.
I did not respond.
“It’s possible I may be relocated, move to D.C. We’ve been expanding like crazy, got ahundred-some lawyers and offices in New York, Atlanta, Houston.”“When would you be moving?” I asked very calmly.
“It could be by the first of the year, actually.”“You’re definitely going to do it?”6−38−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号“I’m sick to death of Chicago, Kay, need a change. I wanted to let you know-that’s why I’m
here, at least the major reason. I didn’t want to move to D.C. and have us run into each other atsome point….”(P. Cornwell, Body of Evidence)(24)ࡢヱᙜࡍࡿ⟠ᡤࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ㸦ࢣ࢖㸧ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦࣐࣮ࢡ㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚Ⓨࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡤ࡛࠶ࡿࠋヱᙜ⟠ᡤࡼࡾ௨๓ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࠿ࡽࠊࢣ࢖ࡣ࣐࣮ࢡࡀ㌿໅ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
͆It could
be by the first of the year, actually.͇࡜࠸࠺ᙼࡢⓎゝ࠿ࡽࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࣐࣮ࢡࡢ㌿໅ࡢ᪥࡟ࡕࡣࡣ
ࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࢣ࢖ࡣࠕ㌿໅ࢆࡍࡿẼᣢࡕ࡟ኚࢃࡾࡣ࡞࠸ࡢࡼࡡࠖ࡜ࠊ࣐࣮ࢡࡢពᛮࢆ☜࠿ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ࣐࣮ࢡࡣࢣ࢖ࡢⓎゝ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ┤᥋ⓗ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀ⟅࠼࡚࠸ࡿ㸦“I’m sick to death ofChicago, Kay, need a change. …㸧ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡢゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࡣࠕ☜ㄆࠖࢆ⾲ࡋࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࡑࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕
ࢆ㛫୺ほⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡜ࡢ⤖ࡧ௜ࡁ࡛⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ(25)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
(25)
  
X
ヰࡋᡭࡢ᝿ᐃ
࣐࣮ࢡࡀ㌿໅ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ᰿ᣐ
Ⓨヰ௨๓ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ         ࠸Ⓨゝ࣐࣮ࢡࡢࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡞ ヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿㸸᝿ᐃࢆ☜ㄆ                                  ヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ㸸ゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ㸦ࠕ☜ㄆࠖ㸧  ㉁ၥෆᐜ㸸 ࠕ㌿໅ࢆࡍࡿẼᣢࡕ࡟ኚࢃࡾࡣ࡞࠸ࡢࡼࡡࠖ

5. ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟 ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ⱥㄒἲ๪モࡣ␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀゝࢃࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⣧⢋࡞␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ௜ຍ␲ၥᩥ࣭ᖹླྀ␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣⱥㄒἲ๪モࡣ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒἲ๪モࡀ௜ຍ␲ၥᩥ࣭ᖹླྀ␲ၥᩥ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ㝿ࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡢ㸦㛫㸧୺ほᛶࢆࠕヰࡋᡭࡢᤊ࠼᪉ࠖࡸ
ࠕゝㄒ⾜ⅭࠖࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣヰࡋᡭࡣࡑࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࢆ㛫୺ほⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࠊヰࡋᡭᣦྥࡢሙྜࠊࡑࡢゝㄒ⾜Ⅽࢆࠕ⮬ၥ⮬⟅ࠖࠊ⪺ࡁᡭᣦྥࡢሙྜࠊ
ࠕ☜ㄆࠖ࡜⪃࠼ࡓࠋࡑࡋ
࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ⾜࠺㉁ၥෆᐜࡣࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡜⤖ࡧ௜ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡶㄝ᫂ࡋࡓࠋ௒
ᚋࡣࠊcertainly ࡸ definitely ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࡉࡽ࡞ࡿ౛ᩥࡢ཰㞟ࠊࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢ௚ࡢἲ๪モ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ౛ᩥࢆ
཰㞟ࡋࠊᮏ௬ㄝࡀ௚ࡢἲ๪モ࡟ࡶᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࡢ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ᳨ドࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ

*ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 16 ᅇ኱఍࡛ࡢ◊✲Ⓨ⾲࡟ࠊຍ➹ಟṇࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎ⾲࡟㝿ࡋ࡚ࠊ⃝⏣἞⨾ඛ⏕ࠊஂಖ㐍ඛ⏕ࠊᑠ㔝ᑎ඾Ꮚඛ⏕ࠊ⃝⏣἞ඛ⏕ࢆࡣࡌࡵࠊከࡃࡢ᪉ࠎ࠿ࡽ᭷┈࡞ࡈពぢࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡟ㅰពࢆ⾲ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ ἲ๪モ certainly ࡜ definitely ࡟㝈ࡾࠊ࿨௧ᩥ࡜ඹ㉳ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ(Simon-Vandenbergen and Aijmer (2007: 286))ࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊ
ㄆ㆑ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡣⷧࢀࠊゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⓎㄒෆࡢຊࢆᙉࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(1) a. Oh and certainly use the time to visit schools different sorts of schools.
b. Definitely, go ahead.
(2) Simon-Vandenbergen and Aijmer ࡢศᯒ(1)ࡢࣃࣛࣇ࣮ࣞࢬ
I insist/strongly recommend that you use the time to visit schools/ that you go ahead.
1

7
−39−

英語法副詞のモダリティと主観性―話し手の捉え方と言語行為の観点から―

Simon-Vandenbergen and Aijmer (2007: 286)ࡣ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟(1)ࡢ౛ᩥࢆศᯒࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௜ࡅຍ࠼࡚࠾࠿࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡣἲ๪モ㸦
ࠕ☜࠿࡟ࠖࡢព㸧࡜ࡋ࡚࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᙉពࡢ๪モ㸦ࠕࡐࡦ㸭ࡶࡕࢁࢇࠖࡢព㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ(cf. Quirk
et al 1985: 583-584)ࠋ
2 Stockwell et al. (1970: 603)ࡣḟ࡟♧ࡍ(3)ࢆᐜㄆ୙ྍ⬟࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࢀࡽࡀ࡞ࡐᐜㄆ୙ྍ⬟࡞ࡢ࠿ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸࡞
࠸ࠋ(3) * Certainly, he is a doctor?
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊἲ๪モࡀᖹླྀ␲ၥᩥ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ౛ࡶ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ(3)ࡢ౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ῝ࡃ㛵ࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊHuddlestonand Pullum (2002: 771)ࡣḟࡢ౛ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(4) a. Will he probably die?
b. Won’t he probably die?
Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 771)ࡣࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛ࡣᐜㄆྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉࡟ࠊྰᐃ␲ၥᩥࡢሙྜࡣࠊ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞⟅࠼࡛࠶ࡿ He will probably die.ࢆពᅗࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⚾ぢ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡣ୍✀ࡢಟ㎡␲ၥᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ࠋ
ࡇࢀࡣࡶࡣࡸ␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸦ᙧᘧୖࡣ␲ၥᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸧ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ୺ほⓗ࡞᥎㔞ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚋࡢ➹⪅ࡢศᯒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠕ⮬ၥ⮬⟅ࠖࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
3 Traugott ࡣ⮬ࡽࡢࠕ୺ほᛶࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊLyons (1982: 102)ࡀ⏝࠸ࡿࠕ୺ほᛶࠖࡢព࿡࡜ྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕ୺ほᛶࠖࡢᐃ⩏࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊLyons ࠿ࡽࡢᘬ⏝࡛࠶ࡿࠋ4 ᮏ✏࡛౑⏝ࡍࡿࠕᤊ࠼ࡿ࣭ᤊ࠼᪉ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒࡣ Langacker ὶࡢࠕᤊ࠼ࡿ(construe)࣭ᤊ࠼᪉(construal)ࠖ࡜ࡣ᏶඲࡟ྠࡌ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
5 ࠕ⮬ၥ⮬⟅ࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ⮬ศ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㉁ၥࢆࡋࠊࡑࡢෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⟅࠼ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
6 ᏶඲࡟ྠࡌ࡛࠶ࢀࡤ X㸻X’࡜࡞ࡾࠊ࡯ࡰྠࡌࠊࡶࡋࡃࡣࠊゝ࠸᥮࠼࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊXҸX’࡜࡞ࡿࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Coates, J. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
Greenbaum, S. 1969. Studies in English Adverbial Usage. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. “Functional Diversity in Language as Seen from a Consideration of Modality and Mood in
English.” Foundations of Language 6, 322-361.
Hoye, L. 1996. Adverb and Modality in English. London and New York: Longman.
Huddleston, R. and G. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
ᑠす ཭୐㸦⦅㸧. 1989.ࠗⱥㄒᇶᮏᙧᐜモ࣭๪モ㎡඾࠘኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics ϩ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
୰㔝 ᘯ୕. 1993. ࠗⱥㄒἲຓືモࡢព࿡ㄽ࠘ⱥ₻♫.
Narrog, H. 2005. “On defining modality again.” Language Sciences 27, 165-192.
. 2012. Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Palmer, F. R. 19902. Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.
. 20012. Mood and Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London:
Longman.
⃝⏣ ἞⨾. 1993. ࠗどⅬ࡜୺ほᛶ࠘ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
. 2006. ࠗࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࠘ 㛤ᣅ♫.
⃝⏣ ἞⨾ (⦅). 2011. ࠗࡦࡘࡌព࿡ㄽㅮᗙ (5) ୺ほᛶ࡜୺యᛶ࠘ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
Schrieber, P. A. 1971. “Some Constraints on the Formation of English Sentence Adverbs.” Linguistic Inquiry 2,
83-101.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A. and K. Aijmer. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty. A Courpus-Based Study ofEnglish Adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stockwell, R., P. Schachter, and B. H. Partee. 1970. The Major Syntactic Structures of English. Holt, Rinehart andWinston, INC.
Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
㧗⏣ ༤⾜࣭᳝ྡ ⨾ᬛ࣭ᑠ㔝ᑎ ඾Ꮚ. 2011. ࠗṔྐㄒ⏝ㄽ࠘ ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
Traugott, E. C. 2007. “(Inter)subjectification and Unidirectionality.” In Onodera and Suzuki (eds.) Journal of
Historical Pragmatics 8:2, 295-309.
       . 2010. “(Inter)subjectivity and (Inter)subjectification: A reassessment.” In Kristin Davidse, Lieven
Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.) Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticlization.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Verstrate, J. C. 2001. “Subjective and Objective Modality: Interpersonal and Ideational Functions in the English
Modal Auxiliary Systems.” Journal of Pragmatics 33, 1505-1528.
Westney, P. 1995. Modals and Periphrastics in English. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

8−40−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

᪥ᮏㄒ࡜࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒࡢᑐ↷఍ヰศᯒ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ຾⏣㡰Ꮚ 

ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔༤ኈㄢ⛬ 
jkatsuda11@yahoo.co.jp

㸺Abstract㸼
In this paper, I compared number of continuers which appear after insertion particles ‘ne’, ‘sa’ inJapanese and ‘kan’ in Malaysian conversations. I showed that about the same ratio (about 40%) of continuers
occur per one insertion particle in Japanese and Malaysian conversations respectively. Some previous studies
suggested high frequency of continuers in Japanese conversations due to its SOV language order. This
papers̓ result suggests that high frequency of continuers in Japanese conversations might not only heavily
due to its syntax character, but also some other factors which are in common among Japanese and Malaysian
conversations.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ ᪥ᮏㄒ ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒ ᑐ↷ศᯒ 㛫ᢞຓモ ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱ࡢศ㔝࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡣ఍ヰࢆ෇⁥࡟㐍ࡵࡿୖ࡛㠀ᖖ࡟㔜せ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⮬↛࡞఍ヰ⬟ຊ⩦ᚓࡢࡓࡵ࡟୙ྍḞ࡞ࡶࡢࡔ࡜୺ᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Ỉ㇂  ௚㸧ࠋࡇࢀ࡟క࠸ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡜⡿ⱥㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢ◊✲㸦Ỉ㇂ ࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ
 ௚㸧ࡶ㐍ࡵࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ㏆ᖺ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡜୰ᅜㄒヰ⪅ཬࡧ㡑ᅜㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢᑐ↷◊✲ࡶ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ 㔠 ㈩  ௚ ࡀࠊࡑࢀࡽ௨እࡢእᅜㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢᑐ↷◊✲ࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟㝈ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ࢱ࢖ㄒ㸦ᐑᮏ 㸧࢖ࣥࢻࢿࢩ࢔ㄒ㸦ṇಖ ௚㸧㸧ࠋ᫖௒ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢከᵝ໬࡟ࡼࡾࠊୖグࡢእᅜㄒ࡟␃ࡲࡽࡎࠊ௚ゝㄒヰ⪅ࡢࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖ
ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢᑐ↷◊✲ࡣ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡜࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒヰ⪅ࡢ఍ヰࢆࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢഃ㠃࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡲࡔゎ᫂ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒࡢࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢ┦㐪Ⅼࢆࠊ㔞ⓗศᯒࡢᡭἲ࡟
ࠕ㛫ᢞຓモࠕࡡࠖ࡜࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢ㛫࡟ࡣ㝿❧ࡗࡓඹ㉳ࡀࡼࡾ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ≉࡟ࠊぢࡽࢀࡿࠖ㸦.LWDDQG,GH㸧ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ㺀㛫ᢞຓモࡢࠕࡡࠖ㺁ཬࡧࠕࡉࠖ ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒ┦ᙜㄒࡣ kan ࡀฟ⌧ࡋࡓ㝿ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖ࡟⤠ࡗ࡚◊✲ࡍࡿࠋ ඛ⾜◊✲ ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅࡜እㄒᅜㄒヰ⪅ࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ◊✲࡟ࡣࠊ≉࡟ , ࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢࠕ㔞ࠖࠖ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓࡶ
ࡢ࡜ࠊ ,, ࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢࠕฟ⌧ሙᡤࠖࠖ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

−41−

日本語とマレーシア語の対照会話分析―あいづちの観点から― ࡲࡎࠊ , ࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢ㺀㔞㺁ࠖࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ୰ᅜேࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡣࠕ㢖ᗘࡀప࠸ࠖ㸦๽ 㸧ࡇ࡜ࡸࠊ㡑ᅜேࡢࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢ㢖ᗘࡣ᪥ᮏே࡜ኚࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ㸦㔠 㸧ࡇ࡜ࡀሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ ,,ࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢࠕฟ⌧ሙᡤࠖࠖࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡣ㺀ヰࡋᡭࡀࢱ࣮ࣥࢆಖᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㝿࡟ࠊ⤊ຓモࠊ㛫ᢞຓモࠊ᱁ຓモ௚ࢆⓎࡋࡓ᫬㺁 ࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ  ࠊࠕࡑࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࢱ࣮ࣥࢆྲྀࡿ᫬ࠖỌ⏣  ࡟⌧ࢀࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࠊ⡿ⱥㄒࠊ୰ᅜㄒ࡛ࡣⓎヰᩥࡢ᏶⤖᫬࡟㉳ࡇࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከࡃ㸦๽ ࠊ࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ 㸧ࠊ㡑ᅜㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࡀ࣏࣮ࢬ࡟ධࡿ࡜࡯ࡰྠ᫬࡟ᡴࡓࢀ
ࡿࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟㔜࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᡴࡘࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸㸦㔠 㸧࡜࠸࠺ሗ࿌ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
௨ୖ࠿ࡽࠊࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢ㺀㔞㺁ཬࡧ㺀ฟ⌧ሙᡤ㺁ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘゎ᫂ࡉࢀࡓࡀࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡀࠕ࠶
ࡿ≉ᐃࡢሙᡤ࡛ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡ࢆᣢࡗ࡚ᡴࡓࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᮍࡔ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒ࡜ࡢᑐ↷ศᯒ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ▱ぢࡀぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
 ᮏ◊✲ࡢ⾡ㄒࡢᐃ⩏ ࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢᐃ⩏ ࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢᐃ⩏ࡣࠊ◊✲⪅࡟ࡼࡾᵝࠎ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⤫୍ぢゎࡣฟ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸦6FKHJORII6WLYHUV࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ  ௚㸧ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢᐃ⩏ࡣ࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ 㸧࡟࡞ࡽ࠸ࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ
࠺࡟ᐃ⩏ࡍࡿࠋ
ヰࡋᡭࡀⓎヰᶒࢆ⾜౑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㛫࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡀ㏦ࡿ▷࠸⾲⌧㸦ࣀࣥࣂ࣮ࣂࣝグྕࡶ ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ࡜ࡣࠊヰ ྵࡴ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓࡔࠊ▷࠸⾲⌧ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟㡰␒ࢆㆡࡗࡓ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ཯ᛂࢆ♧ࡍ ሙྜࡣ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ࡜ࡣࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࠕ࠺ࢇࠖ࡜࠿ࠕࡩ࣮ࢇࠖ࡜࠿ゝࡗ࡚ヰࡢ㛫ࢆ⧅ࡄࡢࡣࣇ࢕࣮ࣛࡢ୍ ✀࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ࡜ࡣࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊヰࡋᡭࡀⓎヰ㡰␒ࢆ⤊࠼ࡓ▐㛫ࠊࡍࡄ⥆ࡅ࡚⪺ࡁᡭ ࡀ㏦ࡿ཯ᛂࡣヰࡋᡭࡢ⾜ືࡢໃຊ⠊ᅖෆ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ㏦ࡿ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ                                  ࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ 

 㛫ᢞຓモ㸸᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕࡡࠖࠕࡉࠖ࡜࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒࡢkan ࡢព࿡ࡢᐃ⩏
 6DLJR  ௚ࡣࠊࠕ$ ࡡࠊ%ࠖࡢ㛫ᢞຓモࠕࡡࠖࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ᪂᝟ሗ % ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ$ ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ᪤࡟▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࢃࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕඹ㏻ࡢୗᆅࢆᣑ኱ࡍࡿࠖࡶࡢ
࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ :RXN  ࡣࠊ͂$ kan, %̓ࡢ㛫ᢞຓモ kan ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ $ ࢆヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ
ඹ㏻ࡢヰ㢟࡟ኚ࠼ࠊ཮᪉ࡢඹ㏻▱㆑ࢆᣑ኱ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࢆࠕ㐃ᖏឤᵓ⠏⾜Ⅽࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࠋࡼ
ࡗ࡚ࠊ୧㛫ᢞຓモࡢព࿡ࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟ఝࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࠊࠕ㐃ᖏឤᵓ⠏⾜Ⅽࠖ :RXN ࡼࡾ ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡍࡿࠋ
㸬ㄪᰝ᪉ἲཬࡧㄪᰝෆᐜ ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ཬࡧ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒヰ⪅㸦ྛࠎዪᏊ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢ཭ேྠኈ  ྡ㸧ࡢᑐ㠃⮬⏤఍ヰ㸦ྛ㸳఍ヰࠊ㸯఍ヰ  ศ㛫㸧ࢆ ,& ࣞࢥ࣮ࢲ࣮ཬࡧࣅࢹ࣓࢜࢝ࣛ࡟㘓㡢ࠊ㘓⏬ࡋࠊศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ㺀㛫ᢞຓモ㺁ࡢᚋ࡟⌧ࢀࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖ࡟⤠ࡗ࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡲࡎࠊ᪥ᮏே఍

−42−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ヰཬࡧ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ே఍ヰ㸦ィ  ఍ヰ㸧ࢆ඲࡚ᩥᏐ໬ࡋࡓࠋḟ࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀࠕ㛫ᢞຓモࠖࢆⓎヰࡋࡓᚋࡢࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㸯㸧ࠕゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࠊ㸰㸧ࠕ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࢆグ㏙ࡋࠊྛ఍ヰࡈ࡜࡟㔞ⓗศᯒࢆ⾜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
ศᯒ⤖ᯝཬࡧ⪃ᐹ 㔞ⓗศᯒ⤖ᯝཬࡧ⪃ᐹ㔞ⓗศᯒ⤖ᯝཬࡧ⪃ᐹ ヰࡋᡭࡀࠕ㛫ᢞຓモࠖࢆⓎࡋࡓᚋࡢࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࠕ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢ᭷↓ࢆḟࡢ㸲ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ศࡅࡓࠋ㸯㸧ゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢࡳࠊ㸰㸧㠀ゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢࡳࠊ㸱㸧ゝㄒⓗཬࡧ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠊ㸲㸧࠶࠸࡙ࡕ࡞ࡋ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ྛ఍ヰࡈ࡜࡟㸯㸧㹼㸲㸧ࢆ㔞ⓗ࡟ศᯒࡋࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡀ⾲㸯ཬࡧ⾲㸰࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ⾲㸯ࡣࠕ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢ㛫ᢞຓモࠕࡡࠖࠕࡉࠖ࡬ࡢࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢ㔞ⓗศᯒࠖ⤖ᯝࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ඲
㸳఍ヰ࡟ࠕ㛫ᢞຓモࠖࡣ  ᅇฟ⌧ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ࠺ࡕࠊୖグ㸯㸧㹼㸱㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡀฟ⌧ࡋࡓࡢࡣࠊ ᅇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࠕ㛫ᢞຓモࠖࡢᚋ࡛ࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡀ⌧ࢀࡓࡢࡣ 㸣㸦 ᅇ㸧ࠊఱࡶ⌧ࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢࡣ 㸣㸦 ᅇ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ⾲㸰ࡣࠕ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒヰ⪅ࡢ㛫ᢞຓモ kan ࡬ࡢ㔞ⓗศᯒࠖ⤖ᯝࢆ♧ࡋࡓ                           ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ඲㸳఍ヰ࡟ࠕ㛫ᢞຓモࠖ

ࡣ ᅇฟ⌧ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ࠺ࡕࠊୖグ㸯㸧
    
㹼㸱㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖ

     
ࡀฟ⌧ࡋࡓࡢࡣࠊ
ᅇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲ
   

ࡾࠊ
ࠕ㛫ᢞຓモࠖࡢᚋ࡛ࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖ
        

ࡀ⌧ࢀࡓࡢࡣ㸣㸦 ᅇ㸧ࠊఱࡶ
   

⌧ࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢࡣ
㸣㸦 ᅇ㸧࡛ 

࠶ࡿࠋ
  

ୖグࡢ⤖ᯝࡼࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅㛫ࡢ                            ఍ヰ࡜࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒヰ⪅㛫ࡢ఍ヰ                             ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊヰࡋᡭࡢࠕ㛫ᢞຓモࠖฟ⌧ᚋ࡟⌧ࢀࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢ๭ྜࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ 㸣ࠊ㸣࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࠕ࠶࠸࡙
ࡕࡀ⌧ࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠖ๭ྜࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ 㸣ࠊ㸣࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ୧ゝㄒヰ⪅࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ㛫ᢞຓモࠖฟ⌧ᚋ࡟࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢ๭ྜࡣ⣙  ๭࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㠀ᖖ࡟ఝ㏻ࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜

−43−

日本語とマレーシア語の対照会話分析―あいづちの観点から―

ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢ⤖ᯝࢆࠊඛ⾜◊✲ :RXN  ࡛ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ:RXN ࡣࠕࠕ㛫ᢞຓモࠖkan ࡢⓎࡉࢀࡓᚋ࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢゝㄒⓗ཯ᛂࡣฟ⌧ࡋ࡞࠸㸦➹⪅せ⣙㸧ࠖ㸦S㸧࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᮏ◊✲ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋ⤖ᯝࡀ␗࡞ࡗࡓせᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚௨ୗࡢࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ:RXN ࡛ࡣࠊ㘓⏬㈨ᩱࡣ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊࣀࣥࣂ࣮ࣂࣝ࡞ࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢ᭷↓࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠕ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠖ㸦S㸧࡜࠸࠺᥎ࡢᇦࢆฟ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ:RXN ࡢㄽᩥࡢ୰࡛ࠊࠕ㛫ᢞຓモࠖkan ࢆྵࡴ఍ヰࡢ᩿∦ࡀ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ᥖ㍕ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ᩿∦ࢆぢࡓ㝈ࡾ࡛ࡣࠊkan ࡢฟ⌧ᚋ࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖⓗⓎヰࡀฟ⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ:RXN ࡣࠕࡇࢀࡣ kan ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂ࡛ࡣ
࡞࠸ࠖ㸦㹮㸧࡜㏙࡭ࠊࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࡣ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠖ㸦㹮㸧࡜⤖ㄽ௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

 ヰࡋᡭࡢࠕ㛫ᢞຓモࠖฟ⌧ᚋ࡟⌧ࢀࡓ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢලయ౛
㸬 ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢ౛ 㸯㸧ゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢࡳࠊ㸰㸧㠀ゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢࡳࠊ㸱㸧ゝㄒⓗཬࡧ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢ౛ࢆ
௨ୗ࡟ᣲࡆࠊㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ
ձ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢ㸯㸧ࠕゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢࡳࠖࡢ౛ ౛㸯Ѝ%KXKXKK  ࡼ࠿ࡗࡓࢃࡾ࡜࡞ࢇ࠿Ⰽࠎ㉁ၥࡪࡘࡅ㸸!ࡽࢀࡓࢇࡔࡅ࡝ࡡ
ࡡЍ$࠺࠺ࢇ %ࡁࢃ࡝࠸?ࡸࡘ࡜࠿?KK⫝̸ീᶒ࡚࠿ⴭసᶒࡢ㐪཯ࡌࡷ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠿㸸㸦͂KXKX̓ࡣ➗࠸ࠊ͂K̓ࡣ྾Ẽࠊ 㸧ࡣỿ㯲ࡢ⛊ᩘࠊ!࡛ᅖࡲࢀࡓⓎヰࡣ᪩ཱྀࠊ͂?࡛̓ᅖࡲࢀ  ࡓⓎヰࡣ➗࠸ኌ࡛࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ͂K̓ࡣ࿧Ẽࠊ͂̓ࡣ┤๓ࡢ㡢ࡀఙࡧ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ % ࡛ % ࡀࢱ࣮ࣥࢆಖᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ୰࡛ࠊ㛫ᢞຓモࠕࡡࠖࢆⓎࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ$ ࡛⪺ࡁᡭ $ ࡀࠕ࠺ࢇࠖ
࡜ゝㄒ࡟ࡼࡿ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࢆᡴࡘࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢゝㄒ⾜ື࡟ࡼࡿࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡓ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋղ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢ㸰㸧ࠕ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢࡳࠖࡢ౛ ౛㸰








%ࡋ࠿ࡶࡉ㸸࠶ࢀࡵࡗࡕࡷ࡯ࡵࡽࢀࡓ㸦ࡸ㸧!࡯ࡵࡽࢀ>ࡓࡸ㸸ࢇ $                     >KK!ࡑ࠺ࡑ࠺ %     @>ࡵࡗࡕࡷᎰࡋࡃ࡚ DKDKDKDKDKD ࡕࡻ ᯛࡶ࠸ࡗࡓ  $ ࠺ࡑ࠺ࡑ࠺@>ࡑ࠺Ѝ      $ ЎЍ% ࡛ࡉࡉ㸸ࡳࢇ࡞  ᯛ࡜࠿ࡸࡗࡓࡸࢇЌ࠿Ў㸸$ ࡴ>ࡘ࡛ࡶ ࡜ࡵ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸࡜࠿ЌࡉЎ㸸%> ᯛ࡜࠿  ᯛ࡜࠿ࡸࡗࡓࡸࢇЌ࠿Ў㸸

−44−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

 !࡛ᅖࡲࢀࡓⓎヰࡣ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ࡺࡗࡃࡾ࡜ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ㸦 㸧ࡢ୰࡟ᩥᏐࡀ᭩࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡣࠊࡑ ࡢ㒊ศࡢ⪺ࡁྲྀࡾࡀ☜ᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊ> @ࡣ」ᩘࡢ఍ヰ⪅ࡢⓎヰࡀ㔜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ̓Ќ̓ࡣ▮༳ࡢᚋࡢᩥᏐ㒊ศࡢⓎヰࡢ㡢ㄪࡀᴟ➃࡟ୖࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ̓Ў̓ࡣ▮༳ࡢᚋࡢᩥᏐ㒊ศࡢⓎヰࡢ㡢ㄪࡀᴟ➃࡟ୗࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ ࡓࡔࡋࠊ$ ࡢୗࡢࠕ㸦$㸧Ўࠖࡣࠊᮏ✏ࡢࡳ࡛ࡢグྕ࡛ࠊ
ࠕ$ ࡀࠕ࠺࡞࡙ࡁࠖ
ࢆࠕ ᅇࠖࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛࠶ࡿࠋ 

 % ࡣᤵᴗ࡛ࡢⓎ⾲ཬࡧࡑࡢࣞࢪ࣓ࣗࡀࠊඛ⏕࡟〔ࡵࡽࢀ࡚Ꮀࡋ࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ% ࡣ ࡛ࢱ࣮ࣥࢆಖᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ ࡢࠕ㸲ᯛࡶ࠸ࡗࡓ࡛㸦  ᯛࡶ࠸ࡗࡓ࠿ࡽ㸧ࡉࠖ࡜ࠊ㛫ᢞຓモࠕࡉࠖࢆⓎࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ% ࡢࠕࡉࠖࡲ࡛Ⓨヰࡉࢀࡓ⟠ᡤ࡛ࠊ$ ࡀ࠺࡞࡙ࡁࢆ୍
ᗘ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ࠺࡞࡙ࡁࡣࠊ㛫ᢞຓモࠕࡉࠖ࡬ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ճ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢ㸱㸧ࠕゝㄒⓗཬࡧ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢ౛ ౛㸱 %KKKXKXKXKXఱࢆ>㸦    㸧









Ѝ$>㓉ࡗࡓࡗ࡚ࡡ㸸ཱྀࡌࡘ㸦࡟㸧ЌЌࡡЌ 
Ѝ % ЎЍ% >>࠺࠺ࢇ$ >>!ఱ࡛ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࡼࡡ@>XKDKDKDKDKDKDKDKDKDKD KKXKXKX   %>KDKDKD       KK?ࡕࡦࢁࡉࢇ࠶ࡃ࡝࠸?K  ?࠶ࡃ࡝࠸ࡼ?

$ ࡣࢧ࣮ࢡࣝࡢ㣧ࡳ఍࡛᭱㏆࠶ࡗࡓฟ᮶஦ࢆヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ$ ࡣ  ࡛ࢱ࣮ࣥࢆಖᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡀࠊ ࡛ࠕ㓉ࡗࡓࡗ࡚ࡡ㸸ཱྀࡌࡘ㸦࡟㸧ЌࡡЌࠖ࡜ࠊ㛫ᢞຓモࠕࡡࠖࢆⓎࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ% ࡀ࠺࡞࡙ࡃ 㠀ゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ % ࡛ࠕ࠺ࢇࠖ࡜ࠊゝㄒ࡟ࡼࡿࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࢆᡴࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸬 ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒヰ⪅ࡢ౛ ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊ㸯㸧ゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢࡳࠊ㸰㸧㠀ゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢࡳࠊ㸱㸧ゝㄒⓗཬࡧ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢ౛ࢆ௨ୗ࡟ᣲࡆࠊㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ
ձղ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒヰ⪅ࡢ㸯㸧ࠕゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢࡳࠖཬࡧ㸰㸧ࠕ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢࡳࠖࡢ౛
 ౛㸲







           $ ЎЎЍ%6HEDE>VHNDUDQJkanEDQ\DNPDFDPPDFDPMHQLVNXLKMXDO EHFDXVHQRZ.$1PDQ\ PDQ\NLQGVFDNHVHOO
    ௒ࡣࡡࠊࡓࡃࡉࢇࠊ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ࡞✀㢮ࡢ࠾ⳫᏊࢆ
$ >ЌRKЌ ࠺ࢇ−45−

日本語とマレーシア語の対照会話分析―あいづちの観点から―











$ >>$DKD㸸KD㸸Ѝ% >>GLNHGDLЌkaЌn,LQVKRS.$1
      ᗑ࡛኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽࡡࠊ
Ѝ$0P    ࠺ࢇ%KDUJDSXQPXUDKSULFHDOVRFKHDS್ẁࡶᏳ࠸ࡋࠊ
 $ ࡜ % ࡣࠕࣁࣜࣛࣖࠖ࡜࠸࠺⚃⚍ࡢ᫬࡟ࠊࠕ⚃⚍⏝ࡢ࠾ⳫᏊࢆసࡗࡓ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ%ࡣసࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ゝ࠸ࠊࡑࡢ⌮⏤ࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ% ࡛ࠊ% ࡣ̓VHNDUDQJkan̓㸦௒ࡣࡡ㸧࡜㛫ᢞຓモ kan ࢆⓎࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ┤ᚋࠊ$ ࡣ  ᗘ࠺࡞࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ࡘࡲࡾࠊղ㠀ゝㄒ⾜ື࡟ࡼࡿࠕ࠶࠸࡙
ࡕࠖࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࠋ ࡜ % ࡣࢱ࣮ࣥࢆಖᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ ࡛ % ࡣࠕ௒ࡣࡡࠊࡓࡃ
ࡡࠊࠖ࡜ࠊ㛫ᢞຓモࠕࡡࠖࢆⓎࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࡉࢇࠊ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ࡞✀㢮ࡢ࠾ⳫᏊࢆࠊᗑ࡛኎ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽࡡ
࡛ $ ࡣ͂0P̓ ࠺ࢇ ࡜ࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࢆᡴࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ձゝㄒ⾜ື࡟ࡼࡿࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࠋճ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒヰ⪅ࡢ㸱㸧ࠕゝㄒⓗཬࡧ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢ౛ ౛㸳 㸦%㸧ĻĻ$+DELVPDFDPNLWDSXODNVHODOXЌGDKGDSDWLGHDЌkan, 

WKHQOLNHZHDOVRDOZD\VDOUHDG\JHW LGHD.$1

ࡑࢀ࠿ࡽࠊ࠸ࡘࡶ࢔࢖ࢹ࢕࢔ࡀฟ࡚ࡁ࡚ࡡࠊ

 >>NRQRQ  QDNFDULLGHDODK   RIDOOWKLQJVZLOOILQGLGHD/$+ࡶࡗ࡜࢔࢖ࢹ࢕࢔ࢆ඲㒊᥈ࡍЍ% >>r
rrPPrr࠺ࢇ࠺ 㸦ࢎࢎ࡛୧➃ࢆᅖࡲࢀࡓⓎヰࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟ᑠࡉ࠸ኌ࡛࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㸧

 $ ࡣࣈࣟࢢࢆ᭩ࡃ࡜ࡁ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐣⛬ࢆ⤒࡚᭩ࡃ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ఍ヰࡢ᩿∦ࡢ┤๓࡛ࠊ$ ࡣࠕࡲࡎఱࢆ᭩ࡃ࠿ࠊ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ᝟ሗࢆ཰㞟ࡋ࡚⪃࠼࡚ࠊ᭦࡟ࠊ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺࡢ᥋⥆ࢫ
ࣆ࣮ࢻࡀ㏿࠸᫬࡟᭩ࡃࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓෆᐜࡢࡇ࡜ࢆヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡣ $ ࡀࢱ࣮ࣥࢆಖᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
Ќkan’ 㸦ࡑࢀ࠿ࡽࠊ
⟠ᡤ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ ࡛ࠊ͂+DELVPDFDPNLWDSXODNVHODOXЌGDKGDSDWLGHDЌ

−46−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

࠸ࡘࡶ࢔࢖ࢹ࢕࢔ࡀฟ࡚ࡁ࡚ࡡ
ࡡࠊ㸧࡜ゝ࠺࡜ࠊ㛫ᢞຓモࡢ kan ࡢ‘n’࡜㔜࡞ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ% ࡣ  ᅇ࠺࡞࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ㠀ゝㄒ⾜ື࡟ࡼࡿࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊkan Ⓨヰ┤ᚋ࡟ࠊ ࡛ % ࡣ°°mm°°㸦ࠕ࠺ࢇࠖ㸧࡜Ⓨヰࡋࠊゝㄒ⾜ື࡟ࡼࡿࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡶⓎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
 ⤖ㄽཬࡧ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟 ᪥ᮏㄒཬࡧ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒヰ⪅ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ㛫ᢞຓモ ᪥ᮏㄒࠕࡡࠖࠕࡉࠖࠊ࣐࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒ kan ࢆⓎࡋࡓᚋ࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖ࡟ࡼࡿ཯ᛂࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࡑࡢ཯ᛂࡢ๭
ྜࡶ࠿࡞ࡾఝ㏻ࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ
ࠕ㐃ᖏឤᵓ⠏⾜Ⅽࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ㛫ᢞຓモࠕࡡࠖࠕࡉࠖkan ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࡑࢀࡽࡢㄒࡢ┤๓࡟Ⓨࡉࢀࡓෆᐜࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ඹ᭷ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶
ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼ࠊࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡑࢀࢆ㺀ཷࡅධࢀࡓ㺁ಙྕࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ )R[+D\DVKL -DVSHUVRQ  ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡀከ࠸ࡢࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ 629 ࡢㄒ㡰ࡀ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ 9 ࡀᩥᮎ࡟᮶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ఍ヰࡢ᪉ྥࢆண

ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊⓎ

ヰ㏵୰࡛ࠕࡇࡇࡲ࡛ࡣ⌮ゎࡋࡓࠖࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ࣐
࣮ࣞࢩ࢔ㄒࡣ 692 ゝㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊⓎヰ㏵୰࡛ࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊศᯒࡋࡓ఍ヰᩘࡣ  ఍ヰࡎࡘ࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊヰࡋᡭࡢࠕ㛫ᢞຓモࠖᚋ࡟⌧ࢀࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖࡢࡳࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࡓࡵࠊ୧఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ඲࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖᩘࡢ㔞ⓗẚ
㍑ࡣ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ௒ᚋࡣࠊ఍ヰᩘࢆቑࡸࡋࠊࡲࡓࠊࠕ඲࠶࠸࡙ࡕࠖᩘࡢ㔞ⓗẚ㍑ࡶ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ
)R[+D\DVKL -DVSHUVRQ ࡢᣦ᦬ࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ᳨ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩㝞ጼⳡ  ࠕ᪥ྎࡢ㟁ヰ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪂ࡓ࡞ࢱ࣮ࣥࡢ㛤ጞ㸫࠶࠸࡙ࡕ౑⏝ࡢ᭷↓࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸫ࠖࠗୡ⏺ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘
Fox, B.A., M. Hayashi., and R. Jasperson. 1996. Resources and repair: a cross-linguistic study of syntax andrepair. In Oches, E., Schegloff, E. A., and Thompson, S.A. (eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
㈩⌹  ࠕᑠ㞟ᅋウㄽሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰ⪅஺᭰ࡢ᪥୰ᑐ↷◊✲ࠖࠗୡ⏺ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘
㔠ᚿᐉ  ࠕWXUQWDNLQJ ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥཬࡧࡑࡢ㐃㙐ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ㸫㡑࣭᪥ࡢᑐ↷఍ヰศᯒ㸫ࠖࠗே㛫ᩥ໬ㄽྀ࠘ ྕ࠾ⲔࡢỈዪᏊ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ே㛫ᩥ໬◊✲⛉
㔠⚽Ⱚ  㺀᪥࣭㡑୧ゝㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠗ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ࠘ࡢᑐ↷◊✲㸫㟁ヰࡢ఍ヰࢆ୰ᚰ࡟㸫㺁ࠗᖹᡂ  ᖺᗘ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍᫓Ꮨ኱఍ண✏㞟࠘
Kita and Ide. 2007. Nodding, aizuchi, and final particles in Japanese conversation : How conversation reflect
the ideology of communication and social relationships. Journal of Pragmatics. 39(7). 1242-1254.
࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ࣭.࣭ἨᏊ  ࠗ఍ヰศᯒ࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧ᐑᮏ࣐ࣛࢩ࣮  ࠕࢱ࢖ㄒࡢ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ㸦≉㞟࣭࠶࠸࡙ࡕ㸧ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘➨㸵ᕳ ྕ᫂
἞᭩㝔Ỉ㇂ಙᏊ  ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࡜ヰࡋゝⴥࡢᐇែ㸫࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢศᯒ㸫ࠖࠗ㔠⏣୍᫓ᙪ༤ኈྂᕼグᛕㄽ−47−

日本語とマレーシア語の対照会話分析―あいづちの観点から―ᩥ㞟➨஧ᕳゝㄒᏛ⦅࠘୕┬ᇽ
Ỉ㇂ಙᏊ  ࠕ࠶࠸࡙ࡕㄽࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘9RO1R
Ọ⏣Ⰻኴ  ࠕ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࠶࠸࡙ࡕࡢᶵ⬟㸫Ⓨヰ㏵୰࡟ᡴࡓࢀࡿ࠶࠸࡙ࡕ࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚㸫ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘➨  ྕ㸪᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍㸪㸬
Routledge. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: some uses of ‘uh huh’ andother things hat comes between sentences. Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. 71-97. Deborah Tannen(ed.), Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
๽ᘓ⳹  ࠕ఍ヰ࡛ࡢ࢔࢖ࢷࢳẚ㍑ࡢ୰᪥ẚ㍑ࠖࠗゝㄒ࠘9RO1R
Saigo, Hideki. 2011. The Japanese Sentence-Final Particles in Talk-in-Interaction.Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stivers , Tanya. 2008. Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation During Storytelling: When Nodding Is a Token of
Affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction. 41:1, 31-57.
Wouk, Fay. 1998. Solidarity in Indonesian conversation: The discourse marker kan. Multi Lingua. 17,
381-408.
᳿⹿  ࠕ୰᪥ẕㄒሙ㠃ࡢヰ㢟㌿᥮ࡢẚ㍑̺ヰ㢟⤊஢ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚㸫ࠖࠗୡ⏺ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ
ᩍ⫱࠘

−48−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

インターネットにおける放射能リスク情報の分析
川田拓也 鳥澤健太郎 大竹清敬
独立行政法人 情報通信研究機構<Abstract>

After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011, various information on the radiation
contamination of food was spread on the Web. In consequence, many people could not be
sure of the accuracy of risk information. In this paper, we analyze the factors of miscommunication between senders and recipients of the risk information. We extracted a great
many of opinions from the Web by using the opinion mining system based on the natural
language processing (NLP) technology. The result of our analysis shows that the failureof risk communication was caused not only by inaccuracies of information but also some
pragmatic factors, such as timing, consistency, and sincerity in oﬀering information.
【キーワード】 リスクコミュニケーション、意見分析、自然言語処理問題があったと思われる。放射能に限らず、リ

1 はじめに

スク情報の発信者となる、政府や専門家、事故

本論文は、2011 年 3 月 11 日に生じた東北地を起こした当事者が災害や事故等、何らかの人

方太平洋沖地震 (東日本大震災)、および、東京的被害を及ぼす事象に対して国民にそのリスク

電力福島第一原発事故においてリスク情報の発や対策を説明する場合、その情報を如何に適切信者と一般の人々との間に生じたミスコミュニに提供するか、そのリスクコミュニケーション

ケーションの実態を明らかにするという課題にの確立は重要な課題である。今回の原発事故は

対して、自然言語処理技術の一つである、意見分

図らずもその課題を浮き彫りにする事例となっ析技術を用いることで Web ページ上の大量のた訳である。ここで注意すべき点は、政府や専意見を整理し、分析した結果を報告するもので門家がマスコミを通じて一般の人々に情報提供ある。この分析においては、1,671,200 文を含むする構図は過去のものとなり、インターネット

Web ページ 10,000 件を対象とした。これは自が介在することで、一般の人々が受け取る情報

然言語処理のような自動処理技術を使わなけれが多種多様となったことである。その結果、イば不可能な規模である。今回の震災および、原

ンターネットに存在する玉石混淆で大量の情報

発事故では環境中に放射性物質が放出され、周と、政府からの情報、マスコミによる情報が入囲の環境に大きな影響を与えた。国や電力会社

り乱れた。政府や専門家を始めとする情報を発は、この未曾有の放射線災害の状況、リスクを信する側も正確な情報を如何にそれを求める人

一般国民に周知する際に一種の不手際が重なり、に伝えるかが難しくなってきている。これは従マスコミや国民、さらには海外からも非難され来のリスクコミュニケーション研究が想定してる事態となった。この事態を招いた要因として、いなかった状況であり、新たなリスクコミュニ

前例のない事故によるリスク算定の困難さも挙ケーションのあり方が問われているといえよう。

げられるが、より本質的には情報提供の仕方に

本論文では、以上のような考察を出発点とし、−49−

インターネットにおける放射能リスク情報の分析

Web 上で一般の人々が原発事故およびその影たトピックが事例として挙げられている。リス

響に関してどのような意見を表明したのか分析

クコミュニケーション研究に対するアプローチ

することで今回のリスク発信者と受信者双方のも基礎的な研究から応用的な研究まで様々であミスコミュニケーションの実態を明らかにし、る。例えば、Sellnow and Seeger (2013) はリス

インターネットを介した新たなリスクコミュニ

クコミュニケーションのモデル化を目指していケーションの方法論を構築していくことを目的る。吉川 (2009) はリスクの認知的なプロセスにとする。

ついて議論している。また、岡本 (2004, 2006)
は言語表現とリスク認知の関係について心理

2 先行研究学的考察している。さらに応用的な研究として

2.1 リスクコミュニケーション

は Sellnow et al. (2009) はこれまでのリスクコ

リスクコミュニケーションとは、National Re-

ミュニケーション研究を踏まえた、経験的な実

search Council (1989) の定義によれば「個人、践法を紹介している。宇野 (2013) は医療専門家

集団、組織間でのリスクに関する情報や意見をとしてリスクコミュニケーションのあり方につ交換する相互作用的プロセス」とされ、ここでいて提言を行っている。

言われている「リスクに関する情報」は「リス以上に挙げたようなこれまでのリスクコミュ

ク」そのものだけではなく、リスクに伴う不安

ニケーション研究は、基本的にはリスク情報のやリスク情報に対する意見なども含めた情報の伝え方に焦点を当てており、相手に如何に正確やりとりを指す。また、「相互作用的プロセス」に伝えるか、ということを目標としている。まと定義されているとおり、この定義ではリスク

た、リスクコミュニケーションが行われる場も、情報を伝える側だけではなく、リスク情報を受専門家、リスク責任者（政府や企業など）と、被け取る側も含めた双方的な情報交換をリスクコ

害者、被災者といった当事者間のコミュニケー

ミュニケーションとみなしている。また、Sell-

ションに限られている。先述したとおり、イン

now et al. (2009) によれば、リスクコミュニ

ターネットを介したソーシャルメディアが幅広

ケーションの目的は「事故や災害時（もしくはく利用されるようになった現在、リスク情報が起こりうる将来のため）に究極的にはそのリス発信された後、その情報が時には内容を変え、クを回避すること、もしくは人々が賢く安全な

大量に当事者以外の不特定多数に情報拡散する

意志決定ができるよう、専門家や行政が如何にという問題が生じている。その結果、インター

一般の人々にリスク情報を伝えるか」という点ネット上を中心に大量かつ真偽不明のリスク情に集約される。本論文も、リスクコミュニケー

報が拡散する恐れがある。さらに情報の受け手

ションの考え方は従来の見方と大きくは変わら

は当事者に限らず、その受け手が新たに不特定ない立場をとって議論を進めていくこととする。

多数に向けて情報を発信することで再び情報がでは、リスクコミュニケーションが問題とな拡散することが懸念される。本論文では、インるケースとしてはどのような事例があり得るのターネット上に拡散したリスク情報に関連するであろうか。これまでの研究では、例えば、食品

人々の意見に焦点を当て分析を行う。

による健康や安全に関する問題 (中西 2010) や

2.2 意見分析

火山の噴火やハリケーンといった、災害時のリ

自然言語処理分野における意見分析（評判分

スクコミュニケーション (Sellnow and Seeger

析、opinion mining, sentiment analysis とも呼2013)、ダイオキシンや環境ホルモンなど環境問ばれる）とは、主に文や談話から、ある対象に対

題 (吉川 2009)、放射線問題 (宇野 2013) といっする「意見（評価）」と解釈できる部分を抽出し、−50−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

その対象に対して肯定的な態度が表明されてい象とした。これは自然言語処理のような自動処

るか、否定的な態度が表明されているか（ポジ

理技術を使わなければ不可能な規模である。そネガ）を判定するタスクである。例えば以下のこで、意見の収集に当たっては、自然言語処理

例では、(1a) は iPad に対するポジティブな意

技術が活用され大規模な自動処理も可能である見として、(1b) はネガティブな意見としてみなツールとして独立行政法人情報通信研究機構がすことができる。

一般公開している「評価情報（意見）抽出ツー
ル」 1 を用いた。図 1 に本ツールを動作させて(1) a. iPad はすばらしい
b. iPad は嫌いだ

いる状況を示す。

意見分析は自然言語処理分野においては、一つの本ツールでは、入力として与えられた文に対分野として確立し、活発に研究されている (Pang

して、各文に肯定的な意見が含まれているか、

and Lee 2008)。言語学では、主流ではないもの

否定的な意見が含まれているかを自動的に分類の、いくつかの分野で意見/評価の意味機能にし、さらに具体的に肯定的な意見、否定的な意

ついて分析されている。例えば、Martin and

見を表している表現を特定できる。特に肯定的White (2005) は Systemic functional grammar

もしくは否定的な意見を表している表現自体をの立場から、評価の意味的な分類を試みてい

評価表現と呼ぶ。例えば、図 1 のように「日本る。コーパス言語学 (Phraseology) の観点からの野菜は食べても問題無い」という文を入力文

は Hunston (2011) が評価を表す構文パターンとして与えると、評価表現として、「問題無い」

を中心に分析している。以上は書き言葉を分析が抽出され、さらに評価タイプとして「批評 +」対象としているが、談話研究、会話分析においてが出力される。評価タイプの詳細は後述するが、も、「評価」という観点から、コミュニケーショ+ は肯定を意味し、「問題無い」という表現がン上で生じる評価的態度 (stance taking) を中

肯定的な意見であることを表す。

心に分析されている (Du Bois 2007)。大塚他

本ツールは機械学習と呼ばれる技術を用いて(2007) は意見分析を軸に言語学と自然言語処理いる。機械学習とは学習データ、すなわち人がの融合を図り、言語学的知見を生かした自然言作成したシステムの入力と出力のペアからなる

語処理による自動的な意見分析を試みている。

データから、入力と出力の関係を推測し、その次節では自然言語処理技術を応用した評価情推測された関係を学習データには含まれない未報（意見）抽出ツールを用いた Web 情報の意見知の入力に対しても適用することで望ましいと分析手法と結果について述べる。

思われる出力を得るための技術である。ここ 20
年ほどで自然言語処理技術は精度等の面におい3 分析て劇的に進歩したが、その原動力の一つがこの3.1 評価情報（意見）抽出ツール

機械学習技術の応用が進んだことにある。

本論文では、国や電力会社のようなリスク情本ソフトウエアの開発においては、肯定、否定

報の発信者とそれを受け取る一般の人々との間等の情報を人手で Web 上のテキストに対してにどのようなミスコミュニケーション生じたの付与した 2 万文の学習データと、「良い」や「悪か明らかにする事を目的とする。そのために、い」といった表現とそれが肯定的か否定的かを

リスク情報の受け手である一般の人々がブロ示す極性を対にした 36,981 エントリを含む辞書

グ等の Web ページ上で表明したリスク情報にとを用いている。精度について述べると、現在、対する意見を分析した。この分析においては、

人が評価表現と判断するもののうち約 40 ％をシ

1,671,200 文を含む Web ページ 10,000 件を対ステムが出力することができ、システムの出力−51−インターネットにおける放射能リスク情報の分析

表2



178 文の意見分類結果とその文数
事実関係に関する意見基準となるデータに関する意見
制度の矛盾に対する意見
データ解釈に関する意見

45 (25%)25 (14%)
11 (6%)

伝達方法に関する意見言い回しや伝え方についての意見
不作為・虚偽・情報秘匿に対する意見  



図1



早急な基準変更に関する意見

その他単純な批判

使用した）。意見抽出ツールは放射能や食品とは

意見抽出ツールの出力結果例のうち 60 ％が評価表現とみなせるものである。
また、肯定、否定の区別に関しては、Nakagawa

et al. (2010) の手法が実装されており、正しい
評価表現に関して 80 ％以上の精度で正しく判

キーワードの分布および放射能等それに49 (28%)44 (25%)39 (22%)15 (8%)
11 (6%)
11 (6%)
7 (4%)
2 (1%)

関連する事象に関して

原発
政府
マスコミ
被曝
汚染
瓦礫
政治

しては、
「放射能」
「原発」
「政府」
「被曝」
「汚染」
「マスコミ」「瓦礫」「政治」の震災、原発事故関発表、政府の定める基準の決め方やアナウンス
本節では、原発事故、放射能

中から震災に関連する文を選定した。選定に際した。さらに、この 2,945 文を人手で、「政府のWeb 上の意見の分析

3.2.1 分析手順
表1

無関係の意見も抽出するため、その 5,779 文の連の 8 つのキーワードを含む文を 2,945 文抽出定することができる。

3.2

36 (20%)30 (17%)7 (4%)
25 (14%)

Web 上でどのような意見があったかを意見抽
出ツールを用いて分析
対象を絞り込む手順について述べる。まず、分析対象のページを用意するために今回は通常の検索エンジンを用いて、前節で述べたように Web ページを 10,000 件 (1,671,200 文) 取得した。ページ取得に当たっては「震災放射能」「放射能食品」など、震災や放射能に関連する

126 の検索キーワードを用いた。取得した Webの方法に対する、一般の人々やマスコミの意見かどうか」、「専門家の情報に対する一般の人々の意見かどうか」、「マスコミの報道に対する一般の人々の反応かどうか」のいずれかであるかを基準に選別した。その結果得られた 178 文を
今回の分析対象とした。分析対象となった 178
文中で、前述した 8 つのキーワードごとの分布を表 1 に示す。キーワードの分布結果を見る限り、放射能や瓦礫などの原発事故の物理的帰結に関係するもの以外に政府やマスコミに対する意見が少なくとも一定数（178 件中 54 件）存在することがわかり、今回の震災に関連する Web
情報には政府やマスコミの対応に関連する意見が多かったことが裏付けられた。

3.2.2 Web 上の意見の分類と分析
次に 178 文を人手で、その内容的な類似性に

ページの各文に含まれる評価表現、すなわち意見を、前述した意見抽出ツールを用いて何らかの対象に対して意見を表明している 5,779 文を抽出した（ただし、解析に必要な、学習データから得られた各種パラメータを記したモデルデー
タは公開されているものと異なり、意見の対象となる表現を出力できる開発中のバージョンを基づき、探索的に分類した。その結果、「事実関係に関する意見」と「伝達方法に関する意見」の2 種類に大別できることがわかった。「事実関係に関する意見」とは、政府の定めた基準の是非など、事実関係に対する意見で、「伝達方法に関する意見」は、政府の基準が科学的根拠に基づい−52−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

たものであっても、その伝え方に対して批判が(5) 環境省は２２日、レジャー客が遊泳する海水起こった事例などが相当する。この二つの分類

れぞれの分類について具体例を交えて説明する。

浴場や河川、湖での放射性セシウムの基準を「水１リットル当たり５０ベクレル以下」とする方針を固めた。飲料水の基準値２００ベク
レルよりも厳しい。基準づくりにあたって当
初は、飲料水の基準を適用することを想定していた。

なお、以下で挙げるデータは、評価表現が抽出

http://savechild.net/archives/3582.html

された文である。文脈を分かりやすくするため(4) で批判対象となっている基準策定の背景

軸を中心に、さらに細分すると表 2 で示すように主として 6 種類に分類できた。以下では、そにその前後の文を提示している場合もある。

として、茶は「飲用」以外に様々な利用法がある

まず、「基準となるデータに関する意見」としということがある。生産者側の立場としては飲て代表的なものは、そもそも定められた基準が用以外の用途も考慮に入れた基準策定が望まし

間違っているという主張や、根拠のない基準に

いとの意見もありえたことから、当時の基準は対する批判で、以下のような例が相当する。

このような生産者側の意見をくみ取った結果策(2) 屋外での放射線の実際の測定は、このうちの「通常の土地の条件下で地面から 1m の高さ」に相当すると考えられる為、実際には 0.4 ではなくて 0.4/0.7=0.57 を用いるべきな気がします。そうすると、8 時間/24 時間× 1+16
時間/24 時間× 0.4/0.7=0.71 となり、政府の推定方法は過小評価だと言えます。
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/oxon/20110426/1303810008

2

定されたものであるとも考えられる。そうであるとすると当然飲用のみに焦点を当てた場合の基準と齟齬が生じる。基準の公平性も問題であろう。(5) も同様に、同じ「水」に対する基準であるのに、用途によって基準が異なる例である。
いずれにしても、どんな基準を策定しても、リ(3) 「日本政府をこのような行動に突き動かした

スクを公平に分配することは困難であり、そののは、一般の人が放射線に抱く理屈ではない恐怖症と、怒れる有権者への恐れからによるものであろう」と推定している。厳しい基準
は、人命を救うかどうかではなく、政治的な判断で、低い基準に決まりがちだという。「人命を救うことのできる効果のある防護策は、
緊急時には許容量を４倍まで増加させること」と同教授は指摘する。

結果、制度上の矛盾が生じ、批判が生じてしま

http://agora-web.jp/archives/1494264.html

意見」として分類した例である。

う。なお、このカテゴリは、「事実関係に関する意見」に分類はしているものの、情報の一貫性という観点からは「伝達方法に関する意見」とも捉えることが可能であると思われる。
次の 2 例は「データの解釈や考え方に関する(2) は政府の推定方法で安全とされていても、(6) セシウムは臓器にたまりにくく、排出されやそもそも基準の推定方法が適切ではないため実すいが、一方で、人体にはもともとある程度の放射性物質がある。仮に今回の牛肉を数回食べたとしても、医学的に影響はなく、健康に問題はない」まあ、この言説は真っ赤なウ
ソ。

際は危険なのではないかという主張がなされる。

(3) は基準が生命・健康よりも政治的判断を優先して定められている事への批判とみなすことが

http://quasimoto.exblog.jp/15104290/

できる。次に「制度の矛盾に対する意見」とし(7) 私が問題だと思っているのは「ホタルは 0.5ては以下のような例が挙げられる。

μ Sv/h の放射線を浴びると光らなくなる」と主催者は主張し、ホタルが復興に結びつくと信じてプロジェクトを行っている点です(4) 「足柄茶」の産地である神奈川県は「今の規制のままでは、生茶葉で規制値を下回っても、加工段階の荒茶では上回るという矛盾が生じる。湯に溶けだすセシウムは生茶葉の数十分の 1 で、飲む状態に合わせた規制値に改定すべきだ」と指摘
http://savechild.net/archives/3582.html

http://sp-file.qee.jp/cgi-bin/wiki/wiki.cgi「データの解釈や考え方に関する意見」は「放射能は身体によい」「土壌の表面さえ除染すれば大丈夫」など、曖昧な根拠に基づく発信への批−53−

インターネットにおける放射能リスク情報の分析

判で、(6), (7) のような例が相当する。

判対象とされている事例である。

次に述べるのは「伝達方法に関する批判」で(13) 文科省は乱暴にも学校活動上での放射能安全基準を年間 20 ミリシーベルトにしたと強引に発表。無責任の極みである。

ある。その中で、「言い回しや伝え方についての意見」として分類したのが以下の例である。

http://einstein2011.blog.fc2.com/(8) 文科省は「事故由来放射性物質は、核燃料物
質又は核燃料物質によって汚染された物が飛散したものです。これらにより汚染された土
壌や廃棄物は、放射線障害防止法に規定する
放射性汚染物ではありません。」と言いだした(13) に「早急な基準変更に関する意見」の例を挙げる。これは放射線量の基準の場当たり的な変更に対する意見である。たとえ、その変更に一定の合理性が認められたとしても、その変

http://einstein2011.blog.fc2.com/(9) 総理は, 当初は反原発デモに対して「大きな音だ」と発言して怒りを買ったが, 先週は, 原発に対する賛否両論を十分承知していると述べたhttp://kitanoyamajirou.hatenablog.com/entry/

更の仕方如何では受け取り側で「場当たり的」と捉えられてしまう事があることを示している。
最後は、その他の単純な批判で、以下の例のようにニュース等の情報源を元に感想や不安感のみ発信するような例や、具体的なリスク情報

20120721/1342871287(8) は法的には問題無いのかもしれないが大には基づいていない意見等が相当する。

(14) 今後、今すでにそうかもしれませんが、原発

変わかりづらい言い回しで書かれており、実際の近く遠く、放射線量の高い低いに関わらず、「日本」とう “タグ” だけで、危険な場所とか、日本産の食品は危ないという風潮が世界的に蔓延してしまうのではないかという恐れを私は感じています。

に安全なのかどうかについては言及がない事に対する批判で、(9) は被災者感情を無視した発言として批判されている例である。いずれも、情報の内容よりも情報の伝え方に失敗した例とし

http://d.hatena.ne.jp/yashoku/20110322/p2てみなすことができる。

(15) マスコミが風評被害を大きくしています。正(10) 世田谷区内の都の関連施設で検出されたが、しく伝えてほしいですね。

都は「数値が低く、健康に影響を及ぼす可能性は低い」として公表していなかった。

http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/
question detail/q1161513171

http://koibito.iza.ne.jp/blog/entry/2484217(11) ６月も１８カ所の海水浴場で調査するという。

4 考察

ただ、海水浴を中止すべきかを判断する基準はないのが現状。

表 2 が示すように、「事実関係に関する意見」

http://iryou.chunichi.co.jp/article/detail/は全体の 45% を占め、「伝達方法に関する批判」

20110601144135591

は 41% を占めている。すなわち、リスクコミュ(12) 水産庁が当初ＨＰで「生物濃縮は起こらない」

ニケーションを円滑に行うにあたっては、単にとデタラメを書き、それを本誌が徹底批判す
ると「生物濃縮をし続けるわけではない」とこっそり修正したのだ。

事実を正確に伝えることだけではなく、事実をhttp://iryou.chunichi.co.jp/article/detail/

どう伝えるかについても課題となることが判明した。

20110601144135591

以下では、「事実関係に関する意見」と「伝達上の例は不作為・虚偽・情報秘匿に対する意

方法に関する批判」の背景について考察する。

見として分類した例で、公表すべき情報を提供

まず「事実関係に関する意見」は主としてリスしていなかったり、策定すべき基準を策定してク情報の根拠となる情報提示が不十分であるこいなかったり、通告無く前言を撤回したようなとが示唆される。例えば、「基準となるデータへ

事例で、リスク情報発信者の不誠実な対応が批の批判」と分類した例の中で以下のようなもの−54−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

がある。

段階の基準との異なりは、法律的には問題無い(16) 「数値が基準内 (注: 2000 ベクレル) である」

が、一般消費者にとっては一貫性のないリスクということですが、基準内であっても危険性はあります。では、１９００ベクレルが検出された場合は危険は全く無いのでしょうか？
もちろん、危険ですよね。

情報と受け止められる可能性がある。

http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/

ますます発達していくと、即時的に情報が多く

question detail/q1161513171

今後、インターネットを介したいわゆるソー
シャル・ネットワーキング・サービス (SNS) がの人に拡散し、蓄積される。情報発信のタイミ

この種の批判は基準が 2000 ベクレルでなけ

ングを誤ればその情報は瞬く間に広がり混乱のればならない根拠が伝わっていないことによる元となり、過去に蓄積された情報との比較からと思われる。基準値だけでなく、その基準が定容易に情報の不誠実性、非一貫性が白日の下にめられた根拠が上手く伝達されないと、基準値さらされることになる。このように、リスク情情報だけが一人歩きし、批判対象となる。リス

報の伝達方法に関しては「タイミング」「誠実性」

ク情報発信者は一般の人々が納得できる基準と「一貫性」が今後、重要な要素となっていくこと

その根拠を正確に伝達する事が求められるだろが考えられ、リスクコミュニケーションを円滑う。ただし、不十分な情報発信によるリスクコに行うためには、情報の正確性や正当性だけでミュニケーションの失敗はネットに限らずこれはなく、如何に情報の受け手のことを考慮し、一までも見られた問題であると思われる。

貫した情報を適切な時期に発信するかが課題とネットによる情報伝達が容易になった現在、
リスクコミュニケーション上、特に重要と思われるのはむしろ「伝達方法に関する意見」であなろう。

5 おわりにろう。すなわち、情報の正確性や法的正当性を本論文では、インターネットを介して情報が優先するあまり、聞き手に配慮した伝達方法が拡散する時代におけるリスクコミュニケーショ

軽視され、それが批判対象となるケースで、今ンのあり方を模索するため、食品の放射能安全

回の調査でこの種の意見が 4 割を超えていた事

基準に関する情報を中心に現状の問題点と課題は無視できないと思われる。

をまとめた。そのために、本論文は自然言語処

今回の分類を元にすると、伝達方法上問題と理技術を応用することで、人手では収集できななるのは次の三点にまとめられると思われる。

い Web 上の大量の意見を効率的に収集して分すなわち情報を伝える「タイミング」
、
「誠実性」
、

析を行った。その結果、Web 上の意見は大別し「一貫性」の三点である。「早急な基準変更に関て「事実関係に関する意見」と「伝達方法に関すする意見」は情報を伝えるタイミングに失敗しる意見」の 2 種類に分類できることが明らかとたことが背景として考えられる。リスク情報のなった。特に「伝達方法に関する意見」が半数変更や修正自体は問題無く、むしろ好ましい。

近く見られたことは、リスクコミュニケーショ

しかしながらタイミングを誤れば情報の信頼性

ンの達成において、情報の無謬性は十分条件でが損なわれる。また、「不作為・虚偽・情報秘匿はなく、必要条件の一つでしかないことを明らに対する意見」は情報伝達の誠実性が軽視されかにした。

た結果であろう。
「制度の矛盾に対する意見」は今後の課題としては、今回は、食品の放射能「事実関係に関する意見」として分類はしている基準に関する意見に焦点を当てたため、今後は、が、伝達方法上の問題とも捉えられると思われさらに過去の他の災害事例との比較が必要である。(4) の例のように、茶葉の放射線基準と加工ると思われる。また、リスクコミュニケーショ−55−

インターネットにおける放射能リスク情報の分析

ンの成功事例についても扱っていなかった。成American Chapter of the Association for

功事例との比較を通じて、リスクコミュニケー

Computational Linguistics, pp. 786–794,

ションの成功とは何かを考察する必要もあるだ

Los Angeles, California:

ろう。さらに、時系列毎の意見の変遷を見るこComputational Linguistics.

とで、リスクコミュニケーションが改善された

Association for中西準子. 2010. 『食のリスク学』 東京:日本評のか、悪化したのか、その変化を観察すること

論社．

で、その用意を探ることも有用かと思われる。

National Research Council 1989. Improving

これは、ツイッター等マイクロブログからの意

Risk Communication, Washington.D.C: Na-

見抽出を行うことである程度可能と思われるた

tional Academy Press.

め、今後の課題としたい。

岡本真一郎. 2004. 「内分泌攪乱物質リスクのコ
ミュニケーション : 警告表現から導出される

謝辞

推意に関する一研究」、『人間文化 : 愛知学院

本論文は、厚生労働省科研費 (H24-食品-指定-

大学人間文化研究所紀要』、第 19 巻、384-375．

002「リスクコミュニケーションにおける情報の2006.「内分泌攪乱物質のリスクコミュ

伝達手法に関する研究」) の援助を受けて行わ

ニケーション : 言語表現が情報の評価に及ぼれた。

す影響」、『愛知学院大学論叢心身科学部紀要』、第 2 巻、113–118．

後注大塚裕子・乾孝司・奥村学. 2007. 『意見分析エ

1

https://alaginrc.nict.go.jp/opinion/

ンジン–計算言語学と社会学の接点–』 東京:

2

ここで引用している Web テキストは 2012

コロナ社．

年にクローリングしたデータである。そのため、Sellnow, T. and M. Seeger 2013. Theoriz-

いくつかのデータは現在、リンク切れになって

ing Crisis Communication, Malden: Wiley-

いる可能性がある。

Blackwell.
Sellnow, T., R. Ulmer, M. Seeger, and R. Lit-

参考文献

tleﬁeld 2009. Eﬀective Risk Communica-

Du Bois, J. 2007. “The Stance Triangle,” inEnglebretson, R. (ed.) Stancetaking in Dis-

tion, New York: Springer.
Martin, J. and P. White 2005. The Language

course: Benjamins. pp. 130–182.

of Evaluation. Appraisal in English, Hound-

Hunston, S. 2011. Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Lan-mills: Palgrave Macmillan.
宇野賀津子. 2013. 「低線量放射線の生体への影
響と食の重要性: リスクコミュニケーション

guage, Malden: Routledge.
Pang, B. and L. Lee 2008. “Opinion miningと科学者の役割」、『日本女性科学者の会学術誌』、第 13 巻、第 1 号、23–29．

and sentiment analysis,” Information re-

吉川肇子. 2009. 『健康・リスクコミュニケー

trieval, Vol. 2, pp. 1–135.
Nakagawa, T., K. Inui, and S. Kurohashi 2010.
“Dependency Tree-based Sentiment Classiﬁcation using CRFs with Hidden Variables,” in Human Language Technologies:
The 2010 Annual Conference of the North−56−

ションの手引き』京都:ナカニシヤ出版．

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

Đƀ contrary to ª*Ŵ÷ƸÙ ÖæÅƥÚĪÅÌ

<Abstract> The aim of this paper is to illustrate what is explicitly communicated by the contrary to-phrase. It is usually usedin the form, Contrary to NP (that p1), p2, where p1 and p2 are propositions. I would like to propose a sentence with thecontrary to-phrase communicates two explicatures: one is the explicature of its host clause and the other the explicature
indicating the opposite relation between two propositions, p1 and p2. Moreover, I would like to show the acceptability of thecontrary to-phrase depends on the distinction of attribution, and to clarify the characteristics of the contrary to-phrase bycomparing with the similar expression on the contrary.
GhehRǀƤƙõŅƇgŴ÷g§ÒƤgÝØ

1. +7)Đƀ&$ĭů= contrary to ª+)§$&§ÒƤ)=&AŚ:

§ÒƤ)

=&+ź

(

÷¶AŴZLQŢ):!$Ŵ>=·ƳÐ&)ô@>=(1)%Ƙó)§$*Ƙó+ZLQŢ*·ƳÐ&(1) Contrary to popular belief, you do not have to know what you want to do. (BNC)(2) Contrary to some reports that he was there five or 10 minutes, he was there nearly an hour. (COCA)

iĒ(2)%+ZLQŢ*·ƳÐ+ contrary to ª¨=±ƀªëƤ)="4<
è 1 Ęƣ2')&ZLQŢ*·ƳÐ&è 510 )°ħŢ):!$Ŵ>=·ƳÐ&*ƣ)§ÒƤþş$>$=ōƁÐƃ>=&+Ðė)ŅŹ>=?

!$8Ðƃ>=Ņŉ+?

=°ħŢ):!$Ŵ>=·ƳÐ&§Ò=*%

%+(1)*:=(2)*:)§ÒƤĖŚ)§ÒƤĖŚ>(4contrary to ª¨=±ƀª+'*:

&

)ĭů$

ōƁ%

=*?



 ġŝ%+ƤƙõŅƇ*şÁ;contrary to ª¨=±ƀª+ZLQŢ*·Ƴ&*§ÒƤAőĈŏ)Ś*%+(·Ƴ*ÝØƺattributionƻAŚcontrary to ª+*·Ƴ&ZLQ·Ƴ&*ƣ)§ÒƤþş=&AĖŚŏ)Ɯ=&

&AČĨ=4contrary to ª&Ƶ÷¶&ĭůAĄ"&ū;>= on thecontrary &ĲƖ=&%contrary to ªA´6ōƁ*Ðƃõ)+ contrary to ª¨=4+Ó=·Ƴ&ZL
Q·Ƴ*ÝØŋ(=&&ÅƤ@=&AČŚ=

2. Đƀ contrary to ª*ŀî−57−

文副詞 contrary to 句の表意

ġŢ%+ contrary to ª*Àġŏ(ŀîAŸ=Ši)k*(1)(2);Ė;(:A¨=$*±ƀª+°ħŢAë=Á¯(=(2))&%()contrary to ª+ð±ƀªÁ¯(=(1))&)contrary to ª+ĐƲ%(ĐqgĐĠ)ņƒ=&«ů%Ś:ņƒ=*5AĀ=4}l*(3)(4)

=ġŝ%+ĐƲ)&)=

(3) An exemption clause may, contrary to appearances, have little or no effect. (BNC)(4) British Bomber Command continued area bombing, contrary to military advice. (BNC)$contrary to ª+)§$&
;Ė;(:
ļ+Ơŷ%÷¶AŴ;*§ÒƤAŚ&+űĖ%=(1)(2))contrary to ª¨=±ƀª&ZLQŢ):!$Ŵ>=·ƳÐőĈŏ(§ÒƤ)(

=

 4
§ÒƤ;È7:iŲŏ)UQ+'*:ġŝ%ź §ÒƤ&+Ƅ&Ƅ*÷¶Ƥ&(Á¯A§ÒƤ&ƃƉ=*?

:<6?·Ƴƣ*ƤAŚŇƄ&$Ň=·Ƴƣ*§ÒƤ+Į*ƾ"*MDX)Ƶ>=?
ZLQŢ+ĿĎƨĿĎAŨũ=&ĎƨĿĎAqį=)Œã=?

Ši)§÷)À#§ÒƤ%=(5)%+·ƳÐAŴ*)Òƕtŏòµ*ŏ(Ð+*ƽ"*·Ƴ+Ũũ&qį&

§÷)À#

:Ŀ
$

= 1

(5) British Bomber Command continued area bombing, contrary to military advice. (BNC)Šu*MDX+ŮÍ-³Í)À#§ÒƤ%&=(6)*ZLQŢ+ĻÏ):=QaE\+iĘŏ(8*%+(·ƳÐAŴoƇ+*§Ò%§Ò*Ƥ)

=&+ź

4%8(

?

=QaE\+iĘŏ(8*&ŹƟ>=ŮÍ&³Í(6) She said that, contrary to popular opinion, traumas caused by such a disaster were not short-lived. (BNC)Šj*MDX+YHQcŏ§ÒƤ%&=(7)Ś:)ƶŒńÎA&ńÎƶŒAƽ"*·Ƴ%+ƽ"*¥nŬ*¼ĤƤ*²§Ò%=(7) Contrary to the general perception that the prime minister runs the realities, it's the realities that run the prime minister.
(COCA)

*:) contrary to ª*ŹƟ)+ƾŜƵ*§ÒƤƃ7;>=

 %+(*ƾ"*MDXA§ÒƤ&ƃƉ=*?
>$=:Lyons (1977)9 Cruse (1986)('%ź¦)§Ò+uŬAĲƖgÒĲ=Ʃ)ƃƉ>=Ƥ%−58−=$§ÒƤ*ƃƉ)第16回大会発表論文集第９号

Ơŷ(*+uŬƣ*ŒƝļ}k)>}Ã*44(ļ)$ƵõŸ;>=&;)Murphy (2003: 44)%+ÒŪƄ*ŘŞ)$Òş=÷¶Ƥ*Ħà)differenceƻ*£Ņ%(Ƅäƣ*§ÒƤ*ŘŞ%ąč>$

=&Ɨ1$

=*:

&%

=

=*+
ěÔƦ*ŒƝƺminimal=&+·Ƴƣ*§ÒƤ)8ã$+4="4<§÷ƺ4+·Ƴƣ*§ÒƤƻ+Ʃş"ŒƝ&Ä*Ƶõ*pƮ)ă=*%=>+Murphy *ŖŸ8Ɠ4}l*£Ņ)4&7;>=?

(8) Principle of Minimal Difference and Maximal Similarity
The more likely we are to recognise the relation between two elements (especially two propositions) as opposition, thesmaller the difference and the larger the similarity.

ƵõÅ>,Å

2'$ŒƝÔ>,Ô

2'uŬƣ*§ÒƤ*ƃƉÐė)(=*£Ņ+kż*ƾ"*MDX*§ÒƤ&ď¯=§÷)À#§ÒƤ%+§÷Ƥ)
Ť+ƵŮÍ-³Í*§ÒƤ+ not *ĝĽ%=*Ē²*5ŋ(!$<YHQcŏ§ÒƤ+ƽ"*¥nŬ&*Ƥ+°%= k*(7)%+contrary to ª¨=±ƀª*ê)*ŏÐAŚ°ħŢņƒ$
§ÒƤ)
)

=&+ĖŎ%=Ƅ}Ã*ŷ

=7ZLQ·Ƴ&=>)Ò(5)(6)*%+(8)*£Ņ)ë!$ZLQŢ*·ƳÐ&§ÒƤ=·Ƴŭÿ):!$í>="4<contrary to ª):!$ŷĳ>=§ÒƤ)

ZLQ·ƳAÀ)ĉƇ):!$ŭÿ+Ó=*% Į)contrary to ª¨=±ƀª)+'*:$Ŵ>=·ƳÐAë=4ë

(=·ƳÐA=(ŀîŸ;>=?

Ƽ"+*±ƀª+°ħŢ):!

Á¯)+·ƳÐAºƒ=>+ >*Á¯8contrary toª·Ƴƣ*§ÒƤAŷĳ=&)ƒ¼=Šu)$:<Ơŷ(*+±ƀªêũ=4+ºƒ>=·Ƴ*ÝØƺattributionƻAŴ&&%

ƀª+°ħŢŴ·ƳÐ*ÝØAŚ$=,(2)ƺ}l)Ċƻ* some reports &="4<
è 510 )

Ɣ*öÍ%+( =x):!$d[hQ>Ð%=&AŚ*%&±·Ƴ+Ɓÿű

=8contrary to ª¨=±ƀªŚÝØ+ZLQ·Ƴ*>&ŋ(=(2)*ZLQŢ+Ɓÿ):=tÎ*żƗ&ŹƟ>*Á¯
*·ƳÐ+ƁÿűƔ)ÝØ=&&(=*:*(9a, b)%İ(ŭÿ*ŹƟƺ"4<ŭÿ*ïŏŴƋƻAŚ

=(9a, b);>>*·ƳÐ&*ÝØŋ(=&Ÿ$¨>=?

&+(10)Ðƃ>(&;8řƃ>=(10)%+ contrary to ª±ƀª the fact A¨<êũ

=°ħŢ+tÎ*żƗ&ŹƟ>=;)ZLQŢ+(2)&°Ĭ%
ŹƟ>="4<(11a, b)Ś:Ð°Ę)Ŕ%>,ŕœņ=&*Ðƃõ+ÝØ*Ɲ

*ƊƇ

)'

=&;Ɓÿ):=tÎ*ċ&;*·ƳÐ8Ɓÿ)ÝØ=&&(=>;*·ƳtÎ(10)Ðƃ>(&ŵ{;>=*&;(2)):!$ſ>=&Ś¸>=(2) Contrary to some reports that he was there five or 10 minutes, he was there nearly an hour.

−59−文副詞 contrary to 句の表意

(9) a. SOME PEOPLE REPORTED THAT HE WAS THERE FIVE OR 10 MINUTES2
b. THE SPEAKER BELIEVES (IT IS TRUE) THAT HE WAS THERE NEARLY AN HOUR
(10) *Contrary to the fact that he was there five or 10 minutes, he was there nearly an hour.
(11) a. THE SPEAKER BELIEVES (IT IS TRUE) THAT HE WAS THERE FIVE OR 10 MINUTES
b. THE SPEAKER BELIEVES (IT IS TRUE) THAT HE WAS THERE NEARLY AN HOUR*:) contrary to ª¨=±ƀª+·ƳAÓ4+ºƒ*·Ƴ*ÝØ&$ĭů=*% ěê)contrary to ª¨=±ƀªÓ4+ºƒ=·Ƴ)"=$ĩŻ=4°ħŢōƁ>=ƺ"4<źƄŏ)ĖŚ>=ƻÁ¯ZLQŢ*·Ƴ&§ÒƤþş=>+Ŵ÷ƺexplicatureƻdYc%!$8ĉ÷ƺimplicatureƻdYc%
&
@A$

!$8:



ƽ"*·Ƴ+Ŵ÷dYc%¤Ñ(§ÒƤ)=łĴ%,(2)%
510 )=&+ź>,>>*·Ƴ;è+ŗ÷ĉƇ):!$Ó>=?

*:

(

ƣé!$

&1 Ęƣ2')(;~)èx&é

¯

&Ƣ

ĉ

ƣé!$

&

)(2)+ĉ÷dYc%ƽ"*·Ƴƣ)§ÒƤþş$=iĒl*(12)%+Ŵ÷dYc%*§ÒƤŸ;>=

(12) Contrary to the hypothesis that athletic identity would significantly decline with age, we found a significant increase inathletic identity from age 10 to age 15. (COCA)°ħŢ&ZLQŢ):!$ĖŚŏ)Ɯ>=*+Ŭƚů)Ƥ=BDPfOCOCßƹ&&8)ĸÕ=%<êŬ1015 ı+kĕ=&·ƳÐ%=*ƽ"*·ƳÐ+ƇŅŏ)ď

¯4ƚů)Ƥ=BDPfOCOC&ßƹ&*ŒƤƤ§Ò%(<·Ƴƣ*§ÒƤŴ÷dYc%þş$dYc%>ƇŅŏ¤Ñ+ŷĳ>(&&ď¯=&ź=?

 iĒ°ħŢōƁ>(=ŷ=)(12)+(2)&ŋ=contrary to ª)Ƥ=§ÒƤ+Ŵ÷dYc%>+UQJ]_SIhK`f)>ĉ÷$ƇŅŏ¤ÑAĳ7(Á¯)+ŭÿ+ĉƇ):!$·ƳAí=ðŷ

Q·Ƴ*ĿĎ*Ũũ;ĿĎ*qį(6)%+QaE\iĘŏ%+(Ó>=*Ó+(8)*£ŅA8&)ų@>ƾ"*MDX;Ƥƙõ*=k*(5)%+ZL;iĘŏ%==§ÒƤƞ,>=(5)%+§÷)À#§ÒƤ(6)%+ŮÍ-³Í*§ÒƤz)Ĳ1$ƤƙõÅ

&;ƞĂ>$=

 4&7=&contrary to ª+ð±ƀªA¨<*ŏÐ"4<·ƳÐ+°ħŢ&$Ŵ>=Á¯9ĉƇ):!$Ó>=Á¯=$*·Ƴ+ZLQŢ):!$Ŵ>=·ƳÐ&§ÒƤAþ

*&;contrary to ª*ōƁåâ+(13a)*ŭÿ):=ŹƟƺ"4<ŭÿ*ïŏŴƋƻ+(13b)
&$iŲ

>=

(13) a. Contrary to NP (that p1), p2.

−60−

第16回大会発表論文集

b. CONTRARY TO x(p1), y(p2)第９号

ƺx + p1 *y + p2 *ÝØAŴƻx + contrary to ª¨=±ƀª)Òñp1 *ÝØAŴp2 +ZLQ·ƳAŴy +*ÝØAŚ*ðōƁ>=*+NP (=x)& p2 %&&x & y +ŋ(<=ě8Ơŷ(&+§ÒƤ+ p1 & p2 *ƣ%þş=&>,:)§ÒƤ+ðŷ(

&

&%

=

3. contrary to ª*Ŵ÷
3 Ţ%+ƤƙõŅƇ*ĥŦ5%Đƀ contrary to ª):!$ĖŚŏ)Ɯ>=Ð)Ƥ=ČĨAųŚ:)contrary to ª+ZLQŢ*·ƳAīþ(

contrary to ª¨=±ƀªë)ƌŃ$

(13b)

;)ZLQŢ):!$Ŵ>=·ƳÐ p2 

=4+ĉƇ):!$Ó>=·ƳÐ p1 &§ÒƤ)=&AŚ&=*&;(14)*ōƁåâ+(15a, b)%Ś>=ƽ"*Ŵ÷AƜ=&ū;>=(14) Contrary to NP (that p1), p2. (=(13a))(15) a. y(p2)b. p2 (attributed to y) IS CONTRARY TO p1 (attributed to x)(15a)+ZLQŢ*·ƳÐAŴ&;>Ŵ÷*Ƽ"%+'?

(15b)+ p2 & p1 &2 Ţ%8Ɨ1:=&+ƊƇ*ƽ"*·ƳÐ§ÒƤ)½(=&AŚ$?

%+(15b)=%Ơŷ(*+!$)ÝØ x, y +Ƥn()§ÒƤ+ƽ"*·Ƴƣ%þş=*%ļ%=(16) A: Contrary to some reports that he was there five or 10 minutes, he was there nearly an hour.
B: That’s not true.

4(16)*Ɓ% B *ōƁ):!$Ɯ>=Ð+A *ZLQŢ*·ƳÐŔ%+(*·Ƴd[hQ&+§Ò%+(
*%

&

&%

&

&&

="4<(15a, b)%Ś>=ƽ"*Ŵ÷³Í>$=%ĵ÷ðŷ(&+p1 )Œã=·Ƴ+³Í>( >;*&;(14)*ōƁ+(15a, b)*ƽ"*Ŵ÷AƜ$

=&

&

&%

=

3

= 

ČĨ+Çã%=ĮŢ%+ƵŪŴń* on the contrary &ĲƖ=&%contrary to ª*ĭůA:<Ėř)=

4. contrary to & on the contrary
4 Ţ%+ contrary to ª*ƵŪŴń*Ƽ"%= on the contrary &ĲƖ*ƵļgŒƝļ; contrary to ª*ĭůAĖ;)=4on the contrary )"$ţ¢)Ÿ$

5

(17)-(19)Ś:)on the contrary +ƽ"*ĐAĈũ=ƀª&$ĭů= $Ĉũ>=ƽ"*Đ):!$Ŵ>=·Ƴ*ƣ)§ÒƤ=&Aŷĳ=

−61−

文副詞 contrary to 句の表意

(17) Mary didn’t make a trivial mistake. On the contrary, she made a horrendous error.
(18) If it’s sunny tomorrow, we’ll go on a picnic. On the contrary, if it rains, we’ll go bowling.
(19) People would expect his performance to earn him several awards from some organizations. On the contrary, he has
earned nothing but severe criticism.

,(18)%+Ě>*Á¯&Ƭ*Á¯&

Ƴ&ƭƫAĶ.=&§ÒƤþş(19)%+TWFh\fLƐƏAì=&·6·Ƴ*ƣ%§ÒƤþş$= 

 contrary to ª& on the contrary *Ƙļ+Į*ƽļ%=Ši)pŬ&8ƽ"*·Ƴƣ)§ÒƤ&Aŷĳ=>+ 2 Ţ9(17)-(19)*;Ė;%=Šu)ƽ"*·Ƴƣ*§ÒƤ*þş)+>>*·Ƴ*ÝØÐƃõAÛ¬=contrary to ª*ÝØ)Ƥ$+ 2 Ţ%Ɨ1>&°:on the contrary )8ã$+4=(17)Ðƃ>=*)Òl*(20)Ðƃ>(ă=(20)*ŠƼĐ8ŠƽĐ8/"hŁƛ

vť%

=

(&

*+ŠƼĐ*ÝØ*Ɲ)ƁÿűƔtÎAżƗÐ&ŹƟ>="4<Ɓÿ+^Bb<"ķ%=&ŕœ*ŹƟ+ƤƙõÔÐƃ>(ŕœ=ƽ"*·ƳAƗ1$=&)(=*:((20) *Mary made a trivial mistake. On the contrary, she made a horrendous error.

>)Ò(17)*ŠƼĐ+iŸƁÿ)ÝØ$^MŴƋ³Í*ŹƟ*Ē:<ƤƙõÅ=:)Ÿ=zŬ*öÍAƁÿ³Í$

8ŠƼĐęƘ*³Í&ŹƟ>>,ŠƽĐ&23°Ū&(<on the contrary ŷĳ=§ÒƤ+þş(+%=^MŴƋ³Í*ŹƟ%ƼĐ*ŮÍå+Ɓÿ}Ã*zŬ)ÝØŠƽĐƁÿűƔ)ÝØ=&;(20)*:
&+(

5

*:

(ÝØ*Ɲ

=&

>,Š

(ŕœ)Ƨ=):=Ðƃõ0*çƯ+contrary to ª& on the contrary *Ơŷ(Ƙļ% Į)ƽ"*Ŵń*ŒƝļAĆ$5:=4on the contrary ƽ"*ĐAĈũ=*)Òcontrary toª+ƼĐ*ƽ"*·Ƴƣ*ƤAŚŠu)on the contrary +Ĉũ>=ƽ"*Đƺ·ƳƻźƄŏ)ĖŚ
>(>,(;(*)Òcontrary to ª+ p1 *ōƁ+Ūŏ%+(p1 ōƁ>(Á¯ZLQŢ

*·ƳÐ;ĉƇ):!$Ó>=jļŐ+on the contrary %+ŠƼĐ*ÝØ*ōƁ+Ūŏ%+(tÎ(17)*ŠƼĐ+Ɓÿ}Ã*zŬ%¨=±ƀª p1 *ÝØAŚ$=&źƄŏ)ĖŚ>$(iĒ contrary to ª*Á¯>=ěê)on the contrary +ŠƼĐ&ŠƽĐ*ÝØ°Á¯&ŋ(=Á¯=k*(18)+ÝØ°Á¯*%<ŠƼĐ8ŠƽĐ8ƁÿűƔ)ÝØ$=&ŹƟ>=>)Òcontrary to ª%+ p1 & p2 *ÝØ+ðŋ(=4p1 *·ƳÐ+sĹ9iŲŏŸŹ('AŴ
²=(21)%+ p1 )Œã=·ƳÐ+ĖŚ>$(contrary to ª¨=±ƀª;Ó>=·Ƴ

p1 iŲŏŸŹ)ÝØ=&="4<ƁÿűƔ*ÝØ%+($=&ŹƟ>=

−62−

iĒZLQ·Ƴ+Ɓÿ)ÝØ

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号(21) Only 8% of the power of the shot comes from the wrist. All the rest comes from the back and the legs. Contrary to the
popular belief, the hands do not hit the ball; they act as a hinge. (BNC)(22) Contrary to his expectations, David found the atmosphere in New York stimulating and exciting. (BNC)°Ĭ)(22)%+contrary to ª¨=±ƀª p1 *·ƳÐ+PCVNR*sĹ%=&AŚ$%ĵ÷(>,(;(=(22)% p1 8 p2 8PC

VNR&

&+ÝØƺattributionƻ&ÝØŬƺattributorƻ*Ɲ-&<*ÝØŬ*öÍ%=Ŭ+sĹAêŬ+tÎƺ*ƃƉƻAŴ&Ø+ŋ(=sĹ+*Ðű*ŔŅ¹@>(*&+p1 & p2 &
Ɲ

+ÝØ*Ɲ

ŕœ=·Ƴ%A´÷=ÝØ*Ɲ

*Ðƃõ+ÝØŬ&ļ)$Ý*)ÒtÎƺ*ƃƉƻ+ŔŅÍ«ů%=!&$8ÎƩ)+ŕœ)Ƨ;(ÝØŬ*Ɲ

:<8ÝØ)Ë$

ƽ"*·Ƴ§ÒƤ)=&AŚļ))Ƥ$+Å(Ɲ&Aſ=ÝØŬ**&;contrary to ªA´÷=ž%+(=&=*:*°iÝØAŽ*)Òcontrary to ª+ÝØ*Ɲ

=*%

%

=

)on the contrary ŠƼĐ&ŠƽĐAÞ)ŷĳ=ř) contrary to ª& on the contrary +$ƵŪŴń&ź=·Ƴ*ƴŚõ9>)ÝØ=*

=

5. ŧƄ
ġŝ%+Đƀ&$ĭů= contrary to ª):!$ĖŚŏ)Ɯ>=*+Į*ƽ"*Ŵ÷%ČĨƼ"+ZLQŢ):!$Ɯ>=·ƳÐ%ª¨=±ƀªë= y(p2)%=4+ºƒ=·ƳÐ&§ÒƤ)

<8

=&A

Ƽ"+ZLQ·Ƴ& contrary to=&AŚ p2 IS CONTRARY TO p1 %4ƵŪŴń* on the contrary &ĲƖ=&%contrary to ª+ð p1 & p2 *ÝØŋ(=ðŷAŚ;)ÝØ*Ɲ

=

=&

 contrary to ª*Ðƃõ)ÅƤ@=&8Ś&%

*ġŝ+ĔġƄŇƇÌŠ 16 »Åƺ2013 ß 12 Ĝ 7 ĔēǀûýŪÂÅÌƻ)=©ƲōŴ)À#8*%=ōŴ*ā)®*ơğ|ņƺģwÆÉ¡śÅÌƻA+7ŶňiņƺlƤÜşÅÌƻÅrĞüņƺƤŶÅÌƻ;
ƎƠ(J^fQAư&)ï;øƈAƗ1(ġŝ*m+¿šŬ*ƍ)=ĵ
1. Ũũ=*§ÒAqį=%+(Ũũ((5)%+ĿĎƨĿĎAŨũ(

&

&

ŴżAŇ

=&+«ů%&+qį=8+qđ=A´÷=&ź

2. ƤƙõŅƇ%+ïŏŴƋƺmental representationƻ*iŜ%±ƀ%Ŵż>$ŮÍ-³Í*§ÒƤ%ć

3. p1 )Œã=·ƳōƁ>(=Ŵ÷ƺexplicatureƻ+Å¾ÔĐÊ%ż>=(9a, b)% HE &|=ġĢ+ĐŰŏ)°Í>=ąŚÒƋƺreferentƻ{n>(>,(;(=&)ĵ÷>

=?

=

ġŝ%+ţŊ>Á¯)8(15b)%Ś>=Ŵ÷Ɯ>=*&−63−

Ō¹ņ=8>(Ƥƙ

文副詞 contrary to 句の表意õŅƇ)=Ŵ÷&+ţĺ)ź

ƀªA¨=&
ſ=&ū

tÎ+ p1 *í)ƌŃ> p1 *·ƳÐ±ƀªAƄŇƇŏ)ō×öÍ%·ƳAƱ&$¨=:
(Ɲ

(8*%

)ZLQ·Ƴ*ƷĮŴ÷)ƌŃ=&8ū;>=·Ƴùáƀ+

&A)Ɓ%8Ň

ōƁ*Á¯&ġƑŏ)°%=÷¶ZLQ=*)Òcontrary to ª+ƽ"*·ƳAƱ&$¨=ƀª&$ĭů$Aūú)>""contrary to ªƷĮŴ÷)ƌŃ=«ůõ)Ƥ$+yê*ƆƳ&

5. on the contrary +(i)*:

Ƃ

=&

;>=

4. contrary to ª·Ƴùáƀ*::=contrary to ª·ƳÐAºƒ=±&ōƁ*ƇŅåâAō×8*%;>=*Á¯)$8ƽ"*ĐAĈũ=&=ġŝ%+Ƽx):=ōƁ*Á¯*5¨<Ā=*ĭů+Ƽx):=

&)=on the contrary )Ƥ=:<

ƊƇ+ Kurokawa (2012)ƸÙ(2013)A¥ľ*&(i) A: Mary made a trivial mistake.
B: On the contrary, she made a horrendous error.
6. ÝØ*Ɲ+(20)Ðƃ>ĵ 4 *(i)Ðƃ>=&8ƅĖ%=(i)%+ A & B *öÍ+ŕœƤ)

>ÝØŬŋ(=7)(20)&+Ɲ!$ŕœ&ŹƟņ=&+(

=>



¥ľĐŃ
Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Blackwell, Oxford.
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Blackwell, 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).
Fraser, B. 2010 “The Sequencing of Contrastive Discourse Markers in English,” The Baltic Journal of the English Language,
Literature, and Culture Vol. 1. 29-35.
Kurokawa, N. 2012. “Semantic Requirements for on the contrary.” Memoirs of Osaka Institute of Technology (Series B:
Liberal Arts and Social Sciences) vol.58, no. 2, 45-58.
ƸÙÖæ 2013. on the contrary *÷¶&ÒşƤĔġƄŇƇÌŠ 15 »ÅōŴƇĐƪƺŠƿ­ƻ49-56.
Leech, G. 1969. A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry, Longman, London.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics Vol.1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Murphy, M L. 2003. Semantic Relations and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ifantidou, E. 2001 Evidentials and Relevance, John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam.
Rouchota, V. 1998 “Procedural Meaning and Parenthetical Discourse Markers.” in Andreas H. Jucker and Yael Ziv (eds.)
Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. 97-126. John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell, Oxford.
Wilson, D. and D. Sperber 1993 “Linguistic Form and Relevance,” Lingua 90, 1-25.

−64−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿⱥㄒㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモࡢᐜㄆྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚┾⏣ ᩗ௓
ᮐᖠᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ
sanadak@sgu.ac.jp<Abstract>
This paper seeks a more comprehensive account for what context makes English
epistemic modals acceptable in interrogatives. According to Sawada (1993), English subjective
and performative modals (including epistemic modals) cannot occur in interrogatives while
objective and non-performative ones can. However, some subjective and performative modals canappear in interrogatives, while some objective modals cannot (Sanada 2007). These facts showthat depending merely on the meaning and function of epistemic modals is not sufficient. With
this in mind, this paper argues that the context where English epistemic modals are(un)acceptable in interrogatives depends on an (in)compatibility between the meaning andfunction of the modals and those of interrogatives.
[࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ] ␲ၥᩥࠊㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモࠊ୺ほᛶࠊ㐙⾜ᛶࠊㄒᙡ࡜ᵓᩥ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿⱥㄒㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ㸦ࡉࢀ࡞࠸㸧ࡢࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚࠿ࢆࠊࡼࡾໟᣓⓗ࡟ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆヨࡳࡿ1ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᩥ⬦ࢆ᥈ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊಶࠎࡢἲຓືモࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟㸦୺ほᛶࡸ㐙⾜ᛶࢆྵࡴ㸧࡜␲ၥᩥࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟࡜ࡢ⾪✺ලྜࢆぢࡿ࡭ࡁࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ
2. ඛ⾜◊✲ࡢᴫほ࡜ᢈุⓗ᳨ウ
2.1. ⃝⏣ (1993)ࡢᴫほ ⃝⏣ (1993: 199-200)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊᮏ✏࡛ᢅ࠺ㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモࡣ୺ほⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ୺ほⓗ࡞ἲຓືモࡣ␲ၥࡢస⏝ᇦ࡟ྵࡲࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ᰿※ⓗἲຓືモࡣᐈほⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ␲ၥࡢస⏝ᇦ࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿ2ࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀ(1a)(1b)࡛౛♧ࡉࢀࡿ㸦ibid.㸧
ࠋ
(1)

a.
b.

* { May / Must / Can’t / Should } John have left?
{ May / Must / Can’t / Should } I answer these questions?

ࡇࡢ୺ᙇࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿ๓࡟ࠊ⃝⏣࡟ࡼࡿ୺ほᛶࡢᐃ⩏ࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡇ࠺ࠋࡲࡎࠊࠕ୺ほⓗࠖ࡜
ࡣࠕヰࡋᡭࡀ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ(ibid. : 171)ሙྜࢆᣦࡋࠊࠕᐈほⓗࠖ࡜ࡣࠕヰࡋᡭ࠿ࡽ⊂❧ࡋࡓࠖ㸦ibid. : 188㸧ሙྜࢆᣦࡍࠋ୧⪅ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆࠊ(2a)࡜(2b)ࡢ would ࡛☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡇ࠺3ࠋ
(2)

a.
b.

The guests would have arrived by now.
She wouldn’t let him in.

(ibid.: 183)
(ibid.: 183)(2a)ࡢ would ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ᫬ࡢุ᩿ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ㛵୚ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛୺ほⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(2b)ࡢ would ࡣ୺ㄒࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢே≀ࡢ㐣ཤࡢ⾜Ⅽ࣭ពᚿࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ(2a)࡜㐪࠸ヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ᫬

−65−

疑問文に生起する英語認識的法助動詞の容認可能性についてࡢุ᩿ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊヰࡋᡭ࠿ࡽ⊂❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ᐈほⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(2a)ࡢ would ࡣㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡀ୺ほⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ⌮⏤ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡼࡿࠕ࠶ࡿ࡛ࡁ
ࡈ࡜ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡢᗘྜࠖ
㸦ibid.: 190㸧ࡢᰝᐃࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௚᪉ࠊ(2b)ࡢ would ࡣ᰿※ⓗἲຓືモ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡀᐈほⓗ࡞ࡢࡣࠊ୺ㄒࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀ᭷ࡍࡿࠕ⬟ຊࠖ
ࠕ⩏ົࠖ
ࠕᚲせࠖ
ࠕពᚿࠖ
ࠕチྍࠖ
࡞࡝ࢆ⾲ࡋ㸦ibid.㸧
ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀᚲࡎࡋࡶ㛵୚ࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶⰋ࠸ࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࡉ࡚ࠊ(1)࡟ᡠࡾࠊ୺ほⓗἲຓືモ࡜ᐈほⓗἲຓືモࡀ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ㝿ࡢᐜㄆྍ⬟ᛶࡢᕪࢆࠊ⃝⏣ࡣ࡝࠺ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ࠿ᴫほࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ⃝⏣ࡣࠊ୺ほⓗ⾲⌧ࡢᇶᗏᵓ㐀࡟㐙⾜ᒙࠊែᗘᒙࠊ࿨㢟ෆᐜᒙࡢ୕ᒙࢆタࡅࠊ(1a)࡟㛵ࢃࡿไ⣙ࡣែᗘᒙ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ㸦ibid.: 207-208㸧
ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡢࠕែᗘᒙࠖ
ࡣⓎヰ⾜Ⅽㄽ㸦Austin 1962; Searle 1967㸧࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᒙࡣ㐙⾜ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑ
ࡇ࡟㛵ࢃࡿせ⣲ࡣ␲ၥ໬࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ㸦⃝⏣ 1993: 170-171㸧
ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(1b)ࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ
ࡢࡣࠊ᰿※ⓗἲຓືモࡀ࿨㢟ෆᐜᒙ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢᒙࡣࠕᐈయⓗ࣭࿨㢟ⓗࠖ㸦ibid. 207㸧ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕグ㏙ⓗ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㠀㐙⾜ⓗ㸧࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢᒙ࡟㛵ࢃࡿせ⣲ࡣ␲ၥ໬ྍ⬟࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ4ࠋ௨ୖࡢ⃝⏣ࡢ୺ᙇࡣࠊ(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(3)

a.
b.

୺ほⓗ࡞ⱥㄒἲຓືモࡣ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᐈほⓗ࡞ⱥㄒἲຓືモࡣ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࠋ㐙⾜ⓗ࡞ⱥㄒἲຓືモࡣ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡞࠸ࡀࠊグ㏙ⓗ㸦㸻㠀㐙⾜ⓗ㸧࡞ⱥㄒἲຓ
ືモࡣ⏕㉳ࡍࡿࠋ

2.2. ཯౛㸸␲ၥᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡜ㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡢᐜㄆྍ⬟ᛶ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ(3)ࡢ཯౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ␲ၥᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡜ㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡢᐜㄆྍ⬟ᛶࢆྲྀࡾୖ
ࡆࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ୧⪅ࡢ୺ほᛶ࡜㐙⾜ᛶࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡇ࠺ࠋWestney (1995: 145-146)ཬࡧ᯽㔝 (2002:
130-141)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡶㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡶヰࡋᡭࡢᙉ࠸☜ಙࢆ⾲ࡍࡀࠊ๓⪅ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢពぢ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ☜ಙࢆ⾲ࡍࡢ࡛୺ほⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᚋ⪅ࡣእⓗ࡞஦ᐇ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ☜ಙࢆ⾲ࡍࡢ࡛ᐈほⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋලయ౛ࢆ(4)࡟ᣲࡆ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ
(4)

a.
b.

“Drop it off in town. There must be someplace you can leave it.” “Where?”“How the devil do I know!”㸦᯽㔝 2002: 135㸧“The guy ain’t on the plane.” “He has to. He didn’t get off.”㸦ibid.: 131㸧(4a)࡛ࡣࠊ“How the devil do I know!”࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ࠿ࡽศ࠿ࡿ㏻ࡾࠊmust ࡢヰ⪅ࡣᐈほⓗ࡞ドᣐࢆࡶࡗ࡚☜ಙࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ୺ほⓗ࡞☜ಙ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(4b)࡛ࡣ“He didn’t get off!”ࡀ⾲ࡍ≧ἣࡀࠊᐈほⓗ࣭እⓗ࡞≧ἣ࡜࡞ࡾࠊࡑࢀࢆඖ࡟ࠕᙼࡣᶵෆ࡟࠸ࡿࠖ࡜☜ಙࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ḟ࡟ࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡶㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡶ㐙⾜ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊヰࡋᡭࡀࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡸ haveto ࢆྵࡴᩥࢆⓎヰࡍࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀఱ࠿⤖ㄽ௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦cf. Palmer 2001: 33㸧ࠋ ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡜ㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡢ୺ほᛶཬࡧ㐙⾜ᛶ࡜ࠊ␲ၥᩥෆࡢᐜㄆྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡲ
࡜ࡵࡓ(3a)(3b)࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡿᖐ⤖ࢆ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡎࠊ୧⪅ࡢ୺ほᛶ࡜(3a)࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡿᖐ⤖ࢆ⪃࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡣ୺ほⓗ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ have toࡣᐈほⓗ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ᖐ⤖ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊ୧⪅ࡢ㐙⾜ᛶ࡜(3b)࠿
ࡽࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡶㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡶ㐙⾜ⓗ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡞࠸࡜ᖐ⤖࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡉ࡚ࠊࡇࢀ
ࡽࡢᖐ⤖ࡣࠊ஦ᐇࢆ཯࡛ᫎࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
┾⏣ (2007)ࡣࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡜ㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡀࠊᚋ⪅ࡣ๓⪅௨ୖ࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭ࡓࠋ(5)ࡣࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡀ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡋࡓ౛࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡇ࡛ࡢ must−66−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

ࢆ have to ࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼ࡓ⤖ᯝ࡛ࡁࡓⱥᩥࡢព࿡ࢆⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟☜ㄆࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊࡑࡢ have to ࢆㄆ㆑ⓗ࡟ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡢࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸࡜ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡗࡓ㸦ibid.: 4.3.2 ⠇㸧
ࠋ
(5)

a.

b.

[ヰࡋᡭࡣࡇࡢ␲ၥᩥⓎヰࡢ๓࡟ࠊࠕࢪࣙࣥࡣბ௜ࡁ࡟㐪࠸࡞࠸ࠖ࡜⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊ┤ᚋ࡟ࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ⮬ၥ⮬⟅ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ]Must John be a liar?
(Papafragou 2000: 98)
Well, obviously the girl isn’t here, so we’d better look for her on the campus.
㸫Must she be on the campus? She could have gone to Pete’s digs.
(Declerck 1991: 408)

ࡘࡲࡾࠊ(3a)࡟཯ࡋࠊ୺ほⓗ࡞ㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡀ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊᐈほⓗ࡞ㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡢ᪉ࡀ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡀ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡣࠊྠ
᫬࡟(3b)࡟ࡶ཯ࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ஦ᐇࡣࠊ␲ၥᩥෆࡢⱥㄒㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモࡢᐜㄆྍ⬟ᛶࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡢ࡟ࠊἲຓືモ⮬యࡢ୺ほᛶࡸ㐙⾜ᛶࡢࡳ࡟౫ᣐࡍࡿ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡟ࡣ㝈⏺ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2.3. Verstraete (2001)
 3 ⠇࡛㆟ㄽࡍࡿ㏻ࡾࠊⱥㄒㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモࡀ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ㝿ࡢᐜㄆྍ⬟ᛶࢆㄽࡎࡿ㝿ࠊⱥㄒㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟ࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ
␲ၥᩥࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟࡟ࡶ╔┠ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ぢ᪉ࢆ᥇ࡿ◊✲ࡣᮏ✏௨๓࡟ࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡑࢀࡀ Verstraete (2001)࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ✏ࡢ௦᱌ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿ๓࡟ࠊVerstraete ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࢆᢈุⓗ࡟ᴫほࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ ࡲࡎࠊVerstraete ࡣ୺ほᛶࢆ⊂⮬࡟ᐃ⩏ࡍࡿⅬࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡇ࠺ࠋᙼࡣ୺ほᛶࢆࠊࠕⓎヰෆᐜ࡟ᑐ
ࡍࡿ࠶ࡿ≉ᐃࡢ❧ሙࢆ⾲ࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠕἲⓗ㐙⾜ᛶࠖࡢ᭷↓࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୺ほⓗࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕
࡟ࡣἲⓗ㐙⾜ᛶࡀక࠸ࠊᐈほⓗࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡟ࡣకࢃ࡞࠸㸦2001: 1517-1518㸧
ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࠊLyons (1977)ࠊ
⃝⏣ (1993)ࠊ᯽㔝 (2002)ࡽࡀ㔜どࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠕヰࡋᡭࠖ࡟㔜ࡁࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࡎࠊヰࡋᡭ௨እࡢே㛫ࡢ❧ሙࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡚ࡶࠊ
Verstraete ࡣ୺ほⓗ࡜ぢ࡞ࡍ࡜ࡇࢁࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊVerstraete (2001: Section4)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊㄆ㆑ⓗࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡣ඲࡚୺ほⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡶὀពࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ ࡇࡇࡲ࡛ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ࠊVerstraete (Section 3.2)ࡣࠊLyons (1977)࡞࡝࡟཯ࡋࠊ୺ほⓗࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡶ
␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ࡜ㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ␲ၥᩥෆࡢ୺ほⓗࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡣࠊ␲ၥᩥࡀᣢࡘࠕἲⓗᚿྥᛶࢆ┦ᡭ࡟⛣ືࡍࡿࠖ㸦ibid.: 1522㸧࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ᶵ⬟࡟ࡼࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ❧ሙࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ Verstraete ࡣࠊ(6)ࡢ␲ၥᩥ࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿ might ࢆ୺ほⓗ࡜ぢ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(6)

If the trials are successful, might this be used as the first line of treatment of cancer?
(ibid.: 1522)

ࡇࡢ might ࡣࠊࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࠖࡀࠊ␲ၥᩥࡢ࿨㢟ෆᐜࡀ㸦ㄆ㆑ⓗ࡟㸧ྍ⬟ࡔ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
⪺ࡁᡭࡣࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞❧ሙࢆᣢࡘࡢ࠿㸧ࢆᑜࡡࡿࡢ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜ Verstraete ࡣศᯒࡍࡿࠋ
 Verstraete ࡀ␲ၥᩥࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟࡟ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡣᨭᣢ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡛ࡶࠊVerstraete ࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡣᨭᣢ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊVerstraete ࡣࠊ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ࡜ᐜㄆྍ⬟ᛶࡀୗࡀࡿ⌮⏤ࢆ༑ศ࡟㆟ㄽࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ5ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊVerstraete ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡜ㄆ㆑ⓗ have toࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ୺ほⓗ࡞ࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠊ୧⪅࡜ࡶ࡟␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ࡜ࠕ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ❧ሙࢆ⾲ࡍࠖゎ㔘ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢࡔ࠿ࡽࠊ␲ၥᩥෆ࡛ᐜㄆྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ண ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ஦ᐇࡣࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡣ␲ၥᩥ࡛ᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ㸦2.2 ⠇㸧ࠋ−67−疑問文に生起する英語認識的法助動詞の容認可能性について

3. ௦᱌ ௨ୗࠊᮏ✏ࡢ௦᱌ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋⱥㄒἲຓືモࡀ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆㄽࡎࡿ࡟ࡣࠊ
ࠕ␲ၥᩥ࡜࠸
࠺ᵓᩥ༢఩ࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟ࠖࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓୖ࡛㸦3.1 ⠇㸧ࠊࡑࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟࡜ࠕಶࠎࡢⱥㄒἲຓືモࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟ࠖࡢ⾪✺ලྜࢆ⪃៖ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦3.2 ⠇㸧ࡇ࡜ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃ6ࠋ
3.1. ␲ၥᩥࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟࡜ࡑࡢᩥἲ࡬ࡢ⾲ࢀ ࡲࡎࠊ␲ၥᩥࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊDancygier (1998: 14-24)ࡢタᐃࡋࡓ᮲௳⠇ࡢᶵ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠕ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿุ᩿ࢆಖ␃ࡍࡿࠖ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋDancygier (ibid.: 18)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ᮲௳⠇ࡢヰࡋᡭࡣࠊ᮲௳⠇ࡀ⾲ࡍ࿨㢟ෆᐜࢆ┿ࡔ࡜᩿ᐃࡍࡿ༑ศ࡞᰿ᣐࡀ࡞ࡃࠊᐇ㝿ࡑࡢ࿨㢟ෆᐜࡀ┿ࡔ࡜ಙࡌ࡚࠸࡞࠸࠿ࡶࡋࢀ
࡞࠸ࠋࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࡇࡑࠊ࠶ࡿ࿨㢟ෆᐜࢆ᮲௳࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ♧ࡍࡿ࡟␃ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍
᪉ࠊ␲ၥᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᩿ᐃࡶࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠖ
㸦ྜྷᮧ 1999: 49㸧ࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࢀࡤࠊࡸࡣࡾ␲
ၥᩥ࡛ࡶࠊఱ࠿ࢆࠕ᩿ᐃࡍࡿ༑ศ࡞᰿ᣐࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ
ࠊᚑࡗ࡚ࠕ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿุ᩿ࢆಖ␃ࡍࡿࠖᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ぢ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡼ࠺ࠋ ௨ୖࠊุ᩿ಖ␃࡜࠸࠺ᶵ⬟ࡀ᮲௳⠇࡜␲ၥᩥ࡟ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚ぢࡽࢀࡿ࡜௬ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᶵ⬟ⓗඹ㏻ᛶࡣࠊ୧⪅࡟ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚ぢࡽࢀࡿᩥἲୖࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀࡿࠋ௨ୗࠊࡑࡢ཯ᫎࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ⱥㄒࡢྰᐃᴟᛶ㡯┠㸦negative polarity items: ௨ୗ NPI㸧ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋ ᮲௳⠇࣭␲ၥᩥ཮᪉࡟⏕㉳ྍ⬟࡞ NPI ࡣ ever ௨እ࡟ࡶከࡃ࠶ࡾࠊಶࠎࡢ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡㸦ྜྷᮧ 1999
ࡢゝ࠺ࠕᴫᛕⓗព࿡ࠖ㸧ࡶࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡛␗࡞ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊྜྷᮧ (ibid.: ➨ 5 ❶)ࡢ⤫୍ⓗㄝ᫂࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ
NPI ࡣࠊࡑࢀࢆྵࡴⓎヰ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾲ࡉࢀࡿ࿨㢟ࡀࠊࡑࡢⓎヰ࡜▩┪ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࢆྵࡴᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᚋ
⪅ࡢ㸦▩┪ࡍࡿ㸧ᩥ⬦᝟ሗࢆ๐㝖ࡍࡿࡼ࠺せồࡍࡿࠋḟࡢ(7a)࡜(7b)ࢆẚ㍑ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ
(7)

a. *
b.

(ibid.: 187)
If he ever takesany medicine, he will get better.
He is seriously ill and will die sooner or later. We eagerly await his death,because his fortune will then be ours. But if he ever takes any medicine, he will
get better. We should prevent that at all costs.
㸦ibid.: 187㸧

ࡇࡇ࡛(7a)ࡢ NPI ࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊᬑ㏻ேࡀ⑓Ẽ࡟࠿࠿ࡗࡓࡽ⸆ࢆ㣧ࢇ࡛Ⰻࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚ḧࡋ࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡑࡢ NPI ࢆྵࡴⓎヰࡢ࿨㢟ෆᐜ㸦㸻ᙼࡀ⸆ࢆ㣧ࡴ㸧࡜▩┪ࡍࡿ᝟ሗ㸦㸻ᙼࡀ⸆ࢆ㣧ࡲ࡞࠸㸧ࢆྵࡴ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(7b)ࡢ NPI ࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊᙼࡀ⸆ࢆ㣧ࡲ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺᝟ሗࡀ(7b)ࡢᩥ⬦࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࠊᙼࡢ㈈⏘ࢆ඲࡚⮬ศࡓࡕࡢࡶࡢ࡟࡛ࡁ
ࡿࡼ࠺ࠊᙼࡀ⸆ࢆ㣧ࡲࡎ࡟ஸࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸ࠊ࡜(7b)ࡢヰࡋᡭࡣ㢪ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
 (7a)࡛ NPI ࡢ any ࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡜ྠᵝࡢ⌧㇟ࡣࠊ␲ၥᩥෆࡢ any ࡟ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
ḟࡢ any ࡣࠊ┦ᡭ࡟࢟ࣕࣥࢹ࣮ࢆ㣗࡭ࡿࡼ࠺່ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃࡛ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
(8)* Won’t you have any candy?

(Borkin 1971: 59)

Borkin ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ(8)ࡢ any ࡀᐜㄆ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ⌮⏤ࡣࠊࡇࡇࡢヰࡋᡭࡢ᝿ᐃ࡟ࡼࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ┦ᡭ࡟࢟ࣕࣥࢹ࣮ࢆ㣗࡭࡚࡯ࡋ࠸࡜࠸࠺⫯ᐃⓗ᝿ᐃࢆࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ┦ᡭࡣ࢟ࣕࣥࢹ࣮ࢆ㣗࡭࡞࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ྰᐃⓗ᝿ᐃࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀࡺ࠼ NPI ࡢ any ࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
 Borkin ࡢࡇࡢㄝ᫂ࡣࠊྜྷᮧ (1999)ࡢᥦ᱌࡜ᩚྜᛶࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ(8)ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡢ࿨㢟ෆᐜࡣࠕ࠶࡞ࡓ
ࡀ࢟ࣕࣥࢹ࣮ࢆ㣗࡭࡞࠸࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀ࡜▩┪ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࡣࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࡀ࢟ࣕࣥࢹ࣮ࢆ㣗࡭ࡿ࡛ࠖ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊNPI ࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡇࡢᚋ⪅ࡢ᝟ሗࢆ๐㝖ࡍࡿࡼ࠺せồࡍࡿࡢࡣ↓⌮ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ(8)ࡢヰࡋᡭࡣࠊ┦ᡭ࡟࢟ࣕࣥࢹ࣮ࢆ㣗࡭࡚࡯ࡋ࠸࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−68−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

 ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊNPI ࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢ NPI ࢆྵࡴⓎヰࡀ⾲ࡍ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡜ࠊࡑࢀ࡟▩┪ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࡢ୧᪉ࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࠊ୧⪅ࢆኳ⛗࡟࠿ࡅࡓ⤖ᯝࠊᚋ⪅ࡀ NPI ࡟ࡼࡾ๐㝖ࡉࢀࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ┦཯ࡍࡿ஧✀㢮ࡢ᝟ሗࢆኳ⛗࡟࠿ࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡣࠊ
ඖࡢ࿨㢟ෆᐜࢆ┿ࡔ࡜ุ᩿࡛ࡁ࡞࠸
㸦ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
ุ᩿ࢆಖ␃ࡍࡿ㸧≧ែࡔ࠿ࡽࡇࡑྍ⬟࡞ࡇ࡜࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡛ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿ NPI ࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡀ᮲௳⠇࡜␲ၥᩥ࡟ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚ぢࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ
᮲௳⠇࡜␲ၥᩥࡢᶵ⬟ⓗඹ㏻ᛶࡢ཯ᫎ
㸦ࡢ୍ࡘ㸧࡜ᮏ✏ࡀぢ࡞ࡍືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡜࡞ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3.2. ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿⱥㄒㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモࡢᐜㄆྍ⬟ᛶ
3.2.1. ㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡜ㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࢆྵࡴ␲ၥᩥ
 2.2 ⠇࡛♧ࡋࡓ㏻ࡾࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡜ㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡣࠊ๓⪅ࡢ᪉ࡀᚋ⪅ࡼࡾࡶ␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡢᐜㄆྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࠋ(5)ࢆ෌ᥖࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ
(5)

a.

b.

[ヰࡋᡭࡣࡇࡢ␲ၥᩥⓎヰࡢ๓࡟ࠊࠕࢪࣙࣥࡣბ௜ࡁ࡟㐪࠸࡞࠸ࠖ࡜⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊ┤ᚋ࡟ࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ⮬ၥ⮬⟅ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ]Must John be a liar?
(Papafragou 2000: 98)
Well, obviously the girl isn’t here, so we’d better look for her on the campus.
㸫Must she be on the campus? She could have gone to Pete’s digs.
(Declerck 1991: 408)┾⏣ (2007: 218)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ௨ୗࡢᩥ⬦࡛ࡣ␲ၥᩥෆࡢㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡀᐜㄆྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(9)␲ၥᩥෆࡢㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿᩥ⬦㸸a.
ヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢドᣐ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅࡿ㝿ࡢຊࡀᙅ࠸ᩥ⬦ࠋb.
ヰࡋᡭ௨እࡢே㛫ࡀᣢࡘドᣐ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ⤖ㄽ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡓᩥ⬦ࠋ(9a)ࡣ(5a)࡛ࠊ(9b)ࡣ(5b)࡛ࡑࢀࡒࢀ౛♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ(5a)ࡢヰࡋᡭࡣ୍ᗘ⤖ㄽࢆୗࡋࡓࡶࡢࡢࠊ⤖ㄽ௜ࡅࡿ㝿ࡢຊࡀᙅ࠸ࡢ࡛⤖ㄽࢆୗࡋษࢀࡎࠊ⮬ၥ⮬⟅ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(5b)ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡀ
⾲ࡍ᥎ㄽࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ௨እࡢே㛫ࡢ୺ほ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࡇ࡟ヰࡋᡭࡀ␲ၥࢆᕪࡋᣳࡴవᆅࡀ⏕ࡎࡿࡢࡣ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙ㠃࡛ࡣࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡢព࿡ࡀ␲ၥᩥࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠕ࿨
㢟ෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿุ᩿ࢆಖ␃ࡍࡿࠖࡇ࡜࡜⾪✺ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ␲ၥᩥෆ࡛ᐜㄆྍ⬟࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ୍᪉ࠊ┾⏣ (ibid.: 220)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡀ␲ၥᩥෆ࡛ᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊḟࡢᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡿࠋ(10)␲ၥᩥෆࡢㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ᩥ⬦㸸ㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡣᐈほⓗ࡞ドᣐ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃᙉ࠸ㄆ㆑ⓗุ᩿ࢆ⾲ࡍࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙉ࠸ドᣐ࡟␲࠸ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ

(10)࡛♧ࡋࡓᩥ⬦ࡣ(5b)ࡢࡑࢀ࡜㐪࠸ࠊᐈほⓗ࡞ドᣐ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ⤖ㄽࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵࠊヰࡋᡭࡀࡑࡢ⤖ㄽ࡟␲ၥࢆᣳࡴࡇ࡜ࡣ㏻ᖖ⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡢព࿡࡜ࠕ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿุ᩿ࢆ
ಖ␃ࡍࡿࠖ␲ၥᩥࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟ࡀ⾪✺ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋ࡚ࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡣ␲ၥᩥ࡛ᐜㄆࡉࢀ
࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3.2.2. ㄆ㆑ⓗ may ࡜ㄆ㆑ⓗ can ࢆྵࡴ␲ၥᩥ ᮏ✏ࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡀࠊ3.2.1 ⠇࡛ᢅࡗࡓ௨እࡢ⌧㇟࡟ࡶ㐺⏝ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ

−69−

疑問文に生起する英語認識的法助動詞の容認可能性についてㄆ㆑ⓗmay ࡜ㄆ㆑ⓗcanࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋ
୧⪅ࡣㄆ㆑ⓗྍ⬟ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍ㢮⩏ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࢃࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊ
(11)࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ␲ၥᩥෆࡢᐜㄆྍ⬟ᛶࡀ␗࡞ࡿࠋ
(11)

a.
b.

* May Emma have gone shopping?
Can she get in trouble?

(Swan 2005: 316)(᯽㔝 2012: 57)

 ㄆ㆑ⓗ may ࡜ㄆ㆑ⓗ can ࢆẚ࡭ࡓ㝿ࠊ๓⪅ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢពぢ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃㄆ㆑ⓗྍ⬟ᛶࢆ⾲ࡍࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ᚋ⪅ࡣ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿᝿ᐃྍ⬟࡞≉ᛶࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ࡘࡲࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡀุ᩿ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸧࡜࠸࠺㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦஭⟄ 2002: 9-10㸧ࠋࡇࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ㐙⾜ᛶࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼┤ࡍ࡞ࡽࡤࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ may ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀⓎヰࡍࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠕ᥎ㄽࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛㐙⾜ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ can ࡣ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿᝿ᐃྍ⬟࡞≉ᛶࢆࠕ㏙࡭ࡿࠖࡔࡅ࡛ࠊ௚ࡢⓎヰෆ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸Ⅼ࡛グ㏙ⓗ㸦㠀㐙⾜ⓗ㸧࡛࠶ࡿ㸦cf. Palmer 2001: 33㸧7ࠋࡇࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ may ࡀ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸⌮⏤ࡣࠊ⮬ࡽୗࡋࡓุ᩿ࢆ⮬ࡽ␲ၥどࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ㏻ᖖࡣ㐨⌮࡟ྜࢃ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ࡜ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡼ࠺ࠋࡇࡢ᫬ࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ may ࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟㸦㐙⾜ᛶ㸧࡜␲ၥᩥࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟ࡀ⾪✺ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ can ࡢሙྜࡣࠊ᝿ᐃྍ⬟࡞≉ᛶࢆࠕ㏙
࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⮬ࡽุ࡛᩿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࢀ࡟␲࠸ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣၥ㢟࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ᫬ࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ can ࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟ࡣ␲ၥᩥࡢព࿡᪤ ࡜⾪✺ࡋ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡓࡔࡋࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ may ࡀ␲ၥᩥ࡟඲ࡃ⏕㉳ࡋ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ᯽㔝 (2012: 61-62)ࡀゝཬࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿ㏻ࡾࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ may ࡣ࢚ࢥ࣮␲ၥᩥࡢሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
(12)

a.
b.

A:
Bill may be coming to the party tonight.
B:
May he be? He hates parties, doesn’t he?
㸦᯽㔝 2012: 61㸧[ḟࡢ this task ࡣࠊ㸦෗┿࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡾṧࡉࢀࡿ㸧࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡀࠊ⿕෗య࡜࡞ࡿே≀ࡢูࡢഃ㠃ࢆᫎࡋฟࡍࡇ࡜ࢆᣦࡍࠋᜍࢀࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡍࡢࡣࡇࡢ task ࡔ࡜୍⯡ㄽ࡛ࡣᛮࢃࢀࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡑ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ヰࡋᡭࡀ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚋ㏙ࡉࢀࡿ](COCA)
But may it be this task (which I call a chance) that awakens fear?

ࡇࢀࡽࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣ(5b)࡛ㄝ᫂ࡋࡓㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡢ⏕㉳⌮⏤࡜㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃ
ࡕࠊ(12a)ࡢ B ࡣ A ࡢᣢࡘドᣐ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁᡂࡉࢀࡓ A ࡢุ᩿࡟ᑐࡋࠊ␲࠸ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(12b)ࡢヰࡋᡭࡶྠᵝ࡟ࠊ୍⯡ㄽ࠿ࡽᑟࡁฟࡉࢀࡿ࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡋ␲ၥࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡢሙ
ྜࡶࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ may ࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟࡜␲ၥᩥࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟ࡀ⾪✺ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3.3. ᪉ἲㄽⓗព⩏̿ㄒᙡ࠿ᵓᩥ࠿̿ ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊᮏ✏ࡢ୺ᙇࡀࡶࡓࡽࡍ᪉ἲㄽⓗព⩏ࢆ⡆₩࡟㏙࡭ࡓ࠸ࠋ ᮏ✏ࡢ୺ᙇࢆᗈ࠸ど㔝࡛ᤊ࠼┤ࡍ࡞ࡽࡤࠊⱥㄒㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࢆᤊ࠼ࡿ㝿࡟ࠊᵓᩥㄽⓗ
どⅬ㸦Goldberg 2006: 5 ࡞࡝㸧ࡀ᭷┈࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ኱ᇼ࣭㐲⸨ (2012: 34)ࡣࠊ
ࠕᩥࡢព࿡ࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢㄒࡢព࿡࡜ࡑࢀࢆ⤫ྜࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢᡭ⥆ࡁ࡟ຍ࠼ࠊᵓᩥࡀ
ࡶࡘព࿡ࡶ⪃៖ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏ࡣࠊ␲ၥᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモࡢᐜㄆྍ⬟ᛶࢆㄽࡎࡿୖ࡛ࠊἲຓືモ࡜࠸࠺ࠕㄒᙡࠖࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟㸦୺ほᛶ࣭㐙⾜ᛶࢆྵࡴ㸧ࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ
␲ၥᩥ࡜࠸࠺ࠕᵓᩥࠖࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟̿࿨㢟ෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿุ᩿ࡢಖ␃̿ࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ2.1⠇࡜ 2.2 ⠇࡛ᴫほࡋࡓ⃝⏣ (1993)ࡣࠊࡇࡢᵓᩥⓗどⅬࡀᙅ࠸࡜ᮏ✏ࡣ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ ࡓࡔࡋࠊᵓᩥㄽⓗどⅬࡀ᭷┈ࡔ࠿ࡽ࡜࠸ࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡔࡅ࡛༑ศ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ␲ၥᩥ࡜࠸࠺
ࠕᵓᩥࠖࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟࡜ྠ⛬ᗘ࡟ࠊἲຓືモ࡜࠸࠺ࠕㄒᙡࠖࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟ࡶ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ(10)࡛ゝ−70−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

ཬࡋࡓ㏻ࡾࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡀ␲ၥᩥࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟࡜⾪✺ࡍࡿ⌮⏤ࡢㄝ᫂࡟ࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ࡢᐈほᛶࡀ㔜せ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ3.2.2 ⠇࡛ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓ㏻ࡾࠊㄆ㆑ⓗ may ࡜ㄆ㆑ⓗ canࡢ࠺ࡕ๓⪅ࡢ᪉ࡀᚋ⪅ࡼࡾ␲ၥᩥෆ࡛ᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸⌮⏤ࡣࠊ๓⪅࡜ᚋ⪅ࡢ㐙⾜ᛶࡢ㐪࠸࡟౫Ꮡࡍࡿ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄒᙡࡢ⪃៖ࡀ Verstraete (2001)࡟ࡣḞࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
4. ⤊ࢃࡾ࡟ ᮏ✏ࡢ୺ᙇࡣḟࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ␲ၥᩥෆࡢⱥㄒㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊⱥㄒㄆ
㆑ⓗἲຓືモࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟࡜␲ၥᩥࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟ࡀ⾪✺ࡍࡿᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚࡛࠶ࡿ㸦ㄆ㆑ⓗ have to ཬࡧ(11a)㸧
ࠋ㏫࡟ࠊᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾪✺ࡀぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚࡛࠶ࡿ㸦(5)(11b)(12)㸧
ࠋ ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࡣᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ୕ࡘ࠶ࡿࠋ୍ࡘ┠࡟ࠊⱥㄒㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモࢆྵࡴ␲ၥᩥࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿሙྜ
ࡢゝㄒ⎔ቃࡸᶵ⬟ࡢࡼࡾ⢭ᐦ࡞ㄪᰝࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿ㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊ୺ㄒࡸືモࡢศᕸࠊ␲ၥᩥࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ㸧ࠋ஧ࡘ┠࡟ࠕ␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡋࡓᚋࡢㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモࡣ୺ほⓗ࠿ᐈほⓗ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋྜྷⰋ(2005)࡜ᑠ⃝(2013)ࡣࠊ␲ၥᩥෆࡢἲຓືモࡣᐈほⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ(5a)࡛␲ၥᩥ࡟⏕㉳ࡋࡓㄆ㆑ⓗ must ࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊヰࡣࡑ࠺༢⣧࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ(5a)ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣࠕヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ࡽࡢドᣐࢆ␲࠺ࠖ
ᩥ⬦࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛୺ほⓗ࡜ゝ࠼࡞ࡃࡶ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊᮏ✏ࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡀ௚ࡢ⌧㇟㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊ᮲௳⠇࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモ㸧࡟ࡶ㐺⏝ྍ⬟࠿ࡶ᳨ドࡢ౯್ࡀ኱࠸࡟࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋㅰ㎡
 ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 16 ᅇ኱఍㸦2013 ᖺ 12 ᭶ 7 ᪥࣭8 ᪥ࠊ៞᠕⩏ሿ኱Ꮫ㸧࡛ࡢཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲ཎ✏࡟୍㒊ಟṇࢆ᪋ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ኱఍ᙜ᪥ࠊ⃝⏣἞⨾ඛ⏕ࠊஂಖ㐍ඛ⏕ࠊᒸᮏⰾ࿴ඛ⏕ࠊᐑ⃝Ὀᙪඛ⏕࡜᭷┈࡞㆟ㄽࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊⓎ⾲ཎ✏ࡢᛂເ᫬࡟ࡣ 3 ྡࡢ༏ྡᑂᰝ⪅࠿ࡽ᭷┈࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᮏ✏ࡢⲡ✏ẁ㝵࡛ࠊ2013 ᖺ 11 ᭶ᗘி㒔ゝㄒᏛࢥࣟ࢟࢔࣒㸦2013 ᖺ 11 ᭶ 29 ᪥ࠊி㒔኱Ꮫ㸧ࡢཧຍ⪅̿≉࡟ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂ඛ⏕ࠊᒸᮏ㞞ྐඛ⏕ࠊᑠᯇཎဴኴẶࠊἙ㔝ரẶ̿࠿ࡽከࡃࡢ᭷┈࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ㔝ᮧᛅኸඛ⏕࠿ࡽࡣᑠ⃝ (2013)ࡢࣁࣥࢻ࢔࢘ࢺࢆࡈᥦ౪㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ
᪉ࠎ࡟グࡋ࡚ឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࠋゝ࠺ࡲ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊᮏ✏࡟ṧࡿ⍗⑅ࡣ඲࡚➹⪅୍ேࡢ㈐௵࡛࠶ࡿࠋὀ
1 ㄒἲ◊✲ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモࡢ␲ၥ໬ࢆᢅࡗࡓ᯽㔝 (2012㸸➨ 5 ❶)ࡶཧ↷ࠋᮏ✏ࡣࠊ␲ၥ໬

ࡉࢀࡓⱥㄒㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモࡀᐜㄆࡉࢀࡿሙྜ࡜ࡑ࠺࡛࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟ࠊ㆟ㄽࡢᑐ㇟ࢆ㝈ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2 ࡓࡔࡋࠊ⃝⏣ (2006: 253-254)࡛ࡣࠊᐈほⓗ࡞ㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモ can ࡀྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3 ௨ୗࠊ౛ᩥෆࡢ࢖ࢱࣜࢵࢡࡣࠊ඲࡚ᮏ✏ࡢ➹⪅࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
4 ࡇࡢไ⣙ࡣࠊI think he’s Norwegian.ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥࡢ௜ຍ␲ၥᩥࡀࠊdon’t I ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ isn’t he ࡟࡞ࡿ㸦Swan 2005: 488㸧஦ᐇ࡜୪⾜ⓗ࡟⪃࠼ࡿ࡜Ⰻ࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ I think ࡀែᗘᒙ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ㐙⾜ⓗ࡞⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡀ␲ၥ໬࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡜ࠊ(1a)ࡢᐜㄆ୙ྍ⬟ᛶࢆྠᵝ࡟⪃࠼ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
5 Verstraete ࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡟࠶ࡿ௚ࡢၥ㢟ⅬࡣࠊSanada (2013: Section 4)ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
6 ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ⾪✺ࡢ᭷↓࡜࠸࠺஧㡯ᑐ❧ⓗ࡞㆟ㄽࢆᒎ㛤ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡴࡋࢁ⛬ᗘၥ㢟࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁྍ⬟ᛶࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
7 (11b)࡟ࡶ
ࠕ␲ၥどࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࡀ࠶ࡾ㐙⾜ⓗࡔࡀࠊࡑࢀࡣ␲ၥᩥ⮬య࡟ᖐࡏࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Borkin, Ann. 1971. “Polarity Items in Questions”. Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of
the Chicago Linguistic Society, 53-62, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

−71−疑問文に生起する英語認識的法助動詞の容認可能性について

Dancygier, Barbara. 1998. Conditionals and Prediction: Time, Knowledge and Causation in
Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
஭⟄⨾ὠᏊ. 2002. ࠕmay ࡜ can㸸஧ࡘࡢࠗྍ⬟ᛶ࠘
ࠖ. ࠗᩥ໬࡜ゝㄒ࠘ 56: 1-16.
᯽㔝೺ḟ. 2002. ࠗⱥㄒຓືモࡢㄒἲ࠘. ᮾி㸸◊✲♫.
᯽㔝೺ḟ. 2012. ࠗⱥㄒㄒἲヲゎ̿ⱥㄒㄒἲᏛࡢ☜❧࡬ྥࡅ࡚࠘. ᮾி㸸୕┬ᇽ.
ྜྷⰋᩥᏕ. 2005. ࠕ୺ほⓗ㸭ᐈほⓗࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡜ࠗྰᐃ࠘
ࠊ
ࠗ␲ၥ໬࠘
ࠊ
ࠗ᮲௳໬࠘
ࠖ. ࠗⱥㄒ㟷ᖺ࠘ ➨151 ᕳ➨ 4 ྕ, 42-45.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics Vol.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
኱ᇼኖኵ࣭㐲⸨ᬛᏊ. 2012. ࠕᵓᩥⓗព࿡࡜ࡣఱ࠿ࠖ. ⃝⏣἞⨾㸦⦅㸧ࠗᵓᩥ࡜ព࿡࠘
㸦ࡦࡘࡌព࿡ㄽㅮ
ᗙ➨ 2 ᕳ㸧, 31-48, ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
ᑠ⃝㈼ྖ. 2013. ࠕㄆ㆑ⓗἲຓືモࡢ␲ၥ໬ࠖ. ⱥㄒㄒἲᩥἲᏛ఍➨ 21 ᅇ኱఍ཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲㸦2013 ᖺ 10
᭶ 19 ᪥ࠊ஑ᕞ኱Ꮫ㸧.
Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Papafragou, Anna. 2000. Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
┾⏣ᩗ௓. 2007. ࠕㄆ㆑ⓗ⏝ἲࡢ must ࢆྵࡴ␲ၥᩥࡢᩥ⬦࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ. ࠗ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ఍ㄽᩥ㞟 ➨7 ᕳ࠘: 213-222.
Sanada, Keisuke. 2013. “Notes on Subjectivity and Performativity in English Modals: A Critical
Assessment of Verstraete’s (2001) Analysis”. JELS 30: 187-193.
⃝⏣἞⨾. 1993. ࠗどⅬ࡜୺ほᛶ̿᪥ⱥㄒຓືモࡢศᯒ̿࠘. ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
⃝⏣἞⨾. 2006. ࠗࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࠘. ᮾி㸸㛤ᣅ♫.
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Swan, Michael. 2005. Practical English Usage (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2001. “Subjective and Objective Modality: Interpersonal and
Ideational Functions in the English Modal Auxiliary System”. Journal of Pragmatics 33:
1505-1528.
Westney, Paul. 1995. Modals and Periphrastics in English. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
ྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁᏊ. 1999. ࠗྰᐃᴟᛶ⌧㇟࠘. ᮾி㸸ⱥᐆ♫.
ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ

The Corpus of Contemporary American English [COCA] (URL: http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/)−72−第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ᤵཷືモࠕࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢ⿵ຓືモⓗ⏝ἲࡢ⪃ᐹ̿ヰ⪅ࡢཷ┈⤖ᯝ࡜ཷ┈ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࣮                                   㛵᰿࿴ᯞ୰⳹ேẸඹ࿴ᅜ Ἑ༡኱Ꮫ

㸺Abstract㸼
This study aims to analyze the auxiliary use of the verb morau with emphasis on
the cognitive process which the speaker undergoes when she chooses to use the verb. The useof the verb morau is commonly discussed in terms of someone (encoded as grammaticalsubject of the sentence) having someone else doing a benevolent act for her. But the speaker
actually does not act on anyone else, but accidentally receives a benefit from someone else’s
spontaneous act. This study has been collected from corpora of natural conversations andnewspaper interviews. The analysis suggests that ‘-temorau’ packs into one whole process
which shifts the connotation from ‘causative’ at the ‘being a beneficiary’ stage to ‘passive’ atthe ‘after being a beneficiary’ stage.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚᤵཷ⿵ຓືモࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ  ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒ  ࣉࣛࢫࡢኚ໬⤖ᯝཷ┈ࡢཎᅉ࡜ࣉࣟࢭࢫ   ཷ┈ࡢࡦ࡜ࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ

㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

ࡣㄌ⏕᪥࡟ᚚ㥅㉮ࢆసࡗ࡚ࡃࢀࡓࠖ࡜ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᤵཷືモࠕࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢ⿵ຓືモᙧࠕ࡚ཷ┈ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ
ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡣⓎヰࡢヰ⪅ࡸᩥࡢࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡣࠊ
㸦1㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ཷࡅᡭࢆ୺ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚

᭩ࡁᡭࡀ୺ㄒ࡜࡞ࡿ᫬ࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡟ࡣࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ

୺ㄒࡀ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡢ⾜Ⅽ࠿ࡽ฼┈ࢆཷࡅࡿ஦ែࢆ

┈ࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࠋ2 ᒣ⏣㸦2004㸧࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ⿵

⾲⌧ࡍࡿࠋ1ຓືモᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚ཷࡅᡭࢆ୺ㄒ࡜ࡋᜠᜨࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࢆᣢࡘゝㄒࡣࠊⱥㄒࡸ୰ᅜㄒࢆጞࡵᒣ⏣ࡀㄪ࡭ࡓ 30 వࡾࡢゝㄒ

㸦1㸧⚾ࡣㄌ⏕᪥࡟ࠊẕ࡟ᚚ㥅㉮ࢆసࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ
ࡗࡓࠋ࡟࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡛ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣᙜヱࡢཷ┈ࢆࠕ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖ

ࡲࡓࠊࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡍࡿ㸦2㸧ࡢ୺ㄒࠕ⚾࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡍࡿࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡣࠊ⮬ศࡀ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡼࡾཷ┈ࡍࡿ஦ࢆᮇᚅࡋࡓࡾࠊ

ࠕ⚾ࠖ㸦௨ୗࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖ㸧ࡢཷ┈ࡢࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒ

ཷ┈ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡟ឤㅰࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࢆㄒ⏝౛࠿ࡽ᥈ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ┈ࡢㄆ▱ࢆࠊ

㸦2㸧a. ᝏ࠸ࡅ࡝ࠊᛴ࠸࡛సࡗ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸ࢇ

ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢほⅬ࡟ồࡵࡿࠋㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ࡛ࡣụࡔࡼࠋୖ㸦2011㸧ࡀࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒࡣ஦  b.㸦⿕⅏⪅ࡀ㸧ⓙࡉࢇ࡟ຓࡅ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚

ែࡢ୰࡟㌟ࢆ⨨ࡁࠊ⮬ࡽࡢឤぬ࡛య㦂ⓗ࡟஦ែᮏᙜ࡟ຓ࠿ࡗ࡚ࡲࡍࠋ
㸦➹⪅ࡀ୍㒊␎㸧ࢆᤊ࠼ࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋࠊⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡢᐈほⓗ࡞ࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡣࠊྠࡌᤵཷ⿵ຓືモࡢࠕ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖ

ࡲࡎࠊ➨ 2 ⠇࡛ඛ⾜◊✲࡜ᮏ◊✲ࡢほⅬࡢᕪࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࠕ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖࡣ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࢆ୺ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕẕ␗ࠊࡲࡓᘬ⏝࡟ࡼࡾ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢㄆ▱ࡢഴྥࢆ

1−73−

授受動詞「もらう」の補助動詞的用法の考察―話者の受益結果と受益プロセス―ㄝ᫂ࡋࠊ➨ 3 ⠇࡛ᮏ◊✲ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅ

ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࠿ࡽ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡟⾜Ⅽᐇ⌧ࢆാࡁ࠿ࡿヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ┈ࡢࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ

ࡅࡿព࿡࡛ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜Ⓨヰࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ⾜Ⅽḟ࡟➨ 4 ⠇࡛ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖㄒ⏝౛⪅࠿ࡽࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆཷࡅ࡚ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺㸦࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓ㸧ࠖࢆ♧ࡋ࡚⪃ᐹࡋࠊ➨ 5 ⠇࡛⤖ㄽࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ

࡜Ⓨヰࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖ࡟ࡣࢃ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸

ࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

㸰㸬ඛ⾜◊✲ࡢၥ㢟ࡢᡤᅾ࡜ᮏ◊✲ࡢ❧ሙ ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀఱࡽ࠿ࡢ฼

㸰㸬㸯 ඛ⾜◊✲ࡢၥ㢟ࡢᡤᅾ┈ࢆཷࡅࡿ஦ࢆࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ᤵཷືモࠕࡃࢀࡿࠖࡸ⿵ຓືモࠕ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖ

ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡞ࡽ࡛ࡣࡢཷ┈ࡢㄆ▱ࡀ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᩥࡣࠊᤵཷ࡜

࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࠊࡑࢀࢆヰ⪅ࡢ⏘ฟ౛࠿ࡽ᥈ࡿࡇ࡜

ࡋ࡚ࡢ◊✲ࡢ௚ࠊཷ┈ࢆ⾲ࡍ୍᪉࡛୺ㄒࡀືస

ࢆ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊḟ㡯࡛ᮏ◊✲୺࡟ືసࢆࡉࡏࡿാࡁ࠿ࡅࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᩥἲ

ࡢ❧ሙ࡛࠶ࡿㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ

ⓗ࡟ࣦ࢛࢖ࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ከࡃ◊✲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ࡚ヰ⪅ࡢㄆ▱ࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋ

ࡶࡽ࠺࡛ࠖ⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿḟࡢ㸦3㸧ࡢᩥࡣࠊࠕ⚾ࠖࡀⰼᏊࡢ⮬Ⓨⓗࠊዲពⓗ⾜Ⅽࢆ୍᪉ⓗ࡟ཷࡅ࡚㸰㸬㸰 ᮏ◊✲ࡢ❧ሙཷ┈ࡋࡓ࡜ࡶࠊ
ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡚ࡑࢀ࡟ᛂࡌ

ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢほⅬ࡛ࡣࠊụୖ㸦2007:189-190㸧

ࡓⰼᏊࡀࢥࣆ࣮ࢆྲྀࡗࡓ࡜ࡶゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡀヰ⪅ࡢ஦ែᢕᥱ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡣࠑ⮬ᕫ࣭୰ᚰⓗࠒ
㸦ego-centric㸧࡞ࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒࢆ

㸦3㸧㸦⚾ࡣ㸧ⰼᏊ࡟ࢥࣆ࣮ࢆྲྀࡗ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋ

ࡍࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ụୖ
㸦2011:59㸧࡛ࡣࡑࢀࢆࠊ
ࠕヰ⪅ࡣ஦ែࡢ୰࡟㌟

ᒣᮏ㸦2006:70㸧ࡣࠊࠕࠗ㹼࡚ࡶࡽ࠺࠘ࡢാ

ࢆ⨨ࡁࠊ⮬ࡽࡢឤぬࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠑ஦ែࠒࢆ┤᥋యࡁ࠿ࡅࡢ⌧ࢀ᪉ࡣࠊᖖ࡟୍ᐃࡢゎ㔘࡟࡞ࡿࢃࡅ

㦂ࡍࡿࠖ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣヰ⪅⮬ࡽ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺௨ୖ࡟ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࠊാ

ࠑ஦ែࠒ࡜࡟ࡣ┦஫స⏝ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ
ࠕ
㸦
ࠑ஦ែࠒ࡜

ࡁ࠿ࡅࡶཷ┈ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ⾲ࡍࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᩥࢆࠕ 

࠸࠺㸸➹⪅ຍ➹㸧ឤぬࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ཷࡅṆࡵࡿ่ᡎ᚟ⓗࠖ࡞᪉ྥᛶࢆᣢࡘ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ㸦p.69㸧ࠋࡀ⮬ࡽ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚࠸࠿࡞ࡿࠑព࿡ࠒ
㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ
ࠑ㛵ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢᩥ㸦௨ୗࠊࠕ࡚ࠗࡶ㐃ᛶࠒࢆ᭷ࡍࡿ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄆ▱ⓗ࡞ࡽ࠺࠘ᩥࠖ࡜ࡍࡿ㸧ࡣ 1 ࡘࡢ౛ᩥࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡚

ุ᩿ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀ࡟కࡗ࡚ႏ㉳ࡉࢀࡿឤ᝟ࠖ

ゎ㔘ࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊാࡁ࠿ࡅࡀ᭷ࡿ࠿↓ࢆ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡣᤊ࠼࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡣⱥㄒヰ⪅ࡢ࠸࠿࡟᭕᫕࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊḟࡢ㸦4㸧ࡢ a,b

ᐈほⓗ࡞ࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀⓎヰࡍࡿሙྜࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊụୖ㸦2006:190-192㸧ࡣࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡢ᭷↓ࡣ࡝࠺࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ

ࡣࠊ┤᥋య㦂࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡞஦ែ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ
ࠕヰࡋᡭࡀ᫬✵ࡢ㝸ࡓࡾࢆ㉸࠼࡚ࠊၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿ

㸦4㸧a.㸦Ꮫᰯഃ࡟㸧ㄪ⌮ᐊࡢ౑⏝ࢆチྍࡋ࡚஦ែࡢ୰࡟㌟ࢆ⨨ࡃ࡜࠸࠺᧯సࠖࢆࡍࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࡑࢀࢆࠕࠑ⮬ᕫᢞධࠒ
㸦self projection㸧
ࠖ࡜࿧ࢇ

ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋ
b.࣮࣒࣍࠿ࡽⴠࡕࡑ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࢆࠊ

࡛࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠑ⮬ᕫᢞධࠒࡣ 1 ࡘ࡟ࡣᮍ᮶ࡸ
㐣ཤ࡜࠸࠺᫬✵࡬ࡢࠑ⮬ᕫᢞධࠒࠊࡶ࠺ 1 ࡘࡣⰼᏊ࡟ຓࡅ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋ

௚⪅ࡸ≀ㄒࡢⓏሙே≀࡬ࡢࠑ⮬ᕫᢞධࠒࡀ࠶ࡿ
㸦4㸧ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡣⓎヰ࡛ࡣヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀ

࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢࠑ஦ែᢕ

㠀᫂♧ࡢ୺ㄒ࡛࠶ࡾࠊヰ⪅⮬㌟ࡢཷ┈ࢆ⾲⌧ࡍᥱࠒࡢ≉ᚩࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ࠊḟ࡟ᮏ◊✲࡛⪃࠼ࡿࠕ࡚ࡿࠋࡍࡿ࡜ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜ゝ࠺᫬ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡜⤖ᯝ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸

࡟ࠊཷ┈ࡣヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖ⮬㌟ࡢ஦࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᐇ

࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ

㝿࡟ⰼᏊࡸᏛᰯഃ࡟㢗ࢇࡔ࠿ྰ࠿ࡣࡣࡗࡁࡾ

2−74−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

㸱㸬ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ┈ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡜⤖ᯝࣉࣛࢫ࡟ኚ໬ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ⾜㸱㸬㸯 ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ┈

Ⅽࡸ஦ែࢆ⾲ࡍືモࡀཷ┈ࡢព࿡ゎ㔘࡜࡞ࡿ ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡣᚑ᮶ࠊᜠᜨࡸ฼┈ࢆ⾲ࡍࡢࡣࠊࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡢ୰࡟ヰ⪅⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ3

ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ࠕ฼

ࡀືモࡢ⾲ࡍ⾜Ⅽ࡜⮬ࡽࢆ㛵ಀ࡙ࡅࠊࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽ┈ࠖࠕᜠᜨࠖ࡜ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ

ࡢᙳ㡪ࡢ⤖ᯝࣉࣛࢫ࡟ኚ໬ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ⮬ࡽࡢᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊⓎヰࡢヰ⪅ࡀࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜

㸺ࣉࣛࢫࡢኚ໬⤖ᯝ㸼࡜࠸࠺ㄆ㆑ࡀྵពࡉࢀ

⾲⌧ࡍࡿᩥ࡛ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ

࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽࡔ࡜ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ⪃࠼ࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊᮏ⤖ᯝࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡢ⾜Ⅽࡸ஦ែࡢᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅࡿ๓

◊✲࡛ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿཷ┈ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ

࡟ẚ࡭ࠊヰ⪅⮬㌟ࡢ≧ែࡀࣉࣛࢫ࡟ኚ໬ࡋࡓ

࡜ཷ┈⤖ᯝ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ

⤖ᯝ࡟࡞ࡾࠊࡑࢀࢆヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀẼ࡙࠸࡚ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢࠕཷ┈ࠖ㸱㸬㸰 ཷ┈ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡜⤖ᯝ࡜⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

ぢ᪉ࢆኚ࠼࡚ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊඛࡢ

ḟࡢ㸦5a㸧࡛ࡣⰼᏊࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭

㸦4a㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆྵពࡍࡿࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ

࡚࠾ࡾࠊཷࡅᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᙳ㡪ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣุ᩿࡛

ᩥ࡛ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀࡇࢀ࠿ࡽཷ┈≧ែ࡟࡞ࡾࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
㸦5b㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᤵཷ⿵ຓືモࡓ࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡀ࠶ࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊ
㸦4b㸧ࡢࡼ

ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࢆ௜ຍࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖ࠺࡞ᛮ࠸ࡀࡅࡎ⾜Ⅽࢆཷࡅࡿࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡟

࡜㛵㐃࡙ࡅࡽࢀࠊཷࡅᡭ࡛࠶ࡿヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡣཷࡣാࡁ࠿ࡅࡀ↓ࡃࠊ
㸦4b㸧࡛ࡣዲពⓗ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡼ┈≧ែ࡟ኚ໬ࡍࡿࠋ

ࡗ࡚ཷ┈ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࢆ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜
ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ
㸦4a㸧ࡣࠕ
㸦Ꮫᰯഃ࡟㸧ㄪ⌮㸦5㸧a.ⰼᏊࡀࢭ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢆ⦅ࢇࡔࠋ

ᐊࡢ౑⏝ࢆチྍࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠾࠺ࠋ
ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟

b.ⰼᏊ࡟ࢭ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢆ⦅ࢇ࡛ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋ

ࡇࢀ࠿ࡽാࡁ࠿ࡅࠊᮍࡔཷ┈ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸᫬Ⅼࡶࠕチྍࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋ
࡛ࠖ࠶ࢀࡤࡑࡢ⤖ᯝཷ┈ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢཷ┈≧ែ࡜ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡶ⾲ࡏࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
㸦4b㸧ࡣ᪤࡟ཷ┈ࢭ࣮ࢱ࣮ࡀ↓࠸≧ែ࠿ࡽཷ┈࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࢭ࣮ࢱ

ࡋ࡚࠿ࡽ⾲⌧ࡍࡿࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

࣮ࡀቑ࠼ࡓ≧ែࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡟ࡼ

ࡇࡇ࠿ࡽࠊࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡟ࡣヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢࡗ࡚ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀࠊⰼᏊࡀ⚾ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ

ព㆑࡜ࡋ࡚ཷ┈ࡀᮍ᮶ࡢ஦ࠊࡘࡲࡾࡇࢀ࠿ࡽཷ

ዲពࢆ⾲ࡍᮇᚅࢆᢪ࠸࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡀ㐺ࡗࡓ࡜┈ࡍࡿཷ┈ᮍᐇ⌧᫬ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡜ࠊ௒ࡣ

࠿ࠊࡲࡓࡣ⚾ࡀᡭ⦅ࡳࡢࢭ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢆᡭ࡟ࡋ࡚Ꮀ

᪤࡟ཷ┈⤖ᯝ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ヰ⪅ࡀឤࡌࡓཷ

ࡋ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࠊᚰ⌮ⓗ࡞ࣉࣛࢫࡢኚ໬≧ែࢆ⾲⌧┈᪤ᐇ⌧᫬ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ4

5 㸦4a㸧
࡛ࡣࡇࢀ࠿ࡽཷ┈ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡛ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢᚰ⌮ⓗ࡞ࣉࣛࢫࡢኚ໬ࢆ⾲ࡍㄒᙡ࡜ࡣ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡟⾜Ⅽࢆࠕാࡁ࠿ࡅࠖ
ࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠕཷ

ࡋ࡚ࠕᎰࡋ࠸ࠖ
ࠕ‶㊊ࡍࡿࠖ
ࠊࡲࡓࡣඛࡢ㸦4b㸧┈ࡋࡓࠖ≧ែ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ௒ࠊࡇࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡜ཷ┈ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᩆຓ࡟ࡼࡿࠕᏳᚰࠖ࡜࠸࠺ឤ᝟ࢆ⾲ࡍ⤖ᯝࢆྵពࡍࡿࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࢆࠕാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡚ᙧᐜモࡸືモࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊཷ┈ࢆᐇࠕ㸦ࢭ࣮ࢱ࣮ࢆ㸧⦅ࡴࠖ࡜࠸࠺ືモࡀ⾲ࡍ⾜Ⅽឤࡋ࡚ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦4b㸧ࡢ⪅ࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗࡓࡾࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖᩥ࡟ࡣࠊ
㸦4a㸧࡜ྠᵝࡢཷ┈ࡋࡓᐇឤࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ

ࡢᮃࢇ࡛࠸ࡓ஦࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡾࠊࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀ㉳ࡇࡿ㸦4a㸧࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊ㢗ࡴ㒊ศࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࡣ↓࠸ࠋ࡜⚾ࡀࣉࣛࢫࡢ≧ែ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⤒㦂ⓗ࡟▱ࡗ࡚ࡇࡢ㸦4b㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᛮ࠸ࡀࡅࡎཷ┈ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ

࠸ࡿ஦࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡾ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖ࡟⾲ࡍࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࢆࠕᛮ࠸ࡀࡅࡎ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ

㛵ಀ࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡑࢀࡀヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖ࡟ཬࡧࠊヰᩥ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡣࡑࡢస⏝ࡸᙳ㡪ࢆࡶࡽࡗ࡚ᚰ⌮ⓗ࡟ࡇࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡛ࠊ࡞ࡐ

3−75−

授受動詞「もらう」の補助動詞的用法の考察―話者の受益結果と受益プロセス―ാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡜ཷ┈⤖ᯝ࡜࠸࠺஧ࡘࡢ⾜Ⅽࠊࡲࡓࡣࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡜᪂⪺ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕ୍࡚᪉ࡢࡳࢆࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸

ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡀᩥᮎ࡜ᚑᒓ⠇࡟᥋⥆ࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡜ࠊࠕ࡚࡚ࠊⓎヰࡢヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀཷ┈࡜࠸࠺ࣉࣛࢫࡢኚ

ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡢ౑⏝⫼ᬒ࠿ࡽࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡼࡗࡓࠋ
ࠕ࡚໬⤖ᯝ≧ែ࡟࡞ࡿ᫬ࠊാࡁ࠿ࡅࡶࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡢ⾜ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡀᩥᮎ࡟⾲ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡢ᥋⥆⾲⌧࡟

Ⅽࡸ஦ែࡶࠊཷ┈⤖ᯝ≧ែ࡬ࡢࡦ࡜ࡲ࡜ࡲࡾࡢ

ࡣᮍᐇ⌧᫬࡛ࡣࠕ㹼ࡓ࠸ࠖࠕ㹼࠾࠺ࠖࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ
ࠊࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉ࢆࡍࡿࠋ

᪤ᐇ⌧᫬࡛ࡣࠕ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠖࡀከࡃࠊᚑᒓ⠇࡛ࠕാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡛ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀཷࡣᮍᐇ⌧᫬ࡢ᮲௳⠇ࠕ㹼࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡤࠖ➼ࠊᮍᐇ┈ᮍᐇ⌧᫬࠿ࡽཷ┈᪤ᐇ⌧᫬ࡲ࡛ࢆࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ

⌧ࠊ᪤ᐇ⌧࡜ࡶ࡟ࠕ㹼࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚ࠖ࡜ࠕ࡚⠇ࠖཷ┈ࡢࠕࣉࣟࢭࢫࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡋࠊ
ࠕᛮ࠸ࡀࡅࡀከ࠸࡜࠸࠺ഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ᥋⥆ࡍࡿ⾲⌧ࡢࡎ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡛ࡣཷ┈᪤ᐇ⌧᫬࡟ࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖഴྥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢヲ⣽ࡣ✏ᮎ࡟♧ࡍࠋ8 ḟ㡯࡛ࡀ⮬ࡽࡢཷ┈≧ែࢆࠊ㏫࡟⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡢ⾜Ⅽࡸ㉳ࡇࡣヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢලయⓗ࡞⏘ฟ⏝౛ࢆᣲࡆ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ

ࡗࡓ஦ែࢆ㢳ࡳ࡚ࡑࢀࡀཎᅉࡔ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࠕࣉ

ࡲࡎཷ┈ᮍᐇ⌧᫬ࡢࠊḟ࡟ཷ┈᪤ᐇ⌧᫬ࡢཷ┈ࣟࢭࢫࠖࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆࠊḟ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ⠇࡛స౛࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊヰ⪅ࡢⓎヰࡍࡿࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ

ࡢ⏝౛ࢆศᯒࠊ☜ㄆࡋ࡚⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

㸲㸬㸰 ཷ┈ᮍᐇ⌧᫬ࡢ⏝౛࡜⪃ᐹ ཷ┈ᮍᐇ⌧᫬ࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝౛࠿ࡽࡣࠊ
㸦6㸧ࡢࡼ࠺

㸲㸬ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢㄒ⏝౛࡜⪃ᐹ࡞⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྥࡅ࡞࠸Ⓨヰ࡛࠶ࡿ㸺⊂ࡾゝ㸼ࡀ㸲㸬㸯 ㈨ᩱࡢᴫせぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ9 ᑦࠊ⏝౛ࡢ(m2529) (f11404)➼ࡣヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀ㺀࡚ࡶࡽ࠺㺁࡜Ⓨヰࡍࡿ᫬ࡢព㆑

ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㈨ᩱ࠿ࡽࡢ౛࡛ࠊm ࡣࠗ⏨ᛶࡢࡇ࡜

ࢆ᥈ࡿⅭ࡟ࡣࠊ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅ⮬↛࡞Ⓨヰ࠿ࡽ㺀࡚ࡤ࣭⫋ሙ⦅࠘࠿ࡽࠊf ࡣࠗዪᛶࡢࡇ࡜ࡤ࣭⫋ሙࡶࡽ࠺㺁ᩥࢆᢳฟࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊⦅࠘࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᩘᏐࡣࢥ࣮

✲࡛ࡣࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ
ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢ⏝౛ᢳฟ࡟⌧ࣃࢫࡢ␒ྕ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
㸦4.11M㸧ࡣᮅ᪥᪂௦᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲఍࡟ࡼࡿ⮬↛఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࠗ⏨ᛶ⪺࠿ࡽࡢᢳฟ౛࡛࠶ࡾࠊᩘᏐࡣ᭶᪥ࠊM ࡣᮅหࡢࡇ࡜ࡤ࣭⫋ሙ⦅࠘
㸦2002㸧
ࠊࠗዪᛶࡢࡇ࡜ࡤ࣭

ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸦7㸧ࡣ 2011/4/11 ᮅห࠿ࡽࡢ

⫋ሙ⦅࠘
㸦1999㸧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ㈨ᩱ࡜ࡋ

⏝౛࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡚᪂⪺ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡸ♫ㄝ࠿ࡽࡢ㺀࡚ࡶࡽ࠺㺁ᩥࡶ⏝࠸ࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊヰࡋゝⴥࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸦6㸧㸦ヰ⪅ࡀ┠ⓗࡢሙᡤ࡬ࡢ⾜ࡁ᪉ࡢㄝ᫂ࢆ࢔

᭩ࡁゝⴥࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡜ࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡀ⫋ሙࣝࣂ࢖ࢱ࣮࡟ồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࢔ࣝ

࡛ࡢⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ࡟Ⓨヰሙ㠃ࢆ⿵࠺ᚲせ࠿ࣂ࢖ࢱ࣮ࡢㄝ᫂ࡀࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡞࠸㸧ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ6

ࡇࢀࡽࡢ㈨ᩱ࠿ࡽࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ

ࠕ㟁ヰࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ
ࠖ㸺⊂ࡾゝ㸼㸦f11404㸧

ᩥࢆᢳฟࡋࠊࡑࡢ୰࠿ࡽⓎヰࡢᩥ⬦ࡀㄞࡳྲྀࢀ
ࡿᩥࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢᢳฟᩘࡣ⮬↛఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠿ࡽ 117 ౛㸦48.5%㸧
ࠊ᪂⪺࠿ࡽ 124ࡲࡓࠊ㸦7㸧ࡣ㑊㞴⪅ࡢᛮ࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠸ࢃࡤᚰ
ࡢ୰ࡢⓎヰ࡜ࡋ࡚グ஦࡟⾲ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

౛㸦51.5%㸧࡛ࠊࡑࡢ⥲ᩘࡣ஧ࡘࡢ㈨ᩱࢆྜࢃ
ࡏ࡚ 241 ౛࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡲࡎࠊⓎヰࡢ୺ㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ௒ᅇᢳฟࡉࢀࡓ

㸦7㸧㸦ࢻ࣓࢟ࣗࣥࢺグ஦ࠗ⏫ࡀ⁻ὶࡍࡿ࡛࠘ࡢ

241 ౛ࡢ༢ᩥ࡜」ᩥ࡛ࠊ༢ᩥ࡛ࡣ඲࡚ࡀヰ⪅࠶ࡿ㑊㞴⪅ࡢᛮ࠸㸸⏫ࡀ௚┴࡬㞟ᅋ⛣㌿ࠕ⚾࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊ
ࠕ⚾ࡣ㹼࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺୺ㄒ

ࡍࡿ࡜▱ࡗࡓ⏫ᅾఫࡢ⿕⅏⪅ࡀ㸧10㏙ㄒࡢ㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ」ᩥᚑᒓ⠇ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ

ࠕ㸦␎㸧ാࡁཱྀࡶ⤂௓ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡿ࠿ࡶࠋࠖ
㸦 4.11M 㸧ᩥࡣࠊࡑࡢ㝈ࡾ࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ7ḟ࡟ࠊཷ┈ᮍᐇ⌧᫬࡜ཷ┈᪤ᐇ⌧᫬ࡢุ᩿ࡣࠊ

ࡇࡢࡘࡪࡸࡁࡣാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿

4−76−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ࡋࠕ㹼ࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡼ࠺ࠖ
ࠕ㹼࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡿ࠿ࡶࠖ࡜

⾜Ⅽࡀᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡿ࠿ྰ࠿࡟ࡼࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡬࠸࠺ࠊཷ┈ᮍᐇ⌧᫬ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋാ

ࡢ⾜Ⅽࡢᮇᚅ࡜ཷ┈≧ែᐇ⌧࡬ࡢᮇᚅࢆྍ⬟ࡁ࠿ࡅࡢⓎヰ௨๓࡟ࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡣ⮬ࡽࡢཷ┈ᙧࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡿ࡛ࠖ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

⤖ᯝ≧ែࢆ࠸ࢃࡤ᝿ᐃࡋࠊࡑࡢ≧ែࡢᐇ⌧ࡢࡓࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊཷ┈ᮍᐇ⌧᫬ࡢࠕാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡚ࡶ

ࡵ࡟⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆᮇᚅࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ᝿ᐃࡣࠊ

ࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡛ࡣࠊാࡁ࠿ࡅ௨๓࡟ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀ᪤ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀᮍ᮶ࡢཷ┈⤖ᯝ≧ែ࡟ࠑ⮬ᕫᢞධࠒ࡟ᮍ᮶ࡢ⮬ࡽࡢཷ┈⤖ᯝ≧ែࢆయ㦂ⓗ࡟᝿ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࢆ౑ᙺ

ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢཷ┈ࡢᐇ⌧ࢆᮇᚅࡋࠊⓎヰ࡜࠸ࡢせ⣲ࡢ᭷↓࡛ศᯒࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࡇࡢヰ⪅࠺⾲ฟ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ཷ┈ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢᮇᚅࡣᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ

ࢆࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺㐃⥆ࡋࡓࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ

࠺࠿ࠋ

ࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ

ḟ࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡢⓎヰࢆࡋ୍᪉ࠊḟࡢࠕࢱᙧࠖࡢ⏝౛࡛ࡣࠊࠕ⚾ࠖࡀ㢗࡚࠸ࡿ⏝౛ࢆᣲࡆࡿࠋ
㸦8㸧ࡣࠕ㹼ࡓ࠸࡛ࠖヰ⪅

ࢇࡔ⾜Ⅽࡀ᪤࡟⾜ࢃࢀ࡚ࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ┈ࡀࠕ⚾ࠖࡀ᝿࠸ᥥࡃ≧ែ࡟࡞ࡾࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺㢪ᮃࢆᐇ⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

Ⓨヰࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦11㸧㸦఍ሙタႠᢸᙜ⪅ࡢሗ࿌㸧
㸦8㸧㸦࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ㸸⿕⅏⪅ࡢኌ㸧ࠕୖ࡟ࡎࡽࡗ࡜ࡇ࠺୪ࡪ࡜ࠊ࠸࠺࠿ࡓࡕ࡛

ࠕࡲࡓ⁺ࡀࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ⾜ᨻ࡟ࡣࠊඖ㏻ࡾࡢ⏕ά࠸ࡕ࠾࠺ࡑࡢ࣮ࠊ࡞ࢇࠊࢭࢵࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡣ

ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᨭ᥼ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸࡚࠼࡞ࠋ
ࠖࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࠊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ
ࠖ㸦f1299㸧㸦4.13M㸧㸦12㸧㸦㑇య᥈ࡋࡢዪᛶࡀᏳ⨨ᡤࢆᅇࡗ࡚㸧ࠕ㸦Ᏻ⨨ᡤࡢ⫋ဨ࡟㸸➹⪅ຍ➹㸧㑇యࡢ෗┿ࢆぢࡏ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋ
ࠖ
㸦4.7M㸧

」ᩥࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢ౛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢ㸦9㸧

㸦13㸧㸦௓ㆤ᪋タࡢ஦ົᒁ㛗ࡀࠊಖ㝤ࡢႠᴗᢸ

㸦10㸧ࡣヰ⪅ࡢᕼᮃࢆ㸦9㸧࡛ࡣᾘ㈝⪅ࡢẁ㝵ⓗ࡞⾜ື࡜ࡋ࡚せồࡋࠊ
㸦10㸧ࡣࠕ࡛ࡍࡼࡡ࣮ࠖ

ᙜ⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᡴࡕྜࢃࡏࡢ᫬࡟㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࠕ⤖ᒁࠊࡇࡢ๓ࡢ᫬ࡶ࣮㹹ࡣ࠸㹻ࠊ඲㒊ࡲ࣮ࠊࡸࡗ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡕࡷࡗࡓࡗ࡚ࡺ࠺࠿ࡡ
࣮ࠋࠖ㸦m7570㸧㸦9㸧㸦JA ඲㎰ࡢᅬⱁㄢ㛗ࡀ㸧㸦㹹ࡣ࠸㹻ࡣႠᴗᢸᙜ⪅ࡢ┦ᵔ㸸➹⪅ຍ➹㸧ࠕᾘ㈝⪅࡟ࡲࡎ㣗࡭࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࠊᏳ඲࡜ᐇឤ
ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࢀࡤࠖ࡜ヰࡋࡓࠋ
㸦4.10M㸧㸦10㸧
㸦㒊㛗ࡀ㈍ಁᢸᙜ⪅࡟ࠊࢣ࣮࢟ࢆ㈙ࡗࡓ

㸦11㸧ࡣࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ᏶஢࡛ࡑࡢฟ᮶஦ࡣ㢗ࢇ࡛ሙྜ࡟㓄㐩ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠸࡜࠸࠺ᕼᮃࢆᥦ

ࡸࡗ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᱌ࠋ㸧㸦12㸧ࡣ㢗ࢇࡔ⤖ᯝࠊពᅗࡀ㐩ᡂࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆࠕ࡚

ࠕ㓄㏦ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠸࡛ࡍࡼࡡ࣮ࠋ
ࠖࡶࡽ࠺࡛ࠖⓎヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸦13㸧ࡣ஦ົᒁ㸦m1748㸧㛗ࡀႠᴗᢸᙜ⪅࡜ࡢ༠ຊసᴗ࡟᪊࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢᢸ
ᙜ⪅ࡀ㢳ᐈ࡛࠶ࡿ஦ົᒁ㛗ࢆẼ㐵ࡗ࡚௙஦ࢆ

㸦9㸧ࡢࠕ࡚⠇ࠖࡣࠊ஦ែࡢⓎ⏕ࡀ᫬㛫㡰࡛࠶୍ே࡛㐍ࡵࠊ஦ົᒁ㛗ࡣࡑࡢࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ⾜Ⅽࢆᩒ

ࡿࠋ11

ࡲࡓࠊ
㸦9㸧
㸦10㸧ࡢ᮲௳⠇ࡣࠊᚋ࡟⥆ࡃ࠼࡚Ṇࡵࡎ࡟⏑࠼࡚඲㒊௵ࡏࠊࡑࡢ௙஦ࢆࡋ࡞

୺⠇࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡿ≧ែࡀᐇ⌧ࡍࢀࡤࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡃ࡚῭ࢇࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᛮ࠸ฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ

࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢᮇᚅ㐩ᡂࡸ‶㊊࡜࠸࠺ཷ┈࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡽࡢ౛࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡛ࡣࠊヰࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡣࡑࡢࡓࡵࡢ๓ᥦ᮲௳࡛࠶ࡾࠕ⚾ࠖ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀ᝿ᐃࡋࡓཷ┈ࡢᐇ⌧ࢆࠊാࡁ࠿ࡅࠊ

ࡢ୰࡛ཷ┈⤖ᯝ࡜ᅉᯝ㛵ಀ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ

⾜Ⅽࠊࡑࡋ࡚ཷ┈⤖ᯝ࡜࠸࠺⧅ࡀࡾࢆᣢࡘࡦ࡜

ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀ᝿ᐃࡋࡓཷ┈⤖ᯝ≧ែࡣ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ཷ┈᏶

5−77−

授受動詞「もらう」の補助動詞的用法の考察―話者の受益結果と受益プロセス―஢ㄆ㆑ࠊᮇᚅࡋࡓ஦ࡢᡂᑵ࡬ࡢ‶㊊ࠊᎰࡋࡉࢆ

ྜ࡟ࡶࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖ⮬㌟ࡢཷ┈࡟ࡣࡑࡢཷ┈ཎ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡀࠕ࡚

ᅉࢆ㢳ࡳ࡚⾲⌧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜

ࡃࢀࡿࠖ࡜␗࡞ࡿࡢࡣࠊࡇࡢཷ┈⤖ᯝ≧ែ࡬ࡢ⪃࠼ࠊࡑࢀࢆ⏝౛࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋᮇᚅࡸࠊཷ┈ࢆᐇ⌧ࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟⾜Ⅽ⪅࡟ാࡁḟࡢ㸦15㸧
㸦16㸧
㸦17㸧ࡣࠊ⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ཷ┈ࢆ࠿ࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺㒊ศ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ

ࡋࡓ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡢⓎヰ⏝౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣཷ┈ཎ༶ࡕࠕാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡟ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖᅉ࡜࡞ࡿࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ⾜Ⅽࡸ஦ែࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊࡑ

ࡀࡲࡎࠊཷ┈⤖ᯝ≧ែࢆ᝿ᐃࡋᐇ⌧ࢆᮇᚅࡋࠊ

ࡇ࠿ࡽヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀస⏝ࡸᙳ㡪ࢆࠕཷࡅ࡚ࠖࣉ

ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡿࡲ࡛ࡢཷ┈ᮍᐇ⌧᫬࡜ࠊാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡟

ࣛࢫࡢኚ໬⤖ᯝ≧ែ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ᛂࡌࡓ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀ⾜Ⅽࢆࡋࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀࡑࡢᙳ
㡪⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ᐇ㝿࡟ཷ┈ࡍࡿࡲ࡛ࡢཷ┈᪤ᐇ

㸦15㸧㸦ኳⓚⓚྡྷ୧㝎ୗࡢゼၥࢆཷࡅ࡚⿕⅏ᆅ⌧᫬࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ஧ࡘࡣࠊ᫬㛫㠃ࡢ㐃㙐࡜ࠊ⏫㛗ࡀ㸧ཷ┈ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ཎᅉ࡜࠸࠺⚾ࡢᅉᯝ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ ࠕࡳ࡞ࡸࡿࡏ࡞࠸ᛮ࠸࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊ௒

ࡾࠊཷ┈ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡜⤖ᯝ࡜࠸࠺ࡦ࡜ࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ

᪥ゼၥࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡔ࠸࡚➗㢦ࡀከࡃ࡞ࡗࡓ

࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡟ෆᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟᪥

ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠖ࡜ヰࡋࡓࠋ
㸦4.9M㸧ᮏㄒ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿḟࡢ」ᩥ㸦14㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠊస⏝㸦16㸧㸦࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ㸸⿕⅏ᆅࡢஙඣࡢẕࡀࠊࡀ┤᥋ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖ࡟ཬࡤ࡞࠸ཷ┈ࡶࠊࡇࡢ㐃⥆㏆ᡤࡢఫẸࡓࡕࡀ⣬࠾ࡴࡘࡢ㈙࠸ฟࡋ࡟

ࡋࡓࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࠿ࡽ⾲⌧࡛ࡁࡿࡢࡔ࡜

ឤㅰࠋ㸧⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࠕࡳ࡞ࡉࢇ࡟ຓࡅ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚ᮏᙜ࡟ຓ࠿ࡗ
࡚ࡲࡍࠋࠖ
㸦3.20M㸧㸦17㸧㸦఍ぢ㸸ᨭ᥼❆ཱྀࡢᕷ㛗ࡀࢻ࢖ࢶᕷẸᅋ

㸦14㸧
㸦H ᕷࡀ⿕⅏ᆅࡢぶᏊࢆᱜ⚍ࡾ࡟ᣍᚅ㸧 యࡢᛂ᥼᮶ゼ࡟ᑐࡋ㸧 ࠕ⿕⅏⪅࡟ࡶ⮬៏ࡢᱜࢆぢ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࠊඖẼࢆࠕ⚾ࡣࢻ࢖ࢶ௻ᴗ࡛㏻⟬ 15 ᖺാࡁࠊ⫱࡚࡚ྲྀࡾᡠࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠾࠺࡜ᣍᚅࢆỴࡵࡓࠋࠖ
㸦4.16M㸧ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋࠖ
㸦4.15M㸧㸦14㸧ࡢᱜࢆぢ࡚ඖẼࢆྲྀࡾᡠࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ⿕⅏⪅

㸦15㸧࡛ࡢヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢࣉࣛࢫࡢ⤖ᯝ≧ែࡣࠊࡢཷ┈࡛࠶ࡿࠋヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡣࡑࡢ⿕⅏⪅ࡢᮍ᮶⿕⅏ࡋࡓヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖ㐩ࡀኳⓚⓚྡྷ୧㝎ୗࡢゼၥ࡟ࠑ⮬ᕫᢞධࠒࡋࠊཷ┈ࢆඹឤࡋ࡚ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ບࡲࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦15㸧࡛ヰ⪅ࡶ㛫᥋ⓗᚰ⌮ⓗ࡞ཷ┈≧ែ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺᝿ᐃ

ࠕ⚾ࠖࡣࠊࡳࢇ࡞࡜ඹ࡟ཷ┈ࢆయឤࡋࠊཷ┈ࡋࢆࡍࡿࠋࡑࢀࢆᐇ⌧ࡉࡏࡿᮇᚅࢆࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ

ࡓ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽኳⓚࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆཷ┈ཎᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ㢳ࡳ࡛ࠖ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㛫᥋ⓗ࡞ཷ┈࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶヰ⪅࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟㸦16㸧ࡣ㏆ᡤࡢேࡓࡕࡢዲពࢆࠊ

ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ┈ࡣࠊࠕാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡢࡦ

㸦17㸧ࡣࠊヰ⪅ࡀⱝ࠸㡭♫ဨ࡜ࡋ࡚ാ࠸ࡓࡇ࡜

࡜ࡲ࡜ࡲࡾࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡜⤖ᯝࡢ୰࡛ᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࡟ᑐࡋࠊ௒ࡢᡂ㛗ࡸᆅ఩࠿ࡽᙜ᫬ࡢ⤒㦂ࢆࠊ࠾࠸ࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡢ⤖ᯝⓗཷ┈ࡢ௙᪉࠿ࡆ࡜ࡋ࡚㢳ࡳ࡚ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺࡛ࠖ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡢ⏝౛ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࠊ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋᾏእࡢ఍♫ࡣヰ⪅ࢆ⫱࡚ࡿࡓࡵ࡟㞠ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡣ௒ࡢᆅ఩ࡸ㌟ศ࡜࠸࠺㸲㸬㸱 ཷ┈᪤ᐇ⌧᫬ࡢ⏝౛࡜⪃ᐹ ཷ┈⤖ᯝ≧ែ࠿ࡽࡢ㢳ࡳࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡟ ཷ┈᪤ᐇ⌧᫬ࡢ⏝౛࠿ࡽᢳฟࡉࢀࡓࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ

ࡼࡗ࡚఍♫ࢆཷ┈ཎᅉࡢ 1 ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡋࠊឤ

࠺ࠖᩥ࡟ࡣ஧ࡘࡢཷ┈ࡢ௙᪉ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ1 ࡘࡣㅰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㢳ࡳࡿ࡜࠸࠺

4.2 ࡛ぢࡓࠕാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ

ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ≉ู࡞ࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡛

ࢆ⤒ࡓཷ┈ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡶ࠺ 1 ࡘࡀࠕᛮ࠸ࡀࡅࡎ

࠶ࡿࠋࠕ㢳ࡳࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ࠸ࢃࡤ㏫ྥࡁࡢཎᅉ࡬

࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡢཷ┈࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࡇࡢሙ

ࡢ㎺ࡾ᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊゅ⏣㸦2004㸧ࡀࠕࡢࡔࠖ

6−78−

第16回大会発表論文集ᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⌮⏤ࢆ㎺ࡿᛮ⪃ᅇ㊰ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋࠊᮏ◊

第９号

㸴㸬⤖ㄽ

✲࡜ࡢඹ㏻ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ12᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡼࡿཷ┈ࢆࠕ⚾࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ㢳ࡳࡢᛮ⪃ᅇ㊰࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ

ࡀ࠾㢪࠸ࡋࡓࠋࡔ࠿ࡽ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀ⾜Ⅽࢆࡋࡓࠖࡸ

࡛ࡣヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡣ⿕ᐖࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ゝࢃࢀࡿཷ㌟ࡔ

ࠕ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡟⾜Ⅽࢆࡋࡓࠋࡑࢀ࡛ࠗ⚾࠘ࡀཷ┈ࢆࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ࡞ࡐཷ┈ࡶࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾲ࡋࡓࠋ௒ࠊ⚾ࡣᎰࡋ࠸ࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ

⌧ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ㢳ࡳࡢࣉࣟࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ 1 ࡘࡢ⾲⌧ᙧᘧ࡛⾲⌧ࡍࡿࠋࢭࢫࡀ㢳ࡳࡢ᪉ྥ࡟ࡉࡽ࡟㎺ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶

ࡑࢀࡣ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡣཷ┈ࢆࠊ⾜Ⅽࢆ㢗ࢇࡔ㸦ࡉࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸦15㸧
㸦16㸧࡛ࡣࠊ

ࡏࡓ㸧ⅬࠊཷࡅࡓⅬ࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡒࢀࢆᥥ෗

⿕⅏ࡋࡓ࣐࢖ࢼࢫ≧ែࡢ⚾࡛࠶ࡿࠋヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖⓗ࡟⾲⌧ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽࡣ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡢዲពⓗ⾜Ⅽࡀ⮬ࡽࡢ࣐࢖ࢼࢫ≧ែࠊ࠺ࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡍࡿヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡣཷ┈ࢆࠊཷ┈ཎᅉࡲࡓࡣࢮࣟ≧ែ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࠿ࡽࠊዲពⓗ⾜Ⅽࡀ⮬ࢆ௓ࡋࡓ᫬㛫ⓗࠊᅉᯝⓗ࡞ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢࣉࣛࢫ

ศ࡟ᕪࡋྥࡅࡽࢀࡓࡢࡔ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆࠊཷ┈⤖ࡢኚ໬࡬ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡦ࡜ࡲ࡜ࡲ

ᯝ࠿ࡽ㢳ࡳ࡚⣡ᚓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸦17㸧࡛ࡣᮍࡾ࡟ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖ⇍࡞≧ែࡢ⚾࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࢆ௒⌧ᅾࡢᆅ఩ࡢ⚾ࡣࠕཷ┈ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ኚ໬⤖ᯝࡢᎰࡋࡉࡸ‶㊊ࠊឤ

࠿ࡽ㢳ࡳ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㢳ࡳ࠿ࡽ⏕ࡲࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽㅰ࡜࠸࠺ឤ᝟ࢆࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺࡛ࠖ⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

⪅ࡸ஦ែ࡬ࡢヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢឤㅰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ

ࡇࢀࢆᮏ◊✲ࡢ⤖ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚♧ࡍࠋ࠺࡟ࠊཷ┈⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࡢ㢳ࡳࡶࠊ㏫ྥࡁࡢࣉࣟࢭ

᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡀ࡞ࡐᏑᅾࡍ

ࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ┈ࡢࡦ࡜ࡲ࡜ࡲࡾࢆᡂ

ࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ3.1 ࡛ぢࡓࡼ࠺࡞ࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡢཷ┈࡜࠸࠺ࠑ⮬ᕫ࣭୰ᚰⓗࠒ࡞ࡶࡢࡢぢ᪉࡜ ௨ୖࠊ⏝౛࡜⪃ᐹ࠿ࡽࠊࠕാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ

ཎᅉ஦ែࢆ⮬ࡽ࡟య㦂ⓗ࡟㛵୚ࡉࡏࡿ᪥ᮏㄒ

ᩥ࡛ࡶࠕᛮ࠸ࡀࡅࡎ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ࡛ࡶࠊヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖヰ⪅ࡢࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒࡢ≉ᚩ࠿ࡽࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡢཷ┈⤖ᯝ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠊཎᅉ⾜Ⅽࡸ஦ែࢆ௓ࡋࡓ

௒ᚋࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒヰ⪅ࡢཷ┈ࠑ஦ែᢕᥱࠒࢆ⾲ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋḟ࡟ᮏ◊✲ࢆࡍࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ୍ຓࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ࡜࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡞◊✲ࢆ㐍ࡵࡓ࠸࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

1

⾜Ⅽࡣ᭷᝟≀ࡢពᚿ⾜Ⅽ࡟㝈ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠕ⚾ࠖࡢཷ┈ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣヰ⪅ࠕ⚾ࠖࡀㄆ㆑ࡋࡓ௚⪅ࢆྵࡴሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣ 1 ࡘࡢㄽ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ㄽࡎࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠕ⚾ࠖ࡟㞟⣙ࡉࡏ࡚ㄽࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
3 ┈ᒸ㸦2001:28-30㸧ࡣࠕ஦ែ࡟ᑐࡍࡿዲࡲࡋࡉ࡛ࠖࠊࡑࢀࡣࠕ୺ほⓗ㡿ᇦࡢၥ㢟ࠖࡔ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⏤஭㸦1996:55㸧ࡣࠕࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ
ࠊࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ࡟⾲ࡉࢀࡿᜠᜨࡢព࿡ࡣࠊᡤ᭷ᶒࡢ⛣ື࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ᡂศ
࠿ࡽὴ⏕ࡍࡿࠊ
ࠓᜠᜨࠔࡀ஧⪅㛫࡛⛣ືࡀ࠶ࡿ᫬࡟㝈ࡾ௜㝶ࡍࡿ᥎ㄽⓗព࿡ࡔ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
4 ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀ㐩ᡂࡍࡿ㏵୰ࡢẁ㝵࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶᚰ⌮ⓗ࡞ཷ┈ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
5 ࡇࢀ࠿ࡽཷ┈ࡍࡿព㆑࡜⤖ᯝⓗ࡟ཷ┈ࡋࡓࠊ࡜࠸࠺ព㆑ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣࠊࠕཷ┈⤖ᯝ࡟ྥࡅ࡚⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡸ஦ែࡢᡂࡾ⾜ࡁࡀ௒ࠊ㐍⾜୰࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព㆑ࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࡇࢀࢆ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡢ⾜Ⅽࡸ஦ែࡣ᪤࡟Ⓨ⏕ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊཷ┈᪤ᐇ⌧᫬࡟ྵࡵࠊཷ┈ᮍᐇ⌧᫬࡜ཷ┈᪤ᐇ⌧᫬࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿࠋ
6 ලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏ࡛ 2011 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 11 ᪥࡟㉳ࡁࡓᕧ኱ᆅ㟈࣭ὠἼ࡜ཎᏊຊⓎ㟁ᡤࡢ஦ᨾ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿᮾ᪥
ᮏ኱㟈⅏࡜࠸࠺ࠊᙜ᫬᪥ᮏ࡟࠸ࢀࡤㄡࡶࡀ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆ᭱ࡶ୰ᚰ࡟ᢅࡗࡓࠊ⩣᪥
ࡢ 2011 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 12 ᪥࠿ࡽ 2011 ᖺ 4 ᭶ 20 ᪥ࡲ࡛ࡢᮅ᪥᪂⪺ᮅห࡜ኤหࠊྕእ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➹⪅ࡀࡑࡇ࠿ࡽࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࢆᢳฟࡋࡓࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ⿕⅏⪅ࠊᅜࠊᅜẸࠊ఍♫㛫࡟ከࡃࡢ౫㢗ࡸ⾜ືせồࡸཷ┈⤖ᯝࡀ⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋణࡋࠊࡇࡢ㛫ࡢ඲࡚ࡢྕእ࡜ᮅห࡜ኤห࠿ࡽࡢᢳฟ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
7」ᩥ࡛ࡣࠕ㸦⪺ࡁᡭࡀ㸧㹼ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡤ࠸࠸ࠖ࡜ࠊཷ┈⾜Ⅽࡣ௚⪅ࡀཷࡅ࡚ࡶࠊ
ࠕ࠸࠸ࠖ࡜ヰ⪅ࡀุ᩿ࡍࡿᩥࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ⏝౛ᩘ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ௒ᚋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ከࡃࡢ㈨ᩱ࠿ࡽࡢ᳨ドࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
8 ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡀᩥᮎ࡟⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ุ᩿࡛ࡁࡿᩥ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⏝౛ 133 ౛㸦n=133㸧ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊཷ┈ᮍᐇ⌧᫬ࡢ⏝౛ࡣィ 88 ౛࡛ࠊᩥᮎ⾲⌧඲య㸦n=133㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ 66.2%࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
2

7
−79−

授受動詞「もらう」の補助動詞的用法の考察―話者の受益結果と受益プロセス―ཷ┈᪤ᐇ⌧᫬ࡢ⏝౛ࡣ 133 ౛୰ 45 ౛࡛ 33.8%࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ௒ᅇࡢㄪᰝ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡣࠊ
ࡇࢀ࠿ࡽཷ┈ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍሙྜࡢ᪉ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ⾲⌧ࡢᢳฟᩘ࡜๭ྜࢆ௨ୗࡢ⾲㸯࡟♧ࡍࠋ
⾲ 1.ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥࡢཷ┈ࡢᮍᐇ⌧࣭᪤ᐇ⌧࡜ࠊ᥋⥆ࡍࡿ⾲⌧ᙧᘧࡢഴྥ
241 ౛(100%)ͤᮍᐇ⌧᪤ᐇ⌧ุู୙⬟ 8 ౛(3.3%)ࢆྵࡴ
ᩥᮎࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ (n=133)
133 ౛(55.2%)」ᩥᚑᒓ⠇ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖ(n=100)
100 ౛(41.5%)ᮍᐇ⌧ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ

᪤ᐇ⌧ࡢࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖᩥ

88 ౛(66.2%)
45 ౛(33.8%)ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸ࠖ
ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠾࠺ࠖ ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋࠖࠕ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚࠸
ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠋ
ࠖࡿࠖࠕ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠖ
ࠕ࡚࠾ࡃࠖ
84 ౛(84.0%)
16 ౛(16.0%)᮲௳⠇ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡤࠖ➼࡚⠇ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚ࠊ㹼ࡋࡓࠖ➼࡚⠇ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚ࠊ㹼ࡍࡿࠖ➼

9㸦6㸧ࡣࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢ㘓㡢ࡢ᭩ࡁ㉳ࡇࡋ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㸺⊂ࡾゝ㸼࡜ὀグࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
10 ᪂⪺㈨ᩱࡢ୰࡛⅏ᐖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᘬ⏝୰ࡢᅛ᭷ྡモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ௚┴ࠊ
⿕⅏ᆅࠊ
㹙᪋タྡ㹛
ࠊ
࡞࡝࡜ࡋ࡚࠶ࡿࠋ
11ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠕ࡚⠇ࠖࡣࠊ㐃⏝୰Ṇᙧࠕ㹼ࡋࠊࠖ➼ࢆྵࡴࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢㅬㆡㄒᙧࠕ㹼࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡃࠖࡣࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣᚅ㐝ࢆほⅬ࡜ࡋ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ
ࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢᢅ࠸࡟ྵࡵࡿࠋ
12 ࡲࡓ⡿┒㸦2007㸧ࡀ◊✲ࡋࠊゎㄝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢㄽ⌮Ꮫ⪅࣭⛉ᏛဴᏛ⪅ࢳ࣮ࣕࣝࢬ࣭ࣃ࣮ࢫ
㸦Charles Sanders Peirce, 1839-1914㸧ࡢ᪂ࡓ࡞᥎ㄽࡢᴫᛕࠕ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥ㸦abduction㸧ࠖࡶᮏ◊✲ࡢࠕ㢳ࡳࠖ࡟࠶࡚ࡣࡵࡽࢀࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ㅰ㎡ᮏ✏ࢆᇳ➹ࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡾࠊ኱఍Ⓨ⾲఍࡟࠾ࡁࡲࡋ࡚ࡣ㈗㔜࡞ࡈពぢࢆከࡃࡢ᪉ࠎ࠿ࡽ㡬ࡁࡲࡋࡓ஦ࢆࠊ
ᚰࡼࡾឤㅰ⮴ࡋࡲࡍࠋ㈨ᩱ
࠙ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࠚ
⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲఍㸦1999㸧ࠗዪᛶࡢࡇ࡜ࡤ࣭⫋ሙ⦅࠘ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ
⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲఍㸦2002㸧
ࠗ⏨ᛶࡢࡇ࡜ࡤ࣭⫋ሙ⦅࠘ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ
࠙᪂⪺ࠚ
2011 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 12 ᪥࠿ࡽ 2011 ᖺ 4 ᭶ 20 ᪥ࡲ࡛ࡢᮅ᪥᪂⪺ᮅห࡜ኤหࠊྕእ࠿ࡽᮏㄽ➹⪅ࡀࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࢆ㐠⏝ࡋࡓᩥࢆᢳฟࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ụୖ჆ᙪ㸦2006㸧ࠗⱥㄒࡢឤぬ࣭᪥ᮏㄒࡢឤぬ㸺ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢព࿡㸼ࡢࡋࡃࡳ࠘᪥ᮏᨺ㏦ฟ∧༠఍NHK ࣈࢵࢡࢫ[1066]ụୖ჆ᙪ㸦2007㸧ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒㄽ࠘⟃ᦶᏛⱁᩥᗜ ⟃ᦶ᭩ᡣụୖ჆ᙪ㸦2011㸧ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ୺ほᛶ࣭୺యᛶࠖ
ࠗࡦࡘࡌព࿡ㄽㅮᗙ ➨ 5 ᕳ ୺ほᛶ࡜୺యᛶ࠘ࡦࡘ
ࡌ᭩ᡣ pp.49-67ゅ⏣୕ᯞ㸦2004㸧ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⠇࣭ᩥࡢ㐃᥋࡜ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧┈ᒸ㝯ᚿ㸦2001㸧ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᤵཷືモ࡜ᜠᜨᛶࠖ᭶หࠗゝㄒ࠘Vol.30,No.5.኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ pp.26-32
ᒣ⏣ᩄᘯ㸦2004㸧ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ࣋ࢿࣇ࢓ࢡࢸ࢕ࣈ㸫ࠕ࡚ࡸࡿࠖࠕ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖࠕ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࠖࡢᩥἲ࠘᫂
἞᭩㝔ᒣᮏ⿱Ꮚ㸦2006㸧ࠗ᪉ྥᛶࢆᣢࡘ⿵ຓືモࡢព࿡࡜ᶵ⬟࠘ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔༤ኈㄽᩥ⏤஭⣖ஂᏊ㸦1996㸧ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒືモ࡟࠾ࡅࡿព࿡ࡢᢳ㇟໬㐣⛬ࡢ◊✲㸫⿵ຓືモ⏝ἲࢆࡶࡘືモࡢព࿡ศᯒ㸫࠘኱㜰኱Ꮫ༤ኈㄽᩥ
⡿┒⿱஧㸦2007㸧ࠗ࢔ࣈࢲࢡࢩࣙࣥ ௬ㄝ࡜Ⓨぢࡢㄽ⌮࠘ວⲡ᭩ᡣ

8
−80−



第16回大会発表論文集第９号

᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モࡢㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲ᭯፭ =HQJ-LQJ ୖᾏእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ

㸺$EVWUDFW㸼7KHDLPRIP\VWXG\LVWRVKRZWKHGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQ“GLVFRXUVHGHL[LVXVH”DQG“WH[WDQDSKRUDXVH”RI-DSDQHVHGHPRQVWUDWLYHV3UHYLRXVVWXGLHVRQWKHGHL[LVXVHRI-DSDQHVHGHPRQVWUDWLYHLVOLPLWHG
WRWKHH[WUDOLQJXLVWLFZRUOG7KHUHODWLRQVEHWZHHQGHPRQVWUDWLYHVDQGWKHLUDQWHFHGHQWVDUHUHFRJQL]HG
DV“DQDSKRUDXVH”DVXVXDO7KLVSDSHUSUHVHQWVWKDWZKHQWKHDQWHFHGHQWLVQRWDQHZLQIRUPDWLRQLQWKH
FRQWH[WLWFDQEHFRQVLGHUHGDVD“GLVFRXUVHGHL[LVXVH”ZKLFKLVDOVRFDOOHG“LPSXUHWH[WGHL[LV”LQ
/\RQV  ,QGLVFRXUVHGHL[LVXVHVLQFHWKHSRVWHULRUFRQWH[WLVDUHYLHZRUDSDUDSKUDVHRIWKH
DQWHFHGHQWWKHFRQWH[WEHIRUHDQGDIWHUWKHGHPRQVWUDWLYHUHIHUWRWKHVDPHLQIRUPDWLRQ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸ᣦ♧モ㸪ㄯヰ┤♧㸪ᩥ⬦↷ᛂ㸪᪂つ᝟ሗ ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊゝㄒෆୡ⏺ࡢ┤♧ࡍࡿࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲ 'LVFRXUVHGHLFWLFXVH ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧モ◊✲࡟ࡣࠊ㔠Ỉ  ࠊᒸᓮ  ࡞࡝ࡢ┤♧࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࢥ࣭ࢯ
ࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࡢゎ᫂࡟ࡣ኱ࡁࡃ㈉⊩ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡸⱥㄒ࡞࡝஧㡯ᣦ♧య⣔ࡢẕㄒヰ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ୕㡯ᣦ♧య⣔ࢆᣢࡘ᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࡣࠊ኱ࡁ࡞ၥ㢟࡟࡞ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤḟࡢࠗ㞷ᅜ࠘ࡢ᪥࣭୰࣭ⱥㄒࡢᑐ↷࡛ࡣࠊᣦ♧๪モࠕࡑ࠺ࠖࡣⱥㄒ࡛ࡶ୰ᅜㄒ࡛ࡶᣦ♧モ࡟ヂࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ㻝㻕
a. 䛂䛚ᖌ໶䛥䜣䛸䛣䛾ፉ䛿䜎䛰䛔䜛䛛䛔䛃㻌㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 䛂䜈䛘䚸䛚䜚䜎䛩䛚䜚䜎䛩䚹㥐䛻䛚䜚䜎䛧䛯䛜䚸ᚚぴ䛻䛺䜚䜎䛫䜣䛷䛧䛯䚸⃰䛔㟷䛾䝬䞁䝖䜢╔䛶䛃㻌㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 䛂䛒䜜䛜䛭䛖䛰䛳䛯䛾䠛䇷䇷ᚋ䛷࿧䜉䜛䛰䜝䛖䛃㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻨㞷ᅜ㻪㻌㼎㻚㻌䇾㻵㼟㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼓㼕㼞㼘㻌㼣㼔㼛㻌㼘㼕㼢㼑㼐㻌㼣㼕㼠㼔㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼙㼡㼟㼕㼏㻌㼠㼑㼍㼏㼔㼑㼞㻌㼟㼠㼕㼘㼘㻌㼍㼞㼛㼡㼚㼐㻫䇿㻌㻌 㻌 䇾㻿㼔㼑㻓㼟㻌㼟㼠㼕㼘㼘㻌㼍㼞㼛㼡㼚㼐㻚㻌㼅㼛㼡㻌㼐㼕㼐㼚㻓㼠㻌㼟㼑㼑㻌㼔㼑㼞㻌㼕㼚㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼟㼠㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻫㻌㻵㼚㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼐㼍㼞㼗㻙㼎㼘㼡㼑㻌㼏㼍㼜㼑㻫䇿㻌 㻌㻌 㻌 䇾㻿㼛㻌㼠㼔㼍㼠㻓㼟㻌㼣㼔㼛㻌㼕㼠㻌㼣㼍㼟㻚㻌㼃㼑㻌㼏㼍㼚㻌㼏㼍㼘㼘㻌㼔㼑㼞㻌㼘㼍㼠㼑㼞㻘㻌㻵㻌㼟㼡㼜㼜㼛㼟㼑㻫䇿㻌 㻌 㻨㻿㼚㼛㼣㻌㻯㼛㼡㼚㼠㼞㼥㻪㻌㻌ǤĀ㘱ᐸ‫ڵ‬ᇦⲴခ၈䘈൘ੇ˛ā㻌㻌 Āటˈ䘈൘ˈ䘈൘Ǆ൘䖖ㄉкᛘ⋑ⴻ㿱˛ᣛ⵰␡㬍㢢ᯇ㈧ⲴቡᱟǄā㻌㻌 Āቡᱟྩ˛ĂĂഎཤਟԕ䈧ྩᶕੇ˛ā ˘䴚ഭ ୰ ˚㻌᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ D ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰ ◚⥺㒊 ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍሙྜࠊ௦ྡモࡢ࠿ࢃࡾ࡟ᣦ♧๪モࠕࡑ࠺ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢㄪᰝ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࠊㄯヰ┤♧ࡢሙྜᣦ♧๪モࡀࡼࡃ౑ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢၥ㢟ࡢゎỴࢆồࡵࡿࠋձ㸬᪥ᮏㄒࡢㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲ࡜ࡣ࡞࡟࠿ࠋ
ղ㸬ㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲࡀ࡝ࢇ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ
ճ㸬᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧モࡀ࡝ࡢࡃࡽ࠸ࠕㄯヰ┤♧ࠖ࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ
ࡲࡎࠊࠕㄯヰ┤♧ࠖ࡜ࠕᩥ⬦↷ᛂࠖ࡜ࡢ┦㐪Ⅼࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᐃ⩏ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊရモู࡛ㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫศᯒ࡛ㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲࡢ౑⏝ᐇែࢆゎ᫂ࡋࠊࡑࡢ≉ᚩࢆὙ࠸ฟࡍࠋ ㄯヰ┤♧࡜ᩥ⬦↷ᛂ࡜ࡢ෌ᐃ⩏ ࠕㄯヰ┤♧ࠖ࡜ࡣఱ࠿
᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧モ◊✲࡛࡯ࡰᐃㄝ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ┤♧ࡢᐃ⩏ࡣࠊ㔠Ỉ  ࡟ࡼࡿࠕ┤♧࡜ࡣࠊࠕㄯヰ࡟ඛ❧ࡗ࡚ࠊゝㄒእୡ⏺࡟࠶ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜ヰࡋᡭࡀㄆࡵࡿᑐ㇟ࢆ┤᥋ᣦࡋ♧ࡋࠊゝㄒⓗᩥ⬦࡟ྲྀࡾ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ 㔠Ỉ ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
Ḣ⡿ࡢࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫࡢ◊✲ᡂᯝࢆཷࡅධࢀࡿΏ㎶  ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊゝㄒෆୡ⏺ࡢၥ㢟ࡣࢸࢡࢫࢺࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫ ㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲ ࡢၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲࡀ↓どࡉࢀࡿཎᅉ
ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ┤♧⏝ἲࡀゝㄒእୡ⏺࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࠊゝㄒෆୡ⏺ࡢ┤♧ࡀ↓どࡉࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࠊᩥ⬦ᣦ♧࠿㠀┤♧⏝ἲࠊ↷ᛂ⏝ἲ࡟ྠᐃࡉࢀࡿࡢࡀ୍⯡ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
㻞㻕୕ᮌ䛥䜣䚸䛣䜜䛿኱஦䛺䛣䛸䛷䛩䛛䜙䚸䜘䛟⪃䛘䛶䛟䛰䛥䛔䚹䜹䝯䝎䛸䛔䛖ே䛜䚸ᅵᆅ䛻ᚰᙜ䛯䜚䛿䛒䜚䜎䛫䜣䛛䚹㻔䝅䝘䝸䜸㻌 ◁䛾ჾ䠈㔠Ỉ䞉⏣❑ 㻝㻥㻥㻜䠈ᚋ᪉ᩥ⬦ᣦ♧䛾౛㻕㻌㻟㻕䛂௒᪥䛾ᤵᴗ䛿䛣䜜䛷⤊䜟䜚䛃ඛ⏕䛿䚸䛭䛖ゝ䛖䛸ᩍᐊ䜢ฟ䛶䛔䛳䛯䚹㻔ᒸᓮ 㻞㻜㻝㻜䠖㻞㻞㻝䠈↷ᛂ⏝ἲ䛾౛㻕㻌



−81−

日本語指示詞の談話直示用法㔠Ỉ࣭ᒸᓮ࣭᭫  ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊࢥ⣔ࡢ㠀┤♧⏝ἲࡣ┤♧⏝ἲࡢᣑᙇ࡜ࡉࢀࠊ
ࠕᩥ⬦ෆ┤♧⏝ἲࠖࡢ୍✀࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࢯ⣔ࡢ㠀┤♧⏝ἲࡣ┤♧ࡢᣑᙇ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ୺࡟ゝㄒⓗ࡞⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄯヰ࡟ᑟධࡉࢀࡓ
せ⣲ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࢯ⣔ࡢ┤♧⏝ἲࡢᣦ♧㡿ᇦ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࢯ⣔ࡀከࡃ⌧ࢀࡿࡢࡣ⌧ሙ┤♧࡟࠾ࡅࡿሙᡤ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿ 㔠Ỉ࣭ᒸᓮ࣭᭫  ࠋࢥ⣔ࡢࠕᩥ⬦ෆ┤♧⏝ἲࠖࡣᮏ✏ࡢㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲ࡜୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࢯ⣔ࡢᣦ♧モࡣ⌧ሙ┤♧ࡢ࡯࠿ࠊㄯ
ヰࡢ┤♧࡟ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡣࠊࡑࡢࠕᩥ⬦ෆ┤♧⏝ἲࠖࢆ㠀┤♧⏝ἲ࠿ࡽศ㞳ࡋࠊ᭷ᩥ⬦ࡢᣦ♧ᶵ⬟ࢆࠕㄯヰ┤♧ࠖ࡜ࠕᩥ⬦↷ᛂࠖ࡟ศࡅࡿࠋ
ㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲࡀ᭱ึ࡟┤♧ࡢ୍✀࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓࡢࡣ /\RQV  ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕWH[WGHL[LVࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡓࠋ
)LOOPRUH  ࠊ /HYLQVRQ  ࡞ ࡝ ࡛ ࡣࠊ ࡑ ࢀ ࡀ ┤ ♧⏝ ἲ ࡢ ୍ ࡘ ࡜ࡋ ࡚ ྲྀ ࡾ ᢅ ࢃࢀ ࡿ ࠋ ㄯ ヰ ┤♧ ࡜ ↷ ᛂ
DQDSKRUD ࡢ┦㐪Ⅼࡣࠊ/HYLQVRQ  ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦⮬యࡸࡑࡢ୍㒊ࡢෆᐜࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍሙྜࡣㄯヰ┤♧࡛࠶ࡾࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࡜ྠ୍ࡢ㡯┠ࢆᣦ♧ࡍࡿሙྜࡣ↷ᛂ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋṧᛕ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ/HYLQVRQ  ࡢศᯒࡣᵓᩥୖࡢ≉ᚩࡋ࠿ゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊࠕㄯヰ┤♧ࡀ࡞ࡐ↷ᛂ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ┤♧࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢၥ㢟ࡀṧࡉࢀࡲࡋࡓࠋ
 ᩥ⬦↷ᛂ࡜ㄯヰ┤♧࡜ࡢ㐪࠸ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ᪂つ᝟ሗᑟධࡢ᭷↓ࡀᩥ⬦↷ᛂ࡜ㄯヰ┤♧࡜ࡢ㐪࠸࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ
ᣦ♧モ࡟㛵ࢃࡿᩥ⬦᝟ሗࡢ⌧ࢀࡿ㡰␒࡟ࡼࡾࠊ୍ḟ᝟ሗ࡜஧ḟ᝟ሗ࡟ศࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋᣦ♧ෆᐜࡀᣦ♧モࡢ๓ᩥ⬦࡟࠶ࡿ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ๓᪉ᣦ♧ࡢሙྜࠊ୍ḟ᝟ሗࡣᣦ♧ෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ஧ḟ᝟ሗࡣᣦ♧モࡢ㛵㐃ᩥ⠇࡛࠶ࡿࠋᣦ♧ෆᐜࡀᣦ♧モࡢᚋᩥ⬦࡟࠶ࡿᚋ᪉ᣦ♧ࡢሙྜࠊᣦ♧モࡢ㛵㐃ᩥ⠇ࡀ୍ḟ᝟ሗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᣦ♧ෆᐜࡀ஧ḟ᝟ሗ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ஧ḟ᝟ሗ୍࡛ḟ᝟ሗ࡜␗࡞ࡿ᝟ሗࡀ⌧ࢀࡿሙྜࠊࡑࡢ᝟ሗࢆࠕ᪂つ᝟ሗࠖ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࠋ
ㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲ࡛ࡣ๓ᩥ⬦ࡢ୍ḟ᝟ሗ࡜ᚋᩥ⬦ࡢ஧ḟ᝟ሗ࡜ࡣྠࡌព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊ᪂つ᝟ሗࡀᑟධࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋᩥ⬦↷ᛂ⏝ἲ࡛ࡣ୍ḟ᝟ሗ࡜஧ḟ᝟ሗ࡛⾲ࡍព࿡ࡀ␗࡞ࡾࠊ஧ḟ᝟ሗࡀ᪂つ᝟ሗ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ௨ୗ࡟౛ࢆ࠶ࡆ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ ࡣㄯヰ┤♧ࡢ๓᪉ᣦ♧࡛࠶ࡾࠊ  ࡣᩥ⬦↷ᛂࡢᚋ᪉ᣦ♧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ◚⥺㒊ࡣᣦ♧ෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡾࠊୗ⥺㒊ࡣᣦ♧モ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻠㻕䜻䝎䠖䛂⮬↛䛻ඃ䛧䛟䚸ே㛫䛻ཝ䛧䛟䚹䛃㻌㏆⸨䠖䛂䛭䛖䛷䛩䚹䛭䜜䛜䜟䛯䛧䛾ᣢㄽ䛷䛩䚹䛃㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻨䛣䜜䛜㻪㻌㻡㻕㻭㻦䛂ᮏᙜ䛻ඛ㍮䛰䜟䛃㻌 㻌 㻌㻮㻦䛂䛰䛸䛧䛶䜒䚸䛭䛾ඛ㍮䛿⏨䛰䛺䛃䚹㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻨ᜊᩥ㻪㻌ୖグࡢ౛ࢆศᯒࡍࡿ࡜ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ᣦ♧モ㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ᣦ♧ෆᐜ㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ୍ḟ᝟ሗ㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ஧ḟ᝟ሗ㻌㻠㻙㼍㻕㻌 䛭䛖㻌 㻌 㻌 ⮬↛䛻䈈ཝ䛧䛟㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ⮬↛䛻䈈䛻ཝ䛧䛟㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㽢㻌㻠㻙㼎㻕㻌 䛭䜜㻌 㻌 㻌 ⮬↛䛻䈈ཝ䛧䛟㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ⮬↛䛻䈈䛻ཝ䛧䛟㻌 㻌 䠙㻌 㻌 䜟䛯䛧䛾ᣢㄽ㻌㻡䠅㻌 㻌 㻌 䛭䛾㻌 㻌 㻌 ඛ㍮㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ᮏᙜ䛻ඛ㍮䛰䜟㻌 㻌 䍴㻌 㻌 ඛ㍮䛿⏨䛰㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌D ࡛ࡣࠊ୍ḟ᝟ሗࡣࠕ⮬↛࡟ඃࡋࡃࠊே㛫࡟ཝࡋࡃࠖࠊ஧ḟ᝟ሗࡣࠕࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࠖࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠕ⮬↛࡟ඃࡋࡃࠊ
ே㛫࡟ཝࡋࡃ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡍࠖ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ୍ḟ᝟ሗ࡜஧ḟ᝟ሗࡣྠࡌࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋࠊ᪂つ᝟ሗࡣᑟධࡉ
ࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᣦ♧モࡣ୍ḟ᝟ሗࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡾࡢグྕ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢෆᐜࢆ┤᥋࡟ᣦࡋ♧ࡍࠋ
E ࡛ࡣࠊ୍ḟ᝟ሗࡣࠕ⮬↛࡟ඃࡋࡃࠊே㛫࡟ཝࡋࡃࠖ
ࠊ஧ḟ᝟ሗࡣ㛵㐃ᩥ⠇ࡢࠕࢃࡓࡋࡢᣢㄽ࡛ࡍࠖࠊࡍ࡞ࢃ
ࡕࠕ⮬↛࡟ඃࡋࡃࠊே㛫࡟ཝࡋࡃ ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ ࢃࡓࡋࡢᣢㄽ࡛ࡍࠖࠋࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ୍ḟ᝟ሗ࡜஧ḟ᝟ሗ࡜ࡣ➼౯㛵ಀ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ᪂つ᝟ሗࡣᑟධࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡇ࠺ࡋ࡚ࠊ D ࡜ E ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⏝ἲࢆㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠋ ࡛ࡣࠊ୍ḟ᝟ሗࡣࠕᮏᙜ࡟ඛ㍮ࡔࢃࠖࠊ஧ḟ᝟ሗࡣࠕࡔ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࡢඛ㍮ࡣ⏨ࡔ࡞ࠖࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕྠࡌࠕඛ㍮ࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᣦ♧モࠕࡑࡢࠖࡀ஧ḟ᝟ሗࢆ୍ḟ᝟ሗ࡟ࣜࣥࢡࡉࡏࡿ࣐࣮࣮࢝࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᣦ♧モࡣ୍ḟ᝟ሗ࡜↷ᛂ㛵ಀࢆᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋ࡚ࠊ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⏝ἲࢆᩥ⬦↷ᛂ⏝ἲ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠋせࡍࡿ࡟ࠊㄯヰ┤♧ࡢሙྜࠊᣦ♧モཬࡧࡑࡢ㛵㐃ᩥ⠇ࡀᣦ♧ෆᐜࡢ⥲ᣓࡲࡓࡣゝ࠸᥮࠼࡜࡞ࡾࠊ᪂つ᝟ሗࡀᑟධࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᩥ⬦↷ᛂࡢሙྜࠊᣦ♧モࡀᣦ♧ෆᐜ࡜ྠ୍ᑐ㇟࡜↷ᛂࡍࡿࡀࠊ㛵㐃ᩥ⠇ࡀᣦ♧ෆᐜ࡜␗࡞ࡿෆ
ᐜ࡜࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊ᪂つ᝟ሗࡀᑟධࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲ࡜ᩥ⬦↷ᛂ⏝ἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᣦ♧モ࡜๓ᚋᩥ⬦࡜ࡢᵓᩥⓗ㛵ಀࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ௨ୗࡢᅗ࡛ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᅗ㻝㻚 ྛ⏝ἲ䛻䛚䛡䜛ᣦ♧モ䛸๓ᚋᩥ⬦䛸䛾ᵓᩥⓗ㛵ಀ
㻌












−82−

第16回大会発表論文集


第９号











ㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲ࡛ࡣࠊ๓᪉ᣦ♧࠿ᚋ᪉ᣦ♧࠿࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊᣦ♧モ࡜㛵㐃ᩥ⠇ࡀ➼౯㛵ಀࢆ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᣦ♧モࡀ๓᪉ᣦ♧୍࡛ḟ᝟ሗࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡋࠊ୍ḟ᝟ሗࡢࡲ࡜ࡵ࡟ࡶᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࠋ➨  ⠇ࡢ  ࠊ  ࠊ  ࡀ๓᪉ᣦ♧ࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚋ᪉ᣦ♧࡛ࡣࠊᣦ♧モࡀ஧ḟ᝟ሗࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡋࠊ஧ḟ᝟ሗࡢෆᐜࢆࡦ࡜ࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ࡟ࡍࡿࠋᚋ᪉ᣦ♧ࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ➨  ⠇ࡢ  ࠊ  ࢆཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠋ
௨ୖࡢ⌮⏤࡛ࠊᮏ✏ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モࡢㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲ࡜ᩥ⬦↷ᛂ⏝ἲࡢᐃ⩏ࢆḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ
࠙ㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲࠚ㸸ᣦ♧モ䛻䜘䜚䚸఍ヰ䜔ᩥ❶䛾๓ᚋ䛾ᩥ⬦䛻ฟ⌧䛩䜛ゝㄒ⾲⌧䛭䛾䜒䛾䜢┤♧䛩䜛ᣦ♧䛷䛒䜛䚹๓ᩥ⬦䛾୍ḟ᝟ሗ䛸ᚋᩥ⬦䛾஧ḟ᝟ሗ䛸䛿ྠ䛨ព࿡䜢⾲䛧䚸➼౯㛵ಀ䜢ᡂ䛩䚹ᣦ♧モ䛿᪂つ᝟ሗ䜢ᑟධ䛫䛪䛻ㄯヰ䛾䜎䛸䜑䛻ᶵ⬟䛩䜛䚹䛭䛾ᣦ♧ෆᐜ䛾ྠᐃ䛜䡠ᩥ⬦䛻ᇶ䛵䛔䛶⾜䜟䜜䜛䚹࠙ᩥ⬦↷ᛂ⏝ἲࠚ㸸ᣦ♧モ䛻䜘䜚䚸ᩥ❶䜔఍ヰ䛾๓ᚋ䛾ᩥ⬦䛻ฟ⌧䛩䜛ゝㄒ⾲⌧䛸ྠ୍ᑐ㇟䛸↷ᛂ䛩䜛ᣦ♧䛷䛒䜛䚹㻌 ๓ᩥ⬦䛾୍ḟ᝟ሗ䛸ᚋᩥ⬦䛾஧ḟ᝟ሗ䛷⾲䛩ព࿡䛜␗䛺䜚䚸஧ḟ᝟ሗ䛜᪂つ᝟ሗ䛸䛺䜛䚹ᣦ♧モ䛿᪂つ᝟ሗ䜢ᑟධ䛧䛺䛜䜙๓ᚋᩥ⬦䛾㐃᥋䛻ᶵ⬟䛩䜛䚹䛭䛾ᣦ♧ෆᐜ䛾ྠᐃ䛜䡠ᩥ⬦䛻ᇶ䛵䛔䛶⾜䜟䜜䜛䚹ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋᩥ⬦↷ᛂ⏝ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣู㏵ヲᐹࡍࡿࠋ ㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲࡢᛶ㉁
 ᣦ♧๪モ࡜ᣦ♧௦ྡモࡢㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲᣦ♧モࡢㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲࡣࠊရモู࡛ḟࡢ౛ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋୗ⥺㒊ࡣᣦ♧モ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ◚⥺㒊ࡣᣦ♧ෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㻢㻕௒䜎䛥䛻ᒁ㛗䛜䛚䛳䛧䜓䛔䜎䛧䛯䜘䛖䛻䚸‽ഛ㔠䛺䜣䛛䛿ᙧ䜢ኚ䛘䛯⮬ᕫ㈨ᮏẚ⋡䜏䛯䛔䛺䜒䛾䛷䛤䛦䛔䜎䛧䛶䚸䛹䛣䜈タᐃ䛩䜛䛾䛛䛸䛔䛖䛾䛿ᾘ㈝⪅䛾ಖㆤ䛸䛣䛾ᴗົ䛾⮬⏤ᛶ䛸䛔䛖䜘䛖䛺䜒䛾䛾ᘬ䛳ᙇ䜚ྜ䛔䛻䛺䜛䛾䛛䛺䚸䛣䛖ᛮ䛔䜎䛩䚹㻌 㻨ᅜ఍䚸㻝㻥㻥㻤㻪㻌㻣㻕䛂᫖ኪ䛾ẅே䛻㛵䛩䜛൅䛾᥎⌮䛿䛣䛖䛷䛩䚹≢ே䛿䛣䛾㞳ᐙ䛻ఱ䛛┦ㄯ䛜䛒䜛䛸ゝ䛔䚸⥙ᒣ䛥䜣䜢䚸ᐗ఍䛜䛚㛤䛝䛻䛺䛳䛯┤ᚋ䛻࿧䜃ฟ䛧䜎䛧䛯䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸᪥ᮏย䛷᩾䜚䛴䛡䚸ẅᐖ䛧䛯䛾䛷䛩䚹䛃㻌 㻨ྡ᥈ഄ㻪㻌㻤㻕኱Ụ䠖䛂䈈㻔๓␎㻕䛭䛖⪃䛘䛶䛟䜛䛸䚸ᨻ἞ᐙ䜒䚸୍⯡䛾ᩍᖌ䛸ྠ䛨䛷䚸㡢ᴦᐙ䛾ᩍ⫱䜢䚸䛔䛔ᩍ⫱䛾䝰䝕䝹䛸䛧䛶䜎䛸䜒䛻ཷ䛡䛸䜑䛶䜏䛯䜙䛹䛖䛰䜝䛖䛛䚹䛣䜜䛜൅䛾ពぢ䛷䛩䚹㻌 㻔ᚋ␎㻕䈈䛃㻌 㻨ྠ䛨ᖺ㻪㻌 ࠊ  ࡣᣦ♧๪モࠊ  ࡣᣦ♧௦ྡモࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᣦ♧㛵ಀࢆศᯒࡍࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
㻢㻙㼍䠅㻌 䛣䛖䠙◚⥺㒊䛾ෆᐜ䠙䛂ᛮ䛖䛃ෆᐜ㻌㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ୍ḟ᝟ሗ㻌 㻌 㻌 ஧ḟ᝟ሗ㻌㻣㻙㼍䠅㻌 䛂᫖ኪ䛾䈈൅䛾᥎⌮䛃䠙䛣䛖䠙◚⥺㒊䛾ෆᐜ㻌㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ୍ḟ᝟ሗ㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ஧ḟ᝟ሗ㻌㻤㻙㼍䠅㻌 ◚⥺㒊䛾ෆᐜ䠙䛣䜜䠙䛂൅䛾ពぢ䛃㻌㻌 㻌 ୍ḟ᝟ሗ㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ஧ḟ᝟ሗ㻌ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ  ࠊ  ࠊ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣦ♧๪モࠊᣦ♧௦ྡモࡢሙྜࠊࠕ୍ḟ᝟ሗ㸻஧ḟ᝟ሗࠖ࡜࠸࠺➼౯㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡋࠊ୍ḟ᝟ሗ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᪂つ᝟ሗࡀᑟධࡉࢀࡎࠊᣦ♧モࡀㄯヰࡢࡲ࡜ࡵ࡟ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࠋ ᣦ♧㐃యモ࡜ᣦ♧ᙧᐜືモࡢㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲ௨ୗࡢ  ࡣᣦ♧㐃యモࠊ  ࡣᣦ♧ᙧᐜືモࡢ㐃యಟ㣭ࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㻥㻕䛂ᖥᮎ௨㝆ὒ⿦䛜ᬑཬ䛩䜛䛻䛴䜜䚸᪥ᮏே䛾ᚰ䛛䜙䛿ḟ➨䛻ᛀ䜜ཤ䜙䜜䛶䛔䛝䜎䛧䛯䚹䛣䛾䛣䛸䜢ᛮ䛖䛸䜎䛣䛸䛻ᛗᛸ䛯䜛䜒䛾䛜䛒䜚䜎䛩䛜䚸㻔ᚋ␎㻕䈈䛃㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻨㧗෇ᐑ㻪㻌㻝㻜㻕 㣗ᚋ䛾䛦䛴䛰䜣䜢䛯䛾䛧䜣䛷䛔䛯䜣䛷䛩䛜䚸䝣䜱䝸䝑䝥䛿䚸䛸䛴䛬䜣䚸䛣䜣䛺䛣䛸䜢䛔䛔䛰䛧䜎䛧䛯䚹䇷䛥䛔䛝䜣䚸䜂䛸䛛䜙䛝䛔䛯ヰ䛺䜣䛷䛩䛜䚸䛸䜎䛘䛚䛝䛧䛺䛜䜙䛽䚹㻌 㻌 㻨ྡ᥈ഄ㻪㻌ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᣦ♧㛵ಀࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ





−83−

日本語指示詞の談話直示用法
㻥㻙㼍䠅㻌 ◚⥺㒊䛾ෆᐜ䠙䛂䛣䛾䛣䛸䛃䠙䛂ᛮ䛖䛃ෆᐜ㻌㻌 㻌 ୍ḟ᝟ሗ㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ஧ḟ᝟ሗ㻌㻝㻜㻙㼍䠅㻌 䛂䛣䜣䛺䛣䛸䛃䠙䛂䛔䛔䛰䛩䛃ෆᐜ䠙◚⥺㒊䛾ෆᐜ㻌㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ୍ḟ᝟ሗ㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ஧ḟ᝟ሗ㻌 ࠊ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣦ♧㐃యモࠊᣦ♧ᙧᐜືモࡢሙྜࠊᣦ♧ෆᐜࡢྠᐃࡀᣦ♧モ࡜ᙧᘧྡモ࡜ศ㞳୙ྍ⬟࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊㄯヰ┤♧࡟ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠕᣦ♧モ㸩ᙧᘧྡモࠖࡢ⤌ࡳྜࡏ࡜ㄆࡵࡊࡿࢆ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢ⤌ࡳྜࡏࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾࠊᣦ
♧๪モ࡟⨨᥮ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㻥㻙㼎䠅㻌 䛂ᖥᮎ௨㝆ὒ⿦䛜ᬑཬ䛩䜛䛻䛴䜜䚸᪥ᮏே䛾ᚰ䛛䜙䛿ḟ➨䛻ᛀ䜜ཤ䜙䜜䛶䛔䛝䜎䛧䛯䚹䛣䛖䛔䛖䛣䛸䜢ᛮ䛖䛸䜎䛣䛸䛻ᛗᛸ䛯䜛䜒䛾䛜䛒䜚䜎䛩䛜㻌 㻔ᚋ␎㻕䈈䛃㻌 㻌㻥䌦㼏䠅㻌 䛂ᖥᮎ௨㝆ὒ⿦䛜ᬑཬ䛩䜛䛻䛴䜜䚸᪥ᮏே䛾ᚰ䛛䜙䛿ḟ➨䛻ᛀ䜜ཤ䜙䜜䛶䛔䛝䜎䛧䛯䚹䛣䛖ᛮ䛖䛸䜎䛣䛸䛻ᛗᛸ䛯䜛䜒䛾䛜䛒䜚䜎䛩䛜㻌 㻔ᚋ␎㻕䈈䛃㻌 㻌㻝㻜㻙㼎㻕㻌 䈈㻔๓␎㻕䝣䜱䝸䝑䝥䛿䚸䛸䛴䛬䜣䚸䛣䛖䛔䛖䛣䛸䜢䛔䛔䛰䛧䜎䛧䛯䚹䇷䛥䛔䛝䜣䚸䜂䛸䛛䜙䛝䛔䛯ヰ䛺䜣䛷䛩䛜䚸䛸䜎䛘䛚䛝䛧䛺䛜䜙䛽䚹㻌 㻌 㻌㻝㻜㻙㼏㻕㻌 䈈㻔๓␎㻕䝣䜱䝸䝑䝥䛿䚸䛸䛴䛬䜣䚸䛣䛖䛔䛔䛰䛧䜎䛧䛯䚹䇷䛥䛔䛝䜣䚸䜂䛸䛛䜙䛝䛔䛯ヰ䛺䜣䛷䛩䛜䚸䛸䜎䛘䛚䛝䛧䛺䛜䜙䛽䚹㻌 㻌ࡑ࠺ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ
ࠕᣦ♧㐃యモᣦ♧ᙧᐜືモ㸩ᙧᘧྡモࠖࡢ⤌ࡳྜࡏࡣࠕᛮ࠺ࠖ
ࠕゝ࠸ฟࡍࠖ࡞࡝ࡢືモ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿሙྜࠊࠕᣦ♧๪モ㸩ືモࠖࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟⨨᥮ྍ⬟࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ  ࡢ౑࠸᪉࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࠕᣦ♧㐃యモᣦ
♧ᙧᐜືモ㸩ᙧᘧྡモࠖࡢ⤌ࡳྜࡏࡣࠊᣦ♧๪モ࡟⨨᥮ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸㸹ᣦ♧๪モ࡟⨨᥮୙⬟࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊᩥ⬦↷ᛂ⏝ἲࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸࡜᥎ᐹ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
㻝㻝㻕 䛣䛾ᕤసᶵᲔ䛜タィ䛥䜜䚸〇㐀䛥䜜䚸ㄪᩚ䜢⤊䛘䜛䜎䛷䛾䛒䛔䛰䚸⌧ሙ䛾⫋ဨ䛿䛣䜣䛺䛣䛸䜢⪃䛘䜎䛧䛯䚹䛄ᙜศ䛾䛒䛔䛰䚸ᪧᘧ䛾ᕤసᶵᲔ䛸䛩䛷䛻㉎ධ䛧䛶䛒䜛⏘ᴗ⏝䝻䝪䝑䝖䜢฼⏝䛧䛶䛚䛟ᡭ䛿䛺䛔䜒䛾䛰䜝䛖䛛䠛䛅䛸䚹㻌 㻨䝻䝪㻪㻌㻝㻞㻕 䛧䛛䛧䛣䛾஧䛛᭶㊊䜙䛪䛾⏣⯋య㦂䛜⚾䛻䛸䛳䛶୍⏕ᛀ䜜䜙䜜䛺䛟䚸⣲ᬕ䜙䛧䛔ᗂᖺグ᠈䛻䛺䛳䛯䚹༑ᖺవ䜚䜒㐣䛞䛯௒䛷䜒ᖖ䛻䛣䛾䛣䛸䜢ᛮ䛔ฟ䛩䚹㻌 㻌 㻨᪥ᮏㄒ㻪㻌ୖグࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊᣦ♧㛵ಀ࡟㛵ࢃࡿᩥ⬦᝟ሗࡢᵓᡂࡀࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㻝㻝㻙㼍䠅㻌 䛣䜣䛺䛣䛸䠙䛂⪃䛘䜎䛧䛯䛃ෆᐜ䠙◚⥺㒊䛾ෆᐜ㻌㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ୍ḟ᝟ሗ㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ஧ḟ᝟ሗ㻌 㻌㻝㻞㻙㼍䠅㻌 ୍ḟ᝟ሗ䠖䛣䛾஧䛛᭶㊊䜙䛪䛾⏣⯋య㦂䛜⚾䛻䛸䛳䛶୍⏕ᛀ䜜䜙䜜䛺䛟䚸⣲ᬕ䜙䛧䛔ᗂᖺグ᠈䛻䛺䛳䛯䚹㻌㻌 㻌 ஧ḟ᝟ሗ䠖༑ᖺవ䜚䜒㐣䛞䛯௒䛷䜒ᖖ䛻䛣䛾䛣䛸䜢ᛮ䛔ฟ䛩䚹㻌㻌 㻌 ᪂つ᝟ሗ䠙༑ᖺవ䜚䜒㐣䛞䛯௒䛷䜒ᖖ䛻䛣䛾஧䛛᭶㊊䜙䛪䛾⏣⯋య㦂䜢ᛮ䛔ฟ䛩䚹㻌 ࡛ࡣࠊࠕࡇࢇ࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃࠼ࡲࡋࡓࠖࡀࠕࡇ࠺⪃࠼ࡲࡋࡓࠖ࡟ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࠕ◚⥺㒊ࡢෆᐜ㸻ࡇࢇ࡞ࡇ࡜
㸻⪃࠼ࡿෆᐜࠖ࡜࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊ᪂つ᝟ሗࡢᑟධ↓ࡋࡢㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ࡛ࡣࠊ◚⥺㒊ࡢෆᐜࡀࠕᛮ࠸ฟࡍࠖෆᐜࡢ┤᥋ᣦ♧࡜ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ
ࠕࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᛮ࠸ฟࡍࠖࡣࠕࡇ࠺ᛮ
࠸ฟࡍࠖ࡟ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ๓ᩥ⬦࡟ࡣ୍ḟ᝟ሗࡢࠕࡇࡢ͐⏣⯋య㦂ࡀ͐ᗂᖺグ᠈࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠖࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊᚋ
ᩥ⬦ࡢࠕ͐ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᛮ࠸ฟࡍࠖࡣ஧ḟ᝟ሗ࡜࡞ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ  ࡀ᪂つ᝟ሗࡢᑟධ᭷ࡾࡢᩥ⬦↷ᛂ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡓࡔࡋࠊࠕᣦ♧㐃యモᣦ♧ᙧᐜືモ㸩ᙧᘧྡモࠖࡀᣦ♧๪モ࡟⨨᥮ྍ⬟࠿୙⬟࠿ࡣࠊㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲ࡜ᩥ⬦↷ᛂ⏝ἲࡢศ㢮ᇶ‽࡜ࡣ࡞ࡽࡎࠊࡓࡔ᭷ຠ࡞ุ᩿ࡍࡿ᪉ἲࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙧᘧྡモࡀᐇ㉁ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ᪂つ᝟ሗࡢᑟධ࡟↓ຠ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕᣦ♧㐃యモᣦ♧ᙧᐜືモ㸩ᙧᘧྡモࠖࡢ⤌ࡳྜࡏࡀࠊືసࡢෆᐜࢆࡦ࡜ࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ࡟ࡋ࡚┤᥋࡟ᣦ♧ࡍࡿሙྜࠊᣦ♧๪モ࡟ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࠋ┤᥋ᣦ♧ࡢሙྜࠊ᪂つ᝟ሗࡢᑟධࡀⓎ⏕ࡋ࡟ࡃࡃࠊ㠀┤᥋ᣦ♧ࡢሙྜࠊ᪂つ᝟ሗࡢᑟධࡀⓎ⏕ࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦ࡀ࠶ࡿ๓ᥦ࡛ࠊᣦ♧๪モ࡬ࡢ⨨᥮ྍྰ࡟ࡼࡾࠊᣦ♧㐃యモᣦ♧ᙧᐜືモࡀㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲ࠿ᩥ⬦↷ᛂ⏝ἲ࠿ࡀุ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ ᣦ♧๪モ࡜ᣦ♧௦ྡモࡢྛ⏝ἲࡢ౑⏝ᐇែᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᣦ♧モࡢྛ⏝ἲࡢ౑⏝ᐇែ࡜≉ᚩࢆࢥ࣮ࣃࢫศᯒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ゎ᫂ࡍࡿࠋࢥ࣮ࣃࢫศᯒࡣゝㄒᅛ᭷ࡢᙧ
ែ⤫ㄒୖࡢ≉ᚩ࡟౫Ꮡࡍࡿศᯒ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊရモู࡛ᣦ♧௦ྡモࠊᣦ♧๪モࠊᣦ♧㐃యモࠊᣦ♧ᙧᐜືモ࡟ศࡅ࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡣࠊࠕ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ᭩ࡁゝⴥᆒ⾮ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࠖ %&&:- ࡢ୰⣡ゝࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠋ ᮏ✏ࡢㄪᰝᑐ㇟
๓⠇࡛㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᣦ♧㐃యモᣦ♧ᙧᐜືモࡢㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲࡀᣦ♧๪モ࡟⨨᥮ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡛ࠊᮏ✏ࡢࢧࣥࣉࣜࣥࢢㄪᰝࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᣦ♧㐃యモᣦ♧ᙧᐜືモࢆ㝖ࡁࠊᣦ♧๪モ࡜ᣦ♧௦ྡモ࡟⤠ࡿࠋࢧࣥࣉࣝ࡜ࡋ
࡚ࡣࠊḟࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋᣦ♧๪モ࡟ࡣ๪モⓗ⏝ἲ࡜㠀๪モⓗ⏝ἲࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ $ ࡜ % ࡟ศࡅ࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ & ࡣᣦ♧௦ྡモࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢࢧࣥࣉ࡛ࣝ࠶ࡿࠋ





−84−

第16回大会発表論文集


第９号• 䝟䝍䞊䞁 㻭㻦䝁䜴㻛䝋䜴䠇㼂㻼䚹㻌• 䝟䝍䞊䞁 㻮㻦䝁䜴㻛䝋䜴䠇䛷䛩㻛䛷䛒䜛㻌• 䝟䝍䞊䞁 㻯㻦䝁䝺㻛䝋䝺䠇䛿㻛䛜䠇ே⛠௦ྡモ䠇䛰㻌ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ $ ࡣࠕᣦ♧๪モ㸩93ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᵓ㐀࡛࠶ࡿࠋ  ࠊ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕᣦ♧ෆᐜ㸻◚⥺㒊ࡢෆᐜ㸻93 ࡢෆᐜࠖ࡜࠸࠺㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡋࠊ᪂つ᝟ሗࡀᑟධࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋ㻝㻟㻕 ఱ䛛㣗䜉䜛䜒䛾䛺䛔䛳䛶ゝ䛖䛸䚸෭ⶶᗜ䛻䛒䜛䜒䛾䚸຾ᡭ䛻㣗䜉䜚䜓䛔䛔䛨䜓䛺䛔䛳䛶䛣䛖䛺䜛䚹㻌 㻨᪥ᮏ୍㻪㻌㻝㻠㻕 䛂䈈䛹䛔䛴䜒䛣䛔䛴䜒䛳䛃䝤䝹䝤䝹䛸㟈䛘䜛၁䛷䚸㔝䚻Ꮚ䛿䛭䛖䛔䛔ᤞ䛶䜛䚹㻌 㻌 㻨䛚䜂䛥䜎㻪㻌᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧๪モ࡟ࡣࠊࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ $ ࡢࡼ࠺࡞๪モⓗ⏝ἲࡢ࡯࠿ࠊࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ % ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕᣦ♧๪モ㸩ࡔࠖࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ≉࡟ࠕࢯ࢘㸩ࡔࠖࡣࠕⓎヰࡢཷࡅṆࡵ ᛂ⟅ ࠖᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ୍᪉ࠊឤືモⓗ࡞⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ⏝ἲࡣඛ⾜◊✲࡛ᣦ♧⏝ἲࡢ◊✲ᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⛥࡟ぢࡿࠋ☜࠿࡟ࠕᣦ♧๪モ㸩ࡔࠖࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ࡣࠊᣦ♧๪モࡀ๪モⓗ࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿ࡜ࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡑࡢᣦ♧⏝ἲࡣࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ $ ࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㻝㻡㻕 ุ᩿ᇶ‽䜢୍䛴䛚▱䜙䛫䛩䜛䛸䚸▱䜚䛒䛔䛾⏨ᛶ䛸᪂ᖿ⥺䜔㣕⾜ᶵ䛾୰䛷఍䛳䛯䛸䛧䜎䛩䚹䛭䛾䛸䛝䛒䛺䛯䛺䜙䛹䛖ᑐᛂ䛧䜎䛩䛛䚹⚾䛾⟅䛘䛿䛣䛖䛷䛩䚹┦ᡭ䛜ዪᛶ䛸ᗙ䛳䛶䛔䛶䚸ዪᛶ䛜┠䛻䛴䛛䛺䛔䜘䛖䛻䛸㏻㊰ഃ䛻䛭䛾ே䛜ᗙ䛳䛶䛔䛯䜙↓ど䜢䛩䜛䚹㏫䛻䛭䛾ே䛜❆ഃ䛻ᗙ䛳䛶䛔䛯䜙ኌ䜢䛛䛡䜛䚹㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻨䝁䝟㻪㻌㻝㻢㻕 ᯇ⃝῟஧㻌 䛧䛛䛧䚸䝂䝹䝣䛿䛸䛶䜒䝯䞁䝍䝹䛺䝇䝫䞊䝒䛷䛩䛜䠛㻌ᩍᤵ㻌 ☜䛛䛻䛭䛖䛷䛩䚹䛸䛳䛶䜒ᚰ⌮ⓗ䛺䝇䝫䞊䝒䛷䛩䚹㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻨䝟䞊㻪㻌 ࠊ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕᣦ♧ෆᐜ㸻◚⥺㒊ࡢෆᐜࠖ࡜࠸࠺㛵ಀࡀᡂ❧ࡋࠊࢥ࣭࢘ࢯ࢘ࡣㄯヰ┤♧࡟ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ & ࡣࠕᣦ♧௦ྡモ㸩ࡣ࣭ࡀ㸩ே⛠௦ྡモ㸩13ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᵓ㐀࡛࠶ࡿࠋୗグࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊᯟᩥᏐࡣࠕே⛠௦ྡモ㸩13ࠖࡢ㒊ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㻝㻣㻕 䛯䛰᪉ྥ䛸䛧䛶䛿䚸䛒䜛ᅜ䛷⏕άỈ‽䛾ྥୖ䛜㉳䛣䜛䛰䛡䛷䜒䚸䛭䛾ᅜ䛷䛾⮬⏤䛸Ẹ୺୺⩏䜈䛾せồ䛿㧗䜎䜛䚹䛭䛖䛰䛸䛩䜜䜀䚸⌧ᅾ䛾Ⓨᒎ㏵ୖᅜ䛜ᑗ᮶ᙜ㠃䛩䜛ၥ㢟䜒䜎䛯䚸⚾䛯䛱䛜䛩䛷䛻๓㡯䛷㐩䛧䛯䛾䛸ྠ䛨⤖ㄽ䜈䛸ྥ䛛䜟䛦䜛䜢䛘䛺䛔䇷䛣䜜䛜⚾䛾᭱ᚋ䛾⤖ㄽ䛷䛒䜛䚹㻌㻨ୡ⏺ྐ㻪㻌㻝㻤㻕 䛂▼ᓮ䛿䚸≢ே䛨䜓䛺䛟䛶䚸ู䛻䛔䛯䚹䛭䜜䛿⚾䛾ពぢ䛰䚹䜹䝯䛥䜣䛿䚸ᇼỤ௦㆟ኈ䛾ྲྀ䜚ᕳ䛝䛜䚸ᇼỤ௦㆟ኈ䛻䚸⅏䛔䛜䛛䛛䜛䛾䜢ᚰ㓄䛧䛶䚸▼ᓮ䜢䚸⮬ẅ䛻ぢ䛫䛛䛡䛶䚸ẅ䛧䛯䛾䛰䛸䚸䛔䛳䛯䚹䛣䛾஧䛴䜢䚸䛴䛺䛔䛷䜏䛯䜙䛹䛖䛛䛸䚸ᛮ䛳䛯䜣䛰䜘䚹㻔ᚋ␎㻕䈈䛃㻌 㻨༑ὠᕝ㻪㻌୍᪉ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟ࡣࠊ࢔⣔ิࡢᐇ౛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
㻝㻥㻕 ⤖ᒁ䚸䛒䛒䛰䛣䛖䛰⪃䛘䛶䛔䜛䛖䛱䛻䝍䜽䝅䞊䛻஌䛳䛶䛔䛯䚹㻌 㻌 㻨䝺䝑䝗㻪㻌㻞㻜㻕 グ᠈䛾୰䛷䚸䛒䛒䛧䛯䛣䛸䜢䜅䛯䛯䜃┠䛻䛧䛶䛔䛯䛾䛰䚹㻌 㻌 㻨䝬䞁㻪㻌㻞㻝㻕 ᐙ஦䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䛸䛝䛺䛹䛻䜅䛸䚸ᮏᙜ䛻䛒䜜䛿⚾䛾⤒㦂䛧䛯䛣䛸䛺䛾䛰䜝䛖䛛䛸ᛮ䛖䛾䛰䛳䛯䚹㻨ኳᡯ㻪㻌࢔⣔ิࡣ୺࡟ୖグࡢ౛ࡢࡼ࠺࡞័⏝⾲⌧  ࡜ほᛕ ࠊ ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍほᛕᣦ♧⏝ἲ࡜࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᮏ✏ࡢㄪᰝᑐ㇟࠿ࡽ㝖እࡍࡿࠋ
 ㄪᰝ᪉ἲ
ࡼࡾ⢭ᐦ࡞ศᯒࢆᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊྛࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡢㄪᰝᑐ㇟ࢆ௨ୗࡢࢫࢸࢵࣉ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚⤠ࡿࠋᩘᏐࡣ %&&:- ࡢ୰⣡ゝ᳨࡛⣴ࡋࡓࣄࣥࢺᩘ࡛࠶ࡾࠊኴ⥺ࡢ㒊ศࡣ㑅ᐃࡉࢀࡓࢧࣥࣉࣝࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⾲㻝㻚 䝃䞁䝥䝹㑅ฟ䛾䝇䝔䝑䝥䛸䛭䛾⌮⏤㻌䝟䝍䞊䞁 㻭 䛾㻌᳨⣴᮲௳㻦㻌

㻿㼀㻱㻼䐟㻌

㻿㼀㻱㻼䐠䊻䝃䞁䝥䝹㻌䝁䜴㻛䝋䜴䠇㼂㻼㻌䝁䜴㻛䝋䜴䠇㼂㻼䠇䛂䚹䛃㻌䝁䜴㻌㻡㻠㻘㻣㻡㻞㻌

㻢㻝㻥㻌䝋䜴㻌㻤㻡㻘㻟㻡㻠㻌

㻝㻘㻞㻡㻝㻌

ྜィ䠖㻌㻝㻠㻜㻘㻝㻜㻢㻌

㻝㻘㻤㻣㻜㻌

⌮⏤䠖㻌㐃యಟ㣭ᡂศ䛾䛂䛣䛖䛔䛖䚸䛭䛖䛔䛖䛃䛺䛹䛾ᙳ㡪䜢ᢚ䛘䜛㻌


−85−

日本語指示詞の談話直示用法
㻿㼀㻱㻼䐟㻌

㻿㼀㻱㻼䐠䊻䝃䞁䝥䝹㻌䝟䝍䞊䞁 㻮 䛾㻌᳨⣴᮲௳䠖㻌

䝁䜴㻛䝋䜴䠇䛰㻌

䝁䜴㻌

㻥㻞㻥㻌

㻝㻟㻞㻌

㻝㻟㻤㻌

䝋䜴㻌

㻝㻢㻘㻣㻤㻞㻌

㻢㻘㻥㻥㻣㻌

㻝㻘㻜㻝㻥㻌

ྜィ䠖㻌㻝㻣㻘㻣㻝㻝㻌

㻤㻘㻞㻤㻢㻌㻌 䝁䜴㻛䝋䜴䠇䛷䛩㻌䝁䜴㻛䝋䜴䠇䛷䛒䜛㻌ឤືモⓗ䛺ព࿡䜢ᣢ䛴䛂䛭䛖䛰䛃䛾ᙳ㡪䜢ᢚ䛘䜛䚹㻌⌮⏤䠖㻌౛䠖䛂䛭䛖䛰䟿䛣䛔䛴䜙䛜䛔䜛䛛䜙䛰䟿䛃㻌 㻌 㻨ᶵᲔ㻪㻌䝟䝍䞊䞁 㻯 䛾㻌᳨⣴᮲௳䠖㻌
䠄䝁䝺㻛䝋䝺䠇䠅㻌㻿㼀㻱㻼䐟㻌㻔↓タᐃ㻕䠇௦ྡモ㻌㻿㼀㻱㻼䐠㻌㻔↓タᐃ㻕䠇௦ྡモ䠇䛾㻌㻿㼀㻱㻼䐡㻌

㻿㼀㻱㻼䐢䊻䝃䞁䝥䝹㻌㻔↓タᐃ㻕䠇ே⛠௦ྡモ䠇䛾㻌䛿㻛䛜䠇ே⛠௦ྡモ䠇䝜㻌䝁䝺㻌㻡㻘㻞㻞㻠㻌

㻝㻘㻝㻣㻢㻌

㻥㻣㻣㻌

㻣㻤㻟㻌

䝋䝺㻌

㻥㻘㻝㻤㻣㻌

㻝㻘㻠㻥㻞㻌

㻝㻘㻞㻜㻢㻌㻤㻜㻣㻌ྜィ䠖㻌㻝㻠㻘㻠㻝㻝㻌

㻞㻘㻢㻢㻤㻌

㻞㻘㻝㻤㻟㻌

㻝㻘㻡㻜㻥㻌

䐟௦ྡモ䠖ྡモ䛾ព࿡ⓗᙳ㡪䜢ᢚ䛘䜛㻌䐠䝜᱁ྡモྃ㻦㛵ಀ䛵䛡䜙䜜ᗘ㻔㼐㼑㼓㼞㼑㼑㻌㼛㼒㻌㼞㼑㼘㼍㼠㼑㼐㼚㼑㼟㼟㻕㻌 㻞䛜ุู䛧䜔䛩䛔㻌⌮⏤䠖㻌䐡ே⛠௦ྡモ䠖௦ྡモ䛻᭱䜒ከ䛟ぢ䜙䜜䜛㻌䐢䝝㻛䜺䠖↓タᐃ䛾㒊ศ䛻᭱䜒ከ䛟ぢ䜙䜜䜛㻌 ㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࢧࣥࣉࣝࢹ࣮ࢱࡢྛࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡢ⏝ἲࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⾲㻞㻚 ྛ䝟䝍䞊䞁䛾౑⏝ᐇែ㻌䝟䝍䞊䞁 㻭㻌

䝁䜴䠇㼂㻼䚹㻌

䝋䜴䠇㼂㻼䚹㻌

ㄯヰ┤♧㻌

㻡㻡㻝㻌

㻤㻥㻑㻌

㻡㻥㻝㻌

㻥㻟㻚㻡㻑㻌

ྜィ㻌
㻝㻝㻠㻞㻌

㻥㻝㻑㻌

ᩥ⬦↷ᛂ㻌

㻝㻝㻌

㻞㻑㻌

㻟㻣㻌

㻡㻚㻥㻑㻌

㻠㻤㻌

㻠㻑㻌

⌧ሙ┤♧㻌

㻝㻜㻌

㻞㻑㻌

㻞㻌

㻜㻚㻟㻑㻌

㻝㻞㻌

㻝㻑㻌

ほᛕᣦ♧㻌

㻠㻜㻌

㻣㻑㻌

㻞㻌

㻜㻚㻟㻑㻌

㻠㻞㻌

㻟㻑㻌

័⏝㻌

㻣㻌

㻞㻜㻑㻌

㻜㻌

㻜㻑㻌

㻣㻌

㻝㻑㻌

ྜィ㻌

㻢㻝㻥㻌

㻝㻜㻜㻑㻌

㻢㻟㻞㻌

㻝㻜㻜㻑㻌

㻝㻞㻡㻝㻌

㻝㻜㻜㻑㻌

䝟䝍䞊䞁 㻮㻌

䝁䜴䠇䛷䛩㻛䛷䛒䜛㻌䝋䜴䠇䛷䛩㻛䛷䛒䜛㻌

ྜィ㻌

ㄯヰ┤♧㻌

㻞㻞㻢㻌

㻤㻠㻑㻌

㻢㻣㻠㻞㻌

㻤㻠㻑㻌

㻢㻥㻢㻤㻌

㻤㻠㻚㻝㻑㻌

ᩥ⬦↷ᛂ㻌

㻟㻌

㻝㻑㻌

㻝㻞㻣㻠㻌

㻝㻢㻑㻌

㻝㻞㻣㻣㻌

㻝㻡㻚㻠㻑㻌

ほᛕᣦ♧㻌

㻞㻥㻌

㻝㻝㻑㻌

㻜㻌

㻜㻑㻌

㻞㻥㻌

㻜㻚㻟㻑㻌

⌧ሙ┤♧㻌

㻝㻞㻌

㻠㻑㻌

㻜㻌

㻜㻑㻌

㻝㻞㻌

㻜㻚㻝㻑㻌

ྜィ㻌

㻞㻣㻜㻌

㻝㻜㻜㻑㻌

㻤㻜㻝㻢㻌

㻝㻜㻜㻑㻌

㻤㻞㻤㻢㻌

㻝㻜㻜㻑㻌


−86−

第16回大会発表論文集
第９号

䝟䝍䞊䞁 㻯㻌

䝁䝺䠇䛿㻛䛜䠇㻺㻼䠇䛾䝋䝺䠇䛿㻛䛜䠇㻺㻼䠇䛾

ྜィ㻌

ㄯヰ┤♧㻌

㻟㻠㻤㻌

㻠㻡㻑㻌

㻝㻥㻥㻌

㻡㻠㻣㻌

ᩥ⬦↷ᛂ㻌

㻞㻣㻢㻌

㻟㻡㻑㻌

㻡㻥㻣㻌

㻣㻠㻑㻌

㻤㻣㻟㻌

㻡㻡㻑㻌

⌧ሙ┤♧㻌

㻝㻡㻥㻌

㻞㻜㻑㻌

㻝㻝㻌

㻝㻑㻌

㻝㻣㻜㻌

㻝㻝㻑㻌

㻞㻡㻑㻌

㻟㻠㻑㻌

ྜィ㻌
㻣㻤㻟㻌
㻝㻜㻜㻑㻌
㻤㻜㻣㻌
㻝㻜㻜㻑㻌
㻝㻡㻥㻜㻌
㻝㻜㻜㻑㻌

 ᣦ♧๪モࡢㄯヰ┤♧ᛶୖグࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ $ࠊ%ࠊ& ࡢᣦ♧ᶵ⬟ࡢෆヂ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ௨ୗࡢᅗ࡛ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᅗ㻞㻚 ྛ䝟䝍䞊䞁䛾ᣦ♧ᶵ⬟䛾ෆヂᑐ↷ᅗ㻌

ㄯヰ┤♧
ᩥ⬦↷ᛂ
⌧ሙ┤♧


䝟䝍䞊䞁㻭
ㄯヰ┤♧

䝟䝍䞊䞁㻮
ㄯヰ┤♧


䝟䝍䞊䞁㻯
ㄯヰ┤♧

㻜㻑
㻝㻜㻑
㻞㻜㻑
㻟㻜㻑
㻠㻜㻑
㻡㻜㻑
㻢㻜㻑
㻣㻜㻑
㻤㻜㻑
㻥㻜㻑
㻝㻜㻜㻑

ᅗ  ࠿ࡽࡳࢀࡤࠊࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ $ ࡜ % ࡣㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲࡀ  ๭㉸࡛࠶ࡾࠊࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ & ࡣㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲࡀ  ๭⛬ᗘࡋ࠿࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊᣦ♧๪モࡢ࡯࠺ࡣㄯヰ┤♧ᛶࡀ≉࡟㢧ⴭ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ⾲  ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊࢥ࣭ࢯ⣔ࡢㄯヰ┤♧࡜⌧ሙ┤♧࡜ࡢ๭ྜࢆẚ㍑ࡍࢀࡤࠊᅗ  ࡛ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᅗ㻟㻚 䝁䞉䝋⣔䛾ㄯヰ┤♧䛸⌧ሙ┤♧䛸䛾๭ྜ䛾ẚ㍑㻌
㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻔ᅗ⾲ 㻟㻙㼍㻌 䝁⣔䛾ྛ䝟䝍䞊䞁䛾ẚ㍑㻕㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻔ᅗ⾲ 㻟㻙㼎㻌 䝋⣔䛾ྛ䝟䝍䞊䞁䛾ẚ㍑㻕㻌 㻌 
㻝㻜㻜㻑
㻝㻜㻜㻑



㻤㻜㻑

㻤㻜㻑



㻢㻜㻑

㻢㻜㻑

㻠㻜㻑

㻠㻜㻑

㻞㻜㻑

㻞㻜㻑




㻜㻑

㻜㻑

䝟䝍䞊䞁㻭 䝟䝍䞊䞁㻮 䝟䝍䞊䞁㻯䝟䝍䞊䞁㻭 䝟䝍䞊䞁㻮 䝟䝍䞊䞁㻯



ㄯヰ┤♧
⌧ሙ┤♧
ㄯヰ┤♧
⌧ሙ┤♧

ඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࢥ⣔ࡢᣦ♧๪モࡢᣦ♧ෆᐜࡢ≉ᚩࡣࠕ୺࡜ࡋ࡚ヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡀືసࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡑࡢ㸺ࡉࡲ㸼ࢆ⮬ࡽ♧ࡍ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟࠶ࡿ ᒸᓮ  ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡓࠋ☜࠿࡟⌧ሙ┤♧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࢥ⣔ࡢᣦ♧๪モࡀࡑࡢ≉ᚩࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊᅗ D ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ $ ࡜ % ᣦ♧๪モ ࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ࡛♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࢥ⣔ࡣ⌧ሙ┤♧ࡼࡾㄯヰ┤♧ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀ㢧ⴭ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ $ ࡛ࡣ୍᪉ࠊ๓⠇࡛㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㔠Ỉ࣭ᒸᓮ࣭᭫  ࡛ࡣࢯ⣔ࡢ┤♧⏝ἲࡀ⌧ሙ┤♧࡟㝈ࡽࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ᅗ E ࠿ࡽࡳࢀࡤࠊ
ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ $ ࡜ % ࡢᣦ♧๪モࢯ࢘ࡣࠊ⌧ሙ┤♧࡟ẚ࡭࡚ㄯヰ┤♧ᛶࡀᅽಽⓗ࡟ᙉࡃ⾲ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ᪂つ᝟ሗᑟධࡢ᭷↓ࡀㄯヰ┤♧࡜ᩥ⬦↷ᛂ࡜ࡢ㐪࠸࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊඛ⾜◊✲ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊ᪥
ᮏㄒࡢㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲࡢᛶ㉁ࢆㄽ㏙ࡋࡓࠋḟ࡟ࠊᩥ⬦᝟ሗࢆศᯒࡋࡓ࠺࠼࡛ࠊ᪂つ᝟ሗᑟධ↓ࡋࡢㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲ࡜᪂つ᝟ሗᑟධ᭷ࡾࡢᩥ⬦↷ᛂ⏝ἲࢆぢศࡅࡓࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊရモู࡛ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫศᯒࢆ⾜࠸ࠊㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲࢆྵࡴᣦ♧モࡢྛ⏝ἲࡢ౑⏝ᐇែࢆゎ᫂ࡋࠊ෌ศ㢮ࡢᚲせᛶࢆド᫂ࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ᣦ♧๪モࡣㄯヰ┤♧ᛶࡀᙉ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿
࡟ࡋࡓࠋㄯヰ┤♧⏝ἲࡢ≉ᚩࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍཎᅉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡞ࡿ◊✲ࡀࡲࡓࢀࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

/HYLQVRQ ̽ 㸸7KHUXOHRIWKXPEWRGLVWLQJXLVKWKHWZRSKHQRPHQDLVDVIROORZVZKHQDQ

H[SUHVVLRQUHIHUVWRDQRWKHUOLQJXLVWLFH[SUHVVLRQRUDSLHFHRIGLVFRXUVHLWLVGLVFRXUVHGHLFWLF:KHQ
WKDWH[SUHVVLRQUHIHUVWRWKHVDPHLWHPDVDSULRUOLQJXLVWLFH[SUHVVLRQLWLVDQDSKRULF




−87−

日本語指示詞の談話直示用法
  
ᗡ  㸸࠶ࡿྡモࡀࡑࡢእᘏࢆỴᐃࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟௚ࡢྡモྃ࡟౫Ꮡࡍࡿᗘྜ࠸ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆࡑࡢྡモࡢࠕ㛵ಀ࡙ࡅࡽࢀᗘ GHJUHHRIUHODWHGQHVV ࠋ௨ୗࠊ'25 ࡜␎⛠ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࠋࡇࡢ '25 ࡣ +DOOLGD\ +DVDQ  ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄒ
ᙡⓗ⤖᮰ᛶ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡢ⢭ᐦ໬ࢆ┠ᣦࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㸸
ᗡຌ㞝㸬㸬ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢ⤖᮰ᛶࡢ◊✲ࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲ྀ᭩ ࠘ࠊᮾிࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㸬ᒸᓮ ཭Ꮚ㸬㸬ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᣦ♧モࡢṔྐⓗ◊✲࠘ࠊࡦࡘࡌ◊✲ྀ᭩ゝㄒ ⦅ ࠊᮾிࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ㸬㔠Ỉᩄ㸬㸬ࠕ᪥ᮏ㤋ࡢᣦ♧モ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ┤♧⏝ἲ࡜㠀┤♧⏝ἲࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ
ࠊࠗ⮬↛ゝㄒฎ⌮࠘ࠊ⮬↛ゝㄒฎ
⌮Ꮫ఍ࠊ  
㔠Ỉᩄ㸪ᒸᓮ཭Ꮚ㸪᭫⨾ᗒ㸬ࠕᣦ♧モࡢṔྐⓗ࣭ᑐ↷ゝㄒᏛⓗ◊✲̿᪥ᮏㄒ࣭㡑ᅜㄒ࣭ࢺࣝࢥㄒࠖࠊࠗࢩ࣮ࣜࢬゝㄒ⛉Ꮫ ࠘ࠊࠗᑐ↷ゝㄒᏛ࠘
ࠊ⏕㉺┤ᶞ ⦅ ࠊᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧㸪㸸
㔠Ỉ ᩄ㸪⏣❑ ⾜๎㸬㸬ࠕㄯヰ⟶⌮⌮ㄽ࠿ࡽࡳࡓ᪥ᮏㄒࡢᣦ♧モࠖࠊࠗㄆ▱⛉ᏛࡢⓎᒎ࠘ࠊ➨  ᕳࠊࠊ
ᮾிㅮㄯ♫㸬Ώ㎶ ఙ἞㸬㸬ࠕࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫࡢᐃ⩏࡜ୗ఩ศ㢮ࠖࠊࠗゝㄒᩥ໬◊✲࠘ࠊ➨  ྕࠊ
)LOOPRUH&-㸬
͆7RZDUGVD'HVFULSWLYH)UDPHZRUNIRU6SDWLDO'HL[LV͇㸪6SHHFK3ODFHDQG$FWLRQ
6WXGLHVLQ'HL[LVDQG5HODWHG7RSLFV1HZ<RUN-RKQ:LOH\ 6RQV/WG
+DOOLGD\0$. 5+DVDQ㸬㸬&RKHVLRQLQ(QJOLVK㸬/RQJPDQ㸬/HYLQVRQ㸪6WHSKHQ&㸬3UDJPDWLFV&DPEULGJH&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV㸬/\RQV㸪-RKQ㸬6HPDQWLFV&DPEULGJH&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV㸬࿴ᩥ౛ࡢฟ඾
౛␎⛠ཎ඾
ࠗ6QRZ&RXQWU\࠘.DZDEDWD<DVXQDUL㸪WUDQVODWHGE\(GZDUG*6HLGHQVWLFNHUD
6QRZ&RXQWU\!
&KDUOHV(7XWWOH&RPSDQ\
E
㞷ᅜ!
ࠗ㞷ᅜ࠘ᕝ➃ᗣᡂ㸪ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸪
F㞷ᅜ ୰ !ࠓ㞷ᅜࠔᕝ➃ᗣᡂⴭ㸪ྔ Ὼヂ㸪㆞ᯘฟ∧♫㸪ࡇࢀࡀ!
ࠗࡇࢀࡀ⚾ࡢ⏕ࡁࡿ㐨࠘࢟ࢲ ࢱ࣮ࣟ㏆⸨ ṇ⮧㸪ᮏ㢪ᑎฟ∧♫㸪ᜊᩥ!
ࠗᜊᩥ࠘㐃ᇛ୕⣖ᙪ㸪᪂₻♫㸪
ᅜ఍ࠊ!ࠗᅜ఍఍㆟㘓࠘㸪
ྡ᥈ഄ!
ࠗྡ᥈ഄ࣐࣮ࣉࣝ࠾ࡤࡉࢇ࠘$࣭ࢡࣜࢫࢸ࢕࣮_సྛົ୕㑻_ヂ㸪ᒾᓮ᭩ᗑ㸪ྠࡌᖺ!
ࠗྠࡌᖺ࡟⏕ࡲࢀ࡚࠘ᑠ⃝ᚁ∞㸪኱Ụ೺୕㑻㸪୰ኸබㄽ᪂♫㸪
ࠗ㧗෇ᐑ᠇ோぶ⋤࠘㧗෇ᐑẊୗఏグห⾜ጤဨ఍ ⦅ 㸪ㄞ኎᪂⪺♫୰ኸබㄽ᪂♫㧗෇ᐑ!
Ⓨ኎ 㸪ࣟ࣎!
ࠕࣟ࣎ࢵࢺྩࠖ91ࣈࢫࣞࣥࢥ_ⴭ⸨ᕝㄔ_ヂ⦅㸪♫఍ᛮ᝿♫㸪᪥ᮏㄒ!
ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍᖌࡀぢࡓ୰ᅜ࠘஭ἑᐉᏊ㸪୕୍᭩ᡣ㸪᪥ᮏ୍!
ࠗ᪥ᮏ୍ຬẼ࠶ࡿ᎑࠘㔝ᮧ᭷⣖Ꮚ㸪㔝ᮧἋ▱௦㸪ࣔࢵࢶฟ∧㸪
࠾ࡦࡉࡲ!
ࠗ࠾ࡦࡉࡲࡢࣈࣛࣥࢣࢵࢺ࠘ᒣᮏᩥ⥴㸪㞟ⱥ♫㸪

ࢥࣃ!
ࠗ'Uࢥࣃࡢ㺀ே⬦࠘㢼Ỉ࠘ᑠᯘ⚈᫭࠘ࡪࢇ࠿♫㸪

ࣃ࣮!
ࠗ㐌หࣃ࣮ࢦࣝࣇ࠘኱ᵳ⩏ᙪᯇ⃝῟஧㸪Ꮫ⩦◊✲♫㸪ୡ⏺ྐ!
ࠗㅮᗙୡ⏺ྐ࠘ὸぢᐃ㞝 ⴭ 㸪ṔྐᏛ◊✲఍ ⦅ 㸪ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧఍㸪༑ὠᕝ!
ࠗ༑ὠᕝ㆙㒊ࡢᣮᡓ࠘すᮧிኴ㑻㸪ᐇᴗஅ᪥ᮏ♫㸪ࣞࢵࢻ!

ࠗࣞࢵࢻ࣮࣭ࣔࣥ࢟ࣔࣀ࣮ࣟࢢ࠘኱Ụ༓㔛㸪ゅᕝ᭩ᗑ㸪



࣐ࣥ!



ኳᡯ!

࣐ࠗࣥࢸ࢕ࢫ࠘.:ࢪ࣮ࢱ࣮_ⴭ⊦ಛ⨾ỤᏊ_ヂ㸪᪩ᕝ᭩ᡣ㸪
ࠗኳᡯ┣ᑟ≟࢚࣐࡜㐣ࡈࡋࡓ⣲ᬕࡽࡋ࠸᪥ࠎ࠘ࢩ࣮࣭ࣛ࣍ࢵࢣࣥ_ⴭ⏥ᮌၿஂ_ヂ㸪࡝࠺ࡪࡘ♫㸪






−88−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

୙୍⮴䛻ᑐฎ䛩䜛ಟ᚟䛻䛴䛔䛶䛾୍⪃ᐹ㻌䌦୙ྠព䛾㢧ᅾ໬䛸ಟ᚟䛾䝥䝻䝉䝇䞊㻌㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ᙇ⋹⋹㻌໭ᾏ㐨኱ᏛᩥᏛ◊✲⛉㻌㼦㼔㼍㼚㼓㼠㼍㼛㼠㼍㼛㻞㻜㻜㻤㻬㼓㼙㼍㼕㼘㻚㼏㼛㼙 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌㻭㼎㼟㼠㼞㼍㼏㼠㻦㻌㻌 This paper analyzes 'disagreement' in Japanese language from the view of repair. I will discuss different typesof strategies Japanese native speakers may adopt to avoid disagreement lead by inconformity. In this paper,'disagreements' are divided into two categories: "disagreement against facts" and "disagreement against
subjective perception". Based on this classification, I proposed two hypotheses: 1㸧when against facts, it
is disagreed more strongly if one understands more facts; 2) disagreement against facts is easier to be repaired
than disagreement against subjective perception.

䛆㻷㼑㼥㼣㼛㼞㼐㼟䛇䠖୙ྠព䠈୙୍⮴䠈㢧ᅾ໬䠈ㄪᩚ䠈ಟ᚟㻌㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟㻌 ఍ヰ䛻䛚䛔䛶఍ヰཧຍ⪅䛜୍⮴䛩䜜䜀䠈䜘䜚㡰ㄪ䛺ఏ㐩䛜㐩ᡂ䛥䜜䜛䛰䜝䛖䚹ゝ䛔᥮䛘䜜䜀䠈㡰ㄪ䛺ఏ㐩䜢㐩ᡂ䛩䜛䛯䜑䛻䠈୙୍⮴䜢ᅇ㑊䛩䜛䜒䛧䛟䛿ゎỴ䛩䜛䛯䜑䛻఍ヰཧຍ⪅䛜஫䛔䛻ఱ䜙䛛䛾⾜ື䜢䛸䜛䛰䜝䛖䚹఍ヰ䛾ఏ㐩㐣⛬䜢⏘ฟ䞉⪺䛝ྲྀ䜚䠋⌮ゎ䠋ཷᐜ䛸䛔䛖䜅䛖䛻୕䛴䛻ศ䛡䛶ᤊ䛘䜛❧ሙ䛛䜙䠈┦ᡭ䛾Ⓨヰ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛୙ྠព䜢ཷᐜ䛾㐣⛬䛻䛚䛔䛶ᤊ䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䠈୙ྠពⓎヰ䜢ᑟ䛔䛯ఱ䜙䛛䛾୙୍⮴䛿ཷᐜୖ䛾䝖䝷䝤䝹䛸䛧䛶ಟ᚟䛾どⅬ䛛䜙ᤊ䛘䜛䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䚹㻌 䛭䛣䛷䠈ᮏ✏䛷䛿䠈⪺䛝ᡭ䛜Ⓨヰ䜢⌮ゎ䛿䛧䛯䜒䛾䛾䠈Ⓨヰෆᐜ䜢ཷ䛡ධ䜜䛺䛔䛸䛔䛖ၥ㢟䛜⏕䛨䜛ሙྜ䠈఍ヰཧຍ⪅䛜䛭䛾䝖䝷䝤䝹䜢ᘬ䛝㉳䛣䛧䛯୙୍⮴䜢䛹䛾䜘䛖䛻ゎỴ䛧䛯䛛䛻䛴䛔䛶⪃ᐹ䛩䜛䚹

2㸬⪃ᐹᑐ㇟㻌 㻌 ಟ᚟䛻䛴䛔䛶⪃䛘䜛᫬䛻䠈䝖䝷䝤䝹䛾ᛶ㉁䛻╔┠䛧䛶䛔䜛䛯䜑䠈୙ྠពⓎヰ䛻ᑐฎ䛩䜛ಟ᚟䛻䛴䛔䛶ศᯒ䛩䜛๓䛻䠈୙ྠព䛾ᛶ㉁䛻ᑐ䛧䛶኱䜎䛛䛺ศ㢮䜢䛩䜛ᚲせ䛜䛒䜛䚹ᮏ✏䛷䛿ୗグ䛾䠎✀㢮䜢㝖እ䛩䜛䚹୍䛴┠䛿䠈ㄏ䛔䜔࿨௧䜔ᥦ᱌䛺䛹䠈䛒䜛✀䛾⾜Ⅽ䜢せồ䛩䜛Ⓨヰ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛୙ྠព䛷䛒䜚䠈䜒䛖୍䛴䛿〔䜑䠋㠀㞴䠋ㅬ㐯䛻ᑐ䛩䜛୙ྠព䛷䛒䜛䚹୍䛴┠䜢㝖እ䛩䜛⌮⏤䛸䛿䠈䛒䜛஦ᐇ䜔ぢ᪉䛻ᑐ䛩䜛୙ྠព䛸㐪䛔䠈᫬㛫ᕪ
time differential 䛜䛒䜛䛛䜙䛷䛒䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䠈ㄏ䛔䜔࿨௧䜢ཷ䛡ධ䜜䛯᫬䠈ఱ䜙䛛䛾⾜Ⅽ䜢క䛖㈐௵䜔⩏ົ䛜⏕䛨䜛䛸䛸䜒䛻䠈Ⓨヰ䛩䜛᫬Ⅼ䛸⾜Ⅽ䜢ᐇ⾜䛩䜛᫬Ⅼ䛜㞳䜜䛶䛔䜛䛾䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䠈஦ᐇ䜔ぢ᪉䛻ᑐ䛩䜛୙ྠព䜔

−89−

1

不一致に対処する修復についての一考察―不同意の顕在化と修復のプロセス―ྠព䛾ሙྜ䛻䛚䛔䛶䛿䠈Ⓨヰ䛩䜛᫬Ⅼ䛷䛭䛾୙ྠព䛾⾜Ⅽ䜒ᐇ⾜䛥䜜䛯䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛷䛒䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䠈஧䛴┠䜢㝖እ䛩䜛⌮⏤䛿䠈Ⓨヰ⪅䛜〔䜑䠋㠀㞴䠋ㅬ㐯䛸䛔䛖䜘䛖䛺⾜Ⅽ䜢䛧䛯ሙྜ䠈⪺䛝ᡭ䛸䛧䛶䛿୙ྠព䜢♧䛩᪉䛜୧⪅㛫䛾䝣䜵䜲䝇䝞䝷䞁䝇䛾ᆒ⾮໬䛻᭷฼䛷䛒䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛷䛒䜛䚹䛣䛾Ⅼ䛻䛚䛔䛶䠈஦ᐇ䜔ぢ᪉䛻ᑐ䛩䜛୙ྠព䛸Ỵᐃⓗ䛺㐪䛔䛜Ꮡᅾ䛧䛶䛔䜛䛯䜑㝖እ䛧䛯䚹௨ୖ䜘䜚䠈ᮏ✏䛷䛿䠈஦ᐇㄆ㆑䜔୺ほⓗホ౯䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ゝㄒⓗ୙ྠព䜢ᑐ㇟䛸䛩䜛䚹㻌 䛥䜙䛻䠈ゝㄒⓗ୙ྠព䜢䠘⮬ᕫ䛾Ⓨヰ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ゝㄒⓗ୙ྠព䠚䛛䠘┦ᡭ䛾Ⓨヰ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ゝㄒⓗ୙ྠព䠚䛛䛻䜘䛳䛶ศ㢮䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䚹ᮏ✏䛷䛿䛣䜜䜎䛷䛾ඛ⾜◊✲䛸ྠ䛨䛟䠈ᚋ⪅䜢ᑐ㇟䛸䛩䜛䚹Sifianou(2012)䛻
䜘䜜䜀䠈୙ྠព䛾◊✲䛻䛴䛔䛶䠈䛭䛾◊✲᪉ἲ䛛䜙ศ㢮䛩䜛䛸  ✀㢮䛻ศ䛡䜙䜜䜛䛸䛥䜜䜛䚹୍䛴䛿఍ヰศᯒ䠄 Mori1999 䠗  ᳥ ᮏ  䠗 ኱ ሯ  䛺 䛹 䠅 䛷 䛒 䜚 䠈 䛔 䜎 䜂 䛸 䛴 䛿 䝫 䝷 䜲 䝖 䝛 䝇 Brown&Levinson1987;
Rees-Miller2000;ᮌᒣ ᮧ⏣ Tanaka2010ᇼ⏣䞉ྜྷᮏ ᳿  䛺䛹 䛷䛒䜛䚹䜎䛯䠈୙ྠពⓎヰ䛾ᐃ⩏䛻䛴䛔䛶䠈ඛ⾜◊✲䛷䛿䜘䛟౑䜟䜜䜛䛾䛜 Rees-Miller(2000)䛻䛚䛡䜛ᐃ⩏䛷䛒䜛䚹ᮏ✏䛻䛚䛔䛶䜒䛣䛾ᐃ⩏䜢᥇⏝䛩䜛䚹㻌 䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ 6 䛿䠈⪺䛝ᡭ $ 䛜Ⓨヰ䛧䛯䠈䜒䛧䛟䛿ಙዊ䛧䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛜๓ᥦ䛸䛥䜜䜛䛒䜛࿨㢟 3 䛜䠈┿ᐇ䛷䛿䛺䛔䛸ぢ䛺䛧䛯ሙྜ䛻୙ྠព䛧䠈3 䛷䛿䛺䛔࿨㢟ෆᐜ䜎䛯䛿ྵព䜢ᣢ䛴Ⓨヰ䛷཯ᛂ䛩䜛䚹䛃䠄ᮌᒣヂ䠅 A speaker S
disagree when s/he considers untrue some proposition P uttered or presumed to be espoused by an Addressee A
and reacts with an utterance the propositional content or implicature of which is Not P)( Rees-Miller2000:1088)㻌

3㸬

⪃ᐹ᪉ἲ

㻌 ศᯒ༢఩䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䠈䠘Ⓨヰ䠍䊻Ⓨヰ䠍䛻ᑐ䛩䜛୙ྠព䊻୙ྠព䛻ᑐ䛩䜛஺΅䝥䝻䝉䝇䠚䜎䛷ᣑᙇ䛩䜛䚹ඛ⾜◊✲䛷䛿䠈䛣䛾䜘䛖䛺䜘䜚㛗䜑䛾఍ヰ᩿∦䛻╔┠䛧䛶䛔䜛䜒䛾䛜ከ䛟䠈౛䛘䜀䠈Jacob&㻌 Jackson(1989)䜔
Mori(1999)䛷䛿䠈䛭䜜䜢䛂ពぢ஺΅(‘opinion-negotiation’ or ‘conversational argument’)䛸࿧䜣䛷䛔䜛䚹᭦䛻䠈ಟ᚟䛸䛾㛵㐃ᛶ䜢ゝཬ䛧䛯 Jacob&Jackson(1989)䛷䛿ḟ䛾䜘䛖䛺グ㏙䛜䛒䜛䚹㻌 䛂ពぢ஺΅䛾䝥䝻䝉䝇䛿䇾䛒䜛✀䛾ಟ᚟䇿䛾䝯䜹䝙䝈䝮䛸㛵䜟䛳䛶䛚䜚䠈䛭䛾䝯䜹䝙䝈䝮䛜ዲ䜎䜜䜛ྠព䜢ồ䜑䜛䝅䝇䝔䝮䛻䛚䛔䛶୙ྠព䛾ฟ⌧䜢ㄪᩚ䛩䜛䛯䜑䛻䝕䝄䜲䞁䛥䜜䛯䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹䛃 ➹⪅ヂS 㻌 䛣䜜䜢㋃䜎䛘䛶䠈ᮏ✏䛷⪃ᐹ䛩䜛㝿䛻䠈୙୍⮴䛾ᛶ㉁䜔⛬ᗘ䛻ὀ┠䛩䜛䚹ලయⓗ䛻䛿䠈୙ྠព䜢䛧䛯䛛䜙䛻䛿䠈┦ᡭ䛸䛾㛫䛻ఱ䜙䛛䛾୙୍⮴䛜Ꮡᅾ䛧䛶䛔䜛䛯䜑䛷䛒䜚䠈ఱ䛻䛴䛔䛶䛾୙୍⮴䛺䛾䛛䠈䛭䛾୙୍⮴䛾⛬ᗘ䛜䛹䛖䛷䛒䜛䛛䛺䛹䛾せ⣲䛻䜘䛳䛶䠈䛭䜜䜢ಟ᚟䛩䜛ᚲせᛶ䛾⛬ᗘ䜒ಟ᚟䛾⤖ᯝ䜒␗䛺䜛䛿䛪䛰䛸⪃䛘䜛䚹ᚑ䛳䛶䠈ලయⓗ䛺ศᯒ䛷䛿䠈A.䛒䜛஦ᐇ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ㄆ㆑ୖ䛾୙୍⮴䛻䜘䜛୙ྠព䛸ಟ᚟䛾䝥䝻䝉䝇䠈㻮㻮㻚䛒䜛䛣䛸䛻
ᑐ䛩䜛୺ほୖⓗホ౯䛾୙୍⮴䛻䜘䜛୙ྠព䛸ಟ᚟䛾䝥䝻䝉䝇䠈䛸䛔䛖஧✀㢮䛻ศ䛡䛯ୖ䛷䠈௨ୗ䛾஧䛴䛾௬ㄝ䜢᳨ド䛩䜛ᙧ䛷ᒎ㛤䛧䛯䛔䚹㻔㻝㻕䚸 㻭㻚䛻䛚䛔䛶䠈୙ྠព䛧䛯ഃ䛜ᙜ㠃䛾᝟ሗ䛻㛵䛩䜛⟶⌮≧ἣ䛻䜘䛳䛶䠈୙୍⮴䛾ᑐ㇟䛻䛴䛔䛶䛾᝟ሗ䜢⟶⌮䛧䛶䛔䜛ሙྜ䛷䛿䜘䜚ᙉ䛟୙ྠព䜢⾲᫂䛧䠈㏫䛾ሙྜ䛷䛿୙ྠព䛜䛛䛺䜚ᙅ䜑䜙䜜䜛䛸䛔䛖ഴྥ䛜䛒

2−90−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

䜛䚹㻮㻚䛻䛚䛔䛶䠈䜘䜚ᙅ䛔୙ྠព䛾䜋䛖䛜ከ䛔䚹㻌㻔㻞㻕䚸 ಟ᚟䛾ປຊ㻝䛸⤖ᯝ㻞䛛䜙䜏䜜䜀䠈㻭㻚䛻䛚䛡䜛ಟ᚟䛾ປຊ䛜䜘䜚ᑠ䛥䛟䠈୙୍⮴䛜୍⮴䛻䛺䜛䛸䛔䛖⤖ᯝ䛜ᚓ䜙䜜䜛䛾䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䠈㻮㻚䛻䛚䛡䜛ಟ᚟䛾ປຊ䛜䜘䜚኱䛝䛟䠈୙୍⮴䛜ᚲ䛪䛧䜒୍⮴䛻䛺䜛䛸䛿㝈䜙䛺䛔䛸䛔䛖ഴྥ䛜䛒䜛䚹㻌

4㸬⪃ᐹ⤖ᯝ㻌 ᮏ✏䛷䛿୙ྠព䛾⛬ᗘ䛻䛴䛔䛶䠈⪺䛝ᡭ䛾཯ᛂⓎヰ䜢ᡭ䛜䛛䜚䛻䛧䛶ุ᩿䛩䜛䚹౛䛘䜀䠈䜒䛧⪺䛝ᡭ䛜䛂䛔䜔䠈㐪䛖䠋䛭䛖䛷䛿䛺䛔䠋ࠥ䛷䛿䛺䛔䛃䛸䛔䛖䜘䛖䛺᫂ⓑ䛺ྰᐃ⾲⌧䜢⏝䛔䛶୙ྠព䜢⾲᫂䛩䜛ሙྜ䠈䛭䜜䜢䛂䜘䜚ᙉ䛔୙ྠព䛃䛸䛩䜛䚹୍᪉䠈୙ྠពⓎヰ䛻䛂ゝ䛔䜘䛹䜏䠋ゝ䛔䛥䛧䠋㐜ᘏ䠋ỿ㯲䛃䜔ὀ㔘ᤄධ⾲⌧䛺䛹䜢క䛳䛶䛔䜛ሙྜ䜔䠈┦ᡭ䛾Ⓨヰ䜢┤᥋䛻ྰᐃ䛩䜛䛾䛷䛿䛺䛟䠈఍ヰ䛾᥎ព䛷୙ྠព䛾ែᗘ䜢᭕᫕䛻䛩䜛ሙྜ䜢䛂䜘䜚ᙅ䛔୙ྠព䛃䛸䛧䛶ศ㢮䛧䛶䛚䛟䚹
4.1

୙ྠពഃࡢ⟶⌮ୗ࡟࠶ࡿ᝟ሗ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୙୍⮴㻌 ୙ྠព䜢⾲᫂䛧䛯ഃ䛜䛒䜛஦ᐇ䛻䛴䛔䛶䜘䜚ヲ䛧䛟▱䛳䛶䛔䜛ሙྜ䛻䛚䛔䛶䠈఍ヰཧຍ⪅㛫䛻⏕䛨䛯ㄆ㆑ୖ䛾୙୍⮴䛻䜘䜚㉳䛝䛯୙ྠព䛷䛒䜛䚹ᚑ᮶䛾◊✲䛻䜘䜜䜀䠈䛣䛾ሙྜ䠈୙ྠព䛩䜛ഃ䛜䜘䛟᫂☜ⓗ䛻୙ྠព䜢⾲᫂䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛷䛒䜛䚹䛧䛛䛧䠈ᮏ✏䛷䛿䠈୙ྠព䛧䛯ഃ䛜䛭䛾஦ᐇ䛸䛾㛵୚ᗘ䛾㐪䛔䛻䜘䛳䛶୙ྠព䛾⛬ᗘ䛜␗䛺䛳䛶䛟䜛䛣䛸䜢୺ᙇ䛧䛯䛔䚹౛䠍䛸౛  䜢ᑐ↷ⓗ䛻ཧ↷䛥䜜䛯䛔䚹౛ 䠘%76 ึᑐ㠃㞧ㄯ 䠚$ 䛸 % 䛜⮬ᕫ⤂௓䜢⤊䛘䛯䛒䛸䚹$䛒䛾䠖ᮾእ኱䛰䛸䛡䛳䛣䛖䚸䛒䛾䚸൅䛣䛣௒᪥ึ䜑䛶᮶䛯䜣䛷䛩䛡䛹
%
䛿䛔䚹
$
䛒䛾䠖እᅜㄒ䛾䜋䛖䛿䛡䛳䛣䛖ⓙ䛥䜣䜘䛟ႅ䜚䜎䛩䜘䛽䚸>% 䛥䜣䜒@䚹
%㻌 㻌 䊻 䛒䛳䚸>⚾ᐇ䛿@䠄䛿䛔䠅ᮾእ኱䛨䜓䛺䛟䛶$䛒䛳䚸䛭䛖䛺䜣䛷䛩䛛䚹
%
㏆䛟䛾䚸䛒䛾䚸ᅜ㝿ᇶ╩ᩍ኱Ꮫ
$㻌 㻌 ! 䛒䛳䚸䛭䛖䛺䜣䛰䚹
%
䛾䜋䛖䛺䜣䛷䛩䜘䚹$䛤䜑䜣䛺䛥䛔䚹
%
䛔䛘䛔䛘䚹㻌 䛣䛾౛䛷䛿䠈䛂% 䛜ᅜ㝿ᇶ╩ᩍ኱Ꮫ䛾Ꮫ⏕䛷䛒䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖஦ᐇ䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䠈$ 䛸䛾ㄆ㆑䛾୙୍⮴䛻䜘䜛୙ྠព䛷䛒䜛䚹୙ྠពⓎヰ䠄%䠅䜢䛧䛯 % 䛾䜋䛖䛜䠈䛣䛾஦ᐇ䛸䛾㛵୚ᗘ䛜῝䛟䠈䛭䛾┿ഇ䜢ุ᩿䛩䜛ᶒ฼䛜䛒䜛䛯䜑䠈䛂ࠥ䛨䜓䛺䛟䛶䛃䛸䛔䛖䜘䛖䛺᫂☜䛺ྰᐃ⾲⌧䛷䛂䜘䜚ᙉ䛔୙ྠព䛃䜢䛧䛯䚹᭦䛻䠈% 䛷୧⪅㛫䛾୙୍⮴䛜㢧ᅾ໬䛧䛯䛜䠈$ 䛾䛂䛒䠈䛭䛖䛺䜣䛰䛃䛸䛔䛖Ⓨヰ䛛䜙ศ䛛䜛䜘䛖䛻䠈୧⪅䛾୙୍⮴䛜୍⮴䛻ኚ䜟䜚䠈% 䛾ಟ᚟䛜⡆༢䛻ᐇ⾜䛥䜜䛯䚹䛭䜜䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䠈౛  䛿ྠ䛨䛟஦ᐇ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ㄆ㆑䛾୙୍⮴䛻䜘䜛୙ྠព䛷䛒䜛䛜䠈୙ྠពഃ䠄$䠅䛜ᙜ㠃䛾᝟ሗ䜢⟶⌮䛧䛶䛔䛺䛔䜿䞊䝇䛷䛒䜛䚹౛ 䠘%76 ึᑐ㠃㞧ㄯ 䠚% 䛿  ṓ䜎䛷䝣䝷䞁䝇䛷ᬽ䜙䛧䛶䛚䜚䠈ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛸䛧䛶኱Ꮫධヨ䜢ཷ㦂䛧䛯䚹䛣䜜䛻ᑐ䛧䛶 $ 䛿  ṓ䜎䛷䜲䞁䝗䝛䝅䜰䛷ᬽ䜙䛧䛶䛔䛯䛣䛸䛜䛒䜛䚹஧ே䛜ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛸䛧䛶኱ᏛධᏛヨ㦂䜢ཷ䛡䜛᮲௳䛻䛴䛔䛶ヰ䛧䛶䛔䜛ሙ㠃䚹$䛷䜒䛒䜜䚸ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛾᮲௳䛳䛶䛡䛳䛣䛖ཝ䛧䛟䛺䛛䛳䛯䛷䛩䈈"䚹
%
᮲௳"䚹

3
−91−

不一致に対処する修復についての一考察―不同意の顕在化と修復のプロセス―

$
%

$㻌 㻌 䊻
%㻌 㻌 !
$㻌 
%

ఱᖺ௨ୖ䚸ఫ䜣䛷䛶䠖>䛷@䛆䛆䛇䛇>䛒@䚸䛷䜒䛯䛔䛶䛔 䚸 ᖺ䚸䚸 ᖺ䛛䛺"䚸 ᖺఫ䜣䛷䛶䚸䛒䛸⤫୍ヨ㦂䛳䛶䛔䛖䛾䛜䛒䜛䜣䛷䛩䛡䛹䚸䛭䜜䜒ཷ䛡䛶䛶䚸䛒䛸ఱ䛰䜝䚸᪥ᮏᅜ⡠ᣢ䛳䛶䛶""䜎䚸䛭䜜䛠䜙䛔䠖䚹䛭䛖䛷䛧䛯䛳䛡䚹䛒䛯䛧䜒䛷䜒䛺䜣䛛䚸䛘"䚸㧗ᰯ䠖䜎䛷䛻䚸ᾏእ䛻䛔䛺䛔䛸䛰䜑䛺䜣䚹䛒䚸䛭䛖䛭䛖䚸䛰䚸᭱⤊ᏛṔ䛛䛺"䛳䛶䛔䛖䠖᭱⤊䜢䚸㧗ᰯ䜎䛷䚸ᾏእ䛻䛔䛺䛔䛸䛳䛶䚹>䛭䛖䛭䛖@䛭䛖䛭䛖䚹>䛰䛛䜙@䚸䚸 ṓ䛾㡭䛻ᾏእ䛻䛔䛯䛳䛶䛔䛖䜣>䛨䜓@
>䛭䜜䛿@䚸>䛰䜑䛷䛩@䚹㻌 ▮༳䊻䛷♧䛧䛯㒊ศ䛿䠈䠘ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛸䛧䛶኱ᏛධᏛヨ㦂䜢ཷ䛡䜙䜜䜛᮲௳䠚䛻䛴䛔䛶୧⪅㛫䛾ㄆ㆑䛾୙୍⮴䛻䜘䜛୙ྠពⓎヰ䛷䛒䜛䚹ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛸䛧䛶኱ᏛධᏛヨ㦂䜢ཷ䛡䛯 % 䛜䠘ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛸䛧䛶኱ᏛධᏛヨ㦂䜢ཷ䛡䜙䜜䜛᮲௳䠚䛻䛴䛔䛶䠈ᐇ㝿䛻ཷ䛡䛯䛣䛸䛜䛺䛔 $ 䜘䜚ヲ䛧䛟▱䛳䛶䛔䜛䛿䛪䛷䛒䜚䠈㛵୚ᗘ䛜䜘䜚῝䛔䛸ゝ䛘䜘䛖䚹%ࠥ% 䛻䛚䛔䛶 % 䛜䐟ᾏእ䛻䠎䚸䠏ᖺ㛫ఫ䜣䛷䛔䛯䛣䛸䛜䛒䜛䠈䐠⤫୍ヨ㦂䜢ཷ䛡䜛䠈䐡᪥ᮏᅜ⡠䜢ᣢ䛳䛶䛔䜛䠈䛸䛔䛖୕䛴䛾᮲௳䜢ิᣲ䛧䛯䛸䛣䜝䠈$ 䛜䛂㧗ᰯ䜎䛷ᾏእ䛻䛔䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖᮲௳䛜䛒䜛䛸୙ྠព䛾ែᗘ䜢♧䛧䛯䚹㻌 $ࠥ$ 䜢ほᐹ䛧䛶䜏䜛䛸䠈$ 䛾୙ྠពⓎヰ䛜ᙅ䜎䛳䛶䛔䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛜ศ䛛䜛䚹䛂䛭䛖䛷䛧䛯䛳䛡䛃䛸䛔䛖⾲⌧䛿䛂䛭䛖䛷䛿䛺䛟䛶䛃䛸㐪䛔䠈┦ᡭ䛾Ⓨヰ䜢ྰᐃ䛩䜛ᶵ⬟䛜䛺䛟䠈␲䛔䛾ែᗘ䜢♧䛧䛯ᶵ⬟䛧䛛ᣢ䛯䛺䛔䚹䜎䛯䠈Ⓨヰ䛾᭱ᚋ䛻䛂䛳䛶䛃䛸䛔䛖ᘬ⏝⾲⌧䜒௜䛡䜙䜜䛶䛚䜚䠈⮬ศ䛾୙ྠព䜢㛫᥋໬䛻䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹᭦䛻䠈୙ྠពⓎヰ䛜඲యⓗ䛻ゝ䛔ᾷ䜣䛷䛔䜛䛸䛣䜝䛛䜙䜒䛭䛾ᙅ໬䜒❚䛘䜘䛖䚹䛭䛾⌮⏤䛿䠈఍ヰཧຍ⪅㛫䛻⏕䛨䛯୙୍⮴䛾ᑐ㇟䛜䠈౛䠍䛸㐪䛔䠈୙ྠព䛥䜜䛯ഃ䠄%䠅䛸䛾㛵୚ᗘ䛜῝䛔䛛䜙䛷䛒䜝䛖䚹% 䛜ᐇ㝿䛻⤒㦂䛧䛯䛣䛸䛰䛛䜙䠈ヲ䛧䛟▱䛳䛶䛔䜛䛿䛪䛰䛸䛔䛖ุ᩿䛾ୖ䠈$ 䛿┦ᡭ䛾䝫䝆䝔䜱䝤䝣䜵䜲䝇䛻ᑐ䛩䜛౵ᐖᗘ䜢㍍ῶ䛩䜛䛯䜑䛻䠈୙ྠព䜢♧䛩᫬䛻᫂ⓑ䛻┦ᡭ䛾Ⓨヰ䜢ྰᐃ䛩䜛䜘䜚䜒䠈୙ྠព䛾ែᗘ䜢ᙅ䜑䜛ᡭẁ䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯䛰䜝䛖䚹䛭䜜䛰䛡䛷䛺䛟䠈䜒䛧⮬ศ䛾ㄆ㆑䛜୙ṇ☜䛷䛒䜛ሙྜ䠈ᙅ䛔୙ྠព䛾᪉䛜వᆅ䜢ṧ䛧䠈⮬ศ䛾䝣䜵䜲䝇䜈䛾౵ᐖ䝸䝇䜽䜢㍍ῶ䛩䜛䛣䛸䜒䛷䛝䜛䚹౛䠍䛾 $ 䛸౛䠎䛾 % 䛛䜙ศ䛛䜛䜘䛖䛻䠈䛣䛾  ౛䛻ඹ㏻䛧䛶䛔䜛䛾䛿䠈䛭䛾୙୍⮴䜢ಟ᚟䛩䜛ປຊ䛜䛒䜎䜚኱䛝䛟䛺䛔䛸䛔䛖䛸䛣䜝䛷䛒䜛䚹㻌 䛧䛛䛧䠈䛣䛾ሙྜ䛻䛚䛡䜛ಟ᚟䛜ᖖ䛻ᐜ᫆䛻ಟ᚟䛥䜜䜛䛾䛷䛿䛺䛟䠈౛  䛾䜘䛖䛻ከ䛟䛾ㄝ᫂䛜ᚲせ䛺ሙྜ䜒ぢ䜙䜜䛯䚹
౛ 䠘%76 ึᑐ㠃㞧ㄯ 䠚% 䛜᪥ᮏㄢ⛬䛾ゝㄒᩥ໬䝁䞊䝇㝔⏕୍ᖺ┠䛷䛒䜚䠈$ 䛜䝧䝖䝘䝮ㄒ䛜ᑓᨷ䛷䛒䜛䚹$䛘䚸ఱᖺ⏕䛷䛩䛛"䚹 %
⚾䛿኱Ꮫ㝔䛾  ᖺ䛷䛩䚹$䛒䛳䚸኱Ꮫ㝔䠖䛒䚸䛨䜓䛒䛆䛆䚹%
䛇䛇᪥ᮏㄢ⛬䛾䚹$䛘䚸᪥ᮏㄢ⛬䚹%
䛿䛔䚸䛒䚸᪥ᮏᑓᨷ䛷䛩䚹䛒䚸ゝㄒᩥ໬䝁䞊䝇䛺䜣䛷䚸᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱䝁䞊䝇䛸䛿䜎䛯䛱䜗䛳䛸㐪䛳䛶䛶䚹$䛘䚸䜒䛸䜒䛸Ꮫ㒊䛾᫬䛿"䚹%
᪥ᮏㄒ䛷䛩䚹$ᮾእ኱䛷"䚹
%
䛿䛔䚹

$
᪥ᮏㄒ⛉"䚹
%
䛿䛔䚹

$
䛒䠖䛭䛖䛷䛩䛛䚹᪥ᮏㄒ⛉䛾᪉䛯䛱䛳䛶䚸䛩䛤䛔䛷䛩䜘䛽䚹䛩䛤䛔䛷䛩䜘䛽䛗䛳䛶䛔䛖䛛䚸 䛺 䜣䛛⚾䛯䛱䛻䛺䛔どⅬ䜢䜒䛳䛶䜛䛳䛶䛔䛖䛛䚹 
%䛒䠖䛺䜣䛛䜔䛳䛶䜛䛣䛸䛜඲↛㐪䛔䜎䛩䜘䛽䚸䛺䜣䛛䛽䚹 ⾜┬␎䛧䛯䚹┬␎䛥䜜䛯఍ヰ䛾䛖䛱䠈༙ศ⛬ᗘ䛿᪥ᮏㄒ䛾㰯⃮㡢䛻䛴䛔䛶䛾ෆᐜ䛷䛒䜚䠈ṧ䛳䛯䛾䛿 $

−92−

4

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

䛾ᑓᨷ䛾䝧䝖䝘䝮ㄒ䛻䛴䛔䛶䛾䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛 $䛰䛛䜙䜎䛑  ಶ䚸ⱥㄒ௨እ䛾ゝⴥ䛸䛧䛶䚸䝧䝖䝘䝮ㄒ䛿ᣢ䛳䛶䜘䛖䛛䛺䛳䛶 䚹%䛒䚸䛭䜜䛿䛩䛤䛟䛔䛔䛷䛩䜘䛽䚸䛖䜣䛖䜣䛖䜣䚸䛒䚸䛭䛖䛺䜣䛰䚹$䛔䜔䛷䜒䚸᪥ᮏ䛾䚸͐᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲䛺䛥䛳䛶䜛䜣䛷䛩䜘䛽䚹
%㻌 䊻 䛔䜔䛔䜔䚸⚾䛿䜔䛳䛶䛺䛔䛷䛩䚹⚾䛿䚸䛺䜣䛛᪥ᮏᑓᨷ䛺䜣䛷䛩䛡䛹
$
䛿䛔䚹
%
ゝㄒᏛᑓᨷ䛷
$
䛿䛔䚹
%
᪥ᮏㄒᏛᑓᨷ䛷䛺䛟䛶ゝㄒᏛᑓᨷ䛧䛶䜛䜣䛷

$
䛿䛔䚹

%
䛷䠖䠖ゝㄒ᥋ゐ䜔䜝䛖䛸ᛮ䛳䛶䚸䛷䚸䝅䞁䜺䝫䞊䝹䠖䛺䜣䛷䛩䜘䚹$䛘䚸ゝㄒ᥋ゐ䛳䛶"䚹䠄 ⾜┬␎䛧䛯䚹ゝㄒ᥋ゐ䛻䛴䛔䛶ㄝ᫂䛧䛶䛔䜛䠅%
䛖䜣䚸䛷䚸䛭䜜䜢⯆࿡䛜䛒䛳䛶䚸䜎䛑ከゝㄒᩥ໬䛾୰䛷䚸䛹䛖䛔䛖㢼䛻ゝㄒ䛜ᙳ㡪䛧䛒䛳 䛳䛶䛔䛖䛾䜢䠖䛿䛔䚸䜔䛳䛶䜛䜣䛷䚸᪥ᮏㄒ䛨䜓䛺䛔䛷䛩䚹
$㻌 ! 䛒䠖䠖䛭䛖䛺䜣䛷䛩䛛䚹 
%䛿䛔䚸䛭䛖䛺䜣䛷䛩䜘䚹䛶 䠖㻌 䜎䛪䠈఍ヰෆᐜ䛛䜙䜏䜛䛸䠈% 䜎䛷䛾ᙧᘧᩥ⬦䛛䜙 % 䛾ᑓᨷ䛻䛴䛔䛶䠈䠘Ꮫ㒊䛾᫬䛿᪥ᮏㄒ⛉䛷䛒䜚䠈⌧ᅾ䛿᪥ᮏᑓᨷ䛾ゝㄒᩥ໬䝁䞊䝇䛷䛒䜛䠚䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䛿 $ 䜒⌮ゎ䛧䛯䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹䛭䛾ᚋ䠈஧ே䛿᪥ᮏㄒ䛾㰯⃮㡢䛻䛴䛔䛶ヰ䛧䛯䛒䛸䠈$ 䛿 % 䛾ᑓᨷ䛻䛴䛔䛶䛾䛣䛸䜢෌䜃ヰ㢟䛸䛧䛶ྲྀ䜚ୖ䛢䜘䛖䛸䛧䛶䠈$ 䜢Ⓨ䛧䛯䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䠈$ 䛻ᑐ䛧䛶 % 䛿᫂☜䛺ྰᐃ⾲⌧䛷䠄䛂䛔䜔䛔䜔䚸⚾䛿䜔䛳䛶䛺䛔䛷䛩䛃䠅ᙉ䛔୙ྠព䜢♧䛧䛯䚹㻌 䛴䜎䜚䠈䛣䛾౛䛷⏕䛨䛯䛾䛿䠈䛂% 䛜᪥ᮏㄒ䛾◊✲䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䛛䛹䛖䛛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛃䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ㄆ㆑䛜䛪䜜䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛻䜘䜛୙ྠព䛷䛒䜛䚹䛣䜜䛿 % 䛾⟶⌮ୗ䛻䛒䜛᝟ሗ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛୙ྠព䛰䛸ゝ䛘䜛䚹䛧䛛䛧䠈ᙜ㠃䛾᝟ሗ䛜୙ྠព䜢⾲᫂䛧䛯 % 䛸䛾㛵୚ᗘ䛜῝䛔䜒䛾䛾䠈ಟ᚟䛜ᡂຌ䛩䜛䜎䛷䛻䛛䛺䜚䛾ປຊ䛜䛛䛛䛳䛯䚹䛺䛬䛺䜙䠈% 䛷⾜䜟䜜䛯௚⪅ಟ᚟䛻ᑐ䛩䜛஺΅䛜 %ࠥ$ 䛻䛛䛡䛶⾜䜟䜜䛯䛛䜙䛷䛒䜛䚹౛  䛸ྠ䛨䛟䠈୙ྠពഃ䛾⟶⌮ୗ䛻䛒䜛᝟ሗ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ㄆ㆑ୖ䛾୙୍⮴䛜ಟ᚟䛥䜜䜛౛䛷䛒䜛䛜䠈౛  䛸౛  䛷䛿ಟ᚟䛾ປຊ䛻䛛䛺䜚ᕪ䛜ฟ䛯䚹౛ 䛷䛿䠈୙ྠព䛜⾲᫂䛥䜜䛯ḟ䛾䝍䞊䞁䛷┦ᡭ䛜⣡ᚓ䛧䛯䛜䠈౛  䛷䛿䠈䛭䛾ḟ䛾䝍䞊䞁䛷䛿䛺䛟䠈䛛䛺䜚㞳䜜䛯఩⨨䛷⣡ᚓ䛧䛯䠄$䠅䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹䛭䛾⌮⏤䛻䛿䠈ḟ䛾䠏Ⅼ䛜䛒䜛䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹䐟఍ヰཧຍ⪅㛫䛾ᑐ㇟䛻㛵䛩䜛▱㆑㔞䛾ᕪ␗䛷䛒䜚䠈䐠ᙉ䛔୙ྠព䛧䛯ഃ䛻䛿ㄝ᫂㈐௵䜢క䛖䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛷䛒䜛䠈䐡▱㆑ᩥ⬦䛻ᑐ䛩䜛సᴗ䛾✀㢮䛜␗䛺䜛䛣䛸䛷䛒䜛䚹㻌 䜎䛪䠈▱㆑㔞䛾ᕪ␗䛸䛔䛖せ⣲䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䠈౛䛘䜀䠈౛  䛻䛚䛔䛶䠈஧ே䛸䜒ᾏእ䛷㛗䛟⏕ά䛧䛯䛣䛸䛜䛒䜚䠈୍ே䛿䜒䛖୍ே䛻ẚ䜉䜔䜔㛗䛟ᾏእ䛻䛔䛯䛯䜑䛻ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛾᮲௳䜢‶䛯䛧䠈ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛸䛧䛶኱Ꮫධヨ䜢ཷ㦂䛷䛝䛯䛜䠈䜒䛖୍ே䛿᮲௳䜢‶䛯䛧䛶䛺䛔䛯䜑䛷䛝䛺䛛䛳䛯䚹ཷ㦂䛷䛝䛺䛛䛳䛯䜋䛖䜒ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛾᮲௳䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䛒䜛⛬ᗘ▱䛳䛶䛔䜛䛯䜑䠈఍ヰෆ䛷䛾୙୍⮴䛜⡆༢䛻ಟ᚟䛥䜜䛯䛾䛷䛒䜝䛖䚹୍᪉䠈౛  䛻䛚䛔䛶䛿䠈$ 䛾ᑓᨷ䛜䝧䝖䝘䝮ㄒ䛺䛾䛷䠈䠘᪥ᮏᑓᨷ䛾ゝㄒᩥ໬䝁䞊䝇䠚䛸䛔䛖䛾䛿䛹䛖䛔䛖ព࿡䛺䛾䛛䜘䛟ศ䛛䜙䛺䛔䛣䛸䜒䛒䜜䜀䠈఍ヰ䛾ෑ㢌䛷 % 䛛䜙᪥ᮏㄒゝㄒᏛ䛻㛵䛩䜛ヰ䜢Ⰽ䚻⪺䛔䛯䛣䛸䜒ຍ䛘䛶䠈᭱ึ䛛䜙䛂% 䛜᪥ᮏㄒ䛾◊✲䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖ㄗゎ䜢ᣢ䛳䛶䛔䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䛜⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹䜎䛯䠈๓䛾ヰ㢟䛸䛛䛺䜚㞳䜜䛶䛔䜛䛸䛣䜝䛷䛭䛾ヰ䛜෌䜃ヰ㢟䛻䛺䜚䠈% 䛾ᑓᨷ䛻䛴䛔䛶䛾᝟ሗ䠄ㄗゎ䛷䛒䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䜒ྰ䜑䛺䛔䠅䛜᪤䛻୸䜑䜙䜜䛶 $ 䛾▱㆑ᩥ⬦
䛻㈓ⶶ䛥䜜䛯ྍ⬟ᛶ䛜䛒䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䠈᝟ሗ䛭䛾䜒䛾䛾⢭☜ᗘ䛜ᙜึ䜘䜚ୗ䛜䛳䛯䛛䜒䛧䜜䛺䛔䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛷䛒䜛䚹

−93−

5

不一致に対処する修復についての一考察―不同意の顕在化と修復のプロセス―䛣䛖䛧䛯≧ἣ䛷䛿䠈% 䛻䛸䛳䛶䠈$ 䛾▱㆑ᩥ⬦䛻୸䜑䜙䜜䛯⢭☜ᗘ䛾ప䛔᝟ሗ䛻䛴䛔䛶Ⰽ䚻ㄝ᫂䜢௜䛡ຍ䛘䜛ᚲせ䛜䛒䜚䠈䛭䜜䛻䜘䜚䠈஺΅䛾㐃㙐䜒㛗䛟䛺䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛻䛺䜛䚹㻌 ḟ䛻䠈ㄝ᫂㈐௵䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䠈┦ᡭ䛾Ⓨヰ䛻ᑐ䛧䛶ᙉ䛟୙ྠព䜢♧䛧䛯ሙྜ䠈䛭䜜䛻⥆䛔䛶୙ྠព䛾ែᗘ䜢ᨭ䛘䜛᰿ᣐ䜔ཎᅉ䛺䛹䛻䛴䛔䛶ㄝ᫂䛩䜛ᚲせ䛜䛒䜚䠈୙ྠព䛥䜜䛯ഃ䜒䛭䜜䜢ᮇᚅ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹୙ྠព䜢♧䛥䜜䛯ഃ䛜┦ᡭ䛾ㄝ᫂䜢ಁ䛧䠈୙ྠព䜢⾲᫂䛧䛯ഃ䜒༠ຊ䛧䛶ㄝ᫂䜢ຍ䛘䜛ᚲせ䛜䛒䜛䛯䜑䠈஺΅䛾㐃㙐䜒㛗䛟䛺䜚䛖䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛷䛒䜛䚹㻌 䛥䜙䛻䠈▱㆑ᩥ⬦䛻ᑐ䛩䜛సᴗ䛾✀㢮䛜␗䛺䜛䛯䜑䠈஺΅䛾㐃㙐䜒㛗䛟䛺䜚䛖䜛䛣䛸䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䠈౛䛘䜀䠈౛䠍䛷䛿䠈䠘% 䛜ᮾእ኱䛾Ꮫ⏕䛰䠚䛸䛔䛖࿨㢟䛸䠘% 䛜ᅜ㝿ᇶ╩ᩍ኱Ꮫ䛾Ꮫ⏕䛰䠚䛸䛔䛖࿨㢟䛸䛿᫂䜙䛛䛻▩┪䛧䛶䛔䜛䛯䜑䠈୙ྠព䜢⾲᫂䛥䜜䛯 $ 䛜䛹䛱䜙䛛䜢㑅ᢥ䛩䜜䜀ಟ᚟䛜ᡂຌ䛻䛺䜛䛜䠈䛭䜜䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䠈౛  䛷䛿䠈
䠘% 䛜Ꮫ㒊᫬௦䛷䛿᪥ᮏㄒ⛉䛷䛒䜚䠈ୟ䛴䠈᪥ᮏㄒ䛾㰯⃮㡢䛻䛴䛔䛶ヲ䛧䛟▱䛳䛶䛔䜛䠚䛸䛔䛖ᙧᘧᩥ⬦䛛䜙䠈
䠘% 䛜᪥ᮏㄒ䛾◊✲䜢䛧䛶䛔䜛䠚䛸䛔䛖࿨㢟䛿᪤䛻 $ 䛾▱㆑ᩥ⬦䛻⵳✚䛥䜜䛯ྍ⬟ᛶ䛜㧗䛟䠈୙ྠព䜢⾲᫂䛩䜛ഃ䠄%䠅䛻䛸䛳䛶䛭䛖䛧䛯▱㆑䛾ಟṇ䜢㏻䛧䛶୙୍⮴䜢ಟ᚟䛩䜛ᚲせ䛜䛒䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䠈౛䠍䛻䛚䛡䜛㛫㐪䛳䛯࿨㢟䛸ṇ☜䛺࿨㢟䛾䛹䛱䜙䛛䜢Რ༷䛩䜛䛣䛸䛷ಟ᚟䛥䜜䜛ሙྜ䛸ẚ䜉䛶䠈᪤䛻▱㆑ᩥ⬦䛻ಖᏑ䛥䜜䛯࿨㢟䜢ಟṇ䛩䜛䜋䛖䛜ᡭ㛫䛜䛛䛛䜚䠈஺΅䛾㐃㙐䛜㛗䛟䛺䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䜒䛒䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛷䛒䜛䚹

4.2୙ྠពഃࡀ᝟ሗ⟶⌮ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୙୍⮴㻌 䛣䜜䜎䛷䛾౛䛿䠈䛒䜛஦ᐇ䛻ᑐ䛧䛶୙ྠពഃ䛾㛵୚ᗘ䛜῝䛔䛛䛹䛖䛛䛻䜘䛳䛶༊ู䛷䛝䜛䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹䛭䜜䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䠈ᮏ⠇䛷ྲྀ䜚ୖ䛢䜛౛ᩥ䛿䠈┿ഇุ᩿䛷䛝䜛஦ᐇ䛷䛿䛺䛟䠈୺ほⓗ䛺ホ౯䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ㄆ㆑ୖ䛾୙୍⮴䛻䜘䜛୙ྠព䛷䛒䜛䚹䜎䛯䠈஦ᐇ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ㄆ㆑䛾୙୍⮴䠈≉䛻఍ヰཧຍ⪅䛾∦᪉䛻䛸䛳䛶㛵୚ᗘ䛾῝䛔஦ᐇ䛻ᑐ䛧䛶ಟ᚟䛾ᚲせᛶ䛜䛒䜛䛾䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䠈୺ほⓗホ౯䛾୙୍⮴䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䛿䠈୙ྠព⾲⌧䛜ᙅ䜑䜙䜜䜛⌧㇟䛜ほᐹ䛥䜜䛯䚹ḟ䛾౛䜢ཧ↷䛥䜜䛯䛔䚹౛ 䠘%76 ึᑐ㠃㞧ㄯ 䠚㻌 $ 䛿  ṓ䜎䛷䝣䝷䞁䝇䛷ᬽ䜙䛧䛶䛚䜚䠈ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛸䛧䛶኱Ꮫධヨ䜢ཷ㦂䛧䛯䚹䛭䛧䛶 % 䛿  ṓ䜎䛷䜲䞁䝗䝛䝅䜰䛷ᬽ䜙䛧䛶䛔䛯䛣䛸䜒䛒䜛䜒䛾䛾䠈᮲௳䜢‶䛯䛫䛪ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛸䛧䛶ヨ㦂䜢ཷ䛡䜙䜜䛺䛛䛳䛯䚹䛭䛾䛣䛸䛻ᑐ䛧䛶 $ 䛜䛂ᝰ䛧䛔䛃䛸ホ౯䛧䛯䚹$ᝰ䛧䛔䚹䜒䛖䛱䜗䛳䛸䛪䜙䛧䛶䛆䛆䚹
%㻌 㻌 䊻 䛇䛇䜲䞁䝗䝛䝅䜰䛷䛩䛛䜙䛽䠖䛺䜣䛛䚸≉䛻ⱥㄒ䚸୰ᅜㄒ䚸䝣䝷䞁䝇ㄒ䚸䛹䜜䜒䚸≉䛻䛭䜣䛺䚸䛽䛘䚸㛵ಀ䛺䛔䜣䛷䠖䜎䛒䚹$䛷䜒䜎䛒䚸⤫୍ヨ㦂䜒ཷ䛡䜙䜜䜛䛳䛱䜓ཷ䛡䜙䜜䜛䠖䛒䠖ᝰ䛧䛔䛳䛩䛽䛘䚹
%㻌 㻌 䜣䠖䠖ᝰ䛧䛔䛾䛛>䛺䛒@䚹$>䛱䜗䛳䛸@䛪䜜䛶䛯䚹
%㻌 㻌 䛷䜒䚸䛭䜜䛷䛺䜣䛛䜔䛳䛶䜒䛽䠄䛖䜣䠖䠅䚸䛯䜆䜣䚸≉䛻䛽䚸䛹䜜䜒䝢䜹୍䛺䜟䛡䛨䜓䛺䛔䜣䛷䚸䚹
$㻌 !
䛷䜒䛹䛳䛱䛜䛔䛔䜣䛷䛧䜗䛖䛽䚹
%
䜲䞁䝗䝛䝅䜰ㄒ䛾᪥ᖖ఍ヰ䛾䝔䝇䝖䛜䛒䛳䛯䜙኱୔ኵ䛛䜒䛧䜜䛺䛔 ே➗䛔!䚹㻌 ෆᐜ䛛䜙䛔䛖䛸䠈$ 䜢᚟ඖ䛩䜜䜀䠈䠘䜒䛖䛱䜗䛳䛸᫬㛫䜢䛪䜙䛫䜀ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛸䛧䛶ヨ㦂䜢ཷ䛡䜙䜜䜛䛾䛻䠈ཷ䛡䜙䜜䛺䛛䛳䛯䛾䛜ᝰ䛧䛔䠚䛸䛔䛖ព࿡䛻䛺䜛䚹䛭䛖䛧䛯ホ౯䛻ᑐ䛩䜛 % 䛾୙ྠព䛾ែᗘ䛜䠎% 䛻䛚䛔䛶᪤䛻⾲᫂䛥䜜䛯䚹ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛾኱Ꮫධヨ䛾እᅜㄒ⛉┠䛜䛒䜚䠈$ 䛿䝣䝷䞁䝇䛷ᬽ䜙䛧䛶䛔䛯䛾䛷䛭䜜䛷ཷ㦂䛷䛝䛯䛾䛻ᑐ
䛧䛶䠈% 䛿䜲䞁䝗䝛䝅䜰䛻ᬽ䜙䛧䛶䛔䛯䛯䜑䠈% 䛷䠘ཷ㦂䛷䛝䜛እᅜㄒ䛸䛿≉䛻㛵ಀ䛺䛔䛾䛷䠈ཷ䛡䜙䜜䛺䛛䛳

6−94−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

䛯䛾䛜䛒䜎䜚ᝰ䛧䛟䛺䛔䠚 %ࠥ% 䛸䛔䛖୙ྠព䛾ែᗘ䜢♧䛧䛯䚹䛯䛰䠈% 䛜䠘ᝰ䛧䛟䛺䛔䜘䠚䛸䛔䛖䜅䛖䛻┤᥋┦ᡭ䛾Ⓨヰ䜢ྰᐃ䛩䜛䛾䛷䛿䛺䛟䠈䠘ᝰ䛧䛟䛺䛔䠚䛸ឤ䛨䛯⌮⏤䜢ㄒ䜛䛣䛸䛻↔Ⅼ䜢䛪䜙䛧䠈䛭䛾୙ྠព䛾ែᗘ䜢ᙅ䜑䛯䛣䛸䛜ศ䛛䜛䚹䛧䛛䛧䠈$ 䛷 $ 䛜䜎䛯௚䛾ゅᗘ䛛䜙䠈䛔䜟䜖䜛䠈䠘ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛸䛧䛶⤫୍ヨ㦂䜢ཷ䛡䜙䜜䜛䛾䛻䠈ཷ䛡䛺䛛䛳䛯䛾䛜ᝰ䛧䛔䠚䛸䛔䛖ព࿡ྜ䛔䛾䛒䜛Ⓨヰ䜢䛧䛯䚹$ 䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䠈% 䛜 %䠄䛂ᝰ䛧䛔䛾䛛䛺䛒䛃䠅䛷෌䜃䛂䜘䜚ᙅ䛔୙ྠព䛃䜢䛧䛯䚹ୟ䛴䠈䠘ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛸䛧䛶ヨ㦂䛻ཧຍ䛧䠈ཷ㦂䛷䛝䜛እᅜㄒ䛛䜙䛹䜜䛛䜢㑅䜣䛷䜒䠈≉䛻ඃ䜜䛶䛔䜛䜒䛾䛜䛺䛔䛾䛷䠈䛒䜎䜚ᝰ䛧䛟䛺䛔䠚 % 䛸䛔䛖୙ྠព䛾᰿ᣐ䜢♧䛧䛯䚹㻌 % 䛷୧⪅㛫䛾୙୍⮴䛜㢧ᅾ໬䛻䛺䛳䛯䚹䜎䛪䠈୙୍⮴䛾ᑐ㇟䛸䛿䠈䠘% 䛜ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛸䛧䛶኱ᏛධᏛヨ㦂䜢ཷ䛡䜙䜜䛺䛛䛳䛯䛾䛿ᝰ䛧䛔䛛䠚䛸䛔䛖୺ほⓗホ౯䛷䛒䜛䚹䛭䜒䛭䜒䠈䠘% 䛜ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛸䛧䛶኱ᏛධᏛヨ㦂䜢ཷ䛡䛯䛛䛹䛖䛛䠚䛸䛔䛖஦ᐇ䛺䜙䠈% 䛻䛭䛾᝟ሗ䛾┿ഇ䜢ุ᩿䛩䜛ᶒ฼䛜䛒䜛䚹䛧䛛䛧䠈䠘% 䛜ᖐᅜᏊዪ䛸䛧䛶኱ᏛධᏛヨ㦂䜢ཷ䛡䜙䜜䛺䛛䛳䛯䛾䛿ᝰ䛧䛔䛛䠚䛸䛔䛖ホ౯䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䠈% 䛜䛭䜜䜢ุ᩿䛩䜛ᶒ฼䛜䛒䜛䛸䛿ゝ䛔䛜䛯䛔䚹䛭䛾䛯䜑䠈% 䛾୙ྠព䛜䜘䜚ᙅ䛔ᙧ䛷⾲᫂䛥䜜䛯䛰䜝䛖䚹䛭䜜䛰䛡䛷䛺䛟䠈$ 䛾ᚋ⥆䛾Ⓨヰ $ 䛸 $ 䛷䛿䠈% 䛷୙ྠព䜢♧䛥䜜䛯䛣䛸䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䠈$ 䛜䛩䛠䛻⮬ศ䛾ホ౯䜢ྲྀ䜚ୗ䛢䛶䛔䛺䛔䛣䛸䛻䜒⧅䛜䛳䛶䛔䜛䛸ゝ䛘䜛䚹஺΅䜢⤒䛶䠈㎺䜚╔䛔䛯䛾䛿䛂䛷䜒䛹䛳䛱䛜䛔䛔䜣䛷䛧䜗䛖䛽䛃 $ 䛸䛔䛖Ⓨヰ䛷䛒䜚䠈䛴䜎䜚䠈$ 䛜䠘ཷ䛡䜛䛾䛸ཷ䛡䛺䛔䛾䛸䛹䛳䛱䛜䛔䛔䛛ศ䛛䜙䛺䛟䛺䛳䛯䠚䛸䛔䛖㊃᪨䜢䜒䛳䛶䠈⮬ศ䛾ホ౯ 䛂ᝰ䛧䛔䛃 䜢⥔ᣢ䛧䛶䛚䜙䛪䠈┦ᡭ䛾ホ౯䠄䛂ᝰ䛧䛟䛺䛔䛃䠅䜢䜒ᨭᣢ䛧䛺䛔䛸䛔䛖䜘䛖䛺ពぢಖ␃䜢㑅ᢥ䛧䛯䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻୧⪅㛫䛾୙୍⮴䛾⛬ᗘ䛜ᑠ䛥䛟䛺䛳䛯䜒䛾䛾䠈୙୍⮴䛜᏶඲䛻ゎᾘ䛥䜜䛯䛸䛿ゝ䛔䛜䛯䛔䚹5㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ㻌 ᮏ✏䛷䛿䠈୙ྠពⓎヰ䛸䛔䛖Ⓨヰ⌧㇟䜢ཷᐜୖ䛾ၥ㢟䛸䛧䠈୙ྠពⓎヰ䛾⾲᫂䛸䛸䜒䛻㢧ᅾ໬䛧䛯୙୍⮴䜢䜑䛠䜛஺΅䝥䝻䝉䝇䛷⾜䜟䜜䛯ಟ᚟⾜Ⅽ䛻䛴䛔䛶ศᯒ䛧䛶䛝䛯䚹௬タ䠄䠍䠅䛷䛿䠈䙫୙ྠព䛾ᙉᙅ䜢䠈௬タ䠄䠎䠅䛷䛿䙬ಟ᚟ປຊ䛾኱ᑠ䠈䙭ಟ᚟⤖ᯝ䛸䛔䛖ᇶ‽䜢ᥦฟ䛧䛯䚹㻌 ⪃ᐹ䛾⤖ᯝ䠈௬タ䠄䠍䠅䛜᳨ド䛥䜜䛯䚹䙫୙ྠព䛾ᙉᙅ䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䠈஦ᐇ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ㄆ㆑䛾୙୍⮴䛻ᑐ䛩䜛୙ྠព䛸ಟ᚟䛾䝥䝻䝉䝇䛻䛚䛔䛶䛿䠈୙୍⮴䛾ᑐ㇟䛸䛾㛵୚ᗘ䛜῝䛔ഃ䛷䛒䜜䜀䠈䜘䜚ᙉ䛟୙ྠព䜢⾲᫂䛩䜛䛾䛻ᑐ䛧䠈㏫䛾䜿䞊䝇䛷䛿୙ྠព䛜䛛䛺䜚ᙅ䜑䜙䜜䜛⌧㇟䛜ほᐹ䛥䜜䛯䚹୺ほⓗホ౯䛾୙୍⮴䛻ᑐ䛩䜛୙ྠព䛸ಟ᚟䛾䝥䝻䝉䝇䛻䛚䛔䛶䛿䠈䛔䛪䜜䜒䛂䜘䜚ᙅ䛔୙ྠព䛃䛧䛛ほᐹ䛥䜜䛺䛛䛳䛯䚹ḟ䛻䠈௬タ䠄䠎䠅䛜㒊ศⓗ䛻᳨ド䛥䜜䛯䚹䙬ಟ᚟ປຊ䛾኱ᑠ䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䠈ಟ᚟ປຊ䛻ᙳ㡪䛩䜛せ⣲䛸䛧䛶䠈䐟఍ヰཧຍ⪅㛫䛾▱㆑㔞䛻䛚䛡䜛ᕪ␗䠈䐠ᙉ䛔୙ྠព䛻క䛖ㄝ᫂㈐௵䠈䐡୙ྠព䜢⾲᫂䛥䜜䛯ഃ䛾▱㆑ᩥ⬦䛻ᑐ䛩䜛సᴗ䛾✀㢮䛾䠏䛴䜢ྲྀ䜚ୖ䛢䛶ㄝ᫂䛧䛯䛜䠈䝖䝷䝤䝹䛾ᛶ㉁䛻䜘䛳䛶᫂䜙䛛䛺ഴྥ䛜ぢ䛔䛰䛫䛺䛛䛳䛯䚹᭱ᚋ䛻䠈䙭ಟ᚟䛾⤖ᯝ䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䠈㛵୚ᗘ䛾ᕪ␗䜢ၥ䜟䛪䠈஦ᐇ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ㄆ㆑䛾୙୍⮴䜢ಟ᚟䛩䜛ሙྜ䠈⤖ᯝ䛸䛧䛶୧⪅䛜୙୍⮴䛛䜙୍⮴䛻ኚ䜟䜛䜘䛖䛻䛺䜛䛜䠈ホ౯䜔ぢ᪉䛻ᑐ䛩䜛୙୍⮴䜢ಟ᚟䛩䜛ሙྜ䠈ᚲ䛪䛧䜒୍᪉䛜⮬ศ䛾ពぢ䜢ྲྀ䜚ୗ䛢䛯䜚ྰᐃ䛧䛯䜚䛩䜛䛾䛷䛿䛺䛟䠈ពぢ䜢ಖ␃䛧䛯䜚᭕᫕䛻䛧䛯䜚䛩䜛䛸䛔䛳䛯⌧㇟䛜ほᐹ䛥䜜䛯䚹䛣䜜䛿䠈୙୍⮴䛾ᛶ㉁䠄஦ᐇ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛䜒䛾䛛ホ౯䠋ぢ᪉䛻ᑐ䛩䜛䜒䛾䛛䠅䛻䜘䛳䛶䛭䜜䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ಟ᚟⾜Ⅽ⮬య䛾ᚲせᛶ䛾⛬ᗘ䛜␗䛺䜛䛛䜙䛷䛿䛺䛔䛛䛸⪃䛘䛶䛔䜛䚹

7−95−

不一致に対処する修復についての一考察―不同意の顕在化と修復のプロセス―㻌 ௒ᚋ䛾ㄢ㢟䛸䛧䛶䛿䠈䜎䛪䠈୙୍⮴䛾ᛶ㉁䛻䜘䜚ಟ᚟䛾⤖ᯝ䛜␗䛺䛳䛶䛔䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛻䛴䛔䛶䠈䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇
䛾どⅬ䛛䜙⪃ᐹ䛩䜛ᚲせ䛜䛒䜛䚹䜎䛯䠈୙୍⮴䛾ᛶ㉁䛸ಟ᚟ປຊ䛸䛾㛫䛻㐃ືⓗ䛺㛵ಀ䛜䛒䜛䛛䛹䛖䛛䠈ከ䛟䛾౛䜢⏝䛔䛶᭦䛺䜛⪃ᐹ䛜ᚲせ䛷䛒䜛䚹1䝖䝷䝤䝹※䛾⏘ฟ䛸䛸䜒䛻䠈୙ྠព⾲᫂ഃ䛻䛿୙୍⮴䛾Ꮡᅾ䜢☜ㄆ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䠈ḟ䛾㡰␒䛷୙ྠព䜢⾲᫂䛩䜛䛣䛸䛷䛭䛾୙୍⮴䜢ಟ᚟䛩䜛䛯䜑䠈ಟ᚟⤌⧊䛛䜙ぢ䜜䜀䠈௚⪅㛤ጞ௚⪅ಟ᚟䛻䛺䜛䚹ḟ䛾㡰␒䛷⾜䜟䜜䛯ಟ᚟ᐇ⾜䛸䛸䜒䛻䠈୧⪅㛫䛾୙୍⮴䜒㢧ᅾ໬䛻䛺䜛䚹㢧ᅾ໬䛻䛺䛳䛯୙୍⮴䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䠈ಟ᚟ᐇ⾜䛾ཷ䛡ᡭ䛜䛹䛾䜘䛖䛻ཷᐜ䛩䜛䛛䛷ಟ᚟䛾ປຊ䜢ุ᩿䛩䜛䚹ཷ䛡ᡭ䛜ಟ᚟ᐇ⾜䛾ḟ䛾㡰␒䛷ཷ䛡ධ䜜䜛ሙྜ䠈ಟ᚟䛾ປຊ䛜ᑠ䛥䛔䛸ุ᩿䛩䜛䚹୍᪉䠈ಟ᚟ᐇ⾜䛸㞳䜜䛯㡰␒䛷ཷ䛡ධ䜜䜛ሙྜ䠈䛭䛾㊥㞳䛜኱䛝䛔䜋䛹ಟ᚟䛾ປຊ䜒኱䛝䛟䛺䜛䛸ุ᩿䛩䜛䚹2ᮏ✏䛷䛿䠈ಟ᚟䛾⤖ᯝ䛸䛿୧⪅㛫䛾୙୍⮴䛜୍⮴䛻䛺䛳䛯䛛䛹䛖䛛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䜢ᣦ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䠈௚⪅㛤ጞ௚⪅ಟ᚟䛜ᐇ⾜䛥䜜䛶䛛䜙䠈㢧ᅾ໬䛻䛺䛳䛯୙୍⮴䜢䜑䛠䜛஺΅䛾䝥䝻䝉䝇䜎䛷ಟ᚟䛾㐃㙐䛸䛧䛶⪃䛘䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛷䛒䜛䚹3
BTSJ 䛷බ㛤䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰ䛾䝁䞊䝟䝇䛷䛿䠈఍ヰཧຍ⪅䛾ᡤᒓ᝟ሗ䜢㠀බ㛤䛻䛧䛶䛔䜛䛜䠈ᮏ✏䛷䛿䠈ศ䛛䜚䜔䛩䛟䛩䜛䛯䜑䛻䠈ලయⓗ䛺Ꮫᰯྡ䜢௜䛡䛶䛔䜛䚹4▱㆑ᩥ⬦䛿䠈ᙧᘧᩥ⬦䚸≧ἣᩥ⬦䛸䛸䜒䛻䠈ຍ⸨䠄2009䠅䛷ᥦ᱌䛥䜜䛯䠘ືⓗᩥ⬦ㄽ䠚䜢ᵓᡂ䛩䜛୺せᴫᛕ䛷䛒䜛䚹▱㆑ᩥ⬦䛸䛿䠈఍ヰ䛜㛤ጞ䛥䜜䜛௨๓䛛䜙䠈఍ヰཧຍ⪅䛜ᣢ䛳䛶䛔䜛▱㆑䛾䛖䛱䠈ゝㄒ▱㆑䜢㝖እ䛧䛯ୡ⏺▱㆑䠄ⓒ⛉඲᭩ⓗ▱㆑䛸䜒ゝ䛖䠅䛻ᙜ䛯䜛䜒䛾䜢ᣦ䛩䠄ຍ⸨ 2009䠖215䠅䚹䜎䛯䠈఍ヰ䛜⾜䜟䜜䜛㐣⛬䛻ฟ䛥䜜䛯ᙧᘧᩥ⬦䛜఍ヰཧຍ⪅䛻ฎ⌮䛥䜜䛯䛒䛸䠈▱㆑ᩥ⬦䛻⵳✚䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䛜䛒䜛䚹ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C.1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
ᇼ⏣ᬛᏊ࣭ྜྷᮏၨ.2012.ࠕ୰ᅜே᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ୙ྠព⾜ືࠖࠊࠗ2012ᖺᗘ᪥ᮏㄆ▱⛉Ꮫ఍➨29ᅇ኱఍ண✏㞟࠘ࠊ453í462㸬
Jacobs, S. and Jackson,S.1989. “Building a Model of Conversational Argument.” in B. Dervin (ed), Rethinking
Communication. 153-171. Newbury Park: Sage.
ຍ⸨㔜ᗈ.2009.ࠕືⓗᩥ⬦ㄽ෌⪃ࠖࠊࠗ໭ᾏ㐨኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩥᏛ◊✲⛉⣖せ࠘ࠊ128ྕࠊ195-223㸬
ᮌᒣᖾᏊ.2005.ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㞧ㄯ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୙ྠពࡢᵝ┦í఍ヰᩍ⫱࡬ࡢ♧၀ࠖࠊࠗゝㄒ᝟ሗᏛ◊✲ሗ࿌࠘ࠊ
NO.6ࠊ165í182㸬᳥ᮏ⥲Ꮚ.2004.ࠕᥦ᱌࡟ᑐࡍࡿ཯ᑐࡢఏ࠼᪉̿ぶࡋ࠸཭ேࡢ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᇶ࡟ࡋ࡚ࠖࠊ
ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ࠘ࠊ23(10)ࠊ
22-33㸬
ᮧ⏣࿴௦.1997.ࠕྠព࣭୙ྠព⾲⌧࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ࡚࠸ࡡ࠸ࡉ(politeness)ࠖࠊࠗே㛫ᩥ໬◊✲⛉ᖺሗ13࠘ࠊ
37-48㸬
Mori, J.1999. Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Japanese. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
኱ሯ῟Ꮚ.2005.ࠕ୙ྠពࡢ⾲᫂-᪥ᮏே኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢሙྜࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ᪥ᮏᩥ໬࠘ࠊ31ࠊ81-95㸬
⋤ⴌ.2007.ࠕ୙ྠពࡢ⾲᫂ࡢ௙᪉-᪥୰ࡢᑐ↷ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟-ࠖࠊࠗẚ㍑♫఍ᩥ໬◊✲࠘ࠊ22ࠊ13-22㸬
Rees-Miller, J. 2000. Power, severity and context in disagreements. Journal of pragmatics 32: 1087-1111.
Sifianou.2012. Disagreements, politeness and face. Journal of Pragmatics.44: 1554–1564
Tanaka,Noriko.2010. Politeness Strategies Used to Agree, Disagree, and Avoid Disagreement : roles and linguist-ic choices in face-to-face interactions, ࠗΎἨዪᏊ኱Ꮫ⣖せ58࠘ࠊ109-129㸬
᳿᪾.2009.ࠕពぢࡢ୙୍⮴࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㢮ᆺ࡜ㄪᩚࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮Ѹ୰ᅜㄒẕㄒሙ㠃࡜᪥୰᥋ゐሙ㠃ࡢ஦౛ศᯒѸࠖࠊᮧᒸⱥ⿱(⦅) ࠗከᩥ໬᥋ゐሙ㠃ࡢゝㄒ⾜ື࡜ゝㄒ⟶⌮-᥋ゐሙ㠃ࡢゝㄒ⟶⌮◊✲vol.7࠘ࠊ༓ⴥ኱
Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ேᩥ♫఍⛉Ꮫ◊✲⛉ࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺሗ࿌᭩218ࠊ65-85㸬
ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㢮
Ᏹబ⨾ࡲࡺࡳ┘ಟࠕ%76-࡟ࡼࡿ᪥ᮏㄒヰࡋゝⴥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸫᪥ᮏㄒ఍ヰ㸦ึᑐ㠃࣭཭ேࠊ㞧ㄯ࣭ウㄽ࣭ㄏ࠸㸧
ࠖࠊࠗㄯヰ◊✲࡜᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ᭷ᶵⓗ⤫ྜࡢࡓࡵࡢᇶ♏ⓗ◊✲࡜࣐ࣝࢳ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ᩍᮦࡢヨస࠘ࠊᖹᡂᖺᗘ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠ᇶ┙◊✲%  ㄢ㢟␒ྕ  ◊✲ᡂᯝ8−96−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号⌧௦ࡢⲔᖍࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖㄯヰࡢ㉁ⓗศᯒ̿ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿ࢶ࢛࢖࣭࢚࢝ࢸ࣮ࣜࢼ
ᮾிእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔⥲ྜᅜ㝿Ꮫ◊✲⛉ ༤ኈᚋᮇㄢ⛬tsoy@tufs.ac.jp<Abstract>
This paper attempts to explain the act of kidzukai and its dual nature, considered to be specific forJapanese behavior in the terms of Discourse Politeness Theory (Usami 2002). We analyzed Japanese tea
ceremony conversation qualitatively and observed two types of kidzukai. The first one is kidzukai as the tea
ceremony norm (unmarked politeness). The second one is kidzukai as a departure from the norm (marked
politeness). We discovered that dual nature of the act is a result of the intermixture of performer’s andaddressee’s face wants. The intermixture was observed more clearly in the case of kidzukai as marked
politeness, in which a conflict between performer’s volition and tea ceremony norm occurs.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠊㄯヰศᯒࠊⲔᖍࡢ఍ヰࠊẼ㐵࠸

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡣ୧⩏ᛶࢆᣢࡘᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ࠕᬮ࠿࠸Ẽ㐵࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࣉࣛࢫ࢖
࣓࣮ࢪࡢ⾲⌧ࡶ࠶ࢀࡤࠊ
ࠕవィ࡞Ẽ㐵࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺࣐࢖ࢼࢫ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢ⾲⌧ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏ♫఍࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡣࠊ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢⰋዲ࡞㛵ಀࡢᵓ⠏ࡸࠊࡑࢀࢆ⥔ᣢࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀࠊࠕẼ㐵࠸ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿேࠖࡣ♫఍ⓗ࡞ホ౯ࢆᚓࡽࢀ
ࡿࡀࠊ୍᪉࡛ࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤᮏே࡟ࡣ㈇ᢸ࡜࡞ࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ࡜ࡾࢃࡅ࿘ᅖ࡬ࡢ㓄៖ࡀ♩൤࡜ࡋ࡚㔜ࢇࡌࡽࢀࡿⲔ
㐨࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡣ⾜ືつ⠊࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍⯡࡟ࡣࠊⲔᖍ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡣ൤ᘧⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ᤊ
࠼ࡽࢀࡀࡕ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ᢅ࠺⮬↛఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᏱబ⨾㸦2001,2002,2008a,b㸧ࠊUsami(2002)࡟ࡼࡿࢹ࢕ࢫ
ࢥ࣮ࢫ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊヰ⪅ࡢ஫࠸࡬ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸࡛ࠖࡣࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢵࢡ࡞ᑐேࢥ࣑ࣗ
ࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡀぢ࠼࡚ࡁࡓࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊBrown and Levinson(1987[1978])࡟ࡼࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢᴫᛕཬࡧ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿ
ࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࠊࡲࡓࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ↓ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫཬࡧ᭷ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢᴫ
ᛕࢆ⏝࠸ࠊࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿヰ⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢΰᅾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿࠋ
2. ⌮ㄽⓗ⫼ᬒ ࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㆟ㄽࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࡣࠊヰࡋ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢᑐே㛵ಀࢆᢅ࠺࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢᴫᛕࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿࠋึᮇࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡣᑐே㛵ಀ࡛ᦶ᧿ࢆῶࡽࡍࡓࡵ࡟♫఍࡟ࡼࡗ࡚స
ࡾฟࡉࢀࡿつ⠊࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࠊLakoff(1975)ࡣ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢつ๎(Rules of Politeness)ࢆᥦၐࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ
Leech(1983)ࡣ⮬ᕫ࡜௚⪅ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫཎ⌮(Politeness Maxims)ࢆᑟධࡋࡓࠋ ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚᭱ࡶໟᣓⓗ࡞ᯟ⤌ࡳ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࡢࡣ Brown and Levinson(1987[1978])࡟ࡼࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖
ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2.1. ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽ ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡢ୰ᚰ࡟࠶ࡿࡢࡣࠊே㛫ࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞♫఍ⓗḧồ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠕࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࠖ(face)ࡢᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࠖࡣ஧ࡘࡢഃ㠃ࢆᣢࡕࠊ୍ࡘࡣࠊ௚ே࡟㑧㨱ࡉࢀࡓࡃ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ḧồࠕࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࠖ(negative−97−

現代の茶席の会話における「気遣い」談話の質的分析―ディスコース・ポライトネス理論の観点から―face)࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡣࠊㄡ࠿࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓ࠸ࠊዲࡲࢀࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ḧồࠕ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࠖ(positive face)࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ㐣⛬࡛ࠊ఍ヰཧຍ⪅ࡣ஫࠸ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ౵ᐖࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽ(Face-Threatening Act, FTA)ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ㝿ḟࡢ୰࠿ࡽ㐺ษ࡞ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ձࣇ࢙࢖ࢫಖᣢ⾜Ⅽࢆྲྀࡽࡎࠊ┤᥋ⓗୟࡘ᫂☜࡟ヰࡍ(without redressive action, baldly)ղ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ(positive politeness)ճࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ(negative politeness)մ࢜ࣇ࣭ࣞࢥ࣮ࢻ(off record)
յFTA ࢆ⾜ࢃ࡞࠸(don’t do the FTA)FTA ᗘࡀ㧗࠸࡯࡝ヰࡋᡭࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ㑅ᢥࡣձ࠿ࡽյ࡟ືࡃࠋ ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢᴫᛕࡸ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢᩥ໬ⓗᕪ␗ࢆࡵࡄࡾ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢ⌮ㄽࡣᢈุࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
(Matsumoto 1988,Ide 1989,஭ฟ 2006 ➼)ࡀࠊࡑࡢཎᅉࢆᏱబ⨾(2001)ࡣศᯒࡀᩥࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟␃ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽࡔ࡜
ᣦ᦬ࡋࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞⪃࠼᪉ࢆ⥅ᢎࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆㄯヰ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝᤊ࠼ࡿࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮
ࢫ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࢆᥦၐࡋࡓࠋ
2.2. ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽᏱబ⨾(2008a)ࡣࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆࠕゝㄒ⾜ື࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢせ⣲ࡀࡶࡓࡽࡍᶵ⬟ࡢࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢵࢡࢫࡢ⥲యࠖ(p.17)࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࠊࠕࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠖ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉ࢆᑟධࡋࡓࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡢࠕᇶᮏ≧ែࠖࠊࠕ᭷ᶆ⾜ືࠖཬࡧࠕ↓ᶆ⾜ືࠖࠊࡲࡓࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡿࠕ↓ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠖཬࡧࠕ᭷ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠖࡢᴫᛕࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠋࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕᇶᮏ≧ែࠖࡣࠊࠕࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢゝㄒ⾜ືࡸㄯヰᒎ㛤ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡢᇶᮏ≧ែࠖ(Ᏹబ⨾,2008a,p.18)ࢆᣦࡍࠋᏱబ⨾(2008b,p.159)ࡣࠕᇶᮏ≧ែࠖࢆࠕㄯヰࡢᇶᮏ≧ែࠖ࡜ࠕㄯヰせ⣲ࡢᇶᮏ≧ែࠖࡢ 2 ✀㢮࡟༊ูࡋࡓࠋ
ࠕㄯヰࡢᇶᮏ≧ែࠖࡣࠕ≉ᐃࡢࠕάືࡢᆺࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄯヰࡢࠕ඾ᆺⓗ࡞≧ែࠖࠖࢆᣦࡋࠊࠕ⌮ㄽⓗ࡞ほⅬ࠿ࡽ᝿ᐃࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊㄯヰෆࡢㅖせ⣲ࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ(Ᏹబ⨾,2008b,p.159)࡜ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊㄯヰෆࡢㅖせ⣲ࢆࡍ࡭࡚≉ᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ୙ྍ⬟ࡔ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊࠕㄯヰせ⣲ࡢᇶᮏ≧ែࠖࡣࠊࠕಶࠎࡢ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚◊✲ᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚タᐃࡋࡓせ⣲࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊྠᐃ࣭⟬ฟࡍࡿࡶࡢࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠕㄯヰせ⣲ࡢᇶᮏ≧ែࠖࡢᣦᶆ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ඾ᆺⓗ࡞≧ែࡢㄯヰࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ୺せ࡞ゝㄒ⾜ືࡢᖹᆒⓗ࡞ᵓᡂẚ⋡(ศᕸ)ࠖ
ࡸࠕྛࠎࡢせ⣲ࡢᖹᆒⓗ࡞⏕㉳⋡ࠖࠊࠕ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ㄯヰᒎ㛤ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࠖ(Ibid.)࡞࡝ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ㄯヰࡢࠕᇶᮏ≧ែࠖࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿせ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢゝㄒ⾜ືࡣࠕ↓ᶆ⾜ືࠖ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࠕ᭷ᶆ⾜ືࠖ࡜ࡣࠊࠕࠕྛࠎࡢせ⣲ࡢᇶᮏ≧ែ࠿ࡽ㞳⬺ࡋࡓゝㄒ⾜ື(Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽࣞ࣋ࣝ)ࠖ
ࠊᡈ࠸ࡣࠕᇶᮏ≧ែ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ୍㐃ࡢ⾜ື(ㄯヰࣞ࣋ࣝ)ࠖ
ࠖ(Ᏹబ⨾,2008b,p.161)࡛࠶ࡾࠊBrown and Levinson ࡟ࡼࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡣࠊ୍✀ࡢࠕ᭷ᶆ⾜ືࠖ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋࠕ᭷ᶆ⾜ືࠖ࡟ࡼࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡣࠕ᭷ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠖ࡜ࡉࢀࠊࠕᇶᮏ≧ែࠖࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿࠕ↓ᶆ⾜ືࠖ࡟ࡼࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡣࠕ↓ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࠖ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡣࠊࠕྛࠎࡢㄯヰ࡜ࠊࡑࢀࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿㅖせ⣲ࡢࠕᇶᮏ≧ែࠖࢆᇶ࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡇ
࠿ࡽࡢ᭷ᶆ⾜ືࡢࠕືࡁࠖࡸࠕ᭷ᶆᛶ(ᇶᮏ≧ែ࠿ࡽࡢ㞳⬺ᗘ)ࠖ࡟╔┠ࠖ(Ᏹబ⨾,2008b,p.161)ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ࣏
ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆ┦ᑐⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᴫᛕࢆ⏝࠸ࠊⲔ㐨ࡢ⾜ືつ⠊࡟ἢࡗࡓ↓ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖཬࡧࠊつ⠊࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ᭷ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࢆㄯヰ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝศᯒࡍࡿࠋ
3. ศᯒࢹ࣮ࢱ ࠗⲔ㐨኱㎡඾࡛࠘ࡣࠊⲔ఍ࡣࠕ୍఍ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚Ⲕࢆᴦࡋࡴࡇ࡜ࠊࡲࡓࡑࡢሙࢆ࠸࠺ࠖ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋⲔ఍ࡣ
ࡶ࡚࡞ࡋࡢሙ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ࡑࡢሙࢆᴦࡋࢇ࡛ࡶࡽ࠺ࡓࡵ࡟஫࠸࡬ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡀᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋⲔᖍ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
ࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖ࡟ࡣࠊⲔ㐨ࡢ⾜ືつ⠊࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡶ࠶ࢀࡤࠊつ⠊࡜␗࡞ࡿ≧ἣ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚⏕ࡲࢀ࡚ࡃࡿࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡶ࠶ࡿࠋⲔ㐨࡛ࡣつ⠊ࡀ㔜ࢇࡌࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࡽࡇࡑࠊつ⠊࠿ࡽࡢ㞳⬺࡟ࡣ࠶ࡾࡢࡲࡲࡢ⏕ࡁࡓゝㄒᩥ໬ࡢ⌧ࢀࡀ

−98−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ほᐹ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࠊศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
Ⲕᖍ࡟ࡣࠊ⃰ⲔᖍࡸⷧⲔᖍ 1 ࡞࡝ࠊ␗࡞ࡿసἲࡸ┠ⓗࢆᣢࡘࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࠋྛࠎࠊ᫂☜࡞㛤ጞ࡜⤊஢ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ」ᩘ
ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡛ࡲ࡜ࡲࡾࡢ࠶ࡿ୍ࡘࡢⲔ఍ 2ࠊᡈ࠸ࡣⲔ஦ 3 ࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Ⲕ㐨ࡣࠕᆺࠖࢆ㔜どࡍࡿᩥ໬࡛࠶ࡾࠊⲔᖍࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡣヰ⪅࡟≉ᐃࡢᙺ๭ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࠊ኱ูࡍࡿ࡜ࠕࡶ࡚࡞ࡍഃࠖ
࡜ࠕᐈഃࠖ࡟ศࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡶ࡚࡞ࡍഃࡢヰ⪅ࢆࠕீ୺ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࠋ
ࠕீ୺ࠖࡣࡶ࡚࡞ࡍഃࢆ௦⾲ࡋ࡚ᐈഃ࡜఍ヰࢆࡍࡿࠋᐈഃࡢࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ㔜せ࡞ᙺ๭ࡣࠕṇᐈࠖ࡟࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕṇᐈࠖࡣࠊᖍ୰࡛᭱ࡶୖ఩ࡢᖍ࡟ᗙࢃࡾࠊ௚ࡢ㐃ᐈࡢ⾜ືࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿᙺ๭
ࢆᢸ࠺ࠋⲔᖍࡢ఍ヰࡣࠊ㐃ᐈࡶ఍ヰ࡟ཧຍࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕீ୺ࠖ࡜ࠕṇᐈࠖࡢ㛫ࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࡀ୺࡛࠶ࡾࠊつ⠊໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㒊ศࡀከ࠸ࠋ ᮏ✏ࡢศᯒࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࠊ
2011 ᖺ 8 ᭶࠿ࡽ 2012 ᖺ 5 ᭶࡟㛤ദࡉࢀࡓ 4 ᅇࡢⲔ஦ཬࡧ 4 ᅇࡢⲔ఍࡟࠾࠸࡚㘓㡢ࡉࢀࠊᏱబ⨾(2011)ࡢࠕᇶᮏⓗ࡞ᩥᏐ໬ࡢཎ๎(Basic Transcription System for Japanese: BTSJ)2011 ᖺ∧ࠖ࡟ᚑ࠸ᩥ
Ꮠ໬ࡉࢀࡓ(ྜィ 9 ᖍࠊ⣙ 7 ᫬㛫ࠊ6866 Ⓨヰᩥ 4)ࠋ
➹⪅ࡀ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺ࡜ྠᖍࡋࠊIC ࣞࢥ࣮ࢲ࡛఍ヰࢆ㘓㡢ࡋࡓࠋ఍ヰࡢ⮬↛ࡉࢆ☜ಖࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ➹⪅ࡣ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡸ఍ヰࡢ㐍ࡳ᪉࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣᣦ♧ࢆࡏࡎࠊᖍࡢ୍ဨ࡜ࡋ࡚⾜ືࡋࡓ 5ࠋ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺࡣࠊ⿬༓ᐙཬࡧ⾲༓ᐙࡢὶὴ࡟ᡤᒓࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ7 ᖺ௨ୖࡢⲔṔࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ 26 ྡ(30 ௦:3 ྡࠊ
40 ௦:2 ྡࠊ50 ௦:4 ྡࠊ60 ௦:10 ྡࠊ70 ௦:6 ྡࠊ80 ௦:1 ྡ)ࡢዪᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
4. ࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖㄯヰ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࢆ௨ୗࡢ୍㐃ࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆྵࡴࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࠊⲔᖍࡢ఍ヰ࠿ࡽࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖㄯヰࢆᢳฟࡋࡓࠋ
i. ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀᑐ㇟⪅࡟ὀពࢆᡶ࠺
ii. ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀᑐ㇟⪅ࡢḧồࢆ᥎ࡋࠊࡑࡢḧồࢆ‶ࡓࡍࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊ‶ࡓࡑ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

iii. ᑐ㇟⪅ࡣࠊ᩿ࡿࠊࡲࡓࡣࠊii ࡢ⾜ⅭࢆཷࡅṆࡵࡿࠋ ᢳฟࡉࢀࡓࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡢㄯヰࡣྜィ 54 ௳ࠊᖹᆒ 7.59 Ⓨヰᩥࡢ㛗ࡉ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(1) ࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡢㄯヰ౛
240

ீ୺ 05

ࠓỿ㯲 15 ⛊ࠔࡲࠊ᫬ศ࡝ࡁ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠊ⢒㣤ࡳࡘࡃࢁࡗ࡚ᕪࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ

241

ṇᐈ 04

࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ

242

ீ୺ 05

ࡑࡢ๓࡟ࠊࡲ࣮ࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠊࡈᗙᕸᅋࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ࡯࠺ࡀ<ࡼࢁࡋ࠸࠿࡞࡜ᛮࡗ࡚>{<}ࠋ

243

ṇᐈ 04

<࠶࣮ࠊࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇ>{>}ࠊ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ(<➗࠸>)ࠋ

Ћiii

244

ீ୺ 05

࡛ࠊࡑࡕࡽ(ࡣ࠸)ࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜<࠾⊃࠸࡛ࡍࡼࡡ>{<}ࠋ

Ћi

245

ṇᐈ 04

<࠶ࠊࡑࡕࡽ࡬ࠊ࠶ࡗࠊࡇࡗࡕ࡟>{>}ࠊࡣ࠸ࠋ

Ћiii

246

ீ୺ 05

ࡣ࠸ࠋ

Ћii

247

ீ୺ 05

ᗙࡗ࡚<࠸ࡓࡔࡅࢀࡤ>{<}ࠋ

248

ṇᐈ 04

<ࡣ࠸>{>}ࠋ

Ћiii

249

ீ୺ 05

࡝࠺ࡒࠊ࠾౑࠸ࡃࡔ<ࡉ࠸ࡲࡏ>{<}ࠋ

Ћii

250

ṇᐈ 04

<࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺>{>}ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ࣮ࠋ

Ћiii

251

ீ୺ 05

࡛ࠊ࠾஧ேࡄࡽ࠸ࠊࡡࠊࡶࡋࠊ⾜ࡅࡓࡽࠊ࠶ࡢࠊࡇࡕࡽࠊ࠾㞮ẁ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࡽࠋ

Ћii

252

㐃ᐈ඲ဨ

<➗࠸>ࠋ

253

㐃ᐈ 13

࠾஧ே࠸࠸࡛ࡍࡡ<➗࠸>ࠋЋii(㸯)ࡣⲔᖍࡢ఍ヰ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓீ୺࠿ࡽṇᐈ࡬ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋீ୺ 05 ࡣࠊ⊃ࡃឤࡌࡿṇᐈ 04 ࡟ὀពࢆᡶ
࠸(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 244)ࠊᐈ࡟ᗙᕸᅋࡸᗙࡿ఩⨨ࢆ᭰࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࡍࡍࡵࡓ(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 242ࠊ247ࠊ249ࠊ251)ࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ṇᐈ 04 ࡣឤㅰࢆ㏙࡭ࠊீ୺ 05 ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࢆཷࡅṆࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 243ࠊ245ࠊ248ࠊ250)ࠋ

−99−

現代の茶席の会話における「気遣い」談話の質的分析―ディスコース・ポライトネス理論の観点から― ḟ㡯࡛ࡣࠊi~iii ࡛♧ࡋࡓ୍㐃ࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆྵࡴࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽㄯヰ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝศᯒࡋࠊࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡢ᭷ᶆᛶ࡟ࡼࡾ㢧ⴭ࡟⌧ࢀࡿ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜ᑐ㇟⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢΰᅾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿࠋ
5. ศᯒ࡜⪃ᐹ ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ศᯒࡢᅵྎ࡜࡞ࡿᇶᮏ≧ែࢆỴࡵࠊࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ↓ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫཬࡧ᭷ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆྲྀࡾ࠶ࡆࡿࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᇶᮏ≧ែ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ≉ᐃࡢࠕάືࡢᆺࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄯヰࡢࠕ඾ᆺⓗ࡞≧ែࠖࠖ(Ᏹబ⨾,2008b,p.159)࡛࠶
ࡿࠕㄯヰࡢᇶᮏ≧ែࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࠊ㜿㒊(2008)ࠊ୕⏣(2003,2005)࡛࠶ࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆⲔᖍࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ඾
ᆺⓗ࡞≧ែ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࠋ
Ⲕᖍࡢ఍ヰ࠿ࡽᢳฟࡉࢀࡓࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖㄯヰ࡛ࡣࠊᇶᮏ≧ែ࡟ἢࡗࡓࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖཬࡧࠊᇶᮏ≧ែ࡜␗࡞ࡿࠊሙ㠃࡟ᛂࡌ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡓࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋ
(2) ↓ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖ౛
Ѝ285

ீ୺ 03

<࠾Ⲕࠊࡶ࠺୍᭹࠸࠿ࡀ࡛ࡍ࠿ࠊ࠼ࡗ>{>}ࠋ

286

ீ୺ 04

࡝࠺?,ⓙࡉࢇࠋ

287

㐃ᐈ 08

࡝࠺?,<୺Ⲕ☇࡛ࡍࡗ࡚>{<}ࠋ

288

ṇᐈ 02

<࠶ࡗࠊࡑ࠺࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍ࠿>{>}ࠋ

289

㐃ᐈ 05

௒<࠾Ⲕࡗ>{<}࠙
࠙ࠋ

290

㐃ᐈ 09

ࠚ
ࠚ<ᘵ>{>}ࡉࢇࡢ࠾Ⲕ☇ࡀ᮶ࡓࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࡅ࡝ࠋ

Ѝ291

ṇᐈ 02

ࡌࡷࠊࡏࡗ࠿ࡃ࡛ࡍ࠿ࡽ㡬ᡝ࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡍ࣮ࠊࡐࡦ<➗࠸>ࠋ

292

㐃ᐈ 06

ᘵࡉࢇࡢࡗ࡚<➗࠸>ࠋ

293

㐃ᐈ඲ဨ

<➗࠸>ࠋ

Ѝ294

ṇᐈ 02

⳥ࡀ‶㛤࡛(࠶ࡗ)ࠊ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ

(2)࡛ࡣீ୺ 03 ࡣⲔࢆࡶ࠺୍ᮼࡍࡍࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣࠊṇᐈ࠿ࡽⅬ๓ࢆ⤊ࢃࡽࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡜ኌࡀ࠿࠿ࡽ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ
Ⲕࢆࡍࡍࡵࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⲕ㐨࡟࠾ࡅࡿつ⠊࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋṇᐈ 02 ࡣீ୺ 03 ࡢẼ㐵࠸࡟ឤㅰࢆ㏙࡭ࠊ
⏦ࡋฟࢆཷࡅṆࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(3)ࡣⲔ㐨࡟࠾࠸࡚つ⠊࡜ࡋ࡚ඹ᭷ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠊࡑࡢ᫬ࡢ≧ἣ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚⏕ࡌࡿࠕẼ㐵࠸࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋீ୺ࡀ౑⏝ࡋࡓ㤶ྜࢆぢࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋṇᐈ 01 ࡢⓎヰ(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 168)࠿ࡽศ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊⲔ㐨ࡢつ⠊࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᖍ࡛ࡣ
᫂࠿ࡾࢆ௜ࡅ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᬯ࠸୰࡛㐨ලࡀⰋࡃぢ࠼ࡎࠊṇᐈ 01 ࡣ║㙾ࢆྲྀࡾฟࡍ(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 155)ࠋࡑࢀ࡟Ẽ௜࠸ࡓ㐃ᐈ 04 ࡣṇᐈ 01 ࢆẼ㐵࠸ࠊ㟁Ẽࢆ௜ࡅࡓࠋ
(3) ᭷ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖ౛
154

ṇᐈ 01

࡛ࡣࠊ࠾ඛ࡟ࠋ

155

ṇᐈ 01

ࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠊ[║㙾ࢆྲྀࡾฟࡍ]ࡣ࠸ࠊ኱୔ኵࠋ

156

ṇᐈ 01

࠶ࡢࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࠊ࠶ࢀ࡛ࡍࠊࡅࡗࡇ࠺ࡡࠋ

Ѝ157

㐃ᐈ 04

ࡍࡈࡃ⣲ᩛ࡞㤶ྜ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠋ

158

㐃ᐈ 03

ࡑ࠺࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡡࠋ

159

㐃ᐈ 04

ኻ♩ࡋ࡚[㟁Ẽࢆ௜ࡅࡿ]ࠋ

160

㐃ᐈ 03

ࡣ࠸ࠋ

161

ṇᐈ 01

࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ

162

㐃ᐈ 02

࠶࣮ࠋ

−100−

第16回大会発表論文集

Ѝ163

㐃ᐈ 04

⣲ᩛ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠋ

164ṇᐈ 01࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ

165

ṇᐈ 01

࠶࣮ࠊ࠶ࠊ⣲ᩛࠋ

166

㐃ᐈ 04

##ࡀ࠸࠸ࡡ(<➗࠸>)ࠋ

167

㐃ᐈ 02

ぢ࠼࡞࠸࡜ࡡ࣮ࠊࡘࡲࢇ࡞࠸ࡢࠋ

168

ṇᐈ 01

第９号

ࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࡼࡡ࣮ࠊ࠶ࡢࠊ࠸࠿࡟ࡡࠊึᗙࡀ(࠼࠼)㝜ࡢᖍࡔࡗ࡚ゝࡗ࡚ࡶࠊᬯ
ࡍࡂࡿ࡜ࡡࠋ

169㐃ᐈ 04ࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࡡ࣮ࠋ

170

ṇᐈ 01

࠶ࡽ࣮ࠊ࠸࠸࡛ࡍࡡࠊ㯮ࡗࠊ[⊂ࡾゝࡢࡼ࠺࡟]ࡇࢀ࠿࡞ࠊ㯮ᰠ࠿࡞ࠋ

Ѝ171

ṇᐈ 01

ࠓỿ㯲 25 ⛊ࠔᎰࡋ࠸࡛ࡍࡡࠊ຾ᡭ▱ࡗࡓࡿ᪉ࡀࠊࡑࡤ࡟ධࡗ࡚࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡿ
࡜ࠊࡥࡗ࡜㟁Ẽࢆ௜ࡅ࡚<➗࠸>ࠋ

172

㐃ᐈ඲ဨ

Ѝ173

㐃ᐈ 04

<➗࠸>ࠋ
ࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࡡࠊ
ⓙࡉࢇࠊⓙࡼࡾඛ࡟ぢࡏ࡚࠸ࡓࡔ࠸࡚ࡋࡲࡗ࡚࡜࠸࠺࠿(࠶࣮)ࠊ
ᛕ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡋࡲࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ࠶ࡲࡾ࡟ࡶẼ࡟ධࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࡢ࡛(࠼࠼)ࠊ᫝㠀ࠊ࠶ࡢ⣽ᕤࢆ࡛ࡍࡡ(࠼ࡗ)ࠋ

174

㐃ᐈ 04

ࡡ࣮ࠊࡏࡗ࠿ࡃ࡛ࡍ࠿ࡽࠊ᫂ࡿ࠸࡜ࡇࢁ࡛<ぢ࡚࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓ᪉ࡀ>{<}ࠋ

175

ṇᐈ 01

<ᮏᙜ>{>}ࠊᎰࡋ࠸࡛ࡍࠋ ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ(2)ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡣつ⠊ࠊࡘࡲࡾᇶᮏ≧ែ࡟ἢࡗࡓ↓ᶆ⾜ື࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࡛ぢࡽࢀࡿ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡣ↓ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(3)ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡣࠊⲔᖍࡢ⾜ືつ⠊࠿ࡽ㞳⬺ࡍࡿ᭷ᶆ⾜ື࡛࠶ࡿࠋ┦ᡭࡢࡓࡵ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼ࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜ᑐ㇟⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ౵ᐖࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ
ヰ⪅ࡀ஫࠸࡟࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࠋ㐃ᐈ 04 ࡣࠕ⌮⏤ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡲࡓࡣồࡵࡿࠖ(give (or ask for)reasons)(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 157ࠊ163ࠊ173)ࠊࡲࡓṇᐈ 01 ࡣࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ㛵ᚰࠊ᫝ㄆࠊඹឤࢆ㄂ᙇࡍࡿࠖ(exaggerate(interest,
approval, sympathy with H))(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 168ࠊ175)࡜࠸࠺࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࠋ ࠕᆺࠖࡀ㔜どࡉࢀࡿⲔᖍ࡛ࡣࠊᆺ㏻ࡾࡢ఍ヰࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾீ୺࡜ṇᐈࡀⅬ๓ࢆ㐍⾜ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊཧຍ⪅㛫ࡢࠕ࿴ࠖࢆಖࡘࡇ࡜ࡀⲔᖍࡢ఍ヰࡢ┠ⓗࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡀ↓ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚Ⲕᖍࡢ⾜ືつ⠊࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢⰋዲ࡞㛵ಀࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟つ⠊࡜␗࡞ࡿ᭷ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ
ࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡢ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜ᑐ㇟⪅࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡢ୧⩏ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ ࡲࡎࡣࠊつ⠊࡟ἢࡗࡓࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡢ౛࡟ࡳࡿࠋ(4)ࡣࠊீ୺ࡣࠊⲔࢆ㣧ࢇࡔⲔ☇ࢆぢࡿṇᐈ࡟ࠊࡑࡢⲔ☇ࢆὙࡗ࡚ࡇࡼ࠺࠿࡜⏦ࡋฟࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(4) ↓ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖ౛
19

ீ୺ 05

䛀ỿ㯲 11 ⛊䛁䛣䜜[Ⲕ☇]䚸Ύ䜑䛶,䛝䜎䛧䜗䛖䛛䚹

20

ீ୺ 05

䛒䛾<➗䛔>䚸<䛔䛔䛷䛩䛛>{<}䚹

21

ṇᐈ 02

<䜘䜝䛧䜕䛖䛷䛩䛛>{>}䚹

22

ீ୺ 05

䛿䞊䛔<➗䛔>䚸ኻ♩䛧䜎䛩䚹

23

ṇᐈ 02

䛤䜑䜣䛺䛥䛔䚹24ṇᐈ 02䛨䜓䚸䛭䛖䛧䛶䛔䛯䛰䛝䜎䛧䜗䛖䚹 ࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡢ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜ᑐ㇟⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿ࡜ࠊⲔ㐨ࡢつ⠊࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୧⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡀ୍⮴ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ(4)ࡢሙྜࡣࠊ
ࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡢ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡛࠶ࡿீ୺ 05 ࡣࠕὙࡗ࡚Ⲕ☇ࢆᐈ࡟ฟࡍࠖ
ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾṇᐈ 02 ࡢࠕ⥡㯇࡞Ⲕ☇ࢆぢࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ḧồࢆ‶ࡓࡍ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊⲔ㐨ࡢつ⠊ࢆ༑ศ࡟⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⲔ
ே࡜ࠕ࿘ᅖ࡟㈹㈶ࡉࢀࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢḧồࢆ‶ࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜ᑐ㇟⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡀᚲࡎࡋࡶ୍⮴ࡋ࡞࠸ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ(5)ࡢṇᐈ 07 ࡢⓎヰ(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 52)࠿ࡽศ࠿

−101−

現代の茶席の会話における「気遣い」談話の質的分析―ディスコース・ポライトネス理論の観点から―ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊⲔࡀฟࡉࢀࡿࡲ࡛ࡣヰࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺Ỵࡲࡾࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ௚࡟ࡶ኱ໃࡢᐈࡀ࠾ࡾࠊᖍࡀᘏ
㛗ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ீ୺ࡀḟࡢᖍ࡟ධࡿᐈࢆᚅࡓࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡢ࡛ṇᐈ 07 ࡣ఍ヰࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࠋ(5) ᭷ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖ౛
52

ṇᐈ 07

ࡶ࠺ࡡ࣮ࠊ࠾⃰Ⲕᖍࡣࠊඛ⏕ࡡ(࠼ࠊ࠼)ࠊᮏ᮶࡛ࡋࡓࡽࠊ୍᭹Ⅼࡘࡲ࡛ࡣ㟼⢔࡟ࡋ࡞ࡁࡷ࠸ࡅ
ࡲࡏࢇࡅ࡝(࠺ࢇ)ࠊ࠶ࡢ࣮ࠊ࠾᫬㛫ࡶࡡ(࠼ࠊࡑ࠺࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡡ)ࠊⓙᵝࠊ኱ໃᵝ࠾ᚅࡕ࡛ࡍࡢ࡛(࠼ࡗ)ࠊ ඛ⏕ࡢ࠾ヰࢆࡼࢁࡋࡹ࠺࠾㢪࠸࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡍ(<➗࠸>)ࠋ

53

ீ୺ 11

࠶ࡢࠊ఍グࡶ࠶ࡗ,ᚋ࡯࡝࠾ᅇࡋ<⮴ࡋࡲࡍࡅ࡝>{<},,

54

ṇᐈ 07

<ࡣ࣮࠸ࠊᜍࢀධࡾࡲࡍ>{>}ࠋ

55

ீ୺ 11

࠶ࡢࠊఱ࠿ࠊ఍グࡼࡾࡶࠊ࠾ヰࡋࡓ᪉ࡀࠊ㢌࡟ධࡿ<➗࠸࡞ࡀࡽ>ࡽࡋ࠸<࡛ࡍࡼࡡ>{<}ࠋ

56

ṇᐈ 07

<ࡣ࣮࠸>{>}ࠋ

␎୰
182

ṇᐈ 07

ⓙᵝࠊࡈࡵࢇ࡞ࡉ࠸ࡡࠊ࠾⃰Ⲕࡗ࡚ࡇ࠺ࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࠋ

183

ீ୺ 11

࠶ࡗࡣ࣮<➗࠸>ࠋ

184

ṇᐈ 07

࡛ࡶ࣮ࡡࠊࡶ࠺ࠊࡡࠊ࠶ࡢ᫬㛫࡟ࡡࠊ<ไ㝈ࡀ>{<}ࠋ

185

ீ୺ 11

<᫬㛫ࡢ>{>}⠇⣙࡛ࠋࡑ࠺࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࠋ

186

ṇᐈ 07

187

ீ୺ 11

ᮏᙜࡣ࣮ࠊ࠾Ⲕࡀฟࡿࡲ࡛ࡣࡡࠋ

188

ṇᐈ 07

<ࡣ࠸ࠊࡶ࠺>{<}ࠋ

189

ீ୺ 11

<࠶ࡢ࣮>{>}ࠊᮏᙜࡣ࠾ࡋࡷ࡭ࡾ࡞ࢇ࠿ࡋࡕࡷ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࡑ࠺࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝ࠊ௒᪥ࡣࠊ᫬㛫ࡢ⠇
⣙࡛ࠋ

190

ṇᐈ 07

࡛ࡶࡡࠊึ㔩࡟ி㒔࡬ཧࡾࡲࡋ࡚ࡶ(࠺ࢇ)ࠊ࠶ࡢ࣮ࠊඛ⏕ࡀࡡ࣮(࠼࠼)ࠊ
͆ࡶ࠺᫬㛫࡟ࡣ(࠺ࢇ)
㝈ᗘࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊ᫬ࡣ㐣ࡂࡿ࠿ࡽࠊ࠾ヰࡍࡿࡼ͇࡜(࠺࣮ࢇ)ࠊ࠾ࡗࡋࡷࡗ࡚ࡡ(ࡑ࠺࡛ࡍࡡ࣮)ࠋ

191

ṇᐈ 07

ࡔ࠿ࡽࠊࡇࢀࠊࡇࡢ᫬ࡔࡅࡣチࡉࢀࡿࠊᬑẁࡢ࠾✍ྂࡣⓙᵝࡁࡕࢇ࡜࡞ࡉࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࡲࡏࠋ

 (5)ࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊ఍ヰࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾṇᐈ 07 ࡣீ୺ 11 ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ‶ࡓࡍࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ぢࡽࢀࡓࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡣᇶᮏ≧ែ࠿ࡽ㞳⬺ࡍࡿ᭷ᶆ⾜ື(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 182ࠊ191)࡛࠶ࡿࠋつ⠊ࡀ㔜どࡉࢀࡿⲔ㐨ࡢሙ㠃࡛ࡣ㞳⬺ࡣ࿘ᅖ࡟ᢈุࡉ
ࢀࡿ༴㝤ᛶࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ
⾜Ⅽ⪅⮬㌟ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡀ⬣࠿ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊṇᐈ 07 ࡣࠕ୙ᮏពࢆ♧ࡍࠖ(indicate reluctance)ࡸࠕルࡧࡿࠖ(beg forgiveness)(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 182)ࠊ
ࠕ᢬ᢠ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸⌮⏤ࢆ♧ࡍࠖ(give overwhelming reasons)(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 52ࠊ184)ࠊ(ࣛ࢖ࣥ 182)࡛ࡣࠕㅰࡿࠖ(beg forgiveness)ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࣭ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ⮬ศࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆಖᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(2)ࠊ(4)࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ↓ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜ᑐ㇟⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡀ୍⮴ࡋࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖ⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊྠ᫬࡟ᑐ㇟⪅࡜⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ‶ࡓࡍࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(3)ࠊ(5)ࡢ᭷ᶆ࣏ࣛ
࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜ᑐ㇟⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡀ୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ
ࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖ࡟ࡼࡾᑐ㇟⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡀ‶ࡓࡉࢀⰋዲ࡞㛵ಀࡀᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅⮬㌟ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡀ⬣࠿ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜ᑐ㇟⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢΰᅾ࡟ࡼࡾసືࡢ⾜ືつ⠊࡜ಶேࡢពᚿࡀ⾪✺ࡋࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡢ୧⩏ᛶࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
6. ⤖ㄽ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊⲔᖍࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡢㄯヰࢆࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㉁ⓗ࡟ศᯒࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊⲔ㐨ࡢ⾜ືつ⠊࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ↓ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖཬࡧࠊつ⠊࠿ࡽ㞳⬺ࡍࡿ᭷ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖
ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜ᑐ㇟⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢΰᅾࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊ᭷
ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡢሙྜࡣࠊ஧ࡘࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡀ୍⮴ࡋ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊΰᅾࡀࡼࡾ㢧ⴭ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ┦ᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ‶ࡓࡋⰋዲ࡞㛵ಀࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿ࠿ࠊつ⠊࡟ἢࡗࡓ⾜ືࢆྲྀࡾ⮬ศࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆಖᣢࡍࡿ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸ࡗ
ࡓࢪ࣐ࣞࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿつ⠊࡜ಶேࡢពᚿࡢ⾪✺࡟ࡼࡾࠕẼ㐵࠸ࠖࡢ୧⩏ᛶࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−102−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ᮏ◊✲࡟࠾ࡅࡿⲔᖍࡢ⮬↛఍ヰࡢ౛࡛ぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕᆺࠖࢆ㔜どࡍࡿⲔ㐨࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊヰ⪅ࡀᚲࡎࡋࡶつ⠊࡟ἢࡗࡓ⾜ືࢆྲྀࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ⾜ືつ⠊࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ↓ᶆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡟๎ࡿ࡯࠺ࡀ↓㞴࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊⲔᖍ࡟࠾࠸࡚ぶᐦ࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊつ⠊࡜ࡣከᑡ␗࡞ࡿࠊ┦ᡭ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࡸ≧ἣࢆ⪃៖ࡋࡓ⾜ືࡶᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟つ⠊࡜ಶேࡢពᚿࡢ㛫࡟ࣂࣛࣥࢫࢆಖࡘ࠿ࡣヰ⪅ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊ࡟࠿࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋὀ1 ⃰ⲔᖍࡣⷧⲔᖍࡼࡾᖍ୰ࡢ㞺ᅖẼࡀࡸࡸ㔜ࡃࠊ᱁ࡀ㧗࠸ᖍ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ẚ࡭࡚ⷧⲔᖍࡣከᑡ࡟ࡂࡸ࠿
࡛࠶ࡾࠊᖍ୰ࡢ఍ヰࡀάⓎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⃰Ⲕᖍ࡜ⷧⲔᖍ࡛ࡣ㐪࠺᢯Ⲕࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࠊᖍ୰ࡢసἲࡶ␗࡞ࡿࠋ⃰Ⲕࡣࠊ୍ࡘࡢⲔ☇࡛ᩘே࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᅇࡋ㣧ࡳࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊⷧⲔࡣูࠎࡢⲔ☇࡛ฟࡉࢀࡿࠋ
2 Ⲕ஦࡜ࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢᑡேᩘࡢᐈࢆ㛗᫬㛫(5㹼6 ᫬㛫)ࡶ࡚࡞ࡍⲔ఍ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋⲔ஦ࡣࠊᣵᣜ㸫᠜▼ᩱ⌮㸫ึⅣ㸫⃰Ⲕ㸫ᚋⅣ㸫ⷧⲔࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᣵᣜ㸫ึⅣ㸫᠜▼ᩱ⌮㸫⃰Ⲕ㸫ᚋⅣ㸫ⷧⲔ࡜࠸࠺ὶࢀ࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡓࡔࡋࠊᚋⅣࡢᖍࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋึⅣࡢᖍཬࡧᚋⅣࡢᖍ࡛ࡣⅣࡀ⤌ࡲࢀࠊ᠜▼ᩱ⌮ࡢᖍ࡛ࡣ㣗஦ࡀ᣺⯙ࢃࢀࡿࠋ⃰ⲔᖍཬࡧⷧⲔᖍ࡛ࡣ᢯Ⲕࡀ᣺⯙ࢃࢀࡿࠋ3 Ⲕ఍࡜ࡣࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ኱ᐤࡏⲔ఍ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ࠗⲔ㐨኱㎡඾࠘࡟ࡣࠊ
ࠕ኱ேᩘࡢᐈࢆᣍ࠸࡚ദࡍⲔ఍ࡢࡇ࡜ࠖ࡜
᭩࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋⲔ఍࡛ࡣࠊ⃰ⲔᖍࡸⷧⲔᖍ࡞࡝࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢᖍࡀಶู࡟タࡅࡽࢀࠊྠ᫬࡟㐍⾜ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ
࠸ࠋ୍ᖍࡣ 20㹼30 ศ⛬ᗘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⲔ఍ࡣ௚ὶὴࡸⲔ㐨ࡢ⤒㦂ࡢ࡞࠸ே࡛ࡶㄡ࡛ࡶཧຍ࡛ࡁࠊබ࡟㛤࠿ࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉࡛Ⲕ஦ࡣࠊீ୺ࡀ≉ᐃࡢᐈࢆᣍࡁࠊෆ㍯࡛⾜ࢃࢀࡿ⚾ⓗ࡞⾜஦࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
4 ࠕⓎヰᩥࠖࡣࠊBTSJ ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᇶᮏⓗ࡞ศᯒࡢ༢఩࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ࠕ఍ヰ࡜࠸࠺┦஫స⏝ࡢ୰࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕᩥࠖ
ࠖ(Ᏹబ⨾,2011,p.2)ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
5 ᖍࡀጞࡲࡿ๓࡟ࠊ➹⪅ࡣ࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢺ࠿ࡽ఍ヰࡢ㘓㡢࡟㛵ࡍࡿྠព᭩ࢆᚓ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Brown, P., Levinson, S.C. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Ide, S. 1989.͆Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness.͇

Multilingua 8:2-3, 223-248.
Lakoff, R.T. 1975.Language and woman's place. New York: Harper&Row Publishers.
Leech, G.N. 1983.Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Matsumoto,Y. 1988.͆Reexamination Of the Universality of Face: Politeness Phenomena in Japanese͇.

Journal of Pragmatics 12, 403-426.
Usami, M. 2002.Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation. Some Implications for a Universal Theory of

Politeness. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
㜿㒊᐀ṇ.2008.ࠗⲔᖍࡢ఍ヰ:⿬༓ᐙⲔ㐨࠘ࠊᮾி:ୡ⏺ᩥ໬♫.
஭ฟ⚈Ꮚ.2006.ࠗࢃࡁࡲ࠼ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽ࠘ࠊᮾி:኱ಟ㤋.
Ᏹబ⨾ࡲࡺࡳ.2001.ࠕㄯヰࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ -࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢㄯヰ⌮ㄽᵓ᝿-ࠖࠗㄯヰࡢ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࠘(➨ 7 ᅇᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤᅜ㝿ࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘ሗ࿌᭩)ࠊᅜ❧ᅜㄒ◊✲ᡤࠊ9-58.
Ᏹబ⨾ࡲࡺࡳ.2002.㐃㍕ࠕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡢᒎ㛤 (1-12)ࠖ
ࠊࠗ᭶หゝㄒ࠘
ࠊ31(1-13ࠊ6 ࢆ㝖ࡃ)ࠊᮾி:኱ಟ㤋.
Ᏹబ⨾ࡲࡺࡳ.2003.ࠕ␗ᩥ໬᥋ゐ࡜࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ -ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ㺃࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ-ࠖࠗᅜㄒᏛ࠘
ࠊ54:3ࠊ
117-132.
Ᏹబ⨾ࡲࡺࡳ.2008a.ࠕ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽ◊✲ࡢࣇࣟࣥࢸ࢕࢔㸫࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽ◊✲ࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣭࣏
ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࠖࠊࠗ♫఍ゝㄒ⛉Ꮫ࠘㸦≉㞟ࠕᩗㄒ◊✲ࡢࣇࣟࣥࢸ࢕࢔ࠖ
㸧ࠊ11:1ࠊ4-22.
Ᏹబ⨾ࡲࡺࡳ.2008b.ࠕ┦஫స⏝࡜Ꮫ⩦̿ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿ࠖすཎ㕥Ꮚࠊす㒆ோᮁ(⦅)ࠗㅮᗙ♫఍ゝㄒ⛉Ꮫ ᩍ⫱࣭Ꮫ⩦࠘ࠊ➨ 4 ᕳࠊ150-181ࠊᮾி:ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.

−103−

現代の茶席の会話における「気遣い」談話の質的分析―ディスコース・ポライトネス理論の観点から―Ᏹబ⨾ࡲࡺࡳ.2011.ࠕᨵゞ∧㸸ᇶᮏⓗ࡞ᩥᏐ໬ࡢཎ๎㸦BTSJ: Basic Transcription for Japanese)2011 ᖺ∧ࠖ.
⟄஭⣫୍(⦅).2010.ࠗ᪂∧ Ⲕ㐨኱㎡඾࠘
ࠊி㒔:ῐ஺♫.
୕⏣ᐩᏊ.2003.ࠗⲔᖍࡢ఍ヰ㞟 ீ୺ࡢゝⴥ࣭ᐈࡢゝⴥ࠘ࠊி㒔:ῐ஺♫.
୕⏣ᐩᏊ.2005.ࠗⲔᖍࡢ఍ヰ㞟 ゝⴥ࠼ࡽࡧ࡜ᚰࡃࡤࡾ࠘
ࠊ⥆ࠊி㒔:ῐ஺♫.
௜㘓ᩥᏐ໬グྕࡢซ౛㸸ࠋ

Ⓨヰᩥࡀ⤊஢

,,Ⓨヰᩥࡢ㏵୰࡟┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࡀධࡗࡓሙྜ

,

▷࠸㛫

͆ ͇

ヰ⪅ཬࡧヰ⪅௨እࡢ⪅ࡢⓎヰ࣭ᛮ⪃ุ࣭᩿࣭▱ぬ࡞࡝ࡢෆᐜࡢᘬ⏝?

␲ၥ[Ќ][Ѝ][Ў]ୖ᪼ࠊᖹᯈࠊୗ㝆ࡢ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ= 㸻ᨵ⾜ࡉࢀࡿⓎヰ࡜Ⓨヰࡢ㛫(ࡲ)ࡀࠊᙜヱࡢ఍ヰࡢᖹᆒⓗ࡞㛫ࡢ㛗ࡉࡼࡾ┦ᑐⓗ࡟▷࠸࠿ࠊࡲࡗ
ࡓࡃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜͐㡢ኌⓗ࡟ゝ࠸ᾷࢇࡔࡼ࠺࡟⪺ࡇ࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡟ࡘࡅࡿࠋ

< >{<}

ඛ⾜Ⓨヰࡢ㔜࡞ࡾࡢ㒊ศ< >{>}

ᚋ⾜Ⓨヰࡢ㔜࡞ࡾࡢ㒊ศ( )ヰࡋ┦ᡭࡢ┦࡙ࡕ࠙࠙       㐽ࡾࡢඛ⾜Ⓨヰࠚࠚ㐽ࡾࡢᚋ⾜Ⓨヰ

[ ]

ᩥ⬦᝟ሗࠋ

#

⪺ࡁྲྀࡾ୙⬟࡛࠶ࡗࡓ㒊ศ

−104−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号⤊ຓモ䛂䛛䛺䛃䛾ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩ㻌䇷䛂␲ᛕ䛃䛂䜌䛛䛧䛃䛂㠀㞴䛃䛾㐪䛔䇷㻌୰すஂᐇᏊ䠄ி㒔እᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ䠅㻌<Abstract>

Japanese final particle “KANA” is normally used in a monologue and means the speaker’s doubt.
In this article, I claim that “KANA” can not only be used in a monologue but also be used in a
dialogue. In a dialogue, “KANA” functions as a mitigation or as a blame depending on a context. If
a speaker believes that the proposition expressed having existed in the context, but a hearer

does not believe it not having existed in the context, it is recognized to be a euphemism.
On the other hand, if a hearer believes that the proposition expressed having existed in thecontext, but a speaker does not believe it not having existed in the context, it is recognized
to be a blame.
 ࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ᪥ᮏㄒ㸪⤊ຓモ㸪࠿࡞㸪␲ᛕ㸪㠀㞴㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡣಀຓモࠕ࠿ࠖ࡜⤊ຓモࠕ࡞ࠖࡀ୍ㄒ໬ࡋࡓ⤊ຓモ࡛㸪஧ࡘࡢ⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
㸦ࠗ᪥ᮏᅜㄒ኱㎡඾࠘㸦➨஧∧(2001)➨୕ᕳ㸧㸪
ࠗゅᕝྂㄒ኱㎡඾࠘(1983㸧㸧ࠋ➨୍ࡣ㏆ୡ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓャჃࢆ⾲ࡍࠕဢ㸦࠿࡞㸧࡛ࠖ㸪⌧௦ㄒ࡛ࡶ(1)(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ャჃࢆ⾲ࡍ⤊ຓモ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ  (1) ஧༑୍ୡ⣖ࡣᅜ㝿໬᫬௦࡞ࢇࡔ࡜࠿ࠋ༶ࡕᅜ㝿⤖፧ࡢ᫬௦࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࡔ㸪௒ୡ⣖ࡣ༡⡿࡟㝈ࡽࡎ㸪᪥ᮏ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡀ࡝ࡇ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡀ㞧✀㸪ࡘࡲࡾΰ⾑ࡔࡽࡅ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜
࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡔࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤ㸪ୡ⏺୰࡝ࡇ࡬⾜ࡗ࡚ࡶ⨾ேࡔࡽࡅ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࠋ㬆࿧㸪⣲ᬕࡽࡋࡁဢ஧༑୍ୡ⣖ࡼ㸟㸦ᮧ⏣᭷ࠗₙ▼≟ᙇᏊ࠘㸪3%B ὀ㸯㸧(2) 䝇䝖䝑䝥䜢䛛䛡䛺䛔㝈䜚䠈⫗䛿ḟ䚻䛸㐠䜀䜜䛶䛟䜛䚹䛔䜟䜀䜟䜣䛣ⷃ㯏䛾䜘䛖䛺䜒䛾䛰䛜䠈ⷃ㯏䛸⫗䛷䛿኱㐪䛔䛰䚹ᝒ䛧䛔䛛䛺䠈᪥ᮏே䛾ᑠ䛥䛺⫗య䛷䛿䠈䛹䛖㡹ᙇ䛳䛶䜒ఱ䜻䝻䜒䛾⫗䜢㣗䜉䜛䛣䛸䛿䛷䛝䛺䛔䚹䠄⠛⸨䜖䜚䛄᪑䛩䜛⫶⿄䛅䠈3%B䠅➨஧ࡣ㸪㏆ୡ࡟⌧ࢀࡓ␲ᛕࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ἲ࡛㸪ࡇࢀࡶ⌧௦ㄒ࡟㐃࡞ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿࡢࡣࡇࡢ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ␲ᛕࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡣ㸪ࠕࡦ࡜ࡾࡈ࡜࡛୙ᛮ㆟࡟ᛮ࠺Ẽᣢࡕࡸ␲ၥࡢẼᣢࡕࢆ⾲ࡍ㸦ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࣭ࢪ࣐ࣕࢩ࢖(1998:82)㸧ࠖ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ㸪(3)࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕ㞵ࡀ㝆ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺࿨㢟ࡢ┿ഇࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀ␲࠸ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᗡຌ㞝࣭㧗᲍ಙ஀࣭୰すஂᐇᏊ࣭ᒣ⏣ᩄᘯ(2001㸧࡛ࡶ㸪ࠕ࿨㢟ࡢ┿ഇ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡋᡭࡀ␲࠸ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࠖࠕヰࡋᡭࡀ࿨㢟ࡢ┿ഇࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠖ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(3)㻌 㞵䠈㝆䜛䡗䛛䛺䠋䛛䛧䜙䡙䚹㻌㸰㸬ඛ⾜◊✲࡜ၥ㢟ࡢ࠶ࡾ࠿㸰㸬㸯 ඛ⾜◊✲᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍ (2003:35)䛷䛿䠈䛂䛛䛺䛃䛿௨ୗ䛾䠏䛴䛾⏝ἲ䠄ุ᩿୙᫂䠈ᛮ⪃㐣⛬䠈␲ᛕ䠅䛻ศ

1
−105−

終助詞「かな」の語用論的特徴 ―「疑念」「ぼかし」「非難」の違い―㢮䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛜䠈(4)(5)(6)䛿䛩䜉䛶⪺䛝ᡭ䛜Ꮡᅾ䛧䛺䛔ሙ㠃䛷⊂ヰ䛷⏝䛔䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䜒䛾䛷䛧䛛䛺䛔䚹(4)㻌 䜒䛖༞ᴗ䛛䚹୍య䠈௒䜎䛷ఱ䜢䛧䛶䛔䛯䛾䛛䛺䚹䠄ุ᩿୙᫂䠅(5)㻌 㕥ᮌ䛿䛭䜝䛭䜝᪂ᖿ⥺䛻஌䛳䛯㡭䛛䛺䛸ᛮ䛳䛯䚹䠄ᛮ⪃㐣⛬䠅(6)㻌 䛣䜣䛺䛻ᛁ䛧䛟䛶䠈᫂᪥䛿ᮏᙜ䛻㐟䜃䛻⾜䛡䜛䛾䛛䛧䜙䚹䠄␲ᛕ䠈ୖグ䠏౛䠈᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍(2003:35)䠅୕Ꮿ▱ᏹ㻌 (2011:263)䛷䜒䇾䜹䝘䇿䛻䛴䛔䛶(7)䛾䜘䛖䛺䝇䜻䞊䝬䜢ᣢ䛴䛸䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛜䠈䜔䛿䜚䠈⪺䛝ᡭ䛾Ꮡᅾ䛜䛺䛔⊂ヰ䛾౛䛧䛛ᣲ䛢䜙䜜䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹㻌(7)㻌 ࿨㢟䛾┿ഇ䜢᳨ウ୰䛷䛒䜛䚹㻌 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 䠄୕Ꮿ▱ᏹ (2011:263)䠅㻌
ୖグ䛾䜘䛖䛻䠈ඛ⾜◊✲䛷䛿䛂䛛䛺䛃䛜␲ᛕ䜢⾲䛩䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛜ᣦ᦬䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛜䠈䛔䛪䜜䛾ሙྜ䜒䠈⪺䛝ᡭ䛜Ꮡᅾ䛧䛺䛔ሙ㠃䛷⊂ヰ䠈䛩䛺䜟䛱䠈⪺䛝ᡭ䛜Ꮡᅾ䛧䛺䛔ሙྜ䛻䛛䛞䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹ࡓࡔࡋ㸪ඛ⾜◊✲࡛ၥ㢟࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ᮏ✏࡛ࡸࡸ⿵㊊ࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡣࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠖሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡴࡋࢁ㸪ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡀ୙ၥࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ㸪(8)࡛ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡢ࡟
ࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡣࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᏑᅾࡢ᭷↓ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡴࡋࢁࠕヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯࡟␲ᛕࡣྵࡲࢀࡿࡀ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡣ୙ၥ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡃ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
(8  ᫇ࡓࡅࡋ㌷ᅋ࡛ࠕ኱᳃࡯ࡾ࠼ࡶࢇࠖࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡼࡡ㸽᭱㏆ぢ࡞࠸ࡅ࡝ఱࡋ࡚ࡿࡢ࠿࡞㸽ࠕ኱᳃࠺ࡓ࠼ࡶࢇ࡛ࠖࡋࡻ㸽ᮏேࡢࣈࣟࢢ࠶ࡗࡓࡼࠋ⤖፧ᘧࡢྖ఍࡜࠿ࡸࡗ࡚ࡿࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ
㸦Yahoo!▱ᜨ⿄ 2005䠈OC14_03741䠅ࡘࡲࡾ㸪ඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ሙྜ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡀ୙ၥࡢሙྜ㸧࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯࡟ࡘ࠸࡚␲ᛕࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸰㸬㸰 ၥ㢟ࡢ࠶ࡾ࠿ ࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡣᐇ౛࡛ࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ሙྜ㸦࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡀ୙ၥࡢ
ሙྜ㸧࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ㸪(9)࡛ࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯㸦ࢡࣅ࡟ࡍࡿᶒ฼
ࡀ࠶ࡿ㸧ࡀၥ㢟࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ヰࡋᡭࡀ␲ᛕࢆ࿊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪(9)䛷䛿䠈ヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯࡟ᑐࡍࡿ␲ᛕࡣ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀ㸪ࡑࢀࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯࡜㣗࠸㐪ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡾ䠈⪺䛝ᡭ䛾ุ᩿䞉ホ౯䛻ᑐ䛧䛶␲ᛕ䜢࿊䛧䛶䛔䜛䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹㻌(9)㸿ࠕྩࡣཱྀࡀ㍍ࡍࡂࡿࠋಙ⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࢡࣅࡔ㸟ࠖ㹀ࠕ࡯࠺ࠋ࠶࡞ࡓ࡟ࡑࢇ࡞ᶒ฼ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿࡞ࠖ
㸿ࠕ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡶࠋࠖ䠄⟄஭ᗣ㝯䛂䝇䝟䜲䛃䛄⟄஭ᗣ㝯඲㞟➨䠍ᕳ㻌 ᮾᾏ㐨ᡓத䠋ᗁ᝿䛾ᮍ᮶䛅䠅㻌(10)䛾ࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡶ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪ヰ䛧ᡭ䛾ุ᩿䞉ホ౯䛂㠀ᖖ䛻䛔䛔ゝⴥ䛰䛃䛸ᛮ䛳䛶䛔䜛䛃䛿᫂䜙䛛䛷䛒䜚䠈ヰ䛧ᡭ䛜⮬ศ䛾ุ᩿䞉ホ౯䛻␲ᛕ䜢䛔䛰䛔䛶䛔䜛䛸ゝ䛖䛣䛸䜒䛷䛝䛺䛔䚹㻌

2
−106−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号(10)ඛ࡯࡝኱⮧ࡢ࠾ヰ࡟ࡶࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪ࠕ⎔㸦ࢃ㸧ࡢᅜࠖ᪥ᮏ㸪㠀ᖖ࡟࠸࠸ゝⴥ࠿࡞࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ㸦OM64_00001ࠗᅜ఍఍㆟㘓࠘2001㸧(10)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ࠿࡞ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ෆ㤋∾Ꮚ (2013:126)࡛ࠕ⚾ࡀ୙ᛌ࡟ᛮ࠺ࡢࡣ㸪ࠕ⮬ศࡢ⪃࠼ࠖࢆ
ゝ࠺᫬࡟㸪ࠕ࠿࡞࡛ࠖࡰࡸ࠿ࡍࡇ࡜ࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪ㄡࡀ⪃࠼࡚ࡶᙜ↛࡜ࡍࡿṇㄽࡸ⌧ᐇ࡟ࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࢆࡘ
ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࠋ኱ࡁࡃࡇࡢ㸰Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚ᢈุࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ࠕࡰ࠿ࡋࠖࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡛㸪ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ(9)(10)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠕ࠿࡞ࠖ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚㸪ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࣇ࢓ࢡࢱ࣮ࢆᑟධࡋ࡚㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀ㠀㞴ࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ἲࡸ㸪ࠕࡰ࠿ࡋࠖࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㸰㸬㸱 ⏝ㄒࡢつᐃ࡞࡝ᮏ✏ࡣ␲ᛕࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡀⓎᒎⓗ࡞⏝ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ㠀㞴ࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ἲࠖࡸࠕࡰ࠿ࡋࡢ⏝ἲࠖࡀ࠶ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕࡰ࠿ࡋࠖࡢ࡜ࡾࡓ࡚࡜ࡣࠕᩥࡢ࠶ࡿせ⣲ࢆ࡜ࡾࡓ࡚㸪ྠ㢮ࡢࡶࡢࡀ࡯࠿࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ₍↛࡜♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ᩥ඲యࡢព࿡ࢆࡸࢃࡽࡆࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾ㸦᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍(2009:137)㸧ࠖ㸪(11)(12)䛾ࠕ࡛ࡶࠖࠕ࡞ࢇ࠿ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ࡜ࡾࡓ࡚ຓモࠖࡀࡑࡢᶵ⬟ࢆࡶࡘࡇ࡜࡛▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡶࡇࢀࡽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ࠕࠕ௚⪅ࠖࢆࡰ࠿ࡋ࡚♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡛㸪፣᭤ⓗ࡞⾲⌧࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ㸦἟⏣ၿᏊ(2009)㸪
ୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅㸧ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪ᮏ✏࡛ࡶ௨ୗࠕࡰ࠿ࡋࠖ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿࠋ(11)ྩ㹹ࡶ㸭࡞࡝㹻ࡇࡢ௳࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁゝ࠸ࡓ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࢇࡌࡷ࡞࠸࠿ࡡࠋ
(12) ࠾ᐈᵝ㸪ࡇࡕࡽࡢရ 㸨ࡶ 㸯 㸭࡞࡝ 㸯  ࠸࠿ࡀ࡛ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡻ࠺࠿ࠋ㸦 㸰౛࡜ࡶ἟⏣
(2009:133)䠅࡞࠾㸪ᮏ✏ࡢ⪃ᐹࡢᑐ㇟ࡣࠕ࠿࡞࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾ㸪ඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࠕ࠿࡞ࠖ࡜ྠ⩏࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ࠿ࡋࡽࠖ
࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᮏ✏࡛ࡣ௨ୗࡢ⪃ᐹࡢᑐ㇟࠿ࡽ㝖እࡍࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏ࡢᵓᡂࡣḟࡢ࡜࠾ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎ㸪㸱㸬࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪(9)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㠀㞴ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩࢆ♧ࡍࠋ⥆ࡃ㸲㸬࡛ࡣ㸪(10)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕࡰ࠿ࡋࠖࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪㸳㸬࡟࠾࠸࡚✏ࡢࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ㸱㸬㠀㞴ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ࠿࡞ࠖ
㸱㸬㸯 㠀㞴ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩ (13)ࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ศࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯࡟ࡘ࠸࡚␲ᛕࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢᶵ⬟ࢆṇ☜࡟グ㏙ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ㸪ࠕヰࡋᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࠖࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࣇ࢓ࢡࢱ࣮ࢆᑟධࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
(13)࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕ⏨ࡀ➗࠸⥆ࡅ࡚࠺࡞ࡎ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣ࠿ࡽ㸪㸿ࡣࠕ⏨࡟࡜ࡗ࡚࠶ࡢ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ࡣ
࠾ࡶࡋࢁ࠸ࡢࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ࡜᥎ㄽࡋ㸪ࡑࢀࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚⾲ฟ࿨㢟࡟ᥖࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪ࠕ㹖࠿࡞ࠖࡢ㹖ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪ࠕ࠿࡞࡛ࠖࡑࢀࢆྰᐃࡋ࡚㸪ࠕ㹖࡞ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸦⮬ศ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣ࠾ࡶࡋࢁ࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸧࡜࠸࠺ᖐ⤖ࢆᑟ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

3
−107−

終助詞「かな」の語用論的特徴 ―「疑念」「ぼかし」「非難」の違い―(13)㻌 㸿ࠕ࠶ࡢ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ࡀ࠾ࡶࡋࢁ࠸ࡢ࡛ࡍ࠿ࠖࡑ࠺ࡁ࠿ࢀ࡚㸪⏨ࡣࡉࡽ࡟➗࠸⥆ࡅ࡞ࡀࡽ࠺
࡞ࡎ࠸ࡓࠋ࠸ࡸ㸪࠺࡞ࡎ࠸ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡓࡔࡅ࡛㸪ᐇ㝿ࡣ࠺࡞ࡎ࠿࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ
࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋఱࡋࢁᙼࡣ㸪௒ࡸ㌟ࢆࡼࡌࡗ࡚➗࠸⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡓ࠿ࡽࠋ
㸿ࠕ࠶ࢇ࡞࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ࡢ㸪࡝ࡇࡀࡑࢇ࡞࡟࠾ࡶࡋࢁ࠸ࡢ࠿࡞ࠖ
ࡓࡎࡡࡓ⏨ࡀᑠ㤳ࢆ࠿ࡋࡆ࡚ࡑ࠺ࡘࡪࡸࡃ࡜㸪ᙼࡣࡉࡽ࡟➗ࡗࡓࠋࡋࡲ࠸࡟ࡣࡘࡾࡇࡲࢀ
࡚㸪࿘ᅖࡢ஌ᐈࡲ࡛ࡀ➗࠸ฟࡋࡓࠋ࠾ࡶࡋࢁ࠸࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ࡔ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚ぢࡿ࡜㸪ࡓࡋ࠿࡟࡞࠿
࡞࠿࠾ࡶࡋࢁ࠸࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ࡔࡗࡓࠋ䠄⟄஭ᗣ㝯䛂ᆅୗ㕲䛾➗䛔䛃䛄⟄஭ᗣ㝯඲㞟➨ 㻢 ᕳ㻌 ⟄஭㡰៞䠋䜟䛜Ⰻ䛝⊋䛅䠅(13)ࡢࠕ㹖࠿࡞ࠖࡢ᥎ពࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
๓ᥦ᥎ព㸸㌟ࢆࡼࡌࡗ࡚➗࠸⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ㸪⏨࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣࠕ㹖㸦࠶ࡢ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ࡣ࠾ࡶ
ࡋࢁ࠸ࡢ㸧ࠖࡔࢁ࠺
ᖐ⤖᥎ព㸸㸿࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣࠕ㹖㸦࠶ࡢ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ࡣ࠾ࡶࡋࢁ࠸㸧ࠖࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ㻌(13)ࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡣヰࡋᡭࡣ┿ഇࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢពぢ࡜ࡢ࠶࠸ࡔ࡟ࢠࣕࢵࣉࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺
ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿὀ㸰ࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀࠕ࠾ࡶࡋࢁ࠸ࠖ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗ࡚
࠸࡚ࡑࢀࡀ๓ᥦ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟㸪ࡑࡢ๓ᥦࢆᙉᘬ࡟ྰᐃࡋ࡚ࠕ࠾ࡶࡋࢁࡃ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᢲࡋ௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࡢྰᐃࡢᶒ㝈ࡣヰࡋᡭ࡟࠶ࡾ㸪㠀㞴ࡢࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࢆ࠾ࡧࡿࡢ࡛㸪ࡇࢀࢆࠕ㠀㞴ࠖࡢ⏝ἲࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࠋ㻌␲ᛕࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖ࡜㠀㞴ࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡢ㐪࠸ࢆᩚ⌮ࡍࡿ࡜㸪⾲㸯ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ⾲㸯 ␲ᛕࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖ࡜㠀㞴ࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡢ㐪࠸␲ᛕࡢࠕ㹖࠿࡞ࠖ

⾲ฟ࿨㢟㹖ࡢ┿ഇヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡣ୙᫂

㠀㞴ࡢࠕ㹖࠿࡞ࠖ
୙᫂ࡔࡀ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣ㹖ࡀഇ࡜ಙࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ

⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯

୙ၥ

㹖

ヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯࠾ࡑࡽࡃ㹖ࡔࢁ࠺

㹖ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸

ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࢠࣕࢵࣉࡀ࠶ࡿ

⾲ฟ࿨㢟㹖ࢆྰᐃࡍࡿᶒ㝈

ヰࡋᡭ

ヰࡋᡭ


␲ᛕࡢࠕ㹖࠿࡞ࠖ࡜ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡀ୙ၥ࡛㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯㹖࡟ࡘ࠸࡚␲ᛕࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪㠀㞴ࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡢሙྜࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯㹖ࡀ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚⾲ฟ࿨㢟࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣࡑࢀࢆྰᐃࡋ࡚ࠕ㹖ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࢆ♧ࡑ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿䞉ホ౯䛃䜢๓ᥦ䛸䛧䛶䛭䜜䜢ྰᐃ䛧䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛻䛺䜛䚹୰すஂᐇᏊ(2012)࡛ࡣ㸪࡜ࡾࡓ࡚ຓモࡀ๓ᥦࢆྰᐃࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡶ๓ᥦࢆ
ྰᐃࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛࡜ࡾࡓ࡚ຓモ࡜ྠᵝࡢᶵ⬟ࢆࡶࡘ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
㸱㸬㸰 㠀㞴ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡢࣦ࢓࢚࣮ࣜࢩࣙࣥ
㠀㞴ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ㹖࠿࡞ࠖ࡟ࡣ␲ၥモࢆྵࡲ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡜㸪␲ၥモࢆྵࡴሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡢሙྜࡶ

4
−108−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠕ㹖ࠖ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣࠕ㹖ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛ࡣඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(14)ࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡣ␲ၥモࢆྵࡲ࡞࠸㠀㞴ࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(14)ࡢ㹀ࡣ㸪ࠕࢡࣅࡔࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽࠕࡑࢇ࡞ᶒ฼ࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ๓ᥦ࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪㹀ࡣࠕ࠿࡞࡛ࠖࡑࡢ๓ᥦࢆྰᐃࡋ
࡚ࠕ㹀࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣ㸿࡟ࡑࡢᶒ฼ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᖐ⤖ࢆᑟ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ┿ഇࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⪃࠼ࢆྰᐃࡋ࡚㸪⮬ศࡢ୺ᙇࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᢲࡋ௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㻌 (14) 㸿ࠕྩࡣཱྀࡀ㍍ࡍࡂࡿࠋಙ⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࢡࣅࡔ㸟ࠖ  㹀ࠕ࡯࠺ࠋ࠶࡞ࡓ࡟ࡑࢇ࡞ᶒ฼ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿࡞ࠋࠖ
㸿ࠕ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡶࠋࠖ䠄⟄஭ᗣ㝯䛂䝇䝟䜲䛃䛄⟄஭ᗣ㝯඲㞟➨䠍ᕳ㻌 ᮾᾏ㐨ᡓத䠋ᗁ᝿䛾ᮍ᮶䛅䠅㻌୍᪉䠈(15)ࡣ␲ၥモࢆྵࡴ㠀㞴ࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ┿ഇࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢពぢ࡜ࡢ࠶࠸ࡔ࡟ࢠࣕࢵࣉࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸿ࡣࠕᤵᴗࡢ㐃⤡ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔ࠿ࡽ㸪ᬑ㏻ࡣ
ᩍ⛉᭩ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ๓ᥦ࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪㸿ࡣࠕ࠿࡞࡛ࠖࡑࡢ๓ᥦࢆྰᐃࡋ࡚ࠕヰࡢෆᐜ࠿ࡽ᝿ീࡍࡿ࡜㸪ᩍ⛉᭩ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᖐ⤖ࢆᑟ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ┿ഇࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡟㸪⮬ศࡢ୺ᙇࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᢲࡋ௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(15) >ྠࡌࢡࣛࢫࢆࢳ࣮࣒ࢸ࢕࣮ࢳࣥࢢ࡛ᩍ࠼࡚࠸ࡿᩍᖌࡀ⩣᪥ࡢᢸᙜᩍᖌ࡟ᤵᴗෆᐜࢆ㐃⤡ࡍࡿ㟁ヰ࡛ヰࡢὶࢀ࡟㐪࿴ឤࢆឤࡌ࡚@㸿ࠕఱぢ࡚ヰࡋ࡚ࡿࡢ࠿࡞ࠋࠖ
㹀ࠕᩍ⛉᭩ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋࠖ㸦ᐇ౛㸧(15)ࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡢ᥎ពࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜㸪ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
๓ᥦ᥎ព㸸ᤵᴗࡢ㐃⤡ࢆࡍࡿ࡜ࡁࡣ㸪ᩍ⛉᭩ࢆぢ࡞ࡀࡽヰࡍ࡭ࡁࡔ
ᖐ⤖᥎ព㸸఍ヰࡢὶࢀ࡟㐪࿴ឤࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ㸪ࠕ㹀ࡣᩍ⛉᭩ࢆぢ࡞ࡀࡽヰࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠖࡢࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
㸲㸬ࠕࡰ࠿ࡋࠖࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ࠿࡞ࠖ
㸲㸬࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕ࡯࠿ࡋࠖࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩࢆ♧ࡍࠋ (16)(17)ࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡣ༢⣧࡟ヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ␲ᛕࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀ
ࡽࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡢᶵ⬟࡟ࡶ㸪ࠕヰࡋᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࠖࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࣇ࢓ࢡࢱ࣮ࢆᑟධࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ(16) ࡕࡻࡗ࡜ᡭఏࡗ࡚ࡃࢀ࡞࠸࠿࡞ࠋ㸦ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࣭ࢪ࣐ࣕࢩ࢖㻌 㻔1998:82)䠅㻌
(17) 㸦௒᪥ࡢⓎ⾲ࡣ㸧ኌࡣࡕࡷࢇ࡜ฟࡏࡓ࠿࡞࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ㸦ᐇ౛㸧(16)(17)࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡣࠕࡕࡻࡗ࡜ᡭఏࡗ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸ࠖ
ࠕኌࡣࡕࡷࢇ࡜ฟࡏࡓ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀᚲࡎࡋࡶࡑࢀ࡟ඹឤࡍࡿ࠿ࡣࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋྰᐃࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪ࢃࡊ࡜⮬ศࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯࡟␲ᛕࡀྵࡲࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ぢࡏ࠿ࡅ࡚㸪ྰᐃࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆࠕྠ㢮ࡢࡶࡢࡀ࡯
࠿࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ࠿࡞࡛ࠖᬯ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡀᩥពࢆࡸࢃࡽࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛㸪ࠕࡰ࠿ࡋࠖࡢ
ࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࡀឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡰ࠿ࡋࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡣ㸪(16)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕാࡁ࠿ࡅࡢࡰ࠿ࡋࠖ࡟࡞
ࡿሙྜ࡜㸪(17)䛾䜘䛖䛺䛂୺ᙇࡢࡰ࠿ࡋࠖ࡟࡞ࡿሙྜ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

5
−109−

終助詞「かな」の語用論的特徴 ―「疑念」「ぼかし」「非難」の違い―㸲㸬㸯 ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡢࠕࡰ࠿ࡋࠖࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩ
ඛ㏙ࡋࡓ࡜࠾ࡾ㸪ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࣭ࢪ࣐ࣕࢩ࢖㻌 (1998:82)䛷ࡣ㸪ࠕ࠿࡞ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚(18)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟グࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪(19)(20)䛾ࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪࡞ࡐ␲ᛕࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡀ㸪࡞ࡐ㐲ᅇࡋࡢチྍồࡵࡸ౫㢗࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࠿ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
(18)㻌 ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀࡓ࡜ࡁࡣ␲ၥࡢ⾲࡛᫂㸪ࡑࡇ࠿ࡽ㐲ᅇࡋ࡟チྍࢆồࡵࡓࡾ౫㢗ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿẼᣢࡕࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
(19)㻌 㻌 ࡇࢀ㸪ࡶࡽࡗ࡚ᖐࡗ࡚࠸࠸ࡢ࠿࡞ࠋ㻌(20)㻌 ࡕࡻࡗ࡜ᡭఏࡗ࡚ࡃࢀ࡞࠸࠿࡞ࠋ㸦㸰౛࡜ࡶ㸪ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࣭ࢪ࣐ࣕࢩ࢖㻌 㻔1998:82)䠅㻌
ᮏ✏䛷䛿䠈(19)(20)䛜⪺䛝ᡭ䛻ാ䛝䛛䛡䜛Ⓨヰ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛻╔┠䛧䠈䛣䜜䜢ാ䛝䛛䛡䛾䜌䛛䛧䛾⏝ἲ䛸䛩䜛䚹ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡢࠕࡰ࠿ࡋࠖࡢ⏝ἲࡢࠕ㹖࠿࡞ࠖࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡀാࡁ࠿ࡅ㹖ࢆ㐙⾜ࡍ࡭ࡁࡔࠖ࡜
ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠕ㹖ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛㸪㹖ࡀྰᐃࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆᬯ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ㸪(21)࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭ㸦࣐ࢿ࣮ࢪ࣮ࣕ㸧ࡣࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᖐࡿ࡭ࡁࡔࠖ࡜ᛮࡗ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉㸪⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ᐈ㸧ࡣ㸪ࠕࡲࡔᖐࡿ᫬㛫࡞ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ䛴䜎䜚䠈ヰ䛧ᡭ䛸⪺䛝ᡭ䛾ุ᩿䞉ホ౯䛻䜼䝱䝑䝥䛜⏕䛨䛶䛔䜛䜟䛡䛷䛒䜛䚹䛭䛣䛷䠈ヰ䛧ᡭ䠄䝬䝛䞊䝆䝱䞊䠅䛿䛂䛛䛺䛃䜢௜୚䛧䛶䠈⾲ฟ࿨㢟䠄ᐈ䛜ᖐ䜛䠅䛻␲ᛕ䛜ྵ䜎䜜䜛䛛䛾䜘䛖䛻䜏䛫䛛䛡䛶⪺䛝ᡭ䛻ྰᐃ䛩䜛వᆅ䜢୚䛘䛶䛔䜛䚹䛣䛾Ⓨヰ䛜䛂䜌䛛䛧䛃䛻ឤ䛨䜙䜜䜛䛾䛿䠈⪺䛝ᡭ䛻䛸䛳䛶䛿䛂ᖐ䜛䛃䛾௚䛻ྠ㢮䛾䜋䛛䛾䛣䛸䠄ᖐ䜙䛺䛔䠅䛾㑅ᢥ⫥䛜ᬯ♧䛥䜜䜛䛛䜙䛷䛒䜛䚹㻌㻌 㻌 (21)㻌 䜽䝷䝤䛂㖟㤿㌴䛃䠋⨾ᕼ䛜ྠకฟ໅䛧䛶䛟䜛䚹䠋䛂䛔䛔ຍῶ䛻䛧䛶䜘䠈ዪゐ䜚䛯䛔䜣䛺䜙䛭䛖䛔䛖ᗑ⾜䛝䛺䛥䛔䜘䛃䠋ዪ䛾ྉ䜃ኌ䚹䠋䝣䝻䜰䝬䝛䞊䝆䝱䞊䛜᮶䛶䠈䝬䝛䞊䝆䝱䞊䛂⨾ᕼ䛱䜓䜣䠈䛱䜗䛳䛸䠄ዟ䛾ᖍ䛾▼᳃䜢䛣䛺䛧䠅䛹䛖䛔䛖▱䜚ྜ䛔䛺䛾䠈ᝏ䛔䛡䛹ᖐ䛳䛶䜒䜙䛘䛺䛔䛛䛺䚹䛱䜗䛳䛸䝍䝏ᝏ䛔䜘䛃䠋⨾ᕼ䛂䟿䟿䈈䈈䡟䠋⨾ᕼ䠈▼᳃䛾ᖍ䜈⾜䛟䚹䠄Ⲩ஭ᬕᙪ䛂䝸䝪䝹䝞䞊䛃䛄ᖺ㚷௦⾲䝅䝘䝸䜸㞟 䛅䠅㸲㸬㸰 ୺ᙇࡢࠕࡰ࠿ࡋࠖࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩ࡛ࡣ㸪(22)ࡣ࡝࠺ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ(22)ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡣᏑᅾࡍࡿࡀ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡿⓎヰ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿
ࡶ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣ⾲ฟ࿨㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚␲ᛕࢆ࠸ࡔ࠸࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢሙྜ㸪ࠕヰࡋᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࠖࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࣇ࢓ࢡࢱ࣮ࢆᑟධࡍࢀࡤࡼ࠸ࠋ
୺ᙇࡢࠕࡰ࠿ࡋࠖࡢ⏝ἲࡢࠕ㹖࠿࡞ࠖࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣࠕ㹖ࠖ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪⮬ಙࡀ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛㸪᩿ᐃࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࠋࡓ࡜
࠼ࡤ㸪(22)ࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣ⾲ฟ࿨㢟㸦㠀ᖖ࡟࠸࠸ゝⴥࡔ㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚␲ᛕࢆ࠸ࡔ࠸࡚࠾ࡽࡎ㸪ࡇࢀࢆ┿࡜ࡋ࡚⾲ฟࡋࡓ࠸ࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚␲ᛕࢆ࠸ࡔ࠸࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡢࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ࡯࠺࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯࡟ࢠࣕࢵࣉࡀ⏕ࡌࡿᜍࢀࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣࠕ࠿
࡞ࠖࢆ௜୚ࡋ࡚⾲ฟ࿨㢟ࡢᡂ❧࡟␲ᛕࡀྵࡲࢀࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡳࡏ࠿ࡅ࡚㸪ྠ㢮ࡢ࡯࠿ࡢࡇ࡜㸦㠀ᖖ࡟࠸࠸ゝⴥ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸧ࡶ࠶ࡾᚓࡿ࡜࠸࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧ࡋ࡚㸪᩿ᐃࢆᅇ㑊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(22  ඛ࡯࡝኱⮧ࡢ࠾ヰ࡟ࡶࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪ࠕ⎔㸦ࢃ㸧ࡢᅜࠖ᪥ᮏ㸪㠀ᖖ࡟࠸࠸ゝⴥ࠿࡞࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ㸦ࠗᅜ఍఍㆟㘓࠘㸪20B㸧

6
−110−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号(22)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣ⾲ฟ࿨㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚␲ᛕࢆ࠸ࡔ࠸࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠕ࠿࡞࡛ࠖ㸪ྠ㢮ࡢ࡯࠿ࡢࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡾᚓࡿ࡜࠸࠺ྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧ࡋ࡚㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⾲ฟ࿨㢟ࢆᢲࡋ௜ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᅇ
㑊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࢆ㸪ࠕ୺ᙇࡢࡰ࠿ࡋࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
୺ᙇࡢࠕࡰ࠿ࡋࠖࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖ࡟ࡣ㸪ḟ࡟♧ࡍ㸱ࡘࡢ≉ᚩࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
➨୍࡟㸪ࠕ㠀ᖖ࡟ࠖࠕࡕࡷࢇ࡜ࠖࠕ᭱ࡶࠖ࡞࡝ヰࡋᡭࡀ⾲ฟ࿨㢟ࡀ┿࡜ㄆࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺๓ᥦࡀ࠶
ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍ๪モ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋヰࡋᡭࡀ⾲ฟ࿨㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚┿࡜ࡣࡗࡁࡾㄆࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡓࡃ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ㸪᩿ゝࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿࠋ(23) ୕ゅᕷሙ㞄ࡢ᫛࿴ࣅࣝ㸰㝵࡟ࡇࡢ࠾ᗑࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋᚅࡕྜࢃࡏࡸ㟁㌴㸪ࣂࢫᚅࡕ࡟ࡣ᭱
㐺࡞ᗑ࠿࡞࡜ᛮ࠼ࡲࡍࠋ㸦<DKRRࣈࣟࢢ 㸪<B㸧➨஧࡟㸪୺ᙇࡢࠕࡰ࠿ࡋࠖࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡣ㸪ᚋ⥆ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛⾲ฟ࿨㢟ࡢᡂ❧ࢆྰᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜
࡟࡞ࡿሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ㸪(24)࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕ࠿࡞ࠖ࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠕᤵᴗཧほ࡛Ꮚ࡝ࡶࢆὀពࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣࡇࢀࢆᚋ⥆ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛ྰᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆண඙ࡍࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ࠿࡞࡛ࠖ୺ᙇࢆᙅࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡘࡲࡾ㸪ࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡣ㸪ᚋ⥆ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛⾲ฟ࿨㢟ࡢᡂ❧ࢆྰᐃࡍࡿሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ㸪᩿ᐃᛶࢆᙅࡵࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(24) ඛ᪥㸪ࢡࣛࢫࡢぶ╬఍ࡢ᫬࡟㸪࠶ࡿ࠾ẕࡉࢇ࡟ཧほ᪥ࡣぶࡣぢ࡟⾜ࡃࡢ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚㸪Ꮚ౪ࢆὀពࡋ࡟⾜ࡃࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸ࢃࢀࡲࡋࡓࠋ඲ࡃࡑࡢ࡜࠾ࡾ䛛䛺࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࡀ㸪࡝࠺ࡋ࡚ࡶ࡯࠿ࡢᏊ࡜ẚ࡭ࡓࡾࡋ࡚㸪ఱ࡛ⴠࡕ╔ࡁࡀ࡞࠸ࢇࡔࢁ࠺࡜࠿ヰࢆ⪺࠿࡞࠸ࡢࡔࢁ
࠺࡜࠿⪃࠼ࡿ࡜㸪ࡳࢇ࡞ࡢ๓࡛ὀពࡍࡿࡢࡣࡸࡗࡥࡾ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡞ࡢ࠿࡞㸽࠿࡞ࡾᝎࢇ࡛ࡲࡍࠋࡕ࡞ࡳ࡟㸪Ꮚ౪࡜┠ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣ┠࡛ッ࠼ࡓࡾࡋࡓࢇ࡛ࡍࡀ㸪ࡐࢇࡐࢇຠᯝ࡞ࡋ࡛ࡋࡓࠋ㸦Yahoo!▱ᜨ⿄ 2005㸪OC10_01399㸧➨୕࡟㸪୺ᙇࡢࡰ࠿ࡋࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡜␗࡞ࡿሙྜ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢ
࡛㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡀධࡾᚓ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟ࡣ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ㸪(25)(26)࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢ㢪ᮃࡸពྥࢆ༢࡟⾲ฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡔࡅ࡞ࡢ࡛㸪ࡑࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡣ⪃៖ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࡞࠸ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚㸪(25)(26)࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡢ௜୚ࡀ୙⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(25) ࡝࠺࠿ࡦ࡜ࡘࡑ࠺࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡶ㸪௒ᚋ࡜ࡶ࡝ࡋ࡝ࡋඛ⏕᪉ࡢཝࡋ࠸ᚚពぢࢆ㈷ࡾࡲࡍࡇ
࡜ࢆᚰ࠿ࡽ࠾㢪࠸ࢆ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡋ࡚㹹⤊ࢃࡾࡓ࠸㸭""⤊ࢃࡾࡓ࠸࠿࡞㹻࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ
㸦OM31_00001 ᅜ఍఍㆟㘓 1988㸧(26) ୍ᗘࡋ࠿࡞࠸ᡂேᘧ࡛ᐇ⾜ጤဨ࡟࡞ࢀ࡚㸪࡜࡚ࡶ㈗㔜࡞య㦂ࡀ࡛ࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀ࠿ࡽ㸪⮬ศࡢክ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚㹹ࡉࡽ࡟㡹ᙇࡗ࡚࠸ࡇ࠺㸭""ࡉࡽ࡟㡹ᙇࡗ࡚࠸ࡇ࠺࠿࡞㹻࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲ
ࡍࠋ(OP83_00002ࠗᗈሗࡸ࠿ࡆ࠘ᒸᒣ┴ᑠ⏣㒆▮᥃⏫ 2008㸧㸳㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
␲ᛕࡢࠕ㹖࠿࡞ࠖࡢሙྜࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࡀ୙ၥ࡛㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯㹖࡟ࡘ࠸࡚␲ᛕࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

7
−111−

終助詞「かな」の語用論的特徴 ―「疑念」「ぼかし」「非難」の違い―ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪␲ᛕࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ࠿࡞ࠖ࡟⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯࡜࠸࠺ࣇ࢓ࢡࢱ࣮ࢆຍ࠼࡚ゎ㔘ࡍࢀࡤ㸪Ⓨᒎⓗ࡞⏝ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ㠀㞴ࢆ⾲ࡍ⏝ἲࠖࡸࠕࡰ࠿ࡋࡢ⏝ἲࠖ࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ㄝ᫂ࡀࡘࡃࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓ᪂ࡓ࡞▱ぢࡣḟࡢ㸯㸧㸰㸧࡟♧ࡍ࡜࠾ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸯㸧 㠀㞴ࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡢሙྜࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯㹖ࡀ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚⾲ฟ࿨㢟࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣࡑࢀࢆྰᐃࡋ࡚ࠕ㹖ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯ࢆ♧ࡑ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡢุ᩿࣭ホ౯࡞࡝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡋᡭࡀ␲ᛕࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚ྰᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ㸰㸧 ࡰ࠿ࡋࡢࠕ࠿࡞ࠖࡣ㸪ࠕാࡁ࠿ࡅࡢࡰ࠿ࡋࠖ࡟࡞ࡿሙྜ࡜㸪ࠕ୺ᙇࡢࡰ࠿ࡋࠖ࡟࡞ࡿሙྜ࡜
ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋാࡁ࠿ࡅࡢࠕࡰ࠿ࡋࠖࡢ⏝ἲࡢࠕ㹖࠿࡞ࠖࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡀാࡁ࠿ࡅ㹖ࢆ㐙⾜ࡍ࡭ࡁࡔࠖ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠕ㹖ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛㸪㹖ࡀྰᐃࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆᬯ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪୺ᙇࡢࠕࡰ࠿ࡋࠖࡢ⏝ἲࡢࠕ㹖࠿࡞ࠖࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣࠕ㹖ࠖ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠕ㹖ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛㸪㹖ࡀྰᐃࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆᬯ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
࡞࠾㸪ࠕ࠿࡞ࠖ࡜ྠࡌព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠕ࠿ࡋࡽࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ⪃ᐹࡢᑐ㇟࠿ࡽ㝖እࡋࡓࡀ㸪௒ᚋࡣࠕ࠿ࡋࡽࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠕ࠿࡞ࠖ࡜ྠࡌ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡼ࠸࠿࡞࡝⪃ᐹࢆ῝ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ṧࡉࢀ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋ

ὀ
1ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ౛ᩥࡢฟ඾ࡣస⪅㸪㢟ྡࡢ㡰࡛♧ࡍࠋฟ඾ࡢ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡣస౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ᭩ࡁ
ゝⴥᆒ⾮ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸦୰⣡ゝ㸧ࡢ౛ᩥࡣᣓᘼෆ࡟ࢧࣥࣉࣝ㹇㹂ࢆేグࡍࡿࠋ2ࡇࡢሙྜࡢࠕࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࠖ࡜ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ▱㆑࣭᝟ሗࡢ≧ែ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ▱ㄽⓗ࡟࡜ࡽ࠼㸪๓ᥦ࡜ࡣࠕᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡢࡀᙜ↛ࡔ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ᥎ㄽࠖ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ᗡຌ㞝࣭㧗᲍ಙ஀࣭୰すஂᐇᏊ࣭ᒣ⏣ᩄᘯ㻚㻌㻞㻜㻜㻝㻚ࠗ୰ୖ⣭ࢆᩍ࠼ࡿேࡢࡓࡵࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲࣁࣥࢻࣈ
ࢵࢡ࠘ࢫ࣮࢚࣮ࣜࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡ㻌ෆ㤋∾Ꮚ.2013.ࠗ࢝ࢿࢆ✚ࡲࢀ࡚ࡶ౑࠸ࡓࡃ࡞࠸᪥ᮏㄒ࠘ᮅ᪥᪂⪺ฟ∧ຍ⸨㔜ᗈ .2012.ࠕࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡜๓ᥦࠖ⃝⏣἞⨾ (⦅)ࠗࡦࡘࡌព࿡ㄽㅮᗙ ➨㸴ᕳ ព࿡࡜ࢥࣥࢸ
ࢡࢫࢺ࠘pp.39-62,ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࣭ࢪ࣐ࣕࢩ࢖㻌 㻚1998㻚ࠗᩍᖌ࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࡓࡵࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᩥᆺ㎡඾࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㻚㻌୰すஂᐇᏊ .2012.ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒࡢ࡜ࡾࡓ࡚ຓモ࡜⩦ᚓ࠘ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
ோ⏣⩏㞝2002ࠗ๪モⓗ⾲⌧ࡢㅖ┦࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧
᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍2003ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒᩥ  ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࠘SS114-116,ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧
᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍㻚2009㻚ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ 㻡 ➨㸷㒊 ࡜ࡾࡓ࡚࣭➨ 㻝㻜 㒊 ୺㢟࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ
∧㻚㻌
ᮾ᳃໏ .2012. 䛂㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ䛸䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖䛃⃝⏣἞⨾ (⦅)䛄䜂䛴䛨ព࿡ㄽㅮᗙ㻌 ➨䠒ᕳ㻌 ព࿡䛸䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖䛅pp.81-95,䜂䛴䛨᭩ᡣ.
୕Ꮿ▱ᏹ㻚㻌2011. ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧㻚㻌

8
−112−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

᥎⌮ᑠㄝࡢᩥయศᯒ
̿㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿୰ᮧ⛛⚈Ꮚ⚄ᡞ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸺Abstract㸼  This paper investigates the plots in the Murder of Roger Ackroyd from a
relevance-theoretic viewpoint.

Particularly, the expressions which allow changes of

the interpretation between the first time reading and the second time after reading
through the story are focused.
  The phenomena may be called the term Hineri which is a rhetoric device for novels.
Although Hineri is treated within implicature, the phenomena can be also analyzed interms of explicature.

In this article Hineri of explicature is showed with the processof the reading comprehension.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸ᩥయศᯒࠊ࢔࢞ࢧ࣭ࢡࣜࢫࢸ࢕ࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࠊࡦࡡࡾࠊ⾲ព

1.

ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

 ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ࢔࢞ࢧ࣭ࢡࣜࢫࢸ࢕ࡢ᥎⌮ᑠㄝࡢࣉࣟࢵࢺࡢᕦࡳࡉࡢࡦ࡜ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊྠ୍⾲⌧ࡀࠊ≢ேࡀࢃ࠿ࡿ๓࡟ㄞࢇࡔ࡜ࡁ࡜ࡢゎ㔘࡜≢ேࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓᚋ࡛ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࡢゎ㔘ࡀኚ໬࡛ࡁࡿ㒊ศࢆ࡜ࡾ࠶ࡆࡿࠋ ࡝࠺ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟ྠࡌ⾲⌧㒊ศࡢゎ㔘ࡀኚ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿ࢆࠊSperber andWilson (1986, 19952 )ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࢆ⏝࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ≉࡟ࠊゎ㔘ኚ໬ࡢᵓ㐀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊෆ⏣(2011)ࡢࠕࡦࡡࡾࠖࡢᴫᛕࢆ⏝࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࠊ࢔࢞ࢧ࣭ࢡࣜࢫࢸ࢕ࡢࣉ
ࣟࢵࢺࡢᕦࡳ࡞ᵓ㐀ࡢゎ᫂ࡢ୍Ṍࢆ㋃ࡳฟࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ ㄞ᭩ࡢ୰࡟ࡣ᭱ึ࠿ࡽ㡰␒࡟ㄞࡳ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃ⪅ࡤ࠿ࡾ࡜ࡶ㝈ࡽࡎࠊ᭱ึ࠿ࡽ᭱ᚋࡢ⤖ᮎࢆㄞࢇ࡛≢ேࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓ≧ែ࡛ㄞࡳ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃ⪅ࡶ࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏㄽ࡛ࠕ᭱ึ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜
ࡁࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ⤖ᮎࢆࡲࡔㄞࢇ࡛࠸࡞ࡃ࡚ࠊ≢ேࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸≧ែ࡛ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࡢ≧ែࢆᣦࡍࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟≢ேࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓୖ࡛ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࢆࠕ஧ᅇ┠࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡍࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࠕ஧ᅇ┠࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ୍ᗘ඲యࢆㄞࢇ࡛ࠊ෌ᗘ᭱ึ࠿ࡽㄞࡳ࡞࠾ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ≧ែࢆᣦࡍࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ᭱ึ࡟ึࡵ࠿ࡽㄞࡳ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊ࢔࢞ࢧ࣭ࢡࣜࢫࢸ࢕ࡀࠊ
᥈ഄࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚㒊ศⓗ࡟ㅦࡢゎỴࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡣࠊ㏵୰࡛ࡶࠊࡑࢀࡲ࡛࡟ㄞࢇࡔ㒊ศ

1
−113−

推理小説の文体分析―関連性理論の観点から―ࡢ୰ࡢ⾲⌧࡛ࠊ᭱ึ࡟ㄞࢇࡔ࡜ࡁࡢゎ㔘࡜ㅦࢆゎ᫂ࡉࢀ࡚෌ᗘࡩࡾ࠿࠼ࡗ࡚ゎ㔘ࡍࡿሙྜ࡜࡛ኚ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ㏵୰࠿ࡽኚ໬ࡋࡓゎ㔘ࢆ๓ᥦ࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᚋࡢ㒊ศࢆㄞࡳ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࡼ࠺࡟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡁࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࠊࡑࢀࡲ࡛࡟ฟ࡚ࡁࡓ
⾲⌧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ᮲௳ࡀኚ໬ࡍࡿࡲ࠼ࡢゎ㔘ࢆࠕ᭱ึ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࠖ࡜ࡋࠊ᮲௳ࢆኚ࠼࡚ㄞࡴ
࡜ࡁࢆࠕ஧ᅇࡵ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࠖ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ

2. ඛ⾜◊✲ Barnard(1980)ࡣࠊ࢔࢞ࢧ࣭ࢡࣜࢫࢸ࢕ࡢࣉࣟࢵࢺࡢࡳࡈ࡜ࡉࡀᙼዪࡢసရࢆ௚ࡢ 20 ୡ⣖ࡢ᥈ഄᑠㄝᐙ࠿ࡽ኱ࡁࡃᢤࡁࢇ࡛ࡿㄝ᫂࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⤯㈶ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࠕ࢔࢞ࢧ࣭ࢡࣜࢫࢸ࢕ࡢసရࡣࠊㅦࡲࡓㅦࠊゎ᫂ࡲࡓゎ᫂࡜ḟࠎ࡜᝟ሗࢆㄞ⪅࡟୚࠼࡚࠸ࡃࡀࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀࡲࡍࡲࡍㅦࢆ῝ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃᵓ㐀࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ᭱⤊❶࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀ᩿∦ⓗ஦ᐇࡔࡀㄞ⪅ࢆḭ࠸࡚ࡁࡓ஦ᐇ࡜࡞ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᡭ᥃࠿ࡾ࡜ࡋ୍࡚Ẽ࡟ゎ᫂࡜࡞ࡿᵓᡂ࡛࠶ࡿ(120)ࠖ࡜ᴫせࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࠊලయⓗ࡞ゎㄝࡀ࡞࠸ࠋ
 Bargainnier (1980: 166)ࡣࠊ࣑ࢫࢹ࢕ࣞࢡࢩࣙࣥࡋ࡚࠾ࡁ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ᭱ᚋ࡟ㄞ⪅ࢆ⣡ᚓࡉࡏࡿ㘽ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ࣑ࢫࢹ࢕ࣞࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢ⾲⌧ࡀ㸰㔜ࡢ㝞㏙࡜࡞ࡿࡶࡢࡢࡓࡵ࡜ࡳ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࡢྠࡌ⾲⌧ࡀࠊ᭱ึࡢ࣑ࢫࢹ࢕ࣞࢡࢩࣙࣥ᫬ࡢゎ㔘࡜᭱ᚋࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛ኚ໬ࡍࡿゎ㔘౛ࢆ♧ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ࡞ࡐ᭱ึࡢゎ㔘᫬࡛ㄞ⪅ࡣ᥈ഄ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ูࡢゎ㔘ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ⪃࠼࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓ᭱ᚋ࡟ᛴ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡓูࡢゎ㔘ࢆࡍࢇ࡞ࡾཷࡅධࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸
࠺Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏㄽ࡛ࡣゎ㔘ኚ໬ࢆ㉳ࡇࡍྠ୍⾲⌧ࢆ Sperber and Wilson (1986, 1995 2 )ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ศᯒࡋࠊㄞ⪅ࡢゎ㔘ࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡇࡢⅬࡢ࢔࢞ࢧࠋࢡࣜࢫ
ࢸ࢕ࡢゝㄒⓗࢺࣜࢵࢡࡢゎ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡿࠋ

3. ศᯒࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊㄞ⪅ࡀ᭱ึ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁ࡜஧ᅇࡵ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࡢ᝿ᐃࡢ┦㐪࠿ࡽゎ㔘ࡀኚ໬ྍ⬟࡞⾲⌧㒊ศࢆ࡜ࡾ࠶ࡆ࡚ࠊࡑࡢゎ㔘ኚ໬ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺ࡋ࡚⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࢆヨࡳࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊⓎヰゎ㔘ࡢゎ㔘ࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ♧ࡍ Sperber and Wilson (1986, 1995 2 )ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࢆศᯒࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡟⏝࠸ࡿࠋ ෆ⏣ (2011: 231)࡛ࡣࠊᙉ࠸᥎ពࢆḟ࠿ࡽḟ࡬࡜ㄞ⪅࡟᳜࠼ࡘࡅࠊṇࡋ࠸ゎ㔘ࢆពᅗⓗ࡟ᙅࡃ᥎ពࡉࡏ࡚࠾ࡃࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄞ⪅ࡢண᝿ࢆぢ஦࡟⿬ษࡿᡭἲࢆࠕࡦࡡࡾࠖ࡜࿧ࢇ࡛
࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᡭἲࡣࠊ᥎ពࣞ࣋ࣝࡔࡅ࡟㝈ࡽࡎࠊ⾲ព࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ ᥎⌮ᑠㄝࡢሙྜ࡞࡝ࡣࠊ⾲ពࣞ࣋ࣝࡢせ⣲࡜᥎ពࣞ࣋ࣝࡢせ⣲ࡀ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡉࡾࠊࡉࡽ࡟

2
−114−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ูࡢᩥ⬦᝿ᐃࡀാ࠸࡚࡜࠸࠺」㞧࡞ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡚ࠊᐜ᫆࡟ㄞ⪅࡟ከ㔜ゎ㔘ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆẼ࡙࠿ࡏ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ⾲ពࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ༢⊂ࡢࠕࡦࡡࡾࠖ
ࡢᏑᅾࡣᴟࡵ࡚ᑡ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ⾲ព࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝゎ㔘ኚ໬ࢆ㉳ࡇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿಶᡤࡣᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ⾲ពࣞ࣋ࣝୖࡢࠕࡦࡡࡾࠖࡢ౛ࢆ♧ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ࢔࢞ࢧ࣭ࢡࣜࢫࢸ࢕సရࡢࣉ
ࣟࢵࢺゎ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡿࠋ

4. ⾲ពࣞ࣋ࣝࡢࠕࡦࡡࡾࠖࡢ౛ ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (1926)ࢆ࡜ࡾ࠶ࡆ࡚ࠊࡇࡢసရࡢⓏሙே≀࡛࠶ࡿ Dr. Sheppard ࢆ᭱ึ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࠊ஦௳ෆᐜࡢㄒࡾᡭ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᙺ๭࡜ᤊ࠼࡚᭱ึ࡟ㄞࡴ
࡜ࡁ࡜஦௳ࡢ≢ே࡜ࡋ࡚஧ᅇࡵ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁ࡜ࡢྠ୍⾲⌧ࡢゎ㔘ኚ໬ࢆࠊ⾲ពࢆỴᐃࡍࡿ᭕᫕ᛶ㝖ཤࠊ㣬࿴ࠊ⮬⏤ᣑ඘ࠊad hoc ᴫᛕᙧᡂࡢ㸲ࡘࡢㄒ⏝ㄽࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢኚ໬࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚౛ࢆ࠶ࡆ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

4.1

᭕᫕ᛶ㝖ཤࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ฼⏝ḟࡣࠊ᭱ึ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁ࡜஧ᅇࡵ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊDr. Sheppard ࢆෆᐜࢆ➨୕⪅ⓗ࡟ㄒࡿㄒࡾᡭ࠿ࡽ≢ே࡜ほⅬࢆኚ࠼࡚ㄞࡴሙྜ࡟ࠊྠ୍⾲⌧ෆࡢከ⩏ㄒࡢព࿡㑅ᢥࡀኚ໬ࡍࡿ౛ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸦ୗ⥺ᘬ⏝⪅㸧

(1)

I [Dr. Sheppard] knew Ralph very well – better, perhaps, than anyone
else in King’s Abbot, for I had known his mother before him, andtherefore I understood much in him that puzzled others.
certain extent, the victim of heredity….

He was, to a

He [Ralph] was self-indulgent

and extravagant, with no veneration for anything on earth, but he waslovable nevertheless, and his friends were all devoted to him.
do anything with the boy?

Could II thought I could.

                ( The Murder of Roger Ackroyd 1926: 42)

 (1)ࢆ᭱ึ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࠊRalph ࡣ Acroyd ࡢஸࡃ࡞ࡗࡓ෌፧┦ᡭࡢᨺⷙᜥᏊ࡛ࠊࡑࡢࡓࡵ
Acroyd ࡟ឡ᝿ࢆࡘ࠿ࡉࢀ຺࡚ᙜ≧ែ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࠊDr. Sheppard ࡀጜ࠿ࡽ Ralph
ࡀᅔࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺࠿ࡉࢀࡓࡤ࠿ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄞ⪅ࡣ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ែ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࡇࡢᩥࢆㄞࡴ࡜ Dr. Sheppard ࡣᙼ࡟ྠ᝟ⓗ࡞༳㇟ࢆཷࡅࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ“with”ࢆࠕᑐ㇟ࠖࡢព࿡࡛ᤊ࠼ࠊࠕ࠶ࡢᏊ࡟ఱ࠿࡛ࡁࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡢࡀጇᙜ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

3
−115−

推理小説の文体分析―関連性理論の観点から―ࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢᚋ Ralph ࡜఍ࡗࡓ᫬ࡶ“If I could help̿” (44)࡜⏦ࡋฟ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࡢᚋࡶ
ࡑࡢព࿡࡛⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊㄞࡳ⤊ࢃࡗࡓ࡜ࡁࠊࡇࡢ࡜ࡁ Ralph ࢆᐜ␲⪅࡟ࡋࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼ࡀࡍ࡛࡟ Dr. Sheppard ࡟࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ▱ࡿ࡜ࠊㄞࡳ㏉ࡋࡓ࡜ࡁࠊࡇࡢ
“with”ࡣࠕ㐨ලࠖࡢព࿡࡛ࠕ࠶ࡢᏊ࡛ఱ࠿࡛ࡁࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘ࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ
࡜࡟Ẽ࡙ࡃࠋ௒ᅇࡣࡇࡕࡽࡢព࿡ゎ㔘ࡢ᪉ࡀࠕᑐ㇟ࠖࡢព࿡ࡼࡾ᭱㐺࡜࡞ࡾࠊ᭱ึࡢゎ㔘࡜ࡣ඲ࡃኚࢃࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋ

4.2 㣬࿴ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ฼⏝ᣦ♧௜୚ࡣᩥ⬦࠿ࡽỴᐃࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ≢ேࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ࡁ࡜≢ேࡀุ᫂ࡋࡓ࡜ࡁࡢ᝿
ᐃࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ௜୚ෆᐜࡀኚ໬ྍ⬟࡞Ⅼࡀ฼⏝ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࠋ

(4)‘See this Mrs Folliot.
‘Very well.

Find out all you can about Ursula Bourne.’

But – I [Dr. Sheppard] don’t much care for the job.’‘It is not the time to make difficulties.
‘Poor Ralph,’ I said with a sigh.

A man’s life may hang on this.’‘You believe him to be innocent,though?
Poirot looked at me very gravely.

‘Do you want to know the truth?’‘Of course.’‘Then you shall have it. My friend, everything points to the assumptionthat he is guilty.’‘What!’ I exclaimed.
Poirot nodded.

‘Yes, that stupid inspector – for he is stupid – haseverything pointing his way.
me every time to Ralph Paton.

I seek for the truth –and the truth leads
Motive, opportunity, means.

But I will(ibid. : 166)

leave no stone unturned….’(4)ࢆ᭱ึ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࠊ᥈ഄ Poirot ࡢࡏࡾࡩ୰ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡢ“A man”࡜“he”ࡣࠊRalph
Paton ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ“this”ࡣࠊDr. Sheppard ࡀ Mrs Folliot ࡟఍࠸࡟⾜ࡗ࡚ࠊUrsula Bourne࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪺ࡁฟࡍ᝟ሗࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᣦࡍ࡜ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡢࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ஧ᅇࡵ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜
ࡁࠊPoirot ࡀ᭱ึ࠿ࡽ Dr. Sheppard ࡟␲࠸ࢆᢪ࠸࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜࡜ࠊDr. Sheppard ࢆ Mrs
Folliot ࡟఍࠸࡟⾜࠿ࡏ࡚࠸ࡿ㛫࡟ Dr. Sheppard ࡢጜ࡟఍ࡗ࡚ࠊ஦௳ᙜ᪥ࡢ Dr. Sheppardࡢᝈ⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪺ࡁฟࡋࠊࡑࢀࡀ Poirot ࡢ஦௳ゎ᫂ࡢ᭱ᚋࡢษࡾᮐ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ▱

4
−116−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ࡗࡓ≧ែ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᣦࡍࡶࡢࡀ㐪ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࠋ “A man”ࡣࠊDr. Sheppard ࢆᣦࡋࠊ“this”
ࡣࠊPoirot ࡀ Dr. Sheppard ࡟ᝅࡽࢀࡎ࡟ጜ࠿ࡽ⪺ࡁฟࡍࡓࡵ࡟ᙼࢆ㐲ࡊࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡍ࡞
ࢃࡕ Mrs Folliot ࡟఍࠸࡟⾜࠿ࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦࡍࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊUrsula Bourne ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪺ࡁฟࡍ᝟ሗࢆᣦࡍࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ゎ㔘࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡟Ẽ࡙ࡃࠋୗ⥺㒊ࡢ“he”ࡶ᭱ึ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࡣࠊ
Dr. Sheppard ࡢゝࡗࡓෆᐜࢆཷࡅ࡚ࠊRalph Paton ࢆᣦࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡢࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
஧ᅇࡵ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࡣࠊ“A man”ࡣ Dr. Sheppard ࢆᣦࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡟Ẽ௜ࡃࠋࡑࡢᚋ
ࡢᩥ࡛ Poirot ࡣࠊࡇࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࢃ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ᐇ࠿ࡽࡔ࡜ Ralph Paton ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸
ࡿࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊୗ⥺㒊ࡢ he ࡢಶᡤ࡛ࡣࠊ‘assumption’࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡑࡢ࡜ࡁࢃ࠿
ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ᐇ࠿ࡽࡢ๭ࡾฟࡋ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࢀ௨ୖࡢ஦ᐇࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡢ᝿ᐃ࠿ࡽᘬࡁฟࡉࢀࡿ
ே≀࡛࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶ࡟Ẽ௜ࡃࠋࡲࡓࠊRalph ࢆ≢ே࡜Ỵࡵ௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ㆙㒊ࢆហ࠿⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡳ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶࠊRalph ௨እࢆᣦࡍྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᣦࡍ┦ᡭࡢ Dr.
Sheppard ࡜఍ヰࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ࠊyou ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ he ࡜౑࠺ࡢࡣᬑ㏻ࡢ≧ἣ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ
࠿࡞ࡾ᭷ᶆࡢゎ㔘࡜࡞ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢゎ㔘ࢆᨭᣢ࡛ࡁࡿᩥ⬦࡟࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟๓ᚋࡢ⾲⌧ࡀࡁࡕࢇ࡜ᅛࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୍᪉࡛ࠊ↓ᶆࡢゎ㔘࡛ࡶᨭᣢ࡛ࡁࡿ⾲⌧࡟ࡶ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋRalph
ࡣ⾜᪉୙࡛᫂ࠊ࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ≧ἣࡸ≀ⓗドᣐࡀࡑࢁࡗ࡚࠸࡚ࡶࠊ┤᥋ドゝࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡋࠊ
᏶඲࡟Ỵࡵ࡚࡜࡞ࡿドᣐࡀ࡞࠸⌧ẁ㝵࡛ࡣࠕ᝿ᐃ࡛ࠖ᭷⨥࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ࡝ࡕࡽࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡶᨭᣢ࡛ࡁࡿᩥ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ௦ྡモࡸᣦ♧モࡣࠊࡑࡢ๓ᚋ࡟࠶ࡿㄒྃࢆᣦࡍሙྜ࡛ࡶⓎヰ⪅ࡀ㢌࡟ᥥ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࢆ
ᣦࡍሙྜ࡛ࡶ౑࠼ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊྠ୍⾲⌧࡛ᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡾゎ㔘ኚ໬࡛ࡁࡸࡍ࠸ㄒ࡛ྃ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ࡸࡣࡾࡑࡢゎ㔘ࢆᨭᣢ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟๓ᚋࡢᩥ⬦࡜ࡘࡌࡘࡲࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ᡂࡾ❧ࡓ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇࡲ࡛ィ⟬ࡋࡓᩥ❶ࢆ㓄ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ࢔࢞ࢧ࣭ࢡࣜࢫࢸ࢕ࡣࡑࢀࢆࡸࡗ࡚ࡢࡅ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋ

4.3⮬⏤ᣑ඘ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ฼⏝≢ேࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ࡁ࡜≢ேࡀุ᫂ࡋࡓ࡜ࡁࡢ᝿ᐃࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊㄒྃࡢゎ㔘ᖜࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

(5)“It’s worse than you [Dr. Sheppard] know,” he [Acroyd] said quietly….
“Then this afternoon – no, better still, dine tonight.

At 7:30.

Will thatsuit you?”… I began to realize that there must be something very wrong
indeed somewhere. I had never seen Ackroyd so upset before. (ibid . 23)

5
−117−

推理小説の文体分析―関連性理論の観点から―

 (5)ࢆ᭱ึ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࡣࠊ“there must be something very wrong (for Acroyd)”࡜ࠊAcroyd࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠖ࡜ព࿡ᣑ඘ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡢࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ๓࡟ࠕྩࡀ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ௨ୖ࡟ᝏ
࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ Acroyd ࡀゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊDr. Sheppard ⮬㌟ࡀ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡜࠸࠺ࡇ
࡜࡛ࠊᙼࡀ┤᥋㛵ࢃࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ࡜ࡇࢁࡀ஧ᅇࡵ࡟ࠊDr. Sheppard ࡀ≢ே࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ▱ࡗࡓୖ࡛ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࠊ“there must
be something very wrong (for me)”࡜ࠊDr. Sheppard ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠖ࡜ព࿡ᣑ඘ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶྍ⬟࡞ࡇ࡜࡟Ẽ࡙ࡃࠋࠕྩࡀ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ௨ୖ࡟ᝏ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ Acroyd ࡀゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶࠊAcroyd ࡀࠕྩࡀ Mrs. Ferrars ࢆᜍ႑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆࡤࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ᛮࡗ࡚
࠸ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࡀࠊ⚾ࡣ▱ࡗࡓࠋࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ゝࡗࡓ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸࡜ Dr. Sheppard ࡀゎ㔘ࡋ࡚ࠊືᦂࡋጞࡵࡓሙ㠃ᥥ෗࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡞ࡇ࡜࡟ㄞ⪅ࡣẼ࡙ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

4.4

Ad hoc concept construction ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ฼⏝ࡑࡢሙ㝈ࡾࡢព࿡ࢆᡂࡍ࡟ࡣࠊᩥ⬦᝟ሗ࡟ᙉࡃ౫Ꮡࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ᭱ึ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࠊ
Dr Sheppard ࢆ஦௳ࡢㄒࡾᡭ࡜ࡔࡅࡳ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡜஧ᅇࡵ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁ࡟≢ே࡜ࡋ࡚ࡳ࡞ࡋ࡚ㄞࡴሙྜ࡜࡛ࡣㄞ⪅ࡢᩥ⬦᝟ሗࡀኚ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊㄒࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡶኚ໬ࢆ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

  (6)

Whatever I told Caroline now concerning the demise of Mrs Ferrars
would be common knowledge all over the village within the space of anhour and a half.

As a professional man, I naturally aim at discretion.

Therefore I have got into the habit of continually withholding all
information possible from my sister.’(ibid. :10)(6)ࢆึࡵ࡚ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࡣࠊぢฟࡋ࡟ Dr Sheppard ࡜࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊෑ㢌㒊ศࡢ⾲⌧࠿ࡽࠊ ‘I’ࡀ་⪅࡛࠶ࡿ Dr Sheppard ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚ㄞࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ‘a professionalman’ࢆ‘a person engaged in a specified activity as one’s main paid occupation’ࡢព࿡࡛࡜ࡽ࠼࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ ‘a person practicing medicine’࡬ព࿡ࢆ⊃ࡵ࡚ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡢࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊDr Sheppard ࡀ≢ே࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࢃ࠿ࡗࡓᚋ࡛ㄞࡳ㏉ࡍ࡜ࡁࠊᡭグࢆㄞࡴㄞ⪅ࡸ௚ࡢⓏ ሙ ே ≀ ࡟ ㄡ ࡀ ≢ ே ࠿ ࢃ ࠿ ࡽ ࡞ ࠸ ࡼ ࠺ ࡟ ࡍ ࡿ ⾡ ࡟ ࠾ ࠸ ࡚ ࠊ ‘a professional man’ ࢆ ‘aperson competent or skilled in a particular activity’ࡢព࿡࡛౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡘࡲࡾࠊ᭱ึࡣࠕ་⪅ࠖࡢព࿡࡛ゎ㔘ࡋࠊᚋ࡟ࡣࠕ≢⨥⪅ࠖࡢព࿡࡛ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟Ẽ࡙ࡃࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊࡇࡢ㒊ศࢆ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ᚋࡢᩥࡀ⥆࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ

6
−118−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

࠸ࡎࢀ࡟ࡋࢁࠊጜ࠿ࡽ⮬ศࡢᣢࡘ᝟ሗࢆ㞃ࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊៅ㔜࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺
ࡇ࡜ࡀ▩┪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

5. ࡲ࡜ࡵ ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ࢔࢞ࢧ࣭ࢡࣜࢫࢸ࢕ࡢࣉࣟࢵࢺศᯒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡲࡎ⾲ពࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊྠ୍
⾲⌧ࡀࠊ᭱ึ࡟ㄞࡳ㐍ࡵࡿ࡜ࡁࡢゎ㔘࡜᭱ᚋࡲ࡛ㄞࢇ࡛≢ேࡀุ᫂ࡋࡓୖ࡛ㄞࡳ㏉ࡋࡓ࡜ࡁࡢゎ㔘ࡀኚ໬ྍ⬟࡞㒊ศࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕࡦࡡࡾࠖࡢ㒊ศࢆ࡜ࡾ࠶ࡆࠊ࡞ࡐࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘ኚ໬ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ㸲ࡘࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗゎ㔘ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚♧ࡋࡓࠋ ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (1926)ࡢసရࢆ࡜ࡾ࠶ࡆ࡚ࠊ⾲ព࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢࠕࡦ
ࡡࡾࠖࡢ౛ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡀࠊ࢔࢞ࢧ࣭ࢡࣜࢫࢸ࢕ࡢసရࡢ୰࡛ࡶࡇࡢసရ௨እ࡛ࠊ㣬࿴ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢᣦ♧௜୚௨እ࡛ࠊ༢⊂࡛⾲ព࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢࠕࡦࡡࡾࠖࡀ஦௳ゎỴࡢ㘽࡜࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (1926)ࡢ୰࡛ࡣ
ẚ㍑ⓗከࡃࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢసရࡣࠊDr. Sheppard ࡀᐈほⓗ࡟஦௳ࢆఏ࠼ࡿㄒࡾᡭ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ
ᙺ๭࡜≢ே࡜ࡋ࡚ㄞ⪅ࢆḭࡃᙺ๭࡜Ⓩሙே≀㛫࡛ࡢᙺ๭ࡢΰᅾࡋࡓどⅬ࡛ࠊᡭグ࡜ࡋࡓᙧᘧ࡛᭩࠸࡚࠸ࡿタᐃࡀ௚ࡢసရ࡜኱ࡁࡃ␗࡞ࡿⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௚ࡢసရ࡛ࡣࠊ᥈ഄ௨እࡢ஦௳
㛵ಀ⪅ࡣ࡯ࡰᐜ␲⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿⓏሙே≀࡜ࡋ࡚ᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 ㏻ᖖࠊㄞ⪅ࡣ᭱ึ࡟ㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࡣ᭩ࡁᡭࢆㄒࡾᡭࡢᙺ๭࡜ࡋ࠿⪃࠼࡞࠸࡜స⪅ࡣ㋃ࢇ࡛࠸
ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊᙺ๭ኚ໬࡟ࡼࡿ⾲⌧ࡢ஧㔜ᛶࡀᐜ᫆࡟Ẽ࡙࠿ࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸࡜ࡢ⪃࠼࡛ࠊ⾲ព࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝ
ࡢࠕࡦࡡࡾࠖࢆ༢⊂࡛⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ௒ᅇࡣࠊ⾲ពࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿ㸲ࡘࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢศ㢮࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡶࡢࢆ
♧ࡋࡓࡀࠊ௚࡟㧗ḟ⾲ពࡢෆᐜࡢ┿ഇࢆၥࢃ࡞࠸Ⅼࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓ᭩ࡁ᪉ࡢ࡜ࡇࢁࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡲ
ࡓࠊ௒ᅇࡢ⾲ពࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ๓ᚋࡢᩥ࠿ࡽࡢ᥎ពࡀゎ㔘࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ᥎ពࣞ࣋ࣝࡢศᯒ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊࡉࡽ࡟」㞧ࡉࡀቑࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ௒ᅇࡢ⾲ព࠿ࡽ᥎ពࢆྲྀࡾฟࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡑࢀࡀ௚ࡢ᥎ព࡟ᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࡜࠸࠺ලྜ࡟ᢡࡾ㔜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ᭱ᚋࡲ࡛ㄞࡳ⤊ࢃࡿ๓࡟㏵୰࡛㒊ศⓗゎ᫂ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ
᥎ពࡀูࡢゎ㔘࡟ኚࢃࡾࠊࡑࢀࡀḟ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡜࠸࠺㔜ᒙᛶࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ☜࠿࡟」㞧࡟⤡ࡳྜࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡛ࡶࡸࡣࡾ୍ᐃࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆྲྀࡾฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋḟࡣࠊࡇࡢゎ᫂࡟ྲྀࡾ࠿࠿ࡾࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ⾲ពࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ㸲ࡘࡢㄒ⏝ㄽࣉࣟࢭ
ࢫࡀ」ᩘ⤡ࡳྜࡗ࡚⾲ពࢆᡂࡾ❧ࡓࡏ࡚࠸ࡿ㒊ศࡶศᯒࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࠊ࡞࡟࠿୍ᐃࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ
ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࢆ᥈ࡗ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ

7
−119−

推理小説の文体分析―関連性理論の観点から―

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩Bargainnier, F.E. 1980.

The Gentle Art of Murder: The Detective Fiction of

Agatha Christie. Ohio: Bowling Green University Popular Press.
Barnard, R. 1980.

A Talent to Deceive. London: Collins.

Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1986/1995 2. Relevance: Communication andCognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
ෆ⏣ ⪷஧. 2011.

ࠗㄒ⏝ㄽࡢᑕ⛬㸫ㄒ࠿ࡽㄯヰ࣭ࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡬࠘ ᮾி㸸◊✲♫.

ᘬ⏝సရ
Christie, A. 1926.

The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. London: HarperCollins.

8
−120−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ㄯヰᶆ㆑ okay ࡢᶵ⬟ⓗព࿡ 1
すᕝ ┾⏤⨾ᦤ༡኱Ꮫ

㸺Abstract㸼Okay (or OK) is regarded as a response to mean the speaker’s “approval” of other people’sutterance (Jucker 1998: 174; Biber et al 1999: 1090 etc.). On the other hand, okay is often used
as a discourse marker in conversation not only to indicate the speaker’s acceptance toward
other people’s opinions but also to improve the ongoing conversation by introducing suggestions
in which speakers give their own opinions or thoughts. In this paper, I will closely explore
various examples of the discourse marker okay from movie scripts and will show, from the pointof view of cognitive pragmatics, what kind of meanings and functions discourse marker okay
has in discourse.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚㄯヰᶆ㆑ࠊㄆ▱ㄒ⏝ㄽࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࠊᩥἲ໬

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
௒ࡸୡ⏺୰ࡢゝㄒ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࠊᗈࡃࠕ᫝ㄆࠖࡢពࢆᣢࡘࡇࡢㄒࡣࠊ༢⊂࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ
ࡃࡔࡅࡓ఍ヰࡢࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞఩⨨࡟⏕㉳ࡋ఍ヰࢆಁ㐍ࡉࡏࡿാࡁࢆᣢࡘ㸦OALD8ࠊLDOCE5 ➼㸧ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ okay ࡣࡋࡤࡋࡤᶆ㆑(marker)࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࠊJucker(1998:174)࡛ࡣ௚ࡢヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚୚࠼ࡽ
ࢀࡓ᝟ሗ࡬ࡢᛂ⟅ࢆྜᅗࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢཷಙᶆ㆑(reception marker)ࠊBiber et al. (1999:1083)࡛ࡣ࿨௧࣭♧၀࣭ᥦ♧࣭ᛅ࿌࣭チྍࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᮍ᮶ࡢ⾜ື࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᪥ᖖⓗ࡞᫝ㄆࡢᛂ
⟅࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿᛂ⟅ᙧᘧ(response form)࡜࿧ࡤࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᶆ㆑ࡢ okay ࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࢆཷࡅ࡚ࠊࡑࡢෆᐜ࡬ࡢ᫝ㄆࢆ⾲ࡍᛂ⟅ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ㸬 (1)(2)(3)ࡢ౛ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊokay ࡣ༢⊂࡛⏕㉳ࡋࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⌮ゎ࣭ྠព࣭ᢎㅙࢆ♧ࡍᛂ⟅࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(1) Erin: Hey, get in the house. No dripping.
Kids: Okay.
(2) Ed: Ah, I have to open a file. Er…Real estate thing, pro bono.
Erin: Okay.
(3) Rita: I’ll call you.
Sam: Okay.

(Movie: Erin Brockovich)(ibid.)(Movie: I am Sam)ḟ࡟ࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ୺Ⓨヰࢆక࠺ okay ࡢ౛ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿࠋ(4) Erin: You kids go ahead and order.
Matthew: Okay, I’m gonna have a cheeseburger deluxe with a Coke.
(Movie: Erin Brockovich)(5) Marisa: This weekend is the holiday㸬Marcus: I know㸬Marisa: Okay. He’s counting on it.
Marcus: He’ll get over it.
 (Movie: Maid in Manhattan)(6) (Erin shuts the door.)
Erin: Okay, I’ll just be as quick as I can, right? Mattew, can you watch your sister?

−121−談話標識 okay の機能的意味(Movie: Erin Brockovich)(7) Miranda: And I would like my steak here…in 15 minutes.
Andy: No problem. Okay. I have four hours to get the impossible manuscript. Smith and Wollensky’s
doesn’t open until 11:30. How am I gonna get the steak? Okay. I will be back in 15 minutes. Wishme luck.
(Movie: The Devil Wears Prada)(4)ࡣࠊ࢚ࣜࣥࡀᏊ౪ࡓࡕ࡟ᩱ⌮ࢆὀᩥࡍࡿࡼ࠺ࡍࡍࡵࠊᜥᏊࡢ࣐ࢩ࣮ࣗࡀὀᩥࢆጞࡵࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋokay ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ẕぶࡢᣦ♧࡟ᑐࡍࡿᢎㅙࢆఏ࠼ࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊὀᩥࢆጞࡵࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ᙎࡳࢆࡘࡅ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋ(5)ࡣࠊ࣓ࣜࢵࢧࡀඖኵࡢ࣐ࣝ࢝ࢫ࠿ࡽ㸦ᜥᏊࡢࢱ࢖ࡀᴦࡋࡳ࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆ▱ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽ㸧㐌ᮎ࡟᮶࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ▱ࡽࡉࢀࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰෆᐜ࡟ྠពࡶ⣡ᚓ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸≧ἣ࡛okay ࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡢࡸࡾࡁࢀ࡞࠸Ẽᣢࡕࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊokay ࢆྲྀࡿ࡜㠀ᖖ࡟ࡑࡗࡅ࡞࠸఍ヰ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ୎ᑀࡉࡶఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(6)ࡣࠊ࢚ࣜࣥࡀ࣋ࣅ࣮ࢩࢵࢱ࣮
ࢆ㞠࠼ࡎࠊ3 ேࡢᏊ౪ࢆࡘࢀ࡚⫋ሙࡢἲᚊ஦ົᡤ࡟ධࢁ࠺࡜ࡍࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊokay ࡣ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᛂ⟅࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ఍ヰࡢษࡾฟࡋ࡟⏝࠸࡚┦ᡭࡢὀពࢆᘬࡁᚋ࡟⥆ࡃ౫㢗ࡢᑟධ࡟ࢫ࣒࣮
ࢬ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(7)ࡣࠊ⮬ศࡢኻᩋࡢࡏ࠸࡛ୖྖࡢ࣑ࣛࣥࢲ࠿ࡽ↓⌮㞴㢟ࢆゝ࠸ࡘࡅࡽࢀࡓ࢔ࣥ
ࢹ࢕ࡀࠊ⮬ࡽࢆບࡲࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ࿨௧ࢆ඲࠺ࡋࡼ࠺࡜㡹ᙇࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡶࠊokay ࡣ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᛂ⟅࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡴࡋࢁ⮬ศ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚⮬ࡽࢆ⃭ບࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ okay ࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᚋ⥆Ⓨヰࢆక࠺ okay ࡣࠊఱ࠿࡟ᑐࡍࡿᛂ⟅ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊ༢⊂࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿ okay ࡟ࡣ↓࠸௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋձ ᚲࡎࡋࡶ᫝ㄆࡸྠពࡸᢎㅙࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋղ 㸦ㄯヰࡢษࡾฟࡋࠊࢱ࣮ࣥෆ࡛ࡢヰ㢟㌿᥮ࡸࠊ⮬ศࢆ⃭ບࡍࡿሙྜ࡞࡝㸧┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࡀ↓ࡃ࡚ࡶ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋճ ᚋ⥆Ⓨヰ࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㉳ືᛶࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩࢆᣢࡕࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᚋ⥆Ⓨヰࡢゎ㔘࡟ࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡆࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ okay ࢆㄯヰᶆ㆑㸦௨ୗ DM ࡜⛠ࡍ㸧okay ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࠋ2 ࡑࡢୖ࡛ࠊⱥㄒᫎ⏬ࡢࡏࡾࡩࡢ୰ࡢ
DM okay ࡢࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞஦౛ࢆศᯒࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀձఱ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᛂ⟅࠿ࠊղᙧᐜ㸦๪㸧モࡢ okay ࡸᛂ⟅モ࡜ࡢព࿡ⓗ㛵ಀࡣఱ࠿ࠊճ࡞ࡐᚋ⥆ࡍࡿⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡬ࡢ㉳ືຊ࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡢ 3 Ⅼࢆㄆ▱ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛ヲ⣽࡟⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ DM okay ࡀㄯヰෆ࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព࿡࣭ᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂
ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊከᵝ࡞ DM okay ࡢ౑⏝࡟㛵ࡋ࡚⤫୍ⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ
2. DM okay ࡢ஦౛
2.1 ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࢆཷࡅ࡚ DM okay ࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࢆཷࡅࡑࡢෆᐜ࡟㈶ྠࡋࡓࡾጇ༠ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿሙ㠃࡛㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(8) Jane: See? It’s not so bad. This sash is really very flat…
Kevin: Okay. You are totally right about the dress. It is not that bad. […](9) Zoe: You forgot me.
Kate: It’s not what you think.
Zoe: You forgot me.
Kate: Leah had her baby. I had to take her to the hospital.
Zoe: But you still forgot me.
Kate: Okay, I forgot you. And I’m sorry.
  (Movie: 27 Dresses)(Movie: No Reservation)(8)ࡣࠊ
ࠕࡇࡢࢻࣞࢫࡢࢧࢵࢩࣗ࣋ࣝࢺࡀ⣲ᩛࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢪ࢙࣮ࣥࡢⓎヰෆᐜ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ྠពࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿ๓࡟ okay ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(9)ࡣࠊࢣ࢖ࢺࡀ௙஦ࡢ㒔ྜ࡛ࢰ࣮࢖ࢆᏛᰯ࡬㏄࠼࡟⾜ࡃࡢࢆᛀࢀࠊ
ᚅࡕ⑂ࢀࡓࢰ࣮࢖ࡀᛣࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕ⚾ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᛀࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠖ࡜⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍࢰ࣮࢖࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ

−122−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ࢣ࢖ࢺࡣࠕࡑ࠺ࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࡢࠖ࡜ゝ࠸⪺࠿ࡏ࡞ࡀࡽ⤖ᒁࠕ㸦☜࠿࡟㸧ᛀࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠖ࡜ጇ༠ࡍࡿ๓࡟ okayࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(8)࡜(9)࡛ࡣࠊDM okay ࡣ┦ᡭ࡟ྠពࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡑࢀࢆఏ࠼ࡿ๓࡟୍᪦┦ᡭࡢゝ࠸ศࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵ࡟ DM okay ࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ┦ᡭࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚཯ㄽࡍࡿ᫬࡟ࡶ okay ࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋ(10)ࡣࠊࠕྩࡢ௙஦ࡢ༴ᶵࢆᩆࡗ࡚ࡸࡗ
ࡓࠖ࡜ᜠ╔ࡏࡀࡲࡋࡃゝ࠺ࢡࣜࢫࢳࣕࣥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࢔ࣥࢹ࢕ࡀࠕ⮬ศࡶດຊࡣࡋࡓࡢࡼࠖ࡜ゝ࠸㏉ࡍሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(11)ࡣࠊ
ࠕᙼዪ㸦࣑ࣛࣥࢲ㸧ࡣࡦ࡝࠸ያࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢡࣜࢫࢳࣕࣥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࢔ࣥࢹ࢕
ࡀࠕࡶࡋᙼዪࡀ⏨ࡔࡗࡓࡽࡑࢇ࡞ᢈุࡣࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜཯ㄽࢆᑟධࡍࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡢሙྜࡶࠊ
┦ᡭ࡟␗ㄽࢆၐ࠼ࡿ๓࡟ࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࡢゝ࠸ࡓ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣࢃ࠿ࡿࡅ࡝ࠖ࡜୍᪦┦ᡭࡢⓎヰෆᐜ࡬ࡢ⌮ゎࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵ࡟ okay ࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛཯ㄽ࠿ࡽࡃࡿኻ♩ࡉࢆ㍍
ῶࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ୎ᑀࡉᡓ␎࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᙺ๭ࡶᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(10) Christian: You’re…You’re a vision. Thank God I saved your job.
Andy: Okay. You know, I figured out a few things on my own too. Turns out, I’m not as nice as you
thought.
(Movie: The Devil Wears Prada)(11) Christian: She’s a notorious sadist. And not…not in a good way.
Andy: Okay, she’s tough. But if Miranda were a man…no one would notice anything about her except
how great she is at her job.
(ibid.)
okay ࡣ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࢆཷࡅࠊࡑࢀ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚㉁ၥࢆࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡶ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(12)ࡣࢩࣕࣥ࣌
ࣥࢆ㛤ࡅ࡚࠾⚃࠸ࡋࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺ࢼ࢖ࢪ࢙ࣝ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ࢔ࣥࢹ࢕ࡀࠕఱ࡟஝ᮼࡍࡿࡢ㸽ࠖ࡜ࡓࡎࡡࡿሙ
㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㉁ၥࡍࡿ๓࡟┦ᡭࡢゝ࠸ศ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୍ᛂࡢ⌮ゎࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡑࡢ㉁ၥࡀ┦ᡭ࡟Ẽᣢࡕࡼࡃཷࡅධࢀࡽࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(12) Nigel: We’re going to celebrate. I’m going to get some champagne.
Andy: Okay. What are we toasting?

(ibid.)┦ᡭࡢヰࢆᡴࡕษࡿ᫬࡟ࡶ okay ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(13)ࡣࠊ
ࠕⱝ࠸་⪅ࡀ࠶࡞ࡓ࡟⯆࿡ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࢃࡼࠖ࡜ࡅࡋ࠿ࡅࡿࢰ࣮࢖࡟ྥࡗ࡚ࠊ࢚ࣜ࢝ࡀࠕᙼࡀዲࡁ࡞ࡢࡣ⚾ࡢసရ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊ⚾ࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࠖ
࡜ゝ࠸ࡘࡘࠊࡑࢇ࡞ヰࡣࡶ࠺ࡸࡵࡿࡼ࠺㢗ࡴሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕ㸦࠶࡞ࡓࡢゝ࠸ࡓ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣ㸧ࡶ࠺ࢃ࠿ࡗ
ࡓࠖ࡜ okay ࢆ౑࠸୍᪦⌮ゎࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊヰࢆࡸࡵࡉࡏࡿ࡜࠸࠺ኻ♩࡞⾜Ⅽࢆ┦ᡭࡀࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡟ཷ
ࡅධࢀ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(13) Zoe: Who care how old he is. I mean, he’s not my type, he’s like a gorgeous wholesome doctor but, he’s
perfect for you and hot for you, which makes him really perfect.
Erica: Okay. Stop it. He likes my work. Not me. It’s insane. I would never㸬(Movie: Something’s Gotta Give)௒ヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿヰ㢟ࢆኚ࠼ࡓࡾࠊ㛢ࡌࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡶ okay ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ3 (14)࡜(15)ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿࠋ(14) Jane: There you are! You look great.
Cassey: Thanks!
Jane: Okay. Let’s go. Come on.
 (Movie: 27 Dresses)(15) Erica: [holding the water glass] Where should I do this? It’s an empty water glass. What are the choices?
Dabe: Okay㸬[rises] I’m getting’ out of your hair.
(Movie: Something’s Gotta Give)−123−談話標識 okay の機能的意味(14)ࡣࠊ⤖፧ᘧ࡟ྥ࠿࠺㏵୰࡛ࢣ࢖ࢩ࣮ࢆぢࡘࡅࡓࢪ࢙࣮ࣥࡀࠕ⣲ᩛࡼࠖ࡜〔ࡵࢣ࣮ࢩ࣮ࡀ♩ࢆ㏙
࡭ࡓᚋࠊࢪ࢙࣮ࣥࡀࠕࡉ࠶⾜ࡇ࠺ࠖ࡜ヰ㢟ࢆኚ࠼ࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(15)ࡣࠊⱝ࠸ዪᛶ࠿ࡽởࢀࡓࢢࣛࢫࢆཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓ࢚ࣜ࢝ࡀࠕởࢀࡓࢢࣛࢫࡣࡕࡷࢇ࡜Ὑࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡢࡀᖖ㆑ࡔࠖ࡜ࡇࡰࡍࡢࢆ⪺࠸ࡓࢹ࣮ࣈࡀࠕࡑࢁࡑࢁኻ♩ࡍࡿࡼࠖ࡜఍ヰࢆ㛢ࡌࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊㄯヰࡢ୰࡛ḟࡢᒁ㠃࡟⛣ࡿ๓࡟୍ᛂ┦ᡭࡢ㸦႐ࡧࡸᛣࡾ࡞࡝㸧ᚰ᝟࡬ࡢ⌮ゎࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡟⛣⾜ࢆᅗࡗࡓࡾࠊࡉࡽ࡟Ⓨヰࢆᢤࡅฟࡍࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ᮶ࡿኻ♩ࡉࢆ࿴ࡽࡆ┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୎ᑀࡉࢆఏ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚
okay ࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2.2 ྠࡌࢱ࣮ࣥࡢ୰࡛
 DM okay ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀࢱ࣮ࣥࡢ㏵୰࡛ヰ㢟ࢆ㌿᥮ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡶ㢖⦾࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(16)ࡣࠊࢱࢡࢩ
࣮࡟஌ࡗࡓࢪ࢙࣮ࣥࡀ⾜ࡁඛࢆ㐠㌿ᡭ࡟ఏ࠼ࡓᚋࠊ
ࠕ୍ᬌ 300 ࢻ࡛ࣝ㈚ࡋษࡾ࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜஺΅࡟⛣ࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋokay ࡛ヰ㢟㌿᥮ࡢࢱ࢖࣑ࣥࢢࡀᩚࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆྜᅗࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡟ḟࡢヰ࡟⛣⾜ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(16) Jane: Thanks. Thirty-one Water Street. Brooklyn. Okay. I will give you three hundred dollars flat for thewhole night on one condition.
(Movie: 27 Dresses)
okay ࡣࠊẼࡀ㐍ࡲ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆᙉ࠸ࡽࢀࡿ≧ἣ࡛⮬ࡽࢆዧ㉳ࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡶ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋ(17) Erica: Wait, wait, wait, wait. You’re leaving, Zoe’s leaving, the entourage is leaving. And I’m gonna be
stuck here with him alone?
Marin: The hospital’s sending over a nurse in the morning.
Erica: The morning? That’s nineteen hours from now…(takes a deep breath) Okay, I can handle this. I’m
just getting myself into a zen place, play music, cook, write, focus….
(Movie: Something’s Gotta Give)(17)ࡣࠊ✺↛ᚰ⮚Ⓨస࡛ಽࢀࡓፉࡢ࣮࣎࢖ࣇࣞࣥࢻࢆ୍ᬌ୍ே࡛ୡヰࢆࡋ࡞࠸࡜࠸ࡅ࡞࠸࡜ศ࠿ࡗ
ࡓ࢚ࣜ࢝ࡀࠕࡼࡋ㡹ᙇࢁ࠺ࠖ࡜⮬ศ࡟ゝ࠸⪺࠿ࡏࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕࡼࡋ㸦ࢃ࠿ࡗࡓ㸧ࠖ࡜↓⌮▮⌮௒⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ἣࢆ⮬ศ࡟⌮ゎ࣭⣡ᚓࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟ okay ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2.3 ఍ヰࡢษࡾฟࡋ
 DM okay ࡣ఍ヰࢆጞࡵࡿሙ㠃࡛ࡶࡼࡃ౑ࢃࢀࡿࠋ(18)ࡣࠊ᪂ධ♫ဨࡢ࢔ࣥࢹ࢕࡟ඛ㍮ࡢ࢚࣑࣮ࣜ
ࡀ௙஦ࡢㄝ᫂ࢆጞࡵࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ≧ἣࡀᩚࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡛┦ᡭࡢὀពࢆႏ㉳ࡋࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᚋ⥆Ⓨヰࡢゎ㔘࡟ࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡟ධࢀࡿࡼ࠺ okay ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(18) Emily: Okay. First of all, you and I answer the phones. The phone must be answered every single time itrings.
        (Movie: The Devil Wears Prada)௨ୖぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊDM okay ࡣ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰ࡬ࡢᛂ⟅࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊ㈶ྠ࣭ጇ༠࣭཯ㄽ࣭㉁ၥࠊヰ㢟ࡢᡴࡕษࡾࡸ㌿᥮ࡢ㝿࡟ࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰෆᐜࡸពᅗ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⌮ゎࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡲࡓࠊ఍ヰࡢษࡾฟࡋࡸ
⮬ࡽࡢࢱ࣮ࣥࡢ୰࡛ヰ㢟ࢆ㌿᥮ࡋࡓࡾ⮬ศࢆྏဂ⃭ບࡍࡿ᫬࡟ࡣ≧ἣ࡬ࡢ⌮ゎ࡜ᐜㄆࢆ⾲ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊokay ࢆඛ⾜ࡉࡏ⌮ゎࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࡇ࡜࡛┦ᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୎ᑀࡉࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡾࠊ┦ᡭࡢὀពࢆႏ㉳ࡋ၈✺ࡉࢆ↓ࡃࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣᏳᚰࡋ࡚ᚋ⥆Ⓨヰࡢゎ㔘࡟ྥ࠿࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼
ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

−124−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

4. ඛ⾜◊✲ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊᛂ⟅࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿ okay ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ 3 ࡘࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᴫㄝࡋࠊࡑࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡲࡎࠊMerritt ࡣࠊ᥋ᐈࡢฟ఍࠸(service encounter)ࡢሙ㠃࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ okay ࡟ࡣ 2 ࡘࡢᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ(1984: 144)ࠋ1 ࡘࡣࠊ᫝ㄆ(approval)ࠊᐜㄆ(acceptance)ࡸᢎㄆ(confirmation)࡞࡝ࠊࡶ࠺ 1ࡘࡣே㛫ྠኈࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᶵ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊࢿࢵࢡࣞࢫࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡓᐈࡀ “Can you showme something else in that price range?” ࡜㢗ࡳࠊᗑဨࡀ࣌ࣥࢲࣥࢺࢆぢࡏࡓᚋᐈࡀ “OK. I’ll take thesetwo.”࡜㏙࡭ࡓ㝿ࠊᐈࡣࡓࡔࡍࡍࡵࡽࢀࡓၟရ࡬ࡢ᫝ㄆࢆ⾲ࡍࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊㄪ࡭࡚ࡃࢀࡓࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡍ
ࡿ‶㊊ࡸࠊࡉࡽ࡟ḟࡢືస㸦㉎ධ㸧࡬ࡢ‽ഛࢆࡶ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊokay ࡣ᥋ᐈ࡟࠾ࡅࡿẁ㝵ࡢ⛣⾜ࡢྜᅗࠊࡘࡲࡾ᥋ᐈ࡟࠾࠸࡚᥋㏆㸦access㸧ࠊ㑅ᢥ㸦selection㸧ࠊỴᚰ㸦decision㸧ࠊࡸࡾྲྀࡾ㸦exchange㸧ࠊ㛢ࡵ㸦closure㸧࡜࠸࠺㸳ࡘࡢ࠺ࡕ 2 ࡘࡢẁ㝵ࢆࡘ࡞ࡄᶫΏࡋࡢᙺࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ḟ࡟ࠊBeach㸦1993㸧ࡣࠊ఍ヰࡢ୰࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ okay ࡢ౑⏝࡟㛵ࡋࠊࡑࡢ๓ᚋࡢⓎヰ
ෆᐜࡸ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ࡶど㔝࡟ධࢀヲ⣽࡟ศᯒࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢୖ࡛ࠊokay ࡣࠊձඛ⾜Ⓨヰࡢෆᐜࡸ≧ἣ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᫝ㄆ࣭ᐜㄆ࣭⌮ゎ࡞࡝ࢆ⾲ࡍᛂ⟅ࠊղḟࡢືࡁ࡬ࡢ‽ഛࡀ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ែ(state ofreadiness)ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ 2 ࡘࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦1993: 328-9㸧ࠋෆ⏣㸦1985㸧࡛ࡣࠊ㞄᥋ྃ࡟⌧ࢀࡿ okay ࡣࠕ‶㊊ࡔࠖࠊࠕඖẼࡔࠖ➼࡜࠸࠺㎡᭩ⓗ࡞ព࿡࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊ
せㄳࠊせồࠊ୺ᙇࠊᛅ࿌➼ࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟ᑐࡍࡿዲࡲࡋ࠸(preferred)ᛂ⟅࡜ࡋ࡚➨ 2 ྃ┠࡟⏕ࡌࠊ᫝ㄆ(approbation)ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊձ㞄᥋ྃࡢ➨ 1 ྃ┠ࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡢ᫝ㄆࢆ⾲ࡍ㸦せㄳ࣭せồ࣭୺ᙇ࣭ᛅ࿌࡟ᑐࡍࡿዲࡲࡋ࠸ᛂ⟅㸧ࠊղඛ⾜ࡍࡿㄯヰࢆ㞟⣙ࡍࡿ㸦ヰࡢࡲ࡜ࡵࠋ⤖ㄽࡢᑟධ࡞࡝㸧ࠊճInitiation ࡢጞࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀヰ㢟ࡢ㌿᥮ࢆ⾲ࡍࠊࡢ 3 ࡘࡢ⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊᚋ⥆Ⓨヰࢆక࠺ okay ࡀ㸦༢⊂࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿ okay ྠᵝ㸧ఱࡽ࠿ࡢᛂ
⟅࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ᩥ⬦ࡢ୰࡛๓ᚋࡢ᝟ሗࢆ㛵㐃࡙ࡅࡿᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ
2 ⠇࡛ぢ࡚ࡁࡓ㏻ࡾ⣡ᚓ࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ኱ࡁ࡞ၥ㢟Ⅼࡀ 2 ࡘ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡲࡎࠊ༢⊂࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿ okay ࡜ᚋ⥆Ⓨヰࢆక࠺ okay ࢆྠᵝ࡟ᢅ࠸ࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡶ᫝ㄆࡢᛂ⟅ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ࡍࡿࡇࢀࡽࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊ࡞ࡐ okay ࡀ཯ㄽࡸ㉁ၥࠊࡲࡓヰ㢟ࢆᡴࡕษࡗࡓࡾ㌿᥮ࡍࡿ㝿࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢ
࠿ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶࡞࠸ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ᫝ㄆ࡞࡝⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆಖᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺௨እ࡟ඖࡢᙧ
ᐜ㸦๪㸧モ࡜ᛂ⟅モ࡜ࡢព࿡㛵ಀࡀ᫂☜࡟㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋᮏ⪃ᐹ࡛ࡣࠊDM ࡸᩥἲ໬(grammaticalization)࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᗈࡃ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ okay ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ໟᣓⓗ࡞⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠸ࠊᙧᐜ㸦๪㸧モࡢ okayࠊ༢⊂࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿᛂ⟅モࡢ okay ࡜ᚋ⥆Ⓨヰࢆక࠸ࡑࡢゎ㔘࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ DM
okay ࡢព࿡ࡢᕪࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࠊୖグ 2 ࡘࡢၥ㢟ⅬࡢゎỴࢆヨࡳࡿࠋ
5. DM okay ࡢᶵ⬟ⓗព࿡
5.1 DM okay ࡣఱ࡬ࡢᛂ⟅࠿ ๓⠇࡛ࡳࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊDM okay ࡣ㏻ᖖ᫝ㄆࢆ⾲ࡍᛂ⟅モ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋAijmer (2002:102)ࡶࠊ
oh ࡸ ah ࡜ྠᵝࠊDM okay ࡣᛂ⟅モ࠿ࡽⓎᒎࡋࡓ⏝ἲ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡎࠊokay ࡜ྠᵝᛂ⟅モ࠿ࡽ DM ࡬࡜Ⓨᒎࡋࡓ oh ࡢ౛ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿ(Nishikawa 2010: 181 ཧ↷)ࠋ(19) A: Hey, did you call me last night? I was waiting. What happened?
B: Oh, I forgot to call you. I’m sorry.
     (20) [᫖ኪ㟁ヰࢆࡍࡿ⣙᮰ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ┦ᡭ࡟⩣ᮅഅ↛఍ࡗ࡚]Oh, I forgot to call you. I’m sorry.
(19)࡛ࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰෆᐜ࠿ࡽ㟁ヰࡢ⣙᮰ࢆࡓࡗࡓ௒ᛮ࠸ฟࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ(20)࡛ࡣࠊ┦ᡭ࡜఍ࡗࡓ▐ࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࡇ
㛫࡟ࡑࢀࢆグ᠈࠿ࡽᚓࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵ࡟ oh ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Nishikawa 2010㸧࡜࡛⪺ࡁᡭࡀᚋ⥆Ⓨヰࢆࠕ᫖ኪ㟁ヰࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢࡣ༢࡟ᛀࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡾᨾព࡟࠿ࡅ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ
ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟௙ྥࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋDM okay ࡢሙྜ࡟ࡶྠᵝࡢࡇ࡜ࡀゝ࠼ࡿࠋ

−125−

談話標識 okay の機能的意味(9)࡛ࡣࠊ┤๓ࡢࢰ࣮࢖ࡢⓎヰෆᐜࡸᙼዪࡢẼᣢࡕࢆࠊ(21)࡛ࡣ୍Ṍࡶㆡࢁ࠺࡜ࡋ࡞࠸࢚ࣜࣥࡢỴ↛࡜ࡋࡓែᗘ࠿ࡽᙼዪࡢࠕ⤥ᩱࢆୖࡆ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺┿๢࡞Ẽᣢࡕࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ
ᚋ⥆Ⓨヰ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(22)࡛ࡣࢧ࣒ࡀᚰࡢ୰࡛Ỵࡵࡓࠕࣜࢱ࡜ࡇࡇ࡟ṧࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜
ࢆᨵࡵ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡋࡘࡘࠊ⮬ศࡢពぢࢆᑟධࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(9) Zoe: You forgot me.
Kate: It’s not what you think.
Zoe: You forgot me.
Kate: Leah had her baby. I had to take her to the hospital.
Zoe: But you still forgot me.
Kate: Okay, I forgot you. And I’m sorry.
  (Movie: No Reservation)(21) Erin: I want a raise. And benefits, including dental!
Ed: Oh, Erin, this isn’t the way I do business.
Erin: What way is that?
Ed: Extortion! [Erin doesn’t budge] Okay, a five percent raise. We’ll talk about benefits later.    (Movie: Erin Brockovich)(22) Brad: Sam, get your dessert to go.
Sam: Because… because… okay… No, wait. This is really hard to say. For me, this is a very hard thing
to say, but I’m gonna stay and have my dessert here with Rita, and I’m not gonna… and I’m notgonna go to video night tonight.
(Movie: I am Sam)ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊDM okay ࡣ DM oh ࡜ྠᵝࠊඛ⾜ⓎヰࡢෆᐜࠊⓎヰ≧ἣࠊグ᠈࡞࡝࠿ࡽヰࡋᡭࡀࡓࡗࡓ௒ཷ
ࡅྲྀࡗࡓ᝟ሗ࡬ࡢᛂ⟅࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᝟ሗ࡬ࡢᛂ⟅࠿ࡣᩥ⬦ࡢ୰࡛⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟Ỵᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ఍ヰࡢෑ㢌ࡸ⮬ࡽࡢࢱ࣮ࣥࡢ㏵୰࡞࡝┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࡀ↓ࡃ࡚ࡶࠕ௒㸦఍ヰࢆษࡾฟࡋࡓࡾࠊヰ㢟ࢆኚ࠼࡚ࡶ㸧኱୔ኵࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᚰෆ࡛ࡢၥ࠸࡟ࠕࡼࡋࠊ኱୔ኵࠖ࡜
཯ᛂࡋࠊokay ࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
5.2 okay ࡢព࿡ኚ໬࡜ᩥἲ໬
ᙧᐜ㸦๪㸧モࡢ okay ࡟ࡣࠕᐜㄆྍ⬟࡞(acceptable)ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢព࿡ࡀព࿡ㄽⓗ࡟グྕ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡢዲࡲࡋࡉࡢ⛬ᗘ㸦ࠕ㐺ษ࡞(adequate)ࠖ
ࠊࠕ‶㊊࡞(satisfactory)ࠖ
ࠊࠕྍࡶ࡞ࡃ୙ྍࡶ࡞࠸(mediocre)ࠖ
࡞࡝㸧ࡣ౑⏝ᩥ⬦࡟ᛂࡌ࡚࢔ࢻ࣍ࢵࢡᴫᛕ࡜ࡋ࡚᚟ඖࡉࢀࡿࠋ4 ౛࠼ࡤࠊ “How are you?”࡜⪺࠿ࢀ࡚ “I’m okay.”࡜⟅࠼ࡿሙྜࠊokay ࡣࠕඖẼࡔࡼࠖ࠿ࡽࠕࡲ࠶ࡲ࠶ࠖ
ࠕఱ࡜࠿ᜥࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡲ࡛ᩥ
⬦࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ព࿡ࢆఏ࠼ࡿࠋ༢⊂࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿᛂ⟅モࡢ okay ࡶࡲࡓࠊᙜヱᩥ⬦ࡢ୰࡛ཷࡅྲྀ
ࡗࡓ᝟ሗ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᵝࠎ࡞⛬ᗘࡢࠕᐜㄆࠖࢆ࢔ࢻ࣍ࢵࢡᴫᛕ࡜ࡋ࡚ఏ࠼ࠊྠព࣭⣡ᚓ࣭ᢎㅙࡢྜᅗ࡜
ࡋ࡚⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋDM okay ࡣࠊᐜㄆ࠿ࡽ༢࡞ࡿ⌮ゎࡲ࡛ᗈ࠸ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ⮬ࡽࡢࢱ࣮ࣥࡢ㏵୰࡛ヰ㢟ࢆኚ࠼ࡓࡾ఍ヰࡢෑ㢌࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ᫬࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢࢱ࢖࣑ࣥࢢࢆᐜㄆࡍࡿྜ
ᅗ࡜࡞ࡾࠊࡲࡓࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛┦ᡭࡢὀពࢆႏ㉳ࡋᚋ⥆Ⓨヰࡢゎ㔘ࢆຠ⋡ࡼࡃ⾜ࢃࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉࡛ࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࢆཷࡅ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ okay ࡣࡶࡣࡸ᫝ㄆࡢព࿡ࡣⷧࢀࠊ༢࡞ࡿ⌮ゎࡢࡳࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡔ࠿ࡽࡇࡑ(8)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⫯ᐃ࣭ྠពࡢ⾲⌧ࡀᚋ࡟⥆࠸࡚ࡶ㔜」ឤࡀ↓ࡃࠊࡲࡓ(10)(11)(12)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞཯ㄽࡸ㉁ၥ࡬࡜⮬↛࡟⛣⾜࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⮬ࡽࡢࢱ࣮ࣥࡢ୰࡛⮬ศࢆྏဂ⃭ບࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ okay ࡣࠊ⮬ศࡢ⨨࠿ࢀࡓ≧ἣࢆ⌮ゎ࣭ᐜㄆࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛୧᪉ࡢព࿡ࢆే
ࡏᣢࡘ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᙧᐜ㸦๪㸧モ࠿ࡽ DM ࡟⮳ࡿࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ okay ࡢព࿡ኚ໬ࡣᩥἲ໬࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕ࡛ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙧᐜ㸦๪㸧モࡀグྕ໬ࡍࡿࠕᐜㄆྍ⬟ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆಖᣢࡋࡘࡘࠊ୍᪉࡛༢࡞ࡿ⌮ゎࢆྜᅗࡍࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡑࡢ✚ᴟⓗ࡞⫯ᐃࢆ⾲ࡍ࿨㢟ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆኻ࠸ࡘࡘ࠶ࡾࠊព࿡ࡢᕼⷧ໬(semantic
bleaching)ࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊඛ⾜Ⓨヰࡸࡑࡢሙࡢ≧ἣ࡞࡝࠿ࡽཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓ᝟ሗ࡜ᚋ⥆Ⓨヰࢆ

−126−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ࡘ࡞ࡄ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࢸࢡࢫࢺᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡕࠊࡉࡽ࡟୎ᑀࡉࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡣᑐே㛵ಀⓗព࿡ࡶᣢࡘሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞Ⅼ࠿ࡽࠊDM okay ࡣ௚ࡢከࡃࡢ DM ࡀࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᩥἲ໬ࡢ㐣⛬࡟࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
5.3 DM okay ࡢ㉳ືᛶ
2 ⠇࡛ࡳࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊDM okay ࡣᚋ⥆ࡍࡿⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡬ࡢᙉ࠸㉳ືᛶࢆᣢࡘࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᚋࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡬ࡢᙉ࠸ᙎࡳ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ Beach ࡣࠕ‽ഛࡀ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ែࠖ࡜⾲⌧ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡣ okay ࡀ๓㏙ࡢෆᐜࡢ㔜せᛶࢆỴᐃࡍࡿ࠺࠼࡛඲ࡃࡓࡵࡽࢃ࡞࠸ࡑࡢ₩ࡉࡢࡏ࠸ࡔ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ㸦1993:339㸧
ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ
ࡇࡢ㉳ືᛶࡣ๓㏙ࡢෆᐜࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸఍ヰࡢෑ㢌ࡸࢱ࣮ࣥࡢ୰࡛ᛴ࡟ヰ㢟㌿᥮ࡍࡿ᫬ࡶྵࡵࠊࡍ࡭
࡚ࡢ DM okay ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ぢࡽࢀࡿ≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊⓎヰ≧ἣࡸඛ⾜Ⓨヰ࠿ࡽཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓ᝟ሗࢆ
ᇶ࡟ࠊḟ࡟ணᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠼ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓヰࡋᡭࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ୍࡚ᛂࡢ⌮ゎ࣭ᐜㄆࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ≀⌮ⓗ࣭ᚰ⌮ⓗ‽ഛࡀ᏶஢ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ḟࡢࢫࢸࢵࣉ࡬ࡢᙉ࠸ᙎࡳࢆࡘ
ࡅࡿࡢࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
5.4 DM okay ࡢᶵ⬟ⓗព࿡ࡲࡎࠊDM okay ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀࡑࡢ᫬࡟ཷࡅ࡜ࡗࡓ᝟ሗ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᛂ⟅࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࠋ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᝟
ሗ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᛂ⟅࠿ࡣᩥ⬦ࡢ୰࡛⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ỵᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋᚋ⥆Ⓨヰ࡛⾲ࡍ⾜Ⅽ㐙⾜ࡢࡓࡵ࡟≧ἣࡀᩚࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕࡼࡋࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྜᅗ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ DM okay ࡣࠊ᫝ㄆ࣭
ᐜㄆࡢព࿡ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋokay ࡛‽ഛ᏶஢ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ┦ᡭࡢὀពࢆႏ㉳ࡋᚋ⥆Ⓨヰࡢゎ㔘ࡢ‽ഛࢆࡉࡏࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᛂ⟅࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ DM okay ࡣࠊࡑࡢෆᐜࡸពᅗ࡟
ᑐࡍࡿ⌮ゎࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᣦ♧࣭౫㢗࣭㉁ၥࡋࡓࡾ఍ヰࢆ㛢ࡌࡿ➼ࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ኻ♩࡟࡞ࡿᜍࢀࡢ࠶ࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣ୎ᑀࡉࢆఏ࠼ࡿࠋ DM okay ࡣ඲࡚ࡢ౑⏝ᩥ⬦ࡢ୰࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀࡑࡢ᫬ཷࡅྲྀ
ࡗࡓ᝟ሗ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⌮ゎࡸᐜㄆࢆఏ࠼ࠊḟࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡬ࡢ≧ἣࡀᩚࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆࡁࡗࡥࡾ࡜⾲᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࠿
ࡽࠊᚋ⥆ࡍࡿⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡬ࡢᙎࡳࢆࡘࡅࡿᶵ⬟ࡶ᭷ࡍࡿࠋ
6. ᮏ⪃ᐹࡢ฼Ⅼ ᮏ⪃ᐹ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ1 ⠇࡛♧ࡋࡓ 3 ࡘࡢ DM okay ࡢ≉ᚩࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀฟ᮶ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ᫝
ㄆࡸᐜㄆ࡞࡝⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ព࿡ྜ࠸ࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢࡣࠊDM okay ࡣᩥ⬦࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ᐜㄆࢆ♧ࡍሙྜ࠿ࡽࠊཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓ᝟ሗ࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢ⌮ゎࢆ♧ࡍࡔࡅࡢሙྜࡶ࠶ࡾࠊᙧᐜ㸦๪㸧モࡸ༢⊂࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿᛂ⟅モ࡜ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᖖ࡟᫝ㄆࢆ⾲ࡍࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➨ 2 ࡟ࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࡀ↓ࡃ࡚ࡶ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊDM okay ࡀᛂ⟅ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰෆᐜࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛㸦≧ἣࡸヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡢ㢌ࡢ୰➼࠿ࡽ㸧ヰࡋᡭࡀཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞᝟ሗࡶྵࡲࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᚋ⥆Ⓨヰ࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㉳ືᛶࢆᣢࡘࡢࡣࠊⓎヰ≧ἣࡸඛ⾜Ⓨヰ࠿ࡽཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓ᝟ሗࢆᇶ࡟ࠊḟࡢࢫࢸࢵࣉࢆ㤳ᑿࡼࡃ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡬ࡢᐜㄆࢆ⾲᫂ࡋࠊ≀⌮ⓗ࣭ᚰ⌮ⓗ‽ഛࡢ᏶஢ࢆྜᅗࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀண
ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿḟࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡬ࡢᙉ࠸ᙎࡳ࡟࡞ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ᮏ⪃ᐹ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊඖࡢᙧᐜ㸦๪㸧モ࡜㛫ᢞモⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ⏝ἲ࡜ࡢព࿡ⓗ㛵㐃ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜
ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜ “It’s okay.” “That’s okay.”➼ࡢᩥⓎヰ࠿ࡽ༢⊂࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿᛂ⟅モ okay ࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࠊྠព࣭㈶ྠ࣭ᢎㅙࡢྜᅗ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࠿ࡽࡉࡽ࡟ᩥἲ໬ࡀ㐍ࡳࠊᛂ⟅࡜ᚋ⥆Ⓨヰࢆࡘ࡞ࡄᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ DM okay ࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᩥἲ໬ࡀ㐍ࡴ࡟ࡘࢀ᫝ㄆ࡜࠸࠺࿨
㢟ⓗព࿡ࡣⷧࢀࠊ㏫࡟๓ᚋࢆࡘ࡞࠸ࡔࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡀྰᐃⓗ࡞ྵពࢆఏ࠼࠿ࡡ࡞࠸⾜Ⅽࡢ๓࡟୍ᛂࡢ
⌮ゎࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࡇ࡜࡛୎ᑀࡉࢆఏ࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᑐே㛵ಀⓗᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ၈✺ࡉࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵ࡟࠶ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵ⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘⎔ቃࡢᩚഛ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᚋ⥆Ⓨヰࢆヰࡋᡭࡀពᅗࡍࡿ᪉ྥ࡛⾜࠺ࡼ࠺ಁࡍᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘ࡞࡝ࠊokay ࡢព࿡ࡣ኱ࡁࡃኚ໬ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࡢ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋ ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊᮏ⪃ᐹ࡟ࡼࡾࠊඛ⾜◊✲࡛ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ 2 ࡘࡢၥ㢟Ⅼ࡟ࡶጇᙜ࡞ㄝ᫂ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊokay ࡀ཯ㄽࡸ㉁ၥࡢ㝿࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊokay ࡣ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᫝

−127−

談話標識 okay の機能的意味ㄆࡢᛂ⟅࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ༢࡞ࡿ⌮ゎࡢྜᅗ࡟ࡍࡂ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊヰ㢟ࢆ㛢ࡌࡓࡾ㌿᥮ࡍࡿሙ㠃࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊokay ࡀ┦ᡭࡢⓎヰ࡬ࡢᛂ⟅ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊⓎヰ≧ἣࡸᚰෆࡢၥ࠸࡟ᑐࡍࡿᛂ⟅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋඖࡢᙧᐜ㸦๪㸧モ࡜ᛂ⟅モࡢព࿡㛵ಀ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ5.2 ࡛㏙࡭ࡓ࡜࠾ࡾࠊokay ࡢᩥἲ໬࡟ࡼࡾࠊᙧᐜ㸦๪㸧モ࠿ࡽ༢⊂࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿᛂ⟅モࠊࡑࡋ࡚ DM okay ࡟㐍ࡴ㐣⛬ࡢ୰࡛᫝ㄆ࡜࠸࠺⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ព࿡ྜ࠸ࡀⷧࢀࠊ୍᪉࡛๓ᚋࡢ᝟ሗࢆࡘ࡞࠸ࡔࡾ୎ᑀࡉ࡞࡝ࡢᑐே㛵ಀㄪᩚ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡕጞࡵࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽ࠼ࡿࠋ
7. ⤖ㄒ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ఍ヰࡢ୰࡛㢖⦾࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ DM okay ࡢᶵ⬟ⓗព࿡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⤫୍ⓗ࠿ࡘໟᣓⓗ࡞⪃ᐹࢆヨࡳࡓࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡾ DM okay ࡀᣢࡘ≉ᚩࡸᙧᐜ㸦๪㸧モ࡜༢⊂࡛⏕㉳ࡍࡿᛂ⟅モ࡜ DM okay ࡜ࡢព࿡ⓗ࡞㛵ಀᛶࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊokay ࡢព࿡ᶵ⬟࡜ᩥἲ໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⪃ᐹ࡟ࡼࡾࠊඛ⾜◊✲࡛ㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ 2 ࡘࡢၥ㢟Ⅼ࡟ࡶጇᙜ࡞ㄝ᫂ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋokay࡜㸦ࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮ࡢᕪ␗ࢆ㝖࠸࡚㸧ྠ⩏࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ all right ࡢ DM ᶵ⬟࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㐪࠸ࡸ DM okayࡢ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿព࿡ⓗᕪ␗➼࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
ὀ1.
2.

okay ࡣ OK, okey ࡜ࡶ⥛ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡢᙧࡶྠᵝ࡟ᢅ࠺ࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
ㄯヰᶆ㆑(discourse markerࠊ௨ᚋ DM ࡜࿧ࡪ)࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒࡣ⤫୍ࡉࢀࡓ⌮ㄽⓗᐃ⩏ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ
Schourup (1999: 230-234)࡛♧ࡉࢀࡓ≉ᚩ(connectivity, optionality, non-truth-conditionality, weak clause association,
initiality, orality, multi-categoriality)ࡢ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࢆ᭷ࡋࠊ
ࠕఱࡽ࠿ࡢไ⣙ࢆㄢࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⪺ࡁᡭ࡟୺Ⓨヰࢆヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗࡋࡓ᪉ྥ࡛ゎ㔘ࡉࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡟௙ྥࡅࡿ⾲⌧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᐃ⩏ࡢࡶ࡜࡟ࠊDM ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࠋ
3. Schegloff and Sacks (1973)࡛ࡣࠊ㟁ヰࡢ఍ヰࡢ୰࡛ OK ࡣᮏㄽ࠿ࡽ⤖ㄽ࡬࡜⛣⾜ࡍࡿ㝿ࠊPreclosing ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
4. ࢔ࢻ࣭࣍ࢵࢡᴫᛕᵓ⠏(ad hoc concept construction)࡜ࡣࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ(relevance theory)ࡢ⾲ព(explicature)ࡢ᚟ඖ࡟㛵ࢃࡾࠊ᭕᫕ᛶ㝖ཤ(disambiguation)ࠊ㣬࿴(saturation)ࠊ⮬⏤ᣑ඘㸦free enrichment㸧࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ 4 ࡘࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ㐣⛬(pragmatic procedures)ࡢ୍ࡘ࡟ᩘ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(Carston 2002 ཧ↷)ࠋ
5. Brinton(1996)ࡣࠊᩥἲ໬࡟࠾࠸࡚࿨㢟ⓗ(propositional)ࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺⓗ( textual)ࠊᑐே㛵ಀⓗ( interpersonal)ࡢ 3 ࡘࡢᶵ⬟ࡢ㐣⛬ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English Discourse ParticlesʊEvidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Beach, Wayne A. 1993. Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics 19, 325-352.
Biber, Douglas et. al. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Pearson Education
Limited.
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in EnglishʊGrammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Jucker, Andrea and Sara, W. Smith. 1998. “Discourse Markers as Negotiating Strategies” Discourse Markers,
171-202. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and UtterancesʊThe pragmatics of Explicit Communication. London: Blackwell
Publishing.
Merritt, Marilyn. 1984. On the use of ‘O.K.’ in service encounters. In: James Baugh and Joel Scherzer, eds.
Language in use, 139-147. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nishikawa, Mayumi. 2010. A Cognitive Approach to English Interjections. Tokyo: Eiho-sha.
すᕝ ┾⏤⨾. 2012. ࠕㄯヰᶆ㆑okay࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹࠖࠊࠗࡇ࡜ࡤࢆぢࡘࡵ࡚࠘ࠊ 461-471. ᮾி㸸ⱥᐆ♫.
Schourup, Lawrence. 1999. “Discourse Markers ” Lingua 107, 227-265.
ෆ⏣ ⪷஧. 1985. ࠕ㞄᥋ྃ࡜ㄯヰ㎡ࠖࠊࠗዉⰋዪᏊ኱ᏛᩥᏛ㒊◊✲ᖺሗ࠘➨ 29 ྕࠊ 23-46.

−128−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

఍ヰᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺ㄒ┬␎ࢆไ⣙ࡍࡿせᅉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⪃ᐹ                            ௜ ᨵ⳹᪂₲኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㸺Abstract㸼
This paper aims to make it clear what kind of conversational factors restrict the omitted subjects. With thethought that the omitted subject is an utterance strategy named "the proper selection for variability oftransmitting information" in this paper in which a speaker attains to transmit some information to the listener(s),we observed the distribution and the form of the omitted subjects and the un-omitted subjects. As a result, it has
been found that there are five factors which cause the omitted subjects and six factors which cause theun-omitted subjects.
Ǐ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻǐ㸸఍ヰ ୺ㄒ┬␎ ୺ㄒ㠀┬␎ Ⓨヰࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ḟࡢ౛ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ

(1) ⚾ࡣ㧗ᒣஂఙࠊ୍ὶၟ஦࡛ಀ㛗࡜࠸࠺ᙺ⫋࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ 2 ᖺ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ      ࠗ( ὶᫍࡢ⤎ DVD࠘)(2) ȭS 㧗ᒣஂఙ࡛ࡍࠋࡼࢁࡋࡃ࠾㢪࠸ࡋࡲࡍࠋ                     (➹⪅)(1)ࡣࢻ࣐ࣛࠗὶᫍࡢ⤎࠘࠿ࡽᢤࡁฟࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㧗ᒣஂఙ࡜࠸࠺Ⓩሙே≀ࡢ⮬ศ⮬㌟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ
⊂ⓑ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊ୺㢟୺ㄒ㺀⚾ࡣ㺁ࡣࠊ୺㢟ᥦ♧(◁ᕝ(1990)ࢆཧ↷)ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡍࡓࡵ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ (2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞௚ே࡟⮬ᕫ⤂௓ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺఍ヰࡢ≧ἣ࡛ࡣࠊከࡃࡢሙྜ┬␎ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ᛮ
ࢃࢀࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ୺ㄒࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀࡓࡾࠊࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆไ㝈ࡍࡿ఍ヰⓗせᅉࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

2. ඛ⾜◊✲ ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺ㄒ/୺㢟ࡢ┬␎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㆟ㄽࡀከࡃ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ኱ࡁ࡞ᡂᯝࢆᚓࡓࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
୕ୖ(1969)ࡣ㺀␎㢟㺁࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ㺀ࣁ㺁ࡢࣆࣜ࢜ࢻ㉺࠼⌧㇟ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋஂ㔝(1978㸪1983)ࡣࠊ㺀┬␎ࡢᇶᮏཎ๎㺁࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㺀┬␎ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁせ⣲ࡣࠊゝㄒⓗࠊᡈ࠸ࡣ㠀ゝㄒⓗᩥ⬦࠿ࡽࠊ᚟ඖྍ⬟(recoverable)࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸㺁࡜㏙࡭ࡓୖࠊ㺀┬␎ࡣࠊࡼࡾྂ࠸(ࡼࡾ㔜せᗘࡢప࠸)࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣓࢖ࢩࣙࣥࢆ⾲ࢃࡍせ⣲࠿ࡽࠊࡼࡾ᪂ࡋ࠸(ࡼࡾ㔜せ࡞)࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣓࢖ࢩࣙࣥࢆ⾲ࢃࡍせ⣲࡬࡜㡰࡟⾜࠺㺁࡜࠸࠺㺀┬␎㡰ᗎࡢไ⣙㺁ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ୺㢟ࡢ┬␎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊどⅬไ⣙ࡢ㺀⮬ᕫྠ୍ど໬㺁࠿ࡽ୺㢟ࡢ┬␎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ぢゎࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ◁ᕝ(1990)ࡣࠊ୺㢟ࡢ┬␎ࡀチࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ┬␎ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡀఱࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡀㄞࡳᡭ࡟⌮ゎྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ᫬࡜㏙࡭ࠊࡑࡢ୺㢟ࡢ┬␎ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡍࡿ᮲௳࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㺀ᵓᩥⓗ᮲௳㺁ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ◊✲ࡣࠊᩥࡢᩥἲᵓ㐀ࡸ᝟ሗᵓ㐀ࠊどⅬไ⣙ࠊᩥࡢ⌮ゎ࡞࡝ࡢどⅬ࠿
1

−129−

会話文における主語省略を制約する要因についての考察ࡽࠊ୺ㄒ/୺㢟ࡢ┬␎᮲௳ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ┬␎࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀከࡃࠊ㠀┬␎࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀᑡ࡞
࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡑࢀ࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊㄯヰ࡟ཬࡪࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡲࡾぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ◁ᕝ(1990)ࡣࠊㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺ㄒ/୺㢟┬␎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ◊✲ࡣࠊᴟࡵ࡚♧၀ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊศᯒ࡟౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࠊᑠㄝࡀṤ࡝࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
఍ヰ࡛ぢࡽࢀࡿ୺ㄒࡢ┬␎ࡣ࠸࠿࡞ࡿせᅉ࡛ไ㝈ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᭦࡞ࡿ᳨ウࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ3. ◊✲ᑐ㇟࡜◊✲᪉ἲ
3.1 ୺ㄒࡢᐃ⩏ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ୺ㄒࡢᐃ⩏࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊோ⏣(1997㸸166)࡟ᚑ࠺ࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ㺀ࠓ୺ㄒࠔ࡜ࡣࠊ㏙ㄒࡢ⾲ࡍືࡁࡸ≧ែࡸ㛵ಀࢆయ⌧ࡍࡿ୺య࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᩥࡢ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ஦ែ(ᩥࡢླྀ㏙ෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡿฟ᮶஦ࡸ஦᯶)ࡀࠊࡑ
ࢀࢆ᰾࡜ࡋ࡚ᙧᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ஦ែࡢ୰ᚰࢆ࡞ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᵓᡂせ⣲࡛࠶ࡿ㺁ࠋࡲࡓࠊ୺ㄒ࡟క࠺ຓモ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺ㄒࢆḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟࿧ࢇ࡛࠾ࡃࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ୺᱁ຓモ㺀࢞㺁ࢆక࠺୺ㄒࡣࠊ㺀୺᱁୺ㄒ㺁࡜࿧ࡪࠋ୺㢟ࢆ⾲ࡍ㺀ࣁ㺁ࢆక࠺୺ㄒࡣࠊ㺀୺㢟୺ㄒ㺁࡜࿧ࡪࠋྲྀࡾ❧࡚ຓモ㺀ࢧ࢚㺁ࠊ㺀ࣔ㺁ࠊ㺀ࢹࣔ㺁ࠊ㺀࣐ࢹ㺁࡞࡝ࢆక࠺୺ㄒࡣࠊ㺀࡜ࡾ❧࡚୺ㄒ㺁࡜࿧ࡪࠋ୚᱁ຓモ㺀ࢽ㺁ࢆక࠺୺ㄒࡣ୚᱁୺ㄒ࡜࿧ࡪࠋక࠺ຓモࡀ࡞࠸୺ㄒ࡜㺀ࣀ㺁ࢆక࠺୺ㄒࡣࠊዟ⏣(1985)࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࢆ㺀ᇶᮏ᱁୺ㄒ㺁࡜㺀⏕᱁୺ㄒ㺁࡜࿧ࡪࠋ୍᪉ࠊ┬␎ࡉࢀࡓ୺ㄒࢆ㺀┬␎୺ㄒ㺁࡜࿧ࢇ࡛࠾ࡃࠋ

3.2 ◊✲᪉ἲே㛫ࡣࠊ⮬ศࡢពᛮࢆ࠺ࡲࡃఏ㐩ࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊពᚿࢆᩥࡢᙧ࡛ᙧᘧ໬ࡍࡿ㝿ࠊⰍࠎᕤኵࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛
࠼ࡤࠊᩥᙧᡂ࡟ࡣࠊᩥἲᵓ㐀ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊఏ㐩ᶵ⬟ࢆᯝࡓࡍⓎヰࢆⓎࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊ≧ἣ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ࠊ
᝟ሗᵓ㐀ࠊどⅬᵓ㐀࡞࡝ࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ㺀୺ㄒ+㺃㺃㺃+┠ⓗㄒ+㏙ㄒ㺁ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧࡀ࡜ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ఍ヰࡢ୰࡛ࡣࠊ᝟ሗࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡯࡝㔜せ࡛࡞࠸࢖ࣥ
ࣇ࢛࣮࣓࢖ࢩࣙࣥࢆ┬␎ࡋࠊࡼࡾ㔜せ࡞࢖ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣓࢖ࢩࣙࣥࡔࡅࢆఏ࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺㺀ఏ㐩᝟ሗࡢ㍍㔜㑅
ᢥ㺁ࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࠗὶᫍࡢ⤎ DVD࠘ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ఍ヰࡢ౛ࢆ㞟ࡵࠊ┬␎୺ㄒࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࢆㄪᰝࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ୺ㄒ┬␎ཬࡧ㠀┬␎ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡛⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࠊ఍ヰࡢ୰࡛ࡢ୺ㄒ┬␎ࢆไ㝈ࡍࡿせᅉࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

4㸬఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺ㄒࡢ┬␎࡜㠀┬␎ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺ㄒࡢ┬␎᮲௳࡜㠀┬␎᮲௳࡜࠸࠺஧ࡘࡢഃ㠃࡛⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ

4.1 ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺ㄒࡢ┬␎᮲௳
4.1.1 ୺ㄒࡢᩥἲⓗ┬␎᮲௳᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺ㄒࡢ┬␎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡼࡃ㆟ㄽࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊᩥᆺࡸ㏙ㄒ࡟ࡼࡿே⛠ไ⣙࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ୺ほឤ᝟㺃ពྥࠊㅬ㐯ࢆ⾲ࡍ㏙ㄒࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡓሙྜࠊ୍ே⛠୺ㄒࡣྵពࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ┬␎ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡀᬑ㏻࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࿨௧ࠊ␲ၥࠊᑛᩗࢆ⾲ࡍᩥᆺ࡞ࡽࡤࠊ஧ே⛠୺ㄒࡣྵពࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢ┬␎ࡀᬑ㏻࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᤵཷືモࡀ౑ࢃࢀࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ୍ࠊ஧ே⛠ࡀ㛵୚ࡍࡿ᫬࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ┬␎ࡀチᐜࡉࢀࡿࠋḟࡢ౛ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ

2

−130−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号(3) 㟼ዉ㸸ȭS ㈨᱁࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ࠾඗ࡓࡕ࡟႐ࢇ࡛࡯ࡋ࠿ࡗࡓࡢࠋ
(4) ᯽ཎ㸸ȭH ࡑࢇ࡞㢦ࡍࡿ࡞ࠊ඗ࡕࡷࢇࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
(5) ୍▮㸸ࡇࡢୡ⏺࡛⏕ࡁ࡚࠸ࡃ⛎ジࠊȭS ᩍ࠼࡚ࡸࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
(3)࡛ࡣࠊ୺ほឤ᝟ࢆ⾲ࡍ㺀㹼࡚࡯ࡋ࠸㺁ࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢ୺ㄒࡣ୍ே⛠࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿ
ࡢ࡛ࠊ᫂♧ࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(4)࡛ࡣࠊྰᐃⓗ࡞࿨௧ࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵࠊࡑࡢ୺ㄒࡣ஧ே⛠࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ⌮ゎ࡟ᨭ㞀ࡀ࡞࠸ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(5)࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ(ࡢഃ)࠿ࡽືసࢆ୚࠼
ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ㺀㹼࡚ࡸࡿ㺁ࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࡢ୺యࡀヰࡋᡭ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ࡑࢀࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍ୍ே⛠୺ㄒࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

4.1.2 ୺ㄒࡢ┤♧ⓗ┬␎᮲௳ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊୖ㏙ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡞ᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఱࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡀศ࠿ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊᚲࡎࡋࡶ఍ヰࢆࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡟㐍ࡵࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࡋࠊᙜヱࡢ఍ヰࢆ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ

(6) ຌ୍㸸ձ࠶ࡢࠊȭS ࡑࢁࡑࢁᡠࡗ࡚ࡶ࠸࠸࡛ࡍ࠿?
᯽ཎ㸸ղȭH ⑂ࢀࡕࡷࡗࡓ࠿?
ຌ୍㸸ճࡑ࠺ࡌࡷ࡞ࡃ࡚…ᘵ࡜ጒ…
᯽ཎ㸸մȭH ぢ࡚᮶࠸ࠋ(6)࡛ࡣࠊⓎヰሙ㠃ࢆ⪃࠼࡞࠸࡜ࠊຌ୍࡜᯽ཎࡢ఍ヰࡀձ࠿ࡽմࡲ࡛⥆ࡁࠊձ࡛ࡣࠊຌ୍ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍ୍ே⛠୺ㄒࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀࠊղࠊմ࡛ࡣຌ୍ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍ஧ே⛠୺ㄒࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡇ
ࡇ࡛ࠊၥ㢟ࡣ஧ࡘ࠶ࡿࠋ୍ࡘࡣࠊྠࡌຌ୍ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍࡢ࡟ࠊ୍ே⛠࡜஧ே⛠ࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶
ࡾࠊࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡣࠊմ࡛ࡣࠊ஧ே⛠୺ㄒࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢ஧ே⛠୺ㄒࡣຌ୍࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊⴗᮧࢆ
ᣦࡋ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ఍ヰࡢ୰࡛ࡢ୺ㄒ┬␎ࠊ≉࡟୍ࠊ஧ே⛠୺ㄒࡢ┬␎ࡣࠊ≧ἣᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⏕ࡌࡿ{௦ྡモ/ྡモ}ࡢ┤♧ᛶ࡜㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ఍ヰ࡛ࡣࠊ┤᥋ཧ୚⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࠊ┦ᡭࡀኚࢃࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ⮬ศࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㺀⚾㺁ࠊ┦ᡭࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㺀࠶࡞ࡓ㺁ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ᣦ♧ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ఍ヰࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊࡑࢀࢆࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡟㐍ࡵࡿ࡟ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆ▱ࡽ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
༶ࡕࠊ┬␎ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀពᅗࢆ࠺ࡲࡃఏ࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟⾜࠺Ⓨヰࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢࢫࢺ
ࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡣᩥᵓᡂࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ఍ヰࡢ≧ἣᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶไ㝈ࡉࢀࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞఍ヰࡢ≧ἣᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡿ┬␎ࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆ┤♧ⓗ┬␎࡜࿧ࡪࠋ(6)ࡢ఍ヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊձ࡛ࡣࠊ
⮬ศࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍ୍ே⛠୺ㄒࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋղ࡛ࡣ᯽ཎࡢຌ୍࡟ᑐࡍࡿ␲ၥ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⌧ሙࡢ≧ἣ࡛ศ࠿ࡾࡁࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ㺀ຌ୍ࡕࡷࢇࡣ㺁࡜࠿ࠊ㺀࠶࡞ࡓࡣ㺁࡜࠿ࢆゝࢃ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊຌ
୍ࡀḟࡢⓎヰࢆⓎࡋࠊ఍ヰࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊմࡣࠊ᯽ཎࡀຌ୍ࡢⓎヰࡢࡍࡄᚋ࡟Ⓨࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⌧ሙࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀࡿ࡜ࠊຌ୍࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊⴗᮧ࡟ᑐࡍࡿⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀඹ᭷▱㆑࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢⓎヰ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊຌ୍࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊⴗᮧࡀᛂ⟅ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚఍ヰࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡃࠋ
3

−131−

会話文における主語省略を制約する要因についての考察ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୍ࠊ஧ே⛠୺ㄒࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿሙྜ࡟ࡶࠊ୍ࠊ஧ே⛠{௦ྡモ/ྡモ}ࡢ┤♧ⓗᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ࠊ఍ヰࡀᒎ㛤ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡑࡢᒎ㛤ࢆࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡟㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࡓࡵࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮
࡜ࡋ࡚୺ㄒࡢ┬␎ࡀᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

4.1.3 㺀Ⓨヰʊ㏉⟅㺁࣌࢔࡟ࡼࡿ୺ㄒ┬␎఍ヰ࡛ࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࠊ఍ヰཧ୚⪅ࡣࠊ఍ヰࢆࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡟㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࡓࡵ࡟ࠊⓎヰࡢ㡰␒ࢆ஺᭰ࡉࡏ
࡞ࡀࡽࠊ㺀Ⓨヰʊᛂ⟅㺁࣌࢔ࢆసࡿࠋࡇࡢ㺀Ⓨヰʊᛂ⟅㺁࣌࢔ࡣࠊ㺀ᣵᣜʊᣵᣜ㺁ࠊ㺀㉁ၥʊ⟅࠼㺁ࠊ㺀ㄏ࠸ʊチㅙ㺃ᣄ⤯㺁࡞࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᑐ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡛ࠊ┦ᡭࡀⓎヰࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡑࡢⓎヰ࡟ἢࡗ࡚ヰࢆᒎ㛤ࡍࡿ࠿ࠊูࡢヰ㢟㸯࡟⛣ࡿ࠿ࡣࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢᇶᮏ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊඖࡢヰ㢟࡟ἢࡗ࡚ヰࢆᒎ㛤ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊヰ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࡶࡢࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡀᬑ㏻࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊูࡢヰ㢟࡟⛣ࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢヰ㢟ࢆ᫂♧ࡋ࡚ࠊᙉㄪࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(7) ⴗᮧ㸸ࡈ୧ぶ Top ࡣ╀ࡗ࡚ࡓ?
ຌ୍㸸ȭTop ᒃ㛫࡛ఱ࠿ࡋࡷ࡭ࡗ࡚ࡲࡋࡓࠋ

(7)࡛ࡣࠊຌ୍ࡣࠊඖࡢヰ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㺀ࡈ୧ぶࡣ㺁ࢆᘬࡁཷࡅࠊ⮬ศࡢⓎヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡑࢀࢆᪧ᝟ሗ࡜ࡋ࡚
┬␎ࡋࠊ㺀╀ࡗ࡚ࡓ㺁ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㺀ᒃ㛫࡛ఱ࠿ࡋࡷ࡭ࡗ࡚ࡲࡋࡓ㺁ࡇ࡜ࢆ᪂᝟ሗ࡜ࡋ࡚㏉⟅ࡢⓎヰ࡛ᥦ౪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

4.1.4 㧗ヰ㢟ᛶ࡟ࡼࡿ୺ㄒ┬␎఍ヰ࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡀ఍ヰࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊඹ㏻ࡢㄆ▱ୡ⏺ࢆᵓ⠏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡇࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡛ࠊヰ㢟ᛶࡢ᭱ࡶ㧗࠸せ⣲ࡣ┬␎ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࠋ

(8) Ὀ㍜㸸௒᪥ࠊ඗㈗ Top ࡢ࡜ࡇ࠸ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
㟼ዉ㸸ბࠊȭTop ඖẼࡔࡗࡓ?
Ὀ㍜㸸ȭTop ┦ኚࢃࡽࡎ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡑ࠺࡞㢦ࡋ࡚ࡓࡼࠋ(ᦠᖏࡢ୰ࡢ⤮ࢆぢࡏࡿ)ࡇࢇ࡞ឤࡌࠋ
㟼ዉ㸸ȭTop ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡑ࠺ࠋ
Ὀ㍜㸸ȭTop ࠿ࢃ࠸ࡑ࠺ᮧࡢᮧ㛗ࡔ࠿ࢇ࡞ࠋ
㟼ዉ㸸ȭTop ࡶ࠺ 26 ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࠋȭTop ᙼዪ࡜࠿ࡘ࠿࡞࠸ࡢ࠿࡞ࠋ
(8)࡛ࡣࠊ᭱ึࡢⓎヰ㺀௒᪥ࠊ඗㈗ࡢ࡜ࡇ࠸ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ㺁࡛㺀඗㈗㺁ࢆヰ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚఍ヰ࡟ᑟධࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ
ヰ㢟ࡣࠊᚋࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢⓎヰ࡟ࢃࡓࡗ࡚୺㢟୺ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢⓎヰ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡞࠸఍ヰ࡛ࡶࠊඹྠὀពᗘࡘࡲࡾヰ㢟ᛶࡢ㧗࠸せ⣲ࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࠋ

4.1.5 ᥎ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿ୺ㄒࡢ┬␎

4

−132−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号(9) ฮ஦㸸ձ࠶ࢀࠊ௒ࡢࠊ᯽ཎࡉࢇ Top1?
ⴗᮧ㸸࠼࠼ࠋ
ฮ஦㸸ղ☜࠿ࠊ࠾Ꮚࡉࢇ Top2 ࡀ⑓Ẽ࡛ࠊȭTop1 ࡎࡗ࡜ఇࢇ࡛ࡓࢇࡌࡷ…
ⴗᮧ㸸ճȭTop2 ᫖᪥ࠊ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࡑ࠺ࡔࠋ
(9)ࡢձ࡛ࡣࠊᇶᮏ᱁୺ㄒࡢ୍✀ࡢ㺀௒ࡢ㺁࡛ὀពႏ㉳ࢆពᅗࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ୺ㄒ┬␎ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
ྠ᫬࡟ࠊ㺀᯽ཎ㺁ࡀヰ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋղ࡛ࡣࠊ୺⠇୺ㄒࡣヰ㢟࡜࡞ࡗࡓ㺀᯽ཎ㺁࡜ྠ୍ᣦ♧㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡾࠊ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᚑᒓ⠇࡛ࡣࠊ᪂᝟ሗ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㺀࠾Ꮚࡉࢇࡀ㺁ࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀࠊࡉࡽ࡟ճ࡛ࡣ୺㢟୺ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ㺀࠾Ꮚࡉࢇ㺁ࡣࠊղ࡛ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓࡑࡢ▐㛫࡟ࠊヰ㢟࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ㺀᯽ཎ㺁ࡶྠᵝ࡞ヰ㢟ᛶࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿ศ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡃ࡞
ࡿࢣ࣮ࢫࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊճࡢⓎヰࢆࠊ㺀᫖᪥ࠊ௙஦࡟ᡠࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࡼ࠺ࡔ㺁࡟ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ୺ㄒࡣヰ㢟(Top2)࡛࠶ࡿ㺀࠾Ꮚࡉࢇ㺁ࡔ࡜ࡣぢ࡞ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ(9)ࡢճ࡛ࠊ୺ㄒࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀチᐜࡉࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ㺀࠾Ꮚࡉࢇࡀ⑓Ẽࡔ ĺ ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓ㺁࡜࠸࠺᥎ㄽࡢᡂ❧࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍
᪉ࠊ㺀௙஦࡟ᡠࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ㺁࡜ࡍࡿⓎヰ࡛ࡣࠊ㺀᯽ཎࡀࡎࡗ࡜ఇࢇ࡛࠸ࡓ ĺ ௙஦࡟ᡠࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ㺁ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᥎ㄽࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࡢ୺ㄒࡀヰ㢟(Top1)࡛࠶ࡿ㺀᯽ཎ㺁࡜ྠ୍ᣦ♧ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ┬␎࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞
ࡿࠋ

4.2 ఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺ㄒ㠀┬␎ࡢ᮲௳
4.2.1 Ⓨヰែᗘ࡟㛵ಀࡍࡿ୺ㄒࡢ㠀┬␎⮬ᕫ୺ᙇࠊỴᚰࠊ⮬៏ࠊᙉㄪࠊ㍍⶜࡞࡝ࡢⓎヰែᗘࡀ୺ㄒ࡟クࡋ࡚⾲ࡉࢀࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢ୺ㄒࡀ
┬␎ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ㢖⦾࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ(10) ∗㸸ձನࡣ࡞ࠊ⛬࡯࡝ࡗ࡚ゝⴥࡀ኱᎘࠸࡞ࢇࡔࡼࠊࡇࡢ㔝㑻!
ඛ⏕㸸ղ࠾∗ࡉࢇࠊࢃࡓࡃࡋࡣࡓࡔࠊࡏࡵ୍࡚⥴࡟㐟ࡪ᫬㛫ࢆసࡗ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸࡜…
∗㸸ճࡇࡢ㏻ࡾࡔࠊ㔠㍯㝿ࠊ∗ࡕࡷࢇࡣ㉃ࡅ஦ࢆࡸࡵࡿࠋ➇㤿ࡶࠊ㯞㞛ࡶࠊ➇⯲ࡶࠊ࣮࢜ࢺࣞ
࣮ࢫࡶࠊࣃࢳࣥࢥࡶࠊࣃࢳࢫࣟࡶࠊⰼᮐࡶࠊ࠾࠸ࡕࡻ࠿ࡪࡶࠊ㞛ࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣮ࡶࠊࢫࣃࢵ࡜
ࡸࡵࡿࠋ⚄࡟ㄋ࠺ࠋࡑࡋ࡚᪥᭙᪥ࡣࠊ࠾ࡲ࠼ࡽ࡜㐟ࡪࠋ୍⥴࡟㐟ࢇࡌࡷ࠺ࡒࠊ࠾ࡲ࠼!

(10)࡛ࡣࠊձࠊղࠊճ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ୍ே⛠୺ㄒࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࢆᣦࡋ♧ࡍ୍ே⛠୺ㄒࡣࠊձࠊղ࡛ࡣࠊ⮬ᕫ୺ᙇࢆ⾲ࡋࠊճ࡛ࡣỴᚰࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊྠࡌ
୍ே⛠࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ㺀ನ㺁ࠊ㺀ࢃࡓࡃࡋ㺁ࠊ㺀∗ࡕࡷࢇ㺁࡜ࡑࢀࡒࢀ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡶẼ࡙ࡃࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ㺀ನ㺁ࡣࠊⲨࡗࡱ࠸ゝ࠸᪉࡛࠶ࡾࠊ୺࡜ࡋ࡚⏨ᛶࡀྠ㍮௨ୗࡢே࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ㺀ࢃࡓࡃࡋ㺁ࡣࠊᨵࡲࡗࡓゝ࠸᪉࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ㺀∗ࡕࡷࢇ㺁࡜࠸࠺⮬⛠ࡣ࠿࡞ࡾぶࡋ࠸ឤࡌࢆ୚࠼ࡿゝ࠸᪉࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞␗࡞ࡗࡓே⛠ࡢ౑࠸᪉࠿ࡽࠊ࠾஫࠸ࡢ♫఍ᆅ఩ࡸⓎヰែᗘࡀ❚ࢃࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࡶ࠺୍ࡘὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁⅬࡣࠊ୍ࠊ஧ே⛠୺ㄒࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜࠊࡑࡢᚋ࡟Ⓨヰែᗘࢆ⾲ࡍຓモࡸࠊ๪モࡀࡃࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(10)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᯟࡢ୰ࡢ㺀࡞㺁࡜㺀ࡓࡔ㺁ࡀࡑࡢ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

5

−133−

会話文における主語省略を制約する要因についての考察

4.2.2 ↔Ⅼ᝟ሗ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ୺ㄒࡢ㠀┬␎(11) Ὀ㍜㸸ᚅࡗ࡚ࠋࡌࡷࡇࢀࠊ඲㒊඗㈗ࡀ᧜ࡗࡓࡢ?
(12) ᗑ୺㸸࠶ࢇࡓ࡛ 16 ே┠ࡔࡼࠋຌ୍㸸൅ࡌࡷ࡞ࡃ࡚ࠊጒࡀ㦄ࡉࢀࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࠋ

(11)࡛ࡣࠊ㺀(඲㒊)᧜ࡗࡓ㺁ࡢࡣ௚ࡢㄡ࠿࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ㺀඗㈗㺁࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ␲ၥࡢ↔Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ୺ㄒ㺀඗㈗ࡀ㺁ࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ(12)࡛ࡣࠊᗑ୺ࡢ㺀࠶ࢇࡓ࡛ 16 ே┠ࡔࡼ㺁࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ㺀൅ࡌࡷ࡞ࡃ
࡚ࠊጒࡀ㦄ࡉࢀࡕࡷࡗ࡚㺁࡜⟅࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊ㺀ጒࡀ㺁࡟ࢫࢺࣞࢫࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࠊ↔Ⅼࡢᙉㄪ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ
ࡑࢀࢆ┬␎ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊព࿡୙᫂࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌧㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊஂ㔝(1973)ࡣࠊ㺀࢞㺁ࡢ㺀⥲グ㺁ࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚࡜ࡾୖࡆࠊ㺀㹼ࡔࡅࡀ㺁ࠊ㺀௚࡛ࡶ࡞࠸㹼ࡀ㺁࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

4.2.3 ࿨㢟グ㏙࡟ࡼࡿ୺ㄒࡢ㠀┬␎ヰࡋᡭࡀࠊ࠶ࡿ஦᯶ࢆ஦ᐇ࡜ࡋ࡚ᐈほグ㏙ࡋࡓࡾࠊࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿሙྜࠊ஦᯶ࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿ୍ᡂ
ศ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ୺ㄒࡣ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡀᬑ㏻࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(13) ∗㸸ࡘࡲࡾࠊඛ⏕ࡣನ࡟㉃ࡅ஦ࡣࡸࡵࢁࡗ࡚ゝ࠸࡟ࡁࡓࢃࡅࡔࠋ
(13)࡛ࡣࠊ㺀∗㺁ࡣࠊゼၥࡋ࡚ࡁࡓඛ⏕ࡢ⾜ືࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࠊ஦ᐇグ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊࡑࡢ஦ᐇࡢᵓᡂ
ᡂศ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ୺㢟୺ㄒ㺀ඛ⏕ࡣ㺁ࡣ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

(14) 㟼ዉ㸸ձఱࡑࢀ㺃㺃㺃࠾∗ࡉࢇ Top ࡀ➇㤿࡟ࡣࡲࡗ࡚ࡓ࡞ࢇ࡚ึࡵ࡚⪺࠸ࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡶࠊఱࡔࡗࡅ?
Ὀ㍜㸸࿐ࡳᒇࠋ
㟼ዉ㸸ղࡸࡔࠊ࠾∗ࡉࢇ Top ࡀࡑࢇ࡞࡜ࡇ࡟ฟධࡾࡋ࡚ࡓ࡞ࢇ࡚…
Ὀ㍜㸸ճࢩ࣮ࡣࡕࡗࡕࡷ࠿ࡗࡓ࠿ࡽ࡞ࠋ
㟼ዉ㸸մὈ࡟࠷ࠊ▱ࡗ࡚ࡓࡢ?
Ὀ㍜㸸յȭTop ➇㤿ዲࡁࡔࡗࡓࡢࡣぬ࠼࡚ࡿࡼࠋࡔࡅ࡝…
(14)ࡢሙྜ࡛ࡣࠊ఍ヰࡢὶࢀ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㺀࠾∗ࡉࢇ㺁ࡣヰ㢟ᛶࡢ᭱ࡶ㧗࠸せ⣲࡛࠶ࡾࠊ┬␎ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡀᬑ
㏻࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊյࡢὈ㍜ࡢⓎヰ࡛ࡣࠊᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ୺ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㺀࠾∗ࡉࢇࡀ㺁ࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ
࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢ᭱ࡶヰ㢟ᛶࡢ㧗࠸㺀࠾∗ࡉࢇ㺁ࡀձࠊղ࡛┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊձࠊղࡣ㟼ዉࡢ㺀࠾∗ࡉࢇࡀ➇㤿࡟ࡣࡲࡗ࡚ࡓ㺁ࠊ㺀࠾∗ࡉࢇࡀࡑࢇ࡞࡜ࡇ࡟ฟධࡾࡋ࡚ࡓ㺁࡜࠸࠺஦᯶(࿨㢟)࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୙ᛮ㆟࡞Ẽᣢࡕࢆ⾲ࡍⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࡑࡢ஦᯶ࢆࡦ࡜࠿ࡓࡲࡾࡢ࿨㢟࡜ࡋ࡚グ㏙ࡋࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୙ᛮ㆟࡞Ẽᣢࡕࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊյࡣࠊ㺀࠾∗ࡉࢇࡀ➇㤿ዲࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ㺁ࡇ࡜ࢆ୙ᛮ㆟࡟ᛮࢃ࡞࠸Ὀ㍜ࡢⓎヰ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㺀࠾∗ࡉࢇ㺁ࢆࡓࡔࡢヰ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚┬␎ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

6

−134−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

4.2.4 ᝟ሗࡢ▐᫬ᛶ࡟ࡼࡿ୺ㄒࡢ㠀┬␎఍ヰࡢὶࢀࡢ୰࡛ࡣࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦ࡢヰ㢟ࡀࠊ఍ヰཧ୚⪅ࡢᚰ⌮άືࡸࠊཧ୚⪅ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡞࡝ࡢࡓࡵ
࡟ࠊḟࡢⓎヰࡲ࡛⥆ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ㜼ࡲࢀࡿሙྜࠊࡑࡢヰ㢟࡜ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀ୍⮴ࡍࡿ୺ㄒࡀ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡀ
ᬑ㏻࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(15) ຌ୍㸸఍♫㎡ࡵࡓᮏᙜࡢ⌮⏤ࠊヰࡋ࡚ࡶ࠸࠸࠿࡞ࠋ
Ὀ㍜㸸࠼?࣏ࢫࢺ࢖ࢵࢺࡌࡷࡡ࣮ࡢ?
㟼ዉ㸸࠺࠺ࢇࠋձྠᮇ࡛ࠊ௰ࡢ࠸࠸ዪࡢᏊ Top ࡀ࠸࡚ࡡࠋ
(ྠᮇ࡜ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᅇ᝿)ղࡑࡢᏊ Top…஦௳ࡢࡇ࡜ぬ࠼࡚ࡓࡳࡓ࠸࡛ࠋࡑࢀ௨᮶ࡳࢇ࡞ࡀ⚾࡟Ẽࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ࡿࡼ࠺࡞…ࠋ ⪃࠼ࡍࡂ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࡅ࡝ࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿… ఱ࡜࡞ࡃ…๓ࡳࡓ࠸࡟ࠊ୍⥴࡟┒ࡾୖࡀࡗࡓࡾࠊ➗ࡗࡓࡾฟ᮶࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗࡕࡷࡗ࡚ࠋ

(15)࡛ࡣࠊ඗ᘵ୕ேࡀᒇୖ࡛㟼ዉࡀ௙஦ࢆࡸࡵࡿ⌮⏤࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡋྜࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㟼ዉࡣ㺀ྠᮇ࡛ࠊ௰ࡢ
࠸࠸ዪࡢᏊࡀ࠸࡚ࡡ㺁࡜ⓎヰࡋࠊࡑࡢዪࡢᏊࢆヰ㢟࡟ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡀḟࡢⓎヰ࡛┬␎ࡉࢀࡿࡢࡀ⮬↛࡞ࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊḟࡢⓎヰղ࡛ࡣࠊ㺀ࡑࡢᏊ㺁ࢆ᫂♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊձ࡜ղࡢ㛫࡟ࠊ㟼ዉࡢྠᮇ࡜
ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᅇ᝿ࡀᣳࡲࢀࠊヰ㢟ࡢ⥔ᣢࢆ㜼ࡴࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

4.2.5 ヰ㢟ࡢ㌿᥮࡟ࡼࡿ୺ㄒࡢ㠀┬␎ ఍ヰ࡛ࡣࠊཧ୚⪅ࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡛ࠊ఍ヰࡢヰ㢟ࡀ㢖⦾࡟㌿᥮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ㐣⛬࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢヰ㢟ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᬑ㏻࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(16) ࢪ࣮ࣙࢪ㸸࠾∗ࡉࢇ Topࠊ࠿࡞ࡾࡢࡤࡃࡕዲࡁࡔࡗࡓࡽࡋ࠸ࠋ
᯽ཎ㸸ࡑࢀࡀཎᅉ࡛ࡅࢇ࠿ࡋ࡚ࠊẕࡕࡷࢇ Top ᐙࢆ㣕ࡧฟࡋ࡚ࠊ⾜ࡁඛࡀࡼࡾ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࣃࢳࣥࢥᒇࠋ(16)࡛ࡣࠊࢪ࣮ࣙࢪࡢⓎヰ࡛ࠊඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࡛㺀࠾∗ࡉࢇ㺁ࡣヰ㢟ᛶࡀ࠿࡞ࡾ㧗࠸ࡀࠊ࿨㢟グ㏙ࡢࡓࡵࠊᇶᮏ
᱁୺ㄒࡢᙧࢆ࡜ࡾࠊ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊḟࡢ᯽ཎࡢⓎヰ࡛ࡣࠊヰ㢟ࡀ㺀ẕࡕࡷࢇ㺁࡟࡞ࡾࠊࡑࢀ
ࢆ┬␎ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࠊព࿡୙᫂࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ┬␎ࡀチᐜࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ

4.2.6 ΰྠࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵࡢ୺ㄒࡢ㠀┬␎఍ヰ࡛ࡣࠊど⥺ࡸጼໃ࡛┦ᡭࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᬑ㏻࡛࠶ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ఍ヰཧ୚⪅ࡀ 3 ே௨ୖ࠸ࡿሙྜࠊΰྠࢆ㑊ࡅࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊゝㄒ࡛᫂♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ≉࡟ࠊ୺యࡢศ࠿ࡾ࡟ࡃ࠸ླྀ㏙
ᩥ࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢഴྥࡀࡋࡤࡋࡤぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ(17) Ὀ㍜㸸ձ➇㤿ዲࡁࡔࡗࡓࡢࡣぬ࠼࡚ࡿࡼࠋࡔࡅ࡝…
㟼ዉ㸸ղ࡝࠺࠸࠺ࡇ࡜?ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚ࡼࠋ
7

−135−

会話文における主語省略を制約する要因についての考察ຌ୍㸸ճసᩥ࡟᭩࠸ࡓࢇࡔࠊὈ㍜ࠋ(17)ࡣࠊ඗ᘵ୕ேࡀ㺀ぶ∗ࡀ࿐ࡳᒇ࡟ࡼࡃ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓ㺁ࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺࠸ࡓ᫬ࡢ఍ヰ࡛࠶ࡿࠋճࡢ㺀సᩥ࡟᭩࠸
ࡓࢇࡔ㺁ࡣ㐣ཤࡢ஦᯶࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕ࡸࠊືసࡢ᪉ྥ࡞࡝ࡑࡢ୺యࢆ⿬௜ࡅࡿࡶࡢࢆ᫂♧ࡋ࡞࠸࡜ࠊ
ヰࡋᡭࡢືస࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄞࡳ࡜ࡽࢀ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠋΰྠࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࡢᚋ࡛ࡑࡢ୺యࢆ⿵㊊ⓗ࡟ᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

5. ⤊ࢃࡾ࡟ ௨ୖࠊ఍ヰࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ୺ㄒࡢ┬␎ཬࡧ㠀┬␎ࡢ᮲௳ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ⤖ᯝࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀ
ࡿࠋ୺ㄒࡢ┬␎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᩥἲⓗ୺ㄒ┬␎ࠊ┤♧ⓗ୺ㄒ┬␎ࠊ㺀Ⓨヰʊᛂ⟅㺁࣌࢔࡟ࡼࡿ୺ㄒ┬␎ࠊ㧗ヰ㢟ᛶ࡟ࡼࡿ୺ㄒ┬␎ࠊ᥎ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿ୺ㄒ┬␎ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ୺ㄒࡢ㠀┬␎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊⓎヰែᗘ࡟㛵ಀࡍࡿ୺ㄒࡢ㠀┬␎ࠊ↔Ⅼ᝟ሗ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ୺ㄒࡢ㠀┬␎ࠊ࿨㢟グ㏙࡟ࡼࡿ୺ㄒࡢ㠀┬␎ࠊ᝟ሗࡢ▐᫬ᛶ࡟ࡼࡿ୺ㄒࡢ㠀┬␎ࠊヰ㢟ࡢ㌿᥮࡟ࡼࡿ୺ㄒࡢ㠀┬␎ࠊΰྠࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵࡢ୺ㄒࡢ㠀┬␎࡜࠸࠺භ
ࡘࡢሙྜࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋὀ1) ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ୺㢟ࡣᩥࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᴫᛕ࡛ࠊᩥ୰࡛㺀ࡣ㺁ࢆకࡗ࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ᣦࡋ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊヰ㢟ࡣㄯヰᒎ㛤ୖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾᗈ࠸⏕㉳㡿ᇦࢆᣢࡕࠊ࿨㢟ࡢᙧࢆ࡜ࡿࡶࡢࡸඛ⾜ᩥ⬦࡛↔Ⅼ᝟ሗࢆᢸ࠺ㄒྃ࡟
࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡞࡝ࠊⰍࠎ࡞ᙧ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ⏝౛ฟ඾㔠Ꮚᩥ⣖㸪▼஭ᗣᬕ(┘╩)ࠊ஧ᐑ࿴ஓ௚(ฟ₇) (2009)ࠗὶᫍࡢ⤎ DVD-BOX࠘TC ࢚ࣥࢱࢸ࢖࣓ࣥࣥࢺ㸬ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ዟ⏣㟹㞝. 1985.ࠗࡇ࡜ࡤࡢ◊✲࣭ᗎㄝ࠘ᮾி㸸ࡴࡂ᭩ᡣ.
ஂ㔝 ᬿ. 1973.ࠗ᪥ᮏᩥἲ◊✲࠘ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
ʊʊʊʊ 1978.ࠗㄯヰࡢᩥἲ࠘ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
ʊʊʊʊ 1983.ࠗ᪂᪥ᮏᩥἲ◊✲࠘ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
◁ᕝ᭷㔛Ꮚ. 1990).㺀୺㢟ࡢ┬␎࡜㠀┬␎㺁ࠊࠗᩥ⸤ゝㄒ◊✲࣭ゝㄒ⠍࠘ࠊ18ࠊ15㸫34ࠊ⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ.
ோ⏣⩏㞝. 1997.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ◊✲ᗎㄝ࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ᮾ᳃໏࣭ྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁᏊ. 2003.ࠗ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢ᪂ᒎ㛤㸫ㄆ▱࡜ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࠘ᮾி㸸◊✲♫.
୕ୖ ❶. 1969.ࠗ㇟ࡣ㰯ࡀ㛗࠸࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.

ㅰ㎡
 ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 16 ᅇ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡛ࡍࠋࡇࡢሙࢆ೉ࡾ࡚ࠊᙜ᪥ྖ
఍ࢆࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓྡᔱ⩏┤ඛ⏕(ᮾ໭኱Ꮫ)ࠊ㉁ၥࡸࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓ఍ሙࡢ᪉ࠎࠊࡑࡋ࡚Ⓨ⾲ࡢ‽ഛẁ㝵࡛㈗㔜࡞ࡈពぢࢆࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓ⚟⏣୍㞝ඛ⏕(᪂₲኱Ꮫ)ࠊ⛅Ꮥ㐨ඛ⏕(᪂₲኱Ꮫ)ࠊ኱➉ⰾኵඛ⏕(᪂₲኱Ꮫ)࡟ᚰ࠿ࡽឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ✏ࡢ୙ഛࡣࡍ࡭࡚➹⪅ࡢ㈐௵࡟࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
8

−136−

第16回大会発表論文集

1

第９号

ẪỎẨᛖඥỉϐᎋ‫ݑ‬ḘἳἑἧỳὊྸᛯỉᚇໜẦỤᴾ
ஓஉᨺ‫ٻ‬ᴾ
᧙ᙱ‫ܖٻܖٻ‬ᨈᴾ< abstract >This thesis mentions Japanese rhetoric especially Zeugma and Syllepsis. We call them igikenyo or

ishiturenritsu in Japanese. Sato (2006) stated those rhetoric. However they did not explain a clear differences
for the 2 rhetoric. This thesis is reconsideration of those rhetoric. We reanalyzed Sato’s example expressions
from cognitive linguistics view. We took Momiyama’s polysemy test to analyze each examples. Then we
searched and analyzed another examples from the Internet (Google search) and lyrics. Finally it shows newclassification of those rhetoric.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ1. ࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ 2. ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ 3. ㄒࡢከ⩏ᛶ 4. ࡃࡧࡁㄒἲᵏ ࡀᛯᴾղ◚᱁ࡃࡧࡁࠊճ␗⩏ව⏝ࠊմ␗㉁㐃❧ࠊյ஺ᕪ෌ㄝ

┬␎࡜࠸࠺ศ㔝࡟ࡃࡧࡁㄒἲ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࠋబ

ࡢ㸳ࡘ࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௨ୗ࡟ᅗࢆ♧ࡍࠋ⸨௚(2006)ࡢࠗࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ஦඾࡛࠘ࡣࠊ␗⩏ව⏝࡜␗㉁㐃❧ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ༊ศࡣ᭕᫕࡛࠶ࡾࠊ୺ほⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣబ⸨௚(2006)ࡢᴫㄝ࡜ၥ㢟Ⅼࡢᥦ♧ࠊబ⸨௚(2006)࡛࠶ࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⏝౛ࠊGoogle᳨⣴᳨࡛⣴ࡉࢀࡓ⏝౛ࢆࠊㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗどⅬ࡜ࠊ⢄ᒣ(1993)࡛㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࡢㄆᐃᇶ‽ࢆ⏝‫׋‬ᾀᴾ ˱ᕲ˂ᵆᵐᵎᵎᵔᵇỉẪỎẨᛖඥỉғЎᴾ

࠸᳨࡚ドࡋࡓࠋㄒྃࡢከ⩏ᛶ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࢆࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢ⏝౛ࡀࠊ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆ␗࡟ࡍࡿㄒྃࢆ㐃❧ࡋᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣ 5 ࡘࡢ༊ศࡢ୰࡛㠀ᖖ࡟ఝࡓᴫᛕࢆࡶࡘ␗

࡚࠾ࡾࠊୟࡘࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢ⏝౛ࡀࠊࡘ࡞ࡄㄒ࡟ከ⩏ⓗ⩏ව⏝࡜␗㉁㐃❧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡍࡿࠋู⩏ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡼࡗ࡚ᮏㄽᩥࡢ୺
ᙇࡣࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢ⏝౛ࡀࠊ␗⩏ව⏝࡛࠶ࡾࠊୟࡘࠊ␗

ᵐᵌᵐᴾ ˱ᕲ˂ᵆᵐᵎᵎᵔᵇầਫậỦီ፯ψဇᴾ㉁㐃❧࡛࠶ࡿࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ⏝౛࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡑࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀ␗

␗⩏ව⏝ࡢᐃ⩏࡜ࡋ࡚బ⸨௚(2006)࡛ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺

࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋబ⸨௚(2006)࡟௦ࢃࡿ␗⩏ව࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

⏝࡜␗㉁㐃❧ࡢ᪂ࡓ࡞༊ศࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ࠶ࡿ㡢ኌࡀ୍ࡘࡢㄒྃ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࡳゎࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢㄒ
ᵐᴾ ီ፯ψဇểီឋᡲᇌᴾྃࡀ஧ࡘࡢព࿡ࢆවࡡ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ⾲⌧ࠋࡇࡢවᵐᵌᵏᴾ ỊẳỜỆᴾ⏝ࢆᐇ⌧ࡍࡿ௙᪉࡟ࡣ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿࠶ࡿࠋ࠶ࡿㄒྃࢆ

బ⸨ಙኵࡽࡀ⦅⧩ࡋࡓࠗࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ㎡඾࠘(2006)࡛

ྠ୍ᩥ୰ࡢูࠎࡢㄒྃ࡟⤫ㄒⓗ࡟⤖ࡧ௜ࡅࠊࡑࢀ

ࡣࠊ┬␎࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࡃࡧࡁࢆࡉࡽ࡟⣽ศ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋబ

ࡒࢀ࡛ព࿡ࢆ␗࡞ࡽࡏࡿࡢࡀࡑࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

⸨௚(2006)࡛ࡣࠊᗈ⩏ࡢࡃࡧࡁㄒἲࡢศ㢮ࢆձࡃࡧࡁࠊ

(బ⸨௚,2006:175)

1
−137−

くびき語法の再考察―メタファー理論の観点から
2

బ⸨௚(2006)࡛ࡣ␗⩏ව⏝ࡢ⏝౛࡜ࡋ࡚(1)࡜(2)ࡢ౛

ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋబ⸨௚(2006)࡛ࡣࠕ㆙ᐹࡢ࢖ࢾࠖࡀᮏ⩏࡜ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㌿⩏࡟ව⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ୧⩏ࡢඹᏑࡣࠊࡇࡢసရࡀ
≟ࢆ୺ேබ࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀ࡚ึ

(1)ᛮᝨࡔࡢ』࡞ࢇ࡚࠼ࡶࡢࡣ࠼࡚ࡋ࡚እࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࠋ

ࡵ࡚▱ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

((஬௦┠)ྂ௒ீᚿࢇ⏕ࠗࡧࢇࡰ࠺⮬៏࠘(ᚿࢇ⏕ᩥᗜ㸴) ,బ⸨௚ 2006:175-176)ᵐᵌᵑᴾ ˱ᕲ˂ᵆᵐᵎᵎᵔᵇầਫậỦီឋᡲᇌᴾ బ⸨௚(2006)࡛ࡣ␗㉁㐃❧ࢆ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜኚᵝࡢ୍㒊(2)ࢿࣞ࢘ࢫࡢፉ࢞ࣛࢸ࢔ࡼࠊ࠶࡞ࡓࡣࣄࣗࣈࣛࡢ㯊㤶࡜ࡋ࡚ᣲࡆࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ⲡࡼࡾ⏑ࡃ

 

(࢙࢘ࣝࢠࣜ࢘ࢫࠗリ㑅࠘7,37,Ἑὠ༓௦ヂ, బ⸨௚ᶆ‽ⓗ࡞␗㉁㐃❧ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊලయⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ᢳ

2006:176)㇟ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࢆ⤖ྜࡍࡿ⾲⌧[ᚋ␎](బ⸨௚,2006:565)(1)࡟࠾࠸࡚బ⸨௚(2006)࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿㄒྃࢆྠ୍ᩥ୰ࡢ
ูࠎࡢㄒྃ࡟⤫ㄒⓗ࡟⤖ࡧ௜ࡅࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡛ព࿡ࢆ␗

ᐃ⩏࠿ࡽࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊబ⸨௚(2006)࡛ࡣලయⓗ࡞ㄒ࡞ࡽࡏࡿࠊ஧ࡘࡢㄒྃࢆ୍ࡘࡢㄒྃ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡄࡇ࡜࡟ࡼ

࡜ᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ㄒࢆ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡚㐃❧ࡉࡏࡿ⾲⌧ࢆ␗㉁㐃

ࡗ࡚୧⩏࡬ࡢව⏝ࢆᐇ⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸

❧࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠ᭩࡛ࡣ␗㉁㐃❧ࡢ⏝౛࡜ࡋ࡚௨ୗࡢ

ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᛮᝨࡀእࢀࡿ࡜』ࡀእࢀࡿ࡛ࡢࡑࢀࡒࢀ

౛ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡢព࿡ⓗ㐪࠸ࡢㄝ᫂ࡣࠕࡔ࠸ࡪࢃࡅࡀࡀ㐪࠺ࠖ࡜᭩࠸(4)ኴ㝧࡜Ṛࡣ┤ど࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡚࠶ࡿࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(2)࡟࠾࠸࡚బ⸨௚(2006)࡛ࡣࠊᩥ

(࣭ࣛࣟࢩࣗࣇࢥ࣮ࠗ⟿ゝ㞟࠘, బ⸨௚ 2006:565)

୰ࡢูࠎࡢ㒊ศ࡜㛵㐃௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄒྃࡀ
஧ᙺࢆ₇ࡎࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ୖグࡢ౛ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋబ⸨
௚(2006)࡛ࡣࠕ⏑ࡃࠖࡣࠕ㯊㤶ⲡࠖ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡛ࡣᩥᏐ

(5)⚄⤒࡜㠐ࡢᗏࢆࡍࡾῶࡽࡋ࡚໬⢝ရࢆ኎ࡾ㎸ࡳṌ

㏻ࡾ”⏑࠸”ࢆࠊࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࠖ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡛ࡣẚ႘ⓗ࡟”ࡸࡉࡃࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ(ྜྷ⾜῟அ௓ࠗ◁ࡢୖࡢ᳜≀⩌࠘, బ⸨௚ 2006:186)

ࡋ࠸”ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ(1)࡜(2)ࡢ㸰ࡘࡢ࠺ࡕ࡛኱ࡁ࡞㐪࠸ࡀ࡞࠸ࠋ

(6)ࢸ࣮ࣞࢬ࡜ὶឤࡀ࠸ࡗࡋࡻ࡟⏫࡟ࡁࡓࠊ࡜ゝ࠺ࡶࡢ(3)≟ࡢୡ⏺࡛᭱ࡶᖜࡢࡁࡃࡢࡣྛ✀ࡢရホ఍ࡢඃ຾ࡀ࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊὶឤࡢ᪉ࡀࢸ࣮ࣞࢬࡼࡾࡶඛࡔࡗࡓࠊ

≟࡜ࠊࡇࡢ㆙ᐹ≟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠾ࢀࡣࡇ࠺࠸࠺㢼₻ࢆ࠶ࡲ࡜ゝ࠺ࡶࡢࡶ࠸ࡓࠋ

ࡾዲࡲࡋ࠸࡜ࡣᛮࡗ࡚࠾ࡽࡠࠋ࡞ࡐ࠿࡜࠸࠼ࡤࠊရホ(ࢩࣗࢨࣥࢾ࣭ࣉ࣮ࣝࠗ࣋ࣝࢼࣝࢹ࢕࣮ࢽࡢࢸࣛࢫ࠘, బ఍ࡶ㆙ᐹࡶே㛫ࡢୡ⏺࡟ᒓࡍࡿദࡋ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⤌⧊࡛࠶

⸨௚ 2006:565-566)

ࡿࠋࠝ͐ࠞࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ᖹྜྷࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡑ࠺⡆༢࡟㆙ᐹ≟ࢆ࠶ࡾࡀࡓࡀࡿࢃࡅ࡟ࡣ⾜࠿࡞࠸ࡢࡔࠋࡓ࠿ࡀ㆙ᐹࡢ࢖

బ⸨௚(2006)࡛ࡢ(4)ࡢศᯒࡣࠊኴ㝧ࡀ┤ど࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠊ

ࢾ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠋ

࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋṚࢆ┤ど࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ

(஭ୖࡦࡉࡋࠗࢻࣥᯇ஬㑻ࡢ⏕ά࠘ୖ, బ⸨௚ 2006:176)࡜ࢆゝ࠺ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ࠿ࢀࡣኴ㝧ࢆῧ࠼≀࡟ࡋࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋ㐃❧ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡢ∦᪉ࢆῧ࠼≀࡜ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡶ

ࡇࡢ㆙ᐹࡢ࢖ࢾࡣࠕ㆙ᐹ≟ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡜ࠊ㆙ᐹࡢᡭ

࠺∦᪉ࡢㄒྃࡢ⾲⌧ࢆᘬࡁ❧ࡓࡏࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(5)ඛ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡢ࢖ࢾࡢ㸰ࡘࡢព࿡ࢆ㸯ࡘ࡟වࡡ࡚⾲ࡢ⏝౛ࡣబ⸨௚(2006)࡛ࡣࠕ⚄⤒ࠖ࡜ࠕ㠐ࡢᗏࠖ࡜࡛

2
−138−

第16回大会発表論文集
3

第９号

ࠕ᧿ࡾῶࡽࡍࠖࡢព࿡ࡀ㐪࠸ࠊ࠿ࡘ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠕ᧿ࡾῶ

࠸ࠋຍ࠼࡚␗⩏ව⏝࠿␗㉁㐃❧࠿ࡢ㐪࠸ࡀ᭕᫕࡛࠶ࡾࠊ

ࡽࡍࠖ࡟ព࿡ⓗ࡟㐺ྜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛ࠓ␗⩏ව⏝ࠔ࡟࡟ୟࡘุ᩿ᇶ‽ࡀ୺ほⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵబ⸨௚(2006)࡛㏙࡭

࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡢࡳㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀ௨እ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣㄝࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿෆᐜࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ␗⩏ව⏝࠿␗㉁㐃❧࠿༊ูࡀ᫂ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋ␗⩏ව⏝࡜␗㉁㐃❧ࢆࡼࡾᐈほⓗ࡟༊ศࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ⧅࠸࡛࠸ࡿㄒࡢከ⩏ᛶ࡟ὀ┠ࢆࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢㄒ

ᵐᵌᵒᴾ ˱ᕲ˂ᵆᵐᵎᵎᵔᵇầғЎẴỦီ፯ψဇểီឋᡲᇌểẸࡀከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆᣢࡘ࠿࡝࠺࠿ุูࢆࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ⢄ᒣỉբ᫆ໜᴾ(1993)࡛㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࡢㄆᐃᇶ‽ࢆ⏝࠸ୖグ࡛࠶ࡆࡓ␗⩏ව⏝࡜␗㉁㐃❧ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆబ⸨௚

࡚ከ⩏ㄒศᯒࡢࢸࢫࢺࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ(2006)࡛ࡣ(1)࡜(5)ࡢ⏝౛ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋᵑᴾ Ўௌᴾᵑᵌᵏᴾ ီ፯ψဇỉЎௌᴾࡇࡢӐ␗㉁㐃❧ӑࡢ౛ࡣࠊࠕ⚄⤒ࠖ࡜ࠕ㠐ࡢᗏࠖ␗⩏ව⏝࡜␗㉁㐃❧ࡢᐈほⓗ༊ศࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ

࡜࡛ࠕࡍࡾῶࡽࡍࠖࡢព࿡ࡀ㐪࠸ࠊ࠿ࡘ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ

ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ⧅࠸࡛࠸ࡿㄒྃࡢከ⩏ᛶ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊศᯒࢆ⾜ࠕ᧿ࡾῶࡽࡍࠖ࡟ព࿡ⓗ࡟㐺ྜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛Ӑ␗ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋከ⩏ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡢᇶ‽ࡣ⢄ᒣ(1993)⩏ව⏝ӑ࡟ఝ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㏫࡟Ӑ␗⩏ව⏝ӑࡶࠊ๓࡟࡛ᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿከ⩏ࢸࢫࢺࡢ୰ࡢ㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࠊ཯ฟࡉࢀࡓ౛ࠕᛮᝨࡔࡢ』࡞ࢇ࡚࠼ࡶࡢࡣ࠼࡚ࡋ࡚

ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࡢ 2 ࡘࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡋࡓࠋ

እࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕᛮᝨࠖ࡜ࠕ』ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟
࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆ␗࡟ࡍࡿࡶࡢࢆ➼఩࡟୪࡭ࡿⅬ࡛ࠊ㸦1)ᛮᝨࡔࡢ』࡞ࢇ࡚࠼ࡶࡢࡣ࠼࡚ࡋ࡚እࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࠋ

Ӑ␗㉁㐃❧ӑ࡟ఝ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚㐪࠸ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡢ

((஬௦┠)ྂ௒ீᚿࢇ⏕ࠗࡧࢇࡰ࠺⮬៏࠘(ᚿࢇ⏕ᩥᗜ㸴) ,㠃ࡀᙉࡃឤࡌࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࠊ࡟࠶ࡿࠋӐ␗⩏ව⏝ӑࡣࠊ

బ⸨௚ 2006:175-176)ࡑࡢྡ⛠ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୍ࡘࡢㄒྃࡀ஧ࡘࡢព࿡
ࢆᣢࡘࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࠊㄒྃࡢഃࡢ≉ᚩࡢ᪉ࡀ┠❧ࡗ࡚ࡇࡢ⏝౛ࡣ཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡜㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࠿ࡽከ⩏ᛶࢆ࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋӐ␗㉁㐃❧ӑࡣࠊࡸࡣࡾࡑࡢྡ

☜࠿ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡎ⧅ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿㄒྃࢆ㸰ࡘ⛠ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ␗࡞ࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ᒓࡍࡿࡶࡢ

ࡢᩥ࡟ศࡅࡿࠋ㸰ࡘࡢ⏝౛ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡀ➼఩࡟୪࡭ࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠊᑐ㇟ࡢഃࡢ≉ᚩࡢ᪉(7) a. ᛮᝨࡀእࢀࡸࡍ࠸

ࡀᙉࡃឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(బ⸨௚,2006:186)b. 』ࡀእࢀࡸࡍ࠸

ࡇࡢ⏝౛ࢆ཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡜࠸࠺ᇶ‽࡟࠾࠸᳨࡚ドࡍࡿୖグࡢㄝ࡛᫂ࡣࠕ୍ࡘࡢព࿡ࡀ஧ࡘࡢព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࠖ

࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽືモࡢከ⩏ᛶࢆࡶࡘࡶࡢࡀ␗⩏ව⏝࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ␗㉁㐃❧ࡣࠕ␗࡞ࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟
ᒓࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀ➼఩࡟୪࡭ࡽࢀࡿࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ

(8) a. ᛮᝨࡀእࢀࡸࡍ࠸

⤖ࡤࢀࡿㄒࡢ᪉࡟ࣇ࢛࣮࢝ࢫࡉࢀࠊືモࡢከ⩏ᛶ࡞࡝b. ᛮᝨࡀ࠶ࡓࡿ

࡟ࡣ╔┠ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

c. *ᛮᝨࡀ⥾ࡲࡿୖグ࡛బ⸨௚(2006)࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓ␗⩏ව⏝࡜␗㉁㐃
❧ࡢ⏝౛ࢆᣲࡆࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ඲࡚ࡢ⏝౛࡛࡞ࡐ␗⩏ව(9) a. 』ࡀእࢀࡸࡍ࠸

⏝࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊ␗㉁㐃❧࡞ࡢ࠿ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞

3
−139−

くびき語法の再考察―メタファー理論の観点から
4b. 』ࡀ⥾ࡲࡿb. ࠶࡞ࡓࡣඃࡋ࠸

c. *』ࡀ࠶ࡓࡿ

c. *࠶࡞ࡓࡣ㤶ࡋ࠸ᛮᝨࡀእࢀࡿࡢ཯ᑐㄒࡣࠕࡣࡲࡿ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ

(13) a. ࣄࣗࣈࣛࡢ㯊㤶ⲡࡣ㤶ࡋ࠸』ࡀእࢀࡿࡢ཯ᑐㄒࡣࠕ⥾ࡲࡿ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕᛮᝨࡀ⥾ࡲ

b. ࣄࣗࣈࣛࡢ㯊㤶ⲡࡣ㨩ຊⓗࡿࠖࡸࠕ』ࡀࡣࡲࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝ࠸᪉ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛(7)abc. *ࣄࣗࣈࣛࡢ㯊㤶ⲡࡣඃࡋ࠸

ࡢࠕእࢀࡿࠖࡣከ⩏ⓗู൤࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓ㢮⩏ㄒ࠿ࡽศᯒࢆࡍࡿ࡜(7)a ࡢࠕእࢀࡿࠖࡣ஘

㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ♧ࡍከ⩏ࢸࢫࢺ࡛ࡶࠊ
ࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࠖ࡟ᑐ

ࢀࡿ࣭஘ࡍ(஘㞧࣭≬㦁)࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡢ୰ࡢࡉࡽ࡟ࠝࡎ

ࡍࡿࠕ⏑࠸ࠖࡢ㢮⩏ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕඃࡋ࠸ࠖࠊࠕ㨩ຊⓗࠖࡀ

ࢀࡿࠞࡢ㢮ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(8)b ࡢࠕእࢀࡿࠖࡣྲྀࢀࡿ࣭ᢤ

⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉㯊㤶ⲡ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ⏑࠸ࠖࡣࠊឤࡌࡿ࣭

ࡅࡿ(⬺ⴠ)ࡢୗ఩༊ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠝ⬺ࡆࡿࠞࡢ㢮⩏ㄒ࡛࠶(ឤぬ࣭ឤ᝟)ࡢ୰ࡢ࡟࠾࠸࡜࠸࠺࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ࠕ⏑࠸ࠖࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㢮⩏ㄒࢆᣲࡆࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ

ࡀศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㢮⩏ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠕ㤶ࡋ࠸ࠖࡸࠕⰾ
ࡋ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓㄒࡀ࠶ࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ (2)ࡢࠕ⏑(10) a. ᛮᝨࡀࡎࢀࡿ

࠸ࠖࡶࡲࡓከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

b. *ᛮᝨࡀ⬺ࡆࡿḟ࡟཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࢆୖࡆࡿ
࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

(11) a. 』ࡀࡎࢀࡿ
(14) a. *࠶࡞ࡓࡣࡃࡉ࠸

b. 』ࡀ⬺ࡆࡿb. ࣄࣗࣈࣛࡢ㯊㤶ⲡࡣࡃࡉ࠸
㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡛ࡣࠕᛮᝨࠖࡢ⏝౛࡛ࠕ』ࠖ࡜␗࡞ࡿ
㢮⩏ㄒࡀᏑᅾࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࠊ㢮(14)a ࡢሙྜࠊ཯ᑐㄒࡀࠕࡃࡉ࠸ࠖ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜Ⴅぬࡢࠕࡃ⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡜࠸࠺㸰ࡘࡢᇶ‽ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚ከ⩏ࢸࢫࢺࢆࡉ࠸ࠖ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࠊࡇࡢᩥ⬦࡛ࡣ㐺ࡉ࡞࠸ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠕእࢀࡿࠖࡣ཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࢆᇶ࡟ࡍࡿ࡜ከ

(14)b ࡢ཯ᑐㄒࡣႥぬࡸ࿡ぬ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠕ⏑࠸ࠖ࡞ࡢ࡛

⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆᣢࡘㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ(1)ࡢࠕእࢀࡿࠖࡣከ⩏ࠕࡃࡉ࠸ࠖࡸࠕ㎞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓㄒ࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟

ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋḟ࡟௨ୗࡢ⏝౛ࢆ࠶(14)a ࡜(14)b ࡛ࡣ཯ᑐㄒࡢ✀㢮ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊከ⩏ⓗࡆࡿࠋู⩏࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

(2)ࢿࣞ࢘ࢫࡢፉ࢞ࣛࢸ࢔ࡼࠊ࠶࡞ࡓࡣࣄࣗࣈࣛࡢ㯊㤶

ࢺ࡛(2)ࡢ⏑࠸࡟ࡣከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆࡶࡘࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀⲡࡼࡾ⏑ࡃࡿࠋḟ࡟௨ୗࡢ౛ࢆᣲࡆࡿࠋ

཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡜㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡜࠸࠺㸰ࡘࡢከ⩏ࢸࢫ(࢙࢘ࣝࢠࣜ࢘ࢫࠗリ㑅࠘7,37,Ἑὠ༓௦ヂ, బ⸨௚(3) ࠝ͐ࠞ࡞ࡐ࠿࡜࠸࠼ࡤࠊရホ఍ࡶ㆙ᐹࡶே㛫ࡢୡ

2006:176)⏺࡟ᒓࡍࡿദࡋ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⤌⧊࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠝ͐ࠞࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚
ࡲࡎࠊࡇࡢ⏝౛ࢆ㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽከ⩏ⓗᖹྜྷࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡑ࠺⡆༢࡟㆙ᐹ≟ࢆ࠶ࡾࡀࡓࡀࡿࢃࡅ࡟

ู⩏࠿࡝࠺࠿ุᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ཯ᑐㄒࡢ

ࡣ⾜࠿࡞࠸ࡢࡔࠋࡓ࠿ࡀ㆙ᐹࡢ࢖ࢾ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠋ

㐪࠸ࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀ࠶ࡆࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

(஭ୖࡦࡉࡋࠗࢻࣥᯇ஬㑻ࡢ⏕ά࠘ୖ, బ⸨௚ 2006:176)ࡇࡢࠕ࢖ࢾࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡣ㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊከ⩏(12) a. ࠶࡞ࡓࡣ㨩ຊⓗⓗู൤ࢆᣢࡘ࠿࡝࠺࠿᳨ドࡍࡿࠋࠕ㆙ᐹࡢ࢖ࢾࠖࢆ㆙ᐹ

4
−140−

第16回大会発表論文集
5第９号≟࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡓ᫬ࠊࡇࡢࠕ࢖ࢾࠖࡣࠊ⏕ࡴ࣭⫱࡚ࡿ(⏕ࡀ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊከ⩏ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

⫱)࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ศ㔝ࡢ୰ࡢ࢖࢟ࣔࣀ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ≟ࠖࡀྵࡲḟ࡟ࠊ཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࢆᇶ࡟ከ⩏ࢸࢫࢺࢆ⾜࠺࡜ࠊࡑࢀ

ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊᡭඛ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ࢖ࢾࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡓ᫬ࠊ

ࡒࢀࠕ┠ࢆࡑࡽࡍࠖ
ࠊࠕ㑊ࡅࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࡇࡢࠕ࢖ࢾࠖࡣࠊ᥈ࡍ࣭≺࠺(᥈ồ)࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ศ㔝ࡢ(17) a. ኴ㝧࠿ࡽ┠ࢆࡑࡽࡍࠝࡉࡀࡍேࠞ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢព࿡࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜

b. ኴ㝧ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

㆙ᐹࡢ࢖ࢾЍ㆙ᐹ≟࣭࣭࣭࢖࢟ࣔࣀ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ≟ࠖ(18) a. Ṛ࠿ࡽ┠ࢆࡑࡽࡍ㆙ᐹࡢ࢖ࢾЍᡭඛ࣭࣭࣭࣭࣭
ࠝࡉࡀࡍேࠞ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ≟b. Ṛࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠕ࢖ࢾࠖࡶࡑࢀࡒࢀព࿡ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡓࡵከ

ୖグࡢ౛࠿ࡽ཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡛ࡣࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡢ཯ᑐㄒࡶྠ

⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆᣢࡘㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࡌ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢព࿡࡟㛵ࡋ࡚㐪࿴ឤࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

ᵑᵌᵐᴾ ီឋᡲᇌỉЎௌᴾḟࡣబ⸨௚(2006)࡛࠶ࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ␗㉁㐃❧ࡢ⏝౛ ࡇࡢ⠇࡛ࡣ 3.1 ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊబ⸨௚(2006)࡛࠶ࡆࡽࢀ

࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୗ࡟␗㉁㐃❧ࡢ⏝౛ࢆ࠶ࡆࡿࠋ

࡚࠸ࡿ␗㉁㐃❧ࡢ⏝౛ࡶྠᵝ࡟ศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ(5)⚄⤒࡜㠐ࡢᗏࢆࡍࡾῶࡽࡋ࡚໬⢝ရࢆ኎ࡾ㎸ࡳṌ(4)ኴ㝧࡜Ṛࡣ┤ど࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ(࣭ࣛࣟࢩࣗࣇࢥ࣮ࠗ⟿ゝ㞟࠘, బ⸨௚ 2006:565)(ྜྷ⾜῟அ௓ࠗ◁ࡢୖࡢ᳜≀⩌࠘, బ⸨௚ 2006:186)(4)࡛౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ┤どࡍࡿࠖࡶ๓⠇࡜ྠᵝ࡟㢮⩏ㄒࡇࡢᩥ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ᧿ࡾῶࡽࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࢆ㢮ࡢ㐪࠸ࠊ཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸࠿ࡽከ⩏ⓗู⩏࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿

⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࠿ࡽከ⩏ࢸࢫࢺࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࠕ⚄⤒ࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᧿

ࢆุูࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

ࡾῶࡽࡍࠖࡢ㢮⩏ㄒࡣࠕᾘ⪖ࡍࡿࠖࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍

ࡣࡌࡵ࡟㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࠿ࡽࠊከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆᣢࡘ࠿࡝

᪉ࠊࠕ㠐ࡢᗏࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᧿ࡾῶࡽࡍࠖࡣࠕⷧࡃࡍࡿࠖ࠺࠿᳨ウࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࠕኴ㝧ࢆ┤どࡍࡿࠖࡣࠊぢࡿ࣭⪺ࡃ(ど࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢㄒࢆ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞⫈ぬ)ࡢ୰࡟ࡇࡢㄒࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠕṚࢆ┤どࡿࠋࡍࡿ࡛ࠖࡢࠕ┤どࡍࡿࠖࡣࠕ⪃࠼ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺࣓ࢱࣇ࢓
(19) a. ⚄⤒ࢆᾘ⪖ࡍࡿ࣮ⓗᣑᙇࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࡑࢀࡒࢀࢆ㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸b.*⚄⤒ࢆⷧࡃࡍࡿ

࠿ࡽ♧ࡍ࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

(20) a.*㠐ࡢᗏࢆᾘ⪖ࡍࡿ(15) a. ኴ㝧ࢆぢࡿb. 㠐ࡢᗏࢆⷧࡃࡍࡿ

b. *ኴ㝧ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿୖグࡢ౛࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕ⚄⤒ࠖࡣࠕⷧࡃࡍࡿࠖ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࡇ(16) a. *Ṛࢆぢࡿ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ྠᵝ࡟ࠕ㠐ࡢᗏࠖࡶࠕᾘ⪖ࡍࡿࠖb. Ṛࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠸࡟ࡃ࠸ࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠕ᧿ࡾῶࡽࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒྃࡣ

ୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡟㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࠿ࡽከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿࡝

㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽぢ࡚ࠊከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆᣢࡘ࠺࠿᳨ウࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࠕ┤どࡍࡿࠖࡣ㢮⩏ㄒㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

5
−141−

くびき語法の再考察―メタファー理論の観点から
6ḟ࡟཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸࠿ࡽከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆᣢࡘ࠿࡝࠺࠿᳨

ウࢆࡍࡿࠋࠕࡃࡿࠖࡢ཯ᑐㄒࡣࠊ
ࠕ⾜ࡃ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ウࢆࡍࡿࠋࠕ᧿ࡾῶࡽࡍࠖࡣࠕ᧿ࡿࠖ࡜ࠕῶࡽࡍࠖࡀྜ

ࡽࢀࡿࠋࠕࢸ࣮ࣞࢬࠖ࡜ࠕὶឤࠖ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡵࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢ

ࢃࡉࡗࡓ」ྜㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕῶࡽࡍࠖࡢ཯ᑐㄒࡣࠕቑ࠼ࡿࠖ

ࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ࠕ᧿ࡿࠖࡢ཯ᑐㄒࡣ᳨⣴ࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊࠕ᧿ࡿࠖࡢ཯ᑐㄒࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ
ࠕቑ࠼ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ࡜

(23) a. ࢸ࣮ࣞࢬࡀ⏫࡟⾜ࡃ」ྜࡋࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᩥ⬦࡛ࡣ୙㐺᱁࡛࠶ࡿb. ὶឤࡀ⏫࡟⾜ࡃ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡛ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟㐪࠸ࡀ࡛ࡓ(23)b ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕὶឤࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ࡛ྃࡣ᳨⣴ࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࠕ᧿ࡾῶࡽࡍࠖࡣከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆᣢࡘ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡗࡓࡀࠊࠕ㢼㑧ࠖࡸࠕ࢖ࣥࣇ࢚ࣝࣥࢨࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓㄒ࡛ྃ

ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

᳨⣴ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊከࡃࡣ࡞࠸ࡀᏑᅾࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕ᮶ࡿࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ཯ᑐㄒ࡟ࡶ㐪࠸ࡀࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

(6)ࢸ࣮ࣞࢬ࡜ὶឤࡀ࠸ࡗࡋࡻ࡟⏫࡟ࡁࡓࠊ࡜ゝ࠺ࡶ㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡜཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ᳨ドࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊࡑࢀࡢࡀ࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊὶឤࡢ᪉ࡀࢸ࣮ࣞࢬࡼࡾࡶඛࡔࡗࡓࠊ

ࡒࢀ࡛㐪࠸ࡀࡳࡘ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠕ᮶ࡿࠖ

࡜ゝ࠺ࡶࡢࡶ࠸ࡓࠋ

࡟ࡣከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

(ࢩࣗࢨࣥࢾ࣭ࣉ࣮ࣝࠗ࣋ࣝࢼࣝࢹ࢕࣮ࢽࡢࢸࣛࢫ࠘, బ⸨௚ 2006:565-566)

ᵑᵌᵑᴾ ˱ᕲ˂ᵆᵐᵎᵎᵔᵇˌ‫ٳ‬ỉဇ̊ỉЎௌᴾ ᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ google ᳨⣴᳨࡛⣴ࡉࢀࡓ⏝౛ࡢศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡇࡢᩥࡶࡲࡓୖグ࡜ྠᵝ࡟㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡜ࠊ཯ᑐㄒࡢ
㐪࠸࡜࠸࠺ᇶ‽࡛ࢸࢫࢺࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ(24) ྩ࡟⥆ࡃ㐨࢞ࢯࣜࣥࡶឡࡶ‶ࢱࣥࡉ㐂࠸ࡓࡃ࡚ࠕࡃࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࢆࠕ᮶ࡿࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ゎ㔘ࡋࠊ㢮⩏ㄒࡢ᳨⣴ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࠕ᮶ࡿࠖࡣࠊ⾜ࡃ࣭᮶ࡿ( ヰࡋࡓࡃ࡚➗㢦ぢࡓࡃ࡚ࡸࡗ࡜㐂࠼ࡓࡡ
ɆDEENࠗHello࠘Ɇ᮶)࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡢ୰࡟ྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ
ࡢ㢮⩏ㄒࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

(24)ࡢ⏝౛ࡶࠊ㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࠊ཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸࠿ࡽከ⩏(21) a. ࢸ࣮ࣞࢬࡀ⏫࡟⌧ࢀࡿⓗู⩏ࡢㄆᐃࢸࢫࢺࢆ⾜࠺࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

b. ࢸ࣮ࣞࢬࡀ⏫࡟ጼࢆぢࡏࡿࡲࡎ㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࠿ࡽከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆᣢࡘ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡢ
᳨ドࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ
ࠕ‶ࢱࣥࠖ࡟ࡣ[ᐜ㔞୍࡛ᮼ࡟࡞ࡿᵝ]࡜࠸

(22) a. ὶឤࡀ⏫࡟⌧ࢀࡿ࠺ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㢮⩏ㄒࡀࠕ࠸ࡗࡥ࠸ࠖࠊࠕ‶b. ὶឤࡀ⏫࡟ጼࢆぢࡏࡿᮼ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ㢮⩏ㄒࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀ
࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡵࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕࡃࡿࠖࡢ㢮⩏ㄒࡣࠕ⌧ࢀࡿࠖࠊࠕጼࢆぢࡏࡿࠖࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࠕࢸ࣮ࣞࢬࠖ࡜࠸࠺ேྡ࡜ࠕὶឤࠖ

(25) a. ࢞ࢯࣜࣥࡀ࠸ࡗࡥ࠸

࡜࠸࠺⑓Ẽࡢࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟ࡇࡢ஧ࡘࡢ㢮⩏ㄒࢆ࠶࡚ࡣࡵ

b. ឡࡀ࠸ࡗࡥ࠸

ࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡶᐜㄆ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿࠕ᮶ࡿࠖࡢከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡟ࡃ
(26) a. ࢞ࢯࣜࣥࡀ‶ᮼ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

b. ឡࡀ‶ᮼḟ࡟཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸࠿ࡽከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆᣢࡘ࠿࡝࠺࠿᳨

6
−142−

第16回大会発表論文集
7

第９号

࡞ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(29)b ࡛ࡢࠕ࣋ࢱ࣋ࢱࠖࡣࠊ㐟ࡪ࣭ࡃࡘ࡝ࡕࡽࡢ㢮⩏ㄒࡶࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⏝౛࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠋ
ࠕ‶ࢱࢁࡄ(㐟ᡙ࣭ఇᜥ)࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡢ୰࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿࠋ㢮⩏ㄒࣥࠖࡢព࿡࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿࡑࡢ௚ࡢ㢮⩏ㄒࢆ࠶࡚ࡣࡵ࡚ࡶࠊ

࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ࠸ࡕࡷ࠸ࡕࡷࠖࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ㢮࢞ࢯࣜࣥࡢሙྜࡶࠊឡࡢሙྜࡶ᳨⣴ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ

⩏ㄒࢆ(29)a,b ࡢࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡵࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺

ࡼࡗ࡚㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ᳨ドࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ
ࠕ‶

࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࢱࣥࠖ࡟ࡣከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(30) a. ࢝ࢵࣉࢣ࣮࢟ࡀ࡭ࡗ࡜ࡾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ

ḟ࡟཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸࠿ࡽࠕ‶ࢱࣥࠖࡀከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆᣢb. *࢝ࢵࣉࢣ࣮࢟ࡀ࢖ࢳࣕ࢖ࢳࣕࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ

ࡘ࠿࡝࠺࠿᳨ドࡍࡿࠋࠕ‶ࢱࣥࠖࡢ཯ᑐㄒࡣࠕ࠿ࡽࡗࡱࠖ
࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢㄒࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡵࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ

(31) a. *㞄ࡢ࢝ࢵࣉࣝࡀ࡭ࡗ࡜ࡾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋb. 㞄ࡢ࢝ࢵࣉࣝࡀ࢖ࢳࣕ࢖ࢳࣕࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
(27) a. ࢞ࢯࣜࣥࡀ✵ࡗࡱb. ឡࡀ✵ࡗࡱୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕ࢝ࢵࣉࢣ࣮࢟ࠖࡢሙྜࠊ㢮⩏ㄒࡀࠕ࡭ࡗ࡜ࡾࠖࡀ㐺ษ࡟࡞ࡾࠊ
ࠕ࢖ࢳࣕ࢖ࢳࣕࠖࡀ୙㐺᱁࡟࡞ୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࠕ࢞ࢯࣜࣥࡶ‶ࢱࣥ㸭✵ࡗࡱࠖࠊࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊࠕ࢝ࢵࣉࣝࠖࡢሙྜࠊࡑࡢ㢮ㄒㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕ࢖ࠕឡࡀ‶ࢱࣥ㸭✵ࡗࡱࠖ࡜࠸࠺཯ᑐㄒࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

ࢳࣕ࢖ࢳࣕࠖࡀ㐺ษ࡟࡞ࡾࠊ
ࠕ࡭ࡗ࡜ࡾࠖࡀ୙㐺᱁࡟࡞ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ཯యㄒࡣྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕ‶ࢱࣥࠖࡣ

ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࠿ࡽࠕ࣋ࢱ࣋ࢱࠖࡣከ⩏ⓗከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ู⩏ࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࠊ཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࡢࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᇶ‽࡛ከḟ࡟཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸࠿ࡽࠕ࣋ࢱ࣋ࢱࠖࡢከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆ⩏ࢸࢫࢺࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀ㢮⩏ㄒࡶ཯ᑐㄒࡶ㐪ࡗ࡚ᣢࡘ࠿࡝࠺࠿᳨ドࡍࡿࠋࠕ࣋ࢱ࣋ࢱࠖࡢ཯ᑐㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕࢧ

࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠕ‶ࢱࣥࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࡣከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࣛࢧࣛࠖࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࠕࢧࣛࢧࣛࠖࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟ᙜ࡚

ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ࡣࡵࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

(28) ᪂ᐟ㥐ࡢ࣑ࣝࢿࡢ࢝ࣇ࢙࡟࡚ࠊ࣮࢜ࢲ࣮ࡋࡓ࢝ࢵ

(32) a ࢝ࢵࣉࢣ࣮࢟ࡀࢧࣛࢧࣛࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
b*㞄ࡢ࢝ࢵࣉࣝࡀࢧࣛࢧࣛࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ

ࣉࢣ࣮࢟࡜㞄ࡢ࢝ࢵࣉࣝࡀ࣋ࢱ࣋ࢱࡋ࡚ࡿ
(Twitter ࡢࢶ࢖࣮ࢺ)࢝ࢵࣉࢣ࣮࢟ࡢࠕࢧࣛࢧࣛࠖࡣ㐺᱁࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ࡇࡢ⏝౛ࡶ㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡜཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸࠿ࡽከ⩏ⓗู࢝ࢵࣉࣝ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕࢧࣛࢧࣛࠖࡣ୙㐺᱁࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺

⩏ࢆᣢࡘ࠿࡝࠺࠿᳨ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ(23)ࢆ㸰ࡘࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

ࡢᩥ࡟ศゎࡍࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢ᳨ド࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ࣋ࢱ࣋ࢱ࡜࠸࠺ㄒྃࡶ㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࠊ཯ᑐㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡜࠸࠺ 2 ࡘࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ࢜ࣀ࣐ࢺ࡛࣌

(29) a. ࢝ࢵࣉࢣ࣮࢟ࡀ࣋ࢱ࣋ࢱࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ

ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆᣢࡘㄒ࡛ྃ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜b. 㞄ࡢ࢝ࢵࣉࣝࡀ࣋ࢱ࣋ࢱࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ(29)a ࡢࠕ࣋ࢱ࣋ࢱࠖࡣࠊ௜ࡃ࣭ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿ࣭╔ࡅࡿ(௜╔࣭⿦╔)࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡢ୰࡟ྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡢࠕ࣋

ᵒᴾ ᎋ‫ݑ‬ểኽᛯᴾࢱ࣋ࢱࠖࡢ㢮⩏ㄒࡣࠕ࡭ࡗࡓࡾ࣭࡭ࡗ࡜ࡾ࣭ࡡ࡜ࡡ࡜ࠖ

๓❶࡛⢄ᒣ(1993)ࡢከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࡢㄆᐃᇶ‽ࡢࠊ཯ᑐ

7
−143−

くびき語法の再考察―メタファー理論の観点から
8ㄒࡢ㐪࠸࡜㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㐪࠸ࡢ 2 ࡘࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⏝౛ࡢศᯒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚␗⩏ව⏝ᐤࡾࡢ⏝౛࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡾࠊ␗㉁㐃❧ᐤࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ㝿ࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆᣢࡘㄒྃࠊ

ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

୍⩏ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡋ࠿ᣢࡓ࡞࠸ㄒྃࠊከ⩏࡛࠶ࡿ࠿୍⩏ⓗࡇࡢ⪃࠼ࡣࠊ⏝౛ࡀ࡝ࡇ࠿ࡢࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ࡟ධࡿ࡜࠸

࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ุ᩿ࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸ㄒྃࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡑ

࠺๓ᥦࢆྰᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⏝౛ࢆ⥡㯇࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿᚲせᛶࡋ࡚㐃❧ࡍࡿㄒྃࡣࠊబ⸨௚(2006)ࡢ⏝౛࡛ࡶ Google࡞ࡃࠊ㔜࡞ࡾࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶၥ㢟࡛࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉࡛࠶᳨⣴࡛ࡶ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡶࡢࢆ㐃❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇ

ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࡣࠊ␗⩏ව⏝࡛࠶ࢀࡤ␗㉁㐃❧࡛࡞࠸ࠊ␗

ࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽከࡃࡢ⏝౛ࡣ␗⩏ව⏝࡛࠶ࡾࠊୟࡘ␗㉁㐃

㉁㐃❧࡛࠶ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤ␗⩏ව⏝࡛࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞⪃࠼❧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆ௨ୗࡢᅗᘧ࡟

᪉ࢆྰᐃࡍࡿࠋ

♧ࡍࠋ๓⠇࡛ᥦ♧ࡋࡓ⪃࠼᪉ࡣከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࡢㄆᐃᇶ‽ࢆ⏝࠸࡚⏝౛ࢆศᯒࡋࠊศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊబ⸨௚(2006)࡛ࡢ␗⩏ව⏝࡜␗㉁㐃❧ࡢ༊ศࡼࡾࡶᐈほⓗ࡟⏝౛ࢆ༊ศࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ⢄ᒣ
(1993)ࡢከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࡢㄆᐃᇶ‽ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ⤖ᯝࠊᮏㄽ࡛‫ ׋‬ᵐᴾ ီ፯ψဇểီឋᡲᇌỉ᣻ễụᴾ࠶ࡆࡓ༊ศࡀబ⸨௚(2006)࡛ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ␗⩏ව⏝࡜ᴾ

␗㉁㐃❧ࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸෌༊ศἲ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⤖ㄽ௜ࡅࡿࠋ

ୖグࡢᅗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ␗⩏ව⏝࡜␗㉁㐃❧ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣ㔜࡞ࡿ㒊ศࡀከࡃᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚␗⩏ව⏝Ӌᎋ૨ྂᴾ࡛࠶ࡿ⏝౛ࠊ␗㉁㐃❧࡛࠶ࡿ⏝౛ࠊ㔜࡞ࡾྜ࠺㒊ศ࡟ᑠᯇཎဴኴ 2012.ࠕಟ㎡⌮ゎࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡟㛵ࡍࡿᇶࡶ␗⩏ව⏝ᐤࡾࡢ⏝౛ࠊ␗㉁㐃❧ᐤࡾࡢ⏝౛ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ

♏ⓗ◊✲– ㌿⩏⌧㇟ࡢศᯒࢆ୰ᚰ࡟–ࠖி㒔኱Ꮫேࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⏝౛࡟ᗘྜ࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(1)㛫࣭⎔ቃᏛ◊✲⛉ಟኈㄽᩥ

ࡸ(28)ࡣከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࡢせ⣲ࡀࡣࡗࡁࡾ࡜ฟࡓࡓࡵࠊ␗ᯇᮏ᭙ ⦅ 2003.ࠗㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽ࠘(ࢩ࣮ࣜࢬㄆ▱ゝㄒධ⩏ව⏝ࡢせ⣲ࡀᙉ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ(6)࡜(24) ࡣ㛛➨㸱ᕳ) ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑࡘ࡞ࡄㄒࡀከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿

⢄ᒣὒ௓ 1993㸬ࠕከ⩏ㄒศᯒࡢ᪉ἲ㸫ከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࡢࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㐃❧ࡍࡿㄒྃࡢ≉ᚩࡀᙉ࠸࡜⪃࠼ㄆᐃࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚㸫ࠖࠗྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ᪥ᮏㄒ࣭᪥ᮏᩥ໬ㄽ㞟ࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ␗㉁㐃❧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

1࠘
ࠊ35-57㸬ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ␃Ꮫ⏕ࢭࣥࢱ࣮㸬㘠ᓥᘯ἞ᮁ 2011.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ

୍᪉ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡀ㔜࡞ࡾྜ࠺⏝౛ࡶᏑᅾࡋࡓࠋ㔜࡞ࡾྜ࠺ࡶࡢ࡜ࡣࠊ⏝౛ࡀࠊ␗⩏ව⏝࡛ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊ␗㉁㐃

∧❧࡛࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ3 ❶࡛ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ࡯࡜బ⸨ಙኵ࣭బࠎᮌ೺୍࣭ᯇᑿ኱. 2006. ࠗࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ

ࢇ࡝ࡢ⏝౛ࡀ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆ␗࡟ࡍࡿㄒྃࢆ㐃❧ࡋ࡚࠾஦඾࠘ᮾி: ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ㸬ࡾࠊຍ࠼࡚࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢ⏝౛ࡀࡘ࡞ࡄㄒ࡟ከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࢆ

Searle, J.1980. “The background of meaning” Inᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ␗⩏ව⏝

Searle,J., F.Kiefer and M.Bierwisch eds., Speech act

࡜␗㉁㐃❧ࡢ᫂☜࡞༊ศࡀ୙᫂░࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽ

theory and pragmatics. Dordrecht: Reidel, 221-232

ࢀࡿࠋబ⸨௚(2006)ࡀ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ␗⩏ව⏝࡜␗㉁㐃❧ᴾ

࡜࠸࠺ 2 ࡘࡢ༊ศ࡟ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᅗ 2 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㔜࡞ࡾྜࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚⏝౛࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᗘ
ྜ࠸ࡀ␗࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋከ⩏ⓗู⩏ࡢㄆᐃࡋ࡟ࡃ
࠸ㄒྃࡸࠊ᳨⣴ࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡞࡝ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⏝౛

8
−144−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕᐙ᪘ࠖ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂ㸸
WUXHUHDOࢆ࡚ࡀ࠿ࡾ࡟
ᒣ⏣ோᏊ ᚨᓥ኱Ꮫ 
$EVWUDFW!
7KLVVWXG\DLPVWRFODULI\KRZWKHFRQFHSWXDOFDWHJRULHVFRQFHUQLQJIDPLO\DUHIRUPHG
LQ(QJOLVK([DPLQDWLRQRIFRPELQDWRU\H[SUHVVLRQVRIWUXHRUUHDODQGIDPLO\WHUPVKHOSWRVROYHWKLVSUREOHP7ZR(QJOLVKWHUPVWUXHDQGUHDOFDQEHXVHGWRFODLPVRPHWKLQJLVDWUXHRUUHDOPHPEHURIDFDWHJRU\7KH\IXQFWLRQWRFDWHJRUL]HWKLQJVDQGUHSUHVHQWWKHG\QDPLFIRUFHVWRIRUPFDWHJRULHVLQFRQWH[WV7KHGDWDH[DPLQHGKHUHLQWKLVSDSHULVFROOHFWHGIURPWKH8.WH[WVLQWKHFRUSXVRI:RUG%DQNV2QOLQH࠙࢟—࣮࣡ࢻࠚ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬㸪ᐙ᪘㸪WUXH㸪UHDO




ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

 ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊⱥㄒᅪ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕᐙ᪘ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᴫᛕ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡀ࠸࠿࡟ᙧᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ
᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋⱥㄒ࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒࡢ౑⏝ሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿᴫᛕ࢝ࢸࢦ
࣮ࣜࡢᙧᡂࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ௒ᅇ WUXHUHDO ࡜࠸࠺஧ࡘࡢㄒᙡ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓࠋ WUXHUHDO ࡣࠊྡモࡢ๓࡟ࡘࡅ࡚㝈ᐃ⏝ἲ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿሙྜࠊࡑࡢྡモࡀᣦ♧ࡍࡿ஦≀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢྡモࢆࣛ࣋ࣝ࡜ࡍࡿㄒᙡ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟☜ᐇ࡟ᒓࡍࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᡂဨ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜
ࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ஦ࡀከ࠸ࠋఱࡽ࠿ࡢ஦≀ࢆ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ୰࡬☜ᐇ࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡴ᫬ࠊ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ⮬యࡢጼࡶᨵࡵ࡚☜ㄆࡉࢀᙧసࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࡇࡢ᫬ࠊ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂ
ࡀ㉳ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ%DUVDORX  /DNRII  0DF/DXU\  ࡞࡝࢝ࢸࢦࣜ
࣮ᙧᡂࢆㄽࡌࡓࡶࡢࡣࠊඹ᫬ⓗ࡞ㄒᙡ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᅛᐃࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ
࠿ࡋ௒ᅇࡢ◊✲࡛ࠊ᪥ࠎࡢⓎヰ᫬࡟ࡶ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂࡀ㉳ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣ᭱ึ࡟ࠊWUXHUHDO ࡜࠸࠺஧ࡘࡢㄒᙡࡀࠊᴫᛕ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿຊࢆ཯ᫎࡍ
ࡿ஦ᐇࡀࠊࠕᐙ᪘ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄒᙡࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎᡂ❧ࡍࡿ஦ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓྠ᫬࡟ࠊ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ
ᙧᡂ࡟࠾࠸࡚ WUXH ࡜ UHDO ࡢാࡁࡢඹ㏻Ⅼ࡜┦㐪Ⅼࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ ḟ࡟ WUXHUHDO࡟ IDPLO\PRWKHUIDWKHUFKLOGGDXJKWHUVRQ࡜࠸࠺ࠕᐙ᪘ࠖ࡟

−145−

英語における「家族」カテゴリー形成：true, real をてがかりに㛵ࡍࡿྡモࡀ⤖ࡧࡘࡃ⾲⌧ࢆࠊࡑࡢ๓ᚋࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡜ඹ࡟ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠿ࡽ཰㞟ࡋศᯒࡍࡿࠋ
࡞࠾౑⏝ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡣ &ROOLQV ♫ࡀᥦ౪ࡍࡿ :RUG%DQNV2QOLQH ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊⱥㄒࡢ✀㢮࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⤖ᯝࡀ␗࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ௒ᅇࡣ᳨⣴⠊ᅖࢆ࢖ࢠࣜࢫⱥㄒ࡟㝈ᐃࡋࡓࠋ 
 WUXHUHDO ࡜࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂ
 ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ WUXHUHDO ࡢඹ㏻Ⅼ WUXH ࡜ UHDO ࡟ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ」ᩘࡢព࿡⏝ἲࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ඹ࡟࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⏝ἲࢆᣢࡕࠊ
」ᩘࡢ㎡᭩࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡑࡢグ㏙ࡣ㔜࡞ࡿࠋ 2[IRUG'LFWLRQDU\RI(QJOLVK ࡛ࡣ WUXH ࡜ UHDO ࡢ㡯ࡢ࡝ࡕࡽ࡟ࡶ “rightly so called”࡜࠸
࠺グ㏙ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࠗࢪ࣮ࢽ࢔ࢫ኱㎡඾࡛࠘ࡶࠕᮏ≀ࡢࠖ࡜࠸࠺グ㏙ࡀඹ㏻ࡋ࡚ྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢඹ㏻ࡍࡿព࿡⏝ἲࡢグ㏙ࡣࠊWUXH ࡜ UHDO ࡀඹ࡟ヰ㢟࡜࡞ࡿ஦≀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ⥆ࡃྡモࢆࣛ࣋ࣝ࡜ࡍࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ୰࡟☜࠿࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿാࡁࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࢆ
♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊUHDOPRWKHUWUXHPRWKHU ࡣඹ࡟ヰ㢟ࡢே≀ࢆ 027+(5 ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ
୰࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀࡿᏑᅾ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
 ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ WUXHUHDO ࡢ┦㐪Ⅼ WUXH ࡜ UHDO ࡣࠊ๓⠇࡛㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊඹ࡟ఱ≀࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ୰࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿാࡁࢆᣢࡘࡀࠊࡑࡢ⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀ᪉ࡲ࡛ྠࡌ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋWUXH ࡣヰ㢟ࡢࡶࡢࢆ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ୰ᚰⓗᡂဨ࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨࡙ࡅࡿࡀࠊ୍᪉ UHDO ࡢ᪉ࡣࠊヰ㢟ࡢࡶࡢࢆ࢝ࢸࢦ
࣮ࣜࡢቃ⏺ࡼࡾෆഃ࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ WUXH ࡜ UHDO ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ┦㐪Ⅼࢆ♧ࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ %/8( ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟
ࡘ࠸࡚ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋWUXHEOXH ࡣヰ㢟࡜࡞ࡿ≀ࡢⰍࡀ %/8( ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ୰ᚰⓗᡂဨ࡜࡞ࡿ᭱
ࡶ EOXH ࡽࡋ࠸ EOXH ࡢⰍ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋḟࡢ౛  ࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࣛࣆࢫࣛࢬࣜࡢ㟷ࡣ WUXHEOXHࠊWUXHVWEOXH ࡜⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊࣛ࣋ࣥࢲ࣮ࡢῐ࠸㟷ࡣ  ࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ WUXHEOXH
࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋ
(1) It was lapis lazuli, the truest blue he had ever seen, and it seemed that the colour would last for all
eternity.
(2) Roses are red ; lavender is not true blue.
 ୍᪉ࠊUHDOEOXH ࡣヰ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࡶࡢࡢⰍࡀ %/8( ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢቃ⏺ࡼࡾෆഃ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ୺
ᙇࡍࡿࠋ⏕⫱ࡍࡿᅵᆅࡢᛶ㉁࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ⰽࡀኚ໬ࡍࡿ࠶ࡌࡉ࠸ࡢⰼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ㉥ࡸࣆࣥࢡ࡛࡞ࡃ㟷Ⰽࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺≧ἣ࡛ࡣࠊ㉥࡜㟷ࡢቃ⏺ࡀᙉࡃព㆑ࡉࢀࠊࡇࡢቃ⏺ࡼࡾࡶ㟷ࡢഃ࡟

−146−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ᒓࡍࡿⰍ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ุูࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せ࡞ព࿡ࢆᣢࡘࠋEOXH ࡜࿧࡭ࡿⰍࡔ࡜ุูࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜
࡟ࡼࡿ %/8( ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡬ࡢ⤌ࡳ㎸ࡳࡣ UHDO ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀࠊḟࡢ౛㸦㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
(3) In very acid soils some macrophylla and serrata types produce real blue, the same plant on neutralor alkaline soil can be pink or red.

 WUXH ࡜ UHDO ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂ࡟࠾ࡅࡿാࡁࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀୗࡢᅗ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀ

ࡿࠋ



 


ồᚰຊ

ศูຊ

㝿❧ࡕ

ቃ⏺ᇶ‽



   ᅗ㸯 WUXH ࡟཯ᫎࡍࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂ  ᅗ㸰 UHDO ࡟཯ᫎࡍࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂ WUXH ࡣヰ㢟ࡢ஦≀ࡀ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ㝿❧ࡘᛶ㉁ࢆഛ࠼ࡿ஦࡛⏕ࡌࡿồᚰຊ࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡑࡢ஦≀ࢆ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ୰ᚰ࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊUHDO ࡣ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢᡂဨࡓࡿ࡭ࡁᇶ‽ࢆ‶ࡓࡍ஦࡛⏕ࡌࡿศูຊ࡟ࡼࡾࠊヰ㢟ࡢ஦≀ࢆ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢෆഃ࡬࡜᣺ࡾศࡅࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ḟࡢ  ࡣ %1& ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠿ࡽ཰㞟ࡋࡓ౛ࡔࡀࠊWUXH࡜ UHDO ࡀ୧᪉⌧ࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ㸰✀㢮ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(4) If you have found true friends, you have real treasure. (BNC) 

WUXHIULHQGV ࡣࠊࡇࡢ཭ேࡀ )5,(1' ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ୰ᚰⓗᡂဨ࡜࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡞Ꮡᅾ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜
ࢆ♧ࡋࠊUHDOWUHDVXUH ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡣࡇࡢே≀ࡀ 75($685( ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢᡂဨ࡜ࡋ࡚ 75($685(
࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ධࢀ㎸ࡲࢀᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋWUHDVXUH ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡼ࠸㈗㔜࡞Ꮡᅾ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕᐙ᪘ࠖ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᙧᡂ ࡇࡢ❶࡛ࡣࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫⱥㄒᅪ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕᐙ᪘ࠖ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᙧᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ
࠿ࢆࠊ:RUG%DQNV2QOLQH ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠿ࡽ཰㞟ࡋࡓ౛ࡼࡾ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋWUXH ࡜ࠕᐙ᪘ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍ

−147−

英語における「家族」カテゴリー形成：true, real をてがかりにࡿㄒᙡ࡜ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࢆほᐹࡍࡿ஦࡟ࡼࡾࠊᐙ᪘ᵓᡂဨ࡜ࡋ࡚㔜せ࡞㝿❧ࡘᛶ㉁࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡾࠊࡲࡓ UHDO ࡜ࠕᐙ᪘ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄒᙡ࡜ࡢ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ⬦࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࢆほᐹࡍࡿ஦࡟ࡼࡾࠊᐙ᪘ᵓᡂဨ࡜ࡋ
࡚ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࡢቃ⏺ᇶ‽࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᛶ㉁ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡿࠋᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿㄒᙡࡣ

IDPLO\PRWKHUIDWKHUFKLOGGDXJKWHUVRQ ࡢ㸴ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢㄒᙡ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࡑࡢㄒᙡࢆࣛ࣋ࣝ࡜ࡍࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ㔜せ࡞㝿❧ࡘᛶ㉁࡜ቃ⏺ᇶ‽࡜࡞ࡿᛶ㉁ࢆࠊㄒᙡ࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡃ WUXH ࡜ UHDO ࢆᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡟ࡋ࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
)$0,/< ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ
 IDPLO\ ࡀ WUXH ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿ )$0,/< ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ㔜せ࡞㝿❧ࡘᛶ㉁ࡣࢢ࣮ࣝ
ࣉࢆᡂࡍே㛫ྠኈࡢࠕ⤖᮰࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ:RUG%DQNV2QOLQH ࡢ࢖ࢠࣜࢫⱥㄒࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ୰࡟ WUXHIDPLO\ ࡢ౛ࡣ㸲౛ぢࡽࢀࡓࡀࡑࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ㸱౛ࡀࡇࢀ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠋࡘࡂࡢ  ࡣࡑࡢ୍ࡘ࡜
࡞ࡿࠋ(5) … for six brief weeks we were a family, interdependent. We needed each other to simply survive.
We were a working unit and we learned some new relational skills. “Who is my mother and who are
my brothers?” With this question Jesus points out that true families are not only biological families.

 ࡛ࡣࠊ⾑⦕㛵ಀࡢ࡞࠸ே㛫ྠኈࡀ࠾஫࠸࡟༠ຊࡋྜ࠸ᚲせ࡜ࡋྜ࠺㛵ಀࢆᡂ❧ࡉࡏ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࠕ⤖᮰ࠖࡋࡓேࠎࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡀ WUXHIDPLO\ ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 IDPLO\ ࡀ UHDO ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿ )$0,/< ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢቃ⏺ᇶ‽࡜࡞ࡿᛶ㉁࡟ࡣࠊ
ࠕ⾑⦕ࠖࠕᐇᅾࠖࠕ⤖᮰ࠖࠕᐙ᪘ᵓᡂࠖࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀ௨ୗࡢ  ࠥ  ࡢ౛࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿࠋ
(6) Brett was adopted by a middle-class family from Hampshire. … Maybe he was ashamed of his realfamily …

(7) Thomson Superfamily are searching for a real family to be pictured in their next brochure …

(8) “ Who do you think’s going to be there to help you if you get into trouble?” he said. “We’re theonly real family you’ve got, baby. The only people you could turn to if things got nasty.

(9) … Put up for adoption at the age of five, … he grew up trying to fit in with his new family …. “Istill see my real Mum,” he says. “But we never had any money and she thought it was best I was−148−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

brought up with a real family, with brothers and sisters.
 ࡛ %UHWW ࡜࠸࠺ே≀ࡣ㣴Ꮚ⦕⤌ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ㣴∗ẕ࡜ࡢᐙᗞࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ㣴∗ẕ࡜ࡢᐙᗞ࡜ᑐẚࡍࡿᤊ࠼᪉࡟ࡼࡾࠊᐇࡢ∗ẕ࡜ࡢࠕ⾑⦕ࠖ࡟ࡼࡿ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡣ UHDOIDPLO\ ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࠊ)$0,/< ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
 ࡛ࡣࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌࡛タᐃࡉࢀࡓᐙ᪘ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡢࡔࡀࠊ)$0,/< ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆཝᐦ࡟ࡋࡼ

࠺࡜ࡋࡓ㝿࡟ࡣࡇࡢᐙ᪘ࡣ )$0,/< ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࠿ࡽ᤼㝖ࡉࢀࠊ⌧ᐇୡ⏺࡟Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠕᐇᅾࠖࡢᐙ᪘ࡀ )$0,/< ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࠋ ࡛ࡣ⾑⦕࡟ࡼࡿᐙ᪘ࡣᏑᅾࡍࡿࡢࡔࡀࠊࡇࡢヰ⪅ࡣࡇࡢ⾑⦕࡟ࡼࡿᐙ᪘ࢆ )$0,/< ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࠿ࡽ᤼㝖ࡋࠊ㢗ࢀࡿࠕ⤖᮰ࠖࡋࡓ௰㛫ࡓࡕࢆ )$0,/< ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡶ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋࡇࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜቃ⏺ࡼࡾෆഃ࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡶ࠺࡜࠸࠺ពᅗࡀ UHDO ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧࡟཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡛ࡶ⾑⦕࡟ࡼࡿẕࡀ࠸ࡿ≧ἣ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ㣴Ꮚ⦕⤌ࡉࢀࡓᐙᗞࡢ᪉ࡀ඗ᘵጜጒࡶ࠸࡚ࡑ

ࡢࠕᐙ᪘ᵓᡂࠖ࡟ࡼࡾ )$0,/< ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
027+(5 ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ
 PRWKHU ࡀ WUXH ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿ 027+(5 ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ㔜せ࡞㝿❧ࡘᛶ㉁ࡣࠕᏊ࡟
ᑐࡍࡿឡ᝟࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ⾑⦕㛵ಀࡣᡂ❧ࡍࡿሙྜࡶᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢ  ࡣࡑࡢ౛ࡔࡀࠊ  ࡛ WUXHPRWKHU ࡣ⏕ẕ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ᏊࢆಖㆤࡍࡿᏑᅾ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ  ࡛ࡣ⾑⦕㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡼࡾࡶᏊࢆឡࡋᏲࡿᛶ㉁ࢆഛ࠼ࡿே≀࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(10) … the ever-present stepmothers … whose aim is always to enlarge their own children at theexpense of the stepchild. There are, too, the true mothers, usually killed off early so that the story may
take its inevitable course, who counsel, conserve and protect.

(11) Two women disputed their motherhood of a baby. By threatening to divide the child between
them with his sword, Solomon determined the true mother, for she was the one prepared to give thechild away rather than see him destroyed.
 PRWKHU ࡀ UHDO ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿ 027+(5 ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢቃ⏺ᇶ‽࡜࡞ࡿᛶ㉁ࡣࠕ⾑⦕㛵ಀ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿሙྜࡀ࠿࡞ࡾከࡃࠊ ౛୰  ౛ࡔࡗࡓࠋḟࡢ  ࡣࡑࡢ౛࡛ࠊ㣴ẕ stepmother࡟ᑐẚࡍࡿ≧ἣ࡛ real mother ࡀⓏሙࡍࡿࠋ

(12) Leanne didn't get on well with her stepmother. They argued a lot. She missed her real mother,
who had died of cancer two years ago …

−149−

英語における「家族」カテゴリー形成：true, real をてがかりに ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࠕ⾑⦕㛵ಀࠖࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ027+(5 ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࠿ࡽ᤼㝖ࡉࢀࠊreal mother ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜୺ᙇࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢ౛(13)࡛ࡣࠊ➨୍ࡢヰ⪅ࡀࠕ⾑⦕㛵ಀࠖࢆ 027+(5 ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ
ࡢቃ⏺ᇶ‽࡜ࡋࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ➨஧ࡢヰ⪅ࡣࡇࡢᇶ‽ࢆㄆࡵ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

(13) ‘… so I reckoned your “ex-mother” might be your real mother.’ ‘She 's my birth mother, that 's
correct.’

 Real mother ࡀ♧ࡍ 027+(5 ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢቃ⏺ᇶ‽࡜࡞ࡿᛶ㉁ࡣࠊ
ࠕ⾑⦕㛵ಀࠖࡢ௚࡟ࠕ㣴⫱ࠖ㸦 ౛㸧ࠕឡ᝟ࠖ㸦 ౛㸧ࡀ㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿ౛ࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋḟࡢ౛(14)࡛ࡣ㣴⫱ࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓᐇࡢẕぶࡣ real mother ࡜ࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀࡎࠊ(15)࡛ࡣ㣴⫱ࡶឡ᝟ࡶ୚࠼࡞࠸ᐇࡢẕぶࡀ real mother ࡜ࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀࡎ 027+(5 ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࠿ࡽ᤼㝖ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

(14) … when was the beautiful woman I 'm looking at ever a real mother to me? It was Bridie, not she,
who raised me …

(15) My mother was horrible. She wasn't a real mother. I was awfully abused by my stepfather. I felt
like Cinderella. Cleaning, that 's all I ever did. They showed me no caring, no loving.

)$7+(5 ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ
 IDWKHU ࡀ WUXH ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿ )$7+(5 ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ㔜せ࡞㝿❧ࡘᛶ㉁ࡣࠕឡ࡜
ᑛᩗࡢᑐ㇟࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢ౛  ࡛ WUXHIDWKHU ࡟ࡣ୙ᐃෙモࡀࡘ࠸࡚࠾ࡾࠊ≉ᐃࡢே≀ࢆᣦࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࡇࡇ࡟࠶ࡿ “having never had”࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ⾑⦕㛵ಀ࠶ࡿᐇࡢ∗ぶ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡾ࠼࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ0\FRQLXV ࡜࠸࠺ே≀ࡣ 7KRPDV ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ឡࡋᑛᩗࡍࡿᏑᅾ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࡺ࠼࡟ IDWKHU ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

(16) Thomas lived with his guardian and mentor, Oswald Myconius, who directed the church school… Having never had a true father, Thomas became very attached to Myconius and later referred tohim as ‘father.’ IDWKHU ࡀ UHDO ࡜ඹ㉳ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟♧ࡉࢀࡿ )$7+(5 ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢቃ⏺ᇶ‽࡜࡞ࡿᛶ㉁ࡣ࡯࡜
ࢇ࡝ࡢሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕ⾑⦕࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢᇶ‽࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ
ᯟࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ุ᩿࡛ࡁࡿ UHDOIDWKHU ࡢ౛ࡣࠊ ౛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡑࡢ࠺ࡕ  ౛ࡀḟࡢ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ⾑⦕ࠖࢆᇶ‽࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ

−150−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

(17) I’ve just learned that my dad isn't my real father.
ࠕ⾑⦕ࠖࡢḟ࡟ከ࠿ࡗࡓࡢࡀḟࡢ  ࡟ࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ㣴⫱ࠖࢆᇶ‽࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛  ౛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ(18) ͐ you will be responsible for the maintenance of your child and you would also have a moral
responsibility to be a real father.
&+,/''$8*+7(5621 ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ
 &+,/''$8*+7(5621 ࡢ㸱ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊWUXH ࡀ♧ࡍ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ㝿❧ࡕࡣࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠕぶࡢᛶ㉁ࢆഛ࠼ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡜ุ᩿࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ┦㐪Ⅼࡣ࠶ࡾࠊ&+,/' ࡀぶࡢከࡃࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ୍㌟࡟ᘬࡁཷࡅࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ'$8*+7(5 ࡜ 621 ࡣ㝈ᐃⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆ᫬⣔ิⓗ࡟ᘬࡁ⥅ࡄⅬ࡟↔Ⅼࡀᙜ࡚ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕぶࡢᛶ㉁ࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࡓࡀࠊࠕぶࠖ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࡢࡣே㛫࡛ࡉ࠼࡞࠸ሙྜࡶከࡃࠊḟࡢ౛(19) (20) (21)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿ౛ࡀከ࠸ࠋ  ࡢ Hugh Howorth ࡜࠸࠺ே≀ࡣ⏘ᴗ㠉࿨ࢆయ⌧ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡇࡢ᫬௦࡟⏕ࡁࠊࡇࡢ᫬
௦ࡢ⢭⚄ࢆ⮬ศࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(20)ࡢ Juanita ࡣࢣࢽ࢔ࡢゝㄒࡸᩥ໬ࢆᘬࡁ⥅ࡄዪᛶ࡛࠶
ࡾࠊ(21)ࡢ Blair ࡣ࣐࣮࢞ࣞࢵࢺ࣭ࢧࢵࢳ࣮ࣕࡢᨻ⟇ࢆᘬࡁ⥅࠸࡛࠸ࡿࠋ(19) Hugh Howorth was a man whose enthusiasm, application and patience made a difference. As one
surgeon friend put it on hearing of his death, he was a true child of the Industrial Revolution.

(20) Juanita told me not only that she will always regard Kenya as home but … “I was expelled from aschool in England because I refused to speak anything but Swahili,” she said. … Whether or not she is
the daughter of John Carberry, Juanita is surely a true daughter of Kenya.

(21) Blair shows himself a true son of Margaret Thatcher.
 UHDO ࡀ♧ࡍ &+,/''$8*+7(5621 ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢቃ⏺㡿ᇦࢆᡂࡍᇶ‽࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ027+(5ࡸ )$7+(5 ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠕ⾑⦕ࠖࡀタᐃࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡀከ࠸ࡀࠊḟࡢ౛(22)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ⾑⦕ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᇶ‽ࢆᣄ⤯ࡋ࡚᪂ࡓ࡞ᇶ‽ࢆタᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ(22) “Is she your real daughter or was she adopted?” She answered by saying, “She’s my real daughter.
She was also adopted.”−151−英語における「家族」カテゴリー形成：true, real をてがかりにࡇࡇ࡛➨୍ࡢヰ⪅ࡣࠕ⾑⦕ࠖࢆᇶ‽࡜ࡋ࡚ '$8*+7(5 ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆㄆ㆑ࡋࠊVKH ࡀᣦࡋ♧ࡍே≀ࢆࡇࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ୰࡟ධࡿ࠿ධࡽ࡞࠸࠿ࢆၥ㢟࡜ࡍࡿࡀࠊ➨஧ࡢヰ⪅ࡣࠕ⾑⦕ࠖࢆ
'$8*+7(5 ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢᇶ‽࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜⮬యࢆᣄ⤯ࡋࠊࠕ⾑⦕ࠖࡢ࡞࠸㣴ዪࢆ '$8*+7(5 ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ୰࡟ධࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡣࠊ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ୰ᚰⓗ࡞㝿❧ࡘᛶ㉁࡟ࡼࡿồᚰຊ࡜࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢᯟࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿቃ⏺ᇶ‽ࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࡢศูຊ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚⏕ᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࡇࡢ⌧㇟ࡣ௒ᅇศᯒࡋࡓ࢖ࢠࣜࢫⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕᐙ᪘ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋồᚰຊࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡍ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ㝿❧ࡘᛶ㉁࡟࡞ࡾࡸࡍ࠸ࡢࡣࠊ)$0,/< ࡛ࡣࠕ⤖᮰ࠖࠊ027+(5 ࡛ࡣࠕឡ᝟ࠖࠊ)$7+(5 ࡛ࡣࠕឡ࡜ᑛᩗࠖࠊ&+,/''$8*+7(5621 ࡛ࡣࠕぶࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ
ഛ࠼ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊศูຊࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡍ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢቃ⏺ᇶ‽࡜࡞ࡾࡸࡍ࠸
ࡢࡣࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡢㄒᙡ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠕ⾑⦕࡛ࠖ࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ⏕ᡂ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ㝿❧ࡘᛶ㉁ࡸቃ⏺ᇶ‽࡜࡞ࡿせ⣲ࡣࠊࡑࡢㄒᙡࡀⓎヰࡉࢀࡿࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟
ࡼࡾྲྀᤞ㑅ᢥࡉࢀ࠺ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕᐙ᪘ࠖ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡣࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᰂ㌾࡟ኚ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋㅰ㎡
Ⓨ⾲᫬࡟ࡣ㈗㔜࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㡬ࡁࡲࡋࡓ஦ࢆࡇࡇ࡟ឤㅰ⮴ࡋࡲࡍࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1983) “Ad Hoc Categories,” Memory and Cognition 11, 211-227.
Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1993) “Flexibility, Structure, and Linguistic Vagary in Concepts: Manifestations of a
Compositional System of Perceptual Symbols,” Theories of Memory, ed. by Collins, Alan F., Susan E.
Gathercole, Martin A. Conway and Peter E. Morris, 29-101, Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Lakoff, George (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
MacLaury, Robert E. (1995) “Vantage Theory,” Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, ed. byJohn R. Taylor and Robert E. MacLaury, 231-276, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
ᒣ⏣ ோᏊ㸦2010㸧 ࠕ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿ 2 ✀㢮ࡢ࣋ࢡࢺࣝ, -ࠕ┿(ࡲ)+ Ⰽᙬㄒᙡ⾲⌧ࠖࡢศᯒ -ࠖ,ࠗᚨᓥ኱Ꮫ⥲ྜ⛉Ꮫ㒊ゝㄒᩥ໬◊✲࠘, Vol.18, 115ࠥ130 㡫㹝㹝㹝㹝㹝㸦2012㸧ࠕ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬ࢆಁࡍ 2 ✀ࡢ࡭ࢡࢺ࣮ࣝReal Mother ࡜ True Motherࠖ኱ᶫᾈ ௚ ⦅ࠗࡇ࡜ࡤ࡜ࡇࡇࢁࡢ᥈ồ࠘, 㛤ᣅ♫−152−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

͆ᩥ໬ⓗ͇཯⩏ㄒࡢヨ᱌㸸➨  ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜ࡋ࡚
ᒣ⏣ᨻ㏻ ᣅṪ኱Ꮫ㺃እᅜㄒᏛ㒊 myamada@ner.takushoku-u.ac.jp<Abstract>
Antonymy is usually examined in terms of the three-way distinction, namely gradable,
complementary and directional antonyms. This paper proposes a new category of culturalantonyms, which are defined as pairs of multiple incompatibility used for a binary contrast. It
then offers a preliminary classification on the basis of differing contexts in which they occur.
Although pairings of cultural antonyms may vary in different languages, they constitute animportant part of the cultural schema in each language. A proper treatment of culturalantonyms can be beneficial to language learners’ vocabulary enrichment and culturallearning as well as to improved descriptions in dictionaries.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ1 ཯⩏ᛶࠊ2 ᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࠊ3 ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࠊ4 ከ㡯㠀୧❧ᛶࠊ5 ஧㡯ᑐ❧1㸬 ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
཯⩏ᛶ㸦antonymy㸧ࡣࠊྠ⩏ᛶࠊୖୗ㛵ಀࠊ㠀୧❧ᛶ࡜ඹ࡟ࠊㄒᙡࡢព࿡㛵ಀ㸦sense relations㸧ࡢ㔜せ࡞ᵓᡂせ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࠋ཯⩏ᛶࡣࠊᚑ᮶㸱ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠕᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࠖ࡜࠸࠺᪂ࡓ࡞࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ㸱ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡓ཯⩏ㄒ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ
≉ᚩࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࠊලయ౛ࢆᣲࡆ࡚ゎㄝࡍࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ᐇ㝿ࡢ౑⏝౛ࢆㄯヰศᯒࡢᡭἲ➼ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚
⢭ᰝࡋࠊ᭱ᚋ࡟ᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡢ᭷⏝ᛶࢆ᥈ࡿࠋ ཯⩏ㄒࡢ 3 ศ㢮཯⩏ㄒࡣࠊ㏻౛(1)ẁ㝵ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࠊ(2)┦⿵ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࠊࡑࡋ࡚(3)᪉ྥⓗ཯⩏ㄒ࡜㸱ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
ẁ㝵ⓗ཯⩏ㄒ㸦gradable antonyms㸧࡜ࡣࠊmore or less ࡜࠸࠺ẁ㝵ⓗ࡞㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ཯⩏ㄒ࡛ࠊ᭱኱ࡢ≉ᚩࡣ཯⩏ㄒ㛫࡟୰㛫ẁ㝵ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋlong/short, old/young ࡞࡝ࡀࡑࡢ౛࡛ࠊ
ẚ㍑⣭ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊ↓ᶆ࣭᭷ᶆࡢ≉ᚩࢆ♧ࡍࠋ(2)ࡢ┦⿵ⓗ཯⩏ㄒ (complementary antonyms㸧
ࡣࠊA or B ࡜࠸࠺஧⪅ᢥ୍ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ཯⩏ㄒ࡛ࠊ(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞୰㛫ẁ㝵ࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ඾ᆺ౛࡜
ࡋ࡚ࡣ present/absent, alive/dead ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊA ࡀᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࢀࡤࠊB ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡣࢮࣟ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ᭱
ᚋࡢ(3)᪉ྥⓗ཯⩏ㄒ (directional antonyms㸧ࡣࠊ཯⩏ㄒྠኈࡀఱࡽ࠿ࡢ཯ᑐ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿሙྜ࡛
࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࡉࡽ࡟ 3 ✀㢮࡟ୗ఩༊ศࡉࢀࠊ(a)㏫᪉ྥ཯⩏ㄒ (reversives㸸up/down, pull/push,

begin/stop ࡞࡝㸧ࠊ(b)୧ᑐᴟ཯⩏ㄒ (antipodals㸸top/bottom, entrance/exit ࡞࡝)ࠊ(c)㏫㛵ಀ཯⩏ㄒ (converses㸸above/below, buy/sell, husband/wife ࡞࡝㸧࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡿࠋ3͆ᩥ໬ⓗ͇཯⩏ㄒ 㸦
͆Cultural͇Antonyms㸧๓⠇ࡢ 3 ศ㢮࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞࠸཯⩏ㄒࡀࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡶ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ኱ሯ㸤୰ᓥ
1−153−

“文化的”反義語の試案：第４のカテゴリーとして

㸦1982:84㸧ࡣࠊࠕᩥ໬ⓗ࡟ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡓ཯⩏ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ town/countryࠊ࢔࢝/ࢩࣟ࡞࡝ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
౛࠼ࡤࠊ๓⪅ࡣ I prefer the town to the country.ࡢࡼ࠺࡟౑ࢃࢀࠊᚋ⪅ࡣࠊ⚃࠸஦࡛ࡣ⣚ⓑ㤝㢌ࠊᑐᢠࡍࡿࡶࡢࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ࡁࡣ⣚ⓑヨྜࡢࡼ࠺࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋHofmann (1993:40) ࡣࠊከࡃࡢ࢔࣓ࣜ
࢝ே࡟࡜ࡾ mountain ࡢ཯ᑐࡣ valley ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊከࡃࡢ᪥ᮏே࡟࡜ࡾࠕᒣࠖࡢ཯ᑐࡣࠕᾏࠖ
࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜㏙࡭ࠊゝㄒࡢ▱㆑࡜ඹ࡟ᩥ໬ⓗ࡞⫼ᬒࡀ㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊCruse(1986:198㸤2000:167) ࡣ tea/coffee 㸦㣗ᚋࡢ㣧ࡳ≀࡜ࡋ࡚㸧ࡸ gas/electricity㸦⇕※࡜ࡋ࡚㸧࡞࡝ࡢᑐ❧ࢆ͆accidental opposites͇㸦ࠕഅ↛ࡢᑐ❧ㄒࠖ㸧࡜࿧ࡧࠊ㏻ᖖࡢ཯⩏ㄒ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊㄽ⌮ⓗࠊᮏ㉁ⓗ࡞᰿ᣐࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ஦ᐇୖ 2 ࡘࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࡋ࠿࡞࠸≧ἣ࡛ࡣᑐ❧ࡍࡿㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡸ
ࡍ࠸࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࠊᮧᮌ㸦2005:94㸧ࡀࠊ཯⩏ㄒࡢ㸯ศ㢮࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ㛤࠸ࡓ཯⩏ᑐࠖࢆタᐃࡋࠊ㒊ᒇࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜ࡋ࡚࿴ᐊ/ὒᐊࡢ࣌࢔࣮࡞࡝ࢆ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᚑ᮶ࡢ 3 ศ㢮࡟ࡣᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞࠸཯⩏ㄒ࡛ࠊᩥ໬ⓗ࡞⫼ᬒࢆᣢࡘ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࢆᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋୖ㏙ࡢ◊✲ࡣࠊ཯⩏ㄒ඲యࡢ⪃ᐹ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࠶ࡃ
ࡲ࡛ࡶ୍ศ㢮࡜ࡋ࡚ᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒ࡟㒊ศⓗ࡟ゐࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࡢᐃ⩏௜ࡅࡸୗ఩ศ㢮࡞࡝ࢆྵࡵࠊᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡢ඲యീࢆ᥈ࡿᮏ᱁ⓗ࡞ㄪᰝ◊✲ࡣⓙ↓࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡣࠊᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡢ඲
యീ࡟㏕ࡿ◊✲ࡢ➨୍Ṍ࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ᣦࡍࠋ
3.1.͆ᩥ໬ⓗ͇཯⩏ㄒࡢᐃ⩏ᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒ࡜ࡣࠊඖ᮶ࡣୗ఩ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ከ㡯㠀୧❧ᛶ㸦multiple incompatibility㸧ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ㸰ㄒࡀࠊᐇ㝿ࡢゝㄒ౑⏝࡛㑅ᢥ⫥ࡀࡑࡢ㸰ࡘ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࠊ࠶ࡓ࠿ࡶ┦⿵ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᢅࢃ
ࢀࡿ౛࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣᐃ⩏ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋCruse ࡢ tea/coffee ࢆ౛࡟ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊୗグ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㣧ࡳ≀㸦beverage㸧ࡢୗ఩ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ」ᩘࡢࡶࡢࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡀࠊ㣕⾜୰ࡢᶵෆ㣗ࡢ᭱ᚋ࡟ฟࡉࢀࡿ㣧ࡳ≀࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ㏻౛᭱ึࡢ஧ࡘ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢ஧ࡘࡀ஧⪅ᢥ୍ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࡞ࡾࠊ஧㡯ᑐ❧㸦binary opposition㸧ࢆ♧ࡍ཯⩏ㄒࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᢅࢃࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

beveragetea

coffee

milk

cocoa

coke

beer

etc.

ᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡣࠊ୍⯡ࡢ㎡᭩࡟ࡣ཯⩏ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣグ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜࡀከࡃࠊ≉࡟ㄒᏛᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࡣᏛࡧ࡟ࡃ࠸⌧≧࡟࠶ࡿࠋ㏻ᖖ཯⩏ㄒࡣព࿡ㄽࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡣ⌧ᐇࡢୡ⏺࡜┤᥋ಀࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࠊㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞せ⣲ࢆከࡃ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

3.2.͆ᩥ໬ⓗ͇཯⩏ㄒࡢศ㢮ᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒ࡟⯆࿡ࢆᣢࡘࡁࡗ࠿ࡅࡣࠊⴭ⪅⮬㌟ࡀ 1999㸫2000 ᖺ࡟࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ࣡ࢩࣥࢺࣥ DC㏆㑹࡛⏕άࡋࡓ᫬࡟㐼㐝ࡋࡓ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᐇ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢫ࣮ࣃ࣮ࡢࣞࢪ࡛ࡣ᭱ᚋ࡟͆Paper orplastic?͇
㸦ࠕ⣬⿄ࠊࡑࢀ࡜ࡶࣅࢽ࣮ࣝ⿄ࠖ㸧࡜イ࠿ࢀࠊᗑ࡛ࡣ ͆Cash or charge?͇
㸦ࠕ⌧㔠࡛ࡍ࠿ࠊ
2−154−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

࣮࢝ࢻ࡛ࡍ࠿ࠖ㸧࡜ᨭᡶ࠸᪉ἲࡢ㑅ᢥࢆイࡡࡽࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊࢻࣛࢵࢢࢫࢺ࢔࣮࡛ฎ᪉⟢ࢆฟࡍ࡜͆Brand or generic?͇㸦ࠕࣈࣛࣥࢻ⸆ရࠊࡑࢀ࡜ࡶࢪ࢙ࢿࣜࢵࢡ⸆ရ࡛ࡍ࠿ࠖ㸧࡜ၥࢃࢀࠊࣇ࢓࣮
ࢫࢺࣇ࣮ࢻᗑ࡛ࡶ͆For here or to go?͇㸦ࠕᗑෆ࡛࠾ྊࡋୖࡀࡾࠊࡲࡓࡣ࠾ᣢࡕᖐࡾ㸽ࠖ㸧࡜࠸࠺㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆᢞࡆ࠿ࡅࡽࢀࡓࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ͆A or B͇࡜࠸࠺㑅ᢥࢆイࡡࡿᙧᘧ࡛ࠊ
ࡑࡢᙜ᫬⌧ᆅ࡛᪥ᖖ⏕άࢆ㏦ࡿ࡟ࡣ୙ྍḞ࡞㔜せ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡗࡓ㸦ࡓࡔࡋࠊࣞࢪ⿄ࡢ✀㢮ࠊᨭᡶ᪉ἲࠊ⸆ရࡢศ㢮ࠊὀᩥࡢ௙᪉࡞࡝⌧ᐇୡ⏺ࡀኚࢃࢀࡤࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡶᙜ↛ኚ໬ࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ㸧 ᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡣࠊ㐺⏝⠊ᅖ࡟ࡼࡾ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡑ࠺ࡔࠋ౽ᐅୖࠊձ୍⯡ⓗᑐ❧㸦General
Opposites㸧ࠊղᅜෆࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᑐ❧㸦National Opposites㸧ࠊճ࣮ࣟ࢝ࣝ࡞ᑐ❧㸦Local Opposites)ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋࠊ౛࡜ඹ࡟㡰࡟ぢ࡚࠸ࡃࠋձ ͆General Opposites͇㸸ୡ⏺࡛ᗈࡃㄆ▱ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ
(1) flights ….…… : domestic vs. international(2) sport events .. : home vs. away
(3) sexuality ……: straight vs. gayࡲࡎࠊձࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࡣࠊᅜࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࢆ㉸࠼࡚ᅜ㝿ⓗ࡟㏻⏝ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊ⯟✵౽࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡢ

domestic/international㸦ᅜෆ⥺࣭ᅜ㝿⥺㸧࡜࠸࠺ᑐ❧ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࢫ࣏࣮ࢶࡢୡ⏺࡛ࡣࠊ࣮࣒࣍㸦ࢤ࣮࣒㸧࡜࢔࢙࣮࢘㸦ࢤ࣮࣒㸧࡜࠸࠺༊ูࡀࡼࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ㸦໚ㄽࠊࢫ࣏࣮ࢶࡢ✀㢮࡟ࡼࡿࡀ㸧
ࠋࡲࡓࠊᛶⓗႴዲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊ␗ᛶཪࡣྠᛶࢆዲࡴ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜࠸࠺༊ูࡀᗈࡃㄆ▱ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮ࠼ࡿࠋ
ḟࡢղࡣࠊᅜෆ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᑐ❧࡛ࠊ≉ᐃࡢゝㄒᩥ໬ᅪෆ࡛㏻⏝ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡀྵࡲࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ
࢖ࢠࣜࢫ㸦UK㸧ࡢᨻ἞࡛ࡣ Conservative/Labour㸦ಖᏲඪ[ࡢ]/ປാඪ[ࡢ]㸧ࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝㸦US㸧࡛ࡣ Democrat/Republican㸦Ẹ୺ඪ[ࡢ]/ඹ࿴ඪ[ࡢ]㸧ࡢ࣌࢔࣮ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ղ ͆National Opposites͇㸸≉ᐃࡢゝㄒᩥ໬ᅪ࡛㏻⏝ࡍࡿࡶࡢ(4) UK politics ……: Conservative vs. Labour(5) US politics ……: Democrat vs. Republican(6) UK universities : Oxford vs. Cambridge(7) UK bus …………: bus vs. coach(8) US governments: state vs. federalࡑࡢ௚࡛ࡣࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫࢆ௦⾲ࡍࡿ኱Ꮫ࡜ࡋ࡚ Oxford ኱Ꮫ࡜ Cambridge ኱Ꮫࡢ஧ࡘࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡼࡁ
ࣛ࢖ࣂࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚஫࠸࡟ẚ㍑ࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦୧⪅ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࡢᙉࡉࢆ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊOxbridge ࡜࠸࠺ΰᡂㄒࡶ⏕ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧ࠋ(7)ࡢࠕᕷෆࣂࢫࠖ࡜ࠕ㛗㊥㞳㸦ほග㸧ࣂࢫࠖࡢᓧูࡶࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫ
ⱥㄒࡢ≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ(8)ࡢࠕᕞᨻᗓ㸦ࡢ㸧ࠖ࡜ࠕ㐃㑥ᨻᗓ㸦ࡢ㸧ࠖࡢᑐ❧ࡣࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢᨻ἞࣭♫఍ไᗘࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿୖ࡛ࡢ୙ྍḞ࡞࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3−155−

“文化的”反義語の試案：第４のカテゴリーとして ➨ 3 ࡢ࣮ࣟ࢝ࣝ࡞ᑐ❧ࡣࠊ୍ࡘࡢゝㄒᩥ໬ᅪ୰ࡢ㝈ࡽࢀࡓ⠊ᅖෆ࡛㏻⏝ࡍࡿࡶࡢࢆ᝿ᐃࡍࡿࠋ
ճ ͆Local Opposites͇㸸 ୍ࡘࡢゝㄒᩥ໬ᅪ୰ࡢ㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡓ⠊ᅖ࡛㏻⏝ࡍࡿࡶࡢ(9) Rival football clubs in Glasgow, Scotland: Celtic vs. Rangers(10) in the minds of people in Edinburgh (UK): Edinburgh vs. Glasgow(11) in the minds of people in Washington, D.C. :Washington, DC vs. New York             ᆅᇦ㝈ᐃࡢ࣮ࣟ࢝ࣝᑐ❧࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊୖ࡟ 3 ࡘࡢ౛ࢆᣲࡆࡓࡀࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶⴭ⪅ࡢ⌧ᆅ࡛ࡢ⁫ᅾయ㦂ࡀᇶ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ(9)࡛ࡣ࢖ࢠࣜࢫ࣭ࢢࣛࢫࢦ࣮࡟ᮏᣐᆅࢆከࡃ஧ࡘࡢࢧࢵ࣮࢝ࢳ࣮࣒ࠊCeltic࡜ Rangers ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ๓⪅ࡣ࢝ࢺࣜࢵࢡ⣔ࠊᚋ⪅ࡣࣉࣟࢸࢫࢱࣥࢺ⣔ࢧ࣏࣮ࢱ࣮ࡀᛂ᥼
ࡋ࡚࠸࡚ࠊᙉ㇦ࡢ୧ࢳ࣮࣒ࡣ㛗ᖺࡢࣛ࢖ࣂࣝ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(10) ࡣࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫ࣭ࢫࢥࢵࢺࣛࣥࢻ
ࡢ࢚ࢪࣥࣂࣛᕷࡢఫே࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊEdinburgh/Glasgow ࡜࠸࠺ᑐᢠព㆑ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
࢚ࢪࣥࣂࣛࡣࠊேཱྀ㠃࡛ࡣࢢࣛࢫࢦ࣮࡟ຎࡿࡀࠊࢫࢥࢵࢺࣛࣥࢻࡢ㤳㒔࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㄂ࡾࡸ㔠⼥࣭ಖ㝤ᴗ࡛₶ࡗࡓ࣍࣡࢖ࢺ࣮࢝ࣛࡢ㒔ᕷ࡜࠸࠺⮬㈇ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊປാ⪅ࡢ⏫࡜࠸࠺࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᣢࡘᚋ⪅࡜ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ᩄឤ࡛࠶ࡿࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊ(11)ࡢ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ࣡ࢩࣥࢺࣥ D.C.ࡢఫே࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊWashington,

D.C. /New York ࡜࠸࠺ᑐẚࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ⾤ࡢつᶍ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ኱ࡁ࡞ᕪࡀ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊ࣡ࢩࣥࢺࣥ
D.C.ࡢఫே࡟ࡣࠊᨻ἞ࡢ୰ᚰ࡛࠶ࡿ⮬㈇ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊఱ࠿࡟ࡘࡅࣅࢪࢿࢫࡢ୰ᚰᆅ࡛࠶ࡿࢽ࣮࣮ࣗࣚ
ࢡ࡟ᑐᢠព㆑ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ࡓࡔࡋࠊNY ࡢఫே࡟ࡣࠊ࣡ࢩࣥࢺࣥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ≉ẁࡢᑐᢠព㆑ࡣ࡞
ࡉࡑ࠺࡛ࠊ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶ୍᪉㏻⾜ࡢᛮ࠸ࡢࡼ࠺ࡔ㸧ࠋ
3.3.͆ᩥ໬ⓗ͇཯⩏ㄒࡢ≉ᚩᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡢ≉ᚩࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡲࡎࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ౫Ꮡ㸦context dependency㸧ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ
ࡿࠋࡇࡢ≉ᛶࡣࠊ཯⩏ㄒ୍⯡ࡢ≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡶゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦͆context sensitive͇in Jones et al.
2012㸧ࡀࠊ3.4 ࡢᐇ౛࡛♧ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒ࡛ࡣࡑࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀࡉࡽ࡟㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡣࠊᩥ໬ⓗ⫼ᬒ▱㆑ࢆ♧ࡍࢫ࣮࣐࢟㸦schema㸧ࡢ㔜せ࡞୍㒊ࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀ
ࡿࡀࠊྠࡌⱥㄒᅪ࡛ࡶࣂ࢚࣮ࣜࢩࣙࣥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ࠿ࡘ᫬ࡢ⤒㐣࡜ඹ࡟ኚ໬ࡍࡿⅬ࡟␃ពࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊඛ࡟ᣲࡆࡓ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ⱥㄒࡢ⾲⌧͆For here or to go?͇ࡣࠊ௚࡟͆To stay or to go?͇࡜࠸࠺ゝ࠸᪉ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊ࢖ࢠࣜࢫ࡛ࡣ͆For here or take away?͇ ࡀ୍⯡ⓗࡔ࡜࠸࠺㸦ෆ⏣ 2009㸸
203-4㸧ࠋࡲࡓࠊ㏻᫬ⓗ࡞ኚ໬ࡢ౛ࢆᣲࡆࡿ࡜ࠊᗂඣ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ⱥㄒᩥ໬ᅪ࡛ࡣ͆blue for boys andpink for girls͇࡜࠸࠺⏨ዪࡢⰍศࡅ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣ㐣ཤ 30 ᖺ࡯࡝ࡢ័⩦࡛ࠊࡑࢀ௨๓ࡣ᫂☜࡞༊ูࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3.4. ࡑࡢ௚ࡢ౛
(1) ㎡᭩࡟㍕ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸౛㸸 kid vs. boy
๓㏙ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡣࠊ㎡᭩࡟᫂☜࡞グ㏙ࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡀከ࠸ࠋḟࡢ kid ࡜ boy ࡢᑐ❧ࡶࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ౛ࡣࠊ୰ᖺ⏨ᛶࡀ⮬ศࡢᑡᖺ᫬௦ࢆᅇ᝿ࡍࡿ㒊ศ࡛ࠊ8 ṓࡢ᫬ึࡵ࡚Ꮫᰯࢆࡉࡰࡗ࡚ࠊᖺୖࡢ୙Ⰻࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡜㔮ࡾ࡟⾜ࡗࡓሙ㠃ࡢᥥ෗࡛࠶ࡿ㸦ୗ⥺ࡣⴭ⪅㸧
㸸
4
−156−

第16回大会発表論文集

(12)

第９号

… I knew that I wasn’t a kid any longer, I was a boy at last. And it’s a wonderful thing

to be a boy, to go roaming where grown-ups can’t catch you, and to chase rats and killbirds ... 㸦ฟ඾㸸Orwell, George㸦1939㸧Coming Up for Air, p.66㸧

Longman ࡢ LDOCE 5th ed.㸦2009:958㸧ࡢ kid ࡢ➨ 1 㡯࡟ࡣࠊ͆[informal] a child͇ ࡜࠶ࡾࠊ㸦ኴࡑࢀ࡟⥆ࡃ REGISTER ࡢゎㄝ࡟ࡣ͆Kid is informal. For formal or written styles use child͇Ꮠࡣཎᩥࡢࡲࡲ㸧࡜࠸࠺グ㏙ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊkid ࡣࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢⅬ࡛ child ࡜㢮⩏㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡾࠊ⏨ࡢᏊࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃዪࡢᏊࡶྵࡴࡢ࡛ࠊṇ☜࡟ࡣ⏨Ꮚ㝈ᐃࡢ boy ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ཯⩏ㄒ࡟ࡣ࡞ࡾ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡲ
ࡓࠊkid ࡜ boy ࡣࠊᏊ౪ࡢᡂ㛗㐣⛬ࢆ♧ࡍ㢮⩏ㄒ࡜ࡶᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ࠸ࡎࢀ࡟ࡏ
ࡼࠊ㎡᭩࡛ࡣ཯⩏ㄒ࡜ࡢグ㏙ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊୖグࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠕࡶ࠺⮬ศࡣᏊ౪㸦kid㸧࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡘ࠸࡟
ᑡᖺ㸦boy㸧࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠖ࡜ࠊkid ࡜ boy ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ᑐ❧ᴫᛕ࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(2) ᭱㏆ࡢ౛㸸medical vs. recreationalᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡣࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟౫Ꮡࡋ࡚ᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ㏻ᖖࡣ཯⩏ㄒ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀ࡞࠸࣌࢔࣮
ࡶࠊ≉ᐃࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛ᑐ❧ᴫᛕ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୗࡢ౛ࡣࠊ኱㯞ゎ⚗ࡢࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ࡛ࠊ኱㯞౑⏝࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ medical㸦་⒪⏝㸧࡜ recreational㸦Ⴔዲ⏝㸧ࡀࠊᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࠋ
(13) Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia now have laws legalizing marijuana insome form. So far, only Colorado and Washington states have legalized marijuana forrecreational use, while other states permit medical marijuana. A limited medical
marijuana law most recently went into effect Oct. 1 in Maryland ….
(“State Marijuana Laws Map”ࡢゎㄝ㸸http://www.governing.com/gov-data /safety-justice/ state-marijuana-laws-map-medical-recreational.html /current as of Oct 2013/viewed Nov. 30, 2013)

Jones et al.㸦2012:147㸧ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟౫Ꮡࡋࡓ཯⩏ㄒࢆ͆contextuallyconstructed pairs͇࡜࿧ࢇ࡛ࠊ㏻ᖖࡢ཯⩏ㄒ࡜ࡢ༊ูࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊJeffries㸦2010㸧ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᑐ❧ㄒࢆ͆constructed opposites͇࡜࿧ࡧࠊヲ⣽࡞ศᯒࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊὀ┠࡟್ࡍࡿࠋ
(3) ྃ㸦phrase㸧ࡢ౛ : ͆Go home or Face arrest ͇ࡇࡇࡲ࡛ࡣࠊ༢ㄒࡢ౛ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣྃࡢ౛ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋୗグࡣࠊ2013 ᖺኟ࡟࢖ࢠ
ࣜࢫෆົ┬ࡀࠊ୙ἲ⁫ᅾ⛣Ẹࡢᅜእ㏥ཤࢆồࡵࡿ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆᥖ㍕ࡋࡓᐉఏ࣮࢝ࢆࣟࣥࢻࣥᕷෆ
࡟㉮ࡽࡏࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࢽ࣮ࣗࢫࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿ㸸(14) The Home Office vans encouraging illegal immigrants to ‘go home or face arrest’(ᥖ㍕෗┿ࡢ࢟ࣕࣉࢩࣙࣥ:The Telegraph,18 Aug 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews)

5

−157−

“文化的”反義語の試案：第４のカテゴリーとして୙ἲ⁫ᅾ⛣Ẹ࡟ࠕ♽ᅜ࡬ᖐࢀࠊࡉࡶ࡞ࡃࡤ㐊ᤕࡔࠖ࡜㆙࿌ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪ࡛ࡣࠊ
͆Go
home͇ ࡜͆Face arrest͇࡜࠸࠺ྃࡀ஧㡯ᑐ❧ࢆᵓᡂࡋࠊᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠕ♽ᅜ࡬ࡿࠋࡇࡢᗈሗάືࡣࡑࡢᚋ୰Ṇ࡟࡞ࡿࡀࠊgo home ࡀࡓࡔ༢࡟ࠕ⮬Ꮿ࡬ᖐࡿ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ᖐࢀࠖ࡜࠸࠺࣊࢖ࢺ࣭ࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࡢせ⣲ࢆྵࡴࡇ࡜ࠊࡲࡓᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ௚ࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊࠕஸ࿨ࡍࡿࠖࠊ
ࠕ➨㸱ᅜ࡬⾜ࡃࠖࠊࠕἲᘐ࡟ッ࠼ࡿࠖ࡞࡝㸧ࢆࡍ࡭࡚ᗘእどࡋࠊ஧ࡘࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆᙉせࡍࡿෆᐜ࡛࠶
ࡿⅬ࡞࡝ࡀࠊ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ᾋ࠿ࡧୖࡀࡿࠋ≉࡟ᚋ⪅ࡢⅬࡣࠊᨻ἞ⓗ࡞ᩥ⬦࡛ࡓࡧࡓࡧほᐹ࡛ࡁࡿ⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ஧㡯ᑐ❧ⓗ࡞㆟ㄽࡢᘢᐖ㸦᳃ᒸ 2005:71㸧࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
(4) ᐃᆺ⾲⌧㸦formulaic expressions㸧ࡢ౛๓⠇࡛ࡣྃࡢ౛ࢆぢࡓࡀࠊࡉࡽ࡟⾲⌧ࡢ⠊ᅖࢆᗈࡆࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣᐃᙧ⾲⌧ࡢ౛ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋⱥ
ㄒࡢ౛ࡢ⵳✚ࡀ༑ศ࡛࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ౛ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡀࠊᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡢೃ⿵࡜࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ㸸(15)[እฟ]㸸 ⾜ࡗ࡚ࡁࡲࡍ / ࡓࡔ࠸ࡲ(16)

[㣗஦]㸸 ࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡍ / ࡈࡕࡑ࠺ࡉࡲ㸦࡛ࡋࡓ㸧(17)[ᣵᣜ]㸸 ࠾ࡣࡼ࠺㸦ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ㸧/ ࠾ࡸࡍࡳ㸦࡞ࡉ࠸㸧(18)[ᗑဨ]㸸 ࠸ࡽࡗࡋࡷ࠸ࡲࡏ / ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓ

࠸ࡎࢀࡶ≀஦ࡢึࡵ࡜⤊ࢃࡾࢆ༊ษࡿ⾲⌧࡛ࠊᑐᴟᛶࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢព࿡࡛ࡣࠊᮏ✏ࡢ᭱ึ࡛ゐࢀࡓ཯⩏ㄒࡢ 3 ศ㢮ࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿ᪉ྥⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡢ୰ࡢ୧ᑐᴟ཯⩏ㄒ㸦౛ beginning/end,

introduction/conclusion ࡞࡝㸧࡟㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡣࠊ᪥ᮏࡢゝㄒᩥ໬ࡢ≉ᚩࢆ㇟ᚩࡍࡿഃ㠃ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮ࠼ࡿࠋ࠸ࡃࡘ
࠿౛ࢆᣲࡆࡼ࠺㸸(15’)ࠗ࠸ࡗ࡚ࡁࡲࡍ࠿ࡽࠊࡓࡔ࠸ࡲࡲ࡛ࠋ࠘
㸦Ꮚ౪⏝ࢣ࣮ࢱ࢖ࡢ㟁㌴㌴ෆᗈ࿌㸹NTT ࢻࢥࣔ㸹ᒣᡭ⥺ࠊ2011,10.16)(16’) 㣗༟࡟ึ≀ࡀ㍕ࡗ࡚࠸࡚ࡶ≉ูࡢゝⴥࢆၐ࠼ࡓぬ࠼ࡣ↓ࡃࠊ࠸ࡘࡶ࡝࠾ࡾࠕ㡬ࡁࡲࡍ࡛ࠖ
ጞࡲࡾࠕࡈࡕࡑ࠺ࡉࡲ࡛ࠖ⤊ࢃࡿ㣗஦ࡔࡗࡓࡀࠊ࡞ࡐ࠿ᨵࡲࡗࡓឤࡌࡀࡋࡓࠋ
㸦Ώ㎶୍ᯞ 2013ࠕゝⴥࡣㄡࡢࡶࡢ࠿㸽ࠖࠗᅗ᭩࠘㸦ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸧774 ྕࠊp.1㸧(16”)ࠗࠕ࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡍࠖ
ࠕࡈࡕࡑ࠺ࡉࡲࠖࡶ࿴㣗ࡢᩥ໬࠘㸦ㄞ኎᪂⪺㸸2013 ᖺ 12 ᭶ 2 ᪥ࠊp.20㸧
(17’) ຍ㈡ࡉࢇࡣ௖ቭව♩ᣏᡤࡢ๓࡛࠶ࡸᏊࡉࢇ࡟ࠊᮅࡣࠕ࠾ࡣࡼ࠺ࠖࠊᐷࡿ๓ࡣࠕ࠾ࡸࡍࡳࠖ
࡜࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡲࡍࠋ
㸦ᶫᮏ஬㑻 2013 ᭩ホࠕኵ፬࡜࠸࠺୙ᛮ㆟࡞ࡶࡢࠖㄞ኎᪂⪺ 9 ᭶ 8 ᪥ࠊp.15㸧(15’)ࡣࠊᐙᗞ࡛Ꮚ౪ࡢⓎࡍࡿᣵᣜࡢゝⴥࡢ୰࡟ࠊぶࡢࠕᏊ౪ࡢᏳ඲ࠖࢆ㢪࠺Ẽᣢࡕࢆ⧊ࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛ࠊᗈ࿌ࡢࢥࣆ࣮࡟ά⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(16’)࡜(16”)ࡣࠊ㣗༟࡛ࡢᐃᙧ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ(16’)ࡣ
㣗༟ࡢ᪥ᖖᛶࢆࠊ(16”)࡛ࡣ࿴㣗ࡢ≉ᚩࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀ㇟ᚩࡍࡿゝⴥ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉࡟ᚋ⪅ࡢ
6

−158−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

౛ࡣࠊ࿴㣗ࡀࣘࢿࢫࢥࡢ↓ᙧ㑇⏘࡬Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺᪂⪺グ஦࠿ࡽྲྀࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࿴㣗࡜࠸࠺ලయⓗ࡞஦≀ࢆ㇟ᚩࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕࡇ࡜ࡤࠖࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡟⯆࿡ࡀᘬ࠿ࢀࡓࠋ(17’)࡛ࡣࠊஸࡁጔ࡬ࡢᛮ࠸ࢆ㇟ᚩࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡤ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᐃᙧ⾲⌧ࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡣࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ᪥ᖖ⏕ά㸦ᐙᗞࠊぶᏊ㛵ಀࠊ㣗༟࡜㣗ᩥ໬ࠊኵ፬ឡ࡞࡝㸧ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉㸦ཪࡣࠊࡑࡢ⌮᝿ീ㸧ࢆ➃ⓗ࡟⾲⌧ࡍࡿ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏࡢᩥ໬⌮ゎ࡟⧅ࡀࡿゝⴥ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
(5)͆ᇶᮏⓗ͇཯⩏ㄒ㸦Canonical Antonyms㸧࠿ࡽࡢⓎᒎᙧ
Jones et al.㸦2012㸧࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊ཯⩏ㄒࡢ඾ᆺ౛㸦ཪࡣࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉ㸸old/new, good/bad ࡞࡝㸧ࢆ͆ᇶᮏⓗ͇཯⩏ㄒ㸦Canonical Antonyms㸧࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊ཯⩏ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢㄆ▱ᗘࡀ㧗ࡃࠊ㸰࡛⤂௓ࡋࡓ㸱ศ㢮ࡢ࡝ࢀ࠿࡟ᒓࡋࠊ㎡᭩࡟ࡶグ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ཯⩏ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
ᮏ✏࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡚࠸ࡿᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡣࠊࡑࡢ࿘㎶㒊࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᇶᮏⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿ white/black ࢆ౛࡟ྲྀࡾࠊࡑࡢ white ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠊ㛵㐃ࡍࡿᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡢ୍㒊ࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ㸦Jones et al. 2012:14㸧㸸
(19)

1 white/black㸸 as canonical antonyms 

2 white/red 㸸 in the context of wine   3 white/green
㸦4 white/brown㸸 in the context ofasparagus
㸸 in the context of bread & rice㸸ⴭ⪅ࡢ㏣ຍ౛㸧ᇶᮏⓗ࡞஧㡯ᑐ❧࡛࠶ࡿ white/black 㸦ኴᩥᏐ㸧࡟⥆ࡁࠊ࣡࢖ࣥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛ࡣࠊ

white/redࠊ࢔ࢫࣃࣛ࢞ࢫ࡛ࡣ white/greenࠊࣃࣥࡸࣛ࢖ࢫ࡛ࡣ white/brown ࡜࠸࠺ᑐ❧ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ㸯ࡢᇶᮏⓗ཯⩏ㄒ࡟ẚ࡭ࠊ㸰௨㝆ࡢᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛ࡢ౑
⏝࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࠋ௨ୗࡣࠊࡇࢀࢆᅗᘧ໬ࡍࡿ㝿ࡢ୍᱌࡛࠶ࡿ㸸(20)

WHITE㻌

BLACK㻌

RED

GREEN

BRWON

   (wine)(asparagus)(bread & rice) ୖ㒊ࡢኴ࠸▮༳㸦я㸧ࡀᇶᮏ཯⩏ㄒࡢ㛵ಀࢆ♧ࡋࠊࡑࡢୗ㒊࡟ᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࢆ㓄⨨ࡋࠊ࢝ࢵࢥෆ
࡟≉ᐃࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᅗᘧࡣࠊㄒ┦஫ࡢព࿡㛵ಀࡢࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡࢆྍど໬ࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊᩍᤵ࣭Ꮫ⩦࡬ࡢᛂ⏝ࠊ㎡᭩グ㏙ࡢᨵၿ࡬ࡶࡘ࡞ࡀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ


7
−159−

“文化的”反義語の試案：第４のカテゴリーとして㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡣࠊࡇ࡜ࡤ࡜ࡑࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟࠶ࡿᩥ໬ࡢ⧅ࡀࡾࢆ♧ࡍ඾ᆺ౛࡛࠶ࡾࠊᩥ໬ࢆㄞࡳゎࡃ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ࡜࡞ࡿࠋᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡢࡑࡢᩥ໬ࡢゎ᫂࡜⌮ゎ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡣࠊゝㄒᩍ⫱࡛ࡢά⏝ࡶᮇᚅ࡛ࡁࡿࠋㄒᙡᣦᑟ࡛ࠊ཯⩏ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚࣌࢔
࣮࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࢀࡤࠊ༢⊂࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࡼࡾࡉࡽ࡟ㄒᙡᣑᙇ࡬㈉⊩ࡋࠊࡑࡢᩥ໬⫼ᬒࡶྠ᫬࡟ᩍᤵ
࡛ࡁࡿ࣓ࣜࢵࢺࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ᩥ໬㛵㐃࡛ࡣࠊstate㸦ᕞᨻᗓࡢ㸧࡜ federal㸦㐃㑥ᨻᗓࡢ㸧ࡣಶࠎ࡟ᩍ࠼ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ࣌࢔࣮࡛ᩍ࠼ࡿ᪉ࡀࡼࡾຠᯝⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ
ᐇົⓗ࡞ᥦ᱌࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅⏝ࡢㄒᏛ㎡඾࡟ᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡢグ㏙ࢆ඘ᐇࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡢグ㏙ࡀ㏣ຍࡉࢀࢀࡤࠊ⌧ᐇࡢゝㄒ౑⏝࡟ἢࡗࡓ᝟ሗࡀቑࡋࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ฼౽ᛶࡀୖࡀࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ➨୍࡟ᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡢᐇ౛ࢆࡉࡽ࡟⢭ᰝࡋࠊࡼࡾⓗ☜࡞ᐃ⩏ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿ
ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ཯⩏ㄒࡣࠊ஧㡯ᑐ❧ࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡋ࡚ᡂ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢᬑ㐢ᛶࡢ᳨ド࡜ࠊࡲࡓ༴㝤ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶㄽ⪃ࢆ῝ࡵࡓ࠸ࠋ஧㡯ᑐ❧ࡣࠊ≀஦ࢆᢕᥱࡋࡸࡍࡃࡍࡿຠᯝࢆᣢࡘ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊ
」㞧࡞⌧ᐇࢆ㐣ᗘ࡟༢⣧໬ࡍࡿ༴㝤ࡶక࠺ࠋඛ࡟ぢࡓ୙ἲ⛣Ẹ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࢫ࣮ࣟ࢞ࣥࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᨻ἞
Ⰽࡢ⃰࠸ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡢ᪂ࡓ࡞≉ᚩࡀᾋ࠿ࡧୖࡀࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊJones et al.㸦2012:3㸧ࡣࠊ཯⩏ㄒࡣࠕ᭱ᑠᕪ␗ࡢཎ๎ࠖ㸦the͆principle of minimal
difference͇㸧࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ㢮⩏ㄒ࡜ࡢᕪ␗ࡣఱ࠿࡜࠸࠺␲ၥ
ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚ࡃࡿࠋ஦ᐇࠊᩥ໬ⓗ཯⩏ㄒࡢ౛ࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊ㢮⩏ᛶࢆឤࡌࡿሙྜࡀከࠎ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ཯⩏ㄒ࡜㢮⩏ㄒࡢ㛵㐃ᛶ࡜ᕪ␗ࡶ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Cruse, Alan. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, Alan. 2000. Meaning in Language: An Introduction of Semantics and Pragmatics.
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Hofmann, Th. R. 1993. Realms of Meaning: An Introduction to Semantics. Essex and New
York: Longman.
Jeffries, Lesley. 2010. Opposition in Discourse: The Construction of Oppositional Meaning.
London and New York: Continuum.
Jones, Steven et al. 2012. Antonyms in English: Construals, Constructions and Canonicity.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
ᐑᆅ⿱㸦⦅㸧2005.ࠗࠕ᪥ᮏㄒᏛࠖ≉㞟ࢸู࣮࣐ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ㸦2㸧ព࿡ϩ࠘ᮾி㸸᫂἞᭩㝔 (ࠕᑐ⩏ㄒࠖ㒊ศࡣ 1987 ᖺ 6 ᭶ྕࡢ෌㘓).
᳃ᒸ೺஧㸦2005㸧ࠕ⚾ࡢᑐ⩏ㄒほࠖᐑᆅ (⦅) ᡤⶶࠊpp.68-71.
ᮧᮌ᪂ḟ㑻㸦2005㸧ࠕᑐ⩏ㄒࡢ㍯㒌࡜᮲௳ࠖᐑᆅ (⦅) ᡤⶶࠊpp.89-101.
኱ሯ㧗ಙ࣭୰ᓥᩥ㞝㸦┘ಟ㸧1982.ࠗ᪂ⱥㄒᏛ㎡඾࠘ᮾி㸸◊✲♫.
ෆ⏣⪷஧㸦⦅㸧2009.ࠗⱥㄒㄯヰ⾲⌧㎡඾࠘ᮾி㸸୕┬ᇽ.

8
−160−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧㐙⾜᫬䛾ゝㄒᙧᘧ㑅ᢥ䛻䛚䛡䜛 㻾 ್䛸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾ᙺ๭䛻䛴䛔䛶㻌㻌 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 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ᶓ಴┿ᘺ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 㻌 㻌 㛵ᮾᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ㠀ᖖ໅ㅮᖌ㻌㻌㻌
<Abstract>
The purpose of this paper is to reveal the interrelation of R(ranking of imposition) with the Japanese
auxiliary verbs of giving & receiving when linguistic forms are chosen for politeness strategies based on myinvestigation of how the above forms are used for commands and directives. First, the lower R, the greater
the variety of expressions used. Second, the lower R, the more remarkable the defectiveness of the forms.
Third, use of such auxiliary verbs provides linguistic evidence of a system of gift exchange,㻌 as an essential
element of in-group communications, thus influencing the hearers’ emotional responses.
㻌䛆䜻䞊䝽䞊䝗䛇㻌 ᤵཷᙧᘧ㻌 䞉R ್㻌 䞉Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾ᵓ㐀⤌䜏᥮䛘䞉㈇ᢸ䛸฼┈䛾ㄪᩚ㻌 䞉㉗୚஺᥮䝅䝇䝔䝮㻌㻌㻌㻝㻚 ◊✲┠ⓗ㻌ゝㄒ䛻䜘䜛㓄៖䜢ᬑ㐢ⓗ䛻⪃ᐹ䛩䜛ᯟ⤌䜏䛸䛧䛶䛾 Brown&Levinson(1987)䛾䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇⌮ㄽ䛷䛿䚸P
್(ຊ㛵ಀ)䞉D ್䠄♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳䠅䞉R ್䠄䛒䜛ᩥ໬䛻䛚䛡䜛䛒䜛⾜Ⅽ䛾㈇ᢸᗘ䠅䛾 3 䛴䛾ኚᩘ䛻䜘䛳䛶䚸㓄៖䜢⾲䛩ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛾㑅ᢥ䛜䛺䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䛻䛺䜛䚹䛣䛾㓄៖䛾䛯䜑䛾䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊䛸䛧䛶䛾ゝㄒᙧᘧ㑅ᢥ䛜䛺䛥䜜䜛㡿ᇦ䛸䛧䛶䚸㭯⏣䠄2003䠅䛿ḟ䛾 2 䛴䜢䛒䛢䛶䛔䜛䚹➨ 1 䛿䚸Ⓨヰෆᐜ䛻㛵ಀ䛺䛟ㄒᙡ䜢ኚ໬䛥䛫䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸㓄៖䜢⾲䛩䝇䝍䜲䝹⟶⌮㡿ᇦ䛷䛒䜚䚸➨ 2 䛿䚸Ⓨヰෆᐜ䛻ᛂ䛨䛶䚸ᩥ䛾✀㢮䜔ᩥᆺ➼䜢ኚ໬䛥䛫䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸ゝㄒୖ䚸Ⓨヰෆຠຊ䜢ኚ໬䛥䛫䚸㓄៖䜢⾲䛩Ⓨヰෆຠຊ⟶⌮㡿ᇦ䛷䛒䜛䚹௨ୖ䛾ほⅬ䛛䜙䛣䜜䜎䛷䛾᪥ᮏㄒ䛾㓄៖⾲⌧◊✲䜢⪃䛘䜛᫬䚸P ್䞉D ್䛜㧗䛔ሙྜ䜢᮲௳䛸䛩䜛◊✲䛸䚸䜎䛯䚸䝇䝍䜲䝹⟶⌮㡿ᇦ䛻ᒓ䛩䜛◊✲䛜ᅽಽⓗ䛻ከ䛔䛣䛸䛜ᣦ᦬䛷䛝䜛䚹ᩗㄒ◊✲䛿䛣䛾 2 䛴䛾஺Ⅼୖ䛻䛒䜚䚸䝇䝍䜲䝹⟶⌮㡿ᇦ䛾䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䛻㛵䜟䜛඾ᆺⓗ◊✲䛸䛔䛘䜘䛖䚹䛣䜜䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䚸R ್䜢᮲௳䛸䛧䚸䛭䛾ᙺ๭䜢⪃ᐹ䛧䛯◊✲䛿ᮍ䛰ᑡ䛺䛔䚹䜎䛯䚸ᩗㄒ௨እ䛾㓄៖⾲⌧䛸䛧䛶䚸ᐑᆅ䠄1975䠅➼䛻䜘䜛ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾㔜せᛶ䛜ᣦ᦬䛥䜜䛶䛝䛯䛜䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛜⾲䛩㓄៖䛿᪥ᮏ⊂≉䛾♫఍ᩥ໬䜢⌮⏤䛻ㄝ᫂䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䛜ከ䛟䠄ᕝᮧ 19991䚸ጲ㔝 1992䠅䚸䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䛾ほⅬ䛛䜙ゝㄒᏛⓗ䛻ㄝ᫂䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䛿ᑡ䛺䛛䛳䛯䛸䛔䛘䜛䚹䛭䛣䛷ᮏ◊✲䛷䛿䚸㓄៖䜢┠ⓗ䛸䛧䛯ゝㄒᙧᘧ㑅ᢥ䛻䛚䛡䜛 R ್䛾ᙺ๭䛸䚸R ್䛸䛾㛵ಀ䛾୰䛷䚸Ⓨヰෆຠຊ⟶⌮㡿ᇦ䛾䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䜢ᢸ䛖ᤵཷᙧᘧ䠄ᶓ಴ 2012䠅䛾ᙺ๭䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸ㄪᰝ䜢㋃䜎䛘䛶ᐇドⓗ䛻ゎ᫂䛩䜛䛣䛸䜢┠ⓗ䛸䛩䜛䚹䛺䛚䚸ᮏ◊✲䛷ゝ䛖ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛸䛿䚸䝰䝜䛚䜘䜃⾜Ⅽ䛾ᤵཷ䜢⾲䛩ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛷䚸䠄䝔䠅䝲䝹䞉䠄䝔䠅䜰䝀䝹䞉䠄䝔䠅䝃䝅䜰䝀䝹䞉䠄䝔䠅䜽䝺䝹䞉䠄䝔䠅䜽䝎䝃䝹䞉䠄䝔䠅䝰䝷䜴䞉䠄䝔䠅䜲䝍䝎䜽䛾 3 య⣔ 7 ㄒ䜢䛥䛩䚹㻌
㻌
2.

ㄪᰝ᪉ἲ

2.1㻌 R ್䛻䛛䛛䜟䜛ㄪᰝሙ㠃䛾タᐃ

−161−

指示・命令遂行時の言語形式選択におけるR値と授受形式の役割についてᮏ◊✲䛷䛿䚸◊✲┠ⓗ䛻ἢ䛳䛶䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䛸䛔䛖Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䜢㐙⾜䛩䜛ሙ㠃䛷䛾ㄪᰝ䜢ᐇ᪋䛧䛯䛜䚸䜎䛪䚸䛣䛾ሙ㠃タᐃ䛾ጇᙜᛶ䛛䜙㏙䜉䜛䛣䛸䛧䜘䛖䚹䝝䝸䝕䞊䠄2001䠅䜔䝸䞊䝏䠄1987䠅䛜ᣦ᦬䛩䜛䜘䛖䛻䚸Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾㐙⾜䛿㈇ᢸ䛸฼┈䛜క䛖䛜䚸䛭䛾୰䛷䜒䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䛿䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛻䛸䛳䛶᭱䜒㈇ᢸ䛜㔜䛔Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛷䛒䜛䛸䛔䜟䜜䛶䛔䜛䚹䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䛿䚸䛭䛾Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾㐙⾜䛻䛒䛯䛳䛶䚸ḟ䛾䜘䛖䛺㈇ᢸ䛸฼┈䛻㛵䜟䜛 4 䛴䛾ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᮲௳䜢᭷䛧䛶䛔䜛䛛䜙䛷
䛒䜛(1)䚹䜎䛪➨ 1 䛻䚸Ⓨヰ䛻䜘䛳䛶ಁ䛥䜜䜛⾜Ⅽ䜢䛂⪺䛝ᡭ䛃䛜⾜䛖䛣䛸䛷䛒䜛䚹䛣䜜䛸㛵㐃䛧䛶➨ 2 䛿䚸䛂≉ู䛺ᆅ఩䜔ᶒ㝈䛃䛜䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛃䛻䛒䜛䛯䜑䚸䛂⪺䛝ᡭ䛃䛿䛭䛾⾜Ⅽ䜢䛫䛦䜛䜢ᚓ䛺䛔䛣䛸䛷䛒䜛䚹➨ 3 䛿䚸Ⓨヰ䛻䜘䛳䛶ಁ䛥䜜䜛⾜Ⅽ䛜㐙⾜䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䜢䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛃䛜䛩䛷䛻Ỵᐃ䛧䛶䛚䜚䚸䛂⾜Ⅽ⪅䛃䛷䛒䜛䛂⪺䛝ᡭ䛃䛻ᣄྰ䛾వᆅ䛜䛺䛔䛣䛸䛷䛒䜛䚹௨ୖ 3 䛴䛿㈇ᢸ䛻㛵䜟䜛᮲௳䛻䛺䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶➨ 4 䛿฼┈䛻㛵䜟䜛᮲௳䛷䚸Ⓨヰ䛻䜘䛳䛶ಁ䛥䜜䜛⾜Ⅽ䛻䜘䛳䛶⏕䛨䜛฼┈䜢ᚓ䜛⪅䛜䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛸⪺䛝ᡭ䛾㛫䛷≉ᐃ䛥䜜䛶䛔䛺䛔䛣䛸䛸䛺䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䛸䛔䛖Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛿䚸䛭䛾㐙⾜䛻䛒䛯䛳䛶䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛾㈇ᢸ䜢㍍ῶ䛩䜛䛯䜑䛻䚸Ⓨヰෆຠຊ⟶⌮㡿ᇦ䛻䛚䛔䛶ゝㄒᙧᘧ㑅ᢥ䛜ᮏ᮶㉳䛝䜔䛩䛔䛸䛔䛖ᛶ㉁䛜䛒䜛䛸䛔䛘䜛䚹䜎䛯䛣䜜䛻ຍ䛘䛶䚸ඹ䛻䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䛸䛔䛖㈇ᢸ䛾㔜䛔Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛷䜒䚸౛䛘䜀䛂100 ෇ᡶ䛖䛃䛸䛂100 ୓෇ᡶ䛖䛃䛾䜘䛖䛻䚸ලయⓗෆᐜ䛾㈇Ⲵᗘ䛜␗䛺䜜䜀䚸౑⏝䛥䜜䜛ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛜␗䛺䜛䛣䛸䛜᝿ᐃ䛥䜜䚸ሙ㠃䛤䛸䛾ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛻 R ್䠄ಶู⾜Ⅽ
䛾㈇Ⲵᗘ䠅䛜཯ᫎ䛥䜜䜔䛩䛔䛸䛔䛘䜘䛖䚹䛧䛯䛜䛳䛶䚸䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䛿䚸ᮏ◊✲䛾┠ⓗ䛷䛒䜛ゝㄒᙧᘧ㑅ᢥ䛻䛚䛡䜛 R ್䛾ᙺ๭䜢ほᐹ䛩䜛䛾䛻᭱䜒㐺䛧䛯Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛷䛒䜛䛸䛔䛘䜛䛰䜝䛖䚹ḟ䛻䚸䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䛜㐙⾜䛥䜜䜛ලయⓗ䛺ே㛫㛵ಀ䛾タᐃ䛷䛿䚸P ್䠄ヰ䛧ᡭ䛛䜙ぢ䛯⪺䛝ᡭ䛜ヰ䛧ᡭ䛻ཬ䜌䛩ᙳ㡪ຊ䠅䞉D ್䠄ヰ䛧ᡭ䛜⪃䛘䜛ヰ䛧ᡭ䛸⪺䛝ᡭ䛾♫఍ⓗ㊥㞳䠅䛜ప䛔ሙྜ䜢タᐃ䛧䛯䚹䛣䜜䛿䚸P್䞉D ್䛜㧗䛔ሙྜ䛿䚸R ್䛻㛵䜟䜙䛪䚸㓄៖䜢┠ⓗ䛸䛧䛯ゝㄒᙧᘧ㑅ᢥ䛻୍ᐃ䛾♫఍ⓗつ⠊䛜ᙧᡂ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛾䛻ᑐ䛧䚸P ್䞉D ್䛜ప䛔ሙྜ䛿ゝㄒᙧᘧ㑅ᢥ䛜ẚ㍑ⓗ⮬⏤䛻䛺䜛䛸䛔䛖ഴྥ䛜䛒䜚䠄⁪ᾆ 2013䠅䚸
R ್䛻䜘䜛ゝㄒᙧᘧ㑅ᢥ䛾䛒䜚᪉䜢⪃ᐹ䛩䜛ୖ䛷䚸P ್䞉D ್䛾ᙳ㡪䜢᤼㝖䛩䜛䛯䜑䛷䛒䜛䚹D ್䛜ప䛔ሙྜ䛸䛿䚸䛔䜟䜀㏆䛧䛔㛵ಀ䛷䛒䜚 1 䛴䛾ᇶ‽䛻ᖐ䛩䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䛜䚸P ್䛜ప䛔ሙྜ䛿䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛜ヰ䛧ᡭ䜘䜚䜒ୗ఩䛻䛒䜛ሙྜ䛸䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛸⪺䛝ᡭ䛜ྠ➼䛾㛵ಀ䛻䛒䜛ሙྜ䛾 2 ✀㢮䛜Ꮡᅾ䛩䜛䚹䛭䛣䛷䚸ᮏ◊✲䛷䛿ලయⓗ䛺䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䜢㐙⾜䛩䜛ே㛫㛵ಀ䛸䛧䛶䚸䠄1䠅ᑠ䛥䛔఍♫䛷୍୸䛸䛺䛳䛶䝥䝻䝆䜵䜽䝖䛻ྲྀ䜚⤌䜣䛷䛔䜛ୖྖ䛷䛒䜛ヰ䛧ᡭ䛸⪺䛝ᡭ䛾㒊ୗ䚸䠄2䠅䛒䜛௻⏬䛷୍᫬ⓗ䛻䛂≉ู䛺ᆅ఩䜔ᶒ㝈䛃䛜௜୚䛥䜜䝸䞊䝎䞊䛸䛺䛳䛯ヰ䛧ᡭ䛸䛭䛾཭ே䛾⪺䛝ᡭ䚸䛸䛔䛖 2 ✀㢮䛾㛵ಀ䜢タᐃ䛧䛯䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䠄1䠅䠄2䠅䛾ே㛫㛵ಀ䛻䛚䛔䛶㐙⾜䛥䜜䜛䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䛾ලయⓗ䛺ෆᐜ䛻క䛖㈇Ⲵᗘ䚸䛩䛺䜟䛱 R
್䜢ḟ䛾 4 䛴䛻タᐃ䛧䛯䚹䠄1䠅䛷䚸R ್䛾㧗䛔ሙྜ䛿䚸⤊ᴗ㛫㝿䛻ṧᴗ䜢䛩䜛䜘䛖䛻ゝ䛖䚸䠄2䠅䛷 R ್䛜㧗䛔ሙྜ䛿䚸᫂᪥䜎䛷䛻ᴗ⪅䛻≀ရཷὀ䛾☜ㄆ䜢䛩䜛䜘䛖䛻ゝ䛖䚸䛸䛧䛯䚹䛭䛧䛶䠄1䠅䛷 R ್䛜ప䛔ሙྜ䛿䚸5 ศᚋ䛻ጞ䜎䜛఍㆟䛻⪺䛝ᡭ䛾㏆䛟䛻䛚䛔䛶䛒䜛㈨ᩱ䜢ᣢ䛳䛶䛟䜛䜘䛖䛻ゝ䛖䚸㻌 䠄2䠅䛷 R ್䛜ప䛔ሙྜ䛿䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛾㏆䛟䛻䛒䜛䝂䝭⿄䜢ᣢ䛳䛶䛟䜛䜘䛖䛻ゝ䛖䚸䛸䛧䛯䚹௨ୗ䛣䜜䜙䛾ሙ㠃䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸䠄䠍䠅䛷 R ್䛜㧗䛔ሙྜ䛿
䠄䠍䠅R䠇䛾䜘䛖䛻䚸䛭䜜䛮䜜䠄䠍䠅R䠇䚸䠄䠍䠅R䠉䚸䠄2䠅R䠇䚸䠄2䠅R䠉䛸グ䛩䚹
2.2㻌 ᮏ◊✲䛾⪃ᐹどⅬ䛸㑅ᢥ⫥䛾タᐃ
ୖグ 4 䛴䛾ሙ㠃䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸R ್䛻䜘䛳䛶ኚ໬䛩䜛ゝㄒᙧᘧ䜢䚸ᮏ◊✲䛷䛿ḟ䛾 3 Ⅼ䛛䜙⪃ᐹ䛩䜛䚹➨䠍䛿䚸ᩥᆺ䛷䛒䜛䚹ᒣᒸ䠄2000䠅䛿ᩥ䛜Ꮠ⩏㏻䜚䛻♧䛩Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䜢ᩥᶵ⬟䛸࿧䜣䛷䛔䜛䛜䚸ᩥᆺ㑅ᢥ䛾ၥ㢟䛿䚸ㄪᰝሙ㠃䛻䛚䛔䛶䠘ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䠚䜢ᩥᶵ⬟䛸䛩䜛ᩥᆺ䜢౑⏝䛩䜛䛾䛛䚸䛭䜜䛸䜒௚䛾Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䜢

−162−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ᩥᶵ⬟䛸䛩䜛ᩥᆺ䜢౑⏝䛩䜛䛾䛛䚸䛸䛔䛖䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊䛾㑅ᢥ䛾ၥ㢟䛸䛺䜛䚹➨ 2 䛿䚸ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛾᏶඲ᛶ䛷䛒䜛䚹䛣䜜䛿䚸ᩥᶵ⬟䛾ゎ㔘䜢ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛾䜏䛷䛒䜙䜟䛩䛾䛛䚸ゝㄒᙧᘧ௨እ䛻ጤ䛽䜛䛾䛛䛸䛔䛖䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊㑅ᢥ䛾ၥ㢟䛷䛒䜚䚸౛䛘䜀䚸␲ၥ䜢⾲䛩䛯䜑䛻⤊ຓモ䛂䜹䛃䜢⏝䛔䛶䚸䛂䜲䜲䜹䛃䛾䜘䛖䛻ᙧᘧ䛸䛧䛶ᩚ䛳䛯ᩥᆺ䜢౑⏝䛩䜛䛾䛛䚸䛂䜲䜲䠛䛃䛾䜘䛖䛻㡢ኌ䛻ጤ䛽䜛ᙧ䜢䛸䜛䛾䛛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛺䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䛣䛾㑅ᢥ䛿ᮏㄪᰝ䛷䛿䚸Ⓨヰ䛻䜘䛳䛶ಁ䛥䜜䜛⾜Ⅽ䜢䛩䜛䛣䛸䜢ㄡ䛜Ỵ䜑䜛䛾䛛䚸䛸䛔䛖䛂Ỵᐃ⪅䛃䛾せ⣲䛾᫂♧䛻䜒㛵䜟䜛䛣䛸䛸䛺䜛䚹➨ 3 䛿䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾᭷↓䛷䛒䜛䚹ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛿䚸䝰䝜䜔⾜Ⅽ䛾䛂୚䛘ᡭ䛃䚸䛩䛺䜟
䛱Ⓨヰ䛻䜘䛳䛶ಁ䛥䜜䜛⾜Ⅽ䜢⾜䛖䛂⾜Ⅽ⪅䛃䚸䛭䜜䛻క䛳䛶⏕䛨䜛฼┈䜢ᚓ䜛䛂ཷ┈⪅䛃䜢᫂♧䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾᭷↓䛿䚸䛒䜛ᩥᶵ⬟䜢⾲䛩㝿䛻䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䜢⏝䛔䛶䚸㈇ᢸ䛸฼┈䛜ㄡ䛻䛒䜛䛾䛛䜢᫂♧䛩䜛䛾䛛䚸ྰ䛛䛸䛔䛖䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊䛾㑅ᢥ䛾ၥ㢟䛸䛺䜛䚹ୖグ 3 䛴䛾ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛾㑅ᢥ䛿䚸Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾ᵓ㐀䜢Ỵᐃ௜䛡䜛䛂≉ู䛺ᆅ఩䜔ᶒ㝈䛃䛂⾜Ⅽ⪅䛃䛂Ỵᐃ⪅䛃䛂ཷ┈⪅䛃䛾ྛせ⣲䛾᫂♧䞉㠀᫂♧䛻㛵䜟䜛㑅ᢥ䛷䛒䜛䛯䜑䚸ゝㄒ䛾ୖ䛷Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾ᵓ㐀䜢⤌䜏᭰䛘䜛䛣䛸䛻䛴䛺䛜䜚䚸䛭䜜䛜ゝㄒ䛾ୖ䛷䛾Ⓨヰෆຠຊ䛾ㄪᩚ䛸䛺䛳䛶⾲䜜䜛䛸⪃䛘䜛䚹௨ୖ䛾どⅬ䜢཯ᫎ䛥䛫䛯㑅ᢥ⫥䛾ᇶᮏᙧ䜢⾲ 1 䛾䜘䛖䛻タᐃ䛧䛯(2)䚹䜎䛯䚸䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䛆౫㢗䛇䛸䛔䛖Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾ᵓ㐀䜢䛂≉ู䛺ᆅ఩䜔ᶒ㝈䛃䛂⾜Ⅽ⪅䛃䛂ཷ┈⪅䛃䛂Ỵᐃ⪅䛃䛻䜘䛳䛶≉ᚩ䛵䛡䚸ྛ㑅ᢥ⫥䛜ゝㄒୖ 4 䛴䛾せ⣲䜢䛹䛾䜘䛖䛻᫂♧䛧䛶䛔䜛䛾䛛䜢䜎䛸䜑䛯䜒䛾䛜⾲ 2 䛸䛺䜛䚹⾲ 1㻌 㑅ᢥ⫥䛾ᇶᮏᙧ
ᩥᆺ

ᩥࡢᵓ㐀

ᩥᶵ⬟

ᙧᘧ

ձ㹼ࢩࣟ

࿨௧ᙧ

ᣦ♧࣭࿨௧

᏶඲

ղ㹼ࢸࢡࣞ

㐃⏝ᙧ㸩ᤵཷᙧᘧ㸩࿨௧ᙧ

ᣦ♧࣭࿨௧

᏶඲

ճ㹼ࢸ

㐃⏝ᙧ

⪺ࡁᡭࡀ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜࡞ࡿⓎヰෆ⾜Ⅽ඲⯡୙᏶඲մ㹼ࢸࢡࣞࣝ?

㐃⏝ᙧ㸩ᤵཷᙧᘧ㸩㸦␲ၥ㸧

౫㢗

୙᏶඲

յ㹼ࢸࢡࣞࢼ࢖࢝

㐃⏝ᙧ㸩ᤵཷᙧᘧ㸩ྰᐃ␲ၥᙧ౫㢗᏶඲㻌 ⾲ 2㻌 䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䛆౫㢗䛇䛾Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾ᵓ㐀䛸ྛ㑅ᢥ⫥䛜᫂♧䛩䜛ᵓ㐀ゝㄒୖࡢⓎヰෆຠຊ࠙Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽࠚ/ᩥᆺ

⾜Ⅽ⪅

ཷ┈⪅

Ỵᐃ⪅

≉ู࡞ᆅ఩ࡸᶒ㝈࠙ᣦ♧࣭࿨௧ࠚ

⪺ࡁᡭ

≉ᐃࡏࡎ

ヰࡋᡭ

ヰࡋᡭ

ձࢩࣟ

⪺ࡁᡭ

≉ᐃࡏࡎ

ヰࡋᡭ

ヰࡋᡭ

ղࢩࢸࢡࣞ

⪺ࡁᡭ

ヰࡋᡭ

ヰࡋᡭ

㸦ヰࡋᡭ㸧

ճࢸ

⪺ࡁᡭ

≉ᐃࡏࡎ

≉ᐃࡏࡎ

≉ᐃࡏࡎ

մࢸࢡࣞࣝ㸽

⪺ࡁᡭ

ヰࡋᡭ

⪺ࡁᡭ

࡞ࡋ

յࢸࢡࣞࢼ࢖࢝

⪺ࡁᡭ

ヰࡋᡭ

⪺ࡁᡭ

࡞ࡋ

࠙౫㢗ࠚ

⪺ࡁᡭ

ヰࡋᡭ

⪺ࡁᡭ

࡞ࡋ

⾲ 1䚸⾲ 2 䜢㋃䜎䛘䛶䚸㑅ᢥ⫥䛾≉ᚩ䛻䛴䛔䛶㏙䜉䜘䛖䚹䜎䛪䚸䐟䛾䛂䡚䝅䝻䛃䛿࿨௧ᙧ䛷䚸Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䜢⾲䛩ᑓ⏝䛾ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛸䛺䜛䚹䛭䜜䜖䛘䚸ᩥᶵ⬟䛿䠘ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䠚䛸䛺䜚䚸᏶඲䛺ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛸䛔䛘䜛䚹䐠䛾䛂䡚䝔䜽䝺䛃䛿䐟䛾࿨௧ᙧ䛻ᤵཷᙧᘧ䜢⤌䜏㎸䜣䛰䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䛜䚸ᩥᶵ⬟䛿䠘ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䠚䛷䛒䜚䚸᏶඲䛺ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛸䛺䜛䚹䛣䛖䛧䛶䐟䐠䛿䚸ᩥᶵ⬟䛿ඹ䛻䠘ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䠚䛰䛜䚸䐠䛿ᤵཷᙧᘧ䜢⤌䜏㎸䜐䛸䛔䛖䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊䜢⏝䛔䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸⾲ 2 䛾䜘䛖䛻䛂ཷ┈⪅䛃䛾せ⣲䛜䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛃䛻≉ᐃ䛥䜜䜛䛯䜑䚸−163−

指示・命令遂行時の言語形式選択におけるR値と授受形式の役割について䐟䜘䜚䜒౫㢗䜘䜚䛻䛺䜛䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹䐡䛾䛂䡚䝔䛃䛿㐃⏝ᙧ䛻ຓモ䛂䝔䛃䜢䛴䛡䛯䛰䛡䛾୙᏶඲䛺ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛷䚸ᩥᶵ⬟䛿䠘⪺䛝ᡭ䛜⾜Ⅽ⪅䛸䛺䜛䜘䛖䛺Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ඲⯡䠚䜢⾲䛩䛜䚸ᩥ⮬య䛜㏵୰䛷⤊䜟䛳䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛛䜙䚸䛭䛾୰䛷䛹䛾ᩥᶵ⬟䜢≉ᐃ䛩䜛䛾䛛䛿⪺䛝ᡭ䛻ጤ䛽䜙䜜䜛䚹䐢䛾䛂䡚䝔䜽䝺䝹䠛䛃䛿䚸㐃⏝ᙧ䛻ᤵཷᙧᘧ䜢⤌䜏㎸䜏䚸㡢ኌ䛷␲ၥ䜢⾲䛩䛸䛔䛖୙᏶඲䛺ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛷䚸ᩥᶵ⬟䛿䠘౫㢗䠚䛻䛺䜛䛸䛔䛘䜛䚹䐡䐢䛿䚸ඹ䛻୙᏶඲䛺ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛷䛒䜛䛜䚸䐢䛿ᤵཷᙧᘧ䜢ྵ䜐䛣䛸䛛䜙䛂ཷ┈⪅䛃䜢䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛃䛻≉ᐃ䛧䚸䜎䛯䐢䛿䐡䛾ᩥᶵ⬟䛾୰䛛䜙䠘౫㢗䠚䜢≉ᐃ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛻䛺䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䐣䛾䛂䡚䝔䜽䝺䝘䜲䜹䛃䛿䚸᏶඲䛺ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛷䚸ᩥᶵ⬟䛿䠘౫㢗䠚䛸䛺䜛(3)䚹䐢䐣䛿ඹ䛻䚸ᩥᶵ⬟䛿䠘౫㢗䠚䛷䛒䜛䛜䚸ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛾᏶඲ᛶ䛜␗䛺䜛䛣䛸䛻
䛺䜛(4)䚹
௨ୖ䛾㑅ᢥ⫥䜢タᐃ䛧䛯ୖ䛷䚸኱䛝䛟ศ䛡䛶 2 䛴䛾ㄪᰝ䜢⾜䛳䛯䚹➨ 1 䛿䚸䠄1䠅R+䚸䠄1䠅R-䚸䠄2䠅R+䚸䠄2䠅
R-䛾 4 ሙ㠃䛷䚸ඛ䛻ぢ䛯 5 䛴䛾㑅ᢥ⫥䛾ᇶᮏᙧ䜢ᇶ䛻ಶู⾲⌧䜢タᐃ䛧䚸䛹䜜䛜᭱䜒䜅䛥䜟䛧䛔䛛 1 䛴㑅䜆䛸䛔䛖౑⏝ᩥᆺ䛾ᚿྥㄪᰝ(5)䛷䛒䜛䚹䛣䜜䛻䜘䜚䚸R ್䛻䜘䛳䛶䛹䛾䜘䛖䛺䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊䛸䛧䛶ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛜ᨭᣢ䛥䜜䜛䛾䛛䜢ぢ䜛䛣䛸䛜ྍ⬟䛸䛺䜛䚹➨ 2 䛿䚸ඛ䛻ୖ䛢䛯 5 䛴䛾ᇶᮏᙧ䜢䜒䛸䛻䛧䛯⾲⌧䛜౑⏝䛥䜜䛯ሙྜ䛾༳㇟䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸ヱᙜ䛩䜛䜒䛾䜢」ᩘ㑅䜆䛸䛔䛖ᩥᆺ䛾༳㇟ㄪᰝ䛷䛒䜛(6)䚹䛣䛾 2 䛴䛾ㄪᰝ䛻䜘䜚䚸౑⏝䛥䜜䜛ゝㄒᙧᘧ䚸䛩䛺䜟䛱䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊䛿 R ್䛸䛾㛵ಀ䛾୰䛷䚸䛹䛾䜘䛖䛺༳㇟䚸䛩䛺䜟䛱䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇ຠᯝ䛸䛺䛳䛶⌧䜜䜛䛾䛛䜢䜏䜛䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䛸⪃䛘䜛䚹

3䠊㓄៖䜢┠ⓗ䛸䛧䛯ゝㄒᙧᘧ㑅ᢥ䛻䛚䛡䜛 R ್䛸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾ᙺ๭
3.1 ㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ୍ぴ௨ୖ䜢ෆᐜ䛸䛩䜛㉁ၥ⣬䛻䜘䜛ㄪᰝ䜢ᮾி䞉⚄ዉᕝᅾఫᅾ໅䛾 20 ௦䛛䜙 60 ௦䛾᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅䚸⏨ዪྛᖺ௦ 13 ྡ䛪䛴ィ 130 ྡ䜢ᑐ㇟䛻䚸2013 ᖺ 6 ᭶ 2 ᪥䛛䜙⣙ 3 㐌㛫䛛䛡䛶⾜䛳䛯䚹⿕㦂⪅䛜䚸ㄪᰝሙ㠃䛻䛚䛔䛶᭱䜒䜅䛥䜟䛧䛔䛸ᛮ䛖㑅ᢥ⫥䛾⤖ᯝ䛿䚸⾲ 3 䛾㏻䜚䛷䛒䜛䚹䛺䛚䚸ྛ㑅ᢥ⫥䛾༳㇟ㄪᰝ䛾⤖ᯝ䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸⣬㠃䛾㒔ྜୖ䚸ᮏ✏䛻㛵䜟䜚䛾䛒䜛䜒䛾䛰䛡䚸ศᯒ䛸ඹ䛻㡰ḟグ䛩䚹
⾲ 3㻌 㻌 ㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ䠍䠖ྛሙ㠃䛻䛚䛔䛶᭱䜒䜅䛥䜟䛧䛔䛸ᛮ䛖㑅ᢥ⫥䠄1 䛴㑅ᢥ䠅
ձࢩࣟ

ղࢸࢡࣞ

ճࢸ

մࢸࢡࣞࣝ㸽

յࢸࢡࣞࢼ࢖࢝

ն↓ᅇ⟅

㸦1㸧R㸫

0%

20.8%

35.4%

10.8%

32.3%

0.8%

㸦1㸧R㸩

0%

9.2%

3.8%

14.6%

67.7%

4.6%

㸦2㸧R㸫

0%

5.4%

18.6%

53.5%

12.4%

10.1%

㸦2㸧R㸩

0%

3.8%

12.3%

49.2%

27.7%

6.9%

3.2㻌 R ್䛸ᩥᆺኚ໬䛾㛵ಀ䜎䛪䚸ᩥᆺ䛾ኚ໬䛸 R ್䛾㛵ಀ䛛䜙ぢ䛶䛔䛟䛸䚸⾲ 3 䛛䜙䛿䚸R ್䛻䛛䛛䜟䜙䛪䚸඲䛶䛾ሙ㠃䛷䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䜢ᩥᶵ⬟䛸䛩䜛ᩥᆺ䜘䜚䜒䚸௚䛾ᩥᶵ⬟䜢᭷䛩䜛ᩥᆺ䜢ᨭᣢ䛩䜛ഴྥ䜢ぢ䜛䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䚹䛩䛺䜟䛱䚸䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䛜᭷䛩䜛㈇ᢸ䛜኱䛝䛔Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾ᵓ㐀䜢䚸␗䛺䜛ᩥᆺ䜢౑⏝䛩䜛䛣䛸䛷⤌䜏᥮䛘䚸ゝㄒ䛾ୖ䛷䚸䜘䜚㈇ᢸ䛾ᑡ䛺䛔Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛷䛒䜛䛛䛾䜘䛖䛻⾲⌧䛩䜛ഴྥ䛻䛒䜛䛸䛔䛘䜛䚹䛭䛾ୖ䛷䚸᭱䜒䜅䛥䜟䛧䛔䛸䛥䜜䜛㑅ᢥ⫥䛾ᨭᣢ䛻䛿䚸ḟ䛾䜘䛖䛺ഴྥ䛜ぢ䜙䜜䛯䚹1 䛴䛿䚸䠄䠍䠅R䠇䠄2䠅R䠉䠄2䠅R䠇䛷䛿䚸䜋䜌 50䠂௨ୖ䛾ᨭᣢ䜢㞟䜑䜛㑅ᢥ⫥䛜Ꮡᅾ䛧䚸䠘౫㢗䠚䜢ᩥᶵ⬟䛸䛩䜛ᩥᆺ䜢ᨭᣢ䛩䜛ഴྥ䛻䛒䜛Ⅼ䛷䛒䜛䚹䛯䛰䛧䚸䠄1䠅R䠉䛷䛿䚸ᩥᆺᨭᣢ䛻᫂☜䛺ᕪ␗䛿ぢ䜙䜜䛺䛔䚹2 䛴┠䛿䚸ሙ㠃䠄2䠅䛷䛿䚸᭱䜒ᨭᣢ䛥䜜䜛㑅ᢥ⫥䛿

−164−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ඹ䛻䐢䛂䝔䜽䝺䝹䠛䛃䛷䛒䜚䚸ᨭᣢ⋡䛻䜒኱ᕪ䛜䛺䛟䚸୍ぢ R ್䛿ᩥᆺ㑅ᢥ䛻ᙳ㡪䛧䛶䛔䛺䛔䜘䛖䛻ぢ䛘䜛䛜䚸
2 ␒┠䛻ᨭᣢ䛥䜜䜛ᩥᆺ䜎䛷䜏䜛䛸䚸R ್䛜㧗䛔䜋䛹䠘౫㢗䠚䜢ᩥᶵ⬟䛸䛩䜛ᩥᆺᨭᣢ䛾ഴྥ䛜ᙉ䛟䛺䜛
Ⅼ䛷䛒䜛䚹䛩䛺䜟䛱䚸R ್䛜㧗䛔䜋䛹䚸䛂ཷ┈⪅䛃䛜䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛃䛸䛺䜛䛣䛸䚸䛂Ỵᐃ⪅䛃䛜䛂⪺䛝ᡭ䛃䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䚸䛂≉ู䛺ᆅ఩䜔ᶒ㝈䛃䛜䛺䛔䛣䛸䜢♧䛩䛣䛸䛷䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛾㈇ᢸ䜢㍍䛟䛩䜛䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊䛜ᨭᣢ䛥䜜䜛䛸䛔䛘䜛䚹௨ୖ䛛䜙䚸P ್䞉D ್䛜ప䛔䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇㐙⾜᫬䛻䛿䚸R ್䛜㧗䛔䛸䚸䠘౫㢗䠚䜢ᩥᶵ⬟䛸䛩䜛ᩥᆺ㑅ᢥ䜈䛸ᨭᣢ䛜㞟୰䛧䚸R ್䛜ప䛔䜋䛹䚸ᩥᆺ㑅ᢥ䛿⮬⏤䛻䛺䜛䛣䛸䛜⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䛣䛾 2 䛴䛾ഴྥ䛿
䠄1䠅䛾䜋䛖䛜䠄2䠅䜘䜚䜒㢧ⴭ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛜䜟䛛䜛䚹䛭䛾ཎᅉ䛿䚸Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛜㐙⾜䛥䜜䜛ே㛫㛵ಀ䜈䛾⿕㦂⪅䛾ㄆ㆑䛾ᕪ␗䛜䚸タᐃሙ㠃䛾ㄆ㆑䛾ᕪ␗䛻䛴䛺䛜䛳䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛻䛒䜛䛸⪃䛘䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸䠄1䠅ୖྖ䛸㒊ୗ䛾㛵ಀ䛷䛿䚸䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䛸䛔䛖Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛿᪥ᖖⓗ䛻㉳䛣䜛䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䛯䜑䚸R ್䛜ప䛔ሙྜ䛿䚸䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䜢䛭䛾䜎䜎ᩥᶵ⬟䛸䛩䜛࿨௧ᙧ䛾౑⏝䜒䚸୍ᐃ⛬ᗘᐜㄆ䛥䜜䜛ഴྥ䛻䛒䛳䛯䛾䛰䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹䛧䛛䛧䚸R ್䛜㧗䛟䛺䜛䛸䚸ୖྖ䛸㒊ୗ䛾㛫䛷䜒㓄៖䛸䛧䛶䠘ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䠚䜢䛭䛾䜎䜎♧䛩ᩥᆺ䜢㑊䛡䜛䛸䛔䛖ព࿡䛷䚸␗䛺䜛ᩥᶵ⬟䜢᭷䛩䜛ᩥᆺ䜢౑⏝䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊䛜ᨭᣢ䛥䜜䜛ഴྥ䛻䛒䜛䛾䛰䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜘䛖䚹㻌 䛣䜜䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䚸䠄2䠅䛾཭ே㛵ಀ䛷䛿䚸䛔䛟䜙୍᫬ⓗ䛻䛂≉ู䛺ᆅ఩䜔ᶒ㝈䛃䛜௜୚䛥䜜䛯䛸䛧䛶䜒䚸䛭䜒䛭䜒䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䛿ᡂ❧䛧ᚓ䛺䛔ே㛫㛵ಀ䛸ㄆ㆑䛥䜜䚸タᐃሙ㠃䛭䛾䜒䛾䛜䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䛷䛿䛺䛟䛆౫㢗䛇䛸䛧䛶ㄆ㆑䛥䜜䛯ྍ⬟ᛶ䛜䛒䜚䚸䛆౫㢗䛇䛸䛔䛖Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䜢㐙⾜䛩䜛䛯䜑䛻ᩥᶵ⬟䜢䠘౫㢗䠚䛸䛩䜛ᩥᆺ䜢౑⏝䛧䛯ྍ⬟ᛶ䛜⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸␗䛺䜛ᩥᶵ⬟䜢᭷䛩䜛ᩥᆺ౑⏝䛸䛔䛖䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊䛾୙౑⏝䜢ព࿡䛩䜛䛣䛸䛻䛺䜛䚹௨ୖ䛛䜙䠄1䠅䠄2䠅ඹ䛻䠘ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䠚ᩥᆺ䜢౑⏝䛧䛺䛔ഴྥ䛻䛒䜛䛜䚸䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊䛾ほⅬ䛛䜙䛿䚸ே㛫㛵ಀ䛾ㄆ㆑䛾㐪䛔䛻ᇶ䛵䛔䛶䚸䛭䛾ືᶵ䛜␗䛺䜛䛣䛸䛜ᣦ᦬䛷䛝䜛䛰䜝䛖䚹
3.3㻌 ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛾᏶඲ᛶ䛾ኚ໬䛸 R ್䛾㛵ಀ㻌 ḟ䛻ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛾᏶඲ᛶ䛾ኚ໬䛸 R ್䛾㛵ಀ䜢ぢ䛶䛔䛟䚹䛩䛷䛻㏙䜉䛯䜘䛖䛻䚸ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛾᏶඲ᛶ䛾ၥ㢟䛿䚸Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾ゎ㔘䜢⪺䛝ᡭ䛻ጤ䛽䜛䛛䚸ྰ䛛䛸䛔䛖䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䝇䝖䝷䝔䝆䞊䛾㑅ᢥ䛾ၥ㢟䛸䛧䛶ᤊ䛘䜛䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䚹⾲ 3 䛛䜙䛿䚸䠄1䠅䐠䝔䜽䝺䐣䝔䜽䝺䝘䜲䜹䛾ᨭᣢ䛜㧗䛔䛣䛸䛛䜙䚸䠄1䠅䛷䛿䚸᏶඲䛺ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛜ᨭᣢ䛥䜜䜛ഴྥ䛻䛒䜛䛣䛸䛜䛔䛘䜛䚹䛣䜜䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䠄2䠅䛷䛿䚸R ್䛻㛵䜟䜙䛪䚸䐢䝔䜽䝺䝹䠛䛾ᨭᣢ䛜㧗䛟䚸୙᏶඲䛺ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛜ᨭᣢ䛥䜜䜛ഴྥ䛻䛒䜛䛸䛔䛘䜘䛖䚹䛣䛾䛣䛸䛛䜙䚸ゝㄒᙧᘧ㑅ᢥ䛻䛚䛡䜛᏶඲ᛶ䛾ኚ໬䛿䚸
䠄1䠅䛸䠄2䠅䛾䜘䛖䛺ே㛫㛵ಀ䛾㉁䛾ᕪ䛻䜘䜛䜒䛾䛜኱䛝䛔䛸䛔䛘䜛䛰䜝䛖䚹䛧䛛䛧䛺䛜䜙䚸2 ␒┠௨㝆䛾㑅ᢥ⫥䛾ᨭᣢഴྥ䜢ぢ䜛䛸䚸䠄1䠅䠄2䠅䛻㛵䜟䜙䛪䚸R ್䛜㧗䛔䜋䛹᏶඲ᛶ䛜ồ䜑䜙䜜䜛䛸䛔䛖⤖ᯝ䛸䛺䜛䛯䜑䚸R ್䛾ᙳ㡪䜒୍ᐃ⛬ᗘᏑᅾ䛩䜛䛸䛔䛘䜘䛖䚹
3.4㻌 ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾᭷↓䛸 R ್䛾㛵ಀ䛥䜙䛻ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾᭷↓䛸 R ್䛾 㛵ಀ䜢ぢ䛶䛔䛣䛖䚹R ್䛜㧗䛔䛸䠘౫㢗䠚䜢ᩥᶵ⬟䛸䛩䜛ᩥᆺ౑⏝䛾ഴྥ䛜ぢ䜙䜜䛯䛜䚸᪥ᮏㄒ䛷䛿䠘౫㢗䠚䜢ᩥᶵ⬟䛸䛩䜛ᩥᆺ䛻䛿䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛜ྵ䜎䜜䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸ᵝ䚻䛺⾲⌧᪉ἲ䛜䛒䜛䛺䛛䛷䚸䛒䛘䛶䠘౫㢗䠚ᩥᆺ䜢౑⏝䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛿䚸᪥ᮏㄒ䛷䛿䛒䜛⾜Ⅽ䛾㈇ᢸ䛜㔜䛔䜋䛹䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䜢౑⏝䛧䛶䚸䛭䛾⾜Ⅽ䛻䜘䛳䛶⏕䛨䜛฼┈䜢ᚓ䜛⪅䛜䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛃䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢᫂♧䛩䜛ᚲせ䛜㓄៖䛸䛧䛶ồ䜑䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䛾䛰䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹䛣䛾 R ್䛸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾౑⏝㛵ಀ䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸࿨௧ᙧ䐟䝅䝻䛸࿨௧ᙧ䛻ᤵཷᙧᘧ䜢ྵ䜐䐠䝔䜽䝺䛾㐪䛔䛛䜙䜒᳨ウ䛧䛶䜏䜛䚹䐟䝅䝻䛻ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛜⤌䜏㎸䜎䜜䚸䐠䝔䜽䝺䛻䛺䜛䛸䚸ᩥᆺ䛜⾲䛩Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾ᵓ㐀䛿⾲ 2䛾䜘䛖䛻ኚ໬䛩䜛䚹䛣䛾ኚ໬䛷ὀ┠䛩䜉䛝䛿䚸⾲ 2 䛾䜘䛖䛻䚸ゝㄒୖ䚸Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾㐙⾜䛻క䛖฼┈䜢ᚓ䜛

−165−

指示・命令遂行時の言語形式選択におけるR値と授受形式の役割についてཷ┈⪅䛾せ⣲䛜䛂䝔䜽䝺䝹䛃䛾౑⏝䛻䜘䜚䚸䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛃䛻≉໬䛥䜜䜛䛸䛔䛖䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䛭䛾⤖ᯝ䚸䐟䝅䝻䛛䜙䐠䝔䜽䝺䛻䛺䜛䛸䚸⾲ 4 䛾䜘䛖䛻䛂䛘䜙䛭䛖䛃䛸䛔䛖༳㇟䛜඲䛶䛾ሙ㠃䛷኱ᖜ䛻ୗ䛜䜛䛣䛸䛜䜟䛛䜛䚹䝸䞊䝏䠄1987䠅䛿䚸䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䛾ཎ๎䛸䛧䛶䚸䛂Ẽ㓄䜚䛾ཎ๎䠖a ௚⪅䛻ᑐ䛩䜛㈇ᢸ䜢᭱ᑠ㝈䛻䛫䜘㻌 b ௚⪅䛻ᑐ䛩䜛฼┈䜢᭱኱㝈䛻䛫䜘䛃䛂ᐶ኱ᛶ䛾ཎ๎䠖a ⮬ᕫ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛฼┈䜢᭱ᑠ㝈䛻䛫䜘㻌 b ⮬ᕫ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛㈇ᢸ
䜢᭱኱㝈䛻䛫䜘䛃䜢䛒䛢䛶䛔䜛䜘䛖䛻䚸䛂⪺䛝ᡭ䛃䛷䛒䜛䛂௚⪅䛃䛻฼┈䛜䛒䜛≧ែ䛿㓄៖䛸䛩䜛䛜䚸䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛃䛷䛒䜛䛂⮬ᕫ䛃䛻฼┈䛜䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢㓄៖䛒䜛≧ែ䛸䛿䜏䛺䛧䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹䛧䛛䛧䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾౑⏝䛻䜘䜚䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛻฼┈䛾䛒䜛≧ែ䜢ゝㄒୖ⏕䜏ฟ䛩䛣䛸䛜䚸䛂䛘䜙䛭䛖䛃䛾༳㇟䜢኱ᖜ䛻ୗ䛢䜛䛸䛔䛖ᮏㄪᰝ䛾⤖ᯝ䛛䜙䚸ୖグ䛾ཎ๎௨እ䛻䜒㈇ᢸ䛸฼┈䛾ㄪᩚ䛾䛒䜚᪉䛻䛴䛔䛶䛾ἲ๎䛾Ꮡᅾ䛜䛖䛛䛜䛘䜛䚹⾲ 4㻌 ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾᭷↓䛻䛸䜒䛺䛖༳㇟ኚ໬༳㇟       ࠼ࡽࡑ࠺

ሙ㠃

㸦1㸧R-

㸦1㸧R+

㸦2㸧R-

㸦2㸧R+

㸦1㸧R-

㸦1㸧R+

㸦2㸧R-

㸦2㸧R+

ձࢩࣟ

80㸣

84.6㸣

93.8㸣

90.8㸣

61.5㸣

76.2 㸣

65.4㸣

67.7㸣

ղࢸࢡࣞ

26.2㸣

30㸣

49.2㸣

51.5㸣

26.3㸣

63.8㸣

59.2㸣

62.3㸣

༳㇟

          ୍᪉ⓗࡸࡉࡋ࠸          ୍᪉ⓗ

ճࢸ

14.2㸣

4.7㸣

6.2㸣

3.8㸣

13.8㸣

54.6㸣

26.2㸣

36.2㸣

մࢸࢡࣞࣝ?

33.1㸣

33.8㸣

31.5㸣

36.2㸣

0.8㸣

8.5㸣

0.8㸣

1.5㸣

ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛿䝰䝜ཬ䜃⾜Ⅽ䛾䜔䜚ྲྀ䜚䜢⾲䛩ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛷䛒䜛䛜䚸䛭䜜䛻௜㝶䛩䜛౯್䚸㏻ᖖᜠᜨ䛸䛺䜛䛜䚸䛭䛾䜔䜚䛸䜚䜒⾲䛩䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䚹䛂ཷ┈⪅䛃䛜䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛃䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛿䚸ヰ䛧ᡭ䛿䛂⾜Ⅽ䛾୚䛘ᡭ䛃䛷䛒䜛䛂⪺䛝ᡭ䛃䛛䜙䛂ᜠᜨ䛃䜢ཷ䛡䜛䛣䛸䜢⾲䛧䚸䛭䜜䛻䛴䛔䛶ឤㅰ➼䛾Ẽᣢ䛱䛜Ⓨ⏕䛩䜛䛣䛸䜢ព࿡䛩䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䛣䛾䛣䛸䛜䛂䛘䜙䛭䛖䛃䛸䛔䛖༳㇟䜢኱ᖜ䛻ᘬ䛝ୗ䛢䜛せᅉ䛸䛺䜛䛾䛰䛸⪃䛘䜛䚹䛣䜜䛿䚸୍ぢᙜ䛯䜚๓䛾䛣䛸䛾䜘䛖䛷䛒䜛䛜䚸䝰䞊䝇䠄1973䠅䛿䚸䝰䝜䜔⾜Ⅽ䛾ᤵཷ䛿୍᪉ⓗ䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸ᚲ䛪䛂䛚㏉䛧䛃䛜Ꮡᅾ䛩䜛䛣䛸䜢ぢ㉺䛧䚸䛂㉗୚䛃䛂ཷ䛡ྲྀ䜚䛃䛂㏉♩䛃䛾䝃䜲䜽䝹䜢♫఍㛵ಀཬ䜃䝁䝭䝳䝙䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁䛾䛒䜚᪉䛾 1 䛴䛸䛧䛶ᤊ䛘䚸䛣䜜䜢
䛂㉗୚஺᥮䝅䝇䝔䝮䛃䛸࿧䜣䛰䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸䛒䜛Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾䛂ཷ┈⪅䛃䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛻䜘䛳䛶᫂♧䛩䜛䛣䛸䛿䚸䛂㉗୚䛃䜢ཷ䛡䚸䛭䛾䛂䛚㏉䛧䛃䛜䜎䛰῭䜣䛷䛔䛺䛔䛣䛸䜢䛂ឤㅰ䛃䛾Ẽᣢ䛱䛸䛸䜒䛻᫂♧䛩䜛䛣䛸䛷䛒䜚䚸ᙜ஦⪅㛫䛜㉗୚஺᥮䛾䝃䜲䜽䝹䛻䛒䜛䛣䛸䜢ゝㄒ䛾ୖ䛷⾲䛩䛣䛸䛻䛺䜛䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹䛭䜜䜖䛘䚸䝸䞊䝏䛻䛿㓄៖䛒䜛≧ែ䛸䛿䜏䛺䛥䜜䛺䛔䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛻฼┈䛾䛒䜛≧ែ䛃䛜䚸䛂䛘䜙䛭䛖䛃䛸䛔䛳䛯༳㇟䜢ᘬ䛝ୗ䛢䜛⤖ᯝ䛸䛺䛳䛯䛾䛰䛸⪃䛘䜛䚹䛣䛾䜘䛖䛻⪃䛘䜛䛸䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛿༢䛺䜛ᩥἲ஦㡯䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸䛂㉗୚஺᥮䝅䝇䝔䝮䛃䛻ᇶ䛵䛟䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䛾䛒䜚᪉䜢Ⓨ⌧䛩䜛䛣䛸䛾䛷䛝䜛ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛷䛒䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䛰䜝䛖䚹䛣䛣䛷䚸䜒䛖୍ᗘ䐟䝅䝻䛛䜙䐠䝔䜽䝺䜈䛾ኚ໬䛜䚸䛹䛾䜘䛖䛺༳㇟ኚ໬䛸䛺䛳䛶⌧䜜䜛䛾䛛䜢䜏䛶䜏䜘䛖䚹ᮏㄪᰝ䛷䛿䚸䛂䛘䜙䛭䛖䛃䛸䛺䜙䜣䛷䛂୍᪉ⓗ䛃䛸䛔䛖㑅ᢥ⫥䜢⏝ព䛧䛯䛜䚸䛣䛾䛂୍᪉ⓗ䛃䛸䛔䛖༳㇟䜢኱ᖜ䛻ᘬ䛝ୗ䛢䛯䛾䛿䚸⾲ 4 䛾䜘䛖䛻䠄䠍䠅R䠉䛾䜏䛷䛒䛳䛯䚹⾲ 2 䛛䜙䜒ศ䛛䜛䜘䛖䛻䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛜⤌䜏㎸䜎䜜䛶䜒䚸Ⓨヰ䛻䜘䛳䛶ಁ䛥䜜䜛Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾㐙⾜䜢ㄡ䛜Ỵ䜑䜛䛾䛛䛸䛔䛖䛂Ỵᐃ⪅䛃䛾せ⣲䛿䚸ゝㄒୖ䚸䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛃䛾䜎䜎ኚ໬䛧䛺䛔䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸䛂Ỵᐃ⪅䛃䛜䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛃䛷䛒䜛䛸䛔䛖Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾ᵓ㐀䛻㉳ᅉ䛩䜛䛂୍᪉ⓗ䛃䛸䛔䛖༳㇟䛻䛿ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛿ᙳ㡪䛧䛻䛟䛔䛸䛔䛘䜛䛰䜝䛖䚹䛭䜜䛷䛿䚸䛺䛬䠄䠍䠅R䠉䛰䛡䛿䚸䛂୍᪉ⓗ䛃䛸䛔䛖༳㇟䛜኱ᖜ䛻ῶ䛨䜛䛾䛰䜝䛖䛛䚹䛭䛾⌮⏤䛿䠄䠍䠅䛾ே㛫㛵ಀ䛜ୖྖ䛸㒊ୗ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛸㛵ಀ䛜䛒䜛䛸䛔䛘䜘䛖䚹ୖྖ䛸㒊ୗ䛾㛫䛷䛿䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䛸䛔䛖Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ⮬య䛜ᐜㄆ䛥䜜䜛ഴྥ䛻䛒䛳䛯䚹䛭䜜䜖䛘䚸R ್䛜ప䛔ሙྜ䛿䚸ᤵ

−166−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ཷᙧᘧ䛾౑⏝䛻䜘䜚䚸ゝㄒୖ䚸䛂ཷ┈⪅䛃䛜䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛃䛻≉໬䛥䜜䚸䛂䛘䜙䛭䛖䛃䛜኱ᖜ䛻ୗ䛜䜛⌧㇟䛜Ἴཬ䛧䛶䚸䛂୍᪉ⓗ䛃䛸䛔䛖༳㇟䜢⦆࿴䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䛾䛰䛸⪃䛘䜛䚹ḟ䛻䚸䐡䝔䛛䜙䐢䝔䜽䝺䝹䠛䛻䛺䛳䛯ሙྜ䛾ኚ໬䜢ぢ䛶䜏䜘䛖䚹⾲ 2 䛛䜙䜟䛛䜛䜘䛖䛻䚸䐡䛛䜙䐢䛻䛺䜛䛸䚸␲ၥ䛾せ⣲䛜ຍ䜟䜛䛯䜑䚸ゝㄒୖ䚸䛂Ỵᐃ⪅䛃䛾せ⣲䛜䛂⪺䛝ᡭ䛃䛻≉໬䛧䚸䛥䜙䛻ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾౑⏝䛻䜘䜚䛂ཷ┈⪅䛃䛜䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛃䛻≉໬䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖ᵓ㐀⤌䜏᥮䛘䛜㉳䛣䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸ᩥᶵ⬟䛿䛂⪺䛝ᡭ䛜⾜Ⅽ⪅䛸䛺䜛Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ඲⯡䛃䛾୰䛛䜙䚸䠘౫㢗䠚䛻≉໬䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜䜟䛛䜛䚹䛣䛾䜘䛖䛺ゝㄒୖ䛾Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾ᵓ㐀⤌䜏᥮䛘䛜䚸༳㇟䛸䛧䛶⾲ 4 䛾䜘䛖䛻⌧䜜䛯䚹䜎䛪䚸䐡䛂䝔䛃䛛䜙䐢䛂䝔䜽䝺䝹䠛䛃䛻䛺䜛䛸䚸඲䛶䛾ሙ㠃䛷䛂୍᪉ⓗ䛃䛸䛔䛖༳㇟䛜኱ᖜ䛻ῶ䛳䛯䚹䛣䜜䛿䚸䛂Ỵᐃ⪅䛃䛾せ⣲䛾ኚ᭦䛻క䛔䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛜Ⓨヰ䛻䜘䛳䛶ಁ䛥䜜䜛⾜Ⅽ䜢ᣄྰ䛩䜛వᆅ䜢⏕䜏䛰䛧䛯䛣䛸䛜ཎᅉ䛷䛒䜛䛸䛔䛘䜛䛰䜝䛖䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䛂䜔䛥䛧䛔䛃䛾༳㇟䛜኱ᖜ䛻ቑ䛘䛯䛜䚸䛣䛾ཎᅉ䛿䚸䐟䛂䝅䝻䛃䛛䜙䐠䛂䝔䜽䝺䛃䛻䛺䜛䛸䚸䛂䛘䜙䛭䛖䛃䛾༳㇟䛜኱ᖜ䛻ῶ䛳䛯䛣䛸䛸ྠᵝ䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾౑⏝䛻䜘䜛㉗୚஺᥮䝅䝇䝔䝮䛾Ⓨ⌧䛻䜘䜛䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䛰䜝䛖䚹௨ୖ䜢ᩚ⌮䛧䛶䜏䜛䛸䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾౑⏝䛿䛂䜔䛥䛧䛔䛃䛂䛘䜙䛭䛖䛃䛸䛔䛳䛯᝟⥴ⓗ䛺༳㇟䜈䛾ാ䛝䛛䛡䛜ᙉ䛔䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛜⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䛣䜜䛿䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾౑⏝䛻䜘䛳䛶䚸䛂ཷ┈⪅䛃䛜䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛃䛻≉໬䛥䜜䜛䛣
䛸䛛䜙Ⓨ⌧䛥䜜䜛㉗୚஺᥮䝅䝇䝔䝮䛜኱䛝䛟㛵䜟䛳䛶䛔䜛䛸䛔䛘䜛䛰䜝䛖䚹㉗୚஺᥮䝅䝇䝔䝮䛷䛿䚸㉗୚䞉ཷ䛡ྲྀ䜚䞉㏉♩䛾ᚠ⎔䛻䛒䜛㝈䜚䚸䛭䛾㛵ಀ䛿ෆ㞟ᅋ㛵ಀ䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䛜⤯䛘䛪☜ㄆ䛥䜜䚸䛭䜜䜢㏻䛨䛶㛵ಀ䛜ᙉ໬䛥䜜䛶䛔䛟䚹ㄪᰝᩥ⬦䛷䛿䜒䛸䜒䛸ෆ㞟ᅋ㛵ಀ䛷䛒䜛䛯䜑䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾౑⏝䛻䜘䛳䛶䚸䛭䜜䛻ゝཬ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛿䚸ෆ㞟ᅋ㛵ಀ䜢ᙉㄪ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛻䛺䜛䛸䛔䛘䚸䜘䜚᝟⥴ⓗ䛻䛺䜚䜔䛩䛔䛾䛰䛸䛔䛘䜛䛰䜝䛖䚹䛧䛛䛧䛺䛜䜙䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾⤌䜏㎸䜏䛿䚸ゝㄒୖ䚸䛂Ỵᐃ⪅䛃䛾せ⣲䜢ኚ᭦䛩䜛䜒䛾䛷䛿䛺䛔䛯䜑䚸Ỵᐃ⪅䛜䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛃䛷䛒䜛䛸䛔䛖ᵓ㐀䛻㉳ᅉ䛩䜛䛂୍᪉ⓗ䛃䛸䛔䛖༳㇟䛻䜎䛷ᙳ㡪䜢ཬ䜌䛩䛾䛛䛿䚸R ್䛻䜘䜛䛸䛔䛘䜛䛰䜝䛖䚹4.㻌 ⤖ㄽ
௨ୖ䛛䜙䚸P ್䞉D ್䛜ప䛔ሙྜ䛾䚸䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇㐙⾜᫬䛾ゝㄒᙧᘧ㑅ᢥ䛻䛚䛡䜛 R ್䛸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾ᙺ๭䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸ḟ䛾 3 Ⅼ䜢⤖ㄽ䛸䛩䜛䚹➨ 1 䛻䚸㑅ᢥ䛥䜜䜛ゝㄒᙧᘧ䜢ᩥᆺ䛸䛧䛯ሙྜ䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸R ್䛜ప䛔䜋䛹ᵝ䚻䛺ᩥᆺ䛜⏝䛔䜙䜜䚸R ್䛜㧗䛔䜋䛹䠘౫㢗䠚ᩥᆺ౑⏝䛜ᨭᣢ䛥䜜䜛ഴྥ䛻䛒䜛䛣䛸䛷䛒䜛䚹䠘౫㢗䠚ᩥᆺ䛿䚸ゝㄒ䛾ୖ䛷䛂≉ู䛺ᆅ఩䜔ᶒ㝈䛃䛜Ꮡᅾ䛫䛪䚸䛂Ỵᐃ⪅䛃䛜⪺䛝ᡭ䛷䛒䜚䚸䛂ཷ┈⪅䛃䛜ヰ䛧ᡭ䛷䛒䜛䜘䛖䛻䜏䛫䜛䛣䛸䛷䛒䜚䚸䛭䜜䛜䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䛜ᵓ㐀ⓗ䛻᭷䛩䜛㈇ᢸ䜢㍍䛟䛩䜛Ⓨヰෆຠຊ⟶⌮㡿ᇦ䛻䛚䛡䜛ㄪᩚ䚸䛩䛺䜟䛱㓄៖䛸䛧䛶ồ䜑䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛻䛺䜛䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹➨ 2 䛻䚸㑅ᢥ䛥䜜䜛ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛾᏶඲ᛶ䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸R ್䛜ప䛔䜋䛹ゝㄒᙧᘧ䛾୙᏶඲ᛶ䛜ᨭᣢ䛥䜜䚸ᩥᶵ⬟䛾ゎ㔘䜢⪺䛝ᡭ䛻ጤ䛽䚸R ್䛜㧗䛔䜋䛹᏶඲ᛶ䛜ồ䜑䜙䜜䜛䚸䛩䛺䜟䛱ᩥᶵ⬟䛾ゎ㔘䜢⪺䛝ᡭ䛻ጤ䛽䛪᫂♧䛩䜛ഴྥ䛻䛒䜛䛣䛸䛷䛒䜛䚹➨ 3 䛻䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾ᙺ๭䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸ᮏㄪᰝ䛷䛿䠘౫㢗䠚ᩥᆺ䛾౑⏝䛻䜘䜚䚸䝸䞊䝏䛾䛂Ẽ㓄䜚䛾ཎ๎䛃㏻䜚䛻䚸⪺䛝ᡭ䛾㈇ᢸ䜢㍍䛟䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜㓄៖䛸䛧䛶ồ䜑䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛜☜ㄆ䛥䜜䛯䚹䛧䛛䛧䛺䛜䜙䚸᪥ᮏㄒ䛾䠘౫㢗䠚ᩥᆺ䛿䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾౑⏝䛻䜘䜚䛂ཷ┈⪅䛃䛜䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛃䛷䛒䜛䛣䛸䚸䛩䛺䜟䛱䝸䞊䝏䛾䛂Ẽ㓄䜚䛾ཎ๎䛃䛂ᐶ኱ᛶ䛾ཎ๎䛃䛛䜙䛿እ䜜䛯≧ែ䜢᫂♧䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜ồ䜑䜙䜜䜛䚹䛣䛾䛣䛸䛿䚸᪥ᮏㄒ䛻䛚䛔䛶䛿䚸䝸䞊䝏䛸䛿␗䛺䜛㓄៖䛾ἲ๎䚸䛩䛺䜟䛱㉗୚஺᥮䝅䝇䝔䝮䛜㓄៖䛾䛒䜚᪉䛸䛧䛶ᶵ⬟䛧䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䜢♧၀䛩䜛䚹䛭䜜䜖䛘䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾౑⏝䛿䛂ཷ┈⪅䛃䛜䛂ヰ䛧ᡭ䛃䛻≉ᐃ䛥䜜䜛䛸䛔䛖Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䜢≉ᚩ䛵䛡䜛せ⣲䛾ᵓ㐀⤌䜏᥮䛘䜢⤒䛶䚸ෆ㞟ᅋ㛵ಀ䛾䝁䝭䝳䝙䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁᪉ἲ䛷䛒䜛㉗୚஺᥮䝅䝇䝔䝮䜢Ⓨ⌧䛧䚸᝟⥴ⓗ䛺༳㇟䛻

−167−

指示・命令遂行時の言語形式選択におけるR値と授受形式の役割について᭷ຠ䛻స⏝䛩䜛䛾䛰䛸⪃䛘䜛䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸䛣䛾᝟⥴ⓗ䛺༳㇟䛾ຠᯝ䛿䚸ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛾⤌䜏㎸䜏௨እ䛾Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾ᵓ㐀䛻㉳ᅉ䛩䜛༳㇟䜈䛿䚸R ್䛜ప䛔䛸స⏝䛧䜔䛩䛔䛣䛸䛜᫂䜙䛛䛻䛺䛳䛯䛸⪃䛘䜛䚹䛆ὀ䛇䠄1䠅䝝䝸䝕䞊䠄2001䠅䛻䜘䜜䜀䚸Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛿䛂஺᥮䛥䜜䜛䜒䛾䠄᝟ሗ/ရ≀䞉⾜Ⅽ䠅䛃䛂஺᥮䛻䛚䛡䜛ᙺ๭䠄୚䛘䜛䞉せồ䛩䜛䠅䛃䛾ኚ㡯䛾⤌䜏ྜ䜟䛫䛻䜘䛳䛶⾲䛩䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䛸䛔䛖䚹୍᪉䚸䝸䞊䝏䠄1987䠅䛿䚸Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛜ᵓ㐀ⓗ䛻᭷䛩䜛㈇ᢸ䛸฼┈䜢䚸ゝㄒᙧᘧ䜢⏝䛔䛶ㄪᩚ䛩䜛䛣䛸䜢䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䛾ཎ๎䠙䛂୎ᑀ䛥䛾ཎ⌮䛃䛸䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛭䛣䛷䚸䝝䝸䝕䞊䛾ኚ㡯䜢䝸䞊䝏䛾㈇ᢸ䛸฼┈䛾ᴫᛕ䛻ᇶ䛵䛔䛶Ⓨᒎ䛥䛫䚸䜸䞊䝇䝔䜱䞁䠄1978䠅䜙䛾ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᮲௳䜢ຍ࿡䛧䛶䚸ⵦ㇂䞉ᕝཱྀ䞉ᆏᮏ䠄1998䠅䜢ᇶ䛻䚸ᮏ✏䛷䛿ୖグ 4 䛴䜢䛆ᣦ♧䞉࿨௧䛇䛾ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᮲௳䛸䛧䛯䚹䛺䛚䚸ᮏ✏䛾⾲ 2 䛻䛚䛡䜛ྛⓎヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᮲௳䛾ᵓ㐀䛿䚸ⵦ㇂䞉ᕝཱྀ䞉ᆏᮏ䠄1998䠅䜢ᇶ䛻䛧䛶➹⪅䛜ᨵⰋ䜢ຍ䛘䛯䜒䛾䛷䛒䜛䚹
䠄2䠅䛹䛾ᩥᆺ䛜䛹䛾ᩥᶵ⬟䜢ᢸ䛖䛾䛛䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸䜾䝹䞊䝥䝆䝱䝬䝅䜲⦅ⴭ䠄1998䠅䛄ᩍᖌ䛸Ꮫ⩦⪅䛾䛯䜑䛾᪥ᮏㄒᩥᆺ
㎡඾䛅㻌 䛟䜝䛧䛚ฟ∧䚸཭ᯇᝋᏊ䞉ᐑᮏ῟䞉࿴ᰩ㞞Ꮚ䠄2007䠅䛄䛹䜣䛺᫬䛹䛖౑䛖᪥ᮏㄒ⾲⌧ᩥᆺ㎡඾䛅䜰䝹䜽䚸ᒸᮏ㍤
ᙪ䞉ᮌᕝ࿴Ꮚ䞉㎷ᮏ⃈Ꮚ䞉ᯇ஭඘Ꮚ䠄2002䠅䛄ㄒᏛ␃Ꮫ⏕䛾䛯䜑䛾᪥ᮏㄒ䛅ซே♫䚸䜢ཧ↷䛧䛯䚹
䠄3䠅䛄᪥ᮏㄒᩥᆺ㎡඾䛅䛺䛹䛷䛿䚸䛂䝔䜽䝺䝬䝉䞁䜹䛃䛜౫㢗䜢⾲䛩ᩥᆺ䛸䛧䛶䛒䛢䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䛜䚸ᮏ◊✲䛷䛿䛂䝕䝇䞉䝬䝇䛃䜢౑⏝䛧䛺䛔䛯䜑䚸䛂䝔䜽䝺䝬䝉䞁䜹䛃䛛䜙䛂䝬䝇䛃䜢䛸䜚䚸䛂䝔䜽䝺䝘䜲䜹䛃䛸䛧䛯䚹䛺䛚䚸䛂䝇䝹䜹䛃䛻䛴䛔䛶䛿䚸䛭䛾ᩥᶵ⬟䛿䠘㉁ၥ䠚䛸䛺䜚䚸஺᥮䛥䜜䜛䝰䝜䛜䛂⾜Ⅽ䛃䛷䛿䛺䛟䛂᝟ሗ䛃䛸䛺䜛䛯䜑䚸ᮏ✏䛾㑅ᢥ⫥䛻䛿᥇⏝䛧䛺䛛䛳䛯䚹䠄4䠅䐢䛂䝔䜽䝺䝹䠛䛃䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䐣䛂䝔䜽䝺䝘䜲䜹䛃䛿ྰᐃ䛾せ⣲䜢ྵ䜣䛷䛔䜛䛯䜑䚸ཝᐦ䛻䛿䚸䛣䛾஧䛴䛾Ⓨヰෆຠຊ䛾ㄪᩚ䛾ᕪ␗䛿⤊ຓモ䛂䜹䛃䛾᭷↓䛻䜘䜛䜒䛾䛰䛡䛷䛺䛔䚹䛧䛛䛧䚸䛂䝔䜽䝺䝘䜲䜹䛃䛿䛂䝔䜽䝺䝘䜲䛃䛣䛸䛾ุ᩿䜢䛂䜹䛃䜢౑⏝䛧䛶⪺䛝ᡭ䛻ጤ䛽䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䜢䛒䜙䜟䛧䛶䛚䜚䚸䛂䝔䜽䝺䝹䛃䛣䛸䛾ุ᩿䜢䛂䜹䛃䜢౑⏝䛧䛶⪺䛝ᡭ䛻ጤ䛽䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䜢⾲䛩䛂䝔䜽䝺䝹䜹䛃䛸䚸䛂Ỵᐃ⪅䛃䛾せ⣲䛿ኚ䜟䜙䛺䛔䚹䛣䛾䜘䛖䛻䚸ᮏ◊✲䛷⪃ᐹ䛩䜛Ⓨヰෆ⾜Ⅽ䛾ᵓ㐀⤌䜏᥮䛘䛻ྰᐃ䛾せ⣲䛿཯ᫎ䛥䜜䛺䛔䛯䜑䚸䐢䠘౫㢗䠚䛾୙᏶඲䛺ᩥᆺ䛂䝔䜽䝺䝹䠛䛃䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䚸䠘౫㢗䠚䛾᏶⤖䛧䛯ᩥᆺ䜢䛂䝔䜽䝺䝹䜹䛃䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸䐣䛂䝔䜽䝺䝘䜲䜹䛃䛸タᐃ䛧䛯䚹䠄5䠅ලయⓗ䛺㑅ᢥ⫥䛿䚸䠄1䠅R䠉䐟䛭䛾㈨ᩱ䚸ḟ䛾఍㆟䛻ᣢ䛳䛶䛣䛔䐠ᣢ䛳䛶䛝䛶䛟䜜䐡ᣢ䛳䛶䛝䛶䐢ᣢ䛳䛶䛝䛶䛟䜜䜛䠛䐣ᣢ䛳䛶䛝䛶䛟䜜䛺䛔䛛䠄1䠅R䠇䐟䛣䛾㈨ᩱ䚸᫂᪥䜎䛷䛻௙ୖ䛢䜝䐠௙ୖ䛢䛶䛟䜜䐡௙ୖ䛢䛶䐢௙ୖ䛢䛶䛟䜜䜛?㻌
䐣௙ୖ䛢䛶䛟䜜䛺䛔䛛䠄2䠅R䠉䐟䛭䛾䝂䝭⿄䚸ᣢ䛳䛶䛣䛔䐠ᣢ䛳䛶䛝䛶䛟䜜䐡ᣢ䛳䛶䛝䛶䐢ᣢ䛳䛶䛝䛶䛟䜜䜛䠛䐣ᣢ䛳䛶䛝䛶䛟䜜䛺䛔䛛䠄2䠅R䠇䐟᫂᪥䜎䛷䛻䚸ᴗ⪅䛻ရ≀䛾ཷὀ䜢☜ㄆ䛧䜝䐠☜ㄆ䛧䛶䛟䜜䐡☜ㄆ䛧䛶䐢☜ㄆ䛧䛶䛟䜜䜛?
䐣☜ㄆ䛧䛶䛟䜜䛺䛔䛛䚸䛸䛺䜛䚹
䠄6䠅༳㇟䛾㑅ᢥ⫥䛿䚸䛘䜙䛭䛖䞉୍᪉ⓗ䞉䛺䜜䛺䜜䛧䛔䞉䜔䛥䛧䛔䞉୎ᑀ䛷䛒䜛䞉ぶ䛧䜏䛜䛒䜛䞉㐺ษ䛷䛒䜛䞉䛭䛾௚䚹䛆ཧ↷ᩥ⊩䛇
Brown and Levinson. 1987. Politeness : Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge : New York: Cambridge University Press.
䝝䝸䝕䞊M.A.K.. 2001. 䛄ᶵ⬟ᩥἲᴫㄝ㻌 䠉䝝䝸䝕䞊⌮ㄽ䜈䛾ㄏ䛔䠉䛅 ᒣཱྀⓏ䞉⟍⏨ヂ䚸䛟䜝䛧䛚ฟ∧.
ጲ㔝కᏊ. 1992. 䛂㈇ᢸ䛸฼┈䛃䚸䛄ᇸ⋢኱Ꮫ⣖せேᩥ⛉Ꮫ䛅 41. 47-56.
ⵦ㇂ᏹ䞉ᕝཱྀ⩏୍䞉ᆏᮏᜨ. 1998. 䛄ᩗㄒ⾲⌧䛅㻌 ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑᕝᮧ䜘䛧Ꮚ. 1991.

䛂᪥ᮏே䛾ゝㄒ⾜ື䛾≉ᛶ䛃䚸䛄᪥ᮏㄒᏛ䛅 10: 5. 51-60.

䜸䞊䝇䝔䜱䞁, J.L. 1978.

䛄ゝㄒ䛸⾜Ⅽ䛅㻌 ᆏᮏⓒ኱ヂ䚸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ䝸䞊䝏䠈J.N.㻌 1987. 䛄ㄒ⏝ㄽ䛅 ụୖ჆ᙪ䞉Ἑୖㄋసヂ䚸⣖ఀᅜᒇ᭩ᗑ
䝰䞊䝇, M.㻌 1973. 䛄♫఍Ꮫ䛸ே㢮Ꮫ䊠䛅 ᭷ᆅ஽䞉ఀ⸨ᫀྖ䞉ᒣཱྀಇኵඹヂ䚸ᘯᩥᇽ.
ᐑᆅ⿱. 1975. 䛂ཷ⤥⾲⌧⿵ຓືモ䛂䜔䜛䞉䛟䜜䜛䞉䜒䜙䛖䛃䛾Ⓨ㐩䛾ព࿡䛻䛴䛔䛶䛃䚸䛄㕥ᮌ▱ኴ㑻༤ኈྂᕼグᛕ㻌 ᅜㄒᏛㄽᏔ䛅㻌 803-817.㻌 ᱜᴁ♫.
⁪ᾆ┿ே. 2013. 䛄᪥ᮏㄒ䛿ぶ䛧䛥䜢ఏ䛘䜙䜜䜛䛛䛅 ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㭯⏣ᗤᏊ. 2003.㻌 䛂ᩗㄒ䜢౑䛖䛸䛹䛾䜘䛖䛺䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䛜ఏ䜟䜛䛾䛛䠉Ⓨヰෆຠຊ⟶⌮㡿ᇦ䛸䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇䛸䛾㐪䛔䠉䛃䚸䛄᪥ᮏ䝥䝷䜾䝬䝔䜱䝑䜽䝇Ꮫ⏺䛅 13 . 17-38.
ᒣᒸᨻ⣖. 2000. 䛄᪥ᮏㄒ䛾㏙ㄒ䛸ᩥᶵ⬟䛅 䛟䜝䛧䛚ฟ∧ᶓ಴┿ᘺ. 2012. 䛂ᤵཷᙧᘧ䛻䜘䜛䝫䝷䜲䝖䝛䝇ୖ䛾㊥㞳䛾㉁ⓗ㌿᥮䠉㉗୚஺᥮䝅䝇䝔䝮䛛䜙ぢ䛯ே㛫㛵ಀ䛾㊥㞳䛾⥔ᣢ䛸ぶ㏆ឤ⾲♧䛾୧❧䠉䛃䚸䛄ྡྂᒇゝㄒ◊✲䛅 6 . 81-94.

−168−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ࠕ⳥ụࡉࢇࡣࡲࢇࡀࡔࠖࢆ࡝࠺ゎ㔘ࡍࡿ࠿㸸ゎ㔘ࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡜ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢせᅉྜྷ⏣ ឡ❧ᩍ኱Ꮫ࣭᪥ᮏዪᏊ኱Ꮫ㠀ᖖ໅ㅮᖌ(myoshida37@gmail.com)<Abstract>
This study examines the interpretations of a Japanese construction that has the structure, NP1 wa (topic) NP2 da(copula), in controlled experimental contexts. When the two NPs in this type of sentence, NP1 and NP2, are notsyntactically connected, it is presumed that a specific context is needed to interpret the sentence. In theexperiments, the NP1 wa NP2 da sentences were presented with a set of preceding context sentence, and theirinterpretations were asked. Results show that the sentences tended to achieve more unified interpretations when
they were connected to the context sentences syntactically, semantically, or by a frame evoked by an overt
locative while they were interpreted by seeking possible connections between the NP1 and the NP2 within thesentence when they were presented without context.
[Keywords]: ୺㢟໬ᵓ㐀ࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖࠊᐇ㦂ㄒ⏝ㄽ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ 2 ࡘࡢྡモྃ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿ୺㢟໬ᵓ㐀ࡣࠊ୺㢟 (NP1) ࡀᣦ♧ࡍࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ㏙ㄒྡモྃ (NP2) ࡛ࡑࡢᒓᛶࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ (1) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ୺㢟ྡモྃ࡜㏙ㄒྡモྃ࡜ࡢ࠶࠸ࡔࡢ㛵ಀࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛
࡞࠸ሙྜࠊᩥࡢព࿡ࡣࠊࡑࢀ⮬య࡛ࡣ୙࡛᫂࠶ࡿࠋ
(1) ⳥ụࡉࢇࡣࡲࢇࡀࡔ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊవᬤࡢ㐣ࡈࡋ᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡛ࡣࠊ(1) ࡢⓎヰࡀࠊ㺀⳥ụࡉࢇࡣࠊࡲࢇࡀࢆㄞࡴ㺁࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ(1) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥࡀᐇ㝿࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࠿ࡽᩥࡢព࿡ࢆ⿵ࡗ࡚
⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ(1) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ⌮ゎࢆᕥྑࡍࡿࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓࠋ
2. ඛ⾜◊✲
ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘᩥࡣࠊᅜㄒ
Ꮫ࡟࠾࠸࡚㛗࠸㛫ࠊ◊✲ᑐ㇟࡜ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ
ࡑࢀࡽࡣ୺࡟ࠊᩥ⮬యࡢᵓ㐀ࡸ≉ᚩࢆ⏕ᡂᩥἲࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࡸᩥෆ㒊ࡢㄽ⌮㛵ಀ࠿ࡽㄝ᫂ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍ
ࡿࡶࡢ (ዟὠ(1978)ࠊஂ㔝(1978)ࠊ໭ཎ(1981)ࠊụୖ(1981)ࠊᆏཎ(1990) ࡞࡝) ࡜ࠊᩥࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ≉ᐃࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ◊✲(Obana(2001)) ࡜࡟ศࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣࡇࢀࡽࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢ⌮ゎ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ᮲௳ࢆไᚚࡋࡓᐇ㦂ⓗࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟
࠾࠸࡚ㄪᰝࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡀᩥࡢ
⌮ゎ࡟୚࠼ࡿලయⓗ࡞せᅉࡢゎ᫂ࢆ┠ᣦࡋࡓࠋ3. ព࿡ࡢ⿵᏶ (saturation)
ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡣࠊ୺㢟ྡモྃࡀᣦ♧ࡍࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢᒓᛶࡀࠊ㏙ㄒྡモ࡛ྃ⾲ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺
୺㢟໬ᵓ㐀ࡢ୍౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ (1) ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩥ࡛ࡣ୺㢟ྡモྃ (⳥ụࡉࢇ) ࡀᣦ♧ࡍࡿᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢᒓᛶࢆ㏙ㄒྡモྃ (ࡲࢇࡀ) ୍ㄒ࡛ࡢࡳࠊ⾲ࢃࡍࠋすᒣ (2001ࠊ2003) ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢᥐᐃᩥ࡟ࡣࠊ㏙ㄒྡモྃࢆ⿵ࡗ࡚ࠊᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢᒓᛶࢆ᏶ᡂࡉࡏࡿࠊᩥࡢ⾲㠃࡟࠶ࡽࢃࢀ࡞࠸せ⣲ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࠿ࡽࠊ
ᩥࡢ⾲㠃࡟࠶ࡽࢃࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸㒊ศࡢせ⣲ࢆ㏙ㄒྡモྃ࡟⿵ࡗ࡚ࠊ୺㢟ྡモྃࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟ᖐᒓࡍ
ࡿᒓᛶࢆᵓ⠏ࡋࠊᩥࢆゎ㔘ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ
Recanati (2001) ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠊព࿡ࡢ⿵᏶
(saturation) ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᧯స࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊࡇࡢࠕព࿡ࡢ⿵᏶ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ᧯సࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿ୍ࡘࡢ㐣⛬ࡢゎ᫂ࢆ┠ᣦࡍࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ

−169−

「菊池さんはまんがだ」をどう解釈するか：解釈のメカニズムとコンテクストの要因

4. ㄪᰝ

ࡣゎ㔘ࡋࡸࡍࡃࠊẚ㍑ⓗ⤫୍ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿゎ㔘ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋྠᵝ࡟⮬ືモࢆྵࡴࢥࣥࢸࢡ
ࢫࢺᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢ㏙ㄒྡ
4.1. ண
ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ࡟ࡣࠊືモࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞モྃ (NP2) ࡀ⮬ືモࡢព࿡ືసࢆཷࡅࡿࡶࡢ
࠸ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ୺㢟ྡモྃ࡜㏙ㄒྡモྃࢆ⤖ࡧࡘࡅ(theme) ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ᙺ๭࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࠿ྰ࠿࡜࠸
ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿືモࢆࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺෆ࡛ᥦ♧ࡍ
࠺ 2 ✀㢮ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࢆ⏝ពࡋࡓ ((4)ព࿡
ࢀࡤࠊㄞࡳᡭࡣࡑࡢືモࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ᩥࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡼ㛵ಀࠊ(5)㠀ព࿡㛵ಀ))ࠋi࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ     ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢ୺㢟ྡモྃ࡜㏙ㄒྡモྃࡢ(2) ⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ
C: ୰ᮧࡉࢇࡣࠊ❧ࡕㄞࡳࡋࡓ
୧᪉ࡀࠊࡑࡢᵓᡂせ⣲࡜࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿࡼ࠺࡞≉ᐃࡢሙᡤࢆ⾲ࡍࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࢆࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺෆ࡛ᥦ♧ࡍࡿ
T: ⳥ụࡉࢇࡣࡲࢇࡀࡔ
ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢྡモྃࢆ⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ
(3) 㠀⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ࡛ࡁࡿືモࡀႏ㉳ࡉࢀࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ࡟୍

C: ୰ᮧࡉࢇࡣࠊᡭఏࡗࡓ
ᐃࡢゎ㔘ࡀࡉࢀࡸࡍࡃ࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ண

T: ⳥ụࡉࢇࡣࡲࢇࡀࡔࡋࡓ(4) ព࿡㛵ಀ
C: 㕥ᮌࡉࢇࡣࠊㄞ᭩ࡋࡓ
4.2. ᐇ㦂᪉ἲ
T: ⏣୰ࡉࢇࡣᜊឡᑠㄝࡔ
␗࡞ࡿ 3 ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕNP1(5) 㠀ព࿡㛵ಀ
C: 㕥ᮌࡉࢇࡣࠊᗙࡗࡓ
ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᑜࡡࡿㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ ୍ࡘࡣࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿࢥࣥࢸࢡ

T: ⏣୰ࡉࢇࡣᜊឡᑠㄝࡔ
ࢫࢺᩥࢆ୚࠼ࠊᚋ࡟⥆ࡃᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄞࢇࡔ᫬ࡢព࿡
ࢆᑜࡡࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ (ࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔)ࠋࡑࡢ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ 4 ✀㢮ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡑࢀ
௚ࡢ 2 ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛ࡣࠊඛ⾜ࡍࡿࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡣ࡞
ࡒࢀ࡟ࠊ౛࠼ࡤ (6) ࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊሙᡤࢆ⾲ࡍ
ࡃࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢࡳࢆ༢⊂࡛ㄞࢇࡔ᫬ࡢ
ࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࢆ㏣ຍࡋࡓࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࢆ⏝ពࡋࡓࠋሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡣࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥෆࡢ௚ືモࠊ⮬ព࿡ࠊࡲࡓࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ࡟≉ᐃࡢሙᡤࢆ⾲ືモࠊࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺᩥෆࡢ㏙ㄒྡモྃ (NP2) ࡜ࡢࡍゝⴥࢆ௜ࡅࡓᩥࢆ༢⊂࡛ㄞࢇࡔ᫬ࡢព࿡ࢆᑜ
ࡡࡓࠋ㛫࡛ព࿡ⓗ࡟ᩚྜᛶࡢ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡀ㑅ࡤࢀࡓࠋiiሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ
4.2.1.  ࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔
NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢ஧ࡘࡢྡモྃࢆ⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛
4.2.1.1. ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ᮲௳ࡁࡿືモࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡾࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡀ
ࡇࡢㄪᰝ࡛ࡣࠊࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ࡜࡞ࡿࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺᩥࡢ
ࡼࡾ⤫୍ⓗ࡞ゎ㔘࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿ࡜ண ࡋࡓࠋࡔࠖᩥ࡟ࠊࡍ࡭࡚ඛ⾜ࡍࡿࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡀ୚࠼
ࡽࢀࡓࠋࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢே≀ࢆ⾲ࡍ୺(6) ⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ㸩ࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ㢟ྡモྃ࡜ࠊ௚ືモࡲࡓࡣ⮬ືモ࠿ࡽᡂࡾࠊࡇࢀ
  C: ୰ᮧࡉࢇࡣࠊᮏᒇ࡛❧ࡕㄞࡳࡋࡓࡽࡢືモ࡜ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢ㏙ㄒྡモྃ (NP2)࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ㛵ಀࡀࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺᩥࡢゎ㔘࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ
  T: ⳥ụࡉࢇࡣࡲࢇࡀࡔ
㡪ࢆㄪ࡭ࡓࠋ౛࠼ࡤ (2) ࡛ࡣࠊࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺᩥࡢ
㏙ㄒྡモྃ (ࡲࢇࡀ) ࢆࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡢ௚ື
௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ᮲௳ 4 ✀㢮ࠊព࿡㛵ಀモ (❧ࡕㄞࡳࡋࡓ) ࡢ┤᥋┠ⓗㄒ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜
᮲௳ 4 ✀㢮ࡢィ 8 ✀㢮ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࢆ⏝ពࡋࠊࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡢ௚ືモࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ
ࡀᵓ⠏ࡍࡿ⤫ㄒⓗ㛵ಀ࡜▩┪ࡢ࡞࠸ᙧ࡛ࢱ࣮ࢤ
ᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢゎ㔘ࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓࠋ
iii
ࢵࢺᩥࡢ୺㢟ྡモྃ࡜㏙ㄒྡモྃ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ᝿㉳࡛ࡁࡿ (⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ)ࠋ୍᪉ (3) ࡛ࡣࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ
ᩥࡢ㏙ㄒྡモྃ (ࡲࢇࡀ) ࢆࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡢ
4.2.1.2. ㄪᰝ࢔࢖ࢸ࣒
௚ືモ (ᡭఏࡗࡓ) ࡢ┤᥋┠ⓗㄒ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟
⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ᮲௳࡜ព࿡㛵ಀ᮲௳ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ 4ࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ (㠀⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ)ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ (2) ࡢࢥࣥ᮲௳࡟ࡘࡁࠊ8 ࣌࢔ࡢᐇ㦂ࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔ࢆస
ࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ᪉ࡀ (3) ࡟ẚ࡭ࡿ࡜ࠊࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺᩥ
ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽ 8 ࣌࢔ࡢᐇ㦂ࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔࠿ࡽ

−170−

第16回大会発表論文集

1 ᮲௳࡟ࡘࡁ 2 ࣌࢔ࡎࡘ࡜ࠊ24 ࡢࣇ࢕࣮ࣛࢭࣥࢸ
ࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔ࢆྜࢃࡏ࡚ࠊྜィ 32 ࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌
࢔࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿ࢝࢘ࣥࢱ࣮ࣂࣛࣥࢫࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿㄪ
ᰝ࢔࢖ࢸ࣒ࡢࢭࢵࢺࢆࠊ⤫ㄒ㛵ಀࠊព࿡㛵ಀࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟ࡘࡁ 4 ࢭࢵࢺ⏝ពࡋࡓࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢭࢵࢺ
࡟࠾࠸࡚ࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔ࡣࣛࣥࢲ࣒໬ࡋ࡚ᥦ♧ࡋࡓࠋ⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ᮲௳ (ᣓᘼෆࡣ࣌࢔ࡢಶᩘ)
⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ (2)ࠊ㠀⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ (2)ࠊ⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ + ࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ (2)ࠊ㠀⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ + ࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ(2)ࠊࣇ࢕࣮ࣛ(24)ព࿡㛵ಀ᮲௳ (ᣓᘼෆࡣ࣌࢔ࡢಶᩘ)ព࿡㛵ಀ (2)ࠊ㠀ព࿡㛵ಀ (2)ࠊព࿡㛵ಀ + ࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ(2)ࠊ㠀ព࿡㛵ಀ + ࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ (2)ࠊࣇ࢕࣮ࣛ (24)4.2.1.3. ⿕㦂⪅ཬࡧㄪᰝ᪉ἲ
᪥ᮏㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ 32 ྡࡢ♫఍ேࡸ୺፬ (39ṓ㹼45 ṓࠊᖹᆒᖺ㱋 40 ṓ) ࡀㄪᰝ࡟ཧຍࡋࡓࠋ
ࡑࡢ࠺ࡕ 16 ྡࡀ⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ᮲௳ࡢ 4 ࢭࢵࢺࡢㄪᰝ
࢔࢖ࢸ࣒ࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ 1 ࢭࢵࢺ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊṧࡾࡢ 16 ྡࡀព࿡㛵ಀ᮲௳ࡢ 4 ࢭࢵࢺࡢㄪᰝ࢔࢖
ࢸ࣒ࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ 1 ࢭࢵࢺ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᅇ⟅ࡋࡓࠋㄪᰝ࡛ࡣࠊ୍࣮࣌ࢪ࡟୍ࡘࡢࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔
ࡀ༳ๅࡉࢀࠊ⿕㦂⪅ࡣྛࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔࡟࠾࠸
࡚ࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡢᚋ࡟⥆ࡃᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࢱ࣮ࢤࢵ
ࢺᩥࢆㄞࡳࠊࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺᩥࡢព࿡ࢆ⮬⏤ᅇ⟅࡛᭩ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆồࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋព࿡ࡀศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ሙྜࡣࠊ᥎ ࡉࢀࡿព࿡ࢆ᭩࠸ࡓࡾࠊࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࡾ
ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠿ࡲࢃ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊᅇ⟅࡟ṇゎ୙ṇゎࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊࡲࡓ୍ࡘࡢ㉁ၥࢆ⤊࠼ࡓࡽࠊḟ࡟㐍ࡳࠊ๓࡟ᡠࡗ࡚ࡍ࡛࡟ᅇ⟅ࡋࡓ㉁ၥࢆࡸࡾ┤ࡋࡓࡾࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀὀព஦㡯࡜ࡋ࡚♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋ᭱ึࡢ࣌
࣮ࢪ࡟ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭
࣌࢔ࡢᥦ♧࡜ࠊゎ⟅౛ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
4.2.2. ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ༢⊂࡛ࡢゎ㔘
4.2.2.1. 2 ✀㢮ࡢࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡀకࢃࡎ࡟ࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ༢⊂࡛ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓሙྜࡢᩥࡢព࿡ࢆᑜࡡࡿㄪ
ᰝ࡛ࡣࠊ2 ✀㢮ࡢࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢព࿡ࢆᑜ
ࡡࡓࠋ୍ࡘࡣ (7) ࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2ࡔࠖᩥࡑࡢࡶࡢࢆ༢⊂࡛♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶ࠺
୍ࡘࡣࠊ(8) ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ࡟ࠊࢭ

第９号

ࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔࡛⏝࠸ࡓࡢ࡜ྠࡌሙᡤࢆ⾲ࡍࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡢࡳࢆ㏣ຍࡋࡓᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢㄪᰝࡣࠊ
ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡑࡢࡶࡢࡸࠊሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡢࡳࡀ
ゎ㔘࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ㡪ࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㏣ຍㄪᰝ࡜ࡋ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡓࠋ
(7) ⏣୰ࡉࢇࡣᜊឡᑠㄝࡔ
(8) ⏣୰ࡉࢇࡣᅗ᭩㤋࡛ᜊឡᑠㄝࡔ
4.2.2.2. ⿕㦂⪅ཬࡧㄪᰝ᪉ἲ
ࡇࢀࡽࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ༢⊂ࡢព࿡ࢆᑜࡡࡿ
ㄪᰝࡣࠊඛ࡟㏙࡭ࡓ⿕㦂⪅࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡢ
⿕㦂⪅ (18 ṓ㹼21 ṓࡲ࡛ࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࠊᖹᆒᖺ㱋 19ṓ) 40 ே࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡓࠋព࿡㛵ಀࡢ᮲௳࡟࠾
ࡅࡿࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ (ྛ 8) ࡜ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2
ࡔࠖᩥ㸩ሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࠊࡢ 2 ✀㢮ࡢࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2ࡔࠖᩥࢆࠊࣇ࢕࣮ࣛ࡞ࡋ࡛༢⊂࡛ㄞࢇ࡛ࡶࡽ࠸ࠊ
⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿព࿡ࢆ᭩࠸࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋiv ⿕㦂⪅ࡣ
ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ༢⊂ࠊࡲࡓࡣࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ + ሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡢ࠺ࡕ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿୍✀㢮ࡢࡳ୚࠼ࡽࢀࠊࡑࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᐇ㦂ᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᅇ⟅ࡋࡓࠋ୍ࡘࡢ✀㢮࡟ࡘࡁ 20 ேࡀᅇ⟅ࡋࡓࠋ
5. ㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ
5.1. ゎ㔘ࡢศ㢮 ㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢព࿡ࡣࠊ⿕㦂⪅ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゎ㔘ࡋࡓ࠿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚௨ୗࡢࡼ
࠺࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡲࡎࠊ୺㢟ྡモྃ࡜㏙ㄒྡモྃ࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢືモࢆ⿵ࡗ࡚ព࿡ࢆゎ㔘ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓሙ
ྜࠊࡑࡢືモࡀࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥ࡟࠶ࡿືモ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࠿ྰ࠿࡟ࡼࡾ 2 ✀㢮ࡢゎ㔘࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓ(a, b)ࠋv୺㢟ྡモྃ࡜㏙ㄒྡモྃ࡟ືモࢆ⿵ࡗ࡚⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙྜࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡑࢀࡽࡢྡモྃࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿ࠿ࠊࡑࡢࡸࡾ
᪉࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ࡢ✀㢮࡟ศࡅࡽࢀࡓࠋ౛࠼
ࡤࠊ㏙ㄒྡモྃࡀẚ႘ⓗ࡟୺㢟ྡモྃࡢᒓᛶࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡸࠊ㏙ㄒྡモྃࡀ୺㢟ྡモྃࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡟ᐦ᥋࡟㛵ಀࡢ࠶ࡿࡶࡢ (⫋ᴗࠊᣢࡕ≀ࠊᛶ㉁࡞࡝) ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿゎ㔘ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊ
୺㢟ྡモྃ࡜㏙ㄒྡモྃࡢ㛫࡟ࠊព࿡ⓗ࡞ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ㏆ࡋࡉࢆぢฟࡋࠊࡑࡢ㛵ಀᛶ࡟ࡼࡾ஧ࡘࡢྡモྃࢆ⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ
ྠࡌゎ㔘࡜ࡋ࡚ศ㢮ࡋࡓ(c)ࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕ~ࡀዲࡁࡔࠖ
ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙ㄒྡモྃࡀ୺㢟ྡモྃࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢዲࡳࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿゎ㔘ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ(d)ࠋࡑࡢ௚ࡢᅇ
⟅ࡣࠊࡍ࡭࡚ඹ㏻ᛶࡀぢࡽࢀࡎࠊ୍㈏ᛶࡀ࡞࠸⊂⮬ࡢゎ㔘࡜఩⨨௜ࡅࡽࢀࡓ(e)ࠋࡲࡓ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ព

−171−

「菊池さんはまんがだ」をどう解釈するか：解釈のメカニズムとコンテクストの要因࿡ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡼࡃࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ᅇ⟅ࡶࠊࡇࡢ࢝
ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊࠕព࿡ࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞
࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ
ᩥࡢព࿡ࡣྜィ 6 ✀㢮ࡢゎ㔘࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡓࠋvi(a) ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺືモ  ౛ <⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ>C: ୰ᮧࡉࢇࡣࠊ❧ࡕㄞࡳࡋࡓ
T: ⳥ụࡉࢇࡣࡲࢇࡀࡔ
ࠕ⳥ụࡉࢇࡣࡲࢇࡀࢆ❧ࡕㄞࡳࡋࡓࠖ౛ <ព࿡㛵ಀ>
C: ὸ⏣ࡉࢇࡣࠊ㈙࠸≀ࡋࡓ
T: ຍ⸨ࡉࢇࡣ᫬ィࡔ ࠕຍ⸨ࡉࢇࡶ㈙࠸≀ࢆࡋࠊ᫬ィࢆ㈙ࡗ
ࡓࠖ(b) ࡑࡢ௚ࡢືモ౛ C: ୰ᮧࡉࢇࡣࠊᡭఏࡗࡓ
T: ⳥ụࡉࢇࡣࡲࢇࡀࡔ
ࠕ⳥ụࡉࢇࡣ୰ᮧࡉࢇࢆᡭఏࢃࡎࡲࢇ
ࡀࢆㄞࢇ࡛࠸ࡓࠖ
(c) ẚ႘ⓗ㛵ಀ࣭ᐦ᥋࡞㛵ಀ౛ C: ๓ᕝࡉࢇࡣࠊほᐹࡋࡓ
T: ᮧ℩ࡉࢇࡣ࢜ࢱ࣐ࢪࣕࢡࢩࡔ ࠕ๓ᕝࡉࢇࡣᮧ℩ࡉࢇࢆほᐹࡋ࡚࢜ࢱ
࣐ࢪࣕࢡࢩࡢࡼ࠺࡞ேࡔ࡜ᛮࡗࡓࠖ
౛ C: ᳃ࡉࢇࡣࠊ࠾ࡋࡷ࡭ࡾࡋࡓ
T: 㤶ᕝࡉࢇࡣ࣐ࣇ࣮ࣛࡔ
ࠕ㤶ᕝࡉࢇࡣ࣐ࣇ࣮ࣛࢆࡋ࡚ࠊ᳃ࡉࢇ࡜
࠾ࡋࡷ࡭ࡾࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠖ(d) ዲࡳ
౛ C: ⏣୰ࡉࢇࡣࠊㄞ᭩ࡋࡓ
T: 㕥ᮌࡉࢇࡣᜊឡᑠㄝࡔ ࠕ⏣୰ࡉࢇ࡜㕥ᮌࡉࢇࡣㄞ᭩௰㛫ࡔࡀࠊ㕥ᮌࡉࢇࡣᜊឡᑠㄝࡀዲࡳࡔࠖ(e) ୍㈏ᛶࡢ࡞࠸ゎ㔘౛ C: ྂ㇂ࡉࢇࡣࠊ☜ㄆࡋࡓ
T: ゅ⏣ࡉࢇࡣࢡ࣮ࣞࣥ㌴ࡔ ࠕゅ⏣ࡉࢇࡣࢡ࣮ࣞࣥ㌴ࡀ㐠㌿࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆྂ㇂ࡉࢇ࡟☜ㄆࡉࡏࡓࠖ

5.2. ࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢព࿡⾲ 1 ࡣ⤫ㄒⓗ㛵ಀ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ 4 ᮲௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕNP1
ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢゎ㔘ࡢศ㢮ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
୍㈏ᛶࡢ࡞࠸ゎ㔘ࡸព࿡ࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ᅇ
⟅ࢆ㝖࠸࡚ࠊ኱༙ࡀఱࡽ࠿ࡢືモࢆ⿵ࡗ࡚ゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥෆࡢືモ࡜ࠕNP1 ࡣ
NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢྡモྃࡀ⤫ㄒⓗ㛵ಀࢆ⤖࡭ࡿࡼ࠺࡞
ሙྜࡣࠊྠࡌືモࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊࡲࡓ⤖࡭࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡞
ሙྜࡣ௚ࡢືモࢆ⿵࠺ᙧ࡛ࡢゎ㔘ࡀከ࠸ࠋ⾲ 2 ࡣព࿡ⓗ㛵ಀ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ 4 ᮲௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕNP1
ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢゎ㔘ࡢศ㢮ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⤫ㄒⓗ㛵ಀࡢ᮲௳࡛ࡢゎ㔘ࡼࡾࡶࠊࡼࡾゎ㔘ࡢ௙᪉࡟ከᵝᛶࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣ⤫ㄒⓗ㛵ಀࡢ᮲௳࡜ྠࡌࡃࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢືモࢆ⿵ࡗ࡚ᩥࢆゎ㔘ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ⾲ 1㸸⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ᮲௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢゎ㔘

−172−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

⾲ 2㸸ព࿡㛵ಀ᮲௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢゎ㔘⾲ 1ࠊ⾲ 2 ࡟࠶ࡿゎ㔘ࡢศ㢮࡛ࡣ඲యⓗ࡞ഴྥࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡇࢀ࡛ࡣࠊ୍ேࡢㄞࡳᡭࡀࠊྠࡌ
ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࢆࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ᮲௳࡟ᛂ
ࡌ࡚ࠊ㐪࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ゎ㔘ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ
࡞࠸ࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊ࠶ࡿㄞࡳᡭࡀࡍ࡭࡚ࡢࢥࣥ
ࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୍ࡘࡢゎ㔘ࡢ௙᪉ࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࠊูࡢㄞࡳᡭࡣࡍ࡭࡚ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸ู࡚
ࡢゎ㔘ࡢ௙᪉ࢆ᥇⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡾ
࠺ࡿࠋㄞࡳᡭࡢゎ㔘ࡀࠊ␗࡞ࡿ᮲௳ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫ
ࢺ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᮏᙜ࡟ኚࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ☜࠿ࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ࣐ࢡࢿ᳨࣐࣮ᐃࢆ⏝࠸࡚ศᯒࡋࡓࠋ
࣐ࢡࢿ᳨࣐࣮ᐃࡣࠊྠࡌ㞟ᅋࡀ 2 ࡘࡢ␗࡞ࡿせᅉ࡟ヱᙜࡍࡿ๭ྜࡢᕪࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡢ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ␗࡞ࡿ 2 ᮲௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢゎ㔘࡛᥇⏝ࡉࢀࡓ୍ࡘࡢゎ㔘ࡢ᪉ἲࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࢆẚ㍑ࡋࠊྠࡌゎ㔘ࡢ᪉ἲࢆ∦᪉ࡢ᮲௳࡟ࡢ
ࡳ᭱ప୍ᅇࡣ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ⿕㦂⪅ࡢᩘࢆࠊ஧ࡘࡢ
᮲௳࡛ẚ࡭ࡓࠋࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊྠࡌゎ㔘᪉ἲࢆ࡝ࡕࡽࡢ᮲௳࡟ࡶ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡾࠊ࡝ࡕࡽ
ࡢ᮲௳࡟ࡶ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙྜࡣ㝖࠿ࢀ࡚ࠊ⣧⢋࡟ 2 ࡘࡢ᮲௳ࡢ࠺ࡕ࡝ࡕࡽ࡛ࡼࡾ౑ࢃࢀࡿ
ഴྥࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ࠿᥈ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡓࠋࡇࡢ
᪉ἲ࡛ࠊࢮࣟᅇ⟅௨እࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᅇ⟅࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୍
ࡘࡢゎ㔘ࡢ᪉ἲࡢ౑⏝ேᩘࢆ஧ࡘࡢ᮲௳࡛ẚ㍑
ࡋࡓࠋ඲యⓗ࡟ᅇ⟅ᩘࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࡼࡾഴྥࢆ
ࡘ࠿ࡳࡸࡍࡃࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ୍㈏ᛶࡢ࡞࠸ゎ㔘࡜ࠕព࿡ࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖࢆࠊࡲࡓẚ႘ⓗ࣭ᐦ᥋࡞㛵ಀ࡜ዲࡳ࡟㛵ࡍࡿゎ㔘ࡣ୍ࡘ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࠋྜィ࡛⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ᮲௳ࠊព࿡㛵ಀ᮲௳ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ 15 ࣌࢔࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ᐃࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ᮲௳࡜ព࿡㛵ಀ᮲௳࡛ࡣࠊ
ゎ㔘ࡢ௙᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ௨ୗࡢ஧ࡘࡢⅬ࡛㐪࠺ഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ୍ࡘࡣࠊ
ࠕ୍㈏ᛶࡢ࡞࠸ࠖゎ㔘࡜ࠕព࿡ࡀศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࢆྜࢃࡏࡓゎ㔘ࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ᮲௳࡟࠾࠸࡚
ࡶព࿡㛵ಀ᮲௳࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥ࡜
ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟⤫ㄒⓗࠊព࿡ⓗ࡞㛵ಀࢆ⤖ࡪࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘ࡣቑ࠼ࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊព࿡㛵ಀ᮲௳࡛ࡣព࿡ⓗ࡞㛵ಀࡀ↓࠸ሙྜ࡛ࡶሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓ᮲௳࡛ࡣࠊᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ᮲௳࡛ࡼࡾࡶࠊࡇ
ࢀࡽࡢゎ㔘ࡀῶࡿഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓ (Odds =1:8,
p=.04) ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ᮲௳࡛ࡣ⤫ㄒⓗ࡞㛵ಀࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙྜࠊሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ
ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚ࡶࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢゎ㔘ࡢ㢖ᗘ࡟ᕪࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢྡモྃࡀࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡢືモࡢᣢࡘ⤫ㄒᵓ㐀࡜▩┪ࢆ⏕ࡌࡿࡼ࠺࡞㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜࡣࠊሙᡤࣇ࣮ࣞ
࣒ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ୍㈏ᛶࡢ࡞࠸ゎ㔘ࡸព࿡ࡀศ࠿
ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࢆῶࡽࡍຠᯝࡀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ
࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
஧Ⅼ┠ࡣࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡀࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥෆࡢືモ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࠊ⤫ㄒⓗࠊព࿡ⓗ࡞㛵ಀࢆ⤖ࡪࡇ࡜ࡀ᝿ᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜ࡁࡢࠊࠕࡑࡢ௚ࡢືモࠖࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓゎ㔘ࡢ㢖ᗘ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⤫ㄒ㛵ಀࡀ↓࠸ሙྜࡶព࿡㛵ಀࡀ↓࠸ሙྜࡶࠊࡇࡢゎ㔘᪉ἲࢆ࡜ࡿഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡀࠊ⤫ㄒ㛵ಀࡀ↓࠸᮲௳࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥ࡟ሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡀ࠶
ࡗࡓ᪉ࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡼࡾࠕࡑࡢ௚ࡢືモࠖ࡟ࡼࡿゎ㔘ࢆࡋࡓ⿕㦂⪅ࡀከ࠸࡜࠸࠺᭷ពഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓ (Odds=2:9, p=.065) ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊព࿡㛵ಀࡀ↓࠸᮲௳࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥ࡟ሙᡤࣇ
࣮࣒ࣞࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊࡇࡢゎ㔘ࡢ᪉ἲࡢ౑
⏝ேᩘ࡟㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋព࿡ⓗ㛵ಀࡀ↓−173−

「菊池さんはまんがだ」をどう解釈するか：解釈のメカニズムとコンテクストの要因࠸ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ᮲௳࡛ࡣࠊ≉࡟ሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡀ
ᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊㄞࡳᡭࡣఱࡽ࠿ࡢ᪉ἲ࡛ࠕNP1
ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢ୺㢟ྡモྃ࡜㏙ㄒྡモྃࢆࡘ࡞ࡄ
ࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁࡿືモࢆ᥈ࡋฟࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ᩥࢆゎ㔘ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊព࿡ⓗ࡟┤᥋㛵ಀࡢ࡞࠸ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡔࡅ࡛ࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᚲせ࡞≉ᐃࡢືモࢆႏ㉳ࡉࡏࡿຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡑࡶࡑࡶඛ⾜ࡍࡿࢥࣥࢸ
ࢡࢫࢺᩥࡀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡑࡢࡶ
ࡢࢆㄞࢇࡔࡔࡅ࡛ࠊ୺㢟ྡモྃ࡜㏙ㄒྡモྃࢆఱࡽ࠿ࡢືモࢆ⿵ࡗ࡚ࡘ࡞ࡄ᪉ἲ࡛ࠊᩥࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᯝࡓࡋ࡚ࢥࣥࢸ
ࢡࢫࢺᩥࡢᏑᅾࡣࠊᮏᙜ࡟ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢゎ㔘࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ
␲ၥ࡟⟅࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊព࿡㛵ಀ᮲௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕNP1

ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࢆࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡞ࡋ࡛༢⊂࡛ㄞࢇ࡛ࡶࡽࡗࡓሙྜࡢゎ㔘࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
5.3.ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ༢⊂࡛ࡢゎ㔘 ⾲ 3 ࡣࠊព࿡㛵ಀࡢ᮲௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2
ࡔࠖᩥ༢⊂࡛ࡢゎ㔘ࡢศ㢮࡜ࠊሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࢆຍ
࠼ࡓࠕNP1 ࡣ㸦ሙᡤ㸧࡛ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ༢⊂࡛ࡢゎ㔘ࡢศ㢮ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋẚ㍑ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊྠࡌ
ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢࠊព࿡㛵ಀࡀ↓࠸ 2 ᮲௳㸦㠀ព࿡㛵ಀࠊ㠀ព࿡㛵ಀ + ሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ㸧࡛ࡢࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔࡟࠾ࡅࡿゎ㔘ࡶ♧ࡋ࡚࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ
ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ࡜ࠕNP1 ࡣ㸦ሙᡤ㸧࡛ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ༢⊂࡛ࡢゎ㔘ࡢศ㢮ࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟␗࡞ࡗ
࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࣇ࢕ࢵࢩ࣮ࣕࡢ┤᥋☜❧᳨ᐃࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ 2 ✀㢮ࡢᩥࡢゎ㔘᪉ἲࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡣࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢゎ㔘᪉ἲ࡟࠾࠸࡚᭷ព࡟ᕪࡀ
࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋ

⾲ 3㸸ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ༢⊂࡜㠀ព࿡㛵ಀ᮲௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢゎ㔘 ḟ࡟ࡇࢀࡽࡢᩥ༢⊂࡛ࡢゎ㔘࡜ࠊព࿡㛵ಀࡀ↓
࠸ 2 ᮲௳࡛ࡢࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔࡟࠾ࡅࡿゎ㔘࡜ࢆẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ࡟ሙᡤࣇࣞ
࣮࣒ࢆຍ࠼ࡓࠕNP1 ࡣ㸦ሙᡤ㸧࡛ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢゎ㔘ࡢ᪉ἲࡣࠊࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔ࡢ 2 ᮲௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
ゎ㔘ࡢ᪉ἲ࡜㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ
≉࡟ࡇࢀࡽࡢ 3 ᮲௳࡛ࡣࠊࠕࡑࡢ௚ࡢືモࠖࢆᩥࡢእ࠿ࡽ⿵࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊᩥࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿ᪉ἲࡀ᭱
ࡶከࡃ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕNP1 ࡣ㸦ሙᡤ㸧࡛ NP2ࡔࠖᩥࡢࠕࡑࡢ௚ࡢືモࠖ࡟ࡼࡿゎ㔘ࡢ㢖ᗘࢆࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔ࡢ 2 ᮲௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡇࡢゎ㔘ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘ࡜ࠊ2 ᮲௳ࡎࡘࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟ࣇ࢕ࢵࢩ࣮ࣕࡢ┤᥋☜❧᳨ᐃࢆ⏝࠸࡚ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࡳࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊሙᡤࣇ
࣮࣒ࣞࡀ࠶ࡿࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔࡜ࡢ㛫࡛ࡣ᭷ពᕪ

ࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡀ↓࠸ࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔࡜ࡢ㛫࡛ࡣ᭷ពᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࠊ㠀ព࿡㛵ಀࡢࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠕNP1 ࡣ㸦ሙᡤ㸧࡛ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡼࡾᑡ࡞࠸ேᩘࡢ⿕㦂⪅ࡀࠕࡑࡢ௚ࡢືモࠖࢆᙜ࡚ࡣࡵࡓゎ㔘ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜࠸࠺
⤖ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓ (p=.012)ࠋሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡣࠊඛ⾜ࡍࡿࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥෆ࡛ᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚ࡶࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ㸦ሙᡤ㸧࡛ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢᙧ࡛ᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚ࡶࠊࠕࡑࡢ௚ࡢືモࠖ࡟ࡼࡿゎ㔘ࢆቑࡸࡍຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࢆࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫ
ࢺ࡞ࡋ࡛༢⊂࡛ㄞࢇࡔሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊᩥࡢእ࠿ࡽືモࢆྲྀࡾධࢀ࡚ゎ㔘ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺᪉ἲࡣ࠶ࡲࡾ᥇ࡽ
ࢀࡎ࡟ࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥෆ㒊࡛ࠊ୺㢟ྡモྃ

−174−

第16回大会発表論文集(NP1) ࡜㏙ㄒྡモྃ (NP2)ࢆఱࡽ࠿ࡢ᪉ἲ࡛ᴫᛕ
ⓗ࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡅ࡚ゎ㔘ࡍࡿഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡢ࡟ᑐ
ࡋࠊྠࡌᩥ࡟ሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࢥࣥࢸ
ࢡࢫࢺ࡞ࡋ࡛ࡶࠊᩥࡢእ࠿ࡽ஧ࡘࡢྡモྃ (NP1ࠊ
NP2) ࢆ⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡞ືモࢆᙜ࡚ࡣࡵࡿゎ㔘ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠕNP1
ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ࡟ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓሙྜࠊ
ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥෆࡢ⮬ືモࡀࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥෆࡢྡモྃ࡜┤᥋ⓗ࡟ព࿡ⓗ࡞㛵㐃ࡀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊ஧ࡘࡢྡモྃࢆ⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡞ືモࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
6. ⪃ᐹ ㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࠊḟࡢ 2 Ⅼࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
1)ࠕሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࠖࡢຠᯝ

第９号

ᮇᚅ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸᮲௳࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕሙᡤࠖࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓᅇ⟅ࡀᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿຠᯝࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ⤫ㄒⓗ㛵ಀࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸᮲௳࡟
࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕሙᡤࠖࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢゎ㔘ࡢ㢖ᗘࡣኚࢃࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࢥ
ࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡢ௚ືモ࡜ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢྡモྃ࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ⤫ㄒⓗ࡞㛵ಀࡣࠊ⣧⢋࡟ព࿡ࡔࡅࡢ
㛵ಀࡼࡾᙉ࠸㛵ಀ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ⤫ㄒⓗ㛵ಀ࡟▩┪ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࢥࣥࢸࢡ
ࢫࢺ࡛ࡣࠊ඲⯡ⓗ࡟ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢゎ㔘ࡣ㞴ࡋࡃ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥ࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ⤫ㄒⓗ㛵ಀࡀ↓࠸ሙྜࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡢືモ࡜
ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢ㏙ㄒྡモྃ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟㠀ᩥἲⓗ࡞㛵ಀࡀ⏕ࡌࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊព࿡ⓗ࡞㛵ಀࡀ↓࠸ሙྜࡣࠊ༢࡟
ព࿡ⓗ࡟ᩚྜᛶࡀぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡔࡅ࡛ࠊ㠀ᩥἲⓗ࡞㛵ಀࡀ⏕ࡌࡿሙྜ࡯࡝ᙉࡃゎ㔘ࢆጉࡆ࠺ࡿ㛵ಀ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾㄞࡳᡭࡣࠊ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓ
ᴫᛕ᝟ሗࡢ୰࡟ព࿡ⓗ࡞ࡘ࡞ࡀࡾࡀぢฟࡏ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊ⤫ㄒⓗ࡞㛵ಀ࡟᫂ࡽ࠿࡞▩┪ࡀぢࡽࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓᴫᛕྠኈࡢ㛫࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ㛵ಀᛶࢆぢࡘࡅࠊᩥࢆゎ㔘ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࠕሙᡤࠖࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢㄞࡳᡭ࡟ࠊ୺㢟ྡモྃ࡜㏙ㄒྡモྃࢆࡘ࡞ࡄ
ࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁࡿ≉ᐃࡢືモࢆႏ㉳ࡉࡏࡿ୍ᐃࡢຠ
ᯝࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢሙᡤࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ
ࡑࡢሙᡤ࡛㉳ࡇࡾ࠺ࡿᵝࠎ࡞ฟ᮶஦ࡸάື࡟㛵ࡍࡿࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡀႏ㉳ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊㄞࡳᡭࡀ
7. ⤖ㄽ
ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ࡛୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿྡモྃࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡜ࣇ࣮࣒ࣞෆࡢᵓᡂせ⣲࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡾࢆぢฟࡍ࠿ࡽ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ຠᯝࡣࠊ  ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ࡛ࠊ஧ࡘࡢྡモሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࡀࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿࢥྃ (NP1ࠊNP2) ࡀ⤫ㄒⓗ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡾࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡢ
ࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡢ୰࡛ᥦ♧ࡉᩥࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿ᪉ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ᮲௳ࢆ
ࢀࡓሙྜࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ(ሙᡤ)࡛ NP2 ࡔࠖไᚚࡋࡓࠊᵝࠎ࡞ᐇ㦂ⓗࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚
ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢゎ㔘ࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊㄞ
ᩥࡢゎ㔘࡟ぢࡽࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥෆ࡛ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓሙྜ࡛ࡶ᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ       ࡳᡭࡣࠊ஧ࡘࡢྡモྃ          (NP
 1ࠊNP 2) ࢆ⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿ            ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ᪉ἲࢆࠊඛ⾜ࡍࡿࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡸࠊࡑ
2) ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥ࡜ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ௚୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓ᝟ሗࡢ୰࠿ࡽᶍ⣴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ≉࡟ඛ⾜ࡍࡿࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥ
ࡢ⤫ㄒⓗࠊព࿡ⓗ㛵ಀࡢ㐪࠸ࡢ୰࡟ືモࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢືモ࡜ࠕNP1 ࡣ ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥෆࡢືモ࡜ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ
NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢ஧ࡘࡢྡモྃ (NP1ࠊNP2)࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࡢྡモྃ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ព࿡ⓗ㛵ಀࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡼ
ࢆ᥈ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ㏙ㄒྡモ୍ྃㄒ (NP2) ࢆ⿵ࡗ࡚࠺࡞ሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊ(ࠕሙᡤࠖࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚ࡶࡉࢀ࡞
୺㢟ྡモྃ (NP1) ࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁࡿືࡃ࡚ࡶ) ௚࡟ືモࢆぢࡘࡅࠊࡑࢀࢆ⿵ࡗ࡚ゎ㔘ࡍモࢆぢࡘࡅࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿഴྥࡿ᪉ἲࡀከࡃࡢ⿕㦂⪅࡟᥇ࡽࢀࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࢥࣥࢸ
ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢ௚࡟ఱࡶ
ࢡࢫࢺᩥෆࡢືモ࡜ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢྡモྃࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ᝟ሗࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ
ᩥࡢෆ㒊࡛஧ࡘࡢྡモྃ (NP1ࠊNP2) ࢆᴫᛕⓗ࡟࡜ࡢ㛫࡟⤫ㄒⓗ㛵ಀࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ሙྜࡣࠊࡇࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡟௚ࡢືモࢆ⿵ࡗ࡚ゎ㔘ࡍࡿഴྥࡣࠊ
ࠕሙᡤࠖ⤖ࡧࡘࡅ࡚ゎ㔘ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
ࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓ᮲௳࡟ẚ࡭ࡿ࡜ᙅ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
 ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊᐇ㦂ⓗࢥࣥࢸࢡ ࡲࡓࠊ⤫ㄒⓗ㛵ಀࡸព࿡ⓗ㛵ಀࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸
ࢫࢺࡢ୰࡛ࡢゎ㔘ࢆㄪ࡭ࡿ◊✲ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡯࡜
᮲௳࡛ࡣࠊ୍㈏ᛶࡢ࡞࠸ゎ㔘ࡸࠕព࿡ࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞
ࢇ࡝࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᐇ㦂ⓗࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺࡣࠊ᮲
࠸ࠖᅇ⟅ࡀቑ࠼ࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊព࿡ⓗ㛵ಀࡀ௳ࢆไᚚࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㠀ᖖ࡟⡆␎໬ࡉࢀࠊ᪥ᖖⓗ࡞−175−

「菊池さんはまんがだ」をどう解釈するか：解釈のメカニズムとコンテクストの要因⮬↛఍ヰࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿᙧែࡢࡶࡢ
࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࡀࠊࡑࡢศࠊᩥࡢゎ㔘࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࠺ࡿせᅉࢆ≉ᐃࡋ᫆࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢㄪᰝ࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡉࢀࡓࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢゎ㔘࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥ࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ⤫ㄒⓗࠊព࿡ⓗ㛵ಀࡸࠕሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࠖࡢຠᯝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ⮬↛఍ヰ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢゎ㔘࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶྠࡌഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ほᐹࡍࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊࡼࡾከࡃࡢࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࡮࢔࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ
ྠ✀ࡢㄪᰝࡸࠊࡲࡓࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢྡモྃࡸࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡢືモ࡜ᩚྜⓗ࡛࡞࠸ࠕሙᡤ
ࣇ࣮࣒ࣞࠖࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿ࡞࡝ࡢ␗࡞ࡿࢱ࢖ࣉࡢࢥࣥ
ࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄪᰝࢆ㔜ࡡࠊࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥࡢゎ㔘࡜ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡜
ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ ᮏ᮶࡞ࡽࡤ⤫ㄒ㛵ಀࡢ᮲௳࡜ព࿡㛵ಀࡢ᮲௳࡛ࡲࡗࡓࡃྠࡌࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺᩥ (ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ) ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔ࢆ⏝ពࡍࡿࡢࡀ⌮᝿ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊୖグ࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡞⤫ㄒⓗࠊព࿡ⓗ㛵ಀᛶࢆಖࡕࠊ࡞࠾࠿ࡘඹ㏻ࡍࡿሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ࡜
ࡢᩚྜᛶࢆేࡏᣢࡗࡓ㏙ㄒྡモྃ (NP2) ࡜௚ືモࠊ⮬ືモࡢ࣌࢔ࢆㄪᰝ࡟ᚲせ࡞ᩘࡔࡅసࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊ⤫ㄒⓗ᮲௳࡜ព࿡ⓗ᮲௳࡛ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥ࡛ࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔
ࢆ⏝ពࡋࡓࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ᮲௳࡛ࡣูࠎ࡟ศ
ᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
iv

ࡑࡢ௚ࡢㄪᰝ᪉ἲ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌
࢔࡟ࡼࡿㄪᰝ࡜ྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࠋvὀi⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ᮲௳ࡢᐇ㦂ࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥࡣࠊ┤᥋┠ⓗㄒࢆྵࡵࡎ࡟୺㢟ྡモྃ࡜௚ືモࡢࡳ࡛ᵓᡂࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡ
ࢫࢺᩥෆ࡟┤᥋┠ⓗㄒࡀ⾲♧ࡉࢀࡓሙྜࠊ┤᥋┠ⓗㄒ࡜ࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢ㏙ㄒྡモྃ (NP2) ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿព࿡ⓗ㛵㐃ᛶ࡟ࡼࡿᙳ㡪ࡀฟࡿࡢࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊ⤫ㄒ㛵ಀ᮲௳ࡢᐇ㦂ࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥ
࡛ࡣࠊ┤᥋┠ⓗㄒࢆ♧ࡉ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊ≉࡟㐪࿴ឤࡀឤࡌࡽࢀ࡟ࡃ࠸௚ືモࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓព࿡ⓗ᮲௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࣭࣌࢔ࡢࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥ
࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓ⮬ືモࡢ୰࡛ࠊព࿡㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿ᮲௳
࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡣࠊࠕㄞ᭩ࡍࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊື
モ⮬య࡟┠ⓗㄒ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿྡモྃࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ
࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿືモࡀከ࠸ࠋࠕNP1 ࡣ NP2 ࡔࠖᩥࡢ㏙ㄒྡモྃ (NP2) ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ព࿡ⓗ㛵ಀࡀᮇᚅ࡛
ࡁࠊ࡞࠾࠿ࡘ௚ືモ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ౑⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸⮬ືモ࡟ࡣࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘࡶࡢࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵ࡜
ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
ii

iii

 ሙᡤࣇ࣮࣒ࣞ࡜ࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺᩥෆࡢ㏙ㄒྡモྃ(NP2)࡜ࡢព࿡ⓗ࡞ᩚྜᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢྡモྃ (ሙᡤࢆ⾲ࡍゝⴥ࡜㏙ㄒྡモྃ (NP2))ࢆ࣌࢔࡟ࡋࠊࡑࡢព࿡ⓗ࡞㛵㐃ᛶࢆ㸳ẁ㝵࡛ホ౯ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ணഛㄪᰝࢆ㸰㸮ேࡢ᪥ᮏㄒẕᅜㄒヰ⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡟⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ
ᐇ㦂ࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㸲࡞࠸ࡋ㸳ࡢࢫࢥ࢔࡛
ព࿡ⓗ㛵㐃ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࢆᚓࡓࡶࡢࢆ౑
⏝ࡋࡓࠋព࿡㛵ಀ᮲௳࡛ࡣࠊࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺᩥෆࡢ⮬ືモ࡜࡯ࡰྠࡌព࿡ࢆᣢࡘືモࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓሙ
ྜࠊࠕࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺືモࠖࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓ 㸦ࠕ(a)ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺືモࠖࡢᅇ⟅౛ࢆཧ↷ࡢ
ࡇ࡜㸧ࠋ

vi

ࡇࢀࡽࡢゎ㔘ࡢศ㢮ࡣࠊ3 ேࡢ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡶ⾜ࡗ࡚ࡶࡽࡗ࡚ࠊྠពࢆᚓ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩ụୖ჆ᙪ. 1981.ࠗࠕࡍࡿࠖ࡜ࠕ࡞ࡿࠖࡢゝㄒᏛ࠘ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋.㻌
໭ཎಖ㞝. 1984.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲࡢ↔Ⅼ࠘ᮾி㸸ᩍ⫱ฟ∧.㻌ஂ㔝ᬿ. 1978.ࠗㄯヰࡢᩥἲ࠘ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋.㻌
すᒣభྖ. 2001.ࠕ࠺࡞ࡂᩥ࡜ᥐᐃᩥࠖࠊࠗ៞ᛂ⩏ሿ኱Ꮫ ゝㄒᩥ໬◊✲ᡤ⣖せ࠘ࠊ33ࠊ
109-146.㻌
すᒣభྖ. 2003. ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒྡモྃࡢព࿡ㄽ࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽ࠘ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.㻌
Obana, Y. 2001. “Unagi-sentences in Japaneseand mutual knowledge. “ Journal of
Pragmatics 3, 725-751. 㻌ዟὠᩗ୍㑻. 1978.ࠗࠕ࣎ࢡࣁ࢘ࢼࢠࢲࠖࡢᩥἲ࠘
ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.㻌
Recanati, F. 2001. “What is said.” Syntheses,
128, 75-91.㻌
ᆏཎⱱ. 1990.ࠕᙺ๭ࠊࡣࠊࡀࠊ࢘ࢼࢠᩥࠖࠊࠗㄆ▱⛉ᏛࡢⓎᒎ࠘3ࠊ 29-66.㻌

−176−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ㄯヰᶆ㆑ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ⤫ㄒㄒ⏝ㄽⓗศᯒẶྡ㸸๽ᬡⱪ
ᡤᒓ㸸໭ᾏ㐨኱Ꮫ liuxpecho@gmail.com

㸺Abstract㸼
This paper aims at clarifying the pragmatic features of toiuka through categorizing its connection forms. First,
the term degrammaticalization is deployed to describe the process from connection form to discourse marker oftoiuka. Then, modeled on the fundamental form ‘A toiuka B’ , toiuka will be classified to six types, by
distinguishing the source of A and B—whether it is the speaker or the hearer.Finally, The paper argues that toiuka
has four discourse functions: declaration avoidance, repair, formation of empathy and topic changing.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ
㸸࡜࠸࠺࠿࣭ㄯヰᶆ㆑࣭⤫ㄒㄒ⏝ㄽ࣭⬺ᩥἲ໬࣭᩿ゝᅇ㑊㻝 ࡣࡌࡵ࡟㻌 ㏆ᖺⱝᖺᒙࢆ୰ᚰ࡟㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ⾲⌧ࡀከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣᮏ᮶ࠕ࡜ࠖ
ࠕ࠸࠺ࠖࠕ࠿ࠖࡢ୕ࡘࡢせ⣲࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿ」ྜせ⣲࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ᘬ⏝ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍຓモࠕ࡜ࠖࡢ≉ᛶ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪ᮏ᮶ᚑᒓ⠇ࡢᚋ࡟௜ࡃ㠀⮬❧ⓗ࡞⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪㏆ᖺࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣ⮬❧ⓗ࡟ᩥ㢌࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ㸪ᐇ㉁ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡀᕼⷧ࡟࡞ࡾ㸪ㄯヰᶆ㆑࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉㉁ࡀ☜❧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪㏆ᖺⱝᖺᒙࢆ୰
ᚰ࡟ከ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪⤫ㄒᙧᘧࡢ≉ᛶࢆศᯒ࣭ᩚ⌮ࡋࡓࡢࡕ࡟㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ᶵ⬟࡟㛵ࡍࡿศᯒࢆຍ࠼㸪ㄯヰᶆ㆑࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉㉁ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟☜❧ࡉࢀࡓ࠿ࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ2 ඛ⾜◊✲࡜ၥ㢟Ⅼ ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢᶵ⬟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡣᩘከࡃぢࡽࢀࡿࡀ㸦ᱵ⃝ 1999㸪Ἀ 1999㸪ᑎ஭ 2000㸪ᮤ 2001㸪
ⱝᯇ 2003㸪࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ 20041㸪㉿ 2007㸪ຍ⸨ 2009㸧㸪ᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ୍㒊ࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡓࡶࡢࡀከࡃ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢᙧᘧ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶࡸㄯヰᶆ㆑࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢጇᙜᛶࡢ㆟ㄽࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢᙧᘧ࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ሪӅ㸦2000㸧࡛ࡣࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢࠕ⌧ࢀࡿᙧᘧ࡜ㄯ
ヰ㢮ᆺࠖࢆḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㻌 㻌 㸦1㸧㻓ࠕP ࢺ࢖࢘࢝ Qࠖ㻌 㸦2㸧㻓ࠕP ࢺ࢖࢘࢝ P㻓ࢺ࢖࢘࢝ Qࠖ㻌 㸦3㸧㻓㹙⊂ヰ㹛
ࠕPࠋࢺ࢖࢘࢝ Qࠖ㻌 㸦4㸧㻓㹙ᑐヰ㹛A㸦⪺ࡁᡭ㸧㸸ࠕPࠖ㻌        B㸦ヰࡋᡭ㸧㸸ࠕࢺ࢖࢘࢝ࠖ㻌ᑎ஭㸦2000㸸176㸧㻌㻌 ᑎ஭㸦2000㸧ࡢศ㢮࡟ࡣ஧ࡘࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ୍ࡘࡣ㸪
ࠕPࠖ࡜ࠕQࠖࡀᙧᘧୖ⌧ࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡀྵࡲ
ࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡣ㸪ศ㢮ࡢᇶ‽ࡀ୙᫂☜࡞ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᑎ஭㸦2000㸧ࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣ㸪㸦1㸧ࡣ㸦1㸧㻓ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟㸪㸦2㸧ࡣ㸦4㸧㻓ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡑࢀࡒࢀศ㢮ࡉࢀࡿࡀ㸪ࡑࡢ㐪࠸ࡣ୙᫂☜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㻌㻌
㸦1㸧Aࠕ᭱㏆ࡢⱝ࠸Ꮚࡣ᱁ዲࡀ኱ேࡗࡱ࠸ࡼࡡࠖ㻌
㻌

1

−177−

談話標識「というか」の統語語用論的分析 㻌 㻌 㻌 Bࠕ኱ேࡗࡱ࠸࡜࠸࠺࠿㸦㻖ࢺ࢖ࢵࢱࣛ࢖࢖࢝㸧㸪⪁ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ឤࡌ࠿࡞ࠖ㻌ᑎ஭㸦2000㸸178-179㸧
㸦8㸧㻌
㸦2㸧ⲡ๧ࠕ㹼ⱞᡭࡔࡡ㸪ࡋࡷ࡭ࡿࡢࡣࠋࡍࡈ࠸ⱞᡭࠖ㻌㻌 ୰ᒃࠕⱞᡭࡗ࡚࠸࠺࠿ࡡ㸪ⱞᡭ࡜ᛮ࠸㎸ࢇࡌࡷࡗࡓࢇࡌࡷ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᛮ࠺ࢇࡔࡼࡡࠖ㻌ᑎ஭㸦2000㸸183㸧
㸦14㸧㻓㻌㻌3 ᥋⥆ᙧᘧ࠿ࡽㄯヰᶆ㆑࡬ࡢ⬺ᩥἲ໬ ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ2ࡣᘬ⏝ࡢຓモࠕ࡜࣭ࠖືモࡢࠕ࠸࠺࣭ࠖ␲ၥࡢ⤊ຓモࠕ࠿ࠖࡢ୕ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡀ」ྜࡋ࡚ᙧ
ᡂࡉࢀࡿ᥋⥆ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᥋⥆ᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣ㸪ᘬ⏝᱁ࡢࠕ࡜ࠖࡢ㠀⮬❧ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸
࠺≉ᚩࢆཷࡅ⥅࠸࡛࠾ࡾ㸪ᮏ᮶ᚑᒓ⠇࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ㠀⮬❧ⓗ࡞せ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡲࡎ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ᥋⥆ไ⣙ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࠋ ࠕ࡜ࠖ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡉࢀࡿ࿨㢟ࡣᘬ⏝໬ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡟࡞ࡾ㸪ᘬ⏝໬ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࡣ඲య࡛ྡモ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᛶ㉁ࡀ௜୚ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ࡟᥋⥆ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࡣᙧᘧୖࡢไ⣙ࡀ࡞࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣ᩿ゝᅇ㑊ࡢ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ᶵ⬟ୖࡢไ⣙ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ㸦3㸧a㸨ኴ㑻ࡣࡶ࠺఍♫ࢆ㎡ࡵࡓ{ࡽࡋ࠸/ࡑ࠺ࡔ/ࡳࡓ࠸}࡜࠸࠺࠿㸪㤳࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡼ࠺ࡔࠋ  b㸨ࡶ࠺ࡸࡾࡓࡃ࡞࠸ࢇࡔ࡜࠸࠺࠿㸪࡯࠿ࡢ஦࡟ᣮᡓࡋ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸࡞࠶ࠋ
 㸦3㸧a ࡜㸦3㸧b ࡣ㠀ᩥ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕࡽࡋ࠸/ࡑ࠺ࡔ/ࡳࡓ࠸ࠖࡣㄆ㆑ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࡜ࡋ࡚㸪࿨㢟ෆᐜࡢ᰿ᣐᛶࢆ♧ࡍヰࡋᡭࡢุ᩿ࢆ⾲ࡋ㸪ࠕࡢࡔࠖࡣ࿨㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢᙉ࠸᩿ᐃࢆ⾲ࡍࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪㸦3㸧
a ࡜㸦3㸧b ࡣ୧᪉࡜ࡶࡑࡢᚑᒓ⠇ࡢ⠇ᮎ࡟࿨㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿヰࡋᡭࡢ᩿ᐃࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡑ
ࡢ࿨㢟࡟᭦࡟᩿ᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࢆ௜ࡅࡿ࡜㸪ྠࡌ࿨㢟࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᩿ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜᩿ᐃ
࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺▩┪ࡀ㉳ࡇࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪㸦3㸧a ࡢࠕࡽࡋ࠸/ࡑ࠺ࡔ/ࡳࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ㛫࡟㸪㸦3㸧
b ࡢࠕࢇࡔࠖ࡜ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ㛫࡟㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀ࣏࣮ࢬࢆධࢀ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࢆษࡾ㞳ࡉࡏࡿ࡜㸪୧᪉࡜ࡶ⮬↛࡞Ⓨヰ࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪㸦3㸧ࡀ㠀ᩥ࡜࡞ࡿࡢࡣࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢᶵ⬟ୖࡢไ⣙࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ḟ࡟㸪᥋⥆ᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢᇶᮏ⏝ἲࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࠋ ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟ヰࡋᡭࡀⓎヰࢆࡍࡿ࡜ࡁ㸪⾲⌧ࡢ㐺ษࡉ࡟␲ၥࢆᣢࡕ㸪㐺ษ࡞⾲⌧࡟㏞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ิᣲࡢ⏝ἲࢆ⾲ࡍࠋᇶᮏ⏝ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚౑ࢃࢀࡿࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣ㸪⊂ヰ࡟㏆࠸ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡕ㸪୍ᅇࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎ㸪⾲⌧ࢆิᣲࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪㔜」ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪㸦4㸧ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢ⚄ᮌࡀ᧜ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᑐ㇟ࡢྡ๓ࢆ᫂☜࡟ゝ࠼࡞࠸ࡢ࡛㸪㏞࠸࡞ࡀࡽࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿࡛ࠖࡑࡢ㐺ษ࡞⾲⌧ࢆ᥈ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡾ㸪㸪⊂ヰ࡟㏆࠸ᛶ㉁ࢆᣢࡘ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ㸦4㸧࠙⚄ᮌࡣ⮬ศࡢ㒊ᒇ࡟࠶ࡿ⤮ࡢࣅࢹ࢜ࢆྲྀࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࠚ
ࠕࡇࢀࡀ൅ࡀ࠸ࡗࡘࡶ⤮ࢆᥥࡃ㐨ලࡗ࡚࠸࠺࠿㸪ࢢࢵࢬࡗ࡚࠸࠺࠿㸪ࡲ࠶㸪ࡑࢇ࡞ឤࡌࡢ㐨ල࡛ࡍࠋࠖࠗ࠾ࡋࡷࢀ࢖ࢬ࣒࠘2005/07/31
 ࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪
ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣ㸦4㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᥋⥆ᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚ヰࡋᡭࡢ㏞࠸ࢆ⾲ࡍิᣲ⏝ἲࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎ㸪ࠕ࡚࠸࠺࠿㸪బ⸨ྩ㸪㐜้࡞ࢇࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࡢ㸽ࠖ3ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᥋⥆モࡸ๪モ࡜ࡋ࡚⮬❧ⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿㄯヰᶆ㆑࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⏝ἲࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡛ࡣ㸪᥋⥆ᙧᘧࡢࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄯヰᶆ㆑࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࠿ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ Norde㸦2009㸧ࡣ⬺ᩥἲ໬࡟ degrammation㸪deinflectionalization㸪debonding ࡢ୕ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜
㏙࡭㸪debonding ࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚㸪᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕࡔ࠿ࡽࠖ࡜ࠕࡀࠖࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ຍ⸨
㸦2013㸧ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣࠕࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ᥋⥆モࡀఱࡽ࠿ࡢㄒᙡ໬ࡸ⬺ᩥἲ໬࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⏕ࡌࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ
㸦ຍ
⸨ 2013㸸7㸧࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

2
−178−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

 ࡑࡇ࡛㸪ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪ḟࡢ஧ࡘࡢ᰿ᣐࢆ௨ࡗ࡚㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ㠀⮬❧ⓗ࡞᥋⥆ᙧᘧ࠿ࡽ⮬❧ⓗ࡞ㄯヰᶆ㆑࡬ࡢ☜❧㐣⛬ࢆ debonding ࡟ࡼࡿ⬺ᩥἲ໬࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࠋ ୍ࡘࡣ㸪
ࠕ࡜࠸࠺ࠖࡀ඲యⓗ࡟ᩥἲⓗ࡞せ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⬺ᩥἲ໬ࡣ㠀ㄒᙡⓗ࡞せ⣲࠿ࡽㄒᙡⓗ࡞せ⣲࡟࡞ࡿࡢࡀ඾ᆺ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣࠕゝ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒᙡⓗ࡞せ⣲ࡀྵࡲࢀࡿࡢ
࡛㸪඾ᆺⓗ࡞⬺ᩥἲ໬࡜᩿ゝ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺␲ၥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ࠕゝ࠺ࠖࡣㄒᙡⓗ࡞せ⣲࡛࠶ࡿ࡟ࡶ
࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ㸪ࡑࡢᐇ㉁ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡀኻࢃࢀ㸪ࠕ࡜ࠖ࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿᶵ⬟ㄒ࡬࡜ኚ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜◁ᕝ㸦2006㸧
࡛ࡣ㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣ᥋⥆ᙧᘧ࠿ࡽㄯヰᶆ㆑࡬⬺ᩥἲ໬ࡍࡿ๓࡟㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺ࠖࡀᩥἲ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪ࡲࡎࠕ࡜ࠖ࡜ࠕ࠸࠺ࠖࡀ」ྜࡋᩥἲ໬ࡉࢀ㸪ḟ࡟㠀ㄒᙡⓗ࡞せ⣲ࡢࠕ࡜࠸࠺ࠖ࡜ࠕ࠿ࠖࡀ」ྜࡋ㸪඲యⓗ࡟⬺ᩥἲ໬ࡋ㸪ㄒᙡⓗ࡞せ⣲࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡣ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣᩥయࡢᑐ❧ࡀ࡞ࡃ㸪୰࿴ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦5㸧࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟㸪ࠕ࠸࠺ࠖࡢᩥయᕪࡀ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡾ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣᩗయ࡛ࡶᖖయ࡛ࡶ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦5㸧a ࡚࠸࠺࠿㸪ᤵᴗ࡬⾜ࡁࡲࡍ㸽  b ࡚࠸࠺࠿㸪ᤵᴗ࡬⾜ࡃ㸽 ௨ୖࡢ஧Ⅼࢆ௨ࡗ࡚㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ᥋⥆ᙧᘧ࠿ࡽㄯヰᶆ㆑࡬ࡢኚ໬ࡣ⬺ᩥἲ໬࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋణࡋ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣࠕ࡜࠸࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࠖ
ࠕ࡜⏦ࡋࡲࡍ࠿ࠖࡢᙧᘧࡶぢࡽࢀ㸪ᙧᘧࡀ᏶඲࡟ᅛᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞
࠸ࡢ࡛㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣ᏶඲࡟⬺ᩥἲ໬ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪⬺ᩥἲ໬ࡢ㏵ୖ࡟࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡓ
࡯࠺ࡀ㐺ษ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ

4 ๓ᚋࡢゝㄒᙧᘧ࡟ࡼࡿᶵ⬟ศ㢮 ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿࡛ࠖ⧅ࡆࡽࢀࡿᩥ࡟ࡣᵝࠎ࡞ᙧᘧࡀぢࡽࢀ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࢆ㐃⤖ᙧᘧ࡜ࡋ࡚ᩚ⌮ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕA ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Bࠖࢆࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢᇶᮏᙧ࡜ࡍࡿࠋA ࡜ B ࡣゝㄒᙧᘧୖ࡟⌧ࢀࡿ
ᛶ㉁ࡢ㏆࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋA ࡜ B ࡀධࢀ᭰࠼ྍ⬟࡞ሙྜࡶ࠶ࢀࡤ㸪B ࡀ A ࡟ᑐࡍࡿಟṇ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜࡶ࠶
ࡿࠋA ࡜ B ࡢ㒊ศࡣゝㄒᙧᘧୖ࡟⌧ࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛㸪⌮ㄽୖ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ㐃⤖ᙧᘧࡣ㸪
ࠕA࡜࠸࠺࠿ B㸪A ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Ø4㸪Ø ࡜࠸࠺࠿ B㸪Ø ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Øࠖࡢ 4 ✀㢮ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ᭦࡟㸪ゝㄒᙧᘧୖ࡟⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ A ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ㒊ศ࡜ B ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ㒊ศࡣ㸪㐪࠺Ⓨヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚♧ࡉࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛㸪ୗ఩ศ㢮ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢゝㄒᙧᘧࢆⓎࡍࡿഃࢆヰࡋᡭ࡜ࡋ㸪A ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ㒊ศ࡜B ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿ㒊ศ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟࠶ࡿሙྜࢆ S ࡜㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟࠶ࡿሙྜࢆ H ࡜⾲グࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ㐃⤖ᙧᘧࡣ㸪⾲ 1 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࠋ኱ศ㢮ࠕA ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Bࠖᑠศ㢮ㄝ᫂A ࡶ B ࡶヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟࠶ࡿࠋ

㸦4㸧
㸦7㸧

ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࠕHࠖ

A ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟㸪B ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟࠶ࡿࠋ

㸦6㸧

ࠕHࠖ
ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ SࠖA ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟㸪B ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟࠶ࡿࠋ

㸦10㸧

ࠕHࠖ
ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ
ࠕHࠖ A ࡶ B ࡶ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟࠶ࡿࠋࠕA ࡜࠸࠺࠿ ØࠖࠕØ ࡜࠸࠺࠿ BࠖࠕØ ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Øࠖ౛ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ5ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖØA ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟࠶ࡿࠋB ࡣゝㄒᙧᘧୖ࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ

㸦9㸧

ࠕHࠖ
ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖØA ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟࠶ࡿࠋB ࡣゝㄒᙧᘧୖ࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ

㸦13㸧Øࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ

A ࡣゝㄒᙧᘧୖ࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋB ࡣヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟࠶ࡿࠋ㸦14㸧Øࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࠕHࠖ

A ࡣゝㄒᙧᘧୖ࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋB ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟࠶ࡿࠋA ࡶ B ࡶゝㄒᙧᘧୖ࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ

⾲ 1 ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ㐃⤖ᙧᘧࡢศ㢮

3
−179−

談話標識「というか」の統語語用論的分析

 ⾲ 1 ࡼࡾ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ S࣭ࠖࠗࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ
ࠕHࠖ
࠘
࣭
ࠗ
ࠕHࠖ
ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ S࣭ࠖ࠘ࠗ
ࠕS࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖØ࣭࠘ࠗࠕHࠖࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖØ࣭࠘ࠗØࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࠘ࡢභ✀㢮࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

5 ㄯヰୖࡢᶵ⬟࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗศᯒ ᮏ✏ࡣࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ࡟ࠕඹឤᙧᡂࠖ
࣭ࠕ᩿ゝᅇ㑊࣭ࠖࠕಟ᚟࣭ࠖࠕヰ㢟㌿᥮ࠖࡢᅄࡘࡢᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࠕಟ᚟ࠖࡣ⮬ᕫⓎヰྥࡅࡢゞṇ࡜௚⪅Ⓨヰྥࡅࡢಟṇࡢ஧ࡘࡢᙧ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ḟ࡟㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢᇶᮏ⏝ἲ࠿ࡽㄯヰᶆ㆑࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢྛ✀ࡢᶵ⬟࡬ࡢὴ⏕ࢆ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ㐃⤖ᙧᘧ࡜㛵㐃ࡉࡏ࡞ࡀࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ
ࠕHࠖ࠘࡬
5.1ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࠿ࡽࠗ ➨ 3 ❶࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ㐺ษ࡞⾲⌧࡟㏞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿิᣲ࡜࠸࠺ᇶᮏ⏝ἲࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢᇶᮏ⏝ἲ࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ๓ᚋࡢゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟ヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡞ࡢ࡛㸪ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ᐇ㝿ࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀ㐺ษ࡞⾲⌧ࢆิᣲࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㏞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡣⓎヰ࡟ධࡾ㸪ヰࡋᡭࢆຓࡅ࡚㐺ษ࡞⾲⌧ࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ༶ࡕ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ B ࡢ㒊ศࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⿵᏶ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ༶ࡕ㸪ࠗ
ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ
ࠕHࠖ࠘࡟࡞ࡿࠋ୍ࡘࡢᩥࡀヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ༠ㄪ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᏶ᡂࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࠿ࡽぢࢀࡤ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ࡟ࠕඹឤᙧᡂࠖࡢᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋణࡋ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢࠕඹឤᙧᡂࠖࡢᶵ⬟ࡀᡂࡾ❧ࡘ࡟ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ▱㆑ࡢඹ᭷ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ౛࠼ࡤ㸪
㸦6㸧࡛㸪࢔ࡣヰࡋᡭ࡛㸪࢖ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᇶᮏᙧࠕA ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Bࠖࢆᇶ‽࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡿ࡞ࡽ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢ࢔ࡢⓎヰ࡟࠶ࡿࠕୖࡀࡾୗࡀࡾࠖࡣ A ࡟┦ᙜࡋ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢ࢖ࡢⓎヰ࡟࠶ࡿࠕኌㄪࠖࡣ
B ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪ࠕA ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Bࠖ࡜࠸࠺᏶඲࡞ᩥࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ༠ㄪ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᏶ᡂࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦6㸧࢔ࠕ࠶ࡌࡷ࠶ࠊ୰ᅜㄒࡣࠊⓎ㡢ࡶ኱஦࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝ࠊࡑࢀࡼࡾࡶࡸࡗࡥࡇ࠺ࠊ ୖࡀࡾୗࡀࡾࡗ    ࡚࠸࠺࠿ࠖ  ࢖ࠕࡑ࠺ࠊኌㄪ࡛ࡋࡻࠋࠖࠗBTSJ ึᑐ㠃ྠᛶྠኈ㞧ㄯ 16࠘6
5.2ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿಟ᚟ᶵ⬟ ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣ㸪༢࡞ࡿิᣲ⏝ἲࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ࡟
ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ㒊ศ㸦㸻B㸧ࡣ㸪┤๓ࡢ㒊ศ㸦㸻A㸧࡟ᑐࡍࡿゞṇ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ
ࡢ⮬ᕫⓎヰྥࡅࡢゞṇ࡜࠸࠺ࠕಟ᚟ࠖᶵ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ศࡢⓎヰ࡟࠶ࡿ୙㐺ษ࡞࡜ࡇࢁࢆゞṇࡍࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟㸪ࡑࡢゞṇࡣ⾲⌧⮬యࡢ୙ṇ☜࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡜࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡟ศࡅ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

㸦7㸧ࠕ࡞ࢇ࠿࡛ࡶࡡࠊ⏕ᚐࡢヰ࡜࠿⪺࠸ࡓࡽࠊ࡞ࢇ࠿ࠊࡔ࠿ࡽࠊࡑࡢ SARS ࡢ᫬࡜࠿ࠊᑅ࠿ࡽࠊᑅࡗ
࡚࠸࠺࠿ࠊᏛᰯࡢᩜᆅෆ࠿ࡽࠊฟࢀ࡞࠸࠿ࡽࠖࠗBTSJ ึᑐ㠃ྠᛶྠኈ㞧ㄯ 7࠘㸦8㸧࠙▱ࡾྜ࠸ࡢே࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢヰࠚ  ࢔ࠕ࡞ࢇ࠿ࡡࠊ୍ᅇẀࡾ࠶࠸ࡢࠊࡅࢇ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸࠺࠿ࠊゝ࠸த࠸ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡽࡋࡃ࡚ࠋࠖࠗBTSJ ぶࡋ࠸⏨ᛶ཭ேࡢ㞧ㄯ 1࠘
 㸦7㸧࡜㸦8㸧ࡣ୧᪉࡜ࡶࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖࡢᙧᘧ࡛㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ศࡢⓎヰ࡟࠶ࡿ୙㐺ษࡉࢆᣦ᦬ࡋゞ

4
−180−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ṇࢆ⾜࠺౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦7㸧࡛ヰࡋᡭࡣ⮬ศࡢࠕᑅࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧࡟㛫㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜Ẽ࡙ࡁ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿࡛ࠖ
ࡑࡢၥ㢟ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ㸪ṇ☜࡞⾲⌧ࢆ⿵㊊ࡋࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪㸦7㸧࡛ヰࡋᡭࡢゞṇࢆᑟࡃ⌮⏤ࡣ㸪⾲⌧⮬యࡢ୙ṇ☜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦7㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪
㸦8㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢゞṇࢆᑟࡃ⌮⏤ࡣ㸪࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㸦8㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢ࢔ࡢࠕࡽࡋ࠸ࠖࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢ࢔ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟➨୕⪅࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࢆᥦ
౪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ➨୕⪅ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ౵ᐖࡢᗘྜ࠸ࢆ㍍ῶࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ
ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚㸪ࠕࡅࢇ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡢᙉ࠸⾲⌧ࢆࠕゝ࠸த࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺┦ᑐⓗ࡟ᙅ࠸⾲⌧࡟⨨ࡁ᥮࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖØ࠘࡬
5.3ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࠿ࡽࠗ 5.2 ࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚㸪⮬ᕫⓎヰࡢ୙㐺ษࡉࢆゞṇࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠕಟ᚟ࠖᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢゞṇࢆᑟࡃ⌮⏤ࡣ㸪⾲⌧⮬యࡢ୙ṇ☜࡟ࡼࡿሙྜࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎ㸪࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ࡟ࡼ
ࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡓࠋᐇ㝿ࡢ౑⏝࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ศࡢ୙㐺ษ࡞࡜ࡇࢁࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿ࡜ࡇࢁࡲ࡛Ṇࡲࡾ㸪ゞṇࢆ⾜ࢃ࡞࠸ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ༶ࡕ㸪ࠗ
ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖØ࠘ࡢᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Øࠖ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀゞṇࢆ⾜ࢃࡎ㸪⮬ศࡢⓎヰࡢ୙㐺ษࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛Ṇࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛㸪ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖࡢゝ࠸ࡉࡋ࡟ࡼࡿࠕ᩿ゝᅇ㑊ࠖࡢᶵ⬟࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
㸦9㸧࠙ᑠ㇂ࡣಟ஧ࡢ㧥ࢆษࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᥦ᱌࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪⮬ศࡢ㧥ᆺ࡜ఝ࡚࠸ࡿᐆ≀ࡢேᙧࢆᣢࡕ࡞ࡀࡽࠚ   ᑠ㇂㸸ࠕࡇࡢᏊࢆ⨨࠸࡚⚾ࡔࡅኚࢃࢀ࡞࠸ࡗ࡚࠸࠺࠿ࠋࠖ   ಟ஧㸸ࠕࡑࡗ࠿ࠋ࠾࠹ࠋࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ࠖࠗ㔝ࣈࢱࠋࢆࣉࣟࢹ࣮ࣗࢫ࠘
㸦➨ 2 ヰ㸧 㸦9㸧ࡣࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Øࠖࡢᙧᘧ࡛㸪ᑠ㇂ࡣヰࡋᡭ࡛㸪ಟ஧ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⮬ศࡢ฼┈࡟࡞ࡿᥦ᱌
࡛࠶ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢᑠ㇂ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᥦ᱌࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪ᣄྰࡢែᗘࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᩿ࡿࡇ࡜
ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ౵ᐖࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡞ࡢ࡛㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀᣄྰࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ౵ᐖࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ౵ᐖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜⮬య࡟ኚࢃࡾࡣ࡞࠸ࡀ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ
㏣ຍ࡛㸪ゝ࠸ษࡿࡇ࡜ࡀゝ࠸ษࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾ㸪୺ᙇኚ໬ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡶ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺᥎ពࡀྵࡲࢀࡿࡼ
࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪
㸦9㸧ࡢࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣゝ࠸ࡉࡋ࡟ࡼࡿ᩿ゝᅇ㑊ࡢᶵ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
ࠕHࠖࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࠘࡬
5.4ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࠿ࡽࠗ 5.2 ࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖࡢ⮬ᕫⓎヰྥࡅࡢゞṇ࡜࠸࠺ಟ᚟ᶵ⬟ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࡀ㸪ᐇ㝿ࡢ౑⏝࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣ⮬ᕫⓎヰྥࡅࡢゞṇࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎ㸪௚⪅Ⓨヰྥࡅࡢಟṇ࡟࡞ࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢゞṇᑐ㇟㸪༶ࡕ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ๓ࡢ㒊ศ㸦㸻A㸧ࡀ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰ࡟⌧ࢀࡿሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ㐃⤖ᙧᘧ࡛⾲♧ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽ㸪ࠗ
ࠕHࠖࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࠘ࡢᙧᘧ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰෆᐜࢆಟṇࡍࡿሙྜࡣ㸪ࡑࡢಟṇᑐ㇟ࡢᛶ㉁ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢಟ᚟ࡢᶵ
⬟ࢆ⣽࠿ࡃศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡎ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰ࡜ㄆ㆑࡟኱ࡁࡃศࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄆ㆑ࢆಟ
ṇࡍࡿሙྜ࡟㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢ୙㐺ษࡉࡣ࣓ࢱゝㄒⓗྰᐃࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿព࿡ㄽⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࢀࡤ㸪ᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦10㸧࢔ࠕ࠾∗ࡉࢇࡢ௙஦࡛ࡍ࠿ࠋࠖ   ࢖ࠕ௙஦ࡗ࡚࠸࠺࠿ࠊ࠶ࡗࡕ࡛ࠊ࠶ࡢࠊ᪥ᮏᩱ⌮ࡢࠊ࠾ᗑࢆࡸࡗ࡚࡚ࠖࠗBTSJ ึᑐ㠃㞧ㄯ 6࠘ 㸦10㸧࡛㸪ヰࡋᡭ࢖ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࢔ࡢ୍⯡␲ၥᩥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪ࠕࡣ࠸㸭࠸࠸࠼ࠖࡢゝⴥ࡛ṇ☜࡟⟅࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛㸪ࠕ௙஦ࡗ࡚࠸࠺࠿ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㉁ၥ࡟⌧ࢀࡿゝⴥࡀ୙㐺ษ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ணゝࡋ㸪ࡑࡢᚋ࡟ලయⓗ࡞ㄝ᫂ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ಟ᚟ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ

5
−181−

談話標識「というか」の統語語用論的分析

㸦11㸧7 ᯘࠕࣇ࢓ࢵࢩࣙࣥࡀᖹᆒ໬ࡉࢀ࡚ࡘࡲࡽ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࡍ࠿ࠋࠖᑠすࠕࡗ࡚࠸࠺࠿ࡡ࠼ࠋ࠶࠶࠸࠺ࡢࡣࣇ࢓ࢵࢩࣙࣥࡌࡷ࡞࠸ࠋ༢࡞ࡿ⾰ᩱࡔࡼࠋࣇ࢓ࢵࢩࣙࣥ
࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ୍ேࡦ࡜ࡾࡢಶᛶࢆ࡝࠺ࡸࡗ࡚ᘬࡁฟࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢேࡽࡋࡃࡍࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜
࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡡࠋࠖ    㸦186 ᯘ┿⌮Ꮚࢻࣥᑠすࠗ㐌หᮅ᪥࠘ 2003㸬10㸬10㸧
 㸦11㸧࡛ࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡛࠶ࡿᯘࡢ୍⯡␲ၥᩥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢᑠすࡣࡍࡄ⟅࠼ࢆฟࡋࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿࡛ࠖ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㉁ၥ࡟୙㐺ษࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ணゝࡋ㸪ࡑࡢᚋ㸪ࠕࣇ࢓ࢵࢩࣙࣥࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࣓ࢱⓗ࡞ྰᐃࢆ㏻ࡋ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢ୙㐺ษ࡞࡜ࡇࢁࢆಟ᚟ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪㸦11㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ
ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰࢆಟṇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄆ㆑ࢆಟṇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
㸦12㸧8࠙ᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㠜ࢆ཭㐩࡟㡸ࡅࡿព㆑ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࢔ࡀⓎヰࡋࡓሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠚ ࢔ࠕ⚾ࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࢺ࢖ࣞ࡟⾜ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࠋࠖ  ࢖ࠕ࡚࠸࠺࠿⚾ࡶ⾜ࡃࠋࠖ 㸦12㸧ࡣ㸦11㸧࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢㄆ㆑ࢆಟṇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ౛࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪㸦11㸧ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ୙㐺ษᛶࡣព࿡ㄽⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪㸦12㸧ࡣㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭ࢔ࡢືస࡜࠸࠺≧ἣᩥ⬦9࡜ࠕ⚾ࠊࡕࡻࡗ࡜ࢺ࢖ࣞ࡟⾜ࡗ࡚ࡃࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᙧᘧᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪࢔ࡢⓎヰ࡟ࠕࢺ࢖ࣞ࡬⾜ࡁࡓ࠸ࡢࡣ
࢔ࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪࢖ࡀ⾜ࡁࡓࡃ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺᥎ពࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
㸦12㸧ࡢᩥ⬦࡛ࡢࡳᡂ❧ࡍࡿ᥎ព࡞ࡢ࡛㸪ཝᐦ࡟ゝ࠺࡜㸪PCI㸦఍ヰ᥎ព㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋヰࡋᡭ࢖ࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡓ᥎ព࡟୙㐺ษࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ព㆑ࡋ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡑࡢ୙㐺ษࢆணゝࡋ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛫㐪ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿㄆ㆑ࢆಟ᚟ࡋࡓࠋ ࡲࡓ㸪ᐇ㝿ࡢ౑⏝࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ୙㐺ษࡉࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛Ṇࡲࡾ㸪ゞṇࢆ⾜ࢃ࡞࠸ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪ࠗ
ࠕHࠖࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࠘ࡀゝ࠸ࡉࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㐃⤖ᙧᘧ࡛⾲♧ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽ㸪ࠗ
ࠕHࠖࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖØ࠘࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜ㸪ಟṇࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡛㸪ಟ᚟ᶵ⬟ࡼࡾ㸪ࠗࠕHࠖࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࠘ࡢゝ࠸ࡉࡋ࡟ࡼࡿ᩿ゝᅇ㑊࡜⪃࠼ࡓ࡯࠺ࡀ㐺ษ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪㸦13㸧࡛㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢிửࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ
ᳺࡢⓎヰ࡟࠶ࡿࠕ࣐ࣟࣥࢳࢵࢡࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒᙧᘧ࡟␲ၥࢆᣢࡕ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚㸪ࡑࡢ␲ၥ࡟࠶
ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡢࡳ࡛㸪ゝ࠸ࡉࡋ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ᩿ゝࢆᅇ㑊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸦13㸧ᳺࠕᑠᏛᰯࡢ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡡ㸪ࠕࡋࢁࡃࡲࡢ୍⏕ࠖࡗ࡚ᫎ⏬ࢆぢࡓࢇࡔࡅ࡝㸪࢜ࢫࡣ࡞࠿࡞࠿ฟ఍࠼࡞
࠸࣓ࢫࢆ᥈ࡋ࡚㸪ịࡢୖࢆఱ᪥ࡶṌ࠸࡚᪑ࡍࡿࡢ㸪࣐ࣟࣥࢳࢵࢡࡔ࡜ᛮࢃ࡞࠸㸽ࠖ  ிửࠕࡑ࠺࠸࠺ࡢ࣐ࣟࣥࢳࢵࢡ࡚࠸࠺࠿ࠖ                             ࠗ௒᪥ࠊᜊࢆࡣࡌࡵࡲࡍ࠘
5.5ࠗ
ࠕHࠖ
ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࠘࠿ࡽࠗØࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࠘࡬ 5.4 ࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ⪺ࡁᡭⓎヰࡢ୙㐺ษࡉࢆᣦ᦬ࡋಟṇࡍࡿಟ᚟ᶵ⬟㸦ࠗࠕHࠖࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࠘㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ
ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢᐇ㝿ࡢ౑⏝࡛ࡣ㸪A ࡢ㒊ศࡀ⌧ࢀ࡞࠸⏝ἲ㸪ᡤㅝࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ᥋⥆モࡸ๪モ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⮬❧ⓗ࡞⏝ἲࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ༶ࡕ㸪ࠗØࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ
࠘࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡣヰ㢟㌿᥮࡜ㄽࡌࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࡀ㸪ᮏ✏࡛ࡣヰ㢟㌿᥮ࢆ௚⪅Ⓨヰྥࡅࡢಟṇ࡜㐃⥆ⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿࠋ ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ㛫㐪࠸ࢆಟ᚟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ౵ᐖࡍࡿࡢ࡛㸪⪺ࡁᡭⓎヰྥࡅࡢಟṇࢆ⾲ࡍࠗࠕHࠖࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࠘࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪
ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢᚋࡢෆᐜࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ෆᐜ
࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪ࠗ
ࠕHࠖࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࠘ࡢࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢⓎヰࢆಟ᚟ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎ㸪ᚋࡢෆᐜࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ౵ᐖࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡸ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᮃࡲࡋࡃ࡞࠸ෆᐜ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜
ࢆணゝࡍࡿㄯヰᶵ⬟ࡶ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪ᐇ㝿ࡢ౑⏝࡛ࡣ㸪A ࡢ㒊ศࡀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ㸪
ࠗ
ࠕHࠖ
ࠕ࡜࠸࠺
࠿ Sࠖ
࠘࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢணゝᶵ⬟ࡀ⥅ᢎࡉࢀ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ౵ᐖࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆண

6
−182−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ゝࡍࡿࠗØࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ
࠘ࡢᙧᘧࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࠚ㸦14㸧10࠙ᾘࡋࢦ࣒ࢆ㞄ࡢᖍ࡟ᗙࡿ཭㐩࡟೉ࡾࡿ࡜ࡁࠋ    ࢔ࠕ࡚࠸࠺࠿ᾘࡋࢦ࣒㈚ࡋ࡚ࡃࢀ࡞࠸㸽ࠖ    ࢖ࠕ࠸࠸ࡼࠋࠖ 㸦14㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣ࢔࡛㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡣ࢖࡛࠶ࡿࠋヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰࡢ๓࡟Ⓨヰࡀ࡞ࡃ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ࿧ࡧ
࠿ࡅ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪
ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪㸦14㸧ࡢࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣ༢࡞ࡿ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅ࡜࠸࠺
ࡼࡾ㸪ᚋࡢⓎヰෆᐜࡢᛶ㉁ࢆணゝࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡓ࡯࠺ࡀ㐺ษ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ౵ᐖࡍࡿ
ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜⮬య࡟ኚ໬ࡀ࡞࠸࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ㸪⮬ศࡢⓎヰෆᐜࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ౵ᐖࡍࡿࡇ
࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡢࢆヰࡋᡭࡀ⮬ぬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛㸪
㸦14㸧ࡢࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢヰࡋᡭࡢ㓄៖ࡀධࡗ࡚࠸
ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
 㸦14㸧ࡣࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ๓࡟Ⓨヰࡀ࡞࠸࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪఍ヰࡢ㏵୰࡟ࠕ࡚࠿ఱศ࠿ࡽጞ
ࡵࡓࡢ࠿ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡀ⌧ࢀࡿሙྜࡣ㸪ࠕヰ㢟㌿᥮ࠖ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ࡑࡇ࡛㸪ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢࠕヰ㢟㌿᥮ࠖࡢᶵ⬟ࢆ௚⪅Ⓨヰྥࡅࡢಟṇ࡜࠸࠺ࠕಟ᚟ᶵ⬟ࠖࡢᘏ㛗⥺࡟࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡜఩⨨࡙ࡅ㸪ࠕ௚⪅Ⓨヰྥࡅࡢಟṇࠖࠕࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ౵ᐖෆᐜࡢணゝࠖࠕヰ㢟㌿᥮ࠖࢆ㐃⥆ⓗ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿࠋ
5.6ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢㄯヰᶵ⬟ࡢࡲ࡜ࡵ 5.1㹼5.5 ࡢ⪃ᐹࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ࡟ࡣࠕඹឤᙧᡂ࣭ࠖࠕಟ᚟࣭ࠖࠕ᩿ゝᅇ㑊࣭ࠖࠕヰ㢟㌿᥮ࠖࡢᅄࡘࡢ
ㄯヰᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ㸪ᙧᘧ࡜ࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀࡣ⾲ 2 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
ᙧᘧ
ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ
ࠕHࠖᶵ⬟ඹឤᙧᡂࡢᶵ⬟     ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ
ࠕHࠖࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ⮬ᕫⓎヰྥࡅࡢゞṇ࡜࠸࠺ಟ᚟ᶵ⬟௚⪅Ⓨヰྥࡅࡢಟṇ࡜࠸࠺ಟ᚟ᶵ⬟     ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖØ
ࠕHࠖࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖØࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖࡢゝ࠸ࡉࡋ࡟ࡼࡿ᩿ゝᅇ㑊ࠗࠕHࠖࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࠘ࡢゝ࠸ࡉࡋ࡟ࡼࡿ᩿ゝᅇ㑊Øࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖヰ㢟㌿᥮⾲ 2 ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ㐃⤖ᙧᘧ࡜ᶵ⬟

6 ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪ᮏ᮶㠀⮬❧ⓗ࡞᥋⥆ᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ⤫ㄒⓗ≉ᚩࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓୖ࡛㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ
ࡀ⬺ᩥἲ໬㏵ୖ࡟࠶ࡿㄯヰᶆ㆑࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᛶ㉁ࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪๓ᚋⓎヰࡢ᭷↓࡜Ⓨヰෆᐜࡢヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪
ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ㐃⤖ᙧᘧࢆࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ S࣭ࠖࠗࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ
ࠕHࠖ
࠘
࣭
ࠗ
ࠕHࠖ
ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ S࣭ࠖ࠘ࠗ
ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖØ࣭࠘ࠗࠕHࠖࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖØ࣭࠘ࠗØࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖ࠘ࡢභ✀㢮࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟㸪㐃⤖ᙧᘧࡈ࡜࡟ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢࠕඹឤᙧᡂ࣭ࠖࠕಟ᚟࣭ࠖࠕ᩿ゝᅇ㑊࣭ࠖࠕヰ㢟㌿᥮ࠖࡢᅄࡘࡢᶵ⬟ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣ⬺ᩥἲ໬ࡋ࡚⮬❧ᛶࢆᣢࡘㄯヰᶆ㆑࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࠖ࡜㹙࡜⏦ࡋࡲࡍ࠿ࠖࡢᙧᘧࡶぢࡽࢀࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡓࠋᩥయᑐ❧ࡀ୰࿴ࡉࢀࡓࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡀᩗయ࡛
ࡶᖖయ࡛ࡶ౑࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࠖ࡜ࠕ࡜⏦ࡋࡲࡍ࠿ࠖࡢᙧᘧࡶᶵ⬟ࡶ᭷ᶆ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜
ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪ࡑࢀࡽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢලయⓗ࡞ศᯒࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪௒ᚋࡣࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖ
ࡢᶵ⬟ศᯒࢆ᏶඲࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪ࠕ࡜࠸࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࠖ࡜ࠕ࡜⏦ࡋࡲࡍ࠿ࠖࢆྵࡵ࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

7
−183−

談話標識「というか」の統語語用論的分析ὀ
1㸧࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ㸦2004㸧࡛ࡣᩥ㢌㸪ᩥ୰㸪ᩥᮎࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ᩥ㢌࡛⌧ࢀࡿ౛࡟ࡣヰ㢟㌿᥮࡜┦ᡭࡢⓎヰࢆಟṇࡍࡿ౛࡜࠸࠺␗㉁ࡢࡶࡢࡀΰࡊࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2㸧ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢࠕ࡜࠸࠺ࠖࡢ㒊ศ࡟㡢㡩ⓗ࡞ኚ໬ࡀ㉳ࡇࡾ㸪ࠕ࡚࠸࠺࠿ࠖ
ࠕࡗ࡚࠸࠺࠿ࠖ
ࠕ࡚ࡺ࠺࠿ࠖ
ࠕ࡚࠿ࠖ
ࠕࡘ࠺࠿ࠖ
ࠕࡘ࠿ࠖ
ࠕࡕࡹ࠺࠿ࠖ
ࠕࡕࡹ࠿ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ␗ᙧែࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࡀ㸪ᮏ✏࡛ࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢᙧࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ศᯒࡍࡿࠋ
3㸧ຍ⸨㸦2009a㸧ࡢ㸦97㸧࠿ࡽࡢᘬ⏝࡛࠶ࡿࠋ4㸧Ø ࡣ A ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ B ࡢ㒊ศࡀゝㄒᙧᘧୖ࡟⌧ࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆᣦࡍࠋ
5㸧
ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ࡣ㸦4㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕS ࡜࠸࠺࠿ Sࠖࡀ㔜」ࡉࢀࡿሙྜࡶྵࡲࢀࡿࠋ
6㸧ᮏ✏ࡣࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢᶵ⬟ࢆศᯒࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛㸪Ᏹబ⨾㸦2011㸧࡛ࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢⓎヰෆᐜࡢࡳᘬ⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
7㸧
㸦11㸧ࡣ㉿㸦2007㸧࠿ࡽࡢᘬ⏝࡛࠶ࡿࠋ8㸧
㸦12㸧ࡣᱵ⃝㸦1999㸧ࡢ B ࠿ࡽࡢᘬ⏝࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
9㸧ࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ≧ἣᩥ⬦࡜ᙧᘧᩥ⬦ࡣຍ⸨㸦2009b㸧ࡢᐃ⩏࡟ᚑ࠺ࠋᙧᘧᩥ⬦ࡣࠕྠ୍ࢭࢵࢩࣙࣥࡢෆ㒊࡛ゝㄒⓗ࡟ලయ໬ࡉࢀࡿⓎヰࡢ㐃⥆ⓗ࡞⵳✚࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿࠖࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪≧ἣᩥ⬦ࡣࠕࢭࢵࢩࣙࣥࡢ㐍⾜࡜᫬㛫ⓗ࡟ᖹ⾜ࡋ࡚Ꮡᅾࡍࡿ≀⌮ⓗ࡞≧ἣࢆㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ព࿡໬ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ㸦ຍ⸨ 2009b㸸214㸧ࠋ
10㸧
㸦14㸧ࡣ ᱵ⃝㸦1999㸧ࡢ E ࠿ࡽࡢᘬ⏝࡛࠶ࡿࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩㉿ ๛.2007.ࠕㄯヰᶆ㆑ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ⏝ἲ࡜ᶵ⬟ࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏゝㄒᩥ໬◊✲࠘
ࠊ10 ྕࠊ1-12.
ᮤ 㛗⨾.2001.ࠕⱝ⪅ㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ࡚࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ⏝ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ
ࠊࡍࡗࡁࡷࡡࢇⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢ఍➨ 15 ᅇࠊ
1-17.
ຍ⸨ 㔜ᗈ.2009a.ࠗࡑࡢゝ࠸᪉ࡀேࢆᛣࡽࡏࡿ̿ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢ༴ᶵ⟶⌮⾡࠘ᮾி㸸ࡕࡃࡲ᪂᭩.
ຍ⸨ 㔜ᗈ.2009b.ࠕືⓗᩥ⬦ㄽ෌⪃ࠖࠊࠗ໭ᾏ㐨኱ᏛᩥᏛ◊✲⛉⣖せ࠘128 ྕࠊ195-223.
ຍ⸨ 㔜ᗈ.2013.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ⤫ㄒ≉ᛶㄽ࠘໭ᾏ㐨㸸໭ᾏ㐨኱Ꮫฟ∧఍.
࣓࢖ࢼ࣮ࢻ㸪ἨᏊ࣭K.2004.ࠗㄯヰゝㄒᏛ࠘ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
Norde, Muriel. 2009.Degrammaticalization, Oxford˖Oxford University Press.
Ἀ ⿱Ꮚ.1999.ࠕᡭࡢࡦࡽࡢゝㄒᏛ ⱝ࠸ேࡀ౑࠺ࠕ࡜࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡣ࡝ࢇ࡞ゝⴥ࡛ࡍ࠿ࠋ
ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠗゝㄒ࠘
ࠊ28㸸5
㸦5 ᭶ྕ㸧
ࠊ80-83.
◁ᕝ ᭷㔛Ꮚ.2006.ࠕ
ࠕゝ࠺ࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ」ྜ㎡̿ᩥἲ໬ࡢ㔜ᒙᛶ࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚̿ࠖࠊࠗ◊✲ྀ᭩ 357 」ྜ㎡◊✲ࡢ⌧ᅾ࠘
ࠊ23-40ࠊ኱㜰㸸࿴Ἠ᭩㝔.
ᑎ஭ ድ࿅⨾.2000.ࠕㄯヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࢺ࢖࢘࢝ࠖࡢᶵ⬟ࠖࠊࠗ᪥ᮏ࡜୰ᅜࡇ࡜ࡤࡢᲓ̿బ἞ᆂ୕ᩍᤵྂ⛥グᛕㄽᩥ㞟࠘
ࠊ175-186ࠊᮾிࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ࠊࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘
ᱵ⃝ ᐇ.1999.ࠕ
ࠕ࡚࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢ౑⏝ᚰ⌮࠿ࡽ᥈ࡿ୰Ꮫ⏕ࡢ཭ே㛵ಀࠖ
ࠊ18㸸14㸦12 ᭶ྕ㸧ࠊ
79-83.
ⱝᯇ ⨾⣖Ꮚ࣭⣽⏣ ⏤฼.2003.ࠕ┦஫⾜Ⅽ࣭ᩥἲ࣭ண ྍ⬟ᛶ̿ࠕ࡚࠸࠺࠿ࠖࡢศᯒࢆ౛࡟ࡋ࡚̿ࠖ
ࠊࠗㄒ⏝ㄽ◊✲࠘5 ྕࠊ31-43.
ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫᏱబ⨾ࡲࡺࡳ┘ಟ.2011.ࠕBTSJ ࡟ࡼࡿ᪥ᮏㄒヰࡋゝⴥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸦2011 ᖺ∧㸧ࠖࠊࠗே㛫ࡢ┦஫స⏝◊✲ࡢࡓࡵࡢከゝㄒ఍ヰࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢᵓ⠏࡜ࡑࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗศᯒ᪉ἲࡢ㛤Ⓨ࠘ࠊᖹᡂ 20-22 ᖺᗘ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵
ຓ㔠ᇶ┙◊✲ B㸦ㄢ㢟␒ྕ 20320072㸧◊✲ᡂᯝ.

8
−184−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

Pragmatic development of Japanese learners:
A ten-month’s longitudinal study of request
BEUCKMANN, Fusako
The University of Tokyo

ࠑAbstractࠒ
This study examines the pragmatic development of requests by learners of Japanese language and focuses on supportive moves
and strategies of Head Act with regard to directness and politeness. Closed role-play data by five beginning-level Japaneselearners (L2) were collected for ten months. For comparison, data from twenty native Japanese speakers (NS-J) were also used
as a baseline. Nine request situations were selected with variations in social and psychological distance.
Similar to former cross-sectional studies, there were some notable differences in distribution of supportive moves between L2
and NS-J. However, development of the use of supportive moves over ten months was not observed in this data. As forstrategies of Head Act, the findings revealed a decreased frequency of direct strategies and an increased use of indirect strategies.
Furthermore, L2 gradually use plain speech style towards friend, benefactive auxiliary verbs toward Senpai and professor, andhonorific forms toward professor over time.
࠙Keywordsࠚ request, interlanguage pragmatic, longitudinal study, supportive moves, politeness1. Introduction
Kasper & Schmidt (1996) advocated the importance of second language pragmatics research in the late 1990s. In response,
numerous studies in interlanguage pragmatics have been conducted. However, cross-sectional studies comparing against native
speakers have dominated the interlanguage pragmatics field mainly due to the fact that interlanguage pragmatics have been
essentially modeled on cross-cultural pragmatics (Kasper & Schmidt 1996). This trend is also recognizable in interlanguage
studies on request in Japanese. Kasper & Rose (2002) claimed that it is of importance for researchers to undertake longitudinalstudies on second language pragmatics for an in-depth understanding of a learner’s pragmatic development. Unfortunately, there
has been nowhere near sufficient longitudinal pragmatics research to elucidate this development regarding studies on Japanese
language learners. Furthermore, interlanguage pragmatics through cross-sectional studies have involved mostly intermediate toadvanced learners of Japanese language. To facilitate a better understanding, longitudinal data which includes beginning-level
learners needs to be collected.
The goal of this study is to explore pragmatic development of Japanese language learners through a ten-month longitudinal
study from beginner’s level by analyzing which supportive moves and strategies of Head Act learners of Japanese employed inrequest situations.
2. Past research
In order to clarify socio-cultural norms among different language cultures, commencing with a study called the Cross-Cultural
Speech Act Realization Project: CCSARP (Blum-Kulka et al. 1984, 1989), numerous studies of request have focused on
similarities and differences of strategies among different native speakers. In the interlanguage pragmatics field on Japanese
language learners, cross-sectional studies comparing learners of specific language to Japanese native speakers have dominated(Mizuno 1996a, 1996b, Toyama 2005, 2006). Toyama (2006) investigated the acquisition process of strategies in requests−185−

Pragmatic development of Japanese learners: A ten-monthʼs longitudinal study of request

comparing two levels of Chinese learners of Japanese language; lower-intermediate and upper-intermediate to advanced. She
claimed an increased use of benefactive auxiliary verbs with regard to politeness strategies as levels went up and learners useddirect strategies more often than native speakers towards friends. To this date, a thorough literature review revealed that there isno speech act study such as request with a longitudinal design on Japanese language learners. In the study presented here,
findings of previous literature of cross-sectional design will be re-examined.
3. Research questions
The following research questions were constructed for this study:
1) What supportive moves do learners of Japanese employ in the case of request, and are they similar to those by Japanese native
speakers?
2) What request realization strategies of Head Act do learners of Japanese use in the case of request, and are there any
developmental patterns regarding the expressions they use?
4. Method
4-1 ParticipantsParticipants in this study consisted of two groups: learners of Japanese (L2, 5 subjects) and Japanese native speakers (NS-J,
10 male and 10 female subjects). L2s were enrolled in undergraduate degree programs at a Japanese university to be taught theirrespective subjects in English except for the Japanese language courses. Prior to arriving in Japan, they had been studying
Japanese for an average of two months in their home countries. In Japan, they started learning Japanese in an elementary course
at the university, using a beginner’s textbook from lesson one on. They were two female Chinese, a male Singaporean, a male
Korean, and a male Vietnamese student, who are indicated as 001, 002, 003, 004 and 005, respectively. The participants rangedin age from 19 to 21 years. Data were collected four times starting with the participants’ arrival in Japan, i.e. Month 1 (M1),
Month 4 (M4), Month 7 (M7) and Month 10 (M10). NS-J were at the same age as L2 (19 to 21 years old) and studying at thesame university.
4-2 Instruments and procedures
A closed role-play between participant and investigator was employed to elicit a request and to compare the participant’s oral
productions under comparable situation settings. A closed role-play, also referred to as oral Discourse Completion Test (DCT)
was chosen because it can provoke spontaneous utterances while controlling variables in order to ensure compatibility, allowing
increased varieties of strategies to be observed compared to written DCT (Sasaki 1998).
Nine request situations were selected with variations in social dominances and psychological distances: three settings(borrowing a pen, borrowing a book, and requesting to reduce volume of music) vis-a-vis three interlocutors (a close old friend,a close senior person Senpai of an activity club, and a distinguished professor). The following are samples of a role card in theclose old friend’s version, however, on each card a different interlocutor was written.
(1) Role-play card: borrowing a pen, from a close friend
You are at the University Library. You want to write down the names of books in your notebook for a paper. But you forgot tobring a pen. You see a close old friend, sitting nearby. You want to borrow a pen from him/her. What would you say?
(2) Role-play card: borrowing a book, from a close friend
You are preparing for a mid-term examination, which is scheduled to be held next Friday. You don’t have a book called“Japan’s Economy”, which you need to read for the examination. You know that your close old friend has it. What would you−186−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

say in order to borrow the book from him/her?
(3) Role-play card: requesting to reduce volume of music, to a close friend
You are preparing for a mid-term examination, which is scheduled to be held tomorrow. It’s about 12 o’clock midnight.
However, you have an close old friend who is living in the room next to yours and is listening to music very loudly, whichmakes it very difficult for you to concentrate on your study. After you went to his/her room, what would you say to him/her?
These three interlocutors can be characterized by two factors: social dominance and psychological distance. According tothese two factors, three different recipients of a request were created: a close old friend (socially equal and psychologically close),a close senior person Senpai (socially dominant, yet socially less dominant than a professor and psychologically close) and a
distinguished professor (socially dominant and psychologically distant).
Nine role-play cards were randomly shown to a participant, with the cards shown to L2 written in English, while cards for
NS-J were written in Japanese. The participants were given sufficient time to prepare before each role-play. The goal of eachrole-play was fixed, and in order to maintain interaction the investigator responded to what a participant said, however withheld
responses to a minimum, such as giving supportive response and back channeling. The analytical range of the role-play wasfrom “bringing up a request conversation until its conclusion”, and any utterance, which was not directly related to a request
such as a greeting and back channeling, was removed from the analysis.
(4) Data set
1.

Role-play for NS-J: 20 participants×(2 settings×3 interlocutors) = 120 conversations

2.

Role-play for L2: 5 participants×(2 settings×3 interlocutors)×4 time periods = 120 conversations

The period of data collection for NS-J was from February until July 2013, while for L2s M1 data were collected in late
October 2012, M4 in late January 2013, M7 in late April 2013, and M10 in late July 2013. All data was collected via an
IC-recorder.
5. Results and discussion
5-1 Supportive Moves
Supportive moves are external to the Head Act, occurring either before or after it (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989). In using specifictypes of supportive moves, a speaker intends to mitigate or aggravate his/her request. In this study, coding of the supportive
moves was defined based on the CCSARP and Toyama (2005). In order to maintain inter-rater reliability, the initial 20% of thedata on both of L2 and NS were coded independently by the investigator as well as another rater, with the kappa coefficientvalue being 0.91. As this was a highly acceptable level for inter-rater reliability, the rest of the data was coded only by theinvestigator.
Three rules were applied to delimit utterances: [1] It was considered one supportive move, as long as the utterance contained
the supportive move regardless of whether or not there was a sentence boundary and the utterance of the recipient’s response
was inserted in between. [2] As long as the utterance was interpreted as the same supportive move, it was considered one
supportive move, even if the same utterance was repeated, i.e. ᣢࡗ࡚ࡿ㸽ᣢࡗ࡚ࡿࡼࡡ. (I suppose you have the book. You
have the book, don’t you?) [3] When L2 repeatedly restated or self-repaired their utterance, the final version was employed in
the analysis.
There are 12 supportive moves, shown in Table 1. The supportive moves, which were observed only in Japanese language−187−

Pragmatic development of Japanese learners: A ten-monthʼs longitudinal study of request

data, that is, Toyama’s data (2005) and this data, are marked with asterisks.
Table 1Category
A

Preparatory

B

Getting a
pre-commitment

C

Grounder-Indirect(Mild hints)

D

Grounder-Direct(Strong hints)

E

Justification

F

Disclaimer

G

Imposition minimizer

H

Apology*I

Gratitude*J

Minimizing the degreeof burden*

K

Promise of reward*

L

Request maker*

Supportive Moves and example
Supportive moves
The speaker prepares his/her listener for the ensuing request by announcing that he/shewill make a request by asking the potential availability, or asking for the hearer’s
permission.
Ex.: ࣌ࣥᣢࡗ࡚ࡿ㸽(Do you have a pen?)㸪ᮏᣢࡗ࡚ࡓ㸽(Do you have thebook?)㸪㡢ᴦ⪺࠸࡚ࡿ㸽(Are you listening to music?)
Before making his/her request, the speaker tries to commit his/her hearer before tellinghim/her what he is letting himself/herself in for. Ex.: ࠾㢪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࢇࡔࡅ࡝ (Ihave a favor.)
The speaker indirectly gives reasons or background explanations for his/her request,
which may either precede or follow it.
Ex.: ࣀ࣮ࢺ࡟ᮏࡢྡ๓᭩ࡁࡓ࠸ࢇࡔࡅ࡝ (I want to write the name of the bookin my notebook.)㸪ヨ㦂ࡀ࠶ࡿࢇࡔࡅ࡝(I will have an exam.)
The speaker directly gives reasons or explanations, or justifications for his/her request,
which may either precede or follow it.
Ex.:ᮏࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࢇࡔ (I don’t have the book.)㸪࠺ࡿࡉ࠸ (It is loud.)㸪㡢ࡀ኱ࡁ࠸ (The sound is loud.)The speaker gives justifications for his/her request, which may either precede orfollow it. Ex.:ヨ㦂࡛࡝࠺ࡋ࡚ࡶᚲせ࡛㸦I really need the book for the exam.㸧
The speaker tries to remove any potential objections the hearer might raise upon being
confronted with the request.
Ex.:ࡔࡵࡔࡗࡓࡽ࠸࠸ࢇࡔࡅ࡝ (It’s fine if you cannot lend it to me.)The speaker tries to reduce the imposition placed on the hearer by his request.
Ex.:ࡶࡋࡼ࠿ࡗࡓࡽ(If you like)㸪ࡈ↓⌮࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ(If it’s not impossible)㸪ࡈ㏞ᝨ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ(If it doesn’t cause you trouble.)
The speaker apologies for his/her request, which precede it.
Ex.: ᝏ࠸ࡅ࡝(I’m sorry but)㸪ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇࡀ(I’m sorry but)
The speaker expresses his/her gratitude after the request has been accepted. Ex.: ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺(Thank you.)㸪ຓ࠿ࡾࡲࡍ(It would be helpful.)㸪ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇ(Thank you)
The speaker tries to minimize a hearer’s burden when the request has been realized.
Ex.: ࡍࡄ㏉ࡋࡲࡍ(I’ll return it to you soon.)
The speaker offers compensation. Ex.: ௒ᗘ࠾ࡈࡿࡼ(I’ll treat you to make up forthis.)The speaker indicates his/her illocutionary force in which his request is made explicit
by using formulaic, routinized expressions. Ex.: ࡼࢁࡋࡃ࠾㢪࠸ࡋࡲࡍ (Thankyou in advance.)(5) is an example conversation with supportive moves and Head Act in the music setting. The following notation was used in thetranscriptions; ( ) other interlocutors’ utterances, : lengthened vowel, ? rising intonation, , short pause.
(5) 003, M7, Music, Professor࠶㸸, ࡍࡳࡲࡏࢇ, ࡣ, ᯘ, ඛ⏕㸦ࡣ࠸㸧࠶ࡢ൅㸸ࡣ㸸, ࢸࢫ, ᫂᪥㸸ࢸࢫࢺࡀ, ࠶ࡾࡲ, ࡍ㸸ࡋ㸦࠼࠼㸧ÆC: Grounder-Indirect࠶ࡢ㸸, ඛ⏕⫈࠸࡚ࡿ㡢ᴦࡀࡕࡻࡗ, ࡜㸸, ࠾, ࠶㸸, ࡑࡢኌࡀ࠾࠾ࡍ, ኱ࡁ㸸ࡍࡂࡿ㸸࡛ࡍࡀ㸸,㸦࠼࠼,࠼࠼㸧
ÆD: Grounder-Directࡕࡻࡗ࡜, 㟼࠿࡟ࡋ, ࡚㸸, ࠸ࡓࡔࡅࡲࡏࢇ࠿㸽ÆHead Act
㸦࠶, ࢃ࠿ࡾࡲࡋࡓ㸸㸧ࡣ࠸(Ẽࢆࡘࡅࡲ㸸ࡍ)ࡣ࠸, ࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡋࡓ㸦ࡣ:࠸㸧ÆI: Gratitude−188−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

Table 2 shows the Participants numbers of supportive moves. The distribution of supportive moves among L2s was very
similar, despite they are speaking different mother languages.


Table2 Participants Numbers of Supportive Moves among L2s (n=12, 3 interlocutors4 times: M1, M4, M7 & M10)












































ͲͲͳ

ͳ

Ͳ

͹

ͺ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

͵

ͳʹ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

͹

Ͳ

ͳͳ

ͷ

͵

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͳʹ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͷ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͳʹ

Ͷ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

͸

ͳͳ

Ͳ


Ͳ

ʹ

ͲͲʹ

ͳ

Ͳ

ͳͳ

ͺ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͳ

ͳʹ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

͹

ͳ

ͳͲ

͵

ʹ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͻ

Ͳ

Ͳ

͵

͸

Ͳ

ͳͲ

͹

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ʹ

ͺ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͲͲ͵

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

͹

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͳʹ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͷ

Ͳ

ͺ

͵

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͳʹ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ʹ

Ͳ

Ͳ

͸

ͻ

ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͳ

ͳʹ

ͲͲͶ

͵

Ͳ

ͷ

͹

Ͷ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͳʹ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͻ

Ͳ

ͺ

Ͷ

Ͷ

Ͳ

ͳ

Ͳ

ͳͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͳ

ͳͲ

ͻ

ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͳ

ͳͲ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͲͲͷ

Ͷ

Ͳ

ʹ

͵

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͳʹ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͳͳ

ͳ

͹

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͳʹ

͵

Ͳ

ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͻ

͸

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͺ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ



ͳ

㻭㼢㼑㼞㻚 ͳǤͺͲͷ͸Ǥ͸ ͲǤͺ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͲǤͺ

ͳʹ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

͹Ǥ͸ ͲǤͶ ͺǤͺ

͵

ͳǤͺ

Ͳ

ͲǤʹ

Ͳ

ͳͳ

ͲǤ͸

Ͳ

ʹ

ͳǤʹ ͲǤʹ ͻǤͶ

͹

ͲǤͶ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ʹ

ͻǤͺ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͲǤ͸

㻿㻰

㻜㻚㻜

㻟㻚㻤

㻝㻚㻥

㻜㻚㻜

㻜㻚㻜

㻝㻚㻞

㻜㻚㻜

㻜㻚㻜

㻜㻚㻜

㻜㻚㻜

㻞㻚㻟

㻝㻚㻣

㻝㻚㻢

㻜㻚㻜

㻜㻚㻠

㻜㻚㻜

㻝㻚㻞

㻝㻚㻞

㻜㻚㻜

㻝㻚㻠

㻞㻚㻠

㻝㻚㻥

㻜㻚㻡

㻜㻚㻜

㻜㻚㻜

㻞㻚㻝

㻝㻚㻢

㻜㻚㻜

㻜㻚㻜

㻜㻚㻤

㻝㻚㻡

㻝㻚㻢

㻜㻚㻡

㻝㻚㻡

㻜㻚㻠

㻞㻚㻜

Table 3 Ratio of Supportive Moves between L2 and NS (% of n=20)(L2: n=20, 5 participants4 times: M1, M4, M7 & M10; NS: n=20, 20 participants) 



Ǧ 
Ǧ   ȋȌǦ  ȋȌ 

 





ʹ
Senpai

ʹ

Ǥ

ʹ



ʹ


Senpai

ʹ

Ǥ

ʹ


ʹ 
Senpai

ʹ

Ǥ

ʹ

ͳͲ

ʹͲ

ͳͲ

ͳͷ

ͳͲ

ͳͲ

͸Ͳ

ͺͲ

ͳͲ

͹Ͳ

͵Ͳ

ͶͲ

͵Ͳ

ͳͲ

Ͳ

ͳͷ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͷ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͷ

ͳͲ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͷ

ͶͲ

͵Ͳ

͵ͷ

ͶͲ

Ͷͷ

ͶͲ

ͷͲ

͸Ͳ

ͶͲ

͹ͷ

͵ͷ

ͺͷ

͹ͷ

͸Ͳ

͹Ͳ

ͺͷ

ͺͲ

ͻͷ

͵Ͳ
Ͳ

ͷͷ
ͷ

ͳͷ
ͷ

͸Ͳ
ͳͲ

ʹͷ
ͳͲ

ͷͲ
ͳͷ

͵ͷ
ͳͲ

ͳͷ
ʹͲ

ʹͷ
͵Ͳ

ʹͷ
ͳͷ

ͶͲ
ʹͲ

Ͷͷ
ͳͲ

ͷͷ
ͷ

ͺͷ
Ͳ

ͶͲ
ͷ

Ͷͷ
ͷ

ͷͲ
Ͳ

ͷͷ
Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͳͷ

Ͳ

ͳͷ

Ͳ

ͳͷ

Ͳ

ʹͲ

ͷ

ʹͷ

Ͳ

ͳͲ

Ͳ

ͳͷ

Ͳ

ʹͲ

Ͳ

ͷ

 ȗ

ͳͷ

ͷ

ʹͲ

ͷ

͵ͷ

ͳͲ

ʹͷ

Ͳ

ʹͷ

Ͳ

͵ͷ

ͷ

ͷͲ

ͳͷ

͸ͷ

ͳͲ

͸Ͳ

͵Ͳ



ȗ

ͳͲ

ͳͲ

ͳͲ

ͻͷ

ͳͲ

ͺͲ

ͻͲ

ͺͷ

ͻͷ

ͺͷ

ͻͷ

͸Ͳ

͸Ͳ

͹ͷ

ͺͷ

ͺͲ

ͻͷ




ȗ

ͻͷ
ʹͲ

Ͳ

ͳͲ

Ͳ

ʹͲ

Ͳ

͵Ͳ

Ͳ

ͳͲ

ͳͲ

ͳͷ

ͷ

ͳͲ

Ͳ

ͷ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ



ȗ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͳͲ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͷ

Ͳ

ͷ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ



ȗ

ͷ

Ͳ

ͳͲ

Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

ͳͲ

ͳͷ

ͳͲ

ʹͷ

ͶͲ

ͳͲ

ʹͷ

Ͳ

Ͷͷ

ͷ

ͶͲ

ͳͲ



Table 3 shows ratio (%) of supportive moves used by L2 and NS. When the differences are more than 25% between the twogroups, those figures are marked in gray. The reason why the ratio of 25% was adopted is that the p-value of the Ȥ2 test becomessignificant (p< 0.05), when the difference between the two groups reaches more than 25%. However, in this study the number ofparticipants was not sufficient to use the Ȥ2 test, therefore percentage was employed. From this result, notable differences on A,
C, D, G, H, J and L were observed between the two groups.
4.0

3.5

3.5

3

3.0

M1

2.5

2.5

2.0

M4

2

Friend

1.5

M7

1.5

Senpai

1.0

M10

1

Professor

0.5

0.5

0.0
001

002

003

004

0

005

Graph 1 Average count of Supportive Moves

M1

M4

M7

M10

NS

Graph 2 Average count of Supportive Moves

depending on L2

depending on interlocutors

Graph 1 shows each L2’s average count of supportive moves at M1, M4, M7 and M10. Numbers of supportive moves and theirincrease and decrease differ among L2. No remarkable development or trend on use of supportive moves among L2 was−189−

Pragmatic development of Japanese learners: A ten-monthʼs longitudinal study of request

observed in this data. As shown in graph2, no major differences among the respective interlocutors were observed whencomparing M1, 4, 7 and M10 as well.
The findings about supportive moves can be summarized as follows:
1) Nearly no overt differences in distribution of supportive moves among L2 participants.
2) Similar to former cross-sectional studies, there were some distinctive differences in distribution of supportive moves
between L2 and NS-J: grounder-indirect, grounder-direct, apology, minimizing the degree of burden, and request marker.
Apology, minimizing the degree of burden, and request marker are binding to the target language specifically. In this data,
L2 used them less than NS or did not use them at all. Toyama (2005) also claimed that intermediate or higher learners usedapology and request marker.
3)

No remarkable development of the use of supportive moves over 10 months was observed in this data set.

5-2 Directness of Head Act expressions
One of the strategies to minimize the imposition of request is to make use of indirect strategies. As such, three levels of
directness for request strategies were distinguished in the CCSARP coding scheme (Blum-Kulka et at., 1989). Using the
CCSARP scheme, in this study directness was classified into following three types:
A. Direct on record: ex. ࡚ࠥࡃࡔࡉ࠸㸪೉ࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸㸪೉ࡾࡿࡼ
B. Indirect

B-1. Questions: ex.೉ࡾࡽࢀࡲࡍ㸽㸪೉ࡾ࡚ࡶ࠸࠸࡛ࡍ࠿㸪㈚ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡲࡍ࠿
B-2. Conventionally indirect: ex.㈚ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࡓ࠸ࢇ࡛ࡍࡅ࡝㸪㈚ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡿ࡜࠶ࡾࡀࡓ࠸࡛ࡍ

C. Hint: ex.࠺ࡿࡉ࠸ࡼ㸪㡢ࡀ኱ࡁ࠸࡛ࡍࡡ
Graph 3 Directness depending on interlocutors
)ULHQG6HQSDL3URIHVVRU
100

100

100

80

80

80

60

60

NS
40

60

NS
40

L2

L2

NS
L2

40

20
20

20

0
0

Direct Indirect Hints

Direct Indirect Hints0

DirectIndirect

Hints



Table 4 Directness depending on interlocutors over ten months

Graph 3 shows directness with regard to each interlocutor of a different social dominance and psychological status. Table 4
exhibits the actual numbers of occurrence. Comparing to NS, L2 used more direct strategies and hint, and the use of direct
strategies decreased and the use of indirect strategies increased as time progressed. Over time direct strategies and hints
decreased and indirect strategies increased depending on situations as well (Graph 4 and Table 5).

−190−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

Graph 4 Directness depending on situation 3HQ%RRN0XVLF
100

100

80

80

100

80

60

60

60

NS

NS
40

NS

40

L2

L2

40

L2

20

20

20
0

Direct Indirect Hints0

DirectIndirect0

Hints

Direct Indirect Hints

Table 5 Directness depending on interlocutors over ten months

5-3 Politeness of Head Act expressions
In this study three indexes were employed in order to determine politeness; 1) use of desu/masu, 2) use of humble honorifics
and respect honorifics: ex. ࠾೉ࡾࡍࡿ㸪࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡃ㸪࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡿ. 3) use of benefactive auxiliary verbs; ex. ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺㸪࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡃ㸪࡚ࡃࢀࡿ㸪࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡿ.
Graph 5 Polite expressions depending on interlocutors㻌㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻲㼕㼑㼚㼐㻌 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 㻿㼑㼚㼜㼍㼕㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻼㼞㼛㼒㼑㼟㼟㼛㼞㻌
100

100

100

80

80

80

60
40

60

60

NS

NS

NS

L2

40

20

40

L2

0

desu/masu

honorifics benefac ve

㻌㻌㻌㻌

L2

20

20
0

desu/masu

honorifics benefac ve

㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌

0

desu/masu honorifics benefac ve㻌Table 6 Polite expressions depending on interlocutors over ten months

Graph 5 exhibits the percentage of the use of polite expressions in regard to each interlocutor with different social dominanceand psychological distances. The numbers of occurrence in each stage are also shown in the table 6. Politeness of Head Act
expressions between two groups can be summarized as follows:
1) Over time, L2s used less desu/masu towards friend and this characteristic became close to NS’s usage. This means that L2
gradually acquired the usage of plain speech style (non- desu/masu style ) towards friends.
2) L2 used less honorific expressions towards both Senpai and professor than NS. However, this discrepancy became smaller−191−

Pragmatic development of Japanese learners: A ten-monthʼs longitudinal study of request

with increasing time towards professor. All honorific expressions which L2 used were ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡃ with only one exception:࡞ࡉࡿ (respect honorific verb), whereas NS used ࠾೉ࡾࡍࡿ㸪࠾㈚ࡋࡍࡿ as well as ࠸ࡓࡔࡃ (humble honorific verbs)㸬
3) L2 gradually used benefactive auxiliary verbs toward Senpai and professor. NS tend to use the expression ࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡿ?
towards a friend, whereas L2 use ࡚ࡶ࠸࠸㸽, which is why the numbers of benefactive auxiliary verbs towards friends was
low in the L2 group.
6. Conclusion
Former cross-sectional studies have consistently demonstrated that there were dissimilarities in regards to selections ofsupportive moves on request. The present study also revealed that some differences exist in distribution of supportive moves,which are binding to the target language specifically; apology, minimizing the degree of burden, and request marker. No
distinguished development of supportive moves could be observed over time in this data set.
With regard to strategies of Head Act, L2’s usage differs substantially from that of NS in both directness and politeness. The
findings are: 1) L2 used more direct and hints strategies than NS. 2) L2’s frequency of using indirect strategies increased anddirect strategies decreased over time. 3) L2 started to use plain speech style towards friend from Month 4 on. 4) The use ofhonorific expressions increased but the expression itself was fixed. 5) The use of benefactive auxiliary verbs increased, however
actual expressions were dissimilar to those of the target language. In conclusion, this study suggests that L2 did not change“what to say (= use of supportive moves)” in target language situations. However, they did gradually acquire “how to say (= useof directness and politeness strategies) in line with appropriate expressions in target culture over ten months, although the process
did not evolve to a point, where L2 would become comparable to NS. This data warrants further investigations with more
subjects and possibly longer observation period.
References
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies. Ablex Publishing
Corporation. Norwood: NJ.
Blum-Kulka, S. and Olshtain, E. 1984. Requests and Apologies; A Cross- Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns(CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5-3:196-213.
Kasper, G. 1996. Introduction: Interlanguage pragmatics in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 145-148.
Kasper, G. & Rose, K. R. 2002. Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Kasper, G. & Schmidt, R. 1996. Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
18(2), 149-169.
Mizuno, K. 1996a. ͆Irai͇ no gengokodo niokeru chukangenngo goyoron- Chugokujin nihongo gakushusya no baai-. Nagoya
Daigaku gengo bunka ronshu, 17(2),91-106.
Mizuno, K. 1996b. ͆Irai͇ no gengokodo niokeru chukangenngo goyoron (2) – directness to perspective no kanten kara-.
Nagoya Daigaku gengo bunka ronshu, 18(1),57-72.
Sasaki M. 1998. Investigating EFL students' production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and roleplays. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 457-484.
Toyama, C. 2005. Chugokujin gakushuusya no teineisa-hyogen no shutoku: “irai-hojyo” horyaku no shiyo kara. Gengobunka
to nihongokyoiku. Ochanomizu university, 29, 8-14.
Toyama, C. 2006. Dainigengosyakai niokeru teneisa / shitashisa no hyogen no hattatsu – Nihongo gakushu dankai niyoru“Shuirai” hyogen no henka kara. Kanda Gaigo Daigaku kiyo, 18 235-259.

−192−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

Identity shift, and learning to use terminology at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan
Cade Bushnell, University of Tsukuba
㸺Abstract㸼
Examining interactions at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan, I consider how the participants (1)co-constitute their activity as that of “doing data analysis,” (2) organize themselves as a specific group in
relation to this activity, and (3) manage identities as members within this group. The analyses show how
the participants display changes in participatory behavior; these behavioral changes reflexively work to
display shifts in identity within the group, and to make learning publicly visible. From this, I argue thatlearning is intertwined with processes of being categorized (or not) as practicing members of the group.
࠙Keywordsࠚ
Conversation analysis, Group membership and participation, Identity, Learning, Communities of practice
1. Introduction
Communities of practice (CoP) conceptualizes learning in terms of identity transformation within acommunity of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). In other words, for CoP, learning is “anevolving form of membership” (Lave and Wenger 1991, p. 53). However, CoP has not specified how, andto what extent talk-in-interaction might be involved in this process. While a number of conversation
analytic (CA) studies examining second language learning have engaged CoP (e.g., Brouwer and Wagner,
2004; Hellermann, 2007, 2008; Hellermann and Cole, 2009; Young and Miller, 2004), these studies havenot provided an in-depth view of how participants constitute and ongoingly accomplish (a) their activities
as a practice, (b) their group as a community, and (c) their identities within that community. It is the goalof the present study to describe the ways in which changes in identity are made publicly visible andmutually recognizable by the participants through changes in their observable participatory behavior in
relation to the use of terminology at conversation analytic data sessions.
2. Previous studies
In the past two decades, CoP has increasingly been adopted as a conceptual framework for research on
second language learning. While such research has often drawn upon ethnography to provide a broad
picture of learning in communities of practice (e.g., Sawyer, 2003, 2004; Toohey, Waterstone, and
Julé-Lemke, 2000; Traphagan, 1999), CoP has also been engaged by conversation analysts. For example,
Hellermann (2007), examining classroom interaction, describes how the participants open their dyadic
engagement in teacher-assigned tasks. He first shows how the participants incorporate language provided
by the teacher, and fellow students, on previous occasions in order to accomplish a mutual orientation to
the current teacher-assigned task. Hellermann argues that this language thus became part of a sharedrepertoire. He concludes by arguing that the “classroom community of practice” afforded learning sites
through which the participants were able to develop specific interactional competencies over time (2007,
p. 92). Examining data gathered outside of formal classrooms, Nguyen (2008), and Young and Miller(2004), on the other hand, describe learning in interactions between second language speakers of English
and their academic advisors or tutors. These studies utilize CA and CoP to track changes over time in theinteractional behaviors of the participants as they interact with each other during regular meetings. Youngand Miller (2004) show evidence for a specific interactional routine, which they gloss as “revision talk.”
They track changes over time in the participation framework of this routinte, noting how the framework
shifts from one where the student maintains a passive role to one where the student actively initiates andadvances each stage of the revision talk.
The contributions of the studies reviewed above notwithstanding, it remains unclear in each of thesestudies as to whether or not the participants themselves were orienting to these routines as such, or totheir participation as being that of members of a particular community. In other words, the relevance of
CoP notions such as practice, community, and community membership seem to have assumed a priori.
However, the relevance and procedural consequentiality of such notions must treated as an empiricalquestion (Schegloff, 1991). Furthermore, according to Rawls (2006), from an ethnomethodologicalperspective, a community, and membership in it, is accomplished through the participants’ mutual
displays of “commit[ment] to a shared set of methods for producing a situation, and [by being]
recognized by others as being so committed” (2006, p. 44). She further argues that members may
problematize deviations from such shared methods.
In the present study, I first discuss how the participants themselves co-constitute for one another
their activity of doing data analysis as being a particular activity, and their group as a particular grouporganized in and through joint engagement in this activity. This is demonstrated by showing not only thatthe participants recurrently use certain action-assembly procedures, but also that they treat deviant
procedures as being noticeable and problematic. Next, I show how the participants manage over time−193−

Identity shift, and learning to use terminology at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan

identities as members within their group. In this way, the present study potentially contributes to ourunderstanding of the interactional procedures used by the participants to accomplish their activity as a
specific and mutually recognizable one, their group as a particular group jointly engaged in theactivity-so-constitutes, and their identities as members within the group.
3. Data and methods
My data consist of audio and video recordings of sixteen data sessions held over a one year period (2,184
minutes). All of the data were transcribed and checked for accuracy. The transcripts adopt a four tiered
format. The first tier features the Romanized Japanese, and the second and third tiers provide aword-by-word translation, and an English gloss of the first tier, respectively. Finally, an additional tiershowing non-verbal actions occasionally appears above the first tier. A key to the conventions used in thetranscripts is included in the appendix. Data analysis is conducted using conversation analysis (CA) (see,e.g., ten Have, 2007; Sacks, 1992) in order to describe in fine detail how the participants co-assemble andmanage their activities and identities in and through talk-in-interaction.
The purpose of the data sessions was to provide a venue for people interested in conversation
analysis to share their analytic ideas with each other. Each session lasted for approximately two hours.
The sessions were typically held in a vacant classroom. One of the participants would provide transcribed
excerpts of his or her data along with the actual audio or video recording. Each data session minimallyconsisted of a series of three “activity phases” (see, e.g., Heritage and Clayman, 2010): (1) discussion of
the accuracy of the transcript, (2) silent looking at the transcript, and (3) analytic discussion. The data
presented below is related to the third phase. Due to the nature of the data, the talk of the participantsfeatures discussion and analysis of the talk of their participants. In order to avoid confusion, I adopt a
convention of using the term interactant to refer to the participants of my participants, while reserving theterm participant to refer to the actual participants of the present study.
4. Interactionally constituting an activity and group as a particular one
In the interactions in my data corpus, doing data analysis typically consists of two major sequential
components: (1) formulation of an analysis, and (2) aligning to or contesting co-participant response(s).
In regard to the initial component, the participants orient to a specific, two-part format as being a valid
resource for action assembly: (a) framing a description of interactant actions as a rational basis for further
analytic talk, and (b) delivering an analytic opinion or characterization based upon the description.
Excerpt 1 shows a typical example of a participant’s formulation of a rational basis for analytic talk by
describing interactant actions.
Excerpt 1
3
Z:
4
5

P:

6

Z:

7
8

P:
Z:

9
10
11
12

?

13

Z:

14

Y:

Y:

[.hh de:] sono: (.4) juu gyoo me
no che:a.hh and thatten line.number M chair
and that chair in line tenano emmu no.hh shi[sen o et:a node:um ‘M’ M .hh gaze
O got soum she got M’s gaze so
ano emmu no.hh shi[un.
ano emmu no.hh shiyeah
ano emmu no.hh shiyeah.
[sono tsugi wa (.3) imi (.4) no (1) kakuninthat next T
meaningM
check[((sniffs))(.9) o suru tame ni: (.4) che:a shitteru?
O doforchair knowing
tte [yu (fuu ni)
QT say likette [((screeching noise))
(1.3)
eto:
um
u:m
nobitan janai [kana to.
stretched N C-NG
Q
QT
I think it stretched out like do you know chai:r?
in order to do a meaning check after that.
nobitan janai [ima no hanasi da to
nobitan janai now M talkC ifnobitan janai according to what you just said((continues))

In line 3, Zed first focuses interactional attention to an area of the transcript (i.e. “chair of line
number ten”), and then produces emmu no .hh shisen wo et:a node: (“she got M’s gaze so”).
Grammatically speaking, node creates a subordinate clause stating a reason for the proposition of the−194−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

following main clause (see, e.g., Makino and Tsutsui, 1989). Interactionally speaking, node seems tofunction to project and prospectively frame forthcoming talk as being rationally based on the talk justpreceding it. Thus, Zed’s utterance here frames his prior description of interactant actions as a rational
basis for further talk. Then, in lines 6 to 13, Zed produces an analytic opinion marked by a formulation of
psychological state (i.e., what he “thinks”), nobita n janai kana to (“I think it stretched out”). Then, inline 14, Yi overlaps the last part of Zed’s utterance with the beginning of a new utterance which turns out
to oppose Zed’s opinion so formulated. Notably, Yi’s formulation of opposition begins in overlap withthe final part of Zed’s line 13, thus working to display Yi’s recognition that 1) Zed’s talk is nearing a
possible completion point, and 2) in and through producing opposition-relevant talk, Yi publicly displays
an understanding of Zed’s talk as a formulation of opinion which might relevantly be opposed.
Excerpt 1 shows the participants employing an utterance format in which a description of interactant
actions is framed as forming the rational basis for forthcoming talk. Through formatting the talkpreceding it as being a reason, or rational basis, node projects further analysis relevant talk, such as theformulation of an analytic opinion or characterization, which is to find its rational basis in the pre-nodematerial. In response, through their actions of displaying either opposition or alignment, theco-participants demonstrate their understandings of the trajectory of the action being assembled by the
talk-in-progress, which in turn indicates the mutual recognizability of the utterance-format-so-deployed
for the co-participants.
Though I am unable to provide further examples here because of space limitations, this basic action
format, or variations of it, is a frequent and salient feature in my data corpus (there are approximately 130
instances, averaging around 8 per data session). However, as Bilmes (1988) argues, for CA, frequent
occurrence does not necessarily instantiate compelling evidence. Thus, it is more important that theanalysis demonstrate how the participants treat as noticeable and problematic deviations from this action
format (see Rawls, 2006), rather than merely showing that the format itself appears frequently in theirinteractions. Excerpt 2 provides a clear example of this. It comes from a session at which Zed had
provided data from an interaction between two employees-in-training.
Excerpt 2
3
Z:
4
5

Y:
Z:

6

Y:

7
8
9

W:

10
11
12

E:

13
14

W:

15

Y:

16

Z:

17

W:

18
19

Y:

iken
o iiayu: (.3) iiae[ruba da yo mitai na
opinion O compare
can.compare place C P
likeshe is saying it like this is a place where they caniken
o iiayu: (.3) iiae[.fff ((hand moves to mouth))kanji, (.3) tte yutteru n desu [yo ne?
feeling
QT saying N C
P P
compare o- opinions right?
kanji, (.3) tte yutteru n desu [essu wan, (.2) un:
kanji, (.3) tte yutteru n desu
S1
yeahkanji, (.3) tte yutteru n desu ((interactant)) S1, yeah
essu tsuu no koto wa yoku watasi wa (.5).hhh (.6)
S2
M thing T wellIT.hhh
about ((interactant)) S2 I
yoku mada e(h)ma(h)da chto wakarana(h)i.
well yet e
yetlittle understand-NG
kinda don’t understand very well yet uh yet.
.pt nanka chikara
kankeega: (.2).pt DM
power relationship S
aru janai kana to omoimasu kedomo:
is C-NG Q QT
think
but
I think there might be like a power relationship
(.2)
o
un.o
yeah
yeah.
(.6)
.hh nanka:.hh DM
like[((hands at face))[on::on::nn.hh [heh heh heh.hh heh heh heh
heh heh heh.hh [essu tsuu ga nanka [((smiling and gazing at Yi)).hh [essu tsuu ga nanka [£senpai mitai na kanji
.hh
‘S2’
S
DM
seniorlike feelingdesu yo ne,£C P P((interactant)) S2 seems like the senior of the two right,
soo [n- natte(h)ru n desu yo ne,=−195−

Identity shift, and learning to use terminology at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan

20

Z:

21
22
23
24

Z:

25
26
27

28

E:

29

Y:

that b- becoming N C P P
that’s how it i- is right,
soo [soo (desu ne,) .hh
soo thatC P.hhsoo right,=de soko wa doo yu fuu ni (.5) s- dokoand that T how say manners- whereand how is that s- wheredoko ni deten no ka yo:.
where DA apparent N Q P
where is that apparent.
(.2)
tte yu no o:
QT say N O
is the thing thatkijutsu dekireba (.3) ii n desu kedo.
describe if.cangood N C
but
if you could describe it it would be good but.
>nanka nantonaku chikara kankee
ga aru< toDMsomehow power relationship S is QT
yu fuu ni kan[jiru n desu [kedo: .hh
say manner feel
N C
but .hhone feels that there is some somehow a power relationship but
yu fuu ni kan [((nodding))
yu fuu ni kan [u:n.
yu fuu ni kan yeah
yu fuu ni kan yeah.
yu fuu ni kan[jiru n desu [((nodding))
yu fuu ni kan[jiru n desu [u:n un un u:n.
yu fuu ni kan[jiru n desu yeah yeah yeah yeah
yu fuu ni kan[jiru n desu yeah yeah yeah yeah.

In lines 9 and 10, Wendy suggests that there is a “power relationship” (chikara kankee) between thetwo interactants. While Wendy’s talk is formatted as an opinion, it differs from the interactional patterndescribed above in that she provides no description of interactant actions upon which to base her claims.
Indeed, her utterance seems to occur rather abruptly, since the immediately prior talk is ostensibly
unrelated to “power relationship” (i.e., in lines 3 to 8, Zed and Yi are engaged in talk concerning theinteractants’ exchange of opinions). We may therefore examine if and how the participants subsequently
orient to Wendy’s lines 9 and 10.
First, in line 12, while a response to Wendy’s utterance is hearably due in that it 1) puts forth an
opinion, which makes a display of alignment or opposition relevant (see Mori and Nakamura, 2008), and2) that the final stress and sound stretch on kedomo (line 10) indicate the arival of a slot in which
co-participant response might relevantly be submitted, a response is not forthcoming. Rather, a .2 second
pause ensues, followed by a low-volume un (“yeah”) by Elmer (line 12), and an additional .6 seconds ofsilence. Then, in line 14, with her deployment of nanka, which suggests an upcoming multi-unit turn
(Murayama, 1999), Wendy treats as noticeable this lack of co-participant response by undertaking further
explanation. In line 15, Yi produces un:, which in terms of its lateness, drawn out prosody, and Yi’sembodied actions (she maintains both hands at her face and tilts her head sideways) during its production,is both visible and hearable as a display of dubiousness. Zed’s line 16 laughter appears to orient to Yi’s
dubiousness-so-displayed.
In line 17, Wendy delivers the further explanation by suggesting that S2 seems like the senior of thetwo interactants. Notably, she attaches yo ne to her utterance, which functions to solicit aligningco-participant response. Furthermor, she produces this utterance as if supressing laughter, and coordinates
it with a gaze to Yi, and smiling. These actions function to (a) address Wendy’s utterance to Yi, inparticular, (b) request Yi’s gaze, and (c) make relevant an alignment display from Yi. However, Yi
maintains her gaze at the transcript throughout Wendy’s lines 17 and 18.
Then, although (delayed) aligning responses are initially provided (lines 19 and 20), Zed moves
immediately (note the latching in line 21) to problematize Wendy’s talk by noting that Wendy has notprovided a rational basis for her opinion (lines 21 through 27). Thus, Wendy’s action of proffering ananalysis in the absence of a rational basis is treated as problematic by her co-participants. Most notably,in lines 21 to 27, Zed goes so far as to formulate specific conditions for Wendy’s lines 9 and 10 to be an
acceptably formulated analysis. Furthermore, Elmer and Yi display an alignment with Zed’s talk via
nodding and the production of elongated un tokens (lines 28 and 29).
The analyses of the present study have thus demonstrated so far that (1) the participants deploy a
specific action format in order to assemble the specific activity of doing data analysis, and (2) they treat
as problematic deviations from this action format. In this way, the analyses show how the participants
display an orientation to a commitment to a shared set of mutually recognizable procedures (see Rawls,
2006, p. 44) by which they may jointly produce their activity as constituting the particular activity of
doing data analysis. Furthermore, through displaying orientations to a particular action format (i.e., first−196−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

framing a description of interactant actions as a rational basis for further analytic talk, and then delivering
an analytic opinion or characterization based upon the actions-so-described) as being valuable forparticipation in doing data analysis, the participants demonstratably work to co-constitue their group as aparticular group. In the following section, I consider the ways in which the participants co-construct andmanage identities within the group-so-constituted.
5. Managing identities as members within the group
We may now consider the ways in which the participants manage over time their identities as members
within the group. One of the ways in which is done is through public displays of change in participatory
behavior. A most basic example of this might be when a newcomer begins to use the terminologicalresources used by the group members during participation in their mutual activity. This phenomenon
might be characterizable in lay terms as “picking up the jargon.”Excerpts 4 and 5 provide an additional example of a participant making visible a behavioral change
in regard to terminology usage. Approximately 13 minutes prior to Excerpt 4, the participants had been
discussing how an area of the data, provided by Yi, seemed to instantiate a purii (“pre”; see Schegloff,2007). In the ensuing discussion, they specified this pre as dispreffering a response of yes. During these
discussions, Zed remains almost completely silent. Excerpt 4 begins with a moment of silence just after
the the data session reaches a potential closing point.
Excerpt 4
1
Z:
2

3

M:

4

Z:

5
6

7
8

Z:

9
10
11

M:

12

Z:

13

M:

14
15

16
17

M:

18

Z:

19

sono .hsakihodo sono .hh iesu gathat .h a.moment.ago that .hh yes S
iinikuitoka n- [no,hard.to.say and nnothe discussion a moment ago about yes
being hard to say and n- no,iinikuitoka n- [un.
iinikuitoka n- yeahiinikuitoka n- yeah.
tokaiiniano iesu no hoo ga
and hard.to.sa- uhm yes M way S
iiniukitoka ssaki no (.) hanashi
hard.to.say and be- before M
discussion
todoo yu (.3) kanren ga aru n desu ka?
with what say
relation S exist N C
Qis hard to sa- uhm yes is the one that is hard to say and whatkind of relationship does that have with the previous discussion?
(.3)
sono .h katsudoo to no kanrensee
that .h activity with relationshipwo shimesu toka? .hh
Oshow and .hh
something about it showing a relationship with the activity?
(1.1)
ka- e:[::
activity- e
act- ehka- e:[kaano kore kara kataru.
ka- e: activity- uhm this from talkka- e: act- uhm that which will be spoken from now.
((26 lines omitted))
ima itta mitai ni mimashita ka?
now said
like
did.see Q
tte yu no wa sono ato ni kuru
QT say N T tha after D comesetsumee no (.2) purii n natteru wake¿
explain M
pre becoming reason
however s- like I just said ‘mimasita ka?’ is a prefor an explanation to come afterwards¿(.7)
mae [oki ni natteru wake desu yo.
preface becoming reason C P
it is a preface.
mae [((redirects gaze to hand holding pen to paper))[((nods; writes))[u:n. hai.
yeah yes
yeah. yes.

The focus of the analysis is on Murata’s lines 15 and 17, and Zed’s responding lines 18 and 19. In
the interaction leading up to these lines, Zed indexes the previous talk about the difficulty of responding
with yes, and asks about the relationship of this to the previous discussion (lines 1 to 6). This, however,−197−

Identity shift, and learning to use terminology at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan

does not immediately engender a response, and in lines 8 and 9, Zed works to clarify by noting that thediscussion was about showing a relationship with a forthcoming activity. However, no response isforthcoming, and Murata picks out Zed’s katudoo (“activity”) as a trouble source (cf. ka-) (lines 10 and
11). Then, in line 12, Zed provides kore kara kataru (“that which will be spoken from now”), which
seems to be a replacement for the problematic katudoo (cf. ka- ano in line 12). Thus, at this point, Zed’squestion-so-formulated asks for a clarification in regard to (a) the previous discussion of a device forshowing a relationship with forthcoming talk, and (b) the relation between that (i.e., the previous
discussion) and the difficulty of responding with yes. It is important to note that Zed’s lines 8, 9, and 12
seem to describe the notion of pre, and that this is the interpretation displayed by Murata (lines 13 to 15),
after having confirmed Zed’s question (omitted lines). These factors suggest that Zed was unfamiliar withthe term purii at this time. Notably, following a .7 second silence during which Zed silently gazes at
Murata (line 16), in line 17 Murata treats the term as being possibly unrecognizable for Zed byredeploying the format used in line 15 (i.e., X ni natteru wake) while replacing purii with the everyday
Japanese maeoki (“preface”). In so doing, Murata treats purii as being a possible trouble source for Zed.
Then, just as Murata says maeoki, Zed redirects his gaze to his transcript, and writes puri (an apparent
misspelling of purii) in katakana, which he then double underlines and circles, while saying u:n hai(“yeah yes”) (lines 18 to 19). In so doing, Zed indicates that Murata’s repair work has been effective, andpublicly displays (a) his taking notice of purii, and (b) his preparation to use it on a later occasion (lines
18 and 19).
As seen in the following excerpt, taken from a data session one month after Excerpt 4, Zed begins touse purii as a resource for accomplishing his participation in doing data analysis. In the excerpt, Zed is
responding to a question asked by Ru just as the group is getting started with analyzing the data provided
by Zed.
Excerpt 5
1
Z:

hitotsu wa juu go
gyoo me:, (.2)
one
T ten five line.number
one is line number fifteen,
2
R:
hai.=
yes
yes.=
3
Z:
=no:. (.3) eeto puro toshiteM
uhm proas4
mochitakunai desu ka? [tte yu no ga:
don’t.want
CQ
QT say one S
where. uhm the one ‘as a pro don’t you want to have it?’ ismochitakunai desu ka? [((nodds))
5
R:
mochitakunai desu ka? [un.
mochitakunai desu ka? yeahmochitakunai desu ka? yeah.
6Z:.hh maa n:anraka no kooi no (.2) pu.hh DM some.kind M action M
pr7
ano::: maeoki ni natteiru [to yu
uhm
preface becoming
QT say8R:ano::: maeoki ni natteiru [((nods))
9Z:
fuu ni kanjita n [desu kedo:
likefelt NC
butwell I felt like it forms a pu- maeoki fors:ome kind of action but
10R:
fuu ni kanjita n [hai.
fuu ni kanjita n yes
fuu ni kanjita n yes.
11
Z:
sore ga doo yu kooi no maemuki*
that S what say action M positive
12
ni natteru ka o .hh (.4) kijutsu
becoming Q O .hh
describe
13
suru no ga hitotsu no mokuteki: de
do
N S
one
M purposeC
what kind of action it forms a positive for describing this is one purpose and((continues))* Here Zed clearly says maemuki (“forward facing, positive”).

Prior to the excerpt, in response to Ru’s question, Zed indicates that he has two analytic interests. The
excerpt begins in line 1 with Zed beginning to formulate his first area of interest, which the dual issue of1) whether or not an interactant’s utterance instantiates a pre for some action (lines 8, 9, and 11), and 2)
what kind of action for which the utterance might be a pre (lines 13 to 15). Of particular interest is Zed’s
self repair work in lines 6 and 7. In line 6, following an inbreath, Zed first produces maa n:anraka no
kooi (“well some kind of action”). Then, following a .2 second silence, Zed produces pu, almost certainly
the beginning of purii (line 6). However, Zed cuts off mid production and follows with ano::: (“uhm”),−198−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

by which he seems to display trouble with utterance production (line 7). He then resumes by producing
maeoki (“preface”). Ru receipts this with a nod (line 8), and Zed continues on smoothly (lines 7 and 9).
Notably, in lines 6 and 7, Zed truncates his production of purii (“pre”), and replaces it with maeoki(“preface”). In this way, purii is treated as being possibly problematic and maeoki as being unproblematic.
Importantly, this is done in the course of responding to a question by Ru. Thus, Zed’s utterance (a)displays a sensitivity to purii as constituting a gorup resource, and (b) treats this resource as being notreadily accessible to newcomers (i.e., Ru). In so doing, Zed’s utterance makes publicly visible identities
for him, as a member who uses the resources of the group (i.e., he initially begins to produce purii), andRu, as a newcomer who is not yet conversant with such resources.
Finally, Zed’s actions in lines 6 and 7 make visible a change in his own participatory behavior. As
demonstrated in the analysis of Excerpt 5, Zed appeared to be unfamiliar with the term purii. In her
explanation, Murata replaced purii with maeoki. In Excerpt 5, it is precisely these two terms which are
deployed by Zed himself. Furthermore, Zed uses these terms in a manner analogous to Murata’s previoususe, that is, as a group resource (purii), and as a newcomer-oriented replacement (maeoki). Thus, Zed’s
actions in lines 6 and 7 of Excerpt 5 demonstrate an ability to use (and, when necessary, not to use) theterm purii, when he previously had or could not. This displayed change in behavior reflexively makes
visible a shift in identity for Zed, from that of a relative novice to that of a relative expert in relation tousing the term purii.
The analyses of this section have illuminated how the participants’ use of terminology over thecourse of a series of interactions at the data sessions makes publicly visible changes in their participatory
behavior. In particular, the analyses have demonstrated how changes in participation and identity arepotentially accomplished and contested through beginning to deploy the shared terminology of the group.
In this way, the construction and management of identity within the data session group has been shown to
be deeply embedded within joint participation in doing data analysis.
6. Conclusion
As discussed above, in recent years, a number of CA studies examining learning in social interaction haveengaged CoP. For CoP, learning within a community of practice involves a process of legitimate
peripheral participation (LPP) (Lave and Wenger, 1991). The CA studies engaging CoP haveconceptualized LPP either in terms of moving from (1) minimal, passive participation to more active
participation (e.g., Nguyen, 2008; Young and Miller, 2004), or (2) less skilled participation to moreskilled participation (e.g., Brouwer and Wagner, 2004; Firth and Wagner, 2007; Hellermann, 2007, 2008;
Hellermann and Cole, 2009). I believe that the analyses have thrown into relief something quite different
from the conceptualizations of LPP employed by the previous studies mentioned. In my data corpus,
peripherality is not made visible in terms of passive or active participation. Rather, peripheral
participation may be respecified as being a reflexive matter of identity and the use of resources
constituted as being within or without those treated as being shared by the members of a particular group.
For instance, I have shown that the participants accomplish a shift in their identities as members within
the group in and through displaying changes in their behavior in using terminological resources. The
participants have been shown to shift from using everyday terms to deploying terms treated as being
shared resources for participation in the activity of doing data analysis. Such behavioral changes can beunderstood as changes from using terms external to the set of resources shared by the group members tousing those that are constituted as being part of this set. Furthermore, it is clear that these terms function
as resources whereby to display and manage membership and identity within the group.
Appendix: Key to Transcription Conventions
heh hah.hwo(h)rdwo[rdĹĻ
>words<<words>
=word
(3.3)

laughter tokens
in breath“laughing through” speech
onset of overlapped speechhigh or low pitch
quicker than surrounding talkslower than surrounding talklatched to prior utterance
pause (seconds and tenths of seconds)

Key for 2nd tier abbreviations
C: Copula
M: Noun modification particle (no, na, etc.)
N: Nominalizer
O: Object marker#words#wowo:::rd
WORDS°words°words
words.
words,
words?

sharp or rough tone
cut-off
sound stretch
louder than surrounding talksofter than surrounding talkemphasis
falling, final intonationlevel, continuing intonation
rising, questioning intonation

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

References
Bilmes, J. (1988). The concept of preference in conversation analysis. Language in Society, 17, 161–181.
Brouwer, C., & Wagner, J. (2004). Developmental issues in second language conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1),29–47.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized
SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 91(5), 800–819.

−199−

Identity shift, and learning to use terminology at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan

ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Boston: Sage.
Hellermann, J. (2007). The development of practices for action in classroom dyadic interaction: Focus on task openings. The
Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 83–96.
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hellermann, J., & Cole, E. (2009). Practices for social interaction in the language-learning classroom: Disengagements from dyadic
task interaction. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 186–215.
Heritage, John, & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Chichester, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Makino, S., & Tsutsui, M. (1989). Nihongo kihon bunpo jiten [A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Japan Times.
Mori, J., & Nakamura, K. (2008). Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Japanese: An analysis of designedly ambiguous turncompletion points. In J. Mori & A. S. Ohta (Eds.), Japanese applied linguistics: Discourse and social perspectives (pp.
52–79). London: Continuum.
Murayama, E. (1999). The multiple functions of the discourse marker Nanka in Japanese conversation (Unpublished master’s
thesis). University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.
Nguyen, H. t. (2008). Sequence organization as local and longitudinal achievement. Text & Talk, 28(4), 501–528.
Rawls, A. W. (2006). Respecifying the study of social order: Garfinkel’s transition from theoretical conceptualization to practices indetails. In A. W. Rawls (Ed.), Seeing sociologically: The routine grounds of social action (pp. 1–97). Boulder, CO:
Paradigm Publishers.
Sawyer, R. (2003). Identity formation through brokering in scientific practice. Outlines, 5(2), 25–42.
Sawyer, R. (2004). International graduate students of science in Japan: An ethnographic approach from a situated learning theory
perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.
Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure:
Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 44–70). Berkely: University of California Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: Volume 1: A Primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Toohey, Kelleen, Waterstone, B., & Julé-Lemke, A. (2000). Community of learners, carnival, and participation in a Punjabi Sikhclassroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 56(3), 421–436.
Traphagan, T. W. (1999). Learning language in communities of practice: Cases of Japanese learners in Japan (Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.
Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. The Modern
Language Journal, 88(4), 519–535.

−200−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

The building blocks of tone-of-voice
Mark Campana
Kobe Gaidai
ABSTRACTThis paper addresses paralinguistic phenomena collectively known as tone-of-voice. It
offers a conceptual model that relates types of sounds to mental states, showing how
people communicate affective information through vocal channels. Mental predicates ofwanting, knowing, feeling and thinking used to describe emotion-words in NSM extend to
the expression of emotion itself. Each of these is linked to a sound category, i.e. voice
quality, short tunes/melodies, pitches/pitch combinations and rhythms. A similar pairingof rhythms and speaking styles is proposed. Examples of vocal expression are provided
from everyday usage in English and Japanese. Means of testing the model are given.
[Keywords]: tone-of-voice, emotion, mental predicate, NSM, speaking style
1. Introduction
How is it that humans understand the intentions of others? The fact that they do is
obvious enough, as when, for instance, a listener perceives that the speaker is ‘angry
about’ something, intending that she interpret his utterance along the path of his own
thinking. She does so through various nonverbal channels—gesture, facial expression,and sound—typically working in concert with each other, but sometimes also in isolation.
On the telephone, the listener’s interpretation of the speaker’s intention is based primarily
on sound, i.e. through his ‘tone-of-voice’. This paper discusses the properties of tone-ofvoice and proposes a model by which it is understood.
Tone-of-voice (TOV) is a term that is generally used to describe the sounds that aspeaker makes in the course of delivering an utterance. Specifically, these are non-verbal,
or para-linguistic sounds that relate to, but do not constitute verbal content. Laughter alsofits this definition, but TOV is usually considered separately from laughter, along withother non-linguistic sounds like sighing or grunting. For the most part TOV is produced
unconsciously, but speakers can also be acutely aware of it, hence able control its
expression.
English uses specific words that can describe someone’s TOV, such as‘condescending’, ‘upbeat’ and ‘sarcastic’. The latter is often associated with the sounds
that invoke a response like “Don’t talk to me in that tone-of-voice!”, as when a frustrated
parent addresses his or her offspring. Sarcasm represents a special case of a ‘mismatch’between the verbal content and the perceived sounds by which it is delivered. The son ordaughter may have said “Sure, I’d just love to clean my room” when asked to do so,when in fact his/her TOV expresses the opposite of ‘love’. Sarcasm is thus a form ofirony.
Japanese does not have a word that corresponds exactly to TOV, which is not to saythat speakers do not use it. ኌⰍ㻌kowairo, lit. ‘color of voice’ is a close translation, as is−201−

The building blocks of tone-of-voice

another term ཱྀㄪ㻌 kuchou. Still, each of these has a specialized meaning which TOV
does not properly include. ኌ䛾䝖䞊䞁㻌 koe-no-ton would be appropriate, and may comeinto future usage.
In general then, TOV can be understood as how one sounds while speaking. In
order to fully grasp this phenomenon, however, we need a more systematic account of its
acoustic, articulatory and perceptual properties, as well as its deployment in naturalconversation.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we revisit the assumptions
underlying emotion research, and point out some of the problems that are inherent in it.
The theory of emotion-words set out by Wierzbicka (1999) is introduced, and we suggest
how this might be useful in understanding TOV. With minor adjustments to Wierzbicka’s
theory, we propose in Section 3 that certain types of sounds are linked to specific mental
states. Further aspects of ‘thinking activity’ within this model are also considered.
Section 4 provides examples of TOV from everyday expressions in Japanese and English,
along with possible ways of testing. Section 5 discusses some of the consequences of themodel for other areas of language study. A short summary and conclusion follows in
Section 6.
2. Research in emotion
Emotion has been the subject of much work in many fields, from psychology toneuroscience. It is also well-known that emotion-words do not translate easily from one
language to another. In order to accommodate the subtle differences between, say, anger
in English and ikari in Japanese, Wierzbicka (1999) proposed that emotion-words (andemotions themselves) are made up of smaller elements that can be assembled in different
ways. Her theory is known as Natural Semantics Metalanguage, or NSM.
There are only about 60 words in the metalanguage, each of them found in all theworld’s languages with the same meaning. In the definition of emotion-words, “the 60”
are used to form simple propositions, which then make up short narratives, or cognitive
scenarios. A sample emotion-word ‘fear’ is shown below:(1) fear (Wierzbicka1999): ‘X felt fear’a) X felt something because X thought something.
b) Sometimes a person thinks:c) “I don’t know what will happen;d) some bad things can happen; I don’t want these things to happen;e) I want to do something because of this if I can;f) I don’t know if I can do anything”g) When a person thinks this, they feel something badh) X felt something like thisi) because X thought something like thisAs seen above, many propositions are headed by words such as want, know, feel andthink. Wierzbicka refers to these as mental predicates, and they will play an importantrole in the building blocks model of TOV to be outlined here.

−202−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

Although NSM is mainly about word meaning. Wierzbicka claims that the mental
predicates that make up emotion-words also reflect mental states in the mind of the user,which may even translate into observable behavior. Facial expressions, for instance, showmental states. In Wierzbicka’s system, the turned-up corners of the mouth reveal a mental
state of feeling good, which in turn correlates with the mental predicate feel good in the
cognitive scenario of ‘happy’. TOV represents another kind of observable behavior. In
the following, I will propose that specific parts (“building blocks”) of vocal behavior
reflect the mental states of the speaker as well, and each of these states correlates with amental predicate in the definition of an emotion-word.
3. The building blocks of TOV
In this section, we will extend Wierzbicka’s theory of emotion-words to theexpression of sound. We assume, as she does, that the predicates found in cognitive
scenarios reflect real mental states which is observable in actual behavior. Instead of
facial gestures, however, we concentrate on the vocal sounds known as tone-of-voice.
Some modification of Wierzbicka’s theory will first be necessary. Six mental
predicates are listed in the NSM, want, know, feel, think, see and hear. The latter two
name perceptual states, however, and play no role in speech production. The MP feel isalso problematical, since one cannot really ‘feel’ without feeling something, or feelingsomething in some way. In our model, we expand feel to feeling good and feeling bad,taking two adjectives from the metalanguage and classifying them as predicates. The
logical operator not can also be incorporated into the class of mental predicates, resulting
in not want (alongside want) and not know (alongside know). There is no negative
counterpart to think; even when someone claims to be ‘not thinking’, they are in fact
thinking. The mental states which we submit underlie emotion (hence TOV) are thus
wanting/not wanting, knowing/not knowing, feeling good/feeling bad and/or thinking.
These states will be abbreviated as WXYZ respectively.
Next we ask the question, What types of sounds would best express WXYZ?
Wanting and not wanting are shared by other mammals, where survival often takes theform of projecting a larger size or force. We might suppose the same features are present
in the sound of the human voice. The degree of such projection should be scalar,
becoming more apparent at the extremes. Knowing and not knowing can imply
recognition (or non-recognition) of recent information, acceptance (or non-acceptance) of
information, and/or awareness of stored information. Since there are several types ofknowing/not knowing, some complexity of signaling will be favored. One way toachieve such complexity could be a shift from one sound to another. Feeling good or
feeling bad represent the “comfort level” of the individual. Social relations may depend
on such information, i.e. about how other members of the group should be approached.
Accordingly, feeling good should exhibit consonance or harmony, whereas that of feelingbad would be optimally signaled by dissonance, or sounds that are otherwise ‘unresolved’.
Finally, what kind of sounds are best suited to expressing thinking? This state/activity
entails both information processing and attentiveness to something. As such, it includes
the reason for doing it—thinking is never accidental. The sound of thinking should−203−

The building blocks of tone-of-voice

therefore be orderly, since order aids in understanding purpose. Next we will propose thetypes of sounds that convey these four key mental states.
In coding emotion on the human voice, we propose to link each of the mental states
WXYZ with a specific sound type. The relationship is not exclusive, so the expression orcomprehension of a mental state should only be considered as a target of communication.
Tendencies do exist, however, some of them noted by other researchers (cf. Wichmann2000). The following sums up our heuristic:(2) Mental states and leading sound indicators (LSI)
STATES (WXYZ)
A. wanting/not wanting
B. knowing/not knowing
C. felling good/bad
D. thinking

LSI (wxyz)
voice qualities*
short tunes/melodies
pitch, pitch combinations
rhythms, etc.*

As shown above, each mental state is linked to a sound indicator (loosely based on theconcept of ‘leading economic indicator’ in the field of economics). Wanting/not wanting,for instance, is signaled primarily by voice qualities (W=w), and so on. Each pairing will
be discussed in more detail below, but it should be stressed that the interpretation of TOV
depends on situational context as well. Up to now there has been little mention of thelogical objects of WXYZ, but these referents—and the shared knowledge between
speakers—play major roles.
First, note that wanting/not wanting is paired with voice qualities, not voice
quality. The latter usually implies modes like creaky or whispered voice, but the former isbroader and includes the number and intensity of all frequencies (that of F0 translates as
loudness). ‘Wide pitch span’ and timbre are also appropriate to this category. Meanwhile,knowing/not knowing are consistently and effectively conveyed by pitches arranged on arhythmic scaffolding. This satisfies the desideratum of complexity mentioned above. By‘short’ we mean at least two different pitches, probably no more than three. The fact thatthey are different entails rising and/or falling movement. feeling good or feeling bad aresignaled by pitches, or combinations thereof. In musical terms, we make think of pitch
combinations as harmonies which occur simultaneously or sequentially. In the latter case,there is a sense of the ‘psychological now’ whereby even pitches distributed over shortperiods of time are assimilated to each other (Cook 2003). Pitch combinations may also
be compared to major and minor scales (feeling good or feeling bad, respectively).
Finally, we believe that thinking is demonstrated via the control of rhythm, as well as byother means: facial expression, eye movement, and the timely selection of lexical items.
Rhythm (better: rhythms) entail the number and frequency of intonation phrases, as wellas their internal structure and interrelationships. Basically, a demonstration of thinking is
an invitation to infer what the speaker is thinking about, as well as the reason(s) that
prompted it. This topic will be taken up in more detail below.

−204−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

So far, most of what we assume about emotion-words translates to the expressionof emotion too, as evidenced by their sounds. The not wanting component ‘annoyed’, forinstance, can thus be heard the speaker’s voice. Nevertheless, some aspects of emotional
display are not included in the definition of emotion-words. Referents clearly are not,both those of the actual speech situation and in the field(s) of shared information. The
reasons for a display are not included in the semantic description of an emotion-wordeither, but they may be gleaned from TOV through specific rhythms, or ‘styles of
speaking’. The following discussion is purely speculative.
Suppose that a listener attempts to infer why the speaker is expressing an emotion
through timing units (rhythms). If the number of possible reasons is limited, it would
render the task of determining ‘where s/he is coming from’ much easier. We suggest that
there are only about eight biological or social reasons for making a thinking display,
indicated by rhythmic styles. These reasons A-H are show below:(3) Reasons for making a thinking display (A-H)a) creative: problem-solvingb) natural: physical/mental (dis)comfortc) procreative: mate selection; sexual innuendod) bonding: personal commitment; ‘love’e) alarmed: danger (real or perceived)f) friendly: positive politeness, solidarityg) deferential: negative politeness, social standingh) social identity: issues pertaining to in/out-group, race, nationality, etc.
Briefly, a listener may infer that the speaker has expressed an emotion to signal a newperspective (a), to reaffirm an older one (b), to approach a potential mate (c), to confirm abiological relationship (d), to warn or threaten another (e), to extend or maintain a social
bond (f-g), or to (re-)define his/or her social world (h). All of these reasons for display of
thinking are more-or-less related to an individual’s identity as it being (co-)constructed inreal time. Each of them may be indicated by a particular rhythm or suite of rhythms in the
speaker’s TOV.
While it is impossible to link a specific rhythmic style to a reason, we assume it
can be done pace contextual cues. Like the mental states WXYZ then, the reasons A-H
should be considered as psychological ‘targets’ shared by speakers of a single culture.
We hope to produce evidence for this type of meaning-sound relationship in the future.
4. Tests and predictions
No treatise on TOV would be complete without examples of sound. Unfortunately,
however, this is nearly impossible to render in written form—not even the narrowest
transcription can do it justice. For practical reasons then, only a few examples will begiven here, followed by a short description. Examples appear below.
(4) Everyday examples of sound typea) “Oh that’s simply wonderful”b) “Oh really”; “Wakatta”

[W]
[X]

−205−

The building blocks of tone-of-voicec) “Well”; “Hmm”[Y/Y]d) “Well, that seems to be the direction I’m headed in” (repetition) [Z]“This, I submit, is ...”; “That changes the name of the game...” (assonance) [Z]
The italicized syllable in the word wonderful (a) is spoken with high intensity (a kind ofvoice quality based on F0), and a wide span of pitches (Wichmann 2000). Such qualities
are often used to voice the mental state of wanting. The phrase Oh really in (b) is often
spoken with a LHL pitch melody; that of Wakatta is HLL. These contours typicallysignal the state of knowing. Well and Hmm (c) can be spoken at high or low pitches, bututtered alone can indicate positive or negative valency (the concept behind feeling goodand feeling bad). The boldface syllables in the first sentence of (d) are all stressed, apattern that is repeated. Such control of rhythm is not accidental, but indicates the mental
state (activity, actually) of thinking. Similar phenomena with respect to vowel quality canbe seen in the other examples.
Another way to consider TOV is through the manner-of-speaking verbs that every
language has. For English, we provide the following list (from Levin 1993). The question
one must attempt to answer is, “What are the sounds that a person makes when s/he is Ving?” where V=any of the verbs below.
(5) Verbs of manner-of-speaking (Levin 1993)
babble, bark, bawl, bellow, bleat, boom, bray, burble; cackle, call, carol, chant,chatter, chirp, cluck, coo, croak, croon, crow, cry; drawl, drone; gabble, gibber,groan, growl, grumble, grunt; hiss, holler, hoot, howl; jabber; lilt, lisp; moan,
mumble, murmur; purr; rage, rasp roar, rumble; scream, screech, shout, shriek, sing,
snap, snarl, snuffle, splutter, squall, squawk, squeak, stammer, stutter; thunder,
trill, trumpet, twitter; wail, warble, wheeze, whimper, whine, whisper, whistle,
whoop; yammer, yap, yell, yelp, yodel
The immediate consequences for the model proposed here are obvious: if listeners
can correctly adduce the mental states displayed by others through TOV, researchers
should be able to explain precisely how they do it. Given the right tools (and someknowledge of the context), one might examine a stretch of speech by pointing to thesound elements wxyz and check them against a list of WXYZ patterns that are known toconstitute so-called ‘emotions’. A major problem with this scenario is that instruments
needed to spot fine-grained deviations of wxyz from constantly-shifting base-lines has
not been developed yet. Still, other ways of testing the proposals are possible.
First, the building blocks model of TOV assumes that people have an awarenessof mental states WXYZ, and that each one can be identified and measured. Subjects
could be asked make judgements on the existence or degree of WXYZ in the voices ofpeople engaged in natural conversation. A significant number of subjects should agree
that person X’s W, X, Y or Z rating was e.g. “three out of five stars” at any given point.
In a similar test, subjects could offer their own judgements of WXYZ as they
view recordings of themselves (both audio/video). We predict that they would cite one ormore of wxyz as evidence for mental states WXYZ. Imagine some guy see himself
reacting to the moment when he realized that he’d won a game of pool billiards). In−206−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

theory, he would acknowledge his triumph, described in terms of volume, pitch, speechrate, ‘sharpness’ etc.
Finally, suppose that a speaker (A) enacted a situation whereby TOV was used todisplay an emotion. S/he would have a target emotion-word in mind, but would not nameit in any form (‘disappointment’, ‘disappointed’, etc.). The display would take the formof a narrative, e.g. in response to a friend (B) who had asked a simple informationquestion. The prediction is that listeners to the narrative would rely on TOV to correctly
identify the emotion-word that A had in mind.
5. Consequences
The building blocks model of TOV sketched out above has consequences forother areas of language study. These include music, laughter, language, evolution andlanguage evolution. Each of these is discussed in turn.
The same acoustic components of TOV are also found in music: voice qualities(timbre+), pitch (notes and scales), intonation (melody) and rhythms (rhythm!) The
mental states WXYZ are implicated—hence music is said to be ‘emotional’. In fact,
however, wxyz are simply exploited for artistic purposes.
Although TOV is usually produced during speech, it is also heard in laughter.
Laugh particles consists of single syllables with some paralinguistic, but no semantic
content. Laughing can be described in different ways—wicked, funny, condescending—more or less the same as TOV. Any or all of wxyz may be present in laughter.
As pointed out in 3.2, each of wxyz has some biological significance. w cansignal body size and/or intention, and z can be taken a sign of relative attentiveness; x
and y together can comprise a ‘call’, such as for alarm, discovery, territory, mating, etc. It
is therefore likely that the elements of TOV evolved prior to speech. One may surely ask,
At what stage in human evolution did they become available? According to Darwin(1872), proto-language had ‘musical qualities’, by which he really meant TOV.
Tone-of-voice can also be studied from the perspective of language acquisition.
How and when is it acquired? It is clearly related to babbling and crying. It seems that
infants have a repertoire of TOV-like sounds to signal their needs. Two-word (‘pivot’)utterances are similar to topic-comment constructions, in addition to the short tunes (ormelodies) of knowing/not knowing sequences. The ‘honest signaling’ stage is complete
when young adults (teenagers) learn to use TOV for pragmatic purposes, such as sarcasm.
6.0 Summary and conclusion
In this paper, we have outlined a model of tone-of-voice (TOV), which we take as
consisting of four basic elements, or ‘building blocks’. Given that TOV is the “audible
analogue of emotion”, it was first necessary to consider ‘emotion’ itself. According to
Wierzbicka (1999), emotions are compositional mental constructs which sometimes map
to observable behavior (e.g. facial expression). In similar fashion, we extended her theory
to the realm of sound.
In NSM, emotion-words are defined as cognitive scenarios, which in turn consistof short propositions. Most propositions are headed by a mental predicate, which reflect
actual mental states of wanting or not wanting, knowing or not knowing, feeling good or−207−

The building blocks of tone-of-voice

feeling bad, and thinking (WXYZ). Each mental state was paired with a type of sound,that is, voice-qualities (w), short tunes or melodies (x), pitches and/or constellations ofpitches (y), and rhythms (z). These were abbreviated as wxyz, the building blocks of
TOV. It was further suggested that basic reasons for thinking (A-H) could be signaled bydifferent types of rhythms.
According to the building blocks model, TOV represents a fundamental, richlytextured channel of communication that goes beyond arbitrary configurations of wxyz
that end up being labelled as emotions. Any part of TOV can be deployed independently
and at any time. TOV thus operates both subliminally and publicly, keying participants tothe nuances of speech interpretation.
References
Cook, N. 2003. Tone of Voice and Mind. John Benjamins Publishing Co.: Amsterdam.
Darwin, C. 1872. The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. Penguin Classics(2009): London.
Levin, Beth (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation.
University of Chicago Press.
Wichmann, A. 2000. “The attitudinal effects of prosody, and how they relate toemotion.” In Cowie, R., E. Douglas-Cowie, & M Schroder (eds.). Proceedings, ISCA
Workshop on Speech and Emotion.
Wierzbicka, A. 1999. Emotions Across Languages and Cultures: Diversity andUniversals. Cambridge University Press.

−208−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

A Functional Analysis of Japanese Passives
Satoshi IMAMURA
University of Oxford
Einar Andreas HELGASON Tohoku University
Masatoshi KOIZUMI Tohoku University<Abstract>
Based on a quantitative approach, we claim that the purpose of Japanese passives is͂defocusing̓agents and that the promotion of topical patients is not a crucial factor for
passives because topicality itself can be expressed by other options such as particles (inparticular by wa), zero pronouns, and word order change in Japanese. As for the

ni-yotte-passive, we conclude that it is a marked option because it has an explicit agent (orcauser). Moreover, it is demonstrated that ni-yotte-passives prefer new information to given
information compared with ni-passives.

<Keywords> passive, information structure, functional analysis, quantitative approach

1. Introduction
There are three types of passive sentences in Japanese: ni-passive, ni-yotte-passive, andagentless passive.
(1)

a. Ni-passive
Taro-ga
Jiro-nikorosa-re-ta.
Taro-NOM Jiro-by
kill-PASS-PAST‘Taro was killed by Jiro.’b. Ni-yotte-passive
Taro-ga
Jiro-ni-yotte korosa-re-ta.
Taro-NOM Jiro-by
kill-PASS-PAST‘Taro was killed by Jiro.’c. Agentless passive
Taro-gakorosa-re-ta.
Taro-NOM kill-PASS-PAST‘Taro was killed.’

1

−209−

A Functional Analysis of Japanese Passives

In ni-passive, as in (1a), the agent is marked with ni, while in ni-yotte-passive, as in (1b), theagent is marked with ni-yotte. As for agentless passives, while they do not have a by-phrase,they can express the same proposition: Taro was killed. What function, then, do these passives

have? We will explore this issue by using a quantitative approach based on Givµn (1983).
2. Previous Studies
It has been said that the passive has a strong relationship with topicality. Take an example
from English. In (2) below, the passive is chosen when the patient is more topical than theagent; as it is in (2a).
(2)

a.
b.

The Prime Minister stepped off the plane. She was immediately surroundedby journalists.
The Prime Minister stepped off the plane. Journalists immediately
surrounded her.
(Brown & Yule 1983: 130)

Myhill (1992: 106) contends that English speakers opt to use the passive when the agent is
low in absolute topicality.
Another factor that has a great influence on the choice of the passive is the“defocusing“(which includes deletion) of agents (Shibatani 1985). In English, for example,
Svartvik (1966) reported that the agent-less passive is more common than the agentive
passive. Moreover, Estival and Myhill (1988) observed that, even when an explicit agent ispresent, it is low in topicality. Summing up, the passive is chosen cross-linguistically when an
agent is not salient.
In Japanese, there are two particular types of passives: ni- and ni-yotte-passives. (4a)is an example of the ni-passive because the agent is marked by ni. (4b) shows an example ofthe ni-yotte passive because the agent is marked by ni-yotte. The functional difference
between the ni-passive and the ni-yotte-passive is that the ni-passive requires the subject tobe affected while there is no such constraint in the ni-yotte-passive (Kuroda 1979). Moreover,
Kinsui (1997) summarizes the usage of the ni-yotte-passive and argues that the typicalni-yotte-passive is with a non-sentient subject. Therefore, in (4b), the inanimate non-sentient
subject Kaikainogi ’the opening of the meeting’ is selected, and, if ni-yotte is replaced with ni,
this sentence will be unacceptable.
(4)

a. Taro-ga
sensei-ni
home-rare-ta.
Taro-NOM
teacher-bypraise-PASS-PAST“Taro was praised by his teacher.”2−210−第16回大会発表論文集

b. Kaikainogi-ga

第９号

Gityo-ni-yotte/*ni nasa-re-ta.

the opening of a meeting-NOM chairman-bydeclare-PASS-PAST“The opening of the meeting was declared by the chairman.”
Regarding the ni-passive, there are cases where ni is attached to an element which is not anagent. For example, musuko ‘son’ in (5a) is not an agent and there is no corresponding active
voice sentence. Such sentences are called “indirect passive”. In contrast, the subject of (5b) is
a logical object and has a corresponding active voice sentence. These sentences are called“direct passive”.
(5)a. Taro-ga
musuko-ni
sina-re-ta.
Taro-NOM son-DAT
die-PASS-PAST‘As for Taro, his son died.’b. Taro-ga
Ziro-niTaro-NOM Ziro-DAT‘Taro was praised by Jiro.’home-rare-ta
praise-PASS-PASTIn sum, the passive is considered to be related to topic-marking and agent–defocusing, and thetwo types of passives in Japanese will provide useful data for inspecting the relationshipbetween the passive and these two concepts.
3. Analysis
The purpose of this study is to reveal the function of the Japanese passive. Generally speaking,according to preceding studies, the passive is used in order to mark the topicality of thepatient and to hide the agent. We will focus on the first possibility in the following sections
using a quantitative approach.
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Corpus Data
In order to collect passive sentences, we employed Aozora bunko, which is a database
containing a collection of novels written in modern Japanese.
3.1.2. Materials
We analyzed nine types of sentences, three of each type of ni- passive, ni-yotte-passive, andagentless passive. For each passive, nominative subject condition (6a, d, g), topic-marked
subject condition (6b, e, h), and zero subject condition (6c, f, i) were employed in order to3−211−

A Functional Analysis of Japanese Passives

investigate the interaction between the passive and topic marking of the noun phrase.
(6)

a. SUBJ-NOM
b. SUBJ-TOP

NP-ni
NP-ni

V-PASS-PAST
V-PASS-PAST: NOM-ni: TOP-nic. Ød. SUBJ-NOM

NP-ni
NP-ni-yotte

V-PASS-PAST
V-PASS-PAST: Ø-ni: NOM-ni-yottee. SUBJ-TOP

NP-ni-yotte

V-PASS-PAST: TOP-ni-yottef. Øg. SUBJ-NOM

NP-ni-yotte

V-PASS-PAST
V-PASS-PAST: Ø-ni-yotte: NOM

h. SUBJ-TOP

V-PASS-PAST

: TOP

i. Ø

V-PASS-PAST: Ø

3.1.3. Procedure
Based on Givµn (1983), Referential Distance (RD) and Topic Persistence (TP) of subjects
were measured in order to calculate the topicality of the patient. RD assesses the gap between
a referent in the current clause and its antecedent. If there is no antecedent in the previous
clauses, RD is assigned 20 because otherwise it will be infinite without limitation. Hence, RD
is expressed by the number of clauses from 1 to 20. TP counts the number of clauses in thefollowing discourse in which the referent re-occurs. Both RD and TP are considered tocorrelate with topicality. The lower RD is, and the higher TP is, the more topical the referent
will be. Let us look at the discourse in (7). In (7b), it refers to apple in (7a). The distance
between it and apple is only one clause. Thus, RD of it in (7b) is 1. However, since thereferent of it does not appear in (7c), the TP of it in (7b) is 0.
(7)

a. There is an apple on the table.
b. John ate it.
c. He was hungry.

3.1.4. Data Analysis
After the data was assembled, two analyses were implemented. In the first step, a series oft-tests were conducted in order to see if there were significant differences among each groupin RD and TP. In the second step, using the Ȯ2-test, we looked at the frequency of each group.

4
−212−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

3.2. Results
Table 㻝. RD, TP, and Number for Target Sentences
RD

Sentence Types

TP㻌

Number

M

SD

M

SD

NOM + NP-ni
TOP + NP-ni

10.00
4.07

9.14
6.79

0.60
2.86

0.89
4.13

14

Ø + NP-ni

1.09

0.30

1.27

1.35

11

NOM + NP-ni-yotte
TOP + NP-ni-yotte
1 Ø + NP-niyotte
2 NOM
TOP
Ø

18.60
9.63
1.00
14.06
4.07
1.16

3.13
8.67

0.60
0.38
2.00
0.28
2.14
1.84

0.55
0.74

5

8.68
5.29
0.38

5

8
1

0.57
1.88
2.41

18
14
㻌

19

A series of t-tests were conducted within the ni-passive, the ni-yotte-passive, and the agentlesspassive. Firstly, regarding RD, there was a significant difference in the ni-passive between
nominative vs. zero (t(14)=3.377, p<.01). As for the ni-yotte passive, there was a significant
difference between nominative vs. topic marker (t(11)=2.197, p<.05). In the agentless passive,
there were significant differences between nominative vs. topic marker (t(30)=3.783, p<.001),
nominative vs. zero(t(35)=6.475, p<.001), and topic marker vs. zero(t(31)=2.403, p<.05).
Secondly, regarding TP, significant differences were not observed in the ni-passive
and the ni-yotte-passive. In contrast, in the agentless passive, there were significant
differences between nominative vs. topic marker (t(30)=4.001, p<.001) and nominative vs.
zero (t(35)=2.681, p<.05).
Table 2. RD, TP, and Number based on passive type
Sentence Types
ni-passive
ni-yotte-passive
agentless㻌
passive

RD

TP

㻌

M

SD

M

SD

3.97
12.21

6.45
8.54

1.90
0.57

3.04
0.75

6.51

8.12

1.37

1.95

Number

30
14
㻌

51

Thirdly, t-tests were conducted for RD between ni-passive, ni-yotte-passive, andagentless passive in total. There was a significant difference between ni-passive and5−213−

A Functional Analysis of Japanese Passives

ni-yotte-passive (t(42)=3.557, p<.005). In addition, there was a significant difference between
ni-yotte-passive and agentless passive (t(63)=2.302, p<.005). However, there was no
significant difference between ni-passive and agentless passive (t(79)=1.463, p=.147). In TP,
no significant difference was observed among them.
Fourthly, 䃦2 tests revealed that there were significant differences between thefrequency of ni-passive vs. ni-yotte-passive (䃦2(1)=5.818, p<.05), ni-passive vs. agentlesspassive (䃦2(1)=5.444, p<.05), ni-yotte-passive vs. agentless passive (䃦2(1)=21.062, p<.001).
Lastly, 䃦2 tests demonstrated that there was no significant difference between thefrequency of nominative (28 examples), topic marker (36 examples), and zero (31 examples)in total.
4. Discussion
The first point of this analysis is that the topicality of patients in Japanese passives is notnecessarily high. Even though the topicality of patients in the passive with a nominative
subject is very low in that RD is high and TP is low, the passive is selected. Moreover, it has
been demonstrated that there is no strong connection between the passive and topic marker orzero subject, both of which are considered to be related to topicality, because there is no
significant difference among the frequency of nominative, topic marker, and zero subject
conditions in total. These facts clearly show that topicality is not an essential characteristic of
the Japanese passive.
Why does the Japanese passive have no connection with topicality? We will propose
two possible reasons: particles and free word order. First, Japanese has particles and zerosubjects and these options can be used to mark the relative topicality of a patient. This meansthat the patient itself does not have to be highly topical in the Japanese passive and the
topicality of a patient may depend largely on how it is marked. Hinds (1983) observed thatzero pronouns are more topical than topic marked NPs, which are more topical than
nominative subjects in Japanese. In our opinion, this analysis can be applied to the Japanesepassive. To put it more concretely, in the Japanese passive, zero subjects are more topical thansubjects with a topic marker, which are more topical than nominative subjects. Second,
Japanese is a relative free word order language and word order itself can be used to express
the topicality of a patient. Kuno (1987) proposed that given-new ordering, which means thatgiven information is mentioned early and new information later, is a preferable order. If his
claim is on the right track, it can be concluded that Japanese word order is determined by
topicality. Therefore, the passive itself does not have to make a patient salient. Instead, tomark the salience of a patient, one can use scrambled word order. In sum, topicality of apatient can be marked by particles or permutations in word order, and hence the passive itself
has nothing to do with topicality. What factor, then, determines the usage of the passive? One6−214−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

possibility is the defocusing of agents as Shibatani (1985) claims. In fact, the number of
agentless-passives is the largest of three types of passive sentences. However, since ouranalysis does not cover all the relevant data for examining this hypothesis, further studies areneeded. If this possibility is on the right track, passives with an explicit agent should be
regarded as a marked option. Considering passive voice based on this idea, both ni-passive
and ni-yotte-passive are a functionally marked option in that they mark the agent. In particular,
Kinsui (1997) contends that the ni-yotte passive derived from the influence of European
languages and his analysis supports our data that ni-yotte is not a common option. Moreover,the number of ni-yotte-passives was significantly lower in our data than other two types ofpassives. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the main function of the Japanesepassive is to hide the agent and the ni-yotte passive is an uncommon option.
Another point we should note is that ni-yotte-passive seems to prefer new
information to given information compared with the other two options. In fact, statistical data
support this because the average RD for ni-yotte-passives is higher than for ni-passives.
Furthermore, half of the patients (7 out of 14 examples) in ni-yotte-passive have noantecedent while about one-fifth of the patients (17 out of 81 examples) in ni-passive andagentless passive have no antecedent. This difference may be derived from the difference inanimacy, which is considered to correlate with topicality (Givón 1994). In others words, it ispossible that ni-passives generally take animate subjects whereas ni-yotte-passives preferinanimate subjects, and therefore the difference in topicality might arise. This proposal iscompatible with Kuroda (1979)’s idea that ni-passives require an affected subject but
ni-yotte-passives do not.
5. Conclusion
We have examined the function of the Japanese passive by using a quantitative approach. The
main points of this paper are summarized in (8) and sub-points about ni-yotte-passive are
mentioned in (9).
(8)

(9)

Generalization about the Japanese passive
The usage of the Japanese passive is not based on the topicality of patientsbut on defocusing of agents. Topicality of patients in the Japanesepassive decides how the subject is marked.
Generalization about the ni-yotte-passive
The ni-yotte passive is a marked option because it has an explicit agent.
Moreover, the subject prefers new information to given informationcompared with the subjects of ni-passives.

7
−215−

A Functional Analysis of Japanese Passives

Notes
1 Since we obtained only one example for this type, there is no standard deviation.

2 The number of agentless passives we assembled is only part of a population in that they

include adjunctive ni e.g. Eiji-wa sonona-ni hitas-are-ta “The baby was immersed there”.
However, they are considered to be representative of agentless passives and to express thegeneral tendency of agentless passives because they are based on a random sampling method.

References
Brown, G. and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. London: Cambridge University Press.
Estival, D. and J. Myhill. 1988. Formal and functional aspect of the development frompassive to ergative systems. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), Passive and Voice, 441-91.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Givón, T. 1983. Introduction. In Givón, T. (ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse, 5-41.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. 1994. The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects ofinversion. In Givµn, T. (ed.), Voice and inversion, 3-44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hinds, J. 1983. Topic continuity in Japanese. In Givµn, T. (ed.), Topic Continuity in
Discourse, 43-94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kinsui, S. 1997. The influence of translation on the historical development of the Japanesepassive construction. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 759-79.
Kuno, S. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Kuroda, S-Y. 1979. On Japanese passive. In Bedel, G. et al. (eds.), Exploration in linguistics:
Papers in honor of Kazuko Inoue, 305-47. Tokyo: Kenkyusya.
Myhill, J. 1992. Typological Discourse Analysis: Quantitative Approach to the Study of
Linguistic Function. Oxford: Blackwell.
Shibatani, M. 1985. Passive and related construction: A prototype analysis. Language 61:
821-848.
Svartvik. J. 1966. On Voice in the English Verb. The Hague: Mouton.

8
−216−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

A cognitive-pragmatic approach to metaphor: an inquiry into systematic
mappings and processing effort
Mao Junling MinJiang University

maomao11238@163.com

Abstract˖This paper proposes that systematic mappings have relevance-enhancing role.
Specifically, by explicating the inferential process of conventional metaphor and novel
metaphor in Chinese, I make two theoretical claims. First, I argue that the familiarity ofsystematic mappings of conventional metaphor may guide the hearer to follow the routine
derivation to give rise to roughly the same implicatures to save unnecessary processing effort.
Second, I argue that systematic mappings of novel metaphor can direct the hearer to activate
the essential contextual assumptions and allow the hearer to minimize the demanded
proessing effort invested to derive the intended meaning.
Keywords: metaphor, systematic mapping, processing effort
1. Introduction
In recent relevance-theoretic work on metaphor on-line interpretation, it is claimed thatconceptual metaphor theory and the relevance-theoretic account of metaphor comprehension
are complementary and should be brought together. For example, Tendahl and Gibbs (2008)
suggest that conceptual metaphor theory can be integrated into the relevance-theoretic
approach to metaphor. Their analyses have made significant contribution to the discovery of
the close relatationship between cognitive linguistics and relevance-based pragmatics. Also,
Carston (2012) views that conceptual metaphors may reduce the processing effort involved inmetaphor comprehension. However, little is known exactly about efficient processing in thesteps of inferential procedures of metaphor interpretation.
To depict a clearer picture and at the same time to examine the complementary nature ofconceptual metaphor approach and relevance theory, in this paper, I would like to explore theunderlying theory of metaphor from the cognitve-pragmatic perspective. Specifically, I
attempt to explicate how systematic mappings can direct the hearer to activate related
contextual assumptions in a cost-efficent way, in the case of Chinese conventional metaphor
and novel metaphor.
2. Representation of Metaphor in a Cognitive-Scientific Way
Within the framework of cognitive linguistics, metaphor has been investigated as a set ofcorrespondences (or conceptual mappings) from a source to a target domain. It is the cognitve
mechanism whereby one experiental domian is partially ‘mapped’, i.e. projected, onto a
different experiential domain, so that the source allows us to understand the target in terms of
the first source’s conceptual structure. That is, verbal metaphors, including conventional
expressions based on metaphor, reflect underlying conceptual mappings in which people
metaphorically conceptualize vague, abstract domians of knowledge in terms of more specific,
familar, and concrete knowledge. “In short, the locus of metaphor is not in language at all, but
1

−217−

A cognitive-pragmatic approach to metaphor: an inquiry into systematic mappings and processing effort

in the way we conceptualize one mental domian in terms of another” (Lakoff, 1993: 202). Allof them are governed by conceptual metaphor in a systematic way. Although conceptual
metaphor theory is highly-influenced, it presents no on-line interpretation process of
metaphors. Specifically, cognitive linguists have always focused on metaphor in thought, but
initially they do not take into account the dynamics of human mental processing and thegoal-oriented nature of interaction in context.
3. Relevance Theory and Metaphor Interpretation
In what follows, I will attempt to ouline the relevance theoretic analysis of metaphr.
3.1. Some Basic Tenets of Relevance Theory.
Relevance, as characterized in relevance theory, is a property of inputs to cognitive processes.
It is a property of inputs that individuals hear or see or read or call to mind. Many of these
inputs will have non-negligible cogntive effects and will require varying degrees of effort toprocess. In line with this, the mental process at work in deriving cognitive effects involves theexpenditure of the least processing effort that is likely to yield the greatest cognitve effects.
More generally, there is a trade-off between cognitive effects and processing effort such thathearers will attempt to maximize cognitive effects while minimizing processing effort. It is
obvious that following the relevance-driven account of comprehension, any element of
indirectness in an utterance demands additional processing effort. Some basic accounts ofrelevance theory are introduced below.
Relevance (of an input, in a context)
The greater the cognitive effects, the greater the relevance.
The smaller the processing effort required to derive these effects, the greater the relevance.
Two key formulations of relevance theory
Communicative Principle (for speaker)
Every utterance communicates a presumption of its own optimal relevance. An utterance is
optimally relevant if:(a) it is relevant enough to be worth the audience’s processing effort, and(b) it is the most relevant utterance compatible with the communicator’s abilities andpreferences.
Comprehension procedure (for hearer)
Follow a path of least effort in deriving cognitive effects [of an utterance in a context]:
Consider interpretations in order of accessibility;
Stop when expectations of relevance are satisfied.
Apparently, as shown in the above table, the relevance of any input is a positive function of its
contextual (or cognitive) effect and a negative function of the processing effort expended inderiving them. Any element of indirectness in an utterance demands additional processing
2−218−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

effort.
3.2 Accessibility of Contextual Assumptions
The relevance-theoretic pragmatic framework of metaphor is based on the assumption thatspeakers and hearers aim at optimal relevance. It is the pursuit of relevance that determines
which features count as critical and what contextual assumptions are exploited to achieve thegreatest benefit at the smallest cost. The hearer of a metaphor, for instance, seems to travel
around a network of contextual assumption, picking a subset of accessible ones that direct
him into a certain inferential path and to a certain interpretation of the metaphor. When there
is more than one assumption, it is assumed that they are tested in parallel, with the one being
selected that gives the quickest access to a context in which an utterance as a whole yields anacceptable overall interpretation. Thus, contexual assumtpions are selectively entertained. It
seems reasonable to assume that the hearer is expected to construct a context large enough toderive some implications that would make the utterance worth its attention, rather than
expanding the context indefinitely and derive even more implications.
Having presented cognitive and relevance-theoretic accounts of metaphor understinding, I
will proceed, in the following section, with a survey of the complementary aspects ofcognitive linguistics and relevance theory, followed by the hypothesis that the systematic
mappings of conceptual metaphor are somewhat similar to the contextual assumptions
activated by the encoded concepts. I would like to explore if the processing of systematic
mappings can result in highly accessible assumptions.
4. Systematic Mappings and Processing Effort in Metaphor Understanding
Based on the interaction between systematic mappings and processing efforts, let’s consider avery standard example of conventional metaphor first.
4.1. Familiar Inferential Routes of Conventional Metaphor(1)Dongxi shule ma? Wo esi le.
‘Is there anything I can eat? I’m extremely hungry.’
It is obvious that in example (1), si ‘death’ is not a direct output of death in that it shares nofeature with prototypical death. It is interesting to note that si ‘death’ is basically extended tomean excessiveness via a conceptual metaphor and then the meaning is fixed to the whole
compound.
Look at the derivational process of hyperbolic sence of si ‘death’, we can find that basedon the cross-domain correspondences (e.g., life and journey) and scale image schema (i.e.,Life can be seen as a scale of time consumption and death stands for the endpoint of the scale
when all the time is used up), the endpoint of si ‘death’ can indicate the excessive extent of acertain state of hunger. Should the force of hunger be too powerful and exceed the limit of thescale, the force will produce an unrecoverable result, such as being “dead”.
As hyperbole separates utterance from reality, the hearer needs to bridge the gap between

3
−219−

A cognitive-pragmatic approach to metaphor: an inquiry into systematic mappings and processing effort

the concept encoded and the concept expressed. It is worth noting that processing the encoded
concept in the manner of hyperbole often results in an adjustment of their denotataion. In thisway, the encoded concept of si ‘death’ is merely used as input to an inferential process inwhich they aim to derive the expected type of implicatures which apply appropriately tohyperbolic effect. To conclude, si ‘death’ generates the excess sense through metaphoricalextension first and then combines with a predicate to indicate the excessive extent of a certain
state pragmatically.
Given the assumptions of relevance theory, this process of pragmatically fine-tuning
encoded concepts (i.e. si ‘death’) takes place as a natural by-product of the search for an
optimally relevant interpretation of hyperbole, based on the cognitive mechanisms of
metaphor and image schema. There is no doubt that the ad hoc use of si ‘death’ is motivated.
Specifically, certain aspects of contextual assumptions (i.e. the extreme state of emotion,
about exaggeration of truths, etc.) will be automatically activated to a higly salient level. The
hearer’s effort, attention and cognitive resources will automatically allocated to theseassumptions to yield a full-fledged speaker’s meaning. In this way, we can say its pragmaticway of resulting in new implications is intentionally likely to be be a type of creativity.
Apart from its creative identity, the one-off ad hoc concept of si ‘death’ displays a degreeof conventionality that they arise spontaneously rather than through conscious effort. In
Chinese, the excessive use of of si ‘death’ has become the norm when talking about one’s
style more than necessary or justified. In line with the account of optimal relevance, different
hearers consider roughly the same sorts assumptions as premises and derive roughly the same
implications (i.e. exaggeration). It is appropriate to assume that frequent processing of this
implication in stereotypical contexts would result in certain encyclopedic assumptions,
resulting from the encoded concepts receiving a higher degree of activation.
Deeply rooted in the standard accompanying hyperbolic effect based on metaphoricalground, the expectations raised by the utterance are powerful enough to narrow the search
space and add an extra layer of activation to some of the information available at the time.
Despite all the information potentially available at the time of the utterance, the standardized
connection between excessive constructions of si ‘death’ and hyperbole may result in the
different hearers considering roughly the same contextual assumptions and following roughly
the same inferential steps to enrich the explicit content and derive roughly the same sort of
implications. In brief, the pragmatic routine derivation focuses on selected information, andthat procedure is based on roughly the same set of contextual assumptions as its premise,
guiding the hearers into a particular inferential route with less-demanded effort to satisfy his
expectation of relevance accurately.
4.2. Selective Procedures of Novel Metaphor Understanding
Consider a novel metaphor about a stone in a manure pit---extremely unpleasant and stubborn,
such as (2):(2) Ta de piqi sui xiangshi maokeng li de shitou, youchouyouyingˈxinchang que ruan de xiang
doufu.
‘Although his temper is like the stone inside a manure pit—smelly and hard (extremely
4−220−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

unpleasant and stubborn), he is softhearted.’
The expression in example (2) provides an especially cruel way of seeing fellow human. In
the metaphor “A stone in a manure pit is extremely unpleasant and stubborn”, the first part ( astone in a manure) signals an object and the second part (smelly and hard) identifies the mostsalient property of the object in a metonymic manner. Apparently, the relation between thestone and its attributed smell and hardness is mapped onto the relation between ta ‘he’ and his
observed unpleansant, stubborn behavior and appearance. Since the expression is meant tocomment on a person, the central features, hard and smelly, are indicated in the second part ofthe saying to enable the hearer to work out the connection to a person’s characteristics, being
stubborn and unpleasant. If being hard is figuratively a negative property of a person, being
unpleasant as the smell of manure only makes matters worse.
We can also find that the target-in-source metonymy, identified in the source domain of a
metaphor, is also observed in the target domain of the metaphor, with two specific attributes
highlighted in terms of a person’s characteristics. This property is actually the result of
another previous metaphor, understanding the characteristics of the stone inside a manure pit
in terms of the unpleasant characteristics of a human. Hence, we can effectively infer thenegative assessment of the character of the person who is being unpleasant and stubborn. An
abstraction of the example can be represented in Fig. 14.
Figure 14: A stone in a manure pit---Extremely unpleasant and stubborn           Thing: A stone inside amanure pit
ÐSmelly and hard

Great Chain Metaphor

Characteristics of ta ‘he’

Unpleasant and stubborn

attributeatttribute
Frame shift(F1ÆF2)

Target-in-Source metonymy

inference

F1: frame of natural physical thing
F2: frame of human

Negative

As we can see in the above figure, the relevant information of the source domian “the stone
inside a manure pit” is conceptually mapped onto the target domain of human being by theGreat Chain and the GENERIC IS SPECIFIC metaphors. Moreover, the negative attribute(smellly and hard) is mapped onto the characteristics of the person (in this case, unpleasantand stubborn). As I have tried to show above, the systematic mapping may well provide thebasis for inferential work.
Guided by the relevance-theoretic comprehension precedure, in interpreting this utterance,
we can find that the interpretation “being hard or smelly” achieves cognitive effects very5
−221−

A cognitive-pragmatic approach to metaphor: an inquiry into systematic mappings and processing effort

easily by providing quintessential characteristic of stones, based on the systematic mapping.
By contrast, a scenario in which the stones are indistinguishing are attenuated or suppressed
as irrelevant in the process in the comprehension. It is likely that the hearer may invoke
essential contexual assumptions such as ‘the smell of the manure is unpleasant’, ‘the stones ina manure pit are smelly and hard’, ‘no one likes to stay in manure because of the unpleasantsmell’, and so on. With the above assumptions, he might derive the following implicatures: if
these two persons are the stones inside a manure pit, they are too-bad tempered to be pleasant;they are so stubborn that it’s hard for them to change their ideas. Hence, the hearer caneffectively yield a full-fledged speaker’s meaning to meet his expectation.
5. Discussion: More Essential Assumptions, Less Processing Difficulty
May be someone will doubt that because there are some other characteristics of the stones in amanure pit, such assumptions as “the stones in a manure pit have indistinguishing color” and“the main part of the stones are hidden” may also be activated. In contrast, however, I will
point out that they are not the assumptions with prior activation that the hearer is more likely
to choose and they are attenuated or suppressed as irrelevant. An inevitable question may thenarises: “How can this preference be explained?” To provide the answer to this question, in thissection, I will focus on the proposition that an adequate account to systematic
correspondences should indeed be able to identify correctly what makes some cases more
acceptable and others less so
It is worth stressing that, following the relevance-driven account of comprehension, anyelement of indirectness in an utterance demands additional processing effort; meanwhile, themore difficulty a metaphorical utterance is evaluated, the more process effort required.
Futhermore, to suppress some extraneous or inappropriate attributes in order to attenuate theactivation of the inappropriate interpretation is also effort-imposing. However, in processing a
metaphor, the activation of a certain prototypical knowledge provided by systematic
correspondences has an effect on how we process incoming information. The alignment
between two different domains from a cognitive linguistic perspective represents thequintessential characteristics at the moment of the process and constrains or guides thehearer’s search for relevance. This is purely for the sake of less effort, for the least costly
inferential routine is used.
It should also be pointed out that these quintessential characteristics refer to a large bodyof commonsensical knowledge, stereotypes and beliefs, some of which are naïve and others
scientific. This is very close to Sperber and Wilson’s notion of contextual assumptions. They
may remain implicit and consist of tacit background assumptions, or they may take the shapeof ‘idealized cognitive models’, that is, mental structures of expectations about the world.
Note that the accessibility of assumption is a crucial factor affecting the hearer’s choice ofreference, resulting in the reasonable choice of appropriate attributes. Sperber (2005)
speculates that in a given context, cognitive procedures with prior activation are especiallylikely to be triggered, because the operation of procedures with prior activation costs lessprocessing effort. Hence, it seems appropriate to assume that a more accessible assumption is
one that is easier to recall because it adds an extra layer of activation to some of theinformation available at the time. With the above mentioned metaphorical statement in (2),6−222−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

the hearer should take the responsibility to choose the one that yields sufficient cognitiveeffects, in consistent with the principle of relevance. This type of inferential ‘risk’ will beoutweighed by the extra cognitive effect obtained.
To sum, as we can see in (2), despite all the information potentially available at the time of
the utterance, the systematic correspondence that picks out the quintessential attribute (hardand smelly) will be prior activated and lead the hearer to consider one or two most easily
accessible assumptions and thus derive one or two strongly communicated implicatures in a
cost-efficient way, without requiring the hearer to explore a wide ranging number ofencyclopedic entries in considerable depth and to exploit other means (e.g., inferential
abilities) to construct the intended interpretation.
6. Conclusion
As demonstrated above, in interpreting conventional metaphors, the familiarity of thesystematic mapping of the metaphor and the focus on the selected information will lead thehearer to a particular inferential route. This goal-directed attention to selected features andprocedures often results in the construction of highly salient assumptions that allow theindividual to process and derive the intended interpretation quickly and accurately. Morespecifically, the hearer of a conventionalized metaphor has no need to explore a wide ranging
number of encyclopedic entries in considerable depth. He may simply consider one or twostrongly manifest assumptions and derive one or two strongly communicated implicatures,
based on the related mappings.
By contrast, in the case of a very creative metaphor, the hearer needs to find his way to aplausible interpretation. This may involve the construction of a particular type of context, theenrichment of the explicit content in a particular way and the derivation of a particular rangeof implications. At this point, the systematic mappings also direct the hearer to activate therelated essential implications in a cost-efficient way. This is because the assumption activatedby the systematic mappings should be the most highly activated interpretation consistent withthe principle of relevance. It is the one that manifestly yields adequate effects, and puts thehearer to no gratuitous effort in achieving those effects. This will help the hearer to consider
the particular combinations of highly accessible hypotheses about explicit content, context
and cognitive effects, which are further adjusted with available assumptions until the hearer
arrives at a combination that satisfies his expectations of relevance. It seems to be appropriate
to say, in this case, that the systematic mappings may guide the hearer to follow the mostaccessible inferential route and so as to allow the hearer to minimize the demanded processing
effort invested to derive the intended meaning.
To conclude my study it seems plausible to make the following hypothesis that the
combination of conceptual metaphor theory and relevance theory will serve the purpose of
speeding up the steps of inferential procedures of metaphor interpretation. Although what I
have made is a preliminary study of the complementary aspect of conceptual metaphor theory
and relevance theory, it is expected to improve our understanding on the relationship between
these two highly-influential approaches. Finally, much more promising research on metaphor
can be carried out, when due attention is paid to the above-mentioned suggestions.

7
−223−

A cognitive-pragmatic approach to metaphor: an inquiry into systematic mappings and processing effort

References
Ariel, M. 2010. Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Clark, B. 2013. Relevance Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Carston, R. 2012. “Metaphor: Conceptual or Communicative?” In Yosimura (ed), Observing
Linguistic Phenomena, 21-36, Eihosya.
Cummings, Louise. 2005. Pragmatics. Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
Lakoff, G. 1993. “The comtemporary theory of metaphor.” In Ortony, Andrew (ed.), Metaphor
and Thought, 202-251. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Soria, B and Romero, E. (eds.) 2010. Explicit Communication: Robin Carston’s Pragmatics.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Sperber, D. 2005. “Modality and Relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible
context-sensitive?” In Carruthers. Peter, Stephen Laurence and Stephen Stich (eds.) The
Innate Mind. Structure and Contents, 53-68. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Tendahl, M. 2009. A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor. Palgrave Macmillan.
Tendahl, M. and Raymond W., Jr Gibbs. 2008. “Complementary Perspectives on Metaphor:
Cognitive Linguistics and Relevance Theory.” Journal of Pragmatics 40, 1823-1864.
Wilson, D and D, Sperber 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge University Press.
Willson, D. 2009a. “Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory
and cognitive linguistics.” In Studies in Pragamtics (Journal of the Pragamtics Society ofJapan) 11, 42-60.
ᮾ᳃໏ and ྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁࡇ. 2002. 㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢ᪂ᒎ㛤: ㄆ▱࡜ࢥ࣑ࣗ஧ࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠖ◊✲♫޵⭠㚆Ҽ.2011. ǋ䃎⭘䄆ȃሴ〻˖䃎ǠȞ䃷䂡gɎȷɁɐȍǌ⹄ウ⽮

8
−224−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

The Dolichological Discourse Marker Okay: Adumbrating an Extended Turn in Interaction
George O’Neal
Niigata University
cerebralabstraction@gmail.com<Abstract>
This paper will present the findings of a conversation analytic study of the discourse
marker okay in American Podcasts. The standard conversation analytic explanation of
the discourse marker okay claims that it appears between sequences to demonstrate thatthe sequential action has reached a culmination and to signify that the next sequential
action is about to begin. However, as yet there is no account of the interactional effect ofthe discourse marker okay when it is used inside sequences. This presentation will argue
that one function of the deployment of the discourse marker okay at the head of a second
pair part utterance is to adumbrate an extended turn. The discourse marker okay that
foreshadows an extended turn is called dolichologic okay.

࠙Keywordsࠚ: Discourse Marker, Okay, Dolichologic, Discourse Particle, Conversation
Analysis, American English

1

Introduction

The discourse marker okay is a recurrent aspect of American English conversations. Although it can appear
in many sequential locations, when it is deployed as a preface to a second pair part, it seems adumbrate adolichological transition; that is, utterances prefaced with the discourse marker okay foreshadow the
beginning of an extended turn. This paper examines the sequential and conversational positioning of the
discourse marker okay in American Podcasts, and argues that the discourse marker okay consistently
prefaces utterances that represent extended turns when used as a preface to a second pair part utterance.

2

Previous Research

Okay is often categorized as a discourse marker (e.g., Schiffrin 1987). The functions of the discourse
marker have been studied from many methodological viewpoints, each leading to different conclusions.
Scholars working within the cognitive linguistic framework claim that the discourse marker okay marks atransition between projects (Bangerter & Clark 2003; Condon 2001). Discourse analysts have claimed that

1
−225−

The Dolichological Discourse Marker Okay: Adumbrating an Extended Turn in Interaction

the discourse marker okay marks the boundaries between sections of a lecture (Rendle-Short 2000).
Conversation analysts claim that the discourse marker okay is a transition signal between sequences(Button 1990) or even a signal that the entire conversation will be concluded soon (Schegloff 2007; Beach
1993). More recent research has claimed that the discourse marker okay has a general overall “approbative”
meaning, and all other meanings can be derived from this central semantic core and context (Gaines 2011).
Even this scant introduction of the research into the discourse marker okay demonstrates that the discourse
marker okay is pluri-semantic. This research further elucidates the usages of the discourse marker okay toforeshadow long turns.

3

Methodology & Data

This paper utilizes Conversation Analytic methodology (e.g., Schegloff 2007) to examine the interactional
effect and epistemic status of the discourse marker okay in extracts of American media found in Podcasts.
As such, this study has collected a small corpus of a representative sample of American English Podcasts
for examination. The Podcasts that were utilized as research data were taken from three sources: 1) The
PBS NewsHour Podcast, 2) the MacWorld Podcast, and 3) The Diane Rehm Show Podcast. It is felt thatthe language used in these Podcasts is representative of American media.

4

Results & Discussion

In the following section, we examine extracts of data. The first example is taken from the PBS NewHour
Podcast. In the following extract, Gwen interviews Marsha, a legal expert, about the ramifications of acourt case on American law. The discourse marker okay is italicized, underlined, and bolded.

Example 1: PBS NewsHour Podcast

Extract 1: PBS NewsHour Podcast
1 Gwen:we turn now to the supreme court which ruled today that foreign nationals

2

cannot sue US corporations in human rights disputes. Marsha Coil of the3

National Law Journal joins me with more. Start by explaining the parameters

4of this case. We talked about it briefly some time ago.

2
−226−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

5 Marsha: okay well this started actually in 2002. 12 Nigerian nationals brought a
6

lawsuit in Federal court here in the United States against three oil companies.

7

Uh they claim that the oil company had enlisted the aid of the Nigerian8

military to suppress opposition to the oil company’s drilling in a region in

9

Nigeria called the Agoni region and that the military had used torture

10

executions and arbitrary detentions to do that. And they brought their lawsuit

11

under a 1789 federal law called the alien tort statute. Probably one of the12oldest laws on the books in the United States. It was enacted by the first13

congress of the United States.

14 Gwen: and what was that designed to do?

In lines 3 and 4, Gwen asks Marsha to explain the background of the legal case under consideration, towhich Marsha orients as a request for information. In line 5, Marsha begins to convey the details
surrounding the case with an extensive discussion of the history of the case, but before Marsha does so, shedeploys the discourse marker okay. This discourse marker okay cannot be described as a transition between
projects because the two speakers are still within one project—the request & response sequence.
Furthermore, the discussion does not conclude after the deployment of the discourse marker okay, so itcannot signal the immanent termination of the conversation either. The usual conversation analytic
explanations of the behavior of this discourse marker okay are inadequate.
Within conversation analysis, the most important determinant in any discussion of the functions of aword is how interlocutors orient to it. Both Gwen and Marsha orient to the turn that is prefaced with thediscourse marker okay as an extended turn. Gwen does not attempt to retake the floor at the next transition
relevance place; indeed, Gwen just continually cedes the floor to Marsha, which indicates both that Gwen
understands that an extended turn is in progress and that Gwen believes this extended turn is interactionallyapposite—she never interrupts Marsha. Furthermore, Marsha produces an extended turn that transverses
across many clauses and potential transition relevance places, but Marsha never hesitates at any of them,which could be an indication that she believed her turn was coming to an end. That is, both participantsorient to the Marsha’s turn that is prefaced by the discourse marker okay as indicative of an extended turnin progress.
Does the discourse marker okay consistently preface extended turns? This paper argues that it does,
and the next example demonstrates that as well. The next example is also taken from the PBS NewsHour
Podcast, although the speakers are different. In the following example, Margaret asks Carol questions abouta mass shooting, and Carol deploys the discourse marker okay as a preface to an extended turn.

3
−227−

The Dolichological Discourse Marker Okay: Adumbrating an Extended Turn in Interaction

Example 2: PBS NewsHour Podcast

Extract 2:
1 Margaret:Now go back to the notebook and as you’ve said there’s been a lot of2

unconfirmed reports about it. What have you been able to determine from3

your own reporting was in the notebook what happened to it. Eh who was it

4

mailed to? And and did anyone at the university actually see it before

5

the shooting?

6 Carol:

okay. This is a bit fuzzy but our information right now from various sources7

is that this notebook is for real. It is and that court records also now confirm

8that. It was sent from Holmes to somebody in building 500. It’s our

9understanding that is Lynn Fenton the psychiatrist he was seeing. My::

10

information from two different sources is that this document uh had

11

information in it that could have provided a hint of the attack to come. As you

12

probably know other media have reported that this notebook

13

contained scary drawings of stick figures who were carrying guns and14

mowing down other stick figures with weapons. Which is kinda haunting

15

based on the attack that actually took place in the Aurora movie theater in

16

which alledgedly James Holmes mowed down 70 people in 21a sold out

17Batman [showing

18 Margaret:19[an and what whether anybody actually looked at it because they’rehaving questions about that.

Margaret asks Carol a series of questions in lines 3~5, and Carol orients to them as an information
request and responds accordingly, relaying details to Margaret over a number of clauses across manypotential transition relevance points. However, before Carol begins her exposition, she deploys thediscourse marker okay as a preface to her entire turn. Carol’s turn is long, and Margaret only takes the floor
and the right to speak from Carol in line 18 in overlap with Carol. This demonstrates that Carol intended to
speak even more than she had, which is a sign that she was in the midst of an extended turn.

4
−228−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

The most important aspect of this interaction, however, is the deployment of the discourse marker
okay as a preface to an extended turn. Carol adumbrates the immanent initiation of an extended turnthrough the deployment of the discourse marker okay as a preface to her turn, and Margaret orients toCarol’s turn as an extended turn in progress, never attempting to take back the floor until well into Carol’sturn. Again, as with the previous example, both Carol and Margaret orient to the turn prefaced with thediscourse marker okay as an extended turn in progress: Carol produces multiple turn constructional units in
response to Margaret’s questions; Margaret cedes the floor to Carol across multiple potential transitional
relevance places.
The third extract further demonstrates similar praxis as regards the discourse marker okay. In thefollowing example, speakers at a plenary roundtable discussion at a technology conference will deploy thediscourse marker okay to adumbrate the launching of an extended turn.

Example 3:

Extract 3:
1 Serenity: Yup. Thanks. Uh next question
2 Attendee:You mention writing platform versus publishing platform. Uh that the3

publishing is not necessarily the best. What do you use for writing platforms?

3 Serenity: oh boy
4 David:
5 Serenity:
6 David:okay well we do [everything[where does this begin [(laughs)[yeah. We actually currently write

7

everything in pages so authors and editors are working in the final layout

8because with an agile publishing model like ours we cannot afford to take the9time to layout a book later so we would not use something like in-design

10

where adobe is a designer centered company. We are writers. And not editors11

and so we are not doing massively complicated layouts so for us Pages works

12well. It’s got change tracking. It’s got versioning or er uhm commenting and

5
−229−

The Dolichological Discourse Marker Okay: Adumbrating an Extended Turn in Interaction

13

uhm it’s a good stable program. Microsoft word is what we used before.

14

Worked pretty well in most cases. Has some issues.

15

(0.4)

16 Attendee:My writing technique is completely insane.

Initially, this example seems to militate against the point of this study: David’s turn that is prefacedwith the discourse marker okay is not extended; indeed, it is only four words. However, a closer
examination of the praxis of this interaction reveals that Serenity’s utterance that cuts off David’s turn is
not meant to contest control of the floor. In fact, David quickly wrests control of the floor back from
Serenity, who makes no attempt to continue her turn beyond her joking parenthetical comment, and thenDavid proceeds to produce an extended turn that stretches across numerous clauses and potential transition
relevance places. That is, although Serenity interrupts David’s answer, both Serenity and David orient toSerenity’s contribution as exactly that—a temporary interruption. David continues to produce an extended
turn that is foreshadowed by the deployment of the discourse marker okay.
The last example demonstrates again the adumbrating power of the discourse marker okay, but like theprevious example, seems to contradict the main argument presented in this paper. Although the discourse
marker okay is deployed as part of an extended turn during a roundtable discussion about legal matters, it is
not deployed as the preface to that turn.

Example 4:

Extract 4:
1 Diane:Good morning and thank you all for being here.

2 Marsha: Good morning.
3 Fen:

Morning.

4 John:Thank you.

5 Diane:Good to see you. John Vesqupee very briefly recap for us these latest major

6

rulings from the Supreme Court for us.

6
−230−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

7 John:Sure Diane. Okay, we started on Monday with a big case on affirmative action

8

from the university of Texas in which the justices by a 7 to 1 vote essentially9

let affirmative action stand nationwide and sent uh back to a lower court this10

university of Texas dispute over whether race in that program could be taken

11

into account as a criteria for an applicant. That was uh a modest step. 7 to 1.

12

Only Justice Ginsberg dissented there. On Tuesday we had a real blockbuster.

13

5 to 4 the Supreme Court struck down (1.0) real centerpiece of the voting

14

rights act of 1975. That decision was along ideological grounds with Roberts

15

chief justice Roberts leading the majority and the four liberal in dissent there.

16

Wednesday our final day we had the two big gay rights rulings. Actually one

17

was important and the other was sort of a place-holder. Uh by 5 to 4 the18

Supreme Court ruled that uh a federal law that denied benefits to same sex

19

married couples that had been allowed their opposite sex counterparts was

20

unconstitutional, extending federal benefits to couples who are legally21

married in the 13 states that allow that. uh separately the court ruled on a22

different 5-4 vote that it did not have uh uh the jurisdiction to intervene in the23

California prop 8 case. It said that the challengers to proposition 8 which

24banned gay marriage in that uh big state out west uh lacked legal standing to25

bring the case. Brought eve- sent everything back. Effectively opening the26

door to same sex marriage in California but saying nothing about a national

27

constitutional right to same sex marriage.

28 Diane: John Vesqupee legal affairs editor for Reuters.

In lines 5~6, Diane asks John to recap recent decisions at the US supreme court, and John orients toDiane’s turn as an information request, relaying the pertinent details across multiple turn constructional
units and many potential transition relevance places. Although John does deploy the discourse marker okay,
he does not do so until two words into his turn. The argument of this paper is that the discourse marker
okay is a preface to an extended turn, but here the discourse marker is not at first glance a preface to a turn.
But upon closer examination of the interaction, one can see that the words preceding the deployment of the
discourse marker okay were just acknowledgements of Diane’s request, and not the beginning of theinformation telling. The discourse marker okay is deployed in John’s turn, but it is deployed at the
beginning of the information telling that will supply the second pair part to Diane’s first pair part.
Acknowledgement alone is not a sufficient apposite response to Diane’s first pair part. That is, the

7
−231−

The Dolichological Discourse Marker Okay: Adumbrating an Extended Turn in Interaction

discourse marker okay is deployed as a preface to the first attempt to supply a requisite and apposite firstpair part after the acknowledgement of Diane’s request for information. This example further demonstrates
that the discourse marker okay is a preface to an extended turn, which in turn demonstrates that thediscourse marker okay has a foreshadowing function in these interactions.

5

Conclusion

One of the functions of the discourse marker okay is to adumbrate an extended turn in interaction. This canbe seen in the data presented here because both the speakers who deploy the discourse marker okay as apreface to second pair parts and the interlocutors who listen to the second pair parts orient to turns that are
prefaced with the discourse marker okay as indicative of an extended turn in progress. Speakers utilize
many turn constructional units and interlocutors do not attempt to take the floor even at potential transition
relevance places. To conclude, the deployment of the discourse marker okay as a preface to a second pairpart adumbrates the immanent launching of an extended turn, and the interactional details demonstrate that.

6

References & Source Materials

Bangerter, A. & Clark, H. 2003. “Navigating joint projects with dialogue.” Cognitive Science 27, 195-225.
Beach, W. 1993. “Transitional regularities for casual Okay usages.” Journal of Pragmatics 19, 325-352.
Button, G. 1990. “On varieties of closings.” In G. Psathas (ed.) Interaction Competence, 245-276.
Washington D.C.: University Press of America.
Condon, S. 2001. “Discourse ok revisisted: Default organization in verbal interaction.” Journal of
Pragmatics 33, 491-513.
Gaines, P. 2011. “The Mulifunctionality of Discourse Operator Okay: Evidence from a police interview.”
Journal of Pragmatics 43, 3291-3315.
Macworld. 2012. Macworld Podcast. Episode 327 (Originally Aired 7/11/2012). IDG Consumer & SMB.
NPR. 2013. The Diane Rehm Show. (Originally Aired 11/20/2013). IDG Consumer & SMB.
PBS. 2012. PBS Newshour. (Originally Aired 7/27/2012). MacNeil/Lehrer Productions.
PBS. 2012. PBS Newshour. (Originally Aired 10/26/2012). MacNeil/Lehrer Productions.
Rendle-Short, J. 2000. “When ‘okay’ is okay in computer science seminar talk.” Australian Review ofApplied Linguistics 22:2, 19-33.
Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University
Press.
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press.

8
−232−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

The Conventionality of Pragmatic Inference in Noteworthy Comparison
Osamu Sawada
Mie University
sawadao@human.mie-u.ac.jp<ABSTRACT>This paper investigates the meaning and use of the Japanese noteworthy comparative expression nani-yori-mo‘what-than-MO’. Unlike regular comparison, noteworthy comparison does not make use of an explicit gradable
predicate to create a meaning of comparison. I argue that the noteworthy nani-yori-mo inherently has a scale ofpreference, and it conventionally implicates that the at-issue utterance is preferable to any contextually relevantalternative utterances. It will be shown that the meaning of “noteworthiness” additionally arises via thepragmatic principle of “relevance to a goal” (Roberts 2012). I will also consider an alternative view where thenoteworthy nani-yori-mo just means “greater than anything” and the scalar dimension is determined by context.
However, I will argue that such a purely pragmatic account is problematic because the meaning of preference(but not the meaning of noteworthiness) is not cancellable. This paper shows that, similar to metalinguisticcomparison, the scalar meaning of preference has been conventionalized as part of the lexical meaning of
noteworthy comparison.
࠙Key wordsࠚ: noteworthy comparison, conventionalization, preference, pragmatic inference, relevance to agoal
1. Introduction
In Japanese, the comparative expression nani-yori-mo can express two kinds of comparison, individualcomparison and noteworthy comparison (Sawada 2010):(1) Nani-yori-motenisu-wa
tanoshii.   (Japanese)
What-than-MO
tennis-TOP
funa. At-issue: Tennis is more fun than anything. (Individual reading)b. At-issue: Tennis is fun. (Implicature: The utterance “tennis is fun” is more noteworthy than any otherutterance related to tennis.) (Noteworthy reading)In the first reading (1a), the speaker compares tennis with contextually determined alternatives (e.g., soccer,
basketball, baseball, etc.) and says that tennis is the most fun. On the other hand, in (1b), the speaker compares
the utterance “tennis is fun” with alternative utterances in terms of noteworthiness/importance and conveys thatthe at-issue utterance is the most noteworthy/important. In terms of semantics/pragmatics interface, theindividual reading in (1a) is semantic in that the comparison is made at the propositional level. On the other hand,the noteworthy reading in (1b) is discourse-pragmatic in that the comparison is made in the realm of discourse.
What is puzzling about the noteworthy reading is that there is no explicit gradable predicate that
corresponds to “noteworthy” or “important.” What exactly is the meaning of noteworthy comparison? Where
does the meaning of noteworthiness/importance come from? How can we analyze the meaning of noteworthy
comparison in a theoretical way? This paper investigates these questions in terms of semantics/pragmatics
interface and tries to answer these questions. With regard to the meaning of noteworthy comparison, I will argue
that noteworthy comparison inherently has a scale of “preference” (Giannakidou and Yoon 2011), and it
conventionally implicates that the at-issue utterance is preferable to any contextually relevant alternativeutterances. It will be shown that the meaning of “noteworthiness” additionally arises via the pragmatic principleof “relevance to a goal” (Roberts 2012).
Regarding the meaning of noteworthy comparison, we will also consider an alternative approach where
noteworthy comparative expressions like nani-yori-mo just mean “greater than anything” and the scalardimension is determined by context. However, I will argue that such a purely pragmatic account is problematic
because the meaning of preference (but not the meaning of noteworthiness) is not defeasible. This paper showsthat, similar to metalinguistic comparison, the preferential meaning has been conventionalized as part of thelexical meaning of noteworthy comparison.
2. The Semantics of the Individual nani-yori-mo
Before considering the meaning of noteworthy comparison, let us first look at the semantics of meaning ofindividual comparison:−233−

The Conventionality of Pragmatic Inference in Noteworthy Comparison(2) Nani-yori-mo
tennis-wa
What-than-MO
tennis-TOP‘Tennis is more fun than anything.’

tanoshii.
fun(Individual reading)We can say that nani ‘what’ in the individual reading introduces a set of contextually relevant individual
alternatives, as in (3) (Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002):(3) [[nani]] = {x ∈ De: thing(x) ‫ ޔ‬C(x)}The contextual domain variable C makes sure that the alterantive individuals are all related to the particilar
context. In the case of (2), the alterantive individuals are related to tennis.
As for the semantics of comparison, I assume that the marker of standard yori has a comparative meaning(e.g., Kennedy 2007; Hayashishita 2009; Sawada 2013), as in (4):(4) [[yori]] = {ȜxȜgȜy.max{d’|g(d’)(y)} > max{d’’|g(d’’)(x)} }Since nani denotes a set of alternatives, nani and yori in (4) are combined in a pointwise manner (Hamblin 1973;
Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002).
(5)
nani-yori{yori (soccer), yori (baseball), yori (basketball), …}
nani{soccer, baseball, basketball, …}

yori{yori}

Note that the alternatives expand until they meet the universal operator mo, which selects them (Kratzer andShimoyama 2002; Shimoyama 2006):(6) [[mo]] = {ȜPȜgȜy.∀x[x∈{thing} ĺ P(g)(y)]}(where x is an expanding individual variable in P)
Nani-yori-mo is then combined with a gradable predicate. As for the meaning of gradable predicates, I willassume that they represent relations between individuals and degrees (Seuren 1973; Cresswell 1977; vonStechow 1984; Kennedy and McNally 2005). The following shows the denotation of tanoshii:(7) [[ tanoshii]] = λdλx.fun(x) = d
The following figure shows the logical structure of nani-yori-mo:(8){∀x[x∈{thing} ĺ{max{d’|fun(tennis) = d’} > max{d’’|fun(x) = d’’}: thing(x)}]}

Tenisu-wa{Ȝy.∀x[x∈{thing} ĺ{max{d’|fun(y) = d’} > max{d’’|fun(x) = d’’}: thing(x)}]}{ȜgȜy.∀x[x∈{thing} ĺ{max{d’|g(d’)(y)} > max{d’’|g(d’’)(x)}: thing(x)}]}tenoshii{λdλx.fun(x) = d}mo{ȜPȜgȜy.∀x[x∈{thing} ĺ P(g)(y)]}(where x is an expanding individual variable in P){ȜgȜy.max{d’|g(d’)(y)} > max{d’’|g(d’’)(x)}: thing(x)}nani{x∈ De: thing(x)} yori{ȜxȜgȜy.max{d’|g(d’)(y)} > max{d’’|g(d’’)(x)} }−234−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

This sentence is true only in the case where the degree to which tennis is fun is greater than any of thealternatives. The crucial point here is that the individual comparison is made at the at-issue level.
3. Properties of the Noteworthy nani-yori-mo
3.1 The Meaning of nani-yori-mo is a CI (Does not Contribute to “What is Said”)
Unlike the individual nani-yori-mo, the meaning of comparison with indeterminateness is calculated in thedomain of conventional implicature (CI) (Grice 1975; Potts 2005). In the Gricean theory of meaning, CIs are
considered to be part of the meaning of words, but these meanings are not part of “what is said” (e.g., Grice
1975; Potts 2005, 2007a; Horn 2008, 2013; McCready 2010; Sawada 2010; Gutzmann 2012). Furthermore, it isoften assumed that CIs have a semantic property of speaker-orientedness (by default) (Potts 2005, 2007a).
(9) Nani-yori-motenisu-wa
tanoshii.
What-than-MO
tennis-TOP
fun
At-issue: Tennis is fun.
CI: The utterence that “tennis is fun” is more noteworthy than any other utterence.
(10) (Utterance after (9))
Iie. Sore-wa chigau-yo.
No that-TOP false-YO‘No, that’s false.’
The speaker in (10) is only challenging the at-issue part of (9).
3.2 The Noteworthy nani-yori-mo Operates on Speech Acts
Another important property of noteworthy comparison is that it operates on speech acts. The noteworthy
nani-yor-mo can co-occur with various kinds of sentence types:(11) a. Nani-yori-moTokyo-waanzen-da.
(Declarative)
What-than-MO
Tokyo-TOP
safe-PRED
At-issue: Tokyo is safe.
CI: The assertion that “Tokyo is safe” is more noteworthy than any other assertion.
b. Nani-yori-mo
naze
anata-wa
Chicago-ni
iku-no? (Interrogative)
What-than-MO
why
you-TOP
Chicago-TO
go-Q
At-issue: Why do you go to Chicago?
CI: The question “Why do you go to Chicago?” is more noteworthy than any other question.
c. Nani-yori-mojugyoo-ni
ki-nasai!
(Imperative)
What-than-MOclass-tocome-IMPERATIVE
At-issue: Come to the class!
CI: The command “Come to the class!” is more noteworthy (significant) than any other command.
The above data strongly suggest that the noteworthy nani-yori-mo is an utterance modifier that operates on the
speech-act level.
4. The Analysis of the Noteworthy nani-yori-mo: A Preference-based Approach
Let us now consider the meaning of noteworthy comparison based on the following example:(12) Nani-yori-motenisu-wa
What-than-MO
tennis-TOP‘Nani-yori-mo, tennis is fun.’tanoshii. (Japanese, noteworthy reading)fun

I will argue that, similar to metalinguistic comparison, the noteworthy comparison posits a scale of preference.
The following are examples of metalinguistic comparison:(13) a. “Your problems are more financial than legal.” (McCawley 1988: 673)
b. Taro-wa
sensei-to
iu-yori-mogakusya-da.
Taro-TOP
teacher-as
say-than-MO
scholar-PRED‘Taro is more of a scholar than a teacher.’−235−(English)(Japanese)

The Conventionality of Pragmatic Inference in Noteworthy Comparison

Giannakidou and Yoon (2011) claim that metalinguistic comparison introduces the point of view of an individual
toward a sentence and denotes that the speaker is expressing that he/she prefers one sentence in a given context
over another. More specifically, they define the meaning of metalinguistic comparison (the emphatic preferencetype) as follows:(14) [[MOREML]] = ȜPȜQ[P >Des(Į)(c) Q]
where >Des(Į)(c) is an ordering function such that: for P and Q and degrees d and d’, the degree d to which Į
desires P in c is greater than the degree d’ to which Į desires Q in c; Į is the anchor of comparison; P and Q
are Potts tuples for sentences <ɉ; Ȉ; Į: t>.
(Giannakidou and Yoon 2011: 639)
Here, MORE is comparing P and Q. P and Q are Potts tuples for sentences <ɉ; Ȉ; Į: t>, where ɉ is aphonological representation, Ȉ is a syntactic representation, and Į is a semantic representation of type t (see Potts(2007b) for a detailed discussion of the compositional mechanism of the tuple). In the typical emphatic
preferential case, it will be the propositions expressed by P and Q that are compared.
However, metalinguistic comparison is different from noteworthy comparison in that its meaning
contributes to “what is said.” If we deny the sentences in (12) by saying “No, that’s not true” or iya, sore-wa
chigau-yo ‘Not that is not true,’ the denial will target the comparative component of metalinguistic comparison. I
propose that, similar to metalinguistic comparison, noteworthy comparison posits a “desirability orderingfunction” (Giannakidou and Yoon 2011), but unlike metalinguistic comparison, noteworthy comparison takes
utterances, and the comparative meaning is calculated at the level of CI. I propose that the standard marker yori
has the following definition (U is a variable for utterances/speech acts):(15) [[yoriNW]] : <aa, < aa, ts>> = {ȜUȜU’[U’ >Des(Į)(c) U]}
where > Des(Į)(c) is an ordering function such that: for U and U’ and degrees d and d’, the degree d to which Į
desires to utter U’ in c is greater than the degree d’ to which Į desires U in c.)
Yori in (15) is different from the semantic use of yori in that it does not take a gradable predicate as its argument.
As for the meaning of nani in noteworthy nani-yori, I assume that, when it is used in the context ofnoteworthy comparison, it introduces a set of speech acts (a is a type of speech act), as in (16):(16) [[nani]] = {U∈ Da: speech act(U) ‫ ޔ‬C(U)}What is important is that the meaning of nani-yori is a CI. In order to make sure that the meaning of thenoteworthy nani-yori-mo is interpreted at the CI level, I will adopt the multidimensional theory of meaning (e.g.,
Potts 2005, 2007a; McCready 2010; Gutzmann 2012). More specifically, I will assume that McCready’s
extended theory of CI regarding shunting type enables us to analyze the compositionality of nani-yori.
(17) The shunting application (McCready 2010):

Į (ȕ) : Ȗ s

Į: <ıa , Ȗs >ȕ: ı aThe superscript s stands for a shunting type. Note that this rule is specific to certain CI meanings, i.e.,
resource-sensitive conventional implicature. This rule ensures that, at the end of derivation, there is only a CI
meaning. Unlike in Potts’s CI function application, the at-issue element ȕ is shunted. It no longer exists by thetime the meaning of the entire sentence is computed.
Thus, if we combine yori and nani ‘what’ in a pointwise fashion, we will get the following logical structure.
The shunting type allows us to analyze the meaning of nani-yori as follows:−236−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

(18)

yori(nani): <aa, ts>{yori(tennis is good for health), yori(tennis does not cost money),yori(tennis is a social activity), …}

nani ‘what’: aayori ‘than’: <aa, <aa, ts>>
{tennis is good for health,tennis does not cost money,
tennis is a social activity, …}

Nani-yori is then combined with mo, which selects all the alternatives created by nani:(19) mo: <<aa, ts>, <aa, ts>>
{ȜO<a,t>ȜU’.∀U[U∈{speech act} ĺ O(U’)]}(where U is an “expanding” speech act in O)
As for the representation of speech-act/clause-type systems, here I follow Stenius (1967), according to whom an
illocutionary operator combines with a sentence radical meaning (typically, a proposition) to form a speech act(see also Krifka 2001):(20) a. Basic types: e entities, t truth values, p (=st) propositions, a speech acts
b. A speech act operator is a function from the type of sentence radical it selects as type a.
c. The variables for type a = {U, U’, U’’, …}If we put everything together, we will get the following logical structure for the utterance (12):(21){∀U[U∈{speech act} ĺ [ASSERT(tennis is fun) >Des(Į)(c) U]]}: ts{ASSERT(tennis is fun)}: aa
ASSERT:<ta,aa>
PP{ȜU’.∀U[U∈{speech act} ĺ [U’ >Des(Į)(c) U]]}a s
: <a , t >tatennis-wa tanoshii‘tennis is fun’PP          mo: <<aa, ts>, <aa, ts>>
{ȜU’[U’ >Des(Į)(c) U]}: <aa, ts>{ȜO<a,t>ȜU’.∀U[U∈{speech act} ĺ O(U’)]}           (where U is an “expanding” speech act in O)DP nani: aa
{U∈Da: speech act(U) ‫ ޔ‬C(U)}P
yoriNW: <aa, <aa, ts>>
{ȜUȜU’[U’ > Des(Į)(c) U]}

Notice that, in the above figure, the speech act (ASSERT(tennis is fun)) is not represented at the root. I willassume that a speech act is always interpreted at the root level regardless of whether or not it is embedded.
5. The Alternative Approach: The Inference-based Account of Noteworthy Meaning
Let us now consider an alternative approach. Since the noteworthy comparison does not make use of an explicit
adjective, one might think that yori in the noteworthy reading just denotes a “greater than” and the scalardimension is determined by context, as in (23) (cf. Geurts and Nouwen (2007)’s analysis of at least):(22) [[yoriRANK]] = {ȜUȜU’.U U’}(U U’ means U is above U’)−237−

The Conventionality of Pragmatic Inference in Noteworthy Comparison

The crucial point for this alternative approach is that scalar dimensions like “noteworthiness” or “preference” arenot represented in the logical structure. They are inferences. Under this approach, they will be considered to beinferences derived from the principle of relevance to a goal in (23), as in (24):(23) Principle of relevance to a goal (based on Roberts 2012):
Be relevant to a goal (i.e., make your utterance one that promotes the achievement of a goal).
(24) If a given utterance U is greater than every utterance, and given that every utterance must be “relevant” to agoal, it is reasonable to assume that utterance U is the most relevant, and therefore, the most important,noteworthy, etc.
For example, if the speaker signals that the utterance “tennis is fun” is greater than any alternative utterance, it isreasonable to assume that the at-issue utterance is the most relevant, and therefore, the most noteworthy,
important, etc. The consequence of this inference-based approach is that there are three kinds of meanings in thenoteworthy comparative sentence like (25), as shown in (26):(25) Nani-yori-motenisu-wa
What-than-MO
tennis-TOP‘More than anything, tennis is fun.’tanoshii.
fun(26) a. At-issue: Tennis is fun.
b. CI: The utterance “tennis is fun” is greater than any other utterance.
c. Conversational implicature: The utterance “tennis is fun” is preferable to/more noteworthy (important)
than any other utterance.
6. Which Approach is Better?
The question is, which approach is better, a preference-based approach or an inference-based approach? I argue
that the preference-based approach is better than the inference-based approach. Although the alternative
approach might look simpler, it cannot explain the fact that the noteworthy expressions are invariably attitudinal(preferential). Under the purely inference-based approach (the alternative approach), neither the scalar dimensionof importance/noteworthiness nor the dimension of preference meaning is lexically encoded in the expression
nani-yori-mo (more than anything). They just mean “greater than all.” Thus, we would predict that if we posit
the right context, the noteworthy expression would entail various kinds of scales. However, in reality, thenoteworthy comparison always has a meaning of preference in any context:(27) Possible scales of noteworthy comparison:A
B
C

Scalarity
Preference (ATTITUDE)
Length (SPACE)
Earliness (TIME)

Availability
Yes
No
No

First, nani-yori-mo does not convey that the given utterance is the longest. Second, nani-yori-mo does notconvey that the given utterance is the kind that must be uttered in the first place. Although it is true that the
noteworthy comparison with an indeterminate pronoun often appears at the beginning of a series of utterances, it
is also possible for the speaker to use it at the end of his/her series of utterances, as shown in (28):(28) Tokyo-wa
benri-gaii-sitabemono-moTokyo-TOP  convenience-NOM
good-and food-also‘Let’s see. Tokyo is convenient, and the food is also good.’
Sositenani-yori-mo,
Tokyo-waanzen-desu.
And
what-than-MO Tokyo-TOP
safe-PRED.POL‘And more than anything, Tokyo is safe.’oishii-desu.
good-PRED.POL.

On the other hand, the preference-based approach can naturally account for the fact that the noteworthy
expression cannot posit scales other than a preference scale. One potential question about the preference-based
approach is whether the meaning of importance/noteworthiness is really an inference. In the preference-based−238−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

approach, the meaning of noteworthiness/importance is an inference. If it is an inference, it should be defeasible.
As the following examples show, this prediction is borne out:(29) A: Tenisu-tte
donnasupootu-desu-ka?
Tennis-TE what kind of sport-PRED.POLITE-Q‘What kind of sport is tennis?’
B: Nani-yori-motenisu-wa
kenkoo-ni ii-desu.
What-than-MO
tennis-TOP
health-for good-PRED.POLITE‘More than anything, tennis is good for health.’
B: Demo boku-nitotte
ichibanjuuyoona-no-wa
tenisu-wa
tanoshii
But
I-for methe most
important-GEN-TOP tennis-TOP
fun-to.iu.koto-desu.
-the fact that-PRED.POLITE‘But for me, what is the most important point about tennis is it is good for health.’
B’s second utterance may sound a bit odd, but still not impossible. Here we can say that B’s second utterance
cancels the “most noteworthy/important” interference triggered in B’s first utterance (the one with nani-yori-mo).
Since lexically speaking, nani-yori-mo is only saying that the given utterance is preferable, it is not necessarily acontradiction to provide the most important information in the second utterance.
On the other hand, the following conversation is quite odd:(30) A: Tenisu-tte
donnasupootu-desu-ka?
Tennis-TE what kind of sport-PRED.POLITE-Q‘What kind of sport is tennis?’
B: Nani-yori-motenisu-wa
kenkoo-ni ii-desu.
What-than-MO
tennis-TOP
health-for good-PRED.POLITE‘More than anything, tennis is good for health.’
B: # Demo boku-nitotte
ichibankonomashii
kotae-watenisu-wa
But
I-for methe most
preferable
answer-TO
tennis-TOP
tanoshii-to.iu.koto-desu.
fun-the fact that-PRED.POLITE‘But for me, what is the most preferable answer for me is the fact that tennis is good for health.’
Since B’s first utterance denotes lexically that it is the most preferred, B’s second utterance is clearly acontradiction. The above examples strongly show that in the modern use, the meaning of preference has been
conventionalized/grammaticalized as part of the meaning of yori and the meaning of noteworthiness/importancearises as an inference. Based on the above discussion, I conclude that the preference-based approach is better
than the purely inference-based approach.
7. Conclusion
This paper has investigated the meaning and use of noteworthy comparison with special attention to the Japanesenani-yori-mo, ‘more than anything.’
I argued that, unlike regular comparison, noteworthy comparison is attitudinal in that it inherently has ameaning of “preference” (Giannakidou and Yoon 2011). More specifically, I argued that noteworthy comparison
with indeterminateness conventionally implicates that the speaker considers that the given utterance is“preferable” to any alternative utterance, and that the meaning of “noteworthiness/importance” arises through thepragmatic interaction with the general pragmatic principle of “relevance” (Roberts 2012). We considered analternative view where the scalar dimension of noteworthy comparison is determined pragmatically. However,
we claimed that such fully pragmatic approach is problematic. This suggests that at least synchronically, thescalar meaning of preference has now been conventionalized as part of the lexical meaning of noteworthy
comparison. In the future, I would like to investigate to the use of the noteworthy comparison from across-linguistic perspective. For example, the Korean comparative expression mwues-pota-to ‘what-than-TO’
and the English more than anything can also express the meaning of noteworthy comparison:(31) a. Mwues-pota-to
teynisu-nun
What-than-TO
tennis-TOP‘Tennis is more fun than anything.’‘More than anything, tennis is fun.’caymi-itta.
fun-decl−239−(Korean)The Conventionality of Pragmatic Inference in Noteworthy Comparisonb. More than anything, tennis is fun.

(English, Noteworthy reading)

These data strongly suggest that the phenomenon of noteworthy comparison is cross-linguistically general. I
would like to consider whether the proposed analyses can apply to these examples as well.
Acknowledgements: I am grateful to the audience of the 16th Annual Conference of the Pragmatics Society ofJapan for their valuable comments. Parts of this paper were also presented at the 88th Annual Meeting of the
Linguistic Society of America (2013) and the International Modality Workshop at Kansai Gaidai (2013), and I
also thank the audiences at these locations for their valuable comments and discussions. This paper is based uponwork supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grant number: 23720204).
References
Cresswell, M. J. 1976. “The semantics of degree.” In B.H., Partee, (ed.), Montague Grammar, 261-292. New
York: Academic Press.
Geurts, B. and R, Nouwen. 2007. “At least et al.: The semantics of scalar modifiers.” Language 83(3): 532-559.
Giannakidou, A. and S, Yoon. 2011. “The subjective mode of comparison: metalinguistic comparatives in Greek
and Korean.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 621-655.
Grice, H.P. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, iii: SpeechActs, 43-58, New York: Academic Press.
Gutzmann, D. 2012. Use-conditional Meaning: Studies in Multidimensional Semantics. Dissertation, University
of Frankfurt.
Hamblin, C. L. 1973. “Questions in Montague English.” Foundations of Language 10: 41-53.
Hayashishita, J-R. 2009. “Yori-comparatives: A reply to Beck et al. (2004).” Journal of East Asian Linguistics
18: 65-100.
Horn, L. R. 2013. “I love me some datives: Expressive meaning, free datives, and F-implicature.” In D.
Gutzmann and H. Gärtner (eds.), Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-conditional Meaning,
151-199. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Horn, L. R. 2008. “I love me some him”: The landscape of non-argument datives. In O. Bonami & P. Cabredo
Hofherr (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7, 169-92.
Kennedy, C. 2007. “Standards of comparison.” Handout of Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris.
Kennedy, C. and L, McNally. 2005. “Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable
predicates.” Language 81(2), 345-381.
Kratzer, A. and J, Shimoyama. 2002. “Indeterminate pronouns: the view from Japanese.” In Y. Otsu. (ed.) The
Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (TCP 2002). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
1-25.
Krifka, M. 2001. “Quantifying into question acts.” Natural Language Semantics 9: 1-40.
McCawley, J.D. 1988. The Syntactic Phenomena of English. Vol 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
McCready, E. 2010. “Varieties of Conventional Implicature: Evidence from Japanese.” Semantics & Pragmatics,
3, 1-57.
Potts, C. 2012. “Conventional implicature and expressive content.” In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P.
Portner, (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Volume 3,
2516-2536. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Potts, C. 2007a. “The expressive dimension.” Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 165-197.
Potts, C. 2007b. “The dimensions of quotation.” In C. Barker and P. Jacobson, (eds.), Direct Compositionality,
405-431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Potts, C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, C. 2012. “Information structure: Afterword.” Semantics & Pragmatics 5(7): 1-19.
Sawada, O. 2013. “The comparative morpheme in Modern Japanese: looking at the core from ‘outside’.” Journalof East Asian Linguistics 22(3): 217-260.
Sawada, O. 2010. Pragmatic Aspects of Scalar Modifiers. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Chicago.
Seuren, P. 1973. “The comparative.” In F. Kiefer and N. Ruwet (eds.), Generative Grammar in Europe , 528–64.
Dordrecht: Reidel.
Shimoyama, J. 2006. “Indeterminate phrase quantification in Japanese.” Natural Language Semantics 14:
139-173.
Stenius, E. 1967. “Mood and language-game.” Synthese 17: 254-274.
von Stechow, A. 1984. “Comparing semantic theories of comparison.” Journal of Semantics 3.1–77.

−240−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

The Impact of Color codability on reference
production with changing role of Color: Evidencesfrom a Narrative Discourse in Malayalam.
Rinu Suresh Nambiar(rinu.iiit.ac.in)International Institute of Information Technology
Abstract
It has been observed that codability of color plays aninteresting role in speaker’s preference for color for an
object identification. However, the colors that are
linguistically harder to name is less likely to be used forthis purpose. This observation was based on visual display
containing colors that are high codable (red) and low
codable (light blue, dark blue) which was the perceptual
extension of basic colors(blue). In our study, weinvestigate the issue of color codability in acommunicative scenario, where we used Malayalam basic
colors that either have or lack basic color terms. This
paper examine people’s preference for different color
codes (simple and complex color label) with changing
significance of color (single and competitive referent) in a
scenario The result shows that speakers use color for
referring competitive referent that hold both simple andcomplex color labels, whereas they are overspecified withcolors in simple color label when occurred in repetitive
instances. Single referent, on the other hand areoverspecified both during introduction and repetitive
instances only with colors that hold simple color label.

−241−

The Impact of Color codability on reference production with changing role of Color: Evidences from a Narrative Discourse in Malayalam.

Keywords: color, color codability, overspecification,
Malayalam, Single and Competitive referent.
1.

Introduction

One of the most discussed topics in psycholinguistics
research regarding the choice of attribute for
distinguishing description is that people seem to favor
color over all other attributes when describing a target
referent with the aim of identification (cf.Pechmann,
1989; Brown-Schmidt &Tanenhaus, 2006; Arts, Maes,
Noordman& Jansen, 2011). Recent research has exploredthe role of color codability that dramatically effect entity
references. When verbally referring to an object, speaker’s
preferences for color alter with different codability ofcolors. Viethan et al (2012) in his recent work have shownthat speaker’s preference for color is reduced if it islinguistically harder to name the target. How so ever,when the color of target and distractor are similar and ifthey can be named using different basic color terms,
speakers are likely to use colors for its references. Given
this roleof color and its codability effect, it is worthwhile
to explore on how speakers of a different linguistic
background deal with basic colors in referring entities,
where most of its basic colors lack simple color terms.
Additionally, we also compare whether the pattern ofreference alter with changing significance of color in a
scenario. In previous study speakers were asked toverbally describe an intended object from the remaining
two distractor objects that was pointed on to the screen
Viethen et al. (2012). Speakers then chose the object−242−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

based on the easy codability of colors. In our study we seethat the relation between the changing significance ofcolor and colors used in a scenario are interesting from adouble perspective. On the one hand, the requirement ofcolor in a scenario induce speakers to prefer colors
according to the significance of color in a particularscenario, while on the other hand, the color chosen isbased on its color codability in every instances which
could be used as a metric to measure entity references thatis sufficiently conveying and understandable.
In this paper, we tested the impact of color codes onreference production from a fresh perspective: we focus
on a language named Malayalam that refers to primaryand secondary colors in two distinct forms (discussed as
per the literature of Goodman (1963), Kumari&Aesher(1997), Berlin and Kay’s (1969) and the pilot study weconducted here 1 ). In Malayalam, primary colors carrysimple color labels (red “chuvappu”, blue “neela”, green“pacha”,
yellow”manja”,
black“karuppu”,
white ”vella”)whereas secondary color are labeled using
object-derived color terms or “object glosses”(pink“ros(rose) niram”(color), purple “vazhutananga(brinjal)
niram”(color), Brown “kaapi (coffee) niram” (color),
Orange ”Naaranga (orange) niram” (color), grey “chaara(ash) niram” (color)).Here it indicates coffee, ash, rose,

1

Using 30 native Malayalam respondents and 11 basic colors we
conducted color naming task to list out simple and complex
color label in Malayalam. We restricted to 11 colors as most of
the World language happen to have these colors.

−243−

The Impact of Color codability on reference production with changing role of Color: Evidences from a Narrative Discourse in Malayalam.

etc. as an initial character(different object with which it iscompared) accompanied by a second character ‘niram’(color) denoting that this is a color name.In this study, wedeveloped a set of stories in two color conditions (primaryand secondary). The story in primary color condition is
expected to narrate the stories in simple color label
whereas those under secondary color condition in complex
color label. Each story carried four characters, one single
character ‘single referent (denote as Rs) (e.g.: cat) andthree same characters ‘competitive referents’(denote asR12) (e.g.: three rats (blue rat, green rat, red rat). The
story was designed in such a way that both the referent
types occurred at initial as well as subsequent instances.
Here speakers are supposed to refer to color for every
newly introduced referent in the given condition. Whereas
during repeated instances, we assume to find differencesin the way speakers refer the entities under both the color
conditions. In case of both competitive (R12) andsinglereferent (Rs) we assume that speaker’s preference
for color will show variation with the codability of colors.
Assuming that color is a preferred attribute and they arelikely to be used if it require color for its references, we
expect this effect to be multiplied in a scenario when color
is not an essential requirement. Hence we hypothesize thatwhen color is non crucial attribute for a particular scenario
speakers are highly likely to identify with colors having
simple color label more frequently than those withcomplex color label thereby overspecifying the referents.

−244−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

2.

Methodology
Due to space constraints, we skip the details of theexperimentation here. Howsoever, the same can befound in [Nambiar, Rinu S, 2014].

3.

Results

As main dependent measure, we analyze the proportion ofoverspecified expression in the different conditions. In agiven scenario if color is not required for an entity
reference, then it is labeled as an overspecified expression.
Within the stroke of each noun phrase, we identified andnumbered for the use of overspecified expression used foreach referent. The narration of all respondents wastranscribed in Malayalam manually.
3.1 Data Analysis
The figure shows the mean proportion of overspecification
during the initial and repetitive reference of bothcompetitive and single referent under simple and complex
color label condition. We found that the proportion ofoverspecification occurred frequently during the repeatedreference of competitive referent(R12) in simple color
label condition than in complex color label condition,
which is in favor of our hypothesis (M=.79, SD=.51)(M=.51, SD=.24), t(42) =24.9 , p<0.5. In case of
singlereferent (Rs), speakers tend to over specify it bothduring both introduction and repetitive occurrences. Here,we again found that the proportion of over specification ismore in simple color label condition than complex color−245−

The Impact of Color codability on reference production with changing role of Color: Evidences from a Narrative Discourse in Malayalam.

label condition (M=.67, SD=.12) (M=.48, SD=.23), t (42)=9.9, P<0.05; (M=.34, SD=.15) (M=.28, SD=.11), t (42)=4.3, p<0.05 respectively.
4.

Discussion

The main observation from our results are that speaker’s
preference for color vary with its changing requirement in
a particular scenario as well as its codability. The apparent
difference in the color preference between the color
crucial and color non-crucial scenario arises solely fromthe difficulty in coding the color value in the color noncrucial scenario. This lends support to our hypothesis,
stating that people’s preference for color is dependent on
its changing significance in a scenario. Moreover, it also
confirms that color that is hard to code is mainly not
preferred and less likely to be mentioned in a
distinguishing description, which is in line with thefindings of Viethan et al (2012).
Unlike any other standard set of stimuli, narrative settings,
we used here provide more scope to analyze whether color
is used as an essential or redundant attribute in a scenario.
We found that speakers did overspecify color for referring
competitive referents at its repeated instances where thisreferences occur only if the color has simple color label
rather than complex color label. Additionally, we also findthat speakers redundantly used color even while referring
a single referent (color is not a crucial attribute). And thisredundancy occurred both while introducing it as well as
at repeated instances. Similar to competitive referent, this−246−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

occurred mainlywith simple color label rather thancomplex color label. This notifies thateven during
spontaneous communication speaker’s choice for the color
is more natural and evaluative, and therefore along withthe requirement of color in every instances, the code ofcolor required in each of this instance is equally
evaluated.In sum we find that speakers engage in entity
description before they have fully scanned the referent
during references (Pechmann,1989), in which our study
contributed that during such mechanisms speakers also
analyze the effort they need to exert on labelling colors forentity reference.
5.

Conclusion

We explored the issue of codability in Malayalam where
basic colors hold mixed color labels (simple and complex
color labels). Moreover this paper is the first to investigate
the issue of color codability in a communicative scenario
where the role of color is each scenario is manipulated
systematically. Our result suggests that color codes vary
its role in a color non-crucial and a color crucial scenario
distinctly which indeed affect speaker’s preference forcolor in referring an entity. We found that color that carrycomplex color term like ’chaaraniramulla’ is least
preferred than those with a simple color label likechuvappu. And this color label expression would beappreciated even if the scenario is least expected for color
reference. In sum, we conclude that though color getschosen due to being perceivable with low cognitive effort,−247−

The Impact of Color codability on reference production with changing role of Color: Evidences from a Narrative Discourse in Malayalam.

yet its preference is highly depended only if it is easily
codable and significant to particular instances.
References
1.
2.
3.

4.

5.
6.
7.

8.

Aesher,R.E. &T.C.Kumari (1996).Malayalam.
Routledge, London and New York.
Arts, A., Maes, A., Noordman, L., & Jansen, C.
(2011). Overspecification in written instruction.
Linguistics, 49(3), 555–574.
Brent, B., & Paul, K., (1969): Basic Color
Terms: Their Universality and Evolution.
Berkeley/Los Angeles, University of California
Press.
Brown-Schmidt, S., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006).
Watching the eyes when talking about size: An
investigation of message formulation andutterance planning. Journal of Memory andLanguage, 54, 592–609.
Goodman John S, 1963: “Malayalam Color
Categories.”Anthropological Linguistics 5,pp.1-1
Pechmann, T. (1989). Incremental speech
production and referential overspecification.
Linguistics, 27(1), 89–110.
Viethen, J., Goudbeek, M., &Krahmer, E. (2012).
The Impact of Colour Difference and Colour
Codability on Reference Production. In
Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the
Cognitive Science Society, 1084-1089. Osaka,
Japan.
Nambiar, Rinu S, 2014, The Impact of Color
codability on reference production with changing roleof Color: Evidences from a Narrative Discourse in
Malayalam.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ql3qp3

bfegnuhux/PSJ2013-16-Methodology.docx)−248−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

On the development of sentence final kke in Japanese
Mizuho TAMAJIa, Yumiko KAWANISHIb and Foong Ha YAPa
Hong Kong Polytechnic Universitya and UCLAb
Abstract
Evidentiality is a linguistic category to indicate the source and reliability of the information provided by the speaker(e.g. Aikhenvald 2004). Evidential markers are also often used to attenuate the strength of the speaker’s epistemicclaims (e.g. Nuyts, Fox 2001; Kim 2011). In this study, we examine evidential and epistemic uses of Japanese
sentence final kke. We trace the diachronic development of various complement-taking verbs that are known for
their attributive evidential functions in Japanese (e.g. to omohikeru and to ihikeru) and that contribute to theirdevelopment as sentence final pragmatic marker kke.
Key words: sentence final kke, evidentiality, epistemicity, pragmatic marker, diachronic development, attributive
evidential marker, keru kana constructions

1. Background of this study
Evidentiality is a phenomenon whereby speakers provide clues about the source (and hence also the reliability)of their information (Chafe & Nichols 1986; Johanson & Utas 2000; Aikhenvald & Dixon 2003; Aikhenvald
2004; Aikhenvald & LaPolla 2007; inter alia). Evidential markers whose primary function is to indicate thesource and reliability of information are also often used to attenuate the strength of epistemic claims in spoken
as well as written discourse (see Nuyts 2001; Fox 2001; Kim 2011). Many languages recruit ‘say’
constructions to express hearsay evidentiality and epistemicity. In Modern Japanese, hearsay evidential marker
tte is thought to originally develop from to itte (complementizer to plus converbal form of ‘say’ itte) (R.
Suzuki 2007; see Tamaji & Yap, forthcoming). Tte can be used in sentence-final position for a variety ofpragmatic purposes (e.g. evidentiality marking, mirativity marking (to show speaker’s surprise, insistence
marking, and psychological distancing in contexts such as joking and self-mocking; see also S. Suzuki 2001.
R. Suzuki (2007) noted that hearsay evidential uses were attested from the 1930s and identified pragmatic usesof tte (e.g. insistence) in texts from the 1940s. These findings indicate that hearsay evidential marker tte
developed into pragmatic marker to show speakers’ epistemic stance. In this study, we examine thedevelopment of another sentence final particle, namely kke, which also has evidential, epistemic and pragmaticfunctions.
2. Pragmatic functions of kke in previous studies
Kke is a sentence final particle with a wide range of functions. In the dictionary Nihongo Hyoogen Bunken
Jiten (Asuku, 2008: 136), kke is listed with a confirmation-seeking function, as illustrated in (1) and (2)below.1

1 Abbreviations. ACC: accusative, ADDR: addressive, ATTR: attributive, CAUS: causative, CE: counterexpectation,

COMP: complementizer, CONCESS: concessive, COND: conditional, CONT: continuous, COP: copula, DAT: dative,
DISAGREE: disagreement marker, EMPH: emphasis, EVID: evidential marker, FN: formal noun, FOC: focus particle,
GEN: genitive, HON: honorific, IMP: imperative, LOC: locative, NEG: negation, NMLZ: nominalizer, NOM: nominative,
PASS: passive, PTCL: particle, PL: plural, POL: polite, PRF: perfect, PFV: perfective, PST: past, Q: interrogative, TOP:
topic, VOL: volitional, SFP: sentence final particle−249−

On the development of sentence final kke in Japanese(1)kono gurasu, watashi noda kke?
this glassI
GEN COP SFP‘Is this glass mine?’ (Hyoogen Jiten, 2008: 136)

(2)

FAX bangoo wa denwa
bangoo to
onaji deshitakke?
FAX number TOP telephone number COM same be.POL.PERF SFP‘Is the FAX number the same with the telephone number?’ (Hyoogen Jiten 2008: 136)

The confirmation-seeking function of kke could also be used to form rhetorical questions (see Matahira
1996: 22). As seen in (3), kke can convey the meaning ‘I wonder what …’ as a polite means of obtaining
information. This is because kke has an epistemic reading equivalent to English perhaps, and thus can be used
as a pragmatic hedge, which in English can be translated into an indirect ‘I wonder’ type question. In (3), thespeaker recalls a past encounter and expresses her interest in the guy she has met and whose name she wishes
to know, but she does so using a rhetorical question that requires no response from her addressee. In this sense,
this kke-type rhetorical question is not a real question, but rather is an expression of her inner desire.
(3)

Eetto, kare, nante iu
namae
da
kke?
well
he
what say name
COP
SFP
‘Well, I wonder what his name is.’ (Hyoogen Jiten, 2008: 136)

Kke can also convey the meaning ‘I wonder if …’, to highlight the speaker’s lack of certainty andcommitment. In (4), the speaker is evaluating a movie that he has seen and uses kke as a pragmatic hedge toindicate that he thinks the movie is somewhat mediocre. This rather negative evaluation is conveyed throughthe combined use of negative attitudinal adverb sonnani and sentence final particle kke.
(4)

Kono eiga, sonnani omoshirokatta
kke?
this movie suchinteresting.PERF SFP‘I wonder if this movie was that interesting.” (Hyoogen Jiten, 2008: 136)

As seen in (5), the confirmation-seeking and wonder-expressing functions of kke can be further used toindicate the speaker’s recollection of the past (see also Matahira 1996: 23). This is made possible because of
the strong association of kke constructions with past events. In this sense, kke can be said to have developed areminiscence-marking function. Note that as a reminiscence marker, kke appears in declarative rather thaninterrogative constructions.
(5)

Mukashiyoku kokode asonda
kke.
long.time.ago often hereplay.PERF SFP‘I used to play here a long time ago, kke (= I remember).” (Hyoogen Jiten, 2008: 136)

As noted in Matahira (1996), reminiscent-type uses of kke can also convey a strong sense of conviction as
the speaker vividly recalls a past event. As seen in (6), the speaker suddenly realizes that the current year is aleap year. This involves factual information that is not in doubt at all. Note that this type of usage involves anelement of ‘sudden realization of a past event’, which paves the way for subsequent mirative uses.
(6)

Sooieba kotoshi hauruudoshi datta
kke.
DM
this.year TOP leap.year COP.PST SFP‘Oh, this year is a leap year kke (= I now remember).’ (Matahira 1996: 23)
Kke can also be used to obtain information by appealing to the addressee’s recollection of past events. As−250−第16回大会発表論文集第９号

seen in (7), the speaker asks the addressee (Setsuko) if she remembers what the speaker has eaten earlier in themorning’. In both examples, by adding sentence final kke, the speaker is able to adopt a more polite stance byturning his question into the equivalent of the English indirect ‘I wonder’-type question. In such usage, the‘remember’-type kke evidential contributes to epistemic down-toning and yields a polite pragmatic effect tothe speaker’s utterance.
(7)

Setsuko-san, watashi hakesanani otabemashita
PN-POLI
TOP this.morning what ACC eat.PST‘Setsuko, what did I eat this morning, kke (= do you remember)?’(Matahira 1996; cited in Ikeya 2012:16)

kke.
SFP

In sum, kke can be used to obtain, confirm or remember information, and can be used when the speaker istalking to someone else or to him/herself. This indicates the extension of usage of kke from interrogative to
non-interrogative (i.e. wonder or reminiscence marking). Matahira (1996) concluded that kke is also used toindicate that the speaker is not aiming his/her utterance to the interlocutor, but rather making the interlocutor‘an invisible listener.’ This is a polite strategy that allows the speaker to utter almost anything with kke, sincethe ‘I wonder’-type and ‘Do you remember’-type kke questions give some freedom to the interlocutor toanswer or not answer. In this way, kke functions as a hedge. This raises the question of how kke develops such
evidential, epistemic and reminiscent-marking functions? In the rest of this paper, we will report preliminary
findings on the close relationship between evidential and epistemic uses of kke in conversational discourse,
and we will also trace the diachronic development of kke from (to) omohikeru kana and (to) ihikeru kana.
3. The Present Study
3.1 Data and methodology
In this study, we use the Callhome television conversation corpus corpus (Canavan & Zipperlen 1996) toelucidate the pragmatic functions of kke in contemporary Japanese discourse. For the diachronic developmentof kke, we use the Taikei Honbun Database, which contains 466,574 words from narratives, historical
documents and poems from the 8th to 19th century.
3.2 Pragmatic uses of kke in Japanese conversation
In this section, we analyze two types of discourse functions of kke in the Callhome corpus, namely
confirmation-seeking and placeholder-marking. From conversational data, it is interesting to note that many of
the tokens of kke are associated not only with ‘remembering’ contexts, but also with ‘saying’ contexts,
particularly in echoic and often also mirative contexts where the speaker seeks confirmation of what theprevious interlocutor has just said. In excerpt (8), for example, Speaker B expresses surprise upon hearing
Speaker A mentioning that a famous singer was telling his fans about super cars, including the Porsche, and he
expresses his disbelief using Soodakke ‘Is that right kke?’ in line 04. This expression is less face-threatening
than Soo desu ka ‘Is that right?’ because kke has an epistemic reading and hence a pragmatic hedging (i.e.
pragmatic softening) function. Speaker B’s polite footing continues to be seen in line 06, where although
Speaker B does not fully believe everything that Speaker A says, he nevertheless uses the epistemicallydowngraded response Aa, sookamoshirenai ‘Well, it might be so’ instead of the unmitigated challenge Aa, sookana ‘Well, are you sure?’
Callhome: train (Ja_1201)
(8)
01
A:

Nanka, suupaakaa no hanashi toka.
‘Well, like the story of the super cars.’−251−

On the development of sentence final kke in Japanese

02

B:

03

A:

04

B:

05

A:

06

B:

Un.
‘Yes.’
Porushe to ka no hanashi ga dete kite sa.
‘Like the story of Porsche appearing.’
Soodakke?
‘Is that right?’
Un.
‘Yes.’
Aa, sookamoshirenai.
‘Well, it might be so.’In our conversation database, kke is also used as a placeholder, which appears to be an extension from thepragmatic hedging use of kke in contexts such as (8) above. As seen in (9), kke is used as a pause-filler while
Speaker is searching for the right word to say. As a placeholder, sometimes referred to in the literature as a‘whatchamacallit’ expression, kke allows the speaker to maintain her turn on the conversational floor. In asense, kke is a polite way of apologizing to others for one’s disfluent conversational performance.
Callhome: train (Ja_1123)(9)01
A:   Ano, maa guriin, guriin kaado mo,‘Well, well, green, green card too,’
02
B:
Un.
‘Yes.’
03
A:
Aa nandakke na raigetsu honmono ga kurunda.
‘Well, well (< ‘whatchamacallit’), the real one is coming.’
3.3 Diachronic development of kke
It is generally considered that Classical Japanese perfective (and subsequently perfective evidential) keri is thelexical source of sentence final particle kke. In this section, however, we will trace the development of ‘think’and ‘say’ constructions to show that kke may instead have been derived from keru kana constructions.
Conclusive uses of the ‘think’ verb omohikeri were first attested in the 10th century, as in (10). This ‘think’verb was finite by virtue of the perfective suffix keri and consequently did not further develop into a pragmaticparticle, although keri later did develop evidential uses as well. Given that omohikeri did not yield epistemic
nor mirative readings, it is not likely to have developed into sentence final particle kke.
(10)

Onna
ito
ahare
to
omohikeri
woman quite interesting COMP think.PFV‘The woman thought it was quite interesting.’ (Yamato Monogatari, p. 72, 10th c.)

Attributive uses of the ‘think’ verb omohikeru were also first attested in the 10th century, as in (11), where
it was used to form a relative clause construction.
(11)

Sate omohikeru
tomodachi no
moto he yomite
DM think.PFV.ATTR friend
GEN place to compose.CONV
okosetarikeru, …
send.CAUS.PFV.PFV.ATTR‘Then he composed (this poem) and let (his servant) send (it) to the friend that he wasthinking of …’ (Yamato Monogatari, p. 255, 10th c.)−252−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

When the head noun is elided, omohikeru ‘headless’ relative clause constructions such as (12) cansometimes shift from a complement clause usage (e.g., kanashi to omohikeru ‘that is thought to be sad’) to a
finite verbal complement structure (e.g. with the meaning ‘is thought to be sad’). This shift would constitute areanalysis from the nominal to the predicational domain. Such reanalysis is often found in contexts where
kakari musubi focus constructions have their copula or existential verbs elided, as seen in (12) (see also Yap &Tamaji 2013).
(12)

Moto
no
tsuma namu, kakute ikukotowokanashi tooriginal GEN wife
FOC
like.this go.NMLZ ACC sad
COMP omohikeru
think.PFV.ATTR‘It is the former wife going about like this that is thought to be sad.’> ‘The former wife going about like this is thought to be sad.’(Yamato Monogatari, p. 306, 10th c.)

Attributive omohikeru ‘headless’ complement clauses can be accompanied by sentence final
admirative-interrogative particle kana to form an ‘I wonder if …’-type mirative construction, as in (13). Suchmirative omohikeru constructions were still attested in the 19th century. However, in contemporary Japanese,
we now use instead the phonologically reduced kke form to express similar mirative meaning.
(13)

Yo
no
naka niutsutsu aru mono toomohikeru
world GEN inside LOC dream exist thing COMP think.PFV.ATTR
kana
Q.ADMIR‘I wonder if there is something like a dream in this world.’> ‘What a wonderful thing this is!’ (Kokin Wakashuu, p. 266, 10th c.)

Attributive keru kana constructions with evidential, epistemic and mirative uses were also formed with othercomplement-taking verbs, and a similar pathway was attested for the ihikeru ‘say’ construction. As seen in(14), the ihikeru construction can be used as a headless attributive ‘say’ construction introduced by the copula
verb nari to form a cleft-like focus construction. Ellipsis of the copula, as seen in (15), was possible when
focus particles such as nan were used to form another type of focus construction, namely, the kakari musubi
construction. At the same time, however, once the attributive to ihikeru form comes to be assume sentence
final position (in the absence of the copula), it increasingly comes to be reinterpreted in the mind of speakers
as the equivalent of the conclusive ihikeri form. Over time, this gradually contributed to the demise of the
kakari musubi system (see also Yap & Tamaji 2013; Tamaji & Yap 2013b).
(14)

Ochikubo no
kimi
to
wa
kono hito
no
na
FOC
PN
GEN princess QT TOP this person GEN name wo
ihikerunari keri.
say:ATTR COP EPIST‘It probably is ‘Princess Ochikubo’ that is said to be this person’s name.’(Ochikubo Monogatari, p. 89, 10th c.)(15)

Kono futariwonan, chichi kanashikusu to ha
this two.people TOP FOC father sad.CAUS QT TOP
oroka nari to ihikeru.
silly COP say:ATTR Æ EVID:CONCLUSIVE−253−

On the development of sentence final kke in Japanese‘It is said that it was silly that these two (had said) “Let’s make (our) father sad”.’> ‘It was silly that these two (had said) “Let’s make our (our) father sad”.’(Ochikubo Monogatari, p. 233, 10th c.)Stand-alone ihikeru constructions such as (15) above developed evidential uses, but they did not develop
other subjective or intersubjective pragmatic uses, in particular the epistemic and mirative uses that are closely
associated with sentence final kke. As seen in (16) below, an example from the 11th century, an ihikeru
construction accompanied by admirative-interrogative kana sentence final particle could yield the desired
mirative reading.
(16)“Ushiroyasuku mo ihikeru
kana”
carelessly
FOC say.PERF.ATTR Q.ADMIR
tomo, mori
kikitamahekashi.
COMP also guardian hear.HON.VOL ASSUMPTIVE‘What if the guardian were to hear you say that?’> ‘How careless of you to say it!’ (Yoru no Nezame, p. 237, 11th c.)

In Contemporary Japanese, we see evidence of the phonologically reduced form kekke to express
mirativity, as in (17). The process of phonological reduction now culminates with the residual form kke as
discussed earlier in section 2.
(17)

Masshirokekke
EMPH. white ADMIRATIVE‘How white it is!’(Contemporary Japanese; longerthan.blog55.fc2.com/blog-entry-378.html)(exclamative upon seeing the white snowy landscape in Hokkaido)

A number of phonological reduction processes appear to be involved, among them elision of the ‘say’
verb ihi- and segment reduction that facilitates the phonological compression of keru kana to kke. One possible
strand could be the ihikeru kana > iike(ru) kana > kke (kana) pathway, with kekke as a reduplicated variant.
Verbal ‘say’ elision was not uncommon in Classical Japanese, with converbal tote forms possibly derived fromto ipite ‘say’ forms (see Tamaji and Yap, under review). Consonant deletion from ihikeru to iikeru was highlyplausible in Middle Japanese, particularly in colloquial speech, given that converbal iite constructions derived
from ifite~ihite ‘say’ forms were attested in the 15th century (see also Tamaji and Yap, under review). Likewise,/ru/ segment erosion is commonly attested, even in contemporary Japanese. Gemination is also widespread in
the Kanto region, thus the emergence of the kke form hardly comes as surprise.
Another possible route for phonological change could be the ihikeru (kana) > itta kke > kke pathway,
sometime around the 19th century, around the same time when converbal ihite ‘say’ form was also being
reduced to the geminated itte form. That is, the ihite > itte > tte form observed among the converbal ‘say’
pathway appears to have a corollary within the attributive ‘say’ pathway in the form of ihikeru (kana) > itta
kke > kke, with /h/ deletion accompanied by ample germination. Variations whereby ihikeru (kana) is realized
as itta kke emerges because keru is perfective and the Modern Japanese version of the perfective is suffix –ta.
The admirative-interrogative kana sentence final particle is optional because not all uses of kke are mirative innature. However, once the non-mirative confirmation-seeking ihikeru comes to be replaced by itta kke (> kke),
it does not take much effort and time for the mirative uses to be added to kke as well.
Similar pathways appear possible for omohikeru constructions as well. One possible pathway involves
verbal elision of the ‘think’ verb as follows: omohikeru kana > omoike(ru) kana > kke (kana) > kke pathway.

−254−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

An additional pathway could be omohikeru (kana) > omotta kke > kke pathway.
4. Conclusion
Sentence final particle kke was generally thought to be derived from Classical Japanese perfective keri, but
keri only yielded perfective declarative readings, and did not develop the mirative readings often associatedwith kke. Our findings suggest instead that attributive ‘think’-based omohikeru (kana) and ‘say’-based ihikeru(kana) constructions were possible co-sources for the emergence of the phonologically reduced sentence final
kke. The multiple pathways that capture the phonological change from omohikeru (kana) and ihikeru (kana) to
kke are highlighted in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Phonological reduction pathways in the emergence of kke
Pathway 1:
omo(h)ikeru kana (10th to 18th c.)> omo(h)ike(ru) kana (EModJ)i(h)ikeru (kana) (10th to 19th c.; 1 token with kana in 11th c.)> i(h)ike(ru) (kana) (EModJ)
Pathway 2:
omo(h)ikeru kana (10th to 18th c.)> omotta kke (19th c.)thththi(h)ikeru (kana) (10 to 19 c.; 1 token with kana in 11 c.)> itta kke) (19th c.)> kke (LModJ)> kke (LModJ)> kke (LModJ)> kke (LModJ)

Note that mirative uses of omohikeru ‘think’ and ihikeru ‘say’ constructions were initially accompanied by
the admirative-interrogative sentence final particle kana. However, among the ihikeru ‘say’ constructions, thekana-type constructions outnumbered the kana-less ones in Middle Japanese (MJ) and Early Modern Japanese(EModJ). It may have been the high frequency of kana-less constructions, largely used in the formation ofconfirmation-seeking ihikeru ‘say’ constructions, that have paved the way for the ihike(ru) > kke phonologicalreanalysis. Once kke emerges in Late Modern Japanese (LMJ), it could also facilitate the replacement ofomo(h)ike(ru) kana with the phonologically reduced kke, even for (ad)mirative uses, which are well attested
for kke in contemporary Japanese.
In addition to phonological reduction processes, our findings also indicate that copula ellipsis also played
an important role in the insubordination of attributive to ihikeru ‘say’ constructions. This type of copula-elided
insubordination phenomenon was common in the formation of kakari musubi-type focus constructions. It is
this insubordination phenomenon that contributed to the collapse of the attributive/conclusive distinction in
Japanese and the subsequent decline of the kakari musubi focus system (see Yap & Tamaji 2013). The collapseof the attributive/conclusive distinction, however, makes it possible for attributive keru to be reanalyzed asconclusive keru, under conditions where keru assumes speaker’s subjective and intersubjective mood, attitude,etc. This helps explain why kana-less ihikeru constructions can express the same (ad)mirative functions as
ihikeru kana constructions when accompanied by kana-type admirative-interrogative prosody, especially in
spoken discourse. This, then, further helps explain why kana-less ihikeru constructions may have led the way
in the emergence of the phonologically-reduced kke as a sentence final particle that is useful not only for
confirmation-seeking and pragmatic-hedging functions but also admirative ones.
Acknowledgment
We wish to acknowledge funding support from two related Departmental Research Grants form the Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, one from the Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies ((HKPU 4-ZZBK) to the firstauthor and the other from the Department of English (HKPU G-UB76) to the third author, and an additional
grant from the Faculty of Humanities Research Grant (HKPU 1-ZVAY) for crosslinguistic comparisons that havegreatly benefited the analysis of the present study. We are also grateful for insightful feedback from Professor
Haruhiko Yamaguchi and Professor Kaoru Horie at the 16th Annual Conference of Japan Pragmatic Society.

−255−

On the development of sentence final kke in Japanese

References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ǡ  Ƭ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ʹͲͲ͵Ǥ Studies in evidentialityǤ Ȁǣ Ǥǡ  Ǥ Ƭ  Ǥ Ǥ ʹͲͲ͹Ǥ     ǣ   
ǦǤ Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area ͵ͲȋʹȌǣͳǦͳ͸ǡ Special issue on EvidentialityǤ䜰䝇䜽ฟ∧⦅㞟㒊 2008 䛂⏕䛝䛯”౛ᩥ䛷Ꮫ䜆 ᪥ᮏㄒ⾲⌧ᩥᆺ㎡඾䛃㻌 ᮾி䠖䜰䝇䜽ฟ∧㻌ǡ ǤƬ  ȋȌǤͳͻͺ͸ǤEvidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology.   ʹͲǤǡ ǣǤ
Fox, Barbara A. 2001. Evidentiality: Authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of
Linguistic Anthropology 11, 167–92.
Johanson, Lars and Bo Utas. (eds). 2000. Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Kim, Mary Shin. 2011. Negotiating epistemic rights to information in Korean conversation: An examination of the
Korean evidential marker –tamye. Discourse Studies 13:4. 435-459.
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics,
33, 383-400.
ཪᖹᜨ⨾Ꮚ 1996. 䛂⤊ຓモ䛾◊✲䠖䛄䛳䛡䛅䛾ᶵ⬟䛃䛄⟃Ἴ᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲䛅䠍ྕ pp.21-33
Suzuki, Ryoko. 2007. (Inter)subjectification in the quotative tte in Japanese conversation: local change,utterance-ness and verb-ness. Journal of Historical Linguistics 8(2): 207-237.
Suzuki Satoko 2001. Self-mockery in Japanese. Linguistics 40(1); 163-189.
Tamaji, Mizuho and Foong Ha Yap. 2013. “Where does pragmatic marker tte come from?”—Convergence of toifute, to itte and tote constructions in the diachronic development of ‘say’ constructions in Japanese. 15th Annual
International Conference of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences (JSLS 2013), Nagasaki, June 28-30.
Tamaji and Yap, under review. On the development of evidential and pragmatic markers in Japanese: Diachronic
evidence from converbal ‘say’ constructions.
Yap, Foong Ha and Mizuho Tamaji. 2013. From attributive to conclusive ‘say’ constructions: Implications for therise and fall of the kakari musubi (focus) constructions in Japanese. Invited talk at the National Institute ofJapanese Linguistics (NINJAL) Colloquium, Tokyo, July 2.

−256−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

Doing leadership: An analysis of gendered discourse in business meetings in
TaiwanHuitsen Jeanne Tuan
Shu-te University
Huimei Yao
National Penghu University<Abstract>
This paper presents a sociolinguistic study of gendered discourses in the workplacemeeting interactions which adds new empirical evidence to this expanding field.
The present study draws on data from a project on workplace discourse, focusing on
multinational companies and small/medium firms situated in Taiwan. Four leaders(2 male and 2 female) participated in and made contributions to the project. The
dataset consists of recordings of meetings, ethnographic observations andinterviews. The analyses show that both male and female leaders tend to prefer anormatively feminine management style, such as pre-meeting talks involving
personal and family topics, non-abrasive and soft humor threading in the meetings.
These woman leaders also choose more forceful, conventionally masculine
strategies in chairing meetings, like explicitly assigning turns of talking and creating
demeanor of authority. In addition, male leaders are noticed to use a wide verbal
repertoire style drawing on elements in their speech that are both normatively maleand normatively female.
˰Keywords˱: Gendered discourse; Workplace meeting interactions; Power
1. Introduction
The involvement of women in the workplace across the world in general and in
Taiwan in particular has been on the increase. Due to their access to education,
women join professional ranks in all the functional areas of organizations and evenhold positions at the top levels of working life. New research from the Grant Thornton
International Business Report (IBR) reveals that the proportion of Taiwanese women
who make up senior positions in their workplace is up to 26% (Marston, 2014),
numbers that have barely budged over the last decade.
Women’s status in Taiwan ostensibly advances; however, men were widely
perceived as entitled to be in professional and managerial positions under the
traditional Chinese patriarchy structure. Until recently, Taiwan Forbes 50 enterprises
or business organizations have been overwhelmingly headed by male (see Forbes,
1−257−

Doing leadership: An analysis of gendered discourse in business meetings in Taiwan2014). The phenomenon of male-dominated workplaces accords with the traditional
formula of “think manager, think male” popular in western societies (Ladegaard,2011). Consequently, a good leader is conceived to have a masculine interactional
style characterized as being competitive, confrontational, direct, autonomous,task-oriented and referentially oriented (Holmes, 2006: 6). As a woman breaks aninfamous ‘glass ceiling’ and fills a senior role, she is speculated to adopt masculine
ways of speaking. She is also expected to conform to and assimilate dominantmasculine corporate culture. However, there is scanty research on the issue how
Taiwanese males and females in the positions of authority and power actually talk in
the workplace. In fact, workplace discourse has been rarely explored in thescholarship in Taiwan.
This present research project ushers in a new line of enquiry to understandbusiness interactions in Taiwan, focusing on the gendered leadership styles inworkplace meetings.
Specifically, it qualitatively explores discursive practices
exercised by Taiwanese female and male superiors in a workplace hierarchy in
Taiwan. We draw on a combined analytical approach integrated with tools from
Conversation Analysis (CA) and pragmatics to analyze organization communication,in particular to focus on workplace meeting interaction. CA considers the sequential
organization of talk as the primary analytic utility in describing talk as action and also
its relation to interaction (Schegloff, 1991). This aligns with Kasper’s (2006) point
to a view of “meaning as the understandings that participants display to each other inthe sequential organization of talk” (Kasper, 2006: 296), considering all “indexical”
communicative behavior.
The analysis has a two-fold purpose: firstly, theresearchers will examine how female and male superiors open and close meetings tocontrol the structure and development of meetings; secondly, we will take a closer
look at how they manipulate discursive strategies to do power, in particular how theygive directives and criticisms to manage and instruct their subordinates. This study
also addresses the issue whether Taiwanese female and male superiors favorstereotypically masculine interactional style in the workplace meeting interactions.
2. Previous studies
2.1. Gendered style of communication
Like most of other Asian societies, Chinese society is patriarchal in nature so that men
are given a superior position and women a secondary position. Within the context ofChinese family and society, Taiwanese women, like Mainland women, are raised to bepolite, cooperative, submissive and by large, docile. Therefore, a woman on the lady
track usually speaks softly and not overtly, whereas a masculine communication stylestereotypically emphasizes self-promotion, aggressiveness and confidence. Boasts,
2−258−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

banters and shuns expressions of uncertainty are characteristics of men’s talk.
Table 1 Widely cited features of ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ interaction style (adaptedfrom Holmes, 2006).
Feminine

Masculine

indirectconciliatory

directconfrontational








facilitative
collaborativeminor contribution (in public)
supportive feedback
person/process-oriented
affectively oriented








competitive
autonomous
dominates (public) talking time
aggressive interruptions
task/outcome-oriented
referentially oriented

The perceived Chinese feminine and masculine communicative styles seem tobear a resemblance on the normative gendered interactional styles summarized by
Holmes (2006). These discourse patterns, presented in Table 1, are taken fromprevious ‘remarkably robust’ (Cameron, 1997: 49) findings of older sociolinguistic
language and gender studies, mostly based on power/dominance andculture/difference approaches. As a result, they are “indirectly indexed withgendered meaning” (Holmes, 2006: 7), and can be utilized as a guide tostereotypically gendered speech styles in both Taiwanese and Western societies. This
study analyze how these normative gendered styles are manifested in Taiwanesesuperiors’ discursive strategies in workplace meeting interactions, with a particularemphasis on the ways how they open and close meetings and how they give directives
and criticisms in the meetings.
2.2.The rules of speaking in a Chinese society
The cultural values of a society are always manifested in the rules of speaking in thesociety (Scollon & Scollon, 2001). The Chinese, traditionally, tend to respectcollectivism, hierarchy, and interpersonal harmony in society. In this type of a society,individuals are acutely aware of their hierarchical relationships to others. As a result,they should behave according to their social roles in a specific situation and choose
appropriate linguistic forms “to specify the speaker’s acknowledgment of thedifferences in social status and in situations” (Pan, 2000: 101). The non-reciprocal
speaking rules used in a hierarchical system (Scollon & Scollon, 1995) also apply tothe formal settings. As the speakers with greater power know their “superior” role
scripts, they have the choice of showing authority over an addressee lower in rank and3−259−

Doing leadership: An analysis of gendered discourse in business meetings in Taiwan

not using a polite hedge in their utterances. Subordinates, on the other hand, know
their humble roles and observe the rules of being deferential to, and not imposing on,
their superior (Pan, 2000). In terms of directive usage, the Chinese speakers
consider the conventionally indirect request as the most appropriate strategy in
expressing politeness (Zhang & Wang, 1997). In the social settings of businessinteractions, official meetings, family gathering, and classrooms, speakers are noted to
produce most of directives in a direct way, in forms of a flat statement or imperative,
usually without hedged with formulaic polite devices (Pan, 2000), in keeping with
their emphasis on clarity, explicitness and upfront sincerity (Lee-Wong, 2000), on theother hand. Previous studies (e.g., Zhang & Wang, 1997) indicate that the speakers’
the levels of directness of the request strategies are subject to hierarchical differences.
The speakers in a relatively superior position to the hearers use less mitigateddirective speech act more often; to the contrary, for those in an inferior position
relative to the hearers, they use more indirect and mitigated forms attached withhonorifics and other devices to show politeness and courtesy.
Research in the pastalso suggests that the factor of gender plays a prominent role in the form and levels of
directness of directives. Nonetheless, empirical studies yielded controversial results
about the issue whether women are more likely to be indirect than men in the use of
request speech act.
The Chinese also place a high value on interpersonal harmony. In
communication, they usually place greater emphasis on the harmony of the interaction
and use more “involvement face strategies” (Scollon & Scollon, 1995: 40). Because
harmony is a guiding principle for the Chinese, they will not tolerate outward displaysof anger. Traditional Chinese communication patterns are characteristic of “avoiding
direct conflict, effacing the self and accentuating relative status” (Yeung, 2002: 222).
In the Chinese workplace, senior managers are perceived to pay great attention on
harmony by using roundabout, vague or indirect linguistic strategies even when they
criticize subordinates or issue compulsory directives, with a concern of notundermining harmonious relationships with subordinates and save the individuals’
faces (Upton-McLaughlin, 2014). Speaking tactfully and not being overly direct incommunication, so as not to ‘unduly upset or embarrass someone’, seems to be key
elements in the human resources management (henceforth HRM) of Chinese
corporate culture. Employees in the Chinese enterprises, on the other hand, see
criticisms given by superiors “with positive and pro-social connotations” (Zhang et al.,2011) and regard it as a rehabilitative tool to motivate the failing persons (Leung et al.,2001). These findings regarding managers’ and subordinates’ perceptions about
giving and receiving criticism are based on the techniques of questionnaires andinterview (e.g., Leung et al., 2001; Chao et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2011). When
4−260−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

Chinese companies do more business with Western companies and adopt more
Western models of business, people in the managerial position absorb Westernconcepts of HRM and implant a ‘built-in’ responsibility of being critical “when there
is a discrepancy between system goals and behaviors within the system” (Miller, 1995;
cited in Mulac, Seibold & Farris, 2000: 389). Therefore, studies that primarily
investigate discursive practices from spontaneous, naturally occurring workplacemeeting interactions are in an urgent demand to expand an understanding of how
Taiwanese senior managers give criticisms to their subordinates who fail to meetcertain standards in the workplace business corporations and to further identify real
problems in their communication problems.
3. The study
Data for the present project was collected in four publishing companies. The
companies provide textbooks for a wide range of readers from K-12 English language
learners to professionals, and each of them employs around 100 people in Taiwan.
The participants were four leaders (2 male and 2 female) at the executive managementlevel in the headquarters in Taipei or in the South branch offices. Prior todata-collections, the exact terms of the agreement between researchers, the companies
and the employees and specified rules for anonymity, confidentiality, and publicizing
the results had been negotiated. The four leaders were asked to fill in questionnaires
about their personal particulars, including age, education, leadership experience, job
functions, and title. All of them have been working in the publishing industry formore than ten years, who are presented in Table 2. They have significant experienceof marketing and sales to engage in promoting and selling products. Their
pseudonyms are used in this study.
Table 2The participants

GenderName

Age

Position
title

F

Judie

42

F

Kathy

45

Director of 15
Sales Group
Senior
20

Nightingale
Publishing
Swordsmanmanager ofSales Group

Publishing

5
−261−

Years ofservice in
the industry

Affiliation

Doing leadership: An analysis of gendered discourse in business meetings in Taiwan

M

Ben

35

Head ofCustomer
Services
Department

10

Lighthouse
Publishing

M

Steve

48

Senior21
manager ofSales Group

Maple
Publishing

The leaders were asked to carry voice recorders around with them as they chaired
staff meetings or regular monthly meetings. The first researcher was present in themeetings, sitting in an unnoticeable position and trying to be a ‘professional
overhearer’ (Duranti, 1997: 101). Her frequent visits at the meetings built anincreasing familiarity and rapport with meeting participants, and they forgot her ‘real
identity’ after a while. The data sets used in this study are derived from the third or
fourth meeting recordings since the researcher first appeared. Therefore, the data are‘naturalistic’ to some extent that the influence or intervention from the researcher was
minimized.
The four publishing companies have different corporate culture. Nightingale andLighthouse are the branches of multinational companies set up in Taiwan, and thus thesocial structures have their foreign mothers’ heritages. The employees address eachother by their English names. The companies operate a more target-driven culture;accordingly, there is always a lot of pressure to make a sale. Despite having morecompetition for promotion, the employees enjoy good insurance package, longholidays, and generous bonuses. Swordsman and Maple are local
medium/small-sized enterprises. Like most corporate culture in Asian contexts, theirsocial structures emphasize hierarchical differences. All subordinates address theirsuperiors by titles and predominantly employ addressee honorifics when interactingwith their superiors. Superiors, in contrast, often use informal speech styles wheninteracting with their subordinates. Swordsman and Maple are in the attempt tocreate a more customer-driven culture, and thus they look after customers well. In
spite of offering smaller bonuses, the companies have a culture of being friendly andsupportive. Following Mullany (2007), the present study draws on Conversation
Analysis (CA) to qualitatively explore discursive practices by male and female
leaders in Taiwan workplaces to chair meetings, taking into account the contexts inwhich these linguistic forms are actually used. The present study further examines
the directives and criticisms, suggesting that power and gender may interplay for
6−262−第16回大会発表論文集第９号

superiors to “manage and instruct their subordinate” through the use of these speechacts.
4. Analysis
4.1. The Sales Department of Nightingale
Nightingale is a Taiwan branch office of a British multinational publishing andeducation company headquartered in London. The regular staff meeting of
departmental community of practices (henceforth CofPs) of the Sales Department is
examined. The meeting is chaired by a female director, Judie. The primary
purpose of the Sales Department meeting is for all members to report back on theirsales figures from the previous quarter. Prior to overall figures given by the director,
the sales reps then report back and self-evaluate their performance individually on
their particular sections. Following the review of overall figures, the director is
obligated to evaluate the previous quarter’s figures, plan the quarter ahead and resolve
any issues that may have arisen. The meeting is held for a double purpose:
reviewing, planning and possibly problem solving. The first researcher was
dropping by Judie’s office on the previous day. During the informal talk, shebriefed the researcher beforehand on the topics she would cover and the pattern themeeting always takes: she gives each participant the floor to report on their sales
figures, evaluate the figures, and then to discuss any other problems or issues possibly
arisen.
On the day of recording, Judie opens the meeting as follows:
Example 1
Judie sits down at the meeting table
1. Judie: Hӽo. DàjiƗ jiù dàgài bàogào yƯxià shàng ji de yèjƯ de zhuàngkuàng
Okeveryone AUX roughly report a little bit last quarter POSS sales
POSS situation
Daniel, Nӿ xiƗn ba
Daniel you first SFP“OK. Everyone roughly reports on sales number during last Quarter. Daniel, yougo first”
2. Daniel: Hӽo, wԁ xiƗn jiӽng shàng jì zài wӽng lù kèchéng wԁmen you bùcuò debiӽoxiàn
Ok I first talk last quarter on online course we have NEG-bad
performance“OK. I talk first. We had pretty online course sales performance last quarter.”

7
−263−

Doing leadership: An analysis of gendered discourse in business meetings in Taiwan

Judie opens the meeting in an assertive way, picking up a stereotypical masculine way
to perform her managerial identity. She goes down to business without wasting any
time. She launches straight into task-oriented talk without any phatic tokens, instead
simply using ‘Hӽo’ as a discourse marker. She then assertively states that everyone
should report on their sales figures and immediately allocates Daniel the first turn, justby stating his name. Daniel complies and takes the floor. Judie uses this direct
pattern of individual’s first names only throughout the rest of the meeting to signal toindividuals that it is their turn to take the floor to report on their figures (see Example
2, line 5).
In this 65-minute departmental meeting, there are 18 directives in total uttered by
the members. Of these directives, 17 (94.4%) is produced by Judie. She adopts astereotypical feminine strategy to mitigate her directives. Some of her directives are
mitigated with hedging devices, minimizers, inclusive pronouns and conditionals,
while others are presented in interrogative forms. The following example typifies
Judie’s use of directives as she is examining a noticeable drop in sales of a series.
Example 2
Judie is identifying reasons for a drop in sales
1. Judie: Zhège xìliè wԁmen yèjƯ jiù diào le liӽng chéng duǀleĹ
This series wesales AUX drop ASP two 10 percentage more SFP“Our sales of this series drop by over 20%.”2.
ZČnme yánzhòng chéng zhège yàngzi ne?
How serious
become this way SFP“How does it become so serious?”3.
((silence from the audience))
4. Judie: OK! Hӽo! Nà Louis nӿ duì zhè jiàn shìqíng nӿ yԁu shéme kànfӽ?
Ok alright then Louise you about this UNIT matter you have whatview
“Ok, alright! Then Louis! What point of view do you have about this matter?”5.
Nӿ shuǀ shuǀ ba!
You say say SFP“You talk about this!”Judies uses a justification as a preamble, and then uses a rhetorical question to accuse
her subordinates of wrong-doing. Contrary to her expectation of a denial of her
accusation, the subordinates choose to remain silent partly from their potential
weakness and partly from their intention of avoiding conflicts. Judie reassumes the
topic by using discourse markers ‘okay’ and ‘hӽo’ and then directs Daniel to speak up
8−264−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

in the next turn. Noted is a verb duplication form “shuǀ shuǀ” (talk) that she uses tolessen the degree of imperative force.
There are two examples of criticisms by Judie in this meeting. Judie’s
criticisms are not mitigated (see Example 3). One is directed at Dolly when she
evaluates a client’s textbook selection policy.
Example 3
Dolly is detailing a potential client’s purchasing policy
1. Dolly: Qíshí wԁ juédé tƗmende lӽoshƯ, tƗmende yòngxƯn háishì hČn chuántԁng
Actually I think theirteacher their intention still very traditional“Actually I thought their teachers with still traditional intentions”
2.
Suԁyӿ tƗmen zhӿyԁu yòng (book name) lái dài tƯng shuǀ dú xiČSothey only use
come instruct listening speaking reading writing“So they use (book name) only to teach listening, speaking, reading and writing
courses.”
3. Judie: Zhèyàng yƯdiӽn dǀu bù chuántԁng a!
This-way a little all
NEG traditional SPF“This is not traditional at all!”
4. Dolly: Bùshì, wԁde yìsi shì shuǀ…Ɨi tƗmen zhè bČnshǌ zhӿ yòng reading éryӿ
NEG-be my meaning be say SIGH they this UNIT book only use reading only
“No, what I meant is they use this book for teaching reading skill only.”
5. Judie: HƝi, hƝi, duì, zhӿ yòng reading éryӿ,OKHa ha right only use reading only OK“Ha, ha. Right. They use it only for reading skill. OK.”
Judie does not pay a lot of attention to Dolly’s face needs when criticizing her
evaluation, using the stereotypically masculine strategy of contradicting andchallenging. She intensifies her criticism, using a hedge ‘not at all’ and anutterance-final particle ‘a’, acting as a signal of a dispreferred second part. Judie canbe interpreted as breaking politeness norms and conventions, directly challenging
Dolly with this face-threatening act, thus engaging in subversive discourse. Dolly
immediately issues a bald deny to signal that she perceives Judie’s challenge to be
impolite, and thus defends herself in response. She then follows this up by amitigated utterance with hedges ‘what I meant’ and ‘only’, and heaves a sigh “Ɨi” torelieve her pressure. Judie laughs at this point, signaling that she is attempting torelease increasing tension which has developed, and agrees with Dolly’s explanation.
Another criticism is aimed at Louis, regarding his lack of performance. In
Example 4, Judie does not mitigate her criticism either.
9−265−

Doing leadership: An analysis of gendered discourse in business meetings in Taiwan

Example 4
Louis is self-evaluating his performance during the last quarter
1. Louis: Shàng jì... Wԁde yèjƯ...... Wԁ chéngrèn wԁ méi zuò hӽoLast quarter...my sales….. Iadmit
I
NEG do well“I admit I didn’t do well last quarter.”
YuányƯn shì...... YuánxiƗn yòng (XXX) de (XXX) hé (XXX) zhè xuéqí“Reason is. Originally use (book name) POSS (institute name) and (institutename) this semester”“The reason is… (institute name) and (institute name) used (book name) before.”
2. zhuӽnxiàng (XXX) mӽi (XXX)
turn-to (agency) buy (book name)“(They) turn to (agency name) for (book name) this semester.”
3. YƯnwèi gƗng jiƝ zhège gǀngzuò méi duǀ jiԃ, [suԁyӿ wԁ]
Because just take this job
NEG much long so I
“Because I started a new job not long ago. So I..”
4. Judie: [rúguԁ shuǀ nӿ yԁu kùn nàn] jiù tí chǌ lái, ránhòu wԁmen kàn kàn kČyӿ
If say you have difficulty AUX raise out ASP, thenweseezČnyàng bƗngmáng
how
help“If you have any difficult, just raise it up. We will check how to help.”
5.
dàn jiùshì jiùshì bùyào dӽ hùn fàngzhe kèhù bùguӽnbut just just NEG-AUX hit mud put-ASP customer NEG-care“But just don’t goof off and neglect your customers.”
6.
Wԁ xiӽng nӿ yƯnggƗi hČn qƯngchԃ zhèxiƝ guƯzé deIthink you should very clear
theserules PART“I think you should be very clear about these rules.”
7. Louis: ((silence))
8. Judie: Nӿ kàn, zhèyàng yèjƯ yƯxià diào liӽng chéng
you see this-way sales suddenly drop two 10 percents“You see the sales figures suddenly drop by twenty percents in this way.”
9. Louis: Wԁ huì jìxù nԃlìIwill continue effort“I will continue to work as hard as I can.”
10. Judie: Daniel hé Nancy tƗmen jƯngyàn fƝngfù, érqiČ hČn zhuƗnyè, dǀu kČyӿ
Daniel and Nancy they experience and very professional all can Part
11.
bƗngmáng nӿ dehelp you10−266−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号“Daniel and Nancy have much experience and expertise, and they all can help you.”
As Louis is explaining his view of what causes the performance problem, he isdisruptively interrupted by Judie (lines 4-5). She uses conditional ‘rúguԁ’ (if),collective pronoun ‘wԁmen’ (we) and verb ‘bƗngmáng’ (help) to soften and attenuate
the directives force, ‘bring up your problem’. This conditional clause, on the other
hand, can serve as a pre-criticism act. In doing so, she emphasizes group solidarity
and shared responsibility; moreover, she attempts to attenuate the threatening powerof the upcoming criticism. Following this referential information, she criticizes Louisfor goofing off and neglecting his duties. She assumes Louis has no difficulty inseamlessly transitioning from a similar background, and he should be conscious about
the ethic codes adopted in the service industry. Notable is the silence in line 9 whereLouis is expected to defend of himself at this point, but he chooses to close his mouth.
Possible explanations for his giving up the floor include the reasons of feeling
intimidated with the outcome of speaking up the idea he wishes to express or bywhom he has to talk to. Judie then furthers up by implying that Louis is the person
responsible for the sales drop. Interestingly to note, Louis does not challenge Judie’s
criticism; instead, he promises he will work harder instead. Apparently, Louis uses a
stereotypically feminine strategy to avoid conflict and divert discussion fromcontentious issues. While constructing herself as a supportive and sympathetic
leader, Judie creates team by evaluating her members as being helpful and having
expertise (lines 10-11).
As Judie has reached the end of her agenda items, she brings to a close in aconventional manner and opens the floor to all. In Example 5, all participants areallocated the turn-taking system to bring up their issues.
Example 5
1. Judie: OK. Daniel Nӿ hái youméiyԁu shìqíng yào tӽolùnOk. Daniel
you still have-neg-have matter AUX discuss“OK. Daniel, do you have anything else to discuss?”
2. Daniel: Méiyԁule
neg-have-SFP
3. Judie: Hӽo. Nancy, nӿ ne?
Alright. Nancy you SFP“Alright. How about you, Nancy?”
4. Nancy: ((shake her head with crying eyes))
5. Judie: Nӿ bú shǌfú ma?
nӿ hái hӽo ma?
You NEG comfortable SFP? you still good SFP
11
−267−

Doing leadership: An analysis of gendered discourse in business meetings in Taiwan“Aren’t you comfortable? Are you OK?”
6. Nancy: Méishì, yӿnxíng yӽnjìng pӽo diàole
NEG-matter, contact lens dislodge- SFP“Nothing. Contact lens become dislodged (from its typical resting
place)”
7. Judie: Nà hӽo Wԁmen jiù dào zhèlӿ luǀ
Then alright we
AUX come here SFP“Then alright we end up here.”
Judie uses all participants’ first names and goes around each individual to check ifthey have anything else to bring up. When checking with Nancy, Judie see hercrying eyes and asks her a personal question on her feeling (line 5), thus briefly
engaging in stereotypically feminine phatic talk about emotions to ensure that her
subordinates are okay. As she knows there is nothing wrong with Nancy, Judie uses
‘then’ and ‘hӽo’ (alright) as discourse markers to signal the official termination of themeeting.
To summarize, there is evidence of Judie using a range of stereotypicallymasculine speech styles, but on occasions she also draws on stereotypically feminine
styles. For example, she mitigates most of the directives in this encounter. She
adopts a macho style by opening the meeting in an assertive, direct manner, and uses avery direct, elliptical method for allocating the floor to individuals throughout. Likea stereotypical male manager, she does not mitigate her criticisms to challenge andaccuse her staff even though she attempts to use laughter as a tension releaser. In afollow-up interview, Louise, who has been corrected for underperformance several
times, reveals that the criticisms he received from Judie are constructive andmotivating though he feels hurt at that point. Dolly and Nancy, who aspire to havesuccessful leadership, treat Judie a role model for this female director usually keeps
abreast of current managing and selling techniques and knowledge a lot. For both ofthem, Judie keeps an image of being a tough, ambitious and career-oriented ‘strong
leader’. Judie then describes herself as a “Queen Bee”, nurturing and educating her
subordinates in lots of effort, with a hope that they can grow better. As she moves toa higher echelon in her workplace, Judie begins to take on a masculine style ofcommunication in order to make her more persuasive and powerful. On the other
hand, she does not reject her own feminine values and culture while using phatic
expressions and creating team to build up solidarity and collegiality. According to
the staff, during Judie’s ‘reign’, the Sales Department reaches great heights eventhough the staff often feels threatened by her assertiveness and non-conciliatory style.
Whereas Judie keeps her femininity of mothering the staff , she apparently leads like
12
−268−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

men in a command-and-control style of management.
5.
Conclusions
This study concludes that a successful leader opts for both male and female
management style, for man and woman leaders alike. A cohort of factors, likeflexibility and pragmatic competence, could lead to a successful leadership, and very
specific contextual factors are impinging on the leadership role as well. The study
suggests that gendered attributes be regarded as key characteristics of those whoachieve workplace goals. Such strategic manipulation of discursive practices may
facilitate a male or female senior manger to accomplish tasks. It also demonstrates
that not all Taiwanese female superiors adopt masculine communication styles to ‘doleadership’ in the workplace, avoiding “using the Pit-Bull-Terrier image” (Holmes,
2006). They are likened to be a ‘Queen Bee’, mentoring their subordinates and taking
care of their well-beings and protecting their colonies from any invasion. Male senior
managers do not display features associated with those of normative masculine stylesof speaking. Their actual linguistic practices, similar to what was found in Saito’s(2011) study, are “intricate and diverse” (p. 1703). Male and female management
styles, though differing, should be viewed in complimentary styles (cf. Tannen, 1999:
317). And thus the present results draw us to a conclusion that gender is not a single
factor that manipulates linguistic practices in the workplace. Instead, the speaker’s
culture of origin, the culture in which s/he is working and culture of the organization
which employs her/him are believed to have big influence on his/her choice ofinteractional style. These factors interplay and form an intricate web. This article
may have made contributions to an increased awareness not only of different
management styles, but also of the negative stereotypes that exist in some businessorganizations against female leaders.
References
Cameron, D. (1997). Performing gender identity: young men’s talk and constructionof heterosexual masculinity. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.),The
Discourse Reader. Routledge, London, pp. 442-458
Chao, J., Cheung, F. and Wu, A. (2011). Psychological contract breach andcounterproductive workplace behaviors: Testing moderating effect of attribution
style and power distance. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 22, 763-777.
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge University Press. (A reprint
edition was jointly published by Cambridge University Press and Peking
University Press in 2001.)
13
−269−

Doing leadership: An analysis of gendered discourse in business meetings in Taiwan

Forbes. (2014) The World’s Billionaires List. Available at
http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#tab:overall
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. Longman, New York.
Holmes, J. (2005). Leadership talk: how do leaders ‘do monitoring’, and is gender
relevant? Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1779-1800.
Holmes, J. (2006). Gendered Talk at Work: Constructing Gender Identity throughWorkplace Discourse. Blackwell, Malden.
Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In
K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Felix-Brasdefer, and A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics andLanguage Learning, Vol.11. University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language
Resource Center, Honolulu, pp.281-314.
Ladegaard, H. (2008). Politeness, power and control: The use of humour incross-cultural telecommunications. In W. Cheng and K. Kong (Eds.)
Professional Communication: Collaboration between Academics andPractitioners. Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong, pp. 191-209.
Ladegaard, H. (2011). ‘Doing power’ at work: Responding to male and female
management styles in a global business corporation. Journal of Pragmatics,
43, 4-19.
Lee-Wong, S. M. 2000. Politeness and Face in Chinese Culture. Peter Lang,
Frankfurt.
Leung, K., Su, S., and Morris, M. (2001). When is criticism not constructive? The
roles of fairness perceptions and dispositonal attributions in employee
acceptance of critical supervisory feedback. Human Relations, 54,
1155-1187.
Marston, A. (2014). Women in business: From classroom to boardroom. Grant
Thornton International Business Report 2014.
Miller, K. (1995). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes.
Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Mulac, A., Seibold, D. & Farris, J. (2000). Female and male managers’ andprofessionals’ criticism giving: Differences in language use and effects.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19 (4), 389-415.
Mullany, L. (2007). Gendered Discourse in the Professional Workplace. Palgrave
Macmillan, Hampshire.
Pan, Y. (2000). Politeness in Chinese face-to-face interaction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Saito, J. (2011). Managing confrontational situations: Japanese male superiors’
interactional styles in directive discourse in the workplace. Journal of
Pragmatics, 43, 1689-1706.
14
−270−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on Talk and Social Structure. In D. Boden and D.
H. Zimmerman (Eds.) Talk and Social Structure. University of California Press,
Berkeley, pp. 44-70.
Scollon, R., & Wong-Scollon, S. (1983). Face in interethnic communication. In I. C.
Richards and R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication. Longman,
London, pp. 156-188.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (2001). Intercultural Communication (2nd ed.), Blackwell,
Oxford.
Tannen, D. (1999). The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue.
Ballantine, New York.
Upton-McLaughlin, S. (2014). The many faces of suzhi in the Chinese organizationand society: Implications for multinational HRM practice, Journal of Chinese
Human Resource Management, 5 (1): 1, 51 - 61
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.
Zhang, S., & Wang, X. (1997). A comparative study of the speech act of requests.
Modern Foreign Languages, 3, 63-72.

15
−271−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

Two competitive factors influencing the production of descriptive texts
Yoko Yamada
Kansai Gaidai University<Abstract>
Within the quaestio framework, Stutterheim and Klein (2002) claim that the state of thehearer’s knowledge, besides other factors such as characteristics of objects described,
influences the way information is linearized. However, they give little explanation of how thehearer’s knowledge interacts with the characteristics of objects described. This study
examines the degree to which the hearer’s knowledge can influence the production ofdescriptive texts. Data in this study were collected through a single picture description task.
Analysis of the data reveals that the characteristics of the pictures described significantly
override the state of the hearer’s knowledge in linearizing information.
[Keywords]: state of the hearer’s knowledge, characteristics of pictures described,
linearizing information

1. Introduction
According to the quaestio framework (Stutterheim and Klein 1989), texts areproduced in response to a specific question, the quaestio. The quaestio may be explicit or
implicit. The quaestio imposes constraints on the way referential domains are used in text
production. Stutterheim and Klein propose five referential domains, including the domains ofobjects, time and space.
Within the quaestio framework, speakers choose one of the domains as the main
domain when deciding the order in which information is to be linearized. In the case ofnarratives, for example, texts are produced in response to a quaestio such as ‘What happened
to X at time1, time2, time3 and so on?’, and the main body of information is organised inchronological order (Stutterheim and Klein 1989: 50). Thus, the main domain in narratives is
the temporal domain. On the other hand, in the case of descriptive texts, the spatial domain
plays a crucial role in organising information (Stutterheim and Klein 1989: 51). In many typesof descriptions, spatial reference shifts from one utterance to the next and provides a link
between pieces of information expressed in discourse.
As mentioned, texts are produced in response to a quaestio. However, text productionis also influenced by the state of the hearer’s knowledge (e.g. Stutterheim and Kohlmann
1998; Stutterheim and Klein 2002). Stutterheim and Klein (2002), for example, claim that thestate of the hearer’s knowledge, besides other factors such as the characteristics of objects
described, influences the way information is linearized. However, Stutterheim and Klein(2002) give little explanation of the way in which the hearer’s knowledge interacts with thecharacteristics of objects described.
This study addresses the following question: How does the state of the hearer’s
knowledge interact with the characteristics of pictures described, when the speaker linearizes
information in producing descriptive texts? Thus, this study focuses on the following two−273−

Two competitive factors influencing the production of descriptive texts

factors: the state of the hearer’s knowledge and the characteristics of pictures described. In
this study, I define the expression ‘linearizing information’ as a speaker’s deciding the orderand manner of presentation of the information to be described and presenting the informationaccording to his/her decision.
Although many studies have investigated the production of descriptive texts (e.g.
Carroll and Stutterheim 1993; Taylor and Tversky 1996), few have examined degree to which
the hearer’s knowledge can influence the production of descriptive texts.
2. Methodology
2.1. Participants
The participants were ninety-nine undergraduates in Japan.1 Data from 98
participants, who followed the instructions and completed the task in this study, wereanalysed.
2.2. Procedure
Data in this study were collected through a single picture description task. Two single
pictures were used (a picture depicting a neighbourhood scene with several people engaged invarious activities, and a picture depicting a room with an arrangement of multiple pieces offurniture).2 These are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Pictures used in the task
Each participant received one of the two pictures. Half of the participants in each
picture were asked to talk about the picture on the phone to someone who had not seen the
picture before, and half were asked to talk about it to someone who had seen the picture
before. All the participants were asked to think for 30 seconds about what they would say andthen take 10 minutes to write their descriptions in Japanese. All participants were informedthat their addressees would not be looking at the picture during their phone conversations.
3. Results
This section describes the results of the 98 participants who followed the instructions
and completed the task. One participant completed the tasks for both the pictures, thus 99 setsof data were collected. For the neighbourhood scene picture, 28 data sets were collected fromparticipants who were asked to describe the scene to a listener who had never seen the picture−274−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号(henceforth, group 1), and 29 data sets were collected from participants who were asked todescribe it to a listener who had seen it (henceforth, group 2). 21 data sets were collected fromparticipants who were asked to describe the furnished room scene to a listener who had neverseen it (henceforth, group 3), and 21 data sets were collected from participants who wereasked to describe it to someone who had seen it before (henceforth, group 4).
The results revealed that the characteristics of the pictures significantly overrode thestate of the hearer’s knowledge in linearizing information. In the following sub-sections, wefirst show the results from the neighbourhood scene followed by those from the furnishedroom scene.
3.1. Descriptions of the neighbourhood scene picture
For the neighbourhood scene, the hearer’s knowledge did not influence the way
information is linearized: Whether the hearers had seen the picture before, speakers tended todivide it into manageable parts and described each part in turn. In the data, 24 out of 28
participants in group 1 described the scene in the aforementioned manner, and so did 20 out of
29 participants in group 2. A Fisher’s exact test showed no significant difference between theways in which the two groups linearized their descriptions.
In each subdivision, participants took the spatial domain as the main domain in
linearizing information, and used the spatial information to create coherence. Thus, apart fromthe first sentence in the discourse, almost all the new objects were introduced in relation to thelocation of a previously introduced object. For example, in Example (1) two boys are
introduced in relation to the location of the two-storey house, an object previously introduced
at the beginning of the discourse.3(1) Nikaidate-no
ie-ga
a-tte, sono mae-deotokonoko-huta-ri-ga
two-storey-GEN house-NOM exist-TE that front-LOC boy-two-CL-NOM
sakka-osi-teimasu.
soccer-ACC do-TE-POL.NONP‘There is a two-storey house, and in front of it, two boys are playing soccer’.
This follows the ‘Given Before New Principle’ (Gundel 1988: 229) and succeeds in creating a
coherent discourse (e.g. Birner 2013).
However, in the level of specificity of spatial information provided about the objects
in the picture, the effect of the hearer’s knowledge was reflected.4 That is, participants gave
more detailed descriptions about objects whose actions included a direction (i.e. two womenwith a dog, and a running man).5 As is illustrated in the neighbourhood scene in Figure 1, two
women with a dog are walking to the left side of the picture, and a man is running towards theright side of the picture. Example (2), a description by a participant who was asked to talkabout the picture to someone who had not seen it before, contains information about thedirection of movement of the two women with the dog. Information about their direction isunderlined. On the other hand, such information does not appear in (3), a description by aparticipant who was asked to talk about the picture to someone who had seen it.

−275−

Two competitive factors influencing the production of descriptive texts(2) Kuruma-no yoko-ni-wa
sukato-o haita zyosei-to inu-oturetacar-GEN next-LOC-TOP skirt-GEN wearing woman-and dog-ACC taking
zyosei-ga
hidari-ni
muka-tte arui-teimasu.
woman-NOM left-LOC move-TE walk-TE-POL.NONP‘Next to the car, a woman wearing a skirt and a woman with a dog are walking
towards the left side of the picture’. (description by a participant in group 1)(3) Zyosei-huta-ri-ga
inu-o
sanpos-ase-teimasu.
woman-two-CL-NOM dog-ACC walk-CAUS-TE-POL.NONP‘Two women are walking a dog’.
(description by a participant in group 2)
Figure 2 illustrates the difference between the two groups, with respect to thedescriptions of the two women with the dog. This difference between the two groups achieved
statistical significance (a Fisher’s exact test; p < 0.01).

Figure 2. Patterns of describing two women with a dog6
The same applies to the description of a running man. Example (4) contains
information about the direction of his movement. Information about the direction of his
movement is underlined. Such information is absent, however, in (5).
(4) Miti-no
hidarihasi-kara-wa, megane-okaketa otokonohito-ga
street-GEN far left-from-TOP glasses-ACC wearing man-NOM
hasi-tte-ki-teimasu.
run-TE-come-TE-POL.NONP‘A man with glasses comes running from far left of the street’.
(description by a participant in group 1)(5) Miti-ni-wa
ranningu-o
si-teiru
dansei-ya […]street-LOC-TOP running-ACC do-TE-PROG man-and‘On the street a man is running and […]’.
(description by a participant in group 2)
Figure 3 illustrates the difference between the two groups in their descriptions of therunning man. This difference between the two groups achieved statistical significance (aFisher’s exact test; p < 0.05).

−276−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

Figure 3. Patterns of describing the running man7
3.2. Descriptions of the furnished room scene
In the descriptions of the furnished room scene, the state of the hearer’s knowledge
influenced the way in which information was linearized. When hearers had not previously
seen the picture, participants started their descriptions with general information about the
picture before providing the main description (i.e. the underlined sentence in (6)). They thenorganised the main description using spatial information to create coherence. Participants did
not, however, necessarily describe the picture in this way when hearers had previously seen
the picture (see Example (7)). In (7), the objects in the picture are simply enumerated.
(6) Seihokei-no heya-ga
arimasu.
Heya-nihai-ttesugu
square-GEN room-NOM exist-POL.NONP room-LOC enter-TE rightmigi-ni-wa
terebi-ga
ari, sono oku-ni-wa,
hondana-ga
right-LOC-TOP television-NOM exist that back-LOC-TOP bookshelf-NOM
arimasu.
Hondana-no
ue-ni-wakaten-no
tuita
exist-POL.NONP bookshelf-GEN above-LOC-TOP curtain-GEM withmado-gaarimasu.
Hai-ttesugu-nohidarite-ni-wa
window-NOM exist-POL.NONP enter-TE right-GEN left side-LOC-TOP
beddo-ga ari, ue-ni-wa
hon-gaoka-re-teimasu.
bed-NOM exsit on-LOC-TOP book-NOM put-PASS-TE-POL.NONPHeya-nihai-ttashomen-ni-wa
tukue-to isu-gaari,
room-LOC enter-TE front side-LOC-TOP desk-and chair-NOM exist
kizyo-ni-wa
pasokon-to
desukuraito-ga no-tteimasu.
desktop-LOC-TOP computer-and desk lamp-NOM put-TE-POL.NONP
Tukue-no hidari kyakusita-ni-wa
gomibako-ga
ari,
desk-GEN left foot bottom-LOC-TOP wastepaper basket-NOM exist
tukue-no migi-ue-no
kabe-ni-wa
karenda-ga
desk-GEN right-upper-GEN wall-LOC-TOP calendar-NOM
kaka-tteimasu.
Heya-notyusin-ni-wa
zabuton-ga
hang-TE-POL.NONP room-GEN centre-LOC-TOP cushion-NOM
oka-re-teimasu. […]put-PASS-TE-POL.NONP‘There is a square room. When you enter the room, on its right side, there is a
television, and behind it, there is a bookshelf. Above the bookshelf there is awindow with a curtain. When you enter the room, on its left side, there is a bed,−277−

Two competitive factors influencing the production of descriptive texts

and on the bed there is a book. When you enter the room, on its front side, there
is a desk and a chair. On the desk there is a computer and a desk lamp. At thebottom of the left foot of the desk, there is a wastepaper basket. On theupper-right wall of the desk, there is a calendar. In the centre of the room,
there is a cushion […]’.
(description by a participant in group 3)(7) •Terebi-no
mukai-ni
beddo-ga aru.
televison-GEN opposite side-LOC bed-NOM exist•Tukue-no ue-ni
pasoko-ga
aru.
desk-GEN on-LOC computer-NOM exist•Hondana-no
naka-ni-wa
takusan hon-ga
aru.
bookshelf-GEN inside-LOC-TOP many book-NOM exist•Hondana-no
ue-ni-watokei, hana, syasin-ga
aru.
bookshelf-GEN on-LOC-TOP clock flower photo-NOM exist•Zabuton-ga
hito-tu terebi-no
mae-niaru.
cushion-NOM one-CL television-GEN front-LOC exist.
• Hondana-no
uegawa-ni
komado-ga
aru. […]
bookshelf-GEN upside-LOC small window-NOM exist‘There is a bed in the opposite side of a television.
There is a computer on a desk. There are many books in a bookshelf.
   There is a clock, a flower, a photo on the bookshelf.
There is a cushion in front of the television.
There is a small window above the bookshelf […]’.
(description by a participant in group 4)
A Fisher’s exact test showed a significant difference between the way in which thetwo groups started their descriptions (p < 0.05) and organised the main body of information (p< 0.01) (see Figures 4 and 5).

Figure 4. Ways participants started their descriptions

Figure 5. Patterns of organising the main description−278−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

4. Discussion
As previously mentioned, the characteristics of the neighbourhood scene
significantly overrode the state of the hearer’s knowledge in linearizing information in theirdescriptions. This, however, was not the case with the descriptions of the furnished room
scene. This raises the question of why the neighbourhood scene picture triggered this effect,
and what were the relevant differences between the neighbourhood and the furnished room
scenes.
One characteristic of the neighbourhood scene was that a big house in the
background of the picture and a street in the centre of the picture functioned as prominent
objects. Taylor and Tversky (1996: 387) define prominent objects as follows:(8) when some landmarks are clearly more prominent than others, the prominent
ones seem to demand special treatment, and may serve as natural reference points
for the less prominent landmarks.
In my data, whether hearers had seen the picture, participants tended to divide the picture into
smaller parts and describe each part successively. The majority of the participants divided thepicture, based on the big house and the street and used them as reference points for locatingother nearby objects. As a result, the majority of the participants started their descriptions
either from the background of the picture, or from the centre of the picture. On the other hand,in the descriptions of the furnished room, any particular objects did not impose constraints on
the way participants linearized information.8
Based on these results, it seems that certain characteristics of images restrict the way
speakers perceive and linearize information about the images. In that case, the state of thehearer’s knowledge does not influence the way speakers linearize information.
However, even in that case, the state of the hearer’s knowledge influences the levelof specificity of spatial information. As mentioned in 3.1, participants gave more detailed
descriptions about objects in motion (such as two women with a dog and a running man).
When hearers had not seen the picture, participants used expressions such as ‘towards the left
side’ and ‘from far left’ when describing their direction of movemen (see Examples (2) and(4)). These expressions contain the term ‘left’, although terms such as ‘left’ and ‘right’ cause
cognitive difficulty (e.g. Tversky 1996). It would be interesting to examine what kinds ofspatial terms are used with respect to the state of the hearer’s knowledge and which
viewpoints serve as the basis for spatial terms. These questions are left for future research.
5. Summary
This study examined how the state of the hearer’s knowledge interacts with thecharacteristics of pictures described when the speaker linearizes information in producing
descriptive texts. The analysis of data obtained from a single picture description task has
demonstrated that some characteristics of pictures significantly overrode the state of thehearer’s knowledge in linearizing information, and that even in such cases, the state of thehearer’s knowledge influenced the level of specificity of spatial descriptions.
To obtain a more detailed picture of how the hearer’s knowledge interacts with thecharacteristics of pictures in the production of descriptive texts, further research using datacollected in different ways and descriptions of a wider variety of pictures is necessary.

−279−

Two competitive factors influencing the production of descriptive texts

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Harumi Sawada, Shunichiro Nagatomo, Koji Yamamoto, and the audience at the 16th
conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan for their invaluable comments. All remaining errors andinadequacies are my own.
Notes
1. Japanese language learners were not included in this study.
2. The neighbourhood scene is a modified version of the picture used in Yamada (2013). The author drew
the pictures used in this study.
3. The following abbreviations are used. ACC: Accusative, CAUS: Causative, CL: classifier, GEN:
Genitive, LOC: Locative, NOM: Nominative, NONP: Nonpast, PASS: Passive, PL: Plural, POL: Polite,
PROG: Progressive, TE: te-form of the verb, TOP: Topic
4. The total number of objects described was the same between the two groups.
5. Unlike the case of two women with a dog and that of a running man, the way participants viewed a caron the street differed among participants; some participants described it as a car parked on the street, andothers as a car moving towards the left side of the picture. In the former case, descriptions of the car did notinclude the direction of its movement.
6. All the participants who divided the picture into manageable parts and described each part in turnmentioned two women with a dog in their descriptions.
7. Almost all the participants who divided the picture into manageable parts and described each part in turnmentioned a running man in their descriptions (n = 23 in group 1 and n =19 in group 2).
8. In the case of the furnished room, if participants divided the picture into manageable parts, they did so
according to the divisions of the room (e.g. the right side of the room and the left side of the room).
References
Birner, B. 2013. Introduction to Pragmatics. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Carroll, M. and C. von Stutterheim. 1993. “The Representation of Spatial Configurations in English andGerman and the Grammatical Structure of Locative and Anaphoric Expressions.” Linguistics 31:6,
1011-1041.
Gundel, J. K. 1988. “Universals of Topic-comment Structure.” In M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik and J. Wirth(eds.) Studies in Syntactic Typology, 209-239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stutterheim, C. von 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.
Stutterheim, C. von and W. Klein. 2002. “Quaestio and L-perspectivation.” In C. F. Graumann and
W. Kallmeyer (eds.) Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse, 59-88. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing.
Stutterheim, C. von and U. Kohlmann. 1998. “Selective Hearer-adaptation.” Linguistics 36:3, 517-549.
Taylor, H. A. and B. Tversky. 1996. “Perspective in Spatial Descriptions.” Journal of Memory andLanguage 35, 371-391.
Tversky, B. 1996. “Spatial Perspective in Descriptions.” In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel and M. F.
Garrett (eds.) Language and Space, 463-491. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Yamada, Y. 2013. “Characteristics of Descriptive Texts Produced by Intermediate and Upper-intermediate
Learners of English.” Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan,
229-236.

−280−

ポスターセッション
Poster Sessions

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

ࠕどᗙࠖࠕὀどⅬࠖ࡜ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢ↷ᛂ㛵ಀứ Ᏹᮾி⚟♴኱Ꮫ
youwan@hotmail.com

ࠑAbstractࠒ: Various notions related to the reference of zibun havebeen discussed under different terms such as reflexivity, empathy,logophoricity, contrast. Problem of these traditional analyses is thatthey fail to show a point common to all the uses of zibun. Alternatively,
this study proposes that both the position and the viewpoint can be thecandidate of the antecedent of zibun.

࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸↷ᛂࠊどᗙࠊὀどⅬ㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ࠕ⮬ศࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࡣࠊ෌ᖐ⏝ἲࠊどⅬ⏝ἲࠊヰ⪅ᣦ♧モ⏝ἲ࡞࡝ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢ⌧ࢀࡿᵝࠎ࡞⏝ἲࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ࡝ࡢ⏝ἲࡶࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࡢ୍㒊ࡋ࠿࢝ࣂ࣮࡛ࡁࡎࠊྛ⏝ἲ࡟࠶ࡿඹ㏻ⓗ࡞య⣔ࡀゎ᫂ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠕどⅬࠖࡢ୰࡟ࠕどᗙࠖ࡜ࠕὀどⅬࠖࡢ஧ࡘࡢせ⣲ࡀΰᅾࡋࠊࡑࡢ୧᪉࡜ࡶ
ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢ↷ᛂ㛵ಀ࡟ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㏙࡭ࡓୖ࡛ࠊᩥෆࡢ᝟ሗࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊᩥእ
ࡢ᝟ሗࡶྲྀࡾධࢀࡓㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞❧ሙ࡛ࠊࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢᣢࡘከᵝ࡞⏝ἲ࡟୍㈏ࡋ࡚ാ࠸
࡚࠸ࡿ᮲௳ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㸰㸬ࠕ⮬ศࠖࢆྵࡴ㠃ⓑ࠸⏝౛(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᑠㄝ࠿ࡽྲྀࡗࡓᩥࡣࠊඛ⾜ࡍࡿᩥ⬦࠿ࡽษࡾྲྀࡽࢀࡓᩥࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࠋ(1)∗ࡣ♽ẕࡀ⮬ศࡢᐙ࡟᮶࡚ࢄࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ๓࠿ࡽ㠀ᖖ࡟᎘ࡀࡗࡓࠋ
㸦ᚿ㈡┤ဢࠗ࿴ゎ࠘ࠊ㔠㇂ 2002:161 ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠕ᮶ࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞⛣ືືモࠊࡲࡓࠕ᎘ࡀࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞➨୕⪅ࡢឤ᝟ࢆᥥ෗ࡍࡿ

−281−

「視座」「注視点」と「自分」の照応関係

ືモ࡟ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢどⅬࡀ㛵ࢃࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣ୺⠇୺ㄒࡢࠕ∗࡛ࠖࡶᚑᒓ⠇୺ㄒࡢࠕ♽ẕ࡛ࠖࡶ࡞ࡃࠊㄒࡾᡭࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡣᑠㄝࢆㄞࡲ࡞
࠸㝈ࡾࠊศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢどⅬࢆỴᐃࡍࡿ㏙ㄒࡀࠕ⮬ศࠖ࡜ྠࡌᩥ
୰࡟⌧ࢀ࡚ࡶࠊ
ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀࡑࡢ㏙ㄒࡀ♧ࡍどⅬ࡜୍⮴ࡋ࡞࠸ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ୍ᩥࡢ୰࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢኚࢃࡿ⏝౛ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
(2) ඛ⏕ࡢᚓព࡞ࡢࡣリ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ㸦୰␎㸧ࡑࡢ௦ࢃࡾ⮬ศ࡟ㄞࢇ࡛ࡃࢀࡿࡢ࡛
ࡣ࡞ࡃࡗ࡚ࠊ⮬ศࡀ୍ே࡛ㄞࢇ࡛ᴦࡋࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ᖐ╔ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺࠿ࡽࡘࡲࡾ
ࡣࡇࡗࡕࡢᦆ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ             㸦ኟ┠ₙ▼ࠗࢡࣞ࢖ࢢඛ⏕࠘㸧୍␒┠ࡢࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣₙ▼࡛ࠊ஧␒┠ࡢࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣࢡࣞ࢖ࢢඛ⏕࡜࠸࠺ࡩ࠺࡟ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡀኚࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢ㠀᫂♧ⓗ࡞⏝౛࡜(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢኚࢃࡿ⏝౛࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ௒ࡲ࡛ࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣㄝ᫂ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊஂ㔝(1978)ࡀࠕ⮬ศࠖ࡟࠿࠿ࡿどⅬไ⣙࡟㛵ࡍࡿグ㏙࡛ࡣࠊࠕྠࡌ㡿ᇦෆࡢ௚ࡢ࡝ࡢ஦≀ࡼࡾࡶࡑࡢ
ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ᐤࡾࡢどⅬࢆ⾲ࡍࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ஂ㔝 1978:206㸧ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࡢࠕどⅬ⏝ἲࠖࡣ୺࡟ᩥ୰ࡢ㏙ㄒ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠕどⅬࠖࢆุ᩿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ
(1)࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣᩥ୰ࡢ㏙ㄒ⾲⌧ࡣ㝈ࡽࢀࡓ᝟ሗࡋ࠿ᣢࡓࡎࠊࡲࡓ(2)࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ୍ᩥࡢ୰࡟ࠕ௚ࡢ࡝ࡢ஦≀ࡼࡾࡶࡑࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ᐤࡾࡢどⅬࠖࡀ஧ࡘ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ
ࡓࡵࠊㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋ
 (1)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢ㠀᫂♧ⓗ࡞ᩥࡸ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢኚࢃࡿᩥࢆㄝ
᫂ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊஂ㔝㸦1978㸧ࡢࠕどⅬࠖࢆࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡜ࡽ࠼࡞࠾ࡍࠋஂ㔝(1978)
ࡢࠕどⅬࠖ࡟ࡣᐇࡣࠕどᗙࠖࠊࠕὀどⅬࠖࡢ஧ࡘࡢᴫᛕࡀΰᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕどᗙࠖࡣࠕᑐ㇟ࢆぢࡿ║ࡢ఩⨨࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊ
ࠕὀどⅬࠖࡣࠕࡑࡢどᗙ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡀࡵࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ὀ┠ࡉࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࡢഃ㠃ࡸᒓᛶࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᣦࡍࠖ
㸦బ఑ 1978:227㸧ࠋࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡣᩥࡢࠕどᗙࠖ࡜ࠕὀどⅬࠖࡢ࡝ࡕࡽ࡟ࡶ࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿࠋ ౛(1)࡟㛵ࡋ࡚࠸࠼ࡤࠊࠕὀどⅬࠖࡣゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿே≀ࠕ∗ࠖ࡜ࠕ♽ẕ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࠕどᗙࠖࡣㄒࡾᡭ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࢆ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠕどᗙࠖࠊࡘࡲࡾㄒࡾᡭ࡟⤖ࡧ௜ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡶࡕࢁࢇࠕどᗙࠖࡢᅾࡾ᪉࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⌮ゎࡣᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡿᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ኚࢃࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ๓ᚋ
ࡢᩥ⬦ࡀ඲ࡃ࡞࠸≧ែ࡛ࡣࠊ(1)ࡢどᗙࡣ୺ᩥ㏙ㄒࡢࠕ᎘ࡀࡿࠖࡢ୺య࡛࠶ࡿࠕ∗ࠖ

−282−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡶࠕ∗ࠖ࡟࡞ࡿࡔࢁ࠺࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊᑠㄝࢆ᭱
ᚋࡲ࡛ㄞࢇࡔ≧ែ࡛ࡣࠊ(1)ࡣどᗙࡶࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡶㄒࡾᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࠋ ࡲࡓ(2)࡟㛵ࡋ࡚࠸࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠕὀどⅬࠖࡣゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀࡓࠕࢡࣞ࢖ࢢඛ⏕࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࠕどᗙࠖࡣㄒࡾᡭࡢₙ▼࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ୍␒┠ࡢࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣࠕㄞࢇ࡛ࡃࢀࡿࠖ࡜࠸
࠺㏙ㄒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸どᗙ࡛࠶ࡿₙ▼ࡀᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡛ࠊ஧␒┠ࡢࠕ⮬ศࠖࡣࠕ୍ே࡛ㄞࢇ࡛ᴦࡋࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺㏙ㄒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ┦ᡭ࡛࠶ࡿࠕࢡࣞ࢖
ࢢඛ⏕ࠖࡀᣦ♧ᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡩ࠺࡟ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕどᗙࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄝ᫂ࡢ㐨ල❧࡚ࡀ࠶ࢀࡤࠊ(1)ࡸ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪥ᖖ఍
ヰ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾぢࡽࢀࡎࠊࡶࡗࡥࡽᑠㄝࡢ୰࡛⌧ࢀࡿ⏝౛ࡶㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ
࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
㸱㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ඛ⾜◊✲ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ⠇ࡸᩥ࡞࡝㝈ᐃࡋࡓ⠊ᅖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୺ㄒࡸⓎヰ⪅࣭ᛮ⪃⪅ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ỵࡲࡗࡓࢫࣟࢵࢺ࡜ࡢ↷ᛂ㛵ಀ࡛ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸ࢆつᐃࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶
ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᮏ◊✲ࡣࠕ⮬ศࠖࡀࣜࣥࢡ࡛ࡁࡿඛ⾜モࡢ㡿ᇦࢆゝእࡢどᗙࡲ࡛ᗈࡆࠊࠕどᗙࠖ࡜ࠕὀどⅬࠖ࡜࠸࠺㐨ල❧࡚࡛ࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢ↷ᛂ㛵ಀࢆㄝ᫂ࡋࡓࠋ ୍᪉ࠊᩥ⌮ゎࡢゅᗘ࠿ࡽぢࢀࡤࠊどᗙ࡜ὀどⅬࡣࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢゎ㔘ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊゎ㔘ࢆ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟Ỵᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡣࡲࡔ㊥㞳ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢඛ⾜モࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊඛ⾜ヰ㢟ࢆྵࡵࡓࠊどᗙ࡜ὀどⅬ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡍ࡭࡚ࡢゝㄒⓗ᝟ሗࠊࡑࢀ࡟⩦័ࡸⓒ⛉㎡඾ⓗ▱㆑ࠊಶேⓗ࡞࢚ࣆࢯ࣮ࢻグ᠈࡞࡝ࡢ㠀ゝㄒⓗ᝟ሗࢆ⥲ྜⓗ࡟ཧ↷ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㸸
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
ụୖ ჆ᙪ. 2006. ࠗⱥㄒࡢឤぬ࣭᪥ᮏㄒࡢឤぬ̿ࠑࡇ࡜ࡤࡢព࿡ࠒࡢࡋࡃࡳ࣮࠘᪥
ᮏᨺ㏦ฟ∧༠఍.
㔠㇂ Ṋὒ. 2002.ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟୺ㄒࡣ࠸ࡽ࡞࠸: ⓒᖺࡢㄗㅸࢆṇࡍ࠘ᮾி㸸ㅮㄯ♫.
ஂಖ 㐍. 2012. ࠕᚿྥᛶࡢ๓ᬒ໬࡜⫼ᬒ໬ࠖࠊྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁᏊ࣭㡲㈡࠶ࡺࡳ࣭ᒣᮏ
ᑦᏊ㸦⦅㸧ࠗࡇ࡜ࡤࢆぢࡘࡵ࡚㸸ෆ⏣⪷ࢽᩍᤵ㏥⫋グᛕㄽᩥ㞟࠘ࠊ95-107ࠊᮾி:−283−

「視座」「注視点」と「自分」の照応関係

ⱥᐆ♫.
ஂ㔝ᬿ. 1978.ࠗㄯヰࡢᩥἲ࠘ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
᳃ᒣ ᪂. 2008. ࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ࠿ࡽぢࡓ᪥ᮏㄒ᱁ຓモࡢព࿡ᵓ㐀࡜⩦ᚓ̿᪥ᮏㄒ
ᩍ⫱࡟⏕࠿ࡍࡓࡵ࡟࣮࠘ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
బ఑ ⬃. 1978. ࠗ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ໬࡟ࡼࡿ▱㆑࡜Ꮫ⩦࠘ࠊᮾி : ᮾὒ㤋ฟ∧♫.
⃝⏣἞⨾. 1993.ࠗどⅬ࡜୺ほᛶ̿᪥ⱥㄒຓືモࡢศᯒ̿࠘ᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.

−284−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ᙻໜƷЏǓஆƑƱᛐᜤƷႻ‫ࣱݣ‬Üß᠃սàƱƠƯƷᆆѣȷ‫҄٭‬ȷ଺᧓ᘙྵƷᎋ‫ݑ‬ÜK
‫=ܖٻ᧵ٻ‬ᨈ?‫ٻ‬ᅕᨺɟᢹᲶQJUKNN["CQNLRᲸ<Abstract>㻵㼚㻌 㼠㼔㼕㼟㻌 㼜㼍㼜㼑㼞㻌 㻵㻌 㼑㼤㼍㼙㼕㼚㼑㻌 㼠㼔㼑㻌 㼏㼛㼓㼚㼕㼠㼕㼢㼑㻌 㼒㼛㼡㼚㼐㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌 㼛㼒㻌 㼟㼛㼙㼑㻌 㼜㼍㼕㼞㼟㻌 㼛㼒㻌 㼟㼑㼚㼠㼑㼚㼏㼑㼟㻌 㼕㼚㻌 㻶㼍㼜㼍㼚㼑㼟㼑㻌 㼟㼡㼏㼔㻌 㼍㼟㻌 㼇㻝㼉㻌㻲㼡㼖㼕㻙㼟㼍㼚㻌㼕㼟㻌㼍㼜㼜㼞㼛㼍㼏㼔㼕㼚㼓㻚㻌㻛㻌㼃㼑㻌㼍㼞㼑㻌㼍㼜㼜㼞㼛㼍㼏㼔㼕㼚㼓㻌㻲㼡㼖㼕㻙㼟㼍㼚㻚㻘㻌㼇㻞㼉㻌㼀㼔㼑㻌㼟㼔㼕㼞㼠㻌㼓㼑㼠㼟㻌㼟㼙㼍㼘㼘㼑㼞㻚㻌㻛㻌㻵㻌㼓㼛㼠㻌㼎㼕㼓㼓㼑㼞㻚㻘㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㼇㻟㼉㻌㻱㼚㼠㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑㻌㼑㼤㼍㼙㻌㼕㼟㻌㼍㼜㼜㼞㼛㼍㼏㼔㼕㼚㼓㻚㻌㻛㻌㻵㻌㼍㼙㻌㼏㼛㼙㼕㼚㼓㻌㼡㼜㻌㼛㼚㻌㼍㼚㻌㼑㼚㼠㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑㻌㼑㼤㼍㼙㻚㻌㻭㼘㼠㼔㼛㼡㼓㼔㻌㼜㼞㼑㼢㼕㼛㼡㼟㻌㼟㼠㼡㼐㼕㼑㼟㻌㼔㼍㼢㼑㻌㼍㼞㼓㼡㼑㼐㻌㼠㼔㼍㼠㻌㼠㼔㼑㼟㼑㻌㼜㼍㼕㼞㼟㻌㼍㼞㼑㻌㼑㼤㼍㼙㼜㼘㼑㼟㻌㼛㼒㻌䇾㻲㼕㼓㼡㼞㼑㻙㻳㼞㼛㼡㼚㼐㻌㼞㼑㼢㼑㼞㼟㼍㼘䇿㻘㻌㻵㻌㼜㼛㼕㼚㼠㻌㼛㼡㼠㻌㼠㼔㼍㼠㻌㼠㼔㼑㼟㼑㻌㼍㼞㼑㻘㻌㼕㼚㻌㼒㼍㼏㼠㻘㻌㼎㼍㼟㼑㼐㻌㼛㼚㻌㼏㼛㼚㼢㼑㼞㼟㼕㼛㼚㻌㼛㼒㻌㼠㼣㼛㻌㼢㼕㼑㼣㼜㼛㼕㼚㼠㼟㻌㼛㼚㻌㼔㼛㼣㻌㼣㼑㻌㼏㼛㼚㼟㼠㼞㼡㼑㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼟㼕㼠㼡㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻦㻌 䇾㼑㼤㼜㼑㼞㼕㼑㼚㼠㼕㼍㼘㻌㼢㼕㼑㼣㼜㼛㼕㼚㼠䇿㻌 㼍㼚㼐㻌䇾㼍㼚㼍㼘㼥㼠㼕㼏㼍㼘㻌㼢㼕㼑㼣㼜㼛㼕㼚㼠䇿㻚㻌㻵㻌㼒㼡㼞㼠㼔㼑㼞㻌㼍㼞㼓㼡㼑㻌㼠㼔㼍㼠㻌㼠㼔㼑㼟㼑㻌㼏㼍㼚㻌㼎㼑㻌㼟㼑㼑㼚㻌㼍㼟㻌㼍㼚㻌㼕㼚㼟㼠㼍㼚㼏㼑㻌㼛㼒㻌㼙㼑㼠㼍㼘㼑㼜㼟㼕㼟㻘㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㼠㼔㼍㼠㻌㼠㼔㼕㼟㻌㼢㼕㼑㼣㻌㼙㼍㼥㻌㼏㼘㼍㼞㼕㼒㼥㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼟㼑㼙㼍㼚㼠㼕㼏㻌㼐㼕㼒㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼎㼑㼠㼣㼑㼑㼚㻌㼑㼤㼜㼑㼞㼕㼑㼚㼠㼕㼍㼘㻌㼑㼤㼜㼞㼑㼟㼟㼕㼛㼚㼟㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㼍㼚㼍㼘㼥㼠㼕㼏㼍㼘㻌㼑㼤㼜㼞㼑㼟㼟㼕㼛㼚㼟㻚㻌ƂǭȸȯȸȉƃᲴᆆѣȷ‫҄٭‬ȷ଺᧓Ʒᘙྵʙ७৭੮Ʒᙻໜ᠃ս

ᲫᲨƸơǊƴ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ⛣ື࣭ኚ໬࣭᫬㛫࡟㛵ࡍࡿྠ୍ࡢ஦ែࢆ␗࡞ࡿᙧᘧ࡛㏙࡭ࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ  ࡜ ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪥ᮏㄒ⾲⌧ࡢᑐࡢ㛵ಀࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ  Dิ㌴ࡢ❆࠿ࡽእࢆ═ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࠊᐩኈᒣࡀ㏆࡙࠸࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
Eࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢ࡟ບࡴ࠺ࡕ࡟ࠊࢩࣕࢶࡀᑠࡉࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋLL
Fᚿᮃᰯᑐ⟇࡟㏣ࢃࢀࡿ࠺ࡕ࡟ࠊཷ㦂᪥ࡀ㏕ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ Dி㒔ࢆฟࡓ᪂ᖿ⥺ࡣ㟼ᒸࢆ㐣ࡂࠊᐩኈᒣ࡟㏆࡙࠸࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
Eࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢ࡟ບࢇࡔᡂᯝ࠿ࠊయࡀ኱ࡁࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
Fྜ᱁ࢆ┠ᣦࡋࠊཷ㦂᪥࡟ྥࡅ୍࡚Ṍ୍Ṍ㐍ࢇ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ

DF ࡛ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ୺య࡜㛵ࢃࡿᑐ㇟ࡀ⛣ືࡍࡿࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣኚ໬ࡍࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
DF ࡛ࡣᑐ㇟࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ୺యࡢ᪉ࡀ⛣ື࣭ኚ໬ࡍࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿⅬࡀ≉ᚩⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣ ࡜  ࡢ㛵ಀࢆᅗᆅ཯㌿࡜ࡍࡿぢ᪉ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࡇࡢぢ᪉ࡢၥ㢟ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࠊ  ࡜  ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ␗࡞ࡿどⅬ࠿ࡽࡢ஦ែᢕᥱࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ၥ㢟ࡢゎỴࢆヨࡳࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢᥦ᱌
࡟ࡼࡗ࡚  ࡜  ࢆబ⸨  ࡢ࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡢ͆㌿႘͇࡟㢮ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᤊ࠼ࠊࡇࡢぢ᪉࠿ࡽࡑࢀࡒࢀ
ࡢ⾲⌧ຠᯝࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿ࠺࠼࡛ᒎᮃࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ࠶ࢃࡏ࡚ᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ


−285−

視点の切り替えと認識の相対性―“転喩”としての移動・変化時間表現の考察―ᲬᲨ‫ע׋‬Ӓ᠃ƱƠƯƷЎௌƱƦƷᛢ᫆ ඛ⾜◊✲࡟ࡣ  ࡜  ࡟㢮ࡍࡿ㛵ಀࡢ⾲⌧ࡢᑐ࡟ᅗᆅ཯㌿⌧㇟ࢆ୺ᙇࡍࡿࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊᅗᆅ཯㌿࡜ࡣ͆୺యࡢど㔝ࡢ୰࡛๓ᬒ࡜⫼ᬒࡀ཯㌿ࡍࡿ⌧㇟͇࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓࡇࢀࡣᑐ⛠ⓗ࡞⌧㇟࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ࡜ࡇࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ࡣၥ㢟ࡀឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋලయ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᒣ᲍  ࡣ D ࢆࠕ▱ぬࣞ࣋ࣝࡀᅗ࡜ࡋ࡚๓ᬒ໬ࡋ≧ἣࣞ࣋ࣝࡀᆅ࡜ࡋ࡚⫼ᬒ໬ࠖࡋࡓࡶࡢࠊ E ࢆࠕ≧ἣࣞ࣋ࣝࡀᅗ࡜ࡋ࡚
๓ᬒ໬ࡋ▱ぬࣞ࣋ࣝࡀᆅ࡜ࡋ࡚⫼ᬒ໬ࠖࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋࠊ D ࡜ E ࡀᅗᆅ཯㌿㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 D࢟ࣕࣥࣉሙࡀ㏆࡙࠸࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
 E࢟ࣕࣥࣉሙ࡟㏆࡙࠸࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
D ࡜ E ࡣ D ࡜ D ࡢᑐ❧࡜ྠᵝࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࠊୖグࡢᒣ᲍ࡢᣦ᦬ࡀṇࡋ࠸࡜ࡍࢀࡤ ࡜  ࡣᅗᆅ཯㌿⌧㇟࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊᒣ᲍  ࡣࠊ D ࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ E ࡣ୙㐺ษࠊࡲࡓ D ࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ E ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡣ᝿ᐃ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 Dࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫࡀࡔࢇࡔࢇ㏆࡙࠸࡚ࡁࡓࠋ   E"ࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫ࡟ࡔࢇࡔࢇ㏆࡙࠸࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
 D㟁ಙᰕࡀࣅࣗࣥࣅࣗࣥ࠺ࡋࢁ࡟㣕ࢇ࡛࠸ࡃࠋ
E"㟁ಙᰕࢆࣅࣗࣥࣅࣗࣥ㏣࠸㉺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋLLLࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ  ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ▱ぬࣞ࣋ࣝࢆᅗ࡜ࡍࡿ⾲⌧ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ୍᪉࡛≧ἣࣞ࣋ࣝࢆᅗ࡜ࡍࡿ⾲⌧ࡣ୙ྍ⬟࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ௬࡟▱ぬࣞ࣋ࣝ࡜≧ἣࣞ࣋ࣝࡀᅗ̺ᆅ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࡢ࡞ࡽ EE ࡢࡼ࠺࡞཯㌿⾲⌧ࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣୖグࡢ㏻ࡾ͆཯㌿୙ྍ⬟ᛶ͇ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ୺యࡢㄆ▱ࡢ࠶ࡾࡼ࠺ࢆၥ㢟࡟ࡍࡿ㝈ࡾ  ࡜  ࠾ࡼࡧ DE ࠊ DE ࠊDE ࡢ㛫࡛ᅗᆅ཯㌿ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼࡟ࡃࡃ࡞ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊࡇࡢၥ㢟࡟㛵㐃ࡋࠊᒣ᲍  ࡀ ࡢ⾲⌧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶࡇࡢᣦ᦬ࡣጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

͐ࡇࡢሙྜࠊ㸺≧ἣࣞ࣋ࣝ㸼࡜㸺▱ぬࣞ࣋ࣝ㸼ࡢᅗ㸭ᆅࡢ཯㌿ࡀ୙ྍ⬟࡞ࡢࡣࠊㄆ▱୺యࡢ≀⌮ⓗ࡞⛣ືࡢ≧ἣࡑࢀ⮬యࢆࠊㄆ▱୺యࡢど㔝࡟ධࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺
஦ᐇ࡟㉳ᅉࡍࡿࠋ㸦ᒣ᲍㸧௨ୖࡼࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽ࡟㏙࡭ࡽࢀࡿෆᐜࡣ୺యࡢど㔝࡟ྠ᫬࡟ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿᑐ㇟ࢆ཯㌿ࡉࡏ࡚㏙࡭ࡿࡶࡢ࡛
ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡦ࡜ࡘࡢ஦ែࢆ␗࡞ࡿどⅬ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼࡚㏙࡭ࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᲭᲨᙻໜƷЏǓஆƑƷे‫ܭ‬ƴǑǔբ᫆ᚐൿ
ᲭᲨᲫᲨʙ७৭੮ƴƓƚǔƾƨƭƷᙻໜ ๓⠇࡛ࡢᣦ᦬ࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ  ࡜  ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ␗࡞ࡿどⅬ࠿ࡽࡢ஦ែᢕᥱࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛࠸࠺ࠕ␗࡞ࡿどⅬࠖ࡜ࡣ>9LHZSRLQW 93 @࣭>9LHZSRLQW 93 @ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿLYࠋ>93@┤᥋ⓗ࣭య㦂ⓗ࡟ሙ㠃ࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࠊ஦ែࡢෆഃ࡟⨨࠿ࢀࡓどⅬY

−286−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号>93@ศᯒⓗ࣭ㄽ⌮ⓗ࡟ሙ㠃ࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࠊ஦ែࡢእഃ࡟⨨࠿ࢀࡓどⅬᮏ✏࡛ࡣ  ࡣ>93@࠿ࡽࠊ  ࡣ>93@࠿ࡽࡢ஦ែᢕᥱࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟  ࡜  ࡢ㛫࡟どⅬࡢษࡾ᭰࠼ࢆ᝿ᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊඛ⾜◊✲࡟ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡓ཯㌿୙ྍ⬟ᛶࡢၥ㢟࡟ㄝ᫂௜ࡅࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋே㛫ࡀ஦ែࢆᢕᥱࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡣࠊࡲࡎ➨୍࡟┤᥋⮬㌟ࡢ┠࡟ᫎࡿ≧ἣࢆ▱ぬࡋ㸦▱ぬࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ஦ែᢕᥱ㸧ࠊḟ࡟ࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ▱ぬෆᐜ࠿ࡽ᥎ㄽⓗ࡟ᐈほⓗ࡞≧ἣࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿ㸦≧ἣࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ஦ែᢕᥱ㸧࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ⮬↛࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊᒣ᲍  ࡢ࠸࠺ࠕ≧ἣࣞ࣋ࣝࠖࡣࠕ▱ぬࣞ࣋ࣝࠖ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠊ୍ẁ㝵㧗ḟࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࡭ࡁࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ࡇࡢ஦ែᢕᥱࣞ࣋ࣝࡢẁ㝵ᛶࡀ≧ἣࣞ࣋ࣝࡢどⅬ࡟ไ⣙ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ E ࠊ E ࡢ㐺ษᛶ࡟ࡣࡇ࠺ࡋࡓไ⣙ࡀᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀᮏ✏ࡢぢ᪉࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡓࡔࡋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓไ⣙ࢆཷࡅࡿ≧ἣ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ⾲⌧୺యࡀሙ㠃ࡢ୰࡛ࡢ⮬㌟ࡢ≧ែ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᝿ീࡋࡸࡍ࠸ሙྜ࡟ࡣ>93@࠿ࡽࡢ஦ែᢕᥱࢆ㏙࡭ࡿᙧᘧࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡸࡍࡃ࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀ
ࡿࠋࡇࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚  ࠾ࡼࡧ  ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ
 ᙼዪ࡟ࣉ࣏࣮ࣟࢬࢆணᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫ࡟ࡔࢇࡔࢇ㏆࡙࠸࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
㸦яE㸧 ᪩ࡃᙼዪࡢࡶ࡜࡬㸟࡜࢔ࢡࢭࣝࢆ㋃ࡳ㎸ࡳࠊ㟁ಙᰕࢆࣅࣗࣥࣅࣗࣥ㏣࠸㉺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
㸦яE㸧
ᒣ᲍  ࡟ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠾ࡾࠊ E ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࡣᩥ⬦ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞ࡅࢀࡤࡸࡸ୙⮬↛࡟ࡶឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ㔜せ࡞࢖࣋ࣥࢺ࡟ྥࡅ࡚୺యⓗ࡟‽ഛࢆ㐍ࡵ࡞ࡀࡽ㐣ࡈࡍࡼ࠺࡞ሙ㠃࡛ࡣ୺యࡢά
ື࡟ᙉ࠸⬟ືᛶࡀక࠸ࠊࡑࡢࡓࡵ┠ᶆ᫬Ⅼ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠕ㐍ࢇ࡛ࠖ࠸ࡃ⮬㌟ࡢ≧ែ࡟ព㆑ࡀྥࡅࡽࢀࡸࡍ
ࡃ࡞ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ  ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ླྀ㏙ࡣᐜㄆࡉࢀࡸࡍࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ  ࡣ  ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ୺యࡀࣉ࣏࣮ࣟࢬணᐃࡢࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫࡢ᪥ࢆ㏄࠼ࡓሙ㠃ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢሙ㠃࡛୺యࡀ┠ⓗᆅ࡛࠶ࡿᙼዪࡢࡶ࡜࡟ྥࡅ࡚⛣ືࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ⮬㌟ࡢືࡁ࡟ព㆑ࢆྥࡅࡿࡢࡣ⮬↛࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ Eࢆᩥ⬦࡞ࡋ࡟㏙࡭ࡿ࡜୙⮬↛࡟ࡶឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ  ࡣᐜㄆྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ ௨ୖࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ୺యࡀ⮬㌟ࡢ≧ែ࡟┠ࢆྥࡅࡸࡍ࠸≧ἣ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ>93@࠿ࡽࡢླྀ㏙ࡶྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡾࡸࡍ࠸࡜࠸࠼ࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣどⅬࡢษࡾ᭰࠼ࡢ᝿ᐃ࡟ࡼࡾㄝ᫂௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
ᲭᲨᲬᲨᙻໜƷЏǓஆƑƱß᠃սàƴƭƍƯ ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᮏ✏ࡣ  ࡜  ࡢ㛵ಀࢆどⅬࡢษࡾ᭰࠼࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡉࡽ࡟ᮏ
✏ࡢ⪃ᐹ࡜͆㌿႘͇࡜࠸࠺ࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ⌧㇟ࡢ᥋Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゐࢀ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡎࠊ㌿႘࡟ࡣᵝࠎ࡞ᐃ⩏ࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢゎ㔘ࡣ୍㈏ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡣゝ࠸㞴࠸YLࠋࡇࡇ࡛ゝ࠺㌿႘࡜ࡣࠊబ⸨  ࡟ࡼࡿࠕྠ୍ࡢ஦ែࢆࡣࡉࢇ࡛୧ഃࡢ┦ࢆㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࠊどⅬࡢษࡾ᭰࠼ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ぢ᪉ࢆࡩࡲ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋࡇࡢ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊబ⸨  ࡣ  ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㸦୰Ꮫ⏕ࡢ฼㞝ࡀࠊᑠᏛ⏕ࡢᏕ࡟⭎ᯖࢆࡋࠊࡋࡾ࡜ࡾࢆࡋ࡞ࡀࡽᐷ࠿ࡍሙ㠃࡛㸧    Ꮥࡢ㏉஦ࡣࡶ࠺࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ㏉஦ࡢ࠿ࢃࡾ࡟ࠊ฼㞝ࡢ⭎ࡢୖ࡛Ꮥࡢ㢌ࡀ㔜ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ

−287−

視点の切り替えと認識の相対性―“転喩”としての移動・変化時間表現の考察―బ⸨  ࡣୗ⥺㒊ࡢ⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࠕ⭎ࡢୖ࡛㢌ࡀ㔜ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠕ฼㞝ࡢᐇឤࠖࢆ㏙࡭ࡿࡇ
࡜࡛ࠕᏕࡀ╀ࡗࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠕㄽ⌮ⓗࠖ࡞≧ἣࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࡇࡇ࡛బ⸨ࡣࠊࡦ
࡜ࡘࡢ஦ែ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ͆୺యࡢᐇឤ͇ࡢ⾲⌧࡜ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ͆ㄽ⌮ⓗ࡞≧ἣ⌮ゎ͇ࡢ⾲⌧ࡢ㛫࡟㌿႘ⓗ㛵ಀࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢᵓᅗࡣᮏ✏ࡢゝ࠺どⅬࡢษࡾ᭰࠼࡜ᮏ㉁ⓗ࡟ྠࡌࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠊࡇࢀࢆࡩࡲ࠼࡚  ࡜  ࡣ࠶ࡿ✀ࡢ㌿႘ⓗ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿ⾲⌧࡜⪃࠼ᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ
ᲮᲨᘙྵјௐƷ౨᚛ƴӼƚƯ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣゝㄒ⾲⌧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ஦ែᢕᥱࡢどⅬࡢ࠶ࡾࡼ࠺࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊᚑ᮶ࡣᅗᆅ཯㌿⌧㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ㄽࡌࡽ
ࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ⛣ື࣭ኚ໬࣭᫬㛫࡟㛵ࢃࡿ᪥ᮏㄒ⾲⌧ࡢᑐࡀᐇ㝿࡟ࡣどⅬࡢษࡾ᭰࠼ࢆ཯ᫎࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࢆ୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓぢ᪉ࢆ࡜ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᅗᆅ཯㌿࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢศᯒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣㄽࡌࡽࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗ
ࡓླྀ㏙ᙧᘧࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿ⾲⌧ຠᯝࡢᕪ␗࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡶゐࢀࡓࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡⓗほⅬ࡟ຍ࠼ࠊㄆ▱⛉Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕඹྠὀពࠖ ᮏከ ࡸ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ͆PXWXDOFRJQLWLYHHQYLURQPHQW͇㸦┦஫ㄆ▱⎔ቃ㸧࡜࠸ࡗࡓᴫᛕࡢᛂ⏝ྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡶ┠ࢆྥࡅࡘࡘࠊ
ヰ⪅ࡢᚰ⌮࡜͆どⅬ͇ࡢ㛵ಀࠊࡑࡋ࡚ゝㄒ⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⫈⪅࡟ႏ㉳ࡉࢀࡿ͆ᚰⓗ㢼ᬒ͇ࢆࡶ⪃៖ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⪃ᐹࢆ῝ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ୺యࡢㄆ▱࡜⾲⌧ᙧᘧࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࡑࡢ⾲⌧ຠᯝࡢ㛵ಀࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ
࡜ࡀ௒ᚋࡢᒎᮃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᴾ

Ƃදƃ
i

ᮏ✏ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨  ᅇ኱఍㸦 ᭶ ࣭ ᪥៞ᛂ኱Ꮫ୕⏣࢟ࣕࣥࣃࢫ㸧࡛ࡢ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡛
ࡍࠋᣦᑟᩍဨࡢඛ⏕᪉࡟ຍ࠼ࠊᵓ᝿ẁ㝵࡛ࡢⓎ⾲ᶵ఍ࢆୗࡉࡗࡓ኱㜰኱Ꮫゝㄒᩥ໬ࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ◊✲఍ࡢⓙᵝࠊ⺯ụㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ◊✲఍ࡢⓙᵝࠊ኱㜰኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ゝㄒᩥ໬◊✲⛉ ᖺᗘㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ◊✲㸦᪩℩ᑦᏊඛ⏕㸧ཷㅮ⪅ࡢⓙᵝࠊⓎ⾲ᙜ᪥ࡈពぢ࣭ࡈ㉁ၥࢆୗࡉࡗࡓከࡃࡢⓙᵝࠊࡲࡓⓎ⾲ᚋ࡟ព⩏῝࠸ࡈពぢࢆୗࡉࡗࡓᮏከၨ
ඛ⏕㸦⚄ᡞᕷእᅜㄒ኱Ꮫ㸧࡟ᚰࡼࡾ࠾♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋᮏ✏ࡢ୙ഛࡣࡍ࡭࡚➹⪅࡟ᖐࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁࡶࡢ࡛ࡍࠋ
LL኱⚄  ࡣࡇࡢ✀ࡢኚ໬⾲⌧ࢆࠕㄆ㆑ⓗኚ໬⾲⌧ࠖ࡜ࡋࠊࡑࡢㄆ▱ⓗᇶ┙࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
LLL➹⪅స౛ࠋᒣ᲍  ࡣࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⾲⌧ࡣ᝿ᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊලయⓗ࡞౛ᩥࡣᣲࡆ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋLY
/DQJDFNHU  ࡢ͆どⅬᵓᅗ͇ YLHZLQJDUUDQJHPHQW ࡢ㆟ㄽࢆᅵྎ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋ /DQJDFNHU ࡢ
どⅬᵓᅗࢆࡑࡢࡲࡲ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡣၥ㢟ࡶឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࡼࡾ⦆ࡸ࠿࡞ࡇࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ
ၥ㢟࡟㛵ࢃࡿ㆟ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚ụୖ  ࠊụୖ࣭ୖཎ࣭ᮏከ  ࡶཧ↷ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ>@࠾ࡼࡧ>@ࡢどⅬࡣ᪩℩ ࡢ࠸࠺͆ࠕෆࠖࡢどⅬ͇࡜͆ࠕእࠖࡢどⅬ͇࡜ྠࡌࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࠊ⌧ᅾࡣࡇࢀࢆ᥇⏝ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㼢ᮏከ㻌 㻔㻞㻜㻜㻡㻕䜢䜅䜎䛘䜛䛸䚸䛣䛖䛧䛯୺య䛿⏕ែᚰ⌮Ꮫ䛷䛔䛖䛸䛣䜝䛾䛂䜶䝁䝻䝆䜹䝹䞉䝉䝹䝣䛃䛻䛒䛯䜛䚹㻌
YLඛ௳ᚋ௳ࡢゝ࠸᥮࠼࡜࠸࠺ぢ᪉ࡀ᭱ࡶ඾ᆺⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ㌿႘࡟ࡣ௚࡟ࡶཎᅉ⤖ᯝࠊ⌮⏤⤖ㄽࠊᮇᚅ⌧ᐇ࡞࡝ᵝࠎ࡞ゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ㌿႘ࡣ᥮႘ࡢ୍✀࡜࠸࠺ぢ᪉ࡸከẁ㌿⩏ࢆᣦࡍ࡜࠸࠺❧ሙࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ

ƂӋᎋ૨ྂƃ኱⚄㞝୍㑻ࠗ
͆ㄆ㆑ⓗኚ໬⾲⌧͇ࡢព࿡࡜ㄆ▱ⓗᇶ┙̿࠶ࡿ✀ࡢ୺ほⓗ࡞ኚ໬ླྀ㏙࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⾲⌧୺యࡢどⅬࡢᙳ㡪̿࠘᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ఍➨  ᅇ኱఍ண✏㞟ụୖ჆ᙪࠕゝㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺ほᛶ!࡜୺ほᛶ!ࡢゝㄒⓗᣦᶆ㸦㸯㸧ࠖࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛㄽ⪃࠘1Rࡦࡘࡌ
᭩ᡣụୖ჆ᙪ࣭ୖཎ⪽࣭ᮏከၨࠕ6XEMHFWLYH&RQVWUXDO ࡜ࡣఱ࠿ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ఍ㄽᩥ㞟➨㸳ᕳ࠘బ⸨ಙኵࠗࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡㄆ㆑࠘ㅮㄯ♫Ꮫ⾡ᩥᗜ᪩℩ᑦᏊࠕᠱᆶศモᵓᩥࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿࠕෆࠖࡢどⅬࠖࠗࠕෆࠖ࡜ࠕእࠖࡢゝㄒᏛ࠘㛤ᣅ♫ᮏከၨࠗ࢔ࣇ࢛࣮ࢲࣥࢫࡢㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽ࠘ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧఍ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂ࠗࡇ࡜ࡤࡢㄆ▱✵㛫࠘㛤ᣅ♫ /DQJDFNHU5RQDOG:)RXQGDWLRQVRI&RJQLWLYH*UDPPDU9RO6WDQIRUG6WDQIRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV  
/DQJDFNHU5RQDOG:͆6XEMHFWLILFDWLRQ͇&RJQLWLYH/LQJXLVWLFV   −288−

第16回大会発表論文集

因果関係

表

第９号

日仏語比較1

接続詞

木山直毅（大阪大学大学院） 2 ・濱上桂菜（大阪大学大学院） 3<Abstract>
This paper focuses on the causal conjunctions kara and kedo in Japanese and parce que and puisque inFrench, used in request phrases. When used with a main clause, that is, in an indirect speech act phrase,
their use indicates behaviors reﬂecting varying states of Optionality. While kara and parce que clauses
are simple cause, kedo implies an Option, in that the hearer does not necessarily have to accommodate
the utterer s request: there is an option for the hearer to decline it. In contrast, puisque implies thatthe utterer prepares no such Option; an utterance with puisque expresses a strong request, or even ironic
irritation on the part of the utterer.
【Keywords】：

1性、、parce que、puisque

、

・先行研究
本稿

、日本語

語

2

命題

、Sweetser (1991)

英語 関
述

、

例

因果関係

because

（1）

結

接続語

a.

* 面白 映画

今晩何

b.

面白

映画

一緒

c.

面白

映画

今晩何

、
（1） 日本語 「「節直接発話行為」

容認度

用、発話行為領域

発話行為
振 舞

上
分析

接続語

振

。

？

予定

？
、

？」

容認

間接発話行為Sweetser

違

発話内行為

表

異

指摘

。

生

提案

。

舞

]

予定

（2a）
、（2b）

、一方

(Sweetser 1991, 77)

？

直訳
。

詳細

[±

差

行

主節 「一緒 行

間接発話行為

詞「
稿

」 用

」 用

。

。4

示

(1) What are you doing tonight, because there’s a good movie on.
(2)

着目

発話行為領域（speech act domain） 接続

節

。一方 、
（2b）

非文

。（2b） （2c） 違、主場合、（2c）

接続

維持

分析

説明

場合、

間接発話行為

。

直接

、

接続詞

、日仏語

本

2 分析 議論
2.1 日本語
because

「

用

「

」
（2）

例 日本語 直訳

話行為

直接発話行為

（3）

例文

容認度

異

「

」

好

見

多

(3)

」

提示

文

、容認度

明

容認度

関

行

。即

。一方、（3c）-（3d）、直接発話行為、「」。（2） 、発話行為 表 表現 、間接発

分

影響

与

可能性

。
場合

示唆

、
「

容認

。

筆者

、

直接・間接発話行為」、話者、間接発話行為
押

付

感

意

。

a.

【DVD

買

面白

DVD

】
発売

（

／?

）買

−289−

。

（直接発話行為）因果関係を表す接続詞の日仏語比較

b.

【公共料金

c.

d.

「

振込

】

今日

公共料金振込

【

問題

解

君

得意分野

（

一緒

食

行

食

行

【

締

切

、聞

手

表現

主張

自然
直接・間接発話行為
。「

」

内容

[+

]
想定

（

／

。

、

「

」

好

、事態

実現

内容

呼

[

（3c）-（3d） 例

」

際

、話

手

使

b.

手

、
（3c）-（3d）

好

]
、依頼

可能性

。

実現

言語表現外

提示

性質

締

切

、聞

手

振込

、
「

選択

。

断

顕著

相手 問題 解、直接発話行為 勧誘

「

直接、話者

」

与

、一緒

、「

」

話者

意見

用

伝

parce que、puisque、car

行

対

[±
押

扱

、

発話行為領域

真

発話領域
違

強要

効果

用

例

6

明

関

挙

付

場合

。本研究
考察

。puisque

。

見

。

】

problème, parce quetu es forten maths?

this problem, connective you are strong en math、Tu peux résoudre ce

問題

解

?”

problème, puisquetu es forten maths?

this problem, connective you are strong en math、

印象

(Zuﬀerey 2006 2012)5 。次

you can solve

Vas acheter le

現

同時 与 、依頼、“数学 得意

行

依頼

」 用

可能性」

断

）」

情報

意味

Tu peux résoudre ce

買想定

puisque

puisque

文全体

」

、解

期待

p

手

you can solve

a.

依頼

好

[±

態度

（来

puisque聞“数学 得意(5) 【DVD来、聞(4) 【数学 問題 問a.

、

、原因 表 代表的 接続詞（4） （5） 、parce que
接続詞

手

」 直接

直接発話行為(cf. 渡部 1995)。
、

。（3d）

parce que語

parce que
用

話

。国広 、
「
対

「
本稿

。
（3c）-（3d）
。

語

（3b）

、話 手 得意分野

「一緒

考

2.2

呼

」 用

与

与

手

、
「

持

依頼

事態） 実現
聞

。

機能

手

良

」 返事

]

分析 矛盾

聞

、公共料金振込

。（3c）

用

断

」

（直接発話行為）

必要]（間接発話行為）？

、聞 手 失礼
。

？

。

（3b）

。例

予想 期待 出行

間接発話行為内容（時間対 聞 手 「解

問題分

、

本稿

（間接発話行為）

】

「

願

？

】

）一緒

関係

考

、「

）

）今時間

結果 、国広 (1992)

。依頼

、
「依頼

／

思

可能性

場面

解

表現

、実現

、

問題

。直接的

後続

／

勧誘

」 直接発話行為 好

的

（?

問題

解

?（解

。）”

】

DVD, parce queon pe ut en

trouver au

go buy.inf the DVD, connective we can en indef.pron ﬁnd−290−

magasin.

at the shop、

b.

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

DVD

。”

“ 店

、

Vas acheter leDVD, puisque買行

on pe ut en

trouver au

go buy.inf the DVD, connective we can en indef.pron ﬁnd
“ 店

、

買

。）”

、parce que

用

解

、（5a）
。（4b）

間接言語行為

礼

帯
、

、

買

、話

、（5b）

。

DVD

店

puisque

語
強

」 「

要求
強

苛立

puisque
文

」

手

問題

解

聞

手

DVD

買

話

手

[-

持

際

扱

表明

]

起因

考

。

、puisque

、

種

]

p

真偽

原因

」
姿勢

事態

強要

示

、話

結果

話

売

無礼

買

行

。本研究

、

話

原因

挑発的

叱責

。

点 、日本語
。

手

話

手

特殊

意味合

、

、先行研究 平叙
強要

生

生

。

強要
」

[-

、言

結果 君 問題 解
結果 君 買

使用
生

対

真
生

、

手

際
聞

、
依頼

聞

用

手

、

。

p 以外

、puique

手

伝

必要

原因

。
手

大変無

、平叙文

生

（4a） 、「数学 得意。

事態 、（5a） 「DVD

」

、DVD

関

、

。（4a）

不同意

、
「q

場合

。

挑発的

意味合

考

間接発話行為

。強要

用

点 平行

手

、間接発話行為

、本研究

文

命令

単 問題

、puisque行

2 種類 接続詞 使 分
用、話 手 、
（4a）
解釈

考

単

聞

説明

要求

間接言語行為 使 分
、

。／無

。一方

、
（5b）

。

、

。

手

at the shop

行

命

入

直接

注目

表

。
（

買

、言語行為 直接的 、間接的「

行

場合 、前件 直接言語行為解釈

問

前件

DVD

magasin.

行

与
考

相手

問

。

3 結論
本稿

、日仏語

観点

発話行為
対

詳細

両言語

聞 手 断

、発話行為領域

接続詞

余地 残
更

発話行為領域
使用

、

分析可能性

分析

異

。
明

、
示

、発話内行為。特（[±

直接発話行為
、依頼

]） 基

間接
誘
分析

。

本文注
1 本研究
、春木仁孝先生（大阪大学）、岡本雅史先生（立命館大学）、鍋島弘治朗先生（関西大学）、阿部宏先生（東北大学）、野澤元先生（京都外国語大学）、木本幸憲氏（京都大学大学院）、小松原哲太氏（京都大学大学院） 始
京都言語学
議論 大
参考
。
加 、
答
下
日仏語母語話者 協力
研究。
、発表 来 下先生方議論 示唆 富。最後 、査読委員
参考
。
場 借
全
方々 感謝
。尚、本稿
誤
筆者
。
2 kiyama.naoki@gmail.com
3 u167364b@ecs.cmc.osaka-u.ac.jp
4
、
（1）
次
説明
。[T]he because-clause gives the cause of the speech act embodied by the mainclause. The reading is something like “I ask what you are doing tonight because I want to suggest that we go see this goodmovie (Sweetser 1991, 77)”.
5
6 本稿

、
用

効果

平叙文 例文次 省略

見説明。
：n = Noun、connective = Connective、obl = Oblique、inf = Inﬁnitive、indef.pron= Indeﬁnite Pronoun

参考文献

Ducrot, Oswald. 1984. Le dire et le dit. Paris: Editions de Minuit.

−291−

因果関係を表す接続詞の日仏語比較

Kanetani, Masaru. 2007. “Causation and Reasoning: A Construction Grammar Approach to Conjunctionsof Reason” Ph.D. dissertation. the University of Tsukuba.
Moeschler, Jacques. 2009. “Causalité et argumentation : l’exemple de parce que”. Nouveaux cahiers delinguistique française. Vol. 29: 117-148.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1996. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. WB. 内田聖二・中逵
俊明・宋南先・田中圭子（訳）.『関係性理論: 伝達 認知』. 研究社出版.

Sweetser, Eve. 1991. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic
Structure (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics): Cambridge University Press.
Zuﬀerey, Sandrine. 2006. “Connecteurs pragmatiques et métareprésentation: l’exemple de parce que”.
Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française. Vol. 26: 161-179.
Zuﬀerey, Sandrine. 2012. “‘Car, parce que, puisque’ rivisited: Three empirical studies on French causal
connectives”. Journal Of Pragmatics. Vol. 44: 138-153.
国広 哲弥. 1992. 「『

』

『

』
・
『

』 –『 』 共通性–」

島 央, 藤原 雅憲, 籾山 洋介（編）.『日本語研究
永野 賢. 1952. 「『』渡部 学. 1995. 「

類

『

』

違

寛子, 尾崎 明人, 鹿

日本語教育』: 名古屋大学出版会. 名古屋: 17-34 頁．
」.『國語國文學』. 29-2: 30-41 頁．

類 –逆接 接続詞–」『日本語類義表現 文法（下）複文・連文編』:

版: 557-564 頁．

−292−

出

第16回大会発表論文集





第９号

&

,)
1#-7 % # ¼ð ¥°pś¯¶¯¶Šųæì¶ĵÝĮw
komatsubara@hi.h.kyoto-u.ac.jpŵAbstractŶ
The aim of this paper is to describe a type of humor caused by a conflict between the conventional
function of a presupposition marker and the self-evident fact in the situation: (to a native speaker ofJapanese) kimi no nihon-go marude neitibu mitai. 'Your Japanese almost sounds like a native
speaker's one.' This type of humor is called "misfire" effects, which originated in the term introduced
by Austin (1962). This study is to show how a misfire of an utterance can be interpreted as humor interms of speech act structure and cognitive processes.
EeaeO ŴjĎŢ¿ĐņĔčò ìŋä+đĐ,|- (1) *9Ń

 

2

à (presupposition) ,ĎŅÒ£<)

+6* 9à+Öĝ<èė

9öō<+àè7*Öĝ)

äĬ

$!)



3+Ìķív+fŚ&8ľŇkyŞ+

+i&{ċ9'*4'$Œćŏ<'Ŕņō<õÖ9«*6"%,àľ

8

ŇĐ*èė:9«4ņĔŇċŋ+ĝ«7+Ķćò+YCQJX<è7*9'&99(2) Ø!è(1) (ŬĊ*»%)(3)=)*Ä%7ŬĊ2+Č+Ä.8,19&ŬĊ+6 ìŋä&,(1) *27:9L@U+ŒĐ

(2) &,Ē²,ū<Ū/'à:ò<ĎŅĴĂŋ+ċŇ*)7%((3) &,Č,ŬĊ&) (misfire effects) '6.Ø!è
19&-6ìŋä+õÖ,ui+Ŕ8&

91 Ġ&,

'à:9
+6)

9à<èė9öō,

à+E[bK_+ļā7jĎò+ĄË

(presupposition trigger; Levinson 1983: 181-185)

2 Ġ&,ĎŅĴĂŋ*9j'6-:9èė:à,¡·*6"%

$<Ĵ

4±;:)

õŕ<ñ3 Ġ&,+ņĔĐ÷$

and Kiparsky 1971[1968])|-Ē²,ū<'%ĎŅky+ŞkļĐŢ¿ĐņĔş;Ū/'<Ø!è)"'%4

9'<ė4 Ġ&,jĎò+ŒĐ÷

hœ+àÖ8ĝ#ī*ş9ħº<Ĵ fİ*à,äĬ7E[bK_ī'Ĕ7:%

9 (KiparskyĎ+ôÎ'+şŖ&jĎò+4#ŇċŋĐ(defeasible)  (Levinson 1983: 186-191)

−293−
1

前提のキャンセルから生じる修辞的効果

ĎŅĴĂ+řÐív (felicity conditions) +f(4) Ē²,ū<Ū/'<ę*Ø!è9ŚŇċŋĐ)ąû7þ:jĎ',)"Ē²*,ő*ĺ+)(misfire) *ģ;9'2)'&9 2

'&

"7&

+Ò£& (1)(5)(6) *27:96

9

)Ķćò

<( (misfire effects) '6. (cf. ¼ð (4) &,Ø!è9'àN^DeÑŐ9à,ÉĤäĬ*6"%E[bK_:à,¸,jÖĝ&ė:%2012: 18-20)


"'è



9(4) +àE[bK_,¡·ř*ŗĴ:9ªŒ)"+IGeU+®ĥÐ<ċ

4+&

9(1) 5ø+m|&,àjř  * ŗ ĴÖĝ&9'ąû7ĭè&:93*,½)'4ui+ívþ

9'*68àN^De+àõġ÷īE[bK_:%:):-)7)9
(7) ŵŭ (deceiving) +řÐívŶ(5) Ű>Y^Cq*»%ű

a.

È+ĳŇ,19&R@M?cdISeC
e+6

S , P b.

S , H * P 
<Ò§%



9

(6) Űèæ¢ď9q*»%ű

c.

H ,P +ē<Ĕ7)

Ý7:',Ů"%

d.

H ,ĎŅ*68 P ē

%596



(S = Ņ×, H = ĩ×, P = ¤Ũ¹)

 (1)(5)(6) ğ+Ňü,ąûĐĔō<ċ
9ě+Ŋ+¨')"%8\eZ>*ş
;9ŒĐò<Ċ94+&

9ui&,

jĎò+m|&,ĩ×VeI+řÐív (7c)(7d) ąû7è7*þ:%)

+ĆĄ+Ķćò+YCQJX*ş9ñ<)"% 1

+'7jĎòĊ93*,½)'4ui+ívþ:9Ìķ9'ħ7:9 (
ĎŅĴĂŋ+ļā72«àN^D(8) ŵjĎò+"j"řÐívŶe<ř*{ċ9',ŞÞĐ*à¤a.

H ,P 

Ũ<šœ9'b.

H ,ĎŅ*6"%P 

ŧ<4#(1)(5)(6) 

Ņ×,à+<Ĕ"%
9 * 4 ş ; 7 
:,jň¸)šœ&8ŭ

 (deceiving) 'ũx9ĎŅĴĂ+ÆÂ&uh68jĎò,ø+6)ĎŅĴĂŋĐõŕ<Īê'9'ħ7:9

9 (1)(5)(6) +m|&,à+jÖĝ,Ņ×ĩ×+å*'"%ĭè&9(9) ŵjĎò+ĎŅĴĂŋĐõŕŶ

3¸ţ*ĩ×ä³Ŕ8+Ò£&à<~S ,(7) *ĄË$7:9ŭĴĂ+Ď

%Ņ×*ŭ:9'ŅĴĂHP^B*4'$

 ŭ+±ã'
+6

',)



ļā7ĸ9'(1)(5)(6))à+ąûĐE[bK_,ŭ+

−294−
2

%ĎŅ9

(8) *68ŭ,jĎ*ģ;9第16回大会発表論文集第９号

 

ŧÐ<lĽ%jĎò,à+jÖĝ+ĭèÐ<ċ jĎòř*÷ī93*,§ 1%*ėņĔ§ÂŅ×'ĩ×+å*'

9  

9

"%ŞkļĐ*ë:%

×729'jĎò+Öĝ*,

27:9

à+<"%(10) È+ĳŇ,19&R@M?cdISeC
e+6

+6

9

YLĎŅĴĂĐ)91ĩ×

729'jĎò+Öĝ*,Ņ×+(12) ??ïp+69Ņ)7:ē&*ÿ9'ņĔU`KIÌķ&(11) ??ï7ç96

9Ìķä³Ŕ8+ľèÿÙ&

9'<ĸÚŊ'%Ł¹9ĽŜ+ņĔU`KIÌĶ 1ŴŇċŋĐĭèÐ
äĬă

ķ&

97*ľ-å,»ŅĨ+ĹäĬë8

ā*ĝ"::+ívþ:%

(10)

ē,jè

,ĭè

'<o

*Ĕ"%

(11) (12)

,ĭè

,ĭè

þ:)

9Ìķ

9

9:7

«*,Ņ×'%,Ŋ+#48(6) *»%ĞgĨ (10) &,[È,R@M?c&,)+qÝ7:=&'ìÅ*ŭ:%1]'«5(5) *»%

à+ē+ĭèÐ,ŧō+ëăğ+ŇċŋĐäĬ*6"%č)9+*»(11) (12) + 
à+,fİ*ĭè&9

(10)  ù ûŰ i . e . ù ¦ ű+ ŉ 2 & , )  j Ď  ò + ŉ 2 ' ) 9 «  * , (5) *ÛÃ&sŀ6)äĬÌķ')9

+få&(7) < þ    3 * , H * ' "%4à+ējè&ò,+ S +Ç+nŝÐ*÷$7:
%

+qìÅ*

R@M?c)=&6ů'Ņ×+Ř




'%1

<

«4ħ7:9:7+»ŅÍ,jĎòÒ§:%

9«

*,\eZ>+"jĎ"')9 (,)+jĎò+m|&,ľŇĶć+ÔĦĐ)Ò

9+6(cf. (7c))jĎ*Ý9į;)%,)7)5

9£E[bK_:ąû}´Đ)Ò£ê:9+ÔĦĐÒ£'ąûĐÒ£+,(13) *ėjĎò+4#ŒĐ÷
ī+n#+ŧ*ş9

S

Pisfalse.

Pistrue!

(13) ŵjĎò+ŒĐ÷īŶ

H

S

a.
b.

§ 1 *9­+ S ,äĬ<ħÕ%ĭ
4ŭ

*, P ,&8

'9Ý8<

9+' H ,S ,ä³Ŕ

8*,à P ē&

9'œ/%

9'~%

#Ŵ


7+Ďľ<YLĐ*ņĔ9Ņ×&
9Ņ×&

4

ĎĸĐm¸'%ŦÀō9

§ 1 ŴŢ¿ĐņĔ

+ S ,H <'ŴÀōĐ*Ö8ĝ#à<

9'

9¸ţ
S +n












ß(Shklovskii 1971[1925]: 119) ×ü<

−295−
3

前提のキャンセルから生じる修辞的効果

`H>dTA_W^JX+ä¶Ĉŋ*ņ 3 7 : 9 ' ħ  7% 

:9à,æÀľŇ*6"%,Ü:)ľŇ{ċ<â9ÀōĐĔō<)

¤Ũ (e.g. "9'),>Y^Cq&9") &*%
Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words.

9jĎò,Àō*©ú

London: Oxford University Press.

à¤Ũ<Àō',č)9äĬ'şŖ$

Keenan, E.L. 1971. "Two Kinds of Presupposition inàė9'*6"%čzċ<Ċ9Natural Language." In C.J. Fillmore and D.T.

ÔĦĐ)Ò£÷ī<ĪêľŇ+ŀÆLangendoen (eds.) Studies in Linguistic Semantics.

Â<ÆÂĭy'%ê9ăÒ£,

45-54. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

jĎò+4#ŒĐò+VeI<)

Kiparsky, P. and C. Kiparsky. 1971[1968]. Fact. In D.D.



Steinberg and L.A. Jakobovits (eds.) Semantics: An

Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics j Ď  ò & , and Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge Universityà+Öĝ)ąû&àN^De<{ċPbKbI<ÿÙĐ*¸Ĵ9+ SPress.
Levinson,

S.C.

1983.

Pragmatics.

Cambridge:':<ļĻ9Ĺā7PbKbI<Y

Cambridge University Press.

LĐ*ņō9­+ S':9 (cf.

Shklovskii, V.B. 1971[1925].×ü'%+Ĳĵ§ 1)+ S +nŝÇ*4'$fqı¾`H>dTA_W^JXŋťńĐľŇ++õ§,ĩ×*T?FH]b+Óĺ<ÑŐñ108-137ïp: ćtÏĀĘŲĖŎµłŲ68¹é*\eZ><ĈĽ9'<¼ð¥°. 2012.Ē¦+nŧ'ŒĐò+n%#+L@UŃ6

9'ħ7:9*ş9m|ñuhàN^De+÷īj*4'$ľŇĚ¶ŋť181-25pś¯¶¯¶Š qŒćŏ*ş9óĿ<Ĵ"%Êî+Şdĉ¬¶ĕĜĚ ľŇĚ¶ŌÁ.

ľŇĕĜ&,+L@U+m|,0'=(
ľ:%

)

jĎò,æÀĊý*9ľŇ{ċ*--27:9Ķ
ć&

9'

ā&rÉ68yĢĐ)ŀœ'7)9ħºÌķ&" 
1.

9'ħ7:9

Keenan (1971: 45) ,Ť¦5Ŋ+ĽŜ

*6"%àE[bK_:
Üá%
2.

9'<

9

Austin (1962: 23) ,ĎŅĴĂ+jřÐ+ f # '  % 
I name this ship the Mr. Stalin. '¤ĴĂ+èėĐŗĴĶć<Ŕ88+ĞgĨ



−296−
4

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ᑐヰ䛻䛚䛡䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾㐃㙐䝟䝍䞊䞁㻌䇷ᑐヰ┦ᡭ䛾཯ᛂ䛻⌧䜜䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛻ὀ┠䛧䛶䇷㻌ᮡᮏ ᕦ ᗈᓥᅜ㝿኱Ꮫ

<Abstract>
This study investigated the connections between metaphorical expressions uttered by different speakers in a conversation,
focusing on the patterns of chains between metaphors. Data for analysis were extracted from commercially available
collections of interviews. The chains between metaphors were categorized according to certain linguistic features as follows:
commoditization, literalization, categorization, elaboration, deployment, extension, substitution, and modification. The
analysis suggests that participants in conversations construct a metaphorical “frame,” and talk within this frame in order toachieve the purposes of the conversation. It is suggested that further investigation is required regarding the relationships
between the purposes of a conversation and the patterns of chains observed.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࠊᑐヰࠊ㐃㙐ࠊᯟ⤌ࡳ㻝㻚㻌 㛵ᚰ䛾ᡤᅾ䛸ᮏ◊✲䛾┠ⓗ㻌ᮏ◊✲䛷䛿䚸䛒䜛䜒䛾䛤䛸䜢௚䛾䜒䛾䛤䛸䛻䛯䛸䛘䛶⾲䛩⾲⌧᪉ἲ䜢䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛸࿧䜃䚸㞃႘ᙧᘧ䛸┤႘ᙧᘧ䜢ྵ䜐䚹䛭䛧䛶䚸ᑐヰ䛻䛚䛔䛶୍᪉䛜Ⓨ䛧䛯䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛻⥆䛔䛶䚸௚᪉䛾ᑐヰ⪅䛜㛵㐃䛩䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䜢Ⓨ䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖⌧㇟䜢䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾䛂㐃㙐ͤ䛃䛸࿧䜆䚹ᮏ◊✲䛿䚸ᕷ㈍䛾ᑐㄯ㞟䜢㈨ᩱ䛸䛧䚸䛭䛾䜘䛖䛺䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾㐃㙐䛾䝟䝍䞊䞁䜢ᢳฟ䛧䛯䛖䛘䛷䚸䛭䜜䛮䜜䛾㐃㙐䝟䝍䞊䞁䛾ᑐヰ䛻䛚䛡䜛ᇶᮏⓗ䛺ᶵ⬟䜢⣲ᥥ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸ᑐヰ䛾┠ⓗ㐩ᡂ䛻ྥ䛡䛯䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾┦஫౑⏝䝥䝻䝉䝇ゎ᫂䛾➃⥴䛸䛩䜛䛣䛸䜢┠ⓗ䛸䛩䜛䚹㻌㻞㻚㻌 ඛ⾜◊✲㻌Goatly, A. (1997) 䛿䚸ᩥᏛసရ䛻䛚䛡䜛㛵㐃䛩䜛」ᩘ䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊㛫䛾䛂┦஫స⏝䠄interplay䠅䛃䛻䛴䛔䛶ศ㢮䜢⾜䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹䛧䛛䛧䚸ྛ┦஫స⏝䛾┦㐪Ⅼ䛜᫂☜䛻䛥䜜䛶䛚䜙䛪䚸ୗ఩ศ㢮䛾ᩚ⌮䚸ᶵ⬟㠃䛾᳨ウ䛜୙༑ศ䛷䛒䜛䚹䜎䛯䚸Cameron, L. (2007, 2008a/b) 䛿䚸≉ᐃ䛾஧⪅㛫䛻䛚䛡䜛࿴ゎ䛾ᑐヰ䛸䚸ᑠᏛᰯ䛾ᩍᐊㄯヰ䛻䛚䛡䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ኚ໬䠄shift䠅䜢ほᐹ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䛧䛛䛧䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ゝㄒᙧᘧⓗഃ㠃䛸ᶵ⬟ⓗഃ㠃䛸䛾ᑐᛂ䛜༑ศ᳨ウ䛥䜜䛶䛚䜙䛪䚸䜎䛯䚸༑ศ䛺䝕䞊䝍䛜♧䛥䜜䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹䜎䛯䚸ኚ໬䛾ศ㢮䛾ᇶ‽䛜᫂☜䛷䛺䛔䚹㻟㻚㻌 ᑐヰ㈨ᩱ䛸ศᯒ᪉ἲ㻌ᮏ◊✲䛷䛿䚸ᕷ㈍䛾ᑐㄯ㞟䠄27 ෉䛛䜙 28 ᅇศ䛾ᑐヰ䜢ᢳฟ䠅䜘䜚䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾㐃㙐䛜⏕䛨䛶䛔䜛ሙ㠃䜢ᢳฟ䛧䚸ศᯒ䜢⾜䛳䛯䚹䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ฟ⌧䛩䜛఩⨨ࡣࠊࡑࡢ┤๓䞉┤ᚋ䛾Ⓨヰ䛻㝈ᐃ䛧䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾ྠᐃ䛿䚸Pragglejaz Group (2007) 䛾“MIP”䠄Metaphor Identification Procedure䠅䜢ཧ⪃䛸䛧䛶⾜䛳䛯䚹ฟ⌧ᩘ䛿䚸⠇༢఩䛷䜹䜴䞁䝖ͤ 䛧䛯䚹ᮏ✏䛷䛿䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛻䜘䛳䛶ゝཬ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛ᑐ㇟䜢 T䠄topic䠅䚸T 䛻ゝཬ䛩䜛䛾䛻౑⏝䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛ㄒྃ䜢 V䠄vehicle䠅䚸ฟ⌧㡰䛻䜘䜚」ᩘ䛾 V ཬ䜃 T 䜢༊ู䛩䜛ሙྜ䛿䚸ᩘᏐ䜢௜
䛧䠄V1䚸V2…䠗T1䚸T2…䠅䚸V ཬ䜃 T 䛾ᴫᛕⓗ㡿ᇦͤ 䜢䚸䛭䜜䛮䜜 V 㡿ᇦ䚸T 㡿ᇦ䛸࿧䜆䚹ඛ⾜䛩䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛸ᚋ⥆䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊㛫䛻䛚䛡䜛 V ཬ䜃 V 㡿ᇦ䛸 T ཬ䜃 T 㡿ᇦ䛸䛾㛵ಀཬ䜃ゝㄒⓗ᧯స䛛䜙㐃㙐䝟䝍䞊䞁䜢ḟ㡫䛾⾲ 1 䛻♧䛩䛸䛚䜚ศ㢮䛧䛯䚹㐃㙐䛾ฟ⌧ᩘ䛿ྜィ 153 䛷䛒䜚䚸䛭䛾䛖䛱䛂ඹ⏝໬䛃䛜
23䠂䚸䛂ᒎ㛤䛃䛜 24䠂䜢༨䜑䛯䚹㻠㻚㻌 ྛ㐃㙐䝟䝍䞊䞁䛾ヲ⣽㻌 ௨ୗ䛷䛿䚸䛭䜜䛮䜜䛾㐃㙐䝟䝍䞊䞁䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸ᑐヰ䛻䛚䛡䜛ᇶᮏⓗ䛺ᶵ⬟䛾せⅬ䛾䜏䜢♧䛧䛶䛔䛟䚹䛺䛚䚸௨ୗ䛾ㄝ᫂䛷⏝䛔䜛୸ᅖ䜏䛾ᩘᏐ䛿䚸䛭䜜䛮䜜䛾⏝౛୰䛾ヱᙜ⟠ᡤ䜢♧䛩䚹㻌

−297−

対話におけるメタファーの連鎖パターン―対話相手の反応に現れるメタファーに注目して―⾲ 1 ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢ㐃㙐ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡢศ㢮
ྠ୍ 㼂
䛾ฟ⌧㻌

䛒䜚㻌

㼂 㡿ᇦ㻌

ྠ䛨㻌

㼀㻌

㼀 㡿ᇦ㻌

ྠ䛨㻌

ྠ䛨㻌
␗䛺䜛㻌

␗䛺䜛

ྠ䛨㻛㻌

ゝㄒⓗ

ኚ໬䛾ヲ⣽㻌᧯స㻌㼂 䛾⤫ㄒⓗኚᙧ䠄䝔䞁䝇䚸䜰䝇䝨䜽䝖䚸ྡモಟ㣭䠅䛾䜏㻌཯᚟㻌ྠ୍䛛୍㒊ᢤ⢋㻌

␗䛺䜛㻌

Ꮠ⩏໬㻌

㼂 䜢 㼀㻝 䛸䛿ู䛾 㼀㻞 䛻㐺⏝㻌

ໟྵ໬㻌

モ䠅㏣ຍ㻌

䛺䛧㻌

ྠ䛨㻌

୍㒊㻌
ྠ䛨㻌

㼂 䛸஦ែ䜢ᵓᡂ䛩䜛ືモ䚸㼂 䜢ྵ
ྠ䛨㻌

㏣ຍ㻌

ඹ⏝໬㻌

㼂 䜢Ꮠ⩏ⓗ䛻౑⏝㻌㼂 䜢⢭⦓䛻䛩䜛ㄒྃ䠄ᙧᐜㄒ䚸๪モ䚸㼂 䛻㛵䛩䜛␲ၥ

䛒䜚䠋㻌

㐃㙐㻌
䝟䝍䞊䞁

㼂 㡿ᇦ䛻䛚䛔䛶䚸䜐஦ែ䛻ᚋ⥆㻛ඛ⾜䛩䜛஦ែ㻌㼂 䛸ඹ㉳㛵ಀ䛻䛒㼂 䛸ඹ㉳䞉ᑐ↷䞉ᑐẚ㛵ಀ䛻䛒䜛䜛ㄒྃ䜢㏣ຍ㻌せ⣲䜔ู䛾Ⓩሙே≀䚸ཬ䜃䛭䛾

⢭⦓໬㻌
ᒎ㛤㻌

ᣑ኱㻌

せ⣲䜢ྵ䜐஦ែ䛺䛹㻌
䛺䛧㻌

ྠ䛨㻌
␗䛺䜛㻌

ྠ䛨㻌

ྠ䛨㻌

௦᭰㻌

㼂 㡿ᇦ䛾ㄒྃ䠄㢮⩏ㄒ䚸ୖ఩䞉ୗ఩ㄒ䠅䛷௦᭰㻌⨨᥮㻌㼂 㡿ᇦ䛸␗䛺䜛㡿ᇦ䛾ㄒྃ䛷௦᭰㻌ᨵኚ㻌

4.1 ඹ⏝໬୍᪉䛜ᥦ♧䛧䛯䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䠄䐟䠅䛻క䛖ྵព䜔 T 䛾ᤊ䛘᪉䚸T 䜈䛾ឤ᝟䜔ែᗘ䛺䛹䜢⥔ᣢ䛧䛺䛜䜙 T 䜢⾲䛩ㄒྃ䛸䛧䛶䚸V 䜢ᑐヰ⪅㛫䛷ඹ䛻౑⏝䛩䜛䠄䐠䐡䠅䚹(1)㫽㉺䠄2005䠅, pp. 20-21㫽㉺䠖䛭䛾ே䛸䛿௒䛷䜒⥆䛔䛶䜛䜣䛷䛩䛛?㻌 䛭䜜䛸䜒ձᩓ䛳䛱䜓䛳䛯䜣䛷䛩䛛?㻌 ᱜ䛾ⰼ䛾䜘䛖䛻䚹Ἑཱྀ䠖䐠ᩓ䛳䛱䜓䛔䜎䛧䛯䚹㫽㉺䠖䐡ᩓ䛳䛱䜓䛳䛯䛾?㻌 䛷䜒䜎䛯ဏ䛔䛯䛷䛧䜗䚹
4.2 Ꮠ⩏໬䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛷⏝䛔䜙䜜䛯 V䠄䐟䛂䝶䝑䝖䛃䛂㢼䛃䠅䛻㛵䛧䛶䚸䛭䛾Ꮠ⩏ⓗഃ㠃䛛䜙⿵㊊ㄝ᫂䜢ຍ䛘䠄䐠䐡䛂䜟䛪䛛䛺㢼䛷䜒ື䛟䛃➼䠅䚸T 䛻㛵䛩䜛ྵព䜢⿵㊊䛩䜛䚹(2)஬ᮌ䞉ሷ㔝䠄2003䠅, p. 314
஬ᮌ䠖䠄๓␎䠅⮬ศ䛷䜒䜌䜔䛳䛸䛧䛶ᩥ❶᭩䛔䛶䛶䚸ᡭ䛻᭩䛛䛥䜜䛶䜛䛳䛶ᛮ䛖䛸䛝䛰䛳䛶䛒䜛䜒䛾䚹㢌䛰䛡䛷䜒䚸䝝䞊䝖䛰䛡䛷䜒䛺䛟䛶䛽䚸ᡭ䛜᭩䛟䛳䛶䛔䛖▐㛫䜒ᐇ㝿䚸䛒䜛䜣䛷䛩䜘䚹䐟䝶䝑䝖䛻ᕹ䜢ᙇ䛳䛶䚸㢼䜢ᚅ䛳䛶䛔䜛䜘䛖䛺䜒䛾䛷䛩䚹䛺䛻䛛኱䛝䛺䜒䛾䛻ບ䜎䛥䜜䛶䚸ึ䜑䛶᭩䛔䛶䛔䛡䜛䜏䛯䛔䛺䚹ሷ㔝䠖䛭䛧䛶䚸䐠ᕹ⯪䛸䛔䛖䛾䛿䛽䛘䚸䛺䜣䛸䜋䜣䛾䜟䛪䛛䛺㢼䛷䜒ື䛝䜎䛩䜘䚹᫇䚸䐡኱すὒ䜢䝁䝻䞁䝤䝇䛿ᕹ⯪䛷Ώ䛳䛯䛾䜘䚹
4.3 ໟྵ໬
ඛ⾜䛩䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛷ゝཬ䛥䜜䛯 T1䠄䛂䝤䝷䞁䝗≀䛸䛛╔≀䛃䛾㈙䛔≀䠅䛸䚸ᚋ䛻ゝཬ䛥䜜䜛 T2䠄䛂ཷὀ఍䛃䠅䛸䜢ྠ୍䛾 V䠄䐟䐠䛂㜚䛔䛃䠅䛷⾲⌧䛧䚸T1 䛻䛴䛔䛶ᙧᡂ䛥䜜䛯ྵព䜔᥎ㄽ䜢 T2 䛻䜒㐺⏝䛩䜛䚹(3)⩌䠄2002䠅, pp. 24-27⩌䠖䝤䝷䞁䝗≀䛸䛛╔≀䛳䛶䚸ዪ䛾䐟㜚䛔䛜䛒䜚䜎䛩䜘䛽䚹䠄୰␎䠅୰ᮧ䠖⚾䜒䛭䛖䛛䜒䛧䜜䛺䛔䚹䛭䛾䝁䝬䝎䝮䛜䝅䝱䝛䝹䛾᭹䜢ぢ䛶䜛䛸䝆䜱䞊䝑䛸ぢ䛶䜛䝍䜲䝥䛛䜒䛧䜜䛺䛔䚸−298−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

䜒䛧䛛䛩䜛䛸(➗)䚹䝅䝱䝛䝹䛰䛸䛛䝤䝷䞁䝗䛷䛾ཷὀ఍䜒ዪ䛾䐠㜚䛔䛺䜣䛷䛩䜘䚹
4.4 ⢭⦓໬
(4)䛾䜘䛖䛻䚸ඛ⾜䛩䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾 V䠄䐟䠅䛻ᙧᐜㄒ䠄ղ䛂ᙉⅯ䛺䛃䠅䜔๪モ䜢௜ຍ䛧䛶 V 䜢⢭⦓䛻⾲䛩䛣䛸䛷䚸T 䛻㛵䛧䛶䚸䜘䜚⢭⦓䛻⾲䛩䚹(5)䛾䜘䛖䛻䚸V䠄䐟䛂䝂䝭䛃䠅䛻㛵䛧䛶␲ၥモ䜢⏝䛔䛶ၥ㢟໬䠄䐠䛂䝂䝭䛾ఱ䜢ぢ䛶䛔䜛䛃䠅䛧䛯䜚䚸ヲ⣽䜢㉁ၥ䛧䛯䜚䛩䜛䠄䐡䛂䝂䝭䛾୺ᡂศ䛳䛶䛃䠅䛾䜒⢭⦓໬䛾୍✀䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹(4)⩌䠄2002䠅, p.15
⩌䠖䛘䛘䚸ᙉⅯ䛷䛩䛽䚹䛒䜣䛺䜅䛖䛻䛺䜛䛸䛿䚹䛴䜎䛧䛔ẕ䛰䛳䛯䛾䛻䚹୰ᮧ䠖䛭䛖䛺䜣䛷䛩䛛䚹䐟䝸䝞䜴䞁䝗䜏䛯䛔䛺䛾䛛䛺䚹⩌䠖䐠ᙉⅯ䛺䝸䝞䜴䞁䝗䛷䛩䛽䚹㏫䝞䞁䝆䞊䜏䛯䛔䛺䜒䜣䛷䛩䜘(5)ᕝୖ䠄2010䠅, pp. 134-135ከ࿴⏣䠖䠄๓␎䠅ᑠㄝ䜢᭩䛝ጞ䜑䜛䛸⁄䜜ฟ䛧䛶䛟䜛䜒䛾䛜䛯䛟䛥䜣䛒䜛䜣䛰䛡䛹䚸ྠ᫬䛻䛹䜣䛹䜣ᤞ䛶䛶䛔䛛䛺䛔䛸᭩䛝㐍䜑䛺䛔䛾䛷䚸ᐇ㝿䛻᭩䛛䜜䛯䜒䛾䜘䜚ᤞ䛶䜛᪉䛜ከ䛔䚹䛰䛛䜙䚸䛭䛾ᑠㄝ䜢᭩䛝⤊䛘䜛㡭䛻䛿䚸ᤞ䛶䛯䐟䝂䝭䛾ᅽ㏕䛜䛩䛤䛔䛣䛸䛻䛺䛳䛶䛔䜛䜣䛷䛩䚹䠄୰␎䠅ᕝୖ䠖䛯䛟䛥䜣䛾᭩䛡䛺䛛䛳䛯䛣䛸䛜⵳✚䛩䜛䛺䛛䛷䚸ḟస䜢᭩䛛䛦䜛䜢䛘䛺䛔䜶䝛䝹䜼䞊䛜㧗䜎䛳䛶䛔䛳䛯䛸䛝䛻䚸ከ࿴⏣䛥䜣䛿䐠䝂䝭䛾ఱ䜢ぢ䛶䛔䜛䜣䛷䛩䛛䚹䐡䝂䝭䛾୺ᡂศ䛳䛶䛺䜣䛷䛧䜗䛖䚹
4.5 ᒎ㛤
䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾 V䠄䐟䠅䛜ྵ䜎䜜䜛஦ែ䠄䛂኱ᡓ䠄ᡓத䠅䛃䠅䛻᫬⣔ิⓗ䚸ᅉᯝⓗ䛻⥆䛟஦ែ䠄䐠䛂኱ᩋᡓ䛃䠅䛺䛹䜢⾲⌧䛩䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸T 䛻㛵䛧䛶䚸᫬⣔ิⓗ䞉ᅉᯝⓗ䛻ண 䞉᥎ㄽ䛥䜜䜛஦ែ䜔䚸䛭䛾⤖ᯝ䛺䛹䜢♧၀䛩䜛䚹(6)ྖ㤿䠄1999䠅, pp. 32-34
ྖ㤿䠖䠄๓␎䠅ఫ཭䜔⣔ิ䛾㖟⾜䛾೧䛔ே䛯䛱䛜᮶䛶䛔䛯䚹䐟኱ᡓᮎᮇ䛾㝣㌷㌷ே䛜㞟䜎䛳䛶䜛䛺䛸䛔䛖Ẽ䛜䛧䜎䛧䛯䚹䠄୰␎䠅⏣୰䠖௒ᅇ䛾䛣䛸䛷䛿䚸㖟⾜䜒䐠኱ᩋᡓ䛷䛧䛯䚹
4.6 ᣑ኱
ඛ⾜䛩䜛䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾 V䠄䐟䛂่㌟䛃䠅䛸ඹ㉳䞉ᑐ↷䞉ᑐẚ㛵ಀ䛻䛒䜛せ⣲䠄䐠䛂෭෾㣗ရ䛃䠅䜔䛭䛾せ⣲䜢ྵ䜐஦ែ䠄䐠䛂ゎ෾䛧䛶ฟ䛩䛃䠅䛺䛹䛻ゝཬ䛧䚸ᑐᛂ䛩䜛 T 㡿ᇦ䛾せ⣲䛻㛵䛩䜛᥎ㄽ䞉ྵព䜢ᑟ䛟䚹(7)஬ᮌ䞉ሷ㔝䠄2003䠅, p. 320
஬ᮌ䠖䠄๓␎䠅䛝䜗䛖䛾ኪ୰䛻ධ✏䛧䛯䜒䛾䛜䚸⩣᪥䛾䛚᫨䛻䛿㥐䛾䜻䝶䝇䜽䛷኎䜙䜜䛶䜛䛳䛶䛔䛖䚹ሷ㔝䠖䛭䜜䛿䐟㠀ᖖ䛻ά䛝䛾䛔䛔䛚่㌟䜏䛯䛔䛺䜶䝑䝉䜲䛽䠄➗䠅䚹஬ᮌ䠖䠄๓␎䠅᪂⪺䛺䜣䛰䛛䜙䐠෭෾㣗ရ䜢ゎ෾䛧䛶ฟ䛩䜘䛖䛺䛣䛸䛿䜔䜑䛶䛟䜜䛳䛶୺⩏䛺䜣䛷䛩䚹
4.7 ⨨᥮
ඛ⾜䛩䜛 V1 䜢ྠ䛨 V 㡿ᇦ䛾 V2 䛻⨨䛝᥮䛘䛶䚸ྠ୍䛾 T 䛻㛵䛧䛶␗䛺䜛ᤊ䛘᪉䚸ྵព䜔᥎ㄽ䜢♧䛩䚹 (8)䛷䛿䚸⮬ືモ䠄䐟䠅䜢௚ືモ䠄䐠ཬ䜃䐡䠅䛻⨨䛝᥮䛘䚸ពᚿᛶ䜢ᙉㄪ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹௚䛻䚸」ᩘ䛾 V 䜢䜎䛸䜑䛯䜚䚸ୖ఩ㄒ䜔ୗ఩ㄒ䛻⨨䛝᥮䛘䛯䜚䛧䛶䚸䜘䜚୍⯡ⓗ䛒䜛䛔䛿ලయⓗ䛺ྵព䜔᥎ㄽ䜢ᑟ䛟䛸䛔䛳䛯౛䛜ぢ䜙䜜䛯䚹(8)୕ᓥ(2006), pp. 28-31
୕ᓥ䠖䞂䜯䝺䝸䞊䛺䜣䛛䛿䚸䐟ᔂ䜜䛯䛸䛿ゝ䛘䛺䛔䛾䛨䜓䛺䛔䛷䛧䜗䛖䛛䚹ᑠᯘ䠖䛒䜜䚸䐠ᔂ䛧䛶䜛䜣䛷䛩䚹䛒䛾ே䛾ᩓᩥ䛿䚸䜏䜣䛺ព㆑䛧䛶䐡ቯ䛧䛯䜒䛾䜘䚹−299−

対話におけるメタファーの連鎖パターン―対話相手の反応に現れるメタファーに注目して―

4.8 ᨵኚ
ྠ୍䛾 T 䛻䛴䛔䛶⾲⌧䛩䜛䛾䛻䚸ඛ⾜䛩䜛 V1䠄䐟䛂䜺䞁⣽⬊䛃䠅䛸␗䛺䜛㡿ᇦ䛾 V2/3䠄䐠䛂ᐤ⏕⹸䛃䐡䛂䜴䜲䝹䝇䛃䠅䜢⏝䛔䛶䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䜢䛴䛟䜚ኚ䛘䚸ᑐヰ⪅䛾⌮ゎ䜔䜲䝯䞊䝆䛻䜘䜚ྜ⮴䛧䛯ྵព䜔᥎ㄽ䜢ᑟ䛟䚹(9)㛵㔝䠄2007䠅, pp.21-22ụ⃝䠖䠄๓␎䠅⮬↛䛾ഃ䛻䛸䛳䛶䛿௒䚸ே㛫䛿ᮏᙜ䛻䐟䜺䞁⣽⬊䛰䛸ᛮ䛔䜎䛩䚹䠄୰␎䠅㛵㔝䠖䠄๓␎䠅䛭䛖䛔䛖ព࿡䛷䛿䚸䜰䝬䝌䞁䜔䜰䞁䝕䝇䛻ఫ䜐ே䛯䛱䛿䐠ᐤ⏕⹸䛷䚸䜟䜜䜟䜜㒔ᕷ䛻ఫ䜐ே㛫䛿䐡䜴䜲䝹䝇䛰䛸ᛮ䛔䜎䛩䛽䚹㻡㻚㻌 䜎䛸䜑䛸௒ᚋ䛾ㄢ㢟㻌䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛾㐃㙐䛜⏕䛨䛶䛔䜛ሙ㠃䛷䛿䚸ヰ㢟䛾ᑐ㇟ T ཬ䜃 T 㡿ᇦ䛻㛵䛧䛶䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛻ᇶ䛵䛔䛯⾲⌧䛾䛂ᯟ⤌䜏䛃䛜䛴䛟䜙䜜䚸ᑐヰ⪅㛫䛷䛾 T ཬ䜃 T 㡿ᇦ䛻㛵䛩䜛⌮ゎ䛾ඹ᭷䞉Ⓨᒎ䛜⾜䜟䜜䛶䛔䜛䜘䛖䛻ᛮ䛘䜛䚹ୖグ䛾(6)䛷ゝ䛘䜀䚸T 㡿ᇦ䛾䝞䝤䝹ᮇ䛾㖟⾜䛾≧ἣ䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸ᡓத䛸䛔䛖ᯟ⤌䜏䛷ㄒ䜚䚸䛭䛾ᯟ⤌䜏䛻䛚䛔䛶䝞䝤䝹ᚋ䛾≧ἣ䜢䛂ᩋᡓ䛃䛸⾲䛧䚸⌮ゎ䛾ඹ᭷䛜ᅗ䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛䜘䛖䛷䛒䜛䚹௒ᚋ䛿䚸ᮏ◊✲䛷ᚓ䜙䜜䛯㐃㙐䝟䝍䞊䞁䜢䚸ᑐヰෆ䛾䝥䝻䝉䝇䛻఩⨨䛵䛡䛶䚸Ⓨヰ䛾ពᅗ䚸ᑐヰ䛾㐍ᒎ䚸ᑐヰ䛾┠ⓗ㐩ᡂ䛺䛹䛸㛵㐃䛵䛡䛺䛜䜙᳨ウ䛧䛶䛔䛝䛯䛔䚹䜎䛯䝕䞊䝍䛻㛵䛧䛶䛿䚸ᐇ㝿䛾ᑐヰ䜢㘓㡢䞉㘓⏬䛧䚸཰㞟䛧䛶䛔䛛䛺䛡䜜䜀䛺䜙䛺䛔䛰䜝䛖䚹䛭䜜䛸୪⾜䛧䛶䚸䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊ྠᐃ䛾ᡭ㡰䛾ಙ㢗ᛶ䚸㐃㙐䝟䝍䞊䞁䛾ศ㢮䛾ጇᙜᛶ䚸ಙ㢗ᛶ䜢㧗䜑䛶䛔䛟䚹ὀ
ͤⓎ⾲䛻䛚䛔䛶㘠ᓥᘯ἞ᮁẶ䜘䜚䛂㐃㙐䛃䛸䛔䛖⏝ㄒ䛾㐺ษ䛥䛻䛴䛔䛶䝁䝯䞁䝖䜢䛔䛯䛰䛔䛯䚹ᮏ◊✲䛷䛿ඛ⾜◊✲䛷⏝䛔䜙䜜䛶䛔䛯"chain"䜢┤ヂⓗ䛻⏝䛔䛯䛜䚸௒ᚋ䜘䜚㐺ษ䛺⏝ㄒ䜢᳨ウ䛧䛯䛔䚹ͤCameron, L.䛿䜲䞁䝖䝛䞊䝅䝵䞁䞉䝴䝙䝑䝖䜢ศᯒ༢఩䛸䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ͤᮏ◊✲䛾䛂㡿ᇦ䠄domain䠅䛃䛿䚸㘠ᓥ(2011)䛾䜎䛸䜑䛻ᚑ䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹䛂ㄒ䛾ព࿡䛿༢⊂䛷Ꮡᅾ䛫䛪䚸㛵㐃䛧䛯▱㆑䛾⥲య䛾୍㒊䛸䛧䛶Ꮡᅾ䛃䠄p. 36䠅䛧䛶䛚䜚䚸䛂㡿ᇦ䠄domain䠅䛃䛿䛭䛾▱㆑䛾⥲య䜢ᣦ䛩䚹ཧ↷ᩥ⊩㻌
Cameron, L. 2007. “Patterns of Metaphor Use in Reconciliation Talk.” Discourse Society 18:2, 197-222.
Cameron, L. 2008a. “Metaphor and Talk.” In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor andThought. New York: Cambridge University Press. 197-211.
Cameron, L. 2008b. “Metaphor Shifting in the Dynamics of talk.” In M. S. Zanotto, L. Cameron, M. C. Cavalcanti (eds.)
Confronting Metaphor in Use, 45-62. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goatly, A. 1997. The Language of Metaphors. New York: Routledge.
㘠ᓥᘯ἞ᮁ. 2011. 䛄᪥ᮏㄒ䛾䝯䝍䝣䜯䞊䛅ᮾி䠖䛟䜝䛧䛚ฟ∧
Pragglejaz Group. 2007. “MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol
22:1, 1-39.
⏝౛ฟ඾䠄ᮏ✏䛷♧䛧䛯䜒䛾䛾䜏䠅㻌஬ᮌᐶஅ䞉ሷ㔝୐⏕䠄2003䠅䛄䛚䛸䛺஧ே䛾༗ᚋ䛅ゅᕝ᭩ᗑᕝୖᮍᫎᏊ䠄2010䠅䛄භ䛴䛾ᫍᫍ㻌 ᕝୖᮍᫎᏊᑐヰ㞟䛅ᩥ⸤᫓⛅ྖ㤿㑈ኴ㑻䠄1999䠅䛄᪥ᮏே䜈䛾㑇ゝ䛅ᮅ᪥᪂⪺ฟ∧㛵㔝ྜྷᬕ䠄2007䠅䛄㛵㔝ྜྷᬕᑐㄯ㞟㻌 䜾䝺䞊䝖䝆䝱䞊䝙䞊㻌 1993䡚2007䛅ᮾᾏ኱Ꮫฟ∧㫽㉺ಇኴ㑻䠄2005䠅䛄൅䜙䛾㡢ᴦ㻌 ᑐㄯ㞟䠎䛅䝋䝙䞊䞉䝬䜺䝆䞁䝈୕ᓥ⏤⣖ኵ䠄2006䠅䛄ᑐㄯ㞟㻌 ※Ἠ䛾ឤ᝟䛅Ἑฟ᭩ᡣ⩌䜘䛖䛣䠄2002䠅䛄㦫඾䛅ㅮㄯ♫−300−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ䛸䛧䛶䛾䛂ຓゝ䛃ʊ䛭䛾ᐃ⩏䜢ヨ䜏䜛ʊ㧘ᶫ༓௦ᯞchiyoei@gmail.com<Abstract>
The purpose of the paper is to consider the definition of ‘Advice’ as an illocutionary force.
Although Austin(1962) and Searle(1969) have considered the felicity conditions of ‘Advice’, I will claimthat the illocutionary forces of ‘Advice’ have characteristics of both ‘assertive’ and ‘directive’ speech acts.
I have aimed to extract the pragmatic elements of ‘Advice’, and to define the action precisely. Also,
more accurate standards of defining the felicity conditions and other speech acts are reconsidered. My
claim is that ‘Advice’ is a clearly different Speech act from the other ‘directive’ speech acts in terms ofthese achievements. In addition to that, I propose that it is possible to distinguish similar speech acts,
such as ‘warning’, ‘suggestion’ and ‘caution’ by careful consideration of the setting of the criteria.
䛆䜻䞊䝽䞊䝗䛇Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ⌮ㄽ䚸⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᆺ䚸㝞㏙⾲♧ᆺ䚸㐺ษᛶ᮲௳䚸ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩ䛾ᢳฟ㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢศ㔝࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕⓎヰ
⾜Ⅽ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠕ౫㢗ࠖࡸࠕ࡯ࡵࠖ
ࠊࠕㅰ⨥ࠖ➼࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚ࡣࠊࡑࡢㄯヰᵓ㐀ࡸࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ㠃࠿ࡽከࡃࡢ
◊✲ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ࠕຓゝࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ⚾ぢࡢ㝈ࡾከࡃࡢ◊✲ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ࠕຓゝࠖࡣࠊLeach(1983)ࡀࠕ୍ぢࡍࡿ࡜┦ᡭࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᛮ࠸ࡸࡗࡓ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࡓ
ࡵࠊ♫఍ⓗ┠ᶆ࡜୍⮴ࡍࡿࠕ୎ᑀ࡞ࠖ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡀࠊຓゝࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᐇ㝿ࡢゝㄒ⾜ືࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ▱㆑࣭⤒㦂ุ࣭᩿࡞࡝࡟࠾࠸࡚⪺ࡁᡭ࡟຾ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᙜ↛࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊㅬ㐯࡜᫝ㄆࡢཎ๎࡟㐪཯ࡍࡿ࠿ࡽኻ♩࡞⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ(p.204)࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟㹄㹒㸿࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡾࠊே
ࡀࠕຓゝࠖࢆ⾜࠾࠺࡜ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ㹄㹒㸿ࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࡓࡵࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡀᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃ
ࡽࡎࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢศ㔝࡛ࠕຓゝࠖࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ
ࡿ◊✲ࡀᑡ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢࡣࠊ
ࠕຓゝࠖ⾜Ⅽ⮬యࡢᣢࡘᵓ
㐀ࡀ」㞧࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࠕຓゝࠖࡣ Austin(1962)ࠊSearle(1969)࡟ࡼࡿⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸯ࡘࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡾୖࡆ
ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ㝿ࠕຓゝࠖࡣࠕ౫㢗ࠖࠕᣦ♧ࠖ➼࡜
ྠࡌ㺀⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆࡉࡏࡿ㺁ࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠕ⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᆺࠖⓎヰࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡓࡀࠊ
Searle ⮬㌟ࡀⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡢศ㢮࡟⏝࠸ࡓ㐺ษᛶ᮲௳ࡢ
ഛ⪃ḍ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕ୍⯡࡟⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᡤ࡜ࡣ␗࡞
ࡾࠊຓゝࡣ౫㢗ࡢ୍✀࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࡤࠊຓゝࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ఱ஦࠿ࢆ⾜ࢃࡏࡿࡼ࠺ヨࡳࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ࡟ࡏࡼࠊࡑࢀࡣࠊ౫㢗ࡢሙྜ࡜ࡣ␗

࡞ࡿព࿡࡟࠾࠸࡚࡛࠶ࡿࠋຓゝࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࡴ
ࡋࢁ┦ᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚᭱Ⰻࡢࡇ࡜ࡀఱ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆ┦ᡭ࡟࿌ࡆࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡯࠿࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ(ᆏᮏ࣭ᅵᒇヂ p.126)
࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
ࠕ⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᆺࠖࡢ୰࡛ࡶ≉Ṧ࡞఩⨨࡙ࡅࢆࡶࡗ࡚ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࠊAustinࠊSearle ࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ⌮ㄽࢆ⥅ᢎࡋࠊ
ࡉࡽ࡟ヲ⣽࡞Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽࡢศ㢮ࢆヨࡳࡓ
Bach&Harnish(1969)࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕຓゝࠖࡣࠕ㝞㏙⾲♧ᆺࠖ㸦Constatives ➹⪅ヂ㸧࡜ࠊࠕ⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᆺࠖ(Directives)ࡢ㸰ࡘ࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿᙧ࡛ศ㢮ࡉࢀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡶࠕຓゝࠖࡢᣢࡘㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩࡀ」㞧࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⇃ྲྀ㇂࣭ᮧୖ(1992)ࡀࠊⓎヰ
⾜Ⅽ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕຓゝࠖ⾜Ⅽࡢ≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࢆ᥼⏝ࡋࠊ⊂⮬ࡢᐃ⩏ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࡑࢀࢆᇶ࡟ᐇ㝿ࡢ఍ヰ࠿ࡽࠕຓゝࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩࢆᢳฟࡋࡼ࠺࡜ヨࡳ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑ
ࡢᚋࠊࡇࡢᐃ⩏ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠕຓゝࠖ఍ヰࢆศᯒࡋࡓ㮵
ᓥ(2000)ࡸࠊ㜿㒊(2001)➼ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠕຓ
ゝࠖࡢᐃ⩏࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢゝཬࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕຓゝࠖࡢ㢮ఝⓎ
ヰ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡳࡽࢀࡿࠕ㆙࿌ࠖࡸࠕὀពࠖ
ࠊࠕࡍࡍࡵࠖࡸ
ࠕಁࡋࠖࠊࡲࡓࠕ⬣ࡋࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡜ΰྠࡉࢀ࡚ᢅ
ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᮍࡔࠕຓゝࠖࡢᐃ⩏⮬య࡟ࡶၥ㢟ࡀṧࡾࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠕຓゝࠖࡢㄯヰࢆ࡜ࡽ࠼ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁࡲ࡛ࡣ
⮳ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ ࡑࡇ࡛ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊAustin ࡜ Searle ࡟ࡼࡾⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡢศ㢮࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࠕㄒ⏝ㄽⓗせ⣲ࠖࡢᢳฟ㸦Ⓨ
ヰ⾜Ⅽ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠕ㐺ษᛶ᮲௳ࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿ㸧ࢆ ᇶ ᮏ ⓗ ࡞ ⪃ ᐹ ࡢ ᡭ ẁ ࡜ ࡋ ࠊ Searle(1969) ࠊ
Leech(1983)ࠊBach&Harnish(1979)࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕຓゝࠖ

−301−

発話行為としての「助言」―その定義を試みる―࡟㛵ࡍࡿグ㏙ࡸࠊᒣ᲍(1980)ࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡢศ㢮ࢆᴫほࠊ᳨ウࡋࠊ
ࠕຓゝࠖࡢ≉ᚩ௜ࡅࢆ⾜࠸ࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ
᪥ᮏㄒ࡛⪃ᐹࡉࢀࡓᆏᮏ௚(1994)ࡶ᳨ウࡋࠊࠕຓゝࠖࡢ㢮ఝⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠕᥦ᱌ࠖ
ࠕ㆙࿌ࠖ
ࠕᛅ࿌ࠖ
ࠕὀ
ពࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊ
ࠕຓゝࠖ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡢẚ㍑࠿ࡽⱝᖸࡢ≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࢆ⾜࠸ࡓ࠸࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸰㸬ࠕຓゝࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩࢆ᥈ࡿ
㸰㸬㸯Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽࡢ㸳ࡘࡢศ㢮 Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ⌮ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕேࡣゝㄒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ఱࡀ࡛
ࡁࡿ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡢศ㢮ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡢศ㢮ࡣࠊከࡃࡢ◊✲⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⪃ᐹࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ࣮࢜
ࢫࢸ࢕ࣥ(1962)ࡣࠊ
ࠕⓎヰࡢ┠ⓗࠖࡸࠕⓎヰཧ୚⪅ࡢ♫఍ⓗ㛵ಀࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽࡢᣢࡘ♫఍ⓗࠊ័⩦ⓗ࡞ព
࿡ࡸᛶ㉁ࠖ࡞࡝࠿ࡽࠊⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࢆ㸳ࡘ࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢศ㢮ࡣࢧ࣮ࣝ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶ㋃くࡉࢀࠊᒣ᲍
(1986)ࡶࡇࢀࢆࡲ࡜ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᒣ᲍(1986)ࡣࠊ
ࠕa.ၥ㢟ࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞Ⓨヰ┠ⓗࠖ࡜ࠕb.
ࡑࡢⓎヰෆᐜ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࿨㢟㹎࡜ࡑࡢⓎヰࡀ࠿࠿ࢃࡿ
஦ែࠊ≧ἣ࡜ࡢ┦஫㛵ಀࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽࢆศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ
ࠕຓゝࠖࡣࠕ⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᆺࠖ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࠊࠕa.⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᡤᐃࡢ⾜Ⅽࡢ⩏ົࢆㄢࡋࠊࡑࢀ
ࢆ⾜ࢃࡏࠊb.ࡇࢀ࠿ࡽฟ⌧ࡍ࡭ࡁ஦ែࠊ≧ἣ㹎࡟㐺ྜࡉࡏ࡚᪂ࡓ࡞ୡ⏺ࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿࠖ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀ࡟ࡣࠊ౫㢗ࡸ࿨௧ࠊ່ㄏ࡞࡝ࡶྵࡲࢀࡿࠋ ୍᪉ࠊBach&Harnish(1979)(௨ୗ B&H)ࡣࠊ࣮࢜
ࢫࢸ࢕ࣥࠊࢧ࣮ࣝࡢศ㢮ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡞ࡀࡽࠊ
ࠕヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗࡢᙉࡉࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᇶ‽ࢆຍ࠼࡚⾜Ⅽࡢศ㢮ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ Advise(Advice)ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㝞㏙⾲♧ᆺࠖ࡜
ࠕ⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᆺࠖࡢ㸰ࡘ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋB&H ࡣ≉࡟ Advisories(ᛅ࿌㢮)ࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࠕ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟⾜ືࢆせồࡍࡿពᅗࢆ⾲ࡍࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢࡼ
࠺࡞⾜ືࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣⰋ࠸ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᡤಙࢆ
⾲᫂ࡍࡿ(ୗ⥺➹⪅)ࠖⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゎㄝࢆຍ࠼࡚
࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢグ㏙࠿ࡽࠊB&H ࡣ Advise ࢆࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟
⾜ືࢆせồࡍࡿࠕ⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᆺࠖⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ
≉ᚩࢆᣢࡘ⾜Ⅽ࡜࡜ࡽ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ ࣮࢜ࢫࢸ࢕ࣥࠊࢧ࣮ࣝࡢศ㢮ᇶ‽࡟ຍ࠼ࠊB&H ࡣࠕヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗࡢᙉࡉࠖ࡜࠸࠺᪂ࡓ࡞ᇶ‽ࢆࡶࡗ࡚Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽࡢศ㢮ࢆヨࡳ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ
ᚑ᮶ࡢศ㢮ᇶ‽࡛ࡣࠊࡼࡾヲ⣽࡟⾜Ⅽࢆ≉ᚩ࡙ࡅศ㢮ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮ
ࢃࢀࡿࠋᒣ᲍(1986)ࡶࠊ
ࠕⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ୍⯡࡟ඹ㏻ࡍࡿ㐺ษᛶ᮲௳ࡢᢳฟ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊಶูࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࢆ≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡿලయⓗ࡞㐺ษᛶ᮲௳ࡢᢳฟ࡜ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢㅖ᮲௳
ࡢ┦஫㛵ಀࡢ᫂☜໬ࡀᚲせ(p.41)ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᒣ᲍
⮬㌟ࡶࠊ
ࠕ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀヰࡋᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿⪺ࡁᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࠖ
ࠊࠕၥ㢟ࡢᖐᒓࡣヰࡋᡭ࡟࠶ࡿ࠿⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࠶ࡿ࠿ࠖࠊ
ࠕ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ⓨ⏕ࡍࡿຠᯝࡣఱ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ 3 ࡘࡢ
せ⣲ࢆ᪂ࡓ࡟ຍ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶࠊ⾜Ⅽࢆ≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡞ࡿศ㢮ᇶ‽ࡀᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ
㸰㸬㸰ࠕຓゝࠖࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩ㸰㸬㸰㸬㸯⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᆺⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ ࡛ࡣࠊ᭱ึ࡟ࢧ࣮ࣝ(1969)࡛ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐺ษᛶ᮲௳ࡀグ㏙ࡉࢀࡓࡢ࠿ぢ࡚ࡳࡿࠋࢧ࣮ࣝ(1969)࡛
ࡣ advise ࡣࠕ⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᆺࠖⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(ᆏᮏ࣭ᅵᒇヂ p.126)(S㸻ヰࡋᡭࠊH㸻⪺ࡁᡭ)࿨㢟ෆᐜ᮲௳䠖㻴 䛾ᮍ᮶䛾⾜Ⅽ䠝㻌‽ഛ᮲௳䠖㻌
䠍䠊䠯䛿䠝䛜䠤䛻ᑐ䛧䛶┈䜢୚䛘䜛䛣䛸䜢ಙ䛨䛶䛔䜛䚹䠎䠊䠤䛜㏻ᖖ䛾஦ែ䛾㐍⾜䛻䛚䛔䛶䠝䜢⾜䛖䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛿䚸䠯䛸䠤䛻䛸䛳䛶⮬᫂䛷䛿䛺䛔䚹㻌ㄔᐇᛶ᮲௳䠖㻌
䠯䛿䠝䛜䠤䛻ᑐ䛧䛶┈䜢୚䛘䜛䛸ಙ䛨䛶䛔䜛䚹㻌
ᮏ㉁᮲௳䠖㻌
䠝䛜䠤䛾᭱኱䛾฼┈䛻䛺䜛䛸䛔䛖㊃᪨䜢ᘬ䛝ཷ䛡䜛䛣䛸䛸䛧䛶䜏䛺䛥䜜䜛䚹㻌ഛ⪃䠖୍⯡䛻⪃䛘䜙䜜䛶䛔䜛ᡤ䛸䛿␗䛺䜚䚸ຓゝ䛿౫㢗䛾୍✀䛷䛿䛺䛔䚹䛺䛬䛺䜙䜀䚸ຓゝ䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛜䚸┦ᡭ䛻ఱ஦䛛䜢⾜䜟䛫䜛䜘䛖ヨ䜏䜛䛣䛸䛷䛒䜛䛻䛫䜘䚸䛭䜜䛿䚸౫㢗䛾ሙྜ䛸䛿␗䛺䜛ព࿡䛻䛚䛔䛶䛷䛒䜛䚹ຓゝ䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖䛣䛸䛿䜐䛧䜝┦ᡭ䛻䛸䛳䛶᭱Ⰻ䛾䛣䛸䛜ఱ䛷䛒䜛䛛䜢┦ᡭ䛻࿌䛢䜛䛣䛸䛻䜋䛛䛺䜙䛺䛔䚹㻔ୗ⥺➹⪅㻕㻌 ࡇࢀࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊⓎヰࡢࠕෆᐜࠖ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࠕ࿨㢟᮲௳ࠖࡣࠕ㹆ࡢᮍ᮶ࡢ⾜Ⅽࠖ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿
ࡽࠊࠕຓゝ࡛ࠖⓎヰࡉࢀࡿࠕෆᐜࠖࡣࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࠖࡢࠕ⾜Ⅽ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡾࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࠖࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟ゝཬࡍࡿࡓࡵ㹄㹒㸿࡜࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿ᰿ᣐ࡜ࡶゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࡇࡢ࿨㢟ෆᐜ᮲௳ࡣࠕ࿨௧ࠖࡸࠕᣦ♧ࠖࡢሙྜࡶྠࡌ(ᒣ᲍(1968)p.43)࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊྠ✀ࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡢศ㢮ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿ⌮⏤࡜࡞ࡿ࡜ࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࠕຓゝࠖࢆỴᐃⓗ࡟༊ูࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ
ࠕヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗࡸⓎヰࡢ┠ⓗࠊ⾜Ⅽࡢᮏ㉁ⓗ࡞ࢦ࣮ࣝ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࠕᮏ㉁᮲௳࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋᒣ᲍
(1986)࡛ࠕ౫㢗ᆺࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚≉ᚩࢆグ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ࿨
௧ࠖ➼ࡢᮏ㉁᮲௳ࡣࠊ
ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽࡢᐇ⾜ࡢ⩏ົࢆ㈇࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛ࠊ
ࠕ౫㢗ᆺࠖࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡢࠕࢦ࣮ࣝࠖࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀⓎࡋࡓࠕ⾜Ⅽࠖࢆࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᐇ㝿࡟ᐇ⾜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡲࡓࡣࡑࡢ⩏ົࢆ㈇࠺ࠖࡇ࡜࡟
ࡼࡗ࡚㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ࠕຓゝࠖⓎヰࡢᮏ㉁᮲௳

−302−

第16回大会発表論文集ࡣࠊࠕ㸿ࡀ㹆ࡢ᭱኱ࡢ฼┈࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺㊃᪨ࢆᘬࡁཷ
ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࠖ࡜ࡢグ㏙ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡑࡢ┠ⓗࡀ┦ᡭࡢࠕ⾜Ⅽ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕ฼┈࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ಙࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࠖ࡜
ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢧ࣮ࣝࡢ㐺ษᛶ᮲௳࡟ࡶࠕഛ⪃ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚グ㏙ࡀ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡲࡓࠊB&H ࡀࠕຓゝࠖࢆࠕ⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᆺࠖࡢࡳ࡛࡞ࡃࠕ㝞㏙⾲♧ᆺࠖ࡟ࡶศ㢮ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࡶࠊ
ࠕຓゝࠖࡣࠕ⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᆺࠖⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡢ୰࡛ࡶࠊࡑࡢᣢࡘᮏ㉁࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡑࡢ௚ࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ≉ᚩࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ ࡲࡓࠊࡇࡇࡲ࡛ࡢ⪃ᐹ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㐺ษᛶ᮲௳࡟௦
⾲ࡉࢀࡿࠕ⾜Ⅽࢆ≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡿせ⣲ࠖࡀ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ฟ⌧ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡟ࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟⌧ࢀࡓせ⣲ࢆࡲ࡜ࡵ࡚࠾
ࡃࠋ ࡲࡎࠊ㐺ษᛶ᮲௳࠿ࡽࠊ⾜Ⅽࡢศ㢮࡟ࡣࠊ
ࠕⓎヰෆ
ᐜࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ≧ែࡸ⬟ຊࠖࠊࠕヰࡋᡭࡢⓎヰࡢពᅗࠖࠕⓎヰࡢ┠ⓗࡸ⾜Ⅽࡢᮏ㉁ⓗ࡞ࢦ࣮ࣝࠖࡢ㸲ࡘࡢᇶ‽ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊB&H ࡀࠕヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗࡢᙉࡉࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊ࠸ࢃࡤࠕᚰ
ⓗែᗘ࣭≧ែࠖ࡜ࡶゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⾜Ⅽࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡜࠸
ࡗࡓᣊ᮰ຊࡢᙉᙅࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ௚࡟
ࡶࠊࠕ࿨௧ࠖࡍࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣࠊ࿨௧࡛ࡁࡿᶒ㝈ࢆヰࡋᡭࡀᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸➼ࠊࠕヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ♫఍ⓗ㛵ಀࠖࡶࠊ⾜Ⅽࡢ≉ᚩࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ㝿࡟ࡣᚲせ࡞
せ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸰㸬㸰㸬㸰ࠕ⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᆺࠖ࡜ࠕ㝞㏙⾲♧ᆺࠖ B&H(1979)ࡣ”advise”ࢆࠕ⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᆺࠖ࡟ࠊ”advice”
ࢆࠕ㝞㏙⾲♧ᆺࠖ࡟ࡑࢀࡒࢀศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

Informatives㸦㏻▱ᆺ㸧(advise, announce, apprise, disclose ௚)
In uttering e, S inform H that P if S expresses: ithe belief that P, and ii the intention that H form
the belief that P.(p.42)
㸦e ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ S(speaker)ࡣ H(hearer)࡟
㹎ࢆ㏻▱(inform)ࡍࡿࠋi㹑ࡀ㹎࡜࠸࠺ᡤಙࢆ⾲᫂ࡋࠊ
ii ࡲࡓࠊ㹆࡟㹎࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼ࢆᣢࡓࡏࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿពᅗ
ࢆ⾲᫂ࡋࡓሙྜ㸧
Advisories㸦ᛅ࿌ᆺ㸧(admonish, advise, caution, recommend,௚)In uttering e, S advices that P if S expresses:i the belief that there is (sufficient) reason for H toA, and ii the intention that H take S’s belief as(sufficient) reason for him to A.
㸦e ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㹑ࡣ㹆࡟㸿㸦⾜Ⅽ㸧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆຓゝࡍࡿࠋ
i H ࡀ㸿ࡍࡿ༑ศ࡞⌮⏤ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᡤಙ࡜ࠊ

第９号

ii㹆ࡀ㸿ࡍࡿ༑ศ࡞⌮⏤ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺㹑ࡢᡤಙࢆ㹆ࡀ⌮ゎࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗࢆ㹑ࡀ⾲᫂ࡋࡓሙྜ㸧(➹⪅ヂ)࡝ࡕࡽࡶࡘࡲࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠕⰋ࠸ࠖ࡜ᛮࢃ
ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊヰࡋᡭࡀࡑ࠺ಙࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠕᡤಙࠖ
ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟♧ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟ཷࡅྲྀ
ࡿࠊࡑࢀࡀⰋ࠸ࡇ࡜࡜ಙࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠕຓゝࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡘࡲࡾ౛࠼ࡤࠊ㐍Ꮫඛࢆ㏞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᏛ⏕࡟ᩍᖌࡀࠊ
ࠕ㸿኱Ꮫ࡬⾜ࡗࡓࡽ࡝࠺࡛ࡍ࠿ࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࠕ㸿኱ᏛࡣⰋ࠸኱Ꮫ࡛ࡍࡼࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ㸺⪺ࡁᡭࡀ㸿኱Ꮫ࡬⾜ࡃ㸼ࡇ࡜ࢆຓゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁࠊࡲࡓࡑࡢຓ
ゝࡀࠕᡂຌࠖࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ㸿኱Ꮫ࡬㢪᭩ࢆฟࡋࡓ࡜ࡁ࡛ࡶࠊධᏛࡋࡓ᫬࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࠕ㸿኱ᏛࡣⰋ࠸኱Ꮫࡔࠖࡲࡓࡣࠕ㸿኱Ꮫ࡬⾜ࡃࡇ࡜ࡣ⚾࡟࡜ࡗ࡚Ⰻ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡔࠖ࡜ྠពࡋࡓ᫬Ⅼ࡛㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୖぢ࡚ࡃࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟㏙࡭ࡓࠕⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࢆ≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡿせ⣲ࠖ࡟ຍ࠼ࠊ
ࠕ⾜Ⅽࠖࡀᡂຌࡍࡿ᮲௳ࡶࠊ
ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿࡢ࡟ࡣᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
ࢃ࠿ࡿࠋඛ࡯࡝㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࿨௧ࡸ౫㢗࡛ࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᐇ㝿࡟ࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜ࡗࡓሙྜ࡟㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊຓゝ࡛ࡣࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࠿࡝࠺
࠿ࡣၥ㢟࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊⓎヰࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡓ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀヰࡋᡭࡢᡤಙࢆಙࡌࠊྠពࡋࡓ࠿ྰ࠿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾜Ⅽࡢ㐩ᡂࡀᕥྑࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋຓゝࡉࢀࡓෆᐜࡢ
⾜Ⅽࢆᐇ㝿࡟⾜࠺࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡢุ᩿ࡣከศ࡟⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ጤࡡࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ౛࠼ࡤఱ࠿ࢆຓゝࡉࢀࠊࠕ࡞ࡿ࡯࡝ࠊ
ࡑࢀࡣ࠸࠸⪃࠼ࡔࠋࡸࡗ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ
ࠖ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࡑ
ࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛⣙᮰ࡍࡿᚲせࡣ࡞࠸ࡋࠊᚋ࠿ࡽヰࡋᡭ࡟ࡣෆ⥴࡛ࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜ࢃ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊ
ࠕຓゝࠖ⾜Ⅽࡢ㐩ᡂ࡟ࡣᙳ㡪ࡀ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠕຓゝࠖ⾜Ⅽࡀࠕ୙Ⓨࠖࠊࡲࡓࡣࠕ୙
ᡂຌࠖ࡟⤊ࢃࡿሙྜࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀࡋࡓࠕຓゝࠖࡢෆᐜ࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࠕ୙ྠពࠖࢆ⾲ࡋࡓሙྜ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑ
ࡢሙྜ࡟ࠕຓゝࠖࡣࠕ୙㐩ᡂࠖࠕ୙ᡂຌࠖ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
㸰㸬㸱ࠕຓゝࠖࡢᇶᮏⓗ≉ᚩ ௨ୖぢ࡚ࡃࡿ࡜ࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡟ࡶඹ㏻ࡋ࡚
⌧ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕຓゝࠖ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕヰࡋᡭࡀࠕⰋ࠸ࠖ࡜
ᛮ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟㏙࡭ࠊࡑࢀࢆ⪺ࡁᡭࡶࠕⰋ࠸ࠖ
࡜ࡋ࡚ྠពࡍࡿࠊࡲࡓࡣ⌮ゎࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸
࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢ⾜Ⅽࡢ㐩ᡂ࡟ࡣࠊᐇ㝿ࡢ
⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠺࠿ྰ࠿ࡣၥ㢟࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
ࡑࢀࡀಙࡎࡿ࡟್ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜ཷࡅྲྀࡽࢀࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟
㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀゝ࠼ࡿࠋ㸱㸬ࠕຓゝࠖ࡜ࡑࡢ௚ࡢࠕ⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᆺࠖⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ
㸱㸬㸯ࠕ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࠖࠕཷ┈⪅ࠖࠕỴᐃᶒ⪅ࠖ

−303−

発話行為としての「助言」―その定義を試みる― ୰㐨࣭ᅵ஭(1995)ࡣࠊ
ࠕ⾜ⅭせồⓎヰ(⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᆺⓎヰ࡜ྠ⩏)ࠖࢆࠊ⾜Ⅽࢆࡍࡿࡢࡣㄡ࠿ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ
࡚฼┈ࢆཷࡅࡿࡢࡣㄡ࠿ࠊᙉไຊࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡶ⾜Ⅽࢆ≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせ࡞ᇶ‽࡛࠶ࡾࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࡇࢀࢆࠕ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠺ࡢࡣヰࡋᡭ࠿ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࠊ཮᪉࠿ࠖ
ࠊࠕ฼┈ࢆཷࡅ
ࡿࡢࡣㄡ࠿ࠊ㈇ᢸࢆ⿕ࡿࡢࡣㄡ࠿ࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ
࡜ࢆỴࡵࡿᶒ฼ࡣㄡࡀᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠊࡼࡾ
ヲ⣽࡞ᇶ‽࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕຓゝࠖ࡜ࡑࡢ௚ࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆẚ㍑᳨
ウࡍࡿࠋ㸱㸬㸰ࠕ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࠖࡢᇶ‽
ࠕ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠺ࡢࡣㄡ࠿ࠖ࡜ゝ࠺ᇶ‽࠿ࡽ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ⾜Ⅽᣦ♧ᆺ⾜Ⅽࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࠋ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠺ࡢࡣ㸸ヰࡋᡭ࣭࣭࣭⏦ࡋฟࠊ⣙᮰⪺ࡁᡭ࣭࣭࣭౫㢗ࠊᣦ♧ࠊຓゝࠊᛅ࿌ࠊࡍࡍࡵ
཮᪉່࣭࣭࣭ㄏࠊᐉゝ㸱㸬㸱ࠕỴᐃᶒ⪅ࠖࡢᇶ‽ ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜࠺࠿ྰ࠿ࢆỴᐃࡍࡿᶒ฼ࢆᣢࡘࡢࡣㄡ࠿
࡜ゝ࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
Ỵᐃᶒ⪅ࡣ㸸
ヰࡋᡭ࣭࣭࣭࿨௧ࠊᣦ♧ࠊὀᩥࠊチྍ୚࠼⪺ࡁᡭ࣭࣭࣭౫㢗ࠊࡍࡍࡵࠊᛅ࿌ࠊຓゝࠊ່ㄏ㸱㸬㸲ࠕཷ┈⪅ࠖࡢᇶ‽ ࠕ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ⓨ⏕ࡍࡿ฼┈࣭㈇ᢸࡣ࡝ࡕࡽࡀ㈇࠺࠿ࠖ࡜ゝ࠺ᇶ‽࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿ࡜௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
฼┈ࢆཷࡅࡿࡢࡣヰࡋᡭ࣭࣭࣭౫㢗฼┈ࢆཷࡅࡿࡢࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࣭࣭࣭⏦ࡋฟࠊຓゝࠊᛅ࿌฼┈ࢆཷࡅࡿࡢࡣ཮᪉່࣭࣭࣭ㄏ ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡇ࡛ゝ࠺ࠕ฼┈ࠖࡣࠊࠕຓゝࠖࡢሙྜ࡟
ࡣࡑࡢព࿡ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠕ౫㢗࡛ࠖࡣࠊఱ࠿ࢆ㈚ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࡾࠊఱ࠿ࢆࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
ヰࡋᡭ࡟ᐇ㉁ⓗ࡞ࠕ฼┈ࠖࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕຓゝࠖࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࡑࡢ฼┈ࡣ஧ḟⓗ࡟Ⓨ⏕ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕຓゝࠖ௨እࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾࠸࡚Ⓨ⏕ࡍࡿࠕ฼┈ࠖ࡜ࡣព࿡ྜ࠸ࡀ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠾
ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ㸲㸬ࠕຓゝࠖࡢ㢮ఝⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡢ༊ู Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽࡢศ㢮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕຓゝࠖ࡜࡯ࡰྠࡌ㐺ษᛶ᮲௳ࡀグ㏙ࡉࢀࠊ㢮ఝ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠕᛅ
࿌ࠖ
ࠕ㆙࿌ࠖ
ࠕὀពࠖ
ࠕᥦ᱌ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶヲ⣽࡟᳨ウࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ༊ูࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋᛅ࿌㸸ຓゝࡢሙྜࡣࠕⰋ࠸ࡇ࡜ࠖࢆゝ࠺ࡀࠊᛅ࿌ࡢ
ሙྜࡣࠕᝏ࠸ࡇ࡜ࠖࡀヰࡋᡭ࡟㉳ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆゝ࠺㆙࿌㸸⪺ࡁᡭࡀ༴㝤࡟ࡉࡽࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ
ὀព㸸⪺ࡁᡭࡀ♫఍ⓗ࡟ᐃࡵࡽࢀࡓ࣮ࣝࣝ࡟㐪཯ࡋࡓሙྜᥦ᱌㸸ᙜヱၥ㢟ࡀ㆟ㄽୗ࡟࠶ࡾࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀヰࡋᡭࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ཮᪉࡟࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ㸳㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟 ௨ୖࠊⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕຓゝࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡑࡢㄒ
⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ㏙࡭ࡓࠋຓゝࡣࠊࠕヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᢪ࠼࡚࠸ࡿၥ㢟࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕⰋ࠸ࠖ࡜ᛮ
ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఏ࠼ࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࢆࠕⰋ࠸ࠖࡇ࡜࡜ࡋ࡚ཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓ᫬࡟㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇ
ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ヲ⣽࡟ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊṇ☜࡞ᐃ⩏ࡸ≉ᚩ௜ࡅࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡾࠊ
௚ࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡢΰྠࡶ㑊ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡣࠊࡇࡢᐃ⩏ࢆࡶ࡜࡟タᐃࡋࡓࠕຓゝࠖሙ㠃ࡢ఍ヰࢹ࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽࠊ
᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕຓゝࠖࡢㄯヰᵓ㐀ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
ヨࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ࠙ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ࠚ
㜿㒊ᆂᏊ(2001)ࠕ
ࠕຓゝࠖࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡢ᪥⡿ẚ㍑ࠖ
ࠗඹ❧ᅜ㝿ᩥ໬࠘➨ 18 ྕ p.59-69 ඹ❧ዪᏊᏛᅬඹ❧ዪᏊ኱Ꮫᅜ㝿ᩥ໬Ꮫ㒊ࠋ㮵ᓥᜨ(2000)ࠕ
ࠗຓゝ࠘࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⾲⌧㑅ᢥ࡜ពᅗࡢఏ
㐩̿┦஫స⏝㐣⛬࡜ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࠿ࡽぢࡓㄯヰศᯒ̿ࠖࠗ୕㔜኱Ꮫ᪥ᮏㄒᏛᩥᏛ࠘➨ 11 ྕ p.1-14 ୕㔜኱Ꮫ᪥ᮏㄒᩥᏛ఍ࠋ
⇃ྲྀ㇂ဴኵ࣭ᮧୖᜨ(1992)ࠕ⾲⌧㢮ᆺ࡟ぢࡿࠗຓゝ࠘ࡢఏ㐩᪉␎ࠖ
ࠗ⾲⌧◊✲࠘55 p.28-35 ⾲⌧Ꮫ఍ࠋ
J.L.࣮࢜ࢫࢸ࢕ࣥⴭࠊ
ᆏᮏⓒ኱ヂ(1978)ࠗゝㄒ࡜⾜Ⅽ࠘኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ(J.L.Austin(1962)How to Do Things
with Words,Oxford University Press.)
J.R.ࢧ࣮ࣝⴭࠊᆏᮏⓒ኱࣭ᅵᒇಇヂ(1986)ࠗゝㄒ⾜Ⅽ ̿ ゝ ㄒ ဴ Ꮫ ࡬ ࡢ ヨ ㄽ ࠘ ວ ⲡ ᭩ ᡣ(J.R.Searle(1969)Speech Acts, an Essay in the
Philosophy of Language, Cambridge Univ. Press)ࠋ
ᆏᮏᜨ࣭ᕝཱྀ⩏୍࣭ⵦ㇂ᏹ(1994)ࠕ
ࠗ⾜ືᒎ㛤⾲⌧࠘࡟ࡘ࠸࡚̿ᚅ㐝⾲⌧ᩍ⫱ࡢࡓࡵࡢᇶ♏ⓗ⪃ᐹ̿ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘82 ྕ p.47-58 ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍ࠋࢪ࢙ࣇ࣮࣭ࣜN࣭࣮ࣜࢳⴭࠊụୖ჆ᙪ࣭ᕝୖㄋసヂ(1987) ࠗ ㄒ ⏝ ㄽ ࠘ ⣖ ఀ ᅧ ᒇ ᭩ ᗑ ࠋ(Leech,G.N.(1983)Principles
ofPragmatics,
Longman)ࠋ

−304−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ࠕ ࡚ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡜ ࠕ e cwuta㸦 ࢸ ࣖ ࣝ 㸧 ࠖ ࡢ ព ࿡ ᶵ ⬟ ࡜ ᩥ ἲ ໬ 㡑 ிፑ
㸦㔩ᒣ኱Ꮫ㠀ᖖ໅ㅮᖌ㸧
$EVWUDFW!
Previous studies don't have given enough explanation about the difference
between -te yaru and -e cwuta in terms of their function. In this paper, I
discussed those aspects and looked into their grammaticalization. This paperargues that 1) -te yaru relates to a speaker's behavior. 2) -e cwuta implies theexistence of someone who is involved in the behavior presented in preceding verb before -e cwuta . 3) Some usage of -te yaru does not need a recipie nt. But -e cwuta needs a recipient. Accordingly, the grammaticalizationof -te yaru have proceeded further than -e cwuta .
࠙ NH\ZRUGVࠚ  yaru, cwuta, -te yaru, -e cwuta, grammaticalization㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᚑ᮶ࡢ᪥㡑ᑐ↷◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕ࡚ࡸࡿࠖ࡜ࡑࢀ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ㡑ᅜㄒࡢࠕe c-wuta㸦 ࢸ ࣖ ࣝ 㸧 ࠖ 㸦 ௨ ୗ ࠊ ࠕ e cwutaࠖ 㸧 ࡢ ┦ 㐪 Ⅼ ࡀ ༑ ศ ࡟ ᣦ ᦬ ࡉ ࢀ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࡜ ࡣゝ ࠸ 㞴 ࠸ 㸦 ᮤ ⨾ ῄ 2010➼ 㸧 ࠋᮏ ✏ ࡢ ┠ ⓗ ࡣ ࠊ ࠕ ࡚ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡜ ࠕ e c w u t aࠖ ࡣ ࡑ ࢀ ࡒ ࢀ ࡢ ᮏ ື モ ࡢ ࠕ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡜ ࠕ c-wuta㸦 ୚ ࢚ ࣝ 1㸧 ࠖ 㸦 ௨ ୗ ࠊ ࠕ cwutaࠖ 㸧 ࠿ ࡽ ᘬ ࡁ ⥅ ࡀ ࢀ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ព ࿡ ⓗ ≉ ᚩ ࡟ ᕪࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄽࡌࠊ୧ゝㄒࡀ␗࡞ࡿព࿡ᶵ⬟ࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸰 㸬 ࠕ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡜ ࠕ cwutaࠖ ඛ⾜◊✲࡛ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠕࡸࡿࠖࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ୚࠼ᡭ㸦ᐤࡾ㸧࡟ࡋ࠿⏝ ࠸ ࡽ ࢀ ࡞ ࠸ ࡢ ࡟ ᑐ ࡋ ࡚ ࠊ ࠕ cwutaࠖ ࡣ ࠊ ヰ ࡋ ᡭ 㸦 ᐤ ࡾ 㸧 ࡀ ୚ ࠼ ᡭ ࡟ ࡶ ཷ ࡅ ᡭ ࡟ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ୺᱁ྡモྃࡀᩥ࡟㢧ᅾࡋ࡞࠸ሙྜヰࡋᡭ㸦ᐤࡾ㸧ࡀ୚࠼ᡭ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ཷࡅᡭ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡣ୙᫂☜࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࠕࡸࡿࠖ࡜

−305−

「てやる」と「e cwuta（テヤル）」の意味機能と文法化

ࠕ cwutaࠖ ࡣ ࠕ ᜠ ᜨ ࠖ ࡜ ࠕ ⛣ ື ࠖ ࡜ ࠸ ࠺ ព ࿡ ⓗ ≉ ᚩ ࡟ ࡶ 㐪 ࠸ ࡀ ࠶ ࡿ 㸦 ヲ ⣽ ࡞ ࡇ ࡜ࡣ 㡑 ி ፑ 㸦 2008㸧 ࢆ ཧ ↷ ࡉ ࢀ ࡓ ࠸ 㸧 ࠋ ࠕ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡜ ࠕ cwutaࠖ ࡢ ព ࿡ ⓗ ≉ ᚩ ࡣ ⾲ 1ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ

⾲ 1 ࠕ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡜ ࠕ cwutaࠖ୚࠼ᡭ㸦ヰࡋᡭ㸧ཷࡅᡭ㸦ヰࡋᡭ㸧

ᜠᜨ

⛣ື

ࡸࡿ

‫ۑ‬



‫ۑ‬

‫ۑ‬

cwuta

‫ۑ‬

‫ۑ‬

㸫

‫ۑ‬

㸱 㸬 ࠕ ࡚ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡜ ࠕ e cwutaࠖ ࠕ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡜ ࠕ cwutaࠖ ࡢ ព ࿡ ⓗ ≉ ᚩ ࡀ ࠕ ࡚ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡜ ࠕ e cwutaࠖ ࡛ ࡣ ࡝ ࡢ ࡼ ࠺ ࡞
ᵝ ┦ ࢆ ࿊ ࡋ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࡢ ࠿ ࠊ ࠕ ࡚ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡜ ࠕ e cwutaࠖ ࡢ ព ࿡ ᶵ ⬟ ࢆ ࠊ 㸺 ᜠ ᜨ 㸼 㸺 ୙฼┈㸼㸺⮬ᕫ㢧♧㸼࡟༊ศࡋ⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
3.1. 㸺 ᜠ ᜨ 㸼 ࠕ࡚ࡸࡿࠖࡢ⾲ࡍ㸺ᜠᜨ㸼࡟ࡣᑐ㇟ࡢ⛣ືࡀకࢃࢀࡿሙྜ࡜⛣ືࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡞ࡃ
࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᑐ㇟ࡢ⛣ືࡀకࢃࢀࡿሙྜࠕ࡚ࡸࡿࠖࡣࠊᑐ㇟ࡢ⛣ືࢆక ࢃ ࡎ ࡟ ᜠ ᜨ ࡢ ࡳ ࢆ ⾲ ࡍ ࡇ ࡜ ࡀ ࡛ ࡁ ࡿ ࡢ ࡟ ᑐ ࡋ ࡚ ࠊ ࠕ e cwutaࠖ ࡣ ࡑ ࢀ ࡀ ࡛ ࡁ ࡞࠸ 㸦 㡑 ி ፑ 2008㸧 ࠋ ḟࡢ㸦㸯㸧ࡣࠊ≀ࡢ⛣ືࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ୚࠼ᡭࡀཷࡅᡭࡢ
ࡓࡵ࡟࡜ᛮࡗ࡚ࢃࡊࢃࡊඛ⾜ືモࡢ⾲ࡍ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሙ㠃࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ (1) a. ࣚ ࣥ ࢫ 1 㸦 ຓ ᡭ ᖍ ࡢ ᪉ ࡬ ㏆ ᐤ ࡗ ࡚ ❆ ࢆ ྇ ࡃ 㸧   ࣑ࣥࢳࣙࣝ1 㸦↹ࢃࡋࡑ࠺࡟❆ࢆୗࢁࡍ㸧   ࣚࣥࢫ2 ࠕᐊ㛗㸟⚾࡜ヰࡲࡋࡻ࠺ࠖ   ࣑ࣥࢳࣙࣝ2 ࠕ⚾ࡣヰࡍࡇ࡜࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࡀ͐ࠖ   ࣚࣥࢫ3 ࠕ࡝࠺࠿࠾㢪࠸ࡋࡲࡍࠊᐊ㛗ࠖ   ࣑ࣥࢳࣙࣝ3 㸦ࢻ࢔ࢆ㛤ࡅࡿ㸧   >᪥ ࠎ @ 2 

b. ⹒ 㻶 1 (‖ 㺄 ┺ ⓪ ❅ 㧊 㺓 ⶎ 㦚 {⌊ Ⰶ ┺ ‫ ⩺ ⌊ ڊ‬㭖 ┺ 3 })nayli-nta/nayli-e cwu-nta ୗ ࢁ ࡍ  ୗ ࢁ ࡋ ࡚ ࡸ ࡿ⹒ 㻶 3 (ⶎ 㦚 {㡆 ┺ ‫ ڊ‬㡊 㠊 㭖 ┺ })ye(l)-nta/yel-e cwu-nta࠙᪥ࠎࠚ㛤 ࡅ ࡿ 㛤 ࡅ ࡚ ࡸ ࡿ 

㸦 1a㸧 ࡣ ࠊ ❆ ࢆ ୗ ࢁ ࡍ ࠊ ࢻ ࢔ ࢆ 㛤 ࡅ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࡀ ཷ ࡅ ᡭ ࡟ ࡜ ࡗ ࡚ ዲ ࡲ ࡋ ࠸ ࡇ ࡜ ࡛ ࠶ ࡾ ࠊ−306−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

࡞ ࠾ ࠿ ࡘ ࠊ ᜠ ᜨ ࢆ ⾲ ࡋ ࡓ ࠸ ሙ ྜ ࡟ 㝈 ࡗ ࡚ ࠕ ࡚ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡀ ⏝ ࠸ ࡽ ࢀ ࡿ ࠋ ୍ ᪉ ࠊ 㸦 1b㸧ࡣ ࠊ ࠕ e cwutaࠖ ࡀ ⏝ ࠸ ࡽ ࢀ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࡟ ࡼ ࡗ ࡚ ୚ ࠼ ᡭ ࡢ ⾜ Ⅽ ࡟ 㛵 ࢃ ࡗ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ேࡢᏑᅾࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࠊㄡ࠿࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚❆ࢆୗࢁࡍࠊ❆ࢆ㛤ࡅࡿࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫࡀᙉࡃ࡞ࡿ ࠋ ࠕ ࡚ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡣ ࠕ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡢ ዲ ࡲ ࡋ ࡉ ࢆ ᘬ ࡁ ⥅ ࠸ ࡛ ࠾ ࡾ ࠊ ࠕ e c-wutaࠖ ࡣ ࠕ cwutaࠖ ࡢ ዲ ࡲ ࡋ ࡉ ࡬ ࡢ ୰ ❧ ࡉ ࡀ ᘬ ࡁ ⥅ ࡀ ࢀ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࡜ ゝ ࠼ ࡿ ࠋ G
3.2. 㸺 ୙ ฼ ┈ 㸼 㸦㸰㸧ࡢඛ⾜ືモ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕྏࡿࠖࡣࠊඖ᮶ࠊ୙฼┈ࢆྵពࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࠕ ࡚ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡜ ࠕ e cwutaࠖ ࡀ ࡞ ࡃ ࡚ ࡶ ୙ ฼ ┈ ࢆ ⾲ ࡍ ࠋ(2) a. ࡓ ࡕ ࡢ ᝏ ࠸ ෕ ㄯ ࡔ ࡗ ࡓ ࡽ ྏ ࡗ ࡚ ࡸ ࡾ ࡓ ࠿ ࡗ ࡓ ࠋ  b. 㰩 Ῐ 㦖 ⏣ ╊ 㧊 㠞 ┺ Ⳋ 䢒 ⌊ 㭒 ἶ 㕌 㠞 ┺ .       h on n a y - ( e ) c w u - k o s i p h - e s s t a࠙௝ேࠚ>௝ ே @
ྏࡗ࡚ࡸࡾࡓ࠿ࡗࡓ ࠕ࡚ࡸࡿࠖࡣࠊඛ⾜ືモࡢ⾲ࡍฟ᮶஦ࢆ⾜࠾࠺࡜ࡍࡿ୚࠼ᡭࡢᙉ࠸ពᚿࢆ⾲ࡋࠊࠕ e cwutaࠖ ࡣ ࠊ 㸺 ᜠ ᜨ 㸼 ࡜ ྠ ᵝ ࡟ ඛ ⾜ ື モ ࡢ ⾲ ࡍ ⾜ Ⅽ ࡬ ࡢ 㛵 ୚ ⪅ ࢆ ᝿ ᐃ ࡍ ࡿ ࠋ
3.3. 㸺 ⮬ ᕫ 㢧 ♧ 㸼 㸦 3㸧 ࡜ 㸦 4㸧 ࡣ ࠊ ୚ ࠼ ᡭ ࡢ ⾜ ࠺ ⾜ Ⅽ ࡟ ࡼ ࡗ ࡚ ┤ ᥋ ⓗ ࡟ ᜠ ᜨ ࡸ ୙ ฼ ┈ ࢆ ⿕ ࡿ ཷ ࡅᡭ ࢆ ᝿ ᐃ ࡋ ࡞ ࡃ ࡚ ࡶ ࡼ ࠸ ᩥ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࡀ ࠊ ࡇ ࡢ ࡼ ࠺ ࡞ ሙ ྜ ࠕ ࡚ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡜ ࠕ e cwutaࠖࡣ ࠶ ࡲ ࡾ ᑐ ᛂ ࡋ ࡞ ࠸ ࡇ ࡜ ࡀ ᣦ ᦬ ࡉ ࢀ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ 㸦 ᮤ ⨾ ῄ 2010㸧 ࠋ(3) a. ࡝ ࠺ ࡋ ࡚ ࡶ ࡇ ࡢ Ꮫ ᰯ ࡛ ୍ ␒ ࡟ ࡞ ࡗ ࡚ ࡸ ࢁ ࠺ ࠊ ࡜ ࠸ ࠺ ㌿ ᰯ ึ ᮇ ࡢ ⚾ ࡢኊ኱࡞ࡿỴᚰ࡜ࡣ㐪ࡗ࡚ࠊ͐㸦┬␎㸧͐>ⱥ 㞝 @b. 㠊 ⠑ Ợ ✶ ⁎ 䞯 ᾦ 㠦 ㍲ 㧒 ❇ 㦚 㹾 㰖 䞮 Ⰲ ⧒ ▮ 㩚 䞯 㽞 ₆ 㦮 G ⌊ G 㧻 䞲 G G
iltung-ul chaciha-lila-ten  ୍ ఩ ࢆ ྲྀ ࢁ ࠺ ࡜ ࡋ ࡓ         

G G G G G G G G G G G ἆ 㕂 ὒ ⓪ G ╂ Ⰲ SG ͐ 㸦 ┬ ␎ 㸧 ͐ ࠙ⱥ㞝ࠚ (4) a. ࢧ ࣥ ࣄ ࣙ ࢡ ࠕ ͐ 㸦 ┬ ␎ 㸧 ͐ ࡳ ࢇ ࡞ ᤞ ࡚ ࡚ 㥑 ࡅ ⴠ ࡕ ࡋ ࡚ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ >෤ @b. ㌗ 䡗 ͐ 㸦 ┬ ␎ 㸧 ͐ ┺ G ⻚ Ⰲ ἶ G ☚ ⰳ Ṗ G ⻚ Ⰺ Ệ 㟒 U ࠙ ෤ ࠚtomangka-(a) peli-lkeya㏨ࡆ࡚ࡋࡲ࠾࠺               
㸦 3 a㸧 ࡜ 㸦 4 a㸧 ࡢ ࠕ ࡚ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡣ ࠊ 㸺 ୙ ฼ ┈ 㸼 ࡜ ྠ ᵝ ࡟ ඛ ⾜ ື モ ࡢ ⾲ ࡍ ฟ ᮶ ஦ ࢆ ⾜࠾ ࠺ ࡜ ࡍ ࡿ ୚ ࠼ ᡭ ࡢ ᙉ ࠸ ព ᚿ ࢆ ⾲ ࡍ ࠋ ୍ ᪉ ࠊ ࠕ e cwutaࠖ ࡣ ࠊ 㸦 3b㸧 ࡜ 㸦 4b㸧 ࡢࡼ ࠺ ࡟ ཷ ࡅ ᡭ ࡀ ᝿ ᐃ ࡉ ࢀ ࡞ ࠸ ᩥ ࡛ ࡣ ⏝ ࠸ ࡽ ࢀ ࡟ ࡃ ࠸ ࡀ ࠊ ࠕ e cwutaࠖ ࡣ ࠊ ඛ ⾜ ືモࡢ⾲ࡍฟ᮶஦࡬ࡢ㛵୚⪅ࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋඛ⾜◊✲࡛ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ 㸺 ⮬ ᕫ 㢧 ♧ 㸼 ࡢ ࠕ ࡚ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡟ ࠕ e cwutaࠖ ࡀ ᑐ ᛂ ࡋ ࡞ ࠸ ࡢ ࡣ ࠊ ཷ ࡅ ᡭ ࡢ Ꮡ ᅾ ᭷−307−

「てやる」と「e cwuta（テヤル）」の意味機能と文法化↓࡟㉳ᅉࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᩥἲ໬ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽᣦ᦬ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࠕ࡚ࡸࡿ ࠖ ࡣ ࠕ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡢ ཷ ࡅ ᡭ ࡀ ᤞ ㇟ ࡉ ࢀ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࡢ ࡟ ᑐ ࡋ ࡚ ࠊ ࠕ e cwutaࠖ ࡣ ࠕ cwutaࠖࡢ ཷ ࡅ ᡭ ࢆ ಖ ᣢ ࡋ ࡚ ࠾ ࡾ 4 ࠊ ࠕ ࡚ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡢ ᪉ ࡀ ࠕ e c w u t aࠖ ࡼ ࡾ ᩥ ἲ ໬ ࡀ 㐍 ࢇ ࡛ ࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ㸱㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ ࠕ࡚ࡸࡿࠖࡣヰࡋᡭ㸦ᐤࡾ㸧࠿ࡽⓎࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍ࣐࣮࣮࡛࢝࠶ࡿࠋ
ከࡃࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡣヰࡋᡭࠕ⚾ࠖࡢどⅬࡀඃඛࠊಖᣢࡉࢀࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࠕ࡚ࡸࡿࠖࡀ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶඛ⾜ືモࡢ⾲ࡍ⾜Ⅽࡣඃඛⓗ࡟ヰࡋᡭࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊࢃࡊࢃࡊࠕ࡚ࡸࡿࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚ヰࡋᡭ࠿ࡽࡢ
⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍᚲせࡀ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡟ࢃࡊࢃࡊࠕ࡚ࡸࡿࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚ヰࡋᡭ࠿ࡽⓎࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࠕᜠᜨࠖࡸࠕᙉ࠸ពᚿࠖࡢព࿡ྜ࠸ࡀᚲせ࡜ ࡞ ࡗ ࡓ ࡢ ࡛ ࠶ ࢁ ࠺ ࠋ ୍ ᪉ ࠊ ࠕ e cwutaࠖ ࡣ ࠊ ඛ ⾜ ື モ ࡢ ⾲ ࡍ ⾜ Ⅽ ࡟ 㛵 ࢃ ࡗ ࡚ ࠸ࡿ㛵୚⪅ࢆ⾲ࡍࠋὀ
1. 㡑 ᅜ ㄒ ࡢ ࠕ cwutaࠖ ࡣ ࠊ ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ࡢ ࠕ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࠕ ࡃ ࢀ ࡿ ࠖ ࡢ ࡼ ࠺ ࡞ ᙧ ᘧ ୖ ࡢ ༊ ศ ࡀ ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࠕ୚࢚࡛ࣝࠖ⾲グࡍࡿࠋ
2. [ ]ࡣ ⩻ ヂ ᮏ ࢆ ⾲ ࡋ ࠊ ࠙ ࠚ ࡣ ཎ స ᮏ ࢆ ⾲ ࡍ ࠋ
3. ࢖ ࢱ ࣜ ࢵ ࢡ య ࡣ ࠊ ཎ ᩥ ࡢ ⾲ グ ࢆ ⾲ ࡍ ࠋ
4. ᑺ ㈼ ⨾ 㸦 2013㸧 ࡣ ࠊ ୺ ࡟ 㸺 ⮬ ᕫ 㢧 ♧ 㸼 㸦 ᑺ ࡛ ࡣ 㸺 ព ᚿ 㸼 㸧 ࢆ ᑐ ㇟ ࡟ ㄽ ࡌ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ◊ ✲ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࡀ ࠊ ᩥ ἲ ໬ ࡢ ほ Ⅼ ࠿ ࡽ ࠕ ࡚ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡜ ࠕ e cwutaࠖ ࡟ ࠾ ࡅ ࡿ ཷ ࡅ ᡭ ࡢ 㐪 ࠸ ࡀᣦ ᦬ ࡉ ࢀ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠋ ࡞ ࠾ ࠊ ᮏ ✏ ࡣ ࠊ ༤ ኈ ㄽ ᩥ ࡢ ୍ 㒊 ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࡀ ࠊ 2012ᖺ 12᭶ 13᪥ ᥦ ฟ ࡲ࡛ ᑺ 㸦 2012ᖺ 11᭶ 30᪥ ᢞ ✏ ࠊ 2013ᖺ 2᭶ 28᪥ Ⓨ ห 㸧 ࢆ ┠ ࡟ ࡍ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࡣ ࡞ ࠿ ࡗ ࡓ ࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
1. 㡑

ி ፑ . ࣁ ࣥ ࣭ ࢟ ࣙ ࣥ ࢔ 2008. ࠕ ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ࡢ ࠕ 㹼 ࡚ ࠶ ࡆ ࡿ ࣭ ࡃ ࢀ ࡿ ࠖ ࡜ 㡑 ᅜ ㄒࡢ ࠕ -㞚 㠊 㭒 ┺ -a/e cwutaࠖ ࡢ ព ࿡ ᶵ ⬟ ࠖ ࠊ ࠗ ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ᩍ ⫱ ࠘ ࠊ 136ࠊ 78-87.
2. ᮤ  ⨾ ῄ . ࢖ ࣭ ࣑ ࢫ ࢡ 2010. ࠕ ⻞ 㡃 㦚 䐋 䟊 ⽎ 㡑 ᪥ 㟧 㠎 㠊 㦮 ᤵ ཷ ⾲ ⌧ 㦮 ≉ᚩ 㠦 ὖ 䞲 㡆 ῂ ࠖ ࠊ ࠗ ᪥ ᮏ ◊ ✲ ࠘ ࠊ 43ࠊ 487-505.
3. ᑺ   ㈼ ⨾ . ࣘ ࣥ ࣭ ࣄ ࣙ ࣥ ࣑ 2013. ࠕ ᪥ 㡑 ᤵ ཷ ⾲ ⌧ ࡢ ᑐ ↷ ◊ ✲ 㸫 ࠕ ࡸ ࡿ ࠖ ࡜ ࠕ 㭒┺ ࠖ ࡢ 㠀 ᜠ ᜨ ⏝ ἲ ࡬ ࡢ ᩥ ἲ ໬ ࢆ ୰ ᚰ ࡟ ࠖ ࠊ ࠗ ᪥ ᮏ ㄒ ᩍ ⫱ ◊ ✲ ࠘ ࠊ 25ࠊ 223-243.

−308−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ࠿ࡽࡳࡓ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࣜࢸࣛࢩ࣮
̺᪂⪺ࢥ࣒ࣛ࡟ᑐࡍࡿㄽ㏙ࡢศᯒࢆࡶ࡜࡟̺ᰗ⏣ ு࿃኱ᡭ๓኱Ꮫ 㠀ᖖ໅

<Abstract>
This article aims to illuminate media literacy of university students. First, drawing on critical discourse
analysis, it analyses an editorial on the dispute over the Senkaku Islands. Focusing on lexical choice,
TRANSITIVITY system and nominalization it reveals how the ideological square, the polarity between
good Japanese (us) and evil Chinese (them), is realized in the editorial. Second, the article analyses how
students read the editorial: preferred, negotiated or oppositional readings. Examining how students
recontextualize the editorial into their opinions, it demonstrates whether they take over, negotiate or resist
the ideological square in the editorial.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ㸸࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࣜࢸࣛࢩ࣮ࠊ኱Ꮫ⏕ࠊᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒࠊ᪂⪺ࢥ࣒ࣛ

3. ᪉ἲㄽ
㕥ᮌ㸦1997b㸧ࡣࠊ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡣࠕ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࢸࢡࢫ
ࢺࠖࠊࠕ࣮࢜ࢹ࢕࢔ࣥࢫࠖ
ࠊࠕࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ⏕⏘࣭〇సࠖࡢ㸱ࡘࡢ㡿ᇦ࠿ࡽศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡜࣮࢜ࢹ࢕࢔
ࣥࢫࡢ஧ഃ㠃࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿࠋ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢศᯒ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ㸦Critical Discourse Analysis㸧ࡢどᗙࢆ᥼⏝ࡍࡿࠋᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒࡣࠊಶࠎࡢㄽ⪅ࡀᵝࠎ࡞♫఍࣭ᩥ໬࣭ゝㄒ⌮ㄽࢆࡶ࡜࡟Ⓨᒎࡉࡏ࡚ࡁࡓከᵝᛶ࡟‶ࡕࡓᏛ㝿ⓗ࡞◊✲ࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ
✏࡛ࡣࠊM. A. K. Halliday㸦1985/1994㸧ࡢ㑅ᢥయ⣔ᶵ⬟ᩥἲ㸦Systemic Functional Grammar㸧࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ࠺ࡅࠊࡼࡾ⢭⦓࡞ゝㄒศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ Fairclough㸦2003㸧࡜ Machin and Mayr㸦2012㸧ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࠊ୺࡟᪂⪺ࢥ࣒ࣛ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⾲㇟ࠊゝㄒࡢほᛕᵓᡂⓗ㸦ideational㸧ᶵ⬟ࠊ࡟ὀ┠ࢆࡍࡿࠋᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒࡶࡲࡓ㕥ᮌࡢ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ศᯒࡢᯟ
⤌ࡳࡢ୕ࡘࡢഃ㠃ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢศᯒࢆ⥲ྜⓗ࡟ศᯒࡍࡿᚲせᛶࢆ୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢ  ࠊࡑࡢศᯒࡢ
୺║ࡣࠊ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࢖
ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮ⓗ࡞ࢸࢡࢫࢺࡀཷࡅᡭ࡟࡝࠺ㄞࡲࢀ࡚
࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝◊✲ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸
࡞࠸ࠋ
㸦Garrett and Bell 1998㸧ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣ࢝ࣝࢳ࣭ࣗࣛࣝࢫࢱࢹ࢕࣮ࢬࡢྂ඾࡛࠶ࡿ Stuart Hallࡢ࢚ࣥࢥ࣮ࢻ㸭ࢹࢥ࣮ࢻ࣭ࣔࢹࣝ㸦1980㸧ࢆ᥼⏝ࡋࠊ࣮࢜ࢹ࢕࢔ࣥࢫ࡛࠶ࡿᏛ⏕ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᪂⪺1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ኱ᡭ๓኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪂⪺ࢥ࣒ࣛࢆ౑ࡗ
ࡓㄢ㢟ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࠊࡑࡇ࡛ࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࣭
ࣜࢸࣛࢩ࣮ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋᑤ
㛶ㅖᓥࡢ㡿ᅵၥ㢟ࢆㄽࡌࡓ᪂⪺ࢥ࣒ࣛ࡜ࠊࡑࢀ࡟
ᑐࡍࡿᏛ⏕ࡢㄽ㏙ࡢ஧✀㢮ࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒࡢᡭἲࢆ⏝࠸࡚ศᯒࡍࡿࠋ
2. ศᯒᑐ㇟
኱๓኱Ꮫ୍ᖺḟࡢᚲಟ⛉┠ࡢ࢟ࣕࣜ࢔࣭ࢹࢨ࢖
ࣥ㸦௨ୗࠕCDࠖ࡜グࡍ㸧࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢ┠ⓗࡢ୍ࡘ࡟ཷㅮ⪅ࠕྛ⮬ࡀ⮬ศࡢぢゎࢆㄽᣐ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ᥦ♧࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ᣦࡍࠖࢆᥖࡆ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ࢩࣛࣂࢫࡼࡾ㸧
ࠋࡇࡢ┠ⓗࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊCD ࡛ࡣྠ᪥࡟ᥖ㍕ࡉࢀࡓ஬኱඲ᅜ᪂⪺ࡢ᪂⪺ࢥ࣒ࣛࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࠊࡑࡢ୰࠿ࡽ୍ࡘࢆ㑅ࡧࠊ᭩ࡁ෗ࡋࢆࡋࠊ
ࢥ࣒ࣛ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⮬ศࡢពぢࢆ 600㹼800 Ꮠ⛬ᗘ࡛
ㄽ㏙ࡍࡿᤵᴗእㄢ㢟ࡀㄢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ㸦௨ୗࠊࠕ᪂⪺ࢥ࣒ࣛㄢ㢟ࠖ࡜ࡍࡿ㸧ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣ᪂⪺ࢥ࣒ࣛㄢ㢟࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡇࡢㄞゎ࡜ㄽ
㏙ࢆࠊ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࣜࢸࣛࢩ࣮ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࢆࡍ
ࡿࠋ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࣜࢸࣛࢩ࣮࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕᕷẸࡀ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔
ࢆ♫఍ⓗᩥ⬦࡛ࢡࣜࢸ࢕࢝ࣝ࡟ศᯒࡋࠊホ౯ࡋࠊ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࡟࢔ࢡࢭࢫࡋࠊከᵝ࡞ᙧែ࡛ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ
࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ๰ࡾࡔࡍຊ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ㸦㕥ᮌ 1997a p.8㸧
ࠋ

1
−309−

批判的談話分析からみたメディア・リテラシー―新聞コラムに対する論述の分析をもとに―ࢥ࣒ࣛࢆㄞࡳゎ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ
ࠕඃඛⓗ࣭ᨭ㓄ⓗ࡞ࢥ࣮ࢻ㸦dominant/ preferred code㸧㸭஺΅ⓗ࡞ࢥ࣮ࢻ㸦negotiated code㸧㸭ᑐᢠⓗ࡞ࢥ࣮ࢻ㸦oppositionalcode㸧
ࠖࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࡍࡿࠋ

᪥ᮏࡢྰᐃⓗ࡞⮬ᕫᥦ♧ࡢ㍍ῶ࡟ᐤ୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾࠸࡚୰ᅜࡣືస୺࡜ࡣࡋ
࡚ࡣ⾲㇟ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ୰ᅜࡢ⫯ᐃⓗ⮬ᕫᥦ♧ࡣࡸࡸ▸ᑠ໬ࢆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ

4. ࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒ
ศᯒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊCDϩ➨ 1 ᅇ┠࡟ㄢࡉࢀࡓ᪂⪺ࢥ࣒ࣛㄢ㢟ࡢ୰࠿ࡽᑤ㛶ㅖᓥࡢ㡿ᅵၥ㢟ࢆㄽࡌࡓ2012 ᖺ 9 ᭶ 18 ᪥௜ࡢኳኌேㄒ㸦௨ୗࠕኳኌேㄒࠖ
࡜グࡍ㸧࡜ࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᏛ⏕ㄽ㏙⟅᱌ࡢ஧ࡘࢆࢹ
࣮ࢱ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊศᯒࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
4.1. ᪂⪺䝁䝷䝮䛾ศᯒࢥ࣒ࣛศᯒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᡃࡽ
࡜ᙼࡽࡢᑐ❧࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊࠕ࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮ⓗᕸ㝕 㸦ideological square㸧ࠖ㸦Van Dijk 1998 p.33㸧ࡀࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚࠸࠿࡟ᐇ⌧໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆࠊㄒᙡ
ࡢ㑅ᢥࠊTRANSITIVITY system ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㑅ᢥࠊྡモ໬ࡢ୕ࡘࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࡋࡓࠋ⣬㠃ࡢ㒔ྜୖࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࡢࡳࢆ௨ୗ࡟⡆₩࡟♧ࡍ  ࠋ

4.2. Ꮫ⏕䛾ㄽ㏙⟅᱌䛾ศᯒᏛ⏕ࡣࠊኳኌேㄒ࡜࠸࠺ࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺
࡞ࢥ࣮ࢻ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄞࡳゎࡁࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⮬㌟ࡢ
୺ᙇࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄽ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣᏛ⏕ࡀኳኌேㄒࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟෌ࢥࣥࢸ
ࢡࢫࢺ໬㸦recontextualize: Van Leeuwen 2009㸧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊࡑࡢ࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮ⓗᕸ㝕ࡀ⥅ᢎࠊ஺΅ࠊᨵኚࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡟ὀ┠ࡋࠊᚓࡽࢀࡓᏛ⏕ࡢㄽ
㏙⟅᱌ࢆඃඛⓗㄞࡳࠊ஺΅ⓗㄞࡳࠊᑐᢠⓗㄞࡳࡢ୕ࡘ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣ⣬㠃ࡢ㛵ಀୖࠊඃඛⓗㄞࡳ࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓ⟅᱌࡜ࡑࡢศᯒࢆ♧ࡍࠋ௨ୗࡢᏛ
⏕ࡢㄽ㏙ࢹ࣮ࢱ 1 ࡟ࡣㄗᏐ⬺Ꮠࡸ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡸ
ࡸ୙⮬↛࡞⾲⌧ࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊゞṇࡏࡎ࡟ᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢹ࣮ࢱ 1㸸ඃඛⓗ࡞ㄞࡳ⾲ 㸸ኳኌேㄒࡢ࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮ⓗᕸ㝕࡜ㄯヰᡓ␎⌧ᅾࠊ᪥ᮏ࡜୰ᅜࡣ㝤ᝏ࡞㛵ಀ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢཎ

ᑤ㛶ㅖᓥၥ㢟
⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ᥦ♧

ᅉࡀᑤ㛶ㅖᓥࡢᡤ᭷ᶒࢆᕠࡗ࡚ࡢத࠸࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏ࡜୰

ྰᐃⓗ࡞ᥦ♧

୰ᅜ࣭᪥୰㛵ಀᨵၿࡢ୺య࣭ྰᐃⓗホ౯ⓗㄒᙡ௚⪅Ѝ⬟ືᛶࡢ㍍ῶ࣭ᨷᧁⓗ⾜Ⅽࡢືస୺᪥ᮏ࣭⫯ᐃⓗホ౯ⓗㄒᙡ⮬ᕫ࣭෭㟼ỿ╔࡞▱ぬ⪅ᅜ࠾ࡼࡧྎ‴࡜ࡢ㛫࡛እ஺ၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࡢၥ㢟ࡀᑤ㛶ㅖᓥၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௒ࡇࡢၥ㢟࡛࡝࠺࠸ࡗࡓࢺࣛࣈ
ࣝࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
୰ᅜࡸྎ‴ࡣᑤ㛶ㅖᓥࢆ⮬ศ㐩ࡢ㡿ᅵ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⧞ࡾ

࣭᪥ᮏࡢᡓத㈐௵

㏉ࡋ୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୺ᙇࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ᤼௚ⓗ⤒῭ỈᇦЍྡモ໬࡟ࡼࡿ᭕᫕໬

ෆࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊᑤ㛶ㅖᓥ࿘㎶ࡢ᪥ᮏࡢ㡿ᾏෆ࡟ࡶ౵ධࡋࠊᾏ㌷ࡢ㌷Ⰴ࡟ࡼࡿᾏὒㄪᰝࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊኳኌேㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ♫఍ⓗ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡣ᪥ᮏ࡜୰ᅜࡢ஧㡯ᑐ❧ⓗ࡟ᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀ
࡟ࡼࡾ⮬ᕫ㸦᭩ࡁᡭ㸧࡜௚⪅ࡀ᫂☜࡟༊ูࡉࢀ࡚
࠸ࡓ㸦⾲ 1 ཧ↷㸸⥙᥃ࡅ࠶ࡾࡣ⫯ᐃ㸭ྰᐃᛶࡢ㍍
ῶࠊ⥙᥃ࡅ࡞ࡋࡣᙉㄪࢆ♧ࡍ㸧ࠋࡇࡢ༊ูࢆࡶ࡜࡟
᪥ᮏ࡟ࡣ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ホ౯ㄒᙡࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࠊ୰ᅜ࡟ࡣྰᐃⓗ࡞ホ౯ㄒᙡࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ
TRANSITIVITY system ࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ୰ᅜࡣ≀⌮ⓗ㐣⛬࡟࠾ࡅࡿᨷᧁⓗ࡞⾜Ⅽࡢືస୺࡜ࡋ࡚ᥥ࠿
ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏࡣᚰ⌮ⓗ㐣⛬࡟࠾ࡅࡿ෭㟼࡟⪃࠼ࡿ୺య࡜ࡋ࡚⾲㇟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡇࢀ࡟
ࡼࡾࠊ᭩ࡁᡭࡣࠊ㔞ⓗ࡟ࡶ㉁ⓗ࡟ࡶࠊ௚⪅࡛࠶ࡿ୰ᅜࡢྰᐃⓗ࡞ᥦ♧࡜ࠊ⮬ᕫࡢᒓࡍࡿ᪥ᮏࡢ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ᥦ♧ࢆᙉㄪࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊྡモ໬ࡣ≉ᐃࡢ♫఍ⓗฟ᮶஦ࡢᅉᯝ㛵ಀࢆ୙᫂░࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ

୰ᅜෆ࡛ࡶᙳ㡪ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏࡀႠᴗࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢫ࣮ࣃ࣮
࣐࣮ࢣࢵࢺࡸ⮬ື㌴ᕤሙ࡞࡝ࡀ཯᪥ࢹࣔ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᔂቯ
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⮬ື㌴࡛ࡶ᪥ᮏ〇ࡢ㌴ࢆቯࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᫎീࢆࡼ
ࡃࢸࣞࣅࡢࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ࡛ሗ㐨ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୰ᅜ࡟ࡣࠕឡᅜ
↓⨥ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝⴥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ⮬ᅜࡢࡓࡵ࡞ࡽࡤఱࢆࡋ࡚ࡶ
⨥࡟࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼࡛ࠊᭀࢀࡲࢃࡗ࡚ࡶఱࡶつไࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣᨻᗓࡸ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡶ᪥ᮏ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚
ᣮⓎⓗ࡟↽ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୰ᅜ࡬᪑⾜ࡋ࡟࠸ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿேࠊ୰
ᅜ࡟ఫࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ᪥ᮏே࠿ࡽࡋ࡚ࡳࢀࡤ୙౽࡞ࡇ࡜࡛࠶
ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୰ᅜࡢ୙‶࠿ࡽ㉳ࡇࡿ⥭㏕ࡋࡓ㞺ᅖẼ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊእ࡬ฟṌ࠿ࡎࠊᐙࡸ࣍ࢸࣝ࡞࡝࡛㐣ࡈࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ゝ࠺ኌࡀࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ࡛ఛ࠼ࡿࠋ
᪥୰㛵ಀࢆᨵၿࡋ࡚࠸࠿࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡀ୰ᅜࡢ
㧗ᅽⓗ࡞ᣮⓎ࡟ᘬࡁୗࡀࡽࡎࠊ᪥ᮏ࡬ࡢᨭᣢࢆ㞟ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

2−310−

第16回大会発表論文集

ࢹ࣮ࢱ 1 ࡟࠾࠸࡚≉ᚩⓗ࡞ࡢࡣࠊኳኌேㄒ࡜ࡢ
┦ྠᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊ♫఍ⓗ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜ホ౯ⓗㄒᙡ࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ᪂ࡓ࡟ྎ‴ࡀຍ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ
ࡢࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣኳኌேㄒ࡜ྠᵝࡢ᪥୰ࡢᑐ❧ᅗᘧࡀࡇࡇ࡛ࡶ⥔ᣢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦㏫࡟ゝ࠺࡞ࡽࡤࠊࡑ
ࢀ௨እࡢ♫఍ⓗ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࠊᅜ㐃ࠊ⡿࡞࡝ࡣ᤼㝖ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡶ࠸࠼ࡿ㸧ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ୰ᅜ࣭ྎ‴࡟ࡣྰᐃⓗ࡞ㄒᙡࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦୰࣭ྎ㸸ࠕᭀࢀࡲࢃࡿࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕቯࡍࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕ౵ධࠖ
ࠊ
ࠕ୙౽ࠖ
㸧
ࠋ
ḟ࡟ TRANSITIVITY system ࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊ
ኳኌேㄒ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ 1 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ୰ᅜ࣭ྎ
‴ࡣᨷᧁⓗ⾜Ⅽࡢ୺య࡜ࡋ࡚ᥥ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋୗ⥺஧㔜⥺㸦 㸧ࡣ♫఍ⓗ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࢆࠊୗ⥺Ἴ⥺㸦 㸧ࡣ㐣⛬ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓ┬␎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ♫఍ⓗ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡣࠑࠒࡘࡁ࡛⿵㊊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
1. ୰ᅜࡸྎ‴ࡣᑤ㛶ㅖᓥࢆ⮬ศ㐩ࡢ㡿ᅵ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ୺ᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠑ୰ᅜ࡜ྎ‴ࡣࠒ୺ᙇࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ᤼௚ⓗ⤒῭Ỉᇦෆࡔࡅ࡛࡞
ࡃࠊᑤ㛶ㅖᓥ࿘㎶ࡢ᪥ᮏࡢ㡿ᾏෆ࡟ࡶ౵ධࡋࠊᾏ㌷ࡢ㌷Ⰴ࡟ࡼࡿᾏὒㄪᰝࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2. ⮬ື㌴࡛ࡶ᪥ᮏ〇ࡢ㌴ࢆࠑࢹࣔཧຍ⪅ࡀࠒቯࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᫎീࢆࡼࡃࢸࣞࣅࡢࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ࡛ሗ㐨ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3. ୰ᅜෆ࡛ࡶᙳ㡪ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏࡀႠᴗࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢫ
࣮ࣃ࣮࣐࣮ࢣࢵࢺࡸ⮬ື㌴ᕤሙ࡞࡝ࡀ཯᪥ࢹ
ࣔ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᔂቯࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ୖࡢ 1.࠿ࡽ 3.ࡣࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ 1 ࡟࠾࠸࡚᪂ࡓ࡟௜ຍࡉ
ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᝟ሗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ1.࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୰ᅜ࡜ྎ‴ࡣⓎゝⓗ㐣⛬࡟࠾ࡅࡿⓎゝ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡲࡓ≀⌮ⓗ㐣⛬࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡀ⬟ືᛶⓗ࡞୺య࡜ࡋ࡚⾲㇟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ2.࡛ࡣࠊືస୺ࡀ᤼
㝖ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ๓ࡢᩥ❶ࡼࡾࠊ୰ᅜࡢ཯᪥ࢹࣔ
ࡢཧຍ⪅ࡀ≀⌮ⓗ㐣⛬ࡢືస୺࡜ࡋ࡚⾲㇟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ3. ࡢᩥ❶ࡣᑡࡋ୙⮬↛࡛࠶ࡾࠊࠕᔂቯࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠕᔂቯࡋࡓࠖ࡜ࡍࡿ࡭
ࡁ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ⮬ືモࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊࠕ཯᪥ࢹࣔ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ཎᅉࡣ㏙࡭
ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊฟ᮶஦ࡢᅉᯝ㛵ಀࡣ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ୰ᅜࡢ⾜Ⅽࡢᨷᧁᛶ࡜ࡣᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ⾜Ⅽ
ࡣྠᵝ࡟≀⌮ⓗ㐣⛬࡟࠾࠸࡚⾲㇟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ
ࡢࠕฟṌ࠿ࡎࠖ
ࠊࠕ㐣ࡈࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠖ࡜⮬ືモࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ௚⪅࡬ࡢᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

第９号

20. ᪥ᮏ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୰ᅜࡢ୙‶࠿ࡽ㉳ࡇࡿ⥭㏕ࡋࡓ㞺ᅖẼ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠑ୰ᅜ࡬᪑⾜ࡋ࡟࠸ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ
ேࠊ୰ᅜ࡟ఫࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ᪥ᮏேእࡣࠒ࡬ฟṌ࠿ࡎࠊᐙࡸ࣍ࢸࣝ࡞࡝࡛㐣ࡈࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ゝ࠺ኌࡀࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ࡛ఛ࠼ࡿࠋ
ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓㄒᙡࠊTRANSITIVITY System ࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟ຍ࠼ࠊኳኌேㄒ࡜ࢹ࣮ࢱ 1 ࡢ㛫ࢸࢡࢫࢺ㸦intertextuality㸧࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡑࡢ㢮ఝᛶࡣࡼࡾ㩭᫂࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
࠶ࡽࡺࡿ▱㆑ࢆ♫఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿᕧ኱࡞ㄯヰ⩌࠿ࡽὴ⏕ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ࡞ࡽࡤࠊᡃࠎࡀヰࡋࠊ᭩࠸ࡓ
ࡶࡢࡶࡍ࡭࠿ࡽࡃ࠶ࡿ≉ᐃࡢㄯヰࡢ㐠ࡪ▱㆑࡟౫ᣐࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ࠶ࡿࢸࢡࢡࢫࡣ᪤Ꮡࡢࢸ
ࢡࢫࢺ⩌ࢆ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࠊࡑࢀࢆኚᙧࡉࡏࡓࡶࡢ࡛
࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢព࿡࡛ࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ 1 ࡟࠾࠸࡚᪂ࡓ࡟㏣ຍ
ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ 1.࠿ࡽ 3.ࡶࡲࡓ᪤Ꮡࡢࢸࢡࢫࢺ࠿ࡽࡢ
࡞ࢇࡽ࠿ࡢᘬ⏝࡛࠶ࡾࠊኚᙧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ஧ࡘࡢ
ࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢ㛫ࢸࢡࢫࢺᛶࡣࠊ᫂♧ⓗ࡞ᙧ࡛ゝㄒ໬ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࢀࡤࠊࡑ࠺࡛࡞࠸ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿ
㸦Fairclough 2003 pp.47-49㸧
ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ1.࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࠕ⮬ື㌴࡛ࡶ᪥ᮏ〇ࡢ㌴ࢆࠑࢹࣔཧຍ⪅ࡀࠒቯࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺࿨㢟ࡀࠊࠕࢸࣞࣅࡢࢽ࣮ࣗࢫࠖ࡜࠸࠺፹యࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ఏ㐩ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㛫᥋ᘬ⏝࡜࠸࠺ᙧ࡛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ྠᵝ࡟ࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ 1 ࡢ 3 ẁⴠ┠ୗ࠿ࡽ 3 ⾜┠࡛ࡣࠊࠕࢽ࣮ࣗࢫࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕ᪥ᮏ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୰ᅜࡢ୙‶࠿ࡽ㉳ࡇࡿ⥭㏕ࡋࡓ㞺ᅖẼ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊእ࡬ฟṌ࠿ࡎࠊᐙࡸ࣍ࢸࣝ࡞࡝࡛㐣ࡈࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺᪥ᮏ
ேࡢࠕኌࠖࡀఏ㐩ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㛫᥋ᘬ⏝࡛᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࢹ࣮ࢱ 1 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣኳኌேㄒ࠿ࡽࡢ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ᘬ
⏝࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ㒊ศࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࢀࡽࡣ┤᥋ᘬ⏝࣭㛫᥋ᘬ⏝࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒⓗᙧᘧ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ᪂ࡓ࡞せ⣲ࡢ㏣ຍ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⊂⮬ࡢࢽࣗ࢔ࣥ
ࢫࡀ௜୚ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦⾲ 2 ཧ↷ࠊ⥙᥃ࡅࡣ஧ࡘࡢ
ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟࠾࠸࡚ඹ㏻ࡍࡿ㒊ศ㸧ࠋኳኌேㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣྡモ໬ࡉࢀࡓࠕឡᅜ↓⨥ࠖࡢࡳࡀゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡓࡀࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ 1 ࡛ࡣࠕ⮬ᅜࡢࡓࡵ࡞ࡽࡤఱࢆࡋ࡚
ࡶ⨥࡟࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼ࠖ࡜⠇ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ኚ᥮
ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊኳኌேㄒࡢࠕᭀࢀᅇࡗ࡚ࡶ኱୔ኵࠖࠊࠕつไࡣᡭࡠࡿ࠸ࠖࡣࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ 1 ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕᭀࢀࡲࢃࡗ࡚ࡶఱࡶつไࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜
⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦⾲ 2 ୖẁཧ↷㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡽ஧ࡘ࡟ࡼ
ࡗ࡚ࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ 1 ࡣᘬ⏝ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ኳኌேㄒ࡛⾲㇟ࡉ

3
−311−

批判的談話分析からみたメディア・リテラシー―新聞コラムに対する論述の分析をもとに―ࢀ࡚࠸ࡓྰᐃⓗ࡞୰ᅜീࢆᘬࡁཷࡅࠊ
ࠕఱࢆࡋ࡚ࡶࠖࠕఱࡶ㹼࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄒࢆ௜ຍࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡑࡢ
ྰᐃᛶࢆᙉ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢഴྥࡣ௚ࡢᘬ⏝࡟ࡶࡳࡽࢀࠊࠕ↽ࡿࠖࡣࠕᣮⓎⓗ࡟↽ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡬࡜ࠊ
ࠕᣮⓎ࡟஌ࡽࡎࠖࡣࠕ୰ᅜࡢ㧗ᅽⓗ࡞ᣮⓎ࡟ᘬࡁୗࡀࡽࡎࠖ࡬࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ᭩ࡁ᥮࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦⾲2 ୰ẁ࣭ୗẁཧ↷㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢᘬ⏝ࡶࡲࡓࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ
1 ࡢ࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮ⓗᕸ㝕ࠊ୰ᅜࡢྰᐃⓗᥦ♧ࡢᙉㄪࢆ⥅ᢎࠊಸຍࡉࡏࡿࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ὀ ౛࠼ࡤ Fairclough㸦2003㸧ࡣㄯヰศᯒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୕ࡘࡢ
ḟඖ㸦ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࣭ㄯヰᐇ㊶࣭♫఍ᐇ㊶㸧ࢆ༊ูࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ⮬ᕫࡢ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ᥦ♧ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࠊ௚⪅ࡢྰᐃⓗ࡞ᥦ♧ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࠊ⮬ᕫࡢྰᐃⓗ࡞ᥦ♧ࢆ▸ᑠ໬ࡍࡿࠊ௚⪅ࡢ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ᥦ♧ࢆ▸ᑠ໬ࡍࡿࠊࡢᅄࡘࡢ᪉␎࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࡣᰗ⏣㸦2014㸧࡟࡚ヲࡋࡃㄽࡌࡓࡢ
࡛ཧ↷ࡉࢀࡓࡋࠋ

ㅰ㎡
ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠◊✲άືࢫࢱ࣮ࢺᨭ᥼
ࠕ㟷ᑡᖺᮇࡢࢩࢸ࢕ࢬࣥࢩࢵࣉᙧᡂ࡟ྥࡅࡓຠᯝⓗ࡞⾲ 2㸸ኳኌேㄒ࡜ࢹ࣮ࢱ 1 ࡢ㛫ࢸࢡࢫࢺᛶ

Ꮫ⩦ᨭ᥼ࡢᅾࡾ᪉࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࠖ㸦ᖹᡂ 24㹼25 ᖺᗘࠊ◊

ኳኌேㄒ

ࢹ࣮ࢱ 1

ࢹࣔࡢཧຍ⪅࡟ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡇࡢࡉ

୰ᅜ࡟ࡣࠕឡᅜ↓⨥ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝ࠸ᭀࢀᅇࡗ࡚ࡶ኱୔ኵ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣ

ⴥࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ⮬ᅜࡢࡓࡵ࡞ࡽࡤఱィ⟬῭ࡳࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࠕឡᅜ↓⨥ࠖࡢ

ࢆࡋ࡚ࡶ⨥࡟࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺⪃✲௦⾲⪅㸸బ⸨ᬛᏊࠊㄢ㢟␒ྕ㸸24830114㸧ࡢ◊✲༠ຊ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis

㘊ࡢᚚ᪝㸦ࡳࡣࡓ㸧ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠺࠼ࠊ ࠼࡛ࠊᭀࢀࡲࢃࡗ࡚ࡶఱࡶつไつไࡣᡭࡠࡿ࠸ࠋ

ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࡑࢀࢆᨻᗓࡶ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡶ↽㸦࠶ࡇࢀࡣᨻᗓࡸ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡶ᪥ᮏ࡟

࠾㸧ࡿࠋᑐࡋ࡚ᣮⓎⓗ࡟↽ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡴࢁࢇ୺ᶒࡣㆡࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡔࡀᣮ

᪥୰㛵ಀࢆᨵၿࡋ࡚࠸࠿࡞ࡅࢀ

ⓎࡏࡎࠊᣮⓎ࡟஌ࡽࡎࠋ࠶࠾ࡽ

ࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡀ୰ᅜࡢ㧗ᅽⓗ࡞ᣮࡎࠊࡑࡋ࡚Ỵ↛࡜ࠋ㸦␎㸧ㅖእᅜ

Ⓨ࡟ᘬࡁୗࡀࡽࡎࠊ᪥ᮏ࡬ࡢᨭ

ࡢ᪥ᮏ࡬ࡢᨭᣢࢆ⭾ࡽࡲࡍࡼᣢࢆ㞟ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ

for Social Research. London: Routledge.
Garrett, P. and Bell, A. 1998. “Media and Discourse: A Critical
Overview.” In Bell, A. and Garrett, P. (eds.) Approaches
to Media Discourse, 1-20. Oxford, Malden, Mass.:
Blackwell.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985/1994 (2nd edition). Introduction toFunctional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hall, S. 1980. “Encoding/decoding.” In Hall, S. et al (eds.)࠺ࠊ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡃ࡜ࡁࡔࠋ

Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural
Studies, 1972-79, 128-138. London: Unwin Hyman.

ࡇࡇࡲ࡛ࢹ࣮ࢱ 1 ࡟࠾࠸࡚㏣ຍࡉࢀࡓせ⣲ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊ㏫࡟๐㝖ࡉࢀࡓせ⣲ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊࡑ
ࢀࡀኳኌேㄒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ศᯒࡋࡓྡモ໬ࠕṔྐၥ㢟ࠖࠊࠕᰗ᮲†஦௳ࠖ
ࠊࠕ‶ᕞ஦ኚ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࢹ࣮ࢱ 1 ࡢ᭱⤊ẁⴠ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠕ᪥୰㛵ಀࢆᨵၿࡋ࡚࠸࠿࡞
ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ッ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊࡑ
ࡇ࡛㘽ࢆᥱࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠕṔྐၥ㢟ࠖࡣࠊ᪥ᮏ࡟
࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢྰᐃⓗ࡞⮬ᕫᥦ♧࡜࡞ࡿ༴㝤ᛶࢆࡣࡽࡴ
ࡓࡵ࠿ࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ 1 ࡛ࡣゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

Machin, D. and Mayr, A. 2012. How to Do Critical Discourse
Analysis: A Multimodal Introduction. Los Angeles: Sage.
㕥ᮌࡳ࡝ࡾ. 1997a. ࠕ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࣜࢸࣛࢩ࣮࡜ࡣఱ࠿ࠖࠊ
㕥ᮌࡳ࡝ࡾ㸦⦅ⴭ㸧࣓ࠗࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࣜࢸࣛࢩ࣮ࢆᏛࡪ
ேࡢࡓࡵ࡟࠘ࠊ2-22ࠊி㒔㸸ୡ⏺ᛮ᝿♫.
㕥ᮌࡳ࡝ࡾ. 1997b. ࠕ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࣜࢸࣛࢩ࣮ࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞ᯟ⤌ࡳࠖࠊ㕥ᮌࡳ࡝ࡾ㸦⦅ⴭ㸧 ࣓ࠗࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࣜࢸ
ࣛࢩ࣮ࢆᏛࡪேࡢࡓࡵ࡟࠘ࠊ23-39ࠊி㒔㸸ୡ⏺ᛮ᝿♫.
Van Dijk, T. A. 1998 “Opinions and ideologies in the press.”

5. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ࠊ࡟࠿࠼࡚
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊᏛ⏕ࡀኳኌேㄒࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟෌ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
࠿ࢆศᯒࡋࡓࠋඃඛⓗㄞࡳ࡜ࡋࡓࢹ࣮ࢱ 1 ࡣࠊㄒᙡࠊTRANSITIVITY system ࡢ㑅ᢥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᘬ⏝࡜ኚᙧ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊኳኌேㄒ࡜㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀ
ࡀࡺ࠼࡟ᢈุⓗ࡞ㄞࡳ㸦࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࣜࢸࣛࢩ࣮㸧࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛ࡣ༑ศ࡛࡞࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋᮏ✏࡛ศᯒࢆᥦ♧ⓗ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ஺΅ⓗ࣭ᑐᢠⓗㄞࡳࡢㅖ┦࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ✏ࢆ⛣ࡋ࡚ㄽࡌࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

In Bell, A. and Garrett, P. (eds.) Approaches to Media
Discourse, 21-63. Oxford, Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
Van

Leeuwen,T.

(2009)“Discourse

as

the

Recontextualization of Social Practice: A Guide” In R.
Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical
Discourse Analysis (2nd edition), 144-161. London: Sage.
ᰗ⏣ு࿃. ㏆ห. ࠕ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࣜࢸࣛࢩ࣮ྥୖ࡟ࡴࡅ࡚
ࡢᢈุⓗㄯヰศᯒ̺ᑤ㛶ㅖᓥ㡿ᅵၥ㢟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂⪺ࢥ࣒ࣛࡢศᯒࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࠖࠊࠗ኱ᡭ๓኱Ꮫ CELL ᩍ⫱ㄽ㞟࠘ࠊ4.

4−312−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

     ከᵝ࡞࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡜ࡑࡢᶵ⬟                        ᒣ ᮏ ᖾ ୍         ឡ▱┴❧ᯇᖹ㧗➼Ꮫᰯ<abstract>
This paper explores a variety of metonymical expressions, clarifying, in this process, the fact that metonymy isdivided into two major types. One has the function of “characterization” and the other that of “focus-shifting”.
Depicting metonymical semantic extension as semantic changes from sauce to target, the former has a profile ontarget, the latter on sauce, because of which the former I call T metonymy, the latter S metonymy. Many
expressions are found using double layered construction of the meaning of S metonymy.
[ ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ ] ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࠊ≉ᚩ࡙ࡅࠊ↔Ⅼ⛣ື㸯. ከᵝ࡞࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮
࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡣࠊࠕ㞄᥋ᛶࠖ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠕYࢆࠊࡑࢀ࡜㛵㐃ࡋࡓXࢆᣦ♧ࡍࡿ⾲⌧࡛⾲ࡍࠖẚ႘࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊࠕዪ
ࡢᏊࠖࢆࠕ㉥ࡎࡁࢇࠖ࡜࿧ࡪሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᒣ᲍(1988)ࡀࠊࠕ᪥ᖖ⏕άࡢ᥎ㄽࡢ୍㒊ࡣ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ⓗ᥎ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࠖ
࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡣ༢࡞ࡿᩥ㣭࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ᪥ᖖࡢゝㄒάືࠊᛮ⪃ࠊ⾜ື࡟ᾐ㏱ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿㄆ▱⬟ຊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡟ࡣᵝࠎ࡞⌧ࢀ᪉ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊከᵝ࡞✀㢮ࡀΰᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢព࿡(literalmeaning)ࠖࢆࠕࢯ࣮ࢫࠖࠊࠕពᅗࡉࢀࡓព࿡(intended meaning)ࠖࢆࠕࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺࠖ࡜࿧ࡧࠊ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ௨
㝆ࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕࢯ࣮ࢫЍࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺࠖ࡜⾲ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ               ࢯ࣮ࢫ   (1) ㉥㢌ᕵ    



ࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ

[ ㉥㢌ᕵ㸦╔⏝≀㸧Ѝ ዪࡢᏊ㸦୺య㸧]ඛ⾜◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(2)-(5)㸦ୗ⥺ࡣ➹⪅࡛ࠊ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡀ㛵ࢃࡿ୰ᚰ㒊ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௨㝆ྠࡌ㸧ࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡢከᵝᛶࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊከᵝ࡞࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡢಶࠎࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᩚ⌮ࡋ࡚ࠊ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡢ⤫୍ⓗㄆ▱ᇶ┙࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ᥈ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

(2) That french fries is getting impatient.                      (2) Nunberg (1995:115)(3) The windmill is turning.
(4) They loaded the truck with hay.                            (4) すᮧ(2002: 300)(5) John is easy to please.

ࠕࢯ࣮ࢫࠖࢆSࠊࠕࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺࠖࢆT࡜♧ࡋࠊ୧⪅ࡢ㛵ಀࢆSЍT࡜♧ࡏࡤࠊ(2)-(5)ࡢ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡢSЍTࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ(6)-(9)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟♧ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

(6) ὀᩥရЍᐈ(7) ඲యЍ㒊ศ(8) (ືసࡢ┤᥋ࡢᑐ㇟ࡀ) ᐜჾЍ୰㌟(9 ) (♧ࡍᛶ㉁ࡢᖐᒓࡀ) ᑐ㇟Ѝᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࢃࡿືస㸰. ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡢ⤫୍ⓗㄆ▱ᇶ┙࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࡣ኱ࡁࡃ㸲ࡘ࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

1
−313−

多様なメトニミーとその機能

A.ࠕ㞄᥋ᛶ࡟ࡼࡿព࿡ᣑᙇࠖ     - బ⸨(1992 [=1978])➼
B.ࠕྠ୍ᴫᛕ㡿ᇦෆ࡛ࡢព࿡ᣑᙇࠖ

- Lakoff(1987)➼

C.ࠕ↔Ⅼ⛣ືࠖ         - すᮧ(2002)➼

D.ࠕཧ↷Ⅼᵓ㐀ࠖ        - Langacker(1993)ࠊᒣ᲍(2000)➼ࡇࢀࡽࡢ୰࡛ࠊ(10)(11)࡟ぢࡿ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡢ㠀ᑐ⛠ᛶࢆㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿࡢࡣࠊࠕㄆ▱ⓗ㝿❧ࡕࠖ(cognitive salience)ࢆྲྀࡾධࢀ
ࡓཧ↷Ⅼᵓ㐀࡟ࡼࡿㄝ᫂࡟㝈ࡽࢀࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡢ⤫୍ⓗᇶ┙ࢆཧ↷Ⅼᵓ㐀࡟ồࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

(10) ࣡ࢩࣥࢺࣥ㸦⡿ᅜᨻᗓ㸧࡜ࣔࢫࢡ࣡㸦ࣟࢩ࢔ᨻᗓ㸧ࡢ஺΅(11) *⚾ࡀゼࢀࡓ࠸ࡢࡣ⡿ᅜᨻᗓ㸦࣡ࢩࣥࢺࣥ㸧࡛ࣟࢩ࢔ᨻᗓ㸦ࣔࢫࢡ࣡㸧࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡀࠕཧ↷Ⅼᵓ㐀 (Reference-Point Construction)ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ㄆ▱ᇶ┙ࢆࡶࡘ࡜ጞࡵ࡚୺ᙇࡋࡓࡢࡣLangacker(1995)࡛࠶ࡿࠋཧ↷Ⅼᵓ㐀࡜ࡣࠊࠕᑐ㇟ࢆㄆ▱ࡍࡿ㝿ࠊࡑࡢᑐ㇟ࡀ┤᥋ᢕᥱࡋ㞴࠸ሙྜ࡟ࠊูࡢ஦≀ࡢᴫᛕࢆᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡟
ᚰⓗ᥋ゐࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡿㄆ▱࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊᡭࡀ࠿ࡾ࡜࡞ࡿ㝿❧ࡘせ⣲ࢆࠕཧ↷Ⅼ(௨㝆R)ࠖࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊㄆ▱ᑐ㇟ࢆࠕࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ(௨㝆T)ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࠋࡲࡓࠊLangacker(1995)ࡣࠕ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡢ≉ู࡞ࢣ࣮ࢫࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ࢔ࢡࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࢰ
࣮ࣥ㸭ࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡢ୙୍⮴ࠖ㸦௨㝆ࠊ
ࠕAZ-PF ࡢ୙୍⮴ࠖ㸧ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ
ࠕ㛵ಀ(relation)ࠖࡀࠕ㡯(argument)ࠖ
ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ㝿࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿ⌧㇟࡛ࠊゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡ࡍࡿ㒊ศࡀࠕPF࡛ࠖࠊࠕ㛵ಀࠖ࡟┤᥋㛵ࢃࡿ㒊ศࡀࠕAZ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୖ
ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊ (2)-(5)࡟ᡠࡾࠊ᭦࡟⣽࠿ࡃ᳨ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡇ࠺ࠋ

㸱. T࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮
(2)ࡣࡼࡃ౑ࢃࢀࡿᆺࡢ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡛࠶ࡿࠋᣦ♧ᑐ㇟ࡢ஺᭰ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊព࿡ࡀࠕὀᩥࠖ࠿ࡽࠕᐈࠖ࡟ኚࢃࡿࡓࡵࠊAZ࡜PF ࡢ୙୍⮴ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋT࡟PFࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࠕT࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋT࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡢᶵ⬟ࡣࠊࠕ㢧ⴭ࡞≉ᚩ࡛ᑐ㇟ࢆ♧ࡍᣦ♧ᶵ⬟࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ(2)࡛ࡣࠊὀᩥရ࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩ࡛ࠊᐈࢆᣦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚑ᮶ࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᴦჾ࡛ᅋဨࠊ⑓ྡ
࡛ᝈ⪅ࠊ㒔ᕷྡ࡛㤳㒔ࢆ♧ࡍ➼ࠊSЍT ࡢᵝࠎ࡞ᆺࡀิᣲࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(12)࡛ࡣࠊືసࡢ㛤ጞ㒊ศࢆ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ືసࢆᣦ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊT࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡣྡモ࡟㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋ

(12) ➹ࢆᇳࡿ

㸲. T࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮
(3)࡛ࡣAZ-PFࡢ୙୍⮴ࡀ⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡ࡣࠕ㢼㌴࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࠕᅇࡿࠖ࡜┤᥋㛵ࢃࡿᑐ㇟ࠊࡘࡲࡾAZࡣࠊࠕ⩚᰿࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣゝⴥ࡛᫂♧ࡉࢀࡎࠊ᥎ㄽ࡟௵ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(3)࡟࠾ࡅࡿSЍT ࡣࠊࠕ඲యЍ㒊ศ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋS࡟PFࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ(3)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࢆࠕS࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋS࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡛ࡣࠊᇶᮏࣞ࣋ࣝࡢS࠿ࡽࠊAZ ࡟ࠕ↔Ⅼ⛣ືࠖࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋT࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࠊS࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ␗࡞ࡗࡓ㸰ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢᏑᅾࢆ⿬௜ࡅࡿゝㄒ⌧㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ௦ྡモࡢ↷ᛂࠖ࡜ࠕཧ↷Ⅼࡢ௦᭰ྍ⬟ᛶࠖࢆୖࡆࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ⌧㇟ࡣࠊࠕࢯ࣮ࢫ࠿ࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ࠿ࠊ࠸ࡎࢀ࡟ࣉࣟࣇ࢓
࢖ࣝࡀ⨨࠿ࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠖ࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕ௦ྡモࡢ↷ᛂࠖ(13)(a) The first violin has the flu.
  (b) The first violin has the flu.

*It is a Stradivarius.
She cannot practice today.

(14)(a) My ex-husband is parked on the upper deck.
(b) My ex-husband is parked on the upper deck.

㸦T࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࠊT࡜↷ᛂ㸧

He is taking the bus today.

㸦S࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࠊS࡜↷ᛂ㸧*It has a California license plate.    Panther and Radden (1999㸸10)ࠕཧ↷Ⅼࡢ௦᭰ྍ⬟ᛶࠖ(15) That { french fries / table 3 / red hair } is getting impatient.

2
−314−

㸦T ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࠊ௦᭰ྍ⬟㸧

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号(16) I’m (*He’s) in the phone book.  㸦S ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࠊ௦᭰୙ྍ⬟㸧

S࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡀ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠕᙧᘧ࡜ព࿡ࡢࡍࢀ㐪࠸ࠖ⌧㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊඛ⾜◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊLangacker (1984)ࠊNunberg (1995)ࠊ
℩ᡞ (1997b)ࠊすᮧ (2002)ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᮏⓎ⾲ࡶゐⓎࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ◊✲࡜ᮏⓎ⾲ࡢ㐪࠸ࡣࠊཧ↷Ⅼᵓ㐀࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣྠ
ࡌ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮࡛ࣜ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊT࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡜S࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡜ࢆ␗࡞ࡿୗ఩࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡜ࡋ࡚᫂☜࡟༊ศࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ
ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊS࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡢ≉ᚩࢆ㩭᫂࡟ᫎࡋฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

㸳. S࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮
S࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡢࠕືᶵ࡙ࡅࠖࠊࠕㄆ▱࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࠖࠊࠕᡂ❧᮲௳ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศᯒࡍࡿࠋ

A.

ືᶵ࡙ࡅ ࠕព࿡ࡢ஧ᒙᵓ㐀 (double layered construction of meaning)ࠖ

        ࢯ࣮ࢫࡢ㛵ࢃࡿ⾲㠃ࡢព࿡࡜ࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺࡢ㛵ࢃࡿ⫼ᚋࡢព࿡࠿ࡽᡂࡿ஧ᒙࡢព࿡ᵓ㐀ࡢᵓ⠏ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࢯ
࣮ࢫࡢ㛵ࢃࡿព࿡ࡀ๓㠃໬ࡋࠊࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺࡢ㛵ࢃࡿព࿡ࡣ⫼ᬒ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
B.

࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ ཧ↷Ⅼᵓ㐀࡟ࡼࡿࠕ↔Ⅼ⛣ື (focus shifting)ࠖ

C.

ᡂ❧᮲௳  ࢩࢫࢸ࣒㸦せ⣲㛫࡟ࠕ㐃ືᛶࠖࡢᏑᅾࡍࡿ୍య໬ࡋࡓ௙⤌ࡳ㸧ࡀᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࠋ
ࡇࡢሙྜࡢせ⣲㛫ࡢࠕ㐃ືᛶࠖ࡜ࡣࠊࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺࡢ㛵ࢃࡿព࿡ࡀࢯ࣮ࢫࡢ㛵ࢃࡿព࿡࡟ᅉᯝ㛵ಀ࡛ࡘ࡞ࡀ
ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ≧ែࢆᣦࡍࠋ

(3)࡛ࡣࠊࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺࡢ㛵ࢃࡿព࿡࡜ࡣࠕ⩚᰿ࡢᅇ㌿࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊࢯ࣮ࢫࡢ㛵ࢃࡿព࿡࡜ࡣࠕ㢼㌴ࡢ✌ാ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࠕ⩚᰿ࡢᅇ㌿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡀ࠶ࢀࡤࡇࡑࠕ㢼㌴ࡢ✌ാࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡ࡀฟ࡚ࡃࡿࠋ

㸴. ࠕ඲యЍ㒊ศࠖ௨እࡢS࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮
(4)ࡶࠊືసᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚AZ-PF ࡢ୙୍⮴ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊS࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡛࠶ࡿࠋPF ࡣࠕࢺࣛࢵࢡࠖࡔࡀࠊࠕ㍕ࡏࡿࠖ࡜㛵ࢃ
ࡿAZ ࡣࠕᖸࡋⲡ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋSЍT ࡣࠕᐜჾЍ୰㌟ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ(4)࡜(17)ࢆᑐẚࡋ࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠋ

(17) They loaded hay onto the truck.

すᮧ(2002: 300)

≧ែኚ໬ࢆ↔Ⅼ໬ࡍࡿ(4)࡜㐪࠸ࠊ⛣ືࢆ↔Ⅼ໬ࡍࡿ(17)࡛ࡣࠊAZ-PF ࡀ୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡣ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ(5)ࡶS࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୺ㄒ࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚AZ-PF ࡢ୙୍⮴ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᑐ㇟ࡢᛶ㉁ࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡟㛵ࢃࡿືస࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ศ࠿ࡿࡓࡵࠊ
Langacker(1995)ࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣࠊSЍT ࡣࠊᑐ㇟Ѝᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࢃࡿືస࡜ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࠊᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࢃࡿືసࡀAZ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ศᯒࡉࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ  ࡀࠊAZ-PF ࡀ୍⮴ࡋࡓᩥ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(18) To please John is easy.
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊᑐ㇟ࡢᛶ㉁ࡣࠊࡑࢀ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡀㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊSЍT ࡣࠊࠕᑐ㇟Ѝᑐ㇟࡟㛵ࢃࡿ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࠊeasy࡜┤᥋㛵ࢃࡿᑐ㇟ࡣ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᙧᐜモ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡢุ᩿ࡸឤ᝟ࡀ※࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡃࡢࡀᮏ᮶࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡑࡢุ᩿ࡸឤ᝟ࡀࠊ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡢ㛵ࢃࡿᑐ㇟ࡸ⾜Ⅽ࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡽࢀࡿࡢࡀS࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(5)ࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺࡢ㛵ࢃࡿព࿡࡜ࡣࠕ⾜Ⅽ⪅ࡢุ᩿࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾࠊࢯ࣮ࢫࡢ㛵ࢃࡿព࿡࡜ࡣࠕ⾜Ⅽᑐ㇟ࡢᛶ㉁࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ(19)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪥ᖖⓗ⾲⌧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ᭦࡟ࡣࠊ(20)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㌿⛣ಟ㣭ㄒ࡟ࡶ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮㛵୚ࡢ⪃࠼ࢆ㐺⏝ࡋ࡚ㄝ᫂ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠊ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ

(19) a sad story(20) sleepless pillow

3
−315−

多様なメトニミーとその機能(20)࡛ࡣࠊSЍT ࡢ♧ࡍᅉᯝ㛵ಀࡀࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡶࡢࡼࡾࡶᴫᛕⓗࡴࡍࡧࡘࡁࡀᕼⷧ࡞ࡓࡵࠊ⤖ࡧࡘࡁࡢ᪂ወᛶ࡟ࡼ
ࡗ࡚⾲⌧ຠᯝࢆ≺࠺ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊಟ㎡ⓗⰍᙬࡀᙉ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

㸵. ࡲ࡜ࡵ
 ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊཧ↷Ⅼᵓ㐀ࢆ⤫୍ⓗ࡞ㄆ▱ᇶ┙࡜ࡋࡘࡘࡶࠊ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡀᶵ⬟࡟ࡼࡾ㸰✀㢮࡟኱ูࡉࢀࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋࠊᣦ♧ᶵ⬟ࢆ㢧ⴭ࡞≉ᚩ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾜࠺T࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬❧ㄒ࡜౫Ꮡㄒࡀ⤖ࡧࡘࡃ㝿࡟ࠊAZ ࡀ↔Ⅼ⛣ື࡟ࡼࡗ࡚♧ࡉࢀࠊ⡆₩࡞⾲⌧ࢆ⾜࠺S࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡢ㸰ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚋ⪅ࡣࠊSЍT ࡢ㛵ಀࡀࠕ඲యЍ㒊ศࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ලయⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࠿ࡽࠕㄆ㆑ᑐ
㇟Ѝㄆ㆑⪅ࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࡲ࡛ᗈࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௨ୖࡀᮏ✏ࡢ୺ᙇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ                       ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Ⲩᮌ୍㞝࣭Ᏻ஭⛱㸦⦅㸧(1992)ࠗ⌧௦ⱥᩥἲ㎡඾࠘◊✲♫.
ᓮ⏣ᬛᏊ࣭ᒸᮏ㞞ྐ (2010) ࠗゝㄒ㐠⏝ࡢࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢬ࣒ ̾ㄆ▱ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ̾࠘(ㅮᗙㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛࡢࣇࣟࣥࢸ࢕࢔ 4 ) ◊✲♫.
బ⸨ಙኵ(1992 [=1978])ࠗࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡឤぬ࠘ㅮㄯ♫.
℩ᡞ㈼୍(1997a)ࠗព࿡ࡢࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ࠘ᕳୗྜྷኵ℩ᡞ㈼୍ࠗᩥ໬࡜Ⓨ᝿࡜ࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ࠘◊✲♫.
℩ᡞ㈼୍(1997b)ࠗㄆ㆑ࡢࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ࠘ᾏ㬆♫.
⏣୰᫓⨾㸦⦅㸧(1988)ࠗ⌧௦ゝㄒᏛ㎡඾࠘ᡂ⨾ᇽ.
㇂୍ཱྀ⨾ (2003)ࠗㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽࡢ᪂ᒎ㛤 ̾ ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࠘◊✲♫.
すᮧ⩏ᶞ(2002)ࠕ᥮႘࡜ᩥἲ⌧㇟ࠖすᮧ⩏ᶞ ⦅ ࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ,஦㇟ᵓ㐀࠘285-311.ᮾி኱Ꮫ
⢄ᒣὒ௓ (1998)ࠕ᥮႘(࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮)࡜ᥦ႘(ࢩࢿࢡࢻ࣮࢟)̾ㅖㄝࡢᩚ⌮᳨࣭ウ̾ࠖࠗ ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ᪥ᮏㄒ࣭᪥ᮏᩥ໬ㄽ㞟࠘6:59-81.

ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ␃Ꮫ⏕ࢭࣥࢱ࣮.
⢄ᒣὒ௓ (2001)ࠕከ⩏ㄒࡢ」ᩘࡢព࿡ࢆ⤫ᣓࡍࡿࣔࢹࣝ࡜ẚ႘ࠖᒣ᲍ṇ᫂௚⦅ࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛㄽ⪃࠘No.1. 29-58. ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
⢄ᒣὒ௓ (2010)ࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛධ㛛࠘◊✲♫.
⢄ᒣὒ௓࣭῝⏣ᬛ (2003)ࠕ➨㸱❶ ព࿡ࡢᣑᙇ, ➨㸲❶ ከ⩏ᛶࠖᯇᮏ᭙㸦⦅㸧ࠗㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽ࠘㸸73-186. ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂ (1988)ࠗẚ႘࡜⌮ゎ࠘ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧఍.
ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂ (1992)ࠗ᥎ㄽ࡜↷ᛂ࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂ (1995)ࠗㄆ▱ᩥἲㄽ࠘ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂ (2000)ࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛཎ⌮࠘ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
ᒣ᲍ṇ᫂ (2004)ࠗࡇ࡜ࡤࡢㄆ▱✵㛫࠘㛤ᣅ♫.
ᒣᮏᖾ୍ (2008)࣓ࠗࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࡢㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛⓗ◊✲ ̾㠀⮬❧ᆺ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࡋ࡚̾࠘༤ኈᏛ఩ㄽᩥ㸦ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱
Ꮫ㝔ᅜ㝿ゝㄒᩥ໬◊✲⛉.㸧ᒣᮏᖾ୍ (2013)ࠕ㸰ࡘࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮࡜ཧ↷Ⅼᵓ㐀 ࣓̾ࢺࢽ࣑࣮ᡂ❧ࡢᚲせ࣭༑ศ᮲௳̾ࠖᒣ᲍ṇ᫂௚⦅ࠗㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛㄽ⪃࠘No.11. 347-386.ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ.
Croft, W. (1993) “ The Role of Domains in the Interpretation of Metaphors and Metonymies.” Cognitive Linguistics 4 (4):335-370.
Fauconnier, G. (1997) Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Cicago
Press. (ụୖ჆ᙪ࣭Ἑୖㄋస࣭㎷ᖾኵ࣭すᮧ⩏ᶞ࣭ᆤ஭ᰤ἞㑻࣭ᱵཎ኱㍜࣭኱᳃ᩥᏊ࣭ᒸ⏣⚞அ㸦ヂ㸧(1993)ࠗㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽ ̾ゝㄒ࠿ࡽぢࡓே㛫ࡢᚰ࠘⣖ఀᅧᒇ᭩ᗑ.) 
Langacker, R. W. (1984) “active zones”. BLS 10: 172-188.
Langacker, R. W. (1993) “Reference-point Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics 4 (1): 1-38.
Langacker, R. W. (1995) “Raising and Transparency.” Language 71: 1-62.
Nunberg, G. (1995) “Transfers of meaning”, Journal of Semantics 12: 109-132.
Panther, K-U., and G. Radden (1999) “Introduction,” in Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Gunter Radden (ed.) Metonymy in

Language and Thought. 1-14. John Benjamins.

4
−316−

ワークショップ
Workshop Sessions

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

More thoughts on stand-alone because-clauses from a historical-pragmatic perspective*
Yuko Higashiizumi
Tokyo Gakugei University<Abstract>
Following the aim of the workshop, this study rethinks the diachronic process of stand-alone because-clausesin the Late Modern through Present-Day English period. Several studies have suggested that because-clauses(and the variants ’cause-, cos-, cuz-, etc.) are loosely connected to their reference clause and sometimes
appear without their syntactic main clause in present-day spoken English. Analysing the ARCHER-3.1
corpus, this study examines the position that the because-clauses appear in relation to their reference clausein discourse and their discourse-pragmatic functions, paying special attention to how the interlocutors
interpret each other’s utterances. It suggests that stand-alone because-clauses have been emerging throughuse in interaction.
࠙Keywordsࠚ: stand-alone because-clause, reference clause, position, ARCHER-3.1

1. Introduction
This study examines the developmental process of stand-alone because-clauses, one of “suspended clause
constructions” (Ohori 1995, 2012), “unembedded dependent clauses” (Biber et al. 1999: 223), or“insubordination” (Evans 2007), from Late Modern English to Present-Day English. In Present-Day English
conversation, because-clauses (and the variants initiated by ’cause, cos, cuz, etc.) stand alone withoutaccompanying their syntactic main clause in the turn in which they appear (e.g., Altenberg 1984;
Schleppegrell 1991; Stenström 1996; Biber at al. 1999: 223–224; Higashiizumi 2006, 2013; Couper-Kuhlen2011). Analysing the ARCHER-3.1 corpus, the current study considers how the use of stand-alone
because-clauses develops over time, paying attention to their discourse-pragmatic functions in the discourse
in which they occur. It then discusses the diachronic pathways of because-clauses in relation to theirreference clause.

2. Background
Reason/cause clauses in conversation have a very strong preference for final position (e.g., Ford 1993: 85;
Biber et al. 1999: 833–834: Couper-Kuhlen 2011). Looking into the use of because-clauses in Present-Day
English conversation, Couper-Kuhlen (2011: §2) suggests that “When a because-clause appears at the start of−317−

More thoughts on stand-alone because-clauses from a historical-pragmatic perspective

a turn in English conversation, it will be understood to be providing a reason for something that precedes it,
rather than for something that follows it”. She notices that a turn-initial because-clause is produced (a) “toaccount for an immediately prior action by the same speaker”, and (b) “to account for an immediately prioraction by the interlocutor”. Both types of stand-alone because-clauses will be examined in detail in Section 4.
In the study of grammaticalization, Hopper & Traugott (2003) discuss the relationship between twoclauses in terms of three “cluster points”: (a) parataxis, (b) hypotaxis, and (c) subordination. They state “there
is substantial evidence that in most languages and most instances there is a continuum of development from ...
parataxis to hypotaxis and sometimes to subordination (p. 209). However, as they admit, there are somecounterexamples to the direction of development. As stand-alone because-clauses seem to develop fromhypotaxis or subordination, they can be counted as another counterexample to the direction (Higashiizumi
2006, 2013). Stand-alone subordinate clauses are termed “suspended clauses” in Ohori (2005, 2012, andelsewhere), “unembedded dependent clauses” in Biber et al. (1999: 223), and “insubordination” in Evans(2007).
Focusing on the position that because-clauses appear in relation to their reference clause in discourse,
this study address the following research questions; (I) Are stand-alone because-clauses found before
Present-Day English, namely in the Late Modern English period? (II) If so, what function do they serve? (III)What can the history of stand-alone because-clauses tell us about clauses and their function?

3. Data
Table 1 summarises the inventories of because in the ARCHER-3.1 corpus. I analysed the British part ofbecause-clauses in the ARCHER-3.1 corpus (Table 2) in order to compare the results shown in Higashiizumi(2006, 2013), in which the examples are collected from conversation segments in novels and play scripts in
British English (Table 3).
Table 2 shows the positions in which because-clauses appear in relation to their reference clause in the
British part of the ARCHER-3.1 corpus. Approximately 70% of all because-clauses appear after theirsyntactic main clause from 1650 to present. Only 13 examples of stand-alone because-clauses are found in
the corpus. It turns out that they are all from the conversation segments of “drama” and “fiction” and from“letter”, i.e., “speech-related texts” (Kytö, 2010: 50). We will have a closer look at them in Section 4 below.
More frequent than these stand-alone because-clauses are those solicited by why/how...? and theconstructions that is because, this is because, it is because, etc. (X is because construction, hereafter).
Table 3 presents the relative position of because-clauses and their reference clause in the conversation
segments in novels and drama. No more than ten examples were collected from novels and dramas by thesame author. Although they come from examples collected for Higashiizumi (2006, 2013), they are−318−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

recounted and rearranged for the current study. Approximately 66% of all because-clauses appear after theirsyntactic main clause in total. There are only 20 examples of stand-alone because-clauses found in thecollection. The percentage of because-clauses solicited by why/how...? is 15% in total and it is more frequent
than the ones in the ARCHER-3.1 corpus. The X is because construction is 7% in total, which is almost thesame as that in Table 2.
Based on Tables 2 and 3, we can answer the research question (I); stand-alone because-clauses arefound in speech-related texts in the Late Modern English period. It would not be appropriate to make ageneralization from the small number of examples of stand-alone because-clauses, but we can observe thatthe frequency of stand-alone because-clauses gradually increases towards PDE.

4. Closer look at stand-alone because-clauses in the ARCHER-3.1 corpus1
This section will have a closer look at three examples of stand-alone because-clauses from the ARCHER-3.1
corpus in answer to the research question (II) as to what discourse-pragmatic function they serve. There is nospace here to examine the because-clause solicited by a why/how question nor the X is because construction.
The stand-alone because-clause in Example (1) corresponds to the above-mentioned type (a) in
Couper-Kuhlen (2011), i.e., a because-clause produced “to account for an immediately prior action by thesame speaker”.

(1) {=f SOPHIA.} And it's very scandalous, very scandalous indeed, to say he is my ma's lover!
{=m SULKY.} Humph.
{=f SOPHIA.} Because he is a fine genteel young gentleman; and you know ma is –(ARCHER3.1, 1751fiel.f4b)

The speaker, SOPHIA, gives an account for her prior statement that “it’s very scandalous ... to say he is my
ma's lover!”In Example (2), the stand-alone because-clause accounts for an immediately prior action by theinterlocutor, i.e., the type (b) in Couper-Kuhlen (2011).

(2) "No, I did not," she answered with indignation. He could see her face at last.
"You -- you are crying!" he exclaimed in bewilderment.
"Because you are so unfeeling," sobbed Babbie.

(ARCHER3.1, 1891barr.f6b)

By using the stand-alone because-clause, the speaker, Babbie, provides the interlocutor, “he”, with the reason−319−

More thoughts on stand-alone because-clauses from a historical-pragmatic perspective

why she is crying. It is added to “another speaker main clause” (Biber et al. 1999: 831).
The stand-alone because-clause in Example (3) is different in type from either Example (1) and (2)above. It seems appropriate to interpret it as giving an account for non-immediately prior action by the same
speaker.

(3) {=m BEAUGARD.} The truth on't is, he has deserved it long ago. But did you ever see him, Sir Davy?
{=m SIR Dav.} Sir! does he know me? <Aside.>{=m BEAUGARD.} Because I fancy that miniature is very like him. Pray, sir, whence had it you?
(ARCHER3.1, 1680otwa.d2b)

The speaker, BEAUGARD, explains why he asked the question to the interlocutor, Sir Davy, as theinterlocutor did not answer the question but addressed another question to BEAUGARD.
These because-clauses do not accompany their syntactic main clause in the turn in which they appear.
They serve to provide “a reason for something that precedes it” (Couper-Kuhlen 2011: §2) in speech-related
texts in Late Modern English in a similar way as in Present-Day English.

5. Discussion
So far, we have answered research questions (I) and (II). This section discusses what the developmental
process of stand-alone because-clauses can tell us about clauses and their function.
First, we can see that the combination of the stand-alone because-clause and its reference clause is not
subordination but “‘parataxis,’ or relative independence, except as constrained by the pragmatics of ‘making
sense’ and relevance” (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 177). Biber et al. (1999: 223) note that “unembedded
dependent clauses”, which subsume stand-alone because-clauses, are found in conversation, and sometimes
in dialogue in fiction and very informal news texts (Biber et al. 1999: 223). Also in the ARCHER-3.1 corpus,
all examples of stand-alone because-clauses are found in speech-related texts as mentioned in Section 3
above. The use of because-clauses in conversation and speech-related texts seems to concern the emergenceof stand-alone ones. As observed in Section 3, the frequency of stand-alone because-clauses gradually
increases in speech-related texts towards PDE, although the number of examples is quantitatively small.
Does this reflect the “colloquialization” of writing practice (Traugott 2010: 104)? Stand-alone
because-clauses as well as “unembedded dependent clauses” await further investigation in different registers
and genres diachronically and synchronically.
Second, the turn-initial because can be seen as functioning as a discourse marker of “continuation”(Couper-Kuhlen 2011, Onodera 2011:80), signalling the interlocutor to expect an explanation or a−320−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

justification to come in the following discourse. The development of the discourse marker use of because
seems to be the result of intersubjectification, which is defined as “the development of markers that encode
the Speaker’s (or Writer’s) attention to the cognitive stances and social identities of the Addressee” (Traugott
2012: 9). The development can be counted as one of the clines or paths that Brinton (2008, 2010) discusses(see the first cline in (4) below).

(4) - from adverb/preposition to conjunction to discourse marker- from predicate adverb to sentential adverb to discourse marker- from (first-person) matrix clause to indeterminate clause/parenthetical discourse marker- from imperative matrix clause to indeterminate structure to parenthetical discourse marker- from relative/adverbial clause to parenthetical discourse marker
Brinton (2010: 299–301)

Stand-alone because-clauses can be seen as turn-initial discourse markers and dependent clauses inconversation and speech-related texts. This suggests that clauses and their functions need more study in termsof how clauses behave in discourse.

6. Concluding remarks
In this study, I investigated the developmental process of stand-alone because-clauses from Late Modern
English to Present-Day English from a historical-pragmatic perspective, attempting to answer the threeresearch questions addressed in Section 1. I hope to have shown that interactions between the speaker and theinterlocutor would affect and shape the use of because-clauses in discourse. It goes without saying that it is“important to take into consideration the multiple discourse levels typical of speech-related texts ... factorsthat affect the pragmatics of the utterances in a dialogue or stretches of speech ... whether past or present”(Kytö 2010: 50).

* Thanks are due to Merja Kytö for providing me with the examples from the ARCHER-3.1 (WordSmith 5,
21 December, 2009). This paper is a revision of the ones given at the 30th Modern English Association
Conference and at the 16th Annual Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan. I benefited fromdiscussion and comments at the conferences and especially from Mitsuru Maeda, Kazuho Mizuno, andDaisuke Suzuki. My special thanks go to Reijirou Shibasaki, Ryoko Suzuki, and an anonymous PSJ
workshop reviewer for their insightful comments and constructive criticism. I would like to thank Jane
Boughton who kindly helped me to correct and improve my English. Any inadequacies are my own−321−More thoughts on stand-alone because-clauses from a historical-pragmatic perspective

responsibility.

Note1

Some symbols in the ARCHER-3.1corpus are omitted for ease of reading in Examples (1)–(3).

References
Altenberg, B. 1984. “Causal linking in spoken and written English.” Studia Linguistica 38, 20–69.
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan (ed) 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken andWritten English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Brinton, L.J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, L.J. 2010. “Discourse markers.” In A.H. Jucker and I. Taavisainen (eds.), 285–314.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. 2011. “When turns start with because: An exercise in interactional syntax.” Studies in
Variation, Contacts and Change in English 8: Connectives in Synchrony and Diachrony in European
Languages. (www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/.../08/couper-kuhlen/)
Evans, N. 2007. “Insubordination and its uses.” In I. Nikolaeva (ed.) Finiteness, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ford, C.E. 1993. Grammar in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Higashiizumi, Y. 2006. From a Subordinate Clause to an Independent Clause: A History of English
because-clause and Japanese kara-clause. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Higashiizumi, Y. 2013. “A history of because-clauses and the coordination–subordination dichotomy.” In H.
Sauer and G. Waxenberger (ed.) Recording English, Researching English, Transforming English, 201–
209. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Hopper, P.J. and E. C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jucker, A.H. and I. Taavisainen (ed.) 2010. Historical Pragmatics. Mouton De Gruyter.
Kytö, M. 2010. “Data in historical pragmatics.” In A.H. Jucker and I. Taavisainen (eds.), 33–67.
Ohori, T. 1995. “Remarks on suspended clauses: A contribution to Japanese phraseology.” In M. Shibataniand S.A. Thompson (ed.) Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics, 201–218. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Ohori, T. 2012. “Toward a taxonomy of insubordination: Grammaticalization paths and discourse
motivations.” Paper presented at Symposium “Dynamics of Insubordination”, Tokyo University ofForeign Studies, Tokyo, Japan, 27 October 2012.
Onodera, N. 2011. “Danwa hyoshiki (discourse marker) no rekishiteki hattatsu (Historical development of−322−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

discourse markers).” In H. Takada, M. Shiina and N. Onodera (eds.) Rekishi Goyoron Nyumon(Introduction to Historical Pragmatics), 73–90. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Schleppegrell, M.J. 1991. “Paratactic Because.” Journal of Pragmatics 16, 323–337.
Stenström, A-B. 1998. “From Sentence to Discourse: Cos (Because) in Teenage Talk.” In Andreas H. Jucker
and Yael Ziv, (eds.) Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, 127–146. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Traugott, E.C. 2010. “Grammaticalization.” In A.H. Jucker and I. Taavisainen (eds.) Historical Pragmatics,
97–126. Mouton De Gruyter.
Traugott, E.C. 2012. “Intersubjectification and clause periphery.” English Text Construction 5:1, 7–28.

Corpus
ARCHER-3.1 = A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers 3.1. 1990–1993/2002/2007/2010.
Compiled under the supervision of Douglas Biber and Edward Fineganat, Northern Arizona University,
University of Southern California, University of Freiburg, University of Heidelberg, University of Helsinki,
Uppsala University, University of Michigan, University of Manchester, Lancaster University, University ofBamberg, University of Zurich, University of Trier, University of Salford, and University of Santiago deCompostela.

Table 1: Because in the ARCHER-3.1 (1650–1999)
because-clausebecause of613
88
British281
63
American
894
151
TOTAL
(no spelling variants such as cos, ‘cos)

−323−

?
3
0
1048

More thoughts on stand-alone because-clauses from a historical-pragmatic perspective

Table 2: Because-clauses in the ARCHER-3.1
ARCHER-3.1 (British)
Preposed (Because+CL1, CL2)

1650–1699
17 13%

1700–1799
13 11%

1800–1899
64%

1900í1999
15
7%

TOTAL
51
8%

Medial (..., because+CL, ...)

2

2%

1

1%

0

0%

2

1%

5

1%

Postposed (CL1 because+CL2)

92

71%

82

68%

92

68%

177

78%

443

72%

Stand alone (Because+CL)

8

6%

15

13%

22

16%

20

9%

65

11%

not solicited by why/how ...?

1

1%

2

2%

3

2%

7

3%

13

2%

solicited by why/how …?
Subtotal

7

5%

13

11%

19

14%

13

6%

52

8%

119

92%

111

93%

120

88%

214

94%

564

92%

4

3%

7

6%

15

11%

11

5%

37

6%

Others(Dem/Pro be because …)(solicited by the word reason)

7

5%

2

2%

1

1%

1

0%

11

2%

(just because)

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1

0%

1

0%

Subtotal

11

9

12%
100
%

13

6%
100
%

49

130

8%
100
%

16

TOTAL

8%
100
%

8%
100
%

120

136

227

613

Table 3: Because-clauses in conversation segments in novels and drama (in the data collected for
Higashiizumi 2006, 2013)
Novels and drama
1650–1699 1700–1799 1800–1899 1900-1999
TOTAL
Preposed (Because+CL1, CL2)
4 24%
0
0%
5
4%
6
4%
15
5%
Medial (..., because+CL, ...)

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

Postposed (CL1 because+CL2)
Stand alone (Because+CL)
not solicited by why/how ...?
solicited by why/how …?
Subtotal

0%

10

59%

39

80%

69

60%

95

67%

213

66%

2

12%

5

10%

32

28%

28

20%

67

21%

0

0%

2

4%

6

5%

12

9%

20

6%

2

12%

3

6%

26

23%

16

11%

47

15%

16

94%

44

90%

106

92%

129

91%

295

92%

Others(Dem/Pro be because …)

0

0%

3

6%

7

6%

11

8%

21

7%

(solicited by the word reason)

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1

1%

1

0%

(just because)

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

 ?

1

6%

2

4%

2

2%

0

0%

5

2%

Subtotal

1

5

8%
100
%

12

9%
100
%

27

17

10%
100
%

9

TOTAL

6%
100
%

8%
100
%

49

−324−

115

141

322

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

From pragmatic marker to main clause?
With a focus on the problem is (that) in the history of American English
Reijirou Shibasaki
Meiji University<reijiro@meiji.ac.jp><Abstract>
This study pays attention to the historical development of the problem is especially in Late
Modern through Present-day English. The major finding from this study is that the problem isappeared as a free-standing pragmatic marker like the problem is, …, subsequently developing
into the problem is that-complement: the problem is takes on a new dimension as a main clause.
The directional pathway from pragmatic marker to main clause has received little attention; it is in
direct conflict with the outcomes of grammaticalization research as shown in Hopper and Traugott࠙Keywordsࠚ: Pragmatic marker, main clause, grammaticalization, host-class expansion

1. The problem is (that): Analytic proceduresThis study pays special attention to the problem is (that), a discourse oriented construction in
English. The primary research focus is on Late Modern through Present-day English and the data forthis study are taken from electronic corpora, i.e., the Corpus of Historical American English
1810-2009 (COHA) and the Corpus of Contemporary American English 1990-2012 (COCA). Here areexamples (last access: 2013/12/06); the elements in focus are underlined, and the attested
discourse-syntactic structure is represented in (6).
(1) The problem is that the authors, like others, are certain that he was a genius.
(1958 COHA; MAG, The mystery of Henry Ford)(2) Problem is that he’s a good kid, at the core.

(1991 COHA; NEWS, New York Times)(3) The problem is, Senator McCarthy doesn’t seem quite prepared for it.
(1967 COHA; MAG, Out West with Candidate Wallace)(4) JUDD: They’ll take your wishes into consideration. Problem is, you were legally married by the
local Judge, of your own free will. (1962 COHA; FIC, Ride the High Country)(5) It did it anyway. The only problem is, it’s hard to know what way to think about it.
(1965 COHA; FIC, Do, Lord, Remember Me)(6) [(the) problem is (that)+speaker statement−325−] discourseFrom pragmatic marker to main clause? With a focus on the problem is (that) in the history of American English

The main coding property centers on whether the construction the problem is is directly followed bythat (i.e. main clause type) as in (1) and (2) or it is unattached to the following clause, marked off witha comma, without that (i.e. pragmatic marker type), as in (3) and (4). The main clause usage of thedeterminer-less construction – i.e. point is that-clause as in (2) – is extremely infrequent: three
examples in the COHA and one example in the COCA, while the corresponding usage of thedeterminer-headed the problem is that-clause appears to be established in the light of frequency. Thoseconstructions in which the nominal problem appears with adjectival modifiers such as important, main,
only, real, etc., as shown in (5) began to develop especially in the second half of the twentieth century
regardless of whether they are determiner-headed or not, while the determiner-headed the problem isconstruction as in (1) and (3) emerged much earlier than those with adjectival modifiers. Taking these
into consideration, this study focuses attention only on the problem is, … (pragmatic marker type) andthe problem is that… (main clause type). Notice that since the study centers on the historicaldevelopments of both main clause and pragmatic marker types, other complement types (e.g.
to-infinitive clauses) fall out of this study due to space limitation.
Then, this study rethinks what is believed in the field of grammaticalization research, i.e., thedirectional change from main clause to pragmatic marker, which is known as “Matrix Clause
Hypothesis” (Thompson and Mulac 1991: 313). For example, epistemic parentheticals such as I think
and I guess begin as main clauses with complement that clauses. Loss of the complementizer andreanalysis leads to grammaticalization of the forms as pragamtic or discourse markers, occurring not
only in clause-initial position but also in either clause-medial or clause-final position. All the examplesof the problem is (that) are found to appear in front of speaker statement (cf. ‘projectability’ in Hopperand Thompson 2008; Shibasaki 2014a,b) as in (6); therefore, the focus of this study is on whether theconstruction developed from main clause to pragmatic marker or vice versa.
2. The survey results
Figure 1 shows the vicissitudes of both main clause type (i.e. the problem is that) and pragmatic
marker type (the problem is,…) based on their raw frequencies in the COHA. The following two points
should be addressed. One is that the problem is (that) itself had been very infrequent up until the
mid-twentieth century; the other is that the main clause type began to be used much later than the
pragmatic marker type. However, worth noting is that the former had been preponderant consistently
over the latter once it started to rise rapidly in the second half of the twentieth century. Note that theearliest examples from A Corpus of Late Modern English Texts extended version 1710-1920(CLMETEV) and from The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) turn out to be much newer, while theHelsinki Corpus of English Texts (Early Modern English part 1500-1710) and A Corpus of English
Dialogues (CED, 1560-1760) have no directly relevant examples.

−326−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

1870s

1920s

the problem is that (Main Clause Type)

2000s

1990s

1980s

1970s

1960s

1950s

1940s

1930s

1910s

1900s

1890s

1880s

1860s

1850s

1840s

1830s

1820s

1810s

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

the problem is, … (Pragmatic Marker Type)

Figure 1. The transition of main clause and pragmatic marker types in the COHA (last access: 2013/12/06)

Table 1 provides us with the distributional patterns of both main clause and pragmatic marker typesof the problem is (that) in the COCA. In the table, both historical stages and genres are divided into
five; the numbers stand for the frequency of occurrence for each respective type, while the numbers inparentheses mean their normalized frequencies per million words.
Table 1: The distributional patterns of the problem is (that) in the COCA (last access: 2013/12/05)
stage
genre
Spoken: Main Clause
Pragmatic Marker
Fiction: Main Clause
Pragmatic Marker
Magazine: Main Clause
Pragmatic Marker
Newspaper: Main Clause
Pragmatic Marker
Academic: Main Clause
Pragmatic Marker

1990-1994

1995-1999

2000-2004

2005-20092010-2012

279 (2.89)
155 (1.49)
12 (0.13)
19 (0.18)
135 (1.41)
40 (0.38)
126 (1.37)
34 (0.33)
84 (0.92)
9 (0.09)202 (2.11)
128 (1.24)
20 (0.22)
32 (0.31)
130 (1.36)
46 (0.44)
108 (1.18)
52 (0.50)
93 (1.02)
12 (0.12)

166 (1.74)
121 (1.18)
25 (0.28)
18 (0.17)
106 (1.11)
58 (0.56)
88 (0.96)
44 (0.43)
74 (0.81)
11 (0.11)

188 (1.97)
170 (1.67)
28 (0.31)
21 (0.21)
107 (1.12)
39 (0.38)
104 (1.13)30 (0.29)
72 (0.79)
7 (0.07)92 (0.96)
124 (2.36)
21 (0.23)
14 (0.27)
54 (0.57)
16 (0.31)
51 (0.56)
16 (0.31)
29 (0.32)
9 (0.17)

It is obvious that regardless of the type difference, the problem is (that) is skewed towards the spoken
genre in the COCA. Furthermore, the pragmatic marker type is found to be currently on the increase
specifically after the turn of the twenty-first century, while the main clause type is on the decrease
from a big standpoint; at the outset of 2010s, the pragmatic marker type has switched positions withthe main clause type at least in both spoken and fiction genres.
3. Summary and discussion
The survey results tell us about the following. Firstly, the problem is (that) seems to have emerged
as a pragmatic marker usage in the early ninteenth century and then as a main clause usage in the
mid-twentieth century. Secondly, the number of exactly relevant examples is extremely infrequent in
the nineteenth through mid-twentieth centuries. Thirdly, the pragmatic marker type barely managed tosurvive and began to increase at last in the second half of the twentieth century, when the main clause−327−

From pragmatic marker to main clause? With a focus on the problem is (that) in the history of American English

type began to rapidly increase, dominating the lead in frequency. On the other hand, the pragmatic
marker type becomes predominant in the past couples of years.
It seems that the problem is follows the pathway from pragmatic marker to main clause. In fact,
another construction the point is shows a good example of this directional pathway (Shibasaki 2014a).
Notwithstanding these two cases, other related constructions developed in the opposite way, e.g., fromthe chances are that… to (the) chances are, … and from the bottom line is that… to the bottom line is,… (Shibasaki 2014b). In addition, the early stages of each construction witness very few examples ingeneral, as seen in Figure 1. Judging from these observations, suffice it to say that the construction the+ noun + is (+ that) developed schematically as a host-class, while more specific constructions suchas the problem is and the chances are also developed albeit in different ways: from main clause to
pragmatic marker or from pragmatic marker to main clause (i.e. ‘host-class expansion’ in
Himmelmann 2004). Of course, these survey results do not go beyond the realm of a case study, andthe directions of change will have to be further examined with respect to the whole paradigm of
relevant constructions.
Acknowledgements
This study is part of the author’s Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) project (No. 25370569) supported by
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and Technology, Japan.
References
Himmelmann, N. P. “Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal?” In W. Bisang, N. P.
Himmelmann and B. Wiemer (eds.) What makes grammaticalization?, 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hopper, P. J. and S. A. Thompson. 2008. “Projectability and cause combining in interaction.” In Ritva Laury(ed.) Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining, 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hopper, P. J. and E. C. Traugott. 2013. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shibasaki, R. 2014a. “On the development of the point is and related issues in the history of American English.”English Linguistics 31 (1), 79–113.
Shibasaki, R. 2014b. “Diachronic aspects of shell noun constructions: With a focus on the bottom line is (that).”Paper given at the ICEHL-18, Leuven, Belgium, July 14-18, 2014.
Thompson, S. A. and A. Mulac. 1991. “A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemicparentheticals in English,” In E. C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. II,
313–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
CorporaA Corpus of English Dialogues 1560-1760 (CED).
A Corpus of Late Modern English Texts extended version 1710-1920 (CLMETEV).
The Corpus of Contemporary American English 1990-2012 (COCA).
The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA), 1810-2000s.
The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (HC), Early Modern English part 1500-1710.
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2nd edn. on CD-ROM Version 4.0. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

−328−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号“Exist exist”: Verbs as reactive tokens in Japanese conversation
Ryoko Suzuki
Keio University<Abstract>
This study introduces some verbs occurring as reactive tokens (RTs) in Japanese casualconversation and shows that predicates, rather than clauses, are the preferred format overclauses in this functional domain, if we assume that clauses consist of predicates plus
arguments. We see that (1) the RTs of verb origin (VRTs) hardly occur in full-fledged clausal
format, and they can be regarded as fixed expressions without any ‘recoverable arguments’;(2) the VRTs have a loose semantic/pragmatic relationship to the immediately precedingutterance; and (3) they tend to be reduplicated and abstract in meaning. The crosslinguistic
applicability of the ‘clauses’ as units of social action has been questioned recently for somelanguages like Japanese. VRTs in this study suggest that predicates, rather than clauses,
carry out the social action of backchanneling.
࠙Keywordsࠚreactive tokens, verbs, predicates, clauses, fixedness

1. Introduction
This preliminary study investigates one aspect of “grammar” in everyday interaction,
sharing Thompson and Tao’s view that “grammar emerges from frequently repeated patternsin everyday interactions” (2010: 7). The author is especially indebted to two recent strands ofresearch called Interactional Linguistics (e.g., Couper-Kuhlen, Ford, Thompson) andHistorical Pragmatics (e.g., Traugott, Jucker). Both approaches view grammar as ‘emergent’(Hopper 1987), constantly shaping and reshaping itself in the process of our day-to-day social
interaction.
In this preliminary study, we will focus on a group of expressions called “reactive
tokens” (RTs) in Japanese conversation, and introduce an ‘emerging’ group of RTs, which arecalled Verbal RTs (VRTs) coming from verbs (e.g., aru ‘exist’, iru ‘exist’, hajimaru ‘begin’),rather than in full-fledged clausal forms. The observations suggest that the “clause,” one of
the fundamental syntactic units of linguistic analysis, and the concept regarded to be thecrucial linguistic unit to accomplish social actions (Thompson 2013), may not be crucial whenit comes to the domain of backchanneling in Japanese. Rather, predicates seem to be a more
relevant unit.
In what follows, I will first introduce the key notions for the paper. Next, the data for−329−

“Exist exist”: Verbs as reactive tokens in Japanese conversation

the study and some examples of RTs will be provided. Then some common features of thoseRTs and their relevance to the notion of clauses will be discussed.
2. Key concepts: Clauses, reactive tokens (RTs), and verbal RTs (VRTs)
Recently,someresearchers

problematizethenotionoftheclause,fromcross-linguistic and interactional points of view. Thompson (2013) argues that the clause,
defined as a predicate plus closely related nominals is a crucial linguistic unit, and that thebasis for social actions (e.g., requesting, inviting, informing, warning) is carried by clauses.
Thompson takes an inclusive view towards clauses, defining them as “predicates (plus any
arguments, inferred or expressed).” While this view treats predicates and clauses in a similarmanner, others take a syntactically/structurally restricted view of the clause, defining it as averb plus an expressed argument. Laury, Ono and Suzuki (2013) propose that some languages
grammaticize clauses to a greater extent (e.g., English, Finnish) than some others (e.g.,
Japanese). In this paper, we take the latter view of clauses, distinguishing predicate-only
forms from predicates with arguments.
This study focuses on a group of reactive vocalizations, which could be referred to asreactive tokens (RTs), following Clancy et al. (1996). An RT is defined as "a short utterance
produced by an interlocutor who is playing a listener's role during the other interlocutor's
speakership (1996:356).” Iwasaki (1997:665-6) also investigate such reactive vocalizations bylisteners and calls them “backchannel expressions.” He defines them as “any verbal attention
whose main purpose is to respond in a supporting (i.e., non-disagreeing, non-challenging)manner to the other participant's immediately preceding or current vocalization.” Although
Clancy et al.’s definition is speakership-based and Iwasaki’s is more function-based, mystance is that we benefit from both definitions, which together capture the importantinteractional characteristics of RTs.
There are several formal subgroups of RTs. According to Clancy et al. (1996), thewell-known type is ‘backchannels’ (359), which are small non-lexical forms known as‘continuers’ (Schegloff 1982) that typically display interest and claim understanding to theprimary speaker, for example un, haa in Japanese and hm, uh-huh in English (see also
‘Non-lexical backchannels’ by Iwasaki 1997:666).
The second type proposed by Clancy et al. is ‘reactive expressions’ (1996:360). They
are short lexical expressions such as sugoi ‘great/terrible’, hontoo ‘really’ in Japanese, andyeah, sure and so forth in English (see also Iwasaki’s ‘phrasal backchannels’ 1997:666)
including assessments (for example, Goodwin, 1986; Goodwin and Goodwin, 1987). The focal
expressions of the present study, which I call “Verbal RTs” (VRTs), consist of lexical verbs, sothey belong to this subtype.
Clancy et al. (1996) also include other types of utterances in which the reacting−330−第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

participant, or non-primary speaker ‘collaboratively finishes’ the primary participant’sutterance, or ‘repeats’ one part of the primary speaker’s utterance. They also mention thatRTs are sometimes prefaced by ‘resumptive openers’ such as e: ‘wow’ in Japanese or oh inEnglish.
There is a wide range of literature on RTs in Japanese conversation (e.g., Mizutani
1983, Maynard 1986, Ohama 2006, Nagata 2004, to name just a few); the literature often
refers to them as aizuchi. Researchers’ enthusiasm towards investigating and documenting
reactive expressions and related behaviors seems to do with the fact that “Japanese speakers
usebackchannels

much

more

frequently

comparedto

speakers

of

some

other

languages“ (Iwasaki 1997:665). Producing RTs in interaction, also known as ‘backchanneling,’
is so noticeable a social action (Young and Lee 2004) that native speakers and learners ofJapanese need to acquire the appropriate use of RTs in the process of language socialization.
As shown above, the social action of backchanneling can be achieved with non-lexical(such as un ‘uh-huh’, e: ‘wow’) as well as lexical (such as sugoi ‘great’, uso ‘no kidding, (lit.) alie’) forms in Japanese. I take this surface-form-based taxonomy of Reactive Tokens as a
useful starting point, and present some observations on VRTs. In the following, I will discuss
some formal and functional features of VRTs, and their implications for our understanding ofgrammar in conversational interaction.
3. Data
The data come from natural conversations among friends and families, collected inroughly two time periods: the early 1990s (total of 24 conversations, 3 hours, audio data
coming from JPN/PacRim/Call Friend corpus) and early 2010s (10 conversations, 30 minutes
total, audio). The amount of data is admittedly small, which makes the present study
preliminary in nature. I culled the instances of VRTs, i.e., RTs consisting of verbs.
4. Observations
4.1. aru
Before we examine VRTs, I will give an instance of the lexical verb: aru ‘to exist,’ “thelexical instances of which will be excluded from our analysis”
the lexical instances of which will be excluded from our analysis:(1) A and B are dormmates. C is senior to A and B. (Hakata girls)
A: ashita gakkoo aru?
‘(Do you) have classes tomorrow? / Will there be classes tomorrow?’
B: ashita wa ne, aru aru.
‘Tomorrow, (I) do. / Tomorrow, there will be (classes).’−331−

“Exist exist”: Verbs as reactive tokens in Japanese conversation

Example (1) is a straightforward instance of an adjacency pair in which A asks an informationquestion, and B gives an affirmative answer by recycling the same verb aru which A used. If
we borrow Thompson’s definition of a clause (2013), B’s utterance can be regarded asconsisting of a predicate aru (or aru aru) and an implicit argument gakkoo ‘school, classes’.
Prosodically, we hear a very subtle higher pitch on the first vowel a’ru aru.
In the following section, some examples of VRTs will be given. In recent recordings ofconversations by college students, we find aruaru, the same form as aru aru in (1), butfunctioning as a VRT (hence spelled in (2) without a space):(2) (Hakata girls: 2010s conversation)
A, B and C are dormmates. A and B are the same age, and C is their senior.
1. A: senzai osoroi desu!
‘(I’m) using the same brand of detergent (as you).’
2. C: nakami chigau yo.
‘I put a different brand inside (though).’
3. B: …<@ hee daijobu nan desu[ka sore?] @>‘Oh, is it okay to do that?’
4. A: [@] [2 <P aruaru P> 2].
‘(lit.) Exist exist.’
5. C: [2 XX 2] daijobu daijobu, nakami ne=, moo zutoo nakami wa issho ya ken.
‘No problem, no problem, (I’ve been using this container and) refilling
the product (of another brand) for a long time.’
B’s question in line 3 daijobu nan desuka sore? ‘is it okay to do that?’ with the polite form desu
is directed to her senior dormmate C; and C’s reply in line 5 daijobu daijobu ‘no problem, no
problem’ constitutes the second pair part.
Now turning to A’s aruaru in line 4, A, who is a non-addressee in this excerpt,
produces aruaru following B’s question and overlapping with C’s answer in line 5. Prosodically,aruaru, the reduplicated expression of aru ‘exist’ is pronounced in one quick spurt with a low
volume and with a flat pitch pattern. Such characteristics indicate that the utterance aruaru
is prosodically more suppressed and unified in contrast to the more informative, longer andaudible turns by B (line 3) and C (line 5). In addition, aruaru does not make a coherent
answer syntactically to B’s yes-no question in line 3. It does not seem to indicate the lexical
meaning ‘to exist’ here, and its appropriate translations below reflect its assessing/
generalizing/presumptive quality: ‘It’s common to do so/It’s nothing unusual/ Situations likethis can happen.’−332−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

From an interactional-functional perspective, B in line 3 expresses her stance of ‘notapproving what C has been doing’ (i.e., putting a different company’s detergent into thecontainer of company A), by using high volume, laughter, and a rising intonation with aninterrogative particle ka. Then A’s aruaru in line 4 becomes relevant as a reactive utterance ofcontrastive stance towards B. At the same time, A’s aruaru serves as a token of aligning
stance with C in line 2, indicating her ‘understanding and approving’ attitude towards C’s
behavior. Since A is not designated by B in line 3 as the addressee, she produces aruaru in asoft, quick, and hence prosodically suppressed manner, which enables aruaru to accomplish
the complicated interactional work of showing contrastive stance towards B and aligning
stance towards C at the same time.
Because of its timing, and prosodic, syntactic, semantic, and functional features
discussed above, I would argue that aruaru in (2) shares characteristics with an RT rather
than with the lexical verb. Additionally, aru aru, as a reduplicated version of the lexical verb

aru, as in (1), can occur in the past tense (atta atta), whereas aruaru as an RT in (2) cannot
occur in the past tense (*attaatta) due to its generalized/presumptive meaning; this factshows the loss of its status as a lexical verb. Since the meaning of aruaru in (2) is connected toassessment, and it originally comes from a lexical verb, aruaru is a type of RT (what Clancy et
al. would sub-categorize as a ‘reactive expression’). In other words, though aru aru in (1) andaruaru in (2) seem similar, it is clear that there are qualitative differences between the two.
4.2. iru
Next, we will look at another existential verb iru which indicates that its referent istypically a human/animal. The following is an example of a lexical use:
(3) Bukatsu (1990s conversation)... juudoogi, aratte konai yatsu ga, irun da yo. tama ni.
‘Sometimes, there are guys who come to practice without washing the Judo uniform.’
Example (3) includes a straightforward instance of the lexical verb iru with a human referent

yatsu ‘a guy, a fellow’ as its subject argument. We did not find any tokens of the lexical iru iru
or an VRT iruiru. However, there is a curious instance isooisoo in (4), consisting of thepresumptive form of iru: isoo ‘(X) seems to exist’:
Example (4) (Mental 2010s)
B: nanno shigoto ga muiten daro ore.
‘What kind of job would suit me I wonder.’E: kekko <X ore X> yobikookooshi ni naritai na tte zutto omotte nda yone.

−333−

“Exist exist”: Verbs as reactive tokens in Japanese conversation‘I’ve always been wanting to become a prep school lecturer (teaching college
applicants).’
G: …aa= isooisoo.
‘(lit.) oh, (one) seems to exist.’
G’s choice of the verb in (4) shows that isooisoo is semantically associated with a personreferent. However, isooisoo in (4) exhibits some characteristics as an RT. To begin with,prosodically, isooisoo sounds unitary, since it is produced with a flat pitch pattern with nopause in between. Furthermore, in the discourse preceding isooisoo, i.e., in B and E’sutterances, there is no grammatically-fitting antecedent NP which can serve as a referent of

isooisoo. Its subject is rather difficult to construct in translation: it would be best paraphrasedas ‘(prep school teachers like you) would be easy to find/imagine.’ By saying that a prep school
teacher like E would be likely to exist, G refers to the high plausibility/likelihood of thesituation to be realized, and as a result, shows alignment with E who actually wants tobecome a prep school teacher. In other words, isooisoo can be viewed as G’s assessment
towards the likelihood of E’s arriving at his dream job, prefaced with a ‘resumptive opener(Clancy et al. 1997)’ aa= ‘oh.’ Though isooisoo in (4) does not necessarily sound as direct as
lexical expressions such as the verb niatteru ‘(it) suits (you),’ or the predicate nominal pittari‘a perfect fit,’ it serves as a token of assessment, in which the listener aligns his/her stancewith the primary speaker.
Even though we did not find it in the present data, there is a commonly-heard
expression iruiru, which roughly means ‘there is a type of person (you have just described)
around me as well’. I would like to point out that it functions as a VRT to the immediately
preceding utterance, rather than a reduplicated lexical verb iru iru, because it shows prosodic
unity and also indicates the listener’s alignment of his/her stance towards the prior speaker.
5. Discussion
In both (2) and (4), we have seen aru and iru showing characteristics of RTs, rather
than lexical verbs. Both aruaru and isooisoo occur in a reduplicated format with prosodic
unity. In addition, their syntactic subjects are not expressed in the preceding discourse: If weforce ourselves to translate the expressions into English, the subject referents of aruaru andisooisoo would be somewhat abstract such as ‘a situation like (that)’ or ‘a person like (you)’.
They both have a presumptive/generalized meaning which can be translated as ‘a situation/a
person (you have just described) is common/would be easy to find’ and hence do not allow pasttense forms. In interactional sequences, they occur in places where the listener, i.e., thereacting person, displays a stance alignment to what the preceding speaker says.
In previous studies, researchers include adjectives such as sugoi ‘great’ hontoo?

−334−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号‘really?’ as members of RTs, but verbs have not been included as members of RTs. In thispaper, I have pointed out that verbs can function as RTs, using examples of aru and iru.
There are several other verbs functioning like VRTs in my data:
lexical verb form

VRT forms and rough translations

a. wakaru ‘understand ->a= wakaru, wakaruwakaru‘(I) can relate to (the situation you have justdescribed)’b. arienai ‘improbable’->(negative form of arieru)
c. hajimatta ‘began’->(past tense of hajimaru)
d. deta ‘exit, came out’
(past tense of deru)->

arienaiarienai ‘no way!’ ‘(the situation you
have just described) should not happen’

hajimattahajimatta‘there (you) go again (with the usual saying)’

mata deta‘there (you) go again (with the usual saying)’

The list above suggests that the VRTs consist of verbs of low transitive value (cf. Hopper andThompson 1980) with less degree of concreteness compared to verbs indicating concrete
actions. To put it differently, we can hypothesize that expressions with more transitive,
concrete verbs such as taberu taberu and yomu yomu would continue to mean ‘to eat’ and ‘toread’ and would not develop into VRTs.
The VRTs coming from existential verbs introduced in this paper display somecharacteristics of fixed expressions (Wray 2002): they occur in fixed tense forms, in
reduplication (aruaru instead of aru), with a unified prosody, and without any argument. So if
we take the traditional view of a ‘clause’, meaning a verb plus an argument, then Japanese
VRTs in my conversational data are not clausal, but rather, are fixed predicative expressions
doing the social action of backchanneling (showing understanding, displaying interest, etc.) to
the primary speaker.
<Acknowledgements>
My sincere gratitude goes to Rei Shibasaki, Yuko Higashiizumi, Yoshi Ono, Allison Adelman,
the audience at the 16th Annual Conference of Pragmatics Society of Japan, the meeting of
Ninjal Project (PI: Yasuharu Den) in Oct., 2013, and the Hito/Kotoba Forum in July 2014 fortheir comments, and Prof. Sachiko Takagi for her encouragement. None of these people is
responsible for any shortcomings of this paper. The research is supported in part by the JSPS
Bilateral Joint Research Project with the Academy of Finland.

−335−

“Exist exist”: Verbs as reactive tokens in Japanese conversation<References>
Clancy, P. M., S.A.Thompson, R. Suzuki, & H. Tao. 1996. “The conversational use of reactive
tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin.” Journal of Pragmatics 26, 355-387.
Goodwin, C. 1986. “Between and within: Ahemative sequential treatments of continuers andassessments.” Human Studies 9:205--217.
Hopper, P. 1987. “Emergent Grammar.” Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of theBerkeley Linguistics Society, 139-157.
Iwasaki, S. 1997. “The Northridge earthquake conversations: The floor structure and the'loop' sequence in Japanese conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 28, 661-593.
Laury, R., T. Ono and R. Suzuki, 2013. “Questioning the clause as a crosslinguistic unit ingrammar and interaction.” Presentation at Linguistic and interactional units in everyday
speech: Cross-linguistic perspective, June 2013, University of Alberta.
Maynard, S. 1986. On back-channel behavior in Japanese and English casual conversation.

Linguistics. 24:1079-1108.
Mizutani, N. 1983. “Aizuchi to ootoo.” (Backchannels and responses) Osamu Mizutani, ed.,Hanashikotoba no hyoogen (Expression in spoken language). Tokyo: Chikmna Shoboo. 37-44.
Nagata, R. 2004. “Kaiwa ni okeru aizuchi no kinoo: Hatsuwa tochuu ni utareru aizuchi ni
chakumokushite.” (Functions of backchannels in conversation: With special focus on
utterance-internal backchannels) Nihongo Kyoiku, 120. 53-62.
Ohama, R. 2006. Nihongokaiwa ni okeru taan kootai to aizuchi ni kansuru kenkyuu. (A study
on turn-taking and backchannels in Japanese conversation.) Hiroshima: Keisuisha.
Schegloff, E. A., 1982. “Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of 'uh huh" andother things that come between sentences.” In D. Tannen (ed.) Analyzing discourse: Text

and talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Thompson, S.A. 2013. “Understanding ‘clause’ as an emergent ‘unit’ in Japanese andEnglish.” Presentation at Linguistic and interactional units in everyday speech:
Cross-linguistic perspective, June 2013, University of Alberta.
Thompson, S.A. and H.Tao, 2010. “Conversation, grammar, and fixedness: adjectives in
Mandarin revisited.” Chinese Language and Discourse 1:1, 3-30.
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Young, R. F. and J. Lee. 2004. “Identifying units in interaction: Reactive tokens in Korean andEnglish conversations.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 8:3, 380-407.

−336−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

༠ാᏛ⩦䛻䛚䛡䜛Ꮫ䜃䛾䝎䜲䝘䝭䜽䝇㻌 㻌ὠ⏣䜂䜝䜏㻌
᫂἞኱Ꮫ㻌 㻌㻌
㻌
<Abstract>
This paper focuses on the interaction among learners in collaborative learning style readingclasses at a junior high school in Japan. The ethnographic research on the classroom discourse
is carried out to investigate the learning process. The analysis, which was drawn on asocio-cultural theory, shows the way learners learn each other: they sometimes form aminiature classroom framework among group members and a social hierarchy as well.
However, the hierarchy here is so fragile that it might be unexpectedly overturned, which isconsidered to be one of the major characteristics of collaborative learning. In conclusion, thepaper reveals some aspects of the group dynamics observed in the collaborative learning styleclasses.
䠷䜻䞊䝽䞊䝗䠹㻌 ᩍᐊ䜶䝇䝜䜾䝷䝣䜱䞊䚸༠ാᏛ⩦䚸䝣䝺䞊䝮䚸㝵ᒙ䚸䜾䝹䞊䝥䞉䝎䜲䝘䝭䜽䝇䠍䠊㻌 䛿䛨䜑䛻㻌୰Ꮫᰯⱥㄒ䝸䞊䝕䜱䞁䜾ᤵᴗ䛻ᑟධ䛧䛯༠ാᏛ⩦䛻䛚䛡䜛ᑠ䜾䝹䞊䝥ෆ䛾⏕ᚐ㛫䛾䜔䜚䛸䜚䜢ศᯒ䛧䛯⤖ᯝ䚸Ꮫ⩦⪅ྠኈ䛜ᑐ➼䛺❧ሙ䛷Ꮫ䜃ྜ䛳䛶䛔䜛䛸ᛮ䜟䜜䛯༠ാᏛ⩦䛻䛚䛔䛶䛥䛘䚸ᐇ㝿䛻䛿䜾䝹䞊䝥ෆ䛻䛂䝭䝙ᩍᐊ䛃䛾䝣䝺䞊䝮䛜⏕㉳䛧䚸Ꮫ⩦⪅㛫䛻䛂ᩍ䛘䜛䞉ᩍ䛘䜙䜜䜛䛃䛸䛔䛖䛂㝵ᒙ䛃䛜ᡂ❧䛧䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䛜☜ㄆ䛥䜜䛯䚹䛧䛛䜒䚸䛭䛾㝵ᒙ䛿ᚲ䛪䛧䜒ᅛᐃⓗ䛷䛺䛟䚸຺㐪䛔䜔㛫㐪䛔䛻䜘䛳䛶䛂㌿そ䛃䛜㉳䛣䜚䛖䜛䛣䛸䛜᫂䜙䛛䛻䛥䜜䛯䚹ຍ䛘䛶䚸᫬㛫䛾ὶ䜜䛻㏫⾜䛧䛶Ꮫ⩦⪅㛫䛾䜔䜚䛸䜚䛻᪂䛯䛺ゎ㔘䛜௜䛥䜜䚸䜾䝹䞊䝥ෆ䛾ே㛫㛵ಀᅗ䛜ሬ䜚᭰䛘䜙䜜䜛䛣䛸䜒䛒䛳䛯䚹ᮏ✏䛷䛿䚸௨ୖ䛾䜘䛖䛺༠ാᏛ⩦䛻ぢ䜙䜜䜛ᵝ䚻䛺䜾䝹䞊䝥䞉䝎䜲䝘䝭䜽䝇䜢ศᯒ䛩䜛䚹㻌㻌䠎䠊㻌 ༠ാᏛ⩦㻌㻌 ᮏ✏࡛ὀ┠ࡍࡿࠕ༠ാᏛ⩦䛃䛸䛿Ꮫ⩦⪅୰ᚰ䛾ᩍᤵἲ䛾୍䛴䛷䛒䜚䚸Ꮫ⩦⪅䛿┦஫⾜Ⅽ䜢䛸䛚䛧䛶௚⪅䛾どⅬ䜢Ꮫ䜆䛣䛸䛻䜘䛳䛶ど㔝䜢ᗈ䛢⌮ゎ䜢῝䜑䜛䛣䛸䛜ྍ⬟䛸䛺䜛䚹䞂䜱䝂䝒䜻䞊䠄㻞㻜㻜㻝䠅䛾
䛂Ⓨ㐩䛾᭱㏆᥋㡿ᇦ䠄㼆㼛㼚㼑㻌㼛㼒㻌㻼㼞㼛㼤㼕㼙㼍㼘㻌㻰㼑㼢㼑㼘㼛㼜㼙㼑㼚㼠㻦㻌㼆㻼㻰䠅⌮ㄽ䛃䛜♧䛩䜘䛖䛻䚸Ꮫ⩦⪅䛿┦஫⾜Ⅽ䛻䜘䛳䛶䚸ಶே䛷䛿฿㐩䛷䛝䛺䛔㡿ᇦ䛻㐩䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䚹䛧䛛䜒䚸༠ാᏛ⩦䛷䛿Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢព㆑ࡀᩍᖌࡸ♫఍つ⠊࡜࠸ࡗࡓᶒጾ࠿ࡽゎᨺࡉࢀࠊ⮬ࡽᛮ⪃ࡋุ᩿ࡍࡿຊࢆᣢࡗࡓ⮬ᚊⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦⪅࡜࡞ࡾ࠺ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㻌䠏䠊㻌 ◊✲䛾┠ⓗ䛸᪉ἲ㻌ᮏ✏䛾┠ⓗ䛿䚸Ꮫ⩦ࢆ♫఍ⓗ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍ♫఍ᩥ໬⌮ㄽ㸦Johnson & Johnson, 1989㸧࡟❧⬮−337−

協働学習における学びのダイナミクス

ࡋࠊᩍᐊㄯヰࡢศᯒࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚༠ാᏛ⩦ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ෆᅾࡍࡿ♫఍ᩥ໬ⓗ๓ᥦ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ࢖ࢹ࢜
ࣟࢠ࣮ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ༠ാᏛ⩦ࡀࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ୍ᙧែ࡛࠶ࡿ
࡜࠸࠺ㄆ㆑࡟❧ࡕࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⌮ㄽ࠾ࡼࡧฟ᮶஦ࣔࢹࣝ㸦ᑠᒣ㸪2008㸧ࢆゎ㔘ᯟ⤌ࡳ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ୰Ꮫ 3 ᖺ⏕ࡢⱥㄒᤵᴗ࡟ᑟධࡋࡓ༠ാᏛ⩦ࢆศᯒࡍࡿࠋ◊✲ᑐ㇟ࡢ 15 ྡ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࡣࠊⱥㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊࢸࢫࢺ㸦Global Test of English Communication for Students GTEC㸸࣋ࢿࢵࢭ㸦ᰴ㸧㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ⱥㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊ࡟ࡤࡽࡘࡁࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋㄪᰝࡢࡓࡵᏛ⩦⪅ࢆ᜛ពⓗ࡟ 4㹼6 ྡࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ศࡅࠊIC ࣞࢥ࣮ࢲ࣮࡟ࡼࡾࢢ࣮ࣝࣉㄯヰࡢ㘓㡢ࢆ⾜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ㻌䠐䠊㻌 䝕䞊䝍ศᯒ㻌㻌 ᮏ✏࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡣࠊ⏨Ꮚ㸯ேࢆྵࡴ 4 ே࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀࠊⱥㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊ࡟ࡤࡽࡘࡁࡀ
ぢࡽࢀࡿࠋள⣖ࡣኌࡀ኱ࡁࡃࠊ⏤⨾ࡣࡌࡗࡃࡾ⪃࠼࡚࠿ࡽ᪩ཱྀ࡛ࡋࡷ࡭ࡿࠋᬛᜨࡣኌࡢㄪᏊ
ࡣࢯࣇࢺ࡛᫂ࡿ࠸ࠋ኱࿃ࡣࢡࣛࢫ၏୍ࡢ⏨Ꮚ࡛ࠊヰࡋྜ࠸ࢆࡏࡎ㟁Ꮚ㎡᭩ࢆ࠸ࡌࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ள⣖࡜⏤⨾ࠊᬛᜨ࡜኱࿃ࡀ㞄ྠኈ࡟ࠊள⣖࡜ᬛᜨࠊ⏤⨾࡜኱࿃ࡀྥࡁྜࡗ࡚╔ᖍࡋࡓࠋ⾲ 1 ࡾࢇࡈࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮࣭ࣉࣟࣇ࢕࣮ࣝ㸦Ặྡࡣࡍ࡭࡚௬ྡ㸧
GTEC
GTEC
Ặྡ
Ặྡ
ள⣖
㸦ୖ఩⩌*㸧184Ѝ181**኱࿃㸦ୗ఩⩌㸧133Ѝ139⏤⨾㸦୰఩⩌㸧 160Ѝ186ᬛᜨ㸦ୗ఩⩌㸧109Ѝ128* GTEC㸦Reading㸧ࡢᣦᑟ๓ࡢᚓⅬ࡟ࡶ࡜࡙ࡃศ㢮ࠋ** GTEC㸦R㸧ࡢ ᣦᑟ๓ Ѝ ᣦᑟᚋࡢᚓⅬࠋḟ䛾䜶䝢䝋䞊䝗䛿ᤵᴗ㛤ጞᚋ 㻝㻡 ศ䜋䛹⤒䛱䚸䜾䝹䞊䝥䛷䛂䛚䝃䝹䛸ᖗᏊ኎䜚䛃䛸䛔䛖ㄢ㢟䛻ྲྀ䜚⤌䜏ጞ䜑䛯䛸䛣䜝䛷䛒䜛䚹ள⣖䛿ᬛᜨ䛻㞃႘ⓗ䝁䞊䝗䞉䝇䜲䝑䝏䞁䜾䠄㻳㼡㼙㼜㼑㼞㼦㻘㻌 㻝㻥㻤㻞䠅䜢⏝䛔䚸䜾䝹䞊䝥ෆ䛻䛂䝭䝙ᩍᐊ䛃䛾䝣䝺䞊䝮䠄㻳㼛㼒㼒㼙㼍㼚㻘㻌 㻝㻥㻣㻠䠅䛜ႏ㉳䛥䜜䜛䚹ள⣖䛿ඛ⏕䛾䝣䝑䝔䜱䞁䜾䠄㻳㼛㼒㼒㼙㼍㼚㻘㻌㻝㻥㻣㻥䠅䛻䜘䜚ඛ⏕䛸䛔䛖♫఍ᙺ๭䜢₇䛨䛶䛔䜛䛣䛸䜢♧䛩䛜䚸ᬛᜨ䛿ள⣖䛻ᑐ䛧䛶཭㐩䛾䝣䝑䝔䜱䞁䜾䜢ྲྀ䜚⥆䛡䝭䝙ᩍᐊ䛾䝣䝺䞊䝮䜢ㄆ㆑䛧䛶䛔䛺䛔䚹䠄䠻䛿ὀ┠⟠ᡤ䚸䠊䠊䠊䛿ᮍ᏶஢䜢♧䛩䚹䠅㻌㻌㻝㻤㻌 ள⣖㻌䠖䛖䜣䚸䛿䛔䚸䛺䜣䛷䛩䛛䠛㻌㻝㻥㻌 ᬛᜨ㻌䠖䛭䜜䛷䛺䜣䛷䝃䞁䝪䛻ᢞ䛢䛴䛡䛯䛾䠛㻌

㻌

㻌

䠄୰␎䠅㻌

㻞㻣㻌 ᬛᜨ㻌䠖䛒䚸䛭䛖䛺䜣䛰䟿㻌㻞㻤㻌 ள⣖㻌䠖䛿䛑䛔䚸䛭䛖䚹䛭䛖䛔䛖䛣䛸䛺䜣䛷䛩䚹㻌

㻌

䠄୰␎䠅㻌

㻟㻝㻌 ᬛᜨ㻌䠖䝃䞁䝪䛿ᖗᏊ䜋䜌ྲྀ䜙䜜䛶䚸䜒䛖ᖗᏊ䛺䜣䛛඲㒊䛔䜙䛽䛘䜘䚸䜏䛯䛔䛺䠛㻌㻟㻞㻌 ள⣖㻌䠖䛭䚸䛭䚸䛭䚸䛭䛖䛔䛖䛣䛸䛻䛺䜚䜎䛩䛽䚹㻌㻌䛣䛾䜘䛖䛻䚸༠ാᏛ⩦䛻䛚䛡䜛┦஫⾜Ⅽ⪅㛫䛻⏕㉳䛩䜛♫఍ᙺ๭䛿ᚲ䛪䛧䜒Ỵᐃⓗ䛷䛺䛟䚸ඛ⏕ᙺ䛾ゝⴥ䜒ᶒጾⓗ䛷䛺䛔䛯䜑䚸䛂ෆⓗㄝᚓຊ䜢ᣢ䛴ゝⴥ䠄䝞䝣䝏䞁䠈㻝㻥㻥㻢䠅䛃䛸䛧䛶┦ᡭ䛻ᒆ䛟䛸ぢ䜙䜜䜛䚹䛧䛛䜒༠ാᏛ⩦䛷䛿䚸Ꮫ⩦⪅䛜⮬ศ⮬㌟䛾␲ၥ䜢䛯䛪䛥䛘䛶䛚䜚⬟ືⓗ䛺⪺䛝ᡭ䛸䛺䜛䛯䜑䚸−338−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

Ꮫ⩦⪅㛫䛻ព࿡䛾䛒䜛ᑐヰ䛜ᐇ⌧䛩䜛ሙྜ䛜ከ䛔䚹㻌ḟ䛾ሙ㠃䛷䛿䚸⏤⨾䛜ள⣖䛾Ⓨゝ䜢๓ᥦⓗ䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖䛸䛧䛶ཷ䛡ධ䜜䚸෌䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖໬䛧ḟ䚻䛻᪂䛧䛔䝔䜽䝇䝖䜢⏕ᡂ䛧䛶䛔䛟䚹⏤⨾䛾▮⥅䛞᪩䛾㉁ၥ䜢ཷ䛡䚸䛣䜜䜎䛷ᩍᖌᙺ䜢₇䛨䛶䛝䛯ள⣖䛿䚸⏤⨾䛻㛫㐪䛔䜢ᣦ᦬䛥䜜䛶䠄㻟㻟 ⾜┠䠅௨㝆䚸⮬ಙ䜢䛺䛟䛧Ⓨゝ䛜㉁ၥཱྀㄪ䛻䛺䛳䛶䛔䛟䚹୍᪉䚸⏤⨾䛾Ⓨヰ䛿᩿ᐃཱྀㄪ䛷䚸ᩥᑿ䞉䜰䜽䝉䞁䝖䞉䜲䞁䝖䝛䞊䝅䝵䞁䛻ྠ䛨䝟䝍䞊䞁䜢⧞䜚㏉䛩䛣䛸䛻䜘䛳䛶䚸䝔䜽䝇䝖䛸䛧䛶ᾋ䛛䜃ୖ䛜䛳䛶䛟䜛䚹䛣䛖䛧䛯అ⥺䜢⤒䛺䛜䜙ள⣖䛸⏤⨾䛾❧ሙ䛿ᚎ䚻䛻㏫㌿䛧䚸ள⣖䛜⏕ᚐ䛾䝣䝑䝔䜱䞁䜾䜢♧䛧䛯䛸䛝䠄㻥㻠 ⾜┠䠅䚸஧ே䛾㛵ಀ䛻䛂㌿そ䛃䛜㉳䛝䜛䚹䛣䛾䜘䛖䛻䚸༠ാᏛ⩦䛷䛿ୖୗ㛵ಀ䛿ᖖ䛻ὶືⓗ䛷䛒䜛䛸䛔䛘䜛䚹䠄ኴᏐ䛿ᙉㄪ䚸▮༳䛿ኌ䛾ㄪᏊ䜢♧䛩䚹䠅㻌㻌㻟㻟㻌 ⏤⨾㻌䠖䛘䚸䛭䛭䛖䛺䛾䠛䠄䊼䠅㻌㻟㻠㻌 ள⣖㻌䛾䠛㻌 䠄䊺䠅㻌
䠖䛨䜓䛺䛔䛾㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 䠄୰␎䠅㻌㻤㻠㻌 ⏤⨾㻌䠖ྍ⬟䛺䛛䛞䜚᪩䛟㝆䜚䛯䛳䛶䚸䛨䜓䛒䚸䛺䛺䜣䛷䠛䠄䊼䠅㻌㻤㻡㻌 ள⣖㻌䛷䠛䠄䊺䠅㻌
䠖䛘䚸䛺䛻䛜䚸䛺䜣䛷㻤㻢㻌 ⏤⨾㻌䛺䜣䛷䚸䝃䞁䝪䜴䛿㢗䜣䛷㻌
䠖䛺

㻤㻣㻌 㻌

㻌 䇾㻿㼍㼙㼎㼛㻌㼣㼍㼟㻌㼜㼘㼑㼍㼟㼑㼐㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㼟㼡㼞㼜㼞㼕㼟㼑㼐㻚䇿㻌㻤㻤㻌 ள⣖㻌䠖䜟䛑䛔䚸䛳䛶႐䜣䛰䜣䛰䜘䚹㻌㻤㻥㻌 ⏤⨾㻌䠖㢗䜣䛷䚸႐䜣䛰䠛䠄䊺䠅㻌㻥㻜㻌 ள⣖㻌䠖䛘䚸㢗䜣䛰䛾䠛䇾㼜㼘㼑㼍㼟㼑㼐䇿䛳䛶䚸㢗䜣䛰䚸䛛䠛䠄䊺䠅㻌㻥㻝㻌 ⏤⨾㻌䛺䜣䛷㦫䛔䛯䛾䠛㻌 䠄䊼䠅㻌䠖䛺㻥㻞㻌 ள⣖㻌䠖䛘䚸䜟䛛䜣䛺䛔䚹㻌㻥㻟㻌䛘䚸䛺䜣䛷䠛䠄䊺䠅㻌㻥㻠㻌▱䜙䛺䛔䛷䞊䛩䟿㻌㻌ḟ䛾䜶䝢䝋䞊䝗䛷䛿䚸䜾䝹䞊䝥άື䛻ཧຍ䛧䛺䛔኱࿃䜢୰ᚰ䛸䛧䛯┦஫⾜Ⅽ䛻↔Ⅼ䜢ᙜ䛶䜛䚹ᬛᜨ䛜኱࿃䛻ᑐ䛧䛶஘ᭀ䛺ཱྀ䜢䛝䛟ள⣖䜢Ṇ䜑䜘䛖䛸䛧䛶䝽䞊䜽䝅䞊䛻䛴䛔䛶㉁ၥ䛩䜛䛸䠄㻟㻝㻜 ⾜┠䠅䚸ள⣖䛿䛔䛳䛯䜣ᬛᜨ䛻⟅䛘䜛䛜䚸䛩䛠䛻኱࿃䜈䛸ヰ㢟䜢ᡠ䛧䛶䛧䜎䛖䠄㻟㻝㻞 ⾜┠䠅䚹䛧䛛䛧⥆䛔䛶䚸⏤⨾䛜ள⣖䜢ⱥㄒ䛾䝍䝇䜽䛻ᘬ䛝ᡠ䛭䛖䛸䛧䛯䛸䛣䜝䚸ள⣖䛿䜎䛨䜑䛻䝍䝇䜽䛻ྲྀ䜚⤌䜏ጞ䜑䛯䚹䛣䛖䛧䛯⤒⦋䛛䜙᥎ᐹ䛩䜛䛸䚸䜾䝹䞊䝥ෆ䛻䛿ᡂ⦼䛻䜘䜛㝵ᒙ䛜ᵓ⠏䛥䜜䛚䜚䚸ள⣖䛿ᬛᜨ䜘䜚⏤⨾䛻ඃ఩ᛶ䜢ㄆ䜑䛶䛔䛯䜒䛾䛸ᛮ䜟䜜䜛䚹䛴䜎䜚䚸⌧௦᪥ᮏ♫఍䛻䛚䛡䜛ᡂ⦼⮳ୖ୺⩏䛾ᙳ㡪䛜༠ാᏛ⩦䛻⮫䜐Ꮫ⩦⪅䛻䜒ཬ䜣䛷䛔䜛䛸䛔䛘䜘䛖䚹䠄䞉䞉䞉䛿↓ゝ䜢䚸䡘䛿ྠ᫬Ⓨヰ䜢♧䛩䚹䠅㻌㻌㻟㻜㻡㻌 ள⣖㻌䠖኱࿃ྩ䚸䛱䜗䛳䛸䛧䜓䜉䛳䛶䜏䛶䛟䜜䜛䠛㻌㻟㻜㻢㻌 ኱࿃㻌䠖䞉䞉䞉㻌㻟㻜㻣㻌 ள⣖㻌䠖䝗䞊䛿䟿䠷ḷ䛖䜘䛖䛻䠹㻌 㻌㻟㻜㻤㻌 㻌

䜅䜅䜅䛨䜓䛽䛘䜘䚸䜅䜅䜅䛨䜓䚹䠷ᙉ䛔ཱྀㄪ䠹㻌㻟㻜㻥㻌 㻌

䝗䞊䛿䟿䠷ḷ䛖䜘䛖䛻䠹㻌−339−

協働学習における学びのダイナミクス

㻟㻝㻜㻌 ᬛᜨ㻌䠖㼘㼛㼛㼗㼕㼚㼓㻌㼡㼜㻌 䛳䛶ୖ䜢ぢ䜛䠛㻌㻟㻝㻝㻌 ள⣖㻌䠖䛭䛖䛭䛖䛭䛖䚹㻌㻟㻝㻞㻌䝭䞊䛿䟿䠷ḷ䛖䜘䛖䛻䠹㻌㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 䠄୰␎䠅㻌㻟㻠㻡㻌 ⏤⨾㻌䠖ள⣖䚸኱࿃䛜ᛣ䛳䛶䜛䜘䚹䛩䛤䛔ᛣ䛳䛶䜛䜘䚹㻌㻟㻠㻢㻌 ኱࿃㻌䠖䜌䛟䛿䛑䚸䛭䛖䛔䛖㻌 ள⣖䛥䜣䛜䚸䛭䜣䛺䛻᎘䛔䛨䜓䛺䛔䛷䛩䟿㻌㻟㻠㻣㻌 ⏤⨾㻌䠖㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ┿㠃┠䛻䜔䜚䛯䛔䛳䛶䚹㻌㻌⏤⨾䛿䚸ள⣖䛾Ⓨヰ䠄㻟㻜㻣 ⾜┠䛛䜙䠅䜢኱࿃䛻ᑐ䛩䜛 㻲㼀㻭䠄㻲㼍㼏㼑㻌 㼀㼔㼞㼑㼍㼠㼑㼚㼕㼚㼓㻌 㻭㼏㼠䠅䛸䛧䛶ᤊ䛘䛯䠄㻟㻠㻡䞉㻟㻠㻣 ⾜┠䠅䛜䚸኱࿃䛿ள⣖䛻ᑐ䛧䛶ᩗయ䜢౑䛔䠄㻟㻠㻢 ⾜┠䠅䚸ඛ⏕ᙺ䛾ள⣖䜢ᢎㄆ䛩䜛䛸ྠ᫬䛻⮬ศ䛜ள⣖ഃ䛻䛔䜛䛣䛸䜢᫂♧ⓗ䛻♧䛧䛯䚹䛣䛾Ⓨヰ䛻䜘䜚䚸䛭䜜䜎䛷䛾ள⣖䛾Ⓨヰ䛿኱࿃䛻ᑐ䛩䜛 㻲㼀㻭 䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸䛂䜅䛦䛡䛃䛾䝣䝺䞊䝮䛸䛧䛶෌ゎ㔘䛥䜜䜛䛣䛸䛻䛺䜛䚹䛭䛾⤖ᯝ䚸㻟㻜㻤 ⾜┠䛾ள⣖䛾஘ᭀ䛺Ⓨヰ䛿䝁䞁䝔䜽䝇䝖໬䛾ྜᅗ䠄㻳㼡㼙㼜㼑㼞㼦㻘㻌 㻝㻥㻤㻞䠅䛸䛧䛶෌ゎ㔘䛥䜜䚸኱࿃䛿䛭䜜䛻Ẽ䛵䛔䛶ள⣖䛸䛂䜅䛦䛡䛃䛾䝣䝺䞊䝮䜢ඹ᭷䛧䛯䛜䚸⏤⨾䛿ྜᅗ䜢ぢⴠ䛸䛧䝣䝺䞊䝮䛛䜙እ䜜䛯䚹᭱ᚋ䛻䚸ள⣖䜢ㄴ䜑䜛䛿䛪䛾⏤⨾䛾Ⓨヰ䠄㻟㻠㻡 ⾜┠䠅䛜㌿そ䜢ᘬ䛝䛚䛣䛧䚸⏤⨾䛾ඃ఩䛿⤊䜟䜛䚹⤖ᯝⓗ䛻䚸ள⣖䛾ゝⴥ䛿஘ᭀ䛰䛜䚸䝞䝣䝏䞁䛾ゝ䛖䛂ෆⓗㄝᚓຊ䜢䜒䛴ゝⴥ䛃䛸䛧䛶኱࿃䛻ᒆ䛔䛶䛔䛯䜘䛖䛷䛒䜛䚹䛣䛾䜘䛖䛺Ꮫ⩦⪅㛫䛻䜏䜙䜜䜛䜾䝹䞊䝥䞉䝎䜲䝘䝭䜽䝇䛿䚸Ꮫ⩦⪅䛜⟶⌮䛥䜜䛺䛔䚸䛔䜟䜖䜛ᩍ⫱䛻䛚䛡䜛䛂䜹䞊䝙䝞䝹䠄䝞䝣䝏䞁䠈㻝㻥㻥㻢䠅䛃䛸䛔䛖⮬⏤䛺✵㛫䛷䛒䜛༠ാᏛ⩦䛜ᘬ䛝㉳䛣䛩䜒䛾䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹㻌㻌䠑䠊㻌 䛚䜟䜚䛻㻌㻌 㻠 ྡ䛾Ꮫ⩦䝥䝻䝉䝇䛸䛔䛖䝭䜽䝻䛺ୡ⏺䛻ὀ┠䛧䛯䛸䛣䜝䚸᫬䛻䛿䝭䝙ᩍᐊ䛾䝣䝺䞊䝮䛜⏕㉳䛧Ꮫຊ䛻䜘䜛ᙺ๭䜒タᐃ䛥䜜䛯䛜䚸䛭䛾ᙺ๭ศᢸ䛿୙Ᏻᐃ䛷䚸᫬䛻ධ䜜᭰䛘䛜㉳䛣䛳䛯䚹䛭䜜䛿䚸⮬⏤䛺㞺ᅖẼ䛾䛒䜛༠ാᏛ⩦䛷䛿Ꮫ⩦⪅䛜୺యⓗ䛻Ꮫ⩦䛻㛵䜟䜛䛣䛸䛜䛷䛝䜛䛯䜑䚸஫䛔䛾ኌ䛜ព࿡䛾䛒䜛ᑐヰ䜢⏕䜏ฟ䛧ᙳ㡪䛧䛒䛳䛯⤖ᯝ䛷䛒䜛䛸⪃䛘䜙䜜䜛䚹䛣䛾䜘䛖䛺䜾䝹䞊䝥䞉䝎䜲䝘䝭䜽䝇䛜ാ䛟ᩍ⫱ሙ㠃䛷䛿䚸タᐃ䛥䜜䛯䝂䞊䝹䛻฿㐩䛩䜛䛸䛔䛖Ꮫ⩦⤖ᯝ䜘䜚䚸䝂䞊䝹䛻฿㐩䛩䜛䜎䛷䛾Ꮫ⩦䝥䝻䝉䝇䛜㔜ど䛥䜜䚸Ꮫ⩦⪅䛯䛱䛿ከᵝ䛺Ꮫ⩦䝥䝻䝉䝇䛻Ẽ䛵䛟䛣䛸䛜ᮇᚅ䛥䜜䜛䚹௒ᚋ䛿䚸༠ാᏛ⩦䜢య㦂䛧䛯Ꮫ⩦⪅䛻ᑐ䛧䛶䝷䞊䝙䞁䜾䞉䝻䜾䜔䜲䞁䝍䝡䝳䞊䛻䜘䜛㏣㊧ㄪᰝ䛜ᚲせ䛷䛒䜝䛖䚹㻌㻌ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㻌䝞䝣䝏䞁㻘㻌㻹㻚㻌㻹㻚㻌 㻝㻥㻥㻢䠊䛄ᑠㄝ䛾ゝⴥ䞉ᑠㄝ䛾ゝⴥ䛾๓ྐ䜘䜚䛅ᮾி䠖ᖹซ♫㻚㻌㻶㼛㼔㼚㼟㼛㼚㻘㻌㻰㻚㻌㼃㻚㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㻶㼛㼔㼚㼟㼛㼚㻘㻌㻾㻚㻌㼀㻚㻌㻝㻥㻤㻥㻚㻌㻯㼛㼛㼜㼑㼞㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㻯㼛㼙㼜㼑㼠㼕㼠㼕㼛㼚㻦㻌㼀㼔㼑㼛㼞㼥㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㻾㼑㼟㼑㼍㼞㼏㼔㻚㻌㻱㼐㼕㼚㼍㻘㻌 㻌㻹㻺㻚㻦㻌㻵㼚㼠㼑㼞㼍㼏㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㻮㼛㼛㼗㻌㻯㼛㼙㼜㼍㼚㼥㻚㻌ᑠᒣர㻚㻌㻞㻜㻜㻤䠊䛄グྕ䛾⣔㆕䠖♫఍グྕㄽ⣔ゝㄒே㢮Ꮫ䛾ᑕ⛬䛅ᮾி䠖୕ඖ♫㻚㻌䞂䜱䝂䝒䜻䞊㻘㻌㻸㻚㻌㻿㻚㻌㻞㻜㻜㻝㻚㻌 䛄ᛮ⪃䛸ゝㄒ䛅䠷᪂ヂ∧䠹䠄ᰘ⏣⩏ᯇ䞉ヂ䠅㻚㻌 ᮾி䠖᪂ㄞ᭩♫㻚㻌㻳㼡㼙㼜㼑㼞㼦㻘㻌㻶㻚㻌㻶㻚㻌㻝㻥㻤㻞㻚㻌㻰㼕㼟㼏㼛㼡㼞㼟㼑㻌㻿㼠㼞㼍㼠㼑㼓㼕㼑㼟㻚㻌㻯㼍㼙㼎㼞㼕㼐㼓㼑㻦㻌㻯㼍㼙㼎㼞㼕㼐㼓㼑㻌㼁㼚㼕㼢㼑㼞㼟㼕㼠㼥㻌㻼㼞㼑㼟㼟㻚㻌㻳㼛㼒㼒㼙㼍㼚㻘㻌㻱㻚㻌㻝㻥㻣㻠㻚㻌㻲㼞㼍㼙㼑㻌㻭㼚㼍㼘㼥㼟㼕㼟㻦㻌㻭㼚㻌㻱㼟㼟㼍㼥㻌㼛㼚㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㻻㼞㼓㼍㼚㼕㼦㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼛㼒㻌㻱㼤㼜㼑㼞㼕㼑㼚㼏㼑㻚㻌㻺㼑㼣㻌㼅㼛㼞㼗㻦㻌㻴㼍㼞㼜㼑㼞㻌㻒㻌㻾㼛㼣㻚㻌㻳㼛㼒㼒㼙㼍㼚㻘㻌㻱㻚㻌㻝㻥㻣㻥㻚㻌䇾㻲㼛㼛㼠㼕㼚㼓㻚䇿㻌㻿㼑㼙㼕㼛㼠㼕㼏㼍㻌㻞㻡㻘㻌㻝㻙㻞㻥㻚㻌−340−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

®ů¶&ŉºÝ#)łwŰĪ$ŌƝ
ěƭƬśÉ
āŒĶÂË

<Abstract>
This paper deals with issues of cultural identity and social positioning, drawing on
ethnographic research conducted on Ishigaki Island (often described as gasshuukoku“United States”) in Okinawa. The study analyzes several interactions among nativeislanders and between natives and settlers from other prefectures, in addition tointerviews with them. In order to live on the island, it is inevitable for different parties
to cooperate, but a separation among them is pervasive and persistent in their linguistic
practices. Even among settlers, a covert hierarchy may emerge when it comes to theknowledge of the local culture, skills and personal history that they carry, as well as thelength of stay on the island. The paper reveals “laminated layers” in social relations andthe corresponding discursive practices.
[ IjgjU] łwŰĪŌƝŉºÝ®ů¶ŷƀ{ƨËFNXJ
cZDj

Ʊư*6'\yÑ×³bru1AÑÖ÷ìÿûôüÿîÑ¢àÌTCÖqgéáÒÕ³?ÌÍÖS nëíóýòìòìÒw nzÍ ÕÏ»ÐÉæ´u1A×³
u1A³¡Ö£A§iÕ@A¨âb\A³ r¿äÖx³ÆäÕ'fÔÓ¡/¿äÖB ÀådÉæ¸(/¹Òá,Øçæ´lÔæS nWéQÏ?ÌÍ×=ÆÔAÑTµ9ÈÐ»æÀ³AÒËç 4Ö³brÒ r¿äÖx³ÆäÕxÑ³AkcÖÆ³öíòìøD
(»Ö»³AkcÛÖt³<tâPÖYhÕIÉÐ À90ÈÐ»æ´TCÖqg^éÈÐ³Ë¼ÈÌwAÑXäÊÅÒÖM+é:Êæ´¦ÖéÏÝÚä¿ÕÈƲưƘÛ®ů¶' >ŉºÝ
u1A×³brb\A¿ä|®­ª±²Ö!ÕéÔÊ@AÖÙÒÏÑ³%|®°©ªªª¿äÔæ´]Ā|¬©¬ªª±²āâĀ|®­ª±²āÒÖ£ãåá'fĀ|¬¯ª±²āÖÜ¼À»u1AÑ×³&Â¿ä'fâ]!ëðëÒÖUÀoêÑ³@AÕ¾Ãæâ~ecÖÖFé_ÌÈÐÁÌ´AÖ¼âĴĒ*s−341−

『合衆国』な石垣島での相互行為と社会関係'$ -)đ»Brê$>ƌĒ# >áƜŜ70m{o)ŵÏ
ź?>$<7Ǝá*ŵƘŲ&ĴĒ$& "" >
ĝ¬Bü=Ə>$ƘÛƃÝ æŎ9ß¢&%33&PE\)ŎğƮūķŸĹƌĒƯ9ŎŦB«?"ŉºÝ#7u1
AÕ½Ð³@Aâb\Aºæ»×r¿äÖxËÈÐ¡/ĀÕ'fā¿äÖBÀådÉæïùúõòìÿÀEOÆçÐÁÌ´ÖlÔ

æ5aÔµÀ@wéÎÐ»æÌà³@À¸(/¹Ò,ØçæÅÒ

áºæĀ[¦ ¬ª«ªāƎá*ŭŦ<rƫá'

>3#ġşń#)ĳĥ'ô?"9"ŤŭĸÅ)ŎŦŉºÝÙŦ)ƲåƮŜ7000{ƯB7¥6">Ø&Ý&)'?2%3#'ÁĖ&Ɗ¹<){#õ>®

ů¶L_bVRDj*?#$ÿ¢B!=o""ƘÛ<BÄ>

$&)Ō*)Ɓ°)7)ƘÛŌ)Į

éƮnĉ 2010: 8)$7ŷA?>Ƴ ưĊŊŔ)ũă$ŁŀƊŦ#7ŎŦ#7&

ŊŔŦ*ƁĐ)6'ŉºÝ#ňĈħ¸>-ĳĥqĺ'=ƍ5ƢBò"<ŎŦ*)®ů¶#%);'Ą<">)µƢ*&)$

Ľ±AŎŦ$Ý){)Ɯ)łwŰĪ9ŌƝBƁ1)ĊŊŔ# >ËÖpn×³¸(/¹À³"ÕÖlÔæ`O-¿äOæ¢.ÀR¢ÝÎÐÑÁÌ¶jLnÔ9w ·Ò»¼ãå³`O-ÀqgÖ¶ þÅÅ·Õ¾»Ð³sVÕ3Êæ â87³Zé*ßHnNKÕ;ÈÔÀä³>ÔÂÒá¤×#6nÔ é`{Èã¼ÊæTµÖcËÖáÖÑºæ³ÒvÊÅÒÑºæ´¦¦ăĂóÿñ^¦Ċœ#*ŉºAÒ r¿äÖx³ËÈÐx)2ÑÖqgÖé$åÄ³=ÆÔw ÑwéÏÖÕÒJèçæ}âGäÖ\¥Ö:ÕÎÐÞæ´¦
1*dPEaĳĥBƑ>ŉºÝƊŦNƮ80ĸïƯ$ŉºÝ0Ŏ"15á)uĒŝ²ŦIƮ60ĸïƯ6"

$)9=$=#>¦(1) NI)ŝĝBŧ$'È3=ęŘ'Ý)ŇƄBŻÐ0$ŎŰ"
1

N:

?#

2

I:

* Ɗ* ³¶)XX#

3

N:

³¶

4

I:



 Ý…8&
 ³¶(

 ³¶

;(Ƶ %ƊƵ<#(   <<rĻ>>

−342−

ƔƉC



第16回大会発表論文集

5

N:



6

I:

Ý'Č" 15á 7

7N:#7 ğō*Ŏ"& 7

á'&>Ƶ
15á'&=3(=>C8&8<<rĻ>> Ý)$ #7Ň

9

8

10

Ă°) ÂĤģ#
I:

Ĥģ

12

N:

?( &ƯƯ">

o<?ŉƵ á

13ƁĐ" &C'Ƌ

14ŞĕĀŧ VbjN'&
I:

16

N:

Ă°)ÂĤģ ?*ŧ

17

I:

*

9

& 9;

15,= ŊŔŦČ"C&Â&ŉ  <<rĻ>>; Ň<&

Ƶ Ň=3C#

&=ğō'!

ÁğōBŎ"")Ƶ ƮƮŗ  <<rĻ>>"C& ¦Ɯ)Ĥģŉ ?7Ň

11

7ŰŁ#N*

第９号&>įĢBŅĚƥ<ŕ

$

"Ö("

>;(Ƶ

>?*}ń<)ŎŦ)

!3=Ý'ğŐ<ÝğŮîûöŀ&ľŷ#>)ý/='7¡

Ý'! ")ŇƄ7ƆÑ&I'N*òê!!Ʈ8ŰŁƯ9i16ŰŁ#<'IBŻŸ¿9ŐĲ¿$"ŇƄ7ŝƪ7ƆÑ&IŇ<& Ý)ŇƄ$"Ĥ
ģŉ"$ť <?>I*þą'Ĥģŉ'! "ŧ "Ň
" )'Ň<& .=B" >(15ŰŁ))r#I" >$*ŷ¨úŋƮŷA?" >$Ưf]e(ØÛ 2008)#¤'N'ìř">; 'ų >ŌúėƮĪ?" >$Ưf]e(ØÛ 2008)#*Ýĳĥ0)L_QT`hT)ŅBŋ$$7'áƗ)ÝğNBŖ""7>IN'kƇ" lÒƀ7 óã)ű?$ť <?>$@
·¹ĿŹ'Ɲ>żƧ">2'& "I$N)ľż9Ŗ½'À¢ı?>(2) ·¹)Ę'Ɲ"NI)ÔƛŇƄBëŲ$ƦuB>
18

N:? ĿŹ$79

19

I:<<Ļ>> äĭűŋĿŹ

20

N:

?# <<Ļ>> #&

21

y&

22

I:



23

N:

<<Ļ>>

24">#:  # µ

(

!

)
C#

ëŲ'&>(|3#* Ň=®

'ƦC#%">A #ū#9>)*C%
>

Ƶ <<Ļ>>(<<Ļ>>Ű3;=3)ĜC&>$ * ū#XXX$ Ű−343−

; (Ƶ『合衆国』な石垣島での相互行為と社会関係

25

#7 7

26

I:



#&

 ƥ

( ƥ( <<rĻ>>GQKjtŶ



#*·¹ƝƓ)żƧ×' N<& ƙ'Ž I'Ó"lÒƀB įĢ¾ ƒ'IN'ø B>Ŗ½$&>$lÒƀB
A&

įĢ¾

"Şďŀ'I'ƦuB>$'&

N '$

"*

FTA (Brown and Levinson 1987) )ƫ įĢ#^cETWNf]eëĬŀ'o )*¤'lÒƀ)ĆīBŋ" >+=?
3#)SjPªơ#7kã7lÒƀB$&

Nū#&$BŨA="?>{ċ$")I)Ý' >Ê¸ñţBſ6úė#7 >Ýĳĥ#)VjO'Ó>ŎŦ)Ê¸$Ş-~ "|i)ņƜ#v{)ŌƝ'À¢$BlÒƀ)ĵipĵ*ŋ" >žƥ)Ɩ®#ę) *ŃĻ>ĨÞSÌ#Ŏ+=)YÃÇ$ÝğQƩuB" $@'I®Ħ$'*Q*I$*2$C%żÔƛùŪ9ŇƄ'ƚYMWN7õ"4 >I0)Ţć$ô?Ɵ÷'úė?" <'ŎƜ7& YÃÇÝğ$Ƥà'ŴzĦ">$'Ó"¯ŎŦ)Iè'ē6"WHRD[&L`hTƮƎ'C%&>ƯBŠ=Ə" ŎŦƮ > *& 8 9Ý& 8 Ư$<?>ơ´*Ġ"kĎÜ#*&ç<)ŌƝ
'*Ýĳĥ0)L_QT`hT)f]eÔƛŇƄ9ùŪ)Ćī&%'ì"Ğƞ9Ú >)Ğƞ7à'kÍ&)#*&)#4; 'łwŰĪ)|iBƈĩ'ÀA>7)$"$< " $#;=
ıÎ'Ǝ ®ů¶#)łwŰĪ9ŌƝ'Ɛ?>$ť >
ƴưA='ŉºÝ){$ŎŦ)Ɯ)łwŰĪ9ŌƝ)kƕBčŞď;=
©Æŀ&Ɲ'ų >Ýğ$ŎŦ)ŌƝ'7Ơ=& $*ŷ ŎŦ¯¿#7)Ŗ½*Ŏĝ}'ì"Âļ&> >őĲð¢š¢?ƣŀ&Ĕí$"ƀ<?&ƘÛ®ů¶#gÖ¶

þÅÅ·ÑsVÕ3Êæ>q

âNKÖ×ÇÝÑÖnÑmnÔËÖáÖÒÈÐÖ®ů¶$)ƕB4"

ëŲ

@



§ťÿİ
ØÛx 2008 Ź­)Śƅ ŌŹ­ƂŚŷƀ{ƨË)Õŏ nŌnĉ 2010 ƘÛ®ů¶)Śƅ £ÛŬ

−344−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ࣇ࢕ࢪ࣮࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⚄ヰࡢࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢩࣇࢺ࡜ᩥ໬ኚᐜὸ஭ ඃ୍
᪥ᮏᏛ⾡᣺⯆఍≉ู◊✲ဨ PD

<Abstract>
This paper attempts to examine the style shift in two different texts; colonial age
documents, Ai tukutuku raraba (General testimony), and narratives about mythical pastin the Dawasamu district, Fiji Islands. Firstly, the paper analyses how Ai tukutuku
raraba ontologically identified clan to historic origins and textualized district with‘hypotactic’ writing style as a ‘natural’ result of clan gatherings over the course ofhistory. Secondly, the paper examines how the narratives of mythical past in Dawasamu
district today show ‘paratactic’ style, which describes the creation of the district as one
clan brought the first paramount chief there. The paper concludes that this stylistic
difference of wiring and narrative, from ‘hypotaxis’ to ‘parataxis’, indexes the semiotic
regime shift from colonial to post-colonial age in Fiji.
[࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ] ࣇ࢕ࢪ࣮ࠊ⚄ヰࠊᩥ᭩ࠊࢸࢡࢫࢺࠊࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࠊゝㄒே㢮Ꮫ                        㸯㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᮏ✏ࡣࠊࣇ࢕ࢪ࣮ㅖᓥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ 2 ࡘࡢࠕ⚄ヰࢸࢡࢫࢺࠖ
㸦᳜Ẹᆅᮇࡢᩥ᭩࣭㐣ཤࡢㄒࡾ㸧ࡢࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢆグྕㄽ࡟౫ᣐࡋ࡚ẚ㍑ᑐ↷ࡍࡿࠋ᳜Ẹᆅᨻᗓ࡟సᡂࡉ
ࢀࡓᩥ᭩࡛ࡣࠊྛẶ᪘ࡀ⛣ఫࡢ㐣⛬࡛㐃ᖏࡋࠊ᭱㧗㤳㛗ࢆᣏࡋ࡚ᆅᇦࢆᙧᡂࡋ
ࡓࡇ࡜ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊ㤳㛗ࢆ㡬Ⅼ࡜ࡋࡓ㞟ᅋ㛫ࡢ㝵ᒙࡸࠊᨭ㓄Ѹᚑᒓࡢ㛵ಀࡀ๓ᬒ໬
ࡋࡓᙧᘧ㸦hypotaxis㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᆅᇦࡢ㐣ཤࡀグ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௚᪉ࠊ௒᪥୍⯡ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ㛗⪁➼࡟ࡼࡿ㐣ཤࡢㄒࡾࡣࠊ」ᩘࡢẶ᪘࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᙧᡂࡉࢀࡿᆅᇦࡀ๓
ᥦ࡜ࡉࢀࠊࡑࡇ࡟㤳㛗ࡀእ㒊࠿ࡽ฿᮶ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ᆅᇦࡀ๰ࡽࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊ
㤳㛗࡜ྛẶ᪘ࠊࡑࡋ࡚Ặ᪘㛫ࡢ᤼௚ᛶ㸭୪ิᛶࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡋࡓᙧᘧ㸦parataxis㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᆅᇦࡢ㐣ཤࡀㄒࡽࢀࡿࠋ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⚄ヰࡢࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢩࣇࢺࡀᩥ໬ⓗ⛛ᗎࡢኚᐜ࡟ᖐࡉࢀࡿࡇ
࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊᩥ᭩໬ࡉࢀࡓ⚄ヰࡸㄒࡽࢀࡿ㐣ཤࡑࢀ⮬య࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
⚄ヰࡸ㐣ཤ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄒࡿ୺య⮬㌟࡟♫఍ᩥ໬ࢆ⛛ᗎ໬ࡍࡿᶒጾࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ
ࠕ௒ࡇࡇࠖ࡟⚄ヰ㸭㐣ཤࡢᡤᅾࡀぢฟࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ㄽࡌࡿࠋ

−345−

  

フィジーにおける神話のスタイルシフトと文化変容㸰㸬᳜Ẹᆅᮇࡢᩥ᭩࡜௒᪥ࡢ⚄ヰㄒࡾ㸰㸬㸯㸬᳜Ẹᆅᮇࡢᩥ᭩ࡢグ㏙
 19 ୡ⣖ᮎࠊึᮇ᳜Ẹᆅᨻᗓୗ࡟タ⨨ࡉࢀࡓࠕඛఫẸᡤ᭷ᆅጤဨ఍㸦NLC㸧ࠖࡣࠊࣇ࢕ࢪ࣮ྛᆅᇦ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᅵᆅᡤ᭷ࡢ༢఩㞟ᅋ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ⣔᪘㸦mataqali㸧ࠖࠊࠕ⣔᪘ࠖࡀ㞟ྜࡋ࡚ᙧᡂࡉࢀࡿୖ఩㞟ࡑࡢୗ఩㞟ᅋ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕᐙ᪘㸦tokatoka㸧ࠖࠊᅋ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕẶ᪘㸦yavusa㸧ࠖࢆつᐃࡋࠊྛẶ᪘ࡢ⛣ఫఏᢎࡸ⣔᪘ᵓᡂࠊᵓᡂ㞟ᅋ࡟௜୚ࡉࢀࡿ൤♩ⓗ⩏ົ࡞࡝ࢆࣇ࢕ࢪ࣮ே࡟ࡼࡿࠕᐉㄋࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽᙧែ࡟࠾࠸࡚グ㘓ࡋࡓࠋࡑࢀࡽࢆ཰㘓ࡋࡓ୍ࠗ⯡ドゝ㸦Ai tukutuku raraba㸧࠘ࡣࠊ㤳㛗
ࢆ㍮ฟࡍࡿẶ᪘ࢆྵࢇࡔ༢఩໬ࡉࢀࡓಶࠎࡢ㞟ᅋࡀྛࠎ࡟ࠕ㉳※ࠖࢆᣢࡕࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢⓎᒎ㐣⛬࡟࠾࠸࡚⮬↛Ⓨ⏕ⓗ࡟ᐤࡾ㞟ࡲࡗࡓ᮰ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊ㤳㛗఩࡟ᑐࡍࡿẶ᪘㞟ᅋࡢࠕᚑᒓᛶࠖࠊ㤳㛗఩ࢆ㡬Ⅼ࡜ࡋࡓẶ᪘㛫ࡢࠕ㝵ᒙᛶࠖࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡋ
ࡓࠕᚑᒓࣔࢹࣝ㸦hypotaxis model㸧ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㞟ᅋ㐃ྜࢆグ㏙ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟㞟ᅋ㛫ࡢᗎิࡀᩥ᭩໬ࡉࢀࡓ⤖ᯝࠊࡇࡢᗎิࢆᕠࡗࡓ㞟ᅋ㛫ࡢࠕ᤼௚ⓗ㸭ᑐ❧ⓗព㆑ࠖࡀ㔊ᡂࡉࢀࡓࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓព㆑ࡀࠊⓎ⾲⪅ࡢㄪᰝᆅ࡛࠶ࡿࢲ
࣡ࢧ࣒㸦Dawasamu㸧ᆅᇦ࡛ࡣࠊ2010 ᖺࡢᆅᇦࡢ᭱㧗㤳㛗ࡢ༶఩൤♩ࡢ㛤ദࢆᕠࡿ㆟ㄽ࡟㝿ࡋࠊ୍ࠗ⯡ドゝ࠘࡟グ㍕ࡉࢀࡓᗎิࡢ┿ഇࡀၥ㢟໬ࡉࢀࡿᙧ࡛㢧ᅾ໬ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᩥ᭩໬ࡉࢀࡿࠕ௨๓ࠖࡢᆅᇦࡢ≧ែࠊᅵᆅࡢࠕ᭱ึࡢ᫬㸦mataini gauna㸧ࠖࢆయ⌧ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚᭱㧗㤳㛗ࡢ༶఩൤♩ࢆᐇ⾜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᗎิ
ࡢࢬࣞࢆ▹ṇࡋࡼ࠺࡜⏬⟇ࡉࢀࡓࠋᆅᅗ㸬ࣇ࢕ࢪ࣮࣭ࣦ࢕ࢸ࢕ࣦࣞ㸦Viti Levu㸧ᓥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
ࢲ࣡ࢧ࣒ᆅᇦࡢᡤᅾ
㸰㸬㸰㸬㛗⪁➼࡟ࡼࡿ⚄ヰㄒࡾࡑࡢ⏬⟇ࢆ㐙⾜ࡍࡿ㞟ᅋࡣࠊᵝࠎ࡞ᩥ໬ⓗ౯್௜ࡅࢆႏ㉳ࡍࡿㄒᙡ࣌࢔ࡸࠊ
ࡑࢀ࡟కࡗࡓࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫࡢ࣌࢔ࢆ㥑౑ࡋࡓࠊᙉ࠸୍㈏ᛶ࡜⤖᮰ᛶࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࠕ⚄−346−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ヰㄒࡾࠖࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ୺ᙇࡢṇ⤫ᛶࢆႏ㉳ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡀᨻᗓࡢᆅ᪉ฟඛᶵ㛵ࡢᙺேࢆ஺࠼ࡓ఍㆟࡛ᢎㄆࡉࢀࠊ༶఩൤♩ࡀᐇ⾜ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ㛗⪁➼࡟ࡼࡿ⚄ヰㄒࡾ࡛ࡣࠊ㤳㛗ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠕᆅᇦࠖ࡟እ᮶ࡋࡓࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࢀࢆࠕᆅᇦࠖࡢẶ᪘ࡀࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㥆໬ࡋࡓࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿㄒࡾࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊᆅᇦ࡟ࠕ⾜Ⅽ୺యᛶ㸦agency㸧ࠖࡀぢฟࡉࢀࠊ㤳㛗࡜ᅵᆅࡢẸࠊࡑࡢ௚㞟ᅋ㛫ࡢࠕ᤼௚ᛶ㸭ᑐ❧ᛶࠖࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡋࡓᙧᘧࠊ
ࠕ୪ิࣔࢹࣝ㸦parataxis model㸧ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿ
ླྀ㏙ᙧᘧࡀ≉ᚩⓗ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ 1)ࠋ
ࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄒࡾࡢ≉ᚩࢆࠊᐑᓮ㸦2009㸧ࡣ௨ୗࡢᵝ࡟ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕබᘧ㸦බᩥ᭩㸧ࡢㄒࡾ࡛ࡣࠊ↔Ⅼࡣ⌧ᅾ࡟࠶ࡾࠊ␗࡞ࡿ㒊ศࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟
㞟ྜࡋࠊ⌧ᅾࡢ඲యࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿ࡟⮳ࡗࡓ࠿ࡀㄒࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊ
⌧ᅾ࠿ࡽ㐣ཤ࡬࡜⛣ఫఏᢎࢆ࡞ࡒࡗ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜ࠊ␗࡞ࡿࣦࣖࢧ㸦Ặ᪘㸧ࡀ࠿ࡘ࡚ఫࢇ࡛࠸ࡓ␗࡞ࡿሙᡤ࡟ࡓ࡝ࡾ╔ࡃࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡜ࡣᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊMK2)
ࡢ㛗ࡢㄒࡾ࡟ࡣࠊࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜ࡢ඲యࡀ⛣ఫࡢ⾜⛬ࡢ␗࡞ࡿሙᡤ࡛ศ๭ࡉࢀࡓࡇ
࡜ࡀㄒࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㹙୰␎㹛ཎఫẸᡤ᭷ᆅጤဨ఍ࡢグ㘓ࡋࡓ⛣ఫఏᢎࡀཎఫ
Ẹᡤ᭷ᆅጤဨ఍ࡢㄪᰝࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛Ṕྐⓗ࡟ᵓᡂࡉࢀࡓ඲య࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࢫࣦ࢓ࡢ
ேࠎࡢᵓᡂࢆබㄆࡋࡓࡶࡢࡔ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊMK ࡢ㛗࡟ࡼࡿㄒࡾࡣࠊඖࠎࡢ඲య
ࡀศ⿣ࡋࠊࢫࣦ࢓ࡢேࠎࡀ㉳※ࡋࡓ㐣⛬࡟╔┠ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠖ㸦ᐑᓮ,
2009, pp. 152-153㸧
㸱㸬Hypotaxis ࡜ Parataxis㸱㸬㸯㸬ᩥ᭩ࡢグ㏙ࣇ࢕ࢪ࣮ࡢึᮇ᳜Ẹᆅᨻ⟇ୗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ NLC ࡟ࡼࡿᅵᆅᡤ᭷࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄪᰝࡣࠊ
19 ୡ⣖௨᮶ࡢࠕ༢⥺ⓗ㐍໬⌮ㄽ㸦unilinear evolutionary theories㸧ࠖ࡟౫ᣐࡋ
ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ㸦France, 1969, pp. 123-128㸧ࠋࣇ࢕ࢪ࣮♫఍ࡀࠊⓎᒎẁ㝵ࡢ㝵ᒙ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡞ࡿୖ఩ࡢࠕ㝵ᒙࠖ࡟෇⁥࡟₞㐍ⓗ࡟⛣⾜ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ᮲௳࡜
ࡋ࡚ࠊ≉ᐃࡢ㞟ᅋ࡜≉ᐃࡢᅵᆅࡢࠕᡤ᭷㛵ಀࠖࢆ᫂♧໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ఩⨨௜ࡅࡓࠋ
19 ୡ⣖ࡢࣇ࢕ࢪ࣮♫఍࡟᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡓⓎᒎẁ㝵ࡢࢫࢸ࣮ࢪ㸦ࠕ୰ᮇᮍ㛤♫఍ࠖ㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᅵᆅࡢඹྠయⓗᡤ᭷ࡀ♫఍ᙧែࡢཎᆺ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡓࡓࡵ࡛࠶
ࡿࠋ♫఍㞟ᅋ࡜ᅵᆅࡢᡤ᭷㛵ಀࡢ☜❧ࢆ┠ᣦࡋࡓ୍ࠗ⯡ドゝ࠘ࡢ༢⥺ⓗ࣭㏻᫬
ⓗグ㏙ᙧᘧࠊ㤳㛗ࢆ㍮ฟࡍࡿẶ᪘ࢆྵࢇࡔ༢఩໬ࡉࢀࡓಶࠎࡢ㞟ᅋࡀࠊࡑࢀࡒ
ࢀ࡟ࠕ㉳※ࠖࢆࡶࡕࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢⓎᒎ㐣⛬࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕ⮬↛Ⓨ⏕ⓗࠖ࡟᮰࡜ࡋ࡚
⧳ࡲࡾࢆᡂࡍ࡟⮳ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࠊ
ࠕᆅᇦࠖࡢࠕᚑᒓࣔࢹࣝ㸦hypotaxis model㸧ࠖ࡟ࡼࡿグ㏙ࡣࠊⓎᒎẁ㝵ㄝⓗ㸦ᚋᮇࣦ࢕ࢡࢺࣜ࢔ᮅⓗ㸧࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮࡟ᙬࡽࢀࡓ
ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ

−347−

フィジーにおける神話のスタイルシフトと文化変容㸱㸬㸰㸬㛗⪁➼ࡢ⚄ヰㄒࡾ௚᪉ࠊࠕᆅᇦࠖࡸࠕᅵᆅࠖࡑࢀ⮬యࡀ๓ᬒ໬ࡋࡓ
ࠕ୪ิࣔࢹࣝ
㸦parataxis model㸧ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ௒᪥ࡢ⚄ヰㄒࡾࡢࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣࠊ᳜ẸᆅᨻᗓࡢどⅬ࡜ᅵᆅࡢẸࡢどⅬࠊ୧⪅ࡢどⅬࡀ஧㔜໬ࡋࡓࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕᆅᇦࠖ࡜࠸࠺㐃ྜࢆᙧᡂࡍ
ࡿ୍㞟ᅋࡢᵓᡂဨ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⌮ゎࡀࠊᩥ᭩࡬ࡢᡂဨࡢⓏグࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࠊྛࠎࡢ
ᡂဨ࡟ෆ㠃໬ࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᩥ᭩ࡢᢎㄆ⪅࡛࠶ࡿ᳜Ẹᆅᨻᗓࠊ⚄ヰࡢಖ⟶⪅࡛࠶ࡿ㏆௦ᅜẸᅜᐙࡀ᭷ࡍࡿ㉸㉺ᛶࢆࠊ⤒㦂ⓗ࡞ࠕᅵᆅ࣭ᅵᆅࡢẸࠖ࡜࠸࠺⠊␪⮬యࡀయ⌧ࡋ࡚ࡺࡃ㐣⛬ࡀ⏕㉳ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
㸲㸬࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
௨ୖࡢ⪃ᐹ࡟౫ᣐࡍࢀࡤࠊᐑᓮ㸦2009㸧ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠕ㒊ศࠖ࡜ࠕ඲యࠖࡢ㛵ಀࢆᕠࡿၥ㢟ࠊ࣓ࣛࢿࢩ࢔࡟≉᭷ࡢ▱㆑ࡢ᪉ྥᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㆟ㄽࡣࠊ♫఍ᩥ໬ⓗ࢜ࣜࢦࢆᇶⅬ࡜ࡋࡓࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ⏕ᡂࡢၥ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊ
ࠕᅵᆅࠖࢆࢸࢡࢫࢺ໬ࡋ࠺ࡿ࣓ࢱ࣭ࢸࢡࢫࢺࡢᡤᅾࡣࠊᅵᆅࢆࠕࢸࢡࢫࢺ໬ࠖ
ࡋࡓ㸦ࢥࣟࢽ࢔ࣝᮇࡢ㸧ࠕᩥ᭩࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠕࢸࢡࢫࢺ໬ࠖࡉࢀࡓ
ᅵᆅࡸࠊࡑࡇ࡛Ⅽࡉࢀࡿ൤♩࡞࡝ࡢࠕ┦஫⾜Ⅽࢸࢡࢫࢺࠖ
ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ௒ࡇࡇࡢ
ฟ᮶஦⮬య࡬࡜⛣⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡀ hypotaxis ࠿ࡽ parataxis ࡬࡜࠸࠺⚄ヰࡢࢫࢱ࢖ࣝኚᐜ࡟⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ト1㸧“TAXIS”࡜ࡣࠊᶵ⬟ᩥἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ “degree of interdependency”㸦┦஫౫Ꮡࡢᗘྜ࠸㸧ࢆព࿡ࡋࠊ⠇㸦clause㸧࡜⠇㸦せ⣲㛫㸧ࡢ⤖ྜ㛵ಀࢆ♧ࡍ⏝ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡉࢀࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊ2 ✀㢮ࡢ TAXIS ࡀྠᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋHypotaxis ࡣࠊせ⣲㛫ࡢ㠀➼౯㸦unequal
status㸧㛵ಀࢆᣦࡋࠊせ⣲㛫࡟࠾ࡅࡿᨭ㓄--ᚑᒓ㛵ಀ㸦dominant-dependent㸧ࡀ㢧ⴭ࡞⤖ྜ㛵ಀࢆ⾲ࡍ㸦Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 374㸧ࠋParataxis ࡣࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞せ⣲㛫ࡢᨭ㓄-ᚑᒓ㛵ಀࡀ㢧ⴭ࡛ࡣ↓࠸㛵ಀࠊࡘࡲࡾせ⣲㛫ࡢ➼౯㛵ಀ㸦equal
status㸧ࡀ㢧ⴭ࡞⤖ྜ㛵ಀࢆ⾲ࡍࠋ୧ TAXIS ࡣࠊᐇ㝿ࡣΰࡊࡾྜࡗ࡚ฟ⌧ࡋࠊㄽ⌮㸭ព࿡ⓗ୍㈏ᛶ࡜ᙧᘧⓗ⤖᮰ᛶࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࢸࢡࢫࢺࢆ⏕ᡂࡍࡿ㸦ibid., pp. 373-375㸧ࠋ2㸧MK ࡜ࡣࠊᐑᓮ㸦2009㸧ࡀㄪᰝࡋࡓᮧⴠ࡟ఫࡴẶ᪘ࡢ␎ࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩France, P. 1969. The Charter of the Land: Custom and Colonization in Fiji.
Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. 2004. An introduction to functional
grammar (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Education.
ᐑᓮᗈ࿴㸬2009㸬ࠗᕼᮃ࡜࠸࠺᪉ἲ࠘ᮾி㸸௨ᩥ♫.

−348−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

␲ၥᩥࡢㄒ⏝ㄽ㸦࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ㊃᪨ㄝ᫂㸧ຍ⸨ 㔜ᗈ
໭ᾏ㐨኱Ꮫ
<Abstract>

Pragmatics of interrogative sentences: introduction
Shigehiro Kato (School of Letters, Hokkaido University)

This paper, as the introductory part of our workshop, describes various functions and conditions ofinterrogative sentence.

We observe that interrogatives have locutionary force, which demands the hearer

to respond linguistically. This paper also proposes that illocutionary force in interrogatives is to beclassified into two subcategories; demand for action and demand for recognition process.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ␲ၥᩥ㸪⤫ㄒㄒ⏝ㄽ㸪ゝㄒⓗせồ࣭㠀ゝㄒⓗせồ࣭ඹឤᙧᡂ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ␲ၥᩥࡣ㸪ᙧᘧ࡜ᶵ⬟ࡢ㛵ಀࡀ」㞧࡛㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽ࡜⤫ㄒㄽࡢࡏࡵࡂ࠶࠺࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࡢ⌧㇟࡜ࡳࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ⤫ㄒㄒ⏝ㄽ࡜࠸࠺㡿ᇦࡢศᯒᑐ㇟࡜఩⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋᩥἲⓗ࡟ࡣ㸪␲ၥᩥࢆ」ᩥࡢᚑᒓ⠇࡟ᇙࡵ㎸ࢇࡔࡶࡢࡣ㸪Ꮫᰯᩥἲ࡞࡝࡛ࠕ㛫᥋␲ၥᩥࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ᐇ㝿ࡢᩥᆺࡣ୺⠇ࡢᩥᆺ࡛Ỵࡲࡿࡢ࡛㸪⣲ᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ࡜ࡶ࠿ࡃᩥࡢ✀㢮࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ␲ၥᩥࠖ࡜࿧ࡪࡢࡣ㐺ᙜ࡛࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ✀ࡢᩥࡣ㸪ᚑᒓ⠇ࡀඛ⾜ᩥ⬦ࡢ୍㒊ࢆ෌ᣦ♧ࡍࡿ␲ၥ⠇࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡾ㸪coherence ࡢⅬࡢ࡯࠿࡟ cohesion ࡸ᝟ሗᛶ(informativeness)ࡢⅬ࠿ࡽࡶ᥀ࡾୗࡆࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡶ
ࡕࢁࢇ㸪relevance ࡢⅬ࡛ㄽࡌ࡚ࡶ⯆࿡῝࠸⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ᙧᘧୖ␲ၥᩥ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ㸪␲ၥᩥ
ࡢᮏ㉁ⓗ࡞ᶵ⬟ࡀᚋ㏥ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡸ㸪␲ၥᩥ࡜ㄆࡵ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡶࡢࡶᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ㸪≉࡟グ㏙ᩥἲ࡛ࡣࠕ␲࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆタࡅ࡚༊ูࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ᙧᘧ࡜ᶵ⬟ࡢ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽ␲ၥࡢᮏ㉁ࢆ᥈ࡿ◊✲ࡶ㐍ᒎࡀᚅࡓࢀࡿࠋⓎヰ⾜ⅭࡢⅬ࠿ࡽぢࡿ࡜㸪␲ၥᩥࢆ౑ࡗ࡚౫㢗࡞࡝ࡢືసせồࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ⌋ࡋࡃ࡞ࡃ㸪ⓎヰෆຊࡸⓎヰ፹௓ᛶࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡣ㸪␲ၥᩥࢆ౑࠺࡭ࡁ࠿㸪ᖹླྀᩥࢆ౑
࠺࡭ࡁ࠿࡞࡝㸪ᩥࡸ⾲⌧ࡢ㑅ᢥຠᯝࢆㄽࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ࡛ࡣ㸪௨ୖࡢほⅬ࡜㛵ࢃࡿࢸ࣮࣐࡛㸱ྡࡢⓎ⾲⪅࡟Ⓨゝࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸㸪㆟ㄽࡍࡿࠋᮏㄽࡣ㸪ࡑࢀ࡟ඛ❧ࡘ௻⏬ពᅗ࡜㊃᪨ࡢㄝ᫂ࢆ෌ᵓᡂࡋ࡚ࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

2. ␲ၥᩥࡢ✀㢮࡜ᮏ㉁ ఏ⤫ᩥἲ࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ⤊ຓモࠕ࠿ࠖࡣ㸪୍⯡࡟␲ၥࡢຓモ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ࠕ࠿ࠖࡀᨭ㓄ࡍࡿ⠇ࢆᚑᒓ⠇࡜ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣ㸪⠇ࢆྡモ໬ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࡶᣢࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࠕㄡ࠿ࡀ᮶ࡓࠖࡢࠕ࠿ࠖ࡜ࡢ㐃⥆ᛶࢆㄆࡵࡿ࠿࡞࡝㸪⯆࿡῝࠸⌧㇟ࡶከࡃ㸪༢࡟␲ၥࢆ⾲ࡍ࡜ࡍࡿࡢࡣ࠶ࡲࡾ࡟⾲ᒙⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ−349−

疑問文の語用論（ワークショップ趣旨説明）(1) ࡑ࠺࠿㸪ኴ㑻ࡣ᮶ࡿࡢ࠿㸦Г㸧(2) ኴ㑻ࡣ᮶ࡿ{ࡢ / ࡢ࠿ / ?࠿ / ‫ ׎‬/ *ࡢࡔ࠿}㸽

 ౛࠼ࡤ㸪(1)ࡣୗ㝆ㄪࡢᩥ㡢ㄪࢆ୚࠼ࡽࢀ㸪⊂ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ⊂ㄒⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ࡜
ࡁࡣ㸪ᅇ⟅࡜ࡋ࡚᝟ሗࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆồࡵࡿ࡜࠸࠺␲ၥᩥࡢᮏ㉁ⓗᶵ⬟ࡣኻࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(1)࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕኴ㑻ࡣ᮶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺᝟ሗࡣ᪤࡟ᚓࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢ┿⌮್ࢆồࡵ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋ(2)࠿ࡽࡣୖ᪼ㄪ
ࡢᩥ㡢ㄪࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࢀࡤ㸪ࠕ࠿ࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡎ࡜ࡶ␲ၥᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ാࡁ㸪ࡴࡋࢁ౑⏝⪅ࡢ♫఍ⓗᒓᛶࢆ⪃࠼ࢀࡤ㸪ࠕኴ㑻ࡣ᮶ࡿ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺Ⓨヰࡢ౑⏝⪅࡟ࡣࣞࢪࢫࢱ࣮࡟೫ࡾࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ᮾி᪉ゝࡣࠕࡢࡔ࠿ࠖ࡜ࡣ⏝࠸࡞࠸ࡀ㸪᪉ゝ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
 Searle.1969 ࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕ␲ၥᩥࠖࢆヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟᝟ሗ㸦㸻┿⌮್࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ್㸧ࢆせồࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪஦๓つ๎࡛ࡣ㸪ձヰࡋᡭࡣ⟅࠼ࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸㸪ղ㉁ၥࡋ࡞࠸࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡣㄒࡽ࡞࠸㸪ࡀୖࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ከࡃࡢሙྜ㸪ճ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ⟅࠼ࢆ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺▱㆑࠿᥎ᐃࡀ࠶ࡿ㸪ࡇ࡜ࡶ⪃៖ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(3) ࠕኴ㑻ࡣ᮶ࡿࡢ㸽ࠖࠕ࠺ࢇ᮶ࡿࡼࠖ
㸦Yes-no question࣭┿⌮್୍࣭⯡␲ၥ㸧(4)ࠕㄡࡀ᮶ࡿࡢ㸽ࠖࠕኴ㑻ࡔࡼࠖ㸦Wh-question࣭࿨㢟㛵ᩘࢆ┿࡟ࡍࡿ್࣭≉Ṧ␲ၥ㸧 ␲ၥᩥࡀ┦ᡭ࡟᝟ሗࢆせồࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࢆᮏ㉁ⓗ࡟ᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜㸪ࡇࢀࢆ␲ၥᩥࡢᇶᮏ≉ᛶ࡜ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪ヰ⪅ࡣ⫈⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕゝㄒⓗ࡟཯ᛂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆせồࡍࡿࠖࡢࡀ␲ၥᩥࡢᮏ᭷ⓗᶵ⬟࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࡇࢀࢆࠓゝㄒⓗせồࠔ࡜࿧ࡪࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸪࠸ࢃࡤ locutionary force ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪⫈⪅ࡀゝㄒⓗ཯ᛂ㸦᝟ሗᥦ౪ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪࣓ࢱⓗ᝟ሗࡢᥦ౪࡛ࡶࡼ࠸㸧ࢆ⾜ࢃ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ㸪せồࢆ↓どࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾ㸪఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୙㤳ᑿ㸦ࢺࣛࣈࣝ㸧࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ୍᪉㸪㛫᥋Ⓨヰ⾜ⅭⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽぢࢀࡤ㸪ᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟࡞ࢇࡽ࠿ࡢືస࣭⾜ⅭࢆせồࡍࡿⓎヰࡶከ࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸪Ⓨヰෆຊ(illocutionary force)࡟㸪ࠓ㠀ゝㄒⓗせồࠔࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛㸪ᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟࿨௧࣭౫
㢗່࣭ㄏ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
(5) ࠕ❆ࢆ㛤ࡅ࡚ࡃࢀࡲࡍ࠿㸽ࠖ㸦ືసࡸ⾜Ⅽࢆ㉳ࡇࡍࡇ࡜ࢆせồࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽせồ㸧㸧
(6) ࠕᑡࡋఇ᠁ࡋࡲࡏࢇ࠿㸽ࠖ㸦່ㄏ່࣭ዡ࡞࡝ືసᥦ᱌࣭⾜Ⅽせồ㸧 㠀ゝㄒⓗせồ࡟ࡣ㸪(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞່ㄏ່࣭ዡࡶྵࡴࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣ⫈⪅࡟ᅇ⟅ࡸᛂ⟅ࢆồࡵࡿࠓゝㄒⓗせồࠔࡶኻࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀ㸪ࡇࢀࡣ⩏ົࢆㄢࡍࡼ࠺࡞ᙉไⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶ㸪␲ၥᙧᘧ࡛せồࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛⫈⪅࡟ᣄ⤯ࡢᶒ฼ࢆㄆࡵࡿᶵ⬟ࡀᙉࡃ㸪࠸ࢃࡺࡿ negative politeness ࡢᡓ␎࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(5)ࡣ㸪⫈⪅ࡀ㯲ࡗ࡚❆ࢆ㛤ࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺཯ᛂࢆࡍࡿࡢࡣ୙సἲ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ࠕ࠶࠶ࠖ⛬ᗘࡢᛂ⟅࡛⾜Ⅽせồ࡟ᛂ࠼࡚ࡶၥ㢟࡞ࡃ㸪ࠓゝㄒⓗせồࠔࡣ࠿࡞ࡾᚋ㏥ࡋ㸪ࠓ㠀ゝㄒⓗせồࠔࡀ๓㠃࡟ฟ࡚୺せ࡞ force ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(7) ࠕࣟࢩ࢔ㄒࡗ࡚㞴ࡋ࠸ࡌࡷ࡞࠸࡛ࡍ࠿ࠖ

−350−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号(8)ࠕᐆࡃࡌࢆ㈙࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡌࡷ࡞࠸࡛ࡍ࠿ࠋࡍࡿ࡜㸪ᮇᚅࡋࡍࡂ࡚࠾࠿ࡋࡃ࡞ࡿࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࠖ
(9) ⚾ࡗ࡚㸪⣚Ⲕ኱ዲࡁே㛫ࡌࡷ࡞࠸࡛ࡍ࠿㸽(10) ⚾ࡗ࡚㸪⣚Ⲕ኱ዲࡁே㛫࡞ࢇ࡛ࡍࡼࠋ ࡲࡓ㸪(7)(8)(9)ࡶ┿⌮್ࡸ್࡞࡝ࢆᥦ♧ࡉࡏࡿゝㄒⓗせồ࡜⪃࠼࡟ࡃ࠸␲ၥᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(7)ࡣ㸪グ㏙ᩥἲ࡛ࡣㄆ㆑せồ࣭ྠពせồ࡞࡝࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛㸪ヰ⪅ࡣ⫈⪅࡟࿨㢟ࢆ┿࡜ࡋ࡚ཷᐜࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆせồࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪࿨㢟ࢆ┿࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ♧ࡋ࡚ཷᐜࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆồࡵࡿࡢࡣ㸪せồᗘࡢ㐪࠸ࡇࡑ࠶ࢀ㸪ᖹླྀᩥ࡛ࡶྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ࠕࡌࡷ࡞࠸࡛ࡍ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺࣐࣮࣮࢝ࢆకࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪ࡑࡢᶵ⬟ࡣ㢧ᅾ໬ࡍࡿࠋຍ࠼࡚㸪(7)ࡸ(9)ࡣ␲ၥᩥࡢᙧᘧ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪⫈⪅࡟ゝㄒⓗ཯ᛂࢆồࡵࡿຊࡣᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪༢࡟ㄆ㆑࡜ࡋ࡚࿨㢟ࢆཷࡅධࢀࡓࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࢆゝㄒⓗᛂ⟅࡛♧ࡉ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ㸪ヰ⪅ࡣせồࡀ↓どࡉࢀࡓ࡜ឤࡌ㸪఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୙㤳ᑿ࡜ぢ࡞ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ௨ୖ࠿ࡽ㸪␲ၥᩥࡢせồᛶࢆ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

␲ၥᩥࡢ
せồᛶ

(A) ゝㄒⓗせồ(B) 㠀ゝㄒⓗせồゝㄒⓗ཯ᛂ࣭᝟ሗᥦ౪ࢆせồ(B-1) ⾜Ⅽせồᙉ࠸⾜Ⅽせồࠥᙅ࠸⾜Ⅽせồ(B-2) ㄆ㆑せồྠពせồࠥཷᐜせồ

3. ␲ၥᩥࡢ㐠⏝࡟㛵ࡍࡿὴ⏕ⓗຠᯝ (9)ࡣᙧᘧୖ␲ၥᩥࡔࡀ㸪ᶵ⬟ⓗ࡟ࡣ␲ၥࡢⓎヰ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡶゝ࠼ࡿࠋ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࡟ࡣ㸪(B-2)ㄆ㆑
せồࢆㄢࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ゝㄒⓗ࡟ࡣ᝟ሗ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ཯ᛂࡢࡳࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣ␲ၥᩥ࡛
ࡣ࡞࠸(10)࡛ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࡀ㸪(10)ࡣᖹླྀᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᙅ࠸ཷᐜせồࡢࡳࡀ࠶ࡿࡔࡅࡔࠋ(9)ࡣ㸪᪥ᮏㄒ࡛㔜どࡉࢀࡿඹឤᙧᡂ㸦Ѝゝㄒࡢ஺ឤᶵ⬟(phatic communion)࡜ࡶ㛵ࢃࡿ㸧ࡀືᶵ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀከ࠸ࠋ┿࡜ุ᩿࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࿨㢟ࢆཷᐜࡍࡿࡼ࠺せồࡍࡿࡢࡣ FTA ࡜ࡶ࡞ࡾ㸪᭦࡟ゝㄒⓗせồࢆㄢࡍࡢ࡛⫈⪅ࡀ୙ᛌ࡟ᛮ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ࠶ࡾ࠺ࡿࡀ㸪┿࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡀ㔜せ࡛࡞࠸࿨㢟࡜ࡋ࡚┦ᡭ࡟ヰࢆྜࢃࡏࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢀࡤ㸪఍ヰ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ┦஫ᛶࡀቑࡋ㸪ඹឤᙧᡂࡣᙉࡲࡿࠋ
(11) ࠕఱゝࡗ࡚ࡿࢇࡔ㸽ࠖ(12) ࠕㄡࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢ࠿㸽ࠖ ࡲࡓ㸪┦ᡭࡀ㠀ᖖ㆑࡞Ⓨヰࢆࡋࡓ࡜ࡁ࡞࡝࡟⏝࠸ࡿ(11)࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕఱ࡛ࠖồࡵࡿ್ࡣ᪤࡟ࢃ࠿ࡗ࡚
࠾ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢ᝟ሗࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣồࡵ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࢆྵࡴከࡃࡢゝㄒ࡛㸪␲ၥモ␲ၥᩥࡣ᝟
ሗࢆồࡵࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ཷᐜྍ⬟࡞᝟ሗࡀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ヰ⪅ࡢㄆ㆑ࢆ♧ࡋ㸪┦ᡭࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆ㠀㞴ࡍࡿࡢ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸪ࡉࡽ࡟(12)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࿨㢟ࡀᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸཯ㄒ㸦ಟ㎡␲ၥ㸧࡜ゎ㔘ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ␲ၥᩥࡀ㠀㞴࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿࡢࡣ㸪ಙ㢗࡟㊊ࡿே㛫ࡢ⾜ືࡣཎ๎࡜ࡋ࡚ྜ
⌮ᛶࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪ྜ⌮ᛶࡀ࠶ࢀࡤ␲ၥ࡟ゎ⟅ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡣࡎࡔ㸪࡜࠸࠺ᇶᮏⓗ࡞⪃࠼᪉ࡀࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ
࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ᰿ᮏ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ຍ⸨ 2014㸪ࡇࢀࡣࢢࣛ࢖ࢫࡢ㉁ࡢ᱁⋡࡜㛵ࢃࡿ㸧
ࠋ

−351−

疑問文の語用論（ワークショップ趣旨説明）(13) ࠕኴ㑻ࡣ᮶ࡿ࠿࡞㸦࠶㸧ࠖ ⊂ㄒⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ(13)ࡣ㸪⫈⪅࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚Ⓨࡋࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ(A)ࡀᢚไࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪⟅࠼࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶせồࢆ↓どࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ࡛ࠕ␲࠸ࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࢱ࢖ࣉ࡛㸪ゝㄒⓗせồࡀ࡞࠸࠿㸪㠀ᖖ࡟ᙅ࠸ࠋ ࡲࡓ㸪஦๓᮲௳ࡢ↓໬ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ぢࡿ࡭ࡁࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕヰࡋᡭࡣ⟅࠼ࢆ▱ࡽ࡞࠸㸦ᩍᖌࡀ⏕ᚐ࡟ၥ࠺ሙྜࢆ㝖ࡃ㸧ࠖࠕ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ⟅࠼ࢆ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢ㸰Ⅼࢆ㸪஦๓᮲௳࡜ࡍࡿ࡜㸪(14)࡛ࡣᚋ⪅ࡀ㸪(1)ࡣ๓⪅ࡀ㸪↓໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(1)ࡣ㸪ཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓࡤ࠿ࡾࡢ᝟ሗ㸦ฎ⌮グ᠈࠿ࡽㄯヰグ᠈࡟⛣㏦ࡉࢀࡿ㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪▱ⓗෆᐜࡢ⌮ゎࡣ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ឤ᝟ⓗ࡟༑ศ࡞ཷᐜࡀ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸦⣡ᚓ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸧ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(14)ࠕኴ㑻ྩࡣ௒᪥ࡢᏛ఍࡟᮶ࡲࡍ࠿㸽ࠖࠕࡑࢇ࡞ࡇ࡜⚾ࡀ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡞࠸࡛ࡋࡻࠖ
(1) ࠕࡑ࠺࠿㸪ኴ㑻ࡣ᮶࡞࠸ࡢ࠿ࠖ㸦෌ᥖ㸧 ᙧᘧୖ␲ၥᩥ࡛࠶ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ᶵ⬟ⓗ࡟ࡣ␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㸪␲ၥᩥࡢ඾ᆺ࠿ࡽ㐓⬺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⓎヰࢱ࢖ࣉࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪⤫ㄒㄽ࣭ព࿡ㄽ࣭ㄒ⏝ㄽࡢ◊✲࡟㈨ࡍࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࡀ㸪㸱㡿ᇦࡢ▱ぢࢆồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ ຍ࠼࡚㸪␲ၥᩥࡢ◊✲ࡣ㸪ヰ⪅஺᭰࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍⯡࡟㸪ㄯヰࡢ୰࡛ࡣ㸪ྛᡤ࡟ヰ⪅஺᭰࡟㐺ࡋࡓࠕヰ⪅஺᭰Ⅼ(Turn Relevant Point; TRP)ࠖࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡣ㸪ᩥ⠇ᮎ࡟ࡈࡃᙅ࠸ TRP ࡀ⏕ࡌ㸪⠇ᮎ࡟ᙅࡵࡢ TRP ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋᖹླྀᩥᮎ࡟ᙉࡵࡢ TRP㸪␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣ࠿࡞ࡾ
ᙉ࠸ TRP ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪ゝㄒ୍⯡࡟㏻ࡌࡿཎ๎࡛࠶ࡿࠋ␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣ㸪ヰ⪅஺᭰ࡀ㉳ࡇࡿࡢࡀᙜ
↛࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡢ࡛㸪ࡇࢀࡣ᭷ᶆࡢ TRP ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ࡀ㸪ࡑࡢࡲࡲヰ⪅ࡀヰࡋ⥆ࡅࢀࡤ㸪TRP ࡣᢚไࡉࢀ㸪ヰ⪅஺᭰ࡣ㉳ࡇࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ␲ၥᩥࡢ TRP ࡢᙉࡉࡣ㸪ࠓゝㄒⓗせồࠔࡢᗘྜ࠸࡜㐃ືࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⊂ヰⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀ␲ၥࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿࡔࡅࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ㸦࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕ␲࠸ࠖ㸧ࡣ㸪TRP
ࡣ↓໬ࡉࢀ㸪඲ࡃ࡞࠸࠿㸪ᙅ࠸ࠋ␲ၥᩥࡢせồᛶࡢศ㢮ࡣ㸪ఱࡀ↓໬ࡉࢀ㸪ఱࡀᙉࡵࡽࢀࡿ࠿࡟
ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶ᭦࡟⣽࠿࡟⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪⣬ᖜࡢ㒔ྜࡶ࠶ࡾ㸪ู࡟ㄽࡌࡿᶵ఍ࢆࡘࡃ
ࡾࡓ࠸ࠋ

ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts -An essay in the philosophy of languag-, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Pressຍ⸨㔜ᗈ(2009) ࠕືⓗᩥ⬦ㄽ෌⪃ࠖࠗ໭ᾏ㐨኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩥᏛ◊✲⛉⣖せ࠘128 ྕ㸪195-223ຍ⸨㔜ᗈ(2011) ࠕୡ⏺▱㆑࡜ゎ㔘ⓗᩥ⬦ࡢ⌮ㄽࠖࠗ໭ᾏ㐨኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩥᏛ◊✲⛉⣖せ࠘134 ྕ㸪69-96ຍ⸨㔜ᗈ(2012) ࠕࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡜๓ᥦࠖ ⃝⏣἞⨾⦅ࠗࡦࡘࡌព࿡ㄽㅮᗙ㸴࠘㸦ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ㸧㸪39-62
ຍ⸨㔜ᗈ(ணᐃ). ࠗືⓗᚰ⌮ㄒ⏝ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ◊✲㸦௬㢟㸧࠘㸪ᮾி㸸◊✲♫−352−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡢᙅ࠸ၥ࠸࠿ࡅᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚̾ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽ̾                             㤿 ✛⍞໭ᾏ㐨኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩥᏛ◊✲⛉<Abstract>
In the early research, it was considered that doubt, usually used to express a sense of speakers' doubt on
something in Japanese, is also used when a speaker puts a question to hearer with considering pragmatic
factors. However, the pragmatic characteristic of doubt and why people use doubt instead of question when
they want to ask for response from hearer have not been sufficiently explained. Therefore, this paper aims
to solve the two issues. As a result, doubt has weak quality of question and people use doubt for politeness.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ: ᙅ࠸ၥ࠸࠿ࡅᛶࠊᅇ⟅ྍ⬟ࡢ᝿ᐃࠊ᝟ሗࡢせồࠊඹឤࡢせồࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ

1.ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
᪥ᮏㄒࡢ␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ヰࡋᡭࡀఱࡽ࠿ࡢࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋ࡚␲ᛕࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊၥ࠸࠿ࡅⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿሙྜࡶぢࡽࢀࡿ㸦ோ⏣㸦1994㸧ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍㸦2003㸧࡞࡝㸧ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊၥ࠸࠿ࡅⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩࢆᣢࡘࡢ
࠿ࠊࡲࡓࠊ࡞ࡐ␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣၥ࠸࠿ࡅⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ༑ศ࡟㆟ㄽࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡣࠊࡇࡢ஧ࡘࡢၥ㢟ࢆゎ᫂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࠊၥ࠸࠿ࡅⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣࠊᙅ࠸ၥ࠸࠿ࡅᛶࢆᖏࡧࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࠊࡇࢀࢆㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡟᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ
2.␲ၥᩥࡢ✀㢮グ㏙ᩥἲ࡟࠾࠸࡚␲ၥᩥࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ồࡵࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ྰ࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࠿ࡽࠊ␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥ࡜
ၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢ␲ၥᩥ࡟ศࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࠊ⊂ヰⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ␲ၥ
ࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ≉࡟⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ồࡵࡿࡶࡢࡣ࡞࠸㸦⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠸࡞࠸ሙྜࡶྵࡴ㸧ࠋၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣࠊᑐヰⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟⮬ࡽࡢ␲ၥࢆᢞࡆ࠿ࡅࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡋ
࡚ồࡵࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢ✀㢮࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣࠊ
᝟ሗࡢᥦ౪ࢆồࡵࡿ㸦ゝㄒⓗせồ㸧ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜⾜Ⅽࡢᐇ⾜ࢆồࡵࡿ㸦㠀ゝㄒⓗせồ㸧ࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟ศࡅ
ࡽࢀࡿࠋ௨ୗࠊලయⓗ࡞౑⏝౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࡤḟࡢ㸦1㸧ࠥ㸦3㸧࠾ࡼࡧ㸦4㸧ࠥ㸦6㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣࠊᩥᮎ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ࠿࡞ࠖ
ࠕ࠿ࡋࡽࠖࠕࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠖ
࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ㸺␲࠸㸼ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣࠊᩥᮎ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕࡢࠖ
ࠕ࠿ࠖ࠾ࡼࡧ⤊ຓモࡢ┬␎࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ㸺ၥ࠸࠿ࡅ㸼ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ๓⪅ࡣ⮬↛ୗ㝆ࡢ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ࡜ࡾࠊᚋ⪅ࡣୖ᪼ㄪࡢ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ࡜ࡿࠋ
(1)ࠕ㐜ࡃ࡞ࡗࡕࡷࡗࡓ࡞ࠋࡲࡔ㟁㌴ࡣື࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡞ࠋ
ࠖ(2)ࠕࡇࡇ࠿ࡽᮾிࡲ࡛ࠊ᫬㛫ࡣ࡝ࡢࡃࡽ࠸࠿࠿ࡿࡢ࠿ࡋࡽࠋࠖ
(3)ࠕࡔࢀ࠿᮶ࡓࢇࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࠖ
 (4) ࠕࡶ࠺ᤵᴗ⤊ࢃࡗࡓࡢ㸽ࠖ

1

−353−

疑いの疑問文の弱い問いかけ性について―語用論的観点から―

 (5) ࠕࡡ࠼ࠊ௒ఱ᫬㸽ࠖ (6) ࠕୗࡢᩥࢆ࿴ヂࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡅࡲࡏࢇ࠿㸽ࠖ ౛(1) (2) (3)ࡢሙྜࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊࠕ㐜࠸᫬㛫࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࡢ᫬㛫ࡣ㟁㌴ࡀࡲࡔື࠸࡚࠸ࡿ
࠿࡝࠺࠿ࠖࠕ⌧ᅾᆅ࠿ࡽᮾிࡲ࡛࡝ࡢࡃࡽ࠸ࡢ᫬㛫ࡀ࠿࠿ࡿࡢ࠿ࠖࠕࡔࢀ࠿᮶ࡓ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࠖ࡜࠸
࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ୙࡛᫂ࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ␲ၥࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠸࡞࠸ሙྜࡢ⊂ࡾゝࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠸࡚ࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ゝ࠺ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎヰሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠸ࡿ࠿ྰ࠿࡟㛵ಀ࡞ࡃࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆせồࡋ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ⮬ࡽࡢ␲ၥࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿࡢࡳ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࠿ࡽࠊࡇࢀࡽࡣ඾ᆺⓗ࡞␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥ࡜ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ౛(4)(5)(6)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚Ⓨヰࡋࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡣၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢ␲ၥᩥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛(4)ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࠕࡶ࠺⤊ࢃࡗࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺⫯ᐃࡢ⟅࠼ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕࡲࡔ⤊ࢃࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྰᐃࡢ⟅࠼ࢆせồࡋࠊ౛(5)ࡣ␲ၥモࡢࠕఱ᫬ࠖ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿ㒊ศࡢᅇ⟅ࢆせồࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ஧ࡘࡢ౛ࡀ᝟ሗ
ࡢᥦ౪ࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ゝㄒⓗせồ㸧ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ౛(6)ࡢሙྜࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᣄ⤯ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ㏻ᖖࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࠕ࠸࠸ࡼࠖ࡞࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᛂ⟅㸦ゝㄒⓗせồ㸧࠾ࡼࡧࠊࠕୗࡢᩥࢆ࿴ヂࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾜Ⅽࡢᐇ⾜ࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦㠀ゝㄒⓗせồ㸧ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊၥ࠸࠿ࡅⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆࠊ౛ (7)(8) (9) ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦7㸧A:ࠕబ⸨ࡣࠊᮏᙜࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ࡝ࡇࡲ࡛▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡞㸽ࠖ
B:ࠕࡉ࠶ࠊࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸࡞ࠋࡼࡃ▱ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࢇࡔࡅ࡝ࠖ
ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ 4 ➨ 8 㒊ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࠘
㸦8㸧A:ࠕఱ࠿ᝏ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ㣗࡭ࡓࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠖ
 B:ࠕࢺ࢖ࣞ࡬⾜ࡅࡤ἞ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠖ  ㉳ࡁ࡚࠿ࡽࡋࡤࡽࡃࡢ㛫ࠊ㒊ᒇࡢ୰ࢆࣆࣙࣥ͐ ᜊ἟⸅(1998)࢚࣮ࠗࣜࢺ⏣⯋ᬽࡽࡋ࠘KTC ୰ኸฟ∧ 
㸦9㸧 A:ࠕ࠶ࡋࡓᤵᴗ࠶ࡿ࠿࡞ࠋࠖ   B:ࠕ࠶ࡿࡼࠋࠖ
 ౛(7)㸦8㸧㸦9㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊࠕబ⸨ࡣࠊᮏᙜࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ࡝ࡇࡲ࡛▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡞㸽ࠖࠊࠕఱ࠿ᝏ࠸
ࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ㣗࡭ࡓࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠖࠊࠕ࠶ࡋࡓᤵᴗ࠶ࡿ࠿࡞ࠋࠖ࡜࠸࠺୕ࡘࡢᩥࡣࠊ␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡢᙧᘧ
ࢆྲྀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊヰࡋᡭࡢ␲ᛕࢆ⾲᫂ࡍࡿࡢࡳ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡟ࠊ
⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚Ⓨヰࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆせồࡍࡿࡶࡢࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ
ࡼ࠺࡞␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣࠊᙧᘧ࡜ᶵ⬟࡟㱈㱒ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᮏ✏ࡢ◊✲ᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿၥ࠸࠿ࡅⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥ࡜ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋၥ࠸࠿ࡅⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚Ⓨヰࡋࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆせồࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛඾ᆺⓗ࡞␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥ࠿ࡽ༊ูࡉࢀࠊ㐓⬺ⓗ࡞␲࠸ࡢ␲
ၥᩥ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᩥࡢᙧᘧࡣ␲࠸ࡢᙧ࡛⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆせồࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ㐓⬺ⓗ࡞␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣᙅ࠸ၥ࠸࠿ࡅᛶࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
3.ᙅ࠸ၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩ
3.1 ᅇ⟅ྍ⬟ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ࡇ࡜
Searle(1969)ࡣ Question㸦㉁ၥ࣭ၥ࠸࠿ࡅ㸧ࡢ preparatory rules㸦஦๓つ๎㸧ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ
ၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢሙྜࠊヰࡋᡭࡢḧࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⟅࠼ࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࡶ࡜࡟࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺᮲௳ࡀࡑࡇ࡟ྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊSearle(1969)ࡣ doubt㸦␲࠸㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊᮏ✏ࡣࠊ␲࠸ࡢሙྜࠊヰࡋᡭࡢḧࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⟅࠼ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࡶ࡜࡟࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡿ㸦࡞࠾ࠊࡇࢀࡣᚲせ᮲௳࡛ࡣ࡞࠸

2
−354−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ࡢ࡛ࠊ஦๓つ๎࡟ࡣྵࡲࢀ࡞࠸㸧ࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢ␲ၥᩥࢆⓎࡍࡿሙྜࠊ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚⪺ࡁᡭࡀᅇ⟅ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ౛(4)࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕࡶ࠺⤊ࢃࡗࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺⫯ᐃࡢ⟅࠼ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕࡲࡔ⤊ࢃࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྰᐃࡢ⟅࠼ࡀᥦ౪ࡉࢀᚓࡿ࡜ࡢ᝿ᐃ࠿ࡽၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓ౛㸦5㸧࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ᫬ィࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᦠᖏ㟁ヰ࡞࡝᫬㛫ࡢࢃ࠿ࡿࡶࡢࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ
ࠕ௒ࡣࠥࠥ᫬ࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋࡓୖ
࡛⪺ࡃࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ౛(6)࡛ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡣ࠶ࡿእᅜㄒࢆ᪥ᮏㄒ࡟ヂࡏࡿ⬟ຊࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟౫㢗ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㐓⬺ⓗ࡞␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᅇ⟅ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶᡂ❧ࡍࡿࠋ
౛(7)࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡣヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ௨እࡢ➨୕⪅࡛࠶ࡿబ⸨ࡀࠊ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ࡝ࡇࡲ࡛▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚␲ၥࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡣబ⸨ᮏே࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࡢ᝟ሗ㸦▱㆑㸧ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞
࠸࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ௚᪉࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣబ⸨࡜ẖ᪥୍⥴࡟࠸ࡿ࡯࡝ࡢ㛵ಀ࡛ࠊబ⸨ࡢ኱యࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⪺ࡁᡭࡀᅇ⟅ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡀ୙☜ᐃ࡞ሙྜࠊ┤᥋࡟᝟ሗࢆồࡵࡿၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣ౑࠸࡟ࡃ࠸ࡀࠊ㐓⬺ⓗ࡞␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣ౑࠼ࡿࠋࡑ
ࡋ࡚ࠊ౛(8)࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ௒࠾⭡ࡢㄪᏊࡀᝏ࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊఱ࠿ᝏ࠸ࡶࡢࢆ㣗࡭ࡓ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸࡜᥎ ࡋ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚⮬ࡽࡢ␲ၥࢆఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ࠾⭡ࡢㄪᏊࡣ A ⮬㌟࡟ࡋ࠿ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣᅇ⟅୙ྍ⬟࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࠊၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢ␲
ၥᩥࡣ౑࠼࡞࠸ࡀࠊ㐓⬺ⓗ࡞␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣ౑࠼ࡿࠋ
せࡍࡿ࡟ࠊၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢ␲ၥᩥࢆ⏝࠸ࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᅇ⟅ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺᝿ᐃ
ࢆࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᅇ⟅୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ሙྜࠊၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣ౑
࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ㐓⬺ⓗ࡞␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡀᅇ⟅ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡞
ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ྥࡅ࡚Ⓨࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊヰࡋᡭࡀồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ᝟ሗࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࡶ࡜
࡟࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊ㐓⬺ⓗ࡞␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣ౑࠼ࡿࠋ
3.2 ᝟ሗࡢせồ࡜ඹឤࡢせồࡀᑐ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜
ᙅ࠸ၥ࠸࠿ࡅ࡜ࡋ࡚ാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ㐓⬺ⓗ࡞␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఱࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺
࠿ࠋ౛(7)࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࠕబ⸨ࡀᮏᙜࡢࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ࡝ࡇࡲ࡛▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺␲ၥࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ඹ᭷ࡉࡏࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࠿ࡽࡢఱࡽ࠿ࡢ཯ᛂࢆᮇᚅࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡶࡋࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟≉ᐃࡢ᝟ሗࡀ࡞ࡅ
ࢀࡤࠊࡓࡔࠊࠕࡉ࠶ࠊࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸࡞ࠋࡼࡃ▱ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࢇࡔࡅ࡝ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞㏉⟅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
⪺ࡁᡭ⮬㌟ࡶ᝟ሗࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ⮬ศࡢ␲ၥࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ඹ᭷ࡉ
ࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢඹឤࢆせồࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࡶࡋࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࡣ≉ᐃࡢ᝟ሗࡀ࠶ࢀࡤࠊ
ࡑࡢ␲ᛕࢆゎ᫂ࡍࡿ᝟ሗࢆồࡵࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭࡣ┦ᡭࡀᅇ⟅ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡀศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊ⮬ศࡢ␲ၥࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ඹ᭷ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ඹឤࠊ࠶ࡿ
࠸ࡣ᝟ሗࢆồࡵࡿࠋồࡵࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣఱ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡑࢀࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ▱㆑࣮࣋ࢫ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ỵࡲࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟᝟ሗࡀ࠶ࢀࡤࠊ᝟ሗࡢᥦ౪ࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟᝟ሗࡀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊඹឤࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡋ࠿
ồࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ౛(8)࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡢࡇ࡜ࡣヰࡋᡭ⮬㌟ࡋ࠿ࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ⟅࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡢࡀᙜ↛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࠊࠕఱ࠿ᝏ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ㣗࡭ࡓࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㐓⬺ⓗ࡞␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ࠾⭡ࡢㄪᏊࡀᝏ࠸ࠊࡑࡢཎᅉࡣఱࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⮬ศࡢ␲ၥࢆ
⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ඹ᭷ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ␲ၥࢆඹ᭷ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ࡶࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ␲ၥ࡟ᛮࡗ࡚࡯
ࡋ࠸࡜ᮃࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ┦ᡭ࡟⮬ศࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᚰ㓄ࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸࡜࠸࠺㢪࠸ࡶྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ▱㆑࣮࣋ࢫ࡛⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟᝟ሗࡢᥦ౪ࡣồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊඹឤࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3.3 ୍✀ࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ാࡃࡇ࡜
౛(7) ࡜౛㸦8㸧࡛ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࠊၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡀ౑࠸࡟ࡃ࠸࠿ၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡀ౑࠼࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟ࠊ␲࠸ࡢ

3
−355−

疑いの疑問文の弱い問いかけ性について―語用論的観点から―␲ၥᩥࡀၥ࠸࠿ࡅⓗ࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢ␲ၥᩥࡀ౑࠼ࡿࡀࠊヰࡋᡭࡀពᅗⓗ࡟ၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢ␲ၥᩥࢆ㑊ࡅࠊ␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࢆၥ࠸࠿ࡅⓗ࡟౑࠺ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ౛(9)࡛ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭࡣࠕ࠶
ࡋࡓᤵᴗࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ␲ၥ࡟ᛮࡗ࡚ࠊ␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡢᙧᘧࢆྲྀࡾ࡞ࡀࡽⓎヰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋⓎヰࡍࡿ๓࡟ࠊヰࡋᡭࡣồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ᝟ሗࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢࡶ࡜࡟࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ヰࡋᡭࡀពᅗⓗ࡟ࠕ࠶ࡋࡓᤵᴗ࠶ࡿࡢ㸽ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢ␲ၥᩥࢆ㑊ࡅࠊ␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡢᙧᘧ
ࢆ㑅ࢇ࡛Ⓨヰࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ୍✀ࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡢᙧᘧࢆྲྀࡿࡇ
࡜ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡬ࡢ᝟ሗࡢせồࢆᢚ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡣࡓࡔ▱㆑ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢࡸࡾ࡜ࡾ࡛ࠊඹឤ
࡜ࡣ㛵ಀ࡞ࡃࠊᐇ㝿ࡣ᝟ሗࡢᥦ౪ࢆࡼࡾᙅࡃせồࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
4.ᙅ࠸ၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢ౑⏝ືᶵ ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࡞ࡐ౛㸦9㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢ␲ၥᩥࢆ౑࠼ࡿሙ
ྜ࡟ࡶࠊၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢ␲ၥᩥࢆ౑ࢃࡎࠊ㐓⬺ⓗ࡞␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡇࡢ␲ᛕ࡟ᑐ
ࡍࡿ㸯ࡘࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡣࠊ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙅ࠸ၥ࠸࠿ࡅ࡜ࡋ࡚ാ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ㐓⬺ⓗ࡞␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡣࠊLeech(1983)࡛ゝ࠺ Tact Maxim 㸦Minimize the expression of beliefs which imply
cost to other; maximize the expression of beliefs which imply benefit to other㸧ࢆ㑂Ᏺࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋTact Maxim ࡢࠕ௚⪅࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㈇ᢸࢆ᭱ᑠ㝈࡟ࠊ௚⪅࡟ᑐࡍࡿ฼┈ࡣ᭱኱㝈࡟ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺㓄៖ࡢⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟⟅࠼ࢆᙅࡃせồࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㈇ᢸࡣᑠࡉࡃ࡞ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢᅇ⟅ࡢ⮬⏤ᗘࡶ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜᥎ㄽ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ㐓⬺ⓗ࡞␲࠸ࡢ␲
ၥᩥࡣࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ᢲࡋ௜ࡅࡿឤࡌࢆ୚࠼ࡀࡕ࡞ၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢ␲ၥᩥࡼࡾዲࡲࡋ࠸࡜ឤࡌࡽࢀࠊࡇࢀࡀ
㸯ࡘࡢືᶵࢆᙧᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
5.࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ᮏ✏ࡣࠊၥ࠸࠿ࡅⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿ␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࢆᙅ࠸ၥ࠸࠿ࡅᛶࢆᖏࡧࡿ⌧㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࠊᙅ
࠸ၥ࠸࠿ࡅᛶࢆᣢࡘ␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩ࡜౑⏝ືᶵ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㆟ㄽࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᙅ࠸ၥ࠸࠿ࡅࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ≉ᚩ࡟ࡣ୕Ⅼࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋձᅇ⟅ྍ⬟ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ࡇ࡜ࠋ
ղ᝟ሗࡢせồ࡜ඹឤࡢせồࡀᑐ❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠋճ୍✀ࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ാࡃࡇ࡜ࠋ ࡲࡓࠊᙅ࠸ၥ࠸࠿ࡅࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿືᶵࢆ࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽศᯒࡋ࡚ࠊ┦ᡭ࡟ᢲࡋ௜ࡅࡿឤ
ࡌࡀࡼࡾᙅ࠸࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࠿ࡽࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࡣࠊⓎヰሙ㠃࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ࠊ㐓⬺ⓗ࡞␲࠸ࡢ␲ၥᩥࡀࡼࡃ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄝ࡛᫂ࡁࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ཧ↷ᩥ⊩
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983㸬 Principles of Pragmatics, London: Longman.
᪥ᮏㄒグ㏙ᩥἲ◊✲఍㸬2003㸬ࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒᩥἲ 4 ➨ 8 㒊ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕࠘
ࠊࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧ோ⏣ ⩏㞝㸬1994㸬ࠕ<␲࠸>ࢆ⾲ࡍᙧᘧࡢၥ࠸࠿ࡅⓗ౑⏝ : ࠕ࢝ࢼࠖࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋࡓぬ᭩ࠖࠊࠗ⌧௦᪥ᮏㄒ◊✲࠘ࠊ➨ 1 ᕳࠊ6-14ࠊ኱㜰኱Ꮫ
Searle, John R. 1969㸬 Speech Acts --An essay in the philosophy of language---, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

4
−356−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

Ӣ̷ҢҪӚҶӊ͑࡞ჵဍѣথᅀᇫ͒̾࡝ჴા࡝ჴ҆‫ۂ‬ᄿэѿླॵઆಝ ૳ბ‫އ‬ൌ޻
yamaizumi.minoru@gmail.com<Abstract>
Japanese features a conditional clause where a question is quoted in the protasis and the answer
is presented in the apodosis without any indication of quotation. The few previous studies on thisconstruction call this pattern “self-questioning (and self-answering),” but some examples of it
show some characteristics that are not reflected in the typical understanding of “self-questioning.”
This study sheds light on this construction from a relevance-theoretic perspective, analyzing it asa quotation of an expository question. Also, there are some discourse markers and formulaic
expressions that are thought to have been derived from this construction, most of which,interestingly enough, mark reasons (for some action or situation). These aspects were also
discussed in the workshop, but are not dealt with here for lack of space.
͕Ҡ̷Ӣ̷Ҽ͖࡞ჵဍ̝࡞ჵિ࡞ჵ̝‫ۃ‬ᅀ̝࠙ᇍౖᅬᇫ̝௟ॊဍ

1 ѣьѵџ̡फ़ࢄഴ௉!
໙ႏথќѤ૒ѣѽлѠ࡞ჵဍ҇‫ۃ‬ᅀь̝ђѣ๹нсഘфଘಊѠॶҁҀྴॶсѽфછ҄ҁҀ̞(1) !чѢѼкўཹઆў௡ࢳџўѾпѡўи
ќикчќ҆ୋကџ໡ૡыѓ௑ћ̜݃҆ыўхҀѤихўипќикќ̝ࢢ೯҇іѸ҈ѝࡎшьћ̝ђѣѽлџшѝсࡎтџйѽлѠюҀ̝шҁс‫୔཯ڵ‬ᅆџшѝѕѝપйѳю̞ͅਈ‫ݶݶ‬ࡣᇪ̝ࢬ෕‫ۃ‬ᅀଅ̞‫̝݁ړ‬ධࡌѣџйᆰѤຎᄼ͆(2) ђҁрѾ̝Ҿ̷һсᇦୌႯఘ̝‫ۃ‬тшѷѿс໐ୌᇦႯ్സѝйлѽлѠ̝љѳѿ̝ਘѤౡߋဲধ҇ѷѾјћйџй̝ᆰнѥҾ̷һќѷјћ‫ݍ‬ќ఑Ѡო๜҇।ћѷѾјћйҀ̝ьрьџсѾ̝ќѤఐрၦуўїѓঝѝкўѿ҇єҁ
кпќикќ̝ౡߋဲধѠљџсјћйф݉໸ౖѝйлѣсзҀ҄цќюѢ̞(3) ђҁрѾ̝ઃ੅ૌఋᇮѣпᇮќщыйѳ
юс̝чҀѣ̜৽ᅫศਠ࢐ржѿпѝкпќи
кќ̝ષ૜ఓ̝шҁѠവюҀ৾ᅬษਡ࢑Ѥ‫ޱ‬໢Ѥйєьћпѿѳѐ҈̞ႏঢ়ќѤ̝(1)(2)ѣѽлџ࡞ჵિ࡞ჵс‫ۃ‬ᅀъҁћйҀѷѣ҇ಕѾ‫ڀ‬й̝(3)ѣѽлџ৥ྲྀ࡞ჵс‫ۃ‬ᅀъҁћйҀѷѣѤঢ়҇‫ރ‬ѶћᇫэҀшѝѠьєй̞࡞ჵિ࡞ჵс‫ۃ‬ᅀъҁћйҀѷѣѷ಻ћ҇‫ڀ‬л҄цќѤџй̞‫̝݁ړ‬य़ࢅവொѝюҀѷѣ
ѣजૡษҬҠ̷ӑ҇ด૙ьџсѾ̝य़ࢅവொ
ͅိࡘ௒ QPQͅQuoted and Preempted
Questions͆ѝॿѫ͆҇ࡋซьћйф̞(4) ͉͉…࡞ჵિ…ͅѣ͆ͅр͆͊ѝ/јћͅ཈ᇮ̡
પ৤ຍિ͆ͅ௟ॊྴॶ͆͊
!

௒ќͅ!͆с࿌йћйҀᅆ೎ѤྣధќѤџй̞૒ѣᆰѤђҁѾс಻ћ჆йᆰќзҀ̞!
!
(5) !঱Ⴤ‫ۀ‬ќџфћѷйй̝ќѷ̝݃р‫ݽ‬ыиїњ̝пࡱᄼрѾ̝Ⴢ݂۫ьћҨ̷ӆҬс‫ٶ‬фџјєэѸџйѣѝ๛ѾҁҀшѝќю̝\ඩᅹ^ѝ̝ᆫџсѾѠષѠᇮьћфҁѳьє̞!
‫̝݁ړ‬QPQ ѣ৔౗ᅆ೎Ѡљйћ࿌ॹюҀ̞!
࡝ჴા! ৥ྲྀ࡞ჵќѤџф࡞ჵિ࡞ჵс‫ۃ‬ᅀъҁє௙৾ѠѤ̝๵಺џсѾ࡞ჵિс‫ۃ‬ᅀъҁє࡞ჵಊඩѠॶҁҀ̞ўѣ࡞ჵિѷॶҁҀшѝсќтҀ̞‫ۂ‬ᄿஃા! ࡞ჵಊѠ‫ۃ‬ᅀ஄િѣ͑ѝ͒ѳєѤ͑јћ͒сഘф̞࠱ႏษѠўіѾѷ݉໸ќзҀцҁ
ўѷ̝ႏঢ়сҺ̷Ҳѝьєਈ‫ࡣݶݶ‬ᇪќѤ̝(5)ѣѽлџஷᅹษџᆰ‫ޓړ‬ќѤဍ્݂ѣ੒Ѡ͑јћ͒с͑ѝ͒Ѡ͑ౙဍ͒ͅ஫ใണ 2008͆ъҁћйҀѽлќзҀ̞ཇᇭ0઩ৣຌા! ‫ۃ‬ᅀъҁє࡞ჵಊ္҇থѝюҀ཈ᇮ̡પ৤ѣຍિсഘф਼̞ѷതфᅀйѾҁҀѣѤ͑йл͒ќзҀ̞‫݁ړ‬ѣ෕ਯќѤ͑ॹл͒͑йл͒͑ఈю͒͑пјьѸҀ͒͑৤нҀ͒ѝђѣල໦ज҇ग़੬ьє̞
௞ॉླॵ! QPQ ѣ਼ঞѠ௟ॊྴॶсॶҁҀ̞͑ѝ͒͑ѥ͒
͑єѾ͒͑џѾ͒಻ћ݉໸ќзѿ̝шѣ৔ဍѠпйћѤჭᅶјє‫ڞ‬ႴษџਮѤџъђлќзҀ̞ॶൊ໙ႏথѠпйћѤ͑ѝ͒с‫پ‬๜ษѠതйѽлќ്̝ 183 ‫ݸ‬෭௜ਈ‫ۈࡣିݶ‬ѣ‫ࡣݶ‬ᇪ҇෕ѮєॻѿќѤ̝௟ॊྴॶсஷᅹъҁћйџй࡞ჵિ QPQ1785 ᆰඩ̝1551 ᆰќ௟ॊྴॶѠѤ͑ѝ͒сછ҄ҁћйє̞ѳє̝QPQ Ѥಷॊѝঞॊѣ‫ڞ‬Ⴔ࠙ओѠຠ෈
сзҀ̞QPQ ќѤџй࡞ჵિ࡞ჵѣ൴୲џ‫ۃ‬ᅀќѤ̝(6)ѣѽлѠঞॊѣ౗ᅶсಷॊѣ౗ᅶ

−357−

疑問詞疑問を引用する表現Ѡ‫ږ‬ഝь̝࿘෭ѣ຿ᄵͅษ͆௟ॊဍѝџҀ̞(6) ‫ݛ‬થс݄͑с‫ٶ‬йѣ?͒ѝॹнѥ̝ഥᇥѤࣀфѕ҂л̞
ͅQPQ ќѤџй͆‫ڵ‬ၒ QPQ ѝଘಊѣࠗѠѤђѣѽлџ‫ږ‬ഝ࠙ओѤџф̝಻ളќй҄ѻҀ཈ᇮ৫‫ڢ‬௟ॊဍѝџҀ̞шѣ฿ќѤ̝૒ѣ(7)ͅQPQ ќѤџй͆ѝຎᄼќзҀ̞(7) ଛୠ҇щग़ກќьєѾ̝шіѾѠ݉໸‫ڮ‬ᆒࡀ࠙ѝ‫ڮ‬નѣӝҬһсзѿѳю̞ͅ຀‫گ‬2012: 113͆཈ᇮ৫‫ڢ‬௟ॊဍѝѤ̝шѣѽлѠ͑͑ѷь...͉͜ಷॊѣ຿ᄵ͊џѾѥ̝ષѤшѣॹথ৫‫=͉ڢ‬ঞॊѣ຿ᄵ͊҇శ৫юҀͅѝ৤нѽл͆͒ѝйл঱ૡѠѽјћหಃѠॹйߺнѾҁҀ͒ͅҬҙҖ̷ҷҔ̷ 1990/2000: 173͆ѷѣќзҀ̞௒ѣᆰќѤ̝ಷॊѤঞॊѣ཈ᇮ৫‫ͅڢ‬௝၈ด࢞͆ѣหಃౖ௟ॊ҇ྴьћйҀ̞iшѣ঱ૡќหಃѠॹйߺнѾҁҀ࡞ჵဍѣ‫ۃ‬ᅀ҇ QPQ͗ଘಊѝюҀ̞ᆰнѥ૒ѣ QPQ(8)a Ѥ̝(8)b ѣѽлѠหಃѠॹйߺнѾҁҀ̞(8) a. ໩ࣞ౑๗Ѣ‫཮ڴ‬Ѣჴൎѣ݃пќॸмѤ̝ਈჂѠ௹ᅙъҁћйџйшѝѕ̞ͅ੣ᆰ͆
b.͑໪ࣟ౒๘ѣ‫཯ڵ‬ѣჵ൏Ѥ݄р̤͒ѝॹнѥ̝ષѤ͑ਈჂѠ௹ᅙъҁћйџйшѝѕ͒ѝйл෥ୡ҇శ৫юҀiiͅѝ৤нѽл̞͆! ଘಊѣହ҄ѿѠѤ̝͑ѝॹл͒͑ѝ๹нҀ͒џўѣ̝‫ۃ‬ᅀъҁє࡞ჵѣ๹нќзҀшѝ҇
ბ૙юҀजૡсџфћѽйшѝѷ QPQ ѣຠ෈ќзҀ̞шѣ฿Ѥ̝૒ѣѽлџ̝૳੒ѣ࡞ჵѝђҁѠവюҀ๹н҇၈ਇюҀ௙৾ͅQPQќѤџй͆ѠѤ̝࡞ჵѣ๹н҇‫ۃ‬ᅀюҀजૡсྣᅆќзҀшѝѝവவษќзҀ̞(9) ђльєѾ̝зҀఘсѳєଛ҇࢒чћ̝ђҁѕцєфъ҈ဍბѣక҈ѕౚсзҀѣѠ̝݄ќ‫̴ݫ‬ѤӂӝҙҶҼѣфѕѾџй‫ݭۮ‬эѸџьѠ૳੒ѣ‫ێ‬ණಬѝр‫ێ‬ණఘѠшѣඒࢄќୟ‫ݶ‬лшѝсџй҈ќьѼлрѝॹјєѾ̝ӎ̷ҠӦңс̝йѹ̝ђҁѤ‫ڬ‬л̝ѐѶћඒࢄဗѴѣဍბ҇ૐјєѾ̝ђлйлӊӜӀҶһ̝ᇲౚѤྌ௜Ѡ૜಺ѣ୪ࠅс‫ٶ‬фџјћ̝‫ێ‬ණ૑ࠗќйлѝ୥ࠗษѠౡაсரიюҀѝॹјє҈ќю̞

2

QPQ ѣ૛ჴѢ‫ۂ‬ᄿп̣!

‫ړ‬௒ѣѽлѠࡋซќтҀཨ‫ژ‬ѣྴॶ QPQ ѠධჭьћзҀน๘௉ьф‫ڀ‬јє಑৫य़ࢅѤ̝ࠊ।ѣࡹѫॻѿ̝຀ใͅ2000: ് 4 ஼ 2–3͆ѝ৹ࢳͅ1999͆ѕцќзҀ̞ўіѾѠпйћѷ
QPQ͗ͅଘಊ͆Ѥ૜ჵ૜๹ѣजૡѝъҁћй
Ҁ̞ѷі҂҈̝шҁѾѠпйћ QPQ ѠљйћୡѮћѾҁћйҀшѝѤђҁѕцќѤџф̝ྥଅѷຎ‫ڞ‬юҀшѝ҇ࠟѶ୔ᅆџ฿сത̴зҀ̞ьрь̝‫݁ړ‬ќѤહ࿴ѣ๓৾рѾ QPQ ѣ࡞ჵ҇૜ჵѝഏнҀшѝѣപ๵ౖ҇ಕѾჵ൏ѠюҀ̞QPQ ҇૜ჵѝ৤нҀѝᅬ‫ݷ‬ќтџй฿сஜџфџйрѾќзҀ്̞‫ڵ‬Ѡ̝QPQ ѣછᅀଅѤ૜ခс࡞ჵѠપјћйҀшѝ҇শѠьћйҀѝйлѽѿѤ̝ဎтଛѣඑૢ௢഻҇ᆅјћ̝QPQ ѣ཈ᇮѣ૑฿ќဎтଛс࡞ჵѠૐіђлџшѝ҇ QPQ ѝьћॹথ݂ьћйҀ̝љѳѿ̝ဎтଛѣ࡞ჵ҇ᄬ࠽ьћ಑ଙѿ(preempt)ьћୡѮћйҀ௙৾сஜџфџйѝ৤нѾҁҀ̞шѣѽлџവᇮษഋო
Ѥ QPQ ҇͑૜ჵ͒ѝ৤нҀѝ૿ொъҁћьѳ
л̞QPQ ѣথᅀᇫษຠ෈࿌цѠѤဎтଛ҇໛ҁҀྣᅆсзҀѕ҂л̞!
്໐Ѡ̝૒ѣ(10)ѽлѠ཈ᇮຍિѠ͑пјьѸҀ͒сછ҄ҁћйҀѷѣѤѳҁќѤџй̞(10) ўѐჁࠖќরঃќѢਭржѿѢп̜ѝчр‫ګ‬кѢпќоїыѷҀѤ̜ஜџфѝѷ̝Ⴢࠗѣ௙৾Ѥဦຍѣࣟᅧ౒сଙѿ໛ҁѾҁћпѿ
ѳюцҁўѷ̝୊ൕ঱঄ѣ௙৾Ѥঀซќ̝ஜџфѝѷષєіѤઃୌগ໪ࠗѣේ࠽ѣঀซᄪૄќзҀѝйл฿с‫ڬ‬йѳюь̝ѳє̝Ⴢࠗѣ௙৾Ѥࣟᄪѣ௢ࢴѠѽјћൄь୑ѿс৫҄ҁҀѣќюѢ̞͑пјьѸҀ͒Ѥടतথќзѿ̝ђѣຍ੣ଘѤဎтଛѝ৤нѾҁҀ̞љѳѿ̝шѣ௙৾ѠѤ࡞ჵ҇͑пјьѸјћ͒йҀѣѤဎтଛѝъҁћйћ̝ᇮьଛс૜ჵьћйҀѣќѤџй̞ѳє̝૒ѣ(11)ѣѽлѠෟಷѣೱଛѣ࡞ჵ҇‫ۃ‬ᅀьћйҀᆰѷзҀ̞(11) ‫ܨ‬ಗ౞ધऊ̢[ಷᅹ]ਈำѣओ߲ѣၒѠіѼјѝট૲ჵйєьєйѝપйѳю̞[ඩᅹ]ђл
йлѷѣѝᄨိૉࣅѝҙқ̷һѣ඙тၒѝьћѤўіѾ҇୔฿Ѡҙқ̷һ҇඙йћпѿѳ
юр̞ಋბ‫ͅۀ‬આ੟࿧ऊ͆
̢ѝѕѽџҘҙ̶Һ҆඘упќоїыѷиѲэќ̝ષѤᄨိ࿿ѣ‫ۦ‬೾ѣၒѠѹѤѿ୔฿҇඙фѮтѕѝપјћпѿѳю̞iii
шѣѽлџ௙৾ѷ૜ჵѝѤॹй໎й̞

−358−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号(12) రܱୢ‫ڵ‬ऊ̢[ಷᅹ]ђлйјєѷѣѣзј
ѐ҈ૉ‫ڏ‬ѣॊిѤ࠷Ѿр೴Ⴤஷљр҈ќпѾ
ҁҀѝપйѳюс̝йрсќьѼл̞ਈჄൌఎͅഄใ߳ჺऊ͆
̢пఝѢѣॊిќщыйѳюс̝ਘ໪ѣઃॉ໐ୌཅ໙ॶ੔ќୌ૨ॊщыйѳьє̞ୌ૨ॊќщыйѳю̞రܱୢ‫ڵ‬ऊ̢೴ᅬ̝ୌ૨ॊџ҈ќюѽ̞ѝҀѯѝжѿпїњ̝݄ႯॊѷзҀᇮэѸџфћ[ঞᅹ]൲рѠѝјћ࠙ᇍౖсзҀͅrelevant͆ѣ‫ڞ‬ႴќзҀ̞v‫ړ‬௒ѣѽлџ࡞ჵၔѣ‫ڞ‬Ⴔ҇ૐљ࡞ჵဍѝйлဍजૡс཈ᇮъҁєѝтѠўѣѽлџ཈ᇮѣᆜ—௝၈ᅆࢀ̝૜ჵ̝ଳ૞࡞ჵџў—҇ૐљѝဎтଛс‫ݷ‬଒юҀрѤ਼̝หѣ࠙ᇍౖ҇ຝҀєѶѠ‫݁ړ‬ѣ໐฿сўѣѽлѠृѳҀрѠѽҀ (Wilson & Sperber 1988/2012: 227)̞
‫ڵ‬љѤ̝࿋ซѣ࿫ခсซѳјћఊѝџјєა൏͜ͅ࡞ჵѣ๹н͆҇ᇮьଛс൲Ѡѝјћ࠙ᇍౖсзҀѷѣѝьћྴ૙ьєрќзѿ̝ѷл‫ڵ‬љѤ̝५੔ษဍႿೢซѝьћ݄сಱѥҁҀрќз
Ҁ̞шѣ௙৾ѷஜџфѝѷ࿘෭ѣ‫ڞ‬ႴќѤ૜ჵќѤџйь̝࠼Ѡ๹нсୟћйҀѣќ̝຿ᄵษѠѤѷѤѹ൲ѣ࡞ჵќѷџй̞‫ړ‬௒ѣ฿Ѥ̝QPQ ѣথᅀᇫษഋოѠവюҀ͑૜ჵͅ૜๹͆͒ѣѽлџෟࠒษ̡ಷᅬᇫษџഏнၒѣॻ‫҇މ‬૙ьћйҀ̞

3.2 ‫ݶ‬ಊ࡝ჴဌѢ‫ۂ‬ᄿќыњѢ QPQ! ॆᇫрѾୡѮҀѝ̝QPQ Ѥ‫ݷ‬ಋ࡞ჵဍͅexpository question͆ѣ‫ۃ‬ᅀќзҀ̞‫ݷ‬ಋ࡞ჵဍѝѤ଩ࣅќ৭નсѽф཈юҀ̝(13)a ѣѽлџ࡞ჵဍќзѿ̝ђҁѠഘф(13)b Ѥђѣ๹нѠзєҀ̞

3(13) a. [ଃ‫ဲݶ‬ௐ౒๘Ѡљйћѣ଩ࣅќ]໪ࣟ౒๘ѣ‫཯ڵ‬ѣჵ൏Ѥ݄р̤ͅ੣ᆰ͆
b. ђҁѤ̝ਈჂѠ௹ᅙъҁћйџйшѝѕ̞ъѾѠ̝࠼Ѡᇮьଛсဎйћ๹нъѐє࡞ჵ҇आѿါьћണѣဎтଛѠষцћйҀᆰѷзҀ̞࠘ᇌౕᅫᇪѢࠑ฾пѽѢ QPQ Ѣက౷!
ႏಊќѤ̝࠙ᇍౖᅬᇫѣࠒ฿рѾ QPQ ҇ခ౸ь̝шѣᇳ೏ќ QPQ ѣപ๵џຠ෈࿌цсќтҀшѝ҇૙ю̞!
3.1 ࠘ᇌౕᅫᇪѢ࡝ჴဌѢഎмၑ!
ѳяѤ̝Wilson and Sperber (1988/2012)Ѡ
࠱њйћ̝࠙ᇍౖᅬᇫѣ࡞ჵဍѣഏнၒ҇ಋბюҀ̞࠙ᇍౖᅬᇫќѤ̝࡞ჵဍѝйлဍजૡͅ໙
ႏথќзҁѥ࡞ჵિѹဍႩѠ͑р͒сછ҄ҁћjwйҀဍ͆ Ѡѝјћ૲ჵ̡௝၈ᅆࢀѤ࠱ႏษџຠౖѝѤѴџъҁџй̞ߺॹюҀѝ̝࡞ჵဍѤ͑௝၈ᅆࢀ͒џўѣຠซѣ཈ᇮѣᆜ̡཈ᇮ৫‫ڢ‬Ҳҗӊ҇Ҧ̷Ҽ݂ьћйҀ҄цќѤџй̞࡞ჵဍс௜Ѡ൷јћйҀѣѤ̝࡞ჵၔͅinterrogative mood͆ѝйл‫ڞ‬ႴᇫษҞҹҧӝ̷ќзҀ̞
࡞ჵၔѣဍѤ‫݁ړ‬ѣຠ෈҇ૐљ്̞‫ڵ‬Ѡ̝࡞ჵၔѣဍсྴюᇫᅬजૡѤ̝‫݁ړ‬ѣ฿ќနஅဍѣѷѣѝཿѮћ࿋߱಻ќзҀ̞࡞ჵિ࡞ჵќзҁѥ࡞ჵિѠവ‫ܥ‬юҀဦ৷҇ࠟѴ̝৥ྲྀ࡞ჵќзҁѥђѣѽлџဦ৷Ѥџйൊ҄ѿѠა൏಻ളѣࣈౖс࿋ซѠџјћйҀ്̞໐Ѡ̝ђѣ࿋߱಻џྴ૙ͅrepresentation͆Ѥ̝ဦ৷ѣඐѹࣈౖсซѳјћఊѝџјє߱಻џა൏ѣྴ૙ѝьћ‫ݷ‬଒ษѠછ҄ҁҀ̞ђьћ̝ђѣྴ૙ъҁєა൏Ѡവьћ൲рѣ࠶ࢀษͅdesirable͆ა൏഻๘сཕл̞шѣ௙৾ѣ͑࠶ࢀษ͒ѝѤ̝൴୲џ͑ૉ഻с૳ॶюҀшѝсၱѳҁҀ͒ќѤџй̞‫ݷ‬଒ษᅀၔѠവюҀ͑࠶ࢀษ͒ѝѤ̝ॆࣆ

Wilson and Sperber (1988/2012: 227)ѠѽҀ
ѝ̝࡞ჵဍѣ཈ᇮс‫ݷ‬ಋ࡞ჵဍѠџҀѣѤ‫݁ړ‬с५੔ษќзҀ૑ќзҀ്̞‫ڵ‬Ѡ̝࡞ჵѣ๹нѤᇮьଛќѤџфဎтଛѠѝјћ࠙ᇍౖсзҀѝᇮьଛсѴџьћйҀͅшѣ฿̝૲ჵ̡௝
၈ᅆࢀѣ࡞ჵဍѝѤ‫ڤ‬џҀ̞͆ђьћ̝ᇮьଛѤ૜ခќ๹н҇එјћйҀͅඑѾџцҁѥ‫ݷ‬ಋќтџй̞͆ъѾѠ̝ᇮьଛѤ๹н҇ॹлᅀ‫ڞ‬сзҀͅॹ҄џцҁѥ‫ݷ‬ಋѠџѾџй̞͆ђҁѠ݈нћ‫ݷ‬ಋ࡞ჵဍѤ̝ဎтଛѠ࡞ჵဍѣ๹нѠೱ๵юҀшѝѠљйћѣࢺႴ҇߮ࡎюҀჭษсзҀ(p. 222)̞‫ړ‬௒ѣຠ෈Ѥ಻ћ QPQ Ѡѷ๵ћѤѳѿ̝QPQ ќ‫ۃ‬ᅀъҁћйҀѣс‫ݷ‬ಋ࡞ჵဍќзҀшѝѤბѾрќзҀ̞஝̝૜ჵ
ѣ๹нс࠙ᇍౖ҇ૐљѣѤᇮьଛѠѝјћќ
зҀ(p. 226)୍̞јћ̝QPQ ќ‫ۃ‬ᅀъҁє࡞ჵဍсຎ૑Ѡ૜ჵќзҀ҄цќѤџй̞џп̝࡞ჵဍѤқҦ̷཈ᇮѝ‫ڬ‬й̝൲рѠࡁകъѐҀྣᅆѤџй(p. 225)ѣќ̝൲ѣ࡞ჵр҇৤нҀྣᅆс௜ѠзҀ҄цќѤџф̝QPQ Ѥ૜ჵќџцҁѥ൲ѣ࡞ჵџѣрѝ৤нҀྣᅆѷџй̞! QPQ Ѥ‫ݷ‬ಋ࡞ჵဍѣ‫ۃ‬ᅀќзҀрѾ̝ഘфଘಊѤ‫ݷ‬ಋѝйлшѝѠџҀ̞шҁѠ࠙ᇍьћ̝
຀ใͅ2000͆Ѥ QPQ Ѡљйћ͑ঞॊѠфҀѣѤ̝ಋბษџૉ૳ѣࡌୡќзҀ୍̞јћ̝აᆮѹ‫ڞ‬઩ѣӓ̷ҼѤঞॊѠခ݂ьѠфй͒ͅp.

−359−

疑問詞疑問を引用する表現

413͆ѝйл౒ᄄ҇૒ѣᆰ҇࢒чљљୡѮћйҀ̞(14) a. ຘќंѠୟ‫ݶ‬јєѾўлюҁѥййр
ѝйлѝ̝ળ҈ѕѪѿ҇юҀѝѽй̞b. ?ຘќंѠୟ‫ݶ‬јєѾўлюҁѥййрѝй
лѝ̝ળ҈ѕѪѿ҇ь҂̞(15) a. ბ໙̝ઘૉсю҈ѕѾўлюҀрѝй
лѝ̝‫ݍ‬ѠࡁҀшѝѠџҀѕ҂л̞b. *ბ໙̝ઘૉсю҈ѕѾўлюҀрѝйлѝ̝‫ݍ‬Ѡࡁ҂л̞ͅp. 414͆(14)b̝(15)b Ѥ̝ঞॊсಋბษџૉ૳ѣࡌୡќѤџф̝აᆮѹ‫ڞ‬઩ྴბќзҀєѶѠᄵ໢๘с݁сҀѝйлшѝќзҀ̞шѣ౒ᄄѤ̝ଘಊс‫ݷ‬ಋ࡞ჵဍѣ๹н̝љѳѿ‫ݷ‬ಋќзҀшѝѠᄢᅗюҀ̞࠙ᇍౖᅬᇫѣᅀথќॹнѥ̝QPQ ѝйл৔ဍсଘಊѣ৹૒ྴ‫౒҇ڞ‬ᄄьћйҀѝ
йлшѝќзҀ̞!
4 ॅᇪќਗঝѢ‫ݡ‬ൎ! QPQ Ѥ‫ݷ‬ಋ࡞ჵѣ‫ۃ‬ᅀќзҀ̞ђѣєѶ̝‫ۃ‬ᅀъҁє࡞ჵဍѣ๹н͜ͅଘಊ‫݁ړ‬ќྴъҁҀ࿫ခ͆сဎтଛѠѝјћ࠙ᇍౖсзҀшѝ҇
૙ю̞ѳє̝ଘಊѣ৹૒ྴ‫ڞ‬ѝьћ̝ଘಊс‫ݷ‬ಋѝйл཈ᇮ৫‫ڢ‬ќзҀѝйлшѝ҇ѷเнҀ̞ъѾѠ̝હ࿴ѣ๓৾рѾႏঢ়ќѤ௉ьфᇫэѾҁџйцҁўѷ̝࡞ჵિ QPQ Ѥ̝ခᇃဍѝຎᄼѣၒၔ(Jucker, 1997)ќ࠙ᇍౖѠ৮फ़юҀ̞љѳѿ̝࡞ჵિѠവ‫ܥ‬юҀ࿫ခсଘಊѠпцҀழ฿ќзҀшѝ҇૙юѝйлଛഘтษ‫ڞ‬Ⴔ҇൷лшѝќ୷ᅬᇖᆜ҇वॳь̝࠙ᇍౖѠ৮फ़юҀ̞! ‫ړ‬௒ќᇫэєшѝ‫ޓړ‬Ѡѷ̝QPQ Ѡ࠙ьћ̝ᇫэҀѮтшѝѤ‫݁ړ‬ѣ෭ѿిതй̢QPQ ѣඏᇮѠпцҀࡀ໸̝ခᇃဍ̡࡛૊ခᇃဍѝѣཿ޶̝௟ॊဍѝьћѣຠౖ̝(5)ѣѽлџൾй QPQ̝͑џёџѾ͒
݄͑ѝџҁѥ͒͑ўіѾрѝйлѝ͒ѣѽлџ QPQ съѾѠ୛ᄄ̡ঀซ݂ьєྴॶ
๸̴̞QPQ ѠпйћѤ̝࡞ჵဍ̝‫ۃ‬ᅀ̝‫ݷ‬଒ษᅀၔ̝௟ॊဍ̝ခᇃဍ̝ඏᇮྯૢ݂џў̝থᅀᇫษѠࢺႴఇйॶொсೱফ҄ѿ̝ਘঞѣय़ࢅсഹєҁҀ̞ྥଅѷঢ়҇‫ރ‬ѶћᇫэҀшѝѠьєй̞!
!
઄!ழ!ဌ!ढ़!
຀‫ گ‬౤થ. 2012.͑௟ॊ৔ဍ҇Ѷхјћ̝͒ែใ૔
ྗͅဩ͓͆৔ဍѝ‫ڞ‬Ⴔ͔ͅѧљэ‫ڞ‬Ⴔᇫ৭਷ ്
2 ̝߭͆107–131̝๫̢࢝ѧљэ஀ၯ.
຀ใ ဲৃ. 2000.͓ਈথ‫ۃ‬ᅀ৔ဍѣय़ࢅ͔ൌਗ਼̢
ᇭಝ஀‫ۈ‬.

Itani, R. 1993. “The Japanese Sentence-final
Particle
Ka:
A
Relevance-theoretic
Approach.” Lingua, 90, 129–147.
ਘ‫ گ‬ၡྞ. 2001.͓থᅀᇫѭѣதഹ͔๫̢࢝ൌଳ
ࠜ஀ุ.
Jucker, A.H. 1997. “The Relevance of Cleft
Constructions.” Multilingua, 16, 187–198.
஫ใ ॥૒ᇥ̡༱‫ گ‬ᆖથ໋̡࿫ ඕઞ̡ܱใ ᄤથ.
2008.͑ਈ‫ࡣݶݶ‬ᇪѤўҁѰў཈ॹѠඬ૳р̤—౗ဍѣ૳഻҇൸Ҁ—̝͒஫ใ॥૒ᇥͅဩ͆
͓ਈ‫ࡣݶݶ‬ᇪ҇છјє໙ႏথय़ࢅ͔̝33–62̝๫̢࢝ѧљэ஀ၯ.
Noh, E.J. 2000. Metarepresentation: A
Relevance-theory Approach. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
ҬҙҖ̷ҷҔ̷, җӧ. 1990/2000.ͅែใ૔ྗᄆ͆
͓໢එ‫ڞ‬Ⴔᇫѣื‫̢ގ‬থॴ޻рѾথᅀᇫѳќ͔๫̢࢝य़ࢅଃ.
৹ࢳ ୙ᇥ. 1999.͑͑૜ჵ૜๹जૡѣ࡞ჵྴॶ͒ѣౖޭ̝͓͒೨‫ڹ‬ใൌ޻໙ႏথय़ࢅࢲ‫ڲ‬ҮӦҲ̷ࡉᅆ͔̝12̝55–76.
Wilson, D., and Sperber, D. 1988/2012. “Moodand the Analysis of Non-declarative
Sentences.” In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber,
Meaning
andRelevance,
210–229.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
i࠙ᇍౖᅬᇫѣࠒ฿рѾѣшѣଠѣ௟ॊဍѠљйћѣ‫ڤ‬ᇫѤ Nohͅ2000: ch. 5͆҇અவ̞
ii ঞୡюҀѽлѠшѣॹথ৫‫ڢ‬Ѥ෥ୡѝйлѽѿѷ‫ݷ‬ಋѝйлၒс౞‫ޱ‬ќзҀ̞
iii шѣᆰќѤ̝‫ۃ‬ᅀъҁє࡞ჵѣ๹нќзҀшѝ҇ბ૙юҀजૡѝьћ̝͑ષѤ͒ѝ͑ѝપјћпѿѳю͒сછ҄ҁћйҀс̝шҁѾѤџ
фћѷᄵ໢ъҁҀѕ҂л̞iv ࠙ᇍౖᅬᇫѣᅶ௙рѾѣ໙ႏথѣ࡞ჵဍѣခ౸Ѥ Itani (1993)҇અவ̞v ࡞ჵဍѠ࿌఺юҀა൏഻๘ѠљйћѤ̝ᇫଅѣࠗќ।‫ݷ‬ѣೱ‫ڬ‬с।ѾҁҀ̞Wilson &Sperber (1988/2012)Ѥ̝“nor possible orpotential thoughts but desirable thoughts” (p.
212)ѝьћйҀ‫ڵ‬ၒ̝ਘ‫( گ‬2001: 98)Ѥ̝࠶ࢀษрљಡ੔ษ ͅpotential͆ѝьћйҀ̞஝̝шѣ௙৾ѣ͑ಡ੔ษ͒ѝѤ̝͑࠶ࢀษ͒с‫ݷ‬଒ษᅀၔќѤࡌୡษᅀၔѣ௙৾ѝѤ‫ڤ‬џҀ‫ڞ‬ႴќзҀѣѝຎᄼ̝ࡌୡษᅀၔѣ௙৾ѝѤ‫ڤ‬џҀ‫ڞ‬Ⴔ̝љѳѿ͑ѳѕ૳ॶьћйџйс̝૳ॶьຝҀ͒(p. 87)ќѤџф̝͑ͅ࿋ซѣ࿫ခс‫ޱ‬ซьћ߱಻џა൏Ѡџјє௙৾Ѡ͆ђѣપ৤с࠙ᇍౖ҇ૐіຝҀ͒ѣ‫ڞ‬Ⴔќз҂л̞−360−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ᗈ࿌䛻䛚䛡䜛␲ၥᩥ䛻㛵䛩䜛ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⪃ᐹ㻌                                   ࿅ ᬗ໭ᾏ㐨኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔㻌㻌㻌㻨㻭㼎㼟㼠㼞㼍㼏㼠㻪㻌The purpose of this study is, from a pragmatic point of view, to investigate the use of interrogative sentences inadvertisement copies. In this article, we will discuss the following four issues. First, we introduce the characteristics
of advertising, which is considered as a form of communication. Second, we investigate how interrogative sentences
are used in advertisement copies. Third, we discuss the features of interrogative sentences when they are used inadvertisement copies. At last, we focus on the pragmatic effects of these interrogative sentences.
䛆࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ䛇䠖␲ၥᩥࠊᗈ࿌ࠊㄒ⏝ㄽ㻌㻌㻌

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᗈ࿌ 1 ࡣ㸪⚾ࡓࡕ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㥆ᰁࡳ῝࠸Ꮡᅾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪⚾ࡓࡕࡣᗈ࿌ࢆぢࡓ᫬࡟㸪ᛮࢃࡎ࢟ࣕࢵ
ࢳࢥࣆ࣮࡟┠ࢆዣࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞࢟ࣕࢵࢳࢥࣆ࣮ࢆᩥᙧᘧࡢⅬ࠿ࡽほᐹࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜㸪୰࡟ࡣ␲ၥᩥࡢ⏝౛ࡀぢࡽࢀ㸪␲ၥᩥࡀ୍ᐃࡢ≉ᛶࢆ᭷ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪౛ᩥࢆᣲࡆ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ᗈ࿌࡟࠾࠸࡚␲ၥᩥࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿㸪ࡲࡓ␲ၥᩥ
ࢆ౑࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ຠᯝࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ᗈࡃ㆟ㄽࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ

2. ᗈ࿌࡜࠸࠺ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ ᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿሙྜ㸪ᗈ࿌࡜࠸࠺ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ゝཬࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ
࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ ᗈ࿌࡜ࡣ㸪ᇶᮏⓗ࡟୍᪉ྥᛶࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥ࠶ࡾ㸪୍⯡ࡢ఍ヰࡢࡼ࠺࡞཮᪉ྥⓗ࡞ࡸࡾྲྀࡾ
࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ୍⯡ࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡣᬑ㏻ྠࡌሙ࡟࠾ࡾ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂ࡜㏉⟅࡞࡝ࢆࡑࡢሙ࡛༶᫬ཷࡅྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡯࠿㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣ⪺ࡁᙺ࡟㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡣヰࡋᙺ࡟ኚࢃࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡾᚓࡿࠋ
ࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪ᗈ࿌࡜࠸࠺ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭ㸦ᗈ࿌୺㸧ࡣ୙≉ᐃከᩘࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ᾘ㈝⪅㸧࡟ྥࡅ࡚࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆఏ࠼ࡿࡀ㸪ヰࡋᡭ㸦ᗈ࿌୺㸧ࡣᐇ㝿࡟ࡑࡢሙ࡟࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ㸪ᗈ࿌୺ࡣヰࡋᙺ㸪ᾘ㈝⪅ࡣ⪺ࡁᙺ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᙺ┠ࡣࡍ࡛࡟᭱ึ࠿ࡽỴࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪ヰࡋᡭ㸦ᗈ࿌୺㸧࠿ࡽⓎࡉࢀࡓ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ᾘ㈝⪅㸧࡟ఏࢃࡗ࡚㸪ࡑࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⪺ࡁᡭࡣ཯ᛂ
ࡍࡿࡀ㸪ࡇࡢ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆヰࡋᡭࡣཷࡅྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀ࡟ຍ࠼࡚㸪ᗈ࿌ࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡣ᭩
ࡁࡇ࡜ࡤ࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛㸪⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ᾘ㈝⪅㸧ࡀࡇ࡜ࡤ࡛཯ᛂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞ࡃ㸪ᚰࡢ୰࡛⮬⏤࡟࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢゎ㔘࡜᥎ㄽࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡶ㸪ࡑࡶࡑࡶᗈ࿌ࡢᢞࡆ࠿ࡅࡿ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡇ࡜ࡤ࡛ᛂ⟅ࡍࡿ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ᾘ㈝⪅㸧ࡣ୍ேࡶ࠸࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀ㉁ၥࡋ࡚ࡶࡑࡢ⟅࠼ࢆཷࡅྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸௨ୖ㸪඾ᆺⓗ࡞␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ␲ၥᩥࡣ㸪⮬ၥᆺࡢ␲ၥᩥࢆ㝖ࡅࡤ㸪ᇶᮏⓗ࡟┦ᡭࡢ཯ᛂ࣭ᅇ⟅ࢆせồࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪␲ၥᩥࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁࡜ࡋ࡚཮᪉ྥᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᛶ㉁ࡣ㸪ࡑࡶࡑࡶᗈ࿌ࡢ୍᪉ྥᛶ࡜ࡎࢀࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜
ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ୖ㏙ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪ᗈ࿌ࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡣᩥᏐ࡜ࡋ࡚⾲♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ㸪᭩ࡁࡇ࡜ࡤ࡟㏆࠸≉ᚩࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ㸪␲ၥᩥࢆ౛࡟ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ୍⯡ࡢ఍ヰ࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡢᢞࡆ࠿ࡅࡿ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐ
ࡋ࡚㸪ᇶᮏⓗ࡟㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡑࡢሙ࡛ヰࡋᡭࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆ⌮ゎࡋ࡚㏉⟅ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⩏ົ࡜ࡋ࡚ồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪ᗈ࿌ࢥࣆ࣮ࡢሙྜ࡛ࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ᾘ㈝⪅㸧ࡀ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆཷࡅྲྀࡗࡓ▐㛫࠿ࡽ᫬㛫ࢆ࠿ࡅ࡚ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ࡽ㸪୍⯡ࡢ఍ヰሙ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿ༶᫬ᛶࡀ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪ᗈ࿌ࡢ

1
−361−

広告における疑問文に関する語用論的考察

ᢞࡆ࠿ࡅࡿ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ᾘ㈝⪅㸧ࡀࡑࡢሙ࡛ࡍࡄ཯ᛂࡍࡿ⩏ົࡀ࡞ࡃ㸪࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢゎ㔘࡟㝿ࡋ࡚㸪୍ᐃࡢ⮬⏤ࡸᶒ฼ࡀ௜୚ࡉࢀࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩ࠿ࡽ㸪ᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥࡣ㸪Ⓨヰࡀᖏࡧࡿ㸦᝟ሗࡲࡓࡣ⾜Ⅽࢆồࡵࡿ࡜࠸࠺㸧せồࡢຊࡀᢚไࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

3. ᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥࡢ౑⏝≧ἣ ࡇࡢ⠇࡛ࡣ㸪ᗈ࿌࡟࠾࠸࡚␲ၥᩥࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ ᮏ◊✲ࡢணഛㄪᰝ࡛ࡣ㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀዪᛶྥࡅࡢᗈ࿌ࢆ 200 ౛㸪࠾㓇ࡢᗈ࿌ࢆ 50 ౛㸪᪑⾜࡟㛵ࡍࡿᗈ࿌ࢆ
50 ౛཰㞟ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢྜィ 300 ౛ࡢᗈ࿌ࢥࣆ࣮ࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪␲ၥᩥ࡟ࡼࡿᗈ࿌⾲⌧ࡣ 20 ౛ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ ᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥ࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜㸪ࡲࡎ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆせồࡍࡿຊࡀᙅ࠸
⮬ၥᆺࡢ␲ၥᩥ㸦ձ㸧࡜⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆせồࡍࡿຊࡀᙉ࠸୍⯡␲ၥᩥ㸦ղ㸧࡜≉Ṧ␲ၥᩥ㸦ճ㸧࡟ศࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪୍⯡␲ၥᩥࡢ୰࡟㸪ྰᐃ㎡ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓྰᐃ␲ၥᩥ㸦մ㸧ࡢ౑⏝ࡶ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓࠋձ㹼մ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ⏝౛ࢆ௨ୗ࡟ᥖࡆࡿࠋ 
㸦1㸧ே⏕ࡣࠊ࡝ࡇࡲ࡛⨾ࡋࡃ࡞ࡿࡢ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺㸽㸦㈨⏕ᇽ㸧㸦2㸧࠶࡞ࡓࡢࢫ࢟ࣥࢣ࢔ᖺ㱋࡟࠶ࡗ࡚ࡲࡍ࠿㸽㸦࢝ࢿ࣎࢘㸧㸦3㸧ⱝࠎࡋࡃ࠶ࡿࡓࡵ࡟࠶࡞ࡓࡣ௒ࠊఱࢆࡣࡌࡵࡲࡍ࠿ࠋ
㸦ᒣ⏣㣴⻏ሙ㸧㸦4㸧ࡇࡢ෤ࡣᮏ≀ࡢࢧࣥࢱࢡ࣮ࣟࢫ࡜㐣ࡈࡋࡲࡏࢇ࠿ࠋ
㸦㏆␥᪥ᮏࢶ࣮ࣜࢫࢺ㸧 ࡲࡓ㸪ձ㹼մ࡜࠸࠺ᅄ✀㢮ࡢ␲ၥᩥࢆ⪃ᐹࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⏝౛ᩘࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ 5 ౛࡛࠶ࡾ㸪⏝౛ࡢศᕸࡣᆒ⾮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࡣ㸪༢࡟അ↛࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡾᚓࡿࡀ㸪ࡑࡇ࠿ࡽᗈ࿌࡟
࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥࡢ඲యⓗ࡞౑⏝≧ἣࡀ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘ❚ࢃࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ ࡞࠾㸪ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆせồࡍࡿຊࡀᙉ࠸␲ၥᩥࢆ୰ᚰ࡟㆟ㄽࢆ⾜࠸ࡓ࠸ࡢ࡛㸪⮬ၥᆺࡢ␲ၥᩥࢆ⪃ᐹᑐ㇟࠿ࡽ㝖ࡃࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆせồࡍࡿ␲ၥᩥࡣ㸪ࡑࢀࡀఱࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚༊ศ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ୍ࡘࡣ㸪᝟ሗࢆồࡵࡿࢱ࢖ࣉ㸦ゝㄒⓗせồ㸧࡛࠶ࡾ㸪௒୍ࡘࡣ㸪⾜Ⅽࢆồࡵࡿࢱ࢖ࣉ㸦㠀ゝㄒⓗせồ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥࡣ㸪ࡑࡢ⤫ㄒⓗ≉ᚩࡢࡳࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜㸪ᇶᮏⓗ࡟㸪୍⯡␲ၥᩥ࡜≉Ṧ␲ၥᩥࡣ๓⪅࡟㸪ྰᐃ␲ၥᩥࡣᚋ⪅࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࠋ

4. ᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥࡢ≉ᚩ ࡇࡢ⠇࡛ࡣ㸪ᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࢆ⾜࠺ࠋᗈ࿌࡟
࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥࡢ≉ᚩ࡜࠸࠺࡜㸪௨ୗࡢ஧Ⅼࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
4.1. ゝㄒⓗせồࡀᢚไࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜
 ➨ 2 ⠇࡛ࡶᑡࡋゐࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪ᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥࡣ㸪ᩥᏐ࡛⾲♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡋ࠿ࡶヰࡋᡭ㸦ᗈ࿌୺㸧࠿ࡽ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ᾘ㈝⪅㸧࡟ྥࡅ୍࡚᪉ⓗ࡟ఏ࠼ࡽࢀࡓ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡇ࡜ࡤ࡛཯ᛂ
ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ඲ࡃ࡞࠸࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡶࡼ࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ᗈ࿌ࡢሙྜ࡛ࡣ㸪␲ၥᩥࡢゝㄒⓗせồࡀᢚไࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ୍᪉㸪⿬ࢆ㏉ࡏࡤ㸪ᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥࡣ㸪ࡑࡶࡑࡶヰࡋᡭ㸦ᗈ࿌୺㸧࡟ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ᾘ㈝⪅㸧࡟᝟ሗࢆồࡵࡿ㸦ゝㄒⓗせồ㸧࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ࿘▱ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪ၟᴗᗈ࿌ࡢ┠ⓗࡣ㸪ᾘ㈝⪅ࡢὀពࢆᘬࡁ㸪᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ၟရࢆ㈙ࢃࡏࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ᾘ㈝⪅㸧ࡀᗈ࿌ࡢᢞࡆ࠿ࡅࡿ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡽ
ࡇ࡜ࡤ࡛㏉⟅ࡋ࡚ࡶ㸪ヰࡋᡭ㸦ᗈ࿌୺㸧ࡣࡑࡢ⟅࠼ࢆཷࡅྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡋ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ᾘ㈝⪅㸧ࡀၟရࢆ౑࠸ࡓ࠸࡜ᛮࢃ࡞࠸࡜ᗈ࿌ࡢព⩏ࡀኻࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ㏫࡟㸪⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ᾘ㈝⪅㸧ࡣ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ
࡚ࡇ࡜ࡤ࡛⟅࠼࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ㸪⮬ศࡢᚰࡢ୰࡛᥎ㄽࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚ၟရࢆ౑࠸ࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠼ࡤ㸪ᗈ࿌ࡢ┠ⓗࡀ㐩ᡂࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ ࡑࡋ࡚㸪୍⯡␲ၥᩥࡢ౛㸦2㸧࡜≉Ṧ␲ၥᩥࡢ౛㸦3㸧ࡣ㸪⾲㠃ⓗ࡟ぢࢀࡤ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟᝟ሗࢆ
ồࡵࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ᗈ࿌ࡢ┠ⓗ࡜㛵㐃ࡉࡏ࡚⪃࠼ࡿ࡜㸪ᐇ㝿ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶᾘ㈝⪅࡟ࠕၟရࢆ㈙࠺ࠖ࡜࠸

2

−362−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

࠺⾜Ⅽࢆồࡵࡿࡶࡢࡔ࡜ุ᩿࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪ᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥࡢ୰࡟㸪⾲㠃ⓗ࡟ゝㄒⓗせồࡢࡼ࠺࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࡶࡢࡣ㸪ࡑࡢ⿬㠃࡟㠀ゝㄒⓗせồࡀ₯ࢇ࡛࠾ࡾ㸪㠀ゝㄒⓗせồࡇࡑࡀࡑࢀࡽࡢ␲ၥᩥࡢṇయࡔ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
4.2. ㉁ၥࡢ⟅࠼ࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ ᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥࡣࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢ≉ᚩࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭ㸦ᗈ࿌୺㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡑࡢ⟅࠼ࡀࡍ࡛࡟
᝿ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘ᪉ྥᛶࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪౛ᩥࡢゎ㔘࠿ࡽ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ୍⯡␲ၥᩥࡢ౛㸦2㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ࠕࢫ࢟ࣥࢣ࢔ࡀᖺ㱋࡟࠶ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺࿨㢟ࡢ┿⌮್ࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀồࡵࡿ⟅࠼ࡣྰᐃࡢ࡯࠺࡟ഴࡁࢆᣢࡘࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡶࡗ࡜ࡶ㸪ᙜࡢ㉁ၥ
࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪ࠕࡣ࠸㸪⚾ࡢࢫ࢟ࣥࢣ࢔ࡣᖺ㱋࡟࠶ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠖ࡜⮬ಙ‶ࠎ࡟⟅࠼ࡿ⪺ࡁᡭࡶ࠸ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞
࠸ࡀ㸪ࡑࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣ㸪Ⓨヰゎ㔘ࡣ⤊ࢃࡾ㸪ᗈ࿌࡜ࡋ࡚ᶵ⬟ࡋ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀᙜࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕ࠶ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡏࢇࠖ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕࡑ࠺࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃࠼ࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ྰᐃࡢ⟅࠼ࢆᚰෆ࡛ᛮ࠺ሙྜ㸪᥎ㄽࡀ㐍ࡵࡽࢀ㸪᭱ᚋ࡟ࠕࡇࡢၟရࢆ౑࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⤖ㄽ࡟฿㐩ࡍࡿࠋࡑ࠺ࡋ࡚ጞࡵ࡚㸪ヰࡋᡭ㸦ᗈ࿌୺㸧ࡢ┠ⓗࡀ㐩ᡂ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ᥮ゝࡍࢀࡤ㸪ヰࡋᡭ㸦ᗈ࿌୺㸧ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ᾘ㈝⪅㸧ࡀᙜࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᜍࡽࡃྰᐃࡢ⟅࠼ࢆᛮ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆண ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡇࡢᗈ࿌ࢆసࡗࡓࡢࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ࡑࡋ࡚㸪౛㸦3㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉Ṧ␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡶ㸪⾲㠃ⓗ࡟ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀ␲ၥモࠕఱࠖ࡟ᙜࡓࡿせ⣲ࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀࡑࡢ⟅࠼ࢆࡍ࡛࡟▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪ඖࠎヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఏ࠼ࡓ࠸᝟ሗࡣ㸪ࠕⱝࠎࡋࡃ࠶ࡿࡓࡵ࡟࠶࡞ࡓࡣ௒㸪ࡇࡢၟရࢆ౑࠸ጞࡵ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ
࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜㸪ࡶࡋ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⟅࠼ࡀၟရ࡜⤖ࡧࡘ࠿࡞࠸࡜㸪ᗈ࿌ࡀᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇ
ࡢ␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀ᭱ึ࠿ࡽࡍ࡛࡟ᙜࡢ㉁ၥࡢ⟅࠼ࢆ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ࡑࢀ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ㸪␲ၥᩥࡢ⾲⌧࡛⪺ࡁᡭ࡟㉁ၥࢆᢞࡆ࠿ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᭱ᚋ࡟㸪౛㸦4㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྰᐃ␲ၥᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡿ࡜㸪ࡑࡢ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡣ⾜Ⅽࢆồࡵࡿ㸪່ㄏࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࡶ࡜࠿ࡽഴࡁࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ↓ㄽ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⟅࠼ࡀ⫯ᐃ࠿ྰᐃ࠿ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭࡀ⮬⏤࡟㑅ᢥ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀ᝿ᐃࡍࡿ⟅࠼ࡣࡸࡣࡾࠕ⫯ᐃ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾ㸪່ዡࡸㄝᚓࡢពᅗࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜
⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪౛㸦4㸧ࡣ㸪ࠕࡇࡢ෤ࡣᮏ≀ࡢࢧࣥࢱࢡ࣮ࣟࢫ࡜㐣ࡈࡋࡲࡋࡻ࠺ࠖࡢ፣᭤⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣࠕ⫯ᐃࠖࡢ⟅࠼ࢆồࡵࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺๓ᥦࡢୗ࡛㸪ᗈ࿌సࡾ࡟ᕤኵࢆࡍࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪ᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥࡣ㸪ᇶᮏⓗ࡟ヰࡋᡭࡀࡑࡢ⟅࠼ࢆ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸪࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ⟅࠼ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋࡓୖ࡛㸪㉁ၥࢆᢞࡆ࠿ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛㠀඾ᆺⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩ㸦㉁ၥࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜㸧ࡣ㸪
4.1.࡛㏙࡭ࡓࠕゝㄒⓗせồࡀᢚไࡉࢀࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡶ⤖ࡧࡘࡃ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ㸪๓⪅ࡣᚋ⪅ࢆᑟࡁฟࡍせᅉࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

5. ᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥࡢఏ㐩ຠᯝ ࡑࢀ࡛ࡣ㸪ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟␲ၥ࡟ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࢆ␲ၥ࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ຠᯝࢆࡶ
ࡓࡽࡍࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⟅࠼ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢ᥎ㄽࡢ⤒㊰ࢆ࡞ࡿ࡭ࡃᅛᐃ
ࡉࡏ㸪ࡼࡾ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆᘬࡁฟࡍ࡜࠸࠺ຠᯝࢆ≺ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪␲ၥᩥࡢሙྜ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀ࠿࡞ࡾ⮬⏤࡟᥎ㄽࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡀゎ㔘࡟ᚲせ࡞᝟ሗࢆᩥ⬦࠿ࡽ⿵࠸㸪ᩥ⬦ࡢ᚟ඖࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ゎ㔘ࡀᙧᡂࡉࢀࡿࠋᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥࢆゎ㔘ࡍࡿ㝿࡟㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡣุ᩿ࢆ௚⪅࠿ࡽᢲࡋ௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪⮬ศࡢពᛮุ࡛᩿ࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ุ᩿㸦᝿ᐃ㸧ࡣᙉ࠸ಙᛕ࡜
࡞ࡾ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⾜ືࢆㄏⓎࡍࡿᙉ࠸ືᶵ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ౛࠼ࡤ㸪౛㸦2㸧ࡣࠕࢫ࢟ࣥࢣ࢔ࡣᖺ㱋࡟ྜ࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡭ࡁࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺᝿ᐃࢆᙉࡃႏ㉳ࡍࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣ㸪᪂᝟ሗ࡜ࡋ࡚⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఏ࠼ࡽࢀ㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢୡ⏺▱㆑ࢆ᭦᪂ࡍࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡣ㸦2㸧ࡢᗈ࿌ࢆぢ࡚㸪ࡑࡢ᝟ሗࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡓୖ࡛㸪ࠕࢫ࢟ࣥࢣ࢔ࡣᖺ㱋࡟࠶࠺࡭ࡁࡔࠋЍࡑࢀ࡛⮬ศࡢሙྜࡣ࡝࠺ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࠖ࡜⪃࠼㐍ࡴࡇ
࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࠕࢫ࢟ࣥࢣ࢔ࡣᖺ㱋࡟࠶࠺࡭ࡁࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚᪂᝟ሗ࡛࠶ࡿ௨ୖ㸪ࡑ
ࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⪺ࡁᡭࡀ⮬ಙࢆᣢࡗ࡚ࠕ⫯ᐃ࡛ࠖ⟅࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾከࡃ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪ࡑࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ྰᐃࡢ⟅࠼ࢆࡍࡿሙྜࡣ㸪ࠕ⮬ศࡢࢫ࢟ࣥࢣ࢔ࡣᖺ㱋࡟࠶ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡼ࠺ࡔࠋЍᖺ㱋࡟࠶࠺ࢫ

3

−363−

広告における疑問文に関する語用論的考察

࢟ࣥࢣ࢔࡟ኚ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋЍࡇࡢၟရࡣࢫ࢟ࣥࢣ࢔࡜ᖺ㱋ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ㔜どࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ㸪ࡑࢀࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ࡶ࠸࠸ࠖ
࡜࠸࠺᥎ㄽࢆᙧᡂࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪␲ၥᩥࢆ౑࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪ୖ㏙ࡋࡓྰᐃࡢ
⟅࠼࡜ࡑࡢᚋࡢ᥎ㄽࡣ⪺ࡁᡭ⮬㌟ࡢุ᩿࡜࡞ࡿ࠿ࡽ㸪ࠕ࠶࡞ࡓࡢࢫ࢟ࣥࢣ࢔ࡣᖺ㱋࡟࠶ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡏࢇࡼࠖ
࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡼࡾ㸪᝿ᐃ㸦ಙᛕ㸧ࡀᙉ໬ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ ≉Ṧ␲ၥᩥࡢ౛㸦3㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ࡑࡢᵓ㐀ୖࡢ๓ᥦ 2 ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ࠕேࡣⱝࠎࡋࡃ࠶ࡿ࡭ࡁࡔࠖ
㸪ࡑࡋ࡚ࠕࡑࡢࡓ
ࡵ࡟࠶࡞ࡓࡣ௒ఱ࠿ࢆጞࡵࡿ࡭ࡁࡔࠖ࡜࠸࠺᝟ሗࢆ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟ఏ࠼ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣ㸪⪺ࡁᡭ࡟⮬ᕫ཯┬ࢆႏ㉳ࡉࡏࡿᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
⪺ࡁᡭࡣࡇࡢᗈ࿌ࢆぢ࡚⮬ศࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ཯┬ࡋ㸪ࠕ⮬ศࡶⱝࠎࡋࡃ࡞ࡾࡓ࠸ࠋ
Ѝࡑࡢࡓࡵ࡟ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ⾜ືࢆྲྀࡿ࡭ࡁࡔࠋЍ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾜ືࢆྲྀࢀࡤ࠸࠸ࡢ࠿ࠋЍࡇࡢၟရࡀ୍ࡘࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡞୍㈏ࡋࡓゎ㔘ࡀᡂ❧࡛ࡁࡿࠋ౛㸦2㸧࡜ྠࡌࡼ࠺࡟㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡀࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟⮬Ⓨⓗ࡟ᚓࡿ᥎ㄽ࡜␲ၥᩥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᅇ⟅ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀ㸪ᡤ୚ࡢ᥎ㄽ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡼࡾຠᯝⓗࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ࡞࠾㸪౛㸦4㸧ࡣඛࡢ஧౛࡜✀㢮ࡀ␗࡞ࡿࠋ4.2.࡛㏙࡭ࡓࡼ࠺࡟㸪ྰᐃ␲ၥᩥࡢ౛㸦4㸧࡟ࡣ່ዡ࡜ㄝᚓ
ࡢពᅗࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ㸪ヰࡋᡭࡣࡑࡢ┠ⓗࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟࠸ࢁ࠸ࢁ࡜ᕤኵࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᗈ࿌
࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕᮏ≀ࡢࢧࣥࢱࢡ࣮ࣟࢫࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡸࡸ᪂ወ࡞⾲⌧ࢆ౑࠺ࡇ࡜࡛⪺ࡁᡭࡢዲወᚰࢆࡑࡑࡿࠋ
ࠕࢧࣥࢱࢡ࣮ࣟࢫ࡜ࡣࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫࡢ๓ኪ࡟Ꮚ౪ࡓࡕ࡟㉗ࡾ≀ࢆ㓄ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ఏㄝୖࡢ⪁ே࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺▱㆑ࢆ㸪
㏻ᖖேࠎࡣᣢࡘࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࢀࡣ㸪ᐇ㝿࡟Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿே≀࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛㸪ࢧࣥࢱࢡ࣮ࣟࢫ࡜෤ࢆ㐣ࡈࡍࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࡇࡢᗈ࿌ࢆぢ࡚ࠕᮏ≀ࡢࢧࣥࢱࢡ࣮ࣟࢫ࡜ࡣఱࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ࡜⯆࿡ࢆᣢࡘࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡾ㸦⯆࿡ࡢ῝໬㸧㸪ᗈ࿌ࡢᮏᩥ࡟┠ࢆ⛣ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ࡞࠾㸪ࠕࡇࡢ෤ࡣᮏ≀ࡢࢧࣥࢱࢡ࣮ࣟࢫ࡜㐣ࡈࡋࡲࡋࡻ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᬑ㏻ࡢ່ㄏ⾲⌧ࡼࡾࡣ㸪ྰᐃ␲ၥᩥࡢ࡯࠺ࡀࡼࡾ፣᭤ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ㸪ཷಙ⪅࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽࡢせồ⛬ᗘࢆ୍ᒙపࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ

6. ࡲ࡜ࡵ ᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪ᗈ࿌࡜࠸࠺ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ≉ᚩࢆゝཬࡋࡓୖ࡛㸪ᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥࢆ୰ᚰ࡟㸪ࡑࡢ౑⏝≧ἣ㸪≉ᚩ࡜ఏ㐩ຠᯝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᗈࡃ㆟ㄽࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆせồࡍࡿ␲ၥᩥࡣ㸪஧ࡘࡢ≉ᚩࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ୍ࡘࡣ㸪ࡑࡢゝㄒⓗせồࡀᢚไࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛
࠶ࡾ㸪௒୍ࡘࡣ㸪ヰࡋᡭ࡟࠾࠸࡚㉁ၥࡢ⟅࠼ࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ␲ၥᩥࡣࡑࡢࡼ࠺
࡞≉ᚩࢆᣢࡘ௨ୖ㸪ࡑࡶࡑࡶ␲ၥ࡟ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࡞࠸ࡀ㸪ࡑ࠺ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪ヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ⟅࠼ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚㸪⪺ࡁᡭࡢ᥎ㄽࡢ⤒㊰ࢆ࡞ࡿ࡭ࡃᅛᐃࡉࡏ㸪ࡼࡾ⪺ࡁᡭࡢ཯ᛂࢆᘬࡁฟࡍ࡜࠸࠺ຠᯝࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍࡇ
࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋὀ
1 ᮏ◊✲࡛ྲྀࡾᢅ࠺ᗈ࿌ࡣ㸪୺࡟࣏ࢫࢱ࣮࡞࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞༳ๅ፹య࡟ࡼࡿᗈ࿌࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2 ࡇࡇ࡛ゝ࠺๓ᥦ࡜ࡣ㸪ᩥἲㄽ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ๓ᥦ࡛࠶ࡿࠋຍ⸨㸦2012㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜㸪ᩥἲㄽ࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕ௚ࡢᩥᵓᡂせ⣲ࡼࡾࡶ㔜せ࡞᝟ሗ࡜఩⨨௜ࡅࡽࢀࡿᩥᵓᡂせ⣲ࢆ↔Ⅼ࡜࿧ࡧ㸪↔Ⅼ௨እࡢせ⣲ࢆ๓ᥦ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ≉Ṧ␲ၥᩥ࡛ࡣ㸪␲ၥモࡀ↔Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄆࡵࡽࢀ㸪ࡑࢀ௨እࡢᩥᵓᡂせ⣲ࡣ๓ᥦ࡛࠶ࡿࠋཧ↷ᩥ⊩ຍ⸨ 㔜ᗈ㸬2012㸬ࠕࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࡜๓ᥦࠖ
ࠊ⃝⏣἞⨾㸦⦅㸧ࠗព࿡࡜ࢥࣥࢸࢡࢫࢺ࠘ ࡦࡘࡌព࿡ㄽㅮᗙ ࠊ➨ 6 ᕳࠊ39-62ࠊᮾி㸸ࡦࡘࡌ᭩ᡣ

⏝౛ฟ඾Ᏻ⏣ரᏹ ࡯࠿㸧
㸬2008㸬
ࠗ࢟ࣕࢵࢳࢥࣆ࣮࡟ぢࡿ᪑̿᪑⾜࡟㛵ࡍࡿᗈ࿌ࢥࣆ࣮1000&BEST10࠘ᮾி㸸
ᙬὶ♫

4

−364−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡜ㄒ⏝ㄽ
(Metarepresentations and Pragmatics)<abstract>
This workshop examines Metarepresenations and Pragmatics from the three different perspectives:
Speech-act Conditionals and Metarepresentations, Negation㻌 and Metarepresentations, and English Jokes
and Metarepresentations.

According to Wilson (2000), “it is worth considering them (i.e.

metarepresentational abilities) together and attempting to integrate them with an empirically plausible
pragmatic theory.”

So we shall provide some interesting metarepresentational examples in order to showthat researches based on metarepresenations are necessary for capturing the true nature of these linguistic
data.























−365−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ᮲௳ᩥ࡜࣓ࢱ⾲♧(Speech-Act Conditionals and Metarepresentations)

୰ᓥಙኵ
⏥༡኱Ꮫ

<Abstract>
Some conditionals have no causality-like relationship often understood between an antecedent andconsequent, as in If you ask me, you’re a quack. Sweetser (1990) refers to them as speech-act conditionals
because the if-clauses bear a relationship to the speech act performed in the consequent clauses, rather than
to their propositional contents. Noh (2000) shows that those conditionals accept truth-conditional treatment
if we reanalyze them in metarepresentational terms. My claim is that speech-act conditionals should beclassified into three types on the basis of the metarepresentational analysis: (i) ¶(P [Q]), (ii) ¶(P [¶Q]),(iii) ¶([¶P ][¶Q]), where the square brackets are metarepresentations.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ᮲௳ᩥࠊ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࠊᘬ⏝ࠊᐇ㊶᥎ㄽ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ⮬↛ゝㄒࡢ᮲௳ᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ୍⯡࡟ࠊ᮲௳⠇࡜ᖐ⤖⠇࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣఱࡽ࠿ࡢ͂⮬↛࡞̓㛵ಀࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊḟࡢ᮲௳ᩥ࡛ࡣ᮲௳⠇࡜ᖐ⤖⠇ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣ୍✀ࡢᅉᯝ㛵ಀࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ

(1) If you work hard, you will pass your exams.
࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛࡛ࡣࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶぢ࠿ࡅୖࡣࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ⮬↛࡞㛵ಀࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ

(2)

Al: If you ask me, you’re a quack.

Willie: If I was a duck I would ask you…Now roll up your sleeve, I wanna takesome blood.

(N. Simon The Sunshine Boys)ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᮲௳ᩥࢆࠊGeis and Lycan (2001) ࡣ‘nonconditional conditionals’࡜࿧ࡧࠊࡑࡢ≉ᚩࢆ⣽࠿ࡃㄪ࡭ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊSweetser (1990)ࡣࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ᮲௳ᩥ࡛ࡣࠊ᮲௳⠇ࡣᖐ⤖⠇ࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜ࡍࡿ༑ศ᮲௳ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋࠊⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ᮲௳ᩥ(speech-act conditional)࡜࿧ࢇࡔࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
Noh (2000)ࡣࠊ࣓ࢱ⾲♧(metarepresentation)࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ศᯒࡋࠊ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡜࠸࠺⾲♧ࡢ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝぢࡿ࡜ࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ᮲௳ᩥࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶᐇ㉁ྵព(material implication)ࢆ⾲ࡍ᮲௳ᩥ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋ

−367−

発話行為条件文とメタ表示 ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ᮲௳ᩥࢆ㸱ࡘࡢ✀㢮࡟ศ㢮ᩚ⌮ࡋࠊNoh ࡢ࠸࠺࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆヲࡋࡃ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⪃ᐹࡣࠊ᮲௳ᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣ࠸ࢃࡺࡿᘬ⏝(quotation)ࡢゝⴥ㐵࠸࡜㐃⥆ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢᘏ㛗ୖ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࢆᇶᮏ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
2. Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ᮲௳ᩥࡢ㸱ࡘࡢ✀㢮 ࡲࡎ⪃ᐹࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ᮲௳ᩥࢆࠊSweetser ࡢ⏝ㄒࢆ೉ࡾ࡚ࠊⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ᮲௳ᩥ࡜࿧ࡪࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡣࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ᮲௳ᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࡀ࠸ࡎࢀࡶⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࢆ⾲ࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋศ㢮ࡢ㸯ࡘࡢᇶ‽࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊDeclerck and Reed (2001)࡟ࡼࡿ㛤᮲௳⠇(open-P clause)࡜㛢᮲௳⠇(closed-P
clause)ࡢ༊ูࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࠋ㛤᮲௳⠇ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࠕࡤࠖࠊࠕࡓࡽࠖࠊࠕ࡜ࠖ࡞࡝ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ᮲௳ᩥࡢ᮲௳
⠇࡟ᑐᛂࡋࠊ㛢᮲௳⠇ࡣࠊࠕࢼࣛࠖࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ᮲௳⠇࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿࠋࡶ࠺㸯ࡘࡢᇶ‽࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊVan derAuwera (1986)ࡢศᯒ࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡑࡢⓎヰࡢຊࡢ᥃࠿ࡾ᪉ࢆཧ↷ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ㸰ࡘࡢᇶ‽ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ࡜ࠊⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ᮲௳ᩥࡣ௨ୗࡢ i), (ii), (iii)ࡢ㸱ࡘ࡟ศ㢮࡛ࡁࡿࠋ(i) ᮲௳⠇ࡀ㛤(open-P)࡛ࠊᖐ⤖⠇ࡀⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ:(3) a. Mitch recrossed his legs. Money, that was the big question, particularly how it
compared to his other offers. If it isn’t enough, thought Mitch, then it was nice tomeet you fellas.

(J. Grisham The Firm)b. If it isn’t enough, then [I will say that it was nice to meet you fellas].
(3a)ࡣࠊ᮲௳⠇ࡣ㛤᮲௳⠇࡛ࠊᖐ⤖⠇ࡣ(3b)ࡢ[ ]ෆࡢࡼ࠺࡞࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋⓎヰࡢຊࡣࠊ୺ᙇᆺ(¶)࡛ࠊࡑࡢⓎヰࡢຊࡢ᥃࠿ࡾලྜࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(4) ¶(P  I will say Q)(ii) ᮲௳⠇ࡀ㛤(open-P)࡛ࠊᖐ⤖⠇࡛ࡣⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡀᐇ⾜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ:(5) a. If I may say so, that’s a crazy idea.
b. If I may say so, I say [that’s a crazy idea].
(5a)ࡢ᮲௳⠇ࡣࠊ㛤᮲௳⠇࡛ࠊᖐ⤖⠇ࡣࡑࢀ⮬㌟ࡢⓎヰࡢຊࢆᣢࡕࠊ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(i)㢮࡜ྠࡌࡃࠊ᮲௳ᩥ඲య࡟ࡶ୺ᙇࡢⓎヰࡢຊࡀ᥃࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࠊⓎヰࡢຊࡣࠊḟ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ᖐ⤖⠇࡟᥃࠿ࡿຊ࡜᮲௳ᩥ඲య࡟᥃࠿ࡿຊࡢ㸰ࡘࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
(6) ¶(P ¶Q)
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨヰࡢຊࡢ᥃࠿ࡾ᪉ࡣࠊḟࡢᖐ⤖⠇ࡀ㐙⾜ᩥ(performative sentence)࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ᮲௳ᩥ࡟ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿ(Declerk and Reed (2001: 371)ࡢ౛)ࠋ

(7) a. If she takes part in the race, I bet she comes in last.

−368−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

b. If my niece comes to the party I {ask/beg/warn} you to stay away from her.
ࡓࡔࡋࠊ(7)ࡢ౛࡛ࡣࠊ᮲௳⠇ࡢ᮲௳ࡀ‶ࡓࡉࢀ࡚ึࡵ࡚ᖐ⤖⠇ࡢⓎヰࡢຊࡣຠຊࢆⓎ᥹ࡍࡿࡀࠊ
(5a)ࡢᖐ⤖⠇ࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡣࠊ᮲௳ᩥⓎヰ࡜ྠ᫬࡟㐙⾜ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᚑࡗ࡚ࠊⓎヰࡢຠຊࡶⓎ᥹ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ(iii) ᮲௳⠇ࡀ㛢(closed-P)࡛ࠊᖐ⤖⠇࡛ࡣⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡀᐇ⾜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ:(8) a. Deborah Kerr: If you’re looking for the captain, he isn’t here.

(From Here To Eternity)b. If it is true [you’re looking for the captain], I tell you [he isn’t here].
(8a)ࡢ᮲௳ᩥࡣࠊ᮲௳⠇ࡀ㛢࡛௚⪅ࡢⓎゝ࡜࠿ᛮ⪃ࢆ࢚ࢥ࣮ࡋࠊ࿨㢟ෆᐜࡀ┿࡛࠶ࡿ࡜᝿ᐃ
(assume)ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Declerk and Reed (2001, 4.2.4)ࠋᖐ⤖⠇ࡣࠊ(ii)㢮ࡢ᮲௳ᩥ࡜ྠࡌࡃࠊⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡀ㐙⾜ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀ⮬㌟ࡢⓎヰࡢຊࢆᣢࡘࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊ᮲௳⠇࡜ᖐ⤖⠇ࡢ୧᪉ࡀⓎヰࡢຊࢆᣢࡕࠊࡑࡢ᥃࠿ࡾලྜࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ

(9)¶([¶P ][¶Q])

ࡇࡇ࡛ P ࡢෆᐜࡣ Q ࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜ࡍࡿ᮲௳࡞࠸ࡋࡣ⌮⏤ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ(iii)㢮࡛ࡣࠊ᮲௳⠇࡜ᖐ⤖⠇ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3. ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࡢ⏕ᡂ ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊ2 ⠇࡛♧ࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡞࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚⏕ᡂࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࢆぢ࡚࠾ࡃࠋࡲࡎࠊ(i)㢮ࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ᮲௳ᩥ࡛ࡣࠊᖐ⤖⠇ࡀ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣࠊఏ㐩㒊ࡀ᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡔ
ࡅ࡛ࠊ㏻ᖖࡢ㛫᥋ヰἲࡢ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡜ྠࡌ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
(10) If it isn’t enough, then [I will say that it was nice to meet you fellas]. = (3b)(ii)㢮࡛ࡶࠊᖐ⤖⠇ࡀ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ⊂❧ࡋࡓⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡀ㐙⾜ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࢆ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡜ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ
(11) If I may say so, I say [that’s a crazy idea].

= (8b)

ȱ¶I say [that’s a crazy idea].
ࡇࡢሙྜࠊ㐙⾜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ୺ᙇ⾜Ⅽࡢ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࡀᖐ⤖⠇࡜ࡋ࡚ᇙࡵ㎸ࡲࢀࡿ௙⤌ࡳ࡟ࡣࠊᘏ㛗┤♧(deferred ostension)࡜ࡋ୍࡚⯡࡟▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ┤♧⾜Ⅽࡀ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ(Nunberg(1978), Quine (1969))ࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊᖐ⤖⠇ࡢⓎヰࡣࠊ୺ᙇ⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜ࡍࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࡑࡢ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࢆ඲యࡢ᮲௳㒊࡟౪⤥ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺஧㔜ࡢാࡁࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 (iii)㢮ࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ᮲௳ᩥ࡛ࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᐇ㊶ⓗ᥎ㄽ(practical inference)ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ(㯮⏣(1992))ࠋ

−369−

発話行為条件文とメタ表示(12) ᐇ㊶᥎ㄽ
኱๓ᥦ㸸If anyone looks for X, tell him where X is.
ᑠ๓ᥦ㸸Burt is looking for the captain.
⤖ㄽ㸸

Debora says that he is not here. (Speech Act)ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᑠ๓ᥦ࡜⤖ㄽ࡛㐙⾜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀ᮲௳⠇࡜ᖐ⤖⠇ࡢ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡜ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

(13) If it is true [you’re looking for the captain], I tell you [he isn’t here].
ȱ= (8b)

ȱ¶ it is true [you are looking for him]

¶I say [he is not here]ࡇࡇ࡛ࡶࠊ᮲௳⠇࡜ᖐ⤖⠇ࡢⓎヰࡣࠊ୺ᙇ⾜Ⅽࢆ㐙⾜ࡍࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࡑࡢ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࢆ඲యࡢ᮲௳㒊࡟౪⤥ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺஧㔜ࡢാࡁࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸦ᮏⓎ⾲ࡢヲ⣽ࡣࠊ୰ᓥ(2014)࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࠋ㸧ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Declerck, R. and S. Reed. 2001. Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis,
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geis, M. L. and W. G. Lycan .2001. “Nonconditional Conditionals,” in Lycan
2001. Real Conditionals, 184-205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
㯮⏣ர.1992.ࠗ⾜Ⅽ࡜つ⠊࠘ᮾி㸸ວⲡ᭩ᡣ
୰ᓥಙኵ.2014. ࠕⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ᮲௳ᩥ(speech-act conditionals)࡜࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࠖࠗ⏥༡኱Ꮫ⣖せ࠘
ᩥᏛ⦅ 164, 49-58.
Noh, Eun-Ju .2000. Metarepresentation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Nunberg, G. 1978. The Pragmatics of Reference, Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics
Club.
Quine, W. V. 1969. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York: Columbia University
Press.
Sperber, D.2000. Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sweetser, E. E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of
Semantic Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tedeschi, P. J. 1974 “Some Aspects of Conditional Sentence Pragmatics,” in R. W.Fasold and R.
W. Shuy (eds.) Studies in Language Variation, 136-151. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University
Press.
Van der Auwera, J. 1986. “Conditionals and Speech Acts,” in E. C. Traugott et al (eds.) On
Conditionals, 197-214.
Wilson, D.2000. “Metarepresentaion in Linguistic Communication,” in D. Sperber .2000,
411-448.


−370−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ྰᐃ࡜࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚  ஬༑ᔒ ᾏ ⌮㱟㇂኱Ꮫ igarashi@soc.ryukoku.ac.jp<Abstract>
This paper deals with expressions of denial that do not contain explicit negation. Expressions such as X, myfoot, Like hell X, and Fuck if X all deny what has been asserted (or implied) in the preceding discourse, but
no serious attempt has been made to address the questions of how these expressions work to deny it. I claimthat (i) they involve metarepresentation; (ii) the intensity associated with the expressions induces thedissociative attitude to what is metarepresented. I also touch upon the use of like as a similarity marker,
which when used ironically expresses a denial.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚ ྰᐃࠊྰㄆࠊࢱࣈ࣮ㄒࠊ࣓ࢱ⾲♧1㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ✏ࡣ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࢆ⏝࠸࡞ࡀࡽྰᐃࢆ⾲ࡍⱥㄒࡢྰㄆࡢ⾲⌧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ➹⪅ࡢࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ◊✲ࢆᴫほࡍࡿ࡜ඹ࡟ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ like ࡟⠇ࡀᚋ⥆ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ඛ⾜ࡍࡿ๓ゝࢆ࣓ࢱⓗ࡟ྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡚ྰㄆࡍࡿ⏝ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ㸰㸬࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃ
ᚑ᮶࠿ࡽࡢෆ㒊ྰᐃ(グ㏙ྰᐃ)࡜እ㒊ྰᐃ(࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃ)ࡢ༊ูࡀ Horn (1989)࡛ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ஧⩏ᛶ࡜࠸࠺ᙧ࡛ゎỴࡉࢀࡓࡀࠊGuerts (1998)࡛ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ✀ࡢྵពࡀ࠿࠿ࢃࡿⅬ࡛๓ᥦࡢྰㄆ(࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃ)ࡣ࿨㢟ࡢྰㄆ(グ㏙ྰᐃ)࡟ఝ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⾲⌧ࡢ౑⏝ࡢ㐺ษᛶ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ᙧᘧࡢྰ
ㄆ࡜᥎ពࡢྰㄆ(࡝ࡕࡽࡶ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃ)࡜ࡀఝ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᅗ 1 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྰㄆࡢศ㢮ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
㸦ࠕྰㄆࠖ࡜ࡣ van der Sandt (1991)࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊඛ⾜Ⓨヰ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚␗㆟ࢆ⏦ࡋ❧࡚ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࿨㢟ࡢᴟᛶࢆ཯㌿ࡉࡏࡿࠕྰᐃࠖ࡜ࡣ༊ูࡉࢀࡿࠋ㸧ᅗ 1. ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃࡢ఩⨨࡙ࡅ Geurts (1998) 㸦౛ᩥࡶྠㄽᩥࡼࡾ㸧
Propositional (Content) Denial

Presupposition Denial(1) A: The cook is guilty.
B: The cook is not guilty.

(2) The king of France is not bald – (because) there isno king of France.

Implicature Denial

Form Denial(3) Around here, we don’t like coffee, we love it.

(4) Ruth Ellis wasn’t the last woman to be hung in the
UK – she was the last woman to be hanged.

㸱㸬ࢱࣈ࣮⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡿྰㄆ
๓⠇ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ not ࡟ࡼࡿྰㄆࡣࠊࢱࣈ࣮⾲⌧࡟ࡼࡿྰㄆ࡛ࡶྠᵝ࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀࠊmy foot!ࡢࡼ࠺࡞
⾲⌧ࡣඛ⾜ࡍࡿⓎヰࢆᘬ⏝㸦࣓ࢱ⾲♧㸧ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊࡑࢀࢆྰㄆࡍࡿാࡁࢆࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ⾲⌧ࡣ(1)(2)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࿨㢟ࡢྰㄆࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎ᥎ពࡢྰㄆ࡟ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ஬༑ᔒ(2009a, b)࡛♧ࡋࡓ࡜࠾ࡾ

−371−

否定とメタ表示をめぐって

࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ࡯࠿࡟ࡶࠊᇶᮏⓗ࡟(1)ࡢ࿨㢟ࡢྰㄆࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ(7)(8)ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౛ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇ
ࢀࡽ 3 ࡘࡢ⾲⌧ࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊ(9)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
(5) A: She says she’s too busy to see you.
B: Busy, my foot! She simply doesn’t want to.

(ࠗࢪ࣮ࢽ࢔ࢫⱥ࿴኱㎡඾࠘)(6) A: Some men are chauvinists.
(஬༑ᔒ 2009a: 6)1

B: Some, my foot! All men are chauvinists.
(7) “It was signed?” Markby interrupted sharply.
“Like hell it was!
(8) Ed Masry:

Of course it wasn’t.”(BNC)2  (஬༑ᔒ 2010)

I’m trying to help.

Erin Brockovich:㻌 Bullshit!

You’re trying to make yourself feel less guilty about firing someone

with 3 kids to feed.

Fuck if I’m gonna help you do that.

… Get back towork! 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ᫎ⏬࢚࣭ࠗࣜࣥࣈࣟࢥࣅࢵࢳ࠘ࡼࡾ 3(9) a. [A, X]

A, my foot / my eye!

b. [X (,) A]

Like hell / fudge(,) A!

c. [X if A]

Fuck / Hell if A!

ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࢱࣈ࣮ㄒ࡟ࡼࡿྰㄆ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊNapoli and Hoeksema (2009)࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶほᐹࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᙼࡽ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊࡇࢀࡽࢆ(12)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ I believe ࡢ୰࡟ᇙࡵ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣ The hell I
will ࡣヰࡋᡭࡀඛ⾜Ⓨヰ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᙉࡃ཯ᑐࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺᫂♧ⓗ࡞ែᗘࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ㛫᥋ⓗ࡞ᛮ⪃ࡢ⾲♧ࡢୗ࡟ࡣ⌧ࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡲࡓࠊVandelanotte (2012: 177)ࡀ㏙࡭ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ㛫ᢞモ
ࡣ㏻ᖖࡣ that ⠇࡟ࡣ⌧ࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜࡜ࠊThe hell ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢱࣈ࣮ㄒࡶ㛫ᢞモࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᙉ࠸ឤ
᝟ࢆ⾲ࡍㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡣᩚྜⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
(10) Emphatic denial
a. The {hell/fuck} I will.

b. The devil he is.

c. Like hell (she does).

(11) Emphatic affirmation/denial with explicit yes/no: Hell yes! / Fuck no! / Shit yeah!
(12) Response to another statement; no embedding allowed
A: I hear you’re going to marry a Norwegian woman.
B: (*I believe that) The hell I will.

((10)-(12): Napoli and Hoeksema 2009: 630-631)

Napoli and Hoeksema (2009)ࡢᵓᩥㄽⓗ᥋㏆ἲ࡛ࡣࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࢱࣈ࣮ㄒ࡟ࡼࡿྰㄆࡣࡑࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᙉࡉࢆຍ࠼ࡿാࡁࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡐࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࡀᚲせ࡟࡞ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
(9)ࡢࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⾲⌧ࡀࠊA ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡿ࿨㢟࡜ࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᙉ࠸஋㞳ⓗែᗘ(dissociative attitude:
Wilson 2006)ࢆ⾲⌧ࡍࡿ஦࡛ࠊඛ⾜Ⓨヰࡢྰㄆࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸲㸬┤᥋ᘬ⏝ࢆ⾲ࡍ(be) like ࠿ࡽ Like ࡟ࡼࡿྰㄆ࡬㸸㢮ఝᛶ࡜࢔࢖ࣟࢽ࣮
Be like ࡜࠸࠺ẚ㍑ⓗ᪂ࡋ࠸ᘬ⏝ᙧᘧ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ᪤࡟ Romaine and Lange (1991)࡞࡝ከࡃࡢ◊✲ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ(13)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ Like ࢆᩥ㢌࡟⨨࠸࡚ඛ⾜Ⓨヰ(࠿ࡽ᝿ᐃࡉࢀࡿ࿨㢟)ࢆྰㄆࡍࡿ⏝ἲ

−372−

第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ࢆほᐹࡍࡿࠋ
(13) Cuddy: There’s no way out of this. You might as well get it over with as fast as you can, likeripping off a Band-aid.
House: Only instead of a two-cent piece of tape and gauze, it’s a human being.

……(13a)Cuddy: Like you care. …….(13b)House: Like you don’t.

……(13c)(The elevator door opens)
Cuddy: You have a week.

Get it done.

(Dr House, Season 1 Episode 16, 00:48:00)

ேࢆே࡜ࡶᛮࢃ࡞࠸ House ࡢ⌋ࡋࡃ௚ேࢆ៖ࡿⓎゝ(13a)࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕࡲࡿ࡛ᚰ㓄ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡳࡓ࠸ࡡࠖ
(13b)࡜ᛂࡌࡿ Cuddy ࡔࡀࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ Cuddy ࡣ House ࡟ࠕࡁࡳࡇࡑࡲࡿ࡛ᚰ㓄ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡳࡓ
࠸ࡔ࡞ࠖ(13c)࡜ゝ࠸㏉ࡍሙ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(13b, c)ࡢព࿡ࡍࡿ࡜ࡇࢁࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ㏫࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ Likeࢆᩥ㢌࡟⨨ࡃ࡜ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゎ㔘ࡀྍ⬟࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡲࡎ Meehan (1991)ࡢ OED ㄪᰝ࡟ࡼࡿ like ࡢṔྐⓗⓎᒎࢆࡳ࡚ࡳࡿࠋ
ᅗ 2 Meehan (1991: 49)࡟ࡼࡿ OED ㄪᰝ㸸like ࡢព࿡࣭⏝ἲࡢⓎᒎ
Similar to (1300)
Approximately (1590)
Focus like (1959)(14) That sounded(15) I wanted it like about this(16) She like covered thelike a lecture.
short.
mirror.
As if (1386)
Quote like (1960+)(17) Like you could afford the(18) I’m like “What’s goinghouse I want.
on here?”For example (1886)(19) You go through a text like a
Shakespearean play.

ࡘࡲࡾࠊ㢮ఝࡢព࿡(14)ࡀࠕ࠶ࡓ࠿ࡶࠖ(17)ࡢព࿡࡟⛣⾜ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡀ(13)࡛ぢࡽࢀࡿ like ࡢ⏝ἲࡢࡶ࡜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜᥎ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊRomaine and Lange (1991: 243)࡛ࡣ like ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ
ヰࡋᡭࡣⓎヰࡸᛮ⪃࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡼࡾࢥ࣑ࢵࢺࡋ࡞࠸❧ሙࢆྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ Vandelanotte
and Davidse (2009)࡛ࡣ(20)(21)ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢥ࣑ࢵࢺ࣓ࣥࢺࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜୍࡛✀ࡢぢࡏ᥃ࡅ࣭ᶍೌ࡟࡞ࡗ
࡚࠸ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ
(20) a quote is by its very nature non-committal and the focus use as in it was like gross also involves
at least a rhetorical pretence (for hedging purposes) of lack of exactness(Vandelanotte andDavidse 2009: 794)
(21) Be like announces that a partial imitation will be given of what the represented speaker said.
(Vandelanotte and Davidse 2009: 796)
ࡘࡲࡾࠊLike ࡣ㒊ศⓗ࡞ᶍೌ࡛ࠊṇ☜࡛࡞ࡃࠊࢥ࣑ࢵࢺࡶࡋ࡚࡞࠸ࠊぢࡏ᥃ࡅ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ

−373−

否定とメタ表示をめぐって

⾲♧ᑐ㇟࡜ࠕ㊥㞳ࠖࢆ࡜ࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡀྰᐃⓗ࡞ព࿡࡬⧅ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ྰㄆࡢព࿡ࡣ non-detachable ࡛࠶ࡾࠊas if ࡛ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࠿ࡽࠊࡇࡢྰㄆࡣ఍ヰࡢ᥎ព࡟ࡼ
ࡾᑟ࠿ࢀࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(22) Serena shook her head. “Ladies mature far faster than gentlemen, Phoebe. A lady at seventeen isripening for marriage. A man, however, requires at least another ten years to reach that point.”“And how would you know?” Phoebe scoffed. “As if you can claim to know anything aboutmen, Meg.”(COCA: Haymore, Jennifer, Confessions of an improper bride, 2011.)ὀ* ᮏ✏ࡢෆᐜࡢ୍㒊ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍(2009), IPrA (2009, 2011), JCLA (2010), TwiFULL3(Mar. 2013), ⱥㄒㄒἲᩥἲ
ࢭ࣑ࢼ࣮(Aug. 2013)ཱྀ࡛㢌Ⓨ⾲ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓཧ⪃ᩥ⊩࡟ᣲࡆࡓ➹⪅ࡢㄽᩥ࡜ࡶ୍㒊㔜」ࡍࡿࠋ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࢆ௻⏬
ࡋࡓᮾ᳃໏ඛ⏕ࠊ୰ᓥಙኵඛ⏕ࠊࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆୗࡉࡗࡓᐑ⃝Ὀᙪඛ⏕ࠊෆ⏣⪷஧ඛ⏕ࠊᒣཱྀ἞ᙪඛ⏕࡟ឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡿࠋ
1. స౛࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡿ James Brown ඛ⏕ࠊSimon Rosati ඛ⏕ࡢࢳ࢙ࢵࢡࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2. Horn (1989: 402)࡛ࡣࠊLike hell, I {still love you / *love you anymore}.ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ Like hell ࡟ᚋ⥆ࡍࡿ⎔ቃ࡛ࡣ
anymore ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྰᐃᴟᛶ㡯┠ࡀㄆྍࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊLike hell ࡣ࣓ࢱゝㄒྰᐃ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋᐇ౛
ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡀ࿨㢟ࡢྰㄆ࡟࠶ࡓࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓస౛࡟ࡼࡿࢳ࢙ࢵࢡࡶ⾜࠼࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ࿨㢟ࡢྰㄆ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3. ື⏬㸸http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-l7tMJb74Jh7Yn/erin_brockovich_2000_erin_gets_fired/ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Geurts, B. 1998. “The Mechanisms of Denial.” Language 74, 274-307.
Horn, L. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
஬༑ᔒᾏ⌮. 2009a. ࠕMy N ࡟ࡼࡿᣄ⤯ࠖࠗභ⏥ⱥㄒᏛ◊✲࠘➨ 11 ྕ, 1-15.
஬༑ᔒᾏ⌮. 2009b. ࠕFather My Eye!: ྰᐃࢆ⾲ࡍᵓᩥࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ⏝ㄽᏛ఍➨ 11 ᅇ኱఍Ⓨ⾲ㄽᩥ㞟࠘,245-248.
Igarashi, K. 2010. “’Like Hell’ and Polarity Reversal.” JCLA 10, 44-54.
Igarashi, K. 2011. “Objection, Negation and Particles.” Paper presented at Workshop “Discourse Structure
and Implicatures,” 23-25 February 2011, Gottingen, Germany.
Meehan, T. 1991. “It’s Like, ‘What’s Happening in the Evolution of Like?’: A Theory ofGrammaticalization.” Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 16, 37-51.
Napoli, D. J. and J. Hoeksema. 2009. “The Grammatical Versatility of Taboo Terms.” Studies in Language33, 612-643.
Romaine, S. and D. Range. 1991. “The Use of Like as a Marker of Reported Speech and Thought: A Caseof Grammaticalization in Progress.” American Speech 66:3, 227-279.
van der Sandt, R. 1991. “Denial.” CLS 27: Parasession on Negation, 331-344.
Vandelanotte, L. and K. Davidse. 2009. “The Emergence and Structure of Be Like and Related Quotatives:
A Constructional Account.” Cognitive Linguistics 20:4, 777-807.
Vandelanotte, L. 2012. “Quotative Go and Be Like.” In: I. Buchstaller and I. Van Alphen (eds.) Quotatives.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wilson, D. 2006. “The Pragmatics of Verbal Irony: Echo or Pretence?” Lingua 116, 1722-1743.

−374−第16回大会発表論文集第９号

ⱥㄒࢪ࣮ࣙࢡ࡜࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚
(English Jokes and Metarepresentations)ᮾ᳃໏㱟㇂኱Ꮫ<abstract>
This paper argues that a cognitive pragmatics (i.e. relevance-theoretic) account can provide a goodtool for explaining how metalinguistic jokes are understood: A joke question can be interpreted as a realworld situation, but the answer goes into a metalingustic world, so humorous cognitive effects come fromthe two different processings by the speaker and the hearer. As for metalinguistic jokes, the hearer has toprocess more than one meaning in the joke question, and this generally involves additional processing
effort. Jokes are favored in exchange for an increase in humorous effects.
࣮࣮࠙࢟࣡ࢻࠚࢪ࣮ࣙࢡࠊ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࠊ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࠊ㢮ఝᛶ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣⱥㄒࢪ࣮ࣙࢡ◊✲࡛ Muschard(1999),Yus(2003)(2008),Higashimori(2009),
ᮾ᳃(2011), Goatly(2012)ࢆࡉࡽ࡟㐍ᒎࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵࠊ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࡢ◊✲ࡀᚲせ࡛ࠊᙧᘧࡢ㢮ఝᛶࠊព࿡
ෆᐜࡢ㢮ఝᛶࠊ᥎ពࢆ௓ࡋࡓゎ㔘ⓗ㢮ఝᛶࡲ࡛ࢆ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟ࡼࡾ᳨ウࡋࡓࠋ㡢ࡢ㢮ఝᛶ࠿ࡽᩥ
Ꮠࡸࢫ࣌ࣝࡢ㢮ఝᛶ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ௨ୗࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(1)What is the best key to get at Christmas ? A turkey!
(2)What’s orange and sounds like a parrot?—A carrot.—Goatly (2012:9)(1)ࡢ㉁ၥࡢ⾲♧ࡣ㸺ලయୡ⏺ࡢ⾲♧(actual world representation㸼࡛ࡣࠕࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫ࡟ᡭ࡟ධࢀࡿ᭱
㧗ࡢ㘽(key)ࡣ࡞࠶࡟㸽ࠖ࡜࡞ࡿࡀࠊࢪ࣮ࣙࢡ࡛ࡣ㸺ゝㄒⓗ࡞⾲♧㸦linguistic representation㸧㸼ࠕࢡࣜࢫ࣐ࢫ࡟ᡭ࡟ධࢀࡿ᭱㧗ࡢ key ࡣ࡞࠶࡟㸽ࠖ ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ⟅࠼ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡣࠊ࣓ࢱゝㄒࡢୡ⏺࡟⾜ࡁ turkey㸦୐㠃㫽㸧࡜ࠊkey, turkey ࡢࢫ࣌ࣜࣥࢢ࡜㡢ኌࡢ㢮ఝᛶ(resemblance)࡟ࡓ࡝ࡾ╔ࡃ࡜ṇゎ࡜࡞ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ࣓ࢱゝㄒⓗ࡞⾲♧ࢆ୺࡟ࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒࡋࠊࢪ࣮ࣙࢡ⌮ゎࡣࠊලయୡ⏺ࡢ⾲♧࡜࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡜ࡢࡎࢀ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ⏕ࡌࡿ࡜ศᯒࡍࡿࠋ(2)࡛ࡣලయୡ⏺ࡢ⾲♧࡛ࡣࠕ࢜ࣞࣥࢪⰍ࡛࣒࢜࢘
ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㡪ࡁࡢ࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡞࠶࡟࡛࣓ࠖࢱ⾲♧ࡢゝㄒⓗ⾲♧࡛ࡣࠕ࢜ࣞࣥࢪⰍ࡛ࠊparrot ࡜㡢ࡀఝ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡞࠶࡟࡛ࠖࠊ⟅࠼ࡣ࣓ࢱゝㄒⓗ⾲♧࡛㡢ኌⓗ㢮ఝᛶࡢ carrot ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ᝿ᐃ㸦㸻▱㆑㸧࡛ேཧࡣ࢜ࣞࣥࢪⰍ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㡢ࡀ parrot, carrot ࡛ࡣ arrot ࡢ㒊ศࡀඹ㏻࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺㢮ఝᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢゝㄒⓗ⾲♧࡟ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࢃࡊࡢᘬ⏝㸦quotation㸧࠿ࡽᩥἲ⏝ㄒ(technical terms)ࡢព࿡ࡲ࡛ᖜࡀ࠶ࡿ㸸(3) If ignorance is bliss, an intelligent test is certainly a waste of time.--㔛୰(2008:69㸧
(4) Prepositions shouldn’t be used to end sentences with.ʊʊ㔛୰(2008:90)

−375−

英語ジョークとメタ表示をめぐって(3)࡛ࡣ ignorance is bliss ࡣࡇ࡜ࢃࡊࡢᘬ⏝࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࠕ▱ࡽࡠࡀ௖ࠖࡢព࿡࡜ࠊᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢලయୡ⏺ࡢ⾲♧ࠕ↓▱ࡀ᭱㧗ࠖࡢព࿡࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘࡟ࡎࢀࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࢪ࣮ࣙࢡゎ㔘࡛ࡣࠊᚋ⪅ࡢᩥ
Ꮠ㏻ࡾࡢලయୡ⏺ࡢ⾲♧ࠕ↓▱ࡀ᭱㧗ࠖ࡜ࠊᚋ௳ࡢࠕ▱⬟ࢸࢫࢺࡣ☜࠿࡟᫬㛫ࡢ↓㥏࡛࠶ࡿࠖࡀ
ࡘ࡞ࡀࡾ⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿࠋ๓௳ࡢ ignorance is bliss ࢆࡇ࡜ࢃࡊࡢᘬ⏝ࠊࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡜⌮ゎࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ࣏࢖ࣥࢺ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ(4)࡛ࡣᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢព࿡࡛ࡣࠕ๓⨨モࡣᩥᮎ࡟౑⏝ࡋ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡅ࡞࠸࡛ࠖ࠶
ࡿࡀࠊⱥㄒࡢᩥࡣ๓⨨モࡢ with ࡛ᩥᮎࡀ⤊ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᚋ⪅ࡢ⾲♧ࡀゝㄒⓗ⾲♧㸦࣓ࢱ⾲♧㸧
࡛ࠊ(4)ࡢ๓⨨モࡢᐃ⩏㸦࣓ࢱ⾲♧㸧࡜ࠊᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢព࿡࡜ࡢࡎࢀࡀࡇࡢᐃ⩏ࡢࢪ࣮ࣙࢡ(Definition
Jokes)ࢆ࠾ࡶࡋࢁࡃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ศᯒ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(5)If all the world’s a stage, where do the audience sit.—Goatly(2012:262)
all the world’s a stage ࡣ Shakespeare ࡢᘬ⏝㸦࣓ࢱ⾲♧㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ゎ㔘ࠕࡇࡢୡࡣࡎ࡭࡚
⯙ྎ࡛࠶ࡿࠖࡢព࡜ࠊᩥᏐ㏻ࡾࡢゎ㔘ࠕࡇࡢୡࡣࡍ࡭࡚⯙ྎࠖࡢලయୡ⏺ࡢព࡛ࠊᚋ⪅ࡢゎ㔘ࢆࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᚋ௳ࡢࠕ⫈⾗ࡣ࡝ࡇ࡟ࡍࢃࡿࡢࠖࡀࡘ࡞ࡀࡗ࡚⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ๓௳ࡀ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡛࡞࠸ゎ㔘ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࢪ࣮ࣙࢡࡢㄞࡳ࡟⮳ࡿࠋ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮ࡢᘬ⏝࡜࠸࠺࣓ࢱ⾲♧⌮ゎ࡜⌧ᐇୡ⏺ࡢ⌮ゎ࡜ࡢࡎࢀࡢ⌮ゎ࠿ࡽࢪ࣮ࣙࢡゎ㔘࡟⮳ࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(6) Teacher: “Name three collective nouns.”
Little Jonny: “Waste basket, vacuum cleaner and garbage truck.” —Tibballs(2012:480)ᑓ㛛⏝ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ collective nouns ࡣࠕ㞟ྜྡモࠖࡢព࿡࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊලయୡ⏺ࡢ⾲♧࡛ࡣࠕࡈࡳࢆ㞟ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡍࡿྡモࠖࡢព࿡࡜࡞ࡾࠊ୧⪅ࡢࡎࢀࡀࠊࢪ࣮ࣙࢡࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡍࡁࡗ࠿ࡅ
࡜࡞ࡾࠊ⏕ᚐࡢ⟅࠼ࡀࠕࢦ࣑⟽ࠊᤲ㝖ᶵࠊࢦ࣑཰㞟㌴ࠖ࡜ࠊලయୡ⏺ࡢ⾲♧࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᤵᴗ୰࡟ඛ⏕ࡣ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࡢ㞟ྜྡモ࡜⪺࠸࡚ࠊ⟅࠼ࡓ⏕ᚐࡣලయୡ⏺ࡢࢦ࣑ࡢྡモ࡜⌮ゎࡋ࡚ࡎࢀࡓࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ࡜ࢇࡕࢇ࠿ࢇ࡞⟅࠼࡜࡞ࡾࠊ➗࠸ࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ศᯒ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ᘬ⏝ࡸᐃ⩏ࡶ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡜ࡋ࡚ࢪ࣮ࣙࢡ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿ㸸(7) Beware of tennis player—love means ‘nothing’ to them.—Tibballs(2006:540)(8)What’s the difference between ignorance and apathy?I don’t know, and I don’t care.—Tibballs(2012:296)(7)ࡢ love means nothing to them ࡢ㏻ᖖࡢゎ㔘ࡣ Tennis players are short on emotional commitment tosexual relationships.୍᪉ࠊ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡟ࡼࡿゎ㔘ࡣ Tennis players use the word love to mean ‘zero’.ࡢព
࡜࡞ࡾࠊ୧⪅࡟ࡎࢀࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ➗࠸࡜࡞ࡿ࡜ศᯒࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ(8)࡛ࡣ ignorance ࡀ↓▱ࡢព࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⟅࠼ࡢࠕศ࠿ࡾࡲࡏࢇ(=I don’t know)ࠖࡀᐇࡣ ignorance ࡢᐃ⩏࡜࡞ࡾࠊ⟅࠼ࡢࠕẼ࡟ࡋࡲࡏࢇ(=I don’t care)ࠖࡀ apathy ࡢᐃ⩏࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟࠾ࡶࡋࢁࡉࡢཎᅉࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣࠊ
ᬑ㏻ࡢ⾲⌧ࡀࠊྠ᫬࡟ࠊᐃ⩏࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࠿ࡽࢪ࣮ࣙࢡࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
ศᯒ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

−376−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号(9)Teacher: “Simon, can you say your name backwards?”“No, mis.”—Tibballs (2012:478)(9)࡛ࡣ࿧ࡧ࠿ࡅㄒࠊSimon ࢆ࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡜ࡋ࡚ Simon ࢆ㏫࡟ࢫ࣌ࣝࢆ᭩ࡃ࡜ nomis ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ゎ㔘࡜ࠊCan you say…?ࡢ␲ၥᩥ࡬ࡢ㏉⟅࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊNo, mis㸦ࠕ࠸࠸࠼ࠊ࡛ࡁࡲࡏࢇࠊඛ⏕ࠖ㸧࡜࠸࠺㏻
ᖖࡢ⾲♧ࡢࡎࢀࡀ࠾ࡶࡋࢁࡉࡢཎᅉ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ศᯒ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
2. ၥ㢟ⅬᮏⓎ⾲࡛≉࡟ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓၥ㢟Ⅼࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋi)࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡜ࢪ࣮ࣙࢡࡢ➗࠸ࡢ㢮ఝᛶࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡢ◊✲ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ ii)㡢ࡢ㢮ఝᛶࡣ࡝ࡇࡲ࡛ࡀ
ఝ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ุ᩿ࡍࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺◊✲ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ iii)᝿ᐃࡢ✀㢮ࡢ◊✲࡟ࡣ㸺ᩥ໬ⓗ┦㐪㸼㸺♫఍ゝㄒᏛⓗ᝿ᐃ㸼㸺ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ᝿ᐃ㸼࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏேࡀⱥㄒࢪ࣮ࣙࢡ⌮ゎ࡟ᅔ㞴ࢆឤࡌࡿࡢࡣࡇࡢ᝿ᐃࢆ࿧ࡧฟࡍࡇ࡜࡜㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿ iv)࣓ࢱ⾲♧࡜ࢪ࣮ࣙࢡࡢ◊✲࡟ࡣࡉࡽ࡟㡢ࡢ㢮ఝᛶ࠿ࡽᩥᏐࡸࢫ࣌ࣝࡢ㢮ఝᛶ࡞࡝࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࡢ◊✲ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3.䛚䜟䜚䛻
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣලయ౛ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠊ⾲♧ࠊ࣓ࢱ⾲♧ࠊ᝿ᐃ࡜ࢪ࣮ࣙࢡࡢ➗࠸ࢆᵝࠎ࡞㢮ఝᛶ࡜⾲♧ࡢ⌮ゎࡢࡎࢀ࡟ࡼࡾ➗࠸࡟⮳ࡿ࡜ศᯒࢆࡋࡓࠋi㸧㸺⾲♧(representation)>࡜㸺࣓ࢱ⾲♧㸼ࡢ㢮ఝᛶ/ࢬࣞ
ii㸧㸺࣓ࢱ⾲♧(metarepresentation)>࡜㸺࣓ࢱ⾲♧㸼ࡢ㢮ఝᛶ/ࢬࣞ iii㸧㸺᝿ᐃ㸼࡜㸺࣓ࢱ⾲♧㸼ࡢ㢮ఝᛶ/ࢬࣞ࡞࡝ࡉࡽ࡟ヲࡋ࠸◊✲ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Goatly, A. 2012. Meaning and Humour. Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press
Higashimori, I. 2009. “Jokes and Metarepresentations: Definition Jokes and Metalinguistic
Jokes.” LACUS FORUM XXXVI (Claremont Graduate University, Pitzer College)CD-ROM
ᮾ᳃໏.2011.ࠗⱥㄒࡢࢪ࣮ࣙࢡࡢ◊✲㸸㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿศᯒ࠘ᮾி㸸㛤ᣅ♫ Muschard, J. 1999. “Jokes and T heir R elation to R elevance and C ognition or C an R elevance T heory
Account for the Appreciation of Jokes?” ZAA 47:1, 12-23.
Noh, Eun-Ju. 2000.Metarepresentation: A Relevance-Theory Approach. Amsterdam: John Bejnamins㔛୰ဴᙪ(2008)୍ࠗ᪥୍ศ༙ࡢⱥㄒࢪ࣮ࣙࢡ࠘ᮾி㸸ᐆᓥ♫
Tibballs, G. 2006. The Mammoth Book of Jokes. London: Robinson.
Tibballs, G.2012.The Mammoth Book of One-Liners: Over 10,000 Short Jokes. London: Running Press.
Yus, F. 2003. “Humor and the Search for Relevance.” Journal of Pragmatics 35,1295-1331.
Yus, F. 2008. “A Relevance-Theoretic Classification of Jokes.” LPP 4:1.

−377−

シンポジウム
Symposium

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

Relevance and Another Type of Implicature
YOSHIMURA, Akiko
Nara Women's University<Abstract>
Grice (1967) explained the process of drawing implicatures but didn't refer to any concrete inference rule, certainly because the explication of utterance interpretation process is not an easy work.
Sperber and Wilson (1995) take this challenge and propose the cognitive pragmatic model of utterance interpretations. They claim that 'the only deductive rules available for use in the spontaneous processing of information are elimination rules' and that 'all implicatures can be categorized
as one of two kinds of implicatures: implicated premises and implicated conclusions.' This paper
claims (i) that some non-deductive inference rules actually contribute to the on-line derivation of
implicatures, (ii) that the input to the implicature-drawing inferences can be a story, but (iii) thatthe process of this derivation is properly constrained by the principle of relevance.
࠙Key wordsࠚ: implicature, abstraction, non-deductive inference, Relevance, cognitive pragmatics

1. Introduction
The term 'implicature' was coined by Grice. It means 'what is implicated' by an utterance
as opposed to 'what is said'. The main purpose of his famous Cooperative Principle and four
maxims of conversation as given in (1) are to explain how conversational implicatures are drawn.
(1) Grice's Cooperative Principle and maxims of conversation< Cooperative Principle >Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by
the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.
Maxim of Quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true:(i) Do not say what you believe to be false.
(ii) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
Maxim of Quantity:(i) Make your contribution as informative as is required.
(ii) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
Maxim of Relation: Be relevant.
Maxim of Manner: Be perspicuous, especially:(i) Avoid obscurity of expression(ii) Avoid ambiguity(iii) Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)(iv) Be orderly  (Grice 1989: 26-27)
For example, Grice might describe Mary's implicature in (2b) as follows: Mary's answer (2b) to1−379−

Relevance and Another Type of ImplicaturePeter's question (2a) seems to be irrelevant, violating the Maxim of Relation, but at least she
seems to be observing the Cooperative Principle, and so Mary would intend to convey the implicature that Mary would not drive a Mercedes since a Mercedes is an expensive car.
(2) a. Peter: Would you drive a Mercedes?
b. Mary: I wouldn't drive ANY expensive car.
  (Sperber and Wilson 1995: 194)(Æ c. A Mercedes is an expensive car. d. Mary wouldn't drive a Mercedes.)However, Grice says nothing definite about the concrete processes or inference rules involved in
drawing these conversational implicatures.
Sperber and Wilson (1986)'s Relevance Theory proposes a cognitive processing model ofutterance interpretation, where the explicit meaning 'explicature' and the implicit meaning 'implicature' of an utterance are defined as in (3):(3) “The assumptions (propositional forms) communicated by a speaker fall into two classes: explicature and implicature. Sperber & Wilson’s (1986a, 182) definition of explicitness is asfollows: ‘An assumption communicated by an utterance U is explicit [hence an ‘explicature’]
if and only if it is a development of a logical form encoded by U.’ The definition of implicitness, then, is that an assumption communicated by U which is not explicit is implicit [hencean ‘implicature’].”             (Carston 1998: 86)
Sperber and Wilson assume, as shown in (4a), that the process of inferential comprehension is
non-demonstrative (≅ non-deductive). But they claim elsewhere, as in (4b), that the only deductive rules available in the spontaneous processing of information are elimination rules, because
introduction rules of deduction, once set in motion, would reapply indefinitely to its own output,
and the derivation would never stop. They also claim, as in (4c), that all implicatures can be
categorized as one of two kinds of implicatures: implicated premises and implicated conclusions.
For example, (5b) is an implicated premise of (2b), and (5c) an implicated conclusion. Here deductive inferences seem to be presupposed and it also seems to be presupposed that the input tothe implicature-drawing inference is a single proposition expressed by an utterance.
(4) a. '[W]e implicitly assumed that the process of inferential comprehension is
non-demonstrative: even under the best of circumstances, we argued, communication may
fail.'(Sperber and Wilson 1995: 65)
b. '…, in a formal system of the type just described, the assumption is that although the rules
may be accessed and tested in a certain order, every rule applies obligatorily whenever it isaccessed and its input description is met. In such a system, each of the above rules [introduction rules of deduction], once set in motion, would reapply indefinitely to its own output,
and the derivation would never stop. … The only deductive rules available for use in
the spontaneous processing of information Ɇ the only rules which in any interesting sense
form part of the basic deductive equipment of humans Ɇ are elimination rules.'(Sperber and Wilson 1995: 96)
c. 'We will distinguish two kinds of implicatures: implicated premises and implicated conclusions. (34)[=5b] is an implicated premise of (33b)[=2b], and (35)[=5c] an implicated conclusion. All implicatures, we claim, fall into one or the other of these two categories.
2

−380−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

Implicated premises must be supplied by the hearer, who must either retrieve them frommemory or construct them by developing assumption schemas retrieved from memory….
Implicated conclusions are deduced from the explicatures of the utterance and the context.'(Sperber and Wilson 1995: 195)
(5) a. Mary wouldn't drive any expensive car. (= explicature of (2b))
b. A Mercedes is an expensive car (=implicated premise, retrieved from P's memory)c. Mary wouldn't drive a Mercedes. (=implicated conclusion, deduced from (5a) and (5b))
It was rather hard to interpret these statements consistently, and for a long time I have been
wondering what exact image we should have regarding the inferences we adopt when we interpretutterances. I agree with Clark’s view in (6) that interpreting verbal communication is not deductive as a whole but contains deductive inferences as a sub-part. But we still don't know what partis deductive and what part is not. To tell the truth, my interpretation was that the deductive
sub-part was the on-line process of drawing implicatures, mainly based on their claims in (4b& c).
(6) '… [W]e might agree that interpreting verbal communication is not deductive as a whole but
also suggest that it contains deductive inferences as a sub-part. Sperber and Wilson take thisapproach….'(Clark 2013: 138)
This paper examines my interpretation of (4b) and (4c), i.e., whether the on-line process ofdrawing implicatures is deductive or not, and reveals that a non-deductive inference actually contributes to the derivation of implicatures ant that the input to the implicature-drawing inference
can be a story, i.e. a set of propositions. I also suggest that there is another type of implicature in
addition to implicated premises and implicated conclusions, but that its derivation is constrainedby the principle of relevance, or more concretely as shown in (7).
(7) i. <Cognitive principle of relevance>
Human cognition tends to be geared to the maximisation of relevance.
ii. <Communicative principle of relevance>
Every act of ostensive communication communicates a presumption of its own optimal
relevance.
(Sperber and Wilson 1995: 260)iii. <Presumption of optimal relevance>a) The ostensive stimulus is relevant enough for it to be worth the addressee's effort to process it.
b) The ostensive stimulus is the most relevant one compatible with the communicator'sabilities and preferences.
(Sperber and Wilson 1995: 270)iv. <Relevance-guided comprehension heuristic>a) Follow a path of least effort in deriving cognitive effects: test interpretations (e.g. disambiguations, reference resolutions, implicatures, etc.) in order of accessibility.
b) Stop when your expectations of relevance are satisfied.
(Clark 2013:37)
2. Stories and Inferences
2.1. Metaphorical utterances based on a story-level similarity
Let us consider how we interpret a metaphorical utterance based on a story-level similarity(henceforth, a story-level metaphor), as in (8):
3

−381−

Relevance and Another Type of Implicature(8) [Johnny’s mother has been anxious about his recent habit of telling lies and has been trying tofind a chance to teach him a mild lesson. One day, she noticed that the chocolate kept for his
younger brother was missing. She thought that Johnny might have taken it because of his
love of chocolate, and asked him whether he knew anything about it.]
A (Johnny): I didn’t eat the chocolate.
B (Mother): Let me tell you a story, Johnny. Once upon a time, a shepherd boy, tending his
flock not far from a village, liked to amuse himself by crying out “Wolf! Wolf!” His
trick succeeded two or three times; the whole village came running to his assistance, only
to be laughed at for falling for his ruse. Then, one day, the wolf actually came. The boy
cried out in earnest, but his neighbors, thinking he was up to his old tricks, ignored his cries,
and the wolf devoured the sheep. What do you think?
A (Johnny): Sorry, I was wrong. I ate all the chocolate.
--------------------------B's implicatures: (i) If a person habitually tells lies, he/she will be distrusted by everyone andwill have a bitter experience in the end.
(ii) Johnny should stop telling lies.
In (8), Mother who thought that Johnny was lying again tells him one of Aesop's Fables 'A Shepherd Boy.' Mother begins to tell a story that seems to have nothing to do with chocolate.
Without understanding her intention, he will interpret her story literally. When she finishes thestory, Johnny understands that Mother intends to communicate that (i) if a person habitually tellslies, he will be distrusted by everyone and will have a bitter experience in the end, and so (ii)Johnny should stop telling lies.
There is no doubt that some abstraction is involved in Johnny's interpretation process.
In fact, both assumptions (i) and (ii) communicated by (8B) are implicatures. The abstraction
process in (8) is illustrated in (9).
(9) <Metaphorical utterance based on a story-level similarity>  The story of a shepherd boy (=8)
The story of a liar
undone in the end
SCHEMAThe story of a shepherd              Johnny’s situation    SOURCE                  TARGETIn (9), the source domain is abstracted and the schematic upper domain is constructed to meet two
conditions, namely that its prototypical member is the story of the shepherd boy and that the target(Johnny's situation) can also be included as an exemplification of the upper abstracted schema,
which results in 'a story where a liar comes to be distrusted by everybody and has a bitter experience.' The target story of Johnny's chocolate determines the direction or the extent of abstraction.

4
−382−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

The abstraction process of the source story is constrained and guided by the principle of relevanceto stop at the proper point. And then the upper abstracted schema is applied to the present situation where Johnny says that he did not eat the chocolate.
However, at this point in this real situation it is unknown whether Johnny’s utterance is a lie
or not, and the part which corresponds to ‘having a bitter experience’ has not (yet) occurred. In
this sense, the correspondence of the source to the target is imperfect. In fact, the source story of
the shepherd is expressed in Mother's utterance, but the target story is not. Even though the target is not fully realized in the utterance, there is no doubt that the interpretation of (8B) expectedby Mother is based on the supposed similarity between the story of the Shepherd boy and that ofJohnny's chocolate and that the abstraction process is applied to the source domain. Mother iscommunicating that, to avoid the ultimate ‘bitter experience,’ he should stop doing what may
cause it to occur. Furthermore, note that the input to the abstraction process is the entire story of
the shepherd boy.
In Johnny's case, two strong implicatures are communicated. The abstracted assumption is
not always strongly communicated. Observe (10) whose interpretation process is slightly complicated since one story is constructed by two people.
(10) After marrying a sweet young woman, a 90-year-old man told his doctor that they were expecting a baby. "Let me tell you a story," said the doctor. "An absent-minded fellow went
hunting, but instead of a gun, he picked up an umbrella. Suddenly a bear charged him.
Pointing his umbrella at the bear, he shot and killed it on the spot." "Impossible!" the old man
exclaimed. "Somebody else must have shot that bear." "Exactly," replied the doctor.(http://www.jokebuddha.com)--------------------------------------------------(i) Strong implicature (conclusion): His wife’s pregnancy was caused by another man.
(ii)Weak implicature (abstracted assumption): It sometimes appears that a man achieves
some (good) result, but in fact it is achieved by another man.
(10) seems to be interpreted in a similar way to Johnny's case. The 90-year-old man begins tointerpret his doctor’s story literally, which has nothing to do with his wife’s pregnancy. At thispoint he does not yet understand the doctor’s informative intention. However, at his last utterance 'Exactly', the old man instantaneously understands it. In fact, the word ‘Exactly’ triggers theold man’s inferences to realize the relevance of the doctor’s story: it is abstracted as a story wherea man appears to achieve some (good) result, but in fact it is achieved by another man. And hedraws the strong implicature that his wife’s pregnancy was caused by another man.
The abstraction process also seems to be involved in drawing implicatures in this case.
But the abstracted assumption (10ii) is not so strongly communicated as (10i), unlike Johnny'scase, but (10ii) is needed when drawing the stronger one (10i). In (10), it is clear that the direction of abstraction is guided by the principle of relevance to achieve its relevance so that it can beapplied to the old man's situation. Furthermore, note again that the input to the abstraction process is the entire story of the absent-minded hunter.
Consider another case where the abstraction of a story seems to be involved but metaphoricity is not recognized.

5

−383−

Relevance and Another Type of Implicature(11) [At a class reunion, A (Hanako) reports her recent situation and concerns to her friends: she
has just had a baby, which made her aware of the danger of additives and agricultural chemicals,
and she is now worried about them when she cooks. One of her friends Sachiko responds:]
A (Hanako): So I now make stock liquid from dried bonito without using powdered soup
stock.
B (Sachiko): Well, let me tell you a story. One of my friends was also very worried about
agricultural chemicals or additives, such as preservatives, artificial sweeteners, etc. andmade it a rule to buy agrochemical-free vegetables and to cook without chemical seasoning.
But she got sick and is now in hospital.
A (Hanako): ….
------------------------------------------------------------Strong Implicature of Sachiko's story:(i) Even if a person is very careful to avoid additives or agrochemicals, it does not always
keep him/her in good health.
(ii) Hanako might not stay well in spite of the careful diet.
(iii) Hanako need not be so sensitive to chemicals. … etc.
In (11), some abstraction is certainly involved when implicature (i) is derived. But we do notrecognize any metaphoricity in this case, probably because the target, Hanako's sensitivity tochemicals, is regarded as being in the same domain as the souce of Sachiko's story. It suggests
an interesting point for the recognition of metaphoricity, namely that the source and the target ofthe metaphor must belong to intrinsically different categories or domains. Furthermore, note
gain that the input to the abstraction process is the entire story of the shepherd boy. Let us returnto the inferences assumed in Relevance Theory.
3. Relevance and Inferences
The research target of Relevance Theory is ostensive stimuli that, according to the definitionin (12), attract the audience's attention, and focus it on the communicator's intentions. Therefore,
Relevance Theory is expected and intended to explain the comprehension processes and its consequent interpretations of any stimuli, as long as they are ostensive.
(12) "Ostensive stimuli, as we will call them, must satisfy two conditions: first, they must attract
the audience's attention; and second, they must focus it on the communicator's intentions."(Sperber and Wilson 1995: 153)
In the course of the development of Relevance Theory, the process of explicature formation
has been greatly refined. On the other hand, as regards the implicature-drawing processes, there
seems to have been no noteworthy development since Sperber and Wilson's first version (1986).
As far as I know, there is no statement other than that the elimination rules of deduction as in (14),rather than the introduction rules as in (13), are involved in the on-line pragmatic inference process for drawing implicatures, as we have already seen in (4b, c). These rules cannot deal with
an abstraction process that draws implicatures from a set of propositions of a story.

6

−384−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号(13) Conjunction introduction: Input: (i) P
Disjunction introduction㸸Input: P(ii) Q
Output: (P or Q)
Output: (P and Q)(14) Conjunction elimination㸸 Input: (P and Q)
Output: PInput: (P and Q)
Output: Q

Modus ponens㸸Input: (i) P
Modus tollens㸸Input: (i) (if P then Q)(ii) (if P then Q)   (ii) (not Q)
Output: QOutput:not P

When Johnny understands Mother's implicature that a habitual liar will be distrusted by everybody and will have a bitter experience in the end, it is impossible to derive this implicature onlyby the elimination rules of deduction.
I propose that some non-deductive (i.e. inductive) inference contributes to drawing implicatures. Induction is defined as the inference of a general law (generalization) from particularinstances, as shown in (15). For example, from the particular instances, such as Death on the
Nile by Agatha Christie is interesting, Endless Night by Agatha Christie is interesting, And Then
There Were None by Agatha Christie is interesting, we draw generalization such as 'All novels by
Agatha Christie are interesting. Generalization is a kind of abstraction.
(15) a. Induction: the inference of a general law from particular instances.
(Oxford English Dictionary)b. Death on the Nile by Agatha Christie is interesting.
(a particular instance)
Endless Night by Agatha Christie is interesting.
(a particular instance)
And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie is interesting. (a particular instance)
All novels by Agatha Christie are interesting.
(generalization)
In fact, if the source and the target in our metaphorical cases are assumed to be the particular instances in (15), then the abstraction process that we observed in the previous sections is exactly
an inductive or non-deductive inference. If such non-deductive rules operate in the on-line interpretation processes, the inference calculation process will not stop without any constraints, justas the introduction rules. This paper assumes that it is the principle of relevance that constrains
the inference process. As we observed in Section 2, the abstraction process does not apply
freely, i.e. the source is guided by the principles of relevance to be abstracted to the extent thatthe target is one exemplification of the abstracted schema (category or story).
5. Concluding remarks
Through an examination of a limited number of data, this paper proposes that some inductive or non-deductive inferences contribute to the derivation of implicatures, although it is strictly
constrained by the principle of relevance. This paper may be regarded as pointing out the existence of another type of implicature in addition to implicated premises and implicated conclusions.
<References>
Carston, Robyn (1998) Pragmatics and the Explicit-Implicit Distinction, Ph.D. Dissertation, University College
London.

7−385−

Relevance and Another Type of Implicature

Carston, Robyn (2002) Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication, Blackwell, Oxford.
Carston, Robyn (2010) "Lexical Pragmatics, Ad hoc Concepts and metaphor: A Relevance Theory Perspective,"
Italian Journal of Linguistics 22 (2), 153-180.
Carston, Robyn (2011) "Metaphor and the Literal/Nonliteral Distinction," The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, eds. by Allan, K. and K. M. Jaszczolt, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Clark, Billy (2013) Relevance Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. UK.
Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner (1998) “Principles of Conceptual Integration,” Discourse and Cognition:
Bridging the Gap, ed. by Jean-Pierre Koening, 269-283, CSLI, Stanford.
Glucksberg, Sam (2001) Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Glucksberg, Sam and Boaz Keyser (1990) “Understanding Metaphorical Comparisons: Beyond Similarity,”
Psychological Review 97-1, 3-18.
Grice, Paul H. (1967) “Logic and Conversation,” William James Lectures. Harvard University.
Grice, Paul H. (1989) Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
ᮾ᳃໏࣭ྜྷᮧ࠶ࡁᏊ (2003) ࠗ㛵㐃ᛶ⌮ㄽࡢ᪂ᒎ㛤 íㄆ▱࡜ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥí࠘◊✲♫, ᮾி.
Kawakami, Seisaku (1996) “Metaphor and Metonymy in Japanese Nicknames,” Poetica 46, 77-88.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson (1980) Metaphor We Live By, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1993) “Reference-Point Constructions,” Cognitive Linguistics 4, 1-38.
Nishiyama, Yuji and Koji Mineshima (2005) “Semantic Constraints on Free Enrichment,” A Paper delivered tothe 9th International Pragmatics Conference.
Ortony, Andrew (1993) Metaphor and Thought (second edition), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Recanati, François (2004) Literal Meaning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
బ⸨ಙኵ (1978) ࠗࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡឤぬ࠘ㅮㄯ♫ࠋ℩ᡞ㈼୍ (1997) ࠗㄆ㆑ࡢࣞࢺࣜࢵࢡ࠘ᾏ㬆♫ࠋ
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson (1986, 19952) Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Blackwell, Oxford.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson (2008) "A Deflationary Account of Metaphors," The Camgridge Handobook of
Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Gibbs, Ray, 84-115, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Stover, Hanna (2012) Metaphor and Relevance Theory: A New Hybrid Model, Ph.D Dissertatoin, the Universityof Bedfordshire.
㕥ᮌᏹ᫛(1996)ࠗ㢮ఝ࡜ᛮ⪃࠘ඹ❧ฟ∧ᰴᘧ఍♫ࠊᮾிࠋ㇂୍ཱྀ⨾ (2003) ࠗㄆ▱ព࿡ㄽࡢ᪂ᒎ㛤 í࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮࡜࣓ࢺࢽ࣑࣮í ࠘◊✲♫ࠊᮾிࠋ
Tendahl, Markus (2009) A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, UK.
Wilson, Deirdre and Robyn Carston (2006) "Metaphor, Relevance and the 'Emergent Property' Issue," Mind andLanguage 21, 404-433.
Wilson, Deirdre and Robyn Carston (2007) "A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference
and Ad hoc Concepts," Advances in Pragmatics, ed. by Burton-Roberts, Noel, 230-259, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire.
ྜྷᮧ ࠶ࡁᏊ (2007) ࠕ࣓ࢱࣇ࢓࣮Ⓨヰࡢ㢮ఝᛶࣞ࣋ࣝ࡜ゎ㔘㐣⛬ࠖ, ࠗ㜰኱ⱥᩥᏛ఍ྀ᭩ 4 ࡇ࡜ࡤ࡜どⅬ࠘, pp. 149-169, ⱥᐆ♫, ᮾி..
Yoshimura, Akiko (2013) 'Descriptive/ Metalinguistic Dichotomy?: Toward a New Taxonomy of Negation,'
Journal of Pragmatics 57, 39-56.
ฟ඾Book-of-the-Month Club (1995) The Fables of Aesop, Book-of-the-Month Club, New York

8

−386−

付

録

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号

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

所属○

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

郵便番号及び住所○

電話番号／ Fax番号○

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

口座名：日本語用論学会（＊こちらに届く郵便振り込み用紙が、字がかすれて読めない場合がありますので、郵便振り込み用紙のみでの新入会員申し込みではなく、必ず上記手続き（１）と（２）をお済ませくださるようお願い申し上げます。）−387−

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。

−388−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９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。

−389−

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。

−390−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９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）−391−

『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−392−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９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。

−393−

○

送付先：

【電子メールによる場合】○○

journal -at- pragmatics.gr.jp（注意：-at- を半角の＠に置き換えて下さい）（『語用論研究』編集委員長 加藤重弘）○（原稿送付の際は、確実に受信できるように、出来るだけ無料メールアドレスのご使○用をお控えください。）○

注意：電子メールによる送付の場合、送信後、２週間経っても、原稿を受理した旨の確認返信メールが無い時には、必ず、こちらからの確認返信メールがあるまで、
hiko -at- hi-net.zaq.ne.jp（-at- を半角の＠に変換）に連絡してください。

【オンラインによる場合】○

http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sip15から投稿する。投稿にあたって
は、サイトへの登録が必要です。サイトへの登録方法、ならびに、オンラインでの投稿については、次のページを参考にすること。

−394−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９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−395−name, and authorʼs affiliation. The abstract should begin with the word ʻAbstractʼ in theupper left corner.
4. Keywords:
a. A maximum of 5 keywords should be given below the abstract, preceded by【Keywords】
ʻ
ʼ. [Refer to the figure below.]b. Main text should be preceded by two blank lines.

Title
Authorʼs nameAuthorʼs affiliation＜Abstract＞
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・【Keywords】：1, 2, 3,
Main Text

2. Other important points
a. All contributors must have given a lecture presentation, a workshop presentation, or aposter presentation at PSJʼs Conference of the Society.
b. Aside from necessary corrections, manuscript contents should be faithful to the content of
the presentation actually given at the Annual Meeting.
c. As a general rule, manuscripts should be written in either Japanese or English.
d. Extended versions of papers which have appeared in the Proceedings may be submitted
for review to PSJʼs Journal Goyoron Kenkyu (Studies in Pragmatics). In that case additions
and corrections should be made to the original manuscript.
e. On a separate (A4) coversheet, please indicate the following information:i. Whether your presentation was a lecture, a workshop, presentation, or a poster
presentation.
ii. The title of your paper and your name.
iii. Your e-mail address−396−

第16回大会発表論文集

第９号<第17回大会で発表された方へのお知らせ>
第17回『大会発表論文集』（Proceedings）（第10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10号）の発行は、来年度の大会時となります。
（日本語用論学会−397−

事務局より）

Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan

編集後記『日本語用論学会

第16回大会発表論文集』第9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34件（日本語発表23件、英語発表11件）、ワークショッ
プ発表4件、ポスターセッション9件、シンポジウム1件、合計48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9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17回大会後は『日本語用論学会

第17回大会発表論文集』第10号を発行する予定でございますので、どうぞご期待ください。

（『大会発表論文集』編集担当：高木佐知子

日本語用論学会

第16回大会発表論文集

森山卓郎

森山由紀子

第９号（2013）（Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan）
発行日

2014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

首藤佐智子）

PSJⓒ日本語用論学会